Next-of-kin Marriages in Old Irân

​

Without presuming to attack any particular European theory, I beg to put forward my humble impressions in confirmation of the first statement. Among the Western classical writers, who are concerned with Persian history or religion, there are about fifteen who have touched upon the subject of next-of-kin marriages in old Irân, and who belong to different periods, from the 7th century B. C. to the 6th century A. D. They are Xanthus (I. about B. C. 650); Herodotus (B. C. 484–409); Ctesias (1. about B. C. 440); Strabo (B. C. 54 to A. D. 24); Plutarch (b. A. D. 66); Curtius (b. A. D. 70); Tertullian (A. D. 160–240); Origen, Clemens Alexandrinus, Diogenes Laertius and ​Tatian (f. in the 2nd century A. D.); Minutius Felix and Athenæus (f. in the 3rd century A. D.); and Agathias (f. about A. D. 536–538). Of these Tertullian, Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, Diogenes Laertius, Athenæus, Curtius, and Minutius Felix ascribe incestuous marriages to the Persians generally, according to Mr. Adam, 'without any distinction or qualification.' The spurious works of Xanthus, as well as the genuine books of Strabo and Tatian, impute such practices to the Magians alone, without drawing any line of separation between the different Magian orders among the Chaldæans or the Persians. Herodotus, Ctesias, Plutarch and Agatias make special mention of names of persons of rank, whom they charge with the guilt of such incest. Now, if we were to inquire to what different sources these reports owe their origin, we should find that Tertullian, Clemens Alexandrinus and his pupil Origen, as well as the true Plutarch, based their statements with regard to this question on the authority of Ctesias (Adam, p. 715; Rawlinson, Herodotus, Vol. I., p. 78). ​Diogenes Laertius, Strabo and Curtius seem to rely upon the spurious works of Xanthus (vide Dr. Windischmann, Zoroastriche Studien, p. 268 seq.; Adam, p. 717). The works of Athenæus and Curtius are supposed to be collections of extracts from the writings of historians, dramatists and philosophers, who preceded them (comp. Smith's 'Classical Dictionary,' s. v.). In the absence of any available information, it is difficult to trace the isolated reports of Tatian and Minutius Felix to Xanthus, Ctesias, or Herodotus. Consequently, the only independent sources of information more or less authentic, seem to issue from only four of the classical writers above-named:—Xanthus, Herodotus, Ctesias, and Agathias. Their reports may be considered to have modelled the tone of classical history relating to ancient Irân.

However, in an enquiry with regard to their evidence, the questions most important and most natural are: What is their authenticity? How far may their testimony be relied upon? Are there any conflicting statements in these historians ​which should deter us from trusting implicitly to their guidance?

It is admitted that no two nations have ever succeeded in thoroughly understanding the manners and customs of each other. If this is so in our own day, when the means of information are numerous and ready to hand, what can we expect in those remote ages when the sources of information were very few and very uncertain. Again, it is necessary to be on our guard against putting absolute faith in any particular Greek writer.—Regarding Xanthus, Dr. Windischmann, in his German essay on classical testimony relating to Zoroaster, published in his posthumous work Zoroastrische Studien, states (p. 268):—"As to the authenticity of the works of Xanthus (B. C. 529), a later writer, Artemon of Cassandra, advanced some doubts, and believed that they were substituted five centuries after by one Dionysius Skytobrachion (f. about B. C. 120), a native of Alexandria." This view is supported, as the writer says, by his tutor, Prof. Welcher. Also it is the opinion ​of Dr. Smith, expressed in his 'Classical Dictionary,' that "The genuineness of the Four Books of Lydian History, which the ancients possessed under the name of Xanthus, and of which some considerable fragments have come down to us, was questioned by some of the ancient grammarians themselves. There has been considerable controversy respecting the genuineness of this work among modern scholars. It is certain that much of the matter in the extant fragments is spurious."

"The Persian informants of Herodotus," says Mr. G. Rawlinson in his Introduction to the 'History of Herodotus' (pp. 67, 69), "seem to have consisted of the soldiers and officials of various ranks,^[7] with whom he necessarily came in contact at Sardis and other places, where strong bodies of the dominant people were maintained constantly. He was born and bred up a Persian subject; and though in his own city Persians might be rare ​visitants, everywhere beyond the limits of the Grecian states they formed the official class, and in the great towns they were even a considerable section of the population. There is no reason to believe that Herodotus ever set foot in Persia Proper, or was in a country where the Arian element preponderated. Hence his mistakes with regard to the Persian religion which he confounded with the Scythic worship of Susiania, Armenia and Cappadocia. . . . Herodotus, too, was by natural temperament inclined to look with favour on the poetical and the marvellous, and where he had to choose between a number of conflicting stories would be disposed to reject the prosaic and commonplace for the romantic and extraordinary. . . . Thus his narrative, where it can be compared with the Persian monumental records, presents the curious contrast of minute and exact agreement in some parts with broad and striking diversity in others. Unfortunately, a direct comparison of this kind can but rarely be made, owing to the scantiness of the Persian records at present discovered; but we are ​justified in assuming, from the coincidences actually observable, that at least some of his authorities drew their histories from the monuments; and it even seems as if Herodotus had himself had access to certain of the most important of those documents which were preserved in the archives of the empire."

Whatever might be the opinion of Mr. Rawlinson, one thing is clear on its face, that the truthfulness of the Persian informants upon whom Herodotus had depended was not quite beyond suspicion, viz., the utter silence of Herodotus upon the founder of the Persian religion. While Xanthus is believed to have made mention of Zoroaster and his laws, while Plato, who flourished 55 years after Herodotus, and must have drawn his materials consequently from sources as old as those of the latter, freely alludes to Zoroaster, it is impossible to conceive how Herodotus, who has described Persian life and Persian religion so elaborately, should have been unfamiliar with the name of the Prophet of the land and the founder ​of the religion. Should we not assume that Herodotus became acquainted with the Magian belief merely through oral tradition recounted by persons who were ill-disposed towards the Magi, and who, therefore, were loth to divulge the name of their renowned Prophet?

Mr. G. Rawlinson remarks further on (pp. 77 seq.):—"Several ancient writers, among them two of considerable repute, Ctesias the court physician to Artaxerxes Mnemon, and Plutarch, or rather an author who has made free with his name, have impeached the truthfulness of the historian Herodotus, and maintained that his narrative is entitled to little credit. Ctesias seems to have introduced his own work to the favourable notice of his countrymen by a formal attack on the veracity of his great predecessor, upon the ruins of whose reputation he hoped to establish his own. He designed his history to supersede that of Herodotus, and feeling it in vain to endeavour to cope with him in the charms of composition, he set himself to invalidate his authority, ​presuming upon his own claims to attention as a resident for seventeen years at the court of the great king. Professing to draw his relation of Oriental affairs from a laborious examination of the Persian archives, he proceeded to contradict, wherever he could do so without fear of detection, the assertions of his rival; and he thus acquired to himself a degree of fame and of consideration to which his literary merits would certainly never have entitled him, and which the course of detraction he pursued could alone have enabled him to gain. By the most unblushing effrontery he succeeded in palming of his narrative upon the ancient world as the true and genuine account of the transactions, and his authority was commonly followed in preference to that of Herodotus, at least upon all points of purely Oriental history."

Now regarding Ctesias, the same writer observes:—'There were not wanting indeed in ancient time some more critical spirits, e.g. Aristotle and the true Plutarch, who refused to accept as indisputable the statements of the Cnidian physi​cian, and retorted upon him the charge of untruthfulness which he had preferred against Herodotus. It was difficult, however, to convict Ctesias of systematic falsehood until Oriental materials of an authentic character were obtained by which to test the conflicting accounts of the two writers. A comparison with the Jewish Scriptures and with the native history of Berosus first raised a general suspicion of the bad faith of Ctesias, whose credit few moderns have been bold enough to maintain against the continually increasing evidence against him. At last the coup de grâce has been given to his small remaining reputation by the recent Cuneiform discoveries, which convict him of having striven to rise into notice by a system of 'enormous lying,' to which the history of literature scarcely presents a parallel."

