The Sanskrit Yasna Manuscript S1 (English and Sanskrit Edition) [Facsimile, Bilingual ed.] 9004357696, 9789004357693

Citation preview

The Sanskrit Yasna Manuscript S1

Handbook of Oriental Studies Handbuch der Orientalistik SECTION TWO

South Asia Edited by Muzaffar Alam (University of Chicago) Johannes Bronkhorst (University of Lausanne) Knut A. Jacobsen (University of Bergen) Angelika Malinar (University of Zurich)

Corpus Avesticum Edited by Alberto Cantera (Free University of Berlin) Almut Hintze (SOAS, University of London) Editorial Board Jean Kellens (Collège de France, Paris) Antonio Panaino (University of Bologna) Nicholas Sims-Williams (SOAS, University of London)

VOLUME 32/1 The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/ho2

The Sanskrit Yasna Manuscript S1 Facsimile Edition By

Leon Goldman

LEIDEN | BOSTON

Published with the financial support of the Corpus Inscriptionum Iranicarum (and simultaneously referred to as Corpus Inscriptionum Iranicarum Supplementary Series Vol. VI). Results incorporated in this standard have received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (The Multimedia Yasna, grant agreement No 694612). Cover illustration: Folio 5r of the Sanskrit Yasna manuscript S1. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Goldman, Leon, 1981– author. Title: The Sanskrit Yasna manuscript S1 / by Leon Goldman [author]. Other titles: Avesta. Yasna 1. Description: Facsimile edition. | Leiden ; Boston : Brill, 2018. | Series:  Handbook of Oriental Studies. Section 2, South Asia, ISSN 0169-9377 ;  volume 32 | Series: Corpus Avesticum series ; no 32 | Includes  bibliographical references. Identifiers: LCCN 2017044219 (print) | LCCN 2017049975 (ebook) | ISBN  9789004357730 (E-book) | ISBN 9789004357693 (hardback : alk. paper) Subjects: LCSH: Zoroastrianism. Classification: LCC BL1515.5.Y3 (ebook) | LCC BL1515.5.Y3 A475 2018 (print) |  DDC 295/.82—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2017044219 Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill”. See and download: brill.com/brill-typeface. issn 2588-882X isbn 978-90-04-35769-3 (hardback) isbn 978-90-04-35773-0 (e-book) Copyright 2018 by Koninklijke Brill nv, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Hes & De Graaf, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Rodopi, Brill Sense and Hotei Publishing. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill nv provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, ma 01923, usa. Fees are subject to change. This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

For Almut Hintze

∵

Contents Acknowledgements ix Abbreviations xi 1 Introduction 1 2 The Parsi Sanskrit Tradition 2 3 Physical Description 7 4 Age and History 9 5 Palaeography 11 5.1 Avestan Palaeography 16 5.1.1 Hands 1,2 and 3 Overview 16 5.1.2 Orthographic and Palaeographic Differences 17 5.1.2.1 ą (variant 1), ą̇ 17 5.1.2.2 ġ 19 5.1.2.3 y, ẏ 20 5.1.2.4 ṇ 21 5.1.2.5 Remaining Avestan Letters 22 5.2 Sanskrit Palaeography 27 5.2.1 Parsi-Nāgarī Vowels 28 5.2.1.1 Independent Vowel Forms 28 5.2.1.1.1 a, ā, u, ū, e 28 5.2.1.1.2 i, ī 29 5.2.1.1.3 o 31 5.2.1.1.4 ṛ 31 5.2.1.2 Dependent/Diacritic Vowel Forms 32 5.2.1.2.1 ā 32 5.2.1.2.2 u 32 5.2.1.2.3 e, ai, o, au 33 5.2.1.2.4 Ornate Variations 34 5.2.1.2.5 Avagraha 34

viii

contents

5.2.2 Parsi-Nāgarī Consonants 35 5.2.2.1 Consonant Conjuncts 35 5.2.2.1.1 Velar-initial Conjuncts 35 5.2.2.1.1.1 k 35 5.2.2.1.1.2 gga/gra 36 5.2.2.1.2 Palatal-initial Conjuncts 36 5.2.2.1.2.1 c 36 5.2.2.1.2.2 j 37 5.2.2.1.3 Retroflex-initial Conjuncts 38 5.2.2.1.3.1 ṇṇa 38 5.2.2.1.4 Dental-initial Conjuncts 39 5.2.2.1.4.1 tṛ, tsa 39 5.2.2.1.4.2 dra 39 5.2.2.1.4.3 ddh/dv, ddhy/dvy 39 5.2.2.1.4.4 dhā, dhyā 40 5.2.2.1.5 Sibilant-initial Conjuncts 41 5.2.2.1.5.1 ṣ 41 5.2.3 Interpunction Signs 41 5.2.3.1 cha 41 5.2.3.2 daṇḍa 42 5.2.3.3 Opening Signs 43 5.2.3.4 Closing Signs 44 5.2.3.5 Chapter Dividers 44 5.2.3.6 Deletion Marks 45 5.2.3.7 Lacunae 46 6 Pahlavi Text 50 7 Range of Extant Text 51 8 Note to the Facsimile Images 55 9 Facsimile Images 57 References 367

Acknowledgements The realisation of this facsimile edition of the Sanskrit Yasna manuscript S1 would not have been possible without the support of several individuals and institutions and it gives me great pleasure to acknowledge them here. Firstly, to Dr. Alberto Cantera goes the credit for tracing S1 to Columbia University Libraries and for coordinating the initial digitisation of the manuscript in 2011 within the framework of the Avestan Digital Archive (ADA) project. This was achieved through the positive interventions of Prof. Ehsan Yarshater who provided the funds for the manuscript to be photographed and with the assistance of Jane Siegel, Librarian for Rare Books at Columbia University Libraries. The electronic publication of the indexed facsimile images of S1 on the website of the ADA was supported by a Small Research Grant from the British Academy (2011–2014) and marked an important point in the manuscript’s history, granting scholars and interested parties from around the world free, virtual access. To help preserve the physical item and to permit fuller inspection of the manuscript’s text, the decision was taken in 2014 to solicit financial backing for conservation work to be undertaken by the Conservation Center for Art and Historic Artifacts (Philadelphiapa, PA). Thanks to the generous funding provided by an anonymous donor through the Federation of Zoroastrian Associations of North America (FEZANA) in memory of Shams-ul-Ulama Dastur Dr. Maneckji Nusserwanji Dhalla (who studied at Columbia University) and a matched contribution by Columbia University Libraries, this was completed in 2015. Again, a debt of gratitude is owed to Prof. Yarshater for lending his support to FEZANA’s fundraising plan. I express my sincere thanks too, to the following august organisations: the British Academy, for awarding me a Postdoctoral Fellowship held at SOAS University of London, 2012–2015 – the introductory matter that appears here is a direct output of my research undertaken on the Sanskrit Yasna during that period; the Corpus Inscriptionum Iranicarum and the Union Académique Internationale for kindly providing a subsidy to help meet the publishing costs associated with this book; and the European Research Council, for funding the Multimedia Yasna (MUYA) Project whose aims include the establishment of a new series, the Corpus Avesticum, of which this is happily the inaugural volume. The MUYA project, based at SOAS University of London and conducted in partnership with the University of Birmingham, Universität Trier and the Freie Universität Berlin, has lent additional support in the form of a publication subsidy as well as a Postdoctoral Fellowship which has enabled me to complete this work.

x

acknowledgements

I am grateful also to the publisher Brill for including this book in the Corpus Avesticum series and for their technical assistance. Last, but by no means least, I wish to extend my heartfelt thanks to Prof. Almut Hintze, to whom this facsimile edition is dedicated. Prof. Hintze has been instrumental at every step in the process of making this book a reality, from first proposing the idea of a facsimile edition of S1 to approaching donors, liaising with many of the above-mentioned people and organisations, and in her capacity as co-editor with Dr. Cantera, jointly accepting this book in the Corpus Avesticum series. Leon Goldman

London, June 2017

Abbreviations Av. Avestan AY. Anno Yazdegerd CE. Common Era fol., foll. folio(s) H Hand in marg. in margine (in the margin) l., ll. line(s) ms., mss. manuscript(s) Phl. Pahlavi pr.m. prima manu (first hand) r. recto sec.m. secunda manu (second hand) Skt. Sanskrit sup.scr. superscriptum (above the line) v. verso v.ll. variae lectiones (different readings) Y. Yasna

chapter 1

Introduction The manuscript S1 is one of the chief witnesses to the Sanskrit Yasna and was rightly described by Geldner as an ‘[e]xcellent old Ms. of great independence and accuracy’.1 It contains the Avestan text of the Zoroastrian Yasna liturgy to chapter 46.19, together with a Sanskrit translation and commentary referred to in some manuscripts as the zand hindūgīg (‘Indian exposition’).2 The term ‘Sanskrit Yasna’ is used to denote both the Sanskrit language version of the Yasna liturgy as well as the class of manuscripts in which the text has been transmitted. This class is populated by almost two dozen known examples kept in European, North American and Indian collections.3 Although it does not bear a date, S1 has the appearance of being one of the oldest of its kind and represents a branch of transmission that is distinct from another undated, yet presumed old Sanskrit Yasna codex, J3.

1  Geldner, Prolegomena, xiii. 2  See, for example, ms. K6 fol. 31v in marg. 3  The most recent and comprehensive list of Sanskrit Yasna mss. is included in the survey by Hintze, 2012.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���8 | doi ��.��63/9789004357730_002

chapter 2

The Parsi Sanskrit Tradition The Sanskrit Yasna belongs to a larger body of Zoroastrian Sanskrit literature. This principally consists of Sanskrit language versions of pre-existent Zoroastrian works. These include partial or complete Sanskrit translations of texts originally composed in Avestan and for which Pahlavi language versions also exist, namely: the Yasna; many Khorde Avesta texts; and a very small section of the Vīdēvdād.1 In addition, the Zoroastrian Sanskrit literature includes translations of texts originally composed in Pahlavi, such as: the Ardā Wīrāz Nāmag; the Dādestān ī Mēnōg ī Xrad; and the Škand Gumānīg Wizār. Finally, there exists one original Zoroastrian Sanskrit composition known as the Ṣoḍaśa-ślokāḥ ‘Sixteen stanzas’.2 Many of the Sanskrit translations are attributed by the Zoroastrian tradition to Nēryōsangh Dhaval. His name appears in this connection in the introductory and concluding notes that are copied into numerous Parsi Sanskrit manuscripts, including those of the Sanskrit Yasna: || idaṃ ijiśnijaṃdapustakaṃ māyā nirīosaṃghena dhavalasutena pahalavījaṃdāt saṃskratabhāṣāyām avatāritaṃ ||3 This manuscript of the Yasna’s zand was translated from the Pahlavi zand into the Sanskrit language by me, Nirīosangha, son of Dhaval. Nēryōsangh Dhaval is also credited with rendering Pahlavi into Pāzand. The Pāzand-Sanskrit manuscripts of, for example, the Škand Gumānīg Wizār and

1  See Unvala, 1925. Mirza, 1969. A digitised copy of ms. Cod. Iran. 30 is viewable via the website of the Kongelige Bibliotek (www.kb.dk; accessed 21.06.2017). 2  Nearly all of these Sanskrit texts were edited by Bharucha, Collected Writings. Certain individual Zoroastrian Sanskrit texts have been edited and translated by other scholars. These include: Yasna 1–56 by von Spiegel, Sanskrit-Uebersetzung; Yasna 1 by Mills, Yasna I; Yasna 9–10 (Hōm Yašt) by Unvala, Hōm Yašt; the Gāϑās by Mills, Gâthâs; Yasna 57 by Dehghan, Srōš Yašt; the Škand Gumānīg Wizār by West/Jâmâsp-Âsânâ, SGV and Degener, ŠGV; the Nyāyišns by Dhalla, Nyaishes and Taraf, Niyāyiš; the Aogəmadaēcā by Geiger, Aogemadaêcâ and JamaspAsa, Aogəmadaēcā; the Ṣoḍaśa-ślokāḥ by Hodivala, 1925, and Schmidt, 1960–1961; the Dādestān ī Mēnōg ī Xrad by West, Mainyo-I-Khard. 3  Text per K6 fol. 1r–1v. Presumably, the same note stood at the beginning of S1. The initial leaves of this manuscript however, have been lost. See further discussion below (section 3). © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���8 | doi ��.��63/9789004357730_003

The Parsi Sanskrit Tradition

3

the Ardā Wīrāz Nāmag4 contain within their introduction the additional statement that the manuscripts were: … viṣamapārasīkākṣarebhyaśca avistākṣarairlikhitaṃ sukhaprabodhāya …5 … written with the Avestan letters from the difficult Parsi letters for easy understanding…. For researchers of Parsi history, the task of dating Nēryōsangh Dhaval has proved frustrating. Early Western scholars ranged in their estimates over some 500 years. Führer argued that the ‘high antiquity’ of the Sanskrit Khorde Avesta manuscript J9, which bears the date Saṃvat 1400, as well as the style of Sanskrit employed proves ‘as distinctly as possible that he [viz. Nēryōsangh] lived before the twelfth century of our era’.6 Mills proposed a similar date on the basis that ‘several prominent Parsee families trace their descent to that useful scholar; and from the genealogies we can form a closely approximating opinion as to when Neryosangh’s death took place, for he must have been born about AD 1160’.7 By contrast, Haug maintained that Nēryōsangh ‘must have lived some time as early as the 15th century; and judging from their genealogies, the present dasturs are inclined to think he flourished around that time’.8 As the gulf between Mills’ and Haug’s estimates illustrates, Parsi priestly genealogies are unreliable sources for tracing distant figures. Indeed, in his study of the Naosari priestly lineages, Ervad Meherjirana himself expressed deep scepticism that any remotely accurate date for Nēryōsangh could be arrived at on genealogical grounds. In support, he drew attention to the common practice among Mobeds when writing books to mention: … his name and that of his ancestors as far as he knows them, and then wind up with “descended from Homjiar,” or “descended from Nureeosung Dhaval,” although he knows that between the last direct ancestor he has mentioned, and Homjiar or Nureeosung, many generations of Mobéds 4  Baghbidi 2012, 2 makes the unsubstantiated claim that ‘Nēryōsang was also the first Zoroastrian priest to transcribe some of the original Middle Persian texts written in the Pahlavi script into the Avestan alphabet, which was more comprehensible to the Parsis’ (italics mine). 5  Text from Bharucha, Sanskrit Writings, IV, i. 6  Führer 1883–1885, 85. 7  Mills 1894, 121. A 12th century date was also assumed by Geldner, Prolegomena, xxxiii and Tavadia, Sprache und Literatur, 14. 8  Haug, Sacred Language, 55. Cf. also Burnouf, Commentaire, xiv; West, Mainyo-I-Khard, x; Geiger, Aogemadaêcâ, 7, who similarly suggested a 15th century date.

