Page images
PDF
EPUB

No external

The writings of the Greeks, Romans, Hindus, and Musalmáns, do not assist us in this difficulty. evidence in its The Hindus are entirely silent on the subsupport. ject. The Musulmán authorities are all very modern; the oldest is the poet Firdusí who wrote in the end of the tenth century,—that is, 1500 years after the time when the Pársís suppose Zoroaster to have appeared. The Pársís themselves have borrowed most of their history from this highly imaginative poet, but very bad historian. The Zartosht Nameh, (or Life of Zoroaster) is, as we have seen, only six hundred years old, so that it is no authority whatever for events which occurred at least 2300 years ago.

There is then no evidence, except the Zend-avesta itself, to prove that Zoroaster conversed with Hormazd, or even visited Gushtasp. We may hold the latter fact quite possible; but surely we require some evidence to make us credit the former. We are not at liberty to believe every man who says he is commissioned by God to instruct us. He must produce credentials, he must give us proofs.

VI.

Did Zoroas

But the Pársís say that Zoroaster performed miracles. If they could only prove that this ter perform was really the case, they would establish miracles? his authority as a prophet. What argu

ments, then, can they adduce to prove the reality of the miracles they ascribe to him?

1. There does not seem to be any passage in the Ven-· didad that declares Zoroaster to have been a worker of miracles. If there were any passages that did so, these would not, of course, prove the fact; a single witness, testifying of his own character, is not enough to convince us. But the absence of such passages does prove that he did not perform miracles.

2. Neither does there seem to be any passage in any part of the Zend-avesta that asserts Zoroaster to have performed miracles.

3. The Shah-Nameh of Firdusi is very frequently quoted by the Pársís in support of the claims of their prophet. Its evidence, however, is against them. It speaks of Zoroaster as an impostor,*-though the Pársís scarcely seem aware of the fact. We cannot, however, attach the slightest weight to Firdusi's statements for, or against, Zoroaster, for two reasons. First; his work is entirely a romance, and not a history. Facts that are well known, such as Alexander's birth, wars, &c. he completely misrepresents, so as to render himself entirely unworthy of credit. His work is filled with the most extraordinary and incredible tales, about white Demons, Simurghs, enchanters, and so forth. Let any one read the account of Rustam's labours, or those of Isfandiyar, and he will confess that they are wilder than any thing contained even in the "Thousand and one nights." Secondly; Firdusí (as was already mentioned) wrote at least 1500 years after the latest date that can be fixed for Zoroaster's appearance.

4. Other authors to whom the Pársís refer, are still later. The Zartosht-Nameh mentions no authorities from which it drew its statements regarding Zoroaster. Some of the writers on whose testimony the Pársís.build, mention that he consulted with the devilt-but we reject their evidence, whether for, or against, Zoroaster, on the ground of their writing so long after him. What they could learn from oral tradition, was merely fable; what they could invent, was nothing better.

On the whole, then, the arguments to prove that Zoroaster wrought miracles, are wholly unsatisfactory.

* See Atkinson's Summary of the Sháh-Námeh p. 385 &c.-Also Mr. Eastwick's translation of Firdusí's account of Zoroaster. Both this, and Mr. Eastwick's translation of the Zartosht-Námeh, will be found in the Rev. Dr. Wilson's work on the Pársí Religion.

So the Rauzat-as-Safá of Mirkhond.

See the translation by

Shea, p. 283, &c.

5. Perhaps we may infer something as to the truth or falsehood of the miracles ascribed to Zoroaster by the Parsis, from the consideration of the miracles themselves. They are such as the following. We condense the account from the Zartosht-Námeh.

