ARABES (Encyclopédie) trans

7/28/2019 ARABES (Encyclopdie) trans

1/9

ARAB/ARABIC

ARAB, adj. Arab and Arabic are used to refer to everything connected to Arabia, or to

the Arabs; the Arab language, or Arabic, is a dialect of Hebrew.

Father Ange de S. Joseph extols the richness and variety of Arabic. He insists that thereare more than a thousand words forswordin this language; five hundred forlion, twohundred ways of sayingsnake, & eight words meaning honey.

Arabic characters, or Arabic numerals, are the numbers we use commonly in arithmeticcalculations. See Figure, Number. The Arabic characters are different from those of the

Romans. See Character.

It is commonly believed that we took the Arabic numerals from the Saracens, who

learned them from the Indians. Scaliger was so convinced that they are of recent date that

he insisted a certain golden medallion must be modern because the characters 234 & 235were engraved upon it.

It is thought that Planud, living at the end of the thirteenth century was the first Christianto use these numerals. In his treatiseRe diplomatic, Mabillon insists they were not used

before the fourteenth century. Doctor Wallis claims they were used much earlier, inEngland at least, and dates them to the time of Hermannus Contractus, around 1050.

These numerals, he argues, were in use, if not for general counting, at least inmathematics, & particularly in astronomic charts. See Wallis, algeb. ch. iv.

This same author gives proof of the antiquity of the Arabic characters in a bas-relief

inscription on the mantle of the presbytery at Helindon in Northamptonshire, where thecharacters m. 133 can be observed together with the date 1133. Transac. Philosoph. n.174.

M. Tuffkin provides an even stronger proof of antiquity in the usage of these numerals. A

crest between two carved lions on the window of a Roman-style house in the marketplaceof Colchester, contains the mark 1090. Transact. Philosoph. n. 255.

M. Huet believes that these characters were not derived from the Arabs but from theGreeks, and that the Arabic numerals are simply Greek letters, which these peoples are

known to have used for counting and numbering. See Number.

It is said that Arabian horses are raised on camels milk, and amazing things have beenreported of these animals. According to the Duke of Newcastle, an Arabian horse

generally costs from 1000 or 2000 up to 3000 pounds; and the Arabs are as particularabout the genealogy of their horses as princes are about their family line. Stable-masters

carefully record the names of the mother and father of each animal, and there are somewhose nobility can be traced back into the distant past. Indeed, it is even said that medalshave been struck in honour of certain horses.


2/9

The property that the Arabs give to their children when they reach manhood consists of

two suits of clothing, two scimitars, and a horse which remains with them always.Nothing extraordinary has been observed in the Arabian horses which have been taken to

England. See Horse.


3/9

ArabsArabs. Condition of Philosophy among the Ancient Arabs. After the Chaldeans, the

Persians & the Indians comes the nation of the Arabs, a nation that the ancient historiansconsidered to be deeply attached to Philosophy, & as distinguished by a fineness of spirit,

but all of this seems very doubtful. I dont deny that since the advent of Islam eruditionand the study of Philosophy have been held in the highest regard by these peoples; butthat was in the Middle Ages, and thus only entered the history of philosophy at that time.

This we will consider at much greater length when we come to it. For the moment weneed only discuss the Philosophy of the ancient inhabitants of Arabia Felix.

There are a certain number of scholars who would like to see these peoples as devoted to

philosophical speculations, and in order to make their case, they attribute to them systemsthey have invented themselves, calling upon the religion of the Zabians, which theydeclare to be the fruit of Philosophy. None of their claims have any basis aside from their

own reasoning and conjecture and what does reasoning and conjecture prove when

proof is what we need?Those who incline toward the conviction that Philosophy was cultivated by the ancientArabs are nonetheless compelled to admit that the Greeks had no consciousness

whatsoever of this. The Greeks regarded the Arabs as barbaric and ignorant peoples whohad not the faintest tincture of learning. And if we are to believe Abulfaraj, the Arabic

writers themselves say that the Arabs were sunk in the most profound ignorance beforethe advent of Islam. But it seems these reasons are not enough to change their minds

about this attribution of Philosophy to the ancient Arabs. The Greeks disdain, they say,proves the vanity of the Greeks and not the barbarity of the Arabs. But in the end, whatstudies can they show us, and which authors can they cite to prove the erudition and

philosophy of the early Arabs? Like Abulfaraj, they admit that they have none. Thus, it is

entirely gratuitously that they turn these people into learned devotees of Philosophy. Themost signal offender in this dispute, and the one who has the glory of the ancient Arabsmost at heart, is Joseph Pierre Ludewig. The first figure he sets against us is Pythagoras,

who, according to Porphyrius, honoured the Arabs with a visit to their shores during histravels to seek learning. He was said to have stayed there for some time to learn methods

of divination from their Philosophers, a divination from the flight of birds and their songin which the Arabs excelled. Did not Moses himself, a man learned in all the wisdom ofthe Egyptians, choose Arabia as his place of exile in preference to all other lands when he

was constrained to flee the kingdom? Who could imagine that the lawgiver of theHebrews would take refuge amongst the Arabs if this people had been rude and ignorant?

