Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
179, 80). Again, when Dardsrdéb and Brddrék-résh partake of food with Périshaspé and Zaratdst (ibid. iii, 34, 38), the latter does not object to the form of worship proposed, but to the person selected to conduct it; and he then proclaims his own reverence for the righteous and the poor. 50. From these statements we may conclude that the old writers, who have handed down these legends from ancient times, were of opinion that Zaratdst was not so much the founder of a totally new religion, as he was a reformer who retained as much of the prior religion as was not seriously objectionable. While strongly insisting upon the necessity of reverencing all good spirits, he strictly prohibited all propitiation of evil spirits. His law was to resist and destroy all that is evil and injurious to man, and to respect and honour all that is good and beneficial to him. According to the legends, he seems to have found little gross idolatry, in the form of image-worship, to reprobate. From the times of the idol-worship encouraged by Dahak in Bapél (Dk. VII, iv, 72), and of the destruction of the INTRODUCTION. XXvii celebrated idol-temple on the shore of Lake Késast by Kai-Khiasréi (ibid. i, 39 ; Mkh. ii, 95), we find nothing in the legends about this form of idolatry, till ‘the oppressiveness of infidelity and idol-worship,’ shortly after the downfall of the SAasdnians, is lamented (Dk. VII, viii, 6). Demon-worship (ibid. iii, 35; iv, 30; vii, 17, 36, 37; viii, 7, 34), although a term sometimes applied to idolatry, seems to be often used in its literal sense of ‘worship of evil spirits,’ one form of which is described by Zaratdst (ibid. iv, 47-53). 51. Another interesting study, for which these Zoroastrian legends supply materials, is the traditional chronology which they contain; and how far it will be found, upon examination, to harmonize with the system stated in Bd. XXXIV, or to explain the manifest inaccuracies of that system. The matter is rather complicated, but the Zoroastrian system can be connected with the European system of chronology with some degree of probability. 52. The epoch of Zoroastrian chronology is ‘the coming of the religion,’ but it has long been doubtful whether this event was the birth of Zaratdst, or his going to conference with the sacred beings, or the acceptance of the religion by Vistasp. Any doubt, however, as to the meaning of the phrase, has now been removed by the statement in Dk. VII, viii, 51, that the first century of the religion is that from the time when Zaratdst came forth to his conference, which event happened when he was thirty years old (ibid. iii, 51, 60, 62). It is also stated, in Bd. XXXIV, 7, that Vistasp reigned thirty years before the coming of the religion, that is, before Zaratdst went to his conference. From these data it is evident that the tradi-. tional Zoroastrian chronology makes the birth of Zaratdst coincide with the accession of VistAsp.
2It is also stated, in Bd. XXXIV, 7, that Vistasp reigned thirty years before the coming of the religion, that is, before Zaratdst went to his conference. From these data it is evident that the tradi-. tional Zoroastrian chronology makes the birth of Zaratdst coincide with the accession of VistAsp. 53- The nearest date to these events, which is well defined in both the Zoroastrian and European systems of chronology, is that of the death of Alexander, near midsummer in B.C. 323, which Bd. XXXIV, 7, 8, places 272 years after the coming of the religion, that is, after the thirtieth year of Vistasp’s reign. And if this were the first XXViil PAHLAVI TEXTS. year of the religion, the death of Alexander must have occurred in its 273rd year, according to the Bundahis. 