If PDF does not display below, click here to download.
Bahá'u'lláh's first tablet to Napoleon III (1808-1873) is
altogether unique among His tablets to the monarchs of the world. Its contents are summarised by Shoghi Effendi
as follows:
To Napoleon III Bahá'u'lláh
addressed a specific Tablet, which was forwarded through one of the French
ministers to the Emperor, in which He dwelt on the sufferings endured by
Himself and His followers; avowed their innocence; reminded him of his two
pronouncements on behalf of the oppressed and the helpless; and, desiring to
test the sincerity of his motives, called upon him to "inquire into the
condition of such as have been wronged," and "extend his care to the
weak," and look upon Him and His fellow-exiles "with the eye of
loving-kindness."[3]
Shoghi Effendi's descriptions of other tablets in the same
book shows that these descriptions are in fact codifications of their contents
and major themes, and so we can assume that the above summary is not missing
any features wish the Guardian thought worthy of particular notice.
While Shoghi Effendi translated extracts of this tablet in The Promised Day is Come, Hypolyte
Dreyfus' partial translation of this tablet in L'Oeuvre de Bahaou'llah, is the most complete published version of
this tablet to date, which remains otherwise inaccessible. The Dreyfus
translation contains all the salient figures identified by the Guardian in God
Passes By. On these grounds, and based
on the similarities of translation (see appendix 2) it seems likely they were
working to the same manuscript, and that we have in the Dreyfus translation an
almost complete text.
When Bahá'u'lláh compiled the Suratu'l-Haykal He included
His second tablet to Napoleon, but left out the first one. This makes this tablet distinctive and may
explain why it has not drawn much scholarly notice or been published in publications
relating to Bahá'u'lláh's messages to the kings and rulers. In Modernity and Millenium, Juan Cole
suggests that in this tablet Bahá'u'lláh was "announcing himself as the
world messiah and asking the French to put pressure on the Ottomans to stop
their persecution of the Bahá'ís."[4] In his paper on Bahá'u'lláh's letters to the
kings, Cole further holds that Bahá'u'lláh's first tablet to Napoleon III was
"seeking recognition of the new Bahá'í religion".
On the basis of both the Dreyfus translation and Shoghi
Effendi's summary of this tablet, it seems in fact highly improbable that this
tablet includes a direct messianic proclamation by Bahá'u'lláh or a call to
embrace His faith, such as He would voice emphatically in His second tablet to
Napoleon. Certainly, there is nothing in
the published translations to suggest such a
proclamation. Indeed, Shoghi Effendi
writes of this tablet:
"In His first Tablet
Bahá'u'lláh, wishing to test the sincerity of the Emperor's motives, and
deliberately assuming a meek and unprovocative tone"[5]
Nor is there any indication in Shoghi Effendi's description
of a proclamatory passage. Thus, while
it is impossible to be completely certain in the absence of an original
manuscript or even a full translation, it seems almost definite that this
tablet did not, in fact, involve a messianic announcement. This is the likely reason for its exclusion
from the Suratu'l-Haykal, which is in essence a proclamatory text, incompatible
with a tablet written in "a meek and unprovocative tone".
This leaves the question of what is missing from the current
translation. On the basis of Shoghi
Effendi's descriptive summaries and Dreyfus' own introduction, the answer would
seem to be very little. All the themes
and passages described or translated by the Guardian are included in the
Dreyfus translation. This would suggest
that what is missing is an opening invocation and
possibly a brief preamble, addressing Napoleon.
It is possible that such a preamble makes allusive reference to His divine
claim and station, but probably not forcefully enough (or at all) to draw the
Guardian's or Dreyfus' notice. Also
missing is an ending, almost certainly quite brief, perhaps invoking in typical
manner the divine names.
