Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1We may, however, quote the instances of the high-priest Atarpad= Atare-pAta and his son Zaratdst= Zarathustra being called Rastare-vaghet and Avarethrabau, respectively, in the Avesta (see § 64); but these latter names seem more like titles than translations. 71. The date of Zoroaster and his religion has formerly been fully discussed by Windischmann? and others, and the question has been lately re-examined by Williams Jackson *. He divides the ancient statements, that have been made on the subject, into three classes: those which declare that Zaratist lived before B.C. 6000, those which associate his name with Ninus and Semiramis, and the native tradition which, as we have seen, places his life in the period B.C. 660-583. Singularly enough, the oldest writers, those who lived only two to four centuries after the traditional period of the lifetime of Zaratdst, are those who report that he lived some 6000 years before that period. Pliny the Elder (Nat. Hist. XXX, 2) quotes Eudoxus (B.C. 368) as stating that Zaratdst existed 6000 years before the death of Plato, that is, B.C. 6347, which is also confirmed by Aristotle. And he quotes Hermippus (about B.C. 250) as placing him 5oco years before the Trojan war, that is, B.C. 6184. A third mode of describing this period 1 These were the reigning sovereigns, but the last two are descended from a collateral branch, and their actual pedigree is as follows :—Kavi Kavata, Kavi Aipivanghu, Kavi Pisanangh, Manus, Uzava, Aurvadaspa, Kava Vistaspa (Bd. XXXI, 28, 29). 2 Zoroastrische Studien, von Fr. Windischmann, edited by Spiegel, 1863; Pp. 121-165, 260-313. 3 On the date of Zoroaster, by A.V. Williams Jackson; Journal of American Oriental Society, vol. xvii, pp. 1-22. xl PAHLAVI TEXTS. seems to have been used by Xanthus of Lydia (B.c. 500- 450)! who stated that Zaratdist lived 6000 years before Xerxes, as quoted by Diogenes Laertius, that is, B.C. 6485. 72. Three or four other classical writers mention similar - statements, and Jackson points out that these extravagant dates are probably owing to the European writers misunderstanding Persian statements with reference to the pre-existence of Zaratdst’s Fravashi. It will, in fact, be seen from the synopsis (§ 55) that the traditional account is that the spiritual body of Zaratast was framed together as early as the beginning of the fourth millennium, which occurred B.C. 6630, and this may be accepted as a close approximation to the three dates, B.C. 6347, 6184, and 6485, indicated by the ancient writers, considering that their statements are made in even thousands of years. 73. Pliny also mentions, on the authority of other writers who are not named, that another Zoroaster, a Proconnesian, lived a little before the time of Osthanes who accompanied Xerxes to Greece (B.C. 480). And, so far as time is concerned, this Zoroaster might have been the traditional Zaratdst who died 103 years before this journey of Osthanes.
2480). And, so far as time is concerned, this Zoroaster might have been the traditional Zaratdst who died 103 years before this journey of Osthanes. 74. The old statements about Zoroaster or Oxyartes, the Magian king of Bactria in the time of Ninus and Semiramis, can hardly refer to the traditional Zaratist who is never represented as a king, although the supreme Zarathustra of the Avesta was apparently a ruling priest. The time in which this Bactrian lived is also very uncertain, for though Semiramis has recently been placed about B.C. 800, her position in Albirdni’s tables is certainly 1200 years earlier. 975. It seems, therefore, that the ancient statements, regarding the date of Zaratdst, reported by Pliny and corroborated by a few other classical writers, can be fully explained from the traditional system of chronology used in Pahlavi texts, by identifying the classical Zoroaster of the seventh millennium B.C. with the traditional Zaratdst 1 There are some doubts as to the correctness of these dates. INTRODUCTION. xli in his ante-natal spiritual state, after he had ceased to be a mere Fravashi, or primary idea, and had become an intelligent, moving, and personal existence, but still a spirit. While the later Zoroaster of Pliny, who flourished before the fifth century B.C., must have lived about the same time as the same traditional Zaratdst after he came into the worldly existence, and may reasonably be identified with him, although Pliny had little information to give about him. 76. It will be noticed that this explanation depends entirely upon the peculiarly artificial system of the traditional chronology, in which the whole of time is assumed to consist of twelve millenniums devoted to different purposes; and if this particular system had not been in use at the time the statements, quoted by Pliny and Diogenes Laertius, were made, those statements could not have been explained as referring to the same individual. But if they do not refer to the same individual, we have only the options of rejecting all the statements, or believing an impossible date to be literally correct; neither of which decisions would be altogether satisfactory to a judicious mind. The only reasonable conclusion seems to be that the chronology based upon the twelve millenniums was in use in the fifth century B.C., about which time the earliest quoted statement seems to have been made.
