A Persian Perception of Two French Stories

ABSTRACT Modern Persian fiction initially emerged in Iran through translation of western literature, especially from French. The translation movement in Iran was simultaneous with the emergence of Romanticism in Europe; therefore, writers of this literary school are outstanding in translation of western literature into Persian. Using a descriptive, analytic, and comparative method, this article attempts to make a comparison between Bernardin de Saint-Pierre’s Le Café de Surate (Coffee House of Surat) and La Chaumière Indienne (Indian Cottage) and Mīrzā Āqā Khān Kermānī’s Haftād o do Mellat (Seventy-Two Nations). Motivated by Pierre’s broad worldview, Kermānī found intellectual and spiritual affinity with his attitude and translated two of his stories into Persian. Despite the popularity of romance stories among Persian readers, Kermānī was not quite successful to sustain the attraction of Pierre’s original stories in his adaptation due to his lack of acquaintance with modern fiction and scientific methods of translation, revolutionary zeal, extreme Iranian nationalism, religious prejudice, and manipulative outlook on literature Nevertheless, his good translation choice and its due time period gave him a special place in the realm of Persian fiction and also introduced de Saint-Pierre’s works to the Iranians.


Introduction
In an overview, Persian literature can be divided into two periods of poetry flourishing and prose flourishing. In the former period up until the end of the Safavid dynasty (1502-1736), many masterpieces of poetry were born including Shāhnāme by Ferdawsī, Hadīgha by Sanā'ī al-Ghaznavī, Manteq ot-Tayr by Attār, Ghazalīyāt and Būstān by Sa'dī, Mathnavī by Rūmī, Ghazalīyāt by Hāfez, and so on. Although prose did not receive much glory and eminence in the shadow of poetry in that period, it was not devoid of illustrious works either. Tārīkh-e Beyhaqī, Asrār ot-Tawhīd, Kalīla va Demna, Tazkerat ol-Awlīyā,' Gulestān-e Sa'dī and some other works written up until the end of the Safavid dynasty are among the brilliant achievements written in Persian prose. Since 1906, when the Persian Constitutional Revolution occurred, this ratio between poetry and prose was reversed insofar that we can say Persian prose has even surpassed poetry. What is indeed the secret behind this transformation? In order to answer this question, the transition period of Persian literature from the prevalence of poetry to the prevalence of prose should be taken into serious consideration. This period, starting from the end of the Safavid dynasty and continuing until the Persian Constitutional Revolution is, on the one hand, tied to the golden age of Persian classic literature to continue poetry flourishing, and on the other hand, is obsessed with new ways of survival in competition with already acclaimed masterpieces in Persian classic literature. These new ways should incorporate three components of native literary traditions, world literature transformations, and literary creativity to achieve an artistic integration between tradition and modernity. This literary concern in Iran coincided with some global transformations including scientific, industrial, cultural, social, and political revolutions in some countries such as France and Britain back then. Furthermore, the emergence of some modernist officials in the Qajar dynasty  fostered the perspective of this dream. Abbās Mīrzā Qājār, Qā'em Maqām Farāhānī, and Mīrzā Taqī Khān Amīr Kabīr are among the ministers who seek a modern outlook on Iran and the world even within the authoritarian context of the Qajar government. Perhaps, the most outstanding outcome of their outlook is the establishment of Dār ol-Fonūn (1268) as a foundation for contemporary universities in Iran today. The main purpose of Dār ol-Fonūn was to make use of native and non-native teachers to rebuild Iran at a time when concerned intellectuals were spending sleepless nights, worrying about the backwardness from the caravan of global development. In this short article, it is not possible to go through the details of the contributing factors behind this situation. Thus, we focus on just one instance of modernism in that age, that is to say bridging the gap between native and western culture and civilization through translation.
Translation from what language? Undoubtedly from a language that was most common in Europe at that age, that is to say, French. Although Amīr Kabīr and other funders of educational centers such as Dār ol-Fonūn would rather hire native teachers, the European instructors teaching there "had only one shared language -French -as the medium of communication. Therefore, not only they had to teach French in their curriculum, but also had to plan for inclusion of scientific and technical translation courses for the students" (Balay 44). Accordingly, French became the second language in Iran's academic and scientific centers and translation from French books flourished during the early years of the translation movement in Iran. This feature can be studied in detail within pages 41-233 of Christophe Balay's valuable book entitled La Genese Du Roman Persan Moderne (The Genesis of Modern Persian Novel) and Dāvūd Navvābī's book entitled Tārīkhche Tarjome az Farānce be Fārsī dar Irān az Āghāz tā konūn (The History of Translation from French into Persian in Iran Since the Beginning until Now). A literary genre that was received positively during the early years of translation movement in Iran was European, especially French, literary fiction as an outstanding source for Persian fiction. By reviewing one of the translations conducted during this age and comparing that with the original text, this article aims to analyze how this movement started in Iran. The adaptive translations of Bernardin de Saint-Pierre's "Le Café de Surate" (Coffee House of Surat) and "La Chaumiere Indienne" (Indian Cottage) into Persian by Mīrzā Āqā Khān Kermānī, published in a book titled Haftād o do Mellat (Seventy-Two Nations), are the basis for writing the present article.

