Pilgrimage to Chios
A location near Chios features ‘Homer’s stone’ (or Daskalopetra), a former cult site close to a rocky alcove. Tradition would have it that Homer publicly read the Iliad and Odyssey here. In 1960, during a voyage here, Eleftherios C. Mamounas was inspired to create an organised movement for the study of Homeric ‘philosophy’.
Thus was the International Society of Homeric Studies born. ‘It envisages today’, writes Marc Michel in the journal Europe Sud-Est (Athens), to ‘transform the peaceable Island of Chios into a Mediterranean Stratford-upon-Avon’.
Besides Mamounas, its Cultural Committee is composed of numerous renowned Hellenists: Professors François Chamoux (France), Hugh Lloyd-Jones (Great Britain), Erick Havelock (United States), Reinhold Merkelbach (Germany), Theseus Tzannetatos, Andreas A. Potamianos, A. Skiadas (Greece). The French Committee, presided over by Chamoux, also includes Professor Edouard Delebecque, of Aix-en-Provence.
In London, a powerful union of shipowners from Chios have decided to finance the construction of an open air theatre and a ‘Homeric Centre’. Chios will thus become a place of international gathering and a centre of pilgrimage for the spiritual sons of those who died at the siege of Troy.
*
International Society of Homeric Studies: Kanari 8, Athens.117
*
At the end of the last century, the English writer Samuel Butler (On the Trapanese Origin of the Odyssey, 1893; The Authoress of the Odyssey, 1897) had advanced the idea that different authors were responsible for the Iliad and the Odyssey, and that the true author of the Odyssey was a young woman originally from Trapani, in Sicily. This hypothesis has been reprised by a modern disciple of Butler, Raymond Ruyer, in Homère au féminin (Copernic, 1977).118
On the historical background of the Odyssey, the most audacious theories continue to be advanced. At the beginning of 1977, Professor Karl Bartholomäus of the University of Essen had proposed a new itinerary of Odysseus’ peregrinations. Charybdis and Scylla correspond to the ruins of Gibraltar; the island of Thrinacia to Teneriffe, and Ogygia, home of Calypso, to one of the islands of Azores. As to the island of the Phaeacians, it is identified with Heligoland (which links to one of the hypotheses of Jürgen Spanuth).
The International Society of Homeric Studies organised a symposium from 18–19 October 1976 at the University of Alexandria, in which several Greek and Egyptian Hellenists participated.
Zoroaster
The good empire must be chosen.
It secures the most advantageous fate for the one who acts with zeal. Through Justice, O Sage, by these actions,
he will reach the sovereign good (Yasna 51).119
These words were pronounced more than twenty-five hundred years ago by Spitāma Zarathustra, the reformer of the ancient Iranian religion to whom Europe gave the name Zoroaster.
During the course of the third millennium BCE, the Indo-European peoples, departing from a homeland reaching from the Baltic to the Aral Sea, slowly moved towards the east, the west, and the south.
A few centuries later, the ‘oriental’ branch subdivided into several groups. One of them, via Punjab and Kashmir, would colonise the Indian subcontinent: these are the Indo-Aryans. Another occupied Asia Minor and established themselves at Azerbaijan, and after that, in the country to which they would lend their name: Iran, i.e., the ‘Aryan region’.
In this place, the Indo-Iranians found some Asiatic populations, the Elamites, who submitted to them without difficulty. They then organised a National State based on the representatives of the clans and lineages.
Herodotus described the first Persians as men of great height, as strong as they were proud. He recounts how the children of the noble family are raised at the court of the king to ‘learn to ride the horse, draw the bow, and speak the truth’. Xenophon praised the stature of their men and the beauty of their women. Heraclides called them ‘the bravest of the barbarians’.
In the first millennium, the Indo-Iranian cult, already strongly transformed, evolved towards a new form, Mazdaism, of which Zoroaster became the propagator.
Three French figures stand at the origin of modern knowledge about this enigmatic character, who would enjoy a certain vogue in eighteenth century Europe, even though, at the time, it was merely a fanciful idea: Anquetil-Duperron, who went to India in 1754 in order to collect the text of the Avesta; Eugène Burnouf (1801–1852) who first explained this text according to a philologically sound method; James Darmesteter, whose translation of the Avesta, published in 1892 (and recently reissued in three volumes by Adrien-Maisonneuve) continues to have authority.
