Chapter XIX

The Tuath-de-danaans, or Mahabadeans, being thus far proved as the first occupiers of Iran, it may be asked, How happens it that no Persian historians, anterior to Mohsan Fani, have noticed their existence? In the first place, I answer that they all have mentioned them, however unconsciously by themselves, or inadvertently by others. And even had this not been the fact—had not a single syllable been recorded, bearing reference to their name, the remote era, in itself, of their detachment from that country, would be the best possible apology for the omission.

The professed writers upon Persia belong all to a recent period; and the magazines which they consulted, for the scanty information which they furnish, were either Arabs or Greeks—the former a body of predatory warriors, whose only insight into letters arose from the opportunities which their rapines had supplied them; and the latter, a community who, insensible to the beauties of moral truth, took delight in distorting even the most commonplace occurrences into the most unnatural incredibilities and misshapen incongruities.

But independently of these causes, another more powerful one had before long co-operated. A rival dynasty, starting up from amongst themselves, succeeded, by the issue of a religious revolution, to effect their expulsion; and that once ascertained—the doors of admission ever after closed against their return—the victors were not satisfied with the monopoly of civil power, but they must wreak their vengeance still more, by the erasure of every vestige of the former sway.

In this devastating course, the Round Towers, as the temples of their figurative veneration, were particularly obnoxious; and, accordingly, we may be assured, that it was owing to the durability of those edifices, and not to the clemency of the assailants, that any one of them has been able to survive the hurricane.

Who, you will ask, were those destroyers? They were the Pish-de-danaans. And so energetically did they prosecute their extinguishing plan, aided, besides, by the antiquity of its remote occurrence, that all writers upon that country, before the compilers of the Dabistan, have set them down as its first dynasty, making the Kaianians, the Askanians, and the Sassanians, their successors.

Here I am obliged, in compliance with the justice of my subject, to expose an error of a gentleman, whom I would rather have overlooked.

“The Tuatha-dadan of the Irish,” says Vallancey, “are the Pish-dadan of the Persians”; which he pretends to prove as follows:—“First, then,” says he, “Tuath and Pish are synonymous in the Chaldee, and both signify mystery, sorcery, prophets, etc.; they are both of the same signification in the Irish; therefore by Pish-dadan and Tuatha-dadan, I understand the Dadanites, descended of Dedan, who had studied the necromantic art, which sprang from the Chesdim, or Chaldeans.”

Of a piece with this was his assertion that Nuagha Airgiodlamh of the Irish, was Zerdust of the Persians! And wherefore, think you, reader? Because, forsooth, Airgiodlamh signifies silver-hand, and Zerdust, gold-hand! Yes, but he made out another analogy, and it is worth while to hear it, viz. that Nuagha had his hand cut off by a Fir-Bolg general; while Zerdust’s life was taken away by a Turanian chieftain!!!

This is but an item in that great ocean of incertitude in which that enterprising etymologist had, unfortunately, been swallowed up. Having perceived by the perusal of the manuscripts of our country, that there must have been a time when it basked in the sunshine of literary superiority; yet unable tangibly to grapple with it, having no clue into the origin of its sacred repute, or the collateral particulars of its date, nature, or promoters, he was tossed about by the ferment of a parturient imagination, without the saving ballast of a discriminating faculty.

The General’s work, accordingly, is one which must be read with great reserve; not because that it does not offer many valuable hints, but because that its plan is so crude, and its matter so ill-digested,—the same thing being contradicted in one place, which was affirmed in another, or else repeated interminably, without regard to method or to style,—that when you have waded through the whole, you feel you have derived from it no other benefit than that of whetting your avidity for a correct insight into those subjects, of which the author, you imagine, must have had some idea, but which also, it is evident, however indefatigable he was in the attempt, he had not, himself, the power to penetrate.

The great praise, therefore, which I would award to this writer, is that, with one leg almost in the grave, he sat down, in the enthusiasm of a youthful aspirant, to master the difficulties of the Irish tongue, which, mutilated though it be, and begrimed by disuse, he knew was, notwithstanding, the only sure inlet to the genius of the people, as well as to the arcana of their antiquities, the most precious, as they are, and fruitful, of any country on the surface of the globe.

But though his perseverance had rendered him the best Irishian of his age, and of many ages before him, yet has he committed innumerable blunders, even in the exposition of the most simple words; and the question now in point will verify this declaration, with as much exactitude as any other that could be adduced.