Methodology and literature review
This article is written in a descriptive, analytic, and comparative method. It aims to compare "Coffee House of Surat" and "Indian Cottage" with Mīrzā Āqā Khān Kermānī's Seventy-Two Nations that is an adaptation based on the above French stories with regard to the writing styles, features, and time conditions back then.
Bernardin de Saint-Pierre and Mīrzā Āqā Khān Kermānī have not received much attention in the realm of Iranian research. Except for a few translations from de Saint-Pierre's works and a short biography of Mīrzā Āqā Khān Kermānī as well as his unfinished works in a sort of non-academic way, nothing more has been published about them. The only research conducted on the comparison between the above stories is an article from Shahīn Serāj entitled Seventy-Two Nations in Comparison with Two Stories by Bernardin de Saint-Pierre published in the Journal of Kelk/94 in 1997. However, that article is devoid of any analytical approach and mostly devoted to the summary of the stories. Therefore, the present article is the first analytical research to compare the works of these two French and Iranian authors.

"Le Café de Surate" (Coffee House of Surat) and "La Chaumière Indienne" (Indian Cottage)
Bernardin de Saint-Pierre (1737-1814) is among the first authors whose name was noticed in the transition period of Persian literature from tradition to modernity in the realm of fiction translation. Three of his fictional works titled "Paul et Virginie," "Le Café de Surate," and "La Chaumiere Indienne" are among the first French works of literature translated into Persian. The reason behind interest in his works should be sought in the goals of the fiction translation movement in Iran and the motivations of translators back then. "Novels initially had a tendency to historical, scientific, and educational aspects and then gradually inclined towards adventure, love, social relations, and entertainment" (Balay 75). What made the stories of de Saint-Pierre appealing for Persian readers was their romantic atmosphere, especially "Paul and Virginia," which was favored by the abundant fans of romantic works in Iran. Besides, the social and theological aspects of "Coffee House of Surat" and "Indian Cottage" were favored by those who were displeased with the political, social, and cultural condition of Iran during that age. Thus, it can be said that the social-political activists and fans of the romance genre had a tendency toward the works of this French author. Mīrzā Āqā Khān Kermānī was an intellectual against the status quo at that age and perceived de Saint-Pierre's stories in line with his own goals so he started an adaptation based on them.
Bernardin de Saint-Pierre, who was an educated engineer, finally became interested in literature and achieved a remarkable place in French literature as an author in "preromanticism" (Brunel et. al. 149) or an initiator of romanticism. His companionship with Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) associated him with the French Revolution of the 18 th century, republican government, as well as some French theist philosophers in that age. Besides, his curious, naturalist, humanitarian, simple, and innocent attitude interested in peace and tranquility made him popular among the thinkers in Iran and the world. "Coffee House of Surat" and "Indian Cottage" written in 1790s during the years of his intellectual maturity are in fact two independent but complementary stories. The stories narrate an endeavor to seek truth and reach peace amid religious and theological disputes. Although truth is not achievable by just scientific advancements, it is ultimately manifested in its main temple that is nature and simplicity free from any sort of conceited scientific and theological arguments and it brings about indescribable peace for the seekers.
Bernardin de Saint-Pierre who himself is not present in his story, except for a short part at the beginning, narrates "Coffee House of Surat" in a coffee house in the city of Surat in India. The story goes on with arguments, and proud boasts of the fanatics from outstanding religions and sects in the world. The protagonist is a learned Persian theologian who ceased to believe in the existence of God after he had spent his entire life studying the deity. His rejection makes some others including his African slave, a Brahmin, a Jew, an Italian missionary, a Protestant minister, a Sunni Turk, and a Persian Shi'ite Mulla, get involved in the story; each of them presents an image of God according to his own belief and assumes that his perception is superior to that of others. This dogmatic discussion raises an uproar in the coffee house though amid this chaos, the superiority claims of the Ethiopian Christians, Buddhist priests from Tibet, the Ismā'īlīs, and fire-worshipers are not strong enough. Seeing the disordered condition in the coffee house, a Chinese follower of Confucius who has witnessed the dispute from the beginning enters the argument as a referee upon the request of a Suni Turk. He says his words through a story in which the characters mention inaccurate and fallacious ideas about the sun; and finally, he concludes that "on matters of faith, it is pride that causes error and discord among men. As with the sun, so it is with God. Each man wants to have a special God of his own, or at least a special God for his native land. Each nation wishes to confine in its own temples Him, whom the world cannot contain. All human temples are built on the model of this temple, which is God's own world" (Tolstoy 247). He continues: "The higher a man's conception of God, the better will he know Him. And the better he knows God, the nearer he will draw to Him, imitating His goodness, His mercy, and His love of man. Therefore, let him who sees the sun's whole light filling the world, refrain from blaming or despising the superstitious man, who in his own idol sees one ray of that same light. Let him not despise even the unbeliever who is blind and cannot see the sun at all" (Tolstoy 249). Members of humanity should have unity and charity so that they can alleviate the agony of life and make the earth a supreme paradise. All people should put aside religious differences and compete with each other in philanthropy and humanitarianism. By the sagacious words of the Chinese character, "all who were present in the coffee-house were silent, and disputed no more as to whose faith was the best" (Tolstoy 249). Therefore, "Coffee House of Surat" reproaches religious disputes and says that to reach truth and felicity, people should cease to continue theological conflicts.
