CAIS
The Circle of Ancient Iranian Studies
[ Home ]
[ About CAIS ]
[ Daily News ]
[ News Archive ]
[ Articles ]
[ Image Library ]
[ Announcements ]
[ CAIS Seminars ]
[ Events Bulletin ]
[ Copyright ]
[ Disclaimer ]
[ Search ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Links ]
|
The
Significance of Avestan “čiθra”, Old-Persian “čiça”,
Pahlavi “čihr”, and Modern-Persian “čehr”, for
the Iranian Cosmogony of Light [1]
©
By: Abolala Soudavar Table
of Contents: 1.
Introduction 7.
Conclusion In
trying to explain the relevancy of the ubiquitous Sāsānian “ke čihr
az yazadān” idiom in Iranian kingship theories, and to refute the
claim of divine status for Sāsānian kings, I had previously relied on
the “common” knowledge that in Middle Persian, čihr had two
sets of meanings (1- face and appearance, 2 - seed and origin), and the
choice of the second set for čihr, over the first, was dictated by
Greek translations.[2] While my suggestion there—that the legend rather
implied that the king’s radiance
(in power and glory) reflected those of the gods—has already raised many
eyebrows, further research on the etymology of the word čihr and
the evolution of its meaning over time, now prompts me to espouse an even
more radical position, and to question the very validity of this second
set of meaning, not only in Middle Persian, but also in Avestic, Old
Persian and New Persian. It is most unfortunate that in all of these, in
addition to the wellfounded meaning of “appearance/brilliance,” other
meanings such as seed, origin, and nature, have been gradually adopted
with rather dire consequences for our comprehension of historical
documents—textual as well as visual. To
be sure, the task of refuting the validity of these additional meanings is
not an easy one, since a number of unfortunate circumstances:
have
all contributed to the acceptability of meanings beyond those derived from
the Proto-Indo-European root cit (to appear/ to shine), which
constitutes the basis for a primary set of meanings for čiθra and
its progenies.[4]
And, the mere number of—mostly independent—support cases for a second
set of meanings, seems to vouch against any effort to negate it. Yet, the
ultimate arbiter for the acceptance of any meaning should be its
contextual relevancy. If in every encountered situation one can prove that
the second set leads to a non-sense, or provides a weaker meaning than
that provided by the first set, said set looses its relevancy and should
be discarded. And that is what we shall try to achieve in this study. Philologists
may be surprised to see an almost total absence of philological
considerations in my approach.[5]
It is however hoped that the contextual argument, complemented by parallel
historical considerations, will bring to light such a coherent use of the
word čehr and its antecedents that it will ultimately overshadow
all other concerns. Moreover, it is hoped that my conclusions about the
similarity in the Sasanians’ and Achaemenids’ formulation of kingly
power—that will emerge at the end of this study— will further justify
my efforts for unifying the disparate meanings of this family of words.
My
belief in a single set of meaning for NP čehr and its antecedents
was fostered by the fact that nowadays, čehr only evokes one set
of meanings. Indeed, every single example cited for čehr in the
comprehensive Dehxodā dictionary, pertains to the first set, and
projects a meaning of appearance and radiance, for instance:[6]
Of
all the citations squeezed into the two and half pages of small script of
that dictionary, none convey a meaning of seed or origin. At the very end
of the relevant entry however, we find a reference to a meaning of
“nature” proposed by the Borhān-e Qāte` (the problem of which
I shall address further below),[7]
and a meaning of “seed” and “origin” adopted by Pourdavoud in his
Avestan endeavors. Neither of the two assertions rests on an example, nor
on a citation.[8]
They simply repeat oft quoted meanings for earlier stages in the evolution
of čehr, namely, the Middle Persian čihr and the Avestan čiθra.
