Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-5c569c448b-dnb4q Total loading time: 0.875 Render date: 2022-07-04T07:27:24.757Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue true

Zoroastrian ritual and exegetical traditions: the case of the Iranian Pahlavi Yasna

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2022

Mehrbod Khanizadeh*
Affiliation:
SOAS University of London, London, UK
Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The manuscripts of the Iranian Pahlavi Yasna contain two consecutive colophons, the second of which relates the story of how their common ancestor manuscript, which combines the Avestan text of the Yasna with its Pahlavi version, was created. It is argued that Rōstahm Dād-Ohrmazd produced the first Pahlavi Yasna manuscript by taking the Avestan text from one manuscript and the Pahlavi text of a manuscript by Farrbay Srōšayār. Furthermore, it is argued that Rōstahm Dād-Ohrmazd wrote this manuscript both for himself and for Mahayār Farroxzād, who was from the province of Bīšāpuhr. The manuscript of Rōstahm Dād-Ohrmazd was then copied by Māhwindād Narmāhān, who composed the second colophon. This article also discusses the first colophon as it appears in the Iranian Pahlavi Yasna manuscript T54, which differs from other manuscripts of this group as it includes a passage written by a scribe called Kāyūs. It is argued that T54 was produced by Kāyūs, who added this passage to its first colophon. Furthermore, variant readings of these two colophons in two manuscripts of the Iranian Pahlavi Yasna, which also include Kāyūs's passage, are discussed. Unlike T54, Kāyūs's passage forms a separate colophon in these two manuscripts. It is suggested the two colophons are corrected according to the mindset of their respective scribes.

Type
Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of SOAS University of London

1. Introduction

The Yasna constitutes the core ritual of the Zoroastrian religion. Composed in an old Iranian language called Avestan, the Yasna attests to different stages of the language known as Old and Young Avestan and probably also Middle Avestan.Footnote 1 While the Old Avestan texts were presumably composed in the second millennium bce, the composition of the Younger Avesta belongs to a later stage of the language, starting from the late second or early first millennium bce onwards. These texts were in all likelihood transmitted in an oral setting until the Sasanian period (224651 ce) when they were written down in a consciously invented and extremely precise phonetic script reflecting the exact pronunciation of the words. During the Sasanian and early Islamic periods, Zoroastrian priests translated and commented on the Yasna in Pahlavi, the Middle Iranian language of the province of Pars, used by the Zoroastrians well into Islamic times.Footnote 2 Traditionally, manuscripts that provide the Avestan recitation text of a ritual and the ritual instructions which may be in Pahlavi, New Persian or Gujarati are called sāde “simple”, while manuscripts in which the Avestan text of the Yasna is accompanied by its corresponding Pahlavi translation and commentary are referred to as the Pahlavi Yasna. The codices are also categorized into two groups according to their origin: Indian and Iranian. While the former were produced in India, the latter are manuscripts either produced in Iran or copied in India from a manuscript of Iranian origin.Footnote 3

The oldest Pahlavi Yasna manuscripts at our disposal, J2 and K5, belong to the Indian branch and were written in 1323 ce.Footnote 4 The extant manuscripts of the Iranian Pahlavi Yasna (henceforth YIrP) date from around 1780 ce. Their chief representatives are Pt4 and Mf4, but there are also other manuscripts that belong to this group, in particular the hitherto largely neglected manuscripts T54, G14 and T6.Footnote 5

The YIrPs of the type Pt4 and Mf4 are marked by two features. One is that they include not only the Pahlavi translation but also the ritual directions typical for the liturgical or sāde manuscripts. This feature was also familiar to the scribes of these manuscripts themselves, since they refer to them as abestāg ī yašt abāg zand nērang “the Avestan Yašt with explanation (= Pahlavi version) [and] ritual directions”.Footnote 6 The other special feature of YIrPs of the type Pt4 and Mf4 is a long Introduction in Pahlavi which includes the text of the two colophons under investigation in the present article.Footnote 7 While the first, younger colophon belongs to the ancestor manuscript of these copies, the second colophon recounts the story of how the Avestan recitation text was combined with its Pahlavi translation-cum-interpretation in a single manuscript.

In this article, I first explain the position of the colophons in the context of the Introduction (section 2) and discuss the dates of the manuscripts of the YIrP (section 3). Section 4 presents the text of the colophons as attested in Pt4 in transcription and collated for the first time with the four other manuscripts Mf4, T54, G14 and T6. This is followed in section 5 by a summary of scholarly interpretations of the colophons and an overview of suggestions put forward in the present article. The main arguments of this article are developed in section 6 in which I discuss the text of the second colophon and propose a new reconstruction of the genesis of the Pahlavi Yasna. I suggest that Rōstahm Dād-Ohrmazd produced the first Pahlavi Yasna manuscript for himself and Māhayār Farroxzād. This codex was then copied by Māhwindād Narmāhān. I also suggest that the name of the scribe of the Avestan source of Rōstahm Dād-Ohrmazd's manuscript is not mentioned while that of his Pahlavi source was Farrbay Srōšayār. Section 7 discusses the name of the province of bīšapuhr “Bīšāpuhr”, from which Māhayār Farroxzād came, and the attribute anōšag “immortal”, which precedes the name of Māhwindād Narmāhān. In section 8, I make a critical study of Kāyūs's texts in the manuscripts T54, G14 and T6 because: 1) according to their colophons, they were either written by a scribe called Kāyūs (T54) or copied from his manuscript (G14, T6); and 2) the first colophon of T54 offers a different filiation from all other collated manuscripts of YIrP. In section 9, I examine the variant readings of geographical locations, personal names, the first-person pronoun preceding Māhwindād Narmāhān, and az ham paččēn paččēn-ē in G14 and T6.