Tuath, then, and pish are by no means synonymous; neither do they signify mystery or prophets, except in a secondary light. In their original acceptation, they are the antipodes of each other, as much as male is to female, and as relative is to correlative.[268]

They are the distinctive denominations for the genital organs of both sexes, respectively—Tuath signifying Lingam; and Pish, Yoni.

I have already explained that Tuath is but a modification of the word Budh—the final dh of the latter having been changed into the final th of the former, only for euphony; because that prefixed to de-danaan the collision of the two d’s—as Bud-de-danaan—would not sound well; it was, therefore, made Buth-de-danaan; and—the initials b and t being always convertible,—hence became Tuath-de-danaan.

The case was exactly opposite with respect to pish: I mean so far as the alteration of two of its letters is concerned. Pith is the usual method of pronouncing that term: nor is it, except when followed by a d, that it assumes the other garb. But as dh, in the former instance, was commuted into th, so th, in this latter, is still further into sh; therefore, instead of Pith-de-danaan, we make it Pish-de-danaan.

To screen those two ligaments of sexual familiarity from the peril of profane and irreverent acceptations, all the investiture of magic was shrouded upon them. The vocabulary of love and of religion became one and the same: mystery and enchantment were identified, and the negotiations of the earth, and the revolutions of the heavens, were blended with the witchery of amative sway.

In this universality of domain, no one of those dear helpmates had a greater portion of honour assigned to it than the other. They were equal in power, and alike in attributes. And to set this equality beyond the contingencies of doubt, it was withal arranged, that while each, primarily, retained its distinct sexual interpretation, they should both, secondarily, harmonise under another mutual exposition; and what more appropriate one could be devised than that of the influence which they exercised? and of the veil with which they were guarded?

Magic, therefore, and mystery, were the two secondary imports, in which both were united; and the ambiguity thus occasioned was what cast Vallancey upon that shoal, which proved similarly fatal to many a preceding speculator.

To exemplify—Budh, or Tuath, in its literal and substantive acceptation, implies the Lingam; collaterally, magic; and by convention, mystery, prophets, legislators, etc. Pish, in like manner, or Pith, denotes, literally, the Yoni; collaterally, magic; and by convention, mystery, prophets, legislators, etc. And the offshoots of either, in an inferior and deteriorated view, such as Budh-og from the former, and Pish-og from the latter, intimate, indiscriminately, witchcraft, wizard, or witch.

Now the words De-danaans, having been already illustrated as meaning God-Almoners, if we prefix to them, severally, Tuath and Pish, they will become Tuath-de-danaans, and Pish-de-danaans; the former expressing, literally, Lingam-God-Almoners; and the latter, literally, Yoni-God-Almoners; and both equally, by convention, Magic-God-Almoners.

As we have had exhibited numerous representations of the homage paid to the paternal member of this theocracy, perhaps I may be permitted to adduce a single quotation demonstrative of the honours shown to his maternal colleague.

“The Chinese,” says the author of Rites and Ceremonies, “worship a goddess, whom they call Puzza, and of whom their priests give the following account:—They say that three nymphs came down from heaven to wash themselves in a river, but scarce had they got into the water before the herb Lotos[269] appeared on one of their garments, with its coral fruit upon it. They were surprised to think whence it could proceed; and the nymph upon whose garment it was could not resist the temptation of indulging herself in tasting it. But by thus eating some of it, she became pregnant, and was delivered of a boy, whom she brought up, and then returned to heaven. He afterwards became a great man, a conqueror and legislator, and the nymph was afterwards worshipped under the name of Puzza.”[270]

And thus we see that Budh and Pish were the actual regulators of the solar universe.

Time, however, dissolved the chain which linked together those mysterious absolutes: or, rather, the zealots of each contrived to sever an attachment, which was intended by nature to be reciprocal and mutual.[271] War, devastating, desecrating war, spread abroad over the plain! Human energies were evoked into an unknown activity! Men’s passions, always inflammable by the jealousy of partisanship, were here furthermore stimulated by the rancour of religion! And hearts were lacerated, and countries were depopulated in sustainment of the consequences of a physiological disquisition!!!

But what do you conceive to have been the topic at issue? Verily, it was whether the male or the female contributed more largely to the act of generation!—those who voted for the female side ranging themselves under the banners of Pish, and those for the male under the standard of Budh, while both equally appealed to heaven for adjudication of their suit, by arrogating to themselves the adjunct of De-danaans, or God-Almoners.

