reference" (Johnson 1998, 6). Many historians of Zoroastrianism, including Parsis, studied with her as graduate and undergraduate students and acknowledged her as a unique inspiration (Kreyenbroek 2001, 138). According to interviews with her former students, she was willing to "scold" them in order to inspire a diligent and precise approach to their studies on Zoroastrianism (Kreyenbroek 2001, 141). A critical review of Boyce's works would mostly cite small details that relate to a couple of references. In one case, she made claims about Greek accounts of Zoroastrianism which are based on indirect sources that are difficult to verify. For 58 instance, she reported Aristotle's claim that Plato was the second coming of Zoroaster, as well as his belief that Plato included references to Zoroaster in The Laws, butprovided no reference (Boyce 1984, 15). That leaves it up to the reader to trace these accounts back to Aristotle.37 Nevertheless, these are small inconveniences. They mostly affect historians that are trying to use her meticulous research to build upon her core ideas. Mary Boyce was undoubtedly a diligent scholar who rightfully earned her place as an authority on Zoroastrianism and ancient Iranian religion. According to Ehsan Yarshater, a professor of Iranian Studies at Columbia University and editor of the Third Volume of the Cambridge History of Iran (1983), Boyce advanced the view that Zoroaster belonged to a pastoral (Stone-Age) culture; and for this and other reasons she assumed that he belonged to a much earlier date than a tradition preserved in some late Pahlavi texts would indicate


the Achaemenian Kings, particularly Cyrus the Great, were indeed Zoroastrians (Boyce 1982, xi and Boyce 1988, 15). Some of this is based on relatively recent evidence. According to Boyce, "archeologists excavating in the 1960s at Pasargradae found there the first fire holders of Zoroastrian type, dating from the time of Cyrus himself; and others working at Persepolis produced detailed studies of the iconography of the royal tombs, showing thereby an unbroken continuity of beliefs from the time of Darius the Great down to that of Darius III" (Boyce 1982, xi-xii).38 Boyce's view about the religion of the Achaemenian Kings is also supported by the use of Avestai names in the royal family, such as Vishtaspa, who is believed to have been a king and an early follower ofZoroastrianism (Boyce 1982, 43). The Greeks, "who were interested observers of the Persians from the sixth century onwards, recorded no change of faith among them during the Achaemenian period, and knew their priests, the famed Magi among them, as the followers of Zoroaster, a seer assigned by them to remote antiquity" (Boyce 1982, xi). Boyce also noted that "scholars working on Judaism and on early Greek philosophy suggested that Zoroastrian influence began to be exerted on the cultures of the Near East as early as the sixth century" (Mills 1977, 17, Duchesne-Guillemin 1958, 86, and Boyce 1982, xii). There is more evidence to support Boyce's claims about the religion of the Achaemenian Kings than evidence against them, but there are still some "contradictions" 38 The term Pasargradae refers


Iranian religion under the Achaemenians" (Yarshater 1984, 139). Jacques Duchesne-Guillemin (1910-2012) was a French scholar and professor of Iranian languages at the University of Liege in Belgium. In 1974, he was appointed chief editor of the Acta Iranica series for Peeters Publishers. Under his tenure, the series published several works by Mary Boyce. Duchesne-Guillemin was honored as a guest lecturer at various universities and received an honorary doctorate from the University of Tehran in 1975. He is also a notable scholar of world religions who published works on The Western Response to Zoroaster (1958) and The Hymns of Zarathustra [Being a translation of the Gathas] (1952). Abraham Valentine Williams Jackson (1862-1937), a professor of Indo-Iranian languages at Columbia University from 1895 to 1935 (Guthrie 1914, i), was theauthority on Zoroastrianism before Mary Boyce. In 1886, Jackson became an assistant [professor] 61 for "Anglo-Saxon" studies at Columbia University and his "competent knowledge of English literature led to his appointment as Adjunct Professor in 1891" (Perry 1938, 222). In 1886, "he had also been made Instructor in Indo-Iranian Languages [which was] a remarkable tribute to his attainments in that field" (Perry 1938, 222). "He made a series of extended visits to India and Persia for thorough study and exploration: the first in 1901, others in 1903, 1907, 1910, 1911" (Perry 1938, 222). According to an article in the Journal of the American Oriental Society by Edward Delavan Perry, Jackson's "knowledge of Sanskrit language and literature was wide and accurate, yet Iranian language, literature, and antiquities, and most


of all Iranian religion, were his chosen field" (Perry 1938, 222). He published numerous works on Iranian religion, including his first [book], "A Hymn of Zoroaster, Yasna 31" (1888), as well as Zoroaster, the Prophet of Ancient Iran (1899), the fascinating Persia, Past and Present (1906), From Constantinople to the Home of Omar Khayyam (1911), and his latest complete work, Researches in Manichaeism (1932) (Perry 1938, 222). As founder and editor of The Columbia University Indo-Iranian Series, he authored and influenced thirteen volumes (Perry 1938, 222). Jackson claimed that Zoroaster was thirty when he began his ministry. Boyce agreed with Jackson in this matter and suggested that the age of thirty was the conventional age of full and sage maturity (Boyce 1975, 184). Jackson's claim was based onthe Bundahishn, which was an Iranian encyclopedia of Zoroastrianism compiled 62 during the seventh century CE (Jackson 1899, 16).39 However, he provided a far more recent date for Zoroaster's life in comparison to Boyce. According to Jackson, Zoroaster lived between 660 and 583 BCE (Jackson 1899, 16). Nevertheless, after studying Zoroastrianism in the Iranian villages of Yazd during the 1960s, Boyce alleged that much of the previous foreign scholarship on Zoroastrianism was profoundly erroneous. As mentioned, she believed Zoroaster lived before 1200 BCE. Conclusion During the height of the Persian Empire in the fifth century BCE, Zoroastrianism was the religion with the largest number of adherents in the world. It was also the first monotheist philosophy of religion and it had a large amount of influence on various


other faiths before and after its decline. As historian Arnold Toynbee suggested, the sign of disintegration of a great civilization is "universality, when its spiritual remnants survive and spread long after the fall of the state" (Toynbee 1972, 255). The primary sources of the Zoroastrian philosophy initially survived through oral traditions. Although they inspired the so-called "book" religions, Zoroaster's teachings were unrecorded until the fifth century CE, and these records were ultimately destroyed by foreign conquest. Once again, Zoroastrianism survived through oral tradition, as well as the re-construction of excerpts, which had been copied into various encyclopedias and manuscripts. 39 Zand-Akasih: Iranian or Greater Bundahishn Transliteration and Translation in English by Behramgore Tehmur Anklesaria (1956). 63 In the sixteenth century, European scholars and explorers began studying Zoroastrianism inIranian and Indian communities. The European perspective on Iranian and Indian life was highly romanticized since it was mostly based on the exotic adventures of travelers and explorers. Nevertheless, these accounts help historians trace the development of the Zoroastrian faith throughout history. 64 Chapter Two The Universal Spirit This chapter surveys the available literature on European knowledge about Zoroastrianism. It also surveys some of the literature related to the religious roots of the Nazi movement. The purpose of this chapter is to trace the chain of intellectual thought which will shed light on certain ideas that came to the influence the post-Enlightenment philosophers of history and the rise of Aryan Nationalism. Faith and Reason Jacques Duchesne-Guillemin wrote that by the tenth century, "antiquity had come to regard Zoroaster


and the more or less spurious Magi as precursors and vouchers of its own wisdom, both pagan and Christian" (Duchesne-Guillemin 1958, 4). From the European perspective, "Zoroaster was supposed to have instructed Pythagoras" (Duchesne-Guillemin 1958, 4), and the fields of philosophy, astrology, alchemy, and magic were all greatly indebted to the Persian and Babylonian (Chaldean) cultures based on Zoroaster. The Chaldaic Oracles, which are Hellenistic religious texts from the second century CE, were based on Alexander's policies of Greek and Persian 65 integration.40 This movement inspired numerous attempts to either fuse religion with philosophy or find some other form of compromise.41 After the East-West schism that divided the Roman Catholic Church and the Greek Orthodox Church, Georgius Gemistus (1355 CE-1452 CE), also known as Plethon, attempted to reconcileThe texts are to be found in the book of Joseph Bidez and Franz Cumon on Les mages héllénises. Zoroastre, Ostanès et Hystaspe d'après la tradition grecque [The Magi Hellenized: Zoroaster, Ostanes, and Hystaspe after the Greek tradition] (1938). Incidentally, the two learned editors seem to have had an exaggerated opinion of the part played in the blending of Greek and Iranian or Babylonian ideas by the hypothetical "Hellenized Magi" (Duchesne-Guillemin 1958, 4). 66 Chaldaic Oracles (Duchesne-Guillemin 1958, 4). In Zoroaster and his 320 Chaldaic Oracles (1591), Patricius wrote that "Zoroaster, first of all people, almost laid the foundations, however rough, of the Catholic faith" (Kroll 1894, 1, and DuchesneGuillemin 1958, 4).42 For most Christians, Iran had always been the homeland of the Biblical Magi. The term Magi


is mentioned in the Avesta, and refers to the priestly class. "Zoroaster seeks to be heard beyond the Magians" (Yasna 33.7; Guthrie (Tr.) 1914).43 The Biblical Magi were the Three Wise Men who were guided by a star and came to worship in Bethlehem. They visited Jesus after his birth. The English term for paranormal activity is "magic," which is a direct reference to the occult astrology of the Biblical Magi. Pliny the Elder believed the art of magic undoubtedly originated in Persia under Zoroaster (The Elder Pliny 2010, 422). There is also linguistic and archeological evidence that the Chinese term "Wu," which describes a doctor or spiritual practitioner, was also influenced by the term Magi (Magu) (Mair 1990, 27). Regardless, based on the Jewish tradition, the Christiansthey called upon to corroborate and justify to the pagans the truth of Christianity (Duchesne-Guillemin 1958, 5). In 1590, Barnabé Brisson published De regio Persarum principatu [The Preeminence of the Persian Region]. It was based on Greek and Roman texts which made references to Zoroastrianism. He was apparently unaware of Plethon's ascription of the Chaldaic Oracles to Zoroaster since they were not listed under his sources (Duchesne-Guillemin 1958, 5), but he did associate the Persian Magi with Pythagoras (Brisson 1710, 188 and 400). Brisson's work was based on ancient sources and dealt with the Persian religion as a thing of the past (Duchesne-Guillemin 1958, 6). Evidently, he was unaware that the religion was still practiced in Iran and India. The reports from travelers who visited Egypt and Iran


