It
is true, the Ba?„b himself was not masterly, but the confusion of
ideas and language in Ezel's literary records beggars all
comparison. A friend of mine confirms this view which I had already
derived from Mirza Ali Akbar. He tells me that he has acquired a
number of letters mostly purporting to be by S??ubh??-i-Ezel. There is
also, however, a letter of Baha-'ullah relative to these letters,
addressed to the Muh??ammadan mulla?„, the original possessor of the
letters. In this letter Baha-'ullah repeats again and again the
warning: 'When you consider and reflect on these letters, you will
understand who is in truth the writer.'
I greatly fear that Lord Curzon's description of Persian
untruthfulness may be illustrated by the career of the Great
Pretender. The Ezelites must, of course, share the blame with their
leader, and not the least of their disgraceful misstatements is the
assertion that the Ba?„b assigned the name Baha-'ullah to the younger
of the two half-brothers, and that Ezel had also the [non-existent]
dignity of 'Second Point.'
This being so, I am strongly of opinion that so far from confirming
the Ezelite view of subsequent events, the Ezelite account of
S??ubh??-i-Ezel's first appearance appreciably weakens it. Something,
however, we may admit as not improbable. It may well have gratified
the Ba?„b that two representatives of an important family in
Mazandaran had taken up his cause, and the character of these new
adherents may have been more congenial to him than the more martial
character of K??uddus.
Pages:
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150