Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 16.djvu/628

Rh GOO MOHAMMEDANISM [KORAN. laments. speaking. Other narratives are intended rather for amuse ment, although they are always well seasoned with edifying phrases. It is no wonder that the godless Koraishites thought these stories of the Koran not nearly so entertain ing as those of Rostam and Ispandiar related by Nadr the son of H4rith, who had learned on the Euphrates the heroic mythology of the Persians. But the Prophet was so exasperated by this rivalry that when Nadr fell into his power after the battle of Badr, he caused him to be executed ; although in all other cases he readily pardoned his fellow- countrymen. Relation These histories are chiefly about Scripture characters, to the especially those of the Old Testament. But the deviations Old and f rom the Biblical narratives are very marked. Many of !S &quot; the alterations are found in the legendary anecdotes of the Jewish Haggada and the New Testament Apocrypha ; but many more are due to misconceptions such as only a listener (not the readei of a book) could fall into. The most igno rant Jew could never have mistaken Haman (the minister of Ahasuerus) for the minister of Pharaoh, or identified Miriam the sister of Moses with Mary ( = Miriam) the mother of Christ. In addition to such misconceptions there are sundry capricious alterations, some of them very grotesque, due to Mohammed himself. For instance, in his ignorance of everything out of Arabia, he makes the fertility of Egypt where rain is almost never seen and never missed depend on rain instead of the inundations of the Nile (xii. 49). It was through the Jews also that he borrowed his account of Alexander &quot; the Horned &quot; ; an epithet which is to be explained, after old Hottinger, from the great multitude of coins where Alexander is represented with the ram s-horn of Ammon. Besides Jewish and Christian histories there are a few about old Arabian prophets. In these he seems to have handled his materials even more freely than in the others. The opinion has already been expressed that Mohammed did not make use of written sources. Coincidences and divergences alike can always be accounted for by oral com munications from Jews who knew a little and Christians who knew next to nothing. Even in the rare passages where we can trace direct resemblances to the text of the Old Testament (comp. xxi. 105 with Ps. xxxvii. 29 ; i. 5 with Ps. xxvii. 11) or the New (comp. vii. 48 with Luke xvi. 24 ; xlvi. 19 with Luke xvi. 25), there is nothing more than might readily have been picked up in conversation with any Jew or Christian. In Medina, where he had the opportunity of becoming acquainted with Jews of some culture, he learned some things out of the Mishna, e.g. v. 35 corresponds almost word for word with Mishna Sank. iv. 5 ; compare also ii. 183 with Mishna Ber. i. 2. That these are only cases of oral communication will be admitted by any one with the slightest knowledge of the circum stances. Otherwise we might even conclude that Moham med had studied the Talmud ; e.g. the regulation as to ablution by rubbing with sand, where water cannot be obtained (iv. 46), corresponds to a talmudic ordinance (Her. 15 a). Of Christianity he can have been able to learn very little even in Medina ; as may be seen from the absurd travesty of the institution of the Eucharist in v. 112 sqq. For the rest, it is highly improbable that before the Koran any real literary production anything that could be strictly called a book existed in the Arabic language. In point of style and artistic effect, the different parts of the Koran are of very unequal value. An unprejudiced and critical reader will certainly find very few passages where his aesthetic susceptibilities are thoroughly satisfied. But he will often be struck, especially in the older pieces, by a wild force of passion, and a vigorous, if not rich, imagination. Descriptions of heaven and hell, and allu sions to God s working in Nature, not unfrequently show Style. a certain amount of poetic power. In other places also the style is sometimes lively and impressive ; though it is rarely indeed that we come across such strains of touching simplicity as in the middle of xciii. The greater part of the Koran is decidedly prosaic ; much of it indeed is stiff in style. Of course, with such a variety of material, we cannot expect every part to be equally vivacious, or imaginative, or poetic. A decree about the right of inheritance, or a point of ritual, must necessarily be expressed in prose, if it is to be intelligible. No one complains of the civil laws in Exodus or the sacrificial ritual in Leviticus, because they want the fire of Isaiah or the tenderness of Deuter onomy. But Mohammed s mistake consists in persistent and slavish adherence to the semi-poetic form which he had at first adopted in accordance with his own taste and that of his hearers. For instance, he employs rhyme in dealing with the most prosaic subjects, and thus produces the disagreeable effect of incongruity between style and matter. It has to be considered, however, that many of those sermonizing pieces which are so tedious to us, especi ally when we read two or three in succession (perhaps in a very inadequate translation), must have had a quite different effect when recited under the burning sky and on the barren soil of Mecca. There, thoughts about God s greatness and man s duty, which are familiar to us from childhood, were all new to the hearers it is hearers we have to think of in the first instance, not readers to whom, at the same time, every allusion had a meaning which often escapes our notice. When Mohammed spoke of the goodness of the Lord in creating the clouds, and bringing them across the cheerless desert, and pouring them out on the earth to restore its rich vegetation, that must have been a picture of thrilling interest to the Arabs, who are accustomed to see from three to five years elapse before a copious shower comes to clothe the wilderness once more with luxuriant pastures. It requires an effort for us, under our clouded skies, to realize in some degree the intensity of that impression. The fact that scraps of poetical phraseology are spe- Rhetori- cially numerous in the earlier suras, enables us to under- cal form stand why the prosaic mercantile community of Mecca 8 ? rliVTiic regarded their eccentric townsman as a &quot; poet,&quot; or even a &quot;possessed poet.&quot; Mohammed himself had to disclaim such titles, because he felt himself to be a divinely-inspired prophet ; but we too, from our standpoint, shall fully acquit him of poetic genius. Like many other predomi nantly religious characters, he had no appreciation of poetic beauty ; and if we may believe one anecdote related of him, at a time when every one made verses he affected ignorance of the most elementary rules of prosody. Hence the style of the Koran is not poetical but rhetorical ; and the powerful effect which some portions produce on us is gained by rhetorical means. Accordingly the sacred book has not even the artistic form of poetry ; which, among the Arabs, includes a stringent metre, as well as rhyme. The Koran is never metrical, and only a few exceptionally eloquent portions fall into a sort of spontaneous rhythm. On the other hand, the rhyme is regularly maintained ; although, especially in the later pieces, after a very slovenly fashion. Rhymed prose was a favourite form of composition among the Arabs of that day, and Mohammed adopted it ; but if it imparts a certain sprightliness to some passages, it proves on the whole a burdensome yoke. The Moslems themselves have observed that the tyranny of the rhyme often makes itself apparent in derangement of the order of words, and in the choice of verbal forms which would not otherwise have been employed ; e.g. an imperfect instead of a perfect. In one place, to save the rhyme, he calls Mount Sinai Sinin (xcv. 2) instead of Slnd (xxiii. 20) ; in another Elijah is called llydsin (xxxvii. 130) instead of