Hence it is that the historian Grote is perfectly justified in remarking:—"This is a proof of the prevalence of discordant, yet equally accredited, stories. So rare and late a plant is historical authenticity."

​As for Agathias, the Byzantine writer who flourished in the middle of the sixth century after Christ, his works ought to be consulted with greater caution. Besides, Diogenes Laertius is very often called 'an inaccurate and unphilosophical writer.' Even the true Plutarch's testimony is frequently questioned by modren critics. The reference to consanguineous marriages amongst the Magi: τουτοις δε καὶ μητρας συνερχεσθαι πατριον νενόμισται, in Strabo's Geography, Bk. XV., is a very short and isolated sentence, which has not the least connection with the main subject of the passage wherein it occurs, viz., the mode of disposing of the dead among the early Persians.^[8] It might, therefore, be justly regarded as an interpolation by some unknown reader, similar to the interpolations noticed in the work of Xenophon, Bk. VIII., Ch. V., p. 26, and condemned as such by all his critics of authority, viz., Bornemann, Schneider and Dindorf.

​It must also be remembered that the works of some of those Greek philosophers who were wellknown for their somewhat authentic description of the Zoroastrian religion and customs, viz., Democritus (f. B. C. 460), Deinon the contemporary of Ctesias, Plato, Eudoxus, Hermippos, Theopompos, and Aristotle, do not contain the slightest trace or hint as to the alleged practice of next-of-kin marriages in ancient Irân.

Thus a majority of opinions may be cited to prove that the reports of classical writers on the subject of consanguineous marriages in old Irân, are not at all beyond question. Moreover, I do not mean to deny that some of those Greek writers who have ascribed the marriage practices in question in the case of individuals to the old Irânians may have had some grounds for their averment; but who can reconcile their conflicting evidence? Who can decide between the two inconsistent statements upon this subject by Xanthus and Agathias, where the former charges the Magi with the crime of marrying their parents, while the latter puts into ​the mouth of King Artaxerxes II. words which plainly denounce such practices as being inconsistent not only with the laws of the land, but with the commandment of Zoroastrianism (vide Agathias, Lib. II., C. 24). The Achæmenian monuments do not allude to such practices, nor have we any indigenous historical record of the Achæmenidæ or the Arsacidæ, upon which we could place any reliance for comparison.—Alas! for the dispersion and destruction of our ancient literature, which, had it been preserved, would not only have assisted us to know the exact history of the old Irânian civilization, but also to controvert with ease all such discreditable allegations.

Nevertheless, the question arises: Granted that the classical statements are to some extent doubtful; still are we not justified in believing that such marriages were customary or regarded as lawful during the rule of the Achæmenian kings, since the Greek reports refer to certain Persian monarchs or men of authority who contracted marriages with their nearest blood-relations? It is true, Herodo​tus and Plutarch ascribe them to Cambyses III. and Artaxerxes II. Herodotus states in his accounts respecting Cambyses (vide Bk. III. 31 seq.):—

"The second (outrage which Cambyses committed) was the slaying of his sister, who had accompanied him into Egypt, and lived with him as his wife, though she was his full sister, the daughter both of his father and his mother. The way wherein he had made her his wife was the following:—It was not the custom of the Persians, before his time, to marry their sisters; but Cambyses, happening to fall in love with one of his, and wishing to take her to wife, as he knew that it was an uncommon thing, called together the royal judges, and put it to them, 'whether there was any law which allowed a brother, if he wished, to marry his sister?' Now the royal judges are certain picked men among the Persians, who hold their office for life, or until they are found guilty of some misconduct. By them justice is administered in Persia, and they are the interpreters of the old laws, all disputes being referred to their ​decision. When Cambyses, therefore, put his question to these judges, they gave him an answer which was at once true and safe:—'They did not find any law,' they said, 'allowing a brother to take his sister to wife, but they found a law that the king of the Persians might do whatever he pleased.' And so they neither warped the law through fear of Cambyses, nor ruined themselves by over stiffly maintaining the law; but they brought another quite distinct law to the king's help, which allowed him to have his wish. Cambyses, therefore, married the object of his love, and no longer time afterwards he took to wife another sister. It was the younger of these who went with him into Egypt, and there suffered death at his hands." . . . . . . "The story," concerning the manner of her death, "which the Greeks tell, is, that Cambyses had set a young dog to fight the cub of a lioness—his wife looking on at the time. Now the dog was getting the worse, when a pup of the same litter broke his chain and came to his brother's aid; then the two dogs together ​fought the lion, and conquered him. The thing greatly pleased Cambyses, but his sister, who was șitting by, shed tears. When Cambyses saw this he asked her why she wept: whereon she told him that seeing the young dog come to his brother's aid made her think of Smerdis (her brother), whom there was none to help. For this speech, the Greeks say, Cambyses put her to death."

But from these statements of the historian of Halicarnassus, is it not plain enough that the marriage of Cambyses with his sister—if we may rely upon the Greek evidence alone—was nothing more than the individual act of one of the wickedest tyrants that ever reigned in Persia, and that it was owing to the cruel and ferocious character of their ruler that this most irreligious marriage from the stand-point of the Magi was acquiesced in by the priests as well as the people? And is this action of a vicious and wicked king sufficient to justify us in affixing the stigma of such a custom to the whole Irânian nation, or in tracing it to their religious writings? Further, it should ​be remembered that Cambyses utterly disregarded his priesthood, defied the old sanitary ordinances of his people, and set small store by his religion.^[9] He gave proof of this by attempting to encourage in his kingdom the practice of interring the dead amongst a people by whom it was detested. It is not, therefore, unreasonable to assume that the alleged marriage of Cambyses with his sister was suggested by his familiarity with such marriages among the Egyptians and the Greeks conquered by the Persians, and that it was carried into effect by a man of such ​violent passions as would brook no contradiction, and would not be balked of their gratification.

Here I may be allowed to observe in passing, that it is difficult to agree with those European scholars^[10] who doubt the accuracy of the assertion of Herodotus, that Cambyses was the first Persian to intermarry with his sister. I believe that their hypothesis, that the institution of such marriages had existed long before Cambyses reigned, is much more open to question than the statement of the Greek historian; and this will be demonstrated further on when I come to prove my second statement.

​There is another Achæmenian monarch who is alluded to by Plutarch, on the authority of Ctesias and his followers, as having married his sister. According to Langhorn's translation of Plutarch's Life of Artaxerxes II., the Greek biographer relates:—"Artaxerxes in some measure atoned for the causes of sorrow he gave the Greeks, by doing one thing that afforded them great pleasure: he put Tissaphernes, their most implacable enemy, to death. This he did, partly at the instigation of Parysatis who added other charges to those alleged against him......From this time Parysatis made it a rule to please the king in all her measures, and not to oppose any of his inclinations, by which she gained an absolute ascendant over him. She perceived that he had a strong passion for one of his own daughters named Atossa. He endeavoured, indeed, to conceal it on his mother's account and restrained it in public. Parysatis no sooner suspected the intrigue, than she caressed her grand-daughter more than ever, and was continually praising, to Artaxerxes, both her beauty ​and her behaviour, in which she assured him there was something great and worthy of a crown. At last she persuaded him to make her his wife, without regarding the laws and opinions of the Greeks: 'God,' said she, 'has made you law to the Persians, and a rule of right and wrong.'"

