On the language of the ancient Medes a very few observations will be
here made. It has been noticed already that the Median form of speech
was closely allied to that of the Persians. The remark of Strabo quoted
above, and another remark which he cites from Nearchus, imply at once
this fact, and also the further fact of a dialectic difference between
the two tongues. Did we possess, as some imagine that we do, materials
for tracing out this diversity, it would be proper in the present place
to enter fully on the subject, and instead of contenting ourselves with
asserting, or even proving, the substantial oneness of the languages,
it would be our duty to proceed to the far more difficult and more
complicated task of comparing together the sister dialects, and noting
their various differences. The supposition that there exist means for
such a comparison is based upon a theory that in the language of the
Zendavesta we have the true speech of the ancient people of Media, while
in the cuneiform inscriptions of the Achasmenian kings it is beyond
controversy that we possess the ancient language of Persia. It becomes
necessary, therefore, to examine this theory, in order to justify our
abstention from an inquiry on which, if the theory were sound, we should
be now called upon to enter.
The notion that the Zend language was the idiom of ancient Media
originated with Anquetil du Perron. He looked on Zoroaster as a native
of Azerbijan, contemporary with Darius Hystaspis. His opinion was
embraced by Kleuker, Herder, and Eask; and again, with certain
modifications, by Tychsen and Heeren. These latter writers even gave a
more completely Median character to the Zendavesta, by regarding it as
composed in Media Magna, during the reign of the great Cyaxares. The
main foundation of these views was the identification of Zoroastrianism
with the Magian fire-worship, which was really ancient in Azerbijan,
and flourished in Media under the great Median monarch. But we have seen
that Magianism and Zoroastrianism were originally entirely distinct, and
that the Zendavesta in all its earlier portions belongs wholly to the
latter system. Nothing therefore is proved concerning the Zend dialect
by establishing a connection between the Medes and Magism, which was
a corrupting influence thrown in upon Zoroastrianism long after the
composition of the great bulk of the sacred writings.
These writings themselves sufficiently indicate the place of their
composition. It was not Media, but Bactria, or at any rate the
north-eastern Iranic country, between the Bolor range and the Caspian.
This conclusion, which follows from a consideration of the various
geographical notices contained in the Zend books, had been accepted of
late years by all the more profound Zend scholars. Originated by Rhode,
it has also in its favor the names of Burnouf, Lassen, Westergaard, and
Haug. If then the Zend is to be regarded as really a local dialect, the
idiom of a particular branch of the Iranic people, there is far more
reason for considering it to be the ancient speech of Bactria than of
any other Arian country. Possibly the view is correct which recognizes
two nearly-allied dialects as existing side by side in Iran during its
flourishing period--one prevailing towards the west, the other towards
the east--one Medo-Persic, the other Sogdo-Bactrian--the former
represented to us by the cuneiform inscriptions, the latter by the Zend
texts. Or it may be closer to the truth to recognize in the Zendic and
Achsemenian forms of speech, not so much two contemporary idioms, as two
stages of one and the same language, which seems to be at present the
opinion of the best comparative philologists. In either case Media can
claim no special interest in Zend, which, if local, is Sogdo-Bactrian,
and if not local is no more closely connected with Media than with
Persia.
It appears then that we do not at present possess any means of
distinguishing the shades of difference which separated the. Median from
the Persian speech. We have in fact no specimens of the former beyond a
certain number of words, and those chiefly proper names, whereas we know
the latter tolerably completely from the inscriptions. It is proposed
under the head of the “Fifth Monarchy” to consider at some length the
general character of the Persian language as exhibited to us in these
documents. From the discussion then to be raised may be gathered the
general character of the speech of the Medes. In the present place all
that will be attempted is to show how far the remnants left us of Median
speech bear out the statement that, substantially, one and the same
tongue was spoken by both peoples.
