Freda Bedi Cont'd (#3)

[admin]

Rudrapatna Shamasastry
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 6/13/21



Rudrapatna Shamasastry FRAS (1868–1944) was a Sanskrit scholar and librarian at the Oriental Research Institute Mysore. He re-discovered and published the Arthashastra, an ancient Indian treatise on statecraft, economic policy, and military strategy.

Early life

Shamasastry was born in 1868 in Rudrapatna, a village on the banks of the Kaveri river in what is today the state of Karnataka. His early education started in Rudrapatna. He later went to the Mysore Samskruta Patasala and obtained his Sanskrit Vidwat degree with high honours. In 1889, Madras University awarded him a BA degree. Impressed by his ability in classical Sanskrit, Sir Sheshadri Iyer, the then Dewan of Mysore Province, nurtured and helped Shamasastry, making it possible for him to join the Government Oriental Library [Oriental Research Institute] in Mysore as librarian. He "had mastered Vedas, Vedanga, classical Sanskrit, Prakrit, English, Kannada, German, French and other languages."[1]

The discovery

The Oriental Research Institute was established as the Mysore Oriental Library in 1891. It housed thousands of Sanskrit palm-leaf manuscripts. As librarian, Shamasastry examined these fragile manuscripts daily to determine and catalogue their contents.[1]

In 1905, Shamasastry discovered the Arthashastra among a heap of manuscripts.

Formerly known as the Oriental Library, the Oriental Research Institute (ORI) at Mysore, India, is a research institute which collects, exhibits, edits, and publishes rare manuscripts written in various scripts like Devanagari (Sanskrit), Brahmic (Kannada), Nandinagari (Sanskrit), Grantha, Malayalam, Tigalari, etc.

The Oriental Library was started in 1891 under the patronage of Maharaja Chamarajendra Wadiyar X... It was a part of the Department of Education until 1916, in which year it became part of the newly established University of Mysore. The Oriental Library was renamed as the Oriental Research Institute in 1943.

From the year 1893 to date the ORI has published nearly two hundred titles. The library features rare collections such as the Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics by James Hastings, A Vedic Concordance by Maurice Bloomfield, and critical editions of the Ramayana and Mahabharata. It was the first public library in Mysore city for research and editing of manuscripts. The prime focus was on Indology. The institute publishes an annual journal called Mysore Orientalist. Its most famous publications include Kautilya's Arthashastra, written in the 4th century BC, edited by Dr. R. Shamashastri, which brought international fame to the institute when published in 1909.

One day a man from Tanjore handed over a manuscript of Arthashastra written on dried palm leaves to Dr Rudrapatnam Shamashastry, the librarian of Mysore Government Oriental Library now ORI. Shamashastry's job was to look after the library's ancient manuscripts. He had never seen anything like these palm leaves before. Here was a book that would revolutionise the knowledge of India's great past. This palm leaf manuscript is preserved in the library, now named Oriental Research Institute. The pages of the book are filled with 1500-year-old Grantha script. It looks like as if they have been printed but the words have been inscribed by hand. Other copies of Arthashastra were later discovered later in other parts of India.[1]

In this context, my mind remembering a day which was the His Excellency Krishnaraja Wodeyar went to Germany at the time of Dr. R. Shamashastry were working as a curator of Oriental Library, Mysore, The King sat in a meeting held in Germany and introduced himself as the King of Mysore State. Immediately a man stood up and asked, "Are you from our Dr. R. Shamashastry's Mysore?" Because the Arthashastra edited by him took a fame worldwide. The King wondered and came back to Mysore immediately to see Dr. R. Shamashastry, and also Dr. R. Shamashastry appointed as Asthana Vidwan. Sritattvanidhi, is a compilation of slokas by Krishnaraja Wodeyar III. Three edited manuscripts Navaratnamani-mahatmyam (a work on gemology), Tantrasara-sangraha (a work on sculptures and architecture), and Vaidashastra-dipika (an ayurvedic text), Rasa-kaumudi (on mercurial medicine) all of them with English and Kannada translation, are already in advanced stages of printing.

Oriental Research Institute

The ORI houses over 45,000 Palm leaf manuscript bundles and the 75,000 works on those leaves. The manuscripts are palm leaves cut to a standard size of 150 by 35 mm (5.9 by 1.4 in). Brittle palm leaves are sometimes softened by scrubbing a paste made of ragi and then used by the ancients for writing, similar to the use of papyrus in ancient Egypt. Manuscripts are organic materials that run the risk of decay and are prone to be destroyed by silverfish. To preserve them the ORI applies lemon grass oil on the manuscripts which acts like a pesticide. The lemon grass oil also injects natural fluidity into the brittle palm leaves and the hydrophobic nature of the oil keeps the manuscripts dry so that the text is not lost to decay due to humidity.

The conventional method followed at the ORI was to preserve manuscripts by capturing them in microfilm, which then necessitated the use of a microfilm reader for viewing or studying. Once the ORI has digitized the manuscripts, the text can be viewed and manipulated by a computer. Software is then used to put together disjointed pieces of manuscripts and to correct or fill in any missing text. In this manner, the manuscripts are restored and enhanced. The original palm leaf manuscripts are also on reference at the ORI for those interested.

-- Oriental Research Institute Mysore, by Wikipedia

He transcribed, edited and published the Sanskrit edition in 1909. He proceeded to translate it into English, publishing it in 1915.[2]

The manuscript was in the Early Grantha script. Other copies of the Arthashastra were discovered later in other parts of India.

It was one of the manuscripts in the library that had been handed over by 'a pandit of the Tanjore district' to the Oriental Library.[3]

4 Rao (1958: 1, 3) considers Shamasastry the discoverer of the Arthasastra: ‘With the discovery of Kautilya’s Artha Sastra by Dr. R. Shama Sastri in 1905, and its publication in 1914, much interest has been aroused in the history of ancient Indian political thought; [p. 1]. . . . The Artha Sastra ¯ . . . is a compendium and a commentary on all the sciences of Polity that were existing in the time of Kautilya. It is a guidance to kings. . . . Artha Sastra ¯ contains thirty-two paragraphical divisions [Books]. . . . with one hundred and fifty chapters, and the Sastra is an illustration of a scientific approach to problems of politics, satisfying all the requirements and criteria of an exact science’ [p. 3]. But going back to the preface of the standard work and translation by Shamasastry (1967: vi), it is revealed that the manuscript of Kautilya’s Arthasastra ¯ was actually discovered by a person described merely as ‘a Pandit of the Tanjore District’ who handed it over ‘to the Mysore Government Oriental Library’ of which Shamasastry was the librarian.

-- Review and Extension of Battacharyya's Modern Accounting Concepts in Kautilya's Arthasastra, by Richard Mattessich

Saraswathi Mahal Library, also called Thanjavur Maharaja Serfoji's Saraswathi Mahal Library is a library located in Thanjavur (Tanjore), Tamil Nadu, India. It is one of the oldest libraries in Asia established during 16th century by Nayakas of Thanjavur and has on display a rare collection of Palm leaf manuscripts and paper written in Tamil and Sanskrit and a few other languages indigenous to India...

The Saraswathi Mahal library was started by Nayak Kings of Tanjavur as a Royal Library for the private intellectual enrichment of Kings and their family of Thanjavur (see Nayaks of Tanjore) who ruled from 1535 CE till 1676 CE. The Maratha rulers who captured Thanjavur in 1675 promoted local culture and further developed the Royal Palace Library until 1855. Most notable among the Maratha Kings was Serfoji II (1798–1832), who was an eminent scholar in many branches of learning and the arts.

Serfoji II

Thuljaji was succeeded by his teenage son Serfoji II in 1787. Soon afterwards, he was deposed by his uncle and regent Amarsingh who seized the throne for himself. With the help of the British, Serfoji II recovered the throne in 1798. A subsequent treaty forced him to hand over the reins of the kingdom to the British East India Company, becoming part of the Tanjore District (Madras Presidency) [Presidency of Fort St. George]. The district collectorate system was installed thereafter to manage the public revenues. Serfoji II was however left in control of the Fort and the surrounding areas. He reigned till 1832. His reign is noted for the literary, scientific and technological accomplishments of the Tanjore country.

-- Thanjavur Maratha kingdom [Tanjore], by Wikipedia

In his early age Sarfoji studied under the influence of the German Reverent Schwartz [Christian Friedrich Schwarz], and learned many languages including English, French, Italian and Latin. He enthusiastically took special interest in the enrichment of the Library, employing many Pandits to collect, buy and copy a vast number of works from all renowned Centres of Sanskrit learning in Northern India and other far-flung areas.

-- Saraswathi Mahal Library, by Wikipedia

Until this discovery, the Arthashastra was known only through references to it in works, including those by Dandin, Bana, Vishnusarma, Mallinathasuri, Megasthenes, as well as others.

The prelude section of the Panchatantra identifies an octogenarian Brahmin named Vishnusharma (IAST: Viṣṇuśarman) as its author. He is stated to be teaching the principles of good government to three princes of Amarasakti. It is unclear, states Patrick Olivelle, a professor of Sanskrit and Indian religions, if Vishnusharma was a real person or himself a literary invention. Some South Indian recensions of the text, as well as Southeast Asian versions of Panchatantra attribute the text to Vasubhaga, states Olivelle. Based on the content and mention of the same name in other texts dated to ancient and medieval era centuries, most scholars agree that Vishnusharma is a fictitious name.

-- Panchatantra, by Wikipedia

Megasthenes (/mɪˈɡæsθɪniːz/ mi-GAS-thi-neez; Ancient Greek: Μεγασθένης, c. 350BCE– c. 290 BCE) was an ancient Greek historian, diplomat and Indian ethnographer and explorer in the Hellenistic period. He described India in his book Indika, which is now lost, but has been partially reconstructed from literary fragments found in later authors. Megasthenes was the first person to describe ancient India, and for that reason he has been called "the father of Indian history".

Biography

While Megasthenes's account of India has survived in the later works, little is known about him as a person, except that he spent time at the court of Sibyrtius, who was a satrap of Arachosia under Antigonus I and then Seleucus I. and was an ambassador for Seleucid king Seleucus I Nicator and to the court of the Mauryan King Chandragupta Maurya in Pataliputra (modern Patna). Dating for his journey to the Mauryan court is uncertain.

-- Megasthenes, by Wikipedia

This discovery was "an epoch-making event in the history of the study of ancient Indian polity".[4] It altered the perception of ancient India and changed the course of history studies, notably the false belief of European scholars at the time that Indians learnt the art of administration from the Greeks.[1]

The book was translated into French, German and many other languages.[1]

Other work

He started his career as Librarian, Government Mysore Oriental Library. From 1912–1918, he worked as Principal at the Sri Chamarajendra Samskrita Maha Patashala in Bengaluru. In the year 1918, he returned to the Government Mysore Oriental library and joined as Curator and later Director of Archeological Researches in Mysore, where he would continue to work until his retirement in 1929. Apart from discovering Kautilya's Arthashastra, he pursued his research in the Vedic era and Vedic astronomy, making valuable contributions to Vedic studies. The following are among Shamasastry's works:

1. Vedangajyautishya – A Vedic Manual of Astronomy, 8th Century B.C.
2. Drapsa: The Vedic Cycle of Eclipses – a key to unlock the treasures of the Vedas.[5]
3. Eclipse-Cult in the Vedas, Bible, and Koran – A supplement to the Drapsa. It is this Cult that has given rise to epic and puranic tales in India. The mathematical aspect of eclipse-cycles is treated at great length and eclipse-tables have been appended. Dr. E. Abegg, Professor, University of Zurich, Switzerland, stated- 'I see with admiration that R Shamasatry, a thorough scholar in the difficult problems of Vedic Astronomy and Calendar, things of which European Indianists have very rarely a true Knowledge' [6]
4. Gavam Ayana- The Vedic Era- is an exposition of a forgotten sacrificial calendar of the Vedic poets and includes an account of the origin of the Yugas.[7]
5. Evolution of Indian Polity. This book is a compilation of Ten lectures delivered in Calcutta University. Sir Asutosh Mookerjee, Vice-chancellor of Calcutta University, personally invited Sastry to deliver these discourses. In this work, the ancient Indian administrative systems and various levels of administrative set-up are critically examined, on the basis of Vedas, legends, Arthashastra, Mahabharata, Jainagama works etc.[8]
6. The Origin of Devanagari Alphabets.[9]

All his works received great attention from many great Scholars around the world, particularly European Indianists.

R. Shamasastry also edited many Kannada Texts. Some of the important works he published are:

• Rudrabhaṭṭa's Jagannāthavijaya (1923)
• Nayasena's Dharmāmṛta (part I in 1924 & part II 1926)
• Lingannakavi's Keḷadinṛpavijaya (1921)
• Govindavaidya's Kaṇṭhīravanarasarajavijaya (1926)
• The Virāṭa Parvan of Kumāravyāsa's Karnataka Mahābhārata (1920)
• The Udyoga Parvan of Kumārayvāsa's Karnataka Mahābhārata (1922)

Awards

Shamasastry's work was acclaimed by Ashutosh Mukherjee, Rabindranath Tagore, and others. Shamasastry also met Mahatma Gandhi in 1927 at Nandi Hills.[2] The discovery brought international fame to the institute.[10]

Outside India, Shamasastry's discovery was hailed by Indologists and Orientalists such as Julius Jolly, Moriz Winternitz, F. W. Thomas, Paul Pelliot, Arthur Berriedale Keith, Sten Konow and others.[1] J. F. Fleet wrote of Shamasastry: "We are, and shall always remain, under a great obligation to him for a most important addition to our means of studying the general history of ancient India."[2]

Shamasastry was awarded a doctorate in 1919 from the Oriental University in Washington D.C. and in 1921 from Calcutta University.[11] He was made a Fellow of the Royal Asiatic Society and won the Campbell Memorial gold medal.

Several titles were also conferred on him, including Arthashastra Visharada by the Maharaja of Mysore, Mahamahopadhyaya by the Government of India and Vidyalankara and Panditaraja by the Varanasi Sanskrit Mandali.[12]

Recognition in Germany

An often-told anecdote involves the visit of the then-king of Mysore, Krishna Raja Wadiyar IV, to Germany. When introduced as the king of Mysore, he was asked by the vice-chancellor of a German university whether he was from the Mysore of Shamasastry. On his return, the king honoured Shamasastry and said "In Mysore we are the Maharaja and you are our subject, but in Germany, you are the master and people recognise us by your name and fame."[1][2]

Later life

Shamasastry continued his research work on Indological problems.[1] He later became the curator of the institute.[2] As Director of Archaeology of Mysore State, he discovered many inscriptions on stone and copper plates.[1]

His house Asutosh, in the Chamundipuram locality of Mysore, was named after Sir Asutosh Mookerjee.[2]

Notes

1. Prof. AV Narasimha Murthy (21 June 2009), "R Shamasastry: Discoverer of Kautilya's Arthasastra", The Organiser
2. Sugata Srinivasaraju (27 July 2009), "Year of the Guru", Outlook India
3. Richard Mattessich (2000), The beginnings of accounting and accounting thought: accounting practice in the Middle East (8000 B.C. to 2000 B.C.) and accounting thought in India (300 B.C. and the Middle Ages), Taylor & Francis, p. 146, ISBN 978-0-8153-3445-3
4. Ram Sharan Sharma (2009), Aspects of political ideas and institutions in ancient India (4 ed.), Motilal Banarsidass Publ., p. 4, ISBN 978-81-208-0827-0
5. R. Shamasastry (1938), Drapsa: The Vedic Cycle of Eclipses : a Key to Unlock the Treasures of the Vedas, Sri Panchacharya Electric Press
6. R. Shamasastry (1940), Eclipse-cult in the Vedas, Bible and Koran: A Supplement to the "Drapsa", Sri Panchacharya Electric Press
7. R. Shamasastry (1908), Gavam Ayana the Vedic Era, R. Shamasastry, 1908
8. R. (Rudrapatna) Shama Sastri (2009), Evolution of Indian Polity, HardPress, 2012, ISBN 9781290797320
9. R. (Rudrapatna) Shama Sastri (2009), The Origin of the Devanagari Alphabets, Bharati-Prakashan, 1973, ISBN 9781290797320
10. A monumental heritage, The Hindu, 27 October 2001.
11. "Annual Convocation". University of Calcutta. Archived from the original on 28 May 2012.
12. "Annual Convocation". Karnataka Samskruta University.

External links

• Texts from Wikisource
• Data from Wikidata
• Text of 1915 Shamasastry translation

[admin]

Part 1 of 3

The Story of the Fisherman, Excerpt From The Thousand and One Nights [The Arabian Nights' Entertainments]
by Anonymous
Translated by Edward William Lane
Illustrator: William Harvey

Tilli: Regarding the appearance of Tilli as a dark-skinned man frying living fishes in the kitchen, it is enough to remember the well-known story in "Thousand and One Night."

-- Mystic Tales of Lama Taranatha: A Religio-Sociological History of Mahayana Buddhism, by Lama Taranatha, Translated into English by Bhupendranath Datta, A.M., Dr. Phil.

Naropa searches for his teacher Tilopa

He traveled to the eastern regions and searched for Tilopa everywhere, but Tilopa was nowhere to be found. One day, Naropa was at a monastery in the eastern region. While in the monastery kitchen, a vile and filthy old man came in and roasted many live fish in the glowing fire. Naropa was unable to persuade him not to roast the fish alive, and the other monks jumped up and began to run towards the old man to stop him from killing. The old man responded: “If you don’t like it, just throw these roasted fish leftovers into the water!” Upon putting the roasted fish remains into water, they came to life and swam away in all directions.

-- Naropa: His Life and Teachings, by kagyuoffice.org

CHAPTER II. COMMENCING WITH PART OF THE THIRD NIGHT, AND ENDING WITH PART OF THE NINTH. THE STORY OF THE FISHERMAN.



There was a certain fisherman, advanced in age, who had a wife and three children; and though he was in indigent circumstances, it was his custom to cast his net, every day, no more than four times. One day he went forth at the hour of noon to the shore of the sea, and put down his basket, and cast his net, and waited until it was motionless in the water, when he drew together its strings, and found it to be heavy: he pulled, but could not draw it up: so he took the end of the cord, and knocked a stake into the shore, and tied the cord to it. He then stripped himself, and dived round the net, and continued to pull until he drew it out: whereupon he rejoiced, and put on his clothes; but when he came to examine the net, he found in it the carcass of an ass. At the sight of this he mourned, and70 exclaimed, There is no strength nor power but in God, the High, the Great! This is a strange piece of fortune!—And he repeated the following verse:—

O thou who occupiest thyself in the darkness of night, and in peril! Spare thy trouble; for the support of Providence is not obtained by toil!1

He then disencumbered his net of the dead ass, and wrung it out; after which he spread it, and descended into the sea, and—exclaiming, In the name of God!—cast it again, and waited till it had sunk and was still, when he pulled it, and found it more heavy and more difficult to raise than on the former occasion. He therefore concluded that it was full of fish: so he tied it, and stripped, and plunged and dived, and pulled until he raised it, and drew it upon the shore; when he found in it only a large jar, full of sand and mud; on seeing which, he was troubled in his heart, and repeated the following words of the poet:—

O angry fate, forbear! or, if thou wilt not forbear, relent!
Neither favour from fortune do I gain, nor profit from the work of my hands,
I came forth to seek my sustenance, but have found it to be exhausted.
How many of the ignorant are in splendour! and how many of the wise, in obscurity!

So saying, he threw aside the jar, and wrung out and cleansed his net; and, begging the forgiveness of God for his impatience, returned to the sea the third time, and threw the net, and waited till it had sunk and was motionless: he then drew it out, and found in it a quantity of broken jars and pots.

Upon this, he raised his head towards heaven, and said, O God, Thou knowest that I cast not my net more than four times; and I have now cast it three times! Then—exclaiming, In the name of God!—he cast the net again into the sea, and waited till it was still; when he attempted to draw it up, but could not, for it clung to the bottom. And he exclaimed, There is no strength nor power but in God!—and stripped himself again, and dived round the net, and pulled it until he raised it upon the shore; when he opened it, and found in it a bottle2 of brass, filled with something, and having its mouth closed with a stopper of lead, bearing the impression of the seal of our lord Suleymán.3 At the sight of this, the fisherman was rejoiced, and said, This I will sell in the copper-market; for it is worth ten pieces of gold. He then shook it, and found it to be heavy, and said, I must open it, and see what is in it, and store it in my bag; and then I will sell the bottle in the copper-market. So he took out a knife, and picked71 at the lead until he extracted it from the bottle. He then laid the bottle on the ground, and shook it, that its contents might pour out; but there came forth from it nothing but smoke, which ascended towards the sky, and spread over the face of the earth; at which he wondered excessively. And after a little while, the smoke collected together, and was condensed, and then became agitated, and was converted into an 'Efreet, whose head was in the clouds, while his feet rested upon the ground:4 his head was like a dome: his hands were like winnowing forks;5 and his legs, like masts: his mouth resembled a cavern: his teeth were like stones; his nostrils, like trumpets;6 and his eyes, like lamps; and he had dishevelled and dust-coloured hair.


The 'Efreet liberated from the Bottle

When the fisherman beheld this 'Efreet, the muscles of his sides quivered, his teeth were locked together, his spittle dried up, and he saw not his way. The 'Efreet, as soon as he perceived him, exclaimed, There is no deity but God: Suleymán is the Prophet of God. O Prophet of God, slay me not; for I will never again oppose thee in word, or rebel against thee in deed!—O Márid,7 said the fisherman, dost thou say, Suleymán is the Prophet of God? Suleymán hath been dead a thousand and eight hundred years; and we are now in the end of time. What is thy history, and what is thy tale, and what was the cause of thy entering this bottle? When the Márid heard these words of the fisherman, he said, There is no deity but God! Receive news, O fisherman!—Of what, said the fisherman, dost thou give me news? He answered, Of thy being instantly put to a most cruel death. The fisherman exclaimed, Thou deservest, for this news, O master of the 'Efreets, the withdrawal of protection from thee, O thou remote!8 Wherefore wouldst thou kill me? and what requires thy killing me, when I have liberated thee from the bottle, and rescued thee from the bottom of the sea, and brought thee up upon the dry land?—The 'Efreet answered, Choose what kind of death thou wilt die, and in what manner thou shalt be killed.—What is my offence, said the fisherman, that this should be my recompense from thee? The 'Efreet replied, Hear my story, O fisherman.—Tell it then, said the fisherman, and be short in thy words; for my soul hath sunk down to my feet.

Know then, said he, that I am one of the heretical Jinn: I rebelled against Suleymán the son of Dáood: I and Ṣakhr the Jinnee;9 and he sent to me his Wezeer, Áṣaf the son of Barkhiyà, who came upon me forcibly, and took me to him in bonds, and placed me before him: and when Suleymán saw me, he offered up a prayer for protection against me, and exhorted me to embrace the faith, and to submit to his authority; but I refused; upon which he called for this bottle, and confined me in it, and closed it upon me with the leaden stopper, which he stamped with the Most Great Name: he then gave orders to the Jinn, who carried me away, and threw me into the midst of the sea. There I remained a hundred years; and I said in my heart, Whosoever shall liberate me, I will enrich him for ever:—but the hundred years passed over me, and no one liberated me: and I entered upon another hundred years; and I said, Whosoever shall liberate me, I will open to him the treasures of the earth;—but no one did so: and four hundred years more passed over me, and I said,73 Whosoever shall liberate me, I will perform for him three wants:—but still no one liberated me. I then fell into a violent rage, and said within myself, Whosoever shall liberate me now, I will kill him; and only suffer him to choose in what manner he will die. And lo, now thou hast liberated me, and I have given thee thy choice of the manner in which thou wilt die.


The Fisherman enclosing the 'Efreet in the Bottle

When the fisherman had heard the story of the 'Efreet, he exclaimed, O Allah! that I should not have liberated thee but in such a time as this! Then said he to the 'Efreet, Pardon me, and kill me not, and so may God pardon thee; and destroy me not, lest God give power over thee to one who will destroy thee. The Márid answered, I must positively kill thee; therefore choose by what manner of death thou wilt die. The fisherman then felt assured of his death; but he again implored the 'Efreet, saying, Pardon me by way of gratitude for my liberating thee.—Why, answered the 'Efreet, I am not going to kill thee but for that very reason, because thou hast liberated me.—O Sheykh of the 'Efreets, said the fisherman, do I act kindly towards thee, and dost thou recompense me with baseness? But the proverb lieth not that saith,—

We did good to them, and they returned us the contrary; and such, by my life, is the conduct of the wicked.
Thus he who acteth kindly to the undeserving is recompensed in the same manner as the aider of Umm-'Ámir.10

The 'Efreet, when he heard these words, answered by saying, Covet not life, for thy death is unavoidable. Then said the fisherman within himself, This is a Jinnee, and I am a man; and God hath given me sound reason; therefore, I will now plot his destruction with my art and reason, like as he hath plotted with his cunning and perfidy. So he said to the 'Efreet, Hast thou determined to kill me? He answered, Yes. Then said he, By the Most Great Name engraved upon the seal of Suleymán, I will ask thee one question; and wilt thou answer it to me truly? On hearing the mention of the Most Great Name, the 'Efreet was agitated, and trembled, and replied, Yes; ask, and be brief. The fisherman then said, How wast thou in this bottle? It will not contain thy hand or thy foot; how then can it contain thy whole body?—Dost thou not believe that I was in it? said the 'Efreet. The fisherman answered, I will never believe thee until I see thee in it. Upon this, the 'Efreet shook, and became converted again into smoke, which rose to the sky, and then became condensed, and entered the bottle by little and little, until it was all enclosed; when the fisherman74 hastily snatched the sealed leaden stopper, and, having replaced it in the mouth of the bottle, called out to the 'Efreet, and said, Choose in what manner of death thou wilt die. I will assuredly throw thee here into the sea, and build me a house on this spot; and whosoever shall come here, I will prevent his fishing in this place, and will say to him, Here is an 'Efreet, who, to any person that liberates him, will propose various kinds of death, and then give him his choice of one of them. On hearing these words of the fisherman, the 'Efreet endeavoured to escape; but could not, finding himself restrained by the impression of the seal of Suleymán, and thus imprisoned by the fisherman as the vilest and filthiest and least of 'Efreets. The fisherman then took the bottle to the brink of the sea. The 'Efreet exclaimed, Nay! nay!—to which the fisherman answered, Yea, without fail! yea, without fail! The Márid then addressing him with a soft voice and humble manner, said, What dost thou intend to do with me, O fisherman? He answered, I will throw thee into the sea; and if thou hast been there a thousand and eight hundred years, I will make thee to remain there until the hour of judgment. Did I not say to thee, Spare me, and so may God spare thee; and destroy me not, lest God destroy thee? But thou didst reject my petition, and wouldest nothing but75 treachery; therefore God hath caused thee to fall into my hand, and I have betrayed thee.—Open to me, said the 'Efreet, that I may confer benefits upon thee. The fisherman replied, Thou liest, thou accursed! I and thou are like the Wezeer of King Yoonán11 and the sage Doobán.12—What, said the 'Efreet, was the case of the Wezeer of King Yoonán and the sage Doobán, and what is their story? The fisherman answered as follows:—

THE STORY OF KING YOONÁN AND THE SAGE DOOBÁN.

Know, O 'Efreet, that there was, in former times, in the country of the Persians,13 a monarch who was called King Yoonán, possessing great treasures and numerous forces, valiant, and having troops of every description; but he was afflicted with leprosy, which the physicians and sages had failed to remove; neither their potions, nor powders, nor ointments were of any benefit to him; and none of the physicians was able to cure him. At length there arrived at the city of this king a great sage, stricken in years, who was called the sage Doobán: he was acquainted with ancient Greek, Persian, modern Greek, Arabic, and Syriac books, and with medicine and astrology, both with respect to their scientific principles and the rules of their practical applications for good and evil; as well as the properties of plants, dried and fresh, the injurious and the useful: he was versed in the wisdom of the philosophers, and embraced a knowledge of all the medical and other sciences.

After this sage had arrived in the city, and remained in it a few days, he heard of the case of the King, of the leprosy with which God had afflicted him, and that the physicians and men of science had failed to cure him. In consequence of this information, he passed the next night in deep study; and when the morning came, and diffused its light, and the sun saluted the Ornament of the Good,14 he attired himself in the richest of his apparel, and presented himself before the King. Having kissed the ground before him, and offered up a prayer for the continuance of his power and happiness, and greeted him in the best manner he was able, he informed him who he was, and said, O King, I have heard of the disease which hath attacked thy person, and that many of the physicians are unacquainted with the means of removing it; and I will cure thee without giving thee to drink any potion, or anointing thee with ointment. When King Yoonán heard76 his words, he wondered, and said to him, How wilt thou do this? By Allah, if thou cure me, I will enrich thee and thy children's children, and I will heap favours upon thee, and whatever thou shalt desire shall be thine, and thou shalt be my companion and my friend.—He then bestowed upon him a robe of honour,15 and other presents, and said to him, Wilt thou cure me of this disease without potion or ointment? He answered, Yes; I will cure thee without any discomfort to thy person. And the King was extremely astonished, and said, O Sage, at what time, and on what day, shall that which thou hast proposed to me be done? Hasten it, O my Son.—He answered, I hear and obey.

He then went out from the presence of the King, and hired a house, in which he deposited his books, and medicines, and drugs. Having done this, he selected certain of his medicines and drugs, and made a goff-stick, with a hollow handle, into which he introduced them; after which he made a ball for it, skilfully adapted; and on the following day, after he had finished these, he went again to the King, and kissed the ground before him, and directed him to repair to the horse-course, and to play with the ball and goff-stick. The King, attended by his Emeers and Chamberlains and Wezeers, went thither, and, as soon as he arrived there, the sage Doobán presented himself before him, and handed to him the goff-stick, saying, Take this goff-stick, and grasp it thus, and ride along the horse-course, and strike the ball with it with all thy force, until the palm of thy hand and thy whole body become moist with perspiration, when the medicine will penetrate into thy hand, and pervade thy whole body; and when thou hast done this, and the medicine remains in thee, return to77 thy palace, and enter the bath,16 and wash thyself, and sleep: then shalt thou find thyself cured: and peace be on thee. So King Yoonán took the goff-stick from the sage, and grasped it in his hand, and mounted his horse; and the ball was thrown before him, and he urged his horse after it until he overtook it, when he struck it with all his force; and when he had continued this exercise as long as was necessary, and bathed and slept, he looked upon his skin, and not a vestige of the leprosy remained: it was clear as white silver. Upon this he rejoiced exceedingly; his heart was dilated, and he was full of happiness.


King Yoonán playing at Goff

On the following morning he entered the council-chamber, and sat upon his throne; and the Chamberlains and great officers of his court came before him. The sage Doobán also presented himself; and when the King saw him, he rose to him in haste, and seated him by his side. Services of food were then spread before them, and the sage ate with the King, and remained as his guest all the day;17 and when the night approached, the King gave him two thousand pieces of gold, besides dresses of honour and other presents, and mounted him on his own horse, and so the sage returned to his house.18 And the King was astonished at his skill; saying, This man hath cured me by an external process, without anointing me with ointment: by Allah, this is consummate science; and it is incumbent on me to bestow favours and honours upon him, and to make him my companion and familiar friend as long as I live. He passed the night happy and joyful on account of his recovery, and when he arose, he went forth again, and sat upon his throne; the officers of his court standing before him, and the Emeers and Wezeers sitting on his right hand and on his left; and he called for the sage Doobán, who came, and kissed the ground before him; and the King rose, and seated him by his side, and ate with him, and greeted him with compliments: he bestowed upon him again a robe of honour and other presents, and, after conversing with him till the approach of night, gave orders that five other robes of honour should be given to him, and a thousand pieces of gold; and the sage departed, and returned to his house.


Doobán in his Dress of Honour

Again, when the next morning came, the King went as usual to his council-chamber, and the Emeers and Wezeers and Chamberlains surrounded him. Now there was, among his Wezeers, one of ill aspect, and of evil star;19 sordid, avaricious, and of an envious and malicious disposition; and when he saw that the King had made the sage Doobán his friend, and bestowed upon him these favours, he78 envied him this distinction, and meditated evil against him; agreeably with the adage which saith, There is no one void of envy;20—and another, which saith, Tyranny lurketh in the soul: power manifesteth it, and weakness concealeth it. So he approached the King, and kissed the ground before him, and said, O King of the age, thou art he whose goodness extendeth to all men, and I have an important piece of advice to give thee: if I were to conceal it from thee, I should be a base-born wretch: therefore, if thou order me to impart it, I will do so. The King, disturbed by these words of the Wezeer, said, What is thy advice? He answered, O glorious King, it hath been said, by the ancients, He who looketh not to results, fortune will not attend him:—now I have seen the King in a way that is not right; since he hath bestowed favours upon his enemy, and upon him who desireth the downfall of his dominion: he hath treated him with kindness, and honoured him with the highest honours, and admitted him to the79 closest intimacy: I therefore fear, for the King, the consequence of this conduct.—At this the King was troubled, and his countenance changed; and he said, Who is he whom thou regardest as mine enemy, and to whom I shew kindness? He replied, O King, if thou hast been asleep, awake! I allude to the sage Doobán.—The King said, He is my intimate companion, and the dearest of men in my estimation; for he restored me by a thing that I merely held in my hand, and cured me of my disease which the physicians were unable to remove, and there is not now to be found one like to him in the whole world, from west to east. Wherefore, then, dost thou utter these words against him? I will, from this day, appoint him a regular salary and maintenance, and give him every month a thousand pieces of gold; and if I gave him a share of my kingdom it were but a small thing to do unto him. I do not think that thou hast said this from any other motive than that of envy. If I did what thou desirest, I should repent after it, as the man repented who killed his parrot.21


The Intelligent Parrot

THE STORY OF THE HUSBAND AND THE PARROT.

There was a certain merchant, of an excessively jealous disposition, having a wife endowed with perfect beauty, who had prevented him from leaving his home; but an event happened which obliged him to make a journey; and when he found his doing so to be indispensable, he went to the market in which birds were sold, and bought a parrot, which he placed in his house to act as a spy, that, on his return, she might inform him of what passed during his absence; for80 this parrot was cunning and intelligent, and remembered whatever she heard.22 So, when he had made his journey, and accomplished his business, he returned, and caused the parrot to be brought to him, and asked her respecting the conduct of his wife. She answered, Thy wife has a lover, who visited her every night during thy absence:—and when the man heard this, he fell into a violent rage, and went to his wife, and gave her a severe beating.

The woman imagined that one of the female slaves had informed him of what had passed between her and her paramour during his absence: she therefore called them together, and made them swear; and they all swore that they had not told their master anything of the matter; but confessed that they had heard the parrot relate to him what had passed. Having thus established, on the testimony of the slaves, the fact of the parrot's having informed her husband of her intrigue, she ordered one of these slaves to grind with a hand-mill under the cage, another to sprinkle water from above, and a third to move a mirror from side to side, during the next night on which her husband was absent; and on the following morning, when the man returned from an entertainment at which he had been present, and inquired again of the parrot what had passed that night during his absence, the bird answered, O my master, I could neither see nor hear anything, on account of the excessive darkness, and thunder, and lightning, and rain. Now this happened during summer: so he said to her, What strange words are these? It is now summer, when nothing of what thou hast described ever happens.—The parrot, however, swore by Allah the Great that what she had said was true; and that it had so happened: upon which the man, not understanding the case, nor knowing the plot, became violently enraged, and took out the bird from the cage, and threw her down upon the ground with such violence that he killed her.

But after some days, one of his female slaves informed him of the truth; yet he would not believe it, until he saw his wife's paramour going out from his house; when he drew his sword,23 and slew the traitor by a blow on the back of his neck: so also did he to his treacherous wife; and thus both of them went, laden with the sin which they had committed, to the fire; and the merchant discovered that the parrot had informed him truly of what she had seen; and he mourned grievously for her loss.

When the Wezeer heard these words of King Yoonán, he said, O King of great dignity, what hath this crafty sage—this man from81 whom nought but mischief proceedeth—done unto me, that I should be his enemy, and speak evil of him, and plot with thee to destroy him? I have informed thee respecting him in compassion for thee, and in fear of his despoiling thee of thy happiness; and if my words be not true, destroy me, as the Wezeer of Es-Sindibád was destroyed.—The King asked, How was that? And the Wezeer thus answered:—

THE STORY OF THE ENVIOUS WEZEER AND THE PRINCE AND THE GHOOLEH.