Immediately when he was born, he laughed aloud. A wicked king attempted to stab him; but his hand was dried up. Zartosht was thrown into the fire; but the fire became like water, and he fell asleep. He was placed in a narrow road to be trampled to death by oxen, but one of the oxen stood over him and protected him. He was next placed to be trampled to death by wild horses, but one of them protected him. He was exposed to wolves, but they would not devour him. Cows came to the place, and put their teats filled with milk into his mouth. Having to cross the sea with his companions, he entered the water, and for a whole month he and his companions were borne through the water without any ship. Zartosht was conveyed to heaven, saw God, and conversed with him. Thence he saw Ahriman in hell. When Ahriman beheld him, he raised a cry from the pit of hell and said to Zartosht, "Separate thyself from the pure faith." Zartosht was made to pass through flaming fire; he did so, uninjured. Molten brass was poured on him. His belly was opened, and the entrails dragged forth, while streams of blood gushed out. All this was done in Heaven. When he came back from the Divine presence, he was visited by various Angels in succession. First, one angel came and commanded him to take great care of sheep and calves. Another came and commanded him to take great care of fire and fire-temples. Another came and commanded him to keep clean the edge of arms, swords, spears, &c. "that when his enemy is before him, he may tear his flesh therewith, causing pain." Next, a female angel came and directed that the earth should be cultivated, and kept clean from blood, and filth, and carrion.-King Gushtásp had a wonderful black horse, which in speed equalled the wind, and which always ensured its rider the victory. One day, its four feet were found drawn up into its belly. Gushtasp said to Zartosht: If you are a prophet, restore my steed to health." Zartosht prayed and wept before God. Then one leg came out. He prayed again; and another leg come out. Finally, all the legs came out.

[ocr errors]

I think it quite sufficient to quote these miracles, without giving any refutation of them. They are childish and irrational. Yet the conclusion of the book which contains them, is as follows; "Whosoever reads, let him applaud!"

VII. But we must next inquire, whether the mission of Zoroaster was supported by any prophe

Are there pro-
phecies in the cies.
Zend-avestą?

1. In the Vendidád there do not seem to be any prophecies. In the nineteenth fargard (chapter) according to Anquetil's French version, there appears a prediction regarding three sons of Zoroaster, who are still to be born. But the version of Anquetil cannot here be trusted, and we shall not lay this foolish passage to the account of the Vendidád. It is found, however, in the Gujarátí paraphrase of the passage by Frámjí Aspandiárjí nearly in accordance with Anquetil,-and many Pársís fully believe it.

This prophecy, as it occurs in the later books of the Pársís, is so obscene and absurd that I cannot quote it.

2. There is a book professing to contain prophecy, called Jámásp Námah. It is full of erroneous astronomy, astrology, and mistakes in history. No educated Pársí will acknowledge it as an authority, although it is popular among the ignorant. We therefore pass it over.

3. There are some strange wild statements in the end of the Zartosht-Námeh, that seem intended to describe the condition of Persia when it was conquered by the Muhammadans, but which profess to have been uttered long before by God to Zoroaster.

But as the Zartosht-Námeh was written long after the events referred to, it was easy to describe things that had already occurred.

On the whole, it may safely be asserted that probably never any people had less evidence than the Pársís, either from miracles or prophecy, in support of the claims of their supposed Prophet.

VIII. Before concluding the examination of the ExterArgument nal Evidences of Pársíism, I may mention from the Ve- that learned men in Europe have recently das against discovered many important points of resem

Pársíism.

blance between the Zend-avesta of the Pársís and the Veda of the Hindus. Many of the persons introduced into these books are the same. Thus, Vivanghvat in the Zend-avesta is Vivasvat in the Veda; his son Jamshid (in Zend, Yimo khshaeta i. e. Fimo the Ruler) is in the Veda, Yama. Feridun (in Zend, Thraetona) is identified with Trita or Traitana.

*

Learned men in Europe are agreed that we know nothing of Persian history before the time of Cyrus (about 540 B. C.), and that all that is related of the kings before him is utterly uncertain. What is recorded even of the Kaianian kings, is quite irreconcilable with what the Greeks relate. The history of the Peshdadian kings, who preceded them, is mere wild mythology,-Feridun and Zohak and other supposed warriors, had no more a real existence than the deities of the Hindus. In fact, the supposed early kings of Persia are often the same as the deities of the Vedas.t

Very probably, this view is correct. At all events, I trust our Pársí friends will recollect that it is the opinion of the most learned Oriental scholars, who have no desire to attack Pársíism, but who are brought to such conclusions simply by the rules of literary criticism.

If it be correct, however, it overturns from the very foundation the opinions on historical subjects which are embodied both in the Zend-avesta and the later works of the Pársís.

*Sir H. Rawlinson and other learned men have carefully examined the ancient inscriptions found in various parts of Persia. Their discoveries generally agree with the Greek writers, but very rarely with the Pársí statements.

+ See a very interesting paper by Dr. Roth, entitled; "The Legend of Feridun in India and Iran," in the Zeitschrift der Deutschen M. G. II.p.216. An analysis of it is given in the Journal of the Bombay B. R. Asiat. Soc. for July 1852,

« PreviousContinue »