No More Learning

But upon the sea at least the Empire asserted
its supremacy. The Persians fled, four thousand men perished with their
ships, and the enemy did not dare to renew the attempt
Heraclius realised that in order to carry war into Asia there must at
all costs be peace in Europe. He sacrificed his pride and concluded a
treaty with the Khagan (619). He raised 200,000 nomismata and sent*
as hostages to the Avars his own bastard son John or Athalarich, his
cousin Stephanus, and John the bastard son of Bonus the magister.
Sergius had forced Heraclius to swear that he would not abandon
Constantinople, and the Church now supplied the funds for the new
campaign. It agreed to lend at interest its vast wealth in plate that
the gold and silver might be minted into money; for this was no ordinary
struggle: it was a crusade to rescue from the infidel the Holy City and
the Holy Cross. Christian State and Christian Church must join hands
against a common foe. While Persian troops overran Asia, penetrating
even to Bithynia and the Black Sea, Heraclius made his preparations
and studied his plan of campaign. From Africa he had been borne to
empire under the protection of the Mother of God, and now it was
with a conviction of the religious solemnity of his mission that he
withdrew into privacy during the winter of 621 before he challenged
the might of the unbeliever. He himself, despite the criticism of his
subjects, would lead his forces in the field: in the strength of the God
of Battles he would conquer or die.
On 4 April 622 Heraclius held a public communion; on the
following day he summoned Sergius the patriarch and Bonus the magister
together with the senate, the principal officials and the entire populace
of the capital. Turning to Sergius, he said: "Into the hands of God
and of His Mother and into thine I commend this city and my son. "
After solemn prayer in the cathedral, the Emperor took the sacred image
of the Saviour and bore it from the church in his arms. The troops
1 These may have been Roman ships captured at Tarsus and other harbours
at this time occupied by Persia.
2 So modern historians: but perhaps these hostages were given in 623.


## p. 293 (#325) ############################################

622-623] Heraclius invades Persian territory 293
then embarked and in the evening of the same day, 5 April, the fleet set
sail. Despite a violent storm on 6 April the Emperor arrived in safety
at the small town of Pylae in the Bay of Nicomedia. Thence Heraclius
marched "into the region of the themes," i. e. in all probability Galatia
and perhaps Cappadocia. Here the work of concentration was carried
out: the Emperor collected the garrisons and added to their number his
new army. In his first campaign the object of Heraclius was to force
the Persian troops to withdraw from Asia Minor: he sought to pass the
enemy on the flank, to threaten his communications and to appear to
be striking at the very heart of his native country. The Persians had
occupied the mountains, hoping thus to confine the imperial troops
within the Pontic provinces during the winter, but by clever strategy
Heraclius turned their position and marched towards Armenia. Sahr-
baraz endeavoured to draw the Roman army after him by a raid on
Cilicia; but, realising that Heraclius could thus advance unopposed
through Armenia into the interior of Persia, he abandoned the project
and followed the Emperor. Heraclius at length forced a general
engagement and won a signal victory. The Persian camp was captured
and Sahrbaraz's army almost entirely destroyed. Rumours of impending
trouble with the western barbarians in Europe recalled Heraclius to the
capital, and his army went into winter quarters. The Emperor had
freed Asia Minor from the invader.
Chosroes now addressed a haughty letter to Heraclius which the
Emperor caused to be read before his ministers and the patriarch: the
despatch itself was laid before the high altar and all with tears implored
the succours of Heaven. In reply to Chosroes Heraclius offered the
Persian monarch an alternative: either let him accept conditions of
peace, or, should he refuse, the Roman army would forthwith invade his
kingdom. On 25 March 623 the Emperor left the capital, and celebrated
Easter in Nicomedia on 15 April, awaiting, it would seem, the enemy's
answer. Here, in all probability, he learned that Chosroes refused to
consider terms and treated with contempt the threat of invasion. Thus
(20 April) Heraclius set out on his invasion of Persia, marching into
Armenia with all speed by way of Caesarea, where he had ordered his
army to assemble1. Chosroes had commanded Sahrbaraz to make a raid
upon the territory of the Empire, but on the news of the sudden advance
of Heraclius he was immediately recalled, and was bidden to join his
forces to the newly raised troops under Sahin. From Caesarea Heraclius
proceeded through Karin to Dovin: the Christian capital of the province
of Ararat was stormed, and after the capture of Nachcavan he made for
Ganzaca (Takhti-Soleiman), since he heard that Chosroes was here in
person at the head of 40,000 men. On the defeat of his guards,
1 The reader is warned that this paragraph rests upon an interpretation of the
authorities which is peculiar to the present writer. This he hopes to justify in his
special study (to appear in B. Z. June 1912) on the date of the Avar surprise.
CR. IX.


