Zoroaster

(Ζωροάστρης), or Zoroastres, the Zarathustra of the Zendavesta, and the Zerdusht of the Persians, was the founder of the Magian religion. The most opposite opinions have been held both by ancient and modern writers respecting the time in which he lived. In the Zendavesta itself, as well as in the writings of the Parsees. Zoroaster is said to have lived in the reign of Vitacpa (as he is called in the Zendavesta) or Gushtasp (as the Persians name him), whom most modern writers identify with Dareius Hystaspis. According to this view the system of Zoroaster was not promulgated till the time of the third Persian monarch, and he must therefore be looked upon as the reformer and not the founder of the Magian religion, which was of much higher antiquity. This opinion was maintained by Hyde and Prideaux, who also attempted to prove that Zoroaster was a pupil of Daniel, and learnt from the prophet all those parts of his system which resemble the tenets of the Sacred Writings. But although this opinion has been adopted by Anquetil du Perron, Kleuker, Malcolm, and many other modern writers, it will be found to possess no other evidence in its favour but the identitication of Gushtasp with Dareius Hystaspis; for the testimony of the later Greek and Roman writers, who place Zoroaster at this period, is of no vale in such an inquiry, and is counterbalanced by the statements of other classical writers who assign to him a much earlier date. Moreover, while this supposition has such a slender amount of evidence in its favour, it is open to the most serious objections. First, Zoroaster is universally represented as the founder of the Magian religion both by the Orientals and the Greeks, and it is unnecessary to prove that this religion was of greater antiquity than the commencement of the Persian empire, and that it had been previously the national religion of the Medes. The first Greek writer who mentions Zoroaster is Plato, who says that the Persian youths were taught the Mageia of Zoroaster, the son of Horomazes, which he interprets to mean the worship of the gods (ὁ μὲν μαγείαν διδάσκει τὴν Ζωρούστρον τοῦ Ὡρομάζου -- ἔστι δὲ τοῦτο θεῶν θεραπεία, Plut. Aleib. p. 122a). Secondly, if Zoroaster had been the reformer of the Persian religion in the reign of Dareius Hystaspis, he would certainly have been mentioned by Herodotus. The silence of the historian is a conclusive argument to us against Zoroaster being a contemporary of Dareius. Thirdly, the king Gushtasp, under whom Zoroaster lived, is said in the Zendavesta to be the son of Auravatacpa, the Lohrasp of the modern Persians, while Hystaspes, the father of Dareius, was never king, and was the soil of Arskama or Arsames. It would therefore seem that the Gushtasp, the contemporary of Zoroaster, was an entirely different person from Dareius Hystaspis.

