##Devas and Daevas, Ahuras and Asuras, Medhiras and Mazdas

A followup question I have received multiple times to questions on Zoroastrianism is what the relationship is between the Vedic concepts of Deva and Asura on the one hand, and the Zoroastriani concepts of Daeva and Ahura on the other, apart from the purely linguistic correspondence. In particular, especially when we look at post-Vedic tradition, they appear to be reversed - Devas are good and Asuras are bad, but Daevas are bad and Ahuras are good! Before I start citing scripture, here is a simple glossary, and I will try to follow the spellings I use here. Keep in mind that English translations are approximate, some etymological derivations uncertain, and that Sanskrit and Avestan terms may have different connotations. Transliterations, especially of Avestan, are simplified ("amesha" is simply easier to read and write than "aməša"). For Middle Persian, a dash denotes appearing [to my knowledge] in compounds only (e.g. Amesha Spenta in Middle Persian becomes ameshaspand or amahraspand, but the words do not occur by themselves but take on the characteristics of a proper name)

Avestan	Sanskrit	English	Old Persian	Middle Persian
ahura	asura	lord (lit: one who begets, patriarch; maybe cognate with "aesir")	aura-	ohr-
amesha	amṛta	immortal, divinity (cf. negating a- plus mṛta "mortal" [cognate], "man")	N/A	amesha-, amahra-
asha	̣̣ṛta	truth, righteousness, natural order of things	arta	arda
daeva	deva	divinity, supernatural being (derived from PIE *deywós "shining one", "celestial one" )	daiva	dew
druj	druh	deceit, hostility, chaos	draug	druj
mainyu	manyu	mentality, "spirit", idea	N/A	-man
mazda	medha	wisdom	-mazda	-mazd
mazdra	medhira	wise	N/A	N/A
spenta	[disputed]	[probably] holy, beneficient	N/A	-spand
yasna	yasna	worship, ritual	N/A	yasna
yazata	yajata	[deservingly] worshipped one	N/A	yazd

This question is a bit like a head of cabbage. Superficially, it has a pretty simple and widely accepted answer. The most prominent Deva/Daeva were highly martial beings, such as Indra and Agni of the Rgveda. Among the fundamentals of Zoroaster's teaching appears to have been the idea that martial prowess could not be inherently virtuous. This is evident in e.g. the "Zoroastrian Creed", Yasna 12, which is usually thought to date to the earliest days of the faith (See e.g. Boyce, 1992, p. 84 and pp. 104), up to some additions and linguistic shifts. A few verses illustrates the point well:

2. I choose the good Spenta Armaiti for myself; let her be mine. I renounce the theft and robbery of the cow, and the damaging and plundering of the Mazdayasnian settlements.

3. I want freedom of movement and freedom of dwelling for those with homesteads, to those who dwell upon this earth with their cattle. With reverence for Asha, and (offerings) offered up, I vow this: I shall nevermore damage or plunder the Mazdayasnian settlements, even if I have to risk life and limb.

4. I reject the authority of the Daevas, the wicked, no-good, lawless, evil-knowing, the most druj-like of beings, the foulest of beings, the most damaging of beings. I reject the Daevas and their comrades, I reject the demons and their comrades; I reject any who harm beings. I reject them with my thoughts, words, and deeds. I reject them publicly. ... I pledge myself to the Mazdayasnian religion, which causes the attack to be put off and weapons put down; [which upholds khvaetvadatha]*, Asha-endowed; which of all religions that exist or shall be, is the greatest, the best, and the most beautiful: Ahuric, Zoroastrian. I ascribe all good to Ahura Mazda. This is the creed of the Mazdayasnian religion.

*Highly likely to be a later insertion or even an incorporated gloss, close-kin marriage is otherwise not attested in early Avestan literature.