In "Indian Cottage," Bernardin de Saint-Pierre deals with some other obstacles for seeking truth. In this novel, the author narrates twenty British men of letters who were dispatched to different lands by the Royal Society in London in order to find answers for three thousand five hundred questions. He tells the story of a scientist who departs for the land of India and thereby composes a travelogue in the form of a novel: "The most learned of these adventurers, whom I shall in future call Doctor, to which title he had an indisputable claim, understood Hebrew, Arabic, and Indian languages. He was dispatched over land to India as a paradisiacal territory and the cradle of all the arts and sciences attracting the world's great conquerors from every corner of the globe" (de Saint-Pierre: 4). They were on a mission to collect or transcribe the Torah and other old manuscripts during their journey. First, he goes to Holland and Amsterdam to visit Jewish scholars. Going to Dordrecht, a city in Holland, visiting the Protestant priests there, having discussions in the old school about divine wisdom, inspecting the Paris Academy, visiting the scientific associations as well as the museum at Florence and the library of Saint Mark in Italy were among his travel plans. When in Venice and Rome, he went to the Vatican Library that is the seminary of the Pope but dreading inquisition, he did not enter Spain and embarked straight to Ottoman lands (Turkey). The Saint Sophia Library in Istanbul, Maronites of Mount Lebanon, Sana in Yemen, Egypt, Isfahan, Kandahar, Delhi, and Agra were his subsequent destinations. "At length, after a lapse of three years, he reached the banks of Ganges, and found himself at Benares, the Athens of India and the center of wisdom in that territory" (de Saint-Pierre: 5). In India, he conferred with Brahmins and also collected and transcribed the manuscripts of the Indians. He wanted to return to London full-handed; however, upon reflecting on the resources he recognized that not only couldn't he solve any problem but was also too far immersed in various contradictory ideas which added to his perplexity. So he received nothing but a bunch of hooey, weak arguments, and inaccurate claims. Full of perplexity and vexation, he was on the point of embarking for England, when the Brahmins of Benares informed him that the supreme Brahmin of the famous pagoda of Juggernaut, situated at the sea side near one of the Ganges and was alone capable of resolving all the questions of the Royal Society of London. Surrounded by a lot of luxuries, he advanced to Juggernaut and after being treated with an abundance of contempt, he finally had the honor to visit the supreme pundit! He aimed to ask him three questions: How to come to the truth? Where is truth to be sought? Shall it remain concealed from mankind or be disclosed? All truth, answered the Indian pundit, is contained in four verses, written in Sanskrit a hundred and twenty thousand years ago, the understanding of which is confined to the Brahmins only. In response to his third question, said the old pundit, it is prudent to conceal it from mankind in general, but it is always a duty to disclose it to the Brahmins! Disappointed at finding an answer for his questions, the British doctor was to return to London but in a stormy night, his companions and he ended up in the corner of a valley through which the glimmer of a cottage was seen and finally this gleam of light led him to truth. A pariah who was infamous among the Indians, a woman who had fled and married him dreading to be reduced to ashes after the death of her husband, and a little child inhabited the cottage. Despite his companions' reluctance, the British Doctor steps into their poor dwelling and he is welcomed and respected by the family. Seeing their purity, honesty, and simplicity, he is overjoyed and assumes that he can find the answer to his questions in that humble cottage. After narrating painful events of his life, the pariah speaks about the peace and tranquility he had achieved in that small cottage and finally provides an answer to the triplet questions of the British doctor. Satisfied, the British doctor returns to London and about the result of his travel, he whispers the words of the pariah in the humble cottage: "Truth is to be sought with a simple heart; it is not to be found out of nature, and is to be communicated to men of worth only. To which he added, there is no real happiness without a good wife" (de Saint-Pierre: 94).
