The Literature of Pre-Islamic Iran: Companion Volume I to A History of Persian Literature 9780755610402, 9781845118877

Citation preview

A History of Persian Literature Editorial Board Mohsen Ashtiany J. T. P. de Bruijn (Vice-­Chairman) Dick Davis William Hanaway, Jr. Ahmad Karimi-Hakkak Franklin Lewis Wilferd Madelung Heshmat Moayyad Ehsan Yarshater (Chairman) Late Member: Annemarie Schimmel

Dedicated to the memory of Ronald E. Emmerick

CONTRIBUTORS The first editor of the present volume, the late Ronald E. Emmerick (1937–2001), to whom this volume is dedicated, held degrees from the University of Sydney (BA in 1959) and Cambridge (MA and PhD 1965). He was lecturer in Iranian Studies at the University of London, School of Oriental and African Studies (1964–71) and Visiting Associate Professor of Old and Middle Iranian at the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. From 1971 until his death in 2001 he was Professor of Iranian Philology at the University of Hamburg. His numerous publications deal with Old and Middle Iranian subjects, especially with the field of Khotanese. Main publications are The Book of Zambasta, A Khotanese Poem on Buddhism (1968), Saka Grammatical Studies (1968) and Studies in the Vocabulary of Khotanese (together with P. O. Skjærvø, 3 volumes, 1982, 1987 and 1997). Almut Hintze is Zartoshty Senior Lecturer in Zoroastrianism at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London. Holding degrees from the universities of Heidelberg, Oxford, Erlangen (PhD) and Berlin (Dr. habil.), her field is Indo-Iranian Studies with special emphasis on the Zoroastrian Literature. Her main publications include Der Zamyād Yašt. Edition, Übersetzung, Kommentar (1994), ‘Lohn’ im Indoiranischen: Eine semantische Studie des Rigveda und Avesta (2000), and an edition of the Yasna Haptaŋhāiti (2007). She is currently working on an edition, translation, commentary and dictionary of the Avestan Yasna. Philip Huyse, trained in classical philology, comparative Indo-European linguistics and Indo-Iranian studies (PhD 1991 in Leuven), is Professor for pre-Islamic Iranian history and languages at the “École Pratique des Hautes Études” in Paris. His main publications include Die dreisprachige Inschrift Šābuhr’s I. an der Kaʿba-i Zardušt (1999), L’y final dans les inscriptions moyen-perses et la loi rythmique proto-moyen-perse (2003), and La Perse antique (2005).

xv

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN Maria Macuch is head of the Institute of Iranian Studies at Freie Universität Berlin. Having completed her PhD in 1977 and her habilitation in 1990 she received a call to the chair of Iranian Studies at the University of Göttingen in 1994. Since 1993 she is editor of the series Iranica and was elected as President of the Societas Iranologica Europæa in 2003. Her main publications are concerned with the legal system of pre-Islamic Iran and its impact on other legal systems (Babylonian Talmud, Islamic law). Besides a number of articles her books include Das sasanidische Rechtsbuch “Mātakdān i Hazār Dātistān” (1981) and Rechtskasuistik und Gerichtspraxis zu Beginn des siebenten Jahrhunderts in Iran: Die Rechtssammlung des Farroḫmard ī Wahrāmān (1993). Mauro Maggi was born in Como, Italy, in 1957. He graduated from the Università degli Studi di Milano and took his doctorate at the Istituto Universitario Orientale, Naples. Since 1999 he has been Associate Professor of Indo-Iranian philology at the Università degli Studi di Napoli L’Orientale. Besides a number of articles in scholarly journals, multi-author volumes and conference proceedings, he has published The Khotanese Karmavibhaṅga (Rome 1995) and Pelliot Chinois 2928: a Khotanese Love Story (Rome 1997). Nicholas Sims-Williams is Research Professor of Iranian and Central Asian Studies at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London. He studied at the University of Cambridge, gaining his BA in 1972 and PhD in 1978. He is a Fellow of the British Academy and of the national academies of France and Austria. His publications include The Christian Sogdian Manuscript C2 (1985), Sogdian and other Iranian Inscriptions of the Upper Indus (1989–92), and Bactrian Documents from Northern Afghanistan (2000–). Werner Sundermann is retired research-collaborator of the BerlinBrandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften and retired Professor at Freie Universität Berlin. He studied at Humboldt-Universität Berlin, was graduated Dr. phil. in 1963 and Dr. sc. in 1984. He was head of the research team “Turfanforschung” of the Berlin Academy from 1992 till 2000. The main subject of his scholarly work is the edition of Middle Iranian texts of the Turfan collection. 1973–97 he edited five volumes of Manichaean Middle Persian, Parthian and Sogdian texts (Berliner Turfantexte IV, XI, XV, XVII and XIX) and “Studien zur kirchengeschichtlichen Literatur der iranischen Manichäer” (1986–87). Some of his articles were reprinted in Manichaica Iranica (2001).

xvi

CONTRIBUTORS Yutaka Yoshida (MA) is Professor at the linguistic department of Kyoto University. He was Lecturer at the Kobe City University (1983–87) and at the International Buddhist University (1986–88), since 1988 Associate Professor and from 1999 to 2006 Professor at the Kobe City University. Major publications: Notes on the Khotanese Documents of the 8th –9th Centuries Unearthed from Khotan (2005); Turfan Antiquarian Bureau (ed.), Studies in the New Manichaean Texts Recovered from Turfan (2000, with Rong Xinjiang et al.); Iranian Fragments from the Otani Collection (1997, with K. Kudara and W. Sundermann).

xvii

Foreword In the 1990s I gradually became convinced that the time had come for a new, comprehensive, and detailed history of Persian literature, given its stature and significance as the single most important accomplishment of the Iranian peoples. Hermann Ethé’s pioneering survey of the subject, “Neupersische Litteratur” in Grundriss der iranischen Philologie II, was published in 1904 and E. G. Browne’s far more extensive A Literary History of Persia, with ample discussion of the political and cultural background of each period, appeared in four successive volumes between 1902 and 1924. The English translation of Jan Rypka’s History of Iranian Literature, written in collaboration with a number of other scholars, came out in 1968 under his own supervision. Iranian scholars have also made a number of significant contributions throughout the 20th century to different aspects of Persian literary history. These include B. Foruzânfar’s Sokhan va sokhan­ varân (On poetry and poets, 1929–33), M.-T. Bahâr’s Sabk-­shenâsi (Varieties of style in prose) in three volumes (1942) and a number of monographs on individual poets and writers. The truly monumental achievement of the century in this context was Dh. Safâ’s wide-ranging and meticulously researched Târikh-e ­adabiyyât dar Irân (History of Literature in Iran) in five volumes and eight parts (1953–79). It studies Persian poetry and prose in the context of their political, social, religious, and cultural background, from the rise of Islam to almost the middle of the 18th century. Nevertheless, it cannot be said that Persian literature has received the attention it merits, bearing in mind that it has been the jewel in the crown of Persian culture in its widest sense and the standard bearer for aesthetic and cultural norms of the literature of the eastern regions of the Islamic world from about the 12th century; and that it has profoundly influenced the literatures xix

The Literature of Pre-­Islamic Iran

of ­Ottoman ­Turkey, Muslim India and Turkic Central Asia—a literature that could inspire Goethe, Emerson, Matthew Arnold, and Jorge Luis Borges among others, and was praised by William Jones, Tagore, E. M. Forster, and many more. Persian literature remained a model for the literatures of the above countries until the 19th century, when the European influence began effectively to challenge the Persian literary and cultural influence and succeeded in replacing it. Whereas Persian art and architecture, and more recently Persian films, have been written about extensively and at different levels for a varied audience, Persian literature has largely remained the exclusive domain of specialists: It is only in the past few years that the poems of Rumi have drawn to themselves the kind of popular attention enjoyed by Omar Khayyam in the 19th century. A History of Persian Literature (HPL) has been conceived as a comprehensive and richly documented work, with illustrative examples and a fresh critical approach, to be written by prominent scholars in the field. An Editorial Board was selected and a meeting of the Board arranged in September 1995 in Cambridge, UK, in conjunction with the gathering that year of the Societas Europaea Iranologica, where the broad outlines of the editorial policy were drawn up. Fourteen volumes were initially envisaged to cover the subject, including two Companion Volumes. Later, two additional volumes devoted to Persian prose from outside Iran (the Indian subcontinent, Anatolia, Central Asia) and historiography, respectively, were added. Of the Companion Volumes, the first deals with pre-Islamic Iranian literatures and the second with the literature of Iranian languages other than Persian as well as Persian and Tajik oral folk literature. The titles of the volumes are as follows: General Introduction to Persian Literature Volume I: Volume II: Persian Poetry in the Classical Era, 800–1500

Panegyrics (qaside), Short Lyrics (ghazal); Quatrains (robâ’i)

xx

Foreword

Volume III:

Volume IV:

Persian Poetry in the Classical Era, 800–1500

Narrative Poems in Couplet form (mathnavis); ­Strophic Poems; Occasional Poems (qat’e); Satirical and Invective poetry; shahrâshub

Heroic Epic



The Shahnameh and its Legacy



From the Safavids to the Dawn of the Constitutional Movement

Volume V: Volume VI: Volume VII:

Persian Prose Religious and Mystical Literature Persian Poetry, 1500–1900

Volume VIII: Persian Poetry from outside Iran

Volume IX:

Volume X: Volume XI:

The Indian Subcontinent, Anatolia, Central Asia after Timur

Persian Prose from outside Iran

The Indian Subcontinent, Anatolia, Central Asia after Timur

Persian Historiography Literature of the early Twentieth Century



From the Constitutional Period to Reza Shah



Iran, Afghanistan, Tajikistan

Volume XII:

Modern Persian Poetry, 1940 to the Present

Volume XIII: Modern Fiction and Drama Volume XIV: Biographies of the Poets and Writers of the Classical Period Volume XV: Biographies of the Poets and Writers of the Modern Period; Literary Terms Volume XVI: General Index Companion volumes to A History of Persian Literature: Volume XVII: Companion Volume I: The Literature of Pre-­Islamic Iran Volume XVIII: Companion Volume II: Literature in Iranian Languages other than Persian

Kurdish, Pashto, Balochi, Ossetic; Persian and Tajik Oral Literatures

xxi

The Literature of Pre-­Islamic Iran

It is hoped that the multi-volume HPL will provide adequate space for the analysis and treatment of all aspects of Persian literature. The inclusion of a volume on Persian historiography can be justified by the fact that Persian histories like the biographical accounts of mystics or poets often exploit the same stylistic and literary features and the same kinds of figures of speech that one encounters in Persian poetry and belles-lettres, with skilful use of balanced cadences, rhyme, varieties of metaphor and hyperbole, and an abundance of embellishing devices. This was considered to impart a literary dimension to the prose, enhance its esthetic effect, and impress the reader with the literary prowess of the author. The study of Persian historiography should therefore be regarded as a component of any comprehensive study of Persian literary prose and the analysis of its changing styles and contours. Moreover, in pre-modern times, “literature” was defined more broadly than it is today and often included historiography. As is evident from the title of the volumes, A History of Persian Literature’s approach is neither uniformly chronological nor entirely thematic. Developments occur in time and to understand a literary genre requires tracing its course chronologically. On the other hand, images, themes, and motifs have lives of their own and need to be studied not only diachronically but also synchronically, regardless of the time element. A combination of the two methods has therefore been employed to achieve a better overall treatment. Generous space has been given to modern poetry, fiction, and drama in order to place them in the wider context of Persian literary studies and criticism.

About the present volume In 1995 I invited, on behalf of HPL’s Editorial Board, the late Professor Ronald Emmerick to undertake the planning and editing of the Companion Volume I on pre-Islamic Iranian literatures. He agreed, and the following year he sent me a provisional plan of the xxii

Foreword

Volume’s chapters and a list of the contributors he had drawn up. As expected, the plan reflected his consistent concern for ensuring that the chapters of the Volume should represent the latest research in their respective fields. The plan was approved with due appreciation and he immediately began inviting the authors and discussing with them the contents of their contributions. By mid-2001, when the editing of the Volume was in its last stages, as the fate would have it, Professor Emmerick’s illness proved fatal and prevented him from bringing the project to fruition. He passed away on 31st of August 2001. Subsequently, I turned to Professor Maria Macuch for completing the task of the editing of the Volume. She graciously agreed, and Mrs. Ann Emmerick was good enough to promptly place the Volume’s files at her disposal. Furthermore, Professor Macuch obtained one chapter that was still due, and commissioned another on Christian literature in Middle Iranian languages. The excellence of this Volume, which brings together between its covers for the first time a lucid state-of-the-art exposition of all the known pre-Islamic Iranian “literatures,” is as much due to the sound judgment in planning and the meticulous work of its two editors as to the extensive research and comprehensive contributions of its erudite authors. Specific details about the volume are covered in Professor Ma­ cuch’s Preface. For the selection of the fonts and the attractive layout of the Volume, we are indebted to Claudius Naumann of the Institut für ­Iranistik, Freie Universität Berlin. Ehsan Yarshater General Editor

xxiii

PREFACE The present survey, which follows the concept of the original editor, the late Ronald E. Emmerick, has been conceived as a Companion Volume to the larger History of Persian Literature, planned by Ehsan Yarshater and other experts in the field of Iranian Studies. Emmerick not only chose the contributors of the different chapters, but also designed the structure of the volume, distinguishing the literary products of the pre-Islamic era according to linguistic, generic and religious criteria, as will be explained below. It seems therefore appropriate to the present editor to dedicate this work to his memory. The Iranian literatures presented in this volume are not all necessarily “pre-Islamic” from a strictly chronological point of view. The expression applies exactly, of course, to the age-old Avestan and Old Persian material (discussed in the chapter on Inscriptional Literature), but a great number of Middle Iranian texts surviving to our days came into being after the rise of Islam. They belong, however, not only linguistically to the Middle Iranian period, but are products of religious traditions far older than Islam, covering a rich cultural heritage of Zoroastrian, Buddhist, Christian and Manichaean provenance. Since the bulk of surviving material consists of religious texts or works produced in a specific religious environment, it seemed appropriate in certain cases to discuss the literary output of these communities, written in various Iranian languages, as a unity rather than to disperse the texts according to linguistic criteria. Thus the chapters on Manichaean and Christian literature include works written in different Iranian languages (Parthian, Middle Persian, Sogdian, Bactrian, [New] Persian). In the case of Zoroastrian and Buddhist literature, on the other hand, geographical, historical and linguistic criteria also had to be taken into consideration: Zoroastrian works are discussed xxv

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

in the two chapters on Avestan and Pahlavi literature; Buddhist texts are presented in the chapters on Sogdian and Khotanese literature. Planned as a “companion” to the main work on Persian literature, the volume has its focus on creative literature (including translations from other languages) rather than “writing” in general, which would include all recorded information in Iranian languages, even material restricted to a few words and phrases. However, in order not to exclude the bulk of original documents in Iranian languages, which are of eminent importance for our knowledge of the languages and the cultural, political and religious history of the Iranians, even if they hardly have any literary value in the strict sense of the word, a chapter on Old and Middle Iranian inscriptions and epigraphic sources has been included, encompassing Old and Middle Persian material as well as Parthian, Sogdian, Bactrian and Chorasmian inscriptions and those documents, which have come to us directly (i. e. not by means of manuscript copies; see p. 73, n. 1). The main object of the volume is to provide an overview of the most important extant literary sources in Old and Middle Iranian languages, aiming to furnish both the student and the expert specializing in other areas of this vast field with a concise survey of recent research and an extensive bibliography for further detailed study. Needless to say, the task of providing a work which could be interesting to both the specialist and the student is not easily fulfilled, since the latter is in need of far more background information than the expert, who, on the other hand, would prefer more details on the subject matter. The result can only be a compromise, seeking to keep the balance between the information necessary to the student and a detailed discussion of the most important literary aspects and scholarly controversies in recent research interesting to the Iranologist. Since especially texts in Middle Persian, Parthian, Sogdian and Bactrian have been presented in different chapters (as described above), corresponding entries have been included in the Index in order to facilitate the search for works of different provenance written in these languages. The Index also includes all titles and texts discussed in the articles, including inscriptions and epigraphic sources. xxvi

PREFACE

A volume consisting of contributions by several different experts does not have the same consistency, evenness and unity as a book conceived by a single author. It has, however, the advantage of profitting from the expertise of many specialists, who have first hand knowledge of the material they discuss. It goes without saying that the contributions also reflect the individual interests of the authors, as may be observed especially in the choice of examples cited from the texts. All articles have excerpts from the original texts in translation in order to illustrate certain details of content and style, the length depending on the aspect the author wishes to demonstrate. Extracts illuminating the structure of a certain text (for example the composition of the Avestan Yasna) will tend to be longer than those striving only to convey an impression of the content or style. Choice of the quotations, including their length, has therefore been left entirely to the authors. Terms and titles in the original languages are given in transcription rather than transliteration (with a few exceptions) in order to facilitate reading the text and follow the general guidelines of the series (Avestan according to Bartholomae; Pahlavi according to MacKenzie). The only divergence from the general guidelines regards the transcription of the long vowels as ī and ū in Persian (and Arabic) place names and titles occuring in the text (instead of i and u) in order to avoid confusion, since the distinction between these long and short vowels has to be made in transcribing the other Iranian languages referred to in this volume. Most of the articles have been written before Emmerick’s untimely death in 2001. I am very grateful to the contributors for updating their articles and including recent research as well as for their forbearance with the slow progress of publication. My thanks also goes to Götz König and Tatsiana Stytsko for their invaluable help with proof-reading the manuscript and Claudius Naumann who has undertaken all the work involved in the layout of this volume, while I take full responsibility for possible mistakes and shortcomings. M M Editor xxvii

CHAPTER 1 AVESTAN LITERATURE A. H According to tradition the great Iranian prophet Zarathustra, or Zoroaster, as he is usually known in Western literature, inaugurated the religion later known after him as the Zoroastrian religion.* The sacred texts of the followers of that religion are collected in a body of literature called the “Avesta”. The term “Avesta” derives from the word avastāk in Pāzand, which designates the writing of Middle Persian in Avestan script. The underlying Middle Persian word is written ʾp(y)stʾk in Pahlavi script. It has been interpreted in different ways, the most plausible of which is to transcribe it as abestāg and derive it from Avestan *upa-stāaka- ‘praise’.1 The language of the Avesta is simply called “Avestan” because nothing of it has survived outside the Avestan corpus. The Avesta comprises not only the texts in Avestan, but also their Middle Persian translations and commentaries, the “Zand”. 2 Although the oldest parts of the Avesta were presumably composed in southern Central Asia, or more precisely in northeastern Iran, the dialectal identification of the Avestan language is problematic. It is safe to say only that Avestan is a non-Persian dialect.3 Together with the southwest Iranian language * 1

2 3

Avestan words are transcribed according to Bartholomae’s system with the exception of the following: Amesha Spentas, Gatha, Gathas, Mithra, Zarathustra. Bartholomae 1906, p. 108, cf. Kellens 1987 a, p. 239; 1989 a, p. 35; 1998, p. 515 f. Belardi 1979 b summarizes the various interpretations and concludes that MP apastāk comes from *upa-stā-ka- ‘religious knowledge’. See also the summary by Bailey 1985 with a different interpretation and Sundermann 2001 c. On the Zand see Boyce 1968 b, pp. 35–38; Skjærvø 1994 b, p. 203 f. Kellens 1989 b, p. 35 f.; Skjærvø 1995 d, p. 159.

1

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

known as Old Persian and a few indirectly attested dialects, Avestan represents the Old Iranian language. Being closely related to Old Indic of the Vedas, Old Iranian is a descendant of the Indo-Iranian or Aryan branch of the Indo-European language family. The Avesta is by no means a uniform corpus. It includes texts dating from different periods and belonging to different literary genres. With respect to language and content, there are two basic divisions: the first consists of texts composed in a more archaic idiom commonly called “Old Avestan”. The second, usually called “Young Avestan”, is slightly different dialectally, and even more different with respect to its underlying religious system. The Old Avestan texts comprise not only the Gathas but also the Yasna Haptaŋhāiti and two of the sacred prayers. The rest are in Young Avestan, although some of the texts imitate Old Avestan and are therefore called “pseudo-Old Avestan”.4 From the point of view of its use, Avestan literature may be divided into two5 major groups: (i) ritual and (ii) devotional. Ritual texts are recited by priests during the religious ceremonies in the fire-temple, devotional texts by priests and lay people in any place. The ritual texts include the Yasna (‘worship’, abbreviated: Y), the Visperad (from Av. vīspe ratavō ‘all the Ratus’, abbr.: Vr) and the Vendidad or Vīdēvdād (from Av. vīdaēva dāta ‘law of those who reject the demons’,6 abbr.: Vd). The devotional texts consist of the Yašts (‘worship’, abbr.: Yt) and prayers and benedictions collected in the “Little” or Khorde Avesta. All the Old Avestan texts form part of the Yasna. In addition, there is a small corpus of Avestan literature which has been transmitted outside the canon of the Avesta, mainly as part of Pahlavi texts.

4

5 6

Hoffmann/Narten 1989, p. 89. For the justification of using the term “Old Avestan” rather than “Gathic Avestan”, see Kellens 1991, p. 4 f. A different terminology was proposed by Gershevitch 1995, p. 3 ff., who considers the texts of the older and younger Avesta to be contemporaneous. He uses “Gathic Avestan” rather than “Old Avestan” and “Standard Avestan” rather than “Young Avestan”, cf. Gnoli 2000, p. 23 f. Cf. Kellens 1998, p. 479. On the meaning of Vīdēvdād see Benveniste 1970.

2

AVESTAN LITERATURE

Ritual Texts Yasna The Yasna is the liturgical text recited during the ritual consumption of the Parahaoma, i.e. a concoction made from twigs of the pomegranate plant (urvarām) pounded with the juice of the sacrificial plant, the Haoma, and mixed with sacrificial milk (jīvām) and water (zaoϑra). The Parahaoma is prepared and consecrated in the preceeding Paragna rite and consumed in the ensuing Yasna ceremony during which the 72 chapters of the Yasna are recited.7 The Yasna ceremony is celebrated daily and only by fully initiated priests. As one of the so-called “inner liturgical ceremonies”, it is performed exclusively in rooms called the Dar-e-Mehr, especially set aside for this purpose and usually located inside the fire-temple.8 The Yasna consists of 72 chapters (hā or hāiti). The number 72 is represented symbolically by the 72 threads used in weaving the sacred girdle of the Zoroastrians, the kusti. These 72 chapters fall into three major divisions: Y 1–27, Y 28–54, Y 55–72.9 Between chapters 27 and 55, i.e. at its centre, the Yasna includes all the Old Avestan texts which represent the most ancient part of Zoroastrian literature. They consist of the Gathas (Av. gāϑā- ‘hymn, verse’) which, in turn, are arranged around the ‘worship of seven chapters’, the Yasna Haptaŋhāiti (abbr.: YH). The latter, during the recitation of which the transformation of the ritual fire takes place, forms the very centre and culmination of the religious ceremony. The Old Avestan texts are introduced and concluded by two ancient prayers (both in Old Avestan), namely the Ahuna Vairya (Y 27.13) and the Aryaman Išya (Y 54.1). Moreover, the Ahuna Vairya is followed by two other sacred prayers, the Ašəm Vohū (Y 27.14), which could be Old Avestan, and the Yeŋhē Hātąm (Y 27.15) in pseudo-Old 7 8 9

Modi 1937, pp. 251–302 (on the Paragna ceremony), p. 303 (on the preparation of the Parahaoma), pp. 302–10 (on the Yasna ceremony). A detailed description of the Yasna ceremony is given by Kotwal/Boyd 1991. Modi 1937, p. 247 f.; Boyce 1993. Cf. Geldner 1896, p. 4.

3

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

Avestan.10 The position of the Gathic hymns and the Yasna Haptaŋhāiti in the centre of the entire Yasna reflects the fact that the recitation of these texts constitutes the high point of the Yasna ceremony. The Gathas, Sacred Prayers, and Yasna Haptaŋhāiti The Gathas are made up of seventeen hymns arranged by metre into five groups. Each is named, in acronymic fashion, according to the first few words with which it begins. The first Gatha, the Ahunavaitī Gāϑā (Y 28–34), is named after the Ahuna Vairya prayer which introduces the entire cycle of Gathas. The Yasna Haptaŋhāiti (Y 35.2–41.6) is followed, after a short text in Young Avestan (Y 42), by the Uštavaitī Gāϑā (Y 43–46) which is named after the opening word of Y 43.1 uštā. The Spəntā.mainyu Gāϑā (Y 47–50) begins with the words spəṇtā mainyū, the Vohuxšaϑrā Gāϑā (Y 51) with vohū xšaϑrəm, the Vahištōišti Gāϑā (Y 53) with vahištā īštiš 11 and the Aryaman Išya prayer with ā airymā īšyō (Y 54.1). Between Y 51 and 53 a short text in Young Avestan (Y 52) is again interposed. The metre of the Gathas is determined by the number of syllables. The most basic unit, which recurs in all five metres, is a hemistich of seven syllables. The stanza of the Ahunavaitī Gāϑā consists of three verse lines, each divided into two hemistichs of 7+9 syllables (schema: 3(7||9)). The Uštavaitī Gāϑā is made up of five verse lines, each consisting of two hemistichs of 4+7 syllables (schema: 5(4||7)), the Spəntā.mainyu Gāϑā of four verse lines each containing 4+7 syllables (schema: 4(4||7)), and the Vohuxšaϑrā Gāϑā of three verse lines each with 7+7 syllables (schema: 3(7||7)). The stanza of the Vahištōišti Gāϑā has a more complex structure consisting of two verse lines of 7+5 syllables followed by two verse lines of 7+7+5 syllables (schema: 2(7||5) + 2(7||7||5)).12 The latter metre is also adopted by the Aryaman Išya prayer (Y 54.1). 10 11 12

This prayer, which is an adaptation of Y 51.22, and its Avestan commentary have been analyzed in detail by Narten 1982, pp. 80–102. See Humbach 1991, I, p. 4 f. Kellens/Pirart 1988–91, I, pp. 89–93; Kellens 1991, p. 7f.; Panaino 1993–94, pp. 109–14.

4

AVESTAN LITERATURE

Thus the metrical characteristic of the Gathas is their strophic form. Each stanza consists of a fixed number of verse lines, and each verse line of a fixed number of syllables. The metre determines the number of syllables per hemistich within a verse line, the position of the caesura, and the number of verse lines that comprise a stanza. The fact that the term gāϑā does not refer to one of the 17 hymns but to the collection of hymns composed in a particular metre suggests that it is a technical term denoting the metrical and strophic form exhibited by each of the five Gathic collections.13 The number of stanzas varies between 6 (Y 47) and 22 (Y 31 and 51). The preferred number is 11, found in five of the hymns (Y 28, 29, 30, 45, 50). Gathic Composition With regard to both composition and contents, the Gathas are among the most intricate and dense pieces of literature ever composed.14 Detailed studies on the composition of individual Gathic hymns, carried out by Hanns-Peter Schmidt and Martin Schwartz in particular, indicate that they possess a symmetrical structure. Schmidt has shown that the structural pattern of Yasna 49, 47 and 33 is a “ring-composition”,15 and Schwartz has systematically expanded and elaborated upon this observation.16 Ringcomposition here means the symmetrical arrangement of a hymn in concentric circles around a centre.17 While Schmidt bases his observations mainly on semantic and lexical correlations, Schwartz adduces a great variety of stylistic features on the phonic, lexical and phraseological levels. He argues that all Gathic hymns, except perhaps Y 44, are ring-compositions of which he distinguishes several varieties.18 All of them share the characteristic pattern of radial 13 14 15 16 17 18

Schlerath 1969. Cf. the characterization of the Gathas by Gershevitch 1968, p. 17. Schmidt 1968, pp. 170–92, esp. p. 187; 1974; 1985. Schwartz 1986, 1991 a, 1998. Schmidt 1968, p. 187. Schwartz 1991 a, p. 128; 1998, p. 197 with a summary of “Gathic types of symmetrical composition”.

5

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

concentricity in which the stanzas are arranged symmetrically with respect to those at the centre of the hymn. The midmost stanzas again correlate with the first and the last ones, “and frequently condense a major theme of the poem”.19 Let us take one of the Gathic hymns, Yasna 43, as an example. In the arrangement of our extant Avesta, it follows the Yasna Haptaŋhāiti and opens the Uštavaitī Gāϑā. The structure of the hymn is characterized by the recurrent phrase ‘I realize that you are bounteous, O Wise Lord’, which introduces, from stanza 5 onwards, every second stanza (5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15). Stanza 4, also, begins with a slight variation of this line. Moreover, the second line of stanzas 7, 9, 11, 13, 15 comprises the refrain ‘when he approached me with good mind’. Refrains are characteristic of all hymns of the Uštavaitī Gāϑā, except the last one (Y 46), and bestow a special unity on this Gatha. 20 The major theme of Y 43 is Zarathustra’s consultation with someone ‘who approached’ him ‘with good mind’: 1. May the Wise Lord, ruling at will, give Desired (things) to this one, to whom so ever (they are) desirable, I wish to arrive at strength together with youthfulness, (And) to grasp truth: Give this to me, O Right-mindedness, (And) rewards (consisting) of wealth, the life of good mind! 2. The best of all (things) (may be given) to this one here: May this man obtain well-being in (the domain of) well-being, (Being) perceptive, O Wise One, through your bounteous spirit By which you give, together with truth, the blessings of good mind For all the days along with the joy of a long life. 3. May that man attain what is better than good, (The man) who might teach us the straight paths of strength Of (both) this physical life and of (the life of) the mind, The real (paths), provided with possessions, along which the Lord dwells, A zestful (man), one like you, O Wise One, well-acquainted, a bounteous one.

19 20

Schwartz 1998, p. 133. Kellens/Pirart 1988–91, I, pp. 15–16.

6

AVESTAN LITERATURE 4. I shall realize that you are strong and bounteous, O Wise One, Since through this hand, with which you hold them, You give the rewards to the deceitful and the truthful one, Through the heat of your fire which has strength through truth, When the force of good mind comes to me. 5. I realize that you are bounteous, O Wise Lord, When I see you as the primeval one in the begetting of life, When you made actions and words to have their prizes, A bad (prize) for the bad one, good reward for the good one Through your skill at the ultimate turning-point of creation. 6. At the turning-point to which you come with your bounteous spirit, O Wise One, (and) with rule: there, with good mind, Through whose actions the creatures prosper with truth, Right-mindedness proclaims the judgements to them, (The judgements) of your intellect which nobody deceives. 7. I realize that you are bounteous, O Wise Lord, When he approached me with good mind And asked me: “Who are you, to whom do you belong? How, O zealous one, 21 do you wish to appoint a day for the consultation About your possessions and about yourself?” 8. And I said to him: “Zarathustra, first; (Secondly,) a real enemy to the deceitful one, as much as I may be able. I would be a powerful support to the truthful one If I acquired the faculties of one who rules at will While I praise and eulogize you, O Wise One.” 9. I realize that you are bounteous, O Wise Lord, When he approached me with good mind. To his question: “For whose sake do you wish to know?”, Thereupon (I said): “For the sake of your fire. The gift of veneration Of truth, truly, I want to keep it in mind as much as I am able.”

21

Humbach 1991, I, p. 153.

7

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN 10. But you, show me the truth which I invoke! Accompanied by right-mindedness, I have arrived. And ask us about that, about which we asked you. For what is asked by you is like that of powerful ones, So that one who is able will make you strong and powerful. 11. I realize that you are bounteous, O Wise Lord, When he approached me with good mind. When I was taught by you through your words for the first time, Trust in mortals appeared distressing to me (And) to do what he told me (to be) best. 12. And when you told me: “With foreknowledge you are going to attain truth”, You did not tell me (things) to which I did not listen. Let me rise up before there comes to me Attentiveness (səraoša) accompanied by wealth-granting Reward, Who will distribute the rewards to the parties in strength. 13. I realize that you are bounteous, O Wise Lord, When he approached me with good mind. To know the aims of (my) longing, grant me this, (The longing) for lasting life, for which no one has dared to ask you, (The longing) for desirable existence, which is said (to be) under your rule. 14. As a knowing, able man gives to a friend, (Thus), O Wise One, (grant me) your farsighted support Which is obtained through your rule on the basis of truth. I want to rise up against the despisers of your proclamation, Together with all those who remember your formulas. 15. I realize that you are bounteous, O Wise Lord, When he approached me with good mind. An appeased mind is best suited for the proclamation. A man should not want to satisfy the many deceitful ones, For they claim all harmful persons (to be) truthful. 22 22

A parallel for the deceitful ones turning the values upside down is found in the Younger Avestan Tištrya Yašt, Yt 8.51, where it is said that evilspeaking people call “the bad-year witch” (pairikā yā dužyāiryā) by the name “good-year witch” (huyāiryā); cf. Panaino 1990 a, pp. 75, 139–41 with more examples from the Younger Avesta.

8

AVESTAN LITERATURE 16. O Lord, this one (here), Zarathustra, Chooses for himself that very spirit, O Wise One, which is your most bounteous one. May truth be corporeal, strong through vitality. May right-mindedness be in the kingdom which sees the sun. 23 May she give, with good mind, the reward for the actions.

The structure of this hymn is fairly straightforward: it focuses around stanzas 7–10 whose theme is the conversation between Zarathustra and a divine being accompanied by Good Mind (Vohu Manah) but whose identity does not emerge clearly from the text. Right-mindedness (Ārmaiti) has been considered, 24 or the Wise Lord (Ahura Mazdā), 25 or, more likely, the Bounteous Spirit (Spenta Mainyu). 26 In the two central stanzas 8–9, Zarathustra introduces himself by name. Moreover, there are lexical correspondences between them and the initial and final stanzas 1 and 16. Stanza 1 and 8 are linked by the adjective ‘ruling at will, ruling as he wishes’, in stanza 1 as an epithet of Ahura Mazdā, in stanza 8 a faculty desired by Zarathustra. Stanzas 8 and 16 are joined together by the name Zarathustra. The second central stanza of the hymn, number 9, matches stanza 1 in so far as a form of ‘to wish’ (vas) occurs in both at the end of line c. Stanzas 1 and 16 also have correspondences: both deal with truth, reward, good mind, and rightmindedness. The central part of the hymn marks the watershed, the peripeteia, since it apparently alludes to the crucial event of Zarathustra’s calling into the service of his Lord. Thus, an observation made by Mary Douglas with regard to the Book of Numbers in the Pentateuch also applies to the composition of Y 43: “The turn matches the beginning, and so does the very end.”27 The compositional analysis of this hymn could be refined and carried further, 28 but let us turn instead to Yasna 28, the hymn 23 24 25 26 27 28

On these two lines see Narten 1982, p. 115 f. Kellens/Pirart 1988–91, III, p. 156. Lommel 1927, pp. 103 f., 107 f.; Nyberg 1938, p. 217 f. Insler 1975, p. 234, cf. Narten 1986, p. 140, n. 13. Douglas 1993, p. 117. See Hintze 2002.

9

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

which opens the entire cycle of the Gathas within the liturgical arrangement of the Yasna: 1. With veneration and hands stretched up I ask all (of you) for actions of his help, O Wise One, first (for the help) of the bounteous spirit, by which you may listen 29 through truth To the intellect of good mind and to the soul of the cow. 2. I want to approach you, O Wise Lord, with good mind (Entreating you) to grant me the attainments of both lives, of the corporeal and of the one of the spirit, On the basis of truth, (the attainments) by which one might place one’s supporters into well-being. 3. In an unprecedented (way), I want to praise you, O truth, and good mind And the Wise Lord, to (all of) whom right-mindedness increases (Strength) and30 unfading rule. Come to my calls for support! 4. For the song, I pay attention, with good mind, to the soul And to the rewards for the actions, knowing of the Wise Lord. As much as I can and am able, so long shall I look out in the quest for truth. 5. O truth, shall I see you and good mind as I am finding For the strongest Lord, the Wise One, a walk-way31 and hearkening (Which is) greatest through the following formulation: “May we ward off the noxious creatures with the tongue”? 6. Come with good mind! Grant through truth the gift of long life! For exalted words, O Wise One, (grant) a strong support to Zarathustra And to us, O Lord, so that thereby we shall overcome the hostilities of the enemy!

29 30 31

On xšnəvīšā Mayrhofer 1986–2002, I, p. 441 with references. According to Humbach 1991, II, p. 20, xšaϑrəmcā aγžaonvamnəm is elliptical for ‘X and unfading power’; Kellens/Pirart 1988–91, III, p. 21 add ‘strength’ (aojah-). On Av. gātu- and cognates see de Blois 1995, pp. 61–65.

10

AVESTAN LITERATURE 7. Grant, O truth, this reward, the attainments of good mind! Grant, O Ārmaiti, strength to Vištāspa and to me! Grant, O Wise One, and rule through this formula by which we may hear of your bounties! 8. You, the Lord, O Best One, who is in harmony with best truth, Do I lovingly entreat for the best for Frašaoštra, the hero, and for myself And (for those) on whom you may bestow it for a whole lifetime of good mind. 9. May we not, by these entreaties, anger you, O Wise Lord, and truth And best mind, we who are arrayed in the offering of praises to you! You (are) the swiftest invigorations and the rule over strengths. 10. (Those) whom you know to be just through truth and good mind (And) worthy, O Wise Lord, to them fulfill their longing with attainments! I know swelling, resounding, desirable praises for you. 11. You protect truth and good mind through these for eternity. You, O Wise Lord, teach me with your mouth to speak In accordance with your spirit, through which primeval life came about.

The structure of Y 28 is clearly a ring-composition. The 11 stanzas may be grouped into two groups of five stanzas with a central stanza 6. Stanzas 5 and 7, framing the central one, both contain the key word ‘formula, formulation’ (mąϑra-), while the first (1) and last (11) ones both incorporate the word ‘spirit’ (mainyu-), which in stanza 1 is characterized as ‘bounteous’ (spəṇta-). Moreover, there are notable correspondences between the central stanza 6 of Y 28 and the two central stanzas 8 and 9 of Y 43. Not only does the name of Zarathustra occur in the middle of both hymns, but also Y 28.6 ‘come with good mind!’ (vohū gaidī manaŋhā) anticipates the second line of the refrain, Y 43.7 etc. ‘when he approached me with good mind’; Y 28.6 ‘grant a strong support to Zarathustra!’ corresponds to 43.8 ‘I could be a powerful support’, and both Y 28.6 and 43.8 refer to the ‘hostilities’ (dvaēš) which Zarathustra wishes to overcome. There are other additional correspondences between the two hymns, but those mentioned should suffice to 11

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

support the view that Yasna 28 points forward to Yasna 43 and that, conversely, Y 43 takes up the theme of Y 28. As we have seen, the name of Zarathustra occurs not only in the precise centre of Y 43, the opening hymn of the second half of the Gathas, but also in that of Y 28, the first hymn of the entire cycle. Moreover, his name is also found both in the centre of the concluding hymn of the third Gatha, Y 50, and in that of the fourth one, Y 51, which constitutes a Gatha on its own.32 Thus, the two initial and the two final hymns of the first four Gathas contain the name of Zarathustra in their respective centres. Another structural feature shared by the first three Gathas is their conclusion. The final stanzas of the Ahunavaitī Gāϑā, of the Uštavaitī Gāϑā and the Spəntā.mainyu Gāϑā conclude with the wish that life may be made wonderful (Y 34.15), or that ‘what is most wonderful according to wish’ may be made real (Y 46.19, 50.11).33 The Avestan key word here is fraša- which, in the Younger Avesta, forms part of the technical term frašō.kərəti, approximately ‘making wonderful’ (vel sim.), denoting the perfecting of the world after the complete removal of evil. The use, at the end of the first three Gathas, of this word, which at least by Young Avestan times is definitely an eschatological term could be interpreted as an iconic expression for the desired and expected final state of perfection. Correspondences can also be observed between the third hymn of each of the first two Gathas, i.e. Y 30 and 45, the famous hymns about the two primordial spirits. Both of them follow a structural pattern in which the singer’s wish to proclaim his teachings (Y 30.1, 45.1–6 as a refrain) is followed by his request to be listened to (Y 30.2, 45.1) and his message about the beginnings of existence and its primordial principles (Y 30.3–6, 45.2–6). The same structure is also found in other Indo-European poetic traditions, especially in Vedic and Germanic poetry, and is therefore most 32 33

Schwartz 1991 a, p. 130. Observed by Molé 1963, p. 181, cf. Humbach 1959, I, pp. 51–52; 1991, I, p. 91 f.; Kellens/Pirart 1988–91, I, p. 14. The exact meaning of fraša- is debated, its etymology not entirely clear, see Narten 1986, pp. 200–203; Hintze 1994 a, p. 106 f. In general terms, fraša- refers, as it seems, to the “evilfree” condition of life.

12

AVESTAN LITERATURE

probably common heritage.34 The message of the two primordial spirits, central to Gathic theology, is thus couched in particularly ancient poetic language. Indo-European Poetic Language in the Gathas Not only is the language of the Gathas very archaic, but so also is the poetic technique employed in their composition. The Avestan texts are couched in the language of traditional Indo-European oral composition. Features of the poetic art of Gathic composition, such as formulae, rhetorical and stylistic figures, have correspondences in related traditions, particularly the Rigveda, the oldest literary document of Indo-Aryan. Moreover, on the basis of comparative evidence, a considerable number of such parallels can be traced even further back to an Indo-European antecedent. The reconstruction is mainly based on a shared lexical inventory of poetic formulae and syntagms. For example, the question put to Zarathustra in Y 43.7: ‘Who are you? To whom do you belong?’ has been recognized as an ancient Indo-European greeting formula by which a stranger is asked to identify himself by giving his own name and that of his father. It occurs, for example, with some variation in Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey and also in Germanic heroic poetry.35 In the Gathic case, however, only the first question is answered in a straightforward way. The second of Zarathustra’s answers in Y 43.8 appears to be puzzling since he does not give his father’s name which was, according to the Younger Avesta, Pouru šaspa. Instead, he says that he is an enemy of the daivas and a supporter of the truthful ones. The context, therefore, suggests that, even if the ancient inherited formula is used, the second question is reinterpreted as actually being about Zarathustra’s choice, i.e. about whose side he is on, that 34 35

Schaeder 1940. Schmitt 1967, pp. 136–38 with references, cf. Strunk 1985, p. 466. Floyd 1992 deals mainly with the Sanskrit and Greek passages (reference kindly provided by F. Vajifdar).

13

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

of the deceitful or the truthful ones.36 The composer of this passage thus employs a traditional formula but reinterprets it by placing it into a new context and filling it with ideas of a new concept. The first question of the greeting formula also occurs in Young Avestan poetry, in the Hōm Ya št (Y 9.1, quoted p. 21) and in the hymn to Aši (Yt 17.17, quoted p. 56). Another instance of the composer of the Gathas drawing on traditional poetic language is the vocabulary of the chariot race. Already in Indo-Iranian ritual poetry, the race of the horse-drawn chariot with a prize at stake furnishes the image which is transposed metaphorically into the sphere of the ritual. The chariot race provides the metaphor for the sacrifice. In the hymns of the Rigveda, the sacrificial plant, Soma, pressed through the sacrificial strainer is constantly compared to the horse racing for the prize. In the Gathas, too, there is the image of the race, interpreted, however, in a new way. For example, the winning of the race is a metaphor for the defeat of evil in Y 30.10: For then destruction of deceit’s prosperity will come down, And the swiftest (steeds) will be harnessed from the good dwelling of good thought, Of the Wise One and of truth, (and) they will win (racing for) good fame.

Not only the image of the chariot-race is employed, but the verb for ‘to win’, Av. zā, which literally means ‘to race ahead’, evokes the situation in which the one leaving behind the competitors arrives first at the prize at stake, here ‘good fame’ (sravah-). 37 Among all the Gathic hymns, the metaphor of the chariot-race is most prominent in Yasna 50, the final hymn of the Spəntā.mainyu Gāϑā: 1. Does my soul have anyone’s help at its disposal? Who has been found as a protector of my cattle, or of myself? Who else than truth and you, O Wise Lord, (Who becomes) manifest in the invocation, and best mind.

36 37

Nyberg 1938, p. 218; Insler 1975, p. 63, 234; Humbach 1991, II, p. 138. Hoffmann 1968, p. 283ff. (= 1975, p. 222ff.).

14

AVESTAN LITERATURE 2. How, O Wise One, could one plead for the joy-bringing cow, One who wishes her to belong to him, provided with pasture, One who lives decently through truth among the many who block(?) the sun(light)? I shall (now) sit down in front of them. Accept (me as) the just one.38 3. To this one, O Wise One, shall belong through truth (the herd) Which one assigns to him with rule and good mind, To the man who makes grow, with strength of reward, The nearest herd which the deceitful one wants to partake of. 4. Praising, I want to worship you, O Wise Lord, Along with truth and best mind And rule with which one wants to tread the path of strength. I want to be heard in the House of Welcome before the efficacious ones. 5. Therefore, let it be granted by you, O Wise Lord, with truth, That you are joyful for the sake of your mantrist With visible, manifest aid Sent by your hand, with which one sets us in comfort.39 6. The mantrist who raises his voice Is an ally of truth with reverence: Zarathustra. The giver of intellect may instruct (me) with good thinking To be the charioteer of my tongue (and) direction. 7. I shall harness for you the swiftest steeds Broad(-chested) by the victories of my praise for you, O Wise One, (and) strong through truth (and) good mind, (the steeds) with which you win: May you be of help to me! 8. With footsteps which are renowned as those of fat-offering, I shall approach you, O Wise One, with hands stretched up, You with truth and with the reverence of efficacious one, You with the skilfulness of good mind. 9. With this worship, praising, I shall go to you, O Wise One, with truth, with the actions of good mind. When I shall rule, at will, over my reward Then may I be strong in the desire for a generous one. 38 39

After Humbach 1991, I, p. 183. For Y 50.5–7 cf. Schwartz 1991 a, p. 132.

15

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN 10. What(ever) I shall do and what(ever) actions (will be done) by those around here And what(ever) is worthy, through good mind, of (your) eyes, The lights of the sun, the leading bull of the days, (All that is) for your praise through truth, O Wise Lord. 11. Thus I shall call myself the one who praises you, O Wise One, and be it As much as I can and am able through truth. The creator of life shall further through good mind The realization of what is most excellent according to wish.

The singer wishes to be a good ‘charioteer of the tongue’ (Y 50.6), and his hymn is compared to the steeds racing for a prize (Y 50.7). The image of “yoking” or “harnessing” is also used, in Y 49.9, with regard to the “religious views”, the daēnās, which ‘have been yoked to the best prize’. A particularly strong metaphor is provided by the ‘turning-point’ (urvaēsa) which, in the chariot race, marks the critical moment when the horse-drawn chariot has to turn around and then race back. The composer of the Gathas transposes this technical term into the religious sphere and uses it as a metaphor for the final point in life when judgment is passed (Y 43.5 and 6, and Y 51.6).40 Inherited vocabulary from the horse race also comprises the components of the name of Zarathustra’s patron, Vīštāspa, which means ‘whose horses have been let loose (for the race)’. Its Vedic equivalents (Ved. víṣita- áśva-) also denote the horses let loose for the race, and indicate that Vīštāspa’s name is based on an ancient Indo-Iranian formula. This name, which was probably fairly common, was also borne by another Iranian ruler, the father of the Achaemenid king Dareios, someone most probably different from the Avestan Vīštāspa.41

40 41

Kuiper 1978, p. 34; Humbach 1959, II, p. 49. See Mayrhofer 1994 [1996], p. 177 with n. 18, with references.

16

AVESTAN LITERATURE

Problems Related to Understanding the Gathas The major problem to be faced when interpreting the Gathas is their lack of literary and historical context.42 Although these texts are couched in the language of an ancient tradition of priestly oral composition for which there is abundant comparative evidence from related languages, Vedic in particular, ideally an understanding of specifically Gathic concepts should be based on the Gathas themselves. Such a procedure, however, is seriously hampered by the small size of the Old Avestan corpus. To treat the Gathas as their own interpreter, a principle applied, for example, in biblical exegesis, is often simply not possible. Scholars, therefore, resort to the comparative evidence, especially to Vedic, on the one hand, and the later post-Gathic, especially Pahlavi tradition, on the other. Both approaches, however, are constantly exposed to the danger of transposing into the Gathas conceptual frameworks derived from either the Vedic or the Pahlavi texts. One of the problems is that of the numerous Gathic hapax legomena for which no Avestan parallel passages are available to assist in their elucidation. For example, the word aēuruš, apparently an epithet of the bull, is attested only in Y 50.10. There is, however, comparative evidence in Vedic éru-, equally a hapax legomenon in the AtharvaVeda. The Vedic word has a sexual connotation but, due to lack of other attestations, it cannot be verified whether this is also the case in the Gathic passage. There are numerous stanzas with words resisting analysis. For instance, Y 50.2 contains several expressions not understood at present (pišyasū, nišąsyā, dāϑm dāhvā).43 Moreover, even if all the individual words in a stanza can be identified both lexically and grammatically, it is not always possible to combine them into a meaningful sentence, as for example in Y 43.10. Lengthy passages which can be understood in a fairly straightforward way, such as e.g. Yasna 44.3–5, tend to be the exception, rather than the rule. For these and other reasons, translations—which are necessarily interpretations—of the Gathas by different authors vary 42 43

Cf. Boyce 1994. Cf. Kellens 1974, p. 340; Kellens/Pirart 1988–91, III, p. 242.

17

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

considerably, sometimes even to the extent that it is difficult to believe that they render the same original text. Yasna Haptaŋhāiti The Yasna Haptaŋhāiti (YH) is neither metrically structured by a fixed number of basically isosyllabic verse lines, as the Gathas are, nor ordinary prose as found in the Younger Avesta, such as e.g. in the Vīdēvdād. Stylistically, the YH has been characterized by its major editor, Johanna Narten, as liturgical recitation prose close to poetry.44 Although she considers the YH to be prose, her definition indicates that this is a text which does not fully coincide with one of the constituents of the binary dichotomy of prose vs. poetry. The reason for this is that, on the one hand, no particular metre is followed, but, on the other, both a rhythmical pattern and rhetorical figures have been observed. It seems that the YH exhibits a type of literature structured not by a syllable counting metre but by a variety of rhythmic patterns. Both the rhythmic pattern and the rhetorical figures follow an inherited model of traditional liturgical recitation for which parallels in Early Latin and Umbrian prayer and liturgy have been adduced.45 The Yasna Haptaŋhāiti is composed with a concentric structure. The three central chapters, Y 37–39, are surrounded, on each side, by two initial (Y 35–36) and two final ones (Y 40–41).46 The worship of Ahura Mazdā and his spiritual and material creations is the major theme of Y 37–39, which begin and end with his worship (Y 37.1–3, 39.4–5). Y 38, the very centre of the entire Yasna Haptaŋhāiti, is devoted to the worship of the waters and of powers active 44 45

46

Narten 1986, p. 21. Watkins 1995, pp. 229–36. Cf. also the Narten’s summary of rhetorical figures, Narten 1986, pp. 21–23. Hintze [2006] argues that the YH is not ordinary prose in the sense of unadorned speech. Rather, it is, like Gathas, a poetic text. The difference is that they represent two distinct types of poetry. The poetic form of the Gathas is governed by the rhythm of syllables, that of the YH by the rhythm of words. Cf. Kellens/Pirart 1988–91, III, pp. 124–30; Boyce 1992, pp. 89–94.

18

AVESTAN LITERATURE

during the ritual. The first two chapters, Y 35–36, lead towards that central part: After the worshippers have expressed their desire to fulfil what is good, i.e. to worship Ahura Mazdā and care for cattle (Y 35), the consecration of the sacrificial fire takes place (Y 36). In the concluding two chapters, Y 40–41, the worshippers pray to Ahura Mazdā to accept their worship and reward it (Y 40), and they declare their desire to praise their Lord forever (Y 41). The second chapter of the Yasna Haptaŋhāiti, Yasna 36, is of particular interest because it provides the textual foundation for the pivotal role played by the fire in Zororastrian ritual: 1. Together with the community of this fire here, We approach you, O Wise Lord, at the beginning, You together with your most bounteous spirit, Which indeed spells harm for the one Whom you consign to harm. 2. You, there, the most joyful one, May you come close to us for the sake of the request, O Fire of the Wise Lord! May you come close to us, With the joy of the most joyful one, With the veneration of the most venerating one, For the greatest of the supplications. 3. You are truly the Fire of the Wise Lord. You are truly his most bounteous spirit. We approach you, O Fire of the Wise Lord, With what is indeed the most effective of your names. 4. We approach you With good mind, With good truth, With the actions and words Of good perception. 5. We pay homage, we bring refreshment to you, O Wise Lord. We approach you with all good thoughts, With all good words, With all good deeds.

19

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN 6. We now declare, O Wise Lord, That this light here Has been of your manifestations the most beautiful manifestation, Ever since yonder highest of heights Was called the sun.

In the second stanza of this prayer, the heavenly Fire of Ahura Mazdā is addressed and invited to come down to the place of worship. The transformation of the fire takes place between stanzas 2 and 3, because stanza 3 presupposes this process by identifying the ritual fire with the heavenly Fire of Ahura Mazdā.47 In stanza 4, the worshippers emphasize their reverence and state of purity with which they approach the fire. They praise Ahura Mazdā in his most beautiful manifestation of light in the final two stanzas 5–6. Not only the structure of the entire Yasna Haptaŋhāiti, but also the internal arrangement of an individual chapter, Y 36, follows the concentric pattern according to which the central stanzas are devoted to the major theme, namely the consecration of the transformed fire (3) and the reverence with which it is approached (4). Authorship of the Gathas When discussing the question of who composed the Gathas, it should be borne in mind that modern concepts of “author” or “composer” can hardly be applied to the pre-historical oral culture from which the Gathas originate. In such context, “texts”, it has been argued, existed only as events, “as performances by performers”.48 In each performance, a new “text” was created. The Gathas provide evidence for this process when the singer wishes to sing his praise ‘in an unprecedented way’ (apaourvīm Y 28.3), an expression for which parallels are found in the Rigveda.49 When composing in performance, a creative activity denoted by the Avestan verb ‘to 47 48 49

Narten 1986, p. 26. Skjærvø 1994 b, p. 206, with references. On the methodological debate about “context” and “text”, cf. Tully 1988. Humbach 1959, p. 8; 1991, II, p. 20; R. Schmitt 1967, p. 296 f. n. 1711.

20

AVESTAN LITERATURE

weave’ (ufyānī Y 28.3; Y 43.8), the professional singer drew on an inventory of formulas and metrical and compositional patterns. By combining the traditional constituents in a new way, he created a unique, unprecedented hymn, which would never again be quite identically replicated. However, the Younger Avesta presupposes that the Gathas were petrified texts, learnt by heart verbatim and recited by the priests as they were recited by the prophet Zarathustra. In the Hōm Yašt, Zarathustra is conceived as reciting the Gathas while attending to the sacrificial fire and celebrating a Yasna ceremony (Y 9.1) 50 : During the morning watch Haoma approached Zarathustra Who was purifying the fire And chanting the Gathas. Zarathustra asked him: “Who, O man, are you Who are the most handsome I have seen Of all the material world …?”.

The Avestan verb describing the activity of reciting the hymns is srāvaya- which literally means ‘to make heard’. That there are five Gathas originally composed by Zarathustra is asserted in a passage from the Young Avestan hymn to Sraoša: ‘We worship Sraoša … who was the first to recite the five Gathas of Zarathustra, line by line, stanza by stanza, together with the explanations, together with the answers’ (Y 57.8) and in Y 71.6 ‘we worship all the five truthful Gathas’.51 Both the Avesta and the Pahlavi literature are steeped in the belief that the five Gathas are the work of Zarathustra, the prophet and founder of the new religion named after himself. Thus, already in the Young Avestan period, the Gathas were venerated and considered as the compositions of Zarathustra. While most scholars have accepted this premise, it has been 50 51

Geldner 1896, p. 28. Translation, with minor modifications, after Josephson 1997, p. 41. Cf. Humbach 1991, I, p. 5.

21

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

challenged and criticized as prejudiced in recent years. Following Darmesteter, Molé, and Kellens/Pirart, Skjærvø maintains that the traditional “theological a priori” of Zarathustra’s divinely inspired authorship should be abandoned, the only legitimate a priori assumptions being linguistic and literary.52 Kellens argues that, with the exception of Y 43.5–15, the “I” of the Gathas could not be the prophet because, among other reasons, Zarathustra is addressed in the vocative (Y 46.14). In addition, and more significantly, in Y 28.6 his name is contrasted with the first person plural pronoun ‘us’, ‘to Zarathustra and to us’, a usage which makes it clear that Zarathustra stands apart from the worshippers, the ‘I’ or ‘we’ of the Gathas: ‘Grant …, O Wise One, a strong support to Zarathustra and to us, O Lord, so that thereby we shall overcome the hostilities of the enemy’ (Y 28.6). Hence it would be difficult, if not impossible, to assume that Zarathustra was the composer. Kellens concludes that the Gathas are the collective work of a religious group, the “Gathic circle”, for whom Zarathustra acquired a status close to divinity as a result of his reform of the ritual.53 Thus, the authorship of the Gathas, and along with it the historical personality of Zarathustra, have been questioned and become the subject of debate. The problem with obtaining clarity on this issue is, once more, the lack of evidence regarding the wider historical and situational context within which these hymns were composed. However, while the Gathas are not conclusive, the Yasna Haptaŋhāiti does contain references to the situational context within which that text was recited, namely when the worshippers, priests as well as lay people, assembled around the ritual fire.54 This situation may also be alluded to in Y 28.9 ‘we who are arrayed in the offering of your praises’. Zarathustra, as the initiator of the religion, could have been the foremost among the priests. But why then is he contrasted with ‘us’ in Y 28.6? In order to solve the problem, it has been suggested that ‘to (me), Zarathustra and 52 53 54

Skjærvø 1997 b, p. 107. Kellens/Pirart 1988–91, I, pp. 18–22, 32–36; Kellens 1994 a, pp. 154 f., 155, n. 1. Narten 1986, p. 34.

22

AVESTAN LITERATURE

to (all of) us’ was intended55—but this is not exactly what the text says. It is obvious, however, that Y 28.6 ‘to Zarathustra and to us’ should be seen in the larger context of parallel expressions in the following two stanzas, Y 28.7 ‘Grant you, O Right-mindedness, strength to Vīštāspa and to me’ and Y 28.8 ‘I lovingly entreat you, O Best One … for the best (things) for Frašaoštra, the hero, and for myself and (for those) on whom you may bestow it for a whole lifetime of good mind’. In addition, the dative of Ahura Mazdā’s name is found in the second verse line of the preceding stanza Y 28.5 ‘… as I am finding, for the strongest Lord, the Wise One, a walk-way and hearkening’. Each of the central stanzas 5–8 of Y 28 contains, in their second verse lines, a dative: to Ahura Mazdā, to Zarathustra and us, to Vīštāspa and me, to Frašaoštra and me. Thus, at the middle of the opening hymn of the Gathas, the important personages are named explicitly and deliberately. That ‘us’ comprises the entire community of the Mazdayasnians emerges from a Young Avestan passage in Y 68.12 where a distinction is made between the officiating priest, who is referred to as ‘me’, on the one hand, and ‘us’, the Mazdayasnians, on the other. In an invocation, the waters are asked: Y 68.12 Give, O good waters, To me, the worshipping priest, And to us, the worshipping Mazdayasnians, The students and fellow-students, The masters and pupils, The men and women, The minor (boys) and girls, And the farmers Y 68.13 … the searching and finding of the straightest path Which is the straightest one to truth And to best life of the truthful ones, To the light which offers all well-being.

As in the Gathic stanzas Y 28.6–8, there is a distinction between ‘us’ and the priest. The latter is explicitly identified as the officiating priest, the former as the community of the Mazdayasnians. 55

Humbach 1991, I, p. 118.

23

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

Viewing the Gathic passage in this light, one could interpret Y 28.6 as ‘to (me,) Zarathustra and to us’, Zarathustra being the officiating priest and ‘us’ the community of his followers. Two of the most distinguished members of ‘us’, his followers, are named personally in the ensuing two stanzas, while the priest, Zarathustra according to the interpretation proposed here, is then referred to by the personal pronoun ‘me’.56 More than anything else, however, Y 28.6 may illustrate the difficulties involved in interpreting these texts and in attempting to reach conclusive results. In the final analysis, it must be admitted that, on the basis of the evidence available, it is impossible either to prove or to disprove the identity of the composer of these texts. There is no doubt that Zarathustra was considered to be the author of the Gathas in the Younger Avestan period, and probably also before, though the contexts in which these statements are made are not historical, but ritual and “mythical” (always bearing in mind, of course, that, as C. S. Lewis has argued, there are “true” myths).57 Yet, whether it was Zarathustra who composed the Gathas or whether they were later attributed to him, these hymns, if anything, may be regarded as an authentic record of his teachings.58 What has become increasingly evident is the homogeneous character of the Gathas, with the exception, perhaps, of Yasna 53.59 The first four Gathas, and probably also the fifth, are consistent and coherent with regard to language, concepts, and personages figuring in them. Moreover, it is not possible to detect an inner chronology of earlier and later composition. This supports the view that the period over which these hymns were composed encompasses a single human life span.60 Apart from the conceptual frame, the homogeneous character of the Gathas is further substantiated by the poetic technique 56 57 58 59 60

Hintze 2002, pp. 35 f., 48–50. Kellens 2002–3 b, p. 843 f. rejects the validity of Y 68.12 as a parallel for Y 28.6, but see Hintze [2006] ad Y 35.8 no. 1 ādā ‘I say’. Lewis 1971, pp. 39–44; 1988, pp. 171–72. Cf. Geldner 1896, p. 29 f. Cf. the discussion of Kellens/Pirart 1988–91, III, p. 265. Kellens/Pirart 1988–91, I, p. 16 with n. 24.

24

AVESTAN LITERATURE

employed. As research into their composition continues, it is increasingly apparent not only that the individual hymns are structured internally but also that the way the Gathas are arranged in sequence is deliberate, with intertextual cross-references both forward and back.61 Such observations throw light on the highly developed poetic technique and indicate the workings of a master of verbal art. The ever-sensed uniqueness of these hymns, the admiration inspired by them and the attraction they have exerted not only on followers of the religion but also on scholars is due both to the scope they offer for interpretation, and to the poetic genius of their composer. Authorship of the Yasna Haptaŋhāiti Although there are correspondences and disagreements between the Yasna Haptaŋhāiti and the Gathas, conveniently listed by Narten,62 the major criterion which prohibits a dating of the YH much later than the Gathas, is the language: both texts belong to the same stage, Old Avestan. It has been estimated that no more than a few generations, if any, may have elapsed between the composition of the two texts. The divergences between them can be explained on the basis of their different literary genres. One of the results of Narten’s seminal study is that the Yasna Haptaŋhāiti and the Gathas are best considered as texts complementing each other, and that there is no evidence against the assumption that they are contemporary compositions, probably by the same author.63 Date of Zarathustra The question as to when and where Zarathustra lived is perhaps even more debated than that regarding the authorship of the Gathas. While most scholars find a date around 1000  most 61 62 63

Schwartz 1991 a, 1998. Narten 1986, pp. 29–30. Narten 1986, pp. 35–37.

25

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

plausible,64 there are those who argue either for an earlier one between 1500–120065 or for a later date in the 6th century .66 Whether Zarathustra composed the Old Avestan texts himself or whether they emanate from a religious circle inspired by him, it is plausible to assume that the Gathas and YH are contemporaneous or nearly contemporaneous with him. Therefore, if these texts can be dated, then it should be possible to determine the lifetime of Zarathustra as well. Even if allowance is made for languages to evolve at a different rate, the close linguistic relationship between Old Avestan and the language of the Rigveda is one of the strongest arguments in favour of their approximately contemporaneous dating around 1200 . Relative to Young Avestan, Old Avestan apparently belongs to an earlier language stage. This is suggested by the more archaic verbal system of the latter as well as by a number of phonetic rules such as the hiatus caused by a laryngeal dropped between vowels in prehistoric times. Although Old Avestan is not the direct ancestor of Young Avestan, it has been estimated that some four centuries may have elapsed between the composition of the texts of the older and younger Avesta.67 Furthermore, the language of the Younger Avesta represents, more or less, a stage of development similar to that of the Old Persian inscriptions for which an absolute date is available.68 In addition, Avestan quotations in such inscriptions provide further support for the view that the Avestan texts were already widely known throughout the Achaemenid Empire.69 64 65 66 67 68 69

Mayrhofer 1994 [1996], p. 177 with n. 16 with references; Humbach 1991, I, pp. 23, 26 f., 30, 49 with references; Kellens 1998, p. 513. Boyce 1992, pp. 27–51, esp. p. 45.; Skjærvø 1994 b, p. 201 (1700–1200: Old Avestan period). Gershevitch 1995, 2 referring to Henning’s (1951, p. 36) “contemptuous rebuff of the linguistic argument that Zoroaster cannot have lived after the 8th cent. B.C.”; Gnoli 2000. Kellens 1987 b, p. 135 f.; Kellens/Pirart 1988–91, I, pp. 12–13; Herrenschmidt/Kellens 1994, p. 47; Skjærvø 1995 d, p. 162. Kellens 1989b, p. 36; Skjærvø 1995 d, p. 162 f. Skjærvø 1999 a; Kellens/Pirart 1988–91, I, p. 40 f.

26

AVESTAN LITERATURE

Homeland of Zarathustra As to the geographical area in which the Gathas were composed, we are even more at a loss than with regard to their date. The Old Avestan texts do not contain a single reference to a geographically identifiable area. The Younger Avesta, in contrast, contains a number of geographical names, all of them, however, confined to Eastern Iran. This has been interpreted as an indication of its geographical horizon.70 Assuming that the Gathas were composed several centuries before the Younger Avesta, and that the direction of the migration of the East-Iranians into Iran was from north to south, we may surmise that the Gathas were composed somewhere in southern Central Asia. More precise localizations are subject to debate.71 The memory of a common origin of the Iranian peoples appears to be preserved in the name airyana- vaējah- ‘the Aryan rapid’ or ‘spring’ of the Younger Avesta.72 Younger Avesta Texts in the Young Avestan language constitute about five-sixth of the entire extant Avesta.73 In contrast to the homogeneous character of the Gathas and the Yasna Haptaŋhāiti, the texts of the Younger Avesta are heterogeneous and were certainly composed by different authors in different periods. The major criterion for distinguishing an Old Avestan and a Young Avestan text is the language, although their underlying religious systems differ as well. Within the Younger Avesta, there are some older and some younger parts, of which the former are generally composed in good Avestan.

70 71 72 73

Gnoli 1989; Skjærvø 1995 d, pp. 164–66. Grenet 2002 a identifies the Afghan part of Badakhshān as the region where the Younger Avesta localizes the birthplace of Zarathustra. The different views are summarized by Gnoli 1989. Hoffmann/Narten 1989, p. 85, n. 32. An attempt to localize this land was made by Witzel 2000. Gershevitch 1968, p. 18.

27

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

By contrast, in the younger parts the grammar has deteriorated, a number of forms being used in a grammatically incorrect way. The Younger Avestan Yasna and Pseudo-Old Avestan Some texts of the Younger Avestan Yasna are in the so-called pseudo-Old Avestan language. These were composed at a time when Young Avestan had already evolved, but their authors were attempting to imitate Old Avestan. The major device for achieving this was simply that of lengthening word-final vowels. One of the four sacred prayers, the Yeŋhē Hātąm (Y 27.15), is in Pseudo-Old Avestan, as are Y 11.17–19; 13.1–6 (7); 14.1–2; 42; 56.1–4;74 58.1–8 (9)75 and the Zoroastrian “Confession of Faith”, which constitutes chapter 12 of the Yasna (Y 12.1–9).76 Its name Fravarānē ‘I profess myself’ is taken from the first word of the Avestan text which contains two quotations from the Gathas77: 1. I profess myself a Mazdā-worshipper, a follower of Zarathustra, one who is against the Daevas, a follower of the teachings of the Lord, a praiser of the Bounteous Immortals (Amesha Spentas), a worshipper of the Bounteous Immortals. I assign all good (things) to the Wise Lord, the good One, who measures out good,78 the truthful One, the wealthy One, the glorious One, whatever is best (= Y 47.5), whose (is) the cow, whose is truth, whose are the lights, whose (is the formula of) “Let the open spaces be filled with lights!” (= Y 31.7).

74 75 76 77 78

Studied by Pirart 1991. Studied by Pirart 1992 b. Hoffmann/Narten 1989, p. 89. Cf. the translation of Boyce 1984 b, p. 57 f. Hintze 2000.

28

AVESTAN LITERATURE 2. I choose for myself bounteous right-mindedness, the good one. May she be mine! I renounce theft of and violence against the cow, I renounce the damaging and destroying of Mazdayasnian communities. 3. I grant movement at will and settling at will to those who are honourable, to those who live with their cattle upon this earth. In front of (the offerings) which have been set up with reverence for truth, I avow the following: From now on I shall not bring either damage or destruction upon the Mazdayasnian communities in striving after neither (someone’s) limb nor life. 4. I reject the company of the wicked, detrimental, lawless, evilcreating Daevas, the most deceitful ones among those who exist, the most stinking ones among those who exist, the most detrimental ones among those who exist. (I reject the company) of the Daevas, of the followers of the Daevas, of the sorcerers, of the followers of the sorcerers; (I reject the company) of those who attack anyone of those who exist. (I reject their company) by (my) thoughts, words, deeds, (and) proclamations. I reject the company of any deceitful, inimical one. 5. Thus, thus, as Ahura Mazdā used to teach79 Zarathustra in all conversations, in all encounters at which the Wise One and Zarathustra used to converse with each other, 6. Thus, thus, as Zarathustra used to reject the community of the Daevas, in all conversations, in all encounters at which the Wise One and Zarathustra used to converse with each other, (thus) I reject the community of the Daevas, as truthful Zarathustra used to reject it. 79

On the optative forms in Y 12.5 and 6, see Hoffmann 1976, pp. 616–17.

29

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN 7. By the choice of the waters, by the choice of the plants by the choice of the beneficent cow, by the choice of Ahura Mazdā who has created the cow, who has created the truthful man, by the choice of Zarathustra, by the choice of Kavi Vīštāspa by the choice of the two, Fərašaoštra and Jāmāspa, by the choice of each of the Deliverers (saošyant), those who make real, the truthful ones, by that choice and by that doctrine I am a Mazdā-worshipper. 8. I profess myself a Mazdā-worshipper, a follower of Zarathustra, having pledged myself to and having avowed the faith. I pledge myself to the well-thought thought, I pledge myself to the well-spoken word, I pledge myself to the well-done action. 9. I pledge myself to the Mazdayasnian religion, which causes attacks to cease, weapons to be laid down, which is characterized by marriage within one’s own family, the truthful one, which is the greatest, best, and most beautiful one among the present and future (religions), the Ahurian, Zarathustrian. I assign all good things to Ahura Mazdā. This is the pledge to the Mazdayasnian Religion.

Composition of the Yasna The Young Avestan parts of the Yasna may be divided into two major sections: those which precede the Old Avestan texts (Y 1–27.12) and those which follow them (Y 55–72). In addition, two chapters in Young Avestan, Y 42 and 52, are inserted into the Older Avestan ones, as is one stanza at the beginning of the YH, Y 35.1. Conversely, individual Old Avestan stanzas or even entire hymns are frequently repeated amongst the Young Avestan sections. For instance, Y 64 is entirely composed of the Gathic verses Y 46.3 and 50.6–11, while all of Y 47, together with other Old Avestan stanzas, is repeated in Y 18 and 68. 30

AVESTAN LITERATURE

The first part of the Young Avestan Yasna exhibits a compositional structure in which liturgical invocations and praises to Ahura Mazdā, the Amesha Spentas and all other good creations and time divisions (ratu-) alternate with passages devoted to a particular theme. Thus, the introductory invocations (1–8), including the consecration and consumption of the sacred bread in honour of Sraoša (Srōš Darūn, 3–8),80 are followed by the recitation of the Hōm Yašt (9–11), consumption of the Parahaoma, the Confession of faith (12–13), invocations and praises (14–18), the commentaries to the three sacred prayers (19–21), and more invocations (22–27.12). The latter part following the Old Avestan texts contains mainly praises both to the divine beings and for the life of the truthful Mazdayasnians. Praises of the Gathas and the Staota Yesnya (55) are followed by the Srōš Yašt (56–57), the “Mantra of the Cattle Breeder” ( fšūšō mąϑrō, Y 58), a liturgical invocation and praise (Y 59, largely repeating Y 17 and 26), benedictions of the House (dahma āfritiš) (Y 60), praises for the anti-demonic power of the sacred prayers (Y 61), praise for the fire (Āteš Nyaiš, Y 62), the ritual of the waters (Āb Zōhr, Y 63–69), and, finally, concluding praises (Y 70–72). The Yasna exhibits a concentric compositional structure. The outer circles consist of liturgical praises to Ahura Mazdā and all his good creations, alternating with texts and praises devoted to special subjects (Haoma, the Creed, the commentaries, Sraoša, the cattle breeder, the houses of the Mazdayasnians, the Gathas, the sacred prayers and Staota Yesnya, the fire and waters). The central part clearly comprises the Old Avestan texts, flanked on either side by the sacred prayers and with the Yasna Haptaŋhāiti at their heart. Indeed, Y 36, the second chapter of the YH and the one concerned with the transformation of the ritual fire, constitutes the exact centre of the 72 chapters of the entire Yasna and thus stresses the significance of that crucial moment during the ceremony. Obviously, Y 36 was deliberately placed at the centre of the Yasna which therefore 80

Modi 1937, p. 305 f.

31

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

must have been arranged as to facilitate this. The method employed involved repeating stanzas or entire sections, thus providing additional chapters. For instance, Y 59 merely repeats chapters 17 and 26 (Y 59.1–17 = Y 17.1–17; 59.18–27 = 26.1–10; 59.29 = 17.19), and the last chapter 72 consists almost entirely of repetitions, including the wholesale iteration of chapter 61. Similarly, the Young Avestan passages Y 42 and 52 may have been inserted amongst the Old Avestan texts for the purpose of creating additional chapters. The division of the Yasna into three parts—two Young Avestan parts on either side of the Old Avestan middle part—is based on the language in which the texts are written. The Avesta itself refers to the central portion of the Yasna as the Staota Yesnya, an expression based on the Gathic words Y 30.1 staotācā … yesnyācā ‘praises and worshipful (words/rites)’.81 However, the Staota Yesnya do not coincide with the division based on the language, because they begin and end with chapter 14 and 58 of the Yasna.82 But it cannot be coincidental that here, also, Y 36 takes up exactly the precise midpoint, being preceded and followed by 22 chapters on either side. The central position occupied by Yasna 36 applies, of course, only to the Staota Yesnya in so far as they form part of the Yasna liturgy. In the Sasanian Avesta, the Staota Yesnya constituted the first or Stōt Nask. There, it seems, they consisted of 33 chapters, in contrast to the 45 in the Yasna liturgy. Obviously, some of the chapters which form part of the Staota Yesnya in our extant Yasna have been borrowed from other divisions, or Nasks. For example, Yasna 19–21, the commentaries to the three sacred prayers, were originally the first three of a 22– (or: 21– according to the Persian Rivāyats) chapter exegetical text constituting, in the Sasanian Avesta, the fourth or Bay Nask.83 Whereas chapters 4–22 have been 81 82 83

Humbach 1991, II, p. 46. Bartholomae 1904, p. 1589; Geldner 1896, p. 25 f. Considering Y 59 as their last chapter (Kellens 1996, p. 95 ff.), Kellens 1998, p. 500 sees the 33 chapters of the Staota Yesnya in Y 27–59. Cf. the table summarizing the contents of the Sasanian Avesta according to the Dēnkard by Kellens 1989 a, p. 37. The passages of the Persian Rivāyats concerning the Bay Nask are translated by West 1892, pp. 420, 429, 433, 439. References on the Bay Nask are given by Panaino 1994 a, p. 174, n. 32.

32

AVESTAN LITERATURE

lost, the three initial chapters have survived only because they were incorporated, as chapters 19–21, into the text of the Yasna liturgy. They are rare survivals of Avestan exegetical literature. Yasna 19 contains the commentary to the holiest of all the Zoroastrian prayers, the Ahuna Vairya. Out of 21 sections altogether, the first 11 read as follows: 1. Zarathustra asked Ahura Mazdā: “O Ahura Mazdā, most bounteous spirit, creator of the material world, truthful One, what was that utterance, O Ahura Mazdā, which you proclaimed for me 2. before (the creation of) the sky, before the water, before the earth, before the cow, before the plant, before the fire, the son of Ahura Mazdā, before the truthful man, before the obnoxious creatures, demons and mortals (= Y 34.5), before all corporeal life, before all that is good, created by Mazdā, originating from truth?” 3. Then spoke Ahura Mazdā: “It was that piece of the Ahura Vairya, O Spitāma Zarathustra, which I proclaimed for you, 4. before (the creation of) the sky, before the water, before the earth, before the cow, before the plant, before the fire, the son of Ahura Mazdā, before the truthful man, before the obnoxious creatures, demons and mortals, before all corporeal life, before all that is good, created by Mazdā, originating from truth. 5. That piece of the Ahuna Vairya, o Spitāma Zarathustra, when recited without interpolation, without transposition, is for me equivalent to a hundred other Ratus, the Gathas, when recited without interpolation, without transposition. Even when recited with interpolation, with transposition, it is equivalent to ten other Ratus.

33

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN 6. Whoever will recall for me in this corporeal life, O Spitāma Zarathustra, the piece of the Ahuna Vairya, or, recalling, murmurs it, or, murmuring, recites it, or, reciting, prays it, three times shall I, Ahura Mazdā, lead his soul across the bridge to best life, to best life, to best truth, to the best lights. 7. Whoever in this corporeal life, o Spitāma Zarathustra, when murmuring for me the piece of the Ahuna Vairya, leaves out a half, or a third, or a quarter, or a fifth, I, Ahura Mazdā, shall keep his soul away from best life. I might keep it away as much in height and breadth as this earth here; and this earth here has so much height as it has breadth. 8. The utterance containing the words ahu and ratu was uttered before the creation of the heavens, of the water, of the earth, of the plant, of the four-legged cow; before the creation of the two-legged, truthful man; before the sun was created in its visible form; but (it was proclaimed) after the creation of the Amesha Spentas. 9. Of the two spirits, the bounteous one called into existence the entire creation of the truthful one, the one which is, the one which is becoming, and the one which will be, with the yaoϑənanąm-passage: yaoϑənanąm aŋhuš mazdāi ‘of the actions of life for Mazdā’. 10. This is, among the sayings, the greatest saying that has ever been uttered, is spoken out and will be pronounced. For it has so much verbal power that when all corporeal life learns it by heart, by having learnt and remembered it, it will be preserved from dying.

34

AVESTAN LITERATURE 11. And this our utterance has been uttered in order to be learnt by heart and remembered by each one of those who exist according to best truth.”

The interpretation of the Ahuna Vairya prayer, as well as that of the Ašəm Vohū in Y 20, is presented as spoken by Ahura Mazdā in response to a question posed by Zarathustra, a literary device particularly characteristic of the Vīdēvdād (see below). The ensuing sections 12–14 of Y 19 explain the meanings of the individual words of the prayer, and sections 15–21 interpret its function and significance in a broader context. It emerges from this commentary that the pre-eminent role which the Pahlavi accounts of cosmology attribute to the Ahuna Vairya prayer goes back at least to the period when texts in Young Avestan were composed.84 Another chapter of the Staota Yesnya of the Yasna borrowed from other Nasks is Y 57, the Srōš Yašt which belonged to the 21st or Bayān Yašt Nask of the Sasanian Avesta. The same applies to Y 9–11, the Hōm Yašt, which did not form part of the Staota Yesnya. Obviously the Yasna liturgy is a text assembled, for liturgical purposes, from the material of various Nasks. The compilers of the Yasna deliberately placed the second chapter of the Yasna Haptaŋhāiti, Y 36, in the centre of the composition, both of the extended 45 chapters of the Staota Yesnya and of the whole of the 72 chapters of the Yasna. In this way they underlined the ritual high point of the Yasna cermony. The compositional structure of the Yasna, with the pivotal point occupied by Y 36, supports the hypothesis that the extant Yasna received its present form in Young Avestan times. It indicates both a deliberate arrangement and an understanding of the contents of the texts recited. The Arab writer Masʿūdī, who died in 956 , provides historical evidence concerning the existence of the Yasna in the early Sasanian period when writing: “When Ardašir, son of Pābag, ascended the throne, there developed the custom of reading one of the chapters of the Avesta, which they call isnād. Still to this day the Zoroastrians recite this chapter.” It may be assumed that the scripture which 84

Cf. Skjærvø 1989, p. 401.

35

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

Masʿūdī calls isnād in Arabic is a corrupted rendering of ysn = yasna. Hence, he testifies to the existence of the liturgical Yasna both in his own day and at the beginning of the Sasanian period. There is no compelling objection to supposing that our extant Yasna is the same as the one of the days of Masʿūdī and of Ardašir.85 Visperad The Visperad (from Av. vīspe ratavo ‘all chiefs’) is a collection of liturgical texts never recited on their own but only as additions to the Yasna. The Yasna ceremony enlarged by the Visperad portions is called the Visperad high ceremony. It is especially celebrated at the seasonal festivals, the Gāhānbārs. Whereas the Yasna is structured by ‘chapters’ (hāiti), the text of the Visperad is divided into ‘sections’ (karde). Their number, however, varies in different editions. K. F. Geldner, following the Bombay Gujarati edition, divides the text into 24 sections,86 and this has become the standard number. The major part of the Visperad, Karde 5–24, is inserted into the Staota Yesnya of the Yasna (Y 14–58), the last section, Vr 24, being recited after Y 54.87 This arrangement may be as old as the Avesta itself, because it is referred to in the Mihr Yašt, Yt 10.122: ‘Let no one drink from these libations, unless he is apt at (reciting) the Vispe Ratavo of the Staota Yesnya.’ The Visperad is similar to the liturgical invocations and praises that also characterize the first half of the Young Avestan Yasna (Y 1–8; 14–18; 22–27.12). Consequently, the sections of the Visperad prolong the portions of liturgical praises. In particular, the praises which they contribute refer to those stanzas of the Yasna after which they are recited. For example, Vr 13, which is placed after the first three hymns of the Ahunavaitī Gāϑā, i.e. Y 28–30, refers to them explicitly: 85 86 87

Maçoudi 1863, p. 125; Darmesteter 1892–93, I, p. lxxxviii. Cf. Kellens 1998, p. 479; Shboul 1979, p. 288. Geldner 1896, p. 5. See the synopsis by Geldner 1896, pp. 11–12, and Hintze 2004, p. 302.

36

AVESTAN LITERATURE Of the three, we worship the first one, (recited) without interpolation, without transposition. Of the three, we worship the first two (recited) without interpolation, without transposition. We worship all of the first three ones, (recited) without interpolation, without transposition. Of all of the first three ones, (recited) without interpolation, without transposition, we worship the chapters, the verse lines, the words and stanzas, the loud recitation, the murmured recitation, the singing and the worshipping.

Likewise, Vr 14, which is recited after Y 34, the concluding hymn of the Ahunavaitī Gāϑā, praises that particular Gatha. It is followed by Vr 15 praising the ensuing Yasna Haptaŋhāiti (Y 35–41). Vr 16 and 17 also praise it, but are recited after the YH. Section 18 of the Visperad follows the Uštavaitī Gāϑā (Y 43–46) and praises it. The same applies to Vr 19, recited after the Spəntā.mainyu Gāϑā (Y 47–50), to Vr 20, after the Vohuxšaϑrā Gāϑā (Y 51), to Vr 23, after the Vahištōišti Gāϑā (Y 53) and to Vr 24, after the Aryaman Išya prayer (Y 54). Vr 20 actually quotes, in stanza 2, the first two words of the Vohuxšaϑrā Gāϑā and the Vahištōišti Gāϑā. This indicates that the Vahištōišti Gāϑā had already been arranged after the Vohuxšaϑrā Gāϑā by the time this passage of the Visperad was composed: Vr 20.0 We worship the Vohuxšaϑrā Gāϑā, the truthful one, the Ratu of truth, together with the verse lines, with the stanzas, with the interpretation, with the questions, with the answers, with the two utterances and with the (verse-)feet, well recited when being recited, well worshipped by the worshippers. Vr 20.1 We worship the good rule, we worship the desirable rule, we worship the molten metal, we worship the rightly spoken, victorious words which slay the demons,

37

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN we worship that reward, we worship that health, we worship that medicine, we worship that prosperity, we worship that growth. Vr 20.2 We worship that victory which (is gained) between the Vohuxšaϑrā and the Vahištōišti by reciting good thoughts, good words, good deeds, in order to resist bad thoughts, bad words, bad deeds, in order to rectify my wrong thoughts, wrong words, wrong deeds. Vr 20.3 We worship the parts of the Vohuxšaϑrā Gāϑā. Of the Vohuxšaϑrā Gāϑā, we worship the chapters, the verse lines, [= Vr. 14.4 the words and stanzas, the loud recitation, the murmured recitation, the singing and the worshipping].

The Visperad is directly dependent on the Yasna, its sections praising the verses of the Yasna after which they are recited. In particular, the Visperad expands on the stanzas of the Staota Yesnya. This supports the assumption that the Staota Yesnya constitute the kernel of the entire Yasna liturgy. Vīdēvdād The Vīdēvdād, also known as Vendidad due to a false reading, is the third great Avestan text recited during an “inner liturgical ceremony” celebrated only inside the fire-temple, the Dar-e Mehr. As a liturgical text, the Vīdēvdād, just like the Visperad, is recited not on its own, but in combination with the Yasna extended by the Visperad. The ceremony which includes the Vīdēvdād is called “Vendidad Sade”, ‘pure Vendidad’, because the text appears only in Avestan, without its Pahlavi translation. The Vendidad ceremony is the longest of all Zoroastrian liturgies and commences at midnight in the time division of the Ušahin Gāh. The way that the 22 sections (fragard) of the Vīdēvdād are interspersed with the ones of the Yasna and the Visperad follows a straightforward pattern: among the 38

AVESTAN LITERATURE

texts of the Older Avesta, i.e. between Y 27 and 55, the fragards of the Vīdēvdād are appended in pairs to the kardes of the Visperad.88 The liturgical function was conducive to the Vīdēvdād being preserved in its entirety. In the Sasanian Avesta, it constituted the 19th Nask and belonged to the dādīg group which contained the Zoroastrian law books.89 The only other Nask, or division of the Avesta, which may have come down complete to present is the first, or Stōt Yašt Nask, which contained the Old Avestan texts. The Vīdēvdād, however, does not only have a liturgical function but it represents also the Zoroastrians’ law code. It was studied extensively by Zoroastrian theologians who translated it into Pahlavi and wrote commentaries on its text. Its interest for the Zoroastrian community was due to its numerous practical regulations to be observed and applied in everyday life. Most of them are purity laws concerned with chasing away the demons from any of Ahura Mazdā’s creations, persons or objects which they have polluted. Hence the Vīdēvdād is the ‘law of those who reject the daevas’, the law of the enemies of the demons. The Vīdēvdād belongs to a literary genre which may be described as “Frašna literature”, characterized by a stylistic device involving the teaching being cast into a catechismal form of instruction given by Ahura Mazdā to Zarathustra. Zarathustra asks questions (Av. āhūiriš frašnō ‘the Ahurian question’), and Ahura Mazdā provides answers and teaching (āhūiriš kaēšō ‘the Ahurian teaching’, Y 71.12; 57.24). The full formula is: ‘Zarathustra asked Ahura Mazdā: “Ahura Mazdā, most bounteous spirit,90 creator of the material world, truthful One …”’, followed by the question. Its answer is introduced by: ‘Thereupon spoke Ahura Mazdā: “…”’. The full formula appears predominantly, though not exclusively, at the beginning of a fragard. It may be abbreviated to various degrees, leaving out either the first or both clauses introducing the question. The answer, however, is almost always explicitly indicated as being 88 89 90

Cf. the table by Geldner 1896, pp. 11–12; Hintze 2004, pp. 300–305. Cf. the table by Kellens 1989 a, p. 37. Kellens 1995 b argues that the older form of the formula included an instrumental ‘creator by means of the most bounteous spirit’.

39

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

spoken by Ahura Mazdā, the only exception being the last two books 21 and 22. In fragard 21, no components of the formula are found at all. Here, the situation underlying all the other fragards may be alluded to, but only by Zarathustra being addressed in the vocative (21.2). In book 22, the Bounteous Formula, Mąϑra Spənta, speaks (22.6), but 22.19 evokes the image of the two interlocutors, Zarathustra and Ahura Mazdā, conversing with each other sitting under a tree on the top of a mountain. No variation of this pattern of questioning is found in the Vīdēvdād. In Y 71.1, however, it is Frašaoštra who asks Zarathustra for instruction, and in Yt 5.90–95 Zarathustra asks Arədvī Sūrā Anāhitā.91 The prototype for the stylistic device of presenting the message in the literary form of a dialogue is actually attested in the Gathas. There are several instances of questions posed to Ahura Mazdā. The most striking one is Yasna 44 which is structured throughout by the question ‘I ask you this, tell me truly, O Lord’, recurring as the first line in all but the last stanza.92 The difference, however, is that only questions are put, without Ahura Mazdā giving an answer, although the latter might occasionally be implied, especially when the question is rhetorical (e.g. in the cosmogonical part Y 44.3–5). This sort of didactic literature contrasts in both form and content with the liturgical genre of praise preserved, for instance, in the Yasna and Visperad. The literary character of the Vīdēvdād, too, is entirely different from that of the Gathas. Whereas the latter abound in variety of expression, the Vīdēvdād is characterized by repetition. The stylistic device of the “Ahurian question” and “Ahurian teaching” is exploited in such a way that a given situation can generate a range of possible questions and answers depending on the circumstances.93 The sometimes rather poor literary merit, however, is frequently counterbalanced by a wide range of insights the Vīdēvdād allows into the practical life of Zoroastrians. There 91 92 93

On Yt 5.90–93, see Oettinger 1985. See Humbach 1991, II, p. 146 with more examples from the Gathas and Vedic parallels. Cf. Geldner 1896, p. 22.

40

AVESTAN LITERATURE

are interesting examples not only of purity laws, but also of Zoroastrian legislation. For example, Vd 15.1–16: 1. “How many are the perpetrated actions which the corporeal life perpetrates, (actions which have been) perpetrated, (but) not compensated, not made good again? As a result, the perpetrators thus become those whose bodies are forfeited.” 2. Then spoke Ahura Mazdā: “Five, O truthful Zarathustra. The first of these actions which the mortals perpetrate (is) if someone defames a truthful man towards one of a different faith, a different doctrine,94 he does it knowingly, with deliberation, As a result, the perpetrators thus become those whose bodies are forfeited. 3. The second of these actions which the mortals perpetrate (is) if someone gives unchopped bones or hot food to a dog guarding the sheep or guarding the house. 4. And if these bones stick in the teeth, remain in the throat, or if this hot food burns its mouth or tongue, it could be injured by that. If it is injured in this way, as a result, the perpetrators thus become those whose bodies are forfeited.

94

Panaino 1993 proposes interpreting the two adjectives as indicative of contacts by the Mazdayasnians with religions other than the one of the daevaworshippers.

41

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN 5. The third of these actions which the mortals perpetrate (is) if someone beats or persecutes or shouts at or startles a dog with puppies. 6. And if this (dog) with puppies falls into a pit or a well, or a fissure or down the barrier95 of navigable water, it could be injured by that. If it is injured in this way, as a result, the perpetrators thus become those whose bodies are forfeited. 7. The fourth of these actions which the mortals perpetrate (is) if one discharges semen into a woman having a period, menstruating, bleeding. As a result, the perpetrators thus become those whose bodies are forfeited. 8. The fifth of these actions which the mortals perpetrate (is) if one discharges semen into a woman who has just given birth —be she breast-feeding or not breast-feeding— before her time has come: she could be harmed by that. If she is harmed in this way, as a result, the perpetrators thus become those whose bodies are forfeited. 9. The one who goes to a girl, may she have a Ratu or may she not have a Ratu, may she be engaged or may she not be engaged, and makes her with child, she, the girl, may not,

95

Kellens 1974, p. 83.

42

AVESTAN LITERATURE because of shame before people, secretly make the period come, secretly (provide herself with) water and plants. 10. And if she, the girl, because of shame before people, secretly makes the period come, secretly (provides herself with) water and plants, she is liable for these perpetrated actions. 11. The one who goes to a girl, may she have a Ratu or may she not have a Ratu, may she be engaged or may she not be engaged, and makes her with child, she, the girl, may not, because of shame before people, injure her womb by herself. 12. And if she, the girl, because of shame before people, is injured by herself in her womb, her guilt falls on the family members, her injury falls on the family members, they shall punish the family members for the injuries of the injured one with the punishment of deliberate (injury). 13. The one who goes to a girl, may she have a Ratu or may she not have a Ratu, may she be engaged or may she not be engaged, and makes her with child, and if she, the girl, says: “This man has made (me) the child”, and if this man says: “Find yourself one of these old women and ask her!”, 14. thereupon she, the girl, finds one of these old women (and) asks (her); the old one brings Baŋha or Šaēta, Gnāna or Fraspāt, or any other of the plants causing abortion:

43

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN “With this seek to kill your baby!”; thereupon she, the girl, seeks to kill her baby with this: Alike are they involved in such action, the man, the girl, and the old one. 15. The one who goes to a girl, may she have a Ratu or may she not have a Ratu, may she be engaged or may she not be engaged, and makes her with child, so long shall he provide care until this child has grown up. 16. If he does not take care, whereupon this child is injured because of care not provided, he shall be punished for the injury of the injured one with the punishment of deliberate (injury).

The major part of the Vīdēvdād, fragard 3–17, is almost entirely concerned with purity laws, with the protection and purification of Ahura Mazdā’s good creation and the fight against the contamination brought by Aŋra Mainyu’s evil creatures in general and by any kind of dead matter in particular. Evil creatures include not only demons but also a range of animals, called xrafstra in Avestan, considered to be obnoxious, such as serpents, scorpions, tortoises, frogs, ants, flies, larvae. The Zoroastrians are encouraged to kill them in thousands (Vd.14.5–6). The first two and last five books of the Vīdēvdād include some mythological passages, such as the story of Yima (2), the dialogue between Sraoša and Deceit (Druj, 18), the temptation of Zarathustra and the fate of the soul after death (19), the origins of medicine (20), the healing, purifying and fertilizing actions of the waters circulating between earth and sky and the light issuing from the sun, moon and stars (21), and the healing power of the bounteous formula (Manthra Spenta, 22). Of particular interest for Avestan geography is the first chapter which lists the 16 lands created by Ahura Mazdā and the 16 plagues inflicted on them by Aŋra Mainyu as evil counter-creations intended to mar the intitial 44

AVESTAN LITERATURE

perfection with which the lands were formed.96 The plagues also give some information about the climactic and geographical conditions of several of these provinces. There is, yet again, no absolute date available for the time when the Vīdēvdād was composed. An indirect clue to its composition in the later Younger Avestan period comes from the sometimes ungrammatical use of language, especially of case forms. This indicates that the development towards Middle Iranian had already started. Since a similar process can be observed in the later Achaemenid inscriptions, the Vīdēvdād may be contemporaneous with them. It is, however, likely that it contains an amalgamation of earlier and later textual materials. Some of the contents of the Vīdēvdād are confirmed by the description of the Greek historian Herodotus, who lived in the fifth century . At the end of an excursus on the customs of the Persians (I 140), he relates that the magi would wage a continual war against ants, snakes and all other serpents by killing as many of them as possible. Apart from this, he also mentions that they would expose their dead to the birds and dogs. On the basis of these agreements between the Vīdēvdād and the practices of the magi as described by Herodotus, it has been suggested that the Vīdēvdād could, at least partly, be the work of western Iranian magi97 and could, again at least in part, have been compiled in Western Iran.98 However, magi are not mentioned in this text. It is also difficult to explain how this alleged influence of magi on the composition of Avestan texts could have come about, when the geographical horizon of the Avesta is East-Iranian. In order to reconcile such divergent data, it has been proposed that a group of Magi fled to Eastern Iran after the collapse of the Achaemenian Empire. There, in the east, they would have introduced their own meticulous and rather pedantic purity laws which were eventually adopted by the East Iranian Zoroastrian priests and thus entered the Avesta.99 96 97 98 99

Christensen 1943. Christensen 1943. Panaino in Cannizzaro 1990, pp. 280–82. Gershevitch 1968, p. 27.

45

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

However, the agreement between Herodotus and the Vīdēvdād is not necessarily secondary. The resistance to and fight against life-damaging creatures, also pervading other texts of the Avesta, is deeply rooted in Zoroastrian doctrine itself and does not require the assumption of a western Iranian import. The law code could well be the product of East-Iranian Zoroastrian theologians and, having grown over many centuries, is probably much older than the text of our extant Vīdēvdād. Indeed, the Vīdēvdād must have built on established tradition and practice and is likely to be just its final codification.

Devotional Texts Yašts An important part of the Avesta consists of a collection of 21 hymns, the Yašts.100 These are devoted to a wide though quite heterogeneous range of divinities or divinely revered entities. Some of the latter, such as Haoma (= Vedic Soma; Y 9–11,101 Yt 20), Mithra (= Vedic Mitra; Yt 10), and Vereϑragna (Yt 14; cf. Vedic vtrahán- ‘breaking resistance’) are of pre-Zoroastrian origin. Most of the deities are specifically Iranian, namely Arədvī Sūrā Anāhitā (Yt 5),102 Druvāspā (Yt 9) and the concept of the ‘glory’ (xwarənah; Yt 18 and 19103). Several hymns are devoted to natural phenomena, such as the sun (Xwaršēd, Yt 6), the moon (Māh, Yt 7), the wind (Vāyu, Yt 15 = Rām Yašt) and the stars Tištrya (Yt 8) and Vanant (Yt 21). Some praise the Zoroastrian concepts of the Fravašis (‘choice, guardian angel’, Yt 13), Aši Vaŋuhi (‘good reward’, 100 Panaino 1992 provides an excellent survey of the Yašts with extensive bibliographical references; only additional references are given below. The composition of all the Yašts has been analyzed by Skjærvø 1994 b, pp. 210–30. 101 Josephson 1997. 102 On this deity and her name, see Kellens 2002–3 a. 103 Pirart 1992 a; Hintze 1994; Humbach/Ichaporia 1998; Kellens 1997–98.

46

AVESTAN LITERATURE

Yt 17),104 Sraoša (‘attentiveness, obedience’, Yt 11, Y 56–57), Cistā (‘insight’, Yt 16 = Dēn Yašt) and Rašnu (‘judgment’, Yt 12). The first four Yašts are devoted to Ahura Mazdā (Yt 1) and the Amesha Spentas (Yt 2), with special hymns dedicated to Aša (Yt 3) and Haurvatat (Yt 4). Apart from Druvāspā, whose name occurs elsewhere only once in the Sīrōze,105 all the divine beings praised in the Yašts are also found in other texts of the Avesta. With the exception of Yašts 2 and 13, which praise the Amesha Spentas viz. the ‘guardian angels’, or Fravašis, as a group, each of the Yašts is dedicated to one particular divinity and thus differs from the Yasna which is recited to worship the entire Zoroastrian pantheon.106 Although the Yasna, too, stresses the importance of calling upon the divine beings by their own names, each Yašt is entirely devoted to the praise of one particular deity who is personally invoked by the explicit and repeated declaration of his or her own name. In particular, Mithra is the ‘venerable one (yazata) whose name is pronounced’, and he asks to be worshipped with “a yasna in which his name is pronounced”, as does Tištrya.107 In Yt 10.53 ff. Mithra complains108 : 53. We worship Mithra of wide pasture grounds, [= stanza 7109 : Whose words are correct, who is challenging, Has a thousand ears, is well-built, Has ten thousand eyes, the lofty one, Has a broad outlook, is strong, Sleepless, (ever-)waking;] Who at times complains to Ahura Mazdā With hands stretched up, Speaking as follows:

104 105 106 107 108

Skjærvø 1987. Skjærvø 1994 b, p. 209, n. 22 on a possible Bactrian connection. Geldner 1904 a, p. 10; cf. Panaino 1993–94, p. 108, n. 1. Kellens 1976 b, pp. 128–31; Panaino 1994 a, p. 172. Translation, with some modifications, after Gershevitch 1959, pp. 100–101 and 88–91. 109 The brackets indicate that these verses lines are repetitions from preceding stanzas.

47

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN 54. “I am the beneficent protector Of all creatures. I am the beneficent guardian Of all creatures. Yet the mortals do not worship me With worship in which my name is pronounced, As they worship other venerable ones With worship in which their names are pronounced. 55. If indeed the mortals were to worship me With worship in which my name is pronounced, As they worship other venerable ones With worship in which their names are pronounced, I would have gone forth to truthful men For the duration of a limited time; I would have come close (for the duration) of a limited (time)110 Of my own radiant, immortal life.” 56. With worship in which your name is pronounced, With timely word, The truthful one worships you offering libations; With worship in which your name is pronounced, With timely word, O strong Mithra, I want to worship you with libations. [= 31 With worship in which your name is pronounced, With timely word, O strongest Mithra, I want to worship you with libations. With worship in which your name is pronounced, With timely word, O undeceivable Mithra, I want to worship you with libations.] 57 [= 32 Listen, O Mithra, to our worship, Gratify, O Mithra, our worship, Condescend to our worship! Approach our libations, Approach them as they are sacrificed, Collect them for consumption, Deposit them in the House of Welcome!] 110 A different translation of this passage was suggested by Kellens 2000, pp. 128–31.

48

AVESTAN LITERATURE 58 [= 33 Give us this attainment, For which we ask you, O strong one, By virtue of the stipulation of the given promises: Riches, strength and victory, Comfortable existence and truthfulness, Good reputation and peace of soul, Learning and knowledge of bounty, Ahura-created victory, The conquering superiority Of best truth, And the interpretation of the bounteous formula.] 59 [= 34 So that we, being of good mind, Cheerful, joyful, and optimistic, May overcome all opponents, So that we, being of good mind, Cheerful, joyful, and optimistic, May overcome all enemies, So that we, being of good mind, Cheerful, joyful, and optimistic, May overcome all hostilities Of demons and mortals, Of wizards and witches, Of commanders, seers, and ritualists.]

Structure of the Yašts All the Yašts begin and end with the same invocation formula in which only the name of the divinity being praised is substituted. Internally, most, though not all, Yašts are structured by division into “sections”, called Karde. The opening formula of each Karde, while being the same throughout a given Yašt, varies from hymn to hymn. It consists of verses of praise, and includes the name of the divine being to whom the hymn is devoted and a formula of worship. For instance, in Yt 5 every Karde is introduced by the verse ‘May you, O Spitāma Zarathustra, worship her, Arədvī Sūrā Anāhitā’ (Yt 5.1, 10, etc.). Similarly, the final stanza of a Karde usually begins with the formula ‘because of his wealth and glory …’ 49

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

(e.g. in Yt 5.9, 15, etc.). Whenever these words occur, the listener knows that the Karde is coming to a close. Moreover, it always includes a section from Niyayišn 1.16 and ends with the Yeŋhē Hātąm prayer. Let us take, for example, one of the shorter hymns, Yašt 16, called Dēn Yašt, which praises Cistā ‘Insight’ and consists of 19 stanzas divided into 7 Kardes111: Karde I 1. We worship the most direct Insight, created by Mazdā, the truthful One, Provided with good paths, with a good approach, Flexible (?), Which brings libations, the truthful One, Sophisticated, renowned One, Efficient, promptly acting, Which, standing in a good place, leads a good fight, The good Mazdayasnian religion; 2. Whom Zarathustra worshipped: “Rise up112 from your throne, Come forth from your house, O most direct Insight, created by Mazdā, truthful One, If you are ahead, Then wait for me, If you are behind, Then catch up with me!” 3. Thus may there be peace, So that the paths may be easy for us to travel, The mountains easily passable, The forests easy to pass The navigable water easy to cross, For this splendour, praise, Glory and eminence. 4. Because of his wealth and glory I want to worship her with audible worship, I want to worship her with well-worshipped worship,

111 On this Yašt cf. Kellens 1996 b, p. 281 f. with references; 1992, pp. 601–2. 112 Benveniste/Renou 1934, p. 59 with n. 2; cf. Schindler 1982, p. 202.

50

AVESTAN LITERATURE (Her,) the most direct Insight created by Mazdā, the truthful One, with libations. We worship the most direct Insight, created by Mazdā, the truthful One With Haoma (mixed) with milk [= Ny 1.16 With sacrificial grass, With skill of tongue and formulation, With word and deed, and with libations And with correctly uttered words. In the worship of which (male) beings And (in the worship) of which (female) beings The Wise Lord knows what is very good according to truth, We worship these male] and female beings. Karde II 5. We worship the most direct Insight, created by Mazdā, the truthful One, Provided with good paths, [= stanza 1 …] The good Mazdayasnian religion. 6. Whom Zarathustra worshipped With well-thought thinking, With well-spoken word, With well-acted action, And for the sake of that boon 7. That the most direct Insight, created by Mazdā, the truthful One, may give him Swiftness113 to his feet, Hearing to his ears, Strength to his arms, Health to his whole body, Perseverance114 to his whole body, And that eye-sight115 Of the fish Kara, living beneath the waters, Which notices a hair-thin ripple of the water

113 Hoffmann 1969, p. 17, n. 1 [= 1975, p. 258, n. 1]. 114 Literally perhaps “fattiness”, Skjærvø 1994 b, p. 238; Mayrhofer 1986–2002, II, p. 582 with references. 115 The passages on the faculty to see of Yt 16.7, 10, 13 are also found in Yt 14.29, 31, and 33.

51

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN Of the Raŋhā whose shores are far, The deep one, of a thousand men. Because of his wealth and glory I want to worship her with audible worship, [= stanza 4 …] We worship these male and female beings. Karde III 8. We worship the most direct Insight, created by Mazdā, the truthful One, Provided with good paths, [= stanza 1 …] The good Mazdayasnian religion. 9. Whom Zarathustra worshipped [= stanza 6 …] And for the sake of that boon 10. That the most direct Insight, created by Mazdā, the truthful One, May give him [= stanza 7 …] and the eye-sight Of the male horse Which in a dark night, When it rains, snows, Sleets and hails, Can see from a distance of nine kingdoms Whether a horse’s hair Sticking to the ground Is from the back or from the belly. Because of his wealth and glory I want to worship her with audible worship, [= stanza 4 …] We worship these male and female beings. Karde IV 11. We worship the most direct Insight, created by Mazdā, the truthful One, Provided with good paths, [= stanza 1 …] The good Mazdayasnian religion. 12. Whom Zarathustra worshipped [= stanza 6 …] And for the sake of that boon 13. That the most direct Insight, created by Mazdā, the truthful One, May give him [= stanza 7 …] and the eye-sight Of the vulture with a golden collar, Who, from the distance of nine lands, Can see (a piece of) flesh of the size of a fist,

52

AVESTAN LITERATURE Shining as much as a shiny needle, As much as the point of a needle. Because of his wealth and glory I want to worship her with audible worship, [= stanza 4 … We worship these male and female beings. Karde V 14. We worship the most direct Insight, created by Mazdā, the truthful One, Provided with good paths, [= stanza 1 …] The good Mazdayasnian religion. 15. Whom Hvovi worshipped, the truthful one, knowing, Desiring truthful Zarathustra as her good part, To think according to the religion, To speak according to the religion, To act according to the religion. Because of his wealth and glory I want to worship her with audible worship, [= stanza 4 … We worship these male and female beings. Karde VI. 16. We worship the most direct Insight, created by Mazdā, the truthful One, Provided with good paths, [= stanza 1 …] The good Mazdayasnian religion. 17. Whom the priest who is appreciated abroad worshipped, Desiring the memorising for the religion, Desiring strength for himself. Because of his wealth and glory I want to worship her with audible worship, [= stanza 4 …] We worship these male and female beings. Karde VII 18. We worship the most direct Insight, created by Mazdā, the truthful One, Provided with good paths, [= stanza 1 …] The good Mazdayasnian religion. 19. Whom the ruler of the land, the lord of the land worshipped, Desiring peace for the land, Desiring strength for himself. Because of his wealth and glory I want to worship her with audible worship, [= stanza 4 …] We worship these male and female beings.

53

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

The function of the introductory and final recurrent stanzas, demarcating the beginning and end of a Karde, is to structure the hymn. Moreover, by regularly repeating the name of the particular deity worshipped, the hymn’s major theme is constantly recalled. In the oral culture from which the Avesta originates, the recurrent pattern had a mnemonic and structuring function which enabled both singer and listener to remember and recognize demarcation lines.116 In addition, it provided “a welcome break” during which the performer could think ahead and prepare in his mind the compositional move to be improvised next.117 The basic units of Kardes could be added to one another as often as required and according to the demands of the occasion. This resulted in the great variation in the length of the Yašts: the shortest Yašt, the hymn to the star Vanant (Yt 21) is made up of only one stanza, surrounded by the introductory and concluding formulae that characterize every Yašt. In contrast, the longest one, the hymn praising the Fravašis (Yt 13), consists of 157 stanzas divided into 31 Kardes. As long as the text did not petrify, the recurrent pattern provided the framework within which the priest-poet could improvise his composition. For within the rather rigid structure of the Karde, there is poetic freedom to refer and allude to other subjects as long as they have some relation, however tenuous, to the divinity in whose praise the hymn is recited. Nearly every Yašt contains either a story or a reference to a person not found elsewhere. For example, only the Dēn Yašt, quoted above, refers to the relationship of Hvōvī to Zarathustra, and thus provides an Avestan antecedent for the Pahlavi tradition according to which she was the prophet’s third wife.118 The seemingly rather repetitive hymn to Rašnu, Yašt 12, which is not divided into Kardes, has been recognized as containing materials of interest for Avestan cosmology and astronomy.119 Even the single stanza constituting the main body of Yašt 21 and in particular the way the entire hymn is recited casts light on the role 116 117 118 119

Hintze 1995 a. Skjærvø 1994 b, p. 207. Boyce 1989 a, pp. 188, 285; Skjærvø 1994 b, p. 233 f. Panaino 1993–94, p. 119; Skjærvø 1994 b, p. 224.

54

AVESTAN LITERATURE

played by an Avestan Yašt in devotional life.120 Pearls of ancient Iranian poetry include, for example, the story of Pāurva floating in the air and unable to land until the invoked Arədvī Sūrā Anāhitā provides him with succour (Yt 5.60–66), the description of Arədvī Sūrā Anāhitā (Yt 5.126–29), the fight between Tištrya and Apaoša, the demon of draught (Yt 8.20–34) and the ten transformations of Vereϑragna (Yt 14.2–27). There is also the story of Yima and the loss of his “glory” (Yt 19.31–38) and the heroic feats of Kərəsāspa (Yt 19.38–44 and Y 9.11). A sense of humour can be felt in the description of the race between the fire of Ahura Mazdā and the dragon Dahāka (Yt 19.45–54) and the three unsuccessful attempts of Fraŋrasyan to grasp the ‘unseizable121 glory’ (Yt 19.55–64). The various allusions to cosmogony in Yt 13.1–84,122 and to the resurrection of the dead and the final defeat of evil in Yt 19.88–96 are of interest for Younger Avestan cosmology and eschatology. The hymn to Aši, too, contains several beautiful passages, such as the description of the homes, wives and daughters of those who are accompanied by Aši (Yt 17.6–14), Aši hiding under a bull and a ram, her three complaints and Ahura Mazdā’s response (Yt 17.54–60), and, among many others, the encounter between Aši and Zarathustra at the end of Karde II in Yt 17.15–22: 15. “Look at me! Turn your mercy Towards me, O lofty Aši! You are well-made, of good origin, You are capable Of giving glory to the body at will.123 16. Your father is Ahura Mazdā, The greatest One among the venerable Ones,

120 Panaino 1989; 1993–94, p. 120; Boyce 1989 a, p. 78. 121 Sims-Williams 1997, p. 24. 122 This section provides, according to Kellens 1989 a, p. 39, “the only known elements of ancient Mazdean cosmogony”. 123 The translation of this verse is tentative, cf. stanza 22 and the discussion by Benveniste 1935, p. 25 f.

55

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN The best One among the venerable Ones; Your mother is bounteous Ārmaiti, Your brother good Sraoša, provided with reward, And lofty (and) strong Rašnu, And Mithra of wide pasture grounds, Who has ten thousand spies, a thousand ears; Your sister (is) the Mazdayasnian religion.” 17. Good Aši, the lofty One, Praised among the venerable ones, Undeflectable from the straightest (paths), Halted, (being) on her chariot, (And) spoke the following words: “Who are you, you, who are calling me, Whose voice I have heard as by far the most beautiful one Among those who invoke?” 18. Thereupon he said the following: “(I am) Spitāma Zarathustra, The first mortal To praise Best Truth, To worship Ahura Mazdā, To worship the Amesha Spentas, At whose birth and growth Water and plants recovered, At whose birth and growth Water and plants grew, 19. At whose birth and growth Aŋra Mainyu ran away From the broad round earth whose limits are far. Thus spoke he, the evil-creating Aŋra Mainyu, full of death: “All the venerable Ones could not Drive me out against my will. But this Zarathustra alone Causes me to go away against my will. 20. He slays me with the Ahuna Vairya, With a weapon as big As a stone the size of a cellar. He heats me up with the Aša Vahišta

56

AVESTAN LITERATURE Like124 molten metal. He makes my retreat from this earth (to be) preferable to me, He, who alone makes me go, (He,) Spitāma Zarathustra.” 21. Thereupon good Aši, the lofty One, Spoke in the following way: “Draw nearer to me, O upright, truthful Spitāma, Lean against my chariot!” Spitāma Zarathustra drew Nearer to her, He leaned against her chariot. 22. She stroked him from above With the left hand and the right one, With the right hand and the left one, Speaking the following words: “You are handsome, Zarathustra, You are well-built, Spitāma, With good calves, long arms. Glory has been given to your body, And long-lasting welfare to your soul As truly as I say this to you.” Because of his wealth [= Yt 17.3 and glory I want to worship her with audible worship I want to worship her with well-worshipped worship, (Her,) good Aši, with libations. We worship good Aši with Haoma (mixed) with milk … = Ny 1.16 …] We worship these male and female beings.

Although all the Yašts which are structured by Kardes share the same compositional framework, there are, it has been suggested, two basic patterns according to which the main body of the individual Kardes may be arranged: either the pattern consists predominantly of an account of those who worshipped the particular divinity in the past and therefore tells, or rather alludes to, their stories in the third person (‘he worshipped’, yazata), or it mainly comprises praises for the qualities of the deity and hence addresses 124 On Av. mąnayən ahe yaϑa cf. Panaino 1990 a, p. 142 with references.

57

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

the deity directly in the first person (‘we worship’, yazamaide, and ‘I worship’, yazāi ).125 The first group, represented by Yašt 5, is predominantly “legendary”, the second, represented by Yašt 10, predominantly “hymnic”. The two types may arise from two different modes of hymnic composition.126 The Yašts of the first group, which, in addition to Yašt 5, also include Yt 9, 15, 16, 17, 19 and parts of the Hōm Yašt in Y 9–11, largely consist of narratives taken from the legendary history of Iran, and culminate in Zarathustra, followed by Kavi Vištāspa, worshipping the deity concerned. The individual worshippers are arranged in a fixed sequence although not all of them are always mentioned.127 What is most remarkable, however, is the fact that the order in which they occur largely coincides with that in the later epic tradition as found in Firdausi’s Šāhnāme. This indicates that the chronology of Iran’s mythical history was fixed at least by the time the Yašts were composed. The narrative account in the “legendary” Yašts eventually culminates in the point when the actual worshippers themselves request the deity to reward their present worship as generously as that of the past righteous worshippers.128 At the end of Yašt 5, for example, the worshipper prays that Arədvī Sūrā Anāhitā may grant the wishes of the current priest (zaotar-, Yt 5.130–32). In Yašt 17.15, the direct address to deity precedes the list of devotees. After a description of the splendid houses, wives, daughters, horses, camels, silver and gold of those blessed by Aši, Zarathustra, the prototypical worshipper, says: ‘look here at me, turn your mercy towards me, O lofty Aši!’ Subsequently Aši turns her attention to him, and the situation described in the passage quoted above follows. The second group of “hymnic” Yašts includes, apart from Yt 10, also Yt 2, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 20, 21, and the “small” and “great” Srōš Yašt in Y 56 and 57. These Yašts predominantly praise the divinity by describing his or her attributes and actions. 125 Kellens 1978; modified 1996, p. 101, n. 46, cf. 1998, p. 498f., n. 73. 126 Skjærvø 1994 b, 212 ff., p. 233. 127 Cf. the table of Skjærvø 1994 b, p. 214; Kellens 1976 a, p. 48; Tichy 1994 calls this a catalogue of worshippers (“Adorantenkatalog”). 128 On the highpoints of the Yašts see Skjærvø 1994 b, p. 212.

58

AVESTAN LITERATURE

It should be noted, however, that the boundary between the two types of hymnic composition appears to be fluid. The Hōm Yašt of Y 9–11, for instance, is only partly legendary and also contains hymnic portions, some of which constitute the “hymnic” Hōm Yašt of Yt 20. Another example is the hymn to Aši, Yt 17, which is “hymnic” at both the beginning (Karde I–II, 1–22) and the end (Karde X, 53–62), but has a “legendary” section in the middle (Karde III–IX, 23–52). More complex is the structure of Yašt 5 where “hymic” and “legendary” sections alternate. The first four Kardes (Yt 5.1–15), Karde 23 (Yt 5.101–2) and the last three Kardes 28–30 (Yt 5.119–29), which praise the divinity, are of “hymnic” character and alternate with legendary sections in Yt 5.16–83, 97–99, and 103–18. The hymn culminates in the encounter and dialogue between Arədvī Sūrā Anāhitā and Zarathustra (Yt 5.88–96). A stylistic feature which cuts across the division of the Yašts into “legendary” and “hymnic” poetry is the observation that most of them are cast as spoken by Ahura Mazdā to Zarathustra and thus share the characteristic of the “Frašna” literature represented best by the Vīdēvdād.129 Indeed, the complete formula current in the Vīdēvdād occurs both in Yt 1.1–3 and in Yt 14 at the beginning of nearly every Karde: ‘Zarathustra asked Ahura Mazdā: “Ahura Mazdā, most bounteous spirit, creator of the material world, truthful One, … ”. Thereupon spoke Ahura Mazdā: “ … ”’. Moreover, the formula ‘Ahura Mazdā said to Zarathustra’, or variants thereof, and the vocative ‘O Zarathustra’, which only indirectly alludes to the underlying situation, are found occasionally in “legendary” (e.g. Yt 5.1, 7, 88, 120; 19.1, 7, 53, 57, 60, 63) and more frequently in “hymnic” Yašts (e.g. Yt 8.1; 10.1, 121–22, 137–38; 11.1, 4, 6; 12.1–4; 13.1; 18.1). Yašts which cannot be categorized as either “legendary” or “hymnic”, namely Yt 1, 3, and 4, exhibit the “Frašna”-formula as well. In addition, from the point of view of content, they are related to the Vīdēvdād in so far as they are largely concerned with warding off demons. For example, stanzas 7–13 and 17–18 of Yašt 3, which praises the powers of the holy prayers against evil: 129 Cf. also Kellens 1998, p. 509 f.

59

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN 7. Sicknesses, go away! Death, go away! Demons, go away! Adversities, go away! Heretics, opposed to truth, go away! Human tyrant, go away! 8. Brood of serpents, go away! Brood of wolves, go away! Brood of bipeds, go away! Adverse mind, go away! Negligence, go away! Fever, go away! Slanderer, go away! Hostile ones, go away! You whose glance is malicious, go away! 9. Deceitful word, most deceitful one, go away! Prostitute, full of witchcraft, go away! Prostitute, abominable one, go away! Northern winds, go away! Northern winds, disappear, And also whoever belongs to that brood of serpents! 10. The one who slays these demons By thousands of thousands, by ten thousands of ten thousands, He slays illnesses, slays death, slays demons, Slays adversities, slays heretics opposed to truth, Slays human tyrants. 11. He slays the brood of serpents, slays the brood of wolves, He slays the brood of bipeds, Slays the adverse mind, slays negligence, Slays fever, slays the slanderer, Slays the hostile ones, slays those whose glance is malicious; 12. He slays the deceitful word, the most deceitful one, Slays the prostitute full of witchcraft, Slays the abominable prostitute, Slays the northern winds, —Northern winds, disappear And also whoever belongs to that brood of serpents!—, 13. The one who slays these demons By thousands of thousands, by ten thousands of ten thousands. The most deceitful one of the demons, Aŋra Mainyu, full of death, Falls prostrate in front of the sky.130

60

AVESTAN LITERATURE 17. Deceit shall completely disappear, deceit shall disappear, Deceit shall run away, it shall perish! You shall perish in the north! You shall not ruin the corporeal world of Truth! 18. Because of his wealth and glory I shall worship, with audible worship, Best truth, the most beautiful one, the Amesha Spenta, with libations. We worship best truth, the most beautiful one, the Amesha Spenta, With Haoma mixed with milk [ … cf. Ny 1.16 …] We worship these male and female beings.

Metre Passages such as the one from Yašt 3 just quoted cannot be regarded as metrical. These are prose with occasional rhythmic spells, akin to the Vīdēvdād. Those few verse lines which are made up of eight syllables, such as, for example, the refrain ‘because of his wealth and glory / I shall worship with audible worship …’ (Yt 3.18), are so either by chance or because they belong to the old formulaic stock. However, Yašt 3 can certainly not be considered as one of the most typical representatives of the Yašts. Other hymns, in contrast, exhibit a noticeable preference for the eight-syllable verse line, although entire stanzas composed in this metre are not very common. Since this is the only metrical pattern which can be detected—the assumption of a metre based on an accentual pattern is even more hypothetical—it has been suggested that the Yašts perpetuate, albeit in a rather distorted way, a poetic genre based on the octosyllabic verse line. In order to explain the numerous metrical irregularities, different chronological layers of the Yašt poetry have been distinguished, one of them being pre-Zoroastrian, another Zoroastrian and the third indeterminable. Statistically, octosyllabic verses appear to be particularly well represented in the alleged pre-Zoroastrian parts.131 130 On Av. paurva.naēmā pata dyaoš see Kellens 1974, p. 402. 131 Lazard 1984, 1990.

61

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

A further characteristic of the metrical pattern of the Yašt is that, unlike the Gathas, there is not a fixed number of verse lines per stanza. The structuring device of the Yašts seems to have been the division into Kardes, which are made up of octosyllabic verses. The subdivision of the Yašts into stanzas, conveniently used for specifying passages quoted from the text, is not found in the manuscripts, and appears to have been introduced by 19th century scholarship.132 Hence, it may be suggested that the metrical pattern of the Yašts was the Karde, which consisted of an indeterminate number of octosyllabic verse lines. This somewhat loose pattern gives a considerable amount of poetic freedom to the composer: The Karde may be long or short, and as many as desired joined together. Such poetic flexibility could explain why the Yašts enjoyed a certain popularity, and continued to be composed and improvised over a relatively long period of time. By contrast, the much more constricted poetic genre of the Gathas did not become productive. Khorde Avesta The Khorde, or ‘little’, Avesta is a collection of devotional texts used by the lay people in everyday life. It includes, among others, two of the most popular Yašts, Yt 1 to Ahura Mazdā and Yt 11 to Sraoša.133 Sīrōze The order in which the Yašts have been arranged follows the order of the 30 days of the month as they are enumerated in a short Young Avestan text called the Sīrōze (‘thirty days’) which exists in two versions, a shorter and a longer one. Each of the 30 days is presided over by a divine being, a certain yazata whose name the 132 Panaino 1992, p. 180; Hintze 1995 a, p. 277 f. 133 Geldner 1896, p. 8.

62

AVESTAN LITERATURE

day bears and who is invoked on that day by a special formula, collected in the Sīrōze. Every eighth day, however, is presided over by Ahura Mazdā and the Amesha Spentas (day no. 1, 8, 15, 23). For example, the formulae for days 15–20 are, according to the longer Sīrōze, S 2.15–20: 15. We worship the creator Ahura Mazdā, the wealthy, glorious One. We worship the Amesha Spentas, the good-ruling, good-giving Ones. 16. We worship Mithra of wide pasture grounds, who has a thousand ears, ten thousand eyes, the venerable one who is invoked with his own name. We worship Rāman of good pasture grounds. 17. We worship Sraoša, provided with reward, well-shaped, victorious, who promotes wealth, the truthful one, the Ratu of truth. 18. We worship straightest Rašnu and Arštāt who promotes wealth, who lets wealth grow. We worship the well-spoken Word which promotes wealth. 19. We worship the good, strong, bounteous Fravašis of the truthful Ones. 20. We worship well-built, well-grown Strength. We worship Vereϑragna, created by Ahura. We worship victorious Superiority.

The divinities praised in verses 16–20 are, and in the identical sequence, those to whom Yašt 10–14 is devoted. Altogether eighteen of the yazatas praised in the Sīrōze are worshipped, in addition, by their special Yašt. Niyāyišn The five Niyāyišns134 (‘prayer, praise’, abbr. Ny) praise the sun (Xwaršēd, Ny 1), Mithra (Ny 2), moon (Māh, Ny 3), waters (Ardvīsūr, Ny 4), and fire (Ātaxš ī Wahrām, Ny 5). They largely consist of passages taken from the Yasna, including the Gathas 134 Taraf 1981.

63

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

and YH. For example, Yasna 62.1–10 constitutes Niyāyišn 5.7–16. In addition, the entire Xwaršēd Yašt (Yt 6) and Māh Yašt (Yt 7) is recited in Niyāyišn 1.10–17 and 3.2–9. Gāh In Zoroastrianism, the twenty-four hour day is divided into five watches, called asniia- ratu- ‘the times of the day’135 in Avestan, and gāh in Middle and New Persian. In each of these watches, an Avestan text, called Gāh (abbr. G) is to be recited not only in praise of the respective time but also of divine beings associated with it and considered as its co-workers. These texts have been transmitted as part of the Khorde or Smaller Avesta, and are recited by both priests and lay members of the community. Each of the Gāhs is devoted to one of the five divisions of the day, i.e. the morning (Hāwan, G1, from sunrise to midday), midday (Rapithwin, G2), afternoon (Uzayarin, G3, from midday to sunset), evening (Aiwisrūthrim, G4, from sunset to midnight)136 and night (Ušahin, G5, from midnight to sunrise). The five Gāhs have a parallel structure and form an interconnected set of texts. For instance, the praise of Ahura Mazdā, Zarathustra, the Fravašis, and the Amesha Spentas (G 1.3–4) is repeated in every Gāh. The constituent parts of the individual Gāhs are composed with regard to the equivalent passages in the other Gāhs.137

135 The noun ratu-, which is probably derived from the root ar ‘to fit’ (Mayrhofer 1986–2002, I, p. 257), is very common in the Avesta. Bartholomae 1904, pp. 1498–1502, posits three homonymous nouns ratu-. The first one would denote a period of time, the second the ‘judge’, and the third the ‘judgement’. However, as rightly argued by Benveniste 1948, p. 89, they all belong to one single noun ratu- denoting the appropriate time, for instance for a religious ceremony, and also both the regulation and the person who watches over the regulation. 136 On the literal meaning of the name aiβisrūϑrima- aibigaiia- ‘the time of chanting characterized by attentive listening’, see Hintze 2003. 137 Hintze [2005].

64

AVESTAN LITERATURE

Āfrīngān The four Āfrīngān (‘blessing, benediction’, abbr. A) are recited on different occasions. The first one, Āfrīngān ī Dahmān, is spoken in honour of a deceased person, the second, Āfrīngān ī Gāhān, on the five days intercalated at the end of the year, the third, Āfrīngān ī Gāhānbār, at the six great seasonal festivals, and the fourth, Āfrīngān ī Rapithwin, at the beginning and end of the summer.

Mixed Avesta-Pahlavi Texts and Fragments138 Apart from the liturgical and devotional texts of the canonical Avesta, published in Geldner’s classic edition,139 there is a small collection of non-liturgical Avestan literature, part of which has survived within the Pahlavi corpus. This supplementary body of writings testifies to the wide use of Avestan as a language not only of ritual but also of learning and instruction. The surviving texts and fragments are remnants of the once great corpus of Avestan literature, some idea of the extent of which is given by the Pahlavi summary of the Avesta in the Dēnkard. Most of such texts are either accompanied by their Pahlavi translation or are basically Pahlavi texts containing quotations from the Avesta. Hērbedestān and Nērangestān The Hērbedestān (‘precepts for priests’) and the Nērangestān (‘ritual precepts’, abbr. N) are two separate texts, the former dealing with religious studies, the latter with ritual matters. They are often

138 For a brief characterization and bibliography of editions and translations of the texts, see Kellens 1989 a, pp. 40, 43. Supplementary references only are given below. 139 Geldner 1889–96.

65

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

mentioned together, because in the manuscripts the Hērbedestān precedes the Nērangestān. Both texts are in Avestan, accompanied by their Pahlavi translation, glosses and extensive commentaries. According to the Dēnkard, they both belonged to the Huspāram Nask which was the third Nask of the dādīg-, or Law-book-, division of the Sasanian Avesta.140 The Hērbedestān is mainly concerned with religious instruction, both of priests and of members of the laity.141 The Nērangestān is a treatise on ritual divided into three books (fragard). It incorporates an extensive collection of ritual precepts (nērang) in Avestan, also found in the Huspāram. In addition, the Pahlavi commentary quotes further Avestan ritual precepts from other Nasks.142 The Nērangestān was intended for fully initiated priests as a guide for dealing with problems arising in ritual practice. The style of the Avestan text may be illustrated by the following passage from chapter 8 of the first fragard143: 1. He who recites the Gathas while there is an interfering noise of water, 2. or of a river, or of highwaymen, or of robbers, 3. or of lowing livestock, 4. if he can hear (himself) with his own ears, he satisfies the Ratus. 5. If he does not hear (himself) with his own ears, let him produce (the necessary level of sound) 6. if he can produce it. If he cannot produce it, 7. then he satisfies the Ratus if he recites with a medium-loud voice.

Hērbedestān and Nērangestān are valuable documents testifying to the learned tradition of Zoroastrian scholarship. The fact that they did not have a ritual or devotional function is probably the major 140 The Dēnkard summaries are quoted by Kotwal/Kreyenbroek 1992, p. 21 f.; 1995, pp. 19–23. 141 This text was edited and translated by Humbach/Elfenbein 1990 and by Kotwal/Kreyenbroek 1992. 142 Geldner 1986, p. 8. The first two fragard were edited by Kotwal/Kreyenbroek 1995 and 2003. 143 Translation, with minor modifications, after Kotwal/Kreyenbroek 1995, pp. 54–57.

66

AVESTAN LITERATURE

reason why these texts are poorly transmitted. There are only two extant manuscripts, both abounding with textual corruptions and scribal errors. Again the written text is based on a long-standing oral tradition.144 The Avestan passages, which constitute the core of both texts, could have been composed during the Younger Avestan period and might be contemporary with the Vīdēvdād. It is likely, however, that the precepts and regulations collected in these texts are based on a long earlier tradition of Zoroastrian religious and ritual practice. Pursišnīhā The Pursišnīhā (‘questions’, abbr. P) is a Mazdayasnian catechism in Pahlavi, interspersed with 124 quotations from the Avesta. The text consists of 59 questions and answers in Pahlavi. The answers are supported by quotations from the Avesta and their Pahlavi translation. For example, question 5145: Question: Do any of those who stand by the religion of Ohrmazd and Zarduxšt become worthy of Hell, or not? Answer: No. Because everyone who stands by the religion of Ohrmazd, and everyone who has worshipped Zarduxšt, are all worthy of Paradise. From the Avesta it is evident: With them all, I will cross the Cinwad Bridge. All of them go forth on the Cinwad Bridge (i.e. those who have worshipped Zarduxšt are all worthy of Paradise).

The verse line quoted from the Avesta, ‘with them all, I will cross the Cinwad Bridge’, is taken from the Gathas, Y 46.10. It is followed by its Pahlavi translation and, given here in round brackets, by the commentary in Pahlavi.

144 Kotwal/Kreyenbroek 1992, p. 15; 1995, pp. 13, 19. 145 Translation, with minor modifications, by JamaspAsa/Humbach 1971, p. 15.

67

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

Aogəmadaēcā The Aogəmadaēcā (‘we proclaim’, abbr. Aog) is a Pahlavi liturgy interspersed with ca. 30 Avestan quotations only five of which are paralleled by the extant Avesta. The name of the text derives from its initial Avestan word aogəmadaēcā usmahicā vīsāmadaēcā, which is a quotation of the Yasna Haptaŋhāiti (Y 41.5). The text deals with the importance of being prepared for death. It has been suggested that the Aogəmadaēcā was recited as a blessing (Āfrīn) in honour of the soul of a deceased person before the dawn of the fourth day after death.146 Hāδōxt Nask Hāδōxt Nask (abbr. H) is the name of two fragments edited as Yašt Fragments 21 and 22 by Westergaard 1852–54, pp. 294–300. The first fragment praises the Ašəm Vohū prayer, while the second one is about the fate of the soul after death.147 Frahang ī ōīm The Frahang ī ōīm (abbr. Fīō) is a Pahlavi-Avestan glossary and is named after its first Avestan word. Apart from the Avestan words and their Pahlavi equivalents, the text contains also numerous quotations of entire Avestan sentences.

146 JamaspAsa 1982, p. 9 f. The Avestan citations have been studied by Duchesne-Guillemin 1936. 147 Translated by Darmesteter 1883, pp. 311–23. Translation of H 2 by Kellens 1995 a, pp. 54–56, and Piras 2000.

68

AVESTAN LITERATURE

Vištāsp Yašt The Vištāsp Yašt (abbr. Vyt) is an Avestan text consisting largely of quotations from the Vīdēvdād.148 It is divided into 8 sections of altogether 65 paragraphs. The Vištāsp Yašt is of some ritual importance. It constitutes the Vištāsp Sāde, in which, instead of the Vīdēvdād, the eight Fargards of the Vištāsp Yašt are inserted into the Yasna-Visperad. An important Vištāsp Sāde manuscript is the codex K4, see Geldner 1889–96 vol. I, p. xxxiv. Āfrīn ī Zardušt The Āfrīn ī Zardušt (abbr. Az) is a blessing in 8 paragraphs bestowed, according to tradition, by Zarathustra upon Kavi Vīštāspa.149 Vaēϑā Nask The Vaēϑā Nask (Vn), whose name is also derived from its first word, is a treatise about the law and religious ethics. The corrupt and poorly transmitted text consists of 116 quotations from the Avesta accompanied by their Pahlavi translation and glosses and a New Persian translation of the central section.150 However, the Vaēϑā Nask is suspected of being a modern forgery.151 Its first editor, Dastur Kotwal, assumed that this text was fabricated in the 19th century with the intention to give the authority of the Avesta to unZoroastrian ideas. In contrast, after a re-examination of the text, Humbach/JamaspAsa find parallels between the Vaēϑā Nask and the Pahlavi and Persian Rivāyats. They conclude that the Vaēϑā 148 Edited by Westergaard 1852–54, pp. 302–12, translated by Darmesteter 1883, pp. 328–45, and 1892–93, II, pp. 663–83. 149 Edited by Westergaard 1852–54, pp. 300–301, translated by Darmesteter 1883, pp. 325–28. 150 On the manuscripts see Humbach/JamaspAsa 1969, pp. 11–16. 151 Kotwal 1966, cf. Boyce 1967 and Khoroche 1972.

69

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

Nask could have been composed by “some learned Dastur”, who “[having] been consulted by his congregation on religious problems”, quotes from the Avesta to support his views. They maintain that in fact the passage questioned by Dastur Kotwal, Par. 23–39, does not deal with mixed marriages, but with “questions pertaining to illegitimate intercourse and illegitimate children”152: 23. Then Zarathustra asked Ahura Mazdā: 24. “If there should be a man of Mazdayasnian Religion, 25. (and if) he discharges semen into a woman of alien faith, 26. (and) thereby a son is born, 27. if that man possesses wealth, will he give it to the son or will he not give?” 28. Thereupon replied Ahura Mazdā: 29. If there is a man of Mazdayasnian Religion 30. (and if) he discharges semen into a woman of alien faith, 31. (and) thereby a son is expected to be born, one shall not strike his life. 32. If (the son) dies through him by intention, 33. then (this evil deed) makes the man guilty as one whose body is forfeited (pəō.tanū). 34. Thus that man becomes of alien faith. 35. I shall not guide that (man) across the Cinwad Bridge, I who am Ahura Mazdā. 36. If that man possesses wealth, 37. (suppose) he should give half of the share to the son, (and) he should give half of the share to the woman of alien faith, 38. (and) his own people [i.e. family] will not receive (anything), 39. then the man becomes a deceitful one (druvant).

The first half of Ahura Mazdā’s answer, (Par. 29–34) corresponds to the section from the Vīdēvdād quoted above, p. 44, Vd 15.15–16. While it is not entirely clear whether Vd 15.15–16 is only concerned with the responsibilities of a man who has illegitimate intercourse with a Mazdayasnian girl, the Vaēϑā Nask is unambiguously about a Mazdayasnian man who has intercourse with a non-Zoroastrian 152 Humbach/JamaspAsa 1969, p. 57 f. Translation, with minor modifications, by Humbach/JamaspAsa 1969, pp. 25–31.