4

chapter 2

have flourished. The reason for this method is that the writer desires to be known as having descended from Homjiar or Nureeosung: not that he can trace his lineage direct from these great names.9 Instead, Meherjirana endorsed an even earlier date for Nēryōsangh Dhaval: circa 721 CE. This he based on a Parsi legend which holds that it was Nēryōsangh who founded the Ātaš Bahrām at Udvada in the early 8th century and negotiated with Jādī Rānā for the Zoroastrians’ rights to stay in India following their arrival from Iran. The origins of this belief are obscure, but it is noteworthy that no trace of it can be found in the Qeṣṣe-ye Sanjān, the Persian text from 1599 CE. purporting to detail the Parsis’ history of their journey to, and settlement in, Sanjān.10 Just as little can be asserted with confidence regarding Nēryōsangh’s date, or even historicity, so too there exists a paucity of facts relating to the origins of the Parsi Sanskrit tradition in general. The earliest surviving, datable Parsi Sanskrit source is the colophon to the Pahlavi Yasna codex K5,11 written in 1323 CE. It is shown here, together with a transcription and translation:

Figure 1

K5 Sanskrit Colophon.

9  Meherjirana, Parsi Priests, 10. 10  As rightly noted by Williams, Qeṣṣe-Ye Sanjān, 230 with fn.5. 11  Slightly older is the manuscript MK, copied in 1322 ce. Its Sanskrit colophon (originally foll. 161–162) is missing. However, the colophon is reproduced in ms. JJ. See Jamasp-Asana, Pahlavi Texts, 169–70. The colophon is largely the same as that found in K5 (above), differing in certain particulars such as the date.

The Parsi Sanskrit Tradition

5

[1] saṃvat 1379 varṣe mārgga śudi 8 budhe pāsī [2] saṃ 692 varṣe māha dai roja āsmān adhyeha [3] staṃbhatīrthe sulatāna śrī gayāsaddīne rājyaṃ paripaṃ [4] thayatītyevaṃ kāle erānajamīdeśāt samā [5] yāta pārasījñātīya ācārya kaiṣusravasuta [6] acāryamihiravānasya bahutaraṃ mānaṃ kāgalaṃ [7] likhāpanaṃca pradāya pārasī vyava sāṃgaṇasuta [8] vyava cāhilena puṇyārthaṃ etasya pārśvāt idaṃ [9] pustakaṃ likhāpitaṃ | īyasnijaṃdanāmā | yaḥ ko‘ [10] pi pustakamidaṃ rakṣati | paṭhati tena vyava cāhi [11] lasya pūrvajānāṃ muktātmanām tathā etasya nimi [12] ttaṃ puṇyaṃ karanīyaṃ || [Copied] In the year Saṃvat 1379 on Wednes[day], the 8th of the bright half of the month in the month of Mārga[śirṣa], in the Parsi year 692, the month Dai, the day Asmān, here today in Stambhatīrtha (= Cambay)12 at the time when Sultān Śrī Gayāsadīn is exercising his royal authority. Thus, the trader13 Cahil, son of the trader Saṃgan, a Persian, having sent a letter (written with) the greatest respect and a perquisite for writing,14 caused this manuscript, namely the īyasna (=Yasna) with its jaṃda (=Zand), to be copied *at his own expense (?)15 for merit’s sake by Ā cārya Mihravan, 12  Cf. the Sanskrit colophon copied into the manuscript PB dated Saṃvat 1378/Parsi 692 that was (originally) written ‘adhi staṃbhatīrthe śrīnāgasārikāyām sulatāna śrī gayasudīne rājyam …’ (text as given in Sanjana, zjsd, xlvii–xlviii.). Sanjana, loc. cit. interpreted stambhatīrthe as here referencing the Ātaš Bahrām in Naosari (the latter indicated by the old place name of Nāgasārika). I think it possible however, that the author of the original colophon took as their model one copied in Cambay (i.e. one similar to that found in K5) and in attempting to substitute the dates and place name accidentally included staṃbhatīrthe from the model, thus ending up with two place names, viz. staṃbhatīrthe (=Cambay) and nāgasārikāyām (=Naosari). On the manuscript PB and its relation to L4 (whose colophon is missing), see Cantera, ll, 135 fn.130 and 145 fn.142. 13  On vyava as an abbreviation of vyavahārin m. ‘trader, merchant’ or vyavahāraka m. ‘dealer, trader’ see Hodivala, Parsi History, 125. Cf. also Sircar, ieg, 381 who notes the frequent abbreviation of vyavahārin to vya in medieval Jain inscriptions. 14  On the meaning of likhāpanaṃ ‘perquisite for writing’, cf. Sircar, sic, 287–288 who gives the text of a so-called Gaurīvarāṭikā-patram ‘deed of [the acceptance of] virgin money’. The text ends with the words ‘likhāpana ānā tīni’ translated as ‘The perquisite for getting [the deed] written is three Annas [only]’. 15   pārśvāt. The suggested meaning follows Bharucha, Sanskrit Writings, III, 49 fn. 7 (‘with his own expense’). The primary meaning of pārśva- is ‘side, flank’ and the word often indicates nearness or proximity. That Cahil Saṃgan sent Mihrābān Kay-Husraw a letter together with a payment for copying the manuscript suggests the act of writing K5 was

6

chapter 2

son of Ā cārya Kaikhusrava, belonging to the Persian community and coming from the land of Iran. Whoever protects [and] recites this manuscript, so on account of him merit is to be accrued by the trader Cahil [and] his liberated16 ancestors. With some apparent difficulty, the writer17 of this colophon has attempted to incorporate certain medieval Indian locutions and, unlike in the Pahlavi colophons to Mihrābān Kay-Husraw’s manuscripts, references Sultān Śrī Gayāsadīn (Ghiyāth al-Dīn Tughluq Shāh) who at that time was reigning over the Delhi Sultanate. The historical record is too incomplete for us to conclude that the appending of Sanskrit colophons to Zoroastrian manuscripts was inaugurated by Cahil Saṃgan. It is at least possible however, that the tradition of producing Sanskrit versions of Zoroastrian texts developed as an extension of this practice. The first evidence for such Parsi Sanskrit translations dates to within a century of Mihrābān Kay-Husraw’s manuscripts. The Khorde Avesta manuscript H2, for example, which contains Avestan and Pāzand texts together with their Sanskrit versions, bears a date corresponding to 1415 CE. J9 – another old Khorde Avesta manuscript with Sanskrit, belongs to a similar era: its āśīrvāda states it was written after Saṃvat 1400, so indicating a period between the mid14th to mid-15th centuries CE. As discussed below, the palaeographic similarities between these two codices and S1 hint at the latter’s shared antiquity. By contrast, the oldest dated Sanskrit Yasna manuscripts belong only to the first half of the 18th century CE.18

not done in Cahil’s physical presence. Beside these meanings, pārśva- was also used as a technical term ‘marginal revenue’ as attested in Kauṭilya’s Arthaśāstra (2.6.16; 2.15.3), see Shamasastry, Arthaśāstra, 113, 180. This meaning however, seems too specialised for the present context. A comparison might then be made with the later Indic (e.g. Hindi) postposition pās ‘near’ which is also used in constructions with oblique pronominal forms indicating possession, e.g. mere pās ‘I have’. Thus, we might understand etasya pārśvāt as ‘from what belongs to him’, i.e. ‘at his expense’, as Bharucha suggested. 16  Skt. muktātman- lit. ‘whose soul is liberated’ is the regular translation of Av. aṣ̌auuan-/Phl. ahlaw. 17  Although the writer of the Sanskrit colophon is generally assumed to be identical with the writer of the rest of the manuscript, namely Mihrābān Kay-Husraw, we cannot be certain of this. 18  E.g. K7 (1726 ce.).

chapter 3

Physical Description In its current state, S1 consists of 155 unbound leaves, the last measuring 31 × 23 cms. These are numbered in Devanāgarī from 4 through 160. The three initial leaves are lost and the numerical sequence becomes disturbed at the 27th surviving leaf: originally, this was correctly numbered 30 (=27 + 3 missing leaves), but was altered to 32, which jump in numbering was then continued, the 28th surviving leaf being numbered 33 and so on. The text begins on the first surviving leaf midway through Y.1.6 and is cut off at Y.46.19 on the 155th surviving leaf. It is not known how many leaves have been lost from the end of the manuscript. Each leaf contains around 15 lines of text per side, written in black ink. A very small amount of red ink is present in some of the floral ornamentations (e.g. foll. 74r, 75r). At least three different hands are identifiable. As was the custom,1 the Sanskrit text portions are written upside-down relative to the Avestan. This was to enable a continuity of line between the right →left running Avestan script and the left →right running Nāgarī script. The paper is of a light brown colour with light surface soiling. There are numerous liquid stains with tide lines as well as paper losses due to insect damage. The pulpy edges contain many creases and tears and more or less barbarous attempts at preventing marginal tears from worsening have been made. From Geldner’s description,2 these had already been effected by the time he received the manuscript. The least intrusive of these interventions involved applying paper strips to the leaves’ edges with adhesive. This (no doubt well intentioned) act however, resulted in valuable text being covered. Worse was the process of excision carried out on the manuscript: here, the edge(s) of a leaf were simply cut down (as, for example, on fol. 106) or a triangular or square section of paper removed (as, for example, on fol. 105). In 2015, treatment on the manuscript was performed by conservators at the Conservation Center for Art and Historic Artifacts (Philadelphia, PA). This work, funded jointly by Columbia University Libraries and the Federation of 1  A notable exception is the Sanskrit Yasna ms. J* (present whereabouts unknown). A single image from this manuscript was published by Mills, Yasna I. West/Jâmâsp-Âsânâ, SGV, xxiii, refer to two Pāzand/Sanskrit manuscripts (‘JJ’ and ‘JE’) of the Škand Gumānīg Wizār in which the Sanskrit is likewise not inverted. 2  Geldner, Prolegomena, xiii.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���8 | doi ��.��63/9789004357730_004

8

chapter 3

Zoroastrian Associations of North America (FEZANA), involved the removal, where possible, of paper strips as were covering the text and some reinforcing of weak areas. It is important to note that the existence of several skinned areas resulting from the removal of paper strips predate the 2015 treatment. The before (left) and after (right) images of fol. 30r shown below are illustrative of the conservation work done on S1:

Figure 2

S1 before (left) and after (right) conservation.