In any case, their origin leaves no doubt at all of the cultivation of their spirit. They glory

in their descent from Abraham, to whom the honour of a great Philosopher could hardlybe refused. Through what strange misadventure could they have allowed these firstsparks of the philosophical spirit, which they had had inherited from Abraham their

common father, to be extinguished in the time that followed? But what seems even moretelling is the fact that the holy books contrast Solomons wisdom with that of the

Orientals in order to heighten our sense of it: and these Orientals were no other thanArabs. Once again, it was from Arabia that the Queen of Sheba came forth to admire thewisdom of this crowned Philosopher: such is the confirmed opinion of all the experts. It


4/9

could easily be shown too by simple reasoning that the Magi who came from the Orientto worship the Messiah were Arabs. Finally Abulfaraj is forced to admit that even before

the advent of Islam, to which this country owes the renaissance of its learning, theypossessed a perfect command of their language, knowing its value and all of its

properties, and that they were fine poets, excellent orators and skilful astronomers. All of

this, is it not deserving enough of the name Philosophy? No, others will tell you. TheArabs may have polished their language; they may have been skilful at divination and inthe solving of enigmas; they may even have had some knowledge of the course of the

stars. Yet we may still not consider them Philosophers, since all of these arts if indeedthey deserve the name tend to nourish and foster superstition rather than uncover the

truth or purge the soul of the passions which are its tyrants. In what we know ofPythagoras, nothing could be less certain than his voyage to the orient. Even if we acceptthis journey, what would it mean, except that this impostor learned from the Arabs all this

nonsense, all the work of superstition of which he was highly enamoured. It is useless tocite Moses. If that holy man went into Arabia, and set himself up there by marrying one

of Jethros daughters, it was certainly not with the aim of studying amongst the Arabs and

encouraging their enthusiasm for philosophical systems. Providence only ordained thisexile of Moses among the Arabs to bring them the knowledge of the true God and hisreligion. No more does the Philosophy of Abraham, from whom they are so proud to be

descended, prove that they cultivated this science. Abraham might well be a greatphilosopher, and he might be their ancestor too, without this having the slightestconsequence for their philosophy. If they lost the thread of the most precious truths that

they learned from Abraham; if their religion has since degenerated into a coarse idolatry,why shouldnt their philosophical knowledge too supposing that Abraham actually

taught them any have disappeared in the march of time? Anyway, it is far from certainthat these peoples even descended from Abraham. It is a story which sees to have been

born along with Mahometanism. The Arabs as well as the Mahometans, in trying to givemore authority to their errors, try to push their origin back to the father of believers. One

more thing which overturns all Ludewigs suppositions is that the philosophy of Abrahamis itself no more than a pure fantasy of the Jews, who want at any cost to establish among

themselves the origin of all the arts and sciences. As for the argument which has been putto us about this queen from the south who came seeking Solomon on the strength of hisgreat reputation for wisdom, it is no more solid than the others. It may be insisted that

this queen was born in Arabia: but is there any certainty that she belonged to the Zabiansect? It is impossible to deny, of course, that she was among the most educated, the

cleverest women of the orient, and that she often troubled the minds of oriental kingswith the riddles she sent; that is the picture given to us by the sacred historian. But what

connection does that have with the philosophy of the Arabs? We gladly agree that theMagi who came from the orient were Arabs, that they had some knowledge of the

movements of the stars; we do not at all refuse this science completely to the Arabs; wewould even allow that they spoke their language well, and excelled in arts of imaginationsuch as poetry and eloquence. But it can never be concluded from this that they were

Philosophers, or that they cultivated to any great degree this area of learning.