Now, what do we gather from this passage? Nothing more than that Artaxerxes regarded his passion for his daughter as being in every way hurtful to his reputation, in every way unacceptable to his people or unjustified by law, and, therefore, endeavoured to hide it from his mother as well as the public. Hence we may, likewise, infer that the statements of Herodotus as well as Plutarch harmonize with each other, in showing that the marriage of an absolute monarch with a sister or a daughter was an act in which neither the Persian law nor people was acquiescent. If, according to a few scholars, it was a deed not unauthorized by the Avestâ,—if it was a practice quite familiar to the Persian people of by-gone ages,—what earthly reasons could have persuaded Cambyses, the most ​passionate of monarchs, to ask for the decision of the judges on the question, or Artaxerxes to conceal his love for his daughter from the knowledge of his people? Besides, we have the evidence of Agathias, that Artaxerxes contemptuously declined every offer to contract marriage with his nearest-of-kin relation, on the ground that it was quite inconsonant with the faith of a true Iranian. If we believe this, it is impossible to conceive that such a king could ever have taken his own daughter to wife. On the basis of this very evidence from Agathias, Mr. Wm. Adam observes (p. 718):—"But if this could be alleged by Artaxerxes belonging to the royal race, what becomes of the worst charges brought against, not only the Persian people, but even against the Magians or the ruling class?"^[11]

​Although Ctesias' books were generally acknowledged by his own countrymen to be teeming with incredible and extravagant fables and fictions,—according to Plutarch, with great absurdities and palpable falsity,—still we must admit that for the Greek writers who flourished after him no other historian would have been ​more reliable as regards the family life of Artaxerxes Mnemon than one who lived at the Court of Persia for seventeen years in the quality of physician to that king. Hence it is that most of the Greek historians who followed him, seem to generalize the practice of consanguineous marriage in ancient Irân, probably from Ctesias' coloured narrative of the alleged marriage of Artaxerxes with his daughter. Whatever may be the degree of truthfulness and honesty so far as Ctesias is concerned, it is not impossible to argue from the ​character and intrigues of Parysatis, the mother of Artaxerxes, that a slanderous story of the nature described by Ctesias might have been set afloat in the king's harem to gratify the rancour and most wicked vengeance of the queen-mother against the children of Statira, the innocent victim of her revenge for the murder of her own daughter Amistris, the wife of Terituchmes and sister of Artaxerxes. It is also not improbable that Ctesias' narrative of the marriage of Atossa with her father owed its origin to the vindictive Parysatis alone, and was adopted by a writer who preferred to relate astounding inventions instead of sober truths. Oriental history is not unfamiliar with the malignant accusations of the crime of incest by step-mothers or even by mothers-in-law against their daughters or daughters-in-law. It might, therefore, be inferred that if the Greek writer did not invent any fiction as to the domestic life of the Persian ruler, there was another and a more powerful cause which would have given rise to such an abominable story and established it as ​sober truth in the mind of the original biographer of Artaxerxes.

Besides this, a few European scholars seem to point to another such instance in the history of Artaxerxes Mnemon. They discover in Ctesias that Terituchmes, the brother-in-law of the king, and husband of Amestris, was married to his sister Roxana. However, with all deference to their scholarship, I may be permitted to draw attention to the original words of the Greek writer, wherein, as far as I am able to comprehend, the notion of marriage is by no means involved. According to a passage occurring in the English translation of Plutarch's Lives, by Langhorne (III., p. 451), Ctesias relates:—"Terituchmes, the brother of Statira (the wife of king Artaxerxes II.), who had been guilty of the complicated crimes of adultery, incest, and murder, ......married Hamestris, one of the daughters of Darius, and sister to Arsaces; by reason of which marriage he had interest enough, on his father's demise, to get himself appointed to his Government. But in the ​meantime he conceived a passion for his own sister Roxana, and resolved to despatch his wife Hamestris." It is said further on, that "Darius, being apprised of this design, engaged Udiates, an intimate friend of Terituchmes, to kill him, and was rewarded by the king with the government of his province." Such is the plain evidence of Ctesias; but it does not assert that Terituchmes was ever married to Roxana. Here is evidently the case of a passion conceived by a licentious brother for his sister. It must, however, be remembered, we have again to deal with a story of Ctesias, a story which may naturally be regarded as the outcome of a general hatred at court against Terituchmes, and also as the invention of a motive for his most cruel murder of his wife, the daughter of Parysatis—a queen who had contrived the most wicked means of gratifying her vengeance against her son-in-law and all other unfortunate victims who were suspected of abetting him. Whatever may be the source to which we may trace this story, it is ​still difficult to determine whether Terituchmes married again at all after having murdered his wife Amestris.

As regards Sysimithres, a single isolated reference in a writer like Curtius is hardly sufficient to claim our attention.

Next we turn to the name that belongs to the period of the Sâsânidæ, a single positive illustration, indeed, of incestuous marriage, according to the Greeks, during the long period of more than 450 years. That name is Kôbâd I., father of the famous king Noshirwân. He is reported by Agathias to have married his daughter Sambyke. However, it is remarkable that neither Professor Rawlinson nor Ferdôsi seem to notice this occurrence. Nevertheless, trusting implicitly to the account of Agathias, a writer who was contemporaneous with Kôbâd's son, we must here consider the influences under which the king might have been persuaded to yield to such an act. Let us refer to the history of that part of his reign which described the imposture of Mazdak and the ​effect which the latter produced upon that weak-minded king by preaching his abominable creed. "All men," Mazdak said, "were by God's providence born equal—none brought into the world any property, or any natural right to possess more than another. Property and marriage were mere human inventions, contrary to the will of God, which required an equal division of the good things of this world among all, and forbade the appropriation of particular women by individual men. In communities based upon property and marriage, men might lawfully vindicate their natural rights by taking their fair share of the good things wrongfully appropriated by their fellows. Adultery, incest, theft, were not really crimes, but necessary steps towards re-establishing the laws of nature in such societies." (Vide Rawlinson, "The Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy," pp. 342, seq.)

Such being the teaching of Mazdak, it is easy to see what attractions it would have for a licentious prince who would willingly substitute ​it for the moral restraints of his purer faith. Be this as it may, Kôbâd's apostacy was followed by a civil commotion, which ended in the deposition of the king and his imprisonment in the "Castle of Oblivion." Now does not this successful popular resistance to royal incest and adultery prove that the minds of the Irânians were averse to any violation of the moral law as to the relation between the sexes? There is one important point to be observed in the accounts of Agathias bearing on the doctrines which the Mazdakian heretics professed, viz., his assertion that consanguineous marriages were enormities recently introduced in Irân. If we accept this remark of a contemporary writer, does it not give a death-blow to all preceding authorities? Mr. Adam justly remarks (p. 716):—"But if 'those enormities were recent,' this contradicts all the preceding more ancient authorities, which affirm their earlier prevalence from Ctesias downwards."

Now, discarding all the fanciful hypotheses in​dulged in by speculative thinkers upon early human ideas and practices, I shall make a few assumptions that naturally strike me, while examining the evidences above-mentioned. The first point to be remarked upon is that great care is required to avoid the confusion arising from the indiscriminate use of the words 'sister,' 'daughter,' 'mother.' Among some Oriental peoples the designation 'sister' is not merely applied to a sister proper or daughter of one's own parents, but, as an affectionate term, also to cousins, near or distant, to sisters-in-law, to female-friends, &c. Likewise, the word for daughter is used to denote, not only one's own daughter, but also the daughter of one's own brother or sister, and generally the daughter of a relative, &c. Similarly, the term 'mother' does not signify the female parent alone, but is employed as a respectful form of address to an elderly lady who enjoys the honour of being the materfamilias of a household. It is also necessary to observe that in Old-Persian or Pahlavi there ​are rarely any distinct expressions to distinguish sisters from sisters-in-law or female-cousins. It is not, therefore, too strained an interpretation to believe that what Herodotus, Ctesias and others supposed to be sisters and daughters, should have been perhaps next-cousins or relations. In the same manner, it might be surmised that a mistake would be made owing to the same name being borne by several female members of a family. Thus wife and daughter, or wife and sister, or wife and mother, having the same name, what was asserted of one might be wrongly applied to the other. Innumerable instances may be found in Parsi families where the name of the mistress of the house coincides with that of one of her daughters-in-law, nieces, &c.