The tablet breathes pathos and urgency, while retaining a
sense of dignity. It narrates in
heartbreaking language twenty five years of privations and sufferings
afflicting the followers of the Báb and Baháíuílláh, including pillage,
violence, exile, slavery, imprisonment, even though they were innocent of any
crime. "Sucklings have well nigh drank the cup of
martyrdom,"[6] He
laments, and pity hath been shown to neither men nor women!" The tone of Baháíuílláhís appeal to Napoleon
amidst such oppression is not one of supplication. Rather, Baháíuílláh elevates His address to
the level of principle, by celebrating Napoleonís statements regarding his
sense of obligation towards the oppressed and the helpless. Baháíuílláh then confirms the validity of such
principles, and unambiguously lays out the duty incumbent upon the Emperor: "It
beseemeth the king of the age to inquire into the condition of such as have
been wronged, and it behooveth him to extend his care to the weak."[7] On
the basis of this spiritual principle, assumed by the Emperor himself,
Baháíuílláh makes clear the necessity for Napoleon to extend upon His community
"the shelter of royal protection".[8]
The tablet was written in the throes of what Shoghi Effendi
described as a "supreme crisis",[9]
and which Baháíuíllá named the 'most great separationí, the 'Days of stressí (Ayyam-i-Shidad),
when Mirza Yahya, whom He designated the "Most Great Idol", openly defied Him,
calumniated Him, humiliated Him and finally made the attempt on His life which
left its marks upon His health until the end of His days.[10] In the final passages of His tablet to
Napoleon, Baháíuíllaáh touchingly evokes the condition of His followers in the
aftermath of these events: "Their strength hath reached its limit, and there
remains in their hearts neither patience nor endurance."[11]
Date of Revelation
We know from Bahá'u'lláh's own testimony (ESW p.45) that
this tablet was revealed in Adrianople. Shoghi Effendi, moreover, relates the
revelation of this tablet, together with the significant tablets mentioned at
the beginning of this paper, to the period "Almost immediately after the
"Most Great Separation" had been effected".[12] Building on this statement Jonah Winters
estimates the revelation of this tablet to have taken place in 1866-1867.[13] On the basis of both internal and
circumstantial evidence, however, the 1866-1867 dating of Bahá'u'lláh's first
Tablet to Napoleon must be revised.
In the tablet Bahá'u'lláh recounts in heartbreaking language
twenty five years of suffering and oppression inflicted on the Babi-Bahá'í
communities. This date must refer, in
order to tally with the Adrianople dating, to the year 1260 A.H./1844 A.D. and
the declaration of the Bab, which makes the date of Revelation sometime in 1285
A.H./1868 A.D. Furthermore, since this
tablet does not mention the Ottoman decree of exile to Gallipoli and thence to
Akka, the tablet must have been written before the fifth of Rabí'u'th-Thání
1285 A.H. (July 26, 1868), the date of the Farman.[14] Given its theme, the likelihood is that the
tablet was written as the government opposition that would eventuate in
Bahá'u'lláh's exile began to make itself felt in spring-summer of 1868. In all likelihood, the tablet was written
during the turmoil of the Commission of Investigation, following hostile
reports from the Vali of Adrianople to the Sublime Porte.
The Porte received the Vali's report on the 20 Dhi'l-Hijjih
1284 (14 April 1868) after
a series of interrogations of Bahá'ís and Azalis between April 1 and April 7 of
that year. It was found, and recorded on
5 Muharram 1285 (28 April 1868),
that Bahá'u'lláh and Mirza Yahya had put forth claims to high religious station
which could constitute a threat to public order. The ensuing intervention of a Commission of
Investigation culminated in a report dated 26 Safar 1285 (18 June 1868) on which the edict of exile was
based. [15]
On the basis of the above, we can be confident in dating the
revelation of Bahá'u'lláh's first tablet to Napoleon to the period between late
April and early June, and most likely May of 1868. The tablet must have been written around the
same time as the tablet to the Shah, to judge from striking similarities with
paragraph 20 of that tablet[16]
Transmission
The matter of the transmission of this tablet to Napoleon
the III is more elusive. In the Epistle to the Son of the Wolf (p.45),
Bahá'u'lláh narrates:
"Addressing Himself unto the
kings and rulers of the earth -- may God, exalted be He, assist them -- He
imparted unto them that which is the cause of the well-being, the unity, the harmony,
and the reconstruction of the world, and of the tranquillity of the nations.
Among them was Napoleon III, who is reported to have made a certain statement,
as a result of which We sent him Our Tablet while in Adrianople.
To this, however, he did not reply. After Our arrival in the Most Great Prison
there reached Us a letter from his Minister, the first
part of which was in Persian, and the latter in his own handwriting. In it he
was cordial, and wrote the following: "I have, as requested by you, delivered
your letter""
Likewise, 'Abdu'l-Bahá in Some Answered Questions (p.32),
stated:
Upon His arrival in prison He
addressed an epistle to Napoleon, which He sent through the French ambassador.
The gist of it was, "Ask what is Our crime, and
why We are confined in this prison and this dungeon."
By prison, a footnote in the authorised English translation
clarifies, Adrianople is meant, in accordance with
Bahá'u'lláh's own witness. For our
purposes, however, the essential point is that the tablet was sent
"through the French ambassador".
