[In the essay below, Cameron argues that Zoroaster's many references to the cow, pasturage, and herdsmen in the Gathas should be read as metaphors, rather than be taken literally—as they often have been by followers and scholars alike.]

The message of the prophet Zoroaster would have made strong appeal to those people in any era of time who, in the morass of polytheism, were searching for new approaches toward deity. He taught that there was a single god whom all men should recognize and worship since He, who was present at the beginning and would still be present at the end of time, represented the best in all life. He proclaimed that there was open to every man a free choice for good or evil, and that every man must make that choice. And he was confident that the reign of the righteousness of his Wise Lord would ultimately triumph on earth as of course it was supreme in heaven. That such lofty sentiments should be expressed by a prophet whose career had ended before the middle of the sixth century b.c. is an astonishing fact of history.¹

Interspersed among these profound statements, however, are a surprising number of specific references to that very earthy animal, the milch cow. “How”, he beseeches the Wise Lord, “is he who desires the cow to obtain it, together with good pasturage for it?”² He says of God, “Thou art the father of the Holy Spirit which has created for us the cow, the source of good fortune, and which has also created the spirit of Devotion for the pasturage of the cow.”³ He declares that Righteousness was the “creator of the cow”⁴ and then asks God to bestow on him those acts of the Holy Spirit which will enable him to satisfy both Good Thought and the soul of the cow.⁵ He avers that God, as the creator of the cow, gave it “a free path towards the herdsman (husband-man) or the non-herdsman; then between the two it chose for itself the (cattle-) tending herdsman as a just master”. This statement seems to assert that the cow is free to choose between a proper herder and no herder at all; if it is wise and intelligent it will choose the herdsman—and live; if it is stupid and witless it will select as master someone who is not a herdsman—and die. The passage apparently concludes with the truly astonishing declaration that “the man who is not a herdsman, despite his striving, may have no share in the good news”—that is, he may not share in Zoroaster's own message!⁶

The very number of similar references to the cow or ox, its pasturage, and its herdsmen (who are sometimes irreverently dubbed “cowboys” by modern scholars) is itself impressive. Of the sixteen Gathas (“Songs”) believed to stem directly from the prophet, fourteen contain at least one such allusion; and as if to compensate for the omission in the other two, one whole Gatha has been understood to be a play or drama in which two of the principal characters are the “soul of the ox” (or cow) and the “creator” of that soul.⁷

Many other like allusions will be touched on below; I will here draw attention only to two passages which seem to be glaringly inconsistent. In referring to those rewards which the righteous will obtain in the future life, Zoroaster proclaims that men of the faith will secure “a cow and an ox and all that they desire through Good Mind.”⁸ Yet curiously enough when he himself asks deity for the mundane reward due him for his own activity on God's behalf it is not for cattle, or the land in which to pasture them, or the food with which to nourish them that he makes request; instead, his humble prayer is for “Ten mares, with a stallion, and a camel—which were promised to me, O Wise one.”⁹ Although this seeming inconsistency has been remarked upon, the conclusions drawn have not affected the prevailing view of the economic and social milieu within which the prophet Zoroaster is believed to have proclaimed his faith.

Almost universally, Zoroaster's auditors have been presumed to be primarily cattle breeders, and such a statement as “The care and preservation of cattle is a central feature of the Zoroastrian doctrine”¹⁰ is repeated, with only minor variations, in most of the modern essays concerned with the prophet's teachings.¹¹ Once, indeed, there was even a question whether agriculture was known to and practised by those auditors,¹² but happily the problem has been so resolved that one of the latest—and best—interpreters has been able to define Zoroaster's milieu as follows:

On the one side he found a settled pastoral and agricultural community devoted to the tilling of the soil and the raising of cattle, on the other he found a predatory, marauding tribal society which destroyed both cattle and men, and which was a menace to any settled way of life. Their gods were like unto them: never were they good rulers, delivering over, as they did, the ox to Fury (aēshma) instead of providing it with good pasture.¹³

So it is that the majority still hold to the view that Zoroaster's audience consisted predominantly of cattle herdsmen and that a major function of his mission was to preserve and protect cattle; as one fine scholar puts it, “On its positive, practical side, this is Zoroaster's doctrine: The ox, as the source of life, must be made to survive.”¹⁴ Confronted by this near-perfect unanimity of opinion, one is compelled to consider it extremely odd that Zoroaster, who was seeking to found a new faith, should declare that “one who is not a herdsman, despite his striving, shall not share in (my) good news” or that there should be an inconsistency between his promises of heavenly rewards for his followers (“a cow and an ox, and all that they desire”) and his own request simply for “ten mares, with a stallion and a camel”.

Is it not possible, however, that many of the prophet's explicit statements regarding the cow and its pasturage may be figures of speech which, if we fail to understand them correctly, can continue to be stumbling blocks to a fuller interpretation of his message? If we interpret them literally must we not admit that his teachings were a curious combination of superficiality and profundity, of the sublime and the ridiculous? Or may we not accept at face value the depth of his sentiments and clear away our own misunderstandings of his many allusions to the barnyard cow?

It is my belief that the respect approaching sanctification which the prophet appears to have for cattle, the honor he seems to bestow on cattle breeders, and his apparent insistence on good pastures for the cow and ox can by no means be explained on the basis of the social and economic practices of his auditors. What seems to have been overlooked is that no portion of his homeland, the Iranian plateau, could now or ever have accommodated a peasant economy founded exclusively or even primarily on cattle culture. In addition to the ever-present sheep and goats, a few cattle, there are, of course, and probably always have been: cows to provide some milk and māst, and oxen to serve as draft animals for cart and plow; but the sparse vegetation that, throughout all known history, has always prevailed in Iran emphatically precludes an assumption that cattle raising could have been the sole or even the major occupation of the prophet's intended converts.¹⁵

Nor can his statements respecting the preservation (“sanctity”) of cattle reflect an age-old concept held by Indo-European-speaking-peoples everywhere and Indo-Aryans in particular. It is of course true that the number of cattle possessed constituted the measure of wealth, the standard of value, among Homeric Greeks, Romans, Anglo-Saxons, Germans, and Hindus in India; but surely conceptions of wealth and those of holiness are wholly separate and distinct! It is even possible that the sanctity of the ox and cow in India originated, not with the Indo-European Aryans, but with the indigenous inhabitants among whom they penetrated!¹⁶

Furthermore, it is wholly unlikely that Zoroaster's statements regarding the preservation of “cattle” can be based substantially on the opposition accorded him by members of some other religious faith who practiced animal sacrifice in connection with ritual drunkenness and the Haoma cult. It is quite true that the prophet appears to condemn both practices when he denounces cruelty to the “cow”, when he quotes his adversaries as saying “Let the ox which sets afire (the deity) from whom death flees (an epithet of Haoma) … be slain”, and when he damns ritual drunkenness in the strongest possible terms.¹⁷ Yet herein lies one of the most puzzling aspects of Zoroastrianism in the form it adopted almost immediately after the founder's death: the whole liturgy not only centered around the Haoma rite but also did in fact involve the immolation of cattle—a feature which only subsequently was discarded!¹⁸ The task of explaining this seeming radical distortion of the prophet's views has led to a number of ingenious efforts on the part of modern scholars; perhaps all such may be discarded if we understand Zoroaster's references to cattle and their pasturage in the way he meant them to be understood.

