Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T12:16:48.481Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ātaš-Zōhr and Āb-Zōhr

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 March 2011

Mary Boyce
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In some verses from the Manichaean Middle Persian hymn-cycle, the Gōwišn īg grīw zīndag, the Light Self, or sum of the light elements in the world, speaks in the character both of the sacred fire of the Zoroastrians, and of the pure water reverenced by them. The editors of these verses pointed out that the use of certain technical terms shows that the Manichaean author had an intimate knowledge of Zoroastrian ritual. The publication since then of further Zoroastrian works has established this fact even more plainly; for it is now apparent that the term zōhr, which occurs twice in the text, is used in fact for two separate Zoroastrian offerings, the offering to fire, the ātaš-zōhr, as well as that to water, the āb-zōhr.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society , Volume 98 , Issue 2 , April 1966 , pp. 100 - 118
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Asiatic Society 1966

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 100 note 1 M 95 V 1–6; see Andreas, and Henning, , “Mitteliranische Manichaica aus Chinesisch-Turkestan II” (Sb. PAW, 1933, VII, 319–20)Google Scholar. The readings of v. 6 have since been emended by Henning; see BSOAS, XI, 1943, 217, n. 7Google Scholar.

page 100 note 2 op. cit, 320, nn. 1, 2.

page 100 note 3 The existence of these two kinds of zōhr was recognized by Darmesteter; see his admirable comments, Zend-Avesta, I, lxvi, II, 154 with n. 39, 254, n. 69. He appears to have found the term ātaš-zōr or zōr-i ātaš still known to the Parsis.

page 100 note 4 See Unvala, M. R., Dārāb Hormazyār's Rivāyat (Bombay, 1922), I, 75Google Scholar; tr. Dhabhar, B. N., The Persian Rivayats of Hormazyar Framarz and others (Bombay, 1932), 69Google Scholar. In his translations Dhabhar always distinguishes between the zōhr of “holy water” and the zōhr of the fat-offering.

page 100 note 5 Madan, D. M., Dinkard (Bombay, 1911), 682, 1. 2 f.Google Scholar; Anklesaria, B. T., Rivāyat-ī Hēmīt-ī Ašavahištān I (Bombay, 1962), 60 (Pursišn XVII, 15)Google Scholar; Dhabhar, B. N., The Epistles of Mānūshchīhar (Bombay, 1912), 38 (Ep. I, Ch. VIII, 3)Google Scholar; Unvala, op. cit., 74, 75; Dhabhar, , Persian Rivayats, 64, 66Google Scholar.

page 100 note 6 Pahlavi, of Vendīdād VIII, 22Google Scholar, see Spiegel, , Avesta, I, 110, 11. 14–16Google Scholar; Anklesaria, B. T., Pahlavi Vendīdād (Bombay, 1949), 199Google Scholar; Davar, M. B., Šāyast lā-Šāyast (Bombay, 1912, printed but not generally published), 62–3 (Ch. XII, 5)Google Scholar; Unvala, op. cit., I, 75, 162, 170, 264; Dhabhar, op. cit., 70, 175, 177, 264.

page 100 note 7 Anklesaria, P. K., The unedited portion of the Dādestān-i dīnīk (London thesis, 1958), 133 (Purs. 65), 167 f. (Purs. 87)Google Scholar; tr. West, , SBE, XVIII, 204–6, 250 fGoogle Scholar. (with zōhr rendered as “holy-water”).

page 100 note 8 Davar, , ŠnŠ, 92 (Ch. XVI, 6)Google Scholar; tr. West, , SBE, V, 381Google Scholar; Anklesaria, B. T., Zand-ī Vohūman Yasn (Bombay, 1957), 40 (Ch. V, 2), 62 (Ch. VII, 21)Google Scholar; see West's, note to his translation, SBE, V, 212Google Scholar.

page 100 note 9 Tavadia, J. C., ŠnŠ. (Hamburg, 1930), 102 with n. 93 (Ch. VII, 9)Google Scholar.

page 100 note 10 Davar, , ŠnŠ, 92 (Ch. XVI, 6)Google Scholar; Unvala, op. cit., I, 307; Dhabhar, op. cit., 292.

page 100 note 11 Unvala, op. cit., II, 70–71; Dhabhar, op. cit., 436 (but see further p. 107 below).

page 101 note 1 There are 16 basic categories of fires from which portions are to be gathered, but these may be multiplied many times over; see, e.g., Unvala, op. cit., I, 75, Dhabhar, op. cit, 69.