The Persian reads "va
ba-vásita safír faránsiya ársál shud" (Mufáwadát, p.24), where safír means ambassador. Bahá'u'lláh's
account, which states the letter was sent from Adrianople
through a minister, uses the word wázir.[17] In an unpublished tablet to Sulaymán Khán
in private hands, it is mentioned that the first tablet to Napoleon was sent
through a minister (vázir) that was
friendly to Bahá'u'lláh.[18]
Who was this minister/ambassador who transmitted
Bahá'u'lláh's first tablet to Napoleon? Dreyfus' suggestion
that this letter was delivered by Cesar Cattafago, consular agent for France
in 'Akká, although correct for Bahá'u'lláh's second tablet, is anachronistic
for the first tablet, given its Adrianople dating. We can exclude
this option. Three further possibilities
present themselves:
1) Following 'Abdu'l-Bahá's usage of the word safír, we might think of the French ambassador to Constantinople,
Monsieur Bouree. This seems unlikely, for two reasons. First, Bahá'u'lláh being located in Adrianople,
and in contact with the acting French vice-consul there, it would make less
sense for Him to rely on a French representative based in Constantinople. Second, a letter from the vice-consul at Adrianople,
F. Ronzevalle, to the Ambassador at Constantinople,[19]
about Bahá'u'lláh's exile to Akka includes a basic introduction to the
situation and person of Bahá'u'lláh, assuming no prior knowledge, which would
add to the likelihood of no previous contact.
2) Vice-Consul F. Ronzevalle at Adrianople.
This seems a more likely candidate, as his letter demonstrates some contact
with the Bahá'í community, and it was to him and not to the Ambassador that the
Bahá'ís turned after the decree exiling Bahá'u'lláh to Akka was pronounced. It would make sense to assume that an earlier
letter would have pursued similar channels.
On the other hand, it is one thing to convey a message to the Ambassador
in Constantinople, and quite another to deliver it to
Napoleon the III himself!
3) Finally, there is the Comte de Gobineau, who first drew attention to
the Cause of the Bab in Europe.[20] Thomas Linard hypothetised some years ago[21]
that Gobineau might have been the minister in question, on the basis of the
Gobineau-Prokesch letters published by Beverige and MacEoin in Bahá'í Studies Bulletin, vol.1, issue 4;
as well as from the fact that Gobineau was French plenipotentiary minister in
Athens at the time and thus in proximity to Akka.
Linard's preliminary hypothesis may be further strengthened
by Gobineau's last published letter to Prokesch, dated 31 August 1868.[22] In this letter, Gobineau tells Prokesch
"confidentially" that Bahá'u'lláh had written to him "some
months ago", which would fit with the likely time of composition of
Bahá'u'lláh's tablet. Gobineau wrote a
response, to which he received no reply from Bahá'u'lláh. He then wrote again to Bahaíuíllah, enclosing
a translated copy in his letter to Prokesch, in which he confirms that the
unanswered letter to Bahá'u'lláh had been sent "through the intermediary of
the Greek Consul". He then tells
Bahá'u'lláh of his lobbying of the Austrian Ambassador on behalf of Bahá'u'lláh
and His followers resulting in a "very insistent" exchange with Fu'ad
Pasha and the Ottoman government, before concluding: "As for
myself, I will act similarly in Paris
with respect to the Government of the Emperor."[23]
The mention of a minister friendly to Bahá'u'lláh in the tablet reported by Dr.
Momen, would apply most strongly to Gobineau, whose explicit and implicit
expressions of sympathy and advocacy are unmatched by any other European
minister in the Adrianople period.
From the above it seems that we can be fairly confident in
identifying Gobineau as the vehicle for the transmission of Bahá'u'lláh's first
tablet to Napoleon III. First, the
timescales fit well together, with Bahá'u'lláh's letter arriving sometime in
summer or late spring of 1868, towards the concluding months of Gobineau's stay
in Athens. The fact that Gobineau used the French consul
to Athens as intermediary for his
reply further strengthens the Greek connection.
Secondly, at the time of Bahá'u'lláh's letter, Gobineau would have
fitted 'Abdu'l-Bahá's designation of a safir, and as minister plenipotentiary,
could also be described as a vazir.