included references to ancient inscriptions and monuments that challenged Christian Europe's beliefs that history began with Genesis (Firby 1988, 17). Archbishop James Ussher calculated that humans were first created in 4004 BCE. His calculation was based on Biblical sources as well as historical and astronomical studies that were relatively accurate in describing the chronology of the Iranian, Greek and Roman civilizations. However, many prominent French philosophers such as Charles Louis de Secondat, baron de Montesquieu, were a bit more skeptical and supported greater freedom of intellectual thought. His The Spirit of the Laws (1750) included reflections on the philosophy of natural and social laws. Montesquieu acknowledged that most French philosophers knew very little about ancient Greek philosophy, and even less about Egyptian and Persian philosophy, but he 68still rejected the authority of the Old Testament as well as Ussher's chronology (Firby 1988, 17 and Montesquieu 1989, 495). In a section about "the ministers of Religion," he noted that "people without priests are usually barbarians" (Montesquieu 1989, 483). In many ancient cultures, the people that were dedicated to the divinity had to be honored, and "as worship of the gods required continual attention, most peoples were inclined to make the clergy a separate body" (Montesquieu 1989, 483). In turn, "among the Egyptians, the Jews, and the Persians,44 certain families, who were perpetuated and who performed the services, were dedicated to the divinity" (Montesquieu 1989, 483). Montesquieu went on to explain how this system eventually led to the tradition of celibacy within the Christian tradition. "There were


even religions in which one thought not merely of withdrawing ecclesiastics from business, but even relieving them from the encumbrance of a family, and this is the practice of the principal branch of Christian law" (Montesquieu 1989, 483). He ultimately concluded that celibacy is mostly accepted by the people in societies with small populations, which are essentially the people who need it the least while it is mostly rejected in societies with large populations (Montesquieu 1989, 483-484). During the seventeenth century, which was characterized by intense controversy between religion and philosophy, Hugo Grotius wrote that "there is no reason why the 44 Montesquieu cited Thomas Hyde's De Veterum Persarum et Parthorum et Medorum Religionis Historia [A History of the Persian, Parthian and Median religion] (1700) (Hyde 1760, 349and Montesquieu 1989, 483). 69 restoring of a body is impossible when such learned men such as Zoroaster, the Stoics, and Peripateticos Theopompus believed that it could be and would be" (Grotius 1627, 96). Grotius suspected that there was a certain element of truth in ancient doctrines. In 1633, a copy of a Yasna manuscript is reported to have been deposited in a library in Canterbury (Eduljee 2007, 1). This is the first known acquisition of a Zoroastrian text in England for scholarly purposes. However, the content of the Yasna remained a mystery to its new owners until the late eighteenth century (Eduljee 2007, 1). In 1685, PierreDaniel Huet, the bishop of Avranches, noted that pagan religions have features in common with Judaism and Christianity (Huet 2009, 111-116


and Duchesne-Guillemin 1958, 9). As mentioned, a number of European scholars believed that Zoroastrianism could reconcile the differences between paganism and the Judeo-Christian tradition. Zoroaster's Influence on Greek Philosophy Zoroastrian ideas were a key factor in the early development of Greek philosophy. The Iranian doctrine may be supposed to have modified or reinforced the ideas of Plato (Duchesne-Guillemin 1952, 2). Duchesne-Guillemin believed that "of all the sons of Asia, Zoroaster was the first to be 'adopted' by the West, and his doctrine was known to Plato, to whom it must have meant a great deal" (Duchesne-Guillemin 1952, 1). Eudoxus of Cnidus, the contemporary and disciple of Plato, compared his master with Zoroaster (Duchesne-Guillemin 1952, 2). According to Boyce, "the serious study of Zoroastrianism in the [Modern] West isscarcely two hundred years old, for it is founded on the interpretation of the Zoroastrian holy books, called collectively the Avesta, which 70 remained unknown outside the community itself until the late eighteenth century" (Boyce 1975, ix). Nevertheless, from the days of the ancient Greeks, "Zoroaster's name had been familiar to the learned as that of a fabled Eastern sage; and when the Avesta came at last into scholars' hands, they sought eagerly in it for teachings that would justify this fame" (Boyce 1975, ix). Ruhi Muhsen Afnan wrote about this subject in Zoroaster's Influence on Anaxagoras, the Greek Tragedians, and Socrates (1969). When dealing with this subject in a previous book, Afnan did not initially mention a direct influence of Zoroaster on Greek thought. As he wrote,


perhaps "to force me into the controversy, or just to give the book a more attractive heading; the publishers asserted their right, given to them by my contract, and changed my original title 'Zoroaster and the Trend of Greek Thought,' to 'Zoroaster's influence on Greek Thought'" (Afnan 1969, 9). In Zoroaster's Influence on Anaxagoras, the Greek Tragedians, ad Socrates, he stated that he could not deny his belief in the existence of an influence, and that he had to face the challenge and produce arguments in its support (Afnan 1969, 9). Afnan's study demonstrated diligent research and careful methodology. In his reflections on the traditional conception of God held by ancient Athenian courts, he was curious to find out "why for example, Darius, who was an Achaemenian, andfrom Fars in Southern Iran, was called by a Hebrew writer in the Old Testament , Median" (Book of Daniel 5.31 and Afnan 1969, 10). He continued, "if the distinguishing virtue of Media, in that age, the ground of its sanctity, was that it constituted the birthplace of Zoroaster; then why does he convey the conception of God as a universal 'Mind' and put it in the same 71 frame as those who were declared by the court in Athens to be 'impious'" (Afnan 1969, 10). Although we should note that there is more evidence which suggests that Zoroaster was born in Eastern Iran, and the Book of Daniel might not be a literal account of Iranian and Jewish history (especially since Darius is used in place of


Cyrus), the main point here is that the Zoroastrian philosophy spread to the Persians through the Medes and was originally presented as a world religion rather than a cultural religion (Medism).45 The religion of the Medes may be interpreted as a blend of Zoroastrianism and the particularly Medic rituals which preceded their knowledge of Zoroaster. In turn, Medism was a legal term used to describe the subversive ideology of ancient Greece that was characterized by excessive admiration or sympathy for Medo-Persian culture. In his study on Zoroaster's influence on Greek thought, Afnan suggested that there were three angles from which to approach his subject, starting with a metaphysical point of view which constituted revealed religions, a factual and historical perspective which constituted the transmission of ideas, and aof the term Medism (Mede or Medos) has a number of very revealing derivatives such as Media, Medism, Medized, median quality, make median, Medo-Persian, and Medo-Scythian (Afnan 1969, 22). 72 According to Afnan, the Greek philosopher Anaxagoras was influenced by Zoroastrian ideas during his time in Iran. Anaxagoras is credited as the person who brought philosophy to Athens along with the idea of the Universal Mind (Cosmological Mind).46 He was born in Clazomenae in 500 BCE, an area that was conquered by Cyrus the Great about a half a century before his birth. Anaxagoras was, therefore, a Persian subject and is reported to have served in the Persian Army (Afnan 1969, 33). Anaxagoras had a major effect on Themistocles, who was a notable Athenian politician and general. To


the Persians Themistocles was a formidable enemy, who won many successes against them, but he was also familiar with their culture and cause, and through Anaxagoras had come to respect their teachings (Afnan 1969, 20). After he was eventually ostracized from Athens for his arrogant attitude toward the Spartans, Themistocles fled to Iran where he was accepted at the court of Artaxerxes. After a long stay, he learned the Persian language so he could directly communicate with the king, and once he became acquainted with Magian learning, he was given a district in western Ionia to rule (Afnan 1969, 20). During the time of Artaxerxes (fifth century BCE), there are sources that suggest "Medism" was spreading rapidly in Thebes and among the upper classes in Northern Greece tothe frontiers of Attica (Afnan 1969, 22). This alarmed many Athenians. 46 The belief in a single Creator that is associated with Ahura Mazda (Light and Wisdom). 73 Socrates learned about Medism through Aspasia, who was an Athenian intellectual and a consort of Pericles. Pericles was a prominent orator and managed social gatherings that included the intellectuals of his time and place, most notably, Aspasia and Anaxagoras. "Aspasia was the dominant figure in the court of Pericles and she created a social atmosphere in which the intelligentsia of the day gathered and conferred" (Afnan 1969, 130). In a dialogue with "Menexenus," Socrates is reported to have praised her talent in teaching rhetoric, which she had developed as an art (Plato 2010, 10 and Afnan 1969, 130). "That I


offense was the repudiation of an imperfect religion" (Radhakrishnan 1992, 26). 74 consternation, that their leader himself was under the direct influence of 'Medised Hellenes,' though serving the political interests of the state" (Afnan 1969, 24).48 Afnan argued that when two cultures confront each other, it is not military might which finally decides which is to dominate. He claimed that victory is based on the set of spiritual and cultural values each side upholds and advocates. "The side which bears spiritual, intellectual, moral, social, and aesthetic values, which are more appealing and convincing, and sounder, is the party that wins the contest" (Afnan 1969, 18). The "early Zoroastrianism of the Achaemenian (Persian) period possessed such spiritual and cultural values, and therefore could acquire domination, irrespective of the militaryand political power which it also enjoyed" (Afnan 1969, 18). It survived long after the end of Achaemenian military power. Subsequent history tells us how in the form of Mithraism and Manichaeism, it spread throughout Europe and retained its missionary appeal and zeal down to the rise of Islam (Afnan 1969, 18). Part of the allure of Plato's academy was its strong association with the wisdom of the Magi. There are accounts that Magi mourned the death of Plato. As Peter Kingsley wrote in "Meetings with Magi: Iranian Themes among the Greeks, from Xanthus of Lydia to Plato's Academy," "the Magi were not the only people in Athens 48 Afnan also compared the history of futile religious suppression in Athens to the early suppression of Christianity in Rome.


