PERSIA. — Since 1925 and until 1950 called IRAN (from Erān = “nobili” [noble]), i.e., the Aryans), it comprises, in a broad sense, the entire plateau that connects Anatolia to Central Asia, over which the Aryans ruled.
SUMMARY:
I. Geography
II. Ancient history and religion
III. The Persian Empire and Holy Scripture
IV. Christianity and Islam.I. GEOGRAPHY.
After China and India, this is the largest (1.6 million sq. km.) of the independent states of Asia. Its maritime façade faces the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea; its borders put it in contact with the U.S.S.R. (to the N.), Turkey, Iraq (to the W.), Afghanistan, and Pakistan (to the E.).
The territory consists of about two-thirds of an arid, steppe-like, or desert plateau, surrounded on all sides by mountain ranges (Elburs: 5,761 m.), which in turn are isolated from the outside by more or less extensive depressed areas, and segregate the interior of the country from the beneficial influence of the humid sea winds. The pronounced continentality of the climate results in brief, harsh winters and long, torrid summers; but even more characteristic is the extreme scarcity of precipitation, which accounts for the presence of vast desert areas (Dasht-e Kavir, Dasht-e Lut). Only on the slopes of the highest mountains, fertilized by rainfall, or in the internal oases, where some water table emerges, is cultivation possible, yielding, in addition to cereals (especially wheat), cotton, tobacco, and sugar beets. The widespread presence of steppe is linked to nomadic pastoralism, the substantial size of the livestock patrimony (13 million sheep; 7 million goats; 2.5 million cattle, etc.), and the activities connected to it (rugs, handwoven fabrics, hides, etc.). Flourishing too are sericulture (especially on the Caspian coast), fishing (Caspian Sea), and oyster farming (Persian Gulf).
But the country’s greatest resources lie underground; of its still poorly evaluated wealth (coal, metals, and especially copper and lead), only petroleum is exploited. Found in several zones, it is extracted in greater quantities from Khuzestan (from where a pipeline carries it to Abadan on the Persian Gulf), from Khorasan, and from eastern Mazandaran. Production has roughly quadrupled in the last twenty years (25 million tons in 1948), so that Persia now ranks fourth among oil-producing countries. The recent disputes with Britain are essentially economic in nature and arise from Persia’s demand for a larger percentage (royalty) on production, with a view to improving the country’s economy. This had already been aided, however, by the development of communications (2,500 km of railways, among which the Trans-Iranian line from Bandar-e Gaz on the Caspian to Bandar-e Shahpur on the Persian Gulf stands out) and by the more efficient organization of ports.
Persia’s population today amounts to no less than 17 million inhabitants (10 per sq. km.), of which 2.3 million are urban; the rest are Turks, Kurds, Arabs, Baluchis, Gypsies, Armenians, and Jews. Europeans number only a few thousand, all in the major urban centers. Of these, fewer than a dozen exceed 100,000 inhabitants. Tehran, the capital, now has more than twice as many as twenty years ago (700,000); followed by Isfahan (205,000), Tabriz (213,000), and Shiraz (129,000).
Persia is a hereditary constitutional monarchy with an elective government and a bicameral legislature.
II. ANCIENT HISTORY AND RELIGION.
I. THE IRANIAN WORLD
The factor that most contributed to giving a face to Iranism and to making it, for more than a millennium, a cultural as well as a political entity distinct from others, is certainly the religious one. Indeed, while the Iranian peoples of the plateau, who adopted the religion of Zoroaster, became a historical people capable of asserting themselves on the margins of the Greco-Roman world, the kindred tribes of Central Asia, which remained estranged from it, were absorbed into the sea of nomadic and barbarian populations that the ancients comprehended under the name of Scythians. It should be noted, moreover, that the affirmation of Iranism, especially on the cultural plane, appears in its various developments in close relation to the affirmation of those religious values.Of the Indo-European peoples who, during the second millennium, had settled on the plateau that took its name from them (Iran, Middle Persian ērān from Old Persian aryānām), the Medes were the first to assert themselves, founding a kingdom that, from the second half of the 8th century B.C., constituted for more than a century and a half one of the most powerful political organizations of the Near East. Direct information about the religion of the Medes is lacking, but the very fact that the new doctrine proclaimed by Zoroaster would be adopted and transformed by the Magi—who, according to Herodotus’s testimony, were one of the seven tribes of Media—shows that these Aryan peoples, having become sedentary, had elaborated new values from the ancient naturalistic heritage of their common phase.
The legacy of the Median Empire was taken up by the Persian Empire of the Achaemenid dynasty. Founded by Cyrus the Great around the middle of the 6th century B.C., it established a politico-administrative organization that was certainly the first and most important of the ancient world. The solidity of the work created by Cyrus and strengthened by Darius I was such that, despite the unsuccessful campaigns against Greece, Persia was able to maintain a position of preeminence for more than two centuries. The decline of the Empire was accompanied by the fact that, after Darius, the dynasty assumed the typical features of Oriental despotism, from which it had vigorously distinguished itself at the outset. Indeed, at the foundation of the Iranian Empire was a conception of power entirely new in the political tradition of the Near East. Today it is argued that the first Achaemenids were not Zoroastrians; but, however scant the evidence from their inscriptions, it is clear that the character assumed by imperial function under them cannot be explained except by a religious renewal that also invested the ethical sphere. The constant assertion of the divine derivation of power, together with the proclaimed moral imperative inherent in it, leads one to attribute to a religious motive—precisely Zoroastrianism—the novelty of their political action and the consequent success of the first monarchs. Their attitude of tolerance and deference toward other religions (Darius confirmed the promise made by Cyrus to the Jews immediately after the conquest of Babylon regarding their return to Jerusalem and the rebuilding of the Temple) must certainly be understood as a reflection, in addition to particular political circumstances, of a new recognition of the ethical validity of religious data.