70

AVESTAN LITERATURE

woman. It deals with his responsibilities towards a child born therefrom and the question of inheritance. Nērang ī Ātaxš The Nērang ī Ātaxš (abbr. Any) is the fragment of a treatise concerning the precepts of the fire cult.153 Other Fragments In addition, there are smaller fragments of Avestan text passages, sentences, or even just words, quoted in Pahlavi texts.154 The number of these fragments could be increased considerably if Avestan quotations in Pahlavi books were collected systematically. The interpretation of these fragments, however, is often difficult due to the lack of context. Some of them come from Avestan texts which are otherwise lost. For example, the fragment no.3 edited by Darmesteter and called accordingly “Fragment Darmesteter 3” (FrD.3), studied by K. Hoffmann, runs as follows155: ‘He has not won anything who has not won (anything) for his soul. She has not won anything who has not won (anything) for her soul. Here on earth there is not any prosperity, O Zarathustra, as ordinary people call it.’

This fragment contains the vocabulary of horse-racing found also in the Gathas. In particular, the verb for ‘to win’ is, as in Y 30.10 quoted above (p. 14), Av. zā which means literally ‘to leave behind (one’s competitors), to race ahead’. Moreover, the fact that men and women are addressed explicitly agrees with Zoroastrian doctrine as known from other Avestan texts. Thus, while language and contents have parallels, the fragment itself testifies to an Avestan text otherwise lost. 153 Edited by Westergaard 1852–54, p. 317. 154 See Kellens 1989 a, p. 40 with references. 155 Translation by Hoffmann 1968, p. 288 [= 1975, p. 227].

71

CHAPTER 2 INSCRIPTIONAL LITERATURE IN OLD AND MIDDLE IRANIAN LANGUAGES P. H Inscriptions essentially serve the purpose of recording information either for immediate use or for posterity. In their shortest forms, sometimes even reduced to simple names, they may be used by private persons to mark their properties (e.g., owners’ inscriptions on seals) or to preserve the memory of the dead (epitaphs). Publicly displayed and contemporary with the events that they record, the historical value of their longer counterparts as original and direct documents is undisputed. But long inscriptions can also be a powerful means for spreading (new) ideologies. Since a large part of the relatively small corpus of Old and Middle Iranian inscriptions are public rather than private in character and often concern royal and dynastic interests, it does not appear to be superfluous to examine them on their literary “qualities”. Though it is certainly true that many of these epigraphic sources still preserved consist mainly of long, dull descriptions in a very matter-of-fact tone, it should not be overlooked that their authors spent much care on matters of style as well and that those inscriptions were in fact often integrated in a long oral tradition. This survey will therefore primarily constitute an attempt to analyze narrative structures and stylistic features of some of the longer Old and Middle Iranian inscriptions. Furthermore, it aims at providing a systematic survey of the more important preIslamic Iranian epigraphic sources known to this day, with the exception of coin, gem and seal legends, which might be linguistically, historically or religiously informative, but have no literary value and in any case rather belong to the fields of numismatics 72

INSCRIPTIONAL LITERATURE

and sigillography respectively. Finally, for the sake of completeness, ostraca as well as documentary papyri (and, to some extent, parchments) will also be briefly treated here. While in classical studies papyrology has long developed into a discipline of its own, in iranology, the study of ostraca and papyri is usually still considered to be part of epigraphy in its broadest sense.1 In fact, much in the same way as inscriptions, the evidence on ostraca and papyri also enables the modern reader to gain direct insight into private and public life of past times. Moreover, many stone and rock inscriptions have no other purpose than to “eternalize” texts of documents on papyrus, parchment or leather. This also implies that some of the most important stone and rock inscriptions were actually not intended to be read by contemporaries. It was rather their sheer presence that was intended to impress, whereas texts written on perishable materials served the purpose of making their contents accessible to a wider public.

Old Persian Inscriptions The study of Old Iranian inscriptional literature is actually limited exclusively to the study of its Old Persian products, which also mark the beginning of written tradition in Iranian languages. The royal cuneiform inscriptions, beginning with the time of the Achaemenid king Darius I (522–486 ), are even our only direct sources for Old Persian language. As such, they perfectly illustrate the power included in the ability of writing. Although Old Persian was certainly based on the mother tongue of the Achaemenid kings and in essence goes back to the South 1

See Gignoux 1983, p. 1206. According to its original meaning, epigraphy—derived from the Greek verb epigráphein “to write upon”—includes the study of all literature that has come to us in a direct way, that is, not by means of manuscript copies, regardless of whether the script was written upon or carved into such writing material as papyrus, parchment, shards, stone, rock, or wood, lead and wax tablets, etc.

73

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

West Iranian dialect of the Fars region at that time, the language as attested in the royal inscriptions, full of loanwords borrowed from other dialects such as Median 2 and with numerous archaisms, was no doubt an artificial, though prestigious, language. For Old Persian never became the administrative language of the Achaemenid empire. In the palace complexes of Persepolis and Susa, it was Elamite which for a while remained the language of the royal administration. There it was written on clay tablets, as is shown by the “Persepolis Fortification Tablets” of 509–494  and the “Persepolis Treasury Tablets” of 492–458 . But due to its complex cuneiform script, the use of Elamite too was restricted in time and space, and so it, like Old Persian, never really had a chance against the “simple” Aramaic script, which proved to be much more convenient for writing on perishable materials like papyrus and parchment. Thus, in the end, Aramaic became the official Achaemenid language. It was used for royal and private correspondence throughout the Empire (hence called “Reichsaramäisch”3 or Imperial Aramaic). Since the Old Persian language4 was used for royal prestige purposes ad maiorem regis gloriam only, it comes hardly as a surprise that it was written in a script especially invented for writing inscriptions in that particular and no other language.5 However, the origin of the Old Persian cuneiform script remains one of the 2

3 4 5

The considerable number of non-Persian elements in the vocabulary of the royal inscriptions is hardly surprising in a multinational state like the Achaemenid Empire. On this subject see Schmitt 1989 b, p. 83 f., for a first orientation with further references, as well as id. 2003, pp. 29–33 (on Median elements in Old Persian). On this term coined by Josef Markwart see Delauney 1974, p. 228 f., and Schmitt 1993, p. 82. On lexical pecularities in the Old Persian versions of the Achaemenid inscriptions see Schmitt 1989 b, p. 84. For more details see Hoffmann 1976, p. 621 (and p. 634); see also Mayrhofer 1989, pp. 177–80. For a detailed research report on the decipherment of Old Persian cuneiform script see Borger 1975–78. It is the Medians who may have induced the Achaemenids to create their own cuneiform script, since the word OP /nipišta-/ was borrowed from the Medians (see Schmitt 1997a, p. 128, and 2003, p. 32f.).

74

INSCRIPTIONAL LITERATURE

most controversial topics.6 But so much seems to be uncontested, namely that the script was newly created and that it did not have anything more in common with other cuneiform scripts than that its signs are composed of wedges, which were obviously submitted to an esthetic stilistic principle: only three kinds of wedges were used (viz., vertical and horizontal wedges and such of the “Winkelhaken” type with an opening to the right only, but no sloping wedges except for the word divider), wedges never cross, and no signs were composed of more than five wedges.7 Obviously, Darius’ inscription at Bīsotūn (DB) was the first large Old Persian inscription on rock written in the new cuneiform script; the genesis of the inscription (see below), some hesitations in the correct spelling of names like that of Vištāspa (which differs in the DB inscription from the one used in later inscriptions), 8 as well as the fact that the formulaic expressions used in DB had not yet reached their mature forms9 seem to be proof enough that the Old Persian script was invented especially for writing it. The two inscriptions on gold tablets of Darius’ greatgrandfather Ariaramnes (AmH) and his grandfather Arsames (AsH), which turned up in suspicious circumstances on the market of Hamadān, should rather not be adduced as counterevidence. They are most probably not authentic and the numerous grammatical mistakes they contain suggest that both inscriptions may have been commissioned at the time of Artaxerxes III (359/ 358–338/337 ).10 The genealogies given in the first lines of the 6

7 8 9 10

The literature devoted to this subject is vast and continues to grow; for the most recent discussion see Huyse 1999 b (esp. pp. 51–55), with a further development of the assumptions made by Mayrhofer 1989 concerning the creation of allographic signs of the types Ci and Cu. See Hallock 1970 and Hoffmann 1976, p. 620f. For further details see Hoffmann 1976, p. 626. See Herrenschmidt 1977, p. 35. See Schmitt 1999 a, pp. 105–11 (esp. p. 105), who adduces convincing arguments to refute the suggestion made by Lecoq 1997, p. 124 f. (repeating his former view of Lecoq 1974, pp. 48–52, where the matter is more fully discussed), for dating the inscription in the time of Darius I. See also Briant 1996, p. 27 and 905 f.

75

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

inscription by Ariaramnes and Arsames have the same structures as that given by Darius in Bīsotūn: Ariaramnes, the Great King, King of Kings, King in Persia, son of Teispes the King, grandson of Achaemenes. (AmH 1–4) Arsames, the Great King, King of Kings, King in Persia, son of Ariaramnes the King, an Achaemenid. (AsH 1–4) I (am) Darius, the Great King, King of Kings, King in Persia, King of the countries, son of Hystaspes, grandson of Arsames, an Achaemenid. (DB I.1–3)

Furthermore, while the cuneiform inscriptions which some Greek authors claim to have seen on the tomb of Cyrus II (ca. 558–530 ) at Pasargadae are undoubtedly fictitious,11 there are good reasons to assume that all three trilingual inscriptions in Pasargadae once attributed to Cyrus (CMa–c [= Cyrus at dašt-e Morghāb]) were actually written by Darius (DMa–c).12 The contents of the great trilingual inscription of Darius (begun in 520 ) may be summarized as follows. After having presented himself in the royal protocol, his genealogy and the countries of his Empire (§§ 1–9), Darius deals with the usurpation of Gaumāta and the events leading to his accession of the throne (§§ 10–15). Then follows a record of his campaigns against eight other rebels (§§ 16–51), which is closed by a brief recapitulation (§§ 52f.); next comes a long list of prescriptions and interdictions (§§ 54–67) like these: Proclaims Darius the King: “You, whosoever shall be king hereafter, be on your guard very much against falsehood! The man who shall be a follower of falsehood—punish him severely, if thus you shall think: ‘Let my country be consolidated.’” (DB IV.36–40) Proclaims Darius the King: “Now let what (has been) done by me convince you! Thus make (it) known to the people, do not conceal

11 12

On this matter see Schmitt 1988, pp. 18–25. For CMb and CMc see, in particular, Nylander 1967 [1968]; for CMa see Stronach 1990. A different opinion was maintained by Lecoq 1997, pp. 80–82.

76

INSCRIPTIONAL LITERATURE (it)! If you shall not conceal this record, (but) make (it) known to the people, may Auramazdā be friendly to you, and may you have offspring in great number, and may you live long.” (DB IV.52–56)

The inscription ends with a list of the six followers who supported Darius against Gaumāta and an admonition to take care of their descendants (§§ 68 f.). To this original text were finally added the much-discussed famous § 70 on the promulgation of the inscription13 and a record of the events in Darius’ second and third regnal years (§§ 71–76). As a leitmotif throughout the whole inscription Darius takes every possible opportunity to stress that his rule was by the grace of the supreme God in an effort to legitimize his seize of power. An example is found almost at the beginning of the inscription: Proclaims Darius the King: “By the favor of Auramazdā I am king; upon me did Auramazdā bestow the kingship.” (DB I.11 f.) Proclaims Darius the King: “Auramazdā bestowed this kingdom upon me; Auramazdā brought me aid until I had held together this kingdom. By the favor of Auramazdā I hold this kingdom.” (DB I.24–26)

The inscription was carved into a rock face at Mt. Bīsotūn in Media, some 60 m over the springs near one of the main east-west thoroughfares of Achaemenid Iran. It is accompanied by a huge relief, representing the triumph of Darius over Gaumāta and nine other rebels, which appears to have been inspired by that of the Lullubi king Anubanini (ca. 2000 ) at Sar-e Pol Zohāb. The location for this enormous monument was not chosen at random, since it was presumably here that Darius had been able to kill the (alleged) usurper Gaumāta in his summer residence and to seize power himself. But even with its impressive dimensions of about 7 by 18 m, the relief and the inscriptions look rather small from a distance. Even at the foot of the mountain it was impossible to read the inscriptions, so copies of them were sent to all parts of the empire. Even a hundred years later, the text continued to be copied at the time of Darius II (423–404 ) as is proved by the 13

For the latest discussion on this paragraph see Huyse 1999 b, pp. 45–51.

77

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

fragmentary papyrus (dated before 418 ) with parts of an Aramaic translation of DB—and of the final paragraph of Darius’ epitaph DN b 50–60,14 which were found at the Judaic military colony of Elephantine in Southern Egypt, near modern Assuan.15 And in Babylon some short monolingual fragments of the Babylonian text were found along with parts of a copy of the relief.16 Archeologists have attempted to establish the various stages of the creation of the Bīsotūn monument from its conception to its final composition.17 From their investigations on the spot, it appears that unlike later inscriptions by Darius, the Bīsotūn inscription was not conceived as a trilingual inscription from the beginning. Originally, the relief may even have been intended without inscription. The Elamite version, in the official literary language of the Achaemenid court, must in any case have preceded the other two. Next came the Babylonian version, in an effort to ensure political continuity, for since the capture of Babylon by Cyrus II in 539 , the Achaemenids had extended their sway to Babylonia. The 414 lines of the Old Persian version, arranged over five colums, were added last as a retranslation of the Elamite version. There can be no doubt, however, that Darius must have dictated his text in Old Persian, since syntax and lexicon of both the Elamite and Babylonian texts are influenced by Old Persian; but only the assumption of a retranslation can account for the occasional divergences from the Elamite text.18 The interrelations between the four versions of the inscription—the fourth being the Aramaic text (see above)—is also a much discussed problem, although no all encompassing definitive study has yet been published. While it is clear on the one hand that the Old Persian and Elamite texts are closely connected, 14 15 16 17

18

See Sims-Williams 1981 a. See Cowley 1923, pp. 248–71. See Seidl 1976. See Schmitt 1991, 18 for bibliographical references; for some further precisions see Huyse 1999 b, pp. 55–57 (for a slightly different view see Lecoq 1997, p. 86). The question of the number of stonemasons engraving the inscriptions has hardly been touched upon, however; on this point see Schmitt 1990 b, pp. 23–28. For further details see Dandamaev 1976, pp. 78–83.

78

INSCRIPTIONAL LITERATURE

the Aramaic and Babylonian versions obviously agree in a number of details against them.19 The historical importance of DB is apparent, but it should not be forgotten that Darius was under tremendous pressure to legitimize his actions and especially his seizure of the Achaemenid throne, so that we cannot take his words at face value. 20 From a literary point of view, the inscription is no less interesting as it is the only Achaemenid inscription that has a partially narrative character. 21 The repetitive style of the inscription and the procedure of topicalisation, by which a theme is merely named in a nominal sentence and then explained in a following relative sentence (e.g., DB IV 32 “These (are) the nine kings whom I have captured in these battles”), 22 as well as the use of formulas like “by the favor of Auramazdā” or the introductory sentence “proclaims Darius the King”, which like several other formulas has an Urartian prototype, 23 appear to emphasize the oral character of the text, and may even reflect traces of an Iranian epic tradition. 24 It has also been suggested that DB (and other Achaemenid inscriptions like Darius’s epitaph DNa [see below] 25) were actually composed in metrical form, but none of these attempts has ultimately been convincing. 26 The majority of the Achaemenid royal inscriptions was written during the reigns of Darius I (522–486 ) and Xerxes I (486–465 ), but beginning with Artaxerxes I (465–424 ) their number decreases rapidly. These later texts, which often record construction activities, contain nothing original and are almost exclusively unilingual Old Persian texts. Grammatical

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

See Schmitt 1991, p. 19 f. On the historical value of Darius’ account see Briant 1996, pp. 119–50. On the narrative structure of DB see Mori 1995 a. See Schmitt 1990 b, p. 40. See Diakonoff 1970, p. 120f.; Dandamaev 1976, 50; Hoffmann 1976, p. 623. See Harmatta 1982; for parallels between DB and the Sasanian inscription ŠKZ see below. See Junker 1967. See Dandamaev 1976, p. 84.

79

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

mistakes become more and more frequent, particularly under Artaxerxes III (359–338 ). 27 Among the other more important inscriptions28 written by Darius should be mentioned: (1) DN a and DN b (see above), two trilingual inscriptions at Darius’ tomb in Naqš-e Rostam, which appear to have been written while Darius was still alive. 29 In the style of a “Fürstenspiegel”, the latter of these inscriptions outlines the qualities of an ideal ruler: Proclaims Darius the King: “By the favor of Auramazdā I am of such a kind that I am a friend to right, I am not a friend to wrong. (…) What is right, that is my desire. I am not a friend to the man who is a follower of falsehood.” (DN b 5–8.11–13) “Trained am I both with hands and with feet. As a horseman I am a good horseman. As a bowman I am a good bowman both afoot and on horseback. As a spearman I am a good spearman both afoot and on horseback.” (DN b 40–45)

Striking similarities between DN a–b and Xenophon, Cyropaedia VIII 7.1–8 have been noticed.30 On the other hand, the epitaphs which Strabo and other Greek authors report having read on Darius’ tomb can confidently be dismissed as fiction.31 The final paragraph of the inscription DN b has long been considered to be different in style and contents from the rest of the inscription, but if one understands OP /marīka/ as ‘young man’,32 rather than 27 28

29 30 31 32

See Schmitt 1991, p. 60; Briant 1996, p. 1049. There is no complete recent corpus of the Achaemenid (trilingual) inscriptions; the edition of Weißbach 1911 [= 1968] is now outdated, as is Kent 1953, which contains the Old Persian versions only. These editions should be supplemented by Mayrhofer 1978, which in turn needs further supplement (see Schmitt 1989 b, p. 58). A recent French translation of all versions (except for the Egyptian ones) of the Achaemenid inscriptions is offered by Lecoq 1997. On these two inscriptions, see now the most recent edition by Schmitt 2000 b, pp. 25–44, and 1999 b (on the final lines of DNb). See, e.g., Sancisi-Weerdenburg 1985, pp. 468–71. See Schmitt 1988, pp. 26–30. This interpretation was recently suggested by Schmitt 1999 b, pp. 129–31.

80

INSCRIPTIONAL LITERATURE

‘servant, slave’, the discrepancy disappears. The final paragraph then fits perfectly well in the admonitory context in which Darius addresses his future successor. (2) DP d–g, four different unilingual inscriptions on the south wall of the Persepolis terrace. While DP d and DP e are written in Old Persian, DP f is in Elamite and DP g in Babylonian. (3) DSe and DSf, two trilingual foundation records, which are preserved in numerous fragments only. Of the latter, dealing with the construction of the palace at Susa, a number of copies on clay tablets, marble stones, bricks, etc. have been found all over the site in Susa. (4) DS ab: a trilingual inscription on a larger than lifesize statue of Darius found at Susa, but transported from Egypt according to the text, to which a fourth inscription in Egyptian hieroglyphs different from the other three was added on the left side of the garment, the knot of the belt and the basis on which the statue reposed. It presents Darius as Pharao of Upper and Lower Egypt. (5) DZ c: a trilingual inscription on a granite stele (the “Šalūf stele”), the longest of three inscriptions from the Suez canal, which was found at Kabret, some 130 km from Suez. It deals with the digging of the Suez canal, but the Elamite version is badly damaged and the Babylonian text is lost altogether: Proclaims Darius the King: “I am a Persian; from Persia I seized Egypt. I gave order to dig this canal from a river by name Nile, which flows in Egypt, to the sea, which goes from Persia. Afterwards this canal was dug thus as I had ordered, and ships went from Egypt through this canal to Persia thus as was my desire.” (DZc 7–12)

The Greek historian Herodotus, in particular, also reports about a number of other Old Persian cuneiform inscriptions from Darius’ time, like that on an alleged equestrian statue of Darius (Hdt. III 88, 3), or that on a stele along the Thracian river Tearos (Hdt. IV 91, 1–2). However, none of these accounts can be considered reliable except perhaps for Herodotus’ statement (Hdt. IV 87, 1) that Darius had erected two marmor stelae at the strait of the Bosporus, which might have contained a similar list of countries as is known 81

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

from many other Achaemenid inscriptions (e.g., DB I, DP e, DN a, DS e, DS m, XP h).33 From the time of his son Xerxes date some further important inscriptions, although the wealth of epigraphic sources is far less abundant than for his father. Some of Xerxes’ inscriptions are—except for the names—almost identical to those of his father (e.g., DE = XE), while for the wording of others he draws heavily upon large parts of his father’s inscriptions. For this reason, Xerxes was often reproached as a weak and effeminate ruler, with no sense of originality, but this long predominating negative picture, based mainly on Greek sources,34 needs correction since by copying his father’s inscriptions word for word, Xerxes on the contrary corroborates his legitimacy as successor to the Achaemenid throne. Among Xerxes’ inscriptions the following should be mentioned above all: (1) XP f, a bilingual Old Persian–Babylonian foundation charter of Xerxes from Persepolis, of which the Old Persian version is preserved in four copies on limestone from the harem and which gives some details on Xerxes’ succession: Proclaims Xerxes the King: “There were other sons of Darius, (but)—thus was the desire of Auramazdā—Darius my father made me the greatest after himself. When my father Darius went to (his) place (in the beyond), by the favor of Auramazdā I became king on my father’s throne.” (XP f 27–36)

(2) XP h, the trilingual so-called “daivā inscription” from Persepolis, which deals with the repression of a rebellion of daivāworshippers and the reinstalling of the Mazdā cult. It was long believed that Xerxes here alluded to the destruction of the temples in Athens and Babylon, but it is now agreed that the inscription speaks in general terms and that no particular historical fact is being referred to.35

33 34 35

See Schmitt 1988, pp. 32–34. See Briant 1996, p. 533 f. See the thorough discussion by Briant 1996, pp. 567–70.

82

INSCRIPTIONAL LITERATURE And among those countries there was (one) where previously false gods were worshipped. Afterwards, by the favor of Auramazdā, I destroyed that sanctuary of the demons and I made proclamation: “The demons shall not be worshipped!” Where previously the demons were worshipped, there I worshipped Auramazdā artācā brazmaniya (in the proper ceremonial style?). (XP h 35–41)

A number of similarities between this inscription in particular and passages from the Avesta,36 as well as with the Sasanian inscriptions of the high priest Kerdīr have long been noticed (see below). Unlike the previous inscription XPf, the inscription XPIh appears to be unfinished and contains numerous mistakes. It was therefore suggested that XPh was never actually ‘authorized’ as an official inscription.37 (3) XS d, a trilingual inscription on two column bases of the Darius gate at Susa. (4) XP l, a parallel text to DN b, which a peasant discovered by chance on a stone tablet in the neighborhood of Persepolis in 1967. There are some remarkable differences of grammatical, lexical and orthographical nature between the two texts.38 The main difference, however, is the absence of the final paragraph of DNb in XPl. Of the inscriptions of the later Achaemenid period, A 2S a, a fragmentary trilingual inscription of Artaxerxes II (404–359 ) on column bases at Susa, is worthwile being mentioned here, as it is in that inscription that the gods Mithra and Anāhitā next to Auramazdā appear for the first time in any Achaemenid inscription. This may indicate a change in the religious attitude of the dynasty.39

36 37 38 39

See Schlerath 1968, pp. 188 a and 198 b. Possible Avestan quotations in the Old Persian inscriptions were recently examined by Skjærvø 1999 a. On this point see Schmitt 2000 a. These are conveniently listed by Lecoq 1997, p. 121 f. On the relation of XP l to DN b see now most recently Schmitt 1996 [1998] and 1997 b. On the Old Persian inscriptions of Naqš-e Rostam and Persepolis from the time of Darius I to Artaxerxes III see now the text edition by Schmitt 2000 b.

83

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

Aramaeo-Iranian Inscriptions In a multinational state like the Achaemenid empire, the use of written Aramaic had been an ideal means of communication between people who spoke so many different languages. Aramaic scribes were virtually all that was needed: letters could be dictated in any Iranian language, but were written down in Aramaic. Once in the hands of their addressees, the letters were read out again in the native (Iranian) language of the correspondent.40 By the time the Achaemenid empire began to collapse into smaller independent states, the Aramaic scribes were increasingly replaced by local scribes who were no longer native speakers. These scribes, although trained in scribal schools, did not perfectly master the Aramaic language any more, and although they continued to use the Aramaic script they gradually started inserting Iranian words into their texts until eventually the language written was entirely Iranian. In view of this rapid spread of Aramaic language and script it is no wonder that Parthians, Persians, Sogdians, and Choresmians in the period subsequent to the Achaemenid era used local variants of the Aramaic script to write down their own languages (see below).41 But at what time exactly the development from faulty Aramaic to Iranian in Aramaic script took place, is not always easy to determine. In this respect, un-Aramaic syntagmata may certainly be a more reliable indication for the Iranian character of a given text than the mere use of Iranian lexemes. There are a number of inscriptions written in Aramaic script that appear to be Iranian in language. For these, Helmut Humbach has coined the term “Aramaeo-Iranian”.42 At the right side of the entrance to the tomb of Darius I in Naqš-e Rostam, a badly damaged inscription of twenty-five lines 40 41 42

See Schmitt 1993, p. 87 f. (with reference to a passage in Esra 4, 7). See Delauney 1974, pp. 223–26; Sundermann 1985 c, pp. 104–10; and, in particular, the detailed description of Skjærvø 1996 a. See Humbach 1974.

84

INSCRIPTIONAL LITERATURE

in Aramaic script was discovered, which has been attributed to the Seleucid period on the basis of Henning’s reading slwk “Seleukos”.43 This reading remains uncertain, however, as it could never be confirmed again, nor does the poor condition of the inscription allow any certain judgment as to whether the language is Aramaic or early Middle Persian.44 From Iberian Mxeṭa (Armazi) is known a bilingual tomb inscription of the second century  for a young girl named Sērapiṭ. One version is written in Greek and it has been an object of constant dispute whether the other version should still be considered as Aramaic or whether it was already aramaeographically written Parthian.45 As far as modern Afghanistan (Qandahār I–II, Pol-e Darūntah, Laghmān I–II) and Pakistan (Taxila) were found a small group of six inscriptions dating back to the time of the Maurya king Aśoka (ca. 270–232 ). They are partially bilingual, but the texts written in Aramaic script are not literal translations of the Greek versions. Some expressions remotely remind one of Darius’ inscription at Bīsotūn.46 It is likely that some Eastern Iranian language was written there,47 although it was recently suggested again that the awkward syntax of the texts written in Aramaic script “is as likely to have been caused by the Indic original as by the influence of an Iranian scribe”.48 Whether Aramaic script was used for writing Bactrian cannot be excluded, 43 44

45 46 47 48

See Henning 1958, p. 24. For the fullest discussions of this inscription see Frye 1982 and Boyce/ Grenet 1991, pp. 118–20. In contrast to it the short owner inscription on a silver bowl with gold inlay published by Skjærvø 1997 c [2000] and dated into the time of the Perside petty king Ardaxšīr II (second half of the 1st century ) is no doubt written in (early) Middle Persian. It would thus be the oldest inscription attested in that language. It reads: “May I be happiness to King Ardaxšahr, Our brother, a descendant of Dārāyān! This *hammered (bowl in) gold-and-silver (weighs) 50 staters. It belongs to Prince Wahīxšahr.” See most recently Skjærvø 1995 a, p. 291; for a detailed discussion see also Grelot 1958, who favours a “faulty Aramaic” interpretation. For a brief survey of the most recent literature on these inscriptions see Schmitt 1994, p. 177 f.; a detailed study was undertaken by Humbach 1979. See Schmitt 1994, p. 180. See Skjærvø 1995 a, p. 289.

85

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

but remains uncertain. During the French excavations at the Hellenistic site of Āi Khānom an ostracon with an economic administrative text written in Aramaic script was found, but none of the words preserved on it enable us to identify the text beyond doubt as Aramaeo-Bactrian as was once proposed.49

Parthian Inscriptions Epigraphic sources in Parthian language from Arsacid times are few. As in the preceding Seleucid period, important inscriptions are more often written in (Aramaic and) Greek and come from Media, Armenia, Mesopotamia and Susiana.50 For even on their coins, the Arsacid rulers used to write exclusively Greek legends until well into the first century , when Vologeses I (r. 51–76/80 ) started to add his abbreviated name in Parthian script to the longer Greek legends, and it is not until the end of the second century  that we find the name of the Parthian king written in full on his coins.51 From the second half of the first century  onward, Parthian coin legends were also used by the local kings from Elymais, at first in addition to the Greek ones on the coins of Orodes I and Phraates. Half a century later under Orodes II Parthian legends replace Greek ones altogether. Among the Parthian inscriptions from Arsacid times should be mentioned two rock inscriptions from Khung-e Naurūzī in Khūzestān from about 140 . They accompany the reliefs of “Mithridates [I], King of Kings”—the first attestation of this title for the Arsacids!—and “Kabneškir, governor of Susa”.52 A funeral stele, dated 14 September 215 , shows Ardawān IV handing over the ring of power to his subordinate *Husāk (*Xwasāk?). It has the following inscription: 49 50 51 52

For further details see Schmitt 1994, p. 180 f. A survey of these inscriptions can be found in Huyse 1995 and Schmitt 1998, p. 195 f. See Alram 1986, p. 122, and Harmatta 1981 b. See Harmatta 1981 a.

86

INSCRIPTIONAL LITERATURE Year 462, month Spandarmat, day Mihr, (reign of) Artabanos, King of Kings, son of Vologeses, King of Kings, *Husāk, satrap of Susa, built this stele.53

A number of short inscriptions and fragments were found in the gorge of Kāl-e Jangāl near Birjand in southern Khorāsān. Henning54 tentatively assigned them to the first half of the third century  on the assumption that one of the fragments contained a place name gryʾrthštr (the place being renamed after the Sasanian king Ardašīr I [224–40 ]). From Sar-e Pol Zohāb in southern Kurdistan along the road from Kermānšāh to Babylon are two undated Parthian adscriptions to an investiture scene, representing a horseman handing over a ring to a standing man, a motif later taken over by the Sasanians. One of the inscriptions identifies the man on horseback as “Gotarzes, the Great King, son of Gew, the Great King”, but it remains unclear whether this king is the Parthian king Gotarzes I (91/90–81/80 ) or Gotarzes II (43/44–51 ).55 By far the most famous inscription from Parthian times, however, is the Greco-Parthian bilingual inscription on the thighs of a small Heracles statue from Seleucia on the Tigris, which was discovered in 1984.56 Although the inscription on the left thigh hardly contains any Parthian words and is full of aramaeographically written heterograms, it is beyond doubt that the text should be considered Parthian and not Aramaic.57 The Parthian version of the inscription reads thus in translation:

53 54 55 56

57

See Henning 1952a, p. 176 [= 1977, II, p. 384] and 1958, p. 40f.; Skjærvø 1995a, p. 292f. On the arameographically written dating formulas in Parthian, Middle Persian, Sogdian and Choresmian inscriptions see ibid., p. 292, n. 16. Henning 1953 [= 1977, II, pp. 409–13]. See Gropp 1968. The editio princeps we owe to Ibn al-Salihi 1984 [1986] and 1987; of the numerous studies devoted to this inscription, those by Morano 1990, Lipiński 1993 and Skjærvø 1995 a focus on the Parthian text (for further references to studies dealing with the historical importance of the inscription see Lipiński 1993, p. 127, n. 2). An interpretatio aramaica was forwarded by Lipiński 1993, pp. 127–34, but rightly rejected among others by F. de Blois, ibid., p. 134.

87

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN [In the year …], Arsaces Vologeses, King of Kings, son of King Mithridates, fought in Mesene against King Mithridates, son of Pacorus, King of Kings. He chased King Mithridates from there, he took all of Mesene. This image of the god Warhagn (Herakles), which was brought from Mesene, he placed as an *offering (or: *trophy?) 58 in the temple of Tīr.

Thanks to the Greek version on the right thigh of the statue, the date can be restored as 151  (462 in the Seleucid era). The short text is of scant importance from a literary point of view. Its main interest lies in the fact that the names of the Greek gods Herakles and Apollo are translated into Parthian as Warhagn and Tīr respectively. The inscription clearly shows that Mesene, a strategically and economically important region, had been independent from Parthian rule since the expedition of the Roman emperor Trajan in 117  and the following negotiations by his successor Hadrian until the victory by Vologeses IV (147/148–191/192 ) commemorated here.59 The bulk of Parthian epigraphical material was not produced in Arsacid times, however, but dates from early Sasanian times, when the first rulers of that new dynasty, from Ardašīr I (224–40 ) to Narseh (293–302 ), wrote their inscriptions not only in their own Middle Persian language, but had also added a Parthian and sometimes even a Greek parallel version. But before passing to these Sasanian documents, a few words need be said about the potsherds (ostraca) from Nisā near modern Ašxabād on the southern border of Turkmenistan, the Awrōmān parchments in southern Kurdistan and the parchments and papyri from Dura. In Nisā, the ancient Arsacid capital, from 1948 to 1961 Soviet archeologists found more than 2000 ostraca with 2758 archive texts, of which 1449 fragments have been published so far, either with transliteration and translation, or in a photo edition. They belong to the first century  (about 100 to 29 , mostly between 77 and 66 ) and report about wine deliveries from local vineyards 58 59

On the possible reading and meaning of this word see Morano 1990, p. 233 f. and—differently—Skjærvø 1997a, p. 184, n. 55. See Wiesehöfer 1994, p. 170.

88

INSCRIPTIONAL LITERATURE

to the royal palaces or the issue of food to court officials.60 The contents of these registration documents are rather monotonous and the main importance of the ostraca lies in the field of onomastics. One of the longer ostraca reads thus61: In this jar from Mihrdātakan from an uzbari vineyard, 17 mari of wine. Delivered for the year 182 [of the Arsacid era, that is, 66 ], brought by Amtanuk, wine-factor. Discovered in this jar and poured off into another jar, 3 mari of wine. Added to this same jar from remnants, 16 mari of wine, (which were?) brought by Mihrbōžan, wine-factor. Gone sour.

These documents are also of paleographic and linguistic interest because the script used here is graphically still quite close to the Imperial Aramaic script62 and the ostraca enable us to study the transition from pure Aramaic to aramaeographically written Parthian. Although the Iranian element in the vocabulary was still small, there can be no doubt that the language used is Parthian, as these documents show a number of characteristics that are clearly non-Aramaic.63 Two further ostraca from the first half of the first century  were uncovered in Šahr-e Qūmis in Northeastern Iran, which is probably to be identified with Hecatompylos.64 Some other short inscriptions on vessels and oracle texts were found in Nippur in modern Irak, Koša-Tepe and Merw in Turkmenistan.65 The three Awrōmān parchments were accidentally discovered in 1910 by a peasant in a cave of the Kuh-e Sālān mountain. In 1913 they were brought to London, where they are now preserved in the British Museum.66 Two of the documents are written in Greek and date from 88  and 22/21 . The least well preserved parchment of the three is actually only part (15 × 9.5 cm) of a much larger 60 61 62 63 64 65 66

See Dyakonov/Livshits 1960; Diakonoff/Livshits 1976–79; Livshits 1977. Diakonoff/Livshits 1977 (1976–79), p. 61 no. 644. See Delauney 1974, p. 224. The arguments by Vinnikov 1954 in favour of an Aramaic interpretation were rightly refuted by Henning 1958, p. 27 f., and Skjærvø 1995 a, p. 290 f. See Bivar 1970 and 1981. See Rastorgueva/Molchanova 1981, p. 150. See Minns 1915 (MacKenzie 1989 a).

89

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

document. It is written in Parthian67 and dated in “(H)arwatāt of the year 300”, presumably of the Arsacid era (January–February 53 ?).68 While the Greek documents concern the sale of half a vineyard called Dādbakān, belonging to the village Kop(h)anis, the Parthian version speaks of “a half part of the vineyard (of) Asmak,” being sold by Pātaspak, son of Tīrēn, to Awīl, son of Bašnīn, for 65 drachmae. The sales contract is followed by a list of witnesses’ names. On the back of the older of the two Greek documents there are a few very rubbed lines, apparently in the same alphabet as the Parthian parchment, which might also have contained the names of witnesses. The remaining Parthian documents date from Sasanian times,69 such as the two inscriptions from the time of Sasanian occupation (255 ?) found in the temple of Zeus Megistos at Dura, some further ostraca from Dura70 and the opening lines of a Parthian business letter on parchment.71 The greeting formulas are strongly reminiscent of the ones employed in Aramaic letters of Achaemenid times and are thus a remarkable testimony of the conservatism of Parthian official scribes.72

Middle Persian Inscriptions The death of the Parthian king Ardawān IV in April 224  during the battle against his challenger Ardašīr meant the end of half 67 68 69 70 71 72

That the language is rather Parthian than Aramaic is discussed by Henning 1958, pp. 28–30, and Skjærvø 1995 a, p. 290 (who also gives a full English translation of the Parthian text, differing from Henning’s in some details). See Henning 1958, p. 29 with n. 3, but see also Boyce 1983, p. 1152, n. 6 (not 33 , as in MacKenzie 1989 a and Wiesehöfer 1994, p. 168). See also the two Parthian petroglyphs from Northern Pakistan in SimsWilliams 1992 (1989–92), p. 27. See Henning 1958, p. 42; Harmatta 1958; and Frye 1968 (photos). For a recent historical interpretation of these documents from Dura see Grenet 1988, p. 136 f. See Harmatta 1957 and Frye 1968. See Boyce 1983, p. 1154.

90

INSCRIPTIONAL LITERATURE

a millenium of Arsacid rule over Iran. From this time on, the new lords of the house of Sāsān would rule over former Parthian territories. They had begun their rise as local rulers of Staxr (Iṣṭaxr) near Persepolis to the detriment of the other petty kings of southwestern Iran and now needed to justify their claims to power. One medium to realize this goal was the written word in inscriptions. The earliest of these royal Sasanian inscriptions is a trilingual Middle Persian – Parthian – Greek inscription by Ardašīr I (224–40 ) in Naqš-e Rostam, which commemorates only his title and descent: This is the image of the Mazdā-worshipping “god” Ardašīr, King of Kings of Ērān, whose race/seed73 is of the gods, son of the “god”, King Pābag. (ANR m-a)

Together with another inscription (ANR m-b), which says merely that “this is the image of the God Ohrmezd” (“Zeus” in the Greek version of the trilingual inscription), it is on the belly of a horse in a rock relief showing Ardašīr being invested by Ohrmezd. Under the hooves of the king’s horse lies the enthroned king Ardawān. These two inscriptions are chronologically the first in a series of royal inscriptions74 to which also belong the following: (1) A short inscription by Šābuhr I (241–72 ) at Naqš-e Rajab (ŠNRb), essentially a list of his titles; similar inscriptions exist also of Narseh (293–302 ) in Bīšāpūr (NVŠ), Šābuhr II (309–79 ) and Šābuhr III (383–88 ) in Tāq-e Bostān (ŠTBn-I/II). (2) The long trilingual inscription by Šābuhr I at the Kaʿba-ye Zardošt in Naqš-e Rostam (ŠKZ)—since Rostovtzeff 1943 also called Res Gestae Divi Saporis 75—which must have been written between 260 and 262 .76 (3) Two parallel inscriptions of Šābuhr I in Hājjīābād (ŠH) and Tang-e Borāq (ŠTBq). 73 74 75 76

For a better understanding of this double meaning see Sundermann 1988 a. These inscriptions are conveniently accessible through Back 1978, although the edition is not in all respects entirely satisfactory. See, e.g., Honigmann/Maricq 1953 and Maricq 1958 b. See Huyse 1998, p. 111 f. For further details on ŠKZ see Huyse 1999 a.

91

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

(4) An inscription of Šābuhr I on a column in Bīšāpūr (ŠVŠ). (5) And finally, the inscription of King Narseh near the Pāikūlī pass (NPi). The Middle Persian version of the inscription ŠKZ was discovered during an excavation campaign of the Chicago Oriental Institute in June 1936 on the eastern side of the tower, just over the inscription of the high priest Kerdīr (see below p. 99 f.). Its upper half is badly damaged. The Parthian and Greek versions were uncovered three years later, in June 1939, on the western and southern faces of the tower, respectively. Because of the enormous importance of the inscription for early Sasanian military, political, administrative and religious history, a preliminary edition of the Middle Persian version was published soon after its discovery by the semiticist Martin Sprengling,77 to whom we also owe the editio princeps of the two other versions.78 After a short introduction, in which Šābuhr presents his genealogy and enumerates the provinces of his empire, the inscription commemorates Šābuhr’s victories against three Roman emperors and his piety in founding fires and celebrating sacrifices for his own soul and for other members of the royal family and his court. The inscription, which in a way is Šābuhr’s political testament, concludes with the demand of the King of Kings to follow his example, a formula well known from other Sasanian and Achaemenid inscriptions (cf. KKZ 18 f., DB IV 72–76, XP h 46–56).79 From a literary point of view, ŠKZ has little to offer. Narrative passages are reduced to a minimum, since the power of the King of Kings could be illustrated more effectively in long enumerations of territories, conquests and foundations. The genealogy of Šābuhr I extends that used by his father Ardašīr I and it is interesting to compare it with that of Darius I (quoted above, p. 76), particularly as regards the changed attitude of the Sasanians towards the gods: 77 78 79

See Sprengling 1936–37 and 1937. See Sprengling 1940. See Skjærvø 1985, p. 600 f.

92

INSCRIPTIONAL LITERATURE I am the Mazdā-worshipping “god” Šābuhr, King of Kings, of Ērān and non-Ērān, whose race/seed is from the gods, son of the Mazdāworshipping “god” Ardašīr, King of Kings of Ērān, whose race/seed is from the gods, grandson of the “god”, King Pābag. I am the ruler of Ērānšahr and I hold the following countries: Pārs, etc. (ŠKZ, MPers. 1 f./Pa. 1/Gr. 1 f.)

Much care was given to the composition of the inscription. The crescendo in the description of Šābuhr’s victorious campaigns against the Romans is significant in this respect. The campaign, in the course of which Gordian III was killed in 244, is described in just a few lines, while the description of the second campaign, at the end of which Philip the Arab was forced to sign a shameful treaty, is twice as long, and the number of lines devoted to the third campaign, which culminated in the capture of the Roman emperor Valerian in 260, is doubled again. The composition scheme of ŠKZ is clearly embedded in a long tradition, as can easily be deduced through comparison with DB. Not only are Darius I and Šābuhr I the only kings who present themselves as “X, son of Y, grandson of Z”,80 but also the narrative structure of both inscriptions follows an identical pattern by repeating themes such as the following in exactly the same order81: Proclaims Darius the King: “By the favor of Auramazdā also much else has been done by me. That (has) not (been) written down in this inscription, (and) for that reason (it has) not (been) written down, lest (he) who will read this inscription hereafter, to him what has been done by me should seem (too) much, (and) this should not convince him, (but) he regard it (as) false.” (DB IV 45–50) And We claimed (and acquired) many other lands, too, and did many deeds of renown and valor which are not (all) written here. However, these many (deeds) were ordered to be written down for the reason that he who will be after Us shall acknowledge this Our renown and valor and rule. (ŠKZ, MPers. 21f./Pa. 16 f./Gr. 36 f.)

80 81

See Huyse 1990 [1992], p. 181 with n. 25. See Huyse 1990 [1992], p. 182. Not without reason did Gershevitch 1970, p. viii, call ŠKZ the “Sasanian ‘Behistun’ inscription”.

93

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

Some of the formulaic expressions used in ŠKZ such as “the surrounding territories, all of them I burnt and laid waste and pillaged”82 (ŠKZ [MPers. 6]/Pa. 5/Gr. 11f.) even go back to Assyrian royal inscriptions, and the custom of recording the king’s deeds of the first year upon his accession (cf. DB IV 2–5, ŠKZ [MPers. 4]/ Pa. 3/Gr. 6, Rabāṭak 4 [see below]) also is familiar from Assyrian, 83 as too is the habit of not mentioning one’s own war defeats such as, in the case of Šābuhr I, the one against the Romans near Rēš ʿAinā (Rhesaina) in the spring of 243 .84 Like some of the earliest Sasanian trilingual inscriptions mentioned above, ŠKZ is written in Middle Persian, Parthian and Greek. Thus, precisely as Darius does in Bīsotūn, Šābuhr employs the language of the dynasty preceding his own. The Middle Persian version, however, remains the most important and actually appears to be the only one that was checked for its accuracy before being engraved. The Greek text, in particular, contains numerous mistranslations by the Greek scribe, which can be explained only by his imperfect knowledge of the Middle Iranian languages. While the Middle Persian and Parthian versions were clearly written for propagandist purposes to substantiate the claim to power of the young Sasanian dynasty, the Greek text was not so much intended for the defeated Romans as to universalize Šābuhr’s words as a kind of metatesto 85 (model text) in the lingua franca of the then world.86 From Hājjiābād (ŠH) and Tang-e Borāq (ŠTBq) are known two parallel inscriptions of Šābuhr I, in which he boasts of his prowess as a marksman.87 While the second inscription was not discovered until 1956 by Gerd Gropp, the first has long been known and led to the decipherment of inscriptional Middle Persian by Antoine 82 83 84 85 86 87

For an Assyrian parallel see Olmstead 1942, p. 403. For some examples in Assyrian royal inscriptions see Tadmor 1981, pp. 14–21. See Ahn 1992, p. 300 f. This term was coined by Mancini 1988, p. 93. For a different view see Rubin 2002. Further copies of this inscription have come to light on other writing materials, but they have all turned out to be forgeries. On this delicate topic see Shaked 1990 a [1992] and Skjærvø 1990 [1992].

94

INSCRIPTIONAL LITERATURE

Isaac Silvestre de Sacy in his famous “Mémoires sur les diverses antiquités de la Perse” (Paris 1793).88 The inscription deals with an archery contest in which the king and some of his courtiers participated. The competitors stood at a marked spot and from there shot their arrows as far as they could. On the spot where the king’s arrow landed an inscribed stone was erected. The two inscriptions are not entirely parallel: whereas in ŠTBq only the king’s record mark is commemorated, in ŠH Šābuhr challenges others to improve on his shot and break the standing record. Next to the Middle Persian and Parthian versions of the inscription the rock surface had been smoothed on four more places, which led Henning to assume at one time89 that Šābuhr originally intended to add four more versions of the same inscription. The end of ŠH was considered by F. C. Andreas to have been written in seven verses of eight syllables.90 From this inscription we also learn that Sasanian aristocracy was composed of the šahryārān (local dynasts and those sons of the King of Kings who had been entrusted with the government over particularly important parts of the empire), wāspuhragān (‘princes’, that is, members of the Sasanian clan with no direct relationship to the King of Kings), wuzurgān (the chiefs of the most important aristocratic families such as Warāz, Sūrēn, Kārin), and finally, āzādān, the other noblemen. This social structure of the Sasanian empire is also confirmed by the inscription of Narseh at Pāikūlī. At Bīšāpūr the scribe Afsā from Carrhae had erected at his own expense an inscription on a column for Šābuhr I (ŠVŠ). He was in turn generously rewarded by the King of Kings, who gave him gold and silver, slaves and girls, a garden and an estate. As the inscription is dated “in the month Frawardīn of the year 58, in the year 40 of the fire of Ardašīr, in the year 24 of the fire of Šābuhr”, it is of particular interest as a help in establishing the chronology of the early Sasanians.

88 89 90

On the early days of Sasanian epigraphy see Drouin 1898. Henning 1958, p. 44. Andreas apud Christensen 1936, p. 46.

95

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

The other major royal inscription of the Sasanians is the one of King Narseh near the Pāikūlī pass on the way from Bagdad to Azerbaijan (NPi).91 It was written on a 10 × 10 m tower and decorated with four huge busts of Narseh. The first westerner to visit the site and make rough drawings of some thirty-two blocks of stone out of an estimated original total of about 220 to 240 was Sir Henry Rawlinson, who paid a visit to the place in 1844 as the British consul of Bagdad. But it was not until 1914 that the German archeologist Ernst Herzfeld noticed that those blocks apparently belonged to two inscriptions, one in Middle Persian (46 lines) on the western wall of the tower and one in Parthian (42 lines) on the eastern side. In his final publication of 1924 Herzfeld did not include the text on the thirty blocks he had excavated only during the preceding season. Many of Herzfeld’s mistakes were corrected by Henning92 and those improvements were confirmed by Frye,93 who had access to some of Herzfeld’s unpublished materials. Substantial progress in understanding the inscription did not come until 1971 when Volker Popp was able to photograph ten previously unpublished blocks.94 After a short introduction, in which Narseh presents his genealogy in the customary way of his predecessors and also appears to justify the reasons for putting up the inscription, there follows the main part. It comprises an account of the events which took place from the death of Wahrām II (276–93 ), the then King of Kings of Ērān, up to Narseh’s meeting with the dignitaries at Pāikūlī; an account of the actions of Wahrām III (293 ), King of the Sakas and son of Wahrām II, who had come to power with the help of Wahnām, until the surrender of Wahrām and the punishment of Wahnām and his fellow rebels; finally, the correspondence between Narseh and the Sasanian dignitaries over the succession and Narseh’s acceptance of the throne is, at least according to the 91 92 93 94

The authoritative edition of the inscription now is Humbach/Skjærvø 1978–83, where a detailed survey of previous research can be found in part 3.2, pp. 7–9. See Henning 1952 b [= 1977, II, pp. 387–408]. See Frye 1957. See Popp/Humbach 1973.

96

INSCRIPTIONAL LITERATURE

inscription, quoted verbatim.95 The decisive letter (§§ 87–89) by the members of the Sasanian aristocracy which convinced Narseh to accept the throne reads thus96 : If we knew that there is either of [the Landholders and?] all the Princes or in Ērānšahr and the whole realm someone [who would be more suitable for?] the rulership (?) [than?] your Majesty, [(then) he should be king?]. But we know [that] there is not (?). Your Majesty is the greatest and the best, and the rulership suits (You?) and is most becoming for Your Majesty. [It is fitting for?] Your Majesty [that You should ascend?] the throne which the gods gave [and (that)] You should be […] and should keep and govern the realm until the time of the Renovation and be happy by Your own glory and realm. (NPi, MPers. 42[H4–5,01] – 43[H8,02]/Pa. 39[g7,03] – 40[g9,04])

The inscription concludes with an enumeration of the kings who had acknowledged Narseh as King of Kings. From this document, it can thus be deduced that the place on the Iraqi-Kurdish border where this inscription was put up, was not accidentally chosen, since it was there that Narseh had met the Sasanian officials (§ 32); nor was the choice of the languages in which the document was written in any way fortuitous. As the matter recorded in the inscription entirely concerned internal Iranian affairs, there was no need any more to add a Greek version, but a Parthian version had not yet become superfluous, for Persians and Parthians are named in one breath on more than one occasion (§§ 5, 10, 16, 74, 75, 78, 83, 86). The poor condition in which the inscription is preserved, makes a detailed study difficult. Still, enough of the inscription is preserved to make some interesting historical observations, for example, that the famous high priest Kerdīr, who—according to his own words (see below p. 100)—seems to have had a determining influence on the religious life of the early Sasanian era, was still 95 96

By emphasizing that those letters are repeated word for word, Narseh prevents others from distorting the “truth”; see Skjærvø in Humbach/Skjærvø 1978–83/3.2, p. 13. Translation by Skjærvø in Humbach/Skjærvø 1978–83/3.1, p. 68 f. A parallel between this passage in the inscription NPi and the Sogdian Manichaean story about the monkey and the fox was outlined by Skjærvø 1998 b, p. 101 f.

97

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

alive at the end of the third century , and even had the title of “Mowbed of Ohrmezd” (§ 32). The Pāikūlī inscription also gives us precious information on how matters of succession were settled in the Sasanian Empire (§§ 63–90). But it remains a hotly debated question whether Narseh was just “a mean spirit”97 and a usurper98 who had fabricated a story for his own profit, or whether he had been a good and god-fearing ruler who had legitimately ascended the Sasanian throne.99 Since the narrative structure of the inscription follows a set scheme which is also known from other stories in Iranian epics about acquisition of kingship (as in, e.g., Herodotus, DB [see above] and the Šāhnāme), it looks preferable not to take Narseh’s account at face value, but to consider it rather as “a kind of narration in which the historical events are partly reconstructed under the restriction of the narrative structure.”100 Among private inscriptions of Sasanian times, those of the high priest Kerdīr should be mentioned in the first place.101 Four Middle Persian inscriptions are known to have been written by Mānī’s fiercest opponent, the shortest being the one accompanied by his bust near a relief of Ardašīr I and two others of Šābuhr I at Naqš-e Rajab (KNRb), between Persepolis and Naqš-e Rostam. The best preserved inscription is that carved beneath the Middle Persian version of Šābuhr’s trilingual inscription on the eastern face of the Kaʿba-ye Zardošt (KKZ) since it was buried below ground level for many centuries since early Islamic times. The two longest inscriptions, however, were that engraved into the rocks near the victory relief of Šābuhr I at Naqš-e Rostam (KNRm, fewer than 100 m away from the Kaʿba) and that over a relief of Wahrām II at Sar Mašhad (KSM), who had been his most important patron and protector. 97 See Henning 1952 b, p. 517 [= 1977, II, p. 403]; and Frye 1957, p. 172. 98 Wahrām III was the son of the former King of Kings Wahrām II, while Narseh was only the brother of the grandfather of Wahrām III, and consequently was not the first in line for the succession of Wahrām II. 99 See Skjærvø in Humbach/Skjærvø 1978–83/3.2, p. 12. 100 See Mori 1995 b. 101 The two latest text editions of Kerdīr’s inscriptions, including a survey of previous research, are by MacKenzie 1989 b and Gignoux 1991 a, which differ substantially in many points.

98

INSCRIPTIONAL LITERATURE

It is clear that all four of Kerdīr’s inscriptions were set up during the reign of Wahrām II since in all of them Kerdīr is named by his title Bōxtruwānwahrām,102 which he was granted by that king (e.g., in KSM 12, KNRm 26, KKZ 8, KNRb 30), but none of the inscriptions is dated, so that it is hard to establish the order in which they were written. The major part of the shorter inscription of Naqš-e Rajab (ll. 9–31) is repeated at the damaged ends of the two longest inscriptions. Whether the inscription of Naqš-e Rajab should be regarded as a summary of the central ideas of Kerdīr’s longer inscriptions,103 or whether it was rather a draft for the fuller versions,104 is hard to decide. However, as three quarters of the inscription at Naqš-e Rajab is duplicated exactly (and not in an abbreviated form) in the other two inscriptions, the latter hypothesis seems perhaps more likely. The inscription on the Kaʿba deals with the career and deeds of Kerdīr and mentions a number of radpassāg ceremonies (KKZ 15 f.), which is three times fewer than the number mentioned in the two longest inscriptions (KNRm 48, KSM 24).105 For this reason, KKZ has good chances to be the chronologically second inscription of Kerdīr after KNRb, whereas the last two may have been contemporaneously set up at different places. In addition to the account of Kerdīr’s career as found in KKZ, the inscriptions at Naqš-e Rostam and Sar Mašhad also record a narration of a spiritual experience (rather than merely a vision),106 which Kerdīr appears to have had during the reign of Šābuhr (KNRm 54–74; KSM 29–53). In the inscription on the Kaʿba, Kerdīr makes direct reference to Šābuhr’s inscription only once (KKZ 2, apparently also retained 102 For the most recent attempt of an interpretation (“whose soul (the god) Wahrām has saved”) see Huyse 1998, pp. 116–18, where references to previous literature can be found. 103 See Gignoux 1973, pp. 193–216; 1983, p. 1211; and 1991, pp. 25–27. 104 See MacKenzie 1989 b, p. 71f. 105 On the figures, which can be only partially ascertained, see MacKenzie 1989 b, p. 66. 106 See Huyse 1998 on the nature (p. 118 f.) and the time (p. 112 f.) of the experience; a substantial contribution to our understanding of it was made by Skjærvø 1983 a [1985]. On this matter, see now most recently Grenet 2002 b.

99

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

in KNRm 6), but there are many other phrases in his inscriptions which allude to Šābuhr’s words or at times even simply duplicate them. Thus, the first sentence of KSM, KNRm, and KKZ (“I, Kerdir the Mobed, was obedient and well disposed (towards) the gods and Ardashir, king of kings, and Shapur, king of kings”107) is written in immediate response to Šābuhr’s demand. The list of provinces of Ērānšahr in KSM 16 f., KNRm 35 f. is directly inspired by the one in ŠKZ, MPers. 2 f./Pa. 1 f./Gr. 2–5, and that may be the reason why it is absent from the parallel passage of KKZ, since the Middle Persian version of ŠKZ was engraved directly above KKZ.108 As a final example, one might recall that the “bread and meat and wine” which Kerdīr’s double takes during his spiritual experience (KSM 49 f., KNRm 71f.) exactly represent the daily offerings Šābuhr had ordained to bring to the fires he had founded, namely “one lamb, one and a half modios of bread, four pās of wine” (ŠKZ, MPers. 24 f./Pa. 19 f./Gr. 45). In the “historical” part of the inscription that deals with the restoration and consolidation of the Mazdean religion there are strong parallels with Xerxes’ daivā-inscription (see above).109 The “religious” part of KSM and KNRm dealing with Kerdīr’s spiritual experience and the theme of the Dēn is strongly reminiscent of some passages in the Avesta like Vīdēvdād 19.110 An important private inscription (ABD) by Abnōn, “Master of Ceremonies in the Harem” was discovered less than a decade ago. In Barm-e Dilak he had founded a fire in honor of Šābuhr, “in the year 3 of Šābuhr, King of Kings, when the Romans were coming against Persia and Parthia.”111 Apart from these royal and private rock or stone inscriptions of the early Sasanian period, one should also mention the sixteen wall dipinti in the Synagogue 107 108 109 110 111

Translation by Skjærvø 1997 a, p. 169. See MacKenzie 1989 b, p. 71. See Skjærvø 1985, p. 598 f. (and also p. 600 f. for further parallels). This was noticed by Skjærvø 1983 a [1985], p. 276. See Tavoosi/Frye 1989 [1990]; this editio princeps has been corrected on many points since: see the most recent editions of Skjærvø 1992 and MacKenzie 1993 [1994].

100

INSCRIPTIONAL LITERATURE

at Dura,112 where also a parchment fragment and an interesting ostracon containing a list of officers and crafts have been found (see above for the Parthian evidence at Dura).113 From *Sadārab, King of *(A)Frēnag, who is listed in ŠKZ, MPers. 28/Pa. 23/Gr. 55, is also known an inscription on a bowl.114 From Persepolis we have two inscriptions dating from the time of Šābuhr II (309–79 ). At the south entrance to the Achaemenid throne hall of Darius, the Saka king Šābuhr, who had made a halt there on his way from Staxr to his home country, had an inscription (ŠPs-I) carved and beneath it the judge Seleukos had his inscription added (ŠPs-II).115 In Fīrūzābād, the wuzurg-framadār MihrNarseh built a bridge at his own expense in the fifth century  and commemorated this by means of an inscription (MNFd) written in a simplified form of the script used for stone inscriptions.116 The inscriptions of Darband (Db) from the sixth century were written vertically in cursive writing on the occasion of the building of a fortification wall against the invaders from the north.117 Many more Middle Persian inscriptions could be listed here, most of them tomb epitaphs in cursive writing from Fars (Eqlīd, Taxt-e Tā’ūs, Tang-e Jilu, Tang-e Karam, Šāh-e Ismāʿīl, Kāzerūn, Bāgh-e Lardī) dating from the end of the Sasanian era, but a large part of these postdate the Sasanian period, like the Chinese–Middle Persian bilingual tomb inscription from Hsian in the province of Saanxi (second half of the ninth century ),118 the tomb inscriptions from Māzandarān (the eleventh century ),119 the Christian cross from St. Thomas Mount near Madras (the seventh–eighth 112 They have been recently reedited by D. Noy in Noy/Bloedhorn 2004, pp. 177–209. 113 See Frye 1968 and for a historical interpretation Grenet 1988, pp. 134–37 and 144. 114 See Skjærvø/Harper 1993 [1994]. 115 See Back 1978, pp. 492–97. 116 See Henning 1954 [= 1977, II, pp. 431–35]; Back 1978, p. 498. 117 See Kasumova 1994. 118 See Sundermann/Thilo 1966 and Harmatta 1971 (on the Chinese version see also Ecsedy 1971). 119 See Henning 1958, p. 50 f.

101

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

century ),120 or the visitor inscriptions from Kaṇheri near Bombay (the eleventh century ), made by Zoroastrian pilgrims (“In the year 378 of Yazdegird, in the month Abān, on the day Mihr [24 November 1009] there have come to this place the co-religionists X and Y etc.”).121 Special mention deserve the inscription of Maqṣūdābād, which certifies the authenticity of an estate, and the three of Tang-e Khošk (the seventh century ), which are concerned with the assignment of a property and give an inventory list of irrigation canals, gardens, orchards, vines, woods and houses. Finally, the inscription on the Constantinople sarcophagus should not be forgotten here. It is often quoted because it was believed to date from the fifth century  and to be an important argument in the discussion of the Avestan script. However, it may be considered as established beyond doubt that it was not written before Islamic times (the ninth–tenth century ).122

Middle Persian Ostraca and Papyri Since the contents of ostraca and papyri deal with such subjects as letters, economic documents, administrative records, etc., they are of prime importance as a source of information concerning the activities of people of past times. There appear to be three reasons why the study of these sources is still more or less in its infancy.123 Firstly, the number of objects on which to focus research is all in all rather limited. Secondly, with few exceptions most of the Middle Persian papyri have come to us in a very fragmentary state, so that the context, which might advance the decipherment of the documents, is quite often missing. Finally, the extremely cursive and 120 121 122 123

For the most recent edition see Gignoux 1995 a. See West 1880 a. See de Blois 1990 b. In order to obtain an impression of the gradual progress made in this young branch of Iranian studies, one should compare the research reports of Hansen 1938, pp. 9–12; de Menasce 1953, pp. 185–87 [= 1985 a, pp. 163–65]; Weber 1984, pp. 25–35 and 1992 a.

102

INSCRIPTIONAL LITERATURE

stylized character of the Middle Persian script used on the papyri makes decipherment of those documents even more difficult. It is for this reason too that there is often a long period of time between the finding of the objects, their publication in facsimile and the final edition and commentary.124 Ostraca are mostly written on the convex outer surface, less often on both the inner and outer surfaces. Iranian ostraca are relatively few, due partly to the fact that many of the shards must have been lost when many villages were rebuilt on Sasanian ruins upon the introduction of Islam into Persia, and partly to the fact that on many shards the ink will have been wiped out under the effect of humidity, salt etc. There are a few larger collections of ostraca,125 like the one from the Varāmīn region near Ray (presumably of the sixth century ), which we owe to an excavation by Ernst Herzfeld in 1926. These ostraca mainly concern receipts for the distribution of food and, exceptionally, other goods (spears, firewood) and follow a stereotype pattern: a formula expressing a wish is followed by the date (mostly only the day on which the products were issued, sometimes also the month), the name of the recipient, the kind and quantity of the goods delivered, and the word dād ‘given’. Many of these ostraca from Ray appear to have been crossed out as a confirmation that the goods had indeed been handed over. Other Middle Persian ostraca of the sixth to seventh centuries  were unearthed in Čāl Tarkhān-Ešqābād (still unpublished), Qaṣr-e Abū Naṣr near Šīrāz,126 Dal’verzin- Tepe in South Usbekistan, Ak-Tepe, Erk-Kala and Giaur-Kala in South Turkmenistan.127 An interesting ostracon from a Buddhist sanctuary in Giaur-Kala contains a list of Zoroastrian names, but its purpose is unclear.128 In contrast to ostraca in Middle Persian language, which have all been found on Iranian territory, Pahlavi papyri (as well as some 124 As is the case for de Menasce 1957 and Weber 1992 b. 125 See also above for Parthian and below for Bactrian ostraca. 126 See Frye 1973, p. 107; some of his readings have been corrected by Weber 1992 b, pp. 107–12. 127 See Nikitin 1992 a. 128 See Nikitin 1992 b.

103

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

parchments and a few documents on leather129 and linen) almost exclusively come from Egypt130 and date from the time of the short Sasanian occupation between 619 and 629 . Most papyri finds were made in the last twenty years of the nineteenth century and the documents are now dispersed in museums and libraries all over the world, mainly in Europe and the United States (Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Vienna; Staatliche Museen, Berlin; Museum of Fine Arts, Moscow; University Museum of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Universität Heidelberg; Musée du Louvre, Paris; Bibliothèque Nationale et Universitaire, Strasbourg; Bodleian Library, Oxford; Brooklyn Museum, New York; Bibliothèque universitaire, Cairo; Universitätsbibliothek Basel; Niedersächsische Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek, Göttingen; British Library, London; John Rylands Library, Manchester).131 The large collection of papyri from the Austrian National Library, which once contained 580 numbered items and was by far the most important collection of Pahlavi papyri, had long been lost without trace, but apparently turned up again recently.132 Its edition as well as the revised edition of the important collection from Moscow are eagerly awaited. Another major collection from Berlin was recently reedited.133 The so-called “Basle papyrus”—which is actually a parchment!—is very well preserved and is of interest for its place-names transcribed from Greek.134 Many Pahlavi papyri have texts on both sides. Some of the documents even have on the verso Greek texts that bear no relation to the Iranian texts on the recto. Of the papyri known up to the present day, none contain literary texts, and it seems rather unlikely that Zoroastrian religious texts or the like were ever 129 Some documents on leather, originating from a tomb in Hamadān, have recently been published by Gignoux 1996 [1998]. 130 Except for the documents from Dura Europos mentioned above. 131 Here listed in descending order of their importance. All of these documents, except for the Vienna, Berlin, Moscow collections, were published in the Corpus Inscriptionum Iranicarum by de Menasce 1957 (photo-edition) and Weber 1992 b (texts and commentary). 132 See Weber 1991, p. 232, n. 23. 133 The new edition by Weber 2003 now makes the one by Hansen 1938 outdated. 134 See now the revised edition of Weber 1992 b, p. 159 f. (P. 55).

104

INSCRIPTIONAL LITERATURE

written on papyrus. Since the documents date from the time of the Sasanian occupation of Egypt, their contents are of a much more secular character. They contain such items as military orders for the garrisons of the occupation forces, lists of provisions to be given to the soldiers, business letters concerning trading, and, less commonly, private letters.135 Of particular interest is the case of a Sasanian official named Šahr-Alānyōzān, who is also known to us through several Greek documents.136 Other Pahlavi documents on leather and silk, recently found in Iran (now in Berkeley, Bancroft library, and Berlin, Free University), are being deciphered presently by Gignoux and D. Weber.137

Bactrian Inscriptions and Other Documents It was not until 1954 that Bactrian soil gave free its first written document in the local language now commonly called Bactrian. During excavations of the French Archeological Delegation under the direction of Daniel Schlumberger a number of fragmentary inscriptions in Surkh Kotal (Red Pass) in Northern Afghanistan were unearthed. They were written in a modified form of Greek script, but clearly represented a (Middle) Iranian language. These short inscriptions, which have meanwhile become known as the Kaipūr138 inscription (or “inscription inachevée”), the “inscription pariétale” on the front part of the ring wall around Surkh Kotal, the Palamedes inscription and the Column inscription, were soon aptly dealt with by Raoul Curiel,139 who was the first to recognize 135 Only three contracts of sale are known so far, see de Menasce 1953, pp. 187–91 [= 1985 a, pp. 166–70] and Weber 1992 b, p. 501. 136 See Weber 1992 b, p. 118 f. P. 5 (Phila. E 16.500) and pp. 185–87 P. 81 (P. Heid. Pahl. 21). On Šahr-Alānyōzān see Weber 1991. 137 See Gignoux 1991 b, 2001 and 2004. 138 Kaipūr (going back to OIr. *kavya-puθra- “son of a kavi”) seems to have been the name of the ruler who commissioned the inscription. 139 See Curiel 1954; Humbach 1966, pp. 100–103; and Davary 1982, pp. 66–68 (the last two monographs offer useful surveys of Bactrian written documents, but are to be used with caution otherwise).

105

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

that the language behind the Greek letters must have been the Middle Iranian dialect once spoken in Bactria. The use of Greek script to write Bactrian must be viewed in the light of the long period of Greek domination over Bactria from the conquest by Alexander the Great (329 ) and the following Seleucid and Greco-Bactrian occupation until the middle of the second century , when the nomadic people of the Yüeh-chih (Skt. Tukhara-, Gr. Tokharoi) settled in the region of what is now northern Afghanistan. They soon took over Iranian lifestyle and culture from the local population, and although the first Kušāns, who had emerged as the predominant family from among those nomadic tribes, continued to use Greek legends on their coinage, Bactrian was to replace it from the times of Kaniška I on, less than a century thereafter. For writing this Middle Iranian language, the use of Greek script was, however, retained. Paleographically, there are two main forms of the script, one “rectangular” or “monumental”, based on the local variant of Greek script, the other cursive, apparently derived from the monumental script, which proved difficult to decipher. The “rectangular” script was not only used on coins of the Kušān era, but also employed on the (stone) incriptions of that period and of the following KušānoSasanian period, when the western parts of the former Kušān empire had passed into the hands of Sasanian governors.140 The cursive script was to become the only form of script employed in all extant Bactrian texts thereafter, but seems to have been used in the Kušān period also, if the fragments on papyrus from KampyrTepe can be dated to that period.141 This must also have been the script mentioned by the Chinese Buddhist monk Hsüan Tsang, who reports from his visit to Tuxāristān that the number of letters with which the inhabitants write their language, from left to 140 The language of those legends in Greek rectangular script on the coins of the Kušān-šāhs, as the Kušāno-Sasanian governors were called, can hardly be regarded as Bactrian, however, but was largely Middle Persian. See SimsWilliams 1989 a, p. 231 with n. 12 (and Sims-Williams/Cribb 1996, p. 85) and Schmitt 1994, p. 189. 141 See Rteveladze 1994 [1996], p. 149.

106

INSCRIPTIONAL LITERATURE

right, is twenty-five. Twenty-four signs were taken from the Greek alphabet although they represent in some cases different phonemes. They also used an additional sign for /š/ that looks like an extended rho, but they did not use ksi and psi. However, the names of the script and of the language written in it have not come down to us. The language was at first called étéo-tokharien (genuine Tocharian) by André Maricq (1958), but since the invading Tokharoi gave up their own speech and adopted the native language of Bactria, it is preferable to call it Bactrian.142 The oldest record in Bactrian known so far is a trilingual inscription in thirteen lines (IDN1), carved into a boulder of volcanic origin. It was found on the Dašt-e Navūr plateau, some 80 km west by northwest of Ghaznī,143 but is now almost completely destroyed.144 This inscription has a Bactrian version in Greco-Bactrian rectangular script, a Gāndharī-Prakrit version in Kharoṣṭhī script, and a third version in an as yet undeciphered language and script (which appears to be derived from Kharoṣṭhī). The fact that the inscription is trilingual suggests that the language of the third version must be some local idiom.145 But the main importance of the inscription lies in the fact that it shows that Bactrian was used as an official language of the Kušān empire beyond the borders of Bactria proper. The Greek date “(year) 279, (month) Gorpiaios” in the first line corresponds to the date mentioned in the “inscription inachevée” mentioned above. While Gorpiaios is the eleventh month of the Macedonian calendar, the era remains unknown. It was, however, not coin legends, but another inscription discovered at Surkh Kotal a few years later in May 1957 that was to advance our knowledge of Bactrian substantially. Until recently it remained by far the most important Bactrian document in every 142 See Henning 1960, p. 47 [= 1977, II, p. 545]. 143 See Fussman 1974; Bivar 1976; MacDowell/Taddei 1978, pp. 238–40; Lazard in Lazard/Grenet/de Lamberterie 1984, p. 217 f. The premature translation and interpretation by Davary/Humbach 1976 has now been superseded by Sims-Williams in Sims-Williams/Cribb 1996, p. 95 f. 144 See Davary/Humbach 1976, p. 5. 145 The identification of that language as Kambojī by Fussman 1974, p. 33f., remains speculative for the time being, however; see Schmitt 1994, pp. 185–88.

107

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

respect. This is the famous well-preserved Kaniška (or Nokonzok [or: Nukunzuk]) inscription of twenty-five lines, which deals with the construction of a well in a Kušān sanctuary, that was obviously founded by Kaniška. The restoration works were undertaken by a high dignitary called Nokonzok in the year 31 of the Kaniška era, that is in the early years of the reign of Huviška: This citadel is the sanctuary of Victorious Kaniška, to which the lord King Kaniška gave its name. Then, when the fortress was completed for the first time, the water in the interior ran out by itself, which made the citadel without water (supplies). (…) Then, when the karalrang Nukunzuk, the son of Frīxwadēw, (…) in the year 31, in the month of Nīsān, came here to the sanctuary, then he made a furrow around the fortress, then he dug this well and led the water out of it and reinforced it with stones so that in the citadel the people would not lack water. (SK 1 f., 5 f.)

Numerous contributions have been devoted to this inscription, and it took a long time until a satisfactory interpretation as to both contents and purpose was reached, although not all details have been fully elucidated even now.146 Three versions of this inscription have come to light, one (M) was carved into a monolith placed at the entrance of a temple, the other two (A, B) are polylithic.147 Not only are there significant orthographic variants between M and the other two versions (B, in particular contains many incorrect forms148), but there are also redactional divergences in the final phrase. It seems pointless to speculate as to what may have been the reason for ordering three copies of the same inscription.149 Apparently, A and M were carved by the same 146 See Lazard/Grenet/de Lamberterie 1984; for a brief survey of previous research on this inscription see Sims-Williams 1989 a, p. 230 f. with n. 6. 147 The monolithic version was first published by Maricq 1958a, the polylithic versions by Benveniste 1961. 148 This does not concern the distribution of the endings -a, -e, -i, which alternate with the ending -o, which was presumably already silent. Whereas -o is used almost throughout in A and M, the distribution of these finals in B agrees more closely with that of the Rabāṭak inscription and might reflect an earlier stage of the language. See Sims-Williams/Cribb 1996, p. 88. 149 See the summary in Humbach 1966, p. 76 f.

108

INSCRIPTIONAL LITERATURE

stonemason,150 and it looks as though the monolithic version M represents the final redaction of the inscription, closed by a colophon like those known from Sasanian inscriptions (ŠKZ Pa., KNRb, ŠVŠ [see above]), whereas A and B were only drafts, which served no other purpose than to determine how much space was needed for the final version and who was the more skillful stonemason. The most spectacular find of a Bactrian inscription occurred only a decade ago, when in March 1993 an inscription was found in a region called Rabāṭak some 40 km northwest of Pol-e Khumrī, on the western border of the modern Afghan province of Baghlān.151 The stone bearing the inscription was found together with fragments of the sculpture of a lion and some further architectural elements such as a pilaster base and a panel with lotus motifs on the front and back sides. The importance of the inscription, which deals with the foundation of a temple, was immediately recognized as it made mention of both the Kušān king Kaniška I and the official Nokonzok already known from the Surkh Kotal inscription. Even though the document is of enormous historical significance for Kušān chronology and thanks to the identification of a new Kušān king Vima I Takto even led “to a fundamental reassessment of our understanding of the Kushan kings” as the first editors enthustiastically put it,152 we are more concerned with the style of the inscription here. What makes the inscription so interesting from a stylistic point of view is that quite a few expressions show remarkable similarity to formulas known from Achaemenid and Sasanian inscriptions, like Darius’ inscription at Bīsotūn or Šabuhr’s inscription on the Kaʿba-ye Zardošt.153 It was tentatively suggested that the Kušāns “may have had direct knowledge of the content of Darius’ inscription, presumably through an Aramaic version such as that found in 150 See Lazard in Lazard/Grenet/de Lamberterie 1984, p. 216 f. 151 On this spectacular find (and many more on pp. 639–49!) see Sims-Williams 1996 b, pp. 635–38; Sims-Williams/Cribb 1996; Sims-Williams 1998. 152 See Sims-Williams/Cribb 1996, p. 75. 153 A fairly exhaustive list of such similarities in the formulaic expressions of the Rabāṭak inscription and the Sasanian royal inscriptions is given by Skjærvø 1998 a, p. 654.

109

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

Elephantine”154 (see above), but other possibilities remain open.155 These resemblances can hardly be accidental, but no matter how they should be explained, the repetitive style of the inscription is typical of “oral” literature, as may be illustrated by the following phrases: “Then King Kanishka gave orders to Shafar the karalrang *at this … to make the sanctuary (…)” (ll. 7 f.) and “Then, as the king of kings, the scion of the race of the gods … had given orders to do, Shafar the karalrang made this sanctuary” (ll. 14 f.).156 Other foundation records of the Kušān period are the badly damaged inscription of Airtam near Termez157 and the remnants of a monumental inscription in rectangular script from Delbarjīn near Balkh, which consist of five non-contiguous fragments.158 The excavations at the Buddhist caves of Kara Tepe (Black Hill) brought to light a few short votive inscriptions on ceramics,159 including one vessel containing a Sanskrit–Bactrian text, as well as some eighty graffiti recording the names of visitors.160 They date from 286–386  and thus belong to the Kušāno-Sasanian period. Similar visitor graffiti were found at Afrāsiāb161 and in the Karakorum at Shatial Bridge and at Hunza-Haldeikish.162 From still later times are a few inscriptions in Bactrian cursive writing which are only of marginal interest here: two short inscriptions from Uruzgān in cursive writing with diacritical signs 154 See Sims-Williams/Cribb 1996, p. 83. For a different interpretation see Fussman 1998. 155 See Skjærvø 1998 a, p. 654 f., who suggests an “oral” scenario (on which see also Skjærvø 1998 b, p. 105). 156 Translation by Sims-Wiliams 1998, p. 81 f. 157 See Harmatta 1986. 158 See Livshits/Kruglikova 1979 (Grenet in Lazard/Grenet/de Lamberterie 1984, p. 218 f.; Davary 1982, pp. 42, 128–33). 159 For further Bactrian ostraca and fragments of inscribed vessels of no great linguistic importance see Sims-Williams 1989 a, p. 231, n. 17 and p. 232, n. 19, as well as Sims-Williams 1995 a [1997], for a Bactrian inscription on a silver vessel from China consisting in a single word only. 160 For further bibliographical details see Sims-Williams 1989 a, p. 231, n. 14 and Schmitt 1994, p. 184; see also Davary 1982, pp. 40, 75–81. 161 See Sims-Williams 1989 a, 231, n. 15. 162 See Sims-Williams 1992 (1989–92), p. 27 f.

110

INSCRIPTIONAL LITERATURE

(presumably of the ninth century, although a date is hard to ascertain on the basis of the script alone), two further inscriptions in cursive writing from Jaghatū (both undated, but one contains the Buddhist Triratna formula, known also from Buddhist Sogdian texts), and finally the inscriptions from the Tūčī valley, which all concern the building of water reservoirs or cisterns and are now in the Pešāwar Museum (an Arabic – Sanskrit bilingual inscription of 857 , a Sanskrit – Bactrian bilingual inscription of 863 , an Arabic–Bactrian bilingual inscription of 866 , and a Bactrian inscription of 866 ).163 But it is mainly the discovery of a spectacular collection of more than a hundred Bactrian documents (quite plausibly said to have been found in part, if not entirely, in Afghan Samingan) written in cursive script on leather, cloth or wooden sticks, that constitutes one of the most sensational finds of the past decade.164 None of them is of any literary value, but because of their outstanding paleographic, historic, linguistic importance, a brief presentation seems fitting: Many of these documents are letters, some of which were still sealed and therefore well-preserved. One of the less preserved letters contains a reference to a Kušānšāh, another one is written by a representative of the Iranian šāhānšāh, who can only have been the Sasanian King of Kings. Some of the documents are dated after a non-specified era. If one follows the first editor of these texts in placing the beginning of the era in 233 , all documents from the collection would have been written between 342 and 781 . Apart from the letters, another major group concerns (dated) legal documents: deeds of sale, leases, guarantees, receipts, deeds of gift, and a most interesting marriage contract as well as a deed of manumission.

163 For all of these later inscriptions in cursive writing see Humbach 1966, pp. 103–17 and Davary 1982, pp. 68–75 (see also MacDowell/Taddei 1978, pp. 242–44). 164 See Sims-Williams 1996 b for a useful survey. A first, partial edition was taken care of by Sims-Williams 2000 (on which see the review by Tremblay 2003).

111

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

Inscriptions and Documents in Other Middle Iranian Languages For the sake of completeness, the epigraphic remains of some other Middle Iranian languages, though of little literary merit, ought to be mentioned here. Since most of the more interesting Sogdian, Choresmian, and Old Ossetic inscriptions do not belong to the pre-Islamic period, they are actually beyond the scope of this chapter, but they risk remaining unnoticed otherwise. A brief synopsis with ample reference to further literature seems therefore to be an appropriate compromise. Among Sogdian inscriptions,165 probably one of the most famous is a trilingual Uighur Turkish, Chinese, and Sogdian inscription from the early ninth century , discovered in Karabalgasun (Qara Balghasun), the ancient capital of the Uighurs on the Orkhon river in Northern Mongolia. In it an Uighur khaqan relates that he and his aristocratic entourage had adopted Manichaeism as a national religion under the influence of Sogdian missionaries.166 Also from Mongolia are two bilingual inscriptions. One of them is an inscription of the late sixth century  on a stele found at Bugut. It is written in Sogdian and Sanskrit (in Brahmi script).167 In it a nomadic khaqan speaks of his predecessor’s conversion to Buddhism. The other inscription, dating from around the middle of the eighth century  was found on the front of a badly weathered stone in Sevrey. It is in Sogdian and runic Turkish. The two versions, each consisting of seven now incomplete lines, were found next to one another.168 In Ladakh, on the Indo-Tibetan border, were found fourteen inscriptions from the ninth century , the longest of which was set in 841/842  by a Christian envoy from Samarkand on his way to the Tibetan khaqan;169 some further inscriptions 165 Further surveys on Sogdian inscriptions can be found in Henning 1958, pp. 52–56; Sims-Williams 1989 a, p. 174; Gharib 1995, pp. xxv–xxvii; Cereti 1995–97, pp. 55–58. 166 See Müller 1909; Hansen 1930; Yoshida 1988 b. 167 See Klyashtornij/Livshits 1972 and Bazin 1975. 168 See Klyashtornij/Livshits 1971. 169 See Müller 1925; Benveniste 1938 [= 1979, pp. 163–86]; Henning 1958, p. 54; Sims-Williams 1993 b.

112

INSCRIPTIONAL LITERATURE

have been found as far as Semiriciye in Kirgizia.170 Almost 700 Middle Iranian rock graffiti—two Parthian, two Middle Persian, twelve Bactrian and the rest Sogdian—were found in the Upper Indus Valley of Northern Pakistan between 1979 and 1988, on the occasion of roadworks on the Karakorum Highway. Most of these very short petroglyphs are from Shatial village. They generally consist of the names of visitors, perhaps merchants.171 On the basis of the script, which closely resembles that of the Ancient Letters (see below p. 114), they may be dated approximately between the fourth and sixth centuries .172 The longest of the Sogdian graffiti is from Shatial and contains twenty-five words: (I,) Nanai-Vandak the (son) of Narisaf have come (here) on (the) ten(th day) and asked a boon from the spirit of the sacred place Kʾrt that … I may arrive (home?) more quickly and see (my) brother in good (health) with joy.173

The wide distribution of the above-mentioned stone and rock inscriptions does not mean that Sogdian language was spoken in such a large area, but only testifies to the presence of speakers of Sogdian. A number of ostraca were found in Giaur-Kala174 in Merw, in Penjikend175 and in the palaces of Varaxša belonging to the rulers of Bukhara, from where the oldest Sogdian ostracon (fourth century )176 comes. Finally, the adscriptions to the wall-paintings from Penjikend (seventh to eighth centuries )177 and from Afrāsīāb (sixth to eighth centuries )178 near Samarkand are worth mentioning here. 170 See Livshits 1981. 171 See Sims-Williams 1996 a. 172 A preliminary edition of the petroglyphs on the basis of photos alone was done by Humbach 1980 [1981]; the final edition, based on autopsy, was made by Sims-Williams 1989–92. 173 Translation by Sims-Williams 1989–92, I, p. 23, no. 254. 174 See Freiman 1939. 175 See Livshits 1970, p. 256 f. with n. 3. 176 See Livshits 1970, p. 256, n. 2; on Varaxša see Shishkin 1963. 177 On the wall-paintings of Penjikend see the bibliography in Cereti 1995–97, p. 57, n. 211; on the adscriptions see Livshits 1970. 178 On Afrāsīāb see the bibliography in Cereti 1995–97, p. 58, n. 216; on the inscriptions see Livshits 1987.

113

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

A group of paper documents in Sogdian known as the “Ancient Letters” was discovered in 1907 by Sir Aurel Stein in a barracks of the Chinese Wall between Tun-huang and Lou-lan, consisting of five virtually complete letters together with several fragments. The Ancient Letters are not only important for linguistic studies, being the oldest substantial material available in the Sogdian language, but also as a source for the early history of the “Silk Road”. The date of the letters has been discussed controversially in the past years. Recently convincing arguments have been put forward by Grenet, Sims-Williams and de la Vaissière for dating them between 313 and 314 .179 Another group of important historical documents in Sogdian from the 8th century  was discovered by Russian archeologists in 1933 and the following two years in the ruins of a fortress located on Mount Mugh in northwestern Tajikistan. These documents belonged to the archive of the Sogdian prince Dēwāstīč, the last ruler of Penjikend, who was beleaguered in 722  by the Arab invaders in the fortress of Mount Mugh and executed, and to the archives of other Sogdian nobles, who had found their last refuge in the area. After the decisive breakthrough in the decipherment of the Mugh documents by Livshits, several authors have endeavoured to understand these difficult texts, which consist mainly of business correspondance involving technical, economic and juridical matters, including an interesting marriage contract.180 Soviet archeological expeditions have brought to light a number of Choresmian inscriptions,181 only some of which have been published so far. Two early Middle Choresmian inscriptions (third/ 179 Grenet/Sims-Williams/de la Vaissière 1998 [2001], p. 101 f. This dating thus takes up an earlier suggestion by Henning 1948 b (311–13 ); see also Grenet/Sims-Williams 1987. The pioneering edition of the Ancient Letters is by Reichelt 1928–31 (vol. II). For further details on the Ancient Letters see Sims-Williams 1985 c and 2001. 180 See Livshits 1962 and Bogolyubov/Smirnova 1963. On the figure of Dēwāstīč see Grenet/de la Vaissière 2002 and Yakubovich 2002. The first Mugh document to be discovered has been re-edited by Yakubovich 2002, who has also prepared a new edition of the Sogdian marriage contract (forthcoming). 181 See Henning 1958, pp. 56–58; id. 1965 a [= 1977, II, pp. 645–58]; Humbach 1989, p. 193; Cereti 1995–97, pp. 59–61.

114

INSCRIPTIONAL LITERATURE

second centuries ?) were found on two clay vessels from KoyKrylgan-Kala. Other Middle Choresmian inscriptions consist of coin legends, inscriptions on some silver vessels found in the Ural region,182 epitaphs on ossuaries from the necropolis of Tok-Kala,183 datable between the early seventh and early eighth centuries , and an ostracon from Khumbuz-Tepe.184 Some documents on wooden tablets and leather have been discovered in pre-Sasanian ToprakKala185 as well as a written leather fragment from Yakke-Persan. No Khotanese stone inscriptions have yet been found, but there exists one short graffito on a jar and a few inscriptions on wood, as well as some rare adscriptions to wall paintings.186 On a burial place along the Zelenčuk river in the Caucasian area Arkhyz an Old Ossetic187 epitaph in Greek script on a stele from the tenth/twelfth century  was found in 1888, but not seen again this century.188 The inscription opens with an invocation of Jesus Christ and St. Nicholas (ll. 1–5) and ends with a sentence promising God’s victory over death (l. 21), both well known formulas in Byzantine Christian inscriptions. The main part is written in Ossetic and contains the names of four men with their fathers’ names, commemorated there. The Iranian elements of the inscription are close to the modern Digor dialect and the names have the typical structure of contemporary Ossetic names. Bibliographical note: Many of the Old and Middle Iranian inscriptions have been published by the Corpus Inscriptionum Iranicarum (CII). The foundation of that association was the outcome of a meeting held in Cambridge in 1954 during the twenty-second International Congress of Orientalists. The aim of the project is to publish a comprehensive and permanent record of Iranian inscriptions up to the early Safavid period.189 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189

See Azarpay 1969. See Tolstov/Livshits 1964. See Livshits/Mambetulaev 1986. See Livshits 1984 and Rapoport 1994 [1996], p. 181 f. See Emmerick 1989 a, p. 205. Bielmeier 1989, p. 239, n. 11 defines it as “Alanic”. For the latest comprehensive study on this inscription see Zgusta 1987. See Nyberg 1960, p. 44 f., and Sims-Williams 1993 d for a complete list of all facsimile portfolios and text volumes published up to 1993.

115

CHAPTER 3 PAHLAVI LITERATURE M. M The term “Pahlavi” denotes the Middle Persian language derived from Old Persian, the language of the province of Persis (today Fārs) in southwestern Iran. It was spoken during the long period between the third century  up to the eighth or ninth century  and continued to exist in Iran as the dead language of the religious tradition, cultivated by the Zoroastrians up to the tenth century . Today the term “Middle Persian” is preferred since it is less ambiguous than “Pahlavi”, which is etymologically from Old Persian parθava- and has the exact meaning of “Parthian”, a language from northeastern Iran corresponding roughly to the region of Khorasan today. The gradual change in meaning took place when “Pahlavi” came to be used in later Muslim times generally of the language and literature of pre-Islamic Iran and developed the meaning of ‘earlier, older’ with respect to the culture of this period and the figurative sense of ‘ancient, heroic’. After the Muslim conquest of Iran and the vast changes that took place between the seventh and tenth centuries through the development of New Persian with its Arabic loanwords and the adoption of the Arabic script it became necessary to keep the language and script of the Zoroastrian scriptures apart from that of the new emerging literature, consequently the term “Pārsī” (or “Fārsī”) was reserved for the latter, whereas “Pahlavi” was used to denote the Persian language of the older period. Since only a small fraction of the literary products in Pahlavi has survived to our days, the present survey, concerned with the scanty remains of the once vast Zoroastrian literature, must leave a somewhat distorted impression on the reader. Seen from the per116

PAHLAVI LITERATURE

spective of New Persian literature with its variety of genres, its rich epic and heroic literature, its imaginative prose fiction and poetry, the remains of Pahlavi literature reveal a strange lack of almost all the features that are constitutive of Persian literature in the Muslim era. With a few exceptions, the extant Pahlavi works—most of which were written or compiled after the Muslim conquest—are mainly concerned with religious themes of theological and scholastic interest, written by priests and scholars who strived to preserve the ancient religious culture of Iran and keep up the venerable traditions their fathers had known for countless centuries. Comparing the products of the two periods it would nevertheless be wrong to conclude that the changes brought about by the Arab invasion of Iran were so profound that they completely eclipsed the vast literary tradition of the past. Although almost nothing has survived of the secular imaginative literature of Sasanian times (c. 224–652 ) in the original, there are enough Arabic and Syriac translations, Persian recensions and adaptations as well as allusions to lost works of this genre in later writings to convey the impression of a rich pre-Islamic literary heritage which passed partly to Muslim Iran with the appropriate alterations and continued to influence the themes chosen by Persian poets and writers over the centuries. As has been shown convincingly by M. Boyce 1957 we have in fact reason to assume that the bulk of pre-Islamic literature consisted of secular poetry and was cultivated in the Sasanian era by poet-minstrels (huniyāgar and huniwāz), who were highly professional, belonged to different ranks and could be elevated to the highest class of courtiers in the king’s court. Unfortunately only very few specimens of Pahlavi verse (see pp. 190–96 below) have survived due to the oral nature of this poetry, which was combined with music in the profession of the minstrel and was usually not recorded in writing. There are essentially three causes for the fragmentary nature of Pahlavi literature as we know it today. First of all we may assume that a large part of the Zoroastrian literary heritage was accidentally or wilfully destroyed during the Arab invasion of Iran in the seventh century and as a result of subsequent foreign occupations of the land in later times, especially during the 117

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

onslaught of the Seljuk Turks and the Mongols in the eleventh and thirteenth centuries respectively. Religious fanaticism and narrow-mindedness were also partly responsible for the loss of pre-Islamic writings. In an age when book-printing was not yet known and precious manuscripts had to be copied arduously by hand the consequences of the destruction of libraries and archives were devastating. Books which were not committed to memory were irretrievably lost and we have evidence that the bulk of Zoroastrian writings shared this fate. Our knowledge of Pahlavi literature is due to those works that have been saved from vandalism and annihilation in the few remaining Zoroastrian communities of Iran after the Arab conquest and those that were taken to India in the early tenth century by Zoroastrians of Khorasan (and later other regions of Iran) who left the land permanently in order to settle in Gujarat where they were allowed to practise their religious rites undisturbed. They are the so-called Parsis or “Persians” of today.1 These Zoroastrian communities, seeking to uphold their faith in defiance of Islam, were mainly interested in preserving religious works, scholastic treatises and didactic and moral writings, not necessarily in the conservation of secular imaginative literature, be it prose or verse. The second main factor responsible for the loss of Pahlavi works is to be sought in the radical changes brought about by the adoption of the Arabic script for writing Persian and the acceptance of Arabic models especially in the genre of poetry. The change of script had dramatic consequences and marks a revolutionary break in the literary tradition. Pahlavi works had been written in the difficult Pahlavi script, which is often ambiguous and is complicated on account of numerous fossilized forms and Semitic ideograms whereas the Arabic script that replaced it was comparatively easy to read. 2 The correct application of the old script was highly dependant on the experience of the scribe, who had to be not only well1 2

Boyce 1979, p. 156 ff. For a detailed description of the peculiarities of the Pahlavi script see Tavadia 1956, pp. 15–24, and Henning 1958.

118

PAHLAVI LITERATURE

acquainted with the numerous writing conventions, but also make the right reading choices with respect to ambiguous words and phrases. Consequently knowledge of the Pahlavi script and its use for literary purposes were gradually restricted to the dwindling Zoroastrian communities striving to uphold the ancient traditions, whereas the mass of literate Muslim Persians, inexperienced in the art of writing and reading Pahlavi, were largely barred from the literature of their ancestors. Finally, by the end of the tenth century the Zoroastrians also ceased to write in the Pahlavi script and adopted the Arabic one, which was more suited to recording texts in the daily vernacular, that is Persian with its large number of Arabic loanwords. Those surviving secular works of pure entertainment value which were of no interest to the Zoroastrian priests and scholars and were neither translated into Arabic nor refashioned in the newly adapted forms of Persian literature sank into oblivion. In the case of minstrel poetry, which was not committed to writing, the main cause for its disappearance seems to be the change in taste under the influence of Arabic types of versification.3 The old meter had been based on stress, not quantity as in Arabic poetry. Once Arabic models and rhyme-schemes had been adapted to the requirements of the Persian language there was no need to conserve a type of poetry that had fallen out of favour and it was soon replaced by the masterpieces of verse for which classical Persian literature has become so famous. What has already been said with respect to minstrel poetry is also true of other genres of secular literature: the third reason for the loss of Pahlavi works is probably the fact that the process of transition from an oral culture to a written one was still under way at the time of the Muslim conquest as stressed by Boyce (1968 b, p. 31 f.). Although writing was an ancient art, applied in Iran since Achaemenid times (sixth century ), and indispensable for numerous practical purposes such as the recording of business letters, state records, royal edicts, and proclamations, we may reasonably assume that it was not necessarily used for preserving works of 3

Boyce 1957, p. 40 ff.

119

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

fiction, stories of love and adventure or heroic tales, which rather belonged to the largely oral art of the story-teller. Most of these tales have certainly been lost, but we may obtain an indirect impression of the richness of this type of literature through the Arabic stories of “A Thousand and one Nights”, which were based on a Persian compilation called Hazār afsāne (A Thousand Tales). The New Persian prose “Book of Kings”, which the poet Ferdowsi used to compose his famous epic Šāhnāme in the tenth century, was probably compiled on the basis of material not only transmitted in written form, but also belonging to the ancient oral tradition of Iran, which must still have been vivid among the Zoroastrians of this period. The oral tradition also played a prominent part in the religious sphere since we have reliable evidence that the Avesta was committed to memory by countless generations of priests and was mainly transmitted orally across the centuries. In any case, the written text of the Avesta, as it has come to us, is a product of the Sasanian period and is dated to the fourth century  at the earliest, even though it is possible that translations of Avestan books into the local Iranian vernaculars and also Pahlavi existed, as well as learned commentaries that could have been committed to writing before the fourth century. Although the loss of these different genres leaves a deplorable gap in our knowledge of Pahlavi literature, we still have reason to be thankful to the generations of diligent priestly copyists who preserved the literary remains of their ancestors over long periods of oppression and persecution. The surviving works, tedious and conservative as they may partly seem, are nonetheless of eminent importance for the social and cultural history of ancient and medieval Iran, since they not only reflect the beliefs and convictions of the late period in which they were put to writing, but also ancient traditions of the Zoroastrians from time immemorial. As has been repeatedly observed, it is mainly due to the tenacity of this tradition that a chronological survey of Pahlavi writings seems impossible. Individual works from the ninth century may contain material from a much earlier period, transmitted across numerous centuries, whereas a composition from the sixth or seventh century may reflect only the circumstances and conditions of its own 120

PAHLAVI LITERATURE

time. Another difficulty of presentation lies in the fact that several Pahlavi works known under a single title contain matter belonging to different categories. Since religion played a prominent part in almost all sectors of learning, a work described under a religious heading may also deal with scientific, medical or legal material. It was necessary therefore to treat parts of one and the same work containing matter from various fields in different subchapters of this survey.4

Sources on the Language: Word-Lists and Glossaries None of the grammars and dictionaries that may have existed in Sasanian times has survived, but the extensive labour which was put into the translation of and commentary on the holy Zoroastrian books of the Avesta on the one hand and the invention of the precise Avestan script on the other points to scholars who were not totally unacquainted with linguistic problems. Two booklets from this field are still extant which have been not quite correctly called frahang (glossary). One of these is traditionally known as the Frahang ī ōīm-ēk 5 (Glossary [beginning] with [the Avestan word] ōīm [‘one’, whose equivalent in Middle Persian is] ēk), a title not yet to be found in the oldest relevant manuscripts of this text. The content of this work is rendered more precisely by its actual heading Abar be šnāxtan ī wāz ud mārīgān ī abestāg kū-š zand čē ud čiyōn (On the Recognition of Avestan Words and Terms, that is [on] the Essence and Nature of its zand [Pahlavi Translation and Commentary]), since it is basically a sort of primer, in which not only Avestan words and technical terms with their Pahlavi equivalents 4

5

For previous surveys and general studies of Pahlavi literature see Boyce 1968 b; Cereti 2001; Klíma 1959 and 1968 a; de Menasce 1972, 1983, and 1985 b; Pagliaro 1971; Pagliaro/Bausani 1960; Tafaẓẓoli 1997; Tavadia 1956; West 1896–1904. Edited by Jamaspji 1867; Klingenschmitt 1968 a and 1968 b; Reichelt 1900 and 1901.

121

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

are given, but also Avestan phrases with translations into Middle Persian and grammatical observations and explanations.6 A simple example may convey an impression of the entries: [The Avestan word] kaēšō [means] in most cases [Middle Persian] dādestān [‘judgement, justice, law, case, process’], but there are passages in which it means [Middle Persian] dādwar [‘judge’].7

The text is in parts extremely difficult to interpret, mainly because of the fragmentary character of the Avestan phrases, torn out of a context which is no longer known, and explained by a Pahlavi translation and commentary which is itself enigmatic.8 We are not informed on the period of its compilation, but it must have been some time after the invention of the Avestan script (fourth to sixth centuries) and the completion of the Pahlavi translation and commentary (zand). It could belong to the period of the renaissance of Zoroastrian writings in the ninth to tenth centuries. The Pahlavi script was not only ambiguous, but also used Semitic ideograms, that is words written in their Aramaic form but read with their Middle Persian pronunciations. The origin and use of ideograms has been explained as a consequence of the use of Aramaic as a lingua franca in the chancelleries of the Achaemenid empire.9 It was displaced about the middle of the second century  by different Iranian languages, each continuing the old writing conventions by still using Aramaic forms for a certain number of words. These ideograms had to be learned by the scribe and it seems that the second booklet to be discussed here, the Frahang ī Pahlawīg10 (Glossary of Pahlavi) was compiled as a handbook for students learning the trade, since similar word-lists with 6 7 8

9 10

Klingenschmitt 1968a, p. 5 f. Fīō Va; Reichelt 1900, p. 196. The excellent dissertation of Klingenschmitt 1968 b on the Fīō, in which various Avestan and Pahlavi sources have been consulted by the author in order to decipher this difficult text has unfortunately been only partly published, see Klingenschmitt 1968a. Henning 1958, pp. 30 ff. Edited by Jamaspji-Asa 1870; Junker 1911 and 1955; Utas 1988; see further Ebeling 1941; MacKenzie 1991; Shaked 1993 and Utas 1984.

122

PAHLAVI LITERATURE

ideograms and their equivalents have been known since the time of Sumerian–Akkadian compilations (Ebeling 1941). The Frahang is mainly a collection of Aramaic ideograms and other unusual spellings in Pahlavi characters which are each accompanied by a phonetic spelling in the ambiguous Pahlavi script and in most cases by an interlinear transcription in the clear Avestan alphabet. Pahlavi rewritten in Avestan script in this way is called “Pāzand”. The text was originally arranged in chapters with groups of words belonging to the same subject or category such as the material world; grain, fruits; vegetables; quadrupeds; birds etc. The following examples from the chapter on members of the house may illustrate the procedure (ideograms are transliterated with capital letters; the phonetic value is given within square brackets): GBRʾ [ gabrā] = mlt' [mard] (‘man’); NYŠH [nišš-eh (?)] = zn' [zan] (‘woman’); ZKL [zekar] = nl [nar] (‘male’)11

That is, the word written as GBRʾ is to be pronounced mard, the one written NYŠH as zan, etc. Not all entries in the Frahang can be explained satisfactorily and it should be noted that there are several corrupt and artificial forms as well as pseudo-ideograms based on Arabic words, interpolated in the Islamic epoch, which were certainly never used in Pahlavi. The origins of this word-list could lie in pre-Islamic Iran, but since it has been continuously augmented by later generations of copyists it seems impossible to discern the contents of the original. The assumption that works of this kind were used as primers or textbooks for scribes is confirmed by a fragment of a Pahlavi word-list found in the Turfan oasis in Chinese-Turkestan at the turn of the twentieth century.12 It contains part of a list of verbs, seven altogether, each presented with different phonetic complements, but, in contrast to the Frahang ī Pahlawīg, without the Iranian equivalents of each verb-form, so that the pronunciations are not given. It is most likely part of an orthographic handbook, composed to teach the writing of Pahlavi rather than in order to 11 12

FīP Chapter XI; Junker 1911, p. 54, and Utas 1988, p. 9. Edited by Barr 1936 and Geldner 1904 b.

123

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

facilitate its reading, since it would have been imperative to convey the pronunciation of each verb-form in the latter case.13 The age of this fragment is not known, but it is certainly much older than the various manuscripts of the Frahang and could date from the ninth or tenth century.

Pahlavi Translations and Commentaries of the Avesta: Abestāg ud Zand The main body of the Zoroastrian scriptures, known as the Avesta (Middle Persian abestāg14), was committed to memory by numerous generations of priests and transmitted orally across the centuries. It was recorded in writing almost a thousand years after the composition of its youngest texts in a precise script invented for the express purpose of preserving the oral tradition in minute detail. Since the Avestan script of forty-six letters is based on the inadequate Pahlavi alphabet (with additional characters from an archaic form of this alphabet and modified forms through the combination of letters and other signs), it is certain that the written Avesta as it is known today is a product of Sasanian times and reflects the Sasanian pronunciation of the sacred texts. The assumption that the Avesta was committed to writing in the fourth century  during the reign of Šābuhr II (309–79) has been put forward by several scholars15 and seems plausible, since the standard form of the Pahlavi script (Book Pahlavi) was probably already reached around 400 . This, however, does not necessarily mean that there were no written translations of and commentaries on the Avesta, called zand (knowledge, understanding, elucidation), before the fourth 13 14

15

Barr 1936, p. 396. On the different suggestions that have been made with respect to the etymology and the meaning of the word see Bailey 1985 with further references. See also Sundermann 2001 c. See also the Chapter on Avestan Literature, p. 1. See Hoffmann/Narten 1989, p. 34, with further references. On the language of the Pahlavi translation see Cantera 1999 a and 2004; Josephson 1997.

124

PAHLAVI LITERATURE

century. On the contrary, circumstantial evidence points in a different direction: in a passage of one of the Manichaean books in the Coptic language, the Kephalaia, Mani, a contemporary of Šābuhr I (243–73 ), is quoted as saying that although Zoroaster himself wrote no books, his disciples remembered his words and “wrote the books which they read today”16 (that is, in the third century). This quotation can, of course, be interpreted differently, but it does point to the fact that some sort of written sacred text must have been extant by the time of Mani. Since it cannot refer to the text in the Avestan script as we know it, it could be an allusion to Pahlavi versions of the Avesta and commentaries on it that were available to priests of this period, since even at a later age no difference seems to have been made between the original text, the abestāg, and its translation(s) and commentaries, the zand. P. O. Skjærvø 1983 a (pp. 276, 290 f.) has also drawn attention to the word nask, which denotes a division of the written Avesta (see below), in one of the inscriptions of Kirdēr, high priest in the third century under Šabuhr I, and is also found in a Middle Persian Manichaean text describing an interview between Mani and Wahrām II (276–93 ).17 All these references point to the existence of a written text of the sacred scriptures, presumably in a translated version, or to at least commentaries on its contents in the third century. Unfortunately it is extremely difficult to reconstruct the history of the transmission of the sacred texts18 and the circumstances under which translations were prepared, since the Zoroastrian tradition was more interested in proving the continuity of its heritage than providing detailed information on the different stages of transmission and especially on the script in which this supposedly took place. According to the tradition in the late Pahlavi sources there were written copies of the Avesta already in Achaemenid times which were burned by Alexander in the course of his 16 17 18

Henning 1942 b, p. 47. Sundermann 1981 a, p. 72. The Pahlavi sources have been collected, translated, and interpreted by Bailey 1943, pp. 149–76, and Humbach 1991, pp. 49–55. See also Humbach 1973.

125

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

invasion of Iran around 330 . Although most scholars reject the idea of a recorded Avesta at this period, the sources are unanimous in pointing to a break in the transmission of the sacred texts which seems also to be reflected in the numerous misinterpretations of Avestan words and grammar in the later Pahlavi translations. The first attempt to record the dispersed material was made, according to the Dēnkard,19 by one of the Parthian kings named Vologeses (Walaxš), but it was the Sasanian king Ardašīr (226–42 ) who finally ordered the scattered books to be collected in one place and disseminated copies (paččēn) for information. His son Šābuhr I (243–73) augmented the material by bringing together the books taken from other sources than religious ones such as medicine, astronomy etc. The compilation was completed by Ādurbād ī Māraspandān, high priest of Šābuhr II (309–79). Later, during the reign of Xosrau I (531–79), we are informed that the king ordered an entirely new study of the Avesta and Zand to be undertaken. 20 If we take the circumstantial evidence cited above into consideration and attempt to fit it into the information provided by the Dēnkard, it seems possible that the first translations and interpretations of the Avesta were committed to writing at the initiative of Ardašīr’s high priest Tansar (or Tōsar, as the name may also be read) in the third century and were later revised or even completely renewed in the sixth century under Xosrau I after the canon of the Avesta had been established. This remains, of course, highly hypothetical due to the meagre information available, but the evidence points to a long tradition of so-called čāštags (teachings) which were written commentaries and interpretations of priests, theologians, and jurists (often all three combined in one and the same person) on different branches and aspects of the religious tradition, all based on the Pahlavi Zand. Only a small fragment, about one quarter, of the Avestan canon has survived. The original Avesta was an enormous compilation consisting of twenty-one nasks (divisions), which are described 19 20

In Books 3 and 4, see Humbach 1991, p. 52 ff., and Shaki 1981; on the Dēnkard see also pp. 130–36 below. DkM 414.12–13. On the reform of Xosrau see also Cantera 1999 a.

126

PAHLAVI LITERATURE

according to their Pahlavi versions very briefly in Book eight and with more details in Book nine of the Dēnkard. 21 The nasks were divided into three main groups called respectively the gāhānīg (relating to the Gathas), the dādīg (legal), and the hādamānsarīg (dealing with ritual matters). (The term gāhānīg did not refer to the Gathas, or hymns of Zoroaster, in the narrow sense of the word, but to different texts dealing with theological and philosophical matters. The term hādamānsarīg, although literally meaning “dealing with ritual matters” was in fact applied to texts concerned with miscellaneous topics, not only ritual). Despite this division the nasks were not restricted to religious and legal topics, but comprised different sciences and disciplines including writings on medicine, astrology, natural science, the life of the prophet Zoroaster, and the history of man as well as works on liturgy, cosmology, eschatology, and jurisprudence. The bulk of these writings has been lost due to the factors already described above. Today we only have Pahlavi translations of and commentaries on the religious, especially the liturgical, texts: parts of the Hāδōxt nask22 (Hāδōxt-Division); the Hērbedestān (Book of [advanced] Priestly Studies) together with the Nērangestān 23 (Book of Ritual Directions) 24 ; the Wīdēwdād25 (Law [prescribing] Abjuration of the Demons) 26 ; Wisprad27 (All 21 22 23

24 25

26 27

On the nasks see Geldner 1896, p. 17ff. and Kellens 1989a; on the quoted books of the Dēnkard see West 1892, introduction. Mir-Fakhrāʾi 1992; Piras 2000; West/Haug 1874. See also Gnoli 1994. Facsimile editions of the manuscripts were published by Kotwal/Boyd 1980 and Sanjana 1894; editions and translations of the text by Bulsara 1915; Humbach/Elfenbein 1990; Kotwal/Kreyenbroek 1992, 1995 and 2003; Darmesteter 1892–93, vol. III, and Waag 1941, only translated the Avestan text and its immediate Pahlavi rendering, omitting the longer passages of the Pahlavi commentary. On the translation of these titles see Kotwal/Kreyenbroek 1992, p. 15, and 1995, p. 13. Editions by Jamasp 1907 and Sanjana 1895b (only Pahlavi text); (with translations) by B. T. Anklesaria 1949; Cannizzaro 1990 and Rażī 1997. A glossary of the Pahlavi text is provided by Kapadia 1953. A new edition is being prepared by A. Cantera. On the meaning of Wīdēwdād (misread as Vendidad earlier) see Benveniste 1970. See Dhabhar 1949.

127

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

the Ratus); the Pahlavi Yasna 28 (Sacrifice) and the texts forming part of the Xwurdag abestāg 29 (The Small Avesta), which include the Āfrīngān, the five Gāhs, the five Niyāyišns, the greater and smaller Sīrōze as well as a few Yašts.30 The extant Pahlavi Zand of the Avestan texts consists of: 1. a slavish word-by-word translation of the original in which the translator seeks to maintain the words in exactly the same sequence as the Avestan original with as few changes as possible in conformity with Pahlavi grammar and syntax;31 2. short glosses with explanations referring directly to the translated phrase or with a repetition of the translation in clearer terms; and 3. short or lengthy commentaries of one or several interpreters, sometimes with different opinions, intending not only to explain the meaning of the Avestan passage, but to relate the text to the conditions of their own time. A typical passage including the Avestan text, the Pahlavi translation and short explanatory glosses (of the second category mentioned above) is the following one from the Wīdēwdād, chapter 19 (the Avestan passage is in italics, the Pahlavi translation in normal script; the glosses are in parenthesis): From the northern direction, from the northern directions, came Angra Mainyu, who brings death abundantly, the chief of the demons […] From the northern direction [from the place in the middle], from the northern directions [from the direction of the demons] came the Evil Spirit, who brings death abundantly, the chief of the demons […] (Wīdēwdād 19.1)

28

29 30 31

Editions by Bang 1890; Davar 1904; Dhabhar 1949; Kanga 1950; Mills 1904; West 1904 b. A detailed bibliography of Mills’ studies on the Pahlavi translations of the Yasna can be found in Gropp 1991, p. 79, n. 5, and Cantera 2004, p. 70, n. 74. Editions by Dehghan 1982; Dhabhar 1927 and 1963; Dhalla 1908 and 1918; Josephson 1997; Kanga 1941; Taraf 1981; Unvala 1924. See above pp. 62–65. On the relation of the extant Avestan texts to the nasks described in the Dēnkard see Geldner 1896, p. 17 ff. Other Avestan fragments with Pahlavi translations were published by Klingenschmitt 1971. On the Pahlavi translation technique of the Avestan texts see Josephson 1997 and Cantera 1999 a and 2004. On the value of the Pahlavi translations see Klingenschmitt 1968 b and 1978.

128

PAHLAVI LITERATURE

It should be noted that the commentaries of these priestly scholars belonging to the third category mentioned above, are interesting in their own right and not only as interpretations of the Avestan passages, difficult and enigmatic as they often may be. They are frequently in fact only very loosely connected to the content of the original Avestan text. The lengthiest and most interesting commentaries with respect to the conditions in Sasanian and post-Sasanian Iran are those found in the Hērbedestān ud Nērangestān, completed some time after the reform of the calender by Yazdegird III in 632 , 32 and in the Wīdēwdād, which must have been completed after 528  since the heretic Mazdag, son of Bāmdād, is mentioned in Wd 4.49 and he was put to death by Xosrau I in this year. 33 In both texts lengthy passages are dedicated to the interpretation of the translated Avestan text in which the legal reasoning of Sasanian jurists and generally a legalistic approach to matters of religion is shown, comparable to that of early Islamic jurisprudence. 34 A comparatively simple passage from a lengthy commentary on the conversion of infidels in the Hērbedestān may illustrate this (quotations in the Avestan original are in italics): When a man of evil religion converts to the Good Religion all the underaged (children) who have been born from (his) intercourse are brought with him. This is revealed in the (following Avestan) passage: for all (of his) underaged (children), not for (only) one of his underaged (children). And his wife (is) not dismissed from marriage since by (taking) proper care (of her) he does not stay below the minimum required by law. And he is not allowed to have intercourse with her, since that (is) a sin. And he is not allowed to beat the wife, (since the statement): ‘leave the infidel alone’ implies that it is not lawful for him to injure her. And he is obliged to provide sustenance for her if (she has) none and he may not leave it to the Church. And thus also her sustenance is our own.35 32 33 34 35

See Waag 1941, p. 10. See Geldner 1896, p. 46. This point has been rightly stressed by Kotwal/Kreyenbroek 1992, p. 20. Hēr 12.3; differently Humbach/Elfenbein 1990, p. 86f., and Kotwal/Kreyenbroek 1992, p. 63.

129

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

Since the names of famous commentators, such as Sōšāns, Mēdōmāh, and Abarag, are also given in legal literature, we may conclude that in many cases the same authorities were followed in the fields of theology and jurisprudence. There were also various schools such as that of Abarag and Mēdōmāh with divergent opinions on religious and legal matters which are often expressed side by side in the commentaries. However, the Zand of many of the lost nasks was evidently not confined to religious or legal subjects, but contained knowledge from wider fields of science and also made use of foreign books, especially from India, Greece (probably through Syriac translations) and Babylon.36 It would therefore be wrong to judge the contents of the Pahlavi Zand by the surviving liturgical texts alone.

Texts on Miscellaneous Religious Subjects: Synoptical Texts and the Rivāyat Literature Religious writings did not remain restricted to interpretations of the holy books of the Avesta. In the longer commentaries of the Zand it had already become customary to relate the Avestan passages to the conditions prevailing at the time of their translation and to draw legal and theological conclusions from the texts which had their impact on the daily life of the Zoroastrian community. Questions of this kind were also discussed in various Pahlavi works which were not part of the Zand, but continued its tradition of theological and legal discourse. Other religious compilations, written after the Muslim conquest, sought to uphold ancient Zoroastrian lore and to preserve the ancient beliefs and convictions in a synoptical form. Our main source of information on the Avestan nasks is a huge compilation, a truly encyclopaedic work consisting of nine volumes, of which only six volumes, Books 3 to 9, have survived, called the

36

See Boyce 1968 b, p. 36 f. On the different theological schools see Gignoux 1995 c; see also Cantera 2004, p. 207 ff.

130

PAHLAVI LITERATURE

Dēnkard 37 (Acts of the Religion). It is not only the most massive of Pahlavi writings but also the most varied, containing a vast blend of materials from different ages and origins. In its final form it is attributed to two authors, both high priests in Pars in different epochs: Ādurfarrbay ī Farroxzādān from about 815–35 38 and Ādurbād ī Ēmēdān, whose date is uncertain but probably either at the beginning or in the second part of the tenth century.39 The latter revised and completed the work begun by Ādurfarrbay and added the later Books 6 to 9. One of the most prominent features of the Dēnkard is its unique style, which is not only mannered, tedious, and dry but also in parts extremely difficult to understand due to long sentences, ambiguous syntax, and the use of technical terms, which are not explained and were certainly only known to the theologically and legally schooled. Owing to these difficulties and the additional ambiguities of the Pahlavi script only a small 37

38 39

The Pahlavi text of the Dēnkard has been published by Madan 1911, Dresden 1966 (a facsimile of the MS. B) and Sanjana 1874–1928. The complete edition and translation of the whole text by Sanjana 1874–1928 is unfortunately totally unreliable. The same must be said of the antiquated translations by West 1897 (Book 7 and the beginning of Book 5) and 1892 (Books 8 and 9). More recently Amouzgar/Tafazzoli 2000 (Book 5), Molé 1967 (Book 7), de Menasce 1973 (Book 3) and Shaked 1979 (Book 6) have endeavoured to decipher this difficult text. Their work stands up to scientific standards, but there still are obscure passages, especially in Book 3, which can be interpreted differently. Āmuzgār/Tafażżoli 1992 have also translated into Persian parts of Books 5, 7 and 9. So much has been written on the Dēnkard that only a few further selected studies may be referred to here, see Belardi 1986 (on Book 3); Casartelli 1886 (on the medical section of Book 3); Cereti 1994–95 (on Book 4); Cipriano 1984 and 1985; Gignoux 1995 b; Ito 1975; Kanga 1966 a; de Menasce 1958; Mirza 1985; Olsson 1991; Shaki 1970 and 1973; Tafazzoli 1995. The present author is working on an edition of the legal nasks in Book 8. See West 1897, p. 119, n. 1. Boyce 1968 b, p. 44, has identified him with the same Ādurbād ī Ēmēdān mentioned in the Bundahišn, dating him to the turn of the ninth to tenth centuries, whereas Tavadia 1956, p. 50, identifies him with the son of Ēmēd ī Ašawahištān, high priest in 955 , who is known from another religious treatise (the Rivāyat ī Ēmēd ī Ašawahištān), placing him in the second half of the tenth century.

131

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

part of this text has been translated adequately, while the bulk of the Dēnkard still remains to be deciphered. A vast compilation like the Dēnkard cannot be summarized in a few words, especially since it is itself largely a summary of Zoroastrian books and other sources, aiming to preserve for posterity the knowledge accumulated across the centuries (de Menasce 1958). Its encyclopaedic character is described in the work itself: The book of the Dēnkard is a composition [taken] from the manifestation of the Mazdean religion, adorned with universal knowledge. It is first of all a composition [taken] from the chief teachers (pōryōtkēšān) of the Good Religion of the prophet Spitāmān Zardušt (= Zoroaster) of revered Fravahr …40

With the exception of Books 3 and 5, which also have material added after the Muslim conquest, the work represents Zoroastrian knowledge from numerous centuries not only on the subject of religion, but also on matters of legal, moral, and scientific importance and is consequently of inestimable value for the cultural and social history of the pre-Islamic period. It is, however, often difficult, as is the case with most Pahlavi writings, to decide on the age of the information provided since no effort was made to present the sources described in the Dēnkard in a chronological order. It is also impossible to discern any other principle of arrangement in the individual Books with the exception of Book 8, which follows the formal division of the Avestan nasks. Book 3, the first pages of which have also been lost, is concerned in the beginning with theological and philosophical questions posed by apostates and heretics as well as by disciples of the Zoroastrian religion, to which orthodox answers are given (de Menasce 1973). It continues with reflections on numerous diverse subjects “from the exposition of the Good Religion” (az nigēz ī wehdēn).41 By this was meant probably not only the Pahlavi Zand but also 40 41

DkM 405.12–15; translation by Humbach 1991, p. 51, with a few modifications; see also de Menasce 1973, p. 379. DkM 21.18 (the first occurrence of this phrase, which is repeated in almost every following title).

132

PAHLAVI LITERATURE

the various čāštags (teachings) of religious authorities. Among the subjects treated are the quality (lit. “colour”) of time, the differences of rank between men, the supremacy of priesthood over the other estates, the unity of kingship and religion, the destiny of man, the relation of law to religion, illnesses of the soul, and many other topics in no apparent order whatsoever. Many of these short chapters are concerned with the right way to live and to act wisely in accordance with the principles of religion and are reminiscent of wisdom literature (see pp. 160–72 below). In a short passage on women it is said: There are four types of women: (1) beautiful and silent, (2) beautiful, but not silent, (3) not beautiful, but silent and (4) neither beautiful nor silent. One chooses among them: because of her activity in the house and the easiness and pleasure she gives to the master of the house the one who is beautiful, but not silent; because of her harmlessness the one who is beautiful and silent. In the absence of these two types mentioned above one should abstain from the one who is not beautiful but silent and the one who is neither beautiful nor silent.42

Other chapters concerned with complicated philosophical questions and the refutation of various religions (including Manichaeism, Judaism, and Islam) are unfortunately not as simple and easy to understand as the passage cited. There is also a difficult chapter on medicine in the third Book which has still not been adequately interpreted despite the endeavours of de Menasce.43 Another section contains an apology of the ancient Zoroastrian praxis of incestuous, next of kin relationships and marriages, called xwēdōdah, which is interestingly brought into a cosmological and eschatological context, although the difficult style in this passage is a hinderance to fully understanding its implications: Xwēdōdah [takes place] when you “give of your own” (xwēš dahišnīh) and its place [is defined by] the transmission of [sexual/creative] power to relations and fellow creations with the help of the gods. Salvation [takes place] essentially in an arrangement connecting 42 43

DkM 62.19–63.3; see de Menasce 1973, p. 77. See also pp. 183–85 below. DkM 157.6–170.11; de Menasce 1973, p. 158ff.

133

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN relations [and] people up to the renewal of the world (frašegird); males and females are joined. In order that the connection may lead to generally healthier results people of the same race have relations with [their] next of kin [and] within the next of kin with [their] nearest relations. The nearest relations are of three kinds, [consisting of] the connection between (1) father and daughter, (2) son and mother (3) brother and sister, [which] I reckon [to be] the foremost.44

Books 4 and 5 both preserve selected words of the author Ādurfarrbay ī Farroxzādān, the former concentrating on theological controversies of the Sasanian period, the latter on those of postSasanian times. Books 3 and 4 also have the most detailed description of the transmission of the holy scriptures of the Avesta as mentioned above. This famous text, which gives an impression of the interpretation of religious history in priestly circles, begins with a description of the events after the religious war fought in defence of Zoroastrianism by Zoroaster’s patron and most prominent convert, Wištāsp (Avestan Vīštāspa-),45 and continues to describe the fate of the sacred scriptures under the Achaemenian king Darius III, who is always called in Pahlavi literature Dārā, son of Dārā: (1) When king Wištāsp had finished the battle against Arǰāsp, he sent to the chief rulers a messenger and writings of the Mazdean religion, adorned with universal knowledge, concerning many kinds of skills and learning and things of whatever (other matter), so that they may accept the religion. And he sent with them a priest with well- trained tongue. Spēdag and Arǰāsp and others from outside Khwanirah came to Frašōstar to enquire about the religion. He sent them back with complete information. (2) Dārā, son of Dārā, commanded that two copies of the whole Avesta and Zand as received by Zoroaster from Ohrmazd be written: one he ordered to be preserved in the Royal Treasury, the other in the Fortress of Writings.46

44 45 46

DkM 73.3–11; compare de Menasce 1973, p. 85 f., with a slightly different translation. On incest see also Macuch 1991 with further references. See Mayrhofer 1979, number 379. DkM 412.3 ff. This passage has been translated by numerous scholars see the references in Shaked 1994, p. 103, n. 37. I follow his translation with a few modifications.

134

PAHLAVI LITERATURE

The text continues with a more or less historical narrative of the collection of the Avestan scriptures after their dispersion at the time of Alexander, under the Arsacids and the Sasanians (see pp. 125–26 above). Book 6 is an anthology written in the somewhat clearer style of wisdom literature (andarz),47 by the second redactor of the Dēnkard, Ādurbād ī Ēmēdān. It is a collection of wise sayings and moral precepts from the venerated teachers of the ancient faith, the pōryōtkēšān, a term used for the first propagators of the Mazdean religion as well as for eminent Zoroastrian priests of later times.48 The seventh Book is the most detailed legendary biography of the prophet Zoroaster extant in Pahlavi, based on the Pahlavi versions of the Spand nask and other Avestan nasks, in which myth and fact have become inseparably intertwined.49 The text continues after the conversion of the prophet’s first supporter Wištāsp and Zoroaster’s death as a short narrative of the history of the world including the stabilization of the Zoroastrian faith under Ardašīr’s high priest Tansar/Tōsar and a short description of the heresy of Mazdag in the sixth century up to the Muslim conquest and the fall of the Sasanians. The following excerpt from the text is on the subsequent effects of Zoroaster’s preaching: This is revealed that when Zoroaster proclaimed the Religion in the dwelling of Wištāsp, it was plain to see that joy showed among sheep and cattle and fires, and the spirits of dwellings. […] And another miracle was the establishing by Zoroaster with regard to decisions and judgements of the means for making known the innocent and guilty—ordeals and tests in obscure cases, which are said in the Religion to be of thirty-three kinds. The disciples of Zoroaster made use of these thereafter, until the downfall of Iranian rule […] 50

47 48 49 50

See pp. 160–72 below. Book 6 was edited and translated by Shaked 1979. See the translations by West 1897 and Molé 1967; on the characteristics of this text see also Molé 1963, p. 271 ff. A detailed description of its contents is given by de Menasce 1983, p. 1172 ff., and by Josephson 2003. DkM 644.5–18; I follow the translation by Boyce 1984 b, p. 76 f., with a few modifications.

135

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

Books 8 and 9 are both valuable summaries of the contents of the Avestan nasks according to their Pahlavi versions. At the time of the compilation of the Dēnkard the nasks were still all extant with the exception of one, the Waštag nask.51 Since the compiler made use of the Pahlavi translations of the nasks for his summary, one of these only available in the Avestan original, the Naxtar nask,52 was also left out, so that the description of these two divisions is lacking. The other nasks are all summarized and these two books could easily give us access to the contents of the lost Avesta in its Pahlavi version if they were not so extremely difficult to understand because of their synoptical character. There is too little context, especially in Book 8, to enable us to define unknown and doubtful words as well as technical terms and the short sentences have often no connection to each other.53 The original compiler of the Dēnkard, Ādurfarrbay ī Farroxzādān, high priest in Pars about 815–33 , is also one of the chief actors in the small Pahlavi treatise Mādayān ī gizastag Abālīš (Book of the accursed Abālīš).54 The treatise deals with seven theological questions put to Ādurfarrbay by a Zoroastrian apostate called Abālīš (explained as Arabic Abā Laith55) in the presence of the Caliph al-Maʾmun (813–33 ). They are answered according to the beliefs of the orthodox faith by Ādurfarrbay and reflect Zoroastrianism in post-Sasanian Iran. Religious statements of the same Ādurfarrbay are also preserved in another religious treatise concerning legal and ritual matters named the Pahlavi Rivāyat of Ādurfarrbay and Farrbay-srōš. The work consists of 147 questions put to the said high priest and 51 52 53 54 55

On the nasks see Geldner 1896, p. 17 ff.; Kellens 1989a, p. 37, and West 1892, introduction. See also pp. 126–27 above. On the reading of this nask, which was probably on astronomy, see Tavadia 1956, p. 70. The translations of Sanjana 1874–1928 and West 1892 are antiquated and completely unreliable. Editions by Barthélemy 1887 b; Chacha 1936 and Hedāyat 1939 (with Persian translation). The accusative of Abu Laith, based on the vocative form in the exclamation yā Abā Laithin according to Schaeder 1930, p. 287, n. 2.

136

PAHLAVI LITERATURE

includes (in the publication of B. T Anklesaria 1969) another five questions put to a certain Farrbay-srōš ī Wahrām, of whom only the name is known. There is another important encyclopaedic work, not quite as massive as the Dēnkard, but also based on knowledge from the Zand and other Zoroastrian writings, known traditionally as the Bundahišn (Primal Creation) or more recently under the title Zand-āgāhīh (Knowledge from the Zand).56 The work has survived in two recensions: a shorter version preserved in India and called consequently the Indian Bundahišn and a longer, less corrupt version from another manuscript tradition, known as the Great(er) or Iranian Bundahišn, since it came from Iran to India in the late nineteenth century (around 1870). The full title of the work is at the same time a concise summary of its contents: Knowledge of (i.e. deriving from) the Zand; first about the primal creation of Ohrmazd and the (counter-)onslaught of the Evil Spirit; then about the nature of the world and the creatures from the primal creation until the End [which is the Final Body], as it is revealed in the religion of the Mazda-worshippers; then about the things which the world contains, with an interpretation of (their) essence and nature.57 56

57

The Pahlavi text of the Great(er) Bundahišn was published by T. D. Anklesaria 1908 (MS TD 2) and P. K. Anklesaria 1970b (MS TD 1). There still is no reliable translation of the whole Bundahišn due mainly to the doubtful words in the chapters concerned with the nature of creation (names of animals, plants etc.). Justi 1868 and West 1880b have only translated the shorter text of the Indian Bundahišn. The complete edition of the longer Iranian recension by Bailey 1933 has not been published. An English translation of the whole text by B. T. Anklesaria perished in a fire in 1945 and appeared later by offset process in 1956 (B. T. Anklesaria 1956b). The Persian translation by Bahār 1991–92 has no transliteration or transcription of the text, which is indispensable for comprehending an editor’s interpretation. Various passages from the Bundahišn, however, have been translated by Asmussen 1970b; Bailey 1943; Cereti/MacKenzie 2003; Henning 1942c; Hultgård 1990; MacKenzie 1964; Molé 1963; Nyberg 1929, 1931a and 1931b; Zaehner 1955. A Persian glossary of the text was published by Bahār 1966; Choksy 1986 contains an annotated index of the Iranian recension and a concordance of the MSS was published by Michlick 1994. An excellent survey of the text was given by MacKenzie 1990. On the Bundahišn see also pp. 183–84 below. P. K. Anklesaria 1970 b, fol. 1 v.7–11; translation by MacKenzie 1990, p. 547.

137

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

The most important subjects of the Bundahišn are in fact all mentioned in this title, since it is chiefly a work on cosmology,58 the order of the world, according to the Zand and other Zoroastrian scriptures, including a detailed cosmogony, that is, an account of the creation of the world by Ohrmazd and the counter-attack of the Evil Spirit, Ahriman, as well as a cosmography, a description of the nature of the world’s various lands, mountains, seas, rivers, liquids, animals, plants, men etc.59 The work also includes an account of the half-legendary Iranian dynasty of the Kayanians, their lineage and abodes, the afflictions which befell Ērānšahr and a chapter on the family of the Mobads or Zoroastrian priests. These last chapters, none of which are alluded to in the title, seem to be later additions to the text, as most scholars assume. It is impossible to date the first compilation of the Bundahišn (which may well have been undertaken in late Sasanian times), since the text has gone through different redactions down to the last important one in the second half of the ninth century (the final redaction is even dated according to the year 1178 given in the text itself to the 12th century) 60. The name of one of the authors of the 9th century redaction is given in the chapter on the family of the Mobads as “Farrbay, whom they call ādagīh (son) of Ašawahišt”,61 and mentions as his contemporary Zādspram, known as the author of another similar compilation (see below pp. 139–41). Although individual sources are not named in the Bundahišn it is possible to identify several of them in the Pahlavi Zand. The chapter on the lands of Ēranšahr is based on the first section of the Wīdēwdād, in which a description of the original abode of the Aryans, called Pahlavi ērānwēz (Av. Airyana Vaēǰah) is given. Other

58 59 60 61

See Henning 1942 c, p. 229. See the detailed list of the contents in MacKenzie 1990, p. 549 f. On the list of fruits see Asmussen 1970 b. See Tavadia 1956, p. 82. According to MacKenzie 1990, p. 548. The by-name ādagīh (which MacKenzie explains as an honorary title meaning “Apportionment”) has been read differently in the past as Dātak/Dādagīh or Dāt-vēh/Dād-weh, see Tavadia 1956, p. 75.

138

PAHLAVI LITERATURE

chapters such as the list of mountains and the various kinds of waters are also taken from Avestan texts (Yašt 19 and Yasna 38.3–5 respectively62). Most of the remaining sections of the Bundahišn can be traced to the lost Dāmdād nask (Division on creation) as described in the Dēnkard Book 8. The following example from the text gives an account of creation based on an idea which is repeatedly exposed in this work: that of the congruity of macrocosm and microcosm, illustrated here by the correspondence of Ohrmazd’s creative act with the conception and growth of an embryo and the birth of a child: The creation of Ohrmazd was fostered spiritually in such wise that it remained without thought, without touch, without movement in a moist state like semen. After this moist state came mixture like (that of) semen and blood; after mixture came conception, like a foetus; after conception came diffusion, such as hands and feet; after diffusion came hollowing—eyes, ears and mouth; after hollowing came movement when it came forward toward to the light. Even now on earth do men in this wise grow together in their mother’s womb, and are born and bred. Ohrmazd by the act of creation is both father and mother to creation: for in that he fostered creation in ideal form, he acted as a mother; and in that he created it materially, he acted as a father.63

Another similar compilation based on knowledge from the Zand with additional material from other sources is a work by a contemporary of Farrbay (the last important redactor of the Bundahišn mentioned above) known as the Wizīdagīhā ī Zādspram (Selections of Zādspram) 64. The author, Zādspram, son of uwān-ǰam (or Gušn-am65) who was active about 880  (as we know from the dated letters of his elder brother Manuščihr) seems to have been more interested in other fields of knowledge than those relating to abstract theological and legal speculation or to the ritual. 62 63 64

65

See MacKenzie 1990, p. 549. Translation by Zaehner 1955, p. 318. Editions by B. T. Anklesaria 1964; Gignoux/Tafazzoli 1993; Rāšed-Moḥaṣṣel 1987 (with Persian translation); West 1880 b. A Persian glossary of the text has been published by Bahār 1972. The medical section has been edited by Sohn 1996. See further Gignoux 1987; Gropp 1991 and Kanga 1975 a. According to Gignoux/Taffazzoli 1993, p. 21.

139

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

Although his work deals with the same themes treated already in the Dēnkard and the Bundahišn, especially cosmology and the life of the prophet, it is independent from these two compilations. It also shows the characteristics of the writing of an individual seeking to present a coherent description of the world from its creation up to its eschatological end, and reflects, moreover, the personal interest of the author for medicine, zoology and astrology. The last field seems to have played a foremost part in Zādspram’s world view, since he not only applies various astrological technical terms, but also repeatedly uses the numbers seven, corresponding to the seven planets, and twelve, corresponding to the twelve signs of the zodiac, throughout the text in different contexts, combining the Zoroastrian tradition with cosmic phenomena.66 There may even be a well-hidden esoteric meaning in parts of the text which can only be deciphered by interpreting the context in astrological terms.67 Between the first part of the text, concerned with the creation of the world (including an attempt to classify the various species of animals which is reminiscent of modern science), and the last chapters on eschatology, the restoration of the world of good, there is an unique chapter on medicine of immense importance for our knowledge of Iranian medical history (see pp. 184–85). Zādspram also gives a very short synopsis of the contents of the Nasks which, on the whole, confirms the survey in the Dēnkard, but does not add any significant new material.68 The following excerpt belongs to the part of the work concerned with the formation of man, from a chapter dealing with the fate of the soul after death and shows the correspondence between birth and death (which is at the same time birth into the spiritual world. The “man” and the “maiden” mentioned at the end of the quotation are beings who come to meet the soul of the dead person and accompany it to the hereafter69): 66 67 68 69

See Gignoux/Taffazzoli 1993, p. 23. See Sohn 1996, p. 128 ff. See West 1880 b, p. 401 ff. and Gignoux/Tafazzoli 1993, p. 91ff. Curiously, Zādspram’s account of the fate of the soul after death does not correspond to the descriptions in other well-known Pahlavi sources on the figure of the daēnā; see Sohn 1996, p. 128, n. 6.