For instance, the Roman Emperor Diocletian became aware of the futility of trying to suppress Christianity when he learned that his wife and daughter were secret supporters of the new faith (Afnan 1969, 24). Afnan then claimed that the reform and "rebirth of Zoroastrianism under the [Sassanians], can be traced back to the spiritual awakening effected by the Christian spirit" (Afnan 1969, 25). By observing the spirit and teachings of Christianity, the Iranians became conscious of their own heritage (Afnan 1969, 25). 75 who sensed something very special about Plato. There were evidently discussions by both Persians and Greeks about the nature of the man and about the timing of his death; and it is rather disconcerting that, according to Zoroastrian tradition, the Saosyant – the great being'who will bring benefit to the whole corporeal world' and prelude the dawning of the future age – will be miraculously born by a virgin" (Yasht 13.129; Darmesteter (Tr.) 1883, 220-221, Boyce 1975, 282-287, and Kingsley 1995, 197).49 "The broad analogies between Plato and Jesus (virgin birth; visits from Magi) are certainly not just due to the imposition of Christian themes on pagan biography" (Kingsley 1995, 197). Like Afnan and Kingsley, Lawrence H. Mills was also interested in Zoroaster's influence on Greek thought. In Zarathustra, Philo, the Achaemenids, and Israel, he suggested that the Zoroastrian conception of Vohu Manah (Good Mentality), which was essentially an expression for the attributes of "truth and benevolence," was practically synonymous with the Greek conception of logos (knowledge) (Mills 1977, 20). According to


Mills, no subject in the range of ancient oriental literature should be considered more important of its kind than that collection of the venerable documents which are known as the Avesta (Mills 1977, 1). However, its influence was largely ignored since most modern scholars were unaware of its antiquity. 49 "Speusippus – Plato's nephew, and the man who succeeded him as head of the Academy after he died – mentioned the belief already current in Athens that Plato was Appollonian in nature, that he was a son of Apollo, and that his had been a virgin birth" (Kingsley 1995, 197). 76 Travel Writing This section surveys the available accounts of various European travelers. Pedro Teixeira seems to have been the first modern European traveler to notice that Zoroastrianswere still living in Iran (Teixeira 1902, 196 and Firby 1988, 24). Teixeira was an independent Portuguese traveler of Jewish descent. His career as a soldier, trader, and physician led him to places such as India, East Africa, Iran (Persia), Malacca, and Mexico as he traveled around the world between 1586 and 1601 (Firby 1988, 24). "He made a second journey to India in 1604 and returned by way of Basra – Aleppo. This journey occupied most of his narrative, written in Spanish and published at Antwerp in 1610" (Firby 1988, 24). His texts mainly reflect the views of non-Zoroastrians, who were prepared to accept the antiquity of their traditions, but held the religion in contempt as a superstitious form of sun worship (Teixeira 1902, 196 and Firby


77 three thousand five hundred years it has not been extinct for an instant" (Teixeira 1902, 196). In 1660, Father Raphael du Mans, a French Capuchin friar, published L'Estat de La Perse [The State of Persia]. It was based on the many years he had spent as a missionary in the city of Esfahan, Iran. He wrote a few pages about his encounters with people he considered to be survivors of the ancient fire-worshippers. He asked them whether they believed fire was their god and they replied that they did not believe fire was god, but they did believe that it was the noblest and most profitable of the elements (du Mans 1969, 43). As traveling in Iran became more fashionable for Europeans, du Mans's memoirs became extremelyuseful for people like Jean-Baptiste Tavernier, Jean de Thévenot, and Jean Chardin (Duchesne-Guillemin 1958, 6). Tavernier was a merchant explorer who published accounts of his travels through Iran and India in Le Six Voyages de JeanBaptiste Tavernier en Turquie, en Perse, aut ex Indes [The Six Voyages of Jean-Baptiste Tavernier in Turkey, Persia, and India] (1675). Like du Mans, he also wrote about his encounters with people associated with the ancient fire worshippers, and claimed that "they had a confused knowledge of the mysteries of the Christian religion" (Tavernier 1679, 97). As Duchesne-Guillemin noted, this was the first modern reference to a connection between Christianity and the Persian religion (Duchesne-Guillemin 1958, 7). Tavernier wrote that his observations were drawn from associating with Zoroastrians in 78 India as well


as Persia (Iran), and that he had lived among the Iranian Zoroastrians in Kerman for three months (Tavernier 1684, 163, Tavernier 1724, 91, and Firby 1988, 39). While he was in Iran, Tavernier was joined by Thévenot, another wealthy traveler interested in Eastern exploration. They traveled south and visited the ancient ruins of the Persian Empire before moving West toward the Persian Gulf. Thévenot also published accounts of his travels (Thévenot 1664 and Thévenot 1687). Despite his "rigorously exact remarks," on the customs of modern Iranians, Thévenot appears to have made little effort to inquire closely into the religion and customs of the Zoroastrian Iranians during the five months he spent at Esfahan and his comments contain no fresh information (Firby 1988, 69). "He commented briefly on theirheld the great books of the Persian Zoroastrians. He claimed that "I had in my power the texts in which their religion is written down, as well 79 as many other ideas which are mixed up with it" (Chardin 1988, 363). Chardin described the Supreme Being of the Zoroastrian faith who transcends the battle between truth and falsehood. He provided a comprehensive account of his interactions with Zoroastrians. He also wrote about the poor conditions they endured. The Zoroastrians he encountered were excused from various fines and taxes since they were so poor (Firby 1988, 60). He wrote, that it is "well known they were a wretchedly poor sort of People and under great distress" (Chardin 1686, 98). Although he found their appearance unattractive compared to the Muslim


Iranians, he attributed it to poverty rather than nature, for some women were good looking enough (Chardin 1988, 127 Firby 1988, 60). Chardin also noted that agriculture, gardening, and vine culture were the principal occupations of the Zoroastrians (Firby 1988, 60). They regarded these occupations "as meritorious and noble...the first of all vocations, that for which the Sovereign God and the lesser gods as they say, have the most satisfaction and which they reward most amply...their Priests teaching them that the most virtuous action is to engender children and next to cultivate a soil untilled to plant a tree" (Chardin 1988, 127-128). According to Chardin's accounts, the Zoroastrians he observed were mostly manual laborers of some sort and rarely engaged in commerce or liberal arts (Chardin 1988, 127).In 1697, French scholar Barthélemy d'Herbelot published Bibliothèque orientale [Eastern Library] and noted that the "ancient Persians have it that Zoroaster was more ancient than Moses, and there are Magi who even maintain that he is none other than Abraham and call him Ibrahim Zardusht" (d'Herbelot 1697, 931). In his Philosophical 80 Dictionary (1764), François-Marie Arouet, also known as Voltaire, wrote that "this name Bram, Abram, was famous in India and Persia: some learned men even allege that he was the same legislator as the one the Greeks called Zoroaster. Others say that he was the Brahma of the Indians, but this has not been proved. But what appears very reasonable to many scholars is that this Abraham was a Chaldean or a Persian. Later on the Jews


boasted that they were descended from him, as the Franks descend from Hector, and the Bretons from Tubal (Voltaire 2004, 18-19). According to the Judaic tradition, the Hebrew people were descendants of Abraham through his son Isaac. Meanwhile, the Arabs "boast that they descend from Abraham through Ishmael" (Voltaire 2004, 16). English scholar Thomas Hyde also supported the monotheist legacy of the Zoroastrians and suggested that Greek and Roman sources on Zoroastrianism were biased and inaccurate (Hyde 1760, 120). As far as Hyde was concerned, the Greeks were idolaters who could never understand the religious philosophy of the Iranians (Hyde 1760, 120). Chardin's accounts had a tremendous effect on numerous other scholars such as Hyde. Hyde coined the term "dualism" as a description of the heretical philosophies ofManichaeism and Mazdakism. These philosophies either relapsed into dualism or aimed to metaphorically revive some of the pre-Zoroastrian traditions. Hyde published De Veterum Persarum et Parthorum et Medorum Religionis Historia [A History of the Persian, Parthian and Median religion] (1700), hoping to synthesize Zoroastrianism and Christianity. 81 Based on the accounts of Chardin, Hyde suggested that Zoroastrianism was a monotheist religion. He accused the Greek and Roman sources of personifying Zoroastrian concepts which led to a polytheistic interpretation of the faith. He referred to Zoroaster as a monotheist reformer but in seeking to reconcile Christianity with Zoroastrianism he introduced his own bias. For Hyde, Zoroaster was not only the mentor of Pythagoras, he also prophesized about Christ while borrowing from Jewish prophets (Duchesne-Guillemin 1958, 10). In his portrayal


of Zoroaster and his religion, "Hyde is bent on showing them in the light most favorable to Christian eyes" (Duchesne-Guillemin 1958, 11). Hyde appealed to scholars to search for manuscripts of Zoroastrian texts. In 1718, George Boucher, an English resident of India, managed to procure from the Parsis of Surat a manuscript of the Vendidad Sadah (Eduljee 2007, 1). The book, whose text was unintelligible to its new owners, was hung on the wall of the Bodleian Library in Oxford by a chain. It remained a passing curiosity until Abraham Anquetil du Perron came across the tracings of four pages of the manuscript that were sent to Paris (Eduljee 2007, 1). Like Boucher, he answered Hyde's call to procure more manuscripts by traveling to India to search formore ancient texts. The Real Enlightenment Anquetil was a scholar of Indian culture who is best known for publishing a French translation of the Avesta (Anquetil Ed. and Tr., 1771). After he translated the Avesta, he also acquired a manuscript of the Upanishads which he published in Latin (Anquetil Ed. 82 and Tr., 1801). While living in India, he learned Farsi from Parsi priests. These priests translated the Avesta into Modern Farsi which Anquetil used for a French translation. The French translation was published as the Zend Avesta (Anquetil Ed. and Tr., 1771). It included various other Zoroastrian manuscripts as well as the Bundahishn, which was an Iranian encyclopedia of Zoroastrianism compiled during the seventh century CE (Jackson 1899, 16). The term Zend refers to "interpretation" but Anquetil


thought that it was a synonym for the Avestai language. This is attributed to the interpretive texts included in certain copies of the Avesta which were referred to as the "Zend." Thus, Anquetil mistakenly used the title "Zend Avesta" to describe the translation of the Avesta itself. Hegel repeated this error based on the works of Anquetil (Hegel 1991b, 176). In a reference to the Zend (Avastai) language, Hegel wrote that until "nearly the last third of the eighteenth century, this language and all the writing composed in it, were entirely unknown to Europeans, when at length, the celebrated Frenchman Anquetil-Duperron, disclosed to us these rich treasures" (Hegel 1991b, 176). When he returned to Europe, Anquetil claimed that Zoroastrianism was a creationist faith which is best classified aspure monotheism. However, he also blamed Zoroaster's followers for the corruption of the tradition which also explained why Greek and Roman sources considered it a polytheist faith. Anquetil supported Hyde's claims that Zoroastrianism was linked to the legacy of Abraham as well as the notion that it was a forerunner of Christianity (Eduljee 2007, 1). "He started the great movement of 83 archeological and philological research owing to which modern man was to expand the knowledge of his origins far beyond the classical and biblical horizon" (DuchesneGuillemin 1952, 1). Until this point, it was possible for most Europeans to believe that the world had begun as is told in Genesis, and civilization with the Greeks and Romans (Duchesne-Guillemin 1952, 1). This position was shattered by the mass of