Time, place, and character are three meticulously selected main elements in the two aforementioned stories so reflection upon them can lead the reader to the themes of the stories. The setting of the above works date back to the Mughal Empire in India (the first story in a coffee house in Surat) and the noticeable characters of the stories include the Persian theologian, the Chinese student of Confucius, the British Doctor, the supreme pundit of Juggernaut pagoda, and finally the pariah. A careful look at these elements shows that de Saint-Pierre has targeted a wide spread of the world because the religious complexion of the whole world is imagined by the audience through those elements. In other words, the characters with regard to their religious background can be representatives of the realm of religion in the 18 th century. The Mughal Empire in India had passed the dynasty of Akbarshāh Gūrkānī (1542-1605) during which "Divine Faith" or Dīn Ilāhī (Spear 36) was proposed to solve disputes in the realm of religion and hence India in that age became a refuge for those who sought asylum from religious restrictions in their own country. The company of people from different religions and sects in the "Coffee House of Surat" conveys this issue very well. Of course, the outstanding role of the Persian theologian implies a historical fact in that age, that is, the homelessness of Iranian scholars and ordinary people from minority religions who had to take refuge in India and Turkey because of religious stigma and discrimination. The list of these immigrants has been itself an incentive for writing several books in this regard, among which we can refer to Kārivān-e Hind (The Caravan of India) by Gulchīn Ma'ānī. With regard to the open-minded thoughts of Confucianism, the Chinese character also attempts to untie the Gordian knot of the religious dispute. The trace of Confucius's thoughts (551-479 BCE) is especially outstanding in "Indian Cottage" and it can be the subject of another research article. "Confucius was a humanist; he found the secret of life in persons and their better relationships" (Noss 303). One day a man asked this philosopher: "Is there one word which may serve as a rule of practice for all one's life? The master said, Is not Preceptory (shu) such a word? What you do not want done to yourself, do not do [unto] others" (Noss 310). This quotation is the gist of all religions and sects that is especially outstanding in the works of de Saint-Pierre. In the words of the pariah in Indian Cottage, we read: "Do not unto others what you would not wish others to do to you" (de Saint-Pierre 69). On the other hand, the British Doctor's travel to India has a connotation to the relationship between Britain and India at that time and of course, it indicates the entrance of the world into a new era of thinking while Britain along with France was leading that transformation, contrary to Spain where the British Doctor did not dare to enter, fearful of the Inquisition in that period (de Saint-Pierre 6). The supreme pundit in Indian Cottage is the symbol of blind worship of man-made gods -idols -and because of this, de Saint-Pierre's statement about him is thought-provoking: "The supreme pundit who is not worth a black money and does not have the intelligence of a monkey in a neighboring jungle" (de Saint-Pierre 55). And finally, the pariah who can solve the problems of mankind is the symbol of forgotten simplicity. He is merely in contrast with the Persian theologian in the "Coffee House of Surat." A general look at the two aforementioned stories reveals a range of perspectives from religious ignorant bigotry to humanitarian simple-hearted freedom in a theological juxtaposition between characters.
"Indian Cottage" was translated into Persian by Zakā ol-Molk Forūghī in 1943. His preface along with the astute introduction of de Saint-Pierre provides the reader with some invaluable information for the analysis of the novel and we will explain about it more in the following pages. "Coffee House of Surat" has three different translations into Persian. The first one is an adaptation by Mīrzā Āqā Khān Kermānī based on de Saint-Pierre's two stories which is published as Seventy-Two Nations (this translation is the basis for writing the present article). Another Persian translation is from a Russian translation of the original book. This translation, compared to the first one, is more faithful to the source text owing to the invaluable translation of Tolstoy, the renowned Russian writer in the genre of fiction. Faithfulness to the source text is missing in the translations of Mīrzā Āqā Khān Kermānī and many other Iranian translators and novelists in his period. The third Persian translation is from Jamāl Zādeh, the founder of modern storytelling in Iran. As he has mentioned in his preface, he adopted a free translation method to translate "Coffee House of Surat" and other stories in his book: "For the translation of the stories in this book, the translator has fairly used a free translation method" (Jamāl Zādeh 17). Of course, he himself is aware of this point and has consciously applied this method because he knows that the Iranian audience does not still have sufficient acquaintance with fiction and modern storytelling in that era. Therefore, by intermingling his translations with some native elements, he attempts to create a familiar climate for the Persian readers so that they can assimilate this type of literary genre. This point can be a reason for the Persian readers' interest in his translation: "Anyways, it is a very profound and meaningful story, especially enjoyable for us as Iranians with Sufi characteristics" (Jamāl Zādeh 152). The sequence of these translations indicates the development of Iranians in modern fiction. In other words, the movement from Mīrzā Āqā Khān Kermānī's adaptation to Jamāl Zādeh 's free translation and then translation of the Russian version into Persian implies this course of change.

Mīrzā Āqā Khān Kermānī and Haftād o do Mellat (Seventy-Two Nations)
Mīrzā Abd ol-Hussayn, known as Mīrzā Āqā Khān Kermānī, was the son of Mīrzā Abd or-Rahīm who was a Khān (local ruler) in Bardsir Kirman. He was born in 1854 and schooled in mathematics, natural science, and theology. He knew Persian and Turkish well and also learned some French and English (Kermānī 12). The author of Tārīkh-e Bīdārī-e Irānīyān (The History of the Iranians' Awakening) -Nāzim ol-Islām Kermānīwas his student and learned Manteq Sharh Ishārāt with him (Kermānī 11). He has stated some invaluable information about Mīrzā Āqā Khān and his fellows at the beginning of his book, which is the main reference for the subsequent books about his biography. His insubordinate attitude could not endure the predominant tyranny in Kirman so he moved to Isfahan. Despite extreme attention he received from Isfahan's governor, he moved to Tehran because he did detest obedience and compliance with authority. However, the Qajar dynasty (1848-1896) that lasted his whole life span was not congruent with his insubordinate and justice-seeking nature. Therefore, like many other intellectuals at that time, he moved to Istanbul together with Shaykh Ahmad Rūhī who was also critical to the political condition back then. Āryān Pūr says that the reason for his immigration was "the