Introduction
The Middle Persian Nāmagīhā ī Manuščihr “Epistles of Manuščihr” (NM) are an important testimony of an inner-Zoroastrian dispute on orthopraxy in ninth-century Iran.Footnote 1 They reflect controversies between traditionalist positions and reformist tendencies among Zoroastrian priesthood under Muslim rule. These concern ritual issues but also the question of who has the decision-making authority to make changes in the religious doctrine and practice. The great significance of the “Epistles” is evident in the fact that they have been transmitted through centuries as an important example of traditionalist priestly argumentation against innovations that were not accepted as being consistent with the authoritative religious texts (Avesta and Zand). The manuscripts transmit the “Epistles”, together with the Dādestān ī dēnīg “Religious Judgements”, another work by Manuščihr; the so-called anonymous anthology “Pahlavi Rivāyat accompanying the Dādestān ī dēnīg” and the Wizīdagīhā “Selections” authored by Zādspram. All these texts deal with miscellaneous subjects of the faith, such as cosmology, eschatology, ritual, priesthood, the life of the prophet Zarathustra as well as legal and social matters. They have an apologetic character and aim to demonstrate the unity of faith in giving answers on controversial matters, due to the difficult historical situation of diminishing Zoroastrian communities.Footnote 2 One must add that these texts are mostly very difficult, with unclear sentence boundaries and readings, ambiguous words, learned theological expressions as well as many misspellings, misreadings and reinterpretations of words by the copyists of the manuscripts.
The “Epistles”, written in 881 ce, consist of three letters authored by Manuščihr, son of J̌uwānǰam (manuščihr ī ǰuwānǰamān),Footnote 3 the “leader of the class of priests” (āsrōnān pēšag framādār) of Pārs and Kermān,Footnote 4 with the titles Rad “spiritual master”Footnote 5 and Hērbed “teacher-priest”.Footnote 6 His letters are a reaction to a simplification of the purification ritual Baršnūm introduced by his younger brother, the priest Zādspram, the Hērbed of Sīrgān in Kermān (today’s Sīrǧān)Footnote 7. Zādspram himself had informed Manuščihr about his decree in a letter, which is unfortunately lost. But the latter responds to some of Zādspram’s arguments in his “Epistles”.Footnote 8 Another letter was sent to Manuščihr along with an additional document by the religious authorities (wehān) of Sīrgān who complain to him about Zādspram’s reform.Footnote 9 In reply, Manuščihr wrote three letters to make his position clear and to express his concerns regarding that reform: NM 1 to the religious authorities of Sīrgān, NM 2 to his brother Zādspram and NM 3 as an open letter to the faithful ones of Iran. In his “Epistles”, Manuščihr shows himself to be a traditionalist theologian who strives for the observance of the correct rituals – here the Baršnūm purification – as handed down in the authoritative texts. This position is easy to understand in a Muslim environment in which Zoroastrians had become a religious minority. For the priests it was important to defend their tradition and to preserve the unity of the faith, externally towards Muslim authorities and internally to prevent the communities from schism and the danger of vanishing. Therefore, Manuščihr recognized that Zādspram’s decree would cause severe problems, cause priestly authority to be questioned and eventually also diminish the income of the priests who were necessary for the performance of the ritual.
This article focuses on Manuščihr’s letter to Zādspram (NM 2).Footnote 10 It is especially interesting for two reasons. On the one hand, it is a witness to a historical theological debate on ritual practice between two priests. The article will discuss Manuščihr’s argumentation. What are his arguments for defending the comprehensive Baršnūm ritual against its simplification introduced by Zādspram? What does he criticize as false, that is, inconsistent with the religious tradition? What are the consequences of Zādspram’s innovation that he is warned of? Which sources does he quote to support the correct knowledge on the ritual? To whom does he ascribe the authority regarding decisions on dogmatic matters? On the other hand, his letter gives rare insight into the personal relationship between two brothers. This article sheds light on the question of whether family ties may have affected the relationship between the two priests and also Manuščihr’s argumentation – a point that has not been studied sufficiently. Moreover, the linguistic expressions and style of this letter are examined here with the focus on how they support Manuščihr’s argumentation and to what extent they reflect the concerns of the priest regarding the correct ritual or that of the brother regarding the family. Manuščihr’s letter to Zādspram is analysed from these perspectives. The results will contribute to an understanding of Manuščihr’s contradictory position towards Zādspram as a priestly authority and as a brother.