140

PAHLAVI LITERATURE Since there are two worlds, one is in interaction with the other: birth into the material world (gētīg) (means) death in the spiritual world (mēnōg) (and) death in the material world (is) birth into the spiritual world. As (man), when he is born from the spiritual world into the material world with the help of the father and the mother and comes out of the body of the mother through a narrow passage—whether he is thrown out as a miscarriage or is born normally—(is) without senses, dumb, cannot move and needs the mother as nourisher … so does (the soul), when it leaves the material world, need the help of the forms (kirb) of the man and the maiden, who are the father and the mother of the soul.70

Zādspram’s occupation with these different fields, especially his interest in astrology and medicine, as well as his slightly divergent portrayal of the Zoroastrian tradition (such as the fate of the soul after death) indicate that he deviated from the main stream of orthodox teachings of his time, although both he and his elder brother, Manuščihr, were brought up in a family of priests and were prepared according to the tradition for priestly service. Strife broke out in the year 880 between the two brothers, when Zādspram in his function as hērbed replaced a complicated purification-ceremony (the barešnom), which had to be performed by a priest, by a simpler one (the pančadasa) which could be performed without a priest. His congregation in Sīrgān (near Kirman) reacted with indignation to this radical change and appealed to Manuščihr, at the time high-priest (rad and pēsag-framādār) of Pars and Kirman. The reason for Zādspram’s reform is not told, but it is possible that there may have been a connection between his medical studies and his attempt to simplify a purification-ceremony, used to cleanse persons who had come into contact with a corpse.71 In any case, three letters of Manuščihr have come down to us, the Nāmagīhā ī Manuščihr 72 (Epistles of Manuščihr), in which Zādspram is firmly ordered to return to the traditional practice. 70 71 72

See Sohn 1996, p. 95. The translation of Gignoux/Tafazzoli 1993 is slightly different. See Sohn 1996, p. 31 ff. Editions by Dhabhar 1912 and West 1882. Several chapters have been studied by Kanga 1951, 1966 b, 1967, 1968, 1971, 1974 and 1975 b.

141

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

After having summoned an assembly of priests and elders in Shiraz who consulted on the reform and refuted it, the first of these letters was addressed to the congregation in Sīrgān, the second to Zādspram himself and the third in form of a proclamation on the subject of the controversy to Zoroastrians in all Iran, threatening apostates with the most severe punishment. Exaggerated as the reaction may seem today, it should be taken into consideration that the traditionalists sought to preserve one of the last bulwarks of Zoroastrianism in southern Iran and must have considered any change in the established practice as a severe threat to the very existence of the dwindling Zoroastrian communities. The advocate of orthodox Zoroastrianism, Manuščihr, is also known as the author of another work on diverse religious themes, the Dādestān ī dēnīg73 (Religious Judgements), written in the wellknown traditional form of questions put to an authority followed by the corresponding answers. The subjects treated in this manner range from questions concerning the ritual praxis, the duties of the priests, the nature of heaven and hell and the fate of the soul after death to moral, legal and social matters. Written in the second half of the ninth century, the object of the author seems to have been a compilation of orthodox replies to especially those matters of the faith which were discussed controversially by the laity and priests or were in danger of being forgotten. The presentation is typical for a religion defending itself in a hostile environment, which has to demonstrate solidarity in order to survive. The text usually does not discuss different possibilities of theological and legal interpretation (as is the case in older texts, such as the Pahlavi commentaries on the Avesta, or the Sasanian Lawbook), but gives ready answers to these questions, seeking to convey the impression of unity in fields which were previously the object of different opinions and schools. On the souls of the dead Manuščihr writes for example: 73

Editions by T. D. Anklesaria 1911 and P. K. Anklesaria 1958; JaafariDehaghi 1998 (to question no. 40); West 1882. Several chapters have been translated by P. K. Anklesaria 1943, 1964 and 1970 a; Kanga 1964 a, 1964 b, 1965, 1969, 1970, 1976, 1980 and 1983; de Menasce 1964 a. See also Kreyenbroek 1987.

142

PAHLAVI LITERATURE The eighteenth question is that which is asked thus: “When the souls of the righteous and the souls of the wicked pass to the spiritual sphere will they have to see Ohrmazd and Ahriman, will they see them or not?” The answer is: “Of Ahriman it is said that he has no (material) existence. Ohrmazd as the chief spiritual being is to be praised by those with material existence and also those with spiritual (existence) and his form cannot be fully seen except through wisdom (xrad).”74

Altogether 92 questions from different fields comparable to those presented in the Dēnkard are dealt with in this form in a style which is unfortunately at times tedious, lengthy, dry and difficult to understand. The treatment is strictly conventional and reflects ancient convictions, although new material has been added regarding the oppression of Zoroastrianism under the new rulers (question no. 4) and the correct manner of behaviour towards the non-Zoroastrian environment of the ninth century, such as the following remarks on the treatment of unbelievers: In order to save the infidel (agdēn) who is not a foreigner from death and sickness resulting from hunger, thirst, cold and heat, when he has renounced, it is custom to give him food, clothing and medicine. But property, horses, weapons, instruments, wine and land are not given authorizedly to foreigners and infidels.75

There also are a few important passages in this work concerning those legal matters which were probably still within the jurisdiction of the Zoroastrian community, such as simple transactions with non-Zoroastrians, family law and inheritance.76 The Dādestān ī dēnīg is usually transmitted together with an anonymous work called the Pahlavi Rivāyat accompanying the Dādestān ī dēnīg,77 another anthology of the Zoroastrian religion 74 75 76 77

Dd 18; see West 1882, p. 44, with a slightly different translation. Dd 62; West 1882, p. 197, has a slightly different translation. See pp. 185–87 below. The Pahlavi text has been edited by Dhabhar 1913; editions of the text have been published by Mir-Fakhrāʾi 1988 (with Persian translation) and A. V. Williams 1990. Various chapters have been translated by Antia 1908; de Menasce 1942–45; Nyberg 1933 and A. V. Williams 1985.

143

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

dealing with ritual matters, cosmology, eschatology and the epic history of Iran, as well as moral, legal and practical subjects with excerpts from wisdom literature. It was probably written in the first half of the 10th century in a style generally easier to understand than that of Manuščihr’s work, yet resembling the Dādestān ī dēnīg insofar as the chapters seem to be mostly in some way answers to explicit or implied questions. The treatment points to the work of a priest (or maybe two redactors), who had knowledge of the Avesta and Zand.78 According to Williams, the text was not only intended to impart information, but to preach solidarity and faithfulness in the community, and is characterized by a presentation reflecting belief in the duality of worldly existence, i.e. the state of opposition between good and evil, which is perceived in all aspects of life, personal, public and spiritual.79 In general the work presents a more extensive treatment of themes mentioned in other Pahlavi works and is in fact a very welcome help to understanding the context of difficult passages in texts containing a similar blend of material. Chapter eight for example on incest (xwēdōdah) gives an interesting evaluation of the different forms of intimate relationships between members of the nuclear family, which leaves no doubt that incest was not only accepted socially by the Zoroastrians, but was in fact praised as one of the most meritorious and efficient religious deeds: In one place (it is) revealed that Ohrmazd said to Zoroaster: “These (are) the four best things: worship of Ohrmazd the Lord; and offering firewood and incense and oblation (to) the fire; and satisfying (the needs of) the priest; and he who practises xwēdōdah with (his) mother or daughter or with (his) sister. And of all those he who practises xwēdōdah is the greatest and foremost.80 […] This also (is) revealed, that a man (may practise) xwēdōdah (with his) mother (burdār: lit. ‘bearer’) and with (his) child who (is his) daughter. The one (practised) with the mother is superior to the other, more gratifying, since he (=the son is) nearer to her, coming from her body. 78 79 80

See A. V. Williams 1990, vol. I, pp. 9 and 12. A. V. Williams 1990, vol. I, p. 10 ff. RivDd 8cl; translation by A. V. Williams 1990, vol. II, p. 11.

144

PAHLAVI LITERATURE […] The one practised with the daughter is more gratifying than the other one practised with the sister, who is not his own child. […] It is the same with respect to the sister and brother, when they have the same father but a different mother, and when they have the same mother, but a different father.”81

Besides other well-known themes from mythology and epic history (e.g. the legend of Kersāsp, the creation of the world, the conversion of Wištāsp) which are treated in a similarly extensive manner and a few legal sections, the Pahlavi Rivāyat also contains a lapidary text82 which describes the medical and magic powers of gem-stones and has parallels in a runic Turkish manuscript, found at Turfan, and in a more extensive Buddhist Sogdian text.83 Another shorter Pahlavi text, imparting information on the life of the Zoroastrian communities in the late tenth century, is known by the name of the high-priest in 955  as the Rivāyat ī Ēmēd ī Ašawahištān 84 (Tradition of Ēmēd, son of Ašawahišt). The text has the typical structure of the Rivāyats, consisting of altogether 44 questions (put to the named high-priest by a certain Ādurgušnāsp ī Mihrātaxš ī Ādurgušnāsp) and the corresponding answers, which deal essentially with practical matters of the cult and the ritual as well as legal themes concerning family law, property and inheritance. The chapters on jurisprudence are eminently valuable, since they contain unique information on complex institutions known from the Sasanian period. They have, in fact, been—apart from the corresponding sections of the Dādestān ī dēnīg mentioned above—the key to deciphering many passages of the Sasanian Lawbook on marriage and inheritance, since the text is written in a clear language (though degenerate as in most late texts), and is comparatively easy to understand. Having been conceived at this late period, it offers many explanations and definitions of technical 81 82 83 84

RivDd 8d1–8d5; compare A. V. Williams 1990, vol. II, p. 12, with a slightly different translation. RivDd Chapter 64; see A. V. Williams 1990, vol. II, p. 111 ff. See de Menasce 1942–45. The Pahlavi text has been edited by B. T. Anklesaria 1962 and translated by Safa-Isfehani 1980. Several chapters have been translated by K. M. JamaspAsa 1969, 1972, 1974 and 1975. On the text see further de Menasce 1961.

145

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

terms and legal institutions of the Sasanian epoch, which were in danger of being forgotten, despite the desperate efforts of the priests to uphold the ancient traditions (these sections are referred to on pp. 185–86 below). It seems that this valuable material was preserved, since the Zoroastrians of this age continued to practise the same ancient marriage rites and followed the same unaltered complex laws of inheritance, known from Sasanian jurisprudence. However, as in most texts of the Muslim era, several chapters are also added to the traditional material which deal with the immediate difficulties raised by the non-Zoroastrian environment, especially problems resulting from the contact between Zoroastrians and their infidel compatriots, as in the following example: Question: “What is the sin of a person who has had intercourse with a woman of the Evil Religion, and who has conceived as a result of this intercourse a child in her womb? […]” Answer: “[…] The sin of a man belonging to the Good Religion who has had intercourse with a woman of the Evil Religion and made her pregnant is a tanāpuhl (= a certain degree of sin), since he has given a child to the followers of the Evil Religion.”85

An older religious treatise, containing ancient material, also written in the Rivāyat style is a compilation dealing with miscellaneous topics, known as the Šāyist nē šāyist 86 (Valid and not Valid). The work is transmitted together with supplementary texts (which have been published separately87) and may well have been compiled in the late Sasanian period, some time after the last redaction of the Pahlavi Zand, since nothing in the text alludes to the Muslim era. The content is heterogeneous, dealing mainly with instructions on the ritual, the different grades of sins and their atonement, purification ceremonies and other religious observances to be practised in the home, social institutions and moral conduct. The author or compiler of the work is not named, but there are a few repetitions 85 86 87

RēA 42; B. T. Anklesaria 1962, p. 157 ff. Editions by Mazdāpur 1990 (with Persian translation); Tavadia 1930 b and West 1880 b. The supplementary texts were edited by Kotwal 1969. A Persian glossary of the text has been prepared by Tāvusi 1986. See Kotwal 1969.

146

PAHLAVI LITERATURE

which suggest that several persons may have taken part in writing the text, who, in any case, must have had knowledge of the Pahlavi Zand, since a number of Nasks are cited, as in the following example (taken from the supplementary texts): One (observance is) this, that when a woman becomes pregnant, as far as possible, the fire should be properly looked after; (its) keeping in the house (is) because (it is) manifest in the Spand nask that when Dugdāw, the mother of Zoroaster, was pregnant with Zoroaster, for three nights, every night, an (arch-)demon with 150 (other) demons came for the destruction of Zoroaster, and still, on account of there being a fire in the house, they knew no means (to do it).88

Despite its rather tedious obsession with the ritual, the text is in parts of considerable importance for our knowledge of religious practice in the late Sasanian period and its impact on different spheres of social life. Not only does it cite the divergent opinions of different schools, such as that of Mēdōmāh and Abarag (see p. 130 above), which were active in both fields of theology and jurisprudence, but also contains rare words and material of considerable importance for understanding later synoptical texts such as the Dēnkard. The main sources for the work were the commentaries (or čāštags) of theologians and jurists, belonging to different schools, unfortunately lost to posterity. These must have been the most important interpretative writings on the sacred scriptures in the Sasanian period, since numerous allusions are made to them in the surviving Pahlavi books, from which we may deduce that both extensive and restrictive interpretations were accepted and transmitted among the learned (as was also the case in later Muslim theological and legal schools). In a passage dealing with different grades of sin (which were at the same time misdemeanours against society) and their atonement, a compensation in form of a fine is mentioned for each violation, but the text continues as follows: “In the laws of the supreme lawgivers, there are some who have been of different opinions about it. Further, Gōgušnāsp has declared 88

Šnš, Suppl. Chapter 12.11; translation by Kotwal 1969, p. 29 (with a few minor changes).

147

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN (thus) from the commentary (čāštag) of Ādurfarrbay Narseh, and Mēdōmāh from the commentary of Gōgušnāsp, and Abarag from the commentary of Sōšans; and all (other) lawgivers abide by these three commentaries; and among them there are some (authors) who are very lenient, and there are some who are very strict.”89

As a treatise based on the commentaries of these priests and scholars who were experts on the Avesta, it also contains a large number of quotations from the Avestan Nasks. These are also abundant in two other works composed in the Rivāyat style. The Wizīrkard ī dēnīg 90 (Religious Decisions) is a compilation written by a certain Mēdōmāh who seems to have been confused in the text with the cousin of Zoroaster, one of the prophet’s first disciples, bearing the same name in the Avesta.91 Since several priests are known by this name—among them the famous commentator and founder of a theological school mentioned above—it is impossible to date the work exactly, but the style and repetitions from other well-known texts render a late date (ninth or tenth century) plausible. The contents consist of the typical blend of religious and legal subjects already described in other works of the Rivāyat type with quotations from the Avesta: questions pertaining to the ritual and to ceremonies of different kinds, marriage and inheritance, on Ahriman and his noxious creation, punishments, sacred fires etc. There is also a genealogy of the prophet Zoroaster and an account of his life which seem to be very late additions to the text. The second work referred to above with extensive Avestan quotations in the original from the nasks has been given the title Pursišnīhā92 (Questions), taken from the first word of the superscription in one of the main manuscripts.93 This text is also written in the Rivāyat style by an unknown author of post-Sasanian times and embodies 59 questions with their corresponding answers 89 90 91 92 93

Šnš 1.3–4; see Tavadia 1930 b, p. 28 f. On the different theological schools see Gignoux 1995 c. Edited by Sanjana 1848. See Mayrhofer 1979, number 218. Edited by Jamasp-Asa/Humbach 1971. See Jamasp-Asa/Humbach 1971, p. 5.

148

PAHLAVI LITERATURE

(although this typical division is not explicitly stated, apart from the first question). The subjects dealt with range from the duties of priests and teachers of the religion, the ritual and purification ceremonies to questions concerned with the fate of the souls of the righteous and the wicked after death. The simplicity with which these topics are treated indicates a comparatively late date of composition. In the following example, promising all Mazdeans Paradise without questioning the quality of their faith, the main object seems to be the encouragement of Zoroastrians to continue practising their religion in the hostile environment of Muslim Iran (quotations in the Avestan original are in italics; the Činwad Bridge mentioned in the text is the sole connection between earth and heaven which can be only passed by the souls of the righteous): (Question:) “Do any of them who stand by the religion of Ohrmazd and Zoroaster become worthy of Hell, or not?” (Answer:) “No. Because everyone who stands by the religion of Ohrmazd, and everyone who has worshipped Zoroaster, are all worthy of Paradise. From the Avesta it is evident: with them all, I will cross the Činwad Bridge. All of them go forth on the Činwad Bridge [i.e. those who have worshipped Zoroaster are all worthy of Paradise].”94

The next two works stand apart from those considered so far in several respects: religious subjects are discussed on a more sophisticated level, using abstract and philosophical arguments rather than relying on Zoroastrian traditions and mythology. Moreover, both texts have only been transmitted in Pāzand (that is in a transcription of the original Pahlavi script into the precise Avestan script) which is at the same time an interpretation with the disadvantage of possible misreadings and corruptions. The Škand-gumānīg wizār 95 (Doubt-destroying Exposition) by Mardānfarrox, son

94 95

Translation by Jamasp-Asa/Humbach 1971, p. 15, with a few minor changes. The Pāzand text has been published together with the Sanskrit translation by Jamasp-Asana/West 1887. Editions have been prepared by Hedāyat 1943 a (with Persian translation); de Menasce 1945 and West 1885. On the Sanskrit translation see Degener 1991. On biblical quotations in the text see Shaked 1990 b and Shapira 2001 a with further references.

149

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

of Ohrmazddād, is an apologetic treatise composed in the ninth century with the object of refuting other religions and opposing atheistic trends (of the nēst-yazad-gōwān “those saying there is no God”). The author introduces himself as a seeker of the truth who has travelled far in search of knowledge, studying different religions and convictions. The reason for writing his book, based on the arguments of earlier authorities and sages, is to dispel doubt in the minds of students and novices regarding the truth of the Mazdean religion. The first part of his work deals with questions on Zoroastrian beliefs posed by a person with the strange name of Mihrayār ī Mahmadān from Isfahan which indicates that he could have been a Zoroastrian from a family of Muslim converts.96 The second main section is concerned with the refutation of Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Manichaeism and other convictions which had become a threat to Zoroastrian dogma in the 9th century. The following extract from the longest chapter criticizing Islam scrutinizes the monotheistic basis of this religion, bringing to light the age-old controversy concerning the origin of evil, which has found a fundamentally different solution in Zoroastrian dualism: […] they [= the Muslims] say: “There is only one God, who is beneficent, wise, powerful, compassionate and merciful; both good works and evil ones, truth and falsehood, life and death, good and evil come from him.” […] But if he is compassionate, beneficent and merciful, then why does he admit Ahriman and the demons and hell and all these evil faiths to his own creations—through his own compassion, good works and mercy? If he knows nothing of it, where are his wisdom and omniscience? If he does not wish to keep away misery and evil from his creatures and to give only happiness to every one, where are his justice and fairness? […] Whenever they [= the Muslims] say that everything good and evil arises from God, they deny him the four attributes belonging necessarily to divinity, which are: omniscience, omnipotence, goodness and mercifulness. There is no other possibility. If only one of these attributes is separated from him, then he is not complete in his divinity.97 96 97

The first name is Zoroastrian, while the patronymic Moḥammad or Maḥmud—if it has been transmitted correctly—points to a Muslim ancestor. ŠGW XI, 2 ff.; compare de Menasce 1945, p. 127f., and West 1885, p. 173f.

150

PAHLAVI LITERATURE

The other treatise in Pāzand, Čim ī kustīg 98 (Reasons for the Sacred Girdle), also called Pus ī dānišn-kāmag (The Knowledgeseeking Son) is a philosophical exposition composed in the traditional framework of question and answer: a “knowledge-seeking” disciple (the “son” in a spiritual sense) interrogates a sage (the “father”) regarding the metaphysical background of religious beliefs and conventions. The main concern of the work is to demonstrate the congruity of macrocosm and microcosm, symbolized by the sacred girdle (kustī) of the Zoroastrians. Binding the waist divides the microcosm of the body into two parts which correspond exactly to the dualistic principle of the macrocosm: the upper part with its intellectual and spiritual organs is beautiful as heaven; the lower part with its stench ugly as hell; the middle is a mixture of both, corresponding to the world of men. This chapter would be incomplete without mentioning the short prayers consisting of praises, blessings (stāyišn, āfrīn) and confessions (patit) 99 which played a prominent part in the daily religious life of the Zoroastrian community. Since most of these texts were transcribed into Pāzand in order to facilitate their reception, the originals in the Pahlavi script have largely been lost. Most prayers are traditionally assigned to the famous Ādurbād ī Māraspandān, high-priest during the reign of Šābuhr II (309–79 ), but it is in fact impossible to date them exactly, even though they may largely have been composed in the Sasanian age. Although the religious works discussed so far deal with a vast number of divergent topics, they have a common denominator in their effort to uphold ancient beliefs, to defend and conserve Zoroastrian traditions and to encourage the continuation of the age-old cult in Muslim Iran. Since most of them are of a heterogeneous nature, those sections devoted to other subjects will be again referred to in the corresponding chapters which follow.

98 99

Editions by T. D. Anklesaria 1913 and Junker 1959. See Tavadia 1956, p. 127 f.

151

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

Eschatological, Apocalyptic and Visionary Literature A few of the religious texts on miscellaneous subjects considered above also treat eschatological and apocalyptic topics (i.e. revealed knowledge of the last things100), either embodied in the synoptical survey of religious traditions (as in Dēnkard, Books 7 and 9), in the cosmology of the world (as in the Bundahišn, chapters 33 and 34, and the Wizīdagīhā ī Zādspram, chapters 34 and 35) or in the framework of the Rivāyat style (as in the Pahlavi Rivāyat accompanying the Dādestān ī dēnīg, chapters 48 and 49). Besides the longer descriptions in these works, shorter references to the Mazdean belief in resurrection, the salvation of the world and the restoration of the good at the end of time (known as frašegird, the “making wonderful”) are also found in other Pahlavi writings (in the Dādestān ī dēnīg, the Dādestān ī Mēnōg ī Xrad and the Čīdag andarz ī pōryōtkēšān101). The most important apocalyptic text from the viewpoint of religious history is the Zand ī Wahman Yasn102 (also known as Bahman Yašt according to the title given to this text by the pioneer of Zoroastrian studies in the West, Anquetil du Perron), preserved not only in the Pahlavi script, but also in a Pāzand transcription (i.e. in the Avestan script) with additional material and in a New Persian translation from 1496. The complete title, given in chapter 3 of the text, indicates that a Pahlavi translation (zand) of a lost Avestan 100 According to the definition accepted by Boyce 1987, p. 154, and 1984a, p. 57, “apocalyptic” is only another word for “revelation”, being identical with “prophecy”. Gignoux 1985–88 and 1986 a, p. 335, prefers a restrictive definition of “apocalyptic” (a revelation referring to events which have already taken place, in a period of crisis, presented through symbols, which may also be expressed in the form of the otherworldly journey), excluding doctrines on creation and eschatology. 101 On the last two writings see pp. 162, 168 below. 102 Editions by B. T. Anklesaria 1957; Cereti 1995; Hedāyat 1944 (with Persian translation); Nosherwan 1903; Rāšed-Moḥaṣṣel 1991 and West 1880 b. Parts of the text were also translated by Widengren 1961, pp. 183–95 and 198–208. See further Gignoux 1986 b; Hultgård 1991. A concise survey of the contents is given by Sundermann 1989 c.

152

PAHLAVI LITERATURE

hymn to the divinity Wahman (Av. Vohu Manah), the Wahman Yašt, may have been the main source of this work, whereas the first chapter refers to another lost Avestan text, the Sūdgar nask (misspelled as stūdgar in the text), a detailed summary of which is provided in the Dēnkard, Book 9.103 Despite its title the work is not concerned with Wahman, Zoroaster’s escort to the presence of Ohrmazd, but the contents of this apocalyptic text could have been associated with this divinity, who was linked in Pahlavi writings with wisdom, inspiration and prophetic enlightenment.104 The text opens with an account of the revelation of Ohrmazd to Zoroaster (based on the Zand of the Sūdgar nask), in which four ages of the world are symbolized by a tree with four branches of gold, silver, steel and “mixed” iron, each age being succeeded by a worse one: Ohrmazd said to Spitāmān Zarduxšt (=Zoroaster): “The tree trunk that you have seen [that is the material world which I, Ohrmazd, have created]. Those four branches are the four epochs that will come. The one of gold is that during which I and you converse, and king Wištāsp accepts the religion and breaks the bodies of the Demons […] And the one of silver is the reign [of] Ardaxšīr the Kayanid king. And the one of steel is the reign [of] Xosrau of immortal soul, son of Kawād. And the one on which iron had been mixed is the evil rule [of] the demons with parted hair of the seed of Xēšm (=the demon of Wrath), when it will be the end of your tenth century, O Spitāmān Zarduxšt!”105

The image of the tree is taken up again in the third chapter (based on the Zand of the Wahman Yašt) in greater detail. Zoroaster’s vision is enlarged to a tree of seven branches (of gold, silver, copper, bronze, tin and “mixed” iron), symbolizing seven ages of the world, which were probably conceived later than the four ages in order to correspond in number with the seven climates and seven planets. The core of the narration is represented in the following chapters which describe the events at the end of Zoroaster’s millennium, 103 See particularly the parallel account of the four ages (West 1892, p. 180 f.). 104 See Boyce 1968 b, p. 49, and 1984 b, p. 68. 105 ZWY chapter 1, 6–11; translation by Cereti 1995, p. 149, with a few minor changes.

153

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

the calamities which will befall Iran when enemy nations will conquer the land, causing the downfall of the religious and social order and a general decay of moral and law. The warrior Wahrām ī Warzāwand, God of Victory, and Wištāsp’s immortal son, Pišōtan the priest, will combine to destroy the hostile armies and restore religion and law in Iran; finally the saviour Sōšāns will deliver the world and the resurrection of the dead will take place. Although the final version of the text in its present redaction is certainly a product of the Islamic period (ninth or tenth century), it reveals a mixture of different layers of tradition, probably including Avestan themes beside historical allusions to events of the Sasanian and Islamic periods. Because of this blend of material from different ages, the dating of the contents of the book has been the subject of controversy up to this day. M. Boyce106 infers that since apocalyptic writings usually emerge when the identity of a community is menaced, the main original Avestan source, the Wahman Yašt, should be attributed to the period of the Macedonian conquest at the time of Alexander. Both Widengren (1983) and Hultgård (1983 and 1991) similarly assume that most of the material in the Zand ī Wahman Yasn is much older than the actual time of the compilation of the Pahlavi text (in any case pre-Sasanian, probably from the fourth century ). Gignoux (1986 b) on the contrary denies the existence of an Avestan original and dates the text to the post-Sasanian era. Cereti (1995, p. 26 f.), conceding that all these hypotheses possess a certain degree of truth, concludes that the text is made up of three various strata: the first is mythical (i.e. ancient, but not exactly datable), the second is from the Sasanian period and the third from the Islamic epoch. The dating of the contents of this work (and of the other Pahlavi apocalyptic texts) is in fact of great importance for the history of apocalyptic traditions in the Near East. The existence of an Avestan original from the period of Seleucid rule in the fourth century  (taken together with the evidence in other Young Avestan texts and their Pahlavi Zand) would lead to the conclusion that Iranian 106 Boyce 1984 a, p. 68.

154

PAHLAVI LITERATURE

apocalyptic is prior in date to other apocalyptic traditions and has consequently influenced other Near Eastern concepts, preeminently the Jewish tradition which in its turn nurtured the Christian one.107 Especially the image of the tree cited above has been compared with a similar passage in the Book of Daniel, a typical piece of apocalyptic literature from Hellenistic times, compiled by an unknown author in order to strengthen the faith of the Jews in their resistance to the persecution against their community in 167  by Antiochus IV.108 A Zoroastrian element has been seen in the account of king Nebuchadnezzar’s dream of four kingdoms, symbolized by a statue made of four metals (namely gold, silver, bronze and iron mixed with clay), similar to those of the tree in Zoroaster’s vision.109 Certain elements in Daniel and in other Jewish books of this period,110 such as the prophecy of a “time of the end”, the expectation of physical resurrection to be followed by the judgement of the just and the evil, the growth of angelology and the similar role of the archangel Michael to the Zoroastrian saviour Sōšāns, have all been interpreted as reflections of Zoroastrian beliefs, already assimilated into Judaism at least partly in pre-Hellenistic times.111 The subject remains, however, highly controversial and the hypothesis of an Iranian influence on Judeo-Christian concepts has been contested especially by Bickerman 1967, Duchesne-Guillemin 1982 and Gignoux 1985–88 who have advanced arguments in favour of the priority of the Jewish tradition. In the Zand ī Wahman Yasn it is Zoroaster himself who is the seer of future events, after having received the “wisdom of omniscience” in the form of water from Ohrmazd.112 Another 107 See Boyce 1984 a and Kippenberg 1978. 108 See Boyce/Grenet 1991, pp. 33 f. and 401 ff. 109 Daniel 2.31 ff. The idea of metallic ages was probably adopted by western Iranians from the Greek, since its oldest attestation is in Hesiod with gold, silver, bronze and iron ages, see Boyce 1984 a, p. 70. 110 The First Book of the Maccabees, probably written around 100 , the Second Book of the Maccabees from probably 124  and the Book of Tobit, composed possibly around 200 ; see Boyce/Grenet 1991, p. 401 ff. 111 Boyce/Grenet 1991, p. 401 ff. 112 ZWY 3.4; see Cereti 1995, p. 150 f.

155

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

person, with whom prophecy of the future is associated, is amāsp, the faithful minister of Wištāsp, Zoroaster’s protector and most prominent convert. The Ayādgār ī amāspīg113 (Memorial of amāsp, also known as the āmāsp[ī]-nāmag) is a universe history of Iran, in which not only myths and legends are incorporated, but also a cosmology and events relative to the end of times (in chapters 16 and 17) with references to geographical data. The text is badly preserved, only partially in its Pahlavi form, and has been painstakingly reconstructed from the Pāzand and Persian versions by Messina 1939. The framework consists of a conversation between Wištāsp and his minister amāsp who reveals the future of Iran, the calamities to befall the land, including in his account details on history, geography and different peoples (the Indians, the Chinese, the Turks, Arabs and also other legendary peoples) and a list of Sasanian kings (which is not only incomplete, but also partly wrong in its chronology). In its present form it is certainly a product of Islamic times, but the original work could have been compiled in the 6th century, using Parthian material114 and the contents of the eschatological and apocalyptic chapters could also be far older than the time of its composition. Chapter 16 of the Ayādgār ī amāspīg, one of the few passages preserved in Pahlavi, has been composed in verse-form consisting of eight syllables, as Benveniste 1932a has discovered, giving his edition of this section the title amāsp-nāmag115 (Book of amāsp). The topic is apocalyptic, a detailed prophecy of an age of misery, falsehood and decay to be followed by the destruction of the wicked and the demons and a renewal of the faith. The following

113 Editions of the complete text by Hedāyat 1943c; Messina 1939 and Modi 1903. See further West 1904a. A concise survey of the contents has been given by Boyce 1989a. On the geographical chapters see Shapira 2001b, p. 331f. 114 A few references in the text to the “renowned Parthians” (which does not correspond to the usual Sasanian propaganda on the evils of Arsacid rule) and the Parthian title bidaxš given to amāsp suggest a Parthian transmission of at least parts of this work, see Boyce 1989 a, p. 127. 115 This part of the text has been edited by Bailey 1930, 1931 and Benveniste 1932 a. See further Olsson 1983.

156

PAHLAVI LITERATURE

extract is from the first part of the text, prophesying the downfall of religion: Wištāsp asked: “How many years will this Pure Religion endure, and afterwards what times and seasons will come?” amāsp, the minister, said: “It will endure a thousand years. Then those men who are at that time will all become covenant-breakers. One with another they will be revengeful and envious and false. And for that reason Ērānšahr will be delivered up to the Arabs and the Arabs will daily grow stronger and will seize district after district […]”116

Another short text from the Islamic period, celebrating the arrival of the Kayanian King Wahrām (blended with the God of Victory, Wahrām ī Warzāwand) at the end of time who will destroy the mosques of the Arabs and restore the religion, is also transmitted in verse-form.117 Both eschatological and epic material is incorporated in a short text, known as Māh ī Frawardīn rōz ī Hordād 118 (The Sixth Day of the Month Frawardīn), which describes the remarkable events that occurred on the sixth day of the first month (Frawardīn) of the Zoroastrian year, from the beginning of creation up to the resurrection, ending with the destruction of Ahriman and the demons. The texts hitherto considered may be described as belonging to Iranian apocalyptic eschatology, that is, revealed knowledge of the last things,119 since it is in fact difficult to draw a border line between apocalyptic and eschatological writings in Pahlavi literature. The content of the revelation is given in allegorical visions, dividing history into a set of declining ages to be followed by the destruction of the present world, the renewal of the faith and restoration of the good. 116 Translation by Bailey 1930, p. 55, with a few minor changes. 117 The Pahlavi text has been edited by J. M. Jamasp-Asana 1897–1913, p. 160 f.; translations have been provided by Bailey 1943, p. 195 f., and Tavadia 1955, who discovered that the text is in verse-form. 118 Pahlavi text in J. M. Jamasp-Asana 1897–1913, pp. 102–8; translations by Blochet 1895 b; K. J. Jamasp-Asana 1900; Kanga 1946 and Marquart 1930, pp. 742–55. 119 Boyce 1987, p. 154.

157

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

Another branch of visionary literature is represented by one of the most popular of Pahlavi writings, the Ardā Wīrāz nāmag120 (Book of the Righteous Wīrāz), an account of the otherworldly journey of the priest Wīrāz with a graphic description of Heaven and Hell, which has been compared and even linked to Dantes Divine Comedy.121 The prologue gives an account of the history of the sacred scriptures, the Avesta and Zand, which were, according to this text, “written on prepared cow-hide with golden ink and kept in the ‘Fortress of Writings’ in Staxr-Pābagān”122 before Alexander swept through Iran, destroying the scriptures, killing priests and causing a general turmoil with the result that different heresies and beliefs arose and the true Mazdean faith was no longer followed. In order to prove the efficacy of the Zoroastrian cult and its ritual, an assembly of priests gathers at the Farrbay fire (in Pārs) and decides to send one of the foremost among them to the afterworld. The choice falls on the righteous Wīrāz, who undertakes the difficult journey after being drugged in order to release his spirit. After crossing the Činwad bridge which separates the world from the hereafter, he is shown the marvels of Paradise and the tortures of Hell, so that he may recount them to his fellow countrymen and strengthen their faith after returning to his body. In general the account of Paradise is tedious and monotonous, whereas far more fantasy of a sadistic nature has been put into the description of Hell. Not surprisingly the souls of the dead in Heaven are pictured to be grouped in exactly the same fashion as in Iranian society with 120 Editions of the text have been published by Abrahamian 1958; ʿAfifi 1963 (with Persian Translation); Barthélemy 1887 a; Gignoux 1984 a; JamaspjiAsa/Haug/West 1872; J. Jamasp-Asa 1902 (with a Gujarati translation) and Vahman 1986. Glossaries of the text have been prepared by Vahman 1977 (in Persian) and West/Haug 1874. Various aspects of the text have been discussed in numerous studies which cannot all be referred to here; see especially Āmuzgār 1983; Belardi 1979 a; Blochet 1933; Casartelli 1918; Gignoux 1968 and 1969; Gnoli 1979; Gobrecht 1967; Hinz 1971; Macuch 1987; Molé 1951 and Tardieu 1985. 121 Among the numerous articles devoted to this subject see Casartelli 1918 and Hinz 1971. 122 AWN 1.5; see Gignoux 1984 a, p. 145.

158

PAHLAVI LITERATURE

its different estates of priests, warriors and cultivators.123 Hell is described as a revolting place with never ending tortures which could in fact partly reflect punishments actually imposed on criminals in the Sasanian epoch. Wīrāz recounts his first impression of Hell as follows: As I advanced, I saw terrible Hell, deep as the most terrifying pit, leading to the most narrow and fearful place, into a darkness so dark, that it could be seized by the hand, and into a stench which cuts the nose of everyone who has to breathe the air, and they tremble and fall. And because of its narrowness no person can exist there. And everyone thinks: “I am alone” …124

The sins punished in Hell are not only major misdemeanours (blasphemy, heresy, murder, theft, lying and deceiving, contract-breaking, giving false witness and false judgement, adultery, sodomy, sorcery etc.) but also include—in full accordance with Wīrāz’s mission—offences against the Zoroastrian cult and other typical convictions, such as sullying water, fire and earth,125 ignoring the strict seclusion rules during menstruation,126 cruelty towards beneficent animals.127 In the following extract a woman is punished for destroying an incestuous marriage (xwēdōdah): I saw the soul of a woman through whose body a mighty serpent arose, coming out of her mouth. I asked: ‘What sin did this person commit, that her soul must suffer such a grave punishment?’ Srōš the Righteous and the god Ādur said: “This is the soul of the wicked woman who destroyed an incestuous marriage.”128

Although the Ardā Wīrāz nāmag in its surviving form is a late redaction of the post-Sasanian period,129 the content seems to be much older, since the name of its hero, the just Vīrāza-,130 is known 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130

See especially AWN 14; Gignoux 1984 a, p. 166 ff. AWN 18.3–6; see Gignoux 1984 a, p. 174. AWN chapters 37, 41, 58. AWN chapters 20, 22. AWN chapters 30, 48, 74, 75. AWN chapter 86; compare Gignoux 1984 a, p. 208. See Gignoux 1984 a, p. 16f. See Bartholomae 1904, column 1454, and Mayrhofer 1979, number 371.

159

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

from the Avesta131 and the main theme of the book also occurs elsewhere. Two inscriptions of the high-priest Kerdīr (in Naqš-e Rajab and Sar Mašhad), both written in the third century, recount visions of Heaven and Hell, granted to the priest with the same purpose: in order to prove the efficacy of the ritual, to verify the truth of the Zoroastrian doctrine and to confirm the faith.132

Wisdom-Literature (andarz) and Other Short Didactic Texts The terms andarz (precept, instruction, admonition, advice, counsel, testament) and also pand (counsel, advice) denote a popular branch of Pahlavi literature133 that has been continued in New Persian literature. Its main purpose was instructing, admonishing, and giving advice on proper behaviour in matters concerning religion, everyday life, and the state. Works of this type may have a preamble or frame story providing information on the (often fictive) author or advisor, on the person(s) addressed and the circumstances leading to the composition, but the main part of the text usually consists of brief and lucid didactic pronouncements, only loosely combined, and is not characterized by a connected and coherent narration. These gnomic treatises are usually prosaic, though verses inserted into the prose text have also been found.134 Three essential topics occur repeatedly in andarz literature: 131 Yašt 13.101. 132 See Gignoux 1974, 1981, 1984 b and 1991; Skjaervø 1983 a. 133 Collections and general translations of andarz texts are to be found in Antia 1909 (the Pāzand texts); Irani 1899; J. M. Jamasp-Asana 1897–1913; ʿOryān 1992 (Persian translation); Sanjana 1885 and Tarapore 1933. An excellent survey of this literary genre is presented by Shaked 1987 a. See also Asmussen 1971. 134 In the Andarz ī dānāgān ō Mazdēsnān, J. M. Jamasp-Asana 1897–1913, p. 54; on the poem see Henning 1950, p. 647 [p. 355 in the reprint], and in the Andarz ī Wehzād Farrox Pērōz, J. M. Jamasp-Asana 1897–1913, pp. 73–77; on the verses see Shaked 1970 and Tafazzoli 1972.

160

PAHLAVI LITERATURE

(1) instructions on the Mazdean code of behaviour and morals, (2) advice regarding prudent thought and action in everyday life and (3) rules on decency and good manners. The central theme of most texts is wisdom (xrad), gained through experience and reflection, in combination with the concept of right measure (paymān), that is the middle way between the extremes of character135 which should be avoided. Both religious and pragmatic texts stress the idea that wisdom should be acquired for the benefit of the person himself, for his own gain, not for any other purpose, hence the general impression that prudent behaviour is profitable in all circumstances. By following the admonitions and counsels of the sages, whose advice embodies the experience of many ripe and prudent men and numerous generations, one may avoid repeating mistakes and hurting oneself. Texts of the religious category emphasize the moral and spiritual aspects of faith, which are represented by allowing the deities to preside in one’s own person, by striving to acquire a good, moderate character and by behaving correctly towards others. They are often cast in the framework of questions asked by a pupil or son to which the sage provides the adequate answers or of riddles to which solutions are given. Every prudent Mazdean should reflect on these questions by reaching adulthood which are summed up in one of the texts in the following manner: When a man reaches the age of fifteen years, he should know the following: Who am I? To whom do I belong? Where do I come from and where will I return to? And from which family and lineage am I? What is my duty in the material world and what is my reward in the spiritual world? And have I come from the spiritual world or am I from the material world? Do I belong to Ohrmazd or to Ahriman? Do I belong to the gods or to the demons? Do I belong to the good or to the bad? Am I a man or a demon? How many ways do I have and which is my religion? And what benefits me and what harms me? Who is my friend and who is my enemy? Is there one primeval principle or are there two? From whom does good come and from whom evil? And from whom light, from whom darkness? And from whom fragrance, from whom stench? And from whom the law, 135 See Shaked 1987 a, p. 14.

161

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN and from whom lawlessness? And from whom mercy, from whom mercilessness?”136

The gnomic sentences collected in andarz works are often ancient sayings of obscure origin which can hardly be ascribed to a single author, even though several well-known sages and men of authority, kings and counsellors, have been named as the authors of the most popular compilations. The anonymous texts of this genre are either attributed generally to the “wise” and the “ancients” or “men of yore” (such as the Andarz ī dānāgān ō Mazdēsnān137 [Admonition of the Wise to the Mazdeans] and the Andarzīhā ī pēšēnīgān138 [Admonitions of the Ancients]) or to “priestly authorities” and the primeval “chief teachers” of the religion (as the Andarz ī dastwarān ō wehdēnān139 [Admonition of Priestly Authorities to the Zoroastrians] and Čīdag andarz ī pōryōtkēšān140 [Selected Admonitions of the Chief Teachers]). The latter text is also known by the title Pandnāmag ī Zardušt (Book of Counsels of Zardušt), since it has been apparently assigned to Zardušt, the son of Ādurbād ī Māraspandān, high-priest of Šābuhr II (309–79 ), although nothing in the text refers explicitly to his authorship. The prophet Zoroaster himself and his disciple Sēn (Av. Saēna-) are also quoted as authors of wise sayings in Dēnkard Book 3.141 Another apocryphal text is ascribed to the legendary Ōšnar (Av. Aošnara-), one of the sages in a long series of saints named in the Avesta, who is also known as the 136 From the Čīdag andarz ī pōryōtkēšān (also known as the Pand-nāmag ī Zardušt); see J. M. Jamasp-Asana 1897–1913, p. 41. 137 Pahlavi text in J. M. Jamasp-Asana 1897–1913, pp. 51–54; translations by Kanga 1947, ʿOryān 1992, p. 94 (Persian translation); Sanjana 1885, §§ 160–69, and Tarapore 1933, p. 13 ff. 138 Pahlavi text in J. M. Jamasp-Asana 1897–1913, pp. 39–40; translated by Dhabhar 1914 and ʿOryān 1992, p. 83 (Persian). 139 Pahlavi text in J. M. Jamasp-Asana 1897–1913, pp. 121–27; translated by J. JamaspAsa 1914 and ʿOryān 1992, p. 158 (Persian). 140 Pahlavi text in J. M. Jamasp-Asana 1897–1913, pp. 41–50; translated by Freimann 1906, Kanga 1960, ʿOryān 1992, p. 86 (Persian); Sanjana 1885, §§ 121–59, and Tarapore 1933, p. 1 ff. 141 See de Menasce 1973, nr. 195 and 197; Shaked 1987 a, p. 14. On the Avestan name Saēna- see Bartholomae 1904, column 1548, and Mayrhofer 1979, number 273.

162

PAHLAVI LITERATURE

wise and pious minister of Kavi- Usan-, the legendary Kai Kāwūs from the dynasty of the Kayanian kings from the Iranian national epic.142 The Andarz ī Ōšnar ī dānāg143 (Admonition of the Wise Ōšnar) is cast in the frame story of a “number-litany”, in which a disciple asks the sage to recite a wise saying for every number from one to a thousand (the text is interrupted after number six, well before the last number is reached). Number-riddles and -litanies of this sort were popular among the Buddhists and de Blois 1993 has shown, that the source of at least parts of the Pahlavi text is to be found in two Sanskrit works which were apparently translated into Middle Persian and later also into Arabic.144 One of the sayings traced back to a Sanskrit origin is the following: On account of four things a man is most harmful: much drinking of wine, lust for women, much indulgence in backgammon, and immoderate hunting.145

Most of the texts, however, are attributed to well-known authorities of the Sasanian period, but it is difficult to verify their authorship. The most prominent among these is the famous Ādurbād ī Māraspandān, the high-priest already mentioned above, who played an important part in the religious controversies during the reign of Šābuhr II (309–79 ) and is famous for having endured an ordeal of molten copper, poured on his breast, in order to prove the truth of the Mazdean religion.146 He is also described in Pahlavi texts as one of the priests engaged in the collection of 142 On the Av. Aošnara- (enlisted in Yašt 13,131) see Bartholomae 1904, column 44, and Mayrhofer 1979, number 17; see also de Blois 1993, p. 95. On the Kavi Usan- see Mayrhofer 1979, nr. 17; on Kai Kāwūs see Yarshater 1983, p. 374. 143 Edited by Dhabhar 1930. 144 The Pañcatantra (also one of the sources of the MP book of Kalīlah and Dimnah) and the Cāṇakya-nīti-śāstra; see de Blois 1993, p. 95 f. 145 Dhabhar 1930, § 33; translated by de Blois 1993, p. 95. The parallel saying in the Pañcatantra is: “Women, dice, hunting, drinking: these are the group (of vices) born of lust.” Ibid. p. 95. 146 AWN 1, 16 (no. 10 in Gignoux 1984 a); DKM 413.4 f., 454.3 f., 679.18–21; ŠGW 10.70; on the ordeal see Gobrecht 1967 and Macuch 1987 with further references.

163

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

religious works, which were later incorporated into the Avestan canon. Five Pahlavi andarz works and at least another one in an Arabic translation147 are assigned to him. Besides the longer treatises known as the Andarz ī Ādurbād ī Māraspandān148 (Admonition of Ādurbād, son of Māraspand) and Wāzag ēčand ī anōšagruwān Ādurbād ī Māraspandān149 (Some Sayings of Ādurbād, son of Māraspand, of the Immortal Soul), his sayings are preserved in Books 3150 and 6151 of the Dēnkard and in chapter 62 of the Pahlavi Rivāyat accompanying the Dādestān ī dēnīg.152 Here, again, de Blois (1984) has found remarkable parallels between the admonitions assigned to Ādurbād and not only similar passages in the Bible, but also sayings contained in a popular work of pagan literature, the Aḥīqar legend, which is set in the seventh century  during the reigns of the Assyrian Kings Sennacherib and Esarhaddon. Fragments of the text were discovered in an Aramaic version from the fifth century  in Elephantine (Egypt). Moreover, the story of Aḥīqar was not only incorporated into the Greek legendary life of Aesop around the first century , but found its way into Syriac, Armenian, Arabic and Old Church Slavonic versions, the book of Tobit and the Arabic “Fables of Luqmān”.153 The similarities in both the frame story and the precepts in Ādurbād’s work to many of those quoted in Aḥīqar are striking and de Blois’ collection of 24 parallel sayings in these two short works makes it plausible, that the latter was one of the main sources used by the

147 The Mawāʿeẓ Ādhurbādh in Ebn Meskawayh’s Al-Ḥekmat al-khāleda: jāwīdān kherad, ed. A. Badawi, Cairo 1952, pp. 26ff.; see Shaked 1979, p. 283, and 1987 a, p. 15 and de Blois 1984, p. 41. 148 Pahlavi text in J. M. Jamasp-Asana 1897–1913, pp. 58–71, and Dadabhoy 1887; translations by de Harlez 1887, Müller 1897, ʿOryān 1992, p. 100 (Persian), Sanjana 1885 and Tarapore 1933, pp. 21 ff. 149 Pahlavi text in J. M. Jamasp-Asana 1897–1913, pp. 144–53; translations by ʿOryān 1992, p. 176, Meherji Rana 1930 and Navvābi 1961 (into Persian). 150 See de Menasce 1973, no. 199. 151 See Shaked 1979, no. Dla. 152 See A. V. Williams 1990, part II, p. 106 ff. 153 See de Blois 1984, p. 42.

164

PAHLAVI LITERATURE

compiler of Ādurbād’s wisdom. One of the precepts similar to an admonition in the Aḥīqar legend is the following: From a bad-natured and low-born man do not borrow, and do not lend (to him). For (if you borrow from him) you will have to pay heavy interest, and all the time he will be standing at your door, and constantly he will have a messenger (standing) at your door, and you will have a heavy loss from it.”154

Collections of precepts are also assigned to Ādurbād’s son, Zardušt ī Ādurbādān (the Pand-nāmag ī Zardušt, quoted above), and his grandson, Ādurbād ī Zarduštān.155 Several andarz works were attributed to priests and ministers from the period of Xosrau I (531–79 ). The king himself is named as the author of two Pahlavi texts, the Andarz ī Xosrau ī Kawādān156 (Admonition of Xosrau, son of Kawād), and one in Book 3 of the Dēnkard,157 besides other wise sayings preserved in Arabic translations.158 Numerous precepts are also ascribed to the famous counsellor of Xosrau I, Wuzurgmihr ī Bōxtagān, not only in the extant Pahlavi composition Ayādgār (or Pand-nāmag) ī Wuzurgmihr ī Bōxtagān159 (Memorial [or: Book of Counsels] of Wuzurgmihr, son of Bōxtag), but also in Arabic and Persian versions (the latter in Ferdowsi’s Šāhnāme and Neẓām al-Molk’s Sīyāsat-nāme160). Wuzurgmihr is also the main figure in a short Pahlavi treatise called Madayān (or: Wizārišn) ī 154 From the Andarz ī Ādurbād ī Māraspandān, § 22; translated by de Blois 1984, p. 48. The parallel saying in the Aramaic version of Aḥīqar is: “Borrow not a heavy loan and from a wicked man. And if you borrow, give yourself no rest until you pay back the loan.” Ibid. p. 48. 155 J. M. Jamasp-Asana 1897–1913, p. 81 f.; see Shaked 1987 a, p. 15. 156 Pahlavi text in J. M. Jamasp-Asana 1897–1913, pp. 55–57; translations by Casartelli 1887; Irani 1899, ʿOryān 1992, p. 98 (Persian translations); Sanjana 1885 and Tarapore 1933, p. 18 ff. 157 See de Menasce 1973, number 201. 158 See Shaked 1987 a, p. 15. 159 Pahlavi text in J. M. Jamasp-Asana 1897–1913, pp. 85–101; translations by ʿOryān 1992, p. 124 (Persian); Sanjana 1885; Tarapore 1933, p. 38 ff. On the sage Wuzurgmihr see Christensen 1930. 160 See Christensen 1930, pp. 114–28, who has collected and translated Arabic and Persian texts referring to Wuzurgmihr’s life and wise sayings.

165

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

čatrang161 (Book [or: Explanation] of Chess) which is an instruction manual on chess and backgammon with a fanciful frame story on how the competent prime minister saved his king from paying tribute to the king of India, Dēwišarm, by solving the riddle of how to play the game of chess which Dēwišarm had sent to Xosrau, and invented the game of nēw-ardaxšīr or nard (backgammon) to be sent back as a present and counter-challenge to India’s sovereign. The motive of the exchange of riddles between royal courts with the usual condition that the defeated party should pay tribute to the winner is common in popular tales and has been expounded in Ferdowsi’s Šāhnāme as well as in other chronicles.162 Other andarz collections are attributed to the priest Baxt-Āfrīd163 from the same period and to the sage Wehzād Farrox-Pērōz,164 whose date is uncertain. At least one work of this genre, assigned to Ādurfarrbay ī Farroxzādān,165 is from the Islamic period, since he is one of the compilers of the Dēnkard in the ninth century. According to the division suggested by Shaked,166 wisdomliterature may be grouped into two main categories, religious and pragmatic works, each consisting of three types of texts. Unter andarz texts of the religious type he subsumes (1) school manuals and instruction manuals (such as the Andarz ī kōdagān167 161 Pahlavi text in J. M. Jamasp-Asana 1897–1913, pp. 115–20; translations by Brunner 1979; Lucidi 1935–1936; ʿOryān 1992, p. 152 (Persian); Gheiby 2001; Pagliaro 1940 and 1951; Sanjana 1885 and Tarapore 1932. An extensive analysis and translation of the text has been recently published by Panaino 1999. On this edition see also the review by Cantera 2000. See also the recent translation of Daryaee 2002 a. 162 See Yarshater 1983, p. 401, for references. 163 Pahlavi text in J. M. Jamasp-Asana 1897–1913, p. 81, and in Dēnkard Book 6; see Shaked 1979, A 4, E 22. 164 Pahlavi text in J. M. Jamasp-Asana 1897–1913, pp. 73–77; on translations of the text see Tarapore 1933, p. XIV, and Shaked 1987 a, p. 15; the Pahlavi poem in this text has been discovered by Shaked 1970 and Tafazzoli 1972 almost simultaneously. On the poem see also Lazard 1974. 165 Pahlavi text in J. M. Jamasp-Asana 1897–1913, pp. 79–80. 166 See Shaked 1987 a, p. 13. 167 The text is only extant in a Pāzand version, published by Antia 1909, pp. 73–74; translations by Darmesteter 1889; Freimann 1918 and Junker 1912.

166

PAHLAVI LITERATURE

[Admonition of Children], also called Xwēškārīh ī rēdagān [The Duty of Children], a manual on how Mazdean children should behave correctly), (2) gnomic texts of popular religious character (as those attributed to Ādurbād ī Māraspandān, his son Zardušt and to Wuzurgmihr ī Bōxtagān), (3) religious gnomes addressed to a higher level of audience (as the andarz collected in Book 6 of the Dēnkard 168). The second category of worldly or pragmatic texts includes (1) instruction manuals (as the Wizārišn ī čatrang mentioned above), (2) popular gnomes of worldly character (as the precepts of Ōšnar and Wehzād ī Farrox-Pērōz and partly also those of Ādurbād ī Māraspandān), (3) special manuals for the education of princes, called “mirrors for princes” or Fürstenspiegel. No works of the latter category are extant in Pahlavi, but it must have been a popular branch of literature, judging by the great number of texts and fragments of this genre which have survived in Arabic translation, besides those works in Persian, written in the old tradition (notably the Qābūs-nāme by Kai Kāvūs b. Eskandar and the Sīyāsat-nāme by Neẓām al-Molk, both from the 11th century). Throne speeches, deathbed testaments, belonging to the tradition of political wisdom literature, and epistles of the kings have been recorded in Arabic, containing ideas on just government and the relation between religion, justice and the state, all based on Sasanian material (on the most prominent texts related to this category see pp. 181–83).169 Besides the Wizārišn ī čatrang (Explanation of Chess) two other short instruction manuals, belonging to the first type of pragmatic andarz texts suggested by Shaked, have survived. The Abar ēwēnag ī nāmag-nibēsišnīh170 (On the Way to Write Letters), a guide for epistolary style, gives exact instructions on the proper manner how to address, begin and close letters and is reminiscent of later Persian enšāʾ literature. It begins as follows:

168 Edited by Shaked 1979. 169 See Shaked 1987 a, p. 13, with further references. 170 Pahlavi text in J. M. Jamasp-Asana 1897–1913, pp. 132–40; translation by ʿOryān 1992, p. 166 (Persian) and Zaehner 1937–39.

167

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN Now I shall treat of the correct way to write letters to divers persons in high estate, to ever-victorious kings, nobles and dignitaries, to prosperous officials, to those who are worthy of all praise, protected by the gods, and friends of cities, to such subordinates as have alert and unforgetting minds, to servants whose faithful labours cannot be forgotten, and therefore considered honourable and dear, to fathers, brothers, or children, or those who take the place of father, brothers, or children.171

The other text, known as Sūr saxwan172 (Banquet Speech), seems to be a model on the style of speech preferred at festivities and banquets and also contains a list of Sasanian dignitaries who were recalled on the occasion of these celebrations. A different type of “instruction” is given in the short aphoristic piece Dārūg ī honsandīh173 (A Medicine for Contentment), a symbolic treatise in form of a recipe on how to achieve contentment, by mixing different ingredients such as perseverance, daily improvement, acceptance of one’s lot etc., and taking two spoonfuls every dawn with one’s morning prayers. Another speech or sermon, which has only survived in Pāzand, may be listed in the wider range of religious instructive literature, since it could be a model for a funeral oration to be held on the fourth day after the death of a person. It is called according to the first (Avestan) word Aogəmadaēcā 174 (a citation from Yasna 41.5) and contains a funeral address, combined with moving reflections on the futility of life and the inevitability of death, in which several Avestan quotations are embodied. The Spirit of Wisdom itself is the instructor in one of the most extensive works of the religious andarz category, the Dādestān ī Mēnōg ī Xrad 175 (Judgements of the Spirit of Wisdom), also called 171 Translated by Zaehner 1937–39, p. 97. 172 Pahlavi text in J. M. Jamasp-Asana 1897–1913, pp. 155–59; translated by Tavadia 1935. 173 Pahlavi text in J. M. Jamasp-Asana 1897–1913, p. 154; translations by Ichaporia 2001, Klima 1967 and 1968 b, ʿOryān 1992, p. 185 (Persian), Shaked 1987 b, and Shaki 1968. 174 Pāzand text in Antia 1909, pp. 348–57; translations by Dhabhar 1925, Duchesne-Guillemin 1936, W. Geiger 1878 and K. M. JamaspAsa 1982. A brief description of the text is given by Duchesne-Guillemin 1987.

168

PAHLAVI LITERATURE

Dānāg ud Mēnōg ī Xrad (The Sage and the Spirit of Wisdom). The text shares the structure of other treatises of this type with a frame story and a main part consisting of questions and answers on religious topics, but differs from the typical andarz work in its unusual length and its well organized division into chapters, dealing with Zoroastrian doctrine. It was most probably written in the Sasanian period, during the reign of Xosrau I, but contains much older material, since parallels have also been found to precepts in the Aḥīqar legend, mentioned above. The preamble tells the story of a sage (dānāg, probably the author himself, talking in the third person) who asks himself why there are so many different religions and beliefs, detrimental to God’s will. After travelling far and wide in search of the answer, he realizes that all religions are inconsistent and the only true faith is the Zoroastrian one. He chooses wisdom as the most admirable of the divine aspects, causing by this choice the appearance of the Spirit of Wisdom, who offers to be the sage’s instructor on religious matters. The body of the work consists of the questions of the sage on different subjects (not all of the religious type in a narrow sense of the word) and answers, which are, true to the Spirit’s claim to wisdom, rather rational than theological. One of the passages resembling a precept in the Aḥīqar legend is the following: The sage asked the Spirit of Wisdom: “Is a blind eye worse, or a blind heart?” […] The Spirit of Wisdom answered: “He who is blind of eye, if he has knowledge of some thing and learns, is to be considered healthy of eye, and he who is healthy of eye, if he has no cognizance and knowledge of any thing and does not accept what they teach him, then that is even worse than a blind eye.”176

175 See editions by Andreas 1882; T. D. Anklesaria 1913; Sanjana 1895 a; translations by Tafaẓẓoli 1975 (Persian translation); West 1871 and 1885. The Pāzand text has been published in Antia 1909, pp. 273–334. 176 MX 26.1–6; translated by de Blois 1984, p. 44. The Aḥīqar passage in the Syriac version is the following: “My son! Better is he who is blind in his eyes, than he who is blind in his heart. For the blind of eye learns the way quickly and goes along it, but the blind of heart leaves the right way and goes astray.” See de Blois, ibid.

169

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

Two compositions which may be included in the wider range of wisdom literature are works in which the intelligence of the main figures is tested and instruction and counsel are given indirectly by means of using the riddle and the verbal contest of wits (a device also used in the Šāhnāme177). The Mādayān ī ōšt ī Fryān178 (Book of ōšt of the Fryāns) is a collection of riddles placed into a frame story of a contest between the young god-fearing Zoroastrian ōšt and his adversary, the wicked sorcerer Axt. ōšt solves with divine aid all the riddles put forward by Axt and saves his town from destruction, whereas Axt, being forsaken by the Evil Spirit, is unable to answer a single counter-riddle and is slain in the end. The date of the composition of the Pahlavi text is unknown, but the framework is certainly old, since it is based on an Avestan passage (Yašt 5.81–83), in which Yōišta-179 offers sacrifices to a deity in order to receive help in answering 99 questions posed by his adversary Axtiia-.180 Another verbal contest, cast in the form of a fable, the Draxt ī āsōrīg ud buz181 (The Babylonian Tree and the Goat), narrates a debate between a date-palm and a goat, in which both claim to be superior in rank by enumerating their qualities and boasting of their usefulness with the triumph of the goat in the end. Judging by its mixture of dialects, the Pahlavi text must be a late redaction of a Parthian original,182 which was transmitted orally and only put to writing in post-Sasanian times. The text is also a rare 177 See Yarshater 1983, pp. 401 and 407. 178 Editions by Barthélemy 1889; Jaʿfari 1986 (with Persian translation); JamaspjiAsa/Haug/West 1872. A Glossary of the Pahlavi text is to be found in West/ Haug 1874. On the text see further Weinreich 1992. 179 On the Avestan name see Mayrhofer 1979, number 407. 180 See Mayrhofer 1979, number 63. 181 Pahlavi text in J. M. Jamasp-Asana 1897–1913, pp. 109–14. Translations and articles on the text by B. T. Anklesaria 1956 b; Benveniste 1930; Blochet 1895 b; Brunner 1980 b; Henning 1950; Maciuszak 2003; Navvābi 1967 (Persian translation); ʿOryān 1992, pp. 142–51 (Persian translation); Shaki 1975 and J. M. Unvala 1923. 182 Bartholomae 1922, pp. 23–28, identified the Parthian lexical elements which had remained unnoticed in the edition of J. M. Unvala 1923.

170

PAHLAVI LITERATURE

example of secular verse, not isosyllabic, but with a tendency toward eleven-syllable lines which has parallels in Iranian Manichaean hymns.183 Moreover, interesting similarities have been found to Mesopotamian tensions and the text seems to continue an old literary tradition in several respects: the debate is set in the context of a fable (incidentally the only surviving one in Pahlavi literature), as in Sumerian and Akkadian writings, and is similarly concerned with superlatives, opposing an important plant and an important animal, both producers of the most nourishing food of their species.184 The genre of the tension is also found in a late Jewish Persian manuscript (Mēš-o raz [The Ewe and the Grapevine]) which has been compared to the “Babylonian Tree” and shares the common feature of juxtaposing an animal and a plant.185 The treatise Xosrau ud rēdag186 (Xosrau and the Page) also belongs to the genre of wisdom-literature, since it is mainly concerned with testing knowledge and skills as well as imparting information. Set during the reign of Xosrau I, the framework is the story of an orphan from a renown priestly family who describes his education in the presence of the king and asks to be tested. The page’s training includes memorizing the Avesta and Zand, courses in calligraphy, philosophy, history and rhetoric as well as skilful riding, the use of different weapons, musical education, knowledge of astrology and various games such as chess. It is, in short, a description of the ideal education of a young man of rank of this period, a combination of the training of a priest and a nobleman. The page answers all the questions of the king as to the best in various foods, wines, musical instruments, scents of different flowers, beautiful women etc., painting a lively picture of court life and its

183 The poetic form was discovered by Benveniste 1930; see also Henning 1950, p. 641 ff. [349ff. in the reprint]. 184 See Brunner 1980 b, p. 194 ff. 185 See Bacher 1911, pp. 523–35; Asmussen 1970 a, pp. 23–27, and Brunner 1980 b, pp. 197–98. 186 Pahlavi text in J. M. Jamasp-Asana 1897–1913, pp. 27–38; editions by Monchi-Zadeh 1982, ʿOryān 1992, p. 72 (Persian) and J. M. Unvala 1917 and 1921. See also Kia 1974.

171

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

most popular amusements. The following excerpt is a description of the best woman: That woman is the best, who loves her husband in her thoughts. As to her growth, she is of middle height, her breast is wide, her head, her behind and her neck are formed (well). Her feet are small, her waist is slim, the soles of her feet are arched. Her fingers are long, her limbs are soft and very ample, her breasts are as quinces. The whole body down to the nails of the feet is white as snow. Her cheeks have the colour of pomegranates, her eyes the form of almonds, her lips are red as corals, her eyebrows arched, her teeth white, tender and shiny. Her locks are black, shiny and long. In the bed of her husband she speaks beautiful words, not in an improper manner.187

Epic History and Geographical Works Although no historical books have survived from pre-Islamic times the evidence of later Arabic and Persian sources leaves no doubt that comprehensive written histories, combining Iranian sagas, mythology and historical traditions, did exist at least in the Sasanian period. Since no difference was made in historiography between factual, legendary and mythological material, various sources were obviously used to compose Iran’s epic history, blending official records, genealogies of the kings and ancient chronicles with the ancient Zoroastrian tradition, parts of which have been preserved in the extant Avestan and Pahlavi books. Besides individual treatises, narrating the heroic and romantic deeds of famed kings and heroes, such as the Ayādgār ī Zarērān and the Kārnāmag ī Ardašīr ī Pābagān (and other texts to be discussed below), the evidence points to different versions of an official chronicle, relating the history of Iran from its mythological beginnings, the creation of the world and its first man and king up to the time of its compilation during Sasanian reign, known by the standard

187 Compare Monchi-Zadeh 1982, p. 59 § 96, and J. M. Unvala 1917, p. 35 f. § 96.

172

PAHLAVI LITERATURE

designation of Xwadāy-nāmag188 (Book of Sovereigns). None of the Pahlavi versions of the Sasanian chronicle has survived, but the existence of divergent texts is attested in later sources which cite more than twenty Arabic translations of the epic, called Seyar al-molūk (Lives of the Kings) or Taʾrīkh al-molūk (History of the Kings), with substantial differences, no two texts agreeing completely.189 Although all of these Arabic translations have also been lost, their content is known from the summaries of Arabic historiographers, who based their histories of the Iranians, and especially the Sasanians, on this material. Eight Arabic recensions of the text are referred to alone by Ḥamza al-Eṣfahānī, including the two earliest translations of the Xwadāy-nāmag, the first by Ebn Moqaffaʿ, an Iranian convert to Islam who is credited with numerous Arabic translations of Pahlavi works and was executed during the reign of the Caliph al-Manṣūr in 754–75, the second by Moḥammad b. Jahm al-Barmakī, probably a client of the Barmakids, who fell from favour in 803.190 According to Barthold the literary adaption of the Iranian epic in Arabic took place in three centres: in western Fars, Khorasan and Isfahan, and all the known translators were converted Iranians who sought to preserve their national heritage.191 A Persian version of the Xwadāy-nāmag was also compiled in 957/958 for the governor of Tus (in north-eastern Iran), Abū Manṣūr b. ʿAbd ar-Razzāq. This prose work which was named 188 The Xwadāy-nāmag has been the subject of a great number of investigations, of which it is only possible to give a selection of references here: see especially Barthold 1944; Christensen 1944, p. 59ff.; Klima 1968c; Nöldeke 1896–1904; Rosen 1895 (reviewed by Kirste 1896); Shahbazi 1990. On Sasanian historiography see also Daryaee 1995. An excellent survey of Iranian national history (with further references) has been undertaken by Yarshater 1983. 189 See Nöldeke 1896–1904, p. 15; Christensen 1944, p. 61, and Shahbazi 1990, p. 215, with further references. 190 On the Arabic translations of the Xwadāy-nāmag see Barthold 1944, p. 144 ff.; Christensen 1917, p. 71ff., and 1944, p. 59ff. Other Arabic translators are named by Bīrūnī and Balʿamī, see Christensen 1944, p. 61. On the Pahlavi texts translated by Ebn al-Moqaffaʿ see Dodge 1970, p. 260. 191 Barthold 1944, p. 144 ff.

173

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

Šāhnāme (Book of Kings) seems to have been independent of the Arabic translations and was probably based on Pahlavi material, since the names of the compilers are all Zoroastrian and they are also called “mobeds”, Mazdean priests.192 The prose Šāhnāme has not survived, but the poet Daqiqi used it for his versification of the Persian epic in the tenth century and it was also one of the main sources for Ferdowsi’s famous poem when he continued Daqiqi’s work, besides other Arabic translations and probably also a compilation of the national history in the original Pahlavi.193 It is from this material in Arabic and Persian adaptations of the ninth to eleventh centuries as well as the remains of historical records, legends and myths in Avestan and Pahlavi texts that a reconstruction of the contents of the lost Xwadāy-nāmags has been undertaken.194 Epic history, as it is assumed to have been recorded in the official historical books of the Sasanian era, begins with the myth of the first man (or, according to other versions: first world-king), Gayōmard, and stretches over numerous centuries up to the end of Sasanian rule. Its chronology is based on the succession of sovereigns, beginning with the legendary Pīšdādian dynasty and its first king, Hōšang (Av. Haoiiaŋha-), the discoverer of fire, inventor of cultivation and subduer of Ahriman and his demons. Legends of famous kings and heroes, known from Avestan and Pahlavi books, such as amšēd (Av. Yima-) and Frēdōn (Av. Θraētaona-), and their adversaries, the villains Dahāk (Av. Dahāka-) and Afrāsiyāb (Av. Fraŋrasiian-), are set in this phase of Iran’s epic history. Deeds of the famed heroes of Sīstān, who are not mentioned in the available Avestan books, such as Rustam, also begin in this period, extending into the rule of the next dynasty of the Kayanians. These are the kings of Iran proper, whose reign is established by Kay Kawād 192 See Nöldeke 1896–1904, p. 16, and Barthold 1944, p. 151. 193 The question of Ferdowsi’s Vorlage has been discussed controversially, see Barthold 1944, p. 150 ff. and Christensen 1944, p. 59ff. The use of Iranian names in their Arabic form indicates that Ferdowsi used Arabic translations of the Xwadāy-nāmag, whereas he himself narrates in his preface to the Šāhnāme that he used a Pahlavi version of the epic for his versification. 194 For a survey of the most important sources see Yarshater 1983, pp. 359–66.

174

PAHLAVI LITERATURE

and is characterized by the continuing conflict with neighbouring Turān, one of the main dramatic motives throughout the epic. It is during Kayanian reign that king Guštāsp (MP. Wištāsp, Av. Vīštāspa-) accepts the new religion of Zoroaster, is engaged in warfare in defence of the faith and looses his brother Zarēr (Av. Zairiuuari-), the hero of one of the surviving Pahlavi texts, in battle. The Kayanians are linked to the later Sasanians by the story of king Bahman’s two sons: Dārā (Darius) who becomes king (and is succeeded by his son, also called Dārā) and Sāsān who, disappointed by his father’s choice of heir, leaves the court, takes to a life of wandering and becomes the ancestor of the later Sasanians. Strangely, apart from the name Darius, no trace has been left from the factual history of ancient western Iran. It seems that the Sasanians had neither memory of the history of their own homeland, Pars, nor knowledge of the extraordinary political, military and cultural achievements of the Medes and Achaemenians in the past. The only name transmitted over the centuries, Darius, was probably remembered since it was linked with one of the greatest catastrophes of Iranian history, the conquest of Alexander which had a traumatic effect especially on the Zoroastrian clergy. But since nothing was known of the Achaemenian kings, Darius, the son of Darius (Dārā ī Dārāyān), was pictured as the last sovereign of the Kayanian dynasty, who was finally conquered by Alexander. The image of Alexander is ambiguous in the extreme: in religious Pahlavi literature (e.g. in the Ardā Wīrāz nāmag, the Bundahišn and the Dēnkard ) he is considered as the arch-fiend, allied with Ahriman himself, responsible for the burning of the sacred scriptures, killing Mazdean priests and the development of heresies and unbelief. On the other hand, the Persian epic has incorporated the legend of Alexander ascribed to Pseudo-Callisthenes, written sometime before the fourth century and translated into Middle Persian during the sixth,195 a mixture of history and legend, describing the fantastic deeds of the young conqueror. The Iranian adaption of the romance not only accepts the positive image of its 195 See Nöldeke 1890.

175

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

hero, but links Alexander to the last Kayanian kings by making the first Darius his father and the second Darius his half-brother, thus bestowing on him the legitimacy of kingship! These two completely different characterizations of Alexander may have well existed side by side, since obviously various redactions of Iran’s national history were in circulation in which certain details were modified according to different needs, as will be seen below. After Alexander’s conquest of Iran the epic embarks on somewhat more solid historical ground with tales of the subsequent dynasties of the Arsacids and Sasanians, the latter pictured as blood relations and heirs to the Kayanian kings and the restorers of Iran’s unity and political integrity. Reviewing the different strains in Iranian national history, Christensen196 discerns between two traditions, a “religious” one, which sets historical events into the Zoroastrian millennial scheme within the cosmic battle against evil, focusing on the life of the prophet, the deeds of the warriors of the religious wars and later supporters of the faith, and a “national” one, representing the taste of kings and nobles with emphasis on the heroic incidents. In his survey of the material Shahbazi (1990) has argued that at least three versions of the Sasanian Xwadāy-nāmag must have been in existence: besides a “royal” and a “priestly” recension, a “heroic” one, reflecting the important part of the hero Rustam and of the large noble families of the Sasanian age, the Kārēn, the Sūrēn and the Mihrān. These families not only maintained that they were established in their elevated positions by the Kayanian king Wištāsp himself, but they, moreover, claimed descent from the Arsacid house, which makes them the Parthians par excellence. The central position of the pahlawāns, “heroes”, or “Parthians” in the original sense of the word, and the outstanding features attributed to the House of Kārēn in the national epic indicate that members of this family had created a version of the national history favourable towards themselves. The discrepancies in the characterization of

196 Christensen 1931, p. 35ff., and 1936, p. 33ff.; see also Yarshater 1983, p. 395ff.

176

PAHLAVI LITERATURE

several kings may also be explained by the existence of a tradition, independent of the “royal” one. As to the date of the Xwadāy-nāmag, Shahbazi maintains that the compilation of a national history was already well under way at the time of the Sasanian king Bahrām Gōr (420–38) and was definitely fixed in a coherent form by the time of Xosrau I (531–78). Material was added to it by Xosrau II (590–628) around 620, a date which may be deduced according to the geographical descriptions in the prologue of the Persian prose Šāhnāme, in which Iran is described as stretching to the River of Egypt (the Nile), probably a reference to the conquest of Egypt in 615–22 .197 It received a final chapter after the death of Yazdegird III and the Arab conquest, lamenting the loss of the religion and the empire and prophesying the coming of a saviour. Several Pahlavi texts (already referred to above on pp. 130–48 and 157) reflect the “priestly” tradition of Iran’s national history, notably the Dēnkard, Books 7 and 9, the Bundahišn, chapters 1–6, 29 and 31–34, Wizīdagīhā ī Zādsparam, chapters 1–25, the Pahlavi Rivāyat accompanying the Dādestān ī dēnīg, chapters 18, 31, 45–51, and the first epic section of the short Māh ī Frawardīn rōz ī Hordād. Apart from these more or less mythological and legendary texts two epic romances have survived, which must have been part of the official Pahlavi chronicle or at least of its prose Persian version, since both have parallels in Ferdowsi’s Šāhnāme. The Ayādgār ī Zarērān198 (Memorial of Zarēr) was in its original form an epic poem in which numerous traces of an older Parthian version may be found, relating the religious war between Zoroaster’s patron, Wištāsp, and his adversary, the pagan sovereign of Turān, Arǰāsp. The heroes are Wištāsp and his brother, Zarēr, who 197 Shahbazi 1990, p. 214. 198 Pahlavi text in J. M. Jamasp-Asana 1897–1913, pp. 1–16, and Modi 1899; translations by W. Geiger 1890; Monchi-Zadeh 1981; Pagliaro 1925. Different aspects of the text have been studied by Boyce 1955; Melzer 1923; Omidsalar 1996; Shaki 1986; Utas 1975 and 1976 b. A concise summary of the content is given by Boyce 1989 b. An attempt to reconstruct the original heroic poem has been undertaken by Benveniste 1932 b.

177

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

is killed in combat and revenged by his son, Bastwar. Needless to say, the enemy is defeated in the end and the main adversary punished by mutilation, the most dishonourable form of chastisement. The following excerpt is a graphic description of the enormous Iranian army that set out in defence of the new faith: And the troops of Ērānšahr were so (numerous) that the din rose to the sky and the echo went to hell. When they set out, they cut the waterways and clouded the water of the rivers in a manner that it was not possible to drink the water for a month. For 50 days no daylight appeared and the birds found no place to perch apart from the spearheads on the crests of the horses or the summit of the mountain Harborz. Day and night could not be kept apart because of the dust and the smoke.199

A romantic account of the founder of the Sasanian dynasty, Ardašīr I, which also has a parallel rendering in Ferdowsi’s epic, has survived by the title Kārnāmag ī Ardašīr ī Pābagān 200 (Book of Deeds of Ardašīr, son of Pābag). It is essentially a glorification of the first Sasanian monarch and his remarkable deeds, the story of his complete victory over the last Arsacid king, Ardavān, with a historical core which vanishes beneath a pile of fanciful stories and legends. Several motives of the tale are well-known from similar romances as that of the hidden identity of the central figure (Ardašīr is the son of the shepherd Sāsān, who is actually a descendent of the last Kayanian king) or the heroic battle with the dragon. The impression that the young prince is fulfilling destiny is enhanced by dreams and oracles prophesying future events, which are expounded by soothsayers and astrologers. Interestingly, the position of the heavenly bodies described in one of the astrological passages is extremely rare and has been observed, according to the analysis undertaken by two Russian scientists, in the Baghdad district on December 23 of the year 631, which could be the actual date of the 199 AīZ §§ 29–31; compare Monchi-Zadeh 1981, p. 42 f. 200 Pahlavi and Pāzand texts with translation in Antia 1900; editions by B. T. Anklesaria 1935; Asha 1999 b; Faravaši 1975; Hāšemi-nežād 1990; Hedāyat 1944; Kasrawi 1930; Maškur 1950 (the latter five translations in Persian); Nosherwan 1896; Nöldeke 1878 and Sanjana 1896.

178

PAHLAVI LITERATURE

redaction of the surviving text of the Kārnāmag. The method for dating the last redaction of the text has been however criticized by Panaino who convincingly argues that the text does not convey the information needed for a serious astronomical calculation. 201 Two historical romances, the Mazdag-nāmag and the Wahrām Čobēn-nāmag, are only known from later Persian and Arabic sources. The former, relating the deeds of the “communist” sectarian Mazdag and his relationship to the Sasanian king Kawād (488–531), was translated into Arabic by Ebn Moqaffaʿ. Although the translation has been lost, two surviving extracts of the book, one in the Persian Rivāyats, the other in Neẓām al-Molk’s Sīyāsatnāme, give a fairly good impression of the contents of the original Pahlavi text. 202 The latter is the story of the famous usurper Wahrām Čobēn, who rebelled against his sovereign, Ohrmazd IV (578–90), after having won battle after battle in his name, reigned for a short interval and was finally expelled by king Xosrau Parwēz (590–628) with the help of the Byzantines. The romance has only survived in Arabic chronicles and in Ferdowsi’s Šāhnāme. 203 These were not the only separate works on historical personages. An-Nadīm in his Fehrest cites several historical writings, of which only the titles have survived. 204 The mythological and legendary is also mingled with information on geographical sites. The Ayādgār ī amāspīg (Memorial of amāsp), already mentioned above in the context of eschatological literature (p. 156) also contains details on geography (in chapters 4, 5, 8, 10 and 12). Several chapters of the Bundahišn are devoted to the description of the lands, mountains, seas, rivers and lakes (GBd chapters 8–12), based on place-name catalogues called “Memorials of the Lands” (ayādgārīhā ī šahrīhā, mentioned in GBd chapter 9205) and the 201 See Chunakova/Shcherbanovsky 1982 and Panaino 1994 b. 202 See Christensen 1944, p. 68 f. with further references; a translation of the Persian Rivāyat text is to be found in Dhabhar 1932, p. 582 ff. On the Mazdag-nāmag see also Tafazzoli 1984. 203 See Christensen 1944, p. 69, with further references. 204 See Dodge 1970, p. 716. 205 See Boyce 1968 b, p. 62, and Tavadia 1956, p. 141. A Šahrīhā ayādgār is also mentioned in DkM 412.11, see Bailey 1943, p. 158.

179

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

Pahlavi Zand of Avestan texts. 206 Chapter 31 “On particular lands of Ērānšahr, the abode of the Kays” follows the description given in the first chapter of the Pahlavi Wīdēwdād on the original abode of the Iranians, Airyana Vaēǰah (range of the Aryans), but displaces several regions to the west of Iran. 207 Two other geographical works also mix traditional elements with information on the cities and regions of Iran. The Šahrestānīhā ī Ērānšahr 208 (Cities of the “Domain of the Iranians”) is a list of altogether a hundred and ten cities with information on their founders, most of them Sasanian kings. Although the work was committed to writing at least two centuries after the fall of the Sasanians (the last town to be mentioned is Baghdad, founded by the Caliph al-Manṣur, 754–75) it remains one of the most important sources for reconstructing the administrative geography of the Sasanian empire. 209 The Abdīh ud sahīgīh ī Sagistān 210 (Wonders and Magnificence of Sīstān) on the remarkable features of Sistan (in southeast Iran) describes this region as the land of certain legendary topographical features associated with Zoroaster’s teaching and the geographical setting for the emergence of the three eschatological saviours to be born from the water of lake Kayānsē (Av. kąsaoya). Sistan also has part in the reconstruction of the Avesta, since it is credited with the preservation of an Avestan Nask (the Bayān nask [Division on the Gods]), which had been lost after the conquest of Alexander and was unknown in other regions of Iran: When the accursed Alexander, the Roman, came to Ērānšahr, those who walked on the path of the Magians were seized and slain. Some 206 On Yašt 19 and Yasna 38.3–5, see MacKenzie 1990, p. 549. On geography in general see Daryaee 2002 c and Shapira 2001b with further references. 207 See MacKenzie 1990, p. 548. On the Bundahišn as a source for CentralAsian Geography see Cereti 1994. 208 Pahlavi text in J. M. Jamasp-Asana 1897–1913, pp. 18–24, and Modi 1899; editions by Asha 1999 a; Daryaee 2002 b; Hedāyat 1942 (Persian translation); Markwart 1931. On the text see further Gyselen 1988; Modi 1898 and Tavadia 1926. 209 See Gyselen 1988 and 1989. 210 Pahlavi text in J. M. Jamasp-Asana 1897–1913, pp. 25–26; editions and translations by Modi 1899; Utas 1983 and West 1917; see also Bailey 1943, p. 161.

180

PAHLAVI LITERATURE men and boys came to Sagistān. There was one Nask which was with the women, a child of whom had memorized this one Nask, the Bayān, firmly. This way the religion returned to Sagistān and was ordered and arranged afresh. Apart from Sagistān, there was no knowledge of it in any other place. 211

Political Treatises None of the presumably numerous political treatises, composed during Sasanian rule is extant in the original, but several fairly long works from late Sasanian times, written in the andarz tradition, have survived in Arabic and Persian translations. The “Letter of Tansar”212 is a Persian translation of the lost Arabic rendering of the Pahlavi text by Ebn Moqaffaʿ, transmitted in Ebn Esfandīyār’s thirteenth century History of Tabarestān. Another work, the “Testament of Ardašīr”, 213 has partly survived in a number of Arabic works and in Ferdowsi’s Šāhnāme. Although both works are attributed to the reign of the first Sasanian monarch, to Ardašīr himself or his high-priest Tansar (Tōsar), it has been argued that they were written in the late Sasanian period, using older material. 214 The central theme is the Sasanian ideal theory of the state, based on two pillars, the church and the throne, pictured as inseparable twins, bound together for the welfare of the subjects. Order and justice are kept by the strict division of the people in four estates, hence each man should know and keep his rank and show respect

211 212 213 214

Bailey 1943, p. 161, and Utas 1983, p. 263, have slightly different translations. See Boyce 1968 a; Darmesteter 1894 and Minuvi 1932. See Grignashi 1966, pp. 46–90. Different opinions have been expressed concerning the date of these works. The Letter of Tansar has been regarded by Christensen as a product of the reign of Xosrau I, whereas Boyce regards it essentially as an authentic work of Ardašīr’s age (third century) with later additions from the sixth century (Christensen 1936; Boyce 1968 a, p. 12 ff., with further references). Grignashi dates both texts to the early reign of Yazdegird III (Grignashi 1966, pp. 3 and 9).

181

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

and obedience to his betters. Both texts are conservative in the extreme, relying on age-old traditions and well-established convictions, thereby conveying important material on a number of religious and social institutions, apart from giving us an idea of the Sasanian theories on ideal government and the nature of political propaganda in this period. Another work in Arabic translation ascribed to Ardašīr belongs to the category of āyēn or “reglementation” literature, of which there must have been numerous works in Pahlavi. Only this one specimen of uncertain date is known, which may be attributed to the reigns of Kawād I or Xosrau I. 215 The text is concerned with the conduct of Sasanian aristocracy and imparts information on the social structure of the state and its division into estates. It could have been in fact part of the larger Āyēn-nāmag (Book of Regulations), another work mentioned in the long list of translations into Arabic by the indefatigable Ebn Moqaffaʿ, but lost as most of his accomplishments. 216 Since this work is described as a huge compendium, consisting of thousands of pages on the organization of the state and social institutions in pre-Sasanian and Sasanian Iran, it could well have been a collection of various texts on the same subject. Two works on state affairs assigned to the reign of Xosrau I (Anuširwān, as he is called in Arabic texts according to his MP epithet anōšag-ruwān [of immortal soul]) have also been discovered in Arabic translation. One of them, the “Kārnāmaj of Anūšīrwān”, 217 is an extract from an official chronicle called the “Life of Anūšīrwān”, written as an autobiography in the first person, imparting information on the deeds of the king, his orders and various reforms. 218 The second text is possibly an extract from the Ketāb at-tāj fī sīrat Anūšīrwān (Book of the Crown in the Biography of Anūšīrwān) cited by an-Nadīm, a text quoting speeches 215 216 217 218

See Grignashi 1966, pp. 91–102; 111–28. On the date of the text see p. 4. On the translations of Ebn Moqaffaʿ see Gabrieli 1931–32. See Grignashi 1966, pp. 16–45. Long passages from this work, called in Arabic the Sīrat Anūšīrwān are quoted by Meskawayh in his Tajāreb al-ʾomam, see Grignashi 1966, p. 6.

182

PAHLAVI LITERATURE

given on the occasion of the New Year’s ceremony, in which high dignitaries impart their opinions of state affairs. 219 Other treatises on politics and the affairs of the state are known only by their titles and short allusions to their content in Arabic works. The Gāh-nāmag (Book of Rank) was a catalogue work, a sort of Who’s Who, listing all the dignitaries of the empire, 600 altogether, and classifying them according to their rank and position in Sasanian society. Judging by the various references in Arabic literature there could have been several treatises called Tāǰ-nāmag (Book of the Crown), dealing with royal documents, decrees and proclamations. 220 None of these texts have survived in the original, but the references in Arabic works leave the impression that numerous writings were devoted to political topics and that there was a rich literature in Sasanian Iran on the management of state affairs.

Texts on Natural Science (Zoology, Botany) and Medicine Among the texts already alluded to above, the Bundahišn and the Wizīdagīhā ī Zādspram both include fairly elaborate chapters on zoology. The former embodies a chapter on the nature of “the five kinds of animal” (GBd ch. 13) and “the nature of birds of all kinds” (GBd ch. 15) as well as a section on botany (chapter 16: on plants and flowers) in its cosmographical description of the world. 221 In the latter work chapter 3 is devoted to enumerating different species. 222 These sections in both texts seem to be based on the Pahlavi Zand of the lost Avestan Dāmdād nask (Division on Creation) of which a short summary is given in Dēnkard 8. Zādspram actually refers to this Nask twice (in 3.43 and 57) and also mentions another lost book on zoology written by himself 219 220 221 222

See Grignashi 1966, p. 4 f., and the text on pp. 103–10; 129–35. On all these works see Christensen 1944, pp. 62–68, with further references. See MacKenzie 1990, p. 550. See Gignoux/Tafazzoli 1993, pp. 41–56.

183

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

which was also a concise rendering of the same Nask with the title Nibēg ī tōhmag-ōšmurišnīh (Compendium on the Enumeration of Species). 223 Since explanations of the listed animals and plants are reduced to a minimum, these sections, containing many technical terms and unknown words, are extremely difficult to interpret. Zadspram’s work also contains an eminently important section on medicine (chapters 29–30), which is, apart from another short medical treatise in Dēnkard 3 (Abar bizeškīh “On Medicine”224), the only available information on this branch of learning. 225 The author saw man as a triad, consisting of body (tan), life (gyān) and soul (ruwān), each part in its turn divided into another three sub-sections. 226 The anatomical and physiological descriptions are reminiscent of the medical school of Galen, the famous authority on medicine up to modern times, whereas the psychological sections (on the ruwān) are predominantly Iranian with traces of Indian and Greek thought. It seems probable that Greek medicine was transmitted through Syriac authors, notably those followers of Nestorius who settled in Iran in the fifth century and founded schools in which medicine was taught. The most famous of these was the academy of Gondēšābuhr which remained one of the important centres of medicine even after the fall of the Sasanians. Zādspram’s treatise also shows interesting parallels to the writings of the ekhwān aṣ-ṣafāʾ, the “brothers of purity”, a religious order in 10th century Basra which propagated gnostic thought, based on Greek, Iranian and Indian works, and was also influenced by Galen. 227 The following excerpt is from the beginning of the medical section on the composition of man: The body, which consists of muscles, bones, sinews etc., (resembles) a house, that is built of clay and stone and wood etc. The forthgrowing factor frawahr, which makes the extremities (lit. ‘hands and feet’) grow, lets the genitals appear, composes veins and fat, 223 224 225 226 227

See Gignoux/Tafazzoli 1993, pp. 49 and 51. See Casartelli 1886 and de Menasce 1973, pp. 158–68. See Gignoux/Tafazzoli 1993, pp. 95–111, and Sohn 1996. See Sohn 1996, p. 1 ff. See Sohn 1996, p. 37 ff.

184

PAHLAVI LITERATURE combines the bones, and causes paths and passages to appear, which open the mouth and the eyes, (resembles) the architect, who builds a house. And the life(-fire) which keeps the body alive, (resembles) the (cult) fire, which is placed in the temple in its place.”228

Works on Jurisprudence Many of the religious works discussed above also contain important material on the legal system and institutions of pre-Islamic Iran, notably the Dādestān ī dēnīg, the Dēnkard 8, the Pahlavi Rivāyat accompanying the Dādestān ī dēnīg, the Pahlavi Rivāyat of Ādurfarrbay and Farrbay-srōš, the Rivāyat ī Ēmēd ī Ašawahištān and the Šāyist nē šāyist. One of the main purposes of all these postSasanian writings was to conserve age-old Zoroastrian customs, including especially those laws on marriage, family and inheritance which differed basically from the new regulations of Islam. It is in fact only in these late books that definitions on complicated institutions may be found, since they were in danger of being forgotten or misused and had to be preserved from changing radically in the Islamic environment. These changes, of course, had to take place and the Zoroastrian New Persian Rivāyats of the fifteenth to eighteenth centuries show clearly that almost none of these institutions survived, although the same technical terms are applied, which were, however, adapted to the necessities of later times. The sections on jurisprudence in the cited works are confined to those questions which were still of interest in the Zoroastrian communities of the ninth to tenth centuries. These were predominantly themes concerning marriage and inheritance, both conserving Sasanian practice, which, as will be seen, also left its mark on certain Islamic institutions. Sasanian law knew not only different forms of marriage, but also unique forms of procuring children for a man who had no progeny. Normally after reaching adulthood a marriage of the cum manu mariti type would be arranged for 228 Compare Sohn 1996, p. 51, and Gignoux/Tafazzoli 1993, p. 95.

185

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

a man and woman, called the pādixšāy (privileged) marriage, in which the man had marital authority over his wife and the children were automatically his legitimate heirs. If, however, the man remained childless or died without leaving an heir, his wife was obliged to enter the so-called čagar-marriage with another man (normally a relative from the lineage of the husband), the purpose of which was to procure children (especially sons) for the first husband. The husband in this second marriage had no rights over his own natural children. They were the legal heirs of their juridical father (of the pādixšāy marriage) and could only inherit from their natural (čagar) one, if he had adopted them. If the wife was barren, a man’s daughter or his sister were obliged to procure progeny for him by entering a marriage of the čagar type. These three women who had the obligation to provide children for a man, were called ayōkēn/ayōgēn, a legal term which defies translation but may be described as “woman acting as intermediary successor to a man without a male heir”. 229 The following excerpt from the Rivāyat ī Ēmēd ī Ašawahištān is an attempt to explain the complex institution of the ayōkēn: Question: “Who is the ayōkēn?” Answer: “The ayōkēn is the following: When a man dies and has no privileged (pādixšāy) wife and children or adopted son, apart from a daughter who has not yet married, and (the man) has neither a designated ‘procurer of progeny’ (stūr), nor a brother who is his partner, then that daughter will be the ayōkēn of the father as if she were the privileged (pādixšāy) wife of the father.”230

It was regarded as so fundamentally important to have children, that different devices, unknown in other legal systems, were invented to save a man from remaining childless. Apart from the 229 On the different explanations and etymologies of the word see Macuch 1981, p. 104 ff. Klingenschmitt 2000, p. 225f., explains the technical term from Avestan *aiiaoγaēnī- or *aiiūγaēnī-, connected with Old Indian ayogū-, ayugū- “girl who is the only child of her mother, girl without siblings”. On the development of legal technical terminology in the field of family law see Hjerrild 2003. 230 RĒA chapter 44; B. T. Anklesaria 1962, p. 163 f.

186

PAHLAVI LITERATURE

possibility of adopting a son, Sasanian law knew a unique institution for providing progeny for a barren or deceased man who left no heir, called stūrīh, 231 another technical term which cannot be translated conveniently but may be rendered by “substitute succession”, “subsidiary succession” or “succession by proxy”. There were three possibilities of preventing childlessness by designating a stūr or “provider of progeny”, as the term may be roughly interpreted: 1. by obliging one of the ayōkēn women in a man’s family (called the būdag or “natural” stūr); 2. by designating a man through testament (of the kardag or “designated” type) and 3. by legally appointing a person for this purpose (called gumārdag or “appointed” stūr). The person who became stūr could be a man or a woman and had the duty to provide children for the barren or deceased man after entering a čagar marriage. The following passage from the Dādestān ī dēnīg attempts to explain these different types of artificial legal procreation: The 57th question (is) the one which asks: “How many kinds of family guardianship and institutions providing progeny (stūrīh) are there?” Answer: “There are three kinds, which are the natural (būdag), the designated (kardag) and the appointed (gumārdag). The natural stūrīh is the following: the privileged (pādixšāy) wife and the ayōkēn daughter are stūrs by their own existence. If there is no wife, then the daughter who has no husband, who has not married, will remain (in this function). The designated stūr is the adopted son, who has been adopted by (the deceased) himself and been appointed or is needed (in this position). And the appointed stūr is one of the relatives who is suitable for the stūrīh and nearest to the deceased. He must be appointed by the authorities of the religion.”232

Valuable as these explanations are, the quoted texts are nevertheless late products which only dimly reflect the complex Sasanian legal system. Judging by the references to legal literature there must have 231 On this technical term see Perikhanian 1970 and Macuch 1981, pp. 115–17, with further references. 232 Dd 57. Compare de Menasce 1964 a, p. 35. The translation of West 1882, p. 191, is completely unreliable, since he had no knowledge of the institutions involved.

187

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

been a great number of treatises on jurisprudence in the Sasanian age, called dādestān-nāmag “Lawbooks”, but only one text in a unique manuscript from the late Sasanian period has survived. This fundamental text for our knowledge of pre-Islamic Iranian law has been named Mādayān ī hazār dādestān 233 by the first editor of the manuscript, 234 but its actual title is Hazār dādestān (A Thousand Judgements). 235 It is not a codex, but a lengthy compilation of actual and hypothetical case-histories which the author, a certain Farroxmard ī Wahrāmān, collected from court records, testaments, various works on jurisprudence and other long lost documents. The Lawbook was compiled sometime during or after the reign of Xosrau II (590–628), the last monarch to be named in the book, in the first half of the 7th century before the Arab invasion. The content is purely Sasanian and differs from later texts mainly in that it does not mingle theological and legal material, but concentrates entirely on legal matters. Another indicator of its age is the fact that no explanations are offered for technical terms, as in later texts, and that only the most difficult and complicated cases are presented. It was clearly written for jurists who had full knowledge of the legal system, and at a time, when Sasanian judges also had the competence to pronounce judgement in all fields of jurisprudence. The Lawbook is concerned with cases from the three main fields of civil, criminal and court law, imparting unique information not only on the legal, but also on the social structure of Sasanian society. 236 Several institutions of the Islamic period, such as the temporary marriage of the Shiʿa (motʿa) and the religious 233 The Pahlavi text has been published in two parts by Modi 1901 and T. D. Anklesaria 1912. A totally unreliable edition has been published by Bulsara 1937. Editions were also published by Macuch 1981 and 1993, and Perikhanian 1973 and 1997. Numerous studies of variant aspects of the text have been undertaken by several authors, who cannot all be cited here, see especially Bartholomae 1910 and 1918–23; Macuch 1985, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1994, 1995 a, 1995 b, 1997, 2003 a, 2003 b, 2005 a, 2005 b; de Menasce 1964 a, 1964 c, 1966, 1969; Perikhanian 1970, 1974, 1983. 234 Modi 1901, introduction XIII. 235 See Macuch 1993, p. 10 f. 236 On the part of Sasanian family law in stabilizing society see Macuch 1995 b.

188

PAHLAVI LITERATURE

foundation (waqf), may be traced according to the evidence in the Lawbook to Sasanian times. The Babylonian Talmud also seems to have been influenced by Sasanian law. 237 The text is also a vast treasury-house of information on various aspects of everyday life in Sasanian Iran, not to be found in any other primary source, but the language is difficult, the sentences are usually long and complicated, the syntax is often ambiguous. Moreover, different opinions of jurists are often cited side by side, making it difficult to decide on the legal norm. The following excerpt from the field of family law, already discussed above, is a comparatively simple example: It is written in a passage: When a man bequeaths property for (founding the institution) of stūrīh to a man or a woman, then he is allowed to take it (the property) back. And Bōzišn has said: “If he bequeaths property for the stūrīh, afterwards takes a loan and then dies, then the property is to be given back in order (to pay) the loan.” And there was another (jurist), who said: “He is not allowed to take it back.” And Bōzišn said: “If he bequeaths property for the stūrīh and takes a loan afterwards, then the one, to whom he has given the property, has the right of disposal of the proceeds of the property. And if the property is not enough for (paying back) the loan—even in that case, the proceeds are not to be given back.”238

Another important text for understanding Sasanian jurisprudence has only survived in a Syriac translation. It is the “Lawbook of Jesubōxt”, 239 originally written in Pahlavi by the archbishop of the Christians in Persia, Īšōʿbōxt, in the eighth century for the Christian community of Fars. This important book is, apart from the sections dealing with family law, almost entirely based on Sasanian Zoroastrian jurisprudence. It is an indispensable source of information, since it offers explanations and exact definitions in the

237 On the influence of Sasanian law on Islamic jurisprudence see Macuch 1985 and 1994. On its influence on the Babylonian Talmud see Macuch 1999 and 2002 b. On parallels between Sasanian and Byzantine law see Macuch 2004. 238 MHD 49. 8–15; see Macuch 1993, p. 325. 239 Edition and translation by Sachau 1914. On the Pahlavi legal terminology in this source see de Menasce 1964 b and Macuch 1989.

189

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

passages concerned with the law of property and court law, which are not to be found in any other Pahlavi texts. A specimen of a marriage-contract (Paymānag ī kadag-xwadāyīh, 240 also called Paymānag ī zan griftan) has also been preserved. It is dated to the thirteenth century, but must be much older, since it contains the terminology known from Sasanian law with the same legal implications.

Imaginative Literature and Poetry Apart from the texts on epic history and several writings discussed under the heading of wisdom-literature, no works of entertainment have survived in the original. It seems that story-telling, as poetry, was in general an oral art, which was largely carried out without the help of the written word. Only one native prose-work, the lost Hazār afsāne (A Thousand Tales), is known to have been compiled before the Arab conquest, a work generally regarded as the origin of the “Thousand and One Nights” (even though this also seems to be questionable according to the testimony of AnNadīm 241). All other imaginative prose-works, known from later Persian, Arabic and Syriac adaptions, are of foreign origin and were probably rendered into Pahlavi in the late Sasanian period. Several works came from India, such as the Tūtī-nāmag (Book of the Parrot), the Sindbād-nāmag (Book of the Seven Viziers), collections of stories with a moral point, both known from their later 240 Pahlavi text in J. M. Jamasp-Asana 1897–1913, pp. 141–43. Editions by Anklesaria apud J. M. Jamasp-Asana 1897–1913, vol. II, pp. 47–49; MacKenzie/ Perikhanian 1969; ʿOryān 1992, pp. 173–75; 362–65 (Persian translation). A new edition of this text has been prepared by the present author and will be published in: M. Macuch/M. Maggi/W. Sundermann, eds., Iranian Languages and Texts from Iran and Turan: Ronald E. Emmerick Memorial Volume. Wiesbaden, forthcoming (Iranica). 241 See Boyce 1968 b, p. 65. The famous author of the Fehrest claims to have seen the Persian book and to have only found a collection of tedious traditions.

190

PAHLAVI LITERATURE

Persian versions, 242 and the famous Kalīla wa Dimna (or Karrīag ud Damanag as the title reads in Middle Persian), which was translated into Arabic and Syriac. The latter work is often referred to as a Near Eastern recension of the Indian Pañcatantra, which is not quite true, even though this was the most important single source, since the book was compiled from different Indian stories, as de Blois (1990 a) has shown. According to the testimony of the Old Syriac version and different Arabic manuscripts the original Pahlavi text embodied ten stories, five of which were based on the Pañcatantra (the lion and the ox; the ringdove; the owls and the crows; the monkey and the turtle; the ascetic and the weasel). The framework of the tale and three stories were taken from the Mahābhārata (the mouse and the cat; the king and the bird; the lion and the jackal), one from a Buddhist legend (the king and his eight dreams) and one (on the king of mice and his ministers) could be a creation of the author himself. 243 The author of the work was Burzōy, a physician of the time of Xosrau I, to whom the compilation is traditionally attributed, and who also wrote an autobiographical preface to the work, preserved in the translation of Ebn Moqaffaʿ. Two Indian fables with a moral are also inserted into the “Letter of Tansar”. 244 These popular Indian tales evidently came from different sources, some through the intermediation of the Manichaean communities, such as the Book of Balauhar ud Būdāsaf, a legend of the Buddha, which found its way through an Iranian recension to Turkish, Arabic, Georgian, Hebrew and Greek versions of the tale and finally evolved into the story of the Christian worthies Barlaam and Ioasaph. 245 Although only a few pieces of Middle Persian poetry are extant, 246 there is abundant evidence of a flourishing minstrelsy 242 On the different redactions of both texts in the Muslim age see Rypka 1959, p. 235. 243 See de Blois 1990 a, p. 13 ff. On the preface see also Nöldeke 1912. 244 See Boyce 1956 b and 1968 a, p. 14 f. 245 See Lang 1957 a and 1957 b; Gimaret 1971. 246 On these see especially Benveniste 1930, 1932 a and 1932 b; de Blois 2004; Boyce 1957; Henning 1950; Lazard 1974, 1975, 2001 and 2002; Rempis 1951; Shaked 1970; Tafazzoli 1972; Tavadia 1950, 1953 and 1955; Utas 1975.

191

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

in Sasanian Iran, combining the art of the poet and the musician. Minstrels were divided into different ranks, those of the foremost one belonged to the highest class of courtiers and were in constant attendance in the king’s audience-chamber, at state-banquets and upon various festivities. 247 The court-minstrel is in fact enumerated among the four chief servants of the king. 248 Several names of famous poets and singers have been preserved in Arabic literature, among them Bārbad, the court-minstrel of Xosrau II, who was both an original poet and musician, and appears to have had enormous influence on the king. 249 The following verses, quoted in an Arabic work, are attributed to this famous minstrel: The Caesar is like unto the moon and the Khāqān to the sun My lord is like unto the cloud all-powerful: At will he veils the moon and at will the sun. 250

There is reason to assume that minstrelsy was not confined to the court, but was cultivated generally among the higher classes also by women and as a part of the education of children of noble birth. 251 But as an oral art, associated with music, the poetry involved was usually not committed to writing. Several specimens of Pahlavi verse have nevertheless survived in the original in works already mentioned above. In almost all cases the versification is not immediately recognizable, due to the usual carelessness of copyists, who added material or left out words, thereby changing the basic form of a poem and its rhythmical balance. The verses have to be reconstructed according to the principles of Middle Persian poetry, which at the same time have to be established by analyzing the material at hand. These have been partly deduced from the Manichaean hymns, but a number of problems regarding the rhythm, metre and rhyme still remain to be solved. 252 247 248 249 250 251

For a detailed study of minstrelsy see Boyce 1957. See Boyce 1957, p. 24. See Rypka 1959, p. 133. Cited and translated by Lazard 1975, p. 605. As told in the story of Xosrau ud rēdag, see above pp. 171–72, and Boyce 1957, p. 27 ff. 252 See Boyce 1954 a, pp. 45–59.

192

PAHLAVI LITERATURE

It appears that the metre in Pahlavi verse was accentual rather than syllabic, allowing a variable number of unstressed syllables to a line within a certain limit. 253 It was not based on quantity as in Arabic verse and rhyme was apparently not regarded as an essential, although specimens of rhymed verse are attested which, however, could be dated to the early Islamic era rather than the Sasanian age. Details, however, such as the limits of variation in the number of syllables and the place of the accented syllables within the lines, are still in need of investigation. The poems discovered in Pahlavi literature belong either to the heroic and epic tradition (as the Ayādgār ī Zarērān), or are of didactic value (as the Draxt ī āsōrīg and other verses in andarzworks). 254 A third category is represented by poems with a visionary and apocalyptic content, such as the amāsp-nāmag and the elegy on the coming of King Wahrām at the end of the Zoroastrian millennium. 255 Since conscious rhyme is neither present in the Manichaean hymns, nor in the two poetic works of Parthian origin, the Ayādgār ī Zarērān and the Draxt ī āsōrīg, but appears in poems of later Pahlavi literature, it has been assumed that rhyme was regularly used only by the end of the Sasanian period or belonged altogether to the Islamic age. 256 The following excerpt from the Andarz ī dānāgān ō Mazdēsnān on the futility of earthly desires is rhymed in the fashion of the qaṣīde with the same rhyme throughout the poem (apart from the opening line), the first line of each strophe ending in the words andar gehān “in the world”: I have a counsel from the Wise, from the sayings of the Ancients To you I will explain it, truthfully in the world, If you accept it, you will have profit for both worlds: Do not put trust in earthly goods, desiring much, in the world, 253 See Henning 1950, p. 641 [p. 349 in the reprint]. See also recently Lazard 2001 and 2002. 254 On the latter see Henning 1950, p. 647 f.; Tavadia 1950; Tafazzoli 1972 and Shaked 1970. 255 See Bailey 1943, p. 195 f.; Tavadia 1955 and de Blois 2000. On the language of the poem on king Wahrām see Lazard 2003 a, p. 101 f. 256 See Tafazzoli 1972, p. 217, and de Blois 1992, p. 45.

193

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN For earthly goods have never been left in anyone’s hands, neither a palace, nor house and hearth […] 257

Another poem in praise of wisdom258 shows—apart from rhyme— several other interesting characteristics which were yet unknown in Manichaean poetry. Tafazzoli has discovered a kind of parallelism between individual words in successive hemistichs and discerned different forms: assonance, the use of synonymous or antonymous pairs of words, straightforward repetition of the same word. 259 Both the use of rhyme and these stylistic devices are common to classical Persian poetry and therefore indicate that this poem probably belongs to an intermediate stage between accentual Middle Persian poetry and the quantitative verses of classical Persian literature: Wisdom is the protector, the supporter of the soul, Wisdom is the saviour, the helper of the body. In opulence wisdom is best, In indigence wisdom is most protecting, Here (=in this world) wisdom is the best help, There (=in the next world) wisdom is the most protecting support, […] 260

In fact not only the poems preserved in Middle Persian wisdomliterature and the mentioned elegy on King Wahrām are rhymed, but also those specimens of Middle Persian verse which have been transcribed into the Arabic script. 261 These are two poems, one, the hymn of Zoroastrian priests sung at the fire-altar of Karkōy, is preserved in the thirteenth century Taʾrīkh-e Sīstān (History of Sīstān), the other, the speech of the Zoroastrian high-priest before the king on the occasion of the New Year’s festival, has survived in the eleventh century Nowrūz-nāme (Book of the New Year). 257 Translated by Henning 1950, p. 647 f. Orsatti 2003, p. 151 f., has discovered similarities in the composition of this poem with Persian verses transmitted in a Syriac manuscript in the context of baptism liturgy. 258 In the Andarz ī Wehzād Farrox Pērōz, see Shaked 1970 and Tafazzoli 1972. 259 See Tafazzoli 1972, p. 208. 260 Translated by Tafazzoli 1972, p. 211 f. (with a few minor changes). 261 See Rempis 1951, pp. 233–38.

194

PAHLAVI LITERATURE

Interestingly, in the latter poem a symbol is used, which plays a prominent part in later Persian, and especially Sufi-literature, the famous “cup of Jamšid”, the possession of which imparts knowledge of the whole world. The following extract is part of the New-Year’s wishes of the Zoroastrian high-priest, pronounced in the presence of the king, to whom he presents, among other things, also a golden goblet filled with wine: “O Shah, during the festival of Farwardin, in the month of Farwardin, Be generous to men, according to the custom of the Kayanians. […] Drink (the elixir of) immortality from Jamšid’s cup and follow the custom of the forefathers, Keep (your) high disposition and good deeds, and actions according to the law […]”262

From the evidence of the type of rhyme used in these two poems Rempis concludes that two forms of poetry, known in later Persian verse as the poem in strophes (called tarjīʿ-band “return-tie” and tarkīb-band “composite-tie”) and the mathnawī “couplet-poem”, emerged under the influence of Middle Persian verse, and were not, as hitherto explained, only Persian variants of Arabic forms. 263 Grunebaum in his studies on Arabic literature has assumed that three metres, the ramal, the motaqāreb, and maybe the khafīf, emerged as adaptations of Pahlavi metres to the requirements of the Arabic language. 264 B. Utas has argued that four metres, the mojtath, the khafīf, the możāreʿ and the robāʿī were “virtually unknown (with some exception for xafīf ) in early Arabic poetry and must originate in innate Iranian rythmic patterns”. 265 Recently Lazard in his work on Pahlavi and Persian versification has argued similarly, tracing the origins of three Persian classical metres, the 262 The text of the transcribed poem is extremely corrupt and has to be reconstructed in several passages, see Rempis 1951, pp. 235–38. 263 See Rempis 1951, p. 239 f. 264 See Grunebaum 1955, p. 18. 265 Utas 1994, p. 140.

195

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

robāʿī, the motaqāreb and the hazaj (of a certain type) to preIslamic accentual poetry, as attested in Pahlavi verse. 266 Two lost Pahlavi romances, written in a poetic form, are known from later sources: the tale of Vāmeq-o ʿAdhrā 267 of Hellenistic origin, and Vīs-o Rāmīn 268 of Parthian origin, both stories of the love of the two persons after whom they were named. The former romance was later formed into a new poem by the Persian poet ʿOnṣorī, the latter by Gorgānī, both in the eleventh century. In the preface to his version of the Vīs-o Rāmīn Gorgānī states that the story was known to him by a Middle Persian compilation made by six wise men “of yore” and that it was used in the eleventh century for studying Pahlavi.

266 Lazard 2002, p. 137; see also Lazard 1970 and 1994. 267 See Rypka 1959, p. 173, with further references, and Shafi 1954. 268 See Boyce 1957, p. 36; Minorsky 1946 and Lazard 1983.

196

CHAPTER 4 MANICHAEAN LITERATURE IN IRANIAN LANGUAGES W. S

The Role of Manichaean Literature in the History of Iranian Literature The literature of the Manichees in Iranian languages is the product of a small religious minority. It did not influence the literature of the ruling Zoroastrian circles, of the priests or the minstrels, nor did it undergo a significant stimulation from the Zoroastrian side. What contributed to the isolated character of Manichaean literature is the fact that it consists largely of fragments of works translated from Mani’s Aramaic mother tongue.1 Zoroastrian literature, it is true, consists also in part of translational literature or of resumés of translated works, but in its case the translation is from one Iranian language into another, from the canonical texts of the Avesta into Pahlavi. The Manichees created their own Iranian literature. This happened very early. Mani himself wrote one of his quasi-canonical works, the Šābuhragān, in Middle Persian, and his disciple Mār Ammō is generally regarded as the creator of Manichaean Parthian literature. Mani was a foreigner, and his disciple

1

Mani himself called his own language “Syriac”, i.e. “Mesopotamian”, cf. Lidzbarski, 1927. This follows also from the Parthian text M 6040 recto 24, where swryg is mentioned as the name of one of the original scripts of mankind (Sundermann 1981 a, p. 87). In order not to confuse Mani’s “Syriac” with the well-known Syriac of the Aramaic speaking Christians or even with the local Arabic of Syria I call Mani’s language Aramaic.

197

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

probably was as well. They introduced the ideas of their religion and the literary forms of their tradition into the Iranian world. Manichaeism was a religion often persecuted in Iran. Its followers sought protection in the less intolerant areas of Central Asia, and consequently Iranian Manichaean texts have been found only in that part of the world. Nearly all Iranian Manichaean text fragments came to light in the oasis of Turfan, on the Silk Road, far from Iran. Most of them were found in the ancient capital of Qocho, and in the monastic centres of Bezeklik and Toyoq. The fact that the Manichaean faith became in about 762 2 the religion of the ruling dynasty of the Old Turkish steppe empire, and later on of the kings of Qocho, resulted in a remarkably productive period of Manichaean literature in that country far from Iran. It stimulated works in Iranian languages far more than in Turkish ones. As sectarian literature, the Manichaean contribution to Middle Iranian literature cannot be overestimated. When writing Iranian languages the Manichees did not follow the Zoroastrian practice of writing Middle Persian in the Pahlavi script. To write his message in Middle Persian Mani used a variant of his own Aramaic script, a derivation of the Palmyrene alphabet (Lidzbarski 1916). His writing system was in many respects superior to the Pahlavi orthography and were it not for the fact that he was regarded in Sasanian Iran as a heretic, it could have facilitated writing and reading there (Henning 1958, p. 73). The Manichees did not restrict their literary productivity to Middle Persian, the language of the ruling class in Sasanian Iran. From the beginning they made use of Parthian and somewhat later of Sogdian, too, for the benefit of the northeast Iranian regions,3 and one Manichaean fragment, M 1224, attests the existence of 2 3

According to Clark 2000 before 762 . The Manichees wrote their texts in a form of Sogdian that was later than the Sogdian of the Ancient Letters, i.e. spoken after the first decades of the fourth century . It is not impossible that the introduction of Sogdian as a literary language of the Manichees had something to do with the activities of the Manichaean church leader Mār Šād Ohrmezd, who died in 600 . See below on the history of Manichaean literature.

198

MANICHAEAN LITERATURE

Manichaean literature in a relatively late form of Bactrian. Henning assumed that some Tumshuqese documents found in Maralbashi testify to a Manichaean background (Henning 1936, pp. 11–14). It may be a coincidence that extant Parthian literature is either inscriptional or Manichaean and that in Sogdian the Manichaean portion is extensive and of early date, while the Zoroastrian contribution is modest. But the question may reasonably be put whether Manichaeism played a stimulating part in the creation and development of Parthian and Sogdian written literature. If the Manichees made use of other Iranian and non-Iranian languages beside Middle Persian, this did not mean that they degraded the common language of Sasanian Iran. On the contrary, Middle Persian and Parthian gained the status of the languages of the canonical texts in the whole eastern Manichaean world, replacing in this respect, except for a few words, even the Aramaic of Mani’s primitive church. Much more than Zoroastrianism and other religious groups Manichaeism contributed to the spread of Middle Persian and Parthian over the Asian continent as far as China (Sundermann 1997 d). The Manichees developed literary forms unknown to Zoroastrian literature, such as the chanted hymn, the hymn cycles, and the didactic sermons. As for the artistic and aesthetic value of the extant Middle Iranian literary works one can say without exaggeration that the best specimens were created by Manichaean writers. The Manichaean art of story-telling is unsurpassed, and such well-worded, emotional lamentations as those of the hymn cycles have no counterpart in Zoroastrian literature. Besides, the Manichees were masterly translators, precise and faithful to the message of the original text and to the syntactic and idiomatic rules of the target language. Although the Manichaean literature in Iranian languages is the literature of a minority, its extent is impressive. Among some five thousand Iranian texts found in the Turfan area, fragments written in Manichaean script or Manichaean fragments written in Sogdian script outnumber by far the Buddhist and Christian fragments, not to speak of the extremely rare Zoroastrian or nonreligious material. Among those fragments an impressive number 199

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

of sermons or treatises of different kinds and varying literary level, hymns and hymn cycles, letters, word-lists and magical texts can be identified. But it is not only the great number and variety of literary and semi-literary works that are significant but also the vast number of manuscripts in which some of these works are demonstrably attested.4 One more peculiarity which distinguishes the Manichaean texts favourably from the Zoroastrian manuscripts is that they are more carefully written and therefore easier to read than Pahlavi texts. Editing Pahlavi manuscripts, especially when they are unica, is more often than not a frustrating undertaking. The editor of a Manichaean work on the other hand, even if it is preserved in no more than one manuscript, will find himself on safe ground and soon realize that his unique manuscript is extremely reliable. The reason for the high quality of the Manichaean texts can hardly be that the Manichaean manuscripts are older than the Zoroastrian ones. Most of the existing Manichaean manuscripts were certainly written in the tenth and eleventh centuries, while the Zoroastrian manuscripts, starting from the thirteenth century, are not much later.

The Discovery of the Iranian Manichaean Texts Most of the Iranian Manichaean texts were found in the Turfan oasis, in the old capital of Qocho and in the monastic centres of Bezeklik and Toyoq, by four Prussian/German expeditions undertaken by the Berlin Museum für Völkerkunde under the guidance of Albert Grünwedel and Albert von Le Coq from 1902 to 1914. After a temporary division in post-war Germany those parts of 4

Of Huyadagmān and Angad rōšnān one can distinguish 37 Parthian and Sogdian manuscripts (Sundermann 1990, p. 39), of the “Sermon on the Light Nous” 23 Parthian and Sogdian manuscripts (Sundermann 1992 a, p. 41), of the “Sermon on the Soul” 26 Parthian and Sogdian manuscripts (Sundermann 1997 a, pp. 29–30), of the “Sermon on the Living Self” I know so far 40 Middle Persian and Sogdian manuscripts.

200

MANICHAEAN LITERATURE

the German Turfan collection which do not belong to the Museum für Indische Kunst are now reunited as the property of the Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften partly as a deposit of the Academy in the Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin. That Manichaean works are attested in the fragments of the German Turfan Collection was first recognized by F. W. K. Müller (Müller 1904, pp. 351–52). They include in fact the first identified Manichaean documents in their original languages. Smaller collections of Manichaean fragments from Turfan or Dunhuang are housed in St. Petersburg, Kyoto, London, and Paris, nearly all of them coming from the Turfan area and only a few from Dunhuang.5 As most pieces were found at the same locations it sometimes happens that fragments now housed in different places belong to a single manuscript or can even be joined to form a single folio or part of one.6 Chinese scholars drawing on the results of further archaeological work in the Turfan region have been publishing Iranian Manichaean texts since 1958.7 The texts found are housed now in the local Museums of Turfan, Urumchi and Peking. Contrary to the findings in Dunhuang the discoveries in Turfan mainly consist of fragments of single leaves. Most of them belong to codex books in western style, many others to scrolls and a few to Indian-style pustaka-books. In addition, Iranian Manichaean texts were found in small numbers in Dunhuang and perhaps in Maralbashi. The alleged 5

6 7

For St. Petersburg see Salemann 1907 and 1912; Ragoza 1980. For Kyoto cf. Kudara/Sundermann/Yoshida 1993. A definitive catalogue appeared in 1997, edited by Kudara, Sundermann and Yoshida. For London see W. Lentz in M.A. Stein 1928, vol. 3, p. 1081; Sims-Williams 1976, pp. 48–51; Sundermann 1997 a, pp. 67–68, 90–91. For Paris see de Menasce 1970 on fragments whose finding place is unknown. That the Sogdian Dunhuang texts published by Benveniste 1940 contain at least one Manichaean fragment was first pointed out by Henning 1946, p. 713, n. 6. See Yoshida 1994d, pp. 16–32, concerning the Manichaean Sogdian fragment preceding Henning’s “Job Story”; Kudara 1999, esp. pp. 340–44, Yoshida 2000, pp. 77–83. Huang 1958, especially text photo no. 14 recto and verso.

201

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

discovery in Kanki near Tashkent of the Manichaean title (i)spasak (bishop) would be, if this is indeed an exclusively Manichaean title, the first documentary proof of the existence of Manichaeism in Sogdiana.8 We possess a reliable and still indispensable catalogue of the Iranian Manichaean fragments by Mary Boyce: A Catalogue of the Iranian Manuscripts in Manichean Script in the German Turfan Collection, Berlin 1960. A catalogue of all Iranian texts in Sogdian script, the Manichaean ones included, is being prepared by Ch. Reck (Reck 1998, pp. 147–52). A survey of editions of Iranian Manichaean texts published until 1960 was given by Boyce.9 A list of published fragments can be found in Lieu 1998, pp. 207–37. In Mikkelsen 1997 the Iranian Manichaean items can easily be found under the Iranica indexes (pp. 305–10). A list of publications until 1998 is given in Weber’s edition of Iranian Manichaean Turfan texts.10 More recent publications are listed in the present bibliography. Selections of Iranian Manichaean Turfan texts have often been retranslated since the appearance of Boyce 1960. The most comprehensive ones are: Asmussen 1975; Böhlig and Asmussen 1980; Klimkeit 1989, 1993. My description of Iranian Manichaean literature is based on Boyce 1968 c. An exemplary, up-to-date description of the Old Turkish Manichaean literature is Clark 1997.

The Manuscripts and the Fragments Most texts were written on Chinese or Central Asian paper, a few on textiles, leather or parchment. Literary texts on wood have not been found. 8 9 10

Livshits 1997, pp. 32–33. But cf. the author’s remarks in Livshits 1981, p. 81, on the use of the title spsʾy. Boyce 1960, pp. XXXVI–XXXIX; 1968 c, pp. 68–69. Weber 2000, pp. 3–9.

202

MANICHAEAN LITERATURE

The common book form was the western-style codex, which the Christian and the Manichaean communities may have taken to Central Asia. The format of the books differs from 8 × 3.5 cm as in the case of M 137, M 232, and M 280 to more than 24 × 40 cm in the case of the first manuscript in Sundermann 1973, which may originally have measured as much as 30 × 45 cm. Books of a large format could carry text in as many as four columns. In most cases the relation between the height and breadth of a page was roughly 2 : 1, but there were also square formats. Page numbers, layer numbers, indicators of the verso page and other technical devices are not known. Sometimes small binding holes or fold guards at the inner edges of leaves are preserved. There are also some book covers that may have belonged to Manichaean books.11 Helpful indicators of what is the recto and the verso of a leaf, if it does not follow from the contents of a fragment, are the binding holes, the fold guards, (smaller) inside and (broader) outside margins, and also the fact that sometimes headlines seem to run from the verso to the recto page and that the outer corners of pages are round. The old, traditional form of text scrolls, familiar in Central Asia from Chinese Buddhist sutra texts, was also adopted by the Manichaean community. My impression is that they prevail in the Manichaean community of Toyoq, in contradistinction to the situation in Qocho. Manichaean book scrolls in Turfan are certainly not old pre-codex forms but adaptations to Chinese Buddhist book formats. This happened in a most natural way since Manichees came to use the blank backs of discarded Chinese Buddhist scrolls as their writing paper. Thus, the Sogdian “Book of Parables” was written on the back of a Chinese Buddhāvataṃsakasūtra (Sundermann 1985 a, p. 5). Complete scrolls are not preserved, so nothing can be said about their maximal or minimal length. Their width varies between 12.5 cm and 26 cm. In rare cases the Manichees adopted, as did the Christians, the Indian Buddhist pustaka (pothi) format (e.g. M 5010). The best 11

Le Coq 1923, p. 40, pl. 4, e.

203

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

known example is the Tokharian–Old Turkish bilingual text of “A hymn to father Mani.”12 Some small fragments are also to be found among the unpublished texts of the Iranian collection. Even if they are very small, they can easily be recognized as pustaka fragments because the text of the verso runs seemingly upside down. All Iranian fragments are manuscripts. There are no block prints. The texts are regularly written in columns, and the length of the words is accommodated to the breadth of the column by lengthening or shortening final words if necessary. The texts are written in deep black ink which has not faded in the course of time. Titles can be written in different colours. This turned out to be helpful in determining the correct arrangement of the work called by Henning 1937, p. 5, the “Bet- und Beichtbuch” (book of prayers and confessions). There are headers, dividing empty lines above sections and subtitles at the ends of the texts. Colophons are to be expected at the end of each manuscript, but they have rarely survived. The longest colophon we have is the final leaf of M 1.13 Thanks to its colophon, M 1 is the only dated manuscript among the Iranian Turfan texts. Colophons are sometimes found on scrolls, as in the case of the “Parable book” on the Chinese side between the Chinese characters.14 Sometimes proper names appear at the end of text passages for no apparent reason. I regard them as the names of donors, assuming that they preserve the names of benefactors who had paid for writing a piece of text ending at that point.15 The decorative Manichaean script, mainly in use for liturgical texts, is of great stylistic variety, which makes it easier to separate different manuscripts in Manichaean than in Sogdian script. Many more texts written in Manichaean script are preserved than texts in Sogdian script, which is almost completely restricted to Sogdian 12 13 14 15

Gabain and Winter 1958; Clark 1982. Sundermann 1992 b, pp. 71–73. This contains more information about colophons. Text c in Sundermann 1985 a, pp. 33–35. Sundermann 1981 a, pp. 80–81, n. 5.

204

MANICHAEAN LITERATURE

(and Old Turkish) texts, that is to say texts such as dogmatic discourses, letters and documents that were virtually all translations from a Middle Persian or Parthian model. Many Manichaean texts in Manichaean or Sogdian script are written in smaller letters than Buddhist or Christian ones, but sometimes Manichaean texts contain very large letters. The dismemberment of the Turfan fragments makes it very difficult to give an opinion on the composition of manuscripts in their original state. Were they monographical books, anthologies containing texts of one and the same genre, or miscellanies? A hypothetical answer—and more than that cannot be given— has to start from manuscripts attested in many fragments. If they contain both prose works and metrical compositions, they are likely to be anthologies, otherwise they could be either monographs or miscellanies. Large manuscripts of the monographical type are: the Šābuhragān text (M 470 ff.), the anonymous text in Andreas and Henning 1932, and the first anonymous text in Sundermann 1973. These texts may belong to Mani’s canon of scriptures and accordingly have been transmitted in monographical books. A collection of mainly hagiographical sermons in Middle Persian, Parthian, and Sogdian (texts 1, 2, 3, 4 a and 4 b in Sundermann 1981 a) has monographic character. They form a didactic work devoted to the life and time of the founder of the Manichaean religion. To this group of manuscripts belong collections of pieces of literature of a single kind, either hymns or parables. The best known hymnbook we have is the Mahrnāmag (M 1), attested (beside some small fragments) by a double sheet at its end, which contains two pages of a table of contents of Middle Persian and Parthian hymns arranged group-wise according to the subject of the hymns and within each group according to identical initial words. No fewer than 215 hymns are enumerated. Some of the opening lines could be identified with the (more or less full) text of the hymns in other fragments (Boyce 1960, p. 1; Reck 2004, pp. 16–17). Further hymn lists have been identified, e.g. M 73 (Bēma hymns, a hymn to the Living Self; Boyce 1960, pp. 149–50). Such lists attest more collections like that of M 1 (as attested in Reck 2004). 205

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

An example of a collection of short prose stories is the Sogdian Āzandnāme, the “Book of Parables” (Sundermann 1985 a). Another case in point are the Parthian parables published by Colditz 1987, pp. 274–313. Exclusively metrical texts seem to be the Hymn Cycles Huyadagmān and Angad rōšnān. This does not mean, however, that one manuscript contained only one cycle. M 233 Recto contains a colophon indicating the end of the Middle Persian Hymn (Cycle [?]) Naxustēn ī rāstīgarān “First one of the righteous” and the beginning of the Parthian Huyadagmān (Sundermann 1991 a, p. 110). The miscellany type of manuscripts is best represented by the “Bet- und Beichtbuch” as it was reconstructed and edited by Henning. It consists of a sequence of Middle Persian and Parthian hymns and a confessional formula for the elect. The liturgical reason and background of this mixture and arrangement are obvious, and it was for good reasons that Henning added to this text some other fragments with liturgical instructions. One can compare with the prayer and confession book the double sheet M 172, edited already by F. W. K. Müller.16 M 172 contains the prooemium of Mani’s “Living Gospel” in Middle Persian together with its translation, phrase by phrase, into Sogdian, and, on the other sheet a part of the Xwāstwānīft, the confessional text for hearers, in Old Turkish language. So M 172 must have been a text for a service attended by Turkish laymen. The small Middle Persian fragment M 546 gives instructions on the ritualized handing over of alms to the elect by a representative of the auditors, accompanied by the singing of hymns, hymns chanted by the alms bearers first and then by the receivers.17 Even such large texts as the “Sermon on the Light Nous” and the “Sermon on the Soul” were parts of miscellanies. Some of their double sheets bear metrical text on the other side. They were evidently the written texts of sermons designed for the instruction of the elect and read occasionally as part of the service. 16 17

Müller 1904, pp. 100–103 [= Peek 1985, pp. 106–9]; the Iranian part was reedited by MacKenzie 1994, p. 185. Sundermann 2001 a.

206

MANICHAEAN LITERATURE

Literary Forms and Terms Prose Works Mani, it is well known, used to spread his gospel by word and picture, by the spoken and the written word. They are the origin and raison d’être of the main categories of Manichaean prose literature in general. Both Mani’s sermons and Mani’s books and letters were meant to teach his disciples the gnosis of salvation and to solve all the riddles of the world, to instruct them how to fulfill their religious duties, to admonish and edify them. The homiletic character of Manichaean didactic prose literature is sometimes expressed in such words of address as: “[Listen], beloved ones!, when our father came from India …”, or “Listen, beloved brethren, … elect and auditors …”18 As for the oral instructions and sermons, it was Mani himself who saw to their being written down under his own supervision. He was convinced that his apostolic predecessors, Zoroaster, the Buddha, and Jesus, had entrusted their words to their disciples and successors, who misunderstood and falsified them in many ways. Otherwise their message would have been exactly what Mani himself came to reveal in the end. Since virtually all Manichaean prose works were didactic in their intention and rhetorical in style, the sermon category is an all-encompassing one and perhaps all prose works could be called sermons. It seems that the role and definition of the sermon in Manichaean literature was exactly the same as in Syriac Christian literature (called there mēmrā). There also its use was extended to bookish exegesis and instruction, which could well be read and studied individually, but could also be read out to the congregation.19 Both the Manichaean literary terms and categories in Iranian languages are independent from the Middle Persian Zoroastrian 18 19

Sundermann 1981 a, pp. 56, 125. A. Baumstark in: Aßfalg/Krüger 1975, pp. 298–99.

207

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

tradition. 20 One decisive reason is certainly that Iranian Manichaean literature is largely translational literature, its sources being Aramaic written and oral compositions deriving from Mani and his disciples. Unfortunately Manichaean Aramaic literature has almost completely disappeared, but it is possible to find equivalents of the Iranian Manichaean terms in the related tradition of Syriac Christian literature. Those equivalents can, but need not necessarily be the origin of Iranian Manichaean terminology. The most convincing case of terminological dependence is the name of the sermon, homily or discourse itself, Middle Persian gōwišn (later gōyišn), 21 borrowed into Parthian as gwyšn and into Sogdian in the spelling kwy-šn, and Parthian saxwan, both translating the ubiquitous Aramaic mēmrā, whose meanings include “sermon, oration, homily, tract, division of a book; word, speech, topic”. 22 All these meanings, the verse homily included, are attested by Iranian works of literature. This does not mean of course that both words are completely alien to the Zoroastrian tradition. gōwišn is ‘speech’, but saxwan ‘word’ can also denote ‘speech’ as in the case of Middle Persian sūr saxwan ‘dinner speech’. It is in their technical sense that the Manichaean terms reflect the meaning and the connotations of Aramaic mēmrā. The Manichaean gōwišn is attested in the following meanings: 1. Sections of literary works. Many examples are to be found in the cosmogonical text published in Andreas and Henning 1932, e.g. Gōwišn abar astwand (The chapter about materiality), Gōwišn ī abar Narisah yazad (The chapter about the god Narisah), Gōwišn ī gyān ud nasāh (The chapter about the soul and the body of death). 2. Doctrinal books and written sermons. A somewhat doubtful example is Mani’s “Living Gospel”, mentioned in the phrase 20

21 22

Thus, the common Zoroastrian term for the chapter of a book is dar ‘gate.’ This word seems to appear in this meaning only once in the Manichaean texts, in (Middle Persian) M 5098 /4/ pd drdr ʿy hrw sxwn “in each chapter of every sermon.” Sundermann 1984 a, p. 227, n. 3. Brockelmann 1928, p. 26; cf. Smith 1879, cols. 245–46.

208

MANICHAEAN LITERATURE

3.

Gōwišn ī ewangelion zīndag ī čašm ud gōš wizēhēd. This is rendered by MacKenzie as “The saying of the Living Gospel, which instructs eye and ear.”23 If MacKenzie’s translation is correct, gōwišn stands for the Gospel itself. In the Middle Persian fragment S 124 the titles of homilies to be read at the Yimki days are listed. They are called Gōwišnān rōšnān ī yamagānīg rōzān (Shining Sermons for the Yimki-days). Versified sermons. The best known example, only partly published so far, is the Gōwišn ī grīw zīndag (Sermon on the Living Self). Most important is the Gōwišn ī jōg ī Abursām (Sermon of/on the congregation of Abursām). 25 No other Iranian Manichaean text is so close to an Aramaic literary pattern as this one. It is a polemical attack against other religions comparable to the polemical hymns of Afrem Syrus (Sundermann 1984 a, p. 230).

Saxwan ‘word, speech’ is common in Middle Persian and in Parthian, but it is only in Parthian Manichaean texts that saxwan has become a literary term. saxwan is attested as denoting: 1. A chapter of a literary work. In M 5510 /1–4/ it seems to stand for the 22 sections of Mani’s Living Gospel. It calls them: [w](y)st ʾwd dw sxwn pd (h)ft hn(d)ʾm ‘twenty-two chapters in seven limbs’ (cf. Alfaric 1918–19, vol. 2, pp. 36–38). 2. Complete works, doctrinal treatises or sermons, such as the Manohmed rōšn saxwan (Sermon on the Light Nous). 3. A versified sermon can perhaps be assumed in text D of Mary Boyce’s “Abecedarian Hymns”, which in a broken context contains a subtitle with the word saxwan. 26 23

MacKenzie 1994, p. 189. MacKenzie points out that earlier translators had regarded “eye and ear” as epithets of the “Living Gospel” itself. Yet another possibility is to translate: “It teaches the ‘Sermon on Eye and Ear’ of the Living Gospel.” In this case gōwišn would again mean “a section of a book”. 24 Salemann 1904; cf. Sundermann 1975 a, pp. 308–12. 25 M 28 I, published by Skjærvø 1995 b, pp. 239–55. Cf. now also de Blois 1998. 26 Boyce 1952, pp. 444 and 446. The editor translated “The Discourse [about] … twenty four …”.

209

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

4.

It is characteristic for the all-inclusive character of the term saxwan that it can even replace Āzend as the title of a collection of parables. 27

Beside saxwan Parthian texts use a second term wifrās (w(y)frʾs, borrowed into Sogdian as wyβrʾs)28 in virtually the same sense, and Sogdian uses instead of gōwišn and saxwan wiδβāγ (Sundermann 1984a, pp. 233–35). wifrās is a nominal derivation from wifrāštan, wifrās‘to teach, proclaim’, and therefore basically the oral communication of a message. Thus, we find: “Read the strict law and the scripture and proclaim (wfrʾsyd) wisdom, morals, and commandment on this day.”29 In a similar sense wifrāštan describes what the Parthian minstrels did. The Parthian “Sermon on the Soul” says: “And again they are like the minstrel who proclaims (wyfrʾsyd) the virtues of past rulers and heroes und does not do anything himself.”30 It may thus have been the recitation of the heroic epics by professional minstrels which served as a model of what the Manichaean preachers did. In both cases the text they reproduced was a fixed one, and in the case of the Manichaean performers even a written one. The etymology of wifrās confirms this assumption. The word is derived from the root fras- ‘to ask; examine’, modified by the prefix vi-, which in combination with verbs expresses movement from one direction to the other and can intensify the meaning of the verb.31 I regard vi-fras- as a close relative of pati-fras- (and its descendants), which means ‘to read’.32 Both prefixes may have given the verb ‘to ask’ an intensive, reiterative sense, leading by way of ‘examining’ a given oral or written text, at least in the case of wifrās-, to its recitative reproduction. Because of its meaning wifrās is a possible alternative translation of Aramaic mēmrā. But other solutions are also possible: it 27 28 29 30 31 32

Colditz 1987, pp. 277, 284, where an Awāwarīgān saxwan (Sermon on the infidels) is mentioned. Sundermann 1984 a, p. 232, n. 30. M 5860 I recto 6–10, cf. Reck 2004, p. 127. Sundermann 1997 a, pp. 80–81, § 80. Schwartz 1982, p. 191. Bartholomae 1904, col. 999; cf. Gershevitch 1979, pp. 118–22.