One who looks objectively at the historical personnage Zoroaster, and dispassionately at his precepts, finds it quite impossible to believe that he, who sought to win all men to his single deity, would admit to the faith only those who raised cattle or were concerned with their pasturage, and that he would deny that faith—which to him had universal value—to such people as tradesmen, potters, carpenters, metal workers, or even city dwellers, who were non-herdsmen. Surely we who read his words, “The non-herdsman, despite his striving, shall have no share in the good news” do him a grave injustice if we interpret him to mean that even the best of men, obedient to the Wise Lord in thought, word, and deed, cannot share in the triumph of the faith unless he buys a cow and tenderly nourishes it. Such an interpretation could only lead logically to the conclusion—surely anathema to Zoroaster—that a great landowner with thousands of cattle on his acreage, despite his low measure of faith and failure to perform good works, merited a greater reward in heaven as on earth than a simple, devoted peasant who had but one or two animals (or none!) on his meagre holdings. By the same token Zoroaster's own earthly reward would be but a pittance, for he himself declares, “I have few cattle!”¹⁹

If, however, we recognize that his Gathas teem with figures of speech which would appeal to all auditors whether or not they lived on the fringes of a nomadic or a semi-nomadic world, we may gain a deeper insight into his basic message. Let us then make the following assumptions. When he speaks of “cattle” he is speaking of God's “flock”; if men but believed in the new faith they constituted the flock of Ahura Mazda, and Zoroaster himself was leading them to a new and richer life much as a shepherd guides his flock to greener pastures. But—and this was a vital part of his teachings—it was not enough for a man to believe: merely to become a member of the flock; he, too, must become an active proponent of God's will, must himself, in thought, word, and deed, become a herdsman of the deity's “flock”.

So it was that in his preaching Zoroaster would be using metaphors which brought these ideas to expression in concrete terms. To repeat, most of his allusions to cattle would apply not merely to a herd of kine, but to the flock of God; his references to pasturage would pertain not to the open Iranian fields sparse with grain, but to the way of life of believers in God; when he speaks of shepherds he would mean not the herdsmen of the cow and the ox, but those who lead God's fold or who are active in His work; and when he points to nourishment he would be alluding not to the fattening of the draft ox or the milch cow, but to that heavenly sustenance—our and his Holy Spirit—which descends on all men of good will.

That Zoroaster should employ such figures of speech should occasion no surprise whatever; have great religious thinkers not always done so? Does not the Psalmist aver, “Know ye that Yahweh, He is God; it is He that hath made us, and we are His. We are His people, and the sheep of His pasture”?²⁰ Did not the Second Isaiah say of God, “He will lead His flock like a shepherd, He will gather the lambs in His arm and carry them in His bosom and will gently lead those that have their young”?²¹ Do we not remember that Jesus said, “Fear not, little flock, for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom”,²² and that Peter urged the elders of the church to “Tend the flock of God that is among you”?²³ Even in more ancient times the same metaphorical expression was in fashion. The Sumerian Lugal-zaggisi prayed that he might always be the “shepherd at the head of the flock”, Gudea asserted that he was chosen by his god to be the “true shepherd of the land”, and later Babylonian and Assyrian kings freely assumed such a title.²⁴ Also in Egypt the pharaoh or the god Re is called the “shepherd of the land” and men are said to be the “cattle of god”.²⁵ Zoroaster's manner of speaking then, is not new to the Near Eastern or Western world; the wonder is only that his allusions have for so long a time been interpreted literally and so misunderstood!

Cattle, of course, played then as in more recent days a part in the life of the inhabitants. It is but natural, therefore, that some few of the prophet's references to the cow should have no metaphorical significance whatsoever. “Ahura Mazda made the cattle, the water, and the plants”, he says, and prays that He will “cause both cattle and men to prosper”,²⁶ much as the author of Genesis relates, “And God said, let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind.”²⁷ Such allusions, obviously, may be understood and interpreted literally.

Not so, however, the host of other references to the cow and ox, to cattle pasturing and herding. In them we find the prophet making allusion to objects and institutions with which he and his hearers were familiar in the course of their daily existence, and turning them into parables which could illustrate his ethical and religious concepts. A too literal interpretation of his metaphors may blind us to some of his most profound utterances and so lead us to make a travesty of his teachings.

It nevertheless is a sad but demonstrable fact that Zoroaster's own immediate followers misunderstood those same allusions; though seeking to retain his inspiration, they made—as he did not—a semi-sacred animal of the barnyard cow. These successors, earnest but unimaginative, sought to achieve a religious doctrine which would combine Zoroaster's teachings with a ritualistic religion known to their forefathers for centuries. Ostensibly as Zoroastrians, they reinstituted sacrificial rites involving the cow, and superstitious customs of all types which had been ignored or repudiated by the founder of their faith.²⁸ His allusions, literally interpreted, fitted effortlessly into their eclectic doctrines, and the prophet's Gathas, which were never intended for ritualistic purposes, were recited at the very sacrifices which the prophet abhorred.

Thus it was that there arose, seemingly as an integral part of Zoroaster's doctrine, a number of beliefs and teachings regarding the cow, the ox, and their pasturage that were wholly at variance with the prophet's will and intentions. This, indeed, was bitter mockery—but is it not a universal fault that men, blind to the vision of a great leader and incapable of understanding his inspiration, should misinterpret his message and thereby pervert his doctrine? We are reminded of Jesus' sad plaint, “Have I been so long time with you, and dost thou not know me?”²⁹

Secure in the knowledge that Zoroaster's references are to be understood as metaphors or figures of speech, we may now see that they illuminate rather than obscure his meaning and that the earthy terms familiar to his auditors dramatize his ethical and religious thoughts. Valiantly endeavoring to fulfill the role of “shepherd”, he announces that he has tried to “keep wantonness from the household, wickedness from the community, oppression from the tribe, and ‘Worst Thought’ from the ‘pasture of the cattle’”.³⁰ Like any honest caretaker, he doubted his own adequacy and, perplexed, besought his God to tell him how he should protect the “flock”: “What help can my soul expect from anyone? In whom can I put my trust as a protector for my ‘cattle’, or in whom for myself … except in Righteousness, in Thee O Wise Lord, and in the Best Mind?”³¹ In a passage insisting on Ahura Mazda's creative powers he still wonders about the message he is delivering and about his own persuasive abilities among men: “This I ask Thee, O Lord: answer me truly. Is the message I proclaim really true? … For whom hast Thou fashioned the ‘pregnant cow’ that brings prosperity?”³² When both he and his few adherents were in danger he uttered a sweeping condemnation of “liars, infamous and of repellent deeds, who prevent the promoter of Righteousness from fostering the ‘cattle’”,³³ and gave assurance to his followers that there would be grievous punishments inflicted on that individual who “found his living only in outrage to the ‘cattle and men of the herdsmen’”.³⁴ The righteous members of the productive flock, however, should have their reward: “This precious gift, O Wise One, you shall give for the action of Good Thought to all those who are in the community of the ‘cattle,’ (namely) Your good doctrine … which makes the community prosper”.³⁵

The rewards to be obtained by the faithful is the subject of a spirited declaration: “Whoever for me, Zoroaster, will bring to pass according to Righteousness that which I most wish for, to him as a reward shall come ‘a cow and an ox’ and all that he desires.”³⁶ If this passage be interpreted literally the “gift” is singularly inadequate, for the grant of a solitary cow and ox, even if the recipient were a poor peasant, could hardly be considered “all that he desired” among assumed cattle-raising peoples. That earthly blessings should accrue to the righteous man was of course to be expected; but surely, in this context, the prophet is only saying that he who adheres to the message preached by him and who becomes an active proponent of the Wise Lord shall obtain great return: a hearing among men who will themselves propagate the faith.