1. The correct purification ritual
The Baršnūm was the highest purification ritual for Zoroastrians in the ninth century and indispensable for those who had been polluted by the carrion-demon Nasā, that is, by contact with corpses or other dead matter.Footnote 11 It is described in detail in the Pahlavi Vidēvdād (PV) 9.1–36.Footnote 12 The comprehensive ritual consisted of a series of ablutions of the whole body, from head to foot, with consecrated bull’s urine (gōmēz), dust or sand (xāk) and water (āb) in a prescribed amount, number and sequence at a specially prepared place with nine pits and a system of furrows. Two “purifiers” (yōǰdāsrgarān) were necessary to supervise the ritual and recite prayers.Footnote 13 After the ablution, the cleansed person had to stay in seclusion for nine days and undergo final washings. The PV also describes gradually simplified purification rituals corresponding to lower grades of pollution with Nasā. The simplest and shortest one was “the fifteen” (pānzdah, < Av. panca.dasa-), that is, the fifteen-times washing with gōmēz and one-time washing with water by the polluted person without any purifier (PV 8.97–103, Moazami Reference Moazami2014: 262–7).Footnote 14 This procedure was only permitted under exceptional circumstances such as the polluted person being in wilderness and even after three attempts being unable to find a purifier, and also only if the corpse that was the cause of the pollution had already been defleshed by animals.Footnote 15 If the corpse was not yet eaten, the “thirty ablutions” (sīh šōy) had to be performed, that is, fifteen ablutions downwards and fifteen ablutions upwards. But Zādspram’s decree aimed to establish “the fifteen” as the general purification ritual.Footnote 16 He may have argued for it for practical reasons since the complete Baršnūm was costly and required two qualified purifiers and a sufficient amount of gōmēz, which was not easy to maintain in the diminishing Zoroastrian communities of his time under Muslim rule. He may have also observed – based on his studies in natural sciences – that the simpler purification was sufficient to serve the purpose of avoiding infection caused by the Nasā.Footnote 17 But from the viewpoint of Manuščihr and the learned religious authorities of Sīrgān, this was inadmissible. In his letter to Zādspram, Manuščihr insistently tries to persuade his brother to nullify his decree by bringing in crucial arguments.Footnote 18
The question of ritual purity is the central issue of Manuščihr’s letter. Thus, he states that there is a difference between “clean” (pāk) and “(ritually) pure” (yōǰdāsr) since otherwise even a demon would be “clean” (dēw ēw pāk, NM 2.4.3). Without purity of the body (yōǰdāsrīh ī tan) one is not able to purify the soul (ruwān yōǰdāsrēnīdan nē tuwān) (NM 2.3.1).Footnote 19 Manuščihr argues that even the simplest way of ablution should be the “thirty washings” and not “the fifteen”, since the washings have to be performed “fifteen times upwards and fifteen times downwards, and each at (full) extent” (pānzdah bār ī ulīg ud pānzdah bār ī frōdēn ud ēk ī frārāst, NM 2.4.2). Therefore, he reproaches his brother – “on account of greed and (being) evil” (ruzdīh ud wadag rāy) – for “having relinquished the upwards-washing and downwards-washing” (frasnātə̄e ud upasnātə̄e ul hišt, NM 2.3.1).Footnote 20 This simplified procedure would make the whole ritual ineffective as regards purification (NM 2.4.3).Footnote 21
