Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1That great religious event must have taken place about the year 330; for the persecution of the Christians began in that year. It was about the time when the Fathers at Nicaea organised Christianity into an orthodox state religion. After Adarb4d the canon was closed. Whether he added his contribution to the bulk of the sacred texts, like his predecessors under Ardashir and Shahpdhr, there is no evidence either to prove or disprove: in any case, the Avesta after him underwent no change of any sort. The Parsi tradition makes him the last of the founders of the religion, and, forgetting the teachers between Zoroaster and Adarbéd, makes these two names the Alpha and Omega of the Avesta history}. CHAPTER IV. PARTHIAN ELEMENTS IN THE AVESTA. § 1. From the preceding it appears that the Sassanian Avesta, as fixed by Adarbad Mahraspand in the beginning 1 The Patet sums up the religious tradition as follows :— “I keep steady in the religion which the Lord Hérmezd and the Amshaspands taught the worshipped Fréhar of Zartusht, the Spitamide ; ‘which Zartusht taught Vistasp; ‘which Vistasp taught Frashéshtar, Jam4sp, and Isfandy4r ; ‘which the latter taught the faithful in this world ; ‘which by a continuous tradition came down to the ordainer of the holy law, Adarbéd Mabraspand, who for its sake submitted to the ordeal and came out of it victoriously.’ xl viii VEND{DAD. of the fourth century, represents three successive accretions at least, the first due to Vologeses in the middle of the first century, the second to Ardashir and Tansar in the middle of the third century, and the third to Shahpdhr I, at the end of the same. Now we must inquire whether the texts of these successive editions belong, all or in part, to an older Avesta, anterior to the Greek conquest. The evidence in the Dinkart and in Tansar’s letter prepares us to suppose that the post-Alexandrian element, at least as far as the form goes, must be considerable. The internal evidence allows us to give greater precision to that in- _ ference. .
2The evidence in the Dinkart and in Tansar’s letter prepares us to suppose that the post-Alexandrian element, at least as far as the form goes, must be considerable. The internal evidence allows us to give greater precision to that in- _ ference. . § 2. One of the best-known and most brilliant pieces of the Avesta, the Hém Yast, appears to contain an allusion to Alexander. It is said of Haoma, the plant-god, whose worship is the centre of the Mazdean liturgy, that ‘he overthrew the usurping Keres4ni who arose, longing for sovereignty, and said: henceforth no priest will go at his wish through the country to teach the law.’ Now, the only persecutor of religion of whom Parsi tradition makes mention before the Arabs is Alexander. He is the third in that trinity of tyrants created by Ahriman, who desired to have made them immortal for the destruction of the world. But the first two, Zohak and AfrasyAb, were born and died before Zarathustra was born, so that Alexander alone of the three could appear as an anti-Zoroastrian persecutor; which makes us wonder whether the usurper confounded by Haoma might not be the Greek conqueror. Now that epithet Keres4ni, literally a bandit, is translated or transcribed in Pahlavi by Kilisy4k, which is the name given in the Pahlavi literature to the infidels of Ram. Therefore, for the old mediaeval tradition the KeresAni usurper was neither a dév nor a Turanian, he was a Greek. If the Keresani persecutor were a Greek, he could be no other than Alexander. A mediaeval Pahlavi apocalypse, the Bahman Yast (II, 19), passing in review the restorers of religion, begins with the Arsacide who destroyed ‘ the impious Alexander, the K ilisyAk.’ If the Keresani is Alexander, the passage quoted and the INTRODUCTION, IV. xlix whole of the Hém Yast, which forms a coherent whole, cannot have been written before the death of Alexander or more accurately before the fall of the Greek domination in Persia. It was about 150B.C. that Mithridates the Great (B.C. 171-137) dealt the last blow to the Kilisy4k. Therefore the Hém Yast could hardly have been written before the middle of the second century before our era. -