discoveries about ancient Iran, India, Mesopotamia, and Egypt, to which Anquetil's achievement was a sort of prelude (Duchesne-Guillemin 1952, 1). Nevertheless, after Anquetil's publication of the first European translation of the Avesta, "a violent dispute broke out at once, as half the learned world denied the authenticity of the Avesta, which it pronounced a forgery" (Darmesteter 1965, xv). The war against Anquetil was opened by William Jones, a young Oxonian, who later created the Royal Asiatic Society (Darmesteter 1965, xv). Jones was offended by the scornful tone that Anquetil adopted toward Hyde and a few other English scholars: the Avesta suffered for the fault of its introducer, Zoroaster for Anquetil (Darmesteter 1965, xv). His main argument was that any books, full of such silly tales, of laws andrules so absurd, of descriptions of gods and demons, so grotesque, could not be the work of a sage like Zoroaster, or the code of a religion so much celebrated for its simplicity, wisdom, and purity (Darmesteter 1965, xvi). Jones concluded that the Avesta was an expression of praise for a more recent form of the Zoroastrian tradition. However, according to James Darmesteter, Jones only wanted to somehow validate his belief that the ancient Persians and the authors of the Avesta were inferior to the Enlightenment 84 thinkers of the eighteenth century simply because they had not read or considered the ideas presented in Denis Diderot and Jean le Rond d'Alembert's Encyclopedie, published in 28 volumes between 1751 and 1772 (Darmesteter 1965, xvi). Anquetil's works were passionately supported


by Johann Friedrich Kleuker, a protestant pastor and professor of theology. In 1776, Kleuker published a German translation of the Zend Avesta. This translation helped some German scholars establish their country as the European headquarters for Zoroastrian studies. As time went on, more people began to accept Anquetil's translation of the Avesta as a legitimate source. By 1825, scholars no longer disputed its authenticity since it was supported by recent advances in Sanskrit studies and comparative linguistics. Nevertheless, Anquetil's translation did include a few small mistakes which were attributed to misinterpretations of certain passages. In 1826, the Danish philologist Rasmus Kristian Rask demonstrated that Avestai is a distinct branch of the ancient Indo-European languages even though it is closely related to Sanskrit (Rask 1834, 3). Based on thisrelationship, philologist Eugène Burnouf used parts of the Avesta, which had been translated into Sanskrit from Pahlavi versions by Parsi scholar Naryosangh during the 15th century, in order to improve Anquetil's translations (Darmesteter 1965, xxiv). Later, many other scholars such as Franz Bopp, Martin Haug, Karl Joseph Windischmann, Niels Ludvig Westergaard, Rudolf von Roth, Friedrich von Spiegel, Karl Friedrich Geldner, Christian Bartholomae, James Darmesteter, and Lawrence H. Mills also used Sanskrit as a reference for the 85 meaning of words in order to interpret and translate the Pahlavi sources of the Parsis. Darmesteter noted that "the key to the Avesta is not the Pahlavi, but the Veda" (Darmesteter 1965, xxvi). In other words, he believed that the most efficient method of interpretation for Avestai works was to compare


it to the Vedic works since they were both composed in ancient Indo-European languages and contain similar content. European Adventures The adventurous travels of European explorers, scholars, and missionaries became quite trendy in the sixteenth and seventeenth century. Their curiosity about the exotic and mysterious lifestyles of the people "from the East" led to major historical discoveries. Not surprisingly, these discoveries led to a tremendous amount of reflection and self-discovery. It provided useful and provocative material for philosophical debate, especially during the era of Romanticism. The figure of Zoroaster and the sources for the Avesta were "highly topical in the eighteenth century" (Van Den Berk 2004, 210). "It was Voltaire especially who used this religious genius as a weapon against the churches, because he regarded him as thefounder of a natural religion, even before Moses founded Judaism" (Van Den Berk 2004, 210). Voltaire emphasized that "it cannot be too often repeated that the Jewish books are very recent. Ignorance and fanaticism proclaim that the Pentateuch is the oldest book in the world. It is evident that those of Sanchionathan, those of the first Zoroaster, the Shasta: the Vedas of the Indians – which we still have, the five Kings of the Chinese, finally the book of Job are an antiquity much more distant than any Jewish book" 86 (Voltaire 2004, 260). According to Allan Arkush, "Voltaire's voluminous writings on religion contain, as is well known, a large number of attacks on the Jewish people and Judaism. Historians have offered a variety of explanations for this


sustained animosity on the part of a great rationalist and proponent of religious toleration toward a people and a religion which continued, in his own day, to be victimized by unjust persecution (Emmrich 1930, 256 and Gay 1959, 353). While much remains in dispute, there does seem to be general agreement that Voltaire attacked Judaism at least in part because its most sacred texts constituted the foundation of Christianity, the religion he wished to destroy" (Arkush 1993, 223). As far as Voltaire was concerned, the Christian Church was the most serious obstacle to the age of reason, so he aimed "to expose a civilization that still regarded beliefs or disbeliefs in certain survivals of primitive folklore, which the Christian Church erected into incontestable dogmas, as matters of lifeand death" (Rosenthal 1955, 151-152, and 159).50 However, since he found it "imprudent to attack official Christianity directly, he resorted to indirect devices" (Rosenthal 1955, 159). The sharp tone and wit employed by Voltaire in his anti-religious rhetoric certainly produced some biased critiques of various religious figures. However, his views on religion were generally rooted in a rational deism which attributed the success of most nations to moral leadership and practical innovations. He believed that everywhere people looked they would find the masses to be foolish, imbecile and 50 "Suffice it to mention the fact that witch-hunting was still a grim reality in eighteenth-century Europe" (Rosenthal 1955, 152). 87 superstitious (Voltaire 1785, 121 and Rosenthal 1955, 163). "It is in conformity with this that Voltaire often distinguished what


he called pure or rational religion, from a superstitious religion committed to a belief in absurd dogmas and to the observance of meaningless ceremonies" (Rosenthal 1955, 163). In an article on "Voltaire's Philosophy of History," Jerome Rosenthal wrote that Voltaire believed "nations were good or blessed with good ideas if they had religious and moral leaders or wise legislators and proper ideas. Thus the Chinese had the good luck of having had Confucius, the old Persians a Zoroaster, the ancient Hindus an ideal group of Brahmans, the Arabs a Mohammed. The Jews on the other hand, had the misfortune of having been cursed with a barbarian like Moses" (Rosenthal 1955, 167 and Voltaire 1785, 475).51 For Voltaire, a philosopher is a lover of wisdom, that is to say,of truth. He stated that "the philosopher is not an enthusiast, he does not set himself up as a prophet, [and] he does not claim to be inspired by the gods. So I would not include among the philosophers the ancient Zoroaster, nor Hermes, nor the ancient Orpheus, nor any of the legislators boasted by the nations of Chaldea, Persia, Syria, Egypt, and Greece. Those who called themselves children of the gods were the fathers of imposture, and if they used lies to teach truths they were 51 "It was Voltaire himself who gave the title of philosophy of history to the first part of his Essai sur les Moeurs et L'Esprit des Nations" (1756) (An Essay on Universal History, the Manners, and Spirit of Nations (Mr. Nugent,


Ed. and Tr. 1759) (Rosenthal 1955, 151). "Voltaire was quite explicit about the role he assigned to great men in history, and stated that 'without morally useful extraordinary men mankind would always remain at the level of wild beasts'" (Voltaire 1785, 485 and Rosenthal 1955, 167). 88 unworthy to teach them, they were not philosophers: they were at the most very careful liars" (Voltaire 2004, 334). Although Voltaire associated some of Zoroaster's fame with religion, he recognized that his ideas were not inspired by miracles or any other concepts that he deemed incompatible with deism and natural observation. "In describing ancient Persia he exclaims: 'Here we find a useful religion based on a belief in the immortality of the soul and in a supreme creator'" (Voltaire 1785, 53and Rosenthal 1955, 159). Voltaire regarded the belief in a supreme creator as the product of reason. In a section on "Zoroaster" in his Dictionary of Philosophy, Voltaire wrote, "if it is Zoroaster who first told the men this beautiful maxim: 'When in doubt if an action is good or bad, abstain,' Zoroaster was the first of men after Confucius. If this beautiful lesson of morality is only found in the hundred doors Sadder (Sad dar), long after Zoroaster, let us bless the author of the Sadder, you can have ridiculous dogmas and rites with excellent morals" (Voltaire 1826, 517).52 According to Jenny Rose, "just before his death, Voltaire (1694-1778), 52 Sadder, also known as Sad dar, means "one hundred doors." "There are various texts called Sad dar,


a collection of Persian religious literature" (Van Den Berk 2004, 210). "Voltaire did not know what to do with these obscure texts" (Van Den Berk 2004, 210). Meanwhile, "Franklin had already encountered Zoroaster as the source of 'a nice morality,' and in a letter sent from London on January 13, 1772, to Ezra Stiles (President of Yale, 1778-1795), Franklin recommended the purchase of the work entitled 'Zend Avesta, or the Writings of Zoroaster,' containing 'the Theological, Philosophical and Moral Ideas of that Legislator and the Ceremonies of Religious Worship that he established'" (Franklin 1987, 875 and Rose 2011, 241).54 53 Yuhan Vevaina noted that in "discussing the Romantic Movement, Rose cited Voltaire, 'Zoroaster is spoken of much, and will be spoken of again'" (Rose 2000, 149 and VevainaWe hear of two other Zoroasters, the first from nine thousand years ago, which is a lot for us, although it is very little to the world] (Voltaire 1826, 517). 54 "This was a reference to the recently translated publication by Anquetil Duperron" (Rose 2011, 241). 90 In 1776, a German translation of the Avesta was welcomed with much enthusiasm (Van Den Berk 2004, 210). "In hindsight, the publication of the Avesta signified the beginning of reliable scientific research, research that only really took off in the twentieth century" (Van Den Berk 2004, 210). In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, many scholars began noticing the connections among ancient Iranian, Indian, and European cultures. In 1786, a British judge in Calcutta, Sir William Jones, published his findings that there


were striking similarities in the vocabulary and grammar of Sanskrit, Persian, and several European languages (Eduljee 2007, 1).55 By the 1820s, the Avestai manuscripts from Iran and India were widely studied by scholars of Sanskrit and Vedic texts who used comparative linguistics as a means of deciphering them (Eduljee 2007, 1). As Josef Wiesehöfer noted in his book on Ancient Persia, Anquetil's "translation of the holy script of the Zoroastrians lent the study of Iranian languages an enormous impetus" (Wiesehöfer 1996, 234). According to Max Müller, in 1657, "when the Upanishads had once been translated from Sanskrit into Persian (Farsi), at that time the most widely read language of the East and understood likewise by many European scholars, they became generally accessible to all who took an interestin the religious literature of India" (Müller 1879, lvii-lviii). However, the Upanishads did not attract the attention of European 55 "The Aryan problem was innocuously created when in 1584 an Italian merchant, Philippo Sessetti, visited Goa and learnt some Sanskrit which he found somewhat similar to Greek and Latin, but it was William Jones's founding of the Asiatic Society of Bengal in 1784 and his English translation of Kälidäsa's Šakuntala that the study of comparative philology received great philip. The field of Vedic studies was dominated by experts in linguistics during the nineteenth century in which Germans were in the forefront" (Dhavalikar 2006, 1). 91 scholars until the time of Anquetil. After he translated the Avesta, Anquetil also received a manuscript of a Persian translation of the Upanishads,


