¹ Paris, Klincksieck, Prineted 1964, Publisher 1966 (Travaux de I'Institut d'Etudes Iraniennes de I'Universitée de paris, 2). For this book father de menasce has gathered material mainly from theMādigān iĩ hazār dādistān, and chiefly from ch.xviii of that work, with supplementry texts on stūr and sardār form the Dādistān ī dēnīg and the Rivāyant ī Emēd īd Ašawahištān. To have all this material brought together in covenient compass is very helpful. I follow de Menasco here in citing the MHD either with page and line-number only, from the facsimile edition of the first part by J.J. Modi in the pahlavi Text Series, II, Bombay, 1901; or with the letter Tpreceding the page-number, to indicate the facsimile edition of the second part by T.D. Anklesaria, publisher as The social code of the parsees in Sasanian times, part II, Bombay, 1912.

² Pahlavi, Ātaxš Niyāyišn, § 18Google Scholar(see B.N.Dhabhar, Zand-i Khūrtak Auistāk45 17–18).

³ ibid., š I (Dhabhar, 36).

⁴ Zādspram, 3 82–3(ed. B.T.Anmklesria, 41–2)

⁵ Rivāyat of Kamdin Shapur (see M.R. Unvala,) Dārāb Hormazyār, s Rivāyat, I, 73 14–15 translated by Dhabher, The Persian Rivāyats of Hormazyar Framarz, 62.

⁶ See J.J.Modi, The religious ceremonies and custons of the Parsees, second ed., 1937 200–13.

⁷ See Modi, op.cit., 213.

⁸ Pahlavi AN, š6(Dhabhar, ZXA, 39 10–11). As is well known, a mace is carried by every Zoroastrian priest at his initiation, as a symbol of his having become a warrior for the faith see Modi, op.cit., 193–4, and Journal of the K.R.cama Or.Inst., 31 1937 110–11.

⁹ The last ceremonial installation of an Ātaš Bahrām was in Navsai in A.D. 1925, when the Fire, which had been moved to the Wadi Dar-i mihrthere so that its own building might be rebuilt, was brought back in triumph by a great gathering of priests and laymen.The ceremony took place in the Ušahin Gāh, at the dark of the moon, with all lamps along the way extingished by order, out of respect for the Ātaš Bahrām Pādišāh.

¹⁰ It is curious misappehension, which seems to have gained ground of late years in the West, that Zoroastrianism is a meek as well as a gloomy religion, instead of a stalwart and vigorous one, With a strong doctrinal bent towards cheerfulness.

¹¹ Information from Ervad Dr.Firoze M.Kotwal of Navsari, whose great-great-grandfather, E.Kershaspji Edulji Kotwal, was one of the`eight courageous priests‘ who took the fire to Surat (see the Parsee Prakash, 1 53, cited by J.J.Modi in Joural of the K.R. cama Or.1nst., 25, 1933, 65). All information asbout Parsi practices given here, for which a written source is not cited, I owe to the kindness of Ervad Kotwal, Who has himself been bōyvālā at the Ātaš Bahrām of Navsari, and is at present head panthakiof the Tata Agiaryin Bandra, Bomday.

¹² of.Pahl.Vendidād, viii, 80(pad nēmag šab aojaiti Warahrān).

¹³ of Venidād, v, 4.

¹⁴ see Modi, Ceremonies and custons, 226–9.The popular Pronunciation of the name of this Fire in india ifĀdaryān.

¹⁵ Pahl.Ān.š14(Dhabhar, ZXA, 44)

¹⁶ See Modi, op.cit., 229–30.

¹⁷ See Modi, op.cit., 69.In former days the tending of this DādgāhFire, in its necessarily lonely place, wes sometimes a dangerous task; and in the introduction to part II of MHD, p.32, Modi gives a striking account of Ervad Tehmuras Anklesaria as a young priest making his daily journey through the jungle for this purpose, in the palanpur district, armed with bow and arrows. The Iranis were not Permitted to carry weapons; but in the Yazdi area the man who looked after a daxmaFire used to arm himself with a drover' slashing chain for defence.Faridun Rashidi, ātaš-band of the Dādgāh at Sharīfābād, still carries such a chain on his twice-daily crossing of the desert to tent the Fire.

¹⁸ See Unvala, I, 71.11–13;Dhabhar, 58

¹⁹ i.e. at Yazd and Sharifādād in Iran, and at Bombay, Navsari, Surat, and many other places in India.Modi, discussing the Rivāyat passage in the light of Parsi Practice (see Journal of the K.R.cama Or.Inst., 23, 1932, 159–61)suggested that what was originally a temporary fire at the daxmacama to be a perpetual one at largo centres of Zoroastianism, where death was an almost everyday occurrence.