With the Battle of Gaugamela (331) and the death of Darius III, the last of the dynasty, the Achaemenid Empire brought its cycle to a close. The victorious campaign of Alexander the Great, though his untimely death prevented the realization of a political organization that would have implemented his universalistic ideal, nonetheless succeeded in breaking down the barriers that separated Persia from the West. Under the rule of the Seleucids and later the Arsacids, Iranian culture was deeply influenced by Hellenistic culture and failed to achieve a distinct cultural identity. This is certainly to be linked to the decline of the national religion. The Iranian elements that circulated in the Hellenized world and even penetrated into the Roman orbit underwent profound transformations that rendered them alien to their origins: this is the case, among other things, of Mithraism, which, originating in Anatolia and spreading to the West, retained little or nothing of the motifs tied to the figure of Mithra in Zoroastrian religion.
Iranian tradition revived with the Sassanian Empire, which, succeeding the Arsacids in 226 AD, established a solid structure that lasted until the Muslim conquest. The struggle against Rome and later against Byzantium is the dominant feature of the entire history of the Sassanian dynasty. This was accompanied by merciless persecution of Christians, beginning at the moment when Constantine’s conversion made them appear as allies of the age-old enemy. The Battle of Nihāvand (642, 21 Rajab), the “victory of victories” as the Arabs called it, marked the end of Persia as an independent national state and at the same time its entry—without, however, the loss of original traits—into the sphere of Islam.
ZARATHUSTRA AND HIS PREACHING. — In classical and Iranian religious tradition, the figure of the reformer appears with markedly legendary traits. The legend that developed among the Greeks, according to which Zoroaster (the Iranian form of the name, as opposed to the Hellenized Zoroaster, which gained currency after its appearance in the title of a work by F. Nietzsche) had lived six thousand years before Plato, is certainly the product of Iranian cosmological speculations that found resonance within the Academy. Within Persian traditions, the accounts regarding his age are not uniform and have a legendary character; however, one contained in the Bundahišn, a relatively recent Pahlavi cosmological treatise that reworks ancient material, namely that he converted King Vištāspa 258 years before Alexander the Great, has been given particular consideration by scholars. Unfortunately, no consensus has been reached on the interpretation of this notice. Some, wishing to identify the Zoroastrian Vištāspa with Hystaspes, father of Darius I, take the advent of Alexander to mean the beginning of the Seleucid era, i.e., 312 BC, and thus place the life of Zoroaster, who according to tradition lived 77 years, between 570 and 500 BC (Herzfeld); others, more plausibly, take the reference to Alexander’s reign to coincide with the end of the Achaemenid Empire, specifically with the death of Darius III (330 BC); consequently, the birth of the prophet would be placed around 650 and his death around 533 BC.
This interpretation of the traditional datum appears the most plausible.
Nevertheless, the very credibility of this notice may be challenged by the fact that the language of the Avesta, and in particular that of the Gathas, the oldest hymns which are certainly the work of Zoroaster himself, exhibits a markedly archaic character in comparison with the language of the Achaemenid cuneiform inscriptions. Since there is no continuous development between the language of the Avesta and that of the inscriptions, the differing archaic features may be attributed to dialectal differences. Moreover, there is the difference between the Gathic linguistic form and that of the rest of the Avesta (Younger Avesta), which can only partially be explained by certain dialectal distinctions; for the rest, one must admit some interval of time, a conclusion corroborated by the very development of the doctrine from the Gathic (Zarathustrian) phase to the Avestan (Zoroastrian) phase (the use of the two appellations to distinguish the two phases is due to Lommel), for which a more or less lengthy period must likewise be admitted.
In light of this, if one accepts the date given in the Bundahišn, which places the conversion of Vištāspa in 588 (Zarathustra was then 42 years old according to tradition), one must admit that the evolution of the doctrine Avesta (v.) as a canonical corpus must have extended well into the Achaemenid period. This is further confirmed by the fact, for example, that one Yašt, that dedicated to Ardvī Sūrā Anāhitā, could not have been composed before 400 BC, since the description of the goddess clearly refers to a statue; it is known that the female deity Anāhitā and the cult of divine images were introduced by Artaxerxes II Mnemon (404–358).
As for the original cradle of Mazdean religion, clear geographical references and the historical and doctrinal developments themselves point to the eastern regions of Iran. Zoroaster must have carried out his preaching between Chorasmia and Margiana; its first success must also have occurred in the region of Lake Hamun; later, there was a shift westward, specifically to Media. It was certainly this shift, associated with the adoption of Mazdean doctrine by the Magi, a Median tribe, that led to Zoroaster being described in later literature as a native of Rhagae, near modern Tehran. The hypothesis that he, a native of Media, may have migrated to the eastern regions, where his preaching would have found favor, finds some support in the references to “Cutchian” persons in the Gathas (Bartholomae); but such references can also be explained within the context of probable movements that the prophet’s activity was forced to undergo in the same eastern regions, between Chorasmia and Margiana. Moreover, the Avestan language, both in its Gathic and in its later form, certainly occupies a middle position between the northwestern and the more easterly Iranian dialects (Sogdian and Khotanese).