3The only reasonable conclusion seems to be that the chronology based upon the twelve millenniums was in use in the fifth century B.C., about which time the earliest quoted statement seems to have been made. 77. It will also be observed that this millennial chronology is inextricably associated with the idea of the primeval existence of all good creations in the state of Fravashis. These are described as spiritual existences who remained three millenniums unthinking, unmoving, and intangible (Bd. I, 8); and the next three millenniums they still remained undisturbed by evil, mankind being represented, for that period, by Gaéyémard in the world (Bd. XXXIV, 1) and by the spiritual form of Zaratist in heaven (Dk. VII, ii, 15), while the animals were symbolized by the primeval ox for the same period. Six millenniums, which are half the duration of time, were thus appropriated to Fravashis, _ spiritual and embodied, probably before the birth of Plato, if we may rely upon classical statements ; and it must have xlii PAHLAVI TEXTS. been before this date that the series of millenniums was arranged for all future history, till Time was expected to merge once more into Eternity at the renovation of the universe. 78. As we have seen that Zoroastrian tradition is very consistent in fixing the date of Zaratdst’s activity about the end of the seventh century B.C., it may be asked, why have Avesta scholars so strongly insisted upon its greater antiquity? They may have had several reasons, but three, at least, were important. First, they had the classical statements which, as we have seen (§ 71), generally placed Zaratist as far back as the seventh millennium B.C., on the testimony of persons who lived from two to four centuries after the traditional date of Zaratdst’s death. No one, of course, could believe in the literal accuracy of the number of millenniums, which referred, as we have seen, to an imaginary period of spiritual existence, but this number was considered merely as an exaggeration which might be reduced to any amount that seemed reasonable. At the same time, this evidence for antiquity was quite sufficient, in the second place, to discredit the traditional date, of which these old authorities seemed ignorant, though it was a period then comparatively recent. And, if this discredit had not been sufficient to shake the faith of Avesta scholars in the traditional date of Zaratdst, they still had a third reason for their scepticism, when they discovered that the language of the Avesta was not merely a sister of Sanskrit, but that a large portion of it was sister to the oldest Sanskrit with which they were acquainted, and which appeared to them certainly older than the time . of Gautama Buddha, who lived about one generation later than the traditional Zaratdst.
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.
1We may, however, quote the instances of the high-priest Atarpad= Atare-pAta and his son Zaratdst= Zarathustra being called Rastare-vaghet and Avarethrabau, respectively, in the Avesta (see § 64); but these latter names seem more like titles than translations. 71. The date of Zoroaster and his religion has formerly been fully discussed by Windischmann? and others, and the question has been lately re-examined by Williams Jackson *. He divides the ancient statements, that have been made on the subject, into three classes: those which declare that Zaratist lived before B.C. 6000, those which associate his name with Ninus and Semiramis, and the native tradition which, as we have seen, places his life in the period B.C. 660-583. Singularly enough, the oldest writers, those who lived only two to four centuries after the traditional period of the lifetime of Zaratdst, are those who report that he lived some 6000 years before that period. Pliny the Elder (Nat. Hist. XXX, 2) quotes Eudoxus (B.C. 368) as stating that Zaratdst existed 6000 years before the death of Plato, that is, B.C. 6347, which is also confirmed by Aristotle. And he quotes Hermippus (about B.C. 250) as placing him 5oco years before the Trojan war, that is, B.C. 6184. A third mode of describing this period 1 These were the reigning sovereigns, but the last two are descended from a collateral branch, and their actual pedigree is as follows :—Kavi Kavata, Kavi Aipivanghu, Kavi Pisanangh, Manus, Uzava, Aurvadaspa, Kava Vistaspa (Bd. XXXI, 28, 29). 2 Zoroastrische Studien, von Fr. Windischmann, edited by Spiegel, 1863; Pp. 121-165, 260-313. 3 On the date of Zoroaster, by A.V. Williams Jackson; Journal of American Oriental Society, vol. xvii, pp. 1-22. xl PAHLAVI TEXTS. seems to have been used by Xanthus of Lydia (B.c. 500- 450)! who stated that Zaratdist lived 6000 years before Xerxes, as quoted by Diogenes Laertius, that is, B.C. 6485. 72. Three or four other classical writers mention similar - statements, and Jackson points out that these extravagant dates are probably owing to the European writers misunderstanding Persian statements with reference to the pre-existence of Zaratdst’s Fravashi. It will, in fact, be seen from the synopsis (§ 55) that the traditional account is that the spiritual body of Zaratast was framed together as early as the beginning of the fourth millennium, which occurred B.C. 6630, and this may be accepted as a close approximation to the three dates, B.C. 6347, 6184, and 6485, indicated by the ancient writers, considering that their statements are made in even thousands of years. 73. Pliny also mentions, on the authority of other writers who are not named, that another Zoroaster, a Proconnesian, lived a little before the time of Osthanes who accompanied Xerxes to Greece (B.C. 480). And, so far as time is concerned, this Zoroaster might have been the traditional Zaratdst who died 103 years before this journey of Osthanes.