The manuscript ink displays moderate cracks with minor to moderate ink losses from abrasion and the removal of paper strips. Testing with deionized water droplets and light blotting however, showed the ink to be generally stable.

chapter 4

Age and History The siglum ‘S1’ was given to the manuscript by Geldner; S standing for Surat, the Gujarati city where the manuscript was formerly housed as part of the private collection of Mobed Mancherji Barozji Powri. Following its loan to Professors Geldner (during or before 1895) and Mills,1 S1 was donated to Columbia University in 1902 by A.V.W. Jackson on behalf of its owner and Dastur Kaikhusro Jamaspji. S1 thus joined five other Zoroastrian manuscripts gifted by the Parsi community to Columbia University (through Jackson) the previous year. The generosity of these donations merited write-ups in the New York Times.2 Since its donation, S1 has remained at Columbia University, being housed in the Rare Book and Manuscript Library, catalogued as X892.5Av3 N22. In Cantera’s revised system of manuscript identifiers, S1 is known by the alternative siglum 0677. About the age of S1 few facts can be established: if it once contained a colophon this has been lost; it therefore bears no date and none of the scribes responsible for it has yet been identified. Based on his assessment of the paper, Geldner3 postulated the manuscript might derive from the 15th, or late 14th centuries CE. Mills4 too, commented on the paper’s quality, being struck by its strong resemblance ‘in texture and in tint’ to the Pahlavi Yasna codex J2, dated 1323 CE. Whilst the process by which these estimates were arrived at is rather unreliable, Geldner’s suggested date can perhaps be supported by palaeographic arguments: As remarked upon by Geldner,5 the style of Avestan handwriting in S1 resembles in places that of the Khorde Avesta with Sanskrit manuscripts H2, 1  See Mills, Yasna I, xxviii with fn. ‘For Nēryōsangh’s Sanskrit Text I have collated three additional Mss., the one termed S1 … The first two were sent me through the influence of Shams Ul Ulema* (so of the British Government) J.J. Modi, Head Priest of the Parsis in Colaba, Bombay, and Secretary to the Parsi Panchayat’. 2  The first article, entitled “Rare Oriental Manuscripts”, appeared in the New York Times March 23, 1901 edition. The second article (pertaining to S1) was entitled “A Rare Zoroastrian Manuscript at Columbia University” appeared in the New York Times August 16, 1902 edition. 3  Geldner, Prolegomena, xxx. 4  Mills 1900, 514. 5  Geldner, Prolegomena, iv.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���8 | doi ��.��63/9789004357730_005

10

chapter 4

(bearing the date AY. 784 = 1415 CE.)6 and J9 (written during Vikram Saṃvat 1400, so potentially from the second half of the 14th century CE. to the mid-15th century CE.).7 Together, these three codices reveal a palaeographic tradition in India that likely predates the arrival of the Iranian priests Mihrābān and Rōstahm in the late 13th and early 14th centuries CE.8 In light of these observations, it seems plausible that S1 was written in a time and place not too far removed from J9 and H2,9 thus making Geldner’s rough estimation of a 15th century date appear reasonable.

6  N B. H2 in Geldner = H1 in Bharucha, Sanskrit Writings, I, vii. 7  See Geldner’s remarks, Prolegomena, iv fn.1. 8  As noted by Cantera, ll, 146–47. 9  Cf. Hodivala 1925, 270 ‘… I venture to say that the probabilities are in all favour of the supposition that H (or H2) J9 and S were all written by some priest or priests of Navsari, and that they are all heirlooms which were transmitted and preserved for generations in one or other branch of some old Bhagariā family’.

chapter 5

Palaeography One of the most striking features of S1 is that it appears to have been written by three distinct hands. Geldner made the highly implausible suggestion that a single scribe had simply ‘imitated, but not consistently, the writing of the Ms. before him’.1 Mills however, was almost certainly correct in asserting that the manuscript ‘shows traces of the workmanship of different penmen’.2 The changes in scribe are frequent and without obvious pattern, occurring almost 150 times. Moreover, these changes take place not only at natural boundaries, such as the commencement of a new stanza or chapter, but often in the middle of a line3 and even in the middle of a word.4 Each of these changes is noted in the table below: Hand 1 (H1)

7.21 (30v l.7) 7.24 (31v l.4)

Hand 2 (H2)

7.3 (29v l.5) 7.22 (31r l.3) 7.26 (32r l.2) 8.1 (32r l.10)

9.2 (35r l.1) 9.3 (35r l.8) 9.7 (36v l.1) 9.13 (38v l.2)

Hand 3 (H3)

9.1 (34r l.12)

8.1 (32r l.10) 9.1 (34r l.8)

9.2 (35r l.3) 9.5 (36r l.4) 9.8 (37r l.1)

1  Geldner, Prolegomena, xiii. 2  Mills 1900, 514. 3  E.g. fol. 64r l.5. 4  E.g. fol. 91v l.5 (Sanskrit text); fol. 116r l.5 (Avestan text).

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���8 | doi ��.��63/9789004357730_006

12

chapter 5

(cont.) Hand 1 (H1)

9.22 (41r l.10) 9.25 (42r l.1) 9.30 (43v l.2) 9.32 (44r l.10) 10.13 (47v l.3) 11.1 (50r l.1) 11.17 (52r l.8) 12.1 (53r l.3) 12.6 (54v l.10) 13.2 (56v l.1) 13.3 (57r l.1)

16.5 (61v l.1) 17.11 (63v l.7)

18.3 (64v l.3) 18.9 (66r l.1)

Hand 2 (H2)

Hand 3 (H3)

9.18 (40r l.1) 9.22 (41v l.1) 9.26 (42v l.1) 9.31 (43v l.14) 10.4 (45r l.8) 10.17 (48v l.10) 11.3 (50v l.2) 11.18 (52v l.1) 12.2 (53v l.1) 13.1 (56r l.1)

13.1 (56r l.4)

13.2 (56v l.1) 13.5 (57v l.1) 16.3 (61r l.1)

16.1 (60r l.1)

16.5 (61v l.3) 18.1 (64r l.5) 18.2 (64v l.1) 18.6 (65v l.1) 19.2 (66v l.1)

18.1 (64r l.8)

13

Palaeography

Hand 1 (H1)

19.7 (68r l.6) 19.12 (69v l.9) 19.16 (71v l.1) 20.2 (73r l.8)

22.2 (76r l.1) 24.2 (78r l.1) 24.10 (79v l.6) 26.11 (82r l.10) 28.1 (85v l.1) 29.3 (89r l.12) 29.10 (91v l.6) 30.10 (95r l.2) 31.2 (96r l.3)

Hand 2 (H2)

19.8 (68v l.4) 19.13 (69v l.12) 19.17 (71v l.6) 20.5 (74r l.3) 22.1 (75r 1.14)

32.7 (104v l.2) 32.14 (107r l.1)

22.1 (75r l.13) ?

22.4 (76v l.1) 24.4 (78v l.1) 24.12 (80r l.1) 27.1 (82v l.1) 28.5 (86v l.1) 29.3 (89v l.1) 29.11 (91v l.11) 31.1 (95v l.1) 31.4 (96v l.1) 31.11 (98v l.12)

31.21 (101v l.11)

Hand 3 (H3)

31.22 (102r l.1) 32.9 (105r l.3)

31.10 (98v l.3) 31.20 (101v l.5)

14

chapter 5

(cont.) Hand 1 (H1)

Hand 2 (H2)

32.15 (107r l.12) 33.4 (108v l.13) 33.7 (109v l.6) 34.1 (112v l.1)

33.12 (111v l.1) 34.3 (113r l.2) 34.6 (114v l.1)

34.12 (116r l.5)

34.11 (116r l.1) 35.2 (118r l.1)

35.7 (119r l.9) 35.9 (119v l.9)

35.6 (119r l.1)

Hand 3 (H3)

33.2 (108r l.8) 33.5 (109r l.7) 33.10 (110v l.6)

34.5 (114r l.3) 34.8 (115r l.1) 34.14 (116v l.6) 35.4 (118v l.1)

35.8 (119v l.5) 35.10 (120r l.1) 38.2 (122r l.1) 38.4 (122v l.1) 40.1 (125r l.1) 40.4 (125v l.1) 41.6 (127r l.1) 42.6 (128v l.1) 43.2 (129v l.1)

36.6 (121v l.1) 38.3 (122r l.3) 40.1 (124v l.5) 40.3 (125r l.8) 41.4 (126r l.15) 42.4 (128r l.2) 43.1 (129r l.8)

15

Palaeography

Hand 1 (H1)

43.3 (130r l.1)

Hand 2 (H2)

43.4 (130r l.7) 43.13 (134r l.1) 43.16 (135r l.1) 44.2 (136r l.1) 44.6 (137v l.1)

44.13 (140v l.1)

44.9 (139r l.1) 44.14 (141r l.1) 44.19 (143r l.1) 45.2 (144v l.1) 45.6 (145v l.15) 45.8 (147r l.1) 46.5 (150r l.1) 46.14 (154r l.1)

Hand 3 (H3)

43.11 (133r l.2) 43.14 (134r l.9) 44.1 (135v l.1) 44.4 (137r l.1) 44.7 (138r l.5)

44.16 (141v l.14) 45.1 (144r l.1) 45.5 (145v l.9) 45.7 (146v l.1) 46.4 (149v l.4) 46.13 (153v l.2)

This feature is without parallel in the known Zoroastrian manuscripts and cannot be easily explained. The three distinct styles of handwriting are compared below, beginning with the Avestan script.

16 5.1

chapter 5

Avestan Palaeography

5.1.1 Hands 1, 2 and 3 Overview Hand 1:

Figure 3

Hand 1 writing sample.

The first hand encountered in S1 can best be described as conforming to the ‘Mihrābān style’, the Avestan letters bearing close resemblance to those written by the Iranian priest Mihrābān Kay-Husraw, the scribe of, among others, the Pahlavi Yasna manuscripts K5 and J2. Up to Y.31.20 (fol. 101v l.5), the alternation of scribes is principally between Hand 1 and Hand 2. Hand 2:

Figure 4

Hand 2 writing sample.

The style of handwriting here identified as Hand 2 resembles in some key palaeographic respects two early Sanskrit Khorde Avesta manuscripts, namely H2 and J9.5 5  The present whereabouts of these two manuscripts are not known. Two pages of H2 however, are reproduced in Bharucha, Sanskrit Writings, V, 77–78. Two pages of J9 are reproduced in Mills, Yasna I. A further two pages from this manuscript are reproduced in Führer 1883–1885.

Palaeography

17

A shared distinction of these three handwriting styles is the unusual form given to the letters h and v (see section 5.1.2.5). Hand 2 is broadly characterised by an angularity of letter shapes that contrast with the more fluid characters drawn by Hand 1 and to a lesser extent, Hand 3, as well as a slight shakiness of line. It is also the best represented hand in S1, alternating mainly with Hand 1 in the earlier parts of the manuscript and with Hand 3 in the later parts. Hand 3:

Figure 5

Hand 3 writing sample.

The least well represented of the three hands, Hand 3 is also the least palaeographically consistent, at times appearing closer in style to Hand 1, at others Hand 2. Prior to Y.31.10, Hand 3 is responsible for only a small amount of text distributed over six leaves. In these early sections, Hand 3 makes occasional use of letter forms for h and v that resemble those of Hand 2 whereas in the later sections (Y.31.20 onwards), the scribe sticks to the Hand 1 style for these letters. Throughout, Hand 3 employs two distinct forms for the letter r (see section 5.1.2.5), the one variant somewhat resembling Greek uncial lambda. Without pretence to comprehensiveness, some further observations on the individual orthographic and palaeographic conventions are here presented. 5.1.2 Orthographic and Palaeographic Differences 5.1.2.1 ą (variant 1), ą̇ The letter ą (variant 1)6 is attested in all three hands. By contrast, ą̇ is only attested in Hand 1. In form, the letter ą is written in a broadly similar fashion by

6  On ą and ą̇ , see Hoffmann/Narten, Archetypus, 72ff where it is argued the two originally had distinct values.

18

chapter 5

Hand 2 and Hand 3. In Hand 1 though, it has a distinct character that includes a ‘tooth’ at the top of the left, vertical stroke. H1

H2

H3

   

   

   

–

–

ą (variant 1)

ą̇         

Concerning the distribution of ą and ą̇ in Hand 1’s text, ą occurs seldom and the two are treated as allographs, cf. ϑβąm (fol. 119v l.9): ϑβą̇ m (fol. 28r l.9); hātąm (fol. 119v ll.2–3): hātą̇ m (fol. 28v l.2); aēšąm (fol. 119v l.10): aēšą̇ m (fol. 104v l.3). Cf. also the notes on ṇ (section 5.1.2.4). ą (variant 2) S1 attests to a form of ą which is unknown in other Avestan manuscripts. The evidence consists of only two instances. H1

H2

H3

ą (variant 2)

–

context

–

19

Palaeography

The first example encountered is written by Hand 2 and occurs on fol. 68r l.2 within the word pąŋtaŋhum; the second is written by Hand 1 and occurs on fol. 73v l.15 within the word cuuątǝm.7 Geldner8 read the first form as pǝ̄ŋtaŋhum which is implausible (cf. ǝ̄ in section 5.1.2.5). The character in question is in fact identical with Hand 2’s numeral ‘2’ (see section 5.1.2.5) though the context would also make such a reading implausible. For the second word, Geldner noted no variants to his edited form cuuaṇtǝm. From a palaeographic standpoint, ą (variant 2) can be related to ą (variant 1) and ą̇ through the

/

element; the left hook at the bottom is perhaps to be

associated with the curved, left element of ą (variant 1). 5.1.2.2 ġ The letter ġ is infrequently found in Avestan manuscripts, the exception being in those manuscripts with Sanskrit translations.9 In Hand 3, ġ is identical to s. Hand 1 writes the letter ġ exactly as the Pahlavi ligature .10 In Hand 2, ġ and s are mostly indistinguishable, a correction (pr.m.?) on fol. 88v l.8 ġərəzdā however, appears to also show the form (ġ2, below). H1

H2

H3

ġ ġ1

ġ2

7  Here, ą likely stands for the preconsonantal nasal ṇ. Cf. fol. 86r l.6, H1 meą̇ .gaire for mǝ̄ṇ. gairē. 8  Geldner, Avesta, I, 76. 9  See Cantera, ll, 146 fn.149. 10  See Hoffmann/Narten, Archetypus, 71.

