E-text prepared by Turgut Dincer and the Online Distributed Proofreading
Team (http://www.pgdp.net)from page images generously made available by
the Google Books Library Project (http://books.google.com)



Note: Images of the original pages scanned by the
      Google Books Library Project are available
      through HathiTrust Digital Library. See
      https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/001405797





THE HISTORY OF THE ASSASSINS.

Derived from Oriental Sources,

by

THE CHEVALIER JOSEPH VON HAMMER,

Author of
The History of the Ottoman Empire, &c.

Translated from the German, by Oswald Charles Wood, M. D.

&c. &c. &c.







London:
Smith and Elder, Cornhill.
1835.

Vizetelly, Branston and Co., Printers,
76, Fleet Street, London.



  TO

  The Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain,

  WITH THE

  PROFOUNDEST RESPECT AND ADMIRATION FOR THEIR IMPORTANT SERVICES

  IN CHERISHING AND PROMOTING THE CULTIVATION OF

  ORIENTAL LANGUAGES AND LITERATURE,

  THE PRESENT WORK IS DEDICATED

  BY

  THEIR MOST OBEDIENT SERVANT,

  OSWALD CHARLES WOOD.




TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE.


The Translator has been induced to present “The History of the
Assassins” to the British Public as much on account of the interest
of the subject itself, as by a desire to introduce to them a portion,
certainly but a small one, of the works of an author so highly gifted,
and of such established reputation, as M. Von Hammer. Nor will the
present volume be deemed supererogatory, if it be considered that,
notwithstanding the attention which, of late years, has been in this
country so meritoriously devoted to the study of Oriental history and
philology, still, but few and meagre accounts have been afforded of the
extraordinary association forming the subject of the ensuing pages, and
even those scattered through large and voluminous works. The Translator
deems it unnecessary to apologize for the notes which he has appended,
believing that their curiosity will plead his excuse.

It may be proper to remark, that the Translator has thought it
advisable to adapt the orthography of the proper names to the
pronunciation of English readers: in this, he has been for the most
part guided by Sir William Jones’s Persian Grammar, and the very
excellent Turkish one of his late accomplished and lamented friend,
Arthur Lumley Davids; he has only, therefore, to state, that the
vowels are to be pronounced broad and open, as in Italian, and the
consonants as in English; by this means, the uncouth appearance of the
names, occasioned by endeavouring to represent the vowels by English
diphthongs, is avoided.


  BROMPTON,

  June, 1835.




CONTENTS.


  BOOK I.
                                                                  Page
  Introduction—Mohammed, founder of Islamism—Account of his
  doctrines—Sects—Ismailites—The Assassins a branch of the
  latter                                                             1


  BOOK II.

  Foundation of the Order of the Assassins, and Reign of the first
    Grand-Master, Hassan Sabah                                      38


  BOOK III.

  Reign of Kia Busurgomid, and of his son, Mohammed                 74


  BOOK IV.

  Reign of Hassan II., son of Mohammed, son of Busurgomid,
    surnamed Ala sikrihi es-selam, and his son, Mohammed II.       105


  BOOK V.

  Reign of Jelaleddin Hassan III Ben Mohammed Hassan,—and
    of his son, Alaeddin Mohammed III.                             139


  BOOK VI.

  Reign of Rokneddin Kharshah, the last Grand-Master of the
    Assassins                                                      165


  BOOK VII.

  Conquest of Bagdad—Fall of the Assassins-Remnant of them         181

  Authorities                                                      221

  Notes                                                            223




ERRATA.


  Page  3 line 12 from the bottom, for _emerging_  read  _converging_.
        4      17 for                  _sacred_          _serried_.
        5      20                      _though_          _being_.
        7      26                      _a hundred_       _three hundred_.
       15      22                      _Sheristani_      _Sheheristani_.
       24       6 from the bottom,        ditto              ditto.
       26      15 for                  _they called_     _they were called_.
       30      11 from the bottom, for _Esoteries_       _Esoterics_.
       47       6 for                  _Ben Merdas_      _Beni Merdas_.
       51       7 from the bottom, for _runs_            _rises_.
       61      12 for                  _remuneration_    _renunciation_.
       64       9                      _Shah durye_      _Shah durr_.
       66       3 dele comma after _pursuit_ and insert  _of_.
       95      20 for                  _Khowareim_       _Khowaresm_.
       97      11 after _west_ insert _that of_.
       —       21 for                  _Rakuye_          _Kakuye_.
      101       8                      _Endeddin_        _Esededdin_.
      118      14 from the bottom, after _common_ insert _name_.
      119      12 for                  _kasha_           _kaaba_.
      131       6 from the bottom, for _and_             _or_.
      145       1 for                  _property_        _properties_.
      147      12 from the bottom, for _lie_             _lies_.
      148       2 for                  _Korad_           _Kobad_.
       —       18                      _Reyumers_        _Keyumers_.
      170       8 from the bottom, for _basiraki_        _basikaki_.




HISTORY

OF

THE ASSASSINS.




BOOK I.

  _Introduction—Mohammed, founder of Islamism—Exhibition
  of its doctrines and of its different sects, from one of
  which (the Ismailites) the Assassins sprung._


Although the affairs of kingdoms and of nations, like the revolutions
of day and night, are generally repeated in countless and continued
successions, we, nevertheless, in our survey of the destinies of
the human race, encounter single great and important events, which,
fertilizing like springs, or devastating like volcanoes, interrupt the
uniform wilderness of history. The more flowery the strand,—the more
desolating the lava,—the rarer and more worthy objects do they become
to the curiosity of travellers, and the narratives of their guides. The
incredible, which has never been witnessed, but is nevertheless true,
affords the richest materials for historical composition, providing
the sources be authentic and accessible. Of all events, the account of
which, since history has been written, has descended to us, one of the
most singular and wonderful is the establishment of the dominion of the
Assassins—that _imperium in imperio_, which, by blind subjection, shook
despotism to its foundations; that union of impostors and dupes which,
under the mask of a more austere creed and severer morals, undermined
all religion and morality; that order of murderers, beneath whose
daggers the lords of nations fell; all powerful, because, for the space
of three centuries, they were universally dreaded, until the den of
ruffians fell with the khaliphate, to whom, as the centre of spiritual
and temporal power, it had at the outset sworn destruction, and by
whose ruins it was itself overwhelmed. The history of this empire of
conspirators is solitary, and without parallel; compared to it, all
earlier and later secret combinations and predatory states are crude
attempts or unsuccessful imitations.

Notwithstanding the wide space, to the extremest east and west, over
which the name of Assassins (of whose origin more hereafter) has
spread, and that in all the European languages it has obtained and
preserved the same meaning as the word _murderer_, little has hitherto
been made known, in consecutive order, or satisfactory representation,
of their achievements and fortunes, of their religious or civil codes.
What the Byzantines, the Crusaders, and Marco Polo related of them,
was long considered a groundless legend, and an oriental fiction. The
narrations of the latter have not been less doubted and oppugned,
than the traditions of Herodotus concerning the countries and nations
of antiquity. The more, however, the east is opened by the study of
languages and by travel, the greater confirmation do these venerable
records of history and geography receive; and the veracity of the
father of modern travel, like that of the father of ancient history,
only shines with the greater lustre.

Philological and historical, chronological and topographical
researches, instituted by Falconet and Silvestre de Sacy, Quatremère,
and Rousseau; outlines of European and oriental history, like those
of Déguignes and Herbelot; the very recent history of the Crusades,
by Wilken, compiled from the most ancient documents of the narrating
Crusaders, and cotemporary Arabians; smooth the path of the historian
of the Assassins; which name, neither Withof nor Mariti deserve;
the former, on account of his gossipping partiality, and the latter,
by reason of his meagreness and obscurity. Even after Abulfeda’s
Arabic, and Mirkhond’s Persian historical work, of which A. Jourdain
has given a valuable extract on the dynasty of the Ismailites, other
oriental sources, almost unknown, claim the attention of the historian.
Among the Arabic are—Macrisi’s, large Egyptian Topography, and Ibn
Khaledun’s Political Prolegomena: Hadji Khalfa’s invaluable Geography
and Chronological Tables; the Khaliph’s Bed of Roses, by Nasmisade; The
Two Collectors of Histories and Narrations, by Mohammed the Secretary,
and Mohammed Elaufi; The Explanation and Selection of Histories, by
Hessarfenn and Mohammed Effendi, among the Turkish: and among the
Persian, The Universal History of Lari; The Gallery of Pictures of
Ghaffari, a master-piece of historical art and style; The History of
Wassaf, the Conqueror of the World, by Jowaini; The Biographies of the
Poets, by Devletshah; The History of Thaberistan and Masenderan, by
Sahireddin; and, lastly, The Counsels for Kings, by Jelali of Kain, are
the principal.

He, who possesses the advantage of drawing from these oriental sources,
which, for the most part, remain concealed from the western world, will
be astonished at the richness of the treasures still to be brought
to light. There lie open before him—the sovereignty of the great
monarchies converging into one point; the power of single dynasties,
shooting out into a thousand rays; the fabulous chronologies of the
most ancient, and the exact annals of the most modern empires; the
period of ignorance anterior to the prophet, and the days of knowledge
that succeeded; the wonders of the Persians; the feats of the Arabs;
the universally ravaging and desolating spirit of the Mongols; and the
political wisdom of the Ottomans. Amidst such an abundance, the miner’s
strength appears too small, and his life too short, to enable him to
avail himself of all: and moreover, the very excess of riches renders
selection difficult. Which vein is he first to open, and from which
mass is he first to extract the ore for the manufacture of historic
art? Nowhere in the labyrinthine treasury of the east will he find
a perfect work, but only rich materials for the construction of his
edifice. His choice is determined by accident or predilection. What is
new and important always finds a sale; and the market is never glutted
with building materials, at a time when architecture flourishes.

An Arabian proverb says, “The building stone is not left lying in the
road.” If it be indifferent to the historical investigator, who is
eager for knowledge, and to whom sources are accessible, with what
and to what end he begins his labour, it is by no means so with the
conscientious historian, who only works with pleasure where all known
sources are at his command, and when accuracy may, for the future,
spare him the charge of incompleteness. In this point of view, the
serried ranks of oriental histories are thinned at once. Where, either
in the west or the east, is the library, which contains the works so
necessary to the complete treatment of the most important oriental
epochs,—works which, as yet, are known only by their names, and not by
their contents? Who, for example, could precisely and circumstantially
describe the history of the Khalifat, the dominion of the families
Ben Ommia and Abbas, and their capitals, so long as he had not read
the History of Bagdad, by Ibn Khatib, and that of Damascus, by Ibn
Assaker,—the former in sixty, the latter in eighty volumes? Who could
write the History of Egypt, if he has not at hand, besides Macrisi, the
numerous works which he consulted?

Still greater difficulties beset the writer of Persian history, whether
it be of the fabulous times of mythology, or of the middle period,
where the stream of the Persian monarchy, till then restrained in
one bed, flows into the numerous branches of cotemporary dynasties;
or of the most modern, where it has long been lost in the desert of
wild anarchy. More than one generation must pass, ere the literary
treasures of the east will be completed in the libraries of the west,
either by the patronage of princes, or the industry of travellers; or
become more accessible, by a more extended knowledge of languages, and
by translations; and ere thus, the venerable witnesses of antiquity
will be assembled, all of which it is the first duty of the historian
carefully to examine. An exception to this want of accumulated
authorities, which has hitherto been so sensibly felt in Europe,
and which checks the writer of oriental history in the midst of his
career, is exhibited by that of the Ottomans. Its original sources,
the eldest of which scarcely boast an antiquity of five hundred years,
might (although not without considerable expenditure both of money and
trouble) even now, be all procured, and moreover, might be completed
and corrected from the contemporary histories of the Byzantines and
modern Europeans.

A history is, however, the work of years; and the severity of the
task demands strength, prepared by previous exercise. In addition
to the immense importance of the subject, we were induced to
impose upon ourselves the present work in preference to others,
by the consideration, that being in the possession of all the
before-mentioned original authorities, touching the History of the
Assassins (besides which none are known in the east), we might deem the
examination of historical witnesses concerning this important epoch,
almost as closed. Their depositions are certainly sparing and meagre;
but the barrenness of the subject in splendid descriptions of battles,
expeditions, commercial enterprise, and monuments, is compensated
by the deeply engrossing interest of the history of governments and
religions. The Assassins are but a branch of the Ismailites; and these
latter, not the Arabs generally as descendants of Ishmael, the son of
Hagar, but a sect existing in the bosom of Islamism, and so called from
the Imam Ismail, the son of Jafer. In order, therefore, to understand
their doctrinal system, and the origin of their power, it is necessary
to treat, at some length, of Islamism itself, its founder, and its
sects.

In the seventh century of the Christian era, when Nushirvan, the Just,
adorned, with his princely virtues, the imperial throne of Persia, and
the tyrant Phocas stained with his crimes that of Byzantium;—in the
same year, in which Persia’s host, for the first time, fled before
the Arabian troops of the insurgent viceroy of Hira, and Abraha,
the Christian king of Abyssinia, the Lord of the Elephants, who had
hastened from Africa, in order to destroy the sacred house of the
Kaaba, was driven back by that scourge of heaven, the small-pox,
which commencing there, has since raged over the whole of the old
continent—(birds of celestial vengeance, says the Koran, stoned
his army with pebbles, that they fell); in this year, so important
to Arabia, that from it began a new era—that of the year of the
Elephants,—in the same night, when the foundations of the palace of
Chosroes at Medain, which had baffled the attacks of time, or the
builders of Bagdad, were overturned by an earthquake; when, by the
operation of the same agent, lakes were dried up, and the sacred fire
of Persia was extinguished by the ruins of its temple,—Mohammed first
saw the light of the world, the third part of which was so soon to
submit to his faith. His biography has been written in many volumes,
by the historians of those nations who believe in him. From thence
Maracci,[1] Gagnier,[2] and Sale,[3] have derived the accounts which
they have given to Europe. The first is embued with the fanatical zeal
of his church, the second is the most fundamental and complete, the
third the most unprejudiced. Voltaire,[4] Gibbon,[5] and Müller,[6]
have painted the legislator, conqueror and prophet; after them, it
is difficult to add anything concerning him. Hence, in this case, we
shall be brief, and shall only state what is necessary, and what has
remained untouched by those three great historians, or that portion
of his tenets which stands in the nearest connexion with those of the
Ismailites, and by which, in the sequel, they were undermined.

Mohammed, the son of Abdallah, and grandson of Abdolmotaleb, was
descended from a family of the highest rank among the Arabians, that
of Koreish, in whose custody were the keys of the sacred house of
the Kaaba. He felt himself called to lead back his countrymen, who
were sunk in idolatry, to the knowledge of the only true God, and,
as prophet and legislator, to complete the great work of purifying
natural religion from the dross of superstition; a task which so many
had previously, at different times, attempted. Arabia was divided among
the religions of the Christians, the Jews, and the Sabæans. To combine
these three into one, by the union of that which flowed from principles
common to all, for the attainment of political liberty and greatness,
was the aim of his life, which had been so long spent in meditation,
and only late in years was roused to active exertion. From his infancy,
his mother, Emina, who was a Jewess, and in early youth, during a
journey in Syria, the Christian monk, Sergius, imbued him with the
religious tenets of Moses and Jesus, and exhibited, in the full light
of its infamy, the idolatrous worship of the Kaaba, where three hundred
idols demanded the adoration of the people.

The Jews were expecting the Messiah as the Saviour of Israel, the
Christians looked for the advent of the Paraclete, as their comforter
and mediator, when, in his fortieth year (an age which, in the east,
has always been considered as that of a prophet), Mohammed felt within
him the voice of divine inspiration, enjoining him to read in the name
of the Lord,[7] the commands of heaven, and by their promulgation, to
prove himself to his people, the prophet and apostle of God. Nature
had formed him a poet and an enthusiastic orator, by endowing him with
an astounding power of language, a penetrating ardour of imagination,
a dignity of demeanour, commanding the profoundest reverence, and a
captivating suavity of manners. Valour, magnanimity, and eloquence,
qualities prized by every nation, and by none more than the wild son
of the desert, were the three great magnets which drew to him the
hearts of his people, who had long been wont to do homage to the heroic
and munificent, and more especially to the great poets, whose noble
productions were hung in the Kaaba, written in golden letters, and as
the immediate gifts of heaven, deemed worthy of divine adoration.

Of all Arabic poetry, the Koran is the master-piece; in it the
lightning of sublimity gleams through the dreary obscurity of long
prosy traditions and ordinances, and the energetic language rolls
like the thunder of heaven, reverberating from rock to rock, in the
echo of the rhyme; or pours on like the roaring of the wave, in the
constant return of similar sounding words. It stands the glorious
pyramid of Arabic poetry; no poet of this people, either before or
since, has approached its excellence. Lebid, one of the seven great
bards, whose works were called _al-moallakat_, the suspended, because
they hung on the walls of the Kaaba for public admiration, tore his own
down, as unworthy of the honour, the moment he had read the sublime
exordium of the second sura of the Koran. Hassan, the satirist,
who lampooned the prophet, on which verses of the Koran descended
from heaven, was forced, at the conquest of Mecca, to confess the
irresistible power of his word and his sword; and Kaab, the son of
Soheir, paid him spontaneous homage, in a hymn of praise, for which
the prophet gave him his mantle, which is still preserved among the
precious articles of the Turkish treasury; and is annually, during
the month Ramadan, worshipped and touched, in the most solemn manner,
by the Sultan, accompanied by his court and the great officers of
state. Mohammed’s lofty destiny, in changing from poet to prophet,
has induced many later Arabian poets and beaux esprits to attempt the
like; the consequences of which have either been nugatory, or fraught
with their own destruction. Moseleima, a cotemporary of Mohammed, and,
like him, the poet of nature, nevertheless, soon became dangerous to
him, as the unattainable divinity of the Koran had not yet received
the sanction of ages. Ibn Mokaffaa, the elegant translator of the
Fables of Bidpai, who shut himself up for whole weeks, to produce a
single verse which might bear a comparison with the lofty passage
of the Koran, on the deluge,—“Earth, swallow thy waters! Heaven,
withhold thy cataracts!”—earned by his fruitless labours nothing but
the reputation of a free-thinker; and Motenebbi, whose name signifies
the “prophecying,” gained, indeed, the glory of a great poet, but
never that of a prophet. Thus, for twelve centuries, the Koran has
maintained, undisturbed, the character of an inimitable and uncreated
celestial Scripture, as the eternal Word of God.

The word of the prophet is the Soonna, that is, the collection of his
orations and oral commands, which, no less than in the written Koran,
by vivid fancy, energy of will, power of language, and knowledge of
mankind, manifest the genius of the great poet and legislator. The
former has never been estimated in the view we have just taken of it:
the latter will be considered in the sequel.

The creed of Islam (_i. e._ the most implicit resignation to the will
of God) is,—There is no God but God, and Mohammed is his prophet. His
whole doctrine consists of only five articles of faith, and as many
duties of external worship. The dogmas are—belief in God, his angels,
his prophets, the day of judgment, and predestination. The religious
rites are—ablution, prayer, fasting, alms, and the pilgrimage to Mecca.
Creed and worship formed a sort of Mosaic of portions of Christianity,
Judaism, and Sabæanism: there are no miracles but those of the
creation and of the word, that is, the verses of the Koran. Mohammed’s
journey to heaven, contained in it, is merely a vision in the style of
Ezekiel, of whose throne bearers, the Alborak (the prophet’s celestial
steed with a human face) is in imitation. The doctrine of the last day,
the judgment of the dead, the balance in which the souls are to be
weighed, the bridge of trial, and the seven hells and eight paradises,
are derived from Persian and Egyptian sources. The highest rewards of
heaven are—pleasures of sensual enjoyment, shady lawns, with rills
bubbling amidst flowers, gilded kiosks and vases, soft couches and rich
goblets, silver fountains and handsome youths. Sparkling sherbet and
generous wine from the springs, Kewsser and Selsebil, for the pious,
who, during their lives, have abstained from intoxicating potations.
Black-eyed damsels, ever young, for the righteous; and, in particular,
for him who has earned the eternal palm of martyrdom in the holy war
against the enemies of the faith. His is the everlasting reward, for
“Paradise is beneath the shadow of the sword,” which the faithful are
to wield against the infidel, till he conforms to Islamism, or subjects
himself to tribute. Even against intestine enemies of the faith, or
of the realm, the execution of justice is lawful, and homicide is
better than rebellion. The Koran contains much relating to the laws of
marriage and inheritance, and the rights and duties of women, to whom
Mohammed was the first to ensure a civil political existence, which
before him they seem scarcely to have enjoyed among the Arabians. There
is nothing concerning the succession to the administration of affairs,
and with regard to claims to property in land and sovereignty, thus
much only:—“The rule is of God, he giveth it to, and taketh it from
whomsoever he will. The earth is God’s, he devises it to whomsoever
he will.” By these general formulæ of the celestial decrees, a fair
field was opened to despots and usurpers: Mohammed’s idea was, that
sovereignty was the right of the strongest, and he once expressly
declared that Omar, who was distinguished by the great energy of his
character, possessed the qualities of a prophet and khalif. Tradition
has, however, handed down to us no similar expression in favour of the
amiable Ali, his son-in-law. Moreover, it had not escaped him, that in
the constant progress of history there is nothing immutable; that no
human institution can be endued with perpetual duration, and that the
spirit of one generation seldom survives that which succeeds it. It was
in this sense that he said, prophetically,—“The khalifate will last
only thirty years after my death.”

It is probable, that had Mohammed destined the succession (or as
the Arabs call it, the khalifate) to his nearest relations, he
would have expressly named his son-in-law, Ali, as khalif. As,
however, he enjoined nothing on this point during his life,—for some
eulogiums passed on Ali, adduced by the latter’s party, are vague
and doubtful,—he seems to have committed the appointment of the most
worthy to the selection of the Moslimin. The first whom they elected
emir and imam, was the first convert to Islamism, Ebubekr Essidik (the
True), and after his short reign, Omar Alfaruk (the Decisive), to whom
they did homage with oath and striking of hands. Omar’s severity,
equally inflexible to himself and others, and the remarkable force
of his character, first impressed on Islamism and the khalifat, the
stamp of fanaticism and despotism, which was foreign to its first
institution. The spirit of conquest, indeed, was already manifested by
Mohammed’s first enterprises against the Christians in Syria, against
the Jews in Chaibar, and the idolators of Mecca. Ebubekr followed his
footsteps with his victories in Yemen and Syria; but Omar first erected
the triumphal arch of Islamism and the khalifate, by the capture of
Damascus and Jerusalem, by the overthrow of the ancient Persian throne,
and the sapping of that of Byzantium, from which he tore two of its
strongest foundation-stones, Syria and Egypt. It was at this epoch,
that the blind zeal of the khalif and his generals ruined the treasures
of Greek and Persian wisdom, the accumulation of ages. It was then
that the Alexandrian library fed the stoves of the baths, and the
books of Medain swelled the flood of the Tigris.[8] Omar prohibited,
under the severest penalties, the use of gold and silk; and the sea,
as being the great medium of the intercourse of nations by commerce
and exchange of ideas, he interdicted to the Moslimin. Thus, by the
vigour of his spiritual and temporal administration, did he hold his
conquests, and preserve the doctrines of Islamism; zealously watching
lest their integrity should be endangered by foreign influence, or the
manners of the victors corrupted by the luxury of the vanquished. It
was not unjustly that he dreaded the effect which the superiority in
civilization and institutions of the Greeks and Persians, might exert
on the Arabs: Mohammed, indeed, had already warned his story-loving
people against the traditions and fabulous legends of the latter.

The reins of dominion, which Omar had held in so tight a grasp, escaped
from the hands of his successor, Osman. He was the first khalif,
who fell beneath the dagger of conspiracy and rebellion; and Ali,
Mohammed’s son-in-law, mounted the throne, which was stained with the
blood of his predecessor, and which soon after was dyed with his own.
Many refused to acknowledge or swear fealty to him, as Prince of the
Faithful; they were called Motasali, that is, the _Separatists_,[9]
and formed one of the first and largest sects of Islamism: at their
head was Moawia, of the family of Ommia, whose father, Ebusofian, had
been one of the most powerful opponents of the prophet. He suspended
the blood-stained clothes of Osman on the pulpit of the great mosque
of Damascus, to inflame Syria with vengeance against Ali. But the
ambition of Moawia was less effectual in securing his destruction than
the hatred of Aishe, which even during the life-time of Mohammed, and
Ebubekr, her father, she had vowed against him. When in the sixth year
of the hegira, during the prophet’s expedition against the tribe of
Mostalak, Aishe the Chaste, having wandered from the line of march with
Sofwan, the son of Moattal, had given rise to certain calumnies: Ali
was one of the many, who, by their doubts and conjectures, rendered the
title of Chaste so problematical, that it was necessary to have a Sura
descend from heaven, to hush report, and rescue the honour of Aishe and
the prophet. Henceforward, by the authority of the sacred scripture
of Islamism, she passed for a model of immaculate purity. Eighty
calumniators fell immediately beneath the sword of justice; but Ali was
destined, at a later period, to atone for his incautious scepticism,
with his throne and his life. Aishe led her two generals, Talha and
Sobeir, against him, and by her presence, inflamed them to the combat
in which they perished. A part of his troops refused to fight, and
declared aloud for the opponents. They were afterwards called Khavaredj
(the Deserters), and afterwards formed a powerful sect, equally hostile
with the Motasali, to the interests of the family of the prophet; but
professing many tenets, differing again from theirs. At the second
battle of Saffain, Moawia caused the Koran to be carried on the
points of lances in the van of his army.[10] After the action near
Nèheran, Ali’s compulsory abdication took place at Dowmetol-Jendel,
which was shortly after succeeded by his assassination. Thus the
khalifat, contrary to the order of hereditary succession, came, by
means of murder and rebellion, into the family of Ommia, thirty years
after Mohammed had prescribed that space of time as the period of its
duration.

Of all the passions which have ever called into action the tongue,
the pen, or the sword, which have overturned the throne, and shaken
the altar to its base, ambition is the first and mightiest. It uses
crime as a means, virtue as a mask. It respects nothing sacred, and
yet it has recourse to that which is most beloved, because the most
secure, that of all held most sacred by man,—religion. Hence the
history of religion is never more tempestuous and sanguinary than when
the tiara, united to the diadem, imparts and receives an increased
power. The union of the supreme temporal and spiritual rule, which the
steady policy of the popes, never to be diverted from its object, has
for centuries in vain sought to achieve, is a fundamental maxim of
Islamism. The khalif, or successor of the prophet, was not only Emir al
Mominin, Commander of the True Believers, but also Imam al Moslimin,
Chief of the Devout; supreme lord and pontiff, not merely invested with
the standard and the sword, but also the prophet’s staff and mantle.
The Moslim world could yield obedience to but one lawful khalif, as
Christendom to but one pope. But as three popes have often pretended to
the triple crown, so have three khalifs laid claim to the supreme rule
of three portions of the earth. After the family of Ommia had lost the
throne of Damascus, it still maintained the khalifat in Spain, as did
the family of Abbas, on the banks of the Tigris, and that of Fatima,
on those of the Nile. As formerly, the Ommiades, the Abbasides, and
the Fatimites reigned contemporaneously at Granada, Bagdad, and Cairo;
so, at the present day, the sovereigns of the families of Katschar and
Osman possess the dignity of khalif at Teheran and Constantinople;
the latter with the most justice, since, after the conquest of Egypt
by Selim the First, the insignia, which were preserved at Cairo, the
banner, the sword, and the mantle of the prophet, together with the
two holy cities, Mecca, his birth-place, and Medina, his burial-place,
augmented their treasury and their dominions. They designate themselves
guardians and servants of the two holy cities, Padishah and Shah (_i.
e._ emperor and king); Sultan Alberrein and Khakan Albahrein, rulers
and lords of two parts of the globe and two seas. They might, with
great justice, entitle themselves sovereigns of three holy cities,
rulers of three portions of the globe, and lords of three seas; because
Jerusalem, as well as Mecca and Medina, is in their possession; because
their dominion extends into Europe, Asia and Africa; and because the
Red, as well as the Black and the White Seas, lie within the compass of
their sway.

Having bestowed this rapid glance on the modern dominions of the
Moslimin, which the illustration of the subject justified, we shall
now revert our attention to its primitive condition. The first and
greatest schisms in Islamism proceeded from the contest for temporal
rule, and the faith shared the dismemberment of the empire. We have
already remarked the existence of the two great political and religious
factions, the Motasali and Khavaredj, the apostates and the deserters,
many of whose tenets differed materially from those inculcated by the
ruling doctrine; but particularly that opinion which they maintained
with arms, in respect to the right to the dignity of khalif and imam.
This is the origin of most of the sects of Islamism, and is the fertile
root from which has grown the many-branched stem of heresy.

No less than seventy-two sects are counted, according to a tradition
of Mohammed, who is said to have foretold that his people would divide
into seventy-three branches, of which one only is the true one, all the
rest being erroneous. A very instructive sub-division and enumeration
of them is found in Sheheristani and also Macrisi, to which Silvestre de
Sacy first directed public attention, in a treatise read by him to the
Institute of France. We shall be satisfied with considering merely the
two stems into which the tree of Islamism, as soon as it rose above
the ground, bifurcated, and which even now, after the growth of twelve
hundred years, still remain the two principal limbs which have given
birth to the confused sectarian ramifications. These two divisions are
the doctrines of the Soonnites and the Shiites, which, though otherwise
multifarious, differ from each other principally in this,—that the
former recognise, as legitimate, the succession of the four first
khalifs, the latter only acknowledge the rights of Ali and his
descendants. The Soonnite is shocked by the murder of Osman, and the
Shiite is revolted by the slaughter of Ali and his sons. What the one
execrates, the other defends; and what the latter receives, the former
rejects. This exactly diametrical opposition of most of their dogmas
became only the more decisive by the lapse of time, and the separation
of political interests of the nations which subscribe to them. Most of
the wars between the Turks and Persians, the former Soonnites, and the
latter Shiites, have always been as much religious as inter-national
wars: and the efforts, so often repeated, and last essayed by Shah
Nadir, of bringing about a coalition of the two parties, remained
as fruitless as the endeavours, century after century, to unite the
Western and Eastern Christian churches, with whose schism that of the
Soonnites and the Shiites may not inaptly be compared.

The Soonnites, whose doctrine is considered among us the orthodox
one,—all the delineations of the Islamitic system, hitherto published
in Europe, having been derived from Soonnitic authorities,—are again
divided into four classes; these differ from each other in some
non-essential points of ritual ceremony: as, for example, the ritual of
the Roman Catholic church, and the no less canonical ones of the united
Greek, Armenian, and Syrian churches. In essential dogmas, however,
they agree. These four thoroughly orthodox sects of the Soonnites,
are named after the four great imams, Malek, Shaffi, Hanbali, and Abu
Hanife, who, like fathers of the church, stand at their head. Their
doctrine and that of the latter, in particular, which is acknowledged
as the predominant one in the Ottoman empire, are sufficiently known
by the admirable exposition of them by Mouradya d’Ohsson. We are
less acquainted with the sects of the Shiites, who are divided into
several, as for example, the Anti-Catholics into Protestant, Reformed,
Anabaptists, Quakers, &c. The four principal are the Kaissaniye,
Seidiye, Ghullat, and Imamie. We shall here give some particular
account of these from Ibn Khaledun and Lary, both by reason of the
novelty of subject, and the relation it bears to the present history.
The chief ground of their difference consists in the proofs on which
they rest the pretensions of Ali, and the order of succession in which
the imamat, or right to the supreme pontificate of Islamism in his
family, has been inherited by his descendants.

I.—The Kaissaniye, so named after one of Ali’s freedmen, maintain
that the succession did not pass, as most of the other Shiites
believe, to his sons, Hassan and Hossein, but to their brother,
Mohammed-Ben-Hanife. They are divided into several branches, two of
which it is proper to mention: 1st. The Wakifye (_i. e._ the standing),
according to whom the Imamat has remained in the person of Mohammed,
and has never been transferred; he never having died, but being said to
have appeared since on earth, under other names. Of this opinion were
the two Arabian poets, Kossir and Seid Homairi. 2ndly. The Hashemiye,
according to whom the imamat descended from Mohammed-Ben-Hanife to
his son, Abu Hashem, who bequeathed it to Mohammed of the family of
Abbas, who left it to his son, Ibrahim, who was succeeded by his
brother, Abdallah Seffah, the founder of the dynasty. The object of the
Hashemiye was evidently to strengthen the claims of the Abbasides to
the throne of the khalifat, to which one of the principal doctors and
preachers of this sect, Abomoslem, essentially contributed.

II.—The second[11] principal sect of the Shiites, the Seidiye, affirm
that the imamat descended from Ali to Hassan, and Hossein; from the
latter, to his son, Ali Seinolabidin; and from this last to his son,
Seid: whereas most of the other Shiites consider, after Seinolabidin,
his son, Mohammed Bakir, Seid’s brother, as the legitimate imam.
Besides this order of succession, the Seidiye differ from the Imamie in
two essential points:—1st. In recognizing him only as the true imam,
who possesses—in addition to piety—liberality, bravery, knowledge, and
other princely virtues; while the Imamie are satisfied with the mere
practice of religious duties, as prayers, fastings, and almsgiving.
2nd. In acknowledging, as legitimate, according to an expression of
Seid, the khalifate of Ebubekr, Omar and Osman, who are rejected
by the other Shiites as illegitimate, and execrated by the Imamie.
This exception has obtained the Seidiye the by-name Rewafis (_i. e._
Dissenters). The Seidiye are again divided into different branches,
according as they make the imamat descend from Seid to one or the
other. They have given origin to many competitors for the throne,
both in the east and in the west. Such was Edris, the son of Edris
Mohammed’s brother.[12] It was to this last, usually known by the
name Nefs-sekiye (_i. e._ the pure soul), that Seid’s son, Yahya, who
was hanged in Khorassan, is said to have ceded his pretensions to the
imamat, of which the before-named Edris availed himself to found the
dynasty of the Edrissides, in his newly-built city of Fez. According to
others, Mohammed, the son of Abdallah, also called the pure soul, and
Mehdi, surrendered the imamat to his brother Ibrahim; and this latter
to his nearest relation, Issa. These three, who raised their claims to
the khalifat during the reign of Manssur, expiated them in imprisonment
or with death. By their removal, the family of Abbas was established on
the throne, till, at a later period, it was assailed by a descendant of
Issa, with the aid of the Africans from Zanguebar (Sinji), who at that
period overran Asia. In Dilem, also, a certain Nassir Atrush invited
the people to recognise the claims to the khalifat of Hassan Ben Ali,
a son of Omar, brother of Seinolabidin, uncle of Seid; and hence arose
the power of Hassan in Taberistan. Thus the Seidiye promulgated their
doctrine respecting the succession of the imamat, both in Africa and
Asia, at the expense of the existing khalifat of the Abassides.[13]

III.—The Ghullat, the Exaggerating. This title, which is common to
several sects, indicates the exaggeration and extravagance of their
doctrines, which far exceed the bounds of reason, and in which traces
of the metaphysics of the Gnostics and of Indian mysticism cannot be
overlooked They recognise but one imam, as the Jews admit but one
Messiah; and attribute to Ali divine qualities, as the Christians do to
Jesus. Some distinguish in him two natures,—the human and the divine:
others acknowledge only the latter. Others are of opinion that the
imams alone are gifted with metempsychosis; so that the same perfect
nature of Ali has descended, and will to the end of the world descend,
to his successors in the imamat in their respective turns. According
to others, this series was interrupted by Mohammed Bakir, the son
of Seinolabidin, and brother of Seid; who is believed by some to be
still alive, wandering on earth, although concealed, like Khiser, the
guardian of the spring of life. Others again affirm, that this is true
only of Ali, who sits immortally enthroned in clouds, from whence his
voice is heard in the thunder, and the brandished scourge of his wrath
is viewed in the lightning’s flash.

These sects of the Ghullat are held to be damnable heretics, not merely
by the Soonnites, but also by the rest of the Shiites, as the Arians
and Nestorians were so estimated, not by the Roman catholics only,
but also by the Byzantine Jacobites. They received the general name
of Mulhad, or “impious.” The basis of their doctrine lies in their
extravagant homage and _de facto_ deification of the first imams; who,
however, far from admitting it, condemned its supporters. Ali himself
doomed some to the flames; Mohammed-Ben-Hanife rejected with horror
the faith of Muchtar, who ascribed god-like properties to him;—and the
Imam Jafer excommunicated all who hazarded the same tenet concerning
himself. This, however, did not prevent its gaining both teachers and
disciples.

It is not difficult to perceive its tendency, nor how convenient an
instrument of sedition and usurpation it must have been found in the
hands of skilful impostors or political competitors for the throne.
It was easy to turn, in the name of one invisible and perfect imam,
the obedience of the people from the visible and imperfect prince,
or by the ascription to an ambitious usurper of the transmigration
of the souls, and the perfections of preceding imams, to achieve his
investment with the sovereignty.

IV.—The Ghullat, however, notwithstanding the extravagance of their
doctrines of deification and metempsychosis, were, on the whole, far
from being so dangerous to the throne as the Imamie; who, indeed,
adopted from them the idea of a vanished imam, but who otherwise
maintained a continued series of revealed imams prior to him, but
posteriorly a natural descent of concealed ones. While some closed the
series of the revealed with the twelfth, and others with the seventh,
none expected, from his reigning successors, the most requisite
princely qualities as the Seidiye did, but merely devotion and
innocence. By means of this doctrine, wily and courageous intriguers
were enabled to keep their weak princes in leading strings, and by
their skilful manœuvres to delude the people, to serve their own
ends.

The Imamie are divided into two classes—the Esnaashrie, or the
_twelvers_, so named because they make the series of revealed imams
end with Mohammed-Ben-Hassan-Askeri, who was the twelfth. Of him,
they believe that he disappeared in a grotto near Hella, and that he
remains there invisible, to re-appear at the end of the world, under
the name of Mohdi, _the leader_. The second class is the Sebiin, the
_seveners_, who only reckon seven imams, in the following order: 1st.
Ali; 2nd. Hassan; 3rd. Hossein; 4th. Ali Seinolabidin (_i. e._ ornament
of the devout); 5th. Mohammed Bakir (_i. e._ the dealer in secrets);
6th. Jafer Sadik (_i. e._ the just); and, 7th. His son, Ismail. The
latter, who died before his father, is deemed by them the last imam,
and from him they are called Ismailites, as the twelvers were named
Imamites. The discrepancy between them commences at the seventh imam;
as the Imamites (the twelvers) deduce the imamat from Mussa Kassim, the
son of Jafer and brother of Ismail, in the following order: 7th. Mussa
Kassim; 8th. Ali Risa; 9th. Mohammed Taki; 10th. Hadi; 11th. Hassan;
12th. Askeri, and his son, Mohammed Mehdi. The claims of these imams
to the khalifat were so powerful and well recognised, under the first
Abassides, that Maimun publicly named Ali Risa, the eighth of them,
as his successor, to the great dissatisfaction of the whole family of
Abbas; who would certainly have endeavoured to prevent the execution
of this law of inheritance, had not the death of Ali proceeded that of
Maimun.

In maintaining their sovereignty, the _Seveners_ or Ismailites, were
more fortunate than the other sect. Their power first originated
with the dynasty of the Fatimites, on the coast and in the interior
of Africa, at Mahadia, and Cairo; and, one hundred and fifty years
afterwards, in Asia, by the dominion of the Assassins, in the
mountainous parts of Irak, and the coasts of Syria. By the oriental
historians, the African Ismailites are termed the western, the Asiatic
the eastern Ismailites.

Ere we commence our proposed subject, the history of the latter,
it is of primary importance to say a few words, in circumstantial
detail of the former, as being their original stock. Their founder
was Obeidollah, who came forward as the son of Mohammed Habib, the
son of Jafer Mossadik, the son of Mohammed, the son of Ismail, as,
in fact, the fourth in descent from the seventh imam. Ismail, in the
opinion of the Ismailites, was the last of the revealed imams; and
his son, grandson, and great-grandson, Mohammed, Jafer Mossadik, and
Mohammed Habib were concealed imams (Mectum) till Obeidollah, as the
first again revealed, asserted the rights of the family of Ismail
to the khalifat. These rights, however, were long and violently
contested by the Abassides, whose interest it was to annihilate
together, both the genuineness of their rivals’ genealogy, and
the validity of their pretensions. During the reign of the Khalif
Kadirbillah,[14] a secret assemblage of doctors of the laws was held,
in which the most celebrated among them, Abuhamid Isfraini, Imam
Kuduri, Sheikh Samir, Abjurdi, and others, declared the genuineness
of the Fatimites’ genealogy, and their claims to the throne, to be
false and void. How well founded, if not this decision, at least the
fear of the Abassides was, appeared fifty years afterwards, when the
Emir Arslan Bessassiri, a general in the service of the Dilemite
Prince Behaeddewlet, originally a Mameluke of the Fatimites at Cairo,
transferred, for a whole year, to Bagdad, the two royal prerogatives of
Islamism,—the coining of money and the public prayer, from the name of
the Bagdad khalif Kaim-Biemrillah, to that of the Egyptian sovereign
Mostanssur.[15]

This rivalry, and the necessity of self-defence, caused the doubts
which the Abassides had cast on the descent of Obeidollah, the first
of the Fatimites, to fall into considerable suspicion; and they are
considered unfounded by great Arabian historians, such as Macrisi
and Ibn Khaledun, as being the effusion of a factious policy. The
great jurist Kadi Ebubekr Bakilani is of the opposite opinion, which
is supported, as we shall presently see, not only by this sheik’s
authority, but also by other cogent arguments derived from the esoteric
doctrines of the Ismailites. In order to understand these, on which
also those of the Assassins are founded, it is necessary to take a
still wider view of the sects and parties into which Islamism was
divided.

Religious fanaticism is continually accused by history as the fomenter
of those sanguinary wars which have desolated kingdoms, and convulsed
states; nevertheless, religion has scarcely ever been the end, but
merely the instrument, of ambitious policy and untameable lust of
power. Usurpers and conquerors perverted the beneficent spirit of the
founders of religion, to their own pernicious ends. Religious systems
have never operated so destructively on dynasties and governments, as
in those cases where the insufficient separation of the spiritual from
the temporal authorities has given the freest play to the alternation
of hierarchy and tyranny. The nearer the altar is to the throne, the
greater is the temptation to step from the former to the latter, and
bind the diadem round the mitre; the closer the connexion of the
political and ecclesiastical interests, the more numerous and prolific
are the germs of tedious civil and religious wars.

The histories of the ancient Persians and Romans, of the Egyptians and
Greeks, possess almost an immunity, because religion, being merely
considered as popular worship, could neither weaken nor support
pretensions to the supreme authority. Christianity never deluged
kingdoms with blood, until it was made use of by ambitious popes and
princes, contrary to the original spirit of its institution; as, under
Gregory the Seventh and his successors, the crosier overpowered the
sceptre; or when, to use the words of Gibbon,[16] “rebellion, as it
happened in the time of Luther, was occasioned by the abuse of those
benevolent principles of Christianity which inculcate the natural
freedom of mankind.” Entirely different was the case with Islamism,
which, as we have seen, being founded as much on the sword as the
koran, united in the person of the imam and khalif, both the dignity
of pontiff and that of sovereign. Hence its history presents more
numerous and more murderous wars than that of any other religion;
hence, in almost all the sects, the chief ground of the schism is the
contested succession to the throne; and hence, there is scarcely one of
any importance which has not, at some period, proved dangerous to the
reigning family as a political faction in the state.

There was none which did not strive to become, in the strictest sense,
predominant, and to seat the princes of their faith on the throne of
Islam. Their missionaries (Dai) claimed not only the faith, but also
the obedience of the people, and were at once apostles and pretenders.
All the heresies, which we have hitherto mentioned, were, in spirit,
essentially usurping sects. Islamism, however, bore in its bosom others
still more prejudicial to its existence; sects, which trampling under
foot all the maxims of faith and morality, and preaching the overthrow
of thrones and altars, bore as their cognizance, equality and liberty.
We have still to give some details concerning these latter; to which,
in order to distinguish them from the former, to whom they are entirely
opposed, we shall give the name of revolutionary.

The Persian empire, the most ancient and likewise the best regulated
monarchy of the east, was the first to experience, and had, for the
longest period endured, all the horrors of despotism and anarchy
arising from unbounded power and resisting liberty. As long as the
faith of Zoroaster preserved its primeval purity, and the sacred fire
still burned in the temples, religion could neither afford a shield nor
a mask to rebellion; but when, under the Sassanides, the edifice of the
ancient system was shaken by new opinions and reforms, the temple and
the palace began alike to totter. Innovators and heretics sprung up,
and sedition undermined, at the same moment, both the altar and the
throne.

The sects of Magianism are very little known to us; hence, the
erroneousness of the prevailing opinions concerning the religion of
the Persians. Dualism, or Manicheism, has often been cited as the
original doctrine of Zoroaster. It has been attempted to combine into
one system, opinions in vogue at very different epochs; hence, the
vague and contradictory accounts not only of the Greeks, but even of
Anquetil, and Kleuker, since the discovery of some books of the Zend;
to which Herder was the first to direct our attention. His conjectures
confirm what Macrisi, probably taking Sheheristani as his guide, has
said respecting the sects of the Magians. He enumerates several; and
1st. The Keyumerssie, followers of the ancient doctrine according
to Keyumers, called the first man or king; 2nd. The Servaniye, who
consider Servan (_i. e._ eternity) as the matrix and sole origin of all
things; 3rd. The Zerdushtiye, or disciples of Zerdusht or Zoroaster,
the reformer of the ancient doctrine of Hom; 4th. Sfeneviye the
Dualists, properly so called; 5th. The Maneviye or Manicheans; 6th. The
Farkuniye, a species of Gnostics who admit two principles, the father
and the son, whose discord was mediated by a third celestial power;
7th. The Masdekiye, the adherents of Masdek, who declared war against
all religion and morality, and preached universal liberty and equality,
the indifference of human actions, and community of goods and women. As
he gave free rein to all the passions, he gained all their slaves; not
merely the poor and needy,—that numerous class, having nothing to lose
and all to win,—but also those who, on the contrary had all to lose
and nothing to win, the grandees, and King Kobad himself, the father
of Nushirvan. This latter expiated the weakness of his concession
by the loss of his throne, and an incarceration, from which he was
released only by the wisdom and virtue of his vizier, Bisiirjimihr.
His son Nushirvan, however, purified the faith, and exterminated this
scandalous brood with fire and sword, without being able, as appears
from later incidents, entirely to annihilate them.[17] For, in the
first century of Islamism, the same spirit showed itself in the liberal
doctrines of several heads of sects; till at last, in the hands of
Babek and Karmath, it raised itself over heaps of carcases and ruins,
the terror of the kingdom, and the abhorrence of mankind.

The Persians, says Macrisi, have ever considered themselves the freest
and most cultivated of nations, and others as mere ignorant slaves.
After the destruction of their empire by the Arabians, they looked
down upon their victors with contempt and hatred; and sought the ruin
of Islamism, not only by open war, but also by secret doctrines and
pernicious dissensions, which, breaking forth in rebellion, must have
shaken the kingdom to its base. As these opinions bore the stamp of
irreligion and libertinism, those who maintained them were called
Sindik[18] (libertines), a word corrupted from Zend, the living word of
Zerdusht. Their first appearance in Islamism was in the commencement of
the khalifat of the family of Abbas, of whom, the first khalifs in vain
endeavoured to eradicate them with the sword. The eastern provinces
of the ancient Persian empire, whither the remaining adherents of the
ancient dynasty and form of worship had taken refuge, and whither
Ismalism had, as yet, scarcely penetrated, were the fertile sources of
these heresies so fatal to the imamat and khalifat. Thus, in the reign
of the Khalif Manssur,[19] the Rawendi, who maintained the doctrine of
the transmigration of souls, revolted; and twenty years afterwards,[20]
under the command of Abdol Kahir, the Mohammer (_i. e._ the red, or the
ass-like), so called, either because they wore red clothes, or because
they were called the true believers asses (the arabic root Hamara meaning,
both, he has been red and he has been an ass); and in the same year,
in Transoxana, the Sefidjamegan or white-dressed, founded by Hakem Ben
Hashem, called Mokannaa the concealed, from wearing a golden mask;
or Sasendeimah (_i. e._ the moonshine-maker), because he, at night,
produced a miraculous illumination from a well at Nakhsheb, which
caused the place to appear to be lighted by the moon. By this juggling
he wished to attest his divine mission, as by a miracle; as Mani had
proved the celestial origin of his, by the divinity of art, namely,
with a book adorned with splendid paintings (Ertengi Mani). Mokannaa
taught that God had assumed the human form since he had commanded the
angels to adore the first man; and that, since that period, the divine
nature had passed from prophet to prophet, to Abu Moslem, who had
founded the glory of the Abbasides, and descended lastly to himself. He
was a disciple of Abu Moslem, who was acknowledged also by the Rawendi
as their head, and who seems to have been the first to introduce the
doctrine of transmigration into Islamism.

Mokannaa added to the metempsychosis (Tenasukh), the incarnation
of the human and divine nature, a dogma originating in India, and
afterwards adopted, as we have seen above, by the Ghullat as one of
their principal tenets.[21]

In the reign of Maimun, the seventh Abbasside khalif, when translations,
and the invitation to Bagdad of the literati of Greece and Persia,
had caused the seeds of science, already planted, to bloom in full
luxuriance,—the spirit of the Arabian, which was now imbued with
the systems of Grecian philosophy, Persian theology, and Indian
mysticism, shook off, more and more, the narrow trammels of Islamism.
The appellation of Mulhad (atheist), and Sindik (libertine), became
constantly more and more common with their cause, and the wisest and
best informed of the khalif’s court, were thus stigmatized. In the
first year of the third century of the Hegira, arose a revolutionary
sectarian, who, like Masdek, two centuries and a half before, in
Persia, preached the indifference of actions and community of goods,
and menaced the throne of the khalif with ruin, as his prototype had
that of Chosru. Babek, surnamed Khurremi, either, according to Lari,
from the town Khurrem, his birth-place, or, according to others,
from the gay licentiousness of his doctrines (Khurrem, in Persian,
signifying gay), for a space of twenty years, filled the whole circuit
of the khalif’s dominions with carnage and ruins, until at length, in
the reign of Motassem, he was overthrown, taken prisoner, and put to
death in the khalif’s presence.[22] Babek, before he delivered his
captives to the axe, caused their wives and daughters to be violated
before their eyes; and it is said, that, in his turn, he received
the same treatment from the commandant of the castle in which he was
imprisoned. When his hands and feet were struck off, by order of the
khalif, he laughed, and smilingly sealed with his blood the criminal
gaiety of his tenets. The number of those who fell by the sword in
twenty years, is estimated by historians to amount to a million. Nud,
one of his ten executioners, boasted that he alone had butchered twenty
thousand men,—so terrible and sanguinary was the contest between the
assertors of liberty and equality, and the defenders of the khalif’s
throne and the pulpit of Islamism.[23]

At this tempestuous and blood-stained epoch, there lived at Ahwas,
in the southern part of Persia, Abdallah, the son of Maimun-Kaddah,
a son of Daissan, the Dualist. By his father and grandfather, who
had introduced Dualism, from the system of the Magi into that of
Islamism, he was educated in the principles of the ancient empire and
faith of the Persians; and stimulated to deeds, by which, if he could
not accomplish their re-establishment, he might at least achieve the
overthrow of those of the Arabians.

Profoundly versed in all the sciences, and taught by the study of
history and the dire experience of his own day, Abdallah, the son of
Maimun, had sufficient opportunity to perceive the risk of declaring
open war against the established religion and reigning dynasty, so
long as the conscience of the people, and the military power, stood
at their command. He determined, therefore, by a deeply laid plan,
to undermine in secret, that which he dared not attack openly. His
system was to be enveloped in a veil of mystery, nor was it to appear
in the face of day, until it had succeeded in placing the sovereignty
in the hands of its partisans. It is always extremely dangerous to
endeavour, at once, to eradicate from the minds of men the deeply
imprinted reverence which they feel for the throne and altars of their
fathers. Men can only by degrees emancipate themselves from their
prejudices; many but imperfectly, and it is but few who can throw them
off entirely. As, however, it was Abdallah’s design to annihilate not
merely the prejudices of positive religion and authority, but to aim
at the very foundation of all, he resolved to promulgate his doctrines
gradually, and divided them into seven degrees, after the fashion of
the Pythagorean and Indian philosophers. The last degree inculcated the
vanity of all religion,—the indifference of actions, which, according
to him, are neither visited with recompense or chastisement, either
now or hereafter. This alone is the path of truth and right, all the
rest imposture and error. He appointed emissaries, whom he despatched
to enlist disciples, and to initiate them, according to their capacity
for libertinism and turbulence, in some or all of the degrees. The
pretensions of the descendants of Mohammed, the son of Ismail, served
him as a political mask; these his missionaries asserted as partisans,
while they were secretly but the apostles of crime and impiety. Under
these two relations, they and their followers were sometimes called
Ismailites, and sometimes Ibahie, “_indifferent._” Abdallah proceeded
from Ahwas to Basra, and thence to Syria, where he settled at
Salemiye: from this place his son, Ahmed, and Ahmed’s sons, Abulabbas
and Mohammed Sholalaa, and his envoys (Dai), at once emissaries and
missionaries, spread forth his doctrines. The most celebrated of the
latter was Hossein of Ahwas, who, in the country of Kufa, initiated,
amongst others, Ahmed, the son of Eshaas (called Karmath), in the
mysteries of revolt and infidelity, of which he soon gave an earnest to
the world, in torrents of blood and the smoking ruins of cities.[24]

He called himself Karmath, from the broken Arabic letters of this
name, and became the leader of the Karmathites, who, issuing from
Lahssa and Bakhrein, like the Wahabees, nine hundred years afterwards,
menaced Islamism with destruction. His doctrine, in addition to the
circumstance of its forbidding nothing, and declaring every thing
allowable and indifferent, meriting neither reward nor punishment,
undermined more particularly the basis of Mohammedanism, by declaring
that all its commands were allegorical, and merely a disguise of
political precepts and maxims. Moreover, all was to be referred to the
blameless and irreproachable Imam Maassum, as the model of a prince,
whom, although he had occupied no existing throne, they pretended
to seek, and declared war against bad and good princes, without
distinction, in order that, under the pretext of contending for a
better, they might be able to unravel at once the thickly interwoven
web of religion and government. The injunction of prayer meant nothing
but obedience to the Imam Maassum; alms, the tithes to be given to him;
fasting, the preservation of the politital secret regarding the imam of
the family of Ismail.