The King above mentioned had a son who was ardently fond of the chase;24 and he had a Wezeer whom he charged to be always with this son wherever he went. One day the son went forth to hunt, and his father's Wezeer was with him; and as they rode together, they saw a great wild beast; upon which the Wezeer exclaimed to the Prince, Away after this wild beast! The King's son pursued it until he was out of the sight of his attendants, and the beast also escaped from before his eyes in the desert; and while the Prince wandered in perplexity, not knowing whither to direct his course, he met in his way a damsel, who was weeping. He said to her, Who art thou?—and she answered, I am a daughter of one of the kings of India; I was in the desert, and slumber overtook me, and I fell from my horse in a state of insensibility, and being thus separated from my attendants, I lost my way. The Prince, on hearing this, pitied her forlorn state, and placed her behind him on his horse; and as they proceeded, they passed by a ruin,25 and the damsel said to him, O my master, I would alight here for a little while. The Prince therefore lifted her from his horse at this ruin; but she delayed so long to return, that he wondered wherefore she had loitered so, and entering after her, without her knowledge, perceived that she was a Ghooleh,26 and heard her say, My children, I have brought you to-day a fat young man:—on which they exclaimed, Bring him in to us, O mother! that we may fill our stomachs with his flesh. When the Prince heard their words, he felt assured of destruction; the muscles of his sides quivered, and fear overcame him, and he retreated. The Ghooleh then came forth, and, seeing that he appeared alarmed and fearful, and that he was trembling, said to him, Wherefore dost thou fear? He answered, I have an enemy of whom I am in fear. The Ghooleh said, Thou assertest thyself to be the son of the King. He replied, Yes.—Then, said she, wherefore dost thou not82 give some money to thine enemy, and so conciliate him? He answered, He will not be appeased with money, nor with anything but life; and therefore do I fear him: I am an injured man. She then said to him, If thou be an injured man, as thou affirmest, beg aid of God against thine oppressor, and He will avert from thee his mischievous design, and that of every other person whom thou fearest. Upon this, therefore, the Prince raised his head towards heaven, and said, O thou who answerest the distressed when he prayeth to Thee, and dispellest evil, assist me, and cause mine enemy to depart from me; for Thou art able to do whatsoever Thou wilt!—and the Ghooleh no sooner heard his prayer, than she departed from him. The Prince then returned to his father, and informed him of the conduct of the Wezeer; upon which the King gave orders that the minister should be put to death.83


The Prince Meeting the Ghooleh

CONTINUATION OF THE STORY OF KING YOONÁN AND THE SAGE DOOBÁN.

And thou, O King, continued the Wezeer of King Yoonán, if thou trust in this sage, he will kill thee in the foulest manner. If thou continue to bestow favours upon him, and to make him thine intimate companion, he will plot thy destruction. Dost thou not see that he hath cured thee of the disease by external means, by a thing that thou heldest in thy hand? Therefore thou art not secure against his killing thee by a thing that thou shalt hold in the same manner.—King Yoonán answered, Thou hast spoken truth: the case is as thou hast said, O faithful Wezeer: it is probable that this sage came as a spy to accomplish my death; and if he cured me by a thing I held in my hand, he may destroy me by a thing that I may smell: what then, O Wezeer, shall be done respecting him? The Wezeer answered, Send to him immediately, and desire him to come hither; and when he is come, strike off his head, and so shalt thou avert from thee his evil design, and be secure from him. Betray him before he betray thee.—The King said, Thou hast spoken right.

Immediately, therefore, he sent for the sage, who came, full of joy, not knowing what the Compassionate27 had decreed against him, and addressed the King with these words of the poet:—

If I fail any day to render thee due thanks, tell me for whom I have composed my verse and prose.
Thou hast loaded me with favours unsolicited, bestowed without delay on thy part, or excuse.
How then should I abstain from praising thee as thou deservest, and lauding thee both with my heart and voice?
Nay, I will thank thee for thy benefits conferred upon me: they are light upon my tongue, though weighty to my back.

Knowest thou, said the King, wherefore I have summoned thee? The sage answered, None knoweth what is secret but God, whose name be exalted! Then said the King, I have summoned thee that I may take away thy life. The sage, in the utmost astonishment at this announcement, said, O King, wherefore wouldst thou kill me, and what offence hath been committed by me? The King answered, It hath been told me that thou art a spy, and that thou hast come hither to kill me: but I will prevent thee by killing thee first:—and so saying, he called out to the executioner, Strike off the head of this traitor, and relieve me from his wickedness,—Spare me, said the sage, and so may84 God spare thee; and destroy me not, lest God destroy thee.—And he repeated these words several times, like as I did, O 'Efreet; but thou wouldst not let me go, desiring to destroy me.


Doobán and the Executioner

King Yoonán then said to the sage Doobán, I shall not be secure unless I kill thee; for thou curedst me by a thing that I held in my hand, and I have no security against thy killing me by a thing that I may smell, or by some other means.—O King, said the sage, is this my recompense from thee? Dost thou return evil for good?—The King answered, Thou must be slain without delay. When the sage, therefore, was convinced that the King intended to put him to death, and that his fate was inevitable, he lamented the benefit that he had done to the undeserving. The executioner then advanced, and bandaged his eyes, and, having drawn his sword, said, Give permission. Upon this the sage wept, and said again, Spare me, and so may God spare thee; and destroy me not, lest God destroy thee! Wouldst thou return me the recompense of the crocodile?—What, said the King, is the story of the crocodile? The sage answered, I cannot relate it while in this condition;28 but I conjure thee by Allah to spare me, and so may He spare thee. And he wept bitterly. Then one of the chief officers of the King arose, and said, O King, give up to me the blood of this sage; for we have not seen him commit any offence against thee; nor have we seen him do aught but cure thee of thy disease, which wearied the other physicians and sages. The King answered, Ye know not the reason wherefore I would kill the sage: it is this, that if I suffered him to live, I should myself inevitably perish; for he who cured me of the disease under which I suffered by a thing that I held in my85 hand, may kill me by a thing that I may smell; and I fear that he would do so, and would receive an appointment on account of it; seeing that it is probable he is a spy who hath come hither to kill me; I must therefore kill him, and then shall I feel myself safe.—The sage then said again, Spare me, and so may God spare thee; and destroy me not, lest God destroy thee.

But he now felt certain, O 'Efreet, that the King would put him to death, and that there was no escape for him; so he said, O King, if my death is indispensable, grant me some respite, that I may return to my house, and acquit myself of my duties, and give directions to my family and neighbours to bury me, and dispose of my medical books; and among my books is one of most especial value, which I offer as a present to thee, that thou mayest treasure it in thy library.—And what, said the King, is this book? He answered, It contains things not to be enumerated; and the smallest of the secret virtues that it possesses is this; that, when thou hast cut off my head, if thou open this book, and count three leaves, and then read three lines on the page to the left, the head will speak to thee, and answer whatever thou shalt ask. At this the King was excessively astonished, and shook with delight, and said to him, O Sage, when I have cut off thy head will it speak? He answered, Yes, O King; and this is a wonderful thing.

The King then sent him in the custody of guards; and the sage descended to his house, and settled all his affairs on that day; and on the following day he went up to the court: and the Emeers and Wezeers, and Chamberlains and Deputies, and all the great officers of the state, went thither also: and the court resembled a flower-garden.29 And when the sage had entered, he presented himself before the King, bearing an old book, and a small pot containing a powder: and he sat down, and said, Bring me a tray. So they brought him one; and he poured out the powder into it, and spread it. He then said, O King, take this book, and do nothing with it until thou hast cut off my head; and when thou hast done so, place it upon this tray, and order some one to press it down upon the powder; and when this is done, the blood will be stanched: then open the book. As soon as the sage had said this, the King gave orders to strike off his head; and it was done. The King then opened the book, and found that its leaves were stuck together; so he put his finger to his mouth, and moistened it with his spittle, and opened the first leaf, and the second, and the third; but the leaves were not opened without difficulty. He86 opened six leaves, and looked at them; but found upon them no writing. So he said, O Sage, there is nothing written in it. The head of the sage answered, Turn over more leaves. The King did so; and in a little while, the poison penetrated into his system; for the book was poisoned; and the King fell back, and cried out, The poison hath penetrated into me!—and upon this, the head of the sage Doobán repeated these verses:—

They made use of their power, and used it tyrannically; and soon it became as though it never had existed.
Had they acted equitably, they had experienced equity; but they oppressed; wherefore fortune oppressed them with calamities and trials.
Then did the case itself announce to them, This is the reward of your conduct, and fortune is blameless.

And when the head of the sage Doobán had uttered these words, the King immediately fell down dead.30


The Death of King Yoonán

CONTINUATION OF THE STORY OF THE FISHERMAN.

Now, O 'Efreet, continued the fisherman, know that if King Yoonán had spared the sage Doobán, God had spared him; but he refused, and desired his destruction; therefore God destroyed him: and thou, O 'Efreet, if thou hadst spared me, God had spared thee, and I had spared thee; but thou desiredst my death; therefore will I put thee to death imprisoned in this bottle, and will throw thee here into the sea. The Márid, upon this, cried out, and said, I conjure thee by Allah, O fisherman, that thou do it not: spare me in generosity, and be not angry with me for what I did; but if I have done evil, do thou87 good, according to the proverb,—O thou benefactor of him who hath done evil, the action that he hath done is sufficient for him:—do not therefore as Umámeh did to 'Átikeh.—And what, said the fisherman, was their case? The 'Efreet answered, This is not a time for telling stories, when I am in this prison; but when thou liberatest me, I will relate to thee their case.31 The fisherman said, Thou must be thrown into the sea, and there shall be no way of escape for thee from it; for I endeavoured to propitiate thee, and humbled myself before thee, yet thou wouldest nothing but my destruction, though I had committed no offence to deserve it, and had done no evil to thee whatever, but only good, delivering thee from thy confinement; and when thou didst thus unto me, I perceived that thou wast radically corrupt: and I would have thee know, that my motive for throwing thee into this sea, is, that I may acquaint with thy story every one that shall take thee out, and caution him against thee, that he may cast thee in again: thus shalt thou remain in this sea to the end of time, and experience varieties of torment.—The 'Efreet then said, Liberate me, for this is an opportunity for thee to display humanity; and I vow to thee that I will never do thee harm; but, on the contrary, will do thee a service that shall enrich thee for ever.

Upon this the fisherman accepted his covenant that he would not hurt him, but that he would do him good; and when he had bound him by oaths and vows, and made him swear by the Most Great Name of God, he opened to him; and the smoke ascended until it had all come forth, and then collected together, and became, as before, an 'Efreet of hideous form. The 'Efreet then kicked the bottle into the sea. When the fisherman saw him do this, he made sure of destruction, and said, This is no sign of good:—but afterwards he fortified his heart, and said, O 'Efreet, God, whose name be exalted, hath said, Perform the covenant, for the covenant shall be inquired into:32—and thou has covenanted with me, and sworn that thou wilt not act treacherously towards me; therefore, if thou so act, God will recompense thee; for He is jealous; He respiteth, but suffereth not to escape; and remember that I said to thee as said the sage Doobán to King Yoonán, Spare me, and so may God spare thee.

The 'Efreet laughed, and, walking on before him, said, O fisherman, follow me. The fisherman did so, not believing in his escape, until they had quitted the neighbourhood of the city, and ascended a mountain, and descended into a wide desert tract, in the midst of which was a lake of water. Here the 'Efreet stopped, and ordered88 the fisherman to cast his net and take some fish; and the fisherman, looking into the lake, saw in it fish of different colours, white and red and blue and yellow; at which he was astonished; and he cast his net, and drew it in, and found in it four fish, each fish of a different colour from the others, at the sight of which he rejoiced. The 'Efreet then said to him, Take them to the Sulṭán,33 and present them to him, and he will give thee what will enrich thee; and for the sake of God accept my excuse, for, at present, I know no other way of rewarding thee, having been in the sea a thousand and eight hundred years, and not seen the surface of the earth until now: but take not fish from the lake more than once each day: and now I commend thee to the care of God.—Having thus said, he struck the earth with his feet, and it clove asunder, and swallowed him.


The Fish of Four Colours

The fisherman then went back to the city, wondering at all that had befallen him with the 'Efreet, and carried the fish to his house; and he took an earthen bowl, and, having filled it with water, put the fish into it; and they struggled in the water: and when he had done this, he placed the bowl upon his head, and repaired to the King's palace, as the 'Efreet had commanded him, and, going up unto the King, presented to him the fish; and the King was excessively astonished at them, for he had never seen any like them in the course of his life; and he said, Give these fish to the slave cook-maid. This maid had been sent as a present to him by the King of the Greeks, three days before; and he had not yet tried her skill. The Wezeer, therefore, ordered her to fry the fish, and said to her, O maid, the King saith unto thee, I have not reserved my tear but for the time of my difficulty:—to-day, then, gratify us by a specimen of thy excellent cookery, for a person hath brought these fish as a present to the Sulṭán. After having thus charged her, the Wezeer returned, and the King ordered him to give the fisherman four hundred pieces of89 gold: so the Wezeer gave them to him; and he took them in his lap, and returned to his home and his wife, joyful and happy, and bought what was needful for his family.


The Fisherman shewing the Fish to the Sulṭán

Such were the events that befell the fisherman: now we must relate what happened to the maid.—She took the fish, and cleaned them, and arranged them in the frying-pan, and left them until one side was cooked, when she turned them upon the other side; and lo, the wall of the kitchen clove asunder, and there came forth from it a damsel of tall stature, smooth-cheeked, of perfect form, with eyes adorned with koḥl,34 beautiful in countenance, and with heavy, swelling hips; wearing a koofeeyeh35 interwoven with blue silk; with rings in her ears, and bracelets on her wrists, and rings set with precious jewels on her fingers; and in her hand was a rod of Indian cane: and she dipped the end of the rod in the frying-pan, and said, O fish, are ye remaining faithful to your covenant? At the sight of this, the cook-maid fainted. The damsel then repeated the same words a second and a third time; after which the fish raised their heads from the frying-pan, and answered, Yes, yes. They then repeated the following verse:—

If thou return, we return; and if thou come, we come; and if thou forsake, we verily do the same.

And upon this the damsel overturned the frying-pan, and departed by the way she had entered, and the wall of the kitchen closed up again. The cook-maid then arose, and beheld the four fish burnt like charcoal; and she exclaimed, In his first encounter his staff broke!—and as she sat reproaching herself, she beheld the Wezeer standing at her head; and he said to her, Bring the fish to the Sulṭán:—and she wept, and informed him of what had happened.3690


The Cook-maid dressing the Fish

The Wezeer was astonished at her words, and exclaimed, This is indeed a wonderful event;—and he sent for the fisherman, and when he was brought, he said to him, O fisherman, thou must bring to us four fish like those which thou broughtest before. The fisherman accordingly went forth to the lake, and threw his net, and when he had drawn it in he found in it four fish as before; and he took them to the Wezeer, who went with them to the maid, and said to her, Rise, and fry them in my presence, that I may witness this occurrence. The maid, therefore, prepared the fish, and put them in the frying-pan, and they had remained but a little while, when the wall clove asunder, and the damsel appeared, clad as before, and holding the rod; and she dipped the end of the rod in the frying-pan, and said, O fish, O fish, are ye remaining faithful to your old covenant? Upon which they raised their heads, and answered as before; and the damsel overturned the frying-pan with the rod, and returned by the way she had entered, and the wall closed up again.

The Wezeer then said, This is an event which cannot be concealed91 from the King:—so he went to him, and informed him of what had happened in his presence; and the King said, I must see this with my own eyes. He sent, therefore, to the fisherman, and commanded him to bring four fish like the former; granting him a delay of three days. And the fisherman repaired to the lake, and brought the fish thence to the King, who ordered again that four hundred pieces of gold should be given to him; and then, turning to the Wezeer, said to him, Cook the fish thyself here before me. The Wezeer answered, I hear and obey. He brought the frying-pan, and, after he had cleaned the fish, threw them into it; and as soon as he had turned them, the wall clove asunder, and there came forth from it a negro, in size like a bull, or like one of the tribe of 'Ád,37 having in his hand a branch of a green tree; and he said, with a clear but terrifying voice, O fish, O fish, are ye remaining faithful to your old covenant? Upon which they raised their heads, and answered as before, Yes, yes:

If thou return, we return; and if thou come, we come; and if thou forsake, we verily do the same.

The black then approached the frying-pan, and overturned it with the branch, and the fish became like charcoal, and he went away as he had come.

When he had thus disappeared from before their eyes, the King said, This is an event respecting which it is impossible to keep silence, and there must, undoubtedly, be some strange circumstance connected with these fish. He then ordered that the fisherman should be brought before him, and when he had come, he said to him, Whence came these fish? The fisherman answered, From a lake between four mountains behind this mountain which is without thy city. The King said to him, How many days' journey38 distant? He answered, O our lord the Sulṭán, a journey of half-an-hour. And the Sulṭán was astonished, and ordered his troops to go out immediately with him and the fisherman, who began to curse the 'Efreet. They proceeded until they had ascended the mountain, and descended into a wide desert tract which they had never before seen in their whole lives; and the Sulṭán and all the troops wondered at the sight of this desert, which was between four mountains, and at the fish, which were of four colours, red and white and yellow and blue. The King paused in astonishment, and said to the troops, and to the other attendants who were with him, Hath any one of you before seen this lake in this place? They all answered, No. Then said the King, By Allah, I will not enter my city, nor will I sit upon my throne, until I know the true history of92 this lake, and of its fish. And upon this he ordered his people to encamp around these mountains; and they did so. He then called for the Wezeer, who was a well-informed, sensible, prudent, and learned man; and when he had presented himself before him, he said to him, I desire to do a thing with which I will acquaint thee; and it is this:—I have resolved to depart alone this night, to seek for information respecting this lake and its fish: therefore, sit thou at the door of my pavilion, and say to the Emeers and Wezeers and Chamberlains, The Sulṭán is sick, and hath commanded me not to allow any person to go in unto him:—and acquaint no one with my intention.


The Black Palace

The Wezeer was unable to oppose his design; so the King disguised himself, and slung on his sword, and withdrew himself from the midst of his troops. He journeyed the whole of the night, until the morning, and proceeded until the heat became oppressive to him: he then paused to rest; after which he again proceeded the remainder of the day and the second night until the morning, when there appeared before him, in the distance, something black, at the sight of which he rejoiced, and said, Perhaps I shall there find some person who will inform me of the history of the lake and its fish. And when he approached this black object, he found it to be a palace built of black stones, and overlaid with iron; and one of the leaves of its doors was open, and the other shut. The King was glad, and he stood at the door, and knocked gently, but heard no answer; he knocked a second and a third time, but again heard no answer: then he knocked a fourth time, and with violence; but no one answered. So he said, It is doubtless empty:—and he took courage, and entered from the door into the passage, and cried out, saying, O inhabitants of the palace, I am a stranger and a traveller! have ye any provision? And he repeated these words a second and a third time; but heard no answer.93 And upon this he fortified his heart, and emboldened himself, and proceeded from the passage into the midst of the palace; but he found no one there, and only saw that it was furnished, and that there was, in the centre of it, a fountain with four lions of red gold, which poured forth the water from their mouths, like pearls and jewels: around this were birds; and over the top of the palace was extended a net which prevented their flying out. At the sight of these objects he was astonished, and he was grieved that he saw no person there whom he could ask for information respecting the lake, and the fish, and the mountains, and the palace. He then sat down between the doors,39 reflecting upon these things; and as he thus sat, he heard a voice of lamentation from a sorrowful heart, chanting these verses:—

O fortune, thou pitiest me not, nor releasest me! See my heart is straitened between affliction and peril!
Will not you [O my wife] have compassion on the mighty whom love hath abased, and the wealthy who is reduced to indigence?
We were jealous even of the zephyr which passed over you: but when the divine decree is issued, the eye becometh blind!
What resource hath the archer when, in the hour of conflict, he desireth to discharge the arrow, but findeth his bow-string broken.
And when troubles are multiplied upon the noble-minded, where shall he find refuge from fate and from destiny?40

When the Sulṭán heard this lamentation, he sprang upon his feet, and, seeking the direction whence it proceeded, found a curtain suspended before the door of a chamber; and he raised it, and beheld behind it a young man sitting on a couch raised to the height of a cubit from the floor. He was a handsome youth, well-shaped, and of eloquent speech, with shining forehead, and rosy cheek, marked with a mole resembling ambergris. The King was rejoiced at seeing him, and saluted him; and the young man (who remained sitting, and was clad with a vest of silk, embroidered with gold, but who exhibited traces of grief) returned his salutation, and said to him, O my master, excuse my not rising.—O youth! said the King, inform me respecting the lake, and its fish of various colours, and respecting this palace, and the reason of thy being alone in it, and of thy lamentation. When the young man heard these words, tears trickled down his cheeks, and he wept bitterly.41 And the King was astonished, and said to him, What causeth thee to weep, O youth? He answered, How can I refrain from weeping, when this is my state?—and so saying, he stretched forth his hand, and lifted up the skirts of his clothing; and lo, half of him, from his waist to the soles of his feet, was stone; and from94 his waist to the hair of his head, he was like other men. He then said, Know, O King, that the story of the fish is extraordinary; if it were engraved upon the intellect, it would be a lesson to him who would be admonished:—and he related as follows:—


The Sultán discovering the Young King of the Black Islands

[admin]

Part 2 of 3

THE STORY OF THE YOUNG KING OF THE BLACK ISLANDS.

My father was king of the city which was here situate: his name was Maḥmood, and he was lord of the Black Islands, and of the four mountains. After a reign of seventy years, he died, and I succeeded to his throne; whereupon I took as my wife the daughter of my uncle; and she loved me excessively, so that when I absented myself from her, she would neither eat nor drink till she saw me again. She remained under my protection five years. After this, she went one day to the bath; and I had commanded the cook to prepare the supper, and entered this palace, and slept in my usual place.42 I had ordered two maids to fan me;43 and one of them sat at my head, and the other at my feet; but I was restless, because my wife was not with me; and I could not sleep. My eyes were closed, but my spirit95 was awake; and I heard the maid at my head say to her at my feet, O Mes'oodeh,44 verily our lord is unfortunate in his youth, and what a pity is it that it should be passed with our depraved, wicked mistress!—Perdition to unfaithful wives! replied the other: but (added she) such a person as our lord, so endowed by nature, is not suited to this profligate woman, who passes every night absent from his bed.—Verily, rejoined she at my head, our lord is careless in not making any inquiry respecting her.—Wo to thee! said the other: hath our lord any knowledge of her conduct, or doth she leave him to his choice? Nay, on the contrary, she contriveth to defraud him by means of the cup of wine45 which he drinketh every night before he sleepeth, putting benj46 into it; in consequence of which he sleepeth so soundly that he knoweth not what happeneth, nor whither she goeth, nor what she doeth; for, after she hath given him the wine to drink, she dresseth herself, and goeth out from him, and is absent until daybreak, when she returneth to him, and burneth a perfume under his nose, upon which he awaketh from his sleep.


The Young King on his Bed, attended by Two Maids

When I heard this conversation of the maids, the light became darkness before my face, and I was hardly conscious of the approach of night, when my cousin returned from the bath. The table was prepared, and we ate, and sat a while drinking our wine as usual. I then called for the wine which I was accustomed to drink before I lay down to sleep, and she handed to me the cup; but I turned away, and, pretending to drink it as I was wont to do, poured it into my bosom, and immediately lay down: upon which she said, Sleep on; I wish96 that thou wouldst never wake again! By Allah, I abhor thee, and abhor thy person, and my soul is weary of thy company!—She then arose, and attired herself in the most magnificent of her apparel, and, having perfumed herself, and slung on a sword, opened the door of the palace, and went out. I got up immediately, and followed her until she had quitted the palace, and passed through the streets of the city, and arrived at the city-gates, when she pronounced some words that I understood not; whereupon the locks fell off, and the gates opened, and she went out, I still following her, without her knowledge. Thence she proceeded to a space among the mounds,47 and arrived at a strong edifice, in which was a ḳubbeh48 constructed of mud, with a door, which she entered. I then climbed upon the roof of the ḳubbeh, and, looking down upon her through an aperture, saw that she was visiting a black slave, whose large lips, one of which overlapped the other, gathered up the sand from the pebbly floor, while he lay, in a filthy and wet condition, upon a few stalks of sugar-cane.

She kissed the ground before this slave; and he raised his head towards her, and said, Wo to thee! Wherefore hast thou remained away until this hour? The other blacks have been here drinking wine, and each of them has gone away with his mistress; and I refused to drink on thy account.—She answered, O my master, and beloved of my heart, knowest thou not that I am married to my cousin, and that I abhor every man who resembles him, and hate myself while I am in his company? If I did not fear to displease thee, I would reduce the city to ruins, so that the owl and the raven should cry in it, and would transport its stones beyond Mount Ḳáf.49—Thou liest, thou infamous woman, replied the slave; and I swear by the generosity of the blacks (and if I speak not truth, may our valour be as the valour of the whites), that if thou loiter as thou hast now done till this hour, I will no longer give thee my company, nor approach thy person, thou faithless one! Dost thou inconvenience me for the sake of thine own pleasure, thou filthy wretch, and vilest of the whites?—When I heard (continued the King) their words, and witnessed what passed between them, the world became dark before my face, and I knew not where I was.—My cousin still stood weeping, and abasing herself before him, and said, O my beloved, and treasure of my heart, there remaineth to me none but thee for whom I care, and if thou cast me off, alas for me! O my beloved! O light of mine eye!—Thus she continued to weep, and to humble herself before him, until he became pacified towards her; upon which she rejoiced, and arose, and, having dis97robed herself, said to him, O my master, hast thou here anything that thy maid may eat? He answered, Uncover the dough-pan; it contains some cooked rats' bones:50 eat of them, and pick them; and take this earthen pot: thou wilt find in it some booẓah51 to drink. So she arose, and ate and drank, and washed her hands; after which she lay down by the side of the slave, upon the stalks of sugar-cane, and covered herself with his tattered clothes and rags.


The Black Slave wounded by the Young King

When I saw her do this, I became unconscious of my existence, and, descending from the roof of the ḳubbeh, entered, and took the sword from the side of my cousin, with the intention of killing them both. I struck the slave upon his neck, and thought that he was killed; but the blow, which I gave with the view of severing his head, only cut the gullet and skin and flesh; and when I thought that I had killed him, he uttered a loud snore, upon which my cousin started up, and as soon as I had gone, took the sword, and returned it to its98 scabbard, and came back to the city and to the palace, and lay down again in my bed, in which she remained until the morning.

On the following day, I observed that my cousin had cut off her hair, and put on the apparel of mourning;52 and she said to me, O my cousin, blame me not for what I do; for I have received news that my mother is dead, and that my father hath been slain in a holy war, and that one of my two brothers hath died of a poisonous sting, and the other by the fall of a house: it is natural, therefore, that I should weep and mourn. On hearing these words, I abstained from upbraiding her, and said, Do what seemeth fit to thee; for I will not oppose thee. Accordingly, she continued mourning and weeping and wailing a whole year; after which she said to me, I have a desire to build for myself, in thy palace, a tomb, with a ḳubbeh, that I may repair thither alone to mourn, and I will call it the House of Lamentations.53 I replied, Do what thou seest fit. So she built for herself a house for mourning, with a ḳubbeh in the middle of it, like the tomb of a saint;54 after which she removed thither the slave, and there she lodged him. He was in a state of excessive weakness, and unable to render her any service, though he drank wine; and from the day on which I had wounded him, he had never spoken; yet he remained alive, because the appointed term of his life had not expired. My cousin every day visited him in this tomb early and late, to weep and mourn over him, and took to him wine to drink, and boiled meats; and thus she continued to do, morning and evening, until the expiration of the second year, while I patiently suffered her, till one day, I entered her apartment unawares, and found her weeping, and slapping her face, and repeating these verses:—

I have lost my existence among mankind since your absence; for my heart loveth none but you.
Take my body, then, in mercy, to the place where you are laid; and there bury me by your side:
And if, at my grave, you utter my name, the moaning of my bones shall answer to your call.

As soon as she had finished the recitation of these verses, I said to her, holding my drawn sword in my hand, This is the language of those faithless women who renounce the ties of affinity, and regard not lawful fellowship!—and I was about to strike her with the sword, and had lifted up my arm to do so, when she rose—for she knew that it was I who had wounded the slave—and, standing before me, pronounced some words which I understood not, and said, May God, by means of my enchantment, make thee to be half of stone, and half of99 the substance of man!—whereupon I became as thou seest, unable to move, neither dead nor alive; and when I had been reduced to this state, she enchanted the city and its markets and fields. The inhabitants of our city were of four classes; Muslims, and Christians, and Jews, and Magians; and she transformed them into fish: the white are the Muslims; the red, the Magians; the blue, the Christians; and the yellow, the Jews.55 She transformed, also, the four islands into four mountains, and placed them around the lake; and from that time she has continued every day to torture me, inflicting upon me a hundred lashes with a leathern whip, until the blood flows from my wounds; after which she puts on my upper half a vest of hair-cloth, beneath these garments.—Having said thus, the young man wept, and ejaculating the following verses:—

Give me patience, O Allah, to bear what Thou decreest! I will be patient, if so I may obtain thine approval.
I am straitened, indeed, by the calamity that hath befallen me: but the Family of the favoured Prophet shall intercede for me!56

Upon this, the King, looking towards the young man, said to him, O youth, thou hast increased my anxiety. And where (he added) is this woman?—The young man answered, She is in the tomb where the slave is lying, in the ḳubbeh; and every day, before she visits him, she strips me of my clothing, and inflicts upon me a hundred lashes with the whip, while I weep and cry out, unable to move so as to repulse her. After thus torturing me, she repairs early to the slave, with the wine and boiled meat.—By Allah, O youth, said the King, I will do thee an act of kindness for which I shall be remembered, and a favour which historians shall record in a biography after me.


The Kubbeh, or Tomb

He then sat and conversed with him until the approach of night, upon which he arose, and waited till the first dawn of day, when he took off his clothes, and slung on his sword, and went to the place where the slave lay. After remarking the candles and lamps, and perfumes and ointments, he approached the slave, and with a blow of his sword slew him: he then carried him on his back, and threw him into a well which he found in the palace, and, returning to the ḳubbeh, clad himself with the slave's clothes, and lay down with the drawn sword by his side. Soon after, the vile enchantress went to her cousin, and, having pulled off his clothes, took the whip, and beat him, while he cried, Ah! it is enough for me to be in this state! Have pity on me then!—Didst thou shew pity to me, she exclaimed, and didst thou100 spare my lover?—She then put on him the hair-cloth vest and his outer garments, and repaired to the slave with a cup of wine, and a bowl of boiled meat. Entering the tomb, she wept and wailed, exclaiming, O my master, answer me! O my master, speak to me!—and poured forth her lamentation in the words of this verse:—

How long shall this aversion and harshness continue? Sufficient is the evil which my passion hath brought upon me!57

Then, weeping as before, she exclaimed again, O my master, answer me, and speak to me! Upon this the King, speaking in a low voice, and adapting his tongue to the pronunciation of the blacks, ejaculated, Ah! Ah! there is no strength nor power but in God! On hearing these words, she screamed with joy, and fell down in a swoon; and when she recovered, she exclaimed, Possibly my master is restored to health! The King, again lowering his voice, as if from weakness, replied, Thou profligate wretch, thou deservest not that I should address thee.—Wherefore? said she. He answered, Because all the day long thou tormentest thy husband, while he calleth out, and imploreth the aid of God, so that thou hast prevented my sleeping from the commencement of darkness until morning: thy husband hath not ceased to humble himself, and to imprecate vengeance upon thee, till he hath distracted me; and had it not been for this, I had recovered my strength: this it is which hath prevented my answering thee.—Then, with thy permission, she replied, I will liberate him from his present sufferings.—Liberate him, said the King, and give us ease.

She replied, I hear and obey;—and immediately arose, and went out from the ḳubbeh to the palace, and, taking a cup, filled it with water, and pronounced certain words over it, upon which it began to boil like a cauldron. She then sprinkled some of it upon her cousin, saying, By virtue of what I have uttered, be changed from thy present state to that in which thou wast at first!—and instantly he shook, and stood upon his feet, rejoicing in his liberation, and exclaimed, I testify101 that there is no deity but God, and that Moḥammad is God's Apostle; God bless and save him! She then said to him, Depart, and return not hither, or I will kill thee:—and she cried out in his face: so he departed from before her, and she returned to the ḳubbeh, and said, O my master, come forth to me that I may behold thee. He replied, with a weak voice, What hast thou done? Thou hast relieved me from the branch, but hast not relieved me from the root.—O my beloved, she said, and what is the root? He answered, The people of this city, and of the four islands: every night, at the middle hour, the fish raise their heads, and imprecate vengeance upon me and upon thee; and this is the cause that preventeth the return of vigour to my body; therefore, liberate them, and come, and take my hand, and raise me; for vigour hath already in part returned to me.

On hearing these words of the King, whom she imagined to be the slave, she said to him with joy, O my master, on my head and my eye! In the name of Allah!58—and she sprang up, full of happiness, and hastened to the lake, where, taking a little of its water, she pronounced over it some unintelligible words, whereupon the fish became agitated, and raised their heads, and immediately became converted into men as before. Thus was the enchantment removed from the inhabitants of the city, and the city became repeopled, and the market-streets re-erected, and every one returned to his occupation: the mountains also became changed into islands as they were at the102 first. The enchantress then returned immediately to the King, whom she still imagined to be the slave, and said to him, O my beloved, stretch forth thy honoured hand, that I may kiss it.—Approach me, said the King in a low voice. So she drew near to him; and he, having his keen-edged sword ready in his hand, thrust it into her bosom, and the point protruded from her back: he then struck her again, and clove her in twain, and went forth.


The Sultán killing the Enchantress

He found the young man who had been enchanted waiting his return, and congratulated him on his safety; and the young prince kissed his hand, and thanked him. The King then said to him, Wilt thou remain in thy city, or come with me to my capital?—O King of the age, said the young man, dost thou know the distance that is between thee and thy city? The King answered, Two days and a half.—O King, replied the young man, if thou hast been asleep, awake: between thee and thy city is a distance of a year's journey to him who travelleth with diligence; and thou camest in two days and a half only because the city was enchanted: but, O King, I will never quit thee for the twinkling of an eye. The King rejoiced at his words, and said, Praise be to God, who hath in his beneficence given thee to me: thou art my son; for during my whole life, I have never been blest with a son:—and they embraced each other, and rejoiced exceedingly. They then went together into the palace, where the King who had been enchanted informed the officers of his court that he was about to perform the holy pilgrimage: so they prepared for him everything that he required; and he departed with the Sulṭán; his heart burning with reflections upon his city, because he had been deprived of the sight of it for the space of a year.

He set forth, accompanied by fifty memlooks,59 and provided with presents, and they continued their journey night and day for a whole year, after which they drew near to the city of the Sulṭán, and the Wezeer and the troops, who had lost all hope of his return, came forth to meet him. The troops, approaching him, kissed the ground before him, and congratulated him on his safe return; and he entered the city, and sat upon the throne. He then acquainted the Wezeer with all that had happened to the young King; on hearing which, the Wezeer congratulated the latter, also, on his safety; and when all things were restored to order, the Sulṭán bestowed presents upon a number of his subjects, and said to the Wezeer, Bring to me the fisherman who presented to me the fish. So he sent to this fisherman, who had been the cause of the restoration of the inhabitants of the enchanted city,103 and brought him; and the King invested him with a dress of honour, and inquired of him respecting his circumstances, and whether he had any children. The fisherman informed him that he had a son and two daughters; and the King, on hearing this, took as his wife one of the daughters, and the young prince married the other.60 The King also conferred upon the son the office of treasurer. He then sent the Wezeer to the city of the young prince, the capital of the Black Islands, and invested him with its sovereignty, despatching with him the fifty memlooks who had accompanied him thence, with numerous robes of honour to all the Emeers: and the Wezeer kissed his hands, and set forth on his journey; while the Sulṭán and the young prince remained. And as to the fisherman, he became the wealthiest of the people of his age; and his daughters continued to be the wives of the Kings until they died.

But this (added Shahrazád) is not more wonderful than what happened to the porter.


Tail-piece to Chapter II.--The Journey home


Head-piece to Notes to Chapter II.--The Fisherman and the dead Ass

NOTES TO CHAPTER SECOND.

Note 1. The sentiment expressed in this verse is one which is often heard from the mouth of a Muslim; but generally when, his toil is ended, and its result seen; though not unfrequently as an excuse for indolence.

Note 2. The bottle is here described (by the term "ḳumḳum") as of a kind commonly used for sprinkling rose-water, &c., having a spherical or wide body, with a long and narrow neck. I remember seeing a gilt brass bottle of this kind, of very beautiful workmanship, for which nearly as much as ten pieces of gold was demanded.

Note 3. The seal of Suleymán, or Solomon, has twice been mentioned in former notes; in No. 21 of the notes appended to the Introduction, and in No. 15 of those to the first chapter.

Note 4. It is necessary to remark, that this and many other descriptions in the present work are not designed to be understood in their literal sense. The reader will often be required to make some allowance for Oriental hyperbole, and to distinguish between expressions characterised by this figure, and such as are purely accordant with Eastern grandeur and magnificence, or with Muslim superstition.

Note 5. The end of the winnowing-fork bears a rude resemblance to a gigantic hand; having several long prongs of wood.

Note 6. Instead of "ibreeḳ" (a ewer), in the Cairo edition, I read "abwáḳ" (trumpets), as in other editions.

Note 7. This appellation has been mentioned in a former note, as signifying an evil Jinnee of the most powerful class.

Note 8. It is a rule observed in decent society, by the Arabs, to avoid, as much as possible, the mention of opprobrious epithets, lest any person present should imagine such epithets to be addressed insidiously to himself. For this reason, when any malediction or offensive language is repeated in a story, it is usual with them to designate the object of such language by this term, which signifies both remote or absent from the person or persons in whose presence the words are repeated, and remote from virtue or good. In the present instance, "remote" is an epithet substituted by Shahrazád for some other of a gross nature, from respect to the king to whom she is relating the story.

