FOR monumental purposes, the Persian cuneiform remained the official script of the empire conjointly with the Semitic Scythian cuneiform until the conquest of Persia by Alexander the Great, about 334 B. C., with which the period of the AchÆmenids closed.

Immediately following this, the use of the Greek alphabet appears on coins and inscriptions, and this continued during the Greek domination in Persia under the successors of Alexander.

The early Arsacids, the Parthian kings who brought an end to the rule of the Greeks in Persia, used also for a time the Greek alphabet for monumental records and numismatic legends.

This, however, only lasted for a brief period, for a little later on we find that the Greek letters have given way to a variety of the Aramean alphabet, which evidently had been in general use for a long period as a cursive script.

This special variety of the Aramean belongs to a group of alphabets known as Pehlevi, and is the oldest of the group. The name Pehlevi is derived from the word Parthivi, signifying Parthian. It continued, however, to be applied not only to the alphabet which first appears in the early period of Parthian domination in Persia, but also to the later forms that developed under the Sassanian kings who succeeded the Arsacids, or Parthian kings.

The so called Zend alphabet was the latest of the Pehlevi, and appears during the later years of the Sassanian empire. Although the latest development of the Persian scripts, the Zend alphabet represents the most ancient form of Persian speech.

It was in these characters that some time during the Sassanian dynasty the Zend-Avesta, or sacred books of the Persians, were transcribed in the ancient speech of their origin, which have thus been preserved to the present day by the surviving representatives of this ancient faith.

The language expressed in the Gathas, or hymns, the most archaic portions of the Avesta, is in the ancient vernacular of eastern Persia; sometimes called “Old Bactrian,” and is the most archaic of Iranian dialects.

This was apparent when Sanskrit became known to European scholars.

The striking resemblance of the Gathas to the older Sanskrit of the “Vedic Hymns,” indicated a close relationship. They seemed, indeed, like two dialects of the same speech. In fact, the readiness with which this old Persian was converted into pure Sanskrit by a few slight phonetic changes, verified these indications.

In the further comparative study of the older Sanskrit with this older Persian, it was found that while the Sanskrit may be regarded as the older brother of the Aryan group, this ancient Persian is in some respects more archaic.

It nevertheless remains that the Sanskrit is in the main the elder representative of this family of languages, retaining the characteristic forms of phonetic structure once common to the whole family, with their meanings less changed, than any other branch of the Aryan group.

It is this fact which enabled philologists to base a science of Aryan philology upon the Sanskrit. And not only this, but from which has arisen the science of comparative philology for all families of languages.

Whatever may be said of the ethnic affinities of the Aryans, or their primitive home, this much has been made evident in the comparative study of the Vedas and the Avesta; that there is close kinship here.

They tell of a time not so remote in history as that of older Chaldea or Egypt, when these Indo-Iranians were one people, with a common ancestry, inhabiting the same country, speaking the same language, with the same social institutions and the same beliefs. They indicate that the home of these Indo-Iranians, before their separation, was somewhere near the head waters of the Oxus, to the north-west of the Hindu-Kush. That finally there was a separation of these families, those afterwards known as the Hindus penetrating these great mountain passes into the Punjaub, “The land of the Five Rivers,” in the northwestern part of India, from whence they spread southward over this great peninsula.

The other branch, the Iranians, remained for a time north of the Hindu-Kush in Bactria, which formed later on a part of the ancient empire of Iran, or Persia, on the northeast.

This country was situated in an upper valley of the Oxus, formed by the Hissar mountains on the north, and at the south the Hindu-Kush, extending from the Pamir plateau on the east to the great desert of Chorasmin on the west, a fruitful valley, well watered, affording on the hill slopes of the southern range favorable pasturage for flocks and herds.

From this region the Iranian branch finally spread westward and southerly throughout the lands later known as Iran or Persia.

It has been suggested that the separation of the Indo-Iranians was the result of religious differences. The schism indicated in the Rig Vedas and Avesta seems to have grown out of the distinction which finally arose between the signification of the words “Asura” or “Ahura,” as applied to Deity.

The earlier faith of these people seems to have been a pure nature worship, the sun, the sky, light, fire, the elements, throughout which appears also a spiritual conception of a Supreme Being, Lord of the Sky, the Sun, Creator of all things, who was known as “Asura,” or “Ahura.” The most ancient signification of this word is “The Broad and Enfolding,” its earliest application as Lord of the Sky, is, perhaps, a reminiscence of that remote period in the history of these people when they roamed the vast steppes of northern central Asia.

In the spiritual conception which grew from this, Asura became the Lord of the Broad Heavens, the God of Light, the Infinite.

The word Deva, from the Sanskrit Div, signified “brilliant,” “shining.” In its spiritual sense, the “Shining Ones” applied originally to the ministering spirits, the bright messengers of Asura. From the word Deva, we have the word Deus, God; Divus, divine; dÆmons, and other similar forms in various branches of Aryan speech.