Every thing depended on the interpretation (Terwil), without which,
the whole word of the Koran (Tensil) had neither meaning nor value.
Religion did not consist in external observances (Sahir), but in
the internal feeling (Bathin). According to the variations of this
doctrine, which, in many points, touches those mentioned above, their
assertors received various names in the different provinces of the
khalifat. In Taberistan, they were called Seveners, from the seven
degrees of the secret doctrines of Abdallah, the son of Maimun Kadah;
in Khorassan, Mohammere (_i. e._ the Red), and in Syria, Mobeiyese,
the White, from their dress; in Transoxana, Rawendi and Borkai (_i.
e._ the Veiled), because Mokannaa covered his face with a golden mask;
at Ispahan, Batheni (_i. e._ the Esoterics), and also Mutewilin (_i.
e._ the interpreting Allegorists); at Kufa, Karmathi, or Mobareki; at
Lahssa and Bahrein, Jenabi; in Western Africa, Saidi, from Karmath,
Mobarek, Jenabi, and Said, four of their chiefs. They named themselves
in general Ismaili, from deducing them pretensions to the khalifat from
Ismail, the son of Jafer Sadik. From their opponents, they all received
in common the well merited appellations of Mulhad (_i. e._ Atheists),
or Sindik (libertines[25]).

The Karmathites differed from the doctrine of Abdallah, the son of
Maimun, in hoisting the standard of revolt, instead of, according to
the secret system, waiting their time tranquilly, till the throne
should be occupied by one of their number, and openly taking the field
against the existing power of the khalifat. The contest was sanguinary,
like that of Babek twenty years before; but more tedious and dangerous
both to the altar and the throne. Even Khalif Motadhadbillah, who
strengthened, with the iron remedy of the sword, those nerves of
the khalifat, so deplorably enfeebled since his sixth ancestor,
Motewekul, and received in history the name of the second founder of
the Abbassides, Seffahssanni, the second blood-spiller,—Abbas being the
first,—was unable, with all his energy, to extirpate this pernicious
brood. The astrologers, philosophers, soothsayers, and story-tellers,
had entirely lost all the credit which they once possessed at court,
in the reigns of Harun and Maimun:[26] these, however, being without
weapons, or leaders, were in nowise dangerous; while commanders of
military genius and courage, such as Abusaid, Jenabi, and Abutaher,
guided the mailed arm of the Karmathites against the head and heart of
Islamism. Under the conduct of the latter, the Karmathites took the
holy city of Mecca, as the Wahabees have done in our own days,[27]—so
little novelty do such doctrines and deeds possess in the history of
Mohammedanism. Thirty thousand Moslimin fell in defence of the sanctity
of the Kaaba against its impious assailants, who set fire to the
temple, and carried away to Hadjar even the black stone said to have
fallen from heaven in the time of Abraham. This stone was an aërolite,
and for that reason, like many others, an object of popular veneration.
It was restored, after a lapse of twenty-two years, when the Emir of
Irak redeemed it at the price of fifty thousand ducats. The adoration
of the Kaaba, which was founded on this stone, was not to have the
gates of hell prevail against it. For a whole century, the pernicious
doctrines of Karmath raged with fire and sword in the very bosom of
Islamism, until the wide spread conflagration was extinguished in blood.

The fate of the Karmathites, like that of the followers of Babek,
was a bloody lesson to those initiated into the secret doctrines of
Abdallah, the son of Maimun-Kaddah, not to propagate them otherwise
than covertly until they should be masters of the throne itself.
At length, one of their most zealous and active partisans, the Dai
Abdollah, a pretended descendant of Mohammed, the son of Ismail,
succeeded in escaping from the dungeons of Sejelmessa, in which he
had been confined by order of the Khalif Motadhad, and seated himself
on the throne in Africa, under the name of Obeidollah Mehdi.[28] This
adventurer was the founder of the dynasty of the Egyptian khalifs, who
tracing their descent to Ismail, son of Jafer Sadik, and from him to
Fatima, the prophet’s daughter, are known by the name of the Fatimites,
or eastern Ismailites. Thus the name, which hitherto had designated a
sect, was applied to a race. Ismailitism, which governed as a ready
tool the founder of the dynasty it had placed on the throne, was, in
Africa, in every sense, the predominant doctrine; and the khalif throne
of Mahadia, the first residence of these princes, soon threatened
that of Bagdad. It was from that ancient metropolis of the khalifat
that proceeded the allegations against the purity of Obeidollah’s
extraction. According to them, he was anything but a descendant of
Mohammed, the son of Ismail; but was the half-brother, by a Jewess, of
Hossein and Abushelalaa, the two sons of Ahmed, the son of Abdollah,
the son of Maimun-Kaddah. His name was affirmed to be originally Said,
but that after he had been set at liberty by Abdollah, it was changed
to Obeidollah; and in fact, if it is considered that the doctrine of
Abdollah, the son of Maimun, so utterly subversive of that of Islamism,
became, on the establishment of the Fatimite sovereignty, the
prevalent one in the court and the government, and that it was first
publicly taught at Mahadia, and, after the conquest of Egypt under the
fourth khalif of this dynasty, at Cairo; that its chief, under the
title of Daial-doat, supreme missionary of the crown, was, as Kadhiol
Kodhat, or supreme judge, invested with one of the first dignities of
the empire, both offices being frequently united in the same person;
the supposition that the chiefs of this sect, to whom nothing was
sacred and all was permitted, had placed one of their own number on the
throne, acquires very great probability, notwithstanding the assertions
of Macrisi and Ibn Khaledun to the contrary. The accounts which the
former of these two great historians has preserved, concerning the
promulgation of this doctrine, and the degrees of initiation, which
were now increased from seven to nine, form a very precious and the
most ancient document on the history of the secret societies of the
east, in whose steps those of the west afterwards trod. Their immediate
connexion with the doctrine of the eastern Ismailites, or Assassins,
renders it necessary to give a brief outline of it here.

Immediately after the establishment of the monarchy of the
Fatimites,[29] history mentions similar assemblages, which were
convened twice a week, every Monday and Wednesday, by the Daial-doat,
and were frequented in crowds both by men and women, who had separate
seats. These assemblages were named Mejalisol-hikmet, or Societies of
Wisdom. The candidates for initiation were dressed in white; the chief
went on those two days to the khalif, and read something to him, if
possible, but in every case received his signature on the cover of his
manuscript. After the lecture, the pupils kissed his hands, and touched
the signature of the khalif reverently with their foreheads. In the
reign of the sixth Fatimite khalif, Hakem Biemvillah, (the most stupid
tyrant of which the history of Islamism makes mention, who desired
to receive divine honours, and what is still more absurd, is to this
day worshipped by the Druses as an incarnate god), these societies,
the house in which their meetings were held, and the institutions for
the maintenance of teachers and servants, were increased on a very
large scale: an extensive building or lodge was erected,[30] called
Darol-hikmet, or the House of Wisdom, and richly furnished with books,
mathematical instruments, professors and attendants; access, and the
use of these literary treasures was free to all, and writing materials
were afforded gratis. The khalifs frequently held learned disputations,
at which the professors of this academy appeared, divided according
to their different faculties—logicians, mathematicians, jurists, and
physicians, were dressed in their gala costume, khalaa, or their
doctoral mantles. The gowns of the English universities still have the
original form of the Arabic khalaa or kaftan.

Two hundred and fifty-seven thousand ducats, raised by the tenths and
eighth of the tenth, was the amount of the annual revenue of this
academy, for the salaries of the professors and officials, for the
provision of the requisites for teaching, and other objects of public
scientific instruction, as well as of the secret articles of faith:
the former comprised all the branches of human knowledge—the latter
inculcated, in nine successive degrees, the following principles:[31]
The first degree was the longest and most difficult of all, as it was
necessary to inspire the pupil with the most implicit confidence in the
knowledge of his teacher, and to incline him to take that most solemn
oath, by which he bound himself to the secret doctrine with blind
faith and unconditional obedience. For this purpose, every possible
expedient was adopted to perplex the mind by the many contradictions of
positive religion and reason, to render the absurdities of the Koran
still more involved by the most insidious questions and most subtle
doubts, and to point from the apparent literal signification to a
deeper sense, which was properly the kernel, as the former was but the
husk. The more ardent the curiosity of the novice, the more resolute
was the refusal of the master to afford the least solution to these
difficulties, until he had taken the most unrestricted oath; on this,
he was admitted to the second degree. This inculcated the recognition
of divinely appointed imams, who were the source of all knowledge. As
soon as the faith in them was well established, the third degree taught
their number, which could not exceed the holy seven; for, as God had
created seven heavens, seven earths, seven seas, seven planets, seven
colours, seven musical sounds, and seven metals, so had he appointed
seven of the most excellent of his creatures as revealed imams: these
were, Ali, Hassan, Hossein, Ali Seinolabidin, Mohammed Albakir, Jafer
Assadik, and Ismail, his son, as the last and seventh. This was the
great leap or the proper schism from the Imamie, who, as we have seen,
reckoned twelve, and considerably facilitated the passing into the
fourth grade. This taught, that since the beginning of the world there
have been seven divine lawgivers, or speaking apostles of God, of whom
each had always, by the command of heaven, altered the doctrine of his
predecessor. That each of these had seven coadjutors, who succeeded
each other in the epoch from one speaking lawgiver to another, but who,
as they did not appear manifestly, were called the Mutes (Samit).

The first of the Mutes was named Sus, the seat as it were of the
ministers of the speaking prophet. These seven speaking prophets, with
their seven seats, were Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Mohammed,
and Ismail, the son of Jafer, who, as the last, was called Sahibeseman
(_i. e._ the Lord of time). Their seven assistants were Seth, Shem,
Ishmael, son of Abraham, Aaron, Simeon, Ali, and Mohammed, son of
Ismail. It is evident from this dexterous arrangement, which gained
the Ismailites the name of Seveners, that as they named only the
first of the mute divine envoys in each prophetic period; and since
Mohammed, the son of Ismail, the first of the last prophet’s coadjutors
had been dead only a hundred years, the teachers were at full liberty
to present to those whose progress stopped at this degree, whomsoever
they pleased, as one of the mute prophets of the current age. The fifth
degree must necessarily render the credibility of the doctrine more
manifest to the minds of the learners; for this reason, it taught that
each of the seven mute prophets had twelve apostles for the extension
of the true faith; for the number twelve is the most excellent after
seven: hence the twelve signs of the zodiac, the twelve months, the
twelve tribes of Israel, the twelve bones of the fingers of each hand,
the thumb excepted, and so on.

After these five degrees, the precepts of Islamism were examined; and
in the sixth it was shown, that all positive religious legislation
must be subordinate to the general and philosophical. The dogmas of
Plato, Aristotle, and Pythagoras were adduced as proofs, and laid
down as axioms. This degree was very tedious, and only when the
acolyte was fully penetrated with the wisdom of the philosophers,
was admission granted him to the seventh, where he passed from
philosophy to mysticism. This was the doctrine of unity, which the
Sofis have exhibited in their works. In the eighth, the positive
precepts of religion were again brought forward, to fall to dust by
all that preceded; then was the pupil perfectly enlightened as to the
superfluity of all prophets and apostles, the non-existence of heaven
and hell, the indifference of all actions, for which there is neither
reward nor punishment either in this world or the next; and thus was he
matured for the ninth and last degree, to become the blind instrument
of all the passions of unbridled thirst of power. To believe nothing
and to dare all, was, in two words, the sum of this system, which
annihilated every principle of religion and morality, and had no other
object than to execute ambitious designs with suitable ministers,
who, daring all and honouring nothing, since they consider every
thing a cheat and nothing forbidden, are the best tools of an infernal
policy. A system, which, with no other aim than the gratification of an
insatiable lust of dominion, instead of seeking the highest of human
objects, precipitates itself into the abyss, and mangling itself, is
buried amidst the ruins of thrones and altars, the horrors of anarchy,
the wreck of national happiness, and the universal execration of
mankind.


END OF BOOK I.




BOOK II.

  _Establishment of the Order of the Assassins, and Reign
  of the first Grand Master, Hassan Sabah._


Egypt, that extraordinary country, so distinguished from all others by
the many wonderful phenomena of nature, has ever been in history the
memorable theatre of extraordinary exhibitions of the art of governing
mankind by wisdom or folly in the name of heaven or earth. In the
remote ages of antiquity reigned a caste of priests, in whose hands
the king was the servile tool of their power, the lituus (our present
bishop’s crosier) was the real sceptre. Superstition, and the external
worship of statues and pictures, was the religion of the people, while
the secret doctrine of the initiated was concealed under symbols and
hieroglyphics. Their mysteries had a particular relation to the state
of the soul after death; whereas the popular belief confined its
duration to that of its earthly existence. It was a deeply designed but
ill-calculated policy, which excluded from the doctrine of immortality
the multitude who cleave to the clod, and made it the peculiar
prerogative of a certain number of elect, to whom it was permitted to
soar beyond the limits of the tomb, without at the same time neglecting
the duties and objects of civil life. It was imagined, that the vulgar
could only fulfil them with all their energies, and to their full
extent, when, instead of being actuated by views extending beyond the
grave, they confine to earth the whole activity and faculty of their
mind, during the space of time which intervenes between the cradle and
the coffin. Thus, neither time nor vigour would be lost in vain hopes
or useless speculations; every application of them was devoted to civil
existence: this was the object of the state, which reserved to itself
the allotment of rewards and punishments, not only here but hereafter.
In order to satisfy, in some measure, that longing after continued
existence implanted by nature in every breast, though deriving little
support from reason, the people sought to preserve their bodies and
names for the longest possible period, by mummies and tombs: hence
those mighty monuments, and the secret judgment of the dead, in which
the priests, as assessors and judges, were the dispensers of this
transitory immortality of stone and dust. To the few better informed,
and who were not satisfied with this mummery, the judgment of the dead
was symbolically explained in the mysteries, and the real immortality
of the soul taught; and explanations were afforded by the priests of
subjects of which they were themselves entirely ignorant.

Moses, imbued with the Egyptian policy, and initiated into the
mysteries of the sacerdotal colleges, among many other of their
institutions, retained this, of not imparting to his people the
doctrine of immortality, which, in all probability, remained, as in
Egypt, the peculiar privilege of the priestly order. We find no trace
of it in the books of the Hebrews; except in the Arabic poem of Job,
which, in fact, does not belong to them.

How much this concealment of the doctrine of immortality, deemed by
the priests such a master-piece of policy, has repressed the spirit of
the people, and impeded every loftier aspiration, is sufficiently made
known to us, not only in the history of their government, but also by
their still remaining monuments, which are so entirely unconsecrated
by the hand of art. The sphinxes and colossal statues, the temples,
and the pyramids, those astounding monuments of human activity, and of
the power of numbers directed to one end, bear the stamp of greatness,
from the extent of their proportions, but by no means that of beauty
in their execution. This latter dwells only in those favoured regions
of light, to which art and religion are together elevated by the idea
of immortality. Although this mysterious policy set bounds to the more
free developement of civilization, and the elevation of the people
to a higher social grade, it is nevertheless very probable, that it
proceeded from purely intellectual views, and the honest intention
of laying the foundation of the highest prosperity for the kingdom,
and the greatest temporal happiness of the people, by the undisturbed
activity of all human energies, and the continued application of them
to one political object. The secret doctrine benefited the initiated,
while it did not injure the profane. Of an entirely opposite nature,
was, as we have seen, that which prevailed in modern Egypt, during the
middle ages; the former contrived for the strengthening of the throne
and the altar, the latter imagined for their ruin. As wide a chasm,
as that which lies between the building of ancient Memphis and the
founding of modern Cairo, divides the secret tenets of the academies of
Heliopolis from those of the modern house of science. Egypt, in remote
antiquity the cradle of science and social institutions, afterwards the
mother of alchemy and treasure-hunting, by means of the philosopher’s
stone and talismans,—became, in modern times, the native soil of secret
sciences and societies.

The lodge of Cairo, whose political aim was, as we have already seen,
to overthrow the khalifat of the family of Abbas, in favour of the
Fatimites, spread its secret doctrine, by its Dais (_i. e._ political
and religious missionaries). To these were subordinate the ordinary
partisans, Refik, or fellows, who, initiated into one or several
grades of the mysteries, were, nevertheless, neither to teach them,
nor to collect the suffrages for any dynasty; this being the peculiar
privilege of the Dais, whose chief, the Dail-doat, or grand-master,
resided at Cairo, in the House of Sciences. This institution remained
unchanged, from its foundation by Hakem,[32] to the time of the khalif,
Emr-Biahkam-illah,[33] when the Emir-ol-juyush, or commander-in-chief
of the army Efdhal, on the occasion of an insurrection fomented by
the members of the lodge,[34] caused it to be shut up, and, as it
appears, to be destroyed. When, after his death in the following year,
the society strongly urged their re-opening, the vizier, Maimun,
refused to open the academy on the same spot, but permitted them to
erect, in a different situation, another building, dedicated to the
same purpose, which was Darolilm-jedide (_i. e._ the new House of
Sciences); where public courses of instruction and secret meetings,
as before, continued, till the downfall of the Fatimite dynasty. The
effects of their doctrine soon appeared in the increasing power of the
Fatimites, and the feebleness into which the khalifat of the family of
Abbas gradually sank.[35] The Emir Bessassiri, one of the most zealous
partisans and defenders of the former, took possession,[36] for a whole
year, at Bagdad, of the two royal prerogatives of Islamism, the mint
and the pulpit, in the name of the Egyptian khalif, Mostanssur, who
would have retained them, had not Bessassiri fallen in the following
year, by the sword of Togrul, who had hastened to the assistance of the
Abbassides. In the meanwhile, the fellows, Refik, and the masters, Dai,
inundated the whole of Asia; and one of the latter, Hassan-ben-Sabah
Homairi, was the founder of a new branch of the sect, namely, the
eastern Ismailites, or Assassins, before whose cradle we now stand.

Hassan Sabah, or Hassan-ben-Sabah, that is, one of the descendants
of Sabah, was the son of Ali, a strict Shiite of Rei, who took his
name from Sabah Homairi, and pretended that his father had gone from
Kufa to Kum, and from Kum to Rei. This allegation met, however, with
considerable contradiction from the natives of Khorassan, particularly
those of Tus, who unanimously asserted that his ancestors had
constantly dwelt in the villages of that province. Ali was universally
suspected of heretical notions and expressions, which gained him
the reputation of Rafedhi, or Motasal (Dissenter, or Separatist).
He sought, by false confessions and oaths, to prove his orthodoxy
to Abumoslem, the governor of the province, a strict Soonnite, and
afterwards withdrew to a monastery, to lead a life of contemplation.
This retirement, however, had not the effect of securing him from
public report, which at one time accused him of heresy and heterodoxy,
at another, of infidelity and atheism. In order to clear himself, as
much as possible, from this suspicion, he sent his young son, Hassan,
to Nishabur, and placed him in the school of the illustrious Mowafek
Nishaburi, who, at that time past eighty years of age, not only enjoyed
the well-merited consideration of being the first doctor of the
Soonna, but also the advantageous reputation, which events justified,
of securing the temporal happiness of all who studied the Koran and
Soonna under his auspices. Great was the concourse of distinguished
youths who sought from him happiness and instruction, and justified,
by the developement of fortunate talents, the established opinion
of the Imam’s wisdom and auspicious conversation. His last pupils,
even to his death, contributed to confirm his reputation:—three
of them, who flourished at the same time,—Hassan, Omar Khiam, and
Nisam-ol-mulk, endued with the most splendid talents, pursued the most
different careers, with the most fortunate results. They shone among
the constellations of mighty minds of their age, like the three stars
in Orion’s belt,—Omar Khiam, as an astronomer and philosophical poet;
Nisam-ol-mulk, as grand vizier; and Hassan-ben-Sabah, as the head of
a sect and founder of the Assassins. The first, useless in civil
society, was innoxious, by his epicurean mode of life; the second was a
beneficent, active, and learned statesman, under three of the Seljukide
sultans; and the third, by his diabolical policy, became a pernicious
scourge to humanity.

The ambition of the latter burst forth even in his youth, when
he endeavoured to lay the foundation of his fortune, with his
two school-fellows, by mutual promises. One of them, the vizier,
Nisam-ol-mulk, that is, _order of rule_, himself relates, in his
character of historian, the obligations into which they entered, and
their sequel. “The general opinion is,” said Hassan, one day, to the
other two, “that the imam’s pupils are certain of their fortune; now,
let us promise each other, that if this proves true of only one of us
three, he will share his good fortune with the other two.” Omar Khiam
and Nisam-ol-mulk agreed to Hassan’s proposal, with mutual engagements;
the first too indolent to involve himself in politics, the second too
magnanimous not to wish to share with the restless ambition of the
third, that prosperity, which his great talents and honest industry
ensured him in that career. Years elapsed, during which Nisam-ol-mulk
travelled through the countries of Khorassan, Mawarainehr, Khasnin,
and Kabul, and filled the lower offices of the state, till he at last
attained, under Alparslan, the great prince of the Seljuks, the highest
post in the empire,—that of vizier. He received with honour his old
school-fellow, Omar Khiam, who was the first to visit him, and mindful,
as he himself relates, of his youthful promise, offered him his credit
and influence, in procuring him an office; which is the more probable,
as Nisam’s knowledge of the world convinced him that Khiam’s love for
epicurean enjoyments would reject the offer; and that, in any case,
such a rival, as vizier, could never prove dangerous to him. Omar Khiam
thanked him, and merely requested peaceful leisure to devote himself,
undisturbed, to the pursuit of the sciences; and, as he constantly gave
the same answer to Nisam-ol-mulk’s repeated offers to make him vizier,
the latter granted him an annual pension of one thousand ducats, out
of the revenues of Nishabur, in which place, removed from the turmoil
of public affairs, and in the bosom of luxurious independence, he
henceforward devoted his life to the cultivation of his genius and the
sciences, and gained great fame as a poet and astronomer. Although his
love of ease did not permit him to transmit his glory to posterity,
by any considerable work, yet he has preserved it in the history of
Persian poetry, merely by his four-line strophes. These are unique in
their kind, by the licentiousness of their overwhelming wit, which,
without the least scruple, indulged itself in pleasantries, at the
expense of all pious persons, and particularly the mystics, not only
on the doctrines of the Sofis, but also the Koran itself; so much, as
to be held by the orthodox in the worst reputation for impiety. Omar
Khiam, in the collection of his quatrains (Rubayat), and Ibn Yemen,
in that of his fragments (Mokataat), merit, before all Persian poets
who have gained a name, that, more particularly, of philosophical. The
genius of the former is allied to that of Young, the latter to that of
Voltaire.

Hassan Sabah lived in obscurity, and unknown, during the ten years’
reign of Alparslan. Immediately, however, after the accession of
Melekshah, under whom Nisam-ol-mulk enjoyed the same unlimited power, as
vizier, as he had under his predecessor,—the son of Sabah also appeared
at the court of the Sultan of the Seljukides, and with harsh words from
the Koran, directed against promise-breakers, reminded the vizier of
the fulfilment of the obligations of his youth. Nisam-ol-mulk received
him with honour, procured him considerable titles and revenues, and
introduced him to the sultan, of whom Hassan, by crafty hypocrisy,
and under the mask of virtuous frankness and candid honesty, soon
became master. The sultan consulted him on all important occasions,
and acted according to his decision. The authority and influence of
Nisam-ol-mulk were soon essentially endangered, and Hassan laboured with
zeal to accomplish the fall of his benefactor. With consummate art, he
caused the smallest oversights of the divan to come to the sultan’s
knowledge; and on being questioned, contrived, by the most insidious
representations, sophisms, and unfavourable impressions, to turn his
sovereign’s mind against the vizier. The most cruel blow of this kind
was, according to Nisam-ol-mulk’s own confession, Hassan’s pledging
himself to lay before the sultan, within forty days, the balance sheet
of the revenues and expenditure of the state,—a task, to the execution
of which the vizier had requested a period ten times as long. Melekshah
placed at Hassan’s disposal all the secretaries of the chamber, with
whose assistance he performed the desired computation within the
promised time. Nisam-ol-mulk relates, that, although Hassan gained the
victory, he reaped no advantage from it; for, after having sent in
his accounts, he was compelled to leave the court with dishonour. He,
however, does not give us the proper cause of his disgrace. According
to the statement of other historians, it is very probable, that
Nisam-ol-mulk, consulting his own preservation, found means to mutilate
Hassan’s estimate, by the abstraction of some leaves; and as no account
could be given by the latter to the sultan, of this unexpected disorder
in his papers, he increased the sovereign’s displeasure, in order to
remove so dangerous a rival for ever from the court. He declares,
very _naïvely_, in his Political Institutes (Wassaya), that if this
misfortune had not befallen the son of Sabah, he would himself have
been necessitated to adopt the same course,—that is, to have abandoned
the court and his office.[37]

Hassan retired from Melekshah’s court to Rei, and then to Ispahan,
where he kept himself secluded in the house of Abufasl, in order to
escape the inquiries of Nisam-ol-mulk. He soon gained over the Reis to
his opinions, and lived sometime with him. One day, he concluded the
complaints which he was making against Melekshah and his vizier, with
the expression, that “if he had had at his bidding but two devoted
friends, he would soon have overturned the power of the Turk and the
peasant” (the sultan and the vizier). These remarkable words unveil
the profound and extensive plans of the founder of the Assassins, who
already contemplated the ruin of kings and ministers. The canon of the
whole policy of this order of murderers is comprised in them. Opinions
are powerless, so long as they only confuse the brain, without arming
the hand. Scepticism and free-thinking, as long as they occupied only
the minds of the indolent and philosophical, have caused the ruin of
no throne, for which purpose religious and political fanaticism are
the strongest levers in the hands of nations. It is nothing to the
ambitious man what people believe, but it is everything to know how
he may turn them, for the execution of his projects. He is satisfied
with finding ready slaves, faithful satellites, and blind instruments.
What may not two such, animated by the soul of a third, and obeying his
behests, accomplish? This truth, which lay open to the enterprising
soul of Hassan, found no access to the understanding of his host, the
Reis Abufasl, one of the shrewdest and most intelligent men of his
time. He considered these words as a sign of madness, and doubted
not that they were the effusion of delirium; for, thought he, how
could it occur to a man of sound intellect, to place himself, with
two adherents, in opposition to Melekshah, whose power extended from
Antioch to Kashgar. Without imparting his thoughts to his guest, he
placed before him, at breakfast and dinner, in hopes of restoring his
health, aromatic drinks and dishes, prepared with saffron, which were
considered as strengtheners of the brain. Hassan guessed his host’s
design, and prepared to leave him. The latter in vain employed all his
eloquence to retain him;[38] he soon after repaired to Egypt.[39]

When, twenty years afterwards, Hassan had possessed himself of the
strong fortress of Alamut, and the Vizier Nisam-ol-mulk had fallen under
the daggers of his assassins, and the Sultan Melekshah had followed him
to the grave soon after,—the Reis Abufasl was at the castle, as one of
the most zealous of Hassan’s partisans. “Reis,” said the latter to him,
“which of us two was out of his senses, I or thou? and which would the
aromatic drinks, and dishes dressed with saffron, which thou settedst
before me at Ispahan, have best suited,—thee or me? Thou seest how I
have kept my word, as soon as I found two trusty friends.”

The reign of Sultan Melekshah, during the twenty years of which Hassan
Sabah was occupied in laying the foundation of his power,—is one of the
most stormy periods of middle oriental history, many ways distinguished
by the downfall of old, and the rise of new, dynasties. In Taberistan,
Aleppo, and Diarbekr, the races of the Beni Siad, Beni Merdas, and
Beni Merwan,[40] disappeared, and in their place, the families of
Danishmend-Bawend and Ortok,[41] raised themselves to the thrones of
Kum, Taberistan, and Maradin.[42] The Seljukides, who, since the time
of their founder, Togrul-beg, had ruled in Iran, spread their branches
into Syria,[43] Karman,[44] and Asia Minor;[45] Bagdad, the metropolis
of the Abbasside khalifs, was torn with intestine religious wars.[46]
The Soonnites and the Shiites, the followers of the Imams, Eshaari and
Hanbeli, fought sanguinary combats within the city’s walls.[47] The
mint, and prayers from the pulpit, had, indeed, since the death of the
Emir Bessassiri,[48] been restored to the name of the family of Abbas;
but in both the holy cities of Mecca and Medina, they were continued in
the name of the fanatical khalif, Mostanssur, who occupied the throne
of Egypt. His Dais, or missionaries, the initiated of the Ismailites,
the Apostles of the lodge of Cairo, inundated the whole of Asia, in
order to gain proselytes to the cause of infidelity and rebellion. It
cannot afford matter of surprise that, in Hassan Sabah, their seed met
with a fertile soil. We will relate the beginning of his connexion with
them, in his own words, as history preserves them.[49]

“From my childhood, from my seventh year, my sole effort has been to
extend the bounds of my knowledge and to increase my capacities. Like
my fathers, I was educated in the tenets of the twelve imams (Imamie),
and I formed an acquaintance with an Ismailite Refik (Fellow),
called Emire Dharab, with whom I cemented bonds of friendship. My
opinion was, that the doctrine of the Ismailites was like that of the
philosophers, and that the ruler of Egypt was one of the initiated:
whenever, therefore, Emire spoke in favour of their principles, I
disputed with him, and there was a great deal of discussion between us
concerning points of faith. I did not in the least admit the justice
of the reproaches which Emire lavished on my sect; nevertheless they
left a deep impression on my mind. In the meanwhile he left me, and
I was attacked by a severe fit of illness, during which I blamed my
obstinacy in not having embraced the doctrine of the Ismailites, which
was the true one; and I dreaded lest, should death await me, from
which God preserved me, I might die without obtaining a knowledge of
the truth: at length I recovered, and met with another Ismailite,
Abu-Nedshm-Saraj, whom I questioned concerning the truth of his
doctrine; Abunedshm explained it to me in the most circumstantial
manner that I came fully to understand it. Lastly, I found a Dai
(Missionary), called Mumin, to whom the Sheikh Abdolmelek-ben-Attash,
the president of the missions of Irak, had granted permission to
exercise that office. I entreated him to accept my homage in the name
of the Fatimite khalif; this he at first refused, because I was of
higher rank than himself, but as I urged it most pressingly, he at
length acquiesced. Now when the Sheikh Abdolmelek arrived at Rei, and
had become acquainted with my opinions in conversation, my demeanour
pleased him so, that he immediately invested me with the office of Dai
(religious and political missionary). He said to me, ‘Thou must go
to Egypt to enjoy the happiness of serving the Imam Mostanssur, (the
reigning Fatimite khalif).’ On the Sheikh Abdolmelek’s departure from
Rei on his route to Ispahan, I journeyed into Egypt.”[50]

Hassan then had been already initiated, in Persia, in the Ismailite
mysteries of Atheism and immorality, and had even been deemed worthy
to become a teacher and promulgator of them. The fame of his great
talents, and the authority which he had enjoyed at the court of
Melekshah, preceded him; and the khalif Mostanssur, delighted with
the acquisition of such a partisan, received him with honour and
distinction. The chief of the missionaries, or grand-master of the
lodge, Dail Doat, the Sherif Tahre Kaswimi, and some other persons
of rank and influence, were despatched to the frontiers to meet him;
Mostanssur assigned him a residence in the city, and welcomed him in
the person of his ministers and court dignitaries, and loaded him
with marks of honour and favour. According to some, Hassan remained
eighteen months at Cairo, during which, although the khalif had no
personal interview with him, he interested himself in every thing that
concerned him, and even spoke of him in terms of the highest eulogium:
so great were the recommendations and predilection of the khalif, that
his relations and chief officers were persuaded that Hassan would be
named prime minister. In the meantime, clouds of disunion and discord
arose between Hassan and Bedr Jemali (_full moon of beauty_), the
Emirol Juyush, or commander-in-chief, who enjoyed unlimited power in
the Ismailite dominions. The cause was the great dissensions, which,
at that period, took place relating to the succession to the Egyptian
throne: the khalif had declared his son Nesar his legitimate successor;
while a faction, headed by Bedr Jemali, asserted that his other son,
Mosteali, who eventually succeeded him, was alone worthy to be so.
Hassan maintained the succession of Nesar, and by that means drew upon
himself the inextinguishable hatred of the general, who employed every
effort against him, and at length persuaded the reluctant khalif to
imprison the son of Sabah in the castle of Damietta.[51]

About this period, one of the strongest towers in the city fell
without any visible cause; and the terrified inhabitants saw, in
this accident, a miracle performed by the fortunate stars of Hassan
and Mostanssur. His enemies, and those who envied him, conveyed him
with their own hands into a ship which was sailing to Africa; he was
scarcely at sea, when a violent gale lashed up the waves, and filled
the whole crew, except Hassan, with terror; he, calm and raised above
all fear, answered one of his fellow-passengers, who asked him the
cause of such security, “Our Lord (Sidna) has promised me that no evil
shall befal me.” The sea becoming calm some minutes afterwards, the
voyagers were filled with universal confidence, and from that moment
became Hassan’s disciples and faithful partisans. Thus, to increase
his credit, did he avail himself of accidents and natural occurrences,
as if he possessed the command of both. The coolness with which he
confronted the perils of the swelling sea, gave him, with the apparent
rule of the elements, real authority over the mind: in the dark night
of the dungeon and the storm, he meditated black projects of ambition
and revenge; in the midst of the crash of the falling tower, and the
thunder and lightning, and billows of the storm, he laid the foundation
of his union of Assassins, for the ruin of thrones, and the wreck of
dynasties.

A wind, contrary to the destination of the ship, but favourable to
Hassan, drove them on the coasts of Syria instead of towards Africa;
Hassan disembarked and proceeded to Aleppo, where he remained some
time; thence he visited Bagdad, Khusistan, Ispahan, Yezd, and Kerman,
everywhere publishing his doctrine: from Kerman he returned to Ispahan,
where he resided four months, and then made a second excursion into
Khusistan; after staying three months in this province, he fixed
himself for as many years in Damaghan and the surrounding country: he
here made a great number of proselytes, and sent to Alamut as well as
other fortresses of the place, Dais of captivating eloquence. After
preparing everything here for the future maturity of his plans, he went
to Jorjan, whence he directed his journey towards Dilem; he would
not, however, enter the territory of Rei, because Abu Moslem Rasi, the
governor of that district, having received orders from Nisam-ol-mulk to
possess himself of his person in any way, omitted nothing in execution
of these instructions; Hassan proceeded therefore to Sari, and thence
to Demawend. On his way to Kaswin, he passed through Dilem,[52] and at
length arrived at the castle of Alamut, which became the cradle of his
power and greatness. He had already, some time before, sent to this
stronghold one of his most zealous and skilful Dais, Hossein Kaini,
to invite the inhabitants to swear fealty to the Khalif Mostanssur.
The greater number had already taken the accustomed oath to him. Ali
Mehdi, the commandant, who held it in the name of Melekshah, with a few
others, remained faithful to his duty, acknowledging no other spiritual
supremacy than that of the khalif of Bagdad, of the family of Abbas;
and submitting to no other temporal prince than the Sultan Melekshah,
of the family of Seljuk. He was a descendant of Ali, and reckoned among
his ancestors Dai Ilalhakk (_i. e._ the inviter to truth). Hassan ben
Seid Bakeri had built this fortress two centuries and a half before.[53]

Alamut (_i. e._ Vulture’s nest), so called from its impregnable
position, and situated in 50 deg. 30 min. E. longitude, and 36 deg.
N. latitude, is the largest and strongest of fifty castles which lie
scattered about the district of Rudbar, at the distance of sixty
farsangs north of Kaswin. It is a mountainous country on the confines
of Dilem and Irak, watered by the Shahrud or King’s river; two streams
bear this name, one of which rises in Mount Thalkan, near Kaswin, the
other in Mount Sheer, and flows through the district, Rudbar of Alamut.
Rudbar means river land, and is applied to another district as well
as this northern one, which is called “of Alamut,” to distinguish it
from the southern Rudbar of Lor, which is situated near Ispahan, and is
watered by the river of life, Sendrud, as the former is by the King’s
river, Shahrud.[54]

Hassan, who had hitherto sought in vain for some central point for the
foundation of his power, at length took possession of the castle of
Alamut, on the night of Wednesday, the 6th of the month Redsheb, in
the four hundred and eighty-third year after the flight of Mohammed,
and the thousand and ninetieth after the birth of Christ; seven
centuries before the French revolution, whose first movers were the
tools or leaders of secret societies, which, like the Ismailites, then
openly attempted what they had in secret contemplated—the overthrow
of thrones and altars. Long experience and extensive knowledge of
mankind, profound study of politics and history, had taught the son
of Sabah, that an atheistical and immoral system was more calculated
to accomplish the ruin, than the establishment of dynasties, and the
confusion rather than the ordering of states; that lawlessness may
be the canon of the ruler, but ought never to be the code of the
subject; that the many are only held together by the few by the bridle
of the law; and that morality and religion are the best sureties of
the obedience of nations and the security of princes. Initiated into
the highest grade of the lodge of Cairo, he clearly penetrated their
plan of boundless ambition, whose object was nothing less than the
destruction of the khalifat of the Abbassides, and the raising new
thrones on their ruins. He, who had till now acted as Dai or religious
nuncio and political envoy, in the name of the Fatimite khalif,
Mostanssur, formed the resolution of securing power to himself instead
of his superior, and did not apply himself to the destruction of the
works of foreign wisdom and policy, so much as to found and fortify the
edifice of his own,—since, in the opinion of the Moslimin, the supreme
dominion was always vested in the person of the imam khalif; and the
people were merely divided as to whether this was legally inherited by
the families of Ommia, Abbas or Fatima. No other resource was left to
an ambitious chief, who usurped thrones and sovereignty, than to seek
them under the shadow of the khalifat (at that time itself a shadow),
and in the name of the reigning khalif; so had but lately the family
of Seljuk, as others had done before, possessed themselves of the rule
in Asia, in the name of the khalif of Bagdad. Hassan Sabah, who had
been unsuccessful in his hopes at the court of the Seljukides, and had
disagreed both with the sultan and his vizier, could only come forward
for the khalif of Cairo: in his name, and under the appearance of the
strictest piety, he gained disciples; ostensibly, for the khalifat of
Cairo and religion, but in reality, for himself and the projects of his
lawless ambition.

He obtained possession of Alamut, partly by stratagem and partly
by force; and the artifice by which he succeeded received a higher
confirmation in the eyes of the multitude by means of the Cabbala,
which very luckily found, in the letters of the word Alamut, the date
of the current year 483. Hassan adopted the same trick against Mehdi,
the commandant of the castle, in the name of the Sultan Melekshah,
which history mentions as having been used at the foundation of
Carthage and other cities. He requested, at the price of 3000 ducats,
as much land as an ox’s hide would only contain; he split the hide into
strips, and with them surrounded the castle. Mehdi, who had already
some time earlier excluded the Ismailites from the fortress, and then
on an arrangement taking place had re-admitted them, was, on his
not acceding to this purchase, driven out by force, and withdrew to
Damaghan. Previous to his departure, Hassan gave him a laconic letter
or bill of exchange, on the Reis Mosaffer, commander of the castle of
Kirdkuh, in these words: “Reis Mosaffer, pay Mehdi, the descendant of
Ali, 3000 ducats, as the price of the castle of Alamut. Health to the
prophet and his family. God the best ruler sufficeth us.” Mehdi could
not believe that a man like the Reis Mosaffer, who enjoyed the highest
consideration as a lieutenant of the Seljuks, would pay the slightest
respect to the bill of an adventurer like Hassan: he made, therefore,
no use of it until his curiosity was spurred by necessity, when, on
presenting it to the Reis, to his great astonishment, the 3000 ducats
were immediately paid. The Reis, in fact, was one of the earliest and
most faithful followers of Hassan Sabah; the second and most active was
Hossein of Kaini: they taught and acted for him as missionaries,—the
former in Jebal, the latter in Kuhistan, both names meaning Highlands,
and being the northern mountainous provinces of Persia. Hassan provided
his metropolis with ramparts and wells; he caused a canal to be dug,
bringing the water from a considerable distance to the foot of the
castle; he made plantations of fruit trees around the neighbourhood,
and encouraged the inhabitants in the pursuit of agriculture. While
he was thus employed in the fortification and defence of his castle,
which commanded the whole district of Rudbar, promoting cultivation and
raising supplies, his care and attention were still more deeply engaged
with the establishment of his own religious and political system,
namely, the peculiar policy of the Assassins.

A power was to be established, to which laws were to be given, and
the want of treasure and troops, the great arms of sovereignty, was
to be compensated in unusual ways. History showed, in the sanguinary
examples of Babek and Karmath, who had led hundreds of thousands to the
slaughter, and had fallen themselves the victims of their ambition, how
dangerous it is for infidelity and sedition to dare an open contest
with the constituted faith and government. Hassan’s own experience
taught him, by the slender results which the Ismailite mission had
exhibited in Asia, how useless it was to attempt to propagate the
secret doctrine of the lodge of Cairo, as long as its superiors had
heads, but not hands at their disposal.

During the two hundred years that the empire of the Fatimites had been
established in Africa, the lodge first erected at Mahadia, then at
Cairo, and the system of secret missions in favour of the Fatimites,
had been organized; they had indeed succeeded in giving the authority
of the Abassides a shock, but without being able to extend their
own; they had assumed the two prerogatives of the mint and public
prayers at Bagdad, but could keep possession of them for only a year,
and lost it when Bessassiri succumbed to the arms of Togrul. Under
pretence of enlisting partisans to the successors of Ismail, they had
preached atheism and immorality; and thereby loosened the religious
and moral bonds of civil society, without troubling themselves about
compensation; they had shaken thrones, without being able to overturn,
or to seat themselves upon them. Nothing of this escaped Hassan’s deep
reflections; and as he had not been successful in the usual routine
of ministerial ambition, in playing a part in the empire of the
Seljukides, he afterwards, as nuncio and envoy, paved the way to his
own power, and planned a system of administration of his own. “Nothing
is true and all is allowed,” was the ground-work of the secret doctrine:
which, however, being imparted but to few, and concealed under the
veil of the most austere religionism and piety, restrained the mind
under the yoke of blind obedience, by the already adopted rein of the
positive commands of Islamism, the more strictly, the more temporal
submission and devotion were sanctioned, by eternal rewards and glory.

Hitherto, the Ismailites had only Masters and Fellows; namely, the Dais
or emissaries, who, being initiated into all the grades of the secret
doctrine, enlisted proselytes; and the Refik, who, gradually intrusted
with its principles, formed the great majority. It was manifest to
the practical and enterprising spirit of Hassan, that, in order to
execute great undertakings with security and energy, a third class
would also be requisite, who, never being admitted to the mystery of
atheism and immorality, which snap the bonds of all subordination,
were but blind and fanatical tools in the hands of their superiors;
that a well organized political body needs not merely heads but also
arms, and that the master required not only intelligent and skilful
fellows, but also faithful and active agents: these agents were called
Fedavie (_i. e._ the self-offering or devoted), the name itself
declares their destination. How they afterwards, in Syria, obtained
that of the Hashishin or Assassins, we shall explain hereafter, when
we speak of the means employed to animate them to blind obedience and
fanatical self-devotion. Being clothed in white,[55] like the followers
of Mokannaa, three hundred years before, in Transoxana, and, still
earlier, the Christian Neophytes, and, in our own days, the pages
of the sultan, they were termed Mobeyese, the white, or likewise,
Mohammere the red, because they wore, with their white costume, red
turbans, boots, or girdles, as in our own day do the warriors of the
prince of Lebanon, and at Constantinople the Janissaries and Bostangis
as body guard of the seraglio. Habited in the hues of innocence
and blood, and of pure devotion and murder, armed with daggers
(cultelliferi) which were constantly snatched forth at the service of
the grand-master, they formed his guard, the executioners of his deadly
orders, the sanguinary tools of the ambition and revenge of this order
of Assassins.

The grand master was called Sidna (Sidney) our lord, and commonly
Sheikh al Jebal, the Sheikh, the old man or supreme master of the
mountain; because the order always possessed themselves of the castles
in the mountainous regions, both in Irak, Kuhistan, and Syria, and
the ancient of the mountains, resided in the mountain fort of Alamut,
robed in white, like the Ancient of days in Daniel.[56] He was neither
king nor prince in the usual sense of the word, and never assumed the
title either of Sultan, Melek, or Emir, but merely that of Sheikh,
which to this day the heads of the Arab tribes and the superiors of
the religious order of the sofis and dervishes bear. His authority
could be no kingdom or principality, but that of a brotherhood or
order; European historians, therefore, fall into a great mistake in
confounding the empire of the Assassins with hereditary dynasties, as
in the form of its institution it was only an order like that of the
knights of St. John, the Teutonic knights, or the Templars—the latter
of these, besides the grand-master and grand-priors, and religious
nuncios, had also some resemblance to the Assassins in their spirit
of political interference and secret doctrine. Dressed in white, with
the distinctive mark of the red cross on their mantles, as were the
Assassins with red girdles and caps, the Templars had also secret
tenets, which denied and abjured the sanctity of the cross, as the
others did the commandments of Islamism. The fundamental maxim of the
policy of both was to obtain possession of the castles and strong
places of the adjacent country, and thus without pecuniary or military
means, to maintain an _imperium in imperio_, to keep the nations in
subjection as dangerous rivals to princes.

The flat part of a country is always commanded by the more mountainous,
and the latter by the fortresses scattered through it. To become
masters of these by stratagem or force, and to awe princes either by
fraud or fear, and to arm the murderer’s hand against the enemies of
the order, was the political maxim of the Assassins. Their internal
safety was secured by the strict observance of religious ordinances;
their external, by fortresses and the poniard. From the proper subjects
of the order, or the profane, was only expected the fulfilment of
the duties of Islamism, even of the most austere, such as refraining
from wine and music: from the devoted satellites was demanded blind
subjection and the faithful use of their daggers. The emissaries, or
initiated, worked with their heads, and led the arms in execution
of the orders of the Sheikh, who, in the centre of his sovereignty,
tranquilly directed, like an animating soul, their hearts and poniards
to the accomplishment of his ambitious projects.

Immediately under him the grand-master, stood the Dailkebir, grand
recruiters or grand-priors, his lieutenants in the three provinces
to which the power of the order extended, namely, Jebal, Kuhistan,
and Syria. Beneath them, were the Dai, or religious nuncios, and
political emissaries in ordinary, as initiated masters. The fellows
(Refik) were those who were advancing to the mastership, through the
several grades of initiation into the secret doctrine. The guards of
the order, the warriors, were the devoted murderers (Fedavie), and
the Lassik (aspirants) seem to have been the novices or lay brethren.
Besides this seven-fold gradation from Sheikh (grand-master), Dailkebir
(grand-prior), Dai (master), Refik (fellows), Fedavie (agents), Lassik
(lay brothers), down to the profane or the people, there was also
another seven-fold gradation of the spiritual hierarchy, who applied
themselves exclusively to the before-mentioned doctrine of the Ismailis
concerning the seven speaking and seven mute imams, and belonged more
properly to the theoretical frame-work of the schism, than to the
destruction of political powers. According to this arrangement, there
live, in every generation, seven persons distinguished from each other
by their different grades of rank: 1st. The divinely appointed Imam;
2nd. The proof Hudshet, designated by him, which the Ismailis called
Esas, (the seat); 3rd. The Sumassa, who received instruction from
the Hudshet, as they did from the Imam; 4th. The Missionaries (Dai);
5th. Mesuni, (the Freed) who were admitted to the solemn promise or
oath (Ahd); 6th. Mukellebi, the dog-like, who sought out subjects fit
for conversion for the missionaries, as hounds run down the game for
the huntsman; 7th, Mumini, the believers, the people. On comparing
these two divisions, we perceive that, according to the first, the
invisible imam, in whose name the sheikh claimed the obedience of the
people, and in the second, the guard, of which he made use against
the foes of the order, are wanting; but that, in other respects, the
different grades coincide. The _proof_ was the grand-master; the
Sumassa, the grand-prior; the fellows were the freed; and the dog-like
the lay-brethren; the fourth and seventh, that is the preachers of
the faith and the believers, the cheating missionaries, and the duped
people are the same in both.[57]

We have seen above, that the first founder of secret societies in the
heart of Islamism, Abdollah Maimun, the son of Kaddah, established
seven degrees of his doctrine, for which reason, as well as their
opinions concerning the seven imams, his disciples obtained the
by-name of Seveners. This appellation, which had been assigned,
hitherto, to the western Ismailites, although they had increased
the number of grades from seven to nine, was, with greater justice,
transferred to their new branch, the eastern Ismailites or Assassins,
whose founder, Hassan, the son of Sabah, not only restored the grades
to their original number, seven, but also sketched out for the Dais,
or missionaries, a particular rule of conduct, consisting of seven
points, which had reference, not so much to the gradual enlightenment
of those who were to be taught, as to the necessary qualifications of
the teachers; and was the proper rubric of the order.

The introductory rule was called Ashinai-risk (_knowledge of the
calling_), and comprised the maxims of the knowledge of mankind,
necessary to the selection of subjects suited to the initiated. Several
proverbs, of much vogue among the Dais, had relation to this; they
contained a sense different from their literal meaning:—“Sow not in
barren soil;” “Speak not in a house, where there is a lamp;” implied
“Waste not your words on the incapable;” “Venture not to speak them in
the presence of a lawyer;” for it was equally dangerous to engage with
blockheads, as with men of tried knowledge and probity; because the
former misunderstand, and the latter unmask, the doctrine, and neither
would be available either as teachers or instruments. These allegorical
sentences, and the prudential rules so necessary to avoid all chance
of discovery, remind us of a secret society of high antiquity, and
a celebrated order of modern times;—in short, of Pythagoras and the
Jesuits. The mysterious adages of the former, which have come down
to us, and whose peculiar sense is now unintelligible, were probably
nothing more than similar maxims to the initiated in his doctrine;
and the political prudence in the selection of subjects fit for the
different designs of a society, reached the highest perfection in that
of Jesus. Thus the Pythagoreans and the Jesuits have a resemblance
to the Assassins. The second rule of conduct was called Teenis,
(_gaining confidence_), and taught them to gain over candidates by
flattering their inclinations and passions. As soon as they were won,
it was requisite, in the third place, to involve them, by a thousand
doubts and questions concerning the positive religious commands and
absurdities of the Koran, in a maze of scruples, which were not to be
resolved, and of uncertainty, which was not to be disentangled.

In the fourth place, followed the oath (Ahd) by which the acolyte
bound himself, in the most solemn manner, to inviolable silence and
submission; that he would impart his doubts to none but his superior;
that he would blindly obey him and none but him. In the fifth rule,
Teddlis, the candidates were taught how their doctrine and opinions
agreed with those of the greatest men in church and state; this was
done the more to attract and fire them, by the examples of the great
and powerful. The sixth, Tessiss (i. e. _confirmation_), merely
recapitulated all that had preceded, in order to confirm and strengthen
the learner’s faith. After this followed, in the seventh place, Teevil
(i. e. _the allegorical instruction_), which was the conclusion of
the course of atheistical instruction. In Teevil, the allegorical
explanation, in opposition to Tensil, or the literal sense of the
divine word, was the principal essence of the secret doctrine, from
which they were named Bateni, the Esoterics, to distinguish them from
the Jaheri, or followers of the outward worship.[58] By means of this
crafty system of exposition and interpretation, which, in our own days,
has often been applied to the Bible, articles of faith and duties
became mere allegories; the external form, merely contingent; the inner
sense alone, essential; the observance, or non-observance of religious
ordinances and moral laws, equally indifferent; consequently, all was
doubtful, and nothing prohibited. This was the _acme_ of the philosophy
of the Assassins, which was not imparted by the founder to the
majority, but reserved only for a few of the initiated and principal
leaders, while the people were held under the yoke of the strictest
exercise of the precepts of Islamism. His greatest policy consisted
in designing his doctrine of infidelity and immorality, not for the
ruled, but only for the rulers; in subjecting the tensely-reined and
blind obedience of the former, to the equally blind but unbridled
despotic commands of the second; and thus, he made both serve the aim
of his ambition,—the former by the renunciation, the latter by the
full gratification of their passions. Study and the sciences were,
therefore, the lot of only a few who were initiated. For the immediate
attainment of their objects, the order was less in need of heads
than arms; and did not employ pens, but daggers, whose points were
everywhere, while their hilts were in the hand of the grand-master.