54. But this has to be reconciled with the statement in Zs. XXIII, 12, that, after its 3ooth year, ‘the religion is disturbed and the monarchy is contested ;’ which statement is expressed more definitely by AV. I, 2-6, when it asserts that the religion remained in purity for 300 years, but then Alexander came to Iran and destroyed the monarchy. If these statements be accepted literally, they imply that Alexander invaded Iran either in the 300th year of the religion, or shortly after that date, but certainly not before it. We cannot place Alexander’s invasion of IrAn itself at a later date than the battle of Gaugamela (B.C. 331); and if this were the 3ooth year of the religion, the death of Alexander (B.C. 323) must have occurred in its 308th, instead of its 273rd year, and the coming of the religion would have to be put back thirty-five years. This may be done with some plausibility by assuming an omission of thirty-five years between the reigns of Himat and Dardi, where the Bundahis passes from traditional to historical personages. Alexander’s invasion must also have been a good and sufficient reason for the dissolution of the hundreddiscipledom, or priestly college, established by Séné, which lasted only till the 3ooth year,as Zs. XXIII, 11 informs us. 55. If we now adopt the abbreviations A.R. for ‘anno. religionis’ and B.R. for ‘ before the religion, we are prepartd to compile the following synopsis of Zoroastrian Chronology according to the millennial system of the Bundahis, extended to the end of time, but dealing only with traditional matters, combined with the European dates of the same events, deduced from the synchronism of A.R. 300 with B.C. 331, as stated above in § 54 :— B.R. 9000, B.c. 9630. Beginning of the first millennium of Time; and formation of the Fravashis, or primary ideas of the good creations, which remain insensible and motionless for 3000 years (Bd. I, 8; XXXIV, 1). » 6000, B.c. 6630. Beginning of the fourth millennium, when the spiritual body of Zaratfst is framed together, and remains 3000 years with the archangels (Dk. VII, ii, 15, 16), while a“ INTRODUCTION. = XXI1X
3I, 8; XXXIV, 1). » 6000, B.c. 6630. Beginning of the fourth millennium, when the spiritual body of Zaratfst is framed together, and remains 3000 years with the archangels (Dk. VII, ii, 15, 16), while a“ INTRODUCTION. = XXI1X the primeval man and ox exist undisturbed in the world, because the evil spirit is confounded and powerless (Bd. I, 20, 22; III, 1, 3,5; XXXIV, 1). B.R. 3000, B.C. 3630. Beginning of the seventh millennium, ” ” ” ” 2 S ” when the evil spirit rushes into the creation on new-year’s day, destroys the primeval ox, and distresses Gaydmard, the primeval man (Bd. I, 20; III, 10-20, 24-27; XXXIV, 2). Z. appears to remain with the archangels for 2969 years longer. 2970, B.C. 3600. Gayémard passes away (Bd. III, 21-23; XXXIV, 2). 2930, B.C. 3560. Masyé and Masy&ét had grown up (Bd. XV, 2; XXXIV, 3). 2787, B.c. 3417. Accession of Héshang (Bd. XXXIV, 3). 2747, B.C. 3377. Accession of Takhmérup -(ibid. 4). 24717, B.C. 3347. Accession of Yim (ibid.). 2000, B.C. 2630. Beginning of the eighth millennium. Accession of Dahak (ibid. 4, 5). 1000, B.C. 1630. Beginning of the ninth millennium. Accession of Frédfin (ibid. 5, 6). . 500, B.c. 1130. Accession of Mandséthar (ibid. 6). 428, B.c. 1058. Spendarmad comes to Manfséihar at the time of Frasiydv’s irrigation works (Zs. XII, 3-6). The MSS. have B.R. 528, but to bring this date into the reign of MAanfséthar would be inconsistent with the millennial arrangement; while to assume a clerical error of one century is a probable explanation, as it makes the date more consistent with the allusion to Frasiyév, whose irrigation works, mentioned in Bd. XX, 34; XXI, 6, must have been carried out in the latter part of Manfséthar’s reign. 380, B.c. ro10. Accession of Afiz6bé (Bd. XXXIV, 6). 375, Bc. 1005. Accession of Kai-Kgbad (ibid. 6, 7). 360, B.c. gg0. Accession of Kai-Us (ibid. 7). 300, B.c. 930. Zaratfst first mentioned by the ox that Srit6 killed (Zs. XII, 7-20). 210, B.c. 840. Accession of Kai-Khfsréf (Bd. XXXIV, 7). 150, B.c. 780. Accession of Kai-Lohardsp (ibid.). 45, B.c. 675. The Glory descends from heaven at the birth of Dakdak (Zs. XIII, 1). 30, B.c. 660. Accession of Kai-Vistasp (Bd. XXXIV, 7). Vohfimané and Ashavahist6 descend into the world with a stem of Hém (Dk. VII, ii, 24). Zaratfst is born (ibid. Vv I). XXX PAHLAVI TEXTS. B.R. 23, B.C. 653. Z. is seven years old when two Karaps visit his father, and DGrdsr6bé dies (Dk. VII, iii, 32, 34, 45)- » 15, B.C. 645. Z.is fifteen years old when he and his four brothers ask for their shares of the family property (Zs. XX, 1). » 10, B.c. 640. Z. leaves home at the age of twenty (ibid. 7). A.R. I, B.C. 630. Beginning of the tenth millennium. Z. goes forth to his conference with the sacred beings on the 45th day of the 31st year of Vist&sp’s reign (Dk. VII, iii, 51-62; viii, 51; Zs. XXI, 1-4).