2. Position of the two colophons in the context of the Introduction in the manuscripts of the Iranian Pahlavi Yasna

The long Introduction which precedes the beginning of the text of the Yasna proper extends over several folios (henceforth fol., singular, and fols, plural) in the YIrPs. The first part of the Introduction starts with praises of Ohrmazd, the Amahraspands, the Mazdean religion, the Frawahr of the righteous and of the sacred beings, or Yazds.Footnote 8 These are followed by curses of Ahriman and his creatures such as demons, demonesses and sorcerers. The text continues with a short reference to the story of creation according to which the Amahraspands, Yazds and the Mazdean religion were created by Ohrmazd to annihilate Ahriman, the demons, the power of evil and of violence, and also to bring about the resurrection and future body. According to the text, the religion was revealed to Zardušt and was passed down from him to other priests. The first part of the Introduction ends with advice that everyone should talk and even write extensively about the religion.Footnote 9

At precisely this point, which is marked by the injunction to disseminate the religious teachings, the two colophons are placed in the manuscripts.Footnote 10 With the exception of T54, the first colophon belongs to a manuscript that was written by Hōšang Syāwaxš.

The text of the first colophon is different in T54 in so far as it includes an insertion at the beginning of the first colophon, stating that Kāyūs Suhrāb copied the manuscript of Hōšang. Kāyūs's text is also present in G14 (fol. 21r lines 6–12) and T6 (fol. 8v lines 3–9) with two major differences: 1) the name of Kāwūs (= Kāyūs in T54)Footnote 11 appears as the third-person singular in G14 and T6; and 2) unlike T54, Kāwūs's text is placed in a third colophon at the very end of part 2 of the Introduction in G14 and T6, thus forming a separate colophon. In other words, the text of the first colophon in G14 and T6 agrees with that of Pt4 and Mf4. In all five YIrP manuscripts discussed here, the first colophon is immediately followed by the second one, which, as noted above, recounts the story of how the first known bilingual Pahlavi Yasna manuscript was created.Footnote 12

The second part of the Introduction which follows these colophons again starts with prayers and advice. The last lines are a reminder that whoever owns the manuscript should only share it with people who are knowledgeable about religion.Footnote 13

3. Dates of the manuscripts of the Iranian Pahlavi Yasna

Neither of the two colophons provides a date, but the manuscript Pt4 is dated around 1780 ce, according to the family tradition of its previous owner, Dastur Pešotanji Behramji Sanjana (Hintze Reference Hintze2012: 253). The manuscript Mf4, by contrast, attests a date in its third colophon which is unique to this manuscript. This colophon forms no part of the Introduction but is inserted at the end of Yasna 61 on pp. 599–600 of Mf4. Stating that Hōšang Syāwaxš completed his manuscript in ay 864 (1495 ce), it provides the completion date of the ancestor manuscript of the Iranian Pahlavi Yasna, but not that of Mf4 itself.Footnote 14 According to the estimation of Geldner (Reference Geldner1896: Prolegomena xxv), Mf4 “appears to be somewhat younger than Pt4, but the difference in age cannot be much” because:

Mf4 omits some more words than does Pt4, e.g. in the Pahlavi to Yasna 68,7.21; 71,8.12. The injury to the Hôshâng Ms.Footnote 15 which already existed in the year 1780 had therefore advanced still further by the time that Mf4 was copied.

T54 likewise bears no date (Hintze Reference Hintze2012: 255) but G14 gives a date in its colophon following part 2 of the Introduction. It states that Kāwūs completed his manuscript in ay 1149 (1780 ce). While the colophon of Kāwūs in G14 is copied in T6, the latter differs from all other manuscripts in that it has two more colophons, one in New Persian and one in Gujarati. According to the Gujarati colophon, T6 was completed by Sorābji Frāmji Meherji Rāna from the copy of Kāvasji (=Kāwūs) in ay 1211 (1842 ce).Footnote 16 It should be noted that the New Persian colophon in T6 (fol. 295v lines 5–7) is peculiar as the completion date, written both in numbers (1211) and in words (one thousand and eleven), shows a discrepancy of 200 years. That the completion date ay 1211 written in numerals in the New Persian colophon is the correct one emerges not only from the fact that it agrees with that of the Gujarati colophon, but also because the date of one thousand and eleven predates the completion date of its stated source, the manuscript of Kāvasji (= Kāwūs).

4. Text of the colophons in Pt4 and the variant readings in Mf4, T54, G14 and T6

All previous studies of the colophons of the Iranian Pahlavi Yasna have been based exclusively on the manuscripts Pt4 and Mf4. West (Reference West1896–1904: 84–5) provides a transcription in Roman letters of the colophon text of Pt4 accompanied by an English translation and a short commentary. Dhabhar (Reference Dhabhar1923) reproduces the Pahlavi text of the Introduction of Mf4 (pp. 90–3) in Pahlavi script and also translates it into English (pp. 114–18). Tavadia (Reference Tavadia1944: 321–32) gives a detailed study of the colophons, accompanied by a German translation, but omits the original Pahlavi text.Footnote 17 The only complete edition of the entire Introduction currently available is Mazdapour (Reference Mazdapour1375/1996: 73–83), who transcribes the Pahlavi text based on the edition of Dhabhar and translates it into New Persian. Cantera and de Vaan (Reference Cantera and de Vaan2005: 31–42) edit the colophon texts using the manuscripts Pt4 and Mf4 and translate them into English.

In what follows, the text of the colophon in Pt4 is compared for the first time not only with that in Mf4 but also with the text in T54, G14 and T6, whose variant readings are recorded in the footnotes:Footnote 18

Colophon 1

Pt4 (3r line 21) … ud ham čim rāy ī Footnote 19 nibišt (3v 1) pad hamuskārišnīh

pērōzgar man dēn bandag Footnote 20 hōšang (2) syāwaxš šahryār baxtāfrīd šahryār Footnote 21

az Footnote 22(3) paččēn hērbed mihrābān spendyād mihrābān Footnote 23

(4) ōy az paččēn hērbed Footnote 24 māhpanāh Footnote 25 ī Footnote 26 āzādmard

ī Footnote 27 (5) panāh ī az kāzerōn rōstāg

čiyōn Footnote 28 mard Footnote 29 nēk (6) abarmāndīg Footnote 30

pad dēn ud ruwān abēgumān

u-š kāmag (7) frārōn ō Footnote 31 yazdān wehān

“(3r line 21) … and for this reason, (I) wrote [this copy] (3v 1) with the inspiration of

the victorious [Yazds],Footnote 32 I, the servant of the religion, Hōšang (2) Syāwaxš Šahryār Baxtāfrīd Šahryār,

from (3) the copy of Hērbed Mihrābān Spendyād Mihrābān [and]

(4) that from the copy of Hērbed Māhpanāh son of Āzādmard,

the (5) protector, from the region of Kāzerōn

like a good (6–7) heir (?),

without doubt concerning the religion and the soul,

and with an honest desire for the good Yazds.”