## p. 294 (#326) ############################################

294 Heraclius returns to the West [623-625
however, the Persian king fled before the invaders; the city fell, while
the great temple which sheltered the fire of Usnasp was reduced to
ruins. Heraclius followed after Chosroes, and sacked many cities on his
march, but did not venture to press the pursuit: before him lay the
enemy's country and the Persian army, while his rear might at any
moment be threatened by the united advance of Sahrbaraz and Sahin.
Despite opposition, extreme cold, and scarcity of provisions he crossed
the Araxes in safety, carrying some 50,000 prisoners in his train. It
was shrewd policy which dictated their subsequent release; it created
a good impression and, as a result, there were fewer mouths to feed.
It was doubtless primarily as a recruiting ground that Heraclius sought
these Caucasian districts—the home of hardy and warlike mountaineers—
for the sorely harried provinces of Asia Minor were probably in no
condition to supply him with large contingents of troops. This is not
however the place to recount in detail the complicated story of the
operations of the winter of 623 and of the year 624. Sahin was utterly
discomfited at Tigranokert, but Heraclius was himself forced to retire
into Armenia before the army of Sahrbaraz (winter, 623). With the
spring of 624 we find Lazes, Abasges and Iberians as Roman allies,
though they subsequently deserted the Emperor when disappointed in
their expectations of spoil and plunder. Heraclius was once more unable
to penetrate into Persia, but was occupied in Armenia, marching and
countermarching between forces commanded by Sarablangas, Sahrbaraz
and Sahin. Sarablangas was slain, and late in the year Van was captured,
and Sarbar surprised in his winter quarters at Arces or Arsissa (at the
N. E. end of Lake Van). The Persian general was all but taken prisoner,
and very few of the garrison, 6000 strong, escaped destruction.
With the new year (625) Heraclius determined to return to the
West, before he once more attempted a direct attack upon Persia. We
can only conjecture the reasons which led him to take this step, but it
would seem probable that the principal inducement was a desire to assert
Roman influence in the south of Asia Minor and in the islands. The
Persians had occupied Cilicia before the capture of Jerusalem; in 623
it would appear that they had made a raid upon Rhodes, had seized the
Roman general and led off the inhabitants as prisoners, while in the
same year we are told that the Slavs had entered Crete. There is some
evidence which points to the conclusion that the Emperor was at this
time very anxious to recover the ground thus lost. There was con-
siderable doubt however as to which route should be pursued—that
through Taranda or that by way of the Taurus chain. The latter was
chosen despite its difficulty, as it was thought that provisions would be
thus more plentiful. From Van the army advanced through Martyropolis
and Amida, where the troops rested. But meanwhile Sahrbaraz, in hot
pursuit, had arrived first at the Euphrates and removed the bridge of
boats. The Emperor however crossed by a ford and reached Samosata


## p. 295 (#327) ############################################

623-626] The Siege of Constantinople 295
before March was out. As to the precise route which he followed on his
march to the Sarus there is considerable dispute1, but there is no doubt
that after a hotly contested engagement on that river Heraclius forced
the Persian general to beat a hasty retreat under cover of night. It
seems probable that the Emperor remained for a considerable time in
this district, but our sources fail us here, and we know only that he
ultimately marched to Sebastia, and crossing the Halys spent the winter
in that Pontic district where he had left his army at the end of the first
campaign.
The following year (626) is memorable for the great siege of the
capital by the united hordes of Avars, Bulgars, Slavs and Gepids, acting
in concert with a Persian force, which endeavoured to co-operate with
them from the Asiatic side of the strait. Sarbar's ill success on the
Sarus led Chosroes, we are told, to withdraw from his command 50,000
men and to place them, together with a new army raised indiscriminately
from foreigners, citizens and slaves, under the leadership of Sahin. Sahr-
baraz, with the remainder of his army, took up his position at Chalcedon
with orders to support the Khagan in his attack on Constantinople.
Heraclius in turn divided his forces: part were sent to garrison the
capital, part he entrusted to his brother Theodore who was to meet the
"Golden Lances " of Sahin, and the rest the Emperor himself retained.
Of Theodore's campaign we know nothing save the result: with the
assistance of a timely hail-storm and by the aid of the Virgin he so signally
defeated Sahin that the latter died of mortification. Of the operations
in Europe we are better informed. From the moment that Heraclius
had left the capital on his crusade against Persia the Khagan had been
making vast preparations, in the hope of capturing Constantinople. It
was the menace from the Danubian provinces which had recalled Heraclius
in the winter of 623, and now at last the Avar host was ready. On
Sunday, 29 June, on the festival of St Peter and St Paul, the advance
guard, 30,000 strong, reached the suburb of Melanthias and announced
that their leader had passed within the circuit of the Long Walls. Early
in the year, it seems, Bonus and Sergius had sent the patrician Athanasius
as an ambassador to the Avar chief, virtually offering to buy him off at
his own terms. But since the spring the walls had been strengthened,
reinforcements had arrived from Heraclius and his stirring letters had
awakened in the citizens a new spirit of confidence and enthusiasm.
Athanasius, who had been kept a prisoner by the Khagan, was now sent
from Hadrianople to learn the price at which the capital was prepared to
purchase safety. He was amazed at the change in public feeling, but
volunteered to carry back the city's proud reply. On 29 July 626 the
Avars and the countless forces of their subject tribesmen encamped
1 There are difficulties in accepting the emendations of the text of Theophanes
proposed by J. G. C. Anderson, "The Road-System of Eastern Asia Minor,"
/. H. S. xvii. (1897), pp. 33-34.