In the past, the historical personality of Zoroaster has been doubted, but certainly without serious grounds. His figure stands out vividly from the Gathas, which certainly go back to him, both in his human and in his intellectual aspect. His name shows an etymology that points to an agricultural and pastoral environment: *Zarat-ustra-* and “he whose camels are thin”; the same environment is also reflected in the names of his parents, Pourušaspa and Dughdōvā, attributed to him by tradition. He belonged to the Spitama family, probably a clan of a semi-nomadic people. His activity as a priest (he describes himself as a *zaotar* in Yasna 33.6) and his preaching took place within a small circle of followers. In the Gathas he often laments the difficulties opposing his work, on the part of princes (Kavi, Sāstar) and priests (Karapan, Usig); in Yasna 51.12 he refers to the hostile reception he met during his winter travels at the court of a prince. His position was strengthened when he succeeded in converting to his religion Prince Vištāspa and influential members of his court such as the brothers Frāšōstar and Jāmāspa: he gave his daughter in marriage to the former and his own daughter Pourucistā in marriage to the latter; one of his Gathas was composed on the occasion of this latter wedding.
Around the intellectual and social figure of Zoroaster in recent times, quite discordant opinions have been put forward. Some see in him a person of royal lineage, connected with those of Media and Persia, and discern in his actions the intent to secure a political position by altering the social structure of the agricultural class, through the replacement of serfdom with a kind of vassalage (Herzfeld, who places Zoroaster’s life in the time of Darius). Others view him as a shaman, a sort of medicine-man or sorcerer charged with maintaining order in a primitive society (Nyberg). As for his doctrine, it could not be considered original, since it would have been limited to defending preexisting religious positions against the innovations of others. This concept partially inspires the most recent research, which aims to demonstrate that Zoroaster did not emerge from the sphere of Indo-Iranian naturalistic religion; if anything, he would have done no more than strip the hereditary elements of their crudely material character, reviving them in their abstract form. The starting point of such research is the recognition of a supposed affinity between Ahura Mazdāh and his archangels and Varuṇa and the Ādityas of Indian mythology.
In this line of study, the figure of the Eastern sage, which to the philosophers of the Academy seemed so lofty as to place it on par with that of Plato (indeed, Zoroaster was thought to have lived again in Plato), is reduced to modest proportions, with which it is difficult to reconcile the evident importance of his creation—not only in the formation and development of Iranism for about a millennium, but also in Western thought, whose ties with Zoroastrian idealism appear ever more certain. In our view, the figure of the Iranian reformer is above all that of the creator of a cosmogonic-religious doctrine in which the intellectual moment precedes and prevails over both the ethical and the social. Certainly, he brought to his creation the mental habit of speculative tradition, which may be called Indo-Iranian, since it also appears in India in the speculative attitudes underlying Brahmanism, along with certain traits and demands proper to that naturalistic religion. Yet undeniable is the originality of his conception, as an attempt to bridge the world of spirit and that of matter by grasping them in a unitary genetic moment—a contrast to Indian thought, which revolves exclusively around spirit and denies the visible world any true reality.
III. THE GATHIC RELIGION
The question may be raised whether it is legitimate to reconstruct Zoroaster’s doctrine solely on the basis of the seventeen Gāthās, which are considered—and plainly are—his work, or whether it is better to avail oneself, for such a reconstruction, of the later Avesta as well, which offers a broader and more complete representation of Mazdean religion in all its aspects, following the method adopted by authoritative scholars (among them Lommel). It seems to us that the true core of Zoroastrian doctrine is more readily recognizable in the Gāthās, since the religious world reflected in the later Avesta contains developments and superstructures that result from a complex syncretistic elaboration. In this syncretism, the original, purely Zoroastrian nucleus prevails and informs all the borrowings and transformations; yet there is no doubt that it is here interwoven with a religious and ritual structure that renders it less recognizable in its most genuine nature.At the foundation of Zoroaster’s doctrine lies the intuition of a bond of affinity, indeed of identity, between the world of spirit and the world of matter. While in Greece Heraclitus would later discover in the *logos* the law of the world and recognize in the eternal dynamism of things the same dynamism that inheres in discursive thought (the becoming of the world appearing as a projection of the mental process), in the Iranian steppes, in an environment that may be considered a mediation between East and West, a thinking activity is elevated to the source of all creation—a projection on the universal plane of the intuitive creativity of the mind. This is a new cosmogony in which the moving principle is a divinized human mind.
The eminently mental character of the supreme god, from whom creation proceeds, is evident in the very name *Ahura Mazdāh*, in which the first element, *ahura* (“Lord”), was already previously destined to designate divinity, while the second, in its compound structure, reveals itself as an innovation of Zoroaster’s, intended to emphasize the creativity of the god as thinking energy (the Indian form *medhā* indicates an “active wisdom” and even “poetry”; in *Yasna* 53.3 and then in *Yasna* 45.1, the elements composing the epithet *mazdāh* appear distinguished in their components *manas* (“thought”) and *dhā-* (“to place” and especially “to create” in a cosmological sense; in *Yasna* 45.1, the compound verb *mazdā-* is used with evident reference to the god’s name). It must therefore be held that the name does not mean a generic “wise lord,” as is commonly understood, but contains a specific reference to the nature proper to *Ahura Mazdāh*, who is the god “who thinks,” the lord who creates with the spirit, “the thinking Lord.”
As for the rise of this new monotheism, many hypotheses have been advanced; while some have sought to emphasize how, even in Indian religion, there is among the divine figures one that stands out above the others (Varuṇa), others have thought of a probable advance from Mesopotamian religions. In truth, such explanatory attempts, which are moreover very poorly founded, appear superfluous if one bears in mind that Zoroaster’s doctrine is above all a cosmogonic doctrine, which necessarily postulates the single origin of creation. It is a matter of a single god as the promoter of creation, and in this creativity he is a pure force of thought.
