THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG 534 I
hagen, 1851; and a series of Yasna texts by L. H. Mills in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1902-08; as well as the Bundahish, with transl. and glossary, Leipsic, 1868. Eng. transls. of Pahlavi texts are in SBE, vols. y., XViii., xxiv., xxxvii., xlvii. Note also F. H. Weissbach, Die Keilinschriften der Achimeniden, Leipsic, 1911, since this has value as a source.
On the literature especially to be noted are the introductions to the texts and translations named in the preceding paragraph. Linguistic helpsare: F. Justi, Handbuch der Henaepesehe, Leipsie, 1864; C. de Harlez, Manuel de l’ Avesta,‘Paris, 1878; idem, Manuel de Pahlevi, ib. 1880; W. Geiger, Handbuch der Awesta-Sprache, Grammatik, Chrestomathie und Glossar, Erlangen, 1879; C. Bartholomae, Handbuch der altiranischen Sprachen, Leipsic, 1883; idem, Altiranisches Wérterbuch, Strasburg, 1905; A. V. W. Jackson, Avesta Grammar, Stuttgart, 1891; L. H. Mills, Dictionary of the Gathic Language, Leipsic, 1902 sqq.; M. Schuyler, Index verborum of the Fragments of the Avesta, New York, 1902; H. Reichelt, Awestisches Elementarbuch, Heidelberg, 1909; idem, Avesta Reader. Text, Notes, Glossary and Index, Strasburg, 1911. For discussions on various phases of the literature consult: M. Haug, Ueber die Pehlevi-Sprache und den Bundahesh, Géttingen, 1854; idem, Hssays on the Sacred Language, Writings, and Religion of the Parsees, Bombay, 1862, 3d ed., 1884; idem, Essay on the Pahlavi Language, Stuttgart, 1870; F. Spiegel, Die traditionelle Literatur der Parsen in ihrem Zusammenhange mit den angrenzenden Literaturen, Vienna, 1860; F. Windischmann, Zoroastrische Studien, ed. F. Spiegel, Berlin, 1863; F. Spiegel, Commentar iiber das Avesta, 2 vols., Vienna, 1864-68; W. D. Whitney, Oriental and Linguistic Studies, chap. vi., New York, 1873-75; K. F. Geldner, Studien zum Avesta, Strasburg, 1882; J. Darmesteter, Etudes iraniennes, 2 vols., Paris, 1883 (principally linguistic); C. de Harlez, De l’exégése et de la correction des textes avestiques, Leipsic, 1883; F. Justi, Iranisches Namenbuch, Marburg, 1895; T. Néldeke, Das altiranische Nationalepos, Strasburg, 1896; K. F. Geldner, Avestalitieratur, in Grundriss der iranischen Philologie, vol. ii., no. 1, pp. 1— 53, Stuttgart, 1896 sqq.; E. G. Browne, A Literary Hist. of Persia, pp. 88-110, New York, 1902; D. M. Madan, Discourses on Iranian Literature, Bombay, 1909.
On the general background and history use the Grundriss der iranischen Philologie named above; F. Justi, Geschichte des alten Persiens, Berlin, 1879: T. Néldeke, Geschichte der Perser ... zur Zeit der Sassaniden, Leyden, 1879; idem, Aufsdtze der persischen Geschichte, Leipsic, 1887; idem, Orientalische Skizzen, Berlin, 1892, Eng. transl., Sketches from Hastern Hist., London, 1892; W. Geiger, Ostiranische Kultur im Altertum, Erlangen, 1882, Eng. transl., Civilization of the Eastern Iranians in Ancient Times, London, 1885; A. von Gutschmid, Geschichte Irans von Alexander... bis zum Untergang der Arsaciden, Tiibingen, 1888; A. V. W. Jackson, Persia Past and Present, New York, 1906; idem, From Constantinople to the Home of Omar Khayyam, ib. 1911; J. V. Prasek, Geschichte der Meder und Perser bis zur Makedonischen Eroberung, vol. ii., chap. xi., Gotha, 1910, ef. A. V. W. Jackson in American Historical Review, Oct., 1910, pp. 103 sqq.
On the prophet the one book is A. V. W. Jackson, Zoroaster, the Prophet of Iran, New York, 1899, ef. his article in The Biblical World, 1907. Consult further: J. H. C. Kern, in the Verslagen en Mededeelingen of the Amsterdam Academy, 1868, pp. 132-164; W. Geiger and F. Windischmann, Zarathushira in the Gathas and in the Greek and Roman Classics, ib. 1899; E. Lehmann, Zarathustra, en Bog om Persernes Gamle Tro, 2 vols., Copenhagen, 1899-1902; F. Krippner, Zoroaster, Bitterfeld, 1900; L. H. Whitney, Life and Teachings of Zoroaster, the Great Persian, Chicago, 1905: Dastoor Peshotan Sanjana, Zarathushira and Zarathushtrianism in the Avesta, Leipsic, 1906; D. Menant, Zoroastre, Paris, 1908; and much of the literature quoted in the next paragraph on the religion.