Many Median names are absolutely identical with Persian; e.g.,
Ariobarzanes, Artabazus, Artaeus, Artembares, Harpagus, Arbaces,
Tiridates, etc. Others which are not absolutely identical approach
to the Persian form so closely as to be plainly mere variants, like
Theodoras and Theodosius, Adelbert and Ethelbert, Miriam, Mariam, and
Mariamne. Of this kind are Intaphres, another form of Intaphernes,
Artynes, another form of Artanes, Parmises, another form of Parmys, and
the like. A third class, neither identical with any known Persian names,
nor so nearly approaching to them as to be properly considered mere
variants, are made up of known Persian roots, and may be explained
on exactly the same principles as Persian names. Such are Ophernes,
Sitraphernes, Mitraphernes, Megabernes, Aspadas, Mazares, Tachmaspates,
Xathrites, Spitaces, Spitamas, Ehambacas, and others. In Ophernes,
Sitra-phernes, Mitra-phernes, and Mega-bernes, the second element
is manifestly the pharna or frana which is found in Arta-phernes and
Inta-phernes (Vida-frana), an active participial form from pri, to
protect. The initial element in O-phernes represents the Zend hu, Sans,
su, Greek ev, as the same letter does in O-manes, O-martes, etc. The
Sitra of Sitra-phernes has been explained as probably Ichshatra, “the
crown,” which is similarly represented in the Safro-pates of Curtius, a
name standing to Sitra-phernes exactly as Arta-patas to Arta-phernes. In
Mega-bernes the first element is the well-known baga, “God,” under
the form commonly preferred by the Greeks; and the name is exactly
equivalent to Curtius’s Bagfo-phanes, which only differs from it by
taking the participle of pa, “to protect,” instead of the participle
of pri, which has the same meaning. In Aspa-das it is easy to recognize
aspa, “horse” (a common root in Persian names,) e.g., Aspa-thines,
Aspa-mitras, Prex-aspes, and the like, followed by the same element
which terminates the name of Oromaz-des, and which means either
“knowing” or “giving.” Ma-zares presents us with the root meh, “much” or
“great,” which is found in the name of the ilf-aspii, or “Big Horses,”
a Persian tribe, followed by zara, “gold,” which appears in Ctesias’s
“Arto-awes,” and perhaps also in Zoro-aster. In Tachmaspates, the
first element is takhma, “strong,” a root found in the Persian names
Ar-tochmes and Tritan-taechmes, while the second is the frequently
used pati, “lord,” which occurs as the initial element in Pak-zeithes,”
Pafa-ramphes, etc., and as the terminal in Pharna-jjates, Avio-peithes,
and the like. In Xathrites we have clearly khshatra (Zend khshathra),
“crown” or “king,” with a participial suffix -ita, corresponding to the
Sanscrit participle in -it. Spita-ces and Spita-mas contain the root
spita, equivalent to spenta, “holy,” which is found in Spitho-hates,
Spita-mens, Spita-des, etc. This, in Spita-ces, is followed by a
guttural ending, which is either a diminutive corresponding to the
modern Persian -efc, or perhaps a suffixed article. In Spit-amas, the
suffix -mas is the common form of the superlative, and may be compared
with the Latin -mus in optimus, intimus, supremus, and the like.
Ehambacas contains the root rafno, “joy, pleasure,” which we find in
Pati-ramphies, followed by the guttural suffix.
There remains, finally, a class of Median names, containing roots not
found in any known names of Persians, but easily explicable from Zend,
Sanscrit, or other cognate tongues, and therefore not antagonistic to
the view that Median and Persian were two closely connected dialects.
Such, for instance, are the royal names mentioned by Herodotus, Deioces,
Phraortes, Astyages, and Cyaxares; and such also are the following,
which come to us from various sources; Amytis, Astibaras, Armamithres or
Harmamithres, Mandauces, Parsondas, Eama-tes, Susiscanes, Tithaous, and
Zanasanes.
In Deioces, or (as the Latins write it) Dejoces, there can be little
doubt that we have the name given as Djohak or Zohak in the Shahnameh
and other modern Persian writings, which is itself an abbreviation of
the Ajis-dahaka of the Zendavesta. Dahaka means in Zend “biting,” or
“the biter,” and is etymo-logically connected with the Greek.
Phraortes, which in old Persian was Fravartish, seems to be a mere
variant of the word which appears in the Zendavesta as fravashi, and
designates each man’s tutelary genius. The derivation is certainly from
fra, and probably from a root akin to the German wahren, French garder,
English “ward, watch,” etc. The meaning is “a protector.”
Cyaxares, the Persian form of which was “Uvakhshatara,” seems to be
formed from the two elements it or hu, “well, good,” and akhsha (Zend
arsnd), “the eye,” which is the final element of the name Cyavarswa in
the Zendavesta. Cyavarsna is “dark-eyed;” Uvakhsha (= Zend Huvarsna)
would be “beautiful-eyed.” Uvakhshatara appears to be the comparative
of this adjective, and would mean “more beautiful-eyed (than others).”
Astyages, which, according to Moses of Chorene, meant “a dragon” or
“serpent,” is almost certainly Ajis-dahaka, the full name whereof
Dojoces (or Zohak) is the abbreviation. It means “the biting snake,”
from aji or azi, “a snake” or “serpent,” and dahaka, “biting.”
