It is not less difficult to speak with certainty as to the religion of the Medes than as to their language; nay, in spite Religion of the ancient Íránians.— Zoroaster. of their numerous inscriptions it has not yet been decided whether or no the Achæmenians who succeeded them did or did not hold the faith of Zoroaster, as to whose personality, date, and native land likewise the most various opinions have been emitted. By some the very existence of a historical Zoroaster has been denied; by others his personality has been found clearly and sharply revealed in the Gáthás, which they hold to be, if not his actual utterances, at least the words of his immediate disciples. By some his date has been fixed in the Vedic period—1,800, 2,000, even 6,000 years before Christ, while by others he is placed in the seventh century B.C. By some he is, as we have seen, regarded as of Bactria, in the extreme north-east of Persia, by others of Atropatene, in the extreme north-west. So too with the Avesta, the sacred scripture of his adherents, which Darmesteter in his Tra­duction nouvelle (Annales du Musée Guimet, vols. xxi-xxiv, Paris, 1892-3) has striven to drag down—at least in part— from a remote antiquity even into post-Christian times. Not only has opinion varied thus widely; feeling has run high; nay, in the opinion of that eminent scholar and courageous traveller, M. Halévy, expressed in conversation with the writer, the calm domain of Science has been invaded by racial prejudices and national antipathies. We had been discussing the views set forth in Darmesteter's work above mentioned, at that time just published; and I had expressed surprise at the very recent date therein assigned to the Avesta, and inquired whether those numerous and eminent scholars who maintained its great antiquity had no reason for their assertion. “Reason enough,” was the answer; “their hatred of the Semitic races, their pride in their Aryan descent. Loath to accord to the Jews any priority or excellence over the Aryan peoples, they belittle Moses to glorify Zoroaster, and with one hand drag down the Pentateuch while with the other they raise up the Avesta!” Sad enough, if true, that this accursed racial feeling, responsible for so many crimes, should not leave un­molested even these high levels where passion should have no place!

To enter these lists is not for those who, like the writer, have devoted themselves to the literature and thought of Muhammadan times, a field sufficiently vast and sufficiently unexplored to satisfy the most ambitious and the most industrious; preferable, moreover, in this, that here we stand on firm historic ground, and deal not with dates which oscillate over centuries and scenes which swing from Bactria to Atro-patene. Yet all honour to those who so courageously labour in those arid fields of a remote antiquity, striving with infinite toil and tact to bring history out of legend, and order out of chaos! From such must we needs choose a guide in forming our views about that time and those events which, though strongly appealing to our curiosity, lie beyond the range of our own studies. Sanest and skilfulest of such guides, trained in the profundity of the German school, yet gifted with some­thing of that clearness as to the issues and alternatives of every question which gives so great a charm to French science, and adding to these that combination of fairness and decision with which we are wont to credit the Anglo-Saxon genius, is Professor A. V. Williams Jackson of Columbia University, New York. In a series of admirable papers published in the Proceedings of the American Oriental Society, the American Journal of Philology, &c., he has successively dealt with most of the difficult questions above alluded to, and with many other points connected with the history and doctrine of Zoro­astrianism; and has finally summed up his views in a work, at once most scholarly and most readable, entitled Zoroaster, the Prophet of Ancient Írán (New York, 1899). His principal conclusions are as follows:—

1. That Zoroaster was a perfectly historical personage, a member of the Median tribe of the Magi. Professor Williams Jack­son's conclusions.

2. That he flourished about the middle of the seventh century before Christ—that is, during the dominion of the Medes and before the rise of the Achæmenian power—and died about B.C. 583, aged 77.

3. That he was a native of Western Persia (Atropatene or Media), but that his first notable success was gained in Bactria (Balkh), where he succeeded in converting King Vishtáspa (Gushtásp).

4. That the Gáthás (admittedly the oldest portion of the Avesta) reflect with fidelity the substance of his original preaching in Balkh.

5. That from Bactria the religion of Zoroaster spread rapidly throughout Persia, and was dominant in Párs (Persis proper) under the later Achæmenians, but that the date of its introduction into this part of Írán and its adoption by the people and rulers of Párs is uncertain.