At one stage in his ministry the prophet's fortunes were at low ebb. Thrust out from family and community, he turned to God with the plaintive query: “How can I, O Lord, assure myself of Thy favor?” and, aware of the cause of his banishment, expressed it in concrete terms: “I know why I am impotent, O Wise One: mine are few ‘cattle’ and I possess few men.”³⁷ Misled by a literal interpretation of this declaration, students of the Gathas have actually debated whether his lack of cattle was itself responsible for the few adherents he had gained, or whether he simply possessed few cattle and also lacked friends.³⁸ The grounds for any such dispute disappears with the recognition that the two terms, “cattle” and “men” are, in fact synonyms and that Zoroaster's weakness and consequent flight stemmed from the absence of influential supporters—that is, a worthy flock—who could lend him assistance. Immediately after this quoted confession to the deity appears a plea which was intended to clarify the allusion to cattle: “Attend to it, O Lord, and give me the support which friend grants to friend”; the prophet knew as well as we that God's active help comes through men and their allegiance to the faith, not through the bovine species. A similar thought is brought to expression in a passage filled with doubts about his own ability. With reference to himself he beseeches God, “How is he to obtain the ‘cattle’ which bring prosperity—he who desires it, together with its ‘pasture’?” As though it were an afterthought, he continues with an explanation of what he means by ‘cattle’: they are “those who, among the many that behold the sun, live uprightly according to Righteousness.”³⁹

The passages just referred to illustrate a homely truth that he who reads the Gathas will soon understand. In expressing his religious convictions and his prayers, in voicing condemnations of the wicked and blessings upon the righteous, Zoroaster often introduces his theme by stating it in metaphorical terms having reference to the cow or ox, to cattle herding, cattle pasturage, and the like. Immediately afterwards, he develops the theme; this time, however, his thought is offered in more concrete terms which refer to the relationship of God to man, of man to God, or of man to man. There is thus a twofold presentation: one abstract and metaphorical, which we may call the introduction, and one concrete, which may be known as the sequel or the continuation; but the thought in both parts is identical. Without the continuation it would perhaps too often be easy and self-deluding merely to substitute ‘God's flock’ for the prosaic word “cattle” and thus subjectively to read into the Gathas religious values comfortable to us in the twentieth century but not intended or envisioned by the prophet two thousand five hundred years ago. But when there lies before us the continuation with its concrete application of the abstract situation, no further misinterpretation is possible.

One such passage, already frequently referred to, appears in the second of two Gathas which have been aptly named “The Gathas of the Choice” because they describe the free path that is open to man to choose for good or ill. Translated, the passage reads:

Thine was Devotion. Thine also was the Spirit as creator of the
ox,
O Wise One, when Thou didst give the ox a free path towards the herdsman
or the non-herdsman.
Then between the two it chose for itself the (cattle-)tending herdsman
as a just master, a farmer(?) of Good Mind.
He who is no herdsman, despite his striving, O Wise One, shall have
no share in the good news.(40)

This, to be sure, is abstract; the continuation demonstrates that it is merely metaphorical:

At the beginning of time, O Wise One, by Thy Mind Thou didst
for us create material forms and consciences and (rational) wills,
For Thou didst establish corporeal things. (Thou didst also create)
Deeds and words whereby one may exercise choice by one's own free
will.
Ever since, man may lift up his voice—the man of false words as
well as the man of true words, the wise as well as the fool—
Each according to his own heart and mind.

Here it is clearly not the cow which has free choice, but man; the choice lies not between a herdsman or a non-herdsman by cattle but between the acceptance of God or the denial of Him by man. In the continuation, mankind's “material forms, consciences, and wills” correspond to “ox” or “cattle” in the preceding metaphor; every man has been given by God the option of becoming a member of His flock or not, and in this option man may decide freely.

But—and here Zoroaster propounds a thought unknown to his predecessors—choosing to follow God's way of life as taught by a good ‘herdsman’ is not, in itself, enough; sheep may follow a shepherd blindly, cattle a herdsman because they sense that he guides them wisely and knows what serves their best interests. Every convert, insists Zoroaster, must himself become a “worker in the vineyard”, as a later religious leader put it. No man, says the prophet, may rest assured of future bliss unless he too, in thought and action, works diligently for the good of the believing community, becomes himself a herdsman of the flock. Otherwise, said he, “Despite his striving, he who is not a ‘herdsman’ may not share in the good news.”

Another sequence of thought appears in a Gatha which has been called the “Gatha of Dominion” because the prophet besieges deity with a number of searching questions regarding His kingdom on earth as in heaven and, more specifically, regarding Zoroaster's own ability as a ‘shepherd’ to bring about that Kingdom. One of his questions reads, “Shall the ‘herdsman’ of good will and upright deeds receive, through Righteousness, the ‘cow’?” The answer, following almost immediately, reveals that the gift to be bestowed upon the shepherd of the flock—in this instance, Zoroaster—is not the earthly cow but divine blessings; here we read; “The Wise Lord, through His power, appoints what is better than good to him who is attentive to His will.”⁴¹

As a deeply religious man, Zoroaster felt that he had been summoned by God to carry his mission to men. He thought himself unworthy, but knew that the deity would lend assistance. Desperately in need of his message was man, God's creation. Such thoughts are embodied in a prayer which figuratively calls man the “soul of the cow”: “With hands outstretched in prayer toward men possessed of the Holy Spirit and of Righteousness, O Wise One, I will first ask You for those acts in support of him (the Holy Spirit) whereby I may bring satisfaction both to the will of Good Mind and to the ‘soul of the cow’.”⁴² As though to clarify this figurative expression he almost immediately seems to say that he seeks the good things of both worlds—that of the body and that of the mind—“by which one may transport his friend into felicity”.⁴³

Understandably, as said, to his contemporaries such symbolic allusions to cattle, shepherding, pasturage, and nourishment would make strong appeal. They reach their maximum effectiveness in a Gatha which has long been recognized to be a drama or play in which many of the stage directions have been written directly into the text. The dramatis personae in inverse order of their appearance, seem to be first, the prophet Zoroaster; second, Ahura Mazda's helpers or “entities”; third, the “creator of the ox”—that is, the Wise Lord himself; and fourth, the “soul of the ox”—that is, the souls of mankind, sometimes also alluded to as the “soul of the milk-producing cow”. Thus two of the characters bear figurative names, and throughout the play there are many allusions which seem to have abstract reference to their earthly activities. Once the significance of these allusions has become apparent, however, there is little need to replace the figurative terms except when they do violence to twentieth century religious idioms. The Gatha reads as follows:⁴⁴

Stage Direction. To You (O Wise One) did the “soul of the ox” complain:

“Who made me? For whom did you create me? Fury and violence, cruelty, frightfulness, and tyranny oppress me! I have no other ‘herdsman’ than You; then make known to me good ‘pastures’!”