Note 9. I read "Ṣakhr el-Jinnee" for "Ṣakhr el-Jinn."—Ṣakhr was an evil Jinnee, and a terrible enemy of Solomon. His last act of treachery to that monarch, and105 his fate, are thus related by commentators on the Ḳur-án.—Solomon having, through negligence, suffered one of his women to practise idolatry under his roof, God saw fit to punish him. It was the custom of this King, on certain occasions, "to intrust his signet, on which his kingdom depended, with a concubine of his, named El-Emeeneh. One day, therefore, when she had the ring in her custody, a devil [or evil Jinnee], named Ṣakhr, came to her in the shape of Solomon, and received the ring from her; by virtue of which he became possessed of the kingdom, and sat on the throne in the shape which he had borrowed, making what alterations in the law he pleased. Solomon, in the meantime, being changed in his outward appearance, and known to none of his subjects, was obliged to wander about, and beg alms for his subsistence; till at length, after the space of forty days, which was the time the image had been worshipped in his house, the devil flew away, and threw the signet into the sea. The signet was immediately swallowed by a fish, which being taken and given to Solomon, he found the ring in its belly; and having by this means recovered the kingdom, he took Ṣakhr, and, tying a great stone to his neck, threw him into the Lake of Tiberias."150

Note 10. "Umm-'Ámir" is an appellation of the hyena. It is scarcely necessary to mention, that the proverb here quoted is said to have originated from the fact of a man's having been devoured by a hyena whom he had aided against an enemy.

Note 11. In some copies, the personage here mentioned is called "Melik el-Yoonán," that is, "King of Ancient Greece," or—"of the Ancient Greeks." I have followed the Cairo edition, and that of the first two hundred nights, printed at Calcutta, in which "Yoonán" is used as the King's proper name. See also Note 13.

Note 12. This is the name of the sage in most copies; but in the Cairo edition he is called "Rooyán."

Note 13. In the Calcutta edition, the king is merely said to have reigned "in the country of the Persians," as in my translation; but in the Cairo edition, he is said to have been "in the city of the Persians, and the country of Roomán;" which may perhaps mean (though this is hardly allowable) the [eastern] Roman, or later Greek, empire; an unnecessary contradiction. (See Note 22 to Chapter x.) It is obviously more agreeable with the story to regard him as a Persian King.

Note 14. "The Ornament of the Good," or—"of the Comely," is an appellation of the Arabian prophet, who is related to have said, "The sun never riseth until it hath saluted me." "The sun's saluting the Ornament of the Good," or "Comely," is, therefore, a phrase not unfrequently used by Muslims merely to signify its rising.

Note 15.—On the Rewards of Men of Literature and Science. It has long been a common custom of Eastern princes to bestow dresses of honour upon men of literature and science, as well as upon their great officers and other servants. These dresses were of different kinds for persons of different classes or professions. The most usual kind was an ample coat. With dresses of this description were often given gold-embroidered turbans; and sometimes, to Emeers (or great military officers), neck-rings or collars (called ṭóḳs), some of which were set with jewels; as also, bracelets, and swords ornamented with precious stones, &c.; and to Wezeers, instead of the ṭóḳ, a necklace of jewels.151—The following striking record will convey an idea of the magnificence of some of these dresses of honour; or, in other words, of the liberality of a Muslim prince, and, at the same time, of the very precarious nature of his favour. A person, chancing to look at a register kept by one of the officers of Hároon Er-Rasheed, saw in it the following entry:—"Four hundred thousand pieces of gold, the price of a dress of honour for Jaạfar, the son of Yaḥyà, the Wezeer."—A few days after, he saw beneath this written,—"Ten ḳeeráṭs, the price of naphtha and reeds, for burning the body of 106Jaạfar, the son of Yaḥyà."152—The ḳeeráṭ of Baghdád was the twentieth part of a deenár, or piece of gold.

Arab princes and other great men have generally been famous for highly respecting, and liberally rewarding, men of literature and science, and especially poets. El-Mamoon and many others are well known to us for their patronage of the learned. Er-Rasheed carried his condescension to them so far as to pour the water on the hands of a blind man, Aboo-Mo'áwiyeh, one of the most learned persons of his time, previously to his eating with him, to shew his respect for science.153 An anecdote of a Khaleefeh ordering the mouth of a learned man to be filled with jewels, I have related in a former note. To cram the mouth with sugar or sweetmeats for a polite or eloquent speech, or piece of poetry, has been more commonly done; but the usual presents to learned men were, and are, dresses of honour and sums of money. Ibn-'Obeyd El-Bakhteree, an illustrious poet and traditionist, who flourished in the reign of El-Musta'een, is said to have received so many presents, that, after his death, there were found, among the property which he left, a hundred complete suits of dress, two hundred shirts, and five hundred turbans.154 A thousand pieces of gold were often given, and sometimes ten, twenty, or thirty, thousand, and even more, for a few verses; nay, for a single couplet.

The prodigality of Arab princes to men of learning may be exemplified by the following anecdote:—Ḥammád, surnamed Er-Ráwiyeh, or the famous reciter, having attached himself to the Khaleefeh El-Weleed, the son of 'Abd-el-Melik, and shewn a contrary feeling towards his brother Hishám, on the accession of the latter fled to El-Koofeh. While there, a letter arrived from Hishám, commanding his presence at Damascus: it was addressed to the governor, who, being ordered to treat him with honour, gave him a purse containing a thousand pieces of gold, and despatched him with the Khaleefeh's messenger. On his arrival at Damascus, he was conducted before Hishám, whom he found in a splendid saloon, seated under a pavilion of red silk, surmounted by a dome of yellow brocade, attended by two female slaves of beauty unsurpassed, each holding a crystal ewer of wine. His admission during the presence of members of the King's ḥareem, the reader will remark as a very unusual and high honour: the mention of the wine may also surprise him; but this is a subject upon which much may be said, and which will be considered on a future occasion. After Ḥammád had given the salutation, and the Khaleefeh had returned it, the latter told him that he had sent for him to ask respecting a couplet of which he (the Khaleefeh) could only remember that it ended with the word "ibreeḳ," which signifies "a ewer." The reciter reflected a while, and the lines occurred to his mind, and he repeated them. Hishám cried out, in delight, that the lines were those he meant; drank a cup of wine, and desired one of the female slaves to hand a cup to Ḥammád. She did so; and the draught, he says, deprived him of one-third of his reason. The Khaleefeh desired him to repeat the lines again, and drank a second cup; and Ḥammád was deprived of another third of his reason in the same manner; and said, "O Prince of the Faithful, two-thirds of my reason have departed from me." Hishám laughed, and desired him to ask what he would before the remaining third should have gone; and the reciter said, "One of these two female slaves." The Khaleefeh laughed again, and said, "Nay, but both of them are thine, and all that is upon them, and all that they possess, and, beside them, fifty thousand pieces of gold."—"I kissed the ground before him," says Ḥammád, "and drank a third cup, and was unconscious of what happened after: I did not awake till the close of the night, when I found myself in a handsome house, surrounded by lighted candles, and the two female slaves were putting in order my clothes and other things: so I took possession of the property, and departed, the happiest of the creatures of God."155

107

A whimsical story is told of a king, who denied to poets those rewards to which usage had almost given them a claim. This king, whose name is not recorded, had the faculty of retaining in his memory an ode after having only once heard it; and he had a memlook who could repeat an ode that he had twice heard, and a female slave who could repeat one that she had heard thrice. Whenever a poet came to compliment him with a panegyrical ode, the King used to promise him that, if he found his verses to be his original composition, he would give him a sum of money equal in weight to what they were written upon. The poet, consenting, would recite his ode; and the King would say, "It is not new; for I have known it some years;" and would repeat it as he had heard it; after which he would add, "And this memlook also retains it in his memory;" and would order the memlook to repeat it; which, having heard it twice, from the poet and the king, he would do. The King would then say to the poet, "I have also a female slave who can repeat it;" and on his ordering her to do so, stationed behind the curtains, she would repeat what she had thus thrice heard: so the poet would go away empty-handed. The famous poet El-Aṣma'ee, having heard of this proceeding, and guessing the trick, determined upon outwitting the King; and accordingly composed an ode made up of very difficult words; but this was not his only preparative measure; another will be presently explained; and a third was, to assume the dress of a Bedawee, that he might not be known, covering his face, the eyes only excepted, with a lithám (a piece of drapery) in accordance with a custom of Arabs of the desert. Thus disguised, he went to the palace, and, having asked permission, entered, and saluted the King, who said to him, "Whence art thou, O brother of the Arabs, and what dost thou desire?" The poet answered, "May God increase the power of the King! I am a poet of such a tribe, and have composed an ode in praise of our lord the Sulṭán."—"O brother of the Arabs," said the King, "hast thou heard of our condition?"—"No," answered the poet; "and what is it, O King of the age?"—"It is," replied the King, "that if the ode be not thine, we give thee no reward; and if it be thine, we give thee the weight in money of what it is written upon."—"How," said El-Aṣma'ee, "should I assume to myself that which belongs to another, and knowing, too, that lying before kings is one of the basest of actions? But I agree to this condition, O our lord the Sulṭán." So he repeated his ode. The King, perplexed, and unable to remember any of it, made a sign to the memlook—but he had retained nothing; and called to the female slave, but she also was unable to repeat a word. "O brother of the Arabs," said he, "thou hast spoken truth, and the ode is thine without doubt: I have never heard it before: produce, therefore, what it is written upon, and we will give thee its weight in money, as we have promised."—"Wilt thou," said the poet, "send one of the attendants to carry it?"—"To carry what?" asked the King; "is it not upon a paper here in thy possession?"—"No, O our lord the Sulṭán," replied the poet; "at the time I composed it I could not procure a piece of paper upon which to write it, and could find nothing but a fragment of a marble column left me by my father; so I engraved it upon this; and it lies in the court of the palace." He had brought it, wrapped up, on the back of a camel. The King, to fulfil his promise, was obliged to exhaust his treasury; and to prevent a repetition of this trick (of which he afterwards discovered El-Aṣma'ee to have been the author), in future rewarded the poets according to the usual custom of kings.156

The following case is also related as an exception to the common custom of great men, with regard to the bestowal of rewards on poets:—"A poet praised a governor in some verses, and the latter ordered an ass's barda'ah (or stuffed saddle) and girth to be given to him. The poet went away with them on his shoulder; and, being asked what he had got, answered, 'I have praised our honoured lord in the best of my verses, and he hath bestowed on me some of the most magnificent articles of his apparel.'"157

Note 16.—On the Bath. The ḥammám, or bath, is a favourite resort of both men 108and women of all classes among the Muslims who can afford the trifling expense which it requires; and (it is said) not only of human beings, but also of evil genii; on which account, as well as on that of decency, several precepts respecting it have been dictated by Moḥammad. It is frequented for the purpose of performing certain ablutions required by the religion, or by a regard for cleanliness, and for its salutary effects, and for mere luxury.

The following description of a public bath will convey a sufficient notion of those in private houses, which are on a smaller scale, and generally consist of only two or three chambers. The public bath comprises several apartments, with mosaic or tesselated pavements, composed of white and black marble, and pieces of fine red tile, and sometimes other materials. The inner apartments are covered with domes, having a number of small, round, glazed apertures, for the admission of light. The first apartment is the meslakh, or disrobing room, which has, in the centre, a fountain of cold water, and, next the walls, wide benches or platforms, encased with marble. These are furnished with mattresses and cushions for the higher and middle classes, and with mats for the poorer sort. The inner division of the building, in the more regularly planned baths, occupies nearly a square: the central and chief portion of it is the principal apartment, or ḥarárah, which generally has the form of a cross. In its centre is a fountain of hot water, rising from a base encased with marble, which serves as a seat. One of the angles of the square is occupied by the beyt-owwal, or antechamber of the ḥarárah: in another, is the fire over which is the boiler; and each of the other two angles is generally occupied by two small chambers: in one of these is a tank filled with warm water, which pours down from a spout in the dome: in the other are two taps, side by side; one of hot, and the other of cold water, with a small trough beneath, before which is a seat. The inner apartments are heated by the steam which rises from the fountain and tanks, and by the contiguity of the fire; but the beyt-owwal is not so hot as the ḥarárah, being separated from it by a door. In cold weather, the bather undresses in the former, which has two or three raised seats, like those of the meslakh.

With a pair of wooden clogs to his feet, and having a large napkin round his loins, and generally a second wound round his head like a turban, a third over his chest, and a fourth covering his back, he enters the ḥarárah, the heat of which causes him immediately to perspire profusely. An attendant of the bath removes from him all the napkins excepting the first; and proceeds to crack the joints of his fingers and toes, &c., and several of the vertebræ of the back and neck; kneads his flesh; and rubs the soles of his feet with a coarse earthen rasp, and his limbs and body with a woollen bag which covers his hand as a glove; after which, the bather, if he please, plunges into one of the tanks. He is then thoroughly washed with soap and water, and fibres of the palm-tree, and shaved, if he wish it, in one of the small chambers which contain the taps of hot and cold water; and returns to the beyt-owwal. Here he generally reclines upon a mattress, and takes some light refreshment, while one of the attendants rubs the soles of his feet, and kneads the flesh of his body and limbs, previously to his resuming his dress. It is a common custom, now, to take a pipe and a cup of coffee during this period of rest.

The women are especially fond of the bath, and often have entertainments there; taking with them fruits, sweetmeats, &c., and sometimes hiring female singers to accompany them. An hour or more is occupied by the process of plaiting the hair, and applying the depilatory, &c.; and, generally, an equal time is passed in the enjoyment of rest, or recreation, or refreshment. All necessary decorum is observed on these occasions by most females; but women of the lower orders are often seen in the bath without any covering. Some baths are appropriated solely to men; others, only to women; and others, again, to men during the forenoon, and in the afternoon to women. When the bath is appropriated to women, a napkin, or some other piece of drapery, is suspended over the door, to warn men from entering.

Before the time of Moḥammad, there were no public baths in Arabia; and he was so109 prejudiced against them, for the reasons already alluded to, that he at first forbade both men and women from entering them: afterwards, however, he permitted men to do so, if for the sake of cleanliness, on the condition of their having a cloth round the waist; and women also on account of sickness, child-birth, &c., provided they had not convenient places for bathing in their houses. But, notwithstanding this license, it is held to be a characteristic of a virtuous woman, not to go to a bath even with her husband's permission: for the Prophet said, "Whatever woman enters a bath, the devil is with her." As the bath is a resort of the Jinn, prayer should not be performed in it, nor the Ḳur-án recited. The Prophet said, "All the earth is given to me as a place of prayer, and as pure, except the burial-ground and the bath."158 Hence also, when a person is about to enter a bath, he should offer up an ejaculatory prayer for protection against evil spirits; and should place his left foot first over the threshold.—Infidels have often been obliged to distinguish themselves in the bath, by hanging a signet to the neck, or wearing anklets, &c., lest they should receive those marks of respect which should be paid only to believers.159

[admin]

Part 3 of 3

Note 17.—On Meals, and the Manner of Eating. The King (with the sage as his guest) is here described as eating in the presence of his court, agreeably with a common custom of Eastern princes and other great men in the present day; the simple manner in which the meal is served and eaten occasioning but a slight interruption.

The Muslim takes a light breakfast after the morning-prayers, and dinner after the noon-prayers; or a single meal instead of these two, before noon. His principal meal is supper, which is taken after the prayers of sunset. A man of rank or wealth, when he has no guest, generally eats alone; his children eat after him, or with his wife or wives. In all his repasts he is moderate with regard to the quantity which he eats, however numerous the dishes.

In the times to which most of the tales in the present work relate, it appears that the dishes were sometimes, I believe generally, placed upon a round embroidered cloth spread on the floor, and sometimes on a tray, which was either laid on the floor or upon a small stand or stool. The last is the mode now always followed in the houses of the higher and middle classes of the Arabs. The table is usually placed upon a round cloth, spread in the middle of the floor, or in a corner, next two of the deewáns, or low seats which generally extend along three sides of the room. It is composed of a large round tray of silver, or of tinned copper, or of brass, supported by a stool, commonly about fifteen or sixteen inches high, made of wood, and generally inlaid with mother-of-pearl and ebony or other wood, or tortoise-shell, &c. When there are numerous guests, two or more such tables are prepared. The dishes are of silver, or of tinned copper, or of china. Several of these are placed upon the tray; and around them are disposed some round, flat cakes of bread, with spoons of box-wood, ebony, or other material, and, usually, two or three limes, cut in halves, to be squeezed over certain of the dishes. When these preparations have been made, each person who is to partake of the repast receives a napkin; and a servant pours water over his hands. A basin and ewer of either of the metals first mentioned are employed for this purpose; the former has a cover with a receptacle for a piece of soap in its centre, and with numerous perforations through which the water runs during the act of washing, so that it is not seen when the basin is brought from one person to another. It is indispensably requisite to wash at least the right hand before eating with the fingers anything but dry food; and the mouth, also, is often rinsed, the water being taken up into it from the right hand. The company sit upon the floor, or upon cushions, or some of them on the deewán, 110either cross-legged, or with the right knee raised:160 they retain the napkins before mentioned; or a long napkin, sufficient to surround the tray, is placed upon their knees; and each person, before he begins to eat, says, "In the name of God," or "In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful." The master of the house begins first: if he did not so, some persons would suspect that the food was poisoned. The thumb and two fingers of the right hand serve instead of knives and forks; and it is the usual custom for a person to help himself to a portion of the contents of a dish by drawing it towards the edge, or taking it from the edge, with a morsel of bread, which he eats with it: when he takes too large a portion for a single mouthful, he generally places it on his cake of bread. He takes from any dish that pleases him; and sometimes a host hands a delicate morsel with his fingers to one of his guests. It is not allowable to touch food with the left hand (as it is used for unclean purposes), excepting in a few cases, when both hands are required to divide a joint.

Among the more common dishes are the following:—lamb or mutton cut into small pieces, and stewed with various vegetables, and sometimes with peaches, apricots, or jujubes, and sugar; cucumbers or small gourds, or the fruit of the black or white egg-plant, stuffed with rice and minced meat, &c.; vine-leaves or pieces of lettuce-leaf or cabbage-leaf, enclosing a similar composition; small morsels of lamb or mutton, roasted on skewers, and called "kebáb;" fowls simply roasted or boiled, or boned, and stuffed with raisins, pistachio-nuts, crumbled bread, and parsley; and various kinds of pastry, and other sweets. The repast is frequently commenced with soup; and is generally ended with boiled rice, mixed with a little butter, and seasoned with salt and pepper; or after this, is served a water-melon or other fruit, or a bowl of a sweet drink composed of water with raisins, and sometimes other kinds of fruit, boiled in it, and then sugar, and with a little rose-water added to it when cool. The meat, having generally little fat, is cooked with clarified butter, and is so thoroughly done that it is easily divided with the fingers.

A whole lamb, stuffed in the same manner as the fowls above mentioned, is not a very uncommon dish; but one more extraordinary, of which 'Abd-El-Laṭeef gives an account161 as one of the most remarkable that he had seen in Egypt, I am tempted to describe. It was an enormous pie, composed in the following manner:—Thirty pounds of fine flour being kneaded with five pounds and a half of oil of sesame, and divided into two equal portions, one of these was spread upon a round tray of copper, about four spans in diameter. Upon this were placed three lambs, stuffed with pounded meat fried with oil of sesame and ground pistachio-nuts, and various hot aromatics, such as pepper, ginger, cinnamon, mastic, coriander-seed, cumin-seed, cardamom, nut [or nutmeg?], &c. These were then sprinkled with rose-water infused with musk; and upon the lambs, and in the remaining spaces, were placed twenty fowls, twenty chickens, and fifty smaller birds; some of which were baked, and stuffed with eggs; some, stuffed with meat; and some, fried with the juice of sour grapes, or that of limes, or some similar acid. To the above were added a number of small pies; some filled with meat, and others with sugar and sweetmeats; and sometimes, the meat of another lamb, cut into small pieces, and some fried cheese. The whole being piled up in the form of a dome, some rose-water infused with musk and aloes-wood was sprinkled upon it; and the other half of the paste first mentioned was spread over, so as to close the whole: it was then baked, wiped with a sponge, and again sprinkled with rose-water infused with musk.—A dish still more extraordinary will be described in a note on public Royal feasts.

With respect to clean and unclean meats, the Muslim is subject to nearly the same laws as the Jew. Swine's flesh, and blood, are especially forbidden to him; but camel's flesh is allowed. The latter, however, being of a coarse nature, is never eaten when any 111other meat can be obtained, excepting by persons of the lower classes, and by Arabs of the desert. Of fish, almost every kind is eaten (excepting shell-fish), usually fried in oil: of game, little; partly in consequence of frequent doubt whether it have been lawfully killed. The diet consists, in a great measure, of vegetables, and includes a large variety of pastry. A very common kind of pastry is a pancake, which is made very thin, and folded over several times like a napkin; it is saturated with butter, and generally sweetened with honey or sugar; as is also another common kind, which somewhat resembles vermicelli.

The usual beverage at meals is water, which is drunk from cooling, porous, earthen bottles, or from cups of brass or other metal: but in the houses of the wealthy, sherbet is sometimes served instead of this, in covered glass cups, each of which contains about three quarters of a pint. The sherbet is composed of water made very sweet with sugar, or with a hard conserve of violets or roses or mulberries, &c. After every time that a person drinks, he says, "Praise be to God;" and each person of the company says to him, "May it be productive of enjoyment:" to which he replies, "May God cause thee to have enjoyment." The Arabs drink little or no water during a meal, but generally take a large draught immediately after. The repast is quickly finished; and each person, as soon as he has done, says, "Praise be to God," or "Praise be to God, the Lord of all creatures." He then washes, in the same manner as before, but more thoroughly; well lathering his beard, and rinsing his mouth.

Note 18. This mode of shewing honour to a meritorious individual, or distinguished guest, which is at least as ancient as the time of Ahasuerus,162 is still observed in Muslim countries.

Note 19. The influence of the stars upon the dispositions and fortunes of mankind is firmly believed by the generality of Muslims, and is often a matter of consideration previously to the uniting of two persons in marriage; though the absurdity of such an opinion is declared in their law.

Note 20.—On the Distribution of Virtues and Vices among Mankind. I have heard Arabs confess that their nation possesses nine-tenths of the envy that exists among all mankind collectively; but I have not seen any written authority for this. Ibn-'Abbás assigns nine-tenths of the intrigue or artifice that exists in the world to the Copts; nine-tenths of the perfidy, to the Jews; nine-tenths of the stupidity, to the Maghrabees; nine-tenths of the hardness, to the Turks; and nine-tenths of the bravery, to the Arabs. According to Kaạb-El-Aḥbár, reason and sedition are most peculiar to Syria; plenty and degradation, to Egypt; and misery and health, to the Desert. In another account, faith and modesty are said to be most peculiar to El-Yemen; fortitude and sedition, to Syria; magnificence, or pride, and hypocrisy, to El-'Eráḳ; wealth and degradation, to Egypt; and poverty and misery, to the Desert.—Of women, it is said, by Kaạb-El-Aḥbár, that the best in the world (excepting those of the tribe of Ḳureysh mentioned by the Prophet) are those of El-Baṣrah; and the worst in the world, those of Egypt."163

Note 21. In the Cairo edition, King Yoonán is made to say, "I should repent after it, as King Sindibád repented of killing the falcon;"—and thus is introduced an indifferent story in the place of that of the Husband and the Parrot; the former story describing a king as having, under an erroneous idea, killed a falcon that had prevented his drinking poison. The latter story I insert in preference, according to the Calcutta edition of the first two hundred nights, and the edition of Breslau.

Note 22.—On Miraculously-gifted Birds. An Arab historian would make it to appear, that the intelligence and talent ascribed to this parrot are not nearly so wonderful as those which some birds have been known to display. He mentions a parrot which recited the Soorat Yá-Seen (or 36th chapter of the Ḳur-án); and a raven which recited the Soorat es-Sijdeh (or 32nd chapter), and which, on arriving at the place of prostra112tion (or verse which should be recited with prostration), would perform that action, and say, "My body prostrateth itself to Thee, and my heart confideth in Thee." But these are not the most remarkable cases of the kind. He affirms that there was a parrot in Cairo which recited the Ḳur-án from beginning to end. The Báshà, he says, desiring to try its talent, caused a man to recite a chapter of the Ḳur-án in its presence, and to pass irregularly from one chapter to another, with the view of leading the bird into error: but, instead of this being the result, the parrot corrected him!164

Note 23. But a few years ago, it was a common custom for an Arab merchant or shopkeeper of the higher class to wear a sword; and this not only during a journey, but also during his ordinary walks or rides. I have seen many persons of this description so armed, and with a pair of pistols stuck in the girdle; though seldom excepting in the former case. A dagger or case-knife is a weapon now more commonly worn by such persons, both at home and abroad.

Note 24.—On Hunting and Hawking. Hunting and hawking, which were common and favourite diversions of the Arabs, and especially of their kings and other great men, have now fallen into comparative disuse among this people. They are, however, still frequently practised by the Persians, and in a manner the same as they are generally described in the present work. Sir John Malcolm was informed that these sports were nowhere found in greater perfection than in the neighbourhood of Aboo-Shahr, where he witnessed and took part in them: I shall, therefore, here avail myself of his observations on this subject.

"The huntsmen," he says, "proceed to a large plain, or rather desert, near the sea-side: they have hawks and greyhounds; the former carried in the usual manner, on the hand of the huntsman; the latter led in a leash by a horseman, generally the same who carries the hawk. When the antelope is seen, they endeavour to get as near as possible; but the animal, the moment it observes them, goes off at a rate that seems swifter than the wind: the horsemen are instantly at full speed, having slipped the dogs. If it is a single deer, they at the same time fly the hawks; but if a herd, they wait till the dogs have fixed on a particular antelope. The hawks, skimming along near the ground, soon reach the deer, at whose head they pounce in succession, and sometimes with a violence that knocks it over. [They are commonly described as pecking at the poor creature's eyes until they blind it.] At all events, they confuse the animal so much as to stop its speed in such a degree that the dogs can come up with it; and, in an instant, men, horses, dogs, and hawks, surround the unfortunate deer, against which their united efforts have been combined. The part of the chase that surprised me most, was the extraordinary combination of the hawks and the dogs, which throughout seemed to look to each other for aid. This, I was told, was the result of long and skilful training.—The antelope is supposed to be the fleetest quadruped on earth; and the rapidity of the first burst of the chase I have described is astonishing. The run seldom exceeds three or four miles, and often is not half so much. A fawn is an easy victory; the doe often runs a good chase; and the buck is seldom taken. The Arabs are, indeed, afraid to fly their hawks at the latter, as these fine birds, in pouncing, frequently impale themselves on its sharp horns.—The hawks used in this sport are of a species that I have never seen in any other country. This breed, which is called Cherkh, is not large, but of great beauty and symmetry.

"Another mode of running down the antelope is practised here, and still more in the interior of Persia. Persons of the highest rank lead their own greyhounds in a long silken leash, which passes through the collar, and is ready to slip the moment the huntsman chooses. The well-trained dog goes alongside the horse, and keeps clear of him when at full speed, and in all kinds of country. When a herd of antelopes is seen, a consultation is held, and the most experienced determine the point towards which 113they are to be driven. The field (as an English sportsman would term it) then disperse, and, while some drive the herd in the desired direction, those with the dogs take their post on the same line, at the distance of about a mile from each other; one of the worst dogs is then slipped at the herd, and from the moment he singles out an antelope the whole body are in motion. The object of the horsemen who have greyhounds is to intercept its course, and to slip fresh dogs, in succession, at the fatigued animal. In rare instances, the second dog kills. It is generally the third or fourth; and even these, when the deer is strong, and the ground favourable, often fail. This sport, which is very exhilarating, was the delight of the late King of Persia, Ághà Moḥammad Khán, whose taste is inherited by the present sovereign.

"The novelty of these amusements interested me, and I was pleased, on accompanying a party to a village, about twenty miles from Aboo-Shahr, to see a species of hawking peculiar, I believe, to the sandy plains of Persia, on which the Ḥobárà, a noble species of bustard, is found on almost bare plains, where it has no shelter but a small shrub called 'geetuck.' When we went in quest of them, we had a party of about twenty, all well mounted. Two kinds of hawks are necessary for this sport; the first, the Cherkh (the same which is flown at the antelope), attacks them on the ground, but will not follow them on the wing; for this reason, the 'Bhyree,' a hawk well known in India, is flown the moment the Ḥobárà rises.—As we rode along in an extended line, the men who carried the Cherkhs every now and then unhooded and held them up, that they might look over the plain. The first Ḥobárà we found afforded us a proof of the astonishing quickness of sight of one of the hawks: he fluttered to be loose, and the man who held him gave him a whoop as he threw him off his hand, and set off at full speed. We all did the same. At first we only saw our hawk skimming over the plain, but soon perceived, at a distance of more than a mile, the beautiful speckled Ḥobárà, with his head erect and wings outspread, running forward to meet his adversary. The Cherkh made several unsuccessful pounces, which were either evaded or repelled by the beak or wings of the Ḥobárà, which at last found an opportunity of rising, when a Bhyree was instantly flown, and the whole party were again at full gallop. We had a flight of more than a mile, when the Ḥobárà alighted, and was killed by another Cherkh, who attacked him on the ground. This bird weighed ten pounds. We killed several others, but were not always successful, having seen our hawks twice completely beaten, during the two days we followed this fine sport."165

The hunting of the wild ass is another sport of the Persians and Arabs, but one of a more difficult nature. This animal is found in Syria, and in the Nubian deserts, as well as in Arabia and Persia. The more common kinds of game are gazelles, or antelopes, hares, partridges, the species of grouse called "ḳaṭà," quails, wild geese, ducks, &c. Against all of these, the hawk is generally employed, but assisted in the capture of gazelles and hares by dogs. The usual arms of the sportsmen, in the times to which the present work relates, were the bow and arrow, the cross-bow, the spear, the sword, and the mace. When the game is struck down, but not killed, by any weapon, its throat is immediately cut. If merely stunned, and then left to die, its flesh is unlawful food. Some other laws respecting the killing of game have been mentioned in a former note; but one has been there omitted which is worthy of remark, though it is often disregarded; it is, that hunting is allowable only for the purpose of procuring food, or to obtain the skin of an animal, or for the sake of destroying ferocious and dangerous beasts. Amusement is certainly, in general, the main object of the Muslim huntsman, but he does not, with this view, endeavour to prolong the chase; on the contrary, he strives to take the game as quickly as possible; for this purpose, nets are often employed, and the hunting party, forming what is called the circle of the chase (ḥalḳat eṣ-ṣeyd), surround the spot in which the game is found.

114

"On the eastern frontiers of Syria," says Burckhardt, "are several places allotted for the hunting of gazelles: these places are called 'masiade' [more properly, 'maṣyedehs']. An open space in the plain, of about one mile and a half square, is enclosed on three sides by a wall of loose stones, too high for the gazelles to leap over. In different parts of this wall, gaps are purposely left, and near each gap a deep ditch is made on the outside. The enclosed space is situated near some rivulet or spring to which, in summer, the gazelles resort. When the hunting is to begin, many peasants assemble, and watch till they see a herd of gazelles advancing from a distance towards the enclosure, into which they drive them: the gazelles, frightened by the shouts of these people, and the discharge of fire-arms, endeavour to leap over the wall, but can only effect this at the gaps, where they fall into the ditch outside, and are easily taken, sometimes by hundreds. The chief of the herd always leaps first: the others follow him one by one. The gazelles thus taken are immediately killed, and their flesh is sold to the Arabs and neighbouring Felláḥs."166

Note 25. In the Cairo edition, the word "jezeereh" (an island) is erroneously put for "kharábeh" (a ruin).

Note 26. "Ghooleh" is the feminine of "Ghool." The Ghool is a fabulous being, of which some account has been given in No. 21 of the notes to the Introduction.

Note 27. This epithet of the Deity appears to be used in preference to others in this instance, in order to imply that God always decrees what is best for a virtuous man, even when the reverse would seem to us to be the case. He is here described as appointing that the sage should die a violent death; but this death, being unmerited, raised him, according to Mohammadan notions, to the rank of a martyr.

In the edition from which my translation is chiefly made, four poetical quotations are here inserted on the subject of fate, and the inutility of anxious forebodings. The first of these is as follows:—

"O thou who fearest thy fate, be at ease; commit thine affairs unto Him who spread out the earth.
For what is predestined cannot be cancelled; and thou art secure from every thing that is not predestined."

Note 28.—The Fable of the Crocodile. Perhaps the reader may desire to know what is the story which the sage Doobán declined to relate; I will therefore supply the omission as well as my memory will allow me. I have heard this fable differently told by different persons; and it is sometimes spun out to a considerable length; but the principal points of it are these:—A crocodile, having crawled far from the Nile, over a desert tract, found his strength so exhausted by fatigue and thirst, that he despaired of being able to return to the river. While he was in this unhappy state, an Arab with his camel approached him, proceeding in the desired direction; and he appealed to his compassion, entreating that he would bind him on the back of the camel, and so convey him to the Nile, and promising that he would afterwards, in return for this favour, carry him across to the opposite bank. The Arab answered, that he feared the crocodile would, as soon as he was unbound, turn upon him, and devour him; but the monster swore so solemnly that he would gratefully requite the service he requested, that the man was induced to consent; and, making his camel lie down, bound the crocodile firmly upon his back, and brought him to the bank of the river. No sooner, however, was the horrid creature liberated, than, in spite of his vows, he opened his hideous jaws to destroy his benefactor, who, though he eluded this danger, was unable to rescue his camel. At this moment a fox drew near them. The man, accosting this cunning animal, related his tale; and the crocodile urged in his own excuse, that the man had spitefully bound him on the back of the camel in such a manner that he had almost killed him. The fox replied that he could quickly pursue and capture the man, 115but that he must act fairly, and first see the whole transaction repeated before him. The crocodile, assenting, and submitting to have a noose thrown over his jaws, was again bound on the back of the camel, and taken to the place whence he was brought; and as soon as this was done, the man, by the direction of the fox, holding with one hand the halter of his camel, with the other cut the ropes which secured his burden, and hasted away with his beast, leaving the ungrateful and treacherous monster in the same hopeless state in which he had found him.

Note 29. This comparison is perfectly just. My first visit to Egypt was not too late for me to witness such a scene as that which is here alluded to; but now, throughout the Turkish dominions, the officers of government are obliged, more or less, to assimilate their style of dress to that which commonly prevails in Europe; gaudy colours are out of fashion among them, and silk embroidery is generally preferred to gold: in Egypt, however, the dress worn by this class of persons has not been so much altered as in Turkey, still retaining an Oriental character, though wanting the shawl which was wound round the red cap, and formed the turban; while the dress worn by other classes has undergone no change. [This note still applies to the inhabitants of Egypt, with the exception of the Turks, who have very generally adopted the modern Turkish, or semi-European dress.—Ed.]

Note 30. This story of the head speaking after it was cut off is not without a parallel in the writings of Arab historians. The head of Sa'eed, the son of Jubeyr, is said to have uttered the words, "There is no deity but God," after it had been severed from his body by order of El-Ḥajjáj, who is related to have killed a hundred and twenty thousand persons of note, besides those whom he slew in war.

Note 31. I do not remember to have read or heard the story of Umámeh and 'Átikeh, who, as their names import, were two females.

Note 32. The words here quoted are part of the 36th verse of the 17th chapter of the Ḳur-án.

Note 33. The title of "Sulṭán" is higher than that of "Melik" (or King): a Sulṭán, properly speaking, being a monarch who has kings or viceroys under his authority.

Note 34.—On Koḥl, and the mode of applying it. Koḥl is a black powder, with which most of the Arab, and many other, women blacken the edges of the eyelids. The most common kind is the smoke-black which is produced by burning a kind of frankincense. An inferior kind is the smoke-black produced by burning the shells of almonds. These are believed to be beneficial to the eyes; but are generally used merely for the sake of ornament. Among other kinds which are particularly employed for their beneficial effect upon the eye are several ores of lead, reduced to a fine powder. Antimony is said to have been, in former times, the most esteemed kind of koḥl. The powder is applied by means of a small probe of wood, ivory, or silver, the end of which is moistened, and then dipped in the powder, and drawn along the edges of the eyelids.167

Note 35. The Koofeeyeh is described in a great Arabic Lexicon (Táj el-'Aroos) as "a thing worn on the head; so called because of its roundness:" and this is the only description of it that I have been able to find. I was told in Cairo, that "koofeeyeh" is the correct appellation of the head-kerchief commonly called "keffeeyeh:" but this is a mistake. The latter is a square kerchief, which is worn on the head, measuring about a yard in each direction, and of various colours, generally a dull, brownish red, bright green, and yellow, composing broad and narrow stripes, and having a deep fringe of strings and tassels along two opposite edges. The most common kind is entirely of cotton; another, of cotton interwoven with silk; and a third, of silk interwoven with gold. It is now chiefly worn by the Wahhábees and several tribes of Bedawees; but 116the former wear only the first kind, as they hold articles of dress composed wholly or partly of silk or gold to be unlawful. In former times it was in common use among the inhabitants of the towns. It is mostly worn by men, and is doubled diagonally, and placed over the cap in such a manner that the two corners which are folded together hang down the back; and the other two corners, in front. A piece of woollen rope, or a strip of rag, or a turban, is generally wound round it; and the corners, or those only which usually hang down in front, are sometimes turned up, and tucked within the upper edge of the turban. The inhabitants of the towns usually wear the turban over the keffeeyeh. Burckhardt, who calls this head-kerchief "keffie," mentions, that the Bedawees of Mekkeh and El-Yemen tie over it, instead of the woollen rope which is used by the Northern Bedawees, "a circle made of wax, tar, and butter, strongly kneaded together: this," he adds, "is pressed down to the middle of the head, and looks like the airy crown of a saint. It is about the thickness of a finger; and they take it off very frequently to press it between their hands, so that its shape may be preserved."168 The better kinds of keffeeyeh above mentioned are worn by some of the Turks, but not in the Arab manner; being wound tight round the cap.