page 101 note 2 Unvala, loc. cit.; Dhabhar, loc. cit.

page 101 note 3 Unvala, op. cit., I, 76; Dhabhar, op. cit., 71.

page 101 note 4 Unvala, op. cit., I, 75; Dhabhar, op. cit., 69.

page 101 note 5 Dhabhar, , The Pahlavi Rivāyat accompanying the Dadistān-ī Dīnīk (Bombay, 1913), Ch. VIII, p. 11Google Scholar; tr. West, , SBE, XVIII, 417Google Scholar.

page 101 note 6 Barthélémy, A., Gujastak Abolish (Paris, 1887), Ch. VI, 15 (Purs. 5), 22Google Scholar.

page 101 note 7 Unvala, op. cit., I, 74; Dhabhar, , Persian Rivāyats, 64Google Scholar.

page 101 note 8 Dk. M., 682,1. 2 f.; cited by Dhabhar, op. cit., 70, n. 13.

page 101 note 9 Unvala, op. cit., 1,168, 11. 15–18; Dhabhar, op. cit., 177, section 17; cf. Unvala, I, 162, 11. 10–11; Dhabhar, 175, section 11.

page 102 note 1 Unvala, I, 264; Dhabhar, 264. In another Rivāyat, however, it is insisted that the fat-offering (čarbī) of the čahārom is unavailing unless it is made to an Ataš-Bahrām; see Unvala, I, 75; Dhabhar, 70.

page 102 note 2 ŠnŠ., XII, 5, ed. Davar, , pp. 62–3Google Scholar; text with trans, apud Dhabhar, op. cit., 265, n. 1. A pun on zōr and zōrmand is found also in the Manichaean text (v. 6); and another parallel Manichaean passage with similar pun is cited by Henning, , BSOAS, XI, 1943, 217, n. 7Google Scholar.

page 102 note 3 Gemelli-Careri, J. F., A Voyage Round the World (1694), Ch. 7Google Scholar; Eng. version in Churchill's, AwnshamA Collection of Voyages and Travels (London, 1704), Vol. 4, 143aGoogle Scholar; cited by Darmesteter, , ZA, II, 254Google Scholar, n. 69.

page 102 note 4 Sūr Saxwan, 6, see Asana, J., Pahlavi texts, 156Google Scholar, and Tavadia, J. C., J. of K.R. Cama Or. Inst., No. 29, 1935, 60 for a textual noteGoogle Scholar.

page 102 note 5 ŠnŠ.., XV, 12 (Davar, , p. 86)Google Scholar.

page 102 note 6 See West, , SBE, V, 375, n. 2Google Scholar. From the general context, the injunctions given in Dk., VIII, 37 (38), 9, about the need for cleanliness in offering zōhr to the fire refer to a priest making the offering to a household fire on behalf of the inmates; see Sanjana, XVI, p. 52 with trans., pp. 40–41.

page 102 note 7 ŠnŠ., XVI, 6 (Davar, , p. 92Google Scholar; West, , SBE, V, 381)Google Scholar, and cf. Zand-ī Vohuman Yasn, V, 3 (ed. Anklesaria, B. T., p. 40Google Scholar; West, , SBE, V, 212)Google Scholar.

page 102 note 8 Anklesaria, P. K., thesis, p. 167 (Purs. 87.6)Google Scholar; cited by Dhabhar, op. cit., 265, n. 1.

page 102 note 9 As it was apparently, even for royal offerings, from Sasanian times. Duchesne-Guillemin, J. (Hommages à G. Dumézil, Collection Latomus, XLV, 1960, 98–9) has suggested that it was this general use of the sheep for sacrifice which led to the term gāv “bull/cow” being used for “sheep” in the specialized expression gōspand, the smaller animal serving as an economical substitute for what had once been the chief sacrificial animal, whose name, however, continued in use. A more likely explanation is perhaps that the term gaospenta came to be generalized for all useful animals (cf. its application to the pig, n. 5 below), and then specialized again for the sheep as the most useful among themGoogle Scholar.

page 103 note 1 Epistle I, VIII, 3 (ed. Dhabhar, , p. 38)Google Scholar.

page 103 note 2 Vd., VII, 77, on which see p. 105 below.

page 103 note 3 See Unvala, op. cit, 156; Dhabhar, op. cit., 170.