17-18). He realized that unlike the Semitic scripts which it evolved from, it was alphabetic and each word was separated by a slanted symbol (Sayce 1908, 11). However, European scholars were unable to decipher the meaning of the inscription until 1838, when Sir Henry Rawlinson used Greek texts to match each character in the Bisutun inscriptions (Rawlinson 1846, 8-53 and Pringle 2006, 184). The ancient Persian inscriptions at Persepolis and Bisutun were deciphered at the same time by Eugene Burnouf in Paris, by Christian Lassen in Bonn, and by Sir Henry Rawlinson in Iran 92 (Darmesteter 1965, xxv). The names of Kings and dynasties were mentioned in Greek sources from Herodotus, Diogenes, Plato, and Aristotle. The advances in comparative linguistics during this period were inseparable from the spiritualdiscoveries of European explorers and scholars who traveled to the Eastern part of the world. This union of faith and reason epitomized the rhetoric of the Romantic philosophers. During the late 1800s, the Romantic philosophers discussed the decline of feeling and spiritual reason. The Romantic Movement represented an antithesis to the cold rational individualism associated with a preceding movement known as the Enlightenment. One of the early critics of the Enlightenment was the German philosopher Johann Gottfried Herder. According to Michael Stausberg, he was electrified by Anquetil's works on the history of Zoroastrianism (Stausberg 2005, 1). In 1774, he published Another Philosophy of History in which he outlined distinct stages of human history and predicted that enlightened nationalism would lead to mutual respect among nations. His philosophy initiated


the rebellious form of German Romanticism which culminated in the works of G.W.F. Hegel. In his lectures on the Philosophy of History, which were delivered between 1821 and 1831, Hegel asserted that continuous history began in Iran with Zoroaster's discovery of the Universal Spirit (Hegel 1991b, 173). He organized history into four distinct phases which he referred to as the "Oriental, Greek, Roman, and German realms." Hegel's phases of history overlapped with the gradual westward expansion of human civilization, but each phase was invariably defined by the rise and decline of spiritual life. The 93 westward expansion of human civilization followed the pattern of the sun (Hegel 1991b, 103). Hegel was undoubtedly influenced by recent trends in Asian studies. He read the Zend-Avesta in Kleuker's translation but itis uncertain whether he was aware of the French translation by Anquetil (Hodgson 2006, 305).56 In the mid-nineteenth century, German philologist Martin Haug isolated the Gathas as the hymns of Zoroaster (Haug 1865, 1). The followers of Zoroaster memorized the exact pronunciation of the Gathas, which preserved their linguistic form, but the "less sacred" works were handed down in a more fluid oral transmission, which was partly memorized and partly composed by various generations (Boyce 1984, 2). There are parts of the Avesta and several other Pahlavi texts which indicated the exceptional importance of the Gathas. Haug also suggested that although Zoroaster's existential philosophy could be described as dualist, the Gathas clearly demonstrate that his theology was monotheist (Eduljee 2007, 3 and Haug 1865, 3). As Mary Boyce


admirable way of creating for Zoroaster's first followers a feeling of solidarity and shared aims; and through the dedication of each feast they were reminded of fundamental doctrine, an important function in a society which had no books, statues or shrines, but found religious images in natural phenomena" (Boyce 2005, 5). According to Haug, the structured rituals of the Zoroastrian faith were introduced by Zoroaster's followers (Haug 1865, 25). This clearly contradicted the founding principles of Zoroaster's philosophy. In turn, Haug believed that Zoroaster "had been the bearer of a rational and ethical theism, which was so remote from the concepts and customs of his own people that, though they brought themselves to accept his teachings, they could not long live their austerity, [and] soon distorted them, relapsingAvesta (1879) as part of the Sacred Books of the East collection which was edited by Friedrich Max Müller.57 As mentioned, the term "Zend-Avesta" is mistakenly used by many western scholars to describe the Avesta itself since Anquetil thought the term "Zend" referred to a specific language rather than interpretative commentaries. Darmesteter published the second volume of the Zend Avesta (1883) which included the Yashts, Sirozahs, and Nyayis. Lawrence H. Mills published the final volume of the Zend Avesta (1887), as Darmesteter was apparently unable to find the time to finish his assigned portion of the Sacred Books collection (Mills 1887, ix). Mills translated the 57 According to Darmesteter, the Zend-Avesta is the sacred book of the Parsis, that is to say, of the few remaining followers of


in French (1948) which M. Henning translated into English (1952). Duchesne-Guillemin was apparently unsatisfied with previous translations, since scholars like Darmesteter denied the antiquity of the Gathas despite linguistic evidence in order to support the supremacy of the Greek tradition, while the Swedish scholar Henrik Samuel Nyberg, without denying its antiquity, sought to deny its philosophical character by portraying Zoroaster as a shamanistic Mongol sorcerer (Duchesne-Guillemin 1952, 3). According to DuchesneGuillemin, "Zoroaster will be revealed to us as an innovator who crossed at one step a decisive stage in the history of human thought" (Duchesne-Guillemin 1952, 2). "Zoroaster is, in fact, [and] in the full sense of the word;; the first theologian" (DuchesneGuillemin 1952, 2).60 Henning's English translation of Duchesne-Guillemin's French version is not significantly different from Guthrie'stranslation besides subtle differences such as an "ox-soul" instead of "Bovine Creation," "Wise Lord" for "Ahura Mazda (mindful)," and 60 "Zoroaster was a priest by profession. He has said so, and he manifestly knew the formulae, the prayers, and the poetry which were inherited from ancient times" (Duchesne-Guillemin 1952, 4). His hymns were composed in a priestly language with complex metaphors. They are the relics of a major social and philosophical transformation in regard to religious observances. 101 "Righteousness" as "Justice." However, Duchesne-Guillemin rearranged the order of the chapters of the Gathas, aiming deliberately at a better orientation of the reader (Duchesne-Guillemin 1952, 23). Duchesne-Guillemin claimed that "it is not known in what order the Gathas were composed" (Duchesne-Guillemin 1952, 23). Following the practice of Persian poetry, they


collaborated on a translation of the Gathas (1909) based on Andreas's theories about the transmission of Avestai texts during the Parthian period (Windfuhr 1971, 121). Although the use of the Pahlavi script can be traced back to the Parthian period (248 BCE-224 CE), the general opinion of most historians is that the Avestai alphabet was not developed until the third century CE, or the early part of the Sassanian era (Windfuhr 1971, 121 and Boyce 1984, 1). Humbach's translation certainly differs from previous translations, and 102 "at times the difference involves no greater degree of uncertainty than what attends the interpretations he wishes to displace, but more often than not he oversteps the limits of prudence" (Gershevitch 1962, 367). Gershevitch believed that the "the Gathas are dangerous literature,"centuries, various travelers and missionaries brought knowledge of the Zoroastrian tradition to European scholars. During this period, there was relatively little written material produced by the Zoroastrians themselves (Firby 1988, 15). The Zoroastrians of Iran had been gradually reduced to a poor and intellectually isolated community that was mainly concerned with the preservation of their core teachings (Boyce 1984, 5). Though this does not deny the importance of any 103 internal material, scholars were forced to rely heavily upon external sources, in particular, upon the accounts of European travelers (Firby 1988, 15). In the following chapters, I will argue that these accounts had a major influence on modern European philosophy, especially in Germany, where it dramatically altered the history of Aryan nationalism. 104 Chapter Three Zoroastrianism and the


Philosophy of History The subject of this chapter is the influence of Zoroastrianism on postEnlightenment European philosophy of history. It begins with a brief background of how Zoroastrianism changed the idea of history as well as a review of various studies concerning the philosophy of history.61 To propose a philosophy of history, one must engage in reflection on history as a whole and search for a common theme or purpose. In the story of history, a common theme is analogous to the protagonist of a theatrical play. For post-enlightenment philosophers such as Herder and Hegel, the protagonist in the story of history was the Universal Spirit. The Phenomenology of Mind The belief in a Universal Spirit was first achieved through the intellectual conclusions of Zoroaster. This marked thefirst instance for which we have any evidence in which a human realized that that all humans could be united by the phenomenology of mind. It led to a huge transformation in social thought, which led to a more philosophical 61 According to the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, philosophy of history refers to the philosophical study of human history and the attempts to record and interpret it (Audi 1995, 584). During the fourteenth century, Abu Zayd Ibn Khaldun wrote a detailed volume on the study of history in which he noted the difference between critical history (historiography) and speculative history (Ibn Khaldun 1989, 5). Speculative history can be defined as the study of the intelligibility of the historical process as a whole (Fillion 2005, 47). In the nineteenth


century, Hegel listed three main methods of treating history, which he called "original, reflective, and philosophical" (Hegel 1991b, 1). Although he carefully examined and explained each method, he claimed that the first two do not require explanation for they are self-evident (Hegel 1991b, 8). He included critical history as a component of reflective history (Hegel 1991b, 7). As a general definition, "Hegel claimed that the Philosophy of History means nothing but the thoughtful consideration of it" (Hegel 1991b, 8). 105 and continuous perspective of human history. The followers of Mazda moved away from the perception that humans played an indirect role in history, in which their livelihood depended on religious sacrifices and rituals. They were invited to actively free themselves from the cosmological struggle of light and darkness.a person was "mindful to watch over the soul of the Bovine creation" (Yasna 28.4; Guthrie (Tr.) 1914). In other words, justice was personified by the people who protected sheep and cattle from the religious sacrifices of raiding nomads. According to Zoroaster, the Universal Spirit can be found in the human mind. In Farsi, and many Indo-European languages, "man" refers to "oneself," which eventually became the term for "humanity." In the Avesta, it says that Ahura Mazda, the creator of the universe, is one with Spenta Mainyu, the "bounteous spirit" which presides over man (Yasna 36.1; Guthrie (Tr.) 1914). The term "Spenta" translates as "bounteous" and 106 "Mainyu" translates as "spirit." The term "Main" is derived from the term "man" and the word connotes his or her ability