## p. 296 (#328) ############################################

296 The Slavs [595-626
before New Rome. The full story of the heroic defence cannot be related
in this place, but one consideration is too important to be omitted.
Had the Romans not been masters of the sea, the issue might well have
been less favourable; but the small Slav boats were all sunk or over-
turned in the waters of the Golden Horn, while Sahrbaraz at Chalcedon
was doomed to remain inactive, for Persia possessed no transports and
the Roman fleet made it impossible for the besiegers to carry their allies
across the straits. Thus at the very time that the barbarian attack by
sea collapsed in hopeless failure, the citizens had repulsed with heavy
loss the assault on the land walls which was directed mainly against that
section where the depression of the Lycus valley rendered the defences
most vulnerable. At length, on the eleventh day after his appearance
before Constantinople, the Khagan destroyed by fire his engines of war and
withdrew, vowing a speedy return with forces even more overwhelming.
As the suburbs of the city and the churches of Saints Cosmas and Damian
and St Nicholas went up in flames, men marked that the shrine of the
Mother of God in Blachernae remained inviolate: it was but one more
token of her power—her power with God, with her Son, and in the
general ordering of the world. The preservation of the city was the
Virgin's triumph, it was her answer to the prayers of her servants, and
with an annual festival the Church celebrated the memory of the great
deliverance. Bonus and Sergius had loyally responded to their Emperor's
trust1.
This was indeed the furthest advance of the Avars. They had
appeared in the Eastern Alps as early as 595-596, and had formally
invested Thessalonica in 597; it would seem that the city was
only saved through an outbreak of pestilence amongst the besiegers'.
After 604 there was no Roman army in the Danube provinces, and
in the reign of Phocas and the early years of Heraclius must be
placed the ravaging of Dalmatia by Avars and Slavs and the fall of
Salonae and other towns. At this time fugitives from Salonae founded
the city of Spalato, and those from Epidaurus the settlement which
afterwards became Ragusa. A contemporary tells how the Slavs in
those dark days of confusion and ravage plundered the greater part of
Illyricum, all Thessaly, Epirus, Achaia, the Cyclades and a part of
Asia. In another passage the same author relates how Avars and Slavs
destroyed the towns in the provinces of Pannonia, Moesia Superior, the
two Dacias, Rhodope, Dardania and Praevalis, carrying off" the inhabitants
into slavery. Fallmerayer's famous contention that the Greek people was
virtually exterminated is certainly an exaggeration, though throughout
Hellas there must have been Slav forays, and many a barbarian band
1 The date of the composition of the Hymnug Acathigtus would appear, despite
an enormous literature on the subject, to remain still undetermined.
2 Pestilence had also served the city well when besieged by the Goths. For the
siege, cf. W. Wroth, op. cit. t. p. xxi.


## p. 297 (#329) ############################################

625-627] Heraclius and the Chazars 297
must have planted itself on Greek soil. But when all is said, the
remarkable fact remains that while in the Danube provinces Roman
influence was submerged, Hellenism within its native territory asserted
its supremacy over the Slav invader and maintained alike its natural
language and character. Thus towards the close of our period amongst
the chaos of peoples making good their independence of the Avar over-
lordship there gradually emerged certain settlements which formed the
nucleus of nations yet to be. Not that Heraclius invited into the
Empire Croats and Serbs from a mythical Servia and Croatia somewhere
in the North—Croats and Serbs had already won by force their own
ground within the Roman frontier—but rather he recognised and
legalised their position as vassals of the Empire, and thus took up the
proud task of educating the southern Slavs to receive civilisation and
Christianity.
In 626, while the capital played its part, the Emperor was making
provision for striking a conclusive blow at Persia. He needed allies and
reinforcements, and he once more sought them among the tribesmen of the
Caucasus. It is probable that as early as the autumn of 625 he had sent
a certain Andrew as envoy to the Chazars1, and in 626 a force of 1000
men invaded the valley of the Kur and pillaged Iberia and Eger, so that
Chosroes threatened punishment and talked of withdrawing Sahin from
the West. The Chazars even took ship and visited the Emperor, when
mutual vows of friendship were interchanged. In the early summer of
627 the nephew of Dzebukhan (Ziebel) ravaged Albania and parts of
Atrpatakan. Later in the year (after June 627), envious of the booty
thus won, the Chazar prince took the field in person with his son, and
captured the strongly fortified post of Derbend. Gashak, who had been
despatched by Persia to organise the defence of the north, was unable to
protect the city of Partav and fled ignominiously. After these successes
Dzebukhan joined the Emperor (who took ship from Trebizond*) in the
siege of Tiflis. The Chazar chieftain, irritated by a pumpkin caricature
of himself which the inhabitants had displayed upon the walls, was
eager for revenge and refused to abandon the investment of the city,
though he agreed to give the Emperor a large force raised from his
subjects when the Roman army started on the last great campaign in
the autumn of 627'.
1 The chronology of this paragraph rests in part upon the view that Moses
of Kagankaitukh Kal has effected some transpositions in the apparently contemporary
source which was used by him in this part of his work.
2 Our sources are agreed that Heraclius went to the Chazar country by ship.
The departure from Trebizond is on conjecture based on Eutychius, ed. Pococke, n.
p. 231. For a discussion of the authorities, cf. Gerlaud, B. Z. in. pp. 341 ff.
3 Tiflis subsequently fell: on the peace of 628 Iberia became once more Roman,
and Heraclius set Adarnase I upon the throne; cf. J. Marquart, Osteuropaitche und
oslasiatixche Strei/suge, pp. 400 ff.