Thirdly, the fact that he feels impelled to say to Prokesch that
Bahá'u'lláh's letter to him was confidential, would support the idea of a
message from Bahá'u'lláh of some import and sensitivity. Fourthly, the tone of this first tablet to Napoleon
is similar to that found in the Prokesch-Gobienau papers published by Beveridge
and MacEoin cited earlier. Finally,
Gobineau's efforts to make clear his political lobbying on behalf of
Bahá'u'lláh, with a very clear reference to Paris and the Government of the
Emperor make it extremely likely that Gobineau is sensitively alluding to
Bahá'u'lláh's letter. From this
perspective the urgency with which Gobineau asks for Bahá'u'lláh's response to
his previous letter, would point to Gobineau's letter being the self-same one
as is cited by Bahá'u'lláh in Epistle to the Son of the Wolf to which we now
return:
After Our arrival in the Most
Great Prison there reached Us a letter from his
Minister, the first part of which was in Persian, and the latter in his own
handwriting. In it he was cordial, and wrote the following: "I have, as
requested by you, delivered your letter, and until now have received no answer.
We have, however, issued the necessary recommendations to our Minister in Constantinople
and our consuls in those regions. If there be anything you wish done, inform
us, and we will carry it out."
At the very least, as Bahá'u'lláh's citation informs us, the
minister in question delivered the tablet to Napoleon and issued instructions
to the French Ambassador in Constantinople as well as the
various consuls in the region. This may
account in some measure for the willingness of the French Consular Agent in
France, Cesar Cattafago, to deliver Bahá'u'lláh's second tablet to Napoleon. If, as we surmise, the minister in question
was Gobineau, he went even further since he wrote the letter cited by
Bahá'u'lláh, lobbying the Austrian ambassador and through him Fu'ad Pasha. In addition he mobilised Baron Prokesch for
the same purposes.
However, Bahá'u'lláh explains that the minister in question
misunderstood the purpose of His tablet, following His citation above with the
following comment:
From his words it became apparent
that he understood the purpose of this Servant to have been a request for
material assistance.
If Gobineau was the author of this letter, this explains why
Bahá'u'lláh left the letter unanswered.
Bahá'u'lláh's first tablet to Napoleon III was clearly aimed at
triggering a response equivalent to Napoleon's vaunted emancipation of the oppressed
Turks. It was for Napoleon to use his
power as the mightiest monarch in Europe to effect the
emancipation of the Bahá'í community from the oppression of the Turkish and
Persian governments. The minister took
the tablet to be a request for personal assistance for Bahá'u'lláh, possibly of
a pecuniary nature (this is before it became apparent that Bahá'u'lláh and His
companions in Adrianople faced their most trying exile
to date into the fortress town of 'Akká).
This, Bahá'u'lláh implies, was not His purpose, which would explain His
lack of response to such an offer and to such a letter.
One note of caution to this identification might be the
statement in Momen's book of Western accounts of the Bahá'í Faith, questioning
on the basis of handwriting and style the authenticity of purported tablets of
Bahá'u'lláh in the Gobineau collection in Strasbourg
University.[24] In fact, Momen has reversed his judgement on
the authenticity of these tablets in the light of further research, not only
affirming their authenticity, but suggesting they support the identification of
Gobineau as the conduit of the first tablet to Napoleon III.[25]
Reception
Our sole confirmation that the tablet reached its recipient
comes from the Minister's letter quoted in the Epistle to the Son of the
Wolf. This tablet would have been
delivered sixteen years into the Second French Empire, and one year after the
disastrous end of Napoleon's Mexican venture, which left the noble Maximilian
dead and his wife Charlotte bereft
of her wits for the rest of her long life.
The political context was changing swiftly, in the wake of Napoleon's
alignment with the Papal states
against the Italian troops of Garibaldi.
He remained, at this time, the preeminent ruler in Europe,
"Emperor of the French, the most powerful ruler of his day on the European
continent, Napoleon III."[26]
Already, the seeds of his destruction were being sown, as
prophesised so dramatically by Bahá'u'lláh's second tablet to Napoleon. As Bismarck
laid Prussian troops into the fortress of the coveted city of Luxembourg,
which Napoleon was in process of purchasing from the king of the Netherlands,
impending conflict loomed. It was less
than two years to the fated Battle of Sedan that would destroy his fortunes.
Shoghi Effendi, in Promised Day is Come (p.51), reccounts the
following:
It is reported that upon receipt
of this first Message that superficial, tricky, and pride-intoxicated monarch
flung down the Tablet saying: "If this man is God, I am two gods!
Shoghi Effendi does not identify the source of this
report. As the Research Department
explains: [27]
much historical research can be
done, and indeed needs to be done, before we have a better understanding of the
reaction of the Monarchs to the Tablets addressed to them by Bahá'u'lláh. In this regard, the following statement from
a letter on behalf of the Universal House of Justice may be of interest:
We do not know at the present
time of any particular material about Napoleon III with reference to his
reported exclamation, "If this man is God, I am two Gods." Such matters
will undoubtedly be investigated by Bahá'í historians in the future.
