Persian Origins: Early Judaeo-Persian and the Emergence of New Persian. Collected Papers of the Symposium, Göttingen 1999 3447047313

Citation preview

Herausgegeben von Maria Macuch

Band 6

Persian Origins Early Judaeo-Persian and the Emergence of New Persian Collected Papers of the Symposium, Gottingen 1999 Edited by Ludwig Paul

2003

2003

Harrassowitz Verlag· Wiesbaden

Harrassowitz Verlag· Wiesbaden

C ontents

VII

Preface . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . DESMOND D uRKtN - M EISTERERNST

1

Lace Features in Middle Persian Texts fro m Turfan T HAMAR E. GrNDIN The Tafszr of Ezekiel: Fou r Copyists or Four Authors?

15

JosT GIPPERT

31

Early New Persian as a Medium of Spreading Islam . EVA

M. JEREMIAS 49

The Formation of Early New Persian Poetry . Bibliogran;chc lnformnion Der Dcucschen Bibliothck: Die Deutsche Bibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deurschen Narionalbibliognhci dcraiUlcrcc bibliogratis.:hc Oaten sind im Internet iiber http://dnb.ddb.de abrufba r. Bibliographic information published by Die Deutsche Bibliothek: Die Deutsche Biblio,hek lim this publication in the Dcu,schc Nationalbibliografie: detailed bibliographic data is available in the lncernct ac lmp:!ldnb.ddb.de.e-mail: [email protected]

ALBERT DEJONG

Pazand and "retranscribed" Pahlavi: O n t he Philology and History of Late Zoroastrian Literature

67

JUDITH JOSEPHSON

Nominal Sentences and Copula in Middle and Early New Persian .

79

GIL BERT LAZARD

© Otto Harrassowitz KG, Wiesbaden 2003 This work, including all of its pares, is protected by copyright. Any use beyond the limits of copyright law withou t the permission of the publisher is forbidden and subject to penalty. This applies particularly to reproductio ns, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems. Pri nted on permanenc/durable paper. Typesetting: Claudius Naumann Printing and binding: Memminger MedienCencrum AG Printed in Germany www.harrassowitZ.de/verlag ISSN0944- 1271 ISBN 3-447-04731 -3

95

Ou pehlevi au persan: diachronie ou d iacopie? DAVID NEIL MACKENZIE

t 103

The Missing Lin k . . . . . . MAURO MAGGI

N ew Persian Glosses in East Syriac Texts of the Eighth to Tenth Centuries.

111

PAOLA 0RSATTI

Syro-Persian Formulas in Poetic Form in Baptism Liturgy

147

LUDWIG PAUL

Early Judaeo-Persian in a H istorical Perspective: T he Case of the Prepositions be, u, pa(d), and the Suffix

ra

177

VI

Concenrs

SHAUL SHAKED Ea rly J udaeo-Persian Texts. With N otes on a Commentary to Genesis

195

DAN SHAPIRA

Judaeo-Persian Translations of Old Persian Lexica: A Case of Linguistic Discontinuity .. . .. . .. .

221

WERNER Su N DERMAN N Ein manichii.ischer Lehrcext in neupersischer Sprache .

243

DIET ER WEBER

Die Pah lavi- Ostraca von Cal Tarxan-Esqabad

275

Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

283

Preface The papers of the present volume deal with a difficult and h itherto largely neglected area of research in Iranian phi lology, the transition from M iddle to New Persian, covering approximately the 7,h to 10 th centuries CE. The difficulties result mainly from the fact chat the Arab -Islamic conquest of most of Iran during t he 7th century caused a major cultural break and interrupted the use of Persian as an official s tate language for almost three centuries. Persian cont inued to be used, and even to thrive, as a "church language" of che Zoroastrian community of Iran during chat time. T he long history of cexr t ransmission, of copying and re-copying, and the qu ire lace date of most Zoroastria n manuscr ipts chat have survived co the present make it difficult, however, co obtain from these texts a consistent picture of the living Persian language of that time. Ir has long been known that Jud aeo-Persian, with its ea rliest attestation in the th 8 , and with f urther texts again from the 10th century onwards, constitutes a n imporcant link between Middle and New Persian and throws much light on t he evolution of the latter. It was not until 1968, however, that LAZARD in an important article clarifed the relation between J udaeo-Persian and both Middle and New Persian in more precise terms and pointed co the fact that the archaic features of J udeao-Persian may be due less to chronological t han to dialectal feacu res. The transition from Middle co New Persian provides a good example of the fact that linguistic change is hardly ever steady and linear, and chat the chronological progression is always complicated by dialectal and other factors (e.g. questions of language status). Besides, a bird's eye view on the development from the M iddle Persian of the yd to the New Persian of the 21 st centu ry CE shows how arbitrarily the linguistic boundary between Middle and New Persian is drawn, and how much it is due to extralingu istic factors: grammatically, the mainstream (Muslim) N ew Persian of the 10 th century is in many ways closer to the Middle Persian of the 6'" or even yd, than to the New Persian of the 21 st century. The conference on which che present volume is based grew out of a joint project on Early Judaeo-Persian (EJ P) texts initiated by SHAUL SHAKED and Luow1c PAUL in 1997. T his project aimed to collect, edit, translate, comment upon, and analyze grammatic ally all known EJP texts (a large part of which is still unpublished). In t he course of t he project, we increasingly felt it would be impor tant for specialises in the fie ld of historical Iranian philology to appreciate the importance of the new EJP texts. Since there are coo few specialists working on Early Judaeo-Persian proper, a small conference dealing with a broader range of linguistic subjects

VIII

Preface

around the Judaeo-Persian of the 8th to 111 h centuries was organized, including as many contemporary variants of Early New Persian (Christian, Manichaean, Zoroastr ian etc.) as possible. From the ourset, this also included "late" forms of Middle Persian - be they from pre-Islamic or Islamic times - which, as explained above, cannot be clearly separated from Early New Persian. As for the papers contained in this volume, it is a pleasure for me to observe that a large part of them deals with the presentation and analysis of previously unavailable material. Early Judaeo-Persian proper is the subject of t he papers written by GIN DIN, MACKENZIE (t), PAUL, SHAKED and SHAPIRA; I should like to briefly mention here t hat t he papers of GINDIN and SHAKED considerably expand our knowledge of various as yet u npublished EJP Bible translations (ta/sirs). The studies of MAGGI and 0RSATTI are about unpublished Christian (Syriac) Early New Persian documents. T he most extensive new linguistic material is presented by SuNDERMANN in his edition of an imporram Manichaean N ew Persian text. The other papers deal with grammat ical features of " late" Middle Persian (DURKIN, JOHANSON, WEBER), or wit h the transition from Middle to New Persian (LAZARD). Three special studies investigate Early New Persian poetics (JEREMIAS), the contribution of Pazand to the recent Zoroastrian tradition (DE J ONG), and a possible lexical influence of Early New Persian on the language of the Maldives (GIPPERT). It is my pleasu re to express our gratitude to the various persons and institutions that were instrumental in making the publication of this conference volume possible. MARIA MACUCH (Berl in) consented to having it published in the renowned I R ANICA series. CLAUDIUS N AUMANN {Berlin) solved in admirable fash ion all t he technical problems that accompan ied the preparation of the final manuscr ipt. SILvro BENETELLO (Gorringen) painstakingly corrected most of rhe papers, going well beyond what would usually be expected from a studentische Hilfskraft, and thereby spared the authors several minor and major mistakes. The various institutions chat lent financial support to t he pr inting of this volume have been listed following t he t itle page. I would like to dedicate this volume to rhe memory of my late teacher and friend D AVID NEIL MACK ENZIE who passed away in October 2001, and whose loss will be felt keenly not only by all who knew him, but also by all wh o are involved in the study of Iranian languages. His article in this volume, for which he familiarized himself with Early Judaeo-Persian cocally anew after over 30 years, and which he himself would probably have considered only an aperru, bears impressive witness to t he philological accuracy, judgement, and mastery of which NEIL was always capable. Gottingen, December 2002

Late Features in Middle Persian Texts from Turfan1 DESMOND 0URKIN-MEISTERERNST

In his first report on t he then newly found fragments from C hinese Turkesta n F. W. K. MULLER (1904a) recognized d ifferent languages, Turkish and M iddle Persian (p. 349), in t he fragme nts. In his first edition of some of these texts (19046) he distinuished further languages, in particular a "Pehlevi-Dialekt" (soon to be identified as Sogdian), and New Persian. But his pioneering edition of the sup pos edly Middle Persian fragments (followed by BARTHOLOMAE 1906 and SALEMANN 1908) was plagued by the difficulty of a series of variants in the rexes chat were all the more confusing because t hey sometimes occurred in one and the same frag ment. These differences, though noticed by SALEMANN (p. 149- 50), were o nly years later properly at tributed in detail to two quite different languages, Panhian and M idd le Persian. Despite clarity on the main points the precise linguistic character of each and every West Middle Iranian fragment in the Turfan Collection has to be established individually. We can now d istinguish two t ypes of mixed texts in the Turfan Collection with reference to Western Middle Iranian: l. multi-lingual and 2. m ixed language texts. 1. The first type is the use of more than one language on the same page. Texrs like

the Bet- und Beichtbuch 2 contain on one page Sogdian captions and alternative passages in Middle Persian and Parthian, or M iddle Persian quotes in a n otherwise Sodian text. Quite common in this and ocher texts are Sogdian captions that mark th; beginning and end of the text or, in hymnal texts, Sogdian captions that indi_cate the melody to which the hymn should be sung. There also exist fragments ot double pages of multi-lingual manuscripts, e.g. M 99 (I is in Middle Persian, II is in Parchian) or M 172 (I has a Middle Persian and Sogdian interlinear text, II is in Uighur); and in some cases the two sides of one page are in different languages, e.g. M 38 (R is in Middle Persian, Vis in Parthian).

LUDWIG PAUL This scudy is partly a by-product of the work on my Grammacik des Westmiueliranischen, which has been financed by a Habilicandenscipend ium of che Deutsche Forschu ngsgemeinschaft (DFG). I wou ld like co thank SILVIO BENETELLO and Lu owrc PAUL tor a number of corrections. 2

HEN NING

1937.

2

L ate Features in Middle Persian Texts from Turfan

DESMOND 0U RK IN-ME IST ERERNST

T he Manichaeans of Central Asia obviously employed different languages side by s ide, theirs was a complicated multi-lingual religion. 3 T hough texts of this kind are often called m ixed texts, this only refers to the use of var ious languages together. This phenomenon t ells us a lot about the developmenr of Manichaeism and its spread from two d ist inct Western Middle Iranian language areas to an Eastern Middle Iranian language environ ment w here speakers of U ighur subsequently rose to importance. 2. T he second t ype is the actual mixing of languages. Features properly belonging to one language are found in a text written in another language. Bue we must distinguish here superficial phenomena from actual mixing. 2.A. T he most obvious superfic ial phenomenon is the use of the orthographic conventions of one language to w r ite words of anot her langu age. This may reflect a different way o f dealing w ith the language or it may no t. T here are cases of Parthian and M idd le Persian words being confused because of their identical or similar meaning and sound: Pa roi is occasionally found in MP rexes, MP roz in Pa texts 4 - t he confusion m ust have been encourao-ed bv the alterna• b , ttve spelling (common ro M P and Pa) which leaves the decision co read /z/ o_r /z/ to t he reader - ; Pa wxad ~ MP x'wad =>, MP az < 'z> ~ Pa ai - or because of similar or identical function: the MP connective particle (izafet) i for normal MP przynd 'y 8 may ind icate a late reading/arazend i instead of fra- or simply a pronunciat ion pecu liar co hymns, w hich the elongation syllable YGA9 seems co suggest: fa-arazeend i. In So 10202, a text

in "native" Sogdian script, Parchian numbers are to be found , e.g. /xrioi/ fo r Pa lhridigl "thi rd " and lcuroml for /cuhrom/ "fourth". This gives two d ifferent representations of Pa !hr! as and and t he apparent loss of final lg!. Does chis imply a Sogdian pronunciation of Western Middle Iran ian or is it just the Sogd ian representation of these languages? Since Parthian and Middle Persian v.,ere not really living languages in Central Asia it would nor be surprising if the Sogdians spoke t hem in t heir own way. 2.B. Actual language mixing is fairly rare but t here are a number of features that suggest various types of mixing. A number of texts of th is ki nd have been identifie d by various scholars but in particular by TEDESCO 1921 (pp. 186- 9 general, pp. 240- 1 "Mischdialekc", pp. 242- 5 list) 10 ; GHILAIN 1939 (in the list on pp. 19-24); BoYcr:: 1960 {under the indiv idual entries and on p. 148 "36. Bili ngual texts" where a small group of Western M idd le I ranian and Sogdian rexes are listed) a nd BOYCE 1975 (indicated at the top of each text) and SuNDERMANN 1986- 7 (pp. 286- 91).11

I will concentrate on Wesrern M iddle Iranian texts w here the range of language mixing consist s of: 1. Pa rexes containing MP words, e.g.:

MP kun instead of Pa kar in Pa M 5700/l/V/ i/18/; MP homboyi instead of Pa xomboyift in Pa M 102/R/7/ (with MP -i < -ih instead of Pa - ift) .

ce

3

4

5 6 7 8 9

T he same ca n be said for chc C hrist ia ns (wi th Sy riac and Sogdian) and Buddhists (C hinese or an Indic langu age and a C entral Asian language) of Cemral Asia bu t the linguistic situ ation in the Man ichaean tex ts is parciw larl y complex (Middle Persian , Par d,ian, Sodian and 0 Uighur). E.g. in the MP text BBB (396) and < rwz> in the Pa text M 280/l/V/8/. E .g. in the MP cexrs S 9/V/ ii/3 1/ and M !0 l e/R/7/ and in rhe Pa texts M 305/ B/3/ and M 33 l/V/5/. E .g. in rhe Pa tex t M 5815/I/V/ii/26/. E.g. M 451/B/4/, M 735/R/6/, M 740a/V/6/. Cf. BRUNNER 1977, 255 from which the example is taken. A compr_omise bet ween che no rmal cex t and the canrillated one wou ld seem t0 be in che occasional use of an extra syllable -.'i in otherwise normally written hymnal rexes.

3

2. MP rexes containing Pa words or forms, e.g.: Pa ahem instead of MP zoriin .13 Various ocher late MP features include the loss of final h, plural in -iha, lace grammatical constructions (active construction of transitive sentences in the past cense; direct object with o). 14 Most of these texts can be regarded as late. 15 Similarly some late features have been identified in Pa texts:

4. Pa texts with late Pa features T h e same late feature seen in MP, the loss of the final -y in any "other" seems to occur also in Pa, e.g. MKG (1183): 'wd pd (hry rwc) 'n qr'n I ud pad hre roi an karan I " ... and after three days I will make another (one), . .. " It cannot be excluded due t he phenomenon is, in fact, only MP. If I have understood him correctly, SuN DERMANN 1997, 99 n. 1 provides a good example of t he difficulties we face in interpreting West Middle Iranian forms written in Sogdian script. He considers the possibility chat the fina l -w of a Parrhian word has not been reproduced in the Sogdian nyt'f]yo, if chis is Parthian new ta.bed, but points out that the loss of final -'lD seems to be a phenomenon only at tested for MP. This means that either the phenomenon is now to be regarded also as Parthian or t hat the Sogdian version is in fact based on a Middle Persian pronunciation of the Parthian word. We can now turn to the question of the precise relationship between the various groups, how far they overlap and whether texts w ith lace features are genuinely mixed language texts. GHILAIN 1939, 29-30 identified m ixed language texts as texts of a literary nature, meaning chat the confusion of features was not the reflection of a spoken language but rather of the failing competence of the Manichaeans of Central Asia co write in particular, correct P arthian. This dates the demise of a knowledge of Parthian in, Central Asia and suggests that Middle Persian had wider currency. Furthermore, 12

13

14 15

Late Features in Middle Persian Texts froi11 Turfan

DESMOND DURK!N-ME!STERERNST

Lir. "oi whac name are you?" ... "I am Bayard by name." Attractive though rhe similarity is with the regular confusion of ke and ku in MPB where MNW and AYK are often confused, SUNDERMAN N's claim (1986- 7 § 101 , p. 285) that in the Pa text M 47/1/R/10/ (MKG [1585]) ku has been written for ke on che basis of NP ke ior both is nor convincing. The text can be left as it is. See my Gramrnatik ie; Westmittelir,tnischen (forthcoming). Ano_rher categ~ry ot mixed texts would be che presumably early group of Western Middle lr~man texts v:1ch Aramaic rraits. Here, though, ic is not necessarily a question of language mixing but of imperfect translation (whether intended or nor).

5

the fact that Early New Persian texts (the poetical text published by HENNING 1?62, the Con_fessional ~ext published by SUNDERMANN 1989) were found alongside the Parch1an and Middle Persian fragments suggests that a knowledoe of New Persian "supported" the survival of Middle Persian as against Parthia; On chis basis we would expect to find New Persian features in lace texts. The problem is complicated by che face chat neither Parthian nor Middle Persian (nor Early New Persian) were spoken languages in Central Asia in the first place. Knowled ge of these languages was restricted co certain groups of people who had a professional interest in using them, namely Manichaeans who used them in their holy texts and merchants who used them in their trading relationships. Manichae~ns and merchants are not, of course, mutua lly exclusive; nor can we exclude the possibility that some of either group were in fact native speakers of the one or the other language come fro m th eir native countries to work as churchmen or merchan~s in Ce1:tral Asia. But the majority of t hose who used these languages spoke Sogd1an or Uighur as their native languages. This also means chat the Manichaeans of Central Asia dealt conservatively with their Parchian and Middle Persian rexes, most of which they preserved quite faithfully. They compiled prayers etc. from older texts w itho ut introducing anything chat was not absolutely necessary. The p!1enomenon of these mixed language texts allows more than one possible ex_planatton: We may start, though, by excluding the possibility of attributing the m1xe~ language to one or more Parthian speakers. Ic seems to be very clear that Parth1an speakers did not exist in Central Asia in the 8 th century. All the dateable lat~ texts are in Middle Persian rather than Parchian. Though Parthian text s had an important position in Manichaean literature it seems nobody had enough active knowledge of Parrh ian to compose new Parthian texts. This leaves only cwo real possibilities, which do not exclude each ocher: 1.

A Sog_dian or Uighur confuses Parthian and MP because h e has at best only a passive knowledge of both languages. He basically t reats both languages in the same _way as MULLER or SALEM ANN first did, as one language with inexplicable variants that he copes with as well as he can. Particularly the texts w ith alternating sentences in Parthian and MP show the need to be able to switch from one language to the other (s. BBB): Unless the Soodian or Uiohur was very well trained h e cannot bu t have tried to reduce the ;wo languag~s to one passively understood church language.

2.