## p. 298 (#330) ############################################

298 HeracUus marches to Ctesiphon [627-628
Heraclius advanced through Sirak to the Araxes, and, crossing the
river, entered the province of Ararat. He now found himself opposed by
Rahzadh, a Persian general who was probably advancing to the relief of
Tiflis. But though the Chazar auxiliaries, dismayed by the approach
of winter and by the attacks of the Persians, returned to their homes,
the Emperor continued his march southward through Her and Zarewand
west of the Lake of Urmijah and reached the province of Atrpatakan.
Pressing forward, he crossed the mountain chain which divides Media
from Assyria, arriving at Chnaitha 9 Oct. , where he gave his men a
week's rest. Rahzadh had meanwhile reached Ganzaca and thence
followed the Emperor across the mountains, suffering severely on his
march from scarcity of supplies. By 1 Dec. the Emperor reached the
greater Zab and, crossing the river (i. e. marching north-west), took up his
position at Nineveh. Here (12 Dec. ) he won a decisive victory over
Rahzadh. The Persian general himself fell, and his troops, though not
completely demoralised, were in no condition to renew the struggle. On
21 Dec. the Emperor learned that the defeated Persians had effected
a junction with the reinforcements, 3000 strong, sent from the capital;
he continued his southern march, however, crossing the lesser Zab
(28 Dec. ) and spending Christmas on the estates of the wealthy super-
intendent of provincial taxation, Iesdem. During the festival, acting
on urgent despatches from Chosroes, the Persian army crossed the Zab
higher up its course, and thus interposed a barrier between Heraclius
and Ctesiphon. The Emperor on his advance found the stream of the
Torna (probably the N. arm of the Nahr Wan canal) undefended, while
the Persians had retreated so hurriedly that they had not even destroyed
the bridge. After the passage of the Torna he reached (1 Jan. 628) Beklal
(? Beit-Germa), and there learnt that Chosroes had given up his position
on the Beraznid canal, had deserted Dastagerd and fled to Ctesiphon.
Dastagerd was thus occupied without a struggle and three hundred
Roman standards were recovered, while the troops were greeted by
numbers of those who had been carried prisoners from Edassa, Alexandria
and other cities of the Empire. On 7 Jan. Heraclius advanced from
Dastagerd towards Ctesiphon, and on 10 Jan. he was only twelve
miles from the Nahr Wan; but the Armenians, who had been sent
forward to reconnoitre, brought back word that in face of the Persian
troops it was impossible to force the passage of the canal. Heraclius
after the battle of Nineveh had been, it would seem, ready to make
terms, but Chosroes had rejected his overtures. In an enemy's country,
with Persian troops in a strong defensive position blocking his path, with
his forces in all probability much reduced and with no present opportunity
of raising others, knowing that Sahrbaraz was still in command of a
Persian army in the West with which he could attack his rear, while
the severity of winter, though delayed, was now threatening, Heraclius
was compelled to retreat. Chosroes had at least been driven to inglorious


## p. 299 (#331) ############################################

591-629] Restoration of the Holy Cross 299
flight: the disgrace might well weaken his subjects' loyalty, and any
such lessening of the royal prestige could only strengthen the position
of the Romans; the Emperor even by his enforced withdrawal might
not thereby lose the fruits of victory. By Shehrizur he returned to
Baneh, and thence over the Zagros chain to Ganzaca, where he arrived
11 March—only just in time, for snow began to fall 24 Feb. and made
the mountain roads impassable.
But with the spring no new campaign was necessary; on 3 April 628
an envoy from the Persian court reached Ganzaca announcing the violent
death of Chosroes and the accession of his son Siroes; the latter offered
to conclude peace, and this proposal Heraclius was willing to accept.
On 8 April the embassy left for Ctesiphon, while on the same day the
Emperor turned his face homeward and in a despatch to the capital,
announcing the end of the struggle, expressed the hope that he would
soon see his people again. It is uncertain what were the precise terms
of the peace of 628, but they included the restoration of the Cross and
the evacuation of the Empire's territory by the armies of Persia. It is
probable that the Roman frontier was to follow the line agreed upon in
the treaty of 591. These conditions were, it would seem, accepted
by Siroes (Feb. —Sept. 628), but Sahrbaraz had never moved from
Western Asia since 626 and it was doubtful whether he would comply
with such terms. Thus when the Cross was once more in Roman hands,
Heraclius was able to distribute portions of the Holy Wood amongst
the more influential Christians of Armenia—a politic prelude to his
schemes of church union—but felt it necessary to remain in the East
to secure the triumph which he had so hardly won. After a winter
spent at Amida, in the early spring the Emperor journeyed to Jerusalem
and (28 March 629) amidst a scene of unbounded religious enthusiasm
restored to the Holy City the instrument of the world's salvation.
On the feast of St Lazarus (7 April) the news reached Constantinople,
and Christendom celebrated a new resurrection from the power of its
oppressors; a fragment of the true Cross sent from Jerusalem served
but to deepen the city's exultation1.
Sahrbaraz however refused to withdraw his army from Roman soil,
and in June 629 Heraclius met him at Arabissus and purchased his
concurrence by a promise to support him with imperial troops in his
attempt to secure the Persian throne. Sahrbaraz marched to Ctesiphon,
only to perish after a month's reign, and thus the Empire was freed from
the invader. In September Heraclius returned to the capital and after
six years' campaigning enjoyed a well-earned sabbath of repose. It is an
important moment in Roman history: the King of kings, the Empire's
only rival, was humbled and Heraclius could now for the first time add
1 This chronology differs widely from that adopted by recent authors (e. g. Bolotov
and Marr).