page 103 note 4 See Unvala, op. cit., 170; Dhabhar, op. cit., 178.

page 103 note 5 Ogilby, John in his Asia (London, 1673), 218bGoogle Scholar, writes as follows of the Parsis: “In point of Eating and Drinking, their Law hath given them great Priviledge; but to avoid displeasing of the Benjans [i.e. the Hindus] amongst whom they live, and the Moors [i.e. the Muslims] under whose Jurisdiction they stand, they abstain from Wine … and Swines-flesh … They chiefly abstain from Cows or Ox-flesh, affirming that they will rather eat their Fathers or Mothers flesh; in which Point of Religion they agree with the Benjans.” du Perron, Anquetil, Zend-Avesta, II, 601Google Scholar, points out that it is only the dog, and creatures of Ahriman (such as rats, cats, snakes, wolves, frogs, etc.), which Zoroastrians are forbidden to eat. In GBd., XXIV, 52 (ed. Anklesaria, , 157; trans., 205)Google Scholar, the flesh and fat of the pig are praised as wholesome; but in one of the Rivāyats (doubtless under the influence of Islam) a compromise is reached on this animal: “The pig is a creature of Bahman. It is a species of gaospenta, but, because it eats foul matter, its flesh should not be eaten. If a person binds it and gives it grass for food, then after the length of a year its flesh can be eaten” (Unvala, op. cit., I, 261; Dhabhar, op. cit., 260). It was this practice which Gemelli found among the Zoroastrians of Isfahan in the 17th century: “They … eat Swines Flesh, but it must be bred by themselves, and not have eaten any Thing unclean” (op. cit., 143b). Cow-sacrifice continued in the Yazd area down to the late 19th century (see a forthcoming article in BSOAS, XXX, 1, 1967)Google Scholar; but the village Zoroastrians of Persia do not now eat beef, and would regard the flesh of pig or donkey as wholly unclean.

page 103 note 6 The sacrifice of horses is not recorded in the later Zoroastrian texts, but is frequently mentioned in the yašts; it is also well-attested by western writers as a Persian custom, particularly as an offering to the sun-god: see e.g. Xenophon, , Anabasis, IV, 5, 35Google Scholar.

page 103 note 7 See ŠnŠ., XI, 4–6 (ed. Davar, , 59–60Google Scholar; tr. West, , SBE, V, 335–8)Google Scholar.

page 103 note 8 XV, 3, 13.

page 104 note 1 The practice of the roast offering with ātaš-zōhr provides a grim simile in Vd., XVI, 17, where it is said that a man who has intercourse with a menstruous woman transgresses as greatly “as if he were to roast the body of his own son (and) bring the fat to the fire” (yaδoiṭ puθrahe hvāzātahe frā naēzәm nasūm pačāṯ paiti āθre ūθәm barāṯ), i.e. by this act he sins as terribly towards his potential issue as if deliberately sacrificing his own son. (On naēzәm pač- “to roast” see Henning, , Sogdica, p. 41Google Scholar on 16.) The simile is evidently meant to emphasize through shock (like the Parsis' statement about rather eating their parents' than cow's flesh, see p. 103 above, n. 5). There is not the smallest justification for taking it as an indication of cannibalism among Zoroastrians (see Widengren, G., Die Religionen Irans, Stuttgart, 1965, 116, where the passage has been wholly misunderstood)Google Scholar.

page 104 note 2 See Waag, A., Nīrangistān (Leipzig, 1941), 70Google Scholar.

page 104 note 3 On the haδānaēpatā plant as “pomegranate” see Morgenstierne, , IIFL, II, 190, s.v. alanoGoogle Scholar.

page 104 note 4 See Waag, op. cit., 72. In Dk., VIII, 28 (29), 11, also (in a passage deriving from the Avesta) the question of the amount of zōhr to be offered from one animal is considered (čandīh ī zōhr ī az ēwag gōspand); see Sanjana, XVI, 19; West, , SBE, XXXVII, 95Google Scholar.

pege 104 note 5 See p. 107 below.

pege 104 note 6 N., Ch. 70–1 (Waag, p. 81).

pege 104 note 7 Vd., XVIII, 70.

pege 104 note 8 See p. 108.

pege 104 note 9 Vd., XVIII, 71.

page 104 note 10 Vd., XVIII, 72.

pege 105 note 1 Vd., VII, 77; on pait.baire see Benveniste, , Les infinitifs avestiques, 46Google Scholar.

