The sraōšāuuarəza according to the ritual Avestan texts and the Nērangestān

The sraōšāuuarəza is the last auxiliary priest to be invited to take his place in the ritual area. He is invoked with the superlatives dąhišta- and aršuuacastəma- “the best instructed (by SraōšaFootnote ¹²) and best versed in the right performance of the word” (VrS11.9 [GVr3.1] sraōšāuuarəzəm āstāiia dąhištəm aršuuacastəməm). He is the only auxiliary priest that receives an epithet during the installation. His special position among the auxiliary priests is also emphasized by the Nērangestān (N4.3 and 62.4, see below), which furthermore informs us that he might even assume the role of the zaōtar under certain circumstances. Besides, he is the only priest to be abundantly represented on a number of funerary monuments in Central Asia, appearing on a series of stone couches and sarcophagi in Sino-Sogdian tombs dated between 579 and 592 ce, with several depictions of human-bird priests (half human and half rooster) bearing a padām and tending the fire. Recently, Grenet has noticed the oldest attestation of this figure on the central band of Sraōša's tunic in the impressive representation of the god Sraōša on the southern wall of the main hypostyle hall at Akchakhan-kala.Footnote ¹³ The figures painted there most likely represent either the sraōšāuuarəza (V18 states the rooster is the sraōšāuuarəza of Sraōša) or the god Sraōša as a sraōšāuuarəza-priest.Footnote ¹⁴ Hence, we can deduce the importance of this priest in the Zoroastrianism of Central Asia, especially for the performances of funerary services.

The only direct information in Avestan (besides the one from the Nērangestān) about the role of the sraōšāuuarəza is to be found in chapter 18 of the Vīdēvdād, together with a few mentions in the Nērangestān. According to V18.14-16), the cock, as the sraōšāuuarəza of the god Sraōša, is the one that exhorts the people at dawn to stand up, praise the Order and blame the daēuua (V8.16 usəhištata maṣ̌iiāka staōta aṣ̌əm yat̰ vahištəm nīsta daēuua. ). Hence, it would seem likely that the sraōšāuuarəza is the one who invites all the other auxiliary priests to take their ritual places. This attribution raises considerable problems that will be discussed in the final section of this paper.

The chapter in the Nērangestān that defines the role and position of priests in the performance of the LL (N54-61) describes his responsibility (N59.1) as sraušāuuarəzō aiβiiāxšaiiāt̰,Footnote ¹⁵ “the sraōšāuuarəza should supervise”. The Pahlavi version translates and clarifies it through a gloss:

Accordingly, he is a kind of stage director that oversees the performance of the ceremony and corrects potential errors. This function fits well with the indication of the Nērangestān that he does not have a fixed position, but moves around (N61.9).Footnote ¹⁷ As such, his function would be comparable to the function of the brahmán in the Vedic tradition, a comparison recently proposed by V. Sadovski.Footnote ¹⁸

According to the Avestan Nērangestān (N62), exactly as the zaōtar might assume the function of any auxiliary priest (except the āsnātar, s. N62.3) if they have to leave the ritual area unexpectedly, the sraōšāuuarəza is the one who might take over the function of the zaōtar if the latter has to leave, as this role is attributed to “the best instructed and best versed in the right performance of the word”, the two epithets received by the sraōšāuuarəza during the installation (N62.4 zaōtā anahaxtō paraiiāt̰ dąhištāi aršuuacastəmāi zaōθrəm raēxšaiti). In another passage (N4.3), the Nērangestān affirms that zaōtar and sraōšāuuarəza swap roles during the Fšūšō Mąϑra, when the performance takes place in a Ātaš Wahrām:Footnote ¹⁹

The importance of the role of the sraōšāuuarəza appears as well from the only additional information provided by the Nērangestān. He is the only auxiliary priest who partakes of the drōn together with the zaōtar after inviting the zaōtar and reciting a section of the Āfrīnagān ī Rapihwin (N53.23):Footnote ²⁰

The sraōšāuuarəza and the other auxiliary priests according to the wāž gīrišnīh and the ritual instructions of the manuscripts

The evaluation of the data concerning the sraōšāuuarəza in the wāž gīrišnīh and in the ritual instructions of the manuscripts is not possible without a general analysis of the data about the other auxiliary priests. Both sources of information present special problems that need to be evaluated alltogether.

Besides the direct information about the function of the auxiliary priests in the Avestan ritual and meta-ritual texts, the richest information about the role of the different priests is provided by the taking of the wāž. Footnote ²² The taking of the wāž is an instruction for the dialogued recitation of the Ahuna Vairiia, whenever the Ahuna Vairiia is recited only once in the Long Liturgy and not repeated. The priests take and give the wāž; that is, the possibility of reciting a text alone or together with another priest. It also allows a new priest to enter the ritual area or the return of priests that have left it for some reason. According to the description in manuscripts such ms 2000 (K7b) and the Nērangestān, the priest who takes the wāž recites yaθā ahū vairiiō, and the one who gives it continues with the recitation of this stanza until the end. It could therefore provide very useful information about the role played by the different priests in the LL.

The general picture it draws about the priestly college is that the Yasna was performed only by two priests, with the auxiliary priest playing a minimal role (mainly accompanying the zaōtar in some recitations, reciting alone a few ones, and adding wood to the fire, besides other auxiliary ritual actions). He is, however, unable to give the wāž to the zaōtar. Conversely, in the greater LL, we do not find the seven auxiliary priests mentioned in the priestly installation (VrS11.9 [GVr3.1]), but at least three are able to give the wāz to the zaōtar: ātrauuaxša, sraōšāuuarəza and frābərətar. Most frequently the zaōtar and the ātrauuaxša exchange the wāž. The sraōšāuuarəza and frābərətar give the wāž to the zaōtar only one time each: the sraōšāuuarəza in VrS87.27 and the frabarətar in VrS89.20Footnote ²³.

The ātrauuaxša is, indeed, the only auxiliary priest that regularly gives the wāž to the zaōtar. He does it mostly in the context of the double wāž gīrišnīh (type 8 according to Cantera 2016: 48), in which the zaōtar gives it back to him so that they can recite together some sections. The other instances are immediatly after investing the zaōtar of his office in VrS11.24 (GVr3.6) and in the srōš-barišnīh (see below). In both contexts he seems to have assumed functions that might have been earlier proper of the sraōšōuuarəza (see below). In the double wāž, he might have taking over functions of any other auxiliary priest depending of the ritual context. Only the role of the sraōšāuuarəza in the second Drōn Yašt and of the frabərətar in the libation to the waters seem to have survived to this invading character of the ātrauuaxša. This assumed modernisation is to be dated at an early date, since the Nērangestān seems to alude to the function of the ātrauuaxša of giving the wāž to the zaōtar (N55.1-2):Footnote ²⁴

The passages in which sraōšāuuarəza and frabərətar are mentioned appear after the so-called de-installation of the priests in Y58.4-5Footnote ²⁶. The presence of the frabərətar in the Āb-zōhr of the LL is connected with the role of this priest in the libation to the waters. He is the priest responsible for the libation to the waters in general (N53.1-2) and accordingly he is the auxiliary priest in a greater Drōn ī Ābān (N53.30). He seems to have assumed the same role for the performance of the libation to the waters during the Āb-zōhr.