The mental character of *Ahura Mazdāh* is clear not only from the very creation of the god but also from the nature of the divine figures that surround him. To define the spiritual nature of this creation, which first unfolds in the world of spirit and then in that of matter, it suffices to recall *Yasna* 31.6–7: “To Mazdāh belongs the kingdom that for him is increased by the Good Thought. He who at the beginning, with thought, filled the spaces of light and with the force of his mind created Truth (Aša, pron. Arta), by which he sustains the better thought; and this you increase, O Mazdāh, through the spirit.”
The divine entities that surround *Ahura Mazdāh* are his modalities: *Aša* (“Truth,” i.e., the order of the world, nature in its teleological function, and as such Truth), *Vohu Manah* (“Good Thought”), *Armaiti* (now “Devotion,” now “Piety”), *Xšaθra* (“the Kingdom”), *Haurvatāt* (“Integrity”), *Amərətāt* (“Immortality”). The bond with the supreme god is signified by the fact that their names, even as subjects, appear in the instrumental case, because *Ahura Mazdāh* is the true subject, even when his name is not mentioned. In these divine entities, we plainly have hypostases of abstract concepts functioning ethically as determinations of pure mental activity, whose hypostatization gives form to the supreme god. This is explicitly declared in the later Avesta, where the divine entities now constitute, together with *Ahura Mazdāh*, the Holy Immortals (*Amərta Spənta*). *Yasht* 13.81: “The forms that he assumes are the beautiful and great forms of the *Amərta Spənta*.”
This mode of the single god clearly serves to express both the necessity of the transition from the creation of the spiritual phase to the material one, and at the same time the ethical character of the divine creator. It certainly responds to the need to find a place within the monotheistic conception for a dynamic and ethically active solution to the problem of evil. Once the beneficent character of the divine creation is affirmed, the problem of evil arises as a dialectical opposition to that character. This does not impair the monotheistic character of the original Zoroastrian conception: in the Gathas, the Spirit of Evil, Angra Manyu, never opposes Ahura Mazdah, but only Spanta Manyu, the beneficent impulse.
The contrast between the two principles awakens with the arising of life (Yasna, 45.2); and it is announced in function of a choice, since the Holy Spirit decides for Truth (Arta) and the Spirit of Evil decides for the Lie (Drug). Yasna, 30.4: “And when these two Spirits met, then first of all they established life and non-life and that in the end the worst existence should belong to the followers of the Lie and the best spiritual reality (manah) to the followers of the Truth. Between these two Spirits the followers of the Lie have chosen the action of the Worst, but the most holy Spirit, who has the solid heavens as his garment, has chosen the Truth and thus those who wish, with righteous works, to gladden Ahura Mazdah.”
In the Gathas, the dualism of the individual forces of good and evil does not yet appear fully developed: even the opponent of the Holy Spirit bears different appellations: acha “evil,” druvant “liar,” angra “wicked”; one has the impression that Zarathustra did not feel the need to give the contrast a complete theological development. A prominent demonic divinity is Aësima “Violence,” particularly combated because it is an enemy of cattle (Yasna, 29.2), as well as of man. The name daëva (pron. daiva), which in Indo-Iranian unity meant “god,” is taken by Zarathustra to mean the hostile divinities, the “demons.” This shift of meaning from the original to its opposite is the clearest manifestation of the rejection of the forms of the inherited religion desired by the reformer; this rejection includes the cult of soma and bloody sacrifices (cf. Yasna, 32.8).
As regards the position of man in the Gathic system, notable prominence is given to the spiritual essence (daëna), which is present in every individual form (gaëda). This essence, while reflecting itself in individuals, has its place in the mental life of Ahura Mazdah and returns to it as an increment after the death of man, when it has been well realized and one has not deviated from it (cf. Yasna, 46.11; 49.9). Although there is a very explicit hint of the diversity of the spiritual essences proper to the two spirits in Yasna, 45.2 (“the most holy thus says to the evil one: neither our thoughts, nor our beliefs, nor our words, nor our deeds, nor our essences [daëna], nor our souls agree”), it is never explicitly stated that there exists a bad spiritual essence in the man who follows the Drug, which after death would rejoin the corresponding essence in the spirit of Angra Manyu. Here too the dualism is imperfect, or at least not fully explicit. Judging from Yasna, 46.6, the existence of a spiritually demonic essence and creation of Angra Manyu seems excluded: “For he who is benevolent to a follower of the Lie is a follower of the Lie; he to whom the follower of the Truth is dear is a follower of the Truth, since you created the spiritual essences.” The spiritual essences are, therefore, a creation of Ahura Mazdah, hence also a creation of Angra Manyu. The deviation of the essence manifests itself only in the fact that one is a follower of the Truth or a follower of the Lie by an act of free choice. It is explicitly stated that he who does not fully realize his spiritual essence and thinks and acts inconsistently, now well now badly, following his own tendencies and desires, in the end will be cut off from the mind of Ahura Mazdah (Yasna, 48.4).
In Zoroastrian eschatology, the object of reward and punishment is the soul of each individual. Thus it happens that the follower of the Drug meets with a twofold punishment. One is the loss of the reward that belongs to the essence when the right path, that is, the one conformed to it, has been followed; the other is the punishment that awaits the soul after death. The spiritual essence of the follower of the Lie loses the reward of the right path. His soul, stripped before the passage of the Bridge of the Separator, trembles with fear (Yasna, 51.13); indeed, “the soul of the follower of the Truth will be eternally happy and eternal will be the torments of the follower of the Lie” (Yasna, 45.7).