accusation of Babism" (Āryān Pūr 390) so his interest in "Coffee House of Surat" was also due to his similarity to the protagonist of the story, the Persian theologian who had been exiled from his country due to his beliefs. Mīrzā Āqā Khān went into exile to show his objection to the Qajar dynasty and its authoritarianism as well as the political, social, and religious conditions in that age. In Istanbul, together with his fellow believers, they joined the assembly of the followers of sayyed Jamāl od-Dīn Asad Ābādī and took a keen interest in the idea of Islam's unity and even risked his life to fulfill this goal. His relation to Sayyed Jamāl as a pioneer for the victory of Persian Constitutional Revolution recalls de Saint-Pierre's friendship with Rousseau to whose ideas the victory of the French Revolution owes and this companionship revives some memories from that socio-political event. "The most famous writing of Mīrzā Āqā Khān Kermānī is Seventy-Two Nations. He has established the setting of his treatise upon 'Coffee House of Surat' and has adapted the subject to the Islamic religion" (Āryān Pūr 392). His book is a combination of de Saint-Pierre's "Coffee House of Surat" and "Indian Cottage." The atmosphere of the first part of his story is derived from "Coffee House of Surat" and the second part is influenced by "Indian Cottage." The Persian theologian in the story, unsatisfied with his life having been spent on theological arguments, rejects the existence of God and it makes some other figures in the coffee house get involved in the conflict of the story. The black slave of the Persian theologian, a Brahmin from Juggernaut, a Zoroastrian Parsi, a Jew junker, an Italian Catholic, a Protestant minister, a Sunni Turk, a Bihbahani scholar from Shaykhism, a Shi'ite jurist, a Ne'matollāhi Sufi from Kirman, and Solaymān Khān the Babi get into the debate and each provide some points to prove their beliefs; however, Abyssinian Coptic Christians, Tatars of Lama, Zaydi Arabs, and Ismailis do not remain silent and express their disagreement with Solaymān Khān the Babi. The Chinese student of Confucius, who sat quietly in one corner of the coffee house, joined the dispute upon the invitation of a Sunni Turk. He states his position through a story about the sun. In his narration, a blind man and his slave, a rural man, a fisherman, a resident of an Indian Island, a sailor, a trader, a British seaman, and a marine pilot who was wise in every science and technique express their ideas about the sun. Finally, the Chinese character summarizes the whole idea and says: "As with the sun, so it is with God. Each man wants to have a special God of his own, or at least a special God for his native land. Each nation wishes to confine in its own temples Him, whom the world cannot contain. Can any temple be compared with that which God Himself has built to unite all men in one faith and one religion?" (Bahādor 91). And then he continues: "The higher a man's conception of God, the better will he know Him. And the better he knows God, the nearer he will draw to Him, imitating His goodness, His mercy, and His love of man. Therefore, let him who sees the sun's whole light filling the world, refrain from blaming or despising the superstitious man, who in his own idol sees one ray of that same light. Let him not despise even the unbeliever who is blind and cannot see the sun at all" (Bahādor 93). The words of the Chinese character made all those who were in the coffee house become silent and thereby the story ends. But then, Mīrzā Agha Khān introduces another character from among those who were silent and hence he becomes the narrator of "Indian Cottage." This character is named Mīrzā Javād from Shiraz and his image reminds the reader of Sa'dī, the famous Persian poet. Perhaps, the wishes of Mīrzā Āqā Khān Kermānī are manifested in this character. Whatever it is, he is the narrator of "Indian Cottage" who has appeared in Mīrzā Āqā Khān Kermānī's book following the dispute. He confirms the words of the Chinese character and says that before, he was trapped in bigotry but "now has entered a brilliant world and can see humans as parts of a single body so has taken the word of Sa'dī as his guide who says: Human beings are members of a whole . . . " (Bahādor 101). All who are present in the coffee house are elated by his words and ask him about the truth. He gives an answer through a tale that is indeed the story "Indian Cottage." He concludes: "Such is people's affair in terms of religions as it is a substantial not accidental issue. Saying just the word of Tawhid superficially is not enough for religiosity. A man's truth and nature must be in unity with creatures, either by knowledge and insight or love and affection" (Bahādor 121). By recourse to Shi'ite thought, Mīrzā Javād also highlights the motto of defending the oppressed and fighting against the oppressor and in response to the request of the attendees who asked about his way, he says: "The origin of my words and acts is the upright wisdom and vivid reason . . . but if indeed the source of my beliefs and all other sects and ethnic groups' is intended, that would be the Noble Qur'an and the eloquent religion of Islam" (Bahādor 121). "A kind of Islam that does not oppose any other religion on earth and does not negate and nullify any of them but it confirms all religions and is comprehensive and the source of all sects" (Bahādor 123). "A kind of Islam that the westerners by adopting some of its guidelines could achieve great stages while the Muslims had extreme backwardness by neglecting all those truths" (Bahādor 122). The story of Mīrzā Āqā Khān ends here.

Comparative analysis of the stories
The analysis of Mīrzā Āqā Khān Kermānī's Haftād o do Mellat based on the current theories and approaches in translation yields no certain results because he lived in a time period significantly different from the current age when many theories in translation are proposed. His work is neither compatible with the approach of "American translation workshop" which emphasizes an equal aesthetic perception between the source and target language nor the approach of "science translation" which relies on structural and active linguistic equivalences. It is not associated with "basic translation studies" which pay attention to the correspondence between the initial role of source and target texts either. Though, principles of "poly-system theory" and traces of "deconstruction" are observed in the works of Mīrzā Āqā Khān. His translation method was mostly instrumental and idealistic (Gentzler), aiming to have an impact on the intellectual atmosphere at that age and was supported by some political and denominational parties back then. Therefore, the cultural, social, and political condition of his society made him adopt the target language-oriented approach and highlight the cultural and social concerns of the Iranian society in his works. As a result, we witness that Haftād o do Mellat has turned out to be an adaptation and a sort of imitation from Bernardin de Saint-Pierre's stories. In fact, the Persian translation is an independent work relying on cultural commonalities between the Iranian and French society and intellectualism, so Seventy-Two Nations can hardly be recognized as the translation of Pierre's stories.