A Manichaean with a good knowledge of MP/NP works on MP texts and modernises them because he cannot clearly distinguish between MP and late MP ;::: early NP. The problem for him is not so much to distinguish two phases of the language (which are for him a continuum) but between spoken and written lan guage. His "mistakes" (recognizable as such only for us) stem from uncertainty about what he can write as opposed ro what he speaks (diglossy), and presumably he modernised the MP texts when reading them. The situation is quite similar to chat in the Pahlavi tradition where the gap between written and

6

Late Features in Middle Persian Texts from Turfan

D ESMOND DuRKIN- M ErSTE RERNST

spoken language is much larger. Here every reading of a text was of necessity a modernising. The principles of Manichaean orthography (no heterogrammes, no historical spellings) that were such an advance over the extremely difficult system of Pahlavi orthography are here being overtaken by the spoken language, which makes them seem conventional. Lapses into NP would, in this interpretation, reflect the reality of the way of dealing with these MP texts which the conventions of Manichaean orthography cover up. This inter pretation assumes Manichaeans in Central Asia with a work ing knowledge of NP: a case like fay instead of gyag proves this clearly enough. The question though is how many Manichaeans in Central Asia in t he 8'h/9' h centuries knew NP and read their MP Manichaean texts in the manner described. But not only these fe atures prove rhe existence of Manichaeans who spoke N P in Central Asia: The writer of the introduction tO M 1 examined below, the writer of the peculiar episode in M 2 quoted above and identified by SuNDERMANN 1986-7, § 85 (pp. 270- 3) as a late addition to the text and the confessional text in NP pub lished by SuNDERMANN 1989 (as well as the other NP texts in the Turfan Collection, some of which MDLLER published) show that at least in one of the later phases in Central Asian Manichaeism prior tO its demise at least one and p robably more than one Manichaean with a knowledge of NP (the confess ional text implies chat it was his native language) was active in the communit y. The int roduction to M 1 is clearly dared: the text (the collection of hymns) was begun in the second half of the 8t h cent. (762) and completed ca. 820 or 830: t he introduct ion is presumably entirely from ca. 820 or 830. It is important to note, though, t hat this is by its nature a u nique text, which reflects particular circumstances and which has not gone through extensive recopying. Similarly, the individual features in t he addition to M 2 may also be due to a unique copy of a unique text. The orthography of NP texts in Manichaean script, described by HENNING 1962, p. 89 as "both b izarre and erratic" is in the main little different from chat of MP texts in Manichaean script, so much so t hat it is basically the presence of Arabic words (and the consequent use of in MP texts) that characterizes a text as NP. The most part of each text is written with the same orthographic conventions: e.g. writes the MP preposition pad and its NP counterpart palba. Only very occasionally is used (though p- occasionally occurs in MPT). Apart from the presence of Arabic words (some with as !fay/ on some or all others. T he Manichaean script, despite its origins as a more or less phonetic script has in fact in the later period here become a conventional and

7

hisroric~sing script. Si~ce most if not all of the Turfan fragments were copied in the late penod shortly betore the demise of Manichaeism in Central Asia, when NP had a certain predominance, we can indeed be very happy that the scribes, despite the knowledge of NP at least some of t hem had, continued to copy MP correctly whatever way they pronounced it. Otherwise an important source of MP would have been lost and the gain to scudencs of NP simply on the base of a superficial NP reading/pronu nciation of otherwise thoroughly MP texts would, I venture, not have compensated for this loss. An example for this complex linguistic situation can be found in M l lines 160- 227. 16 Lines 160- 227 contain an a lmost complete colophon by at least rwo d ifferent persons at the end of the introduction ro a large Mahr-namag "HymnBook". Because it follows on a salutary greeting of the U ighu r king named in the text wit h full Uighur titles MOLLER 1912, 29 dated it with him to 825- 832; HENN ING 1938, 566 n. 2 thinks chat "his much more powerful namesake (808- 821) is meant". The text itself contains a date, 762, for the beginning of the collection of hymns the book containe~ but obviously the colophon belongs to the later date 808- 821 or 825- 832. The fact that the text has lace linguistic featu res was noted by MiiLLER and commented upon summarily by BoYCE 17 and SuNDERMANN, who suggested that t he text may be NP t ransposed into MP. 18 The text is to be found in MOLLER 191 2 (in MuttER's own mixture of t ransliteration and transcription) and , following him, BoYCE 1975, 52- 3 (transliteration only). 19 The transliteratio n will not be reproduced here. T he text is written on the page in blocks of black and red ink irrespectively of the content to produce an impressive decorative layout.

Transcribed text T he paragraph numbers of BOYCE 1975, 52- 3 are added to the transcribed text. T he punc~u~t_ion ~ots of the manuscript have been retained here because they support the d 1v1S1on tnto paragraphs. Where of interest the transliteration is included in brackets. Italics mark words otherwise unattested in t he published Manichaean MP texts, underlining marks irregular syntactic uses of specific words or ramt> matical forms. 16

17 18

19

T he t~xr preceding chis colophon consists of blessings on a great number of named people at the Uighu r courr. The amount of straightforward text is quite small. Though the blessings and the colophon may belong cogerher enc colophon is clearlv set apart bv rhe five blank lines chac precede ic. , · B O YCE 1975, 52 : ".! he tex t ~as so~1e Parchian ~Orms, and also some stri kingly lace linguistic featu res (such as ;ay for gyag) which accord with the 9' h -century dace." Quoted in ~LTMKE IT 1989, 18.2 n. 4 "So viele Merkmale folgen der Syntax und Formbildung des Neupers1schen, dal~ man fast sagen konnte, es ist ins Mitrel persische traosponierres Neupersisch." This remark is unfortu nately left out in KLIMKEIT 1993, 274. The only diffe rences are I. 183 s: instead of 'ws and 202-3 p'cy#h'nd instead of p'cyh'nd in BOYCE.

8

Lare Fearures in Middle Persian Texts from Turfan

DESMOND DURKIN-MEISTERERNST

§ 1 xrohxwan, ka- m en mahrnamag eda'on did nafrazaftag abekar oftadag, eg-om ,:Jud framad o frazend desist pusar-om gramig 6 naxureg-rosn frazaftan, 00 ,:•a'on ku bawad andar den madayan pad abzon mahrnamag pad dasc T denzadagan hasagirdan nogan, kii griwan pad-is pazihand (p'cy< 203 >h'nd!), ud hammog xrad frahang ud hunar az-is hammoxsand. 00 §4 eg nun pad hujastagii yazad mar aryan-sa hammoza i nog ud new- murwa(h) ud pad far roxi I mar dosist ispasag ud pad new pesari i mar yiso'aryaman mahiscag ud pad tuxsisn I yazad-amad xrohxwan I zir fray ud wes pad tuxsagi ranz aw(w)am burdan i naxu reg-rosn, ke-s pad di! i garm ud frihen manisn tuxsist (twxst210>\st), saban rozan hammis dibiran, ke-san nibist-end, da hamag ispurr frazafc. 00 § 5 ud (m) ce-m pad wihanag i en nibeg man naxureg- rosn rahi g dibfr pad harrasran wirastan ud nibistan [text breaks off].

9

§ 3 And unfinished at the place (= position) it remained24; for many years in the monastery of Ark(~ Qarasahr25) it had fallen down and lain (there). And then I, Preacher Yazad-Amad, when I saw this Hymn-Book so unfinished, useless, fallen down, then I commanded anew my dearest child my treasured son, Naxureg-Rosn to finish (it), so that it might be in the community a book much '6 . ' more-.' a Hy~n-~~ok for2 7 the novices, the new students, that t heir souls may be purified with/in it and learn the teaching, wisdom, dogma and virtue from it. §4 T hen furthermore through the blessing of the new and well augured Teacher, God Lord (Yazad Mar) Aryan-Sa, and through the favou r of the Bishop, Lord Dosist, and through the good guidance of the Master, Lord Yiso'-Aryaman, and through the efforts of the wise Preacher Yazad-Amad, even more t hrough the efforts, trouble and diligence 28 of Naxureg-Rosn, who wich fervent heart and loving mind strove, night and day w ith scribes, who wrote (it), until he(?) had (it) all finished. § 5 And what I for the sake of this book, I Naxureg-Rosn, servant, scribe to prepare, arrange and write ...

Notes on the orthography Noteworthy are the three cases of word-division at the end of che line in 161-2 z'y#~n (zayisn), 202- 3 p'cyb#h'nd (pazihand!) and 219- 20 twxs#'ysr (tuxsist!). In particular the last two are written according to the conventions of the Manichaean script for writing independent MP words: normally marks the end of a word ~iyrth~ for Ar. d~fi~a "braid, plait". The firs t example also illustrates that a gimeL with a lm e above it /?/ can represent [y], as too in 20 1{ /g'yt/ yayat "extreme". In the freq~ent _abbre~1ation /wg/, for wa )'airuh "etc.", however, it is /g/ with a dot above it, /g/, which represenrs [y), although it otherwise far more often stands for [J] . But an u n marked /g/ may just as well stand eithe r for [J), t hus 28 23 /g'y/ ~ 3~2s /g'y/ fa;: "~lace", o r for [y], as in 391 /symwrg/ semu1/'eagle" (Heb. nfr). T his kmd of amb1gu1ty holds equally for . _ /di representing [cl] or [o] (NP I'?,/), the latter only very seldom written /d/, e.g. 1736 /bad r•hl baira "scattering", but 5 24 / hdr/ hair "raillery ", _ /k/ for [k] or (x], only seldom w ritten /1~/, e.g. 424 /k'r/ kar ''action", 432 /kJ'r/ xar "thorn", It/ for [t] or[&] (N P ls.I), e.g. 110 / mtl'/ ma1alan "for example", /pl for [p] or [f], only seldom written /p/, e.g. 2034 lb"fr/ bafr "snow", and It! for t he Ar. emphatics ~ and z,, only seldom w ritten IV (which, as has already been seen,' can also stand for [z.]). Isl is mostly unpainted, only occasionally having its usu al right- hand point 0 /s"/. Left-pointed \!J Isl is restricted to Hebrew words. . The two values of Hebrew sh-wa can generally be distinguished and transcribed . , for t he vowel, • as sukun. About the other vowels there is little to say except that the plene writing of short [o, u] and [e, i] as /w, y/ re spec rive!y is quite c?mmon, e.g. / bwzwrg, bwlwnd/ "big, high", /cysm, dyl/ "eye, heart". Thus /y/ with a precedino- / i/ may well stand fo r a short vowel, e.g. 829 /niysiys t'1h/ nisista "seated", not ne~essar ily an [i] as in Hebrew. W here the phonemic boundaries m ay lay between [a,;), e, i] and [a, o, u] remains uncertai n. T here are many fascinating de tails of pronunciat ion to be got both from the occasional vocalisation of individual words and the variable spellings of ochers. For example, imala is often to be observed in Arabic words, written with lyl and sometimes vowelled N, in place of standard NP/'/: e.g. 428 • 36 , 56, 10 30 , 11 11 /klyp, kylyp/ for NP xilaf "contrary, rebellious" (glossing /"cy/ 'a$i"), 3337 /k0 ytiyb/ for katib "scribe", 45 2 / mwsypyr'n/ for musafiran "travellers", 8022 r. /sykyn/ for sakin "dwelling", 3322, 36, 4436 /slyb, sylyh/ for sila& "weapon, accoutrement" (glossing /'ng'z/), 27 1 / wydy/ for wad'i, 223 5 /w 0ydiy gmhwr gwg/ "the Valley of the Horde o f Gog\ etc. Arabic words of the rv pe ifti'al, istif'al lose their last consonant, e.g. 67m. /'std !'/, evidencly for Ar. istiolal "contempt", 1062 1 /'mtbe'/ "trial, test", again w ich imala, for imti&an. And so on. The feature to be remarked on here is the development of the Middle Persian semi-vowel writte n w ith ·wci-w /w/. In initial position it has developed into a sound 0

which is mostly written, as in NP, with a /6/, thus apparently coinciding with words which already had an initial /6/ in MP. Besides such b -words, e.g. /b'l'/ "above", /b'md'd/ "dawn, morning", /b'r/ "time", /b'zw/ "arm", /bnd-/ "tie, bind", / br'dr/ "brother", /brd'/ "borne", /bwdn/ "to be", /bwy/ "scent", /byg'ng'n/ "strangers", /byrwn/ "outside", w ith spellings p ractically identical wit h standard N P, or mo re archaic o nes like /bks-/ baxs- meaning "divide", /bymwmnd/ "fearful", both known from MP, we find the following with /b-/ from an earlier w -, /b'd/ "wind", /b'ng/ "sound", /b'r'n/ "rain", /bd/ "bad", /bpr/ "snow", /bh'r/ "springtime ", /bsy'r/ " many", lbyd'r/ "awake" ( [p-], although chis [~arda] is also still written 3 times with initial waw, /wrd'/, e.g. 6:9 (22 25) /p> I my'n 'n srdg'n 'n ky wrd' krd' 'mdnd/ "among t he nations (where) they have been made captive", and "exile, captivity" appears as /wrd'y, wrd 'yy/: 12:4 (45 7) /wbyrwn kwn I 'ng'zyh' cw cwn 'ng'zyh' wrd'y p' rwz p' hm cysm'n 'ys'n/ "Bring out you: belongings, packed as for exile, by day, before their eyes", 0

0

and 44 36 /wrd'yy/ as an added gloss to /ysyry/ (< Ar. asir) "captivit y". Then there is the present stem first appearing as /w'r'n-/, apparently "cause to rain", < MMP intransitive w'rystn, w'r-, N P baridan, Pahl. caus. waren-. This occurs in a hyper-literal translation of the Heb. idiom (berebh) riq "to empt y, pour out", but meaning" draw (a sword)": 5 :2 (1737) /wsmsyr mn by w'r'nwm 'spsy 'ys'n/ "and I shall draw my sword after chem". Similarly /w'r'n-/ 5:12 (20 7), 12:14 (46 37 ), in contrast to the noun "rain" written /b'r'n/ 3 12 , 2035• But much later in the MS we fi nd : 28:7 (1.50 29) /wby f r'nnd rv m NP binis, e.g. 1:28 (3 11 ) /cwn wynysn 'n km'n 'n ky b'sd p' 'ab•r p' rwz b'r'n hm cwnyn weyniys 0 n 'n swg (ky) pyr'mwn 'w hst wynysn kwm'n'y kbwd y'y/ S

3

4

E.g. MP gwg "speaker", '.i'nwg, nyt.:1.i'g "hearer, listener", dyg "donor", hm·wc'a "teacher". Ir is inadverranrly omitted from W. SuNDERMANN's succinct descriptio n of "Mit~elpcrsisch" in Compendium _Linguarum Iranicarum, ed. RUD IGER SCHM ITT, Wiesbade n 1989, p. 150, 3. 1.2.6.1.2_ (but_d . "Parrhisch ", p. 127, 3.1. l.6. l.2, ng-w.i'g "hearer"). Such agent forms are common 111 t h is text, largely rep lac ing N P -anda pa rticiples, e.g. /'b'z grd'n'/ "returner", / 'mwznl'/ "teacher", /nysyn'/ "dweller", /C)sn's'/ "knower", /kwps'/ x11fsa "reclining", /prws'/ "seller", /skwn gwy'/ "speaking". W ichout the distinguishing stroke over /b/ t he unvowelled word wou ld be idenrical w ith the past participle of the verb /brdn/, NP bttrdan "carry", e.g. 9:3 (34 17 ) /wkbwd kwd' h ysr' I 'br I b rd' 'md 'z 'br'z 'n cwn/ "And the glory of the God of Israel was borne up from above che cherub".

107

T h is leads co a correction in Pah lavi. Twice in che Greater Bundahi.i'n MS TD the word /wig/ appears. In my Concise Pahla·vi Dictionary, London 1971, misled by che Ku:·dish word balg, Zazak1 valg "leaf", I wrongly cook this for a variant of /wig/ •warg " leaf" (also M. BAHAR : Glossary of Pahlavi Bundahish, Tehran 1345 = 1967, p. 330). It is now clear that •-;;;alg was a d iscinct word, surviving in the JP form. 23 1C, concerning the Gahanbar Ayasrim, 26' h- JO'h Mih r, i.e. mid- October: APs SM 'y'slm, MNWs wc'lsn' ZNE AYK wig W bwd gwnk: z lgwnyh pyc'k' YHWWNt' "and its name is Ayasrim, the explanatio n of which 1s chis, chac shoocs and scent and colour and greenery became man ifes t "; 1011, on the creation of the firs1 human couple: PWN bw ndkyh Y 40 SNT •·Jyp's kip Y 'ywk' sewn Y 15 wig m'hlyy (W) mhl'nyy MN im yk QDM lwst HWEd "On the completio n of 40 yea rs (of c_he preser\'au on of Gayomard 's seed in che earch) Mahri and Malua ni gre w out of chc earth (tn) t he torm of a rhubarb plane wich one seem and 15 shoocs."