The second point that is raised in favour of the Philosophy of the ancient Arabs is thehistory of Zabianism. This religion is supposed to have had its birth amongst them, and


5/9

this presupposes a certain degree of philosophical knowledge. But even if all that hasbeen said on this subject is true, no conclusion can be reached concerning the philosophy

of the Arabs, since Zabianism is a shameful idolatry and a ridiculous supersition, morelike the extinction of all reason than a true philosophy. Moreover, there is no clear

agreement on exactly when this sect emerged: the experts who have sought to shed light

on this historical question, like Hottinger, Pocock, Hyde, and particularly Dr Spencerconcur that neither the Greeks nor the Romans make the slightest allusion to this sect.One should not confuse this sect of Arab Zabians with the other Zabians, half Jewish and

half Christian, spoken of in the annals of the ancient Eastern Church, who vauntthemselves as the followers of John the Baptist and are found in considerable numbers

today in the city of Bassora, along the banks of the Tigris and in the vicinity of thePersian Gulf. The famous Moses Maimonides compiled from the Arab authors everythingwritten on this sect, and by examining with a curious and observant eye all their

extravagant and superstitious ceremonies he quite ingeniously explained many of thelaws of Moses. Those laws might at first glance offend our sensibilities, if their wisdom

were not demonstrated by contrast to the laws of the Zabians, for which God wished to

inspire in the Jews a deep aversion. No greater barrier could be erected between the Jewsand their neighbours the Zabians. In this regard, it is worth consulting Spencers work onthe Mosaic economy. As much division arises over the name of this sect as on its age.

Pocock claims that the Zabians were named [Hebrew characters], which in Hebrewsignifies the stars or the celestial army, because the religion of the Zabians consistedprincipally of star-worship. But Scaliger believes this was originally the name used for

the Chaldeans, because they were oriental. His view has been taken up by numerousscholars, Spencer among others. This meaning for the name of the Zabians is much more

plausible, as they themselves derive their origin from the Chaldeans, and consider Sabius,son of Seth, the founder of their sect. Ourselves, we hardly feel called upon to take sides

on a question which holds so little interest in itself. If the name Zabians were used torefer to all those among the peoples of orient who worshipped the stars which seems to

be the tendency of certain Arab authors and several Christian authors then this namewould no longer refer to a single sect, but to idolatry in general. It seems, however, that

this name has always been regarded as belonging to an individual sect. We cannot see atall why it should be given to all these peoples, who combined a fire-cult with the worshipof the stars. If, however, on the strength of conjecture, it is possible to shed a few rays of

light in the darkness which envelopes the whole history of the Zabians, it seems likelythat the Zabian sect is simply a hybrid of Judaism and Paganism; that among the Arabs it

had a particularity distinct from all other religions; that to raise itself above all thoseflourishing at the time, it not only claimed to be extremely ancient, but even cast its

origin back to Sabius, son of Seth, in which they thought to outdo in antiquity even theJews, who could not trace back their origin beyond Abraham. We will never be

persuaded that they were given they name Zabians because they were orientals, since no-one has ever called the Magi or the Mahometans by this name, though they occupy theprovinces of Asia situated in the orient. Whatever the origin of the Zabians, we may be

sure that it is not so ancient as the Arabs claim. They cannot even agree on this; whileone wants to trace back to Seth, others are happy to end with Noah, or even with

Abraham. The Arab author Eutychius, on the basis of local traditions, considers thefounder of the sect to be Zoroaster, who was born in Persia, or Chaldea if you prefer. But


6/9

Eutychius observed that there were certain people in his day who credited it to Juvan nodoubt he meant Javan- and that the Greeks had seized upon this idea because it flattered

their pride, Javan being one of their kings; and that to give more credence to this position,they had composed several books on the science of the stars and the movement of the

celestial bodies. There are even some who claim that the Zabian sect was founded by one

of those working to build the Tower of Babel. But on what is all this based? If the Zabiansect were as ancient as it claims, why did the Ancient Greek authors never speak of it?Why do we find nothing in the Scriptures which might give us the slightest clue? In his

response to this problem, Spencer considers it sufficient that Zabianism, in its substance -that is to say in terms of a religion with a cult of the sun and stars should have

originated from the ancient Chaldeans and Babylonians, and thus preceded by manyyears the time of Abraham. This is what he proves from the testimony of the Arabs, whoall agree that the Zabian religion is very ancient, and also from the similarity of doctrine

between the Zabians and the ancient Chaldeans. But the question here is not whether thecult of the stars and planets is very ancient. This is uncontestable, and we have shown it

ourselves in the article on the Chaldeans. The real difficulty lies in determining whether

the Zabians in fact inherited the cult from the Chaldeans and the Babylonians, so that onecould say definitively that Zabianism was born among these peoples. If proper attentionis paid to the fact that Zabianism did not consist simply in worshipping the sun, stars and

planets, but had its own particular set of ceremonies distinguishing it from all otherreligions, it will be acknowledged that such a claim cannot be sustained. Spencer himself,with all his subtlety, had to recognize that Zabianism in a formal sense that is, as a

separate religion distinguished by the form of its cult is far more recent than the ancientChaldeans and Babylonians. However, it is precisely that point which he ought to have

demonstrated in his principles, because if Zabianism in a formal sense is not of greatantiquity, how could it be traced back beyond Abraham; how will he prove that certain of

