# Are the words Dervish and Druid Cognates?



## mojobadshah

Are the words Dervish and Druid Cognates?


----------



## Wolverine9

No, they're not.  See here and here.


----------



## mojobadshah

Wolverine9 said:


> No, they're not.  See here and here.



That doesn't prove very much.  It doesn't say what the PIE root is.  Originally Druid was pronounced Druvid which is almost like Dervish apart from sh > d.  From what I understand Dervish is rooted in Avestan and also that the Celts never actually called themselves Druids.  It was Ceasar who first called the Celts druids.  You sure he didn't borrow it from the Dervishes?


----------



## ireney

The entry in wikipedia looks well sourced


----------



## Treaty

Dervish (Pahl. _driyoš, _NPers _darvīš, _also _daryûzeh_) originally meant "poor", "needy" and sometimes "beggar" (esp. _daryûzeh_). The current mystical terminology comes after that some religious people abstained from all terrestrial benefits and pleasures in favour of celestial rewards, thus became poor and needy "_darvīš_"es (cf. to monks, esp. of Franciscan order). This usage didn't probably exist before 10th century.


----------



## fdb

Yes, and in this meaning _darwīš_ is a calque on Arabic _faqīr_ “poor” > “beggar”.


----------



## mojobadshah

Treaty said:


> Dervish (Pahl. _driyoš, _NPers _darvīš, _also _daryûzeh_)



To add to this list is Avestan drigu "poor" (see Ahunwar prayer).  Anyone know what the PIE root of this Avestan form is?  That would ultimately settle the question.


----------



## popckorn

The "begger" meaning of Dervich is fitting. 

It is a common belief that illumination can render one mad. It would be not far fetched to suppose those mad beggers in the street are actually closer to the knowledge of Him.


----------



## killerbee256

That or it could refer the vow of poverty that many very religious individuals take in Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity etc. I can't remember the details but it's common cross culturally for some very religious folks to forgo material positions and live off the kindness and offering of others.


----------



## sotos

The meaning "poor, needy" may be an indication that dervish is cognate to druid. The root dru- must be the one meaning "wood, forest". From this we have the Gr. drys (oak), duri or dory (lance), drymos (forest) and, according some Greek scholars, the _Dorians_. Some Greek scholars believe that this Greek "tribe" originally was a social class, i.e. a lower rural class myceneans who lived in mountainous and wooded areas. Their professions were relevant to forests (logging, charcoal making,  etc) and the word "Dorian" came to mean "vulgar, uncivilized" and therefore "inferior" . The mythical "descent of Dorians" was a come-back of that class from the mountains to the plains and the cities that were dominated by the "Myceneans" (the bourgouasie of that time). This meaning of "inferior class" possibly survived somewhere in Asia Minor and was taken again by the islamo-neo-platonic sect of Sufis in late Byzantine era. The early Sufi  masters where christian converts with good classical education. Plato was venerated as "Saint" till 19th c. in some places of Asia Minor and Middle East. Dervishes were the first muslims that spread Islam in the Balkans, and were very successful because their faith was close to christianity and Hellenic tradition.
Bibliography available at request.


----------



## asanga

Beekes 'Etymological Dictionary of Greek doubts whether δωριεῖς is a reflex of PIE *_doru_- "tree", and it seems even the earliest reference to Dorians in Homer uses it exclusively as an ethnonym, not a social class.

As Modobadshah has pointed out, NP _darvīš_ is a reflex of Avestan _drigu_-. But what is _drigu_- derived from?

Wiktionary gives the etymology of obsolete English _tray _"trouble, annoyance" as Proto-Germanic *_tregô_ "mourning, grief" from PIE *_dregʰ_- “unwilling, sullen, slack”,  which fits very well. But there's no reference to this meaning in Pokorny or LIV, only *_dregʰ_- "to hold fast, to fix". LIV does have *_dreǵʰ_- "to grieve", although it cautions that the proposed meaning is extremely uncertain. And shouldn't PIE _ǵ_ yield Avestan _z_ rather than _g_?