The Zoroastrian doctrine so far considered is undoubtedly a theological construction; but its polemical stance, documented at every step in the Gathas, reveals its character as a militant religion. Contributing to this character in the first place is the social intent that shines through II. The place given to the hypostasis of the ox (the soul of the ox), as a symbol of industrious prosperity, clearly shows that the reformer also had a civil end in view. It will not be a matter of promoting the transition from nomadic life to settled forms proper to agriculture, as has been believed, but very probably of defending cattle and establishing a stable regime of pastures, useful to an orderly pastoral society.
IV. ZOROASTRIANISM
The process of transformation of the original nucleus of the doctrine as represented in the Gathas certainly began in the eastern provinces of Iran, that is, in the very places of preaching and contiguous zones. A transitional phase is reflected in the Yasna haptanhàti “Yasna of the seven chapters” (from Yasna, 35.3 to 41.5), still composed in Gathic, but in which the prophet no longer speaks in the first person, but the community of the faithful (“we”). Here already the cult of naturalistic forces re-emerges and the divine entities appear as a body of archangels, Amrâa Spenta (pron. Amurta spanta). Moreover, here for the first time appears the Fravasi (pron. favarti) “protecting spirit,” “genius,” which was unknown in the Gathas.Later, the religious center of Iranism became fixed in the northwestern zones of the plateau through the agency of the Magi, who made the doctrine of Zarathustra their own and gave it new doctrinal and ritual developments. It must be considered that the Magi, in elaborating the material into a canonical body, took into account the religious and mythical poetry already arisen and in formation in the eastern provinces, just as happens with the formation of the epic tradition that, constituted in Persis, certainly included legends that had arisen in other environments.
The true nature of the Magi has been much debated, and opinions are divided. On the one hand, it is held that they were a Zoroastrian religious community of Media, formed as such, and that their name is to be connected with the term *maga* “wealth, gift” (Gabe, Messina), which already appears in the Gathas (the name *maga* “does not appear in the Avesta except once in the recent Avesta in the compound *moryubîs*); on the other hand, it is asserted that the meaning in *moryu* “in the cited compound and in *Mz'u*,” one of the six tribes of Media mentioned by Herodotus (I. 100), as well as in *magus* of the Achaemenid inscriptions (the usurper of the Persian throne at the end of the reign of Cambyses was Gaumāta the Magian), reflects a distinction of social order and therefore the word has nothing to do with *maga* “magavan of the Gathas” (Benveniste). We believe that it is not possible to separate the Gathic forms *maga* “magavan from the identical Vedic forms *magha* “maghavan,” whose breadth of meaning “wealth, gift” and “rich, powerful” allows for developments both in a social and in a religious sense. It is probable that Zarathustra adopted the term for “wealth,” “common good” (considering that this was a pastoral society) to denote a “spiritual communion,” while elsewhere among the Medes it retained its original meaning, so that the adjective simply indicated a member of a tribe of pastoral aristocracy (*moryu* “is parallel to *airyaman* “companion”). In other words, the linguistic kinship between *maga* “magavan of the Gathas and *moryu* “of the recent Avesta, *Māyou* tribe of the Medes, appears certain, but the semantic substance developed into different values. Therefore, it must be excluded that the Magi constituted, from the beginning, a religious community inspired by Zoroastrianism. They became such later, when they adopted the doctrine of Zarathustra, already more or less developed elsewhere, and brought into it their own religious beliefs and ritual practices. The fact that the Avesta never speaks of the Magi is precisely the proof that they did not consider themselves a priestly caste, to the point of having to indicate the priest by their tribal name. This others did in noting that priests were always Magi, but certainly not all Magi were priests. In the Avesta, the ancient designation *zotar* for the priest, which is already Gathic, was maintained, and to it was added that of *ašaurvan*, certainly connected with the renewed affirmation of the cult of fire.
In Zoroastrianism, the dualistic principle, which emerged within the monotheism of Zarathustra, became ever more pronounced. The creation of Angra Mainyu is that of the world of the Lie, which opposes the world of Truth; and all existing things are distributed in the domains of the two opposing spirits. The struggle develops perpetually among their respective creatures and will conclude with the definitive victory of the principle of good. Beside Ahura Mazdāh, who
Jews, rightly proud of their monotheism, especially after the purification of the exile, must have regarded the Persian religion as one of polytheists, of demon-worshippers, a mixture of superstitions. The leaders refused collaboration with the Samaritans in Jerusalem; they did not respond to the appeal of the Jews of Elephantine, considered syncretistic and schismatic because of their sanctuary. Judaism is nothing other than the ancient Yahwism of the Sinai covenant, now perfectly realized with the exclusion of every trace of idolatry (1-2 Chronicles; Ezra-Nehemiah; Song of Songs).
In a wholly new way, R. Reitzenstein took up and extended to the New Testament the claim of Iranian influence on Judaism.
His system centers on the mystery of salvation, on the Son of Man. This man is in Persian the renewer of the world, the repository of the message and power of God, the savior for all mankind, but at the same time the saved one, who must ascend to heaven as the first luminous body, a god and at the same time the ideal representative of souls. A conception that, from Iran, traverses Asia Minor and Hellenism, would be at the base of the mystery of Redemption (especially in the letters of St. Paul). Despite the philological erudition employed to support it, this system is a paradoxical mystification (Lagrange): it is founded and reconstructed with Mandaean and Manichaean texts, centuries later than Christianity, in which experts find nothing specifically Iranian; it rests on the derivation of Christianity from Hellenism, excluded by literary and historical criticism.