Colophon 2

rōstahm ī Footnote 33 dād-ohrmazd (8) nōgdraxt

ī az farrox būm ī spāhān az rōddašt Footnote 34 (9) rōstāg az Footnote 35 warzanag deh

abestāg az paččēn-ē Footnote 36 (10) ud zand az paččēn-ī Footnote 37

anōšag farrbay srōšayār xwēš (11) rāy nibišt ēstād

jādag Footnote 38 anōšag ruwān māh- (12) ayār ī Footnote 39 farroxzād

ī Footnote 40 az ham bīšāpuhr Footnote 41 awestān Footnote 42 (13) az kāzerōn Footnote 43 rōstāg Footnote 44

anōšag ī man Footnote 45 māhwindād ī Footnote 46 (14) narmāhān Footnote 47 ī Footnote 48 wahrām mihr

az ham Footnote 49 paččēn paččēn-ē Footnote 50

az (15) xwāyišn ī pērōzgar abunasr Footnote 51 mardšād ī šāpuhr Footnote 52

(16) az farrox būm ī Footnote 53 šīrāz

“Rōstahm, son of Dād-Ohrmazd (8) NōgdraxtFootnote 54

from the blessed land of Spāhān, from the Rōd-Dašt (9–11) region, from the town of Warzanag,Footnote 55

had written [a copy], the Avesta from a copy, and the Zand from the copy of

the immortal Farrbay Srōšayār, for himself [and]

for the immortal souled Māh- (12) ayār son of Farroxzād

from the same Bīšāpuhr province, (13) from the region of Kāzerōn.

I, the immortal Māhwindād son of (14) Narmāhān son of Wahrām Mihr, [wrote]

from the same copy, a copy

at (15) the request of the victorious Abunasr Mardšād son of Šāpuhr

(16) from the blessed land of Šīrāz.”

5. Interpretations of the colophons

EightFootnote 56 personal names occur in the colophon text according to the following sequence:

  1. 1) Hōšang Syāwaxš Šahryār Baxtāfrīd Šahryār;

  2. 2) Mihrābān Spendyād Mihrābān;

  3. 3) Māhpanāh Āzādmard;

  4. 4) Rōstahm Dād-Ohrmazd;

  5. 5) Farrbay Srōšayār;

  6. 6) Māhayār Farroxzād;

  7. 7) Māhwindād Narmāhān Wahrām Mihr; and

  8. 8) Abunasr Mardšād.

The main scholarly disagreements on the interpretations of the colophons concern 1) the scribe(s) of the colophon text; 2) the name of the creator of the first Pahlavi Yasna manuscript and the point of transition between the first and the second colophon; and 3) the scribes of the Avestan and Pahlavi sources of the first Pahlavi Yasna manuscript. These three questions are discussed in detail below. However, before discussing them, it may be useful to survey the filiations proposed by different scholars summarized as follows:

  1. (i) The model of West (Reference West1896–1904: 84–5)Footnote 57

  2. (ii) The model of Dhabhar (Reference Dhabhar1923: 115–16)Footnote 58

In Dhabhar's view, the names of the scribes of the Avestan and Pahlavi manuscripts that were combined in the first Pahlavi Yasna codex are unknown. Furthermore, it is unclear from his translation whether or not the manuscript of Māhpanāh Āzādmard was directly copied from the first copies written by Farrbay Srōšayār and Māhwindād Narmāhān.

  1. (iii) The model of Tavadia (Reference Tavadia1944: 332)

Colophon 1 (written by Hōšang Syāwaxš)

Colophon 2 (written by Hōšang Syāwaxš)

  1. (iv) The model of Mazdapour (Reference Mazdapour1375/1996: 80–1)

Mazdapour does not draw a diagram. She cautiously translates the text and states in her introduction that “because of the ambiguity that exists in the writing, borders between the sentences cannot be distinguished clearly, and as a result, one can reach a different semantic conclusion with revisions in these transitional points” (Mazdapour Reference Mazdapour1375/1996: 72).Footnote 60 Therefore, she places asterisks above her suggested transitional points in sections that contain the personal names, hoping that her suggestion may contribute to future research on this subject. Furthermore, Mazdapour, who considers the whole Introduction to be a work of Hōšang, does not discuss the number of colophons in the text. As a result, I have drawn the diagram according to the asterisks that she placed between the sentences.

Following Mf4, Mazdapour (Reference Mazdapour1375/1996: 74–5) edits line 2 az as ōy az:

nibišt … man, dēn bandag, hērbad hošang siyāwaxš šahryār baxt-āfrīd šahryār* ōy az pačēn hērbad mihr-ābān spendyād mihr-ābān, …

She also translates the phrase as follows:

“I, the servant of the religion, Hošang son of Siyāwaxš son of Šahryār son of Baxt-āfrīd son of Šahryār wrote <from the manuscript of the one> who from the manuscript of Hērbad Mihr-ābān son of Esfendyār son of Mihr-ābān <and> …” (Mazdapour: Reference Mazdapour1375/1996: 80).Footnote 61

It emerges from the translation that Mazdapour assumes that a manuscript by an unknown scribe intervenes between the copy of Mihrābān and that of Hōšang. In the present article, I have followed the straightforward reading of Pt4 in translation.

Māhwindād Narmāhām is also considered by Mazdapour as a figure whose name was written on a manuscript (see section 5.1). Moreover, it is unclear from Mazdapour's translation whether or not the manuscript of Māhpanāh Āzādmard was directly copied from that of Rōstahm Dād-Ohrmazd.