to think by adding "yu" (Gershevitch 1985, 641). As mentioned, Vohu Mana is the term for "good mind or disposition." It is antithetical to the hostile and angry disposition associated with "Angra Mainyu" (Yasna 45.2; Guthrie (Tr.) 1914). Thus, in the Zoroastrian tradition, spirit and mind are practically synonymous in both philosophical and linguistic terms. The core philosophy is mainly a guide to spiritual freedom through moral enlightenment. It is a fusion of the abstract spiritual realm with the concrete moral lessons of daily life. The History of the Philosophy of History Although many philosophers of history borrowed from the Zoroastrian tradition with little or no acknowledgment, there were rare cases when its importance was not overlooked. In his lectures on the Philosophy of History, Hegel stated thathuman history began in Iran due to Zoroaster's discovery of the Universal Spirit (Hegel 1991b, 173). For Hegel, history was the unique process in which the Universal Spirit became completely conscious of itself. As mentioned, Hegel organized history into four distinct phases based on the rise and decline of spiritual life. There were many other philosophers such as Johann Gottfried Herder, Karl Marx, and Arnold Toynbee who identified distinct realms or stages in history before and after Hegel's lectures. The rhetoric of stages and phases is a common theme among philosophers of history, as well as "political leaders." When Alexander invaded Iran he tried to impose a new calendar based on the "Age of Alexander" (Shahbazi 1977, 25). 107 The Roman Emperor Julius Caesar also introduced calendar reforms


to honor his legacy. For secular Western historians, the so-called "common era" was marked by what Christian historians consider the "year of the lord" or the approximate birth of Jesus Christ. For Islamic historians, the "common era" began with Mohammad's trip to Medina. In the twentieth century CE, Hitler's plan to save Germany was based on a three stage plan where the country would rearm, industrialize, and fight an epic war against France and Russia (Hitler 1934, 263). This set of examples illustrates the millenarian legacy of Zoroastrianism and its relevance to the philosophy of history. Zoroaster proclaimed his discovery as the beginning of a "New Day," which was an early instance of a person marking a distinct phase of history. This "New Day" was also the firstday of the New Year, which Iranians celebrate during the Spring Equinox. An Equinox symbolizes cosmological alignment and equilibrium, as well as the belief in immortality, regeneration, and God worship. It is an ideal moment to begin a new stage. Zoroaster understood that the spring season festivals which inspired his discovery represented the beginning of a new stage in history. It marked a clear transition to monotheist thought. Lastly, another major reason why Zoroastrianism is particularly relevant to the philosophy of history is its unique connection to the dialectical tradition of juxtaposition and interaction. The sources which compose the Zoroastrian tradition are characterized by a dialectical style of argumentation in both style and content. This is particularly pertinent to the philosophy of history articulated by Karl Marx, which


was a critique of Hegelian idealism. For Marx, history was driven by the antithesis of Spirit, otherwise 108 known as Matter. Although Marx attempted to re-articulate Hegel's communitarian thought from a purely material perspective, he adapted his dialectical method of argumentation. Light and Darkness There are a variety of terms which have been used to describe the dualist perception of the universe but the core idea is shared across several ancient cultures.62 As Arnold Toynbee wrote in A Study of History, "the idea that the dialectical interaction of opposites culminates in progressive motion has served in many other ages and societies as a key for understanding the nature of creation and the process of growth: in Greece the forces were identified as love and hate, in China asabsorption of the light which reflects off matter. 109 Guthrie (Tr.) 1914). The followers of Ahura Mazda refuse to follow the destructive spirit known as Angra Mainyu (Deceitful Mind), so they keep away from spoiled food and everlasting darkness (Yasna 31.20; Guthrie (Tr.) 1914). The content in the Avesta is a prime example of the dialectical process identified by Toynbee and a synthesis of the dualist perspective. The Light of Zoroaster The primary evidence for the origin of Iranian culture and language is found in spiritual cosmology. The Iranian languages are classified under the Indo-Iranian branch of Indo-European languages (Rask 1834, 3, Testen 2011, 289-290, and Bertoncini et al. 2012, 391). The Eastern and Western branches of Old Iranian languages are both rooted in the Avestai language but


is considered the impure element in everything – the hideous, the evil, the principle of death and destruction (Hegel 1879, 11). A variety of other cultures, such as the Indo-Aryans, the Greeks, and the Chinese, also associated divinities with their antitheses in order to express a dualist perspective on the world. For instance, the key to enlightenment in the Hindu philosophy was to transcend the conflicting spirits of the universe. In the East Asian philosophies of religion, the Yin-Yang symbol represented the proper balance of conflicting spirits. In Greece, dualism was illustrated by love and hate (Toynbee 1972, 74). There are many other dialectical concepts which describe this perspective. Based on Aristotle's description of the Pythagorean Table of Opposites in his lectures on Metaphysics, some of the commonto resist the momentum of the spirit of light and begin recovering its strength. Although the weather is relatively warm and daytime is longer than nighttime, daytime begins to decrease. During the autumnal equinox, the dark spirit was believed to conquer the spirit of light. At this point, the period of daytime continues to get shorter than the period of nighttime. As the harvesting season begins to close and the evil spirit gains momentum, it culminates in a harsh winter, or a season of rapid destruction that continues to get worse until the winter solstice. As mentioned in the beginning of the description of the seasonal cycle, the winter solstice represented the moment when the spirit of light was able to resist the attacks of the dark spirit


and begin recovering its relative strength. The 113 ancient Iranians and Indo-Aryans held major festivals and feasts to celebrate the seasons and solstices.66 According to the Bundahishn, an Iranian encyclopedia from the seventh century CE, Zoroaster discovered the Universal Spirit at the precise moment of twilight during a spring festival (Bundahishn 25.1-26; Anklesaria (Tr.) 1956, 114-115). The Life Zoroaster is known in the Iranian speaking world as "Zardosht," which is derived from "Zaratushtra." The term "ushtra" relates to the term for light and astrological knowledge but it may have originally been used to describe a golden camel. Zoroaster's name is very metaphoric as it is associated with terms related to purity, light, and pastoral culture. Zoroaster's ideas were well known among the Aryan tribes prior to the establishmentof the Persian Empire. According to the accounts of Zoroaster's life in the Denkard and Bundahishn, at the age of thirty, Zoroaster attended a spring festival and at dawn he went to fetch water from a nearby river for the haoma ceremony (Bundahishn 25.1-26; Anklesaria (Tr.) 1956, 114-115 and Boyce 1975, 184). This event marked his discovery of the Universal Spirit. The haoma ritual is an ancient Indo-Iranian tradition. 66 "Internal evidence in the Old Avestai texts indicates that Zoroaster's own people were settled pastoralists. As such, they both tilled the soil and kept cattle on pasture lands, and so could have celebrated an autumn new year's day, as the time not only of harvest but also of ploughing for the following season. But they, and the Old


Avestai people before them, must have joined as well in the almost universal celebration of spring, marked by the growing predominance of daylight hours. This celebration would accordingly be at, or soon after, the spring equinox, but how accurately this was calculated by the Avestai people is not known. Correspondingly, the harvest festival could have been held at, or soon after, the autumn one, the equinoxes being for ancient peoples the most readily observable of the noteworthy points of a solar year" (Boyce 2005, 3). 114 According to Boyce, "the evidence of the Brahman (solemn and orderly rites) serves to establish that there is a long common tradition behind the Zoroastrian haoma-ritual and the offerings to fire, a tradition whose preservation over millennia presupposes the equally long existencewas considered to be the purest (Boyce 1975, 185). As Zoroaster entered the river to draw some water for the haoma ritual, the moment of dawn and the sudden emergence of bright sunlight inspired him to recognize the power of the Universal Spirit. Based on the pastoral setting and linguistic connections to Vedic texts, it seems that the belief in a Universal Spirit was first achieved by Zoroaster. Zoroaster engaged in deep meditation and careful calculation, especially during moments of cosmological unity such as the equinoxes and solstices. The cosmological unity symbolized by the spring festival helped Zoroaster reject the existence of creative and destructive spirits. If one focuses on the exact moment of dawn, which could possibly align with the exact 115 moment of an equinox, it


the mythical figures and divine spirits described in the Vedas and the Avesta (Clark 1998, 4). While the philosophy of Zoroastrianism is unique, its development resulted from a synthesis of ideas from numerous other cultures. The symbols, sculptures, and remnants of creative and destructive spirits from other cultures, such as the Jews and Babylonians, were not destroyed by followers of Zoroastrianism. They were maintained in order to recognize the process toward enlightenment and satisfy the loyal supporters of the traditional view. Thus, although toleration can be a virtue in itself, the Iranian philosophy of religion demonstrates how the path to monotheism is compatible with polytheistic perspectives since monotheism developed from a long tradition of polytheism. 116 A Synthesis of Abstract and Concrete After Zoroaster discovered the power ofthe Universal Spirit he elevated the Creator above six other divinities. Zoroastrianism initially converted these divinities into abstract concepts but they were eventually re-personified in the form of angels. The ability to personify these concepts is largely facilitated by the masculine and feminine character of the terms used to describe them. This pertains to the structure of language. According to Lan Freed in Dualism and Language, the history of dualism precedes philosophy or any systemic speculation about the nature of man and the universe. Freed used anthropological studies to suggest that "the belief in indwelling spirits, or souls or minds, was not originally a hypothesis put forward to explain anything, but rather, a spontaneous feeling about all objects" (Freed 1953, 328). He believed that the "omnipresence of the


is incompatible with the physical (Levison 1986, 339). He suggested that the previous criterion for testing the relationship between the mind and the body is neutral between monistic or dualistic theories. He ultimately attributed the separation of the mental from the physical to the use and meaning of the word "mental" (Levison 1986, 339). Similarly, Noam Chomsky suggested that the ultimate source of critique for mental sciences and linguistics is the common use of a methodological dualism which assumes humans are separate from the natural world (Chomsky 1995, 7). Chomsky's main point was that the studies of truth in language face the same problems of empiricism as studies of truth in physics or any other domain. Nevertheless, while it is impossible to determine whether the world is monisticor dualistic, the structure of language serves as a historical artifact which preserves the dualistic perception from the past. Zoroaster mainly struggled against raiding nomads, so it is possible that he could have been more of a luminary of monotheist thought within a community that was beginning to accept some of its main principles. In his Ratanbai Katrak lectures, Professor Walter Bruno Henning provided a stimulating definition of the religion of Zoroaster: "As are most dualistic movements, it is perhaps best understood as a protest against monotheism" (Duchesne-Guillemin 1958, 1). "Dualism, he argued, always emerges as an answer to the problem of evil, which in turn presupposes belief in one good and omnipotent God" (Duchesne-Guillemin 1958, 1). According to DuchesneGuillemin, "In the Vorrede to the second volume of


that all of their ideas could shape the world. This idea is truly a synthesis of the abstract and the concrete. Nevertheless, the dualist structure of language made it difficult for humans 121 to move beyond the pre-Zoroastrian conception of the universe. In other words, dualism endured through the preservation of language and ancient symbols. Shortly after Zoroaster's teachings influenced the rise of the Persian Empire, the demise of ethical life led to a return to materialism. In other words, the Persians abandoned their sense of honor and virtue so they could effortlessly maintain their wealthy lifestyles.67 Their lack of honor and virtue culminated in the destruction of the Persian Empire which illustrated the cyclical pattern of political power. In his reflections on the Persian Monarchy, Plato blamedthe cyclical pattern of political success on spoiled Persian princes since Iranian Kings like Cyrus allowed women to raise their children (Plato 1970, 99). When asked about Darius, Plato replied that Darius was not a prince. He attained his position by seizing power and the process repeated itself (Plato 1970, 99100). His anecdote of the spoiled Persian prince was part of an analogy which emphasized that moderate liberty is the basis for proper parenting and effective political leadership. The proper balance between freedom and despotism was apparently achieved by Cyrus and Darius and by the Athenians at the time of Marathon and Salamis, "even 67 Achaemenian rule ended in 330 BCE after an invasion led by the Macedonian conqueror Alexander the Great (Gershevitch 1985, 439). He defeated Darius