²⁰ On the old Parsi sagris seeModi, op.cit., p.160, n.1.

²¹ e.g.that of Allāhādād near Yazd, and Lonvala in the hills between Bomday and Poona; see further Modi, loc.cit

²² The data is given by K.N.Seervai and B.B. Patel, Gazetter of the Bomday Presidency, Ix, Part II, 1899, 248

²³ It is one of an Ādarān and rituals are not performed at it; but when a Dādgāh Fire burnsĀtaš Bahrān(as the`attendant' of the greater Fire), then it many be used in ritual observances.

²⁴ Phhl.ĀN, §13(Dhabhar, ZXA, 43, transl., 78).

²⁵ Thus, for example, the ruin of the toddy-farmers led in recent led in recent years to the departure of most of the Zoroastrians from the village of Tavdi near Navsari, where there was an Ādarān served by Karkaris priests; and this Fire has been brought to burn in a separate room in the Sir J.J.Agiary in Navsar itself.There are a number of other such cases. In Iran too when one Fire is temporaily given shelter in the Dar-i mihrof another, it is never brought into the sanctuary itself, but always placed in aroom apart.

²⁶ See, e.g., D.F.Karaka, History of the parsis, I, 48. The Irānshāhwas presumably so called bacause this Ātaš Bahrām was consecrated for thex arrahof the kings of Iran, in place of the Sasanian royal fire, which must must hav been extinguishd by the Arabs.On the existence of dynastic Fires in Iran, and their reduction to one royal fire by Ardašīr I, see the Tansar nāmeedM.Minovi, Tehran, 1932, 22, transl.Boyce(Rome Oriental Series. Literary and Historical Text from Iran, I, 1967), 47, and see further introd., 16–17.

²⁷ Information form, mobed Rustam Shahzadi of Tehram.

²⁸ See Seervai and Patel, op.cit., 249.

²⁹ On the successive buildings for the fire at Udwads see Seervai and patal, op.cit., 247.

³⁰ It is by mistake that the establishment of this Ātaš Bahrām is attributed to an individual, namely Kburshedji Desai (see H.F.chacha, Gajastak Abālish, 79). The consecration of the Fire was the work of the Bhagaria Anjoman; but the devont Khurshedji was a leading spirit, and in recognition of his services the Anjoman made him and his descendants trustees of the building.When the new temple was built for the Ātaš Bahrām this century, the Desais claimd the former one as their family property; but this claim was refuted from old documents (F.M.Kotwal). On the services of Khurshedji to the Navsari Fire see Modi, Journal of theK.R.cama Or, Inst., 25, 1933, 55–60, 136–44.

³¹ On these Fires see, e.g., chacha, op.cit., 79–80.

³² See Modi, op.cit., 139.

³³ See Seervai and patel, op.cit., 248–51.

³⁴ Ervad Nusservanji, himself a wealthy merchant, was the father of Ervad Jamshetji, founder of the great Tatasteelworks.

³⁵ SeeActa Orientaliaxxx, 1966, 70–2.

³⁶ It is this Dar-i mihr which is described by E.G.Browne (see his A year amongst Persians,408–9), who was shown it in 1888 by another, Ardashir, then head of the Yazdī Anjoman.

³⁷ MHD, 27.9(de Menasce, p.11).

³⁸ MHD, 27.10–11.

³⁹ MHD, 78.12(de m., 30).

⁴⁰ MHD, 34.I, T, 27.1, 3(de M., 14, 23).

⁴¹ MHD, 110.8(de M., 30);ef DK., vI, 301(ed.Madan, 538.4, 5);šāyest ne-šāyest, ix, 5, xx, I; Dādistān ī dēnīg Pursišn 47(ed.P.K.Anklesaria, Ph.D.thesis, University of London, 1958, 97.26, ān ī ātaxšān mān, 103.7), 80(A., 159.15, 18); nad further examples apud Tavadia, šnš., p.48, n.The termdar ī ātaxš(ān)also occurs, šnš., xx, 8, 9.

⁴² See MHD, 29.7(de M., 13), 46.2–3(de M., 19), T, 36.7(de M., 25).

⁴³ Pahiavi ĀN, § 18(Dhabhar, ZXA, P.45 with p.312).

⁴⁴ See Darmesteter, ZA, I, 153.

⁴⁵ See JRAS, 1966, 100–1.

⁴⁶ MHD, 50.3, 4(de m., 19).