  1. (v) The model of Cantera and de Vaan (Reference Cantera and de Vaan2005: 40)

Colophon 1 (written by Hōšang Syāwaxš)

Colophon 2 (written by Māhwindād Narmāhān)

  1. (vi) My proposed model

    I propose the following filiation and present the justification of it in sections 5.1, 5.2, 5.3 and 6:

Colophon 1 (written by Hōšang Syāwaxš)

Colophon 2 (written by Māhwindād Narmāhān)

5.1 Scribe(s) of the colophon texts

While there is no question that Hōšang appears as the first person, man dēn bandag hōšang “I, the servant of the religion, Hōšang”, at the beginning of the first colophon, West (Reference West1896–1904: 84) cautiously takes the whole Introduction as a production of Hōšang and “as a specimen of fifteenth-century Pahlavi as written in Iran”. Dhabhar (Reference Dhabhar1923: v) and Mazdapour (Reference Mazdapour1375/1996: 72) make the same suggestion. Tavadia (Reference Tavadia1944: 323–4) ascribes both colophons to Hōšang too, but considers them to have been inserted into the Introduction, which he attributes to the ninth–tenth century at its latest on the basis of the form of its Pahlavi language.Footnote 62 Geldner (Reference Geldner1896: Prolegomena xxv) had already noted that the text bears more than one colophon although he considered the connection between the colophons to be unclear. Tavadia (Reference Tavadia1944: 332) was the first to posit two colophons in his diagram. More recently, Cantera and de Vaan (Reference Cantera and de Vaan2005: 37), who also recognize two colophons, have convincingly argued that the second colophon belongs to a different scribe.

While it is obvious that the first colophon is by Hōšang, the attribution of both colophons to Hōšang by West, Dhabhar, Tavadia and Mazdapour rests on their interpretations of the first-person pronoun man “I” which precedes Māhwindād:

Pt4 (3v13) anōšag ī man (written heterographically as ) māhwindād ī (14) narmāhān ī wahrām mihr

West (Reference West1896–1904: 85) translates man as “(of) me” and suggests that the Pahlavi source of the first Pahlavi manuscript was the production “(of) me, the immortal Māhwindād, son of Narmāhān, son of Wahrām, son of Mihr(-ābān)”.Footnote 63 However, his translation is problematic because it is based on the hypothetical insertion of “of” in round brackets and the erroneous translation of jādag as “production” as discussed in section 6.4.

Tavadia (Reference Tavadia1944: 325) leaves man untranslated. Dhabhar (Reference Dhabhar1923: 116, fn. 1) takes the Pahlavi sign as a corrupt form or an abbreviation of ruwān.Footnote 64 It is obvious that Dhabhar's suggestion is entirely hypothetical since he adduces no justification for, nor parallels of, such an abbreviation or corrupt form.

Mazdapour (Reference Mazdapour1375/1996: 81) adds the hypothetical <from-a manuscript-that-name>Footnote 65 and <on itself-held>Footnote 66 before and after anōšag ī man māhwindād ī narmāhān ī wahrām mihr, respectively, as follows:

“*<from a manuscript that held the name of> the immortal <souled>: (of) me, Māhwindād son of Narmāhān son of Bahrām son of Mihrābān <on itself>, from the same manuscript*”Footnote 67

Therefore, in Mazdapour's interpretation, as in West's, while Māhwindād son of Narmāhān appears as the first person, he is not considered to be the scribe of the colophon. Moreover, Mazdapour has kindly informed me that she considers man to be a scribal mistake. Mazdapour's interpretation therefore requires several assumptions. It should be noted that Mazdapour (Reference Mazdapour1375/1996: 75–7, 81–2) includes more sentences from the Introduction into the (second) colophon and associates the verb nibišt, which occurs twice in her suggested concluding text, with Hōšang:

anōšag ī man māhwindād ī nar-māhān wahrām mihr az ham pačēn, pačēn-ē az xwāhišn ī pērōzgar abū-nasr mard-šād ī šāhpuhr ī az farrox būm ī šīrāz; … hāt hāt u kardag kardag, pad abestāg, … nibišt … pad daxšag u ayād dāštan ī rōz ī frajām u xwārīh u āsānīh u nēkīh

pad wahišt rāy, čand hu-wizārīhātar dānist, nibišt

“<from a manuscript that held the name of> the immortal <souled>: (of) me, Māhwindād son of Narmāhān son of Bahrām son of Mihrābān <on itself>, from the same manuscript* a copy at the request <and at the order> of the victorious, Abū-nasr son of Mard-šād son of Šāhpuhr who <was> from the blessed land of Šīrāz … IFootnote 68 wrote in Avestan with details, sections by sections and chapters by chapters, as it seemingly appears better, <more precise> and superior … <and> I wrote with as many <explanations> and commentaries as I could for recalling and remembering the last day and (for) happiness and ease <and pleasure> and the goodness of heaven.”Footnote 69

In Mazdapour's interpretation, Māhwindād Narmāhān was a figure whose name was attested in a manuscript. Mazdapour's inclusion of more texts from the Introduction into the (second) colophon is an important suggestion, although the detailed discussion of her proposal is beyond the scope of the present article as noted before.Footnote 70 But this much can be said, that her suggestion makes it even more likely that the occurrences of nibišt in the above text are to be taken as verbs governing the subject “I, Māhwindād Narmāhān”. As stated above, Tavadia (Reference Tavadia1944: 323–4) showed that the Pahlavi language of the third colophon in Mf4, which was also written by Hōšang, is late. This evidence casts doubt on the suggestions that the entire Introduction including the above section, which according to Tavadia (Reference Tavadia1944: 323–4), represents the ninth–tenth century Pahlavi at its latest, had also been written by Hōšang.

As a result, following Cantera and de Vaan (Reference Cantera and de Vaan2005: 37), I regard the second colophon (and the Introduction) to be a work of Māhwindād Narmāhān, the scribe of the second colophon, while the first one belongs to Hōšang. I should also add that it is certain from Māhwindād's other (long) colophon in the manuscript B of the Dēnkard, that he lived in the early eleventh century ce,Footnote 71 a date that agrees with Tavadia's approximate dating of the Introduction.