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.
179, 80). Again, when Dardsrdéb and Brddrék-résh partake of food with Périshaspé and Zaratdst (ibid. iii, 34, 38), the latter does not object to the form of worship proposed, but to the person selected to conduct it; and he then proclaims his own reverence for the righteous and the poor. 50. From these statements we may conclude that the old writers, who have handed down these legends from ancient times, were of opinion that Zaratdst was not so much the founder of a totally new religion, as he was a reformer who retained as much of the prior religion as was not seriously objectionable. While strongly insisting upon the necessity of reverencing all good spirits, he strictly prohibited all propitiation of evil spirits. His law was to resist and destroy all that is evil and injurious to man, and to respect and honour all that is good and beneficial to him. According to the legends, he seems to have found little gross idolatry, in the form of image-worship, to reprobate. From the times of the idol-worship encouraged by Dahak in Bapél (Dk. VII, iv, 72), and of the destruction of the INTRODUCTION. XXvii celebrated idol-temple on the shore of Lake Késast by Kai-Khiasréi (ibid. i, 39 ; Mkh. ii, 95), we find nothing in the legends about this form of idolatry, till ‘the oppressiveness of infidelity and idol-worship,’ shortly after the downfall of the SAasdnians, is lamented (Dk. VII, viii, 6). Demon-worship (ibid. iii, 35; iv, 30; vii, 17, 36, 37; viii, 7, 34), although a term sometimes applied to idolatry, seems to be often used in its literal sense of ‘worship of evil spirits,’ one form of which is described by Zaratdst (ibid. iv, 47-53). 51. Another interesting study, for which these Zoroastrian legends supply materials, is the traditional chronology which they contain; and how far it will be found, upon examination, to harmonize with the system stated in Bd. XXXIV, or to explain the manifest inaccuracies of that system. The matter is rather complicated, but the Zoroastrian system can be connected with the European system of chronology with some degree of probability. 52. The epoch of Zoroastrian chronology is ‘the coming of the religion,’ but it has long been doubtful whether this event was the birth of Zaratdst, or his going to conference with the sacred beings, or the acceptance of the religion by Vistasp. Any doubt, however, as to the meaning of the phrase, has now been removed by the statement in Dk. VII, viii, 51, that the first century of the religion is that from the time when Zaratdst came forth to his conference, which event happened when he was thirty years old (ibid. iii, 51, 60, 62). It is also stated, in Bd. XXXIV, 7, that Vistasp reigned thirty years before the coming of the religion, that is, before Zaratdst went to his conference. From these data it is evident that the tradi-. tional Zoroastrian chronology makes the birth of Zaratdst coincide with the accession of VistAsp.
2It is also stated, in Bd. XXXIV, 7, that Vistasp reigned thirty years before the coming of the religion, that is, before Zaratdst went to his conference. From these data it is evident that the tradi-. tional Zoroastrian chronology makes the birth of Zaratdst coincide with the accession of VistAsp. 53- The nearest date to these events, which is well defined in both the Zoroastrian and European systems of chronology, is that of the death of Alexander, near midsummer in B.C. 323, which Bd. XXXIV, 7, 8, places 272 years after the coming of the religion, that is, after the thirtieth year of Vistasp’s reign. And if this were the first XXViil PAHLAVI TEXTS. year of the religion, the death of Alexander must have occurred in its 273rd year, according to the Bundahis. 