Č, a Middle Persian legal term denoting a widow who at the death of her “authorized” (徱&Dz;ī, q.v.) husband without issue was obliged (see ōŧ; būdag) to enter into a levirate marriage (č첹ī) in order to provide him with male offspring (frazand). (The 徱&Dz;ī marriage, as against ūī/č첹ī, is cum manu marito, i.e., the legal union of a husband and wife enjoying the relevant rights and obligations of lawful wedlock.) The institution of č첹ī was, therefore, a special case of ūī (q.v.) that may be termed “levirate” and not a distinct type of marriage, as some authors have presumed (see below). However, in contrast to the Jewish levirate, when there were no near agnates, the widow could institute a č첹ī with any eligible person by appointment (gumrdagīh; see būdag). In such a union the wife, husband, son, and daughter are respectively called zan, &Dz;ō, pus, and duxt ī č첹ī (for which some late manuscript copies have only č첹). In Zoroastrian family law, if the authorized husband passes away without leaving male issue, his successorship devolves upon his authorized wife (widerd n mard n zan &Dz;ō abar mnēd; Mdayn, pt. 1, p. 97.7-11), that is, it would be incumbent upon his widow to institute a levirate marriage in order that the begotten č첹ī son might maintain his deceased father’s lineage and name and administer his property (kē pad n ī ōy nmagnīh ud +paywand ryēnēd ud xwstag drēd+, Ddestnī dēnīg, ms. K 35, p. 201); and finally to ensure that he had a son by č첹ī to help his soul cross the ČԷɲ&;ܳ “the separating bridge” (Wizīrkard ī dēnīg, 2.6,17). Hence, only a fruitful (barwar) widow would become liable for remarrying as a č첹, in which case, according to one provision of the law (Mdayn, pt. 1, p. 49), she would be bound by duty to keep up her č첹ī marriage until the age of seventy (for “fifty”?). It was a serious crime (sin) for a man consciously to marry a woman who was under the obligation of č첹ī in an authorized marriage; if he were to conclude such a marriage he would be guilty of sin to the degree of one tanpuhl (q.v.), and if the marriage were to endure, he would become “worthy of death” (marg-arzn) within a year (Rivyat ī Ēmēd ī Ašawahištn, chap. 21). Although č첹ī was a sine manu marriage and the č첹 wife was “in no need of any statement concerning her divorce, since she is divorced by her own status (pad xwad ēstišnīh abēzr)” (ibid.), the dissolution of č첹ī before an heir to the deceased had been provided was considered a deadly sin, ranked as marg-arznīh (Pahlavi Rivayat, pp. 122-23). However, after the widow had given birth to the desired offspring, the č첹ī, though not the guardianship over her, could be brought to an end (Mdayn, pt. 1, p. 48). According to a singular point of family law, an authorized husband could even in his lifetime establish a č첹ī marriage in his own favor by saying to his wife: “I have made you your own guardian and given you freedom over your own person,” in which case “she has not been divorced but authorized to marry a č첹 husband” (Mdayn, pt. 1, p. 3). A widowed mistress of the household (kadagbnūg) who was not under guardianship (slrīh) was free to cohabit with a man of her own choice, whereupon he would be appointed her guardian. The institution of č첹ī did not involve any proprietary rights or claims, nor did it put either party under any special legal obligation other than their obligatory cohabitation and endeavor to produce the desired offspring and the č첹 wife’s submission to and reverence (tarsaghīh) for the č첹 husband, who was at the same time her guardian. The management of č첹ī by the č첹 husband was financed from the estate of the deceased for whom the levirate was created. The stipend of the č첹 husband depended on his legal status or category. The property settled on a designate (kardag) ū (see būdag; ū) (i.e., a person designated by the deceased himself in his lifetime or by a testamentary disposition to assume the conduct of his č첹ī/ūī) came to him by inheritance in full ownership. For the near agnates, who were liable (see būdag) for the assumption of č첹ī and were entitled to a share of inheritance from the estate of the deceased, no remuneration was considered. If there were no near agnates, the minimum amount required to establish č첹ī by appointment (gumrdagīh; see būdag) was a profit-yielding capital of 60 ŧs, which was to be held in usufruct. The capital was entailed on the family (ū岹) of the deceased for the management of č첹ī and had to be delivered to the son born as his successor upon his coming of age. For less than this amount the creation of č첹ī was, according to the majority of juridical cases, not binding upon his relatives. However, once such a marriage had been instituted, an indigent č첹ī father was to be maintained from the private resources (wspuhragn) of the č첹ī wife and children, which was supposed to be reimbursed by the č첹ī father (Mdayn, pt. 1, p. 32). Reciprocally, those č첹ī children who could not be supported by the family were to be maintained by their č첹ī father (Mdayn, pt. 1, p. 32). Neither member of the č첹 couple had the right to inherit the estate of the other; the č첹 children succeeded only to the legacy left by their mother.
The Zoroastrian jurisconsults were divided on the legitimacy or propriety of changing the status of č첹ī into that of 徱&Dz;ī by adoption. It was practiced by the office of ōs at Drbgerd (Mdayn, pt. 1, p. 70) and conceded by Pusnweh, son of Burzdur-Farrbag, and Mhdd-Gušnasp, son of Yazdnabzūd, but it was disputed by the office of ōs of Ardašīr-Xwarrah (Mdayn, pt. 2, p. 40).
