not unknown, and the case of Sisimithres, a provincial potentate subdued by Alexander, is specially mentioned as
- [Footnote: Syrian reared on the borders of Persia, would be conclusive. As usual,
he anatomizes the subject. Preaching against sexual abandonment, he says: "Love, you maintain, is not a matter of will. . . . Whence does it arise, then? From a beautiful form which strikes the wound, you answer. Your excuse is an idle one. . . . Were not Joseph and David handsome, the latter especially so in the eyes, which is the most attractive style of beauty? But was any man enamoured of them? By no means, for love does not arise from mere admiration. Many have mothers most distinguished for their beauty, but do their sons, therefore, fall in love with them? Perish the thought! They admire them, but do not yield to a disgraceful passion. Ah! you will urge, this is a law of nature. Of what nature, tell me? Because they are our mothers, you say. Do you not know that the Persians, without any compulsion, cohabit with their mothers? Not one or two, but the whole nation. Whence it is evident that this disease is not inspired by beauty, but by a vice of the mind"; In Epist. ii ad Cor. Hom. vii, 6 (in Migne, x, 451). Contemporary Parsees also wish to repudiate the idea that their forefathers solemnized these incestuous nuptials, and treat it as a libel of the Greeks, as modern Mazdeism yields to no closer union than that of first cousins. The whole question, however, of consanguineous marriage has been threshed out from the evidence of the Pahlavi texts by West (Sacr. Bks. of the East, xviii, 389 et seq.), who shows how strenuously the Mohbeds laboured to inculcate the practice as a pious duty. A special term in Pahlavi, Khvêtûk-das, meaning literally "a giving of one's own," was applied to it. There is no clear reference to the custom in the extant part of the Avesta, but in the Dinkard epitome (ix, 60; Sacr. Bks. of the East, xxxvii) great stress is laid on the merit of adhering to it, and in the same theological compilation a long chapter (iii, 82, 431) is devoted to the defence and exposition of Khvêtûk-das. As West observes, however, it is evident from the amount of space and argument expended on the subject that the priesthood had some difficulty in bending an unwilling laity to comply with their injunctions. We may note that the Persians were not the only race addicted to such marriages. According to Strabo (IV, v, 4), they were habitual among the Irish of his time ("mothers and sisters"); and even the aboriginal Macedonians favoured them, so that when the Oedipus Rex of Sophocles was played in that country the audience jeered at the distress of the]*