(28 July 1971 to an individual)
What is certain is that the tablet received no reply. Napoleon's response is discussed in several
instances in Bahá'í writings:
Hadst thou been sincere in thy
words, thou wouldst have not cast behind thy back the Book of God, when it was
sent unto thee by Him Who is the Almighty, the All-Wise. We have proved thee through it, and found
thee other than what thou didst profess.[28]
He it was who cast the Tablet of
God behind him when We made known unto him what the
hosts of tyranny had caused Us to suffer.[29]
During His exile and imprisonment
He wrote Tablets of authority to the kings and rulers of the world, announcing
His spiritual sovereignty, establishing the religion of God, upraising the
heavenly banners of the Cause of God. One of these Tablets was sent to Napoleon
III, Emperor of France. He received it with contempt and cast it behind his
back.[30]
Significance
The significance that Shoghi Effendi ascribed to this tablet
by naming it among those "occupying a foremost position among all the
writings of the Author of the Bahá'í Revelation" may be somewhat puzzling,
given its "meek and unprovocative" tone. The awe-inspiring theological meaning invested
into this mild tablet, however, is only understood when placed in the context
of both Bahá'u'lláh's second tablet to Napoleon, and the events that followed
in Napoleon III's reign.
It was as a direct consequence of Napoleon's indifference
and tacit rejection of this first tablet, that Bahá'u'lláh wrote His second and
most famous tablet to Napoleon, giving him a chance to make amends but
announcing his demise should he persist in ignoring Bahá'u'lláh. The contrast between the first and second
tablets could not be greater. If the
first one is meek, the second is majestic.
If the first one is conciliatory, the second is uncompromisingly
challenging. The subject of Napoleon's
intervention in the Crimean war is again treated in the second tablet to Napoleon,
as is his altruistic statement of his motivations for waging war on the Czar,
but this time the tone in which these common subjects are addressed is
altogether different:
O King! We heard the words thou
didst utter in answer to the Czar of Russia, concerning the decision made
regarding the war (Crimean War). Thy Lord, verily, knoweth, is informed of all.
Thou didst say: `I lay asleep upon my couch, when the cry of the oppressed, who were drowned in the Black Sea,
wakened me.' This is what we heard thee say, and, verily, thy Lord is witness
unto what I say. We testify that that which wakened thee was not their cry but
the promptings of thine own passions, for We tested
thee, and found thee wanting. Comprehend the meaning of My
words, and be thou of the discerning. It is not Our
wish to address thee words of condemnation, out of regard for the dignity We
conferred upon thee in this mortal life. We, verily, have chosen courtesy, and
made it the true mark of such as are nigh unto Him. Courtesy,
is, in truth, a raiment which fitteth all men, whether young or old. Well is it
with him that adorneth his temple therewith, and woe unto him who is deprived
of this great bounty. Hadst thou been sincere in thy words, thou wouldst have
not cast behind thy back the Book of God, when it was sent unto thee by Him Who
is the Almighty, the All-Wise. We have proved thee through it, and found thee
other than that which thou didst profess. Arise, and make amends for that which
escaped thee. Ere long the world and all that thou possessest will perish, and
the kingdom will remain unto God, thy Lord and the Lord of thy fathers of old.
It behoveth thee not to conduct thine affairs according to the dictates of thy
desires. Fear the sighs of this Wronged One, and shield Him from the darts of
such as act unjustly.
For what thou hast done, thy kingdom shall be thrown into confusion, and thine
empire shall pass from thine hands, as a punishment for that which thou hast
wrought. Commotions shall seize all the people in that land, unless thou
arisest to help this Cause, and followest Him Who is
the Spirit of God (Jesus Christ) in this, the Straight Path.[31]
From this tablet, as from Shoghi Effendi's interpretations
cited already, it becomes evident that Bahá'u'lláh's first tablet to Napoleon
III was in the nature of a test of unimagined and altogether vast
consequences. Napoleon III's failure to
meet the test of sincerity implied in Bahá'u'lláh's demand for restitution of
the rights of the Bahá'í community, will precipitate the confusion of his
kingdom and the passing of his sovereignty.
It is implicit in Bahá'u'lláh's second tablet that, had Napoleon
responded differently to His first missive, had He demonstrated that justice
and altruism was the driving force of his vast enterprises, be it the Crimean
war or the hoped for emancipation of the Bahá'í community, then this dreadful
and at the time inconceivable debacle of his reign would not have taken
place. On the touchstone of this first
tablet to Napoleon the fate of the imperial world was judged and anticipated by
Bahá'u'lláh.