pege 105 note 2 Air. Wb., 1029.

pege 105 note 3 Arm. Gram., 151.

pege 105 note 4 See JAs., 1964, 48 f.

pege 105 note 5 See Gershevitch, I., JRAS, 1946, 183Google Scholar.

page 105 note 6 See Benveniste, TSP, glossary s.v.; O. Hansen, Berliner Soghdische Texte, I, glossary s.v.

page 105 note 7 P 2, 540 (TSP, 27).

page 105 note 8 op. cit., II, 577 (a horn from the Mithra sheep was necessary for the rites of the Spandarmad festival).

page 106 note 1 ibid., II, 586–7; cf. Unvala, op. cit., I, 76, 262; Dhabhar, op. cit., 71, 262.

page 106 note 2 Haug, M., Essays on … the Parsis, ed. West, E. W. (2nd ed., London, 1878), 281Google Scholar.

page 106 note 3 ibid., 285.

page 106 note 4 See S. D. Bharucha (who wrote in 1882) apud Tavadia, ŠnŠ., 103 and IX s. Rist.

page 106 note 5 Dhabhar, op. cit., 261, n. 15.

page 106 note 6 Mr. Peshotan Antia, now resident in London.

page 106 note 7 Information from Miss Fringis Shapurji, now also of London, speaking of her grandparents' generation. No doubt more could still be learnt of ancient observances from the oldest generation of Parsis still living in the traditional Zoroastrian strongholds of Gujarat.

page 106 note 8 Most of my information concerning Iranian observance was obtained while I was the guest in 1964 of Agha Rustam Noshirvan Belivani, the very able head of the Zoroastrian anjoman of the village of Sharifabad-i Ardekan, Yazd, to whom I am deeply indebted for generous hospitality, friendship, and help in countless ways. His brother-in-law, Dastur Khodadad Neryosangi, priest of Sharifabad and the adjoining villages, was also unfailingly helpful, and they both exerted themselves to instruct me in all that I sought to learn. To them, to their families, and to the Zoroastrian community of Sharifabad I owe a deep debt of gratitude.

This festival was observed with full rites in Yazd down to the second decade of the present century, and till later in many other Yazdi villages. It is hoped to write of it in detail elsewhere. According to Shirin-i Set Hakimi of Sharifabad, who is over 100 years old, the festival used still to be called Mihragān there in her girlhood. This name has now been revived among the Tehrani Zoroastrians.

page 107 note 1 Most of the fat-offering, which is made in such abundance at this time, is, however, rendered down by the āteš-band to provide pāk candles to burn by the sacred fire.

page 107 note 2 In the very dry air of the Yazdi plain even a freshly flayed skin gives off almost no smell. Eventually the fleeces are sold for the benefit of the dar-i mihr.

page 107 note 3 Dastur Khodadad Neryosangi of Sharifabad told me that, though he would not necessarily exclude women from these rites, they really had no part in them.

page 107 note 4 Unvala, op. cit., II, 70–71; Dhabhar, op. cit., 436. According to Anquetil, II, 551, among the Parsis the father made this sacrifice to Mithra on the day Mihr, month Mihr, three years after the birth of a child (apparently boy or girl).

page 107 note 5 Information from Khanom Piruza-i Noshiravan Belivani, wife of Dastur Khodadad.

page 107 note 6 The word is presumably identical with Parth. handām, Pers. andām “limb, part”.

page 108 note 1 Formerly the sacrifice was always prepared by the priests. Now it is more usually prepared by behdins, but preferably by those who have undergone nō-šwa, i.e. the barašnom. I first saw the full preparation of the andom in the hospitable house of Agha Dinyar Arghavani of Taft, to whom and to his brother I am much indebted for all the kindness and helpfulness they showed me on that occasion, the first sāl of their father's death.

page 108 note 2 The Iranis now use the word drōn or drīn only for liturgical texts.

page 108 note 3 cf. Unvala, op. cit, I, 262; Dhabhar, op. cit., 262. There is some difference in practice between mobad and behdin, and between place and place, as to when the andom is prepared. According to Dastur Khodadad, in a mobad household the andom is (or was) prepared whenever an animal was sacrificed, whatever the occasion, though it was only at the Mihragān that the mobads gathered to partake of it communally. In Yazd and the surrounding villages the behdins prepared the andom for the Mihragān, and still do so for the čārom, siruze and sāl. In Sharifabad and Mazra 'Kalantar the behdins prepare it only for the Mihragān. All agree that the andom does not belong to sheep sacrificed at the mountainshrines (where the flesh is usually seethed, not roasted; cf. Herodotus, I, 132).