The Missing Link "As the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud in the day of rain, so (was) the sight of the radiance [l it. burning] round about: it is the appearance like the glory of the Lord". The present stem /wyn-/, NP bin-, is not however otherwise used: with the single exception of /byn-/ in 33 4 f. /'yn gwn' hmy byny whmy 'ndysy ky .. ./ "you see and think so, that ... ", the verb "to see" occurs only as /dyd-/ in past tenses, and /n"ys -/ in the present, cf. MMP nyysydn. Another, solitary example is not immediately obvious. It is /wsnd'/ < MP ,:•wasandag, > NP basanda "sufficient", in 1:24 (1 11 ) /cwn b'ng w•san°d•'/ "as the voice of the Almighty". This surely comes from the rabbinical derivation of sadday, an obscure name of God, from se day "who (is) sufficient, self-sufficient" (much as "A lmighty" is also a pseudo-etymological translation of sadday, as from ✓sdd "destroy"). There is no obvious reason why these particular words should have survived in an earlier form, as "learned words". Even if we think of the MS as a much later copy than the original, there is no reason why a copyist should have regularly spared these words spelled only with /w-/ from his hypothetical efforts to modernize other words to lb -/. It therefore seems that in the language of the author(s) of this text MP initial /w-/ had developed into a sound which was written either /w-/ or lb- - p-/. While the preponderance of /6-/ spellings may suggest a late pronunciation, like NP, these variant forms imply rather that in this context all spellings represent a pronunciation [p-], e.g. ,i-[pad, pang, ~aran, pem] etc., and ,:'[parda, penisn, pasanda]. This would also explain how MP wider-, instead of retaining an initial consonant could become /'bdyr- / [a~der-], by way of an earlier ~-[~ider-]. A further example of this development is provided by the verb "to spread", corresponding to NP gustardan, which is represented by /pstyrd, pstr- /: 2:10 (5 19) /by pstyrd 'wr' I p' pys rµn/ "he spread it before me"; 12:13 (46 29) /wby I pstrwm d'm mn 'br 'w/ "I will spread my net over him". 16:8 (62 32) /wby pstrdwm Jn'hy I mn 'br cw/ "and I spread my wing [sic] over you". This is surely to be read as /fistird, fisti r-/, via ,;lpister-] < Pahl. wistar- (> NP gustar-). It must be said that the text also contains several examples of other develop ments of initial w-, especially of wi-, e.g. /gwm'n/ "suspicion", /gwn'(h)/ "sin", t he verb /gws'd- / "open", and /gwrs'y(y)/ "hunger, famine" (cf. Pahl. gursagih). In a text with so many Arabic words it is not surprising chat there should be others from standard Persian. There are, however, also previously unknown /gw-/ forms, e.g. /gwm'r/ in 16:33 (67 17) /p' hmh wh'r'n by dhnd I gwm'r wtw by d 'dy 'n gwm'r r' p' hmh dwst'n cw/ "They give gifts to all whores, but you gave chat gift to all your lovers". Different again is /'wst'h/, NP gustax, < Pahl. wistax (MMP wyst'h), in

109

/w'wst'h bwdy p' p' kyz'y tw wwh'r by I bwdy 'br n'm tw/ "And you trusted to your beauty and prostituted your fame"; 28 :26 (15512 ) /wby nysynnd 'br 'w p' 'wst'hy/ "And they shall dwell thereon in confidence". The origin of the ubiquitous /wh'r/ is obscure. Turning to intervocalic(~], it is obviously to be read in the spelling of the verb / 'brdn, 'br-/ "bring": 11:1 (40 1) /w'br d'st mr' b'd wby ' brd mr' p' dryb's k'nh y'y/ "And the wind lifted me up and brought me to the gate of the Lord's house", which is even more archaic in appearance than MMP "wrd, "wr- < a-brta-, -bara-. Whether the letter /w/ in the same concext always had the same pronunciation is not immediately certain, but it is at lease suggested by variant spellings such as /byb'n, by'w'n/ "astray"< Pahl. wiyiiban < Av. ·viva.pa-. These occur in the commentary to the rather obscure verse 6:9 (22 26 ) /dyl I 'ys'n wh'r ... w'n cysm'n 'ys'n 'n wh 'r'n 'sps I bwtyh' 'ys'n/ "their whorish heart ... and their eyes, which go a-whoring after their idols". The word /wh'r/, translating Heb. zoneh "whorish", is represented in the commentary thus: /'z qybl dyl 'ys'n by'b'n w'z qybl cysm'n 'ys'n by'w'n'n/ "on account of their straying heart and their straying eyes", which can be read as ,;[~iyaban], metathesised co ,:•[biya~an] . Another case - already noticed by SALEMANN - is the word /'wyr'n/ "ruined", < Pahl. a_weran, quite common in the translation, and more so in the tafsir, e.g. 4:5 (13 12 t.) /byty'y ... I t' 'n wqt ky 'wyr'n by bwd/ "the temple ... until it was destroyed" but which also occurs there, in the same context, as 5:4 (18 14) /wk'nh y'y r' beyr•'n by krd/ "and he destroyed the house of God", i.e. ,:•[~eran], like NP ·viran, and presumably< earlier ,:•[a~eran]. These rwo examples make it likely that the internal consonantal /-w-/ of other words was also pronounced [~]. One quite common example is /zw'n/ "tongue, language"< MMP 'zw'n, Pahl. 'wzw'n [uzwan] (later zwb'n ,:-[zuwan]) < ~•hizvana-, 3:5 (6 26) /n' 'b' rmy nygwlyh' lb'n wgwr'nyh' zw'n tw pryst'dh mey 'yy/ "not to a people of strange speech {lie. deep lips} and of a hard language art rhou sent" 3:26 (10 28 ) /wzw'n twr' gyr'nwm 'b' ngy tw/ fnay -i to} "and thy tongue I will make cleave to che roof of thy mouth", this probably ,:•[zu~an], leading to NP zaban. 16:15 (64 27 )

This is not the first time that such a variation in spelling between beth and waw has been met. T here are a couple of examples in the British Museum manuscript of "An

110

DAVID NEIL MACKENZ IE

early Jewish-Persian argu ment" which I first rashly published just over 30 years ago, 6 though I failed co recognize t heir full significance at t he time. T he two examples in it were 3 x /b'ynd'/ : 1 x /w'ynd'/, i.e. ,:'[~ayanda] < Pahl. wayendag "bird " (lit. "flying"), and more problematically 3 x derivatives of /'bryd n, 'bryn-/ : 19 x those of /'wrydn, 'wr(y)n-/ " to create", where an intervocalic /f/ < Olr. '°'a-fricould be expected. Birds are also /b'ynd '/ in Ezekiel: 17:23 (8024 ) /wsykyn bwnd 'zyr 'n hm' b 'ynd'y hm' prwry/ "winged birds of every kind will roost under it", also 39:4, 17 (22026 , 223 14), but unfortunately there is no mention of creation there, for comparison. There are signs, at least, that the "Argumenr" MS is somewhat later than chat of Ezekiel. It has plurals in /-h'/ more often than chose in 1-yh'I, no forms in / -wmnd/, and only a pair of passive stems in /-h-/, (S12 /b[w]rh-'d/ "let him be cut", recognized by SHAKED, and / tbhh-ysty/ "would have been spoilt") . Where the Ezekiel translation has exclusively verbal nouns in /-ysn/, the "Argument" has 4 in /-ysn/, 10 in /-(y)st/ and 2 in /-ys/ alone - in one case all from the same verb stem, namely /'mwzysn, 'mwzst, 'mwsys/ "teaching". It will be clear now why the Ezekiel translation and commentary can be regarded as t he "missing link". Through its limited inconsistency it seems to document for the first time t he etat de langue in which the letter waw lwl of bocl1 Semitic alphabets, Hebrew and Arabic, used to write Persian, had changed in pronu nciation from a bilabial semi-vowel [w] to a labio-denral fricative [~], N P [v], even in t he numerous Ar. loan-words, such as frequent /'wl/ avvtd, J :8 (7 7 ) /qwy, qwwt/ qavi, quvvat, etc. Most word s with MP init ial /w-/ now have an initial [b-] or [g-] in NP. This means that the [~-] established for the Ezekiel text later developed to [b-], if indeed !t had not already done so, in some or all of che words for which no varianr spelling occurs. There are, however, some NP exceptions still with a [v-], such as vaZa)' "frog"< Av. vaza)la-, vaz"idan "to blow", like Pahl. wazidan, < Av. vaz-, vir "memory" (but Kurdish bir) < M MP wyr, varzidan "co work, practice, cultivate", etc., like Pahl. warzidan, beside barzgar "land-worker", < Av. varaz-. How these could su rvive, in time or place, re mains unexplained.

6

"An early Jewish-Persian a rgu ment." In: BSOAS 3 1/2 (1968), pp. 249- 69. See SH. SHAKED: "Judaeo-Persian Notes." ln: lm1el 01·iental Studies 1 (197 1), pp. 178- 82, and the "Addenda et Corrigenda" in my lranica Di·versa (ed. C.-\RLO G. C ERETr and LUDWIG PAUL), Rome 1999, Vol. II, pp. 671-3.

New Persian Glosses in East Syriac Texts of the Eighth to Tenth Centuries 1 MAURO MAGGI

in memory of Ronald Eric Emmerick ~fter th e sep aration of t he Christian church of Persia from the patriarchate of Ann och and from the Western church in the fifth century, the Middle Persian(= MP) lang_uage an~ the _P~hlavi script were used for a shore tirne by the Christians of Persia both m ong111al compositions and in translations from Syriac (= Syr.). 2 Unfort unately, the only extant Christian Pahlavi text is a fragmenrary translation of the Psalms from Bulay1k near Turfan (ANDREAS/BARR 1933). But one of the glosses studied here also seems tO point ~o a Christian Pahlavi source (see below on 25 ,:•twryPTr). 3 . Th~ use of ~ersian was eventually abandoned in favou r of Syriac as the only ltturgical and literary language of t he church of Persia. On the ocher hand, ir was presumably due not only to Sasanian rule over Mesopotamia but also to the use of Syriac by Persian Christ ians that many Middle and N ew Persian(= NP) words were borrowed into Syriac (see DE LAGARDE 1866, 1-84 and cf. SHAKED 1987).

2

3

This ar_ticle conrai~s some results of work carr ie~ our as parr of the research project "Geogralia stonca e 1meraz10ne culcurale nel mondo 1ra111co della tarda antichica" funded bv t he Ministero dell 'universita c delta ricerca sciencifica e tecnologica and d irected by GHERAR,DO GNOLI. I am grateful to R1CCA ROO CONTINI (Venice, now Na ples) who no t on ly, in spring 1998, suggested chat I study. the Persian glosses chat arc che subject of this paper, but also introduced me to che rel~v~nc hceracur~ and gave me his valuable advice on rhe use of the Syriac mater ials, unsp_a n ng o_t :1me and pat'.ence. In the meantime, he has studied che glosses in rhe language of Bet Qa;raye chat occur 1n the same sources (CONTIN I forthcoming). I am deeply indebted also to Luc~s VAN_ RoMPAY ( Leiden, now Durha m, N.C.) who checked for me che readings of D a nd A w1ch copies of the manuscrip ts in his possession (see below p. 114). This article has proficed also fro m d iscussions with ADRIANO V. Rossi (Naples), CARLO G. CERETT, CLAUDIA C IANCAGLfNI, PAOLA ORSATTI and ANGE LO M. P1EMONTESE (Rome), ELA FlLIPPONE (Vite rbo) and LORENZO COSTANTI NI, archaeobotanist at the Museo nazionale d'arte o ricncalc (Rome). Suggestions m~de br JOST G rPPERT and SHA.UL SHAKED afrer the presentation of my paper at the conference 1n Gom ngen are acknowledged at the relevant points. Hr::NNING 1958, 77- 8; S1Ms-WILLlAMS 1992, 534. Cf. HANSEN 1966, 99- 100, who recalls EDUARD SACHAU's hypothesis that rhe Middle Persia n Christian tex ts could have been written in Syriac scripc. For the conventions adopted for t he trans li teration of the Persian g losses seen. 21.

MAURO MAGGI

New Persian Glosses in Ease Syriac Texts of rhe Eighch co Tench Centuries

Though the Syriac language and script superseded Middle Persian in Pahlavi script, Persian continued to be occasionally written by means of the Syriac script, as is shown by the fragmentary Syro-Persian translation of the Psalms in Syriac script (SUNDERMANN 1974 with references to earlier literature) and by the SyroPersian pharmacological fragment from Toyoq (see HENNING 1958, 79, BOYCE 1960, 130 and SUNDERMANN 1974, 450-1). Christian New Persian texts were later written in Syriac script in what, broadly speaking, could be termed Karsuni manuscripts on the analogy of the Karsuni manuscripts proper containing Christian Arabic texts in Syriac script (see AssFALG 1982, 299- 300 and PAOLA 0RSATTI's article in the present volume). Pers ian w ords were also used as glosses in Nestorian literature, where the glosses were intended ro clarify the meanings of difficult words and passages of the biblical text and originated presumably both from rhe need of providing t he Christians of Persia who srndied in the Nestorian schools with clear equivalents of the words they found in the Syriac Bible and from the need of having recourse, in the explanation of the sacred text, to a widely known language. In three Syriac exegetical works written by N estorian authors between the eighth and the tenth century, the sect ions devoted to the book of Genesis and to the beginning of the book of Exodus contain, besides Persian loanwords, twenty-five Persian glosses·1 that have so far remained unnoticed to Iranian scholars and that add to our knowledge of the southwestern dialect of Early New Persian (= ENP) and partly provide evidence for words not otherwise attested. Of the cwenry-five glosses, twenty-two are explicitly labelled as Persian. The three works containing chem are, in chronological order:

The so -called Anonymous commentary(= A) was written after Iso'dad's work, probably at the end of the ninth century or at the beginning of the tenth century (VAN RoMP.>..Y 2000, 569 and cf. 19866, xlvi). Only the first eighteen chapters of A were edited in facsimile and translated by ABRAHAM LEVENE in 1951. The rest has not yet been published but some of the Persian glosses in the unpublished parts have been quoted by VAN ROMPAY in his edition and t ranslation of D (VAN RoMPAY 1986a- b) and by VAN DEN EYNDE in his translation of IM (VAN DEN EYNDE 1955). The Anonymous commentary is known from twelve manuscripts: one of them, Diyarbak1r 22, contains the commentary on both the O ld and New Testaments, but has replaced the text of A by t hat of D for Gen - Exod 9.32; two manuscripts, Mosul 1-3 and Vat. Syr. 578, contain the commentary on the entire Old Testament (the latter only from Gen 43.14); and the other nine - Seen 21 (lose), Seen 22 (lost), Ain Qawa, Alqos 22, Vat. Syr. 502, Mingana 553, Kirkuk 8, Dietrrich 2 and C SCO Syr. 13 - contain only the commenta ry o n the Pentateuch (VAN RoMPAY 19866, xi- x ii with nn. 3- 4, cf. VAN RoMPAY 1974, 55 with references to che catalogues). 5 A ll of the twenty Persian glosses of A are already found in D. O ne of the glosses, t hough nor explicitly indicated as Persian, is quoted also in The book of scholia by Theodor bar Koni (= TbK) t hat was probably completed no later t han 791/792 (HESPELIDRACUH 1981, 2). Moreover, some of the glosses found in these sources occur also in the lexicon of the tench-century lexicographer Abu 'l-f::[assan Bar Bahlul (= BB). On t he other hand, the oldest Judaeo-Persian translations of the Pentateuch - the British Librar y Pentateuch (= BLP) and the Vatican Pentateuch (= VatP) - present words corresponding to the glosses of D, IM and A only in a few instances and are of little help in the interpretation as they belong to a different period and to a different exegetical tradition. Even the fragmentary Syro-Persian Psalter and the pharmacological fragment, as well as t he few known Persian Karsun'i manuscr ipt s, are of little use, since their spelling conventions d iffer in various ways from chose of the glosses . According ro VAN RoMPAY, t he rela tionships between the three main sources are as follows. D, TbK and IM share one previous exegetical work as a common source, but IM also draws directly on D. As for A, this is essentially a summary of D (see VAN RoMPAY 19866, xi- Iii and cf. VAN RoMPAY 1977 and 1978). On account of the reference in D and A to lexical material not only from Persian but also from the language of Bet Qa~raye,6 VAN RoMPAY suggests thac their unknown authors had relarionships w irh Southern Mesopotamia or worked in a school attended by numerous Christians from the region of the Arabo-Persian Gulf (VAN RoMPAY 1986 b, xliii).

112

a Commentary on Genesis - Exodus 9.32 by an unknown author; the Commentary on the Old Testament by Iso'dad of Marw; the so-called Anonymous commentary. The Commentary on Genesis - Exodus 9.32 (= D), that is preserved only in the manuscr ipt oli m Diyarbakir 22, was edited and translated in 1986 by its discoverer LUCAS VAN RoMPAY. This text was presumably composed in the first half of the eighth century, according to its editor (VAN RoMPAY 19866, lii-liii), and is both ou r oldest and richest source as it contains twenry-three of the twemy-five glosses to be studied here and indicates expressly twenty-one of chem as Persian (cf. VAN RoMPAY 19866, xvi and 159 where a list of "Mots d'origine persane" is found). The Commentary on the Old Testament by Iso'dad of Marw, who wrote about 850 CE (VAN ROMPAY 19866, xlvii and 2000, 569), has been fully edited and translated. The section on Genesis(= IM), edited by JAQUES-MARIE VosTE and CESLAS VAN DEN EYNDE in 1950 and t ranslated by VAN DEN EYNDE in 1955, contains five Persian glosses though on ly two of them are labelled as Persian (see the list of "Mots persans" in VAN DEN EYNDE 1955, 270). Four of Iso' dad's glosses are already found in D. 4

For che disrinccion becween glosses and loanwords adopced here see p. 115 -1 7.

5

6

113

CSCO Syr. 13 is now described in D E HALU UX !987, 42. "La regione denominaca Bee Qa~rarc ... ne lla letcerarnra sir iaca comprende va non solo la pe nisola del Qa~ar, ma anc he ii Ba~rain, il suo retroterra rapprese ntaco dalla Yamamah, e l'incera cos ta dell'A rabia no1·d-orienu le lino alla penisola d i Musandam (acrualmence in Oman)" (CONTIN I forthcom ing).

114

New Persian Glosses in East Syriac Texts of the Eighth to Tenth Centuries

MAURO MAGGI

The modern editions of these texts are not meant for linguistic studies and do not reproduce, apart from a few exceptions (AM 13613 Brw 0 zfin and 6rl 9 '"nw0 in LEVENE 1951, 43 and 58 [facsimile], and D Gw0 r in VAN RoMPAY 1986a, 76.3), the points of the manuscripts that can provide information on the vowels and on the pronunciation o f the begadkepat consonants as stops or fricatives. However, though I have nor had direct access co the manuscripts, LuCAS VAN RoMPAY has been so kind as to check for me che readings of the manuscripts of D and A , of which he has copies. 7 References co the texts, manuscripts and their editions and t ranslations are as follows 8 :

VatP

s

A

Anonymous commentary: since Diyarbak1r 22 does not contain t he cexc

of A for Gen - Exod 9.32, Vat. Syr. 578 begins only with Gen 43.14 (thus containing only gloss no. 6) and Seen 21 and 22 are lost, there remain eight of twelve manuscripts; use has been made of the following five manuscripts that provide a rather complete picture of the text tradition: AB MS Mosul 1-3 (1701 CE), now Baghdad, C haldean Patriarchate, 11.1- 3; quoted as Bin rhe notes of VAN RoMPAY 1986a- b; chis is the best witness for A (LVR); AD MS Diertrich 2 (18' h century); AK MS Kirkuk 8 (1706 CE); AD and AK are the only manusc ripts that can be compared with AB as far as their antiquity is concerned (LVR); AM MS Mingana 553 (1930 CE); facsim ile ed. and tr. of the first 18 chapters (ff. 1- 17 on Gen 1- 28.2) in LEVENE 1951; quoted as Min the notes o f VAN DEN EYNDE 1955; cf. AV; MS Vat. Syr. 502 (1906 CE); AM and AV are copies of che inaccessible AV manuscript Alqos 22 (LVR). BB A bu ' l-Basan Bar Bahlul's lexicon: ed. DuvAL; reference is mad e co che quotations in PAYNE SMITH 1879-1901 when they provide further vowel and other points. BLP Early Judaeo - Persian Pentateuch: MS Or. 5446 of the British Library (1319 CE); ed. PAPER 1972; Commentary on Genesis - Exodus 9.32: MS olim Diyarbakir 22 (before D 1605/1606 CE); ed. and tr. VAN RoMPAY 1986a- b. IM Commentary on the Old Testament. Genesis by Iso'dad of M erw: ed. VosrEIVAN DEN EYNDE 1950, er. VAN DEN EYNDE 1955. TbK The book of scholia by Theodor bar Koni: ed. SCHER 1910, er. HESPELI DRAGUET 1981.