The
obvious question then is: if čihr and čiθra, each in
their own context, really conveyed a meaning of seed or origin, how can it
be that there is no trace of it in Persian literature? For after all, the
use of the “ke čihr az yazadān” legend was not confined to
rural inscriptions alone, but prominently figured on coins of
mass-circulation, and the Avesta was not only an omnipresent
feature of Iranian culture in the pre-Islamic period, but remained as one
of its points of reference for centuries after the Arab conquest. If a
meaning of seed/origin did really exist in the Avestan context or for the
legends on coins of mass-circulation, surely some trace of it was to be
found in Persian literature. Its very absence today, invites closer
scrutiny for earlier periods.
3.
PAHLAVI (Middle Persian) context One
can never claim to have addressed every possible situation, but the
examples below cover most, if not all, variations in meaning of the Middle
Persian čihr:
A
passage of the Dēnkard is most interesting for the purpose of this
study, since it provides a definition of the word čihr, and an
insight into its function as a source of energy. I shall rely on the
latest edition of this passage by Taffazoli and Amouzegar, which provides
an excellent transcription of its text but needs rectification in regards
to its translation:[9] “(24.29)
ud tan-iz ud griw wirāyišn pad ān čihr ī nē rōz rōz abāg paristārih
ōwōn wardišnig būd sazāgihā bē brēh ī wehīh ud xwarrah ī xwēškārih
ud hu-xradih ī sūdōmand ud dānišn ī frārōn ud xwāstag ī wēš
frayādišnig ud abārīg-iz nēkih ī pahlom mehmānīh pad yazdānparistagān” «
(24.29) il est convenable de s’adapter, corps et âme, à la nature qui,
elle, ne change pas tellement chaque jour selon le service (qu’on lui
demande) ; mais le destin de la bonté, la gloire – à savoir la
fonction – la bonne sagesse profitable, la bonne connaissance, les biens
qui sont très secourable et d’autres excellentes qualités résident
ainsi davantage chez les adorateurs des dieux. » The
above translation has been rendered meaningless, by the adoption of
“nature” for the meaning of čihr, which in turn, has caused
the wrong translation of the word rōz, as “day” rather than
“luminosity.”[10]
Furthermore, in order to squeeze some meaning out of this double-error,
the translators saw in the two successive “rōz”s, an
indication of a continuous and recurring phenomenon (something akin to
“day by day”).[11]
It is obvious however, that the “ezāfeh” ī after čīhr cannot
stick to the negative article nē alone, but relates to a nē-rōz
combination that acts as a qualifying adjective for čīhr. By
considering the original meaning of čihr as appearance/radiance,
it immediately follows that čihr ī nē-rōz refers to a radiance
that has lost its luminosity, and that the second rōz sits at the
beginning of a new sentence which explains how to restore that lost
luminosity. Such an interpretation is fully supported by what follows in
that section: the lost rōz can be restored by the sparkle (brāh/brēh)
of goodness, and the aura (“xwarrah”)[12]
that is associated with a number of qualities that God-worshippers should
normally have. Moreover, the above passage comes in response to one of the challenging questions that the Christian Bōxt-Mārē puts before Ādur-Farrobay in the Dēnkard: Question: “And why is it that in the body and soul of God-worshippers, the sparkle, and aura, and wisdom, and learning, and richness, and other kinds of goodness are not more manifest than among the demonworshippers?”[13] By structuring the question in this order, its author recognizes “sparkle” and “aura” as the two most important qualities that the soul and body of a believer should have. It is therefore quite natural that in response, Ādur-Farrobay would address the case of those who have lost their radiance, and would propose a remedy for it. The answer should therefore read: Answer: And [in the matter of] the body and soul adorned with a radiance that has lost its luminosity, [said] luminosity can be suitably restored by the sparkle [generated by] goodness, the aura [generated by] being dutiful [in religious tasks], and the beneficial good wisdom, and the straightforward learning, and the desire (xwāstag) to help more others (wēš frayādišnig), and other excellent blessings that are best suited to reside with God-worshippers. Even