20

chapter 5

A phonetic distinction between ġ and g is not evidenced in S1. Although ġ frequently occurs in the group -ǝ̄ṇġ (< IIr. *-ans) where it is arguably primary,11 the spelling -ǝ̄ṇg is not uncommon, cf. fol. 134v l.11 vīspǝ̄ṇg aŋrǝ̄ṇġ (H3). In word-initial position too, examples of ġ and g being treated as allographs are found, e.g. fol. 1v l.8, ġaēϑaiiā̊; fol. 11r l.1 gaeϑəm (both H1). 5.1.2.3 y, ẏ In all three hands the letters y and ẏ12 are attested in word-initial position, although the latter occurs in only a limited number of instances, e.g. ẏą̇ m (fol. 10v l.6, H1); ẏāiriia (fol. 11v l.2, H1); ẏā (fol. 56r l.13, H3); ẏim, ẏazatǝm (fol. 60r l.2, H3); ẏiiat̰ (fol. 130r l.7; 14, H2); ẏaestē (fol. 135r l.1, H2); ẏācā (fol. 143r l.10, H2). H1

H2

H3

y

ẏ

11  See Hoffmann/Forssman, alf, 88. 12  Regarding the letters y and ẏ I here follow the diacritic convention of Hoffmann/Narten, Archetypus. See Cantera, ll, 123f. for a discussion of their distribution, though note his convention concerning y and ẏ is the reverse of Hoffmann/Narten’s.

21

Palaeography

5.1.2.4 ṇ The preconsonantal nasal letter ṇ has two distinct forms.13 These are essentially identical to the nasalised letters ą, ą̇ (see section 5.1.2.1) save for an additional ‘aleph’ shape attached at the upper-right. In the system of Hoffman/ Narten, only the character referred to here as ‘variant 2’ is recognised and it has not been customary to distinguish the two forms in transliteration. Hand 1 employs both forms though shows an overwhelming preference for variant 2. In this hand, variant 1 occurs, for example, in the words fol. 130r ll.2–3 huzǝ̄ṇtušǝ̄ spǝṇtō; fol. 130r l.5 mǝ̄ṇŋhāi. By contrast, Hand 2 exclusively employs variant 1, whilst Hand 3 exclusively employs variant 2. H1

H2

ṇ (variant 1)

ṇ (variant 2)

H3

–

–

13  On these two preconsonantal nasals (and arguably others), see Ferrer Losilla 2016, 160f.

22

chapter 5

5.1.2.5 Remaining Avestan Letters The remaining palaeographic variations displayed across the three hands are presented below:14 H1

H2

H3

ā̊

ǝ

ǝ̄

ē

ī

ū

14  Note certain letters, e.g. a, ā, i, u are not included as, palaeographically, they are highly homogenous.

23

Palaeography

H1

H2

H3

k

x

x́

xv

ɣ

c

–

24

chapter 5

(cont.) H1

j

ϑ

d

δ

t̰

f

H2

H3

25

Palaeography

H1

H2

H3

β ŋ

ŋ́ n

m̨

v

r

–

26

chapter 5

(cont.) H1

H2

H3

s

š

ṣ̌

š́

ž

h

Numeral 1

Numeral 2

–

–

–

27

Palaeography

H1

H2

H3

Numeral 3

Numeral 4

–

–

Unattested are the nasals ń and ŋv.15 5.2

Sanskrit Palaeography

The script employed for the Sanskrit portions most closely resembles socalled ‘Jaina-Nāgarī’, being a variety of the Nāgarī script associated with Jaina manuscripts.16 Certain of the palaeographic and orthographic features observed in the latter however, are unknown to the Parsi Sanskrit manuscripts and, it would appear, vice-versa. A new term ‘Parsi-Nāgarī’ is therefore proposed, specifically referring to the script employed in Parsi Sanskrit manuscripts.

15  On the distribution of these letters in the manuscripts, see Cantera, ll, 128–33. 16  Kapadia 1938, 101, defined the term ‘Jaina manuscript’ with reference to this script, stating: ‘(2) Whatever Ms. is written in Jaina Nāgarī characters is a Jaina Ms.’ On Jaina-Nāgarī, see also: Kapadia 1937; Kapadia 1935–1936; Renou/Filliozat, L’Inde Classique, II, 678; 693–695.

28

chapter 5

Parsi-Nāgarī and Jaina-Nāgarī share many essential features with the betterknown Devanāgarī script,17 though incorporate certain letter forms that are more archaic. West was seemingly the first to notice this in relation to the Parsi Sanskrit manuscripts of the Mēnōg ī Xrad, remarking: ‘… initial i and î are often written almost precisely as they occur in the Gupta and Kutila inscriptions, and the initial o is also somewhat similar to the o in those inscriptions’.18 Although von Spiegel made some cursory remarks concerning the orthography of Parsi Sanskrit, he omitted from the introduction to his edition of the Sanskrit Yasna a discussion of the manuscripts’ palaeography. This we find most fully detailed by Bharucha in his six-volume series Collected Sanskrit Writings of the Parsis.19 Bharucha however, did not examine S1 and made no attempt to distinguish the various Parsi Sanskrit manuscripts or scribes along these lines. Moreover, he regularised the script to Devanāgarī in his edition. What follows is a close palaeographic examination of the Sanskrit portions of the present manuscript. 5.2.1 Parsi-Nāgarī Vowels Of the thirteen traditionally enumerated Sanskrit vowels, eleven are attested in S1, viz.: a, ā, i, ī, u, ū, ṛ, e, ai, o, au.20 The dependent forms of e, ai, o, au are indicated according to both the pṛṣṭhamātrā and śiromātrā systems, which are detailed below. First however, the independent vowel forms will be discussed. 5.2.1.1 Independent Vowel Forms 5.2.1.1.1 a, ā, u, ū, e The independent forms of a, ā, u, ū, and e and ai21 are written without notable variation in S1. An example of each is shown below:

17  For the purpose of the present discussion, I use the term ‘Devanāgarī’ in a somewhat restricted sense, referring to the form of the script as has become standardised in modern, printed texts and primers. 18  West, Mainyo-I-Khard, xiv. The Kuṭila stone inscription to which West referred is that unearthed in Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh dating to 992 ce. 19  See Bharucha, Sanskrit Writings, I, xxii; II, iv; IV, iii; V, appendix. 20   ṝ and ḷ are not attested. 21  The independent form of au is not attested.

29

Palaeography

a

ā

u

ū

e

ai

5.2.1.1.2 i, ī A rather remarkable feature of S1 is the large number of allographs representing independent i and ī: H1

H2

H3

i

i1

–

i2

–

i3

–

–

30

chapter 5

(cont.) H1

i4

i5

–

H2

H3

–

–

–

ī

ī1

For independent i, all three hands employ a form that is more or less identical with that in Devanāgarī and here simply labelled i. The downward facing tail is, in H2 and H3, sometimes detached.22 In addition, H1 and H2 together make use of five different forms, here labelled i1, i2, i3, i4, i5. Independent i1 is an archaic form that is attested in Kuṭila inscription and also commonly found in Jaina-Nāgarī manuscripts. The independent forms i2, i3, i4, i5 variously combine elements of i and i1. In use, i3, i4 and i5 are extremely rare, each being attested only once at fol. 127v l.10, fol. 2r l.6 and fol. 118r l.3, respectively. While there is an overall preference for i and i1, the variants are employed interchangeably.

22  On this variant cf. Singh, Nāgarī Script, 151 with plate 165, M5 (from Sārdhaśataka manuscript circa 12th century, CE.).

31

Palaeography

Regarding independent ī, the archaic form ī1 and the Devanāgarī form ī freely alternate and are attested by all three hands. 5.2.1.1.3 o As in Jaina-Nāgarī,23 the independent o character resembles independent u with a single, short vertical diacritic above the head-line. Hand 1 and Hand 2 frequently append two diacritics without any apparent change in value (cf. fol. 11v l.6 maidīoi˚ (with o2) and fol. 17r l.10 maidioi˚ (with o1), both Hand 1). Excepting of forms from the stem ojas- ntr. ‘power, strength’ (translating Phl. ōz ‘id.’), the character is only used within Avestan and Pahlavi loanwords/transcriptions and personal names, e.g. fol. 68v l.2, H1 gaiomarddāt (Phl. gayōmart); fol. 68r l.15–68v l.1, H1 aiodāteḥ (Phl. ēkdād, ) etc. H1

H2

H3

o1

o2

–

5.2.1.1.4 ṛ Instances of the independent vocalic ṛ letter are rare, occurring in such forms as: ṛte, ṛddhi˚, and forms from the stem ṛṇa-. The character occurs in other Sanskrit Yasna manuscripts (e.g. KM7) but differs from the Devanāgarī form. The same character is used for jha.24

23  See Balbir, DAK, 49, who notes that, in the manuscripts of the Dānāṣṭakakathā, this sign is used within Prākṛta quotations. 24  Cf. Balbir, DAK, 49. In discussing the Jaina-Nāgarī forms of jha and ṛ in the manuscripts of the Dānāṣṭakakathā, she notes a minor difference in the downward facing hook.

32

chapter 5

H1

ṛ

H2

H3

–

5.2.1.2 Dependent/Diacritic Vowel Forms 5.2.1.2.1 ā The diacritic indicating dependent ā is almost invariably written in the Devanāgarī style as a vertical line to the right of the consonant. On a single occasion however (fol. 71v l.12, H2), ā is represented by a double snarl diacritic above the head-line. Double snarl diacritic H2

paṃcāśat

This double snarl diacritic is well attested in Jaina-Nāgarī manuscripts as well as in the Sanskrit Yasna manuscript K6, with rare examples also occurring in KM7. 5.2.1.2.2 u The placement of the u diacritic in Parsi-Nāgarī can differ from that in Devanāgarī: where in the latter it is regularly placed beneath the body of the consonant or consonant conjunct, in Parsi-Nāgarī it is frequently written to the right of the body. Examples include:

33

Palaeography

bru

tyu

dyu

śru

cf.

cf.

5.2.1.2.3 e, ai, o, au Dependent forms of the so-called ‘complex’ vowels are marked according to two systems: the pṛṣṭhamātrā and śiromātrā. Excepting of ai, which is always written in S1 in the pṛṣṭhamātrā-style, the two systems of marking modifications to the inherent vowel accompanying a consonant freely alternate. The pṛṣṭhamātrā system however, is the more commonly used. ‘complex’ vowel

pṛṣṭhamātrā

śiromātrā

e (ye)

ai

(ṇe)

– (yai)

o (yo)

(mo)

au (yau)

(hau)

34

chapter 5

The use of pṛṣṭhamātrā vowel markings brings with it the potential for misinterpretation, e.g. mistaking a pṛṣṭhamātrā e for an ā associated with the preceding consonant. To reduce the potential for such confusion, it is usual that the head-line breaks after each akṣara. Still, errors of this kind do occur and are revealed in collation, e.g. S1 kapaṭakarmmāṇaḥ: KM7 kapaṭakarmmaṇeḥ (Y.32.11); S1 īajdān: KM7 īajdane (Y.2.18). On very rare occasions, a daṇḍa was misinterpreted in the course of the written transmission as a pṛṣṭhamātrā stroke, e.g. S1 vidhīyate | dīniḥ ||: KM7 vidhīyato dīniḥ || (Y.34.14). 5.2.1.2.4 Ornate Variations The above head-line diacritic used to denote dependent, ‘complex’ vowels as well as the sign for dependent i/ī are occasionally written in a slightly more ornate fashion. These are employed indiscriminately. Examples of each are: (sm)ai

(ś)i

5.2.1.2.5 Avagraha The avagraha sign, used to indicate prodelision of word-initial a is found, as expected, immediately following word-final -o and -e (e.g. fol. 56v l.2, H2 abhyāgato ‘sti; fol. 69r l.3, H2 kārye ‘sti). However, it is also found immediately after word-final: -ā (fol. 64r l.6, H2 ghaṭayitā ‘si); -āḥ (fol. 59v l.12, H2 śrotāḥ ‘su); -ṃ (fol. 64v l.12, H1 cvaṃ ‘si); and -au (fol. 65r l.7, H1 yetau ‘sau). H1

H2

H3

35

Palaeography

5.2.2 Parsi-Nāgarī Consonants Thirty-two of the thirty-three traditionally enumerated consonants are attested in S1; missing is the velar nasal ṅ. Absent also is the candrabindu diacritic sign. Mostly, these characters do not differ from the Devanāgarī letter forms. Some slight graphical variations however, are observable in the following: cha

ja

jha

bha

la

la1

la2

The characters cha,25 ja, jha26 and bha are all written in the common JainaNāgarī style. For the character la there exists a graphical variant (la2) attested only by Hand 1 (e.g. fol. 9v l.8; fol. 26v l.10). 5.2.2.1 Consonant Conjuncts In many cases, the consonant conjuncts in S1 are written with ligatures that differ from Devanāgarī, but parallel Jaina-Nāgarī. As a general rule, the preference when combining consonants is for vertical rather than adjacent conjunction. Since the number of potential bi- and tri-consonantal conjunct combinations is extremely large, the aim here is not to provide an exhaustive catalogue, but rather consider such conjuncts as do not straightforwardly resolve into their constituents, or differ significantly from their Devanāgarī counterparts, or have context dependent phonetic values. 5.2.2.1.1

5.2.2.1.1.1

Velar-initial Conjuncts k

Of the consonant conjuncts with an initial velar, those involving the ligature k are the most divergent from Devanāgarī. Notable are:

25  On the use of cha as an interpunction sign, see section 5.2.3.1. 26  The character jha occurs only once in S1 on fol. 70v l.9, H2 ( jhaṭiti). As noted in section 5.2.1.1.4 it is identical with vocalic ṛ.

