sia.”472 Hence it becomes obvious that the Persian poet, like the
Cbaldæan chorographer of Xth Genesis, in all his ethnic personifications,
anthropomorphosized a country currently known as “ Turàn ”
into an ideal king Tur. His translator observes that, ancient Scythia
embraced the whole of Turàn, which appellative was but an early
synonym for Turkestàn ; in this, coinciding with Hubeux.473 The
same legend, slightly varied, reaches us through Mirlcavend,474 who
died about Hedjra 903=a. d . 1498, viz : that Tur received Turkestàn
as his patrimony from Feridoon, and then conspired with Seleem to
murder their brother Iràdj, king of Iràn-Shehr: alluding doubtless,
through an Oriental allegory of three men, to simultaneous attacks
of Semitic and Scythic invaders upon the lion-standard of Persia.
Being Persian designations, “ Irán and Touràn” must receive
solution through Arian etymologies ;475 and these are furnished in
one paragraph by B e b g m a n n , 476 who as a favored pupil of Eugène
Bumouf inspires every confidence.
“ Thus, in the same manner that the Hindoos, particularly at the
sacerdotal point of view of the Brahmans, called their country by the
name of Aryâ (Honorable), or of Aryâvartta (Honorable country), in
opposition to the heretical countries named Turyd (Persian Utt-âryâ,
472 The Shah-Nameh of Firdausi, Transi. A tk in s o n , London, 1832; pp. 50, 161-2, and p.
519, note:—cf. K la p r o th “ Histoire de l’Ancienne Perse, d’après Firdóussi,” in which the
age of .the 2d (Kaïanian) dynasty is taken at b. o. 803, and the 1st (Pishdadian) as commencing
3342 years previously! Tableaux, pp. 3-4, 5—22.
473 Perse, Univ. Pittor., p. 225.
474 M irk h o n d , History of the Early Kings o f Persia, transi. S h e a , London, 8 vo, 1832,
pp. 138-86.
475 I incline to think, notwithstanding, that- the enigma of the well-known andro-leontine
and andro-taurine sphinxes of Persepolis, and possibly also those of earlier Assyria, can be,
in part, explained through Irán and Touràn, as understood in three languages, Arian, Semitic,
and Scythic ; corresponding to the three forms of Achæmenian cuneatics, and to the
triple medley of three types of man, Arabian, Persian, and Turkish, in the same countries
a t this day. Thus, in the first class, of tongues, IR-an, as Kon-land “ par excellence” (always
the heraldic symbol of Persia, and blended into her monarch’s names in the form of “ sheer”)
contrasts with TOTJR-àn, Bull-land ; which, on the one side, is found in A-TTJR, Ashour, Assyria,—
and on the other applies to the ancient zoological conditions of Mawaranuhar, &c.
where wild cattle were enormously abundant, whence Tour became the figurative emblem
of barbarous TW-kish races ? But, with an indication that, in Scythic tongues, IR means
also man, a curious inquiry, that could be justified only through many pages of elucidation,
is submitted to the consideration of fellow-students of archaeology.
476 Les Peuples Primitifs de la Race de laphèie : Esquisse Ethnogénéalogique et historique ;
Colmar, 8 vo., 1853; p. 17:—Cf. M a x M ü l l e r ’9 note in B u n sen , Three Linguistic Dissertations,
1848, p. 296.
D e S a u l c t , I find, read “ Irân, de l’Ira n ” upon the inscriptions copied by the unfortunate
Schulz, at Lake Yan, 10 years ago (Recherches sur Vécriture Cuneiforme Assyrienne,
Paris, 1848, p. 26): whilst a writer in the London Literary Gazette (1852, p. 610) said that
he deciphered “ Lordship of Irak and I ra n ” as well as “ Lordship of Turan,” on bricks in
the British Museum. I have heard of no confirmation of the latter statement.
Outside of Aria, or Tu-dryd, Separated from Aria), and that they
termed themselves Aryàs as opposed to Mlltchas (Feebles, Barbarians,
Heretics; ep. Ileb. G-oyim, Peoples, Strangers, Arabic el-aadjim,
Wretches, Barbarous), so likewise the Persians [Pahlavas—Sanscrit
paragus, Or. pelekus, hatchet; Pahlavdn = hatehet-bearers] designated
themselves Aries or Artaes (Gentiles, H erodot. VII. 61) t and, in
imitation of the Zend names Airyào, and of Tu-irya or An-airyao-
danghdvo (Country not-honorable), they also gave the name Ariana
(Gr. Ariane), and later that of Iran, to all countries situate between
the Tigris and the Indus, and between the Oxus and the Indian
Ocean, because they were inhabited by orthodox Arians, worshippers
of Ormuzd (Zend. Ahuro mazddo, Great genius of the sun) ;
whereas the misbelieving lands to the north and east, which were
held to be the abode of Ahriman (Zend. Agra-mainyus), were called
Antràn (Non-Iràn) or Tur an (Ultra-Iràn).”
The antiquity of the word Touràn being thus brought down to
recent post-Christian times in all books wherein it occurs,—its signification
being imbued with the theological xenolasia of
and Brahmans, and naturally restricted in application to Scythic
hordes immediately contiguous to Aria, or Ariana—-modern ethnology
has no more right to extend its area all over the world, than to
classify the xanthous Gaul of Caesar’s time with the melanic Tamou-
lian of the present Dekhan, together with red-headed Highlanders
and raven-locked Wahabees, under the other false term “ Caucasian.”
Indeed, before agreeing with Prof. Max Muller (whose authority
is unquestionably the highest for its use), in tolerating the corrupted
myths of Sheèite Persia as historical ; or talk of the “ descendants
of Tur” as if such metaphorical personage had really been
father of those “ Turanian tribes” which—since spread broadcast over
the earth through this hypothesis—are now said to speak only “ Turanian
languages,” I should feel warranted in accepting, as a legitimate
basis for ethnic nomenclature, that exquisite travesty of a lost
book of Diodorus ; wherein the. Greek text makes it evident, “ How
Britain, son of Jupiter and Paint, peopled the island [of England];
but some say that Briton was indigenous, and Paint (a iós «ai X fùMe)
his daughter how Briton received Roman as his guest,” &c. ;477 or
else, in considering Hiawatha a true portraiture of the thoughts and
feelings of an American savage, instead of seeing in it merely the
romantic ideal of a great Anglo-Saxon poet.
4,7 P rof. H e n r y M a i d e n , “ On pragmatized legends in History— Fragments from the
Vlllth book of Diodorus, concerning Britain and her colonies ’’—Tram. Philol. Soc., London,
Nov. 1854; pp. 217-28. For pious forgeries in quoting and rendering Diodorus’s text,
compare Mio t ’s exposé in Biblioiheque Historique, Paris, 1834; pp. 189-90, 429.