Other dates have likewise been assigned to Zoroaster by modern scholars; but sound criticism compels us to come to the conclusion that it is quite impossible to determine the time at which he lived. All we learn from the Zendavesta is that he was the subject of a king named Gushtasp, who belonged to the dynasty of the Kâvja, or as they are called in the modern Persian, the Kayanians. The history of the dynasty has come down to us in a mutilated form; but it would appear that the kings of this race reigned in eastern Iran, and more particularly Bactria, at a period anterior to that of the Median and Persian kings. The Bactrian origin of Zoroaster is alluded to by several of the Greek and Roman writers, who obtained their information from Oriental sources. Thus Ammianus Marcellinus (13.6.32) calls Zoroaster a Bactrian, and his testimony is of considerable importance because he must have received the information from the Persians themselves, when he attended the emperor Julian in his campaign against the Paithians. Ctesias likewise, who resided long at the court of Artaxerxes Mnemon, calls Zoroaster a king of Bactria (Ctesias, pp. 79, 91, ed. Lion, copied by Justin, 1.1); and the same statement occurs in Moses of Chorene (1.6). The tradition which represents Zoroaster of Median origin sprang up at a later time when the chief seat of his religion was in Media, and no longer in the further East. We may therefore conclude thai the religion of Zoroaster first appeared in Bactria, and from thence spread eastward; but further than this we cannot venture to go. As the founder of the Magian religion he must be placed in remote antiquity, and it may even be guestioned whether such a person ever existed. Niebuhr regards him as a purely mythical personage (Kleine Schrifton, vol. i. p. 200); but it is worthy of remark that we find no trace in the Zendavesta of the various wonders and miracles which are connected with his name in the Persian and Greek and Roman writers. It is unnecessary to repeat these stories, but we may mention as a specimen two tales related by Pliny. It is said that he laughed on the day of his birth, and that his brain palpitated so violently as to heave up the hand that was placed upon his head ; and that he lived in the desert for twenty years on cheese, in consequence of which he was preserved from feeling old age. (Plin. Nat. 7.16. s. 15, 11.42. s. 97.) It would be idle to attempt to make even an approximation to the date of Zoroaster from the statements of the Greek and Roman writers; for the most learned among them could not come to any agreement as to the time at which he lived, and many supposed that there were several persons of this name, who lived at widely different times and in very different countries. Thus we find him called not only a Bactrian, but a Median (Clem. Al. Strom. i. p. 399), a Chaldaean (Porphyr. Vit. Pythag. 12). a Persomedian (Suidas, s. v. Ζωροάστρης), Persian (Diog. Laert. Praof.), an Armenian (Arnob. 1.12), a Pamphylian (Arnob. i. c.), and even a native of Prsconnesus. (Plin. Nat. 30.1. s.) Many of these various statements probably arose from the circumstances that the Magian religion was introduced into these countries and places; and it is only in this way that we car explain the strall'ge account in Pliny that he was a native of Proconnesus. We find equal discrepancy in the Greek and Roman writers respecting the time at which he was said to have lived. Thus Aristotle and Eudoxus stated that he lived 6000 years before the death of Plato (Plin. Nat. 31.1. s. 2), and Hermippus that he lived 5000 years before the Trojan war (Plin. l.c. ; D. L. 1.2); while others assign to him a much later date, making him a contemporary of Cyrus (Arnob. 1.52) or Pythagoras (Clem. Al. Strom. i. p. 357; Appuleius, Florid. ii. p. 231). We only quote these statements as instances of the discrepancies in the Greek and Roman writers respecting the age and country of Zoroaster, and of showing the hopelessness of attempting to construct any theory from such contradictory accounts. Works

There were extant in the later Greek literature several works bearing the name of Zoroaster, and which are quoted under the titles of λόγια, ἱεροὶ λόγοι, ἀποκαλύψεις, βίβλοι ἀπόκρυφοι Ζωροάστρου, περὶ φύσεως, περὶ λίθων τιμίων, ἀστεροσκοπικὰ, ἀποτελεσματικὰ, &c. Some of these works were in existence as early as the time of Pliny, who relates that Hermippus wrote commentaries on two million lilies of Zoroaster. (Plin. l.c. ; Suidas, s. v. Ζωρ.) These writings however must not be regarded as translations from the Zenda vesta, to which they bore no resemblance, as is evident from the extracts preserved from them by Clemens Alexandrinus, Eusebius, and others. (Clem. Alex. Strom. 5.14, p. 710; Euseb. Praep. Ev. 1.10; Dion Chrysost. Or. 36.) They were, on the contrary, forgeries of a later age, and belong to the same class of writings as the works of Hermes Trismegistus, Orpheus, &c. Oracles

There is still extant a collection of oracles ascribed to Zoroaster. Editions

These were published for the first time with the commentaries of Gemistus Pletho [Gemistus], under the title of Μαγικὰ λόγια τῶν ἀπὸ του Ζωροάστρου Μάγων, by Tiletanus, Paris, 1538, 4to. They have also been edited by Patricius in his Nova de Universis Philosophia, &c., Ferrariae, 1591, and Venet. 1593, foll.; by Morell, Paris, 1595, 4to., and also in Latin; by Obsopaeus, Paris, 1507, 8vo., and by others. It would be ridiculous in the present day to enter into any argument to prove the spuriousness of these oracles. Further Information on the reputed works of Zoroaster

Every thing known respecting the reputed works of Zoroaster is collected by Fabricius (Bibl. Graec. vol. i. p. 304, foll.). Religious System

An account of the religious system of Zoroaster does not fall within the scope of the present work ; but the reader will find abundant information on the subject in the works quoted below. Mr. Milman has given an excellent summary of the leading tenets of the Zoroastrian system. Further Information

Hyde, Veterum Persurum et Magorum Religionis Historia, Oxford, 1700 and 1760; Prideaux, Connection of the History tory the Old and New Testament, Part i. vol. i. p. 299, foil.; Anquetil du Perron, Zendavesta ; Kleuker, Zendavesta ; Rhode, Die Heilige Sage des Zendvolks ; Heeren, Historiches &c. Asiatic Nations, vol. i. p. 367, foil.; Gibbon, Decline and Fall, vol. 1.100.8; Milman, History of Christianity vol. i. p. 65, foil.; Georgii, in Reat-Encyclopädie des classichen Alterthumswissenschaft, s. v. Magi ; Lassen, Indische Alterthumskunde, vol. i. p. 752, foll.