The taking of the wāž in which the srāošāuuarəza is involved (VrS82.27) is recited during the performance of the second Drōn Yašt typical of the greater performance of the LL. It appears in the unit following the end of the aṣ̌aiia daδąmi-section. Instead of the yazamaide-section (Y7.30 [GY7.26]) of the first Drōn Yašt (Srōš Drōn), in the second Drōn a wāž gīrišnīh mentioning the sraōšāuuarəza opens the recitation of Y52.1-4 and a new recitation of the dedicatory (VrS82.27-32), both of them missing in the first Drōn Yašt. This taking of the wāž is problematic from the editorial point of view.Footnote ²⁷ The manuscripts are not unanimous concerning the presence or absence of yō. Only sraōšāuuarəzō appears in mss. 2005, 2010, 2030, 2101, 2106, 4000, 4010, and 4200, but we find yō sraōšāuuarəzō in 2102, 2104, 2220 (K11), 2230 (K8), 4025, 4040, 4050, 4055, 4410, 4500, 4515, and 5020 (K4). Both readings are well represented, but sraōšāuuarəzō appears in the oldest Iranian manuscripts and in one of the oldest Indian manuscripts. Furthermore, it is the lectio difficilior, since yō + auxiliary priest is the expected form. If we accept the reading without yō, this passage would be exceptional: the sraōšāuuarəza would be, together with the zaōtar, the only priestly title that would appear in the taking of the wāž without the relative pronoun yō. If we choose the reading with yō, then the zaōtar would be taking the wāž from the sraōšāuuarəza, as he usually does from the ātrauuaxša. This wāž gīrišnīh of the second Drōn Yašt might reveal a special participation of the sraōšāuuarəza during the second Drōn in certain celebrations of the greater LL, but the details are unclear.

The fact that only four of the eight priests are mentioned in the taking of the wāž of the greater LL and that there is an almost universal presence of the zaōtar and the ātrauuaxša (with few exceptions) points to a modernisation of the formula, adapting it to the redistribution of roles within the evolution of the priestly college, until a date that we cannot determine, as recently proposed by Panaino.Footnote ²⁸

The ritual instructions of the manuscripts provide information about the function of some auxiliary priests, mainly through the use of the expression pad gāh i … “at the place of …”. Out of this expression, I have found only one mention of an auxiliary priest in the ritual instructions of the manuscripts: the frabardār is the priest who handles during the recitation of Y11.10 the parāhōm to the zōt as well in the description of the lesser (where no frabardār is expected) as of the greater performance of the LL (e.g. ms. 40Footnote ²⁹: zōt dast pad bun i barsom frāz dārišn frabardār parāhōm ul ō dast dašn i zōt nihišn ud zōt gōwēd pairi.tē. haoma “The zōt holds his hand at the end of the barsom. The frabardār puts the parāhōm in the right hand of the zōt who then says: pairi.tē haoma….”). Notice that all the manuscripts containing this information, indicate that before the recitation of Y11.9, the rāspīg takes the parāhōm and goes to the place of the frabardārān. Accordingly, the mention of the frabardār seems here to be an archaism for rāspīg pad gāh ī frabardārān and point out to a substitution in the ritual instructions as they appear in the manuscripts of the old mention of the single auxiliary priest through the expression pad gāh ī….

In most cases, the position of the rāspīg might be an indication of a function formerly fulfilled by the corresponding auxiliary priest. This is clearly the case during the installation of the auxiliary priests (VrS11.9 [=GVr3.1]), where after the calling of each auxiliary priest (e.g. hāuuanānəm āstaiia “I place the hāuuanān”), the rāspīg goes to the corresponding place and says azəm vīsāi “I am ready”. This also applies to other passages. Thus, according to the manuscripts, the rāspīg recites xᵛarata narō (Y8.3 [GY8.2]) pad gāh i hāwanān, and according to N53.22, it is the hāwanān who recites it in the Drōn i Ābān. Another example: the ritual instructions indicate that although the pressing of haōma has been taken over by the zōt, immediately after the pressing of VrS31.16 (GVr12.5) ~ Y27.9 (GY27.7), the rāspīg recites an Aṣ̌əm Vohū at the place of the hāuuanān (pad gāh i hāwanān).

On many occasions, the data on the ritual instructions are confirmed by the taking of the wāž. Thus, at the beginning of the second section of the Āb-zōhr, and immediately after the zaōtar has taken (the only time in the LL) the wāž from the frābərətar, then this priest takes it from the former. The Avestan formula is identical to the other times when another auxiliary priest takes the wāž from the zaōtar, but the ritual instructions attribute its recitation to the frabardār (e.g., ms 2007): ‘rāspīg pad gāh i frabardārān yaϑā ahū vairiiō yō zaōtā frā.mē mrūte zōt aϑā ratuš aṣ̌āt̰cit̰ hacā viδuuā̊ aṣ̌auua mraōtū’. It is clearly the frabardār who is taking the wāž, as the zōt has taken it from him immediately before. The frabardār then recites VrS89.25-26. The zaōtar then takes the wāž again and recites VrS89.27. Interestingly, the same sequence appears in VrS19.0-2 (GVr7.5 and 8.1-2). There, the manuscripts do not indicate that the rāspīg takes the wāž, but ascribe to him the text VrS19.1-2 (= VrS89.25-26).

Apart from the installation and deinstallation of the priests, the only positions that are mentioned are the ones of the ātrawaxš, hāwanān, the frabardār, srōšāwarz and the ābard:

The only mention of ābard is most likely rather spatial than functional. It appears in the description of the three steps that the zōt has to make during the recitation of Y64.4: he goes first in the direction of the frabardārān, but the last step is towards the ābardān in order to come near to the fire for a last hommage. Accordingly, only four positions seems to be relevant as for the different functions of the rāspīg: gāh ī ātrawaxšān, hāwanān, frabardarān and srōšāwarzān.

This is not accidental. According to the interpretation of K. Rezania, the positions of the priests in the Avestan period were not exactly the same as in the representations of the manuscripts.Footnote ³⁰ They appear sitting in three groups: āsnātar and hāuuanān, to the right of the zaōtar; raēθβiškara and frābərətar, to the left; on the opposite side, in front of the zaōtar, but slightly to the right, the ātrauuaxša. Footnote ³¹ Two priests, the ābərət and the sraōšāuuarəza move around freely, but their standing position was probably located near the ātrauuaxša, to the left of the fire. The manuscripts seem to operate with a standard position of the rāspīg at the place of the ātrauuaxša (confirming the almost universal mention of the ātrauuaxša in the taking of the wāž), and they indicate only when the rāspīg moves to other positions, corresponding to the two additional sitting groups of priests in the old performance and the place of the sraōšāuuarəza.