No sooner had Hassan Sabah obtained possession of the castle of
Alamut, and before he had provided it with magazines, than an emir,
on whom the sultan had conferred the fief of the district of Rudbar,
cut off all access and supplies. The inhabitants were on the point of
abandoning the place, when Hassan inspired them with new courage, by
the assurance that fortune would favour them there. They remained, and
the castle henceforth received the name of the Abode of Fortune. The
Sultan Melekshah, who had at first viewed the efforts of the Ismailites
with contempt, was at length roused to secure the internal peace,
which was threatened by Hassan’s insurrection. He commanded the Emir
Arslantash (_Lion-Rock_),[59] to destroy the son of Sabah, with all his
followers. The latter, although he had only seventy companions, and
few provisions, defended himself courageously, until the deputy Abu
Ali, who was collecting, as Dai, troops and disciples in Kaswin, sent
three hundred men,—who, during the night, having formed a junction
with the garrison, and falling upon the besiegers, put them to flight.
Sultan Melekshah, being awakened to serious consideration by this
check, sent Kisil Sarik, one of his most confidential officers, with
troops of Khorassan, against Hossein Kaini, Hassan Sabah’s Dai, who
was spreading the principles of sedition throughout the provinces of
Kuhistan. Hossein retreated to a castle in the district Muminabad,
where he was not less straitened than Hassan had been in Alamut. The
latter now thought, that the moment was arrived for him to put into
execution a decisive stroke, and long-matured plan of murder, and to
rid himself of his most powerful foes, by the ready mode of dagger
or poison. Nisam-ol-mulk, the vizier of the Seljukides, great by his
wisdom and power, under the three first sultans of that family, Togrul,
Alparslan, and Melekshah,—he who, in his early youth, had rivalled
Hassan at the school of the Imam Mosawek, in industry; afterwards,
at the court of Melekshah, in their disputes concerning the dignity
of vizier and the monarch’s favour; and who, last of all, now openly
contended with the lord of Alamut for power and rule,—he, the great
support of the Seljuk empire, and the first great enemy of the order
of the Ismailites,—fell, as the first victim of Hassan’s revenge and
ambition, under the poniards of his Fedavi, or Devoted. His fall, and
the death of Melekshah, not without suspicion of poison, which followed
shortly afterwards, and with which all Asia echoed,—were the frightful
signals for assassination, which henceforth became Hassan’s policy,
and, like the plague, selected its victims from all classes of society.

It was a fearful period of murders and reprisals, equally destructive
to the declared foes and friends of the new doctrine.[60] The former
fell under the daggers of the Assassins, the latter under the sword of
the princes, who, now roused to the dangers with which Hassan Sabah’s
sect threatened all thrones, visited its partisans and adherents with
proclamations and condemnation to death. The first imams and priests
issued, voluntarily or by order, fetwas and judgments, in which the
Ismailites were condemned and anathematized, as the most dangerous
enemies of the throne and the altar, as hardened criminals and lawless
atheists; and which delivered them over to the avenging arm of justice,
either in open war, or as outlaws, as infidels, separatists, and
rebels, whom to slay was a law of Islamism. The Imam Ghasali, one of
the first moralists of Islam, and most celebrated Persian teachers of
ethics, wrote a treatise, peculiarly directed against the adherents
of the esoteric doctrine, entitled, _On the Folly of the Supporters
of the doctrine of Indifference, that is, the impious (Mulahid), whom
may God condemn_.[61] In that entitled, _Pearls of the Fetwas_,[62]
a celebrated collection of legal decisions, the sect of the impious
(Mulahid) of Kuhistan were condemned according to the ancient sentences
of the Imams, Ebi Jussuf and Mohammed, pronounced against the
Karmathites, and their lives and goods given as free prey to all the
Moslemin. In the “_Confluence_” (Multakath), and the “_treasures of the
Fetwas_” (Khasanetol Fetavi), even the repentance of the Mulhad, or the
impious, is rejected as entirely invalid and impossible, if they have
ever exercised the office of Dai, or missionary; and their execution
commanded as legal, even though they become converts and wish to abjure
their errors; because perjury itself was one of their maxims, and no
recovery could be expected from libertine atheists. Thus, the minds of
both parties were mutually embittered; governments and the order were
at open war, and heads fell a rich harvest to the assassin’s dagger and
the executioner’s sword.[63]

Those who were of the highest rank were the first to fall: such were
the Emir Borsak, who had been appointed by Togrul-beg first governor of
Bagdad, and Araash Nisami, to whom Yakut, the uncle of Barkyarok, the
reigning Seljukide sultan, had given his daughter in marriage.[64] The
civil war between the brothers, Barkyarok and Mohammed,[65] concerning
the territories of Irak and Khorassan, facilitated the execution of
Hassan’s ambitious designs; and in the bloody hotbed of intestine
discord, the poisonous plant of murder and sedition flourished. By
degrees, his partisans made themselves masters of the strongest castles
of Irak, and even of that of Ispahan, called _Shah durr_ (_the king’s
pearl_), built by Melekshah. That prince, hunting once near this place,
in company with the ambassador of the Roman emperor at Constantinople,
a hound strayed to an inaccessible mountain plateau, on which the
castle was afterwards situated. The envoy observed, that, in his
master’s territories, a place presenting so many natural advantages of
fortification would not be neglected, and that on the spot a fortress
would long ago have been erected. The sultan availed himself of the
ambassador’s suggestion and the situation, and the castle was built,
which was wrested by the Ismailites out of the hands of its commander.
This gave rise to the saying—“A fort, the situation of which a dog
pointed out and an infidel advised, could only bring perdition.”

Besides the _king’s pearl_, they took also the castles of Derkul
and Khalenjan, near Ispahan, the last, five farsangs distant from
that city; the castle of Wastamkuh, near Abhar; those of Tambur and
Khalowkhan, between Fars and Kuhistan; those of Damaghan, Firuskuh, and
Kirdkuh, in the province of Komis; and, lastly, in Kuhistan, those of
Tabs, Kain, Toon, and several others in the district of Muminabad.[66]
Abulfettah, Hassan’s nephew, captured Esdahan, and Kia Busurgomid took
Lamsir, both of them being, together with Reis Mosaffer, and Hossein
Kaini, as Dais, energetic promulgators of the doctrine, and supporters
of the greatness of Hassan Sabah, whose most intimate friends and
confidants they were, as Abubekr, Omar, Osman, and Ali, had been those
of the prophet. The acquisition of these fortresses, excepting those of
Alamut and Wastamkuh, which came into the possession of the Ismailites
ten years earlier, happened the year after the taking of Jerusalem by
the Crusaders.[67] Christianity and infidelity, the cross of the pious
warriors and the dagger of the Assassins, at the same time conspired
the ruin of Mohammedanism and its monarchies.

For a long period, the Assassins have only been known to Europe by
the accounts of the Crusaders, and recent historians have dated their
appearance in Syria later than it really took place. They, however,
appeared in Palestine contemporaneously with the Crusaders; for,
already, in the first year of the twelfth century of the Christian era,
Jenaheddevlet, Prince of Emessa, fell beneath their daggers as he was
hastening to the relief of the castle of the Kurds, Hossnal a-kurd,
which was besieged by the Count St. Gilles. Four years before,[68]
he had been attacked, by three Persian assassins, in his palace, as
he was preparing for his devotions. Suspicion, as the author of this
attempt, fell upon Riswan, Prince of Aleppo, the political opponent of
Jenaheddevlet, and a great friend of the Assassins, who had gained him
over by the agency of one of their emissaries, a physician, who was
also an astrologer, and thus doubly qualified to deceive himself and
others, without having recourse to the false doctrine of his order.
This man died twenty-four days after this first unsuccessful attempt
at murder; but the sanguinary views of the order were not extinguished
with him. His place was supplied by a Persian goldsmith, one Abutaher
Essaigh, who inflamed the Prince of Aleppo, Riswan, to deeds of blood.
This chieftain, who was constantly at enmity with the Crusaders,[69]
and his brother, Dokak, Prince of Damascus, favoured the emigration
and colonization of the Bateni, or Assassins, as their doctrine was
agreeable to him, he being but a bad Moslem, and a free-thinker. He
entered into the closest tie of friendship with them, and forgot, in
the pursuit, his infidelity and short-sighted policy, the interest of
his people and posterity. Sarmin, a strong place, only a day’s journey
south of Aleppo,[70] became the residence of Abulfettah, the nephew
of Hassan Sabah, who was his grand-prior in Syria, as were Hossein
Kaini, the Reis Mosaffer, and Busurgomid, in Kuhistan, Komis, and Irak.
A few years afterwards,[71] when the inhabitants of Apamea besought
the assistance of Abutaher Essaigh, the commandant of Sarmin, against
their Egyptian governor, Khalaf; he caused him to be assassinated, and
took possession of the town in the name of Riswan, Prince of Aleppo,
and remained in command of the citadel.[72] He could not, however,
resist Tancred, to whom the town surrendered, and who, contrary to his
promise, carried Abutaher prisoner to Antioch, and only released him on
receiving a ransom. The Arabian historian, Kemaleddin, for this reason,
accused Tancred of forfeiting his word; and, on the other hand, Albert
of Aix, the Christian annalist of the crusades, blames him for granting
so vile a ruffian so much as his life. His companions, however, whose
lives were secured by no treaty, were delivered up by Tancred to the
vengeance of the sons of Khalaf, and Abulfettah himself expired under
the anguish of the torture.[73] Soon after this, Tancred took from the
Assassins the strong castle of Kefrlana.

Abutaher having returned to his protector, Riswan, exerted his
influence still further in schemes of assassination. Abu Harb Issa (_i.
e._ Jesus, Father of Battles), a rich merchant of Khojend, a sworn
enemy of the Bateni, who had expended large sums in injuring them,
arrived at Aleppo with a rich caravan, consisting of five hundred
camels. An Assassin, a native of Rei, by name Ahmed, son of Nassr, had
accompanied him from the borders of Khorassan, watching an opportunity
to avenge on his person the blood of a brother, who had fallen under
the blows of Abu Harb’s people. On his arrival at Aleppo, the murderer
had a conference with Abutaher and his protector, Riswan, whom he won
the more easily to his purposes, as the richness of the booty, and
Abu Harb’s known hostility to the Assassins, invited to vengeance.
Abutaher provided Assassins, and Riswan guards, for the execution of
the deed. As Abu Harb was, one day, counting his camels, surrounded by
his slaves, the murderers attacked him; but before they could pierce
their victim’s heart, they all fell themselves under the blows of the
brave and faithful slaves, who exhibited their courage and attachment
in defence of their master. The princes of Syria, to whom Abu Harb
communicated this attack, loaded Riswan with reproaches for this
scandalous breach of hospitality. He excused himself with the lie, that
he had had no share in the transaction, and added, to the universal
horror of his deed, the public contempt which eventually falls to the
lot of all liars. Abutaher, in order to escape the daily increasing
rage of the inhabitants of Aleppo against the Ismailites, returned into
his own country to his sanguinary associates.[74]

As unsuccessful as their enterprise against Apamea, was the attack of
the Bathenites on Shiser, of which they wished to deprive the family
of Monkad and subject it to themselves. While the inhabitants of this
castle had gone into the town,[75] to participate in the festivities
of the Christians at the celebration of Easter, the Assassins took
possession of it and barricaded the gates. On the return of the
inhabitants, they were drawn up through the windows with ropes, by
their wives, during the night, and drove out the Assassins.

Soon after, Mewdud, the prince of Mossul, fell under their daggers at
Damascus, as he was walking with Togteghin, the prince of that city,
on a feast day, in the fore court of the great mosque. An Assassin
stabbed him, for which he lost his head on the spot.[76] In the same
year[77] died Riswan, the prince of Aleppo, the great protector of the
Ismailites, who made use of their swords and daggers for the defence
and extension of his power. His death was the signal of theirs: the
eunuch Lulu, who, with Riswan’s son, Akhras, a youth of sixteen,
carried on the government, commenced it with condemning to death all
the Bathenites; which sentence was executed less in a legal manner than
in a promiscuous carnage.

No less than three hundred men, women, and children, were cut in
pieces, and about two hundred thrown into prison alive. Abulfettah,—not
the one who was tortured to death by the sons of Khalaf, but a son
of Abutaher, the goldsmith, and his successor, after his return to
Persia, as head of the Assassins in Syria, met with a fate no less
horrible and merited than his namesake: after being hewed to pieces at
the gate looking towards Irak, his limbs were burnt, but his head was
carried about through Syria for a show. The Dai Ismail, brother of the
astrologer, who had first brought himself and his sect into credit with
Riswan, paid for it with his life; several of the Assassins were thrown
from the top of the wall into the moat; Hossameddin, son of Dimlatsh,
a newly-arrived Dai from Persia, fled from the popular rage to Rakka,
where he died; several also saved themselves by flight, and were
dispersed in the towns of Syria; others, to escape the fatal suspicion
of belonging to the order, denounced their brothers and murdered
them. Their treasures were sought out and were confiscated.[78] They
revenged this persecution variously and sanguinarily. In an audience,
granted by the khalif of Bagdad to Togteghin Atabeg, of Damascus, three
conspirators in succession attacked the Emir Ahmed Bal, governor of
Khorassan, whom they probably mistook for the Atabeg. They all three
fell, together with the emir, who had been selected for their daggers,
and who was in reality their sworn foe, and had frequently besieged
their castles. The governors of provinces, as being the principal
instruments of the state for the preservation of peace and good order,
were their natural enemies, and, as such, more than all exposed to
their daggers. Bedii, the governor of Aleppo, became their victim,[79]
as also one of his sons, who was on his way to the court of the Emir
Ilghasi. His other sons cut down the two murderers, but a third sprang
forward and gave one of them, who was already wounded, his death-blow.
Being seized, and carried before the princes Togteghin and Ilghasi, he
was condemned by them only to imprisonment, but he sought his death by
drowning himself.

The following year[80] Ilghasi received a message from Abu Mohammed,
the head of the Ismailis in Aleppo, with a request to put them in
possession of the castle of Sherif. Ilghasi, dreading his power,
pretended to grant it; but before the envoy could return with this
consent, the inhabitants of Aleppo destroyed the walls, filled up
the ditches, and united the castle with the town. Ibn Khashshab, who
had made this proposition, in order not to increase the power of
the Ismailites by the possession of the fortress, paid for it with
his blood. A few years afterwards, they made a similar request to
Nureddin, the celebrated prince of Damascus, for the possession of
the castle Beitlaha; which was, in the same way, apparently granted,
and frustrated by a similar stratagem: for the inhabitants, secretly
instigated by Nureddin, to prevent the Ismailites obtaining a firm
footing, immediately set about destroying their fortifications. So
great was the dread in which princes held the order, that they did
not dare to refuse them the strong places of their own countries, and
preferred destroying them, to abandoning them for citadels of the
power and sovereignty of the Assassins.[81]

In Persia, also, their vengeance chose the most illustrious victims.
Fakrolmulk[82] (_Glory of the kingdom_), Abulmosaffer Ali, the son of
the grand vizier Nisam-ol-mulk, who had filled the office he inherited
from his father, along with his hatred of the Assassins, during the two
reigns of the sultans Mohammed and Sandjar, with credit and industry,
and Chakarbeg, the son of Mikail, brother of Togrul, grand-uncle of
Sandjar, the reigning sultan of the Seljuks, were amongst them.[83] A
sanguinary lesson for the latter, whom the son of Sabah warned by still
farther menaces. He found it more adviseable frequently to restrain his
powerful enemies by impending danger, and preferred unnerving their arm
by terror, to multiplying uselessly avengers by repeated murders. He
gained over a slave of the sultan’s, who, while the latter slept, stuck
a dagger in the ground close to his head. The prince was terror-struck
when, on waking, he espied the murderous weapon but concealed his
fear. Some days after, the grand-master wrote to him in the style of
the order, brief and cutting like their stilettos: “Had we not been
well-disposed towards the sultan, we might have plunged the dagger into
his heart, instead of the ground.”

Sandjar, who had despatched some troops against the castles of the
Ismailites in Kuhistan, was the more fearful, after this warning, of
prosecuting the siege; as his brother Mohammed, who had caused the two
strongest fortresses of the Ismailites in Irak, Alamut and Lamsir, to
be invested by the Atabeg Nushteghin Shirghir, for more than a year,
died at the very moment when, being reduced to extremities, they were
on the point of surrendering.[84] This death was too favourable to
the Assassins, not to be considered less the work of accident than of
their policy, which, though trusting to the dagger, did not neglect
the use of poison. Admonished by this, Sandjar offered to make peace
with the Ismailites on three conditions:—1st. They should erect no new
fortifications about their castles; 2nd. They should purchase no arms
nor ammunition; and, 3rd. That they should make no more proselytes. As,
however, the jurists, who had thundered the ban of general condemnation
and persecution against the impiety of the order, would hear of no
compromise or peace with them, the sultan fell under the popular
suspicion of being a secret partisan of their impious doctrines. Peace
was, however, concluded between Hassan and Sandjar; and the latter
not only exempted the Ismailites from all duties and imposts in the
district of Kirdkuh, but even assigned them a certain portion of the
revenues of Kumis, as the annual pension of the order. Thus, this
society of murderers increased daily in power and authority.

It was not, however, merely since his accession, but twelve or fourteen
years earlier, that the Sultan Sandjar had exhibited tokens of
forbearance towards the Assassins; for on his journey from Khorassan
to Irak, he visited at Damaghan the Reis Mosaffer, venerable both on
account of his age and influence, who, as we have already seen, had
declared himself an adherent of Hassan Sabah, and had obtained for him,
by stratagem, the treasures of the Emir David Habeshi. Some officers
proposed to demand them back, but on Mosaffer’s representation, that
he had always loaded the inhabitants of the place with favours, as the
proper subjects of the sultan, the latter lavished honours upon him.
Thus died Reis Mosaffer,[85] respected and honoured as the patriarch of
the new doctrine, at the age of one hundred and one.[86]

Hassan Sabah survived the most faithful of his disciples, and his
nearest relations, to whom the ties of attachment and consanguinity
seemed to secure the highest rights to the succession to the
sovereignty. His nephew and grand-prior in Syria, Abulfettah, had
fallen by the sword of the enemy; Hossein Kaini, grand-prior in
Kuhistan, under the dagger of a murderer, probably Ostad, one of
the two sons of Hassan: and Ostad and his brother under the hand of
their own father, who seemed to revel even in spilling his own blood.
Without proof or measure of guilt, he sacrificed them, not to offended
justice, but apparently to mere love of murder, and that terrific
policy, by virtue of which the order snapped all ties of relationship
or friendship, to bind the more closely those of impiety and slaughter.

Ostad (i. e. _the master_), probably so called because the public voice
had destined him as the successor of his father as grand-master, was
put to death on the mere suspicion of being concerned in Hossein’s
murder; and his brother, because he had drunk wine: the former,
probably, because he had, by his crime, which was without orders,
interfered with his father’s prerogative; the latter, because he had
infringed one of the least essential laws of Islamism, but whose strict
observance was part of the system of the order. In the execution of
his two sons, the grand-master gave the profane and the initiated a
sanguinary example of avenged disobedience to the ordinance of outward
worship, and the rules of internal discipline; but probably, besides
this apparent motive, the son of Sabah was urged by another, to the
destruction of his race; possibly, his sons, disgusted with the long
reign of their father, were expecting with impatience to succeed him;
it is probable, that on that account he deemed them incompetent, as
not having learned to obey, or as being wanting in the necessary
princely qualities; or, it is probable, that he set them aside, in
order to avoid sinking the order into a dynasty by inheritance, and
that the succession of grand-masters might be determined by the nearest
relationship of mind and character, irreligion and impiety. Human
nature is not usually so diabolical, that the historian must, among
several doubtful motives to an action, always decide for the worst;
but, in the founder of this society of vice, the establisher of the
murderous order of the Assassins, the most horrible is the most likely.

Of the most faithful promulgators of the new doctrine, of whom we have
hitherto made mention, there still remained the Dai Kiabusurgomid, who
had not quitted the castle of Lamin during the twenty years that had
elapsed since he took it, and the Lieutenant Abu Ali, Dai in Kaswin.
When the son of Sabah felt his end approaching, he sent for them to
Alamut; and, by his last will, divided the government between them in
such a manner, that Abu Ali was invested with the external command and
civil administration, and Kiabusurgomid, as proper grand-master, with
the supreme spiritual power and government of the order. Thus, at a
very advanced age, died Hassan Sabah;[87] for more than seventy years
had elapsed, since, as a youth of twenty, he studied with Nisam-ol-mulk,
under the Imam Mowasek, in the reign of Togrul. He expired, not on the
bed of torture, which his crimes merited, but in his own; not under
the poniards, which he had drawn against the hearts of the best and
greatest of his contemporaries, but by the natural effect of age;
after a blood-stained reign of thirty-five years, during which he not
only never quitted the castle of Alamut, but had never removed more
than twice, during this long period, from his chamber to the terrace.
Immoveable in one spot, and persisting in one plan, he meditated the
revolutions of empires by carnage and rebellion; or wrote rules for
his order, and the catechism of the secret doctrine of libertinism
and impiety. Fixed in the centre of his power, he extended its
circumference to the extreme confines of Khorassan and Syria; with
the pen in his hand, he guided the daggers of his Assassins. He was,
himself, in the hand of Providence, like war and pestilence,—a dreadful
scourge for the chastisement of feeble sovereigns and corrupted nations.


END OF BOOK II.




BOOK III.

  _Reign of Kia Busurgomid, and his Son, Mohammed._


KIA BUSURGOMID, who had been the general and Dai of Hassan,
succeeded him in the spiritual power; and trod precisely in the
sanguinary steps of the founder of the order. Daggers and fortresses
were the foundations of Hassan’s power, and that of his successor
rested on the same basis; the most illustrious leaders of the enemy
either fell, or were tottering to their fall. New castles were taken
or built. Thus, that of Maimundis was erected;[88] the ruin of which
drew with it, in the sequel, the death of the grand-master, and the
suppression of the order. Abdolmelek was declared its dehdar, or
commandant. These precautions were the more necessary, as the Sultan
Sandjar, who had long been deemed a secret protector of the order, now
publicly declared himself their enemy. In the month Shaaban, of the
same year, also, Atabeg Shirghir, overran the province of Rudbar with
an army. The body, which the grand-master sent against him, put the
enemy to flight, and carried off a rich booty.[89]

The war, the year following,[90] assumed a still more cruel character,
when a great multitude of Bathenites were put to the sword, by order
of Sandjar; nor was it altered on Mahmud’s succeeding to the throne of
Irak, in the place of his nephew, Sandjar.[91] This sovereign resolved
to combat the Assassins with their own weapons of perfidy and murder;
a determination unworthy the assertor of a good cause. After being some
time at open war with Kia Busurg, the sultan requested, through the
medium of his grand falconer, that some one should be sent from Alamut,
on the part of the grand-master, to treat of peace. The Khoja Mohammed
Nassihi Sheristani was sent: he was admitted to the honour of kissing
the sultan’s hand, who addressed a few words to him on the subject
of peace. On leaving the presence, the Khoja, or master, and his
accompanying Refik (fellow) were savagely butchered by the populace.[92]

Mahmud despatched an envoy to Alamut, to excuse this action; in which,
according to his own asseverations, he had had no share. Kia Busurg
made answer to the envoy: “Go back to the sultan, and tell him, in
my name, Mohammed Nassihi trusted to your perfidious assurances, and
repaired to your court; if you speak truly, deliver up the murderers
to justice; if not, expect my vengeance.” Mahmud not attending to
this, a body of Assassins came to the very gates of Kaswin,[93] where
they killed four hundred men, and carried off three thousand sheep,
two hundred horses and camels, and two hundred oxen and asses. The
inhabitants followed them, but the death of one of their chief men
interrupted their pursuit.[94]

The year following,[95] the sultan captured, though but for a brief
period, Alamut itself, the stronghold of the order’s sovereignty;[96]
and immediately after, a thousand men were sent against the castle
of Lamsir, who, as soon as they heard that the Refik, or companions
of the order, were in advance against them, instantly fled without
striking a blow. Immediately after the death of Mahmud, which was
most probably caused by the machinations of the Assassins, without,
however, any accusation of the kind, the companions of the order made a
second irruption into the environs of Kaswin,[97] and carried off two
hundred horses, and after killing a hundred Turcomans, and twenty of
the citizens, they retired. The forces of Alamut then marched against
Abu Hashem, a descendant of Ali, who had usurped the dignity of imam
in Ghilan, and invited the people, by manifestos, to recognize him
as their legitimate lord. Kia Busurg wrote to him, advising him to
desist from his aspiring projects; he, however, replied, with reviling
the impious lore of the Ismailites: they made war upon him, beat him
in Dilem, took him prisoner, and, after holding a council of war,
delivered him over to the stake.[98]

On the death of Mahmud, when Messud ascended the throne of the
Seljukides, Itsis, the prince of Khowaresm, a country lying between
the confines of Khorassan, and the mouth of the Oxus, came to him,
to communicate the determination he had formed, of exterminating the
Ismailites. Although the large province of Khorassan lies between
Khowaresm and Kuhistan, or the Highlands, where the Ismailis nestled,
like birds of prey, amongst the rocks, yet the sovereign of Khowaresm,
not unjustly, dreaded the approach of such dangerous neighbours, whose
poniards reached even their most distant foes. Messud, participating in
the maxims and designs of Itsis, presented him with the fief which had
been held by Berenkish, the grand falconer, who in his irritation, took
refuge with Kiabusurg, and sent his wives and children to the castle
of Dherkos, which was in the possession of the Ismailites. Although
this man, till now their declared enemy, had not only attacked them in
open warfare, but also with their own weapons, perfidy and treachery,
the grand-master considered it politic to exercise the rights of
hospitality towards him, who had now flown to their protection.
It was the more advisable to create a new friend to the order, as
Khowaresmshah, who had hitherto shown tokens of a friendly disposition,
had, all at once, declared himself an enemy. The latter sent the
following message to the grand-master: “Berenkish and his party were
heretofore your declared enemies; I, on the other hand, was bound to
you by true attachment. Now that the sultan has given me his fief, he
has sought an asylum with you; if you will deliver him up to me, our
friendship will receive still further increase.” Kiabusurg replied:
“Khowaresmshah speaks truly, but we will never surrender our protegés
to the enemy.” This was the origin of tedious hostilities between
Khowaresmshah and Kiabusurg.[99]

It was natural that princes, who, for a time, were blinded by the
representations of the Dais, and the attractions of the Ismailitic
secret doctrine, should have hastened, as friends, to their arms, but
should afterwards snatch themselves away, dreading lest the embrace,
like that of the Spanish maiden, should be but a form of execution,
under which murdering daggers lay concealed. Thus, the Sultan Sandjar,
and Itsis, shah of Khowaresm, who were both at first reckoned among the
friends and partisans of the order, became their open foes; and we have
seen that, at Aleppo, they enjoyed, during the reign of Riswan, the
most powerful influence; but, under his son, were extirpated with the
sword. Such was their fate also at Damascus; where, during the reign
of Busi, they found a powerful protector in the vizier Tahir, the son
of Saad of Masdeghan. The Persian Assassin, Behram of Astrabad, who
commenced his operations with the murder of his uncle, gained over the
vizier, who gave him the castle of Banias, as Riswan had given the more
inland fortress, Sarmin, to the nephew of Hassan Sabah.[100] Banias,
the ancient Balanea, signifying the old city seated in the little
bay, gave its name to the castle newly erected in A. D. 1162; A. H.
454. It is a farsang, or four thousand paces, distant from the sea,
in a fertile, well-watered plain; where, in former times, more than a
hundred thousand buffaloes found pasture.[101] The valley, into which
numerous rivulets fall, is called Wady ol Jinn (the valley of demons),
a place whose very name rendered it worthy of being a settlement of
Assassins. From this place,[102] they became masters of the surrounding
castles and towns; and Banias became the centre of their power in
Syria, until they transferred it, twelve years afterwards, to Massiat.

Behram had long prosecuted the designs of the order at Aleppo and
Damascus, where he was recognised and favoured as Dai, by the princes
Ilghasi and Togteghin. When, by the possession of Banias, he had
obtained a firm footing in Syria, the power and insolence of the
Assassins attained its height. From all sides they hastened to the new
point of union, and princes did not venture to protect any one against
them. The jurists and theologians, more particularly the Soonnites,
those universal victims, were struck dumb with fear of them, and of
the disfavour of the princes. Behram did not fall by their vengeance,
but by that of the inhabitants of the valley of Taim, an appendage
to the district of Baalbek, and inhabited by a mixture of Nossairis,
Druses, and Magians. Their brave leader, Dohak, burned to revenge the
death of his brother Barak, the son of Jendel, who had been slain by
the Assassins, by command of Behram; he united, for this purpose, the
warriors of his native vale, with succours from Damascus, and the
surrounding towns. Behram hoped to surprise them defenceless, at the
head of his Ismailites; he, however, fell into their hands, and was
instantly cut in pieces. His head and hands were brought to Egypt,
where the khalif presented the bearer with a rich habit, and had
them carried about in triumph in Cairo and Fostath. The Ismailis who
escaped, fled from the valley of Taim, to Banias, where Behram, prior
to the expedition, had committed the command to Ismail, the Persian.
The vizier Masdeghani entered into friendly alliance with him, as
with his predecessor. Ismail sent to Damascus, one of his creatures,
Abulwefa, literally, _Father of Fidelity_, but, in reality, the model
of perfidiousness.[103] By his intrigues, he succeeded in obtaining,
not only the office of Dailkebir, or prior of the Ismailites, but also
that of Hakem, or chief judge of the district.

At Cairo, the dignity of grand-master of the lodge (Dail-doat), was
frequently united by the Ismailites, with that of chief justice
(Kadhi al Kodhat). As the attainment of rule was the object of the
order, and as no means were left untried to accomplish it, Abulwefa
sought conquest by means of treachery, and greatness by perjury. The
Crusaders, whose power was continually on the increase in Syria,
appeared to him the most fitting instruments of his ambitious designs.
As the enemies of Mohammedanism, they were the natural allies of its
most dangerous opponents. The bulwarks of the faith of Mohammed,
shaken from without by the tempest of the Crusaders, and undermined
from within by the atheistical doctrines of the Assassins, threatened
an earlier and a more certain fall; and the pious warriors, in union
with their impious allies, promised the sooner to erect the cross and
the dagger on their ruins. Abulwefa entered into a treaty with the
king of Jerusalem, by which he bound himself, on a certain Friday,
to put the city of Damascus in his possession. While the Emir Busi,
and his magnates, both courtly and military, were assembled at their
devotions in the mosque, all the approaches to it were to be hemmed in
by conspirators, and the gates of the city opened to the Christians. In
return for this service, the king promised to deliver the city of Tyre
into his power.[104]

Hugo de Payens, the first grand-master of the Templars, seems to have
been the principal agent in urging Baldwin II., King of Jerusalem,
to this strange alliance of the cross and the dagger. For ten years
after its first institution,[105] this order remained in obscurity;
fulfilling, besides the usual evangelical vows of poverty, chastity,
and obedience, a fourth, the protection of pilgrims; but still existing
only as a private society, without statutes or knightly habits.

By the code of rules given by St. Bernard, and confirmed by Pope
Honorius I., it raised itself at once, to the splendour of a powerful
chivalric order, for the defence of the holy sepulchre, and the
protection of the pilgrims.[106] According to Miræus, its members
consisted of knights, esquires, and lay-brothers, which answer to
the companions (Refik), agents (Fedavi), and laymen (Lassick), of the
Ismailites, as the priors, grand-priors, and grand-master, did to the
Dai, Dailkebir, and Sheikh of the mountain. As the Refik were clothed
in white, with red insignia, so the knights wore white mantles with red
crosses; and as the castles of the Assassins arose in Asia, so did the
hospitals of the Templars in Europe.

The grand-master Hugo, came this year[107] to Jerusalem, accompanied
by a great retinue of knights and pilgrims, who, at his exhortation,
had assumed the cross, and taken up arms in defence of the holy
sepulchre.[108] The siege of Damascus was immediately decided upon.
After the death of the dreaded Togteghin, which had but lately
occurred, his son Taj-ol-Moluk[109] Busi succeeded him. In his name, the
vizier Tahir-ben-Saad exercised the supreme power, and, through him,
the chiefs of the Ismailites, first the warrior Behram, afterwards the
judge Abulwefa, with whom the treacherous surrender of Damascus, in
exchange for Tyre, was agreed upon.

Taj-ol-Moluk Busi having received timely notice of the designs of the
Ismailites, caused his vizier, the son of Saad, to be put to death; and
then gave orders for a general massacre of all of the order who were in
the city. Six thousand fell by the sword, which avenged the victims of
the dagger. It was not an execution, but an indiscriminate slaughter.
In the meanwhile, a numerous Christian army, certain of the promised
surrender of the city, had advanced on the road to Damascus, as far as
Marj Safar. Among them, besides many pilgrims of the west, were the
king and barons of Jerusalem, with their allies, Prince Bernard of
Antioch, Pontius, Count of Tripoli, and Joscelin of Edessa, with many
knights and esquires. The soldiery, under the command of the constable,
William of Buris, had gone with a thousand knights, to plunder the
villages, and collect provisions; marching, however, as was usual with
an army of pilgrims, without order and discipline, they were, with many
of the knights, almost entirely destroyed, by an attack of a small body
of valiant warriors from Damascus. The rest, as soon as they learned
the disgraceful defeat of their brethren, flew to arms, and hastened to
attack the Damascenes; to wash out with their blood the stain inflicted
on the Christian army.

A dreadful darkness, however, came on, interrupted only by the glare of
the lightning and howling of the tempest; in the midst of the thunder,
the cataracts of heaven poured down rain, and inundated the roads, when
suddenly, as if the order of the seasons had at once been changed—as
if summer and winter would together have raged in all their severity,
the rain and flood were changed to snow and ice. Such rapid mutations
of the atmosphere, and sudden vicissitudes of the weather, from one
extreme to the other, are not, indeed, rare in those countries; but
they astonished the inexperienced wanderers, as extraordinary phenomena
of nature.

The author of the present work has, during his travels, more than once
experienced this, and in a terribly sublime manner, in the defile
of Marmaris; as did the British fleet, and the Egyptian army of
occupation. Heavy clouds darkened the approach of night; torrents of
rain, which poured from them and from the rocks, carried away arms and
tents; the howling of the storm and the roaring of the thunder, drowned
the speaking-trumpets of the distressed ships, which were driving from
their anchors. On the cessation of the tempest, which lasted the whole
night, and grew calmer towards morning, the first dawn showed the masts
dashed to pieces by the wind, and the rocks scathed by the lightning,
and covered with a large quantity of snow.

The army of the Gauls, which, in ancient times, under the command of
Brennus, sacked the temple of Delphi, experienced a similar contest and
alternation of seasons, and an equally violent storm.[110] And as, at
that time, these natural phenomena were deemed a token of the celestial
punishment of the sacrilegious presumption of the Gauls, so were they
also considered by the Crusaders as a mark of the anger of Heaven at
their sins, and their late compact with the Assassins, which blood and
perjury could alone confirm. The only advantage which they derived from
this monstrous union of piety and impiety, was the possession of the
castle of Banias, which the commander, Ismail, fearing lest he should
meet the fate of his brethren of Damascus, delivered up to the knight,
Rainier de Brus, the same year,[111] in which the fortress of Alamut
surrendered to Sultan Mahmud. Thus fell, at the same time, the two
citadels of the order in Persia and Syria, and so near was the risk of
its complete annihilation.

A persevering spirit of enterprise, however, overcame the untowardness
of events. Both Alamut and Banias soon returned to their former
possessors. The latter was re-taken, three years afterwards,[112] by
Ismail, while Rainier de Brus and his soldiery lay before Joppa, with
the king of Jerusalem. Among the prisoners who were carried away,
Rainier lost a beloved wife; whom, on her release during a truce with
Ismail, he received affectionately, but repulsed her on learning that
she had neither preserved her faith among the infidels, nor her honour
among the impious. She confessed her sin, and retired into a convent
of devout females at Jerusalem.[113]

The less the designs of the Ismailites prospered by the sword, the more
successful and persevering were they with the dagger; and, however
dangerous to the order the times might be, they were not the less so to
its most powerful adversaries. A long series of great and celebrated
men, who, during the grand-mastership of Kiabusurgomid, fell by the
poniards of his Fedavi, signalized the bloody annals of his reign;
and, as formerly, according to the fashion of oriental historians,
there follows, at the end of each prince’s reign, a catalogue of great
statesmen, generals, and literati, who have either adorned it by their
lives, or troubled it with their death; so, in the annals of the
Assassins, is found the chronological enumeration of celebrated men of
all nations who have fallen the victims of the Ismailites, to the joy
of their murderers, and the sorrow of the world. The first, under the
grand-mastership of Kiabusurgomid, was Cassim-ed-dewlet[114] Aksonkor
Bourshi, the brave prince of Mossul, feared alike by the Crusaders
and the Assassins, as one of their deadliest enemies.[115] Having
fought his last battle with the former, near Maarra Mesrin, he was, on
the first Sunday after his return,[116] attacked by eight Assassins,
disguised as dervishes, as he was in the act of seating himself on his
throne in the mosque at Mossul: protected by a coat of mail and his
natural bravery, he defended himself against the wretches, three of
whom he stretched at his feet; but before his retinue could hasten to
his assistance, he received a mortal wound, from the effects of which
he expired the same day. The remaining Assassins were sacrificed to the
vengeance of the populace, with the exception of one young man from
the village of Katarnash, in the mountains near Eras, whose mother,
on hearing of Aksonkor’s murder, dressed and adorned herself for joy
at the successful issue of the attempt, in which her son had devoted
his life; but, on his returning alone, she cut off her hair, and
blackened her face, with the deepest sorrow, that he had not shared the
murderers’ honourable death. To such lengths did the Assassins carry
their point of honour, and what may be termed their Spartanism.[117]

Moineddin, the vizier of Sultan Sandjar, was also murdered[118] by an
Assassin, hired by his enemy, Derkesina, the vizier of Mohammed, and
a friend of the Ismailites. In order the better to attain his object,
the ruffian entered his service as a groom. One day, as the vizier
went into the stable to inspect his horses, the false groom appeared
before him without clothes, in order to avoid all suspicion of carrying
concealed weapons, although he had hidden his dagger in the mane of
the horse, whose bridle he was holding. The horse reared, and under
pretence of quieting him with caresses, he snatched his poniard, and
stabbed the vizier.[119]

If Bourshi, Prince of Mossul, stood on the list of the victims of
the Ismailites solely because he was the rival of their power; and
an obstacle to their greatness, we shall not be surprised at finding
the name of Busi, the Prince of Damascus, by whose orders the Vizier
Masdeghani, and six thousand Assassins, had been massacred. The
slightest pretence was sufficient to cause the blood of princes to flow
beneath their stilettos; how much more when their own called as in this
latter case, for revenge. To escape was beyond the power of prudence,
as they watched for years for time, place, and opportunity. Busi, the
son of Togteghin, was, in the second year after the massacre,[120]
attacked by its avengers, and received two wounds, one of which healed
immediately; the other was, however, mortal, the following year.[121]

The vengeance of the Assassins seems to to have descended from father
to son: Shems-ol-Moluk (_the sun of the king_), the son of Busi, and
grandson of Togteghin, fell a victim to a conspiracy.[122] There fell,
besides, under the daggers of the order, the judges of the east and the
west, Abusaid Herawi, the mufti of Kaswin, Hassan-ben-Abelkassem; the
reis of Ispahan, Seid Dewletshah; and the reis of Tebris.[123] These
were the most celebrated of a numerous body of officers of state and
jurists, who perished in heaps and unnamed. To drag from amongst the
murdered the most splendid victims, is the melancholy and sorrowful
duty of the historian of the Assassins.

Hitherto, their attacks had been directed only against viziers and
emirs, the subordinate instruments of the khalif’s power; and the
throne itself, which they were undermining, had remained unstained by
the blood of its possessors. The period, however, was now arrived, in
which the order dared to seal their doctrine with the blood of those
khalifs, to whom it was so destructive, and to deprive the successors
of the prophet not merely of their temporal power, but likewise
of their lives. The shadow of God on earth, as the khalifs called
themselves, was, indeed, a mere shadow of earthly power; and was, when
he would have asserted more, sent, by the dagger of the Assassin to the
shades below.

We have seen, that the secret doctrine of the Ismailites derived its
origin from the lodge at Cairo, long before the foundation of the
order, of the Assassins; and flourished under the protection of the
Fatimites, the rivals of the Assassins, and their competitors for
the throne. By a just retribution, this protection of a doctrine of
irreligion and immorality was avenged on the Fatimites themselves, by
the murderous order which sprung from it. The Egyptian khalif, Emr
Biahkamillah Abu Ali Manssur,[124] tenth of the Fatimite dynasty
(whose founder, Obeidollah, had made the lodge of the secret doctrine a
part of his ministerial policy), fell, in the twenty-ninth year of his
reign, under the dagger of the Assassin.[125]

It is not clear whether his death proceeded from the policy of the
order, or the private revenge of the family of the powerful Vizier
Efdhal.[126] This emir was equally dangerous to the Christians by
the zeal with which he prosecuted the war, and to the khalif, by
his colossal power in the state. He was murdered by two Assassins,
of whom it is uncertain whether they were the instruments of
their superiors, at that time in alliance with the Crusaders, or
the hirelings of the khalif. The latter is probable, from the
circumstance that Abu Ali, the son of Efdhal, was, immediately after
his death, thrown into prison, and on being set at liberty after
the murder of the khalif, was invested with his father’s dignity.
As, however, Abu Ali himself shortly after fell by the dagger, it
appears that these two assassinations proceeded from the profound
policy of the concealed fomentors. From this period, Egypt became a
scene of disorder and confusion, occasioned by the violent contests
between the partisans of the khalif thrones of Cairo and Bagdad.
Mostarshedbillah-Abu-Manssur-Fasl, the twenty-ninth Abbasside khalif,
sustained himself on the latter for seventeen years, though constantly
tottering.

Hitherto, the Seljukide sultans who had, under the pretext of being the
protectors of the khalifat of Bagdad, assumed all the temporal power,
had, at least, left to the Abbasside khalif the two highest prerogatives
of Islamism,—the mint, and prayers from the pulpit on Fridays. If they
stamped any coin, it was in the name of the khalif; for whom, likewise,
they prayed weekly in the mosques. Messud was the first to appoint the
khatibs, or Friday prayer, to be in his own name; an injury which
Mostarshed was obliged, however unwilling, to endure, as he was not
strong enough to resent it. A few years afterwards, however, when some
dissatisfied chieftains deserted with their troops from Messud to
Mostarshed, they persuaded the latter that it would be easy to subdue
the sultan; he, in consequence, took the field against him. In the very
first engagement, the khalif was abandoned by the greater part of his
troops, and taken prisoner by Messud, who carried him to Meragha, on
his campaign against his own nephew, David.

A treaty was concluded, by which the khalif engaged to confine himself
within the walls of Bagdad, and to pay the sultan an annual tribute.
This composition deceived the expectations of the Ismailites, who had
hoped that the result of this war, between the sultan and the khalif,
would be the destruction of the latter: the grand-master, therefore,
resolved to complete what the sultan had begun; and that, though the
khalif had escaped the sword, he should not be spared by the dagger. In
the camp, two farsangs from Meragha, while Messud was absent, having
gone to meet the ambassadors of Sandjar, Assassins put the khalif and
his immediate suite to death;[127] and not content with that foul deed,
mutilated the dead, in the most horrible manner, by cutting off the
noses and ears; as though they would, to the treason of a khalif’s
murder, add insults to his corpse.[128]


_Reign of Mohammed, Son of Kia Busurgomid._

After a blood-stained reign of fourteen years and three days, Kia
Busurgomid, feeling his end approaching, named his son, Mohammed, as
successor in the grand-mastership of the order; either because he
really found none other worthy of the office, or that the natural
desire of making the sovereignty hereditary in his family caused him
to depart from the spirit of the fundamental maxims of the order, as
they had been sketched out by Hassan Sabah. Be that as it may, the
office, which, without respect to relationship, ought to have depended
on the nomination of the existing grand-master, remained hereditary in
the family of Busurgomid to the fall of the order. His death was, at
first, a cause of great joy to the enemies of the Ismailites; when,
however, they perceived that his son drove the chariot of restless
ambition in the bloody track of his father, all Asia again sank into
despair. He began, as his father had ended, with regicide; and before
the votaries of Islam had time to recover from the consternation, with
which the murder of the Khalif Mostarshed had overwhelmed them, their
ears were horror-stricken with the intelligence of the fate of Rashid,
his successor. The order had hoped, by the violent death of Mostarshed,
to succeed in involving the khalifat in confusion and immediately
effecting its ruin. This expectation, however, proving fallacious; and
Rashid, immediately on taking possession of the vacant throne, and ere
he was firmly seated on it, meditating revenge against his father’s
butchers, the new grand-master resolved to begin where his predecessor
had ended, and to heap murder on murder, crime on crime, and to add
regicide to treason.

The khalif went from Ramadan to Ispahan where he had just begun
to recover from an attack of illness. Four Assassins, natives of
Khorassan, and who had mingled with his retinue, watched an opportunity
of stealing into his tent, and poniarded him. He was buried on the
spot where he fell; and the troops which he had collected from Bagdad,
for the purpose of a campaign against the Ismailites, dispersed. When
the news of this successful atrocity, and the frustrated expedition
reached Alamut, the residence of the grand-master, public festivals and
rejoicings were appointed on the occasion. For seven days and seven
nights the kettle drums and cornets echoed from the turrets of the
fortress, and published to the surrounding castles the jubilee of crime
and the triumph of murder. Proofs so cutting as the Assassins’ daggers
(to use an expression of Mirkhond) raised their claims beyond the reach
of doubts, and imposed the silence of the grave on their opponents.

A terror but too well founded seized the khalifs of the race of Abbas,
who, henceforth, did not venture to show themselves in public. The
companions of impiety (Refik), and the dedicated to murder (Fedavi),
spread themselves in troops over the whole of Asia, and darkened
the face of the earth. The castles already in their possession were
maintained and fortified, and new ones built or purchased. Thus they
obtained in Syria, Kadmos, Kahaf, and Massiat: the two former were sold
to them by Ibn Amrun;[129] the latter they wrested from the commandant
of the lords of Sheiser,[130] and made it the centre of their Syrian
power, where, even now, traces of it are to be found.[131]

While the order was thus aggrandizing itself, and striking its foes
with terror, by the acquisition of strong places and the use of the
dagger, the fundamental maxim, which separated so completely the
secret doctrine of the initiated from the public tenets of the people,
was observed to the letter; and the fulfilment of the injunctions of
Mohammedanism was the more strictly exacted, the more indifferent the
superiors considered faith and morals to be to themselves. The people
saw only the effect of their terrible power, without perceiving the
moving force, or its instruments. They saw, in the numerous victims
of the poniard, only the enemies of the order and religion, which the
vengeance of heaven had visited by the arm of a secret tribunal. The
grand-master, his priors and envoys, did not preach sovereignty in
their own name, or in that of their order, but of the invisible imam,
of whom they called themselves the apostles, and who was to appear, at
some future period, to assert his right to the dominion of the earth
with a conqueror’s power. Their doctrine was enveloped in a veil of the
profoundest mystery, and ostensibly its maintainers appeared only as
strict observers of the rites of Islamism. A proof of this is afforded
by the answer given to the envoy of Sultan Sandjar, who had been sent
from Rei to collect official information concerning the Ismailitic
doctrines. He was told by the superiors, “Our doctrine is as follows:
we believe in the unity of God, and consider that only as true wisdom,
which accords with His word and the commands of the prophet; we observe
these, as they are given in the holy book of the Koran; we believe in
all that the prophet has taught concerning the creation and the last
day, rewards and punishments, the judgment and the resurrection. To
believe this is necessary, and no one is permitted to pass his judgment
on God’s commands, or even to alter a letter of them. These are the
fundamental rules of our sect; and if the sultan approves them not, he
may send one of his theologians to enter into polemical discussions on
the subject.”[132]

In this spirit, during the reign of Kia Mohammed, which lasted
twenty-five years,—that of his father, Kia Busurgomid, of fourteen
years,—and that of the founder, Hassan Sabah, of thirty-five, the
external rites of Islamism were strictly observed. Kia Mohammed,
however, had neither the intellect nor the experience of his
predecessors; and it soon appeared what an error Kia Busurgomid had
committed, in consulting, in his choice of a successor, the ties
of kindred rather than innate talent. From his want of knowledge
and capacity, Kia Mohammed was but little esteemed by the people,
who transferred their attachment to his son, Hassan. The latter was
regarded as a man of great attainments, and he availed himself of the
good opinion of the ignorant multitude, not for the general interest
of the order, but entirely contrary to its institutions, to serve the
purposes of his own private ambition. Initiated into all the mysteries
of the secret doctrine, deeply versed in philosophy and history, he
stood forward as a popular teacher and expounder, and favoured the
report which had begun to be spread abroad, that he was the imam
promised by Hassan-ben-Sabah. The companions of the order respected him
more and more every day, and rivalled each other in the promptitude
with which they executed his behests.

Kia Mohammed, on learning his son’s conduct, and the disposition of
the people, convened them, and declaring his disapprobation of the
proceedings of the former, said, “Hassan is my son, and I am not the
imam, but one of his precursors. Whoever maintains the contrary is an
infidel.” Two hundred and fifty of his son’s adherents were put to
death, and as many more were banished. Hassan, fearing his father’s
anger, himself anathematised the illuminati, and wrote treatises in
which he condemned the opinions of his partisans, and asserted those
of his father. In this manner he succeeded, by his dissimulation,
in preserving his own head, and obliterating all suspicion from his
father’s mind. As, however, he was in the habit of drinking wine
in secret, and permitted himself to practise what was forbidden,
his adherents saw, in these actions, new indications of his mission
as the promised imam, whose advent was to abrogate all prohibitory
commands.[133]

About this period, nearly all the Asiatic monarchies were
revolutionized by the change of the order of succession; and new
dynasties arose on the ruins of their predecessors. As the order of
the Ismailites was inimical to all rulers, and treated hostilely by
most of them, and as they infused into all governments the envenomed
and pernicious influence of murder and sedition, their history stands
in close relation with that of all the contemporaneously paramount
dynasties; and a glance at the reigning families of Asia will not be
out of place here. From the confines of Khorassan to the mountains
of Syria, from the Musdoramus to Lebanon, from the Caspian to the
Mediterranean, extended the widely spread ramifications of the empire
of the Assassins; their centre being the grand-master, in his mountain
fort of Alamut, in Irak.

We shall take a cursory glance at these broad regions of Asia,
according to the political divisions of the period, and proceeding
in natural geographical order, from east to west, our progress will
commence with Khorassan and terminate in Syria.

Khorassan, however, first deserves mention not merely on account of
its geographical position and its immediate vicinity to Kuhistan,
the eastern grand-priorate of the order, but also by reason of the
preponderating power of Sultan Sandjar, whose dominion had been
founded at the same epoch as that of Hassan Sabah, and whose reign had
proceeded contemporaneously with the first three grand-masters, and
terminated only with his death, four years earlier than that of Kia
Mohammed, the third grand-master.

Moeseddin Abulharess Sandjar, one of the greatest princes of the
Seljukide race, and of the east, received, after the demise of his
father, the Sultan Melekshah, which, as we have seen, occurred
immediately after the occupation of Alamut by Hassan Sabah,[134] the
vice-royalty of Khorassan, which province he governed, for twenty
years, in the name of his brothers, Barkyarok and Mohammed, who, as the
heads of the Seljuk family, reigned in Irak.

On the death of his brother Mohammed, in the first year of the sixth
century of the Hegira,[135] Sandjar took possession of his states. He
made war upon his nephew, Mahmud, who wished to assert his paternal
rights, defeated him, and at length, when the sagacity of the vizier
Kemaleddin Ali had mediated a peace, allotted him his paternal kingdom,
as a fief, upon the following four conditions: 1st. That in the public
prayers in the mosques, on Fridays, the name of Sultan Sandjar should
stand before that of Mahmud (the prayers and the mint are the first
regal prerogatives of Islam); 2nd. That the latter should have only
three curtains to the door of his hall of audience (Sultan Sandjar had
four, and the khalif seven; to raise and lower which was the office of
the Hajeb, or chief chamberlain); 3rd. That no trumpet should sound on
his entrance or exit from his palace (a flourish of trumpets was, at
that time, the privilege of sovereigns, as is, at this day, the ringing
of bells a mark of distinction for their representatives); 4th. That he
should retain in their dignities the officers appointed by his uncle.

Mahmud submitted to these conditions; and as only the name and
appearance of rule were left him, he embraced the wise resolution
of not involving himself deeper in political matters, but devoting
himself entirely to the pleasures of the chase, which, as an exercise
and school of war, has, from remote antiquity, been considered, in the
east, less as a princely amusement than a royal occupation. (Hence
Nimrod was a mighty hunter before the Lord, and Cyrus an arranger
of hunting; hence, too, the most ancient monarchs of the Assyrians
and Persians are represented on the monuments of Persepolis, and the
amulets excavated from the ruins of Babylon, as engaged in an heroic
combat with wild animals; hence, in the last Persian dynasty, the
cognomen of the “Wild Ass,” was given to Behramgur, one of their
bravest and sport-loving princes: and hence, likewise, the immense park
or royal chase of Khosru Parwis). In this spirit, Mahmud expended his
treasure in the splendour of his hunting equipments; he had a pack of
four hundred hounds, with gold collars and housings embroidered with
pearls.[136]

Thirty years after this peace between Mahmud and Sandjar, Behramshah,
the last prince but one of the once powerful dynasty of the sultans of
Gasna, attempted to shake off the yoke of the Seljukides; feeling,
however, the enterprise to be beyond his powers, he sent ambassadors
to renew his homage to Sandjar. With him he succeeded, but not so with
Hossein Jehansus, the founder of the Indian dynasty of the Gurides,
who, about this time,[137] raised themselves on the ruin of the power
of the Gasnewides. Behramshah, the Gasnewide, yielded to the power of
Hossein, the Guride, as did the latter to that of Sultan Sandjar, who
drove the founder of the Gurides out of Khorassan, and then appointed
him his viceroy of the Indian province of Gur (whence the name of the
dynasty). The fortune, which had smiled on Sandjar in his enterprises
against Mahmud, Behramshah, and Hossein, was not so favourable to him,
in his wars against the people of Karakhatai, whom he attacked in the
obscurity of their forests; nor against the Turcomans of the race of
Oghuz, who invaded Khorassan. He lost, in the battle which he fought
with Gurjash, the prince of the former, thirty thousand men, together
with his harem; and Tarkhau Khatun, the first of his wives, was made
captive by the Karakhtaiyis.

Still worse was his success against the Oghuz Turcomans, whom he wished
to compel to an annual tribute of sheep, which they refused. He was
taken prisoner by them, and confined, for four years, in an iron cage.
The Turkish historians, who relate this unworthy treatment of the great
Sultan Sandjar, deny Sultan Bajazet’s having experienced the same from
his conqueror, Timur.