IV. CHRISTIANITY AND ISLAM
I. EVANGELIZATION OF PARTHIA — The most ancient ecclesiastical community outside the boundaries of the Roman Empire is the Church of Parthia, where Christianity presumably penetrated already in the 1st century. Eusebius reports (Hist. eccl., III, 1; CB, II, 1, p. 188) the not negligible tradition according to which the apostle St. Thomas would have evangelized the Kingdom of the Parthians. According to the Chronicle of Arbela (q.v.), a disciple of the Lord, Addai, would have brought the good news around the year 100 to Edessa and into Adiabene, a region to the east of the northern Tigris. This chronicle was composed between 550 and 569 by Mésiházéká (Christ conquered). Its historical value for the earliest times is disputed.
In any case, during the 2nd century Christianity spread into Parthia. Messengers of the Gospel must have been Jewish Christians, who, through the commercial routes leading from the Roman Empire into Mesopotamia, maintained lively contact with the numerous Jewish colonies of that region. The first certain notice of the existence of Christianity in Parthia dates from the beginning of the 3rd century. In the *Liber legum regionum*, compiled by a disciple of the Gnostic Bardesanes (d. 222) or by Bardesanes himself, mention is made of Christians who are in Parthia (Patr. Syriaca, II, 608). Toward the middle of the 3rd century, King Shapur I deported from Syria into Parthia some prisoners, among whom was the bishop of Antioch, St. Demetrius, and some priests.
In this principle the Christianity in P. was the religion of an ethnic minority, namely the Syrian, and found itself in a difficult situation vis-à-vis the Mazdean religion of the Magi, which had become the official religion of the State under the Sassanids (i.e., from 226). The relations of the Church of P. with that of the Roman Empire were scarce, given the political antagonism between the two Empires, and became even more difficult after the Roman Empire accepted Christianity under Constantine. The Christians of P. were easily suspected of harbouring sympathies for the State’s enemy, which from 340 onwards, especially under Shapur II, led to a series of long and bloody persecutions, in which there were very numerous martyrs (v. ATTI DEI MARTIRI): among them St. Simeon bar Sabba‘e, bishop of the capital. The connection with the West at that time was naturally almost impossible, so that the Church of P. developed in a very independent manner. It seems, however, that in the development of a central ecclesiastical organization in P. the Western Fathers, namely the bishops of the region of Antioch, who supported the bishop of the Persian capital Seleucia-Ctesiphon, Mar Papa, in his hegemonic tendencies, played a part. Very scarce is the Christian literature in P. in this first period, all of it in the Syriac language. Worth noting is the “Persian sage” Aphraates (v.).
After the restoration of religious peace under Yazdegerd I in 399, the Church of P. was able to intensify its relations with the West. The peace was, it seems, obtained by a delegate of the Emperor Arcadius, the bishop Marutha of Martyropolis, who returned to P. in 408 or 409 bearing a letter from the Western Fathers and with the intention of establishing the unity of faith and discipline of the Persian Church with that of the Empire, which was achieved at the Synod of Seleucia-Ctesiphon in 410. This Synod accepted the faith of Nicaea and the discipline of the West. The same Synod confirmed the already acquired primatial position of the bishop of Seleucia-Ctesiphon and the title of katholikos (i.e., universal head of the entire Church of P.).
However, a new outbreak of persecution soon led to a break with the West. The Synod of Markabta in 424 abolished the right of appeal to the Western Fathers and declared that the katholikos of Seleucia could be judged only by Christ and not by another patriarch equal to him (J. B. Chabot [V. BIBLICA.], p. 296).
With this declaration the Church of P. in fact separated itself from the universal Church. This separation became deeper with the acceptance of Nestorianism in P. towards the end of the 5th century. For the subsequent periods V. CALDEI; ‘IRAQ; NESTORIO E NESTORIANESIMO.
Guglielmo de Vries
II. P. UNDER MUSLIM RULE. — The history of Muslim Iran begins with the Arab conquest and continues to the present day. For almost two centuries (637-820), Iran was a province of the caliphate. Then, corresponding to the dismemberment of this, it split into autonomous local dynasties, founded by Arab, Persian, and later also Turkish and Mongol governors or military leaders. These dynasties, always at war with one another, mostly had an ephemeral existence, tied to the fortunes of their founders or a few of their successors. Periodic unifications of Iran were brought about by the great Turkish and Mongol invasions that crossed it from east to west (Seljukids, the Mongols of Genghis Khan, the Mongols of Timur Lenk). From 1502 Iran has been ruled by unitary dynasties, which continue to this day. These dynasties made the Shi‘ite heterodoxy, already widespread in P., the State religion.
1. P. under the caliphate (637-820). — The Arabs defeated the Sassanid troops at Qadisiyyah in 637, occupying Ctesiphon, and then at Nihavand in 642; King Yazdegerd III, put to flight, was killed by a local governor at Merv in 651. Within this period, the conquest of Iran was completed and extended beyond, except for the mountainous region south of the Caspian, where autonomous princes long remained. From the religious point of view, despite Zoroastrianism being formally tolerated, a large part of the population rapidly converted to Islam, especially to avoid the poll-tax (jizyah) reserved for unbelievers. The new converts joined as clients (mawali) to Arab tribes; however, they were kept in a subordinate position, and this led to widespread discontent, which explains the frequent uprisings and the favour shown to the enemies of the Umayyad caliphate, the Alids and the Abbasids. Once the latter came to power, Persian elements assumed a position of greater prestige in the State and in Islamic culture.