To understand why raiding and plundering glorious heroic warfare would be celebrated in Sanskrit tradition but eschewed by Zoroaster and his early followers, we must consider the prophet's time and place. It is virtually unanimously accepted on linguistic grounds that Zoroaster lived somewhere in the east of Greater Iran, some time before c:a 1000 BC, with Boyce's suggested time of the 13:th century being the most commonly cited. However, exactly where he lived is considerably more controversial. Per the archaeological analysis of Grenet (Wiley-Blackwell Companion, 2015, pp. 21-30) the oft-suggested Bactria-Margiana complex would have been too urbanized to be reflected in the absolute pastoralism that early Avestan material presents us. On the other hand, Almut Hintze (ibid., pp 31-39) argues that this area, or perhaps Sistan, is where linguistics would place us. Textual analysis doesn't get us much further. This puts us in the awkward position of having no two independent methods that lead us in the same direction.

A suggestion Boyce makes is that Zoroaster may have belonged to a tribe that was particularly poor, isolated and/or traditional in its lifestyle, which in my view is the best way to reconcile the sparse evidence we have. This then helps us understand why the proliferation of Bronze-age chariot warfare would have been particularly distressing to him and his tribe, and a threat to their way of life. To understand why this threat would be identified with Daeva like Indra, we can turn to Sanskrit tradition, Rv 4.42. Unfortunately this hymn is difficult to read and contains lines which appear to be later insertions that identify Varuna with Indra. However, we may excise a few of the couplets that appear to contain a core tradition that contrast Indra with the Asura Varuna : ####Varuna:

1. Lordship (raṣtṛam) belongs indeed to me, the eternal sovereign (kṣatriyasya), as all the Amrta acknowledge to us//The Deva obey and follow the will of Varuna, I am the king (raja) of men's most lofty refuge

2. I am King (raja) Varuna, I was granted these primordial celestial powers (asuryani)//The Deva obey and follow the will of Varuna, I am the king (raja) of men's most lofty refuge

4. I let the dripping waters rise up, through rta I uphold the sky//Through rta I am the lord who rules through rta. [NOTE: I base the translation of this line off Boyce, I have seen other varieties of it, such as "By Law the Son of Aditi, Law Observer, hath spread abroad the world in threefold measure", which looks Vishnuist, so there may be variants.]

####Indra:

5. Men who drive swiftly, having good horses, call on me when surrounded in battle// I provoke strife, I the mighty Indra - I whirl up the dust, my strength is overwhelming

6. Such are my deeds. No divine (daivyam) power can control me, the invincible one//When draughts of soma, when songs have made me drunk, then both the unbounded regions frighten.

As we can see, the contrast is stark. Pretty much the entire lexicon of law and kingly authority is invoked to describe Varuna, whereas Indra is depicted as a warrior who is too powerful to be controlled and unconcerned with matters of ṛta. ̣While I admit, as anyone should, that it feels too simplistic to say that it was a matter of being the "plunderers" versus the "plundered" that shaped Vedic and Iranian perspectives respectively, there is much appeal to the idea. More favourable to the Indo-Aryans would be perhaps that upon their discovery of the civilization of the Indus Valley, the notion of conquest gained an appeal and a sense of glory that it never had in the pastoral lifestyle.

But this brings us inevitably to the most concerning question of all - where is Varuna in Zoroastrianism?

Week 48

 

Italy entered its last season of war with the Parliament still closed – the last session being that of July – albeit with different committees working on projects and designs to be submitted, eventually, to the Chamber's attention. But in times of war, the cogs of the great machinery of democratic governments worked often without connecting with each other – absent any coherent legislative imprint form the Parliament and being the Government concerned for the most part with its administrative functions and the passing of related decrees – the whole thing sitting idly as a result, awaiting some fix that allowed it to resume its ordinary functions.

Meanwhile a score of parallel formations had developed, dependent on either a Ministry, the Government, the Army – there, despite the efforts to coordinate the functions in preparation of a return to the “peace regime” (for instance with the leviathan sized super committee which had opened its works during the previous month), most resolutions were either the effect of contingent needs, or driven by personal initiative, or by the realization that there were indeed problems too huge to postpone any further. Problems that had to be faced, haphazardly perhaps but immediately.

One of this major problems was that of the veterans. During WW1 a number in excess of five million men served in the Italian Army – over a population of roughly 37 million. Their service experience not only changed and affected their existence in often unforeseeable ways, but also elevated and set them apart from the rest of the nation: they became veterans of the Great War. At the same time, something more and something less than citizens.