or Zoroastres (Ζωροάστρης). The prophet of ancient Iran, and one of the great religious teachers of the East. He is commonly spoken of as a Magian (Μάγος, Magus), or as a reformer of the old faith of Persia; the religion which he founded is best designated as Zoroastrianism, after his own name, for the lessons of his teaching sank deep into the heart of Iran. There can be no question as to the fact that Zoroaster was an actual historical personage in spite of doubts that have been raised on the subject.

Considerable uncertainty has prevailed as to the exact date at which Zoroaster lived; so much, however, is certain, that his era must be placed at least six centuries before Christ; and although the historical origin of Zoroastrianism has not yet been cleared up, the religion presumably became the faith of the great Achaemenian kings, and entered upon its long history as one of the important early religions of the world. The national power of the creed was broken by the victorious invasion of Alexander the Great, but Zoroastrianism outlived the blow, and still lingered in Iran under the Seleucid government and the Parthian sway until the third century of our own era, when it once more rose to supremacy at the time of the Sassanidae (A.D. 226- 651), and was restored to its pristine glory. (See Persia.) The final overthrow of the Zoroastrian belief, however, came in the seventh century with the rise of Islam; for the religion of Ormazd was almost blotted out in Iran by the Mohammedan conquest, although a few true followers of Zoroaster are still to be found scattered here and there in their old home. The small band, however, which preferred exile to conversion and sought refuge in India became the ancestors of the flourishing community of Parsis to-day in Bombay; these are the veritable Zoroastrian descendants of the persecuted faithful whofound among the Hindus a place of safe retreat and of freedom to worship Ormazd. They are the chief conservators of what remains of the sacred literature, which has naturally suffered from the various vicissitudes and crises through which the religion has passed.

Respecting Zoroaster's life and teaching, our sources of information are either directly the Avesta, or Zend-Avesta, and the Pahlavi books, below mentioned, or they are indirectly the statements found in other Oriental writings or contained in allusions in the classics. Next to the ancient Avesta and the Pahlavi writings, which latter belong chiefly to Sassanian times (A.D. 226-651), the most important Oriental contributions to our knowledge come from the later Persian national epic Shāh-Nāmah, or “book of kings” (tenth century A.D.), and from the Zartusht Nāmah, a legendary sketch of Zoroaster's life (thirteenth century A.D.). Both of these, however, must be used with proper judgment. Considerable valuable information, moreover, is to be gathered from Arabic writings; though these statements are often tinged by a Mohammedan colouring.

