1 The dirham has been variously estimated, at different times, as a weight of forty-five to sixty-seven grains, but perhaps fifty grains may be taken as the meaning of the text, and the stir may, therefore, be estimated at 200 grains. The Greeks used both these weights, which they called dpayyy and erarnp. ~ * The amounts of these first three degrees of sin are differently stated in other places (see Chaps. XI, 2, XVI, 1-3, 5). It is diffi- cult to understand why the amounts of Agerept and AvOirist should here be stated as less than that of Farman, and some Parsis, there- fore, read vihast (as an irregular form of vist, ‘ twenty’) instead of vés-ast, ‘is most,’ so that they may translate the amount as ‘twenty dirhams ;’ but to obtain this result they would have to make further alterations in the Pahlavi text. Ina passage quoted by Spiegel (in his Traditionelle Literatur der Parsen, p. 88) from the Rivayat MS. Pr2, in the Bibliothtque Nationale at Paris, it is stated that Farman is seven stirs, Agerept twelve stirs, and Av6i- _ rist fifteen stirs. Another Rivayat makes the Farman eight stirs.
$ All MSS. have Aredtis si 30, ‘an Aredfts is thirty (30), leaving it doubtful whether dirhams or stirs are meant; and the same mode of writing is adopted in Chap. XI, 2.
4 All authorities agree about the amounts of the last five degrees of sin. These amounts are the supposed weights of the several sins in the golden scales of the angel Rashnfi (see AV. V, 5), when the soul is called to account, for its actions during life, after the
242 SHAYAST LA-SHAYAST.
3. In the administration of the primitive faith? there are some who have been of different opinions
third night after death (see Mkh. II, 114-122). Its sins are sup- posed to be then weighed against its good works, which are esti- mated by the same scale of degrees (see the passage already quoted from Farh. Okh.in p. 240, note 2), and it is sent direct to heaven, or hell, or an intermediate place, according as the good works or sins preponderate, or are both equal. In the Avesta of the Vendidad, however, whence these degrees are derived, we find them forming merely a graduated scale of assaults, extending from first lifting the hand to smite even unto manslaughter ; and for each of these seven degrees of assault a scale of temporal punishments is pre- scribed, according to the number of times the offence has been committed. ‘These punishments consist of a uniform series of lashes with a horse-whip or scourge, extending from a minimum of five lashes to a maximum of two hundred (see Vend. IV, 58-114); each degree of assault commencing at a different point. on the scale of punishments for the first offence, and gradually rising through the scale with each repetition of the offence, so that the more aggravated assaults attain the maximum punishment by means of a smaller number of repetitions. Thus, the punishments prescribed for Agerepta, from the first to the eighth offence, are 5, 10, 15, 3©, 50, 70, 90, and 200 lashes respectively ; those for Ava- oirista, from the first to the seventh offence, extend on the same scale from 10 to 200 lashes; those for Aredus, from the first to the sixth offence, are from 15 to 200 lashes; those for a bruised hurt (Zvara), from the first to the fifth offence, are from 30 to 200 lashes; those for a bleeding hurt, from the first to the fourth offence, are from 50 to 200 lashes; those for a bone-breaking hurt, from the first to the third offence, are from 70 to 200 lashes ; and those for a hurt depriving of consciousness or life, for the first and second offences, are go and 200 lashes. The maximum punishment of 200 lashes is prescribed only when the previous offences have not been atoned for, and it is to be inflicted in all such cases, however ‘few or trifling the previous assaults have been.
" In M6 péryédkéshith, but poryddkéshAn, ‘of those of the primitive faith,’ in K20; from the Av. paoiryédkaésha of Yas. I, 47, Ill, 65, IV, 53, XXII, 33, Fravardin Yt. 0, 90, 156, Af. Rapithwin, 2. It is a term applied to what is considered as the
Chapter I, 3. 243
oe mace 6 seman ne re ee a ee ee ae
about it, for Gégésasp! spoke otherwise than the
teaching ® (£Astak) of Atar6-Attharmazd, and Sésh-
yans‘ otherwise than the teaching of Ataré-frébag
Nésai’, and Médédk-mah® o¢herwise than the teaching
of Gégésasp’, and Afarg® o/herwise than the teaching
true Mazdayasnian religion in all ages, both before and after the time of Zarattst.
