“Says Darius the King: This is what I did when I became king.”

Of the nine rebel kings whom, in nineteen battles, Darius defeated and took captive, Gaumâta the Magian, who “made Persia (Párs) revolt,” was the first but not the only Mede. Fravartish (Phraortes), who “made Media revolt,” and was taken prisoner at Ray, mutilated, and finally crucified at Hamadán (Ecbatana, the old Medic capital), claimed to be “of the race of Huvakhshatara” (Cyaxares, the third Medic king of Herodotus), and so did Chitratakhma, who rebelled in Sagar- Other Medic pretenders suppressed by Darius. tia, and was crucified at Arbíl (Arbira). We find, it is true, Medic generals and soldiers fighting loyally for Darius, but nevertheless between the Mede and the Persian at this time such antagonism must have existed as between Scotch and English in the days of the Edwards. Almost the same in race and language— <text in Greek script omitted>—and probably the same in religion, the jealousy between Mede and Persian was at this time a powerful factor in history, and, as Darmesteter says, the Magian priest of Media, though respected and feared in his priestly capacity, and even held indispensable for the proper celebration of religious rites, was none the less liable to the hatred and enmity of the southern Persian.

As it is the aim of this book to trace the developments of post-Muhammadan literature and thought in Persia, or in other Periods earlier than the Medic distinguishable in the history of the Persian race. words the literary history of the last thousand years, with only such reference to earlier times as is requisite for a proper understanding of this subject, a more detailed discussion of the ancient times of which we have been speaking would be out of place. In this chapter we have gone back to the beginning of the Medic power (about B.C. 700), at which point the historical period may be said to commence; but it is possible to distinguish, in the dim light of antiquity, still earlier periods, as has been done by Spiegel in his excellent Erânische Alterthumskunde (3 vols., Leipzig, 1871-78). Putting aside the vexed question of an original Aryan race spreading outwards in all directions from a common centre, it at least seems pretty certain that the Indians and Persians were once united in a common Indo-Íránian race located somewhere in the Panjáb. The pretty theory as to the causes which led to the cleavage of this com­munity which was so ingeniously advanced by Max Müller

*

is, I believe, generally abandoned, but it is so attractive that it seems a pity to pass it over.

Briefly stated, this theory hinges upon the occurrence in the Vedas of the Hindús and the Avesta of the Zoroastrians of Max Müller's theory. certain theological terms, which, though identical as regards etymology, are here diametrically opposed. Deva in Sanskrit means “bright,” and the Devas, or “Bright ones,” are the Hindú gods. In the Avesta, on the other hand, the daêvas (Modern Persian dív) are devils, and the Zoroastrian, in his confession of faith, solemnly declares: “I cease to be a worshipper of the daêvas;” he renounces these daêvas, devas, or Hindú gods, and becomes the servant of Ahura Mazda. Now it is a phonetic law that Persian h corresponds to Sanskrit s (e.g., Hind, whence we get our name for India, represents Sind, that being naturally the part of India best known to the Persians), so the Ahura of the Avesta is equivalent to asura in Sanskrit, which means an evil spirit or devil. And so, from these two little words, Max Müller conjures up a most convincing picture of Zoroaster, the reformer and prophet, rising up amongst the still united Indo-Íránian community to protest against the degradation of a polytheistic nature-worship which had gradually replaced the purer conceptions of an earlier time; emphasising his dis­approval by making the gods of the system he laboured to overthrow the devils of his own; and finally, with his faithful following, breaking away in an ancient hijra from the stiff-necked “worshippers of the daêvas” to find a new home in that more Western land to which we now give the common name of Persia. This theory, it may be remarked, depended in great measure on the Bactrian hypothesis of Zoroaster's origin, which, based on Fargard I of the Vendidâd, so long held sway, especially in Germany.