8

References to his personal communications are marked by t he siglum LVR. The sigla A and D refer both co texts and co rhe manuscrip ts char con tain chem, bu r che contex ts should suffice co make clear wha t is meant each t ime.

Early Judaeo-Persian Pentateuch: Vat . Pers. 61 (16 th century);9 ed. PAPER 1964 - 1965 (Genesis) and 1965-1966 (Exodus and Leviticus).

T he first co pay acremion co some of the Persian glosses under consideration was ANTON SCHALL in his review of LEVEN E's edition and translation of the beginni ng of A (SCHALL 1953) . Subsequently, a few annotations were made by VAN DEN EYNDE in his translation of IM (VAN DEN EYNDE 1955), whereas several tentative in terpretat ions of part of the glosses were made by VAN ROMPAY, wirh t he help of J. T. P. DE BRUIJN, in his translation of D (VAN ROMPAY 19866). . Alth~ugh a few glosses are still obscure co me (nos. 8 and 9), it has proved possible tO improve o n some o f SCHALL's (nos. 11 and 13) and VAN RoMPAY's analyses (nos. 3, 12, 13, 17 and 18) and ro identify further Persian words (nos. 1, 5, 14, 19, 21 and 25). The interpret ation of rwency-rhree o f the twenty-five glosses is fairly certain (nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 , 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25 ). It is possible chat the cwo u n identified glosses are obscure because they are n:iisspelled, as copying errors have been ascertained, even disregarding discrepancies in the u se of the vowel and other points, at least in some of the manuscripts in the case of glosses 1, 5, 8, 10, 11, 18, 20, 22, 23 and 25. Since Syriac has borrowed w idely from Middle and New Persian, it is appropriate co d istinguish between Persian glosses, i.e. Persian w ords quoted occasionally in order to explain a difficult word of the Syriac Bible, and Persian loanwords in Syriac. In this article, the follow ing criteria have been used. Persian words t hat a re quoted for explanation and are explicitly labelled as Persian in the texts t hemselves are regarded as glosses. Some of chem occur as glosses also in Syriac lexicons and, as a consequence, are even included in modern d ict ionaries of Syriac, e.g. 20 $nr rhac is listed in Br. 6336 with reference exclusively to BB (DUVAL 1673.4). The fact chat, apart from the commentaries under consideration, they appear o nly in the works of Syriac lexicographers confirms that they are no t naturalised loanwords and that their foreign character was still felt. The (presumably) Persian words 8 D'nDG, 18 ,:-PyGn srr and 23 ,:•swsTG, that are not labelled as such but do not occur elsewhere in Syriac texts (according co Br.) o r _a re on ly employed as glosses in Syriac lexicons without morphological adaptat10n, are treated as glosses and not as loanwords. 18 ,:Py Gn srr even retains the Persian plural ending and rhe Persian synrax_l J Words of Persian origin are considered loanwords, even though they are used for explanation of ocher Syriac words, if they are not marked as Persian and are not merely attested as glosses in Syriac lexicons bur occur otherwise in Sy riac texts and show adaptation co Syriac morphology. Such is the case of the following three loanwords: 9 10

7

115

Ros si 1948, 87, "mais les rextes sont fore anterieurs" (LAZARD 1963, 133). I regard IM $n'w8r 'grain s de semence des cedrcs du Liban' (ed . 207.5, tr. 224. 2; on Gen 43. J I ; Syr. in.;', Br. 637b)_, listed by VAN DEN EYN DE 1955, 270 among che "Moes pe rsans" bm not labelled as Pe rsian m the cexr, as an A rabic word because it is well escablished as suc h in the Sy ri ac lexicons (cf. Low 1S8 1, 56- 60). On che cra nslireracion see note 21.

116

(1) DysTn 11 'portio' (Br. 161 a) that, apart from D, occurs only in BB (DUVAL 585.9 and 2003.11) but with the addition of the Syriac ending -a and, as has been pointed out ro me by SHAUL SHAKED, is attested as a loanword in the Aramaic of the Babylonian Talmud with the meaning 'gift, portion' (see LEVY 1876-1884, 1.415b-416a, JASTROW 1903, 303 and TELEGDI 1935, 240 where the word is derived from Persian "ddstan");' 2 (2) Syr. pyg', 13 pl. of pyg' 'pedes; lictor' (Br. 566a) MP payg 'foot-soldier, courier' (CPD 67; cf. below on 18 ,;PyGn srr); (3) Syr. rwzyq'14 'commeatus quotid ianus' (Br. 7236, cf. VAN RoMPAY 19866, 155 n. 5) MP rozig 'daily bread, sustenance', NP rozi'daily food; monthly wages; provision; sustenance' (St. 594a) . A special case is represented by mKwG 15 'ship-shaped cup' that is not labelled as Persian in the texts. This I would regard as a loanword from MP makog 'ship, ship-shaped cup' (CPD 53 and GrGNoux 1990, 72- 74) rather than as a gloss. 16 N ew Persian has mako 'weaver's shuttle',' 7 makok 'weaver's shuttle' and makkuk 'drinking cup made in the form of a ship; a measure' (St. 1301 b and 1302a). The word has been borrowed in Syriac as mkwk' 'mensura = Vs kabba' (Br. 385a) and, spelled mqwg and mqwq, occurs with the meanings 'boat', 'cup', 'a measure' and others in the lexicons of Bar Bahlul and Elias of Nisibis and, according to an obscure reference in Br. 400a, in an exegetical work with reference to Gen 44.2 like D mKwG etc. Ir is likely that the word was first borrowed in Syriac with one of the various meanings of the Middle Persian word and then reborrowed wit h other values thus gradually acquiring th e polysemy of che original. The process can be compared with that by which German Preis reproduced initially only the meaning

11 12 13 14 15

16

17

New Persian Glosses i n Ease Syriac Texts of t h e Eig hth to Tenth Centuries

MAURO MAGGI

D DysTn 'portions' (ed. 117.26, rr. 151.19; on Gen 43.34; Syr. sq/' pl. of sql', Br. 7996). Do ubrs about the Persian or igin of rhe word have been voiced by B. GEIG E R in KRAU SS 1937, 146. D PyG' 'gardes' (ed. 110 .21, tr. 142. 2), AB P.•yG', AK P.'j)I', AD P.•yG"', AM PyG', AV PjiG' (on Gen 37.36). D r-.i lzyq' ' rat ion' (ed. 120.12, tr. 155 .IO), IM rwzyq ' (ed. 210.20, tr. 227.27), AB r·zifzy ;q,i', AK rw•z/q1', AD rw0 z/q;,, AM rwzyq', AV rwzyq' (on Gen 47.22; Syr. qymt ', Br. 653b). D mKwG 'coupe' (ed. 118.5, tr. 152.3), AB m·1kw"J', AK mKwG, AD m·iKwG or 7 m 0 'wG, AM mKwG or t m'wG, AV t m'-1.;:G (on Gen 44.2; Syr. 'sqp', Br. 37a-b). T he spellings with - '- are trivial misra kes. T he etymology of MP makog has nor yet been established as pointed our by G1 PP£ RT 1993, l 18. In particular, I do not see how MP makog cou ld derive from a Proco-Ira nian •:•mak-awka(from a base mak- 'move fast , ju mp' (BAILEY 1987, 464] or 'plonger, laver' (G tGNOUX 1990, 72]) and retain rhe intervocalic voiceless stop -k-. DE BLO IS 1999, 160- 1 suggests a connect ion of the Middle Persia n word with Syr. mkwt', Mandaic m'k·w t ', Talmudic Arama ic mk-wt' 'boat, ra ft' and ulcimarely wit h Ak kad ia n m akkiitu 'shore boar' (cf. KAUFMAN 1974, 68 n. 188) or, al rernative ly, wit h Akkadian maqqu ' libation bowl'(-+ Elamite -+ O ld Persian ''·makku- ecc.). For the semantic development ' shi p'-+ 'weaver's shucrle ' see DE BLO IS 1999, 160 (the cu rre nt Icalian word for 'weaver's shutcle' is not na·v icello but na·vetta, possibly a loanword from French).

117

'praise, fame' of O ld French pris, subsequently the meaning 'prize' and fina lly the commercial meaning 'price' (GUSMAN! 1986, 184). Reference co Persian lexical material is made also in the case of a paretymology offered for the proper name 'nws 'Enosh' (Gen 4.26). 18 The text of TbK has "Enos: douceur, ou: au nom du Seigneur" (HESPELID RAGUET 1981, 174.27) 19 and a marginal note by a different hand in the Seen manuscript explains that the interpretation of the name as 'sweetness' is Persian (SCHER 1910, 184 n. 11). As suggested by VAN RoMPAY 19866, 65 n. 87, the biblical name has been associated with MP anos'elixir, antidote' (CPD 10), cf. NP nos'antidote, water of life; sweetness; sweet' (Sr. 1434a).20 The form anos occurs also in New Persian for 'Enosh the son of Seth' (Sc. 116a). Before discussing the single glosses in detail, it will be convenient to summarise the use made of the Syriac script for writing them. Two levels must be distinguished: that of t he consonantal signs representing the consonants and some vowels and t hat of the optional poincs provid ing additional information about the vowels and indicating the occlusive or fricative pronunciation of the begadkepac consonanrs. 21 Whereas D, the oldest manuscript (before 1605/1606), has few vowel points and only one subscrip t point for a fr icative consonant for the Persian glosses and the most recent manuscripts AM (1930) and AV (1906) have very few vowel points and no other points at all, the punctuation of the three most ancient manuscripts of A- AB (1701), AD (18 th century) and AK (1706) - is rather rich. So far as the optional points are used for the Persian glosses, they seem to reflect a rather accurate t radition of t he ancient p ronu nciation and not to reproduce the pronunciation of the language spoken at t he time of the copy, though the manuscripts are centuries later than the texts they contain and some copyists may have been fairly familiar with Persian. W hile most consonants of the Syriac alphabet are used to represent the corresponding phonemes of Persian, a special use is made of the following consonant signs 22 : 18 19 20

21

22

D 'nws(ed. 51.18, er. 65.1), TbK 'nwi(ed. 184.17, rr. 174.27), AM 6r19 '•1m.:>°i( LEvE.NE 1951, 58; the read ings of the ot her manuscripts of A are not ava ilable to me). D and A correspond closely (see VAN ROMPAY 1986b, 65.1- 2 and LEVENE 1951, 80.9- 10). The re is no reason co separate NP nos 'grati saporis, suavis, du leis' from NP nos 'aqua virae' wi th HUBSCHMANN 1895, 19 (cf. H UBSCHMANN 1897, 99-100), as the mean ings 'sweemess; sweet' derive obviously from the meaning 'elixi r', cf. e.g. English ambrosia 'the food , drin k, or ung uent of the gods; something divinely sweet to tas te or smell ' (NSO ED 64b). In chis article, rhe begadkepat consonants that are not marked as scops or fricatives in the Persian glosses and loa nwords of D, TbK, IM and A by means, respecri vely, o f a superscript and subscript dot (qussiiyii and rukkiika) are transl iterated by capital letters (e.g. 4 D Bn GwrGny) ; when marked as stops, rhey are t ransliterated by lower case letters (e.g. 3 AK bn); when marked as fr icatives, they are transliterated as such (e.g. 18 AB p ,iyy1n). The vowel points are, as a r ule, transliterated by raised vowels after t he relevant co nso nant as follows: PJfabii = X'', zaqapi1 =x•, rJbii$a 'arrfka =x ;, rJba~a karyii =x•, ba/?ii$a =x;, 'J$a$a rJwf/Ja =x 0 , 'J$d$a 'allffa = x". Informat ion concerning the optional poi m s is available ro me for the glosses in the manuscripts of D and A but not for the six glosses of IM and the single gloss in TbK. Eme nded glosses are marked by an aste risk (the manuscript readings can be found belov.1 u nder the releva nt headi ng); pho nemic transcrip tions are in slashes / / and phonetic tran scriptions in brackets ( ] but nor accord ing to t he International Phonetic A lph abet; a do uble as terisk marks ungrammatical for ms.

118

in 13 K 'z /kaf/ 'pine, fir (wood)' and in 14 z,;m"G /fa mag/ 'cup'; /zl in 2 ,;'Brwzisn /abrozisn/ 'dazzlement'; s = /z/ in 22 s'By 1sK /sabizak/ 'mandrake'; = Isl in 1 '"Byrsn /abarsan/ ' balm of Gilead', 14 Kwrstn /kurastan/ 'crystal' and 22 ,:"iwsTG /sustag/ 'veil'; $ = Isl in 19 $BWr /sumbur/ 'spikenard'; = /cl in 20 $nr /canar/ 'plane tree'; ? = /t/ in 14 Kwrsrn /kurastan/; q = /k/ in 13 AB q'z etc. /kaY/ and 21 qnwhn /kinwahn/ 'large pistachio nut'; h = /xi in 11 D ,:·hBnG /xanbanag/ ' deck of a ship'; b = /xi in 11 AB f:;•(Jn•G etc. /xanbanag/; b·w = /xw/ in 12 bwrGr /xwargar/ 'cook'; Kw= /x"/ in t he misu nderstood 14 AB xw"rst;n ,;-,:•/x"'aristan/, AK AV Kw 0 rstn /xwuristan/ 'pantry '. z

= =

!JI

An implosive nasal is not written before b in 11 ,:hBnG /xanbanag/ and 19 $Bwr /sumbur/. A superscript or subscript point indicating the occlusive or fricative value of the begadkepac consonants is only occasio nally used co record accurately different phonemes in the case of /p/, /k/, Ix/ and /xw/, and allophones in the case of [b], [~] and [y): in 17 AK p'fti'n /palan/ 'camel saddle'; in 16 AB AK m·'sk /mask/ 'leather bottle' and 22 AB ,;.s,i'Bysk /sabizak/; X = /xi? in 9 D D•xs"n !?!1 'chief of the guards'; xw = Ix"'/ in 14 A B xwarst n ,:-,:•;xwaristan/; b = [b] in 3 AK bn [ban] 'pistachio nur'; /3 = [~] in 1 AB ,:•'•f]rs"n [a~arsan], and maybe in 11 AB /;J"fJn•G, AK b{-JnG and 19 AB AK $;3w0 r (for the spelling w 0 = /u/ see below) if chey are not misspelled with -/3- for -b- and represent [xapanay] and [supur] (see below under 11 ,;hBnG); y = [y] in 5 AK Bnw0 s)', AD Bnwsy (banusay] 'middle-sized pistachio nut', 10 AB AK Dryirrzii)' [dr'imay] 'wormwood' (AD Dryimag is likely to be a copyist's sl ip), 14 AB zamy [famay] and 23 AB AK sw"sT,;J' [sustay] 23 and after the diphthong lay/ in 18 AB P•y;iin [payyan) 'guards'.

p k

New Persian Glosses in East Syriac Texts of the Eighth co Tench Centuries

MAURO MAGGI

= !pl =- !kl

119

Internal D, apart from 6 BrDy·wn, where it is in a postconsonantal position, occurs only in the unidentified gloss 8 D D'nDG but AB rHnz~y etc. (q.v.). Some vowels are represented by matres lect ionis as follows:

=

y

w

at word beginning in 1 ,:•'Byrsn /abarsan/ and 2 D ,:•'Brwz;sn /abrozisn/; = /a/ in 13 K'z /kaj/, 17 D P'ln, AB p"'[a'n ere. /palan/ and 22 s'ByisK /sab1zak/; = /al in unaccented position in 1 D ,;'Byrsn /abarsan/; = /Tl in 4 GwrGny /gurgan1/ 'of Gurgan', 10 DrymG /dr1mag/ and 22 s'ByisK /sabizak/; = lay/ in 18 ''PyGn /paygan/; = /u/ in 4 G·wrGny /gurgani/, s BnwsG /banusag/, 14 Kwrstn /kurastan/ and 19 }Bwr /sumbur/; = lu/ in 6 BrDy·wn /bardyun/ 'cart, wagon', 15 mw"m /mum/ ' bitumen' and 25 ''TwryPTr /tu r-i pacad 'the Mount of the Tablets'; = /6/ in 2 ,:•'Brwz;sn /abrozisn/ and 7 Gw0 r Igor/ 'onager, wild ass'. /a/

Long /a/ is not writcen by means of - '- i n the polysyllables 1 ,:•'Byrsn /abarsan/, 4 Gwrgny /gurgani/, 11 ,:•hBnG /xanbanag/, 12 hwrGr /x"'argar/ 'cook', 14 z•m·;G /Jamag/, 17 D P'ln /palan/, 18 '"PyGn srr /paygan sarar/ 'chief of the guards' and 20 $nr /canar/ 'plane tree'. The iiafa is not written in 4 Bn GwrGny /ban-i g urgani/ 'small, w ild pistachio nut' but is written -y - in 25 '7wryPTr ltur-i patar/. Vowels are represented also by optional vowel points that can be used alone or in addition to mat res lectionis as follows:

=

ci

in 4 AD AM AV B"n etc. /ban/, 6 AK B"rDyw0 n, AD B·' rDywn /bardyun/, 10 AD Dryim"g /dr1mag/, 11 AB If/Jn"G, AD bB''n"G /xanbanag/, 12 AB hw()rG"r ,,,:'/x"'u rgar/, 16 AB AK m"sk /mask/, 20 AV ,:•r1n•;r /canar/, 22 AK ''fi'Bys"K /sabizak/; = /a/! 11 AD hB11n·1G /xanbanag/; = /a/ at word beginning in 1 AB ,:•'•(Jrs,;n /abarsan/; = lay! 18 AB P"y)"1n /paygan/; = /a/! in 3 AB, 4 AB AK Ban /ban/, 5 AB ,:'Bnw0 i'1G /banusag/, 10 AB AK Dryim'1)' /drTmag/, 12 AD bw"rGar ,;,,;xwurgar/, 16 AD m,;sK / mask/, 23 AB AK s-w"sT-1 )' /sustag/; 24 = la! in 1 AB ::•'11/Jrs,in /abarsan/, 4 AD Gw"rGdny /gurgani/, 14 D z·1m·iG, AB z"mr /Jamag/, 14 AB X',.,hst,;n ,,,;/x"'aristan/, 18 AB P"yyiin, AK PyG"n /paygan/, 18 AB AK srir /sarar/ 'chief', 20 AB AK AM ''$n,;r, AV ,:-$"n,ir /canar/, 22 AB ,:•s'''Bysk, AK ,:•s•'By!i"K /sabizak/; = la/ in 13 AK q';,z /kaf/, 17 AB AD P5 'La'n, AKp'ta'n /palan/;

24

For che use of " for /a/ and of.; for /a/ in Ease Syriac manuscripts see N6 LDE KE 1898, 29 § 42.

'" "y

The d istribution of the occlusive and fricative allophones of the voiced scops !bl and /g/ provides a rat her coherent picture: the occlusive allophone [b) occurs at the beginning of a word, whereas che fr icative allophones [p] and [y] occu r in a postvocalic and postd iphthongal position and perhaps also after nasalised vowels.