To support his arguments, Manuščihr quotes the relevant passage from PV 8.98–103 in which the “thirty washings” are described, and especially PV 8.98–99 where the terms frāz šōyišnīh “washing upwards, forwards; upward ablution” and abar šōyišnīh “washing downwards, backwards, over; downward ablution” are used.Footnote 22 The importance of the correct method of purification becomes apparent when Manuščihr describes the severe consequences of the incorrect ritual practice as propagated in Zādspram’s decree. It has caused “much harm, injustice (and) severe thinking of men” (was zyān a-dādīh škeft-handēšišnīh ī mardōmān, NM 2.2.2), that is, for the Zoroastrian community, and even caused “torment of (and) dispute (concerning) Ohrmazd and Zarduxšt” (darrišn [ud] pahikārišn ī ohrmazd ud zarduxšt, NM 2.1.14). Manuščihr also refers to a cosmical aspect of the ritual and quotes PV 9.41–42, that “even the stars and the moon and the sun shine unwillingly on that one” (star-iz ud māh ud xwaršēd a-hunsandīhā padiš tābēnd) who is “polluted” (rist, NM 2.3.1).Footnote 23 In contrast to that, the correct ritual brings “great propitiation” (meh šnāyēnīdārīh, NM 2.3.1) to the creation of Ohrmazd.Footnote 24 Moreover, incorrect purification heavily affects the soul. It causes a “burden on the soul” (bār ī pad ruwān, NM 2.1.14), since the sins of the polluted ones are allotted (wināh ud tōzišn awiš baxšīhēd, NM 2.3.1) to those people who are able and also obliged to perform the ritual correctly and do not perform it.Footnote 25 This also applies to the priest who is responsible for the ritual or has ordered it, in this case to Zādspram (NM 2.3.1, 9.2).Footnote 26 Manuščihr expresses his concern that Zādspram’s decree may even open the door for a call for the total abolishment of the purification ritual, if it is not done according to the “orthodox” teachings (that is, according to the religious tradition), as the “malignant people” (duš-kāmagān) do (NM 2.9.8–11). He mentions the “heterodox” or “heretic people” (ǰud-ristagān) and “people of different beliefs” (ǰud-wurrrawišnān) who are doing a lot of “house-dividing” (that is, causing schism?) (xānag-wiškinn)Footnote 27 as regards the religious doctrine and practice. This passage seems to reflect ongoing contemporary discussion about the purification ritual that may not only apply to Zādspram’s decree.Footnote 28
2. The sources for the knowledge on the correct ritual
Manuščihr’s argument is that the religious authoritative texts Avesta and Zand are sources of the correct knowledge on the purification ritual. As regards the Zand, he refers to the “three teachings” (se čāštag) of the renown commentators Mēdyōmāh, Abarg and Sōšyans (NM 2.2.3–4, 6, 3.1–3, 9.7, 9). He quotes from PVFootnote 29 and probably also from a lost passage of the Zand (NM 2.1.10). Manuščihr designates these texts as “teachings of the Avesta” (abestāg čāštag, NM 2.4.1), “teachings of Avesta (and) Zand” (abestāg zand čāštag, NM 2.9.10), “religious scriptures” (mānsar, NM 2.1.6),Footnote 30 “law of Zarathustra” (dād ī zarduxšt, NM 2.4.1), “law of the ancients” (pēšēnīgān dād, NM 2.2.6), “great(er) law” (meh-dād, NM 2.9.7), “the greatest knowledge of the religion of Mazdā-worshippers” (mahist āgāhīh ī dēn ī mazdēsnān, NM 2.1.6), “knowledge of the ancients” (pēšēnīgān xrad, NM 2.2.6) and “that which the ancients considered, arranged (and) thought” (ān ī pēšēnīgān uskārd winnārd menīd, NM 2.2.6). This knowledge is “beyond the limit of pure innate wisdom” (abar wimand ī abēzag āst-xrad, NM 2.1.6), and one’s own knowledge (xwad dānišn) is “inferior and teachable” (ēr ud hammōzišnīg) towards it (NM 2.2.6). Manuščihr refers in particular to the ritual instructions for the purification (nērangīhā yōǰdāsrgarīhā, NM 2.7.5) which are confirmed in all three teachings. They “shall not be revised” (nē-wardēnīdan, NM 2.7.5) or “arranged in hindsight” (pas wirāstan, NM 2.9.7), and “even a little post-knowledge and distorted insight (is) very heavily deceitful and very disgustingly suspicious” (andak-iz pas-xradīh ud waxr-wēnišnīh garān-awrandīhātar ud zišt-ārangīhatar, NM 2.1.6).Footnote 31
