AMESA SPENTA. — Under the Persian name of A., a group of entities is understood, which appear frequently, one or another or several together, in almost every stanza of the hymns of the ancient Avesta. The term itself, A., whose first part *amea* means “immortal” and the second *spenta* probably “beneficent,” hence “beneficent immortals,” does not appear in the Gathas but is found for the first time in a seven-chapter composition (Yasna, 39, 3), which, in language and content, is very close to them.
The Amesha Spentas constitute one of the fundamental pillars of Zoroaster’s system and one of the most original parts of his doctrine. The following figures are enumerated among the Amesha Spentas: *Aša Vahišta* “the best righteousness,” *Vohu Manah* “good thought” or equity, *Xšaθra Vairya* “desirable sovereignty,” *Spenta Ārmaiti* “beneficent devotion,” *Haurvatāt* “wholeness,” *Amərətāt* “immortality.” They are thus six forces; and the Greeks likewise know six of them, as appears from Plutarch (De Is. et Os., 47), who probably draws his information from Theopompus and calls such forces gods. The number seven, which, moreover, is not explicitly mentioned in the ancient Avesta, is obtained by adding to the group *Ahu-Ramazdāh* or sometimes *Sraoša*; but this number is not constant, since other figures are sometimes annexed.
They are creatures of Ahuramazdāh (v.), who is also called the father of some of them; as for their nature, some see in the Amesha Spentas divine beings or divinized ethical abstractions and personifications, others simple attributes or aspects of the one divinity, essential parts of its being. But since the six forces are attributed both to the divinity and to man, this dual aspect must be kept in mind, and they should be seen as properties of the divinity, by which it governs the world, distributes graces and aids, rewards or punishes, etc., and at the same time as qualities of the faithful, which enable them to act well. They most often appear in the instrumental case, indicating the means or instrument by which the divinity and the faithful act; and they are also personified.
In the later Avesta, the six forces are certainly regarded as deities, but they have completely lost the importance they had in the ancient doctrine; and they are placed in relation to various elements of the world, to whose care and protection they are entrusted: to *Aša* the fire, to *Vohu Manah* animals, to *Xšaθra* metals, to *Ārmaiti* the earth, to *Haurvatāt* water, and to *Amərətāt* plants. Hints of these relations with the elements are also found in the ancient Avesta (cf. Yasna, 51, 7; 47, 3). It is impossible to decide which of the two aspects—spiritual or physical—is primitive in the Amesha Spentas; it is certain, however, that in the ancient Avesta the ethical and moral side almost unchallengedly predominates. The translation of some names of the Amesha Spentas is still debated today; nor is it always easy to give a single-term equivalent in another language, since the Avestan notions are not univocal but complex. Moreover, the functions attributed to them in Zoroaster’s system are not so distinctly defined as to allow the precise contours of their activity to be fixed. 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?
*Aša* corresponds to the Indian *ṛta*, which means “right, world order as conforming to a norm of law.” In the Avesta, *Aša* is rarely applied to the material world (Yasna, 44, 3 is probably, according to the context, to be translated “world order”); most often 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 guided in their actions. Some translate it as “truth,” others as “justice, right.” Even ancient authors waver between the two notions; while Plutarch (De Is. et Os., 47) and the Arab writer al-Bīrūnī (Chron., 219, V. 204; ed. E. Sachau) render it as “truth,” Philo of Byblos (in Eusebius, Praep. ev., I, 10, 42; ed. Th. Gaisford) translates it as “justice.” Indeed, the two notions of truth and justice are included in the term *aša*; one can only discuss which is predominant and gives the tone. But since the entire tradition of later Mazdean books and even the non-Iranian languages into which the word has penetrated understand it as “justice,” we believe this to be the prevailing meaning. In Zoroaster’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 most adequately render the complex nuances is “rectitude,” i.e., the conformity of thought and will to the norms of truth, truth in action. By translating it thus, one would account for the two notions of justice and truth contained in the Avestan term. This A. is the first and most important in Mazdean doctrine; and just as it constitutes the essential property of Ahuramazdāh, so it must be the fundamental disposition of those who follow his doctrine; for this reason, the Mazdean faithful is simply called “he who has rectitude, the righteous, the just.”
*Vohu Manah* means “good thought,” better “good thinking or feeling,” and indicates a disposition not merely intellectual but above all volitional. Plutarch transmits its meaning exactly by translating it as “benevolence.” After *Aša*, it is the most important force in Zoroaster’s doctrine; indeed, in the tradition after the Gathas it takes first place outright, as also in Plutarch and Philo of Byblos (loc. cit.). The difference between this entity and the previous 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 as is found between justice and equity. Its function is among the most important: to “good feeling” is attributed above all the extension of the domain of Ahuramazdāh and the increase of his power; to it is likewise attributed the success of the mission of his envoy, Zoroaster, and the growth, well-being, and prosperity of human society. It also appears as the vehicle through which the divinity transmits its laws and norms.
*Xšaθra* has a double meaning and sometimes indicates “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 society, the tribe, or the household. Supreme authority belongs to Ahuramazdāh, and in his manner of speaking Zoroaster always has him accompanied by sovereignty, and through it makes him act and speak. By his “sovereignty” the divinity bestows rewards on the good; by it he will finally give a wonderful form to the world. But authority also belongs to the heads of human society in its various gradations, and it must be characterized by “strength with rectitude and dominion with good feeling (equity).” When the term is used in the sense of “kingdom,” it is predominantly the
The future, which will be established at the end of the world after the definitive defeat of evil: it is the blessed kingdom of “long duration,” resplendent and radiant like the sun, adorned with magnificent lights by Ahura Mazda himself; the dominion of righteousness and good sense, where the word of the deity will have full and unchallenged authority. Its inhabitants will feed on integrity and drink immortality, and they will possess eternal well-being and strength. The idea of a kingdom of God on earth, as it appears in the Old Testament—composed of an elected people, with its own territory and under the direct rule of God (theocracy)—is absent from the doctrine of Zarathustra, although attempts have been made to find it there.
Amaiti is “docility,” the quality with which one must respond to the authority of Ahura Mazda and to every earthly authority founded on righteousness and good sense. In a hymn, Zarathustra explains the contrast between the daevas on one side and the pious men on the other, tracing their origin to the fact that the former rebelled against the authority of the deity, while the latter were docile, possessed “docility.” And he asks for the grace that “docility” may spread among all who listen to his word. Whoever is animated by docility “will increase righteousness 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 are the last two A., which represent a future reward, a gift promised by the deity in the life to come as a recompense for good works performed on earth. These are Haurvatat and Ameretat.
Haurvatat means “integrity, wholeness” and denotes the sum of goods that will make the just man happy after death, granting him absolute spiritual and bodily well-being.
Ameretat, “immortality,” signifies the eternal duration of future bliss, which will know no decline.
If we set aside these last two, which have an eschatological character, the first four A. represent the fundamental pillars of a well-ordered religious and social life. In it, an authority prevails, which in Zarathustra’s conception must be associated with righteousness and good sense (equity); to it must correspond docility, that is, obedience, along with righteousness and equity. Such are the relationships that must bind man to the deity in spiritual life and man to leaders in the various forms of social coexistence. When there is perfect cooperation among 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 purpose of their life, summed up in the two terms: integrity and immortality.