Epilogue
It is fitting to close this paper with an extended citation of Shoghi
Effendiís theological retelling, so
reminiscent in their tone of the essays of Carlyle, of the tale of him whom
Victor Hugo named "the man of December":
Napoleon III, son of Louis
Bonaparte (brother of Napoleon I), was, few historians will deny, the most
outstanding monarch of his day in the West. "The Emperor," it was
said of him, "was the state." The French capital was the most
attractive capital in Europe, the French court "the most brilliant and luxurious of
the XIX century." Possessed of a fixed and indestructible ambition, he
aspired to emulate the example, and finish the interrupted work, of his
imperial uncle. A dreamer, a conspirator, of a shifting nature, hypocritical
and reckless, he, the heir to the Napoleonic throne, taking advantage of the
policy which sought to foster the reviving interest in the career of his great
prototype, had sought to overthrow the monarchy. Failing in his attempt, he was
deported to America,
was later captured in the course of an attempted invasion of France,
was condemned to perpetual captivity, and escaped to London,
until, in 1848, the Revolution brought about his return, and enabled him to
overthrow the constitution, after which he was proclaimed emperor. Though able
to initiate far-reaching movements, he possessed neither the sagacity nor the
courage required to control them.
To this man, the last emperor of
the French, who, through foreign conquest, had striven to endear his dynasty to
the people, who even cherished the ideal of making France the center of a
revived Roman Empire -- to such a man the Exile of Akka, already thrice
banished by Sultan Abdu'l-'Aziz, had transmitted, from behind the walls of the
barracks in which He lay imprisoned, an Epistle which bore this indubitably
clear arraignment and ominous prophecy: "...For what thou hast done, thy
kingdom shall be thrown into confusion, and thine empire shall pass from thine
hands, as a punishment for that which thou hast wrought."
...The significance of the somber
and pregnant words uttered by Bahá'u'lláh in His second Tablet was soon
revealed. He who was actuated in provoking the Crimean War by his selfish
desires, who was prompted by a personal grudge against the Russian Emperor, who
was impatient to tear up the Treaty of 1815 in order to avenge the disaster of
Moscow, and who sought to shed military glory over his throne, was soon himself
engulfed by a catastrophe that hurled him in the dust, and caused France to
sink from her preeminent station among the nations to that of a fourth power in
Europe.
The Battle of Sedan in 1870
sealed the fate of the French Emperor. The whole of his army was broken up and
surrendered, constituting the greatest capitulation hitherto recorded in modern
history. A crushing indemnity was exacted. He himself was taken prisoner. His
only son, the Prince Imperial, was killed, a few years later, in the Zulu War.
The Empire collapsed, its program unrealized. The
Republic was proclaimed. Paris was
subsequently besieged and capitulated. "The terrible Year" marked by
civil war, exceeding in its ferocity the Franco-German War, followed. William
I, the Prussian king, was proclaimed German Emperor in the very palace which
stood as a "mighty monument and symbol of the power and pride of Louis
XIV, a power which had been secured to some extent by the humiliation of Germany."
Deposed by a disaster "so appalling that it resounded throughout the
world," this false and boastful monarch suffered in the end, and till his
death, the same exile as that which, in the case of Bahá'u'lláh, he had so
heartlessly ignored.[32]
Napoleon III's downfall recalls the Old Testament words to
the fallen angel: "how low art thou fallen, O Lucifer, son of the
morning!" His fate evokes the
something of awe, the historianís somber wonder aptly voiced by Alistair Horne:
History knows of perhaps no more
startling instance of what the Greeks called peripateia, the terrible fall from
prideful heights. Certainly no nation in modern times, so replete with apparent
grandeur and opulent in material achievement, has ever been subjected to a
worse humiliation in so short a time.[33]
APPENDIX 1
Bahá'u'lláh's
First Tablet to Napoleon III
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From H. Dreyfus, L'OEUVRE DE BAHAOU'LLAH, vol. 2, pp. 97-98,
Editions Ernest Leroux, Paris, 1924
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dreyfus Intro:
Many months before this [second tablet to Napoleon III] was
written, and upon arriving at Saint-Jean-d'Acre, Bahá'u'lláh had addressed,
through the intermediary of the French Consul, Cesar Cattafago, a letter to
Napoleon III
which had remained unanswered. We think
it of interest to publish its essential contents:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
... For twenty five years an entire group of God's servants hath not had a
single restful night nor an instant's tranquility, and hath been continuously
exposed to the assaults of calumny and the workings of violence. How many the
children that have been made into orphans! How many the mothers who have lost
their child! How many more weep to find themselves separated from their
children! How many children do lament and groan in search of their mother!