Amytis is probably ama, “active, great,” with the ordinary feminine
suffix -iti, found in Armaiti, Khnathaiti, and the like. Astibaras
is perhaps “great of bone,” from Zend agta (Sans, asthi), “bone,” and
bereza, “tall, great.” Harmamithres, if that is the true reading,
would be “mountain-lover” (monticolus), from hardam, ace. of hara, “a
mountain,” and mithra or mitra, “fond of.” If, however, the name should
be read as Armamithres, the probable derivation will be from rama, ace.
of raman, “pleasure,” which is also the root of Rama-tea. Armamithres
may then be compared with Rheomithres, Siromitras, and Sysimithres,
which are respectively “fond of splendor,” “fond of beauty,” and “fond
of light.” Mandauces is perhaps “biting spirit--esprit mordant,” from
mand, “coeur, esprit,” and dahaka, “biting.” M Parsondas can scarcely
be the original form, from the occurrence in it of the nasal before the
dental. In the original it must have been Parsodas, which would mean
“liberal, much giving,” from pourus, “much,” and da, “to give.” Ramates,
as already observed, is from rama, “pleasure.” It is an adjectival form,
like Datis, and means probably “pleasant, agreeable.” Susiscanes may be
explained as “splendidus juvenis,” from quc, “splendere,” pres. part,
cao-cat, and kainin, “adolescens, juvenis.” Tithaeus is probably for
Tathaeus, which would be readily formed from tatka, “one who makes.”
Finally, Zanasanes may be referred to the root zan or jan, “to kill,”
which is perhaps simply followed by the common appellative suffix -ana.
From these names of persons we may pass to those of places in Media,
which equally admit of explanation from roots known to have existed
either in Zend or in old Persian. Of these, Ecbatana, Bagistana, and
Aspadana may be taken as convenient specimens. Ecbatana (or Agbatana),
according to the orthography of the older Greeks was in the native
dialect Hagmatana, as appears from the Behistun inscription. This form,
Hagmatana, is in all probability derived from the three words ham,
“with” (Sans, sam, Latin cum), gam, “to go” (Zend gd, Sans, ‘gam), and
ctana (Mod. Pers. -stan) “a place.” The initial ham has dropped the
m and become ha, and cum becomes co- in Latin; gam has become gma
by metathesis; and gtan has passed into -tan by phonetic corruption.
Ha-gma-tana would be “the place for assembly,” or for “coming together”
(Lat. comitium); the place, i.e., where the tribes met, and where,
consequently, the capital grew up.
Bagistan, which was “a hill sacred to Jupiter” according to Diodorus,
is clearly a name corresponding to the Beth-el of the Hebrews and the
Allahabad of the Mahometans. It is simply “the house, or place, of
God”--from baga, “God,” and gtana, “place, abode,” the common modern
Persian terminal (compare Farsi-stan, Khuzi-stan, Afghani-stan,
Belochi-stan, Hindu-stan, etc.), which has here not suffered any
corruption.
Aspadana contains certainly as its first element the root acpa, “horse.”
The suffix dan may perhaps be a corruption of ctana, analogous to that
which has produced Hama-dan from Hagma-ctan; or it may be a contracted
form of danhu, or dairihu, “a-province,” Aspadana having been originally
the name of a district where horses were bred, and having thence become
the name of its chief town.
The Median words known to us, other than names of persons or places, are
confined to some three or four. Herodotus tells us that the Median word
for “dog” was spaka; Xenophon implies, if he does not expressly state,
that the native name for the famous Median robe was candys; Nicolas of
Damascus informs us that the Median couriers were called Angari; and
Hesychius says that the artabe was a Median measure. The last-named
writer also states that artades and devas were Magian words, which
perhaps implies that they were common to the Medes with the Persians.
Here, again, the evidence, such as it is, favors a close connection
between the languages of Media and Persia.
That artabe and angarus were Persian words no less than Median, we have
the evidence of Herodotus. Artades, “just men” (according to Hesychhis),
is probably akin to ars, “true, just,” and may represent the ars-data,
“made just,” of the Zendavesta. Devas (Seven), which Hesychius
translates “the evil gods” is clearly the Zendic daiva, Mod. Pers. div.
(Sans, deva, Lat. divus). In candys we have most probably a formation
from qan, “to dress, to adorn.” Spaka is the Zendic cpa, with the
Scythic guttural suffix, of which the Medes were so fond, cpa itself
being akin to the Sanscrit cvan, and so to hvoov and canis. Thus we may
connect all the few words which are known as Median with forms contained
in the Zend, which was either the mother or the elder sister of the
ancient Persian.
