1 So the damage to the fire is not occasioned by any impurity of the flesh of the ass or pig (which could be used for a sacred feast), but by the excessive quantity brought to it. The pig was formerly domesticated by the Parsis (see Sls. II, 58), but they have long since adopted the prejudices of the Hindus and Muhammadans as regards its uncleanness.
* Referring probably to the times of the three washings, subsequent to the chief ceremony, which take place after the third, sixth, and ninth nights, respectively, (see Vend. 1X, 136, 140, 144.)
a7 EPISTLES OF MANUSKIHAR.
become fetid and is stirred again, when they keep it
in use, is proper. 7. And that which the Sakaddm
has declared is, specially, that one of the high-priests
has individually said: ‘That stench is mentioned
with reference to the occasion when a stench reaches
it of a different kind from that which exists naturally
hata ae
CHAPTER |X.
1. And as ¢o that which is written!, that ‘ ¢he
teachings of Médydk-mah, Afarg, and Séshans* have
all three come azd remained, and, on that account,
whoever fas washed just as they always wash
therein is certain that he is worthy. 2. Also,
‘should it have been as z¢ were proper to them,
would Médyék-mah have said that “not even the
purifier is single ?”’ 3. Ad the rest as written on
that subject, which, on account of its acute observa-
tion, Aas seemed /o de from their statements; they,
however, fave not decided it so by the teaching
which is in their names, as was indicated by me
before *.
4. But I do not so understand that ‘if those
should have been all the particulars of the pecu-
liarity of all three teachings, would ¢he teachings of
Médyék-mah and Sdshans have said, concerning
any one who should have so washed that the puri-
her was single, that it is suitable, because the high-
priests have been thus very unanimous that when
* In the epistle to which he is replying. * pee Chap. Vat. * See Chap. VI, 2-4.
EPISTLE I, CHAPTER VIII, 7—IX, 7. 4n2
1 The writer says he does not understand this argument of his correspondents, because it differs from the view he takes in Chap. VI, 2, but it must be confessed that the meaning of the passage in dispute (Pahl. Vend. IX, 132, 4) is not very clear, as the word ashayed, ‘he is unsuitable,’ can also be read ae shayed, ‘he would be suitable,’ both there and in our text.
? K35 has one line blank here, but this was probably owing to the state of the paper, or some inadvertence of the copyist; as it is evident that none of the text is omitted.
* Compare Chap. VI, 9-11.
* Compare Chap. VII, 16-18.
® This shows that the places for ablution during the Bareshnfim ceremony were, a thousand years ago, the same as now, namely, stones deposited on the ground, not holes dug in the ground, as directed in Vend. IX, 13, 14,16. They are, in fact, the stones or hard material directed to be deposited at the holes in Vend. IX, 29, 30, but they go »y the old name for the holes (magh).
314 EPISTLES OF MANUSKIHAR.
and when a shower of rain occurs thereon so ¢hat
the whole place shall be thoroughly wetted, inside
and outside, it is proper? 8. And if some one says
that this is the case of a rite by a teaching of
authority, and the rule is by a teaching of private
authority, is not the whole rite by any teaching
proper, that cozszsts in this washing which is
thoroughly preserved as they keep z¢ in practice? ?’
9. The reply is even this, that every rite (niréng)
is to be performed zz such manner as ¢hat which is
said Zo d¢ most preservative, and most connected
with the declaration of revelation azd the testimony
of the high-priests concerning it. 10. And not for
the reason that Médyék-mah’s ¢eaching is more
preservative? as to one rite, and after that some-
thing of Afarg is more preservative, is the operation
to be performed by the statement of Médydk-mah ;
6u¢ whatever is the more preservative of Médyék-
mah’s is collected from Médyék-mah, all the more
preservative of Afarg from Afarg, amd that which
is the more preservative of azy other high-priest
from that which fas the most preservative approval
of the high-priest. 11. That which those high-
priests ave said, which they decide by just au-
thority, is the commandment of the learned of the
realm, which has lawfully arisen over the provinces
(shéharan6); but even that statement opposing
it whech is much testified azd manifestly more of
a deliverance, or which is declared as an exposition
* This string of arguments appears to be quoted from the epistle to which the writer is replying, but as they are separated from their context it is difficult to understand the exact line of argument, or to be sure that they are translated correctly.
* From pollution or sin.
EPISTLE I, CHAPTER Ix, 8-15. 315
of the teaching of high-priests of the religion in
a dissimilar case, they shall then! wholly accept,
and ¢hey are to perform the operation authorisedly
and preservatively thereby.
12. This, too, I so consider, zAa¢ even if each
separate teaching should be as z¢ were proper, it
would then not be determined by them as to the
impropriety of the purzfyzng cup, for Médyédk-mah
has stated, only as z¢ was apparent to him, that
every single customary part is to be washed for
three times?, axd has not specifically determined
that when all shall be so once it is not proper.
13. By the special teaching of Médyék-mah and
the washing which is in the law that says—con-
cerning those interpreting revelation —that whoever
becomes quite polluted shall thoroughly wash by
that law, so that his deg washed is to be con-
sidered as de¢ng washed, it (the rite) is not performed
by me if, also, that other high-priest as said, that
every one who becomes quite polluted, azd washes
not by the law of the primitive faith, is not to be
considered as washed. 14. Then, too, in the special
teaching of Médyék-mah 7z¢ is not said, of that
washing which is washed by the law of those of
a portion of the religion (parak-dindé4n), that it is
not proper.