2. The autonomous dynasties until the invasion of the Seljukids (820-1037)
On the characteristics of the dismemberment of the caliphate, V. ISLAM, historical expansion. Caliph al-Ma’mun, after residing in Khurasan during the first part of his rule (813-19), sent the general Tahir there as governor, who practically became independent, beginning the Tahirid dynasty (820-73). They were supplanted by the Saffarids, originating from Sistan (867-903), who extended their dominion as far as Kirman and Fars, but failed in their attempt to invade Khuzistan. At the same time, minor dynasties were formed in north-western Iran: the Dulafids in Kurdistan (c. 825-97), a branch of the Alids in Tabaristan (864-900, and then again fragmentarily), the Sallarids in Azerbaijan (879-930). Almost all of Iran, except for the western periphery, was reunited by the Samanids (874-999), originating from Transoxiana, and under them enjoyed a flourishing culture.With the disintegration of the Samanid state, the following emerged in the west: the Ziyarids in Tabaristan and Gurgan (928-1077); the Hasanwayhids in Kurdistan (c. 959-1015); the Buyids (or Buwayhids) in Jibal, Fars, and Khuzistan (932-1035). The latter, the most important, were Shi‘ites; they occupied Baghdad in 945, putting an end to the territorial dominion of the caliphate (v. CALIPH AND CALIPHATE). In the east the Samanid state was supplanted by the Turkish Ghaznavids.
3. From the rise of the Seljukids to the invasion of the Mongols (1037-1220)
The first of the “Great Seljukids,” Tughril Beg, occupied Khurasan in 1037 and rapidly continued the conquest, entering Baghdad in 1055. All of Iran was once again united and enjoyed a new phase of high culture. The Seljukids, rigorously Sunni, faced in western Iran the Isma‘ili movement (v. ISLAM, the sects). The last of the “Great Seljukids” was Sanjar (d. 1157), under whom military leaders (atabegs) established autonomous dynasties in Azerbaijan (Ildegizids, 1136-1225), Luristan (Hazaspids, 1148-1239), Fars (Salgharids, 1148-1287). In central-eastern Iran, the Seljukids were defeated by the Khwarazm-Shahs (fourth dynasty, c. 1077-1231).4. From the Mongol invasion to the beginning of the Ṣafavīd period (1220–1502)
In 1220 the Mongols of Āngiz Jān (Genghis Khan) invaded Iran, conquering its central and northern regions. Taking advantage of the struggle between the Mongols and the Khwārazm Shāh, the Qulug Jān (1222–1303) established themselves in Kirmān. In 1256 a second Mongol invasion occurred, led by Hūlāgū, who reached Baghdad and killed the last caliph (1258). Hūlāgū founded the Ilkhānid dynasty (1256–1353), under which all of Iran was once again united. The small dynasties of the Salghārids, Qulug Jān, and Hazāraspids came to an end. The country recovered from the severe destruction of the first invasion. Later, the Ilkhānids themselves fragmented into smaller states: the Sarbadārids in Khurāsān (1337–81), the Kartids in Herāt (1245–1389), and the Muzaffarids in Fārs and Kirmān (1313–93). The Jalāyirids of Mesopotamia (1336–1411) penetrated into Ādharbāyjān.Timūr Lang (Tamerlane) launched a new invasion of Iran, conquering the entire country between 1380 and 1393. He was succeeded by Shāh Rukh (1405–47), under whom the state enjoyed renewed prosperity; thereafter it declined amid internal strife, while the Turkish dynasties of the Qara-Qoyunlū (1378–1468) and Aq-Qoyunlū (1378–1502) advanced from Ādharbāyjān into central Iran.
5. The Ṣafavids (1502–1736)
This is a Shīʿite dynasty originating in Ādharbāyjān, with which the modern history of Iran as a unified state begins. Its founder, Ismāʿīl, defeated the Aq-Qoyunlū at Sharūr and conquered Tabrīz, assuming the title of Shāh (1502). By 1510 he had extended his rule over all of Iran, as well as Mesopotamia and Armenia. His state thus bordered the Ottoman Empire, and the religious antagonism—Ottomans being Sunnī and the Ṣafavids Shīʿite—sharpened the rivalry. Ismāʿīl was defeated by Selīm I at the Battle of Chāldirān (1514) and lost much of Armenia and Ādharbāyjān. The greatest Ṣafavid shah was ʿAbbās I (1587–1629), whose reign was prosperous and powerful. He reconquered much of the lost eastern territories. Only later was Mesopotamia definitively occupied by the Ottomans (1638). In 1722 a Sunni rebellionwhose importance led to struggles for influence over concessions among Russians, English, and Americans; reorganized and modernized the army; concluded a series of friendship and non-aggression treaties with neighboring states; and abolished capitulations for foreigners (1928).
During World War II, Iran again declared neutrality, but was nonetheless occupied by Russian and British forces (1941). Riḍā Pahlavī abdicated and died in exile in Johannesburg in 1944. He was succeeded by Muḥammad Riḍā (ruling). The Russians and British pledged to withdraw six months after the end of hostilities; in the meantime they would exercise transit rights, and Iran would sever relations with Germany and its allies. This was followed in 1942 by a declaration of war against Germany. Much of the American aid to Russia passed through Iran. Meanwhile, parliamentary government developed internally, and parties such as the Tūdeh (with communist and socialist tendencies) and the Millī (conservative and pro-British) were formed. British and American troops withdrew in 1945; the Russian troops in 1946. A revolt in Ādharbāyjān (1945), backed by the Russians, was suppressed (1946). The denunciation of the oil concession to Russia and the dissolution of the Tūdeh created tension between the two countries, which was further exacerbated by a more serious dispute with Britain. In 1951, the nationalization of oil was decided; Prime Minister Muḥammad Muṣaddaq led the movement, culminating in the expulsion of British technicians, the expropriation of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, and the closure of British consulates in Persia.