5.2 Name of the creator of the first Pahlavi Yasna manuscript and the point of transition between the first and second colophon

West (Reference West1896–1904: 85) and Dhabhar (Reference Dhabhar1923: 115) consider Farrbay Srōšayār to be the scribe of the first Pahlavi Yasna manuscript. By contrast, Tavadia (Reference Tavadia1944: 325) and Mazdapour (Reference Mazdapour1375/1996: 81) take Rōstahm Dād-Ohrmazd as the producer of the first Pahlavi Yasna manuscript. Cantera and de Vaan (Reference Cantera and de Vaan2005: 36–7) suggest that the first Pahlavi Yasna was a production of Māhayār Farroxzād. It should also be noted that the studies of Tavadia and Mazdapour have regrettably not been taken into consideration in the analysis of Cantera and de Vaan. While it is obvious from the text itself that Hōšang, either directly or indirectly, copied Mihrābān's manuscript which itself was a copy of Māhpanāh's codex, the relationship between Māhpanāh Āzādmard and Rōstahm Dād-Ohrmazd is disputed. The name of māhpanāh ī āzādmard is followed in lines 4–7 by ī panāh ī az kāzerōn rōstāg … rōstahm ī dād-ohrmazd “the protector from the region of Kāzerōn … Rōstahm son of Dād-Ohrmaz”. The phrase panāh ī az kāzerōn rōstāg … is associated with Rōstahm Dād-Ohrmazd by West and also by Dhabhar, through the insertion of “son of” after Māhpanāh Āzādmard:

Pt4 (3v4) … māhpanāh ī āzādmard

ī (5) panāh ī az kāzerōn rōstāg

čiyōn mard nēk (6) abarmāndīg

pad dēn ud ruwān abēgumān

u-š kāmag (7) frārōn ō yazdān wehān

rōstahm ī dād-ohrmazd (8) nōgdraxt

ī az farrox būm ī spāhān az rōddašt (9) rōstāg az warzanag deh

“(4) … Māh-panāh, son of Āzhāt̰.mart̰,

son of (5) the protector of so manyFootnote 72 from the district of Kāzherūn,

a beneficent man (6–7) superintending

in the religion, without doubt of the soul,

and his virtuous desire was for the sacred beings and the good,

(who was), Rūstakhm, son of Dāt̰- Aūharmazd, (8–9) a new plant

from the happy land of Ispāhān, from the town of VardshūkFootnote 73 of the Rūt̰-dasht district.” (West Reference West1896–1904: 85)Footnote 74

“(4) … Mahpanah Azadmard,

(son) of (5–7) the protector of so many (chandîn) from the district of kazherun-

a virtuous and distinguished man,

without doubt of the religion and the soul,

and of a virtuous desire for the Yazads and the good

viz., Rustom, Dâd-Auharmazd, (8–9) NaodarakhtFootnote 75

of the happy land of Ispahan, and of the town of Varjuk of the Rut-dasht district.” (Dhabhar Reference Dhabhar1923: 115)

Slightly different and with the addition of “(son) of” before Rōstahm son of Dād-Ohrmazd, Cantera and de Vaan (Reference Cantera and de Vaan2005: 36) also suggest that Rōstahm was the grandfather of Māhpanāh Āzādmard:

“(4) … Māhpanāh, son of Āzādmard,

(5) protector of the region of Kāzerōn

like a good (6–7) heir (?),

without doubt about religion and soul

and with honest desire for the good gods

(son of) Rōstahm, son of Dād-Ohrmazd, (8–9) Nōgdraxt

from the blessed land of Spāhān, from the town of Waržuk (?) in the Rūd-Dašt region.”

While “(son) of” in the ad hoc translation of Cantera and de Vaan has no corresponding word in the same position of its Pahlavi original, West and Dhabhar probably interpreted that the second ī (line 4) in māhpanāh ī āzādmard ī panāh expresses the possessive relationship between Māhpanāh Āzādmard and Rōstahm Dād-Ohrmazd. Their suggestions regarding the relationships between and birthplaces of Māpanāh, Āzādmard, Rōstahm and Dād-Ohrmazd are summarized as follows:

  1. (i) The model of West and Dhabhar

  2. (ii) The model of Cantera and de Vaan

The theories of West, Dhabhar, and Cantera and de Vaan rely on the assumption that a certain father and son came from two different unrelated places, that is, Kāzerōn (in the province of Bīšāpuhr in Pars) and the town of Warzanag, the region of Rōddašt in Spāhān, respectively. Furthermore, their theories fail to explain why it was important to provide the details of the birthplace(s) of figures who had no role in the production of the manuscripts. A more likely interpretation, however, is that the second ī is the relative pronoun and connects Māhpanāh Āzādmard with its descriptors panāh ī az kāzerōn rōstāg….Footnote 76 Therefore, it seems that there is no relationship between Māhpanāh Āzādmard and Rōstahm Dād-Ohrmazd. Rather, the latter belongs to the second colophon and is the subject of the verb nibišt ēstād “had written” in line 11 as discussed below in section 6. Therefore, the present article provides further support for the view put forward by Tavadia and Mazdapour about the producer of the first Pahlavi Yasna manuscript.

5.3 Producer of the Avestan and Pahlavi sources of the first Pahlavi Yasna manuscript

The second colophon also informs us that the Avestan and Pahlavi texts of the first Pahlavi Yasna manuscript were put together from two different manuscripts. According to West (Reference West1896–1904: 85), Māhayār Farroxzād and Māhwindād Narmāhan are the respective scribes of the Avestan and Pahlavi manuscripts. In Tavadia's (Reference Tavadia1944: 325) translation, the first Pahlavi Yasna manuscript was produced by combining an Avestan manuscript and a copy of its Pahlavi version written by Māhayār Farroxzād and Farrbay Srōšayār, respectively. Likewise, Mazdapour (Reference Mazdapour1375/1996: 81) takes Farrbay Srōšayār to be the scribe of the Pahlavi manuscript; but unlike Tavadia, she suggests that the name of the scribe of the Avestan manuscript is absent from the colophon. In contrast, Dhabhar (Reference Dhabhar1923: 115) and Cantera and de Vaan (Reference Cantera and de Vaan2005: 36) suggest that the name(s) of the scribe(s) is(are) not attested. The investigation of the present study confirms the suggestions of Mazdapour.

6. Text of the second colophon

In this section, the translation of the verb nibišt ēstād, the role of the Pahlavi sign in abestāg az paččēn- ud zand az paččēn- and the meanings of xwēš rāy and jādag are investigated.

6.1 Active or passive translation of the verb nibišt ēstād

Cantera and de Vaan (Reference Cantera and de Vaan2005: 36), translate the verb nibišt ēstād as passive:

“The Abestāg has been written from one copy and the Zand from one (other) copy for the possession of the immortal Farnbay,Footnote 77 son of Srōšayār, as a production (?) of the immortal Māhayār, son of Farroxzād, from the same salubrious district from the region of Kāzerōn.”

