which, indeed, an early religion need hardly be credited with observing. Hence, even if the philosophic superiority of the doctrine of Zrvana Akarana were less illusory than it is, it would be necessary to prefer the view that it formed no part of original Zoroastrianism.
But although Dr. Brodbeck's extravagances throw little light either on its historical or on its philosophical aspects, it must be admitted that he does injustice to a most interesting theme. The fantastic East, that mysterious witches-caldron from which all religions have issued, from the first fancies of Akkadian astrology to the latest frauds of 'Aryan Theosophy,' has produced no more fascinating problem than that presented by the origin and history of Zoroastrianism. In keenness of moral sensibility, in intensity of moral conviction, Zoroastrianism is unsurpassed even by the Hebrew faith, for which a sort of monopoly of the craving for righteousness has so often been claimed. Indeed, when we consider that the prominence of the ethical standpoint seems the oldest part of Zoroastrianism and a comparatively late development in Judaism, it must appear probable that the latter was influenced by the former (e.g., during and after the Exile), and that, ethically, the earlier forms of Judaism were inferior to the earlier forms of Zoroastrianism. Again, in the matter of the general saneness and sobriety of its ethics, of its practical adaptability to the needs of life, of its care and direction of conduct in this world, it must be admitted that Zoroastrianism contrasts most favorably with all contemporary religions, whether of the East or of the West, and in essentials will sustain comparison with those now current. Nor did it secure soundness by sacrificing sentiment like, e.g., Confucianism: it possessed a highly poetic eschatology, which has been the source of most of the eschatological beliefs and legends of the three great religions of the modern world; and yet that eschatology, while fully satisfying all emotional and aesthetic demands upon a religion, has never been accused of misdirecting the energies of Zoroastrians into 'other-worldliness.' And moreover, Zoroastrianism enlisted on behalf of its ethics, more directly and more vividly than any other religion, the warlike spirit of man, which even in so peaceable a creed as Christianity has contributed so largely to the strength of the Church Militant and of the Salvation Army. In addition to all these ethical merits, it may be claimed that Zoroastrianism was the first universal religion (even if its origin is put as low as 600 B.C. and made almost contemporaneous with Buddha), the first to be essentially cosmic and international, while all the surrounding cults were still tribal and national.
Why then, with all these intrinsic advantages, with temporal priority over all its subsequent rivals, with the ruling people in Asia as its adherents, did not Zoroastrianism take that dominant position among the religions of the world, to which all the circumstances seemed to conspire to raise it? Why was its subsequent history a long and pathetic record of failure and oppression, both 'to our mortal insight' undeserved? Why did it fail to make converts under the Achaemenids, why did it succumb under the Seleucids,