though the text of the Dēnkard was written in the 9th century, its
spirit is rooted in the Avesta; particularly in the Farvardin Yašt
where Ahura-Mazdā repeatedly attributes his creative powers to the
“rayi and glory (xvarnah)” of the fravašis of
the Righteous people (ašāvans).[14]
Most scholars consider the word rayi therein as a derivative of the
root raē- (wealth), and in order to fit it into that context,
translate it as “brightness/splendor,” presumably equating wealth with
glittering jewelry. Malandra however, translates it as “insight” and
considers it to be derived from a homonym, rāy-[15]
the one that has given us NP rāy.[16]
The latter is often described by adjectives such as bright or obscure, and
even likened to bright stars such as Jupiter at night.[17]
Such descriptions rest on the ancient belief that vision was made possible
by the inner light of the eye. To this day, a loss of vision is equated
with a loss of “light,” and the eye is qualified as kam-su (low-light)
and a dear one is called nur-e čašm (the light of my eye). A more
appropriate meaning for rayi would therefore be “point of
view,” or more simply “viewing capacity.”[18] The
Malandra interpretation, not only leads us to a better justification for
recognizing rayi as radiance and light, but functionally, brings it
into harmony with the xvarnah that is coupled with it. Indeed, an
important characteristic of the xvarnah is its variability: it can
be strong, weak or non-existent.[19]
Unlike the wealth-related raē-combination that must necessarily be
translated by a word that defines a continuously exalted—therefore
non-variable—state, the “radiance” translation for rayi gives it the
same variable characteristic as xvarnah. If “brightness” or
“splendor” can also be used for its translation, it’s only because
the strength of the rayi that Ahura-Mazdā relies upon for creation
(or other feats) is due, in the Farvardin Yašt, to its emanation
from the ašavans. Without such an association, the rayi may
not necessarily be bright. In either case, whether derived from raē- or a homonym, rayi seems to be light in substance, and together with the xvarnah, which is often projected in a radiating form,[20] becomes a source of energy that the fravašis of the Righteous people carried and that Ahura-Mazdā could exploit. Similarly, the čihr that Ādur-Farrobay saw as a necessary attribute of God-worshippers (i.e., righteous people), must be considered as a radiance that acted as a source of power and energy. 3.2.
The apparent nature of čihr Since one’s appearance is very much tied to one’s nature, it is not surprising that dictionaries such as the Borhān-e Qāte`, translate čehr as nature.[21] But the following example from the previously mentioned edition of the Dēnkard, clearly shows that even when “nature” provides an adequate translation, “apparent nature” better describes that situation: “(22a)
ud čim ī ān yōjdahgarīh nē zan bē mard kardan ēk wēš amāwandīh
ī nar ī ahlaw ud wēš-samīhā sijdīh ī dēwān aziš ud nārīgān
ōy-iz petyārag ī sarādag ō čīhr
abyoxt ēstēd narrīh-iz ī awēšān drūzān rāy az mādagān kam tarsēd
ud pad-iz abārīg kār ī nē ōwōn mādagig mard az zan weh šāyēd
…” «(22a)
une des raisons pour laquelle la purification n’est pas exécutée par
une femme, mais par un homme, c’est qu’un homme juste possède plus de
force (qu’une femme) et que les démons le fuient avec plus de peur. Cet
antagoniste de l’espèce des femmes s’est attaché lui aussi à leur
nature. Et parce que ces druzs sont mâles, ils ont peu peur des femmes ;
et même dans d’autres affaires qui ne sont pas aussi essentielles (que
celle-ci), les hommes sont plus aptes (à le faire) que les femmes …»[22]