Stage Direction. Then the “Creator of the Ox” asked of Righteousness:

“Have you a judge for the ‘cow’, that you may provide it with both ‘pasture’ and zealous care? Whom did you appoint to be its master, who will drive off the malevolent who bring about fury?”

Stage Direction. Then Righteousness replied, without enmity toward the ‘ox’:⁴⁵

“There is … no way of knowing (in advance?) how the powerful will act toward the weak. But that man is the strongest of beings to whose aid I come when he calls! It is the Wise One who can best proclaim plans carried out by false gods and men in the past, or plans that will be carried out in the future; He, the Lord, will decide; let His will be done!”

Stage Direction. Then with hands outstretched we pray to the Lord, we two, my (‘ox’) soul and the ‘soul of the milch cow,’ urging the Wise One who alone can command:

“Can neither the right-living man nor his ‘shepherd’ live in the midst of the wicked who surround him?”

Stage Direction. Then spoke the Wise Lord Himself, He who understands prayers in His own soul:

“No master has, then, been found, no judge to act in accordance with Righteousness, even though the Creator made you (i.e., mankind) to become a ‘herdsman’!”

Stage Direction omitted. (The “soul of the cow”(?) questions:)

“Then did the Wise Lord, in agreement with Righteousness, create for the ‘cow’ (merely) a formula involving an offering of fat, although He, bounteous in his ordinances, (created) milk for thirsty men?⁴⁶ Whom hast Thou from among men who, in accordance with Good Mind, may take care of us?”

Stage Direction omitted. (Ahura Mazda answers:)

“I know only this one: Zoroaster, of Spitama's lineage. He is the only one who has heard Our teachings. He wishes, with Wisdom, to recite hymns dedicated to US and to Righteousness; sweetness of speech shall be given to him’.”

Stage Direction. Then moaned the ‘soul of the ox’:

“(To think) that I must be content to have as my protector the ineffectual word of an impotent man when I long for one who exercises his sovereignty at will! Will there ever be one who will give strong-handed help? Then do You O Lord, with Righteousness and Good Mind, grant that he should have strength and Dominion so that he may obtain good dwellings and security for them! O Wise One, I have recognized Thee as the first provider of these! Where are Righteousness, Good Mind, and Dominion? Admit me, together with (that is, as) mankind, to the great gift, O Wise One! To our aid now, O Lord! May we have a part in Your bounty!”

The bounty or reward that righteous men could expect from God would come, Zoroaster believed and taught, in both this world and the next. He himself expected tangible profits during his lifetime: mares, a stallion, and a camel;⁴⁷ but such things were, he knew, merely an earnest of things to come. Though fervent believers and active “shepherds” could hope to receive in the present existence a dominion “rich in pasture” together with “all the good things of life that have been, are, or will be” and the “wonders of Best Mind and the joy of long life all his days”,⁴⁸ greater rewards were still in store: whoever does his utmost for the righteous and labors diligently on behalf of God's “cattle” will ultimately be in the “pasture” of Righteousness and of Good Mind regardless of the social stratum to which he belonged!⁴⁹

Not all men, of course, approved Zoroaster's preaching. Some gave active opposition to him personally; others, by cunning and violence, sought to hinder the spread of his message perhaps because it threatened their vested interests. Against such men the prophet inveighed forcefully and repeatedly: they were decimating or making to suffer God's “cattle”, destroying its “pastures”, and harming its “herdsmen”. The metaphorical use of such terms in this context is peculiarly apt, for the traditional religion which he was attempting to replace seems to have involved the sacrifice of a bull or cow and the ritual drinking of the intoxicating haoma. Since the prophet's new faith denied the efficacy of the old sacrificial cults,⁵⁰ his pronouncements against the sacrifice of the ox or cow—that is, the destruction of God's “flock”,—were a two-edged sword.⁵¹ Said he:

That man does indeed destroy the doctrine who speaks of the ‘ox’
and the sun as though they were the worst things the eye can behold,
Who makes men of purity become men of evil deeds,
And who lays waste God's ‘pasture’ by taking up arms
against the righteous.
Truly evil men destroy life who, allegedly as lords and ladies, divert
the righteous from Best Thought
(And so) deprive them of their proper inheritance.

Let them beware:

The Wise Lord has condemned those who take the life of the ‘ox’
with ecstatic cries!(52)

Such men, in Zoroaster's view, were leaders of the older cult, the karapans, who (he claimed) preferred money or possessions to righteousness or the ministry of men. They and their like bent all their will and effort to crush Zoroaster, whose “wealth” they sought.⁵³ In the coming dominion they would have that “wealth”,—but in Hell! And there with them would be all others who failed to heed the inspired message!⁵⁴ The punishment was just; for such men of their own volition served false gods and, says Zoroaster: “Have false gods ever been good masters? This I ask of those who … in their cult, take part with karapans and the usigs to give the ‘ox’ over to violence!”⁵⁵

In two additional references Zoroaster alludes to the fate of these same evil men, and in both the destiny in store is identical: they are to be consigned to the “House of Evil” or the “Dwelling of the Lie”. It is doubtful, however, if two passages dealing with the same subject in the whole of the prophet's Gathas could more dramatically demonstrate his metaphorical terminology. One utterance reads:⁵⁶

The karapans do not obey the
statutes and just rules concerning ‘pasturage’;
They destroy the ‘cow’ by their deeds and doctrines.
Such judgment shall, at the end, consign them to the House of the Lie!

Here the accusation is specific: the leaders have ignored the divinely inspired prophetic ordinances regarding “pasturage” and brought suffering to “cattle”.

The second passage sheds welcome light on Zoroaster's meaning:⁵⁷

The karapans and kavis have subdued mankind to the yoke of their dominion
In order to destroy life by evil deeds.
They shall be tortured by their own souls and consciences
When they come to the ‘Bridge of the Requiter’ (to be) inmates
forever in the Dwelling of the Lie!

Here the symbolism is gone. It is not the cow which has been maltreated, but mankind which has been exposed to evil deeds. The parallelism is complete; but in the one instance the prophet's allusion, though no doubt clear to his contemporary auditors, has been obscure to us; in the other, the forceful message of the “herdsman” Zoroaster, prophet of old Iran, is vivid even in the twentieth century.