## p. 300 (#332) ############################################

300 Character of Heraclius [629
to the imperial style the proud title of jSacriXew. The restoration of
the Cross suggested the sign which had been given to the great Constantine.
and Africa adopted (629) the first Greek inscription to be found on the
imperial coinage—the motto iv tovtu> vUa. This may stand for us as
a symbol of the decline of the Latin element within the Empire: from
the reign of Phocas the old Roman names disappear and those of Graeco-
Oriental origin take their place.
With these campaigns the period of the successors of Justinian has
reached its end and a new epoch begins. The great contest between
the Empires has weakened both combatants and has rendered possible
the advance of the invaders from the South.
Spain has driven out her
last imperial garrisons, the Lombards are settled in Italy, the Slavs
have permanently occupied the Danubian provinces—Rome's dominions
take a new shape and the statesmen of Constantinople are faced with
fresh problems. Imperialist dreams are past, and for a time there is no
question of expansion: at moments it is a struggle for bare existence.
In his capital the old Emperor, broken in health and harassed by
domestic feuds, watches the peril from the desert spreading over the
lands which his sword had regained and views the ruin of his cherished
plans for a united Empire.
The character of Heraclius has fascinated the minds of historians
from the time of Gibbon to the present day, but surely much of the
riddle rests in our scanty knowledge of the early years of his reign: the
more we know, the more comprehensible does the Emperor become.
At the first Priscus commanded the troops and Priscus was disaffected:
Heraclius was powerless, for he had no army with which to oppose his
mutinous general. With the disappearance of Priscus the Emperor was
faced with the problem of raising men and money from a ruined and
depopulated empire. After the ill-success of his untrained army in 613,
by the loss of Syria and Egypt the richest provinces and even the few
recruiting grounds that remained fell into the enemy's hands. Heraclius
was powerless: the taunt of Phocas must have rung in his ears: "Will
you govern the Empire any better? " Africa appeared the sole way of
escape: among those who knew him and his family he might awake
sacrifice and enthusiasm and obtain the sinews of war. The project
worked wonders—but in other ways than he had schemed. Men were
impressed by the strength of his sincerity and the force of his personality
—more, the Church would lend her wealth. Then came the KhaganV
treachery—the loss of thousands of men who might have been enrolled
in the new regiments which he was raising: the peace with the Avars
and after two more years had been spent in further preparations,
including probably the building of fresh fortifications for the capital
which he was leaving to its own resources, the campaigns against Persia
At last, through long-continued hardships in the field, through ceaseless
labours that defied ill-health, his physical strength gave way and he


## p. 301 (#333) ############################################

The First of the Crusaders 301
became a prey to disease and nervous fears. Do we really need fine-
spun psychological theories to explain the reign with its alternations
of failure and success? It may at least be doubted.
Yet it is not in these last years of gloom and suspicion that we
would part with Heraclius: we would rather recall in him despite all
his limitations the successful general, the unremitting worker for the
preservation and unity of the Empire which he had sailed from Africa
to save, an enthusiast with the power to inspire others, a practical
mystic serving the Lord Christ and the Mother of God—one of the
greatest of Rome's Caesars.
CH. IT,


## p. 302 (#334) ############################################

302
CHAPTER X.
MAHOMET AND ISLAM.
Otra knowledge of Mahomet, his life and his teaching, is derived
entirely from documents which have been handed down by Muslims;
no contemporary non-Muslim account is extant, and the testimony of
later non-Muslim writers has as little claim to consideration as the
statements in the Talmud concerning Christ. Among our authorities
the Koran, for obvious reasons, occupies the foremost place. The
pieces of which it is composed are acknowledged, alike by those who
assert and by those who deny its supernatural character, to have
been promulgated as divine revelations by the Founder of the
religion himself, nor is there any ground for the supposition that the
text underwent substantial change in later times. But although the
authenticity of the Koran admits of no dispute its interpretation is
involved in peculiar difficulties. It was not put together till about
two years after Mahomet's death, and the arrangement of the chapters
is wholly arbitrary, without regard to subject-matter or chronological
sequence. Even a single chapter, as is recognised not only by modern
European critics but also by all Muslim theologians of repute,
sometimes consists of earlier and later fragments which were com-
bined either by accident or through some mistake as to their import.
Such mistakes were all the more likely to occur in consequence of
the peculiarly allusive style in which the Koran is written; when it
refers to contemporary persons or events, which is often the case, it
seldom mentions them in explicit terms, but employs various circum-
locutions. Hence it is impossible to explain the book without continually
calling in the aid of Muslim tradition, as embodied in the works of
theologians and historians, the earliest of whom lived some generations
after the time of the Prophet. This literature is of enormous extent,
but it contains many unintentional misrepresentations and many
deliberate falsehoods. To separate the historical from the unhistoric. il
elements is often difficult and sometimes impossible.
The condition of Arabia in pre-Muslim times is, from the nature
of the case, very imperfectly known to us. The great majority of
the inhabitants consisted of small nomadic tribes who recognised no
authority but that of their own chiefs. The nomads, being wholly


## p. 303 (#335) ############################################

Arabia before Islam 303
ignorant of the art of writing, could leave behind them no permanent
records, and as tribes were frequently broken up, in consequence of
famine, internal dissensions and other calamities, their oral traditions
had little chance of surviving. It was only in a few districts that a
settled and comparatively civilised population existed. Wherever such
a centre of civilisation was formed, the nomads in the immediate vicinity
had a tendency to fall under the influence of their more cultured neigh-
bours, and sometimes tribal confederacies, dignified with the name of
"kingdoms," came into being. In early times, by far the most important
of these civilised regions was to be found in south-western Arabia, the
land of the Sabaeans, or, as it is now called, Yaman {i. e. the South).
The power and prosperity of the Sabaeans, to which innumerable ruins
and inscriptions still bear witness, began to decline about the time of
Christ and were utterly overthrown, near the beginning of the sixth
century, by the inroads of the half-savage Abyssinians. Meanwhile
other Arabian kingdoms had arisen in the north, in particular that of
the clan called the Ghassan, on the eastern frontier of Palestine, and
that of the Lakhm on the Euphrates; the former kingdom was politically
subject to the Byzantine Emperors, the latter to the Persians. But
about the time when Mahomet came forward as a prophet both of
these vassal kingdoms ceased to exist, and for a while there was
nowhere within the borders of Arabia any political organisation which
deserved to be called a State.
In religious, as in political matters, Arabia presented no appearance
of unity. The paganism of the Arabs was in general of a remarkably
crude and inartistic kind, with no ritual pomp, no elaborate mythology
and, it hardly needs to be said, no tinge of philosophical speculation.
The religion of the ancient Sabaeans probably bore a greater resemblance
to that of the more advanced nations, but in the time of Mahomet this
Sabaean religion was almost wholly forgotten, and the paganism which
still survived consisted mainly of certain very primitive rites performed
at particular sanctuaries. An Arabian sanctuary was, in some cases, a
rudely constructed edifice containing images of the gods or other objects
of worship, but often it was nothing more than an open space marked by
a sacred tree or a few blocks of stone. Some sanctuaries were frequented
only by members of a particular tribe, while others were annually visited
by various tribes from far and near. The settled Arabs, as a rule, paid
more attention than the nomads to religion, but even in the settled
districts there seems to have been a singular lack of religious fervour.
The traditional rites were kept up from mere conservatism and with
hardly any definite belief as to their mealing. Hence wherever the
Arabs came into close contact with a foreign religion, they readily adopted
it, at least in name. Arabian communities professing some sort of
Christianity were to be found not only on the northern frontier but also
at Najran in the south. Judaised communities were especially numerous