’ One of the old commentators whose opinions are frequently quoted in Pahlavi books, as in Chap. II, 74, 82, 119, Pahl. Vend. 111, 48, 138, 151, IV, 35, V, 14, 121, VI, 9, 64, VII, 6, 136, VIII, 64, 236, XV, 35, 48, 56, 67, XVI, 5, XVIII, 98, 124, and thirteen times in the Nirangistén. His name is sometimes written Gésasp (as it is here both in M6 and K2o) and sometimes Gdgésdsp,
* Probably a written exposition or commentary is meant.
* This commentator is mentioned once in the Nirangistén as Ataré Afiharmazdan.
* This commentator is mentioned in Chaps. II, 56, 74, 80, 115, 11g, III, 13, VI, 4, 5; also in Pahl. Vend. III, 64, 69, 151, 1V, 6, V, 48, 80, 107, 121, 146, 153, VI, 15, 64, 73, VII, 4, 136, 168, VIII, 28, 59, 303, IX, 184, XIII, 20, XVI, 7, 10, 17, 20-22, 27, XVIII, 98, and forty-six times in the Nirangistin. He wasa name- sake of the last of the future apostles and sons of Zaratist (see Bund. XXXII, 8), and his name is often written Sdshans and read Saoshyds or Sdsyés by Pazand writers.
* This commentator is mentioned once in the Nirangistén, and may probably be the Ataré-frobag of B. Yt. 1, 7; compare also Noésa? Bfrs-Mitr6, the name of another commentator, in Chap. VIII, 18.
* This commentator is mentioned in Chaps. II, 1, 11, 12, 89, V, 5, 6; also in Pahl. Vend. III, 151, V, 6, 58, 107, VIII, 48, r1o, IX, 132, XIII, 99, XIV, 37, and four times in the Nirangistan. His name is sometimes written Médyék-mah or Maid6k-mah, and he was a namesake of Zaratfist’s cousin and first disciple (see Bund. XXNII, 2, 3). The Vagarkard-i Dinik professes to have been compiled by Médyék-mah, but there appear to have been several priests of this name (see Bund. XXXIII, 1).
7 Gésasp in M6.
* This commentator is mentioned in Chaps. II, 2, 64, 73, 88, 115, V. 5, 6: also in Pahl. Vend. III, 48, 115, V, 6, 24, 22, 58,
244 SHAYAST LA-SHAYAST.
of Sdéshyans. 4. And all those of the primitive
faith rely upon these six! teachings, and there are
some who rely more weakly and some more strongly
upon some of them.
146, VI, 9, VII, 6, 61, 93, 136, VIII, 48, 64, 110, 250, IX, 132, XIII, 99, XIV, 14, 37, XIX, 84, Pahl. Yas. LXIV, 37, once in Farh. Okh., and thirty-eight times in the Nirangistan.
* Both MSS. have ‘three,’ although four teachings and six commentators are mentioned in the previous section, and a fifth ‘teaching’ is mentioned in Chap. II, 2. The original reading was more probably ‘six’ than ‘four,’ as a Pahlavi ‘six’ requires merely the omission of a cipher to become ‘three,’ whereas a Pah- lavi ‘ four’ must be altered to produce the same blunder.
Chapters I, 4-Ii, 2. 245
Cuapter II.
1. For in the third fargard (‘chapter’) of the Ven-
didad of Méd6k-mah ' 77 is declared that when life is
resigned without effort*, at the time when the life
departs, when a dog is tied to his foot, even then
the Nasfis* rushes upon it, and afterwards, when
seen by it, the Nastis is destroyed by it. 2. This is
where 2¢ zs stated which is the dog which destroys
the Nasds*, the shepherd's dog, the village-dog, the
blood-hound, the slender hound’, and the rakdanik®;
the Nirangistan. It must, however, be observed that the reading of some of these names is very uncertain.