From the first sentence of the above passage, it is clear that the purifier’s job is not to get entangled with demons, nor to physically fight them, but to function as a scare-crow, and make them run away at sight. And since demons are male creatures and know that they are stronger than women, should a woman stand as a purifier, her inherent weakness will be divulged by her appearance (i.e. pronounced breasts, hairless face, etc…), and thus, the demons will not be scared away. The underlined sentence is therefore better translated as: …and
any antagonistic posture of women is undermined by their [physical]
appearance… A
heading from the Middle Persian text Dādestān ī Dēnīg, which
reads as: “hu-dēnān
ī ēd pursīdārān: az stāyišnīg nērōg ī čihr ud zōr ī gōhr ud
daxšag ī xrad ud nišān ī hunar …” has recently been translated as: “To
those of Good Religion, who are asking these things about the praiseworthy
strength of nature, and the power of nature, and the signs of wisdom and
proof of ability …”[23]
By translating čihr as “nature,” we face a redundancy in title that even 19th century Qājār literary figures, who so cherished repetition, would have avoided. The title obviously enumerates varied questions that people had, and therefore, since nērōg and zōr are equivalent and both mean strength and power, čihr must represent something other than gōhr (NP gohar, Ar. jowhar, meaning “substance/nature”). This deduction is further strengthened by a passage that enumerates the faculties that the Creator endows man with, among which we have čihr ī xwad bizešk translated as “self-healing nature”: “2.13
For when the most beneficent and perfect Creator achieved the creation of
the Lord in the wholly wonderful way, with the attack of the Evil Spirit,
(he changed) the static existence into a dynamic spiritual +world. As a
conspicuous example, (he changed) the invisible (and) unmingled spirit
into a visible one. He placed the growing spirit of the +soul
as a virtuous lord in the body so that it may move in the material world.
He announced and adorned the +animating life and the preserving frawahr,
and +acquisitive memory and the protective intelligence, and the
discerning wisdom, and the +self-healing nature [čihr ī xwad bizešk],
(and) the organizing power, (he announced and adorned) the eye to see the
ear to hear, the nose to smell, the mouth to recognize flavors, the body
to +feel a +touch, the +heart to think the tongue to speak, the hand to
practice, the foot to walk. These (faculties) which cause the improvement
of the soul and +increase of the flow of the blood (?), these which are
elated to the body…”[24] Except
for the supposed “self-healing nature” description, every other
enumerated faculty in this passage is describing a certain aspect of
man’s nature. It does seem odd therefore, to have the nature of man
qualified—as a whole—within a list enumerating only particular aspects
of it. Moreover, if the nature of man was really self-healing, Ahriman and
the Druj (the Lie) could never harm it. For, whatever went wrong, man’s
nature had the capacity to rectify it. The “xwad bizešk” faculty,
rather than “self-healing,” should be understood as one that acts as a
man’s own doctor (bizešk), i.e., one that could see and
understand man’s own illnesses but, like any other physician, was not
necessarily able to cure them. Since čihr essentially sheds light
on one’s problem, it is better described as a source of light rather
than “nature.” In
any event, by alluding to the power (nērog) of čihr, the
initial title provides a further justification for my conclusion in
section 3.1: that čihr was a source of power, similar to the xvarnah. 3.4.
Čihr as visage and appearance The
Manichaean text, Šāpuragān, brings out yet another meaning of čihr:
It states that in the final phase of the world and on the Day of
Judgment, the Great Fire ascends to the heavens in the čihr of
Ohrmazd-bagh (the Primordial Man).[25]
This of course provides the closest meaning to NP čehr, and is
synonymous with NP čehreh, i.e., visage and appearance.