But, one can scarcely infer from the particular, illustrations of classical testimony on the subject, which are met with in Herodotus, Ctesias and Agathias, and are open to many objections, that incestuous marriages were were common and legal among the old Irânians as a people, and especially ​among the Magi. The very statement of the Greeks, that the Achæmenian monarch was supposed to be above the law of the land and of religion, indicates that his adultery or incest was not in accordance with the established institutions of his realm. Nor did the people in the time of Kôbâd I. allow such incest to pass without vehement opposition. Even if we accept the evidence of the Western historians who charge Cambyses, Artaxerxes Mnemon, Kôbâd and Terituchmes with incest, it must be noted that these few are the only instances they have been able to gather in the long period of upwards of a thousand years, and that they are insufficient to support so sweeping a generalization as that incestuous marriages were recognized by law, and commonly practised among the old Irânians. It is just as unreasonable as to ascribe the custom of marriage between brother and sister to the civilized Grecians, because we discover references to it in Cornelius Nepos, Demosthenes and Aristophanes. If the Mahâbhârata tells us that the five Pandava ​princes who had received a strictly Brâhmanic education were married to one wife, should we, therefore, ignore the existence of the Brâhmanic law,^[12] which clearly lays down (Max Müller, History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, p. 53; M'Lennan, p. 215) "they are many wives of one man, not many husbands of one wife," and charge with the custom of polyandry all the ancient Brahmanic Indians who constituted one of the most eminent and highly intellectual nations of the early Oriental world.

From what I have said above, it is not difficult to see that the doubtful evidences of the Greeks neutralize themselves, and that it is absurd to form, ​with any reliance upon them, definite opinion as regards the marriage customs of the old Irânians. I, therefore, repeat my conviction which I have set forth in my first statement—That the slight authority of some isolated passages gleaned from the pages of Greek and Roman literature, is wholly insufficient to support the odious charge made against the old Iranians of practising consanguineous marriages in their most objectionable forms!

II. In proof of the second statement—That no trace, hint or suggestion of such a custom can be pointed out in the Avestâ, or in its Pahlavi Version—it is first of all necessary to enquire what is the opinion of the Avestâ on the subject; whether we are able to trace to any Avestâ precept the alleged custom of next-of-kin marriage in old Irân. According to European scholars, the term that expresses such a marriage is (Avestan characters) Qaêtvadatha in the Avestâ, and (Avestan characters) Khvêtûk-dât or (Avestan characters) Khvêtûk-dasih in Pahlavi. It has, there ​fore, been our object to examine the evidence put forward in favour of the European stand-point of Ys. XII. 9, (Spiegel's edition, Ys. XIII. 28), which, it is assumed, contain under the word Qaêtvadatha an allusion to next-of-kin marriages in question.

In the Avestâ the term Qaêtvadatha occurs in five passages only, each of which belongs to five different parts of the text, excepting the Gâthâs, namely, Yasna XII. 9; Visperad III. 3; Vendidâd VIII. 13; Yasht. XXIV. 17; and Gâh IV. 8 (Westergaard's edition). Of these, the idea expressed in Gâh IV. is repeated or almost quoted in Visperad III. 3, and in Yasht XXIV. So we have only to consider three references in the Yasna, the Gâh and the Vendidâd respectively, and to see to what extent they can be used to throw light on the meaning of Qaêtvadatha. The word as it stands in the Avestâ is employed as an epithet or a qualifying word. In one place it forms an epithet of the Avestâ religion, in the second an attribute of a pious youth, in the third a qualification for a pious male or female.

​Etymologically Qaêtvadatha may be regarded as a compound word composed of qaêtu and datha, of which the first part may be compared with Skr. svay-am, Lat. suus, Pahl. kh'ish, and Mod. Pers. kh'ish derived from Av. qa = Skr. sva = Lat. sibi Eng. self. Hence it may originally mean 'self,' 'one's self,' 'one's own,' 'relation,' or 'allied.' The second part, datha, which is transliterated into Pahl. das, comes from the Av. root dâ = "to give," "to make," "to create." Dath is properly a reduplication peculiar to the Irânian dialect, from the Indo-Irânian root dâ "to give," &c. Thus the derivation of the word itself might suggest for it a number of definitions. It may mean "a gift of one's self, to one's self, or from one's self"; "a gift of one's own, to one's own"; "a gift of relation or alliance"; "a making of one's self"; "self-association"; "self-dedication"; "self devotion"; "self-sacrifice," &c.^[13] These are some of the ​significations which may be indicated on the ground of etymology; however, it is hazardous to choose from them any particular notion without the authority of the native meaning. On applying to the Pahlavi Translation of the Avestâ to discover what meaning was attached to the word by early commentators, I am sorely disappointed to find that it affords no more light than can be obtained from a mere Pahlavi transliteration, Khvêtûk-dût or Khvêtûk-dasih, of the original Avesta expression Quêtvadatha. The reason for this striking ​omission of any definite interpretation in the Pahlavi Version, may perhaps be that the technical meaning of the word was, even centuries after the compilation of the Avestâ, a thing too familiar to the native Zoroastrians to require any interpretation; or that the nature of the good work implied by Qaêtvadatha was too doubtful in the minds of the old Irânian priests to be definitely and lucidly explained.

Consequently, very little help can be obtained from the indigeneous authority of the Pahlavi translation of those Avestâ passages wherein the term Qaêtvadatha occurs. Fortunately, however, there is no of lack passages in the Pahlavi, which though sometimes very obscure and difficult, give us a meaning for the first member of the compound, viz., Qaêtu, and which is kh'ish or kh'ishih, meaning "self," "himself," "one's own" or "allied," "relation," individuality," &c. The Pahlavi meaning of self or relation is still preserved in the Mod. Pers. word kh'ish, and accords best with the etymology and the context. Dr. Spiegel translates ​Qaêta by 'der Verwandte' (Ys. XXXII. 1, &c.) "the allied or relation," and remarks in note 7' page 125, of his German translation of the Avesta, that it denotes 'the spiritual relation to Ahura Mazda, as though one feels himself almost in communion with Him.^[14] It is characteristic that in the Gâthâs Qaêtu very often stands in connection with the terms Verezenya^[15] and Airyamna, signifying "an active labourer" fulfilling the desires of Mazda, and "joyful devotion" towards Him (XXXII. 1; XXXIII. 3, 4; XLIX. 7 ; XLVI. 1; LIII. 4). The Gâtha XXXII. 1, says:—"Unto Him may the allied^[16] aspire, his deeds coupled with devotion." In XXXIII. 3 and 4 Zarathushtra speaks:—(3) "He is the best for the Righteous Lord, O Ahura, who, having knowledge, becomes Thy ally, Thy active labourer ​and Thy true devotee, and who arduously fosters the cow; it is he who thinks himself to be in the service-field of Asha (Righteousess) and Vóhu Manô (Good Mind)."—(4) "O Mazda! I hate whosoever is disobedient and evil-minded towards Thee, disregardful of Thy ally, a demon in close conflict with Thy active labourer, and the scorner of Thy devoted one, the most evil-minded against the nourishment of Thy cow?"

These and several other like passages enable us to understand that Qaêtu denotes one of the three spiritual qualifications which are requisite for human sanctity, viz., a communion with the Almighty, the practical fulfilment of His will, and the free mental devotion. Likewise, Kh'ishih-i-Yazdan, relationship or communion with the Deity, is the frequent desire and motive of the pious Mazdayasna while discharging his moral or religious duties. It is a gift to which he aspires every moment.