36

chapter 5

kṣa

kṛ

kra

    

    

    

In compounded form, the letter k is frequently reduced to a horizontal stroke to the left of the vertical line that joins the head-line, and a downward facing hook to its right (cf. j, 5.2.2.1.2.2). The character kṣa does not obviously contain the ṣa element, though this form is also attested in Jaina-Nāgarī.27 5.2.2.1.1.2

gga/gra

The consonant conjunct sign below may represent gra, as in Devanāgarī, or gga, as it can in Jaina-Nāgarī. The latter regularly results from the doubling of the letter g immediately following an r that’s preceded by a vowel.28 gra/gga

5.2.2.1.2

5.2.2.1.2.1

Palatal-initial Conjuncts c

Illustrative of the tendency for consonants to be conjoined in vertical arrangement (against adjacent arrangement in Devanāgarī) are the conjuncts cca and ccha.

27  See Singh, Nāgarī Script, plate 165. 28  On the optional doubling of consonants after r (or h) preceded by a vowel, cf. Pāṇini, Aṣṭādhyāyī 8.4.46–52.

37

Palaeography

cca

ccha

    

     

5.2.2.1.2.2

j

The ligature representing compounded initial j can resemble that of k (see section 5.2.2.1.1.1), as for example in jda1 and jja. jda

jda1a  

jña

jda2  

jña1  

jja

jña2  

a In certain other Sanskrit Yasna manuscripts e.g. KM7, this conjunct is also used to represent kṣa.



jda



jña

A very frequent consonant conjunct, jda is regularly written with a vertical arrangement of ligatures (e.g. jda1). The adjacent placement recalling more the Devanāgarī style ( jda2) is attested only once in S1 on fol. 38v l.9, H1. Hand 1 employs two allographs representing jña. By contrast, Hand 2 and Hand 3 use only the character jña1.

38

chapter 5 jya (and yya)

The consonant conjunct jya is written in two distinct ways, viz.: jya

     jya1

     jya2

Of these, the first ( jya1) seldom occurs, the only instances being: fol. 35v l.9–10, H1 rājye; fol. 134v l.10, H3 yujyaṃte. The second ( jya2) is attested in forms also from the stems rājya- (e.g. fol. 35v l.14, H1) and yujya- (e.g. fol. 39r l.12, H1), as well as jyoti- (e.g. fol. 20v l.13, H1). In addition, jya2 is regularly used to represent original *yya in forms from the stem *sāhāyya-: against more than a dozen cases of sāhājyaṃ (e.g. fol. 19r l.1, H1), sāhājyena (fol. 59r l.4, H2), sāhājyāya (fol. 106v l.15, H2) etc., there is in S1 only a single instance with yya, namely fol. 4v ll.2–3, H1 sāh·yyaṃ.29 The conjunct sign here labelled jya2 is also common in Jaina-Nāgarī manuscripts, representing the conjuncts *jya and *yya. More generally, uncompounded y frequently stands for j, as in other Sanskrit traditions,30 e.g.: fol. 98.v l.11, H3 yanmano: fol.98v l.15, H2 janmano; fol. 123r l.2, H2 yītaio: Av. jītaiiō. 5.2.2.1.3

5.2.2.1.3.1

Retroflex-initial Conjuncts ṇṇa

In common with Jaina-Nāgarī, the conjunct ṇṇa is distinguished from ṇa by a horizontal line running through the body.

29  The text is broken by a line break and is partially unclear on account of the folio having been cut. 30  From the (Śukla-Yajur-)Vedic tradition, cf. Pratijñā-sūtra 9–13. See Weber, Pratijnâsûtra, 78–80.

39

Palaeography

ṇṇa

    

5.2.2.1.4

5.2.2.1.4.1

Dental-initial Conjuncts tṛ, tsa

As the first member in a conjunction, the letter t is frequently reduced to a horizontal bar, e.g.: tṛ

tsa

    

    

5.2.2.1.4.2

dra

The conjunct dra is regularly written in the Jaina-Nāgarī style (dra1). An alternative form (dra2) is attested once on fol. 40r l.9, H2. dra1

dra2

   

    

5.2.2.1.4.3

ddh/dv, ddhy/dvy

The conjunct signs representing ddh and dv are not distinguishable.31 Similarly, when these are extended with the letter y forming a tri-consonantal conjunct, 31  Concerning this confusion in Jaina manuscripts, see Balbir, DAK, 49.

40

chapter 5

the resultant compound character may represent either ddhy or dvy, according to context. ddh     

varddhayasi       dv dviguṇa       ddhy

    

samṛddhyā      dvy sadvyavasāyena         

5.2.2.1.4.4

dhā, dhyā

dhā and dhyā are distinguished from their Devanāgarī equivalents by the presence of a short horizontal bar linking to the ā-mātrā, a feature also observed in Jaina-Nāgarī. In the case of the conjunct dhyā, it is also notable that the headline is entirely absent. dhā

dhyā

  

     

41

Palaeography

5.2.2.1.5

5.2.2.1.5.1

Sibilant-initial Conjuncts ṣ

Tri-consonantal conjuncts with initial ṣ include ṣśn (ṣśnūmanir, fol. 80v l.1, H2) and, less certainly, ṣsn (e.g. ṣsnūmanih fol. 30v l.14, H1; ṣsnūmani fol. 82r l.7, H2, cf. uruāṣsaḥ fol. 37v l.5, H2), where the ligature -s- is unclear. In these contexts, ṣ is to be pronounced as a voiceless velar. This aligns with the broader phenomenon observable in other Sanskrit traditions of ṣ (under certain conditions) being pronounced as kh32 (cf. fol. 30r l.12, H2 liṣinaṃ for likhitaṃ; note also fol. 31v l.5, H1 śikhyāya against fol. 83r l.13, H2 śiṣyaṃ). ṣṇa

ṣśn(ū)

ṣsn(ū) ?

      H1;

     H2; Cf.

ṣs (?)

5.2.3 Interpunction Signs 5.2.3.1 cha S1

KM7

K6

Turfan fragment

32  From the (Śukla-Yajur-)Vedic tradition, cf. Pratijñā-sūtra 18: atho mūrdhanyoṣmaṇo ‘saṁyuktasya ṭum ṛtr saṁyuktasya ca khakāroccāraṇam ‘Independent or connected to another consonant except cerebrals, cerebral ṣ is pronounced as kh’. See Weber, Pratijnâsûtra, 84. See also Wackernagel(/Debrunner), AiGr, I, 136–137 where it is associated with a north Indian pronunciation.

42

chapter 5

The above sign, consisting of the letter cha bound on both sides by double daṇḍas, is a common feature in many Parsi Sanskrit manuscripts. It is used as a text divider, either breaking up blocks of Sanskrit text or marking the point where the Sanskrit text ends and the Avestan recommences. In S1, it occurs just once on fol. 22v l.5, H1 within an abbreviated text section of Y.4.9–22. By contrast, in the Sanskrit Yasna manuscripts K6 and KM7, it is extremely prevalent, occurring hundreds of times. In the Yasna Sāde manuscript B3 meanwhile, it is used together with the auspicious sign śrīḥ, e.g. fol. 11v l.4: cha ‖ śrīḥ ‖ cha ‖ śrīḥ ‖ cha ‖ śrīḥ ‖ cha ‖ śrīḥ ‖. This use of cha is paralleled in many other Sanskrit manuscript traditions, both Vedic (in the widest sense of the term) and non-Vedic, including Jaina. One of the oldest attestations is found in the Sanskrit Turfan fragment SHT 816r,33 written in the so-called Turkistani Gupta type script (alphabet ‘q’).34 The reason why the character cha should have been employed in this manner remains uncertain. Sircar35 has advanced the hypothesis that it developed from an earlier punctuation sign consisting of a circle with a dot at its centre.36 Being identical to the Brāhmī letter for tha, modified forms of the letter came to be used in later times, resembling partly tha and partly cha. This confusion ultimately lead to the popular use of cha as a concluding mark. Alternatively, one might posit a connection to the Sanskrit verb chā- ‘to cut off’, noting also the late form cha m. ‘dividing; a fragment’ cited in lexicographic texts.37 In the fragments of the Sanskrit Vīdēvdād (Cod. Iran. 30), the use of letters as punctuation is yet more enigmatic: there, we find not only cha, but also ḍha and less frequently, vyā, tta (?), tu, each between double daṇḍas.38 5.2.3.2 daṇḍa Sanskrit text portions are regularly concluded by double daṇḍas marking the point at which the language reverts to Avestan. Double daṇḍa signs are also used within portions of Sanskrit text, typically separating such words as have correspondents in the Avestan version from glosses or exegetical comments that may, or may not, have correspondents in the Pahlavi version. A single daṇḍa may also fulfil this function. 33  Cf. Tripāṭhī, Catalogue, 48. Schubring, Jaina-Handschriften, viii. 34  See Sander, Sanskrithandschriften, 2–4; 44; 181 and Script Table 29. 35  Sircar, Indian Epigraphy, 94. 36  Such a sign, in fact, is attested in S1. See section 5.2.3.3. 37  See Monier-Williams, SktDic, 404, s.v. 2.cha. 38  Cf. Kapadia 1938, 126 with fn.68 who notes that in some Jaina manuscripts gha and ḍha are occasionally used as a closing unit.

43

Palaeography

All three hands employ a variant of the basic daṇḍa sign which has a virāma-type stroke attached. This is inconsistently used. Often it stands in linebreak (including page-break) position where it may indicate a word is split across lines/folios or that the Sanskrit text portion is split across lines/folios. The daṇḍa sign with virāma-type stroke may stand alone or follow a single or double daṇḍa. Double daṇḍa

Single daṇḍa with virāma

Double daṇḍa with virāma

Triple daṇḍa with virāma

    

    

    

     

As an apparent graphical variant to the single daṇḍa with virāma type sign shown above, Hand 2 sporadically writes the sign as a right-curving crescent or L shape (e.g. fol. 37r l.15; fol. 88r l.9,14; fol. 97r l.1,7,11). Hand 2

    

  

5.2.3.3 Opening Signs The points at which the Avestan text portions end and the Sanskrit portions begin are marked by a variety of signs. The pattern underlying their distribution (if there is one) remains unclear.

44

chapter 5

5.2.3.4 Closing Signs The points at which the Sanskrit text portions end and the Avestan portions begin are regularly marked by double daṇḍas which are themselves often followed by a single, small flower motif (puṣpikā) or less commonly, two flower motifs. Again, the pattern governing their distribution remains obscure. Examples include:

Flower motifs also appear within Sanskrit text portions and are often employed as markers separating translations and commentaries on the Yasna text from recitation instructions or remarks that are typically written in the margins of Pahlavi Yasna manuscripts (e.g. fol. 136r l.10–11, H2 praśno jarathuśtrasya: Pt4 fol. 174r in marg. frašn ī zardušt). 5.2.3.5 Chapter Dividers Between certain chapters (e.g. chapters 1/2; 2/3; 3/4; 6/7; 10/11; 13/14; 28/29; 29/30; 30/31; 34/35; 37/38; 38/39; 39/40), much more elaborate constellations of designs appear, e.g.:

45

Palaeography

Divider between chapters 1/2 (fol. 7v)

Divider between chapters 2/3 (fol. 14r; ≃ divider between chapters 3/4 fol. 20v)

      

 

    

 

Many of these motifs replicate exactly such designs as are usually referred to as ‘auspicious symbols’ in descriptions of Indian manuscripts belonging to the Jain, Vedic and Buddhist traditions. As an example, the symbol

found

on fol. 14r (and elsewhere) matches sign number 7 in Roth’s39 illustrated list of ‘maṅgala-symbols’ drawn from Buddhist Sanskrit manuscripts. In those texts, it likewise serves to mark the end of a section or work. 5.2.3.6 Deletion Marks Deletions to the Sanskrit text are marked in three ways: 1) with a series of dots or short strokes above the head-line; 2) with a strikethrough; 3) by drawing a circle around the word(s) to be deleted. deletion dots (fol. 3v l.9, H1) strikethrough (fol. 93v l.1, H2)

39  Roth 1986, 239, 250.

encircled (fol. 94v l.15, H2)

46

chapter 5

5.2.3.7 Lacunae A head-line dash (or dashes) indicates missing/illegible Sanskrit text in the parent manuscript(s), e.g.: Y. 12,2 fol. 53r l.15, H1

                   

Alternatively, a lacuna in the parent manuscript may be indicated simply by leaving a gap in the text of appropriate length. Certain of these cases of missing Sanskrit text appear across manuscripts that are assumed to be quite independent (e.g. S1 and K6) and must therefore, go back to an early point in the Sanskrit Yasna’s transmission. Such corruptions include: the gaps in the Sanskrit text at Y.10.17–18;40 the incomplete Sanskrit translation of Y.44.20;41 and the absence of a Sanskrit version of Y.11.4–7.42 The corruption at Y.9.20 also appears to have its roots deep in the text’s written history. There, S1 (fol. 40v l.15) K6 and KM7 all record yu – na. Based on the corresponding Pahlavi text pad kōxšišn, a correction of the Sanskrit

40  Faced with this corruption, the scribe of K6 has copied into their manuscript the Pahlavi text and supplied, here and there, Sanskrit equivalents, written above the corresponding Avestan and Pahlavi words. 41  In S1 (fol. 143r ll.8–9), the absence of a translation for the Avestan words kąm yāiš gąm kǝrǝpā ušhšcā aēšmāi dātā (so S1) is indicated by a gap of ¾ line + ½ line. In K6, the Pahlavi text is instead provided, and the Sanskrit words teṣāṃ yā yuṣmākaṃ gavāṃ kadarthakānāṃ are written (without inversion) above the Avestan words aiēibiiō kąm yāiš gąm kǝrǝpā, respectively. In T7, the Pahlavi text is likewise given, and the same Sanskrit words as appear in K6 are written both above the corresponding Avestan words and in the margin (where ye replaces yā). 42  In S1 (foll. 50v-51r), both the Avestan and Sanskrit texts are wanting, resulting in 12/3 blank pages. According to von Spiegel, Sanskrit-Uebersetzung, 74, the Sanskrit Yasna ms. P11 is identical. In K6, the Avestan text is written continuously. Some Sanskrit equivalents have been written in superscript, e.g. Y.11.5 Av. vā upa vā has written above it in Nāgarī vā upa vā. In the trilingual ms. KM7, space is left to indicate the missing Skt. text.