General works: P. M. Sykes, *History of Persia*, 2 vols., 3rd ed., London 1930; D. N. Wilber, *Iran, past and present*, 1934 (popular, essentially modern). Cf. also the historical sections in the works of E. G. Browne, *A literary history of Persia*, 2 vols., 1930–1936; *A history of Persian literature under Tatar domination (A.D. 1265–1502)*, Cambridge 1920; *A history of Persian literature in modern times (A.D. 1500–1924)*, 1924. Up to the Mongol invasion, fundamental: W. Barthold, *Turkestan down to the Mongol invasion*, 2nd ed., London 1928.
On individual dynasties and figures. Ghaznavids: M. Nāzim, *The life and times of Sultan Maḥmūd of Ghazna*, Cambridge 1931. Turkish dynasties: W. Barthold, *Orta Asya Türk tarihi hakkında dersler*, Istanbul 1927; Eng. trans., Berlin 1935; Fr. trans., Paris 1945; V. for the rest Turks. Mongols: R. Grousset, *L’empire des steppes*, Paris 1930; id., *L’empire mongol*, 1930, 1931; L. Bouvat, *L’empire mongol*, 1927. On Chingiz Khān: F. Grenard, *Gengis-Khan*, 1930; C. C. Walker, *Gengis-Khan*, 1930; C. W. Miller, *Warlautung und Kultur der Ilchanszeit*, Leipzig 1939. On Timur Lang: H. Melzig, *Timur*, New York 1940. Cf. also Mughals, Ṣafavids: W. Hinz, *Iran*, 1937; H. R. Römer, *Der Niedergang Irans nach dem Tode Ismāʿīls des Grausamen*, 1937–1938; Würzburg 1939; L.-L. Bellan, *Chah-Abbās Ier: sa vie, son histoire*, Paris 1932; V. Minorsky, *Tadhkirat al-mulūk: a manual of Ṣafavid administration* (Gibb Memorial, N.S., 16), London 1943. Afshārids: L. Lockhart, *Nadir Shah*, London 1938. Qājārs: E. G. Browne, *The Persian revolution of 1905–1909*, Cambridge 1910. Pahlavīs: H. Melzig, *Resa Schah. Der Aufstieg Irans und die Grossmächte*, Stuttgart-Berlin-Leipzig 1936. On more recent events: F. Gabrieli, *Persia*, in *Enc. Ital.*, App. II, I–Z, pp. 522–23; cf. also the chronicles and periodic bibliographical reports in the journals *Oriente Moderno*, *Cahiers de l’Orient contemporain*, and *The Middle East Journal*.
Chronology and genealogy: S. Lane Poole, *The Mohammadan dynasties*, Westminster 1894, see indices; E. de Zambaur, *Manuel de généalogie et de chronologie pour l’histoire de l’Islam*, Hanover 1937, see indices (fundamental). Bibliography: A. T. Wilson, *A bibliography of Persia*, Oxford 1930; M. Saba, *Bibliographie française de l’Iran*, Paris 1936.
III. CURRENT SITUATION
Present-day Iran occupies part of the territory of the old Persian Empire. Christians in Iran are a small minority, numbering about 145,000 faithful compared to more than 14,000,000 Muslims. According to Article 1 of the 1907 Constitution, Islam is the state religion. Article 2 stipulates that the *shah* must be a Muslim; likewise, ministers must be Muslims, according to Article 58. Freedom of education is promised (Article 19), with the limitation that it excludes subjects contrary to the official religion. Freedom of the press guaranteed by Article 20 is similarly restricted by excluding writings against Islam. Freedom of assembly and association guaranteed by Article 21 excludes those that result in “any religious or civil disturbance.” Article 1059 of the Civil Code forbids the marriage of Muslim women to non-Muslim men. A law of July 22, 1933, guarantees respect for the personal status of non-Muslim communities.
Persia — Young carpet weavers at the loom — Tabriz.
SITUATION OF THE SCHOOLS
Foreign schools are strongly hindered. In 1932 the closure of foreign elementary schools was ordered; in 1939, that of higher schools for Iranian subjects as well. Those of foreign missionaries for foreign pupils remained open, though they are also attended by young Iranians. There are schools in Tehran, Isfahan, Tabriz and Rezaiyeh.
CATHOLIC HIERARCHY
In Persia there is an Apostolic Delegation, seated in Tehran. The most important community is that of the Chaldeans, with 7,200 faithful distributed in the archdiocese of Urmia, which since 1933 has been called Rezaiyeh, and in the dioceses of Salmas and Sehna. For Latins there is the archdiocese of Isfahan with 3,200 faithful. The Armenians have the patriarchal vicariate of Gülfâ-Isfahan with 1,100 faithful. The secular clergy is aided by European missionaries: Lazarists, Carmelites, Salesians; and also by the Daughters of Charity and the Oblates of the Holy Spirit, also called Sisters of St. Zita. The Armenian Congregation of the Sisters of the Immaculate Conception also works in Persia.
NON-CATHOLIC CHRISTIANS
The monophysite Armenians number about 120,000 adherents. There are also about 9,000 Nestorians, 4,000 Protestants and 500 “Orthodox.” More than 300 Protestant missionaries work in Persia.
For further information