Notes

1. This essay was initially one of a series of lectures on “Zoroaster and his World” which, in 1953, was delivered at Oberlin College in the “Haskell Lectures on Old Testament Studies”. It has received only the slightest of revisions, but in its earlier form was read by Jacques Duchesne-Guillemin; see his The Western Response to Zoroaster (1958), p. 104. The entire series of lectures was accepted for publication by a university press in 1958, and subsequently I learned that one of the readers who recommended publication was Professor Wolfgang Lentz. Late in the same year, however, I decided to withhold publication until I could include a modern translation of all of Zoroaster's Gathas; the latter task, unhappily, remains unfinished. I know only too well how difficult it is to understand and to translate the Gathas of Zoroaster, and how full of obscurities they are. It is perhaps particularly dangerous for one who lays no claim to being essentially an Iranian-language specialist to cite (even from far better authorities) as many translations of various passages as are here presented. I realize also (as Professor F. B. J. Kuiper first pointed out to me when, in the summer of 1965, I suggested to him briefly and orally the interpretations here proposed) that I have taken no account of the prominent role which the cow plays in the Vedas (see, however, the article of W. P. Schmid cited, under the year 1958, in n. 11 below); perhaps one might even suggest that Zoroaster may have emphasized the cow and cattle herding because he was dimly aware of some very old—and pre-Zoroastrian—myth involving this animal, the outlines of which had long since been lost; yet see also the comments in n. 51 below. Thus it may be that certain deficiencies of mine or a number of inadequacies of translation are of such serious nature that they vitiate a part of the “argument”. I am encouraged to publish, nevertheless, in the hope that a substantial part of the residue will remain valid, and also in the belief (so aptly phrased by Duchesne-Guillemin in the concluding sentence of his book noted above) that “The West has not said its last word on Zoroaster.” For the most recent interpretation of Zoroaster's message, with an excellent annotated bibliography to all earlier literature, see R. C. Zaehner, The Dawn and Twilight of Zoroastrianism (London, 1961). Recent translations of the Gathas are: J. Duchesne-Guillemin, Zoroastre (Paris, 1948) and The Hymns of Zoroaster (London, 1952); Helmut Humbach, Die Gathas des Zarathustra (Heidelberg, 1959); and Walther Hinz, Zarathustra (1961), pp. 161 ff.-The most common abbreviations employed throughout are:

   AAWL: Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur in Mainz, Geistes- und sozialwissenschaftliche Klasse, Wiesbaden.

   Bartholomae, AiW: Christian Bartholomae, Altiranisches Wörterbuch (Strassburg, 1904).

   BSOS: Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London.

   Duchesne-Guillemin, Hymns: see above.

   Herzfeld, ZW: Ernst Herzfeld, Zoroaster and His World, 2 vols. (Princeton, 1947).

   Humbach, Die Gathas: see above.

   JRAS: Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society.

   Meillet, Trois conf.: A. Meillet, Trois conférences sur les Gâthâ de l’Avesta (= Annales du Musée Guimet, Bibliothèque de Vulgarisation, Tome 44) (1925).

   Moulton, EZ: James Hope Moulton, Early Zoroastrianism (London, 1913).

   NAWG: Nachrichten von der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, Philologisch-historische Klasse, Göttingen.

   Nyberg, Religionen: H. S. Nyberg, Die Religionen des alten Iran (= Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatisch-aegyptischen Gesellschaft, Band 43) (Leipzig, 1938).

   Smith, Studies: Maria Wilkins Smith, Studies in the Syntax of the Gathas of Zarathushtra (= Language Dissertations, published by the Linguistic Society of America, No. IV) (1929).

   Ys.: Yasna

   Zaehner, Dawn: see above.

   ZDMG: Zeitschrift der deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft.

2. Ys. 50:2. Moulton, EZ, p. 382 n. 7 observes that both Bartholomae and Geldner understood this to be a reward in the future life.

3. Ys. 47:3. Cf. Wolfgang Lentz in Donum Natalicum H. S. Nyberg Oblatum (1954), pp. 42 ff.

4. Ys. 46:9; note, however Humbach's translation ad loc.

5. Ys. 28:1.

6. Ys. 31:9-10. On the translation, cf. Duchesne-Guillemin, Zoroastre, p. 296a, after Nyberg, Religionen, p. 210 n. 2 and Moulton, EZ, p. 353; also Zaehner, Dawn, p. 41 and Humbach, Die Gathas, I, 90 f.; contrast, however, Herzfeld, ZW, pp. 170 and 580. The translation of Andreas-Wackernagel in NAWG, 1911, p. 21 makes Ahura Mazda the subject: “then He chose for them—of these two—the cattle-tending peasant as a just master”; see, however, Smith, Studies, p. 77 n. 1 to verse 10.—On the word here translated “good news”, Moulton, EZ, p. 353 n. 5 remarked that in meaning as in etymology it is like Greek Euaggelion. Nyberg, Religionen, p. 210 n. proposes that “it corresponds to what we understand by ‘rites’, since it has to do with memories or traditions”. Herzfeld, ZW, pp. 580 f., argued for “division of profits” or “settling of accounts.” Cf. also Duchesne-Guillemin, Zoroastre, p. 296a: “la bonne Souvenance (des Immortels)”.

7. Ys. 29; see below, pp. 277 ff.

8. Ys. 46:19. This passage, always troublesome, was particularly so (“rätselhaft”) to H. Lommel in NAWG, 1934, Fachgruppe III, pp. 114 f.; Humbach, Die Gathas, I, 135 translates simply “zwei Milchkühe”, whereas Nyberg, Religionen, p. 197 thought of a pregnant cow and an ox”.

9. Ys. 44:18. On the last words of the stanza see Gershevitch, JRAS, 1952, p. 177 and The Avestan Hymn to Mithra (1959), p. 201, but contrast Humbach, Die Gathas, II, 100.

10. Said Bartholomae, “Die Pflege und Schonung des Rinds … steht in Mittelpunkt der zarathushtrischen Lehre”, AiW (1904), p. 509; a similar view is expressed in his Zarathuštra's Leben und Lehre (1919), pp. 14* ff.

11. From the beginning of the scientific study of the entire Avesta there has been remarkable uniformity in the scholarly acceptance of this notion which, in large part, stems from the respect approaching sanctification of the gav- visible in the Later Avesta. Few authors (and even those only recently) have expressed doubt about the intent of the prophet's allusions, and a considerable body of literature has been devoted to the similarity of his teachings in this regard with the alleged holiness of the cow among the Indo-Aryans in India (on which see below) and to the prophet's residence among cattle-tending nomads who knew little or nothing of agriculture. Some of the more pertinent observations by many of the foremost Gathic scholars are here subsumed in chronological order (see also the previous note).

    1882. Wilhelm Geiger. This great pioneer first demonstrated conclusively that Zoroaster must have lived in northeastern Iran. However, after describing briefly the poor quality and meager number of cattle presently to be found in that area he then concluded with a sweeping generalization which should long since have been suspect but which set the pattern for nearly all subsequent authorities: “Beim altiranischen Volke wären die Verhältnisse nach den Bemerkungen des Awesta wesentlich andere gewesen. Nach ihnen müsste man annehmen, dass damals die Rinderzucht unverhältnismässig mehr beliebt und verbreitet war, als die Zucht des Kleinviehs. Schafe und Ziegen werden nur gelegentlich erwähnt, ohne dass die Texte sich weiter bei ihnen aufhalten. Die Kuh dagegen spielt in allen Teilen des Awesta, in den ältesten wie in den jüngsten, eine sehr wichtige Rolle und man wusste ihre Vorzüge zu würdigen und anzuerkennen.” (Ostiranische Kultur im Altertum, p. 344).

