________________
NOVEMBER, 1880.]
BOOK NOTICES.
291
thus preseuts the English reader, for the first time, with a really trustworthy version of the entire Vendidad, although the translation may not be quite so literal as might be wished by Avesta scholars.
It is hardly creditable to English Orientalists that it has been necessary to intrust this work to a foreigner, in consequence of no Englishman being capable of undertaking a translation of the Avesta ; but the chief cause of their neglect of so important a branch of Oriental studies is not far to seek. When the Avesta was first introduced to the learned world, in a French translation, by Anquetil Duperron in 1771, its authenticity was violently attacked by a young English scholar, who afterwards became the celebrated Orientalist, Sir William Jones. This attack was unscientific and dogmatic in the extreme, but, backed by the subsequent fame of its author, and by the national prejudices afterwards excited by the Napoleonic wars, it has hitherto succeeded in deterring Englishmen from examining the Avesta for them. selves. Time, however, has now brought about its revenge, and little more than a century after Sir W. Jones's endeavour to discredit a Frenchman's account of the Avesta, and chiefly owing to his endeavour, his own University has found it necessary to apply to a French scholar foran English translation of the same Oriental texts.
The method adopted by M. Darmesteter, in translating the difficult and doubtful passages which abound in the Vendidad, is to accept the traditional interpretation wherever it is not at variance with the results of comparative philology and mythology. There can be no doubt that this method is, theoretically, the best that can be adopted, but it is frequently attended with practical difficulties. The only tradition of any value, as regards anything beyond religious practices in daily use, is contained in the Pahlavi translations and commentaries, which seem to have originated at a time when the Avesta language, though already dead, was still noarly as well understood by the Parsi priesthood as the language of the ancient Greeks was by Christian divines two centuries ago. But the Pahlavi version of the Vendidad has not yet been fully translated, and abounds with passages that can be easily misunderstood. so that it is often difficult to ascertain its meaning with certainty. And to this practical difficulty must be added the further difficulty of forming a correct opinion when testing this tradition by the less definite results of com- parative philology and mythology.
As an illustration of the possible effect of the first kind of difficulty, arising from the want of trustworthy translations of Pahlavi texts, may be
taken tire mode of identifying the "good river Daitya" (Vend. I, 3) with the Araxes, by reading
it flows through the mountains of Gorjistán (Georgia)," instead of " it goes out through the hill-country," in Bundahish, XX, 13. The original name in this passage is Gopestan, a reasonablo Pazand reading of the Pahlavi word kofistán, "hill-country," but a very unlikely reading of Górjiston. The adoption of this doubtful emendation is to be regretted, as it is hardly requisite for the identification proposed.
An instance of the second practical difficulty occurs with regard to the title Spitam a, usually applied to Zarathushtra, and which it is safest to leave untranslated, as Darmesteter generally does; but he evidently considers it a mere epithet, and translates it by "holy" in Vend. II, 42. This is a departure from tradition, for this title is always expressed by the patronymical form Spitámún, "the Spitaman," in Pahlavi, and is supposed to refer to an ancestor of Zarathusht rain the ninth generation, whose name was Spitama according to a genealogy given in several Pahlavi works. If the title Spitama be a mere epithet, and not a family name, it is very singular that it should be applied, in the Avesta, only to Zarathushtra and two or three of his relations, male and female. As Darmesteter, however, considers Zarathushtra merely as a mythological being, void of historical reality, he can hardly admit the reality of his ancestry, without weakening the arguments in favour of his mythological origin.
In a very able introduction the translator first treats of the discovery of the Avesta, dwelling specially upon the details of the old dispute as to its authenticity, already referred to. He then deals with its interpretation, merely alluding to the labours of the generation of Avesta scholars now passing away, without describing them. But he dwells longer upon the formation of the Avesta and the origin of the religion it teaches, before concluding with a brief and appropriate analysis of the contents of the Vendidad.
His view of the origin of the Avesta religion rejects the hypothesis of former scholars that it was a reform of the old Indo-Iranian faith, arising at a time when the latter was lapsing into a more materialistic system of idolatry, and indicative of an ancient schism which led eventually to the widely divergent principles of Zoroastrianism and Hinduism. In place of this hypothesis he supposes that these two religions are merely two separate developments of Indo-Iranianism, not originating in any schism, but in the gradual effect of different circumstances upon dissimilar minds. And, as this supposition is inconsistent with the idea of the Avesta religion originating in