/a/

120 lt'a

yi

= = =

wo

= = =

w"

N ew Persian Gloss es in East Syriac Text s

MAURO MAGGI

= =

in 13 AD qa'az /kaf/; in 2 AK '~Brwzisn /barozisn/ 'dazzlement'; ti/ in 4 AB Gw"rGnyi /gurganT/, 10 AB AK Dryim•y, AD Dryim"g /dri:mag/; /6/ in 2 AB Brw"zsn etc. / barozisn/, 7 D Gw0 r Igor/; /u/! in 5 AB ,:Bnw0 siiG, AK Bnw{)sy /banusag/, 12 AB f;w 0 rG•r, AK /Jw0 rGr ,:-~•/xwurgar/, 14 AK AV Kw0 rstn / xwuristan/ and 19 AB AK ${3w0 r /sumbur/; /u/ ! in 6 AB brDyw0 n, AK BarDyw0 n /bardyun/;25 /u/ in 4 AB Gw"rGn/ etc. /gurgani/, 5 AD Bnw"sG /banusag/, 12 AD /Jw"rG"r ,:-,:•;xwurgar/, 14 AD Kw"~s?"n / kurastan/, 19 AD $Bw"r /sumbur/, 23 AB AK sw"sT"y, AD sw"sTG /sustag/; /u/ in 15 D mw,,m /mum/ 'bitumen'.

la.I Iii

The following conventions are adopted for the presentation of the material: the glosses are listed in Syriac alphabetical order2 6 accord ing to the reading of D (or IM when Dis not available) that is adopted as the heading; for each gloss, the readings are listed in the following order: D, T bK, IM, AB, AK, AD, AM, AV; emendations of the manuscript readings are introduced only for the headings, whereas misspelled glosses in other texts or manuscripts are signalled by a dagger (t); glosses labelled as Persian in D and I M are marked by a bracketed capital (P); the heading is followed by its meaning according tO D or IM in the French translations by VAN RoMPAY 19866 or VAN DEN EYNDE 1955 respectively; the manuscript readings are followed by the reference to the relevant biblical passage and by the glossed Syriac word(s); there follow references to BB, BLP and VatP, when they provide informat ion useful for comparison; the discussion of the single glosses is opened by their suggested phonemic transcription and cheir English meaning.

29

Br. 436). /abarsan/ 'balm of G ilead'. T he superscript doc in AK 'Bsrn is possibly a defective vocalisation mark. D -y- either represents a short unaccented /a/, possibly pronounced as [eJ, as in DysTn (see p. 116) 28 or is a leccio faci lior (ab -i ... 'water, 25

26 27 28

For t he use of~·• ins tead of w" in Ease Syriac man uscripts, particularly in t he vicinity of r (as in 12 AB b-1 - .;:°YG·'1; AK bw•rGr, 14 AK AV Kw•rs{n and 19 AB AK $p-w 0 r), see NOLDEKE 1898, 33-4 § 48. 'b g d h w z b t y kl m n s 'pH r ft. For MS 'Bysrn. One< a in M idd le Pe rsian see MAcK.ENZIE 1967, 23- 4. In Persian, instances of a> e in the vicinity of rare fou nd in the East (see LA ZARD 1963, 187 § 135).

to Tenth Ce nturies

121

liquid .. .') introduced by a copyist w ith some knowledge of Persian but unable to recognise the Persian word. T hat this gloss is misspelled in both D and A (cf. 2 ,:•'BrwziJn) is confirmed by Manichaean Middle Persian (== MMP) (or Parchian?) 'bwrs['m?} 'balm of Gilead ' (see HENNING 1940, 44 and cf. 13 for the language assignment; the reading can now be checked in WEBER 2000, pl. 70, fragment M 501 n). The word is a loan from G reek 67to~ciA.cre -a- is occasionally found in New Persian (see HORN 1898- 1901, 21).

1. D ,:-'Byrsn17 (P) 'hu ile de baume' (ed. 110.6, 7, er. 141.5 [2x]), AB t '"fJsr1n, AK

t'Bsrn, AD deest, AM t'Bsrn, AV t 'Bsrn (on Gen 37.25; $yr. 'pwrsm' 'balsamum',

of t he Eight h

30 31

32

This explai ns the striking resemblance between che Middle Aram aic and Armenian words for 'balm' (see below) and the Iran ian word for ' juniper ', chat induced MoRGENSTlERNE [928, 46 to suggest a possib le con nect ion. Vocal ised 'aparsamii ' b y LEVY 1876-1884, 1.151 a nd 'apparasama' by JASTROW 1903, 109a. Ir is impossible ro determine whet her Armenian aprsam was borrowed fro m Parthian or Pe rsia n di rectly (DE LAGARDE 1866, 17 and HDBSCHMANN 1897, 107) or by way o f Syriac (cf. LAUFER 1919, 429}. The wo rd occu rs for the first time in D uan Chengshi's Yo1-tyang za zu ("Youyang m iscellany"), a S:hmese _work of t he T ang period "writ cen abo ut A.D. 860 and containing a g reat amount o t useful info rmatio n on the plants of Persia and Fu-lin" (LAUFER 19 19, 247 and cf. 204). LAUFER 1919, 429 reconstruc ts ""'a -bwut- rnm" w ith /c/ fo r fo reign - 1·- and maintains t hat the word was borrowed from A ram~ic. However, Late Middle Chinese /?a -pfiut-sam/ (P_U LLEYBLANK 1991, 23, 40, 271) with / pfi/ - a sto p with voiceless onset and vo iced aspirauo n or murmur at its re lease (Pu LLEYB LANK 1991, 6) - poincs to an intervocalic voiced consonant of t he source language, i.e. to M P ab11rsam. In fac e, if t he word had been borrowed from Aramaic, rhe voiceless labial scop would have in all likelihood been rende red bv Late Middle Chinese /p/ (cf. PuLLEYBLANK 199 I, LO). •

122

New Persian Glosses in East Syriac Texts of the Eighth to Tenth Centuries

MAURO MAGG I

The gloss abarsan throws new light on the history of the word in Pers ian and Arabic (Ar.). The traditional view has it that NP bal(a)san 'balsam tree; balsam; balm of Gilead' (St. 1976) is a loanword from Ar. balasan 'balm' (TR AINI 1999, 91a; DE LAGARDE 1866, 17 has balsan) that would be in its t u rn a loanword from Greek ~6:>-.a:xµov (see e.g. DE LAGARDE 1866, 17, St. 1976, DIHXUDA s.v. balasan w it h n. 1, STEINER 1977, 124 and l:IASANDUST 1977, 98).33 But the derivation of NP bal(a)san from abarsan is straightforward: the loss of initial a- before a single consonant in polysyllables is common in New Persian (see HoRN 1898-1901, 20) and the correspondence of rwich N P l is documented also by 12 l;ni.JrGr, 18 srr and I 9 ?Bwr. A dialectal form with - r- is preserved even in New Persian if, as I suspect, 'balm oil' h ides behind STEINGAss's translation of NP barsan as 'syrup dark- co loured and of a fragrant smell' (St. 1746). Accordingly, Ar. balasan is a loanword from Persian and not from Greek. 2. D ,:•'Brwzifo"> 4 (P) ' hallucinations de berlue' (ed. 82.2, tr. 104.32), A B Br7.i,•0 zJn, AK tBrwzfin, AD tBrw0 zfin, AM tBrw 0 zsin, AV tBrwzsin (on Gen 19.11; Syr. frgi'gyt' pl. of frgrgt', Br. 8066). D /abrozifo/, A /barozifo/ 'dazzlemem'. The vowel points under ind icating a shore -i- in all manuscripts w ith t he exception of AB are unexpected: either they reco rd an anaptyccic -i- in the final consonant cluster or, more likely, they have been displaced at a n early date from below the preced ing z , in w h ich case this would be a fu rther instance of a mistake shar ed by (most of) the manuscripts o f A a nd by the only wicness of D (cf. 1 ,:•'Byrsn). The word was identified by VAN RoMPAY 19866, 104 n. 11 who refers to MP abrozisn 'illumination' (CPD 4); cf. also NP furozis 'light, splendo u r' (St. 924a). F or /abr-/ > /bar-/ in A /barozisn/ cf. ENP a(3roz- a(3roxt- 'allumer' beside /Jaroze 'tu allumes', {Juroxta 'allume' and (Juray 'eclat' (LAZARD 1963, 137-8). For che m eaning cf. NP afroz ' burning; illuminating, d azzling, animating' (St. 81 b) . SCHALL 1953, 436- 7 Cparwasisn to parwasidan ' to imagine, fancy' [St. 245a]) 1s wrong.

-s-

3. D Bn (P) 'pet its bnwsg' (q.v.; ed. 117.18 , tr. 151.11), AB B·;n, AK bn, AD Bn, AM Bn, AV Bn (on Gen 43.11; Syr. Ltm' pl., Br. 365a). /ban/ 'small, wild pistachio nut'. The vocalisation of AB B•n does not necessar ily reflect accurately the vowel length: either the gloss has been improperly understood b y t he copyist as NP ban 'fruit of the !vloringa arabica' (cf. below) or the vowel points do not mark accurately che vowel quantity. T he latter hy pothesis is made more likely by the face that the same vocalisation occurs also in the less ambiguous 4 AB AK B''n Gw"rGnyi 'pistachio' as against AD AM AV B"n ... (see and the instances o f a= /a/ collected on p. 119 with n. 24). 33 34

The Gree k wo rd is irse lf a loan from Semiric (see STEIN ER 1977, [23- 5). For MS 'Br-wdn.

123

It is appropriat e t o quote here the passage in D containing the description of three different sorts of pistachios, w hose three Syriac names correspond ro the four Persian glosses 3, 4, 5 and 21 (pistachios are among the chosen products of their country that Joseph's brothers presented to the governor of Egy pt, whom they did nor recognise as their bro ther, in o rder co gain his favour): Latme et betme et segre sont {taus) !es trois (d')une meme espece.3; II appelle latme lcs petits bnwsg, qui rassemblcnc a(des grains) de sable, qui (peuvenr) erre avales d'un seul (coup).,. Betme sonr des bnwsg (de ta ille) moyen ne, qui rassemblent aux feves du coton. Seg,·e ne sont pas des amandes,> 6 corn me d'autres d isenr, mais des grands bn'wsg, qui peuvenc a peine erre casses, parce que leur coque est tres dure. En persan larme (est) bn, betme: bm.iJsg, segre: qnwhn. II y (en) a qui disenr: larme, ce sonr bn gwrgny (VA.N RoMPi\Y 1986 6, 151.5- 12). For Syr. Ltm', VAN RoMPAY 19866, 151 n. 1 suggests the mean ing ' noix de pistache' with a q uery and reference to Br. 365a. He identifies the Persian gloss correctly with NP ban (VAN RoMPAY 19866, 151 n. 7, but see below) 'Persia n turpentine seed' (St. 200b) < MP wan (cf. under 4 Bn G·wrGny) .37 In the context, the fruits of Pistacia vera L. are most probably meant, not those of Pistacia terebinthus, var. palaestina Boiss. as one would infe r from Low 1881, 68-9, because "Terebinthenbeeren . .. , wenn sie auch in manchen Gegenden gegessen werden, doch in keinem Falle zu den Leckerbissen gehorcen" (H EHN 1911, 421).3s In fact, the fru its of Pistacia vera can also be q uite small, as they range from rough ly l- 2cm in length: "Wi ld forms have smaller (but edible) fr uits which are collected and consu med by t he local nomads [in Iran and Western C emral Asia]", while larger fruits are produced by culcivars (ZOHARY/ HoPF 1988, 167). Also many of STEINGAss's translations of ban ('Persian turpentine seed') and of its derivatives and synon y ms need to be corrected accordingly (see also 5 Bm.;1sG a nd 21 qnwhn). On ban 'pistachio' see LAUFER 1919, 248-50; for the etymology see HORN 1893, 52 and cf. BAILEY I979, 269 and Rossr 1979, 18. Though VAN ROM PAY 19866, 151 n. 7 identifies t he gloss with N P ban , he refers unexpectedly to St. 152a, where ban 'my robalan', no t ban, is to be found, and to Low 1881, 69 (-70], who, u nder the headi ng btm' 'Pistacia pcdastina Boiss., 35 36 37

38

Cf. IM on Gen 43.1 1: "latme, be1me er segre so nr (mus les) crois une meme espece de betme [piscaches)" (VAN OEN EYN DE 1955, 224.6). "Corr.; ms. 'noi x" ' (VAN Ro ~tPAY 1986b, 151 n. 5). Cf. also NP ·wan 'a kcrne lled fr uir called in Arabic al-babbarn 'l-khap·ii" (Sr. 1481 b), bana in babbu 'l-bana 'Persian tu rpen tine seed' (Sr. 4096), banak ' Persian tu rpentine seed' (S t. 203a-b), binii;t 'rnrpemine', ban asfb 'Persian turpen tine seed' (Sc. 201 a), •'l;Jandana ' rhe seed of t he ·,,:an- tree' and ';.;anmask 'g um of the t ree wan o r ban' (St. 1481b). Cf. J. G . WETZSTEtN's cor rection in Low 1881, 420: "Noch heuce sind di e grofsren Pistazien ei ne Li~ blingsnascherei der vornehme n Ha rems-Darnen in Agypren und Syrien. Dagegen is r die F ruchr der Terebinche n iche ef5bar, weil niemand de n erbsengrof1cn harren Kern kn acken wird, um den linsengrollen Inhale herauszuholen. Die Fruc hte der Terebi nche sind in Palastina wertlos; nur di e arms cen Bauern mahlen sie auf der Ha nd miihle, u m Brennol gratis z u habe n" (see also MOLOENKCIMOLOENKE 1952, 179).

124

New Persian Glosses in East Syriac Texts of che E ighth to Tenth Centuries

MAURO MAGG I

"T he p'an-nu-se .. . [M. 4902, 4760, 5449] tree h as its ha bi cat in Po-se (Persia), likewise in Fu-lin. In Fu-Jin it is styled k'un-han ... [M. 1737, 2039]. T he tree is thirty feet high, and measures from three to fou r feet in circumference. Its leaves resemble those of the si-iuil . .. (the Banyan tree, Ficus retusa). It is an evergreen. The flowers resemble those of the citrus, ... and are white in color. The seeds are green and as large as a sour jujube, swan isao ... (Diospyros lotus). They are sweet of taste and glossy (fac, greasy}. They are eatable. T he people of the western regions press oil out of them, ro oinc cheir bodies with co ward off ulcers". T he transcription p'an-nu-se answers co ancient ,:•bwand-du-sek; and k'un-han to ancient ['']g'win-xan. Despite a long-continued and intensive search, I cannot discove r any Iranian plant-name of the type bandusek or '1.landusek, nor any Aramaic word like ginxan (LAUFER 1919, 435).

Terebinthe' (but cf. above) deals also with the fruit of the comple tely different plant Moringa arabica, $yr. pstq' d-sy·wl etc., Ar. babbu 'I-ban etc., Greek µueo~ci:Ao: vot; etc., NP ban (-Arabic) .

4. D Bn GwrGny (P) 'latme' (ed. 117.19, tr. 151.12), AB Biin Gw"rGny,-, AK Biin Gw 11 rGny, AD Ban Gw"rGitny, AM B"n GwrGny, AV Ban GwrGny (o n Gen 43.11; Syr. ltm' pl., Br. 365a) . /ban-i g urgani/ 'small, wild pistachio nut' (lit. 'pistach io [nut] of Gurgan'). For the short vowel in /ban/ see above under Bn. The izafa is not written in any of the manuscripts. This is an alternative gloss for Syr. ltm' beside NP bn /ban/ 'wild pistachio' (see the text quotation and the discussion under 3 Bn). Its idenrificarion with MP wan i gurganig 'pistachio' (CPD 86), already su ggested by VAN RoMPAY 19866, 151 n. 9, is certain . The Middle Persian name of the fr ui t is glossed as follows in the Iranian Bundahisn 16.26: wan i gurganig ke pistag-iz xwanend 'the wan i gurganig which is called also pistachio' (see ANKLESARIA 1908, 119.2, ANKLESAR IA 1956, 150- 1 and ASMUSSEN 1970, 17). As MP pistag is th e source of N P pista (St. 250a), the fru it unde r consideration is chat of Pistacia vera (see LAUFER 1919, 251 n. 3 and DIHXUDA s.v. pista n . 1). 5. D BnwsG (P) 'bnwsg (de taille) moyen ne' (ed. 117.14, 15, 17, 18, tr. 151.6, 8, 10, 11), AB tKn-w0 saG, AK BnwfG, Bnw 0 sy, AD BnwsG, Bnwfy, Bnw"sG, tKnwsG, AM tKnwfG, BnwsG, AV BnwsG, tKnwfG (on Gen 43.11; Syr. bpn ' pl. of btmt', Br. 67a- b). Cf. VatP bn (BLP deest). /banusag/ 'middle- sized pistachio nut' (see the text quotation under 3 Bn). The spellings with initial K- are trivial mistakes due to the similar ity of the letters band k of the Syriac script. On the vowel points on the last syllable of AB Kn-r;J 0 5 G cf. under 3 Bn. The vowel points on the second syllable o f AB Knw 0 s';G and AK Bnw 0 sywith -w 0 - as against AD Bnw"sG wich -w''- = /u/ do not reflect an adaptation to modern pronunciation of Persian attributable to late copyists, but depend on Eastern Syriac spelling habits (seen. 25) and, in fac t, the same distribution of AB and AK w 0 as against AD w" = lul is found in 12 AB bw°rGa1; AK bw0 rGr, AD bw"rG'ir, in 14 AK Kw0 rstn, AD Kw"f'sf"n and in 19 AB ${3UPr, AK $/3w 0 1; AD $Bw"r (cf. also the var iant spellings s"nbw01 [ D UVAL 1681. 5] as against s•nb·w"l [PAYNE SMITH 1879- 1901, 3443] /sumbul/ 'spikenard' in d ifferent manuscripts of BB). For Syr. btm', VAN RoMPAY 1986 6, 151 n. 3 gives the meaning 'pistache de Pal estine' with reference to Br. 67ab: this muse be corrected as shown under 3 Bn. The Persian gloss is beyond doubt identical with Chinese pannuse, the only Persian plant name that BERTHOLD LAUFER could nor identify among those occurring in Duan Chengshi's Youyang za zu (see n. 32) 39 :

s

39

Of course, chis gloss is noc co be confused wit h the Persian loa nword in Syriac bm;J.1g /ba nawsag/ 'violet', a variam of bnpfog /banafsag/, d. MP wan.a/sag (CPD 86), NP bunafia

125

The identification of Chinese pannuse w ith the Persian gloss under consideration is immediate if a more precise r econstr uc t ion of the Lace Middle Chinese pronunciation /phuan-nua·-~;);,=ik/ (PULLEYBLANK 1991, 231,228,273) is taken into account. The word is probably a Late Middle Chinese transcription with / -;);.'ik/ for Persian -ag, chat could hardly have been rendered by the / -ik/ of an Early Middle Chinese ,:•/ban-nJ'-~ik /. 40 /p6/ is a stop with voiceless onset and voiced as p iration o r murmur at its release (PULLEYBLANK 1991, 6) and, in the ab sence of voiced scops in the phonemic inventory of L ate M iddle Chinese, was the n earest replacement available for foreign b-. Recognition of the identity of the gloss in q uestion with Chinese pannuse also makes it easier to appreciate the Chinese description of the tree, most characterist ics of w hich fit the trees of the genus Pistacia and particularly t h e species Pistacia vera, the pistachio tree, o n account o f the edible seeds. For t h e height cf. MoLDENKEIMOLDENKE 1952, 179: "The pistachio tree atta ins a height of 10 co 30 feet." VAN ROMPAY 19866, 151 n . 2 suggests chat the Persian gloss might be a compound of ban and Syr. 'sg 'gum ammoniac' w ith reference to L ow 1881 , 68 (cf. PAY NE SMITH 1879- 1901, 404). The su ggestion is worth following, as Syr. 'sg is probably a var iant o f 'wsq 'gum ammon iac' (Br. 536, DE LAGARDE 1866, 11), a loanword from an unattested MP ,:·(w)usag, cf. NP usalvusa 'gum ammoniac' (Sc. 676, 1470a) beside the Arabising fo r ms us(s)aqlvussaq (St. 656, 1469a- b).4 1 Gum ammoniac is "a bitter, odoriferou s gu m resin obtained from certain N[orch] African umbelliferous plants , and having some medicinal use" (NSOED 67c). It is conceivable that MP ,:•(w)usag was used, in composition with plant names as the first member, to name also other gum resins. Thus, ban- usag will have originally designated the 'turpentine g um', i.e . "the sticky fragrant resin of the cerebinch tree (Pistacia terebinthus)" (NSO ED 34296) t h at also had some medicinal use

40

41

(St. 20Ja), on which see DE LAGARDE 1866, 22, Low 1881, 251, Br. 796 and GroNoux 1998- 1999, 197. T he Late M iddle Chinese reconstructed pronunciario n of the plant name in the la nguage of Fulin is /kfiyn -xan'/ (PULLEYBL ANK 1991, 263,119; Early Middle Chinese /gun-xanh/). A connection bet ween NP (v)usa 'gum ammoniac' and MP ·wasag 'a kind of beer' (CPD 88; see HENN INC !955 and cf. FLATTERY/SCHWARTZ 1989, 87 n. 23) remains doubtful.