Sucklings have well nigh drank the cup of martyrdom,
and pity hath been shown to neither men nor women!
How many the nights when, while the savage beasts and birds of prey reposed
peacefully in their forests, these servants could not, in their distress and
exhaustion, find safe retreat or shelter! How many the people who, in the
eve, were posessed of rank and fortune, yet in the morrow woke in poverty and
misery, their goods pillaged and their possessions taken! No land remains
untinged by the blood of these oppressed ones, nor soil where the
graves of these wretched ones may not be found. How many the women that have
been ravished and taken from country to country and town to town, and how many
the men that have been sold to slavery! How many have fled into the deserts,
with none apprised of their whereabouts! How many others still remain
imprisoned! The sighs of these wronged ones rise up night and day, and their
appeals for succour can be heard incessantly. And yet they have
perpetrated no crime.
[Shoghi Effendi's translation begins
below (from The Promised Day Is Come, pp. 51-2][34]
Two statements graciously uttered by the king of the age have reached the ears
of these wronged ones. These pronouncements are, in truth, the king of all
pronouncements, the like of which have never been heard from any
sovereign. The first was the answer given the Russian Government when it
inquired why the war (Crimean) was waged against it. Thou didst reply:
"The cry of the oppressed who, without guilt or
blame, were drowned in the
Black Sea wakened me at dawn. Wherefore, I took up arms
against thee." These oppressed ones, however, have suffered a greater
wrong, and are in greater distress. Whereas the trials inflicted upon those
people lasted but
one day, the troubles borne by these servants have continued for twenty and
five years, every moment of which has held for us a grievous affliction.
The other weighty statement, which was indeed a wondrous
statement manifested to the world, was this: "Ours is the responsibility
to avenge the oppressed and succour the helpless." The fame of the
Emperor's justice and fairness hath brought hope to a great many souls. It
beseemeth the king of the age to inquire into the condition of such as have
been wronged, and it behooveth him to extend his care to the weak. Verily,
there hath not been, nor is there now, on earth any one as oppressed as we are,
or as helpless as these wanderers. [End
of Shoghi Effendi's translation]
For all living beings, even the savage beasts and birds of prey, have a corner
in which to find shelter. These wronged ones, alone, are constantly captive in
the chains of violence, their necks prisoned in the bondage of hatred and
passion. Their strength hath reached its limit, and there remains in their
hearts neither patience nor endurance. They call upon thee to look upon them
with the eye of loving-kindness[35],
that they might enjoy the shelter of royal protection...
APPENDIX 2
A
Comparison of Shoghi Effendi's translation and Ismael Velasco translation of
Dreyfus
Dreyfus (Ismael Velasco
translation into English):
"Two words, pronouced by the King of the age, have
reached their ears, so beauteous that no sovereign hath ever uttered their
like. The first was the response to the Russian government who demanded wherefore
was war waged against it. Thou hast said: "the cries of the wretched
innocents thrown into the Black Sea have, in the morn,
woken me from my sleep, and it was this that decided me to battle."
Behold, these oppressed ones are more wretched still and more miserable, since
the trials of those lasted but a day, whereas the calamities we endure have not
ceased for one moment in twenty five years!
"The other remarkable word which, verily, astonished the world, was:
"It is for us to avenge the oppressed and succour the wretched." The
royal voice of justice and retribution thereupon raised the hopes of a great
multitude.
It behoveth indeed the rulers of this world to inquire into the condition of
the oppressed; sympathy towards the feeble is among the duties incumbent upon
them. Verily, there is not, nor hath there ever been any upon the
earth more sorely oppressed than us, nor hath there ever been seen any more
feeble."
Shoghi Effendi (Promised Day
is Come):
Two statements graciously uttered by the king of the age
have reached the ears of these wronged ones. These pronouncements are, in
truth, the king of all pronouncements, the like of which have never been heard
from any
sovereign. The first was the answer given the Russian Government when it inquired
why the war (Crimean) was waged against it. Thou didst reply: "The cry of
the oppressed who, without guilt or blame, were
drowned in the
Black Sea wakened me at dawn. Wherefore, I took up arms
against thee." These oppressed ones, however, have suffered a greater
wrong, and are in greater distress. Whereas the trials inflicted upon those
people lasted but
one day, the troubles borne by these servants have continued for twenty and
five years, every moment of which has held for us a grievous affliction.