3. The religious authorities
Manuščihr presents himself as a renowned religious authority who does not abandon “the practice (or cultivation) of the religion” (warzišn ī dēn, NM 2.6.7) and whose “fame and pleasure” (nām ud rāmišn) are “the position of the religion (and) the precepts of the gods” (gāh ī dēn framān ī yazadān, NM 2.6.1). Therefore, he shall become “polemical to anybody” (ō ēč kas petyārdār, NM 2.6.7) if he would see “any opposition to fellow believers and destruction and ruination of law (and) custom” (hamēstārīh ī ham-dēn ud kastārīh ī <+ud> wišuftārīh ī dād pēšag, NM 2.6.3).Footnote 32 Manuščihr also addresses this threat directly to Zādspram. If he does not withdraw his decree, his brother will become his “greatest opponent” (mahist ham-pahikār, NM 2.6.4) and his “opposition” (hamēstārīh) would be more harmful to Zādspram than to those with the “same reputation” (ham-nām) as Manuščihr or even than to the “leader of those of the good religion” (hu-dēnān pēšōbāy, NM 2.6.5).Footnote 33 Manuščihr advocates his position so vehemently since he is convinced that decrees (wizīr) regarding the ritual practice that are based on confirmed religious law should also be the “law of the land” (dād ī kišwar, NM 2.1.7). He delivers insight into the legislative process in which the religious authorities had a great responsibility. He mentions the “assembly of priests of the court of Pārs” (mowān hanǰaman ī pārs dar, NM 2.1.8) as the legislative body for religious issues. Such assemblies also existed on the town level since he also refers to the “assembly over Sirāb” (hanǰāman ī abar sīrāb, NM 2.1.11).Footnote 34 The priests (mowān, dastwarān) of these assemblies passed laws by discussing (uskārdan) and sealing (āwištan) them, but laws must be confirmed by “joint approval” (ham-sahišnīh) of all authorities, i.e. without even a single “different approval (and) contrary judgement” (ǰud-uskārišnīh padīrag-handāzišnīh). Otherwise “it was not fitting to seal the decision thereon and to establish a law thereon and to remit an order” (wizīr padiš brīnēnīd ud dād padiš nihād ud framān abar dād nē sazist hē, NM 2.1.8). The judgement of these religious authorities was binding and “superior to every judgement and (is) custom and law of the land” (az harw dādestān meh ud ēwēnag ud dād ī kišwar, NM 2.1.9).Footnote 35 That means that Zādspram would only have been allowed to release his decree with the consensus of the religious authorities.Footnote 36
4. The falseness of Zādspram’s decree
Manuščihr acknowledges Zādspram as a well-qualified Hērbed who is “knowing the Nērangs and is able of purifying” (nērang-šnās ud šōyišn-tuwānīg) and “the foremost intelligent of the religious ones” (frāztom-āgāh ī dēnīgān, NM 2.9.1).Footnote 37 Therefore, Manuščihr expresses sharp criticism of Zādspram’s argumentation to justify his decree. His knowledge is only eclectically compiled from the “three teachings” without having critically chosen the correct Nērangs on which there is “consensus” (ham-dādestānīh) and the “co-witness” (ham-gugāh) of the authorities, and without having provided evidence (pad paydāgīh, NM 2.2.3–4). Zādspram’s approach is considered as ahistorical since his observing is “neither (by) backward memory nor foresight, but (only) immediate” (nē pas-ayād ud nē pēš-wēn bē zamānīg, NM 2.5.16). In his letter, he mixes up “news” (nōg nōg) with “(real) knowledge” (āgāhīh, NM 2.1.2).Footnote 38 Zādspram also has no correct information on the contemporary practice of purification in Ērānšahr and cannot prove that it is practised in this improper way (nē-šahist) (NM 2.4.4–6).Footnote 39 In general, Manuščihr considers the evidence (nišānag)Footnote 40 brought