Concerning this last, European writers add, that whenever he mounted
his horse, he placed his foot on the neck of the Ottoman sultan, as,
it is said, the Persian king, Shabur (Sapor), had done a thousand
years before, to his captive, the Roman emperor, Valerian. Valerian
and Bajazet perished in the captivity of Shabur and Timur; but Sandjar
had the good fortune to make his escape from his barbarous conquerors,
and returned to Khorassan, where he died the following year, from
melancholy, caused by his bad fortune, and the desolation of his
states; after a reign of fifty-one years, and a life of nearly a
hundred, as he had before he became sole ruler, acted, for twenty-one
years, as viceroy of his brothers, in Khorassan. His brilliant
exploits, and the encomiums of the poets, have caused his name to
shine among those of the most illustrious princes of the east; and
have not undeservedly gained him the surname of Alexander the Second.
The greatest poets of his time, Selmar and Ferideddin Katib, sang
his praise; but, above all, Enweri, the Persian Pindar. Unequalled
in his panegyrics, either by his predecessor, Khakani, or his
follower, Farjabi, who, with him, form the astral triangle of Persian
panegyrists, he raised the name of Sandjar high above the regions of
earth in the light of the milky way, and to the highest heavens, in
the midst of the music of the spheres. While Enweri thus bestowed
immortality on Sandjar in his works, the poet Sabir did him a no less
essential service in prolonging his sublunary existence, by protecting
him from the murderous dagger.

When Itsis, the governor of Khowaresm, rebelled against Sandjar,
the latter sent the poet, one of the most faithful and respected in
his court, secretly to Khorassan, as a spy upon the designs of the
rebellious governor. He succeeded in ascertaining that Itsis had
engaged an Assassin (Fedavi), to murder the sultan, in the mosque, on a
Friday. The murderer was discovered, by means of the exact description
sent by Sabir to Sandjar, and, after confessing every thing, he was
put to death. Itsis, however, who was aware that Sabir had caused his
design to fail, had him drowned in the Oxus.[138] Sabir thus gained
an immortal name, in the ranks of great poets and faithful servants,
not only by his encomiastic poems, but also by his praiseworthy
deeds. Sandjar, who, at first, had been favourably inclined towards
the Assassins, seems to have had his eyes opened by this attempt, and
to have been urged to the severity with which, as we have already
related, in his latter years, he pursued the order who had caused the
irruption of the Turcomans.

Sandjar, if not the most dangerous, was yet, at this period, the most
powerful of the enemies of the Ismailites. With the exception of the
phantom of spiritual power, which sat on the throne of the khalifat,
and whose nominal superiority was acknowledged by the Asiatic princes
in their Friday’s prayers, the most powerful sovereigns either held
their states in fee, as the vassals of the Sultan Sandjar, or governed
them as his lieutenants. As, in the ancient Persian empire, the seven
satraps of the distant large provinces, surrounded the throne of the
great king as viceroys (like the seven Amshaspande collected round
the throne of Ormusd), so the rulers, of seven powerful dignities,
acknowledged the Sultan Sandjar as the source of their power; which,
indeed, enfeebled by distance, operated less powerfully on the extreme
points of the circumference, than in the centre.

The Indian provinces of Multan and Gur, immediately to the south of
Khorassan, were governed by the Sultan of the Gasnewides, Behramshah,
and him of the Gurides, Hossein Jehansus (world burning). Ahmed, the
son of Soleiman, whose frequent rebellions had brought upon him as
frequent punishments, ruled in northern Transoxana; and the adjacent
province of Khowaresm was held in fief by, first, Kotbeddin, then his
son, Itsis, two great court and hereditary dignities, who likewise
held the office of chief cup-bearer. In middle Persia, reigned the
Sultan Mahmud, the Seljukide, under the guidance of his uncle Sandjar;
and in the northern and western provinces, Aserbijan and Irak, the
two dynasties of the Atabegs, founded by Amadeddin Ben Senji and the
Turcoman Ildigis, acknowledged him as paramount lord. As the two
powerful families of the Gasnewides and Seljukides, after reigning more
than a century, were nodding to their fall, and the dynasties of the
Atabegs were shooting up into multifarious branches, we think a few
words relative to the origin of the latter not unsuitable.

Atabeg, not _Father of the Prince_, as it has been translated, but,
_Father Prince_, or _Princely Father_, was an honorary title, first
borne by the great Vizier Nisam-ol-mulk, without any claim to unlimited
authority, and still less to be hereditary. Under the successors of
Melekshah, this title distinguished the highest military dignity of
the empire, and was given, at the court of the Bagdad khalif, to the
Emir-ol-umera (i. e. _prince of princes_); and at the court of Cairo,
to the Emir-ol-juyush, or _prince of the army_. But, as at a preceding
epoch, the family Buje had exercised the power of the khalifat, under
the title of Emir-ol-umera, and in the west that of, the Merovingian race
had, under the title of _maire du palais_, passed into the hands of
the Carlovingians; so the Atabegs possessed themselves of boundless
authority, and raised themselves into dynasties. The principal are,
besides that of the Atabegs of Irak, that of Aserbijan, that of Fars,
called also the family of Salgar, and that of Loristan; all of which,
in the short space of five years, made their claims to unlimited rule
available.[139]

Within this period, disappeared the reigning families of Kakuye, in
Fars;[140] that of the sons of Togteghin, at Damascus;[141] the family
Nedshah, in Yemen;[142] and that of the Gurides in Khorassan;[143] in
whose stead arose the Seliki, as kings of Erzroum, and the Eyoubides,
as princes of Emessa; and, three years before the death of Sandjar, the
mightiest prince of his time, a still more mighty one was born,[144]
Jengis Khan, the scourge of the east and the west, who afterwards
converted the most fertile territories into a wilderness, and bathed
the deserts with streams of blood.

Cotemporaneously with the last ten years of Salgar’s reign in the east
in Khorassan, Nureddin Mohammed Ben Amadeddin Sengi, Lord of the Irak
Atabegs, ruled in Syria, as one of the greatest princes of the east.
He was a cotemporary of Salgar, and the most powerful opponent of the
Crusaders; whose historians, unceasingly employed in detailing the
mischief which he caused them, cannot refuse him the just praise of his
great and noble qualities. “Nureddin,” says the learned William, bishop
of Tyre, a man profoundly versed in history, “was a prudent, discreet
man, who feared God according to the faith of his people; fortunate
and an increaser of his paternal inheritance.”[145] His budding power
sorely oppressed that of the Christians; whose conquests put a term
and measure to his. Raymond, Prince of Antioch, and Gosselin, Count of
Tripoli, fell as the trophies of his victories; the first at the siege
of Anab,[146] on the battle field; the second, as he was proceeding to
the chase, from his residence, Telbasher,[147] was taken prisoner by
a foraging party of Turcomans. The castles of Telbasher, Antab, Asas,
Ravendan, Tellkhaled, Karss, Kafsrud, Meraash, and Nehrelhus,[148] fell
into the victors’ hands, with considerable booty.

Nureddin, as possessor of Mossul and Aleppo, was, in fact, the lord
of northern Syria; but in the southern, he still wanted Damascus as
a _point d’appui_ for his rule. Here Mejereddin Abak,[149] the last
of the Seljukides of Damascus, reigned; or, rather, with his name
and with unlimited power, his vizier, Moineddin Ennar.[150] Twice
had Nureddin invested it with his besieging army; at length, the
inhabitants, dreading to fall under the dominion of the Crusaders,
summoned him to their assistance. Mejereddin retired willingly, and
received in exchange, first Emessa, then Balis, and afterwards went to
Bagdad. Nureddin, having obtained Damascus, raised it from the ruin
caused by an earthquake, and chose it as his metropolis; adorning it
with mosques, academies, libraries, hospitals, baths, and fountains.
As Melekshah, the great prince of the Seljukides, had been the first
to establish a high school (Medresse) at Bagdad, so Nureddin founded
at Damascus, the first theological school (Darol-hadiss), where the
traditions of the prophet were treated of.

With the constant practice of the two most splendid oriental princely
virtues, liberality and justice, he combined the strictest attention to
the duties of Mohammedanism. Just and modest, as Omar Ben Abdolasis,
the seventh khalif of the Ommiad family, he was pious and strict, like
Omar Ben Khattab, the second successor of the prophet. He wore neither
silk nor gold, but cotton and linen; and never expended on his clothes,
or nourishment, more than his just lot of the fifth of the booty. He
was ever engaged in the “_holy war_;” either the “_lesser_,”[151]
with weapons in his hand, against the enemies of Islam; or the
“_greater_,”[152] with fasting and prayer, occupying day and night in
political duties and study.

The presents of foreign princes, he caused immediately to be sold,
and devoted the proceeds to pious institutions, public buildings, and
eleemosynary purposes. Besides presenting large sums annually, to
the inhabitants of the holy cities, Mecca and Medina, and the Arabs
of the desert, to induce them to allow the caravans of pilgrims to
proceed unmolested; he divided, every month, five thousand ducats
among the poor. He particularly honoured and rewarded jurisconsults,
in whose ranks he was himself inscribed, as he had collected into a
particular work, Fakh-rinuri (i. e. _glory of light_), the traditions
of the prophet, relating to justice, alms, and the holy war, as the
ground-work of his policy, morals, and discipline. As, during his long
reign of twenty-eight years, he conquered more than fifty castles, and
established in all the cities of his dominions, mosques and colleges;
and had maintained most gloriously, both less and greater war, for
Islamism; so history gives him, like his father, Amadeddin Sengi, not
only the honorary title Gasi, or victorious, but also that of Shehid,
or martyr; because both merited the crown of martyrdom, if not in the
field of battle, in that of honour, by their unwearied exercise of
princely duties, and martial virtues.[153]

Religion and policy combined to decide Nureddin in favour of the khalif
of Bagdad, against him of Cairo. His inclination to do homage to the
former, rather than to the latter, as the successor of the prophet,
would find more ready access to his mind, as on account of the great
confusion prevailing in Egypt, the time seemed to have arrived for the
Atabegs to tear the sceptre from the feeble grasp of the Fatimites.
This long shapeless idea of Syrian policy soon received form and
existence from the Egyptian civil war, between the two viziers,
Dhargham and Shawer, who, under the last of the Fatimites, struggled
for mastery.

In the same year[154] in which Nureddin had, by one of the most
splendid victories, and the conquest of Harem, repaired the great
discomfiture which he had received from the Crusaders, four months
previously, at Bakia (Boquea), Shawer himself came to Damascus, to
promise the third part of the revenues of Egypt, if Nureddin would aid
him with arms, against his rival, Dhargham. Nureddin sent the governor
of Emessa, Esededdin Shirkuh (i. e. _lion of the faith of lion’s
mount_), of the family Eyub, with an army into Egypt. Dhargham fell in
battle; Shawer was restored to his former power, but on refusing to
fulfil his promise, the lord of lion’s mount took possession, with his
troops, of the eastern province Sherkiye, and the chief town Belbeis.
Shawer, the most fickle of viziers, faithless alike to friend and foe,
and, by his false policy, a traitor to his army and himself, called
Amaury, formerly Count of Askalon, then king of Jerusalem, with the
Crusaders, to his assistance, against the general of his ally; he soon,
however, repented, and dismissed the Crusaders, with a sum of sixty
thousand ducats.[155]

In the meanwhile, Esededdin, being reinforced with fresh troops,
advanced against Cairo, and defeated the khalif at Ashmunind, and
remained master of Upper Egypt, at the same time that his nephew,
Yusuf, took Alexandria, and maintained himself there valiantly, for
three months, against the combined besieging forces of the Egyptians
and the Crusaders. At the end of this period peace was concluded;
Nureddin receiving, as compensation, an annual sum of fifty thousand
ducats, and the Crusaders, one hundred thousand, out of the revenues
of Egypt.[156] There remained, moreover, at Cairo, a general of the
Crusaders, with some thousands of men, as a garrison and protection
against Nureddin’s enterprises.

These advantages accorded to the king of Jerusalem, in the
metropolis of Egypt, tempted him to a rupture of the peace, with
the hope of becoming master of the whole country. Persuaded by the
Knights-Hospitallers, whose grand-master hoped to maintain his order,
in the possession of Belbeis, which, in warlike preparations, he had
charged with a debt of more than one hundred thousand ducats, Amaury
advanced with an army against Egypt. The Templars, however, refused
to participate in the expedition, either from real displeasure at the
rupture of the peace, or, what is more probable, from jealousy of the
knights of St. John, and other hidden grounds of their mysterious
policy.[157]

In this predicament, Shawer applied to Nureddin, for assistance
against the Crusaders, who had already[158] made an irruption into
Egypt, had taken Belbeis, and were besieging the capital. New Cairo
was surrounded with a wall, at which women and children laboured
with untired zeal, day and night. The more ancient part of the city,
Missr, usually, but incorrectly, called Old Cairo, was set on fire, by
command of Shawer, and burned for fifty-four days. The Khalif Adhad
despatched couriers with urgent letters to Syria, imploring the aid and
assistance of Nureddin against the infidel; and to depict the highest
grade of his necessity, he enclosed locks of his wives’ hair, as if
to say, “Help! help! the enemy is dragging our women from us by the
hair of their heads.”[159] Nureddin was, at that time, at Aleppo, and
Esededdin Shirkuh, at Emessa, his government. Nureddin immediately
intrusted him with the conduct of the Egyptian campaign; and gave him
for the execution of it, two hundred thousand ducats, and a chosen
body of eight thousand men, six thousand of which were Syrians, and
the remainder Turcomans. In the meanwhile, Shawer and Amaury, both
on the brink of despair, entered into negociations; the latter for
the possession, the former for the relief, of Cairo. Shawer promised,
in the name of the khalif, the enormous sum of a million of ducats,
and the king was glad to receive fifty thousand ready money.[160] On
this, the Crusaders retired, when the Syrians, under the conduct of
Esededdin, appeared before Cairo.

The khalif, accompanied by the chief officers of his court, repaired
to the camp, and complained bitterly of the excessive power of
Shawer, who, merely on his own account, had invited the Franks into
the country, committed Missr to the flames, and desolated the land;
and entreated Esededdin Shirkuh for his vizier’s head, being himself
too powerless to secure it. The latter soon became aware of the
danger which threatened his life, and resolved to make away with
Esededdin, together with his nephew, and the princes of his court,
under the pretext of an invitation to a banquet. The project was,
however, betrayed; and the intended victim retorted on the guilty
head of Shawer, which was sent to the khalif. Nureddin immediately
stepped into Shawer’s place, as vizier and Emir-ol-juyush, with the
title of Almelek-al-mansur (i. e. _the victorious king_); and as he
died sixty-five days afterwards, his nephew, Yusuf Salaheddin (i. e.
_Joseph, justness of faith_), was invested with the same high dignities
of the empire, and received the honorary designation, Almalek-ennassir
(i. e. _conquering king_). He was the founder of the dynasty of the
Eyubites; his greatness, like his name, smoothed, and diminished by
the western historians, is more familiar to Europeans, than that of
many other great princes and conquerors of the east, at whose names and
deeds European languages and manners recoil.

The Syrian heroes of the Crusades have been celebrated by the
Christians in Europe, and the latter by the former in Asia. Amadeddin
Sengi, Nureddin, and Salaheddin, appear in European chronicles of the
Crusades, as Sanguin, Noradin, and Saladin; while in the Moslem annals,
the count of Tripoli, the prince of Antioch, and the king of Jerusalem,
are masked under the names of Comis, Birias, and Rei. In the following
book, we shall have an opportunity of mentioning Salaheddin’s exploits
more at large; as yet he appears as the khalif’s vizier, and Nureddin’s
general, in whose name he administered the government of Egypt; he
caused the name of his master the Atabeg, to be mentioned in the public
prayers on Friday, after that of the khalif.

Nureddin thought the opportunity was now arrived to destroy the
khalifat of the Fatimites, and to deprive the last of them of even
the shadow of power. He commanded his lieutenant, Salaheddin, to
fill up all judicial offices, which had hitherto been held by
Imamis or Ismailis, with lawyers of the orthodox sect of the
Shafiites, and in the public prayers to name the Abbaside khalif,
Almostanssar-biemrillah, instead of the Fatimite Adhad-lidinillah.
Salaheddin delayed the fulfilment of these commands, as the people
almost universally were of the sects, Rafedhi and Shii, and still hung
to the phantom of the Fatimite khalifat: the last representative of
that race, however, Adhad-lidinillah, very opportunely falling sick and
dying,[161] Salaheddin immediately transferred the royal prerogative of
prayer on Friday, from the name of the khalif of Cairo, to that of the
khalif of Bagdad, after whom, Nureddin, the Atabeg of Syria, was named.

Thus, Salaheddin executed, more, indeed, for his own than Nureddin’s
interest, though still in the latter’s name, the great stroke, by
which the main trunk of the western Ismailites was overthrown; after
having budded for more than two hundred years, and transplanted itself
into Asia, in the branch of the eastern Ismailites, or Assassins.
The throne, which the secret doctrine of the Ismailites wished to
establish on the ruins of all others, was overturned, and buried the
lodge of Cairo in its ruins. The khalifat of the Abbasides prevailed
over that of the family of Ali, for which the envoys of the Ismailites
preached and intrigued; and the phantom, in whose name they had deluded
the people, vanished from the earth: an event of great magnitude,
and rich in consequences; important in the history of the east, and
more especially in that of the Assassins, to whom, Salaheddin, whose
dominion rose on the ruins of the Egyptian khalifat, appeared a
powerful and dangerous foe.


END OF BOOK III.




BOOK IV.

  _Reign of Hassan II., Son of Mohammed, the Son of Busurgomid,
  known by the name of Ala-sikrihi-es-selam—that is, Hail to
  his memory—and his Son, Mohammed II._


In the preceding books, we traced the mysteries of irreligion and
immorality up to their source, and stripped the secret doctrine of the
Ismailites of the mask of pretended sanctity, under which it concealed
itself from the eyes of the people. A doubt may, perhaps, have arisen
in the minds of our readers, whether we have not scrutinized the system
of the order too closely; and whether, as it was constantly kept
secret, it may not have been somewhat slandered by the uninitiated
and its enemies. The effects of the secret doctrine had, indeed,
manifested themselves in the bloody traces of the dagger; nevertheless,
these multiplied horrors might, perhaps, be attributed to accident,
or private feuds, rather than to a regular system of infidelity and
homicide. Even in our own days, the secret doctrines of many degenerate
orders has been lauded as pure and innocent, although their results
have appeared in the crimes of regicide and rebellion.

The Jesuits and the illuminati, though otherwise opposed as to their
spirit—the former protecting, the latter undermining, thrones—have both
been accused of profligate doctrines: the former, of permitting the
killing of popes and kings; and the latter, of dispensing with thrones
and religion. In the writings of individual members, the maxim may be
found, that it is lawful to kill kings, and to strangle the last of
them with the intestines of the last priest: these horrors, however,
were never publicly taught, or acknowledged by the order at large.
The regicide, imputed by Pombal to the Jesuits, and the poisoning of
Ganganelli, have not been sufficiently proved; and even were this the
case, the Jesuits have as little confessed the guilt of Malagrida,
as have the Illuminati approved of Jean de Brie’s proposition of
establishing a propaganda of Assassins.

As little is the secret doctrine of the Templars convicted of
profligacy, by the confessions wrung from them by the torture; and if
they have been accused of it by cotemporary writers, others, of later
date, have, on the other hand, defended them.

In this matter, however, the case of the Assassins is very different
from that of the Templars, Jesuits, or Illuminati. All that has
hitherto been said of their secret doctrine of systematic infidelity
and sedition, is by no means founded on untenable conjectures,
historical accusations, or forced confessions; but on the free
acknowledgment of their teachers and masters; who, after having long
concealed the atrocities of impiety from the eyes of the world, under
the mask of the most profound hypocrisy, on a sudden lifted the
veil, and published, to the profane, the mysteries of atheism and
immorality, hitherto the inheritance of the initiated. This was a
most inconsiderate slip; most destructive to the order, and entirely
adverse to the profound policy of its founder, who had formed the
well-grounded opinion that the edifice of domination and civil society
can be held together only by the doctrines of faith and duty; that the
open abolition of all religion and morality would necessarily entail
the universal destruction of the existing order of things; and that the
strongest security for blind obedience is to give reins to the wildness
of the passions. Moreover, besides that, by such a desecration, the
secret of the few became the property of the many, the leaders and
their dupes changed parts, and the system of the order caused its own
destruction from within: it also exposed itself, in all its nakedness,
to its external enemies; and, by its own avowal, roused up the world to
vengeance, and justified the anathemas of priests—the persecution of
kings, and the curses of nations. All this had been well and thoroughly
considered by the son of Sabah; not so, however, by his namesake, and
third successor, Hassan the Second, the son of Mohammed, the son of
Busurgomid.

He had, as we have seen already, during his father’s life, stood
forward, with innovations, as a prophet, and had only preserved his
life from the executioner’s sword by the deepest dissimulation. As
soon, however, as he succeeded to the grand-mastership, he threw off
the burthensome mask, and not only gave way himself to all possible
extravagances, but also permitted the same license to all others
with impunity. Not content with this, he could not resist the desire
to mount the pulpit himself, as a popular preacher. Had he been as
enlightened as his predecessors in the grand-mastership, and had the
maturity of his judgment kept pace with the riches of his attainments,
he would have forborne to hurl the flaming brand of infidelity and
lawlessness among the people. It was of small advantage to himself, and
still less for the order, that he was considered learned, and possessed
of intellect, and his father heavy and ignorant.

Preservative ignorance is better than destructive erudition,
and darkness itself is to be preferred to the lurid glare of a
conflagration. Hassan, the son of Mohammed, determined, at whatever
cost, to be an expositor, and to favour the impunity of vice,
not merely by example, but also to preach from his own mouth the
irreprehensibility of crime. In Ramadan, of the 559th year of the
Hegira,[162] the inhabitants of the province of Rudbar were collected,
by his orders, at the castle of Alamut. On the place Mossella (_the
place of prayers_, situated at the foot of the castle, like the suburbs
of Shiras, celebrated by Hafez),[163] a pulpit was placed, looking
towards Kibla (_i. e._ the country of Mecca), to which the Moslemim
turn in praying, and in the four corners, four different coloured flags
were planted—a white, a red, a yellow, and a green.

Oh the seventeenth of Ramadan,[164] the people were assembled on this
place: Hassan ascended the pulpit, and commenced by involving his
hearers in error and confusion, by dark and puzzling expressions. He
made them believe that an envoy of the imam (the phantom of a khalif
still tottering on the Egyptian throne) had come to him, and brought an
epistle, addressed to all Ismailites, by which the fundamental maxims
of the sect were renovated and fortified. He declared that, according
to this letter, the gates of mercy and grace were open to all who
would follow and obey him; that those were the peculiarly elect; that
they should be freed from all obligations of the law; released from
the burthen of all commands and prohibitions; that he had brought them
now to the day of the resurrection (_i. e._ the manifestation of the
imam). Upon this, he began to recite, in Arabic, the khutbe, or prayer,
which he pretended to have just received from the imam. An interpreter,
standing at the foot of the pulpit, translated to the audience in the
following words:—“Hassan, the son of Mohammed, the son of Busurgomid,
is our khalif, dai, and hudshet (our successor, missionary, and
proof), to whom all who profess our doctrine are to yield obedience
in spiritual, as well as temporal, affairs; executing his commands,
and considering his words as inspired, and must not transgress his
prohibitions, but observe his behests as our own. Know all, that our
Lord has mercy on them, and has led them to the most high God.” He then
descended from the pulpit, caused tables to be covered, and commanded
the people to break the fast, and to give themselves up to all kinds of
pleasure, to music, and play, as on feast days; “for to-day,” said he,
“is the day of the resurrection” (_i. e._ the revelation of the imam).

From this day, on which crime manifested itself undisguisedly to the
world, the name of Mulahid, or Impious, which hitherto had been given
to the disciples of Karmath, and other disturbers of social order,
by the lawyers, was now bestowed upon all the Ismailites of Asia in
general. The seventeenth of Ramadan was celebrated with games and
banquets; not only as the feast of the revelation, but also as the
proper epoch of the publication of their doctrine. As the Moslimin
reckoned their time from the flight of the prophet, so did the Mulahid,
or Impious, from the revelation of the imam (_i. e._ the 17th Ramadan,
in the 559th year of the Hegira.) And as the name of Mohammed was
never mentioned without the addition of the “Blessed,” so, henceforth,
was added to that of Hassan, the words “Blessed be his Memory,” which
history, instead of blessing, curses. The historian Mirkhond, tells us,
that he had heard from Yusuf-shah Kiatib, on the authority of credible
persons who had read it, that the following inscription was over the
door of the library in the castle of Alamut:—

  “With the help of God,
  The ruler of the world
  Loosened the bands of the law.
  Blessed be his name.”

Hitherto, the grand-masters had always represented themselves as only
the precursors of the imam, as his missionaries and envoys, and severe
censors of observance of the rules of Islamism. Hassan, however, now at
once asserted that he was himself the imam, in whose hand all power lay
to loosen the band of the law. By abolishing them he accredited himself
with the blind multitude as lawgiver and khalif.

In this character, he wrote to the presidents and envoys of the
different provinces. His letter of credentials to Reis Mosaffer, the
grand-prior of Kuhistan, as his namesake had been in Irak, under the
founder, Hassan Sabah, was of the following tenor: “I, Hassan, tell you
that I am God’s vice-gerent on earth; and mine, in Kuhistan, is the
Reis Mosaffer, whom the men of that province are to obey, and whose
words they are to listen to as mine.” The reis caused a pulpit to be
erected in the castle of Muminabad, the residence of the grand-prior
of Kuhistan, from which he read the letter of the grand-master to the
people. The majority of the inhabitants heard the perusal with joy.
They played the pipe and drum, danced and drank wine at the foot of the
pulpit, and made known their contempt of law, and their libertinism
in every possible way. Some few, who remained true to the doctrines
of Islamism, emigrated; others, who could not resolve upon this step,
stayed, and shared with the rest the reputation of impiety.

Thus the standard of the freest infidelity and most daring libertinism
floated on all the castles of Rudbar and Kuhistan, as the insignia of
the new doctrine; and instead of the name of the Egyptian khalif, that
of Hassan resounded from all the pulpits, as that of the true successor
of the prophet. Since prejudices are often more deeply rooted in the
breast than religious rites and moral laws, it was easier for Hassan to
assume the character of legislator than that of imam, whom the people
hitherto only acknowledged in the Egyptian khalif.

In order to support his pretensions to this title, he at length found
it necessary to deduce his descent in blood from the Fatimite khalifs;
and although he had, in the public assembly of the 17th Ramadan, called
himself the son of Mohammed Ben Busurgomid, he endeavoured to prove,
partly by dark intimations, partly by ambiguous writings, the opinion
that he was a son of Nesar’s and grandson of the Khalif Mostanssur,
during whose reign the founder, Hassan Ben Sabah, had been at Cairo,
and had, in the political dissensions of the Ismailites, espoused the
party of Mostanssur’s elder son against his younger brother, Nesar; on
which account he had been compelled by the generalissimo, Bedr Jemali,
to quit Egypt, as we have before related more at length. The rumour
which his adherents dispersed abroad in confirmation of his descent was
to this effect. A certain Abulhassan Seide, a confidant of the Khalif
Mostanssur, had come from Egypt to Alamut a year after his patron’s
death, and had brought with him a son of Nesar’s, whom he confided
to the care of Hassan Ben Sabah, who received the envoy with great
respect, and had assigned to the young imam a village at the foot of
the castle as a residence, where he, after a time, married, and gave
his son the name, “Blessed be his Memory.”

At the same time that the imam’s wife was delivered of this child,
the wife of the grand-master, Mohammed, son of Busurgomid, was in
her accouchement. A confidential female servant carried the young
“Blessed be his Memory” into the castle, and substituted him in the
place of the son of Mohammed. As this tale was too absurd to meet with
easy credence, and as, according to their pure doctrine, that all was
indifferent and nothing forbidden, the assertors of this genealogy
were not ashamed subsequently to maintain that the young imam had had
clandestine intercourse with Mohammed’s wife, the fruit of which was
the reigning grand-master, imam, and khalif, Blessed be his Memory.
Thus, Hassan preferred being thought a bastard of the blood of the
khalifs, to being deemed his father’s legitimate child. The honour
of the mother was sacrificed to the ambition of the son; and because
adultery afforded grounds to his pretensions, the sanctity of the harem
was forced to give place to the merit of ambition.

The Ismailites, who, in this manner, made Hassan a descendant of Nesar,
the son of Khalif Mostanssur, were called Nesari, a name considered
synonymous with the Impious or the Assassins. They gave Hassan the
name of Kaimolkiamet (i. e. _Lord of the Resurrection_), and called
themselves the sect of the Resurrection or Revelation; for, by the
epoch of the resurrection they understood the time when the one about
to rise (Kaim, i. e. _the imam_), should bring them near to God by the
removal of all laws. This period had, according to their pernicious
opinion, occurred during the imamat of Hassan, who, on that account,
emancipated the people from all legal obligations. Thus were the
bounds of duty and morals at once and openly violated. Undismayed, and
with heads erect, Vice and Crime stalked over the ruins of Religion
and social order; and Murder, which hitherto had felled the destined
victims under the mask of blind obedience, and as the executioner of a
secret tribunal, now raged in indiscriminate massacres.[165]

Hassan, as might have been expected, died a martyr to his new doctrine.
In the fourth year of his licentious reign, he fell at the castle
of Lamsir, by the dagger of his brother-in-law, a descendant of the
family Buyeb. In this murder, the historian views not so much the
visitation of celestial wrath on so many crimes (which, indeed, both
his predecessors and successors had better merited), as the natural
punishment of insulted prudence, which, in the ordinary course of
human affairs, is sooner or later avenged equally with the greatest
viciousness. It was the height of imprudence in Hassan, the learned
explainer, to surrender the most recondite doctrines of the order to
the many-headed hydra, the people; and he sealed with his own blood the
universally accorded liberty of murder.


_Reign of Mohammed II., Son of Hassan II._

The conflagration which Hassan had kindled, by the revelation of
the secret doctrine, was not extinguished by his blood, but, on the
contrary, extended its flames through all Asia during the reign of
his son and successor, Mohammed II. The first act of his government
was to revenge his father’s death; whose murderer, Hassan Nanwer,
together with all his kindred, both male and female, bled under the
executioner’s axe. Instead of profiting by this bloody example, to
strike into a better road, he constantly pursued the same path. He
preached, even more loudly than his father, the doctrine of impiety;
and, like him, asserted his rights to the dignity of supreme imam.
Deeply versed in philosophical studies, he considered himself to be
in these, as in other branches of knowledge, alone and unequalled.
Many of his philosophical and legal apothegms have been handed down by
tradition; we shall not, however, cite them in this history. He did
homage by these studies, not only to the institution of the founder
of the order, who, profoundly acquainted with the mathematical and
metaphysical sciences, had collected books and instruments in his
castle of Alamut, but also to the spirit of the ages in which the
civilization of modern Persia approached the summit of its splendour;
and philosophy as well as poetry were at the epoch of their greatest
glory in that country. Cotemporary with his long reign of forty-six
years (for so long did the clemency of heaven endure the monster on
earth), lived and died a pleiad of Persian poets, greater and more
illustrious than that of the Alexandrines under the Ptolemies, or that
of the French poets under Francis the First.[166]

During this period flourished the lyric poets, Suseni[167] and
Watwat,[168] of whom the former may be considered the creator of the
metrical system, and the latter as the legislator of Persian poetry;
the two great panegyrists, Khakani[169] and Sohair Faryabi,[170] who,
together with their predecessor, Enweri, stand the great columns of
the splendid edifice of oriental eulogium; the two great mystics,
Senayi[171] and Attar,[172] the former writer of the “Ornamental
Garden,” Kadikat, which the well-known author of the “Garden of Roses
and Fruit,” Saadi, seems to have kept in view; the latter the composer
of the “Dialogues of Birds” (Mantikettair) and other celebrated works,
in whose footsteps trod Jelaleddin Rumi,[173] the great mystic poet of
the east; lastly, Nisami, the greatest romantic poet of the Persians,
the immortal bard of Khosru and Shirin.

Besides this pleiad of poets, other stars of the first magnitude shone
in the hemisphere of juridical and metaphysical science. The Sheikh
Abdolkadir-Ghilani,[174] the founder of one of the most respectable
orders of dervises, and whose monument at Bagdad is, to this day,
visited by pilgrims no less frequently than that of the great Imam
Ebu Hanife; the two great jurists, Ahmed Ibn Mahmud Gasnewi[175] and
Imam Borhaneddin Ali Ben Ebibekr Almaraghainani;[176] the former,
author of the “Mokademme” (_Prolegomena_), the latter of the “Hedayet”
(Guide), two classical works of practical jurisprudence; the secretary
Amad,[177] immortal in the annals of calligraphy; the great historian
Ibn Essir Jeseri,[178] the composer of the “Kamil;” and, to conclude,
the philosopher Shehabeddin Sehrwerdi,[179] and the Imam Fakhr
Rasi,[180] who must not be confounded with their namesakes, the former
with the sheikh, nor the latter with the poet nor the physician Rhases.
Both of them are remarkable, not only in the history of literature, on
account of their opinions, but also in that of the Assassins, by reason
of their fate, as presenting, both by their lives and their deaths,
examples of the danger which the literati incurred, who either openly
reproved or combatted the doctrines of infidelity.

The former, namely, the philosopher Abufeth-Yahya Ben Hanosh Ben
Emirek, commonly celebrated as Shehabeddin Sehrwerdi, the writer of
several metaphysical works, was put to death at Aleppo by the son of
Salaheddin, by order of his father, because his doctrines had been
condemned by the College of Jurists as philosophical, or, in other
words, as atheistical, and the shedding his blood was declared to be
lawful. The Imam Fakhreddin Rasi being menaced with the same fate,
escaped it, but not without great danger. During the grand-mastership
of Mohammed II., the son of Hassan II., he taught jurisprudence
publicly in his native city, Rei. Having been slandered by some who
envied his reputation, as being secretly a disciple of the Ismailitic
doctrine, and even one of their missionaries and envoys, he mounted the
pulpit, and in order to clear himself from the imputation, he abused
and anathematized the Ismailites. As soon as the grand-master received
information of this, through his emissaries, he sent a Fedavi, or
initiated Assassin, to Rei with special instructions. This man appeared
as a student of law, and in that character visited the imam’s college.
Seven months elapsed ere he found a fitting opportunity of executing
his commission. At length he watched an instant when the imam’s servant
was absent in quest of food, and his master alone in his cabinet.

The Fedavi entered, locked the door, and throwing the imam to the
ground, placed himself with his drawn dagger on his breast. The
imam demanded his purpose. “To tear out thy heart and bowels!”—“And
wherefore?”—“Because thou hast spoken evil of the Ismailites in the
public pulpit.” The imam conjured the Assassin to spare his life, and
swore most solemnly never to slander the Ismailites again. “If I leave
thee,” said the murderer, “thou wilt fall back into thy old ways, and
consider thyself released from thy oath by artful sophistries.” The
imam renounced all explaining away of the oath, and was willing to
abide the penalties of perjury. “I had no commands to slay thee, or I
had not been wanting in the execution. Mohammed, the son of Hassan,
greets thee, and requests thee to honour him with a visit at his
castle. Thou shalt there receive unbounded power, and we will obey thee
as honest servants. ‘We despise,’ says the grand-master, ‘the rumours
of the people, which glide from our ears like nuts from a globe; but
you shall not insult us, because your words are graven as with a
graver on stone.’” The imam replied that he could not go to Alamut, but
that, in future, he would not permit himself to utter a word against
the lord of that fortress. Upon this the Fedavi drew three hundred
pieces of gold from his girdle, which he gave him, saying, “Behold
thy pension; and by a decree of the divan, thou wilt receive the same
sum annually from the Reis Mosaffer. I also leave thee two dresses of
Yemen for thy servant; these also the grand-master sends thee.” At the
same instant the Fedavi disappeared. The imam took the dresses and the
money, and for four or five years the same sum was scrupulously paid
him. Prior to this occurrence, he was wont, whenever he mentioned the
Ismailites in a discussion, to express himself thus: “Whatever the
Ismailites (whom may God curse and destroy) may say.” After he had
received the pension, he always said briefly: “Whatever the Ismailites
may say.” He answered one of his pupils, who asked him the cause of
this change: “We may not curse the Ismailites; their arguments are too
convincing and pointed.”

This singular occurrence, which is related by several Persian
historians,[181] circumstantially and concordantly, shows that the
grand-master’s policy did not consider murder only as the most
effective measure, but also frequently deemed the fear of it, and
money, preferable. It shows also that the divan, or assembly of the
order, studied less the removal of their foes than the converting them
into friends, especially where they were men of learning and celebrity,
as their lives being spared was of far more advantage to the order in
public opinion, than their violent deaths could have been.

With the exception of this anecdote of the Imam Fakhr Rasi, history
mentions little or nothing of what occurred to the order during the
reign of Mohammed, in the Persian provinces of Jebal and Kuhistan. It
is, however, much more fertile in events of immediate interest in the
history of the Assassins, if we turn our eyes towards Syria, which
was, at the same time, the celebrated stage of the glorious deeds
of the Crusaders and Salaheddin. As this great prince seems to be
chosen as the instrument in the hands of Providence, of the downfall
of the khalifat of the Fatimites, whose partisans and missionaries
the Ismailites were; so was he, likewise, very early selected by the
latter as a mark for their daggers. In order to become more intimately
acquainted with the man whom they marked out as their victim, and to
know to what a pitch his power had risen when they made the first
attempt upon his life, we shall here give, as a sequel to what has
been said in the former book concerning the reign of Nureddin, a short
outline of the increasing greatness of Salaheddin.

Invested after the death of his uncle, Esededdin Shirkuh, with the
highest dignity in the realm, under the name of Melek Ennassir, he
received from his lord, the Atabeg Nureddin, a confirmatory diploma,
together with the title of Emir al Isfahlar, which means the same
in Persian as the Arabic Emir al Juyush, that is, Prince of Armies.
Shortly afterwards, the khalif of Bagdad sent him also a diploma,
dress of honour, and present, as an acknowledgement to him for having
transferred the highest prerogative of Islam, the prayer from the
pulpit on Friday, from the family of Fatima to that of Abbas. At Cairo
stood the treasury, in which, for two centuries, the Fatimites had
amassed the wealth of Moghreb,[182] Egypt, Syria, and Arabia; its
riches, surpassing all belief, was but too small for the magnanimity of
Salaheddin.[183] According to Aini, an otherwise trustworthy writer,
there were in this treasury alone, seven hundred pearls, each of which
was, from its great size, of inestimable value; an emerald, a span long
and as thick as the finger; a collection of 2,600,000 books, which,
even if there is a superfluous cipher, surpassed the largest library in
Europe; gold, coined and in bars; aloes, amber, and arms without end.
A considerable part of this treasure Salaheddin divided immediately
among the chiefs of his army. He appointed guardians to the library;
the remainder of the collection being put for sale for ten years in
succession, produced the sums requisite for the campaigns against the
Crusaders, and for the buildings in Cairo.

He built the citadel and walls of that city, constructed the large
aqueduct which brings the waters of the Nile to the fortress, and the
noble halls, amongst whose beautifully arranged colonnades, stripped as
they are of their roofs, the writer of this work has, more than once,
indulged in airy visions of Salaheddin’s greatness. Added to these,
are an academy at the tomb of Shafii, an hospital at Cairo the modern,
and a magazine of corn at Missr, the ancient capital of Egypt under
the Arabians. All these architectural works bear the stamp of their
founder’s greatness, and on them is inscribed his name, Yusuf, which
the ignorance of the present inhabitants of Cairo and Missr confounds
with that of the Egyptian Joseph. Thus, in this case, as with the
heroes of Grecian antiquity, the feats of several great men are united
under one name. The space of centuries, which intervenes between two
landmarks of human greatness, is lost to the thought of posterity, and
the common name becomes the more prominent as a monument of antiquity
on the wide plain of history. Thus it is with the Egyptian Yusuf,
whether he be the Joseph of ancient history, the minister of Pharoah
and grandson of Abraham, or the Yusuf of modern history, the lieutenant
of Nureddin, Salaheddin, the grandson of Eyub.

Nureddin, indeed, viewed Salaheddin’s increasing greatness with a
jealous eye; and felt that it was no longer in his power to recall
at his pleasure the master of the treasure of the Fatimites; yet
was he politic enough to confirm his lieutenant, whom he could not
remove, and the latter sufficiently grateful, at least nominally, to
acknowledge Nureddin as his liege lord. As he did not wish to appear
in open opposition to him, and yet, in case of necessity, desired to
provide himself with a place of refuge, he undertook the campaign
against Yemen,[184] whither he sent his elder brother, Turanshah, with
an army. This region was, at the time, governed by Abdennebi, son of
Mehdi, a disciple of the impious sect of Karmath, who exhausted the
country with his extortions and oppression. The plundered treasure he
collected at the tomb of his father Mehdi, at Sobeid. The walls were
covered with gold, and likewise the cupola, which dazzled the eyes at
some miles distance. Gold, silver, pearls, and precious stones were
heaped in profusion. Abdennebi wished to make this tomb the resort of
pilgrims, instead of the kaaba, and for this reason he plundered the
caravans going to Mecca, and added their goods to the accumulated booty
of injustice and rapine.

In the sequel, several princes, and particularly those of Persia, have,
from political motives, attempted to prevent the pilgrimage to Mecca,
and to turn the devotion of the people rather to other burial places,
as Meshed Ali’s, on the Euphrates, which was also covered with plates
of gold by Shah Abbas; or Meshed Ben Mussa’s, at Tuss, in Khorassan,
in order that, with the caravans, the money may remain in the country.
Mecca, however, retained its superiority as the true and only shrine
of Islamism, which triumphed over the conquests of the Karmathites
and Wahabites; and whose gates, spite of the wide-spread portals of
infidelity and impiety, remained to the last ever open to the pilgrim.
Turanshah defeated and killed Abdennebi, the protector of unbelief,
razed his father’s monument, and added the treasures to those of his
brother Salaheddin, in Egypt; by command of the latter he caused
prayers to be repeated from the pulpit for the khalif of Bagdad and
Nureddin.

After the death of Nureddin,[185] the prayers as well as the coinage
were continued by Salaheddin, in Egypt and Arabia, in the name of
Saleh, a boy of eleven years of age, the son of Nureddin, who, himself
incapable as yet of governing, was in the power of his grandees, and
particularly of the eunuch Gumushteghin, who transferred the young
prince’s residence to Aleppo, leaving Ibn al Mokaddem governor of
Damascus. The Crusaders, who desired, after Nureddin’s demise, to
avail themselves of the favourable circumstance of his son’s minority,
threatened Damascus, the siege of which was only raised on the
governor’s disbursing to them large sums of money. Enraged at this,
and being invited by some of the chief men, Salaheddin repaired in
all haste to Damascus with only seven hundred horse. He reproached
the governor with his unworthy conduct, and wrote to the young atabeg
a respectful letter, in which he did homage to him as his lord,
and averred that he had come into Syria only for his defence, his
possessions being assailed on two sides, by the Crusaders and his
nephew Seifeddin, lord of Mossul. The answer which was drawn up by
his enemies, contained, instead of thanks, accusations of ingratitude
and disobedience, and threats of very shortly removing him from the
vice-royalty of Egypt.

Provoked at this, Salaheddin declared to Nial, the lord of Manbedj,
bearer of the missive, that the inviolability of an ambassador alone
preserved his head, and marched with his troops to Aleppo, in order,
as he said, to have a personal interview with his young prince. On
his way he took Hama and Hemss, and encamped in the vicinity of
Aleppo. The inhabitants and the young prince, led by his guardian,
the eunuch Gumushteghin, instead of coming to a peaceful conference
with Salaheddin, advanced against him in arms. “God is my witness,”
exclaimed he, “that I wish it not to come to arms! but since ye will
have it so, they shall decide.” The troops of Aleppo were defeated,
and fled in disorder to the city, which their opponents now began to
besiege in due form.[186]

Gumushteghin, who saw no protection at hand from the swords of his
valiant besiegers, had recourse to the daggers of the Assassins. At
that period reigned, as grand-prior at Massiat, the point, as we have
seen, of the Syrian power of the Ismailites, Rashideddin Sinan,[187]
a man, whose name and deeds are to this day remembered in their
annals.[188]

Massiat lies in the mountain range Semak, which, running parallel
with the coast of the Mediterranean, unites itself with that of
Lebanon.[189] This village, with eighteen others, belongs to the
territory of Hama (Epiphania). At that time it was the chief of ten
mountain forts, forming the strength of the Ismailites, whose numbers
are reckoned by the cotemporary annalists of the Crusaders to amount
to more than sixty thousand men.[190] The names of these places are
found in Hadji Khalfa’s Geography;[191] three have already been
mentioned in this history; namely, Massiat, Kadmus, and Kahaf; the
seven others were, Akkar, Hossnalekiad, Safita, Alika, Hossnalkarnin,
Sihinn, and Sarmin, and were the first colonies of the Ismailites in
Syria.[192] By means of these strongholds, and the daggers of the
Assassins, Rashideddin Sinan was supreme in the mountainous parts of
the north of Syria. Salaheddin, the proper defender of the faith, who
had given the final blow to the Fatimite khalifate in Egypt, and whose
increasing power threatened to ingulph that of the Atabegs in Syria,
was the natural and most dangerous enemy of the order, and consequently
their daggers were unceasingly aimed against him. A large sum of money
contributed to procure easier access to the grand-prior Sinan, for the
prayer of Gumushteghin, that Salaheddin should be the victim of their
mutual revenge. Three Assassins attacked him in the camp before Aleppo;
fortunately, they inflicted no mortal wound, and were themselves cut in
pieces.[193]

While the eunuch was concerting Salaheddin’s fall, he scarcely escaped
his own; which his enemies, the vizier Shehabeddin Abu Saleh, and the
emirs Jemaleddin, Shadbakht, and Mojahid, had conspired to ensure,
in order to deprive him of the favour of Meleksaleh. To anticipate
their purpose, he had recourse to the usual means dictated by his
policy. As the young prince was starting on a hunting excursion,
Gumushteghin presented him with a blank sheet of paper, desiring his
signature for the despatch of some pressing business. Meleksaleh
signed unsuspectingly, and his minister filled the paper with a
letter from his master to Sinan, the grand-prior of the Assassins,
requesting agents from him, for the purpose of despatching the three
emirs above-mentioned. Sinan, thinking that Meleksaleh wished, by this
deed, to remove some obstacles to his unbounded power, sent several
murderers. Two of them, who attacked the vizier as he was proceeding to
a mosque, lying near his house, without the eastern gate, were killed
on the spot.

Soon after, Mojahid was set upon by three others: one seized the skirt
of his mantle, to stab with more certainty; but Mojahid spurred his
horse, and escaped the fatal blow, leaving his mantle behind. The
people seized the Assassins, two of whom were accustomed frequently to
visit Mojahid’s groom. One of them was crucified; and the same was the
fate of the groom, on whose breast was fixed the inscription, “This
is the reward of the concealers of villains.” The other Assassin was
dragged to the citadel, and beaten on the pierced soles of his feet,
to compel him to confess the motives of his crime. In the midst of the
torture, he called out to the young prince: “Thou desirest from our
lord Sinan, the death of thy slaves, and now thou punishest us for the
execution of thy orders.”

Indignant at this, Meleksaleh wrote a letter, full of reproaches, to
Sinan, who returned him one subscribed by himself as his answer. This
was the origin of a kind of correspondence between them. Rashideddin
had frequently applied to the prince, for the restoration of the
district of Hajira, of which the Ismailites had been deprived. As his
writing had been fruitless, he had recourse, this time, not from the
pen to the dagger, but to the still more destructive means, fire. The
Assassins appeared as incendiaries, who set fire to several bazaars
of Aleppo, with burning naphtha. All the efforts of the governor and
his people to extinguish the conflagration were fruitless, which being
produced by means similar to the celebrated Greek fire, resisted
pertinaciously the action of water. Many buildings were entirely
consumed, and an immense quantity of rich stuffs and commodities of all
kinds fell a prey to the flames. The Assassins threw burning naphtha
into the streets, from the terraces of the houses, and, in the midst of
the confusion, escaped the popular rage unhurt.[194]

Meleksaleh Ismail, Prince of Aleppo, whose favourite, Gumushteghin, had
in vain unsheathed the dagger of the Assassins against Salaheddin, now
sought assistance from the Crusaders, and his nephew Seifeddin, Lord of
Mossul. The former laid siege to Emessa, but retired on the approach
of Salaheddin; but Seifeddin, and Aseddin, his brother, united their
forces with those of Ismail, at Aleppo. Salaheddin once more attempted
to come to an amicable arrangement with the latter. He offered him,
in a submissive letter, the restoration of Hama, Hemss, and Baalbek;
and stipulated only for the vice-royalty of Egypt, and the possession
of Damascus. His liberality was deemed weakness. A great battle was
fought at Hama, in which the combined forces of Mossul and Aleppo were
completely routed.[195]

From that day forward, he advanced with steady steps in the path of
sovereignty, as he transferred to his own name the two prerogatives of
coinage and prayer, which hitherto had remained, in Egypt and Syria, in
the name of Saleh. The latter received peaceful possession of Aleppo,
only by humble supplication, and the lord of Mossul, who again took
the field, with those of Hossn Keif and Maradin, lost at Tell, near
Hama, both his camp and army. Salaheddin divided the booty among his
soldiers, set the prisoners free, and took the fortresses of Asas,
Manbedj, and Bosaa.

During the siege he was, a second time, attacked by an Assassin, who
wounded him in the head. Salaheddin seized his hand in time, and struck
him down. Another immediately rushed forward, but was cut down by the
guards; two others followed with no better success.[196] Having before
their eyes the example of their three precursors, who had fallen in
a similar attempt, they hoped the better to attain their object by
rushing on successively, and, by throwing the sultan and his guard into
consternation, succeed in taking his life. The first part of their
plan was more successful than the last. Salaheddin, terrified by these
repeated attacks, retired to his tent, mustered his army, and drove
away all strangers.[197]

The following year,[198] however, as soon as he had concluded a peace
with the lords of Mossul and Aleppo, he attacked the territory of the
Ismailites, ravaged it, and blockaded the fortress, Massiat. He would
have carried it, and would have annihilated the power of the Ismailites
in Syria, had not his uncle, Shehabeddin, Lord of Hama, moved by the
entreaties of the grand-prior, Sinan, interposed, and induced his
nephew to make peace, on condition that he should, in future, be
secured from the Assassin’s dagger; and, in fact, Salaheddin reigned
fifteen years afterwards, carried on his campaigns in Egypt and Syria,
and captured the strongest places of the Crusaders, even Jerusalem
itself, without experiencing another murderous attack.

Whether it was that the double failure of the Assassins, restrained
them from a third attempt, or that the order considered it necessary
to preserve Salaheddin, the greatest enemy of the Crusaders, as a
counterpoise to the growing power of the latter; or, lastly, that,
contrary to the fundamental maxims of the order, some idea of the
sanctity of a treaty floated in the mind of the grand-prior, though
most improbably,—all the ties of religion and morality having been
loosened, and the mysteries of impiety publicly divulged by the
grand-masters, Hassan and Mohammed; it nevertheless appears, that
Rashideddin Sinan struck out a path for himself, both in respect of
doctrine and policy; one, too, which varied somewhat from that of his
predecessors, and of the reigning grand-master. The former, as we have
seen above, were the secret friends of the order of the Templars, the
latter trampled on all religion. Sinan’s faith and policy, however,
took another direction, as is clearly shown in the unanimous accounts
of cotemporary historians of the Crusaders.[199]

What William, Bishop of Tyre, and James, Bishop of Acca, on the
occasion of an embassy, despatched from the Old Man of the Mountain to
the king of Jerusalem, in the year 1172, relate concerning the origin,
system, and discipline of the Assassins, agrees very well with that
which we have derived from oriental sources, and presented to our
readers in the former books: “The Assassins,” say they, “were formerly
the strictest observers of the laws of Mohammedanism, till the epoch
when a grand-master of genius and erudition, and intimately acquainted
with the Christian tenets, and doctrine of the Gospel, abolished the
prayers of Mohammed, annulled the fasts, and allowed all, without
distinction, to drink wine and eat pork. The fundamental rule of their
religion, consists in blind submission to their abbot, by which alone
they could attain eternal life. This lord and master, who is generally
called the Old Man, resides in the Persian province, lying beyond
Bagdad (Jebal or Irak-Ajemi). There (at Alamut) young men are educated
in secret tenets and pleasures, instructed in various languages, and
then sent, armed with their daggers, throughout the world, to murder
Christians and Saracens without distinction; either from hatred,
as being enemies of their order, or to please its friends, or for
the sake of a rich reward. Those, who had sacrificed their lives in
the fulfilment of this duty, were adjudged to greater happiness in
paradise, as being martyrs; their surviving relations were loaded with
gifts, or, if slaves, set at liberty. Thus was the world overrun by
these miserably misled youths, who, devoted to murder, issued joyfully
from their brethren’s convent, to execute the sanguinary commands they
had received; appearing in different forms and disguises, sometimes as
monks, sometimes as merchants; in fact, in such a variety of shapes,
and with so much prudence and caution, that it was impossible for the
destined victims to escape their daggers. The low and mean mob of
the people are safe, inasmuch as the Assassins deem it beneath their
dignity to assail them; but for the great, and for princes, no remedy
remains but to ransom their lives at a heavy price; or to be constantly
armed and surrounded by their guards, and exist in a continued state of
alarm.”