## p. 304 (#336) ############################################

304 Mecca [c. 570
in the north-west of the Arabian peninsula, and Zoroastrian communities
in the neighbourhood of the Persian Gulf.
Among the centres of Arabian paganism none occupied a more
distinguished place than Mecca (in Arabic Makka, or sometimes Bakka)
which, thirteen centuries ago, was a small town situated in a barren
valley, about 60 miles from the Red Sea coast. In an open space near
the middle of the town stood the local sanctuary, a kind of rectangular
hut, known as the Kctba (i. e. Cube), which contained an image of the
Meccan god Hubal and various other sacred objects. A large propor-
tion of the Arabian tribes regarded Mecca with exceptional veneration;
all the surrounding district was a sacred territory, within which no blood
might be shed. Some miles from the town a yearly festival took place
and was attended by crowds of pilgrims from all quarters. Recent
investigations have proved that this institution, called in Arabic the
Hajj, i. e. "festival'1 or "pilgrimagel," originally had no connexion with
Mecca itself, and may possibly have been established before Mecca and
the Ea'ba had come into existence. However this may be, it is certain
that in historical times the pilgrims who attended the festival usually
visited the Ea'ba and were treated by the Meccans as their guests;
hence the annual Pilgrimage came to be intimately associated with the
holy city.
In the sixth century after Christ most of the inhabitants of Mecca
belonged to a tribe which bore the name of Kuraish. It was well known,
however, that the Kuraish were recent immigrants. Both the town and
the sanctuary had formerly been in the possession of other tribes, but as
to the origin of Mecca no credible tradition survived. The Kuraish
were subdivided into a number of clans, each of which claimed the right
of managing its own affairs. On important occasions the chief men of
the various clans met to deliberate; but there was no central authority.
The sterility of the soil rendered agriculture almost impossible, and the
Meccans had long subsisted by trading with distant countries. Every
year great caravans were despatched to Syria and returned laden with
wares, which the Meccans sold at a large profit to the neighbouring
Bedouins. The mercantile population of the town was naturally far
superior, in general intelligence and knowledge of the outer world, to
the mass of the Arabs. A considerable proportion of the Meccans had
learnt the art of writing, but they used it for practical purposes only.
Book-learning, as we understand it, was quite unknown to them.
At Mecca, about a. d. 570% Mahomet (properly Muhammad) was
born. The clan to which he belonged, the Banu Hashim, is commonly
represented by Muslim writers as one of the most distinguished branches
1 A pilgrimage to Mecca which is not performed in connexion with the yearly
festival is called 'umra, i. e. "visit," sometimes translated by "lesser pilgrimage. "
8 The evidence clearly shews that the early disciples of the Prophet had no
trustworthy information as to the precise year of his birth.


## p. 305 (#337) ############################################

c. 594] Early Life of Mahomet 305
of the Kuraish, but the evidence which we possess tends to prove
that in pre-Muslim times it occupied quite a subordinate place. Of
Mahomet's father, 'Abdallah, son of 'Abd-al-Muttalib, we know
scarcely anything except that he died shortly before the Prophet's birth.
Amina, the mother of Mahomet, died a very few years later, and the
orphan boy afterwards lived for a while in the charge of his grandfather,
'Abd-al-Muttalib, who had a numerous family. On the death of 'Abd-al-
Muttalib, one of his sons, Abu Talib, undertook the care of Mahomet,
who seems to have been treated kindly but to have endured many hard-
ships, since none of his near relatives were wealthy. When he was about
24 years of age he entered the service of an opulent woman, considerably
older than himself, named Khadija. The antecedents and social position
of Khadija are shrouded in some mystery', but it is certain that she had
been twice married and that at the time when she made the acquaintance
of Mahomet she was living at Mecca with several of her children, who
were still quite young. Mahomet appears to have succeeded at once
in gaining her confidence. She entrusted him with the management of
her property, and about the year 594 sent him to Syria on a commercial
expedition, which he directed with conspicuous success. On his return
he became her husband. For a few years he led the life of a prosperous
tradesman; several daughters were born to him and two sons, both of
whom died in infancy.
The process whereby Mahomet was led to occupy himself with
religious questions and finally to believe in his divine mission is altogether
obscure. That the doctrines which he afterwards preached did not arise
spontaneously in his mind but were mainly derived from older religions
seems obvious. It appears certain, however, that he was wholly un-
acquainted with religious literature. Whether he ever learnt the
Arabic alphabet is a question which has been fiercely debated, both
among Muslims and Christians; at all events we know that, in
his later years, whenever he wished to record anything in writing he
employed a secretary. But the question whether he could read is of
little practical importance, since no religious books seem to have existed
in Arabic at that period, and that he could read any foreign language
is utterly incredible. We are therefore obliged to conclude that his
information was derived entirely from oral sources; who his informants
were we can only conjecture. At Mecca itself there was apparently no
permanent colonv of Christians, Jews or Zoroastrians, but isolated
adherents of the principal foreign religions doubtless visited the town
from time to time'. It has often been suggested that Mahomet
1 See Robertson Smith, Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia, 2nd ed. 1903,
pp. 289, 290, who supposes that something discreditable has been deliberately con-
cealed.
2 We learn from the Koran (chaps, xvi. 105, xxv. 5) that the heathen Meccans
accused Mahomet of fabricating his revelations out of material supplied by some
foreigner, or foreigners—a charge which the Prophet vehemently denies. It may
C MED. H. VOL. II. CB. X. 20