All classical antiquity is agreed on the point of Zoroaster's being an historical personage, even if he was in the eyes of the authors of the time a more or less hazy figure. He was regarded by the writers of Greece and Rome as the arch-representative of the Magi, and was more famous sometimes perhaps on account of the magic arts attributed to him than for the depth of his philosophy or his legislation, his religious or moral teaching. The Magi were the reputed masters of learning in ancient times ( De Div. 1, 23, et al.), but it is difficult to form a clear picture of their doctrines and teachings, except so far as we may believe them to be reflected in Zoroaster, making due allowance, however, for changes or reforms which he may have instituted. The tradition preserved to the effect that Pythagoras studied under these masters in Babylon, or that he may have caught some Zoroastrian ideas, may not be altogether without foundation ( De Fin. v. 29; Val. Max. viii. 7; Pliny H. N. xxx. 1, 2; Florid. p. 19; Vita Pythag. 41; Lactant. Institut. iv. 2; Iambl. Vita Pythag. c. 19; Clem. Alex. Strom. i. p. 357, et al.). Plato, moreover, according to tradition, was anxious to visit the Orient and to study with the Magi had he not been prevented by the Persian wars (Diog. Laert. iii. 7; Apul. De Habitud. Doctrin. Plat. p. 569). The followers of the sophist Prodicus are reported as boasting of possessing secret writings of Zoroaster (Clem. Alex. Strom. i. p. 357), and even a Magian teacher named Gobryas has been claimed for Socrates (cf. Axiochos attributed to Plato). Instances might be multiplied. Aristotle, Eudoxus of Cnidus, Deinon, and especially Theopompus, were familiar with Zoroastrian tenets (cf. Diog. Laert. Prooem. 8; Pliny H. N. xxx. 1, 20; Plut. Is. et Os. 47). An allusion is also found to a work bearing Zoroaster's name by Heracleidus Ponticus, a pupil of Plato and Aristotle (cf. Adv. Colot. p. 1115A). Hermippus, moreover, made careful studies of Magism and of Zoroastrian writings (cf. Pliny H. N. xxx. 1, 2); finally, there are common enough references to Zoroastrian ideas to be found in Plutarch, Strabo, Pliny , and others. A number of purported books by Zoroaster, such as Περὶ Λίθων Τιμίων, Περὶ Φύσεως, Λόγια, Βίβλιοι Ἀπόκρυφοι Ζωροάστρου, Ἀστεροσκοπικά (cf. Suidas and Pliny), or Gemistus Pletho's Μαγικὰ Λόγια τῶν ἀπὸ τοῦ Ζωροάστρου Μάγων, from which citations are quoted, are doubtless apocryphal; they nevertheless show the reputation which Zoroaster later enjoyed (for references cf. Fabricius, Bibl. Graec. vol. i. p. 304 seq.), although his name is not mentioned by Herodotus nor by Xenophon, and there are only doubtful grounds for assuming its presence in the fragments that happen to be preserved of Ctesias. The earliest authenticated allusion to Zoroaster by name in the classics seems to be that in the Platonic Alcibiades, i. 122; but according to Diogenes Laertius ( Prooem. 2) he is mentioned by the earlier Xanthus of Lydia. The Greek form Ζωροάστρης, under which the sage is known to fame, is a modified form of Zarathushtra (cf. Zardusht), which is the prophet's actual name in the Avesta; Diodorus Siculus (i. 94) once has Ζαθπαύστης.

In regard to the date at which Zoroaster lived a wide diversity of opinion has prevailed. The statements of antiquity on the subject may conveniently be divided into three groups. First (1) may be considered those classical references that assign to him the extravagant age of B.C. 6000. These are confined simply to the classics, but they have the claim of being based upon information possessed by Aristotle, Eudoxus, and Hermippus (cf. Pliny, H. N. xxx. 1, 2; Plut. Is. et Os. 46; Schol. Plato's Alcibiades, i. 122; Diog. Laert. De Vita Philos. Prooem. 2; Lactant. Institut. vii. 16; and cf. Suid. s. v. Zoroastres). Such extraordinary figures are presumably due to the Greeks' misunderstanding the statements of the Persians in regard to the position of Zoroaster's millennium in the great world-period of 12,000 years.

Second (2) come those statements which connect the name of Zoroaster with that of the uncertain Semiramis and Ninus (Diod. Sic.ii. 6; Fragm. of Ceph. in Euseb. Chron. i. 43, and iv. 35; Syncel. Chronograph. i. p. 315; Theon , Progymnasmata, 9; Justin, Hist. Philippic. i. 1; Arnob. Adv. Gent. i. 5; compare also Suidas, s. v. Zoroastres, and the Armenian Moses of KhorniMoses, i. 16). Third

(3), the direct Zoroastrian tradition as found in the Pahlavi books Bundahish, xxxiv. 7-8; Ardā-i Vīrāf, i. 1-5, supported also by abundant Arabic allusions (Albīrūnī, Masūdī, etc.), is unanimous in placing the opening of Zoroaster's ministry at 258 years before the era of Alexander, or 272 years before the close of his dominion, which would give Zoroaster's date as falling between the latter half of the seventh century B.C. and the middle of the sixth century; in fact, in the period just preceding the Achaemenian dynasty. This is doubtless not far from the truth, and may be finally regarded as the best view to adopt. Tradition has it that Zoroaster was forty-two years old when he first converted King Vishtaspa, who became his patron; but there is no good ground for identifying this ruler with Hystaspes the father of Darius. Such identification is made by Ammianus Marcellinus (xxvi. 6, 32), and has met with considerable support, but the doubt which Agathias (ii. 24) raises on this subject is better founded.