? Alluding probably to Médék-m4h’s complete commentary on the Vendidad (now no longer extant), as the commentary on Pahl. Vend. III, 48, which treats of Sag-did or dog-gaze, does not men- tion Méd6k-mah or any of the details described here in the text ; these details, however, are to be found in Pahl. Vend. VII, 4.
? Reading amat bara zér gin dad. This phrase occurs only in M6 (as a marginal note) and in the text of its descendants. Assuming that bard may be a miswriting of pavan (see p. 176, note 5), we might read amat pavan zér shfiy4d, ‘when he shall wash with holy-water.’
* The ‘corruption’ which is supposed to enter a corpse shortly after death, whence it issues in the form of a fiend and seizes upon any one who touches the corpse, unless it has been destroyed, or driven away, by the gaze of a dog, as mentioned in the text (com- pare Vend. VIII, 38-48). The carcase of a dog is considered equally contagious with the corpse of a human being, and when the fiend of corruption (Nasfs or Nas of Bund. XXVIII, 29) has seized upon any one, it can be driven out only by a long and troublesome form of purification described in Vend. VIII, 111- 228, IX, 4-117.
4 This statement is now to be found in Pahl. Vend. VII, 4.
* See Bund. XIV, 19. The Persian Rivayats of Kamah Bahrah and Kaas Kaman (quoted in B2g) describe these dogs as ‘the shepherd’s dog, the house-dog, the strange or tame (gharib) dog, and the puppy.’
® Probably the Av. sukuruna of Vend. V, 100, XIII, 48, which
246 | SHAYAST LA-SHAYAST.
and as to the rfikfinik there have been divers
opinions, as Vand-Atharmazd! asserted, from the
teaching of Afarg, that it does not destroy z¢. 3.
The dog destroys the Nasts at the time when it
_ sees the flesh, and when it sees the hair or nails it
does not destroy 7¢4*. 4. A blind dog also destroys
7¢Z at the time when it places a paw ® on the corpse ;
and when it places z¢ upon the hair or nails it does
not destroy 744. 5. The birds which destroy the
Nastis are three: the mountain kite, the black crow,
and the vulture®; the bird, moreover, destroys z¢ at
the time when z¢s shadow falls upon it; when it sees
it in the water, a mirror, or a looking-glass, it does
not destroy 77°.
is translated by hfikar or hfikfr in the Pahlavi version. This . fifth kind of dog is called ‘the blind (kfir) dog’ in the Persian Rivayats; but Pahl. Vend. VII, 4 asserts that ‘Sdéshans said the riikunik also destroys it,’ and then speaks of the blind dog as in § 4.
" See the note on Chap. I, 4.
* This is also stated in Pahl. Vend. III, 138.
* See Pahl. Vend. VII, 4.
* The Persian Rivayats say this is because the Nasty is con- cealed beneath the hair and nails (compare Vend. VII, 70).
® These are the birds ‘created for devouring dead matter
(sce Bund. XIX, 25). Pahl. Vend. VII, 4 substitutes an eagle
(dalman) for the vulture.
* This sentence is probably defective, as the last clause evi- dently refers to the dog’s gaze (see Pahl. Vend. III, 138), and not to the bird’s shadow; the rule, however, is applicable to both. Thus the Persian Rivayats state that if the bird’s shadow falls upon the hair or the nails of the corpse, or if the bird’s shadow, or the dog’s gaze falls upon a corpse in the water, or upon its reflection in a mirror, the Nas@s is not destroyed. Dasttr JamAspji is of opinion that the utility of the bird’s shadow is intended to apply only to cases of death in uninhabited places, where a dog is not procurable. As all three birds are such as feed upon corpses, it seems probable that the rule as to their utility was intended to pre-
Chapter Ii, 3-7. 247
6. Vand-Adharmazd said, where a pregnant woman
is to be carried by two men’, both are to be cleansed
by the Bareshnim ceremony*, and the head of the
corpse, when they carry it away, is to be set towards
the Dakhma*. 7. And on account of contamination
2 ree
vent any neglect of corpses found in wild places, where some of these birds would be sure to approach and let their shadows fall upon the dead, after which the finder of the corpse would suppose that the NasQs was destroyed or driven away, and the corpse safer to approach.