On an attentive comparison of these passages, in the works of the two
learned bishops, which agree in point of meaning, with the narratives
of oriental writers, much is found wanting, but nothing erroneous. The
strict observance of the duties of Islamism at first, the abrogation
of all commandments under the last grand-masters, Hassan II., and
Mohammed II., the vow of blind obedience, the bands of Assassins
devoted to death, their noviciate, the institution of the order, and
its murderous policy, are here comprised in a few words. It is, indeed,
difficult to conceive how European historians, who, hitherto, drew
from no other sources than the Byzantine and Crusading annalists, how
such orientalists as D’Herbelot and Deguignes, could have regarded
the Assassins as an usual dynasty of princes; whereas, here, every
thing points to an order, inasmuch as they clearly speak of the abbot,
convent, grand-master, rule of the order, and religion; as we should
concerning the knights-Hospitallers, the Teutonic knights, and the
Templars. Every thing harmonizes with the contents of the preceding
books of this history: one circumstance only, that of the superior,
who sent the embassy, being inclined to Christianity, and desirous
of conversion, does not agree with the systematic plan of irreligion
of the then reigning grand-master. Either the Crusaders deceived
themselves with the pious error, that because the grand-master had
abjured Islamism, he must assent to Christianity; or, his policy
induced him to preserve the king of Jerusalem in this opinion, and,
consequently, as the friend of the order; or, lastly, what appears more
probable than either of these conjectures, this mission did not proceed
from the grand-master at Alamut, but from the grand-prior of the order
in Syria, Rashideddin Sinan, Lord of Massiat.

It must have been the latter, and not the former, who paid the Templars
the annual tribute, to effect the removal of which was the chief object
of the embassy; and what gives our opinion the highest degree of
probability, is the contents of Rashideddin’s writings, which are to
this day preserved in Syria, by the remainder of the Ismailites.[200]
In them appear evident traces of Christianity, and of an acquaintance
with its sacred books.[201]

Rashideddin Abulhasher Sinan, son of Suleiman of Basra, pretended
that he was himself an incarnation of the Deity.[202] He never shewed
himself but in coarse dresses of hair; he was never seen to eat, or
drink, or sleep, or spit. From the top of a rock, he preached to the
people, from sunrise to sunset, and was long considered by his audience
as a superior being. When, however, they discovered that he limped,
from having been wounded by a stone in a great earthquake,[203] he
was near losing both the sanctity of his character, and his life,
the people wishing to murder him as an impostor. He exhorted them to
patience, descended from the rock, where he had preached so long as a
Stylite, invited his hearers to a banquet, and succeeded, by the power
of his eloquence, in inducing them unanimously to swear obedience and
fealty to him as their superior.[204] He seized the moment when the
grand-master of the Ismailites in Persia had exposed all the mysteries,
and by that means sapped the foundations of the order, to envelope
himself in the halo of an apostle, and confirm his dominion in Syria.

For this reason, he is unanimously considered by oriental historians
as the chief of the Ismailitic doctrine in Syria;[205] and even to
this day, his writings are esteemed canonical by the Ismailites
still remaining in that country. They consist of a shapeless chaos
of contradictory articles of faith, which probably are all to be
understood only allegorically; a host of mutilated passages from the
Koran and the Gospels, hymns, litanies, sermons, prayers, and ritual
ordinances. These can hardly have been preserved in their original
purity, but must have descended to us intermixed with the superstition
and ignorance of later centuries, like the books of the Druses, who,
now as little acquainted as the Ismailites with the spirit of their
founder, possess but a very imperfect knowledge of their original
dogmas, and have lost the tradition of the allegorical doctrine.

It was Rashideddin Sinan, therefore, the grand-prior of Massiat,
and not the cotemporary grand-master of Alamut, who sent, in the
latter years of the reign of Amaury, King of Jerusalem, the envoy
Behaeddewlet, a skilful, prudent, and eloquent man, with the secret
offer, that he and his followers would undergo baptism, providing the
Templars, their nearest neighbours on the mountains, would release
them from the annual sum of two thousand ducats, and live in brotherly
and peaceful union with them. King Amaury received the envoy with
joy, promised to pay the Templars, out of his own purse, the two
thousand ducats from which they begged to be released, and sent him,
after keeping him for some time, back with guides and an escort, as
far as the Ismailite confines. They had already crossed the territory
of Tripoli, and had, therefore, arrived in the vicinity of their
first castles, which are situated on the mountains in the environs of
Tortossa, or Antoradus, when suddenly a body of Templars rushed from an
ambuscade, and killed the envoy.[206]

Thus, these knights, who were suspected of being secretly allied to
the Ismailites, and followers of their doctrine, openly proclaimed
themselves likewise as Assassins: the religion of both had a bond of
union in the guilt of wilful murder. The actor of this tragedy was
Walter de Dumesnil, a vicious, one-eyed man; who, however, did not
perform this act of atrocity from motives of private malice, but with
the knowledge of the brethren, and by the command of the grand-master,
Odo de St. Amand, and to avenge the order. The inducement seems to
have been no other, than the Assassins having endeavoured to relieve
themselves from the annual tribute of two thousand ducats to the
Templars, either to purchase peace with the neighbours, or for the
recompense of services performed: as, for example, as is mentioned in
its place, their refusal to participate in the campaign against the
Egyptian sultan, their natural protector.[207]

The king, violently enraged at this atrocity, by which the honour of
the Christian name, and his own dignity, suffered so severe a blow,
assembled the princes of his realm, in order to consult with them,
concerning the measures proper to be adopted. Their unanimous decision
was, that religion, and the royal authority, had equally suffered
an affront, and could not permit this murder to pass unpunished.
Seiher, of Mamedun, and Gottschalk, of Turholdt, were despatched
by the council, in the name of the king and the realm, to demand
satisfaction from Odo de St. Amand, for so flagitious a deed. Odo,
haughty and wicked, fearing neither God nor man, replied, bursting
with arrogance and rage,[208] that he had already imposed a penance on
Brother Dumesnil, and should send him to the holy father, by whom it
was forbidden to lay violent hands on him; and more in the same strain,
suggested by his passion. But the king, meeting the grand-master and
several Templars afterwards, at Sidon, held a council, and had the
murderer, as guilty of high treason, dragged from their hospital, and
thrown, fettered, into a dungeon at Tyre.[209] The death of the king,
which followed soon after, saved him from well-merited punishment.

The grand-master, however, met with his, by being taken prisoner
by Salaheddin, in the battle of Sidon,[210] the loss of which was
attributed to his fault, and dying, the same year, unpitied in
his dungeon. The king, indeed, seemed absolved in the eyes of the
Assassins; but the hope of converting them to Christianity was gone;
and their daggers were now again unsheathed against the princes of the
Crusaders, as they had already long been against the chiefs of the
Moslimin. Forty-two years had elapsed, since they stabbed Raymond,
the young Count of Tripoli,[211] as he was kneeling at prayer, and
stained the altar with his blood. This long truce of the dagger, with
the Christian chieftains, was at once raised by the atrocious murder
of Conrad, Lord of Tyre and Marquess of Montferrat. Richard, King of
England, is accused, both in European and Asiatic histories, of having
been the accomplice, or instigator of this action, by means of the
daggers of the Assassins.

It is with a reluctant pen that we indicate the circumstances and
motives of this crime, which attaches to the splendid reputation of
one of the first heroes of the Crusaders, a stain, which neither his
military glory, nor forged documents, can obliterate from the sight
of an impartial writer. The pretended letter of the Old Man of the
Mountain, composed by Richard’s partisans, to acquit him of the guilt
of this murder, stands rather as a proof against him, since it has
been proved to be a manifest invention and forgery.[212] This letter
commences with an oath in the name of the law, and ends by being dated
according to the era of the Seleucidæ, both entirely strange and
unknown to the Ismailites; for, at this time, they publicly trampled
on the law, and had substituted, for the chronology of the Hegira
(which besides is the only one used in the countries of Islamism),
that from the accession of Hassan II.; making it the epoch of the
abrogation of the law. The writer’s making the Old Man of the Mountain
date from Massiat, proves, in fact, nothing, either for or against
Richard; but it rather heightens the probability of the opinion we
have advanced, that the Crusaders were not aware of the existence of
the distant grand-master at Alamut, but considered the grand-prior
of Massiat, as the Old Man of the Mountain to a certainty. According
to the purport of this apocryphal work of partiality for the hero,
this so much celebrated murder was only an instance of the order’s
revenge; the marquess having pillaged, and put to death, a brother, who
was shipwrecked at Tyre; and instead of giving the order’s envoy the
required satisfaction, threatening to throw him into the sea. From that
time, the death of the marquess was determined on; and executed, at
Tyre, by two brothers, in the presence of the whole people.

All that is true in this Latin production of Nicolas of Treveth, which
was either written by himself, and accepted as credible by Richard’s
party, consists in the circumstances of the murder. The marquess was
attacked by two Assassins, disguised as monks,[213] who had approached
him unobserved, in the market-place of Tyre. Not only do western,
but also oriental historians, name Richard Cœur de Lion, King of
England, as the instigator of the murderers. Alberic des Troisfontaines
expressly affirms it,[214] but with those who doubt, the contradiction
of Nicolas of Treveth might be equiponderant to his charges, if the
scale did not turn against Richard, with the heavy weight of the
impartial testimony of oriental historians. The writer of the history
of Jerusalem and Hebron, a classical work for the history of the
Crusades, says, under the title of the murder of the marquess, clearly
and distinctly: “The marquess had gone, on the 13th of the month
Rebi-ul-ewel, to visit the bishop of Tyre; on coming out, he was attacked
by two murderers, who stabbed him with their daggers. Being seized, and
put to the torture, they confessed that they were employed by the king
of England. They were put to death with torments.”[215]

The same work contains still farther traits of Richard’s craft and
perfidy, which stain his character but too deeply, and justify but too
much the suspicion of his being accessory to this murder. Thus, his
imprisonment by Leopold of Austria, a near relation of the marquess of
Tyre, seems to have been but a measure of reprisal, for the death of
his kinsman.

While the English, to remove from their monarch the suspicion of this
assassination, and to liberate him the sooner from his captivity,
forged the above-mentioned letter[216] of the Old Man of the Mountain,
to Leopold of Austria; they, at the same time, and with the same
view, concocted a second, which is mentioned by William of Newbury,
as having been sent by the grand-master to Philip Augustus, King of
France. This letter, like the first, bears the marks of a counterfeit
on its front.[217] The grand-master of the Assassins is made to call
himself “_simplicitas nostra_;” which we cannot allow our simplicity
to err so far as to believe. In this palpably apocryphal writing, the
Old Man of the Mountain assures the king of France, that it had never
entered into his thoughts to send to France, at the desire of Richard,
Assassins with regicidal designs.

This letter, the falsehood of which is still more manifest than that
of the former one, proves, instead of acquitting Richard, that the
murder of the marquess of Montferrat had drawn upon him the suspicion
of a similar attempt against the king of France. Rigord,[218] the
historian of Philip Augustus, relates, that while the king was in
Pontoise, in the year 1192, being apprised by letters from Palestine,
that Richard meditated his assassination, he established, for his
security, a body-guard, armed with iron maces; and William Quiart,[219]
who, a century after, wrote a rhyming history, openly ascribes the
whole murderous system of the Assassins to the king of England, who
had young men educated in the principles of blind obedience to his
cruel commands, in order to sacrifice the king of France; upon which,
the latter instituted his guard of _sergens à masses_. Even if these
precautions were groundless and exaggerated, they, nevertheless, were
occasioned by the known deeds and character of Richard. The murder of
Conrad of Montferrat, thus gave rise to the English king’s captivity
in Austria; and, likewise, to the institution of the first royal
body-guard in France.

It may, perhaps, appear a thankless and vain labour, to wish to justify
the order of the Assassins, who are charged with a thousand manifest
murders, from the guilt of the thousand and first; but the duty of
impartiality imposes this task on the historian who remains faithful
to truth, although it may neither acquit, nor condemn. Whether the
order, in the person of Philip Augustus, attempted the life of one
prince more or less—whether the grand-master directed the poniards of
the murderers, who slew the marquess of Montferrat, moved by private
revenge, or by the desire of Richard, is of little consequence;
participation in murder does not lessen the guilt of the crime.

We shall not, therefore, stop to inquire whether the Arab Assassin,
found in the camp of Frederic Barbarossa, at the siege of Milan, in the
year 1158,[220] and against whom the emperor received timely warning,
came from Spain or Syria; whether he was in the pay of the pope, or the
grand-master of the Ismailites; or, whether Frederic was destined to
fall a victim to the Old Man of the Mountain, or to him of the seven
hills. He was, on account of his campaigns in Palestine and Italy,—his
enterprises against the infidels and the papal chair, equally dreaded
by the supreme pontiffs, both of Bagdad and Rome; and the khalif on the
Tigris, would have had no less cause to rejoice at his death, than the
khalif on the Tiber.

He, however, who profits by the commission of an atrocity, is not
always to be accused of being its author. Barbarossa’s grandson,
Frederic II., was accused by Pope Innocent IV., in the synod of
Lyons,[221] of having employed Assassins to murder the duke of Bavaria,
and was excommunicated; while Frederic, in a letter to the king of
Bohemia, charges the duke of Austria with having entertained similar
designs against himself.[222] These accusations, however, do not prove
the guilt of the accused, but only the crime of the Assassins.

Two years after[223] the death of Conrad, Marquess of Montferrat and
Tyre, and that of Rashideddin Sinan, Henry, Count of Champagne, passed,
on his journey to Armenia, near the territory of the Assassins; the
grand-prior, the successor of Rashideddin Sinan, sent deputies to
welcome him, and to invite him to visit his fortress on his return.
The count accepted the invitation, and came; the grand-prior hastened
to meet him, and received him with great honours. He took him to
several castles and fortresses, and brought him at last to one having
very lofty turrets. On each look-out stood two guards, dressed in
white, consequently initiated in the secret doctrines. The grand-prior
told the count that these men obeyed him better than the Christians
did their princes; and, giving a signal, two of them instantly threw
themselves from the top of the tower, and were dashed to pieces at its
foot. “If you desire it,” said the grand-prior to the astonished count,
“all my whites shall throw themselves down from the battlements in
the same way.” The latter declined, and confessed, that he could not
calculate upon such obedience in his servants.

After staying some time at the castle, he was, at his departure, loaded
with presents; and the grand-prior told him, on taking leave, that
by means of these faithful servants, he removed the enemies of the
order.[224] By this horrible example of blind submission, the prior
showed that he trod exactly in the footsteps of the founder of the
order, who had given the ambassador of Melekshah a similar proof of
the devotion of his faithful followers.[225] Jelaleddin Melekshah,
Sultan of the Seljuks, having sent an ambassador to him, to require his
obedience and fealty, the son of Sabah called into his presence several
of his initiated. Beckoning to one of them, he said, “Kill thyself!”
and he instantly stabbed himself; to another, “Throw thyself down from
the rampart!”—the next instant he lay a mutilated corpse in the moat.
On this, the grand-master turning to the envoy, who was unnerved by
terror, said, “In this way am I obeyed by seventy thousand faithful
subjects. Be that my answer to thy master.”

As the historians of the east, as well as those of the Crusaders,
agree in their relation, we cannot, except with regard to the
extravagant amount of seventy thousand Assassins, (stated by William,
Bishop of Tyre, at sixty thousand, and James, Bishop of Acca, at forty
thousand, in which number must be included not only the initiated,
but also the profane subjects of the order), raise a tenable doubt
concerning the truth of the event, any more than with respect to the
noviciate and discipline of the catechumens of murder, of whom, the
Venetian traveller, Marco Polo, was the first[226] to give accounts,
discredited in his time, and doubted, even lately, by men of eminence.
Since, however, this narrative has been found to agree in every
point with oriental sources,[227] Marco Polo’s relation receives new
authority; and after his veracity, like that of Herodotus, has been
doubted by the sceptical for centuries, the fidelity of the father of
ancient history, and of the father of modern travels, shines, from day
to day, with a still brighter lustre, from the unanimous testimony of
eastern writers.

In the centre of the Persian, as well as of the Assyrian, territory
of the Assassins, that is to say, both at Alamut and Massiat, were
situated, in a space surrounded by walls, splendid gardens,—true
eastern paradises. There were flower beds, and thickets of fruit trees,
intersected by canals; shady walks, and verdant glades, where the
sparkling stream bubbled at every step; bowers of roses, and vineyards;
luxurious halls, and porcelain kiosks, adorned with Persian carpets and
Grecian stuffs; where drinking-vessels of gold, silver, and crystal,
glittered on trays of the same costly materials; charming maidens and
handsome boys, black-eyed and seductive as the houris and boys of
Mohammed’s paradise, soft as the cushions on which they reposed, and
intoxicating as the wine which they presented. The music of the harp
was mingled with the songs of the birds, and the melodious tones of
the songstress, harmonized with the murmur of the brooks. Every thing
breathed pleasure, rapture, and sensuality.

A youth, who was deemed worthy, by his strength and resolution, to
be initiated into the Assassin service, was invited to the table
and conversation of the grand-master, or grand-prior: he was then
intoxicated with henbane[228] (_hashishe_), and carried into the
garden, which, on awakening, he believed to be in Paradise: every
thing around him, the houris in particular, contributed to confirm
his delusion. After he had experienced as much of the pleasures of
Paradise, which the prophet has promised to the blessed, as his
strength would admit, after quaffing enervating delight from the eyes
of the houris, and intoxicating wine from the glittering goblets,
he sunk into the lethargy produced by debility and the opiate; on
awakening from which, after a few hours, he again found himself by the
side of his superior. The latter endeavoured to convince him, that
corporeally he had not left his side, but that spiritually he had been
wrapped into Paradise, and had then enjoyed a foretaste of the bliss
which awaits the faithful, who devote their lives to the service of the
faith, and the obedience of their chiefs. Thus did these infatuated
youths blindly dedicate themselves as the tools of murder, and eagerly
sought an opportunity to sacrifice their terrestrial, in order to
become the partakers of eternal, life. What Mohammed had promised
in the Koran to the Moslimin, but which to many might appear a fine
dream and empty promises, they had enjoyed in reality; and the joys of
heaven animated them to deeds worthy of hell. This imposture could not
remain undiscovered; and the fourth grand-master, after unveiling all
the mysteries of impiety to the people, probably revealed also to them
the joys of Paradise, which could, besides, have but little charms for
them, to whom already every thing was permitted on earth. That which
hitherto had served as a means to produce pleasure, became now itself
an object; and the effects of the intoxication of opium, were the
earnests of celestial delight, which they wanted strength to enjoy.

To this day, Constantinople and Cairo show what an incredible charm
opium with henbane exerts on the drowsy indolence of the Turk, and
the fiery imagination of the Arab; and explains the fury with which
those youths sought the enjoyment of these rich pastiles (_hashishe_),
and the confidence produced in them, that they are able to undertake
anything or everything. From the use of these pastiles, they were
called _Hashishin_ (herb-eaters),[229] which, in the mouths of Greeks
and Crusaders, has been transformed into the word Assassin; and, as
synonymous with murder, has immortalized the history of the order in
all the languages of Europe.


END OF BOOK IV.




BOOK V.

  _Reigns of Jelaleddin Hassan III., Son of Mohammed Hassan
  II.—and of his Son, Alaeddin Mohammed III._


The retributive and avenging Fury proceeds with steady step through
the domain of history, but the traces of her silent progress are not
always visible to the eye of man. Generations have passed away, and
empires sunk in ruin, without its being possible, satisfactorily to
point out the remote and proximate causes of their fall. The judgment
of the conscientious historian stands, then, in the middle point,
between blind scepticism on the one hand, and rash credulity on the
other. He avoids the explaining of events as an officious interpreter
of Providence, no less than wishing to behold in their progress,
nothing but the concatenation of blind necessity. On the other hand,
incidents emerge, from time to time, from the ocean of history, under
the same circumstances and forms, and in which it is as impossible not
to perceive the hand of heaven, as it is to overlook the operation of
submarine fire in the formation of a new island. As in the extensive
department of acoustics, different nations have appropriated different
sounds to one and the same object, and have expressed it by different
words,—hence, the variety of languages; so, in the many-toned domain
of history, one and the same occurrence has been passed unnoticed by
many nations, and, by many others, viewed and represented in different
lights. Hence the variety of histories, according to the difference of
the characters and genius of countries and nations.

The universally opposed _polarity_, if we may so express it, of the
east and the west, appears even in the different mode of writing
history. Some events are related by European, some by oriental writers,
and when they coincide, the same occurrence is viewed in an entirely
different light. What escapes the one is seized by the other, and
the latter considers attentively what the other passes over. How
very different are the judgments of eastern and western historians,
concerning the original condition of mankind, the rise of kingdoms, the
institution of religions, the developement of civilization, the horrors
of despotism, the struggles of liberty, and the continued connexion of
causes and effects! Where the one views immutable necessity, the other
perceives very often blind chance; and what is deemed by the latter the
consequence of a present crime, appears to the former the punishment of
one long past. This, however, is not the place to proceed farther with
these remarks; yet we have an opportunity of advantageously applying
them to the next event which we shall have to consider.

The people of the east have the highest notions of the sanctity of
filial duty and paternal authority; to them the patriarchal is the
exemplar of the most perfect government. Though the violations of
filial piety, and the crimes of unnatural sons, are punished in the
west as in the east, and though parricides in no region escape the
vengeance of heaven, yet it is only oriental historians who inculcate
the experimental truth, that the curse of infanticide follows, in the
same family, parricide; and that the first murdered father is avenged
by the dagger of his grandson.

To the disgrace of mankind, such sanguinary examples are exhibited in
the histories of the ancient Persian kings, and of the khalifs: how
could they be wanting in the history of the Assassins? Khosru Parwis
and the Khalif Mostanssur, who were stained with their fathers’ blood,
died by the hands of their sons. The resistance which Hassan, the
Enlightener, opposed to his father, was avenged on his son, Mohammed,
by his grandson, Jelaleddin; first, by similar refractoriness, and
then, it appears, by poison.

Jelaleddin Hassan, the son of Mohammed, and grandson of Hassan,
was born in the 552d year of the Hegira, had attained the age of
twenty-five years, ere he assumed the helm of affairs, and had,
therefore, had sufficient time, during the long reign, or rather
anarchy, to make salutary reflections on the pernicious consequences
of his enlightening, and the abrogation of all ties of morality,
proceeding from it. Discontented with the innovation, which had
made public to the people and the profane, the secret doctrine of
the founder and the initiated, he openly, during his father’s life,
declared himself against it, and, by that means, drew upon himself
clouds of the darkest suspicion. The father feared the son, and the
son the father; and their mutual dread was justified by the sanguinary
examples of their predecessors.

Mohammed’s father, Hassan II., had fallen by the poniard of one of
his nearest relations; and Hassan I. had put to death his two sons.
Father and son regarded each other reciprocally as murderers: on the
days of public audience, when the latter appeared at court, the former
wore a coat of mail under his clothes, and strengthened the guard;
but where the dagger can find no entrance, poison may; and, in fact,
as several historians affirm, Mohammed is said to have died from the
effects of poison. Jelaleddin Hassan, the third of that name among
the grand-masters of the order, stood forward as the restorer of the
true religion, according to the strictest principles of Islamism. He
prohibited every thing that his father and grandfather had declared to
be allowed; commanded the erection of mosques, the re-establishment
of the call to prayers, and the solemn assembly on Fridays. He called
round him imams, readers of the Koran, preachers, scribes, and
professors, whom he loaded with presents and favours, and appointed to
the newly-built mosques, convents and schools.

He sent circulars, not only to the grand-priors in Syria[230] and
Kuhistan, by which he enjoined the re-establishment of Islamism among
the Ismailites, but also to the contemporary princes, to make known
to them his adhesion to the true religion. He sent ambassadors to
Nassir-ledinillah, the khalif of Bagdad; to the sultan of Transoxana,
Mohammed Khowaresmshah; and other Persian potentates, to assure them
of the purity of his faith. The khalif, the sultan, and the princes,
who considered this declaration to be sincere, received the envoys
with distinction, clothed them in pelisses of honour, gave them
re-credentials, and, for the first time, designated their lord by the
titles proper to reigning princes, and which, hitherto, none of the
preceding grand-masters could assume. The imams, and great scribes
of the time, issued formal declarations, in which they attested the
sincerity of his conversion, and the orthodoxy of his tenets; and gave
him the honorary tide of Nev Musulman, or New Musulman.

As the inhabitants of Kaswin, who had hitherto lived in the greatest
hostility to the Ismailites, doubted the sincerity of Jelaleddin’s
religious opinions, in order to remove these doubts, he went still
farther: he requested them to send some persons of respectability
to Alamut, who should have ocular demonstration of the truth. They
appeared, and Hassan III., in their presence, burnt a number of
books, which, he affirmed, were those of the founder, Hassan I., and
the secret rules of the order. He anathematized the founder and the
grand-masters, his predecessors, and thus attained his object; which
was, that the inhabitants of Kaswin might, likewise, vouch for the
orthodoxy of his doctrine.[231]

In the second year of Jelaleddin Hassan’s reign, his harem, that is
to say, his mother and his wife, undertook, with great pomp, the
pilgrimage to Mecca. During the progress, a standard was carried in
front, according to the custom of orthodox princes, and water was
distributed to the pilgrims. To lodge travellers, to afford them every
facility and convenience, to feed the hungry and give drink to the
thirsty, to nurse the sick and to instruct the ignorant; such are the
most meritorious of good works. Hence, were founded karavanserais,
bridges, and baths; eating-houses and fountains, hospitals and schools,
the finest monuments of Islamism, form, in the circuit of cities and
mosques, so many pious institutions. Many of these may be founded by
persons of either sex, and even by eunuchs, who belong to neither.

The inscriptions on the mosques and other buildings, transmit to
posterity the names of sultans and sultanas, viziers and eunuchs, and
women of every rank and age. Although the latter are excluded from no
public institution, on account of sex, and build bridges and schools
as well as found hospitals and taverns, yet their names are found in
preference on mosques, baths, and fountains; probably, because prayer
and bathing are two favourite female occupations; and because, in the
east, they have nowhere an opportunity of meeting in public, except at
the mosque, the bath, and the well. According to the laws of Islamism,
also, ablution by water is as inseparable from the prescribed prayers,
five times in the day, as purity and devotion from the existence of
woman: baths and fountains, therefore, are a necessary assistance to
the entrance to the mosque of the female sex, who are naturally so
devout. Wells, at which water is distributed gratis to the passers-by,
have a still closer relation to the piety of Ismailitic women, as is
indicated by their name, Sebil.

Sebil, in Arabic, “the way,” means generally the road, and the
traveller is hence called _Ibn-es-sebil_, the son of the road; but it
more particularly signifies the way of piety and good works, which
leads to Paradise. Whatever meritorious work the Moslem undertakes,
he does, _Fi sebil Allah_, on the way of God, or for the love of
God; and the most meritorious which he can undertake is the holy war,
or the fight for his faith and his country, _on God’s way_.[232]
But, since pious women can have no immediate share in the contest,
every thing which they can contribute to the nursing of the wounded,
and the refreshment of the exhausted, is imputed to them as equally
meritorious, as if they had fought themselves. The distribution of
water to the exhausted and wounded warriors, is the highest female
merit in the holy war on God’s way.

War is the first of the good works commanded by God; after it comes
the pilgrimage, the difficulties of which, in the burning deserts
of Arabia, are an image of those of a real campaign; and after the
support of the warrior, that of the pilgrim, is the finest virtue in
a beneficent woman. Hence, the distribution of water (_sebil_) to the
caravans, the making of wells and aqueducts on the way to Mecca, have
ever been a splendid object of the piety and ambition of Mohammedan
princesses, from Zobeide, the wife of the Khalif Harun Rashid, down
to the Ottoman sultanas. Jelaleddin’s wife’s distribution of water
surpassed even that of the wife of Khowaresmshah, the powerful
sovereign of Transoxana; and the Khalif Nassir-ledinillah, gave
Jelaleddin’s standard the precedence of that of Khowaresmshah, which
circumstance afforded the first motive to the great dissensions and
earnest contest between the khalif and the shah of Khowaresm.

The latter advanced with no less than three hundred thousand men
against the “_City of Salvation_.” The khalif sent the celebrated
Sheikh Shehabeddin Sehewerdi as ambassador to the enemy’s camp; this
learned envoy commenced a long and flowery oration, in praise of
the family of Abbas, and the reigning khalif. Khowaresmshah, on the
signification of the speech being communicated to him, replied, “’Tis
well! he, who, as successor of the prophet, and clothed in his mantle
commands the faithful, should possess such properties, but none of them
are to be found in the descendants of the family of Abbas.”

The sheikh returned without attaining his object, and Khowaresmshah
advanced with his armament as far as Hamadan and Holwan, when a sudden
drifting snow-storm checked his farther progress, and compelled him to
retreat. As he was preparing for his second expedition against Bagdad,
his army was overthrown on the confines of Kashgar, by the hordes of
Jengis Khan. When Khowaresmshah’s son and successor, Alaeddin Tekesh,
in execution of his father’s plan against Bagdad, had advanced as far
as Hamadan, a twenty days’ snow-storm stopped him in his march.[233]
Winter, and the Mongols, who rushed like snow-flakes from the north,
for that time preserved the khalif city from destruction; a destruction
destined afterwards to befal it at the hands of the latter. Jelaleddin,
who saw no means of withstanding the approaching storm, secretly sent
ambassadors to Jengis Khan, to offer him, as well as to the khalif, his
homage and submission.

In this manner, the chieftain of the Ismailites, attained not only
the reputation of unsullied orthodoxy, but also the actual rank of a
sovereign prince, which the khalif had constantly refused preceding
grand-masters. He supported his increasing credit by amicable relations
and alliances with the neighbouring princes; and, in particular,
maintained a good understanding with his nearest neighbour, the Atabeg
Mosafereddin, the lord of Aran and Aserbijan. They combined against
Nassireddin Mangeli, the governor of Irak, who had declared war against
the atabeg, and invaded the territory of the Ismailites. Jelaleddin
went from Alamut to Aserbijan, where he was received by the atabeg
with great splendour, and loaded with presents. His army likewise
experienced the liberality of the atabeg in the amplest manner: a
thousand dinars were carried, every day, to Jelaleddin’s residence,
for the maintenance of his kitchen only.

The two allied princes sent ambassadors to Bagdad, desiring the
khalif’s aid against the governor of Irak. Nassir-ledinillah sent
several of his most distinguished men with full powers. Encouraged by
this embassy, and reinforced with subsidiary troops, they advanced
against Irak, defeated and killed the governor, Nassireddin Mangeli,
and appointed another in his stead.[234] After an absence of eighteen
months, Jelaleddin returned to his fortress of Alamut. As, during his
journey and campaigns, he had everywhere proclaimed his abhorrence of
the system of his ancestors, and had corroborated his declaration by
his prudent conduct, the chiefs of Islamism universally met him with
kindness and friendship.[235]

He was desirous of cementing his alliance by a closer family union
with the princes and viceroys of Khilan: they, however, replied, that,
without the khalif’s consent, they could not comply with his wishes.
Jelaleddin sent an ambassador to Bagdad, and Nassir-ledinillah granted
his viceroys permission to ally themselves with Jelaleddin: he received
in marriage the daughter of Keikawus, who bore him his successor,
Alaeddin Mohammed.

In order not to confound this Keikawus, viceroy of Khilan, with his
namesake, the Prince of Ruyan, of the family Kawpara (which might the
more easily occur, as both have been hitherto unknown to European
historians), we have purposely omitted to speak of the latter, who had
already, half a century before, entered into political relations with
the Ismailites, his next neighbours. We shall now embrace, at one view,
the fifty years’ contemporaneity of the grand-masters of the Assassins,
and the princes of the house of Kawpara, or Dabuye. It is, however,
necessary to premise a few words, concerning the geographical position
of the northern neighbours of the Ismailites.

The mountain range, which bounds the Persian Irak Jebal on the north,
is, as it were, the bulwark of Persia, against the Caspian Sea. The
partly flat, and partly hilly country, lying between it and the
northern declivity of this chain, is divided into four provinces; so
that two of them are situated immediately at the foot of the mountains,
and the other two lie between the former and the sea coast. Dilem and
Thaberistan are to the south, and on the declivity of the mountains;
the former to the west, the latter to the east; beyond them lie Gilan
and Mazanderan; the former to the north of Dilem, the latter of
Thaberistan. This quadruply-divided territory is bounded on the north
by the Caspian Sea, and on the south by the above-mentioned mountains,
on the southern side of which the domain of the Ismailites extended
from Alamut, the seat of government, south-easterly, to Komis and
Kuhistan.

Almost in the centre of these four provinces, beyond the Caspian
Alps, which maps distinguish with precision, lies the unnoticed
district of Ruyan and Rostemdar, ruled by its native princes, whose
family maintained its stand, uninterruptedly, for eight centuries;
while in Gilan, Dilem, Thaberistan, and Mazanderan, dynasties rose
and fell. As the territory of Ruyan and Rostemdar lie immediately on
one side of Mount Demawend and Alamut, and its subordinate places on
the other, these rulers of Rostemdar demand our attention, as the
nearest neighbours of the Assassins, and, after them, the lords of
Mazanderan, as the most powerful of this pentarchy. Both these ruling
families, and the country over which they held sway, possess, besides
the interest attaching to them, as being connected with the history of
the Assassins, one more peculiar, and hitherto unnoticed in European
histories; one which arises from the antiquity of their origin, and the
exceedingly ancient monuments of the Persian empire, still existing
in these provinces. In the time of the ancient Persian monarchy, the
family of Hanefshah reigned in Thaberistan and Mazanderan, till Korad,
the father of Nushirvan, transferred the government of this country to
his eldest son, Keyuss. Keyuss revolted against his brother Nushirvan,
who had ascended the throne of Persia, and succumbed to his arms. One
of his descendants, called Bawend, successfully re-asserted the rights
of his predecessors, in the 45th year of the Hegira; and the family
Bawend, of the blood of Nushirvan, although twice interrupted by the
Dilemides and Alides, reigned for a period of seven hundred years,
until, after their third fall, the dynasty Jelawi arose on their ruin.

No less venerable than this race of the lords of Mazanderan, to whom,
likewise, Kuhistan owed obedience, was that of the family Dabuye, or
Kawpara, which reigned, uninterruptedly, from the 40th year of the
Hegira, when Baduspan possessed himself of the sovereignty of Ruyan and
Rostemdar; to the 888th, when the family Keyumers supplied their place.
Baduspan was a descendant of that blacksmith, so famous in the history
of the east, Kawe by name, who overthrew the tyrant Sohak, and hoisted
his leathern apron for a flag; which, adorned with pearls and jewels,
glittered till the end of the monarchy, as the national standard.
Feridun, the legitimate heir, whose right to the throne the magnanimous
smith proclaimed, was not only born in this province, in the village
Weregi, the oldest place in Thaberistan, but also secretly educated
there, during the reign of the tyrant.[236]

His mother had taken refuge there, and had fed the child with the
milk of a buffalo-cow (_Kaw_, _cow_), the head of which, sculptured
on Feridun’s mace, has become no less celebrated among the national
insignia, than the leathern apron. It was, then, from the mountains of
Thaberistan, that the young hero commenced the fight for freedom, which
the smith (Kawe) maintained in the capital. Sohak was made prisoner
near Babylon, and confined in the village of Weregi, at the foot of
Demawend, whence freedom issued, and where tyranny expired. Feridun
divided his kingdom among his three sons, Iredj, Turan, and Salem, and
retired into his native land, to Temishe Kuti; which, according to the
Shah Nameh, formed a triangle with the cities, Sari and Kurgan, the
ancient Astrabad. Iredj having fallen in a contest with his brothers,
his son Menutshehr, excited by his grandfather Feridun, undertook to
avenge him. The bones of the three brothers repose at Sari, under an
edifice of stone, which has resisted the efforts of centuries, and of
thousands of men, who have endeavoured to destroy it.

The plains and glens of Thaberistan were the scene of the splendid
battles of Menutshehr and Afrasiab, when Iran resisted the irruption
of Turan: the whole country is, in fact, as may be perceived from this
cursory topographical notice, the classic ground of ancient Persian
history. Besides the descendants of Nushirvan’s brother, and of the
liberator, Feridun, and the families of Bawend and Kawpara, whose
origin mounts to the highest Persian antiquity, that of Keyumers,[237]
which reigned from the fall of the Kawpara, to the foundation of the
empire of the Sefi, trace their descent from the king of the same
name, who appears so darkly through the remote clouds of historical
traditions, that many writers actually confound the first Persian king
with the first man.

Nevertheless, this family is, as far as we know, the last which has
traced its origin, authentically, to the ancient Persian kings. Chance
has, in the conformity of the names of the first and last sovereign,
repeated the play of words, which appears in history, in the fall
of several great kingdoms. The first and last rulers of the eastern
and western Roman empires, of the Seljukides, of the governors of
Thaberistan, of the prophets of the Moslimin, and of the last of
his successors of the family of Abbas, had similar names. The names
of Augustus, Constantine, Mohammed, Togrul, Keyumers, commence and
terminate the series of Roman, Byzantine, Arabian, Seljukian, and
Persian royal families; and, perhaps, the European Turkish empire will
end, as it began, with an Othman.

After this glance at the great interest, which the country immediately
bordering on the Ismailitic territory, to the north, presents to the
lover of oriental history, both in a topographical and historical
point of view, we shall again direct our attention to the rulers of
Ruyan and Rostemdar, who, together, are called, Astandar. Astan means
mountain, in the language of Thaberistan, a language entirely unknown
in Europe; and Astandar, ruler of the mountains, is equivalent to the
appellation, Sheikh-al-jebal, or the Old Man of the Mountain; that
is, the grand-master of the Assassins. The latter shared this title,
derived from the character of his territory, not only with the families
of Kawpara, but also with that of Bawend, who ruled over Mazanderan,
and, before the Ismailites, over Kuhistan; and also with the chiefs of
the highlands beyond Demawend. Astan, Jebal, Kuh, are Thaberistanish,
Arabic, and Persian words, signifying mountain. The sovereigns of the
family Kawpara, called themselves Astandar, or Prince of the Mountains,
as the grand-master of the Assassins, swaying the sceptre on the other
side, was named Sheikh-al-jebal, Old Man of the Mountain.[238]

Astandar Keikawus Ben Hesarasf reigned in the first half of the
sixth century of the Hegira, at Ruyan, on the one side of the Alps,
while, on the other, flourished, as lord of the mountain, at Alamut,
Mohammed, son of Busurgomid, grand-master of the Assassins. The
innate hostility, existing between the Ismailites and all legitimate
governments, was still more increased, by the natural jealousy of
proximity, and by the friendly alliance between Keikawus and Shah
Gazi, Prince of Thaberistan. The latter was one of the greatest and
most implacable enemies of the Assassins, whose hatred against those
foes of government and faith, was spurred on by motives of personal
revenge. The Assassins had murdered, as he was coming out of the bath,
at Sarkhos, the shah’s favourite, an exceedingly handsome youth, whom
he had sent with a thousand cavalry to the court of Sandjar. Shah Gasi
buried him with great pomp, near the tomb of the Imam Ali Mussa, and
erected a vaulted chapel over his grave, richly endowed with the lands
of the surrounding villages.

From this moment he never paused in the persecution of the murderers,
who, after bereaving him of what was dearer than life itself,
threatened to deprive him of that also. His general, Shelku, made
a nocturnal incursion into the Ismailitic territory, and immolated
with the sword, many thousands of the “initiated to the dagger,” and
erected, in Rudbar, five towers formed of their skulls. Shah Gasi
sent first against them, his brother-in-law, the prince of Dilem, Kia
Busurgomid, of the same name as the then grand-master of the Assassins;
and, after his death, the prince of Ruyan. Thus were irreconciliably
opposed to each other, Kia Busurgomid, of Dilem, against Kia
Busurgomid, of Alamut; the highland chieftain of one side of the Alps,
to the Old Man of the other.[239]

When Keikawus, after the death of his nephew, Kia Busurgomid, of Dilem,
united the government of that province with the lordship of Ruyan
and Rostemdar, Shah Gasi, of Thaberistan, remitted the sum of thirty
thousand dinars, which Dilemistan paid, as tribute to his treasury;
but on condition, that he should maintain a continued war against the
order of the Assassins. The effect of this was, that, at that period,
they dared not show themselves anywhere in Ruyan, Mazanderan, and
Dilem, and that the Moslimin of those provinces were safe from their
daggers. Keikawus undertook some expeditions against Alamut itself, and
plundered and ravaged the surrounding country. He wrote a letter to
the grand-master Kia Mohammed, in the following words:—

“May the life of the infidel, the wicked, the accursed, the base, the
reprobate, be extirpated from the face of the earth; may the Almighty
God annihilate his house, and the angel of torment prepare his dwelling
in hell! God, the most high, has not in vain commanded to the faithful
and the pious, the destruction of the infidel and the atheist. The
greatest grace and highest favour of the Almighty, is shown in this;
that the flaming sword of perdition is waving over your heads and
country; that ye, having recourse to empty arrogance and senseless
cunning, hemmed in on all sides, are now like the hunted fox, lost in
the brake. What hinders ye now from showing your manhood, against us,
who sit publicly every where, without chamberlains or door-keepers,
guard or officers? against me, your greatest foe on God’s earth?”

The grand-master replied in the style of the order, laconically, and
cutting as their stilettoes:—

“We have read thy letter; the contents are insults, and insult recoils
on the insulter.”[240]

The successor of Keikawus, Astandar Hasarasf, son of Shehrnush, struck
into an entirely different line of policy. Weary of the war against
the Assassins, he concluded a treaty of peace and amity, resigned
his strongest castles to them, and even abandoned himself to the
extravagances of drunkenness.

Two of the grandees of his court, whom he had injured by killing the
favourite of one, and the brother of the other, fled to Erdeshir, King
of Mazanderan; they complained that their prince, allied with the
Assassins, even trod in their steps; and represented that, if the king
should suffer this to proceed unresented, the murderers would soon
spread themselves through Mazanderan, and cause universal desolation.
Erdeshir entered into the spirit of this representation, retained the
complainants at his court, and despatched a person of distinction to
Hasarasf, to admonish him to more reasonable conduct. The admonition
being ineffectual, his nobles deserted him, and fled to Erdeshir’s
court; others took up arms against him, supported by Erdeshir with an
army. Hasarasf, thus abandoned, went over to the Assassins, with whom
he sought refuge.

Shah Erdeshir appointed the Seid Eddai Ilulhaki Aburisa, governor of
Dilem. In a nocturnal attack, executed by Hasarasf, supported by the
Ismailites, the seid was slain; and Shah Erdeshir swore that he would
not rest, till he had revenged the murder of the seid, with the death
of Hasarasf: the latter fled to the strong castle, Welidj. Erdeshir
took Nur and Nadju, and besieged Welidj for a considerable time;
finding, however, the investment of it too difficult, he retreated,
and appointed Hesbereddin Khurshid, viceroy of Ruyan and Rostemdar, in
place of Hasarasf. The latter went into Irak, and thence to Hamadan,
where he sought protection from Togrul, the last sultan of the Persian
line of the Seljukides.

Togrul sent an ambassador to Erdeshir, to intercede for Hasarasf;
the shah of Mazanderan replied: “If Hasarasf wishes to regain the
sovereignty of Ruyan, let him do penance for his impiety, and break
off his connexion with the Assassins; or the sultan may point out
another place, where he may be beyond the alliance of the order of
murderers.” The Seljukide sultan approved of the decision of the king
of Mazanderan. Hasarasf fled to Rei, where he sought the hand of the
daughter of Serajeddin Kamil, and aid from his father-in-law. Being
unable to effect his purpose, he went straight with his brother, to
Shah Erdeshir, who wished to confine him to the castle of Welidj. The
commandant, who had formerly served under Hasarasf, refused to imprison
his former lord; at length, however, Hasarasf terminated his unquiet
life, being murdered by Hesbereddin, unknown to Erdeshir.

The shah caused his infant son to be brought up, but ere he attained
his majority and the government of Ruyan, he fell by the hand of
one Bistun, who pretended to the sovereignty. The murderer fled to
Alamut, which had ever been the safest asylum for such criminals. The
grand-master immediately offered to deliver him up, if Erdeshir would,
in return, surrender the village of Herdjan to the order. Erdeshir
would not consent, but replied to the envoy, “What is a wretch like
Bistun, that I should yield one of my possessions to the Assassins for
him?” This happened in the 610th year of the Hejira, that is, in the
third of the re-establishment of Islamism, by the grand-master, Nev
Musulman, who, on offering to give up the murderer, remained, indeed,
true to his newly-adopted system of restoring religion, yet at the same
time made this measure of policy subordinate to the interest of the
order.

Although no murder stains the history of Jelaleddin’s reign, and so far
his conduct was in full accordance with his system, the historian is,
nevertheless, compelled not only to question the purity of his motives,
but also the sincerity of his return to the doctrines of Islamism.
Two circumstances place this in a very suspicious light. In the first
place, the just mentioned refusal to deliver up the murderer, who had
sought within the walls of Alamut, the usual sanctuary of impiety,
unless in return for the cession of a village; secondly, in the burning
of the books, when Jelaleddin pretended to celebrate an _auto da fe_,
of the works and rubrics of former grand-masters, in order to convince
the deputies from Kaswin of the truth of his conversion. In this,
however, it is probable that he consumed the works of the dogmatists
and fathers of Islamism, while the great library of free-thinking and
immorality, together with the metaphysical and theological works of
Hassan Sabah, the founder, were preserved, though secretly, and only,
as we shall see below, devoted to the flames on the fall of Alamut and
dissolution of the order.

It is, therefore, more than probable, that Jelaleddin’s conversion of
the Ismailites to Islamism, so loudly proclaimed abroad, and his public
abjuration of the doctrine of impiety, was nothing else than hypocrisy
and deeply designed policy, in order to re-establish the credit of the
order, which had been exposed to the anathemas of priests, and the
ban of princes, by the inconsiderate publication of their doctrines,
and to gain for himself the title of prince, instead of the dignity
of grand-master. Thus the Jesuits, when they were threatened with
expulsion by the parliament, and with a bull of dissolution from the
Vatican,—when, on all sides, the voices of cabinets and countries
rose against the principles of their morals and policy,—denied their
doctrine of lawful rebellion and regicide, which had been imprudently
hinted at by some of their casuists, and openly condemned the maxims
which they, nevertheless, secretly observed as the true rules of the
order.

This assertion of a purer moral system and genuine Christianity,
availed little in reinstating in the possession of their former
greatness and power, the once unmasked and exposed order of the
Jesuits; and equally small success had the Assassins, in regaining
their preceding influence and authority, by this system of proselytism,
which was preached from every pulpit. The twelve years’ reign of
Jelaleddin was too short to efface from the minds of the people the
traces of a system which had lasted fifty years. Under his son and
successor, the Ismailites sank anew into their old habits of impiety
and crime, by which they and their forefathers have been the abhorrence
of the world and the outcasts of mankind. Poison had put an end to the
bloody reign of Mohammed II. the predecessor and father of Jelaleddin;
it likewise accelerated the accession of his son, and successor,
Alaeddin Mohammed III., a boy of nine years of age. The poisoned
goblet, which had supplied the place of the poniard, was now replaced
by it. The dagger raged unceasingly, by order of the boy, among his
own relatives, who were accused as accomplices in the poisoning of his
father. According to the doctrine of the Ismailites, the imam, even
though a youth, is always considered as having attained his majority,
and the efficiency of his commands is neither enfeebled by the age of
childhood nor the childishness of age. His orders require unlimited
obedience, as emanating from the higher power, centered in the
vice-gerent of the Deity, and the Ismailites blindly followed the deadly
behests of the young prince, by which their hands, for twelve years
unused to the dagger, again became accustomed to it.


_Reign of Alaeddin Mohammed III., Son of Jelaleddin Hassan Nev
Musulman._

Although, in the warm climate of Arabia and Persia, human nature
arrives sooner at maturity, and the intellect sooner attains the
freedom of independence, than in the colder region of Europe, we can
more easily conceive a maiden of nine to be marriageable, than a boy
of the same age to be capable of governing. It appears more natural
that Aishe should, at the age of nine, have become the bride of the
prophet Mohammed, than that his namesake should, at the same age,
have assumed the throne of the Assassin sovereignty. If this is not
surprising, still less is it so that the boy, scarcely emancipated
from the care of the harem, should surrender to it both himself, and
the administration of affairs. The women governed, and Alaeddin amused
himself with feeding sheep, while the Assassins, as heretofore, raged
as wolves in the folds of Islamism. All the wise ordinances, which
Jelaleddin, the new Musulman, had instituted for the advantage of
religion and morality, were abolished by Alaeddin, the new infidel.
Atheism and licentiousness again raised their heads, and the dagger was
once more red with the blood of virtue and merit. In the fifth year of
his reign, Alaeddin, having bled himself without the knowledge of his
physician, an excessive loss of blood threw him into a deep depression
and melancholy, from which he never recovered. From that time, no one
ventured to propose to him any remedies, either for himself, or the
disorders of his government. Whoever spoke anything in the least
displeasing to him, concerning political affairs, received torture or
death for his answer; thus every thing was concealed from him, whether
domestic or foreign, and he was without any friends or advisers, who
could venture to lay representations before him. The evil increased
beyond all measure; the finances, the army, the administration, sunk
into the fathomless abyss of utter ruin.

Alaeddin, nevertheless, treated the Sheikh Jemaleddin Ghili with great
reverence; he was entirely devoted to him, and sent him an annual
pension of five hundred dinars, on which the sheikh lived, although
he enjoyed besides a gratuity from the prince of Farsistan. The
inhabitants of Kaswin reproached him for distributing the latter, and
living on the money of the impious; the sheikh replied, “The imams
declare the executions of the Ismailites and the confiscation of their
goods to be lawful; how much more lawful, then, is it, to make use of
the money and goods which they give of their own accord!” Alaeddin, to
whose ears, probably, this talk of the Kaswiners came, affirmed that he
spared them only on the sheikh’s account; and that if Jemaleddin Ghili
did not reside there, he would fill sacks with the earth of Kaswin, and
hang them on the necks of its inhabitants, and drive them to Alamut. He
ordered a messenger, who gave him a letter of the sheikh’s once when
he was intoxicated, to receive a hundred blows of the bastinado, and
said to him, “Thoughtless and foolish man that thou wert, for giving
me a letter of the sheikh’s when I was intoxicated; thou shouldst have
waited till I had come from the bath, and recovered my senses.”[241]
Besides the sheikh, Alaeddin held in considerable estimation the great
mathematician, Nassireddin, of Tus, who had been sent as a hostage to
Alamut, by Mohammed Motashem Nassireddin, to whom he had dedicated
his celebrated work, Akhlaki Nasseri (_the Ethics of Nassir_). He,
as we shall soon see, as prime minister of Alaeddin’s successor,
supported, for a time, the tottering edifice of the Ismailitic rule;
it fell, however, at last, affording to the world a remarkable proof,
of what talents and a thirst for revenge, are able to effect in the
maintenance, and overthrow of thrones.

During the reign of this weak prince, there took place the following
negotiation with Sultan Jelaleddin Mankberni, the last of the
sultans of Khowaresm, according to the relation of an eye-witness.
On his return from India, he had appointed the Emir Orkhan, governor
of Nishabur, immediately bordering on the possessions of the
Ismailites.[242] Orkhan’s lieutenant, in his absence, ravaged, by
bloody and repeated attacks, the territories of Tim and Kain, the
capitals of Kuhistan and the principal seat of the Assassins. One of
the latter, Kemaleddin, came as ambassador, to request the suspension
of hostilities; Orkhan’s lieutenant, however, deigned to give no other
answer than the silent but emphatical one, of drawing several daggers
from his girdle, and throwing them on the ground, before the envoy,
signifying, either that he wished to show his contempt for the daggers
of the Assassins, or that he would have him to understand that he would
meet dagger with dagger. This hieroglyphical style of embassy is a
chief feature in the diplomacy of the east, which not only speaks to
women in the language of flowers, but also to princes, by images and
symbols rather than words. The most ingenious messages of this kind
mentioned by eastern writers, are those which passed between Alexander
and the Indian king, Porus, who endeavoured to surpass each other in
subtilty and vaunting. They terminated in Alexander’s sending for a
cock to pick up the corn which was shaken from a sack before him:
intimating that though the hosts of the Indians should be as numerous
as the grains of corn, the Greeks, as brave as game cocks, would soon
swallow them up. A companion to this hieroglyphic of the cock, is
afforded in that of the dead hen, which Alexander is said to have
sent to Darius, concerning the claim of the tribute of golden eggs or
besana (beisa, meaning an egg), to explain to him, that the hen which
had laid these golden eggs was dead. These, and similar hieroglyphical
embassies, were as little effectual in settling the quarrel between
Darius and Alexander, as they were in the case of the Ismailites, who
resolved to procure for themselves that satisfaction which had been
denied them.

While Sultan Mankberni was residing at Kendja,[243] Orkhan was attacked
without the city walls by three Assassins, and killed on the spot; they
then, with their bloody daggers in their hands, entered the city, and
shouted the name of the grand-master, Alaeddin: they thus proclaimed
the power and sovereignty of their superior in a manner most befitting
a combination of homicides, namely, by blood and unsheathed poniards.
They sought the vizier, Sherfal-mulk (_nobility of the kingdom_), in
the divan of his house, but not finding him there, he being with the
sultan, they wounded one of his servants, as a token of their visit;
they ran through the streets of the city, and declared themselves
to be Assassins, in which capacity, they had already, at the grand
vizier’s residence, left dagger wounds instead of a visiting card;
their insolence, however, did not go, this time, unpunished; the people
crowded together, and put them to death with a shower of stones.[244]

In the meanwhile, an Ismailite envoy, Bedreddin Ahmed by name,
having travelled as far as Barlekan, on his way from Alamut to the
sultan’s court, on being informed of the above occurrence, inquired
of Sherfal-mulk, the vizier, whether he should continue his journey
forwards, or return; the vizier, knowing the enterprising vigour of
the Assassins, and dreading the fate of Orkhan, answered that he
might come in all security; and on his arrival, the vizier applied
all his energies to the satisfaction of his demands, which were the
suspension of the ravages of the Ismailite territory, and the cession
of the fortress of Damaghan. The vizier succeeded in having the first
point promised, and the second was allowed, in a solemn instrument, in
consideration of the annual sum of thirty thousand pieces of gold. The
sultan departed on a journey to Aserbijan, and the envoy remained as
the vizier’s guest.