Note 36.—Anecdote of a Miraculous Fish. This story of the miraculous fish reminds me of one of a similar kind which is related as authentic. A certain just judge of the Israelites, in the time of Solomon, had a wife who, every time that she brought him his food, used to ejaculate a prayer that disgrace might befall every unfaithful wife. One day, this woman having placed before her husband a fried fish, and repeated her usual ejaculation, the fish leaped from the dish, and fell upon the floor. This happened three times; and, in consequence of a suspicion expressed by a devotee, who was consulted respecting the meaning of this strange event, the judge discovered that a supposed maid, whom he had purchased as a slave, was a disguised man.169

Note 37. This comparison is not intended to be understood in its literal sense, for the smallest of the tribe of 'Ád is said to have been sixty cubits high: the largest, a hundred! The tribe of 'Ád were a race of ancient Arabs, who, according to the Ḳur-án and Arab historians, were destroyed by a suffocating wind, for their infidelity, after their rejection of the admonitions of the prophet Hood.

Note 38. The Arabs generally calculate distances by time. The average distance of a day's journey is from twenty to twenty-five miles; the former being the usual rate of caravan-travelling.

Note 39.—On the Privacy of Arab Dwellings. In a palace, or large house, there is generally a wide bench of stone, or a wooden couch, within the outer door, for the accommodation of the door-keeper and other servants. The entrance-passage leads to an open court, and, for the sake of preventing persons at the entrance, or a little within it, from seeing into the court, it usually has two turnings. We may, therefore, understand the motive of the King in seating himself in the place here described to have been a desire that he might not, if discovered, be supposed to be prying impertinently into the interior of the palace. Respect for the privacy of another's house is a point that is deemed of so much importance that it is insisted upon in the Ḳur-án, in these words:—"O ye who have become believers, enter not any houses, besides your own houses, until ye shall have asked leave, and saluted their inhabitants; this will be better for you: peradventure ye will be admonished. And if ye find not in them any person, enter them not, until leave be granted you; and if it be said unto you, Return, then do ye return; this will be more decent for you; and God knoweth what ye do. But it shall be no crime in you that ye enter uninhabited houses wherein ye may find a convenience.170 When a visiter finds the door open, and no servant below, he usually claps 117his hands as a signal for some person to come to him; striking the palm of his left hand with the fingers of the right: and even when leave has been granted him to enter, it is customary for him, when he has to ascend to an upper apartment, to repeat several times some ejaculation, such as "Permission!" or, "O Protector!" (that is, "O protecting God!"), as he goes up, in order that any female of the family, who may chance to be in the way, may have notice of his approach, and either retire or veil herself. Sometimes the servant who precedes him does this in his stead.

Note 40. These verses are translated from the Calcutta edition of the first two hundred nights, as more apposite than those which are inserted in their place in the edition of Cairo.

Note 41. That the reader may not form wrong conceptions of the characters of many persons portrayed in this work, it is necessary to observe, that weeping is not regarded by the Arabs as an evidence of an effeminate disposition, or inconsistent with even a heroic mind; though the Muslims in general are remarkable for the calmness with which they endure the heaviest afflictions.

Note 42. It is, perhaps, unnecessary to mention, that it is a common custom of the Orientals, as of other natives of warm climates, to take a nap in the afternoon. A tradesman is not unfrequently seen enjoying this luxury in his shop, and seldom, excepting in this case, is it considered allowable to wake a person.

Note 43.—Description of Arab Fans. The kind of fan most commonly used by the Arabs has the form of a small flag. The flap, which is about six or seven inches in width, and somewhat more in length, is composed of split palm-leaves of various colours, or some plain and others coloured, neatly plaited or woven together. The handle is a piece of palm-stick, about twice the length of the flap. This fan is used by men as well as women, and for the double purpose of moderating the heat and repelling the flies, which, in warm weather, are excessively annoying. It is more effective than the ordinary European fan, and requires less exertion. Arabian fans of the kind here described, brought from Mekkeh to Cairo as articles of merchandise, may be purchased in the latter city for a sum less than a penny each; they are mostly made in the H[.]ejáz. Another kind of fan, generally composed of black ostrich-feathers, of large dimensions, and ornamented with a small piece of looking-glass on the lower part of the front, is often used by the Arabs. A kind of fly-whisk made of palm-leaves is also in very general use. A servant or slave is often employed to wave it over the master or mistress during a meal or an afternoon nap.

Note 44. Mes'oodeh is the feminine of Mes'ood, a name before explained, as signifying "happy," or "made happy."

Note 45. The word which I have here rendered "wine" (namely, "sharáb") is applied to any drink, and particularly to a sweet beverage; but, in the present case, the context shews that its signification is that which I have given it. The description of a carousal in the next chapter will present a more fit occasion for my considering at large the custom of drinking wine as existing among the Arabs.

Note 46.—On the Use of Hemp to induce Intoxication. The name of "benj," or "beng," is now, and, I believe, generally, given to henbane; but El-Ḳazweenee states that the leaves of the garden hemp (ḳinneb bustánee, or shahdánaj,) are the benj which, when eaten, disorders the reason. This is an important confirmation of De Sacy's opinion respecting the derivation of the appellation of "Assassins" from Ḥashshásheen (hemp-eaters, or persons who intoxicate themselves with hemp); as the sect which we call "Assassins" are expressly said by the Arabs to have made frequent use of benj.171 118To this subject I shall have occasion to revert. I need only add here, that the custom of using benj, and other narcotics, for purposes similar to that described in this tale, is said to be not very unfrequently practised in the present day; but as many Arab husbands are extremely suspicious of the character of women in general, perhaps there is but little ground for this assertion.

Note 47. Most Eastern cities and towns are partly or wholly surrounded by mounds of rubbish, close to the walls; and upon these mounds are thrown the carcasses of camels, horses, and other beasts, to be devoured by dogs and vultures. Immense mounds of this unsightly description entirely surrounded the city of Cairo; but those which extended along its western side, and, in a great measure, screened it from the view of persons approaching from the Nile, have lately been removed by order of the present Báshà of Egypt. [This note was written in the year 1838, in the time of Moḥammad 'Alee.—Ed.]

Note 48. "Ḳubbeh" generally signifies either a dome or a cupola, or a building or apartment surmounted by a dome. In the present instance it is to be understood in the latter sense. It is also applied to a closet, and to a tent.

Note 49. "Ḳáf" is generally to be understood, as it is in the present case; to signify the chain of mountains believed, by the Muslims, to encircle our earth, as mentioned in a former note. It is also the name of the chain of Caucasus, and hence it has been supposed that the fable respecting the mountains before mentioned, originated from an early idea that the chain of Caucasus was the limit of the habitable earth; but it is possible that the latter mountains may have derived their name from an imaginary resemblance to the former.

Note 50. Rats, though unlawful food to the Muslim, are occasionally eaten by many of the peasants of the province of Lower Egypt called El-Boḥeyreh, on the west of the western branch of the Nile. The extraordinary abundance of these animals, and mice, throughout Egypt, gave rise to an absurd fable, which is related by Diodorus Siculus172 as a matter worthy of serious consideration:—that these creatures are generated from the alluvial soil deposited by the Nile. The inundation drives many of them from the fields to the houses and deserts, and destroys the rest; but soon after the waters have subsided, vast numbers of them are seen again, taking refuge in the deep clefts of the parched soil.

Note 51.—On the Beverage called Booẓah. Booẓah, or boozeh, is a favourite beverage of the boatmen, and other persons of the lower class, in Egypt; and more especially of the Nubians and negroes; as it was, according to Herodotus173 and other writers, of the ancient Egyptians. It is an intoxicating liquor, a kind of beer, most commonly prepared from barley-bread, crumbled, mixed with water, strained, and left to ferment. It is also prepared from wheat and from millet in the same manner. The account of Herodotus has been confirmed by the discovery of large jars, containing the dregs of the barley-beer in ancient tombs at Thebes.

Note 52.—On the Apparel, &c., of Mourning. The wearing of mourning appears to have been a custom of both sexes among the Arabs in earlier times, for the black clothing which distinguished the 'Abbásee Khaleefehs and their officers was originally assumed in testimony of grief for the death of the Imám Ibráheem Ibn-Moḥammad. It has, however, ceased to be worn by men, as indicating a want of resignation to the decrees of Providence, and is only assumed by women on the occasion of the death of a husband or near relation, and not for an elderly person. In the former cases they dye their shirts, head-veils, face-veils, and handkerchiefs, of a blue or almost black colour, with indigo; and sometimes, with the same dye, stain their hands and arms as high as the elbows, and smear the walls of their apartments. They generally abstain from 119wearing any article of dress of a bright colour, leave their hair unbraided, and deck themselves with few or no ornaments. They also cease to make use of perfumes, koḥl, and ḥennà; and often turn upside-down the carpets, mats, cushions, and coverings of the deewáns.

Note 53. "Houses of Lamentations," erected in burial-grounds for the accommodation of ladies on the occasions of their visiting the tombs of their relations, have been mentioned in a former note respecting the two grand annual festivals.

Note 54. The kind of tomb here alluded to is generally a square building crowned by a dome.

Note 55. This passage deserves particular notice, as being one of those which assist us to form some opinion respecting the period when the present work, in the states in which it is known to us, was composed or compiled or remodelled. It is the same in all the copies of the original work that I have seen, and bears strong evidence of having been written subsequently to the commencement of the eighth century of the Flight, or fourteenth of our era, at which period, it appears, the Christians and Jews were first compelled to distinguish themselves by wearing, respectively, blue and yellow turbans, in accordance with an order issued by the Sultán of Egypt, Moḥammad Ibn-Kala-oon.174 Thus the white turban became peculiar to the Muslims.—An eminent German critic has been unfortunate in selecting the incident of the four fish as affording an argument in favour of his opinion that the Tales of a Thousand and One Nights are of Indian origin, on the mere ground that the same word (varna) is used in Sanscrit to signify both "colour" and "caste."

Note 56. The Muslims often implore the intercession of their prophet, and of various members of his family and other holy persons, though their ordinary prayers are addressed solely to God. The regard which they pay to their reputed saints, both living and deceased, as mediators, is one of the heresies which the Wahhábees most vehemently condemn.

Note 57. This verse, translated from my usual prototype, the Cairo edition, is there followed by another, which I omit as being inapposite.

Note 58. In the first of the notes to the Introduction, I have mentioned that it is a general custom of the Muslims to repeat this phrase, "In the name of God!" on commencing every lawful action that is of any importance; it is, therefore, here employed, as it is in many similar cases, to express a readiness to do what is commanded or requested; and is equivalent to saying, "I this instant begin to execute thy orders."

Note 59. The condition and offices of memlooks, who are male white slaves, have been mentioned in the thirteenth note to the first chapter.

Note 60. Eastern histories present numerous instances of marriages as unequal as those here related; the reader, therefore, must not regard this part of the story as inconsistent.

150 Sale's Korán, note to chap. xxxviii.

151 El-Maḳreezee's "Khiṭaṭ;" chapter entitled "Khizánet el-Kisawát."

152 Fakhr-ed-Deen, in De Sacy's Chrestomathie Arabe, vol. i. p. 32 of the Arabic text, 2nd ed.

153 Idem, p. 4 of the Arabic text.

154 D'Herbelot, art. "Bokhteri."

155 Ḥalbet el-Kumeyt, chapter the seventh (MS. in my possession).

156 Ḥalbet el-Kumeyt, chapter the eighth.

157 Idem, chapter the seventh.

158 A recent traveller has questioned Mr. Lane's authority, in the "Modern Egyptians," for the remark that Muslims should not pray in the bath. A reference to any well-known collection of traditions of the Prophet will, however, prove, by many sayings besides that quoted above, that Mr. Lane is in this matter strictly accurate—Ed.

159 Nuzhet el-Mutaämmil, &c., section the seventh.

160 A pious Muslim generally sits at his meals with the right knee raised, after the example of the Prophet, who adopted this custom in order to avoid too comfortable a posture in eating, as tempting to unnecessary gratification.—Ed.

161 Pp. 180—182, ed. Oxon. 1800.

162 See Esther vi. 8 and 9.

163 El-Maḳreezee's "Khiṭaṭ," and El-Is-ḥáḳee.

164 El-Is-ḥáḳee; reign of the Khaleefeh El-Musta'een, the son of El-Moạtaṣim.

165Sketches of Persia, vol. i. ch. v. [Mr. Lane has written some of the Oriental words in this extract according to his own mode.—Ed.]

166 Notes on the Bedouins and Wahábys, vol. i. pp. 220 et seq. 8vo. ed.

167 A more full account of this custom is given in my work on the Modern Egyptians, vol. i. ch. l.

168 Notes on the Bedouins and Wahábys, vol. i. p. 232, 8vo. ed.

169 Kitáb el-'Onwán fee Mekáïd en-Niswán.

170 Ch. xxiv. vv. 27-29.

171 See "Modern Egyptians," vol. ii., close of chap, ix.—Since this was written, I have found that El-Idreesee applies the term "Ḥasheesheeyeh," which is exactly synonymous with "Ḥashshásheen," to the "Assassins:" this, therefore, decides the question.

172 Lib. i. cap. 10.

173 Lib. ii. cap. 77.

174 El-Maḳreezee and El-Is-ḥáḳee.

[admin]

Part 1 of 2

Arthashastra
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 6/13/21

-- Kautilya's Arthashastra, translated by R. Shamasastry

-- Chanakya, by Wikipedia

Arthashastra
Author Kautilya
Country India
Language Sanskrit
Subject Statecraft, Economic policy and Military strategy
Publication date 3rd century BCE
Text Arthashastra at Wikisource

The Arthaśāstra (Sanskrit: अर्थशास्त्र, IAST: Arthaśāstra) is an ancient Indian Sanskrit treatise on statecraft, economic policy and military strategy.[1][2][3] Kautilya, also identified as Vishnugupta and Chanakya, is traditionally credited as the author of the text.[4][5] The latter was a scholar at Takshashila, the teacher and guardian of Emperor Chandragupta Maurya.[6] Some scholars believe them to be the same person,[7] while most have questioned this identification.[8][9] The text is likely to be the work of several authors over centuries.[10] Composed, expanded and redacted between the 2nd century BCE and 3rd century CE,[11] the Arthashastra was influential until the 12th century, when it disappeared. It was rediscovered in 1905 by R. Shamasastry, who published it in 1909.[12] The first English translation was published in 1915.[13]

The title Arthashastra is often translated to "the science of wealth" (अर्थ),[14][15] but the book has a broader scope.[16] It includes books on the nature of government, law, civil and criminal court systems, ethics, economics, markets and trade, the methods for screening ministers, diplomacy, theories on war, nature of peace, and the duties and obligations of a king.[17][18][19] The text incorporates Hindu philosophy,[20] includes ancient economic and cultural details on agriculture, mineralogy, mining and metals, animal husbandry, medicine, forests and wildlife.[21]

The Arthashastra explores issues of social welfare, the collective ethics that hold a society together, advising the king that in times and in areas devastated by famine, epidemic and such acts of nature, or by war, he should initiate public projects such as creating irrigation waterways and building forts around major strategic holdings and towns and exempt taxes on those affected.[22] The text was influential on other Hindu texts that followed, such as the sections on kings, governance and legal procedures included in Manusmriti.[23][24]

History of the manuscripts

The text was considered lost by colonial era scholars, until a manuscript was discovered in 1905.[25] A copy of the Arthashastra in Sanskrit, written on palm leaves, was presented by a Tamil Brahmin from Tanjore to the newly opened Mysore Oriental Library headed by Benjamin Lewis Rice.[12] The text was identified by the librarian Rudrapatna Shamasastry as the Arthashastra. During 1905–1909, Shamasastry published English translations of the text in installments, in journals Indian Antiquary and Mysore Review.[25][26]

Two books are attributed to Chanakya: Arthashastra, and Chanakya Niti, also known as Chanakya Neeti-shastra. The Arthashastra was discovered in 1905 by librarian Rudrapatna Shamasastry in an uncatalogued group of ancient palm-leaf manuscripts donated by an unknown pandit to the Oriental Research Institute Mysore.

Formerly known as the Oriental Library, the Oriental Research Institute (ORI) at Mysore, India, is a research institute which collects, exhibits, edits, and publishes rare manuscripts written in various scripts like Devanagari (Sanskrit), Brahmic (Kannada), Nandinagari (Sanskrit), Grantha, Malayalam, Tigalari, etc.

The Oriental Library was started in 1891 under the patronage of Maharaja Chamarajendra Wadiyar X... It was a part of the Department of Education until 1916, in which year it became part of the newly established University of Mysore. The Oriental Library was renamed as the Oriental Research Institute in 1943.

From the year 1893 to date the ORI has published nearly two hundred titles. The library features rare collections such as the Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics by James Hastings, A Vedic Concordance by Maurice Bloomfield, and critical editions of the Ramayana and Mahabharata. It was the first public library in Mysore city for research and editing of manuscripts. The prime focus was on Indology. The institute publishes an annual journal called Mysore Orientalist. Its most famous publications include Kautilya's Arthashastra, written in the 4th century BC, edited by Dr. R. Shamashastri, which brought international fame to the institute when published in 1909.

One day a man from Tanjore handed over a manuscript of Arthashastra written on dried palm leaves to Dr Rudrapatnam Shamashastry, the librarian of Mysore Government Oriental Library now ORI. Shamashastry's job was to look after the library's ancient manuscripts. He had never seen anything like these palm leaves before. Here was a book that would revolutionise the knowledge of India's great past. This palm leaf manuscript is preserved in the library, now named Oriental Research Institute. The pages of the book are filled with 1500-year-old Grantha script. It looks like as if they have been printed but the words have been inscribed by hand. Other copies of Arthashastra were later discovered later in other parts of India.[1]

In this context, my mind remembering a day which was the His Excellency Krishnaraja Wodeyar went to Germany at the time of Dr. R. Shamashastry were working as a curator of Oriental Library, Mysore, The King sat in a meeting held in Germany and introduced himself as the King of Mysore State. Immediately a man stood up and asked, "Are you from our Dr. R. Shamashastry's Mysore?" Because the Arthashastra edited by him took a fame worldwide. The King wondered and came back to Mysore immediately to see Dr. R. Shamashastry, and also Dr. R. Shamashastry appointed as Asthana Vidwan. Sritattvanidhi, is a compilation of slokas by Krishnaraja Wodeyar III. Three edited manuscripts Navaratnamani-mahatmyam (a work on gemology), Tantrasara-sangraha (a work on sculptures and architecture), and Vaidashastra-dipika (an ayurvedic text), Rasa-kaumudi (on mercurial medicine) all of them with English and Kannada translation, are already in advanced stages of printing.

Oriental Research Institute

The ORI houses over 45,000 Palm leaf manuscript bundles and the 75,000 works on those leaves. The manuscripts are palm leaves cut to a standard size of 150 by 35 mm (5.9 by 1.4 in). Brittle palm leaves are sometimes softened by scrubbing a paste made of ragi and then used by the ancients for writing, similar to the use of papyrus in ancient Egypt. Manuscripts are organic materials that run the risk of decay and are prone to be destroyed by silverfish. To preserve them the ORI applies lemon grass oil on the manuscripts which acts like a pesticide. The lemon grass oil also injects natural fluidity into the brittle palm leaves and the hydrophobic nature of the oil keeps the manuscripts dry so that the text is not lost to decay due to humidity.

The conventional method followed at the ORI was to preserve manuscripts by capturing them in microfilm, which then necessitated the use of a microfilm reader for viewing or studying. Once the ORI has digitized the manuscripts, the text can be viewed and manipulated by a computer. Software is then used to put together disjointed pieces of manuscripts and to correct or fill in any missing text. In this manner, the manuscripts are restored and enhanced. The original palm leaf manuscripts are also on reference at the ORI for those interested.

-- Oriental Research Institute Mysore, by Wikipedia

The Arthashastra, which discusses monetary and fiscal policies, welfare, international relations, and war strategies in detail. The text also outlines the duties of a ruler. Some scholars believe that Arthashastra is actually a compilation of a number of earlier texts written by various authors, and Chanakya might have been one of these authors (see above).[9]
• Chanakya Niti, which is a collection of aphorisms, said to be selected by Chanakya from the various shastras.

-- Chanakya, by Wikipedia

During 1923–1924, Julius Jolly and Richard Schmidt published a new edition of the text, which was based on a Malayalam script manuscript in the Bavarian State Library. In the 1950s, fragmented sections of a north Indian version of Arthashastra were discovered in form of a Devanagari manuscript in a Jain library in Patan, Gujarat. A new edition based on this manuscript was published by Muni Jina Vijay in 1959. In 1960, R. P. Kangle published a critical edition of the text, based on all the available manuscripts.[26] Numerous translations and interpretations of the text have been published since then.[25]

The text is an ancient treatise written in 1st millennium BCE Sanskrit, coded, dense and can be interpreted in many ways, with English and Sanskrit being grammatically and syntactically different languages.[27] It has been called, by Patrick Olivelle—whose translation was published in 2013 by Oxford University Press—as the "most difficult translation project I have ever undertaken", parts of the text are still opaque after a century of modern scholarship, and the translation of Kautilya's masterpiece [of] intrigue and political text remains unsatisfactory.[27]

Authorship, date of writing, and structure

The authorship and date of writing are unknown, and there is evidence that the surviving manuscripts are not original and have been modified in their history but were most likely completed in the available form between 2nd-century BCE to 3rd-century CE.[28] Olivelle states that the surviving manuscripts of the Arthashastra are the product of a transmission that has involved at least three major overlapping divisions or layers, which together consist of 15 books, 150 chapters and 180 topics.[29] The first chapter of the first book is an ancient table of contents, while the last chapter of the last book is a short 73 verse epilogue asserting that all thirty two Yukti – elements of correct reasoning methods – were deployed to create the text.[29]

Avoid War
One can lose a war as easily as one can win.
War is inherently unpredictable.
War is also expensive. Avoid war.
Try Upaya (four strategies).
Then Sadgunya (six forms of non-war pressure).
Understand the opponent and seek to outwit him.
When everything fails, resort to military force.

—Arthashastra Books 2.10, 6-7, 10[30]

A notable structure of the treatise is that while all chapters are primarily prose, each transitions into a poetic verse towards its end, as a marker, a style that is found in many ancient Hindu Sanskrit texts where the changing poetic meter or style of writing is used as a syntax code to silently signal that the chapter or section is ending.[29] All 150 chapters of the text also end with a colophon stating the title of the book it belongs in, the topics contained in that book (like an index), the total number of titles in the book and the books in the text.[29] Finally, the Arthashastra text numbers it 180 topics consecutively, and does not restart from one when a new chapter or a new book starts.[29]

The division into 15, 150 and 180 of books, chapters and topics respectively was probably not accidental, states Olivelle, because ancient authors of major Hindu texts favor certain numbers, such as 18 Parvas in the epic Mahabharata.[31] The largest book is the second, with 1,285 sentences, while the smallest is eleventh, with 56 sentences. The entire book has about 5,300 sentences on politics, governance, welfare, economics, protecting key officials and king, gathering intelligence about hostile states, forming strategic alliances, and conduct of war, exclusive of its table of contents and the last epilogue-style book.[31]

Authorship

Stylistic differences within some sections of the surviving manuscripts suggest that it likely includes the work of several authors over the centuries. There is no doubt, states Olivelle, that "revisions, errors, additions and perhaps even subtractions have occurred" in Arthashastra since its final redaction in 300 CE or earlier.[32]

Three names for the text's author are used in various historical sources:

Kauṭilya or Kauṭalya

The text identifies its author by the name "Kauṭilya" or its variant "Kauṭalya": both spellings appear in manuscripts, commentaries, and references in other ancient texts; it is not certain which one of these is the original spelling of the author's name.[33] This person was probably the author of the original recension of Arthashastra: this recension must have been based on works by earlier writers, as suggested by the Arthashastra's opening verse, which states that its author consulted the so-called "Arthashastras" to compose a new treatise.[34]
Vishakhadatta's Mudrarakshasa refers to Kauṭilya as kutila-mati ("crafty-minded"), which has led to suggestions that the word "Kauṭilya" is derived from kutila, the Sanskrit word for "crafty". However, such a derivation is grammatically impossible, and Vishkhadatta's usage is simply a pun.[35] The word "Kauṭilya" or "Kauṭalya" appears to be the name of a gotra (lineage), and is used in this sense in the later literature and inscriptions.[33]

Vishnugupta

A verse at the end of the text identifies its author as "Vishnugupta" (Viṣṇugupta), stating that Vishnugupta himself composed both the text and its commentary, after noticing "many errors committed by commentators on treatises".[36] R. P. Kangle theorized that Vishnugupta was the personal name of the author while Chanakya (Cāṇakya) was the name of his gotra. Others, such as Thomas Burrow and Patrick Olivelle, point out that none of the earliest sources that refer to Chanakya mention the name "Vishnugupta". According to these scholars, "Vishnugupta" may have been the personal name of the author whose gotra name was "Kautilya": this person, however, was different from Chanakya. Historian K C Ojha theorizes that Vishnugupta was the redactor of the final recension of the text.[37]

One of the earliest Sanskrit literatures to identify Chanakya with Vishnugupta explicitly was the Panchatantra.

The Panchatantra is an ancient Indian collection of interrelated animal fables...The text's author has been attributed to Vishnu Sharma [Vishnugupta Sharma] in some recensions and Vasubhaga in others, both of which may be pen names....

One version reached Europe in the 11th century. To quote Edgerton (1924): "most of the stories contained in it have "gone down" into the folklore of the story-loving Hindus."...

Most European versions of the text are derivative works of the 12th-century Hebrew version of Panchatantra by Rabbi Joel. In Germany, its translation in 1480 by Anton von Pforr has been widely read.

The prelude section of the Panchatantra identifies an octogenarian Brahmin named Vishnusharma (IAST: Viṣṇuśarman) as its author. He is stated to be teaching the principles of good government to three princes of Amarasakti. It is unclear, states Patrick Olivelle, a professor of Sanskrit and Indian religions, if Vishnusharma was a real person or himself a literary invention. Some South Indian recensions of the text, as well as Southeast Asian versions of Panchatantra attribute the text to Vasubhaga, states Olivelle. Based on the content and mention of the same name in other texts dated to ancient and medieval era centuries, most scholars agree that Vishnusharma is a fictitious name....

Though the text is now known as Panchatantra, the title found in old manuscript versions varies regionally, and includes names such as Tantrakhyayika, Panchakhyanaka, Panchakhyana and Tantropakhyana. The suffix akhyayika and akhyanaka mean "little story" or "little story book" in Sanskrit.

The text was translated into Pahlavi in 550 CE, which forms the latest limit of the text's existence. The earliest limit is uncertain. It quotes identical verses from Arthasastra, which is broadly accepted to have been completed by the early centuries of the common era...

-- Panchatantra, by Wikipedia

K. C. Ojha proposes that the traditional identification of Vishnugupta with Kauṭilya was caused by a confusion of the text's editor and its originator. He suggests that Vishnugupta was a redactor of the original work of Kauṭilya. Thomas Burrow suggests that Chanakya and Kauṭilya may have been two different people.

-- Chanakya, by Wikipedia

Identity

He is generally called Chanakya, but in his capacity as author of the Arthaśhāstra, is generally referred to as Kautilya. The Arthaśhāstra identifies its author by the name Kautilya, except for one verse which refers to him by the name Vishnugupta. One of the earliest Sanskrit literary texts to explicitly identify Chanakya with Vishnugupta was Vishnu Sarma's Panchatantra in the third century B.C.E.

A prior time-limit for the Tantrakhyayika may be determined by a reference which it makes to Chanakya. Its author, at stanza 2, pays homage to six authors of hand-books for princes, among them to "Chanakya, the great," whose Artha-sastra, very recently found and published, was known to the author of our text and used by him. Chanakya, otherwise known as Kautilya or Vishnugupta, was the prime-minister of the first king of the Mauryan dynasty, king Chandragupta or [x] of Pataliputra or [x] 821-297 B.C., at whose court Megasthenes lived as ambassador of Seleukos Nikator. The earliest time-limit for the Tantrakhyayika would accordingly be about 800 b.c.

-- The Panchatantra: A Collection of Ancient Hindu Tales In Its Oldest Recension, The Kashmirian, Entitled Tantrakhyayika, by Dr. Johannes Hertel, 1915

Not every historian accepts that Kautilya, Chanakya, and Vishnugupta are the same person. K.C. Ojha suggests that Viṣṇugupta was a redactor of the original work of Kauṭilya, and that the traditional identification of Viṣṇugupta with Kauṭilya was caused by a confusion of the editor with the original author. Thomas Burrow suggests that Cāṇakya and Kauṭilya may have been two different people. The date of origin of the Arthahastra remains problematic, with suggested dates ranging from the fourth century B.C.E. to the third century C.E. [700 years] Most authorities agree that the essence of the book was originally written during the early Mauryan Period (321–296 B.C.E.), but that much of the existing text is post-Mauryan.

-- Kautilya, by New World Encyclopedia[/quote]

Chanakya

The penultimate paragraph of the Arthashastra states that the treatise was authored by the person who rescued the country from the Nanda kings, although it does not explicitly name this person.[38] The Maurya prime minister Chanakya played a pivotal role in the overthrow of the Nanda dynasty. Several later texts identify Chanakya with Kautilya or Vishnugupta: Among the earliest sources, Mudrarakshasa is the only one that uses all three names - Kauṭilya, Vishnugupta, and Chanakya - to refer to the same person. Other early sources use the name Chanakya (e.g. Panchatantra), Vishnugupta (e.g. Kamandaka's Nitisara), both Chanakya and Vishnugupta (Dandin's Dashakumaracharita), or Kautilya (e.g. Bana's Kadambari).[35] The Puranas (Vishnu, Vayu, and Matsya) are the only among the ancient texts that use the name "Kautilya" (instead of the more common "Chanakya") to describe the Maurya prime minister.[35]

Scholars such as R. P. Kangle theorize that the text was authored by the Maurya prime minister Chanakya.[39] Others, such as Olivelle and Thomas Trautmann, argue that this verse is a later addition, and that the identification of Chanakya and Kautilya is a relatively later development that occurred during the Gupta period. Trautmann points out that none of the earlier sources that refer to Chanakya mention his authorship of the Arthashastra.[39] Olivelle proposes that in an attempt to present the Guptas as the legitimate successors of the Mauryas, the author of political treatise followed by the Guptas was identified with the Maurya prime minister.[40]

Chronology

Olivelle states that the oldest layer of text, the "sources of the Kauṭilya", dates from the period 150 BCE – 50 CE. The next phase of the work's evolution, the "Kauṭilya Recension", can be dated to the period 50–125 CE. Finally, the "Śāstric Redaction" (i.e., the text as we have it today) is dated period 175–300 CE.[28]

The Arthasastra is mentioned and dozens of its verses have been found on fragments of manuscript treatises buried in ancient Buddhist monasteries of northwest China, Afghanistan and northwest Pakistan. This includes the Spitzer Manuscript (c. 200 CE) discovered near Kizil in China and the birch bark scrolls now a part of the Bajaur Collection (1st to 2nd century CE) discovered in the ruins of a Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Buddhist site in 1999, state Harry Falk and Ingo Strauch.[41]

The Spitzer Manuscript is the oldest surviving philosophical manuscript in Sanskrit, and possibly the oldest Sanskrit manuscript of any type related to Buddhism and Hinduism discovered so far. The Spitzer Manuscript was found in 1906 in the form of a pile of more than 1,000 palm leaf fragments in the Ming-oi, Kizil Caves, China during the third Turfan expedition headed by Albert Grünwedel. The calibrated age of the manuscript by Carbon-14 technique is 130 CE (80–230 CE). According to the Indologist Eli Franco, the palaeographical features suggest a date closer to 200–230 CE....

The manuscript fragments are actually copies of a collection of older Buddhist and Hindu treatises....

In addition to the Mahabharata, the Spitzer Manuscript refers to or includes sections from the Arthashastra and the Manusmriti (juridical chapters)...

The decayed Spitzer Manuscript does not survive in the form it was discovered in 1906, and portions of it were likely destroyed during the World War II. Of what survives, predominant portions are now at the Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin (Berlin State Library) in Germany and cataloged as SHT 810. Some surviving fragments are now at the British Library, and are cataloged as Or 15005/6–8, Or 15005/17–21 and Or 15005/30–32.

-- Spitzer Manuscript, by Wikipedia

Geography

The author of Arthashastra uses the term gramakuta to describe a village official or chief, which, according to Thomas Burrow, suggests that he was a native of the region that encompasses present-day Gujarat and northern Maharashtra. Other evidences also support this theory: the text mentions that the shadow of a sundial disappears at noon during the month of Ashadha (June-July), and that the day and night are equal during the months of Chaitra (March-April) and Ashvayuja (September-October). This is possible only in the areas lying along the Tropic of Cancer, which passes through central India, from Gujarat in the west to Bengal in the east.[42]

The author of the text appears to be most familiar with the historical regions of Avanti and Ashmaka, which included parts of present-day Gujarat and Maharashtra. He provides precise annual rainfall figures for these historical regions in the text.[42] Plus, he shows familiarity with sea-trade, which can be explained by the existence of ancient sea ports such as Sopara in the Gujarat-Maharashtra region.[43] Lastly, the gotra name Kauṭilya is still found in Maharashtra.[42]

Translation of the title

Different scholars have translated the word "arthashastra" in different ways.

• R.P. Kangle: "Artha is the sustenance or livelihood of men, and Arthaśāstra is the science of the means to Artha"[44] "science of politics";[45]
• A.L. Basham: a "treatise on polity"[14]
• D.D. Kosambi: "science of material gain"[14]
• G.P. Singh: "science of polity"[14]
• Roger Boesche: "science of political economy"[14]
• Patrick Olivelle: "science of politics"[15]

Artha (prosperity, wealth, purpose, meaning, economic security) is one of the four aims of human life in Hinduism (Puruṣārtha),[46] the others being dharma (laws, duties, rights, virtues, right way of living),[47] kama (pleasure, emotions, sex)[48] and moksha (spiritual liberation).[49] Śāstra is the Sanskrit word for "rules" or "science".

Organisation

Arthashastra is divided into 15 book titles, 150 chapters and 180 topics, as follows:[50]

Title / English / Title / English
Raja King Yuvaraja Prince
Senapati Chief, armed forces Parishad Council
Nagarika Town manager Pauravya vaharika City overseer
Mantri Minister Karmika Works officer
Samnidhatr Treasurer Karmantika Director, factories
Antapala Frontier commander Antar vimsaka Head, guards
Dauvarika Chief guard Gopa Revenue officer
Purohita Chaplain Karanika Accounts officer
Prasastr Administrator Nayaka Commander
Upayukta Junior officer Pradeshtri Magistrate
Sunyapala Regent Adhyaksha Superintendent

1. On the Subject of Training, 21 chapters, Topics 1-18
2. On the Activities of Superintendents,
36 chapters, Topics 19-56 (Largest book)
3. On Justices, 20 chapters, Topics 57-75
4. Eradication of Thorns, 13 chapters, Topics 76-88
5. On Secret Conduct, 6 chapters, Topics 89-95
6. Basis of the Circle, 2 chapters, Topics 96-97
7. On the Sixfold Strategy, 18 chapters, Topics 98-126
8. On the Subject of Calamities, 5 chapters, Topics 127-134
9. Activity of a King preparing to March into Battle,
7 chapters, Topics 135-146
10. On War, 6 chapters, Topics 147-159
11. Conduct toward Confederacies, 1 chapter, Topics 160-161
12. On the Weaker King, 5 chapters, Topics 162-170
13. Means of Capturing a Fort, 5 chapters, Topics 171-176
14. On Esoteric Practices, 4 chapters, Topics 177-179
15. Organization of a Scientific Treatise, 1 chapter, Topic 180

Contents

The need for law, economics and government

The ancient Sanskrit text opens, in chapter 2 of Book 1 (the first chapter is table of contents), by acknowledging that there are a number of extant schools with different theories on proper and necessary number of fields of knowledge, and asserts they all agree that the science of government is one of those fields.[52] It lists the school of Brihaspati, the school of Usanas, the school of Manu and itself as the school of Kautilya as examples.[53][54]

सुखस्य मूलं धर्मः । धर्मस्य मूलं अर्थः । अर्थस्य मूलं राज्यं । राज्यस्य मूलं इन्द्रिय जयः । इन्द्रियाजयस्य मूलं विनयः । विनयस्य मूलं वृद्धोपसेवा॥

The root of happiness is Dharma (ethics, righteousness), the root of Dharma is Artha (economy, polity), the root of Artha is right governance, the root of right governance is victorious inner-restraint, the root of victorious inner-restraint is humility, the root of humility is serving the aged.