Jean Varenne, Professor of Sanskrit at the University of Aix-en-Provence, author of a Sanskrit grammar and various translations of the Vedas, the Upanishads, and the Brahmanas, had already published a work entitled Zarathoustra et la tradition mazdéenne (Seiul, 1965). In his study of Zoroaster, he returns to the problem from a new angle.
The name of Zoroaster (Zarathustra) belongs to a dialect from the northeast of Iran. His entire career, moreover, unfolds between the outskirts of Sogdiana and the Sistan Basin. He thus most likely came from this region, which adjoins the plateaus of Afghanistan, and not, as a tradition dating from the Sassanians would have it, from western Iran, i.e. current Tehran. More precisely, he would be born in Bactria, in the region of the lower Oxus, where soviet Turkestan is currently located.
The dates are poorly attested. Tradition situates the life of Zoroaster on the eve of the foundation of the Persian Empire by Cyrus the Great (546), but the archaisms of the Gāthās instead incline one to place him at the very beginning of the first millennium BCE.
This is not a man of the people but a man of a princely stock. Perhaps he was born in a family of warriors: doesn’t the first part of his name, Spitāmā, mean ‘to the brilliant attack’?120 However, he was raised within the purview of a sacerdotal profession. ‘Knowing thousands, perhaps even the tens-of-thousands of stanzas by heart’, observes Varenne, ‘it would not have been difficult for him to compose his own later’.
His sermonising began around the age of thirty-six. Four years later, he was received by Balkh’s sovereign, Vishtāspa (who some have falsely considered the father of Darius the Great), and he successfully made Vishtāspa embrace the reformed religion. Henceforth, the success of the new cult was assured. Zoroaster became the king’s priest, and the entire court converted.
Zoroaster would spend the rest of his life close to Vishtāspa. He seems to have died at the age of seventy-seven, possibly in a violent manner (assassinated, it is said, by the Turanians), after being married and having many children.
What we know of the Iranian religion before Zoroaster comes to us from Herodotus. This religion was very similar to that of the Indo-Aryans, since the two peoples had lived together for a long time in Central Asia before separating. ‘Alongside the commonality of language’, specifies Varenne, ‘a commonality of civilisation and therefore of ideology is also manifest’.
Among both of them, therefore, we find the same gods (deva in Sanskrit, daeva in Iranian): Vāyu, Indra, Mitra, Bhaga, etc. The society of gods is divided into two clans or factions: those of the Asuras or ‘forces of life’, and those of the Devas proper, or ‘beings of light’. These factions date back to the common Indo-European period and correspond, among the Germanic peoples, to the distinction between the Vanir and the Aesir. But here their ‘destiny’ is different. Whereas among the Germanic peoples, the two clans, at the end of a ‘war of foundation’, join to form a harmonious society ruled by the Aesir, among the Aryas the conflict results in a completely different theological situation. In India, the Devas become the only true gods, while the Asuras are qualified as demons. In Iran, it is the opposite: Zoroaster makes himself the champion of the Asuras (Ahuras in Old Persian) and retains the Devas as the forces of evil (in Iranian, the word daeva will ultimately come to mean ‘demon’).
This choice by Zoroaster is based upon motives that remain obscure. An anc
ient rivalry between the Indo-Iranians and Indo-Aryans is spoken of, which would have had current-day Afghanistan as its theatre. This is still to be proven.
The ‘Mazdaean’ Archangels
The Mazdaean religion rests on a fundamental antagonism between two principles that the Avesta (the Mazdaean texts) portrays as being in perpetual war. One is responsible for all that is beautiful, pure, luminous, and living; the other, for everything that is evil, impure, deadly, and dark.
The supreme god, Ahura Mazdā (‘the Great Creator’) is assisted by seven abstract entities or ‘beneficent immortals’ (Amesha Spenta) who form the Heptad, that is to say, the aspects of the Divinity worthy of reverence.