3It was about 150B.C. that Mithridates the Great (B.C. 171-137) dealt the last blow to the Kilisy4k. Therefore the Hém Yast could hardly have been written before the middle of the second century before our era. - § 3. If the Avesta, or part of it, were composed under the Arsacidae, an important fact, otherwise unaccounted for, is explained ipso facto: namely the fact that the Avesta seems to ignore the existence of an Iranian empire. The highest political unity is the dahyu, a name which in the inscriptions of Darius denoted the satrapies, the provincial kingdoms of Media, Bactriana, Sogdiana, Arachosia, Aria, Parthia, &c. The highest political power is the danhupaiti, the chief of a dahyu. The one universal daNhupaiti, the one daNhupaiti of all dahyus, is Mithra’, This refers to a time when there was no real daNhupaiti of all dahyus, no Shahinshah, when the real power was in the hands of the independent local kings. This is the period of the Provincial kings, the Muldk ut-tavaif; and this very name, Mulfk ut-tavaif, is nothing less than a literal translation of the Zend danhupaiti. § 4. At the time when the Avesta took its definitive form, Chaldaea was inhabited by Arab tribes, it was already a sort of Iraq Arabi. To the writer of the Avesta, Babylon (Bawri) is the residence of Azi Dahaka *, and Azi Dahdka represents the Arab race. It is not only in ' the later ShAhn4ma that he is made the son of an Arab king; both the Bundahis, which reproduces old Avesta documents®, and the Avesta book of the Genealogies itself, made him a descendant of Tag, the eponym of the 1 Yasna I, 11. ? Yt. V, 29.—Elsewhere, Yt. XV, 19, Asi is described as offering up a sacrifice to Vayu in the unaccessible Kvirista. We know from Hamza (p. 32) that this was the name of a palace (the Kulang palace, the fortress of the Stork) which Asi Dahaka had built in Babylon. 3 Son of Khrat&sp (corrupted to Mards in Firdausi), son of Zainig4v, son of Virafshang, son of Tag (Bund. XXXI, 6). (4) l VENDIDAD. Tagik?. Nowthe oldest period known when the Arabs settled along the Euphrates and Tigris is the second half of the Arsacide period. We know that at that time Holw4n was on the frontier between thé Iranians and Arabs. The region east of Holwdn ‘was in the hands of the Provincial kings (Muldk ut-tavaif = daNhu-paitis) who were all Persians, and did not recognise the authority of the Arabs. Iraq and SavAd remained in the hands of the Arabs, who were waging a perpetual war with one another, as they are used to do®.” Therefore the texts in which the Arab Asi Dahaka appears as reigning in Babylon belong to a time when Arabs were already settled in Mesopotamia.
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1That great religious event must have taken place about the year 330; for the persecution of the Christians began in that year. It was about the time when the Fathers at Nicaea organised Christianity into an orthodox state religion. After Adarb4d the canon was closed. Whether he added his contribution to the bulk of the sacred texts, like his predecessors under Ardashir and Shahpdhr, there is no evidence either to prove or disprove: in any case, the Avesta after him underwent no change of any sort. The Parsi tradition makes him the last of the founders of the religion, and, forgetting the teachers between Zoroaster and Adarbéd, makes these two names the Alpha and Omega of the Avesta history}. CHAPTER IV. PARTHIAN ELEMENTS IN THE AVESTA. § 1. From the preceding it appears that the Sassanian Avesta, as fixed by Adarbad Mahraspand in the beginning 1 The Patet sums up the religious tradition as follows :— “I keep steady in the religion which the Lord Hérmezd and the Amshaspands taught the worshipped Fréhar of Zartusht, the Spitamide ; ‘which Zartusht taught Vistasp; ‘which Vistasp taught Frashéshtar, Jam4sp, and Isfandy4r ; ‘which the latter taught the faithful in this world ; ‘which by a continuous tradition came down to the ordainer of the holy law, Adarbéd Mabraspand, who for its sake submitted to the ordeal and came out of it victoriously.’ xl viii VEND{DAD. of the fourth century, represents three successive accretions at least, the first due to Vologeses in the middle of the first century, the second to Ardashir and Tansar in the middle of the third century, and the third to Shahpdhr I, at the end of the same. Now we must inquire whether the texts of these successive editions belong, all or in part, to an older Avesta, anterior to the Greek conquest. The evidence in the Dinkart and in Tansar’s letter prepares us to suppose that the post-Alexandrian element, at least as far as the form goes, must be considerable. The internal evidence allows us to give greater precision to that in- _ ference. .