Concerning the composition of the Avesta we shall say something in another place; for the present it is sufficient to state that the Vendidâd is that portion of it which contains the religious laws and the mythology—a sort of Zoroastrian Pentateuch—and that it is divided into twenty-two Fargards, or chapters. Of these the first describes the creations of Ahura Mazda, and the counter-creations of Anra Mainyu, the Evil Spirit (Ahriman), and includes an enumeration of the following sixteen lands created by the former: (1) “The Airyana Vaêjô, by the good river Dâitya” (a mythical region, identified in Sásánian times with the region of the River Araxes, that is, with the modern Ázarbáyján); (2) Sughda (Sogdiana, Sughd); (3) Môuru (Margiana, Merv); (4) Bâkhdi (Bactria, Balkh); (5) Nisâya (? <text in Greek script omitted>, the capital of Parthia, the modern Nasá in Khurásán, two days' journey from Sarakhs and five from Merv); (6) Harôyu (Herát); (7) Vaêkereta (identified with Kábul in the Pahlawí commentary); (8) Urva (identified with Tús); (9) Vehrkâna (Hyrcania, the modern Gurgán or Jurján); (10) Harahwaiti (<text in Greek script omitted>), and (11) Haêtument, both in the region of the Helmand river; (12) Ragha (Ray, <text in Greek script omitted>, near the modern capital, Tihrán); (13) Chakhra (? Shargh or Jargh of Ibn Khur-dádhbih, * four parasangs from Bukhárá); (14) “the four-cornered Varena (? Elburz region); (15) the Hapta-Heñdu, or Seven Rivers (the Panjáb); (16) “the land by the floods of the Ranha, where people live without a head” (i.e., a ruler).

In this list Geiger and some other scholars suppose that we have an itinerary of the migrations of the Íránians on their entry into Persia after the fission of the original Indo-Íránian community, which was located in the region of the Pamirs, whence the first stream of migration flowed mainly westwards to Sughd, Merv, Balkh, Nasá, and Herát; another stream south and south-west to the Panjáb, Kábul, and the Helmand region; while some adventurous spirits continued the westward migration as far as Gurgán and Ray. But it is doubtful if much stress can be laid on the order observed in this enumeration, that order being in any case almost indefensible (even excluding all doubtful identifications) on geographical grounds. And it seems at least possible that it may represent the conquests of the Zoroastrian faith rather than of the Íránian people, which hypothesis would be much strengthened if the identification of the Airyana Vaêjô with Atropatene (Ázarbáyján) could be established more surely: we should then have a fairly clear confirmation of that theory which we regarded as most probable: to wit, a religion having its source and home in the extreme north-west, but making its first con­quests in the extreme north-east. Did we need any proof that a prophet is often without honour in his own country, the history of Islám would supply it, and Balkh may well have been the Medína of the Zoroastrian faith.

Another period, subsequent alike to the Indo-Íránian and the primitive Íránian epochs, has been distinguished and discussed Period of Assyrian in­fluence. with care and acumen by Spiegel,* who places its beginning about B.C. 1000, namely, the period of Assyrian influence—an influence salient to all eyes in the sculptures and inscriptions of the Achæmenians, and discernible also, as Spiegel has shown, in many Persian myths, legends, and doctrines reflecting a Semitic rather than an Aryan tradition. It is a remarkable thing how great at all periods of history has been Semitic influence on Persia; Arabian in the late Sásánian and Muḥammadan time; Aramaic in earlier Sásánian and later Parthian days; Assyrian at a yet more ancient epoch. And indeed this fact can scarcely be insisted upon too strongly; for the study of Persian has suffered from nothing so much as from the purely philological view which regards mere linguistic and racial affinities as infinitely more important and significant than the much deeper and more potent influences of literary and religious contact. Greek is far more widely studied in England than Hebrew, but for the understanding of the motives and conduct of a Scottish Covenanter or English Puritan, not to mention Milton's verse, a knowledge of the Bible is at least as necessary as a familiarity with the Classics; and in Persia, where both literary and religious influences have generally been in large measure Semitic, the same holds good to a much greater extent. If, as an adjunct to my equipment for the study of Persian thought and literature, I were offered my choice between a thorough knowledge of the Semitic and the Aryan languages, I should, from this point of view alone, unhesitatingly choose the former. A good knowledge of the Aramaic languages is essential for the study of Pahlawí, and a fruitful investigation of the post-Muhammadan literature and thought of Persia is impossible without a wide acquaintance with Arabic books; while in both these fields a knowledge of Sanskrit is practi­cally of very little use, and even in the interpretation of the Avesta it must be employed with some reserve and due regard to the Pahlawí tradition.