210

MANICHAEAN LITERATURE

may also render Aramaic taḥwīṯā and Coptic pteouo (Sundermann 1984 a, p. 236). Wifrās is attested as denoting a doctrinal sermon in the title of the Parthian Manohmed rōšn wifrās, also known as Manohmed rōšn saxwan, both meaning ‘The Sermon on the Light Nous’ as well as in the title of the Gyān wifrās (The Sermon on the Soul). One part of this latter work is entitled Abar hrē ēr wifrās (Sermon on the three things). The same term can thus also denote a section or chapter of a literary composition. But in many cases it is impossible to tell whether a complete work or a section of a work is meant. Does the cycle of hagiographical sermons form one composition in many chapters or a sequence of related but separate works? That wifrās can also be a versified sermon follows from the (unpublished) Hunsandīft wifrās (The sermon on contentment).33 The Sogdian term wiδβāγ is attested not only in Manichaean but also in Buddhist texts, where it translates Chinese pin ‘speech’ and ‘the meaning (of a speech or note)’. The Chinese word itself translates Sanskrit varga, whose meanings include ‘a section, chapter, division of a book’.34 In Christian Sogdian texts wiδβāγ means ‘translation, interpretation and explanation (e.g. of a dream)’.35 Sogdian wiδβāγ is certainly not an exclusively Manichaean literary term, but it is only in its Manichaean use that the meaning ‘sermon, homily’ gains prominence as was pointed out by Henning.36 The literal meaning of the word, ‘unfolding’ (Henning 1965 b, p. 32, n. 1) is ambivalent. Beside the sermons proper there were groups of didactic prose texts that were distinguished by their function and contents. They include letters, parables, and confessions, for which special terms were used. The letters of Mani and his disciples are called in Middle Persian frawardag and in Sogdian frawarte.37 The latter is not identical with but related to Sogdian parwrt, the chapter of a sutra, both 33 34 35 36 37

Cf. M 98 II verso 8, M 1201. Soothill/Hodous 1937, p. 299; Monier-Williams 1899, p. 924. Müller/Lentz 1934, p. 532, text c5 /5/. Henning 1937, p. 87 on 734. Cf. also pp. 46–47, text d. Detailed references in Sundermann 1984 a, p. 239, nn. 82 and 85.

211

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

meaning a folded document or a text-bearing scroll ( fra-vart-, pari-vart- from the Old Iranian root vart- ‘to turn’).38 Middle Persian and Parthian have also dib, a word attested already in Achaemenian times as meaning ‘letter’.39 We do not know which Aramaic word was rendered by the Iranian terms meaning ‘letter’. It may have been, as in the Christian Syriac Epistle texts, egarṯā.40 Parables are called āzend or āzand as the title of the Sogdian Āzand-nāme (Book of Parables) attests. The word is related to Avestan āzanti- ‘understanding, interpretation, explanation (of the sacred texts)’, but as a Manichaean term āzend is not the explanation of a text but the tale, the fable itself. Its spiritual explanation, usually appended as an epimythion, is called wizārišn in Middle Persian, wižēhišn in Parthian, and xwēčakāwe in Sogdian.41 Confessional texts were not homiletic in form and contents, and they were always treated as a group of their own. The Old Turkish confession for laymen is referred to by the Parthian word xwāstwānīft meaning ‘confession’.42 The word xwāstwānīft is a nominal derivation with the prefix hu- ‘good, well’ from a verb āstav-, which in Avestan means ‘to avow’ as in Avestan āstaoθβana-, which is translated into Middle Persian as āst(a)wānīh ‘avowal, confession, belief’. In the present case the starting point is *hu-āstawān ‘well confessing’, from which the abstract noun xwāstwānīft was derived. Metrical Works The common distinction between metrically structured poetical compositions and simple prose texts is of course also applicable to the Manichaean literature in Iranian languages. It has to be kept 38 39 40 41 42

On these words see Henning 1946, p. 721. Brandenstein/Mayrhofer 1964, p. 116. On the etymology and related words see de Blois 1996. Cf. Sundermann 1984 a, p. 239. For these terms see Sundermann 1984 a, pp. 237–38. Attested in a Sogdian context in Henning 1937, p. 138 b.

212

MANICHAEAN LITERATURE

in mind, however, that this distinction is not exacly reflected in the Manichaean literary terminology, which calls some metrical texts gōwišn, saxwan, wifrās, and wiδβāγ, just as if they were prose texts.43 Metrical texts could be called in Syriac mēmrē when they were texts to be spoken or recited in a psalmodic way, just as Persian epics use to be performed, but not to be chanted. I assume that the same literary form existed in Mani’s circle and was made use of by Mani himself. From his Aramaic compositions it found its way into the literature of the Iranian Manichees. Strophes of such Syriac compositions could be longer than hymns to be chanted, as is the case of the Middle Persian polemical hymn Gōwišn ī ǰōg ī Abursām and in some of the Parthian “Crucifixion hymns”. Another common feature of metrical prose and poetical texts is the arrangement of the lines of a composition in such a manner that each line, or even in rare instances each word, begins with a successive letter of the Aramaic alphabet in the abǧad order or in the opposite sequence.44 Unlike classical Syriac literature the metrical pattern is not based on prosody nor does it presuppose a regular number of syllables. It is the unanimous result of studies by Henning, Boyce, Lazard, and Reck that a regular pattern of ictuses in hemistichs characterizes Manichaean poetry.45 It thus stands in the tradition of Iranian poetry from the time of post-Gāthic Avestan on (Boyce 1968 c, p. 73). More precisely, the metrical structure of Manichaean poetry consists of strophes of two stichs, each stich consisting of two hemistichs. The words in each hemistich altogether carry mostly two, though sometimes three or four ictuses, between which one or two unstressed syllables occur. Exactly the same metrical structure is also attested in Syriac poetry,46 so that the metrical and the 43 44 45 46

Sundermann 1984 a, pp. 230–31. Boyce 1968 c, pp. 73–74. Examples in Andreas/Henning 1934, texts d, e, f, g, h, i, k, m, n, o, and in Boyce 1952, pp. 435–50. Henning 1942 b, 1950; Boyce 1954 a, pp. 45–59; Lazard 1985; Reck 2004, pp. 61–87. Grimme 1893, pp. 1–6, 8–9 (reference from C. Reck).

213

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

strophic structure of Iranian Manichaean poetry can equally well be accounted for as reflecting Aramaic patterns of the third century (Sundermann 1984 a, p. 231). The calculations made so far on the length of strophes and the average number of their syllables do not take account of the practice of inserting additional syllables when chanting. Some manuscripts actually contain indications of the way in which hymns were to be chanted, but few such texts have been edited, let alone analyzed. As complete compositions the Manichaean poems have no counterpart in the Iranian tradition of the Zoroastrians because the Manichaean communal chant is without equivalent in the Zoroastrian sacrificial services. In the Manichaean service, however, it plays an important role not only because it was an edifying duty to praise the divine powers, but also because the singing of the hymns contributed to the redemption of the souls and the particles of light kept in the prison of the world (Puech 1979, pp. 190–92). Two types of hymns can be distinguished: the shorter ones, called in Middle Persian mahr (related to Avestan mąθra- ‘(sacred) word’ and in Parthian bāšā(h) (a loan from Sanskrit bhāṣā- ‘speech’),47 and the longer ones, called in Middle Persian āfurišn and in Parthian āfrīwan, both meaning ‘praise, blessing’. Only few hymns in Sogdian survive, called pāšīk, (also bāšīk), a term borrowed from Parthian bāšā(h), to which a Sogdian suffix was added.48 Instead of āfurišn and āfrīwan we sometimes find əstāyišn in Middle Persian and əstāwišn in Parthian, both meaning ‘praise’. As these compositions have no Iranian background, it is likely that their names translate an Aramaic term. This may have been Aramaic tešbōḥtā ‘praise’,49 but since āfrīwan denotes Mani’s Psalms in Wuzurgān āfrīwan and Kšudagān āfrīwan, it is also possible that āfrīwan translates Syriac mazmōrā ‘psalm’.

47 48 49

Sims-Williams 1983, p. 134. Gershevitch 1954, §§ 44, 995. See on āfurišn in: EIr 1, p. 594.

214

MANICHAEAN LITERATURE

Literary Texts Mani’s Works The early Aramaic church recognized a canon of five or seven works of Mani written in his Aramaic mother tongue. The Šābuhragān, written by Mani in Middle Persian, was not one of them.50 But that may have been otherwise in the Iranian area where it is well attested, and it is often mentioned in the Arabic and New Persian documents of Islamic authors. The first item in the lists of Mani’s canonical works known from Chinese and Coptic sources is his Ewangelion zīndag (The Living Gospel),51 which is attested in Middle Persian and in a Sogdian translation of the Middle Persian text. This can safely be said because the extant fragments of the gospel (M 17, M 172 I, and M 644) contain a praising exordium and, in Middle Persian only, the first words of the gospel text.52 The gospel begins with the words: I Mani, apostle of Jesus the Friend, by the will of the Father, the true God, he from whom I came to be,—[he lives and remains for ever, he was before everything and] is after all (things), and everything which has been and will be stands by his power.53

The heading says that the passage is from ‘the Gospel’s [chapter] Aleph’, by which is meant from the first of the twenty-two chapters of the work, there being twenty-two letters in the alphabet. As a result of the discovery of the Cologne Manichaean codex we now have a Greek version corresponding very closely to the Middle Persian text. Both the translations must accordingly be very faithful ones. Of Mani’s “Treasure of Life” the title is preserved, in its original Aramaic form in Sogdian texts as smṯyhʾ and smʾttyxʾ (Sundermann 1981 a, p. 35, n. 8) and in Middle Persian as Niyān ī zīndagān 50 51 52 53

Haloun/Henning 1952, p. 209, n. 2. Also called, in Chinese and Coptic, ‘The Great Gospel’ (Haloun/Henning 1952, p. 205). See MacKenzie 1994, pp. 183–98 (with reference to earlier publications). Edition and translation by MacKenzie 1994, p. 191.

215

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

(Haloun/Henning 1952, p. 205). The source text (M 2 I) cites a passage from the “Treasure”: the “collectedness (i.e. closure) of the gates (i.e. the sense organs).”54 A very fragmentary quotation in Sogdian is given in M 915/R/5–12/.55 The “Book of the Secrets” is known in Iranian languages only by its partly restored title Rāzān wuzurgān (The Great Secrets) in a Middle Persian fragment (M 644). As rāz means ‘mystery’, not only in West Iranian and Sogdian, but also in Aramaic, it is possible that Rāzē, or perhaps Rāzīn, was the title of the work in Mani’s own language. The best known of all Mani’s canonical works in Iranian languages is the “Book of the Giants”, which was first made accessible by Henning’s classical study (Henning 1943 a). Only few further fragments of the work have been discovered subsequently.56 The title of the work in Parthian is Kawān (Giants),57 which must have actually been its Middle Persian name since the book is certainly attested in Middle Iranian only in Middle Persian and Sogdian, but not in Parthian. The “Book of the Giants” retells in Manichaean interpretation the legend of the fallen angels who copulated with the daughters of men with the result that they gave birth to a tyrannical gang of giants. It is possible that the story was told because of its entertainment value. But as always, the entertaining effect was no end in itself. The fragment L = S 52 makes it likely that the legend was adopted by Mani as a grandiose parable illustrating the defeat of the spirituality of the body by the Light Nous and the awakening of the spirituality of the “New Man”. 54 55 56

57

Andreas/Henning 1933, p. 304. The translation “the opening of the gates” given there is to be revised. Haloun/Henning 1952, p. 206. M 5900 in Sundermann 1973, pp. 77–78; L = S 52 in Sundermann 1984 c, 1989 b. For a Parthian text either related or even belonging to the “Book of the Giants” see Colditz 1987, pp. 297–99. Further Sogdian fragments of Mani’s work or of excerpts from it are So 10700 a and 10701 a (identified by Reck) and Otani 7447 + 7468. Andreas/Henning 1934, p. 858, n. 3. Kawān may have been short for Kawān saxwan (Colditz 1987, p. 298).

216

MANICHAEAN LITERATURE

It is not impossible that many more doctrinal and exhortative subjects were treated in the “Book of the Giants”. This follows mainly from many fragments of the text M 101 published by Henning.58 If Henning was right in indentifying the fragment M 6120 (his fragment F. = T ii D 164) as a part of the same work, then all the many other large fragments of this manuscript published as text 1 in Sundermann 1973 may also belong to the “Book of the Giants”. But this is very unlikely because text 1 never refers in clear words to the giants’ legend. The “Book of the Giants” uses the usual Iranian Manichaean terminology for gods and demons, but it also provides another example of the translation of names into Iranian languages by way of identification. Thus Aramaic Ohyā is called Sām, and Šemīḥazah is given an Iranian appearance as Šahmizād. Sām and Narimān are well-known figures of the Iranian epic tradition whose existence in the third century is thus indirectly attested by Mani’s work (Skjærvø 1995c). A question still to be answered is the relation between the Middle Persian text of the “Book of the Giants” and the Parthian text of the “Sermon on the Light Nous”. Both works are attested in Old Turkish translation, and they appear there regularly side by side (Sundermann 1983, p. 241). It would be too simple merely to identify both works and indeed the Chinese version of the “Sermon on the Light Nous” contradicts this solution. But as both the moral and the spiritual contents of both works were the same, that may have been sufficient reason to group them together (Sundermann 1992 a, pp. 15–17). The discovery of Aramaic fragments of an apocryphal Enoch literature among the Qumran texts has fully confirmed the assumption, made already by Isaac de Beausobre, that Mani’s “Book of the Giants” goes back to a Jewish source, namely a “Book of the Giants” ascribed to Enoch.59 It is an obvious conclusion that Mani became familiar with the story in his paternal Elkhasaite community.60 58 59 60

Henning 1943 a, pp. 56–65. Henning points out, however, that the position of those parts of the manuscript is doubtful. Milik 1971, pp. 117–27; 1976. See Reeves 1992.

217

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

The Parthian Ārdhang wifrās is commonly explained as a commentary on Mani’s Picture Book (Eikōn). Cf., with an alternative explanation (commentary on an excerpt of Mani’s Pragmateia), Sundermann 2005, pp. 373–84. A corpus of Mani’s letters as it existed in the Coptic Medinet Madi-codices (Schmidt/Polotsky 1933) or as described in anNadīm’s Fehrest is also traceable among the Iranian fragments (cf. Sundermann, A Manichaean collection of letters and a list of Mani’s letters in Middle Persian, forthcoming). Anthologies of quotations from Mani’s letters61 and a letter of a high-ranking cleric to Mār Ammō62 have been published. An exceptional role was played by Mani’s last letter, which was written in prison and contains, we may assume, his spiritual legacy. It is known as Muhr dib (The Letter of the Seal). The beginning of the letter, which is in Middle Persian, is preserved as a liturgical lecture in the Manichaean “Book of Hymns and Confession” edited by Henning.63 It says that the letter comes from Mani and from Ammō, my most beloved son, and from all (my) most beloved children who are with me,64 (sent) to all shepherds, teachers, and bishops, and to all the elect, the righteous brethren and sisters, great and small, pious, perfect and righteous, (you) all who have received from me this gospel and have accepted this doctrine and pious work which I have taught, (you) who are firm without division in the faith, to each (of you) by name.65

61 62 63

64 65

Editions of M 731 and M 733 in Müller 1904, pp. 30–33 [= Peek 1985, pp. 36–39] and Boyce 1975 b, pp. 184–85. For a translation see Klimkeit 1993, p. 258. For M 915 see Henning/Haloun 1952, p. 206. Andreas/Henning 1934, pp. 857–60. The other text of the double sheet, regarded by Henning as a fictitious letter of Mani’s to Mār Ammō is according to Schaeder 1936, p. 96, n. 1 not a letter but a tale in the Jātaka style. Henning 1937, p. 18. For a Sogdian version see Haloun/Henning 1952, p. 207, n. 6. The letter is also attested in M 720 c, M 1313, and So 18151. Cf. also Chr. Reck, The seed on the field: The Sogdian version of Mani’s Letter of the Seal (forthcoming). They stayed with Mani during his last days in prison. After Henning 1937, p. 18; cf. Boyce 1975 b, p. 153.

218

MANICHAEAN LITERATURE

Further fragments of Mani’s letters are still unpublished, e.g. some complete lines of text in M 501 p + M 882 c + M 1402 + M 9152 and in M 5770 + M 5771 + M 5772 + M 6604. A letter to India is mentioned in M 1221. Among the Otani fragments no. 851 deserves notice as it mentions a Dādistān frawarte (Letter on the Judgement) and an unexplained xrδyʾn βr[wrtʾkw] (Letter to/on the Khaldeans?). In Chinese the corpus of Mani’s letters is given in Chinese characters that may be reconstructed as meaning Dīwān (Haloun/Henning 1952, p. 207). This must have been also the Middle Iranian title of the collection. Sometimes psalms are mentioned as the poetical group of Mani’s works. This led Henning and Boyce to the assumption that two long verse texts, the Wuzurgān āfrīwan (The Praise of the Great Ones) and the Kšudagān āfrīwan (The Praise of the Small Ones) were Mani’s Psalms.66 That this is so is indicated by the fact that the Wuzurgān āfrīwan begins with the words: “This is the [song of] praise (āfrīwan), which Lord Mani, the Apostle of Jesus, chanted, when he stood in light, wisdom, (and) power.”67 Thus āfurišn/āfrīwan may simply translate Aramaic mazmūr ‘psalm’. The style of the āfrīwans differs noticeably from that of genuine old Manichaean poems such as the Coptic Psalms. The Wuzurgān āfrīwan and the Kšudagān āfrīwan, attested in Middle Persian, Parthian, and Sogdian, are still largely unpublished (but cf. now Morano 2003 and 2005). Mani produced at least one description of his doctrine in Middle Persian, the Šābuhragān, a book dedicated to king Šābuhr I in order to present himself and his new message to the ruler of his country and perhaps in order to convert him. According to the heading of manuscript M 470 its exact title was Dō bun (wuzurg) ī Šābuhragān (The Two [great] Principles of the [or perhaps: which are the] Šābuhragān). Thus it emphasized one basic doctrine of the Manichaean religion which it shared with Zoroastrianism. The Šābuhragān is attested with its title in the Middle Persian manuscript M 470 ff., published for the first time by Müller 1904, 66 67

Haloun/Henning 1952, p. 207; Boyce 1956 a, pp. 221–23, and 1968 c, p. 70. So 14570 = [T II] K 178 recto 7–11.

219

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

pp. 11–25 and definitively by MacKenzie 1979 and 1980. This part of the book contains a description of the end of the world and the cosmic conflagration. A famous passage from this part of the book is Mani’s slightly modified version of Jesus’ sermon on the Last Judgement in the gospel tradition (cf. Matt. 25:31–46): And then god Xradešahr68 will send messengers to east and west, and they will go and [bring] the religious with (their) helpers, and those wicked ones [together] with (their) accomplices,69 before Xradešahr, and they will pay him homage. And the religious will say to him, “[O god and] lord! If it please thee, we shall tell something of that which the sinners have [done] to us.” And god Xradešahr will answer them so, “Look on me and rejoice. Besides, whoever may have harmed you, him I shall bring to justice for you and seek account (?) (from him). But everything which you wish to tell me, that I know.” Then he blesses them and calms their hearts and sets them on the right side, and with the gods they will be in bliss. And the evil-doers he separates from the religious and sets them on the left side and curses them and speaks thus, “May you not arise whole and as bright (as they are), for [that] sin which you have committed, and you caused unjust distress, [and] that you have [done to the me (?).” … And to the helpers] of the religious who stand on the right side he speaks thus, “Welcome, you who have been [made] blessed of the Father of Greatness thereby, for I was hungry and thirsty [and] you gave me food. I was naked and you clothed me. I was ill and you cured me. I was bound and you loosed me. I was a captive and you set me free. And I was an exile and a wanderer and you gathered me to (your) houses.” [Then] those helpers of the religious will bow low [to him] and say to him, “Lord, thou art god and immortal, and greed and desire do not overcome thee, and thou dost not hunger or thirst, and pain and disease (?) do not afflict thee. When [was it that] we did thee this service?” And Xradešahr says to them [so], “That which you did [to] the religious, that [service] you did for me. And I shall give you paradise as reward.” He will [give] them great joy. 68 69

The god Xradešahr (World of Wisdom) is the Light-Nous, who, in this work dedicated to the Zoroastrian king Šābuhr I, replaces Jesus. The four groups of mankind, the Manichaean elect, the heretic clerics, the auditors, and the worldly non-believers.

220

MANICHAEAN LITERATURE [And] again to those evil-doers who stand on the left side he speaks thus, “You evil-doers were grieving for the body (?) and greedy, evil-doing and acquisitive (?), and I complain about you, for I was hungry and thirsty and you did not give (me) food, and I was naked and you did not clothe me, and I was ill, and you did not cure me, [and] I was a captive and an exile and you did not receive me in (your) house(s).” And the evil-doers will say to him thus, “Our god and lord, when was it that thou wast so distressed and we did not save thee?” And Xradešahr says to them, “You, (by) those (things) which the religious have recounted (?)—there(by) you have harmed me [and] I had reason to complain of [you].”70

We knew already from al-Bīrūnī’s Ketāb al-bāqiya ʿani l-qorūn al-khāliya that the Šābuhragān contained also autobiographical passages (Sachau 1879, p. 190). This was confirmed by the identification of a Middle Persian fragment in which Mani tells how he is steadily accompanied and guided by his spiritual twin, the narǰamīg.71 The same fragment contains also admonitions for the lay-believers. The clumsiness of Mani’s Middle Persian has been pointed out and interpreted in different ways (Boyce 1968c, p. 71). It is perhaps still more important that the Šābuhragān shares a number of terminological peculiarities with the Middle Persian cosmogonical text published in Andreas/Henning 1932 and with the cosmogonical manuscript M 98–99.72 This has led to the conclusion that these anonymous cosmogonical fragments also belong to the Šābuhragān. Thus M. Hutter has republished them under the title Manis kosmogonische Šābuhragān-Texte [Mani’s cosmogonical Šābuhragān texts].73 “Two Principles” is the title of a book by Mani known from Old Turkish and Chinese sources.74 That raises the question whether this 70 71 72 73 74

The translation follows with few exceptions MacKenzie 1979, pp. 504–9. M 49 II in Andreas/Henning 1933, pp. 307–8, cf. Sundermann 1981 a, pp. 93–94. First published in Müller 1904, pp. 37–43 [= Peek 1985, pp. 43–49]. Hutter 1992. For a somewhat different view cf. the review of Hutter 1992 by S. N. C. Lieu in JRAS 1998, pp. 106–9, esp. p. 107. Chavannes/Pelliot 1913, pp. 133–45.

221

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

is also to be understood as referring to the Šābuhragān. A further cosmogonical fragment in Parthian, M 183, bears a heading that can be restored as dō bun wižēhišn (Explanation of the Two Principles) although I did not at first realize that (Sundermann 1973, p. 62). Text M 728, which is probably an astronomical text, as indicated by Boyce 1960, p. 49, also has dō bun as part of its title. It would certainly be rash to claim all these fragments for the Šābuhragān. The Šābuhragān was not regarded as a canonical book by the Aramaic-speaking community of the Manichees, and so it seems not to appear in the Chinese “Compendium of the Doctrines and Styles of the Teaching of Mani, the Buddha of Light”,75 unless it is mentioned there as the (Chin.) da men ke yi (i.e. *dōbungāhīg?). But it was and remained in widespread use in the eastern Manichaean world and became a prime source of information for anNadīm and al-Bīrūnī.76 In the eastern world it must have acquired a quasi-canonical status. In the West Manichaean tradition it is not known, but the description in the Šābuhragān of Mani’s apostolic predecessors and of his own religious calling is retold in the first Coptic Kephalaion77 and the story of Jesus’ Last Judgement reappears in the Coptic homily on the Great War (Polotsky 1934, pp. 37–38). Beside the identifiable fragments of Mani’s works there are many more doctrinal texts that may well belong to Mani’s canon. The rule is that a person with authority instructs his auditors or readers, but his name remains unmentioned as do the titles of the works. Published examples of further texts that may belong to Mani’s canon are M 9 (Andreas/Henning 1933, pp. 297–300), M 1001 ff., the Middle Persian and Parthian text groups 3 and 4 and many other texts in Sundermann 1973. To this group of texts certainly belongs the famous Sogdian cosmogonical fragment M 178, as Henning, its editor, tacitly assumed.78 The following description of the eternal, harmonious and unmolested World of Light is given: 75 76 77 78

Haloun/Henning 1952, pp. 194–95, 209, n. 2. Colpe 1954, pp. 123–25; Browder 1988, pp. 24–25. Polotsky/Böhlig 1940, pp. 9–16; Gardner 1995, pp. 15–22. Henning 1948 a, pp. 306–18.

222

MANICHAEAN LITERATURE Thus arranged is the Paradise, in these Five Greatnesses.79 They are calm in quietude and know no fear. They live in the light, where they have no darkness; in eternal life, where they have no death; in health without sickness; in joy, where they have no sorrow; in charity without hatred; in the company of friends, where they have no separation; in a shape that is not brought to naught, in a divine body where there is no destruction; on ambrosial food without restriction, wherefore they bear no toil and hardship. In appearance they are ornate, in strength powerful, in wealth exceedingly rich; of poverty they know not even the name. Nay, they are equipped, beautiful, and embellished; no damage occurs to their bodies. Their garment of joy is finery that never gets soiled, of seventy myriad kinds, set with jewels. Their places are never destroyed.80

On the other hand, the text M 5794 = T II D II 126 that has been regarded as belonging to a book of Mani’s and thought to contain the prophet’s own description of the advantages of his religion (Andreas/Henning 1933, pp. 295–97), has recently been proved to be part of a hagiographic sermon (Sundermann 1981 a, pp. 131–33). It is certainly no exaggeration to say that the East Manichaean tradition has preserved more of Mani’s canonical works than its West Manichaean counterpart.

Non-Canonical Prose Literature Sermons, Kephalaia Texts Non-canonical works are certainly those written by Mani’s disciples and their followers or adherents in Aramaic and translated into an Iranian language or written in an Iranian language. It is only natural, however, that works which were composed in Iranian

79 80

The Father of Greatness, his Twelve Aeons, the Aeons of the Aeons, the Living Air, and the Land of Light. Translation by Henning 1948 a, p. 308.

223

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

languages play an increasing role in the course of time in Iranian Manichaean literature. It is almost certain that Mani’s disciples began writing already in Mani’s lifetime, but the earliest literary remains are markedly different, and it is not yet possible to give a reliable picture of the beginnings of Iranian Manichaean literature. There is on the one hand the clumsy Middle Persian text of Mani’s Šābuhragān, the very simple prose of an eye-witness report on Mani’s passion and death, but there are on the other the Parthian hymn cycles Huyadagmān and Angad rōšnān, which are masterpieces of Parthian poetry. The latter may go back to Mani’s disciple Mār Ammō and have been composed already in the third century . The earliest forms of non-canonical prose literature were reports of Mani’s disciples on his passion and death and reports in written form on what A. Böhlig calls “Mani’s didactic sermons”. The historical reports were condensed, it seems, in chroniclelike Apomnēmoneumata (memoranda) like those incorporated into the Coptic “Sermon on the Crucifixion”.81 They are not preserved in the Iranian tradition but have left their traces in later hagiographic homilies. Moreover, we have a first-hand eye-witness report (M 3) on Mani’s last audience at the court of king Wahrām I by Mani’s interpreter Nūḥzādag. Texts like these are certainly to be dated immediately after Mani’s death in 274 or 277.82 [Mani] came83 after he had [called together] me, Nūḥzādag the interpreter, Kuštai the … and Abzaxyā the Persian. The king was at his dinner-table and had not yet washed his hands. The courtiers entered and said (to the king), “Mani has come and is standing at the door.” The king sent this message to the Lord (Mani), “Wait a moment until I can come to you myself.” The Lord again sat down to one side of the guard (and waited there) until the king should have washed his hands when he was to go hunting. The king rose from the table, and putting one arm on the Queen of the Sakas and the other on Kerdīr the son of Ardawān,84 he came 81 82 83 84

Sundermann 1988 b, pp. 225–31; Böhlig 1994, pp. 235–46. Cf. Boyce 1968 c, p. 71. To the gate of the royal court in Bēth-Lāpāt. A courtier, not the well-known priest Kerdīr.

224

MANICHAEAN LITERATURE towards the Lord. His first words to the Lord were, “You are not welcome.” The Lord replied, “What wrong have I done?” The king said, “I have sworn not to let you come to this country.” And in anger he spoke thus to the Lord, “Eh, what are you good for since you go neither fighting nor hunting? But perhaps you are needed for this doctoring and this physicking? And you don’t do even that!” The Lord replied thus, “I have not done you any wrong. Always I have done good to you and your family. Many and numerous were your servants whom I have [freed] of demons and witches. Many were those whom I have made rise from their illnesses. Many were those from whom I have averted the numerous kinds of ague. Many were those who were at the point of death, and I have [revived] them.”85

About the same time and perhaps even earlier the disciples’ reports on Mani’s discourses may have been written down. Their collection in two Coptic codices is known as the “Kephalaia of the teacher” and the “Kephalaia of my Lord Mani”.86 The existence of an Iranian Kephalaia-tradition and even of a correspondence between the Coptic and the Iranian tradition, which proves their old age and reliability, was rightly underlined by M. Boyce.87 She had reported Henning’s identification of M 6032 with the 147th (unpublished) Coptic Kephalaion.88 I expressed my doubt concerning the correctness of this statement because I had found agreement with the 102nd Kephalaion.89 Now, however, thanks to kind information from W. P. Funk, who is editing the final part of the Berlin Kephalaia, I know that the 147th chapter was also devoted to the problem why the Light-Nous did not grant the gift of clairvoyance to the elect (cf. now Funk 1999, pp. 350–55). It was treated twice in the Kephalaia, as also in the Parthian texts.90 Further research has confirmed the results reached by Henning and Boyce. At present the following additional examples of an 85 86 87 88 89 90

Translation after Henning 1942 a, pp. 949–52; cf. also Boyce 1975 b, pp. 44–45. Böhlig 1989; Funk 1997. Boyce 1968 c, p. 70, where the “Kephalaia” are regarded as one of Mani’s own works. Boyce 1960, p. 119. Sundermann 1981 a, pp. 112–13. In Sundermann 1981 a, pp. 73 (text 4 a), 113–15 (text 13.1).

225

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

agreement between the Coptic and the Iranian Kephalaia-tradition are known: Middle Persian M 5750 “He teaches the three great days” = 39th Coptic Kephalaion “About the three days and the two deaths”, M 149 “The seven and the twelve” and the 69th Kephalaion “About the twelve Zodia and the five stars”, M 140 + M 1501 “On the five resurrections” and the 13th Kephalaion “Concerning the Five Saviours, the Resurrectors of the Dead; together with the Five Resurrections”.91 The following translation of a fragment of the Iranian version of part of the thirteenth Kephalaion may serve to give an impression of this tradition: [And the] second resurrection is from the whole zodiac, through the constellations and stars. The light Moon god does (it), in the year by the […] of the twelve full moons. And the third ressurrection (is) from rains and clouds. The Virgin of Light does (it) ceaselessly in winter, summer, spring, and autumn. The fourth resurrection (is) [from] all the animal [creatures, … .The Sun god (?) does it. … .] The fifth resurrection (is) from mankind. The God of the Mazdayasnian Religion92 does (it). And if the resurrection of the fleshly bodies would occur, just as the heretics say, then a Mazan-like demon more disgusting (?) than this could not be found.93

It must be admitted, however, that the agreement between both traditions is a remote one, often concerning no more than the general subject of the discourse and its enumerative structure. It is remarkable how much it differs from from Mani’s own exactly transmitted canonical texts. On the other hand, the contents of the 38th Kephalaion “On the Light-Nous and the Apostles and the Saints” is faithfully rendered in the “Sermon on the Light-Nous” (Sundermann 1992 a, pp. 13–15). An Iranian equivalent of the Coptic Kephalaia-title is not known, but the very simple prose style of Middle Persian and Parthian texts contained by the manuscripts M 149 and M 5750 allows the

91 92 93

Sundermann 1992 c and 1996 b. The Light-Nous. Sundermann 1996 b, p. 191 [= Sundermann 2001 b, pp. 755–56].

226

MANICHAEAN LITERATURE

possibility that the genre of Kephalaia literature existed in Iranian languages too. In all other cases, however, it is more likely that Kephalaia traditions were embedded in sermons. The Sogdian Kephalaion M 140 + M 1501 belongs evidently to a Žīrīft wifrās (Sermon on Wisdom). A further possibility is that the Parthian and Sogdian hagiographical sermons, described below, are more similar in form and contents to the Dublin Kephalaia (The Kephalaia on the Wisdom of my Lord Mani) than to the Berlin Kephalaia (Sundermann 1992 c, p. 307). It was Tardieu who first drew attention to the fact that a certain Gundēš, a person in conversation with Mani, plays a role in both text groups (Tardieu 1988, p. 160). What seems to be totally absent in the East Manichaean tradition is a work like the Cologne Mani Codex, a collection of traditions on Mani’s life going back ultimately to Mani’s own statements, but transmitted by his disciples. There is at least one Middle Persian fragment, however, (Salemann 12 b–c of the Petersburg collection, published in Salemann 1912, pp. 16–17) which seems to contain an autobiographical report of Mani’s about his visionary experiences and which reminds one of a similar passage in the Cologne Codex (Sundermann 1997 a, p. 102). We do not know when Mani’s disciples started writing their own treatises, written sermons, as it were, imitating the model of their master. A great number of doctrinal sermons is preserved in all Iranian Manichaean languages. Even the only Bactrian Manichaean fragment we have, M 1224, happens to be an instruction, illustrated by parabolic images, on the merit of almsgiving. As it is impossible to describe the genesis and history of Iranian Manichaean sermon literature I shall first mention the most important and longest works, great sermons, and sermon cycles, and then identifiable, but less well-attested texts. Hagiographic Sermons Middle Persian, Parthian, and Sogdian manuscripts contain a number of sermons on Mani’s life, especially the beginning of the world mission, Mani and king Šābuhr I and other dignitaries, 227

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

Mani’s last journey, Mani’s passion and end.94 The following titles of such sermons are preserved95 : in Middle Persian: – Āmadišn ī frēstag pad šahrān (The coming of the Apostle into the countries), in Parthian: – Dēn wifrās (The sermon on the Church), – Wižīdagān saxwan (The sermon on the elect), – Rāhān wifrās (The sermon on the ways), – Ohrmezd (nēw) saxwan (The sermon on [king] Ohrmezd [the Brave]), – Dārūbadagīftīg wifrās (The sermon on the crucifixion), – Parnibrānīg wifrās (The sermon on the Parinirvāṇa [of Jesus and Mani]), – Gōwišn Tīr Mihr Šāh (The sermon on Tīr Mihr Šāh), – Gōwišn šāhr pad panǰ īr (naxšag ištēd) (The sermon [on]: The kingdom is in five things fortunate), in Sogdian: – Gaβryhaβ wiδβāγ (The sermon on Gabriabios). The fact that these sermons are found in the same manuscripts, proves that they must have been parts of a cycle devoted to Mani’s whole life and message. It is remarkable that prince (later king, ruling from 272 till 273) Ohrmezd the Brave played such an important role in Manichaean hagiography. Not only is there a well-preserved Old Turkish legend about him (Geng Shimin et al. 1987, pp. 44–58), but further legendary details are reported in unpublished Iranian fragments (So 10129 [Sogdian], Otani 11079 [Parthian]). The description on Mani’s ascension is of great poetical power:

94 95

The texts are edited in Sundermann 1981 a. The first of the titles is to be found in Andreas/Henning 1933, p. 301, the remainder in Sundermann 1981 a.

228

MANICHAEAN LITERATURE Just as a sovereign who takes off his armor and his garment (worn in battle) and puts on another royal garment, so did the Messenger of Light put off the warlike garment of (his) body; and he sat down in a Ship of Light [and] seized the divine garment, the diadem of Light and the beautiful garland. And in great joy he flew up, together with the bright gods that accompanied him on the right and the left, to the sound of harps and songs of joy, in divine miraculous power, like a swift (bolt of) lightning and a bright, quick apparition,96 to the Column of Glory, the path of Light, and the chariot of the Moon, the meeting-place of the gods. And he rested (there) with God Ohrmezd, the Father. He left behind the whole flock of the righteous orphaned and sad, for “the master of the house” had entered Parinirvāṇa, and this house [ ] And (it was) under the ascendency of the sign [pisces], on the fourth day of the month of Šahrevar, on the day of Šahrevar, Monday, at the eleventh hour, in the province of Khuzistan and in the city of Beth-Lapat, when this Father of Light, full of power, was taken up to his own Home of Light. And after the Parinirvāṇa of the Apostle, Uzzi, the Teacher, gave this testimony to the whole Church with regard to what he had seen in the (celestial) sphere, for on that Saturday night he, Uzzi, had been left there with the Apostle of Light. And he communicated many pious injunctions from the Apostle to the whole Church. And after the Parinirvāṇa of the Apostle of Light, (his) Gospel, (his) Ārdahang,97 (his) garment and (his) staff [were taken to(?)] … Sisinnios.98

Among the Sogdian fragments of the St. Petersburg collection two manuscripts of hagiographical contents could be identified and partly reconstructed by Sims-Williams 1990 which describe long discussions of Mani with the hostile magi and eventually lead to Mani’s presentation at the king’s court. These texts and also some still unpublished Sogdian fragments in the Berlin collection may also belong to the large complex of the hagiographic literature. 96 97 98

A shooting star. One of Mani’s books, commonly regarded as Mani’s picture book. Cf. p. 217. Edited in Andreas/Henning 1934, pp. 860–62; cf. Boyce 1975 b, pp. 47–48; English translation based on Klimkeit 1993, p. 215.

229

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

The hagiographic sermons are likely to go back to an Aramaic original (Sundermann 1986 b, p. 302). They are not without an equivalent in the West Manichaean tradition: the third Coptic homily “The Part of the History on the Crucifixion of the Phōstēr, the [true] Apostle” (Polotsky 1934, pp. 42–85) has many details in common with the Parthian sermons (Sundermann 1986 b, pp. 253–57). The comparison between the Iranian and the Coptic tradition would perhaps be still more fruitful if we knew more about the so-called Coptic Church History (Schmidt/Polotsky 1933, pp. 27–28), which disappeared, with the exception of seven or eight leaves, in the confusions of 1945 (Robinson 1992, pp. 53–54). The Parthian Manohmed rōšn wifrās (also Manohmed rōšn saxwan) “Sermon on the Light Nous” describes the redeeming work of the Light Nous.99 He finds access to what St. Paul called the Old Man, subdues the spirituality of the flesh and imprisons it in the five limbs of the body. He sets free the five Light Elements, the substance of the divine soul in man and thus awakens the nature of the New Man. The text describes in great detail the nature of the New Man and its constant challenge by the powers of the Old Man. The “Sermon on the Light-Nous” seems to go back to a Kephalaia tradition. It has a close parallel in the 38th Kephalaion “On the Light-Nous and the Apostles and the Saints”,100 and so it may be derived from an Aramaic original version. As a Parthian composition, however, it became an elaborate, well-constructed sermon. It was translated from Parthian into Sogdian (not into Middle Persian), Old Turkish, and Chinese. The versified and expanded Chinese version is commonly referred to by scholars of Manichaeism as the “Traité manichéen” since that was the name given to it by its French translators (Chavannes/Pelliot 1911). Strangely enough, it regained a Kephalaia character in its Chinese version, becoming there a discourse given by Mani to his disciple Addā, no doubt in imitation of the pattern of Buddhist sutras.101 99 Edition in Sundermann 1992 a. 100 Polotsky/Böhlig 1940, pp. 90–99; Gardner 1995, pp. 93–105. 101 On the relation of the “Sermon of the Light Nous” to Mani’s “Book of the Giants” see Sundermann 1992 a, pp. 15–17, and above on Mani’s works.

230

MANICHAEAN LITERATURE

The Parthian Gyān wifrās (Sermon on the Soul) explains the nature of the World Soul.102 The World Soul is, not surprisingly, identical with the five Light Elements. It comes as a surprise, however, that the beneficent role of the Light Elements in this world is underscored and that they are said to make life on earth as bearable and pleasant as possible. The five Light Elements bestow five “graces” (išnōhr) each on living beings. To give an impression of the “Sermon on the Soul” I quote here the passage on the role of the second Light Element, the Wind god (Sundermann 1997 a, pp. 76–79): And the first grace of the Wind god is that he blows everywhere with fast wings and helps and pulls up his brothers who are in the depth. And the water which, through his strength, is born in all rivers and sources, and every rain and fog, he pulls them up, just like cream from the milk and water which is pulled up in blades (of straw). The second grace of the Wind god is that all plants are born through his nurture, they thrive (?) and blossom and bring fruit. They give birth and bring fruit and seed, just as a herd of horses who, staying alone, cannot become pregnant and give birth to colts. And a month becomes apparent in the year which is called the “Plant-Thriving-Month”, for in that month they become thick, powerful, and beautiful, and the plants swell just as a [skin-bag (?)] swells. The third grace of the Wind god is that he sweeps stench [and …] from the whole world. And […] like [a man who] puts in order the whole [house and the whole courtyard], arrays it and [prepares] fine incense [for] the firstborn. The fourth grace [of the Wind] god is that he dissolves the cold, like warm water which one adds to cold water and makes it agreeable. The fifth grace of the Wind god is that he dissolves the heat, like cold water which chills warm water. And so the Wind god can be compared to a prince to whom a country is entrusted. The enemies make a raid, he himself puts on the armor, drives away the enemy, and only his garment and armor are damaged. 102 Edition in Sundermann 1997 a.

231

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN In this way the Wind god is neither hot nor cold. But cold and heat, wherever they mix, are called cold and heat. And in the Nask he is called the Ušta[uuaitī Gāθā].103

On the other hand, the suffering role of the World Soul is not ignored, and the great responsibility of the Manichaean elect for its safe redemption is emphasized. The “Sermon on the Soul” was translated into Sogdian (not into Middle Persian) and into Old Turkish. Some of its motifs have been imitated in two hymns of the so-called Chinese Hymn-Scroll (Sundermann 1997 a, pp. 26–28). Both the “Sermon on the Light-Nous” and the “Sermon on the Soul” are exhortative texts meant to direct and improve the behavior of the clergy. Their authors have perfect command over the Parthian language, their metaphors and parables are imaginative and convincing, their structure and their argumentation is logical. Both sermons represent Manichaean Parthian prose literature at its peak. Many more sermon texts were produced, and some of them are known by name. Among the Middle Persian sermons (gōwišnān) the Gōwišnān rōšnān ī yamagānīg rōzān (Shining Sermons for the Yimki-days) may be mentioned, seven of which are known by their titles. Further Parthian sermons (saxwanān) are the Frazānagān s[axwan] “Sermon on the Wise” (M 6020 II), and an enigmatic Ārdhang wifrās, which, if ārdahang was Mani’s Eikōn or picturebook, could only be a commentary on its illustrations at best.104 But not even that is borne out by the texts, which consist of a series of parabolic comparisons, mythological tales, and eschatological revelations. Noteworthy Sogdian sermons are Tan gyān wiδβāγ (Sermon on Body and Soul),105 Āwkaršni wiδβāγ (Sermon on the Homomorphic [Column of Glory]) (M 674), Šē fčambuδī wiδβāγ

103 The second Light Element is here compared to the second group of Zoroaster’s Avestan Gathas. 104 Cf. Boyce 1968 c, p. 70. The fragments are listed in Boyce 1960, p. 147, no. 7. For another explanation cf. p. 217. 105 Henning 1937, pp. 46–47, text d.

232

MANICHAEAN LITERATURE

(Sermon on the Three Worlds) (M 336), Čtfār əfčambuδ [wiδβāγ] ([Sermon] on the Four Worlds) (So 20229), Niγōšākāne wiδβāγ (Sermon on the Hearers) (So 18248), and Δēnδārī wiδβāγ (Sermon on the Religious People) (So 14638). Written sermons were the most important forms of Manichaean prose literature in Iranian languages. In sermons the Manichees expressed what they knew and wanted to pass on to posterity about Mani’s life and doctrine, the nature of the world, ethics and admonitions, and about historical events. More often than not these subjects were treated one beside the other. A strict separation of scholarly disciplines such as theology, church history, dogmatics, ethics, cosmography, and the like, was never their aim. Letters Mani’s and his disciples’ apostolic letters were without doubt largely homiletic treatises like their books and oral instructions. But they were also what letters properly are: means to convey messages and put questions to partners. In this proper sense letters of Manichaean communities and individual members of the clergy have sporadically survived in Central Asia, and they are of great historical importance. I have here treated all the homiletic letters in Iranian languages as part of Mani’s canonical collection of epistles (cf. pp. 217–18) because it is almost impossible to distinguish between letter fragments of Mani’s and those of his disciples. A third group of letters, those written in Central Asia by or on behalf of local communities or individuals and bearing actual problems, will be described under “Documents”. Parables While both the Coptic and the Central Asian Manichaean texts contain unsurpassed masterpieces of religious hymn poetry, the 233

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

exclusive literary achievement of the Central Asian Manichaean literature are parables and allegories. As a good teacher Mani was well aware of the valuable service entertaining tales can do to the communication of the truth. This led to the creation of a highly developed parable literature, and the Manichees were masterly storytellers. In the Coptic Manichaean texts the evangelical patterns of the parables are still obvious, and they are incorporated into the discourses of the Kephalaia. In the East Manichaean literature, however, the parable became a literary category in its own right. It was in the East that parable collections such as the “Book of Parables” (Sogdian Āzand-nāme) were composed (Sundermann 1985 a), possibly after the model of the Buddhist Jātaka- and Avadāna-collections.106 A collection of Parthian parables was published by I. Colditz.107 More collections are attested or may be assumed among the parable fragments published by me in 1973.108 Considerable Sogdian parables have been published from the Petersburg collection and close parallels were identified by Sims-Williams among Indian tales.109 Never, however, the entertainment became an end in itself. It was inevitably accompanied by a “moral”, a hidden truth which the parable illustrated. So most of the Sogdian tales edited by Henning were certainly Manichaean parables, too.110 If not, as in the case of the tale on “The Daēnā”,111 the subject is a piece of Manichaean mythology.112 That the Manichees invented their own stories is likely, but it seems easier to find models or parallel motives in other literatures. 106 107 108 109

Sundermann 1973, p. 5. Colditz 1987, pp. 276–99. Sundermann 1973, pp. 83–109. Sims-Williams 1981 b, pp. 236–38. Other manuscripts of the tale about the child which pretends to be deaf and dumb are fragments So 12400 (Reck) and Ch/U 6926 of the Berlin collection. More identifications of Manichaean parables were given by J. Wilkens (2003). 110 Henning 1945a. This is obvious in the case of the story of the Pearl-borer which in ll. 60ff. is followed by an epimythion (Henning 1945a, pp. 467, 469). 111 Henning 1945 a, pp. 476–77. Cf. also Reck 1997 and 2003. 112 Cf. Sundermann 1992 d. Cf. also the Frašigird āzand “Tale on the final conflagration” in M 1708.

234

MANICHAEAN LITERATURE

But they also adopted and adapted to their own ends earlier tales. Henning identified among Manichaean Sogdian tales motifs of the Kalīla wa Dimna, the Pañcatantra, the fables of Aesop, etc.113 An impressive adaptation of the Buddhist allegory of the ocean and the wisdom of the Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra is the Manichaean story “On the Religion and the Ocean”.114 Even the Sogdian parable on the treasure collecting merchants, which unmistakably reflects the Manichaean missionary activities, reminds one of the Buddhist Suppāraka Jātaka.115 The role of the Manichees as transmitters of narrative motives between east and west has been well elucidated by Asmussen.116 The didactic purpose of the Manichaean parables is clear in the Middle Persian tale M 47 II: […] (He)117 was(?) wealthy […] The nobles (and) also all […] received a gift of clothes with many ornaments […]. They went, enjoyed a banquet (and) received presents. They became happy. When the sun set, the man, in his contentment, did not light his lamps immediately. The king became suspicious. His intimate friends said, “This man has prepared an excellent banquet (and) has given (us) gifts, but he has not lit (his) lamps. If only he does not intend to commit a crime.” The man heard it, became afraid (and) fell unconscious. Then the servants of that man set up a thousand lamps before the king. Thereupon the king realized that the man was innocent (and) had acted so out of forgetfulness, not with an evil purpose. The king reproached the man a little; then he gave (him) a present (and) dismissed (him) in friendship (and) kindness. The interpretation: The lowly born man represents the auditors, the king is [the Light Nous …], where (?) (the king’s) envoys went. The messenger [is the] Apostle of the gods; […] garden, vineyard, house, canopy: (these) are the alms. The auditors give them

113 114 115 116 117

Cf. also Zieme 1968, p. 67. Sundermann 1991 c. Sundermann 1995. Asmussen 1966. Probably the host of the banquet rather than the ruler, who is going to enjoy the hospitality of one of his subjects.

235

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN to the Church (and) build monasteries. The intimate friends of the king are the elect. The clothes (and) ornaments that he made are the picture and the scripture. The lamp is the wisdom. The (lamp) that is not lit immediately is that of the auditors. From time to time they become slack and forgetful in their works. (They) are (then) called to account. Then they gain victory, and their souls are redeemed. The servants who light the lamps (and) become helpers of (that) man are the meritorious deeds that help the auditors. Just as the auditors of this parable, (who), if possible, honour the Church in love with (their whole) hearts, (and) become the friends of the gods,118 gain victory by (the help of) the Glory of Religion119 […]120

Confessional Texts The confession of sins was an indispensable part of Manichaean religious life. The recurrent confession towards the elect was a duty of the Manichaean lay people. It cleansed them from their inevitably sinful worldly life and day’s work. But confession and penitence was also incumbent upon the elect in order to safeguard and renew their state of perfection, necessary for their salutary work of the redemption of divine light. So two types of confession came into being, corresponding to the obligations of the hearers and the elect, reflecting in which way and to which degree they could violate their proper vocation. For both groups model confessional texts existed. The confession for laymen is best known. It is almost completely attested in Old Turkish under the title Xwāstwānīft, a Parthian word meaning “confession”.121 The text was definitively edited by Asmussen,122 even if afterwards many more fragments 118 The elect. 119 The Light-Nous. 120 Edition in Sundermann 1973, pp. 87–89; cf. Boyce 1975 b, pp. 179–80; English translation based on Klimkeit 1993, p. 190. 121 Cf. the explanation of the word given on p. 212. 122 Asmussen 1965.

236

MANICHAEAN LITERATURE

of the Turkish text were identified and edited,123 so that the whole number of this text’s manuscripts is no less than 21. The Old Turkish text of the Xwāstwānīft is a translation from the Sogdian where it was later discovered in some small fragments by Henning.124 The Sogdian version is more concise than the Turkish one, and often only in loose agreement with its Turkish counterpart. The speaker is a first person singular instead of the plural of the Turkish text, which is at difference with the mentioning of a single repentant, Rāymast-frazend, in the Turkish version, unless “we” is used as a polite expression of (one person’s) modesty. Further fragments of the Sogdian text were identified by SimsWilliams in the Petersburg collection,125 and more from the Berlin collection will be published by C. Reck. The confessional form for the elect is largely preserved in Sogdian as a part of the “Bet- und Beichtbuch”,126 and so far in one manuscript only, but beside numerous other Sogdian confessional texts, some of which might belong to the same work.127 The confession of laymen enumerates sins against elementary concepts of the Manichaean doctrine, the belief in the two principles and three times, the observance of four seals and ten commandments, worship of Sun and Moon, care for the Light Elements, reverence to the apostles of god and the holy elect, preservation of the five kinds of living beings, against giving the sevenfold alms, confessing every Monday before the elect, joining in the celebration of the seven Yimkis and the Bema, etc. The confession for the elect lists violations against the five commandments for the elect, starting in our manuscript with the second one, “non-injury”, against the five “divine gifts” (the virtues of the New Man in the perfect ones), the rules to be obeyed by the clergy at the Monday service, at the holy communal meal, etc.

123 124 125 126 127

Zieme 1966. Henning 1940, pp. 63–67. N. Sims-Williams 1991 a. Henning 1937, pp. 32–41. Asmussen 1965, pp. 235–52.

237

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

A passage from the list of sins against the command not to hurt the Living Self (Sogd. pūāzarmyā) may serve to give an impression of the Sogdian “Bet- und Beichtbuch”: And every time I injure and afflict the five elements, the captured Light [that] is in the dry and wet earth. (If I should have allowed) the heavy body, the cruel self, which I am vested in, to beat or hurt (that Light) while walking or riding, ascending or descending, walking quickly or slowly; or by digging or shovelling, building or constructing a wall in the dry, cracked, injured, oppressed and trodden earth, by going into the waters, walking on mud, snow, rainwater or dew, by breaking or cutting, injuring or tearing the five (types of) plants or the five (types of) fleshly beings, be they wet or dry; if I myself should have done this or (if) I should have caused [someone] else to do this; if for my sake human beings were beaten or imprisoned, or if they had to endure humiliation or insults; if I should have inflicted injury on four-footed animals while ascending or descending, or by beating or spurring (them) on; (if) I should have planned to do evil against wild animals, birds, creatures in the water, creeping on the ground, or insects, and should have harmed their life; […]—(then) for all this (I pray for) pardon.128

The lay confessional is called by its Parthian name Xwāstwānīft. This and the often repeated Parthian formula man āstār hirzā “forgive my sin” (cf. Middle Persian hīlum āstār) indicate a much earlier origin of the Manichaean confessional practice than the Old Turkish and Sogdian texts attest. It is also true that two small Middle Persian fragments of confessional character are known.129 But they are obviously not predecessors of the detailed Central Asian confessional forms for laymen or elect people. This is certainly no fortuitous result of the defectiveness of our sources, and the most likely explanation is that the Manichaean confessional forms (“Beichtspiegel”) are a relatively late product of Central Asian Manichaeism. It is in agreement with this conclusion that similar 128 Edition in Henning 1937, pp. 32–33; English translation based on Klimkeit 1993, p. 139. 129 M 210 in Asmussen 1965, pp. 241–42; M 545 in Sundermann 1997 b.

238

MANICHAEAN LITERATURE

forms are unknown in the West Manichaean world, and that a confessional text has been found among the sparse Manichaean documents in New Persian language.130 All these observations confirm Asmussen’s thesis that the Manichaean confessional forms are a particular Central Asian innovation, brought about under the immediate impact of such Buddhist patters as the Pratimokṣa texts, the Suvarṇaprabhāsa, individual confessions, etc.131 The opposite theory, it is true, has also been put forward, namely that it was Manichaeism which inspired the Buddhist confessional forms, they being a Central Asian Buddhist peculiarity, too.132 But at least the Suvarṇaprabhāsa is certainly older than the Manichaean confessional texts which are hardly to be dated before the seventh century. Dialogues, Riddles The question-and-answer method of schoolwise instruction has inspired dialogue texts as a peculiar form of didactic prose literature. A disciple puts questions or questions are simply listed on difficult dogmatic points, and exhaustive explanations follow.133 A passage of M 591 concerning the question whether the human souls after death go directly to the Eternal or to the New Paradise was published by M. Boyce.134 Riddles are rare. A list of them is given in a Sogdian text of the Kephalaia type (So 10100 g).135

130 131 132 133

Sundermann 1989 a. Asmussen 1965, pp. 254–58. Klimkeit 1977. Boyce 1960, p. 148, no. 22, add So 18102: a hearer asks one of the elect (δēnδār), So 14635: the king of kings (šānšāy) asks Mani. 134 Boyce 1954 a, p. 15. Another example in Sundermann 1991 b, p. 341. 135 Henning 1945 a, pp. 481, 482 [= Henning 1977, II, pp. 185, 186]. Cf. also Sundermann 1981 a, p. 21.

239

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

Poetical Texts “Hymn Cycles” The best specimens in Iranian languages of Manichaean poetical art, and without counterpart in the West Manichaean tradition, are certainly what has been called the Hymn Cycles. The feeling of anguish and horror of the soul, who is on the point of dying, and its desparate longing for redemption and return to its heavenly home, the elegic complaint of the world soul about its disregard and maltreatment by the earthly beings are worded in an empathic language and in a fine set of imaginative metaphors. These texts are lamentations of the world soul or an individual soul addressed to its divine or its human redeemer. It is always a first person singular who is addressing the listener or reader just as it is in the “Odes of Solomon”.136 Hymn Cycles are long versified and metrical texts consisting of a sequence of “cantos”. The cantos are called handām “member” in Parthian, and therefore W. Lentz called them “Gliedhymnen”.137 Each strophe consists of two stichs, and each stich of two hemistichs, separated by a ceasura. The stichs of the Parthian and Middle Persian Hymn Cycles are regularly written verse-wise, so that hymn cycles can easily be recognized in writing.138 Each hemistich has two stressed syllables, but a changeable number of unstressed syllables.139 The great Middle Persian hymn cycle is the Gōwišn ī grīw zīndag (The Sermon on the Living Self)”.140 The Persian title could also be translated as “The speach of the Living Self”, but this is the less likely option since the Sogdian translation is

136 Drijvers 1981, p. 121. 137 Lentz 1956, p. *13* ff. 138 The strophes of the Sogdian translation of the Huyadagmān fill four lines each, of the Gōwišn ī grīw zīndag three lines. 139 Boyce 1954 a, pp. 45–59. 140 Sundermann 1985 b.

240

MANICHAEAN LITERATURE

žwante γrīwī … xwēčakāwe “xwēčakāwe of the Living Self”, with xwēčakāwe, a term for the literary genre of the “explanation” and “discourse”. The assumption, that this text is characterized as a gōwišn like ordinary prose texts, separates it from hymns called mahr, bāšāh, āfurišn and āfrīwan. The difference is perhaps that the hymn cycles were not sung but spoken texts which makes it necessary to use the designation “ hymn cycles” (never used by the Manichees themselves) in a qualified sense. The spoken character of the hymn cycles is confirmed by the observation that so far “cantilated” versions of such texts have not been found.141 The “Sermon on the Living Self” is a speach of the World Soul itself, addressed to the human beings. The soul complains in moving words about the maltreatment it has to suffer. It reveals its noble, divine origin and implores its listeners to help it to a safe return to its home country. Of great consequence was the famous fragment M 95 of the sermon.142 Its intimate knowledge of the Zoroastrian Yasna-ritual is remarkable.143 The “Sermon on the Living Self” was translated into Sogdian (but not into Parthian). It is not attested, so far as we know, in any other West- or East-Manichaean language. Its author is unknown. A colophon on the Chinese side of the Sogdian fragments So 13399 + 13401 calls the writer of the text tz-ʾkcwr and the wʾxš δβryny “wordgiver”, i.e. reciter?, wrxʾncwr. The title of the work is given there as βaγānīk gōwišn pustē (The Book of the Divine Sermon) which might well refer to the World Soul as the god of this world.144 The “Sermon on the Living Self” consisted of 561 strophs, more than half of which are, at least partly, preserved.145

141 Unless the lost fragment “M. liturg.” (Müller 1904, p. 29 = Peek 1985, p. 35) belongs to the “Sermon on the Living Self”. Its beginning words “I am the first one, banished, the child of god Zurwān, the son of rulers” might belong to this cycle, but to any hymn as well. 142 Andreas/Henning 1933, pp. 318–20 [= Henning 1977, I, pp. 215–17]. 143 Cf. Boyce 1966. 144 Sundermann 1997 a, p. 17. 145 Sundermann 1985 a, p. 644.

241

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

Lamentations of an individual soul are the two Parthian Hymn Cycles Huyadagmān (so one should read with MacKenzie146 instead of Henning’s and Mary Boyce’s Huwīdagmān) “Fortunate for us …” and Angad rōšnān “Rich [friend] of lights”, so called after the first words of their first canto. The mourning soul may be the soul of an elect and the cycles were first supposed to have been “primarily intended for the funeral-services of the Elect, whose deaths were thereby celebrated in a manner which was partly symbolic, so that they typified also the final redemption of Light.”147 But this interpretation was later retracted by M. Boyce with a vague note to the effect that the cycles were “chanted” antiphonically.148 The Sogdian text she had in mind as proof I could not find. But a marginal p, usually regarded as a mark of antiphonal presentation, can be seen on many Parthian manuscripts, i.g. M 88, M 93 and M 675. It presupposes a dialogue indeed, although the cycles are clearly monologues of the soul. In the Huyadagmān the soul of the deceased, in view of the terrors of death, cries: Who will release me from all the pits and prisons, which contain lusts that are not pleasing? Who will take me over the flood of the tossing sea— the zone of conflict in which there is no rest? Who will save me from the jaws of all the beasts who destroy and terrify (?) one another without pity? Who will lead me beyond the walls and take me over the moats, which (are) full of fear and trembling from ravaging demons? Who will lead me beyond rebirths, and free me from (them) all—and from all the waves, in which there is no rest? And I weep for (my) self, saying, “May I be saved from this, and from the terror of the beasts who devour one another!” 146 MacKenzie 1985, p. 421. 147 Boyce 1954 a, p. 14. 148 Boyce 1968 c, p. 74.

242

MANICHAEAN LITERATURE The bodies of men, and of birds of the air, of fish of the sea, and four-footed creatures and of all worms— who will take me beyond these and save me from (them) all, so that I shall not turn and fall into the perdition of those hells?, so that I shall not pass through defilement in them, nor return in rebirth to (?) all the kinds of plants, taken out in … ? Who will save me from the swallowing heights (and [?]) the devouring deeps, which are all hell and distress?149

Both Parthian texts were made accessible in an exemplary edition by M. Boyce (1954 a, p. 14). Some additions to the Parthian text, the Sogdian version of the work and the facsimiles of the text fragments were given by MacKenzie 1985, pp. 421–28, by SimsWilliams 1989 b, and by Sundermann 1990. An Old Turkish and a Chinese translation of the first canto of Huyadagmān also exist.150 The Chinese translation is part of the so-called Chinese Hymn Scroll. It mentiones the author of the Hymn and calls him Wei Mao.151 This name was ingeniously corrected by Henning to *Muât-Mâu, i.e. Mār-Ammō, a name written with a very similar Chinese character.152 Henning and M. Boyce have taken this as allowing the possibility that the Huyadagmān cycle and consequently also the Angad rōšnān cycle were early compositions of the third century written by Mani’s disciple Mār Ammō.153 A colophon on fragment M 233 Recto, however, seems to purport that the author of the Huyadagmān was in fact an otherwise unknown Bishop Mār Xurxšēd Wahman.154 My suggestion is that Mār Ammō could well have been the author of the first canto of the Huyadagmān which is markedly different from the rest of

149 150 151 152 153 154

My translation follows Boyce 1954 a, pp. 80–83. Henning 1959 a and 1943 b, pp. 217–19. Tsui 1943, p. 199; Schmidt-Glintzer 1987, p. 44. Henning 1943 b, p. 216, n. 6. Henning 1943 b, p. 216, n. 6; Boyce 1954 a, p. 7, and Boyce 1968 c, p. 74. Sundermann 1991 a, pp. 110–11.

243

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

the cycle, and that later Mār Xurxšēd Wahman added further cantos thus making it a hymn cycle155 of no less than 400 strophs.156 Hymns Single hymns of the mahr/bāšāh type and of the āfurišn/āfrīwan type, i.e. metrical compositions shorter than the Hymn Cycles, were chanted compositions. This follows from liturgical instructions at the beginning of the text, the indication of a contrafact or model melody,157 often in Sogdian, saying “This according to the tune …”, just as it has remained common practice in the Christian hymn books, too. For instance: Ēn pad nōg xurxšēd niwāg “This to the tune: ‘New Sun’ ”, Ēn pad xwēš niwāg srāy “Sing this to its own tune” (both in M 72), (Sogdian) Par tāžīgāne āwāk “In the Tadshiki (i.e. New Persian) tune” (M 339),158 sūrīg niwāg “Syriac (i.e. Mesopotamian) tune” (M 6950 /i/1–2/), Ēn pad suγlī zgar “This to the Sogdian tune”.159 Another argument is that there is a great number of so-called “cantillated” hymn texts,160 i.e. of manuscripts which first give the text of a hymn in ordinary spelling, phrase by phrase, and then the same text segmented in chanted syllables, spelled according to the rules of Sogdian orthography and interspersed with chanting sounds (written ygʾ, ygʾn, etc.), but without any evident indication of the melody.161 Nearly all hymns of the Iranian Manichees are in Middle Persian or Parthian. There are also a few Sogdian hymns in Manichaean script, but I cannot say more than Henning did in 1945: “We know

155 156 157 158 159 160 161

Sundermann 1991 a, p. 111. So according to a suggestion of Henning 1943 b, p. 217. Brunner 1980 a, p. 350. Cf. Sundermann 1993, p. 163. Henning 1937, p. 32, l. 462. Boyce 1960, p. 149. Examples in Müller 1904, pp. 28–29, 92–93 [= Peek 1985, pp. 34–35, 98–99]. On the cantillation of the Manichaean manuscripts cf. Wellesz 1917; Machabey 1955; Brunner 1980 a.

244

MANICHAEAN LITERATURE

next to nothing of Sogdian poetry. But among the unpublished Manichaean Sogdian fragments there are at least two which seem to contain poems written in that language”, then giving a partial translation of M 137, which contains a zandpāšīk (song-hymn).162 The whole corpus of hymns as they came to be collected in hymn books (Mahr-nāmag) was so big that the Manichees themselves arranged them group-wise, the critera being the liturgical place of a hymn in the service, the divine or human personality addressed, or the mental attitude of the singer expressed in his hymn.163 What the Iranian hymns, in contrast with the Coptic Manichaean hymns of the “Psalm book”, do not have, are hymns ascribed to an author, such as in Coptic the Psalms of Thomas or Herakleides. A still useful survey of the hymn texts was given in 1960 by Mary Boyce.164 Most of the signatures of fragments quoted in the following paragraphs can be found there. Until recently not much editorial work on the hymn literature has been done and much less progress has been achieved in this field than concerning the prose literature. Meanwhile the Sunday, Monday and Bēma hymns have been treated in an exhaustive way in Chr. Reck’s thesis Mitteliranische manichäische Montags- und Bēmahymnen. Edition und Kommentar (Berlin 1991),165 which I have gratefully made use of in these remarks. Another substantial part of Manichaean hymnal literature will be edited in D. Durkin-Meisterernst’s The Hymns to the Living Soul. Middle Persian and Parthian texts in the Turfan Collection. Hymns are often called after their place in the service: All Monday hymns (dōšambatīg) we know of are in Parthian. The congregation which assembles on this most common day of service is addressed, admonished and praised, deities and Lord Mani are invoked. The Monday itself is mentioned by name and extolled. 162 Henning 1945 b, p. 151. 163 Hymns are chanted to express “praise and blessing, obeisance and reverence, supplication and prayer” (Henning 1937, p. 26, ll. 287–89, cf. p. 25, ll. 236–38). 164 Boyce 1960, pp. 148–50. 165 Meanwhile published, cf. Reck 2004.

245

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

This may be the reason why such hymns are called in a general way āfrīdagīg bāšāh “Hymns of Praise”. Sunday played evidently only a modest role in the Parthian liturgy. The strange fact is, that nearly all Monday hymns are in Parthian (only M 874 and M 2053 are in Middle Persian) and the two Sunday Hymns we know of (M 15, M 234) are in Middle Persian. But since M 234 verso 9 reads: Mahrān ī yakš[ambat rāy] “Hymns for Sunday”166 more Sunday Hymns may be presupposed. Middle Persian and Parthian hymns devoted to the most holy Bēma day (gāhīg) praise Mani, his Light Twin, Jesus, and in one case also Mār Ammō, the apostle to the East (M 273). They mention the Bēma as Mani’s new throne. His passion is not referred to. Of particular interest is a group of Parthian hymns listed under the Sogdian rubric cxšʾpδδ mʾxy gʾhyg z(nṯ)[ṯ] (?) / nymyxšpʾ pʾšcyk pʾšyk(ṯ) 167 “Songs (?) for the Bēma (in) the Month of Commandment, hymns for the midnight fasts”. This heading seems to confirm that the Coptic pannychismoi could be understood, as Böhlig did, as a two-day fast, not interrupted overnight,168 which is not without importance for the question whether the Yimki fasts go back to the beginnings of the Manichaean church or were a local, East Manichaean innovation. A hymn for New Moon (nōgmāhīg bāšāh) is mentioned in the London fragment Kao 0108. The sacred meal of the elect was accompanied by “Alms’ Hymns” (Mahrān ī pārag, M 546) and “Meal Hymns” (all of them cantillated).169 A preparatory act of the Bema ceremony may have been accompanied by the gāhwirāzān or “Throne-erecting” hymns, but this does not clearly follow from the texts we have in hand.

166 So Reck 1991, p. 119; 2004, p. 135. 167 M 311 recto 5–6, cf. Müller 1904, p. 66 [= Peek 1985, p. 72], whose readings I have partly revised. 168 Cf. the detailed discussion in Wurst 1995, pp. 19–33, esp. pp. 28–29. Wurst himself is sceptical. 169 Cf. BeDuhn 2004.

246

MANICHAEAN LITERATURE

Among the funeral (Parthian izgāmīg) and memorial (Parthian parnibrānīg i.e. referring to the parinirvāṇa) hymns there are Parthian hymns commemorating Mani’s death (M 5),170 the death of Mār Ammō (M 273 recto 1–3) and the death of Mār Zakū (M 6),171 which undoubtedly belong to the finest specimens of Iranian Manichaean poetry. Here is the hymn on the death of Mār Zakū: O great Teacher, Mār Zakū, … Shepherd! O great Lamp that was so suddenly extinguished! Our eyes were darkened, made faint and dull. O battle-seeking Hero who left (his) army behind; Terror seized the troop, the army was thrown into confusion. O great Tree whose height was felled! The birds started to quiver; their nest had been destroyed. O great Sun that sank below the earth! Our eyes saw (only) darkness, for the light was veiled. O zealous caravan leader who left his caravan behind In deserts, wastes, mountains and gorges! O Heart and Soul that have departed from us! We need your skill, your reason and your glory. O living Sea that has dried up! The course of the rivers is obstructed and they no longer flow. O green Mountain on which sheep graze! The milk for the lambs runs dry, the sheep bleat pitifully. O mighty Father, for whom many sons mourn, All the children that have been orphaned. O Lord who was spared no pains, who endured want! You cared for the well-being of the house of god in every way. O great Spring, whose source is stopped up! Sweet nourishment is held back from our mouths.

170 Andreas/Henning 1934, pp. 862–65 [= Henning 1977, I, pp. 289–92]. 171 Andreas/Henning 1934, pp. 865–67 [= Henning 1977, I, pp. 292–94].

247

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN O bright Lamp whose radiant light shone into another world! Darkness befell us. O Mār Zakū, Shepherd, blessed Teacher! Our power is now separated from you. No longer do we look into your bright eyes; No longer do we hear your sweet words. O god Srōšāw172 with the sweet name, bright Lord! None is like to you among all the gods. We are depressed (and) sigh bitterly, we are grieved, We constantly remember your love. You were exalted in all the lands, The kings and the great ones honoured you. Lovely and kind (was your) face, mild (was) your speech That never succumbed to bitter wrath. Great, strong Giant who with patience Tolerated everyone whom you were renowned. Righteous Father, meek and merciful, Magnanimous and generous, compassionate and kind. You brought joy to the oppressed; many souls Did you save from misery, guiding them home. Strong, good, powerful One who has attained a throne Like all the Apostles, Buddhas and Gods, First to you will I pay homage, I (your) meanest son Who was left behind as a homeless orphan by you, Father.173

The so-called “installation hymns” seem to include motives of the hierarchy—and Leaders’—hymns, so that it is often difficult to distinguish between these groups. One can state, however, that installation hymns contain a reference to the ceremonial presentation 172 The “Father of Greatness”, the most high god of the Manichaean pantheon. Here, Mār Zakū, it seems, is compared to him. 173 Edition in Andreas/Henning 1934, pp. 865–67; cf. Boyce 1975 b, pp. 139–40; English translation based on Klimkeit 1993, pp. 87–88.

248

MANICHAEAN LITERATURE

of a new high-ranking cleric. Examples are the Mahrān ī əspasagān (Hymns for bishops) in M 31 II.174 Hymns could be arranged according to or called after an invoked divine or human personality. There were hardly any figures of the Manichaean pantheon who were passed over in silence in the praises and invocations of the service, and among the human saints, next to Mani, the great founding fathers of the East Manichaean church, Mār Ammō, Zakū, Šād-Ohrmezd,175 etc. were remembered. It is noteworthy that not all the deities of the Manichaean pantheon were treated likewise. Most fragments of hymns invoking gods are dedicated to the Father of Greatness, to the Third Messenger,176 to Jesus, if we take hymns to Jesus the Splendour and Crucifixion Hymns177 together, and to the Living Self, i.e. the World Soul.178 On the other hand, M. Boyce mentions only one hymn to the Spiritus Vivens, which is an impressive contrast even if M 867 + M 3845 may preserve a second hymn devoted to this deity.179 The most likely explanation I see is that in the Manichaean ritual and devotional practice prominence was given to those deities who represent the fourfold aspects of the Divine world, God, Light, Power and Wisdom. R. Merkelbach has devoted a detailed study to the theological speculations derived from the tetradic doctrine.180 His result is that God is, of course, the Father of Greatness himself, his Light are Sun 174 Andreas/Henning 1933, pp. 329–30. 175 The hymns for Mār Šād Ohrmezd, all of them late Central Asian products of course, were edited by Colditz 1992. 176 A most popular Parthian Narisaf-hymn, attested in several manuscripts in Berlin, Kyoto, and Bezeklik, was published by Sundermann/Yoshida 1992. One more manuscript was identified by Reck 1998, pp. 151–52. 177 On the Crucifixion Hymns see, with reference to older literature, Morano 1998 and 2000. 178 Of great consequence for the history of religions was the Parthian text M 7 containing the famous “Zoroaster fragment”, which was once erroneously considered to be evidence of Zoroastrian belief after the Avesta and before the Pahlavi literature (Reitzenstein 1921, p. 4). The hymn is published in Andreas/Henning 1934, p. 872, and again in Sundermann 2004, pp. 523–24. 179 Sundermann 1978, pp. 487–89. 180 Merkelbach 1986, pp. 39–50.

249

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

and Moon, i.e. the Third Messenger and Jesus, his Power are either the Five Light Elements, i.e. the World Soul, or the Column of Glory, and his Wisdom are the community of the believers. The fourth part, seemingly missing, is in fact well represented in the Manichaean cult by hymns in honour of the hierachy and the community (Mahrān ī sārārān rāy [Hymns for the leaders]) which do not fail to include also the worldly ruler who protects and promotes the church (or they simply leave an open space for the actual ruler’s name to be filled in).181 Such hymns are of greater historical than aesthetic value. One of the most beautiful hymns on the Living Self is to be found in the Parthian fragment M 7. It begins as follows: I hail from the Light and from the gods, (Yet) I have become (as) one exiled from them. The foes assembled over me. (And) took me to the realm of the dead ones. —Blessed be he who will rescue my soul from distress, So that it may be saved—182 A god am I, born of the gods, A bright, radiant and shining, Beaming, fragrant and beautiful (god). But now I have fallen into misery. Countless demons seized me, Loathsome ones captured me. My soul has been subjugated (by them), I am torn to pieces and devoured. Demons, yakṣas and parīgs, Black, hideous, stinking dragons, dark and hard to ward off: I experienced much pain and death at their hands. They all roar and attack me, They pursue (me) and rise up against me.”183 181 Cf. Sundermann 1992 b, pp. 65–71. 182 Or, if one assumes “he”: the redeemed redeemer? 183 Edition in Andreas/Henning 1934, pp. 874–75; cf. Boyce 1975 b, pp. 106–7; English translation based on Klimkeit 1993, p. 46.

250

MANICHAEAN LITERATURE

M 7 contains another important Parthian hymn on the Living Self. It makes Zarathustra the interlocutor of the Living Self and thus shows how the Manichaeans understood the role of the old Iranian prophet. If you wish, I will teach you from the testimony of the ancient Fathers. When the savior, the righteous Zarathustra, spoke with his Self, (he said), “Deep is the drunken stupor in which you sleep; awake and look at me. From the World of Peace, from which I have been sent for your sake: Hail!” And he answered, “I, I am the innocent, the tender son of Srōšāw.184 Mixed I am, and I endure suffering. Lead me out of the grasp of death.” Zarathustra bid farewell, (he) the age-old voice and my limb (saying): “The power of the living and the salvation of the greatest worlds come upon you, from your home. Follow me, son of mildness, set the wreath of Light upon (your) head, You son of mighty ones that has become so poor that you must go begging in every place.”185

184 The Parthian text has: “And he, the innocent Srōšāw, answered, ‘I, I am the tender son.’ ” If this is correct, it would stress the idea that it was the Urgott, the Father of Greatness, himself who—in the person of the First Man and the First Man’s sons—stood up against the powers of darkness in order to save the whole world of light. Henning, however, assumed at this point a shift of words and translated, “I, I am the tender, harmless son of Srōšāw” (Andreas/Henning 1934, p. 872). Klimkeit follows Henning. 185 Edition in Andreas/Henning 1934, p. 872; cf. Boyce 1975 b, p. 108; English translation Klimkeit 1993, pp. 47–48. My translation largely deviates from Henning’s and Klimkeit’s.

251

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

Interesting disputes with other religions are to be found in the “Polemical Hymn” M 28 I, on which see now Skjærvø 1995 b and de Blois 1998. Enigmatic is the name Mukrānīg bāšāh of one of the most famous and most beautiful Parthian hymns: I am a grateful pupil hailing from the land of Babel. I hail from the land of Babel, and I have been placed in the gate of truth.186 I am a youth, a pupil who was led out of the land of Babel. I was led out of the land of Babel in order to cry out a cry in the world. You, (o) gods, I implore, all you gods, forgive me (my) sins through mercy.187

This hymn betrays much of the traditional Aramaic poetical technique and may well go back to Mani himself.188 The Mahrnāmag M 1 lists 77 padwahanīg and 68 āfrīdagīg hymns. The categories “Supplicatory” hymns and hymns “of praise” lay stress on the attitude of the speaker towards the divine world. The āfrīdagīg hymns are at the same time Monday hymns, Jesus hymns, etc. This may show how these different categories, based on heterogenious criteria, overlap multifariously.

Documents Business letters, receipts, word-lists and prescriptions are certainly not artistic achievements in any sense and so they do not belong to literature in the strict sense. But they are of great historical value 186 A pun based on the Aramaic equivalent of Babel ‘gate of god’ and *bābā dkušṭā ‘gate of truth’ (M. Lidzbarski). This proves that the hymn must have been translated from Aramaic. 187 Edition in Müller 1904, p. 51 [= Peek 1985, p. 57]; Boyce 1975 b, p. 152; English translation based on Asmussen 1975, pp. 8–9. Reedition DurkinMeisterernst 2004 a. 188 Lidsbarski 1918.

252

MANICHAEAN LITERATURE

as remains of the ordinary life in the second half of the first millennium  of the inhabitants of the Turfan oasis, and each piece of written text is a unique document. Letters and Economic Documents Letters other than those written by Mani and his disciples on behalf of the spiritual guidance of distant believers are messages of persons or congregations in the Turfan area. In ruin α of Qocho two long Sogdian letters were found in which a local Manichaean congregation complains before a religious authority about the misbehaviour of some co-religionists.189 In letter M 112 etc. it is an electa and a head of a certain group who violate the commandments, the electa cupping blood, cutting plants, extinguishing fire, etc., the head of the community having too intimate relations with some women. These are clear violations of the commandments for the elect not to kill and not to trespass the limits of chastity. The well-preserved part of this letter reads as follows: […] Because in respecting (?) the commandments [they are weak]. Firstly: [They sin] against the commandment to be truthful […].190 [NN …] together with our nun (electa) saw that their [nun] cut [a piece of cloth (?)] and sewed [a garment(?)]. Then again, our nun [saw that their] superior nun rubbed (?) […]. Furthermore, Āzādduxt the own … the sisters saw that their nun took a pickax and dug up the earth. [Neither do they hesitate] to crush medicinal plants and strike blocks of wood and cut wood without fear. Furthermore, our electae also saw that when their nun let blood, she washed the knife (?) with water. And (when) our nuns reprimanded (them), they answered, “Water in wells is dead, therefore it is allowed.” And they also crush medicinal plants themselves and kindle the fire themselves.191 And they see no fault or sin [or …] in this matter.”

189 Sundermann 1984 b. A revised edition is in print. 190 Here a long lacuna follows. The text goes on within violations of the commandment “not to hurt (the Living Self)”, the second command for the elect. 191 Or: extinguish the fire?

253

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN And furthermore, with respect to the commandment about “behaviour in accordance with religion”,192 (their observation thereof) is loose and shameless. For their leader, who is Mihr-Pādār, was ill; he had a malady affecting the lower part of his body. And a hired girl entered into his (place) and later came out. When that hired (girl) came out, we were all suspicious, and the elect made inquiries. And the hired (girl) said to Yazad Aryāmān, Drist-Rōšn, Mihr-Vahman and Vahman-Šāh, “Twice did I extract blood from the ‘back door’, and I shall do so once again.’ ” Then one of their female servants started a quarrel with a nun. And Mihr-Pādār, (their) leader, seized that servant by the arm and took her away from the quarrel […].193

Letter M 119 etc. accuses the leaders of a rival group of attacking and threatening their own authorities. The accused group is called “those dirty, inferior Syrians”. The other letter speaks of the followers of Mihr and of Miqlāṣ who had become religious parties in Mesopotamia in the first half of the eighth century. Both letters reflect the conflicting coexistence in Central Asia of indegenious Manichaeans of the Dīnāwarīya community and of Manichaean immigrants from Mesopotamia who settled in the East Manichaean area, probably in order to escape the Abbasid persecutions towards the end of the eighth century. I have tentatively dated these letters in the ninth century.194 The fact that the letters were written on the recto side of a scroll and written in the Manichaean script of the religious texts lends them an extraordinary dignity and importance. It is certainly a tribute to the high-ranking position of the addressee. Three long Sogdian letter scrolls were found in 1981 by Chinese archaeologistes in Bezeklik.195 They were recently edited by Y. Yoshida.196 The longest of them is by a Manichaean bishop

192 I.e. chastity, the third command for the elect. 193 Edition Sundermann 1984 b, pp. 305–9; English translation partly after Klimkeit 1993, pp. 261–62. 194 Sundermann 1984 b, p. 300. 195 Wen Wu 8, 1985, pp. 49–65. 196 Yoshida apud Turfan Antiquarian Bureau 2000.

254

MANICHAEAN LITERATURE

Šahryār-zādag and his communities and addressed to Aryāmānpuhr, the teacher of the Manichaean diocese East. The second letter is addressed to the same dignitary and written by a bishop MānīWahman. The third letter is evidently a private double message of an “insignificant and trivial slave” Šāh-Wispuhr to his relatives and friends. All these letters are filled with long complimentary phrases which overgrow the actual message. In the first letter it is no more than New Year’s greetings, in the secont a proud report about meritorious recitations of several religious texts. The Bezeklik letters are written in Sogdian script and in a very cursive hand at that. The Qocho letters are free from Turkisms and contain no Turkish names (with the possible exception of kmʾ “knife”). The Bezeklik letters have both. The Bezeklik letters are regarded as products of the 10th century. A considerable number of still unpublished Sogdian private letters still awaits publication.197 Letters are also to be found among the Berlin texts in Sogdian script, in the Petersburg198 and in the Otani collections, letter exercises included, and even model forms for polite and proper introductory phrases. An elaborate example is So 10920.199 In this context model alphabets may be mentioned. Those which reproduce the Manichaean alphabet are certainly of Manichaean origin. 200 It is noteworthy that among the Turfan texts and as opposed to the host of Old Turkish documents hardly any Sogdian Manichaean and no Middle Persian or Parthian ones are known. So far only one Manichaean Sogdian document has been identified and published. 201

197 198 199 200 201

Boyce 1960, p. 148, no. 34. Sims-Williams 1981 b, pp. 235–36. Joined with So 19535 by C. Reck. Sundermann 1985 d. Sundermann 1996 a.

255

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

Word-Lists Lists of Middle Persian and Parthian words with Sogdian translation in a loosely alphabetical order are convincingly explained by M. Boyce as having been extracted from works in need of explanation and drawn on behalf of the readers not the composers of literary works in a foreign language. 202 Sogdian and Old Turkish word-lists were made known in 1981. 203 They may be explained in the same way as the Middle Persian–Parthian and Sogdian lists. It is otherwise with monolingual Sogdian word-lists. They are arranged in semantic groups, such as “points of the dogma, calendar-days, proper names, parts of the body, a Nāβnāme (list of nations) etc.”204 M. Boyce regarded this as an “offshoot of the oral tradition of mnemonic catalogues.”205 Their ultimate origin may be found in the ancient Mesopotamian word-lists (Sundermann 2002 b, esp. pp. 150–55). But who compiled those lists? Probably Turkish speaking writers and copyists who composed or copied Sogdian texts. There are also list-wise written phrases “enumerating points of the Manichaean doctrine or observance”206—a memory aid for students who had to learn those phrases by heart? Examples for all these kinds of word-lists were given by Henning in 1940. 207 Word-lists are also attested among the Petersburg208 and the Otani 209 texts. Not all of these lists are necessarily of Manichaean origin. They are Manichaean if they were written in Manichaean letters or if their contents is inmistakeably Manichaean, and that is the bulk of the fragments. 202 Boyce 1968 c, p. 75. 203 Sundermann/Zieme 1981. 204 Boyce 1968 c, p. 76. There is even a list of interesting Sogdian names of deities, Ch/U 6827 (Sundermann 1994 a). 205 Boyce 1968 c, p. 76. 206 Sims-Williams 1985 a, pp. 579–80. 207 Henning 1940, pp. 1–58 [= Henning 1977, II, pp. 2–59]. 208 Sims-Williams 1981 b, p. 236. 209 Yoshida 1985, pp. 57–61 (another fragment of the Nāβnāme).

256

MANICHAEAN LITERATURE

Medical, Magical and Omen Texts Medical texts are always prescriptions in Sogdian language. 210 It is due to the fragmentary state of those extremely difficult texts that non of them has been edited so far. A curiosity are recently identified Sogdian prescriptions in Brāhmi script. 211 Are they products of the Manichaean or the Buddhist community? The demand for supernatural help and protection in worldly affairs could not be fulfilled by gods whose only concern was the redemption of the souls. The believers made use of magical practices instead, and some, in fact surprisingly few, magical texts in Middle Persian and Parthian are preserved. 212 One such spell against fever is the following: Spell against Fever and the Spirit of [Fever (?)]. It is called Idrā. It has three forms and wings like a griffin. It settles in the bones and in the brain of men. And it is called the great Fever. It is conjured in water […] of copper (?) and ashes. And on it the spelling thus [… If …] turns and to […] does not go, then this Fever shall come out of NN. son of NN. and vanish in the name of the Lord Jesus the Friend, in the name of his Father the Highest, in the name of the Holy Ghost, in the name of the First Reflexion, 213 in the name of Holy Ēl, in the name of Baubo (??), in the name of Mūmīn the son of Ērič (?), (in the name of) Michael, Raphael, and Gabriel, in the name of […] the glutton, who […] … and the bond of light, and … […] . 214

Besides, the use of religious texts as protective amulets might explain the often extremely small, sometimes illegible size of written texts such as the Cologne Mani Codex or the Bactrian 210 Cf. Boyce 1960, p. 148, no. 32. Of the fragments mentioned there M 7340, written in Syriac script, is certainly of Christian origin. There are also some fragments in Sogdian script. More pieces are to be found in the Petersburg and the Otani collections. 211 Maue/Sims-Williams 1991, pp. 486–95. 212 Henning 1947; Boyce 1960, p. 148, nos. 32 and 33; Durkin-Meisterernst 2004 b; Morano 2004. 213 The First Man. 214 Translation after Henning 1947, p. 40, with additions following Boyce 1975 b, pp. 187–88.

257

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

fragment M 1224 which was then folded several times in order to further reduce the size of the leaf. Is it by coincidence that also the Parthian magical text published by Henning 1947 is supposed to come from Bactria? An omen text announcing imminent disastrous events was published in Reck/Sundermann 1997. The text is written in Middle Persian, and it is accompanied by illustrations that clearly illustrate the message of the accompanying text.

Manichaean New Persian Texts Manichaeaism existed in the Islamic world up to the eleventh century. So there must have been Manichaean communities in Iran whose language was New Persian. Their language penetrated into the Turfan area where it became the successor to the Sogdian idiom, called tāžīgāne, the Tajik language. 215 So one can say that the Manichaean texts in New Persian mark the final stage of the Manichaean literature. The Manichaean texts gain importance far beyond the modest scope of Manichaean literature in so far as some of them are the oldest New Persian poetical manuscripts we have, their date being the tenth century . 216 What distinguishes the New Persian Manichaean literature from its Middle Iranian products is that the governing Islamic literature exercised a much greater influence upon those works than its predecessor, the Zoroastrian tradition. Among the very few works known to us there is a Manichaean adaptation of a Barlaam and Josaphat epic, which Henning at first preferred to regard as a work by Rūdakī. 217 In Henning 1962 he simply spoke of “Persian poetical manuscripts from the time of Rūdakī”. The fragments were published by Henning 1962, who also edited a Manichaean New Persian elegy in the qaṣīde form. 215 Sundermann 1993. 216 Henning 1962. 217 Henning 1959 b.

258

MANICHAEAN LITERATURE

Beside these borrowings from the Islamic ambiente we have genuine, particularly Manichaean works, fragments of a confession in New Persian (Sundermann 1989 a), and a double page, together with some small additional fragments, from a dogmatic treatise (M 106). 218 It describes the basic opposition between good and bad substance and the division of the material world (the bad substance) by hot and cold and wet and dry. It may well belong to one of Mani’s books.

A Sketch of the History of Manichaean Literature in Iranian Languages About the history of the Manichaean literature in Iranian languages next to nothing is known. We are less uninformed about its first (the third and fourth centuries) and final period (the eighth to eleventh centuries) than about the dark time in between. At the beginning of Manichaean literature in Iranian languages there is Mani’s Middle Persian Šābuhragān, the somewhat heavy description of a complicated dogmatic system in a language not yet quite prepared for sophisticated theological and cosmological discourses. The book must have originated in connection with Mani’s first self-presentation at the king’s court, i.e. shortly after 240 . First translations, applying the same dogmatic terminology to their texts, may have followed soon. Most other Middle Persian dogmatic texts, displaying a further developed terminology, presuppose a later date of origin, but a date still in Mani’s life-time. 219 Such texts (like the first manuscript edited in Sundermann 1973) make no less difficult reading, and this may have remained a characteristic of the Middle Persian dogmatic prose literature. About the end of Mani’s life traditions of Mani’s disciples about the master’s life and words must have originated, such as M 3, a

218 Published in Sundermann 2003. 219 Sundermann 1979.

259

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

report of Mani’s interpreter about the master’s last, fatal meeting king Wahrām I (274 or 277). 220 They were certainly soon translated into Middle Persian and they introduced into Manichaean Middle Persian a tradition of extreme simplicity which is characteristic for the description of historical events. About the same time, the middle and second half of the third century, Mani’s disciple Mār Ammō, who “knew” the Parthian language, must have established the particular Parthian terminology and thus created Parthian Manichaean prose literature. 221 Mār Ammō is also credited with being the creator of the Parthian poetical literature. 222 Two Parthian Hymn Cycles, the Huyadagmān and the Angad rōšnān, are ascribed to him. If that was so, the Parthian literature started with two poetical masterpieces, and Ammō was much better equiped for the establishment of a literary tradition in a new language than Mani was. This remains basically true even if Ammō was only the writer of the first canto of the Huyadagmān. 223 Two Parthian hymns are dated in the fourth century, M 5 and M 8171. 224 They are both beautiful specimens of elegic poetry, the author’s command of the language was perfect, his vocabulary rich, his metaphors imaginative and to the point. These hymns certainly mark the acme or the beginning of the acme of Parthian poetical literature. I provisionally date the completion of the Parthian Hymn Cycles Huyadagmān and Angad rōšnān by the bishop Mār Xwarxšēd Wahman to about the same time. This period saw also the flourishing of the Parthian prose literature, marked by the origin of an extensive sermon literature. I assume that the hagiographical cycle of sermons came to be composed already towards the end of the third century. 225 Their

220 221 222 223 224 225

Henning 1942 a. Sundermann 1979, pp. 107–13. Boyce 1968 c, p. 74. Sundermann 1991 a, pp. 110–11. Andreas/Henning 1934, pp. 864–65. Sundermann 1986 b, pp. 267–68 (§ 82).

260

MANICHAEAN LITERATURE

language is simple when historical or legendary events are dealt with. It can be as difficult as a Middle Persian dogmatic text when speaches, especially Mani’s last words in prison, are quoted. Comparable and possibly contemporary products of the Middle Persian literature are the Hymn Cycle Gōwišn ī grīw zīndag “Sermon on the Living Self” and possibly a Gōwišn ī grīw dōšist “Sermon on the Most Beloved Self”. But as a whole one must say that the quantitative output of the Parthian literary production was greater, and so it is likely that the Manichaean literature in Parthian was more productive and perhaps higher developed than the Middle Persian one. The Manichaean community of Central Asia remembered the death of Mār Šād Ōhrmezd in 600. It is no more than a guess, but a possible one, that Šād Ohrmezd made Sogdian a literary language of the Manichaeans in Central Asia. 226 If so, we must assume that the Sogdian Manichaean literature had its origin in Sogdiana and not in the Turfan or any other far eastern area. The final epoch of the Manichaean literature in Iranian languages begins with the conversion about 762 of the Turkish Khan Bögü to Manichaeism. The following period of the Turkish steppe empire and the Uigur kingdom of Turfan, which ended in the 13th century, was a world wide unique flourishing time of Manichaean culture. It is deeply to be regretted that it did not coincide with the akme of the Manichaean literary productivity, simply because the active command of the Middle Persian and still more of the Parthian language had passed away. The Middle Persian of the colophone of M 1, dated ultimately in the time of  825–32, 227 suffices to demonstrate how much the Middle Persian of that time was already exposed to the influence of New Persian (cf. DurkinMeisterernst 2003). It was certainly not so that the production of Middle Persian and Parthian hymns had by then come to an end, but those late creations were poor, formulaic, unimaginative imitations of older 226 Henning 1947, p. 49. 227 Müller 1912, p. 37 [= Peek 1985, p. 187].

261

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

compositions, and if Parthian was still used at all, it was mixed up with Middle Persian words. So, the achievement of this final period was the compilation and the manifold copying of the older literary oeuvres, the production of those calligraphically written, masterly illuminated manuscripts which made the Manichaeans famous and notorious in and beyond the Islamic world. Besides, the final period was the high time of the Sogdian Manichaean literture, Sogdian still being a living language in that area. The Sogdian Literature is based on the Middle Persian and Parthian literatures and has drawn on both. That is evident in many respects. The Sogdian literature is largely translated literature. From Middle Persian the “Sermon on the Living Self” was translated. From Parthian the “Sermon on the Light Nous”, the “Sermon on the Soul” and Mani’s Psalms were translated. The Parthian hagiographic sermons have a Sogdian version. At present it is not possible to say to which extent the Sogdian literature produced its own, new compositions. The Sogdian “Book of Parables”, published by me in 1985, and the whole of the confessional froms were certainly original Sogdian creations. As a rule one can say that the Sogdian literature—as opposed to the Middle Persian and Parthian ones—is mainly a corpus of didactic and exhortative prose works. Hymns are nearly absent. That was so because the Sogdian speaking communities could easily understand and chant their wealth of older West Iranian hymns but were in need of precise instruction in their own tongue. Instead of developing a Sogdian corpus of hymns, the most they did was to transcribe some of their Middle Persian and Parthian hymns with Sogdian letters. The Iranian Manichaean literature lasted longer than the life of the Sogdian language. Not only did it remain in use among the Turks of the Turfan area, it became, in its very final stage, perhaps from the tenth century on, 228 a New Persian literature with translations from older Iranian languages (M 106 etc.), compositions in the style of the Islamic New Persian poetry (the qaṣīde of M 786) and 228 Henning 1959 b.

262

MANICHAEAN LITERATURE

adaptations of suitable Islamic works (the Barlaam and Josaphat epic of M 9130). This development was certainly an effect of the spread of the New Persian (the Tadshik) language over Sogdiana proper which started in the 8th century. 229 One has the impression that the Manichaean literature in Iranian languages finally merged into the ocean of the Classical New Persian Literature, just as the last Manichaeans merged into the Buddhist, Islamic or Christian communities of their ambiente.

Further Tasks After all we have seen a future history of the Manichaean literature in Iranian languages should rather be written within the frame of a general Manichaean literary history than as part of the Iranian literary tradition. This is so much the more justified since the research into the literary form and message of the Coptic, the Greek and the Iranian sources of Manichaean literature has made great progress, more in its methodology than in the full treatment of all the accessible texts; even if the outdated literary history of Prosper Alfaric—excellent for its time—has found no successor. On the other hand, to treat the Iranian Manichaean literature as part of the Iranian one in general is at least justified by the community of languages, even if it existed in a spiritual ghetto. And it is also true that towards the end of its development of a thousand years the Iranian Manichaean literature more and more adjusted itself to the forms of the New Persian literature. In the past century work on the Iranian Manichaean Turfan texts in general has made less progress than was to be expected and hoped, for more than one reason. So it goes without saying that the edition of texts is and remains for the forseeable future the prime task of Turfan philology. This is still hard work, and surprisingly often even well preserved pieces of text remain incomprehensible

229 Cf. Frye 1996, pp. 215–17; Lazard 1989, pp. 263–64.

263

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

because words and terms are unknown, the syntax appears to be confused or the idea behind the words is opaque. More than ever the editorial work should be oriented towards the tenets of literary research work, i.e. it should aim at reconstructing literary works from a lot of fragments of pertinent manuscripts, some of them joining, some overlapping, others bearing the same headers or related pieces of text. This method, best doing justice to work on the still unpublished majority of small, damaged and particularly difficult fragments, was developed in an exemplary way by Mary Boyce and applied to the edition of the Hymn Cycles Huyadagmān and Angad rōšnān. I have followed her approach in my editions of the “Sermon on the Light Nous” and the “Sermon on the Soul” and plan to apply it also to a future edition of the “Sermon on the Living Self”. More works to be treated on in the same way are Mani’s “Psalms” (to be edited by Durkin-Meisterernst and Morano), the Middle Persian and Parthian Hymns to the Living Self (to be edited by DurkinMeisterernst), the Sogdian cosmogonic and cosmological fragments and the bulk of the Middle Persian and Parthian cantillated hymn texts. Beside such monographic studies, the article-wise edition of interesting single pieces remains legitimate and desirable. I have described what I regard as the particular principles of “Turfan-Philology” in my article “Probleme der Edition iranischmanichäischer Handschriften”. 230 As for literary studies in particular the basic problem was and remains the double question (1) how the authors, writers and readers of the texts categorized their works by applying to them their own terms, by writing and arranging the texts in a specific manner and by expressing their views in liturgical instructions, and (2) how the texts fit into a system of literary categories which is ultimately ours, of the stilistic means of literary language and how they fit into our aesthetic evaluation of the products.

230 Sundermann 1991 a, pp. 106–12.

264

MANICHAEAN LITERATURE

However much work on the Manichaean literature in Iranian languages is still to be done, a balanced evaluation of its achievements and shortcomings is already possible. It neither confirms the initial enthusiastic over-estimation of those texts by the “Religionsgeschichtliche Schule”, their interpretation toward traces of an obsolete Old Iranian religiosity, nor does it support Hans Heinrich Schaeder’s one-sided verdict on the Central Asian texts as the miserable outcome of a local religious tradition in decline. 231 It appraises the Manichaean literature in general, and no less its Iranian part, as a particular, in its way a most impressive argumentative and poetic presentation of the once widespread religious ideas of gnosticism.

231 Cf. Lentz 1956, p. *11*.

265

CHAPTER 5 CHRISTIAN LITERATURE IN MIDDLE IRANIAN LANGUAGES1 N. S-W Christian writings are known to us in only two Middle Iranian languages: Middle Persian and Sogdian. 2 Just as the Christian churches of Iran and Transoxiana were offshoots of the Syriacspeaking church of Mesopotamia, this Middle Iranian Christian literature may be regarded as a branch of Syriac literature, “to which it belongs in spirit and in origin”.3 The only surviving Christian text in Middle Persian is a psalter translated from the Syriac Peshitta version. Most of the Sogdian texts are likewise translations from Syriac, or at least based on Syriac models, though in some cases the originals are probably no longer extant.

1

2

3

This chapter is partly based on Sims-Williams 1991 b and 1992. I have not made any attempt to avoid coincidences in wording between these earlier papers and the present revised and expanded version. I am grateful to Werner Sundermann for several valuable additions and corrections. A remark in Friar William of Rubruck’s report of his mission to the Mongols (1253–55 ) has been taken to imply that the Nestorians of Choresmia formerly employed the native language of the region for liturgical and literary purposes (Pelliot 1973, pp. 113–18; Jackson 1990, p. 148, n. 3), but no trace survives of Christian literature in Choresmian. Regarding a supposed mention of Christians in a Khotanese text see Emmerick 1992 d. Sims-Williams 1981 c, p. 444.

266

CHRISTIAN LITERATURE

Middle Persian By the end of the third century , Christianity was firmly established in parts of western Iran, having spread southwards and eastwards from Syriac-speaking areas such as Edessa (modern Urfa in south-eastern Turkey) and Arbela (in northern Iraq). Despite intermittent persecution, the church survived and even expanded during the following centuries of Sasanian rule and individual Christians sometimes achieved high positions in the imperial administration. Early in the fifth century the Persian church formally declared itself independent of the Patriarch of Antioch; its separation from western Christendom became absolute as a result of a series of synods during the 480s, when the church in Iran officially adopted the so-called Nestorian christology which had been condemned by the Council of Ephesus in 431. Up to this time, Syriac was the only language used for liturgical and literary purposes by the Christian church in Iran. In view of the increasing isolation of the Persian church in the fifth century it is not surprising that this century also saw the beginnings of a Christian literature in Middle Persian. The earliest such works of which we possess precise and apparently reliable information belong to the latter part of the century, when the Catholicos Aqāq or Acacius (d. 496) translated a summary of Christian doctrine by Elišaʿ bar Quzbāye from Syriac into Persian for presentation to Kawād I (488–531),4 and Maʿnā of Shiraz, the metropolitan of Rēw-Ardašīr, composed various works in Persian, including hymns (madrāše), “discourses” (mẹmre), and responses (ʿonyātā) for liturgical use.5 At a slightly later date, the existence of liturgical texts in Persian is also implied by an episode in the Life of the East Syrian saint John of Deylam (d. 738), which is extant in various forms in Syriac, Arabic and Sogdian6 : 4 5 6

Baumstark 1922, pp. 114–15. Ibid., p. 105. The statement that the Catholicos Maʿnā, who lived in the first half of the fifth century, made translations from Syriac into Persian may rest on a confusion with the later Maʿnā (see Gerö 1981, p. 23, n. 50). Brock 1981–82, p. 150.

267

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN Now the Persian and Syriac speaking brethren quarrelled with each other over the services: the Persians said, “We should all recite the services in our language, seeing that we live in Persian territory”; while the Syriac-speakers said, “Our father is a Syriac-speaker, and so we should recite the services in our language …; furthermore we do not know how to recite the services in Persian.”

Since Syriac eventually regained its status as the exclusive language of the church, almost all of this Middle Persian Christian literature has vanished, apart from a few works which are preserved in Syriac translation. These include a commentary on Aristotle’s De interpretatione by Paul the Persian, who was active at the court of Khusrō I (531–79),7 and two legal treatises by the Metropolitans Išoʿbōxt and Simon.8 Even in its Syriac version, the Corpus Juris of Išoʿbōxt contains a number of Middle Persian words, as well as concepts of Zoroastrian origin, such as the distinction between thoughts, words and deeds in moral questions. A passage in one of the homilies of John Chrysostom suggests that St. John’s Gospel was already known in Persian by the end of the fourth century,9 while Theodoret of Cyrrhus in the mid fifth century apparently refers to the translation of some part of the Old Testament into Persian.10 However, the rhetorical hyperbole of both authors diminishes the credibility of their assertions: Chrysostom writes of the languages of the “Syrians, Egyptians, Indians, Persians, Ethiopians, and countless other peoples”, while Theodoret even refers to translations from Hebrew into the languages of the 7

8 9 10

Unpublished. According to the manuscripts, this work of Paul’s was written in Persian and translated into Syriac by Severus Sēbōxt (d. 666/667). Paul also composed a short treatise on Aristotelian logic for Khusrō I (ed. Land 1875), but it is a matter of debate whether he wrote it in Persian or Syriac. See Baumstark 1922, p. 246; Gutas 1983, pp. 238–39 with nn. 14–16 and p. 244, n. 29. It is also disputed whether Paul was a Zoroastrian convert to Christianity or vice versa. I am grateful to Byard Bennett (Grand Rapids Baptist Seminary) for drawing my attention to the literature concerning Paul the Persian and his writings. Both published by Sachau 1914, pp. 1–253. J.-P. Migne, Patrologia Graeca, LIX, Paris, 1862, col. 32. Patrologia Graeca, LXXXIII, Paris, 1859, col. 948.

268

CHRISTIAN LITERATURE

Scythians and Sarmatians. Nevertheless, the existence of Middle Persian translations of at least some parts of the Bible can be inferred from the fact that the Zoroastrian refutation of Judaism and Christianity in Chapters 13–15 of the Škand-gumānīg Wizār contains quite accurate quotations of many biblical passages, such as the Paternoster (Matthew 6,9–13)11: Our Father in heaven, may your kingdom be, and may your will be on earth as in heaven. And give us daily bread, and do not bring us to the test.

As has already been mentioned, the only extant Christian work in Middle Persian is also a biblical text: a fragmentary translation of the Book of Psalms.12 This Psalter was not found in Iran but in Chinese Turkestan, at the site of Bulayïq in the Turfan oasis (on which see below). The manuscript itself, and the form of the text which it contains, cannot be older than the sixth or seventh century, since it includes the “canons”, or liturgical responses, of Mār Ābā (d. 552). However, it is written in a form of the Pahlavi script which is more archaic than that of Zoroastrian Book Pahlavi, and its grammar and orthography appear to be close to those of the Sasanian inscriptions. On this basis it has been argued that the translation may have been made “not long after the earliest inscriptions, perhaps as early as the 4th century.”13 On the whole the text is a literal translation of the standard Syriac Peshitta version and it makes use of many Syriac loanwords, such as taybūtā “goodness”, rahmē “mercy”, and purkānā “salvation” (all of which occur in the short psalm cited below). Occasionally, however, the Pahlavi Psalter preserves readings which differ from those of the Peshitta, agreeing rather with one or another of the Greek versions or with the Hebrew original. For instance, in verse 4 of Psalm 129, the phrase padisā-š tars “on account of fear of him” has no equivalent in the Peshitta and corresponds most closely to the version of Aquila: 11 12 13

de Menasce 1945, pp. 220–21; Panaino 2000. Andreas/Barr 1933. Skjærvø 1983 d, p. 178.

269

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN (Psalm) 129. (1) From the depth I have called you, O Lord my God, (2) and you have heard my cry; may your ear listen to the sound of my supplication. (Canon) (You who are) beneficent and righteous and compassionate, in (your) goodness, (have) mercy upon us! (3) If you regard (his) sin, Lord, who can stand? (4) For pardon is from you. On account of fear of him (5) my soul waited for the Lord, and my soul waited for his word. I waited (6) for the Lord from night watch unto night watch. (7) Israel waits for the Lord, for mercies are from him, and salvation is wholly with him; (8) and he himself will deliver Israel from all its unrighteousness.

The presence of the Pahlavi Psalter is a clear indication that the Christians of the Turfan oasis, just like those in Iran, must at some stage have used Middle Persian in the liturgy. The Persian background of this community is also clear from the occurrence of a few Middle Persian loanwords in the Christian Sogdian texts. These include paywāk (Middle Persian paywāg) as a technical term for a liturgical response and even the term for “Christian” itself: tarsāk, that is, “one who fears (God)” (cf. New Persian tarsā). The Pahlavi Psalter may therefore be seen as an import from the mother-church in Iran and the use of Middle Persian in the liturgy at Bulayïq as a feature of the earliest period in the existence of this Christian community, before the languages of the local converts were adopted for liturgical purposes. A different explanation must be sought for the presence in the Turfan oasis of a few fragments of New Persian texts in Syriac script: a double-sheet from a bilingual psalter in Syriac and New Persian14 and a couple of fragments from a pharmacological text.15 These manuscripts can hardly have originated in Iran, since they make use of the extra letters which were added to the Syriac alphabet when it was adapted to write Sogdian. It is an open question whether they were written in the Turfan oasis, where they were found, or in Sogdiana, where New Persian began to replace Sogdian as the spoken language after the Islamic conquest in the early eighth century. 14 15

Müller 1915; Sundermann 1974 b. “M7340” = T II Toyoq (cf. Henning 1958, p. 79; Boyce 1960, p. 130) and C8 = T II B 69 + T II B 14[b], all unpublished.

270

CHRISTIAN LITERATURE

Sogdian The Middle and New Persian works described above form part of a library of Christian manuscripts excavated by the Second and Third German Turfan Expeditions (1904–7) in the Turfan oasis, chiefly from the ruined Nestorian monastery of Shüipang near Bulayïq.16 Despite their fragmentary condition, most of these manuscripts were easily identifiable as Christian texts, either by their contents or by their use of the Syriac script. The principal languages attested are Sogdian and Syriac, but there are also forty or fifty fragments in Uygur Turkish,17 as well as parts of the Book of Psalms in several other languages: the Pahlavi Psalter, the SyriacNew Persian bilingual, and even the first line of a psalm in Greek as a superscription to its translation into Sogdian. A very few Christian texts in Syriac, Sogdian, Turkish, and Persian were discovered at other sites in the Turfan oasis, such as Astana, Qočo (the site of a Christian church with well-preserved frescoes, thought to have been built about the year 900), Qurutqa, and Toyoq. Nowadays all these manuscripts form part of the German Turfan Collection in Berlin. A few are housed in the Museum für Indische Kunst, which also possesses a Christian Sogdian memorial inscription on plaster from Qočo,18 the rest in the Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Virtually all of them can be viewed on the web-site of the Akademie: http://www.bbaw.de/ forschung/turfanforschung/dta/index.html. A few of the Christian Sogdian manuscripts from Bulayïq, including both of the known psalters, are written in cursive Sogdian script, but most make use of an adapted Syriac alphabet to which the new letters f, x, and ž have been added. A few manuscripts in Syriac script also employ another new letter (a variant of g,

16 17 18

Le Coq 1926, p. 88. For a general survey see Zieme 1974 (cf. also Zieme 1977, 1981, 1997–98). It is possible that some of the Christian Turkish texts may have been translated from Sogdian. Sims-Williams/Hamilton 1990, p. 38; Sims-Williams 1992, p. 58.

271

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

transliterated as ġ or ğ) for the fricative [γ],19 but in general the sound [γ] is represented by the Syriac letter ʿe. The writing system of Christian Sogdian provides unique linguistic information, in particular through the use of the Nestorian system of diacritical points, which allow the vowels to be indicated more precisely than in Manichean or Sogdian script, where vowels are represented only by the so-called matres lectionis (ʾ, y, w) and short vowels are often not marked at all. Moreover, unlike the Manichean and Sogdian scripts, in which δ represents both voiced [ð] and voiceless [θ], the Syriac script distinguishes between [ð] and [θ], which are written with Syriac dālath and tau respectively. Most of these manuscripts are thought to date from the ninth and tenth centuries. All of them are written on paper. The ink is generally black, but red ink is often used for titles, chapter-headings, rubrics, and decorative punctuation. About forty different hands can be distinguished, some of them attested by a single fragment, others by a hundred or more. Since a scribe must sometimes have copied more than one manuscript the total number of manuscripts represented is no doubt somewhat larger than this. Most of the manuscripts are Western-style codices, though a single page containing a prayer has been identified as belonging to a pothi-book of the Indian type. 20 The range of page sizes is considerable, from 10 × 7 cm in the case of the “Book of Life” (discussed below) to 31.5 × 20 cm or even more. 21 While some codices no doubt contained a single work, or a collection of related texts such as a lectionary, others are miscellanies. Such a miscellany could be of considerable extent. The codex C2, for instance, must originally have consisted of not less than 120 folios containing at least thirteen distinct and 19 20

21

See Sims-Williams 1995 c, pp. 62–63. C46 + C66 + C46 (unpublished), cf. Hansen 1968, p. 94, n. 2, where this manuscript is listed as a bilingual because it contains one line in Syriac. The claim that it is a pothi-leaf is based on its shape and on the fact that the two sides are inscribed the opposite way up; there is in fact no evidence that it was ever bound into a book of any kind. C45 (unpublished) is a long strip from the margin of a manuscript which must have been over 36.5 cm high, but from the few letters which are preserved it is impossible to say whether the language was Sogdian or Syriac.

272

CHRISTIAN LITERATURE

mostly unconnected texts, including saints’ lives, commentaries, ascetical literature, and at least one metrical homily. 22 No Christian texts in Sogdian have been discovered in Sogdiana itself, although it is not inconceivable that some of the Christian Sogdian texts discovered in the Turfan oasis may originate there. The Christian remains found in the region do however include written materials in Syriac, such as a group of short rock inscriptions found near Urghut, 35 km from Samarkand, and an ostracon from Panjikant inscribed with Psalms 1–2 as a writing exercise. Both the Nestorians and the Melkites, the branch of the Syrian church which acknowleged the authority of the Patriarch of Antioch, were established in Sogdiana by the eighth century. There seems to be no reference to Melkites in Transoxiana before 762 , when the Caliph al-Manṣūr transported the Melkite Catholicos of Ctesiphon and his flock to Tashkent, but by this time the Nestorians were already well entrenched: ossuaries excavated at Samarkand and decorated with Nestorian crosses and other Christian symbols can be dated on archaeological grounds to the seventh century or earlier, whilst the Nestorian metropolitan see of Samarkand had been created by the early eighth century at the latest. The Nestorian church of Samarkand subsequently prospered for some centuries, as is witnessed by Ibn Ḥawqal in the tenth century and by Marco Polo in the thirteenth; it was finally destroyed by persecution in the fifteenth century under Ulugh Beg. 23 Meanwhile, Christianity seems to have been carried by Sogdian colonists to Semirech’e, the region north-east of Sogdiana, between Lake Balkash and the Issyk Kul, where the religion flourished during the eighth to tenth centuries under the rule of the Turkic Qarluqs. Several Sogdian inscriptions have been found in this area, including one whose Christian origin is assured by the occurrence of Syriac words24:

22 23 24

See Sims-Williams 1985b, pp. 14–20, on the reconstruction of this manuscript. For more detailed surveys of the history of the church in Samarkand see Colless 1986 and Sims-Williams 1991 b. Livshits 1981, p. 80.

273

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN This jar is a container of burnt ashes for the teacher (malpānā) Yaruq-tegin. May he be blessed, amen and amen!

Even after the conversion of the Qarluqs to Islam at the end of the tenth century Christianity survived for a long time, as we know from the report of William of Rubruck, who passed through the region in the mid-thirteenth century, and from hundreds of tombstones with Syriac and Turkish inscriptions, mostly dating to the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, found in Nestorian cemeteries near Tokmak and Bishkek. One can scarcely doubt that some form of Christian literature must have been translated into Sogdian for the sake of the Christians of Sogdiana and Semirech’e, who would have been unlikely to understand either Syriac or Middle Persian, but no such text has been discovered in either area. Indirect evidence for the use of the Sogdian language by the Christians in Sogdiana may however be found in an intriguing piece of information supplied by the Armenian Hetʿum, who wrote in 1307 in his description of Choresmia 25: The people of this country are called Choresmians; they are heathens and have no law or writing of their own. A kind of Christians live in these parts, who are called Sogdians, and have their own writing and language; their beliefs are like those of the Greeks, and they are obedient to the Patriarch of Antioch. In church they sing in various ways and celebrate the office like the Greeks, but their language is not Greek.

From the references to the Greek rite and to the Patriarch of Antioch it is clear that Hetʿum is referring to the Melkites of Choresmia, of whom we know also from Biruni. But this does not imply that he is in error in the quite precise information which he gives that these Christians were called “Sogdians” and that they employed their own language in the liturgy. It seems to me most probable that the Christians described by Hetʿum were descendants of the Melkites of Tashkent, who had there adopted the local language and who may have continued to be known as Sogdians generations after they had migrated once again to Choresmia. If this interpretation is 25

Pelliot 1973, pp. 117–18.

274

CHRISTIAN LITERATURE

correct, Hetʿum’s account provides indirect evidence that Sogdian had earlier been used liturgically by the Melkites in Sogdiana. In fact, the Nestorian library of Bulayïq contains one text which can perhaps be attributed to contact with the Melkites of Sogdiana. This is the unique fragment mentioned earlier which contains the first phrase of a psalm in Greek followed by a Sogdian translation.26 The Sogdian text shows affinities both with the Syriac Peshitta version and with the Greek Septuagint. This document is unlikely to be Nestorian in origin, knowledge of the Septuagint pointing rather to the Melkites, the only Syrian church which ever used Greek (beside Syriac) in the liturgy. In the absence of other evidence for a Melkite presence in Chinese Turkestan, it seems most likely that the translation was made in the Sogdian homeland, with which the Sogdians of the Turfan oasis no doubt remained in contact. In 1905, when the Second German Turfan Expedition began to excavate at Bulayïq, the erstwhile existence of significant communities of Sogdian-speaking Christians was hardly suspected. The linguistic and literary importance of the discovery of a large collection of Christian literature in Sogdian was quickly recognized. Within a few months of the discovery E. Sachau had already published a specimen of this new variety of Sogdian in Syriac script;27 soon afterwards F. W. K. Müller was able to announce the identification of portions of the New Testament translated into Sogdian from the Syriac Peshitta version, which he hailed as a key to the understanding of the previously unknown Sogdian language. 28 The New Testament passages identified by Müller and published in full in his Soghdische Texte I, together with the additional fragments published subsequently by Sundermann, for the most part belong to lectionaries containing the portions of the gospels and Pauline epistles appointed to be read in the services of the church. 29 Most of them are bilingual, the Syriac original and the Sogdian translation alternating phrase by phrase, but one manuscript (C5), 26 27 28 29

Sims-Williams 2004. Sachau 1905, pp. 973–78. Müller 1907, esp. p. 260. Müller 1913; Sundermann 1974 a, 1975 b, 1981 b.

275

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

which happens to be the best preserved, is entirely in Sogdian except for the Syriac heading and introductory phrase of each reading.30 An interesting feature of this manuscript is its employment of the East Syrian musical recitation accents.31 The underlying text is once again the Syriac Peshitta version, which is often translated in an extremely literal, even mechanical, manner.32 Occasionally, however, it seems that the Peshitta text underlying the Sogdian may have contained readings typical of the Old Syriac versions and Tatian’s Diatessaron (gospel-harmony).33 Both features are strikingly illustrated by the Sogdian version of Matthew 10,2934: Are not two sparrows sold for one ‘bond’, and (yet) not one of them falls to the ground without the will of God your Father?

The Sogdian word bnt “bond” is a mechanical rendering of Syriac assār, the name of a small coin, which the translator has apparently interpreted, without regard for the context, as the homonym meaning “bond”. The word “will”, on the other hand, has no equivalent in the Peshitta (which reads “without your Father” like the underlying Greek text), but is found in a Flemish gospel-harmony, a later representative of the Tatianic tradition. It is not clear whether any book of the New Testament was translated into Sogdian as a whole. The only possible example is a fragmentary page (C13) of which one side contains the beginning of St. Matthew’s Gospel in Syriac and Sogdian. The fact that the other side is left blank has suggested that this may be the first 30

31 32 33 34

It has been suggested that the bilingual lectionaries represent an earlier liturgical usage than the monolingual Sogdian lectionary (Sundermann 1981 b, p. 169, referring to Baumstark 1921, p. 11); at any rate, it seems that both the traditional church language and the vernacular were employed for the bible readings. These accents were studied by Wellesz (1919), who, apparently unaware of their Syriac origin (for which see Segal 1953), compared them with Byzantine musical notation. Telegdi 1938, p. 206, n. 2 and passim. Peters 1936. Sundermann 1974 a, pp. 253–54 with nn. 150, 159. As Anna Chaudhri once pointed out to me, one should probably restore [wyšnt p](w) cn rather than [nyšqrʾ](n) cn in line 8.

276

CHRISTIAN LITERATURE

page of a book, in which case the manuscript would probably have been a bilingual copy of the complete Gospel (or Gospels) rather than a lectionary.35 However, it is also possible that the writer of this manuscript left the first and last pages of each quire blank, a practice attested in at least one Syriac manuscript from Bulayïq.36 In that case, these fragments too may belong to a lectionary. The only book of the Old Testament which we know to have been translated into Sogdian is the Book of Psalms, of which we possess fragments of two versions. One is the fragment with a Greek quotation, which I have attributed to contact with the Melkite church in Sogdiana. The other is translated from the Peshitta and gives the first verse of each psalm in Syriac as well as in Sogdian.37 Since it also includes the East Syrian headings to the psalms, this manuscript is clearly of Nestorian origin. Both of these psalters are written in the traditional Sogdian script rather than in the Syriac script used in the great majority of Christian Sogdian manuscripts, a fact which may perhaps be taken to indicate that they were intended for use by laymen as well as monks. Apart from these lectionaries and psalters, the Christian Sogdian manuscripts of Bulayïq include few texts which seem to have been intended for liturgical use. A Sogdian version of the Nicene Creed was presumably used liturgically, since it is contained in the same manuscript as the Nestorian psalter just described.38 No hymns have been found apart from a Sogdian version of the Gloria in excelsis Deo (“Glory to God in the highest”),39 which is also known in a Chinese translation from Dunhuang.40 A particularly interesting fragment is a page from a “Book of Life”, traditionally 35 36

37 38 39 40

Sundermann 1981 b, p. 210. MIK III/45 = T II B 26 (Sachau 1905, pp. 970–73). Cf. also the fragment T II B 18, of which one side contains the Syriac text of Proverbs 9,14–10,12 while the other, which was perhaps originally the blank page at the beginning or end of the quire, was later used for the draft of a Syriac letter (Maróth 1985). Schwartz 1974. Müller 1913, pp. 84–88; cf. Schwartz 1974, p. 257. Sims-Williams 1995 b. Moule 1930, pp. 52–57; Wu 1986.

277

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

read by a deacon in commemoration of the saints and other faithful departed, whose names were inscribed on tablets or “diptychs”.41 Such texts rarely survive in any language, so that we do not have much comparative material to guide us in interpreting the Sogdian fragment, which is unfortunately very difficult to understand: … [for Mar Sergius and Mar] Bacchus, Mar George, Mar Cyriacus, Mar Pethion, (and) all the martyrs, (a prayer)(?) according to the tablets; and for Lord Narsai the teacher, a prayer, according to the tablets; and for Mar Ephraim, the important(?) teacher, a prayer, according to the tablets. And may this contract(?) …, the bond(?) of the holy …42 Book of Life, be sealed by the will of God, and by the death of the martyrs, and by the praise and worship of the holy divine angels, and by that day of the (inauguration of)(?) the Mystery (of) Communion(?),43 when our King, Lord and Lifegiver …

It is a characteristic feature of the missionary practice of the Nestorian church that Syriac was always maintained as the primary language of the liturgy, the languages of the local people being admitted into liturgical use only for particular parts of the service such as hymns, psalms, and bible readings.44 Certainly Syriac was the principal language of the liturgy at Bulayïq, where several Syriac psalters, hymn-books, and service-books have been found.45 Some of these contain rubrics in Sogdian,46 showing that 41 42

43

44 45 46

Schwartz 1991 b. The manuscript here appears to have mry, which Schwartz regards as an otherwise unattested word for “number, enumeration”. Can it be the honorific title mry “(My) Lord”, which is occasionally used in Syriac of an inanimate object such as the Cross (see Mingana 1934, p. 137 with n. 1, who refers to a work by Dādišoʿ Qaṭrāyā)? A reference to the Last Supper? My translation is based on the supposition that ʾwštʾp, here compounded with rʾz “mystery”, is a metathesized form connected with Syriac šwtʾp “to share, communicate, administer (Holy Communion)” (cf. also Manichaean Middle Persian hʾmšwdʾb “companion”, Henning 1942 c, p. 239, n. 1). A clumsily written note in a Syriac service-book from Bulayïq (MIK III/45 = T II B 26, f. 37v; cf. n. 36 above) has the variant spelling wšdʾprʾz. See Hage 1978. Sundermann 1974 b, p. 442; Sachau 1905, pp. 964–73. C9 + C50 and C43 + C43 a, all unpublished (cf. Sundermann 1981 b, p. 170).

278

CHRISTIAN LITERATURE

they were copied and used by members of the local Sogdian community, which had been established in the Turfan oasis for so long that Sogdian had attained the status of a local vernacular. As such, it was evidently employed, beside Syriac, for bible readings and the singing of hymns and psalms. The Sogdian manuscripts of Bulayïq include many texts concerning asceticism and the religious life: so many, in fact, that it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that the settlement was a monastery. Admonitions, homilies, and treatises on such matters as the seven canonical hours of prayer47 and the virtues of withdrawal from the world, solitude, and silent contemplation within one’s cell are clearly addressed to monks rather than to laymen.48 Amongst the most interesting of such texts is a homily on the “three stages” of the solitary life (C2, folio 31), the Syriac original of which has not been identified49 : The course of this (life of) quietude is in three periods. Labour is the initial period, and to this first (period) belongs fear, and the grief which results from the recollection of former things. And to the second period (belongs) encouragement, and the manifold consolation whereby the wise penitent approaches (divine) favours by virtue of the purity which he receives from weeping and penitence. And when, in his constant quietude, and in laborious discipline, and in thinking upon his sins, which is distressing to him, from which (thought) there derives a manner which turns to loud weeping— when he shall complete this former period with manifold labours by the help of Christ, and shall begin to prepare for the second period, the sign of his repentance will be turned to exultation, although he does not want it (to be so), because he fears that it is perhaps an illusion. And the sign of this is that hope begins to enter his spirit, and, by virtue of his repentance, consolation begins to increase little by 47 48

49

C85 (unpublished, cited in Sims-Williams 1988, p. 151, s.v. ʿdnʾ ); cf. the texts on the seven canonical hours published in Vööbus 1960, pp. 142, 157–58. E.g. Schwartz 1967, pp. 145–50 (a “discourse against evil thoughts”). The socalled “Daniel fragment” (Müller/Lentz 1934, pp. 532–34) may form part of a work on fasting, as is suggested by some other fragments of the same manuscript (cf. Hansen 1968, p. 98, No. 13). Sims-Williams 1981 c; 1985 b, pp. 69–77.

279

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN little; then from time to time thoughts which make him joyful stir within him, and he sees within himself that he can easily cleanse the mind of wandering. These things come about when he enters completely into this second period, when his thought is changed into another which does not resemble the former. Then those things which occur to (his) thought(s) are not of (his) nature, and he begins to pay heed to the mystical words which are hidden in the Psalms, and in the Scripture-reading, and in the other works of the body, and in the (true) understanding of the labour(s) of his service; for sweetness begins to be mingled with his service, both with his fasting, and with the words of his worship, and with the other labours of his way of life; and (his) limbs become composed involuntarily, as soon as he begins to pray, and his thoughts begin to be collected, for they (themselves) realize (how) to bring forth something which is above the struggle; and he sees aright that the ship of his mind is going day by day in growth towards improvement. These things, together with other (yet) greater things, belong to this middle period, until by the Grace of Christ a man rises to that (third) course of life which is above (his) nature.

From the contents of their library, it seems clear that the monks of Bulayïq regarded the ancient monks and solitaries of the Egyptian desert as their spiritual ancestors.50 This may be deduced from the existence of numerous fragments of Sogdian versions of texts such as the Antirrheticus of Evagrius Ponticus,51 the Apophthegmata Patrum (edifying sayings and anecdotes of the Egyptian Fathers),52 writings on humility attributed to Macarius the Egyptian and to Abbā Isaiah,53 and commentaries by Dādišoʿ Qaṭrāyā (late seventh century) on the works of Abbā Isaiah54 and on the “Paradise of the Fathers”, the great collection of Syriac apophthegmata compiled by ʿNānišoʿ.55 50 51 52 53 54 55

Sundermann 1994 b, pp. 258–63. Sims-Williams 1985 b, pp. 168–82. Ibid., pp. 124–36 and perhaps p. 186 (Fragment B); Schwartz 1967, pp. 42–52 (a fragment concerning Abbā Apellen). Sims-Williams 1985 b, pp. 165–67. Sims-Williams 1985 b, pp. 78–86; see also the following note. In an unpublished manuscript which also contains excerpts from Dādišoʿ’s commentary on the Second and Fourteenth Homilies of Isaiah. On the Syriac text of the commentary on the “Paradise” see Sims-Williams 1994 a.

280

CHRISTIAN LITERATURE

A simple example of this type of literature is the following apophthegm quoted in the so-called “Sixth Letter of Macarius the Egyptian”56 : There was [another] father who used to keep himself shut away, and [he] was [famous in the city and] had great glory. And it was made known to him: ‘[One of the holy] ones is departing from this world; come, [greet] him before he departs!’ And he began to consider in his mind: ‘If I go out [by] day, people will rush upon me and I shall have glory, and my mind is not agreeable to this. Rather shall I go out in the evening, in time of darkness, so that no-one may see me.’ And he went out of his cell in the evening, in the dark, desiring that he might go hidden. And immediately two angels were sent from God, and with them torches, and they provided light for him. And immediately the whole city ran up when they saw that glory, and since he desired that he might flee from glory he was glorified (all) the more. And [thereby] was fulfilled that which is written, that he who humbles himself will be exalted.

A large quantity of hagiographical literature is also known to have been translated into Sogdian, including such well-known texts as the apocryphal “Acts of Peter”,57 the legends of the Invention of the Cross58 and of the Sleepers of Ephesus,59 and the martyrdoms of Sergius and Bacchus,60 Cyriacus and Julitta,61 Eustathius,62 and George,63 the last of which was ultimately translated also into Turkish.64 The literature of this type extant in Sogdian includes several biographies of those who were regarded as having played an important part in the history of monasticism and its spread from west to east, such as Serapion (whose life is attested in two separate manuscripts),65 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

Sims-Williams 1985 b, p. 166. Müller/Lentz 1934, pp. 528–31. Ibid., pp. 513–21. Sims-Williams 1985 b, pp. 154–57. Müller/Lentz 1934, pp. 520–22. T II B 60 No. 13, unpublished (see Sims-Williams 1993 c). Sims-Williams 1985 b, pp. 158–64. Hansen 1941; cf. also Benveniste 1943–45; Gershevitch 1946. Bang 1926. C3 (from which two excerpts are given in Müller 1913, pp. 34, 80–81) and C27. See also Sundermann 1994 b, pp. 260–61; Sims-Williams 1995 c.

281

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

Eugenius,66 and John of Deylam.67 The life of John of Deylam, who founded two monasteries in Fars, is one of several hagiographical texts with an Iranian setting, amongst which one may also mention the “Acts of the Persian martyrs under Shapur II”68 and the martyrdom of Pethion.69 But the most important of these texts must surely be the legend of Bishop Baršabbā and the evangelization of Marv, since the Syriac original, like the Sogdian translation, is known only from fragments found at Bulayïq.70 According to this legend, which is told in a more complete form in Arabic sources (the “Chronicle of Se’ert” and the Ketāb al-miǰdal of Mārī b. Sulaymān), Baršabbā belonged to a group of Christians deported by Shapur I from Syria to western Iran. He converted Šīrrān, a sister and wife of Shapur II (309–79), and was therefore banished to Marv, of which he became the first bishop. It is interesting to note that the Sogdian version of the legend credits Baršabbā with the foundation of monasteries in an area stretching from Fars to Gurgan, Tus, Abaršahr, Sarakhs, Marv-rud, Balkh, Herat, and Sistan. In addition to the biblical, liturgical, ascetic, and hagiographical literature mentioned so far, the Sogdian library at Bulayïq naturally includes some items which are not so easily susceptible to categorization, such as the “Apostolic Canons” (with their appendix on the fates of the Apostles),71 a commentary on the symbolism of the baptismal and eucharistic liturgies,72 and several translations of Syriac metrical homilies.73 I would like to draw attention in particular to two texts which have not yet been identified with any 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73

Sundermann 2002a. Sundermann 1976. Sims-Williams 1985 b, pp. 137–53; Schwartz 1970, pp. 391–94. Sims-Williams 1985 b, pp. 31–68, 185. Müller/Lentz 1934, pp. 523–58 (Sogdian), 559–64 (Syriac); cf. also SimsWilliams 1989 d. Sims-Williams 1985 b, pp. 101–9; 1994 b [1995]. Sims-Williams 1985 b, pp. 110–20. Müller/Lentz 1934, pp. 535–38 (“Ermahnungen zu christlicher Geduld”); Sims-Williams 1982 and 1985 b, pp. 87–100 (“On the final evil hour” by Bābay bar Nṣibnāye); perhaps also Sims-Williams 1985 b, pp. 121–23 (“On the mercy of God to his creation”).

282

CHRISTIAN LITERATURE

specific Syriac source, although both belong to genres which are well-attested in Syriac literature. The first is a collection of riddles on biblical themes, of which the following is a typical example74: The pupil asked: “Who was the unspeaking messenger (who) took an unwritten message and went to an unbuilt city?” The teacher said: “The unspeaking messenger was the dove, the unwritten message was the leaf of an olive tree, the unbuilt city was Noah’s ark.”

The second work is an anti-dualist polemic.75 Although the writer names his opponents only as “those non-Christians who confess two eternal (beings)”, it is clear from details such as the occurrence of the terms dyndʾr “Elect” and nγwšnyt “Hearers” that they must be the Manichaeans. In view of the generally correct usage of Manichaean Sogdian terminology in this text, one cannot discount the possibility that it might be “a Central Asian product, perhaps even an original composition in Sogdian”, as I once suggested.76 On the other hand, it must be admitted that the author displays less genuine understanding of Manichaeism than one might expect of a Sogdian author living in the Turfan oasis in close contact with Sogdian-speaking Manichaeans. On balance, therefore, it seems most likely that this work is in fact a translation from Syriac like almost all other Christian Sogdian texts. The argument is presented in the form of a series of “questions” or arguments, the first two of which are partially preserved. The first section, of which the beginning is missing, is concerned with the question whether it is possible for God and Satan to be co-eternal. The second section, which is headed “Concerning wisdom”, begins as follows: Now you (should) ask those non-Christians who confess two eternal (beings) whether God is wise or ignorant. If God is wise, then it is appropriate that Satan should be ignorant, for what pertains to God does not pertain to Satan; moreover, what pertains to Satan 74 75 76

Sundermann 1988 c. For the passage translated here see p. 175. Sims-Williams 2003. For the passage translated here see pp. 401 (v18–26) and 402. Sims-Williams 1995 d, p. 291.

283

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN does not pertain to God, for if it did there would be no distinction (between them). Now let us consider (carefully), for if wisdom pertains to God but ignorance pertains to Satan, then it would have been appropriate for God to know by his wisdom …

A lost fragment, of which a transliteration was found amongst the papers of Olaf Hansen, contains a broken passage which makes reference to the Indian doctrine of transmigration77: “… sometimes [karma(?) brings the soul down] to hell, [sometimes] it introduces (it) into the body of insects, and sometimes [into that of] birds …” This passage may be the conclusion of the same anti-Manichaean tract. It is immediately followed by another unique item, a “menology”, in which omens drawn from natural phenomena are interpreted according to the month of the year in which they occur. In this case the phenomena treated as omens include eclipses of the moon, rainbows, thunder, and earthquakes78 : [In Nisan: if thunder should occur, that] year [the grain will not] ripen well; if perchance the earth should quake, there will be much rain but men will be very unhappy.—In the month Iyar: when thunder occurs, there will be strife; if perchance the earth should quake, there will be famine …

No specific Syriac source has been discovered for this text, but menologies of this type are common in Syriac (and in other languages, including Greek, Arabic, and Jewish Palestinian Aramaic).79 Both in form and in content, such works ultimately derive from Mesopotamian models. Nevertheless, the fact that some of the individual predictions of the Sogdian text are closely paralleled in Babylonian as well as Syriac omen-literature is a remarkable indication of the continuity of the Ancient Near Eastern tradition.80 Resemblances between the Christian Sogdian text and comparable Buddhist and Manichaean Sogdian omen texts are in general more distant, but some points of similarity in matters of linguistic usage suggest the 77 78 79 80

Ibid., p. 293 [= Sims-Williams 2003, pp. 408–9]. Sims-Williams 1995d. For the passage translated here see p. 294 (5r31–5v3). Ibid., pp. 291–92, where a reference should be added to Greenfield/Sokoloff 1989. Sims-Williams 1995 d, p. 292; 1996 d, pp. 78–79.