At first, Asura is the most sacred name used for Deity. Later on, with the increase of gods in the Hindu pantheon, the term Asura is conferred as a highest dignity upon the greater gods, as Asura-Varuna, Asura-Indra.

There came a time, however, as appears in the Vedas, when the Asuras signified a class of spirits inferior to the Devas, and finally as spirits opposed to the gods. As the Asuras were degraded, the Devas were exalted. With the Iranian branch, there was no such change. The ancient “Asura,” in Persian, “Ahura,” remained from first to last their great divine One; nor throughout the whole history of Persian mythology are there “any gods before” him. The word DÆvas, with them came to signify evil spirits—devils.

That a schism arose, is apparent; and also that it was local. “Hard by the believers in Ahura,” says Zoroaster, “dwell the worshippers of the dÆvas.”

Such were the conditions when the great prophet and sage appears upon the scene, not as the apostle of a new religion; but as a teacher of the higher meanings of their ancient faith.

As priest and leader of the believers in Ahura he strikes at once at the root of the dissension. The worshippers of the dÆvas are blind followers of the Evil One, who seek the souls of men to destroy them.

The Hindus developed into gross polytheism.

The Iranians grew into a monotheism, at once all comprehending and simple; a philosophy profound, and yet without dogma; a system of morality noble and true, which has compelled the admiration of the wise and spiritual of all ages.

This was the work of Zara-thustra, or Zoroaster. He pointed to the existence in all nature of two principles—Good and Evil. These were the offices of Ahura-Mazda, the all good, and Angro-Mainyash, the all evil.

In the regions of Light, the abode of Ahura-Mazda, there could be no contact between Ahura-Mazda and the Spirit of Evil and of Outer Darkness.

In his wisdom, Ahura-Mazda, the Creator, brought man into existence, forming the earth for his abode. He endowed man also with intelligence to perceive, and freedom to choose between good and evil, so far as his immediate actions were concerned. As a natural consequence, the earth became the arena of conflict between the powers of Good and Evil. The object of both was the souls of men.

Over those who chose purity of life, who were pure and noble in all their dealings with others, were just and merciful, over these, Ahriman, the Evil Spirit, could obtain no mastery.

To the man impure in thought and action, unjust, dishonest and cruel, the great god Ahura-Mazda could not extend his protection, and except through earnest and honest repentance his soul was doomed in the life to come to the service of the Evil One and to final destruction.

On the other hand, the man who followed the leadings of the God of Goodness and Wisdom, was assured that at his death his soul passed to a state of eternal blessedness.

These “sweet and reasonable doctrines” included no taint of fanaticism. While pervaded by the spirit of their founder, they were never urged at the point of the sword.

In the 30th chapter of the Yasna, in which is preserved the celebrated speech of Zoroaster to Vistacpe and his court, it is distinctly stated that the great prophet relied solely upon persuasion and argument.

In the account given by Firdusi of this occasion, Zoroaster is quoted as saying: “Learn, O King, the rites and doctrines of the religion of excellence; for without religion there cannot be any worth in a king.” “When the mighty monarch heard him speak of the excellent religion, he accepted from him the rights and doctrines.”

The date of Zoroaster is uncertain. Various authors assign him to different periods, from 2500 to 1000 B. C.; while others refer him to still remoter dates.

Anquetil Duperron places him in the time of Hystaspes, father of Darius; and Bunsen at 2500 B. C.; but scholars generally agree upon the period between 1400 to 1000 B. C.

At the date of Darius, 521 B. C., Zoroastrianism was the national religion of the Persians. In one of the inscriptions of Darius, we find this reference:

“Mazda, who created this earth and that heaven, who created man and man’s dwelling place, who made Darius king, the one and only king of many.”

This and other references in the inscriptions indicate the time of Zoroaster as before the date of Darius.

Ancient Persian traditions represent Zoroaster as a native of Bactria, and that the important address to king Vistacpi and his court was delivered in the ancient city of Balkh.

Dr. Bunsen says of Zoroaster’s conception, that “it was not less grand than that of Abraham; but that the distinctive difference lay in these facts; Zoroaster attempted a conciliatory compromise between his stern antagonism to nature worship, and the retention of the ancient rites and symbols of such worship.”

Abraham, on the other hand, excinded nature worship altogether, and sought to banish it as utterly as possible from his religiously segregated society. “In this,” he urges, “the Hebrew man of God stands above the Aryan.”

From happy Bactria, this religion of “excellence” spread among the numerous tribes of Iranians into all Persia, finally becoming the state religion. This was also known from its earliest to its latest history, as the “Book Religion.”

According to Parsee tradition, Zoroaster was the author of the Avesta, which, when first written, consisted of twenty-one nosks or parts.