— Kautilya, Chanakya Sutra 1-6[55]

The school of Usanas asserts, states the text, that there is only one necessary knowledge, the science of government because no other science can start or survive without it.[52][53] The school of Brihaspati asserts, according to Arthashastra, that there are only two fields of knowledge, the science of government and the science of economics (Varta[note 1] of agriculture, cattle and trade) because all other sciences are intellectual and mere flowering of the temporal life of man.[52][54] The school of Manu asserts, states Arthashastra, that there are three fields of knowledge, the Vedas, the science of government and the science of economics (Varta of agriculture, cattle and trade) because these three support each other, and all other sciences are special branch of the Vedas.[52][54]

The Arthashastra then posits its own theory that there are four necessary fields of knowledge, the Vedas, the Anvikshaki (philosophy of Samkhya, Yoga and Lokayata),[note 2] the science of government and the science of economics (Varta of agriculture, cattle and trade). It is from these four that all other knowledge, wealth and human prosperity is derived.[52][54] The Kautilya text thereafter asserts that it is the Vedas that discuss what is Dharma (right, moral, ethical) and what is Adharma (wrong, immoral, unethical), it is the Varta that explain what creates wealth and what destroys wealth, it is the science of government that illuminates what is Nyaya (justice, expedient, proper) and Anyaya (unjust, inexpedient, improper), and that it is Anvishaki (philosophy)[58] that is the light of these sciences, as well as the source of all knowledge, the guide to virtues, and the means to all kinds of acts.[52][54] He says of government in general:

Without government, rises disorder as in the Matsya nyayamud bhavayati (proverb on law of fishes). In the absence of governance, the strong will swallow the weak. In the presence of governance, the weak resists the strong.[59][60]

Raja (king)

The best king is the Raja-rishi, the sage king.[61][62]

The Raja-rishi has self-control and does not fall for the temptations of the senses, he learns continuously and cultivates his thoughts, he avoids false and flattering advisors and instead associates with the true and accomplished elders, he is genuinely promoting the security and welfare of his people, he enriches and empowers his people, he practices ahimsa[citation needed](non-violence against all living beings), he lives a simple life and avoids harmful people or activities, he keeps away from another's wife nor craves for other people's property.[61][63][62] The greatest enemies of a king are not others, but are these six: lust, anger, greed, conceit, arrogance and foolhardiness.[61][58] A just king gains the loyalty of his people not because he is king, but because he is just.[61][62]

Officials, advisors and checks on government

Book 1 and Book 2 of the text discusses how the crown prince should be trained and how the king himself should continue learning, selecting his key Mantri (ministers), officials, administration, staffing of the court personnel, magistrates and judges.[64]

Topic 2 of the Arthashastra, or chapter 5 of Book 1, is dedicated to the continuous training and development of the king, where the text advises that he maintain a counsel of elders, from each field of various sciences, whose accomplishments he knows and respects.[62][65] Topic 4 of the text describes the process of selecting the ministers and key officials, which it states must be based on king's personal knowledge of their honesty and capacity.[66] Kautilya first lists various alternate different opinions among extant scholars on how key government officials should be selected, with Bharadvaja suggesting honesty and knowledge be the screen for selection, Kaunapadanta suggesting that heredity be favored, Visalaksha suggesting that king should hire those whose weaknesses he can exploit, Parasara cautioning against hiring vulnerable people because they will try to find king's vulnerability to exploit him instead, and yet another who insists that experience and not theoretical qualification be primary selection criterion.[66]

Kautilya, after describing the conflicting views on how to select officials, asserts that a king should select his Amatyah (ministers and high officials) based on the capacity to perform that they have shown in their past work, the character and their values that is accordance with the role.[67] The Amatyah, states Arthashastra, must be those with following Amatya-sampat: well trained, with foresight, with strong memory, bold, well spoken, enthusiastic, excellence in their field of expertise, learned in theoretical and practical knowledge, pure of character, of good health, kind and philanthropic, free from procrastination, free from ficklemindedness, free from hate, free from enmity, free from anger, and dedicated to dharma.[68][69] Those who lack one or a few of these characteristics must be considered for middle or lower positions in the administration, working under the supervision of more senior officials.[68] The text describes tests to screen for the various Amatya-sampat.[68]

The Arthashastra, in Topic 6, describes checks and continuous measurement, in secret, of the integrity and lack of integrity of all ministers and high officials in the kingdom.[70] Those officials who lack integrity must be arrested. Those who are unrighteous, should not work in civil and criminal courts. Those who lack integrity in financial matters or fall for the lure of money must not be in revenue collection or treasury, states the text, and those who lack integrity in sexual relationships must not be appointed to Vihara services (pleasure grounds).[71] The highest level ministers must have been tested and have successfully demonstrated integrity in all situations and all types of allurements.[71][72]

Chapter 9 of Book 1 suggests that the king maintain a council and a Purohit (chaplain, spiritual guide) for his personal counsel. The Purohit, claims the text, must be one who is well educated in the Vedas and its six Angas.[68]

Causes of impoverishment, lack of motivation and disaffection among people


Chanakya portrait in 1915 Shamasastry's Arthashastra translation.

The Arthashastra, in Topic 109, Book 7 lists the causes of disaffection, lack of motivation and increase in economic distress among people. It opens by stating that wherever "good people are snubbed, and evil people are embraced" distress increases.[73] Wherever officials or people initiate unprecedented violence in acts or words, wherever there is unrighteous acts of violence, disaffection grows.[74] When the king rejects the Dharma, that is "does what ought not to be done, does not do what ought to be done, does not give what ought to be given, and gives what ought not to be given", the king causes people to worry and dislike him.[73][74]

Anywhere, states Arthashastra in verse 7.5.22, where people are fined or punished or harassed when they ought not to be harassed, where those that should be punished are not punished, where those people are apprehended when they ought not be, where those who are not apprehended when they ought to, the king and his officials cause distress and disaffection.[73] When officials engage in thievery, instead of providing protection against robbers, the people are impoverished, they lose respect and become disaffected.[73][74]

A state, asserts Arthashastra text in verses 7.5.24 - 7.5.25, where courageous activity is denigrated, quality of accomplishments are disparaged, pioneers are harmed, honorable men are dishonored, where deserving people are not rewarded but instead favoritism and falsehood is, that is where people lack motivation, are distressed, become upset and disloyal.[73][74]

In verse 7.5.33, the ancient text remarks that general impoverishment relating to food and survival money destroys everything, while other types of impoverishment can be addressed with grants of grain and money.[73][74]

Civil, criminal law and court system

Crime and punishment

It is power and power alone which, only when exercised by the king with impartiality and in proportion to guilt either over his son or his enemy, maintains both this world and the next.
The just and victorious king administers justice in accordance with Dharma (established law), Sanstha (customary law), Nyaya (edicts, announced law) and Vyavahara (evidence, conduct).

— Arthashastra 3.1[75][76]

Book 3 of the Arthashastra, according to Trautmann, is dedicated to civil law, including sections relating to economic relations of employer and employee, partnerships, sellers and buyers.[77] Book 4 is a treatise on criminal law, where the king or officials acting on his behalf, take the initiative and start the judicial process against acts of crime, because the crime is felt to be a wrong against the people of the state.[77][78] This system, as Trautmann points out, is similar to European system of criminal law, rather than other historic legal system, because in the European (and Arthashastra) system it is the state that initiates judicial process in cases that fall under criminal statutes, while in the latter systems the aggrieved party initiates a claim in the case of murder, rape, bodily injury among others.[77]

The ancient text stipulates that the courts have a panel of three pradeshtri (magistrates) for handling criminal cases, and this panel is different, separate and independent of the panel of judges of civil court system it specifies for a Hindu kingdom.[77][78] The text lays out that just punishment is one that is in proportion to the crime in many sections starting with chapter 4 of Book 1,[79][80] and repeatedly uses this principle in specifying punishments, for example in Topic 79, that is chapter 2 of Book 4.[81] Economic crimes such as conspiracy by a group of traders or artisans is to be, states the Arthashastra, punished with much larger and punitive collective fine than those individually, as conspiracy causes systematic damage to the well-being of the people.[77][78]

Marriage laws

The text discusses marriage and consent laws in Books 3 and 4. It asserts, in chapter 4.2, that a girl may marry any man she wishes,[note 3][note 4] three years after her first menstruation, provided that she does not take her parent's property or ornaments received by her before the marriage. However, if she marries a man her father arranges or approves of, she has the right to take the ornaments with her.[81][82]

In chapter 3.4, the text gives the right to a woman that she may remarry anyone if she wants to, if she has been abandoned by the man she was betrothed to, if she does not hear back from him for three menstrual periods, or if she does hear back and has waited for seven menses.[84][85]

The chapter 2 of Book 3 of Arthashastra legally recognizes eight types of marriage. The bride is given the maximum property inheritance rights when the parents select the groom and the girl consents to the selection (Brahma marriage), and minimal if bride and groom marry secretly as lovers (Gandharva marriage) without the approval of her father and her mother.[86] However, in cases of Gandharva marriage (love), she is given more rights than she has in Brahma marriage (arranged), if the husband uses the property she owns or has created, with husband required to repay her with interest when she demands.[86][87]

Wildlife and forests

Arthashastra states that forests be protected and recommends that the state treasury be used to feed animals such as horses and elephants that are too old for work, sick or injured.[88] However, Kautilya also recommends that wildlife that is damaging crops should be restrained with state resources. In Topic 19, chapter 2, the text suggests:

The king should grant exemption [from taxes]
to a region devastated by an enemy king or tribe,
to a region beleaguered by sickness or famine.
He should safeguard agriculture
when it is stressed by the hardships of fines, forced labor, taxes, and animal herds
when they are harassed by thieves, vicious animals, poison, crocodiles or sickness
He should keep trade routes [roads] clear
when they are oppressed by anyone, including his officers, robbers or frontier commanders
when they are worn out by farm animals
The king should protect produce, forests, elephants forests, reservoirs and mines
established in the past and also set up new ones.[89]

In topic 35, the text recommends that the "Superintendent of Forest Produce" appointed by the state for each forest zone be responsible for maintaining the health of the forest, protecting forests to assist wildlife such as elephants (hastivana), but also producing forest products to satisfy economic needs, products such as Teak, Palmyra, Mimosa, Sissu, Kauki, Sirisha, Catechu, Latifolia, Arjuna, Tilaka, Tinisa, Sal, Robesta, Pinus, Somavalka, Dhava, Birch, bamboo, hemp, Balbaja (used for ropes), Munja, fodder, firewood, bulbous roots and fruits for medicine, flowers.[90] The Arthashastra also reveals that the Mauryas designated specific forests to protect supplies of timber, as well as lions and tigers, for skins.[citation needed]

Mines, factories and superintendents

The Arthashastra dedicates Topics 30 through 47 discussing the role of government in setting up mines and factories,[91] gold and precious stone workshops,[92] commodities,[93] forest produce,[94] armory,[95] standards for balances and weight measures,[96] standards for length and time measures,[96] customs,[97] agriculture,[98] liquor,[98] abattoirs and courtesans,[99] shipping,[100] domesticated animals such as cattle, horses and elephants along with animal welfare when they are injured or too old,[101] pasture land,[102] military preparedness[103] and intelligence gathering operations of the state.[104]

On spying, propaganda and information

Femme fatale as a secret agent

To undermine a ruling oligarchy, make chiefs of the [enemy's] ruling council infatuated with women possessed of great beauty and youth. When passion is roused in them, they should start quarrels by creating belief (about their love) in one and by going to another.

— Arthashastra 11.1[105][106]

The Arthashastra dedicates many chapters on the need, methods and goals of secret service, and how to build then use a network of spies that work for the state. The spies should be trained to adopt roles and guises, to use coded language to transmit information, and be rewarded by their performance and the results they achieve, states the text.[107][note 5]

The roles and guises recommended for Vyanjana (appearance) agents by the Arthashastra include ascetics, forest hermits, mendicants, cooks, merchants, doctors, astrologers, consumer householders, entertainers, dancers, female agents and others.[109] It suggests that members from these professions should be sought to serve for the secret service.[110] A prudent state, states the text, must expect that its enemies seek information and are spying inside its territory and spreading propaganda, and therefore it must train and reward double agents to gain identity about such hostile intelligence operations.[111]

The goals of the secret service, in Arthashastra, was to test the integrity of government officials, spy on cartels and population for conspiracy, to monitor hostile kingdoms suspected of preparing for war or in war against the state, to check spying and propaganda wars by hostile states, to destabilize enemy states, to get rid of troublesome powerful people who could not be challenged openly.[112][105] The spy operations and its targets, states verse 5.2.69 of Arthashastra, should be pursued "with respect to traitors and unrighteous people, not with respect to others".[113]

[admin]

Part 2 of 2

On war and peace

The Arthashastra dedicates Book 7 and 10 to war, and considers numerous scenarios and reasons for war. It classifies war into three broad types – open war, covert war and silent war.[114] It then dedicates chapters to defining each type of war, how to engage in these wars and how to detect that one is a target of covert or silent types of war.[115] The text cautions that the king should know the progress he expects to make, when considering the choice between waging war and pursuing peace.[116] The text asserts:

When the degree of progress is the same in pursuing peace and waging war, peace is to be preferred. For, in war, there are disadvantages such as losses, expenses and absence from home.[117]

Kautilya, in the Arthashastra, suggests that the state must always be adequately fortified, its armed forces prepared and resourced to defend itself against acts of war. Kautilya favors peace over war, because he asserts that in most situations, peace is more conducive to creation of wealth, prosperity and security of the people.[118][119] Arthashastra defines the value of peace and the term peace, states Brekke, as "effort to achieve the results of work undertaken is industry, and absence of disturbance to the enjoyment of the results achieved from work is peace".[118]

All means to win a war are appropriate in the Arthashastra, including assassination of enemy leaders, sowing discord in its leadership, engagement of covert men and women in the pursuit of military objectives and as weapons of war, deployment of accepted superstitions and propaganda to bolster one's own troops or to demoralize enemy soldiers, as well as open hostilities by deploying kingdom's armed forces.[105] After success in a war by the victorious just and noble state, the text argues for humane treatment of conquered soldiers and subjects.[105]

The Arthashastra theories are similar with some and in contrast to other alternate theories on war and peace in the ancient Indian tradition. For example, states Brekke, the legends in Hindu epics preach heroism qua heroism which is in contrast to Kautilya suggestion of prudence and never forgetting the four Hindu goals of human life, while Kamandaki's Nitisara, which is similar to Kautilya's Arthashastra, is among other Hindu classics on statecraft and foreign policy that suggest prudence, engagement and diplomacy, peace is preferable and must be sought, and yet prepared to excel and win war if one is forced to.[120]

On regulations and taxes

The Arthashastra discusses a mixed economy, where private enterprise and state enterprise frequently competed side by side, in agriculture, animal husbandry, forest produce, mining, manufacturing and trade.[121] However, royal statutes and officials regulated private economic activities, some economic activity was the monopoly of the state, and a superintendent oversaw that both private and state owned enterprises followed the same regulations.[121] The private enterprises were taxed.[121] Mines were state owned, but leased to private parties for operations, according to chapter 2.12 of the text.[122] The Arthashastra states that protecting the consumer must be an important priority for the officials of the kingdom.[123]

Tax collection and ripe fruits

As one plucks one ripe fruit after another from a garden, so should the king from his kingdom. Out of fear for his own destruction, he should avoid unripe ones, which give rise to revolts.

—Stocking the Treasury, Arthashastra 5.2.70[124][113]

Arthashastra stipulates restraint on taxes imposed, fairness, the amounts and how tax increases should be implemented. Further, state Waldauer et al., the text suggests that the tax should be "convenient to pay, easy to calculate, inexpensive to administer, equitable and non-distortive, and not inhibit growth.[125] Fair taxes build popular support for the king, states the text, and some manufacturers and artisans, such as those of textiles, were subject to a flat tax.[124] The Arthashastra states that taxes should only be collected from ripened economic activity, and should not be collected from early, unripe stages of economic activity.[124] Historian of economic thought Joseph Spengler notes:

Kautilya's discussion of taxation and expenditure gave expression to three Indian principles: taxing power [of state] is limited; taxation should not be felt to be heavy or exclusive [discriminatory]; tax increases should be graduated.[126]

Agriculture on privately owned land was taxed at the rate of 16.67%, but the tax was exempted in cases of famine, epidemic, and settlement into new pastures previously uncultivated and if damaged during a war.[127] New public projects such as irrigation and water works were exempt from taxes for five years, and major renovations to ruined or abandoned water works were granted tax exemption for four years.[128] Temple and gurukul lands were exempt from taxes, fines or penalties.[129] Trade into and outside the kingdom's borders was subject to toll fees or duties.[130] Taxes varied between 10% to 25% on industrialists and businessmen, and it could be paid in kind (produce), through labor, or in cash.[131]

Translations and scholarship

The text has been translated and interpreted by Shamashastry, Kangle, Trautmann and many others.[53][132] Recent translations or interpretations include those of Patrick Olivelle[132][133] and McClish.[134][135]

Influence and reception


Maurya Empire in Kautilya's time

Scholars state that the Arthashastra was influential in Asian history.[105][136] Its ideas helped create one of the largest empires in South Asia, stretching from the borders of Persia to Bengal on the other side of the Indian subcontinent, with its capital Pataliputra twice as large as Rome under Emperor Marcus Aurelius.[105]

Kautilya's patron Chandragupta Maurya consolidated an empire which was inherited by his son Bindusara and then his grandson Ashoka.[105] With the progressive secularization of society, and with the governance-related innovations contemplated by the Arthashastra, India was "prepared for the reception of the great moral transformation ushered in by Ashoka", and the spread of Buddhist, Hindu and other ideas across South Asia, East Asia and southeast Asia.[136][137]

Comparisons to Machiavelli

In 1919, a few years after the newly discovered Arthashastra manuscript's translation was first published, Max Weber stated:

Truly radical "Machiavellianism", in the popular sense of that word, is classically expressed in Indian literature in the Arthashastra of Kautilya (written long before the birth of Christ, ostensibly in the time of Chandragupta): compared to it, Machiavelli's The Prince is harmless.[138]

More recent scholarship has disagreed with the characterization of Arthashastra as "Machiavellianism".[139][140][141] In Machiavelli's The Prince, the king and his coterie are single-mindedly aimed at preserving the monarch's power for its own sake, states Paul Brians for example, but in the Arthashastra, the king is required "to benefit and protect his citizens, including the peasants".[139] Kautilya asserts in Arthashastra that, "the ultimate source of the prosperity of the kingdom is its security and prosperity of its people", a view never mentioned in Machiavelli's text. The text advocates "land reform", states Brians, where land is taken from landowners and farmers who own land but do not grow anything for a long time, and given to poorer farmers who want to grow crops but do not own any land.[139][140]

Arthashastra declares, in numerous occasions, the need for empowering the weak and poor in one's kingdom, a sentiment that is not found in Machiavelli; Arthashastra, states Brians, advises "the king shall provide the orphans, the aged, the infirm, the afflicted, and the helpless with maintenance [welfare support]. He shall also provide subsistence to helpless women when they are carrying and also to the children they give birth to".[139][88] Elsewhere, the text values not just powerless human life, but even animal life and suggests in Book 2 that horses and elephants be given food, when they become incapacitated from old age, disease or after war.[88]

Views on the role of the state

Roger Boesche, who relied entirely on the 1969 translation by Kangle for his analysis of Arthashastra,[note 6] and who criticized an alternate 1992 translation by Rangarajan,[88] has called the Arthashastra as "a great political book of the ancient world".[143] He interprets that the 1st millennium BCE text is grounded more like the Soviet Union and China where the state envisions itself as driven by the welfare of the common good, but operates an extensive spy state and system of surveillance.[144] This view has been challenged by Thomas Trautmann, who asserts that a free market and individual rights, albeit a regulated system, are proposed by Arthashastra.[145] Boesche is not summarily critical and adds:

Kautilya's Arthashastra depicts a bureaucratic welfare state, in fact some kind of socialized monarchy, in which the central government administers the details of the economy for the common good...In addition, Kautilya offers a work of genius in matters of foreign policy and welfare, including key principles of international relations from a realist perspective and a discussion of when an army must use cruel violence and when it is more advantageous to be humane.[146]

Scholars disagree on how to interpret the document. Kumud Mookerji states that the text may be a picture of actual conditions in Kautilya's times.[147] In contrast, Sastri, as well as Romila Thapar, quotes Brians, caution that the text, regardless of which translation is considered, must be seen as a normative document of strategy and general administration under various circumstances, but not as description of existing conditions.[147] Other scholars such as Burton Stein concur with Thapar and Sastri, however, Bhargava states that given Kautilya was the prime minister, one must expect that he implemented the ideas in the book.[147]

Views on property and markets

Thomas Trautmann states that the Arthashastra in chapter 3.9 does recognize the concept of land ownership rights and other private property, and requires the king to protect that right from seizure or abuse.[148] This makes it unlike Soviet or China model of citizen's private property rights. There is no question, states Trautmann, that people had the power to buy and sell land. However, Trautmann adds, this does not mean that Kautilya was advocating a capitalistic free market economy. Kautilya requires that the land sale be staggered and grants certain buyers automatic "call rights", which is not free market.[148] The Arthashastra states that if someone wants to sell land, the owner's kins, neighbors and creditors have first right of purchase in that order, and only if they do not wish to buy the land for a fair competitive price, others and strangers can bid to buy.[148] Further, the price must be announced in front of witnesses, recorded and taxes paid, for the buy-sale arrangement to deemed recognized by the state. The "call rights" and staggered bid buying is not truly a free market, as Trautmann points out.[148]

The text dedicates Book 3 and 4 to economic laws, and a court system to oversee and resolve economic, contracts and market-related disputes.[149] The text also provides a system of appeal where three dharmastha (judges) consider contractual disputes between two parties, and considers profiteering and false claims to dupe customers a crime.[149] The text, states Trautmann, thus anticipates market exchange and provides a framework for its functioning.[149]

Book on strategy anticipating all scenarios

Arthashastra and state

We should never forget that the Arthashastra means by the "state" an order of society which is not created by the king or the people, but which they exist to secure. These authors regarded the "state" – if that word might be used here – as essentially a beneficial institution for protection of human life and welfare and for the better realization of the ideals of humanity.

— Jan Gonda[150]

More recent scholarship presents a more nuanced reception for the text.[140][151] Paul Brians states that the scope of the work is far broader than earlier much publicized perceptions indicate, and in the treatise can also be found compassion for the poor, for servants and slaves, and for women.[139]

The text, states Sihag, is a treatise on how a state should pursue economic development and it emphasized "proper measurement of economic performance", and "the role of ethics, considering ethical values as the glue which binds society and promotes economic development".[152] Kautilya in Arthashastra, writes Brians, "mixes the harsh pragmatism for which he is famed with compassion for the poor, for slaves, and for women. He reveals the imagination of a romancer in imagining all manner of scenarios which can hardly have been commonplace in real life".[139]

Realism

India's former National Security Adviser, Shiv Shankar Menon, states: "Arthashastra is a serious manual on statecraft, on how to run a state, informed by a higher purpose, clear and precise in its prescriptions, the result of practical experience of running a state. It is not just a normative text but a realist description of the art of running a state".[153] The text is useful, according to Menon, because in many ways "the world we face today is similar to the world that Kautilya operated in".[141] He recommended reading of the book for broadening the vision on strategic issues.[153]

In popular culture

• Mentioned in season 5 episode 22 of the TV show Blue Bloods
• Mentioned in season 3 Episode 1 of the TV show iZombie
• The novel Chanakya's Chant by Ashwin Sanghi
• The novel Blowback by Brad Thor
• Mentioned in Chandragupt Maurya Hindi Serial in Sony Entertainment Television
• Mentioned in season 3 episode 5 of the TV show Dear White People
• Mentioned in the book Origin Story, A big history of everything by David Christian
• Mentioned in the book World Order by Henry Kissinger

See also

• Artha and Purushartha – Indian philosophical concepts
• Hindu philosophy
• History of espionage
• Matsya Nyaya
• Nitisara
• Rajamandala
• Tirukkural
• Machiavelli
• Manusmriti

Notes

1. Olivelle transliterates this word as Vārttā, translates it as "roughly economics", and notes that Kautilya placed the knowledge of economics at the heart of king's education; See: Olivelle[56]
2. Kangle transliterates this word as Anviksiki , and states that this term may be better conceptualized as science of reasoning rather than full philosophy, in ancient Indian traditions; See: Kangle's Part III[57]
3. The girl, notes Olivelle (2013), may marry a man of equal status or any status (no mention of caste, the original Sanskrit text does not use the word Varna or any other related to caste). See: Olivelle[82]
4. Rangarajan (1992), however, translates the verse to "same varna or another varna". See: Rangarajan[83]
5. According to Shoham and Liebig, this was a 'textbook of Statecraft and Political Economy' that provides a detailed account of intelligence collection, processing, consumption, and covert operations, as indispensable means for maintaining and expanding the security and power of the state.[108]
6. Patrick Olivelle states that the Kangle edition has problems as it incorrectly relied on a mistaken text as commentary; he has emended the corrections in his 2013 translation. See: Olivelle[142]

References

1. Roger Boesche (2002). The First Great Political Realist: Kautilya and His Arthashastra. Lexington Books. p. 7. ISBN 978-0739104019. [...] is classically expressed in Indian literature in the Arthashastra of Kautilya
Siva Kumar, N.; Rao, U. S. (April 1996). "Guidelines for value based management in Kautilya's Arthashastra". Journal of Business Ethics. 15(4): 415–423. doi:10.1007/BF00380362. S2CID 153463180. The paper develops value based management guidelines from the famous Indian treatise on management, Kautilya's Arthashastra.
2. Olivelle 2013, pp. 1-5.
3. Olivelle 2013, pp. 24–25, 31.
4. Olivelle 2013, pp. 1, 34-35.
5. Mabbett (1964): "References to the work in other Sanskrit literature attribute it variously to Viṣṇugupta, Cāṇakya and Kauṭilya. The same individual is meant in each case. The Pańcatantra explicitly identifies Chanakya with Viṣṇugupta."
6. Olivelle 2013, pp. 31-38.
7. Olivelle 2013, pp. 32-33.
8. Mabbett (1964);
Trautmann (1971, p. 10): "while in his character as author of an arthaśāstra he is generally referred to by his gotra name, Kauṭilya;"
Trautmann (1971, p. 67): "T. Burrow... has now shown that Cāṇakya is also a gotra name, which in conjunction with other evidence makes it clear that we are dealing with distinct persons, the minister Cāṇakya of legend and Kautilya the compiler of Arthaśāstra.
9. Rao & Subrahmanyam (2013): "The confident initial assertion that the text’s author was 'the famous Brahman Kautilya, also named Vishnugupta, and known from other sources by the patronymic Chanakya', and that the text was written at the time of the foundation of the Maurya dynasty, has of course been considerably eroded over the course of the twentieth century."
10. Olivelle 2013, pp. 24–25, 31–33.
11. Olivelle 2013, pp. 30-31.
12. Allen, Charles (21 February 2012). Ashoka: The Search for India's Lost Emperor. London: Hachette UK. ISBN 9781408703885. Retrieved 23 October 2015.
13. Boesche 2002, p. 8
14. Boesche 2003
15. Olivelle 2013, pp. 14, 330: "The title Arthaśāstra is found only in the colophons, in three verses 5.6.47, 7.10.38 and 7.18.42", (page 14) and "Prosperity and decline, stability and weakening, and vanquishing — knowing the science of politics [अर्थशास्त्र, arthaśāstra], he should employ all of these strategies." (page 330)
16. Rangarajan, L.N. (1987). The Arthashastra (Introduction). New Delhi: Penguin Books. pp. 1–2. ISBN 9788184750119. Retrieved 20 February 2016.
17. Olivelle 2013, pp. 1-62, 179-221.
18. Sen, R.K. and Basu, R.L. 2006. Economics in Arthashastra. New Delhi: Deep & Deep Publications.
19. Thomas Trautmann (2012), Arthashastra: The Science of Wealth, Penguin, ISBN 978-0670085279, pages xxv-27
20. R. Chadwick; S. Henson; B. Moseley (2013). Functional Foods. Springer Science. p. 39. ISBN 978-3-662-05115-3. During the same period, an ancient Hindu text (the Arthashastra) included a recipe...
Arvind Sharma (2005). Modern Hindu Thought: An Introduction. Oxford University Press. p. 186. ISBN 978-0-19-567638-9. Arthasastra, the major surviving Hindu text on polity, attributed to Chanakya (also known as Kautilya)...
Stephen Peter Rosen (1996). Societies and Military Power: India and Its Armies. Cornell University Press. p. 67. ISBN 978-0801432101. The most important single text in Hindu political philosophy is Kautilya's Arthasastra [...]
21. Olivelle 2013, pp. 122-175.
22. Olivelle 2013, pp. 101, 228-229, 286-287.
23. Olivelle 2013, pp. 29, 52.
24. Olivelle, Patrick (June 2004). "Manu and the Arthaśāstra, A Study in Śāstric Intertextuality". Journal of Indian Philosophy. 32 (2/3): 281–291. doi:10.1023/B:INDI.0000021078.31452.8a. JSTOR 23497263. S2CID 170873274.
25. Olivelle 2013, pp. 1–2.
26. Trautmann 1971, p. 1.
27. Olivelle 2013, pp. ix, xiii, xiv-xvii.
28. Olivelle 2013, Introduction.
29. Olivelle 2013, pp. 3–4.
30. Olivelle 2013, pp. 49-51, 99-108, 277-294, 349-356, 373-382.
31. Olivelle 2013, pp. 4–5.
32. Olivelle 2013, pp. 24-25, 31.
33. Olivelle 2013, pp. 31-32.
34. Olivelle 2013, p. 31.
35. Olivelle 2013, p. 32.
36. Olivelle 2013, p. 35.
37. Olivelle 2013, pp. 35-36.
38. Olivelle 2013, p. 34, 36.
39. Olivelle 2013, p. 33.
40. Olivelle 2013, pp. 33-35.
41. Falk, Harry; Strauch, Ingo (2014). "The Bajaur and Split Collections of Kharoṣṭhī Manuscripts within the Context of Buddhist Gāndhārī Literature". In Paul Harrison and Jens-Uwe Hartmann (ed.). From Birch Bark to Digital Data: Recent Advances in Buddhist Manuscript Research. Verlag der österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. pp. 71–72, context: 51–78. doi:10.2307/j.ctt1vw0q4q.7. ISBN 978-3-7001-7710-4.
42. Olivelle 2013, p. 37.
43. Olivelle 2013, pp. 37-38.
44. RP Kangle (1969, Reprinted in 2010), Arthaśāstra, Part 3, Motilal Banarsidass, ISBN 978-8120800410, pages 1-2
45. Boesche, Roger (January 2003). "Kautilya's Arthaśāstra on War and Diplomacy in Ancient India". The Journal of Military History. 67 (1): 9–37. doi:10.1353/jmh.2003.0006. ISSN 0899-3718.
46. Arvind Sharma (1999), The Puruṣārthas: An Axiological Exploration of Hinduism, The Journal of Religious Ethics, Vol. 27, No. 2 (Summer, 1999), pp. 223-256
47. Steven Rosen (2006), Essential Hinduism, Praeger, ISBN 0-275-99006-0, page 34-45
48. Macy, Joanna (1975). "The Dialectics of Desire". Numen. BRILL. 22(2): 145–60. doi:10.1163/156852775X00095. JSTOR 3269765.
49. John Bowker (2003), The Oxford Dictionary of World Religions, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0192139658, pages 650-651
50. Olivelle 2013, pp. vii–xxvii.
51. Olivelle 2013, pp. xiv–xv.
52. Olivelle 2013, pp. 66-69.
53. Arthashastra R Shamasastry (Translator), pages 8-9
54. Sanskrit Original: कौिटलीय अर्थशास्त्र, ArthashastraArchived 9 February 2017 at the Wayback Machine Book 1, Kautilya, pages 3-5
55. JS Rajput (2012), Seven Social Sins: The Contemporary Relevance, Allied, ISBN 978-8184247985, pages 28-29
56. Olivelle 2013, p. 43.
57. Kangle 1969, pp. 99-100.
58. Kangle 1969, p. 130.
59. Olivelle 2013, pp. 68-69.
60. Sanskrit Original: कौिटलीय अर्थशास्त्र, Arthashastra Archived 9 February 2017 at the Wayback Machine Book 1, Kautilya, page 5
61. Rangarajan 1992, pp. 121-122.
62. Sanskrit Original: कौिटलीय अर्थशास्त्र, ArthashastraArchived 9 February 2017 at the Wayback Machine Book 1, Kautilya, pages 5-6
63. Olivelle 2013, pp. 70-72.
64. Olivelle 2013, pp. xx, xxii, 69-221.
65. Olivelle 2013, pp. 69-70.
66. Olivelle 2013, pp. 72-74.
67. Olivelle 2013, pp. 72-75.
68. Olivelle 2013, pp. 74-75.
69. Sanskrit Original: कौिटलीय अर्थशास्त्र, Arthashastra Archived 9 February 2017 at the Wayback Machine Book 1, Kautilya, pages 7-8
70. Olivelle 2013, pp. 75-76.
71. Olivelle 2013, pp. 72-76.
72. Sanskrit Original: कौिटलीय अर्थशास्त्र, Arthashastra Archived 9 February 2017 at the Wayback Machine Book 1, Kautilya, pages 5-7
73. Olivelle 2013, pp. 290-291.
74. Sanskrit Original: कौिटलीय अर्थशास्त्र, ArthashastraArchived 9 February 2017 at the Wayback Machine Book 7, Kautilya, pages 146-148
75. Sanskrit Original: कौिटलीय अर्थशास्त्र, Arthashastra Archived 9 February 2017 at the Wayback Machine Book 3, Kautilya, page 80;
Archive 2: KAZ03.1.41 - KAZ03.1.43 Transliterated ArthashastraMuneo Tokunaga (1992), Kyoto University, Archived at University of Goettingen, Germany
76. Olivelle 2013, pp. 181-182.
77. Thomas Trautmann (2012), Arthashastra: The Science of Wealth, Penguin, ISBN 978-0670085279, pages 136-137, for context see 134-139
78. Sanskrit Original: कौिटलीय अर्थशास्त्र, Arthashastra Archived9 February 2017 at the Wayback Machine Book 3 and 4, Kautilya, pages 79-126
79. Olivelle 2013, pp. 112-117.
80. Thomas Trautmann (2012), Arthashastra: The Science of Wealth, Penguin, ISBN 978-0670085279, page xx
81. Sanskrit Original: कौिटलीय अर्थशास्त्र, Arthashastra Archived 9 February 2017 at the Wayback Machine Book 4, Kautilya, pages 110-111
82. Olivelle 2013, p. 248.
83. Rangarajan 1992, pp. 49, 364.
84. Olivelle 2013, p. 189.
85. Sanskrit Original: कौिटलीय अर्थशास्त्र, Arthashastra Archived 9 February 2017 at the Wayback Machine Book 3, Kautilya, pages 84-85
86. Sanskrit Original: कौिटलीय अर्थशास्त्र, Arthashastra Archived 9 February 2017 at the Wayback Machine Book 3, Kautilya, pages 81-82
87. Rangarajan 1992, p. 366.
88. Boesche 2002, pp. 18-19.
89. Olivelle 2013, p. 101.
90. Olivelle 2013, pp. 140-142, 44-45.
91. Olivelle 2013, pp. 127-130.
92. Olivelle 2013, pp. 122-126, 130-135.
93. Olivelle 2013, pp. 139-140.
94. Olivelle 2013, pp. 140-141.
95. Olivelle 2013, pp. 142-143.
96. Olivelle 2013, pp. 143-147.
97. Olivelle 2013, pp. 147-151.
98. Olivelle 2013, pp. 152-156.
99. Olivelle 2013, pp. 157-159.
100. Olivelle 2013, pp. 160-162.
101. Olivelle 2013, pp. 162-170.
102. Olivelle 2013, p. 172.
103. Olivelle 2013, pp. 171-175.
104. Olivelle 2013, pp. 173-175, 78-90.
105. Roger Boesche (2003), Kautilya's Arthaśāstra on War and Diplomacy in Ancient India, The Journal of Military History, Volume 67, Number 1, pages 9-37
106. Sanskrit Original: कौिटलीय अर्थशास्त्र, Arthashastra Archived 9 February 2017 at the Wayback Machine Book 11, Kautilya, pages 206-208
107. Olivelle 2013, pp. 42-47, 78-80, 98, 112-117, 231-234, 261-263, 407-414, 476-483.
108. Dany Shoham and Michael Liebig. "The intelligence dimension of Kautilyan statecraft and its implications for the present." Journal of Intelligence History 15.2 (2016): 119-138.
109. Olivelle 2013, pp. xv-xvi, 42-43, 78-82, 98, 260.
110. Olivelle 2013, pp. 42-43.
111. Olivelle 2013, pp. 78-83.
112. Olivelle 2013, pp. 42–47, 78–83, 260–261.
113. Olivelle 2013, p. 261.
114. Olivelle 2013, p. 294.
115. Olivelle 2013, pp. 294-297.
116. Olivelle 2013, pp. 277-278.
117. Rangarajan 1992, p. 530.
118. Torkel Brekke (2009), The Ethics of War in Asian Civilizations: A Comparative Perspective, Routledge, ISBN 978-0415544375, page 128
119. Olivelle 2013, pp. 273-274.
120. Torkel Brekke (2009), The Ethics of War in Asian Civilizations: A Comparative Perspective, Routledge, ISBN 978-0415544375, pages 121-138
121. Olivelle 2013, pp. 43-44.
122. Olivelle 2013, pp. 44-45.
123. K Thanawala (2014), Ancient Economic Thought (Editor: Betsy Price), Routledge, ISBN 978-0415757010, page 50
124. Boesche 2002, p. 72.
125. Charles Waldauer et al. (1996), Kautilya's Arthashastra: A Neglected Precursor to Classical Economics, Indian Economic Review, Vol. XXXI, No. 1, pages 101-108
126. Joseph Spengler (1971), Indian Economic Thought, Duke University Press, ISBN 978-0822302452, pages 72-73
127. Olivelle 2013, pp. 43-44, 101, 228-229, 286-287.
128. K Thanawala (2014), Ancient Economic Thought (Editor: Betsy Price), Routledge, ISBN 978-0415757010, page 52
129. Olivelle 2013, pp. 99-111.
130. Olivelle 2013, p. 140.
131. Olivelle 2013, pp. 40-45, 99-110, 136-137, 150-153, 173-174, 536-545, 556-557, 572-580, 646-647.
132. Olivelle 2013.
133. Olivelle, Patrick (1 January 2004). "Manu and the Arthaśāstra, A Study in Śāstric Intertextuality". Journal of Indian Philosophy Journal of Indian Philosophy. 32 (2–3): 281–291. doi:10.1023/B:INDI.0000021078.31452.8a. ISSN 0022-1791. OCLC 5649173080. S2CID 170873274.
134. McClish, Mark Richard (2009). Political Brahmanism and the state a compositional history of the Arthaśāstra (PhD Thesis, Advisor: Patrick Olivelle). University of Texas.;
McClish M (1 January 2014). "The dependence of Manu's seventh chapter on Kautilya's Arthas̈a¯stra". Journal of the American Oriental Society. 134 (2): 241–262. doi:10.7817/jameroriesoci.134.2.241. ISSN 0003-0279. JSTOR 10.7817/jameroriesoci.134.2.241. OCLC 5713382377.
135. Kauṭilya; Olivelle, Patrick; McClish, Mark (2012). The Arthaśāstra selections from the classic Indian work on statecraft. Hackett. ISBN 978-1603848480. OCLC 934713097.
136. Henry Albinski (1958), The Place of the Emperor Asoka in Ancient Indian Political Thought, Midwest Journal of Political Science, Vol. 2, No. 1, pages 62-75
137. MV Krishna Rao (1958, Reprinted 1979), Studies in Kautilya, 2nd Edition, OCLC 551238868, ISBN 978-8121502429, pages 13-14, 231-233
138. Max Weber, Politics as a Vocation (1919). This translation is from Weber: Selections in Translation, ed. W. G. Runciman, trans. Eric Matthews (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978), pp. 212–25 (p. 220); see also this translation. Archived 31 January 2010 at the Wayback Machine
139. Paul Brians; et al., eds. (1993). Reading About the World. 1. Washington State University Press. ISBN 0-15-567425-0. Archived from the original on 23 July 2013. Retrieved 20 February 2016.
140. A Kumar (2005), The Structure and Principles of Public Organization in Kautilya's Arthashastra, The Indian Journal of Political Science, Vol. 66, No. 3, pages 463-488
141. S Set (2015), Ancient Wisdom for the Modern World: Revisiting Kautilya and his Arthashastra in the Third Millennium, Strategic Analysis, Volume 39, Issue 6, pages 710-714
142. Olivelle 2013, pp. xv-xvii.
143. Boesche 2002, pp. 1-7.
144. Boesche 2002, pp. 7-8.
145. Thomas Trautmann (2012), Arthashastra: The Science of Wealth, Penguin, ISBN 978-0670085279, pages 116-139
146. Boesche 2002, p. 7.
147. Boesche 2002, pp. 15-16.
148. Thomas Trautmann (2012), Arthashastra: The Science of Wealth, Penguin, ISBN 978-0670085279, pages 121-127
149. Thomas Trautmann (2012), Arthashastra: The Science of Wealth, Penguin, ISBN 978-0670085279, pages 134-138
150. J Gonda (1957), Ancient Indian Kingship from the Religious Point of View (Continued and Ended), Journal: Numen, Vol. 4, Fasc. 2, page 159
151. Timothy Starzl and Krishna Dhir (1986), Strategic Planning 2300 Years Ago: The Strategy of Kautilya, Management International Review, Vol. 26, No. 4, pages 70-77
152. BS Sihag (2004), Kautilya on the scope and methodology of accounting, organizational design and the role of ethics in ancient India, The Accounting Historians Journal, Vol 31, Number 2, pages 125-148
153. "India needs to develop its own doctrine for strategic autonomy: NSA". The Economic Times. NEW DELHI. Press Trust of India. 18 October 2012. Retrieved 18 October 2012.