284

CHRISTIAN LITERATURE

possibility of mutual influence in the Central Asian milieu where all these texts were composed, translated, or copied.81 Although the Sogdian manuscripts of Bulayïq include almost every kind of religious text which one might expect to find in the library of a Nestorian monastery, it is noteworthy that there is an almost total lack of practical and secular documents. Apart from the omen text discussed above, one can only mention a fragmentary medical prescription,82 two or three calendrical fragments,83 and a list of numerals in Syriac and Sogdian.84 This lack is all the more surprising in view of the fact that ephemera such as private letters and economic documents make up a significant proportion of the much smaller collection of Christian Turkish manuscripts found at Bulayïq and at the nearby, wholly Turkish site of Qurutqa. Almost certainly, the explanation of this fact is that the writers and readers of the Christian Sogdian manuscripts were in many cases Turkish speakers.85 During the final phase of the monastery’s existence, to which the more ephemeral documents are likely to belong, Turkish was probably the principal language of day-to-day business, although Sogdian evidently retained a place beside Syriac as a language of literature and liturgy. The existence of another community of Christians who were probably bilingual in Sogdian and Turkish is attested by a group of ninth to tenth century documents from the “Caves of the Thousand Buddhas” at Dunhuang in western China, where several Christian 81 82 83 84 85

See Sims-Williams 1995 d, pp. 292–93, on the Buddhist Sogdian text P22. Yutaka Yoshida kindly drew my attention to the Manichaean Sogdian omen text M502p (from which a passage is cited in Henning 1945 a, p. 484). [T II] B 13 + [T II] B 62, unpublished. (1) [1676] = T II B 46 [No. 2]; (2) [1660] = T II B 22 [No. 2] + [1772] = T II B 22 [No. 2] + [1772] = T II B 66 [No. 489]; (3?) C93 = T III B 61[h] + C48 = T II B 62 (all unpublished). C7 = T II B 66 [No. 49], unpublished. See Sims-Williams 1992, p. 54, where I refer to the insertion of the letter aleph before an initial r in certain Christian Sogdian manuscripts as “a typical feature of Turkish spelling and pronunciation”, and to the Christian Sogdian texts containing Turkish names published ibid., pp. 56–58. (The name Yʾnn in Text A perhaps represents East Syriac Yāwnān “Jonah”.)

285

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

texts in Chinese and Syriac have also come to light.86 No Christian Turkish texts have been found at Dunhuang, and the only Sogdian manuscript of recognizably Christian content is a small fragment of a text of popular character, an oracle book of the type known in the West as Sortes Apostolorum 87: … [Thus says the Apostle] Simon: “You are like the cow which had strayed from the herd. A lion was lying in the road, very hungry and thirsty. Thus he wished: ‘I shall eat her’, (but) God delivered the cow from the lion’s mouth. So God will deliver you too from the … which has come upon you.”

Several secular Sogdian texts from Dunhuang are either written by Christians or mention Christians, including priests and monks. One is a letter written by a priest named Sargis (Sergius), who, in a postscript, commends a friend with the Turkish name El Bars to the care of the monk David. The body of the letter is chiefly concerned with commercial transactions, in which the priest takes an active part—quite in accordance with the traditions of the Sogdian people, whose commercial enterprise was proverbial.88 Two further Sogdian documents from Dunhuang may perhaps be attributed to Christians in view of their use of the phrase pr βγ(ʾ)y nʾm “in the name of God”: one is again a commercial document, the other a colophon.89 Finally one may refer to another letter, which mentions several persons who are presumably Christians: the addressee, who bears the Syriac name Giwargis (George); a monk, whose name may be interpreted as Sogdian (Kwrʾk?), Turkish (Küräg?), or Chinese (Kuang?); and a priest with the Sogdian name Wanu-čor and the Syriac title rẹš ʿẹdtā “bursar, steward”, 86 87

88 89

See Moule 1930, pp. 52–64 (Chinese); Klein/Tubach 1994 and Peng/Wang 2000, pp. 382–90, Pl. XIX’–XX’ (Syriac). Sims-Williams 1976, pp. 63–65. The closest parallel to this manuscript is a Christian Turkish oracle book found at Bulayïq, for which see Le Coq 1909, pp. 1205–8; Bang 1926, pp. 53–64; Zieme 1977. Cf. also the hybrid Buddhist-Christian oracle in a Tibetan book of divination from Dunhuang (Uray 1983, pp. 412–19). Sims-Williams/Hamilton 1990, text F (pp. 51–61). Ibid., texts A and D (pp. 23–30, 39–40).

286

CHRISTIAN LITERATURE

literally “ecclesiarch”.90 The linguistic mixture revealed by the names is equally characteristic of the texts themselves, which are mainly written in Sogdian, but with many Turkish and Chinese words. The syntax too contains many unusual constructions, with a proliferation of non-finite verbal forms, suggesting that the writers, even though they wrote in Sogdian, were more accustomed to thinking in Turkish.91 In these documents from Dunhuang we can see, even more clearly than in those from Semirech’e and the Turfan oasis, the Sogdian Christians in the process of being absorbed and eventually vanishing into the Turcophone population which surrounded them. Some centuries later, when Marco Polo mentions the presence of Turkish-speaking Nestorians in the Dunhuang region, the people to whom he refers may well have included the descendants of the Christians of these Sogdian documents.92 Since the Middle Iranian Christian literature consists largely of translations from Syriac, in which Syriac syntax is sometimes followed slavishly and Syriac words, especially technical terms, are freely used,93 its literary value is in general slight. Especial interest attaches to those texts of which the Syriac originals appear to have been lost, such as the legend of Baršabbā (of which only a fragment exists in Syriac), the poem by Bābay, and the collection of riddles. In some cases the Sogdian version sheds light on the textual history of the underlying Syriac text, as in the case of the commentary on baptism and eucharist94 or that of the martyrdom of St. George, the Sogdian text of which shares with the Greek and other versions certain details absent from the Syriac.95 More generally, the Christian texts in Middle Iranian languages are of importance as evidence for the existence and nature of Christian communities which would otherwise be virtually unknown. 90 91 92 93 94 95

Ibid., text G (pp. 63–76). Cf. ibid., pp. 10–11. Polo (ed. Benedetto) 1928, p. 44. Sims-Williams 1988. See Brock 1980, 1986, as well as Sims-Williams 1985 b, pp. 110–12. Such as the reference to George’s belt (Gershevitch 1946, p. 180).

287

CHAPTER 6 BUDDHIST LITERATURE IN SOGDIAN Y. Y

Buddhism among the Sogdians Let us begin by citing a colophon from a certain Buddhist Sogdian text discovered in Dunhuang: The “Sutra of the Condemnation of Intoxicating Drink”: one scroll. The handiwork of the teacher Butiyān, son of Sarchmīk, (has) taken four (sheets of) paper. It was in the town of Saragh (= Luoyang), in the 16th year of the divine Son of Heaven Kai-ngywan, in the year of the dragon, the first month. Thus the upāsaka (lay Buddhist) Chatfārātsrān of the An family relied on the Acharya Jñānacinta and besought him and addressed him from the bottom of his heart, and then the bhikshu Jñānacinta translated it from Indian into a Sogdian scripture, for love of all the living beings of the whole world.1

The colophon shows that a Sogdian named Chatfārātsrān resident in the eastern capital of the Tang Empire, Luoyang, spent some money and asked his compatriot monk Jñānacinta to translate an Indian Buddhist text into Sogdian. The text in question was a rather short text consisting of only four sheets of paper. Chatfārātsrān was a lay Buddhist and his surname An indicates that either he himself or his ancestors hailed from Bokhara. The year in question corresponds to 728 , when the Tang Empire was in its golden age. The scribe who executed the present copy was also a Sogdian bearing the name Butiyān meaning ‘Buddha’s favour’. Thus, in China in the eighth century there existed a community of Sogdian Buddhists consisting of both laymen and monks. 1

MacKenzie 1976, p. 11. I have modified MacKenzie’s translation slightly.

288

BUDDHIST LITERATURE IN SOGDIAN

The land of Sogdiana was located along the rivers Zarafshan and Kashka-Darya flowing between the two main rivers of Central Asia, the Oxus and the Jaxartes. The Sogdians never created a centralized state, each oasis being a city state comparable to those of Ancient Greece. However, they took advantage of the strategic location of their land between China, India, Iran, and Byzantium and acted as international traders along the Silk Road. Especially conspicuous were their activities in China, which can be traced in the Chinese documents unearthed in Central Asia, such as passports and contracts. The contemporary Chinese people referred to them not only in chronicles and historical writings but also in novels and poems. An anecdote was popular among the Chinese that at birth Sogdians put honey in babies’ mouths and gum on their hands so that they might speak sweet words to cheat and might not lose money when it came into their hands. Xuanzang’s remark is also very negative: “They are as a rule crafty and deceitful in their conduct and extremely covetous. Both parent and child plan how to get wealth; and the more they get the more they esteem each other …” (Beal 1884, p. 27). While the above-quoted colophon clearly points to the Sogdian Buddhists in China, no evidence has so far been discovered in Sogdiana which suggests that Buddhism once flourished there. Remains of their material culture such as wall paintings, clay figurines, etc. are the products of the local Zoroastrianism, which was their national religion. In view of this evidence combined with Xuanzang’s report that there were only two Buddhist temples but no monk one may assume that Buddhism failed to attract the Sogdian people in their homeland, although they were well acquainted with Buddhism, and even though they had strong ties with China, where Buddhism was one of the leading religions. The accidental discovery of a bronze statue of the Bodhisattva Avalokiteśvara in old Samarkand was reported recently, but it can hardly prove that Buddhism was flourishing there (Karev 1998). Moreover, one finds no personal names of Buddhist affiliation among the Mug documents and other inscriptions dating back to the eighth century. 2 2

Emmerick 1990 a, p. 493. Livshits 1962 proposes reading some Buddhist Sanskrit loanwords in some of the Mug documents but the readings do not appear to be supported by their contexts.

289

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

Slightly different was the situation in Semirechiye, which had been colonized by Sogdians, because archaeologists discovered a few remains of Buddhist temples there. They seem to have been founded after Xuanzang visited Semirechiye, because although he passed through it in the first half of the seventh century he did not refer to them and since archaeological evidence is not incompatible with this assumption. However, one of the temples, the Dayun temple, is known to have been founded by the Chinese government when Semirechiye became a territory of the Tang empire and there is no evidence that the others were built only for local Sogdians (Forte 1994). In sharp contrast with the situation in Sogdiana, the bulk of the Sogdian manuscripts discovered in Dunhuang are Buddhist texts and one finds many more Buddhist manuscripts among those unearthed in the Turfan Basin. In fact Buddhist Sogdian texts have so far been unearthed only from Dunhuang and Turfan with but few exceptions, namely those discovered in Shorchuq near present-day Karashar, formerly Yanqi. Thus these texts have come to light only in the territory of the Tang empire where Buddhism flourished. Those manuscript remains are now preserved mainly in libraries and museums in France (Pelliot collection), England (Stein collection), Germany (so-called German Turfan Collection), Russia (Oldenburg and Krotkov collections), Japan (Otani collection), and China. Due to the chance survival of some colophons it is known that translations were made in Dunhuang (text 8 in Benveniste 1940), Luoyang (see above), and Xi’an, the former Changan (text 2 in Benveniste 1940). Besides, all the originals of the texts so far detected have proved to be Chinese. Therefore, it is safe to assume that the Sogdians who came all the way from Sogdiana to the east for the purpose of trade and who settled in China and Chinese Turkestan were converted to Buddhism under the strong influence of local Buddhists. One colophon of a Buddhist Chinese text discovered in Dunhuang shows that the copying of the text was supported by a Sogdian originating from Tashkent: The disciple of pure faith (lay devotee) Shih Lu-shan has reverently copied this sutra, praying that every barrier of sin may be utterly destroyed, that his whole family, great and small, may enjoy peace

290

BUDDHIST LITERATURE IN SOGDIAN and happiness, and that he may soon see the face of his son who is traveling abroad.3

Sogdians were well aware that the Chinese Buddhist texts they were translating were based on Sanskrit originals and they themselves studied Sanskrit, as is betrayed by several Sanskrit words and phrases encountered in the texts. According to the above-cited colophon the text of that manuscript was based on an Indian source, although several scholars favour rather the assumption of a Chinese original. They suggest that the mention of “Indian” was made subconsciously or to lend an air of authority to the sūtra.4 Another colophon of a Buddhist Sogdian text says that it was translated from Kuchean, the language of Kucha, generally known as Tocharian B.5 This fragment was discovered in Turfan, where Tocharian was one of the vernaculars and it is quite possible that Sogdians availed themselves of the Buddhist texts popular among the people surrounding them. As for the date of translation, there are several indications that the bulk of Buddhist Sogdian texts date back to the second half of the seventh and the first half of the eighth century, although the only dated text is the one mentioned above. The morphology of the sheets of paper employed shares peculiarities with those of the Chinese Buddhist manuscripts in use before the Tibetan invasion of Dunhuang in 786/787 , after which the quality of the paper began to deteriorate while the size of the paper became larger. The dates of translation of the Chinese originals range from the second century to the first half of the eighth. While many of those unearthed in Turfan share these peculiarities with the Dunhuang texts, there also exist many that are written on paper of inferior quality. It is likely that the Sogdians in Turfan continued to produce Buddhist texts after the Tibetan invasion into the western area of the Tang empire when it was practically impossible to obtain excellent paper from mainland China. Anyway this dating of the Buddhist Sogdian texts agrees very well with the fact that 3 4 5

Manuscript S 2360. See Giles 1957, p. 138. MacKenzie 1976, p. 7. Henning 1940, pp. 59–62.

291

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

among the Sogdian proper names which are attested in Chinese documents unearthed in Turfan and Dunhuang those containing the element buti (Buddha) such as Fu zhi yan (for Butiyān) began to appear only after the second half of the seventh century.6 In Tang China Zoroastrians called their leader “Sabao”, a title that has been shown to be the transcription of Sogdian sārtpāu (sʾrtpʾw) ‘caravan leader’.7 It is possible that the majority of the Sogdians who were resident in China regarded themselves basically as Zoroastrians owing allegiance to their “caravan-leader”, but we do not know whether those who claimed to be Buddhists continued simply to live beside their Zoroastrian compatriots without renouncing their earlier faith. In what follows we are concerned with the Buddhist Sogdian texts discovered in Dunhuang and Turfan, which represent the Buddhism of those Sogdian people who had settled in China and Chinese Turkestan. Whereas practically all of those discovered in Dunhuang have been published, many of those unearthed in Turfan still await publication. Moreover, what we now possess is just a small part of what had originally existed and we must always bear in mind that future discoveries may lead us to modify our current view.

Texts Concerning Beneficent Buddhas and Bodhisattvas Some fifty of the Buddhist Sogdian texts so far known can be classified into several groups in terms of their contents. One group consists of the tantric texts concerning beneficent beings. Sogdian lay Buddhists were evidently attracted by a creed that included spells to procure material benefits, the pacification of angry ghosts, etc.8 6 7 8

Yoshida 1998, pp. 40–41. Yoshida 1988 a, pp. 168–71. Text 3 in Benveniste 1940 is sometimes referred to as a tantric text. It deals with the weather magic of making rain and is not a canonical Buddhist text but a Central Asian production. On the magic see Molnár 1994.

292

BUDDHIST LITERATURE IN SOGDIAN

The most popular were Bhaiṣajyaguru (Medicine Buddha) and Bodhisattva Avalokiteśvara, who had adherents also among other Oriental peoples. We possess fragments of four different manuscripts of the Sogdian version of the Bhaiṣajya-guru-vaiḍūryaprabha-rāja-tathāgata-sūtra, which is quite exceptional in the case of the Sogdian materials, each text usually being represented by only one copy.9 One is from Dunhuang and the other three belong to the German Turfan collection. Except for one Turfan fragment all three have been shown to be based on Xuanzang’s translation of the sūtra.10 This sutra describes the great vows of Bhaiṣajyaguru as a Bodhisattva and his Buddha field; it also expounds at length the benefits one obtains from worshipping him as well as the details for ritual. The ritual and the benefits resulting from it are described in Sogdian: The Bodhisattva (named) ‘Salvation’ spoke thus: “O great obtainer of glory, if there should be a sick man who wants to be delivered from a grave illness, it is necessary to observe for his benefit eight kinds of fasts (and) precepts during eight days and nights. It is also necessary to prepare food and drink as well as all other appropriate things according to one’s ability so that one might serve and worship monks and might pay homage to the chief of the world (named) the Teacher of Medicines, King and Tathāgata having Crystal Radiance for six hours in one day and night. (It is necessary) to read this sutra forty-nine times and recite it by heart, to light forty-nine lamps, to make seven statues of the Teacher of Medicines, to light seven lamps in front of each statue, each lamp-wood being as big as a chariotwheel, and not to turn off light for forty-nine days. One should also prepare a five-colored banner measuring forty-nine spans in length. And one should ransom forty-nine living beings and set them free. Then one will be delivered from all illness and difficulties. Besides, demons and (evil) spirits will not be able to harm one.” (Text 6, lines 125–43, in Benveniste 1940). 9

10

Text 6 in Benveniste 1940 and the fragments bearing the signatures So 10402, So 10000(1) + So 10650(30) (cf. Kudara/Sundermann 1992), and So 10100n. The direct source of So 10402 (unpublished) is not known, cf. Utz 1978, p. 13. So 10010n (unpublished) has recently been identified, cf. Reck 1998, p. 152. Taishō, vol.14, no.450 (translated in 650 ).

293

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

The Bodhisattva Avalokiteśvara was no less popular than Bhaiṣajyaguru. Avalokiteśvara was regarded as a divine being to whom one can pray for aid and consolation, who will straightaway heed those who call upon him, and save them from numerous sufferings. Several Sogdian texts concerning him are known. One of them calls itself the “Sutra of the Glorification of 108 Names of Āryāvalokiteśvara”. It contains a long list of expressions of homage to Buddhas, Bodhisattvas, and other supernatural beings followed by short dharaṇīs (spells) and the merits one obtains by reciting it: Homage to the Three Jewels, to the noble Bodhisattva Avalokiteśvara … May they practise the Law. If one travels at night and meets an evil being, then (if) one should recite this spell, then that evil being cannot approach him.”11

Its original has not yet been identified and one must envisage the possibility that the sūtra was an elaboration made by Sogdian Buddhists on the basis of similar tantric texts. A peculiar feature of this text is that among many dharaṇīs (spells) one finds three ślokas (verses) of the Udānavarga, which were apparently employed as spells. Another copy of the same text found among the Dunhuang texts (Text 8bis in Benveniste 1940) betrays its popularity. This text is interesting in that it ends with a long colophon by a Sogdian named Chōrakk of the Khan family, which points to his Samarkand origin. He gives a long list of persons, dead and alive, with whom he wants to share the merit accruing to him in reward for the modest sum he spent on copying the sutra. He also wishes: … that I shall not be reborn as a mean man, who does not make gifts, but that I shall be rich enough to build, at my expense, a large monastery …12 11 12

Text 8, lines 88–94, in Benveniste 1940. The italicized part is a spell in Sanskrit. Text 8, lines 194–96, in Benveniste 1940. For the colophon see Henning 1946, pp. 735–38. Incidentally, the sheets of this manuscript are considerably larger than those of other manuscripts. This peculiarity combined with the fact that no nianhao (regnal period) of the emperor is given in the colophon seems to indicate that the manuscript was copied after the Tibetan invasion.

294

BUDDHIST LITERATURE IN SOGDIAN

Avalokiteśvara appears in several different forms, each bearing a name peculiar to his form. Text 7 in Benveniste 1940 is a complete text of the Amoghapāśa-hdaya-sūtra “Heart (or ‘essence’) sutra of Avalokiteśvara named Amoghapāśa (unerring lasso)” followed by the dhāraṇī (spell). This Heart sutra is so beneficial that: Even if there should be such a living being as listens to this Amoghapāśa-heart of mine because of rivalry, fear of one’s own master, other people’s instigation, or (the fear of others’) blame, even so seeds are planted towards the good deed by such evil beings. And in whatever life-form he may be born, he will be free from every bad deed in that place. He will observe the precepts and will obtain samādhi (meditation) and intelligence.13

There are several Chinese versions of this sūtra but they differ significantly from the Sogdian and the latter is likely to be based on neither of them, although it is generally believed to have been translated from Bodhiruci’s recension (Taishō, vol. 20, no. 1095, translated in 695 ). Another Avalokiteśvara popular among the Sogdians was Ru yi lun guan yin called in Sogdian ckrβrt cyntʾmny (Sanskrit cakravarti-cintāmaṇi) ‘having the cintāmaṇi (wish jewel) of the cakravartin (wheel-turning) king’. What is generally known as the Padmacintāmaṇi-dhāraṇī-sūtra in Sogdian is the translation of Śikṣānanda’s Chinese version (Taishō, vol. 20, no. 1082, translated around 700 ) describing the Bodhisattva’s various beneficent acts such as removing illness and natural disasters as well as the rituals and dhāraṇīs (spells) to be recited: If he should always recite this spell, he will be as powerful and brave as Nārāyaṇa. When he changes this body, then he will be reborn directly in the Sukhāvatī world-sphere and in whichever existence he is born he always acquires a jātismara body (one able to remember former lives) continually until he attains Buddhahood.14

13 14

Text 7, lines 116–24, in Benveniste 1940. Or 8212.158 lines 59–62 corresponding to Taishō, vol. 20, p. 199b. Cf. MacKenzie 1976, pp. 16–17.

295

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

We even have the Sogdian text describing the rituals for worshiping Cakravarticintāmaṇi (texts 14, 15, and 30 in Benveniste 1940, being three fragments from one and the same manuscript). This text cites passages from a different part of the Padmacintāmaṇi-dhāraṇīsūtra and contains the description of a mudrā (hand gesture) named “samādhi (meditation) of a group of Buddhas” accompanied by an illustration: Put this mudrā on your heart. … Then it is necessary to consider profoundly and clearly the thirty-two marks and eighty excellent ornaments of the Tathāgata in front of you. It is (also) necessary to recite this spell seven times sincerely. The spell is as follows: Oṃ tathāgato bhavāya svāhā. Because of holding this mudrā and reciting this spell, all the Tathāgatas will at once consider and take heed of you. They will be your guardians and emit radiance (upon you). Whatever grave sin and prohibited act should have been done by you, they will all disappear.15

In this connection it is interesting to note that one half-sized scroll was discovered in Dunhuang which contains the Nīlakaṇṭhadhāraṇī accompanied by its transcription in Sogdian script. This dhāraṇī (spell) is called “dhāraṇī of thousand-handed Avalokiteśvara (named) Nīlakaṇṭha” in Sogdian. The smaller size of this manuscript may indicate that it was carried by its owner as a sort of talisman. One may be reminded that when he lost his way in the Taklamakan desert Xuanzang prayed earnestly to the Bodhisattva Avalokiteśvara. In concluding this section it is worthwhile drawing attention to the fact that the Sogdian transcription of a dhāraṇī (spell) concerning Kṣitigarbha Bodhisattva was also discovered in Dunhuang, which attests to his popularity among Sogdians.16 Kṣitigarbha is accredited with power over the hells and is devoted to the saving of all creatures between the Nirvāṇa of Śākyamuni and the advent of Maitreya and was very popular in East Asia. 15 16

Text 14, lines 26–35, in Benveniste 1940. This passage is based on the Guan zi zai pu sa ru yi lun nian song yi gui (Taishō, vol. 20, no. 1085) translated by Amoghavajra, who was active during 746–74 . Text 18 in Benveniste 1940; Taishō, vol. 20, no. 1159B.

296

BUDDHIST LITERATURE IN SOGDIAN

Texts Concerning Ethics Another group of texts standing out among the Buddhist Sogdian texts is that expounding good and bad actions as causes of the corresponding effects. The teachings accounted in this group of texts as well as in those described in the preceding section were no doubt very easy to understand and appealing for ordinary Sogdians. The so far unidentified “Sutra of the Condemnation of Intoxicating Drink” mentioned above is one of them. It enumerates at length the bad effects of drinking alcohol but explains scarcely anything else: Also on account of drunkenness the splendid body becomes despicable, the lord loses power, the wise man loses wisdom, the man of good repute accordingly becomes infamous, the rich man turns poor and becomes ridiculous and abhorrent to all living beings. Therefore one should not drink intoxicating drink.

And it ends by saying: “The harm and the fault of intoxicating drink is immeasurably much, but I have just expounded a little in brief.”17 Another source of bad effects is eating meat, which was strictly prohibited in Mahayana Buddhism. Text 2 in Benveniste 1940 is the second longest Buddhist Sogdian text extant after the Vessantara Jātaka and, according to Henning 1946, p. 714: “Of all Sogdian texts this is the dullest. Its author needs over 1,200 lines to tell us that we should not eat meat.” What has survived is almost complete, lacking only the first two out of the original twenty-two folios. The most important reason why one should not eat meat is that: He who does not kill others and does not eat meat will not suffer from (all) these severe diseases. Who(ever) wishes that he will not suffer from these diseases and that he will not obtain such sufferings from one world to another (that is, birth after birth in the cycle of birth and death) should absolutely refrain from eating meat. It is because a seed of the Buddha is found in (all the) five kinds of living beings and among the four great elements (from which all things are made), and because each (living being) will attain Buddhahood.18 17 18

Manuscript Or. 8212.191, lines 7–11, 30–31; MacKenzie 1976, pp. 8–11. Text 2, lines 39–46, in Benveniste 1940.

297

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

Popular arguments for not eating meat are adduced: (Since we are in the cycle of existence) there can be no one who would not be either mother or father, brother and sister, or son, daughter, wife, kinsmen, friends, or comrades (to each other); if one’s mother or father dies in their old age, they will be born as cattle, birds, or wild animals; however, because of their evil action this fact will not be comprehended and their son will kill his mother or father; after cutting and chopping them up, he will cook them and eat them because he enjoys it in his mind.19

Buddha’s final remark to Ānanda is: Listen to me carefully. In whatever life-form or world I may have been born, I have always been merciful and have never inflicted slaughter … and because of not eating meat and drinking alcohol I now have attained Buddhahood. … Consider the following fact profoundly: meat is not born from a tree, nor does it come from grasses. Meat does not grow from the earth. One obtains meat only when one damages other living beings’ life, cuts off its head, and chops its body into pieces. 20

Hitherto quotations have been identified in this text from three sutras, the Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra (ll. 603–913), the Aṅgulimālīyasūtra (ll. 914–39), and the Da fang guang hua yan shi e pin jing (ll. 977–1026). 21 The last-named is known to be apocryphal. Thus text 2 was a kind of patchwork consisting of quotations and popular teachings on the most popular Buddhist commandment. It is even possible that this patchwork was composed by a Buddhist Sogdian, who, according to the colophon, was resident in Changan. One part cited from the Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra reads as follows: As I explain (in) the “Sutra of the binding of an image”, 22 the “Sutra of a large cloud”, the Aṅgulimālīya-sūtra, and in this Laṅkā-sūtra, I wholly prohibit eating meat, because all the great bodhisattvas and 19 20 21 22

Text 2, lines 147–60, in Benveniste 1940. Text 2, lines 1198–1213, in Benveniste 1940. These texts are respectively Taishō, vol. 16, no. 670 (translated in 443 ); vol. 2, no. 20 (translated in the fifth century ); vol. 85, no. 2875. This is an error for “the sutra of binding an elephant”.

298

BUDDHIST LITERATURE IN SOGDIAN arhats blame (eating meat) completely because he who eats meat does not feel scared or ashamed. Therefore, he will always be foolish and stupid. 23

The commandment not to eat meat and not to drink alcohol is apparently the subject of text 21 in Benveniste 1940, of which three fragments are known. One fragment of that text begins with a graphic description of the punishment of those who fall into hell because of eating meat and drinking alcohol: Merciless demons and Yakshas step on his belly. They cut him from the top of his head down to his heels with a saw. They show him such severe sufferings that one cannot describe and explain the punishment (?) of a man who eats meat and drinks alcohol. One day and night in hell correspond to one thousand years in our world. Therefore, one should not eat meat and (not drink) alcohol.

Thereafter another parable is told which begins as follows: “Previously in India, an Acharya named Ānanda …”. 24 Unfortunately, this story, which is told in the other two fragments, is hard to follow because of the damage they suffered and it has not been possible to identify the text in other sources. The eight commandments for lay Buddhists and the rewards for observing them are the subject of the Dīrghanakha-parivrājakaparipcchā-sūtra in Sogdian (text 5, lines 1–88, in Benveniste 1940), which is translated from the Chinese version by Yijing. 25 This is a short text consisting of a dialogue between a brahmin named Dīrghanakha and the Buddha. Answering the former’s question the Buddha says: Yes, it is just as I explained. Because of one’s previous acts one is born into this world; it is (through) one’s acts that one receives (something); it is (through) one’s acts that one is born; it is (through) one’s acts that the one is the relative (of the other). It is one’s acts on the support of which things exist.

23 24 25

Text 2, lines 645–56 (= Taishō, vol. 16, p. 514 b). Text 21, fragment III, lines 1–9, 16–17, in Benveniste 1940. Taishō, vol. 14, no. 584 (translated in 700 ).

299

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

Dīrghanakha asks again: If that should be so, O Śramaṇa Gotama, what kind of act did you do previously that you have now obtained the solid and indestructible body made out of diamond?

The Buddha answered: O Brahmin, in my previous life I refrained from the killing of living beings and from taking others’ lives. Thanks to those acts I have now obtained this reward. 26

It is interesting to note that the text of the Dīrghanakha-sūtra is followed by a Sogdian formula for receiving the eight commandments. This formula consists of several sections, extant parts being (i) the opening invitation: … Whoever have divine ears, please listen to my prayer, whoever have divine eyes, please look at me, and whoever have obtained openmindedness, please consider and think of me, be merciful to me, and recognize me. Come into this bodhimaṇḍala (place of enlightenment) so that you may be witness to my confession of sins.

(ii) confession of sins: I, the disciple of such and such a name, with the whole assembly, with pure and clean mind, for the sake of all living beings, confess my sins, repent of them, and seek absolution.

(iii) gap in the manuscript where homage is paid to the Three Jewels, i.e. the Buddha, the dharma (the Buddha’s teaching), and the saṅgha (assembly of Buddhists); (iv) commandments as expressions for restraining evil actions: I receive the commandments today, tonight, tomorrow morning until daybreak. Just as an arhat, a glorious śramaṇa does not tell a lie himself and is neither deceitful nor double-tongued, in the same way I also receive the commandments. I will obey the order of the Three Jewels (and) keep the commandments intact.

26

Text 5, lines 16–18 and 19–23, in Benveniste 1940 (= Taishō, vol. 14, p. 968a).

300

BUDDHIST LITERATURE IN SOGDIAN

(v) transference of merits and expression of one’s resolve to deliver others: If I have received the eight commandments … may my wish come true: So long as I live, … may I be without needs from all the directions, … may I obtain the blessing of Buddha-rank from the Buddha Maitreya, … may I shut the gate of hell and deliver all living beings from hell!27

Chinese texts similar to the Sogdian are encountered in the Dunhuang materials but they all differ from each other as well as from the Sogdian, which is likely to have been a free adaptation based on them. The so-called “Sūtra of the Causes and Effects of Actions” is translated from a Chinese apocryphal sūtra. This is a long, dull list of bad and good actions and their corresponding effects. It was apparently quite popular among Central Asian peoples because apart from the Sogdian we have Tibetan and Mongolian versions. Since the Mongolian version does not seem to be based on the Tibetan, it seems probable that it has been based on a no longer extant Uighur version. The setting is described as follows: Thereupon Ānanda, on account of those human beings, addressed the Buddha thus, “Chief of the World, now I see that each creature is born alike among men. There are both handsome and ugly, strong and weak, rich and poor, happy and sad, noble and base, and their voices are not alike and their words diverse. … Now, O Lord, expound to us the causes and the effects so that this great gathering may hear with pure minds and may go sincerely towards good actions.” Then the Buddha spoke to Ānanda thus: “This question that you are asking it is all on account of a previous existence, in which everyone’s mind was not alike and equal. Therefore, in consequence, the retribution is of a thousand and a myriad separate different kinds.”28

27 28

Text 5, lines 89–125, followed by text 17 in Benveniste 1940. Cf. Yoshida 1984 b, pp. 157–72. SCE 6–12, 60–67. Cf. MacKenzie 1970, pp. 2–5.

301

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

Thus one’s good or bad appearance is due to one’s acts in a previous life: He who in this world is handsome comes from a patient kind, and the ugly comes from amid anger … he who likes to gnaw bones is born gap-toothed … he who puts the image of the Buddha in that porch where there is smoke is born black …29

Every kind of hell is prepared for evil-doers: Those who do violence to men and take off their clothes fall into the hell of glaciers. … The sorceress who shuts her eyes and with lies says, “I shall go up so as to summon the souls,” falls into the hell of cutting through the waist.30

The Buddha does not of course forget to encourage people to do good acts so that they may reap the reward of good retribution, although such advice is unfortunately far less often found: He who gives gifts and is compassionate and does not kill, in whatever place he is born he will be rich and fortunate and neither possessions nor riches in food and clothing will he lack, but they will appear spontaneously.31

Sometimes people may doubt whether the good acts really help people to obtain good effects. One small fragment of the Buddhabhāṣita-mahābhiṣeka-rddhi-dhāraṇī-sūtra translated from Chinese discusses this problem: My parents suffer such severe pains and always endure tortures of hell. In spite of so much good action done by them they still fell into a bad way of life and I do not know the reason why it is so. Therefore, I ask the Buddha.32

29 30 31 32

SCE 67–70, 82–83, 90–91. Cf. MacKenzie 1970, pp. 4–7. SCE 217–18, 252–55. Cf. MacKenzie 1970, pp. 12–15. SCE 496–500. Cf. MacKenzie 1970, pp. 28–29. Ragoza 1980, no. 57, lines 2–7 (= Taishō, vol. 21, no. 1331, p. 531 a; translated in the first half of the fourth century). Its Sanskrit title is that of Nanjio, no. 167. This fragment found in Turfan belongs to the Krotokov collection.

302

BUDDHIST LITERATURE IN SOGDIAN

The Buddha’s answer is lost but according to the Chinese original he explained that it was due to the bad deeds done by the parents. The so-called Śuka-sūtra deals with acts and their results in secular life. Its Sogdian version is known but this text is peculiar in that the sūtra itself is preceded by an introduction enumerating the Buddha’s acts of propagation, which has no counterpart in Chinese, Sanskrit, Khotanese, Tocharian, and Pali texts so far known: He saved five monks from the cycle of existence, (namely) MahāKāśyapa, Uruvilvā-Kāśyapa, etc. … He gave monkhood to Śāriputra and Maudgalyāyana together with all the disciples.33

Little beyond the introduction survives so that we know only the beginning of the story: Then the god of gods, the Buddha put on his clothing and took a bowl. He took up a basket (?) and entered the great city of Śrāvastī to beg food. He began to beg for alms (from house to house) in succession. When he arrived at the door of the brahmin Padmapresh (ptmʾprʾyš), there was a dog named Chaushar (cʾwšr). When it saw the god of gods, the Buddha, being ill-tempered it began to bark at him. The god of gods, the Buddha, who was omniscient, …34

The text stops here and the part expounding the acts and their results is completely lost. In passing it is to be noted that the names of the brahmin and the dog have no counterparts in any of the above mentioned versions.35 Apart from the texts discussed here, there are some unpublished texts concerning the commandments for lay Buddhists. However, it is not possible to be certain whether they belong to the same genre of literature as those we have been considering. A few other texts on commandments are known, but they deal with those for monks and will be described below. 33 34 35

Ragoza 1980, text no. 93, lines 18–19, 22–23. This fragment was obtained by Oldenburg in Dunhuang. Ragoza 1980, text no. 93, lines 34–39. On the back of the paper there is a Tibetan title “The dharma (teaching) concerning the ten bad acts”, which seems to be in accordance with the contents of the sūtra. The Tibetan line shows that the text was already in existence when the Tibetans invaded Dunhuang.

303

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

Narratives The most popular way to convey Buddhist teachings is to employ narratives. By telling parables one can amuse people and at the same time instruct them in Buddhist teaching. In traditional Buddhist literature there are the jātakas, narratives relating former lives of the Buddha, and the avadānas, narratives about the exploits of Buddhist saints. The most popular jātaka is undoubtedly the Vessantara Jātaka. This story is represented in the art of every Buddhist country and has formed the theme of numerous literary works. The story is about the previous reincarnation of the Buddha as Prince Vessantara, who was so generous that he gave away everything, even his wife and children. This jātaka is also known in Sogdian. In the Sogdian version the prince is named Sudāšan (swδʾšn). Its developed literary style suggests that it was a native Sogdian composition and a retelling rather than a translation. Of the original forty-one folios twenty-nine have survived and what has remained comprises altogether 1805 lines making it the most voluminous extant Sogdian text. The first scholar to work on the Sogdian Vessantara Jātaka was R. Gauthiot, who also studied the differences between several recensions known to him: Pali, Tibetan, and Chinese. The following episode about the birth of Sudāšan is not found in either of the three versions. King Śivi asks his wife about the dream she dreamt the night before and she replied thus: Lord, it seemed to me as if the seven cintāmaṇi jewels (jewels that enable their possessors to obtain their wishes) went out of the sun god and entered into my right side. (VJ 6–8).

Rejoicing, King Śivi summoned all the prophets in his kingdom and asked whether the baby in his wife’s womb was a son or a daughter. Then they told the king that the baby was a son and that he would become fortunate. It is clear that the wife’s dream is based on the Buddha’s birth story. The prince was so eager to give gifts that he gave a white elephant with six tusks to the brahmins who had been sent from an 304

BUDDHIST LITERATURE IN SOGDIAN

enemy country. This elephant was a national treasure on which the fortune of King Śivi’s country was dependent and the prince was strictly prohibited to give it away. When he gave them the elephant he consoled it saying: You have entered a bad reincarnation and, although you have feet, still you cannot go as you like. Why are you weeping so sadly? I do not give you only because of myself but for the sake of the five kinds of living beings in the three worlds (i.e. all living beings). If my wish should come true, I shall first of all deliver you from the evil existence. (VJ 53 b–60 b)

The prince then was exiled to Mt. Dandarak. When he and his family approached the mountain, a seer living in the mountain saw them from afar and said to himself: Is he God Azrua with his wife? Or, is he Supreme God, or Weshparkar, or miraculous Nārāyaṇa? Then he thought to himself: If he were Azrua, he would have a beard. Therefore, he is not Azrua. If he were the Supreme God, he would have three eyes. Therefore, he is not the Supreme God. If he were Weshparkar, he would have three faces. Therefore, he is not Weshparkar. If he were miraculous Nārāyaṇa, he would have sixteen hands. If he were Vaiśravaṇa, he would have worn armor on his whole body. Therefore, he is not Vaiśravaṇa. (VJ 909–22)

This passage clearly indicates that the Sogdians identified their own deities with Indian gods, i.e. Azrua with Brahman, the Supreme God (Adhvagh = Xormuzd) with Indra, and Weshparkar (from Avestan Vāyuš uparō.karō) with Śiva. Their iconographic characteristics were also influenced by those of their Indian counterparts. Thus, the wall painting of Weshparkar discovered in Penjikent shows three faces as well as the other attributes of Śiva. The highlight of the story consists in the scene where the prince gave his wife Mandrī to Indra, who had disguised himself as an old brahmin in order to test the prince’s resolve to give up all his belongings. After Sudāšan recited the śloka (verse) he took Mandrī’s hand and gave her to the brahmin without regret and annoyance so that his heart was not disturbed. Then the brahmin blessed him: “O prince, may you be fortunate and obtain Buddhahood.” The brahmin got satisfied

305

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN and went away. And now, O Ānanda, the brahmin did not go far; he turned back, reached the hut, and spoke thus to Sudāšan: “I shall be going to another land, and will leave the woman in your trust in the presence of Mithra, the Judge of Creation, together with the mountain spirits, the forest spirit, and the spirit of the source, provided you do not give her away to anybody.” Thereupon Sudāšan took over Mandrī in trust. And now, O Ānanda, at that time the Supreme God changed his body back into his own shape.36 (VJ 1192–1212)

The phrase “before Mithra …” is known to be a kind formula employed in Sogdian when one takes a judicial oath. The translator was clearly trying to make the story resemble the everyday life of the Sogdians. The jātaka ends with a formulaic epimyth: I (= the Buddha) was Sudāšan. Moreover, King Śivi is King Šandōdan today; King Śivi’s chief queen is Queen Mahāmāyā today; Mandrī is Yaśodharā today; and those wild animals who were living on Mt. Dandarak are the assembly who stay before me today. (VJ 1504–11)

This exposition is preceded by a metaphor employed by the Buddha to explain how much more could have been expounded about the merits of dāna-pāramitā (the perfection of giving): Now, O Ānanda, this explanation of the perfection of giving is so little as soil which a man puts in his nails when he picks it up from the earth. O Ānanda, how do you think? Which soil is more, that which is in the earth or that which remains on his nails? Ānanda said to the god of gods, the Buddha: “O lord, that soil which is in the earth is much more.” The god of gods, the Buddha, said to Ānanda: “The explanation of the perfection of giving is just like the soil that is in the earth and the brief explanation I gave you today is just like the soil in one’s nails, because …”. (VJ 1462–78)

This metaphor is not attested in any version of the jātaka but is found in one of the sūtras belonging to the Saṃyutta-nikāya, chapter XIII, section 1, which also points to the independent character of the Sogdian version. The prince’s name Sudāšan is etymologized as a compound containing an Indian element su- “good” and an Iranian word 36

The translation of lines 1200–1210 is that of Gershevitch 1959, pp. 34–35.

306

BUDDHIST LITERATURE IN SOGDIAN

dāšan “gift” (cf. Sims-Williams 1983, p. 139). In his commentary of the Chinese version of this jātaka Xuanying gives su tuo sha na as one of the original names of the prince. His transcription is no doubt based on the Sogdian form Sudāšan and our Sogdian version is likely to have existed by 649  when Xuanying’s book was completed. If this assumption is correct the Sogdian Vessantara Jātaka is one of the oldest among the Buddhist Sogdian texts. Some Uighur scholars argue that the Uighur version of the jātaka is based on the Sogdian.37 Unfortunately, the fragmentary character of the Uighur version does not enable us to be certain on this point, but the independent character of the Sogdian text lends support to that assumption. As a story belonging to the avadāna literature one may mention a parable about two brothers. In this narrative another story is cited about two men originating from one and the same town, one of whom became a rich fisherman and the other a poor farmer. When the good-natured farmer was asked to work as a servant for the evil fisherman, the former said: “Lord, I am a poor man and I am not able to serve you (properly). Therefore, there will be great fault on my part.” The fisherman replied: “Don’t mind. I am a rich man; whatever you want, please feel free to take (from me) so that your trouble due to poverty may end.” The farmer said: “Those who have a large loan are not considered to be rich while those who are poor but without loan are called wealthy.” Then the fisherman became angry about the farmer.38

It so happened that the fisherman was bitten by a poisonous snake while he was sleeping under a tree. The farmer approached the tree while he was searching for firewood and he was surprised to find the fisherman dead. On his way back he encountered a king, who had also found the fisherman. The king arrested the farmer because he suspected him to be the murderer. At this point the manuscript is broken and we do not know the rest of the story, which has not 37 38

Elverskog 1997, pp. 41–42. Or. 8212.88, lines 3–11. The story about two brothers precedes this fragment and is found in another fragment from the same manuscript (Ragoza 1980, no. 92, pp. 62–63).

307

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

been identified. Since there is no term typical of Buddhist texts its Manichaean affiliation cannot be entirely excluded. An unidentified story about a dispute between the Buddha and heretics is known from a number of fragments belonging to the Krotkov collection. The heretics were jealous of the Buddha, who was patronized and favoured by King Bimbisāra so much. The most extensive fragment contains the king’s intriguing slander of the heretics: To what great family, to what rank do you belong, and what is your excellence? Your miracles and magic in going to the sky are no more miraculous than the flights of a sparrow. Your instructive textbooks and teachings are like the cawing of a raven. Is there any difference between them? That you are supposed to be teachers to the Lord of the World is like (the statement) that a moth is the teacher of light for the sun.39

The other figure playing a role in the story is Upaka. However, this Upaka is not the same Upaka the Ājīvika, who is well known in the Pali texts, but bears some resemblance to Upaka Maṇḍikāputta. The Daśakarmapatha-avadāna-mālā is a cycle of legends that were collected to expound the ten kinds of acts. Two fragments were combined by W. Sundermann to form an almost complete book leaf though it has not yet been published. The legend found there is about Kāñcanasāra, who endures great sufferings on his body so that he might hear the Buddhist law from an evil brahmin. In his greatest pain the king utters these words to himself as consolation: “Endure this suffering, because no one is eternal and one must die. … Think of Buddhahood in your mind. You can also deliver living beings from sufferings. Endure by means of this consolation and comfort. You have been burnt in hell for a long time. You have not obtained any fruit from it at all. You have also been going astray. You have received this world (only) as deposit. Never forget it. If you now feel pain and cannot bear (?) it, all these living beings will be left without support.” Then, because of the king’s compassionate mind the earth began to quake and tremble in six ways.40 39 40

Kr IV.879, lines 3–8, in Livshits 1996. Livshits’ translation is cited with slight modification. So 10132, lines 4–23. Translation by Y. Yoshida.

308

BUDDHIST LITERATURE IN SOGDIAN

The Uighur version corresponding to the latter half of the passage just cited is extant, but it differs from the Sogdian to such an extent that it appears that they are independent recensions based on a prototype in Sanskrit or Tocharian, to which the colophon of the Uighur version refers. It is probable that some texts containing narratives were accompanied by illustrations as is the case with the Uighur versions of the Vessantara Jātaka and Daśakarmapatha-avadāna-mālā. Indeed several book leaves with a marginal title “King Araṇemi” are preserved in Museum für Indische Kunst (Berlin) and each folio bears an illustration on one side. They have been shown to belong to the Araṇemi Jātaka, in which King Araṇemi gives up all his possessions, his family, and finally himself, in order to attain enlightenment. The jātaka was very popular in the Northern Tarim Basin and Tocharian A and B, Tumshuqese, and Uighur versions have been discovered.41 Another text appended to an illustration is known from Sundermann’s English translation, which accompanies a reproduction of the illustration.42 However, it is not clear from the translation whether the painting illustrated the text. So far three manuscripts of the Saṅghāṭa-sūtra have been identified and the sūtra seems to have been much loved by Sogdian Buddhists. In the first half of this Mahāyāna text the Bodhisattva Sarvaśūra asks the Buddha Śākyamuni questions and in the second half the Bodhisattva Bhaiṣajyasena is an interlocutor. No particular aspect of Buddhist doctrine is treated in the sūtra as the main concern of the authors seems to have been the glorification of the sūtra itself: the narratives, parables and similes extensively used by the Buddha in his answers are essentially aimed at illustrating the intrinsic saving virtues of Buddhist teaching, and particularly of this book, for whoever believes in it. This description of the sūtra by Canevascini makes it clearer why it was so popular among the Sogdians.43

41 42 43

On the Araṇemi Jātaka in the Central Asian languages see J. Ebert, K. T. Schmidt, W. Sundermann and P. Zieme’s contributions in Bazin/Zieme 2001. Sundermann 1982, pp. 181–82 and plate 120. Canevascini 1993, p. ix.

309

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

The Sogdian does not agree closely with any other known recension and must be regarded as a free adaptation. It is unlikely to have been translated from a source as yet unknown because apart from the latest Chinese versions of the tenth century, all the other versions in Sanskrit, Khotanese, Tibetan, and Chinese are considerably closer to each other. In view of the fact that the majority of the Sogdian texts are based on Chinese sources, it would appear to be probable that the Sogdian version was a free adaptation from the Chinese text of 538  (Taishō, vol. 13, no. 423). Let us compare the Sogdian and the Sanskrit-Khotanese versions of section 206 as edited by Canevascini. The latter is similar to the Chinese and Tibetan versions and can be regarded as representing the original on which the Sogdian one is based. Sogdian: Now, listen to me carefully, O Bodhisattva Bhaiṣajyasena. I shall explain to you. (Once) there was a man who planted a tree. The tree grew on that very day. And branches and leaves came out and the tree brought out roots. It bore flowers and fruits. Then there was another man who planted a tree. (However,) the tree never grew at all, nor branches and leaves. It did not let out roots and sprouts did not come out. It did not bear fruits either. Then these two people began to fight and quarrel with each other.44 Sanskrit-Khotanese: The Bodhisattva Bhaiṣajyasena spoke thus: “How, Lord Buddha, is the one who has attained the first stage to be seen and how is the first stage?” The Lord Buddha spoke thus: “It is just as when, Bhaiṣajyasena, there was a man who planted a tree and when he had planted that tree, on that very day it grew, it made big branches and on that very day roots went downward the measure of a league. And there was a second man who planted a tree. On that very day the tree began to be shaken and the tree planted by that man did not grow at all and did not make branches at all. Then he began to quarrel and to fight with that man whose tree became good. Then both those men began to quarrel and fight.45

44 45

Text 38, lines 5–16, in Ragoza 1980, cf. also Sims-Williams 1981 b. Canevascini 1993, pp. 84–85.

310

BUDDHIST LITERATURE IN SOGDIAN

In the Sogdian version the reference to the doctrine concerning attaining the first stage is totally omitted whereas it mentions fruits and sprouts of the tree which are lacking in the Sanskrit-Khotanese version. Similarly, doctrinal passages are largely omitted in other places and the narrative is sometimes made more real and vivid by describing details of the scenes. The Sogdian translators’ attitude of leaving philosophical subtleties aside and following only the story lines may possibly be most noticeable in the Sogdian version of the Gaṇḍavyūha-sūtra. Out of the adventures of Sudana expounded in the sūtra, only the places and people that Sudhana visited are described and all the other parts in between are omitted.46 Parables are often told by the Buddha in the course of his explanation of the doctrine. The story about King Virūḍhaka is narrated in text 2 in Benveniste 1940 discussed above: Once upon a time there was a pond where ten thousand million fish were living. Two fish were their chiefs and the two were the ancestors of the other fish. Once there was a great famine and the people there ate all those fish. Then the desire for revenge grew up so much that they were reincarnated to human beings. And those two fish which were their chiefs also (changed themselves to be men). One of them became a king named Virūḍhaka and the second became a king named Proxi (perhaps Sanskrit purohita ‘priest’). The rest of the small fish became soldiers. Those people who ate the fish at the time of famine became citizens of the town of Kapilavastu. Because of the desire for revenge King Virūḍhaka set out for the town together with an army and killed all those who ate the fish. At that time the Buddha was still living, but this fact did not help those people not to become subjected to the action. Now, for this reason one should not eat meat.” 47

Another interesting story about a king of physicians and his son is cited as a simile in text 9 in Benveniste 1940. The story is as follows: Once there was a great king of physicians. He was completely equipped with all the techniques. He had a son to whom he taught 46 47

The Sogdian version of the Gaṇḍavyūha-sūtra is found in Ragoza 1980, p. 39, no. 51. Cf. Yoshida 1986, pp. 517–18. Text 2, lines 178–207, in Benveniste 1940.

311

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN all the techniques and knowledge of medicine. One time he tested his son’s techniques and knowledge of medicine. Therefore, he disguised himself to be seriously ill by means of an expedient and said to him: “Go, O my son, and mount up on a wind-footed elephant. Examine profoundly among whatever mountain, forest, and river bank in the four directions. If there should be such a plant which cannot be a medicine, bring it here, because it is very helpful for me.” Then the son set out for the four directions and went everywhere within ten days. Although he examined all the plants, he did not get a single plant which could not be a medicine. Then he came back to his father, the king of physicians and explained all that he had seen. His father said: “Now, my son is completely equipped with the medical methods and knowledge. He will pass as a king of physicians in the whole world. The aspect of the Buddhist law is just like that.”48

A parable similar to this story is found in a Chinese sūtra but details are different.49 Buddhist literature was so rich in similes and narratives that the Manichaeans were influenced by them. Indeed one parable in Manichaean Sogdian begins with a phrase “And also it is heard thus”, which strongly reminds one of the beginning of Buddhist sūtras: “It is heard thus by me.”50 This parable is preceded by an allegory comparing the Manichaean religion with the world-ocean in ten respects: It is vast and endless like the ocean; many other religions find their way into the Manichaean religion, just as many rivers fall into the ocean, etc. This is a well known, often attested Buddhist motif. For example in the thirty-second chapter of the Mahāyānamahā-parinirvāṇa-sūtra the deep wisdom of this book is described in a very similar manner. Earlier versions of the same motif are also found in the Pali Aṅguttara-nikāya.51

48 49 50 51

Text 9, lines 78–96, in Benveniste 1940. Taishō, vol. 14, no. 553, p. 898 a [= Chavannes 1910–34, pp. 334ff.]. Line 138 in Sundermann 1985 a, p. 28. On this point see Sundermann 1991 c.

312

BUDDHIST LITERATURE IN SOGDIAN

Chan Literature Some of the most recently identified texts include those Chinese apocryphal sūtras which the contemporary Chan (Meditation School) Buddhists were fond of, and which they often refer to in their philosophical discussions. One example is Jiu jing da bei jing “Absolute-final Great Compassion Sūtra”, from which a short passage is cited in text 9 in Benveniste 1940.52 The whole Sogdian text seems to emphasize that what seems bad and appears to be far from being in accordance with the law is nothing but the very same Buddhist law. Seventhly, if one perfectly understands how the Buddha appears and what the Buddha does, this perfect understanding is called the Buddha’s sign and work. For if the Buddha sees the living beings in the empty sky and the region of the law (= the whole world) with the Buddha’s eyes, he sees them doing the ten bad acts and the five deadly sins; they wage wars, quarrel and struggle with each other; they kill and beat; they break and destroy; and they buy and sell because of the five desires. (The Buddha) regards even stealth, destruction, and damaging altogether as the Buddha’s sign and work. Therefore, (one who does all these things) is called a man who perfectly understands the Buddha’s sign and law.53 When one does not regard all good and bad or right and wrong as one true sign of the Buddhist law, one will not be able to attain omniscient Buddhahood and will not pass as a king of law in the whole world.54

The story about the king of physicians and his son is employed in this text to convey the same idea and the passage cited from the “Absolute-final great compassion sūtra” discusses the same problem: The Bodhisattva (called “Coming to an) End Without Stopping” said to the Buddha in verse: “… From the beginning (of the world), for the sake of (obtaining) deliverance I have undergone religious 52 53 54

The Chinese text is in Taishō, vol. 85, no. 2880. Texts 9, 10, and 11 in Benveniste 1940 are from one and the same manuscript. Text 9, lines 6–18, in Benveniste 1940. Text 9, lines 96–102, in Benveniste 1940.

313

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN practices. However, who knows that I have only learned how to take revenge. … Now sufferings and pains (= Sanskrit kleśa) and the sea of the (Buddha) nature are one (and the same). If one understands that one’s whole body is an assemblage of the (Buddhist) law, one should take refuge in this support (= teaching).55

Chan as an organized movement arose in the seventh century as a unique blend of Chinese (notably Taoist) and Mahāyāna notions and practices. It holds that the universal ‘Buddha nature’ is immanent in ourselves and must be realized ‘directly’, in the mindto-mind communication between master and disciple, without relying on canonical texts or rational theorizing.56 To attain the sudden and wordless experience of enlightenment, paradoxes and metaphors are often employed. Thus one of the Chan Buddhists’ mottoes “not to rely on words” is clearly seen in the following passage cited from the so-called Dhūta-sūtra, of which the Chinese original Fo wei xin wang pu sa shuo tou tuo jing “Dhūta-sūtra expounded by the Buddha for the Bodhisattva Citta-rāja” has recently been discovered: Then his (= the practitioner’s) perception and understanding become visible before him. And his body and mind (become) pure and clean and suitable for (the practice of) righteousness. He perfectly and well understands the sign of the law and he explains the law according to his own perception, not according to letters (= written words) and books.”57

Incidentally, the same phrase “letters and books” appears in text 16 in Benveniste 1940, which seems also to be a Chan text, but its source has not yet been identified. The syntax of the text suggests that it was translated from a Chinese poem containing several phrases cited from the Vimala-kīrti-nirdeśa-sūtra:

55 56 57

Text 9, lines 104–25, in Benveniste 1940. For the identification see Yoshida 1984 a. Bechert/Gombrich 1984, p. 203. On the discovery of the Chinese original see Yoshida 1996 [1998], p. 167. The passage cited is from Or. 8212.160 (= Dhūta text), lines 174–77. Cf. MacKenzie 1976, pp. 42–45 (with a somewhat different translation).

314

BUDDHIST LITERATURE IN SOGDIAN Since the characteristic of existence and non-existence cannot be found, all existence enters space without hindrance. Since emptiness (Sanskrit śūnyatā) is non-emptiness, the three-thousand (-fold) world(-system) is under one canopy. Since all existence arises out of emptiness, a large throne trembles in a small room. Since emptiness is the substance of existence, Mt. Sumeru enters a grain of mustard.58

The style also suggests that the original was not a sūtra but the analects by a famous Chan master: Therefore, the Buddha explains the perfection of wisdom. Train yourself according to the heart-law of the ultimate reality and you will be powerful in respect of omniscience.59

On the Uighur elements found in the text see below. The Dhūta-text also contains an intriguing metaphor, in which several kinds of knowledge are compared with a wheel: Then the Bodhisattva (called) “Maker of Light” said to him (the Bodhisattva called “King of the Heart”): “What is that which is called the knowledge of means? What is the immovable knowledge and what is the knowledge of the wheel of the law?” He answered him: “The sixfold knowledgeable mind, which always moves just like the wheel of a cart, is called the knowledge of expedient. If the king of the heart always remains still and does not move, just like the hub of a carriage, that is called the immovable knowledge. In one root (i.e. Sanskrit indriya ‘sense organ’) there are six, and six times six makes thirty-six. It is considered to be just like the spokes of a carriage and is called the knowledge of the wheel of the law. Now the five covers (Sanskrit skandha “component of an intelligent being”) are considered to be a carriage and that which has no appearance is a cow. (It is) one mind which drives (a carriage). It loads all the living beings (and) leads to an island of knowledge.60

Another popular apocryphal text often cited in the Chan texts is the so-called Dharma-rāja-sūtra. Two fragments have hitherto 58 59 60

Text 16, lines 32–36, in Benveniste 1940. For the text and translation see Yoshida 1984b, p. 169. Text 16, lines 42–44, in Benveniste 1940. Or. 8212.160 (Dhūta text), lines 12–22. On this passage see Yoshida 1996 [1998], p. 168.

315

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

been identified, one coming from Turfan and the other from Dunhuang.61 The name of the sūtra indicates its supremacy to all the other sūtras. In the text the Buddha explains that all living beings are of one and the same mind and because of having one Buddha nature they are not different from the Buddha. What has survived from the two fragments is so meager that no continuous translation can be offered: [If one does not have a doubt, illness] will not arise [in one]. If there is a place of birth (for you) (i.e. if you should be born), enter into the house of emptiness immediately. Perceive that the one nature is really emptiness and [explain?] that existence [and action] are without characteristics. … Regard it as empty just like illusion or magic. Also, O Bodhisattva, see to it that living beings cease to have doubt, that they be lords of their minds, not servants of their minds, and that they refrain from desire and pleasure.62

This is the conversation between the Buddha and the Bodhisattva Ākāśagarbha, one of his main interlocutors in the sūtra. The main subject is again emptiness as is clear from the above passage. Apart from these apocryphal sūtras several canonical texts were also quite popular among the Chan Buddhists. Among them were the Vajracchedikā-sūtra, the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa-sūtra, and the Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra. It is accordingly quite possible that the Sogdian versions of the first two of those sūtras were translated by those Buddhist Sogdians who adhered to Chan Buddhism. The Sogdian text 16 in Benveniste 1940, mentioned above, is preceded by a Sanskrit text of the Prajñā-pāramitā-hdaya-sūtra, which was also loved by the Chan Buddhists. It is interesting that the dhāraṇī (spell) of that sūtra is translated into Sogdian since dhāraṇīs are not normally translated but regarded as mystical syllables. Here tad yathā is rendered “thus it is”, oṃ “so much good”, gate “he has gone out of the house”, pāragate “he has arrived at the opposite bank”, pāra-saṃgate “he has gone up high on the path to nirvāṇa”, 61 62

The Chinese title is Fa wang jing (Taishō, vol. 85, no. 2883). The two fragments bear the signatures Pelliot sogdien 23 and Otani 2326 + 2922 + 2437. Pelliot sogdien 23 recto (= Taishō, vol. 85, p. 1386c). The translation is cited from a revised edition of the text that I have in preparation.

316

BUDDHIST LITERATURE IN SOGDIAN

bodhi “he has become perfect in respect of all understanding”, svāhā “he can annihilate evil”. In concluding this section attention is drawn to a Chinese text phonetically transcribed in Sogdian script. The text is called Jin gang wu li wen “Text of Five Homages to the Vajracchedikā-sūtra”, which was a very popular hymn recited by Chan Buddhists of the tenth century.63

Other Texts and Methods of Translation Even if the Sogdians did not understand the doctrines discussed in Buddhist scriptures they may have wanted to have Sogdian versions of the sūtras popular among the contemporary Chinese and other peoples around them. Major Mahāyāna sūtras were translated from Chinese and we have Sogdian versions of the Mahāyāna-mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra (three manuscripts),64 Pañcaviṃśatisahasrikāprajñā-pāramitā-sūtra (two manuscripts),65 Vajracchedikā-sūtra (two manuscripts),66 Vimala-kīrti-nirdeśa-sūtra (two manuscripts),67 Viśeṣacintibrahma-paripcchā-sūtra (two manuscripts),68 63 64

65 66 67 68

Mainz 160 + 624 belonging to the German Turfan collection. For a study of the text see Yoshida 1994 a, pp. 358–67. Taishō, vol. 12, no. 374 (translated in the first half of the fifth century). The three manuscripts are (i) T ii Y 50 b and T ii Y 63 (= texts 10 and 10 a in Müller/Lentz 1934); (ii) T iii 263, etc. comprising a number of fragments (unpublished; cf. footnote 78); (iii) a fragment belonging to Kyoto University, Japan (cf. Yoshida 1994 b). Taishō, vol. 8, no. 223 (translated in 404 ). The two manuscripts are: (i) L11 + K48 (cf. Kudara/Sundermann 1988) and (ii) L78 (cf. Yoshida 1986, pp. 513–17). Taishō, vol. 8, no. 235 (translated by Kumārajīva). The two manuscripts are: (i) Or. 8212.176 (cf. MacKenzie 1976, pp. 3–5) and (ii) TM 391 (= text 8 in Müller/Lentz 1934). Taishō, vol. 14, no. 475 (translated by Kumārajīva in 406 ). The two manuscripts are: (i) Or. 8212.159 (cf. MacKenzie 1976, pp. 18–31) and (ii) So 10343 and a few other fragments (unpublished, cf. Sundermann 1977, p. 634). Taishō, vol. 15, number 586 (translated by Kumārajīva). The two manuscripts are: (i) T iii Stadthöhle, etc. and (ii) So 10650 (16) (17) (cf. Kudara/ Sundermann 1991 and 1998).

317

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

Suvarṇa-prabhāsa-sūtra,69 Sukhāvatī-vyūha-sūtra,70 Buddhānusmtisamādhi-sāgara-sūtra (generally known as the Dhyāna text),71 and Da ban nie pan jing hou fen “Latter part of the Mahā-parinirvāṇasūtra.”72 That all these sūtras were quite popular among the contemporary Chinese is clear from the great number of the manuscripts of these texts encountered in the Dunhuang and Turfan collections. In this respect it is really astonishing that the Sogdian version of the Sad-dharma-puṇḍarīka-sūtra has not yet been discovered, since there are numerous manuscripts of the Chinese text in the Dunhuang and Turfan collections. Some Uighur scholars even presume that the Uighur version is based on a now lost Sogdian version because there are a few Sogdian loanwords in it.73 Of course one cannot exclude the possibility that in the future fragments of the Sad-dharma-puṇḍarīka-sūtra may come to light. The Sogdian version of the Sukhāvatī-vyūha-sūtra is interesting in that the Chinese original is said to have been translated by Kang Sengkai, whose surname shows that he hailed from Sogdiana.74 Thus the Sogdians of the later period translated the text once produced by their ancestor. The sūtra describes Tathāgata Amitābha’s (or Amitāyus’s) Sukhāvatī “pure land” in great detail. What has survived of the Sogdian version is one section toward the end of the sūtra. If one has a mind of doubt, that will be great damage and great harm to one. Therefore, all living beings should believe in and have faith in the blameless Buddhist wisdom without doubt. Also the Bodhisattva Maitreya said to the Buddha: “O Lord of the World, how many non-retrogressive bodhisattvas are there in this world who will be born in that world (i.e. the pure land)?” The Buddha said to the Bodhisattva Maitreya: “In this world there are seventy-seven crores of 69 70 71 72 73 74

Taishō, vol. 16, no. 665 (translated in 420 ). T ii Y50 a (= text 7 in Müller/ Lentz 1934). Taishō, vol. 12, no. 360 (allegedly translated in the second half of the third century). So 14680 + So 20152 (unpublished). Taishō, vol. 15, no. 643 (translated in the first half of the fifth century). Or 8212.85 (cf. MacKenzie 1976, pp. 53–77). Taishō, vol. 12, no. 377 (translated in the second half of the seventh century). Texts 96 and 100 a, c in Ragoza 1980 (identified by Yoshida 1994c). Cf. Elverskog 1997, p. 59. However, the attribution now appears unlikely. Cf. P. Williams 1989, p. 252.

318

BUDDHIST LITERATURE IN SOGDIAN non-retrogressive Bodhisattvas who will go to and will be born in that world.”75

In China Amitābha was so popular that many people were devoted to him and propagated the faith. That Amitābha’s popularity among the Chinese people had some influence on the contemporary Sogdians can be seen from the fact that in the Sogdian texts the Buddha is referred to as ʾʾmytʾ, which is based on a mi tuo, the Chinese transcription of the Buddha’s appellation, rather than its Sanskrit original, Amitābha or Amitāyus. In text 2 in Benveniste 1940 one finds the following passage: This man (i.e. one who does not eat meat), whenever the time of death comes to him, the Buddha with a group of many Bodhisattvas will come in front of him and will take him from the cycle of death and birth (Sanskrit saṃsāra). Then he will be born in the Sukhāvatī world, in the land of the Buddha Amita and will obtain deliverance from (the cycle of) birth and death. (Lines 1189–94).

Homage is also paid to him in texts 5 and 8 in Benveniste 1940. It is almost always the case that we have only small fragments of Sogdian texts of which the originals are large sūtras. In these cases we cannot be certain whether the Sogdian versions based on these longer works were entire translations or only excerpts of interesting parts. However, there exists one illuminating case; in the case of the Mahāyāna-mahā-parinirvāṇa-sūtra, of which the Chinese original consists of forty chapters requiring more than three hundred printed pages (each page containing more than 1400 characters) in the Taishō edition, there survive two fragments from one and the same manuscript. One of them corresponds to page 467a and the other to page 585b–c in Taishō, vol. 12. Thus the smaller fragment comes from the part discussing the precepts (corresponding to p. 467): [It is not] for the sake of existence, but for the sake of (coming) certainly (to) the absolute end and for the sake of living beings. And it is that which is called the clean and pure precepts of a Bodhisattva.76 75 76

Unpublished. The passage corresponds to Taishō, vol. 12, p. 278 b. Text 10 a, lines 1–4, in Müller/Lentz 1934. This fragment was recently identified by K. Kudara.

319

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

The larger fragment, on causes and their effects, comes from towards the end of the sūtra: Because of touch without light living beings search for existence. And the cause of searching for existence is love. Now because of love three kinds of acts are done, i.e. the acts of body, mouth, and mind. Now, O pious man, when a wise man can perceive acts in this way, then he will understand their effects.77

It is accordingly safe to assume that there once existed an entire translation of the sūtra and one may be induced to suppose that the same applies to the other fragments. Actually, in the case of another manuscript of the Mahā-parinirvāṇa-sūtra (unfortunately still unpublished), there are many fragments from different chapters, which indicate that the entire work was translated.78 One may wonder to what extent the Sogdians understood the philosophical problems discussed in the latter of the above cited two passages of the Mahā-parinirvāṇa-sūtra, especially in view of the fact that the corresponding Chinese original has: The cause of acts is ignorance and contact (= the contact of the sense organs and their objects, i.e. sensation). Because of ignorance and contact people want to live. The cause of wanting to live is desire. Because of desire, people perform three kinds of acts, i.e. those of body, mouth, and mind. O sons of good family, when a wise man finishes considering the cause of acts, then he should consider their effects and rewards.

It is also to be noted that the Sogdian word for what is translated as “existence” above is an inflected verb form ʾsty “(there) is”. Sometimes their way of translating Chinese originals word for word reveals their rather poor understanding of the philosophical aspects of the texts. An clear example is provided by the Sogdian version of the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa-sūtra. In translation the Chinese original corresponding to lines 125–28 of the Sogdian version reads as follows:

77 78

Text 10, lines 1–7, in Müller/Lentz 1934. One folio belonging to the book was edited by Utz 1976.

320

BUDDHIST LITERATURE IN SOGDIAN In all the heretical sects in the world, everywhere they leave home (as monks) (Sanskrit pravraj). Thereby they free men from delusion. Thus (men) do not fall into heterodox views (Sanskrit mithyā-dṣṭi).79

The Sogdian, however, has: Because in the world in all rules of the Path and in all knowledge he goes out (as) householder and, from this, doubt becomes manifest to man, so that he does not fall into false views.80

It is hardly conceivable that the Sogdians were able to understand the contents of the original only from this translation. F. Weller, who was a specialist of Buddhism and once compared the Chinese version with the Sogdian in detail, regarded the Sogdian translation of the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa-sūtra as on the whole carefully done whereas in MacKenzie’s view “it is by far the worst and most ignorant of such translations”.81 The discrepancy is accounted for by the fact that Weller, in MacKenzie’s words, “often treats Sogdian words as atomistically as if they were Chin[ese] characters”. Let us take another example, this time a passage from the Sogdian version of the Vajracchedikā-sūtra. The corresponding Chinese original is as follows: Again, O Subhūti, a Bodhisattva should give a gift without being supported by a thing (= Chinese fa). Thus, he should give a gift without being supported by a form, without being supported by sounds, smells, tastes, and mind-objects (= Chinese fa). Therefore, O Subhūti, he should give a gift without being supported by something that has characteristics. Why is it so? If a Bodhisattva gives a gift without being supported by what has characteristics, the amount of his merits cannot be known or measured.

The Sogdian version on the other hand has: Then there is no Bodhisattva. And also, O Subhūti, from the law to nothing there remains no such (thing as?) giving a gift. And also he does not stay in color and gives a gift. And also he does not stay in the 79 80 81

Translation after MacKenzie 1976, II, p. 34. Or. 8212.159, lines 125–28 (MacKenzie 1976, pp. 26–27). MacKenzie 1976, II, p. 160, n. 1.

321

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN law of voice, smell, taste, and touching and he should give a gift. Now, O Subhūti, if a Bodhisattva gives a gift, likewise he does not stay in the manner, because if a Bodhisattva does not stay in the manner and gives a gift, then his good deeds cannot be reckoned or explained.82

It is noteworthy that the translator, who always uses pδkh “law” for Chinese fa, did not realize that fa (and its Sanskrit counterpart dharma) means both “law” and “thing”. The apparently nonsensical sentence “from the law to nothing there remains no such giving a gift” is the translation of the Chinese original, which, if translated word for word, is as follows: “from/in/at law/thing fit no place stay do from/in/at give”. One can see that the translator tried to render as many characters as possible into Sogdian, but the result is nonsensical. However, the Sogdians did produce idiomatic translations when the originals were not highly metaphysical. Thus the Sogdian translation of the Buddhānusmti-samādhi-sāgara-sūtra (Dhyānatext), which expounds how to contemplate the Buddha or his image, is as a whole accurate and idiomatic: Whoever shall consider the image sitting shall fix his thought with sincere mind. He shall see to it that a lotus will grow from under the soles of the Buddha images standing before him. At the time of this flower growing, then he should raise his thought and concept and so act that this great earth may be pure-gold-colored or with the color of the seven jewels.83

Elsewhere (lines 5–6) the translator of this sūtra even tries to make better sense than the Chinese original when he translates pi ni, which is the transcription of Sanskrit vinaya, as prʾʾtymwkš. The latter is a foreign form based on Sanskrit prātimokṣa, which is a code of precepts in the vinaya according to which monks are controlled and corrected. Thus he has: If he is a monk (lit. one who has gone out of his house), he should recite the code of precepts by heart so that he should be well versed (in it). 82 83

Or. 8212.176, lines 11–18 (cf. MacKenzie 1976, pp. 4–5). Here I give my own literal translation rather than MacKenzie’s. Or. 8212.85, lines 193–98 (MacKenzie 1976, pp. 64–65).

322

BUDDHIST LITERATURE IN SOGDIAN

Therefore, concerning the accuracy of the Sogdian translations from the Chinese originals, MacKenzie’s following remarks about the Sogdian version of the Sūtra of the Causes and Effects of Actions may hold good for the other texts of not particularly philosophical contents: It must be said, however, that although the Sogdian translator misinterpreted Chinese sentences through wrong division, and was sometimes plainly ignorant of individual characters, in general his translation shows a knowledge of Chinese sufficient to be much nearer the mark than this (i.e. one extreme case of a mistranslation found in the Sogdian text on which Henning once commented extensively).84

Although sometimes more than one manuscript of the same text have survived, in nearly all cases these manuscripts are small fragments and we have very few overlapping texts, the unfortunate consequence being that we are not able to determine whether they are copies of one and the same original or whether they belong to independent translations. In the case of texts 8 and 8 bis in Benveniste 1940 it is generally assumed that the two fragments were copies of the same original, while the Vimalakīrti text from Dunhuang is believed to be an independent translation from that discovered in Turfan. In this respect it is greatly to be regretted that we have not yet been able to identify the original of T ii B 21 (= So 12650), which overlaps with lines 72–86 of text 2 in Benveniste 1940, and we still do not know whether they are independent recensions.

Sogdian Monks In view of the substantial number of Buddhist texts in Sogdian one may reasonably ask whether there once existed a canon comparable to that in Chinese or Tibetan. However, in view of the fact that only those Sogdians who immigrated to China and Chinese Turkestan confessed to Buddhism, it is unlikely that they enjoyed patronage from the government as the Chinese and Tibetan Buddhists did. It 84

MacKenzie 1970, p. 35.

323

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

is probable therefore that the translation of each Buddhist Sogdian text was supported by an individual donor such as Chōrakk of the Khan family, and that no canon existed in Sogdian. Moreover, one may also presume that there were several Sogdian Buddhist communities organized and controlled by compatriot clergymen, who were asked to produce Sogdian versions based on the sūtras in Chinese and in other languages. Those communities were to some extent interdependent because, as stated above, the colophons of the two texts discovered in Dunhuang show that they were translated in Changan and Loyang, and also because one can see considerable stability in the use of Buddhological terms; for example the Chinese expression for Sanskrit kleśa “affliction, distress” is almost always rendered by the combination wytxwy (ZY) sryβtʾm and that for Sanskrit lokajyeṣṭha “lord of worlds” by ʾβcʾnpδy xwyštr, etc. Unfortunately, very few references to the communities of Sogdian monks and their activities are attested in Chinese chronicles and contemporary documents.85 We can only infer their activities from indirect indications. In one of the cave monasteries of Kizil near the modern town of Kucha in Chinese Turkestan one finds a scribbled Sogdian inscription saying: “I, Tathāgatasoma, have come here.” A similar inscription is also found in a cave of Qumtura not far from Kizil. These inscriptions were most likely to have been written by Sogdian pilgrims and the Sanskrit name Tathāgatasoma clearly indicates that the bearer of the name was a clergyman. Similarly the possessor of the manuscript of text 7 in Benveniste 1940 is called Kalyāṇa in line 229: rʾkšʾ pʾβtw kryʾn ʾsyʾ pykšw (= rakṣā bhavatu kalyāṇasya bhikṣoḥ) “protection shall be with the bhikṣu (monk) Kalyāṇa.” Among the small fragments recently discovered in the ruin of Bezeklik in Turfan one finds a Sogdian version of the Caturvargavinaya-prātimokṣa, which is a list of precepts for monks: Any monk who insults other monks by saying that they have committed saṅghāvaśeṣa (= a sin of an ordained person requiring open 85

Luo Feng collected names of famous Sogdian Chinese monks from the biographical works in Chinese, cf. Luo Feng 2000, p. 268. Those Sogdians who entered the Buddhist priesthood in the years 767 and 768 are listed in Taishō, vol. 52, p. 836.

324

BUDDHIST LITERATURE IN SOGDIAN confession before the assembly for absolution) will be regarded as committing pāyattika (= a sin causing one to fall into purgatory).86

There must accordingly have existed a community of Sogdian monks controlled by this code. In the German Turfan collection there have been discovered two fragments from a small book, one of which contains an unidentified text called “Law (or Method) for Meditation” translated from the Kuchean language and the other comprises the end of the sūtra identified with the concluding verses of the Fo shuo fan jie zui bao qing zhong jing (Taishō, vol. 24, no. 1467, translated by An Shigao) “Sūtra Spoken by the Buddha on the Lightness and Heaviness of the Sin of Transgressing the śīla (moral code)” and the beginning of the Fo shuo shi fei shi jing (Taishō, vol. 17, no. 794, translated during 265–316 ) “Sūtra Spoken by the Buddha on Time and Non-time (i.e. proper and improper time)”, both originals being Chinese.87 The two texts in the latter fragment deal with precepts for the clergy and the book seems to have been a collection of short texts for everyday use by Sogdian monks. Two versions of unidentified commentaries on the Vajracchedikāsūtra have been reported to exist among the German Turfan collection. Unfortunately, they have not yet been published, only the titles having been cited: the “Treatise on the Wisdom (Sanskrit prajñā) of vajra (diamond)” and the “Treatise on vajra”.88 These commentaries are unlikely to have been produced for lay Buddhists and may be taken as evidence that Sogdian priests studied the Chinese text of the Vajracchedikā-sūtra. That their originals are Chinese is certain because one can identify a passage cited from the Chinese text of the Vajracchedikā-sūtra: Just as when [King Kali] cut my body joint by joint I had no “I” sign, or “man” sign, or “living being” sign, or [“old age” sign] … If 86 87 88

80 TB I 552 + 80 TB I 558, cf. Yoshida apud Turfan Antiquarian Bureau 2000, pp. 287–89. Translated from the Chinese version, Taishō, vol. 23, no. 1430, p. 1028 a, translated in 410 . T i α (=So 10100 i) and TM 450 (= So 18400). Cf. Kudara/Sundermann 1987. Sundermann in BSOAS 40, 1977, p. 634 reconstructs the Sanskrit titles as Vajracchedikā-prajñā-śāstra and Vajra-śāstra.

325

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN I had had an “I” sign, or a “man” sign, or a “living being” sign, or an “old age” sign, certainly I would have had (a mind of) anger and resentment.89

One Chinese text discovered in Dunhuang bears a title in Sogdian “This is a sūtra of the origin of the earth” on the verso. This Chinese text is the chapter on Cakravarti-rāja in the Dirghāgamasūtra, whose independent translations are called the “Sūtra on the Original Cause of Producing the World.”90 The Sogdian title corresponds to that of the independent translations. This may also indicate that a Sogdian monk studied the Chinese text. That the Sogdian priests read not only the sūtra texts and vinaya literature but also commentaries in Chinese can also be inferred from an unidentified Chinese work, in which the Chinese text is phonetically transcribed in Sogdian script and accompanied by Chinese characters. The Mahāyāna-śraddhotpāda-śāstra is cited in the text.91 The so-called Prasenajit fragment in the German Turfan collection describes the dialogue between the Buddha and King Prasenajit concerning the appearance of the cakravartin (wheel-turning) kings. The question of Prasenajit and the Buddha’s answer find an exact parallel in the Abhidharma-kośa-bhāṣya: Then King Prasenajit said to the chief of the world: “O chief of the world, when will the cakravartin (kings) appear in the world? Of how many sorts are they? What power do they possess.” Then the Buddha said to King Prasenajit: “O great king, listen to me carefully. I shall explain when the cakravartin appears. For (when) the life of people in the world is countless (and) until the time when their life span becomes 80,000 (years), at that time the king will appear in the world. When their life span begins to become shorter, at that time people turn their pleasure (?) upon five kinds of desire and bliss and accept worldly enjoyment and happiness …”92

89 90 91 92

So 13600 (unpublished) corresponding to Taishō, vol. 8, p. 750 b. Beijing 8724. The Chinese text corresponds to Taishō, vol. 1, no. 1, chapter 30. The independent translations are Taishō, vol. 1, nos. 23–25. T ii Toyoq 1 (= So 14830). Cf. Yoshida 1994a, pp. 356–58. Text 9, lines 7–17, in Müller/Lentz 1934 corresponding to Taishō, vol. 29, no. 1558, p. 64 b, cf. Yoshida 1986, p. 519.

326

BUDDHIST LITERATURE IN SOGDIAN

The Sogdian monks studied not only Chinese but also Sanskrit. When translating from Chinese they usually give correct Sanskrit forms where the transcriptions of Sanskrit terms appear in the originals, e.g. ʾnwtrʾyʾn smyksmpwδʾy for a nou duo luo san miao san pu ti, which in turn stands for the inflected form of Sanskrit anuttara-samyak-sambodhi. Dhāraṇīs (spells) and verses from the Udānavarga transcribed in Sogdian script may also betray Sogdian monks’ scholarship in Sanskrit. Naturally enough not all translators were equally competent. Thus, the Sanskrit form quoted is also transcribed as ʾnʾwγtʾrʾ sʾm myx sʾm pwδʾy, which is obviously based on the Chinese transcription rather than Sanskrit itself. Sometimes the translators even invented wrong forms such as ctβʾr mxʾpwδy (text 2 in Benveniste 1940, ll. 45, 366) “lit. four mahābodhi” instead of catvāri mahābhūtāni “the four elements of which all things are made”. Recently, in the German Turfan collection a small fragment of the Divyāvadāna was discovered, in which the Sanskrit form and its Sogdian equivalent, both written in Brahmi script, appear alternately.93 As mentioned above, a few texts are known to have been translated from Tocharian and the Sogdian monks resident in the northern Tarim Basin apparently studied Chinese, Sanskrit, and Tocharian as the languages of literature and liturgy.

Epilogue: Sogdians and Uighurs After the Arab invasion, the city states of Sogdiana lost their independence and became subject first to Omayyad and then to Abbasid rule. By the tenth century they even lost their language. What al-Muqaddasī in the tenth century reports as the languages of Samarkand and Bokhara are no more than varieties of New Persian. Things were different in their eastern diaspora, in Chinese Turkestan and Semirechiye, where the Sogdians lost their identity among the numerous Turkish speakers. While Turkicization was in progress during the ninth and tenth centuries, Sogdian was 93

Sims-Williams 1996 c.

327

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

employed by Turcophones as a written language. This situation is suggested by several pieces of evidence, such as Turkish proper names and expressions calqued on Turkish found in late Sogdian documents, a late document bilingual in Sogdian and Uighur, etc.94 Thus it is quite conceivable that when the Sogdian Buddhists were absorbed among the Turcophones the former’s tradition was inherited by the latter. A few late Buddhist Sogdian texts are extant that were written by Turkish speakers. Text 26 in Benveniste 1940 is a short scroll containing paintings of three sitting Buddhas accompanied by short notes. Each inscription mentions either the painter or the donor and all the names are Turkish. One of the inscriptions reads: “… may I, Täkiz, obtain Buddhahood.”95 Text 16 in Benveniste 1940, mentioned above as a Chan text, is concluded by a line in Uighur written in the same hand as the Sogdian text. The Uigur sentence reads: “Our gift for the two Bodhisattvas is this.”96 A manuscript of the Vajracchedikā-sūtra discovered in Turfan is followed by a colophon saying: Whoever may write the dharma (Buddhist doctrine), read, recite, or chant it by memory, they shall all obtain the fruit of the Buddha and shall raise their minds toward perfect universal enlightenment. (This manuscript was) written by Xutlagh with his paper.97

The scribe’s name, Xutlagh, is generally identified with an Uighur personal name Qutlugh meaning “fortunate”. If this assumption is correct the Sogdian text was copied by an Uighur copyist.98 The Dhyāna-text mentioned earlier has three inscriptions on the reverse. The one in Chinese means: “This sūtra belongs to Yiquan and it is not fitting for A-hu-mi to read it”. The more comprehensible of the other two, which are in Uighur, reads: “As for this book, it is the book belonging to Il Körmiš, those who [may not believe it …].” 94 95 96 97 98

On such materials see Sims-Williams/Hamilton 1990. Sims-Williams/Hamilton 1990, p. 37. ‘Täkiz’ may also be read as ‘T(ä)ngiz’. Sims-Williams/Hamilton 1990, p. 40. I read ʾyky ‘two’ rather than the editors’ ʾrky ‘perhaps’. Text 8, lines 10–11, in Müller/Lentz 1934. Cf. Zieme 1992, p. 17.

328

BUDDHIST LITERATURE IN SOGDIAN

A-hu-mi may possibly be a transcription of Axurmazd, which can be a personal name of either a Sogdian or an Uighur. These inscriptions, in particular those in Uighur, seem to indicate that the text was once possessed by one of the Uighurs, who came down to Dunhuang only after the latter half of the ninth century.99 Since there are a number of Buddhist Uighur texts dating back to the tenth to fourteenth centuries (some are much younger), one may well ask the relationship between the Sogdian and Uighur texts. Uighur scholars have developed two mutually exclusive hypotheses, the so-called “Sogdian hypothesis” proposed by J. P. Laut and the “Tocharian hypothesis” of T. Moriyasu.100 According to J. P. Laut the analysis of the Uighur Buddhist terminology leads one to assume a fundamentally Sogdian substratum in the Uighur texts because the oldest and most widely adopted Buddhist terms are of Sogdian origin. The Tocharian hypothesis is based on the fact that most of the Sanskrit loanwords found in the Uighur texts are borrowed from the Tocharian language. Moreover, the most basic terms such as nom “law (Sanskrit dharma)”, nizvani “defilement (Sanskrit kleśa)”, and caxšapat “commandment (Sanskrit śikṣāpat)” differ from those attested in the Buddhist Sogdian texts: δrm, wytxwy sryβtʾm, and škšʾpt respectively. Especially noteworthy is the form caxšapat, which is attested in Sogdian but is basically restricted to the Manichaean texts. This situation suggests that the Uighurs borrowed the term when they were Manichees and later when they converted to Buddhism they continued to use it. The oldest known Buddhist texts in Uighur were based on either Chinese or Tocharian originals, and no text has been known that was translated from Sogdian, which seems to lend support to the latter hypothesis. However, the relationship between the Sogdian texts and the Buddhist literature in Uighur, which is antedated by the former, has not been fully elucidated. It is to be hoped that future study will make it clear whether there was continuity of the tradition between the two groups of texts or not. 99 The Chinese inscription found in the manuscript of SCE “Cao Jintai’s sūtra. One” may also point to the later possessor. 100 Laut 1986; Moriyasu 1989.

329

CHAPTER 7 KHOTANESE LITERATURE1 M. M A large number of manuscripts and manuscript folios and fragments written in Khotanese, the Eastern Middle Iranian language of the ancient Saka kingdom of Khotan on the southern branch of the Silk Route (in the present-day Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region of China), were recovered chiefly by expeditions from the West and from Japan between the end of the nineteenth and the first decades of the twentieth century. 2 New material has also come to light in recent years,3 and further archaeological research would certainly enrich the corpus of Khotanese texts. Moreover, previously forgotten Khotanese manuscripts have been rediscovered in Munich, Washington and Lüshun.4 Khotanese collections are now housed in libraries and museums in Paris, London, Stockholm, St. Petersburg, Munich, Berlin, Bremen, Washington (D.C.),

1

2 3 4

If not otherwise indicated, the provenance and present location of the Khotanese manuscripts quoted can be ascertained by means of the list of “Sigla of the Khotanese manuscripts quoted” at the end of the chapter. As a rule, only Sanskrit, Tibetan and Chinese parallels of Khotanese texts are mentioned. If not noted otherwise, the translations of Khotanese texts are by M. Maggi. Where appropriate, the Sanskrit equivalents of Buddhist technical terms are added in parentheses. In the notes, reference is usually made to the most recent editions and translations where references to previous works can be found. See Dabbs 1963 and Hopkirk 1980. Cf. Emmerick 1984 a, Duan/Wang 1997 and Baumer 2000, p. 82 and fig. 57. For the Francke-Körber collection (Munich) see Gropp 1984 and Emmerick 1984 b. For the Crosby collection (Washington) see Emmerick 1992 b, 1993 a and 1993b. For the Lüshun folio see Duan 1993.

330

KHOTANESE LITERATURE

Cambridge (Mass.), New Haven, Peking, Lüshun, Urumqi, New Delhi and Kyoto.5 The surviving corpus of completely or partially preserved texts is quite rich, but it is clear that a large part of Khotanese literature is lost. The study of Khotanese texts began in 1897 with the publication of the first facsimiles and tentative transcriptions by August Friedrich Rudolf Hoernle.6 Texts editions and translations were subsequently published by Ernst Leumann7 and Sten Konow.8 Most Khotanese texts were edited or re-edited by Harold Walter Bailey in the first five volumes of his Khotanese texts and in his Khotanese Buddhist texts.9 The edition of the rich St. Petersburg collection—except for the manuscript SI P 6 (Book of Zambasta), the manuscript SI P 49 (Dharmaśarīrasūtra) and a few ChineseKhotanese documents10—is due to Ronald E. Emmerick and Margarita I. Vorob’ëva-Desjatovskaja.11 The London collections have recently been catalogued and re-edited by Prods O. Skjærvø.12 Numerous manuscript folios and fragments are still unpublished.

5

6 7 8

9 10 11 12

See Emmerick 1992 a, pp. 4–5. The collection in the Museum für Völkerkunde, Munich, should be referred to more precisely as Francke-Körber collection (see Maggi 1995, p. 21 with n. 4). Unfortunately, the small collection of manuscripts that was brought back by the Italian expedition lead by Filippo De Filippi (see De Filippi 1932 and cf. Dabbs 1963, pp. 145–46) and that, following a hint given by Klaus Wille, I traced in the Museo nazionale di antropologia ed etnologia, Florence, in June 1999 does not contain Khotanese material but consists only of Tibetan manuscripts that had thus far remained unnoticed to Tibetologists (see now Torricelli 1999, notably p. 284, n. 2). See Hoernle 1897. See in particular E. Leumann 1912, 1920 and 1933–36. See in particular Konow 1916 a, 1916 b and 1916 c (Vajracchedikāsūtra and Aparimitāyuḥsūtra), 1929 (Bhadrakalpikasūtra), 1932, pp. 63–111 (Saṅghāṭasūtra), 1941 (Jīvakapustaka), and Thomas/Konow 1929 (StäelHolstein roll). See Bailey 1945–85 and 1951. See Kumamoto 2001. See Emmerick/Vorob’ёva-Desjatovskaja 1993 and 1995. See Skjærvø 2002, which also contains a number of previously unpublished fragments.

331

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

Notwithstanding the research that has been carried out on the Khotanese material for more than a century, much remains to be done in order to complete the decipherment of the Khotanese language and texts. Accordingly, a sketch of the literature in Khotanese still falls short of completeness and meets with some difficulties.13 Firstly, though most of the manuscripts have been published, part of the texts are in need of new, more accurate editions. Secondly, a number of substantial texts have never been translated, and others, that are available in translation, should be interpreted more precisely. Moreover, in the case of Buddhist texts, the content of a large number of fragments has not yet been identified. So we do not know exactly which works are extant, albeit fragmentarily, and the comprehension of the fragments, difficult in itself, is not made easier by parallel texts in other languages. Finally, it is in most cases impossible to date literary manuscripts precisely, let alone to determine the date of composition or translation of the extant texts, so that chronology is only approximate. Khotanese manuscripts contain both documents and literary texts. In the present survey only literary texts will be considered.14 The greater part of the extant literary texts are Buddhist works. It is also likely that the first works written in Khotanese were Buddhist works, whether translations or original compositions. In fact, Khotan was a major centre of Buddhist studies in the first millennium and played an important role in the transmission of Buddhism from India to China and Tibet. Buddhism pervades also secular documents and non-doctrinal literary texts.15 13

14

15

More or less detailed profiles and bibliographical surveys of Khotanese literature can be found in Hansen 1968, pp. 77–83, Dresden 1977 b, Emmerick 1992 a, Bailey 1982, pp. 63–80, 1983, Iwamatsu 1985, Kumamoto 1985, Emmerick/Skjærvø 1990, Emmerick 1994 b, Kumamoto 1999 and Skjærvø 1999 b. On the documents see Kumamoto 1996 a and Skjærvø 2002, pp. lxv–lxviii. See also Kumamoto 1982 and Emmerick 1992 a, pp. 45–47. On Khotanese administration, besides T. Saito’s appendix in Kumamoto 1996 a, see Vorob’eva-Desyatovskaya 1992 a, esp. pp. 44–75, and 1992 b. On Buddhism among Iranian peoples and in Central Asia see Emmerick 1983 a, 1987 a and 1990 a.

332

KHOTANESE LITERATURE

Provenance, Date and Language of the Manuscripts Khotanese manuscripts date from the second half of the fifth century to the end of the tenth century . The older manuscripts were produced in the region of Khotan, while the younger ones come from the Caves of the Thousand Buddhas near Dunhuang, Gansu Province. Of the manuscripts recovered from Khotan, only part of those containing administrative and other documents can be dated more or less precisely, whereas virtually all the manuscripts containing literary texts are not dated, so that only an approximate dating on palaeographic grounds is possible. The only exception is a manuscript of the Bhaiṣajyaguruvaiḍūryaprabharājatathāgatasūtra from Khotan that contains a colophon pointing to the end of the eighth century.16 The other manuscripts from the Khotan area are datable to the period going from the middle of the fifth to the middle of the ninth centuries. The manuscripts from Dunhuang, that are partly dated, are largely from the tenth century but some of them may go back to the late ninth century. The texts are written in a variety of linguistic stages that are usually grouped under the labels Old Khotanese and Late Khotanese.17 Of course, such labels, like any other classification, are highly conventional and should not make us lose sight of the fact that a chronological appreciation of the language of each text and manuscript is necessary. The manuscripts from Khotan are written in both Old and Late Khotanese, while the manuscripts from Dunhuang are written in later forms of Late Khotanese. Thus, Late Khotanese texts come both from the Khotan area and from Dunhuang, whereas Old Khotanese texts come only from Khotan and the surrounding region. Since Old Khotanese was used exclusively in Buddhist works, whereas Late Khotanese was used in both Buddhist and other texts, Old Khotanese may be regarded as the sacred language of Khotanese Buddhism. According to an interesting hypothesis put forward by Hiroshi Kumamoto, the absence of Old Khotanese texts from Dunhuang and the fact that the Late Khotanese translations from 16 17

See Skjærvø 1991, p. 270. See Emmerick 1987 b and 1989 a.

333

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

Dunhuang are comparatively freer than the ones from Khotan “may suggest that the writing or even copying of O[ld] Kh[otanese] Buddhist texts ceased during the Tibetan rule” from around 790 to the mid ninth century and “that some sort of transition occurred within the tradition of the Buddhist learning in Khotan during the social and political turmoil from the eighth to the ninth century”.18 Thus, although a chronological treatment of Khotanese literature is not possible, it is important to take into account the provenance and the approximate date of the manuscripts in order to form at least a rough idea of the development of literature in Khotan. Literary texts contained in dated, or at least approximately datable, manuscripts from Dunhuang are e.g. the lyrical verses of the Staël-Holstein roll (925 ), the Vajracchedikāsūtra (before 941), the Bhadrakalpikasūtra, the Sumukhasūtra and the Deśanā I and II that are found in the manuscript Ch c.001 (943), the Jātakastava and the Mañjuśrīnairātmyāvatārasūtra that were written in the reign of King Viśa’ Śūra (967–78), the Invocation of Prince Tcū-syau (around 970), and the Vajrayāna verses of Cā Kīmä-śani (971).

Script For writing Khotanese, formal and cursive varieties of a Central Asian development of the Indian Brāhmī script were used. The use of the formal varieties was limited chiefly, but not exclusively, to religious texts (the formal script was also used for a medical text such as the Siddhasāra).19 On the other hand, cursive varieties were employed both for literary texts and for everyday writing. The formal varieties, that have been the subject of more detailed analysis, can be grouped in four stages of development according to Lore Sander: (1) Early Turkestan Brāhmī, type b (with two subtypes, one with knots, especially at the end of the verticals, and another without knots), “about the fifth century A.D.”; 18 19

See Kumamoto 1999, pp. 359–60. A detailed description of the formal script of the manuscript P SI 6, the main witness of the Book of Zambasta is provided by M. Leumann 1934.

334

KHOTANESE LITERATURE

(2) Early South Turkestan Brāhmī, “end of the sixth to the seventh century”; (3) South Turkestan Brāhmī (the main type), “between the seventh and the ninth century”; (4) Late South Turkestan Brāhmī, “tenth century”. 20

Typology of the Manuscripts Apart from a number of documents on wood21 and a few inscriptions on paintings and on a jar, 22 Khotanese texts are written on paper.23 The manuscripts are either books of the pothī type (bundles of oblong loose leaves) imitating the Indian palm leaf manuscripts, or Chinese rolls (from one to several folios joined to form rolls up to several metres in length).24 There also existed long miscellaneous manuscripts containing several different, though often thematically related, texts. An example of the pothī type is the manuscript P 3513 of the Bibliothèque nationale de France that consists of 84 folios and contains a namo text on ff. 1–12, the Mahāprajñāpāramitāsūtra on ff. 13–42, the Bhadracaryādeśanā on ff. 43–58, the Deśanāparivarta of the Suvarṇabhāsottamasūtra on ff. 59–75 and the so-called Deśanā on ff. 76–84.25 A long miscellaneous roll is, for instance, the manuscript Ch c.001 of the British Library that measures 29.2 cm 20 21

22 23 24 25

See Sander 1989, particularly pp. 112–18 for the dating; cf. Sander 1968, 1984, 1986, Emmerick 1992 a, pp. 7–8, and Skjærvø 2002, pp. lxxi–lxxii. See Bailey 1945–85, vol. 4, for the wooden documents in the Hedin collection (Stockholm); Emmerick 1990 b, for one of the wooden slips in the Francke-Körber collection; Emmerick/Vorob’ёva-Desjatovskaja 1993 and 1995 for the wooden documents in the St. Petersburg collections; Duan/ Wang 1997 for a newly discovered wooden document; and Skjærvø 2002, pp. 557–75 for the wooden documents in the London collections. See Emmerick 1968 a, 1974 a and Skjærvø 2002, pp. 583–85. For the jar inscription see Maggi 2001 and Skjærvø 2002, p. 584. Some information on the paper used for Khotanese manuscripts is to be found in Duan [1992], pp. 18–21. For some information on the production of Khotanese manuscripts see Sander 1988. Ed. Bailey 1951 a, pp. 62–66 (see below).

335

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

by 23.876 m26 for a total of 1,100 lines.27 It was probably written in 943  and contains the Sanskrit Buddhoṣṇīṣavijayadhāraṇī on ll. 1–11 (Bailey’s numbering), the Sanskrit Sitātapatradhāraṇī on ll. 12–198, the Bhadrakalpikasūtra on ll. 199–754, a namo text on ll. 755–851 (see below on Deśanā I), the Sumukhasūtra on ll. 852–1061 and another namo text on ll. 1062–1109 (see below on Deśanā II). As reported by Ronald E. Emmerick, These six texts, a mixture of Mahāyāna and tantra, are said by Shūyo Takubo to constitute a unified collection of esoteric sūtras in conformity with Buddhist ritual practice. The central text is the Sumukha-sūtra. The first three texts are invocational, inviting those who are invoked to take part in the ritual, while the Deśanā texts are intonation texts. 28

Metrics A large part of Khotanese literature is in verse. Khotanese metrics has been highly debated and is still imperfectly understood. Further study is required. Old and Late Khotanese metrics seem to be based on different principles, but in both cases a stanza usually consists of two verses, and each verse consists of two pādas (with the possible exception of metre B). Old Khotanese metrics, which is known chiefly from the Book of Zambasta, is essentially quantitative. It is unknown whether Khotanese metrics is an indigenous system or whether it derives from as yet unidentified Indian models. Three metres were first recognised by Ernst Leumann and are conventionally called A, B and C. Each of them is characterised by a basically fixed number of morae: a light syllable is worth one mora, a heavy syllable is worth two morae. The end of the verses is marked by two-foot cadences, where there is a coincidence of two stresses with the first syllable of each foot and where, like in the 26 27 28

See Hoernle 1911 (111⁄2 inch width); cf. Hoernle 1921, p. 1455 (101⁄2 inch width). Facsimile in Takubo 1975, pp. 46–118; cf. Emmerick 1978, q.v. also for the line numbering. See Emmerick 1992a, pp. 21–22.

336

KHOTANESE LITERATURE

rest of the verse, two light syllables may be substituted for a heavy one and vice versa. Metres A and C also have internal cadences preceding the caesura, but here the place of the accent is not mandatory. The main metrical patterns are as follows (other more or less frequent patterns exist; the number of morae preceding the cadences is sometimes irregular): A 5 morae +   | 5m +  ; B 11 morae +  ; C   | 5 morae +  . 29 Late Khotanese metrics has never been studied in detail and it is not clear whether it is a development of Old Khotanese metrics or whether it continues a different Iranian metrical system.30 It seems to be regulated by the number of stresses per pāda. At least two metres exist, one with about eight syllables per pāda, and the other with about twelve syllables per pāda.

Origin of Khotanese Buddhist Literature Very little information is available concerning the origin of Khotanese literature. We know virtually nothing about the oral literature of Iranian descent apart from faint echoes in the legends on the foundation of Khotan and in the stylistic tendency to variation rather than repetition.31 As for the beginnings and the early period of development of written literature, i.e. presumably of Buddhist literature, we must limit ourselves to hypotheses to be formulated on the basis of the manuscripts from the region of Khotan and the texts they contain. Unfortunately, virtually none of them are 29

30 31

See Maggi 1992, pp. 46–51. For Ernst and Manu Leumann’s quantitative theory see the sketch in E. Leumann 1933–36, pp. xxii–xxxv, M. Leumann 1971 and the bibliography in Emmerick 1973 a. For Ronald E. Emmerick’s theory, which overestimates the role of the accent, see Emmerick 1968 b, 1968 c, pp. 437–40, 1973 a and 1973 b. Cf. Dresden 1962 with references to earlier literature and Emmerick 1968 c, pp. 437–38. See Skjærvø 1998 a for the foundation legend and Skjærvø 1999 b, p. 314 for the “Iranian principle of variation”.

337

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

dated. As for the origin of written literature, it has been mentioned above that the earliest Khotanese manuscripts are written in Brāhmī script and can be dated to the second half of the fifth century on palaeographic grounds. This applies to some folios and fragments in Early Turkestan Brāhmī of the Book of Zambasta and of the Khotanese translations of the Saṅghāṭasūtra and the Ratnakūṭasūtra, as well as to a secular wooden document in archaic Late Khotanese such as F ii 1.006.32 Giotto Canevascini has shown that the oldest manuscript of the Saṅghāṭasūtra is a faulty copy and has suggested that the original translation must antedate it by a few decades and go back to the first half of the fifth century.33 A fifthcentury date may be assumed also for the earliest translation of the Suvarṇabhāsottamasūtra.34 In an often quoted passage of the Book of Zambasta, the poet regrets that his countrymen do not appreciate Khotanese translations of Buddhist texts: [2] … I intend to translate it into Khotanese for the welfare of all beings … [4] But such are their deeds: the Khotanese do not value the Law at all in Khotanese. They understand it badly in Indian. In Khotanese it does not seem to them to be the Law. [5] For the Chinese the Law is in Chinese. In Kashmirian it is very agreeable, but they so learn it in Kashmirian that they also understand the meaning of it. [6] To the Khotanese that seems to be the Law whose meaning they do not understand at all. When they hear it together with the meaning, it seems to them thus a different Law [Z 23.2–6].35

The interpretation of this passage is not straightforward. It may be understood, with Sten Konow,36 as an indication that when the Book of Zambasta was composed Khotanese translations of 32

33 34 35 36

For the folio T III S 16, containing a variant to vv. 13.9–16 of the Book of Zambasta, see Sander 1989, p. 113, n. 8, and Maggi 2004 b. For the fifthcentury dating of the Saṅghāṭasūtra see Canevascini 1993, pp. xiii–xiv. For the document (facs. Bailey 1967 a, pl. lxxv, ed. Bailey 1945–85, vol. 2, p. 69 and Bailey 1968, pp. 101–2 with translation and notes) see Sander 1984, p. 169 with n. 23. See Canevascini 1993, p. xv. See Skjærvø 1999 b, p. 289. Translation by Emmerick 1968 c, pp. 343–45. See Konow 1939 a, pp. 28–31.

338

KHOTANESE LITERATURE

Buddhist works already existed. But it is also possible to see, in the poet’s complaint, an indication that, in the words of Jan Nattier, the “Book of Zambasta may well represent the first serious attempt to render the Buddhist literary heritage into the … language of Khotan”37 and, I would add, that its composition may date from a time when no or few Khotanese translations of Buddhist texts were available, i.e. no later then the fifth century, when the first translations were being produced. Accordingly, it is not unlikely that the Book of Zambasta, a manual of the doctrines of Mahāyāna Buddhism, precedes slightly, or is contemporary with, the aforementioned translations and marks significantly the beginnings of written literature in Khotanese. Buddhist scriptures previously used by the Khotanese would have been in Indian languages, Gāndhārī and Sanskrit. Sten Konow noticed that “the greater part of the Chinese translations of works which are known to have existed in Khotanese versions belong to the period between the 5th and the 8th centuries”, and suggested that “the translation of Buddhist texts into Khotanese Saka began during this period”.38 It is now possible to suggest, on the basis of the fifth-century date postulated for the first Buddhist original works and translations in Khotanese, that the beginning of Khotanese Buddhist literature coincides with the beginning of the period indicated by Konow. Moreover, since the translation of Mahāyāna texts into Chinese began well before the fifth century, it is reasonable to suppose that the translation of Buddhist scriptures into Khotanese was undertaken on the model of the Chinese translations, as has been suggested by Jan Nattier also on the grounds of the passage quoted above from the Book of Zambasta.39 Only, the beginning of this translation activity cannot be assigned to the seventh and eighth centuries, as Nattier posited on account of Emmerick’s dating of the Book of Zambasta to the beginning of the eighth century,40 but must be anticipated to the fifth century in the case of Khotan. 37 38 39 40

See Nattier 1991, p. 173. See Konow 1939 a, pp. 27, 28. See Nattier 1990. Cf. Emmerick 1983 a, p. 964.

339

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

Introduction of Buddhism in Khotan It is hardly possible to determine exactly when Buddhism was introduced in Khotan. The local tradition is related in detail by the Tibetan Li yul lung bstan pa (Prophecy of the Li [= Khotan] country), according to which Buddhism reached Khotan 165 years after the foundation of Khotan—which, in turn, the same source ascribes to a son of Aśoka 234 years after the death of the Buddha (483 ?)—i.e. about 84 .41 This date is rejected by Gen’ichi Yamazaki, who prefers the period between the second and the third centuries .42 However, the tradition of the “Prophecy of the Li country” could be trustworthy, since its author resisted the easy temptation to associate the introduction of Buddhism directly with Aśoka.43 On the other hand, if Buddhism “infiltrated [China] from the North-West, via the two branches of the continental silkroad …, between the first half of the first century —the period of the consolidation of the Chinese power in Central Asia—and the middle of the first century , when the existence of Buddhism is attested for the first time in contemporary Chinese sources”,44 then Buddhism could well have reached Khotan around 84 , although it was probably not predominant in Khotanese society. This does not contrast with Paolo Daffinà’s view according to which “a substantial spread of Buddhism into Chinese Turkestan is 41

42 43 44

See Emmerick 1967, pp. 22–25, 1990 a, p. 492, and 1992 a, pp. 1, 3. The year 483  is one of the dates reckoned by modern scholars for the Buddha’s death upon which there has been some agreement. A later date, around 404 , has recently been proposed by Gombrich 1992. This would entail a date of about 5  for the introduction of Buddhism in Khotan. In fact, a date towards the end of the 5th century is now generally preferred for the death of the Buddha. Studies on the date of the Buddha have been collected in Bechert 1991–97 and in The Indian Journal of Buddhist Studies 6.1–2 (1994: Special issue on the date of the Buddha). On traditional dates of the Buddha cf. Lamotte 1958, pp. 13–15. See Yamazaki 1990. See Emmerick 1992 a, p. 3. Zürcher 1972, vol. 1, p. 23. A similar view of the arrival of Buddhism in China is offered by Tsukamoto 1985, p. 51.

340

KHOTANESE LITERATURE

hardly conceivable before, and independently from, the expansion of Kushan rule [first to third century] in that direction”.45 At such an early date, Khotanese Buddhists must have been followers of the conservative form of Buddhism derogatorily termed Hīnayāna (Lesser Vehicle). According to the “Prophecy of the Li country” the Mahāsāṅghika and Sarvāstivāda schools of conservative Buddhism were already present in Khotan when the king of Khotan defeated and converted the king of Kashgar to Buddhism in about 100  and it is likely that they were still prevalent then, because Kashgar remained a centre of conservative Buddhism in the subsequent centuries and because, on the other hand, the Mahāyāna (Great Vehicle) was still in its infancy.46 In fact, the manuscript of a Gāndhārī (Northwest Prakrit) recension of the Hīnayāna text called Dharmapada, that was produced between the first and the third century , comes from Khotan.47 That Khotan was the stronghold of Mahāyāna Buddhism in Central Asia from the third/fourth centuries until its conquest by the Qarakhānids shortly before 1006 48 is witnessed by various facts. When the Chinese monk Zhu Shixing travelled west probably in 260  in search of the Sanskrit text of the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikāprajñāpāramitāsūtra, an early Mahāyāna text, he found it in Khotan, where Mahāyāna, however, had probably not reached a predominant position yet. He made a copy of it and entrusted it to his Khotanese pupil Puṇyadhana (?), who brought it to China in 282 , where the text was translated into Chinese by the Khotanese monk Mokṣala in 291 (Taishō 221).49 In 296, a further copy of the Sanskrit original was brought to Chang’an by another Khotanese monk, Gītamitra.50 Other Mahāyāna texts were brought to China from Khotan. For instance, still another Khotanese monk called Gītamitra brought to China and translated the Daśabhūmikasūtra, 45 46 47 48 49 50

Daffinà 1975, p. 191 (my translation and emphasis). See Emmerick 1967, pp. 40–47 (esp. 45), 1983a, p. 963, and 1990a, pp. 494–95. Fussman 1989, pp. 436–38. See Samolin 1964, pp. 80–82. See Zürcher 1972, vol. 1, pp. 61–63; cf. Demiéville/Durt/Seidel 1978, pp. 33 and 268 s.v. Murasha. See Zürcher 1972, vol. 1, p. 62.

341

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

the oldest part of the Buddhāvataṃsakasūtra, in 376;51 the original of the second part of the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra (Taishō 374), translated by Dharmakṣema between 414 and 421, was obtained by him in Khotan;52 and part of the Sanskrit original of the smaller Buddhāvataṃsakasūtra (Taishō 278), was found in Khotan by the Chinese Zhi Faling around the beginning of the fifth century and subsequently translated in 418–20.53 That Mahāyāna flourished in Khotan is expressly stated by the Chinese Buddhist travellers Faxian, who spent three months in Khotan in 401, and Xuanzang, who reached Khotan in 644 on his way back from India and remained seven to eight months there.54 Most of the other Khotanese who are known to have been active as translators of Buddhist works into Chinese translated Mahāyāna scriptures, some of which are also extant in Khotanese: Gītamitra under the dynasty of the Eastern Jin (317–420 ), Devendraprājña in 689–91, Śikṣānanda in 695–704, the Khotanese hostage Zhiyan after 707 and Śīladharma in 785–89.55 Moreover, a Mahāyāna Sanskrit text was even translated in Khotan by the Indian monk Bhagavaddharma, as was recently shown by Yūkei Hirai.56 Finally, many fragments of several Mahāyāna Sanskrit texts have been recovered from the Khotan area. Of special relevance is the so-called Kashgar manuscript of the Sanskrit Mahāyāna text named Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra that comes in reality from the region of Khotan: besides chapter colophons in Sanskrit, it contains three colophons in Khotanese and one in Khotanese and Sanskrit.57 Contents, palaeography and paper size suggest that two folios containing an initial invocation 51 52 53 54 55

56 57

See Kumamoto 1999, p. 348. See Bagchi 1927, pp. 214–15. See Zürcher 1972, vol. 1, pp. 62, and vol. 2, pp. 407–8, n. 71. Zürcher 1972, vol. 1, p. 62; Stein 1907, pp. 173–75; Lamotte 1954, pp. 392–94. See Demiéville/Durt/Seidel 1978: on Gītamitra pp. 251–52 s.v. Gitamitsu, on Devendraprājña p. 241 s.v. Daiunhannya, on Śikṣānanda p. 259 s.v. Jisshananda, on Zhiyan p. 239 s.v. Chigon, on Śīladharma p. 277 s.v. Shiradatsuma. On Devendraprājña see Forte 1979. On Chinese sources on Buddhism in Khotan cf. Kumamoto 1999, pp. 346–55. See Kumamoto 1999, pp. 352–53. For the colophons see Emmerick 1974b and Bailey in Lokesh Chandra 1976, pp. 1–2 with facsimile on p. 430. Cf. Emmerick 1992a, pp. 28–29.

342

KHOTANESE LITERATURE

in Khotanese might also belong to the same manuscript, as the invocation mentions the Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra and is written in the name of Jalapuña, whose name occurs together with the name of his wife and other members of his family in the aforementioned colophons.58 A number of fragments of other manuscripts of the Sanskrit Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra from the Khotan area are also known, including substantial remains of a manuscript from Khādaliq.59 At any rate, the predominant position of Mahāyāna in Khotan is clear from the extant Khotanese Buddhist texts themselves, almost all of which are Mahāyāna texts, while only a few texts from the second half of the tenth century are specifically attributable to Vajrayāna (Diamond Vehicle) or esoteric Buddhism. Khotanese Buddhist texts are thus an essential source for our knowledge of the development of Mahāyāna in Central Asia.60

Translation Techniques Although the Sanskrit originals are not always extant and many texts are otherwise known to us only in Chinese or Tibetan, most Khotanese Buddhist texts were translated from Sanskrit. The Khotanese adopted various translation techniques for rendering the terminology of their originals.61 As many Indian words (Prakrit and Buddhist Sanskrit) had already entered the Khotanese vocabulary presumably before the earliest extant texts and translations, a solution at hand was to use those loanwords as well as to continue taking over new Sanskrit technical terms: thus, Khotanese niyaṇḍa- ‘heretical monk’ and saṃtsāra- ‘cycle of existence’ are 58

59 60 61

Manuscripts SI P 62 and SI P 62.1 (facs. Emmerick/Vorob’ёva-Desjatovskaja 1993, pls. 49–50; ed. Emmerick/Vorob’ёva-Desjatovskaja 1995, pp. 68–69). Yutaka Yoshida informs me that the same suggestion was independently made by him in Yoshida et al. 2001, p. 50. See Emmerick 1992 a, p. 28 and Wille 2000 a. See also Wille 2000 b. An up-to-date overall presentation of Mahāyāna Buddhism is provided by Durt 1994. See also P. Williams 1989. On the translation techniques see Emmerick 1983 b, Degener 1989 and the important sketch by Skjærvø 1999 b, pp. 312–29.

343

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

borrowed from Prakrit forms as revealed by phonological changes (cf. Sanskrit nirgrantha- and saṃsāra-), whereas satva- ‘being’ reflects Sanskrit sattva-. On the other hand, many Sanskrit terms were rendered by genuine Khotanese words: thus, Sanskrit sattvais also rendered by uysnaura- (< Old Iranian *uzana-bra-, literally ‘breath bearer’). The Khotanese Buddhist terminology never developed, however, into a fixed system of equivalences such as was evolved by the Tibetan translators. So, one Sanskrit term may be rendered by more than one Khotanese equivalent as in the case of the Sanskrit compound buddha-kṣetra- ‘Buddha-field’, that, for instance in the Saṅghāṭasūtra, is translated by the Khotanese phrases balysānā- tcārami- ‘Buddha-land’ and balysāna- mäṣṣa- ‘Buddha-field’ and by the loanwords lovad(h)āta- ‘world-system’ and buddhakṣetra-. On the other hand, one Khotanese word may be used as the equivalent of different Sanskrit terms as in the case of Khotanese balysūsti-, that, in the Saṅghāṭasūtra, translates Sanskrit bodhi- ‘enlightenment’ as well as Sanskrit sambodhi- ‘perfect enlightenment’, buddhatva- ‘Buddhahood’ and buddha-jñāna‘Buddha-knowledge’. Moreover, the Khotanese also resorted to interpretative translations in line with the Buddhist exegetical tradition as in the case of Sanskrit tathāgata-, that is rendered, for instance, kye hutsutu pando tsute ‘he who has gone along a well-gone path’ and kye rraṣṭo tsūmato tsute ‘he who has gone along the right course’ in the Saṅghāṭasūtra,62 ttāharā-tsūka- ‘the perfectly going one’ and ttāhirau-hvāñāka- ‘the perfectly speaking one’ in the Vajracchedikāsūtra, and rraṣṭa-tsūka- in the Aparimitāyuḥsūtra.63 Oskar von Hinüber has pointed out that, on the whole, loanwords are more numerous in Late Khotanese than in Old Khotanese, where interpretative translations are frequently found. This is presumably due to the fact that Late Khotanese texts were written after several centuries of Khotanese acquaintance with Buddhism and its religious concepts.64 62 63 64

See Canevascini 1993, p. 120. See Degener 1989, pp. 348–49. See Hinüber 1973, pp. v–vi.

344

KHOTANESE LITERATURE

It is worthy of note that, in the Old Khotanese Suvarṇabhāsottamasūtra, the name Śrī of the Indian goddess of fortune is either taken up as such or translated as śśandrāmatā-. This is an Iranian name, otherwise known from the Zoroastrian religious tradition, which corresponds to Avestan spəṇtā- ārmaiti-, the ‘[personification of] holy right thinking’ and the guardian of the earth and is of direct Old Iranian descent, as is revealed by the initial śś- from Proto-Iranian *ć-.65 On the other hand, Bailey’s attractive interpretation—often repeated in the literature on Zoroastrianism—of Late Khotanese ttaira haraysä as a gloss of the Mount Sumeru of Buddhist cosmology corresponding to Avestan taēra- ‘peak’ and harā- bərəz- ‘high Harā’ has been shown by Emmerick to be fallacious, haraysa- being the expected Khotanese word for ‘expanse’ and ttaira being most likely a Late Khotanese spelling of the oblique stem of ttāri- ‘top of the head, crown’.66 As for the translation styles, the Khotanese versions vary widely with regard to their faithfulness to the originals and range from close translations to free paraphrases. In fact, the Khotanese verb for ‘translate’ (byūh-) was used of any type of rendering. As it may be expected, the translations of sūtras, particularly the oldest ones, reproduce their originals as closely as possible because sūtras were regarded as the words of the Buddha. An example is provided by the Old Khotanese Saṅghāṭasūtra that does not diverge from the preserved Sanskrit text except in the omission or addition of inessential words and, on the other hand, agrees quite closely with it for very long passages.67 Of course, metrical renderings are freer than prose translations. Thus, the Late Khotanese metrical Bhadracaryādeśanā has, for instance, been characterised as “a rather free rendering of the [Buddhist Sanskrit] original, in some cases more a paraphrase than a translation”.68 At any rate, the Khotanese did not content themselves with mere literal renditions, but 65 66 67 68

See Bailey 1967 b, 1969; cf. Bailey 1979, p. 395 s.v. śśandrāmata, and Emmerick 2002, pp. 7–9. The identification was first proposed by Bailey 1943, p. 226 (cf. Bailey 1979, p. 133 s.v. ttaira haraysä). See Emmerick 2001 and 2002, pp. 12–15. Canevascini 1993, pp. xvii–xviii. Asmussen 1961, p. 6.

345

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

took great care not to misrepresent the meaning of their originals. Thus, the passage quoted above from the Book of Zambasta goes on theorising as follows: [7] Even an ordinary being would not utter a speech which has no meaning. How much less would the all-knowing Buddha be likely to utter meaningless words! [8] In words the essential thing is the meaning. The meaning is indeed so much the essential thing that you should look on it in such a way that the Law is preached with that meaning [Z 23.7–8].69

And the Khotanese introduction to the Khotanese translation of the Siddhasāra opens with the words: With homage I go to the three jewels, with faith, in love Maheśvara, Brahma—may they watch over me that I may be able to translate this treatise in accordance with (its true) meaning [Si A1].70

The desire to provide clear renderings of the original meaning sometimes induced the Khotanese translators to amplify the text and even to insert comments as in the case of the Late Khotanese version of the Vajracchedikāsūtra. The greatest freedom is reached, however, in the case of edifying tales that are recast rather than translated. In this case, not only the first “translator” but also subsequent copyists and possibly remakers felt that the text was not unchangeable, but liable to modification, rearrangement and improvement.71 Particularly in the case of close translations, the Khotanese versions provide useful information for Buddhist Sanskrit textual criticism, because they are generally older than the earliest manuscripts preserving the corresponding Sanskrit and may reflect an older state of the text. Suffice it to recall that many an emendation of corrupted passages of the Sanskrit text of the Suvarṇabhāsottamasūtra could be confirmed or suggested anew on the basis of the Old and Late Khotanese versions.72

69 70 71 72

Translation by Emmerick 1968 c, p. 345. Translation by Emmerick 1983 b, p. 21. Cf. Maggi 1996 a, p. 205. See the footnotes in Emmerick 1996, passim, and cf. Skjærvø 2004.

346

KHOTANESE LITERATURE

Classification of Khotanese Buddhist Texts While non-doctrinal texts can be grouped by genre, the problem arises of how Khotanese Buddhist texts can best be classified. Since only few manuscripts are dated, Khotanese Buddhist literature is best presented systematically from the viewpoint of Buddhist scriptures rather than chronologically. A catalogue of sūtras is virtually contained in chapter 6 of the Book of Zambasta, in whose first line the author announces: “Thus, I will now proclaim you a verse from each sūtra: may you listen” (Z 6.1). If all of the subsequent lines could be identified, we would have, at least for the sūtras, a canon of fifty-nine texts as recognised in Khotan at the time of the Book of Zambasta. Unfortunately, only vv. 3, 15 and 24 were identified by Ernst Leumann73 as belonging to the Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra, the Vajracchedikāsūtra and the Suvarṇabhāsottamasūtra respectively, though such collections of texts (Sanskrit vaipulyasūtra ‘large sūtras’) as the Mahāsaṃnipātasūtra and the Buddhāvataṃsakasūtra, as well as single texts such as the Vinayaviniścayasūtra, the Daśabhūmikasūtra and other sūtras are mentioned elsewhere in the Book of Zambasta (see especially chap. 13). However, there is no certainty that all of the fifty-nine sūtras quoted in chapter 6 as well as the works mentioned by title ever existed in Khotanese translation. In fact, it is probable that Buddhist texts were read in Khotan either in Khotanese or in Sanskrit and that some texts were never translated.74 This holds true, in particular, for the time when the Book of Zambasta was composed, if it is correct that it preceded slightly or was contemporary with the first fifth-century translations of Buddhist texts. For the presentation of the Khotanese Buddhist texts it is convenient, in the absence of a Khotanese canon, to follow roughly the arrangement of the texts that is found in the Chinese canon (Taishō), which is inspired by religio-historical and systematic principles. In this survey Khotanese original texts and texts without known originals or parallels will be inserted where they fit best. 73 74

E. Leumann 1933–36, pp. 92, 94–96. Cf. Konow 1939 a, pp. 25–26.

347

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

However, before beginning this survey of the Buddhist literature of Khotan with the avadāna literature, it is appropriate to deal with the doctrinal compendia and texts that were composed in Khotan: the Book of Zambasta, the Mañjuśrīnairātmyāvatārasūtra and the Book of Vimalakīrti.

Original Doctrinal Compendia The Book of Zambasta The Book of Zambasta [Z] is an Old Khotanese poem based on, but not directly translated from, Indian sources. It is of special interest as an original Khotanese composition which expounds in several chapters the teachings of Mahāyāna Buddhism. The work is also noteworthy from the literary viewpoint, as it contains at times lively narratives and such poetical passages as the description of spring in chap. 20 and the description of the mountains in the different seasons in chap. 17. The Book of Zambasta is commonly believed to have been composed not earlier than the seventh century,75 but it is probable that it was not composed later than the fifth century. A terminus ante quem of the second half of the fifth century is provided by a folio written in Early Turkestan Brāhmī script.76 On the other hand, the contents of chapter 12 would point to the end of the fourth century as a terminus post quem if chapter 12 were actually based on the Bodhisattvabhūmi of Asaṅga, who is dated to the period 310–90 (?).77 But it has been suggested that chapter 12 is likely to have its source in the Ratnakūṭasūtra,78 that is an early but undated Mahāyāna sūtra. As the longest known Khotanese text, Z is the main source for our knowledge of the Khotanese language. 75 76 77 78

Konow 1939 a, pp. 35–36 and Emmerick 1990 c, p. 363; cf. Emmerick 1983 a, p. 964; Nattier 1990, p. 210, and 1991, pp. 49 and 171–73. See Maggi 2004 b. So P. Williams 1989, p. 80; cf. Skilton 1999, p. 652, n. 55 for bibliography on the dating of Asaṅga. Vorob’eva-Desyatovskaya 2002, pp. ix–x.

348

KHOTANESE LITERATURE

Since it makes use of all three known metres A, B and C, it is also the main source for our knowledge of Old Khotanese metrics. The work has come down to us chiefly in one manuscript, most folios of which are now kept in St. Petersburg under the signature SI P 6, and in several variant fragments belonging to different manuscripts that reveal the great popularity enjoyed by the work.79 The main manuscript of Z is written in South Turkestan Brāhmī and is to be assigned to the seventh or eighth century.80 All manuscripts of Z are peculiar in that the text is arranged in columns, so that each manuscript line corresponds to a verse-line and is divided into four sections corresponding approximately to the four metrical pādas. This arrangement recalls that of the manuscript of the Gāndhārī Dharmapada in Kharoṣṭhī script found in Khotan, as well as the arrangement of a few Central Asian manuscripts of Sanskrit religious poetry.81 The conventional title was suggested by Harold Walter Bailey on the grounds of the colophons to chapters 2, 11, 14 and 19 in the main manuscript, where an official called Zambasta (ysaṃbasta-) is said to have ordered the text to be written.82 The work consisted probably of twenty-five chapters, twentyfour of which are wholly or partially extant. Another chapter of 55 verse-lines, that existed originally between chapters 21 and 22 and extended from folio 322 r1 to folio 326 v1, is now lost. It should be referred to as chapter 21 a in order not to alter the established 79

80 81 82

Facsimile of SI P 6 in Vorob’ev-Desyatovskiĭ/Vorob’eva-Desyatovskaya 1965; edition and translation by Emmerick 1968 c; previous edition by E. Leumann 1933–36. Cf. Emmerick 1990c, 1992a, pp. 39–41, and Skjærvø 1999 b, pp. 301–5. For information on the main manuscript see Emmerick 1968c, pp. xi–xix, and Emmerick/Vorob’ёva-Desjatovskaja 1995, pp. 34–36. For the variants see Emmerick 1968 c, pp. 424–36, 1979 a, pp. 173–74, 1992 a, p. 40, and Emmerick/Vorob’ёva-Desjatovskaja 1995, pp. 41, 69–71 and 230–31. A further fragment of the main manuscript was published in Emmerick/Vorob’ёva-Desjatovskaja 1993, pls. 152–53 and Emmerick/ Vorob’ёva-Desjatovskaja 1995, pp. 212–13, and was recognised by Maggi 1998 a, pp. 287–88 as containing vv. 21.107–17. Cf. Sander 1989, pp. 115–16. See Maggi 2004 b, p. 187. For the Sanskrit manuscripts see Hartmann 1988, pp. 88–90 and n. 146. Cf. Emmerick 1966 and Bailey 1945–85, vol. 6.

349

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

chapter numbering.83 Apart from chapter 18, each chapter whose beginning is preserved (2–7, 9–17, 20 and 23–24) opens with the auspicious word siddham ‘success’. That chapter 24 was the last chapter is likely because the reverse of folio 440, the last folio of chapter 24, is blank, whereas every chapter begins either on the same side as the preceding one or on the immediately following free side and an unused reverse is never left blank,84 the only possible exception being chapter 18 which begins on folio 291 r after the end of chapter 17 on folio 290 r and some Sanskrit verses (Udānavarga vi.14) 85 and Khotanese prose in cursive script on folio 290 v. On the other hand, since chapter 1 must have begun on the reverse of folio 143 (not preserved),86 one might assume that further chapters preceded. However, there are some clues that suggest that the text actually began with chapter 1. Manuscripts are known which contain more than one text (cf. above on P 3513 and Ch c.001) and it is not unlikely that also the main manuscript of Z contained one or more other texts and that Z itself began on folio 143 v. This was certainly the case with the copy of Z to which the fragment Kha 1.135 a1 belonged,87 as it has six lines a page like the main manuscripts, but the preserved fragment bears the folio number 324, while the text it contains (Z 11.13–24) corresponds to ff. 232v–233r of the main manuscript. Moreover, it is common that the initial and final folios of books of the pothī type get damaged due to usage and this is apparently the case with the main manuscript of Z: thirteen folios of chapter 1 are lost and three of the four preserved folios are worn out just like the last folios of chapter 24. This does not contradict the fact that one or more texts originally preceded Z in the main manuscript, because it is a known practice for single texts in multiple manuscripts to be occasionally separated from the whole as was the case, for instance, with the Jīvakapustaka manuscript, whose first folio is numbered 44 in the left margin (and 1 in 83 84 85 86 87

See Maggi 1998a, pp. 287–88. See E. Leumann 1933–36, p. 351. See Schmithausen 1971, pp. 75–76. See Emmerick 1968 c, p. xiv. Edition in Emmerick 1968 c, pp. 429–30.

350

KHOTANESE LITERATURE

the circle for the string hole), which indicates that it once belonged to a manuscript containing more texts than the Jīvakapustaka as we know it. Finally, it must also be significant that virtually all variant fragments of Z belong to the known chapters, which is all the more striking as the 142 folios preceding chapter 1 could have contained some twelve chapters more judging from the average number of folios occupied by the twenty-five known chapters.88 It is thus probable that Z extended from folio 143 to folio 440 for a total of 298 folios, 208 of which have been identified. The contents of the wholly or partially preserved chapters are as follows. 1. Incomplete: only three fragmentary folios and one page are extant. What remains appears to be a sūtra about the Bodhisattva path and Mahāyānist Buddhology spoken by the Bodhisattva Samantabhadra.89 This points to a possible relationship with the Buddhāvataṃsakasūtra and particularly with its climax, the Gaṇḍavyūhasūtra,90 and makes the first chapter a good start for a manual of Mahāyāna Buddhism. 2. Complete apart from vv. 2.31–42 that are missing. This chapter presents itself as a sūtra. It narrates the conversion of Bhadra the magician, who failed to deceive the Buddha by disguising a cemetery and inviting him there, and whose enlightenment was then predicted by the Buddha. Tibetan and Chinese versions of the sūtra are known (Tōhoku 65; Taishō 310 (21) and 324), but the Khotanese is a paraphrase with the exception of a few verses that correspond closely.91 3. Complete. This chapter also presents itself as a sūtra, in which the Buddha, requested by the Bodhisattva Maitreya, teaches how enlightenment is obtained through loving kindness 88 89 90 91

On the additional fragments that have no match in the preserved parts of the text and possibly belong to the large lacunae of the twenty-five known chapters, see Maggi 2004 b, pp. 187–88. Samantabhadra is not the translator of the text as Sander 1988, pp. 536–37, has it. For references to the Chinese and Tibetan versions see Pfandt 1986, p. 35. See Emmerick 1968 c, pp. 10–11 for the close Tibetan parallels and cf. E. Leumann 1933–36, pp. 361–67. See also Emmerick 1990 d.

351

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

(Sanskrit maitrī ). It corresponds to the Da fang guang fo hua yan jing xin ci fen (Taishō 306), a text of the Avataṃsakasūtra tradition, which was translated by the Khotanese monk Devendraprajña at the end of the seventh century.92 4. Complete. In this chapter it is stated that nothing really exists, everything—“the place conjured up by Bhadra in the cemetery” (cf. chap. 2) and, likewise, the whole world—is false assumption (Sanskrit parikalpa). Even the thought of enlightenment (Sanskrit bodhicitta) is false assumption, but it is to be produced, because it “extinguishes all parikalpas, just as when a fire flares up, it burns up the very fire-grate, or as when lye cleans all the dirt on a very dirty garment, it dissolves itself” (Z 4.95–96).93 The Samantamukhaparivarta, known in Tibetan and Chinese (Tōhoku 54; Taishō 310 (10) and 315),94 is quoted in verse 4.39. 5. Complete. After contrasting the doctrine of the Buddha with the Mahābhārata, “a narrative of tales” composed by Vyāsa, and with the Rāmāyaṇa, which Vālmīki composed “with lies”, the poet announces his intention to proclaim in Khotanese the supreme truth (Sanskrit paramārtha), which the Buddha preached to his father: the Buddha returns to his home town Kapilavastu and, asked for instruction in the Buddhist doctrine by his father King Śuddhodana, explains how all things do not really exist but are merely due to imagination (Sanskrit vikalpa); he then remains three months in Kapilavastu and many Śākyas take up monkhood. At the end, the poet expresses the wish that, through his merits, Buddhism may last long in Khotan and that the land may remain unharmed for many years. 6. Complete. This chapter is said to contain quotations from each sūtra. 7–9. Only vv. 7.48–60 and 8.1–11 are missing. These three chapters are devoted to the doctrine of emptiness (Sanskrit śūnyatā), i.e. of the lack of inherent existence of all things. Chapter 8 92 93 94

Duan Qing’s personal communication (6 June 2004). Translation by Emmerick 1968 c, p. 93. Cf. Konow 1939 a, p. 26.

352

KHOTANESE LITERATURE

10.

11.

12.

13.

95 96 97

deals especially with the emptiness of things in connection with their causes (Sanskrit pratyaya), and chapter 9 deals, “according to the sūtras”, with the emptiness even of the Buddha essence (Sanskrit tathāgatagarbha), of the body of the Law (Sanskrit dharmakāya), of the Unique Vehicle (Sanskrit ekayāna), of deliverance, and of the origination and cessation of things (Sanskrit utpāda-vyaya). Complete. The equipment for enlightenment (Sanskrit bodhisambhāra) is described. It consists of the six perfections (Sanskrit pāramitā) and of compassion (Sanskrit karuṇā). These are then associated with the ten stages (Sanskrit bhūmi) of the Bodhisattva path. The chapter bears some resemblance to the Daśabhūmikasūtra.95 Complete. This chapter expounds in some detail the qualities of Bodhisattvas: compassion (Sanskrit karuṇā), loving kindness (Sanskrit maitrī ), the six perfections (Sanskrit pāramitā), the thought of enlightenment (Sanskrit bodhicitta) and the skilful means (Sanskrit upāyakauśalya). The profession that closes the chapter (11.62–77) is a paraphrase of the first sixteen stanzas of the Bhadracaryādeśanā (sts. 4–21 of the Khotanese version).96 Only vv. 12.97–108 are missing. The chapter describes the ceremony for the Bodhisattva’s formal undertaking of moral restraint (Sanskrit saṃvara) and lists the four major and the forty-one minor offences. It corresponds more closely with §§ 1–22 of the Ratnakūṭasūtra than with the exposition in Asaṅga’s Bodhisattvabhūmi.97 Complete. The three Vehicles of Buddhism are described: the Mahāyāna (Great Vehicle), the Pratyekabuddhayāna (Vehicle of individual Buddhas, i.e. of those who attain enlightenment but do not preach how to attain it) and the Śrāvakayāna (Hearers’ Vehicle, in this text also styled Lesser Vehicle). Mahāyāna and Śrāvakayāna are then compared and the advantages See E. Leumann 1933–36, pp. 126–27. See E. Leumann 1933–36, p. 132, and Emmerick 1968 c, p. 151. See Wogihara 1930, pp. 152–80, and Dutt 1978 for the Sanskrit text, and the summary in E. Leumann 1933–36, pp. 368–84.

353

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19. 98

of the Mahāyāna over the Śrāvakayāna are presented. This chapter mentions many works by title and contains several quotations beginning with two lengthy quotations from the Praśnavyākaraṇasūtra and from the Vinayaviniścayasūtra. All verses are preserved but some are defective. Continuing the comparison between Śrāvakayāna and Mahāyāna, the traditional view of the life of the historical Buddha is rejected and the transcendental view of Mahāyānist Buddhology is offered: beings see the Buddha in various ways according to their previous deeds and the Buddha conforms variously to them. Fragmentary (only vv. 15.1–12 are complete, vv. 15.49–84 are missing and the rest is defective). Three subjects are apparently addressed in this chapter: faith, Mahāyānist Buddhology and emptiness. The Daśadharmakasūtra is quoted in v. 15.4 and v. 15.9 refers to the “Māṃkuyas, Red-faces (i.e. Tibetans) and Hunas, Ciṃggas, Supīyas, who have harmed our Khotanese land”. All verses preserved but fragmentarily. The Bodhisattva path is compared with Buddhist cosmology. Noteworthy is the comparison of the ten bhūmis (cf. chap. 10) with the ten cosmic mountains. This chapter follows chapter 11 of the Daśabhūmikasūtra.98 All verses preserved but fragmentarily. Taking his cue from the cosmic mountains referred to in the previous chapter, the poet offers a vivid description of the mountains in the four seasons but warns that there is no pleasure in the cycle of existence. Vv. 18.49–60 are missing and the rest is defective. This chapter develops the idea of the suffering nature of the world. It describes old age and the late regret at one’s evil deeds. It cites examples of evildoers and enjoins the avoidance of evil friends, to follow a spiritual adviser (Sanskrit kalyāṇamitra) and to recognise the conditionate states (Sanskrit saṃskāra) as impermanent in order to escape from the cycle of existence. All verses preserved, but only vv. 19.85–94 are not defective. This chapter warns against the wiles and seductions of women E. Leumann 1933–36, pp. 210–11.