forward by Zādspram as “concealed” (nihuftag), and not “clear” (rōšn) and detailed (gōkānīg, gōkān) enough to be correctly understood (NM 2.1.2–3). He also issued his decree “with (too) quick observation” (tēz-nigerišnīhā, NM 2.1.11) and without having discussed it in advance with Manuščihr or other religious authorities (NM 2.5.1–2, 4, 9), except those of Sarāz.Footnote 41 Manuščihr may even suspect an influence of foreign or heretic people on Zādspram who persuaded him to his decree. Besides the assembly of Sarāz, he mentions in particular the “assembly of the Toghuzghuz” (hanǰāman ī tuγzγuz, NM 2.1.12), i.e. the Uyghurs whose ruler converted to Manichaeism in 762 ce, with whom Zādspram may have had contact if he was actually in Khorāsān to issue his decree.Footnote 42 However, this remark seems to be a rather ironic allusion to – from Manuščihr’s point of view – the absurdness of Zādspram’s reform that would even find objections among the “heretic” Toghuzghuz.Footnote 43 In conclusion, Manuščihr criticizes the purification ritual that Zādspram has decreed as “unfitting to the sayings of the wise ones and the experts on the tradition” (a-passazag ō gōwišn frazānagān ud dēn-āgāhān, NM 2.2.1), “unlawful” (nē rāstīhā, NM 2.5.12), “false” (zūr) and useless (NM 2.1.15–16), “ineffective” or “invalid” (kār nēst, NM 2.2.2), with limits (sāmān) and “non-redeeming” (nē-bōzišnīg, NM 2.3.2).Footnote 44
Manuščihr also accuses Zādspram of mismanagement of his duties.Footnote 45 Zādspram had committed a breach of contract (druxt-paštīh) towards his brother as he pledged himself by oath (sōgandīg) that he would “not go for *uprising against Zarduxšt” (ō paǰasāhi zarduxšt <+ud> nē šawēd), “not struggle with him” (u-š abāg nē kōxšēd), “not strive for an opposition of new law-giving” (hamēmālīh nōg-dādīh nē tuxšēd) and “not increase evil (to) the spiritual (and) the material world” (mēnōy gētī anāgīh nē abzāyēd, NM 2.5.11).Footnote 46 Manuščihr also blames his brother for using his office for personal gain, since he “greedily” (ruzdīhā) and “undutifully” (abāy-mānīdīhā) claimed a “share (i.e. stipend?) of guardianship” (bahr ī sālārīh), which had caused “a dispute in (his) work […] for guardianship” (pahikār ēw pad kār ī ō sālārīh) (NM 2.9.3–5). By all this Zādspram had destroyed his “perfect reputation (and) primary brightness” (spurrīg ul-matīh fradom rōšnīh) and frustrated Manuščihr’s “mutuality” (dudīgarīh, NM 2.1.7). The authorities of Sīrgān had already turned away (wašt hēnd) from him and did not accept him any longer as their Hērbed (ī-šān nām ī ašmāh bē az hērbed ī nibišt “they have written your name without (the title) ‘Hērbed’”, NM 2.5.14). Consequently, Zādspram would be considered as “condemned in the eyes of the good ones (and) the wise ones” (čiyōn ērixtag pad čašm ī wehān dānāgān, NM 2.3.3) and as “heretic and hostile to the religion” (ahlomōγ ud dēn-dušmen) to the extent that he is even compared to the demon of death, Wīzarš (Pāz. vīsariš) and his “much affliction, which (is) like eradication” (was-ranǰīh ī čiyōn ǰān-kanišnīh, NM 2.5.13).Footnote 47
5. Manuščihr and Zādspram as brothers
Besides his priestly concerns about Zādspram having “turned wrong” (pad abāz-waštag, NM 2.5.12),Footnote 48 Manuščihr also writes on a personal level, as his brother. He addresses Zādspram explicitly as “brother” (brād, NM 2.1.0), and he writes to him also as his “friend and brother” (dōstīhā ud brādarīhā,Footnote 49 NM 2.9.6), assuring him that he holds him, with his “steadfast love and natural humility” (ōstīgān-mihrīh ud čihrīg ēr-menišnīh), “even more than (in) a way of brotherhood and even higher than a father, Rad, chief, lord and authority” (frāy az rāh ī brādarīh ud abartar-iz az pid ud rad ud sālār xwadāy dastwar, NM 