It is also stated that this book was in a form of writing invented by Zoroaster, and which the Maga, or priests of this cult called the “writing of religion.”

It was written on twelve thousand cow-hides, in ink of gold and the work was bound together by golden bands.

Various Greek writers, who followed the wake of Alexander’s conquests in Persia, claim to have seen the original, which was preserved in the archives of Persepolis.

Traditional accounts state that there were two copies of this work, one of which was destroyed in the palace of Persepolis, which was burned by order of Alexander, and the other was destroyed by the Greeks in some other way.

There were also copies of the various nosks or parts in the hands of the priesthood, which thus escaped destruction.

After the death of Alexander, the Zoroastrian priests gathered the remaining fragments, putting these into book form.

Five hundred years later, at the close of the Parthian dynasty in Persia, another collection of the Avesta fragments, both oral and written, was instituted, at the command and under the patronage of King Vologases, the last of the Arascids, about A. D. 225.

The work of editing and revising these collections was continued under the early Sassanian kings, with whom the ancient nationality again became ascendant, and with this, the ancient Persian religion and its literature.

The new Avesta thus produced was proclaimed canonical.

Under the later Sassanian kings, the Avesta was transcribed in the later Pehlevi or Parsee script, in which form it has survived to the present day. Of this, however, but a portion remains. The Sassanian dynasty ended with the conquest of Persia by the Mohammedan Arabs in 641 A. D.

In the fury of persecution which broke over all Iran at this time, Zoroastrianism as a national faith was crushed, and the sacred literature of Persia was again scattered abroad by the devastating influences of war and fanaticism. To the religion of Zoroaster that of Mohammed succeeded, the Avesta was replaced by the Koran, and the Arabian alphabet supplanted the Persian as a national script and has so remained to the present.

The ancient national life of Persia was not crushed out at once, but continued a vigorous though ineffectual resistance for centuries.

During these troublous times, probably about the ninth century A. D., a colony of Persians who held fast to their ancient faith, fled from their country, and after many years wanderings, finally established themselves on the western coast of India, from Bombay to Surat. They brought with them the remains of their sacred literature, to which other missing portions were added from time to time, as they could obtain them from their brethren in the faith who remained in Persia, chiefly at Kerman and Yezd.

They adopted the language of the Hindus among whom they settled, but steadfastly maintained their religion and customs.

It is from the descendants of these refugees—the Parsees of India—that the ancient sacred books of Persia have come into our hands.

The Avesta as it now exists, consists of four^[6] parts, the Yasna, the Visparad, the Vendidad and the Kordash, or Little Avesta. Each of these parts are remainders of the older collection and are of different dates.

The Yasna, a collection of hymns and prayers for divine service, includes the “Gathas,” the most ancient and sacred portion of the Avesta. These are evidently what they claimed to be—the work of Zoroaster. The language in which they are composed is as old, if not more ancient than the Sanskrit of the oldest Vedas.

The allusion to these hymns throughout the various parts of the Avesta, shows them to have been in existence long before all other portions of these collections were written.

Again, to all to whom Zoroaster is a living personality, the internal evidences of these utterances point distinctly to him as their author. Claiming no higher distinction than a teacher and preacher among his people, there could have been no time in the history of the religion of which he was the founder, than during his own life and work in which they could have had their origin.

These devout pleadings with the Divine for his people, that he and they might be led aright, does not savour of the higher spiritual dignities accorded to Zoroaster in later times.

The following quotation from the Gathas expresses very clearly the devout and reverent attitude of the author:

“With verses of my own making which now are heard; and with prayerful hands I come before Thee, Mazda; and with the sincere humility of the upright man, and the believer’s song of praise.”

Transcriber’s Notes

A few minor obviously typographical errors have been silently corrected.

In Table of Illustrations, typo “Heirogyphic” was changed to “Heiroglyphic”.

Typo p. 14: Duplicated word was deleted.

Typo p. 17: “Egytians” was corrected to “Egyptians”.

Typo p. 34: “expresed” was corrected to “expressed”.

Page 63: hyphen was added to Tel-Loh to agree with the other 8 and be parallel to similar names.

Typo pp. 64-65: duplicate “of” at page boundary was deleted.

Page 72: hyphen was added to Nin-Girsu to agree with other on p. 95 and be parallel with Nin-Girsu construction.

Typo p. 79: “hign” was corrected to “high”.

Typo p. 85: hyphen was added to Naram-Sin to agree with the 13 others.

Page 92: hyphen was added to Mul-il to agree with 3 times spelled Mul-lil.

Both “priest kings” (3 times) and “priest-king(s)” (2 times) were found and left unchanged.

Both Sanscrit and Sanskrit were found multiple times and left unchanged.

On page 143 the one instance of “Parsi” was changed to “Parsee”, which had been used as both an adjective and as a noun.

On page 154, judging from the context, “rights” should probably have been “rites” but it was within a quote, so it was left as printed.