15. He who washes by the law of those of the
primitive faith, which many high-priests maintain
as excellent, because it is suitable, azd imagines
that regarding the threefold washing it should be
said that it is not proper, even he—when he also
; That i is, when the dissimilar case arises, or when it is manifestly
more efficient.
* See Chap.VI, 7.
316 EPISTLES OF MANUSKIHAR.
has become of the same opinion as to this, that the
statements of the high-priests are on an equality,
and the most evidence of the high-priests is the
vight course—would have attained to confidence
about this, that in a doubtful matter ¢Zeve should
be a high-priést1, and also that of which Afarg and
Sdéshans ave alike understood a similar thing is
proper.
CHAPTER =X.
r. And as ¢o the many other matters to which an
explicit reply is not written by me—be it the deter-
minableness of it, be it the flow of zzward prayer ®,
be it the pouring of the water, and likewise the rest
which is written fo me—the statements, when de-
liberation and conjecture about such arrangements
become needful, are not Zo de made unto the multi-
tude, but wzto the priestly at once*. 2. And this
much, also, which is written by me is on this
account‘, ¢hat when a writing has come to you
which is the purport of my re-explanation, axd z¢
fas seemed that it is written after ce//-weighed
(sakhtak6) observations °, even so they wou/d cause
some of those of good desires to understand, who
are thoughtful friends of the soul azd observers of
* To consult about the matters in doubt.
* Reading vag-régisndih; but J omits the first letter, and thereby converts the word into apardagisnth, ‘want of leisure.’
* J has merely ‘the statements are when deliberation and conjec- ture become at once needful.’ |
* Reading hana raf, as in J; the other MSS. have hana 14.
° Or, perhaps, ‘strict observations’ here, and ‘strict observers’ further on.
Epistle I, Chapter X, I-5. 339
well-weighed zdeas, in whose heart and mind, owing
to that o¢her writing}, the existence of doubtfulness
may fully remain; and, owing to that, this much
re-explanation fas, indeed, seemed to me good.
3. And then the desire? to sprinkle* in many
modes is also an incorrect presentation ‘4, ori which
same subject there is this in consideration, that
afterwards, peradventure, the same priestly man®
by whom it is written say come—whose assured
wisdom * may the angels make steadfast! azd whom
my approaching causing a purifier to travel for
various quarters fas occasioned to write it—so that .
while they are, therefore, awed by him, and shall
provide more completely for use the full measure of
water and bull’s urine, the complete words of the
Avesta, and other proper rites, they shall proceed
more approvably. 4. And if z¢ de even not auxiliary
for the same purpose (4han6) ¢hat zt was written
by him—except, indeed, through consideration of
its details—no reason for a writing of that kind is
to be assigned.
5. But if for the reason z¢ was written by him z¢
be manifest as an existence which is very little
threatening, then I consider his opinion, which is
in his decree, not so perplexing; and, till’ now, the
perplexing consideration was more particularly as
? To which he is replying.
? Reading adin gam, but this is doubtful.
* The Huz. verb zerikfintan6, ‘to sprinkle,’ is not found in the glossaries, but is readily traceable to Chald. P7?.
* Reading arashnik6-A6-dahisnith.
® Meaning his brother, Zad-sparam.
* The usual Pahlavi phrase for the Av. 4sn6 khratus or in- stinctive wisdom (see Dd. XL, 3).
” Assuming that val stands for va/.
338 EPISTLES OF MANUSKfHAR.
to that, when, owing to the great learning thereof
to be seen by me, this was not doubtful, that as to
the great opinion of the world adout the existing
law of the profession of the priesthood, azd the
practice of all those of the good religion of the
realm, they should make a decree only by the
deliberation of me and other priestly men and
religious observers’. 6. For if even he retorts a
further statement? as to the appointed observance,
zfs origin is then also a propagation from the diverse
teachings of those great high-priests of those of the
primitive faith, wko were they who have been for-
merly great.
7. On account of the depth and much intricacy
of the religion they mention many opinions axd
well-considered decrees which were likewise formed
devoid of uniformity, azd the utterance of the
different opinions of the priests is with the reciters
of the Nasks; but even among themselves the most
supremely just high-priests were of a different
opinion, different judgment, different teaching,
different interpretation, and different practice only
in the peace, mutual friendship, and affection which
they had together. 8. Just as that even which was
prominent about these chief priests (magdpatand
magdépatd), whose names were Attiré-Frébag-
vindad and Attrd-bigéd, who have been, each
separately, the high-priest of the realm of the true
religion and the scholar of the age.
te here ee
* Implying that the more learning there is manifest in an erro- neous teaching, the more necessary it is to submit it to careful examination.
* Reading fragé vak patd-yekavtmfnéd, and assuming that the last word stands for patd-fstéd,
Epistle I, Chapter X, 6—-It. 319
9. To many, when an opinion is afterwards so
obtained, pertaining to the high-priests 2 the
spiritual evzstence1, z¢ is as is said about Zarattst
the Spitam4n, that ‘the first time when the arch-
angels are seen by him, the Spitamdan, z¢ is then
supposed by him that they are Aindar, Sari, Naki-
styya, Tadirév, and Zairi£?, who are most mighty °*.’
10. From such as those the decree and its original
perversity (bin-gastikdéih) and scanty preserva-
tiveness are so written aud prepared, and after-
wards, also, your opinion is that way irritated by
the habit of good thinking—of which there is so .
much manifest* from those of the primitive faith
and the high-priests—because even its words and
those written with z/, azd the completeness of will
and religion which is written, inclined the mind
away from the teaching of the high-priests.
11.. But as the same decree, ov that which is resembling the same decree®, is appointed (vakht6)
? That is, such as have passed away.