Bibliography

• Boesche, Roger (2002), The First Great Political Realist: Kautilya and His Arthashastra, Lanham: Lexington Books, ISBN 0-7391-0401-2
• Kangle, R. P. (1969), Kautilya Arthashastra, 3 vols, Motilal Banarsidass (Reprinted 2010), ISBN 978-8120800410
• Mabbett, I. W. (April 1964). "The Date of the Arthaśāstra". Journal of the American Oriental Society. 84 (2): 162–169. doi:10.2307/597102. JSTOR 597102.
• Olivelle, Patrick (2013), King, Governance, and Law in Ancient India: Kauṭilya's Arthaśāstra, Oxford UK: Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0199891825, retrieved 20 February 2016
• Rangarajan, L.N. (1992), Kautilya: The Arthashastra, Penguin Classics, ISBN 0-14-044603-6
• Rao, Velcheru; Subrahmanyam, Sanjay (2013), "Notes on Political Thought in Medieval and Early Modern South India", in Richard M. Eaton; Munis D. Faruqui; David Gilmartin; Sunil Kumar (eds.), Expanding Frontiers in South Asian and World History: Essays in Honour of John F. Richards, Cambridge University Press, pp. 164–199, ISBN 978-1-107-03428-0, retrieved 20 February 2016
• Trautmann, Thomas R. (1971), Kauṭilya and the Arthaśāstra: A Statistical Investigation of the Authorship and Evolution of the Text, Leiden: E.J. Brill
• Arthashastra-Studien, Dieter Schlingloff, Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Süd- und Ostasiens, vol. 11, 1967, 44-80 + Abb. 1a-30, ISSN 0084-0084.
• Ratan Lal Basu and Raj Kumar Sen, Ancient Indian Economic Thought, Relevance for Today, ISBN 81-316-0125-0, Rawat Publications, New Delhi, 2008
• Shoham, Dany, and Michael Liebig. "The intelligence dimension of Kautilyan statecraft and its implications for the present." Journal of Intelligence History 15.2 (2016): 119–138.

External links

• Kautilya Arthashastra English translation by R. Shamasastry 1956 (revised edition with IAST diacritics and interwoven glossary)
• The full text of Arthashastra at Wikisource (First English translation, 1915 by R Shamasastry)
• Arthashastra (English) (Another archive of 1915 R Shamasastry translation)
• Arthaśāstra (Sanskrit, IAST-Translit), SARIT Initiative, The British Association for South Asian Studies and The British Academy

[admin]

Part 1 of 2

Fort St. George, India
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 6/13/21

-- Letters to Fort St. George, 1684-1685, Vol. III

Rao (1958: 1, 3) considers Shamasastry the discoverer of the Arthasastra: ‘With the discovery of Kautilya’s Artha Sastra by Dr. R. Shama Sastri in 1905, and its publication in 1914, much interest has been aroused in the history of ancient Indian political thought; [p. 1]. . . . The Artha Sastra ¯ . . . is a compendium and a commentary on all the sciences of Polity that were existing in the time of Kautilya. It is a guidance to kings. . . . Artha Sastra ¯ contains thirty-two paragraphical divisions [Books]. . . . with one hundred and fifty chapters, and the Sastra is an illustration of a scientific approach to problems of politics, satisfying all the requirements and criteria of an exact science’ [p. 3]. But going back to the preface of the standard work and translation by Shamasastry (1967: vi), it is revealed that the manuscript of Kautilya’s Arthasastra was actually discovered by a person described merely as ‘a Pandit of the Tanjore District’ who handed it over ‘to the Mysore Government Oriental Library’ of which Shamasastry was the librarian.

-- Review and Extension of Battacharyya's Modern Accounting Concepts in Kautilya's Arthasastra, by Richard Mattessich

Tanjore District was one of the districts in the erstwhile Madras Presidency of British India. It covered the area of the present-day districts of Thanjavur, Tiruvarur, Nagapattinam, Mayiladuthurai and Aranthangi taluk, karambakudi taluk of Pudukkottai District in Tamil Nadu. Apart from being a bedrock of Hindu orthodoxy, Tanjore was a centre of Chola cultural heritage and one of the richest and most prosperous districts in Madras Presidency.

-- Tanjore District (Madras Presidency), by Wikipedia

The Madras Presidency, or the Presidency of Fort St. George, and also known as Madras Province, was an administrative subdivision (presidency) of British India. At its greatest extent, the presidency included most of southern India, including the whole of the Indian state of Tamil Nadu, and parts of Andhra Pradesh, Kerala, Karnataka, Telangana, Odisha and the union territory of Lakshadweep. The city of Madras was the winter capital of the Presidency and Ootacamund or Ooty, the summer capital. The Island of Ceylon was a part of Madras Presidency from 1793 to 1798 when it was created a Crown colony. Madras Presidency was neighboured by the Kingdom of Mysore on the northwest, Kingdom of Cochin on the southwest, and the Kingdom of Hyderabad on the north. Some parts of the presidency were also flanked by Bombay Presidency (Konkan) and Central Provinces and Berar (Madhya Pradesh).

-- Madras Presidency, by Wikipedia

PONDICHERRY

Quite near Fort St. David, in an arid plain without a port, the French bought, like the others, from the Soubeidar of the Deccan province, a small piece of land where they built a station, which they later made into a town of considerable importance, — the Pondicherry of which we have already spoken. At first, it was merely a trading centre surrounded by a thick hedge of acacias, palms, cocoanut trees, and aloes, and it was called “the boundary hedge."...

LALLI BEGINS BY BESIEGING THREE PLACES AND TAKING THEM.

As soon as he arrived, he besieged three places: one was Kudalur, [Old name for Cuddalore. Voltaire says Goudalour.] a little fort three miles from Pondicherry; the second was Saint David, a much bigger fortress; the third Devikota, [Voltaire says Divicotey.] which surrendered as he approached. It was flattering for him to have under his orders, in these first expeditions, a Count d’Estaing, descendant of that d’Estaing who saved the life of Philip Augustus at the battle of Bovine, and who transferred to his family the arms of the kings of France; a Constans, whose family was so old and famed, a La Fare, and many other officers of the first rank. It was not customary to send out young men of big families to take service in India. It would certainly have been necessary to have more troops and money with them. However, the Count d' Estaing had taken Kudalur in a day; and the day after, the General, followed by this flower of manhood, had gone to lay siege to the important station of St. David.

A NAVAL BATTLE BETWEEN ADMIRAL POCOCK AND ADMIRAL D'ACHE: 29th APRIL 1758

Not a minute was lost between the two rival nations. While Count d’Estaing was taking Kudalur, the English Fleet, commanded by Admiral Pocock, was attacking that of Comte d'Ache on the coast of Pondicherry. Men wounded or killed, broken masts, torn sails, tattered rigging, were the sole results of this indecisive battle. The two damaged fleets remained in those parts, equally unable to injure one another. The French was the worst treated — it had only forty dead, but five hundred men had been wounded, including Comte d’Ache and his captain, and after the battle, by bad luck, a ship of seventy-four cannons was lost on the coast. But a palpable proof that the French Admiral [We give the name of admiral to the chief of a squadron because it is the title of the English chiefs of squadrons. The "Grand Admiral” is in England what the admiral is in France. (V.)] shared with the English Admiral the honour of the day, is that the Englishmen did not attempt to send help to the besieged Fort St. David.

Everything was opposed in Pondicherry to the enterprise of the General. Nothing was ready to second him. He demanded bombs, mortars, and utensils of all kinds, and they had not got any. The siege dragged along; people began to fear the disgrace of abandoning it; even money was lacking. The two millions brought by the fleet and given to the treasury of the Company were already spent. The Merchants’ Council of Pondicherry had thought it necessary to pay their immediate debts in order to revive their credit, and had issued orders to Paris that, if help of ten millions was not forthcoming, everything would be lost. The Governor of Pondicherry, the successor of Godeheu, on behalf of the Merchants’ administration, wrote to the General on the 24th May this letter, which was received in the trenches:

“My resources are exhausted and we have no longer any hope left unless we are successful. Where shall I find resources in a country ruined by fifteen years of war, enough to pay the expenses of your army and of a squadron from which we were hoping for a great deal of help. On the contrary, there is nothing.”

This single letter explains the cause of all the disasters which had been experienced and of all those that followed. The more the want of necessary things was felt in the town, the more the General was blamed for having undertaken the siege of Fort St. David.

In spite of so many defeats and obstacles, the General forced the English commander to yield. In St. David were found one hundred and eighty cannons, all kinds of provisions which were lacking in Pondicherry, and money of which there was a still greater lack. There was three hundred thousand pounds in coin, which was all forwarded to the treasury of the Company. We are only noting here facts on which all parties agree.

THE 2ND JULY 1758. LALLI PUTS THIS COMBAT ON THE 3RD OF AUGUST IN HIS MEMOIRS. IT IS A MISTAKE.

Count Lalli demolished this fortress and all the surrounding small farms. It was an order of the Minister: an ill-fated order which soon brought sad reprisals. As soon as Fort St. David had been taken, the General left to conquer Madras. He wrote to M. de Bussi who was then in the heart of the Deccan: “As soon as I become the master of Madras, I am going to the Ganges, either by land or sea. My policy can be summarized in these five words: 'No more English in the Peninsula.'” His great zeal was unquenchable, and the fleet was not in a fit condition to back him up. It had just attempted a second naval battle in sight of Pondicherry, which was even more disastrous than the first. Comte d'Ache received two wounds, and, in this bloodthirsty fight, he had resisted the attacks of a naval army, twice as strong as his own, with five dilapidated ships. After this conflict, he demanded masts, provisions, rigging and crew from the Town Council. He got nothing. The General on the sea was no more helped by this exhausted Company than the General on the land. He went to the Ile de France near the coast of Africa to find what he had not been able to discover in India.

At the beginning of the Coromandel coast is quite a beautiful province called Tanjore. The Raja of this land, whom the French and the English called “King”, was a very rich prince. The Company claimed that this prince owed them about thirteen millions in French money.

THE ACTIONS AND LETTERS OF THE JESUIT LAVOUR

The Governor of Pondicherry, on behalf of the Company, ordered the General to demand this money again with his sword in his hand. A French Jesuit, named Lavour, the head of the Indian Mission, told him and wrote to him that Providence blessed this project in an unmistakable manner. We shall be forced to speak again of this Jesuit who played an important and tragic part in all these happenings. All we need say at present is that the General, on his journey, passed over the territory of another small prince, whose nephews had a short time before offered four lakhs of rupees to the Company in order to obtain their uncle's small state and expel him from the country. This Jesuit eagerly persuaded Count Lalli to do this good work. This is one of his letters, word for word:

”The law of succession in those countries is the law of the strongest. You must not regard the expulsion of a prince here as on the same level as in Europe.”

He told him in another letter:

You must not work simply for the glory of the King’s arms. A word to the wise ...”

This act reveals the spirit of the country and of the Jesuit.

The Prince of Tanjore sought the help of the English in Madras. They got ready to create a diversion, and he had time to admit other auxiliary troops into his capital which was threatened by a siege. The little French army did not receive from Pondicherry either provisions or the necessary ammunition, and they were forced to abandon the attempt. Providence did not bless them as much as the Jesuit had foretold. The Company received money neither from the Prince nor from the nephews who wished to dispossess their uncle.

GENERAL LALLI IN A PECULIAR KIND OF DANGER

As they were preparing to retreat, a negro of those parts, the commander of a group of negro cavalry men in Tanjore, came and presented himself to the advance guard of the French Camp followed by fifty horsemen. He said that they wanted to speak to the General and enter his service. The Count was in bed, and came out of his tent practically naked with a stick in his hand. Immediately the negro captain aimed a sword blow at him, which he just managed to parry, and the other negroes fell on him. The General's guard ran up instantly and nearly all the assassins were killed. That was the sole result of the Tanjore expedition.

CHAPTER XIV: COUNT LALLI BESIEGES MADRAS. HIS MISFORTUNES BEGIN.

At last, after useless expeditions and attempts in this part of India, and in spite of the departure of the French fleet, which was believed to be threatened by the English, the General recommenced his favourite project of besieging Madras.

“You have too little money and too few provisions”, people said to him: he replied “We shall take them from the town”. A few members of the Pondicherry Council lent him thirty-four thousand rupees. The farmers of the village or aldees [Aldee is an Arab word, preserved in Spain. The Arabs who went to India introduced there many terms from their language. Well-proved etimology often serves as a proof of the emigration of peoples.] of the Company advanced some money. The General also put his own into the fund. Forced marches were made, and they arrived in front of the town which did not expect them.

MADRAS TAKEN ON THE 13TH DECEMBER 1758.

Madras, as is well known, is divided into two parts, very different from one another. The first, where Fort St. George is, is well fortified, and has been so since Bourdonnaye’s expedition. The second is much bigger and is inhabited by merchants of all nations. It is called the “Black City”, because the “Blacks” are most numerous there. It occupies such a large space that it could not be fortified; a wall and a ditch formed its defense. This huge, rich town, was pillaged.

It is easy to imagine all the excesses, all the barbarities into which rushes the soldier who has no rein on him, and who looks upon it as his incontestible right to murder, violate, burn, rape. The officers controlled them as long as they could, but the thing that stopped them the most was the fact that as soon as they entered the town, they had to defend themselves there. The Madras garrison fell on them; a street battle ensued; houses, gardens, Hindu, Muslim and Christian temples became battlefields where the attackers, loaded with booty, fought in disorder those who came to snatch away their spoils. Count d’Estaing was the first to attack English troops who were marching on the main road. The Lorraine batallion, which he was commanding, had not yet fully reassembled, and so he fought practically alone and was made a prisoner. This misfortune brought more in its wake, because, after being sent by sea to England, he was thrown at Portsmouth into a frightful prison: treatment which was unworthy of his name, his courage, our customs and English generosity.

The capture of Count d’Estaing, at the beginning of the fight, was likely to cause the loss of the little army, which, after having taken the “Black City” by surprise, was taken by surprise itself in return. The General, accompanied by all the French nobility of which we have spoken, restored order. The English were forced back right to the bridge built between Fort St. George and the "Black City”, The Chevalier of Crillon rushed up to this bridge, and killed fifty English there. Thirty-three prisoners were made and they remained masters of the town.

The hope of taking Fort St. George soon, as La Bourdonnaye had done, inspired all the officers, but the most strange thing of all was that five or six million inhabitants of Pondicherry rushed up to the expedition out of curiosity, as if they were going to a fair. The force of the besiegers numbered only two thousand seven hundred European infantry, and three hundred cavalry men. They had only ten mortars and twenty cannons. The town was defended by sixteen thousand Europeans in the infantry and two thousand five hundred sepoys. Thus the besieged were stronger by eleven thousand men. In military tactics, it is agreed that ordinarily five besiegers are required for one besieged. Examples of the taking of a town by a number equal to the number defending it are rare: to succeed without provisions is rarer still.

What is most sad is the fact that two hundred French deserters went into Fort St. George. There is no other army where desertion is more frequent than the French army, from a natural uneasiness in the nation or from hope of being better treated elsewhere. These deserters appeared at times on the ramparts, holding a bottle of wine in one hand and a purse in the other. They exhorted their compatriots to imitate their example. For the first time, people saw a tenth of the besieging army taking refuge in the besieged town.

The siege of Madras, light-heartedly undertaken, was soon looked upon as impracticable by everybody. Mr. Pigot, the representative of the English Government and Governor of the town, promised fifty thousand rupees to the garrison if it defended itself well and he kept to his word. The man who pays in this way is better served than the man who has no money. Count Lalli had no other option but to try an attack. But, at the very time when this daring act was being prepared, in the port of Madras appeared six warships, part of the English fleet which was then near Bombay. These ships were bringing reinforcements of men and munitions. On seeing them, the officer commanding the trench deserted it. They had to raise the siege in great haste and go to defend Pondicherry, which was even more vulnerable to the English than Madras....

***

CHAPTER XVII: THE CAPTURE AND DESTRUCTION OF PONDICHERRY

While the English army was advancing towards the West and a new fleet was threatening the town in the East, Count Lalli had very few soldiers. He made use of a trick, quite usual in war and in civil life: he tried to appear to have more than he really had. He ordered a parade on the walls of the town on the seaward side. He issued instructions that all the employees of the Company should appear in uniform as soldiers, in order to overawe the enemy fleet which was alongside.

A THIRD REVOLT

The Council of Pondicherry and all its employees came to him to say that they could not obey this order. The employees said that they recognized as their Commander only the Governor established by the Company. All ordinary bourgeois think it degrading to be a soldier, although in reality it is the soldiers who give us empires. But the real reason is that they wished to cross in everything the man who had incurred the hatred of the people.

It was the third revolt which he had patched up in a few days. He only punished the heads of the faction by making them leave the town; but he insulted them with crushing words which are never forgotten, and which are bitterly remembered when one has the opportunity of revenge.

Further, the General forbade the Council to meet without his permission. The enmity of this Company was as great as that of the French Parliament’s was against the Commanders who brought the strict orders of the Court to them — often contradictory ones. He had therefore to fight citizens and enemies.

The place lacked provisions. He had houses searched for the few superfluous goods to be found there, in order to provide the troops with food necessary for their subsistence. Those who were entrusted with this sad task did not carry it out with enough discretion with regard to most of the important officers, whose name and position deserved the greatest tact. Feelings, already irritated, were wounded beyond the limit: people cried out against the tyranny. M. Dubois, Commissary of Stores, who carried out this task, became the object of public condemnation. When conquering enemies order such a search, nobody dare even whisper, but when the General ordered it to save the town, everyone rose against him.

The officers were reduced to a half-pound of rice per day; the soldiers to four ounces. The town had no more than three hundred black soldiers and seven hundred French, pressed by hunger, to defend itself against four thousand European soldiers and ten thousand black ones. They would have to surrender. Lalli, in despair, shaken by convulsions, his spirit lost and overcome, wished to give up the command in favour of the Brigadier of Landivisiau, who took good care not to accept such a delicate and tragic post. Lalli was forced to order the misfortune and shame of the colony. In the midst of all these crises, he was daily receiving anonymous notes threatening him with the sword and poison. He actually believed himself to be poisoned: he fell into an epileptic fit, and the Missionary Lavour went to the townspeople to tell them that they must pray to God for the poor Irishman who had gone mad.

However, the danger was increasing; English troops had broken down the unhappy line of troops who were surrounding the town. The General wished to assemble a mixed Civil and Military Council which should try to obtain a surrender acceptable to the town and the colony. The Council of Pondicherry replied only by refusing, "You have broken us,” they said, “and we are no longer worth anything.” “I have not broken you,” replied the General, ”I have forbidden you to meet without my permission, and I command you, in the name of the King, to assemble and form a mixed Council to calm down the strong feelings in the whole colony as well as your own.” The Council replied with this summons which they intimated to him:

“We summon you, in the name of the religious orders, of all the inhabitants and of ourselves to order Mr. Coote (the English commander) to suspend arms immediately, and we hold you responsible to the King for all the misfortunes to which ill-timed delay may give rise.”

The General thereupon called a Council of War, composed of all the principal officers still in service. They decided to surrender, but disagreed as to the conditions. Count Lalli, angered against the English who had, he said, violated on more than one occasion the cartel established between the two nations, made a separate declaration, in which he blamed them for breaking treaties. It was neither tactful nor wise to talk to the conquerors about their faults, and embitter those to whom he wished to surrender. Such, however, was his character.

Having told them his complaints, he asked them to grant protection to the mother and sisters of a Rajah, who had taken refuge in Pondicherry, when the Rajah had been assassinated in the very camp of the English. He reproached them bitterly, as was his wont, for having allowed such barbarism. Colonel Coote did not reply to this insolent statement.

THE JESUIT LAVOUR PROPOSES CAPITULATION

The Council of Pondicherry, on its side, sent terms of capitulation, drawn up by the Jesuit Lavour, to the English Commander. The missionary carried them himself. This conduct might have been good enough in Paraguay, but it was not good enough for the English. If Lalli offended them by accusing them of injustice and cruelty, they were even more offended at a Jesuit of intriguing character being deputed to negotiate with victorious warriors. The Colonel did not even deign to read the terms of the Jesuit: he gave him his own. Here they are:

“Colonel Coote desires the French to offer themselves as prisoners of war, to be treated according to interests of his master the King. He will show them every indulgence that humanity demands.  

He will send tomorrow morning, between eight and nine o'clock, the grenadiers of his regiment, who will take possession of the Vilnour door.

The day after tomorrow, at the same time, he will take possession of the St. Louis door.

The mother and the sisters of the Rajah will be escorted to Madras. Every care will be taken of them, and they will not be given up to their enemies.

Written in our General Headquarters, near Pondicherry, on the 15th January 1761.”

They had to obey the orders of General Coote. He entered the town. The small garrison laid aside their arms. The Colonel did not dine with the General, with whom he was annoyed, but with the Governor of the Company, M. Duval de Leirit, and a few members of the Council.

THE ENGLISH ENTER PONDICHERRY

Mr. Pigot, the Governor of Madras for the English Company, laid claim to his right on Pondicherry: they could not deny it, because it was he who was paying the troops. It was he who ruled everything after the conquest.

Pigot entered the service of the East India Company in 1736, at the age of 17; after nineteen years he became governor and commander-in-chief of Madras in 1755. Having defended the city against the French in 1758-1759 and occupied Pondichéry on behalf of the company, he resigned his office in November 1763 and returned to the Kingdom of Great Britain, being made a baronet in 1764. After selling the family seat of Peplow Hall, Shropshire, he purchased Patshull Hall, Staffordshire, in 1765 for £100,000.

That year he obtained the seat of Wallingford in the Parliament of Great Britain, which he retained until 1768. In 1766 he was created an Irish peer as Baron Pigot, of Patshull in the County of Dublin. From 1768 until his death he sat in the British House of Commons for Bridgnorth. Pigot was created an LL.D. of the university of Cambridge on 3 July 1769.

Returning to India in 1775 to reoccupy his former position at Madras, Pigot was at once involved in a fierce quarrel with the majority of his council which arose out of the proposed restoration of Thuljaji, the rajah of Tanjore.

Controversy and restoration

In April 1775, Pigot was appointed governor and commander-in-chief of Madras in the place of Alexander Wynch. He resumed office at Fort St. George on 11 December 1775, and soon found himself at variance with some of his council. In accordance with the instructions of the directors he proceeded to Tanjore, where he issued a proclamation on 11 April 1776 announcing the restoration of the Raja, whose territory had been seized and transferred to Muhammed Ali Khan Wallajah, Nawab of the Carnatic in spite of the treaty which had been made during Pigot's previous tenure of office. Upon Pigot's return from Tanjore the differences in the council became more accentuated. Paul Benfield had already asserted that he held assignments on the revenues of Tanjore for sums of vast amount lent by him to the Nawab, as well as assignments on the growing crops in Tanjore for large sums lent by him to other persons. He now pleaded that his interests ought not to be affected by the reinstatement of the raja, and demanded the assistance of the council in recovering his property. Pigot refused to admit the validity of these claims, but his opinion was disregarded by the majority of the council, and his customary right to precedence in the conduct of business was denied. The final struggle between the governor and his council was on a comparatively small point—whether his nominee, Mr. Russell, or Colonel Stuart, the nominee of the majority, should have the opportunity of placing the administration of Tanjore in the hands of the Raja. In spite of Pigot's refusal to allow the question of Colonel Stuart's instructions to be discussed by the council, the majority gave their approval to them, and agreed to a draft letter addressed to the officer at Tanjore, directing him to deliver over the command to Colonel Stuart. Pigot thereupon declined to sign either the instructions or the letter, and declared that without his signature the documents could have no legal effect. At a meeting of the council on 22 August 1776, a resolution was carried by the majority denying that the concurrence of the governor was necessary to constitute an act of government. It was also determined that, as Pigot would not sign either of the documents, a letter should be written to the secretary authorizing him to sign them in the name of the council. When this letter had been signed by George Stratton[4] and Henry Brooke, Pigot snatched it away and formally charged them with an act subversive of the authority of the government. By the standing orders of the company, no member against whom a charge was preferred was allowed to deliberate or vote on any question relating to the charge. Through this ingenious manœuvre, Pigot obtained a majority in the council by his own casting vote, and the two offending members were subsequently suspended. On 23 August, the refractory members, instead of attending the council meeting, sent a notary public with a protest in which they denounced Pigot's action on the previous day, and declared themselves to be the "only legal representatives of the Honourable Company under this presidency". This protest was also sent by them to the commanders of the king's troops, and to all persons holding any authority in Madras. Enraged at this insult, Pigot summoned a second council meeting on the same day, at which Messrs. Floyer, Palmer, Jerdan, and Mackay, who had joined Messrs. Stratton and Brooke and the commanding officer, Sir Robert Fletcher, in signing the protest, were suspended, and orders were at the same time given for the arrest of Sir Robert Fletcher. On the following day Pigot was arrested by Colonel Stuart and conveyed to St. Thomas's Mount, some nine miles from Madras, where he was left in an officer's house under the charge of a battery of artillery. The refractory members, under whose orders Pigot's arrest had been made, immediately assumed the powers of the executive government, and suspended all their colleagues who had voted with the governor. Though the government of Bengal possessed a controlling authority over the other presidencies, it declined to interfere.

In England, the news of these proceedings excited much discussion. At a general court of the proprietors, a resolution that the directors should take effectual measures for restoring Lord Pigot, and for inquiring into the conduct of those who had imprisoned him, was carried on 31 March 1777, by 382 votes to 140. The feeling in Pigot's favour was much less strong in the court of directors, where, on 11 April following, a series of resolutions in favour of Pigot's restoration, but declaring that his conduct in several instances appeared to be reprehensible, was carried by the decision of the lot, the numbers on each side being equal. At a subsequent meeting of the directors, after the annual change in the court had taken place, it was resolved that the powers assumed by Lord Pigot were "neither known in the constitution of the Company nor authorised by charter, nor warranted by any orders or instructions of the Court of Directors". Pigot's friends, however, successfully resisted the passing of a resolution declaring the exclusion of Messrs. Stratton and Brooke from the council unconstitutional, and carried two other resolutions condemning Pigot's imprisonment and the suspension of those members of the council who had supported him. On the other hand, a resolution condemning the conduct of Lord Pigot in receiving small presents from the Nawab of Arcot, the receipt of which had been openly avowed in a letter to the court of directors, was carried. At a meeting of the general court held on 7 and 9 May a long series of resolutions was carried by a majority of ninety-seven votes, which censured the invasion of Pigot's rights as governor, and acquiesced in his restoration, but at the same time recommended that Pigot and all the members of the council should be recalled in order that their conduct might be more effectually inquired into. Owing to Lord North's opposition, Governor Johnstone failed to carry his resolutions in favour of Lord Pigot in the House of Commons on 21 May. The resolutions of the proprietors having been confirmed by the court of directors, Pigot was restored to his office by a commission under the company's seal of 10 June 1777, and was directed within one week to give up the government to his successor and forthwith to return to England.

Death

Meantime Pigot died on 11 May 1777, while under confinement at the Company's Garden House, near Fort St. George, whither he had been allowed to return for change of air in the previous month. At the inquest held after his death, the jury recorded a verdict of willful murder against all those who had been concerned in Pigot's arrest. The real contest throughout had been between the Nawab of Arcot and the Raja of Tanjore. Members of the council took sides, and Pigot exceeded his powers while endeavouring to carry out the instructions of the directors. The proceedings before the coroner were held to be irregular by the supreme court of judicature in Bengal, and nothing came of the inquiry instituted by the company. On 16 April 1779, Admiral Hugh Pigot brought the subject of his brother's deposition before the House of Commons. A series of resolutions affirming the principal facts of the case was agreed to, and an address to the king, recommending the prosecution of Messrs. Stratton, Brooke, Floyer, and Mackay, who were at that time residing in England, was adopted. They were tried in the King's Bench before Lord Mansfield and a special jury in December 1779, and were found guilty of a misdemeanour in arresting, imprisoning, and deposing Lord Pigot. On being brought up for judgment on 10 February 1780, they were each sentenced to pay a fine of £1,000, on payment of which they were discharged.

-- George Pigot, 1st Baron Pigot, by Wikipedia

General Lalli was all the time very ill; he asked the English Governor for permission to stay four more days in Pondicherry. He was refused. They indicated to him that he must leave in two days for Madras.

We might add, since it is rather a strange thing, that Pigot was of French origin, just as Lalli was of Irish origin: both were fighting against their old fatherland.

LALLI ILL-TREATED BY HIS FOLLOWERS

This harshness was the least that he suffered. The employees of the Company, the officers of his troops, whom he had mortified without consideration, united against him. The employees, above all, insulted him right up to the time of his departure, putting up posters against him, throwing stones at his windows, calling out loudly that he was a traitor and a scoundrel. The band of people grew bigger as idlers joined it, and they, in turn, soon became inflamed by the mad anger of the others. They waited for him in the place through which he was to be carried, lying on a palanquin, followed at a distance by fifteen English hussars who had been chosen to escort him during his journey to Madras. Colonel Coote had allowed him to be accompanied by four of his guards as far as the gate of the city. The rebels surrounded his bed, loading insults upon him, and threatening to kill him. They might have been slaves who wanted to kill with their swords one of their companions. He continued his march in their midst holding two pistols in his weakened hands. His guards and the English hussars saved his life.

THE COMMISSARY OF STORES OF THE ARMY ASSASSINATED

The rebels attacked M. Dubois, an old and brave officer, seventy years old and Commissary of Stores for the Army, who passed by a moment later. This officer, the King’s man, was assassinated: he was robbed, stripped bare of clothes, buried in a garden, and his papers immediately seized and taken away from his house, since when they have never been seen.

While General Lalli was being taken to Madras, the employees of the Company obtained permission in Pondicherry to open his boxes, thinking that they would find there his treasure in gold, diamonds and bills of exchange. All they found was a little plate, clothes, useless papers, and it maddened them even more.

5TH MARCH 1761

Bowed down with sorrow and illness, Lalli, a prisoner in Madras, asked in vain for his transport to England to be delayed: he could not obtain this favour. They carried him by force on board a trading ship, whose captain treated him cruelly during the voyage. The only solace given him was pork broth. This English patriot thought it his duty to treat in this way an Irishman in the service of France. Soon the officers, the Council of Pondicherry and the chief employees were forced to follow him but, before being transferred, they had the sorrow of seeing the demolition begun of all the fortifications that they had made for their town, and the destruction of their huge shops, their markets, all that was used for trade and defence, even to their own houses.

Mr. Dupre, chosen as Governor of Pondicherry by the Council of Madras, hurried on this destruction. He was (according to our information) the grandson of one of those Frenchmen whom the strictness of the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes forced to become an exile from their fatherland and fight against it. Louis XIV did not expect that in about eighty years the capital of his India Company would be destroyed by a Frenchman.

The Jesuit Lavour wrote to him in vain: Are you equally anxious, Sir, to destroy the house in which we have a domestic altar where we can practice our religion secretly?”

Dupre was little concerned with the fact that Lavaor was saying the Mass in secret: he replied that General Lalli had razed St. David to the ground and had only given three days to the inhabitants in which to take away their possessions, that the Governor of Madras had granted three months to the inhabitants or Pondicherry and that the English were at least equal to the French in generosity, but that he must go and say the Mass elsewhere. Thereupon the town was razed to the ground pitilessly, without the French having the right to complain.

CHAPTER XVIII: LALLI AND THE OTHER PRISONERS ARE CONDUCTED TO ENGLAND AND RELEASED ON PAROLE. CRIMINAL SUIT AGAINST LALLI.

The prisoners, on the journey and in England, continued their mutual reproaches which despair made even more bitter. The General had his partisans, above all among the officers in the regiment bearing his name. Almost all the others were his enemies: one man would write to the French Ministers; another would accuse the opposite party of being the cause of the disaster. But the real cause was the same as in other parts of the world: the superiority of the English fleet, the carefulness and perseverance of the nation, its credit, its ready money, and that spirit of patriotism, which is stronger in the long run than the trading spirit and greed for riches.  

General Lalli obtained permission from the Admiralty in England to enter France on parole. The majority of his enemies obtained the same favour: they arrived preceded by all the complaints and the accusations of both sides. Paris was flooded with a thousand writings. The partisans of Lalli were very few and his enemies innumerable.

A whole Council, two hundred employees without resources, the Directors of the India Company seeing their huge establishment reduced to nothing, the shareholders trembling for their fortune, irritated officers; everybody flew at Lalli with all the more fury because they believed that in their losing he had acquired millions. Women always less restrained than men in their fears and their complaints, cried out against the traitor, the embezzler, the criminal guilty of high treason against the king.

The Council of Pondicherry, in a body, presented against him in front of the Controller-General. In this petition, they said: “It is not a desire to avenge the insults and our ruin which is our motive -- it is the force of truth, it is the pure feeling of our consciences, it is the popular complaint against him."

It seemed however that “the pure feelings of conscience” had been somewhat corrupted by the grief of having lost everything, by a personal hatred, perhaps excusable, and by a thirst for vengeance which cannot be excused.

A very brave officer of the ancient nobility, badly insulted without cause, whose honour, even, was involved, wrote in a manner even more violent than the Council of Pondicherry: “This is," he said, “what a stranger without a name, with no deeds to his credit, without family, without a title, but none the less loaded with the honours of his master, prepares for the whole colony. Nothing was sacred in his sacrilegious hands: as a leader he even laid his hands on the altar appropriating six silver candlesticks, which the English General made him give back in response to the request of the head of the Capucines,” etc.

The General had brought on himself, by his indiscretion, his impetuosity, and his unjust reproaches, this cruel accusation: it is true that he had the candlesticks and the crucifix carried to his own house, but so publicly that it was not possible that he should wish to take possession of such a small thing, in the midst of so many big things. Therefore the sentence which condemned him does not speak of sacrilege.

The reproach of his low birth was very unjust: we have got his titles together with the seal of King John. His family was very old. People therefore were overstepping the limit with him just as he had done with so many others. If anything ought to inspire men with a desire for moderation, it is this tragic event.