This interpretation is problematic because it fails to take into account that it was common in both Pahlavi and New Persian to omit the direct object, in the present context presumably ēn paččēn/nibēg “this copy”, in active sentences governed by the verb nibištan “to write”. According to the interpretation presented here, and also according to Cantera and de Vaan, Māhwindād Narmāhān was the scribe of the second colophon. He has another colophon attested in the manuscript B of the Dēnkard in which he uses a comparable active sentence with the verb nibišt ēstād, and here the form is to be interpreted in the active sense, with ellipsis of the direct object:

DkMFootnote 78 (946 line 18) … nibišt ēstād man māhwindād ī (19) narmāhān ī wahrām mihrābān

rōz ī dēn māh tīr pērōzgar ī (20) sāl 369

ī pas az sāl man ī ōy bay (21) yazdgird šāhān šāh ī šahryārān

stūrmānāg? xwēšīh ī xwēšīh (22) rāy …

“(18–19) … I, Māhwindād son of Narmāhān son of Wahrām Mihrābān, had written [this copy] on the day of Dēn, the month of the victorious Tīr of (20) the year 369 after the year of his majesty (21–22) Yazdgird, King of Kings, son of Šahryār,

like a guardian?, for my own possession ….”Footnote 79

Other examples include the beginning of the first colophon of YIrPs nibišt pad hamuskārišnīh pērōzgar man dēn bandag hōšang syāwaxš šahryār baxtāfrīd šahryār and the third Pahlavi colophon of Hōšang, which appears in Mf4:

Mf4 (599 line 9) … man dēn bandag

hōšang syāwaxš šahryār ī (10) baxtāfrīd šahryār

ī wahrām ī husraw šāhag (11) anōšagruwān

nibišt ud frāz hišt xwēš ī (12) xwēš rāy

ud frazandān xwēš rāy …

“(9) … I, the servant of the religion,

Hōšang Syāwaxš Šahryār son of (10) Baxtāfrīd Šahryār,

son of Wahrām son of Husraw-Šāhag (11) Anōšagruwān

wroteFootnote 80 and published [this copy] for my (12) own possession,

and for (that) of my offspring ….”Footnote 81

This feature is also found in the colophon of J2 written down in ay 692 (1323 ce):

J2 (383v line 3) wahman māh frawrdīn rōz sāl ī 692 (4) yazdgirdīg

man dēn bandag hērbed zāt mihrābān (5) ī kayhusraw mihrābān

ī spendyār mihrābān marzb(ān) (6) hērbed nibišt

pad yazdān kāmag bād

(7) wahīzag kē man dēn bandag be būm hindūgān mad ham

andar (8) sāl 692 yazdgirdīg

man dēn bandag hērbed zād (9) mihrābān ī kayhusraw ī mihrābān

ī spendyād ī mihrābān ī (10) marzbān hērbed nibišt

az bahr čāhilag sangan

ud čāhil ī wahm(an) (11) bahrām kambaytīg nibišt …

“(3) On the day Wahman, month Frawardīn, year 692 (4) of Yazdgird,

I, the servant of the religion, Hērbed-born Mihrābān (5) son of Kayhusraw Mihrābān

son of Spendyār Mihrābān Marzb(ān) (6) Hērbed wrote [this copy].

May it be according to the will of Yazds.

(7) It was in the movable month that, I, the servant of the religion, came to the land of Indians.

In (8) the year 692 of Yazdgird,

I, the servant of the religion Hērbed-born (9) Mihrābān son of Kayhusraw son of Mihrābān

son of Spendyād son of Mihrābān son of (10) Marzbān Hērbed wrote [this manuscript],

for the sake of Čāhil Sangan

and Čāhil son of Wahm(an) (11) Bahrām of Cambay. I wrote….”Footnote 82

As for the New Persian colophons, in the following text from the Dārāb Hormazyār Rivāyat (Unvala Reference Unvala1922), written by Hōšang Syāwaxš Šhahryār, the verb neveštam (نوشتم)Footnote 83 “I wrote” occurs four times in lines 7, 8, 12 and 15, and governs the direct object, in (= Pahlavi ēn) “this”, only once in line 12:

DHR,Footnote 84 II (p. 368 line 7) نوشتم من دین بنده هوشنگ سیاوخش و شهریار بخت آفرید بهرام خسرو شاه

(8) انوشیروان نوشتم اندر فرخان بوم شرف آباد …

(12) … این نوشتم فه روز مانثرسفند ماه

(13) مهر سال هفت صد و چهل و هفت پارسی

(14) پس از یزدجرد شاهان شاه

(15) نوشتم

DHR, II (p. 368 line 7) neveštam man din bande hušang i syāwaxš o šharyār i baxt-āfrid i bahrām i xosraw šāh i

(8) anušerovān neveštam andar farroxān bum i šarafābād ….

(12) … in neveštam fe ruz i mānsarasfand māh i

(13) mehr sāl i haft-sad o čehel o haft i pārsi

(14) pas az yazdjerd i šāhān šāh

(15) neveštam

“(7–8) I, the servant of the religion Hušang Syāvaxš and? Šahryār Baxt-āfrīd Bahrām Xosrawšāh Anušerovān wrote. I wrote in the blessed land of Šarafābād …

(12) …. I wrote this on the day of Mānsarasfand, the month

(13) Mehr, the year seven hundred and forty-seven Pārsi,

(14) after Yazdjerd, King of Kings.

(15) I wrote.”Footnote 85

As in this last example, the active neveštam “I wrote” without a direct object also occurs in the Dārāb Hormazyār Rivāyat, p. 371, lines 3, 4 and 5:

DHR, II (p. 371 line 3) … باوستا نوشتم من دین بنده هوشنگ سیاوخش شهریار وهرام خسروشاه نوشوربان

(4) نوشتم پراج هشت اج پچین جاماسپ شهریار بختافرید  … از خویشیم

(5) پیروزگرتران هیربدان دین پرورتاران دین آگاهان نوشتم  …

DHR, II (p. 371 line 3) … be-avestā neveštam man din bande hušang i syāvaxš i šahryār i vahrām i xosraw šāh i nušorobān

(4) neveštam parāj hešt aj paččin i jāmāsp i šahryār i baxtāfrid … az xiš-yam

(5) piruzgartarān hirbedān din-parvartārān din-āgāhān neveštam …

“(3) … I, the servant of the religion, Hušang Syāvaxš Šahryār Vahrām Xosrawšāh Nōšerobān wrote in Avestan.