The other weighty statement, which was indeed a wondrous
statement manifested to the world, was this: "Ours is the responsibility
to avenge the oppressed and succour the helpless." The fame of the
Emperor's justice and fairness hath brought hope to a great many souls. It
beseemeth the king of the age to inquire into the condition of such as have
been wronged, and it behooveth him to extend his care to the weak. Verily,
there hath not been, nor is there now, on earth any one as oppressed as we are,
or as helpless as these wanderers.
[1] See
McGlinn (ed.), Leiden Bibliography of Bahá'u'lláh's Tablets. The bibliography overlooks Shoghi Effendi's translation in The Promised Day is Come, p.51 as well
as that in H. Dreyfus' L'Oeuvre de
Bahaou'llah, vol. 2, pp. 97-98
[2] Cf.
Bahá'u'lláh, Epistle to the Son of the
Wolf, p.45,47; 'Abdu'l-Bahá, Some Answered Questions, p.32; Shoghi
Effendi, God Passes By p.171, 173,
and The Promised Day is Come, p.51; L'Oeuvre de Bahaou'llah, vol. 2, pp.
97-98; Adib Taherzadeh, The Revelation of
Bahá'u'lláh, vol. 2 pp. 368-369 (which merely repeats the latter
reference); Jonah Winters "Overview of the Tablets to Napoleon",
online at www.bahai-library.org/study/index.html;
Juan Cole, Modernity and the Millenium,
p.63, and "Bahá'u'lláh's Tablets to the Rulers", http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/bhkings.htm
[3] God Passes By (p.173)
[4] Juan
Cole, Modernity and the Millenium,
p.63
[5] The Promised Day is Come, p.51
[6] My translation from the Dreyfus text.
[7] Cited by
Shoghi Effendi, The Promised Day Is Come,
p.52
[8] My translation from the Dreyfus text.
[9] God
Passes By, p. 163.
[12] Shoghi Effendi, God Passes By, 171. Cf.
Shoghi Effendi, ibid. p.160ff.; Glenn Cameron and Wendy Momen, Basic Bahá'í Chronology; Adib
Taherzadeh, The Revelation of Bahá'u'lláh,
vol. 2 pp. 165ff.; Juan Cole, "The Surah of God: Introduction and
translation", http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/bhallah.htm
[13] Jonah
Winters "Overview of the Tablets to Napoleon", he follows Cameron and
Momen in dating the Most Great Separation to 1866.
[14] Cf.
Shoghi Effendi, God Passes By, p.186;
Moojan Momen, The Bábí and Bahá'í
Religions 1844-1944: Some Contemporary Western Accounts, p.199
[15] See
Momen, ibid., p.199-200
[16] Cf. "Summons of the Lord of Hosts", p., para 20.
[17] Cf. Lawh-i Mubáraka khitab bih Shaykh
Muhammad Taqíhhhhh , bahai.com online version, p.32
[18] As
reported by Moojan Momen, personal communication
[19] Cited
in Moojan Momen, ibid, p.190
[20] See his
Religions et
Philosophies Dans L'Asie Centrale.
See also biographical information in Momen,
[21] e-mail
communication
[22] Cited
in Momen, op. cit. p.208
[25]
Personal communication
[26] The Promised Day is Come, p.20
[27] Cited
in letter of the Universal House of Justice, 1997 Nov 06, "Responses of
Napoleon III and Queen Victoria"
[28] Second
tablet to Napoleon III, cited in Epistle to the Son of the Wolf, p.47
[29] Kitab-i
Aqdas, para 86.
[30]
Abdu'l-Bahá, Promulgation of Universal
Peace, p. 211
[31]
Bahá'u'lláh, Epistle to the Son of the
Wolf, p.50-51
[32] Shoghi
Effendi, The Promised Day is Come, p. 49-52
[33] Alistair Horne, The Fall of
Paris, p.34, Macmillan, London, 1965.
[34] Shoghi
Effendi's translation makes it almost certain that Dreyfus was working from an
identical manuscript, and shows the remarkable closeness of his French
translation to the Guardian's own, which may mean that the Guardian may have
used Dreyfus' work as a starting-point to his own translation. See the Appendix 2 for a comparison between
my original translation of Dreyfus' French, and Shoghi Effendi's English
translation cited here.
[35]
"with the eye of loving kindness" inserted here on the basis of
Shoghi Effendi's translation in God Passes By, p.173
