out hesitation those who set aside the religion of the State. But
Ardeshir has directed that the accused shall be arrested and shall be
catechised during a year and only if that proves of no effect he shall
be killed." As a matter of fact, the rigorous ordinance which awarded
the punishment of death for apostacy could not have existed before
Parsism became with Ardeshir the State religion. The relaxation of
punishment, on the other hand, dates from a much later period, when the
standpoint of greater humanity began to be prevalent and when it was
attempted to give greater authority to these views by attributing them
to the celebrated founder of the dynasty. And we can say the same thing
with reference to the less severe punishment for crimes committed
against the State and in respect of other things mentioned in the
letter. Besides, the tolerance in matters religious and the humanity of
Khusro I are well-known.

Now let us look at the incident of succession. According to the letter
Ardeshir did not like to choose his successor lest the latter should
wish for his death. So, he arranged for the succession in the following
manner. The king only left in his royal letters a few counsels or
instructions to the grand _Mobed_, the commander-in-chief, and the
principal secretary, and after the decease of the king the latter were
to proceed to elect a successor from among the royal princes. If they
all were not of the same mind the choice should rest with the grand
_mobed_ alone. But Aideshir had made a formal notes that he was not
going to establish a president thereby, and that "in another age a
manner of looking at things different from ours may appear the proper
one." In the first place such an arrangement accords ill with the nature
of a statesmen like Ardeshir, for we know from Tabari who follows the
official chronicle of the times of the Sasanians, that Ardeshir as well
as Shapur I and II themselves chose their respective successors. But in
the times between Ardeshir II and Kawadh the election of the king was
generally in the hands of the noblemen, and the system mentioned by
Tansar may well have suited this period and been in harmony with the
singular expression ascribed to Ardeshir that the system in question was
not a definite one, and that in other periods, other manners might be
more convenient. It seems to us that the letter of Tansar was composed
at a period when the memory of the system of Ardeshir was still living