(4) I wrote, published [it] from the copy of Jāmāsp Šahryār Baxtāfrīd …. From my own expenses,

(5) I wrote for the more victorious Hirbeds, the religion-propagators [and] the religion-wise [men] ….”Footnote 86

On this basis, it is justified to take nibišt ēstād in the second colophon of the Introduction to the Iranian Pahlavi Yasna as a verb implying an object rather than expressing it explicitly.

6.2 Pahlavi sign in (lines 9–10) abestāg az paččēn-ē ud zand az paččēn-ī “the Avesta from a copy and the Zand from the copy of”

Regarding the Pahlavi signs after abestāg az paččēn and zand az paččēn, each can be taken as either the ezāfa ī “of” or the indefinite article -ē. West (Reference West1986–1904: 84–5), Dhabhar (Reference Dhabhar1923: 115) and Cantera and de Vaan (Reference Cantera and de Vaan2005: 36) opt for the latter possibility and translate the phrase as “Avesta from one copy and the Zand from another copy”.Footnote 87 With the interpretation of the Pahlavi sign as indefinite, Dhabhar (Reference Dhabhar1923: 115) and Cantera and de Vaan (Reference Cantera and de Vaan2005: 36) assume that the respective names of the scribes of the two separate Avestan and Pahlavi manuscripts are not mentioned. In contrast, West (Reference West1896–1904: 85) suggests that abestāg az paččēn-ē “the Avesta from one copy” and zand az paččēn-ē “the Zand from another copy” were the productions of Māhayār Farroxzād and of Māhwindād Narmāhān Wahrām Mihr(ābān), respectively:

“the Awesta from one copy, and the Zand from another copy, (which were) the production of the glorified Māhyār, son of Farukhzāt̰, from the same salubrious place of the district of Kāzherūn, (and of) me, the immortal Māh-vindāt̰ son of Naremāhān, son of Vāhrām, son of Mitrō(-āpān).”Footnote 88

Although West translates the Pahlavi sign as the indefinite article rather than the ezāfa ī “of”, he hypothetically associates the manuscripts with their suggested scribes by adding “which were” in round brackets. Later, Dhabhar (Reference Dhabhar1949: 7) sides with West by stating in the Introduction to his Pahlavi Yasna and Visperad that “Farnbag wrote his MS from two separate copies: 1) the Avesta text from the MS of Mahyar Farrukhzad; and 2) the Pahlavi text from the MS of Mahvindad Naremahãn Behram Meheravan”.

A different interpretation is put forward by Tavadia (Reference Tavadia1944: 325), who reads the Pahlavi sign as the ezāfa ī “of”:

“Rōstaxm ī Dātōhrmazd had written the Apastāk from the copy of the [blessed Dātak [ī] Māhayār ī Farroxvzāt …] and the Zand from the copy of the blessed Farnbaγ ī Srōšayār for himself.”Footnote 89

Tavadia (Reference Tavadia1944: 330) suggests that a scribe might have forgotten to write dādag Footnote 90 anōšag ruwān māhayār farroxzād after abestāg az paččēn ī. Therefore, he added the name of the scribe in the margin. Later, according to Tavadia, the second scribe misplaced it after nibišt ēstād.

However, from the syntactic point of view, the reading of the Pahlavi sign as the ezāfa ī after abestāg az paččēn is problematic because in a nominal construction, the ezāfa ī must be directly followed by the noun or adjective which it connects to the preceding noun.Footnote 91 In our text, the name of Māhayār Farroxzād, in whom Tavadia (with West) sees the scribe of the Avestan manuscript, appears several words after abestāg az paččēn. Tavadia therefore tries to explain the irregular position of Māhayār Farroxzād with the entirely hypothetical and unlikely suggestion summarized above.

In contrast, Mazdapour (Reference Mazdapour1375/1996: 75) takes the sign after abestāg az paččēn as the indefinite article and the second one after zand az paččēn as the ezāfa -ī. Her proposal is convincing because the word order of the Pahlavi text is then correct, straightforward and requires no insertion of hypothetical words in brackets to make the translation meaningful. Moreover, it is supported by the discussion set out in section 6.3. Therefore, associating the second with Farrbay Srōšayār, I read the phrase as abestāg az paččēn-ē ud zand az paččēn-ī anōšag farrbay srōšayār “the Avesta from a copy and the Zand from the copy of the immortal Farrbay Srōšayār”.

6.3 Meaning of xwēš rāy (lines 10–11)

Both West (Reference West1896–1904: 85) and Dhabhar (Reference Dhabhar1923: 115) considered Farrbay son of Srōšayār to be the scribe of the first bilingual Pahlavi Yasna manuscript. This is indicated by the way they translate lines 9–11:

abestāg az paččēn- ud zand az paččēn- Footnote 92 anōšag farrbay srōšayār xwēš rāy nibišt ēstād

“The immortal Farnbag, son of Srōshyār, had written a copy for himself- the Awesta from one copy, and the Zand from another copy,” (West Reference West1896–1904: 85).

“The immortal Farnbag Sroshyar had himself written a copy- the Avesta from one copy and the Zand from another copy-” (Dhabhar Reference Dhabhar1923: 115).

