fragments at their disposal, the diasceuast or diasceuasts composed a new canon—erected a new edifice from the materials of the old. In point of detail, it is now impossible to draw a sharp distinction between that which they found surviving ready to their hand and that which they themselves added, or to define how far they reproduced the traditional fragments with verbal fidelity or indulged in revision and remoulding. It may reasonably be supposed, not only that they constructed the external framework of many chapters, and also made some additions of their own—a necessary process in order to weld their motley collection of fragments into a new and coherent book—but also that they fabricated anew many formulae and imitative passages on the model of the materials at their disposal. In this consisted the “completion” of Tanvasar, expressly mentioned in the account of the Dīnkard. All those texts in which the grammar is handled, now with laxness and want of skill, and again with absolute barbarism, may probably be placed to the account of the Sassanian redactors. All the grammatically correct texts, together with those portions of the Avesta which have intrinsic worth, especially the metrical passages, are indubitably authentic and taken ad verbum from the original Avesta. To this class, above all, belong the Gāthās and the nucleus of the greater Yashts. Opinions differ greatly as to the precise age of the original texts brought together by subsequent redactors: according to some, they are pre-Achaemenian; according to Darmesteter's former opinion, they were written in Media under the Achaemenian dynasty; according to some, their source must be sought in the east, according to others, in the west of Iran. But to search for a precise time or an exact locality is to deal with the question too narrowly; it is more correct to say that the Avesta was worked at from the time of Zoroaster down to the Sassanian period. Its oldest portions, the Gāthās, proceed from the prophet himself. This conclusion is inevitable for every one to whom Zoroaster is an historical personality, and who does not shun the labour of an unprejudiced research into the meaning of those difficult texts (cf. Zoroaster). The rest of the Avesta, in spite of the opposite opinion of orthodox Parsees, does not even claim to come from Zoroaster. As the Gāthās now constitute the kernel of the most sacred prayer-book, viz. the Yasna, so they ultimately proved to be the first nucleus of a religious literature in general. The language in which Zoroaster taught, especially a later development of it, remained as the standard with his followers, and became the sacred language of the priesthood of that faith which he had founded; as such it became, so to speak, absolved from the ordinary conditions of time and space. Taught and acquired as an ecclesiastical language, it was enabled to live an artificial life long after it had become extinct as a vernacular—in this respect comparable to the Latin of the middle ages or the Hebrew of the rabbinical schools. The priests, who were the composers and repositories of these texts, succeeded in giving them a perfectly general form. They refrained from practically every allusion to ephemeral or local circumstances. Thus we search vainly in the Avesta itself for any precise data to determine the period of its composition or the place where it arose. The original country of the religion, and the seat of the Avesta language, ought perhaps to be sought rather in the east of Iran (Seistān and the neighbouring districts). But neither the spiritual literature nor the sacred tongue remained limited to the east. The geography of the Avesta points both to the east and the west, particularly the north-west of Iran, but with a decided tendency to gravitate towards the east. The vivid description of the basin of the Hilment (Yasht 19, 65–69) is peculiarly instructive. The language of the Avesta travelled with the Zoroastrian religion and with the main body of the priesthood, in all probability, that is to say, from east to west; within the limits of Iran it became international.
As has been already stated, the Avesta now in our hands is but a small portion of the book as restored and edited under the Sassanians. The larger part perished under the Mahommedan rule and under the more barbarous tyranny of the Tatars, when through conversion and extermination the Zoroastrians became a mere remnant that concealed its religion and neglected the necessary copying of manuscripts. A most meagre proportion only of the real religious and ritual writings, the sacerdotal law and the liturgy, has been preserved to our time. The great bulk—over three fourths of the Sassanian contents—especially the mere secular literature collected, has fallen a prey to oblivion. The understanding of the older Avesta texts began to die away at an early period. The need for a translation and interpretation became evident; and under the Later Sassanians the majority of the books, if not the whole of them, were rendered into the current Pahlavi. A thorough use of this translation will not be possible until we have it in good critical editions, and acquaintance with its language ceases to be the monopoly of a few privileged individuals. For the interpretation of the older texts it is of great value where they are concerned with the fixed, formal statutes of the church. But when they pass beyond this narrow sphere, as particularly in the Gāthās, the Pahlavi translator becomes a defective and unreliable interpreter. The Parsee priest, Neryosangh, subsequently translated a portion of the Pahlavi version into Sanskrit.