3.5. The input from iconography
As
already mentioned, I had concluded in a previous study that, in respect to
Sāsānian stone-reliefs, the “ke čihr az yazadān” idiom
indicated that gods and kings were meant to reflect each other in
appearance and Glory. Consequently, I was able to describe the
stone-reliefs of Barm-e Delak, Tāq-e Bostān and Naqš-e Rostam, as a
coherent expression of kingly power sanctioned by deities such as
Ahura-Mazdā, Anāhitā, Apām-Napāt and Miθra.[26] Conversely,
the very fact that the intriguing composition of these stone-eliefs could
not be otherwise explained, gives credence to my interpretation of said
idiom. Unless a more plausible explanation is presented—and there are
none to my knowledge that, for instance, can adequately explain that: if
the male figures of the Investiture of Narseh at Naqš-e Rostam
(fig. 1) are non-deities, then why is it that they so accurately reflect
the king, especially in the parallelism of their limbs, rippled trousers,
and multitude of flying ribbon, rather than depicting a subordinate in a
position of respect? And who is the boy?—the čihr of this Sāsānian
idiom should be understood as referring to a similarity in appearance and
glory.
The
major support for čihr’s second set of meanings has always been
the contemporary translations, particularly the one carved next to the
investiture scene of Šāpur I at Naqš-e Rajab, which qualifies the king
and his father to belong to “the family (γενουσ) of gods”
and suggests a meaning of “seed/origin” for čihr.[27] I
had previously raised two major objections for this interpretation:
Translators
did not always adhere to the principle of strict equivalence,[30]
and in the Greco-Roman context, in which, even the lover-boy of Hadrian
(r. 117-38) was deified, it made sense for a translator to elevate the
rank of the Iranian king to that of the Romans. This purpose was
facilitated by the use of the epithet baγ for Sāsānian kings in
regal inscriptions. In Achaemenid times, the word baγa unequivocally
meant god, but followed the path of degeneracy to become later on an
honorific epithet. The question then is: what did it mean in Sāsānian
times? Fortunately,
the Sāsānian era is included in a time-bracket for which one can
demonstrate that baγ was used as a regal title at both ends. On
the late end, we have the passage of baγ into Turkic languages as bنg/beyg,
clearly
a title with no divine or religious connotations.[31]
Since bنg
first
appears in the Orkhon inscriptions of the 8th century, we are at least
assured that by the end of the Sāsānian era, its antecedent baγ, had
gained full temporal status.
Thus,
like the English word “lord” and the French “seigneur,” by Sāsānian
times, baγ had acquired a temporal meaning. As a regal epithet, it
meant “lord, majesty” with no divine connotations whatsoever.[33]
In Iranian literature, no king ever claimed divine power, except Jamšid.
And when the latter did that, he immediately lost his kingship![34]
But to further complicate the issue, instead of the normal Pahlavi
spelling, occasionally, baγ was written as an ideogram (“ALHA”).[35]
For a Syriac translator dealing with a Semitic language (as opposed to
Greek), this spelling naturally evoked “god,” and suggested divine
claim. It was thus used—in a negative way—by the author of an account
on Christian martyrdom under Šāpur II, who clearly had an ideological
incentive to deride the Sāsānian king, and accuse him of blasphemy.[36]
In
sum, the translation argument is not as solid as it seems. Two
possible precedents may reinforce the interpretation of our Sāsānian
idiom as an indicator of god-sanctioned authority for the king (rather
than divine origin). The first is the inscription on coins from Persis
under the generic formula: [king’s name] prtrk' zy 'lhy' ([king’s
name] prataraka of gods), that is datable to the beginning of the
Arsacid era.[37]
Prataraka has hitherto not been defined in the Iranian context, but
“in the official Aramaic documents it seems to mean something like
prefect, superintendent or foreman.”[38]
Thus, following the departure of the Seleucids, the kings of Persis
(present day Fārs and home of the later Sāsānians) altered the divine
connotations of the Greek regal slogans by introducing a word that should
probably be translated here as “deputy.” The king of Persis is then
characterized as “deputy of god on earth,” similar to the Islamic
formula: zill-ollāh (shadow of god on earth), and very much in
line with the ancient notion of a king reflecting the gods’ power and
authority.[39] A second possibility is offered by a passage in the Tir Yašt in which the star Tištrya is said to have received his čiθra from Apām-Napāt.[40] Structurally, it provides a close parallel to the Sāsānian idiom, for here again one entity derives its čiθra/čihr from another. Since we shall argue in the following section that čiθra can only mean “brilliance” in this passage, we can conclude here that čihr—as a progeny of čiθra —was used to indicate reflective radiance, and that such a concept was ingrained in ancient Iranian cosmogony, and that the radiance of čihr was indeed a source of power and energy from which kings and rulers derived their authority (or more precisely, through which they projected authority). A
summary look at the Avesta had suggested to me that the translation
of čiθra as “seed” in many passages didn’t seem right.