In at least one passage the postion near the fire is defined by the ritual instruction as the “own” position of the rāspīg (VrS78.4):

Only three additional positions seems to be relevant: the ones of the hāwanān, frabardarān and srōšāwarzān. Interestingly, at the end of Y59, we find a very notable closing. After the Yeŋhē Hātā closing the litany yazamaide VrS77.41 (GY59.29), it follows the request of “what is better than good” (vaŋhaōt̰ vaŋ́hō). Then, after 10 Ahuna Vairiia and 10 Ašəm Vohū and a yazamaide that serves as conclusion of the Fšūšō Mąϑra and the Staōta Yesńiia (VrS77.46 [GY59.33]), the zōt and rāspīg recite an anomalous closing: one Yeŋhē Hātā and the only passage of the LL in which a single Ahuna Vairiia is recited. Then, in the major performances, according to the nerang, the rāspīg moves to the three main positions of the auxiliary priests (besides the one of the ātrawaxš): at the place of the of the hāwanān, the rāspīg recites Y51.23, then a Yeŋhē Hātā at the place of the srōšāwarz and an Aṣ̌əm Vohū at the place of the frabardār. The rāspīg closes the Staōta Yesńiia at the four places where he can perform: together with the zōt at the place of the ātrawaxš and then alone at the places of hāwanān, srōšāwarz and frabardār.

Accordingly, the ritual instructions of the manuscripts seem to operate with a distribution of of the auxiliary priests on the ritual area that is not very different from the Avestan one substitute through “(see figure below)”.

The main difference is that at the time of production of the manuscripts, one rāspīg assumes all the former functions of the auxiliary priests that have not been taken over by the zōt and moves around the different positions. This is a similar situation to the one displayed by the taking of the wāž, with the exception that the latter does not mention the hāuuanān. The taking of the wāž represents a slightly more advanced stage in which the zaōtar and the ātrauuaxša have assumed almost all the functions, thus creating a bipolar structure. As we have seen, the sraōšāuuarəza- and the frabarətar are mentioned there only on one occasion.

Three positions are defined by the functions the auxiliary priest has to fulfil: when he has to act near the zōt and provide to him some implements, he can only take either the position of the frabardār or hāwanān;Footnote ³² when he has to act near the fire, only the position of the ātrawaxš is thinkable. However, there is no a clear link between a practical function and the position of the srōšāwarz. In this case, there is no spatial reason for mentioning his position. First, he is able to move around the sacrifical area. Secondly, his standard position near to the ātrauuaxša, behind the fire, is not necessary for any special ritual action, either the handling of the fire, the barsom or the hōm. Therefore, when his position is mentioned, it most likely refers to one of his former specific functions and strikingly his position is the one that is most frequently mentioned. Most of the mentions correspond however, to one single function that is repeated several times along the performance.

Throughout the performance of the LL (and only in the LL), on several occasions we encounter an exhortation to the priests to pay attention to the sacrifice: səraōšō iδā astū … yasnāi “Let attention/(the god) Attentiveness be here for the sacrifice to…”. Whenever this formula appears in the greater LL, the exchange is always started by the rāspīg at the place of the sraōšāuuarəza (pad gāh i srōšāwarzān). This appears, indeed, as his main function, and hence his title sraōšāuuarəza “the attention-maker”: he is the one responsible for sraōša- “attention, attentive hearing” during the performance of the greater LL, and this is achieved mainly through the recitation of the srōš-barišnīh. Apart from this function, the position of the srōšāwarz is rarely mentioned: beside the installation and the so-called “de-installation”, only in VrS65.30, 78.3 and 82.27.

In what follows, I shall analyze the usage of this formula in the LL, as it has not received the attention it deserves (the only analyses focuses on the possible Old Avestan quotations included in it, see below) and the standard editions do not allow a proper understanding of the formula. They have omitted most of the attestations, and when edited they include only part of the formula, thus preventing a proper understanding. These problems have been solved by the current edition of the Corpus Avesticum Berolinense.Footnote ³³ The next section shows the new possibilities provided by this recent edition of the rituals in the Avestan language.

The srōš-barišnīh

Manuscript 2000 (K7b) designates the formula as it appears in the greater performance of the LL as wāž az srōš yasn. Immediately after the end of Y57 and before the srōš-barišnīh introducing the Fšūšō Mąθra, the ritual instruction of ms 2000 (K7b) says: wāž az srōš yasn bē guftan “He should say the wāž of the Srōš Yasn”. The name derives from the fact that the simplest variant of this formula is repeated three times in Y56. Furthermore, Kotwal and Kreyenbroek identify correctly the designation srōš-barišnīh “the bringing of Srōš” (N18.3) with this formula and this is the designation I use in this paper.Footnote ³⁴

The formula has an Indo-Iranian background. The most recent comparison was made by J. Kellens, who refers to TS1.6.11.1:Footnote ³⁵

The tetrasyllabic ástu śraúṣad addressed by the āgnīdhra to the hotar strongly recalls the Avestan formula, despite its different grammatical form. In Avestan, the verb śrauṣad “he shall hear attentively” has been transformed into a substantive sraōša that designates the attentive hearing of the performance by a priest, and thus the active attentive performance of the ritual.Footnote ³⁶ This mental attitude has been divinised in the Avestan tradition in the god Sraōša “Attentiveness”. Thus, with səraōšō iδā astū as well, the presence of the god Attentiveness is reclaimed for the following section of the sacrifice as the attentive participation of the performing priests.

The basic pattern is an initial formula “Let it pay attention/let Sraōša be here for the yasna to …” (səraōšō iδā astū … yasnāi …) followed by the instruction to repeat again the formula (hiiat̰ paōuruuīm tat̰ ustəməmcit̰ “What (has been said) first, (let's say) it last)” and then by the repetition of the same text introduced by the adverb auuaθāt̰ “thus (auuaϑāt̰ iδā səraōšō astū … yasnāi …).Footnote ³⁷ Its fixed elements seem to be redacted in Middle AvestanFootnote ³⁸ (or a modernised Old Avestan). Pirart holds some sections included in the variable parts for incipits of the texts for which the attention is asked.Footnote ³⁹ Tremblay has forwarded some arguments against the incipit-theory.Footnote ⁴⁰ The most important however, has been overlooked: the yasna to which they refer is not a lost yasna, but parts of the actual LL. The formulas gathered in Y56 introduce parts of the liturgy that are going to be performed afterwards, the Fšūšō MąθraFootnote ⁴¹ and the two sections of the Āb-zōhr:

1. 1. Y63.5 (apąm vaŋᵛhīnąm yasnāi aməṣ̌anąmca spəṇtanąm aṣ̌āunąmca frauuaṣ̌ibiiō yā̊.nō ištā̊ uruuōibiiō =Y56.2) and the parallel VrS87.5 (apąm vaŋᵛhīnąm yasnāi aməṣ̌anąmca spəṇtanąm aṣ̌āunąmca frauuaṣ̌ibiiō yā̊.nō ištā̊. zaōiiō uruuōibiiō aṣ̌āunąmca yasnāi) clearly refer to the first stanza of the Āb-zōhr (Y63.6):