354

KHOTANESE LITERATURE

and cites examples of female evildoers. It is termed “chapter on women” (straya-parivāra) in one of the chapter colophons.99 20. The final verses, i.e. 20.73–98, are missing. An obvious sequel of the “chapter on women”, this chapter is devoted to the practice of meditation on impurity (Sanskrit aśubhabhāvanā), i.e. on corpses in a cemetery and on the living body, as a means to contrast attachment and develop disgust for the world. 21. Only vv. 21.11–34 are almost completely and vv. 21.107–17 fragmentarily preserved. Vv. 21.11–34 also deal with meditation on impurity and especially with meditation on a female corpse. Differently from chapter 20, where the monks are addressed, here a single person is addressed; in vv. 21.107–17 the Bodhisattva Ākāśagarbha is mentioned. 21a. Lost. 22. Complete apart from vv. 22.1–89 and 174–85 which are missing. The historical Buddha Śākyamuni announces he is about to depart and to entrust his teaching to the sixteen great Arhats. The larger part of this chapter is then occupied by the Buddha’s description of the world under the future Buddha Maitreya. However, great evils will be committed as a consequence of the eventual decay of Śākyamuni’s teaching, so that “not all beings will escape woes under Maitreya” (Z 22.322). The prophecy of the advent of Maitreya is known in several versions in different languages.100 23. Of the original 372 verses, vv. 23.54–89 and 174–365 are missing. After an introduction on the need to translate the Buddhist scriptures into Khotanese and on the importance of reproducing their meaning accurately (cf. above), the chapter presents itself as a sūtra on the merits accruing from making an image of the Buddha and narrates the story of King Udayana, who had an image of the Buddha made while the Buddha was staying among the gods to preach the Law to his mother, and

99 See Emmerick 1968 c, pp. 284–85. 100 See E. Leumann 1919 for Pāli, Sanskrit and Chinese parallels, and Emmerick 1968 c, p. 301, for further references.

355

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

the Buddha’s descent from the gods to the land of Saṃkāśa. A close parallel is known in Chinese (Taishō 694).101 24. Only about half of the original 659 verses are extant. This chapter, with which the Book of Zambasta most probably ended, makes a good close for a manual of Buddhism, depicting, as it does, the beginnings and decline of Buddhism in the Kaliyuga, the present world age.102 The chapter consists of an account of the world before the Buddha Śākyamuni, of his birth and early life until his first sermons, and of the prophecy of the future decline of the Buddhist Law. The prophecy of decline has been recognised by Jan Nattier as being a Khotanese adaptation of the Candragarbhasūtra.103 The formal structure of the work and the distribution of the subject matter are in need of closer study from the viewpoint of Buddhist doctrine. However, the Book of Zambasta, as an early indigenous Buddhist compilation, might be expected to betray composition techniques of Iranian descent. One such technique is possibly to be seen in the concentric structure of the work. The first two chapters paraphrase sūtras with legendary contents (the Gaṇḍavyūhasūtra with Sudhana’s quest for spiritual advisers (?); and the conversion of Bhadra the magician) and have their counterpart in the last three chapters that similarly have legendary contents (the advent of the future Buddha Maitreya; King Udayana and the image of the Buddha; the life of the Buddha and the decline of the Buddhist Law). The doctrinal chapters 3–12 are symmetric with the doctrinal chapters 14–21 a and have, between them, chap. 13. Chap. 13, i.e. the central chapter of the original 25 chapters (chap. 21 a is 101 For the text of Taishō 694 printed facing the Khotanese text see Inokuchi 1961. For a Pāli parallel to the Buddha’s descent from the gods see E. Leumann 1933–36, pp. 302–3. See also Emmerick 1968 c, p. 343, for further references to similar texts. 102 Cf. E. Leumann 1933–36, p. 313. 103 See Nattier 1991, where the Khotanese version is accurately taken into account on the basis of Emmerick‘s translation and compared with the Chinese and Tibetan versions in the wider context of the traditions concerning the future downfall of Buddhism.

356

KHOTANESE LITERATURE

lost), expounds in detail the advantages of the Mahāyāna over the Śrāvakayāna and constitutes, thus, the core of the whole work: the centrality of its contents is underlined by its structural centrality. It may be recalled that a good parallel is provided by the Avestan Yasna, which is characterised by a similar concentric structure. In it the chapters in Young Avestan enclose the Old Avestan metrical texts, the Gāϑās, which in turn encapsulate the Old Avestan prose text, the Yasna haptaŋhāiti.104 Mañjuśrīnairātmyāvatārasūtra A Late Khotanese original composition in verse, which is completely preserved in 445 manuscript lines on the obverse and reverse of a single roll, is the Mañjuśrīnairātmyāvatārasūtra [Mañj] (Sūtra for Mañjuśrī on the realisation of [the doctrine of] selflessness).105 The title of the work is given in l. 434 as Majūśyuīrīnīrāttamavattārasūtra. From the colophon we learn that it was written (copied or composed?) by Devendraśūrasiṃha during the reign of the Khotanese King Vīśa’ Śura (l. 438), 967–78 . It is a compilation on the Mahāyānist doctrine that there is no inherently existent self (Sanskrit nairātmya), which draws on various sources including earlier Khotanese literature. Thus, several passages amounting to some seventy four-pāda verses are Late Khotanese renderings of verses from the Old Khotanese Book of Zambasta,106 and ll. 261–77 correspond to ll. 41 a4–43 b4 of the Khotanese Vajracchedikāsūtra, i.e. to sixteen of the seventeen verses that make up the peculiar amplification found in the Khotanese version for the final stanza of the Sanskrit 104 See Maggi 2004 b, pp. 187–88. On the structure of the Yasna see Hintze 2002. 105 Manuscript P 4099 (ed. in Bailey 1951 a, pp. 113–35; the colophon was reedited separately in Bailey 1945–85, vol. 2, pp. 123–24). For partial translations see, besides the articles referred to in the following notes, Emmerick 1997 a, ll. 1–54; and Emmerick 1998, ll. 278–313. Cf. Emmerick 1992 a, p. 26, and Skjærvø 1999 b, p. 306. 106 For the Old and Late Khotanese versions of the verses printed on opposite pages see Emmerick 1968 c, pp. 440–53.

357

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

original.107 A few lines after the Vajracchedikā quotation there is a free adaptation (ll. 282–92) of the list of similes that are found at the beginning of the sixth chapter of the Vimalakīrtinirdeśasūtra.108 A more literal quotation from the Laṅkāvatārasūtra is contained in ll. 203–12.109 A description, that has not been traced elsewhere so far, of the three afflictions (Sanskrit kleśa) of attachment, aversion and delusion (Sanskrit rāga, dveṣa and moha) as doctrinal monsters and kings of the Rākṣasas is of special interest.110 The initial invocation and the first lines of the work may be quoted: Success. [1] I worship the Buddhas of the three times, the supporters of the oceans, all (the Buddhas), however many there may be, together with the whole assembly. [2] I worship the Law, the highest reality: (it is) unoriginated, undestroyed, tranquil. (I worship) the path of the Buddhas of the three times, the sphere of the Law, which has one flavour, equal. [3] (I worship) the noble assembly of the monks, since in it all afflictions have been extinguished. (It is) like a Jewel Isle due to its splendour for the sake of fields of merit. [4] The three supreme Jewels, saviours of all beings—with the head I, Devendraśūrasiṃha, worship (them) with faith (and) in love. [5] Greatly I worship this descent into (the doctrine of) selflessness, by which they quickly obtain the Jewels, unsupported Nirvāṇa, deliverance. [6] The body is merely to be despised (and) the world together with its cause. If anyone should regard the self as among the elements, for them … here forever; [7] (but) if one does not find the self among the elements nor things even the size of a hair, this (is) pure knowledge, right, this (is) salvation for him, removal of births. [8] For the blind, unseeing being (there is) only darkness everywhere, (but) for the seeing man there in that direction even light appears everywhere. [9] Where (there is the false) hypothesis of ordinary beings, who regard the self as a thing, there for the wise, knowledge-filled being (there is) disappearance, Nirvāṇa, deliverance [Mañj 1–9].111 107 108 109 110 111

See Emmerick 1977 a. See Degener 1986 a, cf. Emmerick 1998, pp. 34–37. See Emmerick 1988. See Emmerick 1977 b. After Emmerick 1997 a, pp. 82–83 with omission of the Sanskrit equivalents of the Buddhist technical terms and substitution of ‘head’ for ‘forehead’ in accordance with Emmerick 2002, pp. 13–14.

358

KHOTANESE LITERATURE

The Book of Vimalakīrti Another metrical compendium of Mahāyānist doctrines in the form of question and answer, most likely a Khotanese original composition with several quotations from other texts, is the Late Khotanese text currently known under the conventional title of Book of Vimalakīrti [Vim]. The text is contained in two manuscripts from Dunhuang.112 Though some two hundred manuscript lines are extant, the beginning and the end of the text, that might have contained the title, were not copied and the text was assigned the title Book of Vimalakīrti by Harold W. Bailey on account of the fact that the name of Vimalakīrti occurs five times in it.113 In fact, the text contains a few quotations from the Vimalakīrtinirdeśasūtra. However, as pointed out by Ronald E. Emmerick, the passages where Vimalakīrti’s name occurs do resemble the text of the sūtra, but also the bhūmis (stages [of the Bodhisattva path]) are mentioned at the beginning of the extant text, whereas they do not appear in the Vimalakīrtinirdeśasūtra as an early Mahāyāna text: [1] … The fourth (stage is) “flaming” (arciṣmatī) until it burns all afflictions. [2] Sudurjayā (is) the fifth stage. It overcomes114 all “hard-to-overcome”115 (sudurjaya) afflictions. The sixth stage (is) called Abhimukhī. All Buddhas (are) “manifest” (abhimukha) there. [3] Dūraṃgamā (is) the seventh stage. Through it, the cycle of existence becomes “distant” (*dūraṃgama) for him (the Bodhisattva). Acalā, that is to be known as the eighth (stage). The

112 Ch 00266.224–386 (ed. Bailey 1951 a, pp. 104–13; ed. and trans. in Skjærvø 2002, pp. 489–99) and P 2026.1–60 (ed. Bailey 1945–1985, vol. 3, pp. 48–50). That the manuscripts overlap in part was shown by Emmerick in Emmerick/ Skjærvø 1987, p. 118 s.v. -mya-. Cf. Emmerick/Skjærvø 1990, p. 503, Emmerick 1992 a, p. 36, Skjærvø 1999 b, pp. 306–7. A metrically arranged edition with translation and commentary of vv. 1–35 and 55–64 is provided by Maggi 2003 a, vv. 21–22, 34–35 and 55–64; Maggi 2003 b, vv. 9–33; and Maggi 2004 a, vv. 1–8. 113 Ch 00266.316–17, 328, 337–38, 342, 344 (Bailey 1951 a, pp. 109–11). 114 Read pūrrda (see Skjærvø 2002, p. 489). 115 Read *duṣai’vurrdai for duṣai’currdai of the manuscript (Skjærvø 1983 b, p. 121).

359

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN body of the Law is “motionless” (acala) there. [4] At that time, in the eighth stage, pure beams originate spontaneous by themselves, by which the triple world shines brightly. [5] (There is) a beaming lotus made of jewels: (the Bodhisattva) sits on it at that time. The (other) Bodhisattvas116 observe (him). He receives consecration to enlightenment. [6] The beings in the five destinies gain refuge at that time. Then he delivers many crores of beings by the emission of rays. [7] The Sādhumatī stage, that (is) the ninth. Great is the “accomplishment” (sādhanā) there. Whatever the Buddha mystery (is, the Bodhisattva) knows (how) to realise (it) completely. [8] As for the tenth, it is Dharmameghā, the pure “cloud of the Law” (dharmamegha). There he obtains omniscience (and) the ten powers of the Buddhas [Vim 1–8].

The text is noteworthy in that it quotes a few passages from a number of texts—the Candrapradīpasūtra (= Samādhirājasūtra), the Mañjuśrīparivarta (= Saptaśatikāprajñāpāramitāsūtra ), the Tathāgatajñānamudrā(samādhi)sūtra, the Hastikakṣyasūtra, the Vajramaṇḍanāmadhāraṇīsūtra, the Karmāvaraṇaviśuddhisūtra and the Anantamukhanirhāradhāraṇīsūtra117—that are mentioned by title, though only the last one is known in Khotanese translation. Comparison of the quotation of the passage on the eight seed-syllables (Sanskrit bīja-akṣara) from the Anantamukhanirhāradhāraṇīsūtra (Ch 00266.294–308) with the fragmentarily preserved Old Khotanese version of the same passage118 shows that it is a rather free translation. A quotation from the Ratnakūṭasūtra is also found but without mention of the source, and a passage concerning the prohibition of drinking wine and eating meat recalls similar passages in the eighth chapter of the Laṅkāvatārasūtra.119

116 Read *baudhasatva for baida dasta of the manuscript. 117 Ch 00266.247, 261–62, 264, 265, 293–94, 354 (Bailey 1951 a, pp. 105–6, 108, 111; Skjærvø 2002, pp. 491, 493, 496). 118 Manuscript H 142 NS 76v2–5 (ed. Bailey 1945–85, vol. 5, p. 103; Skjærvø 2002, p. 338). 119 Ratnakūṭa quotation in Ch 00266.256–58 (see Maggi 2003 b, pp. 251, 253–54); prohibition of wine and meat in P 2026.30–44 (Bailey 1945–85, vol. 3, p. 49–50).

360

KHOTANESE LITERATURE

Avadāna Literature A literary genre linking Mahāyāna with early Buddhism is constituted by the avadānas (Sanskrit for ‘achievements’), edifying tales that exemplify the consequences of good or bad actions and illustrate points of doctrine and that, in Mahāyāna, tend to emphasise the ideal of the Bodhisattva—the future Buddha that, out of wisdom and compassion, postpones his extinction in order to rescue suffering beings—by narrating the glorious deeds of Buddhist saints and particularly those performed by the Buddha Śākyamuni in the long series of births that preceded his last life. Various texts, both in verse and in prose, belong to the avadāna literature. The Khotanese versions are characterised by a concise style that makes the narration very lively. The following avadānas or avadāna-like works are known in Khotanese: Sudhanāvadāna, Aśokāvadāna, Kaniṣkāvadāna, Nandāvadāna, Love story, Rāmāyaṇa and Jātakastava. All the texts are in Late Khotanese and are contained in manuscripts from Dunhuang.120 Sudhanāvadāna The Late Khotanese Sudhanāvadāna [Sudh] (The avadāna of Sudhana) is completely preserved in three manuscripts that overlap for most of the text and in six fragments.121 One of the main manuscripts (P 2957), though characterised by an archaising and Sanskritising tendency, represents a later recension differing in details from that of the other two.122 The avadāna is presented as the Buddha’s narration of one of his earlier lives told to his former wife Yaśodharā, 120 Cf. Bailey 1963 a, 1972, Emmerick 1989 b. 121 Edition of the main manuscripts (Ch 00266.44–223, P 2025.80–267 + P 4089 a and P 2957.3–161) and of most of the fragments in Bailey 1951 a, pp. 11–39; translation by Bailey 1966 a. A new treatment of Sudhana’s journey is provided by Degener 1986 b, see also Maggi 1997 a. For further bibliography and information on the fragments see Emmerick 1992 a, pp. 30–31. 122 See Maggi 1996 a.

361

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

who could not tolerate living separated from him. It tells in verse the love of prince Sudhana and of the kinnarī (fairy) princess Manoharā, their separation due to the plot of a wicked brahmin, Sudhana’s adventurous journey to the land of the kinnaras in search of his wife, and their final reunion (Sudhana was the Buddha, Manoharā was Yaśodharā). The Khotanese version, that is not a translation of any of the known versions of the story, shows exclusive agreements with the Sanskrit Sudhanakinnaryavadāna of the 11th-century Kashmiri poet Kṣemendra123 and is introduced by a Mahāyānist prologue: [1] I go with reverence to the jewel of the Law of the Buddha according to the establishment of the three vehicles in the great ocean. In the eighteen schools there are good (and) wise exertions that protect the fivefold path to Buddhahood. [2] The career (of the Bodhisattva) is said (to be) right conditioned truth: the lion of the Śākyas, when being an ordinary man, by help of truth, vigour, gratitude (and) endurance, drew hearts to himself there (and) filled (them) with joy. [3] When he then triumphed on the diamond seat, the fourfold thought filled the three worlds. He deigned to go to Kapilavastu—Śuddhodana (was) the king—(and) spoke in love for the sake of the vision of enlightenment. [4] He thus all the jewels of the Law, thus he rescued twenty thousand Śākyas into (his) teaching. There he expounded a comparison with reference to Yaśodharā, he told a former life (of his). So he spoke, listen here! [Sudh 1–4, my numbering of the stanzas].

Aśokāvadāna The Khotanese Aśokāvadāna [Aśoka] (The avadāna of Aśoka) is a prose work, whose beginning is preserved in two manuscripts. The text does not seem to represent a rendering of any of the known Sanskrit, Tibetan and Chinese versions.124 It is rather 123 Chapter 64 of his Bodhisattvāvadānakalpalatā, ed. S. C. Das and S. Vidyābhū̄̄ ṣaṇa (Calcutta 1888–1918): see Jaini 1966, where information can be found also on other versions of the story. 124 P 2798.123–212 and P 2958.1–120: edition in Bailey 1951 a, pp. 40–44; translation by Bailey 1966 b. See also Skjærvø 1987 b, where a comparison with

362

KHOTANESE LITERATURE

a free recasting of episodes belonging to the narrative complex of Aśoka, which, in the Sanskrit Divyāvadāna,125 consists of the Pāṃśupradānāvadāna containing in turn five legends, of the Vītāśokāvadāna, of the Kunālāvadāna, that also is composed of various stories,126 and of the Aśokāvadāna proper on the last days of the Indian emperor.127 The Khotanese version, after briefly introducing King Aśoka, narrates the birth of his son Kunāla, explains that he was given that name because his blue eyes were as beautiful as those of the bird kunāla, briefly relates Kunāla’s religious instruction by the Elder Upagupta, tells how Aśoka humbled his impious minister Yaśas, and finally tells about the rebellion of the city of Takṣaśilā, Aśoka’s departure for Takṣaśilā, Queen Tiṣyarakṣitā’s attempt to seduce Kunāla and his refusal, Aśoka’s return, and Tiṣyarakṣitā’s plot to take her revenge on Kunāla with the aid of the minister Yaśas who had felt offence at the prince’s behaviour. Here the story breaks off. All the narrative elements derive actually from the Kunālavadāna but are arranged differently from the Sanskrit and other known versions and present contaminations with episodes from other parts of the narrative complex of Aśoka. Thus, in the Khotanese text, Kunāla is given religious instruction by Upagupta—whose stories are told in the Sanskrit Pāṃśupradānāvadāna and Kunālāvadāna—and not by the elder Yaśas (a different character from the minister bearing the same name) as in the other versions, and the episode of Kunāla hitting the minister Yaśas on the head is an innovation shared with at least two Chinese versions of the story of Kunāla128 and drawn from the blow struck in jest by Susīma, Aśoka’s elder brother, on the head of

125 126 127 128

the Sanskrit and Chinese versions is sketched. Cf. Emmerick 1992 a, p. 20 for bibliography on the Sanskrit and Chinese versions (add Bongard-Levin/ Volkova 1965). Cowell/Neil 1886. Another Sanskrit Kunālāvadāna is contained in Kṣemendra’s Bodhisattvāvadānakalpalatā as chapter 59. For the Kunālāvadāna in the Tibetan Tanjur see Tōhoku 4145. See Mukhopadhyaya 1963, pp. xvii–xviii and lxx–lxxi. The Liu du ji jing (Taishō 152) and, according to Skjærvø 1987 b, p. 783, the Ayu wang xi huai mu yinyuan jing (Taishō 2045).

363

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

King Bindusāra’s prime minister in the Pāṃśupradānāvadāna.129 Prods O. Skjærvø has supposed that the missing part of the Khotanese Aśokāvadāna might have contained “some reference to the legend of the foundation of Khotan which in Tibetan and Chinese sources is connected with Aśoka and Kuṇāla”130 and has suggested that the legend itself is “a reflex of the Iranian epic tradition at Khotan” having its counterpart in the story of Siyāvaš in Ferdowsi’s Šāhnāme.131 An allusion to the foundation myth is found, at any rate, in a stanza of the Panegyric on King Viśa’ Dharma: “The god Vaiśravaṇa, Aśoka, King Cayaṃ (?), the goddess Bhūmi-devī bestower of milk”.132 Kaniṣkāvadāna The story of another great king is told in the Kaniṣkāvadāna [Kaniṣka] (Avadāna of Kaniṣka), whose beginning is extant in one manuscript.133 The preserved part, in prose, contains two episodes: that of the four lokapālas (the guardian deities of the cardinal points of the world) disguised as boys building a stūpa (Buddhist monument usually meant to contain relics) of mud and of King Kaniṣka who has a stūpa and a monastery built; and the fragmentary episode of Kaniṣka’s spiritual adviser Aśvaghoṣa casting a lump of clay on the newly built stūpa and of the subsequent appearing of an image of the Buddha confirming Aśvaghoṣa’s enlightenment within the present aeon. Similar stories are found in Sanskrit, Chinese and Tibetan sources,134 but only the Khotanese appear to have organised them into a wider narrative.

129 130 131 132 133

See Maggi 1997 b, pp. 75–78. Skjærvø 1987 b, p. 783. Cf. Skjærvø 1987 c. Skjærvø 1998 a. Ch i.0021 a, a.9–10 (Bailey 1945–85, vol. 2, p. 53; Skjærvø 2002, p. 522). P 2787.155–95: edition, translation and commentary in Bailey 1942 a; new edition in Bailey 1945–85, vol. 2, pp. 107–8; revised translation in Bailey 1965 a. 134 See Bailey 1942 a, pp. 14–15 and 17, and Panglung 1981, p. 28.

364

KHOTANESE LITERATURE

Nandāvadāna The Nandāvadāna [Nanda] (Avadāna of Nanda), a prose work whose first half is preserved in one manuscript, exemplifies the compensation for liberality and the retribution for avarice and is known in Sanskrit.135 It tells the touching story of the wealthy but exceedingly stingy merchant Nanda and of the liberality of one of his servants. The generous servant is reborn as Nanda’s rich son Candana, whereas Nanda is in time reborn as the blind and misshapen son of a blind beggar-woman. The manuscript breaks off when the boy, at the age of twelve, is sent by his mother to the village to beg alms: “O son, I have reared you through woes, with toils, by begging, and now you have grown up. I have become old now. I cannot go to the village for sustenance. Do you now, son, in future care for your mother”. Then the sightless child spoke to his loving mother and said to her as follows: “Mama, I do not know at all which way I should go, where to go”. His mother spoke to him. She said thus: “Take, son, this stick. With it feel first so that you may assess (the way) by means of the street or of the hollows; and I have placed the stick in your hand, and in the grotto I have bound (on you) clothes for walking”. And she spoke thus to him: “You will come to a courtyard. Speak thus: ‘Whoever there may be …’ ” [Nanda 53–58, Emmerick’s translation with modifications].

The Love Story One short manuscript has preserved for us a pleasant but unfortunately fragmentary avadāna in verse, which, in the absence of a known title, I simply term Love story [LSt] on account of its con135 The Khotanese text is in P 2834.6–58: edition in Bailey 1951 a, pp. 45–47; translation, commentary and Sanskrit parallels in Emmerick 1970 a; see also Emmerick 1973 c. For the Sanskrit text see Handurukande 1984, cf. Emmerick 1992 a, p. 27 for further bibliography.

365

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

tent: it tells about the love of a householder’s son and a minister’s daughter.136 We cannot but regret that the text of the story breaks off shortly after the beginning (the remainder of the roll is blank). In fact, as no parallel text of this avadāna has so far been identified in any other language, we do not even know whether the preserved portion is part of a prologue or, more likely, of the main story. The scene of the boy’s and girl’s falling in love runs as follows: [10] … There at that time a girl suddenly rose glorious at once, [11] who (was) perfect, splendid, inconceivable since there is not (the like) in the world. Quite confused, the womanly being perceived the householder’s son handsome in appearance. [12] At that moment he, very beautifully dressed, adorned (and) very well-bathed, pierced in the heart the poisoned arrow of love. [13] Incurable, she offered a brilliant garland of flowers to him. When the boy looked about, it became clear (to him) who then had thrown (the garland) on him. [14] At that moment he saw the garland (and) the girl who was at the window. So, she leaned out (with) half (her body) very brilliant in appearance. [15] Just such as one sees (one’s) love beautiful before one’s eyes, so had (the divine artist) Viśvakarman or (the god of love) Kāmadeva himself fashioned her. [16] Possessed with (all) womanly virtues, she laughed at him in love. When he saw that woman, so faultless in appearance, he lost (his) mind there at that time. [17] Encompassed by love for her, he did not depart from the place, he just sat down there in front of her. At the window, they play, blow musical instruments in delight (and) look sadly at one another. [18] Then at that time, the girl sent one of the women, (who was) old, to the boy secretly (saying): “Sleep with me here tonight. [19] King Prasenajit is now enjoying a great banquet in delight. The minister (my father) will remain for six days in total in the palace by the king”. [20] So long he experiences pleasures together with the girl to (his) heart’s content. He became very happy. He said to her: “So, you become (my) beloved then” [LSt 10–20].

136 P 2928.4–41: edition, translation, commentary, glossary and facsimile by Maggi 1997 b; earlier edition in Bailey 1945–85, vol. 3, pp. 105–6.

366

KHOTANESE LITERATURE

Rāmāyaṇa Even such a Hindu narrative as the story of Rāma and Sītā is found as a Late Khotanese avadāna-like composition in verse. This is contained in three manuscripts that once formed a single roll and is currently known as the Khotanese Rāmāyaṇa [Rāma].137 As well as in Pāli, Rāma legends are known in Buddhist literature also in Tibetan, Chinese and Old Turkish.138 The Khotanese text opens by contrasting the short, seven-year duration of the teaching of the three first Buddhas of the Bhadrakalpa (good aeon)—Krakasunda, Kanakamuni and Kāśyapa—with the long duration of the teaching of Śākyamuni Buddha, which resulted from the long exertion endured by him as a Bodhisattva. Among his achievements was his life as Rāma, as we are told in the final identification of Rāma with Śākyamuni and of his brother and companion Lakṣmaṇa with the future Buddha Maitreya, the fifth and last Buddha of the Bhadrakalpa. The story is as follows: in the opening episode, not found in the Sanskrit Rāmāyaṇa of Vālmīki, Paraśurāma revenges his father by killing King Daśaratha, Rāma’s father, and then goes on killing kings and setting up brahmans; he is in turn killed by Rāma and Lakṣmaṇa; the rākṣasa Daśagrīva has his daughter exposed because it was predicted that she would cause the downfall of his city; after she has been brought up by a hermit, Rāma and Lakṣmaṇa fall in love with her, but she is abducted by Daśagrīva; then the two brothers, with the help of the monkeys led by Naṇḍa, cross the ocean, conquer Laṅkā and defeat Daśagrīva; but Sītā, in order to prove she had remained pure, descends into the earth, so 137 Manuscripts P 2801 + P 2781 + P 2783: edition in Bailey 1945–85, vol. 3, pp. 65–76; translation and commentary by Bailey 1940. See Emmerick 1992 a, p. 41 for further bibliography. More recent articles containing new translations of single passages are in Emmerick 1997 b, ll. 109–18 and 168–73, and Emmerick 2000, ll. 71–78. 138 The Pāli Dasarathajātaka is translated in Cowell 1895, pp. 78–82. For the Tibetan legends see Thomas 1929 and Balbir 1963; for the Chinese legends see Chavannes 1910–34, vol. 1, pp. 173–78, vol. 3, p. 1 with n., p. 112, and vol. 4, pp. 114–15 and 197–201; for the Old Turkish legend see Zieme 1978 and Laut 1996, esp. p. 198.

367

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

they go back to Jambudvīpa. The story is not only given a Buddhist setting by means of the introduction and the final identification. The myth itself is turned into a Buddhist myth in that it is said that, after the return to Jambudvīpa, “by him (i.e. Rāma) Ambarīṣa and Mahādeva were defeated” (ll. 247–48), which amounts to saying, as was suggested by Ronald E. Emmerick, that Rāma, identified with the historical Buddha, defeated Śiva and Viṣṇu, the chief gods of the Hindu pantheon.139 The story is narrated in quite a lively style, as is usual in Khotanese avadānas, and abounds in fable material: not only monkeys, but also ants, ravens and donkeys appear in the narration. The episode of the discovery that Sītā was carried off by Daśagrīva may be quoted as an example: Naṇḍa the monkey ordered thus: “In Jambudvīpa Sītā is lost. Seek her constantly for seven days, and when you find her, make report. Then (if) you should not find Sītā nor get word of her, assemble all (of you) here. I will pull out all your eyes (and) give (them) as food for the ravens”. The monkeys went in all directions (and) searched greatly for her. They did not know where to find Sītā. (They thought:) “The end of the (seven) days has come. Now they will pull out our eyes tomorrow”. A monkey (called) Phūṣā arose. She sought a hollow marking-nut tree. There high up on the marking-nut tree there was the nest of a raven then. The raven had gone off concerned about food. The hungry young ravens cawed for their mother because of their hunger. She then said to them: “Have courage. Hot monkey eyes (will) have become your food (and) drink tomorrow”. They said to her, “Where will you get monkeys’ eyes hot?” She said, “Sītā is lost. Daśagrīva has carried off Sītā, has taken her to Laṅkāpura city. The monkeys will be guilty.140 They will pull out their eyes”. When the monkey Phūṣā heard this thing, at once she went out, contented she went on her way [Rāma 109–21].141

139 See Emmerick 2000, pp. 233–34. 140 The translation ‘guilty’ instead of Bailey’s ‘distracted’ was suggested by Emmerick. 141 Translation after Emmerick 1997 b, pp. 25–26 (ll. 109–118) and Bailey 1940, p. 566 (ll. 118–21).

368

KHOTANESE LITERATURE

Jātakastava The Late Khotanese poem entitled Jātakastava [JS] (Praise of the [Buddha’s former] births), which is entirely preserved in a Dunhuang pothī manuscript,142 is based on the edifying stories taken from the births of the Bodhisattva, the future Buddha Śākyamuni, but belongs to a completely different genre. It is presumably a Khotanese original composition, which freely recasts the narrative motifs, and not a real translation.143 At any rate, no parallel text has been identified. The text was written during the reign of King Vīśa’ Śūrrä ( JS 5c), who reigned in 967–78 . Aim of the work is to extol the virtues of the Bodhisattva by means of extremely concise summaries of fifty-two stories from fifty-one jātakas (two episodes are taken from the story of Prince Viśvantara), most of which have been traced elsewhere.144 The jātakas are preceded by a prologue ( JS 1–10) and followed by an epilogue ( JS 164–69). One can get a general idea of its style from the two lines devoted to the Sudhanāvadāna: [99] (There were) night-wandering demons and many ghosts, angry snakes hissing at you. Thus you crossed over the mountains among rākṣasas (and) yakṣas on account of gratitude to (your) wife. [100] You went to the city of the gods, to the land of the kinnaras. You propitiated Druma, the great kinnara king. You brought the kinnara princess hither as (your) queen. Therefore, I do homage to you, O Buddha, with faith (and) in love [ JS 99–100].

Most of the summaries close with such short praising formulas as “Therefore, to you then homage more than a hundred myriad times” ( JS 15 d), or “Therefore to you, O good being, from me at your feet homage” ( JS 29 d) and the like, but occasionally the praise extends to half a stanza or to a whole stanza, e.g.: 142 Manuscript Ch 00274: facsimile in Bailey 1938, pp. 143–83; edition and translation with grammatical sketch, survey of parallels of the stories and glossary by Dresden 1955; earlier edition in Bailey 1945–85, vol. 1, pp. 197–219. See Emmerick 1992 a, p. 24 for further bibliography. 143 See Emmerick 1992 a, p. 24, and Skjærvø 1999 b, p. 311, and cf. Dresden 1955, pp. 402–3. 144 See Dresden 1955, pp. 447–52.

369

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN At all times you shall be my best teacher, you shall be my refuge, you shall be my salvation, O gracious one. In the whole world, for all living beings in the land, there is no refuge save you. Great are your strength and heart [ JS 19, after Dresden].

Accordingly, the two stanzas that follow the fifty-first story—the Bodhisattva’s gift of his own flesh to ransom a pigeon—are also better regarded as the relevant, otherwise missing, praise and not as an “interlude” as suggested by Dresden: [159] They who from you sought strength, obtained a refuge. All of them you so assisted that their desire was realized. If only I have the invincible strength, O gracious one, to give instruction, may I surely become a Buddha. [160] In your compassion all beings were equally dear to you, the good, the low, the middle ones, the unknown, the known. Whether this one was a foe, this one a friend, such was not your thought who thought of the qualities not of the person [ JS 159–60, after Dresden].

Mahāyāna Sūtras A number of Mahāyāna sūtras belonging to various categories are documented in Khotanese. The earliest type of Mahāyāna sūtras is represented by the prajñāpāramitā (perfection of wisdom) literature, which is characterised by a strong didactic character and puts forward the idea that realisation of the emptiness of phenomena leads to release from the cycle of existence and to Buddhahood. The prajñāpāramitā sūtras range from the longest one, which is said to correspond to 100,000 sixteen-syllable stanzas in length, to the shortest one in only one syllable (i.e. a, besides the opening and close of the sūtra).145 It is noteworthy that only short texts in Late Khotanese from Dunhuang are extant: the Vajracchedikāsūtra, the Hdayasūtra and the Adhyardhaśatikāprajñāpāramitāsūtra.

145 See Conze 1978.

370

KHOTANESE LITERATURE

Several other texts count among the major sūtras of the Mahāyāna. Thus, we have more or less extensive remains of the Ratnakūṭasūtra, the larger Sukhāvatīvyūhasūtra, the Saṅghāṭasūtra, the Bhaiṣajyagurusūtra, the Vimalakīrtinirdeśasūtra, the Śūraṅgamasamādhisūtra and the Suvarṇabhāsottamasūtra; the Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra is witnessed by a summary, while only one section of the Gaṇḍavyūhasūtra—the Bhadracaryādeśanā—survives as an independent work. Minor sūtras are the Bhadrakalpikasūtra, the Pradakṣiṇasūtra, the Dharmaśarīrasūtra and several dhāraṇī-sūtras. Vajracchedikāsūtra One of the earliest prajñāpāramitā texts is the Vajracchedikāsūtra [Vajr] (Sūtra which cuts like diamond), a summary of the prajñāpāramitā teachings in the form of a dialogue between the Buddha and the Elder Subhūti that also survives in Sanskrit,146 Tibetan (Tōhoku 16) and Chinese (Taishō 220 (9)). A complete Late Khotanese version of the Vajracchedikā is preserved in one manuscript from Dunhuang written presumably before 941  (a date corresponding to 941 is found on the obverse of the first folio with other disorderly writings which must have been written after the completion of the manuscript). It was one of the first complete Khotanese texts to be edited and interpreted.147 The translation is preceded by an introduction in verse that is not found in the Sanskrit text and, among other things, explains the title: [5] The omniscient Buddha composed this Prajñāpāramitā, he proclaimed this (sūtra) in 300 stanzas [Triśatikāprajñāpāramitā] which is also called Vajracchedikā. [6] It shatters all acts (and) passions as 146 See Conze 1974 and Schopen 1989 a. 147 The single manuscript is divided under the two signatures Ch 00275 and Ch xlvi.0012 a: edition, translation, glossary and facsimile by Konow 1916 a and Konow 1916 c. The text was also transcribed in Bailey 1945–85, vol. 3, pp. 20–29. For the dating see Hamilton 1979. Cf. Emmerick 1992 a, pp. 34–35.

371

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN well as obstructions (and) grievous sins like diamond: hence it is called Vajracchedikā [Vajr 2 r4–v2].148

The Khotanese version is of special interest as it deviates partly from the known Sanskrit original. The Khotanese translator did not proceed mechanically, but endeavoured to understand the precise meaning of the original and to render it with paraphrases and with the help of commentaries. Almuth Degener was able to show that some explanatory additions derive from the translator’s knowledge of Asaṅga’s commentary on the Vajracchedikā.149 An instance of amplification is provided by the substitution of a commentary in seventeen stanzas for the single final Sanskrit stanza that reads: As stars, a fault of vision, as a lamp, / a mock show, dew drops, or a bubble, / a dream, a lightning flash, or cloud, / so should one view what is conditioned [after Conze].

Whereas this is translated literally in the Book of Zambasta (“Like stars, partial blindness, like magic, dew, a lamp, a dream, like lightning, clouds, bubbles in water, such are all these saṃskaras”, Z 6.15),150 the Late Khotanese version has the following as a counterpart to the stars simile, i.e. to the first Sanskrit word only: Just as the stars appear in the sky (and) shine continually at night (but) when it dawns the sun rises (and) they all become without light, in this way are the sense-organs, beginning with the eye, to be considered as impermanent: when right knowledge arises, they are not seen at all [Vajr 41 v1–3].151

Hdayasūtra and Mahāprajñāpāramitāsūtra A Late Khotanese translation of the longer recension of the Hdayasūtra [Hdaya] (The heart sūtra), a highly condensed summary of 148 After Bailey 1953, p. 530 with modifications. 149 See Degener 1989. 150 Identification by E. Leumann 1933–36, p. 94; translation by Emmerick 1968 c, p. 119. 151 After Emmerick 1977 a, p. 88.

372

KHOTANESE LITERATURE

the philosophical teachings of the prajñāpāramitā known also in Sanskrit, Tibetan (Tōhoku 21, 531) and Chinese (Taishō 249–56),152 was identified by Prods O. Skjærvø in a Dunhuang manuscript.153 Unfortunately, only about one half of the text is preserved, which breaks off in the middle of paragraph 14: “Therefore, at present, Śāriputra, with respect to emptiness (there is) no form, no sensation …” [Hdaya 14, Skjærvø’s translation]. On the other hand, a complete commentary on the shorter recension of the Hdayasūtra is extant in another Dunhuang manuscript, as was recognised by L. Lancaster on the basis of Harold Walter Bailey’s translation.154 The text bears the title Mahāprajñāpāramitāsūtra [MPPS] (Large sūtra on the perfection of wisdom) and is not otherwise known. Obviously, it is not to be confused with the collection of prajñāpāramita texts translated by Xuanzang (602–64 ) known in the Chinese canon under the same title (Taishō 220). However, it may be significant that the same title in transliteration is assigned also to the Mohe-banre-boluomi jing (Taishō 223) translated by Kumārajīva (350–409 or 344–413 ), one of the Chinese versions of the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikāprajñāpāramitāsūtra, of which the Hdayasūtra is a condensation.155 Some of the doctrinal statements contained in this Khotanese text indicate that its author belonged to the Vijñānavāda school.156 A good example of the typical commentary style that characterises this work can be seen, for instance, in the explanation of the fragmentary paragraph 14 of the Hdayasūtra that was quoted above: 152 On the history of this text see Nattier 1992. See Conze 1967 for the Sanskrit; Silk 1994 for the Tibetan. 153 Manuscript P 3510 a–g: Skjærvø 1988 provides an edition with translation, Sanskrit and Tibetan parallels and glossary. Previous edition in Bailey 1945–85, vol. 3, pp. 110–12. Cf. Emmerick 1992 a, p. 24. 154 Manuscript P 3513.13–42: edition in Bailey 1951 a, pp. 54–61; tentative translation by Bailey 1977; revised translation by Lancaster 1977. A selection of passages with improved translation is to be found in Skjærvø 1988, pp. 167–71. See Emmerick 1992 a, pp. 25–26 for the bibliography on earlier partial translations and studies and cf. Skjærvø 1999 b, pp. 307–9. 155 Cf. Nattier 1992. 156 Lancaster 1977, pp. 164–65.

373

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN (“Therefore, at present, Śāriputra, with respect to emptiness” means:) ‘And for that reason is it empty’. (Namely because) all things are of the nature of space, with the mark of unmarkedness, desireless, and they are found neither without nor within. (“[There is] no form, no sensation … means:) ‘Nor are form, feeling, … found’ [MPPS 14, Skjærvø’s translation].

Adhyardhaśatikāprajñāpāramitāsūtra and Sanskrit Kauśikaprajñāpāramitāsūtra The only witness of the Sanskrit original of the late prajñāpāramita text in tantric style called Adhyardhaśatikāprajñāpāramitāsūtra [Adhś] (Sūtra on the perfection of wisdom in 150 stanzas) is a Khotanese manuscript from the Khotan area that alternates sections in Sanskrit, characterised by an abundance of esoteric terms, with sections in late Old Khotanese that extol the esoteric sections and urge that they be studied and honoured.157 The Khotanese sections are part of the sūtra and not spurious additions, because both esoteric and hexoteric sections have to be counted to reach the extent of approximately 150 stanzas from which the title derives and because they are present, though in different wordings, also in the Chinese and Tibetan translations of the text (Taishō 220 (10), 240–44 and Tōhoku 17, 489 respectively).158 This suggests that the Khotanese dared to translate only the hexoteric sections but preferred to keep the original Sanskrit of the esoteric ones. It may be mentioned that also the late compilation entitled Kauśikaprajñāpāramitāsūtra (Sūtra for Kauśika on the perfection of wisdom) and containing a number of dhāraṇīs (spells) is entirely preserved in Sanskrit in Late Khotanese orthography in a 157 Manuscript SI P 4 + the fragment H 143 NSB 2. Edition with translation of the Khotanese sections in Emmerick/Vorob’ёva-Desjatovskaja 1995, pp. 24–34. Earlier edition in E. Leumann 1912, pp. 92–99. For further bibliography see Emmerick 1985 a and 1992 a, p. 18. 158 See E. Leumann 1930, p. 70.

374

KHOTANESE LITERATURE

manuscript from Dunhuang, and that the beginning of the sūtra is copied in two other Dunhuang manuscripts.159 Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra Of the Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra [Sdhp] (Sūtra of the lotus of the good Law) only a single line is quoted in the Book of Zambasta (Z 6.3). On the other hand, a complete Late Khotanese metrical summary is preserved in one manuscript with two fragmentary variants, all found in Dunhuang.160 The summary is meant to provide people “with the sūtra’s meaning in the Khotan language, so that they might understand the meaning of the Law [i.e. of the sūtra itself]” (Bailey’s translation). This fact, combined with the substantial remains of Sanskrit manuscripts of the Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra from Khotan, might suggest that this text was never translated into Khotanese. (On the Khotanese initial invocation and the colophons of the so-called Kashgar manuscript of the Sanskrit Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra see above.) Bhadracaryādeśanā and Oher deśanā and Devotional Texts A Late Khotanese version of the Bhadracaryādeśanā [Bcd] (The profession of good course of conduct) is contained in ff. 43–58 of the miscellaneous pothī manuscript P 3513 together with other

159 The complete manuscript is Ch 0044 (ed. Bailey 1945–85, vol. 5, pp. 356–59). The textual fragments are contained in manuscripts P 2925.59–60 and P 5537.1–6 (ed. Bailey 1945–85, vol. 3, pp. 102, 118). 160 P 2782.1–61 (ed. Bailey 1945–85, vol. 3, pp. 58–61) with variants, Or 8212.162.82–90 (ed. Bailey 1945–85, vol. 2, pp. 5–6, facsimile in Bailey 1960, pl. xi; ed. and trans. in Skjærvø 2002, pp. 50–51) and P 2029.17–21 (ed. Bailey 1945–85, vol. 3, p. 55). Edition, translation, commentary and indexes by Bailey 1971. See Emmerick 1992 a, pp. 27–29 for further bibliography and information on the Sanskrit text of the sūtra. See Tōhoku 113 and Taishō 262–65 for the Tibetan and Chinese versions.

375

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

deśanā texts (see below).161 The text, which is known in Sanskrit and in Tibetan and Chinese translations, is the concluding part of the Gaṇḍavyūhasūtra, itself a part of the Buddhāvataṃsakasūtra (Taishō 278, 279).162 It is a prayer that has enjoyed great popularity among the followers of Mahāyāna Buddhism ever since the fourth century and has also been used for liturgical purposes, so that it has been regarded since very early times as an independent text and has also circulated separately under various titles. In this devotional text, one of the highest expressions of Mahāyāna piety, the believer, using the first person singular, worships all Buddhas, makes pious vows, undertakes to attain enlightenment and expresses the hope to see the Buddha Amitābha and to be reborn in his pure land Sukhāvatī. The text also contains a confession of sin (st. 12 of the Khotanese version). The title Bhadracaryādeśanā is offered by the colophon of the Khotanese version. Like the Sanskrit original, the Khotanese contains no prose and consists in sixty-eight stanzas, st. 55 being numbered incorrectly as 56 in the manuscript so that the last stanza bears the number 69. The Khotanese translator has added an invocation at the beginning (three stanzas) and a prayer at the end (one stanza). On the whole, the Khotanese follows the Sanskrit fairly closely, but the translation is free chiefly on account of the metrical requirements. An Old Khotanese paraphrase of the first sixteen stanzas (sts. 4–21 of the Khotanese) is found in the Book of Zambasta (Z 11.62–77). In Khotanese texts, too, the Sanskrit term deśanā is used with the meaning not only of ‘(religious) teaching’ but also of ‘confession’ of sin for future restraint, and ‘profession’ both of faith in the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas and of vows to attain enlightenment and to rescue beings from suffering.163 The senses of ‘profession’ and ‘confession’ partly overlap because acknowledgement of one’s 161 See Asmussen 1961, that also contains a facsimile of the manuscript; earlier edition in Bailey 1945–85, vol. 1, pp. 222–30. Cf. Emmerick 1990 e and Emmerick 1992 a, p. 20. 162 Editions of the Sanskrit, the Tibetan version and three Chinese translations in Sushama Devi 1958. On the Sanskrit text and for further references cf. Schopen 1989 b, especially n. 9. On the Chinese translations cf. Lung-lien 1966–68. 163 Cf. Bailey 1962, p. 18; and Kumamoto 1996 b, p. 320.

376

KHOTANESE LITERATURE

sins is a prerequisite to undertaking the good career leading to enlightenment. The Bhadracaryādeśanā is one of several deśanā texts that are known in Late Khotanese.164 Another deśanā text translated from Sanskrit is the Deśanāparivarta (Chapter on confession) of the Suvarṇabhāsottamasūtra. Further deśanā texts were composed in Khotan: the metrical text called Deśana by Harold W. Bailey and possibly to be attributed to Prince Tcūṃ-ttehi:, one of the sons of the Khotanese King Viśa’ Sambhava (912–66 ).165 His name occurs in P 3510.10.1 but not in P 3513 that preserves the complete text. and the Verses of Prince Tcūṃ-ttehi:.166 Since deśanās are connected with the cult of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, also the two invocations included in the Avalokiteśvaradhāraṇī (an acephalous one in 5 r1–7 v2 and a complete one in 10 r5–21 v3) and the Hymn to Amitāyus (see below) might be conveniently classified as deśanās. All these texts are written in the first person singular. In order to give an idea of their character, it is appropriate to quote here some of the Verses of Prince Tcūṃ-ttehi:: Success. [1] With homage I go, with faith, in love, with reverence, towards the Buddhas successively in all their (Buddha-)fields, and then to the Bodhisattvas … [5] May (the Buddhas) send forth their rays of compassion now upon me, Prince Tcūṃ-ttehi. May they bless me impartially so that I may perceive the nature of understanding. [6] Whatever on the other hand I may have accumulated at all while in the (five) states of existence in saṃsāra by reason of folly, right up till this moment, [7] the acts due to the three saṃskāras (body, tongue, and mind), grievous sins against the believers, many small disturbances, all of them I now confess. [8] Due to anger, passion, and folly towards mother, father, teachers, and also in the case of the three Jewels, all (my acts) in the fields (of the Buddhas) of the three (times), [9] the many 164 On deśanā texts see Emmerick 1992 a, p. 37; Kumamoto 1996 b, Skjærvø 1999 b, pp. 311–12; and C. Weber 1999, pp. 158–61. 165 P 3513.76–84 (ed. Bailey 1951a, pp. 62–66) with the partial variant P 3510.9–10 (ed. Bailey 1951 a, p. 53); translation by Bailey 1962. On Prince Tcūṃ-ttehi: see Kumamoto 1986, p. 231; and T. Takata in Emmerick/Skjærvø 1987, pp. 49–50. His name occurs in P 3510.10.1 but not in P 3513, that preserves the complete text. 166 P 3510.1–8 (ed. Bailey 1951 a, pp. 47–52); translation and commentary by Emmerick 1980, q.v. also for the necessary corrections to Bailey’s edition.

377

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN (acts) which I have recalled (as well as) the measureless (acts) which I have not recalled, I acknowledge my guilt with regard to those. Due to (the Buddhas’) compassion may there be confession. [10] By virtue of the vow of the Bodhisattva (may there be for me) also no false thought (but) right (thought) due to the powers (of the Bodhisattva). May (my) harsh acts burn up. May they all become without fruition. [11] After that now all the hundreds of crores (of Buddhas who) have appeared in every hair-pore I bless with (my) hands severally in succession. [12) (As) a divine act of worship, revolving, golden parasols; noble umbrellas (and) banners, studded with shining jewels; … [20] all of them I offer to them. I present (them) with faith, in love, by virtue of good, pure knowledge, to all those to whom I went with homage. [21] By this merit may there arise for me everywhere throughout all (my) births noble spiritual friends, who perceive the path of enlightenment. [22] Constantly with (the help of) the three Jewels, may I not fall into births myself, due to the tenfold practice of the Law. May I have fulfilled (it) all completely. [23] Exercising restraint well, firmly, clean (and) unattached (though) in saṃsāra, by virtue of the six perfections, may I realise the ten stages … [41] Next, for me, Prince Tcūṃ-ttehi:, may all disasters, afflictions, diseases, (and) sorrows vanish. May I live in comfort a long time. [42] May I constantly in all (my) births attain clear mindfulness of (my former) births. May I easily rescue (and bring) to Nirvāṇa the (beings in) the five states of existence (and) the eight evil instants. [43] May I behold the basic Buddhas. At the last saja (?), devoid of pain (and) disease, may I go to (Akṣobhya’s pure land) Abhirati due to (my) mindfulness. / The great Prince Tcūṃ-ttehi: ordered (the above) to be written in love of enlightenment, with reverence [Verses of Prince Tcūṃ-ttehi: 1, 5–12, 20–23, 41–43 and colophon, after Emmerick with modifications].

On the other hand, a text dealing with the theory of confession is the Karmāṃ deśana [KD] (The confession of acts). This title was assigned by Ronald E. Emmerick to a Late Khotanese metrical text that is known from three incomplete manuscripts and of which only the first fifty-five and a half verses are extant.167 The text, 167 Manuscripts Ch 00268.132–228, Ch 00277 and Ch xlvi.0013 a (cf. Skjærvø 2002, p. 296): synoptic edition, translation and glossary by Emmerick 1977c, earlier edition in Bailey 1951 a, pp. 66–71. Cf. Emmerick 1992 a, p. 38, and Kumamoto 1996 b, p. 320.

378

KHOTANESE LITERATURE

possibly an original Khotanese work, deals with the confession of acts from a Mahāyānistic point of view: only by recognising the unsubstantiality of all things and, thus, also of one’s acts (Sanskrit karman) and their fruition (Sanskrit vipāka), does one obtain removal of one’s karmas and enlightenment: [10] Whoever then without light intends to remove the darkness does not know what is the chief thing: where (there is) diminution, removal. [11] If then, the Law being unrecognised, he seeks (to make) confession of (his) acts, he is merely standing in darkness: he goes right into the midst of pitch-dark … [37] It is just as when one should not perceive the nature (of the self), the self is burning night (and) day with the fire of self, surrounded by the fuel of karma. [38] But when he understands this confession, although he does not remain nor yet goes away, all his karmas will be removed. They will not accumulate, they will not come. [39] As long as he should be proceeding (on his career), all his karmas will come behind. But if he sits down, his karmas will sit down upon him like a heavy load. [40] If he does not weary in his career, does not abandon his non-career, he obtains the confession of acts on his unimagined path. [41] When he sees this way, he does not at all fall into dualism, but he does not go far from dualism. In the middle he obtains the confession [KD 10–11, 37–41; Emmerick’s translation with modifications].

Closely connected with the practice of deśanā are also the namo texts, two of which promise atonement for previous grievous sins to those who hear, recite or have them written (see below). That deśanā texts, namo texts and such theoretical texts as the Karmāṃ deśana all belong together is significantly shown by the fact that the single manuscript P 3513 contains, besides two other texts, a namo text on ff. 1–12, the Bhadracaryādeśanā on ff. 43–58, the Deśanāparivarta on ff. 59–75 and the Verses of Prince Tcūṃ-ttehi: on ff. 76–84. Similarly, the Karmāṃ deśana is preceded by a namo text in manuscript Ch 00268, ll. 1–131 and 132–228. It is appropriate to mention here some other Khotanese noncanonical devotional texts. These include, besides the namo texts, the Triśaraṇa formula (Three refuges [the Buddha, the Law, the Community]), that is extant in two slightly different variants, the Invocatory formulae for asking Buddhas, Bodhisattvas, Buddhist 379

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

saints and various deities for well-being and protection against disease, famine and other evils,168 the Invocation of Prince Tcū-syau and the Invocation of Hūyī Kīma-tcūna. The Invocation of Prince Tcū-syau, who was one of the brothers of Prince Tcūṃ-ttehi: , must have been written in the second half of the tenth century, possibly around 970.169 A similar text is the Invocation of Hūyī Kīma-tcūna. Though his name does not occur in the text, this may be conveniently called thus because it was certainly written, or ordered to be written, by him as it is contained in the same manuscript containing the Homage of Hūyī Kīma-tcūna and his copy of the Aparimitāyuḥsūtra. The invocation is followed by two variants of the dhāraṇī that also follow the colophon of the Aparimitāyuḥsūtra in the same manuscript and are to be regarded as part of the invocation itself.170 Another invocation was appended by Cā Tcyāṃ-kvina at the end of the Pradakṣiṇasūtra (see below). Ratnakūṭasūtra Coming back to the canonical texts, mention must be made of four fragmentary folios belonging to three manuscripts from the area of Khotan that have been identified by Prods O. Skjærvø as belonging to an Old Khotanese translation of the Kāśyapaparivarta (The chapter for Kāsyapa). This text is preserved in Tibetan (Tōhoku 87) and in the Chinese canon, where it corresponds to the fourty168 Triśaraṇa: Ch 00263 (ed. Bailey 1951 a, pp. 156–57; ed. and trans. in Skjærvø 2002, pp. 486–87) and P 2800 (ed. Bailey 1945–85, vol. 3, p. 64). Invocatory formulae: P 2929 + Khot. (IO) A + P 2023 (ed. Bailey 1945–85, vol. 3, p. 107; vol. 5, pp. 310–11; vol. 3, p. 45; cf. Skjærvø 2002, p. 541). See Emmerick 1992 a, p. 38. 169 Manuscript Ch 00267: edition in Bailey 1951 a, pp. 146–48; translation of ll. 2–35 in Bailey 1942 b, pp. 889, 891. See Kumamoto 1986, p. 232 for information on Prince Tcū-syau, and pp. 238–39 for the dating of the invocation and a translation of ll. 51–59. Cf. Emmerick 1992 a, p. 38; and Skjærvø 1999 b, pp. 309–10. New ed. and trans. in Skjærvø 2002, pp. 499–502. 170 Manuscript S 2471.229–89: see Duan [1992], pp. 81–85 for a critical edition and translation as text V, and pp. 34–44 for information on the Buddhas and deities mentioned in it. New ed. and trans. in Skjærvø 2002, pp. 32–35.

380

KHOTANESE LITERATURE

third part, and the most ancient core, of the Mahāratnakūṭasūtra (Taishō 310, cf. 350–52). The text, that deals with the ideal of the Bodhisattva and contains a number of parables, is one of the earliest Mahāyānist texts and was regarded as one of their basic texts by the Madhyamaka and Yocagāra philosophical schools. The Khotanese title of the text is given as ratnakūla- dāta- in fragment Kha vii.1 and as ratnakūla- in Z 8.38, 13.42 and Dharmaśarīrasūtra 6 v4, so that it seems advisable to use this title to refer to the Khotanese version, i.e. Ratnakūṭasūtra [Rk] (Sūtra being a heap of jewels).171 It is worthy of note that the Sanskrit original is extant in a virtually complete manuscript and a few fragments from Khotan.172 Sukhāvatīvyūhasūtra and the Hymn to Amitāyus Of an Old Khotanese translation of the longer version of the Sukhāvatīvyūhasūtra [SV] (Sūtra being a description of the Land of Bliss [Sukhāvatī]), one of the texts providing a basis for the cult of the Buddha Amitābha (Endless Light) or “Pure Land Buddhism”, only one fragmentary folio has come down to us.173 It bears the number 19 and contains the homage and the first lines of the song of Dharmākara, who was to become the Buddha Amitābha, in praise of the Buddha Lokeśvararāja. The text is probably a translation of a lost Sanskrit original that was somewhat different from the Nepalese recension, as it does not seem to agree closely with it.174 171 Manuscripts H 144 NS 83 (ed. Bailey 1945–85, vol. 5, p. 52), Hardinge 077.2 (ed. Bailey 1945–85, vol. 5, p. 282), Kha vii 1 (ed. Bailey 1945–85, vol. 5, pp. 182–83) and SI M 10 (facs, ed. and trans. Emmerick/Vorob’ёvaDesjatovskaja 1995, pp. 176–77, pl. 166); cf. Skjærvø 1999 b, p. 339. Edition and translation with facsimiles and Sanskrit and Tibetan parallels in Skjærvø 2003. 172 Edition and facsimile in Vorob’eva-Desyatovskaya 2002, previous edition by Staël-Holstein 1926. 173 Manuscript Kha 0013 c2 (ed. Bailey 1945–85, vol. 5, p. 123; ed. and trans. in Skjærvø 2002, p. 176). Cf. Emmerick 1992 a, p. 31. 174 For the corresponding Sanskrit see Fujita 1992, pp. 141–53.

381

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

Also, the last eighteen four-pāda verses and the colophon of a thirthy-verse Late Khotanese poem in praise of the Buddha Amitāyus (Endless Life, armyāya in Khotanese), another name for Amitābha, are preserved in a manuscript from the region of Khotan.175 No parallel text has been identified so far and, in the absence of a known title, it may be called Hymn to Amitāyus [Amitāyus]. It expresses in the first person singular the devotee’s faith in the Buddha Amitāyus and the vow to be reborn in Sukhāvatī. The text also mentions the confession of sin: [18] I confess all the heavy deeds before the Three Jewels, whatever I have done in the world of flux, in anger and in passion and in infatuation. [19] What I have done not good to my mother, what to father and teachers, to the three jewels together, with repentance I acknowledge the faults. [20] I make a vow precisely now to that land Sukhāvatī. May it for me remain unbroken, firm, unspoilt, adamantine, unmoved (?) [Amitāyus 18–20, Bailey’s translation with modifications].

Saṅghāṭasūtra The Saṅghāṭasūtra [Sgh] (Sūtra being a pair [of questionings]) is one of the most extensively preserved Old Khotanese texts. The Sanskrit original of this sūtra is witnessed by seven Gilgit manuscripts.176 It was also translated in Tibetan (Tōhoku 102) and Chinese (Taishō 423 and 424). The “pair” to which the title refers are most probably the two sets of questions put to the Buddha by the Bodhisattva Sarvaśūra as far as 171 (this part is termed Sarvaśūraparipcchā ‘Sarvaśūra’s questioning’ in Sanskrit) and by the Bodhisattva Bhaiṣajyasena in the remainder of the sūtra.177 The 175 Hedin 23: edition, translation and commentary in Bailey 1945–85, vol. 4, pp. 36–37 and 129–35, facsimile of lines 1–5 in Bailey 1945–85, vol. 4, pl. facing p. 33. Cf. Emmerick 1985 e. 176 See Hinüber 1973. 177 See Hinüber 1973, pp. 16–17. Cf. Canevascini 1993, pp. ix–x for other interpretations.

382

KHOTANESE LITERATURE

text, that contains many interesting stories and comparisons, is an instance of the cult of the sacred texts that characterises Mahāyāna Buddhism. It extols the Buddhist Law and particularly the Sgh itself: this is presented as a sūtra that can wipe out sins and bring to enlightenment anybody who hears, writes, learns by heart, recites, understands, honours and worships it. In an episode, the Sgh even takes the form of a seer (Sanskrit ṣi) who rescues a sinner who wants to commit suicide. The second part of the text, where Baiṣajyasena becomes the interlocutor of the Buddha, magnifies the saving virtues of the Law and the Sgh with reference to the beings who are “old” and “young” (“ancient” and “new”) in the cycle of existences and in the teaching of the Buddha.178 The Khotanese Sgh is represented by more than 140 folios and fragments belonging to at least twenty-seven manuscripts, which attests to the popularity gained by this translation among the Khotanese.179 Apart from a number of minor deviations, the Khotanese essentially agrees with the Sanskrit and particularly with the oldest Sanskrit manuscript (about 500 ).180 This presumably depends on the fact that the translation was carried out before modifications crept into the Sanskrit manuscript tradition. In fact, one of the oldest Khotanese manuscripts (manuscript 1 represented by D iii.1 in Early Turkestan Brāhmī, type b: second half of the fifth or early sixth century) already contains textual corruptions revealing that it is actually a copy from a still older manuscript, which points to the early fifth century as the presumable date of the translation, as has been suggested by Giotto Canevascini. 178 Cf. Scherrer-Schaub 1996. 179 See Canevascini 1993; cf. Emmerick 1992a, pp. 29–30 for the history of research carried out on the text. After the appearance of Canevascini’s book, all of the Sgh fragments in the St. Petersburg collections except the “Petrovskij folio” have been published in facsimile in Emmerick/Vorob’ёvaDesjatovskaja 1993, pls. 34–38, 48 and 138 (cf. Emmerick/Vorob’ёvaDesjatovskaja 1995, pp. 46–67, 75–77 and 178–79) and the Crosby f. 30 has been reproduced in Emmerick 1993 b, p. 64 (where the reverse and obverse are interchanged). The few previously published facsimiles are D.iii.1, E.i.7 (19), E.i.7 (149) (in Stein 1907, pls. cx–cxi) and Reuter 1 (in Reuter 1913–18, pls. 8–9). 180 See Canevascini 1993, pp. xvii–xviii.

383

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

Bhadrakalpikasūtra and namo Texts The Late Khotanese Bhadrakalpikasūtra [Bk] (Sūtra [of the Buddhas] of the [present] good aeon) is one of the texts contained in the miscellaneous manuscript Ch c.001.181 A variant of the beginning of the sūtra is provided by another Dunhuang manuscript.182 In this text, which belongs to the genre of buddhanāmasūtras (sūtras on the names of the Buddhas), the Buddha Śākyamuni proclaims the advantages that may be expected by “whichever believing noble lad or maiden there may be who may learn, or read, or speak, or write or cause to be written, or who will keep, or hear, or once may do homage to the names of those thousand and five divine Lords” of the good aeon [Bk 209, Konow’s translation]. In the list of Buddhas, each name is introduced by the word namau (Sanskrit namo ‘homage’) that is not followed by a dative, as one would expect, but is used as a kind of honorific title: “the venerable (namau) Buddha Krakasunda by name, the venerable Buddha Kanakamuni by name, the venerable Buddha Kāśyapa by name …” [Bk 222–23, Bailey 1951 a, p. 77]. There were two traditions concerning the number of Buddhas who will appear in the good aeon (Sanskrit bhadrakalpa): according to an earlier tradition they will be five, whereas another tradition considered they will be 1000. The Khotanese Bhadrakalpikasūtra has apparently conflated the two traditions, as it speaks of 1005 Buddhas, though the preserved text lists in reality only 998 names.183 A text bearing the same title is known in Tibetan (Tōhoku 94) and in Chinese (Taishō 425), but the Khotanese text differs, though it belongs to the same tradition.184 Other Late Khotanese texts that contain lists of names of Buddhas, Bodhisattvas and Buddhist saints and pay homage to them 181 Facsimile in Takubo 1975, pp. 58–90; edition (apart from the list of the names of the Buddhas), translation and glossary by Konow 1929; re-edition (including the names of the Buddhas) in Bailey 1951 a, pp. 76–90. Cf. Emmerick 1990 f and 1992 a, pp. 20–22. 182 P 2949 (ed. Bailey 1951 a, p. 75). 183 See Konow 1929, pp. 5–7, and Bailey 1951 a, p. 76. 184 See Konow 1929, p. 7, and Emmerick 1992 a, p. 21.

384

KHOTANESE LITERATURE

were presumably composed in Khotan and can be classified as namo texts.185 To this genre also belong the two partly identical namo texts currently called Deśanā I and Deśanā II that are contained in the same manuscript as the Bhadrakalpikasūtra and represent a different tradition contemplating the existence of billions of Buddhas in crores of good aeons.186 These texts were given the title Deśanā by Shūyo Takubo on account of the promise that “For anyone who orders to write or recites the names of those Lord Buddhas there will be atonement for his acts deserving immediate retribution” [Deśanā I 828–29]. They overlap largely with the namo text of manuscript Ch 00268, where the same promise occurs in ll. 94–95, and with the text proper of the Homage of Hūyī Kīma-tcūna, which is preceded by an introduction. These last two texts are of special interest in that they also include names of local Buddhas unknown to the Indian tradition.187 Other Late Khotanese namo texts and buddhanāmasūtras are known.188

185 On namo texts see Emmerick 1992 a, pp. 21–22 and 37, Duan [1992], pp. 23–25, and Kumamoto 1996 b. The namo texts of mss. Ch 00268.1–131 and Ch 00276 have been re-edited and translated by Skjærvø 2002, pp. 502–7 and 303–4 respectively. 186 Deśanā I: manuscript Ch c.001.755–851 (facs. in Takubo 1975, pp. 91–97; ed. Bailey 1945–85, vol. 5, pp. 249–52; ed. and trans. in Skjærvø 2002, pp. 542–46) with the variant P 3513.1–12 (ed. Bailey 1945–85, vol. 3, pp. 112–16); Deśanā II: manuscript Ch c.001.1062–1109 (facs. in Takubo 1975, pp. 115–18; ed. Bailey 1945–85, vol. 5, pp. 253–55, ed. and trans. in Skjærvø 2002, pp. 547–50). 187 Ch 00268.1–131 (ed. Bailey 1951 a, pp. 100–104). Homage of Hūyī Kīmatcūna: P 5536 KT 3.117 + S 2471.1–24 (introduction, cf. Maggi 1998 b, p. 490) and 25–91 (namo text) with the partially overlapping variant P 2742.33–62 (critical edition and translation in Duan [1992], pp. 66–76 as texts I–III); cf. Emmerick 1992 a, pp. 37–38, and the ed. and trans. in Skjærvø 2002, pp. 27–31. Duan also provides comparative tables of the names of Buddhas etc. in S 2471 and in Deśanā I and Deśanā II (pp. 77–80) and deals in detail with the local Buddhas (pp. 28–34). 188 Ch 00276, P 2026.61–65, P 2027.67–86 (where Prince Tcū-syau is mentioned), P 2906 and P 2910 (ed. Bailey 1945–85, vol. 3, pp. 30–31, 50–51, 53–54, 97–99). Ed. and trans. of Ch 00276 in Skjærvø 2002, pp. 303–4.

385

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

Bhaiṣajyaguruvaiḍūryaprabharājasūtra An early Mahāyāna text devoted to one of the Buddhas who were the object of special cult is the Bhaiṣajyaguruvaiḍūryaprabharājasūtra (Sūtra of the Buddha Bhaiṣajyaguruvaiḍūryaprabharāja [Master of Healing, the King of Beryl Light]). It has been suggested that this text, that survives in Sanskrit manuscripts discovered at Gilgit189 and in Tibetan and Chinese translations (Tōhoku 504 and Taishō 449–51, 1161 respectively), may have originated in Northwest India or in Central Asia.190 Bhaiṣajyaguru is the Buddha of medicine in all its aspects up to enlightenment as a healing of existence. The sūtra’s four main themes are the twelve vows of Bhaiṣajyaguru as a Bodhisattva—most of which are concerned with cure and assistance to beings afflicted by diseases and worldly sufferings—and a description of his Buddha-field, the benefits for those who hear and invoke his name, the rituals for worshipping him, and the twelve yakṣa generals who offer protection from disease etc. to those who worship the Buddha Bhaiṣajyaguru and his sūtra. A number of Old Khotanese fragments of the Bhaiṣajyagurusūtra have come down to us, which do not appear to correspond closely to any of the known versions.191

189 See Dutt 1939, pp. 1–32 (critical remarks by Schopen 1977, pp. 208–10). 190 Birnbaum 1979, pp. 52–61. 191 FM 25.1 (ed. Bailey 1945–85, vol. 3, pp. 124–25, ed., trans. and facs. in Emmerick 1985 b), Hedin 27 (ed. Bailey 1945–85, vol. 4, pp. 39, 142), H 142 NS 58, H 144 NS 67, H 142 NS 68 (ed. Bailey 1945–85, vol. 5, pp. 87–89, earlier ed. and trans. in E. Leumann 1920, pp. 104–10), Iledong 015 (ed. and facs. in Emmerick 1985 b, pp. 231–32), IO 151.15 (Bailey 1973, pp. 226–27, pl. v), Kha 0013 c6 (ed. Bailey 1945–85, vol. 5, pp. 124–25), Kha i.129 a1 (ed. Bailey 1945–85, vol. 5, p. 147), Kha i.208.3 (ed. Bailey 1945–85, vol. 5, p. 163), SI M 32, SI P 65.1–3, SI P 67.17 (facs. Emmerick/Vorob’ёva-Desjatovskaja 1993, pls. 52–55 and 175, ed. and trans. Emmerick/Vorob’ёva-Desjatovskaja 1995, pp. 71–75 and 222). Three previously unpublished complete folios, one half of a folio and seven fragments from a manuscript in the British Library have been edited and translated by Skjærvø 2002, pp. 20–24. Cf. Emmerick 1990 g, Emmerick 1992 a, pp. 22–23, and Skjærvø 1999 b, pp. 331–33, 339–40.

386

KHOTANESE LITERATURE

Vimalakīrtinirdeśasūtra Ten complete and fragmentary folios of a single manuscript preserve portions of an Old Khotanese version of the Vimalakīrtinirdeśasūtra [VkN] (Sūtra of the teaching of Vimalakīrti).192 In this early sūtra, which is known from Tibetan and Chinese translations (Tōhoku 176 and Taishō 474–76 respectively) and whose Sanskrit text has been newly discovered in a manuscript in Lhasa, the Bodhisattva Vimalakīrti, a rich merchant, pretends to be ill and preaches to all who come to visit him: he shows that the Bodhisattva path can be followed not only by monks but also by laymen, illustrates the doctrine of emptiness of existence and the Buddhist way toward liberation, and explains the transcendental nature of the Buddha.193 According to Skjærvø, the “Khotanese translation is not identical with any of the other known ones. However, it is reasonably close to the Tibetan. Where it diverges from it, it occupies a position intermediate between the Chinese translations K [= Kumārajīva] and H [= Xuanzang]”.194 Śūraṅgamasamādhisūtra An early text closely connected with the VkN is the Śūraṅgamasamādhisūtra [Śgs] (Sūtra of the concentration of the heroic march). Substantial remains of two manuscripts of an Old Khotanese version are extant, to which must be added fifteen largely preserved folios belonging to the main manuscript and several small fragments that were identified by Prods O. Skjærvø and are so far 192 Edition, translation, commentary, facsimiles and Tibetan parallels by Skjærvø 1986. For a further fragment in St. Petersburg (SI M 14.3) see Emmerick/Vorob’ёva-Desjatovskaja 1993, pl. 154 and Emmerick/ Vorob’ёva-Desjatovskaja 1995, pp. 213–14. Cf. Emmerick 1992 a, pp. 35–36. 193 On this text see Lamotte 1962. The Sanskrit original has been recently found in Tibet and edited by the Study Group on Buddhist Sanskrit Literature, The Institute for Comprehensive Studies of Buddhism, Taisho University 2004. 194 Skjærvø 1986, p. 230; cf. Skjærvø 1999 b, p. 338.

387

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

unpublished.195 The text was translated also in Tibetan (Tōhoku 132) and Chinese (Taishō 642), but only a few fragments from four different Sanskrit manuscripts survive, one of which betrays Khotanese influence in the use of the form manyuśrī- for the name Mañjuśrī.196 The Śgs is concerned with the power of concentration (Sanskrit samādhi), and particularly with the concentration called Śūraṅgama, as a means for both monks and laymen to attain to enlightenment, and exposes the methods of meditation on emptiness. The Khotanese Śgs, whose manuscripts are characterised by a rather consistent archaic orthography, differ in a number of places from the Tibetan or from the Chinese and sometimes from both.197 As an example of the character of this text, the following passage of the Khotanese version may be quoted: [148] … And they spoke thus too: “Well gained is our advantage, deva Buddha, since we have seen the deva Buddha and Mañjuśrī Kumārabhūta and heard this Śūraṃgamasamādhi. Fully endowed, gracious deva Buddha, with inconceivable qualities is Mañjuśrī Kumārabhūta. Which Samādhi, deva Buddha, has Mañjuśrī Kumārabhūta entered here so that he exhibits these such extraordinary unprecedented qualities?” [149] The deva Buddha spoke thus to him: “Devaputra,198 having entered the Śūraṃgamasamādhi here, Mañjuśrī Kumarabhūta exhibits such inconceivableness as this.” 1. Having entered the Samādhi here, the Bodhisattva follows (the Law) with faith but does not proceed by the faith of another. 2. He follows the Law, but he is not deficient regarding dharmatā and the turning of the Wheel of the Law. 195 Edition with translation, Tibetan parallels, commentary, glossary and facsimiles in Emmerick 1970 b. Cf. Emmerick 1992 a, p. 32. Numerous previously unpublished folios and fragments habe been edited and translated by Skjærvø 2002, pp. 220, 223, 266–68, 329, 409–23 (cf. Emmerick 1984 c, p. 139). 196 Edition and translation of two fragmentary folios by Thomas 1916, pp. 125–32, pl. xx, and Matsuda 1987, q. v. for reference to further fragments. On this text see Lamotte 1965. 197 See Emmerick 1970 b, pp. xix–xxi and xxiii. 198 Singular like the preceding pronoun here and below. The change from the plural to a generic singular is not uncommon.

388

KHOTANESE LITERATURE 3. He is an Aṣṭamaka, but he goes about here for countless kalpas for the sake of beings who have fallen into the eight depravities. 4. He has entered the first stage, but for the sake of beings who have set forth along the river (of Saṃsāra) he does not fall into Nirvāṇa. 5. He reaches the second stage, but he appears in all the worldspheres. 6. He reaches the third stage and yet he returns for the sake of ripening beings. 7. He becomes an Arhat, but he is energetic in seeking the Buddhaqualities. 8. He becoms a Śrāvaka, but he preaches the Law before beings. 9. He becomes a Pratyekabuddha, (yet) for the sake of teaching beings powerful in respect of pratyayas, he exhibits extinction but takes birth through the powers of Samādhi. 10. In this way, Devaputra, having entered this Śūraṅgamasamādhi, the Bodhisattva (is endowed) with wholly kleśa-free words. However it is to be preached to them and whatever Law (is necessary) for those who have entered a realm, so he preaches it to them, but he does not reside there in that realm” [Śgs 148–49, after Emmerick; the parts in italics, missing in Khotanese, are supplemented from the Tibetan].

Suvarṇabhāsottamasūtra The Suvarṇabhāsottamasūtra [Suv] (The excellent sūtra of golden light) is one of the most largely, though in part fragmentarily, preserved Khotanese texts.199 All Khotanese folios and fragments of 199 Edition, translation and commentary by Skjærvø 1983 c; earlier edition of the most substantial remains in Bailey 1945–85, vol. 1, pp. 232–57 and vol. 5, pp. 106–19. See Emmerick 1992a, pp. 33–34 for the history of research carried out on the text. The newly identified material in the St. Petersburg collection is published and translated in Emmerick/Vorob’ёva-Desjatovskaja 1993, pls. 56–58, 139–51, 177, and Emmerick/Vorob’ёva-Desjatovskaja 1995, pp. 78–82, 179–212, 229–30, and commented upon in Emmerick 1995 and Skjærvø 1999 c. A comprehensive edition with translation, complete Sanskrit text, commentary, glossary and indexes has been provided by Skjærvø 2004.

389

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

Suv come from the region of Khotan with the exception only of the metrical version of the Deśanāparivarta that is preserved in the Dunhuang manuscript P 3513.59 v1–75 v2. The text is extant in Sanskrit, 200 as well as in Tibetan and Chinese translations (Tōhoku 555–57 and Taishō 663–65 respectively). It is a composite work with devotional, philosophical, ethical and legendary contents, that, as shown by Johannes Nobel, has its original core in the Deśanāparivarta (Sanskrit chap. 3), where the confession is expounded by an “excellent drum of golden light” and to which the title Suvarṇabhāsottama must have originally applied. 201 It deals, among other things, with the infinity of the life of the Buddha (chap. 2), the doctrine of emptiness (chap. 5), the role of kingship (chap. 12) and the art of medicine (chap. 16), and contains dhāraṇīs (chaps. 7 and 8) and several stories of the Buddha’s former births (Sanskrit jātaka), among which is the story of the Bodhisattva killing himself to serve as food for a hungry tigress (chap. 18). Continuing the research of Nobel, Prods O. Skjærvø has established the following stages in the textual development of the Sanskrit Suv: recension A (cf. Darmakṣema’s Chinese translation, Taishō 663); the much longer recension B (Nobel’s Sanskrit text); recension C (cf. Baogui’s Chinese translation, Taishō 664, consisting of Dharmakṣema’s version plus additional material); recension D (cf. Tibetan II, i.e. Tōhoku 556); and recension E (cf. Yijing’s Chinese translation, Taishō 665). According to Skjærvø, the Khotanese manuscripts represent all these stages of development with the exception of recension A. In particular, the Old Khotanese manuscripts of the Suvarṇabhāsottama probably contain a version of the text that not only agrees with … recension [B] but also in part preserves a text antedating the archetype of the Nepalese manuscripts and the Tibetan versions. Compared to the Khotanese text, this archetype has already begun to deteriorate. In addition, numerous agreements with the Chinese versions may indicate that these and the Khotanese reflect a Central Asian recension of the text. All the Old Khotanese manuscripts contain a version of the 200 Edited by Nobel 1937 and Skjærvø 2004; translated by Emmerick 1996. 201 Nobel 1937, p. xlvii.

390

KHOTANESE LITERATURE Khotanese translation that goes back to a single old version although the copyists have in the course of time variously attempted to improve the text and adjust the language to contemporary usage.

On the other hand, the Late Khotanese version of the Deśanāparivarta agrees with Yijing’s version, with which it shares an addition at the beginning of the chapter, although the Khotanese translation has at times been altered to meet the needs of metre. 202 A sort of summary of the text is offered, among other matters, by the introduction to the Old Khotanese version: … This (is) my petition to the Lord Buddhas and to the Bodhisattvas and to gods, goddesses, men, Nāgas, (and) Yakṣas. May they receive this my worship of the Law, (this) auspicious prayer … These are the reasons provided by it in this sūtra on account of which it is called the “King of Sūtras”. The career of the Buddhas is expounded by it, and by it the very noble (doctrine of) emptiness (is expounded) in a good way, and the body of the Law of the Lord Buddhas is expounded by it, and the manifestation of the life (of the Tathāgatas is expounded by it to be) unlimited, and the very difficult former acts (of the Buddhas) and the meditations (are expounded) by it, (and also) the very difficult acts of the Bodhisattva, and the prophecies of many divine sons (to enlightenment), and eulogies (are expounded) by it, and confessions, and ripenings and congratulations, and entreaties, and supplications, and the great Buddha-power, and the destruction of evil acts (are expounded by it), and dhāraṇīs. And here in this sūtra the caring for all beings in this birth (and) in other births is expounded. And the knowledge of kings is expounded by it, how it sustains the beings of (the king’s) land, how they (the kings) establish them (the beings) in the Law so that they do not at all go to an evil state, how they can be cared for with the things of this birth: this (is) the exposition in this sūtra. How too one removes the bodily diseases of diseased beings, this exposition (is found) here. Therefore is this sūtra called “King of Sūtras”. Of the holders of all other sūtras too (it is) the supporter. Therefore is this (sūtra) called the “King of Sūtras”. “Suvarṇa” means ‘gold’; “bhāsa” means ‘shining’. Just as among precious substances gold, it has been said, shines best, so this sūtra for such reasons as 202 See Skjærvø 1999 b, pp. 333–38; and cf. Skjærvø 1983 c, pt. 3, pp. xv–xliv, and Emmerick 1996, pp. xii–xiii.

391

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN these shines best. Therefore is it called the “Suvarṇabhāsottama”, because (it is) the best (sūtra). Since I have ordered this Suvarṇabhāsottama Sūtra to be written in Khotanese and (thus) made it understandable … whatever good there may have accrued to me here, I share it with all my relatives, beginning with my mother, father, sisters, (and) brother, with (my) friends, spiritual advisers, (and) all kinsmen (?). And with the whole land of Khotan, and with all the beings in the land of Khotan I share (it). And in that manner I share with all beings this good. And may I thereby surely obtain unrestricted enlightenment. And this good too and these merits I take to the Four Great Kings, and to the Great Goddess Śrī—to them (goes) the very best share among these merits of mine here. May that (share) surely so prosper through the merits of the Buddhas (and) the Bodhisattvas as it has been expounded in this sūtra [Suv 0.3–22]. 203

Pradakṣiṇasūtra The Late Khotanese Pradakṣiṇasūtra [PS] (Sūtra about circumambulating [caityas, i.e. Buddhist monuments]) is completely preserved in one manuscript from Dunhuang, where it is preceded by a document possibly to be dated to 995  and is immediately followed by an invocation by Cā Tcyāṃ-kvina who copied it. 204 The text is metrical (but punctuation is marked only for the first line and a half) and is presented as an exposition by the Buddha to the Elder Śāriputra about the advantages deriving from circumambulating and worshipping caityas. A similar though divergent text is known in Sanskrit under the title Pradakṣiṇagāthā as well as in Tibetan (Tōhoku 321) and in Chinese (Taishō 700). 205 A striking 203 After Emmerick 1996, pp. 109–10; Skjærvø’s numbering. 204 Manuscript Ch 0048: facsimile of the beginning of the sūtra (ll. 14–16) in Bailey 1967 a, pl. xc; edition of the sūtra and of the invocation in Bailey 1951 a, pp. 72–74; translation in Bailey 1974. See also Emmerick 1990 h and Emmerick 1992 a, p. 27. For the date of the document see Hamilton 1977, p. 369. Ed. and trans. of the document in Skjærvø 2002, p. 485. 205 See Hinüber 1981, nos. 13 b, 13 d and 60 for the Sanskrit and Belanger 2000 for the Tibetan.

392

KHOTANESE LITERATURE

difference lies in the fact that the Khotanese text calls itself a sūtra (“The Pradakṣiṇasūtra (is) completely finished” [PS 62]) and opens with the standard sūtra formula “So it has been heard”: Success! So it has been heard. One time the Buddha dwelt in the land of Śrāvastī, in the garden of Prince Jeta, together with a numerous assembly. At that time the great general of the Law, the Elder Śāriputra, went with reverence to the all-knowing Buddha. He asked (him) about a doubt thus: “Teacher, all-knowing Buddha, merciful destroyer of sorrows, 206 how many are the advantages for him who circumambulates a caitya?” [PS 14–17].

Karmavibhaṅga A popular text, whose origins go back to early Buddhism, is the Karmavibhaṅga [KV] (The classification of acts). This sūtra, that deals with the consequences of good and evil deeds in future births, is known in Sanskrit as well as in Tibetan and Chinese versions (Tōhoku 338–39, and Taishō 26 (170), 78–81 and 755 respectively). 207 Twenty-one more or less fragmentary folios from three manuscripts of an Old Khotanese version are extant. This does not correspond to any of the other known versions of the text, including the Central Asian Sanskrit recension, and must reflect an early stage of the text as, like the Tibetan version of the manuscript Kanjur of the British Library, it does not contain amplifications, comments and examples of the consequences of actions that are characteristic of the other versions. 208 The contents are utterly monotonous:

206 Read *muiśtiṣā dukhā *jināka for muiśtāṣā dukhā jānāka of the manuscript (Bailey has muiśtā ṣā dukhā jenāka ‘great [?] destroyer of sorrow’). 207 For the Nepalese recension of the Sanskrit text see Lévi 1932. A diplomatic edition is provided by Kudo 2004. For a fragmentary Central Asian recension see Hoernle 1916, pp. 46–52. A third Tibetan version is found in the manuscript Kanjur of the British Library: see Simon 1970. 208 Facsimiles, edition, translation, Sanskrit parallels, commentary and glossary in Maggi 1995. Cf. Emmerick 1992 a, p. 25.

393

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN [4.0] Thus, which is the act by which a man is always healthy? [4.1] The first is when he does not harm another (man). [4.2] The second is when he does not help (someone harm someone else). [4.3] And the third is when he does not praise (those who harm someone). [4.4] And the fourth is when he does [not] become content when he sees beings beaten. [4.5] And the fifth is when he helps (his) mother (and) father when health does not arise for them. [4.6] And the sixth is when he helps venerable men on that (occasion) when illness does not disappear, and he gives a medicament to the sick. [4.7] And the seventh is when one cares for sick beings. [4.8] And the eighth is (that if) health arises for someone, even though he does not see (it), he becomes content. [4.9] [And the ninth] is when he sees sick (and) beaten people (and he thinks): “Come! Let them be healthy soon”. [4.10] And the tenth is that he gives very delicious (?) food. [4.11] These are the ten causes by which a man is always [healthy] [KV 4.0–4.11].

Dharmaśarīrasūtra Two complete folios of a Dharmaśarīrasūtra [DhŚ] (Sūtra being the skeleton of the [Buddhist] Law) in early Late Khotanese from the Khotan region are extant. 209 The text consists in a list of categories of the Mahāyānist doctrine arranged by number and is known also in two Sanskrit recensions, the shorter one being presumably older, and in a Chinese translation (Taishō 766). The beginning and the end of the Khotanese version are lost, the two extant folios preserving the core of the text. It does not correspond with either of the Sanskrit recensions, though it bears some resemblance to the longer one, nor with the Chinese translation. It could be a translation from an unknown Sanskrit recension 210 or, as suggested by Hiroshi Kumamoto, an abbreviated paraphrase of the text, as it 209 Manuscript SI P 49; edition with translation and glossary in Bongard-Levin/ Temkin 1969 (reproduced with corrected title but with serious misprints and without mention of E. N. Temkin in Bongard-Levin 1971, pp. 257–72); earlier edition with facsimiles and translation in Bongard-Levin/Temkin 1967. For further bibliography and information on the Sanskrit and Chinese versions see Emmerick 1992 a, p. 23 and Kumamoto 1996c. 210 See Bongard-Levin/Temkin 1969, p. 270.

394

KHOTANESE LITERATURE

is very short and lists only a few categories. It is noteworthy in that it contains a reference to various Mahāyāna sūtras that is not found in any of the other versions211: [6 r] By means of this sūtra, Lord Buddhas as numerous as (the grains) of sand of the river Ganges realised enlightenment and also (those) who (are) the Buddhas of the Bhadrakalpa will realise (enlightenment) by means of it, because it (is) like the mother (and) father of all Lord Buddhas, because the sevenfold doctrine of the Mahāyāna has been expounded altogether in summary beginning with the tathāgatagarbha (Buddha essence), the second (being) the ekayāna (one vehicle), the third the dharmakāya (body of the Law), the fourth the anutpādanirodha (non-origination and suppression), the fifth the lokadhātuvyavasthāna (establishment of the world systems), the sixth [6 v] the Bodhisattva, the seventh the tathāgatamāhātmya (magnanimity of the Buddha). This doctrine of the Mahāyāna, that is not found elsewhere apart from Mahāyāna, (is) expounded altogether. Because of that then, this sūtra called Dharmaśarīra (is) so much noble, profound, (it is) the ultimate truth: the meaning of whichever sūtra of the Mahāyāna, beginning with the Prajñāpāramitā, the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka, the Buddhāvataṃsaka, the Laṅkāvātara, the Daśabhūmika, the Ratnakūṭa (and) the Mahāsannipāta, [7 r] is expounded altogether in summary here in the Dharmaśarīrasūtra beginning with the four smtyupasthānas (applications of mindfulness), the (four) saṃyakprahāṇas (right efforts), the (four) ddhipādas (bases of psychic power), and the seven bodhyaṅgas (members of enlightenment), the ten bodhisattvabhūmis (stages of the Bodhisattva [path]), as are made known in detail in the Daśabhūmika, and the ten pāramitās (perfections) and the ten mahāpraṇidhānas (great vows) and the ten tathāgatabalas (powers of the Buddha). [7 v] For this reason is this (sūtra) called Dharmaśarīra: whatever (is) the meaning of the Buddha-Law, it is all here. For this reason then the Lord Buddha preached the skeleton of the Law (Dharmaśarīra), because it is the maintenance of the whole Law, of enlightenment. 212 The Lord Buddha said thus too: Whatever noble son or noble daughter there might be who should write or order to write or learn or understand this discourse, even though he (or she) might have committed the five acts 211 See Kumamoto 1996 c. 212 Cf. Emmerick 1971 a, p. 68.

395

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN bringing endless hell, by the power of this sūtra all those acts will be removed, he (or she) will not go to hell and will not take birth there. And standing … [DhŚ 6 r–7 v].

Aparimitāyuḥsūtra The Sanskrit term dhāraṇī is used to refer both to spells and to a genre of texts containing them. Dhāraṇīs probably originated as a device to support memorisation of Buddhist teachings, religious concepts, meditative experiences etc., and eventually developed into magic and protective spells. They are often introduced by the Sanskrit words tad yathā or syād yathā ‘namely’ and closed by svāhā ‘hail!’ and may include invocations, partly intelligible words and meaningless syllables at times characterised by rhyme, assonance or consonance. Dhāraṇīs are also contained in such Mahāyāna sūtras as the Laṅkāvatārasūtra, the Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra or the Suvarṇabhāsottamasūtra, but they characterise notably a genre of short texts that are referred to as dhāraṇī-sūtras or simply dhāraṇīs or sūtras. 213 The Aparimitāyuḥsūtra [ApS] (Sūtra of [the Buddha] Aparimitāyus) is a dhāraṇī-sūtra that enjoyed great popularity in Mahāyāna Buddhism and is known in Sanskrit, Tibetan, Chinese and other versions. A complete Late Khotanese version of it has come down to us in two manuscripts and one folio from Dunhuang and in one fragment from Khotan. The Khotan fragment seems to belong to a version different from the Dunhuang version. 214 This was translated from a Sanskrit original apparently different from the other known versions.215 The sūtra, which contains an often repeated dhāraṇī 213 See Kariyawasam 1979 and Kumamoto 1996 d. 214 Ch xlvi.0015 and S 2471 (the main manuscripts), Ch xlvi.0013 b (single folio) and H 151.9 (= Khot. (IO) 9; fragment): edition, translation, commentary and glossary by Duan [1992], q.v. also for the Sanskrit and Tibetan texts (cf. Tōhoku 674–75 and 849; see Taishō 936–37 for the Chinese). For the Khotan fragment not used by Duan see Maggi 1998 b, p. 490. Cf. Emmerick 1987 c and 1992 a, pp. 19–20. 215 Duan [1992], p. 9.

396

KHOTANESE LITERATURE

(§§ 12 etc.), is attributed to the preaching of the Buddha Śākyamuni for the lengthening of the lifespan of beings by veneration of the Buddha Aparimitāyus, short form of Aparimitāyurjñānasuviniścitatejorāja (Brilliant king firm in unlimited life and wisdom, another name of the Buddha Amitābha) and of the sūtra itself: [6] “Now listen, O young Mañjuśrī. All beings in Jambudvīpa are very short-lived. Their life(span is) only a hundred years”. [7] Then (the Buddha) said precisely thus: “Many (are) those, who lose life because of untimely deaths. [8] Whoever, Mañjuśrī, may then be that being who should write and order to write the sūtra for the proclamation of the virtues of the Buddha Aparimitāyurjñānasuviniścitatejorāja and this method of the Law, and should hear, learn by heart and write its title, should put it into a book, keep it at home, honour it with incense, flowers, perfumes, garlands (and) unguents, when then his lifespan is over, it will increase to a hundred years” [ApS 6–8].

Anantamukhanirhāradhāraṇīsūtra Three folios of an Old Khotanese translation of the Anantamukhanirhāradhāraṇīsūtra [Ananta] (Sūtra on the formula of the production of infinite entries [into the doctrine]) were identified by Kaikyoku Watanabe and published with translation by Ernst Leumann. A number of further folios and fragments apparently from four manuscripts, including the one known to Leumann, were published but not recognised by Harold W. Bailey and eventually identified by Prods O. Skjærvø (with the addition of an unpublished fragment in the British Library) and by Ronald E. Emmerick. A further folio was identified by Skjærvø in the St. Petersburg collections and a new fragmentary folio was located by Duan Qing in Lüshun. 216 Whereas all the aforementioned material comes from 216 E. Leumann 1920, pp. 151–55 (re-edition in Bailey 1945–1985, vol. 5, pp. 102–4). For a list of the subsequently published and identified folios and fragments see the references in Emmerick 1992 a, pp. 18–19 and cf. Skjærvø 1999 b, p. 339, and the list of the London folios and fragments in Skjærvø 2002, p. 607. The St. Petersburg folio is SI P 48 (facs. Emmerick/Vorob’ёva-Desjatovskaja 1993, pl. 26, ed. and trans. Emmerick/

397

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

the region of Khotan, the dhāraṇī proper is written in Late Khotanese orthography in a Dunhuang roll. 217 Prods O. Skjærvø has pointed out a few agreements between the Khotanese and some of the Chinese translations. 218 The entire passage on the eight seedsyllables is quoted in the Book of Vimalakīrti. Raśmivimalaviśuddhaprabhānāmadhāraṇī A single fragmentary folio of an archaising Late Khotanese version of the Raśmivimalaviśuddhaprabhānāmadhāraṇī [Rvvp] (Sūtra on the formula called Immaculate and pure beaming splendour) was recognised as such by Yutaka Yoshida. 219 Sumukhasūtra The Late Khotanese version of the Sumukha(nāmadhāraṇī)sūtra [Sum] (Sūtra on the [formula called] Sumukha [Good-faced]) is entirely extant in ll. 852–1061 of the tenth-century miscellaneous manuscript Ch c.001. 220 The text, also known from fragments of

217 218 219

220

Vorob’ёva-Desjatovskaja 1995, pp. 38–40). Facsimile, Chinese parallel and glossary of the new fragment in Duan 1993, English summary on pp. 13–14. See also Emmerick 1987 d. One folio from a three-line manuscript of the Sanskrit text was published in Thomas 1916, pp. 46–52; a further folio from a nine-line Sanskrit manuscript was identified by K. Matsuda in the Hoernle collection (Hoernle 143 d SA 11) and Matsuda’s edition was published and translated by Inagaki 1999, pp. 20–22. Cf. Tōhoku 140, 525 and 914, and Taishō 1009, 1011–18 for the Tibetan and Chinese translations. The Tibetan text and Jñānagarbha’s commentary are now translated in Inagaki 1999. P 2855 (ed. Bailey 1945–85, vol. 3, pp. 77–78). Cf. Skjærvø 1999 b, p. 311. Skjærvø 1999 b, pp. 329–31. Manuscript SI M 44.1: edition, translation and facsimile in Emmerick/ Vorob’ёva-Desjatovskaja 1995, p. 233, pls. 185–86; cf. Vorob’eva-Desyatovskaya 1996. See Tōhoku 510 and 982, and Taishō 1024 for the Tibetan and Chinese translations. Facsimile in Takubo 1975, pp. 97–115; edition and translation by Emmerick 1997–98; earlier edition in Bailey 1951 a, pp. 135–43. Cf. Emmerick 1992 a, pp. 31–32.

398

KHOTANESE LITERATURE

the Sanskrit original and from Tibetan and Chinese translations (Tōhoku 614, 915 and Taishō 1137–40 respectively), is called simply Sumukhasūtra in paragraphs 98 and 99 of the Khotanese version. 221 It is a collection of spells: the Buddha Śākyamuni, requested by the Bodhisattva Vajrapāṇi, preaches the Sumukhadhāraṇī, a series of spells against all kinds of evil and for long life; all Buddhas from all Buddha-fields of the whole world approve of his teaching and announce twenty benefits for anyone who should learn or recite the Sumukhadhāraṇī; the Bodhisattva Vajrapāṇi and other Bodhisattvas and deities then promise to protect anyone who should learn or recite it, and each of them adds a new spell, e.g.: [69] Then the great Bodhisattva, the noble Avalokiteśvara, the giver of security in great compassion spoke thus to the Lord of lords, the Buddha: [70] “So will even I, gracious Lord Buddha, protect (and) watch over that noble son or noble daughter who should learn by heart this method of the Law called Sumukha, the knowledge that watches over life, or should rise up in the morning (and) recite it”. [71] tad yathā hate vihate . nihate suhäte . sarva-pratyarthikā pratyāmitrā . śuddhe mukte . vimale . nirmale prabhāsvare . prabhāskare phu prabhākare phu svāhā [Sum 69–71, after Emmerick].

Jñānolkadhāraṇī Of a version in archaising Late Khotanese of the Jñānolkadhāraṇī [Jñ] (Formula of [the Buddha] Jñānolka) only the beginning is missing. It is known from several folios belonging to at least five manuscripts from the Khotan area, which attests to the spread of this popular text containing two dhāraṇīs aimed at protection and deliverance of beings. 222 According to Ernst Leumann, the 221 See Wille 1996, pp. 398–402 with nn. 30–35, for bibliographical references on the Sanskrit text. 222 Facsimile, edition and translation of manuscript SI P 3, extending from the second to the sixth and last of the folios containing Jñ, in Emmerick/ Vorob’ёva-Desjatovskaja 1993, pls. 2–6, and Emmerick/Vorob’ёvaDesjatovskaja 1995, pp. 21–24 (earlier ed. and trans. by E. Leumann 1920, pp. 157–64). For information on the surviving folios and their editions see

399

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

Khotanese text does not agree closely with the Tibetan and Chinese translations (Tōhoku 522, 848 and Taishō 1397–98). 223 Only a fragment of the Sanskrit text is extant. 224 Mahāsāhasrapramardanī Only a Late Khotanese excerpt is known of the Mahāsāhasrapramardanī [MSP] (The great destroyer of the infinite [band of demons]), one of the five texts of the Pañcarakṣā, a group of five collections of dhāraṇīs protecting from (1) sin, sickness and other evil, (2) demons (MSP), (3) serpents, (4) hostile planets, wild beasts and dangerous insects, and (5) diseases. What remains of the excerpt is contained, together with a Chinese parallel text, on three folios of a manuscript where six of the fifteen demons causing children’s diseases are depicted and described. The manuscript was probably used as an amulet. 225 A few other amulets (rakṣā) and omen texts give expression to the most extreme form of “folk” Buddhism. The apotropaic power of amulets may reside in a drawing, in a dhāraṇī, in a text or in a text combined with drawings, as in the case of MSP. 226

223 224 225

226

Emmerick 1992 a, pp. 24–25. The London fragments, including a previously unpublished fragment, have been edited and translated by Skjærvø 2002, pp. 349, 355, 451. The whereabouts of the Ōtani folio are unknown (see Kumamoto 1996 d, p. 356). See E. Leumann 1920, pp. 160–61. See Wille 1996, pp. 390–92. Manuscript Ch 00217 c, a, b: facsimile, edition, translation and commentary in Maggi 1996 b, where references to the original Sanskrit, known also from Central Asian manuscripts, and to the Chinese translation are to be found (the second and third captions on p. 126 are interchanged); earlier edition in Bailey 1945–85, vol. 3, p. 135. Cf. Skjærvø 2002, p. 583. Apotropaic drawing in ms. Kha i.50 (ed., trans. and facs. in Emmerick 1968 a, p. 142 and pl. II; ed. and trans. in Skjærvø 2002, p. 585). Apotropaic dhāraṇī in ms. Kha i.89a (ed. Bailey 1945–85, vol. 5, p. 137; ed. and trans. in Skjærvø 2002, p. 203). Apotropaic texts in mss. Kha i.53 (ed. Bailey 1945–85, vol. 5, p. 131; ed. and trans. in Skjærvø 2002, p. 193), ms. Kha i.310 (ed. and trans. in Skjærvø 2002, p. 477) and Reuter 2 (ed. Bailey 1945–85, vol. 5, p. 395).

400

KHOTANESE LITERATURE

Omen texts are contained in several manuscripts, some of which foretell the consequences of pains in various parts of the body (Hedin 17), predict the outcome of twitches of various parts of the body (Kha vi.4.1) or forecast people’s fate on the basis of the year of the duodecimal animal cycle in which they are born (Or 11252.1). 227 Avalokiteśvaradhāraṇī and Amtaprabhadhāraṇī Two Khotanese texts containing dhāraṇīs and without known parallels are the so-called Avalokiteśvaradhāraṇī and Amtaprabhadhāraṇī, the original title of which is lost. The Avalokiteśvaradhāraṇī [Avdh] (Formula of Avalokiteśvara) is written in archaising Late Khotanese and is preserved in ff. 5–24 of a manuscript from Khotan, the beginning and end of which are missing. 228 The conventional title was invented by Harold W. Bailey on account of the central position of the Bodhisattva Avalokiteśvara in the text and of a dhāraṇī that occurs towards the end of the text and opens with a homage to him as the foremost of Bodhisattvas. The sentiment of devotion to Avalokiteśvara, venerated for his

227 Mss. Hedin 17 and 22.6–7 (ed., trans. and comm. in Bailey 1945–85, vol. 4, pp. 31–32, 35, 109–17, 127, 129), Hardinge 078.2 (ed. Bailey 1945–85, vol. 5, p. 283; ed. and trans. in Skjærvø 2002, pp. 126–27), Kha vi.4.l (ed. and translation in Bailey 1945–85, vol. 3, p. 130, and vol. 4, pp. 113–14; ed. and trans. in M. Leumann 1963, pp. 83–86, and Skjærvø 2002, pp. 260–61), Or 11252.1 (ed. Bailey 1945–85, vol. 3, pp. 13–15; ed., trans. and comm. in Bailey 1937, pp. 924–30; ed. and trans. Skjærvø 2002, pp. 82–85). 228 Edition, translation and facsimile of ff. 5–23 in Emmerick/Vorob’ёva-Desjatovskaja 1995, pp. 239–50, pls. 190–98 (earlier ed. in Bailey 1945–85, vol. 3, pp. 1–13). F. 24 (SI P 51), whose folio number is lost and was not recognised as belonging to Avdh, was published in facsimile, edited and translated in Emmerick/Vorob’ёva-Desjatovskaja 1993, pl. 31 and Emmerick/Vorob’ёvaDesjatovskaja 1995, p. 43 and subsequently identified by Maggi 1998a, p. 285. Cf. Emmerick 1989 c and 1992 a, p. 37 (where it is suggested that manuscript H 143 NS 87 [ed. Bailey 1945–85, vol. 5, p. 42] may be connected with Avdh).

401

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

compassion, is evident e.g. from the confession formula (deśanā) that is found at the beginning of the first preserved folios (where it is followed by a dhāraṇī) and is repeated later with minor differences (15 v4–18 r2): [5 r] “Avalokiteśvara, with the water of your great compassion purify, remove, take away all my sins, acts, afflictions, obstacles to enlightenment. Watch over me, O great being. Whatever acts, evil deeds, sins I may have done in the beginningless cycle of existence, whatever in this birth, whatever in other births, in countless births, or I have ordered others to do, or I have helped others to do, (if) I have become satisfied thereafter, [5v] (if) I have myself produced sin or have ordered others to produce (it), (if) I have infringed the path of the ten (good) acts, (the path that is) threefold with regard to the body, fourfold with regard to the tongue, threefold with regard to the mind, or (if) I have committed sins due to the influence of passion or due to the influence of anger, or due to the influence of ignorance, or due to envy or due to destructiveness of mind or due to sloth or due to weakness or due to excess or due to buṃḍī (?), or (if) with respect to the Three Jewels [6 r] due to unconcentrated thought or due to trickeries or due to loss of shame (and) modesty or due to boastfulness or due to raṃba (?) or due to confusion or due to pride or due to having too high an opinion of oneself, or (if) with respect to the Buddha (or) with respect to the Law (or) with respect to Bodhisattvas or with respect to Pratyekabuddhas or with respect to Śrāvakas or with respect to parents or with respect to teachers, good friends, or with respect to relatives, family, friends, I may have done evil deeds myself, [6 v] or I may have ordered others (to do them, or) I have been in agreement with them, all these acts I now before the Lord Buddhas and before the Bodhisattvas confess, admit to, do not deny. I will refrain from them in future. I have done what is not good just like one ignorant, foolish, ineffective, ungrateful, inexperienced. I have done just what he does, and I will not do it again. May all the Lord Buddhas of the three times be (my) witnesses and all the Bodhisattvas and all the Śrāvakas and all the [7 r] guardians of the Buddha’s Order, those who have attained the (first) stage, the gods, Nāgas, Yakṣas, Asuras, kings of the Garuḍas, Gandharvas, Kinnaras, and Mahoragas; may they all be my witnesses how I fell into this difficult, woe-filled, care-beset forest of the cycle of existence and this prison and set off on a false path. You are my asylum; you

402

KHOTANESE LITERATURE are my support; you (are) a deliverer, you a refuge, you a path, you an object of worship, an asylum. [7 v] Watch over me, O great being, (watch over) me, O bestower of security. Noble Avalokiteśvara, great, compassionate one, do not leave me without asylum, listen to these my pitiful words and lamentations” [Avdh 5 r1–7 v2, after Emmerick and Vorob’ëva-Desjatovskaja].

The Amtaprabhadhāraṇī [Amta] (Formula of Amtaprabha) is an as yet untranslated Late Khotanese text contained in three fragments of a single manuscript from Khotan. The text, which refers to itself nine times as a sūtra, was so called by Harold W. Bailey because the phrase amrittaprrabha dārąñä occurs in line 30 and because one of the dhāraṇīs contained in it begins with amrittaprrabhe (l. 32). Amtaprabha is still another name for the Buddha Amitāyus (i.e. Amitābha), who is mentioned in ll. 17, 23 and 30. 229 The Bodhisattva Avalokiteśvara is also mentioned. Like other similar texts, Amta is concerned with the protection from diseases and various evils. Sanskrit Dhāraṇīs in Khotanese Manuscripts A few Sanskrit dhāraṇī-sūtras in Late Khotanese orthography are found in Khotanese manuscripts: Amoghapāśahdayadhāraṇī (P 5532, ed. Bailey 1945–85, vol. 5, pp. 325–26), 230 Buddhoṣṇīṣavijayadhāraṇī (Ch c.001.1–11, ed. Bailey 1945–85, vol. 5, p. 368) and Sitātapatradhāraṇī (S 2529 and Ch c.001.12–198, ed. Bailey 1945–85, vol. 5, pp. 359–76). 231 See also above on the Kauśikaprajñāpāramitāsūtra.

229 Manuscripts H 147 MBD 24 b + 23 b + 25 b (ed. Bailey 1945–85, vol. 5, pp. 61–63; ed. and trans. in Skjaervo 2002, pp. 370–73). See Emmerick 1985 c and 1992 a, p. 36. 230 See Emmerick 1985 d. 231 For the Tibetan see Porció 2000.

403

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

The Bodhisattva Compendium and Other Doctrinal and Fragmentary Texts A few texts may be assigned to the category of treatises on Buddhist doctrine (Sanskrit śāstra). Among them, the substantial remains of the Old Khotanese work conventionally named Bodhisattva compendium [BsComp], no parallel of which has been identified, are of special interest. This prose work deals with the duties of Bodhisattvas and is known from a number of fragments, mostly published by Ernst Leumann. A special feature of the manuscript preserving it is the superimposition of Late Khotanese forms upon the original Old Khotanese text by means of additional vowel marks and interlinear additions of akṣaras. 232 Other unidentified Old Khotanese texts that possibly belong here are a fragment containing explanations of Buddhist technical terms, 233 and the so-called Bhavāṅga text (Text on the links [in the chain] of existence) that survives only in fragments. 234 Among the Khotanese Mahāyānist texts there are, finally, many such fragmentary, unidentified texts as the Ratnadvīpa text (Text on the Jewel Island). In the case of the unparalleled Kalparājasūtra (Sūtra of the King of rituals?), whose existence has been suggested by the terms kalparāja- and kalparāja- sūtra- that occur in some fragments, it is possible that it had in reality a quite different title, since those terms might well be short forms of other

232 Edition in Bailey 1945–85, vol. 5, pp. 91–102; earlier edition with translation and commentary in E. Leumann 1920, pp. 116–50. Additional fragments that were identified by Skjærvø and partly join with those studied by E. Leumann are Kha 1.133.1–5 (ed. Bailey 1945–85, vol. 5, pp. 148–50). Cf. Emmerick/Skjærvø 1990, pp. 501–2, and Skjærvø 1999 b, pp. 296–97. All the fragments have been edited by Skjærvø 2002 (see the list on p. 607). 233 Manuscript SI P 52.1–4: facsimiles in Emmerick/Vorob’ёva-Desjatovskaja 1993, pls. 27, 32–33, edition and translation in Emmerick/Vorob’ёva-Desjatovskaja 1995, pp. 43–46. 234 Hardinge 079.01 (ed. Bailey 1945–85, vol. 5, pp. 284–88; ed. and trans. in Skjærvø 2002, pp. 147–50 [Or 12637/63.1–15]), see Emmerick 1990 i and 1992 a, p. 37.

404

KHOTANESE LITERATURE

titles (cf. e.g. the Trailokyavijayamahākalparāja, Tōhoku 482, or Mahāsamayakalparāja, Taishō 882). 235

Esoteric Buddhism As far as the Vajrayāna (Diamond Vehicle), or esoteric Buddhism, is concerned, the fact that it had followers among the Khotanese is documented directly by only a few Late Khotanese texts preserved in tenth-century manuscripts from Dunhuang. Three of these texts have been termed simply Vajrayāna text, Vajrayāna verses, and Vajrayāna verses of Cā Kīmä-śani by Harold W. Bailey in his edition in Khotanese Buddhist Texts. All three texts are in need of further study. The Vajrayāna text, a short prose treatise on the rosary, belongs to a genre that is known also from similar Tibetan texts that were found in Dunhuang manuscripts, and is most likely based on a Tibetan source. 236 The Vajrayāna verses and the Vajrayāna verses of Cā Kīmä-śani, contained on the two sides of the same roll, are deśanā texts. The colophon at the end of the Vajrayāna verses contains a date corresponding to 971 . The beginning of another Vajrayāna deśanā text is found on the same roll, but was not assigned a special title by Bailey. 237 Moreover, though not strictly a religious text, also the Panegyric on King Viśa’ Dharma has Vajrayāna connections, as is revealed by its introduction whose first verse and a half provide a variant of 235 Ratnadvīpa text: H 147 MBD 24 a + 23 a + 25 a (ed. Bailey 1945–85, vol. 5, pp. 64–67; ed. and trans. in Skjærvø 2002, pp. 368–70), see Emmerick 1992 a, p. 38; Kalparājasūtra: cf. Emmerick 1992 a, p. 25. 236 Manuscript Ch ii 004: ed. Bailey 1951 a, pp. 143–46; translation in Bailey 1965 b; ed. and trans. in Skjærvø 2002, pp. 292–96. See R. A. Stein 1987, especially pp. 268–72. Cf. Emmerick 1992 a, p. 39. 237 Vajrayāna verses: Ch 1.0021 b, a (ed. Bailey 1951 a, pp. 149–51; ed. and trans. in Skjærvø 2002, pp. 551–53). Vajrayāna verses of Cā Kīmä-śani: Ch 1.0021 b, b1–55 (ed. Bailey 1951 a, pp. 151–55; ed. and trans. in Skjærvø 2002, pp. 553–56); translation of ll. 1–32 in Bailey 1978. The further Vajrayāna deśanā text is in Ch 1.0021 b, b56–65 (ed. Bailey 1951 a, pp. 155–56; ed. and trans. in Skjærvø 2002, p. 556). Cf. Emmerick 1992 a, p. 39.

405

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

the Vajrayāna verses of Cā Kīmä-śani. Finally, Vajrayāna is mentioned in the colophon of the Jātakastava, which was ordered to be written by the same Cā Kimä-śanä of the Vajrayāna verses, in two letters in verse (Or 8212.162.49 and 51, Bailey 1945–85, vol. 2, p. 4, and P 2785.17, Bailey 1945–85, vol. 3, p. 127 [Paris Z]) and in the Sanskrit-Khotanese conversation manual (see below).

Non-Doctrinal Texts Besides the great bulk of Buddhist texts, Khotanese literature fortunately knows also a number of non-doctrinal texts of the utmost interest. They are both translations and original compositions. The Buddhist environment in which they were produced surfaces quite often. Non-doctrinal texts include lyrical poetry, letters in verse, burlesque poetry, panegyrics, a geographical text, medical texts and a few bilinguals. In the absence of parallel texts, their interpretation is at times especially difficult because our knowledge of the Khotanese vocabulary rests mainly on religious texts. Lyric Poetry Lyric poetry is represented by collections of stanzas devoted to the magnification of love. 238 Some of these stanzas are quite beautiful and it is much to be regretted that not more of them are extant. Nine lyrical verses on love are found at the end of the StaëlHolstein miscellaneous roll, which comes in all likelihood from Dunhuang and contains, among other texts, a document dated 925 . 239 A few of them may be quoted: 238 Cf. Bailey 1964. 239 StH 52–73: edition, commentary and translation of the verses in Bailey 1951b, pp. 4–5, 32–43 and 45 (cf. Bailey 1945–85, vol. 2, pp. 75–76); facsimile in Thomas/Konow 1929, pp. 135–36; further references on the Staël-Holstein manuscript in Hamilton 1958, especially p. 116; cf. Emmerick 1992a, p. 46.

406

KHOTANESE LITERATURE [1] In the time of love sporting the flowers grow forth. I need this rose, good to look upon and scented. In my hand though the rose fade, yet for me a flower to remind my heart is no more needed. [2] If I should not see you, yet should get news of you, in my limbs rises the immortal elixir, the pores separately opening rise. In the heart the fuel-devouring fire now creates its flame. [3] Just such you are as a sugary sweetmeat, or such you are as they have reared for delight. Among men you are born, you have drunk divine milk, now you have become in the same birth a joy of the eyes … [8] From the time that I first saw you, (my) little loved one, when upon my heart there lay the hot iron ball of passion, my mind and wits have had no rest at all. My work has been with quivering mind. [9] Even when I sleep, in a dream I see you in my arms. I awake early with you. If I do not see you, (my) little beloved one, my limbs will die, all my joints will be loosened [StH 52–58, 69–73, Bailey’s translation with modifications]. 240

The main collection of lyrical verses is, however, the so-called Lyrical poem [Lyr]. This difficult text is known from six partly overlapping manuscripts from Dunhuang and deals with “the coming of spring, various flowers and birds, songs of the bards (māgadha), and homage to the amorous sports of young lovers”. The tradition of the text is not homogeneous. The Lyrical poem proper consists in thirty stanzas and is preserved virtually entirely in three manuscripts, two of which agree closely while the third differs. The three other, shorter manuscripts contain stanzas belonging to Lyr but in a different order. 241 Though the lyrical stanzas make up about two thirds of the poem, this closes with the admonition not to follow wordly pleasures and, displaying a good 240 Cf. Emmerick 2002, p. 7, for the translation of v. 9. 241 The main manuscripts are Ch 00266.1–42, P 2025.7–79 and P 2956, the shorter ones are P 2022, P 2896.49–55, P 2985 (ed. Bailey 1945–85, vol. 3, pp. 34–41, 42–44 and 45–48): facsimiles and synoptical text in Dresden 1977 a, critical edition with translation and commentary of vv. 22–29 (= P 2956.49–76 etc.) by Kumamoto 2000 (the quotation is from pp. 143–44). Cf. Emmerick 1992 a, p. 41.

407

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

knowledge of Indian mythological lore, recalls instances of men who were ruined because of their love of women: [23] You, ordinary men, do not become confounded! A strong one does not attach (himself) to the goodness of conditioned states. Saṃsāra is such a thing as a mirage on the plain. Meditate on the noble paths, go out of saṃsāra! … [27] Because of love Pāṇḍu had (his) head split in seven pieces. On account of Sitā Daśagrīva had (his) heart pierced with six arrows. Gautama had, through (his) anger at Śakra deva on account of Ahalyā, destroyed the land of Jambudvīpa, because of sexual intercourse. [28] The seer Vyāsa then on account of Kāśi-sundarī, on all fours drew a cart to the city like an ox. Overwhelmed by the whirlwind of love, intoxicated, that Udraka-Rāmaputra lost five magical powers. [29] The city of Asuravāsa burned down on account of women. Gopaka clouded (?) (his) virility because of Vāsiṭṭhī (?), Sunda and Upasunda, those two brothers together, because of Umā killed each other near the ocean [Lyr 23, 27–29, Kumamoto’s translation with modifications].

Verse Letters The genre of epistolary poetry was identified as such by Hiroshi Kumamoto. It consists of a comparatively large number of Late Khotanese letters in verse form that are contained in several Dunhuang manuscripts, to be dated in part to the tenth century. 242 The

242 See Kumamoto 1991, 1993, 1996 e, and cf. Emmerick 1992 a, p. 42. Texts belonging to this class of literature are contained in the following manuscripts: Ch 00269.9–22 (ed. Bailey 1945–85, vol. 2, pp. 42–43; facs. Bailey 1967 a, pls. lxxxi–lxxxii, ed., trans. and comm. Bailey 1968, pp. 107, 110, 112); Ch 00329 (ed. Bailey 1945–85, vol. 5, p. 384); Ch i.0019.34–38 (ed. Bailey 1945–85, vol. 5, p. 243); Or 8212.162.13–81 and 92–124 (ed. Bailey 1945–85, vol. 2, pp. 1–5, 6–8, facs. Bailey 1960, pls. ix–xii; ed., trans. and comm. Bailey 1968, pp. 19–33); P 2027.1–66 (ed. Bailey 1945–85, vol. 2, pp. 79–82, facs. Emmerick 1971 c, pls. ci–civ; ed., trans. and comm. by Kumamoto 1991); P 2739.38–57 (ed. Bailey 1945–85, vol. 2, pp. 86–87, facs. Emmerick 1971 c, pls. cxix, ed., trans. and comm. by Kumamoto 1993, pp. 156–63); P 2785 (ed. Bailey 1945–85, vol. 3, pp. 126–27 as Paris Z); P 2786.1–2 (ed. Bailey

408

KHOTANESE LITERATURE

verses, that mostly appear as unfinished drafts, are addressed to the family, teachers and friends in the homeland and present themselves as letters of travellers on the road. One of them was styled “poem of traveling bhikṣu [monk]” by Mark J. Dresden. 243 In fact, the verse letters are not drafts of letters that were intended to be actually sent, but elaborate literary works of at times lofty poetic mode developing the theme of separation from the homeland. A few quotations of such verse letters may give an idea of their character. Two letters open as follows: [1] I ask (after the health) of (my) kinsman, (my) brother, (who is) a heap of many virtues, manly, brave, brilliant, illustrious, sweet of senses, pleasant of speech, [2] firm, intelligent, audacious, virtuous, beloved of all, Maheśvara by deed and outlook, equal to Rāma and Lakṣmaṇa. [3] Fighting in every country and land, so he is known as in a drama. He scatters the enemies’ formation, the upholder of the good name [P 2739.38–42]. I ask (after the well-being), from Shazhou (Dunhuang) towards the homeland (Khotan), with the mind near, warm, affectionate and loving a thousand times, (of) the lady Phyada, the mother of the exceedingly intimate Yū Mautcan, (and of the one who is) agreeable, a heap of virtues, brave, virtuous, like Rāma, pure in senses, going generously, happy, straight in mind, good, a human jewel, manly with every matter, (namely) Ṣau Kharaśau, … friend. Would he remember me so [P 2897.14–17].

In another letter, a monk expresses his feelings thus:

1945–85, vol. 2, p. 93; ed., trans. and comm. by Kumamoto 1982, pp. 67, 116, 138–44); P 2891 (ed. Bailey 1945–85, vol. 3, pp. 79–81); P 2897.14–44 (ed. Bailey 1945–85, vol. 2, pp. 114–16, facs. Emmerick 1973 d, pls. clii–cliii, ed., trans. and comm. by Kumamoto 1993, pp. 163–79); P 2925 (ed. Bailey 1945–85, vol. 3, pp. 100–102); P 4099v1–19 (ed. Bailey 1945–85, vol. 3, pp. 109–10 as P 2942); P 4649 (ed. Bailey 1945–85, vol. 2, pp. 124–25); P 5536 bis, a (ed. Bailey 1945–85, vol. 3, p. 118 as P 5536 b; ed., trans. and facs. by Emmerick 1975, pp. 224–30 and pl. xxxv). For the London manuscripts see the edition and translation in Skjærvø 2002, pp. 45–52, 508–9, 522, 539–40. 243 Dresden 1977 b, p. 72 with reference to P 2027.1–66.

409

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN Now I made one inquiry on account of love, I, the humble monk Javendrākarasiṃha in Shazhou, who left (my) own family (mūlagotra) (and) made the life of a pigeon in a foreign land. I did not commit myself to excellent learning nor, 244 alternatively, did I serve (my) mother and father. Thus, because of confusion I produced thick karma (and) am (now) washing (off myself), on the long road of the rough desert, the deeds of (previous) births which I sowed. Or, alternatively, in this birth I did not accomplish the good vehicle. Due to the maturation of karma I did not serve (my) mother and father. Tutelar deities gave (me) indeed the way. It is necessary thus for me that to every and each one (of them), I can send clothes for the sake of love. In order to tell (them) about the road here towards China, I was busy with this matter, the cattle and the clothes. If I, the humble servant, may be remembered now by them, then (it is as if I were) with them, the loving parents and brothers [P 2027.23–35, Kumamoto’s translations with modifications].

Burlesque Poetry The only specimen of burlesque poetry is a ten-line fragment from Dunhuang containing a humorous poem. 245 This may be referred to as the Jinshan’s poem [Jinshan], since it was written by one Kīma-śanä, who is possibly to be identified with the contemporaneous Zhang Jinshan (cā kīmä-śąnä) mentioned in the colophon of the Jātakastava and other Late Khotanese religious texts: (Since) when you were born, Jinshan, how many years have passed to you? how many months have passed to you? (and) days up to the present (time)? how many meals have you eaten? how many have you refrained from afterwards? Now you quickly tell (us), so that the doubt disappears. The years (are) twenty-three, the months two hundred and seventy, the days are two thousand and sixty. In all of those months, twenty-three thousand, eight hundred and fifty meals you have eaten up to now [ Jinshan 5–10, after Kumamoto]. 244 Emend vä to nä. 245 Ms. P 2745: ed. Bailey 1945–85, vol. 2, pp. 92–93; facs. in Emmerick 1971 c, pl. cxv; ed., trans. and comm. in Kumamoto 1995, pp. 243–45.

410

KHOTANESE LITERATURE

Panegyrics Panegyrical literature comprehends three eulogies that extol the figures and deeds of three kings of the Khotanese Viśa’ dynasty. Though they refer to historical persons and events contemporary with their composition and can be regarded as documents, they are characterised by an elevated rhetorical tone and a very elaborate style that recall that of Sanskrit inscriptional eulogies (praśasti). The metrical Panegyric on King Viśa’ Kīrtta [Viśa’ Kīrtta] (r. from 791 ), 246 which is preserved, presumably only in part, in a manuscript from the region of Khotan, celebrates the King’s funding, to crown his 16th regnal year (806), of religious activity for the sake of welfare in his reign, then under Tibetan sway247: [1] When that good time was then, when that great (bodhisattva) of the good aeon, the gracious Lord Viśa’ Kīrtta, had birth here by virtue of his merits, [2] (there arose) abundance in every thing here thanks to the merits of the King, as well as thanks to the Tibetan chiefs who are protecting this Khotanese land. [3] His sixteenth regnal year has passed, great esteem has arisen for him because of the honour (shown) to the tutelary deities and on account of his support of the Law. [4] Then, with faith (and) in love, he has invited two teachers hither to Gara, he at that time, at the beginning of the month of Rrāhaja, (saying): [5] “For the sake of the protection of the land, strive there in the temple well (and) uninterruptedly for one year, so that all pains disappear!” [6] Whatever means are necessary to them for activity, he has sent all here for them [Viśa’ Kīrtta 1–6].

The other panegyrics are known from two Dunhuang manuscripts. The metrical Panegyric on King Viśa’ Dharma [Viśa’ Dharma] (r. from 978), 248 which opens with a lengthy Vajrayānist invocation mentioning the Buddha Vairocana, was written on the occasion of

246 See Kumamoto 1996 a, p. 42. 247 Ms. M.T. b.ii.0065: ed. Bailey 1945–85, vol. 2, p. 72; ed. and trans. in Bailey 1968, pp. 90–91, with facs. in Bailey 1963 b, pl. lxvi; ed. and trans. in Konow 1939 b; ed. and trans. in Skjærvø 2002, p. 285. 248 See Pulleyblank 1954, p. 94.

411

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

an embassy the King sent to Dunhuang in his 5th regnal year (982) to ask for the hand of a Chinese princess249 : [13] Of that Viśa’ Dharma, king of Bodhisattvas, it was the fifth regnal year—the Zhongxing era being the beginning—and the horse presided over the year, the month was the seventh, when there arose a wish in accordance with his divine mind: [14] a queen, desirable, pure, born among the Chinese, for the sake of the continuance of the golden royal family. He deigned to send hither to Shazhou [= Dunhuang] a full hundred and fifty envoys of heroic lineage, best sons of the best [Viśa’ Dharma 13–14].

The long and elaborated Panegyric on King Viśa’ Saṃgrāma [Viśa’ Saṃgrāma] (r. 9th century?), 250 which is followed by way of comparison by the Kaniṣkāvadāna, praises the King, on the occasion of the ceremony performed by monks at the end of the rainy season, for his religious merits imparting spiritual and material well-being to the land of Khotan and for erecting a monastery. 251 Another eulogy of King Viśa Saṃgrāma is found at the beginning of a verse letter. 252 Itinerary Apart from the long list of cities of Eastern Central Asia in the StaëlHolstein roll, 253 the only known geographical text in Khotanese literature is the so-called Itinerary [Itin]. This is the description 249 Ms. Ch i.0021a.a: ed. Bailey 1945–85, vol. 2, pp. 53–55; ed. and trans. in Bailey 1968, pp. 68–70, with facs. in Bailey 1963b, pls. xlix–li; ed. and trans. in Skjærvø 2002, pp. 522–24. 250 See Kumamoto 1986, pp. 235–39, and Skjærvø 1991, p. 269. 251 Ms. P 2787.1–154: ed. Bailey 1945–85, vol. 2, pp. 101–7; trans. and comm. by Bailey 1965 a. 252 Ms. Or 8212.162.14–36: ed. Bailey 1945–85, vol. 2, pp. 1–3; ed., trans. and comm. in Bailey 1968, pp. 19–20, 25 and 29–30, with facs. in Bailey 1960, pls. ix–x; ed. and trans. in Skjærvø 2002, pp. 45–47. 253 StH 10–24: edition and commentary by Bailey 1951b, pp. 2–3 and 10–15 (cf. Bailey 1945–85, vol. 2, pp. 73–74); facsimile in Thomas/Konow 1929, pp. 133–34.

412

KHOTANESE LITERATURE

of a southward journey through Gilgit and Chilās to Kashmir, which at that time was under the rule of King Abhimanyugupta (958–72 ). 254 The lines devoted to Gilgit, Chilās and the capital of Kashmir, read as follows: From that southwards along the river is a great town Gīḍagīttä (Gilgit) by name. There are eight stone monasteries. The king’s residences are there, in four districts. From that southwards is the road to the Indian country. Along the Golden River there upon the river bank is a great city Śīlathasa (Chilās) by name. There beside (?) the river are village’s quarters (of buildings). Upon the river bank are pomegranate trees. Afterwards they cross over by means of bridges (?) … At one day’s distance there is the city Adhiṣṭana. At that town Adhiṣṭhana are three mouths of the river Vīttasa (= Vitastā) by name. There are great boats, twenty thousand. At the mouth to the west is the lake of the town. This town is continuous for one day. In the country of Kaśmīra are 60,000 great villages, in the one village three hundred thousand quarters (of buildings), and one quarter with three hundred and sixty houses. There stand great monasteries with stūpas, five hundred, with stone cells; smaller monasteries unnumbered. The king there is Abhimanyugupta by name. There are many elephants, the army commanders are four; the army is of hundreds of myriads (of men), all with armour [Itin 12–16, 29–35, Bailey’s translation with modifications].

Medical Texts Khotanese medical texts belong to the Indian āyurvedic tradition, which spread in Central Asia along with Buddhism. In fact, the Vyadhipraśamanaparivarta (Chapter on healing illness) of the Suvarṇabhāsottamasūtra refers to principles that are similar to those of āyurvedic medicine. 255 Various fragments of medical 254 Ch i.0021 a, b (ed. Bailey 1945–85, vol. 2, pp. 55–57): facsimile in Bailey 1961, pls. 2.lii–lvi, new edition with translation and commentary in Bailey 1968, pp. 70–73; ed. and trans. in Skjærvø 2002, pp. 524–26. See also Morgenstierne 1942 for the tentative identification of some of the place names. 255 See Nobel 1951.

413

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

texts256 and large portions of Late Khotanese prose translations of two Sanskrit metrical treatises are extant: the Siddhasāra and the Jīvakapustaka. The Jīvakapustaka [JP] (The book of Jīvaka), 257 whose only manuscript presumably dates from the tenth century and consists of 71 folios (f. 69 is numbered both 69 and 71, whereas f. 70 never existed), is said to be a teaching of the Buddha to the physician Jīvaka, who is called “the king of physicians” in l. 358 of the Mañjuśrīnairātmyāvatārasūtra (hence the conventional title invented by Bailey).258 The text is bilingual and alternates paragraphs in Sanskrit and Khotanese; only the first chapter alternates the two languages sentence by sentence. The work is an otherwise unknown collection of prescriptions taken from various texts and organised by type of preparation in complementary chapters introduced by the Sanskrit augural formula siddham ‘success’ as most of the chapters of the Book of Zambasta. Chapter one (§§ 1–3)259 contains an antidote (Khotanese agada- from Sanskrit agada-); chapter two (§§ 4–46) deals with drugs mixed with clarified butter (Khotanese gvīha’- rūna- lit. ‘cow oil’, Sanskrit ghta-); chapter three (§§ 47–73) with drugs mixed with sesame oil (Khotanese kūṃjsavīnaa- rūna-, 256 For the fragments see Emmerick 1992 a, p. 45; the St. Petersburg fragments SI P 45.1–3 and SI P 102 b4–15 are now published in Emmerick/Vorob’ёvaDesjatovskaja 1993, pls. 23–25 and 105, and Emmerick/Vorob’ёva-Desjatovskaja 1995, pp. 36–37 and 134–35; four unpublished fragments in the Crosby collection (Washington, Library of Congress) that belong to a single medical text and refer to needles and cauterisation are reported by Emmerick 1992 b, p. 673, and 1993 b, p. 59. 257 Manuscript Ch ii 003: facsimile in Bailey 1938, pp. 69–141; edition of the Khotanese with translation and glossary by Konow 1941, cf. Bailey 1942 c. The Khotanese and Sanskrit texts were edited on facing pages by Bailey 1945–85, vol. 1, pp. 135–95. A. F. Rudolf Hoernle prepared a study on ff. 44–72r, which he intended to publish under the title “An ancient medical manuscript from Turkestan” as the second volume of Hoernle 1916 (manuscript Eur D 723 of the Oriental and India Office Collections of the British Library): see Emmerick 1992 c, 1994 a, 1997 c. Cf. Emmerick 1992 a, pp. 42–43. 258 See Bailey 1945–85, vol. 1, p. vii. 259 Numbering after Konow 1941.

414

KHOTANESE LITERATURE

Sanskrit taila-); and chapter four, that is only partly preserved (§§ 74–93; of § 93 only part of the Sanskrit is extant), with powders (Khotanese cṇa- from Sanskrit cūrṇa-). The Khotanese version is based on the corrupt Sanskrit, which the translator could not understand fully, as is indicated by translation mistakes. 260 For each prescription, the instructions for the preparations are followed by indications on its use. Twenty-nine of the ninety-three prescriptions have been identified in Indian medical texts. 261 The Khotanese version of the Siddhasāra [Si] (The perfect selection) of Ravigupta (about 650 ), which is wholly preserved in Sanskrit and Tibetan, is contained in 64 of the 65 folios of manuscript Ch ii 002 (f. 100 contains a different medical text). 262 A variant of ff. 5–14 (§§ 1.25–2.32) 263 is provided by the manuscript P 2892. Of the original thirty-one chapters, the still extant ones are those on the theoretical foundations (1), on drugs (2), on food (3: up to § 3.26.12), on piles and genital fistulae (13: from § 13.27), on yellow disease (14), on hiccoughs and uncomfortable breathing (15: §§ 15.1 and 15.15–23), on swollen testicles (18: from § 18.53), on dry excrement and heart diseases (19), on madness and epilepsy (20), on diseases due to wind (one of the three humours of Indian medicine together with bile and phlegm) and on rheumatism (21), on liquor disease (22), on erysipelas (23), on swellings (24), on healing wounds (25), and on diseases of the eyes, ears, nose, tongue, teeth and throat (26: §§ 26.0–68 and 26.75–90). The Khotanese version, presumably dating from the tenth century , contains an introduction in verse. 264 From it we know that the work was translated from Tibetan and not directly from Sanskrit—although the 260 Emmerick 1979 b, p. 243. 261 See Emmerick 1979 b, pp. 235–37. 262 Facsimile in Bailey 1938, pp. 1–67; edition in Bailey 1945–85, vol. 1, pp. 1–104. R. E. Emmerick has left among his papers a virtually finished critical edition and translation of the whole text and the beginning of a glossary (the vowels and the letter ka). Cf. Emmerick 1992 a, pp. 43–45. For the Sanskrit and Tibetan texts see Emmerick 1980–82. On the date of Ravigupta see Emmerick 1975–76 and cf. Wujastik 1985, 1 pl. 263 Numbering after Emmerick 1980–82. 264 Critical edition and translation by Emmerick 1983 b, pp. 19–21.

415

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN

translator consulted the Sanskrit original and corrected mistakes of the Tibetan version 265—and why it was translated: By means of collections of prescriptions they performed (medical) practice in the whole country. Disease (was) unrecognised because they did not know the theory of it: the unequal humour, time and the season, (their) intervals too. Inappropriate medicines struck them down: many beings died [Si A5, Emmerick’s translation].

This could be an allusion either to the spread of the Yogaśataka (Collection of hundred prescriptions) also in Central Asia as suggested by Ronald E. Emmerick 266 or even to such “practical” works as the Jīvakapustaka. Bilingual Texts No linguistic work is known in Khotanese. Among the extant texts from Dunhuang, however, there are a word-list and a few bilingual texts that originated presumably from the need, on the part of members of the Khotanese community in Dunhuang, to acquire some knowledge of foreign languages for practical purposes. The word-list is a Turkish-Khotanese bilingual, which arranges systematically, and partially glosses in Khotanese, Old Turkish words for parts of the body and technical terms concerned with archery and horse equipment, presumably to be used in military instruction. 267 The most extensive of the bilingual texts contains Sanskrit words and sentences, partly arranged in groups of related items, that are followed by a Khotanese rendering. It appears as a veritable conversation manual. 268 The other bilingual texts are three 265 See Emmerick 1971 b. 266 Emmerick 1983 b, p. 22. 267 Manuscript P 2892.166–85 (ed. Bailey 1945–85, vol. 3, pp. 81–82, where the lines are incorrectly numbered 165–84): latest edition with commentary, indexes and facsimile by Emmerick/Róna-Tas 1992. Cf. Emmerick 1992 a, p. 48. 268 Manuscript P 5538 b.9–87 (ed. Bailey 1945–85, vol. 3, pp. 121–24): latest edition with commentary, English translation and glossaries by Kumamoto 1988. Cf. Emmerick 1992 a, pp. 47–48.