Whether or not, however, the result is to be considered as decisive of the matter in dispute, one thing at least is certain, namely, that the Pish-God-Almoners obtained the victory; and the Budh-God-Almoners were thrown upon the ocean; over whose bosom, wafted to our genial shores, they did not only import with them all the culture of the East, with its accompanying refinement and polished civilisation; but they raised the isle to that pinnacle of literary and religious beatitude which made it appear to the fancies of distant and enraptured hearers more the day-dream of romance than the sober outline of an actual locality.

I shall now illustrate a part of those truths by the Indian history of the circumstances, as copied from their Puranas, by one who had no anticipation of my differently-drawn conclusions, and one, in fact, who did not know either the scene or the substance of the occurrence which he thus transcribes.

“Yoni, the female nature, is also,” says Wilford, “derived from the same root (yu, to mix). Many Pundits insist the Yavanas were so named from their obstinate assertion of a superior influence in the female over the linga or male nature, in producing a perfect offspring. It may seem strange that a question of mere physiology should have occasioned not only a vehement religious contest, but even a bloody war; yet the fact appears to be historically true, though the Hindu writers have dressed it up, as usual, in a veil of historical allegories and mysteries, which we should call obscene, but which they consider as awfully sacred.

“There is a legend in the Servarasa, of which the figurative meaning is more obvious. When Sati, after the close of her existence as the daughter of Dascha, sprang again to life in the character of Parvati, or Mountain Spring, she was reunited in marriage to Mahadeva. This divine pair had once a dispute on the comparative influence of the sexes in producing animated beings, and each resolved, by mutual agreement, to create apart a new race of men.[272] The race produced by Mahadeva were very numerous, and devoted themselves exclusively to the worship of the male deity; but their intellects were dull, their bodies feeble, their limbs distorted, and their complexions of many different hues. Parvati had, at the same time, created a multitude of human beings, who adored the female power only, and were all well shaped, with sweet aspects and fine complexions. A furious contest ensued between the two races, and the Lingajas were defeated in battle; but Mahadeva, enraged against the Yonijas, would have destroyed them with the fire of his eye, if Parvati had not interposed and spared them;[273] but he would spare them only on condition that they should instantly leave the country, with a promise to see it no more; and from the Yoni, which they adored as the sole cause of their existence, they were named Yavanas.”

It is evident that a mistake has been committed in the above narrative, making the victors the persons who were obliged to quit! and we know from testimony, adduced upon a different occasion, that instances of such confusion were neither unfrequent nor uncommon.[274] But even admitting it to be accurate, the apparent contradiction is easily reconciled; as it is probable that the contest was protracted for a long period of time, before it was ultimately decided in favour of one party; and, in the alternations of success, one side being up to-day, and another uppermost to-morrow, what could be more natural than that a colony of the Yavanas, or Pish-de-danaans,—which is the same,—should have fled for shelter to India, before that the auspices of their arms, propelled by the fair cause which they vindicated, had, at length, accomplished the overthrow of their adversaries.

This object, however, once obtained,—full masters of their wishes, and sole arbiters of Iran,—they were not satisfied with the mere extinction of all the symbols of their predecessors,—save and except the Towers which stood proof to their attacks,—but they established there instead a code, as well political as moral, more consonant with their own prejudices: and the wonder would be great, indeed, if, after this triumphant assertion of female power, gratitude and religion should not both combine in making the type of that influence—the sacred crescent, or yoni—the personification of their doctrines; and woman herself, all-lovely and all-attractive, the concentrated temple of their divinity upon earth!

Such was the commencement of the Pish-de-danaan dynasty in Persia; and its influence still operating, after a long interval of time, is what the historian unconsciously describes in the following terms, viz.:—

“If we give any credit to Ferdosi, most of the laws of modern honour appear to have been understood and practised with an exception in favour of the ancient Persians, whose duels, or combats (which were frequent), were generally with the most distinguished among the enemies of their country or the human race. The great respect in which the female sex was held was, no doubt, the principal cause of the progress they had made in civilisation. These were at once the cause of generous enterprise and its reward. It would appear that in former days the women of Persia had an assigned and honourable place in society; and we must conclude that an equal rank with the male creation, which is secured to them by the ordinances of Zoroaster, existed long before the time of that reformer, who paid too great attention to the habits and prejudices of his countrymen, to have made any serious alterations in so important a usage. We are told by Quintus Curtius, that Alexander would not sit in the presence of Sisy-gambis till told to do so by that matron, because it was not the custom in Persia for sons to sit in presence of their mothers. There can be no stronger proof than this anecdote affords, of the great respect in which the female sex were held in that country at the period of his invasion.”[275]