page 108 note 4 See Unvala, op. cit., II, 71 top; Dhabhar, op. cit., 436.

page 108 note 5 XV, 3.13; Darmesteter, ZA, II, 254, n. 69, also compares Catullus' description of the sacrifice of the Magi: natus ut accepto veneretur carmine divos,/omentum in flamma pingue liquefaciens “so that the son [as Magus] may venerate the gods, when the chant has been accepted, melting the fat caul upon the flame” (Ode XC in the Oxford edition).

page 108 note 6 It is hoped to describe elsewhere the ritual for the sheep's tongue.

page 108 note 7 loc. cit.; the text is cited on p. 104 above.

page 108 note 8 Bartholomae prefers the reading asmanivā: see Air. Wb., 221.

page 108 note 9 See Spiegel, , Avesta, I, 208, 11. 15–17Google Scholar; Anklesaria, , Pahl. Vd., 368Google Scholar; Bartholomae, , Air. Wb., 1147–8Google Scholar.

page 108 note 10 In a written communication.

page 108 note 11 Air. Wb., 103.

page 108 note 12 Dr. Gershevitch prefers a rather different explanation, namely that afsman should mean (1) “tie, string” and (2) fig. “verse” (cf. Germ, gebundene Rede for “metrical form”); hence, from (2), afsmanivqn “vers(zeilen)weise, metrically”, and from (1), afsmanivā zaoθra “strung oblations”. For andom he then postulates a derivation from *ham-tana “strung together”, with dissimilation of n-n to n-m; on the evidence for a noun *tana “string” see his Av. Hymn to Mithra, 279, n.

page 109 note 1 See Benveniste, , JAs., 1964, p. 51 f.Google Scholar; the Muslim rite had already been adopted by the time of the Rivāyats, see Unvala, op. cit., I, 262; Dhabhar, 262.

page 109 note 2 Unvala, op. cit., I, 261–2.

page 109 note 3 The drīns or drōns, the short liturgical texts used by the Irani priests, can be found in a small service-book in Avestan script, published in Bombay in a.y. 1280 by Rashid ibn Dastur Shahriyar, whose father was dastir-mas of Yazd when Manekji Limji Hataria arrived there in 1854. (His eldest brother, Dastur Namdar, had become holder of this office when Jackson visited the city in 1903.) Mobad Rashid was himself for years āteš-band of the (Irani) Dadiseth Agiary in Bombay. Liturgical instructions are given in his book, which is still in use in Iran, together with another in Arabic script, published subsequently (but without date) in Bombay by Kai Khusrau-i Herbad Khodabakhsh-i Jamasp of Mobarake (one of the villages of Yazd).

page 109 note 4 Or, according to the Rivāyats, HōM will there accuse him on their behalf; see Unvala, I, 263–4; Dhabhar, 264; and cf. Saddar Bundahiš, Ch. 26, 4–5 (ed. Dhabhar, , Bombay, 1909, p. 95)Google Scholar. The persistence of the blood-sacrifice to Mithra, and the fact that Haoma is connected with the sacrificial animals, should perhaps lead to a yet further consideration of Yt., X, 119–20, discussed in detail by Gershevitch, I., The Avestan Hymn to Mithra (Cambridge, 1959), 269–273Google Scholar. Despite the grammatical point made there, it seems possible that zaoθranqm fraṇuharāṯ may well mean “eat of these offerings” rather than “drink of these libations”. Fowls are still generally sacrificed in Iran as well as four-footed beasts, though only under pressure of poverty at the Mihragān itself. The same Avesta is to be recited, whether it is bird or animal that is offered: see Unvala, I, 261; Dhabhar, 262.

page 109 note 5 See Waag, 70–71. The fact may perhaps explain the nature of the “long-armed offering” (rālōiš daregō.- bāzāuš) of Y., XXXVIII, 5, unless, since the waters are there explicitly invoked, this refers rather to the ābzōhr.

page 109 note 6 GBd., XXXIV, 23 (ed. Anklesaria, B. T., p. 226, trans., pp. 289–291)Google Scholar.