126

MAURO MAGGI

(s.ee G r?NOUX 1998, 732), but eventually also the tree or trees (among which t he pmach1 g- chat is found in N P gardii.n.

Brwzsn see 2 ,:•'Brwz;fn_ 7. D Gw0 r (P) 'onagr e' (ed. 76 .3, tr. 97.23; o n Gen 16.12; Syr. 'rd', Br. 547a- b). Cf. BLP gi:;r (VatP deest).

42

1939, 54, who ~uo tes BENVENISTE, transcribes vardyi5n, whic h p resupposes IndoIra11 1an ··L1ttrta -1tt!:!t:m,t- C-•ittttana-, presumably from chc same rooc as yi,na-, is found on Iv in Vedic a- yd-vana - 'Riihrli:iffel·, see EWAia 2.402). ' Gtt cLAl~

New Persian Glosses in East Syriac Texts of the Eighth ro Tenth Centuries

127

Igor/ 'onager, wild ass'. Identified by VAN RoMPAY 19866, 97 n. 25 with MP gar (CPD 37), NP gor (St . 1016). 8. D D 'nDG 'voile' (ed. 91.9, tr. 117.6), AB ,.a'inz~}', AK r'~'nzy or ,.a'inzy, AD r'nzG, AM r'nzG, AV r'nzG (on Gen 24.65; Syr. rdyd', Br. 714a) . The gloss is misspelled either in D or in A, as the Syriac letters d and rare easily confused. On the ocher hand, one wonders whether A -z - migh t be a spelling, though somewhat unexpected, for postvocalic /d/ = [o]. The odd vocalisarion of manuscripts AB and, possibly, AK results in all likelihood from t he fictitious transfer of the vowels of the corresponding gloss in t he language of Bet Qai raye d'yth (for ,:•r'yth, cf. A r. ra'itah, SCHALL 1953, 435) to the Persian gloss that was not understood, according to a procedure also adopted elsewhere by the copyists of AB and AK (see 21 qnwhn). SCHALL 1953, 437, who had access only to A M , tentatively sugo-ests seeino- in cl b o ' t l11s_ wor a n otherwise unattested NP «::•rangah [ -a - in 1 ::•'Byrsn /abarsan/ 'balm of Gilead ' (cf. MMP "bwrs['m?], NP barsan, bal(a)san); b. shortening of the iz.afa particle that is left unreco:ded in 4_Bn~GwrGny /ban-i gurganT/ 'small, w ild pistachio nut', a spellrng that, 111 Early New Persian occurs also in che Tafsir of Mashad (see LAZARD 1990, 111 - 12 nos . 5 :nd 8) and can be added to those listed from various sources in 57 HENNING 1958, 89 (cf. MEIER 1981, 131-2}; . c. w- > b- in 3 Bn /ban/ 'small, wild pistachio', 4 Bn GwrGny /ban-1 gurgani/ 'small, wild pistachio nut', 5 BnwsG /banusag/ '~iddle-sized pistachio nut' and 6 brdywn /bardyiin/ 'cart, wagon' as agarnsr MP wan and wardyiin (the change may already have taken place at the end of the Sasanian period , see TELEGDI 1935, 211); d. loss of final -g after - i - in 4 GwrGny /gurga n1/ 'of Gurgan' (cf. MP

gurganig). On the ocher hand, the glosses present also lexical, phon~log!cal and_ synt~ctical archaisms chat are not found or are rare in Early New Persian 1n Arabic scnpt bur are shared with Middle Persian and, partly, with Early Judaeo-Persian and, thus, point to their southwestern origin (see LAZARD 1987, 168- 71 §§ 2- 3): lexical archaisms are 4 Bn GwrGny /ban- i gurgan1/ 'wild pistachio' (cf. MP wan 'i gurganig), 5 BnwsG /banusag/ 'middle-sized pistachio nut', 14 KU:rstn /kurastan/ 'crystal' and 25 ,:-yw,-yPTr /ciir-i patar/ 'Mount of the Tablets ; 56 57

For the spelling ,yl see CPD 148 {178]. _ , T he ii.afa is still written - 1•- in 25 ''TwryPTr /tur-1 patar/ 'Mount of the Tablets because rhe gloss, chat is probably based ultimately on a Pahlavi source with i, was no longer understood .

New Persian Glosses in East Syriac Texts of the Eighth ro Tenth Cencuries

137

as for phonology, one may quote: a. t he preservation of initial a- in 1 '''Byrsn /abarsan/ 'balm of Gilead ' (cf. MMP 'bwrs{'m?) as against NP barsan, bal(a)san); b. the preservation of the suffix -isn in 2 D ,:-'Brwz;sn /abrozisn/ 'dazzlemenc'; c. the preservation of -y - in 6 BrDywn /bardyun/ 'cart, wagon' (cf. MP wardyun as against NP gardun); d. the preservation of the voiced velar stop in final position after short -a- in 5 BnwsG /banusag/ 'middle-sized pistachio nut', 10 DrymG /dr1mag/ 'wormwood ', 11 ,:-h BnG /xanbanag/ 'deck of a ship', 14 zii.m"G /jamag/ 'cup', 23 '=swsTG /sustag/ 'veil (lie. towel)' and presumably in 8 D'nDG 'veil'; the only glosses that provide us with syntactic information, 14 Kwrstn zamaG 'crystal cup' and 18 ,:-Py Gn srr 'chief of the guards', offer us also a syntactic archaism, i.e. the anteposicion of a modifying noun before its regent noun, a collocat ion that is rare in Eady New Persian in Arabic script (LAZARD 1963, 200- 1 § 163) but is common in Middle Persian (BRUNNER 1977, 18). That the glosses reflect the Persian language as it was spoken in Southwest Iran is confirmed by two dialectal features. The first is the development MP w - > b- in 6 BrDywn /bardyun/ 'cart, wagon' < MP wardyun that, though not rest ricted to the Southwest, contrasts with NP gardun (as well as with TbK grdywn and VarP grdwn; cf. HORN 1898, 64 § 36) and with t he development w- > g- that is found in all phonological contexts in t he language of the Tafsfr of Mashad, t he main source for the knowledge of the southeastern dialect of Early New Persian (cf. LAZARD 1990, 185 and 195). T his is paralleled by the distribut ion of the outcomes of ProcoIranian (= Plr.) yi- in Middle Persian and in the earliest Judaeo-Persian texts from Southwest Iran as against New Persian: the earliest southwestern Judaeo-Persian texts have b- wherever Middle Persian had w-, and have g- wherever Middle Persian had g-, whereas the regular New Persian outcome is gu- in all words (see HORN 1898, 64 § 3 and LAZARD 1987, 174- 5). The second, less definite dialectal feature possibly pointing to Southwest Iran is the occurrence of r for NP l in the four glosses l ,:•'Byrsn /abarsan/ 'balm of Gilead', 12 bwrGr /x"'argar/ 'cook', 18 srr /sarar/ 'chief' and 19 ?Bwr /sumbur/ 'spikenard' as against t he only instance of l = N P l in 17 P'ln /pa Ian/(< Ilr. ')ari-dhiina-, t hus with iil < Plr. '=ar+d in secondary contact). The four glosses with r for NP l can be divided into two groups according co the origin of r: glosses 1 and 19 show confusion of rand land have r bot h from original r (in t he Aramaic loanword ,:•'Byrsn /abarsan/, cf. MMP 'bwrs['m?J and NP bal(a)san) and from original l (in the Arabic loanword ?Bwr /sumbud, cf. NP sr-mbul); glosses 12 and 18 have ar from O P 'i-ard < Pir. '=ardz (in bwrGr / xwargar/ < Pir. '"Xf!ardza, cf. MMP xw'r 'food', ZMP xwar and NP salar [cf. MACKENZ IE 1967, 26]. The first phenomenon - i. e. the confusion of rand l- is fou nd in various New Iranian languages and dialects so that it is probably impossible to identify a particular area chat is characterised by it. It should be noted, however, chat the prevalence of r is shared with Manichaean Middle Persian against Parchian and Zoroastrian Middle Persian (HENNING 1958, 100 n. 2). The second phenomenon - i.e. dr < Plr. ,:ardz and ,:ar + d is shared with Manichaean Middle Persian and with Parthian and only in part with Zoroastrian Middle Persian (cf. PAUL 1998, 168 with n. 19). On the other hand, both phenomena are virtually absent in Early New Persian in Arabic script w here rhe occurrence of l for classical NP r is common instead (see LAZARD 1963, 155- 6 §§ 63-4). Because Manichaean Middle Persian is likely co represent "the 'purer' Persian dialect of rhe Sasanian court, used by Mani himself in writing his Sabuhragdn, addressed primarily to t he king, while Pahl[avi] continues t he 'national' language, larded with items from other dialects just as N [ew] P [ersian] is" (MACKENZIE 1967, 19), the co-occurrence of the prevalence of rand of the outcome ar < Pir. '=ardz and ,:ar + d, that characterises both Manichaean Middle Persian and the glosses in D and A, is not unlikely to be a dialectal featu re referable co che cradle o f Persian, i.e. to ancient Fars. In fact, the occurrence of r for NP l is not unknown in the modern Fars dialeccs, as is suggested by such a form as Sfrazi ker'enj ' fi nger' (MORGENSTIERNE 1960, 130; cf. Sorani Kurdish kilk (WAHBYIEDMONDS 1966, 76a; KuRDOEv/JusurovA 1983, 507a] and Hawrami Kurdish k'!lka [MACKENZIE 1966, 99]),58 if compared with NP kilanf(ak) 'the little finger' (St. 1043 6). 59 One may also wonder whether the variant form NP zaru for zalu 'leech' (St. 616a and 620a), ZMP zaliig (CPD 97; < Ilr. far~ see EWAia 1.576- 7 s.v. jarayu-) offered by Jamal al-Din I:Iusayn Infu Sirazi in the sixth chapter of the introduction to his Ea,·hang-i ]ahangiri on "the modification (tabdil) of each of the twenty-four letters into another letter" (see the text in $ANI' 1992- 1993, 49) might also belong co the dialect of Siraz, the author's home town (cf. BLOCHMANN 1868, 13). Moreover, Lari and the connected dialects now spoken in Lar and in villages farther west in the eastern part of Fars, alrhough themselves characterised by lambdacism (see MoLCANOVA 1982, 393- 4, KERIMOVA/Mou::ANOVA 1987, 88- 9 and SKJ.i£RV0 1989, 365), also have a number of instances of r corresponding to ZMP and NP l: cf. Lari taar, -tahr (but taal in the dialect of Xon)) 60 'bitter', ZMP taxi (but MMP thr) 'gor'kij', NP talx 'bitter' < Pir. ,:·taxm-, and Lari nareyn 'sandalii [sandals]' Arabic (with r replacing /), NP na'layn 'shoes with wooden soles, clogs' (see MoLCANOVA 1982, 393) . Finally, the development Plr. ,:ardz > arlar may also be observed in Lari barJ'vverh [up]'< Plr. ,:•bardz- (cf. MP baldy 'height, st ature' and NP bala 'above') and mareda, md,-eda 'teret', namazyvat' [co rub, smear]' 58 59 60

Comparison suggested by ELA Fc LIPPON E. Bue see also NP kiranf, karanf 'a sort of dace' (Sr. 1025a). The Xonji form is iah,· according co KAMIOKA!RAHBARIHAMIDJ 1986, 35 no. 0445.

New Persian Glosses in Ease Syriac Texts of the Eighth to Tenth Centuries

139

< Plr. ,:•mardz- (cf. MP malidan 'to rub, sweep' and NP malidan 'to rub etc.'; see MoLcANOVA 1982, 393). Because of the limited material published so far, I have had co limit m y study co the glosses contained in the commentaries on the book of Genesis and on the beginning of the book of Exodus (i.e. to the part covered by D), but it is apparent that a thorough study of the Persian materials contained in the other parts of Iso'dad's Commentary on the Old Testament (VAN DEN EYNDE 1958a- b, 1962, 1963, 1969a- b, 1972a- b and 1981 a- b) and especially of the still largely unpublished Anonymous commentary would be rewarding and would enrich the picture with further details.

Index of Biblical Passages Exod 3.1: 25 ''Y:wryPTr Gen 4.26: 'mus (p. 117) Gen 6.14: 13 K'z Gen 6.14: 15 mw"m Gen 6.14: 24 sms'r Gen 6. 16: 11 ''hBnG Gen 16.12: 7 G,z;; 0 r Gen 19.11: 2 ,:• 'Bn:n'sn Gen 21.14 : 16 msK Gen 21. 15: JO DrymG

Gen 31.34: 17 P'ln Gen 37.25: I ''·'Byrsn, 19 $Bwr Gen 37.36: 9 Dixs"n, 12 fn;;rG1; PyG '

Gen 24.65: 8 D'nDG Gen 30.14: 22 s'ByisK Gen 30.37: 20 $nr

Gen 44.2: mK'iilG (p. 116) Gen 45.19: 6 BrDy,,:m Gen 47.22: rwzyq' (p. 116)

(p. 116)

Gen 38.18: 23 ~·fwsTG Gen 40.3: 18 PGn srr Gen 43.11 : 3 Bn, 4 Bn G,;;;rGny, 5 Bn'll.lsG, w,::B,· (n. 10), 21 qwwhn Gen 4O.U: l4 Kwrstn z ·im •G Gen43.34:DysTn(p.11 6)

Index of the Identified Persian Glosses in Phonemic Transcription abarsan: 1 •·'Byrsn abrozisn: 2 '''Br·wz;sn ban: 3 Bn ban-i gurgani: 4 Bn G·wrGny banusag: 5 BnwsG bardyun: 6 BrDy·!i.ln barozisn: 2 ,:• 'Br'wziJn canar: 20 $nr drirnag: 10 DrymG gardyun: 6 BrDyz;Jn gor: 7 G·ZJ0 r kaf: 13 K'z kimvahn: 21 qm.;.,,fm

kurastan Jamag: 14 Kwrstn z'im,;G mask: 16 msK mum: 15 m·i:J''m palan: 17 P'ln paygan sarar: 18 ''PyGn srr surnbur: 19 $Bw1· sabizak: 22 s'B/sK simsar; 24 sms'r suscag: 23 ''s-MTG tur-i pacar: 25 ':-Y.wry PTr xanbanag: 11 ,:"hBn G x~·argar: 12 /JwrGr

140

ABAEV, Slovar'

Br.

CDIAL CPD DrHXUDA DUVAL

EWAia M. MW

NRSV NSOED St.

MAURO MAGGI

New Persian G losses in Ease Syriac Texts of the Eight h to Tenth Centuries

Bibliographical abbreviations

BACHER, \'; o by with a dot above; u by w1th a dot below. At the end of a word, e, eli and a are followed by also re presents a final long i" (cf. the Text below, line 2), and - as normally in fore ig n words - a final short - a (line 3). 19 In addition to the vowel poims, the Syriac writing system employs a do t above or under

, , , , , , to re present respectively t heir plosive or a spirant pronunciation. Such dots are a lso used - though nor regularily - in the present Persian text, and are reproduced in the trans literated edition below. Instead, b represents only the transliterati on of a bet. T he Persian glosses studied by MAU RO MAGGI represent the closest element of comparison for t he study of the adaptation of the Syriac writing system to the writing of Persian in this text, 20 w hile, for t he study of vowels, the fragments of t he Persian Psalms in Syriac script, fo und in C hinese Turkestan and published by MULLER (1915) and by SuNDERMANN (1974), also provide good material for comparison. As to the notation of consonants, the wr iting of these fragments is influenced by the Christian-Sogdian scr ipt, and therefore it differs from that of the Persian verses. 21 16

17 18

19 20 21

Syro-Persian Formulas in Poetic Form in Baptism Liturgy

P AOLA ORSATTI

Cf. BROCKELMANN 7 1955, p. 9, § 6: "Aus dieser Punktation haben die Nestorianer ein vollscan-

d iges System der Vokalbezeichnung emwickelt, das aber auBer bei a und e nichr die Quanritat, sondern nur die Qualitat der Vokale uncerscheidet; aber auch e und e, zuweilen auch Jund a werden niche irnmer rnehr Streng auseina nder gchalten." BROCKE L MANN (71955, p. 15, § 16) adds: "Im OS [= East Syriac) ist die Quanriratsopposicion zwischen a und a friih aufgegeben." BROC K ELMANN ( 7 1955, p. 9, § 6) considers the corresponding sic,n as representi n both the long and short i. "' "' Ci. NoL o EKE 1898, PP· 7- 8_, § 8; PAL~cws 1931, p. 9, § 16; BRoc1a' u In B, . [r is probable that th is -h was effectively delivered in a normal, careful pronunciation. 31 29 30

(Priest) '"I am a friend of Christ' / say (it) openly (and say): 'I am observant of religion, / therefore I am free from grief."' / (Assembly) "The pure religion (is that) of Christ." 27 28

Cf. NYBERG 1974, p. 280; L11.z11.RD 1963, p. 266, § 335 .