Incidentally, PIE *_dregʰ-_ is also suggested as a source for NP درخت "tree", through a ppp. "a fixed, unmoving thing = tree". Or is there another explanation for خت, if the word is a reflex of *_doru_-?

The Etymological Dictionary of the Iranian Verb gives Parthian _drxs_- "to endure" from *_dregʰ-. _Combined with prefix ni- it yields _nydrynj_- "to keep down, subdue", prefix ham- _handrynj-_ "to condemn, defeat". This is semantically quite close to "downtrodden, wretched", so perhaps Avestan _drigu-_ is also related to this proto-Iranian *_dra(n)ǰ- _"to fix, fasten, hold".


----------



## mojobadshah

According to Charles Vallencey the word druid is akin to the Persian Daru which is supposed to signify a priestly caste.  I don't know of any priestly caste named Daru. http://books.google.com/books?id=VSY2AAAAMAAJ&pg=PR20&lpg=PR20&dq=Daru+%2B+druid+%2B+Vallencey&source=bl&ots=kekkbHMEw2&sig=RQeT-_5j2iBfWNe5whqgoKSX1DI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ZTS7UfS5J8-24AOTiICYAw&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Daru%20%2B%20druid%20%2B%20Vallencey&f=false Does anyone?  This is why I thought maybe he was referring to the Dervish.  Interestingly he gives the Persian darakht "tree" as a cognate of Druid too, which would explain the dental at the end of these cognates, but I don't see the Persian "t" hardening to a "d."


----------



## Wolverine9

Keep in mind that book dates from 1804.  Mallory, in the Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture, still connects Druid with *_doru_- "wood, tree," but makes no mention of dervish.  I think a connection between dervish and Druid is unlikely.  The Avestan derivative of *_doru_- is _dāuru_-, and _drigu_- doesn't appear to be related semantically or otherwise.


----------



## aruniyan

There is a Tamil word *Thuravi*, from the root verb _*Thura*_(to renounce, to leave away). 
_*Thuravi*_ are monks who *rennounce* the worldly pleasures and they come out of family life and travel to places, this way they achieve enlightenment.


----------



## Dervish

Wolverine9 said:


> Keep in mind that book dates from 1804.  Mallory, in the Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture, still connects Druid with *_doru_- "wood, tree," but makes no mention of dervish.  I think a connection between dervish and Druid is unlikely.  The Avestan derivative of *_doru_- is _dāuru_-, and _drigu_- doesn't appear to be related semantically or otherwise.



From Ira Friedlanders book, "Whirling Dervishesd" (quoted on the net on Cassiopaea):  "The Persian word darwish (literally: the sill of the door) is accepted in Arabic and Turkish (dervish) to describe the Sufi who is the one who is at the DOOR to enlightenment."  (My capitalization.)  The door could well be oak.  And there could be a connection of ideas between "dervish" and "Druids" (who were oak-knowers).


----------



## berndf

Dervish said:


> The Persian word darwish (literally: the sill of the door)


After what we have discussed here this explanation is obviously wrong. See #5 and #6.


----------



## CyrusSH

Look at it: http://www.allempires.com/uploads/Druids.JPG

The Persian word for "Mistletoe" is *darvash*.


----------



## PersoLatin

CyrusSH said:


> The Persian word for "Mistletoe" is *darvash*.


Persian dârvâŝ/دارواش (mistletoe) is a compound: dâr/tree + vâŝ/weed


----------



## CyrusSH

PersoLatin said:


> Persian dârvâŝ/دارواش (mistletoe) is a compound: dâr/tree + vâŝ/weed



It has actually Gilaki/Mazandarani origin.

The word *darvish* has a different meaning in the Caspian languages which could effect its Persian meaning, for example look at it: مازندنومه :یادداشت های پراکنده/کارت دعوت هایی که متفاوتند Of course as you read the author believes it relates to Sanskrit _devarshi_.


----------



## Treaty

I think it was made clear that _darvish _simply meant 'poor' or 'beggar' and was not related to mysticism, spirituality, wisdom, etc. before the rise of Sufism. Any such connection whether to Sanskrit or to Celtic would be anachronic imagination based on etymological fallacy.