47

Palaeography

to *yuddhena is unproblematic and partially supported by the reading of the manuscript H2 vyūddhena.43 Also with deep roots is the corruption at Y.29.10 where S1 (fol. 91v l.5) reads rā ‾ vaca (with rā ‾ being written by Hand 2, and vaca by Hand 1). K6 originally read rā ‾ vaca however, a second hand has inserted jñe beneath the dash. In KM7, the head-line dash is omitted, but the gap retained (rā vaca, in marg.). By contrast, T7 has simply rāvaca (pr.m.) with a superscript correction (sec.m.) to rājyaṃca. According to von Spiegel,44 P11 similarly records rājyaṃca. From the context, the word appears to be a gloss on saharevarāya (corresponding to Av. xšaϑrǝmcā/Phl. xšahrewar). A dative form such as rājñe (ca) would thus fit and in fact, is supported by Y.27.11 and Y.33.14 where śaharevarāya is glossed exactly thus. By contrast, the following indications of missing text in S1 are not characteristic of the broader Sanskrit Yasna tradition. Consideration is given first to divergences between S1 and K6 (the latter generally being representative of the J3 line). Square brackets are here used to indicate a gap in the text, the number contained within, e.g. [3], denotes the approximate number of missing characters. S1

Y.1.14 Y.10.16 Y.10.20 Y.11.2 Y.12.2 Y.13.8 Y.19.12

Y.19.17

K6

schi‾ ca schitaṃca (+T55a; schiti ca KM7) tava ‾ ‾smāt yāvat (+KM7) tāvat yasmāt yāṃ vaḥ bravīmi [6] · vijayavattaro bruvīmi yoti vākyaṃ yoti vijayavattaro (brūvīmi yoti vijayavattaro KM7) nidhā ‾ (+KM7) nidhāpaya nihitah ̣ ste‾ ‾ ‾ steyebhyaḥ (steyebhya KM7) āstīka ‾ ‾ ‾ ‾ ‾ āstīkatvaṃ it dīner (āstīkatvaṃ ya yata dīne utta KM7) kurvvannāste [1–2] kurvvaṃnnāste ǀ hormmijdamana hormmijdamanaḥ (+T7; kurvvannāste hormmijdamanaḥ KM7) saṃśliṣyaṃ naro muktātmani (+T7) saṃśliṣyaṃ [3–4] muktātmani (+KM7)

43  Reading per Bharucha, Sanskrit Writings, II, 25. 44  von Spiegel, Sanskrit-Uebersetzung, 126 fn.10.

48

chapter 5

(cont.)

Y.22.5–22 Y.28.11 Y.32.8 Y.45.10

S1

K6

‖ [2] viśvāḥ ‖ ‾ ‾ ‾rvvaṃ ‾ ‾ ‾ ‾ ‾ ‾ ‾ ‾ + [ ½ line] baliṣṭasya ‖ [6] prāṇasya

yat viśvāḥ (‖ yat viśvāṃ KM7) pūrvvaṃ (+KM7) (no gap; see discussion below) baliṣṭasya ghaṭitāsi śaktimattaḥ prāṇasya (+T7)

At Y.32.8, the text in S1 (fol. 104v ll.7–8) reads (in part): ‖ sīnaḥ masāyatayā bājāyamasāyatayā ‖ ‾ ‾ ‾ ‾ ‾ ‾ ‾ ‾ [½ line]. The text sīnaḥ masāyatayā bājāyamasāyatayā is merely a Sanskritised, phonetic transcription of the Pahlavi comment sēnag-masāy bāzā-masāy (or similar) which occurs both in Y.32.8 and in Y.29.7. In the latter passage, the Sanskrit version contains the same rendering of the Pahlavi but is there followed by the words kriyā paśuyajña vidheḥ mahattamā sikṣitā āste. Presumably, the same text once followed at Y.32.8, its loss being indicated by head-line dashes and blank spaces. The remaining three instances of missing text in S1 as indicated by head-line dashes also merit individual discussion: Firstly, at Y.16.8 S1 (fol. 62v l.1) and K6 unusually share a reading, here prati ‾ ‾ ‾khaṃ, against KM7 which transmits pratibhimukhaṃ. Given the meaning of the corresponding Pahlavi word padīrag ‘towards, against’, and the fact that the latter is elsewhere rendered in Sanskrit as pratyabhimukha (Y.46.8), it is reasonable to assume the missing letters are here a-bhi-mu.45 The absence of internal sandhi in this form is unique (cf. Y.43.14 pratyabhimukhaṃ; Y.46.16 pratyabhimukha). Secondly, at Y.28.0 S1 (fol. 85r l.6, H2) transmits komalā ‾ ‾ ‾ ‾yathā. KM7 also indicates missing text, though leaves a gap equal to approximately 6 characters’ space. K6 however, records no absent text. Unfortunately, the Sanskrit text here is without parallel in the Pahlavi Yasna and the meaning of the phrase

45  von Spiegel, Sanskrit-Uebersetzung, 88 edited pratiravaṃ and gave pratiabhiravaṃ as a variant reading from P11. He made the implausible suggestion that – ravaṃ was a Sanskritised form of the Pahlavi stem raw- associated with the verb raftan ‘to go’. Evidently, von Spiegel misread the Nāgarī kha as rava.

Palaeography

49

yato ‘bhya komalā ‾ ‾ ‾ ‾ yathā sarvva has proved to be a stumbling block for all translators and editors.46 Thirdly, at Y.44.14 S1 (fol. 140v l.15, H1) reads vāṇīṃ‾ ‾ ‾ pavitrīṃ ‖ ‾ nivāhakān vināśayaṃti ‖, against K6 vāṇīṃ pavitrīṃ | ‾ nivāhakān vināśayaṃti ‖ and T7 vāsmīṃ mahatīṃ (sup.scr.) pavitrīṃ ‾ nivāhakān vināśayaṃti ‖. The head-line dash after pavitrīm, which is common to all three manuscripts surely indicates a missing *dīn, the compound dīn(n)ivāhaka- corresponding to Phl. dēn burdār. The series of dashes after vāṇīṃ in S1 meanwhile, potentially stand in for mahatīm, as supplied (sec.m.?) in T7. It must be noted however, that the Sanskrit text here is not entirely consonant with Av. mąϑrāiš sǝ̄ṇghahiiā, nor Phl. mānsr hammōzēnd. While Phl. mānsr is elsewhere translated in Sanskrit as vāṇī- (e.g. Y.28.5), the words mahatīṃ pavitrīṃ are without correspondents in the Avestan/Pahlavi text. Further, the Sanskrit text is missing a correspondent to Av. sǝ̄ṇghahiiā/Phl. hammōzēnd, where a form such as Skt. *śikṣāpayanti would be expected. 46  Cf. von Spiegel, Sanskrit-Uebersetzung, 115; Bharucha, Sanskrit Writings, II, 56.

chapter 6

Pahlavi Text Formally classified as a bilingual Yasna manuscript (as distinct from the trilingual manuscript KM7 which contains the Avestan, Pahlavi and Sanskrit versions of the Yasna), a small amount of Pahlavi text is nevertheless present in S1. This is to be found, for example, on fol. 83v where a later hand has added the Pahlavi version of stanzas Y.27.6–7 in the margins and interlinearly. The Pahlavi was intended to stand in lieu of the Sanskrit text which is here missing. A few further instances of Pahlavi marginalia occur elsewhere in the manuscript, though these are typically brief and also later additions, e.g. the recitation instruction on fol. 118v l.12 (Y.35.5) dō bār guftan ‘say twice’.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���8 | doi ��.��63/9789004357730_007

chapter 7

Range of Extant Text The extant text of S1 ends mid-way through Y.46.19. Geldner,1 working on the assumption that roughly as many leaves (three) have been lost from the end of the manuscript as the beginning, suggested S1 originally extended only to the end of chapter 47. Following von Spiegel, Geldner supposed this text portion, viz. Y.1–47, represented the translation produced by Nēryōsangh himself. Where other Sanskrit Yasna manuscripts contain a Sanskrit translation of chapters up to and including Y.56,2 it has been proposed this latter portion (Y.48–56) is the work of another translator, namely Hōrmazdyār, son of Rāmyār. According to the Parsis’ own genealogical accounts, Hōrmazdyār Rāmyār and Nēryōsangh Dhaval were cousins, and the grandchildren of Shapur Shahryar.3 The idea that the Sanskrit translation of the Yasna is to be attributed to both Hōrmazdyār and Nēryōsangh (despite the fact that only the latter is named in the Yasna manuscripts in connection with the work) can be traced in the secondary literature to Anquetil-Duperron4 who however, provided no source for his claim. For his part, von Spiegel5 had ‘no objection’ to ascribing to Hōrmazdyār the translation from Y.48 on, and his view was echoed approvingly by Darmesteter6 and Geldner.7 In presenting the arguments for his case, von Spiegel characterised the pieces of evidence for there having been two translators as ‘external’ and ‘internal’.8 The ‘external’ basis centred on the fact that, although there exists a colophon naming Nēryōsangh at the beginning of the Sanskrit Yasna, this merely indicates his intention to undertake the translation work. By contrast, the absence of a postscript, such as is found in ms. ‘L’ containing the Sanskrit version of the Mēnōg ī Xrad,9 suggests Nēryōsangh never completed the task. Obviously, this 1  Geldner, Prolegomena, xxx. 2  A complete Sanskrit translation of the Yasna has not come down to us. Cf. J3 which extends to Y.56.5; K6 to 57.29; KM7 to 44.6 (so far as the Skt. is concerned); T7 to 57.34. See further descriptions in Bharucha, Sanskrit Writings, II, ii–iv and Hintze 2012, 258–260; 271–272. 3  Meherjirana, Parsi Priests, 9. 4  Anquetil-Duperron, Zend-Avesta, I.2, 74. 5  von Spiegel, Sanskrit-Uebersetzung, 14. 6  Darmesteter, Le Zend-Avesta, I, cxii. 7  Geldner, Prolegomena, xxx. 8  von Spiegel, Sanskrit-Uebersetzung, 12. 9  See West, Mainyo-I-Khard, 121, 181. Bharucha, Sanskrit Writings, III, 48.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���8 | doi ��.��63/9789004357730_008

52

chapter 7

line of reasoning is weak and we cannot discount the possibility that, at some very early point in the Sanskrit Yasna’s existence, a significant portion of the text was simply lost and along with it any such postscript (if indeed it existed in the first place). Somewhat more convincing are von Spiegel’s arguments based on ‘internal’ evidence, though these too are far from conclusive and do not in all cases stand up to scrutiny. Broadly, von Spiegel saw discrepancies in the Sanskrit translations before (and including) Y.47, and after. These discrepancies relate, on the one hand, to differences in the Sanskrit words used to render terms in the base texts and on the other hand, to supposed differences in the competence of the translators. As an example of the former, von Spiegel noted the apparent change in Sanskrit terms employed for Av. vohu- manah-/Phl. wahman. Before Y.47, he argued, the Sanskrit translator either used the near calque uttama- manas- or gvahmana-. In later chapters however, gvahmana- disappears from use and is replaced by bahmana- (cf. NP. bahman). Problematic is that in several manuscripts (including K6 which was used by von Spiegel for his edition), bahmanaoccurs at Y.18.4.10 There, S1 (fol. 65r l.2, H1) transmits bahmano … gvahmanasya;11 K6 bahmano … bahmanasya (with gva added sup.scr.); KM7 gvahmano … gvahmanasya. Such differences across the manuscripts of the Sanskrit Yasna are extremely common and evince a degree of scribal autonomy that’s underscored by variant readings such as: Y.6.8 jalānām (S1) vs. udakasya (T55a, K6 in marg.) both ‘of the water(s)’; Y.9.21 viśvebhyaḥ (S1) vs. sarvvebhyaḥ (K6), both ‘for all’; Y.26.11 parokṣānām (S1) lit. ‘of the invisible ones’ vs. mṛtānām (K6) ‘of the deceased ones’. Consistent appears the change in the Sanskrit rendering of Phl. ašwahišt. As von Spiegel12 observed, up to Y.47 the Sanskrit translator’s custom was to use aśavahiśta- (v.ll. asavahista- etc.) and dharma-. Beyond Y.48.1 however, it is translated as parisphuṭa- (‘clear; manifest’) and glossed prakaṭa- (‘id.’). Prior to this point, parisphuṭa- and prakaṭa- were the terms used to translate Phl. āškārag and paydāg, both meaning ‘obvious’. Less simple to evaluate is von Spiegel’s claim that the Sanskrit text of Yasna chapters 48 onwards is the work of a markedly less skilled translator. Among the various pieces of evidence von Spiegel presented in support is the observation that at Y.36.2, Av. uruuāzištō, uruuāzištahiiā/Phl. urwāhmenīh is rendered 10  von Spiegel, Sanskrit-Uebersetzung, did not edit the text of Y.18. Cf. however, his text of Y.46.3 (= Y.47.3 in modern editions) where he edits bahmano … gvahmanasya. 11  So too Bharucha, Sanskrit Writings, II, 41, without v.ll. 12  von Spiegel, Sanskrit-Uebersetzung, 13.