Relying upon this meaning of Qaêtu, it is not difficult to assign an idea to Qaêtvadatha, which ​will harmonize with the context and be reconciled with the results of comparative philology. According to the Gâthâs, it can only be "the gift of communion" with the Deity; etymologically, it may also mean "self-association," "self-dedication, &c."^[17] In Gâh. IV. the term is used as an appellation of piety, where the passage runs—"I commend the youth of good thoughts, of good words, of good deeds, of good faith, who is pious and a preceptor [lord] of piety; I praise the youth truth-speaking, virtuous and a preceptor of virtue; I praise the Qaêtvadatha youth, who is righteous and a preceptor of righteousness." Here Qaêtvadatha can very appropriately bear the idea of a most desirable attribute with which a pious youth might be gifted in the moments of devotion, viz., a communion with Ahura Mazda, of self-dedication.—Of the two remaining passages in ​Avestâ, that in Vendidâd VIII. is so difficult and obscure, that almost all the European translators have failed to discern any definite sense in it. Even the Pahlavi does not help us here, because of the mere transliteration of the Avestâ words. What is most important to be considered is Yasna XII. 9, (Sp. s. XIII. 28), a passage in which Dr. Spiegel and several German savants who follow his opinion, seem to discover traces of the precept of consanguineous marriage (vide Geiger, Ostîrânische Kultur, p. 246; Justi, Altbaktrisch, s. r.; Noeldeke; Encyclopædia Britannica, Vol. XVIII., s. v. Persia; Geldner Metrick, s. v.). I have already remarked upon this passage in the first volume of my English translation of Dr. Geiger's Ostîrânische Kultur (p. 66, note), and I beg to repeat that there is not the slightest indication that the passage in question has any reference to conjugal union of any kind; but on the contrary, the term Qaêtvadatha agreeing with the noun Daêna, 'religion,' in case, number and gender, is evidently one of the epithets applied to the ​Mazdayasnān religion, and implies the virtue of that religion to offer the sacred means of alliance with Ahura Mazda, or of self-devotion towards Him. The Pahlavi Commentary plainly tells us that the manifestation of this gift of communion with the Deity on earth was due to Zoroastrism, while every stanza of the Gâthâs extols this highest and noblest ideal of the human spirit in the pious sentiments of Zarathushtra himself (cf. Ys. XXVIII. 3, 4, 6, 7, &c.).

I translate the passage (Yasna XII. 9) literally:—

"I extol the Mazda-worshipping religion, that is far from all doubt, that levels all disputes,^[18] the sacred one, the gift of communion (with God); the greatest, the best, and the purest of all religions that have existed and will exist, which is (a manifestation) of Ahura and of Zarathushtra."

Here it is impossible to conceive the idea of marriage between nearest relations in a passage ​which glorifies the virtues of a religion. Happily, my own humble conviction has been supported, with reference to the Avestâ, by Dr. E. W. West, of Munich, a scholar whose high and unrivalled attainments in Pahlavi in the European world of letters, will ever be a matter of pride to every English Orientalist. In his essay on the "Meaning of Khvêtûk-das," appended to Vol. XVIII. of Prof. M. Müller's "Sacred Books of the East," (pp. 389–430), the learned writer summarizes the result of his examination of all the passages referring to Qaêtvadatha in the Avestâ in the following manner (p. 427):—

"The term does not occur at all in the oldest part of the Avestâ, 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. 13) indicating that both men and women can participate in it. So far, therefore, as can be ascertained from the extant fragments of the Avestâ—the only internal authority regarding the ​ancient practices of Mazda-worship—the Parsis are perfectly justified in believing that their religion did not originally sanction marriages between those who are next-of-kin."

III. In reference to the third proposition:—That the Pahlavi passages translated by a distinguished English Pahlavi savant, and supposed to refer to such a custom, cannot be interpreted as upholding the view that next-of-kin marriages were expressly recommended therein; and that a few of the Pahlavi passages, which are alleged to contain actual references to such marriages, do not allude to social realities, but only to supernatural conceptions relating to the creation of the first progenitors of mankind.—I beg to call your attention again to the exhaustive essay on this subject by the English Irânist, Dr. West, who seems to have raked the extensive field of Pahlavi literature, and collected with laborious industry all the Pahlavi passages bearing ​on the term Khvêtûk-das. This learned scholar couches the result of his patient useful research in the following words:—

"Unless the Parsis determine to reject the evidence of such Pahlavi works as the Pahlavi Yasna, the book of Ardâ-Virâf, the Dinkard, and the Dâdistân-î-Dînîk, or to attribute those books to heretical writers, they must admit that their priests in the later years of the Sâsânian dynasty, and for some centuries subsequently, strongly advocated such next-of-kin marriages, though probably with little succes." (Vide S. B. E. Vol. XVIII., p. 428).

Thus, while Dr. West serves us as a useful champion to guard from any adverse stigma the sublime tenets of the Avesta regarding marriage, while he seems to doubt the authenticity of Greek historians as regards Persian matters (p. 389), we are deprived of his powerful support the moment we enter the field to defend ourselves against the obscure and detached evidences brought from Pahlavi tomes. Here I refer to the proofs which ​are put forward by the Pahlavi savant for his personal view, that next-of-kin marriages were advocated by Persian priests in the later years of the Sâsânian monarchy.

It must be noticed here that this later opinion of Dr. West differs completely, as regards the age in which the alleged custom might have prevailed, from what was previously asserted in the first part of his "Pahlavi texts" (S. B. E., Vol. V., p. 389, note 3), where the learned author observes:—"But it is quite conceivable that the Parsi priesthood, about the time of the Mahomedan conquest, were anxious to prevent marriages with strangers, in order to hinder conversions to the foreign faith, and that they may, therefore, have extended the range of marriage among near relations beyond the limits now approved by their descendants." Again, in a note to Chapter IV. of his English translation of the "Dînâ-î-Maînôgî-Khirad," Pahlavi texts, Part III. (S. B. E., Vol. XXIV., p. 26), he says that some centuries before the composition of that book, i. e. long before the reign of Noshîr​wân, the term Khvêtûk-dasih was only confined to marriages between first cousins.

But all these remarks, gentlemen, go to show that Dr. West does not agree with other scholars in tracing in the Sacred Writings of the Irânians the existence of such a custom in the times of the Avestâ, the Achæmenidæ, the Arsacidæ, or the Sâsânidæ generally; but he gives as his opinion, that it may perhaps have been advocated by some priests in Irân in the sixth century A. D. or later. Thus the speculation of several European savants, from Kleuker downwards, that the custom in question prevailed among the Avestâ people, has been dissipated by the inquiry of one of their own learned body.

However, in his essay on the "Meaning of Khvêtûk-das," Dr. West attempts to translate about thirty Pahlavi pasaages to show how far Khvêtûk-dasih may denote next-of-kin marriage in Pahlavi. Five of these reference are contained in the Pahlavi Translation of the Avesta, and two in the Pahlavi Commentary (P. T. Ys. XII. 9; Vsp. ​III. 3; Gâh IV.; Vishtâsp Yt. 17; Vend. VIII. 13; P. C. Ys. XLIV. 4; Bahman Yt. Chap. II., 57, 61); eight of them belong to the Dinkard (Dk. Bk. III., Ch. 80, Ch. 193, Ch. 285; Bk. VI., Bk. VII., Varstmãnsar Nask, Fargard XVIII.; Bagãn Nask XIV., XXI.); eight to the Dâdistân-î-Dînîk (Ch. XXXVII. 82, LXIV. 6, LXV. 2, LXXVI. 4, 5; LXXVII. 6, 7; LXXVIII. 19); three to the Maînôg-î-Khirad (Ch. IV. 4, XXXVI. 7, XXXVII. 12); and one to the later Pahlavi Ravâyet.

It is needless to point out that of these thirty citations more than twenty-two may be excluded from our inquiry, since, according to the result of Dr. West's own survey of them, it is admitted that "there is nothing in those passages to indicate the nature of the good work" meant by the word Khvêtûk-dasih (Ys. XII. 9; Vsp. III. 3; Gâh. IV; Vend VIII. 13; Vishtâsp Yt. 17; Dk. Bk. III., Ch. 193, Ch. 285; Dk. Bk. VI.; Maînôg-i-Khirad. Ch. IV. 4; XXXVI. 7; XXXVII. 12; Bahman Yasht. II. 57, 61). Besides, the first five passages ​abovementioned of the Dâdistân-î-Dînîk contain, according to him, mere "allusions to the brother and sister," who were the first progenitors of mankind; as for the last three, he says it is not certain that "the term is applied in them to the marriages between the nearest relatives." Consequently, we have to examine a few passages only, viz., two of the Bagãn Nask, one from Varshtmãnsar Nask, three of the Dinkard, one of Ys. XLIV. 4, one of the book of Ardâ-Virâf, and one from the later Pahlavi Ravâyet, which, in the opinion of Dr. West, contain direct or indirect traces of the practice of marriage between the next-of-kin.