The theme of de Saint-Pierre's "Coffee House of Surat" and "Indian Cottage" as well as Mīrzā Āqā Khān Kermānī's Seventy-Two Nations is to oppose devastating and futile religious disputes throughout human history. This subject more or less has instances in every nation. With regard to the condition of France and some other European countries back then, the republican ideas of Rousseau who was de Saint-Pierre's fellow believer, his regard for humanity and peace, and also based on the principles of Romanticism including human freedom, individuality and solitary life, significance of human inner emotions and sentiments, getting away from present time and place, fascination with the past, imagination, intuition and charm of words (Sayyed Hossaynī 179), Bernardin addresses the evil case of religious self-conceit through his two attractive stories written according to modern methods of storytelling. For seeking truth, like Ghazālī -the Persian writer -he sets aside prejudice and biased look at religion and theological beliefs as well as reliance on mere human knowledge. Finally, he finds truth and peace in nature -the temple of truth -and within simple and innocent hearts of humans. His peace is for mankind from every race and skin color and not limited to a certain geography. This kind of tranquility has a long history in Persian mystical literature. Undoubtedly, it is this Persian background that has stimulated Mīrzā Āqā Khān Kermānī to present an Iranian version of this French novel. Although he does not have a positive view of mysticism or Sufism, he has unconsciously received such an influence from mystical instructions so that we can openly perceive the image of a Muslim Sufi in the character of Āqā Javād Shīrāzī. Besides, the topic of his story has its roots in Islamic traditions (Serāj 199) and a famous verse from Hāfez, the preeminent Persian poet: Seventy-two nations war, their follies let pass Not seeing the truth, they took fable-paved paths. (Hāfez,Ghazal of Hāfez Shīrāzī (Part two) 170) Reflection on the similarities between "Coffee House of Surat" and "Indian Cottage" and the views of Iranian Sufi poets can explain some underlying causes for the sympathy between de Saint-Pierre and Kermānī and reveal his mental and spiritual motivation for writing Seventy-Two Nations. For instance, the futility of religious disputes is implied in this verse of Muwlawī: Since colorlessness (pure Unity) became the captive of color (manifestation in the phenomenal world) A Moses came into conflict with a Moses. When you attain unto the colorlessness which you (originally) possessed Moses and Pharaoh are at peace (with each other). (Rūmī 439) Or, the image of a blind man who rejects the sun is described in this verse of Sa'dī in Gulestān: If in daytime, bat-eyed persons do not see Is it the fault of the fountain of light, the sun? Thou justly wishest that a thousand such eyes Should be blind rather than the sun dark. (Sa'dī, The Gulestān of Sa'dī 18) The story of "different ideas about the sun" narrated by the Chinese character in "Coffee House of Surat" is fairly compatible with the tale of "blind men and the affair of the elephant" in Hadīqatol-Haqīqat (The Enclosed Garden of the Truth)  and "the disagreement as to the description and shape of the elephant" in Mathnavī Ma'navī (Rūmī 139). They have deep roots in Persian literature as Ghazzālī has also referred to this tale long before: "As long as this difference in the perspective faculty of observers exists, disputes must necessarily go on. It is as if some blind men, hearing that an elephant had come to their town, should go and examine it. The only knowledge of it which they can obtain comes through the sense of touch; so, one handles the animal's leg, another his tusk, another his ear, and according to their several perceptions, pronounce it to be a column, a thick pole, or a quilt, each taking a part for the whole" (Ghazālī, Kīmiīyā-e Sa'ādat (The Alchemy of Happiness) 20). The imaginary and poetic relation between the sun and truth highlighted in "Coffee House of Surat" and Seventy-Two Nations is a frequent image in Persian literature: He (Zayd) said, why, shall the Sun of the Truth and the Sun of Eternity be contained any wise under the armpit? (Rūmī 628) The conclusion that de Saint-Pierre infers from these two stories corresponds with the conclusion that Muslim Sufis offer to the audience in the seeking of truth: The Sufi's book is not ink and letters: it is naught but a heart white as snow. The scholar's provision is pen-marks (written letters and words). What is the Sufi's provision? Footmarks. (Rūmī 255) The metaphor of the temple of nature for the reflection of truth highlighted in de Saint-Pierre's two stories is evident in all Persian mystical literature and it is described so beautifully in the following poem of Sohrāb, the Persian contemporary poet: And a God who is close by/Among scented stocks, at the foot of that tall pine tree,/in the awareness of water,/in the laws of the plant world . . . " (Sepehrī 78) In sum, "Coffee House of Surat" and "Indian Cottage" are two French versions of Persian thinking and from their content, the drunken laugher of Sa'dī witnessing a futile dispute between a Muslim and a Jew is heard: To himself, everyone's mind seems perfect and his children beautiful. A Jew and a Muslim were having such a quarrel that I had to laugh at their words. In ire the Muslim said, "If this IOU of mine is not good, O God, make me die a Jew! The Jew said, I