III who was often criticized for his lack of ambition and experience in comparison to his predecessors (Gershevitch 1985, 430). Before his ascension to the throne, Darius III was a distant relative of the ruling family who had recently been assassinated by their ministers. However, Darius III's father was a prince who could trace his lineage back to Cyrus and Darius. He was the great grandson of King Darius II (Gershevitch 1985, 390). Darius III is notorious for abandoning his army, property, and family in order to escape from Alexander. He was eventually killed by his own generals who panicked as the Macedonian troops approached their base. Alexander acquired Darius III's empire and married his daughters in order to legitimize his rule. 122 though the Persians had nodemocratic institutions and the Athenians had no monarch" (Stalley 1983, 77). Plato's ideas inspired Abu Zayd Ibn Khaldun's cyclical philosophy of history. During the fourteenth century, Ibn Khaldun wrote The Muqaddimmah in which he noted the difference between critical history (historiography) and speculative history (Ibn Khaldun 1989, 5). Therefore, even though there have been countless speculations on the nature of history, Ibn Khaldun was the first person to formalize the study of history by defining these terms. He attributed the cyclical pattern of history to excessive pride and laziness. He frequently cited the works of ancient Greek philosophers and discussed Plato's ideas in great detail (Ibn Khaldun 1989, 39, 373, and Ibn Khaldun 1958, 48). The Cyclical Pattern According to the anecdotes and analogies presented by Ibn Khaldun,


history endures cyclical patterns based on the rise and fall of various political systems and dynasties. He believed every successful political arrangement contains negative and positive attributes. The positive attributes, such as group cohesion, pride, and diligence will initially allow it to rise, but the conditions faced by the rising power will engender the "seeds" of negative attributes leading to inevitable downfall (Ibn Khaldun 1989, 106). Ibn Khaldun explicitly emphasized the importance of group feeling or cohesion in successful political arrangements. He claimed it is the secret divine factor that restrains people from splitting up and abandoning each other, while it is the source of unity and agreement (Ibn Khaldun 1989, 170). He also claimed that it is the guarantor of the 123 intentions and laws of Islam(Ibn Khaldun 1989, 170). The cohesion is essentially spontaneous and it may be amplified by a common ideology, especially religion. He noted that the "Persians made no one king except members of the royal house, and chose him from among those who possessed virtue, religion, education, liberality, bravery, and nobility" (Ibn Khaldun 1958, 95). They stipulated that he should be just, and that he was not to take a farm, as this would harm his neighbors, and that he was not to engage in trade, as this would of necessity raise the prices of all goods (Ibn Khaldun 1958, 95). He was also not to use slaves or servants since they would not give good and beneficial advice (Ibn Khaldun 1958, 95). Ibn Khaldun believed religion is a


useful source for morality in both the real and supernatural realms (Ibn Khaldun 1989, 154). The purpose of humans is not only their worldly welfare as far as Ibn Khaldun was concerned. He believed this entire world was trifling and futile and that it would end in death and annihilation (Ibn Khaldun 1989, 154). In turn, Ibn Khaldun argued that the purpose of human beings is their religion since it is the only form of resistance to injustice (Ibn Khaldun 1989, 154). He alleged that the frugal inhabitants of the desert and people who grew accustomed to hunger were more likely to be religious than people who lived a life of luxury and abundance (Ibn Khaldun 1989, 66-67). However, the cohesion created by religion is never a permanentin a state of decline and decay" (Ibn Khaldun 1989, 106). Ibn Khaldun's cyclical theory was re-emphasized by Edward Gibbon in The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1776). Like Ibn Khaldun, Gibbon suggested that the success of the Roman Empire led to luxurious lifestyles among the 125 citizenry which ultimately weakened the empire. Gibbon blamed the decline of the Roman Empire on a loss of civic virtue, which is synonymous with Ibn Khaldun's conception of group cohesion. Gibbon also emphasized the importance of corruption among religious clerics as a factor that led to decline (Gibbon 1776, 585-586). According to Gibbon, the rapid expansion of the Roman Empire forced the government to hire mercenaries leading to the decentralization of power and resources (Gibbon 1776,


107, 235-242, and 427). The mercenaries essentially began using the power and resources of the Roman Empire asymmetrically. They formed their own armies and attacked the Roman Empire. Ultimately, the Roman Empire was destroyed because its citizenry adapted non-militaristic and luxurious lifestyles which left them vulnerable to the attacks of vandals, looters, and ex-mercenaries. Gibbon's study clearly follows the cyclical logic of Ibn Khaldun. Gibbon included numerous references to Zoroastrianism in his reflections on world history. Through the years 1756-1757, while studying at the Lausanne academy, Gibbon "traveled in the surrounding district, attended the winter gatherings of Vaudois society, and even made the acquaintance of the great Voltaire" (Turnbull 1982, 28). Voltaire was honored to know that the young Gibbon read his works (Thompson 1938, 95). Gibbon alsorepresented the borough of Leskeard in the House of Commons and attended eight sessions (Thompson 1938, 103). In 1776, while he served as a member of parliament, he published his first volume on The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1776) (Thompson 1938, 104). 126 Although Gibbon's study focused on the legacy of the Roman Empire, it contains many general reflections on world history, including references to the Persian Empire and Iranian religion.68 The eighth chapter is an account of the Zoroastrian religion of the Persians, setting "Gibbon's increasing though never absent command of philosophical history, relating successive stages of the history of the human mind and society, together with the 'triumph of barbarism and religion'" (Pocock 2003, 466). As Pocock noted, in Gibbon's


account of Zoroastrianism, "it is gentile but not barbaric, and occupying an important place in his developing schemes for the history of both religion and philosophy" (Pocock 2003, 466).69 As Gibbon noted, "In the more early ages of the world, whilst the forests that covered Europe afforded a retreat to a few wandering savages, the inhabitants of Asia were already collected into populous cities, and reduced under extensive empires, the feat of the arts, of luxury, and of despotism" (Gibbon 1776, 200). The Assyrians initially ruled the East, until their kingdom dropped from the hands of their enervated successors, and "after the Medes and the Babylonians divided up their 68 In the early stages of the Roman Empire, the Romans endured rivalries with Germanic peoples on its northernborder and Iranian peoples on its eastern border. Later, they faced attacks from Turks and Mongols. The Turks conquered Constantinople (Istanbul) in 1453 CE. 69 According to Pocock, in Gibbon's view, "the Persians are 'barbarians' only in the classical sense that they are neither Greek nor Roman and are thought to obey masters rather than laws" (Pocock 2003, 465). The Persians are "certainly not the horde of migratory pastoral warriors, situated somewhere between savagery and agriculture, to whom that theory attached the term 'barbarian' in its philosophical significance" (Pocock 2003, 465). "The Germans (of chapter 9) are 'barbarians' in this sense, as are the Goths, the Franks, and other invaders of the Roman provinces (Pocock 2003, 465). In other words, the Persians were not as progressive as the


Romans, but they were "hardly 'barbaric' at all" (Pocock 2003, 465). The Persians were not a band of invaders living on the periphery of civilization like the Germanic peoples. Iranians and the Germans share some cultural ties, and were major rivals of the Roman Empire, but the Persians were a powerful and sophisticated people, practicing a world religion and capable of military empire on a scale formidable to the Romans (Pocock 2003, 465). 127 powers, they were swallowed up by the monarchy of the Persians, whose arms could not be confined within the narrow limits of Asia" (Gibbon 1776, 200-201). Gibbon argued that during the Macedonian conquest of Iran (330 BCE), as well as the Parthian period (248 BCE-224 CE), "the nations of Europe and Asia had mutuallyadopted and corrupted each other's superstitions" (Gibbon 1776, 202). "The Arsacides [Parthians], indeed, practiced the worship of the Magi; but they disgraced and polluted it with a various mixture of foreign idolatry. The memory of Zoroaster, the ancient prophet and philosopher of the Persians, was still revered in the East; but the obsolete and mysterious language, in which the Zendavesta was composed, opened a field of dispute to seventy sects, which had arisen in his religion, and were all equally derided by a crowd of infidels, who rejected the divine mission and miracles of the prophet" (Gibbon 1776, 202). Gibbon regarded Zoroaster's ideas as the first form of monotheism, but argued that the Creator was yet to be characterized as active or self-conscious at this point in history.