Before we set out to consider those references, it will be useful to know the extent to which the work of Khvêtûk-dasih—whatever may be its nature or meaning—is extolled or regarded as a righteous or meritorious action in the Pahlavi writings:—

In Chap. IV. of the Pahlavi 'Dînâ-î-Maînôg-î-Khirad,' the reply to the query "Which particular meritorious action is great and good?" is ​"The greatest meritorious action is liberality, the second is truth and Khvêtûk-dasih, the third is the Gahânbâr, the fourth all the religious ritual, the fifth is the worship of the sacred beings." Here Khvêtûk-dasih, in connection with liberality and truth, might imply some moral habit almost equal to them in degree of excellence.

The Shâyast-La-Shâyast, Ch. VIII. 18, says: "Khvêtûk-dâd extirpates sins which deserve capital punishments." Also it is said by Ahura Mazda elsewhere:—"O Zaratosht! of all those thoughts, words and deeds, which I would proclaim, the practice of Khrêtûk-dasih is the best to be thought, to be performed, and uttered."

The Bahman Yasht, which may be regarded as one of the oldest Pahlavi works written on the exegesis of the Avestâ, gives us an idea of the term which best harmonizes with our notion regarding the meaning of Ys. XII. 9. It says in Chap. II. 57:—"O Creator! in that time of confusion" (i. e. after the conquest of Persia by the Arabs), "will there remain any people righteous? ​will there be religious persons who will preserve the Kûsti on their waist, and who will perform the Izashnê rites by holding the Barsams? and will the religion that is Khrêtûk-das continue in their family?" A little further on it says:—"The most perfectly righteous of the righteous will that person be who adheres or remains faithful to the good Mazdayasnãn religion, whereby the religion that is Kvêtûk-dasih will continue in his family." These two passages are supposed by Dr. West to be translations from the original Avesta text of the Yasht devoted to the archangel Vôhu-Manô (S. B. E., Vol. V., Part I., p. 212, note).

In a passage in the Shâyast-Lâ-Shâyast (Chap. XVIII. 4), it is again declared:—"Whosoever approximates four times to the practice of Khvêtûk-dâd will never be parted from Ahura Mazda and the Ameshaspands.

I leave it to you, gentlemen, to say what signification ought to be attached to the word Khvêtûk-dasih from its connection with the moral and ​spiritual conceptions mentioned in the above citations. I need only say that the moral excellence of Khvêtûk-dasih is parallel to truth and sanctity; that its attainment, according to the Yasna and Bahman Yasht, is by the intermediary of the Zoroastrian religion of Ahura Mazda; and that the approximation to the condition of Khvêtûk-dasih is well nigh a participation in spiritual conference with the Almighty and the archangels. Consequently, it is a gift or power that must be by far higher and nobler than any abominable idea of marriage between the next-of-kin.

Referring to the eight Pahlavi passages under inquiry, it is with some hesitation that I find myself differing from the English literal translations of two of them, viz., the 80th Chapter in the 3rd Book of the Dinkard, and the 21st Fargard of the Bagân Nask.

The difficulties of interpreting the often highly enigmatic and ambiguous Pahlavi are multifarious^[19]; and one is often astonished at the totally ​different versions of one and the same obscure passage, suggested by scholars of known ability, so much so that they appear to be versions of two quite distinct passages having no connection ​whatever with each other. Accordingly, it is permissible to assume that the ambiguous passages adduced by Dr. West, as seeming to allude directly or indirectly to next-of-kin marriage, will bear quite another meaning from a still closer research than the first efforts of the learned translator seem to have benefited by. I think, therefore, it is as reasonable as appropriate to defer for the present any attempt on my part to give a definite translation of any of these extensive passages which are acknowledged by Dr. West himself to be obscure and difficult (S. B. E., Vol. V., p. 339), contenting myself with giving briefly what remarks I have to make upon them.

One of these obscure passages constitutes the 80th Chapter in the 3rd Book of the Dinkard. It is very extensive, and contains a long controversy between a Zoroastrian and a Jew,^[20] concerning the ​propriety or impropriety of the doctrine of the Avesta as regards the creation of mankind, the different uses of the term Khvêtûk-dasih, &c., in which it is difficult, owing to the confusion of different ideas as well as to the obscurity of the text, to distinguish the words of the Jew from those of the Zoroastrian. Any sentence that would seem to be a point in favour of the European view, may naturally be ascribed to the Zoroastrian as well as to the Jew. It is not, therefore, easy to determine whether it is the Zoroastrian or the Jew who advocates or condemns a particular position or custom. However, the portions wherein both the ​Translators (Dastur Dr. Peshôtanji and Dr. West) agree, show that the term Khvêtûk-dasih is technically applied in this passage to supernatural unions, what are called the Khvêtûk-dasih between the father and the daughter, the son and the mother, the brother and the sister. We know that in the Avestâ, Spentâ Armaiti, Pahl. Spendârmat, is the female archangel, and as Ahura Mazda is called the Creator and Father of all archangels, Spendârmat is, therefore, called His daughter. Now, Spendârmat is believed to be the angel of the earth; and since from the earth God has created the first human being, Spendârmat, in the later Pahlavi writings, is alleged to have been spiritually associated with the Creator for such a mighty procreation as that of Gayômard, the first man according to Irânian cosmogony. Thus this supposed supernatural union passed into an ideal conception, and technically denoted what is called 'the Khrétûk-dasih between the father and the daughter.' Again, it is said that the seed of Gayômard fell into the mother-earth by whom ​he was begotten. So Mashih and Mashyânih were called the offspring of that union between Gayômard and Spendârmat, or of 'the Khvêtûk-dasih between the son and the mother'; and since the first human pair was formed of brother and sister, viz., Mashih and Mashyânih, their union, which was an act in consonance with the Divine Will, came to denote the Khvêtûk-dasih between the brother and the sister.' This idea of Khvêtûk-dasih, it must be remembered, is a later development of the abstract and religious notion of a direct spiritual alliance with the Deity, or of self-devotion. The term was afterwards applied to the unions of the first progenitors of mankind, which were believed to have been brought about by the operation of the Creator Himself. In creating Man endowed with the knowledge of His Will, it was the Creator's design to raise up an opposition against the morally evil influence of Ahriman on earth. Accordingly, wherever the Khvêtûk-dasih between the father and the daughter, the son and the mother, the brother and the sister, are referred ​to in the later Pahlavi writings, they do not imply any commendation of such unions among ordinary men, but only among the first human beings to whom they were naturally confined, to produce an uniform and pure race of mankind without any promiscuous blending with irrational creatures or animals. What are called the Khvêtûk-dasih between the father and the daughter, the son and the mother, the brother and the sister, are, therefore, expressly the supernatural association between Ahura Mazda and Spendârmat, between Gayômard and Spendârmat, and the union between Mashih and Mashyâni.

Now, as to the signification of the word Khrétûk-das, the transition from meaning the gift of communion with the Almighty and with the supernatural powers, to meaning the gift of moral union between the human sexes or among mankind generally, is an easy and a natural step. Such an idea of a bond of union in a tribe, race, or family, is suggested by the writer of this 80th Chapter in question. Notwithstanding, it is in ​the first passage and in the thirteenth that the English translator seems to have discovered a definite reference to next-of-kin marriages. I may, therefore, be allowed to put forward in this place my own interpretation of these paras., to show that it is not next-of-kin marriages that they in any way recommend, but only moral or social union in a tribe, race, family, or near relations; and that the 13th passage explicitly condemns incestuous marriages as unlawful practices indulged in by lewd people. My version of the passages is as follows:—

"Khvêtûk-dasih means a gift of communion. Thus honour is obtained, and the union of power acquired by adherents, relatives, or fellow-creatures through prayers to the Holy Self-existent One. In the treatise on human relationship, it is the (moral) union between the sexes in preparation for, and connection to, the time of the resurrection. In order that this union might proceed more completely for ever, it should subsist between the innumerable kindred tribes, between ​adherents or co-religionists, between those who are nearly or closely connected." What follows describes the application of the term to the three kinds of supernatural unions which were necessary for the procreation of a kindred human pair in this world. The passage says: "There were three kinds of hampatvandih: "co-relation," for example, between the father (the Deity) and the daughter (Spendârmat); between the son (Gayômard) and the mother (Spendârmat); between the brother (Mashih) and the sister (Mashyânih). These I regard as the most primitive on the basis of an obscure exposition by a highpriest of the good religion." What follows is again a clear explanation regarding the propriety of such unions in the creation of mankind.