At a grand banquet, the wine having already mounted to their heads, the
envoy said to his host, that, in the immediate retinue of the sultan,
among his guards, marshals, and pages, there were several Ismailis.
The vizier, curious to become acquainted with these dangerous unknown,
entreated the ambassador to produce them, and gave him his handkerchief
as a pledge that no harm should befal him. Immediately five of the most
confidential of his chamberlains stepped forward as disguised Assassins.

“On such a day, at such an hour,” said one of them, an Indian, to the
vizier, “I could have murdered thee with impunity, and unobserved; and,
if I did not, it was merely from the want of my superior’s command.”

The vizier terrified, and apparently naturally timid, and still more
so when intoxicated, stripped off his clothes, threw himself, in his
shirt, at the feet of the five murderers, conjuring them, by their own
lives, to spare his; and protesting, that he would be a more faithful
slave of the grand-master, Alaeddin, than of the Sultan Mankberni.

The sultan, on hearing of the cowardly baseness of his vizier, sent him
an angry message, with the command to burn the five Ismailites alive.
Sherfal-mulk would gladly have avoided the execution of this command;
at length, he reluctantly obeyed, and caused the five Assassins to
be thrown on the pile, in the flames of which they deemed themselves
happy, in being the sacrifice of their master, Alaeddin. Kemaleddin,
the superintendent of the pages, whose duty it was, more than that of
any other officer of the court, to watch over the immediate retinue of
the sultan, was condemned to death, for admitting Assassins among the
pages. The sultan then departed for Irak, and the vizier remained in
the province of Aserbijan, and with him the relater of this occurrence,
Abulfatah Nissawi. While they were staying at Berdaa, Salaheddin came
from Alamut, as ambassador of the grand-master, who, being admitted
to an audience of the vizier, spoke as follows:—“Thou hast sacrificed
five Ismailis to the flames; to ransom thy life, pay for each of these
unhappy men the sum of ten thousand pieces of gold.”

The vizier, confounded by the message, treated the envoy with
distinction, and then commanded his secretary, Abulfatah Nissawi,
to prepare a deed in due form, by which he bound himself to pay the
Ismailis the annual sum of ten thousand ducats, in addition to the
thirty thousand due from them to the sultan’s treasury. At so dear a
rate did emirs and viziers purchase a respite of their lives from the
daggers of the Assassins, which were constantly pointed against their
breasts.

Alaeddin could seek counsel from the Sheikh Jemaleddin, and the
astronomer, Nassireddin, in spiritual and temporal affairs, in
objects of politics and science; but neither of them could afford
him a remedy for his diseased brain and mental malady. To find a
skilful physician, he applied by embassies to the Lord of Farsistan,
the Atabeg Mosafareddin Ebubekr, who endeavoured to gratify him,
from the natural dread of the dagger, common to all the princes of
the time, and which made them incline to fulfil the wishes of the
prince of the Ismailites.[245] He despatched the Imam Behaeddin, son
of Siaeddin Elgarsuni, one of the first physicians, distinguished
alike by his theoretical science and his practical art; who employed
his attainments, not without some success, in the cure of Alaeddin.
When the latter was somewhat better, he could never obtain license to
return. For this once, it was not the death of the sick, but of the
convalescent, that released the physician. Alaeddin died, not from the
consequences of his early loss of blood, but from the usual remedy of
the order,—assassination.

Ambition, and the fear of not attaining the supreme power till late,
or not at all, was the cause of his murder, as it had been of similar
preceding ones. Alaeddin had several sons, and had declared the eldest
of them, Rokneddin, while yet a child, his successor. As he grew in
years, he was honoured as their superior, by the Ismailites, who made
no difference between his commands and those of his father. Alaeddin,
irritated by this premature obedience,[246] declared that the right of
succession was transferred to another of his sons; but the Ismailites
paid no attention to this declaration, in accordance with the received
maxim of their sect, that the first declaration is always the true one,
and that with it the business ends. Our readers may recollect a similar
example, in the history of the Egyptian khalif, Mostanssur, mentioned
in the second book, who first declared his son Nisar, and afterwards,
being compelled by the Emir-ol-juyush, his younger son, Mosteali, as
his successor; whence arose the great schism of the Ismailites, some
adopting the side of Nisar, and others that of Mosteali.

Hassan Sabah, the founder of the Assassins, who was at that time in
Egypt, was obliged to quit the country, as he belonged to the former;
and much the more natural was the prepossession of the Ismailites,
which, in the spirit of their founder, decided in favour of the first
declaration. Rokneddin, fearing for his life, which was threatened by
his father, resolved to retire from the court, and to wait in some
strong castle for the moment which should call him to the government.

The same year, Alaeddin afforded likewise matter of suspicion to
several of his grandees, and occasion to look after their personal
safety. They concealed their well-grounded fears, under the mask of the
most fawning adulation, and conspired with Rokneddin against Alaeddin’s
life, in order to secure their own. Hassan of Masenderan, no Ismailite,
but a Musulman, but who stained his faith by a disgraceful connexion
with Alaeddin, was selected by them to be the murderer; and as he was
the instrument of Alaeddin’s unnatural lust, to be the instrument of
his unnatural death. They watched the opportunity when Alaeddin lay, as
usual, intoxicated among his sheep and shepherds. In order to devote
himself to this pleasure, he had built a wooden house near his flocks;
and while he was sunk in sleep, Hassan of Masenderan, by command of
Rokneddin, shot him through the neck with an arrow. The murderer
received the proper reward: he and his children were put to death, and
their bodies burnt. The planner of the murder was tortured, if not by
the stings of conscience, by the reproaches of his mother, until the
vengeance of heaven reached him also.

Thus Alaeddin, whose father had been poisoned by his nearest relation,
was murdered by an Assassin employed by his son; and the horror of
parricide revenged parricide. Thus we come back upon the remark so
frequently repeated by oriental historians, and noticed by us in the
commencement of this book, that parricide begets parricide; as though
heaven would proclaim the atrocity of the crime, by the horror of the
punishment; as if an unnatural son were the only fitting executioner of
an unnatural son, and the terrible alone could revenge the terrible.

If a double parricide stain the annals of other dynasties, nature and
terror stop with the second, lest, by a long enchainment of horrors,
and a series of parricides, our belief in humanity, and in the most
sacred feelings, should expire. The history of the Assassins alone,
in heaping atrocity on atrocity, surpasses hell itself; we see four
murders in succession, by near relations, criminally and horribly
avenged by near relations. From Hassan, the Illuminator, to the fall of
the order, the blood of the grand-masters dropped, from step to step,
down to the last: two of them died by the hands of their sons; two by
those of their nearest relatives: poison and the dagger prepared the
grave which the order had opened for so many.

Hassan fell by the dagger of his brother-in-law, and his wicked son,
Mohammed: the latter, aiming at the life of his son, Jelaleddin, was
anticipated by him with poison; which murder was again revenged by
poison, by his nearest relative. Alaeddin, son of Jelaleddin, had the
mixer of the poison put to death, and was himself murdered, by his
own son’s command. The place of the ruby goblet of Jemshid, and the
sparkling sword of Rustam, the royal insignia of the ancient Persian
kings, was supplied with the Assassins, by the envenomed cup and
polished dagger. The grand-masters directed it to the hearts of their
enemies, without being able to turn it from their own. Their guards,
the devoted to death, were common murderers. Hell reserved for the
grand-masters themselves the privilege of parricide.


END OF BOOK V.




BOOK VI.

  _Reign of Rokneddin Kharshah, the last Grand-master of
  the Assassins._


The crimes of the society of murderers, which had long ago exceeded
the measure of humanity, had, at length, filled to overflowing that
of retributive vengeance: after an existence of a hundred and seventy
years, the tempest of destruction fell, with terrific fury, on the
Assassins. The conquering power of Jengis Khan, thundering in the
distance, had passed innocuously over their heads; but under the third
of his successors, Mangu Khan, the whirlwind of Mongols swept over
the eastern world, and, in its desolating progress, carried away,
along with the khalifat, and other dynasties, that of the Assassins.
In the year 582 of the Hegira,[247] when the seven planets were in
conjunction, in the sign Libra, as they had been, a century before, in
that of Pisces,[248] all Asia was trembling, in expectation of the end
of the world, which astrologers had declared was to happen, the first
time by a deluge, and the second by hurricanes and earthquakes. But if,
the first time, a swollen mountain torrent drowned only a few pilgrims,
in order not to put the prophecy to the blush; and the second, there
was so little wind on the appointed night, that lights burnt freely in
the open air, on the top of the minarets, without being extinguished;
nevertheless, at both periods, political revolutions came to the help
of the astrologers’ predictions, who had interpreted the conjunction of
the planets as indicating physical changes.

At the end of the fifth century of the Hegira, the deluge of the
Assassins inundated the whole of Asia; and at the end of the sixth,
Jengis Khan rushed on, like a hurricane, and the earth quaked under the
hoofs of the Mongols. The rage of the tempest afterwards spread through
all Asia, and the shocks of the earthquake carried their ruin as far as
Europe. During the reign of Mangu, the conquest of China and Persia was
completed by his brothers, Kublai and Hulaku; and as the preponderating
power of the latter, trod into ruins the citadel of the Assassins,
and rolled the khalif’s throne in the dust, his expedition to Persia
deserves our most particular attention.

Tandju Newian, the general of Mangu Khan, who covered the frontiers
of Iran, sent to his master the ambassadors of the khalif of Bagdad,
who complained of the atrocities of the Assassins, and besought him to
extirpate the vile race. Their complaints were seconded by those of
the judge of Kaswin, who was at the khan’s court, and went in armour
to the audience, fearing the daggers of the Assassins, against whose
crimes he raised the voice of humanity. Mangu immediately collected an
army, which he placed under the command of his brother, Hulaku, whom,
on departing, he addressed in the following words: “I send thee, with
much cavalry and a strong army, from Turan to Iran, the land of great
princes. It is thine, to observe the laws and ordinances of Jengis
Khan, in great things, and in small, and to take possession of the
countries from the Oxus to the Nile. Assemble round thee, with favours
and rewards, the obedient and the submissive; but tread into the
dust of contempt and misery, the refractory and mutinous, with their
wives and children. When thou hast done with the Assassins, begin the
conquest of Irak. If the khalif of Bagdad comes forward willingly to
serve thee, then shalt thou do him no harm; but, if he refuse, let
him share the fate of the rest.”[249] Upon this, Hulaku went from Kara
Kurum to the camp, and put his forces in order, and reinforced them
with a thousand families of Chinese fire-work makers. These latter
managed the besieging machines and the artillery of flaming naphtha,
which has been known to Europe, under the name of the Greek fire, since
the Crusades; but was long before used by the Arabs and Chinese, as
well as gunpowder.[250] In Ramadan,[251] he broke up his camp; and
receiving constant reinforcements on his march, he halted for a month,
first at Samarkand and afterwards at Kash.

Hither came Shemseddin Kurt and Emir Arghun, from Khorassan, offering
him its homage, and from hence he sent ambassadors to the princes of
the surrounding countries, with this message: “By command of the khan,
I am advancing against the Assassins, to destroy them: if ye will
support me in this enterprise, your trouble shall be rewarded—your
country protected; but if ye conduct yourselves negligently, I will,
after having finished this affair, advance against you; so shall ye
know it—it is foretold to you.” As soon as the news of the approach of
his victorious standard was spread abroad, ambassadors appeared from
Rum, from Sultan Rokneddin, Prince of the Seljuks in Fars, from the
Atabeg Saad of Irak, Aserbijan, Kurdjistan, and Shirwan, to offer the
homage of their masters.

The beginning of the month Silhidje, in the 553rd year of the Hegira,
Hulaku crossed the Oxus by a temporary bridge, and amused himself by
lion hunting on the hither side. Here winter overtook him, and the cold
was so severe, that most of his horses perished. He was compelled to
wait till spring, when Arghun Khan appeared at his command in the camp;
the political affairs of the latter were conducted by his son Gherai,
Ahmed Bitegi, and Khoja Alaeddin Ata-mulk, the vizier, writer of the
celebrated historical work Jehan Kusha (_Conqueror of the World_).
Hulaku marched from Shirgan to Khawaf whence being himself attacked
with indisposition, he despatched his general, Kayu Kanian, on the
conquest of Kuhistan. He went himself to Tus, the native city of the
greatest Persian poet, astronomer, and vizier, Ferdusi, Nassireddin,
and Nisam-ol-mulk; the renowned burial-place of the Imam Ali Ben Mussa
Risa, and established his quarters in a newly-laid out garden of Arghun
Aka. From thence he went to Manssuriye, where the wives of Arghun and
his lieutenant, Aseddin Taher, gave him a sumptuous banquet. He then
sent the Prince Shemseddin Kurt as ambassador to Nassireddin Mohtashem,
Rokneddin’s governor in Sertakht. Although an old man, Nassireddin, the
first patron of the astronomer of the same name, who has immortalized
his memory by his ethical work dedicated to him, nevertheless
accompanied the envoy in person, to the camp of Hulaku, who loaded him
with marks of distinction.

Hulaku, on arriving on his march at Junushan, commanded the place,
which had formerly been destroyed by the Mongols, to be rebuilt, at
the public expense; he then returned to Khirkan, where he sent another
embassy to Rokneddin Kharshah, the lord of Alamut, summoning him to
obedience and submission. Rokneddin had just ascended the throne, still
reeking with the blood of his father, and followed in his political
conduct the treacherous advice of his vizier, the great astronomer,
Nassireddin of Tus. The latter had presented a work to the Khalif
Mostrassem: for which, instead of receiving honours and rewards, as
he expected, he only gained contempt and insult. Alkami, the khalif’s
vizier, jealous of Nassireddin, objected to the work, that, in the
dedication, the title of “Vicegerent of God on Earth,” was wanting;
and the khalif, who thought it badly written, threw it into the
Tigris.[252]

From this moment, the insulted _savant_ swore vengeance against the
vizier and the khalif, and fled to Alamut, where the grand-master still
clutched his dagger, beneath which more than one vizier and one khalif
had already fallen. As the grand-master, however, did not interest
himself with sufficient earnestness in Nassireddin’s revenge, or did
not expedite it quickly enough, for the approach of Hulaku drew the
attention of the order away from the khalif to the consideration of
their own defence; and as, according to all probability, the citadel
of the Ismailites would, at length, be obliged to succumb to the hosts
of the Mongols, Nassireddin immediately changed his plan and designs.
He resolved, in the first instance, to deliver up his master, and the
castles of the Assassins, to the advancing victor, in order to ensure,
by treachery, the means to his ultimate revenge, and to pave the way
for the destruction of the khalif’s throne, with the ruins of the
order. He thus extended the prospect of his revenge, and his joy at the
fall of his foes took a wider compass. The vizier and the khalif would
only have bled under the poniards of the Assassins; the burning brands
of the Mongols, however, menaced the conflagration of the capital,
and the whole edifice of the khalifat. The lust of destruction must
have been great in that mind, which could sacrifice the Assassins to
its revenge, because they unsheathed their daggers too slowly for his
purpose.

By the advice of Nassireddin, Rokneddin Kharshah sent to Baissur
Nubin, Hulaku’s general, who had already reached Hamadan, an embassy
of submission, and expressing his desire to live in peace with every
one. Baissur Nubin answered, that as Hulaku was not far off, Rokneddin
would do best to go to him in person. After several messages, it was
determined, that Rokneddin should send his brother Shehinshah in
Baissur’s suite to Hulaku. Shehinshah addressed himself to Baissur,
and the latter gave him his own son, as escort on his way to Hulaku;
he himself, however, by command of his lord, entered the district of
Alamut, with his army, on the 10th of the month Jemesi-ul-ewel, in
the 654th year of the Hegira.[253] The Assassins and the troops of the
order occupied a height near Alamut, which they defended obstinately
against the Mongols. The rock was steep, and the occupying party
numerous. The assailants, compelled to abandon the attack, burned
the houses of the Ismailites, and ravaged the fields. While this
happened near Alamut, and after Shehinshah had arrived at Hulaku’s
quarters, the latter sent an envoy to Rokneddin, with the command as
follows:—“Because Rokneddin has sent his brother to us, we pardon
him the guilt of his father and his partisans; he himself, who has,
during his short reign, as yet proved himself guilty of no crime, shall
destroy his castles, and repair to us.”

At the same time, Baissur received orders to suspend the ravaging of
the province of Rudbar. After the arrival of these orders, Rokneddin
caused some of the battlements of Alamut to be knocked down, and
Baissur withdrew his troops from Rudbar. By order of Rokneddin,
Sadreddin Sungi, one of the most respectable of the order, went,
accompanied by an envoy of Hulaku’s, to the latter’s camp, to announce
submissively to him, that the prince of the Assassins had already
begun to demolish his castles, and that he was proceeding in the work
of destruction; that he, however, dreading the presence of Hulaku,
requested the term of a year, after the lapse of which, he would
appear at his court. Hulaku sent back Sadreddin, the Ismailite envoy,
accompanied by one of his basikakis, or officers, and wrote to the
grand-master:—“If Rokneddin’s submission be sincere, let him come to
the imperial camp, and cede to Basikaki, the deliverer of this letter,
the defence of his country.”

Rokneddin, misled by his evil genius, and the ill advice of
Nassireddin, delayed his obedience to this command. He sent the vizier,
Shemseddin Keilaki, and his cousin, Seifeddin Sultan Melik Ben Kia
Manssur, again, with ambassadors, to Hulaku, to cloak his refusal to
appear in person, under bad excuses. He commanded, at the same time,
his governors and commanders of Kuhistan and Kirdkuh, to hasten to the
Mongol camp, and to proffer their homage.

As soon as Hulaku reached Demawend, which lies immediately on the
mountains of the Assassins, he despatched the vizier, Shemseddin
Keilaki, to Kirdkuh, to bring the commander of that fortress into the
camp, in pursuance of Rokneddin’s command; one of the envoys, who had
accompanied the vizier and Rokneddin’s cousin to the camp, was sent, on
the same mission, to Kuhistan, and the latter proceeded, with Hulaku’s
ambassador, to the castle of Maimundis, where Rokneddin had established
his residence, in order to inform him that “the ruler of the world had
now advanced as far as Demawend; there was now no longer any time for
delay; but if he wished to wait a few days, he might, in the meanwhile,
send his son.” These ambassadors arrived at Maimundis the beginning of
Ramadan, and gave the intelligence that Hulaku’s victorious standards
were floating on the frontiers, and communicated his commands. At
this news, Rokneddin and his people fell into stupid astonishment
and helpless terror. He answered the ambassador that he was ready
to send his son, but then, urged by the persuasion of his wives and
short-sighted advisers, he delivered to the envoy the child of a slave,
who, being of the same age as his son, was substituted for him, and
requested that Hulaku would allow his brother, Shehinshah, who was
still at his court, to return. Hulaku, who was already on the confines
of Rudbar, easily unmasked the imposture, and, without betraying his
discovery, sent back the child, two days after, with the information
that, on account of his youth, the khan would not detain him; and that,
if he had an elder brother, he might be sent into the camp, in exchange
for Shehinshah, who would then be permitted to return.

In the meanwhile, the governor of Kirdkuh had arrived in the camp, and
Hulaku, who now permitted Shehinshah, Rokneddin’s brother, to return,
dismissed him with these words: “Tell thy brother to demolish the
castle of Maimundis, and come to me: if he comes not, the Eternal God
knows the consequences.” During these negociations, the Tawadgi or
recruiters of the Mongols, had collected so considerable a number of
troops, that hill and dale swarmed with them. On the seventh of the
month Shewal, Hulaku appeared in person before Maimundis, to undertake
the siege of that fortress, and a battle took place on the 25th.

Rokneddin, ill advised, and still worse betrayed by Nassireddin, sent,
at length, his other brother, Iranshah, together with his son, Kiashah,
and the vizier, Nassireddin, into the camp, to offer his homage and
submission, and to request a free retreat. They were accompanied by
the most distinguished members of the order, who bore rich presents.
Nassireddin, instead of speaking for his prince, and placing the
strength of the fortress in the balance of the negotiation, told
Hulaku, that the security of the castles of the Ismailites need not
trouble him, that the stars foretold clearly the downfall of their
power, and the sun would accelerate their ruin. The surrender of the
place was then agreed upon, on condition of an unmolested retreat,
and on the 1st of the month Silkide, Rokneddin, and his ministers and
confidents, evacuated the castle of Maimundis, and went into Hulaku’s
camp. The gold and the presents, which he brought with him, were
divided among the troops. Hulaku had compassion on Rokneddin’s youth
and inexperience; he having scarcely been seated more than a year,
on the throne of his fathers. He gave him good words and flattering
promises, retained him as his guest, but the traitor, Nassireddin, as
his vizier. The latter, who had put the fortress and the grand-master
into the hands of the khan, and had laid the axe at the root of the
Assassin power, had effrontery enough to compose a chronograph on this
occurrence, which immortalizes his treachery and revenge, containing
the date of this affair, in two verses.[254]

In Hulaku’s camp, Rokneddin was given into the custody of a guard
of Tartars; and officers of the khan accompanied the grand-master’s
deputies into the district Rudbar, in order to demolish the castles
belonging to the Assassins, there situated: others were despatched
to the two grand-priorates of Syria and Kuhistan, to summon the
commandants of the places belonging to the order, to surrender them
to Hulaku, in the name of the last grand-master. The number of these
strongholds amounted to more than a hundred; and these, by which the
mountainous parts of Kuhistan, Irak, and Syria, were crowned, formed
the girdle of the Assassins’ power, reaching from the shores of the
Caspian to those of the Mediterranean sea; in all these, the dagger
was the insignia of dominion. In Rudbar, alone, more than forty were
levelled with the ground, all well fortified and full of treasure. The
three strongest refused obedience to Hulaku’s summons, and Rokneddin’s
commands; the commanders of Alamut, the grand-master’s capital, of
Lamsir and Kirdkuh, replied, that they were waiting for the khan’s
arrival to surrender them to him. Hulaku struck his camp, and appeared,
in a few days, before Alamut; he sent the captive grand-master to
the foot of the ramparts to persuade the inhabitants by promises and
threats, to surrender; Rokneddin obeyed, but the governors of the
fortress refused to yield. Hulaku left a blockading force before
Alamut, and marched to Lamsir, whose inhabitants came out to meet
him, and offer their allegiance; the constancy of the Alamuters
being shaken by this, they sent an envoy to Rokneddin, to beg him to
intercede with the enraged prince in their favour.

By the mediation of Rokneddin, Hulaku allowed the commander a safe
conduct to the camp. The inhabitants requested three days to remove
their money and goods, this was permitted; and, on the third, the
castle was given up to pillage. Alamut, or the Eagle’s Nest, so called
from its inaccessible height, lay on a rock, which presented the shape
of a lion kneeling, with his neck stretched on the ground: the walls
rose from the lion’s rock, which they equalled in solidity, as it did
them in its perpendicular rise; they were vaulted for the defence of
the garrison; the rock was excavated into corn magazines and cellars
for honey and wine; these had been, for the most part, filled in the
time of Hassan Sabah; and so excellent was the choice of the spot, and
the care bestowed upon it, that neither had the wheat become mouldy,
nor the wine sour; which was considered by the Ismailites as a miracle
of their founder. The Mongols, who, without knowledge of the locality,
sought in the subterraneous chambers and cellars, for treasure, fell
into the wine and honey.

The armies of the Assassins being scattered, and their poniards broken
in the destruction of their fortresses, Hulaku returned in the month
Selhidje, of the same year, to Hamadan, where he had left his children.
Rokneddin, who accompanied him, was treated with kindness, either
from pity or contempt. Entirely degenerated from the blood of his
fathers, he had not even the virtues of a common Assassin,—courage,
and contempt of death; still less those of a grand-master,—strength
of rule and state-craft. Already morally a slave, even before he
fell into the hands of Hulaku, he still showed himself in the same
character by the meanness of his pursuits. A Mongol girl, of the lowest
grade, was the object of his affections, and Hulaku, who neglected no
opportunity of exposing him to the shafts of public scorn, commanded
a solemn marriage, on being asked for the slave by the prince of the
Assassins. After the completion of the ceremony, Rokneddin begged the
favour of being sent to the great khan Mangu: Hulaku was, at first,
astonished at this senseless request, by which Rokneddin sought his
own destruction; as, however, he did not feel himself called upon to
prevent it, he gave him permission, and a troop of Mongols, as an
escort. Rokneddin had promised on his way to persuade the garrison of
Kirdkuh, the last castle of the Assassins which still held out against
the Mongols, to surrender. He left Hulaku’s camp at Hamadan, on the
first of Rebi-ul-ewel, in the 655th year of the Hegira;[255] as he
passed Kirdkuh he sent the inhabitants a public message, requiring them
to surrender; he, however, secretly instructed them to hold out, and to
deliver the fortress up to no one.

By this foolish, contradictory policy, by which he had already entailed
the ruin of the order, he now accelerated his own. On arriving at
Karakurum, the khan’s capital, the latter, without admitting him to an
audience, sent him the following message: “If thou pretendest to be
submissive, wherefore hast thou not surrendered the castle of Kirdkuh?
return, and demolish the yet unyielded castles; then mayest thou share
the honour of appearing in our imperial presence.” When Rokneddin and
his escort, had reached the Oxus, on his return, the latter, under
pretence of taking refreshment, made him dismount, and pierced him with
their swords.

Mangu had already, some time before, issued the command to Hulaku,
to exterminate all the Ismailites, and not to spare even the infant
at his mother’s breast: and immediately upon Rokneddin’s departure,
the sanguinary task was commenced, which had only been delayed till
Kirdkuh and the remainder of the castles of the Assassins in Kuhistan
and Syria should have fallen. He sent one of his viziers to Kaswin,
to put to death, indiscriminately, Rokneddin’s wives, children,
brothers, sisters, and slaves; only two relations (females apparently)
of Rokneddin, were selected from this devoted band, not for mercy,
but to be the victims of the princess, Bulghan Khatun’s, private
revenge; her father, Jagatai, having bled by the Assassin’s daggers. A
command, similar to that given to the governor of Kaswin, was issued
to the viceroy of Khorassan. He assembled the captive Ismailites, and
twelve thousand of these wretched creatures were slaughtered, without
distinction of age. Warriors went through the provinces, and executed
the fatal sentence, without mercy or appeal. Wherever they found a
disciple of the doctrine of the Ismailites, they compelled him to kneel
down, and then cut off his head. The whole race of Kia Busurgomid,
in whose descendants the grand-mastership had been hereditary, were
exterminated. The “devoted to murder” were not now the victims of the
order’s vengeance, but that of outraged humanity. The sword was against
the dagger, and the executioner destroyed the murderer. The seed, sowed
for two centuries, was now ripe for the harvest, and the field ploughed
by the Assassin’s dagger, was reaped by the sword of the Mongol. The
crime had been terrible, but no less terrible was the punishment.

The castles of the Assassins in Rudbar and Kuhistan, Kain, Tun, Lamsir,
and even Alamut, the capital, were now in the hands of the victor.
Kirdkuh alone, whose garrison had been encouraged not to yield, by
Rokneddin, when on his way to Mangu, resisted the besieging forces
of the Mongols for three years. It is situated in the district of
Damaghan, near Manssurabad, on a very lofty mountain, and is, probably,
the same as the castle Tigado, mentioned by the Armenian historian,
Haithon, who has converted the three years’ siege into one of thirty
years’ duration.[256] Circumstantial details of this siege, are found
in Sahireddin,[257] the historian of Masenderan, and Ruyan, whose
princes, having done homage to the overwhelming power of Hulaku Khan,
received his commands to besiege Kirdkuh, while he was engaged in his
expedition against Bagdad. At that period, the throne of Mazanderan
was filled by Shems-ol-Moluk Erdeshir, of the family of Bawend; and
at Ruyan reigned the Astandar, or mountain prince, Shehrakim, of
the family Kawpare. They were united in the bonds of friendship,
relationship, and contiguity of situation. The prince of Ruyan had
given his daughter in marriage, to the shah of Masenderan, and Hulaku
Khan promised himself a large result from the wisdom of his measures,
in imposing upon them both the conduct of the siege of Kirdkuh.

It was in the beginning of spring, that the poet, Kutbi Ruyani, who was
in the camp of the allied princes, sung a solemn poem, in honour of
spring, in the language of Thaberistan, beginning—

  The sun has now once more passed from the Fish to the Ram,
  Spring waves her flowery banner to the east wind.

By this distich, inserted by the historian, Sahireddin, in his work,
the existence of a particular language in Thaberistan is made known
to Europe. It consists of a mixture of Mongol, Ouigour, and Persian
words.[258] The inspiration of the native poet, had so great an effect
upon the two princes, that, without waiting for the khan’s permission,
they raised the siege, and marched home, in order fully to enjoy, in
their native plains, the delights of returning spring, unmindful of
the wrath of Hulaku Khan, of which they soon felt the full weight.
Gasan Behadir was despatched from the army, to chastise them for their
disobedience. The prince of Ruyan, who had first set his son-in-law
the bad example of withdrawing, had the magnanimity to take the whole
fault upon himself, and, in order not to expose his own, and his
relative’s possessions, to the ravages of the Mongols, he went, of his
own accord, to Amul, where Gasan Behadir had encamped. He had the good
fortune to appease the khan, and received, both for himself and the
shah of Masenderan, a new investiture of their principalities, which
had been declared forfeited by their disobedience.

The effect of this invocation of spring, of the Thaberistani poet,
is, although in an opposite manner, no less remarkable in martial and
literary history, than are the hymns, with which Tyrtæus animated the
Spartans to the combat; and, if the Greek poet has been imitated in
our own time, in the songs of the Prussian and Austrian soldiery, and
with the happiest effect, nevertheless, no siege has ever been raised
yet, either by the Pervigilium Veneris, or by Bürger’s imitation of
it. This desertion of the siege, by the two commanders, explains its
protraction, for full three years; a period, which, without being
extended to thirty, appears amply sufficient, since Alamut, the
strongest of the Assassin’s fortresses, yielded, on the third day,
after being summoned by Hulaku.

After the fall of Alamut, the residence of the grand-master, and
the centre of the order, Atamelik Jowaini, the learned vizier and
historian, asked and obtained from Hulaku, permission to search the
celebrated library and archives of the order, for the purpose of
saving the works which might be worthy of the khan’s preserving. He
laid aside the Koran and some other precious books, and committed
to the flames, not only all the philosophical and sceptical works,
containing the Ismailite doctrine, and written in harmony with it, but
also all the mathematical and astronomical instruments, and thus at
once destroyed every source from which history might have derived a
more circumstantial account of the dogmas of the Ismailites, and the
statutes of the order. Fortunately, in his own history, he preserved
the results of the information which he derived from the library and
archives of the order, together with a biographical sketch of Hassan
Sabah, from which all the more modern Persian historians, as Mirkhond
and Wassaf, have collected their stories, and which we ourselves have
likewise followed.[259]

The existence of this library, at the time of the Conquest, convicts
of hypocrisy the sixth grand-master, Jelaleddin Nev Musulman; since
he could not have committed to the flames, in the presence of the
deputies of Kaswin, the archives and doctrinal works of the order which
remain preserved, for the inquisitorial zeal of Atamelik Jowaini. This
fanatical zeal has, at all periods, but particularly in the middle
ages, converted millions of books into ashes. If the west does, not
unjustly[260] (as Gibbon believes), accuse the Khalif Omar of the
conflagration of the Alexandrian library, the east returns the charge
with the accusation of the burning of the books at Tripoli, where an
immense library of Arabic works was consumed by the Crusaders.[261]
The assertion that, in the former place, the baths were heated for a
space of six months with the wisdom of the Greeks, is as extravagant
as that in Tripoli alone, three millions of Arabic manuscripts fed
the flames: but that both conflagrations were lighted up by the
torch of fanaticism, is not, on that account, the less an historical
fact, clearly attested and confirmed by the first historians of the
east.[262] The library of Alexandria was burnt by the Moslimin,
because, according to the instructions of Omar, the Koran only was
the book of books, and all knowledge not contained in it was vain and
useless. The library at Tripoli was consumed by the Christians, because
it contained, for the most part, nothing but the Koran, and the works
written on it. At Alamut the Koran was preserved by Jowaini, and the
philosophical works written against it, doomed to destruction; and
at Fas, a century before, an _auto da fe_ of theological books was
held by Sultan Yakub.[263] Had these two alone been lost, there would
not be so much reason to complain; but with them, the conflagrations
of Alexandria and Alamut swept away treasures of Grecian, Egyptian,
Persian, and Indian philosophy.


END OF BOOK VI.




BOOK VII.

  _Conquest of Bagdad—Fall of the Assassins—Remnant of
  them._


In the fall of Alamut, the centre of the Assassins was gone; the props
of their authority were broken, in the loss of the castles of Rudbar
and Kuhistan. Still, the grand-prior of Syria refused submission to
the grand-master’s orders to surrender,—the armies of the Mongols
being, as yet, too distant to compel his obedience. A far greater
object occupied the mind of Hulaku, than the destruction of a few
Syrian mountain forts, in which the order, after the fall of Alamut,
and the annihilation of the Ismailites in Persia, might yet, though
with difficulty, raise its head. He entertained no less a project than
the conquest of Bagdad, and the overthrow of the khalif’s throne, on
which the Arabs had, in the prophet’s name, already, for six centuries
and a half, ruled over the world of Islam. This great event is, not
only by its immediate consequences, but also from its proximate cause,
inseparably connected with the destruction of the Assassins.

In the second year after the fall of Alamut, and, consequently, before
the conquest of Kirdkuh the last fortress of the Assassins, which only
surrendered in the third year of the siege, Bagdad, the queen of the
cities of the Tigris, fell. The overthrow of the khalifat, as we have
seen, in the instructions given by Mangu to his brother Hulaku, did
not enter immediately into the plan of the khan, who merely claimed
submission and troops, but Nassireddin, the great _savant_ and traitor,
who had delivered the capital of the Assassins into the conqueror’s
hands, and had paved a road to his own revenge, over its ruins,
laboured unceasingly to urge Hulaku to the destruction of the khalifat.
Besides the close connexion of this event with the one which we have
described, it is in itself so great and important, in the history of
Asia, and the middle ages,—so attractive, from the novelty and rarity
of the subject, that we cannot deny our readers and ourselves the
pleasure of following the khan, in his expedition from Alamut to Bagdad.

The siege and conquest of Constantinople, by the Turks, is, perhaps,
the only event in history, worthy to be compared with that of Bagdad,
by the Mongols; and the fall of the long-sinking Byzantine empire,
may be placed by the side of that of the khalifat. The conquest of
other cities, on whose sieges history has dwelt with astonishment
and admiration, or with pity and terror, is less mighty in its
consequences, because, under their ruins, no throne of universal sway
has been buried. This interest is wanting, in the most obstinate and
glorious sieges of ancient and modern history, however remarkable by
the great names of the assailants, or the consummate skill with which
they may have been prosecuted, or the patient courage with which they
have been defended. Tyre and Saguntum, illustrious in their besiegers,
Alexander and Hannibal; Syracuse, which has immortalized the names
of Marcellus and Archimedes; Rhodes, twice attacked by Demetrius
Poliorcetes, and defended against the Turks, by Villiers de l’Isle
Adam; Candia, and Saragossa; have all earned unfading glory, by the
lion courage of their inhabitants and defenders; but, although these
cities fought for the highest of earthly objects—their country’s
freedom, still their fall did not draw down with it the seat of the
ancient dominion over half the world.

The history of the conquest of other celebrated cities, the seat
of universal monarchy, such as Babylon and Persepolis, under whose
ruin were buried the Assyrian and Persian monarchies, is wrapt in
the distance of thousands of years, and impenetrable obscurity. The
destruction of Jerusalem eclipses in the brightness of its lustre that
of all those cities; not, however, on account of the importance of its
power, or of its siege, for that by Khosroes was not less remarkable
than that by Titus; but because the latter was described by Tacitus.
If Gibbon had had access to the sources which are at our command, the
conquest of Bagdad would not have shone with less splendour, in his
immortal work, than that of Constantinople, nor would it have been
so briefly treated. What we want of his power of expression, must be
supplied by the richness of the material.

After the fall of Alamut, and the other fortresses of the Assassins,
except that of Kirdkuh, Hulaku vacated the territory of Kaswin, and
marched to Hamadan, whither his general, Tanju Nowian, hastened from
Aserbijan, to lay an account of his victories at the foot of the
throne. Hulaku dismissed him, with instructions to advance to Rum and
Syria, and to subject the whole of Asia and Africa, to the extreme
western boundary, to his dominion. In the month of Rebi-ul-ewel, in the
555th year of the Hegira, he commenced his march against Bagdad, and
proceeded as far as Tebris, whence he sent an ambassador to the khalif,
Mostassem, with the message: “When we went out against Rudbar, we sent
ambassadors to thee, desiring aid; thou promisedst them, but sentest
not a man. Now, we request that thou wouldst change thy conduct, and
refrain from thy contumacy, which will only bring about the loss of thy
empire and thy treasures.”

The ambassadors having despatched their mission to Mostassem, the
latter sent the learned Sherefeddin Ibn Jusi, the most famous orator
of his time, and Bedreddin Mohammed, of Nahjiwan, to Hulaku, with a
haughty message. The khan, irritated at this, gave more easy audience
to the counsels of Nassireddin, who continually urged him to march
against Bagdad, and to the treacherous invitation of Ibn Alkami, the
khalif’s vizier. Moyededdin Mohammed Ben Mohammed Ben Abdolmelek
Alkami, who, as vizier, administered the affairs of the khalifat with
unlimited power, and, by the blackest treachery, caused its fall, is
stigmatized ignominiously, as traitor, throughout the whole east; and
the name of Alkami is not less abhorred, in their history, than is that
of Antalcides, in that of the Greeks: as eloquent, and versed in poetry
and the polite literature of the Arabs, as Nassireddin was in the
mathematical sciences, he was no less faithless to his lord. Both poet
and mathematician were traitors.[264]

Nassireddin had personal cause of complaint against Alkami, who, by
his censure, had occasioned the khalif’s throwing into the Tigris the
poem dedicated to him by the former; adding, that it was, in every
respect, badly written. It is probable, that Nassireddin was a better
astronomer than poet; but it is still more probable, that Alkami was
jealous of the credit which he might gain with the khalif. The vizier
would not have deemed it necessary to warn the viceroy of Khorassan,
Nassireddin Mohteshem, with whom the astronomer was, against a mediocre
or bad _Kasside_, who was a juggler, and wished to insinuate himself
into the favour of the khalif. Out of respect for Alkami, the viceroy,
on this warning, threw the astronomer into prison, notwithstanding
he had dedicated his great work, Akhlaki Nassiri, to him. He escaped
to Alamut, where, as vizier of the last grand-master, he, meditating
revenge against Alkami and the Khalif Mostassem, laid the foundation of
it in the ruin of the Assassins.

Ibn Alkami, like Nassireddin, swore vengeance against the khalif: he
had to complain, not only of the neglect of some of the grandees and
favourites being unpunished by Mostassem, but also, he feared for his
own personal security, on account of some severe measures against the
Shiites, to which sect he himself belonged. He entered, therefore, on
the same path of treachery, in which Nassireddin had already preceded
him, and besieged the ear of Hulaku, with complaints and invitations,
which were readily accepted. Nassireddin, Hulaku’s vizier, and Ibn
Alkami, the khalif’s, played mutually into each other’s hands. The
contemporaneous fall of two such powerful sovereignties, as that of the
Assassins and of the khalifat, caused by the jealousy and treachery of
an astronomer and a wit, is unique in history.[265]

Ere we commence the detail of the fall of the khalif throne of Bagdad,
it will be proper to premise a few words, relating to the foundation
and splendour of this renowned city.

Bagdad, the city, valley, or house of peace, the citadel of the
holy, the seat of the khalifat, called also the oblique,[266] from
the oblique position of its gates, was founded, on the banks of the
Tigris, in the 148th year of the Hegira, by Abujafer Almansur, the
second khalif of the Abbas family. It stretches two miles along the
eastern banks of the river, in the form of a bow with an arrow on the
string, and is surrounded by a brick wall, whose circumference of
twelve thousand four hundred ells, is interrupted by four gates and one
hundred and sixty-three turrets. When Mansur resolved upon building the
city, he called his astronomers, at whose head was his vizier, Nevbakht
(i. e. _new fortune_), to determine a fortunate hour for laying the
foundations; and the latter chose a moment when the sun stood in the
sign Sagittarius, by which the new city was promised flourishing
civilization, numerous population, and long endurance. At the same time
he assured the khalif, that neither he, nor any of his successors,
would die within the walls of this capital; and the confidence of the
astronomer, in the truth of his prophecy, is less surprising than its
fulfilment by thirty-seven khalifs, the last of whom, Mostassem, during
whose reign Bagdad fell, did not die within its walls, but at Samara, a
place built below Bagdad, on the banks of the Tigris, by Motassem, the
eighth Abbaside khalif (called the eighther from the coincidence of
the number eight, in his nativity) for his Mameluke guard.[267]

As Bagdad, from the circumstance of no khalif having died within its
walls, merited, most peculiarly, the name of the House, Valley, or
City of Peace; so, also, on account of the great number of holy men
of Islam, who are buried within or without it, and whose tombs are so
many objects of the pilgrimages of the Moslimin, it gained the title of
Bulwark of the Holy. Here are the mausolea of the greatest imams and
the most pious sheikhs. Here reposes the Imam Mussa Kasim, the seventh
of the twelve imams, who, in direct descent from Ali, claimed the right
to the throne and the khalifat, on account of their relationship to the
prophet; also, the imams, Hanefi and Hanbeli, the founders of two of
the four orthodox sects of the Sunna; the sheikhs, Juneid, Shobli, and
Abdolkadir-Ghilani,[268] the chiefs of the mystic sect of the sofis.

In the midst of the monuments of the imams and sheikhs, stand those of
the khalifs, and their spouses; of which that of Zobeide, the wife of
Harun al Rashid, has, by the strength of its construction, survived the
repeated captures and destructions of Bagdad, by the Mongols, Persians,
and Turks. Equally splendid specimens of Saracenic architecture are
the academies, colleges, and schools; two of which have immortalized
the names of their founders in the history of Arabic literature. The
academies, Nisamie and Mostansarie, the former instituted in the first
half of the fifth century of the Hegira, by Nisam-ol-mulk, the great
grand-vizier of Melekshah, sultan of the Seljuks, the latter, built two
centuries later, by the Khalif Almostansar-billah, with four different
pulpits for the four orthodox sects of the Sunnites.

The most magnificent of all the palaces was that of the Khalif
Moktader-billah, called the “House of the Tree,”[269] and seated
in a wide extent of gardens. In the middle of the vestibule, near
two large basins of water, stood two trees of gold and silver, each
having eighteen branches, and a great number of smaller boughs. One
of these bore fruit and birds, whose variegated plumage was imitated
with different precious stones, and which gave forth melodious sounds,
by means of the motion of the branches, produced by a mechanical
contrivance. On the other tree were fifteen figures of cavaliers,
dressed in pearls and gold, with drawn swords, which, on a signal being
given, moved in concert. In this palace, the Khalif Moktader gave
audience to the ambassadors of the Greek emperor, Theophilus,[270]
and astonished them with the numbers of his army, and the splendour
of his court.[271] A hundred and sixty thousand men stood in their
ranks before the palace; the pages glittered in golden girdles; seven
thousand eunuchs, three thousand of whom were white, the rest black,
surrounded the entrance; and, immediately at the gate, were seven
hundred chamberlains. On the Tigris floated gilded barks and gondolas,
decorated with silken flags and streamers. The walls of the palace were
hung with thirty-eight thousand carpets, twelve thousand five hundred
of which were of gold tissue; and twenty-two thousand pieces of rich
stuff covered the floors. A hundred lions, held by their keepers with
golden chains, roared in concert with the sound of fifes and drums, the
clang of the trumpets, and the thundering of the tamtam.[272]

The entrance to the audience chamber was concealed by a black silk
curtain; and no one could pass the threshold, without kissing the black
stone of which it was formed, like the pilgrims at Mecca.[273] Behind
the black curtain, on a throne seven ells high, sat the khalif, habited
in the black mantle (_borda_) of the prophet, girded with his sword,
and holding his staff in his hand as a sceptre. Ambassadors, and even
princes, who received investiture, kissed the ground in front of the
throne, and approached, conducted by the vizier and an interpreter,
and were then honoured with a habit of ceremony (_khalaat_), and
presents. So Togrul-beg, the founder of the Seljuks, on receiving
investiture from the Khalif Kaim-Biemrillah, was dressed in seven
caftans, one over the other, and presented with seven slaves, from the
several different states forming the khalifat. He received two turbans,
two sabres, and two standards, in token of being invested with the
sovereignty of the east and the west.[274]

These proceedings of the khalif’s court were copied by that of
Byzantium; and traces of them have been preserved to the present day,
in the ceremonials of the great kingdoms both of the east and the west.
Theophilus, whose love of splendour rivalled that of the khalif, built
a palace in Constantinople, the exact counterpart of the “House of the
Tree,” even to the golden tree,[275] and the artificial singing birds
on it; which was no less an object of admiration to the envoys of the
European courts, than the original at Bagdad had been to the Greeks.
The etiquette of the khalif’s court, which was repeated at Byzantium,
still subsists at the Constantinopolitan courts, as Luitprand describes
it. When the khalif rode out, he was saluted with the shouting a long
formula of benediction;[276] in the same manner was the Greek emperor,
with the cry of “Many years” (πολυχρονιζειν)! and so is the Ottoman
sultan, at this day, with the usual “_Tehok-yasha_” (may he live long)!
The two turbans, which are placed before him when he enters the mosque,
signify his sovereignty over Asia and Europe; the prophet’s sword and
mantle are preserved in the treasury of the seraglio. The _borda_, that
is, the Arabian prince’s mantle of black, afterwards embroidered with
gold, is still worn by the princes of Lebanon, and the emirs of the
desert; its colours, black and gold, were adopted in the livery of the
Roman emperor.

The military force no longer bore any proportion to the splendour and
magnificence with which the sinking throne of the khalifat was still
enriched, as in the glorious days of Moktader. The army, indeed, still
consisted of sixty thousand cavalry, under the command of Suleimanshah;
but even this number was diminished by Ibn Alkami’s treachery. The
latter proposed the curtailing the forces, and dismissing the men,
in order to save their pay and preserve the treasure; and, in spite
of the opposite warning of the four greatest officers of state, the
commander-in-chief, Suleimanshah, the first and second ink-holders, or
secretaries of state, and the chief cup-bearer, he lulled the khalif
into security from the danger of the Mongols, so that he carelessly
stretched himself on the pillow of ease and effeminacy.

While he was occupied with the conquest of Kuhistan, and the
extirpation of the Assassins, Hulaku received a letter from Ibn
Alkami, who promised to deliver into his hands, the bulwarks and
treasure of the khalif city; and magnifying the charms of the capture,
he studiously depreciated the dangers of the attempt, till they
disappeared. The khan, however, did not blindly trust the traitor’s
promises; the former unsuccessful attempts upon Bagdad were too fresh
in his memory. Churmaghun, the general of Jenghis Khan, had, during
the reign of the Khalif Nassir-ledinillah, twice advanced against
Bagdad, with an army of a hundred and twenty-four thousand men; and
twice was he beaten back, with the loss of the greater part of his
forces. Hulaku had recourse to Nassireddin, his vizier, and, through
him, to the stars; in which the latter naturally read the overthrow
of the khalifat, so long determined upon by his revengeful spirit.
Ibn Alkami’s divining-rod struck on the deeply-concealed vein of
Nassireddin’s inveterate rancour, and treachery responded to revenge.

In accordance with Nassireddin’s counsels, Hulaku, as soon as he
reached Hamadan, sent the before-mentioned embassy to the khalif,
whom he requested to send to meet him, one of the two secretaries of
state, the chief cup-bearer, or the commander of the army, with whose
opposition to his views he was fully acquainted. The khalif sent the
learned orator, Ibn-al-jusi, who poured the oil of his eloquence into
the fire of wrath, and returned, without performing his task. Hulaku,
still more enraged, commanded the Emir Sogranjan to advance to Erdebil,
and cross the Tigris, and then to form a junction with the troops of
the Emir Boyanje, on the western side of Bagdad. In the meanwhile,
he himself broke up his head-quarters at Hamadan. On the news of the
advance of the Mongol vanguard reaching Bagdad, the khalif despatched
Fetheddin, one of his oldest and most experienced commanders, with the
secretary of state, Mujeheddin, one of his young favourites, and a
thousand cavalry, armed with lances, who, in the first action, beat the
Mongols, and forced them to retreat.

Fetheddin’s grey-headed experience wished to encamp; but Mujeheddin’s
youthful arrogance incited him so long with insulting charges of
cowardice and treachery, that he, at last, gave orders to pursue the
enemy. They overtook them at the western branch of the Tigris, called
Dojail, or Little Tigris. Fetheddin mounted a common horse, on whose
fore and hind legs he had iron chains fastened, and so remained in one
spot, to show to all that he was determined not to desert his post in
the field, and that he would either conquer or die there. Night, and
the fatigue of both armies, put an end to the combat, and dropping
their arms, they sank into those of sleep; but while the khalif’s army
were buried in slumber, the Mongols cut through some dykes, and the
water broke impetuously on the opposing forces. The darkness of the
rushing waters, and that of the night, was made still darker, by the
despair of the army. Then they saw the words of the Koran fulfilled:
“Darkness on darkness; everywhere darkness;” and, like Pharoah’s
host, they were buried in the waves. The brave old Fetheddin, whose
prudence would have averted the danger, perished; and the rash youth,
Mujeheddin, whose arrogance had produced it, escaped with two or
three companions, who brought the news of the catastrophe to Bagdad.
So blind was the khalif’s partiality to his favourite, so slight his
sorrow for the loss of his army, that on receiving the intelligence,
he merely exclaimed, three times, thankfully: “God be praised for the
preservation of Mujeheddin!” And when the enemy had already advanced as
far as Jebel-Hamr (the red mountain), three days’ march from Bagdad,
and he was informed of their approach, he only replied: “How can they
pass that mountain?” All representations to the contrary were either
unheard or ineffectual.

In the meanwhile, the main body of the Mongols had pushed forward on
the road of Yakuba, and was encamped on the eastern bank of the Tigris.
Then only did the khalif command the gates of Bagdad to be shut, the
fortifications to be garrisoned, and preparations to be made for
defence. The two secretaries and Suleimanshah once more led the _élite_
of the army, against the enemy. The battle lasted two days, with
various fortune, but with equal loss: on the third, Hulaku prohibited
the Mongols from renewing the attack, and resolved to enclose the city
in a blockade. On all the heights without the city, and on all the
towers and palaces which commanded it, were placed projectile engines,
throwing masses of rock and flaming naphtha, which breached the walls,
and set the buildings on fire.

At this period, the three presidents of the sherifs, or descendants
of Ali, who resided at Helle, on the banks of the Euphrates, not far
from the ruins of Babylon, sent a letter to Hulaku, in which they
offered their submission, and added bitter complaints of the wrongs
which they had suffered from the khalif. They informed him, that
according to a tradition preserved by their glorious ancestor, the Lion
of God, the sage of the faith, the son-in-law of the prophet Ali,
the son of Abu-taleb, the period of the fall of the family of Abbas,
and the conquest of Bagdad, was arrived. Hulaku, equally pleased with
the homage of the descendants of the prophet and with the prophecy,
answered them graciously, and commanded his general, Emir Alaeddin,
to occupy the district of Helle, and to protect the inhabitants from
violence. Thus their hatred against the family of Abbas secured them
against the rage of the Mongols.

After the siege had lasted forty days, the khalif convoked a general
assembly of all the grandees of the realm, in which Ibn Alkami
spoke at great length of the innumerable host of the Mongols, and
the impossibility of long resisting them; he therefore, recommended
a treaty with Hulaku, who was more desirous of the treasures than
the dominions of the khalif; he advised a mutual alliance between a
daughter of Hulaku and a son of the khalif, and between a daughter
of the latter and a son of the former, that the ties of peace and
friendship might be drawn the closer. For this purpose, the khalif
should go in person to the khan’s camp, and thus the blood of thousands
would be spared, the city preserved from utter destruction, and the
khalifat fortified against every enemy by the acquisition of so
powerful an ally.

The fear and pusillanimity of the khalif caused him to listen to
Alkami’s faithless advice. He sent him, in the first place, into the
camp to negotiate peace, under the same conditions as had been offered
to him from Hamadan; he returned with the answer, probably suggested by
himself, that “What was admissible at Hamadan, is no longer so before
the gates of Bagdad.” Then, only one of the great dignities of the
realm was demanded; now all four were, namely: the commander of the
army, Suleimanshah, the two ink-holders or secretaries of state, and
the chief cup-bearer. The siege continued six days longer with renewed
vehemence; on the seventh, Hulaku caused six letters of immunity to be
prepared, in which it was stated that the kadis and the seids, the
sheikhs and imams who had not borne arms should be secure of their
lives and property; these letters were attached to arrows, and shot
into the city on six sides. One of the two secretaries, who despaired
of the safety of the city, and was more anxious for his own, embarked
on the Tigris to seek it in flight; as however, he came abreast
of Kariet-ol-akab, he was stopped by a body of the Mongol troops,
posted there for the purpose of cutting off the communication between
Medain and Basra. Three of his vessels fell a prey to the flaming
naphtha, and he was himself compelled to return. The khalif, who had
already renounced all hope, now sent Fakhreddin Damaghani, and Ibn
Derwish, with presents to Hulaku, and to treat with him concerning the
conditions of peace. These two, however, returning without success, he
despatched, on the following day, his son Abulfase Abdorrahman, with
very considerable presents, and, on the third, his brother Abulfasl
Abubekr, with the noblest and greatest personages in the state. These
embassies were as fruitless as the first, and the vizier, who was sent
into the camp along with Ibn-al-jusi, again brought back the surrender
of Suleimanshah and the secretaries, as the indisputable condition of
the khalif’s free exit.