page 109 note 7 Dd, XLVIII, 34, ed. Anklesaria, P. K. (thesis), p. 102.4 fGoogle Scholar.

page 110 note 1 nyš's is an emendation by the present writer for MS. gyh'n.

page 110 note 2 Strabo, XV, 3, 14.

page 110 note 3 The direct evidence consists of three Gathic verses. Of these, two (Y., XXXII, 8 and 14) were characterized by Spiegel as unintelligible; and the third (ibid., v. 12) is hardly more lucid. The indirect evidence adduced is that Zoroaster is never represented as making an animal-sacrifice, but only the haoma offering; but this may well be because, among kings, heroes, and warrior-gods, Zoroaster is the only priest, and so alone (with Ahura Mazda) can himself perform the yasna ceremony. This ceremony itself, if later practice is to be trusted, involved an animal-sacrifice. Another argument sometimes advanced is that Zoroaster's general concern for the cow is incompatible with animal-sacrifice; but there is abundant imagery in the Jewish religion drawn from lamb and sheep and the good shepherd, without this conflicting with the sacrificial offering being made of lambs and sheep.

page 110 note 4 Gressmann, H., Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, ed. Schiele, F. M. and Zscharnak, L., IV, 1913, col. 959Google Scholar; cited by Rowley, H. H., “The Meaning of Sacrifice in the Ola Testament”, Bull, of the John Rylands Library, Manchester, XXXIII, 1950, 74–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

page 110 note 5 Acts xxi. 23 f.; the sacrifices were presumably continued by Jewish Christians, as by orthodox Jews, until the destruction of the Temple in a.d. 70.

page 110 note 6 Ecclesiasticus xxxiv. 18 f. (xxxi. 21–23); see Rowley, op. cit., 102.

page 110 note 7 The Parsi Zoroastrian tradition has been influenced for over 1,000 years by the Hindu culture of Gujarat, and the wonder is how staunchly it has nevertheless been maintained; but from the time of their settling in that hospitable land the Parsis had perforce to be reticent about their rituals of animal-sacrifice, and indeed to abandon the sacrifice of the cow. It is small wonder that by now they have come to regard these rituals as actually alien to their faith. A similar reluctance to accept the historical facts of animal-sacrifice is sometimes found among Christians.

page 111 note 1 Often corrupted by the villagers (who have a marked tendency to metathesis) to ōwrūz. It is also sometimes called rūz-i ōw.

page 111 note 2 Tin, enamel, and china are not considered pāk.

page 111 note 3 The fragrant leaves of this plant, which grows freely on the Yazdi mountains, are much used in Zoroastrian ritual; see Sorushian, J. S., Farhang-e Behdinan, 14, s.v. (the Kermani form)Google Scholar.

page 111 note 4 Elsewhere senjed is sometimes used for the jujube-tree; but in the Yazdi area (as in most of Iran) it is applied to Elaeagnus angustifolia orientalis.

page 112 note 1 čom, literally “thing”, is generally used for “food, meal”. It is perhaps also analogy with the elaborate čom-i šwa that leads Dastur Khodadad to say that the čom-i māhī should properly be prepared from five things, namely milk, garlic, rue, rice, oleander-fruits, and bread. The behdins are usually content with three ingredients.

page 112 note 2 See Karaka, D. F., History of the Parsis (London, 1884), I, 151Google Scholar.

page 112 note 3 See Seervai, K. N. and Patel, B. B., Bombay Gazetteer, IX, ii, 1899, 216, 230. Mrs. Dhun Anklesaria (wife of Dr. P. K. Anklesaria), of the behdin Vakil family of Surat, has told me that she can vaguely remember in her childhood offerings still being made to the waters in Surat at the time of the annual floodsGoogle Scholar.

page 112 note 4 Usually construed with the verb bar- or its derivatives; see, e.g., Nīrangistān, 48 (ed. Waag, , 109)Google Scholar.

page 112 note 5 It is a sin to offer the ābzōhr to polluted water: see Vendidad, VII, 79 (with Pahl. trans., Spiegel, II, 101, bottom); and cf. Dk., VIII, Ch. 43 (44), 41; Sanjana, XVI, 97; West, , SBE, XXXVII, 159Google Scholar.

page 112 note 6 See Henning, , BSOAS, XI, 1, 1943, 217, n. 7 (q.v. for the odd form td)Google Scholar.