⁴⁷ MHD, T, 39.12–13(de M., 27).

⁴⁸ KZ., Sābuhr, pe.I.21(see Henning, BSOS, IX, 4, 1939, 849);cf., e.g., MHD, T, 39.12–13(Ātaxš Abzōn-Ardašr).There are many similar xamples in the Pahlavi book and inscriptions.In this respect S.Wikander (Feuerpriester in Kleinasin und Iran, 104 f.)may well be right in his contention that fire-names with the element Ādur instead of Ātaxš belong to an attempt is Sasanian times to avoid the use of ādur and words compounded with it.

⁴⁹ MHD, 110.4 (de M., 29);cf.GBd., xviii, 8(ādurgāh Kē-š ātaxš andar būd;ed.T.D.Anklesaria, 124.7–8);Zādspram, xxix, 4(ātaxš⃛abar ādurgāh, twice; ed.B.T.Anklesaria, 105); and Dārāh.The term ātaxšgāh also occurs, e.g.Guj.Abališ;i, 5(ed.Barthélemy; Chacha, 0, 1);Dd., Purs.47(A., thesis, 103.11–12).

⁵⁰ MHD, I.7(de M., 7).

⁵¹ The usual Parsi term isbōyvālā, but the older expression is still in use(F.M.Kotwal).

⁵² MHD, 101.10(de M., 29), T, 39.9(de M., 27).

⁵³ MHD, I.9(de M., 7), 103.5–6(de M., 29).

⁵⁴ MHD, 101.9(de M., 29), T, 39.9(de M., 27), T, 40.1(de M., 28).

⁵⁵ In the phrase gumbad ī ātasšān ī wahrām, considered by Tavadia, šnš., p.48.n., it seems likely that there is also a straightforward plural, signifying Ātaš Bahrāmsin general.The ‘service of the Fires’is an instance where the differences between sasanian and modern society make themselves felt; for although the ātaxš-bandag was one who served the Fire, at times evidently in a humbler capacity than a priest (e.g.MHD, 101.8–, de M., 29, where a slave is given by his master to the bandagīh ī ādurān).yet the position could also clearlybe one bringing wealth and honour, or it would hardly have been granted to Mihr-Narseh, the highest position there, the bandagībh of certain great Fires could be us dignifined and lucrative as some rich Christian bishopric.

⁵⁶ MHD, 25.8–9(de m., 9).

⁵⁷ MHD, 297–9(de M., 13).

⁵⁸ MHD, 27.15–16(de M., 12).

⁵⁹ MHD, 29.9.

⁶⁰ MHD, 95.16–96.3(de M., 31).

⁶¹ Presumably, that is, since it had not sufficient endowment it, he re-endowed it.It is not justifiable to translate ātaxš⃛ka nē hamēšag-sōz būd as ‘Feu⃛qui n’était pas perpétuel’, and to assume from this that there existed a distinct category of Fires founded as temporary.

⁶² Māhādur Frāygušnasp was presumably the heir of the nameless priest, and had inherited the responibility of the Fire, but in his turn he found the endowment inadepuate, and was not able to supplement it himself.

⁶³ MHD, T, 39.5–7(de M., 27).

⁶⁴ MHD, 110.7–8(de M., 30).

⁶⁵ e.g.GBd., xviii, 8(ed.T.D.Anklesaria, 124.14–15).where it is said that by Yima Ādur X arrah ō dādgāh ⃛ nišād, and 13(ed.T.D.A., 125.14)taht by Vištāspa Ādur Burzēm Mihr–ōādāh nišāt; ef. Zand ī Vohuman Yašt, iv, 5, vii, 24; and the pahlavi Ātaxš Niyā, above, p.59.

⁶⁶ ‘in its state of the holy varharān Fire’, S.J.Bulsara, The laws of the ancient persians;‘en Feu Vrahrān’ de M., loc.cit., and with a discussion, 44 f.

⁶⁷ This is now descrided in Parsi books of ritual as installing the Fire‘with , buzorgī’.

⁶⁸ This spelling occurs three times, MHD, 26, 17, 27.6, T, 37.4. The variants are ’twwrlwk, 31.9, 10.and (by evident error)’twrlww, 27.8.In all but the last instance the word ends with the final formal nstroke.

⁶⁹ MHD, 31.8–15(de M., 13–14).There is temerity in attempting a translation of any passage of the MHD without first steeping oneself oneself in its diffcult legal idiom; and, with Father de Menasee, one awaits eagerly tho translation of Dr.Anahit Perikhanian, who has devoted so many years to this exacting task.

⁷⁰ MS p’tyxš’yh’.