The text is transliterated according to the syscem used by BucK (1999, pp. 346- 7), which is easier and more readable. SuNOERMANN (1974), on the contrary, reproduces the dis positio n of t he diacritica l and vocalic poims in che transl ite ra ted texc. In Figg. l and 2, che origina l ort hography of the text as given in Band in V can be checked.

31

Cf. N6L DEKE 1898, PP· 6-7, § 6. Cf. NoLOEKE 1898, pp. 11-12, § 17;

PALAC IOS 193 1, p. 16, § 32. On the cont rary, a line unde r che consonant means t hat it is vocalised (cf. N6LDEKE 1898, ibid.). An example of it could be seen in B's (line 7), with a big point or a line u nder . Bue, as neit her in Syriac nor in New Persian the epenthes is of a vowel betwee n s and tin the coda of a syllable seems co be requ ired, I considered B's reading as er roneous. On the scruccure of che syllable in Syriac, cf. BoHAS [999. In particular BoHAS wr ites:" .. . lo rsque Jes deux segments de la coda ont le meme degre minimal(!) de sonorire [as in the case of sand t) , la syllable est accetrable sans changemem [i.e. without epen thes is of a vowel]" (Bo HAS 1999, p. 139). For New Persian, cf. ALAMOLHODA 2000. For the very frequent alternation -a{y)l-ah (with boch etymological o r inorga ni c h) at rhe end of a word in New Persian cf. L AZARD 1963, pp. 169- 73, §§ 97-l0l; for Midd le Pers i,rn

154

In the cases of rii.h (lines 4, 8, 9, 12) and nigii.h (lines 1 and 10), to be read wit hout the fi nal -h, the spelling given in the text probably represents the current, informal pronunciation of these word s. Even today, in t he spoken, colloquial language, -hat the end of a word, especially after a vowel, is not pronunced. 32 This spelling could also possibly be evidence of the fact that in these cases - for metrical reasons - the formation of an overlong syllable, i. e. two syllables instead of one, had to be avoided, otherwise there would be five syllables to the foot, one coo many.33 Another example of the attention paid in th is text to the rendering of all particularities of pronunciation can be seen in the different way the same word rast "right, straight" is written in lines 7 and IO : in the fi rst case, but , with a dropping of the fina l dental, in the second case (see Commentary below, ad 10. ). In t he linguistic analysis of these verses I consider as a merely orthographic face, devoid of any linguistic value, the spelling of the verbal prefix bi- (line 7); and the spell ing with of what I interpret as a relative - i (line 2), on the basis char in N ew Persian these vowels had already become shor t. The spelling , with , for niga(h) (lines 1 and 10), could also be a mere graphic inconsistency, due to t he fact char East Syriac has no phonological opposition between i and i. The spelling of the copula fo r the 2 nd person singular as< '> in line 2, and as in line 15, seems to represent only a graphic fl uctuation (here the first may represent the glide y; see also lines 3, 13, 14 and 16). Moreover, the spelling for t he verbal

cf. NYBERG 1974, p. 276. Cf. also F. MEIER 1981, pp. 156- 7. When discussing the form xu6ah

32 33

34

Syro-Persian Formulas in Poecic Form in Baptism Liru1·gy

PAOLA 0RSATTI

or xu6ah, actested in the Judaeo-Persian fragment from Dandan-Uiliq, LAZARDw rices: "La forme xuoah ainsi que d'autres mocs aii final auquel s'esc ajouce un h inorganique sont bien accesces non seulement en judeo-persa n, rnais aussi clans des cexces en ecricure arabe (...). MEIER (1981, 157) a montre clairement que ce h etait e/fectivement prononce" (LAZARO 1988, p. 207 = LAZARO 1995, p. 159; my emphasis). Cf. LAZARO 1957, p. 7, § 3. 1. Cf. also H ORN 1898- 1901, p. 97, § 42. 7. c. "An overlong syllable is rec koned equal co che combinacion of one long and one shore syllable" (cf. THIESEN 1982, p. 15, § 36). The same author gives evidence of a pronunciatio n of these syllables as followed by a shore vowel, at least in some Persian dialects in che past cen· curies (pp. 16- 17, § 38). Even coday, che cu rrent pronunciation of words such as a;eman for asman, "sky", and mehraban for mehrban, "kind" (cf. LAZARO 1957, p. 13, § 7. 4 and p. 23, § 18), shows the relevance of ch is prosodic feature in the spoken, non poetic language. For ancient times, a descripcion of che real pronunciation of a word like parsi in rhe normal, non poetic speech - with a barakat-i majhi"da or muxtalasa, "carried off", after r - is given by Na~ir al-Din Tusi' in his work Mi'yar al-as'ar (quoced by XANLARC1 1988-1 989, pp. 137- 8). This phenomenon could thus also be relevant in the scansion of non quantitative lines of ve rses. On this question, see also Commentary, ad 10 below. According co rhe Syriac writing system, chis writing of the iiafa is not anomalous. ln fact, in the final position, found in a number of early Arabic authors (cf. HENNING 1958, pp. 88- 9; TAFAZZOLI 1974, pp. 345- 6).

155

end ing and personal suffix pronoun for the l" person singular (-am) could possibly be due to a fluctuation a ~ a of Syriac (for ocher explanations see Commentary ad 1. , and ad 11. "who must be", and a> o before nasa ls"; a tendency that wou ld be clear only in the 17th ce ntury. On the A r menian transc ription referred to in chis quotation cf. P1sow1c2 1985, pp. 76- 7. On the tendency rowards the narrowi ng and moving back of classical / a/ cf. P1sow1cz 1985, pp. 77, 79-80, 89, 178. Bur rhe question wou ld dese rve closer examina tion becau se, at least in some d ialects, th is phe nonenon seems to have occurred rather earlier on (cf. HoRN 1898- 1901, p. 32, § 7.3). For Midd le Persian cf. HENNING 1933, pp. 162- 4.

2. : MARGOLIOUTH reads didam ki; he considers didam ki as a "slight alteration" for , which is actually written in the text. He reeds: ba-har soy nigah kardam I didam ki ustuvari I payvasta ba-tami'i"I looked to every side: I saw that security (is) bound up with Christianity." 82 This interpretation of stro phe I, as an assertion on the part of the catechumen, is perfectly possible, and fits well wich the multireligious concext from which this text seems to arise (see above, parag. III). But in all the t hree manuscripts and in the edition of the lfudra, the amepenultimare letter of the first word of line 2 is a , attached to the preceding probably to represent an enclicic elemenc. 83 In the Syriac script there is no possibility of confusing with , as does not join with the following letter, and has a dot below. I ch ink t hat chis form should be read didam -atldidam-t "I saw you", with voicing (or more exactly a lax articulation) of the final dental, followed by the ancient relative pronoun -i (for my interpretation of the meaning of this strophe see above, parag. III). The use of - i as a relative pronoun is well attested in Judaeo- Persian texts coming from both South-Wescern84 and Eastern Iran85 . Some traces of ic can also be found in a particular syntactic construction in New Persian literary rexts. 86 Ir should be underl ined ch at che orthography of che present text distinguishes this relative -i, spelled with (I transcribed both as short i). 87 A passive or ergative construction -m di(d) "I saw", attested in some of Baba Tahir's quatrains as well as in a number of Persian d ialects,86 would be impossible here, after an active form of the same verb

81 82

Cf. MACUCH 1965, p. 118, § 74a. For Syr iac, cf. BROCKELMANN 7 1955, p. 34, § 56. MARGOLIOUTH 1903, p. 768. In CONYBEARE 1905, p. 367, M.'1.RGOLIOUT H translates: " I looked ro every side/ I saw char secu rity/ for ever is co him w ho ho lds (sic)."

83

B's dot above chis indicates a plosive pron unc iat ion o f ir. Under the second, post vocal ic of rhe word there is no dor ro indicate as pi rant pro nunc iat ion. The lack of a spira nt pronunciation of post voca lic d seems co be a feacure of Norc h- Eastern dia lects (cf. ME LER 198 1, pp. 103-12; P1sow 1cz 1985, 107-11). Bur LAZARD notes chat in rheJudaeo-Persian texts and in the Q11r'an-i Qt1ds (in Arabic script) cherc is no indicatio n of a spiram pronunciation of poscvocalic d, and concludes: "Ceci signifie probab lemem que clans le persan parle meridiona l d erait occlusif en roure position" (LAZARD 199 1, p. 250 = LAZARO 1995, p. 136). le muse also been considered char in Syriac, afrer a vowel, all p losives had become spiranr (ci. NOLO EKE 1898, p. 16, § 15,C). Cf. fo r example the fol10 1Ving example from the ' Law report from A hvaz', quoted from HE NNING 1958, p. SO: "'ym'n shd'n ykrm'n 'zyr '.)111 mh?r nbyfr' hyst Wir, die Zeuge n, de ren Unrerschrifr (xat{) u nrer diesem Procokoll (mahc.la1) geschrieben stehc". For t he Judaeo-Pers ian fragment of Dandi.i n-Uiliq, cf. Uu.s 1968, pp. 128- 9 (line 29) and p. 135 (commencary). Cf. LAZARD 1963, PP· 49·J - l, § 855. Cf. above, and note 34. Cf. HA DANK 1926, p. LI. This co nstr uction with rhe ve rb didan is also arrested in a poem attributed co Sa'd1 (BRo,,·NE 1895, p. 796, line 6); in a poem by f:lafi~ written in Arabic and

84

85 86 87 88

164

Syro- Persian Formulas in Poetic Form in Baptism Liturgy

PAOLA 0RSATTI

didan; unless we have here a hybrid form did-am di "I saw", combining redundantly an active and a passive construction of the verb at the same time.

89

2. : To explain this form, spelled with an initial ile (short?) vowel, corresponding to standard New Persian ustuvar, one might recall the form written for durust in the 'Law Report of Ahvaz', with i instead of literary u.90 The presence of the long i instead of t he long or short u is very well attested in the poems written in the Persian dialects published by EDWARD G. BROWNE.91 The short i (e) instead of the short u (o) is also well attested in a number of Latin transcriptions made by Catholic missionaries at Isfahan (17th c.);92 and i instead of a is attested in the present day dialects of Sout h-Western lran.93 But it is true chat th is phenomenon also recurs in ocher dialects.94 lst(a)var, w ith the initial i- instead of u -, possibly represents a different outcome of the prefix ,:•abi-, also attested in other words.95 As to the spelling of the copula for the 2"d person singular by means of, instead of : big'i~'i. T~is, as well as baxsayi (line 16), can be interpreted as an imperac1_ve with an - z end mg, well k nown also in literary New Persian and u sed even now, 111 the spoken, familiar language. 1o2

9. : This remains a very problematic reading. K.u is written with , in-

stead of with (as for instance in koni, line 6), but this graphic fluctuat ion is also attested in the glosses studied by MAURO MAGGI. The writing of k through occurs - in Judaeo-Persian documentation - in the most ancient texts: the inscription of Tang-i Azao, 111 and the fragment of Dandan- Uiliq, where represents k, and represents x. Bue normally, as already in the Judaeo-Persian 'Argument', represents both k and x. 112 In the Christian-Sogdian script, represents k, while for x a special sign was incroduced. 113 In the Persian Psalms in Syriac script, k is written with , and x is written with the sign taken from the Christian-Sogdian script. 114 MARGOLIOUTH reads az ku, "from the road", and translates the w hole of line 11: "I remove trouble from the road." 115 I accept MARGOLIOUTH's reading, but with the meaning "whence, wherefore". Az kii "whence" occu_rs in Middle Persian and in Parthian, both wit h an interrogative and with a relauvc value. 116 In standard New Persian az kii, "whence", would be impossible:

109 110 11 1 112 113 114 115

116

Cf. BAHAR 8 1996-1997, pp. 430- 1. Cf. DtHXUDA.: lugatnama . Cf. H ENN l NG 1957, p. 339. Cf. MACKENZIE 1968 , p. 249. On chis question, cf. LAZARD 1968a, p. 82 (= LAZARD 1995, p. 32). Cf. HENNING 1958, P· 79. Cf. SuNDERMANN 1974, p. 450. Cf. MARGOttOUTH 1903, p. 769 (he reads baz a.ram instead of bezar-am at the end o f rhe line). In CoNrSEARE 1905, p. 368, he cra nslaces, wicho ur saying on what basis: "hencefort h 1 live in God". Ci. B RU NNER 1977, pp. 141- 2, 24 1.

168

PAOLA ORSAT T!

ku is an expression meaning "where is (he/she)?" But this form can perhaps be explained as pertaining tO some Persian dialect.

117

11. : HENNING proposed the reading bezar-am, meaning "Ich habe genug von", instead of the erroneous reading baz aram given by MARGOLIOUTH. 119 But this meaning "I am wearied, d isgusted, impatient of grief (andi5h)", given by HENNING hors contexte, seems not to fit here. Ar first I proposed the reading biza1; with a short i,1 20 i.e. a form corresponding to literary New Persian guzar: I interpreted it as an imperative from guzardan, "co explain; to pay, to discharge; to l_iberate", followed by the suffix pronoun of the 1st person singular, and proposed for line 11 the translation : "therefore (i. e. thanks to my faith) free me from grief!", t hat is a wis h, a prayer to God on the pan of che fait hfu l, redolent of Libera nos a malo in che Pater noste1: 111 SHAUL SHAKED suggested that I recover HENNING's reading, wirh the meaning " I am (or I will be) free (beziir) from grief", and rhis is the interpretation I accepted in the text (see above). In any case, forms representing the South-Western outcome of an ancient inittal wi-, corresponding to literary New Persian gu-, frequent in Judaeo-Persian texts of the 'Ahvaz-Argument group', also occur in later texts coming from Western and 117 For example in Xunsari kit and ka occur with the meani ng "where", and iz (= az) ka means "whence" (cf. MANN 1926, p. 32). 118 Cf. such forms of che spoken language as be-ndiiz for be-andiiz. F or such concractions in che language of the most ancient New Persian poems cf. LAZARD 1964, p. 43. l19 HENNING 1958, p. 78, note 2; MARCOLIOUTH 1903, p. 769. 120 U nfortu nately, the orthography gives no help in dec idi ng between these t wo readings (bezar or bizifr): the fi rst syllable of chis word is written separately from the rest of the word, a nd w ith an apparendy long vowel, which wou ld perhaps poi nt co the reading bezar (cf. note 38 above, on the etymology oi this word). On the orher part, the same spelling \ZARo's article quoted in fn. 8 above.

187

this" and bado "with him", which would presuppose earlier forms like ')aden and '~pado. 34 T his problem may also have to be solved in dialectal terms. It again high lights the necessity for anyone who investigates t he history of Persian, never to assume a plainly continuous or linear development. Already in Middle Persian, the exact dialectal interrelation of Manichaean and Zoroastrian Middle Persian is not really clear. And wh ile the language of the earlier £JP texts seems to be a direct dialectal continuation of Zoroastrian Middle Persian, the language of the ta/sirs may already have been influenced to a greater extent by the newly developing ENP literary language. The EJP texts have much light to shed on the d ialecral complexity of New Persian, but t hey cannot answer all the questions . Excursus : 6 as a d irect object marker in Middle Persian In rhe only comprehensive investigation of MP syntax so far, CHRISTO PHER BRUNNER says, "o frequently governs the direct object of a verb". 35 Looki ng at some longer MP texts from the yd century, one sees that chis does not seem to be true of Middle Persian in general. In Kerd'ir's inscription, Mani's Sdbuhragan, and the Inscription of Paikuli the direct object is in the oblique case wherever a separate oblique ending exists, bm noc usually marked by another prefix or suffix, e.g. : keen namag [rct. = obi. sg.] wenad - whosoever may see chis memorial K.-§37 S.5436 mn [obi. sg.] wynyd - look on me S.126 frysrg'n [rct. = obi. p l.] ... gwm'ryd - he appoints messengers NPi 3/3 37 azadan [obl. pl.] kusan - I shall kill the Freemen 38 Without doubt, the preposit ion o was t he regular marker of directional complements and indirect objects through all variants of Middle Persian. If (as BRUNNER It would be interesting to investigate whether the disti nction between be and pad is still reflected in ENP rexes. T his could be done by checking if baden-forms with -d- occur only, or predominantly, when ba(d) means "with " (bur not when it means "to"). A gTance throug h the "old preface to the Shahname", one of che earliest NP rexes (in M. QAZVfNf's edition: "Moqaddame-ye qadim-e Sahname.'' In: Bise maqale. Pc. 2. Tehran 1934, p. 1-64) shows chat there is no such difference, as there are al most no forms without -d-. Only once (p. 59, I. 1) is there a va riant reading ba- o to the text bad- a diida biid "he had given to him" that wou ld support this distinction. 35 A Syntax of Western Middle lranian. Delmar 1977, p. 135; 36 The text is quo ted from MACKENZ I E'S edition: "Mani's Siibuhragan': In: BS OAS 42 (1979), p. 500- 34. 37 Quoted from H. HuMBACH/P. 0 . SKJtERV0: The Sassanian Inscription of Paiku.li. Pt. 3. \'(/jesbaden 1983. 38 Only in Inscriptional Middle Persian is there a separate oblique ending of the pl., in Manichaean Middle Persian the oblique pl. ending -an has been generalized for both rec. and obi. See P. 0. SKJ1ERv0: "Case in Inscriptional Middle Persian, Inscri ptional Parchian and che Pahlavi Psalter." In: Stir 12 (1983), p. 49 and 177. 34

