Indo- J (2006) 49: 197–200 DOI 10.1007/s10783-007-9008-3 BOOK REVIEW

Kellens, Jean, La quatrième naissance des Zarathustra. [Librairie du XXIe Siècle. Collection dirigée par Maurice Olender] Paris: Édition du Seuil 2006, pp. 187. ISBN 2-02-010901-8. € 20,-

A. Degener

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Jean Kellens has been known as a brilliant scholar of whose studies on have nevertheless not always found unequivocal support. The title of his new book refers to several successive stages of creation as they are outlined in Zoroastrian tradition (based on Late Avestan and Middle Persian scriptures) and which are interwoven with the vita of Zarathustra: (1) creation of the world in an im- material or spirit state, (2) creation in material form, the starting point of world history seen as a battle of Good against Evil, (3) appearance of (mythological) Zarathustra at the pivotal point of human history, which ends with the coming of the World Sav- iours, and Mazda’s final triumph. K. adds a fourth stage, ’s “birth” as a historical personality, come about through misinterpretation of the Avestan ev- idence by prejudiced readers. In this book, in order to trace the sources of different scholarly positions and to assess their plausibility, K. gives a survey of Avestan and Zoroastrian studies, starting with the pre-scientific works of classical authors and end- ing with the present time. K. emphasizes that it is a personal, and polemical account, and that sounds like a warning. Indeed, even if the etymology of the epithet gabr for Zoroastrians is unknown, K.s identification with Persian gor “onager” (not “ass”) is hardly convincing. Nevertheless, this is a minor point, as this book is doubtlessly the most reliable and most comprehensive survey of Iranian studies available, and will be immensely useful for students of Iranian philology or Religious history. K. distinguishes two great lines of scholarly tradition, the one initiated by James Darmesteter, and the other one based on Martin Haug. Haug (1827–1876) realized two important facts. One is the lexical inversion turning Indian gods (deva)into Iranian demons (daiva), and the name of Indian demons (asura) into the epithet (ahura) of the greatest divinity of the Iranian pantheon, . The second is the fact that the Gathic portion of the Avestan liturgy is older than the rest

A. Degener () Emrichruhstr. 7, 55120 Mainz, Germany 198 A. Degener of that book. Starting with these two observations, which are essentially valid until today, he developed a complex theory about the origin of Zoroastrianism and its later development. In his Essays on the Sacred Language, Writings and Religion of the (Bombay 1862, reedited 1878 and 1884) he argued that Zarathustra introduced monotheism on the basis of a preexistent agricultural religion of the Iranians which had its origin in a religious schism between settled Iranians and nomadic Indians. To explain the apparent contradiction of alleged monotheism with the apparent dualism of the , Haug assumed a combination of religious monotheism and philosoph- ical dualism. In later Zoroastrian history, under Zarathustra’s less gifted followers his philosophical dualism was to become a veritable religious dualism, while his original monotheism deteriorated into the polytheism of the Avestan . The origin of Zoroastrianism is thus explained by historical events, its development by the dynam- ics of beliefs. The weak point in Haug’s model is that History is enlisted for a period where it is not documented, and eliminated as soon as it becomes verifiable. Another weakness in Haug’s theory is his historically unfounded preference for monotheism. As a result, he judges dualism and polytheism to be due to fatal misinterpretation. K. points out that Haug was guided by contemporary evolutionist, as well as theolog- ical ideas. Nevertheless, his theories even today influence the strict monotheism of reformist Zoroastrians. Haug’s model goes along with several far-reaching implications. If Iranian religion was modified because of changed conditions, it implies that the Vedic religion of In- dia conserves a true picture of prehistoric Indo-Iranian religion, while the Ancient Iranian religion appears as an innovation. If, furthermore, Zarathustra introduced monotheism into a preexistent Iranian religion, if he was a reformer rather than a rev- olutionary, there must be postulated an undocumented religion of pre-Zoroastrianism. While Haug is the figurehead of the “modèle historique,” James Darmesteter (1849–1894) is that of the “modèle mythologique.” Even the title of his book “Ohrmazd et ,” published in 1877, testifies to Darmesteter’s conviction that the religious system of the is dualistic. Starting from the observation that its origin (judging from Old Indian, Greek and Roman religions) must have been polytheistic, and using methods developed by comparative linguistics, Darmesteter set out to analyse those aspects of the Iranian religion which were common Indo- Iranian stock, and to distinguish them from those aspects which were apparently later inventions or imports. Ahura Mazda or Ohrmazd, for example, was basically an Indo-Iranian deity by origin, while Angra Manyu or Ahriman was unknown in other Indo-European religions. Darmesteter recognized that Ahura Mazda’s person- ality and status as the highest god is explained by the fact that he is the god associated with , Righteousness, corresponding to the Vedic principle of cosmic order rta. Zarathustra is seen by him not as a human prophet, but as the fire of lightning incar- nated in order to fight Evil represented by Ahriman, he is a mythological protagonist in a mythological world history. Darmesteter’s mythological model was not widely accepted among his contemporaries, and in the following years, he progressively dis- sociated himself from it. The pioneer works of Darmesteter and Haug, both published around 1877, thus mark two opposing lines of Zoroastrian studies, i.e. the historical and the mytho- logical approach. The most important publications for Zoroastrian studies to appear in the following years were K.F. Geldner’s edition of all available manuscripts of