⁷¹ MS YXBWNt before YTYBWNst, evidently by copyist's error.

⁷² MS XTYMWNyt.

⁷³ sic; de M., sāstārīh.

⁷⁴ MS L‘WXR; de M., ūl.

⁷⁵ MS YNSBWN-x¹.

⁷⁶ MS XTYMWNyt.

⁷⁷ MS BR’.

⁷⁸ MS xw’stk; the repetition is evidently a copist's error, as Bartholomae notes (Zum sas. Recht, I, p.24, n.2).

⁷⁹ According, as Bartholome observes (op.cit., I, p.24, n.1), as to whether the property concerned were moveables or fixed estate. On ādām in the sense of ‘mortgage’ see ibid., I, 43.

⁸⁰ As Bartholomae observes (p.24, n.2).the force of this ce is difficult to understand.

⁸¹ So Bartholomac;‘en paix’ de Menasce. But it is not justifiable to render drīst in this way, simply because its cognate drōd is represented by the ideoram šRM.The Semites invoke peace in greeting, the Iranians of old called down wholeness or health upon one another.The equation of words is on account of usag, not meaning.

⁸² The existence of such debts appears to have been one group for contesting the unsealed will.

⁸³ MHD, 26.17‘27.I(de M., 10).

⁸⁴ MHD, 26.17‘27.I(de M., 10).

⁸⁵ MHD, 27.5‘6(de M., II).

⁸⁶ MS zwlhwit’, which de menasce reads tentatively aszōr-xvart and proposes rendering as ‘falsification’. The context suggests, suggests, however, that at the change in its status the ātaš-zōhr or fat-offering to Fire(see JRAS, 1966.100 ff.)was made to the ‘tucelwk, whereby it became ‘zōhr-consuming’.The expression does not appear to be attsted elswhere; but for the sequence of ideas cf.GBd., xviii, 17:ātaxš⃛zōhr dahēnd ud ō Dādgāh nišānēnd(ed.T.D.A., 126.5–6).

⁸⁷ MHD, T, 37.2–8(da M., 25).

⁸⁸ Ms;Bulsara and de Menasco read hāvand.

⁸⁹ For the installing of a sacred Fire in an idol-temple, after the overthrow of the dēwswho inhabited it, cf.Gbd., xxxiii, 28(ed.T.D.A., 218.3–7);zVohuman yt., vii, 26, 36, 37.

⁹⁰ MHD, 94.3–6(de M., 31).

⁹¹ MS taken here as a corrupition of Zk.Bulsara and de Menasce accept it as the ideogram for hazār, and render as ‘1, 000’.

⁹² OP.cit., 44f.;Bulsara interpreted the word as Ātur-rukn ‘the pillar/seat of the Holy Flame’.

⁹³ The word ādurn is regularly speit’twwr(or’twr);and this from ocurs also in compounds, e.g.ādurgāh, spelt’twwrg’s. The real anomaly in the present word is the use of Iinstead of the rw letter; but without it one would have had a word written *’twwwwkevidently tooambiguous a spelling even for pahlavi conventions.Already at the older stage of the word (see below), when the I-orthorgraphywas evidently esrtablished, one would otherwis have had the awkward spelling *’twwk.

⁹⁴ Spiegel.124.13, 126.II.This word was rendered as ātanak by Bartholomae(Air.Wb., 319), butas ātrō by B.T.Anklesaria in his Pahi.Vendidād, 220.

⁹⁵ He is in fact permitted, under thses ancient laws, first to kill the man who has committed this outrage; hardly a likely ritual requirement if it were a question of the purposeful gathering of fires for hallowing.

⁹⁶ See JRAS, 1966, III.It is hoped to describe this ritual in detail elswehere. It is of course debatable whether there is scriptural autority for the actual uniting of the purified flame with the sacred Fire itself. The vd.passage simply enjoins the purified the purified fire to the sanctuary, as was the custom with the lesser holy Fires, see further below.

⁹⁷ This crermony is described in detail by Hormaz P.Pavry in his ‘High liturgies relating to bāj-dharnā’(Bombay, 1938, in Gujarati).257–8, who gives as his authority the ‘Rivāyat of 78 questions’, and thepāw-mahal book of a Qadīmī priest.Thus both his sources are unltimately Iranian.It seems all too likely that such a ritual became necessary more than once in conquered Iran; whereas probably the need for it never arose in India, where the Parsis guarded the Irānshāh and the Navsari Fire with dogged courage, and had no other Ātaš Bahrāms before the tranquil nineteenth century. According to Pavry(Kindly translated by Ervad Kotwal), the ritual of re-purification takes nine days, during which one of the ātaš-bandagān undergoes, vicariously, the Ātaš Bahrām, one on each day, in nine purified āfrīnagāns within the gumbad itself, the fire in one being allowed to grow cold when the fire in the tenth day (or eleventh, according to Navasri darašnompractice)the Fire is once more enthroned in its own great āfrīnagān, and the bōy bādanceremony, which has been intermitted, is performed again.