2.6.1).Footnote 50 Manuščihr worries about Zādspram’s family, since by his faults he will become “the adversary of (his) own most beloved dear offspring” (frazendān xwēš grāmīgān ī dōšist […] hamēmāl, NM 2.8.2).Footnote 51 In a number of passages, Manuščihr expresses his goodwill towards his brother, expressing that he is ready for cooperation and mentoring as regards the mode of purification. He is even prepared to travel to meet Zādspram in person to find a solution to the problem and to appease the situation (NM 2.5.5, 5.7, 7.2–3).Footnote 52 Manuščihr is deeply disappointed with the deeds of his brother. He who “for (his) enjoyment and ease” (rāmēnīdārīh āsāngarīh […] rāy) “committed even body (and) soul forth to the dreadful punishment” (rāmēnīdārīh āsāngarīh ī ašmāh rāy tan-iz gyān bē ō škeft puhl abespārd, NM 2.5.17) feels that Zādspram passed him over in not seeking advice from him.Footnote 53 The respective passages in his letter are the most emotional ones. That Zādspram nevertheless issued his decree is for Manuščihr like “dejection of (his) anima” (nišēb ī gyān) or “hurt of (his) soul” (rēš ī ruwān, NM 2.5.12).Footnote 54 He would have preferred to travel to a more distant region (ō dūrtar kišwar) or even “depart by air (or: with Wāy) to the supreme power” (pad wāy ō abargar uzīd), i.e. to otherworld(?), than to hear about Zādspram’s misdeeds (wad-kird, NM 2.8.4–5).Footnote 55 It is Manuščihr’s duty to react to the internal dispute (andarg-pahikārīh) but he feels about this like “(someone) who fights with (his) own anima” (kē abāg xwēš gyān kōxšēd, NM 2.8.5).Footnote 56 It has been painful for him to write about such “distressing (and) counter-disputing insult” (nibēsišn ī āzārdārīh ī bēšīdārīhā ī padīrag-pahikārīhā, NM 2.5.19).Footnote 57 It feels like “tearing and causing to be torn (his) own limbs and applying that for the sake of a remedy as that burning painful medicine” (darrišn ud darrēnišn ī xwēš hannām ud abar-barišnīh ī ān darmān rāy ān ī sōzāg dardgar dārūn, NM 2.7.1).Footnote 58 But, he also thinks that it was better that it was him who replied so harshly (društīha) to Zādspram rather than other people who would not have done it in this way (NM 2.9.6).Footnote 59
6. The style of Manuščihr’s letter to Zādspram
Formally, the “Epistles” are first and foremost letters, written and sent as such. The introductory and the concluding formulas (incipit and explicit, NM 2.1.1–2, 9.12-15) of the letter to Zādspram correspond to the typical epistolary style with parallels in the Middle Persian handbook Abar ēwēnag ī nāmag-nibēsišnīh “On the Way to Write Letters”.Footnote 60 It contains the name and title of sender and addressee, information on the other letters Manuščihr received and wrote, as well as wishes to the addressee and to the gods. Manuščihr uses expressions of politeness towards Zādspram, such as framūdan + infinitive of a verb in the sense of “to deign to …” (NM 2.1.2, 3 [2x], 2; 2.6; 6.1; 9.1, 6). He also apologizes that he lacked the leisure time (a-pardazišnīh, NM 2.5.18–19)Footnote 61 to write his letter. He addresses Zādspram as an authority in the 2.plur., speaking of himself humbly in the 1.sing. Now and then, Zādspram is also addressed in the 2.sing. (NM 2.3.2 [2x, 1x only in K35]); 5.12, 13, 14; 6.2–3; 8.2; 9.3 [used for a Hērbed, i.e. Manuščihr or Zādspram, or more generally?], 4–5). These could be typos but they occur mostly in both of the manuscripts (K35, TD4a). If the letter had been dictated to a scribe, one could assume that in these passages Manuščihr rather refers to his brother than to the Hērbed, and that he was therefore more emotional. An emphatic expression is also pargast “let it not happen! Heaven forbid!” that Manuščihr inserts now and then (NM 2.3.1; 6.3; 8.2).