The thirteenth passage of the same Chapter says:—

"If a son be born of a son and a mother, he (the begetter) would be reckoned the brother as well as the father; that would be illegal and incestuous ((Avestan characters) jêh). If so, such a person has no ​part in the prayers (of the Deity) and in the joys (of Paradise); he produces harm, and does thereby no benefit; he is extremely vicious and is not of a good aspect." (Cf. Dastur Peshotanji's Dinkard, Vol. II., p. 97.)

It must also be observed that the allusion in this same passage to an Arumân, or an inhabitant of Asia Minor, somewhat strengthens the opinion of the translator of the Dinkard as to the advocacy of the Jew himself for the marriage with a daughter, sister, &c. Dr. West admits that, in the portion where anything like 'conjugal love' is meant, "marriages between first cousins appear to be referred to" (p. 410). The passage runs as follows:—"There are three kinds of affection between the offspring of brothers and sisters" (according to Dr. West, p. 404): "one is this, where it is the offspring of brother and brother; one is this, where the offspring is that of brothers and their sister; and one is this, where it is the offspring of sisters."

It is only to this passage, or to the period when ​it may have been composed, that we can ascribe the development of the idea of marriage relationship between cousins attached to the term Khvêtûk-dasih under the erroneous interpretation of its ambiguous paraphrase Khvish-dehêshnih, which occurs in it. Here the term implies the different degrees of union,—first, between supernatural powers and the Deity; next, between supernatural powers and mankind; then, between the first man and woman,—hence the bond of moral or social union in a tribe, race, or family. But it confines, as is expressly indicated in the Persian Ravâyats, love or marriage union among mankind only to such of the cousins as are described in the quotation abovementioned. The idea of Khrêtûk-dád, denoting an act of forming relationship between cousins, has rarely been expressed again in the subsequent Pahlavi writings, nevertheless it has been preserved in the later Persian Ravâyats by Kâmah Behreh, Kâus Kâmah, and Narimân Hôshang.

Now, regarding the passage in the earlier part ​of the 14th Fargard of the Bagân Nask, it may well be remarked that the Khvêtûk-dasih of Spendârmat and Ahura Mazda here referred to, according to Dr. West's translation, is again an allusion to the communion of two spiritual powers for the creation of man, and not an indication of marriage between a father and a daughter. Dr. West, likewise, observes (p. 196):—"This quotation merely shows that Khvêtûk-das referred to connection between near relations, but whether the subsequent allusions to the daughterhood of Spendârmat had reference to the Khvêtûk-das of father and daughter is less certain than in the case of Pahl. Yasna, XLIV. 4." The same might also be said concerning the passage from the Seventh Book of the Dinkard mentioned at page 412,^[21] where we are informed, according to Dr. West's translation, only about the Khvêtûk-dasih of Mashih and Mashyânih.

Likewise, concerning the passage inserted ir​relevantly in the Pahlavi Commentary to stanza 4, Yasna, Chapter XLIV., which refers to the fatherhood of Ahura Mazda and to the daughterhood of Spendârmat. The passage is rendered by Dr. West (p. 393) thus:—

"Thus I proclaim in the word that [which he who is Aûharmazd made his own] best [Khvêtûk-das]. By aid of righteousness Aûharmazd is aware who created this one [to perform Khvêtûk-das]. And through fatherhood (of Aûtharmazd) Vôhuman (referring to Gayômard) was cultivated by him, [that is, for the sake of the proper nurture of the creatures, Khvêtûk-das was performed by him]. So she who is his (Aûharmazd's) daughter is acting well, [who is the fully-minded] Spendârmat, [that is, she did not shrink from the act of Khvêtûk-das]. She was not deceived, [that is, she did not shrink from the act of Khvêtûk-das, because she is] an observer of everything [as regards that which is] Aûharmazd's, [that is, through the religion of Aûharmazd she attains to all duty and law]."

​From this quotation it is easy to see that here the reference is plainly to the particular supernatural Khvêtûk-dasih of Ahura Mazda and Spendârmat, and not to any practice of next-of-kin marriage among the old Irânians.

The passage in the latter part of the Eighteenth Fargard of the Varasht-mânsar Nask, evidently describes, as the heading (Avestan characters) actually indicates, the nature of the resurrection of the first parents of mankind, viz., Mashih and Mashyânih, their birth and union after the entire annihilation of evil, and the renovation and the reformation of the human world.

In reference to the passage in the Ravâyat, however, it may be suggested that the Pahlavi expression Khvêtûk-dasih levatman bordâr va bentman vâdûntan, as used in a couple of sentences, might well denote the exercise of the gift of communion with the Almighty, or self-devotion, in association with one's mother, daughter or sister; in a word, it must have been considered as highly commendable and meritorious that a whole ​Zoroastrian household should be given to devotion or pious resignation to the Will of the Supreme Lord of the Zoroastrian religion.

There now remain two passages which claim our particular attention. One of these belongs to the book of the Ardâ Virâf, another to the Dinkard in the Twenty-first Fargard of the Bagân Nask. The passage in Virâf in which European scholars discover the alleged practice of marriage between brothers and sisters, runs as follows:—"Virâf had seven sisters, and all these seven sisters were like a wife unto Virâf."—They spoke thus: "Do not this thing, ye Mazdayasna, for we are seven sisters and he is an only brother, and we are all seven sisters like a wife unto that brother." Here arises an important question, whether it is possible to conclude hence that those seven sisters were actually married to Virâf, or that they were merely dependent upon him for their sustenance, just as a wife is dependent upon her husband. It is, indeed, characteristic that the sisters do not call Virâf their husband, ​but their brother, and they further regret that the disappearance of their brother from this life should deprive them of their only support in this world. Again, the Pahlavi word (Avestan characters) chegún, "like," implies a condition similar to that of a wife and not the actual condition of a wife. Such an expression of similarity was quite unnecessary, if those sisters were actually the wives of Virâf. On the other hand, there is a difference in the words of the two oldest texts from which all subsequent copies were transcribed. A copy which is preserved in the collection of Dr. Haug's MSS., and dated Samvat 1466, has quite a different word—zanân, "wives,"—instead of akhtman, "sister." If we should accept the former word, the meaning would be "Virâf had seven wives, who were all sisters." By-the-bye it is difficult to conceive how Virâf, one of the most pious men of his day, should have been so luxurious or licentious as to take as his wives all his seven sisters, an instance altogether unparalleled in the whole history of Ancient Persia. The passage in ​question, I believe, expressly points to an instance of the dependent condition of women not unknown to the Zoroastrian community, of unmarried sisters or daughters being wholly supported in life by parents, a brother or even a brotherin-law, as well as to an extreme case of rigid seclusion on the part of Virâf, and of his austere exercise of acts of piety, devotion, and self-denial.