188

Early Judaeo-Persian in a Hiscorical Perspective

LUDWIG PAUL

claims) it were indeed also used as a direct object marker, the morphologica l distinction between direct and indirect objects would be neutralized in these cases. This would not be uncommon in a general linguistic context: it is found, e.g., also in Spanish. 39 If it is so in Middle Persian, the question arises: How is it possible to distinguish between direct and indirect objects in Middle Persian? T he d istinction between direct and indirect object(s) emerges most clearly from constructions with trivalent verbs like "give, offer, show, present, send". These verbs govern two objects, co one of which (the direct) the semantic role of "patient" may plainly be attributed, and to the ocher one (rhe indirect) that of "recipient" or "goal",40 e.g.: bt.l 'wd csm 'w 'yd phyqyrb 'y !W hn'rym and we direct the eye to this thy form In all MP sentences of chis type known to me, i5 occurs only before the indirect object. T he impossibility of a direct and an indirect o within one and the same clause is a strong syntactic argument for t he predominance of the indirect object func tion of o in Middle Persian. 4 1 There is a great number of MP constructions with bivalent verbs that govern an object with the preposition i5, e.g.: dt.11 kw pdyr' d 'w dyn ywjdhr - that he may accept the holy religion xw'nynd 'w br mrym - they call the son of Mary dg.7 At a first look, both objects seem to be direct, as the English t ranslation seems to suggest. The semantic role of "patient", however, is clearer for the object of t he firs t sentence, while in t he second sentence, the "son of Mary" may as well be conceived as a "recipient" of the call (cf. the possible translation "they call to the son ... "). Obviously the semantic roles are not sufficient as the only criterion to determine if an object is direct or indirect: they must be supplemented by other morphologic or syntactic criteria. With the help of five criteria ((i) - (v) below), it will be shown t hat there are indeed quite a number of bivalent MP verbs that are unequivocally t ransitive, and therefore (on the syntactic level, as predicates) clearly govern a direct object with o. N ot all cases that appear to do so at first sight, however, really fall into this category. A verb is transitive, and the obj ect it governs with i5 may accordingly be called "direct" if the verb (i) is marked as causative by the morpheme -en-, e.g.: cu.41 rwcyn [rozen] 'w przynd'n - enlighten the children

dgb.5 r'mynyd 'w xw'stygr'n 'wd sr'xsynyd 'w dyw'n bring peace to t he virtuous and shame the demons dt.9 p'y'nd 'wd phryzyn'nd 'w dyn ywjdhr they will protect, and care for, the holy religion 42 be.3 'wm c'wn 'w dwst'n bwzyd 'wd zywynyd and protect me, and give me life, like (you do) the friends (ii) has a corresponding passive form in -yh. E.g., the objects in: cu.3 'pwr"m 'w tw n'm - we will bless your name cr.2 'st'ym 'w tw - we praise you dt.3 p'y'nd 'w dsnyz' dg"n - they protect the righteous dt. 11 kw pdyr' d 'w dyn ywjdhr - that he may accept the holy religion S.130 k' xrdyshr yzd 'w shr phryz'd if the Great Nous should care for the world cb.2 ky pd ... dws'rmy prwryyd 'w hm'g b"n chat you care for all the gods with love dg.7 xw'nynd 'w br mrym - t hey call (to) the son of Mary dt.5 w'n'nd 'w wzyndg'r'n - they will attack the wrongdoers are shown to be direct by each verb's passive form in: cu.18 'pwryh"d whyb ywjdhr -Holy Wisdom will be blessed cu.IS y (= "she") Ardaxser did. The second and fourth sentences are (as is the fi rst) in the past tense, their complements must therefore (as we have seen above) be understood as indirect objects of bivalent verbs. The t hird sentence is the only one in the present tense. It is not clear exactly how it is to be translated. BRUNNER and WEINREICH (II. cc.) both have "the sun never warms it". Following D. N. MACKENZIE (private communication), tabidan/taftan would always correspond to English "shine on" (with o) or "illuminate" (without o) if a light-source is the subject,62 and the sentence above would accordingly be understood as having a complement of direction with o. The meaning "to warm", however, at lease does not seem to be excluded in t he context above. Besides, to decide whether taftan has a direct object or not, the question is not how we choose to t ranslate it into English, because our very choice is determined by what we think should be (or not be) a direct object in Middle Persian. If "illuminate", "shine" and "warm" do coincide in MP ta/tan, it is irrelevant for the question of 58

59 60 61 62

W. SuNDERM.'\NN (in "Namen von Gocrern, Damonen und Menschen." I n: AoF 6 ( 1979), p. 95-133, esp. p. 109ff.) has provided valuable thoughts about da cing certain ManMP tel'm, on the bas is of theonymic considerations. Quoting from M. WE JNREICH's edition in Aof 19 (1992), p. 44-101. The first and t he third of these examples have already been given by BRUNNER (see fn. 35), p. 132 f. Quoting from H.S. NYBERG's edicion in A Mam,al of Pablavi. I: Texts (Wiesbaden 1964), with page and line number. MACKENZIE kindly provides che following two examples fro m rhe Bundahisn: Vb (3) = 5512 xwarsed ... •·se k is war ud nem cabed - che sun illuminates 3 and a ha lf co nti nents; VII (1) : 72' asc rosnTh (i) awesan scaragan ke nun abaz 6 gerTg tabend - ic is t he lighc of chose scars which now shine back to the earth.

194

LUDWIG

PAUL

(in)transitivity of taftarz what kind(s) of complements its equivalent governs in English. W hat is needed are language-internal criteria (such as (i) - (v) that were introduced above). A search through the six ZorMP texts mentioned, however, and the glossaries of various other edited ZorMP texts, did not bring to light evidence (positive or negative) as co w hether ta/tan should be considered transitive in terms of these five criteria.63 It becomes clear that Zoroastrian Middle Persian raises more questions tha n it can answer. Leaving this problem for further studies at this point, it may be said that in Zoroas trian Middle Persian, direct objects with o do not occur as a rule, bur (if they do occur at all) rather as exceptions to the rule. T he MP Psalter, which chronologically lies probably closer to the early ManMP than co the ZorMP texts (it was composed possibly in the 4 th or yh cent ury AD, although the manuscript is a copy from the 6 th century or even later), seems to take an intermediate position grammatically. Two of the verbs that occur with o in Manichaean Middle Persian do so coo in the Psa lter: Ps.-96.1 64 stayed 6 xwaday - praise the Lord Ps.-131.1 pay 6 wez'ih - protect the priesthood, while the second verb payidan "protect" may also occur without 8: Ps.-126.1 agar xwaday ne payed gulan - if the Lord does not protect the city The MP Ostraca and Papyri from the 7th century AD provide only little evidence as for direct objects with o, because most of chem are very short and do not even offer an entire sentence. Ar lease, however, one clear example of a direct object with o occurs in them: P3.3 65 ud awis 6 han rahig I az mar 1 man framay dastan 66 and him, the boy from my number {of boys), order co keep

63

64 65 66

I.e., chere are no passive forms of caftan corresponding to the s~ncence above, etc. T here do occur cwo passives of caftan in VZ (Anthologie de Zadspram. tdirion critique du iexte pehlevie, tmduit et commence. Eds. P H . G1c;Noux/A. TAFAZZOLI. Paris 1993 [Studia Iranica. Cahier 13)), but the first (29.6) has the fire as age nt and in the second, o nly che for m is passive but not the mean ing: 35.59 an wuzurg r6snih i ... abar bum hame tabihed - chat greac light which shines upon rhe earrh. Q uoced from F.C. A N DREASIK. BARR (eds.): Bruchstiicke einer Pehlevi -Obersetzung de,· Psalmen. Berlin 1933. I.e. papyrus No 3, li ne 3, quoted from D. W EBER: Q;craca, Papyri und Pergamence. Textband, London 1992, p. llSf. The doubl ing of o, che first rime (as a-i.;is) in "absolute" form wirh t he yd sg. suffix -ii, seems (wirh WEBER) co emphas ize the object.

Early Judaeo-Persian Texts With Notes on a Commentary to Genesis S HAUL SHAKED

By a lucky chance, the Cairo Geniza has preserved for us a substantial quantity of Jewish w ritings in Persian that were entirely unknown up to recently. 1 Knowledge of some of these texts has nevertheless been in the pub lic domain for more than a century. D . S. MARGOLIOUTH pu blished about one hundred years ago (1899) the first of these texts, a law-report from Ahwaz. CARL SA LEMANN pu blished (1900) rhe first short notice of the Ezekiel Tafsir fro m rhe Firkowicz Collection in Sc Petersburg. After this, up to the present, hardly any thing further has been published from that manuscript, despite the great interest that it has aroused. Three papers in the present volume are devoted to aspects of chat composition, an edition of which currently forms the object of a dissertation by THAMAR EILAM-GINDIN. The nexr major publication of a new text from this source was done by D. N. MACKENZ IE (1968), a text which the editor, somewhat inappropriate ly, labelled a "Jewish-Persian Argument". This is a fragment from a Karaice Sefer Mits·vot, 2 a Book of Precepts, cont aining a list of Jewish religious commandments according to the Karaire tradition. Such books regularly begin with an introduction o n theological matters, w ith polemical passages concerning t he views of other religious groups. The fragment preserved in the British Library, where Christians, Muslims and Zoroastrians are taken o n, contains mostly the introduction co the book. The subjecc-maccer of the book itself, beginning with the first precept, that of circumcision, follows.

2

A note on cra nsliceracion (always give n in the followi ng in regula r type; phonemic cranscriprion, in cont rasc, is given in italics): c renders the Hebrew ~ade, in Persian, Arabic and Hebrew words, whatever ics actual pronunciation (/s/, / ~/ ,or /cl); c rende rs 1ade with a diacri tic mark over it (usually indicati ng /cl; 1ade without a dot is also used for the same purpose). g renders gimel, which can rcp resem /g/, /y/, or /j/; j re nde rs gimel wic h a dot ove r, used co indicate / j/ A double apostrophe " renders che do ts marking abbreviation placed over letters, sometimes to indicare a letter used as a numera l, or the d ivine name y"y. s renders the Hebrew lene r iin or sin, unless the latter is marked by a left-hand dot. Biblical quor arions in Hebrew with in chcJudaeo -Persian text arc wriccen in bold type. Quotati ons from T IO are introduced by nvo nu mbers separated by a colon; 1:2 means page I, line 2. I owe warm th an ks co LuowrG PAU L , who made some va luable comments which were taken up and incorporated in the paper. I am us ing rhe modern Hebrew pron unciation o f chis word, wh ic h mighc otherwise be rr,m scribed mi?'(:.:ot.

196

197

SHAUL SHAKED

Early Judaeo-Persian Texts

The first major at tempt at a linguistic classification and dialectology of these texts was made in 1968 by GILBERT LAZARO. Only in the late sixties and early seventies did it become clear that there were many more texts in the collections of the Cairo Geniza scattered throughout the world than the few individual fragments published thus far. 3 I subsequenrly undertook a systematic search for the other fragmenrs with a view to a comprehensive publication. This has involved considerable effort, and I was aided by a number of colleagues, because the collections of fragments deriving from the Cairo Geniza have not yet been catalogued in a satisfactory manner. There are perhaps 150,000 fragments of all genres of writings in the Cairo Geniza collections, from the most trivial to the most intricate. They use a variet y of languages, with Hebrew, Aramaic and Judaeo-A rabic forming the large majority. That the Cairo Geniza should also contain a substantial amount of Persian material, mosrly4 in Hebrew characters, may come as a surprise, but nor when we take into account the central position of Cairo between the tenth and rhe fourteenth centuries, and, as pare of rhac, the considerable presence of Persian-speaking Jews in the Fatimid capital Fustat. Quite a few of these Persian Jews were Karaites, members of a Jewish religious group which had started its existence in Babylonia in the eighth century, initially, it is believed, as a name applied to a number of small splinter sects. Eventually it gained many prominent adherents in the Persian-speaking regions of the Islamic world. Some of them rose to positions of great economic and poli~ical influence in the Fatimid court, the most conspicuous of them being the fam ily of the Tustaris, whose origins, as their name indicates, are in Tustar in the region of Khuzistan, in south-western Iran. Records belonging to this fami ly, letters and legal documents, are found among the manuscripcs of the Cairo Geniza, both inJudaeo-Arabic andJudaeo-Persian. 5 A concentration of Karaites of Persian origin lived in Jerusalem and elsewhere in Palestine in the tenth century, and they had strong links with t heir breth ren in Cairo. One group among the early Karaices called itself avele $iyyon, "the Mourners for Zion". Many of t heir members, prompted by messianic zeal, came to settle in Palestine and a~ait the redemption. Some of them wrote tractates which were very influential in their t ime. The later Karaite movement took a different d irection, causing these compositions to fall into oblivion. Among these authors there are people who came from the Iranian regions, as one can notice from their nisbas (e.g. Daniel al Qumisi, Benjamin Nihawandi). Some of the fragments in Judaeo-Persian that have now been recovered (none of t hem contains the name of an author or tide) may go back to these aut hors.6

This is the general background for the existence of a relatively large number of Judaeo-Persian writings among the Cairo Geniza fragments. The designation "Cairo Geniza" is itself somewhat problematic. A roofless room was set aside at the top of che Ben Ezra synagogue in Old Cairo, where papers no longer in use were discarded. It was a widespread Jewish custom in many Jewish communities not to throw away but t0 put aside (and often to bury) pieces of parchment or p aper written in the Hebrew script when they were no longer requ ired. This was done for fear of desecrating the divine names embedded in the script and in order to honour the Hebrew alphabet, which is considered to have sanctit y of its own. Only rarely, as in Cairo, d id a favou rable combination of factors - the continuous stacking of documents through many centuries and a dry climate with rare rainfall - make ir possible for such fragile material co survive for so long a period. When literary treasure- hunters started visiting Cairo in the last decades of the nineteenth cenru ry, they found fragments of books and ocher writings not only in the Geniza room of rhe Ben Ezra synagogue, but also in other places, for example in the Karaite synagogue. Many of the travellers went on to visit other Jewish communities in the Middle East in search of finds. As a result it is often impossible co tell the origin of a particular manuscript. The Taylor-Schechter Collection in the Cambridge University Library derives entirely from the famous Cai ro Geniza, but there is less certainty as to the origin of other fragments. We have no knowledge of the provenance of the ma nuscripts in the Firkowicz Collections in St Petersburg, which houses some of the more important compositions among extant Early Judaeo-Persian texts, nor of chose in the Elkan N athan Adler Collection, now kept in the Library of the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York. The common denominacor of the material discussed here is, scricdy speaking, not the Cairo Geniza provenance, of which we cannot always be sure, but the internal criteria of language, script, and contents. By these considerations the literary and personal documents in this corpus form a distinct chronological category - they were all composed and written before the great watershed event in I ranian history during the Islamic period: the Mongol invasions of Iran in the early years of the thirteenth century. It is not entirely clear to me why the Mongol raids and conquests, traumatic and devastating as they were, made such an impact on Jewish culture in Iran, more parcicularly on the history of rhe Jewish-Iranian languages and their literature. These raids were not directed against Jews in particular, but many Jewish communities were destroyed, displaced and uprooted as a result of these events. A dramatic testimony for t his exists in the form of a cemetery in Ghur in Afghanistan. This place left no other trace in Jewish history except for the fact that a substantial number of Jewish tomb-stones from t he grave-yard of the community were discovered there. T he stones, engraved in Hebrew and Judaeo- Persian, indicate the names of the deceased with occasional tides of office and appropriate biblical quotations. Many of t he stone inscriptions contain dates, which cover the period from the eleventh ro the early t hirteenth cencury. The use of the cemetery for bu rial seems co have

3 -1

5 6

I n the Geniza bibliography ( SH AKED 1964), only one G eniza fragment in Judaeo-Pe rsian is mentioned. Bur not exclusively. Ac least one letter in Persian, written in Arabic characters, has been found and published. Cf. SHAKED 1979. A monograph on chis family and many of che documents relating co chem can be found in the Hebrew book, GrL 1981. Information on them is also found in MANN 193 1, 371 ff. On the movement and it s most prominent members cf. BARON 1957, 222ff.; MANN 1935, 3 ff.

198

Early Judaeo-Persian Texts

SHAUL SHAKED

stopped abruptly in 1246, at the time of the Mongol invasion. This must have been the date at which the community ceased to exist. 7 Following the Mongol invasions, there emerged in the fourteenth century what we may cerm Classical J udaeo-Persian literature, at the centre of which stand poetic compositions in epic style written by authors like Shahin, 'Imran1, Babai ben Lu~f and Babai ben Farhad, but which also incorporates Bible translations, midrashim, and some philosophical and theological works. 8 Classical J udaeo-Persian stands strongly under the linguistic influence of Standard Literary Persian, the main difference between them being that the former is written in Hebrew characters and contains a layer of Hebrew and Aramaic words and expressions. Even the main orthographic conventions are roughly the same in Classical Judaeo- Persian as in Standard New Persian, except for a tendency for representing a more colloquial pronunciation in some words (for example, the frequent spelling -wn (perhaps pro nounced -un) for a closed syllable -an, as in the plural morpheme of nouns) . In the pre-Mongol period, in contrast, there is a marked d ifference between Judaeo- Persian and Standard (Muslim) Persian. This is noticeable in orthography, in grammar and in vocabulary. Many of these features have been studied by GILBERT LAZARD in his important study of these texcs.9 It is important to stress, as LAZARD has already done, that in che pre-Mongol period J udaeo-Persian does not have a single literary language tradition. Classical Persian as used by Muslims (for which we shall use the abbreviation SNP or Standard New Persian), served as a literary language w herever Persian was regarded as a prestigious language of culture, especially among speakers of t he different I ranian dialects. le was established chiefly in Khurasan, under t he Ghaznavids and other enlightened dynasties, from the tenth century onwards, and may be assumed to be based on the language of that region. J udaeo-Persian of t he pre-Mongol period, in concrast, was relatively unaffected by it. It apparently did not have a clearly-marked cultural centre or a leading author who could provide a model for literary writing. Some of the early J udaeo-Persian texts were produced and written in the western provinces of Iran, particularly in Khuzistan. Other compositions could stem from the regions of north-eastern or north-western Iran, to judge by the fact that they share certain linguistic features with Tajik and occasionally with Kurdish. From the point of view of a historian of Persian, the lack of linguistic uniformity in the early Judaeo-Persian writings is a valuable asset. It gives us a more varied picture of the language situation in Iran in the rather obscure period between the tenth and the thirteenth centuries. It would however be helpful if we had some more specific data as to the t ime and place of t he d ifferent compositions, but this is so far generally lacking. 7

On the Jewish cemetery of Ghii r a nd ics inscriprions see, by che order of daces of publication,

8 9

STERN 1949; FISCHEL 1949; GNOLI 1964; RAPP 1965, 1967, 1971 , 197}; SHAKED 198 1, 1999. The most comprehensive survey of chis licerarure is in NETZER 1985. LAZARD 1968. See also subsequencly LAZARD 1988, 1990, 1995.

199

We are not dealing simply with w ritten records of spoken dialects. The surviving texts demonstrate a clear tendency to use a high literary language, and they cr y no doubt ro conform to some unexpressed rules of good st yle. The result is therefore a literary language in the making, one wh ich had not become entirely st andard ized, while it naturally reflects also some features of the local speech of the community. The only piece of writing that gives the impression of directly reflecting a dialect composition, as far as I am aware, is the short poetic composition, a love song, published some years ago in Pe< amim. 10 All the other writinos aim, I believe, at distancing themselves from a mere speech level discourse. Some°of them may be assumed to be t ranslations from the Hebrew. There seems little hope of reconstructing on the basis of these fragments genuine forms of spoken Persian of the tenth ro the thirteenth centuries. Some modern Jewish dialects (e.g., Yazdi), have relarively_archaic feat ures, most notably in the use of t he verbal system, which are not pare ot the Early Judaeo-Persian writings, perhaps because they were reagarded as too colloquial. 11 It may be useful co present at this point an overview of the fragments so far assembled. I have classified the materials according to t he follow ing categories: G