CHAPTER FOURTEEN TESTIMONY OF ZOROASTRIAN SOURCES In general, Alexander does not enjoy a positive image in Zoroastrian texts as evidenced, for example, by Bundahishn 33. 14; Then, during the reign of Dārāe son-of-Dārāe, the emperor Alexander came to Irānsahr, hying from Arūm (i.e. Greece), killed king Dārāe, destroyed all the families of rulers, magi, and public-men of Irānsahr, extinguished an immense number of sacred-fires, seized the commentary of the Revelation of Mazda-worship, and sent it to Arūm, burned the Avesta, and divided Irānsahr among ninety petty-rulers.1 With regard to the sending of the sacred books to Greece, Dinkard III is more detailed: That which was in the fortress of documents came to be burnt; and that in the treasury of Shapīgān into the hands of the Arūmans, and was translated by him even into the Greek language, as information which was connected with the ancients.2 The same subject of Alexander’s treatment of the sacred texts is dealt with in the Persian Zoroastrian Rivayats, and interestingly come to support a premise of this study, that is the use of Iranian and Zoroastrian motifs for Alexander’s propaganda. In recounting the titles and subjects of the twenty-one Nasks (treatises) of the Avesta, the Rivayats state that, after Alexander, parts of the books, or rather certain precise numbers of chap- ters from several books, were seen to be missing. It is significant that the list enumerated includes mainly the topics of kingship, government and 1 Zand-Ākāsīh, Iranian or Greater Bundahisn, trans. B.T. Anklesaria, Bombay, 1956, pp. 275–277. 2 Pahlavi Texts, pt. IV, Contents of the Nasks, trans. E.W. West, Oxford, 1892, Sacred Books of the East, Vol. 37, p. XXXI; cf. Persian Rivayats, Sacred Books of the East, Vol. 37, pp. 437, 446; Letter of Tansar, ed. M. Minovi, Tehran, 1975, pp. 56, 118 f., 140; cf. J. Bidez & F. Cumont, Les Mages Hellénisés, Paris, 1938, Vol. I, pp. 86–88 for an argument in support of this claim based on the evidence of Classical sources, mainly Pliny XXX. ii. 4; J.J. Modi, “Alexander the Great and the destruction of the ancient literature of the Parsees at his hands”, Oriental Conference Papers, Bombay, 1932, pp. 58–116; On the translation of Persian books into Greek, from Persian libraries and on various subjects, and sending them to Greece see also Nizami, 1938, pp. 70, 268. 174 chapter fourteen judiciary.3 It was argued earlier in the present work that there is reason to believe that Alexander had used parts of Darius I’s rhetoric as propaganda tools towards establishing his kingship as legitimate in Iranians’ eyes. Perhaps what survives in the Rivayats also echoes that fact, but from the point of view of a negative recollection of Alexander’s efforts. Perhaps it is his adoption of the Persian king’s rhetoric, from the captured archives, that has come to be remembered in the later religious texts as his misap- propriation of the holy books. The subjects of the missing chapters would seem to be an indication of the use of certain Iranian material, dealing with such topics, by Alexander and for establishing his kingship and gov- erning in Iran. Furthermore, another Zoroastrian text, the Bahman Yasht, also seems to refer to Alexander’s use of religious motifs for propaganda purposes, and denounce him forcefully: “Wicked Alexander destroyed by the good religion and goes unseen and unknown from the world.”4 In other words, while this account seems to vouch for his use of religious motifs to make himself known to the Iranians as righteous, its verdict on that same note is negative. He had not succeeded in presenting himself as a rightful king, ordained by the religion. He has perished “unseen and unknown” from the religion’s standpoint. Of interest is also Bundahishn 36. 8, that states Alexander in the Iranian list of kings and gives him the same length of rule as Darius III, fourteen years.5 It was suggested above that this evidence would seem to show that in earlier Iranian sources certain similar accounts had been related for both kings and perhaps conflated at some level. Perhaps in this regard it is relevant to note that another Zoroastrian text, Minog-e Khirad VIII. 27–30, also lists Alexander, but as belonging to Ahriman’s camp, and countering a list of rightful kings ordained by Ahuramazda. The two groups suffer altered fates of losing their creator’s given immortality by the will of the opposing camp’s lord: “For it is declared that ‘the Yim and Frēdūn and Kāi-Ūs of Aūharmazd are created immortal, and Aharman so altered them as is known. And Aharman so contemplated that Bēvarāsp and Frāsīyāk and Alexander should be immortal, but Aūharmazd, for great Advantage, 3 Pahlavi Texts, Pt. IV: Contents of the Nasks, Oxford, 1892., Sacred Books of the East, Vol. 37, transl. E.W. West, pp. 422–447. 4 Bahman Yasht II. 20, Sacred Books of the East Vol. 5, p. 200. 5 Anklesaria, 1956, p. 307; cf. Tabari, Vol. IV, p. 94 (702) who ascribes the fourteen years of Alexander to a Persian tradition and different from a Christian tradition, Shāhnāma also ascribes fourteen years to each, see ed. J. Mohl, pp. 1387, 1406..