Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1Another particular is to be added: if any one, in departing, settles and strives for the connection of Khétvadat of a next brother it is a good work of a thousand Tanapahars?; if any one strives to break off the connection of Khétvadat he is worthy of death.’ _ 7 See Dd. XX, 3. 3 See Dd. LXXVIII, 13. Geldner in his Studien zum Avesta, I, pp. 3-12, suggests that the original meaning of Av. tanuperetha and peshétanu was ‘outcast ;’ but, although these words are translated by Pahl tanApfhar, it is doubtful whether this last Ill, MEANING OF KHVETOK-DAS. 427 With this quotation, which occurs in a MS.? written A.D, 1723, we may conclude our examination of all passages in the Parsi scriptures referring to Khvétik-das, the result of which may be summarized as follows :— First, the term does not occur at all in the oldest part of the Avesta, and when it is mentioned in the later portion it is noticed merely as a good work which is highly meritorious, without any allusion to its nature; only one passage (Vend. VIII, 36) indicating that both men and women can participate in it. So far, therefore, as can be ascertained from the extant fragments of the Avesta—the only internal authority regarding the ancient practices of Mazdaworship—the Parsis are perfectly justified in believing that their religion did not originally sanction marriages between those who are next of kin, provided they choose to ignore the statements of foreigners, as based upon imperfect information. Second, when we descend to the Pahlavi translations and writings of the better class, which, in their present form, probably range from the sixth to the ninth century, we find many allusions to Khvétikdas between those next of kin, and only one obscure reference to the marriage of first cousins®. Marriages between the nearest relations are defended chiefly by reference to mythical and metaphorical word be a mere transcript of tanuperetha (which ought to have been tanfpfhar), or whether it expresses the different idea of tan-apfihar, ‘a person without a bridge /o heaven,’ which might have been that adopted by the Pahlavi translators of the Vendidad; an outcast in this world being very liable to be considered as an outcast from the next. 1 Ms, fols. 54, 55. 2 In Dk, III, Ixxxii (see p. 404). 428 APPENDIX.
21 Ms, fols. 54, 55. 2 In Dk, III, Ixxxii (see p. 404). 428 APPENDIX. statements regarding the creation, and to the practice of the progenitors of mankind; they are also advocated with all the warmth and vehemence that usually indicate much difficulty in convincing the laity, and this zealous vehemence increases as we descend to the dark ages of the Pahlavi Rivdyat}, the compilation of which may perhaps be attributed to some writer of the thirteenth or fourteenth century. Unless, therefore, the Parsis determine to reject the evidence of such Pahlavi works as the Pahlavi Yasna, the book of Ard4-Viraf, the Dinkard, and the DAaaist4n-t Dintk, or to attribute those books to heretical writers, they must admit that their priests, in the later years of the Sasanian dynasty, and for some centuries subsequently, strongly advocated such next-of-kin marriages, though, probably, with little success. That a practice now reprobated by all Parsis should have been formerly advocated by their priests, as a religious duty, need not excite the surprise of those who consider how slavery has been advocated by many Christians, on scriptural grounds, within the present generation, and how the execution of supposed witches was similarly advocated a few generations ago. Third, as we come to the modern writings of the Persian Rivayats, which may have commenced about the fifteenth century, we find the present form of Khvétik-das, the marriage of first cousins (which was only slightly mentioned in the Dinkavd of the ninth century), the only form in use; though obscure allusions are made to the other forms as being long extinct. 1 See pp. 415-423. Ill, MEANING OF KHVE£TOK-DAS. 429 At whatever period the practice of next-of-kin marriage may have originated there were evidently two reasons for its establishment and continuance ; one was the indispensable necessity of offspring}, unfettered by duties towards any other family, for the purpose of maintaining the necessary periodical ceremonies for the souls of those passed away; the other was the wish of preventing any risk of religious perversion consequent upon marrying into a family of strangers or infidels. Both of these reasons must have become intensified as the Mazda-worshippers diminished in numbers, hence the increasing vehemence of priestly advocacy, until the foreign conquerors probably interfered, and put a stop to the practice.