That the Medes were acquainted with the art of writing, and practised
it--at least from the time that they succeeded to the dominion of the
Assyrians--scarcely admits of a doubt. An illiterate nation, which
conquers one in possession of a literature, however it may despise
learning and look down upon the mere literary life, is almost sure to
adopt writing to some extent on account of its practical utility. It
is true the Medes have left us no written monuments; and we may fairly
conclude from that fact that they used writing sparingly; but besides
the antecedent probability, there is respectable evidence that letters
were known to them, and that, at any rate, their upper classes could
both read and write their native tongue. The story of the letter sent
by Harpagus the Mede to Cyrus in the belly of a hare, though probably
apocryphal, is important as showing the belief of Herodotus on the
subject. The still more doubtful story of a despatch written on
parchment by a Median king, Artseus, and sent to Nanarus, a provincial
governor, related by Nicolas of Damascus, has a value, as indicating
that writer’s conviction that the Median monarchs habitually conveyed
their commands to their subordinates in a written form. With these
statements of profane writers agree certain notices which we find in
Scripture. Darius the Mode, shortly after the destruction of the Median
empire, “signs” a decree, which his chief nobles have presented to him
in writing. He also himself “writes” another decree addressed to his
subjects generally. In later times we find that there existed at the
Persian court a “book of the chronicles of the kings of Media and
Persia,” in which was probably a work begun under the Median and
continued under the Persian sovereigns.
If then writing was practised by the Medes, it becomes interesting to
consider whence they obtained their knowledge of it, and what was the
system which they employed. Did they bring an alphabet with them from
the far East, or did they derive their first knowledge of letters
from the nations with whom they came into contact after their great
migration? In the latter case, did they adopt, with or without
modifications, a foreign system, or did they merely borrow the idea of
written symbols from their new neighbors, and set to work to invent for
themselves an alphabet suited to the genius of their own tongue? These
are some of the questions which present themselves to the mind as
deserving of attention, when this subject is brought before it.
Unfortunately we possess but very scanty data for determining, and can
do little more than conjecture, the proper answers to be given to them.
The early composition of certain portions of the Zendavesta, which has
been asserted in this work, may seem at first sight to imply the use
of a written character in Bactria and the adjacent countries at a very
remote era. But such a conclusion is not necessary. Nations have often
had an oral literature, existing only in the memories of men, and have
handed down such a literature from generation to generation, through
a long succession of ages. The sacred lore of Zoroaster may have been
brought by the Modes from the East-Caspian country in an unwritten
shape, and may not have been reduced to writing till many centuries
later. On the whole it is perhaps most probable that the Medes were
unacquainted with letters when they made their great migration, and that
they acquired their first knowledge of them from the races with whom
they came into collision when they settled along the Zagros chain. In
these regions they were brought into contact with at least two forms of
written speech, one that of the old Armenians, a Turanian dialect, the
other that of the Assyrians, a language of the Semitic type. These two
nations used the same alphabetic system, though their languages were
utterly unlike; and it would apparently have been the easiest plan
for the new comers to have adopted the established forms, and to have
applied them, so far as was possible, to the representation of their own
speech. But the extreme complication of a system which employed between
three and four hundred written signs, and composed signs sometimes of
fourteen or fifteen wedges, seems to have shocked the simplicity of the
Medes, who recognized the fact that the varieties of their articulations
fell far short of this excessive luxuriance. The Arian races, so far
as appears, declined to follow the example set them by the Turanians of
Armenia, who had adopted the Assyrian alphabet, and preferred to invent
a new system for themselves, which they determined to make far more
simple. It is possible that they found an example already set them.
In Achaemenian times we observe two alphabets used through Media and
Persia, both of which are simpler than the Assyrian: one is employed to
express the Turanian dialect of the people whom the Arians conquered and
dispossessed; the other, to express the tongue of the conquerors. It
is possible--though we have no direct evidence of the fact--that
the Turanians of Zagros and the neighborhood had already formed for
themselves the alphabet which is found in the second columns of the
Achaemenian tablets, when the Arian invaders conquered them. This
alphabet, which in respect of complexity holds an intermediate position
between the luxuriance of the Assyrian and the simplicity of the
Medo-Persic system, would seem in all probability to have intervened
in order of time between the two. It consists of no more than about a
hundred characters, and these are for the most part far less complicated
than those of Assyria. If the Medes found this form of writing already
existing in Zagros when they arrived, it may have assisted to give them
the idea of making for themselves an alphabet so far on the old model
that the wedge should be the sole element used in the formation, of
letters, but otherwise wholly new, and much more simple than those
previously in use.