Fortunately, Jean Kellens not only confirmed this suspicion, but also
expressed his belief that in the whole of the Avesta, čiθra only
meant “appearance” or “brilliance,” and that gao-čiθra,
as a description of the moon, should simply be understood as the same term
would be in New Persian: i.e., that “it appears as a bull.”[41] 4.1.
Gao-čiθra
This
point of view obviously offers a much simpler explanation than the
conventional—but incongruent—conception that the “moon carries the
seed of the bull;”[44]
a conception that is mostly based on the Bundahišn imagery. In the
Bundahišn however, the seed/semen of the bull is taken to the moon
for purification only. There is absolutely no indication that the semen
remained there. To the contrary, the purification was immediately followed
by the creation of species, explained in the following terms: “first a
pair of bovines—a cow and a bull—then, from every other specie, a pair
on earth, in Erānvēj.”[45]
the
number of sounds it utters.[46]
Thus the idea of a bull appearing in the sky, and associated with the
moon, was rather widespread. In what follows, I shall test Kellens’
theory for the instances in which the second set of meaning has enticed
many other scholars to adopt it. 4.2.
Afš-čiθra Tištrya’s
description as afš-čiθra (Yt 8:4), is generally translated as
“containing the seed of water,”[47]
presumably on the account of its similarity with gao-čiθra, and
the fact that Tištrya is somehow involved in the movement of water on
earth. His involvement though, is not for bringing water to earth but to
make the water of lake Vouru.kaša surge and flow (Yt 8:8, 30). In none of
his avatars is he said to carry water to earth, nor make use of his
presumed seeds of water. His source of water is lake Vouru.kaša and
therefore on earth. More
importantly, in the Yašts, afš-čiθra is not an exclusive
quality of Tištrya but seems to apply to all stars (Yt 12:39); and in the
Vendidad, in an invocation addressed to the “afš-čiθra” stars,
they are requested to shed light on earth (21.13). It makes a lot more
sense to request bright stars to produce light, than stars which
“contain the seeds of water” or “are of watery nature.”[48]
The context favors a meaning of brilliance, i.e., one of the two original
meanings of čiθra. Stars are therefore characterized with an afš
brilliance quality. The question then is: what does exactly afš mean
in this combination? Afš
is
a derivative of ap (water). It has also provided the NP verb afšāndan
(to spray), which is primarily used for water, perfume and other
liquids, and by extension for granules such as gold.[49]
We may thus surmise that afš implied water in a raindrop form. Afš-čiθra
would then mean “glittery as raindrops,” a very appropriate term
for stars which often scintillate in the sky.[50] In
Yt 8:4, Tištrya is described as opulent, glorious, afš-čiθra (glittery),
and with a series of other qualities followed by the sentences: “yahmāt
hača berezāt haosravanghem apām nafəδrat hača čiθrəm” Malandra
translates the above as: “the
exalted one from whom (comes) renown—from Apām-Napāt (comes his?)
lineage.”[51] The
translation seems confusing and ill-defined. However, with two corrections
we may obtain a more intelligible result. The first is to acknowledge that
Apām-Napāt’s name should have been repeated at the end of the stanza
but is not, because of the traditional Avestic pattern of repetition
avoidance. He was thus the source of both renown and čiθra for Tištrya
(the star Sirius).[52]
The second is to translate čiθra as brilliance, because the main
qualities of that star are all of luminous nature (Yt 8:2: white,
shining, seen afar, … piercing from afar with its shining undefiled
rays), and befit Sirius, the brightest star in the sky at nighttime. As
the Lord of the night and seas, Apām-Napāt was the appropriate ahurā
to have bestowed Tištrya with the qualities that so distinguished him
at nighttime. To talk about lineage here is to confuse the Iranian
pantheon with the Greek one, where deities were actively procreating.[53] 4.3.