swear by the Torah, and if I am lying, I'm a Muslim like you! Even if intelligence were to become extinct on the face of the earth, not one would think to himself, I'm stupid. (Sa'dī, Therefore, an affinity between the views of Muslim Sufis and de Saint-Pierre has made "Coffee House of Surat" and "Indian Cottage" appealing to Mīrzā Āqā Khān. With regard to some clues such as the Persian character in "Coffee House of Surat," the name of Persia and its belonging in "Indian Cottage" 13,14,22 & 66), the publication of the Encyclopedia of Diderot and Dalembert in the middle of 18 th century giving some information about the eastern lands like Iran to the French literary writers back then ("Indian Cottage" is also seemingly originated from the 18 th century encyclopedia writing thought in France), the oriental dictionary of Bibliothèque Orientale from Barthélemy d'Herbelot containing 1159 articles about Iran (Hadīdī 83), some literary works such as Persian Letters by Montesquieu who was a contemporary of de Saint-Pierre, the translation of One Thousand and One Nights (Arabian Nights Entertainments) into French by Antoine Galland republished in France more than 70 times during 1704 to 1786 (Hadīdī 100), and finally the Persian climate of Jean de La Fontaine's fables and poems (1621-1695), it would not be far from mind that Bernardin de Saint-Pierre in creating "Coffee House of Surat" and "Indian Cottage" also cared about the ideas of Iranian Muslim Sufis and Persian literature. What is perplexing is that de Saint-Pierre, compared to Kermānī, has paid more attention to Sufi ideas and of course a reflection on the causes of this feature can be useful in this regard.
The 18 th century in France, a major part of de Saint-Pierre's life, is the age of enlightenment, social revolution, liberal ideas, empiricism and objectivity, European intellectuals' attention to the world, and their serious objection against church dogmatism and fanaticism. "Romanticism that is the inheritor of eastern and western literature and shows freedom from old rules and interest in literary cosmopolitanism emerged in that era" (Hadīdī 215). At the time of writing "Coffee House of Surat" and "Indian Cottage," de Saint-Pierre who had already reached intellectual maturity and passed the state of youthful distress and uncertainties was experiencing a sort of inner peace so it is quite normal that in this situation, his devotion to the elevated ideas of Muslim Sufis is more than that of Mīrzā Āqā Khān Kermānī who was still a young revolutionary modernist. He passed all his life during the authoritarian and dark age of Nāser ad-Dīn Shāh Qājār (1847-1896) who could not stand Mīrzā Āqā Khān and his fellows' revolutionary and zealous thoughts. He thus was doomed to go into exile and in a far corner of the world fantasized about transformation in Iran. An image presented by Mikhail Lermontov -the eminent Russian poet -in a poem titled "Dispute" about Iran during that period can itself indicate the arduous task of Mīrzā Āqā Khān to reach his aspiration: "And tend to smoke the hookah, on colored sofa, in pearl fountain, napping Tehran" (Lermontov). Therefore, some causes such as his revolutionary zeal, religious prejudice, extremist Iranian nationalism, manipulative outlook on literature, intellectual immaturity, superficiality, lack of acquaintance with storytelling techniques, and disagreement with Sufi ideas limited his perspective so his Seventy-Two Nations is restricted to a certain time and afflicted with an expiration date. In order to understand the difference between the perception of these two writers, it is sufficient to mention an instance: consider the meaning of "simplicity" in de Saint-Pierre's Indian Cottage: "It is with a simple heart, therefore, that truth is to be sought; for a simple heart never feigns to understand what it does not understand, nor believe what it does not believe. It does not assist to deceive itself, nor afterwards to deceive others. Thus, a simple heart, far from being weak like those of the greater part of mankind, seduced by their own interest, is strong, and such well suited to seek the truth, and to adhere to it when found" (de Saint-Pierre 63 & 64). The above perception of simplicity that is beyond time and place is compared to Mīrzā Āqā Khān's intolerant sentences in his book Si-Maktūb (Three Essays) that quotes -of course fallaciously -from the Holy Prophet of Islam: "Other than that simple religion and the creed of righteousness that was among my community during my era, other invented religions such as Sunnis and Shi'ism, Khārijī and Rāfezī, Sufism and Shaykhism, Babi and Hanafī, Mālekī and Zaydī, Ash'arī and Mo'tazelī are all invalid and out of the nation of Islam, the circle of community, and my education. They are all innovation in religion and deviation from the straight path. I who am the God's messenger loathe them" (Bahādor 56). Therefore, what has caused a distinct difference between de Saint-Pierre and Mīrzā Āqā Khān is the former's broad and the latter's narrow point of view. Owing to this difference, de Saint-Pierre could offer a prescription beyond disputes to cure human pain in order to "to alleviate the distresses of human race and to afford succor to the unfortunate" (de Saint-Pierre: viiii). However, Āqā Khān's narrow-minded view is not compatible with the main idea of "Coffee House of Surat" and "Indian Cottage" as some noticed differences in various parts of their works are briefly mentioned in the following.