The first of these ‘archangels’ (a term suggested by Georges Dumézil in Naissance d’archanges, Gallimard, 1945), Spenta Mainyu (‘Holy Spirit’), son of Ahura Mazdā, has a twin brother, Angra Mainyu (‘Evil Spirit’), who since the origin of the world, struggles to pervert creation. At the beginning of the cosmic cycle, the two Mainyu brothers were ‘neutral’, but when they had to choose between justice and deception, they were each articulated with a different meaning: Angra Mainyu suggests Lucifer, another luminous fallen angel (lux-fero, ‘I bear the light’).
The six other archangels are always enumerated in a constant order: 1. Asha Vahista (Right Order). 2. Vohu Manah (Good Thought). 3. Kshatra (Empire, Power). 4. Haurvatāt (Integrity, Health). 5. Ameretāt (Immortality, Deathlessness). 6. Ārmaiti (Sacred Devotion).121
The meaning and the exact role of these entities have been investigated for a long time. In 1945, Georges Dumézil had been able to demonstrate by meticulous analysis that the two premier archangels correspond to the first function among the Indo-Europeans (the prescriptive ordering of the world, and juridical sovereignty); the third, Kshatra, to the second (warrior) function; Haurvatāt and Ameretāt, to the third function (fecundity and longevity), symbolised among the Indo-Aryans by the Nasatya twins, givers of life and health. As to the last entity, Ārmaiti, she represents a divinity that takes on a ‘synthesis’ of the three functions, whose equivalent is found in Saravasti among the Indians or Athena among the Greeks.122
The nature of Mazdaeism is therefore much more complex than it appears at first glance.
First of all, this apparent dualism is a monotheism. Ahura Māzdā is qualified as the only supreme god and there is never any doubt as to his final victory. The religion of Zoroaster does not have a ‘good god’ and a ‘bad god’; both have equal power; but an emanation (a ‘son’) of Ahura Māzdā struggles with another emanation, which is turned towards evil. ‘The teaching of the Iranian reformer’, emphasises Jean Varenne, ‘is less dualistic than Christianity, where it is God himself in the person of his son who confronts Satan’. Evil is no longer identified with the ‘veil of tears’ of earthly existence, while the good is in the ‘kingdom of heaven’. On the contrary, if Mazdaism opposes light with darkness, it is to place the first in this world and the second beyond it.
On the other hand, the identification of the archangels with the symbolic survivals of the three functions shows that the Zoroastrian ‘heaven’ is a space that is rustling with activity. Ahura Māzdā does not differ fundamentally from the supreme god of the Indo-Europeans: Jupiter among the Romans, Zeus-Pater among the Greeks, Diyuh-Pitā and Varuna among the Aryans. Varenne’s conclusion: ‘Zoroaster was more conservative than revolutionary’.
The Mediating Fire between Men and Gods
Zoroaster has not left a systematic exposition of his thought; the only documents at our disposal on the subject are the religious hymns that he authored: the Gāthās. These furnish us with some precise indications as to the customs, social organisation, habits, and ethics of the Old Persians.
Their tone is not lacking in aggression. At every instance, the author uses the same ‘military’ vocabulary that in India is found in the Rig Veda. He insists on justice more than mercy or grace. The Good Religion, he says, must be diffused by every means: it is the purpose of temporal power to establish, if necessary by force, Beneficent Order in this world.
Zoroaster condemns all forms of renunciation: fasting, celibacy, etc. His three principle commandments are: ‘Good thoughts, good speech, good actions’. In leading a life of righteousness, conformed to courage and to a sense of honour, man increases the power of Good (Ormazd) and diminishes that of Evil (Ahriman).
After death, man will be accountable for his actions. His soul will pass the ‘Sifting Bridge’ (Chinvat). If it has done Good, he will cross this passage without any difficulties. If the opposite is the case, the bridge will appear as thin as a hair, and he will plummet into an infernal abyss.
Liturgy takes on a considerable importance. The sacred fire (Atar) is in some way the mediator between men and the gods: it transmits the prayers and conveys the smoke of the sacrifices prepared by the priests (hotar in Sanskrit, zaotar in Iranian). Even there, Zoroaster has resumed an older practice. In Indo-Iranian paganism, fire has the rank of divinity. Zoroaster strips it of its divine character, but conserves for it a central place and goes so far as to make it a representation of Ahura Māzdā.