Moses laws were divinely ordained only as a contrast to the superstitious ceremonies ofZabianism? Everything leads us to believe that Zabianism is quite recent, that it is not

even anterior to Mahometanism. Indeed, we cannot find in any author, whether Greek orLatin, the slightest trace of this sect; it did not raise its head until after the birth of

Mahometanism etc. We believe, however, that it may be a little older, since the Alcoranspeaks of the Zabians as being already known by that name.

There is no sect without books: each has need of books to assert its own particulardogmas. Thus we see that the Zabians had theirs, which some attributed to Hermes and

Aristotle, and others to Seth and Abraham. According to Maimonides, these bookscontained the most ridiculous stories about the ancient patriarchs Adam, Seth, Noah,

Abraham: to tell the truth much like the fables of the Alcoran. They talked at length aboutdemons, idols, the stars and the planets; about how to cultivate vines and sow the fields;

in one word they left out nothing in regard to the cult they devoted to the sun, to fire andto the stars and planets. If you are curious to learn all these wonderful things, consultMaimonides. To try to recount here all of the fables swarming in these books would only

tire the readers patience. This reason alone is enough for me to decry these books asapocryphal and unworthy of consideration. I believe they were written at about the time

of Mahomets birth, and by authors who had not yet been cured of their idolatry, nor ofthe folly of Neoplatonism. To get a sense of the spirit of the Zabians, we need only look


7/9

at a few of their dogmas. They believed that the stars were gods, and that the sun was thehighest among them. They performed a double rite in honour of these gods; that is, one

for day to day practice and another which took place each month. They worshippeddemons in the form of goats, drinking the blood of their victims while holding it in

abomination: in this way, they believed, they would bring themselves closer to the

demons. They worshipped the rising sun, and practiced all the ceremonies whose strikingcontrast with the Mosaic laws we can readily observe, since God, according to manyexperts, chose to give to the Jews laws opposite in nature to those of the Zabians for no

other reason than to turn the former away from the excessive superstition of the latter.

If we read Pocock, Hyde, Prideaux, and the Arab authors, we discover that their wholereligious system can be boiled down to a few basic principles that we will detail here: 1.There were two sects of Zabians: the fundamental belief of both was that men need

mediators placed between themselves and the Divine; that these mediators were puresubstance, invisible spirits; that these mediators, given that they were completely

invisible, could not communicate with men unless one suppose the existence of other

visible mediators between them and men; for some, these mediators were in the form ofchapels and for others simulacra the chapels were for those who worshipped the sevenplanets, each of which was animated by a spirit that governed its movements, just as our

bodies are animated by a soul that drives it and governs all its reactions; that the starswere divinities and presided over men's destinies, but were themselves subject to the willof the Supreme Being; that the rising and setting of the planets and their various

conjunctions, must be observed, as they formed more or less regular positions; that theplanets should be given their days, nights and hours to divide up the periods of their

revolution, as well as their forms, their character and the areas in which they travelled;that by means of such observations it would be possible to produce infallible talismans,

enchantments and invocations: that for those who worshipped simulacra, these simulacrawere necessary in particular because they needed a permanently visible mediator which

they could not find among the stars whose rising and setting regularly removed themfrom mortal eyes, and thus it was necessary to substitute their simulacra, through which

they could travel even into the body of the planets themselves, and thence to the spiritsanimating the planets, and onward to the supreme God; that the simulacrum of eachplanet should be made from its sacred metal, in the form given to the star they

represented; and most importantly that careful attention should be paid to the days, hours,degrees, minutes and other circumstances that might bring benign influences, and to

make use of invocations, enchantments and talismans favorable to the planet; that thesesimulacra stood in place of the celestial gods, and were mediators between heaven and

earth. Their practices were no less ridiculous than their beliefs. Abulfeda reports that theircustom was to pray facing the north pole, three times a day before sunrise, at noon, and

in the evening and that they observed three fasts, one for thirty days, one for nine, andthe other for seven; that they abstained from eating beans and garlic; that they burnedsacrifices entirely, leaving nothing at all to be eaten.