On the religion the best compend is A. V. W. Jackson, Die iranische Religion, in the Grundriss der iranischen Philologie, ut sup., vol. iii., no 5, ef. his article in the Journal of the American Oriental Society, 1901, pp. 160- 184. Consult further: J. G. Rhode, Die heilige Sage und das gesammte Religionssystem der alten Baktrer, Meder und Persen oder des Zendvolks, Frankfort, 1820; C. P. Tiele, De Godsdienst van Zarathustra van haar Ontstaan in Batrie
tot den Val van het Oud-Perzische Rijk, Haarlem, 1864; W. D. Whitney, Oriental and Linguistic Studies, pp. 149- 197, New York, 1873; C. de Harlez, Les Origenes du Zoroastrisme, Paris, 1879; J. Caird and Others, Oriental Religions, New York, 1882; J. Milne, in Faiths of the World, pp. 91-121, London, 1882; L. C. Casartelli, La Philosophie religieuse du Mazdéisme sous les Sassanids, Paris, 1884, Eng. transl., Philosophy of the Mazdayasnian Religion under the Sassanids, Bombay, 1889; G. de Lafont, Le Mazdéisme; Vl’ Avesta, Paris, 1897; E. Rindtorff, Die Religion des Zarathushtra, Weimar, 1897; M. Fliigel, Zend-Avesta and Eastern Religions, Baltimore, 1898; A. S. Geden, Studies in Comparative Religion, pp. 129 sqq., London, 1898; J. Scheftelowitz, Altiranische Studien, in ZDMG, lvii (1908), 107-172; P. D. Chantepie de la Saussaye, Lehrbuch der Religionsgeschichte, ii. 162-234, Tibingen, 1905; H. Hinneberg, Die Kultur der Gegenwart, 1, Die orientalischen Religionen, pp. 77-86, Berlin, 1906; Dastoor Peshotan Sanjena, ut sup.; R. H. Mistri, Zoroaster and Zoroastrianism, London, 1907; O. Gramzov, Kurzer Kommentar zum Zarathustra, Berlin, 1907; H. Hiising, Die iranische Ueberlieferung und das arische System, Leipsic, 1909; H. Brunhofer, Arische Urzeit, Bern, 1910; Geiger’s Civilization, ut sup.- M. Haug, Essays, ut sup.
On various topics, including the eschatology, consult: F. Windischmann, Die persische Anahita oder Anaitis, Munich, 1856; M. Wolff, Muhammedanische Eschatologie, Leipsic, 1872; J. Darmesteter, Ormazd et Ahriman, leurs origines et leur hist., Paris, 1877; D. P. Sanjana, Position of Woman in Remote Antiquity as Illustrated in the Avesta, Bombay, 1892; J. B. Riiling, Beitrdge zur Eschatologie des Islam, Leipsic, 1895; A. V. W. Jackson, in Biblical World, Aug., 1896; N. Sdderblom, Les Fravashis, Paris, 1899; idem, La Vie future d’aprés le Mazdéisme, Paris, 1901; E. W. West, Notes on Zarathustra’s Doctrine Regarding the Soul, in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1899, pp. 605-611; F. Béklen, Die Verwandischaft der jiidischchristlichen mit der persischen Eschatologie, Gottingen, 1902; L. H. Mills, Zarathushtra, Philo, the Achaemenids and Israel, Oxford, 1906; idem, Avesta Eschatology Compared with the Books of Daniel and Revelations, Chicago, 1908; Shaporji Aspaniarji, The Teachings of Zoroaster and the Philosophy of the Parsee Religion, New York, 1908; K. Schirmeisen, Die arischen Géttergesialten, Briinn, 1910.
On the Parsees consult: D. F. Karaka, History of the Parsis, London, 1884; D. Menant, Les Parsis, Paris, 1898, new ed., 1908; V. Henry, Le Parsisme, ib. 1905; S. A. Kapadia, The Teachings of Zoroaster and the Philosophy of the Parsi Religion, London, 1905 (not very valuable).
ZOSIMUS, zes’i-mus: Pope 417-418. The Liber pontificalis makes Zosimus a Greek, while Harnack supposes from his father’s name Abram that he was of Hebrew descent. He succeeded Innocent I., and is known for his participation in the Pelagian controversy (see PELAGIUS AND PELAGIAN CONTROVERSIES) and for his attempts at the extension of the power of the Roman see. The latter came about through the matter of Appeals to the Pope (q.v.), an issue raised by his predecessor. Zosimus became involved through the fact that Bishop Urban of Sicca in Numidia had deposed a presbyter Apiarius, who appealed to Rome. But a general synod of Africans forbade this in 418, and the pope sent legates to deal with the general matter as well as to force Urban to retract. Zosimus’ claims regarding appeals were based on supposed canons of the Nicene Council, really of that of Sardica. No real progress was made, and the successors of Zosimus carried the matter further.
Affairs in the Gallic Church also afforded Zosimus an opportunity to interfere. Patroclus of Arles wished to found a new primacy in South Gaul, which Zosimus approved; the pope also would put in Patroclus’ hands the ordination of certain bishops of the province, and gave him control of the For-