    1911. K. F. Geldner. “The devil-worshippers, at their sacrifices, slay the ox; and this the daēvas favor, for they are foes to the cattle and to cattle breeding and friends to those who work ill to the cow. In Zoroaster's eyes this is an abomination: for the cow is a gift of Ormazd to man, and the religion of Mazda protects the sacred animals. It is the religion of the settled grazier and the peasant, while the ruder daēva-cult holds its ground among the uncivilized nomadic tribes.” (Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th ed., Vol. 28, p. 1042a, s.v. “Zoroaster”)

    1912. J. H. Moulton rather carefully avoided the subject in his Hibbert Lectures, yet on p. 303 of EZ appears this comment: “The Ox-Soul (and the) Ox-Creator represent the world of animal life entrusted to the diligent husbandman.” Elsewhere (pp. 382 n. 7, 385 n. 2) he follows Bartholomae and Geldner in explaining the gift of “pregnant cows” as referring perhaps to the reward in the future life: “Bartholomae … notes that one who makes cattle and pasture the source of good fortune here cannot conceive of Paradise without it.”

    1920. Raffaele Pettazzoni. “The mission of the prophet, religious as it was at the beginning, had also to become civil in character; … every utterance concerning Ahura Mazda, accompanied by the praise of beef cattle, was intended to put an end to robberies and the devastations of them, to promote increased care, labor of the field, and a milder condition of life on their behalf.” (La Religione di Zarathustra, 1920, p. 88).

    1922. M. N. Dhalla. The great Parsi scholar unconsciously wavers. Once he interprets the term “herding” literally: “The Creator points to (Zoroaster) as the ideal protector of the kine”; however he then explains the term to mean husbandry (but only husbandry) in general, as when “Ahura Mazda … created his prophet for the support and care of the tillers of the land” (Zoroastrian Civilization, p. 143; see also his History of Zoroastrianism, 1938, pp. 45 ff.; for both explanations Dhalla cites Ys. 29:6).

    1925. A. Meillet. The “soul of cattle represents the entire bovine species”; a translation “cow” or “ox” is inadequate, for the context demands inclusion of both male and female sexes! (Trois conf., pp. 43-44 and 47).

    1930. H. Lommel. “It is well known with what deep and significant piety Zarathustra has determined the position of the cow and its nurture in the religious world of thought” (Oriental Studies in Honour of C. E. Pavry, p. 284); see also his Die Religion Zarathustras (1930), pp. 123-26 and 246-50; also NAWG, 1935, Fachgruppe III, pp. 138 f. [esp. pp. 149,157 “das Heil”].

    1933. Arthur Christensen. “The peasant-farmer was designated as vāstrya (derived from vāstra, pasture), or as fšuyant, cattle herder. But we should not conclude from these titles that agriculture—in contrast to cattle herding—was without significance; for cattle were employed in plowing. The peasant owned property, felt a strong attachment for his home and possessions, and put himself and his animals under the protection of the gods. His desires for the blessings of peace were connected with the possession of a good home and fine grazing lands.” (Die Iranier, p. 219)

    1938. H. S. Nyberg. “Zarathustra battles for a normal reception of the divine power of the cow through the drinking of milk and against a ritualistic, ecstatic appropriation of that power through wild, sacrificial orgies; for the claim of the earth to possess the heavenly power of the cow's urine and against the wasting of this heavenly gift through the slaughter of bulls; for the inviolability of the soul of the beast and against murderous attacks on its divine life” (Religionen, p. 200).

    1947. Ernst Herzfeld. Some vacillation is apparent. He says, for example, that “the ox is in Zoroaster's figurative speech the symbol of the peasant” (ZW, p. 347), but he also understands Avestan vāstrya-(“herdsman”) and similar terms to mean the “peasantry, … man of the pasture, especially of large cattle” or “cowboys” (ibid., pp. 126, 196 f., 344-47, 579-81); he then translates the associated words as “‘cattle-pasture,’ figurative for neat-herds and shepherds” (ibid., p. 245).

    1948. J. Duchesne-Guillemin. See the quotation from Zoroastre cited below at n. 14. In the new preface to the English translation of part of this work (Hymns [1952], pp. 5 f.), the same author expresses regret that the “latest Parsee interpreter of the Gāthās refuses, for reasons of piety, to admit that such a trivial thing as cattle-raising could be mentioned in sacred hymns”.

    It is unfortunate, in my view, that more attention has not been paid to the approved Parsi interpretation of the “ox-soul” of Ys. 28 and Ys. 29—yet even this has been limited chiefly to this particular actor. Cf. Smith, Studies, § 84, citing E. S. D. Bharucha, A Brief Sketch of the Zoroastrian Religion and Customs, 2nd ed. (1903), p. 48: “(The ox-soul is) the whole living world personified as a cow.” Cf. also F. A. Bode and P. Nanavutty, Songs of Zarathushtra (1952), p. 43 n.: “(The ox-soul is the) symbol of the whole of Creation and all living things.” Contrast, however, the views of M. N. Dhalla cited above under the year 1922.

    1950. J. C. Tavadia. This fine scholar recognized “human beings, the people at large” in the “Ox-Soul” of Yasnas 28 and 29, yet even for him “people were then at the pastoral stage of civilization, and the ox formed the basis of the whole economic life.” See his Indo-Iranian Studies, I (= Viśva-Bharati Studies, No. 10) (1950), p. 51, and Indo-Iranian Studies, II (= Viśva-Bharati Studies, No. 15) (1952), pp. 28 and 35 f. He also suggested the metaphoric use of gav- as the “Quell des Lebendigen” in Ys. 47:3; see ZDMG, 103 [n.f. 28; 1953], p. 323 n. 11 and p. 338.

    1954. Wolfgang Lentz. Tavadia's views were at first cautiously then (happily) more enthusiastically endorsed by Lentz in his monograph on “Yasna 28” in AAWL, 1954, No. 16. On pp. 975-78 (57-60), Lentz briefly insists, among other things, that there is at least a 50% possibility that such terms as “cow” (Rind) were used metaphorically by Zoroaster; that the Yasna which he translates is devoted to purely spiritual matters, and not to such mundane affairs as cattle herding (or tribal organization); and that references in other Yasnas (cited, however, are only Yasnas 29 and 47:3) may also be explained metaphorically. Cf. also his brief remark in Orient. Suec., 3 (1954), p. 42.

    1958. Wolfgang P. Schmid. In a highly significant article on “Die Kuh auf der Weide” (Indogermanische Forschungen, 64, 1958-59, 1-12) Schmid successfully presents Rigvedic parallels to a number of Gathic utterances in order to demonstrate the metaphorical usage of such terms as “cow”, “ox”, and “pasture”. We must welcome this forward-looking approach, but I personally am unimpressed by Schmid's conclusion that the “cow” represents a “Symbol der Dichtung” or poetical composition.