Bernardin de Saint-Pierre has a vivid perception of fiction and its function based on his stories and the thoughtful introduction written at the beginning of "Indian Cottage": "This treatise is the travelogue of a British scientist to India and makes reference to correct documents. To make my arguments more graceful and agreeable to the Sufis and common people, I have put them into the form of a tale and decorated them with proverbs. By tales everywhere men are rendered attentive to truth" (de Saint-Pierre: ix). He thus composes two seemingly independent stories to stimulate the audiences who are often bored with religious disputes to follow the argument. On the other hand, Mīrzā Āqā Khān does not have a clear perception of modern fiction so by mixing two stories of de Saint-Pierre in an unskillful and boastful way and going into the theological details of Iran's religions and various sects makes his work even less attractive to the reader. His story is more like a philosophical and theological book rather than an interesting and pleasing story and the cause of this feature should be sought in his personal, political, and revolutionary beliefs and tendencies. The image that Nāzem ol-Islām Kermānī gives about him can explain the root of his circumlocution: "When he talks his talk goes on long and when he becomes silent his silence goes on long too" (Kermānī 65/1). From a theoretical and literary point of view, he has a manipulative outlook on literature as he says: "A poem that has no philosophical benefit and conclusion would be considered null, superstitious, and figurine" (Āryān Pūr 394/1). In this respect, Seventy-Two Nations has a preaching and sermon-like tone and lacks rhetorical and literary delicacies and figures of speech whereas de Saint-Pierre by presenting lively descriptions of nature, people, and places in addition to using satire, simile, metaphor, and symbols in his writing attempts to give spice to the insipid subjects in the discussions. For instance, his sense of humor when describing the British doctor being forced to give a bribe to the doorkeeper to get permission for entering the pagoda is so lively: "There is a secret in gold coins that breaks hard spells and unties the Gordian knots. He gave a bunch of that to the old Brahmin and the doorkeeper who was replete with the wealth of world, and thereby shortened the talk" (de Saint-Pierre 19). Bernardin de Saint-Pierre's description of the pagoda in pages 19 and 20 of his novel reminds the Persian reader's subconscious mind of Sa'dī's description about a pagoda in Sumanat: At Sumanat, I saw an ivory idol. It was set with jewels like the Manat, and nothing more beautiful could have been devised . . . (Sa'dī, The Būstān of Sa'dī 106) Explaining plants and flowers symbols in Indian culture through the following sentences about the romantic relation between the pariah and the Brahmin adds to the delicacy of the text: To make myself understood, I borrowed, according the custom of India, the language of flowers; to the poppies I added marigolds. The succeeding night I found the marigolds and the poppies watered. I became more venturous. In my next nightly visit, I joined with the poppies and marigolds, a flower from which a black die for leather is extracted, as the expression of a humble and ill-fated love. (de Saint-Pierre 109) Of course, as explained before, some of the above differences in the writing style of these two authors are to some extent related to the predominant conditions in France and Iran back then. However, Mīrzā Āqā Khān Kermānī's advantage is his choice of translation in selecting a story agreeable to the taste of Iranian readers and in line with their civil needs. Therefore, despite its literary shortage in terms of fiction, it was welcomed by Iranian society.
Although some previous Iranian mystics and literary men had already addressed the main themes of de Saint-Pierre's works in their prose and poetry, Mīrzā Āqā Khān who had innovative tendencies, preferred to use de Saint-Pierre's novels as a new and creative model for expressing his ideas in the literary context of Iran. However, the point is that he was neither as much concerned with humanity and tranquility as de Saint-Pierre was nor did he seek to represent a faithful translation of his stories, thus de Saint-Pierre's preoccupation with humanity and seeking truth is less evident in the story of Mīrzā Āqā Khān as he just aimed to prove his certain theological beliefs out of his religious prejudice. Therefore, his translation method cannot be compared to any of translation methods and theories in this field. In fact, Seventy-Two Nations should be considered as an independent work that is an adaptation of Bernardin de Saint-Pierre's stories.

Conclusion
Iranian society during the Qajar dynasty, from the second half of the 18 th to the first half of the 20 th century, was in the transition period from tradition to modernity. Therefore, Iranian thinkers and intellectuals attempted to set the ground for Iran's joining the modern world. It is obvious that in the first place, they inclined toward translating European books in order to make use of their experiences. With regard to the familiar climate of Bernardin de Saint-Pierre's "Coffee House of Surat" and "Indian Cottage" for Iranian culture, Mīrzā Āqā Khān Kermānī has made an adaptation or a sort of free translation of these two stories into the Persian language. His choice of translation was due to his humanitarian attitude, broad perspective, critical look at superstitious ideas in the realm of religion, companionship between de Saint-Pierre and the pioneers of the French Revolution, especially Rousseau, and finally his attempt to transmit the European's experience in literature and fiction to Iran. What is of importance is Mīrzā Āqā Khān and his fellows' initiation in the translation movement in Iran. However, his lack of acquaintance with modern fiction, insufficient experience in translating fiction, manipulative outlook on literature, revolutionary zeal, religious prejudice, and extremist Iranian nationalism made his book Seventy-Two Nations an unappealing translation work and an unsuccessful adaptation of "Coffee House of Surat" and "Indian Cottage." His narrow perspective, lack of artistic outlook on nature and the world, dominance of scientific over artistic aspects, and the preaching and sermon-like tone have made his book distanced from the literary and artistic delicacy and attraction in de Saint-Pierre's stories, so except during a limited period, it could not receive much attention as a work of fiction.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).