The fifteenth and last section of the first chapter treats of _Mazdak_, who lived in the fifth century of our era. We are informed of the existence of a book, called _Desnak_, which the author of the Dabistán saw, and which contains the doctrine of this reformer. This was nothing else than the Zoroastrian system about the two principles, _Yezed_, “God” or “light,” and _Ahriman_, “agent of evil” or “darkness,” with a few peculiarities which did not destroy the fundamental principles of the original religion. But, it was the ethical part of his doctrine which at first caused a great revolution, and at last the destruction of the teacher and his numerous disciples, Mazdak bade all men to be partners in riches and women, just as they are of fire, water, and grass; private property was not to exist; each man to enjoy or to endure, in his turn, the good and bad lots of this world. To this strange doctrine may be perhaps applied the saying of a great bishop (Bossuet): that “every error is but an abuse of some truth.” To prevent an excessive inequality of fortunes in society was the object towards which celebrated ancient legislators tended, and for which frequently wishes were expressed, reforms projected, and politico-philosophical romances[123] composed by well-meaning and respectable persons. It is therefore to a natural, but dangerous propensity of the human mind, that we ought to refer Mazdak’s bold and for some time too successful attempt, as well as all the doctrines of the same tendency, which before and after him were and will henceforth be proposed. I have now terminated the general review of what the first chapter of the Dabistán, and the first volume of the English translation contain, concerning the most ancient dynasties, religions, and political institutions of Persia. [97] See page 70. [98] See vol. I. p. 211 _et seq._ [99] See sir John Malcolm’s History of Persia. Ferdusi counts 304 years from Alexander’s death to the beginning of Gushtasp’s reign; but he assigns to the latter 120, and 112 to that of his successor _Bahman Arjer_, or _Ardishir diraz_ (Artaxerxes longimanus). These two reigns might have comprised those of several others not mentioned by Ferdusi. [100] The duration of the whole Kayanian dynasty is stated by the Orientals (see vol. I. p. 31, note 1 of this work) to be 704 years in 10 reigns; according to Occidental historians, it is only 380 years in 18 reigns. The first statement is evidently erroneous as to the small number of kings, but it is not decided that it is equally so as to the duration of the whole dynasty. The error is more likely to be in the list of the kings than in the whole period of their reigns. May I be permitted to refer to my discussion upon the chronology of the _Rajatarangini_ (vol. II. p. 387)?