Even if the number of 900,000 invalids given by Foreign Ministry Sonnino appears to be an exaggeration – or rather, we can ascertain only the number of those deemed disabled in consequence of their injuries and therefore in need of financial assistance, with the number of war pensions awarded being around 450,000, while other forms of disability were not systematically tracked – it is easy to see how the over 500,000 dead, the 600,000 prisoners (of which over 100,000 died before the end of the war and close to 100,000 more within 1925) often suffering from various injuries and in large portion affected by chronicizing ailments (tuberculosis was widespread and as a matter of fact untreatable in its last stages) that continued to plague them after their return, in addition to the wounded treated in the Italian hospitals, only a part of which could make a complete recovery; all these bring the number of men coming back from war and in need of special attention well above the one million mark.

Obviously as a consequence, not only the individuals themselves, but a significant number of families had been affected, by either the complete or partial loss of one main provider (A. Serpieri in his La guerra e le classi rurali italiane gave a number of 345,000 war orphans) – and if widows could at least possibly remarry, the families of an invalid usually suffered a clear worsening of their financial conditions. Even worse at times could be the situation of a returning prisoner of war since, depending on the “suspect” nature of their capture, financial provisions in favor of the family could be withheld or suspended until their status was cleared. Also, due to the peculiar stance of the Italian government on state assistance towards the prisoners of war, many families had been forced to sustain further expenses in an effort to provide their relative with basic consumption goods. It is not a surprise then that the immediate post war saw both an increase in the number of minors under tutelage (14,292 for “death of a widowed father” in 1919 against 7,414 in 1915) and an increase of instances of separation (3,952 in 1919 versus 2,102 in 1915) – or perhaps it was only a result of the return of the Italian courts of law to ordinary business.

This is not to say that all the categories subject to military service had seen an uniform deterioration of their social and economical conditions; as noted by various commentators, the price rise for certain war related goods, the comparatively high leverage for qualified workers due to the high demands, the artificial influx of capitals due to skyrocketing war expenditures, had created not only the conditions but an effective pressure towards large and small financial speculation. So that among the many impoverished who had to rely on the initially very meager or entirely non existent state support, there were also those who had managed to establish themselves either among the ranks of qualified workers or as small owners or renters. But even there, the return of the men from war was destined to create tensions – a fact especially evident in the agrarian world, where the usual social and economical relations had been shaken deeply with the decline of the last old land owners and the development of new industrial-financial cartels behind the ownership of major land portions and on the other hand the parallel attempt of the newly formed small ownership and renter class to fight back any perceived threat to their tenuous class identity. And that's not to mention how the distinction between those families which had managed to obtain a partial or total exemption from service and those which didn't could contribute to the creation of long term rifts and resentments.

The Governments of the immediate post war – especially the one led by F.S. Nitti, whose attempt for a national pacification became a defining trait of his political action (he was after all the one to proclaim the general amnesty – that the nationalist press disparagingly called the “deserters amnesty”) - with their fairly limited instruments to address the deeper social consequences of the War, tried at least to spread its effects over a longer time frame. As of November 1918 the Italian Army counted over 2.2 million men in active service (a total of enlisted men close to 4 millions). One could not realistically send them all home together at the end of the war. First to be dismissed were the older classes (1874-84) and the kids of 1900 who went back to their families by Christmas 1918 – together with those categories that would have been deemed unable to service or exempt from service in peace time. Three more classes (1885-87) were dismissed by March 1919. they received a rather measly sum of money (100 to 300 Lire depending on the state of service and when available a few clothing items that the army no longer needed) Then matters of national (the obvious threat that a large mass of – possibly armed – unemployed men constituted for public order) and international politics (the growing tension on the Yugoslav border) halted the demobilization. As a result, when Nitti replaced Orlando as Prime Minister, there were still 1,578,000 men (876,000 in active duty) and 110,000 officers in the Italian Army. A further reduction took place within the year, bringing the total of enlisted men to 500,000 bu December 1919 and then to 300,000 (more or less the regular size of the Italian Army) in the Spring of 1920.