"The great fundamental article of the system, was the celebrated doctrine of the two principles, a bold and injudicious attempt of Eastern philosophy to reconcile the existence of moral and physical evil, with the attributes of a beneficent Creator and governor of the world" (Gibbon 1776, 203). Gibbon noted that "the first and original Being, in whom, or by whom, the universe exists, is denominated in the writings of Zoroaster, Time without bounds; but it must be confessed that this infinite substance seems rather a metaphysical abstraction of the mind, than a real object endowed with 128 self-consciousness, or possessed of moral perfections. From either the blind, or the intelligent operation of this infinite Time, which bears but too near an affinity with the chaos of the Greeks,the two secondary but active principles of the universe, were from all eternity produced, Ormuzd and Ahriman, each of them possessed of the powers of creations, but each disposed, by his invariable nature, to exercise them with different designs. The principle of good is eternally absorbed in light; the principle of evil eternally buried in darkness" (Gibbon 1776, 203-204). Unlike Khaldun, Gibbon was extremely critical of religion and often referred to it as "superstition" (Gibbon 1776, 202). He claimed that in certain cases it could lead to harmony but it is most often corrupted (Gibbon 1776, 585-586).70 Gibbon discussed an edict from Artaxerxes which prohibited the worship of any religion, other than that of Zoroaster, and stated that "the spirit of persecution reflects dishonor on the religion of


Zoroaster; but as it was not productive of any civil commotion, it served to strengthen the new monarchy by uniting all the various inhabitants of Persia in the bands of religious zeal" (Gibbon 1776, 208). Gibbon also recognized how Zoroaster's ideas changed as more people learned about them. "The theology of Zoroaster was darkly comprehended by foreigners, and even by the far greater number of his disciples; but the most careless observers were struck with the philosophic simplicity of Persian worship" (Gibbon 1776, 70 "We have already described the religious harmony of the ancient world, and the facility with which the most different and even hostile nations embraced, or at least respected, each other's superstitions" (Gibbon 1776, 451). 129 204). "The Gnostics blended with the faith of Christmany sublime but obscure tenets, which they derived from oriental philosophy, and even from the religion of Zoroaster, concerning the eternity of matter, the existence of two principles, and the mysterious hierarchy of the invisible world" (Gibbon 1776, 461).71 Some critics of Voltaire and Gibbon unfairly characterized their ideas as atheist, heretical, skeptical, or otherwise anti-Christian (Rockwood 1937, 497, Turnbull 1982, 23, and Young 1998, 180). They often overlook the complex contradictions between personal faith and scholarly ambitions.72 During his youth, Gibbon converted to the Roman Catholic faith which led his father to send him to the progressively Protestant 71 According to Gibbon, "the Gnostics were distinguished as the most polite, the most learned, and the wealthiest of the Christian name, and the general appellation which expressed a


superiority of knowledge, was either assumed by their own pride, or ironically bestowed by the envy of adversaries. They were almost without exception of the race of the Gentiles, and their principal founders seem to have been natives of Syria or Egypt, where the warmth of the climate disposes both the mind and the body to contemplative devotion" (Gibbon 1776, 461). 72 Even though deism can be traced back to ancient times, it became very popular for European Christians during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries as they sought an alternative to organized religion. Deism expresses the belief in a single Creator based on experience, reason, and free will. The Creator only interacts with the universe by setting into motion the laws of nature, such as free will. "Although,there is no accepted definition of Deism, often it is conceived wholly, or almost wholly, as a metaphysical theory, which represents God as the Creator of the world, but now as withdrawn and separate from it and its concerns; it is the absentee God of literature (Hefelbower 1920, 217). The characteristic deistic views as developed in this controversy can be summed up thus: In an age that was rationalistic and critical, when all progressive thinkers, many of whom were conservative, felt that they must justify religion by proving it from reason and nature, the Deists developed those tendencies in a radical way, and fostered a hostile attitude toward traditional super-naturalism. They denied the possibility of any religious truth above reason; they challenged external revelation and criticized its records


and the miraculous; they emphasized the perfection of natural religion, which man of his own unaided powers could know, and set it up as supreme over all positive religion, which was imperfect because of 'mysteries,' 'uncertainties,' 'contradictions,' and 'confusion.' Deism, which was essentially non-philosophical, was the more radical application to religious problems of the rationalistic critical way of thinking, that characterized English thought in the seventeenth century, which resulted in the progressive depreciation of the supernatural, especially as it appeared in positive religion, and in magnifying the worth and authority of natural religion" (Hefelbower 1920, 223). 130 Lausanne academy in Switzerland where he eventually proudly converted back to Protestantism under the threat of disinheritance from his family (Turnbull 1989, 26). Although Voltaire influenced Gibbon in many ways, theirviews on religion were quite different. Voltaire believed mainstream Christianity was an obstacle to the "age of reason" as he continuously witnessed the unjust religious persecution of his friends and neighbors. Meanwhile, Gibbon simply wanted to be known as the best historiographer of his time. When his accounts of history were criticized by religious authorities, he was more insulted by their doubts about his fidelity as a scholar than his faith in religion (Thompson 1938, 106).73 As a product of the Age of Enlightenment, it is not surprising that Gibbon was highly critical of religion, but he praised the social and practical contributions of Zoroaster's teachings. According to Gibbon, "there are some remarkable instances, in which Zoroaster lays aside the prophet, assumes the legislator, and discovers liberal concern


for private and public happiness, seldom to be found among the groveling or visionary schemes of superstition. Fasting and celibacy, the common means of purchasing the divine favor, he condemns with abhorrence, as a criminal rejection of the best gifts of providence. The saint, in the Magian religion, is obliged to beget children, to plant useful trees, to destroy noxious animals, to convey water to the dry lands of Persia, and to work out his salvation by pursuing all the labors of agriculture. We may quote 73 According to B.W. Young, scholarship could be seen as Gibbon's religion, or substitute for religion, as in, "the religious duty of a historian" (Young 1998, 181). 131 from the Zendavesta a wise and benevolent maxim, 'He who sows the ground withcare and diligence, acquires a greater flock of religious merit, than he could gain by the repetition of ten thousand prayers'" (Gibbon 1776, 206).74 For Gibbon, "Zoroaster is unmistakably another stray from the Age of Reason" (Morgan 1995, 91). Gibbon's accounts of Iranian and Roman history emphasized the role religion played in the rise and decline of ancient empires. In the beginning, religion served as a unifying force among diverse peoples, but as it spread amongst the people their cultural diversity produced alternate interpretations. This created more heretics and political conflicts, which ultimately led to a circular pattern of expansion and contraction. Although the Achaemenian, Parthian, and Sassanian monarchies attempted to establish political unity by influencing religious matters, they became progressively authoritarian and caused tension among the people


while their civic virtue rapidly declined. This weakened Iran's forces in their battles against the rival Roman (Byzantine) Empire as well as the Arab forces who invaded Iran in 633 CE and 637 CE. Iran was also invaded by the Mongols in the thirteenth century CE. "Gibbon accepted the thesis of the decline of civic virtue as largely explaining the collapse of the ancient world, but denied that the process would repeat itself under the conditions of modern society" (Pocock 1999, 2). "Enlightened historiography is, almost without exception, the execution of this purpose," 74 Although there is similar content in the Yasna (Yasna 29.1; Guthrie (Tr.) 1914, and Yasna 53.4; Guthrie (Tr.) 1914), the passage quoted by Gibbon is not taken from the writings of Zoroaster, but theto Iranian history, and some of them traced the idea of a universal force back to the philosophy of Zoroaster. Philosophy of History and the Power of the Universal Mind In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, Johann Gottfried Herder, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, and Karl Marx each presented his own progressive philosophy of history. Hegel and Marx suggested that human history had distinct phases in which the final phase recaptures the glory of the first phase but reconciles the others. However, Marx believed the phases of history were driven by class struggle and material life while Herder and Hegel emphasized the importance of Spirit. The idea of the World Spirit is rooted in Zoroaster's discovery of the Universal Spirit (Hegel 1991b, 173). Before Ibn Khaldun, Polybius also described


history in cyclical terms in The Histories (2nd century BCE), which was one of the first books to imply that there was a purpose to human history (Polybius 1976, 379). However, unlike Ibn Khaldun, Polybius, and Plato, Herder went beyond generations and dynasties and reflected on the purpose of human history in its entirety (Little 2011, 3). In 1774, he published Another Philosophy of History which outlined distinct stages of human history and predicted that enlightened 133 nationalism would lead to mutual respect among nations. He also suggested that the Germans were connected to the ancient Aryans of Iran and India as a distinct class of nobles and innovators unlike "the parasitic Semitic" peoples who lived among them (Herder 1774, 11). Nevertheless, Herder's philosophy of history was mainlya critique of the Enlightenment which he criticized for its neglect of feeling and spiritual reason. He did not explicitly cite or reference any works that were related to Zoroastrianism. Herder's philosophy of history illustrated the progressive character of civilization and knowledge that was common among prominent enlightenment period thinkers such as Immanuel Kant and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Herder's philosophy of history largely influenced one of his teachers, Kant, to present his own view of history. Kant wrote Idea for a Universal History with a Cosmopolitan Aim in 1784. The title itself suggests that he had a progressive perception of history. Kant argued that the purpose of history was the education of the human race. This idea was quite similar to Gotthold Ephraim Lessing's essay on The Education of


Kant, his philosophies are characterized by the rebellious form of German Romanticism which culminated in the works of Hegel. Herder's philosophy of history also inspired Hegel to deliver his Lectures on the Philosophy of History between 1821 and 1831. According to Hegel, history was the process in which the Universal Spirit becomes completely conscious of itself. He stated that "the nature of Spirit may be understood by a glance at its direct opposite-Matter" (Hegel 1991b, 17). Some of Hegel's early followers admired his logic, but some of them, most notably Karl Marx, concluded that his overall philosophy amounted to religious propaganda (Marx 1843, 6 and 1998, 9). Nevertheless, Hegel's spiritual communitarian thought inspired Marx's theory of history, which was a materialist re-elaboration of Hegelian thought. Like most philosophiesof history written shortly after the Enlightenment, the theories of Herder, Hegel, and Marx supported the importance of intuition, tradition, and historicism. Nevertheless, while they all rejected the extreme rationalism associated with the age of Enlightenment, they retained its progressive mode of thought. The progress they observed was usually organized into distinct phases of history. The Phases of History As mentioned, Zoroaster described his discovery of the Universal Spirit as the beginning of a "New Day" in human history. According to Boyce, "one of the most 135 striking elements in [Zoroaster's] teachings was the wholly original concept of history having an end" (Boyce 2001, 67). Some of "the Magi had evidently become familiar with very different Babylonian speculations about history being divided into great recurrent cycles of time,"


but the Zoroastrian concept of an end to history "embodies a doctrine of the Three times – Creation, Mixture, and Separation – [which] accustomed his followers to the idea of events taking place within a fixed chronological framework" (Boyce 2001, 67-68). Similarly, many post-Enlightenment philosophers used distinct stages, phases, and realms to describe the process of history. Herder organized history into distinct phases and emphasized the importance of geography and climate in the rise of world civilizations (Herder 1774, 14). He asserted that history had passed through Egyptian, Oriental, Greek, and Roman periods, and was now in a German period (Herder 1774, 14). Unlike Ibn Khaldun, Herder's view was progressive and not cyclical, but his main contribution to the philosophy of history was his analysis of human historyin its entirety. In other words, it pertained to human beings as a species rather than individuals or generations. Plato, Polybius, and Ibn Khaldun reflected on generations and dynasties but they did not reflect on human history as a whole. For Herder, the activities of individuals, the rise and fall of civilizations, and the distinct phases of history were all components of a larger scheme. Like Herder, Hegel also organized history into distinct phases. In his Lectures on the Philosophy of History, Hegel asserted that continuous history (as opposed to history in general) began in Iran with Zoroaster's discovery of the Universal Spirit (Hegel 1991b, 136 173). He organized history into four distinct phases which he referred to as the "Oriental, Greek, Roman, and German Worlds" (Hegel 1991b,