   • ahurəm mazdąm aṣ̌auuanəm aṣ̌ahe ratūm yazamaide aməṣ̌ā spəṇtā huxšaθrā huδā̊ŋhō yazamaide (Y35.1) Y63.6 ahurəm mazdam̨ ašạ uuanəm ašạ he ratum̄ yazamaide aməšạ ̄ spəṇtā huxšaθrā huδaŋ̊̄ hō yazamaide [Y35.1] apō at ̰ yazamaide ašạ ū nam̨ urunascā frauuašı̣ š̄ cā yazamaide [Y38.3])

   • apō at̰ yazamaide aṣ̌āunąm urunascā frauuaṣ̌īšcā yazamaide.

   and its variant in the greater performance (VrS87.7-9) that consists of Yt13.153-4 including at its beginning Y39.2:

   • apō at̰ yazamaide

   • daitikanąmcā aidiiūnąm hiiat̰ urunō yazamaidē

   • aṣ̌āunąm āat̰ urunō yazamaidē

   • kudō.zātanąmcīt̰ narąmcā nāirinąmcā

   • yaēšąm vahehīš daēnā̊ vanaiṇtī vā və̄ṇghən vā vaōnarə̄ vā

   • vanəṇtąm vaŋhəṇtąm vaōnāšąm daēnō.sācąm iδa aṣ̌aōnąm aṣ̌aōninąmca ahūmca daēnąmca baōδasca uruuānəmca frauuaṣ̌īmca yazamaide yōi aṣ̌āi vaōnarə.

2. 2. In Y65.17 and VrS89.17 (səraōšō. iδā. astū. apąm. vaŋᵛhīnąm. yasnāi. vaŋhuš. vaŋᵛhīnąm. aməṣ̌anąmcā. spəṇtanąm. huxšaϑranąm. huδā̊ŋhąm. vohunąmcā. vaŋhuiiā̊scā. aṣ̌ōiš. yasnāi. yā.nə̄. āraēcā. ərənauuataēcā. aṣ̌aŋhāxš. səraōšascā. iδā. astū. apąm. vaŋᵛhīnąm. yasnāi. vaŋhuš. aṣ̌iuuā̊) the mention of Aṣ̌i refers clearly to the initial words of Y68.21: vaŋᵛhīm iδāt̰ ādąm vaŋᵛhīm aṣ̌īm āca nica mrūmaide. It is at this moment that the libation to the waters takes place, as the nērang of the manuscripts and N53.31 indicate (see also Kotwal and Boyd 124). It is followed by the initial words of Y38.3, 4 and 5, stressing again the link between Āb-zōhr and Yasna Haptaŋhāiti.

The Old Avestan texts quoted are not the incipits of lost texts, but are integrated into new texts composed on the basis of older fragments, quoting and reinterpreting them. Thus, the Old Avestan quotation yə̄.nā̊ ištō that appears when the presence of sraōša is required for the yasna to Ahura Mazdā (səraōšō iδā astū ahurahe mazdā̊ yasnāi səuuīštahe aṣ̌aōnō yə̄.nā̊ ištō ) is reinterpreted as “who has received a sacrifice from us”, as shown by the reformulation yā̊.nō ištā̊ used when the formula is applied to the frauuaṣ̌is (as is the case when the yasna is for the Waters):

The shape of the formula, the way of performing it and its frequency depend largely on the type of liturgy in which it is included. These differences have never been analyzed before, as all the descriptionsFootnote ⁴² are based exclusively on the formula as it appears in Y56, the only instance in which the formulas have the same form in the greater and lesser performances of the liturgy. In the greater LL, this formula is not only more complex, but also much more frequent (tenfold instead of threefold in the Yasna). The following is a comparative table of the presence of the formula in the lesser and greater performances:

The main formal dissimilarities concern the persons involved in its recitation and the possibility of adding stanzas in the middle or at the end of the proper srōš-barišnīh. In Y56, the formula is always recited only by the zaōtar. In the lesser performances of the LL, the manuscripts regularly indicate that both recite the introductory stanza (yeŋ́hē.mē…) and do not mention any change of speaker during the recitation of the formula. According to the description by Kotwal and Boyd, in Y63.1-2 and Y65.16-18 both priests recite unisono the complete formula, but in Y15.2-3, there is a change of speaker (not mentioned in the manuscripts): both recite together from the beginning (yeŋ́hē.mē…) until ustəməmcit̰, then the zōt recites alone auuaϑāt̰ iδā səraōšō astū ahurahe mazdā̊ yasnāi səuuīštahe aṣ̌aōnō yə̄.nā̊ ištō. Footnote ⁴⁶ By contrast, the formula is recited in the greater performances alternatively by the rāspīg and the zaōtar. Furthermore, apart from Y56, the formula is always preceded by a stanza consisting of the last strophe of the Vohuxšaθrā Gāθā (Y51.22) plus the first verse of the same Gāθā (Y51.1a vohū xšaθrəm vairīm bāgəm aibī.bairištəm). This combination also appears in Y69.6 (GY69.3).Footnote ⁴⁷ In the greater performance, the formula is also closed by the Yeŋhē Hātā, a re-elaboration of Y51.22, so that the formula begins and ends with a reference to the last stanza (Y51.22) of the Vohu.xšaϑrā Gāϑā.Footnote ⁴⁸

The differences between the three ways of performing it can be seen in the next table (the parts exclusive to the greater LL are underlined, and optional parts are between parentheses):

When the formula contains extensions after the relative pronoun agreeing with the genitive depending on yasnāi, then sraōšō astū appears before hiiat̰ paōuruuīm tat̰ ustəməmcīt̰ and it is again recited at the end of the repetition by the zaōtar.

Furthermore, the closing section shows different shapes. There are two different variants of the text appearing before ratūm bərəzaṇtəm:

– Variant 1

– Variant 2

In the second variant, the closing does not appear immediately after the text repeated by the zōt, but after the yasna for whose performance the presence of Sraōša is required. The scheme is the following:

By contrast, in the first variant of the closing it appears immediately after the repetition by the zōt. Accordingly, the yasna should appear after the closing of the formula and be external to the formula. This is the case, among others, with both Yasna Haptaŋhāiti and the Fšūšō Mąϑra with the following Y59:

In the case of the Yasna Haptaŋhāiti, the yasna is closed exactly in the same way like the srōš-barišnīh in its second variant. It could be a second closing of the formula, after the yasna. However, since the second variant is identical to the closing of the sections of the Stāotā Yesńiia we could as well assume that this second closing has nothing to do with the srōš-barišnīh.

The reasons for the distribution between both variants are not clear. Nevertheless, we state that when the proper yasna is composed completely or partly in Old or Middle Avestan,Footnote ⁵⁴ the formula is closed before the proper yasna with a mini-yasna for Sraōša and the standard closing (and the mention of fire, barəsman, Apąm Napat, etc.) is omitted.