## p. 306 (#338) ############################################

306 Religious Influences
acquired some knowledge of Christianity during one of his commercial
journeys in Syria. This is possible; but it should be remembered that
an Arab trader, ignorant both of Aramaic and of Greek, would have
great difficulty in obtaining information on religious subjects from
Syrian Christians, since those of them who spoke Arabic usually
belonged to the most illiterate class. Moreover another and a very
important fact has to be taken into consideration. According to
Muslim tradition there were about this time, at Mecca and a few
other places in western Arabia, certain individuals who had become
dissatisfied with the popular paganism, devoted themselves to religious
meditation and professed a monotheistic belief. These persons were
called Hanlfs, a term of which the origin and precise meaning are
obscure. The Hanlfs did not form a sect, for they had no organisation
and, it would seem, little communication with one another. Our
information about them is naturally very meagre, being derived, for the
most part, from scraps of poetry which they are said to have composed;
but the authenticity of these pieces is often doubtful. One of the most
celebrated Hanlfs was the Meccan Zaid ibn 'Amr, who appears to have
died during Mahomet's boyhood. Another was Waraka ibn Naufal, a
cousin of KhadTja. This man died, at a very advanced age, some years
after Mahomet's marriage. The relation in which he stood to the
Prophet renders him an object of peculiar interest: it is therefore all the
more to be regretted that so little can be ascertained concerning him.
According to one tradition, he ended by adopting Christianity, which is
possibly true; he is also said to have translated part of the Christian
Scriptures into Arabic, which is highly improbable. ! But vague as is
our knowledge of the Hanlfs in general and of Waraka iij particular, we
are justified in believing that befor^^Iahomet's birth a,movement in
the direction of spiritual monotheism had already begurt among the
Arabs. jHow far this movement was originally due to Christian and
other foreign influences we can scarcely hope to determine. Our ac-
quaintance with Oriental Christianity in the sixth century is almost
entirely confined to the great official Churches; the smaller Christian
communities, and especially the half-Christian sects, with whom the
Arabs were likely to come in contact, have, with rare exceptions, left no
literary records.
With regard to the beginning of Mahomet's prophetic career, and
the circumstances under which he received his earliest revelations, we
possess many legends but very little genuine tradition. All accounts
be added that Muslim legends about the Prophet's intercourse with Christians
and Jews, during the earlier part of his life, are open to the gravest suspicion, since
nearly all these stories have an apologetic purpose, namely to prove that the Christian
or Jew in question recognised Mahomet as a prophet by means of some sign, in
particular by a mark on the back, which mark is termed "the seal of the prophetic
calling. "


## p. 307 (#339) ############################################

Beginning of the Propaganda 307
agree as to the fact that at this period he spent much time in fastings
and solitary vigils, a practice which was probably suggested to him by
the example of Christian ascetics. He appears to have been naturally
of a nervous temperament, with a tendency to hysteria; whether he
suffered from epilepsy, as several European writers have believed, may
be doubted1. In any case he was subject to paroxysms which presented
the appearance of a violent fever; these seizures were regarded, both by
himself and by his followers, as symptoms of divine inspiration. It is
therefore evident that we are here dealing with a psychological problem
which no information would enable us to solve.
The Koran (chap, lxxxvii. 6,7) admits that Mahomet forgot some of
the communications made to him by God, and it is possible that even the
oldest passages now extant were produced some time after he had become
conscious of his divine vocation. One point seems quite clear, namely
that during the first few years of his mission he did not come forward as
a public preacher but carried on a secret propaganda within the circle
of his more intimate companions. Among the earliest converts were his
wife Khadlja, his cousin Ali (properly iAll), son of Abu Talib, and Abu
Bakr, who did not belong to the Prophet's clan but remained to the last
his most trusted friend. The passages of the Koran which can with any
probability be assigned to this more private period are few in number
and invariably very short. Those which belong to the earlier part of his
public career are much more numerous. They deal mainly with three
subjects, (1) the unity and attributes of God, (2) the moral duties of
mankind, and (3) the coming retribution. Mahomet's monotheism, like
that of the later Hebrew prophets, necessarily involves the condemnation
of idolatry, but it is to be noted that he nowhere describes the religion of
his pagan fellow-countrymen as something wholly false. Though he
identifies the one true God with the God of the Jews* and the Christians,
he at the same time assumes that the heathen have some knowledge of
God8 and even that God is, in some special sense, the God of Mecca.
In a very early passage of the Koran (chap, cvi. ) the Kuraish are
1 The hypothesis of epilepsy is decidedly rejected by De Goeje, "Die Berufung
Mohammed's," in OrientalischeS<udt'en(N61deke-Festschrift),Giessen, 1906, i. pp. 1-6.
2 The term Rahman, "the Merciful," which is often used in the Koran as
synonymous with "God," was unknown to the heathen Meccans and seems to have
been borrowed from the Jews. It may be mentioned, however, that this word appears
as an epithet of the Deity not only in Jewish literature but also in the inscriptions
of the heathen Syrians.
3 The ancient poets of pagan Arabia frequently speak of "God" {Allah) in a
manner which seems to imply that they recognised Him as the supreme Being.
How they conceived the relation between this "God" and the various local deities
it is impossible to say with any precision. According to the Koran (chap. xvi.
59 ff. ) the heathen regarded certain of their goddesses as the "daughters" of
Allah, but it would be unsafe to assume that the heathen themselves used this
phrase in a literal sense, since "daughters of God" may mean (as with the
Gnostics) nothing more than "female divine beings. "
ch. x. 20—2


