J.

DE MENASCE

KARTAK THE HERETIC

AND THE ORDEAL BY FIRE

Préface
lt is my largest pleasure that thanks to the kind consideration
of Prof. Philippe Gignoux, a posthumous paper of Prof. Jean de
Menasce "KARTAK THE HERETIC AND THE ORDEAL BY FIRE" is
published in the STUDIA IRAN/CA. The paper I had long kept with
myself and am sorry not to have had it incorporated in the "Jean
de Menasce, Études Iraniennes"* owing to my own inattention.
Ten and odd years ago the editorial staff of the Bulletin of the
Society for Western and Southern Asialie Studies, Kyoto University,
of which I had for some years been an editor in chief, planned to
compile a festschrift in my honour, and asked me to get one and
only contribution paper for it. On the request I mentioned Prof.
de Menasce by name without hesitation. He responded immediately
to Mr. Koji Kamioka's request on my behalf. But the financial
difficulties turned out unfavourable for bringing the plans realization.
At that time Prof. de Menasce had long before showed his profound
learning and erudition by his French translation of the Skand-gumanïg
Wizar which, together with his another rendering of the difficult
text, Dënkard Book Ill, has been and still is an unfailing source of
my Iranian studies. And moreover we, He and 1, have a common
standing in that he is a Catholic Father while I am a monk of the
Pure Land Sect of Buddhism, both being uninvited fellows as jud-
dënan or jud-kësan in the eyes of Kirdïr. lt is the irony of fate
that Prof. de Menasce as such has made a large contribution to
the Zoroastrian studies and I as such write some short words in his
revered memory. 1 think his paper is of much help for the learned
readers.
Lastly but not least my thanks are due to Prof. Ph. Gignoux for
his kindness as well as to my hawist, Mr. Koji Kamioka for his
good offices in this matter.

Gikyo ITO
* Studia Iranica. Cahier 3, 1985.
 While engaged on a translation of the third book of the Dënkart 1 ,
I came across a proper name that, to the best of my knowledge, does
not seem to have attracted much attention. The name is Kartak
and the man is described as a heretic (ahramôk) in both chapters
in which he happens to be mentioned.
Ch. 169 (Dresden p. 140; Madan p. 181) deals with the of
distinguishing between the good and godly nërang owing to which
the (orthodox) ordeal works miracles, and the evil and devic nërang
with its display of wonders (vitimiis) due to witchcraft. The answer
is on the ethical level : the good ordeal goes with righteous motives,
with trust in God and with rigorous elimination of anything impure
or devic, while the reverse is true of the magic display of witchcraft.
The chapter next deals with the way ordeals work, and we know
this subject was given ample treatment in the original Avesta : a
particular section of the Sakadum Nask was entitled varistiin (VIII,
42) and the subject was also dealt with in the Husparam Nask.
(VIII, 32) The Miitigiin i haziir diitistiin 2 (1, pp. 13-15) discusses the
var in connection with the oath (sôkand), the legal problem being
to determine who is to submit to the; ordeal or to take the oath, the
practicalities being wholly ignored. This is just the point with which
the author of our Denkart chapter is interested: how, he asks, does
the appliance of "artificial means" (kërôkik ciirak) allow us to know
for ·certain that a man is or is not speaking the truth? The text is not
altogether clear, but we gather that the parts of the body subjected
to the "hotordeal" were the chest, the tongue or the feet: the fact
that they remained (to what extent?) unhurt was an indication of the
juror's innocence. But there is more to it: "the artificial (means) has
two effects: either it protects and saves the limbs from being burned
or paralysed by the fire, or it does not protect them, but paralyses
the limbs by the fire, as was seen in the case of Kartak, the deceiver,
the heretic", (han i kërôkik 2 advënak bavët : hakar kërôkik bavandak
fryiit rast i.s aviim hac soxtan ut akiirenitan i pat iitas; hakar kërô-

1 Le troisième livre du Dënkart. Paris, Publications Orientalistes de France, 1972.

2 The chapter was given a very thorough study by Bartholomae, 'Zum Sasanidischen
Recht Il', Sitz B. Heidelberg 1918. Bulsara, in his Laws of the Ancien! Persians p. 114 summarizes
most of the passages from Pahlavi literature refering to the var.
 KARTAK THE HERETIC 161