Range Of Extant Text

53

with Sanskrit utsavavān, utsavakṛtini, whereas at Y.49.8 Av. uruuāzištąm/Phl. urwārzišn is rendered vanaspateragneḥ13 – a translation von Spiegel considered ‘meaningless’ (‘sinnlos’) and suggestive of urwārzišn being misread as urwar ātaxs.14 In point of fact, vanaspateragneḥ lit. ‘of the fire of the plants’ makes sense if the translator here understood the base texts as referring to the fire Uruuāzišta which the Zoroastrian exegetical tradition holds to be the fire present in plants.15 Von Spiegel however, was correct to point out that in the later portions of the Sanskrit Yasna, the translator at times appears to have misinterpreted the Pahlavi preverb ham as hamāg ‘all’. So, for instance, at Y.51.11 Phl. ham-pursīd is rendered sarvaṃ apracchata (K6), against Y.12.5;6 where it is rendered apracchat (S1) while at Y.57.10 Phl. ham-tāšēd is rendered samargrāṃ sughaṭitaṃ (K6) in contrast to Y.18.4 ham-tāšīd which was translated as samāsṛjat (S1). Bharucha too entertained misgivings that the Sanskrit translation of Y.48 on was attributable to Nēryōsangh. Illustrative of the ‘gross ignorance of Avesta and Pâhlavi’16 which he saw in this section, Bharucha pointed to Y.57.13 where Av. yūnąm/Phl. juwānān is rendered vacanaṃ and vākyaṃ (K6) - the translator apparently having misread juwānān as gōwišnān.17 Such presumed misreadings or misunderstandings however, are scattered throughout the Sanskrit Yasna and can be found in the chapters preceding Y.47. As an example, Pahlavi words formally related to the verb cāštan ‘to teach’ are regularly translated with derivatives of Sanskrit ā+svad- ‘to eat, consume’, e.g. Y.34.13 Phl. cāšīd: Skt. āsvādayaḥ. The loci for this confusion are perhaps the past participle cāšt, which is homographic with the noun cāšt meaning ‘meal’, and the noun cāšišn ‘teaching’ which is homographic with caxšišn ‘taste’. Since we do not know which Pahlavi manuscript(s) the original translator(s) took as the basis for their Sanskrit version we cannot discount the possibility that, in some instances where the Sanskrit suggests a misunderstanding of the base text, the fault lies not with the Sanskrit translator, but with the Pahlavi text before them. This is illustrated by the following two examples:

13  Reading per mss. T7 K6. 14  von Spiegel, Sanskrit-Uebersetzung, 13; 210 with fn.8. 15  Cf. the Pahlavi commentary to Y.17.11 (as well as the corresponding Sanskrit text). Also, Greater Bundahišn 18,4. This interpretation may also have been triggered by the word garmōg ‘heat’ in the Pahlavi commentary to the line in Y.49.8. 16  Bharucha, Sanskrit Writings, II, i. 17  In its only other attestation in the Yasna (Y.9.10), Phl. juwān is not translated in the Sanskrit version.

54

chapter 7

At Y.19.11, the Pahlavi text includes the comment: dēn māhwindād ēn-iz fragard guft, which has as its correspondent in the Sanskrit version: dīnimadhye dhattaṃ asyāṃ prakṛtau uktaṃ. That the Sanskrit translator does not appear to have recognised the name of the commentator Māhwindād is possibly due to a corruption of the type evidenced in, e.g. Pt4 K5 which, as a varia lectio to (F2) /māhwindād/ transmit /mayān dāšt/. Thus, Pahlavi mayān was translated with Sanskrit madhye. Similarly, at Y.39.2 Phl. ayārān ‘helpers’ (rendering Av. aidiiūnąm ‘of the harmless ones’) has as its correspondent in the Sanskrit version aśvacārāṇāṃ (v.l. aśvacāriṇāṃ, K6) ‘of the horse-riders’. This is likely consequent of a corruption in the transmission of ayārān (, J2 K5) in some of the Pahlavi Yasna manuscripts where among the variant readings transmitted is (T6) /aswārān/ ‘horsemen’. Taken together, the suggestions of von Spiegel, Geldner and Bharucha that chapters 1–47 of the Sanskrit Yasna alone are attributable to Nēryōsangh and that S1 reflects this in the fact that it originally extended no further have not been conclusively demonstrated. A careful investigation of the issue, while beyond the scope of the present work, remains however, a desideratum.

chapter 8

Note to the Facsimile Images For ease of reference, chapter and verse markings have been added at the margins of the facsimile images following the current, standard system of numbering. In the case of abbreviated text sections where only the final words of a stanza are written, this is indicated by the presence of a minus sign (–) before the relevant passage number, e.g. –4.22. There is a difference in the paper’s apparent tint across the images, with some leaves seeming darker (e.g. fol. 19v) and some lighter (e.g. fol. 20r). This is an artefact of photography only.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���8 | doi ��.��63/9789004357730_009

chapter 9

Facsimile Images

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���8 | doi ��.��63/9789004357730_010