----------



## CyrusSH

Treaty said:


> I think it was made clear that _darvish _simply meant 'poor' or 'beggar' and was not related to mysticism, spirituality, wisdom, etc. before the rise of Sufism. Any such connection whether to Sanskrit or to Celtic would be anachronic imagination based on etymological fallacy.



No, it didn't mean simply  'poor' or 'beggar' but as you read here: DARVĪŠ – Encyclopaedia Iranica Mid. Pers. driyōš means one who lives in holy indigence, one who takes to poverty not out of necessity but because of excellence and the nobility (wehīh ud burzišn). So it related to mysticism, spirituality, wisdom in the ancient times too.


----------



## berndf

CyrusSH said:


> No, it didn't mean simply  'poor' or 'beggar' but as you read here: DARVĪŠ – Encyclopaedia Iranica Mid. Pers. driyōš means one who lives in holy indigence, one who takes to poverty not out of necessity but because of excellence and the nobility (wehīh ud burzišn). So it related to mysticism, spirituality, wisdom in the ancient times too.


I see no basic disagreement between Treaty's explanation in #5 and the EI article you quoted. It rejects other etymologies than _poor_ as _folk etymology_ and cites a 10th century primary source, the Dēnkart. This indeed means that the usage in spiritual contexts is pre-Islamic and possibly (probably?) older than the 10th century CE but as far as the basic question of the etymology of _Dervish_ is concerned, it confirms Treaty's explanation.


----------



## Treaty

CyrusSH said:


> No, it didn't mean simply 'poor' or 'beggar'


The first paragraph of that Iranica article you linked says otherwise.


----------



## CyrusSH

Treaty said:


> The first paragraph of that Iranica article you linked says otherwise.



This is the first paragraph:



> DARVĪŠ, a poor, indigent, ascetic, and abstemious person or recluse (Av. drəgu-, driγu- “the needy one, dependent”; Lommel, pp. 127-28; pace AirWb. 777: “poor, needy; Mid. Pers. driyōš “worthy poor, needy; one who lives in holy indigence”; Pāzand daryōš; NPers. darγōš > daryōš > darvīš). Paul Horn (Etymologie, s.v. dervēš) connected it with New Persian derīḡ “regret, sorrow,” a connection that Heinrich Hübschmann (Persische Studien, p. 62) rightly doubted. (For further discussion of the word, see Lommel, p. 129, with references; Borhān-e qāṭeʿ, ed. Moʿīn, II, p. 846.)



As you read here: Avestan Dictionary about the Avestan word driγu/drikhu, the first meaning is "pious" and the second meaning is "poor".


----------



## Treaty

CyrusSH said:


> As you read here: Avestan Dictionary about the Avestan word driγu/drikhu, the first meaning is "pious" and the second meaning is "poor".


It's not "first" and "second" meanings (if you have implied a priority). The "pious" meaning comes from page 80 of the source "Kr" (which the author has forgot to mention it in the abbreviations). It would be nice if someone founds what "Kr" stood for.
The "poor" meaning is not sourced. Dictionaries like Kanga or Bartholomae consider "poor", "needy" or "weak" as its meaning. Kanga doesn't list _drigu_ for "pious". Bartholomae further connects it to Sanskrit _daridri_ and _durbala_, both meanings are related to "weak" not "pious" (though I don't how credible this connection is). The source (Lommel) in the first paragraph of the Iranica article also considers "poor" not "pious" as its Avestan meaning.
And by the way, this specific derivation (_drigubyo_) is used a few times in Yasna (e.g., _yim drigubyo dadat vastarem, _Y. 27_) _which is usually translated as "the poor/needy" not the "pious".


----------



## berndf

CyrusSH said:


> As you read here: Avestan Dictionary about the Avestan word driγu/drikhu, the first meaning is "pious" and the second meaning is "poor".


I am not quite sure what your point is. This only means that the derived spiritual meaning is maybe a few hundred years older than Treaty surmised.


Treaty said:


> It would be nice if someone founds what "Kr" stood for.