416

KHOTANESE LITERATURE

short collections of sentences and a few single words in Chinese in Brāhmī script with Khotanese translation. They were written by Khotanese living in Dunhuang and were presumably meant for learning useful phrases and words in Chinese. 269 It may be of some interest to quote sentences 26–34 from the Sanskrit-Khotanese bilingual (translated from the Khotanese after Kumamoto with modifications): — Have you any books? — Yes, I have. — Sūtra, Abhidharma, Vinaya or Vajrayāna? Among these, which book is it then? — Which book do you like? — I like Vajrayāna. Please, teach it. — I shall teach. [Alternatively:] I shall go soon. When shall I teach? — As long as you deign not to go, please teach. — Learn!

269 Manuscripts Ch 00271.2–5 (ed. Bailey 1945–85, vol. 2, p. 49), Or 8212.162.1–12 (ed. Bailey 1945–85, vol. 2, p. 1; partially interpreted by him in Bailey 1968, pp. 18–19), P 2927.4–25 (ed. Bailey 1945–85, vol. 3, p. 103) and S 5212 a (ed. Bailey 1945–85, vol. 3, p. 136). All these texts have been studied by Takata 1988, pp. 203–4, 217–20 and 435 (S 5212 a), pp. 197, 204–6, 220–24 and 436 (Or 8212.162), pp. 197, 206–7, 224–27 and 437 (P 2927), pp. 223–24 (Ch 00271). Cf. Emmerick 1992 a, p. 48, Kumamoto 1996 e, pp. 94–96, and Skjærvø 2002, pp. 44–45 and 515.

417

ABBREVIATIONS A AAASH AAWL ABD AcIr ActOr Adhś AION-L AīZ AJSLL AmH AMI Amitāyus Amta Ananta ANRm Any Aog AOASH AoF APAW ApS ArOr AsH Aśoka Av. Avdh

Āfrīngān Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae. Budapest Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur. Mainz Abnōn Barm-e Dilak Acta Iranica Acta Orientalia. Copenhagen Adhyardhaśatikāprajñāpāramitāsūtra Annali del’Istituto Universitario Orientale di Napoli. Sezione linguistica Ayādgār ī Zarērān American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literature Ariaramnes Hamadān Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran. Berlin Hymn to Amitāyus Amtaprabhadhāraṇī Anantamukhanirhāradhāraṇīsūtra Ardašīr I Naqš-e Rostam Nērang ī Ātaxš Aogəmadaēcā Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae. Budapest Altorientalische Forschungen. Berlin Abhandlungen der Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-Historische Klasse. Berlin Aparimitāyuḥsūtra Archiv Orientálni. Prague Arsames Hamadān Aśokāvadāna Avestan Avalokiteśvaradhāraṇī

419

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN Az A2S BAI Bcd BEFEO Bk BMitt BsComp BSOAS BSOS BTT C CAJ Ch CHI CII CLI CM CPh CRAIBL D Db DB Dd DE DhŚ DkM DM DN DP DS DZ E

Āfrīn ī Zardušt Artaxerxes II Susa Bulletin of the Asia Institute. Ames, Iowa Bhadracaryādeśanā Bulletin de l’École française d’Extrème-Orient. Paris Bhadrakalpikasūtra Baghdader Mitteilungen. Berlin Bodhisattva compendium Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies. London Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies. London Berliner Turfantexte Texts of the Turfan collection in Nestorian script Central Asiatic Journal. Wiesbaden Ch’ien-fo-tung (Qianfodong ‘Caves of the Tousand Buddhas’), Dunhuang (London, British Library) Cambridge History of Iran. Ed. by E. Yarshater. Cambridge Corpus Inscriptionum Iranicarum. London Compendium linguarum iranicarum. See Schmitt 1989 a Cyrus Dašt-e Morghāb Classical Philology. Chicago Comptes rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres. Paris Dandan Öilik, Khotan region (London, British Library) Darband inscriptions Darius Bīsotūn Dādestān ī dēnīg Darius Elvend Dharmaśarīrasūtra Dēnkard according to the edition by Madan 1911 Darius Dašt-e Morghāb Darius Naqš-e Rostam Darius Persepolis Darius Susa Darius Suez Endere, Southern Silk Route (London, British Library)

420

ABBREVIATIONS EIr EW F Fīō FīP FM 25.1 Fs. GIrPh G GBd H H Hardinge HdO Hdt. Hedin Hēr HJAS Hdaya HS IDN1 IF IIJ Iledong IO 151.15 Itin JA JAAS JAOS JCOI JHS Jinshan Jñ

Encyclopædia Iranica. See Yarshater 1985– East and West. Rome Farhad Beg, Khotan region (London, British Library) Frahang ī ōīm(-ēk) Frahang ī Pahlawīg Fonds manuscrit, probably from the Khotan region (Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France) Festschrift Grundriss der iranischen Philologie. See Geiger/ Kuhn 1896–1904 Gāh Great(er) Bundahišn Hoernle collection, from the Khotan region (London, British Library) Hāδōxt nask Hardinge collection, from the Khotan region (London, British Library) Handbuch der Orientalistik. Leiden/Köln Herodotus Hedin collection, from the Khotan region (Stockholm, Ethnographic Museum) Hērbedestān Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies. Cambridge, Mass. Hdayasūtra Historische Sprachforschung. Göttingen Dašt-e Navūr inscription Indogermanische Forschungen Indo-Iranian Journal. Dordrecht Iledong, Khotan region (London, British Library) India Office collection, probably from the Khotan region (London, British Library) Itinerary Journal Asiatique. Paris Journal of Asian and African Studies. Tokyo Journal of the American Oriental Society. Michigan Journal of the Cama Oriental Institute. Bombay Journal of Hellenic Studies. London Jinshan poem Jñānolkadhāraṇī

421

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN JNES JP JRAS JS JSAI Kaniṣka KD Kha Khot. (IO) KKZ KNRb KNRm KSM KV LSt Lyr M Mañj MARB Mem. MIO MNFd MP MPPS MSP MSS MT MX N Nanda NF NGWG NPi NVS Ny OLA

Journal of Near Eastern Studies. Chicago Jīvakapustaka Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society. London Jātakastava Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam. Jerusalem Kaniṣkāvadāna Karmāṃ deśana Khādaliq, Khotan region (London, British Library) Khotanese, India Office collection, both from Khotan and Dunhuang (London, British Library) Kerdīr Kaʿba-ye Zardošt Kerdīr Naqš-e Rajab Kerdīr Naqš-e Rostam Kerdīr Sar Mašhad Karmavibhaṅga Love story Lyrical poem Text of the Turfan Collection in Manichaean Script Mañjuśrīnairātmyāvatārasūtra Mémoires couronnés et autres mémoires publiés par l’Académie royale de Belgique. Bruxelles Memorial volume Mitteilungen des Instituts für Orientforschung. Berlin Mihr-Narseh Fīrūzābād Middle Persian Mahāprajñāpāramitāsūtra Mahāsāhasrapramardanī Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft. Munich Mazār Tāgh, Khotan region (London, British Library) (Dādestān ī) Mēnōg ī Xrad Nērangestān Nandāvadāna neue Folge Nachrichten von der (Königlichen) Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen. PhilosophischHistorische Klasse Narseh Pāikūlī Narseh Bīšāpūr Niyāyišn Orientalia lovaniensia analecta. Louvain

422

ABBREVIATIONS OLZ OP Or OS P P PS Rāma Reuter RHR RivDd Rk RSO Rvvp S S SBAW SBE Sdhp Sgh Śgs ŠGW ŠH SHAW Si SI M SI P

Orientalistische Literaturzeitung. Berlin Old Persian Oriental collection, from Dunhuang (London, British Library) Orientalia Suecana. Stockholm Pelliot collection, from Dunhuang (Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France) Pursišnīhā Pradakṣiṇasūtra Rāmāyaṇa Reuter fragments in the Mannerheim collection, probably from the Khotan region (Helsinki University Library) Revue de Histoire des Religions. Paris Pahlavi Rivāyat accompanying the Dādestān ī dēnīg Ratnakūṭasūtra Rivista degli Studi Orientali. Roma Raśmivimalaviśuddhaprabhānāmadhāraṇī Stein collection: S 2471 and S 5212 a from Dunhuang (London, British Library) Sīrōze Sitzungsberichte der (Königlich-) Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, PhilosophischPhilologische Klasse und Historische Klasse Sacred Books of the East. Ed. by F. M. Müller. Oxford Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra Saṅghāṭasūtra Śūraṅgamasamādhisūtra Škand-gumānīg wizār Šābuhr I Hājjiābād Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-Historische Klasse Siddhasāra Serindia, Malov collection, from the Khotan region (St. Petersburg Branch of the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences) Serindia, Petrovskij collection, from the Khotan region (St. Petersburg Branch of the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences)

423

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN ŠKZ ŠNRb Šnš Šnš, Suppl. So SÖAW SOR SPAW ŠPs-I ŠPs-II ŠTBn-I ŠTBn-II ŠTBq StH StII StIr Sudh Sum Suv SV ŠVŠ T Taishō Tōhoku TPS TVA Vajr Vd VDI Vim Viśa’ Dharma Viśa’ Kīrtta Viśa’ Saṃgrāma VJ VkN

Šābuhr I Kaʿba-ye Zardošt Šābuhr I Naqš-e Rajab Šāyist nē šāyist The Supplementary Texts to the Šāyist nē šāyist Texts of the Turfan collection in Sogdian script Sitzungsberichte der österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Wien Serie Orientale Roma. Rome Sitzungsberichte der preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Berlin Šābuhr Saka King Persepolis Seleukos Persepolis Šābuhr II Tāq-e Bostān Šābuhr III Tāq-e Bostān Šābuhr I Tang-e Borāq Staël-Holstein roll, most probably from Dunhuang Studien zur Indologie und Iranistik. Reinbek Studia Iranica Sudhanāvadāna Sumukha(nāmadhāraṇī)sūtra Suvarṇabhāsottamasūtra Sukhāvatīvyūhasūtra Šābuhr I Bīšāpūr Texts of the Turfan collection Taishō shinshū daizōkyō. 100 vols. [quoted by text number]. Tokyo 1924–35 A catalogue-index of the Tibetan Buddhist Canons (Bkaḥ-ḥgyur and Bstan-ḥgyur) [quoted by catalogue number]. Sendai 1934 Transactions of the Philological Society. London Les textes vieil-avestiques. See Kellens/Pirart 1988–91 Vajracchedikāsūtra Vīdēvdād Vestnik Drevnej Istorii. Moscow Book of Vimalakīrti Panegyric on King Viśa’ Dharma Panegyric on King Viśa’ Kīrtta Panegyric on King Viśa’ Saṃgrāma Vesantara Jātaka. See Benveniste 1946 Vimalakīrtinirdeśasūtra

424

ABBREVIATIONS Vn Vr Vyt Wd WZKM XE XP XS Y YH Yt Z ZDMG ZII ZWY

Vaēϑā nask Visperad Vištāsp yašt/Yasht Wīdēwdād Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes. Wien Xerxes Elvend Xerxes Persepolis Xerxes Susa Yasna Yasna Haptaŋhāiti. See Narten 1986 Yašt (Yasht) Book of Zambasta Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft. Wiesbaden Zeitschrift für Indologie und Iranistik. Leipzig Zand ī Wahman Yasn

425

BIBLIOGRAPHY Abrahamian, R. 1958. Ardavirap Namak, Yušti Frian. Erevan. ʿAfifi, R. 1963 (1342). Ardāvirāf-Nāmak [The Book of Ardāvirāf]. Mashhad. Ahn, G. 1992. Religiöse Herrscherlegitimation im achämenidischen Iran: die Voraussetzungen und die Struktur ihrer Argumentation. Leiden/ Louvain (AcIr 31). Alfaric, P. 1918–19. Les écritures manichéennes. 2 vols. Paris. Alram, M. 1986. Iranisches Personennamenbuch. Vol. 4: Nomina propria Iranica in nummis. Materialgrundlagen zu den iranischen Personennamen auf antiken Münzen. Wien. Amouzgar, J. and Tafazzoli, A. 2000. Le cinquième livre du Dēnkard. Transcription, Traduction et Commentaire. Paris (StIr, Cahier 23). Āmuzgār, Ž. 1983 (1362). “Do Ardāvirāf-nāme [Two books of Ardāvirāf].” Āyande 9.2, pp. 95–105. Āmuzgār, Ž. and Tafażżoli, A. 1992 (1371). Osṭūre-ye Zendegi-ye Zardošt [The Legend of Zarathustra’s Life]. Teheran. Andreas, F. C., ed. 1882. The book of the Mainyō-i-Khard, also an old fragment of the Bundehesh. Kiel. Andreas, F. C. and Barr, K. 1933. “Bruchstücke einer Pehlevi-Übersetzung der Psalmen.” SPAW 1933, pp. 91–152. Andreas, F. C. and Henning, W. B. 1932. “Mitteliranische Manichaica aus Chinesisch-Turkestan I.” SPAW 1932, pp. 173–222 [= Henning 1977, I, pp. 1–48]. — 1933. “Mitteliranische Manichaica aus Chinesisch-Turkestan II.” SPAW 1933, pp. 292–363 [= Henning 1977, I, pp. 191–260]. — 1934. “Mitteliranische Manichaica aus Chinesisch-Turkestan III.” SPAW 1934, pp. 848–912 [= Henning 1977, I, pp. 275–339]. Anklesaria, B. T. 1935. Kâr-nâma-î Ardakhšîr-î Pâpakân. Bombay. — 1949. Pahlavi Vendidâd (Zand-î Jvîṭ-dêv-dâṭ). Transliteration and Translation in English. Ed. by D. D. Kapadia. Bombay. — 1956 a. Zand-Akāsīh. Iranian or Greater Bundahišn. Transliteration and Translation in English. Bombay.

427

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN — 1956 b. “A Description and Summary of the Text of Darakht-i Asūrīk.” JCOI 38, pp. 37–40. — 1957. Zand-î Vohûman Yasn and Two Pahlavi Fragments with Text, Transliteration, and Translation in English. Bombay. —, ed. 1962. Rivâyat-î Hêmît-î Ašavahištân. Vol. I. Bombay. — 1964. Vichitakiha-i Zatsparam with Text and Introduction. Part I. Bombay. — 1969. The Pahlavi Rivāyat of Āturfarnbag and Farnbag-srōš. Vol. I: Text and Transcription. Vol. II: Introduction and Translation. Bombay. Anklesaria P. K. 1943. “Dātastān-i Dīnī, porsišn 90.” In: Dinshah Irani Memorial Volume: Papers on Zoroastrian and Iranian Subjects Contributed by Various Scholars in Honour of the Late Mr. Dinshah Jijibhay Irani. Bombay, pp. 232–54. — 1958. The Datistan-i-Dinik. Part II: Pursishn XLI–XCII. London. — 1964. “Dādestān ī Dīnīk 91.” In: Dr. J. M. Unvala Memorial Volume. Bombay, pp. 191–97. — 1970 a. “Dādestān ī Dīnīk 89.” In: Henning Mem., pp. 8–13. —, ed. 1970 b. The Bondahesh. Being a Facsimile Edition of the Manuscript TD1. Teheran (Iranian Culture Foundation 88). Anklesaria, T. D., ed. 1908. The Bûndahishn. Being a Facsimile of the TD Manuscript no. 2 Brought from Persia by Dastur Tîrandâz and now Preserved in the Late Ervad Tahmuras Library. Bombay. —, ed. 1911. The Datistan-i-Dinik. Part I: Pursishn I–XL. Bombay. —, ed. 1912. The Social Code of the Parsees in Sasanian Times or Mādigān-i-Hazār Dādistān. Part II. Bombay. — 1913. Dānāk-u Mainyō-i Khard. Pahlavi, Pazand and Sanskrit Texts. With an appendix: Awar čimī i kustī e nigēz i vēhdīn. Bombay. Antia, E. K. 1900. Kârnâmak-i Artakhshîr Pâpakân. The Original Pahlavi Text, with Transliteration in Avesta Characters, Translations into English and Gujârati, and Selections from the Shâhnâmeh. Bombay. — 1908. “The Legend of Keresaspa.” In: Spiegel Mem., pp. 93–98. —, ed. 1909. Pâzend Texts. Bombay. Asha, R. 1999 a. The Cities of Erān šahr Memoir / šahrestānīhā ī erān šahr ayyādgār. The Wonders and Mirabilia of Sagestān / abdīh ud sahīgīh ī sagestān. Text, Transcription and Translation. Vincennes. — 1999 b. The Book of the Acts of Ardašir Son of Pābag. Kārnāmag ī ardašir ī pābagān. Text, Transcription and Translation. Vincennes. Asmussen, J. P. 1961. The Khotanese Bhadracaryādeśanā: Text, Translation, and Glossary, together with the Buddhist Sanskrit Original. København.

428

BIBLIOGRAPHY — 1965. Xuāstvānīft. Studies in Manichaeism. Copenhagen. — 1966. “Der Manichäismus als Vermittler literarisches Gutes.” Temenos 2, pp. 5–21. — 1970 a. “A Jewish-Persian Munāzare.” In: Iran Society Silver Jubilee Souvenir 1944–1969. Calcutta, pp. 23–27. — 1970 b. “The List of Fruits in the Bundahišn.” In: Henning Mem., pp. 14–19. — 1971. “Einige Bemerkungen zur sasanidischen Handarz-Literatur.” In: Atti del convegno internazionale sul tema: La Persia nel Medioevo (Roma, 31 marzo–5 aprile 1970). Roma, pp. 269–76. — 1975. Manichaean Literature. New York. Asmussen, J. P., s. Böhlig, A. Asmussen Fs., 1988. ‫ﺑﺮگ ﺳﺒﺰ‬. A Green Leaf. Papers in Honour of Professor Jes P. Asmussen. Leiden (AcIr 28). Aßfalg, J. and Krüger P. 1975. Kleines Wörterbuch des christlichen Orients. Wiesbaden. Azarpay, G. 1969. “Nine Inscribed Choresmian Bowls.” Artibus Asiae 31, pp. 185–203. Bacher, W. 1911. “Zur jüdisch-persischen Literatur.” ZDMG 65, pp. 523–35. Back, M. 1978. Die sassanidischen Staatsinschriften. Studien zur Orthographie und Phonologie des Mittelpersischen der Inschriften zusammen mit einem etymologischen Index des mittelpersischen Wortgutes und einem Textcorpus der behandelten Inschriften. Téhéran/Liège (AcIr 18). Bahār, M. 1966 (1345). Vāže-nāme-ye Bondaheš. Glossary of Pahlavi Bundahish. Teheran (Iranian Culture Foundation Publications 17). — 1972 (1351). Vāže-nāme-ye Gozīdehā-ye Zādesparam [Glossary of the Selections of Zādspram]. Teheran. — 1991–92. Bondaheš. Farnbaġ dādagī [The Bondaheš of Farnbaġ Dādagī]. Teheran. Bagchi, P. C. 1927. Le canon bouddhique en Chine: les traducteurs et les traductions. Vol. 1. Paris. Bailey, H. W. 1930. “To the Zamasp Namak I.” BSOS 6 (1930–32), pp. 55–85. — 1931. “To the Zamasp Namak II.” BSOS 6 (1930–32), pp. 581–600. — 1933. The Bundahišn. Unpublished D. Phil. thesis. Oxford University. — 1937. “Hvatanica[, I].” BSOS 8 (1935–37), pp. 923–36, pl. vi. — 1938. Codices Khotanenses: India Office Library Ch. ii 002, Ch. ii 003, Ch. 00274 reproduced in facsimile with an introduction. Copenhagen. — 1940. “Rāma, II.” BSOAS 10 (1940–42), pp. 559–98. — 1942 a. “Kaṇaiska.” JRAS 1942, pp. 14–28.

429

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN — 1942 b. “Hvatanica, IV.” BSOAS 10 (1940–42), pp. 886–924. — 1942 c. Review of Konow 1941. BSOAS 10 (1940–42), pp. 1021–23. — 1943. Zoroastrian Problems in the Ninth-Century Books. Oxford [repr. 1971]. — 1945–85. Khotanese Texts. Vol. 1 (1945); vol. 2 (1954); vol. 3 (1956) [vols. 1–3, 2nd ed. 1969 in one volume; repr. 1980]; vol. 4 (1961) [repr. with corrections 1979]; vol. 5 (1963) [repr. with corrections 1980]; vol. 6 (1967); vol. 7 (1985). Cambridge. — 1951 a. Khotanese Buddhist Texts. London [repr. Cambridge 1981]. — 1951 b. “The Staël-Holstein Miscellany.” Asia Major [n.s.] 2, pp. 1–45. — 1953. “Ariaca.” BSOAS 15, pp. 530–40. — 1960. CII. Part II: Inscriptions of the Seleucid and Parthian Periods and of Eastern Iran and Central Asia. Vol. V: Saka. Portfolio I: Saka Documents I. Ed. by H. W. Bailey. London. — 1961. CII. Part II: Inscriptions of the Seleucid and Parthian Periods and of Eastern Iran and Central Asia. Vol. V: Saka. Portfolio II: Saka Documents II. Ed. by H. W. Bailey. London. — 1962. “The Profession of Prince Tcūṃ-ttehi.” In: E. Bender, ed., Indological Studies in Honour of W. Norman Brown. New Haven, pp. 18–22. — 1963 a. “Romantic literature in early Khotan.” In: Mélanges d’orientalisme offerts à Henri Massé à l’occasion de son 75ème anniversaire. Téhéran, pp. 17–20. — 1963 b. CII. Part II: Inscriptions of the Seleucid and Parthian Periods and of Eastern Iran and Central Asia. Vol. V: Saka. Portfolio III: Saka Documents III. Ed. by H. W. Bailey. London. — 1964. “Lyrical Poems of the Sakas.” In: Dr. J. M. Unvala Memorial Volume. Bombay, pp. 1–5. — 1965 a. “Viśa Saṃgrāma.” Asia Major [n.s.] 11, pp. 101–19. — 1965 b. “Vajrayāna Texts from Gostana.” In: Studies of Esoteric Buddhism and Tantrism in Commemoration of the 1,150th Anniversary of the Founding of Koyasan. Koyasan, pp. 27–39. — 1966 a. “The Sudhana Poem of ddhiprabhāva.” BSOAS 29, pp. 506–32. — 1966 b. “A tale of Aśoka.” Bulletin of Tibetology 3.3, pp. 5–11. — 1967 a. CII. Part II: Inscriptions of the Seleucid and Parthian Periods and of Eastern Iran and Central Asia. Vol. V: Saka. Portfolio IV: Saka Documents IV. Ed. by H. W. Bailey. London. — 1967 b. “Saka śśandrāmata.” In: G. Wiessner, ed., Festschrift für Wilhelm Eilers: ein Dokument der internationalen Forschung zum 27. September 1966. Wiesbaden, pp. 136–43.

430

BIBLIOGRAPHY — 1968. CII. Part II: Inscriptions of the Seleucid and Parthian Periods and of Eastern Iran and Central Asia. Vol. V: Saka. Texts I: Saka Documents: Text Volume. Ed. by H. W. Bailey. London. — 1969. “The Beneficent Earth.” In: N. D. Minochehr-Homji and M. F. Kanga, eds., K. R. Cama Oriental Institute Golden Jubilee Volume. Bombay, pp. 1–3. — 1971. Sad-dharma-puṇḍarīka-sūtra: the Summary in Khotan Saka. Canberra [repr. 1973 with a list of errata, p. 58]. — 1972. “Story-telling in Buddhist Central Asia.” Acta Asiatica 23, pp. 63–77. — 1973. “Taklamakan Miscellany.” BSOAS 36, pp. 224–27, pls. I–VIII. — 1974. “The Pradakṣiṇā-sūtra of Chang Tsiang-kuin.” In: L. Cousins, A. Kunst and K. R. Norman, eds., Buddhist Studies in Honour of I. B. Horner. Dordrecht, pp. 15–18. — 1977. “Mahāprajñāpāramitā-sūtra.” In: Conze Fs., pp. 153–62. — 1978. “Vajrayāna in Gostana-deśa.” The Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 1.1, pp. 53–56. — 1979. Dictionary of Khotan Saka. Cambridge/London/New York/ Melbourne. — 1982. The Culture of the Sakas in Ancient Iranian Khotan. Delmar. — 1983. “Khotanese Saka Literature.” CHI 3.2, pp. 1230–43. — 1985. “Apastāk.” In: Boyce Fs., I, pp. 9–14. Balbir, J. K. 1963. L’histoire de Rāma en tibétain d’apres les manuscrits de Touen-houang. Paris. Bang, W. 1890. “Ein Beitrag zur Würdigung der Pahlavi-Gāthās.” ZDMG 44, pp. 363–70. — 1926. “Türkische Bruchstücke einer nestorianischen Georgspassion.” Le Muséon 39, pp. 41–75. Barr, K. 1936. “Remarks on the Pahlavi Ligatures U and V.” BSOAS 8, pp. 391–403. Barthélemy, A. 1887 a. Artâ Vîrâf-Nâmak ou Livre d’Ardâ Vîrâf. Paris (Bibliothèque Orientale Elzévirienne LIV). — 1887 b. Guǰastak Abāliš, relation d’une conférence théologique. Texte Pahlavi avec traduction, commentaire et lexique. Paris. — 1889. Une légende iranienne, traduit du pehlevi. Paris. Barthold, W. 1944. “Zur Geschichte des persischen Epos.” ZDMG 98, pp. 121–57. Bartholomae, Chr. 1901. “Arica XIV.” IF 12, pp. 93–172. — 1904. Altiranisches Wörterbuch. Strassburg [repr. Berlin 1961].

431

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN — 1906. Zum altiranischen Wörterbuch. Nacharbeiten und Vorarbeiten. Strassburg. — 1910. Über ein sasanidisches Rechtsbuch. Heidelberg (SHAW). — 1918–23. Zum sasanidischen Recht. Vols. I–V. Heidelberg (SHAW). — 1922. Zur Kenntnis der mitteliranischen Mundarten IV. Heidelberg (SHAW). Baumer, Chr. 2000. Southern Silk Road: in the Footsteps of Sir Aurel Stein and Sven Hedin. Bangkok [2nd ed. 2003]. Baumstark, A. 1921. Nichtevangelische syrische Perikopenordnungen des ersten Jahrtausends. Münster. — 1922. Geschichte der syrischen Literatur. Bonn. Bazin, L. 1975. “Turcs et Sogdiens: les enseignements de l’inscription de Bugut (Mongolie).” In: F. Bader et al. eds., Mélanges linguistiques offerts à Émile Benveniste. Paris, pp. 38–45. Bazin, L. and Zieme, P., eds. 2001. De Dunhuang à Istanbul. Hommage à James Russell Hamilton. Turnhout (Silk Road Studies IX). Beal, S. 1884. Si-yu-ki. Buddhist Records of the Western World. Vol. 1. London. Bechert, H., ed. 1991–97. The Dating of the Historical Buddha. Pt. 1 (1991); pt. 2 (1992); pt. 3 (1997). Göttingen. Bechert, H. and Gombrich, R. 1984. The World of Buddhism. London. BeDuhn, J. D. 2004. “The Cantillated Manichaean Meal Hymns of the Turfan Collection.” In: D. Durkin-Meisterernst et al. eds., Turfan Revisited—The First Century of Research of the Silk Road. Berlin, pp. 30–36. Belanger, W. A. 2000. Caityapradakṣiṇā Gāthā: a Critical Edition of the Tibetan Text Based on Six Editions of the Kanjur. Master’s thesis. University of Texas at Austin. Belardi, W. 1979 a. The Pahlavi Book of the Righteous Viraz. Vol. I. Roma. — 1979 b. “Il nome dell’ ‘Avesta’: alla ricerca di un significato perduto.” In: Atti dell’Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Rendicontti. Classe di Scienze morali, storiche e filologiche. Serie VIII, vol. XXXIV (1979), pp. 251–74. — 1986. “Analisi e restauro del cap. 375 del III libro del Dēnkart.” Studi e Saggi Linguistici 26, pp. 137–60. Benveniste, É. 1930. “Le texte de Draxt Asūrīk et la versification pehlevie.” JA 217, pp. 193–225. — 1932 a. “Une apocalypse pehlevie: le Žāmāsp-nāmak.” RHR 106, pp. 337–80.

432

BIBLIOGRAPHY — 1932 b. “Le Mémorial de Zarēr, poème pehlevi mazdéen.” JA 220, pp. 245–93. — 1935. Les infinitifs avestiques. Paris. — 1938. “Notes Sogdiennes IV.” BSOS 9, pp. 495–519 [= Benveniste 1979, pp. 163–86]. — 1940. Textes sogdiens. Édités, traduits et commentés. Paris. — 1943–45. “Fragments des Actes de Saint Georges en version sogdienne.” JA 234, pp. 91–116. — 1946. Vessantara Jātaka. Texte sogdien édité, traduit et commenté. Paris. — 1948. Noms d’agent et noms d’action en indo-européen. Paris. — 1961. “ Inscriptions de Bactriane.” JA 249, pp. 113–52. — 1970. “Que signifie ‘Vidēvdāt’?” In: Henning Mem., pp. 37–42. — 1979. Études sogdiennes. Wiesbaden (Beiträge zur Iranistik 9). Benveniste, É. and Renou, L. 1934. Vtra et Vθragna. Étude de mythologie indo-iranienne. Paris (Cahiers de la Société Asiatique 3). Bickerman, E. 1967. Four Strange Books of the Bible, Jonah, Daniel, Koheleth, Esther. New York. Bielmeier, R. 1989. “Sarmatisch, Alanisch, Jassisch und Altossetisch.” CLI, pp. 236–45. Birnbaum, R. 1979. The healing Buddha. Boulder. Bivar, A. D. hH. 1970. “The First Parthian Ostracon from Iran.” JRAS 1970, pp. 63–66. — 1976. “The Kūṣāṇa trilingual.” BSOAS 39, pp. 333–40. — 1981. “The Second Parthian Ostracon from Qūmis (Qūmis Commentaries No. 3).” Iran 19, pp. 81–84. Blochet, E. 1895 a. Lexique des fragments de l’Avesta. Paris. — 1895 b. “Textes pehlevis inédits relatifs à la religion mazdéenne.” RHR 32, pp. 18–23. — 1933. “Quelques notes à propos de l’Ardā Virāf Nāma.” In: J. D. C. Pavry, ed., Oriental Studies in Honour of C. E. Pavry. London, pp. 49–55. de Blois, F. 1984. “The Admonition of Ādurbād and their Relationship to the Aḥīqar Legend.” JRAS 1984, pp. 41–53. — 1990 a. Borzōy’s Voyage to India and the Origin of the Book Kalīlah wa Dimnah. London. — 1990 b. “The Middle Persian Inscription from Constantinople: Sasanian or Post-Sasanian?” StIr 19, pp. 209–18. — 1992. Persian Literature. A Bio-Bibliographical Survey. Begun by the late C. A. Storey. Vol. 5, part 1: Poetry to ca. A.D. 1100. Chapter 1: The Origins of Persian Poetry. London, pp. 42–58.

433

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN — 1993. “Two Sources of the Handarz of Ōšnar.” Iran 31, pp. 95–97. — 1995. “‘Place’ and ‘Throne’ in Persian.” Iran 33, pp. 61–65. — 1996. “Dīvān.” EIr 7, pp. 432–38. — 1998. Review of Sundermann 1996 c. JRAS 1998, pp. 481–85. — 2000. “A Persian Poem Lamenting the Arab Conquest”. In: C. Hillenbrand, ed., Studies in Honour of Clifford Edmund Bosworth. Vol. 2. The Sultan’s Turret: Studies in Persian and Turkish Culture. Leiden/ Boston/Köln, pp. 82–95. — 2004. “A Zoroastrian Apocalypse.” In : C. G. Cereti, B. Melasecchi and F. Vajifdar, eds., Varia Iranica. Roma, pp. 59–72. Bogolyubov, M. N. and Smirnova, O. I. 1963. “Sogdiĭskie dokumenty I.1 and A 14 mugskoĭ kollektsii.” Vestnik leningradskogo universiteta, pp. 113–24. Böhlig, A. 1989. “Neue Initiativen zur Erschließung der koptischmanichäischen Bibliothek von Medinet Madi.” Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 80, pp. 240–62. — 1994. “Synkretismus in der Überlieferung von Manis Passion.” Zeitschrift für Religions- und Geistesgeschichte 46, pp. 235–62. Böhlig, A., s. Polotsky, H. J. Böhlig, A. and Asmussen, J. P. 1980. Die Gnosis. Vol. 3: Der Manichäismus. Zürich/München. Bongard-Levin, G. M. 1971. Studies in Ancient India and Central Asia. Calcutta. Bongard-Levin, G. M. and Temkin, E. N. 1967. “Otryvok sakskoĭ versii Dharmasharira-sutry (Dharmaśarīra-sūtra).” In: Istoriko-filologicheskie issledovaniya: sbornik stateĭ k semidesyatipyatiletiyu akademika N. I. Konrada. Moskva, pp. 247–52. — 1969. “Fragment of the Saka Version of the Dharmaśarīra-sūtra from the N. E. [sic] Petrovsky Collection.” IIJ 11, pp. 269–80. Bongard-Levin, G. M. and Volkova, O. F. 1965. The Kuṇāla Legend and an Unpublished Aśokāvadānamālā Manuscript. Calcutta. Borger, R. 1975–78. “Die Entzifferungsgeschichte der altpersischen Keilschrift nach Grotefends ersten Erfolgen.” Persica 7, pp. 7–19. Boyce, M. 1952. “Some Parthian Abecedarian Hymns.” BSOAS 14, pp. 435–50. — 1954 a. The Manichaean Hymn-Cycles in Parthian. Oxford. — 1954 b. “Some Remarks on the Transmission of the Kayanian Heroic Cycle.” In: R. N. Frye et al. eds., Serta Cantabrigiensia. Wiesbaden, pp. 45–52.

434

BIBLIOGRAPHY — 1955. “Zariadres and Zarēr.” BSOAS 17, pp. 463–77. — 1956 a. “Some Remarks on the Unpublished Manichaean Verse-texts in Parthian.” In: Atti dell’ VIII Congresso Internazionale di Storia delle Religioni (Roma 17–23 Aprile 1955). Firenze, pp. 221–23. — 1956 b. “The Indian Fables in the Letter of Tansar.” Asia Major [n.s.] 5, pp. 50–58. — 1957. “The Parthian gōsān and Iranian Minstrel Tradition.” JRAS 1957, pp. 10–45. — 1960. A Catalogue of the Iranian Manuscripts in Manichean Script in the German Turfan Collection. Berlin. — 1966. “ātaš-zōhr and āb-zōhr.” JRAS 1966, pp. 100–118. — 1967. Review of Kotwal 1966. BSOS 30, pp. 698–99. — 1968 a. The Letter of Tansar. Roma (SOR 38). — 1968 b. “Middle Persian Literature.” HdO 1.4.2.1, pp. 31–66. — 1968 c. “The Manichaean Literature in Middle Iranian.” HdO 1.4.2.1, pp. 67–76. — 1975 a. A History of Zoroastrianism. Vol. I: The Early Period. Leiden/ Köln (HdO 1.8.1.2). — 1975b. A Reader in Manichaean Middle Persian and Parthian. Téhéran/Liège/Leiden (AcIr 9). — 1979. Zoroastrians. Their Religious Beliefs and Practices. London (Library of Religious Beliefs and Practises 2) [repr. 1987]. — 1983. “Parthian Writings and Literature.” CHI 3.2, pp. 1151–65. — 1984 a. “On the Antiquity of Zoroastrian Apocalyptic.” BSOAS 47, pp. 57–75. — 1984 b. Textual Sources for the Study of Zoroastrianism. Manchester. — 1987. “Apocalyptic.” EIr 2, pp. 154–57. — 1989 a. A History of Zoroastrianism. Vol. I: The Early Period. Leiden etc. [repr. of Boyce 1975 a with corrections]. — 1989 b. “Avestan People.” EIr 3, pp. 62–66. — 1989 c. “Ayādgār ī ǰāmāspīg.” EIr 3, pp. 126–27. — 1989 d. “Ayādgār i Zarērān.” EIr 3, pp. 128–29. — 1992. Zoroastrianism. Its Antiquity and Constant Vigour. Costa Mesa, California (Columbia Lectures on Iranian Studies 7). — 1993. “Dar-e Mehr.” EIr 6, pp. 669–70. — 1994. “Zoroaster’s Theology: Translation as an Obstacle to Understanding.” In: Colpe Fs., pp. 278–84. Boyce, M. and Grenet, F. 1991. A History of Zoroastrianism. Vol. III: Zoroastrianism under Macedonian and Roman Rule. Leiden/Köln (HdO 1.8.1.2).

435

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN Boyce Fs., 1985. Papers in Honour of Professor Mary Boyce. 2 vols. Leiden (AcIr 24 [vol. I], AcIr 25 [vol. II]) Boyd, J. W. s. Kotwal, F. M. Brandenstein, W. and Mayrhofer, M. 1964. Handbuch des Altpersischen. Wiesbaden. Briant, P. 1996. Histoire de l’Empire perse: de Cyrus à Alexandre. Paris. Brock, S. 1980. “Some Early Syriac Baptismal Commentaries.” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 46, pp. 20–61. — 1981–82. “A Syriac Life of John of Dailam.” Parole de l’Orient 10, pp. 123–89. — 1986. “An Early Syriac Commentary on the Liturgy.” Journal of Theological Studies [n.s.] 37, pp. 387–403. Brockelmann, C. 1928. Lexicon Syriacum. Halle. Browder, M. H. 1988. “Al-Bîrûnî’s Manichaean Sources.” In: P. Bryder, ed., Manichaean Studies. Lund, pp. 19–28. Brunner, Chr. J. 1979. “The Middle Persian Explanation of Chess and Invention of Backgammon.” The Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University 10, pp. 43–51. — 1980 a. “Liturgical Chant and Hymnody among the Manicheans of Central Asia.” ZDMG 130, pp. 342–68. — 1980 b. “The Fable of the Babylonian Tree.” JNES 39, pp. 191–202, 291–302. Bulsara, S. J. 1915. Aêrpatastân and Nîrangastân or the Code of the Holy Doctorship and the Code of the Divine Service. Being Portions of the Great Husparam Nask on the Order, the Ministry, the Officiation and the Equipment of the Holy Divines of the Noble Zarathushtrian Church. Bombay. — 1937. The Laws of the Ancient Persians as Found in the ‘Mâtîkân ê hazâr Dâtastân’ or ‘The Digest of a Thousand Points of Law’. Bombay. Canevascini, G. 1993. The Khotanese Saṅghāṭasūtra. A Critical Edition. Wiesbaden. Cannizzaro, F. A. 1990. Vendidad. La Legge di abiura dei demoni dell’Avesta zoroastriano. Con un saggio sulla Storia dello Zoroastrismo di A. Panaino. Milano. Cantera, A. 1998. Estudios sobre la traducción Páhlavi del Avesta: las versiones Avéstica y Páhlavi de los cuatro primeros capítulos de Videvdad. Doctoral Tesis. Salamanca. — 1999 a. “Die Stellung der Sprache der Pahlavi-Übersetzung des Avesta innerhalb des Mittelpersischen.” StIr 28, pp. 173–204. — 1999 b. Review of Josephson 1997. BSOAS 62, pp. 364–66.

436

BIBLIOGRAPHY — 2000. Review of Panaino 1999. OLZ 95, pp. 303–11. — 2002. “Recorrido por la Bibliografía sobre la Religión Zoroástrica desde 1975.” Ilu. Revista de Ciencias de las Religiones 7, pp. 195–241. — 2004. Studien zur Pahlavi-Übersetzung des Avesta. Wiesbaden (Iranica 7). Casartelli, L. C. 1886. “Un traité pehlevi sur la médecine.” Le Muséon 5, pp. 296–316, 531–58. — 1887. “Two Discourses of Chosroes the Immortal-souled.” Babylonian and Oriental Records 1, pp. 97–101. — 1908. Leaves from my Eastern Garden. Market Weighton. — 1918. “The Persian Dante.” In: The Dastur Hoshang Memorial Volume. Bombay, pp. 258–73. Cereti, C. G. 1994. “Zoroastrian Pahlavi Literature as a Source for Central-Asian Geography.” In: B. Genito, ed., The Archaeology of the Steppes: Methods and Strategies. Naples, pp. 447–68. — 1994–95. “Prolegomena allo studio del quatro libro del Dēnkard.” Studi Orientali e Linguistici 5, pp. 108–29. — 1995. The Zand ī Wahman Yasn. A Zoroastrian Apocalypse. Roma (SOR 75). — 1995–97. “Primary Sources for the History of Inner and Outer Iran in the Sasanian Period (Third-Seventh Centuries).” Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi 9, pp. 17–71. — 1998. Review of Josephson 1997. Die Sprache 38, pp. 219–23. — 2001. La letteratura Pahlavi. Introduzione ai testi con riferimenti alla storia degli studi e alla tradizione manoscritta. Milano. Cereti, C. G. and MacKenzie, D. N. 2003. “Except by Battle: Zoroastrian cosmogony in the 1st Chapter of the Greater Bundahišn.” In: Gnoli Fs., pp. 31–59. Chacha, H. F. 1936. Gajastak Abālish. Pahlavi Text with transliteration, English Translation, Notes, and Glossary. Bombay. Chavannes, É. 1910–34. Cinq cents contes et apologues extraits du Tripiṭaka chinois et traduits en français. Paris [repr. 1962]. Chavannes, É. and Pelliot, P. 1911. “Un traité manichéen retrouvé en Chine.” JA 1911, pp. 499–617. — 1913. “Un traité manichéen retrouvé en Chine.” JA 1913, pp. 99–199, 261–394. Choksy, J.K. 1986. “An Annotated Index of the Greater or Iranian Bundahišn.” StIr 15, pp. 203–42.

437

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN Christensen, A. 1917. Les types du premier homme et du premier roi dans l’histoire légendaire des Iraniens. Stockholm (Archives d’études orientales 14). — 1925. Le règne du roi Kawādh I et le communisme mazdakite. København (Historisk-filosofiske Meddelelser IX.6). — 1930. “La légende du sage Buzurgmihr.” ActOr 8, pp. 81–128. — 1931. Les Kayanides. København. — 1936. Les Gestes des Rois dans les traditions de l’Iran antique. Paris. — 1943. Le premier chapitre du Vendidad et l’histoire primitive des tribus iraniennes. København (Historisk-filosofiske Meddelelser XXIX.4). — 1944. L’Iran sous les Sassanides. Deuxième èdition revue et augmentèe. København [repr. Osnabrück 1971]. Chunakova, O. M. and Shcherbanovsky, A. L. 1982. “O date redaktsii ‘Knigi deyaniĭ Ardashira, syna Papaka’ [The Date of the ‘Book of the Deeds of Ardashir, Son of Papak’].” VDI 1982/1983, pp. 136–45. Cipriano, P. 1984. “Un problema d’esegesi del Dēnkart: il rapporto fra re e suditi.” Studi e Saggi Linguistici 24, pp. 227–40. — 1985. “Individuo e autorità politico-religiosa nel Dēnkart.” In: F. Biffi, ed., I diritti fondamentali della persona umana e la libertà religiosa. Atti del V colloquio giuridico (8–10. marzo 1984). Roma, pp. 291–308. Clark, L. V. 1982. “The Manichean Turkic Pothi-Book.” AoF 9, pp. 145–218. — 1997. “The Turkic Manichaean Literature, Emerging from Darkness.” In: Mirecki/BeDuhn 1997, pp. 89–141. — 2000. “The Conversion of Bügü Khan to Manichaeism.” In: Emmerick/ Sundermann/Zieme 2000, pp. 83–123. Colditz, I. 1987. “Bruchstücke manichäisch-parthischer Parabelsammlungen.” AoF 14, pp. 274–313. — 1992. “Hymnen an Šād Ōhrmezd. Ein Beitrag zur frühen Geschichte der Dīnāwarīya in Transoxanien.” AoF 19, pp. 322–41. — 2000. Zur Sozialterminologie der iranischen Manichäer. Wiesbaden (Iranica 5). Colless, B. E. 1986. “The Nestorian Province of Samarkand.” AbrNahrain 24, pp. 51–57. Colpe, C. 1954. Der Manichäismus in der arabischen Überlieferung. Unpublished thesis. Göttingen University. Colpe Fs., 1994. Tradition und Translation. Zum Problem der interkulturellen Übersetzbarkeit religiöser Phänomene. Festschrift für Carsten Colpe zum 65. Geburtstag. Ed. by C. Elsas et al. Berlin/New York.

438

BIBLIOGRAPHY Conze, E. 1967. “The Prajñāpāramitā-hdaya sūtra.” In: E. Conze, Thirty Years of Buddhist Studies: Selected Essays. Oxford, pp. 148–67. — 1974. Vajracchedikā prajñāpāramitā. 2nd ed. Roma (SOR 13). — 1978. The prajñāpāramitā literature. 2nd ed. Tokyo. Conze Fs., 1977. Prajñāpāramitā and Related Systems. Studies in Honour of Edward Conze. Ed. by L. Lancaster and L. O. Gómez. Berkeley. Cooper, N. M. 1910. The Imitation of Zoroaster. Quotations from Zoroastrian Literature. London. Cowell, E. B. 1895. The Jātaka or Stories of the Buddha’s Former Births. Vol. 4. London. Cowell, E. B. and Neil, R. A., eds. 1886. The Divyāvadāna: a Collection of Early Buddhist Legends. Cambridge. Cowley, A. C. 1923. Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B. C. Oxford. Curiel, R. 1954. “Inscriptions de Surkh Kotal.” JA 242, pp. 189–205. Dabbs, J. A. 1963. History of the Discovery and Exploration of Chinese Turkestan. The Hague. Dadabhoy, Sh. 1887. Pandnāmah-i Adarbād Mānsarspand. Bombay. Daffinà, P. 1975. “Sulla più antica diffusione del buddismo nella Serindia e nell’Iran orientale.” In: Monumentum H.S. Nyberg I. Téhéran/Liège (AcIr 4), pp. 179–92. Dandamaev, M. A. 1976. Persien unter den ersten Achämeniden (6. Jahrhundert v. Chr.). Übersetzt von H.-D. Pohl. Wiesbaden. Darmesteter, J. 1883. The Zend-Avesta. Part II: The Sīrōzahs, Yašts, and Nyāyiš. Oxford (SBE 23) [repr. Delhi 1988]. — 1889. “Les devoirs de l’écolier.” JA 13, pp. 355–63. — 1892–93. Le Zend-Avesta. Traduction nouvelle avec commentaire historique et philologique. 3 vols. Paris [repr. 1960]. — 1894. “Lettre de Tansar au roi de Tabaristan.” JA 9e série, tome 3, pp. 180–250, 502–55. Daryaee, T. 1995. “National History or Keyanid History? The Nature of Sasanid Zoroastrian Historiography.” Iranian Studies 28, pp. 129–41. — 2002 a. “Mind, Body, and the Cosmos: Chess and Backgammon in Ancient Persia.” Iranian Studies 35, pp. 281–312. — 2002 b. Sahrestānīhā ī Ērānšahr. A Middle Persian Text on Late Antique Geography, Epic, and History. With English and Persian Translations and Commentary. Costa Mesa, California. — 2002 c. “The Changing ‘Image of the World’: Geography and Imperial Propaganda in Ancient Persia.” In: Electrum. Studies in ancient history. Vol. 6. Kraków, pp. 99–109.

439

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN Davar, M. B. 1904. The Pahlavī Version of Yasna IX. Edited with the Collation of MSS. A Literal Translation into English, Explanatory and Philological Notes and an Introduction. Leipzig. Davary, G. Dj. 1977. “A List of the Inscriptions of the Pre-Islamic Period from Afghanistan.” StII 3, pp. 11–22. — 1981. “Epigraphische Forschungen in Afghanistan.” StIr 10, pp. 53–59. — 1982. Baktrisch. Ein Wörterbuch auf Grund der Inschriften, Handschriften, Münzen und Siegelsteine. Heidelberg. Davary, G.Dj. and Humbach, H. 1974. Eine weitere aramäoiranische Inschrift der Periode des Asoka aus Afghanistan. Mainz/Wiesbaden (AAWL 1974/1). — 1976. Die baktrische Inschrift IDN 1 von Dasht-e Nāwūr (Afghanistan). Mainz/Wiesbaden (AAWL 1976/1). de Blois, F. s. (de) Blois, F. De Filippi, F. s. (De) Filippi, F. de Harlez, C. s. (de) Harlez, C. de Menasce, J. s. (de) Menasce, J. de Sacy, S. s. (de) Sacy, S. Degener, A. 1986 a. “The four infinitudes (apramāṇas) in Khotanese.” StIr 15, pp. 259–64. — 1986 b. “Sudhanas Wanderung in khotanischer Fassung.” StII 11–12, pp. 21–32. — 1989. “Zur Übersetzungstechnik in der khotanischen Vajracchedikā.” ZDMG 139, pp. 346–67. — 1991. “Neryosanghs Sanskrit-Übersetzung von Škand gumānīk vičār.” In: MacKenzie Fs., pp. 49–58. Dehghan, K. 1982. Der Awesta-Text Srōš Yašt (Yasna 57) mit Pahlaviund Sanskritübersetzung. München (MSS, Beiheft 11). Delauney, J. A. 1974. “L’araméen d’empire et les débuts de l’écriture en Asie Centrale.” In: Commémoration Cyrus. Hommage Universel II. Téhéran/Liège (AcIr 2), pp. 219–36. Demiéville, P., Durt, H. and Seidel, A. 1978. Répertoire du canon bouddhique Sino-Japonais: Édition de Taishō (Taishō shinshū daizōkyō). Fascicule annexe du Hōbōgirin. Paris. Dhabhar, B. N., ed. 1912. Nâmakîhâ-î Mânûshchîhar. The Epistles of Mânûshchîhar. Bombay (Pahlavi Text Series 1). —, ed. 1913. The Pahlavi Rivāyat Accompanying the Dādistān-ī Dīnīk. Bombay. — 1914. “Andarzīhā-ī Pēshīnīkān.” In: J. J.Modi, ed., Sir Jamsetjee Jejeebhoy Madressa Jubilee Volume. Bombay, pp. 73–74.

440

BIBLIOGRAPHY — 1925. “The Pahlavi Text of Aogəmadaēcā.” In: Indo-Iranian Studies, Being Commemorative Papers Contributed by European, American and Indian Scholars in Honour of Shams-ul-Ullema Dastur Darab Peshotan Sanjana. London/Leipzig, pp. 117–30. —, ed. 1927. Zand-i Khūrtak Avistāk. Bombay (Pahlavi Text Series 3). — 1930. Andarj-i Aôshnar-i Dânâk. Bombay (Pahlavi Text Series 4). — 1932. The Persian Rivāyats of Hormazyar Framarz and Others. Their [English] Version with Introduction and Notes. Bombay. — 1949. Pahlavi Yasna and Visperad. Edited with an Introduction and a Glossary of Select Terms. Bombay (Pahlavi Text Series 8). — 1963. Translation of Zand-i Khūrtak Avistāk. Bombay. Dhalla, M. N. 1908. The Nyaishes or Zoroastrian Litanies. New York. — 1918. “The Pahlavi Text of the Ormazd Yašt.” In: The Dastur Hoshang Memorial Volume. Bombay, pp. 378–91. — 1949. Ancient Iranian Literature. Karachi. — 1965. The Nyaishes or Zoroastrian Litanies. New York. Diakonoff, I. M. 1970. “The Origin of the ‘Old Persian’ Writing System and the Ancient Oriental Epigraphic and Annalistic Traditions.” In: Henning Mem., pp. 98–124. Diakonoff, I. M. and Livshits, V. A. 1976–79. CII. Part II: Inscriptions of the Seleucid and Parthian Periods and of Eastern Iran and Central Asia. Vol. II/I: Parthian. Parthian Economic Documents from Nisa. Plates I (1976); Plates II with Text 1 (1977); Plates III (1979). By I. M. Diakonoff and V. A. Livshits. Ed. by D. N. MacKenzie. London. Dodge, B. 1970. The Fihrist of al-Nadīm. 2 vols. London. Douglas, M. 1993. In the Wilderness. The Doctrine of Defilement in the Book of Numbers. Sheffield (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series 158). Dresden, M. J. 1955. The Jātakastava or “Praise of the Buddha’s former births”: Indo-Scythian (Khotanese) Text, English Translation, Grammatical Notes and Glossaries. Philadelphia. — 1962. “Note on Khotanese Poetry.” In: E. Bender, ed., Indological Studies in Honor of W. Norman Brown. New Haven, pp. 42–50. —, ed. 1966. Dēnkart. A Pahlavi Text. Facsimile Edition of the Manuscript B of the K. R. Cama Oriental Institute Bombay. Wiesbaden. — 1977 a. “A Lyrical Poem in Khotanese. Part 1: Text.” In: Beiträge zur Indienforschung: Ernst Waldschmidt zum 80. Geburtstag gewidmet. Berlin (Veröffentlichungen des Museums für Indische Kunst 4), pp. 81–103.

441

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN — 1977 b. “Khotanese (Saka) Manuscripts: a Provisional Handlist.” In: Varia 1976. Téhéran/Liège (AcIr 12), pp. 27–85. Drijvers, H. J. W. 1981. “Odes of Salomon and Psalms of Mani. Christians and Manichaeans in Third-century Syria.” In: Quispel Fs., pp. 117–30. Drouin, E. 1898. “Histoire de l’épigraphie sassanide.” Le Muséon 17, pp. 5–14. Duan Q. [1992]. Das khotanische Aparimitāyuḥsūtra: Ausgabe, Übersetzung, Kommentar und Glossar. Reinbek. — 1993. “Lüshun Bowuguan cang Yutian yu ‘Chusheng wubian men tuoluoni jing’ canpian de shidu” [Interpretation of a Fragment of the Khotanese Anantamukhanirhāradhāraṇī Kept in the Lüshun Museum]. In: Ye Yiliang, ed., Yilang xue zai Zhongguo lunwen ji [Collection of Papers on Iranian Studies in China]. Beijing, pp. 9–14. Duan, Q. and Wang, B. 1997. “Xinjiang xin chu Yutian wen mu du wenshu yanjiu” [A Newly Discovered Khotanese Wooden Document from Xinjiang]. Dunhuang Tulufan yanjiu 2, pp. 1–12, [2] pls. Duchesne-Guillemin, J. 1936. “Les citations avestiques de l’Augmadaiča.” JA 228, pp. 241–55. — 1982. “Apocalypse juive et apocalypse iranienne.” In: U. Bianchi and M. J. Vermaseren, eds., La soteriologia dei culti orientali nell’Impero Romano. Atti del Coloquio Internazionale (Roma, 24–28 settembre 1979). Roma/Leiden, pp. 753–61. — 1987. “Aogəmadaēčā.” EIr 2, pp. 145. Durkin-Meisterernst, D. 2003. “Late Features in Middle Persian Texts from Turfan.” In: Paul 2003, pp. 1–13. — 2004 a. “The Parthian mwqrʾnyq bʾšʾẖ (Turfan Collection, Berlin, M4 a I V 3–16).” ARAM 16, pp. 95–107. — 2004 b. “The apotropaic Manichaean Magical Text M389 and M8430/I/.” ARAM 16, pp. 141–60. Durt, H. 1994. “Daijō.” In: Hōbōgirin: dictionnaire encyclopédique du bouddhisme d’après les sources chinoises et japonaises. Vol. 7. Paris, pp. 767–801. Dutt, N. 1939. Gilgit Manuscripts. Vol. 1. Srinagar. —, ed. 1978. Bodhisattvabhūmiḥ, being the XVth section of Asaṅgapāda’s Yogācārabhūmiḥ. Patna. Dyakonov, I. M. and Livshits, V. A. 1960. Dokumenty iz Nisy I v. do n.e. [Documents from Nisa of the First Century ]. Moskva. Ebeling, E. 1941. Das aramäisch-mittelpersische Glossar Frahang-iPahlavik im Lichte der assyriologischen Forschung. Leipzig (Mitteilungen der Altorientalischen Gesellschaft XIV).

442

BIBLIOGRAPHY Ecsedy, I. 1971. “A Middle Persian–Chinese Epitaph from the Region of Ch’ang-an (Hsian) from 874. The Chinese Inscriptions.” AAASH 19, pp. 149–58. Elfenbein, J. s. Humbach, H. Elverskog, J. 1997. Uygur Buddhist Literature. Turnhout. Emmerick, R. E. 1966. “The Nine New Fragments from the Book of Zambasta.” Asia Major [n.s.] 12, pp. 148–78. — 1967. Tibetan Texts Concerning Khotan. London. — 1968 a. “Some Khotanese Inscriptions on objets d’art.” JRAS 1968, pp. 140–43, 2 pls. — 1968 b. “Khotanese Metrics.” Asia Major [n.s.] 14, pp. 1–20. — 1968c. The Book of Zambasta: a Khotanese Poem of Buddhism. London. — 1970 a. “Nanda the Merchant.” BSOAS 33, pp. 72–81. — 1970 b. The Khotanese Śūraṅgamasamādhisūtra. London. — 1971 a. “Four Khotanese Words.” Asia Major [n.s.] 16, pp. 61–68. — 1971 b. “On Ravigupta’s gaṇas.” BSOAS 34.2, pp. 363–75. — 1971 c. CII. Part. II: Inscriptions of the Seleucid and Parthian Periods and of Eastern Iran and Central Asia. Vol. V: Saka. Portfolio V: Saka Documents V. Ed. by R. E. Emmerick. London. — 1973 a. “Commodianus and Khotanese Metrics.” TPS 1973, pp. 138–52. — 1973 b. “Khotanese Metrics Again.” Asia Major 17, pp. 137–53. — 1973 c. “Khotanese Glossary to ‘Nanda the Merchant’.” ActOr 35, pp. 115–26. — 1973 d. CII. Part. II: Inscriptions of the Seleucid and Parthian Periods and of Eastern Iran and Central Asia. Vol. V: Saka. Portfolio VI: Saka Documents VI. Ed. by R. E. Emmerick. London. — 1974 a. “Note on a Khotanese Inscription in the Bremen Überseemuseum.” In: G. Gropp, Archäologische Funde aus Khotan, Chinesisch Ostturkestan. Die Trinkler-Sammlung im Übersee-Museum. Bremen, pp. 362–64. — 1974 b. “Some Khotanese Donors.” In: de Menasce Mem., pp. 383–88, pls. xix–xxi. — 1975. “A Khotanese Fragment: P 5536 bis.” In: Monumentum H. S. Nyberg. 4 vol. Téhéran/Liège (AcIr 4–7), vol. 1, pp. 223–36; vol. 3, pls. xxxv–xxxvi. — 1975–76. “Ravigupta’s Place in Indian Medical Tradition.” In: Proceedings of the Second World Sanskrit Conference: Torino 9–15 June 1975. Torino (Indologica Taurinensia 3–4), pp. 209–21. — 1977 a. “The Concluding Verses of the Khotanese Vajracchedikā.” In: Conze Fs., pp. 83–92.

443

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN — 1977 b. “Three Monsters in Khotan.” StIr 6, pp. 65–74. — 1977 c. “The Confession of Acts.” In: Varia 1976. Téhéran/Liège (AcIr 12), pp. 87–115. — 1978. Review of Takubo 1975. IIJ 20, pp. 253–56. — 1979 a. “The Historical Importance of Khotanese Manuscripts.” In: J. Harmatta, ed., Prolegomena to the Sources on the History of PreIslamic Central Asia. Budapest, pp. 167–77. — 1979b. “Contributions to the Study of the Jīvaka-pustaka.” BSOAS 42.2, pp. 235–43. — 1980. “The Verses of Prince Tcūm-ttehi:.” StIr 9, pp. 185–93. — 1980–82. The Siddhasāra of Ravigupta. Vol. 1: The Sanskrit Text. Vol. 2: The Tibetan Version with Facing English Translation. Wiesbaden. — 1983 a. “Buddhism among Iranian Peoples.” CHI 3.2, pp. 949–64. — 1983 b. “Some Remarks on Translation Techniques of the Khotanese.” In: K. Röhrborn and W. Veenker, eds., Sprachen des Buddhismus in Zentralasien. Vorträge des Hamburger Symposions vom 2. Juli bis 5. Juli 1981. Wiesbaden, pp. 17–26. — 1984 a. “A New Khotanese Document from China.” StIr 13, pp. 193–98, pl. xiv. — 1984 b. “Newly-discovered Buddhist Texts from Khotan.” In: T. Yamamoto, ed., Proceedings of the Thirty-first International Congress of Human Sciences in Asia and North Africa, Tokyo–Kyoto, 31st August–7th September 1983. Vol. 1. Tokyo, pp. 219–20. — 1984 c. “Research on Khotanese: a Survey (1979–1982).” In: Proceedings … Leuven (1984), pp. 127–45. — 1985 a. “Adhyardhaśatikā Prajñāpāramitā.” EIr 1, p. 456. — 1985 b. “A Khotanese Version of the Sūtra of the Lord of Healing.” In: Buddhism and its Relation to Other Religions: Essays in Honour of Dr. Shozen Kumoi on his Seventieth Birthday. Kyoto, pp. 225–32. — 1985 c. “Amta-prabha-dhāraṇī.” EIr 1, p. 996. — 1985 d. “Amoghapāśahdaya.” EIr 1, pp. 979–80. — 1985 e. “Amitāyus.” EIr 1, p. 973. — 1987 a. “Buddhism in Central Asia.” In: M. Eliade, ed., The Encyclopaedia of Religion. Vol. 2. New York, pp. 400–4. — 1987 b. “The Transition from Old to Late Khotanese.” In: Transition Periods in Iranian History. Actes du Symposium de Fribourg-enBrisgau (22–24. mai 1985). Paris (StIr, Cahier 5), pp. 33–42. — 1987 c. “Aparimitāyuḥ-Sūtra.” EIr 2, pp. 150–51. — 1987 d. “Anantamukhanirhāradhāraṇī.” EIr 2, pp. 1–2.

444

BIBLIOGRAPHY — 1988. “Some Verses from the Laṅkāvatārasūtra in Khotanese.” In: Asmussen Fs., pp. 125–33. — 1989 a. “Khotanese and Tumshuqese.” CLI, pp. 204–29. — 1989 b. “Avadāna.” EIr 3, p. 30. — 1989 c. “Avalokiteśvara-dhāraṇī.” EIr 3, p. 32. — 1990 a. “Buddhism among Iranian Peoples. i. In Pre-Islamic Times.” EIr 4, pp. 492–96. — 1990 b. “Khotanese birre.” JRAS 1990, pp. 7–9, 1 pl. — 1990 c. “Book of Zambasta.” EIr 4, pp. 361–63. — 1990 d. “Bhadra.” EIr 4, p. 190. — 1990 e. “Bhadracaryādeśanā.” EIr 4, p. 190. — 1990 f. “Bhadrakalpikasūtra.” EIr 4, pp. 190–91. — 1990 g. “Bhaiṣajyaguruvaiḍūryaprabharājasūtra.” EIr 4, pp. 192–93. — 1990 h. “Caityapradakṣiṇā-gāthā.” EIr 4, pp. 645–46. — 1990 i. “Bhavāṅga.” EIr 4, p. 195. — 1992 a. A Guide to the Literature of Khotan. 2nd ed. thoroughly rev. and enlarged. Tokyo (1st ed. 1979). — 1992 b. “The Crosby Collection.” In: A. Wezler and E. Hammerschmidt, eds., Proceedings of the XXXII International Congress for Asian and North African Studies, Hamburg, 25th –30th August 1996. Stuttgart, pp. 672–74. — 1992 c. “The Svastika antidote.” Journal of the European Āyurvedic Society 2, pp. 60–81. — 1992 d. “Khotanese kīrästānä ‘Christian’?” In: P. Bernard and F. Grenet, eds., Histoire et cultes de l’Asie centrale préislamique. Paris, pp. 279–82. — 1993 a. “Crosby, Oscar Terry.” EIr 6, pp. 402–3. — 1993 b. “Notes on the Crosby Collection.” In: Proceedings … Leuven (1993), pp. 57–64. — 1994 a. “The Mahāsauvarcalādi ghee.” In: K. Röhrborn and W. Veenker, eds., Memoriae munusculum. Gedenkband für Annemarie v. Gabain. Wiesbaden, pp. 29–42. — 1994 b. “Khotanaise (Littérature).” In: B. Didier, ed., Dictionnaire universel des littératures. Vol. 2. Paris, pp. 1894–95. — 1995. “On the St. Petersburg Folios of the Khotanese Suvarṇabhāsottamasūtra.” In: Gignoux Fs., pp. 51–66. — 1996. The Sūtra of Golden Light: Being a Translation of the Suvarṇabhāsottamasūtra. 3rd rev. ed. London. — 1997a. “From the Mañjuśrīnairātmyāvatārasūtra.” In: P. Kieffer-Pülz and J.-U. Hartmann, eds., Bauddhavidyāsudhākaraḥ. Studies in

445

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN Honour of Heinz Bechert on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday. SwisstalOdendorf, pp. 81–90. — 1997 b. “Two Problems in the Khotanese Rāmāyaṇa.” In: Sh. Akiner and N. Sims-Williams, eds., Languages and Scripts of Central Asia. London, pp. 25–29. — 1997 c. “The Mahāsauvarcalādi Ghta in Hoernle’s Unpublished Edition of the ‘Jīvakapustaka’.” Journal of the European Āyurvedic Society 5, pp. 76–81. — 1997–98. “The Khotanese Sumukhasūtra.” In: Professor Gregory M. Bongard-Levin Felicitation Volume. Torino (Indologica Taurinensia 23–24), pp. 387–421. — 1998. “More verses from the Mañjuśrīnairātmyāvatārasūtra.” In: P. Harrison and G. Schopen, eds., Sūryacandrāya. Essays in Honour of Akira Yuyama on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday. Swisttal-Odendorf, pp. 33–42. — 2000. “Polyandry in the Khotanese Rāmāyaṇa.” In: C. Chojnacki, J.-U. Hartmann and V.M. Tschannerl, eds., Vividharatnakaraṇḍaka. Festgabe für Adelheid Mette. Swisttal-Odendorf, pp. 233–38. — 2001. “Mount Alborz in Khotanese?” In: A. A. Sadeghi, ed., Tafazzoli Memorial Volume. Tehran, pp. 19–20. — 2002. “Hunting the Hapax: Sir Harold W. Bailey (1899–1996).” In: N. Sims-Williams, ed., Indo-Iranian Languages and Peoples. Oxford (Proceedings of the British Academy 116), pp. 1–17. Emmerick, R. E. and Róna-Tas, A. 1992. “The Turkish-Khotanese Wordlist Revisited.” CAJ 36, pp. 199–241. Emmerick, R. E. and Skjærvø, P. O. 1987. Studies in the Vocabulary of Khotanese. Vol. 2. Wien. — 1990. “Buddhism among Iranian Peoples. iii: Buddhist Literature in Khotanese and Tumshuqese.” EIr 4, pp. 499–505. Emmerick, R. E., Sundermann, W., and Zieme, P., eds. 2000. Studia Manichaica. IV. Internationaler Kongreß zum Manichäismus, Berlin 14.–18. Juli 1997. Berlin. Emmerick, R. E. and Vorob’ёva-Desjatovskaja, M. I. 1993. CII. Part II: Inscriptions of the Seleucid and Parthian Periods and of Eastern Iran and Central Asia. Vol. V: Saka. Plates VII: Saka Documents VII: The St. Petersburg Collections. Ed. by R. E. Emmerick and M. I. Vorob’ёvaDesjatovskaja. London. — 1995. CII. Part II: Inscriptions of the Seleucid and Parthian Periods and of Eastern Iran and Central Asia. Vol. V: Saka. Texts III: Saka Documents Text Volume III: The St. Petersburg Collections. Ed. by R. E.

446

BIBLIOGRAPHY Emmerick and M. I. Vorob’ёva-Desjatovskaja. With contributions by H. Kumamoto et al. London. Faravaši, B. 1975. Kārnāme-ye Ardašīr-e Bābakān [Book of Feats of Ardašīr, Son of Bābak]. Teheran. De Filippi, F. 1932. The Italian Expedition to the Himalaya, Karakoram and Eastern Turkestan (1913–14). London. Floyd, E. D. 1992. “Who and Whose Are You? An Indo-European Poetic Formula.” Word 43, pp. 399–409. Forssman, B. s. Hoffmann, K. Forte, A. 1979. “Le moine khotanais Devendraprajña.” BEFEO 66, pp. 289–98. — 1994. “An Ancient Chinese Monastery Excavated in Kirgiziya.” CAJ 38.1, pp. 41–57. Fox, J. J. 1977. “Roman Jakobson and the Comparative Study of Parallelism.” In: D. Armstrong and C. H. Schooneveld, eds., Roman Jakobson: Echoes of his Scholarship. Lisse, pp. 59–90. Freiman, A. A. 1906. “Pand-Nāmak i Zaratušt. Der Pahlavi-Text mit Übersetzung, kritischen und Erläuterungsnoten.” WZKM 20, pp. 149–66, 237–80. — 1918. “Andarz i Kôtakân.” In: The Dastur Hoshang Memorial Volume. Bombay, pp. 482–89. — 1939. “Sogdiĭskaya nadpis’ iz starogo Merva” [A Sogdian Inscription from Old Merw]. Zapiski Instituta Vostokovedeniya 7, pp. 296–302. Frye, R. N. 1957. “Remarks on the Paikuli and Sar Mašhad Inscriptions.” HJAS 20, pp. 702–8. — 1968. CII. Part III: Pahlavi Inscriptions. Vol. III: Dura-Europos. Portfolio I: The Parthian and Middle Persian Inscriptions of Dura-Europos. Ed. by R. N. Frye. London. —, ed. 1973. Sasanian Remains from Qaṣr-i Abu Naṣr. Cambridge. — 1982. “The ‘Aramaic’ Inscription on the Tomb of Darius.” Iranica Antiqua 17, pp. 85–90. — 1996. The Heritage of Central Asia. Princeton. Fujita, K. 1992. The Larger Sukhāvatīvyūha: Romanized Text of the Sanskrit Manuscripts from Nepal. Vol. 1. Tokyo. Funk, W.-P. 1997. “The Reconstruction of the Manichaean Kephalaia.” In: Mirecki/BeDuhn 1997, pp. 143–55. — 1999. Manichäische Handschriften der Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin. I. Kephalaia I. Zweite Hälfte (Lieferung 13–16). Stuttgart. Fussman, G. 1974. “Documents épigraphiques kouchans.” BEFEO 61, pp. 1–66.

447

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN — 1989. “Gāndhārī écrite, gāndhārī parlée.” In : C. Caillat, ed., Dialectes dans les littératures indo-aryennes. Actes du Colloque International organise par l’UA 1058 sous les auspices du CNRS, avec le soutien du College de France …, Paris (Fondation Hugot), 16–18 septembre 1986. Paris, pp. 433–501. — 1998. “L’inscription de Rabatak et l’origine de l’ére śaka.” JA 286, pp. 571–651. von Gabain, A. and Winter, W. 1958. Ein Hymnus an den Vater Mani auf ‘Tocharisch’ B mit alttürkischer Übersetzung. Berlin (Türkische Turfantexte IX). Gabain Fs., 1981. Scholia. Beiträge zur Turkologie und Zentralasienkunde, Annemarie von Gabain zum 80. Geburtstag am 4. Juli 1981 dargebracht von Kollegen, Freunden und Schülern. Ed. by K. Röhrborn and H. W. Brands. Wiesbaden. Gabain Mem., 1996. Turfan, Khotan und Dunhuang. Vorträge der Tagung “Annemarie v.Gabain und die Turfanforschung”, veranstaltet von der Berlin-Brandenburgischen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Berlin (9.–12. 12. 1994). Ed. by R. E. Emmerick et al. Berlin. Gabrieli, F. 1931–32. “L’opera di Ibn al-Muqaffaʿ.” RSO 13, pp. 197–247. Gardner, I. 1995. The Kephalaia of the Teacher. The Edited Coptic Manichaean Texts in Translation with Commentary. Leiden. Gauthiot, R. 1912. “Une version sogdienne du Vessantara Játaka.” JA 19, pp. 163–93, 429–510. Geiger, B. 1956. “The Middle Iranian Texts.” In: C. H. Kraeling, ed., The Excavations at Dura-Europos. Final Report VIII.1: The Synagogue. New Haven, pp. 283–317. Geiger, W. 1878. Aogemadaêcâ. Ein Pârsentractat in Pâzend, Altbaktrisch und Sanskrit. Herausgegeben, übersetzt, erklärt und mit einem Glossar versehen. Erlangen. — 1890. “Das Yātkār-ī Zarîrân und sein Verhältnis zum Šāhnāme.” SBAW 1890, pp. 43–84. Geiger, W. and Kuhn, E. eds. 1895–1904. Grundriss der iranischen Philologie. 2 vols. Strassburg. Geldner, K. F. 1877. Über die Metrik des jüngeren Avesta nebst Übersetzung ausgewählter Abschnitte. Tübingen. — 1889–96. Avesta. The Sacred Books of the Parsis. 3 vols. Stuttgart. — 1896. “Awestaliteratur.” GIrPh II/2, pp. 1–53. — 1904 a. “Avesta Literature.” Translated from German by D. Mackichan. In: Sanjana Fs., pp. 1–82.

448

BIBLIOGRAPHY — 1904 b. “Bruchstück eines Pehlevi-Glossars aus Turfan, ChinesischTurkestan.” SPAW 1904, pp. 1136–37. — 1906. “Die Awesta-Literatur.” In: P. Hinneberg, ed., Kultur der Gegenwart. Vol. I.7: Die orientalischen Literaturen. Berlin, pp. 220–34. Geng Shimin, Klimkeit, H.-J. and Laut, J. P. 1987. “Manis Wettkampf mit dem Prinzen: Ein neues manichäisch-türkisches Fragment aus Turfan.” ZDMG 137, pp. 44–58. Gerö, S. 1981. Barṣauma of Nisibis and Persian Christianity in the Fifth Century. Louvain. Gershevitch, I. 1946. “On the Sogdian St. George Passion.” JRAS 1946, pp. 179–84. — 1953. “Iranian Literature.” In: E. B. Ceadel, ed., Literatures of the East, an Appreciation. London, pp. 50–73. — 1954. A Grammar of Manichean Sogdian. Oxford (Publications of the Philological Society 16). — 1959. The Avestan Hymn to Mithra. With an Introduction, Translation and Commentary. Cambridge (Oriental Publications 4) [repr. 1967]. — 1968. “Old Iranian Literature.” HdO 1.4.2.1, pp. 10–30. — 1970. “W. B. Henning, 1908–1967.” In: Henning Mem., pp. vii–xxiv. — 1979. “The Alloglottography of Old Persian.” TPS 1979, pp. 114–90. — 1983. “Bactrian Literature.” CHI 3.2, pp. 1250–58. — 1995. “Approaches to Zoroaster’s Gathas.” Iran 33, pp. 1–29. — 1996. “A Helping Hand from Central Asia.” In: Convegno internazionale sul tema: La Persia e l’Asia Centrale da Alessandro al X secolo (Roma, 9–12 novembre 1994). Roma (Atti dei convegni Lincei 127), pp. 49–75. — 1998. “Dissent and Consensus on the Gathas.” In: F. Vajifdar, ed., New Approaches to the Interpretation of the Gāthās. Proceedings of the First Gāthā Colloquium Held in Croydon, England (5th –7th November 1993) under the Auspices of the World Zoroastrian Organization. London, pp. 11–26. Gharib, B. 1995. Sogdian Dictionary. Sogdian-Persian-English. Tehran. Gheiby, B. 2001. Gozāreš-e šatranǰ [Explanation of Chess] . Bielefeld. Gignoux, Ph. 1968. “L’enfer et le paradis d’après les sources pehlevies.” JA 256, pp. 219–45. — 1969. “Notes sur la rédaction de l’Ardāy Virāz Nāmag: l’emploi de hamē et de bē.” In: W. Voigt, ed., XVII. Deutscher Orientalistentag vom 21. bis 27. Juli 1968 in Würzburg. Vorträge. Wiesbaden (ZDMG, Supplementa I.3), pp. 998–1004.

449

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN — 1972. CII. Supplementary Series. Vol I: Glossaire des inscriptions pehlevies et parthes. Par P. Gignoux. London. — 1973. “Etudes des variantes textuelles des inscriptions de Kirdīr. Genèse et datation.” Le Muséon 86, pp. 193–216. — 1974. “La signification du voyage extra-terrestre dans l’eschatologie mazdéenne.” In: Mélanges d’histoire des religions offerts à HenriCharles Puech. Paris, pp. 63–69. — 1981. “Les voyages chamaniques dans le monde iranien.” In: Monumentum Georg Morgenstierne I. Leiden (AcIr 21), pp. 244–65. — 1983. “Middle Persian Inscriptions.” CHI 3.2, pp. 1205–15. — 1984 a. Le livre d’Ardā Vīrāz. Translittération, transcription et traduction du texte pehlevi. Paris. — 1984 b. “Der Großmagier Kirdīr und seine Reise in das Jenseits.” In: Orientalia J. Duchesne-Guillemin emerito oblata. Leiden (AcIr 23), pp. 191–206. — 1985–88. “L’apocalyptique iranienne est-elle vraiment la source d’autres apocalypses?” AAASH 31, pp. 67–78. — 1986 a. “Nouveaux regards sur l’apocalyptique iranienne.” CRAIBL 1986, pp. 334–46. — 1986 b. “Sur l’inexistence d’un Bahman Yasht avestique.” JAAS 32, pp. 53–64. — 1987. “Un témoin du syncrétisme mazdéen tardif: le traité pehlevi des ‘Sélections de Zādsparam’.” In: Transition Periods in Iranian History. Actes du Symposium de Fribourg-en-Brisgau (22–24. mai 1985). Paris (StIr, Cahier 5), pp. 59–72. — 1991 a. Les quatre inscriptions du mage Kirdīr. Textes et concordances. Paris (StIr, Cahier 9). — 1991 b. “Une nouvelle collection de documents en Pehlevi cursif du début du septième siècle de notre ère.” In: Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres. Compte rendus des séances de l’année 1991 novembre–décembre. Paris, pp. 683–700. — 1995 a. “The Pahlavi Inscription on Mount Thomas Cross (South India).” In: Z. Zevit et al. eds., Solving Riddles and Untying Knots. Biblical, Epigraphic and Semitic Studies in Honor of Jonas C. Greenfield. Winona Lake, pp. 411–22. — 1995 b. “Dēnkard.” EIr 7, pp. 284–89. — 1995 c. “La controverse dans le mazdéisme tardif.” In: A. Le Boulluec, ed., La controverse religieuse et ses formes. Paris, pp. 127–49. — 1996. “Six documents pehlevis sur cuir du California Museum of Ancient Art, Los Angeles.” BAI 10, pp. 63–72.

450

BIBLIOGRAPHY — 2001. “Nouveaux documents pehlevis sur soie.” In: M. G. Schmidt 2001, pp. 281–301. — 2004. “Aspects de la vie administrative et sociale en Iran du 7ème siècle”. In: Contributions à l’histoire et la géographie historique de l’empire sassanide. Bures-sur-Yvette (Res Orientales 16), pp. 37–48. Gignoux, Ph. and Tafazzoli, A. 1993. Anthologie de Zādsparam. Édition critique du texte pehlevi, traduit et commenté. Paris (StIr, Cahier 13). Gignoux Fs., 1995. Au carrefour des religions. Mélanges offerts à Philippe Gignoux. Ed. by R. Gyselen. Bures-sur-Yvette (Res orientales VII). Giles, L. 1957. Descriptive Catalogue of the Chinese Manuscripts from Tunhuang. London. Gimaret, D. 1971. Le Livre de Bilawhar et Būḏāsf. Paris. Gnoli, Gh. 1979. “Ašavan. Contributo allo studio del libro di Ardā Virāz.” In: Gh. Gnoli and A. V. Rossi, eds., Iranica. Napoli, pp. 387–452. — 1980. Zoroaster’s Time and Homeland. A Study on the Origins of Mazdeism and Related Problems. Napoli. — 1989. “Avestan Geography.” EIr 3, pp. 44–47. — 1994. “Über die Daēnā. Haδōxt nask 2, 7–9.” In: Colpe Fs., pp. 292–98. — 2000. Zoroaster in History. New York (Biennial Yarshater Lecture Series 2). Gnoli Fs., 2003. Religious Themes and Texts of Pre-Islamic Iran and Central Asia. Studies in Honour of Professor Gherardo Gnoli on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday on 6th December 2002. Ed. by C. G. Cereti, M. Maggi and E. Provasi. Wiesbaden. Gobrecht, G. 1967. “Das Artā Vīrāz Nāmak.” ZDMG 117, pp. 382–409. Gombrich, R. 1992. “Dating the Buddha: a Red Harring Revealed.” In: Bechert 1991–97, vol. 2, pp. 237–59. Gonda, J. 1941. “Ein neues Lied.” WZKM 48, pp. 275–90. Greenfield, J. C. and Sokoloff, M. 1989. “Astrological and Related Omen Texts in Jewish Palestinian Aramaic.” JNES 48.3, pp. 201–14. Grelot, P. 1958. “Remarques sur le bilingue gréco-araméen d’Armazi.” Semitica 8, pp. 11–20. Grenet, F. 1988. “Les Sassanides à Doura-Europos (253 ap. J.-C.). Réexamen du matériel épigraphique iranien du site.” In: P.-L. Gatier et al. eds., Géographie historique au Proche-Orient (Syrie, Phénicie, Arabie, grecques, romaines, byzantines). Actes de la table ronde de Valbonne, 16–18 septembre 1985. Paris, pp. 133–58. — 2002 a. “Zoroastre au Badakhshān.” StIr 31, pp. 193–214. — 2002 b. “Pour une nouvelle visite à la ‘vision de Kerdīr’.” Studia Asiatica III/1–2, pp. 5–28

451

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN Grenet, F. and Sims-Williams, N. 1987. “The Historical Context of the Sogdian Ancient Letters.” In: Transition Periods in Iranian History. Actes du Symposium de Fribourg-en-Brisgau (22–24. mai 1985). Paris (StIr, Cahier 5), pp. 101–19. Grenet, F., Sims-Williams, N. and de la Vaissière, E. 1998 [2001]. “The Sogdian Ancient Letter V.” BAI 12, pp. 91–104. Grenet, F. and de la Vaissière, É. 2002. “The Last Days of Panjikent.” Silk Road and Archeology 8, pp. 155–96. Grignaschi, M. 1966. “Quelques Spécimens de la Littérature Sassanide Conservés dans les Bibliothèques d’Istanbul.” JA 254, pp. 1–142. Grimme, H. 1893. Der Strophenbau in den Gedichten Ephraems des Syrers. Freiburg. Gropp, G. 1967. Wiederholungsformen im Jung-Awesta. Hamburg (Hamburger Philologische Studien 1). — 1968. “Die parthische Inschrift von Sar-Pol-e Ẕohāb.” ZDMG 118, pp. 315–19. — 1984. “Eine neuentdeckte Sammlung khotanesischer Handschriftenfragmente in Deutschland.” In: Proceedings … Leuven (1984), pp. 147–50. — 1991. “Zādsprams Interpretation des Ahunavairyo-Gebetes.” In: MacKenzie Fs., pp. 79–89. von Grunebaum, G. E. 1955. Kritik und Dichtkunst. Studien zur arabischen Literaturgeschichte. Wiesbaden. Gutas, D. 1983. “Paul the Persian on the Classification of the Parts of Aristotle’s Philosophy: a Milestone between Alexandria and Baġdâd.” Der Islam 60, pp. 231–67. Gyselen, R. 1988. “Les données de géographie administrative dans le ‘Šahrestānīhā-ī Ērān’.” StIr 17, pp. 191–206. — 1989. La géographie administrative de l’empire sassanide. Paris (Res Orientales 1). Hage, W. 1978. “Einheimische Volkssprachen und syrische Kirchensprache in der nestorianischen Asienmission.” In: G. Wiessner, ed., Erkenntnisse und Meinungen. Vol. II. Wiesbaden, pp. 131–60. Hallock, R. T. 1970. “On the Old Persian Signs.” JNES 29, pp. 52–55. Haloun, G. and Henning, W. B. 1952. “The Compendium of the Doctrines and Styles of the Teaching of Mani, the Buddha of Light.” Asia Major [n.s.] 3, pp. 184–212. Hamilton, J. 1958. “Autour du manuscrit Staël-Holstein.” T’oung pao 46, pp. 115–53. — 1977. “Le pays des Tchong-yun, Čungul, ou Cumuḍa au Xe siècle.” JA 265, pp. 351–79.

452

BIBLIOGRAPHY — 1979. “Les règnes khotanais entre 851 et 1001.” In: M. Soymié, ed., Contributions aux études sur Touen-Houang. Genève, pp. 49–54. Hampel, J. 1974. Die Kopenhagener Handschrift Cod. 27. Eine Sammlung von zoroastrischen Gebeten, Beschwörungsformeln, Vorschriften und wissenschaftlichen Überlieferungen. Wiesbaden (Göttinger Orientforschungen 3.2). Handurukande, R. 1984. Five Buddhist Legends in the Campū Style from a Collection Named Avadānasārasamuccaya. Bonn. Hansen, O. 1930. “Zur soghdischen Inschrift auf dem dreisprachigen Denkmal von Karabalgasun.” Journal de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 44, pp. 3–39. — 1938. Die mittelpersischen Papyri der Papyrussammlung der Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin. Berlin (APAW 1937, No 9). — 1941. Berliner soghdische Texte I. Berlin (APAW 1941, No 10). — 1968. “Die Buddhistische und Christliche Literatur.” HdO 1.4.2.1, pp. 77–99. de Harlez, C. 1881. Avesta. Livre sacré du Zoroastrisme. Traduit du texte Zend, accompagné de notes explicatives et précédé d’une introduction à l’étude de l’Avesta et de la religion mazdéenne. 2nd ed. Paris (Bibliothèque Orientale 5). — 1887. “Le livre des conseils d’Aterpât-i Mânsarspendân.” Le Muséon 6, pp. 66–78. Harmatta, J. 1957. “The Parthian Parchment from Dura-Europos.” AAASH 5, pp. 261–308. — 1958. “Die parthischen Ostraka aus Dura-Europos.” AAASH 6, pp. 87–175. — 1971. “Sino–Iranica.” AAASH 19, pp. 113–47. — 1981 a. “Parthia and Elymais in the 2nd Century B.C.” AAASH 29, pp. 189–217. — 1981 b. “Mithridates and the Rise of [the] Parthian Writing System.” AAASH 29, pp. 219–25. — 1982. “Königliche Res Gestae und epische Dichtung.” In: H. Klengel, ed., Gesellschaft und Kultur im alten Vorderasien. Berlin, pp. 83–88. — 1986. “The Bactrian Inscription of Ayrtam.” In: Humbach Fs., pp. 131–46. Hartmann, J.-U. 1988. “Neue Aśvaghoṣa- und Mātceta-Fragmente aus Ostturkistan.” Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen 2, pp. 56–92. Hāšemī-nežād, Q. 1990. Kārnāme-ye Ardašīr-e Bābakān [Book of Feats of Ardašir Son of Bābak]. Tehran.

453

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN Haug, M. and West, E. W. 1872. The Book of Arda Viraf. Pahlavi Text Prepared by Destur Hoshangji Jamaspji Asa, Revised and Collated with Further Manuscripts, with an English Translation. Bombay/London. Hedāyat, S. 1939. Goǰaste Abāliš [The Accursed Abāliš]. Tehran. — 1942. Šahrestānhā-ye Iranšahr [Capitals of Iran]. Tehran. — 1943a. Gozāreš-e gomān-šekan [Doubt-destroying Exposition]. Tehran. — 1943 b. Kārnāme-ye Ardašīr-e Pāpakān [Book of Feats of Ardašir Son of Pāpak] . Tehran. — 1943 c. Yādgār-e Jamāsp [Memoirs of Jamāsp]. Tehran. — 1944. Zand-e vohuman yasn wa kārnāme-ye Ardašīr-e Pāpakān [Zend of the Vohuman Yasn and the Book of Feats of Ardašir Son of Pāpak]. Tehran. Henning, W. B. 1936. “Neue Materialien zur Geschichte des Manichäismus.” ZDMG 90, pp. 1–18 [= Henning 1977, I, pp. 379–96]. — 1937. Ein manichäisches Bet- und Beichtbuch. Berlin (APAW 1936, No. 10) [= Henning 1977, I, pp. 417–557]. — 1940. Sogdica. London [= Henning 1977, II, pp. 1–68]. — 1942 a. “Mani’s Last Journey.” BSOAS 10 (1940–42), pp. 941–53 [= Henning 1977, II, pp. 81–93]. — 1942 b. “The Disintegration of the Avestic Studies.” TPS 1942, pp. 40–56 [= Henning 1977, II, pp. 151–67]. — 1942 c. “An Astronomical Chapter of the Bundahishn.” JRAS 1942, pp. 229–48 [= Henning 1977, II, pp. 95–114]. — 1943 a. “The Book of the Giants.” BSOAS 11 (1943–46), pp. 52–74 [= Henning 1977, II, pp. 115–37]. — 1943b. “Annotations to Mr. Tsui’s Translation.” BSOAS 11 (1943–46), pp. 216–19. — 1945 a. “Sogdian Tales.” BSOAS 11 (1943–46), pp. 465–87 [= Henning 1977, II, pp. 169–91]. — 1945 b. “Two Central Asian words.” TPS 1945, pp. 150–62 [= Henning 1977, II, pp. 259–71]. — 1946. “The Sogdian Texts of Paris.” BSOAS 11 (1943–46), pp. 713–40 [= Henning 1977, II, pp. 231–58]. — 1947. “Two Manichaean Magical Texts with an Excursus on The Parthian Ending -ēndēh.” BSOAS 12 (1947–48), pp. 39–66 [= Henning 1977, II, pp. 273–300]. — 1948 a. “A Sogdian Fragment of the Manichaean Cosmogony.” BSOAS 12 (1947–48), pp. 306–18 [= Henning 1977, II, pp. 301–13].

454

BIBLIOGRAPHY — 1948b. “The Date of the Sogdian Ancient Letters.” BSOAS 12 (1947–48), pp. 601–15 [= Henning 1977, II, pp. 315–29]. — 1950. “A Pahlavi Poem.” BSOAS 13 (1949–51), pp. 641–48, 809 [= Henning 1977, II, pp. 349–56]. — 1951. Zoroaster. Politician or Witch-Doctor? London. — 1952 a. “The Monuments and Inscriptions of Tang-i Sarvak.” Asia Major [n.s.] 2.2, pp. 151–78 [= Henning 1977, II, pp. 359–86]. — 1952 b. “A Farewell to the Khagan of the Aq-Aqatärān.” BSOAS 14, pp. 501–22 [= Henning 1977, II, pp. 387–408]. — 1953. “A New Parthian Inscription.” JRAS 1953, pp. 132–36 [= Henning 1977, II, pp. 409–13]. — 1954. “The Inscription of Firuzabad.” Asia Major 4, pp. 98–102 [= Henning 1977, II, pp. 431–35]. — 1958. “Mitteliranisch.” HdO 1.4.1, pp. 20–130. — 1959 a. “A Fragment of the Manichaean Hymn-Cycles in Old Turkish.” Asia Major [n.s.] 7, pp. 122–24 [= Henning 1977, II, pp. 537–39]. — 1959 b. “Die älteste persische Gedichthandschrift: eine neue Version von Barlaam und Joasaph.” In: H. Franke, ed., Akten des vierundzwanzigsten internationalen Orientalisten-Kongresses, München 28. August bis 4. September 1957. Wiesbaden, pp. 305–7 [= Henning 1977, II, pp. 541–44]. — 1960. “The Bactrian Inscription.” BSOAS 23, pp. 47–55 [= Henning 1977, II, pp. 545–53]. — 1962. “Persian Poetical Manuscripts from the Time of Rūdakī.” In: W. B. Henning and E. Yarshater, eds., A Locust’s Leg. Studies in Honour of S.H. Taqizadeh. London, pp. 89–104 [= Henning 1977, II, pp. 559–74]. — 1965 a. “The Choresmian Documents.” Asia Major 11, pp. 166–79 [= Henning 1977, II, pp. 645–58]. — 1965 b. “A Grain of Mustard.” AION-L, pp. 29–47 [= Henning 1977, II, pp. 597–615]. — 1977. W. B. Henning Selected Papers. 2 vols. Téhéran/Liège (AcIr 14–15). Henning Mem., 1970. W. B. Henning Memorial Volume. Ed. by M. Boyce and I. Gershevitch. London. Henning, W. B. s. Andreas, F. C. Herrenschmidt, Cl. 1977. “Les créations d’Ahuramazda.” StIr 6, pp. 17–58. Herrenschmidt, Cl. and Kellens, J. 1994. “La question du rituel dans le mazdéisme ancien et achéménide.” Archives de sciences sociales des religions 85, pp. 45–67.

455

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN Herzfeld, E. 1924. Paikuli. Monument and Inscription of the Early History of the Sasanian Empire. 2 vols. Berlin. Hintze, A. 1994 a. Der Zamyād-Yašt. Edition, Übersetzung, Kommentar. Wiesbaden (Beiträge zur Iranistik 15). — 1994 b. Zamyād Yašt. Text, Translation, Glossary. Wiesbaden (Iranische Texte 7). — 1995a. “Compositional Techniques in the Yašts of the Younger Avesta.” In: Proceedings … Bamberg (1995), pp. 277–86. — 1995 b. “The Rise of the Saviour in the Avesta.” In: Sundermann Fs., pp. 77–97. — 2000. “Die avestische Wurzel mad ‘zumessen’.” In: B. Forssman and R. Plath, eds., Indoarisch, Iranisch und die Indogermanistik. Arbeitstagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft vom 2. bis 5. Oktober 1997 in Erlangen. Wiesbaden, pp. 163–75. — 2002. “On the Literary Structure of the Older Avesta.” BSOAS 65, pp. 31–51. — 2003. “When the Stars Rise: the Avestan Expression aiβisrūϑrimaaibigaiia-.” In: Gnoli Fs., pp. 143–55. — 2004. “On the Ritual Significance of the Yasna Haptaŋhāiti.” In: M. Stausberg, ed., Zoroastrian Rituals in Context. Leiden (Numen Book Series 102), pp. 291–316. — [2005]. “On the Compositional Structure of the Avestan Gāhs.” In: F. Vahman and C. Pedersen, eds., Religious Texts in Iranian Languages. Copenhagen. — [2006]. A Zoroastrian Liturgy. The Worship in Seven Chapters. Wiesbaden. von Hinüber, O. 1973. Das Saṃghāṭasūtra: Ausgabe und kommentierte Übersetzung eines nordbuddhistischen Lehrtextes in Sanskrit und Sakisch. Habilitation thesis. Mainz University. — 1981. “Die Erforschung der Gilgit Handschriften: neue Ergebnisse.” ZDMG 131, pp. *9*–*11*. Hinz, W. 1971. “Dantes Persische Vorläufer.” AMI [NF] 4, pp. 117–26. Hjerrild, B. 2003. Studies in Zoroastrian Family Law. A Comparative Analysis. Copenhagen. Hodous, L. s. Soothill, E. W. Hoernle, A. F. R. 1897. “Three Further Collections of Ancient Manuscripts from Central Asia.” Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal 66.1, pp. 213–60, pls. vii–xxx (repr. Calcutta, pls. i–xxiv). — 1911. “The ‘Unknown Languages’ of Eastern Turkestan, II.” JRAS 1911, pp. 447–77, 5 pls.

456

BIBLIOGRAPHY — 1916. Manuscript Remains of Buddhist Literature Found in Eastern Turkestan. Facsimiles with Transcripts, Translations and Notes. Vol. 1. Oxford. — 1921. “Inventory List of Manuscripts in Sanskrit, Khotanese and Kuchean.” In: M. A. Stein, ed., Serindia: Detailed Report of Exploration in Central Asia and Westernmost China. Vol. 3. Oxford, pp. 1432–59. Hoffmann, K. 1968. “The Avesta Fragment FrD.3.” IIJ 10, pp. 282–88 [= Hoffmann 1975, pp. 221–27]. — 1969. “Die av. Verbalformen jauua Yt 5,63, niδātaē-ca Yt 13,66 und fraδātaē-ca Yt 13,68.” In: Pagliaro Fs., III, pp. 17–32 [= Hoffmann 1975, pp. 258–73]. — 1975. Aufsätze zur Indoiranistik. Vol. 1. Wiesbaden. — 1976. “Zur altpersischen Schrift.” In: K. Hoffmann, Aufsätze zur Indoiranistik. Vol. 2. Wiesbaden, pp. 620–45. Hoffmann, K. and Forssman, B. 1996. Avestische Laut- und Formenlehre. Innsbruck (Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 84). Hoffmann, K. and Narten, J. 1989. Der Sasanidische Archetypus. Untersuchungen zu Schreibung und Lautgestalt des Avestischen. Wiesbaden. Honigmann, E. and Maricq, A. 1953. Recherches sur les Res Gestae Divi Saporis. Bruxelles (MARB 47). Hopkirk, P. 1980. Foreign Devils on the Silk Road. The Search for the Lost Cities and Treasures of Chinese Central Asia. London. Huang, W. 1958. Da li mu pen di kao gu ji [Archaeological Report from the Tarim Basin]. Peking [in Chinese]. Hultgård, A. 1983. “Forms and Origins of Iranian Apocalypticism.” In: D. Hellholm, ed., Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World and the Near East. Tübingen, pp. 387–413. — 1990. “The First Chapter of the Bundahišn. Remarks on Text and Composition.” In: Proceedings … Turin, pp. 167–90. — 1991. “Bahman Yašt: A Persian Apocalypse.” In: J. J. Collins and J. H. Charlesworth, eds., Mysteries and Revelations. Apocalyptic Studies since the Uppsala Colloquium. Sheffield, pp. 114–34. — 1992. “Mythe et histoire dans l’Iran ancien: cosmogonie et l’histoire du monde.” In: Proceedings … Bamberg (1992), pp. 37–56. Humbach Fs., 1986. Studia Grammatica Iranica. Festschrift für Helmut Humbach. Ed. by R. Schmitt and P. O. Skjærvø. München. Humbach, H. 1959. Die Gathas des Zarathustra. Vol. 1: Einleitung, Text, Übersetzung, Paraphrase. Vol. 2: Kommentar. Heidelberg. — 1966. Baktrische Sprachdenkmäler. Teil I. Wiesbaden.

457

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN — 1973. “Beobachtungen zur Überlieferungsgeschichte des Awesta.” MSS 31, pp. 109–22. — 1974. “Aramaeo-Iranian and Pahlavi.” In: Commémoration Cyrus. Hommage Universel II. Téhéran/Liège (AcIr 2), pp. 237–43. — 1979. “Buddhistische Moral in aramäoiranischem und griechischem Gewande.” In: J. Harmatta, ed., Prolegomena to the Sources on the History of Pre-Islamic Central Asia. Budapest, pp. 189–96. — 1980 [1981]. “Die soghdischen Inschriftenfunde vom oberen Indus (Pakistan).” Allgemeine und vergleichende Archäologie. Beiträge des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 2, pp. 201–28. — 1989. “Choresmian.” CLI, pp. 193–203. — 1991. The Gāthās of Zarathushtra and the other Old Avestan Texts. Part I: Introduction, Text and Translation. Part II: Commentary. Heidelberg. Humbach, H. s. JamaspAsa, K. M. Humbach, H. and Elfenbein, J. 1990. Ērbedestān. An Avesta-Pahlavi Text. München (MSS, Beiheft 15). Humbach, H. and Ichaporia, P. 1994. The Heritage of Zarathushtra. A New Translation of his Gāthās. Heidelberg. — 1998. Zamyād Yasht. Yasht 19 of the Younger Avesta. Text, Translation, Commentary. Wiesbaden. Humbach, H. and JamaspAsa, K. M. 1969. Vaēϑa Nask. An Apocryphal Text on Zoroastrian Problems. Translated and Annotated. Wiesbaden. Humbach, H. and Skjærvø, P. O. 1978–83. The Sassanian Inscription of Paikuli. 3 vols. Wiesbaden. Hutter, M. 1992. Manis kosmogonische Šābuhragān-Texte. Edition, Kommentar und literaturgeschichtliche Einordnung der manichäisch-mittelpersischen Handschriften M 98/99 I und M 7980–7984. Wiesbaden (Studies in Oriental Religions 21). Huyse, Ph. 1990 [1992]. “Noch einmal zu Parallelen zwischen Achaemeniden- und Sāsānideninschriften.” AMI 23, pp. 177–83. — 1995. “Die Begegnung zwischen Hellenen und Iraniern. Griechische epigraphische Zeugnisse von Griechenland bis Pakistan.” In: Sundermann Fs., pp. 99–126. — 1998. “Kerdīr and the First Sasanians.” In: Proceedings … Cambridge, pp. 109–20. — 1999 a. CII. Part III : Pahlavi Inscriptions. Vol. I: Royal Inscriptions, with their Parthian and Greek Versions. Text I: Die dreisprachige Inschrift Šabuhr’s I. an der Kaʿba-i Zardušt (ŠKZ). 2 vols. London.

458

BIBLIOGRAPHY — 1999 b [2002]. “Some Further Thoughts on the Bisitun Monument and the Genesis of the Old Persian Cuneiform Script.” BAI 13, pp. 45–66. Ichaporia, P. s. Humbach, H. Ichaporia, P. 2001. “Dārūg ī hunsandīh ‘The Drug of Happiness’.” In M. G. Schmidt 2001, pp. 572–77. Inagaki, H. 1999. Amida dhāraṇī sūtra and Jñānagarbha’s Commentary. An Annotated Translation from Tibetan of the Anantamukha-nirhāradhāraṇī sūtra and ṭīkā. Kyoto. Inokuchi, T. 1961. “Buddhist sūtras in the Tokharian and Khotanese Saka Languages.” In: Buddhist Manuscripts and Secular Documents of the Ancient Languages in Central Asia. Kyoto (Monumenta Serindica 4), pp. 364–88. Insler, S. 1975. The Gāthās of Zarathustra. Téhéran/Liège (AcIr 8). Irani, K. S. 1899. The Pahlavi Texts. Bombay. Ito, G. 1975. “From the Dēnkard.” In: Monumentum H. S. Nyberg I. Téhéran/Liège (AcIr 4), pp. 423–33. Iwamatsu, A. 1985. “Tonkō no kōtango bukkyō bunken” [Khotanese Buddhist Texts from Dunhuang]. In: Kōza Tonkō [Dunhuang Lectures]. Vol. 6: Tonkō kogo bunken [Texts in Central Asian Languages from Dunhuang]. Tokyo, pp. 141–83. Jaafari-Dehaghi, M. 1998. Dādestān ī Dēnīg. Part I: Transcription, Translation and Commentary. Paris. Jackson, P. 1990. The Mission of Friar William of Rubruck. London. Jaʿfari, M. 1986. Mātikān-e yūšt-e fryān. Matn-e Pahlavi, āvā-nevisi, tarjome, vāže-nāme [Book of Yušt Son of Fryān. Pahlavi Text, Transcription, Translation, Glossary]. Teheran. Jaini, P. S. 1966. “The Story of Sudhana and Manoharā: an Analysis of the Texts and the Borobudur Reliefs.” BSOAS 29, pp. 532–58, 1 pl. Jamasp, H., ed. 1907. Vendidād. Avesta Text with Pahlavi Translation and Commentary, and Glossarial Index. With the Assistance of M. M. Gandevia. Vol. I: The Texts. Vol. II: Glossarial Index. Bombay. JamaspAsa, J. 1902. Arda Viraf Nāmeh. The Original Pahlavi Text with an Introduction, Notes, Gujarati Translation and Persian Version of Zartosht Behram in Verse. Bombay. — 1914. “Andarz-î dastôbarân val vêh-dînân.” In: J. J. Modi, ed., Sir Jamsetjee Jejeebhoy Madressa Jubilee Volume. Bombay, pp. 84–88. JamaspAsa, K. M. 1969. “On the Ēmēt i Ashavahištān.” In: N. D. Minochehr-Homji and M. F. Kanga, eds., K. R. Cama Oriental Institute Golden Jubilee Volume. Bombay, pp. 37–44.

459

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN — 1970. “The Pahlavi Text of the Vičīrīhā i dēn i veh i Mazdayasnān.” In: Henning Mem., pp. 201–18. — 1972. “Further to Ēmēt i Ashavahištān.” MSS 30, pp. 65–72. — 1974. “Ēmēt i Ashavahištān.” In: Kuruš Memorial Volume. Bombay, pp. 167–79. — 1975. “Ēmēt i Ašavahištān 9–12.” In: Monumentum H. S. Nyberg I. Téhéran/Liège (AcIr 4), pp. 435–43. — 1982. Aogəmadaēcā. A Zoroastrian Liturgy. Wien (Veröffentlichungen der iranischen Kommission 11). JamaspAsa, K. M. and Humbach, H. 1971. Pursišnīhā. A Zoroastrian Catechism. 2 vols. Wiesbaden. JamaspAsa, K. M. s. Humbach, H. Jamasp-Asana, H. J. and West, E. W., eds. 1887. Shikand-gūmānīk Vijār. The Pazand-Sanskrit Text together with a Fragment of the Pahlavi. Bombay. Jamasp-Asana, J. M., ed. 1897–1913. Pahlavi Texts. Vol. I (1897); vol. II (1913): Contained in the Codex MK., Copied in 1322 A. D. by the Scribe Mehr-Âwân Kai-khûsrû. Bombay [repr. Teheran 1969]. Jamasp-Asana, K. J. 1900. “The Day Khordâd of the Month Farvardin Commonly Called Khordâdsâl: Translated from the Original Pahlavi Text.” In: K. R. Cama Memorial Volume. Bombay, pp. 122–29. Jamaspji, H. 1867. An Old Zand-Pahlavi Glossary. Edited in the original characters with a transliteration in Roman letters, an English translation and an alphabetical index. Revised with notes and introduction by M. Haug. Bombay/London. Jamaspji-Asa, H. 1870. An Old Pahlavi-Pazand Glossary. Edited with an alphabetical index. Revised and enlarged, with an introductory essay on the Pahlavi language by M. Haug. Bombay. Jamaspji-Asa, H., Haug, M. and West, E. W. 1872. The Book of Arda Viraf. The Pahlavi text prepared by Dastur H. Jamaspji Asa, revised and collated with further MSS., with an English translation and introduction, and an appendix containing the texts and translations of the Gosht-i Fryano and Hadokht-Nask by M. Haug, assisted by E. W. West. Bombay. Josephson, J. 1997. The Pahlavi Translation Technique as Illustrated by Hōm Yašt. Uppsala. — 2003. “The ‘Sitz im Leben’ of the Seventh Book of the Dēnkard.” In: Gnoli Fs., pp. 203–12. Junker, H. F. J. 1911. The Frahang i Pahlavīk. Part I: Prologomena. Heidelberg.

460

BIBLIOGRAPHY — 1912. Ein mittelpersisches Schulgespräch. Heidelberg (SHAW). — 1955. Das Frahang i Pahlavīk in zeichengemässer Anordnung. Leipzig (Iranische Texte und Hilfsbücher 1). — 1959. Der wissbegierige Sohn. Ein mittelpersischer Text über das Kustīk. Umschrift, Sanskrit- und deutsche Übersetzung. With English commentary by J. C. Tavadia. Leipzig (Iranische Texte und Hilfsbücher 3). — 1967. “The Rhythm of Darius’ Epitaph.” In: Rypka Mem., pp. 29–35. Justi, F. 1868. Der Bundehesh. Zum ersten Male herausgegeben, transcribirt, übersetzt und mit Glossar versehen. Leipzig. Kanga, M. F. 1941. Pahlavi Version of the Yašt. Translated for the first time into English with copious notes and introduction. Bombay. — 1946. Māh-i Farvartēn Roz Khvardād. A Pahlavi text translated into English. Bombay. — 1947. Admonitions of the Sages to the Mazdayasniansn, or Handarz-i Dānākān ō Mazdayasnān. Bombay. — 1950. “Pahlavi Yasn Hā VIII. A Critical Study.” In: Siddha-Bhārāti Being the Dr. Siddeshwar Varma Presentation Volume. Hoshiarpur, pp. 1–7. — 1951. “Life and Letters of Manūščihr Gošn-jam.” In: Professor Pour-e Davoud Memorial Volume. Vol. II: Papers on Zoroastrian and Iranian Subjects. Bombay, pp. 189–204. — 1960. Čītak Handarž ī Pōryōtkēšān. A Pahlavi text edited, transcribed and translated into English with introduction and a critical glossary and with a foreword by Professor H. W. Bailey. Bombay. — 1964 a. “Dātistān ī Dēnīk. Pursišn I. A Critical Study.” In: Morgenstierne Fs., pp. 98–102. — 1964 b. “Dātistān ī Dēnīk. Pursišn II.” In: Dr. J. M. Unvala Memorial Volume. Bombay, pp. 127–40. — 1965. “Dātistān ī Dēnīk. Pursišn XXX.” Indian Linguistics 26, pp. 72–86. — 1966 a. “The Last Chapter of dēnkard Book III apar dēn nipēk dēnkart nipēk.” In: J. P. Asmussen and J. Læssøe, eds., Iranian Studies. Presented to Kai Barr on his Seventieth Birthday June 26, 1966. Copenhagen, pp. 117–27. — 1966 b. “Epistle I, Ch. IV of Manuščihr Gōšnjamān. A Critical Study.” Indian Linguistics 27, pp. 46–57. — 1967. “A Critical Study of Chapter III, Epistle I of Manuščihr Gōšnjamān.” In: Sir J. J. Zarthoshti Madressa Centenary Volume. Bombay, pp. 147–61.

461

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN — 1968. “A Study of the First Two Chapters of the First Epistle of Manuščihr Gōšnjamān.” In: Proceedings of the XXVI International Congress of Orientalists, 4–10 January 1964. Vol. 2. New Delhi, pp. 218–25. — 1969. “Dātistān ī Dēnīk. Pursišn XVI. A Critical Study.” In: N. D. Minochehr-Homji and M. F. Kanga, eds., K. R. Cama Oriental Institute Golden Jubilee Volume. Bombay, pp. 65–84. — 1970. “Dātistān ī Dēnīk. Pursišn XIV and XV. A Critical Study.” In: Henning Mem., pp. 216–27. — 1971. “A Critical Study of Ch. V of Epistle I of Manuščihr GōšnJamān.” Journal of the Ganganatha Kendriya Sanskrit Vidyapeetha 27, pp. 303–13. — 1974. “A Critical Study of Epistle I Ch. 6 and 7 of Manuščihr Gōšnjaman.” In: de Menasce Mem., pp. 251–62. — 1975 a. “Vičītakīhā ī Zātsparam Ch. 27. A Critical Study.” In: F. Bader et al. eds., Mélanges linguistiques offerts à Émile Benveniste. Paris, pp. 305–12. — 1975 b. “Sitīkar Nāmak ī Manuščihr Gōšnjamān.” In: Monumentum H. S. Nyberg I. Téhéran/Liège (AcIr 4), pp. 445–56. — 1976. “Dātistān ī Dēnīk. Pursišn 36, 1–11.” Journal of the K. R. Cama Oriental Institute 45, pp. 74–80. — 1977. “Dātistān ī Dīnīk. Pursišn XII and XIII.” AAASH 25, pp. 249–53. — 1980. “Dātistān ī Dēnīk. Pursišn XXI and XXII.” Journal of the K. R. Cama Oriental Institute 48, pp. 211–19. — 1983. “Dātistān ī Dēnīk, Pursišn XXIII and XXIV.” Journal of the K. R. Cama Oriental Institute 50, pp. 112–25. Kapadia, D. D. 1953. Glossary of Pahlavi Vendidad. Bombay. Karev, Yu. 1998. “Statuetka bodisattvy avalokiteshvary iz Samarkanda” [A Statuette of the Bodhisattva Avalokitešvara from Samarkand]. VDI 1998/1, pp. 108–17. Kariyawasam, A. G. S. 1979. “Dhāraṇī.” In: Encyclopaedia of Buddhism. Vol. 4. Colombo, pp. 515–20. Kasrawi, A. 1930. Kārnāme-ye Ardašīr-e Bābakān [Book of Feats of Ardašīr Son of Bābak]. Teheran. Kasumova, S. Yu. 1994. Srednepersidskaya epigrafika Kavkazskoĭ Albanii (Derbent) [Middle Persian Epigraphy of Caucasian Albania (Derbent)]. Baku. Kellens, J. 1974. Les noms-racines dans l’Avesta. Wiesbaden.

462

BIBLIOGRAPHY — 1975. Fravardīn Yašt (1–70). Introduction, édition et glossaire. Wiesbaden (Iranische Texte 6). — 1976 a. “L’Avesta comme source historique: la liste des Kayanides.” AAASH 24, pp. 37–49. — 1976 b. “Trois réflexions sur la religion des Achéménides.” StII 2, pp. 113–32. — 1978. “Caractères différentiels du Mihr Yašt.” In: Études Mithraiques. Actes du 2e Congrès International Téhéran, du 1er au 8 septembre 1975. Téhéran/Liège (AcIr 17), pp. 261–78. — 1987 a. “Characters of Ancient Mazdāism.” History and Anthropology 3, pp. 239–62. — 1987 b. “Quatres siècles obscurs.” In: Transition Periods in Iranian History. Actes du Symposium de Fribourg-en-Brisgau (22–24 mai 1985). Paris (StIr, Cahier 5), pp. 135–39. — 1989 a. “Avesta.” EIr 3, pp. 35–44. — 1989 b. “Avestique.” CLI, pp. 32–55. — 1991. “L’avestique de 1972 à 1990.” Kratylos 36, pp. 1–31. — 1992. “Čistā.” EIr 5, pp. 601–2. — 1994 a. Le pantheon de l’Avesta ancien. Wiesbaden. — 1994 b. “Avesta. Litt. en langues iraniennes/antiquité.” In: Dictionnaire universel des littératures. Paris, pp. 275–76. — 1995 a. “L’âme entre le cadavre et le paradis.” JA 283, pp. 19–56. — 1995 b. “Interrogation.” JA 283, pp. 271–74. — 1996 a. “Commentaire sur les premiers chapitres du Yasna.” JA 284, pp. 37–108. — 1996 b. “Dēn Yašt.” EIr 7, pp. 281–82. — 1997–98. “Langues et religions indo-iraniennes: De la naissance des montagnes à la fin du temps: le Yašt 19.” Annuaire du Collège de France, Résumé des cours et travaux 98, pp. 737–65. — 1998. “Considérations sur l’histoire de l’Avesta.” JA 286, pp. 451–519. — 2000. “L’ellipse du temps.” In: Narten Fs., pp. 127–31. — 2002–3 a. “Le problème avec Anāhitā.” OS 51–52, pp. 317–26. — 2002–3 b. “Langues et religions indo-iraniennes.” Annuaire du Collège de France, Résumé des cours et travaux 103, pp. 815–45. Kellens, J. s. Herrenschmidt, C. Kellens, J. and Pirart, E. V. 1997. “La strophe des jumeaux: stagnation, extravagance et autres méthodes d’approche.” JA 285, pp. 31–72. — 1988–91. Les textes vieil-avestiques. Vol. I: Introduction, texte et traduction. Vol. II: Répertoires grammaticaux et lexique. Vol. III: Commentaire. Wiesbaden.

463

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN Kent, R. G. 1953. Old Persian. Grammar. Texts. Lexicon. 2nd ed. New Haven. Khoroche, P. 1972. Review of Humbach/JamaspAsa1969. BSOS 35, p. 200. Kia, S. 1974. “Sur quelques termes de ‘Xosrow et son page’.” In: Commémoration cyrus. Hommage Universel III. Téhéran/Liège (AcIr 3), pp. 209–19. Kingsley, P. 1990. “The Greek Origin of the Sixth-century Dating of Zoroaster.” BSOAS 53, pp. 245–65. Kippenberg, H. G. 1978. “Die Geschichte der mittelpersischen apokalyptischen Traditionen.” StIr 7, pp. 49–80. Kirste, J. 1896. “Über das Khodai-nāme.” WZKM 10, pp. 322–26. Klein, W. and Tubach, J. 1994. “Ein syrisch-christliches Fragment aus Dunhuang/China.” ZDMG 144, pp. 1–13, 446. Klíma, O. 1959. “Awesta—Die altpersischen Inschriften—das mittelpersische Schrifttum.” In: J. Rypka, Iranische Literaturgeschichte. Leipzig, pp. 1–67. — 1967. “The Dārūk i Xuansandīh.” In: Rypka Mem., pp. 37–39. — 1968a. “Avesta. Ancient Persian Inscriptions. Middle Persian Literature.” In: J. Rypka, ed., History of Iranian Literature. Dordrecht, pp. 25–60. — 1968 b. “Einige Bemerkungen zum Dārūk ī Xuansandī.” ArOr 36, pp. 567–76. — 1968 c. “Wie sah die persische Geschichtsschreibung in der vorislamischen Periode aus?” ArOr 36, pp. 213–32. Klimkeit, H.-J. 1977. “Manichäische und buddhistische Beichtformeln aus Turfan. Beobachtungen zur Beziehung zwischen Gnosis und Mahāyāna.” Zeitschrift für Religions- und Geistesgeschichte 29, pp. 193–228. — 1989. Hymnen und Gebete der Religion des Lichts. Opladen. — 1993. Gnosis on the Silk Road. Gnostic Texts from Central Asia. San Francisco. Klimkeit, H.-J. s. Geng Shimin. Klingenschmitt, G. 1968 a. Farhang-i ōīm. Edition und Kommentar. Erlangen [Teildruck]. — 1968 b. Farhang-i ōīm. Edition und Kommentar. Erlangen [unpublished dissertation]. — 1969. “Die Pahlavi-Version des Avesta.” In: W. Voigt, ed., XVII. Deutscher Orientalistentag vom 21. bis 27. Juli 1968 in Würzburg. Vorträge. Wiesbaden (ZDMG, Supplementa I.3), pp. 993–97. — 1971. “Neue Avesta-Fragmente (FrA).” MSS 29, pp. 111–74. — 1978. “Der Beitrag der Pahlavi-Literatur zur Interpretation des Avesta.” MSS 37, pp. 93–107.

464

BIBLIOGRAPHY — 2000. “Mittelpersisch.” In: B. Forssman and R. Plath, eds., Indoarisch, Iranisch und die Indogermanistik. Arbeitstagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft vom 2. bis 5. Oktober 1997 in Erlangen. Wiesbaden, pp. 191–229. Klyashtornij, S. G. and Livshits, V. A. 1971. “Une inscription inédite turque et sogdienne: la stèle de Sevrey (Gobi méridional).” JA 259, pp. 11–20. — 1972. “The Sogdian Inscription of Bugut Revised.” AOASH 27, pp. 69–102. Konow, St. 1916 a. “The Vajracchedikā in the Old Khotanese Version of the Eastern Turkestan.” In: Hoernle 1916, pp. 214–88, pls. v–xi and xii–xiv. — 1916 b. “The Khotanese Aparimitâyuḥ-sūtra: the Old Khotanese Version together with the Sanskrit Text and the Tibetan Translation.” In: Hoernle 1916, pp. 289–329, pls. xiv–xvii. — 1916 c. “Vocabulary to Vajracchedikā and Aparimitâyuḥ-sūtra.” In: Hoernle 1916, pp. 330–56. — 1929. Saka Versions of the Bhadrakalpikāsūtra [sic]. Oslo. — 1932. Saka Studies. Oslo. — 1939 a. “The Late Professor Leumann’s Edition of a New Saka Text II.” Norsk Tidsskrift for Sprogvidenskap 11, p. 5–84. — 1939 b. “A Saka name of Mazār-Tāgh.” In: A Volume of Eastern and Indian Studies in Honour of F. W. Thomas. Bombay, pp. 146–47. — 1941. A Medical Text in Khotanese. Ch. ii 003 of the India Office Library: with Translation and Vocabulary. Oslo. Kotwal, F. M. 1966. Editio Princeps of the Vaēθā with Transcription of the Pahlavi Version. Bombay. — 1969. The Supplementary Texts to the Šāyest nē-šāyest. København (Historisk-filosofiske Meddelelser 44.2). Kotwal, F. M. and Boyd, J. W., eds. 1980. Ērbadīstān ud Nīrangistān. Facsimile Edition of the Manuscript TD. Cambridge/London (Harvard Iranian Series 3). — 1991. A Persian Offering. The Yasna: A Zoroastrian High Liturgy. Paris (StIr, Cahier 8). Kotwal, F. M. and Kreyenbroek, Ph. G. 1992. The Hērbedestān and Nērangestān. Vol. I: Hērbedestān. Paris (StIr, Cahier 10). — 1995. The Hērbedestān and Nērangestān. Vol. II: Nērangestān, Fragard 1. Paris (StIr, Cahier 16). — 2003. The Hērbedestān and Nērangestān. Vol. III: Nērangestān, Fragard 2. Paris (StIr, Cahier 30).

465

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN Kreyenbroek, Ph. G. 1985. Sraoša in the Zoroastrian Tradition. Leiden (Orientalia Rheno-Traiectina 28). — 1987. “The Dādestān ī Dēnīg on Priests.” IIJ 30, pp. 185–208. Kudara, K. 1999. Silk Road and its Culture: the View of a Japanese Scholar. Berlin. Kudara, K. and Sundermann, W. 1987. “Zwei Fragmente einer Sammelhandschrift buddhistischer Sūtras in soghdischer Sprache.” AoF 14, pp. 334–49 with plates XII–XV. — 1988. “Fragmente einer soghdischen Handschrift des Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā-sūtra.” AoF 15, pp. 174–81. — 1991. “Fragmente einer soghdischen Handschrift des Viśeṣacintibrahma-paripṛcchā-sutra.” AoF 18, pp. 246–63. — 1992. “Ein weiteres Fragment einer soghdischen Übersetzung des Bhaiṣajyaguruvaiḍūryaprabhatathāgatasūtra.” AoF 19, pp. 350–58. — 1998. “A Second Text of the Sogdian Viśeṣa-cinti-brahma-paripṛcchasūtra.” Studies on the Inner Asian Languages XIII, pp. 111–28. Kudara, K., Sundermann, W. and Yoshida, Y. 1993. A Catalogue of Iranian Fragments Unearthed in Central Asia by the Otani Expeditions and Preserved at Ryukoku University. Non published. — 1997. Iranian Fragments from the Ôtani Collection. Iranian Fragments Unearthed in Central Asia by the Ôtani Mission and Kept at the Library of Ryūkoku University. 2 vols. Kyoto. Kudo, N. 2004. The Karmavibhaṅga. Transliterations and Annotations of the Original Sanskrit Manuscripts from Nepal. Tokyo. Kuiper, F. B. J. 1978. On Zarathustra’s Language. Amsterdam/London. Kuiper Fs., 1968. Pratidānam. Indian, Iranian and Indo-European Studies Presented to Franciscus Bernardus Jacobus Kuiper on his Sixtieth Birthday. Ed. by J. C. Heesterman et al. The Hague/Paris. Kumamoto, H. 1982. Khotanese Official Documents in the Tenth Century. Dissertation. University of Pennsylvania. — 1985. “Kōtango bunken gaisetsu” [A Survey of Khotanese Texts]. In: Kōza Tonkō [Dunhuang Lectures]. Vol. 6: Tonkō kogo bunken [Texts in Central Asian Languages from Dunhuang]. Tokyo, pp. 101–40. — 1986. “Some Problems of the Khotanese Documents.” In: Humbach Fs., pp. 227–44. — 1988. “Sei-iki ryokōshayō sansukuritto-kōtango kaiwa renshūchō” [A Sanskrit-Khotanese Conversation Manual for Central Asian Travellers]. Seinan Ajia kenkyū 28, pp. 53–82. — 1991. “Some Khotanese Letters in Verse.” Tokyo University Linguistics Papers 12, pp. 59–80.

466

BIBLIOGRAPHY — 1993. “More Khotanese Letters and Verses.” Tokyo University Linguistics Papers 13, pp. 145–84. — 1995. “Miscellaneous Documents from the Pelliot Collection.” Tokyo University Linguistics Papers 14, pp. 229–58. — 1996 a. “The Khotanese Documents from the Khotan Area.” With an appendix by T. Saitō. Memoirs of the Research Department of the Toyo Bunko 54, pp. 27–64. — 1996 b. “Deśanā.” EIr 7, pp. 320–21. — 1996 c. “Dharmaśarīra-sūtra.” EIr 7, p. 358. — 1996 d. “Dhāraṇī, i. In Khotanese.” EIr 7, pp. 356–57. — 1996 e. “The Khotanese in Dunhuang.” In: A. Cadonna and L. Lanciotti, eds., Cina e Iran. Da Alessandro Magno alla Dinastia Tang. Firenze, pp. 79–101. — 1999. “Textual Sources for Buddhism in Khotan.” In: J. R. McRae and J. Nattier, eds., Collection of Essays 1993: Buddhism across Boundaries. Chinese Buddhism and the Western Regions. Sanchung, pp. 345–60. — 2000. “The Concluding Verses of a ‘Lyrical Poem in Khotanese’.” In: R. Tsuchida and A. Wezler, eds., Harānandalaharī. Volume in Honour of Professor Minoru Hara on his Seventieth Birthday. Reinbeck, pp. 143–54. — 2001. “Sino-Hvatanica Petersburgensia (part I).” Manuscripta Orientalia 7, pp. 3–9. Lamotte, É. 1954. “Sur la formation du Mahāyāna.” In: J. Schubert and U. Schneider, eds., Asiatica. Festschrift Friedrich Weller zum 65. Geburtstag gewidmet von seinen Freunden, Kollegen und Schülern. Leipzig, pp. 377–96. — 1958. Histoire du bouddhisme indien des origines a l’ère Śaka. Louvain. — 1962. L’Enseignement de Vimalakīrti (Vimalakīrtinirdeśa). Louvain. — 1965. La concentration de la marche héroïque (Śūraṃgamasamādhisūtra). Bruxelles. Lancaster, L. 1977. “A Study of a Khotanese Prajñāpāramitā Text: after the Work of Sir Harold Bailey.” In: Conze Fs., pp. 163–83. Land, J. P. N. 1875. Anecdota Syriaca. Vol. 4: Otja Syriaca. Insunt tabulae VIII. Leiden. Lang, D. M. 1957 a. The Wisdom of Balahvar, a Christian Legend of the Buddha. London. — 1957 b. “The Life of the Blessed Iodasaph: A New Oriental Christian Version of the Barlaam and Ioasaph Romance.” BSOAS 20, pp. 389–407.

467

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN Laut, J. P. 1986. Der frühe türkische Buddhismus und seine literarischen Denkmäler. Wiesbaden. — 1996. “Zur neuen Hami-Handschrift eines alttürkischen buddhistischen Legendenzyklus.” In: Gabain Mem., pp. 189–99. Laut, J. P. s. Geng Shimin. Lazard, G. 1970. “Āhu-ye kuhi …: le chamois d’Abu Hafs de Sogdiane et les origines du robāi.” In: Henning Mem., pp. 238–44. — 1972. “Pahlavi /Pahlavâni dans le Šâhnâme.” StIr 1.1, pp. 25–41 [= Lazard 1995, pp. 89–105]. — 1974. “Deux poèmes persans de tradition pehlevie.” In: de Menasce Mem., pp. 433–40. — 1975. “The Rise of the New Persian Language.” CHI 4, pp. 595–632. — 1983. “La source en ‘fârsi’ de Vis-o Râmin.” In: Trudy Tbilisskogo ordena Trudovogo Krasnogo Znameni gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Tiflis [= Lazard 1995, pp. 81–87]. — 1984 a. “La métrique de l’Avesta récent.” In: Orientalia J. DuchesneGuillemin emerito oblata. Leiden (AcIr 23), pp. 283–300. — 1984 b. “Deux questions de linguistique iranienne: la construction passive du parfait transitif;—la versification du moyen-iranien occidental.” In: J. Taillardat et al. eds., É.Benveniste aujourd’hui. Actes du Colloque International du C.N.R.S., Université François Rabelais, Tours, 28–30 septembre 1983. Paris, pp. 239–48. — 1985. “La métrique de la poésie parthe.” In: Boyce Fs., II, pp. 371–99. — 1989. “Le persan.” CLI, pp. 263–93. — 1990. “Composition et métrique dans les Yashts de l’Avesta.” In: Proceedings … Rome, pp. 217–28. — 1994. “Le métre épique baloutchi et les origines du motagâreb.” In: L. Johanson, ed., Arabic prosody and its applications in Muslim poetry. Istanbul, pp. 81–90. — 1995. La formation de la langue persane. Paris. — 2001. “La versification d’un poéme pehlevi.” In: A. A. Sadeghi, ed., Tafazzoli Memorial Volume. Tehran, pp. 39–47. — 2002. “Encore la versification pehlevie.” JSAI 26 (Studies in Honour of Shaul Shaked), pp. 130–39. — 2003 a. “Du pehlevi au persan: diachronie ou diatopie?” In: Paul 2003, pp. 95–102. — 2003 b. “La versificasion d’un hymne manichéen en parthe.” In: Gnoli Fs., pp. 223–31. Lazard, G., Grenet, F. and de Lamberterie, Ch. 1984. “Notes bactriennes.” StIr 13, pp. 199–232.

468

BIBLIOGRAPHY Lazard Fs., 1989. Études Irano-Aryennes offerts à Gilbert Lazard. Ed. by C.-H. de Fouchécour and Ph. Gignoux. Paris (StIr, Cahier 7). von Le Coq, A. 1909. “Ein christliches und ein manichäisches Manuskriptfragment in türkischer Sprache aus Turfan (Chinesisch-Turkistan).” SPAW 1909, pp. 1202–18. — 1923. Die manichäischen Miniaturen. Berlin. — 1926. Auf Hellas Spuren in Ostturkistan. Leipzig. Lecoq, P. 1974. “Le problème de l’écriture cunéiforme vieux-perse.” In: Commémoration Cyrus. Hommage Universel III. Téhéran/Liège (AcIr 3), pp. 25–107. — 1997. Les inscriptions de la Perse achéménide. Traduit du vieux perse, de l’élamite, du babylonien et de l’araméen. Paris. Lentz, W. 1956. “Fünfzig Jahre Arbeit an den iranischen Handschriften der deutschen Turfan-Sammlung.” ZDMG 106, pp. *3*–*22*. Lentz Fs., 1974. Neue Methodologie in der Iranistik. Festschrift für Wolfgang Lentz. Ed. by R. N. Frye. Wiesbaden. Leumann, E. 1912. Zur nordarischen Sprache und Literatur. Vorbemerkungen und vier Aufsätze mit Glossar. Straßburg. — 1919. Maitreya-samiti. Das Zukunftsideal der Buddhisten. Die nordarische Schilderung in Text und Übersetzung nebst sieben andern Schilderungen in Text und Übersetzung mit einer Begründung der indogermanischen Metrik. Straßburg. — 1920. Buddhistische Literatur nordarisch und deutsch. Vol. I: Nebenstücke. Leipzig. — 1930. “Die nordarischen Abschnitte der Adhyardhaśatikā Prajñāpāramitā: Text und Übersetzung mit Glossar.” Taishō daigaku gakuhō 6/7, pp. 47–87. — 1933–36. Das nordarische (sakische) Lehrgedicht des Buddhismus. Text und Übersetzung. Ed. by M. Leumann. Leipzig. Leumann, M. 1934. Sakische Handschriftproben. Zürich. — 1963. “Zu zwei khotansakischen Fragmenten.” ZDMG 113, pp. 80–86, 1 pl. — 1971. “Zur altkhotanischen Metrik.” Asiatische Studien 25, pp. 456–80. Lévi, S. 1932. Mahākarmavibhaṅga (La grande classification des actes) et Karmavibhaṅgopadeśa (Discussion sur le Mahā Karmavibhaṅga). Textes sanscrits rapportés du Nepal, édités et traduits avec les textes parallèles en sanscrit, en pali, en tibétain, en chinois et en koutchéen. Paris. Lewis, C. S. 1971. God in the Dock. Ed. by W. Hooper. London. — 1988. Christian Reflections. Ed. by W. Hooper. London.

469

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN Lidzbarski, M. 1916. “Die Herkunft der manichäischen Schrift.” SPAW 1916, pp. 1213–22. — 1918. “Ein manichäisches Gedicht.” NGWG 1918, pp. 501–5. — 1927. “Warum schrieb Mānī aramäisch?” OLZ 30, cols. 913–17 [= Widengren 1977, pp. 249–54]. Lieu, S. N. C. 1998. Manichaeism in Central Asia and China. Leiden/ Boston/Cologne. Lipiński, E. 1993. “L’inscription de la statue de Verethragna.” In: Proceedings … Leuven (1993), pp. 127–34. Livshits, V. A., ed. 1962. Sogdiĭskie dokumenty s gory Mug. Moskva. — 1970. “A Sogdian Alphabet from Panjikant.” In: Henning Mem., pp. 256–63. — 1977. “New Parthian Documents from South Turkmenistan.” AAASH 25, pp. 157–85. — 1981. “Sogdiĭtsy v Semirech’e: lingvisticheskie i epigraficheskie svidetel’stva” [Sogdians in Semirechye: Linguistic and Epigraphic Evidence]. In: Pis’mennye pamyatniki i problemy istorii kul’tury narodov vostoka. XV godichnaya nauchnaya sessiya LO IV AN SSSR I.2. Moskva, pp. 76–85. — 1984. “Dokumenty” [Documents]. In: Toprak-Kala. Dvorets. Moskva (Trudy Khorezmskoĭ arkheologo-etnograficheskoĭ ekspeditsii 14), pp. 251–86. — 1987. “Sogdiĭskiĭ dokument iz drevnego Samarkanda” [A Sogdian Document from Old Samarkand]. In: Tsentral’naya Aziya: novye pamyatniki pis’mennosti i iskusstva. Moskva, 53–62. — 1996. “Sogdian Buddhist Fragment KR IV/879 No. 4263 from the Manuscript Collection of the St. Petersburg Branch of the Institute of Oriental Studies.” Manuscripta Orientalia 2.2, pp. 3–8. — 1997. “Sogdets Sanak, manikheĭskiĭ episkop V–nachala VI vv.” [Sogdian Sanak, Manichaean Bishop of the Fifth to the Beginning of the Sixth Century]. In: Verovaniya i kul’ty domusul’manskoĭ Sredneĭ Azii [Religious Beliefs and Practices of Pre-Islamic Central Asia]. Moskva, pp. 32–33. Livshits, V. A. and Kruglikova, I. T. 1979. “Fragmenty baktriĭskoĭ monumental’noĭ nadpisi iz Dil’berdzhina” [Fragments of a Bactrian Monumental Inscription of Delbarjīn]. In: Drevnyaya Baktrija. Moskva (Materialy Sovetsko-Afganskoĭ arkheologicheskoĭ ekspeditsii 2), pp. 98–112. Livshits, V. A. and Mambetulaev, M. M. 1986. “Ostrak iz Khumbuz-Tepe” [An Ostracon from Khumbuz-Tepe]. In: Pamyatniki istorii i literatury vostoka. Moskva, pp. 34–45.

470

BIBLIOGRAPHY Lokesh Chandra 1976. Saddharma-puṇḍarīka-sūtra. Kashgar manuscript. New Delhi [repr. Tokyo 1977]. Lommel, H. 1927. Die Yäšt’s des Avesta. Übersetzt und eingeleitet. Mit Namenliste und Sachverzeichnis. Göttingen/Leipzig (Quellen der Religionsgeschichte 15.6). Lucidi, M. 1935–36. Il Testo Pahlavico Vičārišṇo čatrang ud nihišn i nēwartaxšēr. Roma. Lung-lien 1966–68. “Bhadracaryāpraṇidhāna.” In: Encyclopaedia of Buddhism. Vol. 2. Colombo, pp. 632–36. Luo Feng 2000. “The Shi People from Central Asia Immigrated in Ancient China” [in Chinese]. In: Guo xue yan jiu 7, pp. 235–78. MacDowell, D. W. and Taddei, M. 1978. “5. The Pre-Muslim Period.” In: F. R. Allchin and N. Hammond, eds., The Archaeology of Afghanistan from Earliest Time to the Timurid Period. London, pp. 233–99. Machabey, A. 1955. “La cantillation manichéenne.” La Revue Musicale 227, pp. 5–20. Maciuszak, K. 2003. “Some New Lexical Observations on the Draxt ī Āsūrīg (The Assyrian Tree).” In: A. van Tongerloo, ed., Iranica Selecta. Studies in Honour of Professor Wojciech Skalmowski on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday. Turnhout (Silk Road Studies VIII), pp. 159–66. MacKenzie, D. N. 1964. “Zoroastrian Astrology in the Bundahišn.” BSOAS 27, pp. 511–29. —, ed. 1970. The ‘Sūtra of the causes and effects of actions’ in Sogdian. London (London Oriental Series 22). — 1976. The Buddhist Sogdian Texts of the British Library. Téhéran/Liège (AcIr 10). — 1979. “Mani’s Šābuhragān I.” BSOAS 42, pp. 500–534. — 1980. “Mani’s Šābuhragān II.” BSOAS 43, pp. 288–310. — 1985. “Two Sogdian Hwydgmʾn Fragments.” In: Boyce Fs., II, pp. 421–28. — 1989 a. “Avroman Documents.” EIr 3, p. 111. — 1989 b. “Kerdir’s Inscription: Synoptic Text in Transliteration, Transcription and Commentary.” In: G. Hermann and D. N. MacKenzie, eds., The Sasanian Rock Reliefs at Naqsh-i Rustam. Naqsh-i Rustam 6. The Triumph of Shapur I (together with an Account of the Representations of Kerdir). Berlin (Iranische Denkmäler 13. Reihe II: Iranische Felsreliefs I). — 1990. “Bundahišn.” EIr 4, pp. 547–51. — 1991. Review of Utas 1988. OLZ 86, pp. 68–71. — 1993 [1994]. “The Fire Altar of Happy *Frayosh.” BAI 7, pp. 105–9.

