the Gathas, in the Yagna
haptanhaiti, or in the older portions of the Vendidad. It was a Scythic
practice; and probably the best extant account of it is that which
Herodotus gives of the mode wherein it was managed by the Scyths of
Europe. "Scythia," he says, "has an abundance of soothsayers, who
foretell the future by means of a number of willow wands. A large bundle
of these rods is brought and laid on the ground. The soothsayer unties
the bundle, and places each wand by itself, at the same time uttering
his prophecy: then, while he is still speaking, he gathers the rods
together again, and makes them up once more into a bundle." A divine
power seems to have been regarded as resting in the wands; and they were
supposed to be "consulted" on the matter in hand, both severally and
collectively. The bundle of wands thus imbued with supernatural wisdom
became naturally part of the regular priestly costume, and was carried
by the Magi on all occasions of ceremony. The wands were of different
lengths; and the number of wands in the bundle varied. Sometimes there
were three, sometimes five, sometimes as many as seven or nine; but in
every case, as it would seem, an odd number.

Another implement which the priests commonly bore must be regarded, not
as Magian, but as Zoroastrian. This is the khrafgthraghna, or instrument
for killing bad animals, frogs, toads, snakes, mice, lizards, flies,
etc., which belonged to the bad creation, or that which derived its
origin from Angro-mainyus. These it was the general duty of all men,
and the more especial duty of the Zoroastrian priests, to put to death,
whenever they had the opportunity. The Magi, it appears, adopted this
Arian usage, added the khrafgthraghna to the barsom, and were so zealous
in their performance of the cruel work expected from them as to excite
the attention, and even draw upon themselves the rebuke, of foreigners.

A practice is assigned to the Magi by many classical and ecclesiastical
writers, which, if it were truly charged on them, would leave a very
dark stain on the character of their ethical system. It is said that
they allowed and even practised incest of the most horrible kind--such
incest as we are accustomed to associate with the names of Lot, OEdipus,
and Herod Agrippa. The charge seems to have been first made either by
Xanthus the Lydian, or by Ctesias. It was accepted, probably without
much inquiry, by the Greeks generally, and then by the Romans, was
r