The Finance Minister ought naturally to protect a trading company whose ruin was liable to do so much harm to the country: a secret order was given to shut Lalli in the Bastille. He himself offered to give himself up: he wrote to the Duke of Choiseul: “I am bringing here my head and my innocence. I am awaiting your orders."

The Duke of Choiseul, Minister of War and Foreign Affairs, was generous to a fault, genial and just: the highness of his ideals equalled the breadth of his opinions, but, in an affair so important and complicated, he could not go against the clamorous demands of all Paris, nor neglect the host of imputations against the accused. Lalli was shut up in the Bastille in the same room where La Bourdonnaye had been and, like him, did not emerge from it.

It remained to be seen what judges they would give him. A Council of War seemed to be the most suitable tribunal, but he was also accused of misappropriation of funds, embezzlement, and crimes of peculation of which the Marshals of France are not the judges. Count Lalli at first only brought accusations against his enemies, who therefore tried to reply to them in some way. The case was so complicated, it was necessary to call so many witnesses, that the prisoner remained fifteen months in the Bastille without being examined, and without knowing the tribunal before which he was to plead. “That,” several legal experts used to say, “is the tragic destiny of the citizens of a kingdom, famous for its arms and its arts but lacking in good laws, or rather a kingdom where the wise old laws have been sometimes forgotten.”

THE JESUIT LAVOUR DIES. 1,250,000 POUNDS FOUND IN HIS CASH BOX.

The Jesuit Lavour was then in Paris: he was asking the Government for a modest pension of four hundred francs so that he might go and pray to God for the rest of his days in the heart of Perigord where he was born. He died, and twelve hundred and fifty thousand pounds were found in his cash box, and more in diamonds and bills of exchange. This deed of a Mission Superior from the East, and the case of the Superior of the Western Missions, La Valette, who went into bankruptcy at the same time, with three millions in debts, excited over the whole of France an indignation equal to that which was excited against Lalli. This was one of the causes which finally got the Jesuits abolished, but, at the same time, the cash box of Lavour settled the fate of Lalli. In this trunk were found two books of memoirs, one in favour of Lalli, the other charging him with all kinds of crimes. The Jesuit was to make use of one or the other of these writings, according to the turn which affairs took. These documents were a double-edged sword, and the one that harmed Lalli was delivered to the Attorney-General. This supporter of the King complained to Parliament against the Count on account of his oppression, embezzlement, treachery, and high treason. Parliament referred the suit in the first instance to the Chatelet. Soon afterwards, letters patent of the King sent to the High Tribunal and to the "Tournelle" information of all the malpractices in India so that steps may be taken against the perpetrators in accordance with the severity of the ordinances. It might have been better to stress the word justice rather than the word severity.

As the Attorney-General had accused him of the crimes of high treason and treachery against the Crown, he was denied a counsel. For his defence, he had no other help except his own. They allowed him to write, and he took advantage of this permission -- to his own undoing. His writings annoyed his enemies all the more and made new foes. He reproached Count d'Ache with being the cause of his loss in India, because he did not remain before Pondicherry. But as chief of a squadron, d’Ache had definite orders to defend the Isles of Bourbon and France against a threatened invasion. He was accusing a man who had himself fought three times against the English fleet, and had been wounded during these three battles. He blamed the Chevalier of Soupire violently, and he was answered with a moderation as praiseworthy as it is rare.

Finally, testifying that he had always rigidly done his duty, he gave vent to the same excesses with his pen as formerly he used to do with his tongue. If he had been granted a counsel, his defence would have been more circumspect, but he all the time thought that it was enough to believe oneself innocent. Above all, he forced M. de Bussi to give a reply that was as mortifying as it was well written. All impartial men saw with sorrow two brave officers like Lalli and de Bussi, both of tried valour, who had risked their lives a hundred times, pretend to suspect one another of lack of courage. Lalli took too much upon himself by insulting all his enemies in his memoirs. It was like fighting alone against an army, and it was impossible for him not to be overwhelmed. The talk of a whole town makes an impression on the judges even when they believe they are on their guard against such an influence.

-- Voltaire Fragments on India. Translated by Freda Bedi, B.A. Hons. (Oxon.)

Francis Ellis’ research

The text was difficult to assess because it was neither Hindu nor Christian, and indeed neither exclusively Indian nor exclusively European. The distinctive Europeanness of some of its ideas would not be apparent to believers in natural religion, and it was hard to test its claim to be a Veda, when before Colebrooke’s survey of 1802 there was little knowledge of what a Veda or the Veda was. The person who did the most to settle the matter was Francis Whyte Ellis (1777 1819), who like Colebrooke was an official of the East India Company doing research in his spare time. The Ezour-Védam, like India itself, passed from the French-speaking to the English-speaking world.

In 1781–82 Antoine-Louis-Henri Polier, a [French] Swiss Protestant who served in the English East India Company’s army until 1775, had had copies of the Vedas made for him at the court of Pratap Singh at Jaipur. Polier’s intermediary was a Portuguese physician, Don Pedro da Silva Leitão… Jai Singh had assembled a substantial collection of manuscripts from religious sites across India, and in the time of his successor Pratap Singh the library had contained the samhitas of all four Vedas in manuscripts dating from the last quarter of the seventeenth century…

Polier records that he had sought copies of the Veda without success in Bengal, Awadh, and on the Coromandel coast, as well as in Agra, Delhi, and Lucknow and had found that even at Banaras “nothing could be obtained but various Shasters, [which] are only Commentaries of the Baids”…

It is perhaps significant that it was in a royal library, rather than in a Brahmin pathasala, that Polier found manuscripts of the Vedas. But the same is not true of the manuscripts acquired in Banaras only fifteen years later by Henry Thomas Colebrooke, during the period (1795–97) when he was appointed as judge and magistrate at nearby Mirzapur…

I cannot conceive how it came to be ever asserted that the Brahmins were ever averse to instruct strangers; several gentlemen who have studied the language find, as I do, the greatest readiness in them to give us access to all their sciences. They do not even conceal from us the most sacred texts of their Vedas.

The several gentlemen would likely have included General Claude Martin, Sir William Jones, and Sir Robert Chambers. These were all East India Company employees who obtained Vedic manuscripts (Jones from Polier) in the last decades of the eighteenth century.

Why was it so much easier for Polier, Colebrooke, and others to obtain what it had been so difficult for the Jesuits and impossible for the Pietists?...

-- The Absent Vedas, by Will Sweetman

The two greatest empires were the British and the French; allies and partners in some things, in others they were hostile rivals. In the Orient, from the eastern shores of the Mediterranean to Indochina and Malaya, their colonial possessions and imperial spheres of influence were adjacent, frequently overlapped, often were fought over. But it was in the Near Orient, the lands of the Arab Near East, where Islam was supposed to define teal and racial characteristics, that the British and the French countered each other and “the Orient” with the greatest intensity, familiarity, and complexity. For much of the nineteenth century, as Lord Salisbury put it in 1881, their common view of the Orient was intricately problematic: “When you have got a ...faithful ally who is bent on meddling in a country in which you are deeply interested -- you have three courses open to you. You may renounce -- or monopolize -- or share. Renouncing would have been to place the French across our road to India. Monopolizing would have been very near the risk of war. So we resolved to share.”

And share they did, in ways that we shall investigate presently. What they shared, however, was not only land or profit or rule; it the kind of intellectual power I have been calling Orientalism. In a sense Orientalism was a library or archive of information commonly and, in some of its aspects, unanimously held. What bound the archive together was a family of ideas and a unifying set of values proven in various ways to be effective. These ideas explained the behavior of Orientals; they supplied Orientals with a mentality, a genealogy, an atmosphere; most important, they allowed Europeans to deal with and even to see Orientals as a phenomenon possessing regular characteristics.

-- Orientalism, by Edward W. Said

Ellis was employed in the East India Company’s base at Fort St. George (Madras / Chennai). His greatest scholarly achievement was to show the existence of a Dravidian family of languages, distinct from the Indo-Aryan family -– an idea that is taken for granted now, but which was not widely accepted until it was developed further by Robert Caldwell some forty years later. Ellis presented it in an introduction to someone else’s book, a grammar of Telugu written by A. D. Campbell for the company’s trainees in the College of Fort St. George, the South Indian counterpart to the College of Fort William in Calcutta.

In 1816, Ellis visited the former Jesuit mission in Pondicherry, and examined a collection of eight books of manuscript, in romanized Sanskrit reflecting Bengali pronunciation and French spelling, with a French version on the facing page. Some of the books contained more than one text, some contained part of one and part of another, and one contained a fair copy of the contents of some of the others. Some of the paper had a watermark with the date 1742. Some passages lacked the translation, while one, which is the Ezour-Védam, had the French but no Sanskrit. From the samples given by Ellis, we find that the Sanskrit is in ślokas, often irregular, and the French version is abridged -– or else, if the French was the original, the Sanskrit was expanded. The titles all contain the word Veda, e.g. Zozochi kormo bédo (apparently yajuṣ-karma veda), Zosur Beder Chakha27 (yajur-vedasya śākhā), La chaka du Rik et de28 Ezour védam (ṛg-veda śākhā, yajur-veda śākhā) Chama Védan (sāma-veda), Odorbo Bedo Chakha (atharva-veda-śākhā). One text, Rik Opo Bédo (perhaps ṛg-upaveda) has the title also in Tamil script reflecting Tamil pronunciation, irukku-vedam (ṛg-veda). He describes them as ‘an instance of literary forgery, or rather, as the object of the author or authors, was certainly not literary distinction, of religious imposition without parallel’ (Ellis 1822: 1).

Ellis’ description was read in a paper to the Asiatic Society of Bengal in 1817, and published in 1822. It is all the more important because, as mentioned already, the manuscripts are now lost (Rocher 1984: 74); Ellis’ article is the source of Rocher’s description as well as mine. They were last described at first hand by J. Castets, S.J., in a monograph published in Pondicherry in 1935; he says they have deteriorated since Ellis’ time, and even his description is mainly based on Ellis.

There are still many uncertainties about these texts:

Who wrote the Sanskrit ślokas, and why?

Why were the ślokas transcribed in an inconsistent and ambiguous romanization, instead of being preserved in an Indic script?

Who wrote the French version, and why?

Why are they called Vedas?

The first and second of the above questions do not apply to the Ezour-Védam, which has no Sanskrit version, but only to the other texts in the collection, which are now lost except for the samples published by Ellis. In the case of the Ezour-Védam, Rocher argues that there was no Sanskrit original; the text was written in French, by any one of a number of Jesuit missionaries, in order to be translated into Sanskrit.29 The author must have been someone familiar with European ideas, and with a knowledge of Purānic tradition, but probably a faulty knowledge, since there are so many oddities in Vyāsa’s accounts.30

-- Ezour-Védam: Europe’s illusory first glimpse of the Veda, by Dermot Killingley

[admin]

Part 2 of 2

The beginning of printing in Madras proper took place under somewhat curious circumstances which are described by Mr. W. H. Warren as follows: —

"In 1761 Sir Eyre Coote captured Pondicherry from the French and in the Governor's house was found a printing press and some types. These were brought back to Madras as part of the loot, but the Fort St. George Authorities were unable to make use of them as they had no printer. Fabricius, the great Tamil Scholar, was then living at Vepery, and the equipment was handed over to him on condition that if at any future time the Company should require any printing done, he would do it for them... It was at Vepery that Fabricius printed his hymn-book, and also his Tamil-English Dictionary (1779)." 27 [Memoirs of the Madras Library Association, Madras 1941, p. 42.]

Copies of the Tamil-English Dictionary mentioned above and of an English-Tamil dictionary printed in 1786, were to be seen at the exhibition organised on the occasion of the 1955 session of the All India Oriental Conference at Annamalainagari. The Tamil types used in the printing of this Dictionary continued to be used until 1870.

Printing in Kannada and Telugu

It appears that the beginnings of printing in Kannada and Telugu languages took place in the city of Madras in the press of the College of Fort St. George. The present writer has in his collection a copy of the second edition of "A Grammar of the Teloogo Language" by A. D. Campbell which was printed in this press in 1820. In the "Advertisement" appearing at the beginning of this book, the author describes in the following words the role which the College of Fort St. George was expected to play in the cultivation of the languages of South India: —

"Since the establishment of the College of Fort William by Marquis Wellesley, the labours of many distinguished individuals have added much valuable information to the knowledge before possessed of oriental literature, and afforded many facilities to the attainment of an improved acquaintance with the several dialects peculiar to the provinces immediately subject to the Supreme Government. A similar Institution (on a modified and less extensive scale) has more recently been established at Fort St. George, and may be expected, in course of time, to produce the same favourable results as regards the languages of the South of India; respecting which very little has as yet appeared before the public through the medium of the press, though the languages themselves had, even before the establishment of the college, been cultivated with considerable success by individuals."

As stated above, the College of Fort St. George intended to function on lines similar to those on which the College of Fort William at Calcutta did. A Board for this College was created by government in 1812. The Board maintained a sales depot and a library of oriental works. In 1820 regular rules for its observance were framed. The College trained civil servants in the languages of the province, and supervised the instruction of munshis and persons appointed as law-officers and pleaders in the provincial courts. 28 [C. S. Srinivasachari, History of the City of Madras, Madras 1939, p. 216.]

The first edition of Campbell's Grammar which appeared in 1816 29 [G. A. Grierson, Linguistic Survey of India, Vol. IV, Calcutta 1906, p. 582.] was probably also printed in the same press. It has been stated that a book in Telugu bearing the title "A Grammar of the Gentoo Language as it is understood and spoken by the Gentoo People residing north and north-westwards of Madras" by a civilian (W. Brown?) was printed in Madras earlier in 1807. 30 [Ibid.] Another Grammar of the Telinga language by Dr. William Carey was published at Serampore near Calcutta in 1814.

An English-Kannada dictionary compiled by the Rev. William Reeve, a protestant missionary belonging to the London Missionary Society, was printed in the press of the College of Fort St. George in 1824. A copy of this work is available in the library of the University of Bombay. In the prefatory "Advertisement" in this book the author gives the following information regarding its genesis:

"One of the author's principal objects in coming to India being to assist in translating the Holy Scriptures into Carnataca, he was necessarily led to pay particular attention to that language... To accomplish this object with a language that had never been brought into general notice, was, as may be easily supposed, rather a formidable task. The paucity of materials to furnish the needed data upon which to proceed, suggested the importance of attempting the formation of a Grammar and two Dictionaries, the one English and Carnataca, and the other Carnataca and English. When the first of these works had made some progress, the Grammar of J. M'Kerrell, Esq. was given to the public, and the author, therefore, from that time laid his aside. The present work was finished in 1817, after which the Dictionary Carnatica and English was commenced."

"A Grammar of the Carnatic Language" by J. M. M'Kerrel which is referred to in the above passage, was published in Madras in 1820. 31 [Ibid., p. 367.] It can be said, therefore, that printing in Kannada in Madras started in 1820 or earlier. However, in Serampore, the Baptist Missionaries, on whose printing activities we shall have occasion to dwell at some length in the next chapter, had started printing in Kannada even earlier. "A Grammar of the Kurnata Language" by Dr. W. Carey was printed in 1817 and a translation of the Bible in the same language was printed by them for the first time in 1823. It appears that the Kannada types used in the Madras College press were prepared locally, as they are somewhat different in style from those used in Serampore publications.

Although as stated above the beginnings of printing in Kannada took place in the city of Madras, Christian missionaries operating in Bellary, Bangalore and Mangalore were responsible for its subsequent development. Credit for bringing the forms of letters in Kannada type to its present state of elegance is generally ascribed to Anantacharya, who belonged to the Achari community of blacksmiths in Mangalore. 32 [Tenkana du (Canna da Sahitya Sammelana) Mangalore 1947, pp. 114-116.]

-- The Printing Press in India: It's Beginnings and Early Development Being a Quatercentenary Commemoration Study of the Advent of Printing in India (In 1556), by Anant Kakba Priolkar

Fort St George
Part of Tamil Nadu
Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
Fort St George, the seat of Government of Tamil Nadu

Coordinates 13.079722°N 80.286944°E
Type Forts
Height 45 metres[citation needed]
Site information
Controlled by Government of Tamil Nadu
Condition Good
Site history
Built 1639; 382 years ago
Built by British East India Company
Garrison information
Occupants Tamil Nadu legislative assembly–Secretariat battles =


Plan of Fort St George made during the French occupation of 1746–1749


An 18th-century sketch of the fort


Corner of Fort St George with cathedral, ca 1905

Fort St George (or historically, White Town[1]) is the first English (later British) fortress in India, founded in 1639[2] at the coastal city of Madras, the modern city of Chennai. The construction of the fort provided the impetus for further settlements and trading activity, in what was originally an uninhabited land.[3] Thus, it is a feasible contention to say that the city evolved around the fortress.[4] The fort currently houses the Tamil Nadu legislative assembly and other official buildings.

History


Fort St George in 1858


In the Fort, Madras (MacLeod, p 124, 1871)[5]

The East India Company (EIC), which had entered India around 1600 for trading activities, had begun licensed trading at Surat, which was its initial bastion. However, to secure its trade lines and commercial interests in the spice trade, it felt the necessity of a port closer to the Malaccan Straits, and succeeded in purchasing a piece of coastal land, originally called Chennirayarpattinam or Channapatnam, where the Company began the construction of a harbour and a fort. The fort was completed on 23 April 1644 at a cost of £3,000,[6] coinciding with St George's Day, celebrated in honour of the patron saint of England. The fort, hence christened Fort St George, faced the sea and some fishing villages, and it soon became the hub of merchant activity. It gave birth to a new settlement area called George Town (historically referred to as Black Town), which grew to envelop the villages and led to the formation of the city of Madras. It also helped to establish English influence over the Carnatic and to keep the kings of Arcot and Srirangapatna, as well as the French forces based at Pondichéry, at bay. In 1665, after the EIC received word of the formation of the new French East India Company, the fort was strengthened and enlarged while its garrison was increased.[7]

According to the 17th century traveller Thomas Bowrey, Fort St. George was:

"without all dispute a beneficiall place to the Honourable English India Company, and with all the Residence of theire Honourable Agent and Governour all of their Affaires Upon this Coast and the Coast of Gingalee, the Kingdoms also of Orixa, (Orissa) Bengala (Bengal), and Pattana (Patna), the said Governour and his Councell here resideigne, for the Honour of our English Nation keepinge and maintainneinge the place in great Splendour, Civil and good Government, Entertaineinge nobly all Foraign Embassadors, and provideinge great quantities of Muzlinge (Muslin) Callicoes (Calico) &c. to be yearly transported to England."[8]

The Fort is a stronghold with 6 metres (20 ft) high walls that withstood a number of assaults in the 18th century. It briefly passed into the possession of the French from 1746 to 1749, but was restored to Great Britain under the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle, which ended the War of the Austrian Succession.

The Fort now serves as one of the administrative headquarters for the legislative assembly of Tamil Nadu state and it still houses a garrison of troops in transit to various locations at South India and the Andamans. The Fort Museum contains many relics of the Raj era, including portraits of many of the Governors of Madras. The fort is maintained by the Archaeological Survey of India, with the administrative support of Indian Army.[9][10]

The church

St Mary's Church is the oldest Anglican church in India. It was built between 1678 and 1680 on the orders of the then Agent of Madras Streynsham Master.[11] The tombstones in its graveyard are the oldest English or British tombstones in India. This ancient prayer house solemnised the marriages of Robert Clive and Governor Elihu Yale, who later became the first benefactor of Yale University in the United States.

Museum


Victoria memorial hall


Coat of Arms of Madras Presidency depicting Fort St. George

The Fort Museum, which is the only ticketed institution of Archaeological Survey of India in the complex,[12] exhibits many items of the period of English and later British rule. This building was completed in 1795 and first housed the office of the Madras Bank. The hall upstairs was the Public Exchange Hall and served as a place for public meetings, lottery draws and occasional entertainment. These relics are reminders of British rule in India. The objects on display in the museum are the weapons, coins, medals, uniforms and other artefacts from England, Scotland, France and India dating back to the colonial period. Original letters written by Clive and Cornwallis make fascinating reading. One set of quaint period uniforms is displayed for viewing, as well. However, the piece de resistance is a large statue of Lord Cornwallis.

The National Flag of India was designed by Pingali Venkayya and adopted in its present form during the meeting of the Constituent Assembly held on 22 July 1947, a few days before India's independence from the British on 15 August 1947. The first ever flag flown after the independence is stored in the third floor of the museum. The public are allowed to see but not to touch or take photographs.

The museum is mentioned in the novel The Museum of Innocence, by Nobel-laureate Orhan Pamuk.

Wellesley House

The first floor of the building includes the Banqueting Hall, which holds paintings of the Governor of the Fort and other high officials of the Regime. The canons of Tipu Sultan decorate the ramparts of the museum. The 14.5 ft statue stands at the entrance near a stairway in the museum. This statue was created by Charles Bank in England to be brought to India. The pedestal of the statue is carved with a scene depicting Tipu Sultan's emissary handing over Tipu's two sons as hostage in lieu of a ransom he was unable to pay to the British. It takes its name from Richard Wellesley, Governor General of India, and brother of the Duke of Wellington.

Flag staff

The flag staff at the fort is one of the tallest in the country. Made of teakwood, it is 150 feet (46 m) high.[13]

Namakkal Kavingyar Maaligai

Main article: Namakkal Kavingyar Maaligai

Namakkal Kavingyar Maaligai is a 10-storeyed building at the campus and is the power centre of state secretariat. It houses offices of the secretaries and departments. Between 2012 and 2014, the building was renovated at a cost of ₹ 28 crore, with additional facilities like centralised air-conditioning and new electrical wiring system.[14]

In recent years

The entire complex is administered by the Department of Defence. The fort building is a three-storeyed one housing the offices of the chief minister and other ministers, the chief secretary, home ministry, treasury, etc. The remaining offices are housed in the 10-storeyed Namakkal Kavingyar Maaligai, which houses more than 30 departments.[15]

Fort St George complex housed the administrative buildings of the Government of Tamil Nadu till March 2010. The Legislature of Tamil Nadu and the secretariat (with headquarters of various government departments) was situated in the fort. The fort itself was open to the public however only to a certain area. The main building or the secretariat was open only to government officials and the police. The cannons and the moat which guarded this old building have been left untouched. In 2010 the legislature and the secretariat moved to a new location and the old assembly complex was converted into a library for the Central Institute of Classical Tamil.[16] Following the 2011 assembly elections and the return of J Jayalalithaa as the Chief Minister of the State, the Tamil Nadu Assembly and the Secretariat have been restored to Fort St George.[17]

Other monuments

An arch commemorating the diamond jubilee of Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly is under construction near the Fort on Rajaji Salai close to Napier Bridge. The structure is a replica of Fort St George's façade. The arch will be rectangular in structure with a height of 41 ft and 80 m width being built at a cost of ₹ 1.33 crore. The structure will be a mix of old and modern architecture, inspired by the frontage of Fort St George. The legend 'Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly diamond jubilee commemorative arch' would be inscribed in English and Tamil, in addition to the words '60 years'. The chief minister J Jayalalithaa laid the foundation stone for the arch on 30 October 2012. Earlier, the arch was planned to be constructed close to the entrance of Fort St George, but was later relocated beyond the prohibitive zone, as per AMASR Act. A public interest litigation (PIL) was filed in the Madras High Court opposing the move stating that the arch would choke Rajaji Salai that leads to the High Court. However, the petition was dismissed by a division bench on 9 January 2013.[18]

See also

• India portal
• Timeline of Chennai history (Section: 17th century)
• History of Chennai
• Tamil Nadu legislative assembly-secretariat complex
• List of Tamil Nadu Government Estates, Complexes, Buildings and Structures
• Heritage structures in Chennai

References

1. James Talboys Wheeler (1881). The History of India from the Earliest Ages. N. Trübner. pp. 489–.
2. Roberts, "History of the World" (Penguin, 1994)
3. Muthiah, S (12 August 2002). "A centenary's links with Chennai". The Hindu. Archived from the original on 28 October 2003. Retrieved 6 September 2002.
4. http://www.iloveindia.com/indian-monume ... eorge.html
5. MacLeod, Norman (1871). Peeps at the Far East: A Familiar Account of a Visit to India. London: Strahan & Co. Retrieved 2 November 2015.
6. Keay, John (1991). The Honourable Company A History Of The English East India Company (1993 ed.). Great Britain: HarperCollinsPublishers. p. 69. ISBN 978-0-00-743155-7.
7. Talboys Wheeler, James (1861). Madras in the Olden Time. 1. Madras: J. Higginbotham. p. 72. ISBN 9788120605534.
8. Bowrey, Thomas (1895). Temple, Richard Carnac (ed.). A Geographical Account of Countries Round the Bay of Bengal, 1669 to 1679. p. 4.
9. http://asichennai.gov.in/downloads/list ... ldings.pdf
10. Jesudasan, Dennis S. (10 August 2018). "Business group may adopt Fort St. George". The Hindu. Retrieved 28 December 2018.
11. Talboys Wheeler, James (1861). Madras in the Olden Time. 1. Madras: J. Higginbotham. p. 104. ISBN 9788120605534.
12. https://www.goibibo.com/destinations/ch ... 210220682/
13. "Fort St. George, Chennai". Maps of India. Retrieved 12 January 2013.
14. Mariappan, Julie (10 July 2014). "Jayalalithaa opens renovated exterior of Namakkal Kavignar Maligai". The Times of India. Chennai: The Times Group. Retrieved 7 February 2015.
15. "புதுப்பிக்கப்பட்ட நாமக்கல் கவிஞர் மாளிகை: ஜெயலலிதா நாளை திறந்து வைக்கிறார்". Malai Malar (in Tamil). Chennai. 9 July 2014. Archived from the original on 7 February 2015. Retrieved 7 February 2015.
16. "Old Assembly Chamber to turn reference library". The Hindu. 11 June 2010. Retrieved 13 June 2010.
17. "New secretariat in Chennai to be converted into hospital".
18. Sasidharan, S. (19 February 2013). "Work begins on Assembly arch". The Deccan Chronicle. Chennai. Retrieved 22 February 2013.

External links

• Letters to Fort St. George
• Paintings of Fort St George
• The University of Houston Digital Library has a collection of historical photographs from the magazine, India Illustrated. View this collection at the University of Houston Digital Libraries

[admin]

Fort St. David
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 6/13/21

PONDICHERRY

Quite near Fort St. David, in an arid plain without a port, the French bought, like the others, from the Soubeidar of the Deccan province, a small piece of land where they built a station, which they later made into a town of considerable importance, — the Pondicherry of which we have already spoken. At first, it was merely a trading centre surrounded by a thick hedge of acacias, palms, cocoanut trees, and aloes, and it was called “the boundary hedge."...

LALLI BEGINS BY BESIEGING THREE PLACES AND TAKING THEM.

As soon as he arrived, he besieged three places: one was Kudalur, [Old name for Cuddalore. Voltaire says Goudalour.] a little fort three miles from Pondicherry; the second was Saint David, a much bigger fortress; the third Devikota, [Voltaire says Divicotey.] which surrendered as he approached. It was flattering for him to have under his orders, in these first expeditions, a Count d’Estaing, descendant of that d’Estaing who saved the life of Philip Augustus at the battle of Bovine, and who transferred to his family the arms of the kings of France; a Constans, whose family was so old and famed, a La Fare, and many other officers of the first rank. It was not customary to send out young men of big families to take service in India. It would certainly have been necessary to have more troops and money with them. However, the Count d' Estaing had taken Kudalur in a day; and the day after, the General, followed by this flower of manhood, had gone to lay siege to the important station of St. David.

A NAVAL BATTLE BETWEEN ADMIRAL POCOCK AND ADMIRAL D'ACHE: 29th APRIL 1758

Not a minute was lost between the two rival nations. While Count d’Estaing was taking Kudalur, the English Fleet, commanded by Admiral Pocock, was attacking that of Comte d'Ache on the coast of Pondicherry. Men wounded or killed, broken masts, torn sails, tattered rigging, were the sole results of this indecisive battle. The two damaged fleets remained in those parts, equally unable to injure one another. The French was the worst treated — it had only forty dead, but five hundred men had been wounded, including Comte d’Ache and his captain, and after the battle, by bad luck, a ship of seventy-four cannons was lost on the coast. But a palpable proof that the French Admiral [We give the name of admiral to the chief of a squadron because it is the title of the English chiefs of squadrons. The "Grand Admiral” is in England what the admiral is in France. (V.)] shared with the English Admiral the honour of the day, is that the Englishmen did not attempt to send help to the besieged Fort St. David.

Everything was opposed in Pondicherry to the enterprise of the General. Nothing was ready to second him. He demanded bombs, mortars, and utensils of all kinds, and they had not got any. The siege dragged along; people began to fear the disgrace of abandoning it; even money was lacking. The two millions brought by the fleet and given to the treasury of the Company were already spent. The Merchants’ Council of Pondicherry had thought it necessary to pay their immediate debts in order to revive their credit, and had issued orders to Paris that, if help of ten millions was not forthcoming, everything would be lost. The Governor of Pondicherry, the successor of Godeheu, on behalf of the Merchants’ administration, wrote to the General on the 24th May this letter, which was received in the trenches:

“My resources are exhausted and we have no longer any hope left unless we are successful. Where shall I find resources in a country ruined by fifteen years of war, enough to pay the expenses of your army and of a squadron from which we were hoping for a great deal of help. On the contrary, there is nothing.”

This single letter explains the cause of all the disasters which had been experienced and of all those that followed. The more the want of necessary things was felt in the town, the more the General was blamed for having undertaken the siege of Fort St. David.

In spite of so many defeats and obstacles, the General forced the English commander to yield. In St. David were found one hundred and eighty cannons, all kinds of provisions which were lacking in Pondicherry, and money of which there was a still greater lack. There was three hundred thousand pounds in coin, which was all forwarded to the treasury of the Company. We are only noting here facts on which all parties agree.

THE 2ND JULY 1758. LALLI PUTS THIS COMBAT ON THE 3RD OF AUGUST IN HIS MEMOIRS. IT IS A MISTAKE.

Count Lalli demolished this fortress and all the surrounding small farms. It was an order of the Minister: an ill-fated order which soon brought sad reprisals. As soon as Fort St. David had been taken, the General left to conquer Madras. He wrote to M. de Bussi who was then in the heart of the Deccan: “As soon as I become the master of Madras, I am going to the Ganges, either by land or sea. My policy can be summarized in these five words: 'No more English in the Peninsula.'” His great zeal was unquenchable, and the fleet was not in a fit condition to back him up. It had just attempted a second naval battle in sight of Pondicherry, which was even more disastrous than the first. Comte d'Ache received two wounds, and, in this bloodthirsty fight, he had resisted the attacks of a naval army, twice as strong as his own, with five dilapidated ships. After this conflict, he demanded masts, provisions, rigging and crew from the Town Council. He got nothing. The General on the sea was no more helped by this exhausted Company than the General on the land. He went to the Ile de France near the coast of Africa to find what he had not been able to discover in India.

At the beginning of the Coromandel coast is quite a beautiful province called Tanjore. The Raja of this land, whom the French and the English called “King”, was a very rich prince. The Company claimed that this prince owed them about thirteen millions in French money.

THE ACTIONS AND LETTERS OF THE JESUIT LAVOUR

The Governor of Pondicherry, on behalf of the Company, ordered the General to demand this money again with his sword in his hand. A French Jesuit, named Lavour, the head of the Indian Mission, told him and wrote to him that Providence blessed this project in an unmistakable manner. We shall be forced to speak again of this Jesuit who played an important and tragic part in all these happenings. All we need say at present is that the General, on his journey, passed over the territory of another small prince, whose nephews had a short time before offered four lakhs of rupees to the Company in order to obtain their uncle's small state and expel him from the country. This Jesuit eagerly persuaded Count Lalli to do this good work. This is one of his letters, word for word:

”The law of succession in those countries is the law of the strongest. You must not regard the expulsion of a prince here as on the same level as in Europe.”

He told him in another letter:

You must not work simply for the glory of the King’s arms. A word to the wise ...”

This act reveals the spirit of the country and of the Jesuit.

The Prince of Tanjore sought the help of the English in Madras. They got ready to create a diversion, and he had time to admit other auxiliary troops into his capital which was threatened by a siege. The little French army did not receive from Pondicherry either provisions or the necessary ammunition, and they were forced to abandon the attempt. Providence did not bless them as much as the Jesuit had foretold. The Company received money neither from the Prince nor from the nephews who wished to dispossess their uncle.

GENERAL LALLI IN A PECULIAR KIND OF DANGER

As they were preparing to retreat, a negro of those parts, the commander of a group of negro cavalry men in Tanjore, came and presented himself to the advance guard of the French Camp followed by fifty horsemen. He said that they wanted to speak to the General and enter his service. The Count was in bed, and came out of his tent practically naked with a stick in his hand. Immediately the negro captain aimed a sword blow at him, which he just managed to parry, and the other negroes fell on him. The General's guard ran up instantly and nearly all the assassins were killed. That was the sole result of the Tanjore expedition.

CHAPTER XIV: COUNT LALLI BESIEGES MADRAS. HIS MISFORTUNES BEGIN.

At last, after useless expeditions and attempts in this part of India, and in spite of the departure of the French fleet, which was believed to be threatened by the English, the General recommenced his favourite project of besieging Madras.

“You have too little money and too few provisions”, people said to him: he replied “We shall take them from the town”. A few members of the Pondicherry Council lent him thirty-four thousand rupees. The farmers of the village or aldees [Aldee is an Arab word, preserved in Spain. The Arabs who went to India introduced there many terms from their language. Well-proved etimology often serves as a proof of the emigration of peoples.] of the Company advanced some money. The General also put his own into the fund. Forced marches were made, and they arrived in front of the town which did not expect them.

MADRAS TAKEN ON THE 13TH DECEMBER 1758.

Madras, as is well known, is divided into two parts, very different from one another. The first, where Fort St. George is, is well fortified, and has been so since Bourdonnaye’s expedition. The second is much bigger and is inhabited by merchants of all nations. It is called the “Black City”, because the “Blacks” are most numerous there. It occupies such a large space that it could not be fortified; a wall and a ditch formed its defense. This huge, rich town, was pillaged.

It is easy to imagine all the excesses, all the barbarities into which rushes the soldier who has no rein on him, and who looks upon it as his incontestible right to murder, violate, burn, rape. The officers controlled them as long as they could, but the thing that stopped them the most was the fact that as soon as they entered the town, they had to defend themselves there. The Madras garrison fell on them; a street battle ensued; houses, gardens, Hindu, Muslim and Christian temples became battlefields where the attackers, loaded with booty, fought in disorder those who came to snatch away their spoils. Count d’Estaing was the first to attack English troops who were marching on the main road. The Lorraine batallion, which he was commanding, had not yet fully reassembled, and so he fought practically alone and was made a prisoner. This misfortune brought more in its wake, because, after being sent by sea to England, he was thrown at Portsmouth into a frightful prison: treatment which was unworthy of his name, his courage, our customs and English generosity.

The capture of Count d’Estaing, at the beginning of the fight, was likely to cause the loss of the little army, which, after having taken the “Black City” by surprise, was taken by surprise itself in return. The General, accompanied by all the French nobility of which we have spoken, restored order. The English were forced back right to the bridge built between Fort St. George and the "Black City”, The Chevalier of Crillon rushed up to this bridge, and killed fifty English there. Thirty-three prisoners were made and they remained masters of the town.

The hope of taking Fort St. George soon, as La Bourdonnaye had done, inspired all the officers, but the most strange thing of all was that five or six million inhabitants of Pondicherry rushed up to the expedition out of curiosity, as if they were going to a fair. The force of the besiegers numbered only two thousand seven hundred European infantry, and three hundred cavalry men. They had only ten mortars and twenty cannons. The town was defended by sixteen thousand Europeans in the infantry and two thousand five hundred sepoys. Thus the besieged were stronger by eleven thousand men. In military tactics, it is agreed that ordinarily five besiegers are required for one besieged. Examples of the taking of a town by a number equal to the number defending it are rare: to succeed without provisions is rarer still.

What is most sad is the fact that two hundred French deserters went into Fort St. George. There is no other army where desertion is more frequent than the French army, from a natural uneasiness in the nation or from hope of being better treated elsewhere. These deserters appeared at times on the ramparts, holding a bottle of wine in one hand and a purse in the other. They exhorted their compatriots to imitate their example. For the first time, people saw a tenth of the besieging army taking refuge in the besieged town.

The siege of Madras, light-heartedly undertaken, was soon looked upon as impracticable by everybody. Mr. Pigot, the representative of the English Government and Governor of the town, promised fifty thousand rupees to the garrison if it defended itself well and he kept to his word. The man who pays in this way is better served than the man who has no money. Count Lalli had no other option but to try an attack. But, at the very time when this daring act was being prepared, in the port of Madras appeared six warships, part of the English fleet which was then near Bombay. These ships were bringing reinforcements of men and munitions. On seeing them, the officer commanding the trench deserted it. They had to raise the siege in great haste and go to defend Pondicherry, which was even more vulnerable to the English than Madras....

***

CHAPTER XVII: THE CAPTURE AND DESTRUCTION OF PONDICHERRY

While the English army was advancing towards the West and a new fleet was threatening the town in the East, Count Lalli had very few soldiers. He made use of a trick, quite usual in war and in civil life: he tried to appear to have more than he really had. He ordered a parade on the walls of the town on the seaward side. He issued instructions that all the employees of the Company should appear in uniform as soldiers, in order to overawe the enemy fleet which was alongside.

A THIRD REVOLT

The Council of Pondicherry and all its employees came to him to say that they could not obey this order. The employees said that they recognized as their Commander only the Governor established by the Company. All ordinary bourgeois think it degrading to be a soldier, although in reality it is the soldiers who give us empires. But the real reason is that they wished to cross in everything the man who had incurred the hatred of the people.