54. But this has to be reconciled with the statement in Zs. XXIII, 12, that, after its 3ooth year, ‘the religion is disturbed and the monarchy is contested ;’ which statement is expressed more definitely by AV. I, 2-6, when it asserts that the religion remained in purity for 300 years, but then Alexander came to Iran and destroyed the monarchy. If these statements be accepted literally, they imply that Alexander invaded Iran either in the 300th year of the religion, or shortly after that date, but certainly not before it. We cannot place Alexander’s invasion of IrAn itself at a later date than the battle of Gaugamela (B.C. 331); and if this were the 3ooth year of the religion, the death of Alexander (B.C. 323) must have occurred in its 308th, instead of its 273rd year, and the coming of the religion would have to be put back thirty-five years. This may be done with some plausibility by assuming an omission of thirty-five years between the reigns of Himat and Dardi, where the Bundahis passes from traditional to historical personages. Alexander’s invasion must also have been a good and sufficient reason for the dissolution of the hundreddiscipledom, or priestly college, established by Séné, which lasted only till the 3ooth year,as Zs. XXIII, 11 informs us. 55. If we now adopt the abbreviations A.R. for ‘anno. religionis’ and B.R. for ‘ before the religion, we are prepartd to compile the following synopsis of Zoroastrian Chronology according to the millennial system of the Bundahis, extended to the end of time, but dealing only with traditional matters, combined with the European dates of the same events, deduced from the synchronism of A.R. 300 with B.C. 331, as stated above in § 54 :— B.R. 9000, B.c. 9630. Beginning of the first millennium of Time; and formation of the Fravashis, or primary ideas of the good creations, which remain insensible and motionless for 3000 years (Bd. I, 8; XXXIV, 1). » 6000, B.c. 6630. Beginning of the fourth millennium, when the spiritual body of Zaratfst is framed together, and remains 3000 years with the archangels (Dk. VII, ii, 15, 16), while a“ INTRODUCTION. = XXI1X
3I, 8; XXXIV, 1). » 6000, B.c. 6630. Beginning of the fourth millennium, when the spiritual body of Zaratfst is framed together, and remains 3000 years with the archangels (Dk. VII, ii, 15, 16), while a“ INTRODUCTION. = XXI1X the primeval man and ox exist undisturbed in the world, because the evil spirit is confounded and powerless (Bd. I, 20, 22; III, 1, 3,5; XXXIV, 1). B.R. 3000, B.C. 3630. Beginning of the seventh millennium, ” ” ” ” 2 S ” when the evil spirit rushes into the creation on new-year’s day, destroys the primeval ox, and distresses Gaydmard, the primeval man (Bd. I, 20; III, 10-20, 24-27; XXXIV, 2). Z. appears to remain with the archangels for 2969 years longer. 2970, B.C. 3600. Gayémard passes away (Bd. III, 21-23; XXXIV, 2). 2930, B.C. 3560. Masyé and Masy&ét had grown up (Bd. XV, 2; XXXIV, 3). 2787, B.c. 3417. Accession of Héshang (Bd. XXXIV, 3). 2747, B.C. 3377. Accession of Takhmérup -(ibid. 4). 24717, B.C. 3347. Accession of Yim (ibid.). 2000, B.C. 2630. Beginning of the eighth millennium. Accession of Dahak (ibid. 4, 5). 1000, B.C. 1630. Beginning of the ninth millennium. Accession of Frédfin (ibid. 5, 6). . 500, B.c. 1130. Accession of Mandséthar (ibid. 6). 428, B.c. 1058. Spendarmad comes to Manfséihar at the time of Frasiydv’s irrigation works (Zs. XII, 3-6). The MSS. have B.R. 528, but to bring this date into the reign of MAanfséthar would be inconsistent with the millennial arrangement; while to assume a clerical error of one century is a probable explanation, as it makes the date more consistent with the allusion to Frasiyév, whose irrigation works, mentioned in Bd. XX, 34; XXI, 6, must have been carried out in the latter part of Manfséthar’s reign. 380, B.c. ro10. Accession of Afiz6bé (Bd. XXXIV, 6). 375, Bc. 1005. Accession of Kai-Kgbad (ibid. 6, 7). 360, B.c. gg0. Accession of Kai-Us (ibid. 7). 300, B.c. 930. Zaratfst first mentioned by the ox that Srit6 killed (Zs. XII, 7-20). 210, B.c. 840. Accession of Kai-Khfsréf (Bd. XXXIV, 7). 150, B.c. 780. Accession of Kai-Lohardsp (ibid.). 45, B.c. 675. The Glory descends from heaven at the birth of Dakdak (Zs. XIII, 1). 30, B.c. 660. Accession of Kai-Vistasp (Bd. XXXIV, 7). Vohfimané and Ashavahist6 descend into the world with a stem of Hém (Dk. VII, ii, 24). Zaratfst is born (ibid. Vv I). XXX PAHLAVI TEXTS. B.R. 23, B.C. 653. Z. is seven years old when two Karaps visit his father, and DGrdsr6bé dies (Dk. VII, iii, 32, 34, 45)- » 15, B.C. 645. Z.is fifteen years old when he and his four brothers ask for their shares of the family property (Zs. XX, 1). » 10, B.c. 640. Z. leaves home at the age of twenty (ibid. 7). A.R. I, B.C. 630. Beginning of the tenth millennium. Z. goes forth to his conference with the sacred beings on the 45th day of the 31st year of Vist&sp’s reign (Dk. VII, iii, 51-62; viii, 51; Zs. XXI, 1-4).
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.