The other passage which is assumed by the English translator to be a reference to the marriage of father and daughter, and "too clear," according to him, "to admit of mistake, though the term Khvêtûk-das is not mentioned," is cited from the middle of the Veheshtûk-Yasht Fargard of the Bagân Nask. The contents of this Fargard are summarized in a Pahlavi version of it, and found about the end of the Dinkard. Regarding this ambiguous citation, it may be observed that it admits of more than two significations, the choice between which is made to suit the particular construction and interpretation ​adopted by the translator. Generally speaking, this Twenty-first Fargard of the Bagân Nask seems to esteem, among other acts of religious credit, the exaltedness of a modest attitude of respect, which a woman observes towards her father or husband. "Tarskâsih dyen abitar va shôê" is an expression which denotes, literally, "awful respect to one's father or husband," and is a special point of female morals frequently urged in the sayings of old Irânian sages or high priests. The same idea appears to have been inculcated by this passage of the Bagân Nask, which, if rendered accordingly, would put forward a meaning quite different from the one expressed by Dr. West, who gives his version of the Pahlavi text as follows (p. 397):—

"And this, too, that a daughter is given in marriage to a father, even so as a woman to another man, by him who teaches the daughter and the other woman the reverence due unto father and husband."

According to my humble interpretation, the ​passage would convey quite a different idea. I translate the passage thus:—

"And this, likewise, (is a virtuous act), that a woman pays respect to another man (or stranger), just as it is paid by a daughter to her father, in her womanhood or married condition, through him who teaches his own daughter or any other woman respect towards one's father or husband."

Here we have a religious position ascribed to a person who inculcates on women a modest and respectful behaviour towards male strangers and nearest male relations. This passage does not expressly imply any notion of marriage; on the contrary, it points to modest reverence which in every Oriental community is due from a woman to a male stranger, from a wife to her husband, or from a daughter to her father, &c.

Even if we should accept the interpretation of Dr. West,—as one might be constrained to do by the ambiguity, obscurity, or erroneous transcription of the original text of all the Pahlavi passages under inquiry,—still it would be difficult to ​prove that next-of-kin marriages were actually practised in Irân even "in the later years of the Sâsânian monarchy." His statement only indicates that incestuous marriages were merely advocated^[22] by one or more Pahlavi writers on account of their misapprehension of the Avestâ tenets, and also "with very little success."

Finally, in support of the view that even the genuine Pahlavi writings do not proclaim as meritorious a practice which in the eye of reason and culture is highly discreditable, I may be allowed to adduce a passage from the Seventh Book of the Dinkard, on the supernatural manifestations of Zoroaster's spiritual powers. This passage expressly ascribes to the Mazdakian followers the vicious practice of promiscuous intercourse between the sexes, denouncing those who indulged in it as of the nature of wolves or obnoxious creatures. Among the different divine revelations communicated to Zarathushtra by ​Ahura Mazda, and recorded as such in the Dinkard, of the changes and events which were to happen during the millenniums that followed the age of Zoroaster, there is one which predicts as a calamity to befall the religious welfare of the early Sâsânian period, the birth of Mazdak in this world, the abominable influence of his creed and the consequent beastly condition of his imbecile adherents. The passage in question may be rendered as follows:—

("Ahura Mazda spoke"): "And again of the adversaries of the Mazdayasnân religion, and of the disturbers of piety, the Aharmôg (Mazdak) and they who will be called also Mazdakians . . . . . . will declare one's offspring as fit for mutual intercourse, that is, they will announce intercourse with mothers, and they will be called wolves, since they will act like wolves, they will proceed according to their lustful desire just as one born of the wolf does with its daughter or mother, and they will also practice intercourse with their mothers, their women will live like sheep or goats."

​This revelation plainly indicates how abhorrent the practice of promiscuous intercourse between the sexes, was to the idea of the early Zoroastrians, and that it was to be expressly the teaching of a heretic who was to rise for the annihilation of the social morality of the Sâsânian Irân, and to preach to the imbecile monarch Kôbâd I., what, according to Ahuramazdian revelation, was the detestable doctrine of sexual intercourse between the next-of-kin. Such was not the creed of Zoroastrism, but of its opponents and enemies, of Mazdak and his immoral beastly followers.

IV.—Finally, in support of the theory that the Avesta comprehends a purer and nobler idea of the marriage-relationship, no better proof could be adduced than a stanza in the Gâthâs, wherein, according to Dr. Geiger, the bond of marriage is regarded "as an intimate union founded on love and piety." This stanza must have formed part of the marriage formula which seems to have been recited by Zoroaster on the occasion of the celebration of the marriage ​between the Prophet's daughter Pôuruchishtâ and Jâmâspâ^[23]:—

"Admonishing words I say unto the marrying maiden.

"And to you (the youth), I who know you. Listen to them,

"And learn to know through the laws of religion the life of a good mind;

"In piety you shall both seek to win the love of each other, only thus will it lead you to joy!" (Yasna LIII. 5;^[24] Comp.—"Civilization of the Eastern Irânians," Vol. I., p. 62.)

Although the Avestâ text, of which the larger portion is destroyed or lost, is a scanty collection ​of fragments in its present condition, still there is no lack of references which show us that the custom of contracting marriages amongst the Irânians in the age of the Avesta, cannot at all be reconciled with any theory of incestuous wedlock. The expressions moshu-jaidhyamna, "courting or solicitation," dirict or indirect, for the hand of a maiden, and vadh or vaz, "to convey or take home the wife" (ducere puellam in matrimonium), presuppose that intermarriage between different families or citizens was not unknown to the Avesta nation. The idea of conveying a bride to the house of the bridegroom, which is implied in the root vadh (signifying in the Zend-Avestâ "to marry"), implicity contradicts the notion of several European scholars that the Avestâ people were fond of marrying in their own family only, and with their nearest relations. Besides, the moral position of the wife in the Irânian house, was in no way inferior to that of an English materfamilias. Similar as she was in rank to her husband, her chastity was an ornament to the house, and her ​piety and participation in private and public ceremonials a blessing. Moreover, the prayer of an Irânian maiden imploring the yazata Vayu for a husband, does not at all allude to any desire for marrying a next-of-kin relation, but simply an Irânian youth who may be valiant, wise and learned:—

"Grant us this grace, that we may obtain a husband, a youthful one, one of surpassing beauty, who may procure us sustenance as long as we have to live with each other; and who will beget of us offspring; a wise, learned, ready-tongued husband" (vide my C. E. Ir. p. 61; Yt. XV. 40.)

Further, there is no trace to next-of-kinship in Vendidâd, Chap. XIV., where one of the meritorious acts of a Zoroastrian priest or layman, is to give his daughter in marriage to any pious Mazdayasna. It is characteristic that wherever the subject of marriage is alluded to in the Avesta, the word Qaêtvadatha is never mentioned. It is also to be remembered that Zarathushtra having six childern born to him, three sons and three ​daughters,—did not think of marrying his own son with his own daughter, nor did he ever take his own mother or one of his own daughters to wife. If it was actually the creed of the Prophet, Zoroaster ought to have realized it first of all in his own family and among his primitive supporters!

The question as regards the existence of the practice of next-of-kin marriages in old Irân, will not, I hope, create a difficulty for any longer time. Not only has the meagre testimony upon it of Greek and Roman historians been shown to be unreliable and erroneous, but also the attempt to trace it to the Old Irânian Sacred Books, viz., the Zend-Avestâ, has entirely failed.

So long as no cogent proofs are brought to bear on the question, sufficient to convince a student of Irânian antiquities or religion, I shall be content with the arguments or remarks I have been able to put forward on the other side, repeating at the conclusion of this paper the convictions with which I set out, viz.:—

1. That the slight authority of some isolated ​passages gleaned from the pages of Greek and Roman literature, is wholly insufficient to support the odious charge made against the old Irânians of practising consanguineous marriages in their most objectionable forms.
2. That no trace, hint, or suggestion of a custom of next-of-kin marriage can be pointed out in the Avestâ or in its Pahlavi Version.
3. That the Pahlavi passages translated by a distinguished English Pahlavi savant, and supposed to refer to such a custom, cannot be interpreted as upholding the view that next-of-kin marriages were expressly recommended therein. That a few of the Pahlavi passages, which are alleged to contain actual references to such marriages, do not allude to social realities but only to supernatural conceptions relating to the creation to the first progenitors of mankind.
4. That the words of the Prophet himself, which are preserved in one of the Stanzas of the Gâthâ, Chap. LIII., express a highly moral ideal of the marriage relation.