FEUDALISM IN PERSIA — DE MORGAN. 587 



The power of these princes was unlimited and they could put to 

 death those of their subjects (rayats)^ who had had the misfortune 

 to displease them. Their friends and feudatories were their offi- 

 cials, their functionaries whom they otherwise designated as " do- 

 mestic," but who, in fact, composed their council. They never exer- 

 cised the powers thus granted with cruelty or injustice. Their posi- 

 tion itself depended on their ruling properly, since their feudatories 

 were always ready to depose them, just as, under the Sassanians, 

 the nobility drove the native rulers from the throne. 



The peasants poured into dependencies ruled with justice- and 

 the wealth of the chief as well as his military power was appreciably 

 increased when the rayats themselves quit the territories or ruled 

 unjustly or arbitrarily. Wealth in Persia does not depend on the 

 ownership of land, but solely on the power to control labor to 

 cultivate it. 



Among these tribes there are some customs which, although not 

 written, have no less the force of law, and it is often by these 

 common hnvs, the antiquity of which goes back to the early period 

 of the Iranian invasion, that cases are judged. The Koran is 

 faithfully consulted, but its text, always very elastic, has not been 

 interpreted in the same spirit which always has ruled among the 

 nomads; thus it lends itself with extreme complacency to the appli- 

 cation of old Persian customs. 



The sovereigns'^ who have reigned at Ispahan, those of Iranian 

 blood, far from seeking to crush the nobility, have made of it a 

 governmental instrument of the fii-st order. Likewise, resting on 

 their feudatories and on the townsmen of cities with whom the un- 

 derstanding has been extremely frank, they have made Persia the 

 richest and most powerful country of all the Orient. The wisdom 

 and the regard for traditions which ruled at their court and which, 

 under the Achsemenidae and the Sassanians, had raised so high the 



1 The rayat is rather a serf than a peasant in the meaning that we give to the latter 

 class. The rayat, however, has over the serf the great advantage that he can quit the 

 land without permission of his master and establish himself elspwhere. This privilege 

 protects him from too severe exactions. 



" I have seen some clans, where the chief was esteemed as a just man, increase in 

 four or five years from 10 to 300 tents, and frequently also the reverse appeared. 



3 The Kings of Persia carry even to-day the title of shahan-shah " king of kings," 

 a title essentially feudal. Under the Sassanians, the title was written in the Semitic 

 language, Malkfln Malka, which could perhaps be read shahan-shah ; under the Parthians 

 they wrote it in Greek, Basil^os Basildon. Under the Achsemenidffi, Khshayathiya 

 Khshayathiyanan, whence comes the actual pronounciatiou, and the Achjemenidse had 

 borrowed from the Assyrians sar raba " ;?reat king," sar martat " king of nations," 

 sar sa nabhar matat " king of all nations," sar sarrl " king of kings." The Persians 

 to-day have difficulty in explaining this title. To the credulous natives, they say that 

 the sovereign is in reality the king of other kings, that in the world nothing is done 

 without order. With foreigners their pretentions are less great. They are content to 

 say that the name has fallen into desuetude, not taking any account of the fact that the 

 King of Persia is still effectively king of a great number of seigniors and that his title 

 is that which fits him the best. 