471

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN — 1994. “I Mani …” In: Rudolph Fs., pp. 183–98. MacKenzie, D. N. and Perikhanian, A. 1969. “The Model Marriage Contract in Pahlavi.” In: N. D. Minochehr-Homji and M. F. Kanga, eds., K. R. Cama Oriental Institute Golden Jubilee Volume. Bombay, pp. 103–12. MacKenzie Fs., 1991. Corolla Iranica. Papers in Honour of Prof. Dr. David Neil MacKenzie on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday. Ed. by R. E. Emmerick and D. Weber. Frankfurt a. M. Macuch, M. 1981. Das sasanidische Rechtsbuch ʻMātakdān i Hazār Dātistān’ (Teil II). Wiesbaden (Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 45.1). — 1985. “Die Zeitehe im sasanidischen Recht—ein Vorläufer der šīʿitischen Mutʿa-Ehe in Iran?” AMI 18, pp. 187–203. — 1987. “Die Erwähnung der Ordalzeremonie des Ādurbād i Māraspandān im Ardā Wīrāz Nāmag.” AMI 20, pp. 319–22. — 1988. “Der dastwar ʻauctor’ im sasanidischen Zivilprozeß.” AMI 21, pp. 177–88. — 1989. “Ein mittelpersischer terminus technicus im syrischen Rechtskodex des Išōʿboḫt und im sasanidischen Rechtsbuch.” In: M. Macuch, Chr. Müller-Kessler and B. G. Fragner, eds., Studia Semitica necnon Iranica Rudolpho Macuch septuagenario ab amicis et discipulis dedicata. Wiesbaden, pp. 149–60. — 1990. “Eine alte Bemessungsgrundlage für die ʻTagesration’ in den Pahlavi-Schriften.” In: Prix, salaires, poids et mesures. Paris (Res Orientales 2), pp. 139–42. — 1991. “Inzest im vorislamischen Iran.” AMI 24, pp. 141–54. — 1993. Rechtskasuistik und Gerichtspraxis zu Beginn des siebenten Jahrhunderts in Iran. Die Rechtssammlung des Farroḫmard ī Wahrāmān. Wiesbaden (Iranica 1). — 1994. “Die sasanidische Stiftung ʻfür die Seele’—Vorbild für den islamischen waqf ?” In: P. Vavrousek, ed., Iranian and Indo-European Studies. Memorial Volume of O. Klima. Prague, pp. 163–80. — 1995 a. “Die Konstruktion der Wirklichkeit im sasanidischen Recht.” In: Proceedings … Bamberg (1995), pp. 416–24. — 1995 b. “Herrschaftskonsolidierung und zoroastrisches Familienrecht: zum Verhältnis von Kirche und Staat unter den Sasaniden.” In: Sundermann Fs., pp. 149–67. — 1997. “The Use of Seals in Sasanian Jurisprudence.” In: Sceaux d’Orient et leur emploi. Bures-sur-Yvette (Res Orientales 10), pp. 79–87.

472

BIBLIOGRAPHY — 1999. “Iranian Legal Terminology in the Babylonian Talmud in the Light of Sasanian Jurisprudence.” In: Sh. Shaked and A. Netzer, eds., Irano-Judaica. Vol. IV. Jerusalem, pp. 91–101. — 2002 a. “A Zoroastrian Legal Term in the Dēnkard: pahikār-rad.” In: Ph. Huyse, ed., Iran. Questions et connoissances. Vol I: La période ancienne. Paris (StIr, Cahier 25), pp. 77–90. — 2002 b. “The Talmudic Expression ‘Servant of the Fire’ in the Light of Pahlavi Legal Sources.” JSAI 26 (Studies in Honour of Shaul Shaked), pp. 109–29. — 2003 a. “On the Treatment of Animals in Zoroastrian Law.” In: A. van Tongerloo, ed., Iranica Selecta. Studies in Honour of Professor Wojciech Skalmowski on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday. Turnhout (Silk Road Studies VIII), pp. 167–90. — 2003 b. “Zoroastrian Principles and the Structure of Kinship in Sasanian Iran.” In: Gnoli Fs., pp. 231–46. — 2004. “Pious Foundations in Byzantine and Sasanian Law.” In: La Persia e Bisanzio. Convegno internazionale (Roma, 14–18 ottobre 2002). Roma (Atti dei convegni Lincei 201), pp. 181–96. — 2005 a. “On Middle Persian Legal Terminology.” In: Middle Iranian Lexicography. Proceedings of the Conference held in Rome, 9–11 April 2001. Roma, pp. 375–86. — 2005 b. “Inheritance. i. Sasanian period.” EIr 13/2, pp. 125–31. Maçoudi, 1863. Les Prairies d’or. Texte et traduction par C. Barbier de Meynard et Pavet de Courteille. Vol. II. Paris. Madan, D. M., ed. 1911. The Complete Text of the Pahlavi Dinkard. Part I (books III–V), part II (books VI–IX). Bombay. Maggi, M. 1992. Studi sul sistema accentuale del cotanese. Dissertation. Istituto Universitario Orientale. Napoli. — 1995. The Khotanese Karmavibhaṅga. Roma (SOR 74). — 1996 a. “Preliminary Remarks Concerning an Edition of the Khotanese Sudhanāvadāna.” In: Gabain Mem., pp. 201–9. — 1996 b. “A Chinese-Khotanese Excerpt from the Mahāsāhasrapramardanī.” In: Convegno internazionale sul tema: La Persia e l’Asia Centrale da Alessandro al X secolo (Roma, 9–12 novembre 1994). Roma (Atti dei convegni Lincei 127), pp. 123–37. — 1997 a. “Two Reinterpretations in the Khotanese Sudhanāvadāna.” Manuscripta Orientalia 3.1, pp. 6–8. — 1997 b. Pelliot Chinois 2928: a Khotanese Love Story. Roma (SOR 80). — 1998 a. Review of Emmerick/Vorob’ёva-Desjatovskaja 1995. IIJ 41, pp. 282–88.

473

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN — 1998 b. Review of Duan [1992]. EW 48, pp. 488–91. — 2001. “Three Indian Loanwords in Khotanese.” In: R. Torella et al. eds., Le parole e i marmi. Studi in onore di Raniero Gnoli nel suo 70º compleanno. Roma, pp. 535–40. — 2003 a. “Canonical Quotations in the Khotanese Book of Vimalakīrti.” In: G. Verardi and S. Vita, eds., Buddhist Asia 1. Papers from the First Conference on Buddhist Studies Held in Naples in May 2001. Kyoto. — 2003 b. “More Verses from the Khotanese Book of Vimalakīrti.” In: Gnoli Fs., pp. 247–55. — 2004 a. “Le bhūmi nel Libro di Vimalakīrti cotanese.” In: C. G. Cereti, B. Melasecchi and F. Vajifdar, eds., Varia Iranica. Roma (SOR 97), pp. 131–36. — 2004 b. “The Manuscript T III 16 S: Its Importance for the History of Khotanese Literature.” In: D. Durkin-Meisterernst et. al., eds., Turfan Revisited. The First Century of Research into the Arts and Cultures of the Silk Road. Berlin, pp. 184–90, 457. Malandra, W. W. 1983. An Introduction to Ancient Iranian Religion. Readings from the Avesta and the Achaemenid Inscriptions. Minneapolis. Mancini, M. 1988. “Bilingui greco-iraniche in epoca sasanide. Il testo di Šahpuhr alla Kaʿba-yi Zardušt.” In: E. Campanile, G. R. Cardona and R. Lazzeroni, eds., Bilinguismo e biculturismo nel mondo antico. Atti del colloquio interdisciplinare tenuto a Pisa il 28 e 29 settembre 1987. Pisa, pp. 75–99. Maricq, A. 1958 a. “La grande inscription de Kaniṣka et l’étéo-tokharien, l’ancienne langue de la Bactriane.” JA 246, pp. 345–440. — 1958b. “Res Gestae Divi Saporis.” Syria XXXV, pp. 295–360 [= Maricq 1965, pp. 37–101]. — 1965. Classica et Orientalia. Extrait de Syria, 1955–1962, revue et corrige augmente d’un article inedit et d’un index. Paris. Markwart s. Marquart, J. Maróth, M. 1985. “Ein Brief aus Turfan.” AoF 12, pp. 283–87. Marquart, J. 1930. “Das Nauruz.” In: Dr. Modi Memorial Volume. Bombay, pp. 709–65. — 1931. A Catalogue of the Provincial Capitals of Ērānšahr. Rome (Analecta Orientalia 3). Maškur, W. 1950. Kārnāme-ye Ardašir-e Bābakān [Book of Feats of Ardašīr Son of Bābak]. Teheran. Matsuda, K. 1987. “Chūō Ajia shutsudo: ‘Shuryōgonzammaikyō bonbun shahen zan’yō” [Archaeological Finds in Central Asia: Surviv-

474

BIBLIOGRAPHY ing Folios of Sanskrit Manuscripts of the Śūraṅgamasamādhisūtra]. Bukkyōgaku seminā [Buddhist Seminar] 46, pp. 81–67 (34–48). Maue, D. and Sims-Williams, N. 1991. “Eine sanskrit-sogdische Bilingue in Brāhmī.” BSOAS 54.3, pp. 486–95. Mayrhofer, M. 1978. Supplement zur Sammlung der altpersischen Inschriften. Wien (SÖAW 338). — 1979. Iranisches Personennamenbuch. Vol. I: Die altiranischen Namen. Wien. — 1986–2002. Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischen. 3 vols. Heidelberg. — 1989. “Über die Verschriftung des Altpersischen.” HS 102, pp. 174–86. — 1994 [1996]. “Eduard Meyer und die älteste indo-iranische Onomastik.” Die Sprache 36, pp. 175–80. Mayrhofer, M. s. Brandenstein, W. Mazdāpur, K. 1990. Šāyast na-šāyast. Matni be zabān-e Pārsi-ye miyāne (Pahlaw-ye Sāsāni) [Valid and Not Valid. Middle Persian Text (Sasanian Pahlavi)]. Teheran. Meherji Rana, S. K. 1930. Denâ vâjak i aîchand i Atropât Mârespandân. Bombay. Melzer, U. 1923. “Zum Yātkār i Zarērān.” ZII 2, pp. 55–59. de Menasce, J. 1942–45. “Un lapidaire pehlevi.” Anthropos 37–40, pp. 180–86. — 1945. Une apologétique mazdéenne du IXe siècle: Škand-gumānīkVičār. La solution décisive des doutes. Fribourg. — 1953. “Recherches de papyrologie pehlevie.” JA 241, pp. 185–96 [= de Menasce 1985 a, pp. 163–75]. — 1957. CII. Part III: Pahlavi Inscriptions. Vol. IV–V: Ostraca and Papyri. Portfolio I: Ostraca and Papyri, plates i–xxiv. Ed. by J. de Menasce. London. — 1958. Une Encyclopédie mazdéenne. Le Dēnkart. Paris. — 1961. “La ‘Rivāyat d’Ēmēt i Ašavahištān’.” RHR 162, pp. 69–88 [= de Menasce 1985 a, pp. 125–44]. — 1964 a. Feux et fondations pieuses dans le droit sassanide. Paris (Traveaux de l’Institut d’Études Iraniennes de l’Université de Paris 2). — 1964 b. “Some Pahlavi Words in the Original and in the Syriac Translation of Īšōbōxt’s Corpus Juris.” In: Dr. J. M. Unvala Memorial Volume. Bombay, pp. 6–11 [= de Menasce 1985 a, pp. 119–24]. — 1964 c. “Les données géographiques dans le Mātigān i Hazār Dātistān.” In: Morgenstierne Fs., pp. 149–54 [= de Menasce 1985 a, pp. 83–88].

475

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN — 1966. “Textes pehlevis sur les Qanats.” ActOr 30, pp. 167–75 [= de Menasce 1985 a, pp. 145–54]. — 1969. “Formules juridiques et syntaxe pehlevie.” Bulletin of the Iranian Culture Foundation 1.1, pp. 11–20 [= Menasce 1985 a, pp. 109–18]. — 1970. “Fragments manichéens de Paris.” In: Henning Mem., pp. 303–6. — 1972. “Dix ans d’études pehlevies: publication de textes.” StIr 1, pp. 133–39. — 1973. Le troisième livre de Dēnkart. Paris (Travaux de l’Institut d’études iraniennes de l’Université de Paris 5). — 1983. “Zoroastrian Pahlavī Writings.” CHI 3.2, pp. 1166–95. — 1985 a. Études iraniennes. Paris (StIr, Cahier 3). — 1985 b. “La littérature pehlevie de l’époque sassanide.” In: de Menasce 1985a, pp. 57–82. de Menasce Mem., 1974. Mémorial Jean de Menasce. Ed. by Ph. Gignoux and A. Tafazzoli. Louvain (Fondation culturelle iranienne 185). Merkelbach, R. 1986 . Mani und sein Religionssystem. Opladen. Messina, G. 1939. Libro apocalittico persiano: Ayātkār i Žāmāspīk. Testo pehlevico, pārsi e pāzend restituito, tradotto et commentato. Roma (Biblica et Orientalia 9). Michlik, D. 1994. “Konkordanz zu Handschriften und Textausgaben des Bundahišn.” Studia Iranica Mesopotamica et Anatolica 1, pp. 71–99. Mikkelsen, G. B. 1997. Bibliographia Manichaica. A comprehensive bibliography of Manichaeism through 1996. Turnhout (Corpus Fontium Manichaeorum, Subsidia 1). Milik, J. T. 1971. “Turfan et Qumran. Livre des Géants juif et manichéen.” In: G. Jeremias, H. W. Kuhn and H. Stegemann, eds., Tradition und Glaube: Das frühe Christentum in seiner Umwelt. Göttingen, pp. 117–27. — 1976. The Book of Enoch. Aramaic Fragments of Qumrân Cave 4. Oxford. Mills, L. 1904. “The Pahlavi Texts of Yasna XI, XII.” JRAS 1904, pp. 75–82. Mingana, A. 1934. Woodbrooke Studies. Christian Documents in Syriac, Arabic and Garshuni. Vol. 7: Early Christian Mystics. Cambridge. Minns, E. H. 1915. “Parchments of the Parthian Period from Avroman in Kurdistan.” JHS 35, pp. 22–65. Minorsky, V. 1946. “Vīs u Rāmīn, a Parthian Romance.” BSOAS 11 (1943–46), pp. 741–64. Minuvi, M. 1932. Nāme-ye Tansar [The Letter of Tansar]. Tehran [repr. 1975].

476

BIBLIOGRAPHY Mirecki, P. and BeDuhn, J., eds. 1997. Emerging from Darkness. Studies in the Recovery of Manichaean Sources. Leiden. —, eds. 2001, The Light and the Darkness. Studies in Manichaeism and its World. Leiden/Boston/Köln. Mir-Fakhrāʿi, M. 1988. Revāyat-e Pahlavi. Matni be zabān-e fārsi-ye miyāne (Pahlawi-ye sāsāni) [Pahlavi Rivayat. Middle Persian Text (Sasanian Pahlavi)]. Tehran. — 1992. Hādokht-nask. Tehran. Mirza, H. K. 1985. “Poetic Lines in the Denkart VII.” In: Boyce Fs., II, pp. 429–34. Moazami, M. 2001. “Ancient Iranian Civil Legislation. A Legal Section of the Pahlavi Vidēvdād.” StIr 30, pp. 199–224. Modi, J. J. 1898. “The Cities of Irân as Described in the Old Pahlavi Treatise of Shatroîhâ-î Irân.” Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 20. —, ed. 1899. Aiyâdgâr-i Zarirân, Shatrôihâ-i-Airân and Afdiya va Sahigiya-i-Sistân. Bombay. —, ed. 1901. Mâdigân-i-Hazâr Dâdîstân. A Photozincographed Facsimile of a MS. Belonging to the Mânockji Limji Hoshang Hâtariâ Library in the Zarthoshti Anjuman Âtashbeharâm. Poona. — 1903. Jâmâspi, Pahlavi, Pâzend and Persian Texts with Gujarâti Transliteration of the Pahlavi Jâmâspi, English and Gujarâti Translations (with Notes) of the Pahlavi Jâmâspi, Gujarâti Translation of the Persian Jâmâspi and English Translation of the Pâzend Jâmâspi. Bombay. — 1922. The Religious Ceremonies and Customs of the Parsees. Bombay [repr. 1937]. — 1937. The Religious Ceremonies and Customs of the Parsees. Bombay 2 1937 [repr. 1986]. Molé, M. 1951. “Les implications historiques du prologue du livre d’Artā Vīrāz.” RHR 148, pp. 36–44. — 1963. Culte, Mythe et Cosmologie dans l’Iran ancien. Paris. — 1967. La légende de Zoroastre selon les textes Pehlevis. Paris (Travaux de l’institut d’études iraniennes de l’Université de Paris 3). Molnár, Á. 1994. Weather-Magic in Inner Asia. With an Appendix by P. Zieme: Alttürkische Fragmente über den Regenstein. Bloomington (Indiana University Uralic and Altaic Series 158). Monchi-Zadeh, D. 1981. Die Geschichte Zarēr’s. Ausführlich kommentiert. Stockholm (Studia Indoeuropaea Upsaliensia 4).

477

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN — 1982. “Xusrōv i Kavātān ut Rētak. Pahlavi Text, Transcription and Translation.” In: Monumentum Georg Morgenstierne II. Leiden (AcIr 22), pp. 47–91. Monier-Williams, M. 1899. A Sanskrit–English Dictionary. Oxford. Morano, E. 1990. “Contributi all’interpretazione della bilingue grecopartica dell’Eracle di Seleucia.” In: Proceedings … Turin, pp. 229–38. — 1998. “My Kingdom is not of this World: Revisiting the Great Parthian Crucifixion Hymn.” In: Proceedings … Cambridge, pp. 131–45. — 2000. “A Survey of the Extant Parthian Crucifixion Hymns.” In: Emmerick/Sundermann/Zieme 2000, pp. 398–429. — 2003. “Praised and Blessed Art Thou.” In: Gnoli Fs., pp. 257–63. — 2004. “Manichaean Middle Iranian Incantation Texts from Turfan.” In: D. Durkin-Meisterernst et al. eds., Turfan Revisited—The First Century of Research into the Arts and Cultures of the Silk Road. Berlin, pp. 221–27. — 2005. “A Manichaean oratio dominica.” In: Tongerloo/Cirillo 2005, pp. 277–85. Morgenstierne Fs., 1964. Indo-Iranica. Mélanges présentés à Georg Morgenstierne à l’occasion de son soixante-dixième anniversaire. Wiesbaden. Morgenstierne, G. 1942. “Iranica.” Norsk Tidsskrift for Sprogvidenskap 12, pp. 269–71. Mori, S. 1995 a. “The Narrative Structure of the Bisotun Inscription.” Orient 30–31, pp. 108–22 [in Japanese]. — 1995 b. “The Narrative Structure of the Paikuli Inscription.” Orient 30–31, pp. 182–93. Moriyasu, T. 1989. “Torukobukkyō no genryū to kodaitorukogobutten no syutsugen” [The Origin of Buddhism among the Turks and the Emergence of the Old Turkish Buddhist Texts]. Shigaku zasshi 98.4, pp. 1–35 [in Japanese with French abstract pp. 150–52]. Moule, A. C. 1930. Christians in China before the Year 1550. London. Moulton, J. H. 1911. Early Religious Poetry of Persia. Cambridge. Müller, F. W. K. 1897. Beiträge zur Textkritik und Erklärung des Andarz i Āturpāt i Mahraspandān. Wien. — 1904. Handschriften-Reste in Estrangelo-Schrift aus Turfan, ChinesischTurkistan II. Berlin (Appendix to APAW 1904). — 1907. “Neutestamentliche Bruchstücke in soghdischer Sprache.” SPAW 1907, pp. 260–70. — 1909. “Ein iranisches Sprachdenkmal aus der nördlichen Mongolei.” SPAW 1909, pp. 726–30.

478

BIBLIOGRAPHY — 1912. Ein Doppelblatt aus einem manichäischen Hymnenbuch (Maḥrnāmag). Berlin 1913 (APAW 1912, No 5). — 1913. Soghdische Texte I. Berlin (APAW 1912, No 2). — 1915. “Ein syrisch-neupersisches Psalmenbruchstück aus ChinesischTurkistan.” In: G. Weil, ed., Festschrift Eduard Sachau zum siebzigsten Geburtstag gewidmet. Berlin, pp. 215–22. — 1925. “Eine sogdische Inschrift in Ladakh.” SPAW 1925, pp. 371–72. Müller, F. W. K. and Lentz, W. 1934. “Soghdische Texte II.” SPAW 1934, pp. 502–607. Mukhopadhyaya, S. 1963. Aśokāvadāna. Sanskrit Text Compared with Chinese Versions. New Delhi. Narten Fs., 2000. Anusantatyai. Festschrift für Johanna Narten zum 70. Geburtstag. Ed. by A. Hintze and E. Tichy. Dettelbach (MSS, Beiheft 19). Narten, J. 1982. Die Aməa Spəṇtas im Avesta. Wiesbaden. — 1986. Der Yasna Haptaŋhāiti. Wiesbaden. Narten, J. s. Hoffmann, K. Nattier, J. 1990. “Church Language and Vernacular Language in Central Asian Buddhism.” Numen 37, pp. 195–219. — 1991. Once upon a Future Time. Studies on a Buddhist Prophecy of Decline. Berkeley. — 1992. “The Heart Sūtra: a Chinese Apocryphal Text?” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 15.2, pp. 153–219. Navvābi, M. 1961. “Vāžeʾi čand az Ādharbad Mārespandān” [Some Words of Ādharbad Mārespandān]. Našriye-ye dāneškade-ye adabiyāt-e Tabriz 13.1. — 1967. Manẓūmeh-ye derakht-e āsūrik [The Poem of the Assyrian Tree]. Teheran. Nikitin, A. B. 1992 a. “Middle Persian Ostraca from South Turkmenistan.” EW 42, pp. 103–29. — 1992 b. “Srednepersidskie ostraki iz buddiĭskogo svyatilishcha v starom Merve” [Middle Persian Ostraca from the Buddhist Sanctuary in Old Merv]. VDI 1992/1, pp. 95–101. Nobel, J. 1937. Suvarṇabhāsottama-sūtra. Das Goldglanz-Sūtra. Ein Sanskrittext des Mahāyāna-Buddhismus. Leipzig. — 1951. Ein alter medizinischer Sanskrit-Text und seine Deutung. Baltimore (Supplement to the Journal of the American Oriental Society 11). Nöldeke, Th. 1878. “Geschichte des Artachshîr i Pâpakân aus dem Pehlevi übersetzt, mit Erläuterungen und einer Einleitung versehen.” Bezzenbergers Beiträge 4, pp. 22–69.

479

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN — 1890. “Beiträge zur Geschichte des Alexanderromans.” Denkschriften der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-Historische Klasse XXXVIII. Vol. 5. Wien, pp. 1–56. — 1896–1904. “Das iranische Nationalepos.” GIrPh II/2, pp. 130–211. — 1912. Burzōēs Einleitung zu dem Buche Kalīla wa Dimna. Übersetzt und erläutert. Straßburg (Schriften der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft in Strassburg 12). Nosherwan, K. A. 1896. Kârnâmag-i Artakhshîr-i Pâpakân. Bombay. — 1903. The Text of the Pahlavi Zand-i-Vohūman Yašt with Transliteration and Translation into Gujrâti and Gujrâti Translation of the Pahlavi Mînô-i-Khirad with Notes. Bombay. Noy, D. and Bloedhorn, H. 2004. Inscriptiones Judaicae Orientis. Vol. III: Syria and Cyprus. Tübingen (Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 102). Nyberg, H.S. 1929. “Questions de cosmogonie et cosmologie mazdéennes I.” JA 214, pp. 193–310. — 1931 a. “Questions de cosmogonie et cosmologie mazdéennes II.” JA 219, pp. 1–134. — 1931 b. “Questuions de cosmogonie et cosmologie mazdéennes III.” JA 220, pp. 193–244. — 1933. “La Légende de Keresāspa. Transcription des textes pehlevis, avec une traduction nouvelle et des notes phililogiques.” In: J. D. C. Pavry, ed., Oriental Studies in Honour of Cursetji Erachji Pavry. Bombay/ London, pp. 336–52. — 1938. Die Religionen des alten Iran. Leipzig. — 1960. “The New Corpus Inscriptionum Iranicarum.” BSOAS 23, pp. 40–46. Nylander, C. N. 1967 [1968]. “Who Wrote the Inscriptions at Pasargadae?” OS 16, pp. 135–80. Oettinger, N. 1985. “Beobachtungen anhand des avestischen Textes Yašt 5, 90–93.” MSS 45, pp. 183–95. Olmstead, A.T. 1942. “The Mid-third Century of the Christian Era.” CPh 37, pp. 241–62, 398–420. Olsson, T. 1983. “The Apocalyptic Activity. The Case of āmāsp Nāmag.” In: D. Hellholm, ed., Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World and Near East. Tübingen, pp. 21–49. — 1991. “The Refutation of Manichean Doctrines in Dēnkard 3.200.” In: Ries Fs., pp. 273–83. Omidsalar, M. 1996. “Unburdening Ferdowsi.” JAOS 116, pp. 235–42. Orsatti, P. 2003. “Syro-Persian Formulas in Poetic Form in Baptism Liturgy.” In: Paul 2003, pp. 147–73.

480

BIBLIOGRAPHY ʿOryān, S. 1992. Motūn-e pahlavī. Tarǰome, āvā-nevešt [Pahlavi Texts. Translation. Transcription]. Tehran. Pagliaro, A. 1925. Il testo pahlavico Ayātkār-i-Zarērān. Roma. — 1940. “Sulla più antica storia del giuoco degli scacchi.” RSO 18, pp. 328–40. — 1951. “Il testo pahlavico sul giuoco degli scacchi.” In: Miscellanea Giovanni Galbiati. Vol. 3: Archeologia, storia, filologia classica e bizantina. Filologia orientale, glottologia. Milano, pp. 97–110. — 1971. “La civiltà sāsanidica e i suoi riflessi in occidente.” In: Atti del convegno internazionale sul tema: La Persia nel Medioevo (Roma, 31 marzo–5 aprile 1970). Roma, pp. 19–35. Pagliaro, A. and Bausani, A. 1960. “La letteratura Pahlavica caratteri e fortuna.” In: A. Pagliaro and A. Bausani, eds., Storia della Letteratura Persiana. Milano, pp. 79–146. Pagliaro Fs., 1969. Studia classica et orientalia Antonino Pagliaro oblata. 3 vols. Ed. by A. Pagliaro. Roma. Panaino, A. 1989. “L’inno avestico a Vanant.” Atti del Sodalizio Glottologico Milanese 28 (1987), pp. 21–30. — 1990 a. Tištrya. Part I: The Avestan Hymn to Sirius. Roma (SOR 68.1). — 1990 b. “La Religione Zoroastriana (guida critica e bibliografica).” In: Cannizzaro 1990, pp. 235–300. — 1992. “Gli Yašt dell’Avesta: metodi e prospettivi.” Atti del Sodalizio Glottologico Milanese 30, pp. 159–84. — 1993. “Philologia Avestica II: Av. a(i)niia(/ō).kaēša-, a(i)niiō.varəna-.” EW 43, pp. 11–21. — 1993–94. “L’innologia avestica.” In: L’inno tra rituale e letteratura nel mondo antico. Atti di un colloquio, Napoli 21–24 ottobre 1991. Roma, pp. 107–23. — 1994 a. “Philologia Avestica IV: Av. yaštay-/yešti-; yašta-; phl. yašt. Quelques réflexions sur les titres des hymnes de l’Avesta.” StIr 23, pp. 163–85. — 1994 b. “The Two Astrological Reports of the Kārnāmag ī Ardaxšīr ī Pābagān (III, 4–7; IV, 6–7).” Die Sprache 36, pp. 181–98. — 1995. Tištrya. Part II: The Iranian Myth of the Star Sirius. Roma (SOR 68.2). — 1999. La Novella degli Scacchi e della Tavola Reale. Un’ antica fonte orientale sui due giochi da tavoliere più diffusi nel mondo eurasiatico tra Tardoantico e Medioevo e sulla loro simbologia militare e astrale. Testo pahlavi, traduzione e commento al Wizārišn ī čatrang ud nihišn

481

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN ī nēw-ardaxšir—La spiegazione degli scacchi e la disposizione della tavola reale. Milano. — 2000. “Il Testo del ‘Padre Nostro’ nell’apologetica mazdaica.” In: S. Graziani, ed., Studi sul Vicino Oriente Antico dedicati alla memoria di Luigi Cagni. Vol. 4. Napoli, pp. 1937–62. Panglung, J. L. 1981. Die Erzählstoffe des Mūlasarvāstivāda-Vinaya analysiert auf Grund der tibetischen Versionen. Tokyo. Paul, L., ed. 2003, Persian Origins—Early Judeo-Persian and the Emergence of New Persian. Collected Papers of the Symposium, Göttingen 1999. Wiesbaden (Iranica 6). Peek, W., ed. 1985. Opuscula. Sammelausgaben seltener und bisher nicht selbständig erschienener wissenschaftlicher Abhandlungen. Vol. III: Sprachwissenschaftliche Ergebnisse der deutschen Turfanforschung. Leipzig. Pelliot, P. 1973. Recherches sur les Chrétiens d’Asie centrale et d’ExtrêmeOrient [I]. Paris. Pelliot, P. s. Chavannes, É. Peng, Jinzhang and Wang, Jianjun 2000. Dunhuang Mogaoku beiqu shiku [Northern grottoes of Mogaoku, Dunhuang]. Beijing. Perikhanyan, A. 1961. “Pekhleviĭskie papirusy sobraniya GMII imeni A. S. Pushkina” [Pahlavi Papyri from the Fund of the A.S. Pushkin State Museum of Art History]. VDI 1961/3, pp. 78–93. — 1970. “On Some Pahlavi Legal Terms.” In: Henning Mem., pp. 349–357. — 1973. Sasanidskiĭ Sudebnik [Sasanian Law Book]. Erewan. — 1974. “Le contumace dans la procédure Iranienne et les termes Pehlevis hačašmānd et srāδ.” In: de Menasce Mem., pp. 305–18. — 1983. “Iranian Society and Law.” CHI 3.2, pp. 627–80. — 1997. Farraxvmart ī Vahrāmān. The Book of a Thousand Judgements (A Sasanian Law-book). Translated from the Russian by N. Garsoïan. Costa Mesa/New York (Persian Heritage Series 39). Peters, C. 1936. “Der Text der soghdischen Evangelienbruchstücke und das Problem der Pešitta.” Oriens Christianus 11, 3. Serie, pp. 153–62. Pfandt, P. 1986. Mahāyāna Texts Translated into Western Languages: a Bibliographical Guide. Rev. ed. with supplement. Köln. Pirart, E. V. 1991. “Les fragments vieil-avestiques du Y 56.” MSS 52, pp. 127–35. — 1992 a. Kayân Yasn (Yasht 19.9–96). L’origine avestique des dynasties mythiques d’Iran. Barcelona (Aula Orientalis, Supplementa 2). — 1992 b. “Les fragments vieil-avestiques du Y 58.” AION 52, pp. 225–47. — 1997. “Avestique yašta.” JA 285, pp. 363–79.

482

BIBLIOGRAPHY Pirart, E. V. s. Kellens, J. Piras, A. 2000. Hādōxt Nask 2. Il Racconto zoroastriano della sorte dell’anima. Edizione critica del testo avestico e pahlavi, traduzione e commento. Roma (SOR 88). Polo, M. 1928. Il Milione. Ed. by L. F. Benedetto. Firenze. Polotsky, H. J. 1934. Manichäische Homilien. Manichäische Handschriften der Sammlung A. Chester Beatty. Stuttgart. Polotsky, H. J. and Böhlig, A. 1940. Manichäische Handschriften der Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin. I. Kephalaia I. Erste Hälfte (Lieferung 1–10). Stuttgart 1940. Polotsky, H. J. s. Schmidt, C. Popp, V. and Humbach, H. 1973. “Die Paikuli-Inschrift im Jahre 1971.” BMitt 6, pp. 99–109 with pls. 37–45. Porció, T. 2000. The One with the White Parasol. Four Sitātapatrā Texts in the Derge Kanjur and a Dunhuang Text (Pelliot tibétain no. 45) with an Annotated English Translation of the Longest Canonical Version. Dissertation. University of Vienna. Proceedings … Bamberg, 1992. P. Gignoux, ed., Recurrent Patterns in Iranian Religions, from Mazdaism to Sufism. Proceedings of the Round Table Held in Bamberg (30th Sept.–4th Oct. 1991). Paris (StIr, Cahier 11). Proceedings … Bamberg, 1995. B. G. Fragner et al., eds., Proceedings of the Second European Conference of Iranian Studies Held in Bamberg, 30th September to 4th October 1991, by the Societas Iranologica Europea. Roma (SOR 73). Proceedings … Cambridge, 1998. N. Sims-Williams, ed., Proceedings of the Third European Conference of Iranian Studies Held in Cambridge, 11th to 15th September 1995. Part 1: Old and Middle Iranian Studies. Wiesbaden (Beiträge zur Iranistik 17). Proceedings … Leuven, 1984. W. Skalmowski and A. van Tongerloo, eds., Middle Iranian studies: Proceedings of the International Symposium Organized by the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven from the 17th to the 20th of May 1982. Leuven (OLA 16). Proceedings … Leuven, 1993. W. Skalmowski and A. van Tongerloo, eds., Medioiranica: Proceedings of the International Colloquium Organized by the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven from the 21st to the 23rd of May 1990. Leuven (OLA 48). Proceedings … Turin, 1990. G. Gnoli and A. Panaino, eds., Proceedings of the First European Conference of Iranian Studies Held in Turin, September 7th –11th, 1987 by the Societas Iranologica Europaea. Part 1: Old and Middle Iranian Studies. Roma (SOR 67.1).

483

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN Puech, H.-C. 1979. Sur le manichéisme et autres essais. Paris. Pulleyblank, E. G. 1954. “The Date of the Staël-Holstein Roll.” Asia Major [n.s.] 4, pp. 90–97. Quispel Fs., 1981. Studies in Gnosticism and Hellenistic Religions. Ed. by R. van den Broek and M. J. Vermaseren. Leiden. Ragoza, A. N., ed. 1980. Sogdiĭskie fragmenty tsentral’no-aziatskogo sobraniya instituta vostokovedeniya [Sogdian Fragments of the Central Asian Collection of the Institute of Oriental Studies]. Moskva. Rapoport, Yu. A. 1994 [1996]. “The Palaces of Topraq-Qalʿa.” BAI 8, pp. 161–85. Rāšed-Moḥaṣṣel, M. T. 1987. Gozidehā-ye Zādsparam [Selections of Zādsparam]. Teheran. — 1991. Zand-e Bahman Yasn. Taṣḥiḥ-e matn, āvā-nevis, bar-gardān-e fārsi va yād-dāšthā [Zend of the Bahman Yasn. Critical Editon, Transcription, Persian Translation and Notes]. Teheran. Rastorgueva, V. S. and Molchanova, E. K. 1981. “Parfyanskiĭ yazyk” [Parthian Language]. In: Osnovy iranskogo yazykoznaniya. Vol. 2: Sredneiranskie yazyki. Moskva, pp. 47–232. Rażī, H. 1997. Vendīdād. Tarjome va eġāfāt [Vendīdād. Translation and Commentary]. 4 vols. Tehran. Reck, Chr. 1991. Mitteliranische manichäische Montags- und Bēmahymnen. Edition und Kommentar. Dissertation. Berlin. — 1997. “84 000 Mädchen in einem manichäischen Text aus Zentralasien?” In: P. Kieffer-Pülz and J.-U. Hartmann, eds., Bauddhavidyāsudhākaraḥ. Studies in Honour of Heinz Bechert on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday. Swisttal-Odendorf, pp. 543–50. — 1998. “Work in Progress: a Catalogue of the Middle Iranian Manuscripts in Sogdian Script of the Berlin Turfan Collection.” In: Proceedings … Cambridge, pp. 147–52. — 2003. “Die Beschreibung der Daēnā in einem soghdischen manichäischen Text.” In: Gnoli Fs., pp. 323–38. — 2004. Gesegnet sei dieser Tag. Manichäische Festtagshymnen—Edition der mittelpersischen und parthischen Sonntags-, Montags- und Bemahymnen. Turnhout (BTT XXII). — 2005. “The Tribulations of Human Existence: a Sogdian Fragment Corresponding to a Passage of Burzōy’s Preface to Kalīlah wa Dimnah.” In: Tongerloo/Cirillo 2005, pp. 331–41, pl. 434–35. Reck, C. and Sundermann, W. 1997. “Ein illustrierter mittelpersischer manichäischer Omen-Text aus Turfan.” Zentralasiatische Studien 27, pp. 7–23.

484

BIBLIOGRAPHY Reeves, J. C. 1992. Jewish Lore in Manichaean Cosmogony. Studies in the Book of Giants Traditions. Cincinnati (Monographs of the Hebrew Union College 14). Reichelt, H. 1900. “Der Frahang i oīm I.” WZKM 14, pp. 177–213. — 1901. “Der Frahang i oīm II.” WZKM 15, pp. 117–86. — 1911. Avesta Reader. Texts, Notes, Glossary And Index. Strassburg. — 1928–31. Die sogdischen Handschriftenreste des Britischen Museums. I. Die buddhistischen Texte. II. Die nicht-buddhistischen Texte. Heidelberg. Reitzenstein, R. 1921. Das iranische Erlösungsmysterium. Bonn. Rempis, C. H. 1951. “Die ältesten Dichtungen in Neupersisch.” ZDMG 101, pp. 220–40. Renou, L. s. Benveniste, É. Reuter, J. N. 1913–18. “Some Buddhist Fragments from Chinese Turkestan in Sanskrit and ‘Khotanese’.” Journal de la Société Finnoougrienne 30, pp. 1–37 and pls. I–IX. Ries Fs., 1991. Manichaica Selecta. Studies Presented to Professor Julien Ries on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday. Ed. by A. van Tongerloo and S. Giversen. Leuven. Robinson, J. M. 1992. “The Fate of the Manichaean Codices of Medinet Madi.” In: Wießner/Klimkeit 1992, pp. 19–62. von Rosen, V. 1895. “K voprosu ob arabskikh perevodakh Khudai Name” [The Question of the Arabic Translations of the Chudai Name]. In: Vostochnye Zametki. St. Petersburg, pp. 153–91. Rostovtzeff, M. I. 1943. “Res Gestae Divi Saporis and Dura.” Berytus 8, pp. 17–60. Rteveladze, E. V. 1994 [1996]. “Kampir-Tepe: Structures, Written Documents, and Coins.” BAI 8, pp. 141–54. Rubin, Z. 2002. “Res Gestae Divi Saporis: Greek and Middle Iranian in a Document of Sasanian Anti-Roman Propaganda.” In: J. N. Adams, M. Janse and S. Swain, eds., Bilingualism in Ancient Society. Language Contact and the Written Text. Oxford, pp. 267–97. Rudolph Fs., 1994. Gnosisforschung und Reliogionsgeschichte. Festschrift für Kurt Rudolph zum 65. Geburtstag. Ed. by H. Preißler and H. Seiwert. Marburg. Rypka, J. 1959. Iranische Literaturgeschichte. Leipzig. Rypka Mem., 1967. Yādnāme-ye Jan Rypka. Collection of Articles on Persian and Tajik Literature. Prague. Sachau, E. 1879. The Chronology of Ancient Nations. London [repr. Frankfurt 1984].

485

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN — 1905. “Litteratur-Bruchstücke aus Chinesisch-Turkistan.” SPAW 1905, pp. 964–78. — 1914. Syrische Rechtsbücher. Vol. 3: Corpus juris des persischen Erzbischofs Jesubocht. Erbrecht oder Canones des persischen Erzbischofs Simeon. Eherecht des Patriarchen Màr Abhà. Berlin. de Sacy, S. 1793. Mémoires sur les diverses antiquités de la Perse. Paris. Safa-Isfehani, N. 1980. Rivāyat-i Hēmīt-i Ašawahištān. A Study in Zoroastrian Law. Harvard (Harvard Iranian Series 2). Salemann, C. 1904. “Ein Bruchstük Manichaeischen Schrifttums im Asiatischen Museum.” In: Mémoires de l’Académie Impériale des Sciences de St.-Pétersbourg. 8 série, VI.6, pp. 1–26. — 1907. “Manichaica I.” Bulletin de l’Académie Impériale des Sciences de St.-Pétersbourg 1907, pp. 175–84. — 1912. “Manichaica III and IV.” Bulletin de l’Académie Impériale des Sciences de St.-Pétersbourg 1912, pp. 1–55. al-Salihi, W. 1984 [1986]. “Mesene’ Bronze Statue of ‘Weary Hercules’.” Sumer 43, pp. 219–29. — 1987. “The Weary Hercules of Mesene.” Mesopotamia 22, pp. 160–67. Samolin, W. 1964. East Turkestan to the Twelfth Century. A Brief Political Survey. The Hague. Sancisi-Weerdenburg, H. 1985. “The Death of Cyrus: Xenophon’s Cyropaedia as a Source for Iranian History.” In: Boyce Fs., II, pp. 459–71. Sander, L. 1968. Paläographisches zu den Sanskrithandschriften der Berliner Turfansammlung. Wiesbaden. — 1984. “Zu dem Projekt ‘Paläographie khotan-sakischer Handschriften’.” In: Proceedings … Leuven (1984), pp. 159–86. — 1986. “Brāhmī Scripts on the Eastern Silk Roads.” StII 11/12, pp. 159–92. — 1988. “Auftraggeber, Schreiber und Schreibeigenheiten im Spiegel khotansakischer Handschriften in formaler Brāhmī.” In: P. Kosta, ed., Studia Indogermanica et Slavica. Festgabe für Werner Thomas zum 65. Geburtstag. München, pp. 533–49. — 1989. “Remarks on the Formal Brāhmī of Gilgit, Bamīyān and Khotan.” In: K. Jettmar, ed., Antiquities of Northern Pakistan: Reports and Studies. Vol. 1: Rock Inscriptions in the Indus Valley. Mainz, pp. 107–30, pls. 56–215. Sanjana Fs., 1904. Avesta, Pahlavi and Ancient Persian Studies in Honour of the Late Shams-Ul-Ulama Dastur Peshotanji Behramji Sanjana. Ed. by P. B. Sanjana. Strassburg. Sanjana, P. 1848. Daftar-ī vičirkard dēnīk (vazarkard dīnī). Bombay.

486

BIBLIOGRAPHY — 1874–1928. The Dînkard. 19 vols. Bombay. — 1885. Ganjesháyagán. Andarze Atrepát Máráspandán, Mádigáne Chatrang and Andarze Khusroe Kavátán. Bombay. —, ed. 1894. Nirangistan. A Photozincographed Facsimile Edited with an Introduction and Collation with an Older Iranian MS in the Possession of E. T. D. Anklesaria. Bombay (The Pahlavi Text Series I). —, ed. 1895 a. The Dīnā ī Maīnū ī Khrad or the Religious Decisions of the Spirit of Wisdom. Bombay. — 1895 b. The Zand î Javît Shêda Dâd or The Pahlavi Version of the Avesta Vendidâd, Edited, with an Introduction, Critical and Philological Notes, and Appendices on the History of Avesta Literature. Bombay. — 1896 . The Kârnâme î Artakhshîr î Pâpakân, Being the Oldest Surviving Records of the Zoroastrian Emperor Ardashîr Bâbakân, the Founder of the Sâsânian Dynasty in Irân. New edition revised and enlarged. Bombay. Schaeder, H. H. 1930. Iranische Beiträge I. Halle. — 1936. “Der Manichäismus nach neuen Funden und Forschungen.” Morgenland 28, pp. 80–109. — 1940. “Ein indogermanischer Liedtypus in den Gathas.” ZDMG 94, pp. 399–408 [= Schmitt 1968, pp. 61–71]. Scherrer-Schaub, C. A. 1996. Review of Canevascini 1993. Asiatische Studien 50, pp. 217–25. Schindler, J. 1982. “Zum Nom.Sing.m. der nt-Partizipien im Jungavestischen.” In: E. Neu, ed., Investigationes philologicae et comparativae. Gedenkschrift für Heinz Kronasser. Wiesbaden, pp. 186–209. Schlerath, B. 1968. Awesta-Wörterbuch. Vol. 1:Vorarbeiten I. Index locorum zur Sekundärliteratur des Awesta. Vol. 2: Vorarbeiten II. Konkordanz. Wiesbaden. — 1969. “Der Terminus aw. gāθā-.” MSS 25, pp. 99–103. Schmidt, C. and Polotsky, H.J. 1933. “Ein Mani-Fund in Ägypten. Originalschriften des Mani und seiner Schüler.” SPAW 1933, pp. 3–85. Schmidt, H.-P. 1968. “Die Komposition von Yasna 49.” In: Kuiper Fs., pp. 170–92. — 1974. “Associative Technique and Symmetrical Structure in the Composition of Yasna 47.” In: Lentz Fs., pp. 306–52. — 1985. Form and Meaning of Yasna 33. New Haven (American Oriental Society, Essay 10). Schmidt, M. G. et al. eds. 2001. Philologica et Linguistica. Historia, Pluralitas, Universitas. Festschrift für Helmut Humbach zum 80. Geburtstag am 4. Dezember 2001. Trier.

487

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN Schmidt-Glintzer, H. 1987. Chinesische Manichaica. Wiesbaden. Schmithausen, L. 1971. Review of Emmerick 1968 c. CAJ 15.1, pp. 75–77. Schmitt, R. 1967. Dichtung und Dichtersprache in indogermanischer Zeit. Wiesbaden. —, ed. 1968. Indogermanische Dichtersprache. Darmstadt (Wege der Forschung 165). — 1988. “Achaimenideninschriften in griechischer literarischer Überlieferung.” In: Asmussen Fs., pp. 17–38. —, ed. 1989 a. Compendium linguarum iranicarum. Wiesbaden. — 1989 b. “Altpersisch.” CLI, pp. 56–85. — 1990 a. “Bīsotūn.” EIr 4, pp. 299–305. — 1990 b. Epigraphisch-exegetische Noten zu Dareios’ Bisutun-Inschriften. Wien (SÖAW 561). — 1991. CII. Part I: Inscriptions of Ancient Iran. Vol. I: The Old Persian Inscriptions. Text I: The Bisutun Inscriptions of Darius the Great: Old Persian Text. By R. Schmitt. London. — 1993. “Die Sprachverhältnisse im Achaimenidenreich.” In: R. B. Finazzi, P. Tornaghi, eds., Lingue e culture in contatto nel mondo antico e altomedievale. Atti dell’ VIII convegno internazionale di linguisti tenuto a Milano nei giorni 10–12 settembre 1992. Brescia, pp. 77–102. — 1994. “Sprachzeugnisse alt- und mitteliranischer Sprachen aus Afghanistan.” In: R. Bielmeier and R. Stempel, eds., Indogermanica et Caucasica. Festschrift für Karl Horst Schmidt zum 65. Geburtstag. Berlin/ New York, pp. 168–196. — 1996 [1998]. “Epigraphisch–exegetische Probleme der altpersischen Texte ‘DNb’ und ‘XPI’: Teil I.” BAI 10, pp. 15–23. — 1997 a. “Notgedrungene Beiträge zu westiranisch st versus št oder: Epigraphik und historische Dialektologie.” IL 20, pp. 121–30. — 1997 b. “Epigraphisch–exegetische Probleme der altpersischen Texte ‘DNb’ und ‘XPI’ (Teil 3).” AMI 29, pp. 271–79. — 1998. “Parthische Sprach- und Namenüberlieferung aus arsakidischer Zeit.” In: J. Wieshöfer, ed., Das Partherreich und seine Zeugnisse. The Arsacid Empire: Sources and Documentation. Beiträge des internationalen Kolloquiums, Eutin (27.–30. Juni 1996). Stuttgart, pp. 163–204. — 1999 a. Beiträge zu altpersischen Inschriften. Wiesbaden. — 1999 b. “Bemerkungen zum Schlußabschnitt von Dareios’ Grabinschrift DNb.” AoF 26, pp. 127–39. — 2000 a. “Die sprachliche Form von Xerxes’ (altpersischer) DaivaInschrift XPh.” In: M. Ofitsch and Ch. Zinko, eds., 125 Jahre Indogermanistik in Graz. Graz, pp. 447–58.

488

BIBLIOGRAPHY — 2000 b. CII. Part I: Inscriptions of Ancient Iran. Vol. I: The Old Persian Inscriptions. Text II: The Old Persian Inscriptions of Naqsh-i Rustam and Persepolis. By R. Schmitt. London. — 2003. “Die Sprache der Meder—eine große Unbekannte.” In: G. B. Lanfranchi, M. Roaf and R. Rollinger, eds., Continuity of Empire (?). Assyria, Media, Persia. Padova, pp. 23–36. Schopen, G. 1977. “Sukhāvatī as a Generalized Religious Goal in Sanskrit Mahāyāna sūtra Literature.” IIJ 19, pp. 177–210. — 1989 a. “The Manuscript of the Vajracchedikā Found at Gilgit.” In: L. Gomez and J. Silk, eds., Studies in the Literature of the Great Vehicle. Three Mahāyāna Buddhist Texts. Ann Arbor, pp. 89–139. — 1989 b. “A Verse from the Bhadracarīpraṇidhāna in a 10th century Inscription Found at Nālandā.” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 12.1, pp. 149–57. Schuyler, M. 1901. Index Verborum of the Fragments of the Avesta. New York [repr. 1965]. Schwartz, M. 1967. Studies in the Texts of the Sogdian Christians. Doctoral dissertation. Berkeley. — 1970. “Miscellanea iranica.” In: Henning Mem., pp. 385–94. — 1974. “Sogdian Fragments of the Book of Psalms.” AoF 1, pp. 257–61. — 1982. “‘Blood’ in Sogdian and Old Iranian.” In: Monumentum Georg Morgenstierne II. Leiden (AcIr 22), pp. 189–96. — 1986. “Coded Sound Patterns, Acrostics, and Anagrams in Zoroaster’s Oral Poetry.” In: Humbach Fs., pp. 327–92. — 1991 a. “Sound, Sense, and Seeing in Zoroaster: The Outer Reaches of Orality.” In: International [Indo-Iranian] Congress Proceedings, 5th –8th January 1989. Bombay, pp. 127–63. — 1991 b. “A Page of a Sogdian Liber Vitæ.” In: MacKenzie Fs., pp. 157–66. — 1998. “The Ties that Bind: on the Form and Content of Zarathushtra’s Mysticism.” In: F. Vajifdar, ed., New Approaches to the Interpretation of the Gāthās. Proceedings of the First Gāthā Colloquium Held in Croydon, England (5th –7th November 1993) under the Auspices of the World Zoroastrian Organization. London, pp. 127–97. Segal, J. B. 1953. The Diacritical Point and the Accents in Syriac. London. Seidl, U. 1976. “Ein Relief Dareios’ I. in Babylon.” AMF [NF] 9, pp. 125–30. Sellwood, D. 1983. “Parthian Coins.” CHI 3.1, pp. 279–98. Shafi, M. 1954. “Unṣurī’s Wāmiq wa ʿAdhrā.” In: D. Sinor, ed., Proceedings of the 23rd International Congress of Orientalists, Cambridge 21st–28th August 1954. London, pp. 160–61.

489

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN Shahbazi, A. S. 1990. “On the Xwadāy-Nāmag.” In: Iranica Varia. Papers in Honour of Professor Ehsan Yarshater. Leiden (AcIr 30), pp. 208–29. Shaked, Sh. 1970. “Specimens of Middle Persian Verse.” In: Henning Mem., pp. 395–405. — 1979. The Wisdom of the Sasanian Sages (Dēnkard VI). By Aturpāt-i Ēmētān. Translated by Shaul Shaked. Boulder, Colorado (Persian Heritage Series 34). — 1987 a. “Andarz.” EIr 2, pp. 11–16. — 1987 b. “A Facetious Recipe and the Two Wisdoms: Iranian Themes in Muslim Garb.” JSAI 9, pp. 24–35 [= Shaked 1995, IX]. — 1990a [1992]. “Spurious Epigraphy.” BAI 4, pp. 267–75. — 1990 b. “Zoroastrian Polemics against Jews in the Sasanian and Early Islamic Period.” In: Sh. Shaked and A. Netzer, eds., Irano-Judaica. Vol. II. Jerusalem, pp. 85–104. — 1993. “A Dictionary of Aramaic Ideograms in Pahlavi.” JAOS 113, pp. 75–78. — 1994. Dualism in Transformation: Varieties of Religion in Sasanian Iran. London. — 1995. From Zoroastrian Iran to Islam. Studies in Religious History and Intercultural Contacts. Aldershot. Shaki, M. 1968. “Dārūk i Hōnsandīh.” ArOr 36, pp. 429–31. — 1970. “Some Basic Tenets of the Eclectic Metaphysics of the Dēnkart.” ArOr 38, pp. 277–312. — 1973. “A Few Philosophical and Cosmogonical Chapters of the Dēnkart.” ArOr 41, pp. 133–65. — 1975. “Observations on the Draxt ī asūrig.” ArOr 43, pp. 64–75. — 1981. “The Dēnkard Account of the History of the Zoroastrian Scriptures.” ArOr 49, pp. 114–25. — 1986. “Observations on the Ayâdgâr î Zarêrân.” ArOr 54, pp. 257–71. Shapira, D. 2001 a. “On Biblical Quotations in Pahlavi.” Henoch. Historical and Philological Studies on Judaism 23, pp. 175–83. — 2001 b. “Was there Geographical Science in Sasanian Iran?” AOASH 54, pp. 319–38. Shboul, A. 1979. Al-Masʿūdī and his World. A Muslim Humanist and his Interest in Non-Muslims. London. Shishkin, V. A. 1963. Varaxša. Moskva. Silk, J. 1994. The Heart Sūtra in Tibetan: a Critical Edition of the Two Recensions Contained in the Kanjur. Wien.

490

BIBLIOGRAPHY Simon, W. 1970. “A Note on the Tibetan Version of the Karmavibhaṅga Preserved in the MS Kanjur of the British Museum.” BSOAS 33, pp. 161–66. Sims-Williams, N. 1976. “The Sogdian Fragments of the British Library.” IIJ 18, pp. 43–82. — 1981 a. “The Final Paragraph of the Tomb-Inscription of Darius I (DNb, 50–60): the Old Persian Text in the Light of an Aramaic Version.” BSOAS 44, pp. 1–7. — 1981 b. “The Sogdian Fragments of Leningrad.” BSOAS 44, pp. 231–40. — 1981 c. “Syro-sogdica I: an Anonymous Homily on the Three Periods of the Solitary Life.” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 47, pp. 441–46. — 1982. “Syro-sogdica II: a Metrical Homily by Bābay bar Nṣibnāye ‘On the Final Evil Hour’.” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 48, pp. 171–76. — 1983. “Indian Elements in Parthian and Sogdian.” In: K. Röhrborn and W. Veenker, eds., Sprachen des Buddhismus in Zentralasien. Vorträge des Hamburger Symposiums vom 2. Juli bis 5. Juli 1981. Wiesbaden, pp. 132–41. — 1985 a. “The Manichaean Commandments: A Survey of the Sources.” In: Boyce Fs., II, pp. 573–582. — 1985 b. The Christian Sogdian Manuscript C2. Berlin (BTT XII). — 1985c. “Ancient Letters.” EIr 2, pp. 7–9. — 1988. “Syro-Sogdica III: Syriac Elements in Sogdian.” In: Asmussen Fs., pp. 145–56. — 1989 a. “Bactrian.” CLI, pp. 230–35. — 1989 b. “A New Fragment from the Parthian Hymn-Cycle Huyadagmān.” In: Lazard Fs., pp. 321–31. — 1989 c. “Bactrian Language.” EIr 3, pp. 344 b–349 a. — 1989 d. “Baršabbā.” EIr 3, p. 823. — 1989–92. CII. Part II: Inscriptions of the Seleucid and Parthian Periods and of Eastern Iran and Central Asia. Vol. III/II: Sogdian. Sogdian and Other Iranian Inscriptions of the Upper Indus. I (1989); II (1992). By N. Sims-Williams. London. — 1990 [1992]. “The Sogdian Fragments of Leningrad II: Mani at the Court of the Shahanshah.” BAI 4, pp. 281–88. — 1991 a. “The Sogdian Fragments of Leningrad III: Fragments of the Xwāstwānīft.” In: Ries Fs., pp. 323–28. — 1991 b. “Christianity, iii: In Central Asia and Chinese Turkestan; iv: Christian Literature in Middle Iranian Languages.” EIr 5, pp. 530–35.

491

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN — 1992. “Sogdian and Turkish Christians in the Turfan and Tun-huang manuscripts.” In: A. Cadonna, ed., Turfan and Tun-huang. The Texts. Encounter of Civilizations on the Silk Route. Firenze, pp. 43–61. — 1993a [1994]. “Bactrian Ownership Inscriptions.” BAI 7, pp. 173–79. — 1993 b. “The Sogdian Inscription of Ladakh.” In: Antiquities of Northern Pakistan. Reports and Studies. Mainz, pp. 151–63. — 1993 c. “Cyriacus and Julitta, Acts of.” EIr 6, p. 512. — 1993 d. “Corpus Inscriptionum Iranicarum.” EIr 6, p. 286. — 1994 a. “Dādišoʿ Qaṭrāyā’s Commentary on the ‘Paradise of the Fathers’.” Analecta Bollandiana 112, pp. 33–64. — 1994b [1995]. “Traditions Concerning the Fates of the Apostles in Syriac and Sogdian.” In: Rudolph Fs., pp. 287–95. — 1995a [1997]. “A Bactrian Inscription on a Silver Vessel from China.” BAI 9, p. 225. — 1995 b. “A Sogdian Version of the ‘Gloria in excelsis deo’.” In: Gignoux Fs., pp. 257–62. — 1995 c. “Christian Sogdian Texts from the Nachlass of Olaf Hansen, I: Fragments of the Life of Serapion.” BSOAS 58, pp. 50–68. — 1995 d. “Christian Sogdian Texts from the Nachlass of Olaf Hansen, II: Fragments of Polemic and Prognostics.” BSOAS 58, pp. 288–302. — 1996 a. “The Sogdian Merchants in China and India.” In: A. Cadonna and L. Panciotti, eds., Cina e Iran da Alessandro Magno alla Dinastia Tang. Firenze, pp. 45–67. — 1996 b. “Nouveaux documents sur l’histoire et la langue de la Bactriane.” CRAIBL 1996, pp. 633–54. — 1996 c. “The Sogdian Manuscripts in Brāhmī Script as Evidence for Sogdian Phonology.” In: Gabain Mem., pp. 307–15. — 1996 d. “From Babylon to China: Astrological and Epistolary Formulae across Two Millennia.” In: Convegno internazionale sul tema: La Persia e l’Asia centrale da Alessandro al X secolo (Roma, 9–12 novembre 1994). Roma (Atti dei convegni Lincei 127), pp. 77–84. — 1997. New Light on Afghanistan. The Decipherment of Bactrian. An Inaugural Lecture Delivered on 1 February 1996. London. — 1998. “Further Notes on the Bactrian Inscription of Rabatak, with an Appendix on the Names of Kujula Kadphises and Vima Taktu in Chinese.” In: Proceedings … Cambridge, pp. 79–92. — 2000. CII. Part III : Inscriptions of the Seleucid and Parthian Periods and of Eastern Iran and Central Asia. Vol. VI: Bactrian Documents from Northern Afghanistan. Part I : Legal and Economic Documents. By N. Sims-Williams. London.

492

BIBLIOGRAPHY — 2001. “The Sogdian Letter II.” In: M. G. Schmidt 2001, pp. 267–80. — 2003. “A Christian Sogdian Polemic against the Manichaeans.” In: Gnoli Fs., pp. 399–408. — 2004. “A Greek-Sogdian Bilingual from Bulayïq.” In: La Persia e Bisanzio. Convegno internazionale (Roma, 14–18 ottobre 2002). Roma (Atti dei convegni Lincei 201), pp. 623–31. Sims-Williams, N. and Cribb, J. 1996. “A New Bactrian Inscription of Kanishka the Great.” Silk Road Art and Archaeology 4, pp. 75–142. Sims-Williams, N. and Hamilton, J. 1990. Documents turco-sogdiens du IXe –Xe siècle de Touen-houang. London. Sims-Williams, N. s. Maue, D. Skilton, A. 1999. “Dating the Samādhirāja Sūtra.” Journal of Indian Philosophy 27, pp. 635–52. Skjærvø, P. O. 1983 a [1985]. “‘Kirdir’s Vision’: Translation and Analysis.” AMI 16, pp. 269–306. — 1983 b. Review of Bailey 1951 a. JRAS 1983, pp. 120–21. — 1983 c. The Khotanese Suvarṇabhāsottamasūtra. Habilitation thesis. Mainz, 3 pts. —1983 d. “Case in Inscriptional Middle Persian, Inscriptional Parthian and the Pahlavi Psalter.” StIr 12, pp. 47–62, 151–81. — 1985. “Thematic and Linguistic Parallels in the Achaemenian and Sassanian Inscriptions.” In: Boyce Fs., II, pp. 593–603. — 1986. “Khotanese Fragments of the Vimalakīrtinirdeśasūtra.” In: E. Kahrs, ed., Kalyāṇamitrārāgaṇam. Essays in Honour of Nils Simonsson. Oslo, pp. 229–60. — 1987 a. “Ard Yašt.” EIr 2, pp. 355–56. — 1987 b. “Aśoka, iii: The Legend of Aśoka in Khotanese.” EIr 2, pp. 782–83. — 1987 c. “Aśoka, iv: The Legend of Aśoka and the Founding of Khotan.” EIr 2, pp. 783–85. — 1988. “The Khotanese Hdayasūtra.” In: Asmussen Fs., pp. 157–71. — 1989. “Bag Nask.” EIr 3, pp. 400–401. — 1990 [1992]. “A Copy of the Hajiabad Inscription in the Babylonian Collection, Yale.” BAI 4, pp. 289–93. — 1991. “Kings of Khotan in the Eighth Century.” In: P. Bernard and F. Grenet, eds., Histoire et cultes de l’Asie Centrale préislamique. Sources écrites et documents archéologiques. Actes du colloque international du CNRS, Paris, 22–28 novembre 1988. Paris, pp. 255–78. — 1992. “L’inscription d’Abnūn et l’imparfait en moyen-perse.” StIr 21, pp. 153–60.

493

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN — 1994 a. “On Lice and Men and the Manichaean Anthropology.” StII 19, pp. 269–86. — 1994b. “Hymnic Composition in the Avesta.” Die Sprache 36, pp. 199–243. — 1995 a. “Aramaic in Iran.” ARAM 7 (Palmyra and the Aramaeans), pp. 283–318. — 1995 b. “The Manichean Polemical Hymns in M 28 I. A Review Article.” BAI 9, pp. 239–55. — 1995 c. “Iranian Epic and the Manichean Book of Giants. IranoManichaica III.” AOH 48, pp. 187–223. — 1995 d. “The Avesta as Source for the Early History of the Iranians.” In: G. Erdosy, ed., The Indo-Aryans of Ancient South Asia. Language, Material Culture and Ethnicity. Berlin/New York, pp. 155–76. — 1996 a. “Iranian Alphabets Derived from Aramaic.” In: P. T. Daniels and W. Bright, eds., The World’s Writing Systems. New York/Oxford, pp. 515–35. — 1996 b. “The Literature of the Most Ancient Iranians.” In: S. J. H. Manekshaw and P. R. Ichaporia, eds., Proceedings of the Second North America Gatha Conference, Held in Houston, 31 August–2 September 1996. Houston, Texas (The Journal of the Research and Historical Preservation Committee 2), pp. 221–35. — 1997 a. “On the Middle Persian Imperfect.” In: E. V. Pirart, ed., Syntaxe des langues indo-iraniennes anciennes. Colloque international, Sitges (Barcelona) 4–5 mai 1993. Sabadell, pp. 161–88. — 1997 b. “The State of Old Avestan Scholarship.” JAOS 117, pp. 103–14. — 1997 c [2000]. “The Joy of the Cup.” BAI 11, pp. 93–104. — 1998 a. “Eastern Iranian Epic Traditions I: Siyāvaš and Kunāla.” In: J. Jasanoff, H. C. Melchert and L. Oliver, eds., Mír Curad. Studies in Honor of Calvert Watkins. Innsbruck, pp. 645–58. — 1998 b. “Royalty in Early Iranian Literature.” In: Proceedings … Cambridge, pp. 99–107. — 1999 a. “Avestan Quotations in Old Persian? Literary Sources of the Old Persian Inscriptions.” In: Sh. Shaked and A. Netzer, eds., IranoJudaica. Vol. IV. Jerusalem, pp. 1–64. — 1999 b. “Khotan, an Early Center of Buddhism in Chinese Turkestan.” In: J. R. McRae and J. Nattier, eds., Collection of Essays 1993. Buddhism across Boundaries. Chinese Buddhism and the Western Regions. Sanchung, pp. 265–344. — 1999 c [2002]. “Recent Khotanese Ghostwords.” BAI 13, pp. 151–155. — 2002. CII. Part II: Inscriptions of the Seleucid and Parthian Periods and of Eastern Iran and Central Asia. Vol. V: Saka. Texts VI: Khotanese

494

BIBLIOGRAPHY Manuscripts from Chinese Turkestan in the British Library. A Complete Catalogue with Texts and Translations. Ed. by P. O. Skjærvø. With contributions by U. Sims-Williams. London [repr. 2003]. — 2003. “Fragments of the Ratnakūṭa-sūtra (Kāśyapaparivarta) in Khotanese.” In: Gnoli Fs., pp. 409–20 with pls. 11–12. — 2004. This Most Excellent Shine of Gold, King of Kings of Sutras: the Khotanese Suvarṇabhāsottamasūtra. Vol. 1: The Khotanese Text with English translation and the Complete Sanskrit Text. Vol. 2: Manuscripts, Commentary, Glossary, Indexes. Cambridge, Mass. (Vol. 1: Sources of Oriental Languages and Literatures 60. Central Asian Sources 5; Vol. 2: Sources of Oriental Languages and Literatures 61. Central Asian Sources 6). Skjærvø, P. O. and Harper, P. O. 1993 [1994]. “The Earliest Datable Inscription on a Sasanian Bowl: Two Silver Bowls in the J. Paul Getty Museum.” BAI 7, pp. 181–92. Smith, R. P. 1879. Thesaurus Syriacus I. Oxford. Smith, S. 1926–28. “Draxt-i Asurik. Notes on the Assyrian Tree.” BSOS 4, pp. 69–76. Sohn, P. 1996. Die Medizin des Zādsparam. Anatomie, Physiologie und Psychologie in den Wizīdagīhā ī Zādsparam, einer zoroastrischmittelpersischen Anthologie aus dem frühislamischen Iran des neunten Jahrhunderts. Wiesbaden (Iranica 3). Soothill, E. W. and Hodous, L. 1937. A Dictionary of Chinese Buddhist Terms. London. Spiegel Mem., 1908. Spiegel Memorial Volume. Ed. by J. J. Modi. Bombay. Sprengling, M. 1936–37. “A New Pahlavi Inscription.” AJSLL 53, pp. 126–44. — 1937. “Zur Parsik-Inschrift an der ‘̔Kaaba des Zoroaster’.” ZDMG 91, pp. 652–72. — 1940. “Shahpuhr I, the Great on the Kaabah of Zoroaster.” AJSLL 57, pp. 341–429. — 1953. Third Century Iran: Sapor and Kartir. Chicago. von Staël-Holstein, A. 1926. The Kāśyapaparivarta: a Mahāyānasūtra of the Ratnakūṭa Class Edited in the Original Sanskrit, in Tibetan and in Chinese. Shanghai. Stein, M. A. 1907. Ancient Khotan. Detailed Report of Archaeological Explorations in Chinese Turkestan. Vol. 1: Text. With descriptive list of antiques by F. H. Andrews. Oxford. — 1928. Innermost Asia. 4 vols. London. Stein, R. A. 1987. “Un genre particulier d’exposés du tantrisme ancien tibétain et khotanais.” JA 275, pp. 265–82.

495

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN Stronach, D. 1990. “On the Genesis of the Old Persian Cuneiform Script.” In: F. Vallat, ed., Contribution à l’histoire de l’Iran. Mélanges offerts a Jean Perrot. Paris, pp. 195–203. Strunk, K. 1985. “Eine traditionelle Grußformel im Avestischen.” In: H. M. Ölberg and G. Schmidt, eds., Sprachwissenschaftliche Forschungen. Festschrift für Johann Knobloch. Innsbruck, pp. 465–68. Study Group on Buddhist Sanskrit Literature, The Institute for Comprehensive Studies of Buddhism, Taisho University, ed. 2004. Vimalakīrtinirdeśa: Transliterated Sanskrit Text Collated with Tibetan and Chinese Translation. Vol. 2 of Vimalakīrtinirdeśa and Jñānālokālaṃkāra: Sanskrit Texts Collated with Tibetan and Chinese Translations. Tokyo. Sundermann, W. 1973. Mittelpersische und parthische kosmogonische und Parabeltexte der iranischen Manichäer. Berlin (BTT IV). — 1974 a. “Nachlese zu F. W. K. Müllers ‘Soghdischen Texten I’.” Teil 1. AoF 1, pp. 217–55. — 1974b. “Einige Bemerkungen zum syrisch-neupersischen Psalmenbruchstück aus Chinesisch-Turkistan.” In: de Menasce Mem., pp. 441–52. — 1975 a. “Überreste manichäischer Yimki-Homilien in mittelpersischer Sprache?” In: Monumentum H.S. Nyberg II. Téhéran/Liège (AcIr 5), pp. 297–312. — 1975 b. “Nachlese zu F. W. K. Müllers ‘Soghdischen Texten I’.” Teil 2. AoF 3, pp. 55–90. — 1976. “Ein Bruchstück einer soghdischen Kirchengeschichte aus Zentralasien?” AAASH 14, pp. 95–101. — 1977. “D. N. MacKenzie. The Buddhist Sogdian texts of the British Library.” BSOAS 40, pp. 634–35. — 1978. “Some More Remarks on Mithra in the Manichaean Pantheon.” In: Études Mithriaques. Actes du 2e Congrès International Téhéran, du 1er au 8 septembre 1975. Téhéran/Liège (AcIr 17), pp. 485–99. — 1979. “Namen von Göttern, Dämonen und Menschen in iranischen Versionen des manichäischen Mythos.” AoF 6, pp. 95–133. — 1981 a. Mitteliranische manichäische Texte kirchengeschichtlichen Inhalts. Mit einem Appendix von N. Sims-Williams. Berlin (BTT XI). — 1981 b. “Nachlese zu F. W. K. Müllers ‘Soghdischen Texten I’.” Teil 3. AoF 8, pp. 169–225. — 1982. apud: Along the Ancient Silk Routes. Central Asian Art from the West Berlin State Museums. Published in conjunction with the exhibition at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Apr. 3–June 30, 1982. New York.

496

BIBLIOGRAPHY — 1983. “Der chinesische Traité manichéen und der parthische Sermon vom Lichtnous.” AoF 10, pp. 231–42. — 1984 a. “Die Prosaliteratur der iranischen Manichäer.” In: Proceedings … Leuven (1984), pp. 227–41. — 1984 b. “Probleme der Interpretation manichäisch-soghdischer Briefe.” In: J. Harmatta, ed., From Hecataeus to al-Ḫuwārizmī. Budapest, pp. 289–316. — 1984 c. “Ein weiteres Fragment aus Manis Gigantenbuch.” In: Orientalia J. Duchesne-Guillemin emerito oblata. Leiden (AcIr 23), pp. 491–505. — 1985 a. Ein manichäisch-soghdisches Parabelbuch, mit einem Anhang von Friedmar Geissler über Erzählmotive in Geschichte von den zwei Schlangen. Berlin (BTT XV). — 1985 b. “Der Gōwišn ī grīw zīndag-Zyklus.” In: Boyce Fs., II, pp. 629–50. — 1985 c. “Schriftsysteme und Alphabete im alten Iran.” AoF 12, pp. 101–13. — 1985 d. “Iran als Vermittler und Verbreiter fremder Schriftsysteme.” Das Altertum 31, pp. 92–97. — 1986 a. “Studien zur kirchengeschichtlichen Literatur der iranischen Manichäer I.” AoF 13, pp. 40–92. — 1986 b. “Studien zur kirchengeschichtlichen Literatur der iranischen Manichäer II.” AoF 13, pp. 239–317. — 1987. “Studien zur kirchengeschichtlichen Literatur der iranischen Manichäer III.” AoF 14, pp. 41–107. — 1988 a. “Kē čihr az yazdān. Zur Titulatur der Sasanidenkönige.” ArOr 56, pp. 338–40. — 1988 b. “La passion de Mani—calendrier liturgique ou évènement historique?” In: P. Gignoux, ed., La Commémoration. Colloque du centenaire de la section des sciences religieuses de l’École Pratique des Hautes Études. Louvain/Paris, pp. 225–31. — 1988 c. “Der Schüler fragt den Lehrer. Eine Sammlung biblischer Rätsel in soghdischer Sprache.” In: Asmussen Fs., pp. 173–86. — 1989 a. “Ein manichäischer Bekenntnistext in neupersischer Sprache.” In: Lazard Fs., pp. 355–65. — 1989 b. “Kniga gigantov: Eshche odin fragment iz ‘Knigi gigantov’ Mani” [The Book of Gigants: Another Fragment from Mani’s ‘Book of Giants’]. VDI 1989, pp. 67–79. — 1989 c. “Bahman Yašt.” EIr 3, pp. 492–93. — 1990. CII. Supplementary series. Vol. II: The Manichaean Hymn cycles Huyadagmān and Angad rōšnān in Parthian and Sogdian. Photo Edition. Transcription and Translation of hitherto Unpublished Texts, with Critical Remarks. By W. Sundermann. London.

497

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN — 1991 a. “Probleme der Edition iranisch-manichäischer Texte.” In: H. Klengel and W. Sundermann, eds., Ägypten—Vorderasien—Turfan. Probleme der Edition und Bearbeitung altorientalischer Handschriften. Berlin, pp. 106–12. — 1991 b. “Der Lebendige Geist als Verführer der Dämonen.” In: Ries Fs., pp. 339–42. — 1991 c. “Eine buddhistische Allegorie in manichäischer Überlieferung.” In: MacKenzie Fs., pp. 198–206. — 1992 a. Der Sermon vom Licht-Nous. Eine Lehrschrift des östlichen Manichäismus. Edition der parthischen und soghdischen Version. Berlin (BTT XVII). — 1992 b. “Iranian Manichaean Turfan Texts Concerning the Turfan Region.” In: A. Cadonna, ed., Turfan and Tun-Huang. The Texts. Encounter of Civilizations on the Silk Route. Firenze, pp. 63–84. — 1992 c. “Iranische Kephalaiatexte?” In: Wießner/Klimkeit 1992, pp. 305–18. — 1992 d. “Die Jungfrau der guten Taten.” In: Proceedings … Bamberg (1992), pp. 159–73. — 1993. “An Early Attestation of the Name of the Tajiks.” In: Proceedings … Leuven (1993), pp. 163–71. — 1994 a. “Eine Liste manichäischer Götter in soghdischer Sprache.” In: Colpe Fs., pp. 452–62. — 1994 b. “Byzanz und Bulayïq.” In: P. Vavroušek, ed., Iranian and Indo-European Studies. Memorial Volume of Otakar Klíma. Prague, pp. 255–64. — 1995. “Die Parabel von den schätzesammelnden Kaufleuten.” In: Gignoux Fs., pp. 285–96. — 1996 a. “Three Fragments of Sogdian Letters and Documents.” In: Convegno internazionale sul tema: La Persia e l’Asia Centrale da Alessandro al X secolo (Roma, 9–12 novembre 1994). Roma (Atti dei convegni Lincei 127), pp. 99–111. — 1996b [1998]. “A Manichaean View on the Resurrection of the Body.” BAI 10, pp. 187–94. — 1996 c. CII. Supplementary Series, Vol. 3: Iranian Manichaean Turfan Texts in Early Publications (1904–1934). Photo edition. By W. Sundermann. London. — 1997 a. Der Sermon von der Seele. Eine Lehrschrift des östlichen Manichäismus. Edition der parthischen und soghdischen Version mit einem Anhang von Peter Zieme “Die türkischen Fragmente des ‘Sermons von der Seele’. Turnhout (BTT XIX).

498

BIBLIOGRAPHY — 1997 b. “Ein weiterer manichäischer Beichttext aus Turfan.” AoF 24, pp. 259–67. — 1997 c. “Manichaeism Meets Buddhism. The Problem of Buddhist Influence on Manichaeism.” In: P. Kieffer-Pülz and J.-U. Hartmann, eds., Bauddhavidyāsudhākaraḥ. Studies in Honour of Heinz Bechert on the Occasion of his 65th birthday. Swisttal-Odendorf (Indica et Tibetica 30), pp. 647–56. — 1997 d. “The Manichaean Texts in Languages and Scripts of Central Asia.” In: Sh. Akiner and N. Sims-Williams, eds., Languages and Scripts of Central Asia. London, pp. 39–45. — 2001 a. “A Manichaean Liturgical Instruction on the Act of Almsgiving.” In: Mirecki/BeDuhn 2001, pp. 200–208. — 2001 b. Manichaica Iranica. Ausgewählte Schriften von Werner Sundermann. Ed. by Chr. Reck, D. Weber, C. Leurini and A. Panaino. 2 vols. Roma (SOR 89). — 2001 c. “Avesta und Neues Testament.” In: M. G. Schmidt 2001, pp. 258–66. — 2002 a. “Ein soghdisches Fragment der Mār Eugen-Legende.” In: M. Ölmez and S.-Ch. Raschmann, eds., Splitter aus der Gegend von Turfan. Festschrift für Peter Zieme anläßlich seines 60. Geburtstags. Istanbul/Berlin, pp. 309–31. — 2002 b. “ ‘The Book of the Head’ and ‘The Book of the Limbs’. A Sogdian Word List.” In: Ph. Huyse, ed., Iran: Questions et Connaissances. Actes du IVe Congrès Européen des Études Iraniennes organisé par la Societas Iranologica Europaea 6–10 Septembre 1999. Vol. I: La période ancienne. Paris, pp. 135–61. — 2003. “Ein manichäischer Lehrtext in neupersischer Sprache.” In: Paul 2003, pp. 243–74. — 2004 a. “Jesus’ Rulership at the End of the World: a New Piece of Manichaean Evicence.” In: Gnoli Fs., pp. 421–27. — 2004 b. “Zarathustra der Priester und Prophet in der Lehre der Manichäer.” In: M. Stausberg, ed., Zoroastrian Rituals in Context. Leiden/ Boston (Studies in the History of Religions 102), pp. 517–30. — 2005. “Was the Ārdhang Mani’s Picture-Book?” In: Tongerloo/Cirillo 2005, pp. 373–84. Sundermann, W. and Thilo, Th. 1966. “Zur mittelpersisch-chinesischen Grabinschrift aus Xi’an (Volksrepublik China).” MIO 11, pp. 437–50. Sundermann, W. and Yoshida, Y. 1992. “Bäzäklik, Berlin, and Kyoto. Manichaean Parthian Hymn Transcribed in Sogdian Script.” Oriento 35, pp. 119–34.

499

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN Sundermann, W. and Zieme, P. 1981. “Soghdisch–türkische Wortlisten.” In: Gabain Fs., pp. 184–93. Sundermann Fs., 1995. Iran und Turfan. Beiträge Berliner Wissenschaftler, Werner Sundermann zum 60. Geburtstag gewidmet. Ed. by Chr. Reck and P. Zieme. Wiesbaden (Iranica 2). Sundermann, W. s. Kudara, K. Sushama Devi 1958. Samantabhadracaryā-praṇidhānarāja. New Delhi. Tadmor, H. 1981. “History and Ideology in the Assyrian Royal Inscriptions.” In: F. M. Fales, ed., Assyrian Royal Inscriptions: New Horizons in Literary, Ideological and Historical Analysis. Papers of a Symposium Held in Cetona (Siena), June 26–28, 1980. Roma, pp. 13–33. Tafazzoli, A. 1969 (1348). Vāženāme-ye Minu-ye Kherad [Glossary of the Minu-ye Kherad] . Teheran. — 1972. “Andarz i Wehzād Farrox Pērōz Containing a Pahlavi Poem in Praise of Wisdom.” StIr 1, pp. 207–17. — 1975 (1354). Minu-ye kherad [The Spirit of Wisdom]. Teheran. — 1984. “Observations sur le soi-disant Mazdak-nāmak.” In: Orientalia J. Duchesne-Guillemin emerito oblata. Leiden (AcIr 23), pp. 507–10. — 1995. “Un chapitre du Dēnkard sur les guerriers.” In: R. Gyselen, ed., Au carrefour des religions. Mélanges offerts à Philippe Gignoux. Buressur-Yvette (Res Orientales 7), pp. 297–301. — 1997 (1376). Tārikh-e adabiyāt-e Irān piš az eslām [History of Iranian Literature in the Pre-Islamic Period]. Teheran. Takata, T. 1988. A Historical Study of the Chinese Language Based on Dunhuang Materials. Tokyo. Takubo, Sh. 1975. Tonkō-shutsudo Utengo-himitsukyōtenshū no kenkyū [Studies on the Khotanese ‘Collection of the Esoteric sūtras’ Found in Tunhuang]. Tokyo. Taraf, Z. 1981. Der Awesta-Text Niyāyiš mit Pahlavi- und Sanskritübersetzung. München (MSS, Beiheft 10). Tarapore, J. C. 1932. Vijārišn i Chatrang. Bombay. — 1933. Pahlavi Andarz-Nāmak. Bombay. Tardieu, M. 1985. “L’Ardā Vīrāz Nāmag et l’eschatologie grecque.” StIr 14, pp. 17–26. — 1988. “La diffusion du bouddhisme dans l’empire Kouchan, l’Iran et la Chine, d’après un Kephalaion manichéen inédit.” StIr 17, pp. 153–82. Tavadia, J. C. 1926. “Zum Šahrestānīhā ī Ērānšahr.” OLZ 29, pp. 883–86. — 1930 a. “A Pahlavi Text on Communism.” In: Dr. Modi Memorial Volume. Bombay, pp. 479–87.

500

BIBLIOGRAPHY — 1930 b. Šāyast-nē-šāyast. A Pahlavi Text on Religious Customs. Hamburg. — 1935. “Sûr-saxwan: A Dinner Speech in Middle-Persian.” JCOI 29, pp. 1–99. — 1950. “A Didactic Poem in Zoroastrian Pahlavi.” IIS 1, pp. 86–95. — 1953. “A Didactic Poem in Pahlavi.” In: M. P. Kharegat Memorial Volume I. Bombay, pp. 271–75. — 1955. “A Rhymed Ballad in Pahlavi.” JRAS 1955, pp. 29–36. — 1956. Die mittelpersische Sprache und Literatur der Zarathustrier. Leipzig (Iranische Texte und Hilfsbücher 2). Tavoosi, M. 1986 (1365). Vāže-nāme-ye šāyast na-šāyast [A Glossary of the Šāyast na-Šāyast]. Tehran. Tavoosi, M. and Frye, R. N. 1989 [1990]. “An Inscribed Capital Dating from the Time of Shapur I.” BAI 3, pp. 25–38. Tavusi, M. s. Tavoosi, M. Telegdi, S. 1938. “Notes sur la grammaire du sogdien chrétien.” JA 230, pp. 205–33. Thomas, F. W. 1916. “Miscellaneous Fragments.” In: Hoernle 1916, pp. 85–138. — 1929. “A Rāmāyaṇa Story in Tibetan from Chinese Turkestan.” In: Indian Studies in Honor of Charles Rockwell Lanman. London, pp. 193–212. Thomas, F. W. and Konow, S. 1929. Two Medieval Documents from Tunhuang. Oslo. Tichy, E. 1994. “Indoiranische Hymnen.” In: W. Burkert and F. Stolz, eds., Hymnen der Alten Welt im Kulturvergleich. Fribourg/Göttingen, pp. 79–95. Tolstov, S. P. and Livshits, V. A. 1964. “Decipherment and Interpretation of the Khwarezmian Inscriptions from Tok-Kala.” AAASH 12, pp. 231–51. van Tongerloo, A. and Cirillo L., eds., 2005. Il Manicheismo: nuove prospettive della richerca. Quinto congresso internazionale di studi sul Manicheismo. Lovanii/Napoli. Torricelli, F. 1999. “Un libro sacro tibetano nella collezione De Filippi al Museo nazionale d’antropologia ed etnologia di Firenze.” Archivio per l’antropologia e l’etnologia 129, pp. 273–85. Tremblay, X. 2003. “La résurrection du bactrien: À propos des Bactrian Documents.” IIJ 46, pp. 119–33. Tsui, Chi 1943. “Mo Ni Chiao Hsia Pu Tsan ‘The Lower (Second?) Section of the Manichaean Hymns’.” BSOAS 11 (1943–46), pp. 174–219.

501

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN Tsukamoto, Z. 1985. A History of Early Chinese Buddhism: from its Introduction to the Death of Hui-yüan. Translated from the Japanese by L. Hurvitz. 2 vols. Tokyo. Tully, J., ed. 1988. Meaning and Context: Quentin Skinner and His Critics. Cambridge. Turfan Antiquarian Bureau 2000. Studies in the New Manichaean Texts Recovered from Turfan. Beijing. Unvala, J. M. 1917. Der Pahlavi-Text ‘Der König Husraw und sein Knabe’. Wien. — 1921. The Pahlavi Text ‘King Husrav and his boy’. Paris. — 1923. “Draxt i Asurig.” BSOS 2, pp. 637–78. — 1924. Neryosangh’s Sanskrit Version of the Hōm Yašt (Yasn IX–XI) with the Original Avesta and its Pahlavi Version Translated with Copious Notes and a Glossarial Index. Vienna. Unvala, M. R., ed. 1922. Dārāb Hormazyār’s Rivāyat. 2 vols. Bombay. Uray, G. 1983. “Tibet’s Connections with Nestorianism and Manicheism in the 8th –10th Centuries.” In: E. Steinkellner and H. Tauscher, eds., Contributions on Tibetan Language, History and Culture. Vienna (Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde X), pp. 399–429. Utas, B. 1975. “On the Composition of the Ayyātkār ī Zarērān.” In: Monumentum H. S. Nyberg II. Téhéran/Liège (AcIr 5), pp. 399–418. — 1976 a. “Non-religious Book Pahlavi Literature as a Source to the History of Central Asia.” AAASH 24, pp. 115–24. — 1976 b. “Verbs and Preverbs in the Ayyātkār ī Zarērān.” ActOr 37, pp. 75–110. — 1983. “The Pahlavi Treatise Avdēh u sahīkēh ī sakistān or ‘Wonders and Magnificence of Sistan’.” AAASH 28, pp. 259–67. — 1984. “Verbal Ideograms in the Frahang ī Pahlavīk.” In: Proceedings … Leuven (1984), pp. 57–67. —, ed. 1988. Frahang i Pahlavīk. Edited with Transliteration, Transcription and Commentary from the Posthumous Papers of H. S. Nyberg by Bo Utas with the Collaboration of C.Toll. Wiesbaden. — 1994. “Arabian and Iranian Elements in New Persian Prosody.” In: L. Johanson and B. Utas, eds., Arabic Prosody and its Applications in Muslim Poetry. Istanbul, pp. 129–41. Utz, D. 1976. An Unpublished Sogdian Version of the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra in the German Turfan Collection. Unpublished Ph. D. thesis. Harvard University. — 1978. A Survey of Buddhist Sogdian Studies. Tokyo.

502

BIBLIOGRAPHY Vahman, F. 1977. Vāže-nāme-ye Artāy Virāz nāmak [A Glossary of Artāy Vīrāz nāmak]. Tehran (Bonyād-e Farhang-e Irān 247). — 1986. Ardā Wirāz Nāmag. The Iranian “Divina Commedia”. London/ Malmo. Vinnikov, I. N. 1954. “O yazyke pis’mennykh pamyatnikov iz Nisy” [On the Language of the Writings from Nisa]. VDI 1954/2, pp. 115–28. Vööbus, A. 1960. Syriac and Arabic Documents Regarding Legislation Relative to Syrian Asceticism. Stockholm. Vorob’ev-Desyatovskiĭ, V. S. and Vorob’eva-Desyatovskaya, M. I. 1965. Skazanie o Bhadre: novye listy sakskoĭ rukopisi ‘E’: faksimile teksta, transkriptsiya, perevod, predislovie, vstupitel’naya stat’ya, glossariĭ i prilozhenie. Moskva. Vorob’eva-Desyatovskaya, M. I. 1992 a. “Hotano-saki.” In: V. A. Litvinskiĭ, ed., Vostochnyĭ Turkestan v drevnosti i rannem srednevekov’e: etnos, yazyki, religii [Eastern Turkestan in Antiquity and in the Early Middle Ages: Peoples, Languages, Religions]. Moskva, pp. 32–76. — 1992 b. “The Leningrad Collection of the Sakish Business Documents and the Problem of the Investigation of Central Asian Texts.” In: A. Cadonna, ed., Turfan and Tun-huang. The Texts. Encounter of Civilizations on the Silk Route. Firenze, pp. 85–95. — 1996. “New Manuscripts from the S. E. Malov Collection.” In: Gabain Mem., pp. 379–84. — 2002. The Kāśyapaparivarta: Romanized Text and Facsimiles. In collaboration with S. Karashima and N. Kudo. Tokyo. Waag, A. 1941. Nîrangistân. Der Awestatraktat über die rituellen Vorschriften. Leipzig (Iranische Forschungen 2). Watkins, C. 1995. How to Kill a Dragon. Aspects of Indo–European Poetics. New York/Oxford. Weber, C. 1999. Buddhistische Beichten in Indien und bei den Uiguren unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der uigurischen Leienbeichte und ihrer Beziehung zum Manichäismus. Wiesbaden. Weber, D. 1984. “Pahlavi Papyri und Ostraca (Stand der Forschung).” In: Proceedings … Leuven (1984), pp. 25–43. — 1991. “Ein bisher unbekannter Titel aus spätsassanidischer Zeit?” In: MacKenzie Fs., pp. 228–36. — 1992 a. “Pahlavi Papyri Revisited.” In: A. H. S. El-Mosalamy, ed., Proceedings of the XIXth International Congress of Papyrology. Cairo 2–9 September 1989. Vol. 2. Cairo, pp. 493–508.

503

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN — 1992 b. CII. Part III: Pahlavi Inscriptions. Vol. IV–V: Ostraca and Papyri. Text I: Ostraca, Papyri und Pergamente: Textband. By D. Weber. London. — 2000. CII. Supplementary series. Vol. IV: Iranian Manichaean Turfan Texts in Publications since 1934. By D. Weber. London. — 2003. CII. Pt. III: Pahlavi Inscriptions. Vol. IV–V: Ostraca and Papyri. Text II: Berliner Papyri, Pergamente und Leinenfragmente in mittelpersischer Sprache. By D. Weber. London. Weinreich, M. 1992. “Die Geschichte von Jôist î Friyân.” AoF 19, pp. 44–101. Weißbach, F. H. 1911. Die Keilinschriften der Achämeniden. Leipzig [repr. 1968]. Weller, F. 1935. “Bemerkungen zum soghdischen Vimalakīrtinirdeśasūtra.” Asia Major 10, pp. 314–64. Welles, C. B., ed. 1959. Excavations at Dura-Europos. Final Reports V.1: The Excavations. Parchments and Papyri. New Haven. Wellesz, E. 1917 [1918]. “Probleme der musikalischen Orientforschung.” Jahrbuch der Musikbibliothek Peters 24, pp. 1–18. — 1919. “Miscellanea zur orientalischen Musikgeschichte. Die Lektionszeichen in den soghdischen Texten.” Zeitschrift für Musikwissenschaft 1, pp. 505–15. West, E.W. 1871. The Book of the Mainyō-i-Khard or the Spirit of Wisdom. The Pazand and Sanskrit Texts as Arranged in the Fifteenth Century by Neriosengh Dhaval. Stuttgart [repr. Amsterdam 1979]. — 1880 a. “The Pahlavi Inscriptions at Kaṇheri.” Indian Antiquary 9, pp. 265–68. — 1880 b. Pahlavi Texts. Part 1: The Bundahis, Bahman Yast and Shâyast lâ-Shâyast. Oxford (SBE 5). — 1882. Pahlavi Texts. Part 2: The Dādistān-ī Dīnīk and the Epistels of Mānūškīhar. Oxford (SBE 18). — 1885. Pahlavi Texts. Part 3: Dīnā-ī Maīnōg-ī Khirad, Sikand-gūmānīk Vigār. Oxford (SBE 24). — 1892. Pahlavi Texts. Part 4: Contents of the Nasks. Oxford (SBE 37) [repr. Delhi 1965–77]. — 1896–1904. “Pahlavi Literature.” GIrPh II/3, pp. 75–129. — 1897. Pahlavi Texts. Part 5: Marvels of Zoroastrianism. Oxford (SBE 47). — 1904 a. “The Pahlavi Jâmâsp-Nâmak, so Far as it was Extant in 1876 in a Very Old Manuscript Belonging to the Late Shams-ul-Ulama Dastur Dr. P. B. Sanjana.” In: Sanjana Fs., pp. 97–116.

504

BIBLIOGRAPHY — 1904 b. “Transliteration and Translation of the Pahlavi Version of Yasna XXXII. The Fifth Chapter of the First Gatha.” In: Sanjana Fs., pp. 182–98. — 1917. “A Transliteration and Translation of the Pahlavi Treatise ‘Wonders of Sagastan’ by Dr. E. W. West (Deceased).” Presented by Professor A. V. W. Jackson. JAOS 36, pp. 115–21. West, E. W. and Haug, M. 1874. Glossary and Index of the Pahlavi Texts of the Book of Arda Viraf, the Tale of Gosht-i Fryano, the Hadokht Nask, and to Some Extracts from the Din-kard and Nirangistan. Bombay/London. Westergaard, N. L. 1852–54. Zendavesta or the Religious Books of the Zoroastrians. Vol. I: The Zend Texts. Copenhagen. Widengren, G. 1945. The Great Vohu Manah and the Apostle of God. Uppsala. — 1961. Iranische Geisteswelt. Von den Anfängen bis zum Islam. BadenBaden. — 1967. “Zervanitische Texte aus dem ‘Avesta’ in der Pahlavi-Überlieferung. Eine Untersuchung zu Zātspram und Bundahišn.” In: G. Wießner, ed., Festschrift für Wilhelm Eilers. Ein Dokument der internationalen Forschung zum 27. September 1966. Wiesbaden, pp. 278–87. — 1968. “The Problem of the Sassanid Avesta.” In: F. F. Bruce and E. G. Rupp, eds., Holy Book and Holy Tradition. Manchester, pp. 36–53. —, ed. 1977. Der Manichäismus. Darmstadt (Wege der Forschung 168). — 1983. “Leitende Ideen und Quellen der iranischen Apokalyptik.” In: D. Hellholm, ed., Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World and the Near East. Tübingen, pp. 77–162. Wiesehöfer, J. 1994. Das antike Persien von 550 v. Chr. bis 650 n. Chr. München/Zürich. [= Ancient Persia from 550 BC to 650 AD. Translated by A. Azodi. London 1996]. Wiesehöfer, J. and Weber, U. 1996. Das Reich der Achaimeniden. Eine Bibliographie. Berlin (AMI, Ergänzungsband 15). Wießner, G. and Klimkeit, H.-J., eds. 1992, Studia Manichaica. II. Internationaler Kongreß zum Manichäismus, 6.–10. August 1989, St. Augustin/Bonn. Wiesbaden. Wilkens, J. 2003. “Indiens Beitrag zur Erzählungsliteratur der zentralasiatischen Manichäer.” In: S. Bretfeld and J. Wilkens, eds., Indien und Zentralasien. Sprach- und Kulturkontakt. Vorträge des Göttinger Symposions vom 7. bis 10. Mai 2001. Wiesbaden (Veröffentlichungen der Societas Uralo-Atlaica 61), pp. 239–58.

505

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN Wille, K. 1996. “Die Hoernle-Fragmente in der Turfan-Sammlung (Berlin).” In: Gabain Mem., pp. 385–408. — 2000 a. Fragments of a Manuscript of the Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra from Khādaliq. Tokyo. — 2000 b. “The Sanskrit Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra Fragment in the Mannerheim Collection (Helsinki).” Annual Report of The International Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology at Soka University 4, pp. 43–52, [1] pl. Williams, A. V. 1985. “A Strange Account of the World’s Origin: PRDd. XLVI.” In: Boyce Fs., II, pp. 683–97. — 1990. The Pahlavi Rivāyat Accompanying the Dādestān ī Dēnīg. Part I: Transliteration, Transcription and Glossary. Part II: Translation, Commentary and Pahlavi Text. Copenhagen (Historisk-filosofiske Meddelelser 60). Williams, P. 1989. Mahāyāna Buddhism: the Doctrinal Foundations. London. Winter, W. s. von Gabain, A. Witzel, M. 2000. “The Home of the Aryans.” In: Narten Fs., pp. 283–338. Wogihara, U., ed. 1930. Bodhisattvabhūmi: a Statement of Whole Course of the Bodhisattva (Being Fifteenth Section of Yogācārabhūmi). Vol. 1. Tokyo. Wu Qiyu 1986. “A Study of the Nestorian ‘Gloria in excelsis Deo’ in Chinese.” Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica 57/3, pp. 411–37 [in Chinese]. Wujastik, D. 1985. “Ravigupta and Vāgbhaṭa.” BSOAS 48.1, pp. 74–78, 1 pl. Wurst, G. 1995. Das Bemafest der ägyptischen Manichäer. Altenberge. Yakubovich, I. 2002. “Mugh 1.I. Revisited.” StIr 31, pp. 231–53. Yamazaki, G. 1990. “The Legend of the Foundation of Khotan.” Memoirs of the Research Department of the Toyo Bunko 48, pp. 55–80 [Translation from Japanese by J. A. Silk with additional notes and references of a work originally published in 1979]. Yarshater, E. 1983. “Iranian National History.” CHI 3.1, pp. 359–477. —, ed. 1985–. Encyclopædia Iranica. Vol. 1: London/Boston/Henley; vols 2–4: London/New York; vols 5–8: Costa Mesa, California. Yoshida, Y. 1984 a. “On the Sogdian Version of the Jiu jing da bei jing” [in Japanese]. In: Journal of Asian and African Studies 27, pp. 76–94. — 1984 b. “On the Sogdian Formula for Receiving the Eight Commandments. Pelliot sogdien 5 and 17.” Orient 20, pp. 157–72. — 1985. “[A Report on Some Middle Iranian Fragments in Sogdian Script from the Otani Collection].” Oriento 28.2, pp. 50–65 [in Japanese].

506

BIBLIOGRAPHY — 1986. “Notes on Sogdian Texts.” In: Humbach Fs., pp. 513–22. — 1988 a. “Sogudogo zatsuroku II [Sogdian Miscellany II].” Oriento 31, pp. 165–76 [in Japanese]. — 1988 b. “On the Sogdian Version of the Kara Balgasun Inscription.” Seinan azia kenkyū [Bulletin of the Society for Western and Southern Asiatic Studies, Kyoto University] 28, pp. 24–52 [in Japanese]. — 1994 a. “Sogudo mojide hyoukisareta kanjion [Chinese in Sogdian Script].” Tōhō Gakuhō 66, pp. 271–380 [in Japanese]. — 1994 b. “Sogudogono ‘Nehangyō’ no danpen [A Sogdian Fragment of the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra].” Seinan azia kenkyū [Bulletin of the Society for Western and Southern Asiatic Studies, Kyoto University] 41, pp. 57–62 [in Japanese]. — 1994c. “Sogudogono ‘Daihatsunehangyōgobun’ no danpen [On the Sogdian Fragment of the ‘Da pan nie pan jing hou fen’].” Researches in Asian Languages, Annals of Foreign Studies 31, pp. 97–103 [in Japanese]. — 1994 d. “Mujyou wo toku manikyou sogudogomonjyo—Kyoutodaigakubungakubushozouno shashin shiryoukara [On a Manichaean Sogdian Fragment Expounding Vanity of Earthly Life—Text Preceding Henning’s ‘Job Story’].” Oriento 37.2, pp. 16–32 [in Japanese]. — 1996 [1998]. “The Sogdian Dhūta Text and its Chinese Original.” BAI 10, pp. 167–73. — 1998. “Sino-Iranica.” Seinan azia kenkyū [Bulletin of the Society for Western and Southern Asiatic Studies, Kyoto University] 48, pp. 33–51 [in Japanese]. — 2000 a. “Su te wen kao shi” [Interpretation of the Sogdian Text]. In: Tulufan xinchu monijiao wenxian yanjiao [Studies in the New Manichaean Texts Recovered from Turfan]. Ed. by Turfan Antiquarian Bureau. Beijing, pp. 3–199. — 2000 b. “First Fruits of Ryūkoku-Berlin Joint Project on the Turfan Iranian Manuscripts.” Acta Asiatica 78, pp. 71–85. Yoshida, Y. et al. 2001. “Chūō Yūrashia chiiki ni denpa shita butten no kenkyū: taishūka to datsutaishūka: toku ni Vessantarajātaka o rei toshite [Research on the Propagation of Buddhist Classics in Central Eurasia: their Popularisation and Depopularisation: the Case Study of the Vessantarajātaka].” In : H. Nakatani, ed., Kotengaku no saikōchiku (1998–2002). Dai ikki kōbokenkyūronbunshū [Reconstruction of Classical Studies (1998–2002). Collection of Essays Presented by the Invited Scholars of the First Period]. Kobe. Yoshida, Y. s. Kudara, K. and Sundermann, W. Zaehner, R. C. 1937–39. “Nāmak-nipēsišnīh.” BSOS 9, pp. 93–109.

507

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN — 1955. Zurvan. A Zoroastrian Dilemma. Oxford [repr. New York 1972]. Zgusta, L. 1987. The Old Ossetic Inscription from the River Zelenčuk. Wien (SÖAW 486). Zieme, P. 1966. “Beiträge zur Erforschung des Xvāstvānīft.” MIO 12, pp. 351–78. — 1968. “Die türkischen Yosïpas-Fragmente.” MIO 14, pp. 45–67. — 1974. “Zu den nestorianisch-türkischen Turfantexten.” In: G. Hazai and P. Zieme, eds., Sprache, Geschichte und Kultur der altaischen Völker. Berlin (Schriften zur Geschichte und Kultur des Alten Orients 5), pp. 661–68. — 1977. “Zwei Ergänzungen zu der christlich-türkischen Handschrift T II B 1.” AoF 5, pp. 271–72. — 1978. “Ein uigurisches Fragment der Rāma-Erzählung.” AOASH 22, pp. 23–32. — 1981. “Ein Hochzeitssegen uigurischer Christen.” In: Gabain Fs., pp. 221–32. — 1992. Religion und Gesellschaft im Uigurischen Königreich von Qočo. Kolophone und Stifter des alttürkischen buddhistischen Schrifttums aus Zentralasien. Opladen (Abhandlungen der Rheinisch-Westfälischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 88). — 1997–98. “Das nestorianische Glaubensbekenntnis in einem alttürkischen Fragment aus Bulayïq.” Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher 15, pp. 173–80. Zieme, P. s. Sundermann, W. Zürcher, E. 1972. The Buddhist Conquest of China: the Spread and Adaptation of Buddhism in Early Medieval China. Reprinted with additions and corrections. 2 vols. Leiden (Sinica Leidensia 11).

508

INDEX OF TITLES AND TEXTS Āb Zōhr 31 Abar be šnāxtan ī wāz ud mārīgān ī abestāg kū-š zand čē ud čiyōn 121 Abar bizeškīh 184 Abar ēwēnag ī nāmagnibēsišnīh 167 Abar hrē ēr wifrās 211 Abbā Isaiah, works of 280 Abdīh ud sahīgīh ī Sagistān 180 Abecedarian Hymns 209 abestāg ud zand cf. Avesta-Pahlavi texts and fragments Abhidharmakośabhāṣya 326 Abnōn Barm-e Dilak 100 Absolute-final Great Compassion Sūtra 313 Acts of Peter 281 Acts of the Persian martyrs under Shapur II 282 Adhyardhaśatikāprajñāpāramitāsūtra 370, 374 āfrīdagīg bāšāh hymns 246, 252 āfrīn 151 Āfrīn ī Zardušt 69 Āfrīngān 65, 128 Āfrīngān ī Dahmān 65 Āfrīngān ī Gāhān 65 Āfrīngān ī Gāhānbār 65 Āfrīngān ī Rapithwin 65 āfrīwan 214, 219, 241, 244 Afsā Bīšāpūr 95

āfurišn 214, 219, 241, 244 Aḥīqar legend 164–65, 169 Ahuna Vairya 3–4, 33, 35 Ahunavaitī Gāϑā 4, 12, 36–37 Āi Khānom ostracon 86 Airtam inscription 110 Al-Ḥekmat al-khāleda: jāwīdān kherad 164 Alexander, legend of 175 Āmadišn ī frēstag pad šahrān 228 Amoghapāśahdayasūtra 295 Amoghapāśahdayadhāraṇī 403 Amtaprabhadhāraṇī 401, 403 Anantamukhanirhāradhāraṇīsūtra 360, 397 Ancient Letters, Sogdian 113–14, 198 Andarz ī Ādurbād ī Māraspandān 164–65 Andarz ī dānāgān ō Mazdēsnān 160, 162, 193 Andarz ī dastwarān ō wehdēnān 162 Andarz ī kōdagān 166 Andarz ī Ōšnar ī dānāg 163 Andarz ī Xosrau ī Kawādān 165 andarz literature 135, 160, 162, 164–69, 193 Andarz of Baxt-Āfrīd 166 Andarz of Wehzād FarroxPērōz 166 Andarzīhā ī pēšēnīgān 162

509

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN Angad rōšnān 200, 206, 224, 242–43, 260, 264 Aṅgulimālīyasūtra 298 Aṅguttara-nikāya 312 Antirrheticus 280 Aogəmadaēcā 68, 168 Aparimitāyuḥsūtra 331, 344, 380, 396 apocalyptic texts, Pahlavi 152–60, 193 Apomnēmoneumata 224 Apophthegmata Patrum 280 Apostolic Canons 282 Aramaeo-Iranian inscriptions 84–86 Aramaic Manichaean literature 208 Araṇemi Jātaka 309 Ardā Wīrāz nāmag 158–59, 175 Ardašīr I Naqš-e Rostam 91 Ārdhang wifrās 218, 232 Ariaramnes Hamadān 75 Arsaces Vologeses Seleucia 88 Arsames Hamadān 75 Artaxerxes II Susa 83 Aryaman Išya 3–4, 37 Aśokāvadāna 361–64 Ašəm Vohū 3, 35 Āteš Nyaiš 31 avadānas 304, 307, 348, 361 Avalokiteśvaradhāraṇī 377, 401 Avesta-Pahlavi texts and fragments 65–71, 124–30 Awāwarīgān saxwan 210 Āwkaršni wiδβāγ 232 Awrōmān parchments 89–90 ayādgārīhā ī šahrīhā 179 Ayādgār ī amāspīg 156, 179 Ayādgār ī Wuzurgmihr ī Bōxtagān 165

Ayādgār ī Zarērān 172, 177, 193 āyēn literature 182 Āyēn-nāmag 182 Ayu wang xi huai mu yinyuan jing 363 āzand (āzend) 212 Āzandnāme 206, 212, 234 Bābay, poem by 287 Babylonian Talmud 189 Bactrian documents 111 graffiti 113 inscriptions 105–11 Manichaean fragment 198–99, 227, 257–58 βaγānīk gōwišn pustē 241 Bahman Yašt (cf. also Zand ī Wahman Yasn) 152 Balauhar ud Būdāsaf 191 Barlaam and Josaphat 258, 263 Baršabbā, legend of 282, 287 bāšā(h) 214, 241, 244 bāšīk 214 Bay nask 32 Bayān nask 180 Bayān Yašt Nask 35 Bēma hymns 205, 245–46 Bet- und Beichtbuch 204, 206, 237–38 Bezeklik letters 254–55 Bhadracaryādeśanā 335, 345, 353, 371, 375, 377, 379 Bhadrakalpikasūtra 331, 334, 336, 371, 384 Bhaiṣajyagurusūtra 371, 386 Bhaiṣajyaguruvaiḍūryaprabharājasūtra 386 Bhaiṣajyaguruvaiḍūryaprabharājatathāgatasūtra 293, 333

510

INDEX OF TITLES AND TEXTS Bhavāṅga text 404 Bīsotūn inscription cf. Darius Bīsotūn Bodhisattvabhūmi 348, 353 Bodhisattvāvadānakalpalatā 362–63 Bodhisattva compendium 404 Book of Hymns and Confession 218 Book of Life 272, 277 Book of Parables 203–4, 212, 234, 262 Book of Psalms 269, 271, 277 Book of the Giants 216–17 Book of the Secrets 216 Book of Tobit 155 Book of Vimalakīrti 348, 359 Book of Zambasta 331, 334, 336, 338–39, 346–48, 356–57, 372, 375, 414 botanical texts 183–84 Buddhabhāṣitamahābhiṣekarddhidhāraṇīsūtra 302 buddhanāmasūtras 384–85 Buddhānusmtisamādhisāgarasūtra 318, 322 Buddhāvataṃsaka 395 Buddhāvataṃsakasūtra 203, 342, 347, 351, 376 Buddhist Jātaka- and Avadānacollections 234 Buddhoṣṇīṣavijayadhāraṇī 336, 403 Bugut inscription 112 Bulayïq Sogdian manuscripts 271, 277, 279, 285 Bundahišn (cf. also Zandāgāhīh) 131, 137–40, 152, 175, 177, 179–80, 183 Indian ~ 137 Iranian ~ (Greater ~) 137

calendrical fragments 285 Cāṇakya-nīti-śāstra 163 Candragarbhasūtra 356 Candrapradīpasūtra 360 čāštags (teachings) 126, 147 Caturvargavinayaprātimokṣa 324 “Caves of the Thousand Buddhas” documents 285 Chan literature 313–17, 328 Chinese-Khotanese documents 331 Chinese canon (Taishō) 319, 347 Choresmian inscriptions 114 Christian Syriac Epistle texts 212 Čīdag andarz ī pōryōtkēšān 152, 162 Čim ī kustīg 151 ckrβrt cyntʾmny 295 Cologne Mani Codex 215, 227, 257 Column inscription 105 commentary on the symbolism of the baptismal and eucharistic liturgies 282 Compendium of the Doctrines and Styles of the Teaching of Mani, the Buddha of Light 222 confessional texts, Manichaean (cf. also xwāstwānift) 212, 236 Constantinople sarcophagus inscription 102 Coptic homily on the Great War 222 homily “The Part of the History on the Crucifixion of the Phōstēr, the [true] Apostle” 230 Kephalaion 222, 225–26 Medinet Madi-codices 218

511

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN Crucifixion hymns 213 Čtfār əfčambuδ [wiδβāγ] 233 Cyropaedia 80 cxšʾpδδ mʾxy gʾhyg z(nṯ)[ṯ] (?) / nymyxšpʾ pʾšcyk pʾšyk(ṯ) 246 Cyrus Dašt-e Morghāb 76 Da ban nie pan jing hou fen 318 Da fang guang hua yan shi e pin jing 298 Dādestān ī dēnīg 142–45, 152, 185, 187 Dādestān ī Mēnōg ī Xrad 152, 168 dādestān-nāmag 188 dādīg nasks 127 Dādišoʿ Qaṭrāyā commentaries 280 Dādistān frawarte 219 Daēnā, The (Manichaean text) 234 Dahma āfritiš 31 Dāmdād nask 139, 183 Dānāg ud Mēnōg ī Xrad 169 Daniel Book of 155 fragment 279 Darband inscriptions 101 Darius Bīsotūn 75, 79, 82, 85, 92–94, 109 Dašt-e Morghāb 76 Naqš-e Rostam 78–80, 82–84 Persepolis 81–82 Suez 81 Susa 81–82 Dārūbadagīftīg wifrās 228 Dārūg ī honsandīh 168 Daśabhūmikasūtra 341, 347, 353–54, 395 Daśadharmakasūtra 354

Daśakarmapathaavadānamālā 308–9 Dasarathajātaka 367 Dašt-e Navūr inscription 107 De interpretatione 268 Delbarjīn inscription 110 Dēn wifrās 228 Dēn Yašt 50, 54 Δēnδārī wiδβāγ 233 Dēnkard 66, 126–27, 131–32, 135–37, 139–40, 143, 147, 152–53, 162, 164–67, 175, 177, 183–85 Deśanā 334–36, 376–77, 379 Deśanā I 336, 385 Deśanā II 336, 385 Deśanāparivarta 377, 379, 390–91 of the Suvarṇabhāsottamasūtra 335 dhāraṇī of thousand-handed Avalokiteśvara (named) Nīlakaṇṭha 296 dhāraṇī-sūtras 371, 396, 401, 403 Dharmapada 341 Dharmarājasūtra 315 Dharmaśarīra 395 Dharmaśarīrasūtra 331, 371, 381, 394–95 Dhūtasūtra 314 expounded by the Buddha for the Bodhisattva Cittarāja 314 Dhyāna-text 328 Diatessaron 276 didactic texts cf. andarz literature Dirghāgamasūtra 326 Dīrghanakhaparivrājakaparipcchāsūtra 299 Divine Comedy 158 Divyāvadāna 327, 363

512

INDEX OF TITLES AND TEXTS Dīwān (Mani’s letters) 219 Dō bun (wuzurg) ī Šābuhragān 219 Dō bun wižēhišn 222 dōšambatīg (Monday hymns) 245 Draxt ī āsōrīg (ud buz) 170, 193 Dunhuang Khotanese texts 333–34, 361, 371, 375, 405, 408, 416 Sogdian texts 201, 286, 288, 290, 292, 294, 296, 316, 318, 323–24, 326 Dura parchments, ostraca, papyri, dipinti 88, 90, 100–101

frawardag (frawarte) 211 Frazānagān s[axwan] 232 fšūšō mąϑrō 31 Fürstenspiegel 167

egarṯā 212 enšāʾ literature 167 epic literature 58, 79, 98, 145, 157, 163, 172–79, 193, 210, 213, 217, 258, 263, 364 eschatological texts 55, 140, 144, 152–60, 179, 232 əstāwišn (əstāyišn) 214 Eugenius, life of 282 Ewangelion zīndag 215 Fables of Aesop 235 Fables of Luqmān 164 Fars tomb epitaphs 101 Fehrest 179, 190, 218 First Book of the Maccabees 155 Fo shuo fan jie zui bao qing zhong jing 325 Fo wei xin wang pu sa shuo tou tuo jing 314 Frahang ī ōīm(-ēk) 68, 121 Frahang ī Pahlawīg 122–23 Frašigird āzand 234 Frašna literature 39, 59 Fravarānē 28

Gaβryhaβ wiδβāγ 228 Gāh 64, 128 Gāh-nāmag 183 gāhānīg nasks 127 gāhwirāzān 246 Gaṇḍavyūhasūtra 311, 351, 356, 371, 376 Gathas (gāϑā) 2–6, 12, 14, 17, 20, 22, 25–28, 63, 66, 71, 357 geographical texts 44–45, 156, 179–81, 406, 412–13 Gliedhymnen 240 Gloria in excelsis Deo 277 gōwišn(ān) 208, 210, 213, 232, 241 Gōwišn abar astwand 208 Gōwišn ī abar Narisah yazad 208 Gōwišn ī ewangelion zīndag ī čašm ud gōš wizēhēd 209 Gōwišn ī grīw dōšist 261 Gōwišn ī grīw zīndag 209, 240, 261 Gōwišn ī gyān ud nasāh 208 Gōwišn ī jōg ī Abursām 209, 213 Gōwišn šāhr pad panǰ īr (naxšag ištēd) 228 Gōwišn Tīr Mihr Šāh 228 Gōwišnān rōšnān ī yamagānīg rōzān 209, 232 Gyān wifrās 211, 231 hādamānsarīg nasks 127 Hāδōxt Nask 68, 127 hagiographical homilies 224 literature 281–82

513

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN sermons 205, 211, 227–32, 260, 262 Hastikakṣyasūtra 360 Hazār afsāne 120, 190 Hazār dādestān 188 Hērbedestān 65–66, 127, 129 Hērbedestān ud Nērangestān 129 Herodot, History of 81 Hōm Yašt 14, 31, 35, 58–59 Homage of Hūyī Kīmatcūna 380, 385 Homilies of Isaiah 280 homily on the “three stages” 279 Hdayasūtra 370, 372–73 Hsian tomb inscription 101 Hunsandīft wifrās 211 Huspāram Nask 66 Huwīdagmān cf. Huyadagmān Huyadagmān 200, 206, 224, 242–43, 260, 264 Hymn to Amitāyus 377, 381–82 Hymn to the Living Self 205 Hymn Cycles, Manichaean 206, 224, 240–44, 260, 264 hymns, Manichaean (cf. also Parthian hymns; Parthian Hymn Cycles; Mahrnāmag, Huyadagmān, Angad rōšnān) 193, 199, 205–6, 214, 244–52 “inscription pariétale” (Surkh Kotal) 105 Invocation of Hūyī Kīmatcūna 380 Invocation of Prince Tcūsyau 334, 380 Išoʿbōxt, Corpus Juris (cf. also Lawbook of Jesubōxt) 189, 268

Itinerary, Khotanese 412 izgāmīg hymns 247 Jaghatū inscriptions 111 āmāsp[ī]-nāmag 156, 193 jātakas 304, 307, 309, 369 Jātakastava 334, 361, 369, 406, 410 Jin gang wu li wen 317 Jinshan’s poem 410 Jiu jing da bei jing 313 Jīvakapustaka 331, 350, 414, 416 Jñānolkadhāraṇī 399 John, Gospel of St. 268 John Chrysostom, homilies of 268 John of Deylam, life of 282 juridical texts (cf. also dādīg nasks) 39–46, 66, 114, 129–30, 143, 145–47, 185–90, 268 Kaipūr inscription 105 Kāl-e Jangāl (Khorāsān) inscription 87 Kalīla wa Dimna 191, 235 Kalparājasūtra 404–5 Kaṇheri visitor inscriptions 102 Kaniška inscription 108–9 Kaniṣkāvadāna 361, 364, 412 Kara Tepe inscriptions 110 Karabalgasun inscription 112 Karmāṃ deśana 378–79 Karmāvaraṇaviśuddhisūtra 360 Karmavibhaṅga 393 Kārnāmag ī Ardašīr ī Pābagān 172, 178–79 Kārnāmaj of Anūšīrwān 182 Karrīag ud Damanag (cf. also Kalīla wa Dimna) 191

514

INDEX OF TITLES AND TEXTS Kāśyapaparivarta 380 Kauśikaprajñāpāramitāsūtra 374, 403 Kawān 216 Kephalaia ~, Berlin 227 ~, Dublin 227 literature (cf. also Coptic Kephalaion and Sogdian Kephalaion) 125, 223, 227 of my Lord Mani 225 of the Teacher 225 on the Wisdom of my Lord Mani 227 Kerdīr Kaʿba-ye Zardošt 92, 98–100 Naqš-e Rajab 98–99, 160 Naqš-e Rostam 98–100, 109 Sar Mašhad 98–100, 160 Ketāb al-bāqiya ʿani l-qorūn alkhāliya 221 Ketāb at-tāj fī sīrat Anūšīrwān 182 Khorde Avesta (cf. also Xwurdag abestāg) 2, 62, 64 Khotanese inscriptions 115 Khung-e Naurūzī (Khūzestān) 86 King Araṇemi 309 king of physicians and his son, story about the 311, 313 Koša-Tepe inscriptions 89 Kšudagān āfrīwan 214, 219 Kunālāvadāna 363 Ladakh inscriptions 112 Laghmān inscription 85 Laṅkāvatārasūtra 298, 316, 358, 360, 395–96 Law (or Method) for Meditation 325

Lawbook of Jesubōxt (cf. also Išoʿbōxt, Corpus Juris) 189 lawbooks cf. juridical texts legends of the Invention of the Cross 281 Letter of Tansar 181, 191 letters of Mani (cf. also frawardag) 207, 211, 218–19, 233 Li yul lung bstan pa 340 Liu du ji jing 363 Living Gospel 206, 208 Madayān ī čatrang 165–67 Mādayān ī gizastag Abālīš 136 Mādayān ī hazār dādestān 188 Mādayān ī ōšt ī Fryān 170 madrāše 267 magical texts 145, 200, 257–58, 292, 396 Māh ī Frawardīn rōz ī Hordād 157, 177 Māh Yašt 64 Mahābhārata 191, 352 Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra 235, 318, 320, 342 Mahāprajñāpāramitāsūtra 335, 373 Mahāratnakūṭasūtra 381 Mahāsāhasrapramardanī 400 Mahāsamayakalparāja 405 Mahāsaṃnipātasūtra 347 Mahāsannipāta 395 Mahāyāna texts Khotanese 336, 339, 341–43, 348–57, 359, 361, 370–404 Sogdian 309, 312, 317, 319, 326 Mahāyānamahāparinirvāṇasūtra 312, 317, 319 Mahāyānaśraddhotpādaśāstra 326

515

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN mahr 214, 241, 244 Mahrān ī əspasagān 249 Mahrān ī pārag 246 Mahrān ī sārārān rāy 250 Mahrān ī yakš[ambat rāy] 246 Mahrnāmag 205, 245, 252 Majūśyuīrīnīrāttamavattārasūtra 357 Mañjuśrīnairātmyāvatārasūtra 334, 348, 414 Mañjuśrīparivarta 360 Manohmed rōšn saxwan 209, 211 Manohmed rōšn wifrās 211, 230 Maqṣūdābād inscription 102 Mār Ābā, “canons” of 269 martyrdom of Eustathius 281 of George 281 ~s of Cyriacus and Julitta 281 ~s of Sergius and Bacchus 281 Matthew, Gospel of St. 269, 276 Mawāʿeẓ Ādhurbādh 164 Māzandarān tomb inscriptions 101 Mazdag-nāmag 179 mazmōrā 214 mazmūr 219 Meal Hymns 246 medical texts 131, 139–41, 184, 257–58, 285, 334, 406, 413–16 mēmrā/mēmrē 207–8, 210, 213, 267 Merw inscriptions 89 Mēš-o raz 171 Middle Persian and Parthian Hymns to the Living Self 264 graffiti 113 Hymn Cycles 240–41 inscriptions 90–102, 113

leather and silk documents 104–5 ostraca cf. ostraca, Middle Persian papyri cf. papyri, Middle Persian word-lists (cf. also Frahang ī ōīm(-ēk); Frahang ī Pahlawīg) 256 Mihr-Narseh Fīrūzābād 101 Mihr Yašt 36 mirrors for princes 167 Mohe-banre-boluomi jing 373 Mugh, Sogdian documents from Mount 114 Muhr dib 218 Mukrānīg bāšāh 252 Nāβnāme 256 Nāmagīhā ī Manuščihr 141 namo texts 335–36, 379, 384–85 Nandāvadāna 361, 365 Narseh Bīšapūr 91 Pāikūlī 92, 95–97 nasks 125–26, 128, 130–32, 135–36, 147–48, 183 Naxtar nask 136 Naxustēn ī rāstīgarān 206 Nērang ī Ātaxš 71 Nērangestān (cf. also Hērbedestān ud Nērangestān) 65–66, 127 New Persian Manichaean texts 258–59 Rivāyats (cf. also Persian Rivāyats) 185 New Testament (cf. also John, Matthew) 275–76 Nibēg ī tōhmag-ōšmurišnīh 184 Nicene Creed 277

516

INDEX OF TITLES AND TEXTS Niγōšākāne wiδβāγ 233 Nippur inscriptions 89 Nisā ostraca 88 Niyān ī zīndagān 215 Niyāyišn 50, 63–64, 128 nōgmāhīg bāšāh 246 Nokonzok inscription 108–9 Nowrūz-nāme 194 Odes of Solomon 240 Ohrmezd (nēw) saxwan 228 Old Persian inscriptions 73–83 Old Testament 268, 277 On the Light-Nous and the Apostles and the Saints 226, 230 On the Religion and the Ocean 235 ʿonyātā 267 Ossetic inscription 115 ostraca Bactrian 110 Middle Persian 102–5 Parthian 88–90 Sogdian 113 Padmacintāmaṇidhāraṇīsūtra 295–96 padwahanīg hymns 252 Pahlavi Rivāyat accompanying the Dādestān ī dēnīg 143, 145, 152, 164, 177, 185 Pahlavi Rivāyat of Ādurfarrbay and Farrbay-srōš 136, 185 Pahlavi Yasna 128 Pahlavi Zand 126, 146–47, 152, 180 Palamedes inscription 105 Pāṃśupradānāvadāna 363–64 Pañcarakṣā 400 Pañcatantra 163, 191, 235

Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikāprajñāpāramitāsūtra 317, 341, 373 pand-nāmag 160 Pand-nāmag ī Wuzurgmihr ī Bōxtagān cf. Ayādgār ī Wuzurgmihr ī Bōxtagān Pand-nāmag ī Zardušt 162, 165 Panegyric on King Viśa’ Dharma 411 Panegyric on King Viśa’ Kīrtta 411 Panegyric on King Viśa’ Saṃgrāma 412 papyri, Middle Persian 102–5 Parable book cf. Book of Parables parables, Manichaean (cf. also āzand, Āzandnāme) 212, 233–36 Paradise of the Fathers 280 parnibrānīg 247 Parnibrānīg wifrās 228 Parthian graffiti 113 Hymn Cycles (cf. also Huyadagmān and Angad rōšnān) 206, 224, 240–42, 260, 264 hymns (cf. also hymns, Manichaean) 205, 260, 264 inscriptions 86–91, 94–97, 113 origin, works of 156, 170, 177, 193, 196, 205 ostraca cf. ostraca, Parthian parables 206, 234 parchments from Awrōmān cf. Awrōmān parchments word-lists 256 pāšīk 214 Paternoster 269 patit 151

517

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN Paymānag ī kadag-xwadāyīh 190 Paymānag ī zan griftan 190 Persepolis Fortification Tablets 74 Treasury Tablets 74 Persian Rivāyats (cf. also New Persian Rivāyats) 32, 69, 179 Peshitta cf. Syriac Peshitta Pethion, martyrdom of 282 Picture Book (Eikōn) 218 poem of traveling bhikṣu [monk] 409 poetry 191–96, 212–14, 240–52, 406–12 Pol-e Darūntah inscription 85 Polemical Hymn 252 political treatises 181–83 Pradakṣiṇagāthā 392 Pradakṣiṇasūtra 371, 380, 392 Pragmateia 218 Prajñāpāramitā 371, 373, 395 prajñāpāramitā sūtras 370 Prasenajit fragment 326 Praśnavyākaraṇasūtra 354 Pratimokṣa 239 prayers Avestan (cf. also Ahuna Vairya; Aryaman Išya; Ašəm Vohū; Yeŋhē Hātąm) 3–4 Buddhist 376 Christian 269, 272 Manichaean 204, 206 Pahlavi (cf. also āfrīn; patit; stāyišn) 151 Prophecy of the Li [= Khotan] country 340–41 Psalm book 245 Psalms 273 of Mani 214, 219, 262, 264 Psalter, Pahlavi 266, 269–71

Pseudo-Callisthenes 175 Pursišnīhā 67, 148 Pus ī dānišn-kāmag 151 Qābūs-nāme 167 Qandahār inscriptions 85 Qocho letters 253, 255 Rabāṭak inscription 109 Rāhān wifrās 228 Rāmāyaṇa 352, 361, 367 Raśmivimalaviśuddhaprabhānāmadhāraṇī 398 Ratnadvīpa text 404–5 ratnakūla- dāta- 381 Ratnakūṭasūtra 338, 348, 353, 360, 371, 381, 395 Rāzān wuzurgān 216 Res Gestae Divi Saporis 91 riddles Christian literature 283, 287 Manichaean literature 239 Pahlavi literature 161, 163, 166, 170 Rigveda 13–14, 20, 26 Rivāyat ī Ēmēd ī Ašawahištān 131, 145, 185 Rivāyat literature 130, 145–46, 148, 152 Ru yi lun guan yin 295 Šābuhr I Bīšāpūr 92, 95, 109 Hājjīābād 91, 94–95 Kaʿba-ye Zardošt 91–94, 100–101, 109 Naqš-e Rajab 91 Tang-e Borāq 91, 94–95 Šābuhr II Tāq-e Bostān 91 Šābuhr III Tāq-e Bostān 91

518

INDEX OF TITLES AND TEXTS Šābuhr Saka King Persepolis 101 Šābuhragān 197, 205, 215, 219, 221–22, 224, 259 Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra 318, 342–43, 347, 371, 375, 395–96 Šāhnāme 58, 120, 165–66, 170, 174, 177, 179, 181, 364 Šahr-e Qūmis ostraca 89 Šahrestānīhā ī Ērānšahr 180 Samādhirājasūtra 360 Samantamukhaparivarta 352 Saṃyutta-nikāya 306 Saṅghāṭasūtra 309, 331, 338, 344–45, 371, 382 Saptaśatikāprajñāpāramitāsūtra 360 Sar-e Pol Zohāb 87 Sarvaśūraparipcchā 382 saxwan(ān) 208–10, 213, 232 Šāyist nē šāyist 146, 185 Šē fčambuδī wiδβāγ 232 Second Book of the Maccabees 155 “Seleukos” Naqš-e Rostam 85 Seleukos Persepolis 101 Semiriciye inscriptions 113 Septuagint 275 Serapion, life of 281 Sērapiṭ Mxeṭa (Armazi) 85 Sermon on the Crucifixion 224 Sermon on the Light-Nous 200, 206, 217, 226, 230, 232, 262, 264 Sermon on the Living Self 200, 241, 262, 264 Sermon on the Soul 200, 206, 231–32, 262, 264 sermons, Manichaean 199, 205, 208–11, 223–24, 227–33 Sevrey inscription 112

Seyar al-molūk 173 Shorchuq Sogdian manuscripts 290 Siddhasāra 334, 346, 414–15 Simon, Corpus Iuris of 268 Sindbād-nāmag 190 Sīrōze 47, 62–63, 128 Sitātapatradhāraṇī 336, 403 Sixth Letter of Macarius the Egyptian 281 Sīyāsat-nāme 165, 167, 179 Škand-gumānīg wizār 149, 269 Sleepers of Ephesus 281 smʾttyxʾ (smṯyhʾ) 215 Sogdian Ancient letters cf. Ancient letters, Sogdian 114 Buddhist literature 111, 288–329 Christian literature 211, 271–87 graffiti 113 inscriptions 112–13, 273, 324 Kephalaion 227 list of numerals cf. Syriac and Sogdian list of numerals Manichaean literature 199, 201–6, 212, 214–16, 219, 222, 227–30, 232, 234–39, 246, 253–58, 261–62, 264 manuscripts from Bulayïq cf. Bulayïq Sogdian manuscripts manuscripts from Shorchuq cf. Shorchuq Sogdian manuscripts Mugh documents cf. Mugh, Sogdian documents from Mount ostraca 113 word-lists 256

519

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN Songs (?) for the Bēma (in) the Month of Commandment, hymns for the midnight fasts 246 Sortes Apostolorum 286 Spand nask 135 Spəntā.mainyu Gāϑā 4, 12, 37 Srōš Darūn 31 Srōš Yašt 31, 58 St. Thomas Mount Christian cross 101 Staota Yesnya 31–32, 35–36, 38 stāyišn 151 Stōt Nask 32 Sūdgar nask 153 Sudhanakinnaryavadāna 362 Sudhanāvadāna 361, 369 Śukasūtra 303 Sukhāvatīvyūhasūtra 318, 371, 381 Sumukhadhāraṇī 399 Sumukha(nāmadhāraṇī)sūtra 398 Sumukhasūtra 334, 336, 399 Suppāraka Jātaka 235 Sūr saxwan 168 Śūraṅgamasamādhisūtra 371, 387 Surkh Kotal inscriptions 105, 107 Sūtra of the Causes and Effects of Actions 301, 323 Sūtra of the Condemnation of Intoxicating Drink 288, 297 Sūtra of the Glorification of 108 Names of Āryāvalokiteśvara 294 Sūtra on the Original Cause of Producing the World 326 Sūtra Spoken by the Buddha on the Lightness and Heaviness of the Sin of Transgressing the śīla (moral code) 325

Sūtra Spoken by the Buddha on Time and Non-Time 325 Suvarṇabhāsottamasūtra 338, 345–47, 371, 377, 389–90, 396, 413 Suvarṇaprabhāsasūtra 239, 318 Syriac and Sogdian list of numerals 285 Christian literature 207–8, 213, 266 hymn-books 278 metrical homilies, translations of 282 Peshitta 266, 269, 275–76 poetry 213 psalters 278 service-books 278 ~-New Persian bilingual 271 Taishō cf. Chinese canon (Taishō) Tāǰ-nāmag 183 Talmud cf. Babylonian Talmud Tan gyān wiδβāγ 232 Tang-e Khošk inscriptions 102 tantric texts 292, 294, 374 Taʾrīkh al-molūk 173 Taʾrīkh-e Sīstān 194 Tathāgatajñānamudrā(samādhi)sūtra 360 Taxila inscription 85 Testament of Ardašīr 181 Text of Five Homages to the Vajracchedikāsūtra 317 Tištrya Yašt 8 Trailokyavijayamahākalparāja 405 “Traité manichéen” 230 Treasure of Life 215 Treatise on the Wisdom (Sanskrit prajñā) of vajra (diamond) 325

520

INDEX OF TITLES AND TEXTS Triśaraṇa formula 379 Tūčī valley inscriptions 111 Turkish-Khotanese bilingual 416 Tūtī-nāmag 190 Two Principles 221

Vinayaviniścayasūtra 347, 354 Virūḍhaka, story of King 311 Vīs-o Rāmīn 196 Viśeṣacintibrahmaparipcchāsūtra 317 visionary texts 152–60, 193, 227 Visperad (cf. also Wisprad ) 2, 36, 38, 40 Vištāsp Yašt 69 Vītāśokāvadāna 363 Vohuxšaϑrā Gāϑā 4, 37–38 Vyadhipraśamanaparivarta 413

Udānavarga 327 Uighur texts 329 Upper Indus Valley rock graffiti 113 Urghut rock inscriptions 273 Uruzgān inscriptions 110 Ušahin Gāh 38 Uštavaitī Gāϑā 4, 6, 12, 37 Vaēϑā Nask 69–70 Vahištōišti Gāϑā 4, 37 Vajra-śāstra 325 Vajracchedikāprajñāśāstra 325 Vajracchedikāsūtra 316–17, 321, 325, 328, 331, 334, 344, 346–47, 357, 370–71 Vajramaṇḍanāmadhāraṇīsūtra 360 Vajrayāna (Diamond Vehicle) texts 343, 405 Vajrayāna verses of Cā Kīmäśani 334, 405–6 Vāmeq-o ʿAdhrā 196 Vendidad (cf. also Vīdēvdād; Wīdēwdād ) 2, 38 Verses of Prince Tcūṃ-ttehi: 377, 379 Vessantara Jātaka 297, 304, 307, 309 Vīdēvdād (cf. also Wīdēwdād and Vendidad ) 2, 18, 35, 38, 40, 44–45, 59, 61, 67–68, 70 Vimalakīrtinirdeśasūtra 314, 316–17, 320–21, 323, 358–59, 371, 387

Wahman Yašt 153–54 Wahrām Čobēn-nāmag 179 Waštag nask 136 Wāzag ēčand ī anōšag-ruwān Ādurbād ī Māraspandān 164 wiδβāγ 210–11, 213 Wīdēwdād (cf. also Vīdēvdād and Vendidad ) 127–29, 138, 180 wifrās 210–11, 213 wisdom-literature cf. andarz literature Wisprad (cf. also Visperad ) 127 Wizārišn ī čatrang cf. Madayān ī čatrang Wižīdagān saxwan 228 Wizīdagīhā ī Zādspram 139, 152, 177, 183 Wizīrkard ī dēnīg 148 word-lists and glossaries cf. Frahang ī ōīm(-ēk); Frahang ī Pahlawīg; Parthian wordlists; Sogdian word-lists Wuzurgān āfrīwan 214, 219 Xerxes Persepolis 82–83, 92 Susa 83

521

THE LITERATURE OF PRE-ISLAMIC IRAN Xosrau ud rēdag 171, 192 xrδyʾn βr[wrtʾkw] 219 Xwadāy-nāmag 173–74, 176–77 Xwaršēd Yašt 46, 64 Xwāstwānīft 206, 236–38 xwāstwānīft 212 Xwēškārīh ī rēdagān 167 Xwurdag abestāg (cf. also Khorde Avesta) 128 Yasna 2–4, 6, 9–10, 19, 30, 32–33, 36, 38, 40, 47, 63–64, 168, 357 Yasna Haptaŋhāiti 2–4, 6, 18–19, 22, 25, 27, 31, 35, 37, 64, 68, 357

Yašts 2, 46–47, 49, 55, 58–59, 61–63, 128 Yeŋhē Hātąm 3, 28, 50 Yogaśataka 416 zand cf. Avesta-Pahlavi texts and fragments Zand-āgāhīh (cf. also Bundahišn) 137 Zand ī Wahman Yasn (cf. also Bahman Yašt) 152, 154–55 Žīrīft wifrās 227 zoological texts 183 Zoroastrian scriptures cf. AvestaPahlavi texts and fragments žwante γrīwī … xwēčakāwe 241

522