[385] According to Cedrenus, an author of the eleventh century, Zoroaster descended from Belus or Nimrod: this king is, by some authors, identified with Zohák, who married two daughters of Djemchid, from whom also Faridun descended; on account of this relationship, Zoroaster’s origin may without contradiction be referred to Belus and to Faridun. In the Desâtir, the name of his father is Heresfetmád. According to the authority of the book Sad-der (see Hyde, p. 316), Patirásp, the grandfather of Zoroaster, descended from Hitcherasp, who sprung from Tchechshúnesh, and this from Espintaman, or Sad-yuman; who is therefore the third ancestor of the prophet: nevertheless this last is often called simply Espintaman, or also Sapetman; which word, according to Anquetil du Perron (t. I. 2. p. 9), signifies “excellent.”—A. T.
[386] The same dream is related in the Zardusht-namah (c. 3 and 4), as well as in the work of Henry Lord (p. 451), quoted by Anquetil du Perron (Zend-Avesta, t. I. 2. P. p. 11).—A. T.
[387] The tradition of this appears to be widely spread, not only in the East but also in the West, as it is mentioned by Pliny (H. N. I. vii. c. 16), with the addition of one wonderful particular, namely, that Zartusht’s brain palpitated so much as to repel the hand laid upon his head, a presage of future science. Solinus (c. 1) relates the same fact. Zoroaster is proverbially known as the first child who laughed on being born.—A. T.
[388] See [note], p. 211. This name has also been supposed a mere corruption of ازر دوست, azer dóst, that is, “a friend of fire” (see Hyde, who rejects it, p. 314).—A. T.
[389] The same circumstances of the child’s dangers and miraculous escapes are related in the Zardusht-namah (c. 7-11), and in Changrégatha-namah (c. 2).—A. T.
[390] In the Zardusht-nameh, the name of the magician is Turberatorsh.—A. T.
[391] The edition of Calcutta reads generally ژند, zhand; we shall keep the more familiar name, زند, zand. We find also Avesta-zand, and simply Asta and zand.
Herbelot has interpreted this name of Zoroaster’s writings by “the book of life.” Hyde thought (p. 336) that Zand Avesta was properly Zand va Esta, or Zand u Esta, and Zand, an Arabic word signifying “igniarium, focile, pixis ignaria,” joined to the Hebrew-Chaldaic word Eshta, or Esta, “ignis,” and explained the whole name by “igniarium” and “ignis,” or “tinder and fire.” According to Anquetil du Perron (Zend-Avesta, t. II. p. 423), zand signifies “living,” and Avesta, “word;” therefore Zand-Avesta, “the living word;” which was anciently the law of the countries limited by the Euphrates, the Oxus, and the Indian ocean (ibid., t. I. p. xiv). This law or religion is still professed by the descendants of the Persians who, conquered by the Muhammedans, have not submitted to the Koran; they partly inhabit Kirman, and partly the western coast of India, to the north and south of Surat. It is besides now decided by the investigations of the above-named author, and by those of Kleuker, Rask, as well as by those of Messrs. Eugene Burnouf, Bopp, Lassen, and other philologers, that Zand was an ancient language derived from the same source as the Sanskrit; it was spoken before the Christian era, particularly in the countries situated to the west of the Caspian sea, namely in Georgia, Iran proper, and Azerbijan (the northern Media). Moreover the Pa-zand denotes a dialect derived from the Zand, or a mixed Zand, similar to the Rabbinic language of the Jews (Z.-Av., t. II. pp. 67, 68).
It is generally known that Anquetil du Perron brought, in the year 1762, from Surat in India, and deposited in the Royal library of Paris, several Zand, Pehlvi, and Persian works, which, according to his opinion, were partly the original works written by Zoroaster himself, partly translated, or at least derived from original works of the Persian prophet. These writings, namely The Vendidad, in Zand and Pehlvi, were brought about the year 1276, by the Dostur Ardeshir, from Sistan to Guzerat, and there communicated to the Parsees, who made two copies of them; from these come all the Vendidads, Zand and Pehlvi, of Guzerat. These works, parts of which only existed in England, were then for the first time translated into an European language, and published in French by Anquetil. Examined as monuments of an ancient religion and literature of the Persians, they have been differently appreciated by learned men, and their authenticity denied by some, among whom the most conspicuous are sir William Jones, Richardson, and Meiners, and defended by others, by none with more zeal than John Frederic Kleuker, who not only translated Anquetil’s Zand-Avesta into German, in three volumes, but in an appendix of two volumes (all in quarto) commented and discussed with great judgment, sagacity, and erudition, all that relates to the Zand-books attributed to Zoroaster. Here follow, as shortly as possible, the principal results of his laborious investigations:—testimonies of the existence of works attributed to Zoroaster are found in Greek authors who lived before our era. It was in the sixth century B. C. that the Persian religion and philosophy became known in Europe by Hostanes, the Archimagus who accompanied Xerxes in his expedition against Greece. In the fourth century B. C., Plato, Aristotle, and Theopompus show a knowledge of Zoroaster’s works. In the third century B. C., Hermippus treats expressly of them, as containing not less than 120,000 distichs. Soon after the beginning of the Christian era, works attributed to Zoroaster are mentioned under different names by Nicolaus of Damascus, Strabo, Pausanius, Pliny, and Dion Chrysostomus. St. Clement of Alexandria, in the third century, was not unacquainted with them. Later, the Gnostics made a great use of the oriental cosmogony and psychology as derived from Zoroaster. The testimony of Eusebius establishes that, in the fourth century, there existed a collection of sacred works respecting the theology and religion of the Persians. It was mostly the liturgical part of them that was spread about, mixed with notions relative to the magical art. The empress Eudokia of the fifth, and Suidas of the twelfth, century, attribute to Zoroaster several books, four of which treat of nature, one of precious stones, and five of astrology and prognostics. So much and more can be gathered from Greek and Latin works about the writings of the Persian legislator.
The records of the Muhammedans concerning them begin only in the ninth century, by Muhammed Abu Jafar Ebn Jerir el Tabari (Hyde, 317-319), according to whom Zoroaster wrote his revelations upon 12,000 cow-skins (or parchment folios). Abu Muhammed Mustapha, in his life of Gushtasp, says: “Zoroaster wrote the just-mentioned work in 12 tomes, each of which formed a bullock’s load.” Both authors say that the Persian king deposited these books, magnificently ornamented, in Istakhar. By several other authors, from the ninth to the seventeenth century, it is positively established that the books of the Zand-Avesta existed in all the centuries in which the Muhammedans had intercourse with the disciples of Zartusht. Works composed by the latter are: the Bun-Dehesh, the Viraf-nameh, the Sad-der Bun-Dehesh, the Ulemai-Islam, the Ravacts (that is, the correspondence between the Dosturs of Persia and India since the fifteenth century), the Zaratusht nameh, the Changragachah namah, and the history of the flight of the Parsees to India. In all these works breathes the spirit of the strongest conviction that authentic works of Zartusht have, although not entirely, yet partly, been preserved to later days. This conviction is common to a numerous nation, who adhere to their sacred books as to the inappreciable inheritance of their forefathers. The generality of this sentiment is attested by several respectable and intelligent European travellers in the East, such as Henry Lord, Gabriel de Chinon, J. B. Tavernier, D. Sanson, the chevalier Chardin, and others.