The notion that the Zend language was the idiom of ancient Media originated with Anquetil du Perron. He looked on Zoroaster as a native of Azerbijan, contemporary with Darius Hystaspis. His opinion was embraced by Kleuker, Herder, and Eask; and again, with certain modifications, by Tychsen and Heeren. These latter writers even gave a more completely Median character to the Zendavesta, by regarding it as composed in Media Magna, during the reign of the great Cyaxares. The main foundation of these views was the identification of Zoroastrianism with the Magian fire-worship, which was really ancient in Azerbijan, and flourished in Media under the great Median monarch. But we have seen that Magianism and Zoroastrianism were originally entirely distinct, and that the Zendavesta in all its earlier portions belongs wholly to the latter system. Nothing therefore is proved concerning the Zend dialect by establishing a connection between the Medes and Magism, which was a corrupting influence thrown in upon Zoroastrianism long after the composition of the great bulk of the sacred writings.
These writings themselves sufficiently indicate the place of their composition. It was not Media, but Bactria, or at any rate the north-eastern Iranic country, between the Bolor range and the Caspian. This conclusion, which follows from a consideration of the various geographical notices contained in the Zend books, had been accepted of late years by all the more profound Zend scholars. Originated by Rhode, it has also in its favor the names of Burnouf, Lassen, Westergaard, and Haug. If then the Zend is to be regarded as really a local dialect, the idiom of a particular branch of the Iranic people, there is far more reason for considering it to be the ancient speech of Bactria than of any other Arian country. Possibly the view is correct which recognizes two nearly-allied dialects as existing side by side in Iran during its flourishing period—one prevailing towards the west, the other towards the east—one Medo-Persic, the other Sogdo-Bactrian—the former represented to us by the cuneiform inscriptions, the latter by the Zend texts. Or it may be closer to the truth to recognize in the Zendic and Achsemenian forms of speech, not so much two contemporary idioms, as two stages of one and the same language, which seems to be at present the opinion of the best comparative philologists. In either case Media can claim no special interest in Zend, which, if local, is Sogdo-Bactrian, and if not local is no more closely connected with Media than with Persia.
It appears then that we do not at present possess any means of distinguishing the shades of difference which separated the. Median from the Persian speech. We have in fact no specimens of the former beyond a certain number of words, and those chiefly proper names, whereas we know the latter tolerably completely from the inscriptions. It is proposed under the head of the “Fifth Monarchy” to consider at some length the general character of the Persian language as exhibited to us in these documents. From the discussion then to be raised may be gathered the general character of the speech of the Medes. In the present place all that will be attempted is to show how far the remnants left us of Median speech bear out the statement that, substantially, one and the same tongue was spoken by both peoples.
Many Median names are absolutely identical with Persian; e.g., Ariobarzanes, Artabazus, Artaeus, Artembares, Harpagus, Arbaces, Tiridates, etc. Others which are not absolutely identical approach to the Persian form so closely as to be plainly mere variants, like Theodoras and Theodosius, Adelbert and Ethelbert, Miriam, Mariam, and Mariamne. Of this kind are Intaphres, another form of Intaphernes, Artynes, another form of Artanes, Parmises, another form of Parmys, and the like. A third class, neither identical with any known Persian names, nor so nearly approaching to them as to be properly considered mere variants, are made up of known Persian roots, and may be explained on exactly the same principles as Persian names. Such are Ophernes, Sitraphernes, Mitraphernes, Megabernes, Aspadas, Mazares, Tachmaspates, Xathrites, Spitaces, Spitamas, Ehambacas, and others. In Ophernes, Sitra-phernes, Mitra-phernes, and Mega-bernes, the second element is manifestly the pharna or frana which is found in Arta-phernes and Inta-phernes (Vida-frana), an active participial form from pri, to protect. The initial element in O-phernes represents the Zend hu, Sans, su, Greek ev, as the same letter does in O-manes, O-martes, etc. The Sitra of Sitra-phernes has been explained as probably Ichshatra, “the crown,” which is similarly represented in the Safro-pates of Curtius, a name standing to Sitra-phernes exactly as Arta-patas to Arta-phernes. In Mega-bernes the first element is the well-known baga, “God,” under the form commonly preferred by the Greeks; and the name is exactly equivalent to Curtius’s Bagfo-phanes, which only differs from it by taking the participle of pa, “to protect,” instead of the participle of pri, which has the same meaning. In Aspa-das it is easy to recognize aspa, “horse” (a common root in Persian names,) e.g., Aspa-thines, Aspa-mitras, Prex-aspes, and the like, followed by the same element which terminates the name of Oromaz-des, and which means either “knowing” or “giving.” Ma-zares presents us with the root meh, “much” or “great,” which is found in the name of the ilf-aspii, or “Big Horses,” a Persian tribe, followed by zara, “gold,” which appears in Ctesias’s “Arto-awes,” and perhaps also in Zoro-aster. In Tachmaspates, the first element is takhma, “strong,” a root found in the Persian names Ar-tochmes and Tritan-taechmes, while the second is the frequently used pati, “lord,” which occurs as the initial element in Pak-zeithes,” Pafa-ramphes, etc., and as the terminal in Pharna-jjates, Avio-peithes, and the like. In Xathrites we have clearly khshatra (Zend khshathra), “crown” or “king,” with a participial suffix -ita, corresponding to the Sanscrit participle in -it. Spita-ces and Spita-mas contain the root spita, equivalent to spenta, “holy,” which is found in Spitho-hates, Spita-mens, Spita-des, etc. This, in Spita-ces, is followed by a guttural ending, which is either a diminutive corresponding to the modern Persian -efc, or perhaps a suffixed article. In Spit-amas, the suffix -mas is the common form of the superlative, and may be compared with the Latin -mus in optimus, intimus, supremus, and the like. Ehambacas contains the root rafno, “joy, pleasure,” which we find in Pati-ramphies, followed by the guttural suffix.