The MSS. of the Avesta are, comparatively speaking, of recent date. The oldest is the Pahlavi Vispered in Copenhagen, dated 1258. Next come the four MSS. of the Herbad Mihirāpān Kai Khusro at Cambay (1323 and 1324), two Vendidads with Pahlavi in London and Copenhagen, and two Yasnas with Pahlavi in Copenhagen and formerly in Bombay (now Oxford). Generally speaking the MSS. fall off in quality and carefulness in proportion to their lateness; though an honourable exception must be made in favour of those proceeding from Kirman and Yazd in Persia, mostly dating from the 17th and 18th centuries.
The first European scholar to direct attention to the Avesta was Hyde of Oxford, in his Historia Religionis Veterum Persarum eoramque Magorum (1700), which, however, failed to awake any lasting interest in the sacred writings of the Parsees. The merit of achieving this belongs to the enthusiastic orientalist Anquetil Duperron, the fruit of whose prolonged stay in India (1755–1761) and his acquaintance with the Parsee priests was a translation (certainly very defective) of the Zend-Avesta. The foundation of a scientific exegesis was laid by Burnouf. The interpretation of the Avesta is one of the most difficult problems of oriental philology. To this very day no kind of agreement has been reached by conflicting schools, even upon some of the most important points. The value of the Pahlavi interpretation was overrated by Spiegel, Darmesteter, but wholly denied by Roth. The truth lies between these two extremes. Opinion is divided also as to the significance of the Avesta in the literature of the world. The exaggerated enthusiasm of Anquetil Duperron has been followed, especially since Spiegel's translation, by an excessive reaction. Upon the whole, the Avesta is a monotonous book. The Yasna and many Yashts in great part consist of formulae of prayer which are as poor in contents as they are rich in verbiage. The book of laws (Vendidad) is characterized by an arid didactic tone; only here and there the legislator clothes his dicta in the guise of graceful dialogues and tales, or of poetic descriptions and similitudes; and then the book of laws is transformed into a didactic poem. Nor can we deny to the Yashts, in their depiction of the Zoroastrian angels and their presentment of the old sagas, a certain poetic feeling, at times, and a pleasant diction. The Gāthās are quite unique in their kind. As a whole, the Avesta, for profundity of thought and beauty, stands on a lower level than the Old Testament. But as a religious book—the most important document of the Zoroastrian faith, and the sole literary monument of ancient Iran—the Avesta occupies a prominent position in the literature of the world. At the present day its significance is decidedly underrated. The future will doubtless be more just with regard to the importance of the book for the history of religion in general and even of Christianity.
Editions.—Zend-Avesta, ed. by N. L. Westergaard (Copenhagen, 1852–54), complete; F. Spiegel, Avesta (Vienna, 1853–58), only Vendidad, Vispered and Yasna, but with the Pahlavi translation; K. Geldner (Stuttgart, 1886–96). Translations.—Anquetil Duperron, Zend-Avesta, Ouvrage de Zoroastre (Paris, 1771); Fr. Spiegel, 3 vols. (Leipzig, 1852–63), both completely antiquated. Avesta traduit par C. de Harlez, ed. 2 (Paris, 1881); The Zend-Avesta, Part I. Vendidad, Part II. Sīrōzahs, Yashts and Nyāyish, tr. by J. Darmesteter, Part III. Yasna, Visparad, &c., by L. H. Mills (Oxford, 1880–87), in the Sacred Books of the East; Le Zend-Avesta, traduction nouvelle par J. Darmesteter, 3 vols. (Paris, 1892–93) (Annales du Musée Guimet)—a most important work.
Literature.—Anquetil Duperron (see above); Haug, Essays on the Sacred Language, &c., of the Parsis, especially in the new edition by E. W. West (London, 1878); De Harlez, Introduction à l'étude de l'Avesta (Paris, 1881); Max Duncker, Geschichte des Altertums, vol. iv.; Eduard Meyer, Geschichte des Altertums, vol. i. (Stuttgart, 1884); J. Darmesteter, in the Introduction to his translation (see above); K. Geldner, Avesta-Litteratur in the Grundriss der iranischen Philologie, by Geiger and Kuhn (Strassburg, 1896), vol. 2, 1 f.; E. W. West, Contents of the Nasks, S. B. E. 37 (Oxford, 1892). (K. G.)