I didn't find it either. I searched the scans he posted on his site and found only this (from Kanga): _driɣu _[my transcription]_ .. poorly-needy persion; a Dervish._


----------



## CyrusSH

berndf said:


> I am not quite sure what your point is. This only means that the derived spiritual meaning is maybe a few hundred years older than Treaty surmised.



Not just a few hundred years older but in the oldest Avestan text, Gathas, where Zarathustra calls himself a driγu (dervish). Yasna 34.5


----------



## berndf

CyrusSH said:


> Not just a few hundred years older but in the oldest Avestan text, Gathas, where Zarathustra calls himself a driγu (dervish). Yasna 34.5


There are no Avestan texts that are more than a few hundred years older than the 10th century. Going further back we are entering the age of legend and we cannot talk of a primary sources any more. But even if we could go another 1000 years further back, it wouldn't matter to the question of this discussion as the derivation of the spiritual sense from the meaning _poor, needy, dependent_ would still remain unshaken.


----------



## fdb

berndf said:


> There are no Avestan texts that are more than a few hundred years older than the 10th century.



This is true if you are talking about actual surviving manuscripts of the Avesta, which are not older than the 13th century. But the texts contained in them are a lot older. The date of Zoroaster is still debated, but there is a scholarly consensus that the Avestan texts, or the great majority of them, were composed before the Achaemenid period, i.e., they are not more recent than the 6th century BC, and handed done orally for centuries (like the Vedas), and eventually codified in writing during the Sasanian period. Not that this is of any relevance for the topic under discussion here.


----------



## CyrusSH

berndf said:


> There are no Avestan texts that are more than a few hundred years older than the 10th century. Going further back we are entering the age of legend and we cannot talk of a primary sources any more. But even if we could go another 1000 years further back, it wouldn't matter to the question of this discussion as the derivation of the spiritual sense from the meaning _poor, needy, dependent_ would still remain unshaken.



I really don't know what source other than Avesta I should use to explain an Avestan word!


----------



## berndf

fdb said:


> This is true if you are talking about actual manuscripts of the Avesta, which are not older than the 13th century. But the texts contained in them are a lot older. The date of Zoroaster is still debated, but there is a scholarly consensus that the Avestan texts, or the great majority of them, predate the Achaemenid period, i.e., they are not more recent than the 6th century BC.


Of course Avestan text are ultimately based on much older sources. But all texts that have survived are thought to be based on a common version of the Sassanid period. This would be as if 2000 years from now researchers wanted to reconstruct the German of Martin Luther and all surviving texts were based on the 1984 Luther bible edition. We could never know what was Luther's original language and what was 20th century language modernisation.


fdb said:


> Not that this is of any relevance for the topic under discussion here.


Of course not.


----------



## fdb

berndf said:


> This would be as if 2000 years from now researchers wanted to reconstruct the German of Martin Luther and all surviving texts were based on the 1984 Luther bible edition. We could never know what was Luther's original language and what was 20th century language modernisation.



I think this is a misleading comparison.  The creators of the 1984 “Luther” Bible took a text in early NHG and revised the spelling and grammar to make it agree with the norms of modern NHG. When the Sasanian Avesta was compiled Avestan was no longer a spoken language, nor were any of the then spoken Middle Iranian languages direct descendants of Avestan. The redactors did not transpose the old text into a more recent version of the same language; they left it in a for them largely incomprehensible language, which they recorded with a specially devised “phonetic” script. The basis of the redaction was a long tradition of memorisation.


----------



## Treaty

CyrusSH said:


> where Zarathustra calls himself a driγu (dervish). Yasna 34.5


It really depends on the translation. In most translations, he doesn't call _himself _"drigu" but the people whom he (i.e. a believer) should protect to gain Ahuramazda's grace. Translators have used either "votary/devotee" (Chatterji, Pourdawoud) or "poor/needy" (most others like Bartholomae, Irani and Kanga), or even both (Azargoshasb) for that verse. The term is used in Gathas only twice both of which accompanied by "protect/care". There is no context it had the "pious" meaning in Gathic times. In younger Avestan, it is frequently accompanied with "nourish", and a few times contrasted to "rich people". Again, to my knowledge, there is no context where "pious" is more plausible than "poor". It is only in Persian sources that the "dervish" notion emerges, though extensively (in Denkard). If the translator is inclined to believe in the continuity of the "dervish" meaning into MP, he is likely to interpret it as "votary/pious" in Avestan.


