Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 16.djvu/629

Rh KORAN.] MOHAMMEDANISM C01 Stylistic weak nesses. Dogma of the stylistic perfec tion of the Koran. II yds (vi. 85; xxxvii. 123). The substance even is modi fied to suit exigencies of rhyme. Thus the Prophet would scarcely have fixed on the unusual number of eight angels round the throne of God (Ixix. 17) if the word thamdniyah, &quot;eight,&quot; had not happened to fall in so well with the rhyme. And when Iv. speaks of two heavenly gardens, each with two fountains and two kinds of fruit, and again of two similar gardens, all this is simply because the dual termination (an) corresponds to the syllable that controls the rhyme in that whole sura. In the later pieces, Mohammed often inserts edifying remarks, entirely out of keeping with the context, merely to complete his rhyme. In Arabic it is such an easy thing to accumulate masses of words with the same termination, that the gross negli gence of the rhyme in the Koran is doubly remarkable. One may say that this is another mark of the Prophet s want of mental training, and incapacity for introspective criticism. On the whole, while many parts of the Koran un doubtedly have considerable rhetorical power, even over an unbelieving reader, the book, aesthetically considered, is by no means a first-rate performance. To begin with what we are most competent to criticize, let us look at some of the more extended narratives. It lias already been noticed how vehement and abrupt they are where they ought to be characterized by epic repose. Indispens able links, both in expression and in the sequence of events, are often omitted, so that to understand these histories is sometimes far easier for us than for those who heard them first, because we know most of them from better sources. Along with this, there is a great deal of superfluous verbiage ; and nowhere do we find a steady advance in the narration. Contrast in these respects the history of Joseph (xii.) and its glaring improprieties, with the admirably-conceived and admirably-executed story in Genesis. Similar faults are found in the non-narrative portions of the Koran. The connexion of ideas is extremely loose, and even the syntax betrays great awk wardness. Anacolutha are of frequent occurrence, and cannot be explained as conscious literary devices. Many sentences begin with a &quot; when &quot; or &quot; on the day when &quot; which seems to hover in the air, so that the commentators are driven to supply a &quot;think of this&quot; or some such ellipsis. Again, there is no great literary skill evinced in the frequent and needless harping on the same words and phrases ; in xviii., for example, &quot; till that &quot; (hattd idkd) occurs no fewer than eight times. Mohammed, in short, is not in any sense a master of style. This opinion will be endorsed by any European who reads through the book with an impartial spirit and some knowledge of the language, without taking into account the tiresome effect of its endless iterations. But in the ears of every pious Moslem such a judgment will sound almost as shocking as downright atheism or polytheism. Among the Moslems, the Koran has always been looked on as the most perfect model of style and language. This feature of it is in their dogmatic the greatest of all miracles, the incontest able proof of its divine origin. Such a view on the part of men who knew Arabic infinitely better than the most accomplished European Arabist will ever do, may well startle us. In fact, the Koran boldly challenged its opponents to produce ten suras, or even a single one, like those of the sacred book, and they never did so. That, to be sure, on calm reflexion, is not so very surprising, llevelations of the kind which Mohammed uttered, no unbeliever could produce without making himself a laugh ing-stock. However little real originality there is in Mohammed s doctrines, as against his own countrymen he was thoroughly original, even in the form of his oracles. To compose such revelations at will was beyond the power of the most expert literary artist ; it would have required either a prophet, or a shameless impostor. And if such a character appeared after Mohammed, still he could never be anything but an imitator, like the false prophets who arose about the time of his death and afterwards. That the adversaries should produce any sample whatsoever of poetry or rhetoric equal to the Koran is not at all what the Prophet demands. In that case he would have been put to shame, even in the eyes of many of his own followers, by the first poem that came to hand. Never theless, it is on a false interpretation of this challenge that the dogma of the incomparable excel !L nee of the style and diction of the Koran is based. The rest has been accom plished by dogmatic prejudice, which is quite capable of working other miracles besides turning a defective literary production into an unrivalled masterpiece in the eyes of believers. This view once accepted, the next step was to find everywhere evidence of the perfection of the style and language. And if here and there, as one can scarcely doubt, there was among the old Moslems a lover of poetry who had his difficulties about this dogma, he had to beware of uttering an opinion which might have cost him his head. We know of at least one rationalistic theologian who defined the dogma in such a way that we can see he did not believe it (Shahrastani, p. 39). The truth is, it would have been a miracle indeed if the style of the Koran had been perfect. For although there was at that time a recognized poetical style, already degenerating to mannerism, a prose style did not exist. All beginnings are difficult ; and it can never be esteemed a serious charge against Mohammed that his book, the first prose work of a high order in the language, testifies to the awk wardness of the beginner. And further, we must always remember that entertainment and aesthetic effect were at most subsidiary objects. The great aim was persuasion and conversion ; and, say what we will, that aim has been realized on the most imposing scale. Mohammed repeatedly calls attention to the fact that the Foreign Koran is not written, like other sacred books, in a strange words, language, but in Arabic, and therefore is intelligible to all. At that time, along with foreign ideas, many foreign words had crept into the language ; especially Aramaic terms for religious conceptions of Jewish or Christian origin. Some of these had already passed into general use, while others were confined to a more limited circle. Mohammed, who could not fully express his new ideas in the common language of his countrymen, but had frequently to find out new terms for himself, made free use of such Jewish and Christian words, as was done, though perhaps to a smaller extent, by certain thinkers and poets of that age who had more or less risen above the level of heathenism. In Mohammed s case this is the less wonderful, because he was indebted to the instruction of Jews and Christians whose Arabic as the Koran pretty clearly intimates with regard to one of them was very defective. Nor is it very surprising to find that his use of these words is some times as much at fault as his comprehension of the histories which he learned from the same people that he applies Aramaic expressions as incorrectly as many unedu cated persons now employ words derived from the French. Thus, forkdn means really &quot; redemption,&quot; but Mohammed (misled by the Arabic meaning of the root j^J &quot;sever,&quot; &quot;decide&quot;) uses it for &quot;revelation.&quot; Millet is properly &quot;Word,&quot; but in the Koran &quot;religion.&quot; Illiyun (Ixxxiii. 18, 19) is apparently the Hebrew name of God, Elylm, &quot; the Most High &quot; ; Mohammed uses it of a heavenly book (see S. Fraenkel, De vocabulis in antiquis Arabum carmin- ibus et in Corano peregrinis, Leyden, 1880, p. 23). So again the word mathdni is, as Geiger has conjectured, the XVI. 76