    1959. Helmut Humbach. This author accepts Lentz’ argument that certain common or frequently appearing words in the Gathas have significances other than those implied by their “etymological bases” (Die Gathas, I, 61 f.). Subsequently (ibid., p. 72) he almost seems to promote the views promulgated in this article. In all its occurrences (except in Ys. 53:4), he says, the word vāstrya “herdsman” is to be understood “as a religious expression in general for the adherent of Zoroaster's pastoral religion—that is, for one who, independently of his social position as warrior or priest, has resolved to dedicate himself to the service of the cow as Ahura Mazda” (italics mine).

    While welcoming these statements I seriously doubt the validity of the concept that Zoroaster's was a “Hirtenreligion” or that the cow or ox represented the Wise Lord; I also regret that even these notions do not come to expression in either the translations or the paraphrases which the learned author presents.

    1961. Walther Hinz. When, during my residence at the University of Göttingen in 1956-57, I presented my views to this scholar, I found him even then in at least partial agreement. He has now offered his own interpretation (Zarathustra, pp. 69 f.): that for Zoroaster's concept of “the cow” one or more of three distinct “layers” of meaning may be involved: (1) the mundane or earthy animal; (2) all living species (“creatures”) of the animal world; and (3) the flock of “believing or wishing-to-believe humanity, to whom Zoroaster was sent as shepherd.”

    It is gratifying to see that Zoroaster's concepts need no longer be restricted to the literal interpretation of the words he uses.

12. See, e.g., H. Lommel, “War Zarathustra ein Bauer?”, Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung, 58 (1931), 248 ff., esp. 254-57, and cf. Christensen's comment cited in the previous note.

13. Zaehner, Dawn (1961), p. 40.

14. Duchesne-Guillemin, Zoroastre (1948), p. 153. (“Telle est en effet, dans sa partie positive, pratique, la doctrine de Zarathustra: il faut faire vivre le bœuf, source de vie”) (italics his).

15. This is true whether we visualize Zoroaster as having lived in any part of the plateau—in the northeast, north, or northwest—unless, of course, we postulate beyond all reason and knowledge a climatic shift of such dimensions as would change once-fertile grasslands into the comparatively barren areas familiar to us in the twentieth century and to Arabs in the eighth, and even in that event cattle culture will have played a comparatively small part in the economic life. For those unacquainted with the northeastern portion of the Iranian plateau today, perusal of the Human Relations Area Files on Afghanistan, Khorasan, Tadzhikistan (embracing the former regions of Bokhara and Turkestan), Turkmenistan, etc. can be most revealing; there will be found such eye-witness statements as “goats and sheep are exclusively the main herds”; “livestock raising is based on the yak, sheep, and goats”; “villages of tents and huts, with a few cows and horses running with the black goats common to these districts”; and the enlightening statement that “almost every household keeps poultry, and perhaps a cow”.—For data regarding the possibility of a drastic climatic shift (or lack of it!) in our area since early historic times see the excellent discussion by Hans Bobek, “Klima und Landschaft Irans in vor- und frühgeschichtlicher Zeit” in Geographischer Jahresbericht aus Österreich, XXV (1953/54), 1ff., especially pp. 28ff. See also K. W. Butzer in Erdkunde, XI (1957), pp. 21 ff. and especially p. 30; C. E. P. Brooks, Climate Through the Ages, rev. ed., (1949), pp. 318 ff.; R. C. F. Schomberg, Geographical Journal (London), LXXII (1928), 357; and the chapter on “Climate and Prehistoric Man in the Eastern Mediterranean” by Herbert E. Wright, Jr., in Robert J. Braidwood and Bruce Howe, Prehistoric Investigations in Iraqi Kurdistan (Oriental Institute, Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization, No. 31) (Chicago, 1960), pp. 71 ff., especially pp. 96 f.

16. For the view that the Indo-Europeans in general and Indo-Iranians in particular held the cow to be a sacred animal see, e.g., the quotation from Geiger cited above under n. 11; Gordon Childe, The Aryans (1926), pp. 82 ff.; A. B. Keith in Cambridge History of India, I (1922), 99 ff.; V. M. Apte, The Vedic Age (The History and Culture of the Indian People, eds. R. C. Majumdar and A. D. Pusalker) (1951), pp. 393 ff., 457ff., 520ff. It is, however, a well-recognized fact that the Rigvedic Indians were a nation of beef-eaters; see Keith, loc. cit.; George Dunbar, History of India (1936), pp. 9ff.; V. A. Smith, The Oxford History of India, 3rd rev. ed. (1958), p. 52; also P. V. Kane, History of Dharmaśāstra (= Government Oriental Series, Class B, No. 6), II, Part II (1941), pp. 772 ff. Furthermore, several scholars have suggested that it was not before the time of the Upanishads (after 800 B. C.) that the cow was viewed as a sacred (i.e. more than a highly prized) animal in India. It is therefore not surprising that many of these scholars suggest that its sanctity originated, not with the Indo-European Aryans but with the indigenous inhabitants among whom they penetrated; cf. S. K. Chatterji, The Vedic Age (see above), pp. 161 ff.; W. H. Moreland and A. C. Chatterjee, A Short History of India, 3rd ed. (1953), pp. 30 f.; and especially Heinrich Zimmer, Philosophies of India, ed. Joseph Campbell (1956), pp. 184 f., 59 ff., 217 ff., 306, and passim.

17. See Ys. 32:14, following Zaehner, Dawn, p. 84 (note, however, the interpretation of Humbach, Die Gathas, ad loc.) and Ys. 48:10.

18. See Zaehner, Dawn, pp. 38 f. and 84 ff.

19. Ys. 46:2.

20. Psalm 100:3

21. Isaiah 40:11.

22. Luke 12:32.

23. I Peter 5:2-3.

24. See the references cited in C. J. Gadd, Ideas of Divine Rule in the Ancient East (1948), pp. 38 f.

25. W. Spiegelberg, Zeitschrift für Aegyptische Sprache, 64 (1929), 89 f. and Fritz Hintze, ibid., Vol. 78 (1943), 55f.

26. Ys. 51:7 and 45:9. The latter citation, however, is probably also metaphorical; as Benveniste observed in BSOS, 8 (1935-37), 405 ff., and in Les infinitifs avestiques (1935), p. 46 (see also Herzfield, ZW, p. 527), the Avestan words pasūš vīrsng constitute a dvandva almost identical to Ovid's pecudēs virōsque; see below on n. 34.

27. Genesis 1:24.

28. Cf. Meillet, Trois conf. (1925), pp. 17 f.; Bartholomae, Zarathustra's Leben und Lehre (1924), pp. 4 ff.; Zaehner, Dawn, pp. 77 ff.

29. John 14:9.

30. Ys. 33:4.

31. Ys. 50:1.

32. Ys. 44:6, with translation following Zaehner, Dawn, p. 55. In passing, it may be noted that nearly all translators of the post-Zoroastrian Ahuna-vairya prayer (Ys. 27:13) once had Zoroaster named as “herdsman to the poor”; cf., e.g. Fritz Wolff, Avesta (1910), p. 66; Benveniste, Indo-Iranian Journal, I (1957), 77 ff. Recent translations, however, confer the title of “herdsman” upon Ahura Mazda himself; see Gershevitch, The Avestan Hymn to Mithra (1959), 328 f.; Humbach, Die Gathas, II, 98 f.; Duchesne-Guillemin, Indo-Iranian Journal, II (1958), 66 ff. Contrast, however, W. Hinz, Indo-Iranian Journal, IV (1960), 154 ff.