It was the third revolt which he had patched up in a few days. He only punished the heads of the faction by making them leave the town; but he insulted them with crushing words which are never forgotten, and which are bitterly remembered when one has the opportunity of revenge.

Further, the General forbade the Council to meet without his permission. The enmity of this Company was as great as that of the French Parliament’s was against the Commanders who brought the strict orders of the Court to them — often contradictory ones. He had therefore to fight citizens and enemies.

The place lacked provisions. He had houses searched for the few superfluous goods to be found there, in order to provide the troops with food necessary for their subsistence. Those who were entrusted with this sad task did not carry it out with enough discretion with regard to most of the important officers, whose name and position deserved the greatest tact. Feelings, already irritated, were wounded beyond the limit: people cried out against the tyranny. M. Dubois, Commissary of Stores, who carried out this task, became the object of public condemnation. When conquering enemies order such a search, nobody dare even whisper, but when the General ordered it to save the town, everyone rose against him.

The officers were reduced to a half-pound of rice per day; the soldiers to four ounces. The town had no more than three hundred black soldiers and seven hundred French, pressed by hunger, to defend itself against four thousand European soldiers and ten thousand black ones. They would have to surrender. Lalli, in despair, shaken by convulsions, his spirit lost and overcome, wished to give up the command in favour of the Brigadier of Landivisiau, who took good care not to accept such a delicate and tragic post. Lalli was forced to order the misfortune and shame of the colony. In the midst of all these crises, he was daily receiving anonymous notes threatening him with the sword and poison. He actually believed himself to be poisoned: he fell into an epileptic fit, and the Missionary Lavour went to the townspeople to tell them that they must pray to God for the poor Irishman who had gone mad.

However, the danger was increasing; English troops had broken down the unhappy line of troops who were surrounding the town. The General wished to assemble a mixed Civil and Military Council which should try to obtain a surrender acceptable to the town and the colony. The Council of Pondicherry replied only by refusing, "You have broken us,” they said, “and we are no longer worth anything.” “I have not broken you,” replied the General, ”I have forbidden you to meet without my permission, and I command you, in the name of the King, to assemble and form a mixed Council to calm down the strong feelings in the whole colony as well as your own.” The Council replied with this summons which they intimated to him:

“We summon you, in the name of the religious orders, of all the inhabitants and of ourselves to order Mr. Coote (the English commander) to suspend arms immediately, and we hold you responsible to the King for all the misfortunes to which ill-timed delay may give rise.”

The General thereupon called a Council of War, composed of all the principal officers still in service. They decided to surrender, but disagreed as to the conditions. Count Lalli, angered against the English who had, he said, violated on more than one occasion the cartel established between the two nations, made a separate declaration, in which he blamed them for breaking treaties. It was neither tactful nor wise to talk to the conquerors about their faults, and embitter those to whom he wished to surrender. Such, however, was his character.

Having told them his complaints, he asked them to grant protection to the mother and sisters of a Rajah, who had taken refuge in Pondicherry, when the Rajah had been assassinated in the very camp of the English. He reproached them bitterly, as was his wont, for having allowed such barbarism. Colonel Coote did not reply to this insolent statement.

THE JESUIT LAVOUR PROPOSES CAPITULATION

The Council of Pondicherry, on its side, sent terms of capitulation, drawn up by the Jesuit Lavour, to the English Commander. The missionary carried them himself. This conduct might have been good enough in Paraguay, but it was not good enough for the English. If Lalli offended them by accusing them of injustice and cruelty, they were even more offended at a Jesuit of intriguing character being deputed to negotiate with victorious warriors. The Colonel did not even deign to read the terms of the Jesuit: he gave him his own. Here they are:

“Colonel Coote desires the French to offer themselves as prisoners of war, to be treated according to interests of his master the King. He will show them every indulgence that humanity demands.  

He will send tomorrow morning, between eight and nine o'clock, the grenadiers of his regiment, who will take possession of the Vilnour door.

The day after tomorrow, at the same time, he will take possession of the St. Louis door.

The mother and the sisters of the Rajah will be escorted to Madras. Every care will be taken of them, and they will not be given up to their enemies.

Written in our General Headquarters, near Pondicherry, on the 15th January 1761.”

They had to obey the orders of General Coote. He entered the town. The small garrison laid aside their arms. The Colonel did not dine with the General, with whom he was annoyed, but with the Governor of the Company, M. Duval de Leirit, and a few members of the Council.

THE ENGLISH ENTER PONDICHERRY

Mr. Pigot, the Governor of Madras for the English Company, laid claim to his right on Pondicherry: they could not deny it, because it was he who was paying the troops. It was he who ruled everything after the conquest.

Pigot entered the service of the East India Company in 1736, at the age of 17; after nineteen years he became governor and commander-in-chief of Madras in 1755. Having defended the city against the French in 1758-1759 and occupied Pondichéry on behalf of the company, he resigned his office in November 1763 and returned to the Kingdom of Great Britain, being made a baronet in 1764. After selling the family seat of Peplow Hall, Shropshire, he purchased Patshull Hall, Staffordshire, in 1765 for £100,000.

That year he obtained the seat of Wallingford in the Parliament of Great Britain, which he retained until 1768. In 1766 he was created an Irish peer as Baron Pigot, of Patshull in the County of Dublin. From 1768 until his death he sat in the British House of Commons for Bridgnorth. Pigot was created an LL.D. of the university of Cambridge on 3 July 1769.

Returning to India in 1775 to reoccupy his former position at Madras, Pigot was at once involved in a fierce quarrel with the majority of his council which arose out of the proposed restoration of Thuljaji, the rajah of Tanjore.

Controversy and restoration

In April 1775, Pigot was appointed governor and commander-in-chief of Madras in the place of Alexander Wynch. He resumed office at Fort St. George on 11 December 1775, and soon found himself at variance with some of his council. In accordance with the instructions of the directors he proceeded to Tanjore, where he issued a proclamation on 11 April 1776 announcing the restoration of the Raja, whose territory had been seized and transferred to Muhammed Ali Khan Wallajah, Nawab of the Carnatic in spite of the treaty which had been made during Pigot's previous tenure of office. Upon Pigot's return from Tanjore the differences in the council became more accentuated. Paul Benfield had already asserted that he held assignments on the revenues of Tanjore for sums of vast amount lent by him to the Nawab, as well as assignments on the growing crops in Tanjore for large sums lent by him to other persons. He now pleaded that his interests ought not to be affected by the reinstatement of the raja, and demanded the assistance of the council in recovering his property. Pigot refused to admit the validity of these claims, but his opinion was disregarded by the majority of the council, and his customary right to precedence in the conduct of business was denied. The final struggle between the governor and his council was on a comparatively small point—whether his nominee, Mr. Russell, or Colonel Stuart, the nominee of the majority, should have the opportunity of placing the administration of Tanjore in the hands of the Raja. In spite of Pigot's refusal to allow the question of Colonel Stuart's instructions to be discussed by the council, the majority gave their approval to them, and agreed to a draft letter addressed to the officer at Tanjore, directing him to deliver over the command to Colonel Stuart. Pigot thereupon declined to sign either the instructions or the letter, and declared that without his signature the documents could have no legal effect. At a meeting of the council on 22 August 1776, a resolution was carried by the majority denying that the concurrence of the governor was necessary to constitute an act of government. It was also determined that, as Pigot would not sign either of the documents, a letter should be written to the secretary authorizing him to sign them in the name of the council. When this letter had been signed by George Stratton[4] and Henry Brooke, Pigot snatched it away and formally charged them with an act subversive of the authority of the government. By the standing orders of the company, no member against whom a charge was preferred was allowed to deliberate or vote on any question relating to the charge. Through this ingenious manœuvre, Pigot obtained a majority in the council by his own casting vote, and the two offending members were subsequently suspended. On 23 August, the refractory members, instead of attending the council meeting, sent a notary public with a protest in which they denounced Pigot's action on the previous day, and declared themselves to be the "only legal representatives of the Honourable Company under this presidency". This protest was also sent by them to the commanders of the king's troops, and to all persons holding any authority in Madras. Enraged at this insult, Pigot summoned a second council meeting on the same day, at which Messrs. Floyer, Palmer, Jerdan, and Mackay, who had joined Messrs. Stratton and Brooke and the commanding officer, Sir Robert Fletcher, in signing the protest, were suspended, and orders were at the same time given for the arrest of Sir Robert Fletcher. On the following day Pigot was arrested by Colonel Stuart and conveyed to St. Thomas's Mount, some nine miles from Madras, where he was left in an officer's house under the charge of a battery of artillery. The refractory members, under whose orders Pigot's arrest had been made, immediately assumed the powers of the executive government, and suspended all their colleagues who had voted with the governor. Though the government of Bengal possessed a controlling authority over the other presidencies, it declined to interfere.

In England, the news of these proceedings excited much discussion. At a general court of the proprietors, a resolution that the directors should take effectual measures for restoring Lord Pigot, and for inquiring into the conduct of those who had imprisoned him, was carried on 31 March 1777, by 382 votes to 140. The feeling in Pigot's favour was much less strong in the court of directors, where, on 11 April following, a series of resolutions in favour of Pigot's restoration, but declaring that his conduct in several instances appeared to be reprehensible, was carried by the decision of the lot, the numbers on each side being equal. At a subsequent meeting of the directors, after the annual change in the court had taken place, it was resolved that the powers assumed by Lord Pigot were "neither known in the constitution of the Company nor authorised by charter, nor warranted by any orders or instructions of the Court of Directors". Pigot's friends, however, successfully resisted the passing of a resolution declaring the exclusion of Messrs. Stratton and Brooke from the council unconstitutional, and carried two other resolutions condemning Pigot's imprisonment and the suspension of those members of the council who had supported him. On the other hand, a resolution condemning the conduct of Lord Pigot in receiving small presents from the Nawab of Arcot, the receipt of which had been openly avowed in a letter to the court of directors, was carried. At a meeting of the general court held on 7 and 9 May a long series of resolutions was carried by a majority of ninety-seven votes, which censured the invasion of Pigot's rights as governor, and acquiesced in his restoration, but at the same time recommended that Pigot and all the members of the council should be recalled in order that their conduct might be more effectually inquired into. Owing to Lord North's opposition, Governor Johnstone failed to carry his resolutions in favour of Lord Pigot in the House of Commons on 21 May. The resolutions of the proprietors having been confirmed by the court of directors, Pigot was restored to his office by a commission under the company's seal of 10 June 1777, and was directed within one week to give up the government to his successor and forthwith to return to England.

Death

Meantime Pigot died on 11 May 1777, while under confinement at the Company's Garden House, near Fort St. George, whither he had been allowed to return for change of air in the previous month. At the inquest held after his death, the jury recorded a verdict of willful murder against all those who had been concerned in Pigot's arrest. The real contest throughout had been between the Nawab of Arcot and the Raja of Tanjore. Members of the council took sides, and Pigot exceeded his powers while endeavouring to carry out the instructions of the directors. The proceedings before the coroner were held to be irregular by the supreme court of judicature in Bengal, and nothing came of the inquiry instituted by the company. On 16 April 1779, Admiral Hugh Pigot brought the subject of his brother's deposition before the House of Commons. A series of resolutions affirming the principal facts of the case was agreed to, and an address to the king, recommending the prosecution of Messrs. Stratton, Brooke, Floyer, and Mackay, who were at that time residing in England, was adopted. They were tried in the King's Bench before Lord Mansfield and a special jury in December 1779, and were found guilty of a misdemeanour in arresting, imprisoning, and deposing Lord Pigot. On being brought up for judgment on 10 February 1780, they were each sentenced to pay a fine of £1,000, on payment of which they were discharged.

-- George Pigot, 1st Baron Pigot, by Wikipedia

General Lalli was all the time very ill; he asked the English Governor for permission to stay four more days in Pondicherry. He was refused. They indicated to him that he must leave in two days for Madras.

We might add, since it is rather a strange thing, that Pigot was of French origin, just as Lalli was of Irish origin: both were fighting against their old fatherland.

LALLI ILL-TREATED BY HIS FOLLOWERS

This harshness was the least that he suffered. The employees of the Company, the officers of his troops, whom he had mortified without consideration, united against him. The employees, above all, insulted him right up to the time of his departure, putting up posters against him, throwing stones at his windows, calling out loudly that he was a traitor and a scoundrel. The band of people grew bigger as idlers joined it, and they, in turn, soon became inflamed by the mad anger of the others. They waited for him in the place through which he was to be carried, lying on a palanquin, followed at a distance by fifteen English hussars who had been chosen to escort him during his journey to Madras. Colonel Coote had allowed him to be accompanied by four of his guards as far as the gate of the city. The rebels surrounded his bed, loading insults upon him, and threatening to kill him. They might have been slaves who wanted to kill with their swords one of their companions. He continued his march in their midst holding two pistols in his weakened hands. His guards and the English hussars saved his life.

THE COMMISSARY OF STORES OF THE ARMY ASSASSINATED

The rebels attacked M. Dubois, an old and brave officer, seventy years old and Commissary of Stores for the Army, who passed by a moment later. This officer, the King’s man, was assassinated: he was robbed, stripped bare of clothes, buried in a garden, and his papers immediately seized and taken away from his house, since when they have never been seen.

While General Lalli was being taken to Madras, the employees of the Company obtained permission in Pondicherry to open his boxes, thinking that they would find there his treasure in gold, diamonds and bills of exchange. All they found was a little plate, clothes, useless papers, and it maddened them even more.

5TH MARCH 1761

Bowed down with sorrow and illness, Lalli, a prisoner in Madras, asked in vain for his transport to England to be delayed: he could not obtain this favour. They carried him by force on board a trading ship, whose captain treated him cruelly during the voyage. The only solace given him was pork broth. This English patriot thought it his duty to treat in this way an Irishman in the service of France. Soon the officers, the Council of Pondicherry and the chief employees were forced to follow him but, before being transferred, they had the sorrow of seeing the demolition begun of all the fortifications that they had made for their town, and the destruction of their huge shops, their markets, all that was used for trade and defence, even to their own houses.

Mr. Dupre, chosen as Governor of Pondicherry by the Council of Madras, hurried on this destruction. He was (according to our information) the grandson of one of those Frenchmen whom the strictness of the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes forced to become an exile from their fatherland and fight against it. Louis XIV did not expect that in about eighty years the capital of his India Company would be destroyed by a Frenchman.

The Jesuit Lavour wrote to him in vain: Are you equally anxious, Sir, to destroy the house in which we have a domestic altar where we can practice our religion secretly?”

Dupre was little concerned with the fact that Lavaor was saying the Mass in secret: he replied that General Lalli had razed St. David to the ground and had only given three days to the inhabitants in which to take away their possessions, that the Governor of Madras had granted three months to the inhabitants or Pondicherry and that the English were at least equal to the French in generosity, but that he must go and say the Mass elsewhere. Thereupon the town was razed to the ground pitilessly, without the French having the right to complain.

CHAPTER XVIII: LALLI AND THE OTHER PRISONERS ARE CONDUCTED TO ENGLAND AND RELEASED ON PAROLE. CRIMINAL SUIT AGAINST LALLI.

The prisoners, on the journey and in England, continued their mutual reproaches which despair made even more bitter. The General had his partisans, above all among the officers in the regiment bearing his name. Almost all the others were his enemies: one man would write to the French Ministers; another would accuse the opposite party of being the cause of the disaster. But the real cause was the same as in other parts of the world: the superiority of the English fleet, the carefulness and perseverance of the nation, its credit, its ready money, and that spirit of patriotism, which is stronger in the long run than the trading spirit and greed for riches.  

General Lalli obtained permission from the Admiralty in England to enter France on parole. The majority of his enemies obtained the same favour: they arrived preceded by all the complaints and the accusations of both sides. Paris was flooded with a thousand writings. The partisans of Lalli were very few and his enemies innumerable.

A whole Council, two hundred employees without resources, the Directors of the India Company seeing their huge establishment reduced to nothing, the shareholders trembling for their fortune, irritated officers; everybody flew at Lalli with all the more fury because they believed that in their losing he had acquired millions. Women always less restrained than men in their fears and their complaints, cried out against the traitor, the embezzler, the criminal guilty of high treason against the king.

The Council of Pondicherry, in a body, presented against him in front of the Controller-General. In this petition, they said: “It is not a desire to avenge the insults and our ruin which is our motive -- it is the force of truth, it is the pure feeling of our consciences, it is the popular complaint against him."

It seemed however that “the pure feelings of conscience” had been somewhat corrupted by the grief of having lost everything, by a personal hatred, perhaps excusable, and by a thirst for vengeance which cannot be excused.

A very brave officer of the ancient nobility, badly insulted without cause, whose honour, even, was involved, wrote in a manner even more violent than the Council of Pondicherry: “This is," he said, “what a stranger without a name, with no deeds to his credit, without family, without a title, but none the less loaded with the honours of his master, prepares for the whole colony. Nothing was sacred in his sacrilegious hands: as a leader he even laid his hands on the altar appropriating six silver candlesticks, which the English General made him give back in response to the request of the head of the Capucines,” etc.

The General had brought on himself, by his indiscretion, his impetuosity, and his unjust reproaches, this cruel accusation: it is true that he had the candlesticks and the crucifix carried to his own house, but so publicly that it was not possible that he should wish to take possession of such a small thing, in the midst of so many big things. Therefore the sentence which condemned him does not speak of sacrilege.

The reproach of his low birth was very unjust: we have got his titles together with the seal of King John. His family was very old. People therefore were overstepping the limit with him just as he had done with so many others. If anything ought to inspire men with a desire for moderation, it is this tragic event.

The Finance Minister ought naturally to protect a trading company whose ruin was liable to do so much harm to the country: a secret order was given to shut Lalli in the Bastille. He himself offered to give himself up: he wrote to the Duke of Choiseul: “I am bringing here my head and my innocence. I am awaiting your orders."

The Duke of Choiseul, Minister of War and Foreign Affairs, was generous to a fault, genial and just: the highness of his ideals equalled the breadth of his opinions, but, in an affair so important and complicated, he could not go against the clamorous demands of all Paris, nor neglect the host of imputations against the accused. Lalli was shut up in the Bastille in the same room where La Bourdonnaye had been and, like him, did not emerge from it.

It remained to be seen what judges they would give him. A Council of War seemed to be the most suitable tribunal, but he was also accused of misappropriation of funds, embezzlement, and crimes of peculation of which the Marshals of France are not the judges. Count Lalli at first only brought accusations against his enemies, who therefore tried to reply to them in some way. The case was so complicated, it was necessary to call so many witnesses, that the prisoner remained fifteen months in the Bastille without being examined, and without knowing the tribunal before which he was to plead. “That,” several legal experts used to say, “is the tragic destiny of the citizens of a kingdom, famous for its arms and its arts but lacking in good laws, or rather a kingdom where the wise old laws have been sometimes forgotten.”

THE JESUIT LAVOUR DIES. 1,250,000 POUNDS FOUND IN HIS CASH BOX.

The Jesuit Lavour was then in Paris: he was asking the Government for a modest pension of four hundred francs so that he might go and pray to God for the rest of his days in the heart of Perigord where he was born. He died, and twelve hundred and fifty thousand pounds were found in his cash box, and more in diamonds and bills of exchange. This deed of a Mission Superior from the East, and the case of the Superior of the Western Missions, La Valette, who went into bankruptcy at the same time, with three millions in debts, excited over the whole of France an indignation equal to that which was excited against Lalli. This was one of the causes which finally got the Jesuits abolished, but, at the same time, the cash box of Lavour settled the fate of Lalli. In this trunk were found two books of memoirs, one in favour of Lalli, the other charging him with all kinds of crimes. The Jesuit was to make use of one or the other of these writings, according to the turn which affairs took. These documents were a double-edged sword, and the one that harmed Lalli was delivered to the Attorney-General. This supporter of the King complained to Parliament against the Count on account of his oppression, embezzlement, treachery, and high treason. Parliament referred the suit in the first instance to the Chatelet. Soon afterwards, letters patent of the King sent to the High Tribunal and to the "Tournelle" information of all the malpractices in India so that steps may be taken against the perpetrators in accordance with the severity of the ordinances. It might have been better to stress the word justice rather than the word severity.

As the Attorney-General had accused him of the crimes of high treason and treachery against the Crown, he was denied a counsel. For his defence, he had no other help except his own. They allowed him to write, and he took advantage of this permission -- to his own undoing. His writings annoyed his enemies all the more and made new foes. He reproached Count d'Ache with being the cause of his loss in India, because he did not remain before Pondicherry. But as chief of a squadron, d’Ache had definite orders to defend the Isles of Bourbon and France against a threatened invasion. He was accusing a man who had himself fought three times against the English fleet, and had been wounded during these three battles. He blamed the Chevalier of Soupire violently, and he was answered with a moderation as praiseworthy as it is rare.

Finally, testifying that he had always rigidly done his duty, he gave vent to the same excesses with his pen as formerly he used to do with his tongue. If he had been granted a counsel, his defence would have been more circumspect, but he all the time thought that it was enough to believe oneself innocent. Above all, he forced M. de Bussi to give a reply that was as mortifying as it was well written. All impartial men saw with sorrow two brave officers like Lalli and de Bussi, both of tried valour, who had risked their lives a hundred times, pretend to suspect one another of lack of courage. Lalli took too much upon himself by insulting all his enemies in his memoirs. It was like fighting alone against an army, and it was impossible for him not to be overwhelmed. The talk of a whole town makes an impression on the judges even when they believe they are on their guard against such an influence.

-- Voltaire Fragments on India. Translated by Freda Bedi, B.A. Hons. (Oxon.)

Fort St David
Part of Tamil Nadu
Cuddalore district, Tamil Nadu, India
Fort St David is located in Tamil NaduFort St DavidFort St David
Coordinates 11.75°N 79.75°E
Type Fort
Site information
Controlled by Government of Tamil Nadu
Condition Ruins

Fort St David, now in ruins, was a British fort near the town of Cuddalore, a hundred miles south of Chennai on the Coromandel Coast of India. It is located near silver beach without any maintenance. It was named for the patron saint of Wales because the governor of Madras at the time, Elihu Yale, was Welsh.[1]

History


Fort St David in 1758

Fort St David, situated on the mouth of River Gadilam, has a memorable history. The region was under the domains of the Nayaks of Gingee. The Dutch in early 17th century wishing to expand their trade in the Bay of Bengal region and take advantage of the local manufacturing of goods choose the Cuddalore region and sought the permission of Krishnappa Nayaka of Gingee, to build a fort at Devanampatnam which was, subsequently granted in 1608 and construction was started. But the Nayak pulled back after the Portuguese, then dominant players at the Coramandal Coast trade, pressured Gingee's overlord rulers, Venkata I of Vijayanagara Empire to prevent Dutch entry.[2] Therefore, the fort was left with the Gingee Nayaks under appointed traders. Overseas trade continued and the port became an important source of sandalwood, camphor, cloves, nutmeg, mace, green velvet, porcelain, copper, and brass.

Later when Gingee was occupied by the Marathas, Shivaji's son Rajaram Chhatrapati who was under siege in Gingee fort by the Mughal army intended to sell the Devanampatnam fort to the highest European bidder. In 1690, the British won by out bidding the Dutch and the French. Elihu Yale, Governor of Madras, after long protracted negotiations, acquired the fort and named it Fort Saint David after a Welsh Saint.[1]

The purchase price included not only the fort but also the adjacent towns and villages within the range of a random shot of a piece of ordnance. A great gun was fired to different points of the compass and all the country within its range, including the town of Cuddalore, passed into the possession of the English. The villages thus obtained are still spoken of as cannonball villages.


Fort St. David, c. 1763, Francis Swaine

James Macrae had been governor of the fort and in 1725 he became the Governor of the Madras Presidency.[3] From 1725 onwards the British greatly strengthened the fortifications. In 1746 Fort St David became the British headquarters for the southern India, and attacks by French forces under Dupleix were successfully repulsed.[4] Robert Clive was appointed its governor in 1756; in 1758 the French captured it, but abandoned it two years later to Sir Eyre Coote, KB.

In 1782 the French again retook the fort and restored it sufficiently to withstand a British attack in 1783. In 1785 it finally passed into British possession. With the end of the French threat, it was abandoned and fell into ruins.

References

1. Encyclopædia Britannica entry on Fort St David
2. text of "History_Of_Gingee_And_Its_Rulers"
3. Cuthbertson, Page 33
4. Naravane, M.S. (2014). Battles of the Honorourable East India Company. A.P.H. Publishing Corporation. pp. 152–154. ISBN 9788131300343.

Sources

• Cuthbertson, David Cuningham (1945). Autumn in Kyle and the Charm of Cunninghame. London : Jenkins.
Wikisource has the text of the 1879 American Cyclopædia article Fort St. David.

[admin]

George Pigot, 1st Baron Pigot
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 6/13/21


George Pigot, by George Willison

George Pigot, 1st Baron Pigot (4 March 1719 – 11 May 1777) was twice the British President of the British East India Company.

Life

Pigot was the eldest son of Richard Pigot of Westminster, by his wife Frances, daughter of Peter Goode, a Huguenot who had come to England in the late seventeenth century.[1] Frances was a "tirewoman" to Queen Caroline. His brothers were Admiral Hugh Pigot (1722–1792) and Sir Robert.


Triumphal entrance to Patshull Hall


Patshull Hall

Pigot entered the service of the East India Company in 1736, at the age of 17; after nineteen years he became governor and commander-in-chief of Madras in 1755. Having defended the city against the French in 1758-1759 and occupied Pondichéry on behalf of the company, he resigned his office in November 1763 and returned to the Kingdom of Great Britain, being made a baronet in 1764.[2] After selling the family seat of Peplow Hall, Shropshire, he purchased Patshull Hall, Staffordshire, in 1765 for £100,000. That year he obtained the seat of Wallingford in the Parliament of Great Britain, which he retained until 1768. In 1766 he was created an Irish peer as Baron Pigot, of Patshull in the County of Dublin.[3] From 1768 until his death he sat in the British House of Commons for Bridgnorth. Pigot was created an LL.D. of the University of Cambridge on 3 July 1769.

Returning to India in 1775 to reoccupy his former position at Madras, Pigot was at once involved in a fierce quarrel with the majority of his council which arose out of the proposed restoration of Thuljaji, the Rajah of Tanjore. The governor was arrested by order of his opponents and was still a prisoner when he died.

Meanwhile, the conduct of Pigot was censured by the court of directors in Great Britain, and the order for his restoration was followed immediately by another for his recall. This happened about a month after his death, but before the news had reached Great Britain. In 1779 the matter was discussed in Parliament, and four of those who were responsible for his arrest were tried and were fined £1000 each. Pigot, who left several illegitimate children, was never married, and his barony became extinct.

Service in the British East India Company


Pondicherry after the Siege of Pondicherry, with the demolished citadel in view.

George entered the service of the British East India Company in 1736 as a writer, and arrived at Madras on 26 July 1737. When a member of council at Fort St. David, Pigot was sent with Robert Clive to Trichinopoly in charge of some recruits and stores. On their return with a small escort of sepoys, they were attacked by a large body of polýgars, and narrowly escaped with their lives. Pigot succeeded Thomas Saunders as governor and commander-in-chief of Madras on 14 January 1755. He conducted the defence of the city, when besieged by Thomas-Arthur de Lally in the winter of 1758–9, with considerable skill and spirit. On the capture of Pondichéry by Lieutenant-colonel (afterwards Sir) Eyre Coote (1726–1783) in January 1761, Pigot demanded that it should be given up to the presidency of Madras as the property of the East India Company. This Coote refused after consulting his chief officers, who were of opinion that the place ought to be held for the Crown. Pigot thereupon declared that unless his demand was complied with, he would not furnish any money for the subsistence of the King's troops or the French prisoners. Upon this, Coote gave way, and Pigot took possession of Pondichéry, and destroyed all the fortifications in obedience to the orders previously received from England. Pigot resigned office on 14 November 1763, and forthwith returned to England. He was created a baronet on 5 December 1764, with remainder in default of male issue to his brothers Robert and Hugh, and their heirs male. He represented Wallingford in the British House of Commons from January 1765 to the dissolution in March 1768. At the general election in March 1768, he was returned for Bridgnorth, and continued to sit for that borough until his death. On 18 January 1766, he was created an Irish peer with the title of Baron Pigot, of Patshull in the County of Dublin.

Controversy and restoration

In April 1775, Pigot was appointed governor and commander-in-chief of Madras in the place of Alexander Wynch. He resumed office at Fort St. George on 11 December 1775, and soon found himself at variance with some of his council. In accordance with the instructions of the directors he proceeded to Tanjore, where he issued a proclamation on 11 April 1776 announcing the restoration of the Raja, whose territory had been seized and transferred to Muhammed Ali Khan Wallajah, Nawab of the Carnatic in spite of the treaty which had been made during Pigot's previous tenure of office. Upon Pigot's return from Tanjore the differences in the council became more accentuated. Paul Benfield had already asserted that he held assignments on the revenues of Tanjore for sums of vast amount lent by him to the Nawab, as well as assignments on the growing crops in Tanjore for large sums lent by him to other persons. He now pleaded that his interests ought not to be affected by the reinstatement of the raja, and demanded the assistance of the council in recovering his property. Pigot refused to admit the validity of these claims, but his opinion was disregarded by the majority of the council, and his customary right to precedence in the conduct of business was denied. The final struggle between the governor and his council was on a comparatively small point—whether his nominee, Mr. Russell, or Colonel Stuart, the nominee of the majority, should have the opportunity of placing the administration of Tanjore in the hands of the Raja. In spite of Pigot's refusal to allow the question of Colonel Stuart's instructions to be discussed by the council, the majority gave their approval to them, and agreed to a draft letter addressed to the officer at Tanjore, directing him to deliver over the command to Colonel Stuart. Pigot thereupon declined to sign either the instructions or the letter, and declared that without his signature the documents could have no legal effect. At a meeting of the council on 22 August 1776, a resolution was carried by the majority denying that the concurrence of the governor was necessary to constitute an act of government. It was also determined that, as Pigot would not sign either of the documents, a letter should be written to the secretary authorizing him to sign them in the name of the council. When this letter had been signed by George Stratton[4] and Henry Brooke, Pigot snatched it away and formally charged them with an act subversive of the authority of the government. By the standing orders of the company, no member against whom a charge was preferred was allowed to deliberate or vote on any question relating to the charge. Through this ingenious manœuvre, Pigot obtained a majority in the council by his own casting vote, and the two offending members were subsequently suspended. On 23 August, the refractory members, instead of attending the council meeting, sent a notary public with a protest in which they denounced Pigot's action on the previous day, and declared themselves to be the "only legal representatives of the Honourable Company under this presidency". This protest was also sent by them to the commanders of the king's troops, and to all persons holding any authority in Madras. Enraged at this insult, Pigot summoned a second council meeting on the same day, at which Messrs. Floyer, Palmer, Jerdan, and Mackay, who had joined Messrs. Stratton and Brooke and the commanding officer, Sir Robert Fletcher, in signing the protest, were suspended, and orders were at the same time given for the arrest of Sir Robert Fletcher. On the following day Pigot was arrested by Colonel Stuart and conveyed to St. Thomas's Mount, some nine miles from Madras, where he was left in an officer's house under the charge of a battery of artillery. The refractory members, under whose orders Pigot's arrest had been made, immediately assumed the powers of the executive government, and suspended all their colleagues who had voted with the governor. Though the government of Bengal possessed a controlling authority over the other presidencies, it declined to interfere.

In England, the news of these proceedings excited much discussion. At a general court of the proprietors, a resolution that the directors should take effectual measures for restoring Lord Pigot, and for inquiring into the conduct of those who had imprisoned him, was carried on 31 March 1777, by 382 votes to 140. The feeling in Pigot's favour was much less strong in the court of directors, where, on 11 April following, a series of resolutions in favour of Pigot's restoration, but declaring that his conduct in several instances appeared to be reprehensible, was carried by the decision of the lot, the numbers on each side being equal. At a subsequent meeting of the directors, after the annual change in the court had taken place, it was resolved that the powers assumed by Lord Pigot were "neither known in the constitution of the Company nor authorised by charter, nor warranted by any orders or instructions of the Court of Directors". Pigot's friends, however, successfully resisted the passing of a resolution declaring the exclusion of Messrs. Stratton and Brooke from the council unconstitutional, and carried two other resolutions condemning Pigot's imprisonment and the suspension of those members of the council who had supported him. On the other hand, a resolution condemning the conduct of Lord Pigot in receiving small presents from the Nawab of Arcot, the receipt of which had been openly avowed in a letter to the court of directors, was carried. At a meeting of the general court held on 7 and 9 May a long series of resolutions was carried by a majority of ninety-seven votes, which censured the invasion of Pigot's rights as governor, and acquiesced in his restoration, but at the same time recommended that Pigot and all the members of the council should be recalled in order that their conduct might be more effectually inquired into. Owing to Lord North's opposition, Governor Johnstone failed to carry his resolutions in favour of Lord Pigot in the House of Commons on 21 May. The resolutions of the proprietors having been confirmed by the court of directors, Pigot was restored to his office by a commission under the company's seal of 10 June 1777, and was directed within one week to give up the government to his successor and forthwith to return to England.

Death

Meantime Pigot died on 11 May 1777, while under confinement at the Company's Garden House, near Fort St. George, whither he had been allowed to return for change of air in the previous month. At the inquest held after his death, the jury recorded a verdict of willful murder against all those who had been concerned in Pigot's arrest. The real contest throughout had been between the Nawab of Arcot and the Raja of Tanjore. Members of the council took sides, and Pigot exceeded his powers while endeavouring to carry out the instructions of the directors. The proceedings before the coroner were held to be irregular by the supreme court of judicature in Bengal, and nothing came of the inquiry instituted by the company. On 16 April 1779, Admiral Hugh Pigot brought the subject of his brother's deposition before the House of Commons. A series of resolutions affirming the principal facts of the case was agreed to, and an address to the king, recommending the prosecution of Messrs. Stratton, Brooke, Floyer, and Mackay, who were at that time residing in England, was adopted. They were tried in the King's Bench before Lord Mansfield and a special jury in December 1779, and were found guilty of a misdemeanour in arresting, imprisoning, and deposing Lord Pigot. On being brought up for judgment on 10 February 1780, they were each sentenced to pay a fine of £1,000, on payment of which they were discharged.

Family

Two of the governor's brothers were men of repute. Sir Robert Pigot (1720–1796), who succeeded to the baronetcy, commanded his regiment (the 38th) at the battles of Lexington and Bunker Hill during the American Revolutionary War. He became a lieutenant general in 1782. The other brother, Hugh Pigot (c. 1721-1792) was a sailor. After some years of service he became an admiral and commander-in-chief in the West Indies in 1782. One of his sons was General Sir Henry Pigot (1750–1840), and another was Hugh Pigot (1769–1797), a captain in the navy, who was murdered during a mutiny in September 1797 while in command of HMS Hermione.

Pigot was unmarried. Upon his death the Irish barony became extinct, while the baronetcy devolved upon his brother Robert Pigot. He left several natural children, among others:

1. Sophia Pigot, who married, on 14 March 1776, the Hon. Edward Monckton of Somerford Hall, Staffordshire, and died on 1 January 1834;
2. Richard Pigot (1774–1868), general in the army and colonel of the 4th dragoon guards;
3. Sir Hugh Pigot, K.C.B. (1775–1857), admiral of the White;
4. Leonora, who received a fortune under her father's will and married 17 October 1777 Claude Russell, member of the Madras Council; to the memory of her and her husband there is a tablet in Marylebone Church.
5. Major George Pigot (1772?-1830) Along with Richard and Hugh, son of Catherine Hill. Member of settler community who immigrated from England (1820) to present Eastern-Cape coast of South Africa.
6. Mary Green (c.1772-1852) who married, aged twelve in 1784, John Blashfield of Presteigne, Radnorshire.

The Pigot Diamond

Pigot owned a celebrated diamond, now known as the Pigot Diamond, which he bequeathed to his siblings and eventually left the family by way of a lottery. The whereabouts of the diamond today is unknown.

References

Notes

1. Marshall, P. J. (2004). "Pigot, George, Baron Pigot (1719–1777)". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford University Press. Retrieved 30 December 2013.
2. "No. 10472". The London Gazette. 20 November 1764. p. 1.
3. "No. 10586". The London Gazette. 24 December 1765. p. 2.
4. "The Genealogy of the Stratton Family". kittybrewster.com. George Stratton of Madras and Tew Park, Born Madras, 12th December 1733. Died Great Tew, Oxon, 20th March 1800. Buried Great Tew, "in woollen only", 28th March 1800. Exponent of proactive régime change and thereby Governor of Madras 1776.

Bibliography

• "Pigot, George" . Dictionary of National Biography. London: Smith, Elder & Co. 1885–1900.
• Leigh Rayment's Peerage Pages [self-published source][better source needed]
• Ogden, J. M. (April 2009). "England's Largest Diamond (The Pigot – Part 1)". Gems and Jewellery. 18 (2): 30–33.
• Ogden, J. M. (July 2009). "England's Largest Diamond (The Pigot – Part 2)". Gems and Jewellery. 18 (3): 36–37.

Attribution

• This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: "Pigot, George". Dictionary of National Biography. London: Smith, Elder & Co. 1885–1900.
• This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Pigot, George, Baron". Encyclopædia Britannica. 21 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press.
• Marshall, P. J. "Pigot, George, Baron Pigot (1719–1777)". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (online ed.). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/22244. (Subscription or UK public library membership required.)