----------



## fdb

Perhaps I might be allowed two words of caution. First, that these online Avestan dictionaries are very old books, now completely out of date. The study of Avestan has made a lot of progress in the last 100 years. Second, the Gathas of Zoroaster are arguably the most obscure book ever produced by man. I would thus not base any conclusions on speculation about whether Zoroaster was “poor” in a material or a metaphorical sense. But if you are going to speculate, then you should at least consult the modern scholarly translations (Humbach, Insler etc.).

To return to a purely linguistic plane: Old Avestan drigu-, young Avestan driγu- means “poor, needy, weak”. There is a sound law in Young Avestan that stipulates that /γ/ is lost before /u/ and /w/. This means that we have in YAv case forms like nom. sing. masc. driγaoš, but acc. sing. fem. drīuuīm.

MP driyōš, early NP daryōš look to me like loanwords from the Avestan nom. sing. m., with the regular MP sound change γ > y  but with preservation of the case ending (which does not happen with inherited MP words). It is the same situation as with the Avestan loanword ātaxš, vs. “genuine” MP ādur, both meaning “fire”. NP darwēš is perhaps influenced by the nom. sing. fem. *drīuuīš. The ultimate etymology of drigu- remains uncertain.


----------



## CyrusSH

Pure linguistics can't solve the issue, let's back to the topic, I believe the most important clue is *Mistletoe*, there is a Gilaki origin word for it in Persian: *darvash*.

I think we already know that it is what was known as *haoma* in the ancient Persian sources: هوم - ویکی‌پدیا، دانشنامهٔ آزاد


> در پاره هفتم کتاب دینکرد آمده‌است که دو مرغ شاخه هوم را - که امشاسپندان، فروهر زرتشت را در آن جا داده بودند - از کوه اسنوند برداشتند و آن را بر آشیانه خود نهادند. آن شاخه بر بالای درخت با آن پیوند خورد و همیشه سبز بود.[۸] بنابراین شاید بتوان هوم اولیه را در گیاهان همیشه سبزی که بر روی درختان بلند می‌روییدند (دارواش) جست. اما به نظر می‌رسد در طول تاریخ و با مهاجرت هندو ایرانیان از زیستگاه سرد نخستین به سرزمین‌های گرم، گیاهان مختلفی به عنوان هوم استفاده شدند چنان‌که تعداد نامزدان شمرده شده هوم به بیش از ۳۰ می‌رسد.



We read in Avesta: Haoma makes the dervish's thoughts as great as when mind reacheth culmination. (Yasna 10.13)

Who is dervish? Just a poor man?

Julius Caesar says in Gaul there are two classes of people: Druids and the rich people. (De bello gallico. VI.13–18.)


----------



## berndf

CyrusSH said:


> Pure linguistics can't solve the issue, let's back to the topic,


I am a bit confused as to what you think the topic is. Are you doubting that _Dervish_ is derived from Avestan _driγu_-?


----------



## CyrusSH

berndf said:


> I am a bit confused as to what you think the topic is. Are you doubting that _Dervish_ is derived from Avestan _driγu_-?



No, the discussion here is that what _driγu_ means.


----------



## Treaty

CyrusSH said:


> We read in Avesta: Haoma makes the dervish's thoughts as great as when mind reacheth culmination. (Yasna 10.13)


You ignored the context (one sentence earlier). The contrast between _driγa-_ and "richest" does suggest a "poor" meaning:
_Praise be to thee, O Haoma, (for he makes the *poor* man's thoughts as great as any of the *richest *whomsoever.)._


----------



## CyrusSH

Treaty said:


> You ignored the context (one sentence earlier). The contrast between _driγa-_ and "richest" does suggest a "poor" meaning:
> _Praise be to thee, O Haoma, (for he makes the *poor* man's thoughts as great as any of the *richest *whomsoever.)._



What is the relation between wealth and thoughts?!

Julius Caesar explains that by the rich people he means nobles, knights and etc.


----------