But the style of the main part of the letter is that of a dogmatic treatise that draws on religious authoritative texts. It is of polemic character, using cautions and threats towards Zādspram. Moreover, the letter also has a didactic tone with the aim of convincing Zādspram with arguments and also with similes from different fields of everyday life to exemplify them.Footnote 62 The third aspect is the emotional character of some passages. They reflect Manuščihr’s worries, disappointment and anger as a superior authority, a renowned priest and as Zādspram’s elder brother. All this together makes this letter a valuable witness of a historical, theological and, at the same time, personal debate.
7. Conclusion
The letter proves that ritual orthopraxy was an important feature of Zoroastrian identity in the Islamic environment of the ninth century that had to be saved from becoming incorrect or getting lost. Manuščihr, as a representative of the traditionalist priesthood with a high reputation, was the person to whom the faithful ones turned to settle the problem which Zādspram’s decree about the simplification of the important Baršnūm purification ritual had caused. He took this task very seriously since he was aware of the danger of losing this identity-establishing element of faith. For his arguments, Manuščihr draws on the religious authoritative texts Avesta and Zand, on the consensus of the religious authorities and, by using similes, also on analogies. Interestingly, these sources exactly correspond to the sources of the finding of justice in legal texts.Footnote 63 He also explicates in detail the role of priestly authority in the process of probable adjustments in the dogmatic teachings and the ritual. He points to a defined hierarchy and assemblies of priest who were in charge of decisions in these matters, and that such decisions must be made unanimously (cf. ham-sahišnīh “joint approval”, ham-dādestānīh “consensus”, ham-gugāh “co-witness”).
On the other side, Manuščihr’s letter to Zādspram has surprising personal and emotional aspects. One can feel the personal concern of the older brother who was responsible for the well-being of his family. Manuščihr expresses his love for his younger brother and offers him support to settle the conflict. On the other side, he shows him the grave consequences of his decree for his family and offspring. This harm would also affect the family ties with Manuščihr which seem to be very important to him. Therefore, he takes upon himself the difficult and painful task of attempting to lead his brother back to the correct path. He does not condemn Zādspram for his simplification of the Baršnūm ritual in general. Instead, he hopes to convince him with theological arguments. The side-by-side usage of threatening and laudatory expressions in his letter demonstrates that Manuščihr was using a “policy of carrot and stick”.
It turns out that – although the letter is mainly a theological debate on a highly sophisticated level – Manuščihr does not separate his position as a priest from that of a brother. On the contrary, the personal level and kinship are part of his argumentation. The emotionality that he expresses here and there in his letter makes his concerns more pressing and beseeching. One wonders whether this actually reflects Manušǐhr’s personality as loving brother or is just a clever move as a means to an end.
Acknowledgements
This article is based on a paper presented at the Tenth European Conference of Iranian Studies at Leiden University, 21–25 August 2023. I owe gratitude to the anonymous peer reviewers of this journal for their valuable remarks.
Open access