That is all that the Arabs have taught us regarding the religious system of the Zabians. A

few elements of Chaldaic astrology which we discuss in the article Chaldeans stillcarry its traces. That astrology was doubtless the cornerstone of the religious structure


8/9

erected by the Zabians. We can see other elements of similarity, such as the world-souldivided into many different parts and animating the celestial bodies, particularly the

planets, whose influence on terrestrial events is an incontestable mark of all the ancientsystems of oriental religion. But the most dominant element of this religion was the

doctrine of the mediator, which they revealed either to the Jews or to the Christians; the

doctine of mediating spirits, which had so much influence across the Orient, and passedfrom thence to the cabalists and philosophers of Alexander, to be revived later by certainChristian heresies, which took the opportunity to imagine various orders of aeons. From

that is easy to see that Zabianism is nothing but a monstrous composite, and anembarrassing hybrid of everything that idolatry, superstition and heresy could dream up

in the most ridiculous and extravagant times. This is why, as Spencer has so pertinentlyremarked, there is no continuity or connection at all in the various elements that make upZabianism. Instead, there is a little of every religion, despite the differences that separate

them. This observation alone is enough to make it clear that Zabianism is not as ancientas some people believe, and how mistaken are those who give the name to that universal

idolatry of the earliest centuries which worshipped the sun and stars. The Zabians' cult of

the stars led them, through the inevitable chain of errors, toward astrology, a vain andridiculous science, but one that flatters the two greatest weaknesses of man, credulity andpride. It promised to penetrate the mysteries of his future, while telling him that his

destiny was written in the skies. The most distinguished among the Zabians were ThebetIbn Korra, Albategnius etc.

ARABIE (Page 1:570)

* ARABIE, (Gog. anc. & mod.) pays considrable de l'Asie; presqu'le borne l'occident par la mer Rouge, l'isthme du Suez, la Terre - sainte, & la Syrie; au nord par

l'Euphrate & le golfe Persique; l'orient par l'Ocan; au midi par le dtroit de Babel -Mandel. On divise l'Arabie en ptre, deserte, &heureuse. La ptre, la plus petite des

trois, est montagneuse & peu habite dans sa partie septentrionale: mais elle est peuple& assez fertile dans sa partie mridionale. Elle a t appelle ptre de Petra son ancienne

capitale; Herac l'est aujourd'hui. L'Arabie deserte ainsi nomme de son terrein, estentrecoupe de montagnes & de sables striles; Ana en est la capitale. L'heureuse, en

arabe Yemen, doit cette pithete sa fertilit; Sanaa en est la capitale. Les Arabes sontMahomtans; ils sont gouverns par des mirs ou cheics, indpendans les uns des autres,mais tributaires du Grand - Seigneur. Les Arabes sont voleurs & belliqueux. Long. 52.

77. lat. 12. 34.

Quant au commerce, l'Arabie heureuse est presque la seule o il y en ait. Les villes decette contre o il s'en fait le plus, sont Mocha, Hidedan, Chichiri, Zibet, Ziden sur la mer


9/9

Rouge; Aden, Fartack sur l'Ocan arabique; Bahr, Barrhem, & El - catif dans le golfe deBassora; enfin Bassora. On peut ajoter la Meque & Mdine, o la dvotion amene tant

de plerins, & l'intrt tant de marchands. Le commerce s'entretient dans ces deux villespar Ziden, qui est proprement le port de la Meque, & par Mocha, qui en est comme

l'entrept.

Mocha est l'entre de la mer Rouge; on y voit arriver des vaisseaux de l'Europe, del'Asie, & de l'Afrique; outre le commerce maritime, il s'en fait encore un par terre par le

moyen des caravanes d'Alep & de Suez, qui y apportent des velours, des satins, desarmoisins, toutes sortes d'toffes riches, du safran, du mercure, du vermillon, des

merceries, &c.

On en remporte partie des productions naturelles du pays; partie des ouvrages des

manufactures; partie des marchandises trangeres qui ont t apportes des Indes, del'Afrique & de l'Europe. Les manufactures donnent quelques toiles de coton; le pays

produit des parfums, de l'encens, de la myrrhe, de l'ambre - gris, des pierreries, de l'alos,

du baume, de la canelle, de la casse, du sang de dragon, de la gomme arabique, du corail,& sur - tout du caff.

Aden joissoit autrefois de tout le commerce qui se fait Mocha. Les vaisseaux desIndes, de Perse, d'Ethiopie, des les de Comorre, de Madagascar & de Mlinde sont ceuxdont on voit le plus Chichiri.

Next article

Documents

ARABES (Encyclopédie) trans