3Both of these reasons must have become intensified as the Mazda-worshippers diminished in numbers, hence the increasing vehemence of priestly advocacy, until the foreign conquerors probably interfered, and put a stop to the practice. That such marriages were not unusual among other races, in ancient times, we learn from many tales in Greek and Roman mythology, from the usual practice of the Greek dynasty of the Ptolemies in Egypt, and even from the laws prohibiting such connections in Lev. xviii. 6-16, which, as laws are not made to prohibit practices that do not exist, would hardly have been written unless the children of Israel had at one time adopted the custom to some slight extent. That Parsis now deny the existence of such marriages among their ancestors proves that they no longer approve the custom, but does not affect the historical evidence of its former ’ The oriental feeling of such a necessity, for the mere purpose of perpetuating the family, is abundantly manifested in the story of Lot’s daughters (Gen. xix. 30-38), which is related without reproval by its writer. Also by the exceptional law requiring a man to marry his brother’s wife, when the brother has died childless (Deut. xxv. 5-10). 430 APPENDIX. existence. Christians no longer approve the persecution and execution of women for the imaginary crime of witchcraft, but it would be both childish and useless for them to deny that their ancestors committed hundreds of such judicial murders less than two centuries ago. —_—_— -- —— IV, THE BARESHNOM CEREMONY, 431 IV. Tue Baresuném CEREMONY. THE great ceremony of purification for any Parsi man or woman who has become unclean by contact with the dead, or through any other serious defilement, lasts for nine nights, and is called the Bareshnim, which is the Avesta name for the ‘top’ of the head, the first part of the body appointed to be washed in the ceremony, after the hands. The description of this ceremony, given in Pahl. Vend. IX, 1-145, which does not differ very materially from the rite still in use, is as follows! :— Pahl. Vend. IX, 1. Zaratist enquired of Athavmazd thus: ‘O Afharmazd, propitious spirit! creator of the material world! who art the righteous ome [of righteousness !’ that is, Afhaymazd is the righteous creator through invocation, avd the rest through praise]. 2. ‘How, when in the material existence they see a [clean] man together with [that which is polluted], (3) how shall they purify him clean who
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1Another particular is to be added: if any one, in departing, settles and strives for the connection of Khétvadat of a next brother it is a good work of a thousand Tanapahars?; if any one strives to break off the connection of Khétvadat he is worthy of death.’ _ 7 See Dd. XX, 3. 3 See Dd. LXXVIII, 13. Geldner in his Studien zum Avesta, I, pp. 3-12, suggests that the original meaning of Av. tanuperetha and peshétanu was ‘outcast ;’ but, although these words are translated by Pahl tanApfhar, it is doubtful whether this last Ill, MEANING OF KHVETOK-DAS. 427 With this quotation, which occurs in a MS.? written A.D, 1723, we may conclude our examination of all passages in the Parsi scriptures referring to Khvétik-das, the result of which may be summarized as follows :— First, the term does not occur at all in the oldest part of the Avesta, and when it is mentioned in the later portion it is noticed merely as a good work which is highly meritorious, without any allusion to its nature; only one passage (Vend. VIII, 36) indicating that both men and women can participate in it. So far, therefore, as can be ascertained from the extant fragments of the Avesta—the only internal authority regarding the ancient practices of Mazdaworship—the Parsis are perfectly justified in believing that their religion did not originally sanction marriages between those who are next of kin, provided they choose to ignore the statements of foreigners, as based upon imperfect information. Second, when we descend to the Pahlavi translations and writings of the better class, which, in their present form, probably range from the sixth to the ninth century, we find many allusions to Khvétikdas between those next of kin, and only one obscure reference to the marriage of first cousins®. Marriages between the nearest relations are defended chiefly by reference to mythical and metaphorical word be a mere transcript of tanuperetha (which ought to have been tanfpfhar), or whether it expresses the different idea of tan-apfihar, ‘a person without a bridge /o heaven,’ which might have been that adopted by the Pahlavi translators of the Vendidad; an outcast in this world being very liable to be considered as an outcast from the next. 1 Ms, fols. 54, 55. 2 In Dk, III, Ixxxii (see p. 404). 428 APPENDIX.