The biggest difficulty for the analysis of this formula in the greater LL arises from the fact that most instances were not edited at all by Geldner,Footnote ⁵⁵ or only partially. The new edition of the Corpus Avesticum Berolinense tries to solve these difficulties, but until now an analysis of the arrangement and function of this formula in the greater performance was possible only checking the manuscripts. The standard formula of the greater performance of the LL has, indeed, never been edited in full. Geldner twice included it in his edition, but so abridged that it does not allow a correct reconstruction of the original text. In all its other appearances, it is simply omitted, with a greater impact on the understanding of the extensions that are edited (see below). In appendix 1, I show how these passages were edited by Geldner, and how the abbreviations have been resolved in TITUS, and compare it with our edition based on the liturgical manuscripts. Geldner often edits only the extensions,Footnote ⁵⁶ and then only partially so. Given that the extensions as edited by Geldner sometimes depend syntactically on the verbs of the non-edited formula, the edited texts are frequent misunderstood (see below). Furthermore, all the instances of the formula appearing in the greater performance after Y54 are not edited by Geldner (since they do not appear in the exegetical manuscripts). Here I display in a table the attestations of this formula in the greater performance indicating whether they have been edited by Geldner or not:

The formula can be extended in different ways. Although extensions are also used in the lesser LL, they are more frequent and longer in the greater LL. Furthermore, for the two instances in which the formula has extensions in the lesser performances, we find in the greater different and longer versions of the extensions that have never been edited. In the case of Y63.1-2 and VrS87.1-3 the differences are minimal, but might be important for understanding the passage (see below):

Between Y65.16-18 and VrS89.16-22 the difference consists in the addition of the end of an extension that we find in other instances of the formula in the greater LL (see below):

Usually, the extension said by the rāspīg is repeated exactly by zōt: VrS24.2-9 (=GVr9.0-8), VrS42.2-10 (GVr14.4-15.7^[1]), VrS65.2-11 (GVr21.0), VrS75.2-11^[1], VrS87.1-3, VrS89.16-22. In only one passage, the extension recited by the zōt is similar to the one recited by the rāspīg, but its wording is different: VrS31.7-11. Nevertheless, VrS31.7-11 is a secondary adaptation to the standard sraōšō astū- formula of Y27.7 (GY27.6), where the presence of sraōša is invoked in a different way than in the standard formula. Here, the rāspīg recites the version that we find in Y27.7 [GY27.6]:

The answer given by the zōt is adapted to the regular scheme of the srōš-barišnīh, however Geldner edited it defectively and the original syntactic structure cannot be recognized. The section underlined is not edited by Geldner (VrS31.11 [GVr12.1]):

The genitive plural is coordinated through °ca with the previous ahurahe mazdā̊ of ahurahe mazdā̊ yasnāi səuuīštahe aṣ̌aōnō yə̄ nā̊ ištō, as is the case in VrS24.4-5 (GVr9.1-2) (see below). Accordingly, the stanza can only be understood together with the previous auuaϑāt̰ iδā səraōšō astū ahurahe mazdā̊ yasnāi səuuīštahe aṣ̌aōnō yə̄ nā̊ that does not appear in Geldner's edition, and has to be translated as:

The problematic passage is thus the quotation of the Yasna in the speech of the rāspīg that does not fit well in the standard pattern of the extensions of the wāž from the Srōš Yašt. The repetition/adaptation of the passage as it appears in the lesser performance is due to the attempt in the greater performances to adapt this passage to the standard formula. The passage was adapted in the answer of the zōt, but the original text was kept in the initial speech of the rāspīg.

There are basically (besides VrS31.7-11) two types of extensions that might be combined:

1. a. an extension of the dative yasnāi through a series of datives mentioning the ritual action for which sraōša should be present

2. b. the imperative sraōšō iδā astu might be complemented by further imperatives: either a repetition (səraōšasca iδā astū) or exhortations to the performing priests in the second person plural (dāraiiaδβəm, staōtaca).

Several instances of the formula share the same or similar extensions. Thus, the extension of the introduction of the two Yasna Haptaŋhāiti and the Fšūšō Mąθra is identical, changing just the title of the introduced section of the LL. Part of the same text (from staōtaca yasnāi on = VrS42.7-8 [GVr15.4-5]) also appears at the end of the introduction to the Hōmāst (VrS24.9-10 [GVr 9.6-7]) and, with an alternative beginning, again in the introduction to the second section of the Āb-zōhr (VrS89.18-19).

As Geldner has mostly edited only the extensions, but not imbedded within the srōš-barišnīh, these texts have been largely misunderstood. Thus, the whole text of the introduction to the Hōmāst (VrS24.2-9 [GVr9.0-8]) edited by Geldner does not include a main sentence (see appendix 1 § 2). The main sentence is the preceding one, but not edited səraōšō iδā astū ahura mazdā̊ yasnāi. The core of the extension is a series of datives in VrS24.6 (GVr9.3), coordinated with the previous yasnāi: āuuistaiiaēca aiβi.vistaiiaēca aiβiš.hutaiiaēca upāštaiiaēca upaŋharštaiiaēca hufrāiiaštaiiaēca huframərətaiiaēca “(let sraōša be here) for the consecration, for the presentation, for the pressing, the transposition, the filtering, the solemn sacrifice and the good recitation”. These are the actions that are going to be performed during the Hōmāst, and for which the presence of sraōša is required. The stanzas VrS24.4-5 (GVr9.1-2) contain the genitives (haōmanąm … zaōθranąm…) that are governed by the list of datives “for the consecration … of the haōmas…and of the libations” modified then by baēšaza hacimnanąm “accompanied by the healing” and relative sentences depending on baēšaza. The second part of VrS24.6 (GVr9.3) and VrS24.7 (GVr9.4) is a long relative sentence depending on the initial haōmanąm … zaōθranąm… ). Thus, the whole chapter edited by Geldner is a dative-extension of the srōš-barišnīh announcing the actions to be performed during the Hōmāst.

A similar case is that of the three almost identical extensions of the formula that announce the two recitations of the Yasna Haptaŋhāiti and of the Fšūšō Mąθra (VrS42.4-8 [GVr 15.1-5], VrS65.4-8 [GVr21.0], VrS75.4-5Footnote ⁵⁹). In this case, the extension begins with a series of imperatives coordinated with the initial səraošō iδā astū:

1. 1. dāraiiaδβəm…

2. 2. vərəziiātąmca iδa.

3. 3. sraōšasca iδā astū.