page 112 note 7 See ZA., I, 391; for such Middle Persian indications Darmesteter used the edition of the Avesta prepared by Tahmuras Dinshaw Anklesaria (Bombay, 1888); see op. cit., xc.

page 113 note 1 i.e. the placing or giving of the zōr.

page 113 note 2 i.e. to the source of pure water nearest to the fire-temple. This is a purely practical matter. Any other source of pure water would be ritually as proper.

page 113 note 3 See Haug, M., Essays … on the Parsis, 407; and cf. the Irani ritual of the čom-i māhī, aboveGoogle Scholar.

page 113 note 4 ZA., I, Ixxxv (the transcriptions given in the above citation are the writer's, not Darmesteter's).

page 113 note 5 Nīrangistān, 68; ed. A. Waag, 78.

page 113 note 6 loc. cit.; Haug does not himself give the source for his account, but Darmesteter (op. cit., I, lxxiii, n. 1) supposes him to have relied on a Parsi priestly source similar to his own.

page 113 note 7 Modi, J. J., The Religious Ceremonies and Customs of the Parsees (2nd ed., Bombay, 1937), 299–300, 309Google Scholar.

page 113 note 8 In Iran the water is usually drawn from a stream, in India from a well.

page 113 note 9 See Modi, op. cit., 298; Haug, op. cit., 397 (with, in both places, a description of the ritual); cf. Anquetil du Perron, op. cit., II, 534.

page 113 note 10 The term āb-i yašte for water consecrated by recital of Avesta is also used by the Parsis; see Anquetil du Perron, op. cit., II, 540 f. (l'eau leschtée).

page 113 note 11 Dd., XLVIII, 30; ed. P. K. Anklesaria (thesis), 101,11.10–11. West, (SBE, XVIII, p. 170Google Scholar) gallantly managed with the traditional Parsi interpretation, translating IIII zōhr as “four applications of holy water”; but this is plainly forced.

page 113 note 12 Darmesteter, , ZA., I, lxiv, states that at the yasna ceremony there are “un certain nombre de coupes ou de vases, qui reçoivent les libations ou zaoθra: on les appelait zaoθro-barana ou zōhr-barān”Google Scholar.

page 113 note 13 ed. Waag, 109.

page 114 note 1 Y., XXXIII, 11; see Modi, op. cit., 292; Haug, op. cit., 402; West, , SBE, V, 357, n. 3Google Scholar.

page 114 note 2 ŠnŠ., XIII, 8 (Davar, , p. 73)Google Scholar.

page 114 note 3 Unvala, op. cit., II, 24,1, 1 ff.; Dhabhar, op. cit., 410–11.

page 114 note 4 Dhabhar's reading; ān zōr, Unvala.

page 114 note 5 On this see p. 115 below.

page 114 note 6 Ed. Madan, 624, 631; Sanjana, Vol. XIII, 63–5, Vol. XIV, 11–12; tr. West, , SBE, Xlvii, 47–8. 57Google Scholar.

page 114 note 7 See Darmesteter, , ZA., I, 179, n. 5; Haug, op. cit., 400Google Scholar.

page 115 note 1 Y., III, 3. At first sight this mention in the Avesta itself of the water in the parahaoma militates against the suggestion made above that it is an inessential element of the libation; but in fact the adjective haomya does appear to indicate the subordinate function of the water, as a mere adjunct to the haoma.

page 115 note 2 Y., XXII, 2; Vr., XI, 2.

page 115 note 3 It is probable that the pure water poured on the ground before the animal-sacrifice (p. 109 above) is a form of libation. In Iran at the āfrīnagān and other ceremonies pure water is always poured from a bowl on the ground in front of the offerings before the ceremony begins. This rite is essential.

page 115 note 4 Strabo, XV, 3, 14 (according to which the other ingredients were oil and honey). The Parsis regularly use goat's milk for the ābzōr, the Iranis cow's milk; but according to Nīrangistān, 67 (Waag, 110), milk from horse or cow, sheep or goat is licit.

page 115 note 5 In Iran half the second preparation of parāhōm is taken to the water, and half is reserved, to be partaken of by any pāk Zoroastrian who wishes. This reserved portion is kept in a stoppered glass flask, the farāhōm-dān. In India part used to be “set apart for the requirements of the congregation”, that is, to be administered to the dying or the newly-born (see Modi, op. cit., 306–7, with 307, n. 1; and cf. Dk., VIII, 37 (38), 7; Sanjana, XVI, 52; West, , SBE, XXXVII, 122)Google Scholar. According to Anklesaria, T. D. (apud Darmesteter, I, 441, n. 8)Google Scholar on other occasions some of the second parāhōm was drunk by whoever had paid for the ceremony, or by helpers, and any remaining after the āb-zōhr was poured over the roots of trees in the dar-i mihr garden.