2480). And, so far as time is concerned, this Zoroaster might have been the traditional Zaratdst who died 103 years before this journey of Osthanes. 74. The old statements about Zoroaster or Oxyartes, the Magian king of Bactria in the time of Ninus and Semiramis, can hardly refer to the traditional Zaratist who is never represented as a king, although the supreme Zarathustra of the Avesta was apparently a ruling priest. The time in which this Bactrian lived is also very uncertain, for though Semiramis has recently been placed about B.C. 800, her position in Albirdni’s tables is certainly 1200 years earlier. 975. It seems, therefore, that the ancient statements, regarding the date of Zaratdst, reported by Pliny and corroborated by a few other classical writers, can be fully explained from the traditional system of chronology used in Pahlavi texts, by identifying the classical Zoroaster of the seventh millennium B.C. with the traditional Zaratdst 1 There are some doubts as to the correctness of these dates. INTRODUCTION. xli in his ante-natal spiritual state, after he had ceased to be a mere Fravashi, or primary idea, and had become an intelligent, moving, and personal existence, but still a spirit. While the later Zoroaster of Pliny, who flourished before the fifth century B.C., must have lived about the same time as the same traditional Zaratdst after he came into the worldly existence, and may reasonably be identified with him, although Pliny had little information to give about him. 76. It will be noticed that this explanation depends entirely upon the peculiarly artificial system of the traditional chronology, in which the whole of time is assumed to consist of twelve millenniums devoted to different purposes; and if this particular system had not been in use at the time the statements, quoted by Pliny and Diogenes Laertius, were made, those statements could not have been explained as referring to the same individual. But if they do not refer to the same individual, we have only the options of rejecting all the statements, or believing an impossible date to be literally correct; neither of which decisions would be altogether satisfactory to a judicious mind. The only reasonable conclusion seems to be that the chronology based upon the twelve millenniums was in use in the fifth century B.C., about which time the earliest quoted statement seems to have been made.
3The only reasonable conclusion seems to be that the chronology based upon the twelve millenniums was in use in the fifth century B.C., about which time the earliest quoted statement seems to have been made. 77. It will also be observed that this millennial chronology is inextricably associated with the idea of the primeval existence of all good creations in the state of Fravashis. These are described as spiritual existences who remained three millenniums unthinking, unmoving, and intangible (Bd. I, 8); and the next three millenniums they still remained undisturbed by evil, mankind being represented, for that period, by Gaéyémard in the world (Bd. XXXIV, 1) and by the spiritual form of Zaratist in heaven (Dk. VII, ii, 15), while the animals were symbolized by the primeval ox for the same period. Six millenniums, which are half the duration of time, were thus appropriated to Fravashis, _ spiritual and embodied, probably before the birth of Plato, if we may rely upon classical statements ; and it must have xlii PAHLAVI TEXTS. been before this date that the series of millenniums was arranged for all future history, till Time was expected to merge once more into Eternity at the renovation of the universe. 78. As we have seen that Zoroastrian tradition is very consistent in fixing the date of Zaratdst’s activity about the end of the seventh century B.C., it may be asked, why have Avesta scholars so strongly insisted upon its greater antiquity? They may have had several reasons, but three, at least, were important. First, they had the classical statements which, as we have seen (§ 71), generally placed Zaratist as far back as the seventh millennium B.C., on the testimony of persons who lived from two to four centuries after the traditional date of Zaratdst’s death. No one, of course, could believe in the literal accuracy of the number of millenniums, which referred, as we have seen, to an imaginary period of spiritual existence, but this number was considered merely as an exaggeration which might be reduced to any amount that seemed reasonable. At the same time, this evidence for antiquity was quite sufficient, in the second place, to discredit the traditional date, of which these old authorities seemed ignorant, though it was a period then comparatively recent. And, if this discredit had not been sufficient to shake the faith of Avesta scholars in the traditional date of Zaratdst, they still had a third reason for their scepticism, when they discovered that the language of the Avesta was not merely a sister of Sanskrit, but that a large portion of it was sister to the oldest Sanskrit with which they were acquainted, and which appeared to them certainly older than the time . of Gautama Buddha, who lived about one generation later than the traditional Zaratdst.
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.