Discarding then the Assyrian notion of a syllabarium, with the enormous
complication which it involves, the Medes strove to reduce sounds to
their ultimate elements, and to represent these last alone by symbols.
Contenting themselves with the three main vowel sounds, a,i, and u, and
with one breathing, a simple h, they recognized twenty consonants,
which were the following, b,d,f,g,j,k,kh,m,n,n (sound doubtful),
p,r,s,sh,t,v,y,z,ch (as in much), and tr, an unnecessary compound. Had
they stopped here, their characters should have been but twenty-four,
the number which is found in Greek. To their ears, however, it would
seem, each consonant appeared to carry with it a short a, and as this,
occurring before i and u, produced the diphthongs ai and au, sounded
nearly as e and o, it seemed necessary, where a consonant was to be
directly followed by the sounds i or u, to have special forms to which
the sound of a should not attach. This system, carried out completely,
would have raised the forms of consonants to sixty, a multiplication
that was feared as inconvenient. In order to keep down the number,
it seems to have been resolved, that one form should suffice for the
aspirated letters and the sibilants (viz., h,kh; ch,ph or f,s,sh, and
z), and also for b,y, and tr; that two forms should suffice for the
tenues, k,p,t, for the liquids n and r, and for v; and consequently that
the full number of three forms should be limited to some three or
four letters, as d, m, j, and perhaps g. The result is that the known
alphabet of the Persians, which is assumed here to have been the
invention of the Medes, consists of some thirty-six or thirty-seven
forms, which are really representative of no more than twenty-three
distinct sounds.
It appears then that, compared with the phonetic systems in vogue among
their neighbors, the alphabet of the Medes and Persians was marked by
a great simplicity. The forms of the letters were also very much
simplified. Instead of conglomerations of fifteen or sixteen wedges in
a single character, we have in the Medo-Persic letters a maximum of five
wedges. The most ordinary number is four, which is sometimes reduced
to three or even two. The direction of the wedges is uniformly either
perpendicular or horizontal, except of course in the case of the double
wedge or arrow-head, where the component elements are placed obliquely.
The arrow-head has but one position, the perpendicular, with the angle
facing towards the left hand. The only diagonal sign used is a simple
wedge, placed obliquely with the point towards the right, which is a
mere mark of separation between the words.
The direction of the writing was, as with the Arian nations generally,
from left to right. Words were frequently divided, and part carried on
to the next line. The characters were inscribed between straight lines
drawn from end to end of the tablet on which they were written. Like the
Hebrew, they often closely resembled one another, and a slight defect in
the stone will cause one to be mistaken for another. The resemblance is
not between letters of the same class or kind; on the contrary, it
is often between those which are most remote from one another. Thus g
nearly resembles u; ch is like d; tr like p; and so on: while k and kh,
s and sh, p and ph (or J) are forms quite dissimilar.
It is supposed that a cuneiform alphabet can never have been employed
for ordinary writing purposes, but must have been confined to documents
of some importance, which it was desirable to preserve, and which
were therefore either inscribed on stone, or impressed on moist clay
afterwards baked. A cursive character, it is therefore imagined, must
always have been in use, parallel with a cuneiform one; and as the
Babylonians and Assyrians are known to have used a character of this
kind from a very high antiquity, synchronously with their lapidary
cuneiform, so it is supposed that the Arian races must have possessed,
besides the method which has been described as a cursive system of
writing. Of this, however, there is at present no direct evidence. No
cursive writing of the Arian nations at this time, either Median or
Persian, has been found; and it is therefore uncertain what form of
character they employed on common occasions.
The material used for ordinary purposes, according to Nicolas of
Damascus and Ctesias, was parchment. On this the kings wrote the
despatches which conveyed their orders to the officers who administered
the government of provinces; and on this were inscribed the memorials
which each monarch was careful to have composed giving an account of the
chief events of his reign. The cost of land carriage probably prevented
papyrus from superseding this material in Western Asia, as it did in
Greece at a tolerably early date. Clay, so much used for writing on both
in Babylonia and Assyria, appears never to have approved itself as a
convenient substance to the Iranians. For public documents the chisel
and the rock, for private the pen and the prepared skin, seem to have
been preferred by them; and in the earlier times, at any rate, they
employed no other materials.