From this time, moreover, till about the Sev enteenth Century, we find there was little in quiry into the sacred books of the Persians. One of the first series of investigations into the Greek and Roman sources seems then to have been undertaken by a European, Barnabe Bris son, De Peri:arum Principatu (Paris, 1590) The Italian, English, and French travelers in the Orient next added some information as to.
the religion and customs of the Persians. Among them may be mentioned the works of Pietro della Valle (1620), Henry Lord (1630), Manuel slo (1658). Tavernier (1678). Chardin (1721), Du Chinon. Most important, however, was the work of the distinguished Oxford scholar, Thomas Hyde (1700). It was written in Latin, and entitled Rnmoenge Religionis Veterum Per saran. Hyde resorted chiefly to the later Parsi sources: the original texts he could not use, although an Avesta MS. of the Yasna seems to have been brought to Canterbury as early as 1633. Hyde appealed earnestly, however, to scholars to procure MSS. of the sacred books of the Parsis, and aroused much interest in the subject. In 1723 a copy of the Stidah was procured by an Englishman, George Bou cher, from the Parsis in Surat, and deposited as a curiosity in the Bodleian Library at Oxford. No one, however, could read the texts. To a young Frenchman, Anquetil-Duperron, belongs the honor of first deciphering them. The his tory of his labors is interesting and instructive. Happening. in 1744, to see some tracings made from the Oxford .11S., and sent to Paris as a specimen, Anquetil-Duperron at once conceived the spirited idea of going to Persia or India, and obtaining from the priests themselves the knowl edge of their sacred books. Though fired with zeal and enthusiasm, he had no means or aid to carry out his plan. He seized upon the idea of en listing as a soldier in the troops that were to start for India, and in November, 1754. behind the martial drum and fife, this youthful scholar marched out of Paris. The French Government, however, recognizing at once his noble purpose, gave him his discharge from the army and pre sented him his passage to India. After count less difficulties he reached Surat, and there, after many discouragements and in spite of almost insurmountable obstacles, he succeeded in winning the confidence and favor of the priests, with whom lie was able to communicate after he had learned the modern Persian. He gradually induced the priests to impart to him the language of their sacred works, to let him take some of the manuscripts, and even to initiate him into some of the rites and ceremonies of their religion. He stayed among the people for seven years, and then, in 1761, he started for his home in Europe. He stopped at Oxford be fore going directly to Paris, and compared his MSS. with that of the Bodleian Library, in order to he assured that he had not been imposed upon. The next ten years were devoted to work upon his MSS. and translation. and in 1771, seventeen years after the time that he had first marched out of Paris. he gave forth to the world the results of his untiring labors. This was the first translation of the Avesta, or, as he called it, Zend-Avesta (Out-rage de Zoroastre, 3 vols., Paris, 1771), a picture of the religion and manners contained in the sacred book of the Zoroastrians.
The ardent enthusiasm which hailed this dis covery and opening to the world of a literature, religion, and philosophy of ancient times was, unfortunately, soon dampened. Some, like Kant, were disappointed at not finding the philosoph ical or religious ideas which they had looked for; while others missed the high literary value they had expected. They little considered bow inaccu rate, of necessity, such a first translation must be. Though Anquetil-Duperron had learned the language from the priests, still, people did not know that the priestly tradition itself had lost much during the ages of persecution or oblivion into which the religion had fallen. They did not take into account that Anquetil-Duperron was learning one foreign tongue, the Avesta. through another, the modern Persian nor did they know how little accurate and scientific train ing Anquetil-Duperron had had. A discussion as to the authenticity of the work arose. It was
suggested that the so-called Zend-Avesta was not the genuine work of Zoroaster, hut a forgery. Foremost among the detractors, it. is to be re gretted, was the distinguished Orientalist. Sir William Jones. He claimed, in a letter published in French (1771) that •nquetil-Duperron had been duped; that the l'arsis had palmed off upon him a conglomeration of worthless fabrications and absurdities. In England Sir William Jones was supported by Richardson; in Germany he was supported by Meiners. In France the gen uineness of the book was universally accepted, and in one famous German scholar. Kleuker, it found an ardent supporter. Ile translated Anquetil-Duperron's work into German (Riga, 1776), for the use of his countrymen, especially the theologians, and he supported the genuine ness of these scriptures by classical allusions to the Magi. For nearly fifty years. however. the battle as to authenticity still raged. An quetil-Duperron's translation, as acquired from the priests, was supposed to be a true standard to judge by; little or no work was done on the texts. The opinion that the books were a forgery was gradually, however, beginning to grow some what less. It was the advance in the study of Sanskrit that finally won the victory for the advocates of the authenticity of the sacred books. About 1825—more than fifty years after the appearance of Anquetil-Duperron's trans lation — the Avestan texts themselves began to be carefully studied by Sanskrit schol ars. The close affinity between the two lan guages had already been noticed by different scholars; but in 1826 the more exact relation between the Sanskrit and the Avesta was shown by the Danish philologian, Bask, who had trav eled in Persia and India, and who had brought back with him to the Copenhagen Library many valuable MSS. of the Avesta and of the Pahlavi books. Bask, in a small monograph on the age and authenticity of the Zend Language (1826), proved the antiquity of the language, showed it to be distinct from Sanskrit. though closely allied to it, and made some investigation into the alpha bet in which the texts were written. About the same time the Avesta was taken up by the French Sanskrit scholar, EugOne Burnouf. Knowing the relation between the Sanskrit and the Avestan, and taking up the reading of the texts scientifically, through his knowledge of Sanskrit, he found at once philological inaccu racies in Anquetil's translation. Anquetil• he' saw, must often have misinterpreted his teachers: the tradition itself necessarily must often have been defective. Instead of this less trustworthy French rendering, he turned to an older Sanskrit translation of a part of the Avesta. This was made in the Thirteenth Century, by the Parsi Neryosangh, and was based on the Pahlavi ver sion. By means of this Sanskrit rendering, and by applying his philological learning, Burnouf was able to restore sense to many passages of which Anquetil had often made nonsense, and he was thus able to throw a flood of light upon many an obscure point. The employment of Sanskrit, instead of depending upon the priestly traditions and interpretations, was a new step: it introduced a new method. This fresh dis covery and gain of vantage-ground practically settled the discussion as to authenticity. The testimony, moreover, of the ancient Persian in scriptions deciphered about this time by Grote fend, Burnout, Lassen. and by Sir Henry Raw linson, showed still more by their contents and languages, so closely allied to the Avesta. that the work must be genuine. The foundation laid by Burnout was now built upon by other scholars — Bopp. Hang, Westergaard, Spiegel, Roth, Justi, and later by de llarlez, Hfibsehmann, Barth°lomfe, and especially Geldner and Darmesteter, in addition to some hardly less known names, Parsis among them. These schol ars. using partly the Sanskrit key for the inter pretation and meaning of words, and partly the Tarsi tradition contained in the Pahlavi transla tion. have now been able to give us a clear idea of the Avesta and its contents, so far as the hooks have come down to us. Upon minor points of interpretation, of course, there are, and always will be, individual differences of opinion.