There remains, finally, a class of Median names, containing roots not found in any known names of Persians, but easily explicable from Zend, Sanscrit, or other cognate tongues, and therefore not antagonistic to the view that Median and Persian were two closely connected dialects. Such, for instance, are the royal names mentioned by Herodotus, Deioces, Phraortes, Astyages, and Cyaxares; and such also are the following, which come to us from various sources; Amytis, Astibaras, Armamithres or Harmamithres, Mandauces, Parsondas, Eama-tes, Susiscanes, Tithaous, and Zanasanes.
In Deioces, or (as the Latins write it) Dejoces, there can be little doubt that we have the name given as Djohak or Zohak in the Shahnameh and other modern Persian writings, which is itself an abbreviation of the Ajis-dahaka of the Zendavesta. Dahaka means in Zend “biting,” or “the biter,” and is etymo-logically connected with the Greek.
Phraortes, which in old Persian was Fravartish, seems to be a mere variant of the word which appears in the Zendavesta as fravashi, and designates each man’s tutelary genius. The derivation is certainly from fra, and probably from a root akin to the German wahren, French garder, English “ward, watch,” etc. The meaning is “a protector.”
Cyaxares, the Persian form of which was “Uvakhshatara,” seems to be formed from the two elements it or hu, “well, good,” and akhsha (Zend arsnd), “the eye,” which is the final element of the name Cyavarswa in the Zendavesta. Cyavarsna is “dark-eyed;” Uvakhsha (= Zend Huvarsna) would be “beautiful-eyed.” Uvakhshatara appears to be the comparative of this adjective, and would mean “more beautiful-eyed (than others).”
Astyages, which, according to Moses of Chorene, meant “a dragon” or “serpent,” is almost certainly Ajis-dahaka, the full name whereof Dojoces (or Zohak) is the abbreviation. It means “the biting snake,” from aji or azi, “a snake” or “serpent,” and dahaka, “biting.”
Amytis is probably ama, “active, great,” with the ordinary feminine suffix -iti, found in Armaiti, Khnathaiti, and the like. Astibaras is perhaps “great of bone,” from Zend agta (Sans, asthi), “bone,” and bereza, “tall, great.” Harmamithres, if that is the true reading, would be “mountain-lover” (monticolus), from hardam, ace. of hara, “a mountain,” and mithra or mitra, “fond of.” If, however, the name should be read as Armamithres, the probable derivation will be from rama, ace. of raman, “pleasure,” which is also the root of Rama-tea. Armamithres may then be compared with Rheomithres, Siromitras, and Sysimithres, which are respectively “fond of splendor,” “fond of beauty,” and “fond of light.” Mandauces is perhaps “biting spirit—esprit mordant,” from mand, “coeur, esprit,” and dahaka, “biting.” M Parsondas can scarcely be the original form, from the occurrence in it of the nasal before the dental. In the original it must have been Parsodas, which would mean “liberal, much giving,” from pourus, “much,” and da, “to give.” Ramates, as already observed, is from rama, “pleasure.” It is an adjectival form, like Datis, and means probably “pleasant, agreeable.” Susiscanes may be explained as “splendidus juvenis,” from quc, “splendere,” pres. part, cao-cat, and kainin, “adolescens, juvenis.” Tithaeus is probably for Tathaeus, which would be readily formed from tatka, “one who makes.” Finally, Zanasanes may be referred to the root zan or jan, “to kill,” which is perhaps simply followed by the common appellative suffix -ana.