33. Ys. 46:4, with translation following Duchesne-Guillemin.

34. Ys. 31:15; cf. also Ys. 51:14. The presence of the connective “and” in Ys. 31:15 here cited might at first glance appear to eliminate the possibility of an equivalence of meaning between “cattle” and “men”, and the same conclusion might be drawn about the passage in Ys. 46:2 which, as we have seen, reads “Mine are few cattle and I possess few men.” Hindu grammarians, however, gave the name dvandva “pair” to a usage in which two or more words (most commonly nouns) which have a coordinated construction are sometimes combined into compounds; cf. W. D. Whitney, Sanskrit Grammar (1941), § 1252 ff., and cf. above under n. 26. The usage is not, indeed, limited to Indo-European; the particle wa- is thus sometimes similarly employed in Arabic and its equivalent in other Semitic languages; see, e.g., W. Wright, A Grammar of the Arabic Language, 3rd ed. (1951), II, § 183; Gesenius-Kautzsch, Hebräische Grammatik, 26th ed. (1896), § 141e. In this context, one is reminded of Bartholomae's comment about the dvandva in AiW, p. 575a, n. 3, rephrased by H. Reichelt in Awestisches Elementarbuch (1909), p. 222: “Das cā verknüpft in diesen Fällen nicht die beiden Duale untereinander, sondern beide zusammen als ein Glied mit einem oder mehreren Andern.”

35. Ys. 34:14; cf. Humbach, Die Gathas, I, 47.

36. Ys. 46:19; cf. Nyberg, Religionen, p. 197 and above, n. 8.

37. Ys. 46:2; on the connective cā here also, see above nn. 26 and 34.

38. Cf. Smith, Studies, p. 122 n. ad loc.; Duchesne-Guillemin, Hymns, p. 74; Nyberg, Religionen, p. 195.

39. Ys. 50:2.

40. Ys. 31:9-12; the translation follows closely that of Zaehner, Dawn, p. 41. On the word “farmer” see Bailey, BSOS, 7 (1933-35), 275 f.; Bartholomae, AiW, p. 1029, proposed “conducive to”; Herzfeld, ZW, pp. 169 ff. suggested “herald” (cf. also Nyberg, Religionen, p. 210 n. 2); Zaehner, Dawn, p. 41, translates “who cultivates(?)”; and Humbach (Die Gathas, II, 27, to whom the word was “ganz unklar”) translates “Genosse”.

41. Ys. 51:6.

42. Ys. 28:1. The translation follows Gershevitch, JNES, XXIII (1964), 14 n.; for a different translation cf. Humbach, Die Gathas, I, 76 and II, 8 and 98.

43. So Humbach (Die Gathas, I, 76; cf. also II, 8) translates Ys. 28:2c; contrast, however, Lentz, AAWL, No. 16 (1954), pp. 931ff. and Gershevitch, The Avestan Hymn to Mithra, p. 296a.

44. On Yasna 29 (in addition to the translations of Humbach, Duchesne-Guillemin, and Moulton) see also Walther Hinz, Zarathustra (1961), pp. 59 ff. and 168 f.; A. Meillet, Trois conf. (1925), pp. 44 ff. (but cf. Tavadia, ZDMG, 100 [n. f. 25; 1950], 205ff.); H. Lommel, ZII, 10 (1935), pp. 96ff.; Benveniste, Journal asiatique, 1938, pp. 538 f.; Nyberg, Religionen (1938), pp. 101 ff. and 196 ff.; Dumézil, Naissances d’archanges (1945), pp. 119 ff.

    The translation here tentatively offered owes much to each of these and, while making no pretense to originality, is offered simply in an attempt to show that my interpretation of the figurative terms applies also to this particular Gatha.

    The characters in the drama have been much in dispute. Most scholars have taken the “Ox-soul” literally, though frequently pointing out that “cattle” in general (including both male and female animals) must be intended; see, e.g., Humbach, Die Gathas, II, 12. However, Dhalla equated it with Ahura Mazda (Zoroastrian Theology, 1914, pp. 44 and 110 f.), Nyberg with both “a heavenly being” which comprised “the ox and the pregnant cow” and also the cattle on the earth below (Religionen, pp. 196 f.), and Moulton declared it to be a “quasi-angelic figure which, with the Ox-creator, represents the world of animal life entrusted to the diligent husbandman” (EZ, p. 303 and p. 346, n. 6). M. W. Smith, after citing Bharucha's interpretation of “Ox-Soul” as “the whole living world personified as a cow” (see above, n. 11; this, of course, is the approved Parsi tradition), suggests a restriction so that the cow or herd be understood in this Gatha to be “the representative of the pastoral community only”—a pregnant thought; elsewhere, Smith understood Avestan gav- to refer “specifically to the cow” (Studies, pp. 58 and Notes to Yss. 31:9; 34:14; and 48:6).

    The “Ox-creator” (gsuš tašan) has been identified generally with Ahura Mazda (as in Dhalla, loc. cit.; Smith, Studies, § 70), but also with “a genius representing Mithra” (Moulton, Early Religious Poetry, 1911, p. 91 and EZ, p. 347 n. 1) and with “a special creator of a type well known elsewhere in primitive religions” (Nyberg, Religionen, p. 101). Humbach, Die Gathas, II, 14, suggests that it appears as one of the “ahurischen Qualitäten des Ahura Mazda”.

45. Cf. P. Thieme apud Fr. Altheim in Paideuma, 3, Heft 6/7 (1949), 276, and I. Gershevitch in JRAS, 1952, pp. 174 f., but see also Humbach, Die Gathas, II, 98.

46. Some of the words of Ys. 29:7 are obscure and have given rise to such irrational explanations as ox urine being used in the fertilizing of pastures; see, e.g. Nyberg, Religionen, pp. 197 ff. and contrast Herzfeld, ZW, pp. 357 f.; Gershevitch, JRAS, 1952, p. 178, and especially Zaehner, Dawn, p. 34.

47. Ys. 44:18.

48. Yasnas 48:11, 33:10, 43:1-2.

49. Ys. 33:3.

50. Cf. Zaehner, Dawn, pp. 36 ff.

51. The prophet's opposition to a ritual sacrifice of cattle (accompanied by drunkenness) may have been the very reason for his choice of the word “ox” (and “cow”) to represent “flock, followers, adherents”, etc. His word was gav- “the ox” rather than some word for those sheep or goats which, I maintain, will have constituted the main herds for his northeastern Iranian “shepherds” or “herdsmen”. To “small cattle” he makes no reference whatsoever, perhaps because they were not sacrificed in the observance of the religion he was attempting to displace. Contrast the involved way by which Zaehner (Dawn, pp. 84ff.) endeavors to explain the prophet's condemnation of animal sacrifice and the cult of Haoma with the adoption of both by his earliest disciples.

52. Ys. 32:10-12b; cf. especially Zaehner, Dawn, p. 84.

53. Ys. 32:13 f.

54. Ys. 32:12c-13; cf. Ys. 46:4.

55. Ys. 44:20.

56. Ys. 51:14.

57. Ys. 46:11.