58

Yasna 1

Yasna 1

59

60

Yasna 1

Yasna 1

61

62

Yasna 1

Yasna 1

63

64

Yasna 1

Yasna 1

65

66

Yasna 1

Yasna 1

67

68

Yasna 1

Yasna 1

69

70

Yasna 2

Yasna 2

71

72

Yasna 2

Yasna 2

73

74

Yasna 2

Yasna 2

75

76

Yasna 2

Yasna 2

77

78

Yasna 2

Yasna 2

79

80

Yasna 2

Yasna 2

81

82

Yasna 2

Yasna 3

83

84

Yasna 3

Yasna 3

85

86

Yasna 3

Yasna 3

87

88

Yasna 3

Yasna 3

89

90

Yasna 3

Yasna 3

91

92

Yasna 3

Yasna 3

93

94

Yasna 3

Yasna 3

95

96

Yasna 3

Yasna 4

97

98

Yasna 4

Yasna 4

99

100

Yasna 4

Yasna 4

101

102

Yasna 5

Yasna 6

103

104

Yasna 6

Yasna 6

105

106

Yasna 6

Yasna 6

107

108

Yasna 6

Yasna 6

109

110

Yasna 6

Yasna 6

111

112

Yasna 7

Yasna 7

113

114

Yasna 7

Yasna 7

115

116

Yasna 7

Yasna 7

117

118

Yasna 7

Yasna 8

119

120

Yasna 8

Yasna 8

121

122

Yasna 8

Yasna 9

123

124

Yasna 9

Yasna 9

125

126

Yasna 9

Yasna 9

127

128

Yasna 9

Yasna 9

129

130

Yasna 9

Yasna 9

131

132

Yasna 9

Yasna 9

133

134

Yasna 9

Yasna 9

135

136

Yasna 9

Yasna 9

137

138

Yasna 9

Yasna 9

139

140

Yasna 9

Yasna 9

141

142

Yasna 9

Yasna 10

143

144

Yasna 10

Yasna 10

145

146

Yasna 10

Yasna 10

147

148

Yasna 10

Yasna 10

149

150

Yasna 10

Yasna 10

151

152

Yasna 10

Yasna 10

153

154

Yasna 10

Yasna 11

155

156

Yasna 11

Yasna 11

157

158

Yasna 11

Yasna 11

159

160

Yasna 12

Yasna 12

161

162

Yasna 12

Yasna 12

163

164

Yasna 12

Yasna 12

165

166

Yasna 13

Yasna 13

167

168

Yasna 13

Yasna 13

169

170

Yasna 13

Yasna 14

171

172

Yasna 14

Yasna 15

173

174

Yasna 16

Yasna 16

175

176

Yasna 16

Yasna 16

177

178

Yasna 16

Yasna 16

179

180

Yasna 16

Yasna 17

181

182

Yasna 17

Yasna 18

183

184

Yasna 18

Yasna 18

185

186

Yasna 18

Yasna 19

187

188

Yasna 19

Yasna 19

189

190

Yasna 19

Yasna 19

191

192

Yasna 19

Yasna 19

193

194

Yasna 19

Yasna 19

195

196

Yasna 19

Yasna 19

197

198

Yasna 19

Yasna 19

199

200

Yasna 20

Yasna 20

201

202

Yasna 20

Yasna 21

203

204

Yasna 21

Yasna 22

205

206

Yasna 22

Yasna 22

207

208

Yasna 22

Yasna 24

209

210

Yasna 24

Yasna 24

211

212

Yasna 24

Yasna 24

213

214

Yasna 24

Yasna 24

215

216

Yasna 24

Yasna 25

217

218

Yasna 25

Yasna 27

219

220

Yasna 27

Yasna 27

221

222

Yasna 27

Yasna 27

223

224

Yasna 28

Yasna 28

225

226

Yasna 28

Yasna 28

227

228

Yasna 28

Yasna 28

229

230

Yasna 28

Yasna 28

231

232

Yasna 29

Yasna 29

233

234

Yasna 29

Yasna 29

235

236

Yasna 29

Yasna 29

237

238

Yasna 29

Yasna 30

239

240

Yasna 30

Yasna 30

241

242

Yasna 30

Yasna 30

243

244

Yasna 30

Yasna 31

245

246

Yasna 31

Yasna 31

247

248

Yasna 31

Yasna 31

249

250

Yasna 31

Yasna 31

251

252

Yasna 31

Yasna 31

253

254

Yasna 31

Yasna 31

255

256

Yasna 31

Yasna 31

257

258

Yasna 31

Yasna 32

259

260

Yasna 32

Yasna 32

261

262

Yasna 32

Yasna 32

263

264

Yasna 32

Yasna 32

265

266

Yasna 32

Yasna 32

267

268

Yasna 32

Yasna 32

269

270

Yasna 33

Yasna 33

271

272

Yasna 33

Yasna 33

273

274

Yasna 33

Yasna 33

275

276

Yasna 33

Yasna 33

277

278

Yasna 33

Yasna 34

279

280

Yasna 34

Yasna 34

281

282

Yasna 34

Yasna 34

283

284

Yasna 34

Yasna 34

285

286

Yasna 34

Yasna 34

287

288

Yasna 34

Yasna 35

289

290

Yasna 35

Yasna 35

291

292

Yasna 35

Yasna 35

293

294

Yasna 35

Yasna 36

295

296

Yasna 36

Yasna 36

297

298

Yasna 38

Yasna 38

299

300

Yasna 38

Yasna 39

301

302

Yasna 39

Yasna 39

303

304

Yasna 40

Yasna 40

305

306

Yasna 41

Yasna 41

307

308

Yasna 41

Yasna 42

309

310

Yasna 42

Yasna 42

311

312

Yasna 43

Yasna 43

313

314

Yasna 43

Yasna 43

315

316

Yasna 43

Yasna 43

317

318

Yasna 43

Yasna 43

319

320

Yasna 43

Yasna 43

321

322

Yasna 43

Yasna 43

323

324

Yasna 43

Yasna 44

325

326

Yasna 44

Yasna 44

327

328

Yasna 44

Yasna 44

329

330

Yasna 44

Yasna 44

331

332

Yasna 44

Yasna 44

333

334

Yasna 44

Yasna 44

335

336

Yasna 44

Yasna 44

337

338

Yasna 44

Yasna 44

339

340

Yasna 44

Yasna 44

341

342

Yasna 45

Yasna 45

343

344

Yasna 45

Yasna 45

345

346

Yasna 45

Yasna 45

347

348

Yasna 45

Yasna 45

349

350

Yasna 45

Yasna 46

351

352

Yasna 46

Yasna 46

353

354

Yasna 46

Yasna 46

355

356

Yasna 46

Yasna 46

357

358

Yasna 46

Yasna 46

359

360

Yasna 46

Yasna 46

361

362

Yasna 46

Yasna 46

363

364

Yasna 46

Yasna 46

365

366

Yasna 46

References Anquetil-Duperron, Zend-Avesta = Anquetil-Duperron, A. 1771. Zend-Avesta. Ouvrage de Zoroastre, contenant les idées théologiques, physiques et morales de ce législateur, les cérémonies du culte religieux qu’il a établi, et plusieurs traits importans relatifs à l’ancienne histoire des Perses. 2 vols. in 3 parts. Paris: N.M. Tillard. Baghbidi, H. 2012. “Parsi Sanskrit.” In Indic across the Millennia: From the Rigveda to Modern Indo-Aryan (14th World Sanskrit Conference, Kyoto, Japan, September 1st–5th, 2009, Proceedings of the Linguistic Section), eds. J. Klein and K. Yoshida, 1–8. Bremen: Dr. Ute Hempen Verlag. Balbir, DAK = Balbir, N. 1982. Dānâṣṭakakathā. Recueil Jaina de Huit Histoires sur le Don. Série In-8º Fascicule 48. Paris: Pubications de l’Institut de Civilisation Indienne. Bharucha, Sanskrit Writings = Bharucha, E. 1906–1933. Collected Sanskrit Writings of the Parsis. Old Translations of Avestâ and Pahlavi-Pâzand Books as Well as Other Original Compositions; with Readings and Notes. 6 vols. Bombay: Nirṇaya-Sâgara Press. Burnouf, Commentaire = Burnouf, E. 1833. Commentaire sur le Yaçna. L’un des Livres Religieux des Parses. Paris: L’Imprimerie Royale. Cantera, LL = Cantera, A. 2014. Vers une Edition de la Liturgie Longue Zoroastrienne: Pensées et Travaux Préliminaires. Studia Iranica 51. Paris: Association pour l’Avancement des Etudes Iraniennes. Darmesteter, Le Zend-Avesta = Darmesteter, J. 1892–1893. Le Zend-Avesta. Traduction Nouvelle avec Commentaire Historique et Philologique. 3 vols. Annals Du Musée Guimet. Paris: E. Leroux. Degener, ŠGV = Degener, A. 1991. “Neryosanghs Sanskrit-Übersetzung von Škand gumānīk vičar.” In Corolla Iranica. Papers in Honour of Prof. Dr. David Neil Mackenzie on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday on April 8th 1991, eds. R. Emmerick and D. Weber, 49–58. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Dehghan, Srōš Yašt = Dehghan, K. 1982. Der Awesta-Text Srōš Yašt (Yasna 57) mit Pahlaviund Sanskritübersetzung. Munich: Kitzinger. Dhalla, Nyaishes = Dhalla, M. 1908. The Nyaishes or Zoroastrian Litanies. Avestan Text with the Pahlavi, Sanskrit, Persian and Gujarati Versions. New York: Columbia University. Ferrer Losilla, J. 2016. “Preconsonantal Nasals in the Avestan Alphabet.” In Études de Linguistique Iranienne. In Memoriam Xavier Tremblay, ed. E. Pirart, 157–184. Acta Iranica 57. Leuven, Paris, Bristol CT: Peeters. Führer, A. 1883–1885. “Neryôsangh’s Sanskrit Translation of the Khordah Avestā.” Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 16, pp. 74–87. Geiger, Aogemadaêcâ = Geiger, W. 1878. Aogemadaêcâ. Ein Pârsentractat in Pâzend, Altbaktrisch und Sanskrit. Erlangen: Andreas Deichert.

368

References

Geldner, Avesta= Geldner, K. 1886–1896. Avesta. The Sacred Books of the Parsis. 3 Vols. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Geldner, Prolegomena = Geldner, K. 1896. Avesta. The Sacred Books of the Parsis. Vol. I: Yasna. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Haug, Sacred Language = Haug, M. 1862. Essays on the Sacred Language, Writings, and Religion of the Parsees. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & co. Hintze, A. 2012. “Manuscripts of the Yasna and Yasna Ī Rapithwin.” In The Transmission of the Avesta, ed. A. Cantera, 244–278. Iranica 20. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. Hodivala, Parsi History = Hodivala, S. 1920. Studies in Parsi History. Bombay. Hodivala, S. 1925. “The Sixteen Sanskrit Shlokas Given in Dastur Aspandiârji Kâmdinji’s Book.” In Indo-Irânian Studies. Being Commemorative Papers Contributed by European, American and Indian Scholars in Honour of Shams-Ul-Ullema Dastur Darab Peshotan Sanjana, 131–141. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & co. Hoffmann/Forssman, ALF = Hoffmann, K. and B. Forssman. 1996. Avestische Laut-und Flexionslehre. Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft. Hoffmann/Narten, Archetypus = Hoffmann, K. and J. Narten. 1989. Der sasanidische Archetypus. Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert. JamaspAsa, Aogəmadaēcā = JamaspAsa, K. 1982. Aogəmadaēcā, a Zoroastrian Liturgy. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Jamasp-Asana, Pahlavi Texts = Jamasp-Asana, J. 1913. Corpus of Pahlavi Texts. Bombay: Bombay Fort. Kapadia, H. 1935–1936. “A Note on Kṣa and Jña.” Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute 17, no. 3, pp. 289–91. Kapadia, H. 1937. “Outlines of Palaeography (with Special Reference to Jaina Palaeographical Data and Their Evaluation).” Journal of the University of Bombay 6, no. 6, pp. 87–110. Kapadia, H. 1938. “The Jaina Manuscripts.” Journal of the University of Bombay 7, no. 2, pp. 2–30. Meherjirana, Parsi Priests = Meherjirana, E. 1899. The Genealogy of the Naosari Parsi Priests. London: Horsley Bros. Mills, Gâthâs = Mills, L. 1894. A Study of the Five Zarathushtrian (Zoroastrian) Gâthâs with Text and Translation. Leipzig: Brockhaus. Mills, Yasna 1 = Mills, L. 1910. A Study of Yasna I. Leipzig: Brockhaus. Mills, L. 1894. Letter to the Editor [Among the Newly Acquired Treasures of the Bodleian Library is Jamaspji 3]. The American Journal of Philology 15, no. 1, pp. 120–121. Mills, L. 1900. “The First Preparers of the Haoma (Indian Soma). The Pahlavi Translation and Commentary on Yasna IX, 1–48 Inclusive, for the First Time Edited with the Collation of MSS., and Now Prepared from All the MSS. Also Deciphered.” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 32, no. 3, pp. 511–528.

References

369

Mirza, H. 1969. “On the Sanskrit Version of the Vidēvdāt.” In K.R. Cama Oriental Institute Golden Jubilee Volume, 49–64. Bombay: K.R. Cama Oriental Institute. Monier-Williams, SktDic = Monier-Williams, M. 1899. A Sanskrit-English Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pāṇini, Aṣṭādhyāyī = Vasu, Ś.C. (ed. and trans.). 1891. The Ashṭādhyāyī of Pāṇini. 2 Vols. Allahabad. Reprint, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1997. Renou/Filliozat, L’Inde Classique= Renou, L. and J. Filliozat. 1947–1953. L’Inde Classique: Manuel des Etudes Indiennes. 2 vols. Paris: Payot (vol.I); l’Imprimerie Nationale (vol. II). Roth, G. 1986. “Mangala-Symbols in Buddhist Sanskrit Manuscripts and Inscriptions.” In Deyadharma. Studies in Memory of Dr. D.C. Sircar, ed. G. Bhattacharya, 239–250. Sri Garib Dass Oriental Series. Delhi: Sri Satguru Publications. Sander, Sanskrithandschriften = Sander, L. 1968. Paläographisches zu den Sanskrithandschriften der berliner Turfansammlung. Verzeichnis der orientalischen Handschriften in Deutschland, Supplementband 8. Wiesbaden: F. Steiner. Sanjana, ZJSD = Sanjana, D. 1895. The Zand Î Javît Shêda Dâd. Or, The Pahlavi Version of the Avesta Vendidâd. Bombay: Education Society’s Steam Press. Schmidt, H.-P. 1960–1961. “The Sixteen Sanskrit Ślokas of Ākā Adhyāru.” Bulletin of the Deccan College Research Institute 21, pp. 157–196. Schubring, Jaina-Handschriften = Schubring, W. 1944. Die Jaina-Handschriften der preussischen Staatsbibliothek: Neuerwerbungen seit 1891. Leipzig: O. Harrassowitz Verlag. Shamasastry, Arthaśāstra = Shamasastry, R. 1915. Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra. Sanskrit Text with English Translation and an Exhaustive Introduction (Vol. I: Book I–IV). Bangalore. Reprint, Delhi: Chaukhamba Sanskrit Pratishthan, 2005. Singh, Nāgarī Script = Singh, A. 1991. Development of the Nāgarī Script. Delhi: Parimal Publications. Sircar, Indian Epigraphy = Sircar, D. 1965. Indian Epigraphy. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Sircar, IEG = Sircar, D. 1966. Indian Epigraphical Glossary. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Sircar, SIC = Sircar, D. 1968. Studies in Indian Coins. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Taraf, Niyāyiš = Taraf, Z. 1981. Der Awesta-Text Niyāyiš mit Pahlavi- und Sanskritübersetzung. Munich: Kitzinger. Tavadia, Sprache und Literatur = Tavadia, J. 1956. Die mittelpersische Sprache und Literatur der Zarathustrier. Iranische Texte und Hilfsbücher 2. Leipzig: O. Harrassowitz Verlag. Tripāṭhī, Catalogue = Tripāṭhī, Ch. 1975. Catalogue of the Jaina Manuscripts at Strasbourg. Indologia Berolinensis 4. Leiden: Brill. Unvala, Hōm Yašt = Unvala, J. 1924. Neryosangh’s Sanskrit Version of the Hōm Yašt (Yasna IX–XI) with its Original Avesta and Its Pahlavi Version. Vienna: A. Holzhausen. Unvala, J. 1925. “A Fragment of the Sanskrit Version of the Vidêvdāt.” In Indo-Irânian Studies. Being Commemmorative Papers Contributed by European, American and

370

References

Indian Scholars in Honour of Shams-Ul-Ullema Dastur Darab Peshotan Sanjana, 253–276. London: Kegan Paul, Trench & Trübner. von Spiegel, Sanskrit-Uebersetzung = von Spiegel, F. 1861. Neriosengh’s SanskritUebersetzung des Yaçna. Leipzig: Wilhelm Engelmann. Wackernagel (/Debrunner), AIGR = Wackernagel, J. (and A. Debrunner), 1930–1957. Altindische Grammatik. 3 vols. in 4 parts. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht. Weber, Pratijnâsûtra = Weber, A. 1871. Über ein zum weissen Yajus gehöriges phonetisches Compendium, das Pratijnâsûtra. Abhandlungen der Königl. Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin. Berlin: Königl. Akademie der Wissenschaten. West, Mainyo-I-Khard = West, E. 1871. The Book of the Mainyo-I-Khard. The Pazand and Sanskrit Texts (in Roman Characters) as Arranged by Neriosengh Dhaval, in the Fifteenth Century. London: Trübner & Co. West/Jâmâsp-Âsânâ, SGV = West, E. and H. Jâmâsp-Âsânâ. 1887. Shikand-Gûmânik Vijâr. The Pâzand-Sanskrit Text Together with a Fragment of the Pahlavi. Bombay: Government Central Book Depot. Williams, Qeṣṣe-Ye Sanjān = Williams, A. 2009. The Zoroastrian Myth of Migration from Iran and Settlement in the Indian Diaspora. Text, Translation and Analysis of the 16th Century Qeṣṣe-Ye Sanjān. Leiden: Brill.

Manuscripts B3 = Ferrer Losilla, J. 2009. The Avestan manuscript B3 (Yasna Sāde [with the two Sīrōzas]) of the Bombay University Library. Avestan Digital Archive Series 13. F2 = Circassia, S. and M. Kangarani. 2011. The Avestan manuscript F2_415 (Iranian Pahlavi Yasna) of the First Dastur Meherji-rana Library of Navsarī. Avestan Digital Archive Series 36. J2 = Ferrer Losilla, J. 2012. The Avestan manuscript J2_500 (Yasna Indian Pahlavi) of the Bodleian Library (University of Oxford). Avestan Digital Archive Series 28. K5 = Ferrer Losilla, J. 2015. The Avestan manuscript 510 (K5), Pahlavi Yasna, of the Kongelige Bibliotek (Copenhagen). Avestan Digital Archive Series 79. K6 = Goldman, L. 2014. The Avestan manuscript K6_672 (Sanskrit Yasna) of the Kongelige Bibliotek (Copenhagen). Avestan Digital Archive 69. KM7 = Goldman, L. 2013. The Avestan manuscript KM7-5-19222_682 (Sanskrit Yasna) of the Ketāb xāne-ye Melli (Tehran). Avestan Digital Archive Series 55. M1 = Ferrer Losilla, J. 2010. The Avestan manuscript M1 (Pahlavi Yasna) of the Bayerische Staatsbibliotek aus München. Avestan Digital Archive Series 21. Pt4 = Zeini, A. 2012. The Avestan manuscript Pt4_400 (Iranian Pahlavi Yasna) of the Bodleian Library (University of Oxford). Avestan Digitial Archive Series 39.

References

371

T6 = Andrés-Toledo, M.Á. 2010. The Avestan manuscript T6 (Pahlavi Yasna) of the First Dastur Meherji-rana Library in Navsarī. Avestan Digital Archive Series 26. T7 = Andrés-Toledo, M.Á. 2011. The Avestan manuscript T7_680 (Sanskrit Yasna) of the First Dastur Meherji-rana Library of Navsarī. Avestan Digital Archive Series 29. T55a = Andrés-Toledo, M.Á. 2012. The Avestan manuscripts T55a_681 (Sanskrit Yasna) and T55b_613 (Indian Pahlavi Yasna) of the First Dastur Meherji-rana Library of Navsarī. Avestan Digital Archive Series 51.