If the č첹ī wife passed away leaving only a daughter, all the estate of the mother and the obligation (ōŧīh) of ūī for the deceased authorized father descended to her. On the death of the č첹 father, if there were two surviving daughters, the eldest succeeded to the ōŧīh of the authorized father, whereas the other, if unmarried in the lifetime of the č첹 father, became eligible to assume the ūī of the č첹 father by appointment. A č첹 father who had no 徱&Dz;ī children was, by virtue of his “natural” paternity, conceded certain “preferential” rights in regard to his own ūī by his č첹 children, which are circumstantially treated in the Rivyat ī Ēmēd ī Ašawahištn (chap. 23).
Following the Persian Rivayats (I, p. 180), which erroneously advance five types of Zoroastrian matrimonial arrangements, some authors have wrongly considered č첹ī a discrete type of marriage and misapprehended the legal term č첹. W. E. West took zan ī č첹 as “serving wife” (Sacred Books of the East, vol. 18, p. 189), which is its New Persian meaning rather than its Middle Persian, juridical, denotation. C. Bartholomae interpreted č첹 as “Nebenfrau” (Zum sasanidischen Recht I, p. 32) and was followed by J. C. Tavadia, who translated it “subordinate wife” (Šyast nē šyast 10.21). J. de Menasce (p. 7) confined his description of the term to its difference from that of authorized (徱&Dz;ī): “une femme qui n’est pas 徱&Dz;ī (selon le droit, légitime au sens plénier).” M. Macuch explains č첹 as “Hilfsehe” (p. 7).
Middle Persian č첹 is, in the opinion of the present writer, derived from Indian chokra- “boy (slave)” (see R. L. Turner, A Comparative Dictionary of the Indo-Aryan Languages, London, 1966, I, p. 279); cf. NPers. čker “humble servant, bondman,” Ossetic caγar “slave.” Bartholomae’s derivation of the word from Av. čaritī- “young woman” (AirWb., col. 581), as well as K. Brugmann’s suggested derivation from a reduplicated form of kar- “do” (Grundriss II, 2a, p. 425), followed by Perikhanian (1970, p. 357), are untenable.
Bibliography:
Ddestn ī dēnīg: ms. K 35, ed. A. Christensen, in Codices Avestici et Pahlavici III, Copenhagen, 1934; The Ddistn-ī Dīnīk, ed. W. E. West, SBE 18, Oxford, 1882.
Mdayn ī hazr ddistn: Mâdigân-i-hazâr Dâtistân, ed. J. J. Modi (facs. ed. of pt. 1, fols. 1-55), Bombay, 1901; The Social Code of the Parsees in Sasanian Times or the Mâdigân-i-hazâr Dâtistân, Part II, ed. T. D. Anklesaria, Bombay, 1912.
The Pahlavi Rivâyat Accompanying the Dâdestân-î Dînîk, ed. B. N. Dhabhar, Bombay, 1913.
The Pahlavi Rivyat of Āturfarnbag and Farnbag-Srōš, pt. 1 (text and tr.), ed. T. A. Anklesaria, Bombay, 1969.
Persian Rivayats: M. R. Unvala, ed., Dârâb Hormazyâr’s Rivâyat, 2 vols., Bombay, 1922; B. N. Dhabhar, tr. The Persian Rivayats of Hormazyar Framarz and Others, Bombay, 1932.
Rivyat ī Ēmēd ī Ašawahištn, ed. B. T. Anklesaria, Rivâyat-î Hêmît-î Asavahistân, Bombay, 1962.
C. Bartholomae, Zum sasanidischen Recht, Sb. der Heidelberger Akad. der Wiss., 1919.
S. J. Bulsara, The Laws of the Ancient Persians as Found in the “Mtīkn ē Hazr Dtastn” or “The Digest of a Thousand Points of Law,” Bombay, 1937.
M. Macuch, Das sasanidische Rechtsbuch “Mtakdn ī Hazr Dtistn” Part II, Wiesbaden, 1981.
J. P. de Menasce, Feux et fondations pieuses dans le droit sassanide, Paris, 1964.
A. G. Perikhanian, Sasanidskiĭ sudebnik “Kniga tysyachi sudebnykh resheniĭ (Mtakdn ī hazr dtastn), Yerevan, 1973.
Idem, “On Some Pahlavi Legal Terms,” in W. B. Henning Memorial Volume, ed. M. Boyce and I. Gershevitch, London, 1970, pp. 349-57.
Idem, Obshchestvo i pravo Irana v parfyanskiĭ i sasanidskiĭ periody, Moscow, 1983, esp. pp. 94-98 (see index, p. 372).
M. Shaki, “The Sasanian Matrimonial Relations,” Archív Orientální 39, 1971, pp. 322-45.
Idem, “Two Middle Persian Legal Terms for Private Property,” in Mémorial Jean de Menasce, ed. Ph. Gignoux and A. Tafazzoli, Louvain, 1974, pp. 327-36.
Idem, “Two Chapters of the Rivyat ī Ēmēd ī Ašawahištn,” in Oriental Studies (D. Kobidze memorial volume), Tiflis, 1983, pp. 45-53.
(Mansour Shaki)
Originally Published: December 15, 1990
Last Updated: December 15, 1990
This article is available in print.
Vol. IV, Fasc. 6, pp. 647-649