4. 4. staōtaca

The first two are part of a general exhortation to the performing priests for a correct performance of the next ritual actions and to avoid mistakesFootnote ⁶⁰ (VrS42.4 [GVr 15.1]. VrS65.4 [GVr21.0], VrS75.4):

The imperative, repeating the initial formula (səraōšō iδā astū), announces the recitation of the text that will follow (one of the two Yasna HaptaŋhāitiFootnote ⁶¹ or the Fšūšō Mąθra) (VrS42.5 [GVr 15.2]. VrS65.5 [GVr21.0], VrS75.5), and is again extended through a series of datives complementing yasnāi:

The closing section also appears in the introduction to the Hōmāst (VrS24.9-10 [GVr9.6-7]), and with a minimal variation in the introduction to the second section of the Āb-zōhr. It consists of an imperative coordinated with the precedent səraōšō iδā astū or even səraōšasca iδā astū: staōtaca “you should praise” in all instances except VrS89.21, where we find instead səraōšascā iδā astū apąm vaŋᵛhīnąm yasnāi vaŋhuš aṣ̌iuuā̊. Kellens translates staōtaca yasnāica vaɱāica frasastaiiaēca as “(Le texte) ‘Les éloges (sacrificiels)’ est prêt pour le sacrifice, le chant d'adoration et l’énoncé-qualifiant”.Footnote ⁶⁴ He assumes an unlikely “dissimilation” of *staōtaca yesniia yasnāica in the attested staōtaca yasnāica. Actually, Av. staōtaca is rather an imperative coordinated with səraōšascā iδā astū (cf. dāraiiaδβəm in VrS42.4 [GVr15.1], VrS65.4 [part of GVr21.0], VrS75.4). The presence of an imperative here is furthermore confirmed by the alternative beginning in VrS89.21: səraōšascā iδā astū apąm vaŋᵛhīnąm yasnāi vaŋhuš aṣ̌iuuā̊. The complete text runs as follows (VrS24.9-10 (GVr9.6-7); VrS42.7-8 (GVr15.4-5), VrS65.7-8 (GVr21.0), VrS75.7-8):

The variant for the second section of the Āb-zōhr with its alternative beginning runs as follows:

Belonging to the same type of extension with a second dative is the supplementary text of the introduction to the first section of the Āb-zōhr: VrS87.2, corresponding to Y63.2. The interpretation of the text poses certain problems that have attracted the attention of Pirart, Tremblay and Kellens. It has never been noted however, that the greater LL offers a different text to the Yasna:

In the quest for Old Avestan passages in Y56, this passage raises particular problems, as aṣ̌āunąmca cannot be Young Avestan (we would expect aṣ̌aōnąmca), but does not show lengthening of °ca (expected in Old Avestan, but cf. aṣ̌āunąmca Y4.2, Y24.4, VrS27.6 [GVr11.6], VrS79.2) and yā̊.nō ištā̊ cannot be Old Avestan (because of nō instead of nə̄). Furthermore, the asyndetic coordination of frauuaṣ̌ibiiō and uruuōibiiō is taken as a vestige of Old Avestan. As the greater performance attests a different wording of the passage, the interpretation as a quotation is, nonetheless, quite unlikely. The version of the greater performance also poses a number of problems: the position of aṣ̌āunąmca after uruuōibiiō and the interpretation of zaōiiō. The former seems to be an alteration (in the transmission?) of aṣ̌āunąmca uruuōibiiō cf. Y4.2, Y24.4, VrS27.6 [GVr11.6], VrS79.2 aṣ̌āunąmca frauuaṣ̌ibiiō aṣ̌āunąmca uruuōibiiō.). The latter might be interpreted as the nominative singular of zaōiia- “to be invoked”. Its presence reminds us of Yt13.148 yaēšąm yašəθβat̰ca uruuąnō zaōiiā̊sca frauuaṣ̌aiiō “whose souls are worthy of sacrifice and whose elections are worthy to be invoked”. However, in VrS87.2 the nominative singular is puzzling. It is either a transmission error for *zaōiiābiiō or it has to be compared with the nominative singular of vaŋhuš and vaŋhuš aṣ̌iuuā̊ in VrS89.21. In the latter case, the translation should be:

The corresponding formula of Y65.17 should be translated as follows:

The role of the sraōšāuuarəza in the performance of the srōš-barišnīh

The fact that the srōš-barišnīh is always recited twice, with the addition of the adverb auuaθāt̰ in the repetition, and that there is an explicit exhortation to repeat the previous text (hiiat̰ paōuruuīm tat̰ ustəməmcīt̰), suggests that the wāž of the Srōš Yasn, like the taking of the wāž, was originally recited as a dialogue, exactly as it is in the greater performance. Hence, this formula is excluded from the rituals performed by just one priest. The indications of the manuscripts’ ritual instructions and the obvious connection between the priest sraōšāuuarəza “the attention-maker” and sraōša “Attentiveness; attention” point to the sraōšāuuarəza as the priest in charge of reciting the initial section until hiiat̰ paōuruuīm tat̰ ustəməmcīt̰. The answering priest is always the zaōtar, who repeats the allocution of the sraōšāuuarəza. In the lesser performance of the LL, in which the sraōšāuuarəza was not present, the sole auxiliary priest assumes his role. However, because of the auxiliary priest's lower rank in the lesser LL (he cannot give the wāž to the zōt)Footnote ⁶⁹ he is unable on his own to demand the presence of sraōša or the attention of the zaōtar, but has to recite the formula together with the latter. Thus, the performance of the formula in the lesser LL seems to be a simplification for its performance in a ceremony without the presence of a sraōšāuuarəza.

Nonetheless, the attribution of the recitation of the first part of the formula to the sraōšāuuarəza is at odds with the evidence of the taking of the wāž in the greater performances. According to the latter, the zaōtar takes always the wāž from the ātrauuaxša, except in VrS89.20, where he takes it from the frabarətar. This seems to indicate that the auxiliary priest responsible for the recitation of the first part was always the ātrauuaxša, except in VrS89.16 ff., where it was the frabarətar. Nonetheless, this may be a modernisation of the taking of the wāž that has been adapted to the modern performance by only two priests. When the ātrauuaxša became the almost universal auxiliary priest, he assumed the role of the sraōšāuuarəza in the recitation of the first part of the formula, although he still recited it at the place of the latter as a reminder of the former responsibility of the sraōšāuuarəza in the first call to Sraōša. The wāz-gīrišnīh seems again to be a step fruther in the modernization than the positions of the auxiliary priest.

Through the formula, the sraōšāuuarəza calls upon the other performing priests to be attentive. This exhortation is simultaneously a demand for the presence of the god Sraōša, the divinisation of the mental attitude of the attentive hearing and attentive participation in the sacrifice. Therefore, both the god/mental attitude of Attentiveness and the priests are addressed in the imperative: the god always in the 3^rd p.sg. and the priests in the 2^nd p.pl. in the most frequent extensions of the formula when introducing the Hōmāst, the two Yasna Haptaŋhāiti and the Fšūšō Mąθra. Thus, the attribution to the sraōšāuuarəza of this role in its performance fits well in the general function that the Nērangestān ascribes to him: to be the overseer of the performance. It is particularly recognisable in the greater LL, where the formula səraōšō iδā astū ahurahe mazdā̊ yasnāi səuuīštahe aṣ̌aōnō yə̄.nā̊ ištō “Let Sraōša be here for the yasna to most powerful Ahura Mazdā, who has received a sacrifice from us” precedes the most important actions: VrS11.30-32, the Fraōrəti; VrS24.2-9 (=GVr9.0-8), the Hōmāst; VrS42.2-10 (GVr14.4-15.7), the first Yasna Haptaŋhāiti; VrS65.2-11 (GVr21.0), the second Yasna Haptaŋhāiti; VrS75.2-11, the Fšūšō Mąθra; VrS87.1-3, VrS89.16-21, the two sections of the Āb-zōhr.

