AMESHA SPENTA. - Under the Persian name A. is understood a group of entities, which appear frequently, now one, now another, or several together, in almost every stanza of the hymns of the ancient Avestā. The term A. itself, whose first part ameśa means "immortal" and whose second part spenta probably means "beneficent," hence "beneficent immortals," does not appear in the Gāthā but is found for the first time in a composition of seven chapters (Yasna, 39, 3), which in language and content stands very close to them.
The A. constitute one of the fundamental pivots of Zarathustra's system and one of the most original parts of his doctrine. Among the A. the following figures are enumerated: Aśa vahīṣta "the best rectitude," Vohu manah "good thinking," that is, equity, Xāthra vairya "the desirable kingdom," Spenta ārmaiti "the beneficent docility," Haurvatāt "integrity," Ameretāt "immortality." There are therefore six forces; and likewise the Greeks know six of them, as appears from Plutarch (De Is. et Os., 47), who probably takes his information from Theopompus, and calls these forces gods. The number seven, of which moreover there is no explicit mention in the ancient Avestā, is obtained by adding to the group Ahuramazdāh or sometimes Sraośa; but this number does not remain constant because other figures are sometimes annexed to it.
They are creatures of Ahuramazdāh (v.), who is also called the father of some of them; as for their nature, some see in the A. divine beings or divinized and personified ethical abstractions, others instead simple attributes or aspects of the one divinity, essential parts of his being; but since the six forces are attributed both to the divinity and to man, one must bear in mind this double aspect and see in them properties of the divinity, with which he governs the world, distributes graces and aids, the final reward or punishment, etc., and at the same time qualities of the faithful that make them capable of doing good. They recur most often in the instrumental case, intending to indicate the means or instrument with which the divinity and the faithful act; and they also appear personified.
In the recent Avestā the six forces appear unreservedly as divinities, but they have however completely lost the importance they had in the ancient doctrine; and they are placed in relation with various elements of the world, of which the care and protection is entrusted to them: to Aśa fire, to Vohu manah animals, to Xāthra metals, to Ārmaiti the earth, to Haurvatāt water and to Ameretāt plants. Of these relations with the elements there are hints also in the ancient Avestā (cf. Yasna, 51, 7; 47, 3). Which of the two aspects is primitive in the A., whether the spiritual or the physical, it is not possible to decide; certain it is that in the ancient Avestā the ethical and moral side dominates almost unchallenged. The translation of some of the names of the A. is still discussed today; nor is it always easy to give their equivalent in another language with a single term, since in the ancient Avestā they designate notions that are not univocal but complex. Moreover the functions attributed to them in Zarathustra's system are not distinguished with such precision as to allow one to fix the sharp and precise contours of their activity. Does this derive from the system being rather sketched than finished, or perhaps from the small number of hymns that have come down to us?
Aśa corresponds to the Indian ṛta, which has the meaning of right, order of the world insofar as it conforms to a norm of right. In the Avestā, Aśa is not applied to the material world except rarely (Yasna, 44, 3 is probably, according to the context, to be translated "order of the world"); most often instead it is attributed to the divinity and to men; it is a property of the action of Ahuramazdāh, and a quality by which men must be moved in their acting. Some translate it "truth," others instead "justice, right." The ancient authors too waver between the two notions; and while Plutarch (De Is. et Os., 47) and the Arab writer Biruni (Chron., 219, v. 204; ed. E. Sachau) render it "truth," Philo of Byblos (in Eusebius, Praep. ev., I, 10, 42; ed. Th. Gaisford) translates it "justice." In fact the two notions of truth and justice are included in the term aśa; one can only discuss which is the prevalent one and gives the tone. But since the whole tradition of the later Mazdean books and also the non-Iranian languages into which the word has penetrated understand it as "justice," we believe that this is the prevalent meaning. In Zarathustra's system, however, it does not designate an exclusively objective norm, but rather a moral quality, a habitual disposition of thought, will and action, conforming to the right norm. The Italian term that would more adequately render the complex nuances is "rectitude," that is, the conformity of thought and will to the norms of the true, truth in acting. By translating in this way one would take account of the two notions of justice and truth that are found in the Avestic term. This A. is the first and the most important in the Mazdean doctrine; and just as it constitutes the essential property of Ahuramazdāh, so it must be the fundamental disposition of the one who follows his doctrine; for this reason the Mazdean faithful is unreservedly called "he who has rectitude, the upright, the just."