Suleimanshah, and one of the secretaries, after being assured of
a safe conduct, went to Hulaku, who sent them back to the city,
commanding them to bring with them their families and whole household,
in order that he might send them unobstructedly to Syria and Egypt;
they returned to the camp with a considerable escort of troops, who
seized this opportunity of deserting the city. Different quarters had
just been assigned them, when an Indian struck out the eye of one of
Hulaku’s principal emirs, with an arrow; Hulaku seized this accident as
a pretext for the most sanguinary rage; he commanded the secretary of
state and his suite to be put to death, and the general, Suleimanshah,
and his officers, to be brought, bound, before him: he said to him,
“How comes it, that so great an astrologer as thou could not foresee
the hour of thy death? Wherefore didst thou not counsel thy lord to
enter the path of submission, in order to save thy own life and that of
others?” Suleimanshah replied, that “the khalif’s evil star had made
him deaf to good advice.” After some interrogatories and replies of
this kind, the general and his officers were put to the sword.

Many thousands, who had surrendered into the hands of the conqueror
on the faith of the safe conduct, were murdered, unarmed, after they
had been separated from each other, on pretence of being sent into
different provinces; a cold-blooded and faithless cruelty, which,
however, is not without example, having been repeated both in the
east and in the west. The history of Alexander, of Charlemagne,
Jengiskhan, Timur, and other conquerors, presents us with instances
similar to this atrocity of Hulaku, agreeing also wonderfully with it
in the number of the victims,—from three to four thousand,—as well as
in the circumstances of the promised safe retreat, the division into
detachments, and the dialogue held with the commanders, who, for that
very reason, were the more certain of their lives being spared.

The khalif seeing no farther hope of saving his life except by
surrendering to the conqueror, repaired to the khan’s camp, after a
siege of forty-nine days, on Sunday, the 4th of the month Jafer, in the
656th year of the Hegira; he was attended by his brother and his two
sons, together with a suite of nearly three thousand persons, kadhis,
seids, sheikhs, and imams; only the khalif and the three princes,
his brother and two sons, together with three of the suite (one in
a thousand), in all, seven persons, were admitted to an audience.
Hulaku concealed the perfidy of his designs under the mask of smooth
words, and the most friendly reception. He requested the khalif to
send word into the city that the armed inhabitants should throw away
their weapons, and assemble before the gates, in order that a general
census might be taken. At the order of the khalif the city poured out
its unarmed defenders, who, as well as the person of Mostassem, were
secured. The next day, at sunrise, Hulaku issued commands to fill up
the ditch, demolish the walls, pillage the city, and massacre the
inhabitants. The ditch, according to the expression of the Persian
historian, deep as the deep reflections of wisdom, and the walls as
high as the soaring of a lofty mind, were, in an hour, levelled.
The army of the Mongols, as numerous as ants and locusts, mined the
fortifications like an ant-hill, and then fell upon the city as
destructive as a cloud of the latter; the Tigris was dyed with blood,
and flowed as red as the Nile, when Moses, by a miracle, changed its
waves into blood; or, it was at least as red as the Egyptian river is
to this day, when it is swollen by that annual miracle of nature, its
overflow, and coloured red by the red loam and sand which it washes
down from Abyssinia; affording a natural explanation of the Mosaic
miracle.

The city was a prey to fire and the sword; the minarets and domes of
the mosques glowed, like fiery columns and cupolas; from the roofs of
the mosques and baths, flowed melted gold and lead, setting on fire the
palm and cypress groves which surrounded them. The gilded battlements
of the palaces fell like stars to the earth,—like the demons who
endeavoured to scale the battlements of Heaven. In the mausolea, the
mortal remains of the sheikhs and pious imams, and in the academies,
the immortal works of great and learned men, were consumed to ashes;
books were thrown into the fire, or where that was distant and the
Tigris near, were buried in the waters of the latter. Gold and silver
vessels from the palaces and kitchens of the great, fell, in such
quantities, into the hands of the ignorant Mongols, that they sold
them by weight, like brass or tin. The treasures of Asiatic splendour
and art, accumulated for centuries in the khalif’s city, became the
booty of barbarians. So great a quantity of Persian and Chinese gold
tissues, Arab horses, Egyptian mules, Greek and Abyssinian slaves of
both sexes, coined and uncoined gold, silver, pearls, and precious
stones, was found, that the private soldier became richer than even
the chiefs of the army or the khan himself had ever been before. And
yet the treasures of the khalif’s palace had not been touched, as these
the khan retained for himself.

After four days’ pillage, he went, on the 9th of the month Safir, in
company with the khalif, to the palace of the latter; where he, as
his guest, as he said, desired his host to give him all that he was
able. This Mongol politeness struck the khalif with such terror, that
his whole body trembled, and as he either had not the keys, or could
not find them, he ordered the bolts and locks to be broken open.
Two thousand costly garments, ten thousand ducats, and many jewels,
were brought out; which the khan, without deigning them a glance,
distributed among his suite, and then turned to the khalif, with the
words: “Thy public treasures belong to my servants; now produce thy
concealed ones.” Mostassem pointed to a spot, on excavating which were
found the two basins of treasure, so celebrated in the history of
the khalifat, each filled with bars of gold, weighing each a hundred
miscals. Nassir-ledinillah’s wise economy had commenced filling these
two vessels; Mostanssur’s prodigality emptied them; and Mostassem’s
avarice again replenished them.

An anecdote is told, in the history of the last reigns of the khalifs,
that Mostanssur, when he paid his first visit to this treasure, prayed
aloud: “Lord, my God! grant me the favour to be enabled to empty both
these vessels during my reign!” The treasurer smiled, and being asked
his reason, he said: “When thy grandfather visited this treasure, he
besought heaven to reign only until he had filled these two basins;
while thou desirest precisely the reverse.” Mostanssur applied this
gold in the foundation of useful institutions, which immortalize his
name; particularly in the erection of the celebrated academy, which was
named after him, Mostansarie, and also Omm-ol-Medaris, that is, the
Mother of Academies. Mostassem, on the other hand, hoarded gold from
avarice; whereas, a politic application of his riches, in the pay of
troops and tribute, might have saved his throne from ruin.

Hulaku’s cruelty to Mostassem, realized the Grecian fable of the wishes
of King Midas. He commanded plates filled with gold to be placed before
him, instead of food; and on the khalif’s observing that gold was not
food, the Mongol told him, by an interpreter: “For that very reason
that it is not food, wherefore hast thou not rather given it to thine
army to defend thee, or distributed it amongst mine to satisfy me?”
Too late, Mostassem repented the consequences of his avarice, and
after spending a sleepless night, tormented with the pangs of hunger
and conscience, he prayed, in the morning, in the words of the Koran:
“O Lord, my God! possessor of all power; thou givest it to whom thou
wilt, and takest from whom thou wilt; thou raisest up and pullest down
whomsoever thou pleasest; in thy hands is all goodness, and thou art
mighty over all things!”

The khan now held a council of his ministers, to deliberate concerning
the fate of the khalif; and it being their unanimous opinion, that
prolonging his existence would only be preserving the bloody seeds of
war and insurrection, and that only with his life could the dominion
of the khalifat be terminated, his death was determined. But as Hulaku
himself deemed it improper that the khalif should suffer as an ordinary
criminal, and the blood of the prophet’s successor be shed by the
sword, Mostassem was wrapped in a thick cloth, and beaten to death.
So great was the religious veneration for the sacred person of the
khalif, and thus did eastern etiquette extend even to the execution of
kings. From similar motives of reverence, the Ottoman sultans, when a
revolt costs them their lives, are not strangled, but are put to death
by compression of the genitals:—a singular and elaborate trait of
executioner tenderness!

As the pillage and sack of Bagdad had commenced four days before
the khalif’s death, so it continued forty days afterwards; till
the barbarians dropped their swords from fatigue, and fuel was
wanting for the flames. If we abstract the usual horrors of insulted
humanity, which have been repeated in every sacked city, and only in
Bagdad were carried to the highest pitch of enormity, we shall not
blame the Mongols so much in their conquest of that city, for the
conflagration of the mosques, and the desecration of the mausolea,
for the destruction of the immense treasures, and the melting of the
gold and silver vessels, nor even for the demolition of the bulwarks
of holiness, and the overthrow of the khalif throne, as for the
annihilation of the libraries, and the loss of many hundred thousand
volumes, which fell a prey to the flames.

They consisted of the treasures of Arabic literature, the accumulation
of nearly five hundred years; together with the relics of the Persian,
which had probably been saved from the destruction of Medain. As the
second khalif had commanded his general, in Egypt, to consume the
Alexandrian library, so he also caused that of Medain, the residence of
Khosroes, to be thrown into the Tigris; and Omar, whom some European
historians have in vain endeavoured to exculpate from this high treason
against literature, is loaded with the double guilt of the double _auto
da fe_ of the Greek and the Persian library, by fire and water. As the
Arabs destroyed these libraries, five centuries before, in two years;
so did the Mongols, in the same space, annihilate the Arabian libraries
of Alamut and Bagdad. To this double conflagration must be added, that
of the great libraries of Tripoli, Nishabur, and Cairo, in the same
century. Thus the conjunction of the seven planets in the same sign of
the zodiac, which indicated, according to some astrologers, a universal
deluge, and according to others, a universal conflagration, might be
justly understood to signify the inundation of the Mongols, and the
burning of the libraries.

A most melancholy observation is suggested by the destruction of the
libraries of Alamut and Bagdad; it is, that the fall of both was
caused by the guilt of learned men: the former, by the perfidy of
the astronomer, Nassireddin; the latter, by the treachery of the _bel
esprit_, Ibn Alkami; both being sacrificed to their revenge. The fate
of these two learned statesmen, distinguished alike by their great
talents and evil hearts, who caused the overthrow of the Assassins and
the khalifat, falls now to be mentioned. A few words will suffice.
After the conquest of Bagdad, Nassireddin built the celebrated
observatory of Meragha; by which, as well as his astronomical tables,
both his name and that of Hulaku are immortalized in the history of
astronomy. Thus that science derived, at least, some advantage from
the many evils in which astrology had been its handmaid. Ibn Alkami,
the man of letters, and vizier, instead of the reward he expected,
reaped that of a traitor. As such, treated by the Mongols with the
most profound contempt, he died, in a few days, a prey to remorse and
despair. The inhabitants of Bagdad wrote on every wall, over the gates
of the caravanserais and schools, in large letters cut in marble: “The
curse of God on him who curses not Ibn Alkami!” One of the traitor’s
partisans, a Shiite, having expunged the “not” from one of these
inscriptions, was punished with seventy blows of the bastinado. The
name of Ibn Alkami is intimately interwoven with that of Nassireddin,
in the history of the fall of the Assassins, and the khalifat. Asia
long trembled from the shock of the violent fall of the empire of the
dagger, and the prophet’s staff.

The conquest of Bagdad has almost diverted us from our proper object,
not merely by the intrinsic importance of the subject, but also on
account of its intimate connexion with the end of the Assassins, whose
overthrow prepared that of the khalifat.

After their castles in Rudbar and Kuhistan had been razed to the
ground, and numbers of them massacred and scattered, they still
maintained their stand, for fourteen years, in the mountains of Syria,
against the armies of the Mongols, the Franks, and the Egyptian sultan,
Bibars, one of the greatest princes of the Circassian Mamelukes of
Egypt. This prince, who zealously sought for supreme power, was not
inclined to share it any longer with the remains of the Assassin
order, which had been chased from the mountains of Persia. During his
reign, Frank and Arab vessels put into the Egyptian ports,[277] with
embassies; which the Christian and Arabic princes, such as the German
emperor, Alphonso of Arragon, the commander of Yemen, and others,
sent with rich presents to the Syrian Ismailites. Bibars, in order
to show that he was far above all fear of the order, levied on all
these presents the usual customs; and sent to the superior in Syria, a
letter, full of threats and reproaches. Terrified and humbled by their
misfortunes in Persia, they answered submissively, and with the request
that the sultan would not forget them in his peace with the Franks, but
include them in his treaty, in token of his protection of them as his
slaves; and, in fact, Bibars, who, in this year, concluded a peace with
the knights-hospitallers, made the abolition of the tribute paid by the
Ismailites, one of the conditions of the treaty. The following year,
he received an embassy of the Ismailites, who sent him a sum of money,
with the words: “That the money which they had hitherto paid to the
Franks, should, in future, flow into the treasury of the sultan; and
serve for the pay of the defenders of the true faith”.[278]

Three years afterwards,[279] when Sultan Bibars was marching against
the Franks, in Syria, the commanders of the different towns appeared
to do him homage. Nejmeddin, the grand-master of the Assassins,
however, instead of following this example, requested a diminution of
the tribute, which the order now paid to the sultan instead of the
Franks. Saremeddin Mobarek, the commandant of the Ismailite fortress,
Alika, had formerly drawn upon himself the anger of the sultan; but
having received pardon on the intercession of the governor of Sihinn,
or, according to others, of Hama, he appeared with a numerous suite,
in Bibar’s presence, who received him into favour and loaded him with
honours. He granted him the supreme command of all the castles of the
Ismailites in Syria, which were no longer to be governed by Nejmeddin,
but by Saremeddin, in the name of the sultan of Egypt. Massiat, as the
property of the sultan, was subjected to the command of Emir Aseddin.
In conformity with his orders, Saremeddin appeared before the walls of
this fortress; of which he possessed himself, partly by stratagem, and
partly by the massacre of a number of the inhabitants. Nejmeddin, the
late grand-master of the order, an old man of seventy years of age, and
his son, implored the sultan’s clemency. He had compassion on them; and
granted the former the restoration of his authority, in conjunction
with Saremeddin, in consideration of an annual tribute of a hundred and
twenty thousand drachmas. A contribution of two thousand gold pieces,
was required of Saremeddin; and Nejmeddin left his son in the sultan’s
court, as a pledge of his obedience and fidelity.[280]

In the meanwhile, Saremeddin having taken possession of Massiat,
drove out Aseddin, the governor named by the sultan; but not being
able to maintain the place against the approaching forces of the
sultan, he threw himself into the castle of Alika. Aseddin returned
from Damascus, whither he had taken refuge, again to Massiat, to the
command of which he was restored by the sultan’s troops, who left him
a garrison and body guard. Malik Manssur, Prince of Hama, who had been
charged by Bibars with the restoration of the emir, and the deposition
of Saremeddin, took the latter prisoner, and brought him before the
sultan, who threw him into a dungeon. The castle of Alika surrendered
to the sultan’s army on the 9th of Shewal.

Nejmeddin, the former grand-prior, again held the command of the
Ismailite castles in Syria,[281] in the name of the sultan, by whom
Shemseddin was retained at court, as the pledge of his father’s
fidelity. On a suspicion being raised against him, he came in person
to court, and offered, with his son, Shemseddin, to deliver up all the
castles, and to live in future in Egypt; his offer was accepted, and
Shemseddin departed for Kehef, to induce the inhabitants to surrender
within twenty days. Not appearing, however, at the end of this term,
the sultan admonished him, by letter, to fulfill his promise; and
Shemseddin desired that the castle of Kolaia should be left in his
possession, in exchange for which he engaged to yield all the rest. The
sultan acceded to his request; and sent Aalemeddin Sanjar, the judge
of Hama, for the purpose of receiving from Shemseddin, the oath of
allegiance, and the keys of Kehef; the inhabitants, however, secretly
instigated by the latter, refused to admit the envoy.

A second embassy having no better effect, Bibars gave orders for the
castle to be besieged. On this, Shemseddin left Kehef, and repaired to
the sultan, who was encamped before Hama, and was honourably received;
receiving, however, intelligence in a letter, that the inhabitants
of Kehef had sent Assassins into the camp, in order to murder his
principal emirs, Bibars caused Shemseddin and all his suite to be
arrested, and carried into Egypt. At the same time, two officers of the
order, who had persuaded their friends in the castle of Khawabi, to
surrender to the sultan, were seized at Sarmin. This castle surrendered
to negotiation, that of Kolaia to force; and, in the following
year, those of Menifa and Kadmus fell into the sultan’s hands. The
inhabitants of Kehef wished to oppose a longer resistance; but being
closely blockaded, and cut off from all relief, they at length sent
Bibars the keys of the town; and the Emir Jemaleddin Akonsa made his
entry on the 22d of Silvide.

From this moment, Bibars was master of all the forts and castles which
had been in the possession of the Ismailites; and he ruined their power
in Syria, as Hulaku had done in Persia. Next to Massiat, the residence
of the grand-master, Shiun, a strong place on a rock, abundantly
supplied with water,[282] and at a short day’s journey from Latakia,
had been lately particularly distinguished, by the valiant exploits
of its commandant, Hamsa, one of the greatest heroes among the Syrian
Ismailites. This Hamsa must not be confounded with Hamsa, the companion
of the prophet, and one of the bravest heroes of Mohammedanism; nor
with Hamsa, the founder of the religion of the Druses. The numerous
battles and enterprises of the Assassins, their valorous defence
against the armies of the Crusaders, and the Egyptian sultan, Bibars,
and the adventurous character of their whole history, offered a fertile
source to the Syrian romance writers and story-tellers; a source of
which they did not fail to avail themselves.

This was the origin of the Hamsaname, or Hamsiads,[283] a kind of
chivalrous romance, modelled after the style of the Antar, Dulhemmet,
Benihilal, and other Egyptian works. After the conquest of Syria, by
the Ottomans, the tales of the feats and adventures of Hamsa passed
from the mouths of the Arabian story-tellers and coffee-house orators,
to those of the Turks; and Hamsa, together with Sid Battal (Cid y
Campeador) the proper Cid of the orientals, an Arabian hero, who fell
in battle against the Greeks, at the siege of Constantinople, by Harun
al Rashid,[284] afforded the richest materials for Turkish romances,
which are exclusively occupied by the feats of Hamsa and Sid Battal.
The tomb of the Sid in the Anatolian Sanjak Sultanoghi is, to this
day, a much frequented resort of pilgrimages, enriched by the Sultan
Suleiman, the legislator, with the endowment of a mosque, a convent,
and an academy.[285]

The conquest of Massiat was succeeded by that of Alika, and, at length,
two years after, by that of Kahaf, Mainoka Kadmus, and of the other
castles on the Antilebanon; and thus the power of the Ismailites was
overthrown, both in Syria and Persia. One of their last attempts at
assassination is said to have been directed against the person of St.
Louis, King of France, but the falsity of this supposition has already
been demonstrated, by French writers.[286]

The power of the Ismailites had now terminated, both in Persia and
Syria; the citadels of the grand-master, in Rudbar, and of the
grand-priors, in Kuhistan and Syria, had fallen; the bands of the
Assassins were massacred and scattered; their doctrine was publicly
condemned, yet, nevertheless, continued to be secretly taught, and the
order of the Assassins, like that of the Jesuits, endured long after
its suppression. In Kuhistan, in particular, remains of them still
existed; that being a region which, on account of its very mountainous
character, was more impracticable than the surrounding countries, and,
being less accessible to the persecutors of the order, it afforded the
partisans of the latter a more secure asylum.

Seventy years after the taking of Alamut and Bagdad, in the reign of
Hulaku’s eighth successor, Abu Said Behadir Khan, the great protector
of the sciences, to whom Wassaf dedicated his history, the whole of
Kuhistan was devoted to the pernicious sect of the Ismailites, and the
doctrine of Islamism had not yet been able to enter the hearts of the
natives, hard as their mountain rocks. Abusaid determined, in concert
with the lieutenant of the province, Shah Ali Sejestani, to send an
apostolic mission, for the conversion of these miscreants and infidels.
At the head of the society of missionaries, which was composed of
zealous divines, was the Sheikh Amadeddin, surnamed of Bokhara,
one of the most esteemed jurisconsults, who, on the destruction of
that city, had fled to Kuhistan. His grandson, Jelali, in his work,
“Nassaih-ol-Moluk” (_Counsels for Kings_), dedicated to the Sultan
Shahrokh, the son of Timur, relates the history of this mission from
the mouth of his father, who had accompanied his grandfather to
Kuhistan.[287]

Amadeddin, with his two sons, Hossameddin and Nejmeddin, the father
of Jelali, and four other Ulemas, in all seven persons, went to Kain,
the chief seat of the Ismailites; where, since the illuminative period
of Hassan II., the mosques had fallen down, the pious institutions
decayed—where the word of the Koran was no longer heard from the
pulpit, nor the call to prayers sounded from the minaret. As prayer,
five times a day, is the first of the duties of Islamism, and the call
to it proclaims aloud the creed of the faithful, Amadeddin resolved
to commence his mission with it. He went, therefore, with his six
companions armed, to the terrace of the castle of Kain, from whence,
they began, at the same instant, to cry out on all sides: “Say God
is great! there is no God but God, and Mohammed is his prophet. To
prayers! Up! to do good!” This summons, to which the unbelieving
inhabitants had long been unaccustomed, instead of collecting them
in the mosque, excited them to a tumult against the summoners; and,
although the latter had taken the precaution to be armed, they did not
deem it expedient to purchase the crown of martyrdom with their lives,
by defending themselves, but took refuge in a drain, where they hid.
As soon as the people were dispersed, they again mounted the terrace,
and repeated the call to prayers, and the retreat to the drain. In this
manner, their obstinate zeal, supported by the power of the governor,
succeeded in accustoming the ears of the infidels to the formula of
the summons to prayer, and then to that of prayer itself; and sowed
the good seed of the true doctrine of Islamism on the waste field of
infidelity and atheism.[288]

While the political wisdom of Abusaid was endeavouring to extirpate
the Ismailite doctrine in Persia, its ashes still smouldered in
Syria; and, from time to time, threw out destructive flames, which
were extinguished in the blood of the slaughtered victims. As it
had originated in Egypt, and had but served as an instrument of the
ambitious designs of the Fatimites; so the Circassian sultans of that
country availed themselves of the last fruits of the wide-spread tree
of murderous policy, in order to execute their revenge, and to try the
dagger on those enemies who resisted the sword. A memorable instance of
such an attempt, is afforded us in the history of the Emir Kara Sonkor,
who had deserted the court of the Egyptian sultans, and had entered
into the service of the khan of the Mongols.

Two years after[289] Abusaid had sent the before-mentioned learned
Jelali to Kuhistan, the Egyptian sultan, Mohammed, the son of Bibars,
sent no less than thirty Assassins from Massiat to Persia, to sacrifice
the Emir Kara Sonkor to his vengeance. They arrived at Tebris, and the
first having been cut to pieces in his murderous attempt, the report
was soon spread that Assassins were come to murder the Khan Abusaid,
the Emir Juban, the Vizier Ali Shah, and all the Mongol nobles. A
second attempt on the life of Kara Sonkor cost, like the former one,
that of the murderer. A similar attack had been made on the governor of
Bagdad, and Abusaid, the great khan, prudently shut himself up in his
tent for eleven days. Nevertheless, the Egyptian sultan, Mohammed, did
not give up his vengeful attempt on the life of Kara Sonkor. He sent a
merchant, named Yunis, to Tebris, with a large sum of money, to hire
new Assassins. Yunis sent for them from Massiat, and concealed them
in his house. One day, as the Emir Juban was riding in company with
the Emirs Kara Sonkor and Afrem, two Assassins watched a favourable
opportunity to murder the two latter. The first assailant, who was too
hasty in his attack on the Emir Afrem, only tore his clothes with his
dagger, instead of wounding his breast, and being cut down on the
spot, the second did not think it advisable to approach Kara Sonkor.

Inquiries were immediately set on foot into the Funduks (_Fondaeki_)
of Tebris, for the purpose of discovering the haunts of the Assassins;
the merchant, Yunis, was arrested, but his life was preserved by the
interest of the vizier. The Emirs Afrem and Kara Sonkor took all
necessary precautions for the preservation of their own. A servant of
the latter, a native of Massiat, searched the whole city of Tebris, to
find out the Assassin who was to have poniarded his lord; and found
him, at last, in the person of his own brother. The emir, in order to
gain him over, gave him a hundred pieces of gold, and a monthly salary
of three hundred dirhems, together with other presents; for which, he
was induced to betray his accomplices. One of them escaped; another
stabbed himself; a third expired under the torture, without confessing
anything.

In the meanwhile, the Assassins at Bagdad executed their commission
better than those at Tebris. One of them threw himself on the governor,
as he was going out to ride, and plunged his dagger into his breast,
saying: “In the name of Melek Nassir;” and escaped so quickly to
Massiat, that he could not be overtaken. From that place, he sent
information of the accomplishment of the murder of the governor, to
Sultan Mohammed.[290] The two emirs redoubled their vigilance; and, by
means of the Ismailite in Kara Sonkor’s pay, discovered four others,
who were immediately put to death. Nejmeddin Selami, who had been sent
as ambassador, from Mohammed to the Khan Abusaid, insinuated himself
into a confidential intercourse with the Emir Juban, and the vizier. He
informed his master of the execution of the four Assassins; in whose
place four others were immediately sent; three of them being arrested
and discovered, expired under the pangs of the torture; fortunately for
Selami, the fourth escaped, who was the bearer of the sultan’s letter
to his plenipotentiary at Massiat, whence he apprised the sultan of the
ill success of his mission.

Selami continued his negotiations with the Emir Juban and the
vizier, so happily, that they concluded a peace with the sultan, on
condition that he should send no more Assassins into their country.
Notwithstanding this, the Emir Kara Sonkor was attacked anew, while he
was hunting, by a murderer, who only, however, wounded his horse in the
thigh, and was immediately killed by the guard. Even in the suite of
the Emir Itmash, who came on his second embassy to Abusaid’s court, two
Assassins were detected; one of whom immediately stabbed himself, and
the other, after refusing to confess, was put to death in chains. Juban
loaded Itmash with reproaches, saying that, by sending these murderers,
the sultan scoffed at the treaty; and the ambassador assured him, in
return, that if they really were Assassins, they must have arrived at
Tebris, before it was signed. After Itmash and Selami had returned to
the sultan, their master, in Cairo, the latter wrote once more to the
Massiat Ismailites, reproaching them for not fulfilling their contract.
They sent him for answer, one of their best Fedavis, a great eater, who
devoured a calf, and drank forty measures of wine a-day. After being
kept some time, at Keremeddin’s house, in Cairo, he went to the court
of the great Khan Abusaid, in the suite of Selami, who was sent as
ambassador, with presents.

At the feast of Bairam, when the emirs were attending the khan, Selami
ordered the Assassin to watch the moment when Kara Sonkor should leave
the palace, from the banquet: “The first,” said he, “who comes out,
is the destined victim.” By accident, the vizier called the Emir Kara
Sonkor back, just as he was on the point of quitting the palace; and
the governor of Rum, who was dressed in red, like him, fell beneath
the blows of the murderer, who jumped from a roof on to the governor’s
horse, and stabbed him. Being taken, he died under the most horrible
tortures, without confessing a word. Murderer succeeded murderer, in
attempting to satisfy the sultan’s desire of revenge; but, fortunately,
Kara Sonkor escaped them all. If we may credit the testimony of
Macrisi, no less than one hundred and twenty-four Assassins lost their
lives in attempting that of Kara Sonkor; so little is the life of man
in the power of his species, and so incapable are the tools of murder
of cutting the thread of those days, which the Almighty has numbered.

Three generations after Abusaid’s mission, when the whole of Kuhistan
had returned, at least in appearance, within the pale of the true
faith, the Sultan Shahrokh, the son of Timur, sent Jelali, of Kain,
who usually lived in Herat, and was thence called Al Herat, and Al
Kaini, for the purpose of ascertaining the state of belief in that
province. Jelali felt himself the more called upon to engage in
this inquisitorial affair, as his grandfather had presided over the
apostolic mission, and because the prophet had appeared to him in a
dream, and put a broom in his hand, with which he was to sweep the
country. He interpreted this vision as a celestial call, by which he
was appointed to the high office of cleansing away all the impurities
of unbelief; and he entered upon it with a conscientious zeal, and a
spirit of more than Islamitic toleration. His before-mentioned work,
“The Counsels for Kings,” contains the results of the report of his
inquiry given to Sultan Shahrokh, and likewise, some information
respecting the secret policy of the still unconverted Ismailites, taken
from Jowaini’s “History of Jehan Kusha (_the Conqueror of Worlds_).”

Within the space of eighteen months, Jelali travelled through the
whole of Kuhistan; and every where found that the Ulemas, or teachers
of the law, were true orthodox Sunnites. The seids, the descendants
of the prophet, passed for such; and, still more, the dervishes, who
represented themselves to be sofis, or mystics. The emirs of Tabs and
Shirkuh were good Sunnites; but the commanders of the other castles,
and even the servants of the government (_Beg-jian_), were to be
suspected. For the rest, the peasants, merchants, mechanics, were all
good Moslimin.

Notwithstanding the people were entirely devoted to the true doctrine
of Islamism, still it appears that the order preserved its existence in
secret, long after the loss of temporal power, in the hope of, sometime
or other, recovering it, under more favourable circumstances. The
Ismailites, indeed, no longer ventured to unsheath the dagger against
their foes; but the chief aim of their policy, to acquire influence
in affairs of state, remained; they, in particular, sought to make
proselytes of the members of the divan; in order, by this means, to
secure the majority of voices in their favour, and to stifle in their
birth, all complaints and denunciations of their secret doctrine. For
this reason, the author of “Jehan Kusha, (_Conqueror of the World_),”
as well as the writer of the “Siasset-ol-Moluk” (_Art of Governing;
or, Discipline of Kings_), warns princes to place in the divan none
of the officers of Kuhistan, who were more or less to be suspected,
on account of their principles. When intrusted with the management of
the finances, they were, indeed, never in arrear with their contracts;
so that the public treasury had never any claims against them; they,
however, ruined the villages which they farmed, and sent the surplus of
the taxes to their secret superiors, who still preserved an existence
at Alamut, the centre of the ancient splendour of the order. Thither
also flowed a portion of the revenues of pious institutions, the
produce of which was destined for the support of mosques and schools,
servants of religion, and teachers. Similar well-intentioned warnings
have, in our own times, been frequently given to princes: the attentive
ear of government is always the most powerful obstacle to the rise of
secret orders and societies to power.

Remains of the Ismailites still exist both in Persia and Syria,[291]
but merely as one of the many sects and heresies of Islamism, without
any claims to power, without the means of obtaining their former
importance, of which they seem, in fact, to have lost all remembrance.
The policy of the secret state-subverting doctrine of the first lodge
of the Ismailites, and the murderous tactics of the Assassins, are
equally foreign to them. Their writings are a shapeless mixture of
Ismailite and Christian traditions, glossed over with the ravings of
the mystic theology. Their places of abode are, both in Persia and
Syria, those of their forefathers, in the mountains of Irak, and at the
foot of Antilebanon.[292]

The Persian Ismailites recognise, as their chief, an imam, whose
descent they deduce from Ismael the son of Jafer-Essadik, and who
resides at Khekh, a village in the district of Kum, under the
protection of the shah. As, according to their doctrine, the imam is
an incarnate emanation of the Deity, the imam of Khekh enjoys, to this
day, the reputation of miraculous powers; and the Ismailites, some
of whom are dispersed as far as India, go in pilgrimage, from the
banks of the Ganges and the Indus, in order to share his benediction.
The castles in the district of Rudbar, in the mountains of Kuhistan,
particularly in the vicinity of Alamut, are still inhabited, to this
day, by Ismailites, who, according to a late traveller, go by the
general name of Hosseinis.[293]

The Syrian Ismailites live in eighteen villages, dispersed round their
ancient chief place, Massiat, and are under the rule of a sheikh or
emir, who is the nominee of the governor of Hamah. Being clothed in a
pelisse of honour, he engages to pay to Hamah an annual sum of sixteen
thousand five hundred piastres; his vassals are divided into two
parties, the Suweidani and Khisrewi: the former so named after one of
their former sheikhs; the latter, for their extraordinary veneration
of the prophet Khiser (Elias), the guardian of the spring of life:
the former, who are by far the smaller number, live principally at
Feudara, one of the eighteen places under the jurisdiction of Massiat;
three miles east of that fortress lies a strong castle, whose name,
pronounced Kalamus, is probably the same with the Kadmos of Arabian
historians and geographers; from thence, the chain of mountains, after
several windings, descends to the sea, near Tripoli.

In 1809, the Nossairis, the neighbours and enemies of the Ismailites,
possessed themselves, by treachery, of their chief fortress, Massiat;
the inhabitants were pillaged and murdered; the booty amounted to
more than a million piastres in value. The governor of Hamah did not
suffer this rash enterprise of the Nossairis to go unpunished; he
besieged Massiat, and compelled them to resign the fortress to its
ancient possessors; the latter, however, sunk into complete political
insignificance. Externally they practise the duties of Islamism with
austerity, although they internally renounce them: they believe in the
divinity of Ali; in uncreated light as the principle of all created
things; and in the Sheikh Rashideddin, the grand-prior of the order
in Syria, contemporary with the grand-master, Hassan II., as the last
representative of the Deity on earth.

We shall mention here, in passing, as they are neighbours of the
Ismailites, the Nossairis, the Motewellis, and the Druses, three sects
anathematized by the Moslems, on account of their infidelity and
lawlessness. Their doctrine agrees, in many points, with that of the
Ismailites; their founders having been animated with the same spirit of
extravagant fanaticism,—of unprincipled licentiousness. The Nossairis
and Druses are both older in their origin than the eastern Ismailites;
the former having appeared in Syria, as a branch of the Karmathites,
as early as the fifth century of the Hegira; the latter received their
laws from Hamsa, a missionary of Hakem-biemrillah’s from the lodge of
Cairo. The former believe, like the Ismailites, in the incarnation
of the divinity in Ali; the latter consider that maddest of tyrants,
Hakem-biemrillah, as a god in the flesh. Both abjure all the rules of
Islamism, or only observe them in appearance; both hold secret and
nocturnal assemblies stigmatized by the Moslimin, where they give
themselves up to the enjoyment of wine and promiscuous intercourse.

The origin and doctrine of the Motewelli is less known than that of
the Nossairis and Druses. Their name is corrupted from Motewilin,
the _interpreters_; and therefore, probably, indicates a sect of the
Ismailites, who taught the _Tenvil_, or allegorical interpretation of
the commands of Islamism, in opposition to the _Tensil_, or positive
letter of the word, not from God, the sense of which is a command to
the true believer.[294]

The reproach of immorality, which these sects share in common, is
certainly much more applicable to the Motewellis than to their
neighbours. For the inhabitants of the village of Martaban, on the road
from Latakia to Aleppo, who offer travellers the enjoyment of their
wives and daughters, and who consider their refusal as an affront, are
Motewellis.[295]

In still worse report than the Ismailites, Motewellis, Nossairis and
Druses, are some tribes of Syrian and Assyrian kurds, who are called
Yezidis, because they hold in peculiar veneration Yezid, the khalif
of the Ommia family, who persecuted, sanguinarily, the family of the
prophet, and likewise the devil, neither of whom they curse like other
Moslimin. Their sheikh is called Karabash, that is, Blackhead, because
he covers his head with a black scarf. The name of their founder is
Sheikh Hadi, who, according to opinion, prayed, fasted, and gave alms
for all his future disciples; so that they believe themselves exempted
from these duties of Mohammedanism, and that, in consideration of his
merits, they will go to heaven without appearing before the tribunal of
God.[296]

All these still existing sects are designated by the Moslimin,
generally, Sindike (_free-thinkers_), Mulhad (_impious_), and Batheni
(_esoterics_), and, on account of their nocturnal assemblies, sometimes
the one, sometimes the other, receive from the Turks the name of
_Mumsoindiren_, or the _extinguishers_; because, according to the
accusations of their religious adversaries, they extinguish the lights,
for the purpose of indulging in promiscuous intercourse, without regard
to kindred or sex.

Similar charges have been, at all times, raised against secret
societies, whenever they concealed their mysteries under the veil of
night; sometimes groundlessly, as against the assemblies of the early
Christians, of whose innocence Pliny affords a testimony; sometimes but
too well founded, as against the mysteries of Isis, and, still earlier,
against the Bacchanalia of Rome. As the latter was the first secret
society mentioned in Roman history, as dangerous to the state, and
which assumed religion as a cloak to every enormity, the similarity of
the subject, renders the mentioning them not out of place here.

As, in the sixth century, after the flight of the prophet, and the
establishment of Islamism, the pest of the Ismailites threatened, under
the appearance of religion, to undermine and overthrow the edifice,
so, also, in the sixth century, after the foundation of Rome and the
republic, the pest of the Bacchanalians, menaced the ruin of the city
and the state, under the mask of religion.[297]

“A Greek, of mean extraction,” says Livy, “came first into Etruria,
skilled in none of the arts which that most learned of all nations has
devoted to the culture of the mind and the body, but a sacrificer and
soothsayer; not that he spread his doctrine by public teaching, or
filling the mind with a sacred horror, but, as the president of secret
and nocturnal sacrifices. At first, but few were initiated; afterwards,
however, the people, both men and women, were admitted. In order to
attract the mind the more, wine and banquets were added to religious
sacrifices. When the intoxication of the wine, night, the mixture of
the sexes, and of youth and age, had extinguished every shadow of
shame, vice and corruption of all kinds burst forth, every one having
at hand the means of gratifying his desires. There was not merely one
species of vice and the mere promiscuous intercourse of noble youths
and maidens; but also from this source proceeded false witnesses, false
documents, false informations, and accusations, poisoning, and secret
murder,—so secret, indeed, that even the bodies of the dead were not
found for sepulchre. Much was attempted by stratagem, but most by
violence. Violence remained concealed, because, in the midst of the
yells, and noise of cymbals and drums, the cries of the violated and
the murdered could not be heard.”

The consul, Posthumus, had no sooner given intelligence to the senate
of the discovery of the existence and object of this secret society,
than the latter adopted the most powerful measures, for the safety
of the state and the commonweal, and proceeded against the members
of the Bacchanalia, as criminals against the state, with the utmost
rigour. The speech of the consul to the people, advised them to watch
over the peril which threatened the state, from the conspiracy of vice
with religion. “I am not sure (said he) that some of you may not have
fallen into error; for nothing has a more deceptive appearance than
corrupted religion. When the Deity is made a cloak for iniquity, the
mind is seized with terror, lest, in the punishment of human imposture,
some divine law may be transgressed.” This unveiling of crime, from
which the mask of religion had been torn, and the rigour with which the
Bacchanalians were persecuted, not only in Rome, but also throughout
Italy, with the sword and exile, stifled, in its birth, the monster
whose increasing strength menaced the state with ruin. Had the princes
of the east acted in the same spirit towards the first secret societies
and the emissaries of the lodge of Cairo, as the senate and consuls had
done, the sect of the Ismailites would never have attained political
influence, nor would the blood-dropping branch of Assassins have
sprouted from that poisonous stem.

Unfortunately, as we have seen in the course of this history, several
princes were themselves devoted to the secret doctrine of infidelity
and immorality, and others were deficient in strength to restrain its
progress with effect. Thus, through the blindness of princes and the
weakness of governments—through the credulity of nations, and the
criminal presumption of an ambitious adventurer, like Hassan Sabah, the
monstrous existence of secret societies and an _imperium in imperio_,
attained so frightful an extent and power, that the murderer seated
himself openly upon the throne, and the unbounded dominion of the
dagger in the hands of the Assassins was an object of terror to princes
and rulers, and insulted mankind in a manner unexampled and unique
in history. We have, more than once, briefly pointed out the analogy
which the constitution of the order of the Assassins presents with
contemporary or more modern orders; but, although so many points of
similarity are found, which can neither be accidental nor yet spring
from the same cause, but which, probably, through the medium of the
Crusades, passed from the spirit of the east into that of the west,
they are still insufficient to make a perfect companion to the order of
the Assassins, which, thank Heaven, has hitherto been without parallel.
The Templars, incontrovertibly, stand in the next rank to them; their
secret maxims, particularly in so far as relates to the renunciation of
positive religion, and the extension of their power by the acquisition
of castles and strong places, seem to have been the same as those of
the order of the Assassins. The accordance, likewise, of the white
dress and red fillets of the Assassins, with the white mantle and red
cross of the Templars, is certainly remarkably striking.

As the Templars, in many respects, trod in the footsteps of the
Assassins, so also did the Jesuits, whose exertions for the
aggrandisement of their order, and its preservation, if not by
political power, at least by secret connexions and influence, agree
entirely with the similar policy of the Assassins after the fall of
Alamut. The Assassins were, themselves, as we have seen, a branch of
the Ismailites, the proper Illuminati of the east. The institution
of their lodge at Cairo; the various grades of initiation; the
appellations of master, companions, and novices; the public and the
secret doctrine; the oath of unconditional obedience to unknown
superiors, to serve the ends of the order; all agree completely with
what we have heard and read, in our own days, concerning secret
revolutionary societies; and they coincide not less in the form or
their constitution, than in the common object of declaring all kings
and priests superfluous.

The ostensible object of this institution was in itself sufficiently
laudable, and the exoteric doctrine had merely for its object the
extension of knowledge, and the mutual support of the members. The
house of science, at Cairo, or the public school of the lodge, was the
temple of the sciences, and the model of all academies; the greater
number of the members were certainly deceived into good faith by the
fair exterior of a beneficent, philanthropical, knowledge-spreading
form; they were a kind of Freemasons, whose native country, as we have
seen, may really be sought and found in Egypt, if not in the most
ancient times, at least in the history of the middle ages. As in the
west, revolutionary societies arose from the bosom of the Freemasons,
so in the east, did the Assassins spring from the Ismailites.

Traces of retribution immediately executed, which fulfilled the
sentence of the order as infallibly as though it were the arm of fate
itself, are, perhaps, likewise to be found in the proceedings of the
Vehme, or secret tribunal, although its existence only commenced
two hundred years after the extermination of the order of murderers
in Asia.[298] The insanity of the enlighteners, who thought that by
mere preaching, they could emancipate nations from the protecting
care of princes, and the leading-strings of practical religion,
has shown itself in the most terrible manner by the effects of the
French revolution, as it did in Asia, in the reign of Hassan II; and
as, at that period, the doctrine of assassination and treason openly
proceeded from Alamut, so did the doctrine of regicide produce from the
French National Convention, in Jean de Brie, a legion of regicides.
The members of the Convention who sat with Robespierre on the side of
the mountain, and who decreed the king’s execution, would have been
satellites worthy of the Old Man of the Mountain. Like the initiated to
murder, they almost all died a violent death.

The dominion of the Assassins sank under the iron tramp of Hulaku;
their fall drew after it that of the ancient throne of the khalif, and
of other dynasties; thousands bled under the conquering sword of the
Mongols, who went forth as the scourge of Heaven—like Attila and Jengis
Khan, to steel with blood the deadened nerves of nations. After him,
the remains of the hydra of Assassination quivered in the remnant of
the sect of the Ismailites, but powerless and venomless; held down by
the preponderance of the government in Persia and Syria; politically
harmless, somewhat like the juggling of the Templars of the present
day, and other secret societies watched by the vigilant eye of the
police in France.

In writing this history, we have set two things before us as our
object, to have attained which is less our hope than our wish. In the
first place, to present a lively picture of the pernicious influence of
secret societies in weak governments, and of the dreadful prostitution
of religion to the horrors of unbridled ambition. Secondly, to give a
view of the important, rare, and unused historical treasures, which
are contained in the rich magazine of oriental literature. We have but
seized the prey which the lions of history have abandoned: for Müller,
in his twenty-four books of history, has not mentioned the Assassins at
all; and Gibbon, who, according to his own avowal, let no opportunity
escape him of painting scenes of blood, has treated them but
superficially; although, at the same time, both these great historians
have snatched from oblivion, with the pencil of the most masterly
description, many other insignificant events, the sources of which were
accessible to them. We may easily estimate from this condensed account
of all that is worth knowing of and concerning the order of Assassins,
and which is but sparingly scattered through the works of eastern
writers, how many concealed rarities and costly pearls are to be found
in the untrodden depths of the ocean of Oriental history.


END OF BOOK VII.




AUTHORITIES.


Khitati-missr-lil Macrisi (Arabic). The Topography of Egypt, in 2 vols.
folio, in the Imp. Library at Vienna, Nos. 97 and 98.

Mokaddemei Ibn Khaledun (Arabic), and translated into Turkish. The
Historical Prolegomena of Ibn Khaledun, in the collection of Count
Rzewusky.

Jehannuma (Turkish). The Mirror of the World, Hadji Khalfa’s large
geographical work, printed at Constantinople.

Takwimet-tevarikh (Turkish). Hadji Khalfa’s Chronological Tables,
printed at Constantinople.

Gulsheni Khulifa (Turkish). The Khalif’s Rose Garden, by Nasmisade.

Jamiet-tevarikh (Turkish). The Collector of Histories, by Mohammed
Katib, dedicated to Murad III.; in the author’s collection.

Jami-ol-hikayat, translated into Turkish. The Collector of Tales, by
Jemaleddin Mohammed Alufi; in the author’s collection.

Tenhimet-tevarikh (Turkish). Exposition of Histories, by Hersarfenn;
in the author’s collection.

Nokhbetet-tevarikh. The Selection of Histories, by Mohammed Effendi;
in the author’s collection.

Abulfeda. Annales Muslemici Arabice et Latine, Opera Reiskii, Edidit
Adler. Hafniæ.

Tarikhi Mirkhond. Mirkhond’s Universal History; in the Imperial
Library, at Vienna, and that of Count Rzewusky, and the History of the
Assassins, translated from it, in the Notice de l’Histoire Universelle
de Mirkhond, par M. A. Jourdain.

Tarikhi Ibn Forat. Ibn Forat’s History, in nine vols.; Imperial
Library, Vienna; unique in Europe.

Teskeret-esh-shuara (Persian). The Biography of Persian Poets, by
Devletshah; Imperial Library, Vienna, and in the collection of Count
Rzewusky.

Tarikhi Thaberistan u Masenderan (Persian). History of Thaberistan and
Masenderan, by Sahireddin; Imperial Library, at Vienna, No. 117.

Nassaih-ol-Moluk. Counsels for Kings, by Jelali of Kain, in Persian;
Imperial Library, Vienna, No. 163.

Tarikhi Wassaf (Persian). Wassaf’s History; in the collections of Count
Rzewusky and the author.

Tarikhi Lari, translated from the Persian into the Turkish. The History
of Lari; in the collections of Count Rzewusky and the author.

Nigaristan (Persian). The Picture Gallery, by Ghaffari; in Count
Rzewusky’s collection.

Fussuli-hall-u Akd-we-ussuli Kharj-u-nakd (Turkish). Sketches of
Loosing and Binding, Maxims of Giving and Receiving; by the historian
Aali; Imperial Library, Vienna, No. 125.

Siret-ol Hakem-biemrillah (Arabic). Biography of Hakem-biemrillah;
Imperial Library, Vienna, No. 107. The passages quoted are translated
in the Mines de l’Orient, vol. III. p. 201.

Enis-ol-jelil fit tarikhi Kods u Khalil. The Sublime Associate, in the
History of Jerusalem and Hebron (Arabic); in the collections of Count
Rzewusky and the author. The places quoted are translated in the Mines
de l’Orient, vol. IV.

Memorie istoriche del Popolo degli Assassini, e del Vecchio della
Montagna loro capo, e Signore per Mariti; Livorno, 1787.

Eclaircissement sur quelques Circonstances de l’Histoire, du Vieux de
la Montagne, Prince des Assassins, dans les Mémoires de l’Académie des
Inscriptions, et des Belles-Lettres, par Falconet, XVI. and XVII. tom.

Mémoire sur les Ismailis et Nossairis de Syrie, par M. Rousseau;
Annales de Géographie, cah. XLII. et cah. LII.

Mémoire sur la Dynastie des Assassins, et sur l’Origine de leur Nom;
par M. Silv. de Sacy; Moniteur, No. 210, 1809.

Mémoire sur les Ismailiens dans les Mémoires Géographiques et
Historiques sur l’Egypte, par M. Quatremère, tom II. et dans le IV.
vol. des Mines de l’Orient.

Mémoire sur la Vie et les Ouvrages d’Alaeddin Ata Melek Djovaini, par
M. Quatremère, dans les Mines de l’Orient, tom II. p. 220.

Mémoire sur l’Observatoire de Meragha, par M. Jourdain.

Herbelot Bibliothèque Orientale.

Gesta Dei per Francos.

Wilkins’s Geschichte der Kreuzzüge.

Withof’s Das Meuchelmörderische Reich der Assassinen.

Anton’s Versuch einer Geschichte des Tempelherrenordens.

Deguignes’ Histoire Générale des Huns.

Viaggi di Marco Polo.




NOTES.


Note A, page 127.

After giving a view of the dogmas of the Ismailites, Rousseau
adds:—[299]

“Such were, substantially, the dogmas of the first Ismailis; and such,
nearly, are those which their descendants in Syria profess to this day.
I say, nearly; for there can be no doubt that the latter, having fallen
so tremendously from their ancient social organization, must also have
lapsed from their original faith. This belief, now more than ever
disfigured, is become, to the last degree, extravagant, from a mass of
abuses and senseless superstitions, introduced in the course of time. A
certain Sheikh Rashideddin, who appeared among them, I believe, three
hundred years ago, put the finishing stroke to their errors, by making
them believe that he was the last of the prophets, in whom the divine
power was to be manifested. This impostor, who was profoundly versed
in the sacred writings, appears to be the author of the book, some
fragments of which I have translated, and in which he promulgates his
principles as if he were himself the Almighty.”


Note B, page 131.

The sovereign of the Assassins is called _sheikh_, by oriental
authors. Vincent le Blanc names him, _Ségucmir_, a word compounded
of _sheikh_ and _emir_, and makes him reside in Arabia; but nothing
that such an author says is astonishing. The Arabic word _sheikh_,
which is equivalent to the Latin _Senior_, and which has its two
significations in the lower Latinity, has been ridiculously rendered
_Vetus_, _Vetulus_; _Senex_, instead of _Senior_, when _Dominus_ was
not meant. We read _Vetulus de Monte_, in the chronicle of Nicholas
of Treveth, A. D. 1236; _Vetulus de Montanis_, in that of William de
Nangis, of the same year; _Vetulus de Montibus_, several times in
Sanuto; and _Senex de Montanis_, in the Latin translation of Marco
Polo. In Haïton, _Sexmontius_ is but the contraction of _Senex montis_,
which Batilli, who translates it, _Prince of Six Mountains_, has not
understood: we have seen him called _Summus_ _Abbas_, _Prolatus_,
_Magister Cultellorum_, by James de Vitri: in the same author, we read
that this sovereign was commonly called _simplex_. He gives himself
the title of “_Simplicitas Nostra_,” in his letter to Philip Augustus,
handed down by William of Newbury: this is one of the two which have
been supposititiously attributed to him. This _simplicity_ consisted in
inhumanly putting to death those whom he deemed enemies of his sect,
or whom he regarded as extortioners, as William of Tyre expresses
himself. The Assassins exercised their enormities alike, against
both Mahommedans and Christians: we see in history the catalogue of
khalifs, princes, and viziers, slain by their emissaries.[300] I am
also convinced, that the sheikh, simple as he entitled himself, caused
assassinations to be committed at the solicitation of other princes,
from motives of interest, in which religion had no share. We are
justified in believing this, from what their commandant in Syria said
to Henry the Second, Count of Champagne, when he invited him to pass
through his domains: “_Si inimicum aut insidiatorem regni haberet, ab
hujus modi servis suis continuò interfici procuraret._” These are the
words given by Sanuto; so that, when the chief of the Assassins is made
to speak otherwise, in his letter, dated from Massiat, and inserted
by Nicholas of Treveth, in his chronicle (A. D. 1192): “_Sciatis quod
nullum hominem mercede aliqua vel pecuniá occidimus_,” it is a reason
why we should suspect it to be false. In fact, it is very probable
that the English fabricated the letter addressed to Leopold, Duke of
Austria, in order to procure the liberty of King Richard I., whom he
detained in prison; and that, at the same time, they addressed another
to Philip Augustus, to remove his suspicions about the murder of the
Marquess of Montferrat, and to obviate his acting hostilely against
them in their king’s absence. The best justification of Richard must
be derived from the generosity of his character, whatever ferocity his
valour may have possessed. This king, when mortally wounded at the
siege of Chaluz, in the Limousin, by a cross-bowman, not only pardoned
him after the town was taken, but also before his death ordered him to
have a hundred shillings given to him.

With regard to the true cause of the assassination of Conrad, Marquess
of Montferrat, there is great reason to believe that Humphrey, Lord
of Thoron, the first husband of Isabel, the daughter of Amalric, and
heiress to the kingdom of Jerusalem, seeing his wife, together with the
crown, fall into the possession of Conrad, employed the Assassins as
the ministers of his revenge.[301]


Note C, page 132.

The following is the supposititious letter, from the Old Man of the
Mountain, to Leopold Duke of Austria, as given in “Rymer’s Fœdera,”
vol. i. p. 23:—

“Limpoldo, Duci Austriæ, Vetus de Monte, salutem: Cum plurimi reges
et principes ultra mare Ricardum Regem Angliæ et Dominum de morte
Marchisi inculpant, juro per Deum qui in æternum regnat, et per legem
quam tenemus, quod in ejus morte culpam non habuit; est causa siquidem
mortis Marchisi talis.

“Unus ex fratribus nostris, in unam navem de Salteleya ad partes
nostras veniebat et tempestas forte illum apud Tyrum impulit, et
Marchisus fecit illum rapi et occidi, et magnum ejus pecuniam rapuit.
Nos vero Marchiso nuncios nostros misimus mandantes, ut pecuniam
fratris nostri nobis redderet, et de morte fratris nostri satisfaceret,
quam super Reginaldum Dominum Sidonis posuit. Et nos tamen fecimus
per amicos nostros quod in veritate scivimus, quod ipse fecit illum
occidere et pecuniam illius rapere.