2The evidence in the Dinkart and in Tansar’s letter prepares us to suppose that the post-Alexandrian element, at least as far as the form goes, must be considerable. The internal evidence allows us to give greater precision to that in- _ ference. . § 2. One of the best-known and most brilliant pieces of the Avesta, the Hém Yast, appears to contain an allusion to Alexander. It is said of Haoma, the plant-god, whose worship is the centre of the Mazdean liturgy, that ‘he overthrew the usurping Keres4ni who arose, longing for sovereignty, and said: henceforth no priest will go at his wish through the country to teach the law.’ Now, the only persecutor of religion of whom Parsi tradition makes mention before the Arabs is Alexander. He is the third in that trinity of tyrants created by Ahriman, who desired to have made them immortal for the destruction of the world. But the first two, Zohak and AfrasyAb, were born and died before Zarathustra was born, so that Alexander alone of the three could appear as an anti-Zoroastrian persecutor; which makes us wonder whether the usurper confounded by Haoma might not be the Greek conqueror. Now that epithet Keres4ni, literally a bandit, is translated or transcribed in Pahlavi by Kilisy4k, which is the name given in the Pahlavi literature to the infidels of Ram. Therefore, for the old mediaeval tradition the KeresAni usurper was neither a dév nor a Turanian, he was a Greek. If the Keresani persecutor were a Greek, he could be no other than Alexander. A mediaeval Pahlavi apocalypse, the Bahman Yast (II, 19), passing in review the restorers of religion, begins with the Arsacide who destroyed ‘ the impious Alexander, the K ilisyAk.’ If the Keresani is Alexander, the passage quoted and the INTRODUCTION, IV. xlix whole of the Hém Yast, which forms a coherent whole, cannot have been written before the death of Alexander or more accurately before the fall of the Greek domination in Persia. It was about 150B.C. that Mithridates the Great (B.C. 171-137) dealt the last blow to the Kilisy4k. Therefore the Hém Yast could hardly have been written before the middle of the second century before our era. -
3It was about 150B.C. that Mithridates the Great (B.C. 171-137) dealt the last blow to the Kilisy4k. Therefore the Hém Yast could hardly have been written before the middle of the second century before our era. - § 3. If the Avesta, or part of it, were composed under the Arsacidae, an important fact, otherwise unaccounted for, is explained ipso facto: namely the fact that the Avesta seems to ignore the existence of an Iranian empire. The highest political unity is the dahyu, a name which in the inscriptions of Darius denoted the satrapies, the provincial kingdoms of Media, Bactriana, Sogdiana, Arachosia, Aria, Parthia, &c. The highest political power is the danhupaiti, the chief of a dahyu. The one universal daNhupaiti, the one daNhupaiti of all dahyus, is Mithra’, This refers to a time when there was no real daNhupaiti of all dahyus, no Shahinshah, when the real power was in the hands of the independent local kings. This is the period of the Provincial kings, the Muldk ut-tavaif; and this very name, Mulfk ut-tavaif, is nothing less than a literal translation of the Zend danhupaiti. § 4. At the time when the Avesta took its definitive form, Chaldaea was inhabited by Arab tribes, it was already a sort of Iraq Arabi. To the writer of the Avesta, Babylon (Bawri) is the residence of Azi Dahaka *, and Azi Dahdka represents the Arab race. It is not only in ' the later ShAhn4ma that he is made the son of an Arab king; both the Bundahis, which reproduces old Avesta documents®, and the Avesta book of the Genealogies itself, made him a descendant of Tag, the eponym of the 1 Yasna I, 11. ? Yt. V, 29.—Elsewhere, Yt. XV, 19, Asi is described as offering up a sacrifice to Vayu in the unaccessible Kvirista. We know from Hamza (p. 32) that this was the name of a palace (the Kulang palace, the fortress of the Stork) which Asi Dahaka had built in Babylon. 3 Son of Khrat&sp (corrupted to Mards in Firdausi), son of Zainig4v, son of Virafshang, son of Tag (Bund. XXXI, 6). (4) l VENDIDAD. Tagik?. Nowthe oldest period known when the Arabs settled along the Euphrates and Tigris is the second half of the Arsacide period. We know that at that time Holw4n was on the frontier between thé Iranians and Arabs. The region east of Holwdn ‘was in the hands of the Provincial kings (Muldk ut-tavaif = daNhu-paitis) who were all Persians, and did not recognise the authority of the Arabs. Iraq and SavAd remained in the hands of the Arabs, who were waging a perpetual war with one another, as they are used to do®.” Therefore the texts in which the Arab Asi Dahaka appears as reigning in Babylon belong to a time when Arabs were already settled in Mesopotamia.
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
No commentary for this page.