‘Whoever keeps one year in a marriage of Khvé-
* Or, as stated in the Appendix to the Snayast La-shayast (Sls. XVIII, 4), they ‘wz27 not become parted from the possession of Atharmagd and the archangels.’
Ill, MEANING OF KHVETOK-DAS. A421
tidad becomes just as though one-third of all this
world, with the water, with the trees, and with the
corn, had been given by him, as a righteous gift,
unto a righteous man. When he keeps two years in
the marriage z¢ is as though two-thirds of this world,
with the water, trees, avd corn, had been given by
him unto a righteous man. When he keeps three
years in the marriage z¢ is as though all this world,
with the water, with the trees, azd with everything,
had been given dy 4zm, as a righteous gift, unto a
righteous man. Azd when he keeps four years |
in his marriage, and his ritual! is performed, z¢ is
known ¢hat fis soul thereby goes unto the supreme
heaven (garédmAan); and when the ritual is not
pei formed, it goes thereby to ¢he ordinary heaven
(vahist6).
‘Zaratist enquired of Atharmazd thus: “As fo
the man who fvactises Khvétddad, and his ritual is
performed, azd he also offers a ceremonial (yazisné-
aé), is the good work of it such as zf oxe without
Khvétidad had offered zt, or which way is it?”
Attharmazd said: “/¢ is just as though a hundred
men without Khvéttidad had offered it.”
‘Zarattist enquired this, also, of Athaymazd, that
is: “ How is the benediction (4fvin6) which a man
who practises Khvétidad shall offer?” Attharmazd
spoke thus: “As though a hundred men without
Khvétidad should offer the benediction.”
‘And this, too, was asked by him, that is: “As
to them who render assistance, azd one meditates
and attains to Khvétidad through them, and one
1 The proper ceremonies after his death, or for his living soul during his lifetime (see Dd. XXVIII, LXXXI).
422 APPENDIX.
performs Khvétidad on account of their statements,
how is ¢he’r good work?” Atthaymazd spoke thus :
“ Like 42s who keeps in food and clothing, for one
winter, a hundred priests—each of which priests has
a hundred disciples—sach is his good work.”
‘Zarattist enquired this, also, of Athaymazd, that
is: “4s to them who keep a man back fvom per-
forming Khvéttdad, aud owing to their statements
he shall not perform Khvéttdad, what is their sin ?”
Atharmazd spoke thus: “ Their place is hell.”
‘In a passage z¢ is declared that, wiser than the
wise, avd more virtuous than the virtuous is Ze in
whose thoughts, words, azd deeds the demons are
less predominant; a@zd Aharman azd the demons
are less predominant in the body of him who Jrac-
tises Khvéttdad, and his ritual? is performed.
‘/¢ is declared by revelation that a¢ the ¢zme when
Zarattist came out from the presence of Afharmazd,
the lord, into a worldly place where he travelled, he
spoke this, that is: “ Extol the religion! axzd you
should perform Khvétidad. I speak of the good
and those existing zz the religion; as ¢o the negli-
gent, the vile, and those in perplexity, this is said,
that a thing so wondrous azd important as that
which is in our law of Khvétidad could not be for
performance. This is a sublime (Airag) custom,
and, as the best of all things, oe asserts that it is
necessary to perform it. Zo me, also, this is mani-
fest when, through all faith zz the law of those
existing zz the religion*, that which is called by
* The Pahlavi text is imperfect. 2 See p. 421, note I. * That is, the general law of Mazgda-worship, 1s distinguished from what he is advocating as a peculiarly religious law sanctioned
Iii. Meaning of Khvetok-Das. 423
them a very heinous sin, through faith zz this law of
the good, is that which is called the most perfect and
best good work of Mazda-worship.”
‘This, too, is declared by revelation, that Athav-
mazd spoke unto Zaratist thus: “You should cause
the performance of duties azd@ good works.” And
Zarattist spoke thus: “ Which duty axzd good work
shall \ do first?” Atharymazd spoke thus: “Khvé-
tidad; because that duty azd good work is to be
performed in the foremost place of all, for, in the
end, it happens through Khvétid4ad, when all who |
are in the world attain unto the religion 1.”
‘This, too, is declared by revelation, that Zarattst
spoke unto Athaymazd thus: “In my eyes z¢ is an
evil (vad6) which is performed, and 2z¢ zs perplexing
that I should make Khvétidad as 2¢ were fully cur-
rent among mankind.” Athavmazd spoke thus:
“In my eyes, also, z¢ is just as zz thine; but for
this reason—when out of everything perfect ¢here is
some miserable evil * for thee—it should not seem so.
Do thou be diligent in performing Khvétiidad, and
others, also, will perform z¢ diligently.”’
The unpopularity of the practice advocated could
hardly be more fully admitted than in this last para-
graph, nor the objection more irrationally and dog-
matically disposed of. As for the numerous quota-
tions, which the compiler of this Pahlavi Rivayat
by the priests (‘the good’). This is evidently an admission that the practice advocated was contrary to the ordinary laws of Mazda- worship itself. * As Pahlavi writers expect them to do before the resurrection. * Reading vad6-i vésht; but it may be ‘ something is dilficu't and hard’ (tang va sakht).
424 APPENDIX.
‘nyt ben a ek
professes to take from the Parsi scriptures, it is
hardly necessary to remark that their authenticity
must be accepted with great reserve.