“Et iterum alium nuncium nostrum, nomine Eurisum misimus ad eum, quem
in mari mergere voluit; sed amici nostri illum a Tiro festinanter
fecere recedere, qui ad nos cito pervenit et ista nobis nunciavit. Nos
quoque ex illa hora Marchisum desideravimus occidere. Tunc quoque duo
fratres misimus ad Tirum, qui eum apertè et ferè coram omni populo Tiri
occiderunt.

“Hæc itaque fuit causa mortis Marchisi, et bene dicimus vobis in
veritate, quod Dominus Ricardus Rex Angliæ in hac Marchisi morte nullam
culpam habuit: et qui, propter hoc Domino Regi Angliæ malum fecerunt,
injusté fecerunt et sine causa.

“Sciatis pro certo quod nullum hominem hujus mundi pro mercede aliqua,
vel pecunia occidimus, nisi prius malum nobis fecerit.

“Et sciatis quod literas istas fecimus in domo nostra ad castellum
nostrum Massiat, in dimidio Septembris, anno ab Alexandro millesimo
quingentesimo decimo quinto.”

Which may be rendered as follows:

“To Leopold, Duke of Austria, the Old Man of the Mountain sends,
greeting:

“Seeing that many kings and princes, beyond sea, accuse the Lord
Richard, King of England, of the death of the marquess, I swear, by
the God who reigns for ever, and by the laws which we observe, that he
had no share in his death: the cause of the marquess’s death was as
follows:—

“One of our brethren journeying in a ship, from Salteleya to our
parts, was driven by a tempest near to Tyre; and the marquess had him
seized and put to death, and laid hands on his money. Now, we sent our
messengers to the marquess, requiring him to restore our brother’s
money, and give us satisfaction for our brother’s death, of which he
accused Reginald, Lord of Sidon; but we ascertained the truth, by means
of our friends, that it was the marquess himself who caused him to be
slain, and his money to be seized.

“And again we sent another messenger to him, by name Eurisus, whom
he would have thrown into the sea, had not our friends caused him
to depart hastily from Tyre: he came quickly to us, and told us
these things. We, therefore, from that hour have desired to slay the
marquess; so, then, we sent two brethren to Tyre, who killed him
openly, and almost before the whole people of Tyre.

“This, therefore, was the cause of the marquess’s death; and we tell
you of a truth, that the Lord Richard, King of England, hath had no
share in this death of the marquess; and they who, on that account, ill
treat the king of England, do it unjustly, and without cause.

“Know ye for certain, that we slay no man in this world for any gain or
reward, unless he have first injured us.

“And know, that we have drawn up these present letters in our palace,
in our castle of Massiat, in the middle of September, in the fifteen
hundred and fifteenth year after Alexander.”


Note D, page 137.

_Memoir on the Dynasty of the Assassins, and on the Origin of their
Name, by M. Sylvestre de Sacy, read at the public meeting of the
Institute of France, July 7th, 1809._


Among the writers who have transmitted to us the history of those
memorable wars, which, for a space of nearly two centuries, unceasingly
depopulated Europe, in order to carry destruction and desolation
throughout the finest regions of Asia and Africa, there is scarcely
one who does not make mention of that barbarous horde, which,
established in a corner of Syria, and known by the name of Assassins,
rendered itself formidable both to the orientals and occidentals, and
exercised its atrocities indifferently against the Moslem sultan and
the Christian prince. If the historians of the Crusades have mingled
a few fables with the information which they have handed down to us,
regarding the tenets and manners of these sectarians, we ought not to
feel surprised; for the terror which they inspired, scarcely permitted
our warriors to search very deeply into their origin, or to procure
exact data concerning their religious and political constitution.
Even their name has been disfigured and presented under a multitude
of different forms, and it is to this that we must attribute the
uncertainty of modern critics as to its origin and etymology. Among all
the writers who have devoted their attention to historical and critical
researches into the subject of the Assassins, none has shed more light
upon it than M. Falconet. Nevertheless, as this learned gentleman had
not applied himself at all to the study of the languages of the east,
and could not, therefore, avail himself, in his inquiries, of the
assistance of the Persian and Arabian writers, whose works had never
been either published or translated, he has not been able to trace the
Assassins up to their true origin, nor to give the etymology of their
name. It is to supply this defect in his labours that I have decided
upon treating this subject anew. In a dissertation, which I submitted
to the judgment of the _classe_, and of which I shall present you with
a short analysis, I proposed to inquire, what was the doctrine of
this sect, and by what ties they were related to one of the principal
divisions of Mohammedanism; and, lastly, why they had received a name,
which, passing with a slight change into the west, has furnished
several modern languages with a term expressive of a cool premeditated
murder.

It is a most singular circumstance, which cannot fail to strike us in
studying the history of the religion and power of the Mohammedans, that
their empire, which, in a small number of years, subjected the whole of
Arabia, Syria, Egypt, Persia, and several other vast regions of Asia
and Africa, was, from the very first, torn by intestine divisions,
which seemed as though they would arrest its progress, and insure the
neighbouring potentates against the invasion which menaced them. It
is difficult to explain how the spirit of faction, which armed the
Musulmans against each other, should not have checked the rapidity
and extent of their conquests; but, without stopping to consider this
point, which forms no part of our subject, we shall content ourselves
with stating the fact, that the death of Mohammed was the signal of
discord amongst those who had embraced his doctrine, and hitherto
fought under his victorious standard. Ali, Mohammed’s cousin, and
husband of his daughter, Fatima, who, to an ardent zeal for the new
religion, added more instruction then the rest of the Musulmans,
seemed destined to supply the place of the legislator and pontiff of
Islamism, and to complete the work left still imperfect by him. But
Mohammed had not had the prudence to name his successor; or, if he had
done so, as Ali’s partisans generally maintain, he had not given his
nomination sufficient publicity to prevent its being contested; and he
had neglected to invest it with that divine sanction which he so well
knew how to give to all his determinations, even when the interests of
his household, and the altercations excited by his wife’s jealousy,
were the only matters in question. Ali, in consequence, saw the wise
Ebubekr, the fierce Omar, and the weak Othman, preferred before him;
and it was only after the violent death of the latter, that the
suffrages of the Musulmans seemed to unite in his favour. Scarcely had
he ascended the throne, ere an ambitious man, supported by a powerful
family, declared himself his rival; and succeeded, by treachery, and
availing himself of Ali’s faults, in stripping him of an authority,
whose legitimacy was irrefragable. Ali soon fell beneath the murderer’s
dagger. His two sons were not long in experiencing the same fate; and,
from that moment, were laid the immoveable foundations of that schism,
which, to this day, divides the disciples of Mohammed into two great
hostile factions, which, for several centuries, ceased not to steep
the eastern provinces of the empire in blood, and was felt in the most
southern parts of Arabia, and even on the shores of the Atlantic Ocean.

The partisans of Ali themselves soon split into several parties; and
though united in their veneration for the blood of the prophet, which
flowed in the veins of the descendant of Ali, they neither agreed
in the prerogatives they attached to this noble origin, nor on the
branch to which the right to the dignity of imam was transmitted. This
name, which comprises the idea of all temporal and spiritual power,
and which, in the opinion of some fanatics, was nearly co-equal with
that of divinity, was the watch-word of all the enemies of the khalifs
descended from the houses of Moawia and Abbas; but they did not all
recognise the same person as imam. One of the most powerful, among the
factions formed of the followers of Ali, was that of the Ismailians,
so called, because they maintained that the dignity of imam had been
transmitted, through an uninterrupted succession of descendants, from
Ali to a prince named Ismail; and that, since his time, this same
office had been filled by personages unknown to man, awaiting the
moment when the posterity of Ali should at length triumph over its
enemies. A character peculiar to this sect is, that it explains all
the precepts of the Musulman law allegorically; and this allegory
was pushed so far by some of the Ismailian doctors, that it tended
to nothing less than the abolition of all public worship, and the
foundation of a purely philosophical doctrine, and a very licentious
moral code, on the ruins of all revelation and divine authority. To
this sect belong the Karmathites, whose enormities we shall not here
mention, to whom the Wahabees, who, at this time, fill several of the
provinces of the Ottoman empire with the terror of their name, and
who, under the mask of reformers, appear destined to overthrow the
Mohammedan religion, seem to have succeeded. From this same sect issued
the Fatimite khalifs. These, after establishing themselves in Africa,
were not long in depriving the khalifs of Bagdad, of Egypt and Syria,
and they formed a potent empire, which lasted two centuries and a half,
until it was overthrown by Saladin. These Fatimite khalifs acknowledged
themselves to be Ismailians; but the interests of their policy obliged
them to disguise the secret doctrines of their sect, which were known
only to a small number of adepts, and the most intolerant of them
imposed no other obligation on their subjects, than the recognition of
Ali and his descendants’ right to the sovereignty, and to vow a mortal
hatred against the khalifs of Bagdad. In the person of the Fatimites,
the Ismailians had ascended the throne, and deprived the Abassides of
a considerable portion of their empire: but their ambition was not
satisfied. The race of the prophet ought not to share the sovereignty
with the descendants of usurpers, and even the honour of Islamism, and
of the doctrine taught and propagated by the imams, required that all
Musulmans should be united in the same faith, and pay obedience to a
single legitimate pontiff. To attain this end, missionaries, spread
throughout all the oriental provinces, secretly taught the dogmas of
the Ismailians, and laboured unceasingly to increase the number of
their proselytes, and to inspire them with the spirit of revolt against
the khalifs of Bagdad and the princes who acknowledged their authority.

About the middle of the sixth century of the Hegira, one of these
missionaries, named Hassan, son of Ali, having been gained over to
the Ismailians, afterwards signalized himself by his zeal in the
propagation of his adopted sect. This man, in other respects a good
Musulman, being persuaded that the Fatimite khalif, Mostanssur, at
that time reigning in Egypt, was the legitimate imam, resolved to
repair to his court, deeming himself happy in being able to proffer his
homage, and to revere in him the image and vice-gerent of the Deity.
For this purpose, he left the northern provinces of Persia, where
he was exercising the secret and dangerous functions of missionary,
and proceeded to Egypt. His reputation had preceded him thither. The
reception which he met with from the khalif, rendered it beyond the
reach of doubt, that he would soon be called to the first offices. As
usual, favour excited jealousy, and Hassan’s enemies soon found an
opportunity of rendering him an object of the khalif’s suspicion. They
even wished to have him arrested; but Mostanssur acceding reluctantly
to their plans of revenge, they were satisfied with putting him on
board a vessel bound for the northern coast of Africa. After some
adventures, strongly tinged with the marvellous, Hassan returned to
Syria, and thence passing through Aleppo, Bagdad, and Ispahan, he
traversed the several provinces submitted to the Seljukide rule,
everywhere performing his missionary functions, and omitting no means
to effect the recognition of Mostanssur’s pontificate. After much
travelling about, he at length established himself in the fortress of
Alamut, situated in ancient Parthia, a short distance from Kaswin. The
predictions of Hassan and some other missionaries, had multiplied the
partisans of the Ismailites in these regions so considerably, that it
was far from difficult to him, to compel the governor of that fortress,
commanding in the of the Sultan Melekshah, to sell it to him for a
moderate sum of money. Having become master of the place, he was able
to maintain himself in its possession against all the sultan’s forces;
and, by the insinuations of the missionaries, whom he sent into the
environs, and by planned excursions, he subjected several places in
the immediate neighbourhood, and erected for himself an independent
sovereignty; in which, however, he only exercised his authority in the
name of the imam, whose minister he acknowledged himself to be. The
position of Alamut, situated as it is in the midst of a mountainous
region, caused its prince to receive the title of _Sheikh al Jebal_
(_i. e._ _Sheikh_, or _Prince of the Mountains_); and the double
sense of the word _Sheikh_, which means both prince and old man, has
occasioned the historians of the Crusades, and the celebrated Marco
Polo, to call him the “_Old Man of the Mountain_.”

Hassan and his successors, for nearly three centuries, were not
satisfied with having established their power in Persia: they soon
found means to possess themselves of several strong places in Syria.
Masyat, a place situated in the mountains of the Anti-Libanus, became
their chief seat, in that province; and also the residence of the
Prince of Alamut’s lieutenant. This branch of the Ismailites, which had
settled in Syria, is the one mentioned by the western historians of the
Crusades, and to which they have given the name of _Assassin_.

Before proceeding to the etymology of this name, we ought to observe,
that Hassan, and the two princes who succeeded him in the sovereignty
over the Ismailites of Persia and Syria, although attached to the
peculiar tenets of the sect, nevertheless observed all the laws of
Islamism; but, under the fourth prince of this dynasty, a great change
took place in the religion of the Ismailites. This prince, who was
named Hassan, son of Mohammed, pretended that he had received secret
orders from the imam, by virtue of which he abolished all the external
practices of Musulman worship; permitted his subjects to drink wine,
and gave them a dispensation from all the obligations which the law
of Mohammed imposes on its followers. He publicly announced, that the
knowledge of the allegorical sense of the precepts, dispenses with
the observation of the literal sense; and thus gained the Ismailites
the name of _Mulahid_, or the _Impious_; a title by which they are
most frequently designated by oriental writers. The example of this
prince was followed by his son; and, for about fifty years, the Persian
and Syrian Ismailites persisted in this doctrine. After this period,
the worship was restored and preserved among them, until the entire
destruction of their power.

The embassy which the Old Man of the Mountain, of the historians
of the Crusades, that is, the sovereign of the Ismailites, sent to
Amaury I. King of Jerusalem, falls under the reign of one of the two
apostate princes, whom we have just mentioned. It is true, then, as
William, Archbishop of Tyre, says, that the prince by whom this embassy
was sent, had suppressed all the practices of the Musulman religion,
destroyed the mosques, authorized incestuous unions, and allowed the
use of wine and pork. When we read the sacred book of the Druses, or
the fragments which we possess of those of the Ismailites, we have
little hesitation in believing, that this prince, as the same historian
asserts, was acquainted with the books of the Christians, and that he
had formed a wish not to embrace the Christian religion, but to study
more accurately its doctrines and observances.

Let us now pass to the name _Assassin_. This word, as I have already
said, has been written in a variety of ways; but to confine myself to
those possessing the best authority, I shall state, that it has been
pronounced _Assassini_, _Assissini_, and _Heississini_. Joinville has
written _Haussaci_. The limits which I have prescribed myself, forbid
my entering here into the discussion of the various etymologies of this
name, which have been proposed by different learned persons. Suffice it
for me to say, that they have all been mistaken, because they had, no
doubt, never met with the word in any Arabic author. The Assassins are
almost always called by oriental historians, _Ismailites_, _Mulahid_
(i. e. _the Impious_), or _Batenites_, signifying _partisans of the
allegorical sense_. Only one literary person, in a letter, preserved by
Menage, had a glimpse of the true etymology; but he had erected it on
bad foundations, as he had not the slightest suspicion of the motive
which led to the Ismailites being designated by this term.

One of the most illustrious, most certainly, of the victims to the
fury of the Ismailites, is Saladin. It is true, this great prince
escaped their attacks; but he was twice on the point of losing his
life by these wretches’ daggers, for which he afterwards reaped a
striking revenge. It is in perusing the account of these reiterated
attempts, in some Arabic authors, contemporaries of Saladin, and ocular
witnesses of what they relate, that I have been convinced that the
Ismailites, or, at least, the men whom they employed to execute their
horrible projects, were called, in Arabic, _Hashishin_ in the plural,
and _Hashishi_ in the singular; and this name, slightly altered by the
Latin writers, has been expressed as exactly as possible by several
Greek historians, and by the Jew, Benjamin, of Tudela.

As for the origin of the name in question, although I have not gleaned
it from any one of the oriental historians that I have consulted, I
have no doubt whatever that denomination was given to the Ismailites,
on account of their using an intoxicating liquid, or preparation,
still known in the east by the name of _Hashish_. Hemp leaves, and
some other parts of the same vegetable,[302] form the basis of this
preparation; which is employed in different ways, either in liquid,
or in the form of pastiles, mixed with saccharine substances; or even
in fumigation. The intoxication produced by the _hashish_, causes an
ecstasy similar to that which the orientals produce by the use of
opium; and, from the testimony of a great number of travellers, we may
affirm, that those who fall into this state of delirium, imagine they
enjoy the ordinary objects of their desires, and taste felicity at a
cheap rate; but the too frequent enjoyment changes the animal economy,
and produces, first, marasmus, and then, death. Some, even in this
state of temporary insanity, losing all knowledge of their debility,
commit the most brutal actions, so as to disturb the public peace. It
has not been forgotten, that when the French army was in Egypt, the
general-in-chief, Napoleon, was obliged to prohibit, under the severest
penalties, the sale and use of these pernicious substances; the habit
of which has made an imperious want in the inhabitants of Egypt,
particularly the lower orders. Those who indulge in this custom, are,
to this day, called _Hashishin_; and these two different expressions
explain why the Ismailites were called by the historians of the
Crusades, sometimes _Assissini_, and sometimes _Assassini_.

Let us hasten to meet an objection, which cannot fail to be made
against the motive on which we found the origin of the denomination of
Assassins, as applied to the Ismailites. If the use of intoxicating
substances, prepared from hemp leaves, is able to disturb the reason;
if it throws a man into a sort of delirium, and makes him take dreams
to be realities; how could it be proper for people who had need of
all their _sang-froid_ and mental calmness, in order to execute the
murders with which they were charged, and who were seen to proceed to
countries most remote from their own residence, to watch many days for
an opportunity favourable to the execution of their designs; to mix
among the soldiers of the prince whom they were about to immolate to
the will of their chieftain; to fight under his colours, and skilfully
to seize the instant which fortune offered for their purpose? This,
certainly, is not the conduct of delirious beings, nor of madmen,
carried away by a fury which they are no longer able to control; such
as travellers describe those who _ran a muck_, so much dreaded among
the Malays and Indians. One word will suffice, in answer to this
objection; and with this, Marco Polo’s account will supply us. This
traveller, whose veracity is now generally acknowledged, informs us,
that the Old Man of the Mountain educated young men, selected from
the most robust inhabitants of the places under his sway, in order to
make them the executioners of his barbarous decrees. The whole object
of their education went to convince them, that, by blindly obeying
the orders of their chief, they insured to themselves, after death,
the enjoyment of every pleasure that can flatter the senses. For this
purpose, the prince had delightful gardens laid out near his palace;
there, in pavilions, decorated with every thing rich and brilliant that
Asiatic luxury can devise, dwelt young beauties, dedicated solely to
the pleasures of those for whom these enchanting regions were destined.
Thither, from time to time, the princes of the Ismailites caused the
young people, whom they wished to make the blind instruments of their
will, to be transported. After administering to them a beverage which
threw them into a deep sleep, and deprived them, for some time, of the
use of their faculties, they were carried into those pavilions, which
were fully worthy of the gardens of Armida; on their awaking, every
thing which met their eyes, or struck their ears, threw them into a
rapture, which deprived reason of all control over their minds; and
uncertain whether they were still on earth, or whether they had already
entered upon the enjoyment of that felicity, the picture of which had
so often been presented to their imagination, they yielded in transport
to all the kinds of seduction, by which they were surrounded. After
they had passed some days in these gardens, the same means which had
been adopted to introduce them, without their being conscious of it,
were again made use of to remove them. Advantage was carefully taken
of the first moments of an awakening, which had broken the charm of
so much enjoyment, to make them relate to their young companions,
the wonders of which they had been the witnesses; and they remained
themselves convinced, that the happiness which they had experienced in
the few days which had so soon elapsed, was but the prelude, and, as
it were, the foretaste of that of which they might secure the eternal
possession, by their submission to the orders of their prince.

Although some exaggeration might be supposed to exist in the Venetian
traveller’s recital; and although, instead of crediting the existence
of these enchanted gardens, which is, however, attested by many other
writers, we should still reduce all the wonders of that magnificent
abode to a phantom, produced by the exalted imagination of the young
men who were intoxicated with the _hashish_, and who, from their
infancy, had been nursed with the idea of this happiness; it would
not be the less true, that we here find the use of a liquor, destined
to deaden the senses, and in which we cannot overlook, that its
employment, or rather abuse, is spread throughout a great part of Asia
and Africa. At the epoch of the Ismailitic power, these intoxicating
preparations were not yet known in the Moslem countries. It was only at
a later period, the knowledge of it was brought from the most eastern
regions, probably even from India into the Persian provinces. Thence it
was communicated to the Musulmans of Mesopotamia, Asia Minor, Syria,
and Egypt. No doubt, the Ismailites, whose doctrines had several points
of resemblance with those of the Indians, had acquired this knowledge
earlier, and preserved it as a precious secret, and as one of the
principal springs of their power. This conjecture is supported by the
fact, that one of the most celebrated Arabian writers attributes the
introduction amongst the Egyptians, of an electuary prepared from hemp,
to a Persian Ismailite.

I shall conclude this memoir by observing, that it is not impossible
that hemp, or some parts of that vegetable, mixed with other substances
unknown to us, may have been sometimes employed to produce a state of
phrenzy and violent madness. We know that opium, the effects of which
are, in general, analogous to those of intoxicating preparations made
with hemp, is, nevertheless, the means made use of by the Malays, to
throw themselves into that state of fury, during which, being no longer
masters of themselves, they murder every one they meet, and blindly
precipitate themselves into the midst of swords and lances. The means
employed thus to alter the effects of opium is, if travellers are to be
believed, mixing it with citron juice, and to allow the two substances
to incorporate for a few days.


Note E, p. 137.

_To the Editor of the Moniteur._[303]

  Paris, December, 23, 1809.

  SIR,

You were kind enough to insert in your 210th number, of the 29th
of July last, the memoir on the dynasty of the Assassins, and on
the origin of their name; which I read at the public sitting of the
Institute, on the 7th of the same month. That memoir has occasioned a
letter, dated from Marseilles, the 16th of September, 1809, and signed
“M. R., Old Residents in the Levant;” to be likewise inserted in your
269th number, of the 26th of September.

I do not know whether I am mistaken in suspecting, that the signature
of that letter disguises a justly celebrated name, whose authority
might have added great weight to the objections contained in the
letter, had the writer of it been inclined to make himself known.
However, as the author, or authors, of that letter, in attacking
(although in the most gentlemanly manner, and with the most obliging
expressions) the etymology of the word _Assassins_, which I have
proposed, display no common knowledge of the Arabic language, I think
it becomes me to justify my opinion, and reply to their objections; the
more so, as the paper which I read at the public sitting of the 1st of
July, was but a very brief extract from a much more extended memoir;
and that this memoir, as well as all the others that I have submitted
to the judgment of the Ancient History and Literature Class of the
Institute, will, perhaps, not be published during my life-time, owing
to the caprice of circumstances, which neither I myself, nor that class
of the Institute, have power to control.

The origin which I attributed to the word _Assassin_, appears, to
the authors of the letter in question, to be _too far fetched_;
consequently, they propose another; and affirm, that the name of the
Assassins is nothing more than the plural of _Hassas_, “a word which,”
they add, “is employed by the people of Syria, and even of Lower Egypt,
to designate _a thief of the night—a robber_.”

These gentlemen might have supported their opinion by most respectable
authorities; for their etymology is not new; and I did not fail to make
mention of it, as well as of a host of others, which were, perhaps,
unknown to them, in my memoir, read at the private sitting.

This discussion was not admissible in a reading destined for a public
meeting; I have, therefore, suppressed it entirely. Permit me to
transcribe a few lines here:—

“Thomas Hyde, I remarked, who had, no doubt, never encountered the true
denomination of the _Assassins_, in any Arabic writer, believed, that
it must be the Arabic word _Hassas_, derived from the root _Hassa_,
which signifies, amongst other things, to _kill_, to _exterminate_.
This opinion has been adopted by Menage and the learned Falconet. M.
Volney has likewise admitted it, but without citing any authority.”

I then discussed the various etymologies proposed by M. de Caseneuve,
the prelate, J. S. Assemani, M. Falconet, the celebrated Reiske, M.
Court de Gebelin, the Abbé S. Assemani, of Padua, and lastly, Le Moyne;
and I showed that none of these writers had given the true etymology of
the name, with the exception of Le Moyne, who had, indeed, perceived,
that the denomination of _Assassins_ or _Assissins_, was derived from
the Arabic word _Haschisch_ (Hashish). “But,” I add, “M. Le Moyne did
not know why the Ismailites bore the designation of _Haschischin_
(_Hashishin_), and he has given a very bad reason, which has caused the
proscription of his etymology.”

Messrs. M. R. assuredly imagine, that it is merely conjecturally
that I have maintained that the Ismailites were designated by the
name of _Haschischin_ (_Hashishin_), by the Arabs: for they express
themselves thus: “The oldest Italian and French authors commonly write
_Assassini_, sometimes _Heissessini_, and _Assissini_; Joinville wrote
it _Haussaci_. On these grounds, M. de Sacy _doubts not_, that the
Arabic which has served as the type, was _Haschisch_ (_Hashish_),
signifying _herb_, in general, and in one particular meaning, _hemp_.
Now, because the Arabs have long known how to prepare a beverage from
hemp, which intoxicates and maddens like opium; and because this
beverage has sometimes been made use of to stimulate fanatics to the
deed, which the Musulmans call _the holy war_, namely, _premeditated
murder_, M. de Sacy will have it, that the whole sect of the
Ismailites, which supplied many of this kind of fanatics, was called
_Hachichi_ or _Haschischi_ (_Hashishi_); that is, the _herb people_,
but, in order to establish this, it is necessary, in the first place,
to prove, that the use of this beverage was habitual and general among
this sect; so much so, as to distinguish them from all other Arabs,
who used it, but without becoming murderers like them. History teaches
us nothing similar. It even appears, that this artificial means could
only have been employed when their primitive zeal began to cool; but,
moreover, the word _haschisch_ (_hashish_), differs too strongly from
the words _Assassin_, _Heissessin_, and _Haussaci_, to have served as
their original root.”

These gentlemen will allow me to observe, that if they had read with
attention my printed Memoir, and the report made by my esteemed
colleague, M. Ginguené, of the labours of the Ancient History and
Literature Class, since the 1st of July, 1808, they would have found
that there was no conjecture in it at all on my part. In fact, it
was in quoting different passages of Arabic authors, relating to the
enterprises undertaken at different periods by the Syrian Ismailites
against Saladin, that I proved to demonstration, that those writers
employed indifferently, in the same work, the names _Ismailites_,
_Batenites_, and _Haschischin_ (_Hashishin_), as synonymous; and that
the chief of this horde of ruffians, was called the Possessor of the
_Haschischa_ (_Hashisha_). I even took occasion to observe, that the
Byzantine writers called the Assassins _Chasisioi_; and that the Jew,
Benjamin of Tudela, names them in Hebrew, _Haschischin_ (_Hashishin_).

These facts being incontestable, I had to inquire what was this
_Haschisch_ or _Haschischa_ (_Hashish_ or _Hashisha_), possessed by
the chief of the Ismailites, from which these latter derived their
name of _Haschischin_ (_Hashishin_); and, certainly, it needed no
great stretch of imagination, to discover the _haschiseha_ of the
Ismailites in that of the Syrians and Egyptians of the present day. I
afterwards showed, by very positive historical testimony, that, at the
period when the Assassins signalized themselves by their atrocities and
murders, the use of intoxicating preparations made with hemp had not
yet been introduced among the Musulmans; lastly, I proved by a host
of facts, and the testimony of Marco Polo, that the _hashish_ was not
used among the Ismailites for the purpose of throwing those to whom
it was administered, into a state of madness and frenzy, during the
continuance of which they performed the most barbarous actions, almost
consciously; but, that it was a secret known only to the chief of the
sect, and which he employed, to deprive for a time of the use of their
reason, those young men, whom he wished, by means of every kind of
seduction, which could inflame the imagination and exalt the sense, to
inspire with blind obedience to his behests.

The chief reason why the authors of the letter which I am
controverting, have a difficulty in admitting that the word
_Assassins_, or _Assissins_, is actually derived from _Haschischin_,
is, that they cannot believe that western writers could have
substituted the articulation of the Arabic _Sin_, that is, of an _s_,
for that of _Schin_ (_Shin_), which answers to our _ch_ (_sh._ Eng.);
but they have perhaps forgotten, that, at the epoch of the Crusades,
the Latin language was the common idiom of writers throughout Europe;
and that, in that language, the sound of the Arabic _Shin_, cannot
be expressed. We must also add, the Arabic _Shin_ is not in general
pronounced so strongly as our _ch_, (_sh_, Eng.); and that the Arabians
themselves have often used it for the Greek sigma, and the Latin _S_,
of Latin names; such as Pontus, Orosius, Philippus, Busiris, &c., and
lastly, that the Moors in Spain, in writing the Castilian in Arabic
characters, made use of the _Shin_ to express _s_; for example, in
the words _los cielos y las tierras_. (See Notices et Extraits des
Manuscrits, tome IV. page 631 & 642.) Perhaps, we have an example
of the substitution of our _s_, for the Arabic _shin_, in the word
_Sarrasins_ (_Saracens_).

Here, again, I am at variance with the authors of the letter, who
reject the etymologies which have been hitherto proposed, of the name
of the _Sarrasins_ (_Saracens_), in order to derive it from _Sarrag_
or _Sarradj_, a word, meaning, according to them, a _saddle-man_,
and, consequently, a _horse-man_. These gentlemen will not take it
ill, if I deny the consequence, and if I remark, that _sarradj_, or,
as it is otherwise pronounced, _sarrag_, never did, and never could,
according to the analogy of the Arabic language, signify any thing
but _a man who makes or sells saddles for horses, or a stable-boy who
takes care of these animals’ harness_. As I do not wish to be believed
on my word alone, I shall quote Golius, who has not omitted the word
_Sarrag_, as is asserted in the postscript to the letter, and who
translates it thus: _Qui confecit ephippia et ea quæ ad equi et currus
apparatum spectans_ (one who makes saddles, and every thing belonging
to the harness of horses and carriages). Menins, who translates it
into Latin, by _Ephippiarius_, _qui Ephippia et quæ ad ea spectant
conficit—qui curam equorum et apparatus eorum ephippii et phalerarum
habet_; in Italian, by _sellaro_, _palfreniere_; and in French, by
_sellier_, _palfrenier_. Germanus de Silesia, who makes it correspond
with the Italian sellaro: lastly, Father F. Cannes, who, in his Spanish
and Arabic Dictionary, makes use of the Spanish word _Sillero_,
to translate it. The objections which Messrs. M. R. make against
one of the etymologies of the word _Sarrasins_ (Saracens), which
several learned men have derived from the word _Sarikin_, robbers,
are destitute of weight. It is not true, that we cannot admit this
etymology, without, at the same time, supposing that the Arabs called
themselves _robbers_; because, in fact, the Arabs known to the Greeks
and Latins by the denomination of _Sarrasins_ (Saracens), did not give
themselves that name at all, but received it from the neighbouring
tribes, who may very well have termed them _brigands_. This objection
has no more force against those who derive the name of _Sarrasins_,
_Saracens_, _Saraceni_, from _sharki_, or _sharaki_, that is,
_eastern_. If this latter be the true origin of the name, it is beyond
a doubt that it was first given to some Arabs, by nations inhabiting a
more western country, and that it might afterwards have been applied
to the greater part of the nation. As, according to either hypothesis,
the word _Sarrasins_ (_Saracens_), will have an Arabian origin, there
will be some probability in supposing, that this denomination, which
succeeded that of the _Scenites_, was first given to the Nomade Arabs
by the civilized tribes settled in the north-east of Arabia, and who
recognised the Roman authority. In either case, if these etymologies
appear too forced, I should prefer confessing, that we are ignorant of
the origin of the word, than deriving it from an expression which is in
no respect proper to characterize the Arabian nation.

I shall conclude, by observing, as I did in my Memoir, that, perhaps,
the word _Hashishin_, or _Hashashin_, for both are used, did not
properly designate all the Ismailites, but was peculiarly applied to
those who were destined to the Assassin service, and who were also
known by the name of Fedawi (or _devoted_). “I have not, up to this
day,” I said, at the conclusion of my Memoir, “met with a sufficient
number of passages in which this word is employed, to hazard a decided
opinion on the subject; but I am led to believe, that among the
Ismailites, those only were termed _Hashishin_, who were specially
educated to commit murder, and who were, by the use of the _Hashish_,
disposed to an absolute resignation to the will of their chief; this,
however, may not have prevented the denomination from being applied to
Ismailites collectively, especially among the Occidentals.”

  Accept, &c. &c.

  SYLVESTRE DE SACY.


THE END.




FOOTNOTES:

[1] Maracci Prodromus Alcorani Patavii, 1698.

[2] Gagnier Vita Mohammedis ex Abulfeda Oxonii, 1723.

[3] Sale’s Koran, London, 1734.

[4] Essai sur les Mœurs et l’Esprit des Nations, par Voltaire, tom. 2,
Chap. 6.

[5] The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, by Gibbon,
chap. 50.

[6] Vier und Zwanzig Bücher Allgemeine Geschichten, durch Johannes von
Müller, 12 buch, 2 kap.

[7] Ikra-bi-ismi reblike, _read in the name of the Lord_. The
commencement of the first published Sura, the 90th in the present
arrangement.

[8] This fact is not related by Aboulfaraj alone, but also by Macrisi
and Ibn Khaledun, and after them by Hadji Khalfa.

[9] Abulfeda, Annales Moslemici, I. 282.

[10] Abulfeda, Annales Moslemici, I. 314.

[11] A. D. 750; A. H. 132.

[12] A. D. 787; A. H. 172.

[13] Ibn Khaledun, Book l, c 3, § 25. Lari, Chapter of the Twelve Imams.

[14] A. D. 1011; A. H. 402.

[15] A. D. 1058; A. H. 450.

[16] Chap. XIII.

[17] Macrisi. Lari.

[18] _Vide_ Hadji Khalfa, and Reiskii’s Notas ad Abulfeda, 2nd. p. B. 36.

[19] A. D. 758; A. H. 141.

[20] A. D. 778; A. H. 162.

[21] See Herbelot, art. Mani, Erteng, Mokannaa, and Hakem Ben Hashem.

[22] A. D. 837; A. H. 223; according to Hadji Khala. A. D. 841; A. H.
227; according to Lari.

[23] See Lari. Herbelot, art. Babek.

[24] Macrisi, in the beginning of the chapter of the Genealogy of the
Fatimite Khalifs, and below, in the section on the Doctrines of the
Dais; Art. beginning of the Missions of Ibtidai Dawet.

[25] Gulsheni Khalifa, the Khalif’s Bed of Roses, by Nasmisade, after
the Jamius-seir (_i. e._ Collector of Memoirs), and the History of
Nisam-ol-mulk, p. 20.

[26] Nasmisade ibid. See also the Magasin Encyclopédique.

[27] A. D. 920; A. H. 308.

[28] A. D. 909; A. H. 297.

[29] A. D. 977; A. H. 335.

[30] A. D. 1004; A. H. 395.

[31] Macrisi, art. Mohawal and Darol-hikmet.

[32] A. D. 1004; A. H. 395.

[33] A. D. 1122; A. H. 516.

[34] A. D. 1123; A. H. 517.

[35] Macrisi art. Mohaval, Darolilm and Darolilm-jedide.

[36] A. D. 1058; A. H. 450.

[37] Mirkhond and Devletshah; art. Shahfur of Nishabur.

[38] A. D. 1078; A. H. 471.

[39] Nokhbetet-tevarikh and Mirkhond.

[40] A. D. 1078; A. H. 471.

[41] A. D. 1079; A. H. 472.

[42] A. D. 1085; A. H. 478.

[43] A. D. 1072; A. H. 465.

[44] A. D. 1077; A. H. 470.

[45] A. D. 1084; A. H. 477.

[46] A. D. 1077; A. H. 470.

[47] A. D. 1079; A. H. 472.

[48] A. D. 1084; A. H. 477.

[49] Mirkhond and Takwimet-tevarikh.

[50] Mirkhond.

[51] Mirkhond.

[52] Mirkhond.

[53] A. D. 860; A. H. 246.

[54] Jehannuma, p. 296 and 304.

[55] Dealbati.

[56] Daniel, 7, 9.

[57] Nassaih-ol-Moluk.

[58] Nassaih-ol-Moluk, after the Mevakit of the judge Asadeddin.

[59] A. D. 1092; A. H. 485.

[60] Mirkhond.

[61] The Hamakati ehli ilahat yeni Mulahide khaselehum Allah.

[62] Jevahitol Fetavi.

[63] See the Nassaih-ol-Moluk and the Mevakif.

[64] Abulfeda Anno 494; Jihannuma, Mirkhond.

[65] A. D. 1096; A. H. 490.

[66] A. D. 1100; A. H. 494.

[67] Abulfeda Anno 494; Jihannumma, Mirkhond.

[68] Anno H. 490.

[69] Ibn Forat and Kemaleddin.

[70] Jihannumma, art: Sarmin.

[71] A. D. 1107.

[72] Wilken, Geschichte der Kreuzzüge, II. p. 272, after Kemaleddin,
and Albert of Aix. This latter constantly confounds names: he calls
Riswan, Brodoan; Apamea, Femia; Abutaher, Botherus, and the Assassins,
Azopart. _Vide_ Gesta Dei per Francos, p. 350 and 375.

[73] A. D. 1110; A. H. 504.

[74] Ibn Forat and Kemaleddin.

[75] A. D. 1108; A. H. 512.

[76] Abulfeda, Takwimet tevarik, Mirkhond Abulfaradj.

[77] A. D. 1113; A. H. 507.

[78] A. D. 1115; A. H. 509.

[79] A. D. 1119; A. H. 513.

[80] A. D. 1120; A. H. 514.

[81] Ibn Forat.

[82] A. D. 1114; A. H. 508.

[83] Abulfeda, Takwimet-tevarikh Mirkhond Abulfaradj.

[84] A. D. 1117; A. H. 511.

[85] A. D. 1104; A. H. 498.

[86] Mirkhond.

[87] A. D. 1124; A. H. 518.

[88] A. D. 1126; A. H. 520.

[89] Mirkhond.

[90] A. D. 1127; A. H. 521.

[91] Takwimet-tevarikh.

[92] Mirkhond.

[93] A. D. 1128; A. H. 522.

[94] Mirkhond.

[95] A. D. 1129; A. H. 524.

[96] Takwimet-tevarikh.

[97] A. D. 1131; A. H. 526.

[98] Mirkhond.

[99] Mirkhond.

[100] Abulfeda, a. 523.

[101] Jehannumma, p. 559.

[102] A. D. 1128; A. H. 523.

[103] Kemaleddin and Ibn Forat; the latter calls the vizier Mardeghani
Mardekani; and the prince of Aleppo, Bure instead of Busi.

[104] Abulfeda, a. 523. Wilhel. Tyr. XIII. 25.

[105] A. D. 1118.

[106] Anton, Versuch einer Geschichte des Tempelherrenordens. p. 10-15

[107] A. D. 1129; A. H. 524.

[108] Wilken, Geschichte der Kreuzzüge. II. p. 566.

[109] The crown of kings.

[110] Justini Epitome, l. xxiv. c. 8.

[111] A. D. 1129; A. H. 524.

[112] A. D. 1132; A. H. 527.

[113] Wilken Geschichte der Kreuzzüge, II. p. 612.

[114] Dispenser of fortune.

[115] Abulfeda, ad an. 520.

[116] A. D. 1126; A. H. 520.

[117] Wilken, II. p. 531; after Kemaleddin.

[118] A. D. 1127; A. H. 521.

[119] Ibn Forat.

[120] A. D. 1130; A. H. 525.

[121] Abulfeda, ad ann. 525.

[122] Abulfeda, ad ann. 529.

[123] Mirkhond.

[124] The command according to the command of God.

[125] Abulfeda, ann. 524.

[126] Wilken Geschichte der Kreuzzüge, 11, p. 593; after Renandot.

[127] A. D. 1134; A. H. 529.

[128] Abulfeda, ann. 529.

[129] A. D. 1134; A. H. 529. A. D. 1138; A. H. 533.

[130] A. D. 1140; A. H. 535.

[131] Mirkhond and Abulfeda.

[132] Mirkhond.

[133] Mirkhond.

[134] A. D. 1092; A. H. 485.

[135] A. D. 1107; A. H. 501.

[136] D’Herbelot, after Ghaffari and others.

[137] A. D. 1150; A. H. 545.

[138] A. D. 1151; A. H. 546. Devletshah art. Enweri, Ferideddin Katib,
and Sabir.

[139] The Atabegs of Aserbijan, A. D. 1145; A. H. 540; those of Fars,
A. D. 1148; A. H. 543; those of Loristan, A. D. 1150; A. H. 545.
(Takwimet tevarikh.)

[140] A. D. 1142; A. H. 537.

[141] A. D. 1154; A. H. 549.

[142] A. D. 1158; A. H. 553.

[143] A. D. 1160; A. H. 555.

[144] A. D. 1154; A. H. 549.

[145] Gesta Dei per Francos, p. 893.

[146] A. D. 1148; A. H. 543. Nepa, p. 915.

[147] Nokhbetet-tevarikh.

[148] A. D. 1151; A. H. 546. Turbessel, Hamtab, Hazart, Rarendel, Gesta
Dei, &c. p. 920.

[149] Mejereddin, G. D. p. 893.

[150] Miheneddin Ainardus (ibidem).

[151] Jihad ol assghar.

[152] Jihad ol ekbar.

[153] From the Nokhbetet-tevarikh of Mohammed Effendi, after the
Akdol-jemen, (i. e. _coral necklace_); the Kamil (i. e. _the
complete_) of Ibn Essir, and the Miret-ol-edvar, or _mirror of ages_.

[154] A. D. 1162; A. H. 558.

[155] According to the Nokhbetet-tevarikh; according to the Gesta Dei,
two hundred thousand paid down, and as much promised.

[156] According to the Nokhbetet-tevarikh; according to the Gesta Dei,
two hundred thousand ready money, and as much promised.

[157] Gesta Dei, p. 978.

[158] A. D. 1168; A. H. 564.

[159] Nokhbetet-tevarikh.

[160] Here again the Nokhbetet-tevarikh gives exactly half the sum
mentioned by William of Tyre, according to whom, the khalif promised
two millions, and paid one hundred thousand ducats. Gesta Dei, p. 979.

[161] A. D. 1171; A. H. 567.

[162] A.D. 1163.

[163] Hafez, letter Alif.

[164] According to Mirkhond and Wassah; according to the Nokhbetet
tevarikh, the seventh.

[165] Mirkhond.

[166] Devletshah. Heerens Geschichte der Classischen Litteratur.
Bouterwek Geschichte der französischen Dichtkunst.

[167] A. D. 1175; A. H. 569.

[168] A. D. 1177; A. H. 573.

[169] A. D. 1186; A. H. 582.

[170] A. D. 1201; A. H. 598.

[171] A. D. 1180; A. H. 576.

[172] A. D. 1190; A. H. 586.

[173] A. D. 1180; A. H. 576.

[174] A. D. 1170; A. H. 566.

[175] A. D. 1196; A. H. 593.

[176] A. D. 1196; A. H. 593.

[177] A. D. 1200; A. H. 597.

[178] A. D. 1209; A. H. 606.

[179] A. D. 1172; A. H. 568.

[180] A. D. 1209; A. H. 606.

[181] Mirkhond. Devletshah. Ghaffari.

[182] Western Africa. T.

[183] From the Okdet-ol-jeman in the Nokhbetet-tevarikh.

[184] A. D. 1173; A. H. 569.

[185] A. D. 1174; A. H. 570.

[186] Nokhbetet-tevarikh.

[187] Nokhbetet-tevarikh. Jehannuma.

[188] Rousseau, Mémoire sur les Ismailis, p. 13.

[189] Ibid. Ibid, p. 1.

[190] William of Tyre, p. 994.

[191] Jehannuma, pp. 591, 592.

[192] Macrisi. Abulfeda.

[193] Nokhbetet-tevarikh.

[194] Ibn Forat.

[195] A. D. 1175; A. H. 571.

[196] Nokhbetet-tevarikh.

[197] Abulfeda, ad ann. 571.

[198] A. D. 1176; A. H. 572.

[199] William of Tyre, Gesta Dei per Francos, p. 994. Jacobi de
Vitriaco Historia Hierosolymæ, p. 1062.

[200] Extraits d’un Livre des Ismailis, par M. Rousseau, tiré du 52
Cahier des Annales des Voyages.

[201] Mémoire sur les Ismailis, par la même, tiré du 42 Cahier des
Annales des Voyages, p. 13. See note (A) at the end of this volume.

[202] Extraits d’un Livre des Ismailis, p. 10.

[203] A. D. 1157; A. H. 552.

[204] Ibn Forat.

[205] Hadji Khalfa, in the Jehannuma, and Abulfeda, ad. ann. 588.

[206] Gesta Dei per Francos, p. 994 and 1143.

[207] Ibid., p. 978.

[208] Gesta Dei per Francos, p. 1215.

[209] A. D. 1173; A. H. 569.

[210] A. D. 1178; A. H. 574.

[211] A. D. 1149; A. H. 544.

[212] Eclaircissement sur quelques circonstances de l’histoire du vieux
de la Montagne. Mem: Acad. des Inscriptions, XVI., 155. Note (B) at the
end of this volume.

[213] Abulfeda, ad ann. 588. Nokhbetet-tevarikh.

[214] Chron: Alberic itrium fontium, ann. 1192.

[215] Enis-ol-jelil ji kuda vel khalil. See Mines de l’Orient, vol. IV.

[216] See note (C) at the end.

[217] Wilhelmus Neobrigensis; vide Dissertation sur les Assassins, par
M. Falconet, dans les Mémoires de l’Acad. XVII., p. 167.

[218] Rigord in du Chesne, V., p. 35.

[219] Mém. de l’Acad. des Inscriptions, XVI., p. 161.

[220] Radevicus Frisingensis, l. II., c. 37. Sigonius Guntherus.

[221] Franciscus Pagus Breviarum hist. chron. crit. ad ann. 1244.

[222] Epistolæ Petri de Vineis, l. III. cap. 5.

[223] A. D. 1194.

[224] Marinus Sanutus, l. III., part X., c. 8.

[225] Elmacini Hist. Saracencia, l. III., p. 286.

[226] Marco Polo, De Regionibus Orientalibus, lib. I. c. 28.

[227] Siret Hakem biemrillah in Mines de l’Orient, Part III., p. 201,
Arabic and French.

[228] This appears to be a mistake, as the _hashishe_ is found to
consist chiefly of hemp; see notes D and E, at the end of this vol. _T._

[229] See the circumstantial proof of this indubitable genealogy, in
the Mémoire sur la Dynastie des Assassins, et sur l’Origine de leur
Nom; by M. Silvestre de Sacy; read at the Institute, 7th July, 1809.
And a letter of M. Silvestre de Sacy to the Editor of the Moniteur, on
the Etymology of the name of the Assassins.—Moniteur, No. 359, year
1809. The reader will find both translated, in notes D and E, at the
end of the volume.

[230] Abulfeda, ad. ann. 607. Mirkhond. Wassaf.

[231] Ibid.

[232] Trumpet of the holy war, from the mouth of the prophet Mohammed,
son of Abdallah. Vienna, 1813.

[233] Gulsheni’s Khulifa.

[234] A. D. 1214; A. H. 611.

[235] Mirkhond.

[236] History of Thaberistan and Mazanderan, by Sahereddin, in the
Imperial Library, at Vienna, No. 117.

[237] Jehannuma, p. 442.

[238] Sehareddin’s History of Mazanderan and Thaberistan.

[239] Sehareddin’s History of Mazanderan and Thaberistan.

[240] Sehareddin, op. cit.

[241] Mirkhond.

[242] Mohammed Nisawi, Biography of Jelaleddin Mankberni.

[243] A. D. 1226; A. H. 624.

[244] Mohammed Nissawi’s Biography of Sultan Mankberni, and Hassan
ben Ibrahim, both extracted in Quatremère’s Notice Historique sur les
Ismaéliens, in vol. IV. Mines de l’Orient.

[245] Wassaf.

[246] A. D. 1255; A. H. 653.

[247] A. D. 1186.

[248] Takwimet-tevarikh, ann. 489 and 582. A. D. 1095.

[249] Mirkhond, fifth Part, History of the Mongols.

[250] See Mines de l’Orient, part I. p. 248.

[251] A. D. 1253; A. H. 651.

[252] Ali Effendi’s Historical Writings. Imperial Library at Vienna,
No. 125.

[253] A. D. 1256.

[254]

  Besal areb sheshsad u panchah u chehar shud
  Yek shumbah awal meh Silkide bamdad.

  In the six hundred and fifty-fourth year, it was
  Early on Sunday, on the first of Silkide.

  Mirkhond.

[255] A. D. 1257.

[256] Bengertus. Joachimus Camerarius, Arnoldus Lubecensis. Haithon
Armenensis, quoted in Withof’s Meuchelmörderischen Reich. der
Assassinen, p. 168, et seq. Bengertus, by mistake, places Tigado in
Syria.

[257] Tarikhi Masenderan. Imperial Library, Vienna. No. 117.

[258] Mines de l’Orient. vol. III.

[259] Mémoire Historique sur la Vie et les Ouvrages d’Alaeddin Atamelik
Djovaini, par M Quatremère. Mines de l’Orient, II. p. 220.

[260] View of the Sciences of the East. Encyclopedie.

[261] Mémoires Géographiques et Historiques sur l’Egypte, par
Quatremère, II. p. 506.

[262] Macrisi. Ibn Khaledun, Ibn Forat, Abulfaradj.

[263] Takwimet-tevarikh.

[264] Mirkhond. Wassaf. Gulsheni Khulifa.

[265] Aali’s Historical Sketches. Imp. Lib. Vienna. No. 115.

[266] Dar-es-selam, the house of peace. Wadi-es-selam, the valley of
peace. Medenet-es-selam, the city of peace. Burj ol evlia, castle of
the holy. Sevra, oblique.

[267] Jehannuma, p. 459.

[268] Ibid, p. 479, 480.

[269] Dar-es-shedshret.

[270] A. D. 918; A. H. 306.

[271] There is a more circumstantial detail in Abulfeda, Part II. p.
332, and Jehannuma, pp. 459 and 478, and in the Gulsheni Khulifa and
Lari, than in Gibbon, c. LII.

[272] The Persian Damdama, as well as the Arabic Thanthana, and the
Latin Tinnitus, are onomatopœias of this musical sound.

[273] Mirkhond, Wassaf, Gulsheni Khulifa.

[274] Deguignes, Part II. p. 197, and Abulfeda, ad. ann. 449.

[275] Continuator Theophanis. Gibbon, c. LIII.

[276] Mirkhond, Wassaf, Gulsheni Khulifa.

[277] A. D. 1165; A. H. 664.

[278] Macrisi, in the Book of the Sects. Ibn Forat.

[279] A. D. 1269; A. H. 668.

[280] Macrisi. Ibn Forat.

[281] A. D. 1270; A. H. 669.

[282] Jehannuma.

[283] Ibid, p. 590.

[284] About A. D. 790; A. H. 109.

[285] Jehannuma, p. 642.

[286] Eclaircissemens sur quelques circonstances de l’Histoire du
Vieux de la Montagne, Prince des Assassins. Histoire de l’Académie des
Inscriptions, XVI. p. 163.

[287] Nassaih-ol-Moluk, by Jelali. Imp. Library Vienna, No. 163.

[288] Ibid.

[289] A. D. 1326; A. H. 720.

[290] Macrisi, in the Book of Sects. Abulfeda.

[291] Mémoires sur les Ismaelis et Nossairis de Syrie, adressé à M.
Silv. de Sacy, par M. Rousseau. Annales des Voyages. Cahier XLII.

[292] Extrait d’un livre des Ismailis, pour faire suite au Mémoire sur
les Ismailis et Nossairis. Annales des Voyages, LII.

[293] A topographical Memoir on Persia.

[294] De Tenvil et Tensil autore Silvestre de Sacy, in novis
Commentariis Societatis Göttingensis.

[295] Volney Voyages.

[296] Jehannuma, p. 419.

[297] Livy. l. XXXIX. c. 8.

[298] Kopp, Ueber die Verfassung der heimlichen Gerichte in Westphalen.

[299] Annales des Voyages, cahier XLII. p. 13 of the article, and 283 of
the collection.

[300] Two khalifs; one of Bagdad, the other of Egypt; Herbelot, art.
Bathania. Tapares, Sultan of Khorassan, Ann.: Comnen. Alexiad. Book VI.
A king of Mossul and Seljukide prince; Extracts from the History of
Abulfeda, by Deguignes. The celebrated Vizier Nisam-ol-mulk, Herbelot,
art. Melekshah:—without reckoning many other assassinations recounted
by Abulfaradj, in different parts of his ninth dynasty.

[301] Mémoires de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, tom
XVII. p. 168. Falconet; Dissertation sur les Assassins Peuple d’Asie,
2e partie.

[302] The following is an extract from a late work on Botany, published
by Professor Burnett, of King’s College, which is strongly confirmatory
of De Sacy’s views; the same is likewise stated by Dr. Ainslie. _T._

“In India, hemp is cultivated as a luxury, and used solely as an
excitant. It possesses several peculiar intoxicating powers, and
produces luxurious dreams and trances. The leaves are sometimes chewed,
and sometimes smoked as tobacco. A stupifying liquor is also prepared
from them; and they enter with opium, betel nut, sugar, &c. into
various narcotic preparations. Prepared hemp is called by the Arabs
_hashish_, &c. &c.”—Burnett’s Botany, p. 560.

[303] Vol. XLI. No. 359, Monday, 25th December, 1809.


VIZETELLY, BRANSTON AND CO. PRINTERS, 76 FLEET STREET, LONDON.




      *      *      *      *      *      *




Transcriber's note:

English transliterations of Arabic, Persian, and Turkish names
are often inconsistent. Alternate spellings of these names occur
troughout this book, as is the case in similar books.

To avoid errors which can be introduced, to assure consistency, and
to be faithful to the original edition, only typographical and some
other obvious errors have been corrected.