Č (Av. č&ٳٲ;-; OPers. ciça; MPers., Parth. č). Following Bartholomae most scholars recognize two homographic neuter substantives č&ٳٲ;- in Avestan, one meaning “face, appearance,” which is translated in Pahlavi as 貹岵, and another rendered in Pahlavi as ō and denoting “origin, lineage,” as well as “seed,” although the latter sense is attested only in compounds (AirWb., cols. 586-87; differently Duchesne-Guillemin, p. 98 n. 6). A similar distribution is found in the Middle Iranian languages, where one finds Pahlavi č “form, shape, appearance, face” and “seed, origin; nature, essence” (in the latter sense č or čag; MacKenzie, p. 22, Bailey, Zoroastrian Problems, pp. 91-92; differently Nyberg, Manual II, p. 55); Manichean Middle Persian cyhr “face” (cf. ʾɲԻ “beautiful”) and “essence, origin, offspring”; and Manichean Parthian cyhr (cf. hwcyhr “beautiful”) or cyhrg “form, appearance” and cyhrg “essence, nature” (Gershevitch, pp. 213-14). In royal inscriptions, however, both Achaemenian or Sasanian, ciça and č preserve only the sense of “lineage, family” (see below).
The first č&ٳٲ;-, “face, appearance,” is clearly related to the adjective *č&ٳٲ;- “manifest, apparent” (Khot. cära-; Bailey, Dictionary, pp. 102-03), cognate to Vedic citrá- “brilliant, shining; excellent, outstanding,” Old High German heitar “shining,” etc. (Mayrhofer, Dictionary I, pp. 387-88). Regarding the derivation of the second č&ٳٲ;-, “origin, lineage,” there is less agreement. Of the analyses that have been advanced to date, the most likely is that č&ٳٲ;- is a substantivized adverb derived from the interrogative pronoun č- plus the locative element -θra- (with which we may compare Vedic ku-tra), implying that the question “whence do you come?” or “who are you?” (cf. Y. 43.7, čš ahī) came to denote the responses which that question evoked, much as the Vedic adverb 첹ٳ “how?” gave rise to the Sanskrit substantive 첹ٳ- “story, tale” (Pisani, p. 86; alternately, Insler, p. 214).
Such a derivation would also explain how č&ٳٲ;-, č “origin, lineage” can have both a social reference (origin via familial descent) and a physiological one (origin via sexual reproduction). Thus, on one hand, č&ٳٲ;- came to denote the multigenerational kinship groups in which persons’ primary social identity and allegiances depended upon claims of descent from real or imagined ancestors. Examples of this may be seen in the claims of Darius and Xerxes to be ⲹ(-)č- “of Aryan lineage” (DNa 14f. and XPh 13, Kent, Old Persian, pp. 137 and 151) and Ardašīr I, Šāpūr I, and Narseh’s claims to be “of the family of the gods” (kē č az yazdān, see Gignoux, Glossaire, pp. 21 s.v. ctly, ctry, and 65 s.v. &Dz;ḥr for refs.; translated into Greek as ek genous theōn in ŠKZ Gk. 1. 1, Maricq, p. 305); the identification of a high-ranking priest as Manuš-č&ٳٲ; “of the lineage of *Manu” (Yt. 13.131; i.e., descended from the mythical first priest; see further Christensen, p. 66); Zarathustra’s accusation “You Daēvas are the lineage of the Evil Mind” (Y. 32.3, yūš daēvā . . . akāṱ manaŋhō stā čθrəm); and the assertion that the Lie is duš-č&ٳٲ;- “of evil lineage” (Yt. 19.94-95). Similarly, animals such as dogs, wolves, and serpents are described as belonging to their own distinctive families or species (spa-č&ٳٲ;-, Vd. 13.16; vəhrkō-č&ٳٲ;-, Yt. 3.15; aži-č&ٳٲ;, Yt. 3.9, 11).
On the other hand, that č&ٳٲ;- can also refer to the physical seed or germ from which life originates is clear from the adjective č&ٳٲ;vatī, which occurs only in the feminine and always in apposition to two other terms (岹&Dz;ٲī-, dzܲԲī-), all three denoting a menstruating woman (Vd. 15.7; 16.1, 5, 13, 14, 17; 18.67). Such seed—whether male or female—is said to be “the foundation of offspring” in ŧ첹 3.194 (čīg zahag ī zahagan bun) and “the begetting of material existence” (gētīg warzīdārīh č) in ŧ첹 3.399, where the life-force (axw) is described in parallel fashion as the source of spiritual existence (cf. ŧ첹 3.365, where the formative power of seed, č nērōg, within the material creation similarly parallels the formative power of speech, waxš nērōg, within the spiritual creation). Nor is it only humans whose material being originates in and depends upon such seeds, as the same is implied for virtually all of Ohrmazd’s primordial creations, the seeds of fire being lodged in plants (Vd. 3.365), and those of water, earth, plants, and cattle in the stars (Yt. 12.29-33; īō 1.13, 2.13; Yt. 8.4; Mēnōg ī xrad, ed. Anklesaria, 48.7-11; Bd., TD2, pp. 72.4-9; ed. Anklesaria, 7.2-3, etc., pp. 86-87), although those of cattle are also at times said to be lodged in the moon (thus Yt. 7.3, 12.33, Y. 16.4, etc.; on this general theme, see further Duchesne-Guillemin, p. 98; for a different interpretation, see Shaki, pp. 285, 303-04).
Bibliography:
A. Christensen, “Reste von Manu-Legenden in der iranischen Sagenwelt,” in Festschrift Friedrich Carl Andreas, Leipzig, 1916, pp. 63-69.
ŧ첹, bk. 3, ed. J. de Menasce, Le troisième livre du Dēnkart, Paris, 1973.
J. Duchesne-Guillemin, “L’homme dans la religion iranienne,” in C. J. Bleeker, ed., Anthropologie religieuse, Suppl. to Numen 2, 1955, pp. 93-107.
I. Gershevitch, The Avestan Hymn to Mithra, Cambridge, 1959.
Ph. Gignoux, Glossaire des inscriptions pehlevies et parthes, Corpus Inscr. Iran., Suppl. Ser., vol. 1, London, 1972.
S. Insler, The Gāthās of Zarathustra, Leiden, 1975.
D. MacKenzie, A Concise Pahlavi Dictionary, London, 1971.
V. Pisani, “Note miscellanee,” Rivista degli studi orientali 14, 1933, pp. 83-86.
M. Shaki, “Some Basic Tenets of the Metaphysics of the Dēnkart,” Archív Orientální 38, 1970, pp. 277-312.
(Bruce Lincoln)
Originally Published: December 15, 1990
Last Updated: December 15, 1990
This article is available in print.
Vol. V, Fasc. 2, pp. 118-119