21 Ms, fols. 54, 55. 2 In Dk, III, Ixxxii (see p. 404). 428 APPENDIX. statements regarding the creation, and to the practice of the progenitors of mankind; they are also advocated with all the warmth and vehemence that usually indicate much difficulty in convincing the laity, and this zealous vehemence increases as we descend to the dark ages of the Pahlavi Rivdyat}, the compilation of which may perhaps be attributed to some writer of the thirteenth or fourteenth century. Unless, therefore, the Parsis determine to reject the evidence of such Pahlavi works as the Pahlavi Yasna, the book of Ard4-Viraf, the Dinkard, and the DAaaist4n-t Dintk, or to attribute those books to heretical writers, they must admit that their priests, in the later years of the Sasanian dynasty, and for some centuries subsequently, strongly advocated such next-of-kin marriages, though, probably, with little success. That a practice now reprobated by all Parsis should have been formerly advocated by their priests, as a religious duty, need not excite the surprise of those who consider how slavery has been advocated by many Christians, on scriptural grounds, within the present generation, and how the execution of supposed witches was similarly advocated a few generations ago. Third, as we come to the modern writings of the Persian Rivayats, which may have commenced about the fifteenth century, we find the present form of Khvétik-das, the marriage of first cousins (which was only slightly mentioned in the Dinkavd of the ninth century), the only form in use; though obscure allusions are made to the other forms as being long extinct. 1 See pp. 415-423. Ill, MEANING OF KHVE£TOK-DAS. 429 At whatever period the practice of next-of-kin marriage may have originated there were evidently two reasons for its establishment and continuance ; one was the indispensable necessity of offspring}, unfettered by duties towards any other family, for the purpose of maintaining the necessary periodical ceremonies for the souls of those passed away; the other was the wish of preventing any risk of religious perversion consequent upon marrying into a family of strangers or infidels. Both of these reasons must have become intensified as the Mazda-worshippers diminished in numbers, hence the increasing vehemence of priestly advocacy, until the foreign conquerors probably interfered, and put a stop to the practice.
3Both of these reasons must have become intensified as the Mazda-worshippers diminished in numbers, hence the increasing vehemence of priestly advocacy, until the foreign conquerors probably interfered, and put a stop to the practice. That such marriages were not unusual among other races, in ancient times, we learn from many tales in Greek and Roman mythology, from the usual practice of the Greek dynasty of the Ptolemies in Egypt, and even from the laws prohibiting such connections in Lev. xviii. 6-16, which, as laws are not made to prohibit practices that do not exist, would hardly have been written unless the children of Israel had at one time adopted the custom to some slight extent. That Parsis now deny the existence of such marriages among their ancestors proves that they no longer approve the custom, but does not affect the historical evidence of its former ’ The oriental feeling of such a necessity, for the mere purpose of perpetuating the family, is abundantly manifested in the story of Lot’s daughters (Gen. xix. 30-38), which is related without reproval by its writer. Also by the exceptional law requiring a man to marry his brother’s wife, when the brother has died childless (Deut. xxv. 5-10). 430 APPENDIX. existence. Christians no longer approve the persecution and execution of women for the imaginary crime of witchcraft, but it would be both childish and useless for them to deny that their ancestors committed hundreds of such judicial murders less than two centuries ago. —_—_— -- —— IV, THE BARESHNOM CEREMONY, 431 IV. Tue Baresuném CEREMONY. THE great ceremony of purification for any Parsi man or woman who has become unclean by contact with the dead, or through any other serious defilement, lasts for nine nights, and is called the Bareshnim, which is the Avesta name for the ‘top’ of the head, the first part of the body appointed to be washed in the ceremony, after the hands. The description of this ceremony, given in Pahl. Vend. IX, 1-145, which does not differ very materially from the rite still in use, is as follows! :— Pahl. Vend. IX, 1. Zaratist enquired of Athavmazd thus: ‘O Afharmazd, propitious spirit! creator of the material world! who art the righteous ome [of righteousness !’ that is, Afhaymazd is the righteous creator through invocation, avd the rest through praise]. 2. ‘How, when in the material existence they see a [clean] man together with [that which is polluted], (3) how shall they purify him clean who
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
No commentary for this page.