## p. 308 (#340) ############################################

308 Doctrine of the Koran
exhorted to worship "the Lord of this house," that is, of the Ka'ba.
Hence it is evident that Mahomet considered himself rather as a
reformer than as a preacher of an altogether new religion. Similarly in
dealing with ethical questions he often implies that the pagan notions
of justice, honour and propriety are to some extent valid. Thus, for
instance, his repeated denunciations of avarice are quite in the spirit of
the ancient Arabs, to whom the "miser11 was an object of special
abhorrence.
But in contradistinction to the ethical code of the heathen,
which was mainly based upon tribal patriotism ('asabiiya), Mahomet
emphasises thfijiniversal obligaiions_Qf_morality, and above all the duty
of forgiving injuries instead of avenging them. It is in his doctrine of
the Judgment and the life to come that he departs most widely from
the ordinary beliefs of the time. The heathen Arabs, like other
primitive peoples, were familiar with the notion of a ghost, or wraith,
which haunts, at least for a while, the resting-place of the dead body;
but the idea of a future retribution was quite foreign to their habits of
thought. The doctrine of the Resurrection, as it appears in the Koran,
seems to be mainly derived from Christianity; that some details were
borrowed from Judaism or Zoroastrianism is possible but can scarcely be
proved. Mahomet, as we might have expected, conceives the Resur-
rection after the most crudely materialistic fashion; to him the recon-
struction of the physical organism was an essential postulate of the future
recompense. The descriptions of the Judgment itself and of the torments
of the damned do not differ substantially from those which are found
in popular Christian writings of medieval and modern times. On the
other hand the delights of Paradise are often painted in colours to which
neither Christianity nor Judaism affords any parallel1. But what
especially characterises the older portions of the Koran is the constant
emphasis laid on the nearness of the Resurrection and the Day of
Judgment. Although Mahomet nowhere specifies any definite time,
and when questioned on this point by his opponents always professed
ignorance, it is clear that he lived in daily expectation of the great
events which formed the main subject of his preaching. Nor is this at
all inconsistent with the fact that some passages of the Koran seem to
announce a special calamity which was to befall the Meccans for their
unbelief, rather than a world-wide catastrophe. Similarly, it will be
remembered, among the early Christians the expectation of the judgment
1 It is remarkable that passages of this sort are almost entirely confined to
the earlier chapters, which date from a time when the very notion of rewards
and punishments after death was treated by the Meccans -with derision, as the
Prophet frequently complains. To suppose, with many European writers, that
the early converts to Islam were attracted chiefly by the prospect of a material
Paradise is therefore altogether unreasonable, since only those who had on other
grounds accepted Mahomet as a prophet could believe in any Paradise whatsoever.


## p. 309 (#341) ############################################

Religious Practices 309
of the world and the expectation of the overthrow of Jerusalem
were sometimes so closely connected as to become indistinguishable.
A great part of the Koran consists of narratives, inserted for
purposes of edification. Scarcely any of these can be described as
historical; on the other hand, scarcely any is a pure invention of
Mahomet's. In almost every case he utilises some legend that he had
heard, in order to enforce his doctrines. Thus he repeatedly introduces
persons mentioned in the Old Testament and puts into their mouths
discourses in favour of monotheism, moral precepts, etc. The opposition
which they encountered and the chastisements which overtook their
adversaries are likewise described at great length. The allusions to
Christ and the early Christian Church present some very curious and
hitherto unexplained features. That Christ, or any other being, can be
a "son of God" is emphatically denied; at the same time the belief that
Christ was born of a virgin is fully accepted, and among the prophets of
past ages He occupies a specially prominent place. But of the facts of
Christ's life Mahomet appears to have known next to nothing. In
one of the later chapters of the Koran (iv. 156) the Jews are condemned
for asserting that Christ was put to death and the crucifixion is
represented as a deceptive appearance. The fact that Christians
believed in the Crucifixion is totally ignored, and we may therefore
conclude that on this very important point Mahomet's Christian
informants held opinions resembling those which are ascribed to the
ancient Docetists.
The disciples of the Prophet called themselves Muslims, but were
usually known by the name of "Sabians" (Sabivn)1. Their organisation
and rules of life were at first of a very simple kind. They bound
themselves to abstain from idolatry and from certain immoral practices,
especially fornication and infanticide. The cult consisted mainly of
prayers, according to the formulae prescribed by the Prophet; meetings
for this purpose were held at stated times, but always in strict privacy.
In order to indicate that the God whom he proclaimed was identical
with the God of the Jews, Mahomet commanded his followers to
adopt the Jewish practice of praying towards Jerusalem*. At this time
he appears to have had scarcely any notion of the difference between
Judaism and Christianity; consequently he was able to regard both
Jews and Christians as his brethren in religion.
1 The terms Muslim, "one who surrenders himself," and Mam, "surrender," are
commonly explained as denoting "resignation" to the will of God, but it is more
likely that they refer primarily to the deliberate adoption of a new faith as distin-
guished from blind conformity to a hereditary cult. The Sabians—a name which,
of course, has no connexion with that of the Sabaeans—seem to have been a sect,
or group of sects, of the half-Christian, half-heathen type. Why the Muslims were
called Sabians is uncertain; probably the nickname was due, as usual, to some
accidental point of similarity.
2 See 1 Kings viii. 29 ff.