kik afryiit akiirënitan i.s aviim pat iitas, cëgon han i paytiik hast apar
frëftiir Kartak ahramok.) Can this really mean that one of the effects
of the hot ordeal would be to keep the limb from being burned?
Or should we not rather understand this in the light of an indication
we find in Dk. VIII,20, 14? The text is, as is usual in chapters
consisting of a list of headings of miscellaneous subjects, too terse
to be altogether clear: cëgon pahrëxtan i aviimiin i var palis varzot
ëstët; ëvak ëvak nërang i pahrëc". West's translation being: "how to
protect the limbs by which (better : on which) the ordeal is accomplished
and each one of the formulas of protection". If the means for protec-
ting the limbs were appliances, perhaps ointments, as well as nërang,
this would fit in nicely with the "artificial means" mentionned in the
Dënkart 3 . This would not nullify the normal course of the ordeal
by tire, but would milden the practice : if, in spite of the protection,
the limbs were definitely paralyzed, the man could be considered
guilty. A comparative study of the practice in the Near Eastern
area would throw light on the problem. Our own object was to give
the context in which the name of Kartak was first mentioned in the
Dënkart. Ail the information that can be drawn from this passage
is that the ordeal to which Kartak had to submit proved him to be
guilty and that the fact was sufficiently known not to require further
explanations.
Indeed the only other passage in Dënkart III to mention him
takes it for granted that all readers will know who the man was and
how desastrous his heretical activity. Ch. 345 (Dresden p. 256;
Madan p. 355): "On the three terrible scourges (hastiinak) that befell
the Den Mazdesn by way of tyranny, and on the three by way of
heresy, during the millenium of Zartust. - Of the three most terrible
scources that befell the Den Mazdesn during the millenium of Zartust,
by way of tyranny, the first was Arjâsp the Xyonite and many others
with him; the second was Alexander the "Roman", a murderer and
a man of bad repute, and his companions; the third was the Dev
with dishevelled hair and ail his companions. And by way of heresy
during the same millenium, the first was the way (sartak) of s m k
(or: d y m k); the second, the way of Mazdak the heretik, who brought
about confusion (dusviirih apiikënitiir); the third, the way of Kartak
the heretic". If, as is fairly certain, both heretics and tyrants are
listed in chronological order, then Kartak came after Mazdak, i.e.
at any time dtiring the last century of the Sassanian dynasty, provided
we are right in thinking the heretic did not live later. The scan-
tiness of the information derived from our two chapters is ail the

3 This is, it would seem, the interpretation of both West and Bulsara.
162 J. DE MENASCE

more surprising since that the failure of Kartak's var could readily
have been contrasted with the well known story of the hot ordeal
undergone by Aturpât i Mahraspandân under Shâhpuhr II for the
sake of vindicating the faith against wicked religions. Of this we
have a number of mentions throughout Pahlavi literature, the most
authoritative being probably that in Dënkart IV (Madan 413) that
seems to have been taken from official documents. Of the various
translations of the passage, the best is still that by Zaehner4, which
we have only slightly emended : "Shâhpuhr son of Ohrmazd, the
King of Kings, made all people from the kisvars apëvihanak in
discussion, and brought all opinions under examination and investiga-
tion; after Aturpât had been vindicated (box tan) in the discussion
he had held with all those dissemters (yudt-rastakan) and reciters of
nasks (nask osmurtan.c) (omit: yudt-rastakan), he spoke in this wise:
Now that we have seen the (good ?) religion in the world, we will not
allow any wicked religion and will strive against it with much zeal.
And so he did". 1 am not wholly satisfied about the precise meaning
of what Zaehner is right in reading apë-vihanak: going by the etymo-
logy, it should mean "without cause or pretext (of complaint)" but
the substantive apëvihanakih is found in Dk VIII, 26, 2 in a clear
context in which the meaning might be : "(the equipment) deemed
indispensible (in this case: for a warrior)". In Dënkart VII, 5, 4-5,
among the thirty three varieties of ordeals laid down in the law of
Zartust, one is "the pouring of molten metal on the chest, as was
practised by Aturpât i Mahraspandân for the sake of the Religion
and from which he was saved" 5 . The account in Skand-gumanik
vicar X, 70 expatiates on the mention of the disemters (yudt-ristakan)
by stating that amongst them the greatest heretics were those known
also as fatalists (pat-apayistakan) 6 • The account of Dënkart V (Madan
p. 454; Sanjana vol IX in fine) also lays stress on the institution of
ordeals and nerangs by Zartust and, after mentioning the case of
Aturpât, goes on to say that the wondrous display of all kinds of
nerangs and ordeals were kept up in practice (pat kartak) until after
the reign of Yazdagard son of sahryâr, i.e. the last Sassanian
monarch 7 •

4 Zurvan, a Zoroastrian Dilemma, Oxford 1955, pp. 8-32ff. Zaehner rightly disposes of

the erroneous readings of Nyberg, Wikander and Bailey.

s See Molé's edition in La légende de Zoroastre selon les textes pehlevis (Travaux de
l'Institut d'Études Iraniennes de l'Université de Paris, vol. 3) Paris, 1967.
6 See my edition, Fribourg-en-Suisse 1945. The note on p. 121 to X, 71 should be more

explicit as to the original and later meanings of "jabarites" in muslim theology.

7 One of the rarely quoted passages on Aturpat's ordeal is to be found in Zand i Vohuman

Yast ed. by B.T. Anklesaria, Bombay, 1957, III, 25.

 KARTAK THE HERETIC 163

That the case of Aturpat, coming out triumphantly from his ordeal
by fire for the vindication of the Zoroastrian faith, should have been
exemplary throughout Sassanian history and beyond can easily be
understood. That kartak's unsuccessful ordeal should only have been
mentioned once is less easy to explain in view of the importance
given to the same heretic by ch. 345. Of the small number of men
with that name we happen to know of, all were Christians, and no
Christian would simply be described as a "heretic" even though
he were a convert from Zoroastrianism 8 . The existence of Kartak
the heretic is now a fact, but the nature of his heresy remains a
problem.

8 This was the case of the Christian martyr Mar Qardagh whose legend in Syriac was

published by H. Feige (Kiel 1890) and has recently been studied in its Iranian context by
Gernot Wiessner in Zur Auseinandersetzung zwischen Christentum und Zoroastrismus in Iran,
XVII Deutscher Orientalistentag, ZDMG Supplementa I; Wiesbaden 1969; and 'Christlicher
Heiligenkult im Umkreis eines sassanidischen Grosskônigs" in Festgabe Deutscher Iranisten
zur 2500 Jahrfeier Irans, Stuttgart 1971.