Raēva.čiθra In
the Ābān Yašt, Anāhitā approaches a certain boatman, in disguise:
“64. Arədvi Sūrā Anāhitā lowed
up to (him) in the form of a beautiful, very strong maiden, well built,
high girdled, erect, noble in respect to (her) illustrious lineage, in
shoes worn to the ankle with bright golden laces.”[54] To
pass as a maiden, all that mattered was her look. It did not matter
whether the jewelry that she wore was inherited or recently acquired,
whether she was an aristocrat or a nouveau-riche. Lineage is not
necessarily an apparent trait. Along with the rest of the description, “raēvat.čiθrəm
āzātayه”
(which
has been translated by the underlined sentence above) should describe what
was visible at first sight. Since the first word is generally
understood as “wealthy” and the last means “noble,” a more
appropriate translation would be: “with the rich look of the nobles,”
i.e., she appeared nobly splendid. One again, the primary meaning of čiθra
better fits the context. 4.4.
Aša-čiθra In
his translation of Yt 19:12, Malandra has opted to translate čiθra as
family: “
…The Lie shall retreat to wherever it was whence it came in order to
destroy the righteous man, him and (his) family and his being.”[55] In
the case of the Sāsānian idiom though, we saw that despite a Greek
translation as “family,” only “seed” or “origin” were adopted
to define čihr. Malandra’s choice here is, in fact, symptomatic
of the difficulties caused by the introduction of the second set of
meaning in general. He had to extrapolate it one step further, into
“family,” in order to get a somehow more meaningful sentence. The
shorter extrapolation, i.e., “lineage,” would have resulted in a
non-sense, because the rest of the family would have still been alive and
able to continue the lineage. Moreover,
righteousness is not hereditary. The progenies of an ašāvan do
not become automatically ašāvans, and the Lie certainly nurtured
hopes of converting every newborn to his cause. Therefore, he had no
incentive to destroy potential recruits for his own army. What
the passage in fact recounts is that the Lie had come to destroy the
righteous man, the ašāvan, and that destruction is explained as
one involving both his čiθra and his being. The concept that I
alluded to in 3.1 is relevant here, for we saw that even when the ašāvan
was dead, his “lights” (i.e., his rayi and glory) remained,
and acted as a source of energy for Ahura-Mazdā, and that the čiθra of
the righteous man was very much the same. His annihilation therefore,
involved not only the destruction of his “being” but also of his čiθra,
i.e., his radiance. By
the same token, we can assume that for the term aša-čiθra, a
translation such as “of just appearance” or “he who radiates
justice” is more appropriate than the incongruous description:
“containing
the seed or principle of Aša.”
Finally,
there is a further consideration for the choice involving the two
meanings. A religious text, like a political slogan, seeks maximum effect
through relevancy and actuality. “Seed” implies a future potential;
radiance and appearance evoke immediacy. The latter is therefore more
relevant, more dramatic, and therefore more potent. 4.5.
Arya-čiθra In
Yt 13.87, čiθra again has been understood as seed: |
The
sequence leaves no room for the semen to reside on the moon. Moreover,
according to Biruni, the sixteenth of the month of Dey was celebrated by
Iranians as the day that young Fereydun rode a bull, and on that night,
each year the image of a bull appears in the sky with golden horns and
silver hoofs, which pulls the cart of the moon. For the same night, Biruni
also reports another popular belief according to which a bull appears in
the sky and augurs a year of abundance or drought, according to