Persian Rivayats, copied in the seventeenth cen-
tury, advocate the marriage of first cousins, and
allude vaguely to those between nearer relatives as
long extinct, though most of their remarks nierely
recommend the performance of Khédyédath?, with-
out explaining the meaning of the term. Thus, we
are informed that a person worthy of death can
perform Khédyédath as a good work, but it is better
if followed by the Bareshnim ceremony*, An un-
clean person can do the same, but the Bareshnim
should precede the performance, so as to avoid sins
arising from the uncleanness. The performance
also destroys demons, wizards, and witches; and
if arranged by any one, at his own expense, for
another person, it is as meritorious as if performed
by himself. But the following quotations are more
descriptive of the practice *:—
‘Again, whereas the great wisdom of the ait and
of the assembly of priests fully understands that the
ceremony of all the religious rites* is a great good
work, besides that which is called Khédyédath, yet,
in these days, both have fallen out of ther hands;
but they will make an endeavour, so that they may
form connection with their own, and on account of
* The Persian form of the word Khvéttik-das. It is also written Khetyddath in some passages, and Khétvadat in others.
° The great ceremony of purification (see App. IV),
* The Persian Rivayat from which all this information has been extracted is Mro (fol. 50).
* See Dd xA LDV, cam
Iii. Meaning of Khvetok-Das. 425
the Musulmdans the connection is a medium ove},
better than that of an infidel. And Ormazd has
said that éy as much as the connection is nearer
zt zs more of a good work; and they display ther
endeavour and effort, and give the son of a brother
and daughter of a brother Zo each other. And just
as this zs sazd: “I establish the performer of Khéd-
yodath, I establish the patrol of the country?,” even
on this account they certainly display an endeavour.
‘Query:—“ How are the connections that relations
form?” Reply :—“A brother’s children with a bro- -
ther’s children and a sister’s children, and relations
with one another form connections, avd it is proper
for them.”
‘Khédyédath is that which is.a great good work,
and has fallen out of their hands, owing to the reason
that there is no king of the good religion; and if it
be so they will make an endeavour, and will form
connections with their own, and will give the son of
a brother and daughter of a brother to each other,
and if not it is not proper; and every such connec-
tion as is nearer is more of a good work. And the
mode they will act who are at first without a king
will be an infidel oe, and to form connections among
themselves will be very difficult now he (the king)
is a Musulman, du¢ that which is nearer is better
and more of a good work.’
1 This seems to be an allusion to some interference of the Muhammadan government with marriages of those next of kin. A situilar allusion occurs in the next paragraph but one, which, with most of this paragraph, is also found in M7, fols. 229b, 2304.
* This Avesta quot*tion, from Visp. III, 18, 19, is as follows :— ‘hvaetvadathem 4staya, danhaurvaésem 4staya;’ and the meaning of the last term is uncertain.
426 APPENDIX.
These quotations indicate that a great change had
crept over the meaning of Khvétik-das since the
dark ages of the Pahlavi Rivayat, previously quoted,
although a tradition of the old meaning still lingered
in the minds of the writers. The modern meaning
is, however, most completely explained in a passage,
appended to a Persian version of Aéshm’s complaint
to Aharman, regarding the difficulty of destroying
the effect of the season-festivals, the sacred feast,
and Khvétik-das (Sls. XVIII). After Aharman has
confessed his inability to suggest a means of de-
stroying the merit of the last, the Persian writer
adds the following particulars :—
‘Therefore it is necessary to understand, that the
chief Khétvadat is that of a sister’s daughter and
brother’s son; a medium Khétvadat is that of a
brother’s son and a younger brother’s daughter, or
of a sister's son and a younger sister’s daughter ;
and inferior to a medium Khétvadat is that of a
sister’s son and a younger brother's daughter. It is
necessary to know that any person who performs
Khétvadat, if Azs soul be fz for hell, will arrive
among the ever-stationary!; if it be ove of the ever-
Stationary it will arrive at heaven. Another parti-
cular 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 Tanéa-
pihars*; if any one strives to break off the connec-
tion of Khétvadat he.is worthy of death.’
* See Dd. XX, 3;
* See Dd. LXXVIII, 13. Geldner in his Studien zum Avesta, I, pp. 3-12, suggests that the original mean‘ng of Av. tanupere- tha and peshétanu was ‘outcast ;’ but, although these words are translated by Pahl. tanapfhar, it is doubtful whether this last
Iii. 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 Khvé-
tfik-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) indi-
cating 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 Mazda-
worship—the Parsis are perfectly justified in be-
lieving 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 transla-
tions 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 Khvétak-
das between those next of kin, and only one obscure
reference to the marriage of first cousins*, Mar-
riages 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 tanfipfihar), or whether it expresses the different idea of tan-apfihar, ‘a person without a bridge fo 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.
' Ms, fols. 54, 55- ? In Dk. III, Ixxxii (see p. 404).
428 APPENDIX.
statements regarding the creation, and to the prac-
tice 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 Rivayat},
the compilation of which may perhaps be attributed
to some writer of the thirteenth or fourteenth cen-
tury. Unless, therefore, the Parsis determine to
reject the evidence of such Pahlavi works as the
Pahlavi Yasna, the book of Arda-Viraf, the Dinkard,
and the Dadistan-i Dinik, 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 advo-
cated 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 advo-
cated 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 Dinkard of the
ninth century), the only form in use; though obscure
allusions are made to the other forms as being long
extinct.