Though these conclusions are not universally accepted, the evidence, in the opinion of the writer, is strongly in their favour, more particularly the evidence of native tradition in the period immediately succeeding the Muhammadan Con­quest, which is derived mainly from the tradition current in Sásánian times. And it may be remarked that since it is not the habit of writers of this class to understate facts, it Reasonableness of these conclusions. appears unlikely that they should concur in assign­ing to Zoroaster too modern a date. As regards the Medic origin of Zoroastrianism, Geiger, who is in full accord with both Darmesteter and jackson on this point, remarks that though the language of the Avesta belongs, in his opinion, to the north-east of Persia (Bactria), the doctrines were, as all Pársí tradition indicates, introduced there by Medic áthravans, or fire-priests, these áthravans being uniformly repre­sented as wanderers and missionaries in the north-east, whose home was in Ragha (Ray) and Media. Darmesteter,* in this connection, has called attention to the interesting fact that the Noteworthy use of the term “Magian” in the Avesta. word Môghu (from which we get “Magian”) only occurs in one passage in the Avesta (Yasna xliv, 25), in the compound Môghuṭbish, “a hater” or “injurer of the Magi”; for it was as Magi of Medic race, not as áthravans of Zoroastrian faith, that they were exposed to the hatred and jealousy of the Persians proper, whose power succeeded that of the Medes, and whose supre­macy was threatened from time to time in early Achæmenian The Pseudo­Smerdes. days by Medic insurrections, notably by that of Gaumáta the Magian (Magush), the impersonator of Bardiya (Smerdes) the son of Cyrus, whom Darius slew, as he himself relates in his inscription at Behistun in the following words:—

“Says Darius the King: Thereafter was a man, a Magian, Gaumâta by name; from Pisiyâuvâdâ did he arise, from a mountain there named Arakadris. In the month of Viyakhna, on the fourteenth day, then was it that he rose. Thus did he deceive the people [saying], ‘I am Bardiya, son of Cyrus (Kuru), brother of Cambyses (Kambu-jiya ).’ Thereupon all the people revolted against Cambyses, they went over to him, both Persia and Media, and likewise the other provinces. He seized the Throne: in the month of Garmapada, on the ninth day, then was it that he seized the Throne. Thereupon Cambyses died, slain by his own hand.

“Says Darius the King: This Throne which Gaumâta the Magian took away from Cambyses, this Throne was from of old in our Family. Citation from the inscription of Darius. So Gaumâta the Magian took away from Cambyses both Persia and Media and the other provinces, he appropriated them to himself, he was king.

“Says Darius the King: There was no one, neither Persian, nor Mede, nor any one of our family, who could wrest the kingdom from this Gaumâta the Magian: the people feared him, for many people did Bardiya slay who had known him formerly: for this cause did he slay the people, ‘lest they should recognise me [and know] that I am not Bardiya the son of Cyrus.’ None dared say aught concerning Gaumâta the Magian until I came. Then I called on Ahuramazda for help: Ahuramazda brought me help: in the month of Bágayádish, on the tenth day, then it was that I with a few men slew that Gau­mâta the Magian, and those who were the foremost of his followers. In Media is a fortress named Çikathauvatish, in the district named Niçâya: there slew I him: I took from him the kingdom; by the Grace of Ahuramazda I became King; Ahuramazda gave to me the kingdom.

“Says Darius the King: The kingdom which had been alienated from our house, that I restored: in its place did I establish it: as [it was] before, so I made it: the temples which Gaumâta the Magian overthrew I restored to the people, the markets, and the flocks, and the dwellings according to clans which Gaumâta the Magian had taken away from them. I established the people in their [former] places, Persia, Media, and the other provinces. Thus did I restore that which had been taken away as it was before: by the Grace of Ahuramazda have I done this, I laboured until I restored this our clan to its position as it was before, so, by the Grace of Ahuramazda, did I restore our clan as [it was] when Gaumâta the Magian had not eaten it up.