Like Homer, Zoroaster's native place is debated ground, but the Oriental tradition cannot be far astray that assigns Atropatené in Media, or even more precisely the city of Oroomiah, as his native land, and places the field of his religious activity in Bactria, where the faith became the organized State religion and apparently spread back towards Media and Persia. Such a view, at least, finds support when the Avesta and the Pahlavi books, supplemented also by Arabic and Syriac writings, are combined with statements found in the classics (Diod. Sic.ii. 6; Fragm. Ceph. in Euseb. Chron. i. 43, and iv. 35; Praeparatio Evang. x. 9; Theon , Progym. 9; Justin, Hist. Philippic. i. 1; Arnob. Adv. Gent. i. 5; Ammian. Marcel. 23, 6, 32; Clem. Alex. Strom. i. p. 357; Pliny , Pliny H. N. xxx. 1, 2; Diog. Laert. Prooem. 2; Suid. s. v. Zoroastres; cf. also the Armenian Moses of Khorni, i. 16).

Numerous legends and myths early gathered about the name of Zoroaster, and several of these are preserved in classical writers. The tradition, for example, about his laughing instead of crying when he was born, as told by Pliny (H. N. vii. 16, 15), is found also in the East; but the romantic story of his death by lightning ( Suid. s. v. Zoroastres; Pseud.- Recogn. iv. 27-29, Homil. ix. 3; Chronic. Pasch. i. p. 67) is not in accordance with the prevailing Oriental testimony to the effect that he was massacred at the age of seventy-seven when Balkh was stormed by the Turanians. In his lifetime he is said to have performed a number of miracles; the report, moreover, that he lived in silence in the wilderness for a number of years is doubtless to be explained as alluding to a period of religious meditation and preparation (Pliny , Pliny H. N. xi. 42, 97; Schol. Plato's Alcibiades, i. 122; Quaest. Sympos. iv. 1, p. 660). The consistent Oriental tradition that he began his ministry at the age of thirty appears also in the Scholion to the Alcibiades. Furthermore, Pliny (H. N. xxx. 1, 2), Diogenes Laertius ( Prooem. 2), and Suidas (s. v. Magoi) are able to give the names of some of the Magi that succeeded him.

Zoroaster's religion may be characterized primarily as dualism in so far as it proclaims the incessant warfare that reigns on earth between the good principle, Ahura Mazda or Ormazd (Ὠρομάσδης), and the evil spirit, Anra Mainyu, Ahriman (Ἀρειμάνιος). At the end of the world the good will finally triumph, evil will be destroyed, and a general resurrection of the dead will take place ( Is. et Os. 47). The doctrine of rewards and punishments for the immortal soul is a cardinal theme in Zoroaster's preaching; the principle, moreover, is inculcated of preserving the purity of the body and of the care of useful animals, especially the cow. The exercise of scrupulous caution is enjoined for preserving the elements, fire, water, and earth, from defilement, particularly from contact with dead matter; hence arose the strange custom of exposing corpses upon the dakhmas, or towers of silence, to be devoured by dogs and birds—a custom which has been commented upon from the days of Herodotus to the present (Herod. i. 140; Porphyr. De Abstin. iv. 21, etc.). The general spirituality of the Persian religious ideas was often remarked upon by the Greeks (Herod. i. 131; Deinon Fragm. 9; Diog. Laert. Prooem. 6; Plut. Is. et Os. 46; Porphyr. Vita Pythag. 41); and owing to the more or less close relations between Iran on the one side and Greece and Rome upon the other, the figure of Zoroaster is one of considerable interest to the student of the classics; while, by way of criticism, it may be added that in classical writers there is hardly a statement regarding him or the Magian faith which does not find some support, corroboration, or parallel in the sacred texts themselves.

Bibliography.—The most complete collection as yet of allusions in the classics to Zoroaster, the Magi, and the Persians is to be found in Kleuker, Zend-Avesta, Anhang ii. 3 (Leipzig and Riga, 1783); consult also Rapp in Zeitschrift d. deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft, xix. 1-89, xx. 49 seq., and Windischmann, Zoroastrische Studien (Berlin, 1863). The standard text of the Zoroastrian Scriptures is edited by Geldner, Avesta (Stuttgart, 1884- 1895). Translations from the Avesta and the Pahlavi literature by Darmesteter, Mills, and West have appeared in the Sacred Books of the East, vol. iv. (Oxford, 1880 foll.); the most recent translation is in French by Darmesteter, Annales du Musée Guimet (Paris, 1892-93). For a complete list of works of reference consult the articles “Avesta,” “Pahlavi,” and “Religion of Iran” in Geiger and Kuhn's Grundriss der iranischen Philologie (Strasburg, 1895-96).