The collection of srōš-barišnīh in Y56 accomplishes a similar function to the single formula.Footnote ⁷⁰ The whole is, together with Y57, a major call to Sraōša to be present during the last part of the ceremony. Thus, Y56 understands the last part of the Long liturgy after Y57 to be divided into three parts: one, ranging from the Fšūšō Mąθra to the beginning of the Āb-zōhr,Footnote ⁷¹ and then a yasna for the Waters with two sections, the first dedicated to the Waters and the Frauuaṣ̌is, and the second to the Waters and Aṣ̌i. As such, the combination of Y56 + Y57Footnote ⁷² is the counterpart of the Srōš Drōn at the beginning of the ceremony.Footnote ⁷³ The favour of the Sraōša is won through the initial Srōš Drōn and the nourishment offered to him, whereby he will be present for the priestly installation and for the subsequent pressing of the haōma and recitation of the Staōta Yesniia with the animal sacrifice and meat offering to the fire and finally for the libations to barəsman and waters. The god Sraōša and the priestly attitude of attentiveness preside over the whole performance of the ceremony.Footnote ⁷⁴ In charge of the production of tis Attentiveness (sraōša) is precisely the sraōšāuuarəza- and his instrument is the srōš-barišnīh

Other putative functions of the sraōšāuuarəza

The mentions of the place of the srōšāwarz out of the srōš-barišnīh are very limited:

1. 1. the installation (VrS11.9 [GVr3.1]) and “de-installation” (VrS76.4 [GY58.4]) of the priests

2. 2. the remarkable closing of the Staōta Yesńiia after Y59

3. 3. the only wāž gīrišnīh through which the zōt takes from the srōšāwarz (VrS82.27)

Whereas in the two first ones, he appears as one among the auxiliary priests, in the third one he is alone as auxiliary priest. The zōt takes the wāž from the sraōšāuuarəza just at the end of the aṣ̌aiia daδąmi section of the second Drōn Yašt, immediately before the recitation by the zōt from the repetition of Y52.2-5 and shortly before the beginning of the Dahma Āfriti. This seems to imply that the srōšāuuarəza was the priest having the wāž and therefore reciting the previous section. Nonetheless, according to the nērang, important sections of the second Drōn are recited by zōt and rāspīg together and some parts only y the zōt. At an earlier time, the situation might have been different. The second Drōn and perhaps the whole final section put under the protection of Sraōša through the recitation of the two hymns to Sraōša seems, indeed, to show an especial link to the sraōšāuuarəza. In fact, it seems that, after the hymn to Sraōša, there is a certain exchangeability of roles between zaōtar and sraōšāuuarəza. According to N4.3 (see § 1), when the LL is celebrated in an Ātaš Wahrām, then, after the zaōtar has recited the Srōš Yašt, the sraōšāuuarəza should stand there and not leave the place after the recitation of the end of Y58.4. Then it follows a less than clear sentence pad ēn tis zōt srōšāwarz “In this matter, the zōt is the srōšāwarz”, but indicating an identity of roles between both priests at this point.

There might have been formerly other functions proper of the sraōšāuuarəza, but they have been later assumed either by the zaōtar or by the ātrauuaxša. In view of the lack of any evidence in our sources, the attribution of such functions must remain conjectural. Two additional functions can be postulated. On the one hand, the description of his function in V18.14 ff and the Nērangestān render it likely that he was the one responsible for inviting the auxiliary priests (and even the zaōtar) during their installation (VrS11.9 ff. [GVr3.1]). On the other hand, in the few functions that the extant sources allow us to identify, he is clearly associated with the use of the imperative (a role befitting his description as an overseer of the performance):

• – according to N53.22, he is in charge of reciting Y8.3 (GY8.2) xᵛarata narō aētəm miiazdəm in the greater ceremonies (yašt ī meh )Footnote ⁷⁵

• – according to the nērangs, his functions are:

  • ◦ to recite the srōš-barišnīh that is based on the repetition of the imperative səraōšō astū, and includes further imperatives in the extensions: dāraiiaδβəm, staōtaca, yōiθβā astū and vərəziiātąmca.

  • ◦ in Y58.4-8, whose recitation is distributed among all the priests of the college, he recites: hə̄cā Footnote ⁷⁶.nā fšūmā̊ nišaŋharatū hə̄ aiβiiāxšaiiatū hadā aṣ̌ācā vāstrācā frārāticā vīdīšaiiācā ainiticā āϑrācā ahurahē mazdā “the owner of the cow shall preserve and watch over…”. Observe that the verb aiβiiāxšaiia- is the same as the one the Nērangestān (N59.1 aiβiiāxšaiiāt̰) uses for describing the role of the sraōšāuuarəza.

• – in V18, the words attributed to the sraōšāuuarəza are dominated by the imperatives in 2^nd p.pl. usəhištata, staōta, nīsta, exactly like the extensions of the wāž of the Srōš Yasn.

He is therefore the most likely candidate for the attribution of the recitation of further performative orders, with the most significant ones being the imperatives (and infinitives functioning as imperatives) of the taking of the wāž and of the installation of the zaōtar. However, both functions have been assumed by different priests in later times: the exhortations within the taking of the wāž are recited by the two priests involved in the exchange; and the invitation to the auxiliary priests is made by the zaōtar, and the latter is summoned by the ātrauuaxša to assume the office of the zaōtar. Nevertheless, important adaptations and modernisations have to be assumed for both processes.

In my paper on the taking of the wāž, I compared it with the srōš-barišnīh and similar exhortations to the priests in the Vedic rituals.Footnote ⁷⁷ There, I attributed the recitation of the instructions to the priest who is taking the wāž. If the zaōtar takes the wāž, he recites yaθā ahū vairiiō and then invites the ātrauuaxša to recite the rest with the expression: yō ātrauuaxšō frā.mē mrūte aϑā ratuš aṣ̌āt̰cit̰ hacā viδuuā̊ aṣ̌auua mraōtū “the ātrauuaxša, who is here in order to say it for me, he, the orderly one who knows (the text), should say aϑā ratuš aṣ̌āt̰cit̰ hacā…”. The priest who takes the wāž asks for permission, exhorting a priest in the 3^rd p.sg. to give the wāž to him. The scene must have taken place as follows:

The whole would be an invitation to complete an Ahuna Vairiia that the zōt has started with yaθā ahū vairiiō. The manuscripts and the modern recitation would contain only the words of the zaōtar, but not the recitation of the second part of the Ahuna Vairiia by the ātrauuaxša. Nonetheless, the performance as described in the manuscripts is slightly different: the priest taking the wāž recites only the first part of the invitation to the other priest (yaθā ahū vairiiō yō ātrauuaxšō frā.mē mrūte), and then the priest giving it says the second part (aϑā ratuš aṣ̌āt̰cit̰ hacā viδuuā̊ aṣ̌auua mraōtū.).