Vohu manah means "good thought," better "good thinking or feeling," and indicates a disposition not merely intellectual, but above all volitional. Plutarch accurately transmits its meaning by translating it "benevolence." After Aśa it is the most important force in Zarathustra's doctrine, indeed in the tradition after the Gāthā it unreservedly takes the first place, and so also in Plutarch and Philo of Byblos (loc. cit.). The difference between this entity and the preceding one would seem to consist above all in this: while "rectitude" looks to the norms of the just and the true, "good thinking, or feeling" looks above all to the norms of equity; between the first and the second there is in a certain way the same difference that is found between justice and equity. Its function is among the most important: to "good feeling" is attributed above all the extension of the dominion of Ahuramazdāh and the increase of his power, to it likewise the success of the mission of his envoy, Zarathustra, and the increase and well-being and prosperity of human society. It also appears as the vehicle through which the divinity transmits his laws and his norms.
Xāthra has a double meaning and indicates sometimes "sovereignty" or simply "authority" and sometimes the territory in which it is exercised, the "kingdom." In the first sense it is attributed to the divinity and also to man, e.g. to the head of the society, of the tribe or of the house. The supreme authority belongs to Ahuramazdāh, and in his way of expressing himself Zarathustra always has him accompanied by sovereignty, and through it has him act and speak. With his "sovereignty" the divinity bestows on the good their reward, through it he will at the end give a marvelous form to the world. But authority also belongs to the heads of human society in its various gradations, and it must have as its characteristic "force with rectitude and dominion with good feeling (equity)." When the term is used in the sense of "kingdom," what is meant is prevalently the kingdom future one, the one that will be established at the end of the world after the definitive defeat of evil: it is the blessed kingdom "of long duration," shining and resplendent like the sun, adorned with magnificent lights by Ahuramazdāh himself; the dominion of righteousness and right-mindedness, where the word of the divinity will have full and uncontested value. Its inhabitants will feed on integrity and drink immortality, and will have well-being and everlasting strength. The idea of a kingdom of God on earth, as it appears in the Old Testament, composed of a chosen people, with its own territory and under the direct rule of God (theocracy) is absent from the doctrine of Zarathustra, however much attempts have been made to find it there.
Armaiti is "docility," the quality with which one must respond to the authority of Ahuramazdāh and to every earthly authority founded on righteousness and right-mindedness. In a hymn Zarathustra explains the contrast between the daevas on the one hand and pious men on the other, repeating that its origin lies in the fact that the former were rebellious against the authority of the divinity, while the latter were docile, having "docility." And he asks for the grace that "docility" may spread among all those who hear his word. Whoever then is animated by docility "will make righteousness grow in the world with his thoughts, words and deeds"; in this the reformer sees the purpose of his mission.
Of a different nature from the preceding ones are the last two A., which represent a future reward, a gift promised by the divinity in the life to come, as recompense for the good works performed on earth. They are Haurvatāt and Ameretāt.
Haurvatāt means "integrity, wholeness" and indicates the accumulation of goods that will make the righteous happy after death, giving him absolute spiritual and bodily well-being.
Ameretāt "immortality" denotes the eternal duration of the future happy life, which will know no setting.
If we set aside these last two, which have an eschatological character, the first four A. represent the fundamental hinges of a well-ordered religious and social life. In it an authority dominates, which in Zarathustra's conception must be associated with righteousness and with right-mindedness (equity); to it must correspond docility, that is, obedience, together with righteousness and equity. Such are the relations that must bind man to the divinity in the spiritual life, and man to the leaders in the various kinds of social coexistence. When there is the perfect cooperation of the four great pillars: authority, righteousness, equity, docility, then society will have harmony and prosperity, and men in that well-ordered society will be able to attain the ultimate goal of their life, summed up in two terms: integrity and immortality.
EVALUATION
A relationship has been observed between the doctrine of the A. and that of the angels in the Old Testament, and the latter has been derived from the former. And by biblical terminology the A. are designated by some with the name of archangels or angels. But the differences are so notable as rather to suggest a contrast.
The A. present themselves as ethical abstractions in some way personified, which cannot simply be considered as hypostases of divine properties, since they are also qualities of pious men. This conception is different from that of the angels, who have a marked personality, names that cannot be considered as abstractions, are clearly distinct from God, and for all these reasons are not suited to being conceived as his hypostases; on the other hand they are distinct from men and cannot be considered as concretizations of human virtues. Nor can an argument be drawn from the number seven, which is said to be identical in both doctrines, to affirm a derivation of the one from the other; because the number seven is absent from the ancient Avestā, and in the recent one it is not only not constant, but when it is found there it is the product of artifice, such a number being formed by the addition of Ahuramazdāh or of Sravā, who do not belong to the group of the A. The number therefore is not original to the doctrine. Nor is it certain on the other hand that the number seven in the Old Testament (Tob. 12, 15) is to be considered as a real number and not rather as an expression of an indeterminate quantity, as happens in other biblical passages. If, moreover, one wished to establish a comparison between the angels and their work and the A. and their function, one would not find the slightest parallel, the function of the two being radically different.
Bibliography2 works
Giuseppe Messina