Ultimately we are dealing with a community-based, ‘national’ cult. Any reliance upon ‘missionaries’ is rejected. Mixed marriages are prescribed and Zoroaster goes as far as advocating consanguineous unions.
The influence of Mazdaism on later religions (Christianity and above all Islam) is likely. We have been able to see the Iranian magi in the ‘magician-kings’ who, according to Matthew (2.1–2), came to Bethlehem bearing gifts for the new-born Christ.
It is certain that the Achaemenids (from Cyrus the Great in 559, to Darius II in 330) were not all Zoroastrians. However, under the Sassanid dynasty, from 226 CE, the reformed religion triumphed and became the State Cult. The Gāthās, augmented by numerous commentaries, were thus translated into Pahlavi. But in one stroke the faith froze into a rigid orthodoxy. The influence of oriental currents made itself felt. In 639, Mazdaism collided with the Muslim conquest. Noble families were hunted down. Many emigrated to India, where they formed the Parsi community. Only the Guebres were able to remain in Iran despite persecutions.
Today, the Parsis (‘Persians’) or modern Zoroastrians live in the region of Bombay. Descendants of families hunted by the Arabs who arrived in India in 716 or, more simply, heirs of the Iranian ‘counters’123 from the west coast, they have carried with them the sacred fire, which they venerate as the symbol of the Light that shines in the heart of man.
Proponents of the immortality of the soul, they nevertheless rejected the doctrine of reincarnation. They are divided into two sects: the Shahanshahis and the Kadmis. Their cult underwent the influence of Hinduism. Having become hereditary, the priesthood contained three degrees. In the nineteenth century, a movement of ‘return to the Gāthās’ lead to a veritable cultural and political renaissance. In 1941, there were a little less than 115,000 Parsis. Their economic and social status is currently far superior to that of the average indigenous person: many Indian businessmen are Parsis.
The survival of Mazdaism in our day, and the existence of a prosperous Parsi community, pose an enigma. According to Varenne, the eschatological optimism of Zoroaster’s religion, as opposed to the metaphysical pessimism of Buddhism, Brahmanism, or Manichaeism, is not unrelated to this.
*
Zoroaster, a study by Jean Varenne. Seghers, 258 pages.
The Etruscan Mystery
‘Not only do the Etruscan people speak’, affirms Zacharie Mayani, ‘they joke, they use irony, they sing, they exalt the gods, they pray and address their exhortations to the shadows of their ancestors, and all of this in the language of Alexander the Great, of Pyrrhus, and of Maecenas. It is a terse language with a jagged rhythm, but full of vigour’.
Will the Etruscan mystery ever be resolved? And first of all, who are the Etruscans?
The Indo-Europeans arrived upon the Italian peninsular around 1,200 BCE, at the height of the Bronze Age. The founding of Rome, wh
ich is attributed to the Umbrians, dates to April, 753. Two centuries later, the Romans clashed violently with the inhabitants of Etruria, a territory situated between Umbria, the island Elba, and Latium. The most ancient chronicles report the war against the Etruscan king Porsenna in 507, and the legendary exploits of the one-eyed Horatius Cocles and the one-armed Mucius Scaevola, who were shown by Georges Dumézil to be ‘historical avatars’ corresponding to the Germanic gods, Odhinn and Tyr.
The Etruscans were expelled from southern Italy in 471. Their capital, Veius, was taken in 405. In 261, a year before the first Punic War, they submitted themselves definitively. Sicily was conquered in 241.
Stendhal, when he was consul at Civitavecchia, was seized with passion for the Etruscan question. In October 1834, he wrote: ‘I have joined a society that is going to dig up the Etruscans’.124
We are always ‘digging’ them up. Two theses still confront each other on the origin of this mysterious people. According to some, the Etruscans are autochthonous. They descend from the survivors of the Italian Stone Age, and their language is lost to the darkness of time. For others, who represent the opinion of the ancients (Livy, Tacitus, Herodotus, Pliny, and Seneca), the Etruscans are ‘foreigners’ who arrived in Italy between the thirteenth century and the eighth century BCE.
Heritage and Foundations Page 10