My general interpretation of the function and use of the taking of the wāž is hardly questionable, but the literal understanding of the formula I proposed is, however, still open to discussion. There are two main questions to be answered: whether the two parts of the formula (e.g., yō zaōta frā.mē mrūte. and aϑā ratuš aṣ̌āt̰cit̰ hacā viδuuā̊ aṣ̌auua mraōtū.) belong to the same syntactic unit, and who is the priest reciting the formula, the priest taking the wāž or a third priest? Concerning the first question, my interpretation of the whole as a syntactic unit forces us to dismiss the evidence of the typical wāž gīrišnīh of the lesser performance of the LL and of the beginning of the greater one (type 7) as secondary, as the zaōtar recites only the first part of the formula (that would be thus incomplete). By contrast, if we divide it into two syntactic units, the first referring to the recitation of yaθā ahū vairiiō, and the second to the rest of the Ahuna Vairiia, then it is clear that either the priest mentioned in the first part of the formula has been changed or the function attributed to the formula has been reinterpreted. In the former case, if the zaōtar takes the wāž from the ātrauuaxša, then the formula yō ātrauuaxšō is now used, but one would expect yō zaōtā, as it is the zaōtar who takes the wāž. In the latter, it would mean that the priest who takes the wāž was formerly not the one reciting yaθā ahū vairiio, but the one answering. Consequently, the formula yaθā ahū vairiiō yō ātrauuaxšō frā.mē mrūte aϑā ratuš aṣ̌āt̰cit̰ hacā viδuuā̊ aṣ̌auua mraōtū would not be for the zaōtar taking the wāž, but for the ātrauuaxša.

Thus, the syntactic interpretation as one unit implies a secondary creation of the most frequent variant (type 7) and the interpretation as two syntactic units implies a complete reinterpretation of the use of the formula. In both cases, the recitation by a third priest (probably the sraōšāuuarəza) seems more plausible than by the priests involved in the exchange. According to the interpretation of the yō … frā.mē mrūte aϑā ratuš aṣ̌āt̰cit̰ hacā viδuuā̊ aṣ̌auua mraōtū as one unit, he would call upon another priest to give the wāž to the one who is taking it (reciting yaθā ahū vairiiō), although one would rather expect that he has to invite the one who takes it. According to the interpretation as two units, he would first invite the priest taking the wāž to do so, and then the one giving it. The latter solution seems more credible, but it would imply that the formula was completely reinterpreted when adapted to a performance without sraōšāuuarəza.

There are also numerous problems for understanding the exact form of the installation of the priests. According to the ritual instructions in the manuscripts and the Nērangestān (N28.41), the zaōtar first places the seven auxiliary priests in the ritual area (VrS11.9 ff. [GVr3.1]) and then the ātrauuaxša asks him to assume his office (VrS11.24-25). However, if the zaōtar is invested with his office by the ātrauuaxša in VrS11.24-25, how could he have previously invited the auxiliary priests to take their ritual place and perform their function? Panaino proposes that, in the context of an uninterruptedly performed greater LL (a setup that I consider most likely), a priestly college (or at least the zaōtar and one auxiliary priest) that has performed a former instance of the ritual continues in office for the beginning of the next performance. The installation would be the moment of the substitution of the previous college by a new one.Footnote ⁷⁸ This is, however, not the only possible explanation. The zaōtar might have been acting as a zaōtar before the installation of the other priests, but the definitive assumption of his full function as the main priest, is only possible after having drunk the parahaōma. The process will conclude with Y14.1that is reminiscent of VrS11.15 (GVr3.7):

The most appropriate auxiliary priest for the installation of all the other priests and the zaōtar is again the sraōšāuuarəza as “the best instructed and best versed about the right recitation of the word”.Footnote ⁷⁹ V18.14 ff. could as well point in this direction.Footnote ⁸⁰ Finally, the formulation employed for the installation of the zaōtar is reminiscent of the taking of the wāž (yō … frā.mē mrūte “who is the … is there for saying …”),whose recitation might also correspond to the sraōšāuuarəza. A possible configuration would be that the zaōtar invites the auxiliary priests, and once they have entered the ritual area, the sraōšāuuarəza exhorts him to assume his office. An alternative could be that it is the sraōšāuuarəza who also invites the auxiliary priests into the ritual area. The main problems for this hypothesis are that he would have to be present in the ritual area before entering it in VrS11.9 ff. (GVr3.1), a problem that also concerns his putative responsibility for the reciting of the taking of the wāž, and means that he would have to make a self-installation.

Nevertheless, we have some signs pointing out that the sraōšāuuarəza could have been present and active in the performance before the installation of the auxiliary priests. According to N53.22, in the greater performances of the Drōn i Ābān, the sraōšāuuarəza invites the zaōtar to partake of the drōn (Y8.3 [GY8.2] xᵛarata narō aētəm miiazdəm), recites part of the Āfrīnagān ī Rapihwin, and partakes of the drōn. This could suggest a possible more active role of the sraōšāuuarəza as well during the initial Drōn Yašt of the greater performance. In fact, it would not be surprising if the protagonism of the first section of the liturgy, dedicated to Sraōša, corresponds to the sraōšāuuarəza, as the main priest (exactly as we see him presiding over the funerary rites—probably a Vīdēvdād with a dedicatory to Sraōša—on Sino-Sogdian tombs), or as the assistant priest of the performing zaōtar. As Kellens has stated, V18.14 ff. seems to describe a dawn ritual in which Sraōša is the zaōtar and the rooster is the sraōšāuuarəza. Footnote ⁸¹

The gradual reduction in the number of auxiliary priests from seven (grouped at four positions) to four (ātrawaxš, hāwanān, frabardār, srōšāwarz), and finally to one (rāspīg/ātrawaxš) has erased almost all the traces of the previous functions of the other auxiliary priests than the ātrawaxš. Only the Avestan and the Pahlavi Nērangestān retain vestiges of older functions. Nevertheless, the manuscripts’ ritual instructions still bear systematic witness to the function that was exclusive of the srōšāwarz: the recitation of the srōš-barišnīh. He thereby fulfills his role as overseer of the ritual. He requests the presence of the god Sraōša for the main parts of the liturgy, and simultaneously asks the other priests to pay attention to their correct performance.Footnote ⁸² The god is, indeed, the deification of the priests’ mental attitude, consisting in attentively listening to the performance of the ritual and participating in it. It is in this sense that this priest is an “attention-maker”. As such, he probably had further functions. The most likely one is the recitation of other performative exhortations to the priests for the recitation of certain texts, such as the ones contained in the taking of the wāž. Furthermore, he might have played an important role in the initial and final phases of the liturgy that are specifically placed under the protection of the god Sraōša. Nevertheless, the important changes in the performance of the greater LL that were prompted by the progressive reduction of the priestly college from eight to two priests have led to the loss of evidence for these putative former functions of the sraōšāuuarəza.