⁹⁸ See Unvala, I, 72, 73, 76;Dhabhar, 60–1.

⁹⁹ See Acta orientalia, xxx, 1966, 63–4.

¹⁰⁰ SBE.Iv, p.115, n.2. for centuries after their arrival in India the Parsis had only the one sacred Fire, the Irānshāh; and they in general recited prayers at thier household fires, which were kept ever-burning (as they still are in strictly orthodox parsi and Irani homes). Since each Parsi household was a fortress of the faith, that no juddīn might enter, the purity of these fires was preserved. Thus even in the ancient Wadi Dar-i mihrof Navsari, founded some 800 year ago by the first rituals performed there was brought daily from one of the priests’ homes near-by, to which it was afterwards carried back again.Accordingly the former parctice of taking household fire to the Dar-i mihr, and theDar-i mihrFire to the Ātaš Bahrāmwas established, it was necessary for the Parsi priests to consuit Pahlavi and Persian document for the forgotten ritual, see theQisseh-i Zartuštīān-i Hindōstān, II.527–42(apud J.J.Modi, Joural of the K.R.cama or.Inst17, 1930, 40–1).It is an interesting minor point that in the account given there of the consecration of the Ātaš Bahrām it is said that when the 16 fires and had been consecrated, they were placed together in one āduš(Qisseh, I.676:Modi, 48:be yek ādušt nihānrā). This word was evidently therefore still used in its ancient sences by the Parsis in the eighteenth century, see futther Acta Orientalia, xxx, 1966, 56–8.

¹⁰¹ ed.West, 50.

¹⁰² see West, glossary, 34.

¹⁰³ Another point of similarity exists if the interpretation of zōr-x and offiered above is correct, the present parsi equivalent of the ātaš-z is the māchi of sandalwood, which if offered particularly by many families at the uthamana(fourth-day)ceremony; but this offering would no be made to a Fire other than one installed in a gumbad(F.M.Kotwal).

¹⁰⁴ Similar storng contractions are not uncommon in Zoroastrian religious usage, e.g.nīrang. which is a contraction of nīrang ī āb Gōmēz yaštan.

¹⁰⁵ This Pazand conclusion, as it is recited now in india, is kindly supp;ied by Ervad Kotwal (for it is not given by Dhalla); see also Spiegel, khorda-Auesta, with minor variants.It is a rendering of the words from the pah;avi version of ĀN, §18, given above, p.59. the full text runs as follows:gorzē xorreh awxizāyād āataš bahrām/dādgān/dādāh ādarān šāh pērōzgar ādar gušnasp, ādar burzin mihir, awar ī ādarān ud ātašān ud ātašān kē pad dādgāh nēdgān nēšāst ēsted, gurzē xorreh awazāyād mī karkō amāwand pērōzgar.It is evidently the variation in the name of the Fire before which the prayer is said prayer is said taht is implied in the expression found in the Rivāyats ‘the Niyāyeš of Ātaš Ādarām’, see Unvala, I, 74.5, Dhabhar, 63.

¹⁰⁶ see Unvala, I, 67.8 and 68.6 (with the additional words from H.F.gien by Dhabhar, p.57, n.4).

¹⁰⁷ With such minor variants asmĀtaš Ādar (Unvala, I, 74.5)and simplyĀdar (ibid., 74.8). Dhabhar in his admirable (and admirably indexed) traslation of Rivāyars gives the term dādgāh as occurring once in connexion with a Fire, used of the sanctuary of an Ātaš Bahrām; but in the Persian text (Unvala, I, 168.16) the word in question appears as dargāh ‘court’. Thus the only usage of dādgāh in the published Rivāyats is a synonym for daxma. As Dhabhar points out (p.62, n.6), the description of the consecration of anĀdarān seems to have been loosely used.

¹⁰⁸ This is the explanation given by West, presumably on priestly authoroty, see SBE, xxIv, p.96, n.5.

¹⁰⁹ This is the interpreatation now generally accepted by Parsi Priests.

¹¹⁰ It is hoped in a subsequent article to discuss some of the ‘ fondations pieuses ’ of the MHD passages in the light of later usages.