page 115 note 6 See Darmesteter, , ZA., I, lxxxvGoogle Scholar.

page 115 note 7 On the ritual procuring of the milk see Darmesteter, op. cit., lxxv-vi; Modi, op. cit., 278–9.

page 115 note 8 Thus when during the first part of the ceremony the priest recites Hā XXIV, 1–9, he omits from vv. 1 and 6 the words imāmča gam jivyam ašaya uzdātqm “and this milk rightfully set put”, and so also when he comes to Hā XXV, 1; because in fact the milk (invoked with the other ingredients of the parāhōm in Hā III, 3) is not “set out” until the end of the first part of the ceremony (after Hā VIII). This fact is made clear by Modi in his analysis of the ceremony, but flatly contradicted by him (op. cit., 303) where he states that milk is added to the first infusion of parāhom. Darmesteter too states that the two preparations of parāh$om are identical (op. cit., I, lxxxv). The clearest account of the ceremony in this respect is by Haug, who also describes in detail the lavings of the barsom with milk (op. cit., 404, bottom, ff.), on which see also Waag, A., Nirangistan, 117Google Scholar.

page 116 note 1 Y., XXII, 2, 21: cf. XXIV, 2; XXV, 2; Vr., XI, 4.

page 116 note 2 Cited on p. 104 above.

page 116 note 3 Dk., VIII, 25, 24; ed. Sanjana, Vol. XVI, 12; tr. West, , SBE, XXXVII, 89Google Scholar.

page 116 note 4 cf. the description of the parāhōm used for the āb-zōhr as “the hōm and milk” in Haug's account, derived from a Parsi source (p. 113 above).

page 116 note 5 In several of these passages, as also in Yt., V, 17, the libation is referred to as haomayō gava, which, though the form haomayō is variously explained, has evidently the same meaning as haomavaiti gaomavaiti. For a recent discussion, with references, see Gershevitch, op. cit., 163, 322.

page 116 note 6 On these words see Gershevitch, op. cit., 210.

page 117 note 1 e.g. N., 48. An animal may, however, also be sacrificed to the water; see e.g. N., 67, 70–71; and cf. Strabo, XV, 3, 14.

page 117 note 2 e.g. N., 65.

page 117 note 3 Thus the hōm which Vištāspa is represented as drinking in Dk., VII (Sanjana, XIV, 32; West, , SBE, XLVII, 71), is evidently the parāhōmGoogle Scholar.

page 117 note 4 Wizīdagīhā-yi Zādspram, XIX, 2–3, ed. Anklesaria, B. T. (Bombay, 1964), 76Google Scholar; tr. West, , SBE, XLVII, 154Google Scholar.

page 117 note 5 GBd., XI, ed. Anklesaria, , 91, trans, p. 113. The phrase has hitherto been read hwm W zwhr, and translated as “hōm and zōhr”Google Scholar.

page 117 note 6 Ind. Bd., Ch. XXI, 3–4 (West, , SBE, V, 84)Google Scholar.

page 117 note 7 MX., LXII, 35–6 (ed. West, , 56–7)Google Scholar.

page 117 note 8 ed. Waag, 78–9 with note, 126.

page 118 note 1 MX., V, 13; ed. West, 14.

page 118 note 2 ŠnŠ., II, 43; on jīv/jum as “milk” see Tavadia, 46, n. 431.

page 118 note 3 Unvala, , D. Hormazyar's Rivayat, I, 122.6; Dhabhar, trans., 127Google Scholar.

page 118 note 4 Tavadia, loc. cit.; Dhabhar, op. cit, 127, n. 13.

page 118 note 5 Unvala, op. cit., I, 121.5; Dhabhar, op. cit., 127.

page 118 note 6 Dhabhar translated girefte in both Rivāyat passages as “prepared”; Tavadia took the Pahlavi to mean “the consecrated water, which is taken out [from the water-pot]”.

page 118 note 7 See p. 115 above, n. 5; in Iran from at least the beginning of the present century gōmēz has been used instead: see Jackson, A. V. W., Persia past and present (New York, 1909), 387Google Scholar.