While West renders xwēš rāy as “for himself”, Dhabhar translates it as “himself”, thus leaving rāy untranslated. Like West, Tavadia (Reference Tavadia1944: 325) and Mazdapour (Reference Mazdapour1375/1996: 81) translate xwēš rāy as “für sich” (for himself) and “برای خویش” (for himself), respectively. But unlike West (and Dhabhar), they associate the expression with Rōstahm Dād-Ohrmazd (line 7) whom they regard as the creator of the first known bilingual Avestan-Pahlavi manuscript. Their respective translations run as follows:

“Rōstaxm ī Dātōhrmazd … had written the Apastāk from the copy of … and the Zand from the copy of … for himself.”Footnote 93

“Rostahm <son> of Dād-Ohrmazd … had written the Avesta from a copy … and the Zand from the copy of … for himself.”Footnote 94

A possible objection to the translation of xwēš rāy as “for himself” could arise from the view put forward by Cantera and de Vaan (Reference Cantera and de Vaan2005: 38), according to whom “the expression xwēš rāy usually serves to indicate the addressee or patron of the copy” in the texts. They accordingly translate anōšag farrbay srōšayār xwēš rāy as “for the possession of the immortal Farrbay son of Srōšayār”. Cantera and de Vaan (Reference Cantera and de Vaan2005: 38) further support this interpretation with reference to the formula xwēšīh ī xwēš rāy “for his own possession” which is common in the colophons. They provide three examples:

MS K1 colophon 2: u-m ēn paččēn nibišt xwēšīh ī xwēš rāy abestāg ud zand …

“and I have written this copy for my own possession, Avesta and Zand”

MS M 51a nibišt xwēš <īh> ī xwēš rāy

“I have written for my own possession”

DkM 950.2 xwēšīh ī xwēš rāy ud frazandān ī xwēš rāy

“for his own possession and for the possession of his offspring.”

In translating xwēš as “possession”, Cantera and de Vaan confuse the meaning of the reflexive pronoun xwēš “self” with that of xwēšīh “possession” in their first and second examples.Footnote 95 With regard to the third example, quoted above, they claim that “one also finds the formula with a noun (here: frazandān) preceding xwēš”. As a result, they postulate the new meaning “for the possession of” for xwēš rāy. However, rather than postulating such a new meaning, it is more likely that xwēšīh ī has been omitted after ud owing to the ellipsis in their third example:

DkM 950.2 xwēšīh ī xwēš rāy ud frazandān ī xwēš rāy

“for his own possession and for (the possession of) his offspring.”

Therefore, with West, Tavadia and Mazdapour, it is preferable to translate xwēš rāy “for himself” in abestāg az paččēn-ē ud zand az paččēn- anōšag farrbay srōšayār xwēš rāy nibišt ēstād.

Two candidates can be considered for the subject of the verb nibišt ēstād, and for the person to whom the reflexive pronoun xwēš refers. One possibility is Rōstahm Dād-Ohrmazd, the other is Farrbay Srōšayār in the sentence:

Pt4 (3v7) … rōstahm ī dād-ohrmazd (8) nōgdraxt

ī az farrox būm ī spāhān az rōddašt (9) rōstāg az warzanag deh

abestāg az paččēn-ē (10) ud zand az paččēn-

anōšag farrbay srōšayār xwēš (11) rāy nibišt ēstād

The following arguments speak in favour of the interpretation that Rōstahm Dād-Ohrmazd is the subject of the verb:

  1. 1) As argued in section 5.2, the suggestion of West, Dhabhar, and Cantera and de Vaan that Rōstahm was the grandfather of Māhpanāh is unlikely. Unless Rōstahm Dād-Ohrmazd is the subject of the verb, he has no function in the sentence.

  2. 2) The sentence starting with Rōstahm Dad-Ohrmazd follows the correct SOVFootnote 96 syntax of Pahlavi. It means that Rōstahm Dad-Ohrmazd had written [a copy] for himself, the Avesta from one copy (abestāg az paččēn-ē) and (ud) the Zand from the copy of the immortal Farrbay Srōšayār (zand az paččēn-ī anōšag farrbay srōšayār). The translation should therefore be as follows:

“Rōstahm, son of Dād-Ohrmazd Nōgdraxt from the blessed land of Spāhān, from the Rōd-Dašt region, from the town of Warzanag, had written [a copy] for himself, the Avesta from a copy and the Zand from the copy of the immortal Farrbay Srōšayār.”

6.4 Meaning of jādag (line 11)

After zand az paččēn-ī anōšag farrbay srōšayār xwēš rāy nibišt ēstād, the text continues as follows:

Pt4 (3v11–13)jādag anōšag ruwān māhayār ī farroxzād ī az ham bīšāpuhr awestān az kāzerōn rōstāg.

The reading and translation of (jādag) is debated among scholars. West (Reference West1896–1904: 84–5) reads it as dʾtk and interprets the word as meaning “production”. Tavadia (Reference Tavadia1944: 329–30) also eventually resolves to read the word as dādag, but interprets it as the personal name “Dātak [ī] Māhayār ī Farroxvzāt”. The possibly related Pahlavi word dādagīh (or jādagīh) occurs in IrBd. 35A.8Footnote 97 ud man farrbay ī xwānēnd dādagīh ī ašawahišt “and I Farrbay whom they call Dādagīh son of Ašawahišt”; but its interpretation as a personal name has been refuted by Mackenzie (1989: 548), who prefers the reading jādagīh and sees in it an honorary epithet meaning “apportionment”.

As rightly noted by Cantera and de Vaan (Reference Cantera and de Vaan2005: 38), dādag is an otherwise unknown word. The interpretation jʾtk /jādag/ is therefore to be preferred. The reading jādag is also supported by T54 (fol. 3v line 2), G14 (fol. 19v line 11) and T6 (fol. 7r line 5), which place a dot beneath the Pahlavi sign in .Footnote 98 This interpretation was already adopted by Dhabhar (Reference Dhabhar1923: 115, fn. 6) and Mazdapour (Reference Mazdapour1375/1996: 75, 82) who posit the meaning “for the sake of, for the preserving of the memory of”.Footnote 99 Cantera and de Vaan (Reference Cantera and de Vaan2005: 38) also transliterate jʾtk but translate it as “production”. Although West, and Cantera and de Vaan both translate the Pahlavi word as “production”, their respective contextual interpretations differ. While West considers the Avestan source of the first Pahlavi Yasna manuscript to have been produced by Māhayār Farroxzād, according to Cantera and de Vaan, Māhayār Farroxzād produced the first combined Avestan-Pahlavi Yasna manuscript.

While West, Dhabhar, Mazdapour, and Cantera and de Vaan do not examine the word in greater detail, Tavadia (Reference Tavadia1944: 329–30), who first considers but then rejects the reading jādag, Footnote 100 provides a detailed study of it. He notes that the corresponding Pahlavi jādagīh ī man and the Zoroastrian New Persian man jāda rā and jāda i man rā mean “for me, for my share”, and this especially in association with the prayers of penitence after death. For example, the variant jādagīh occurs in the third colophon of Mf4, written by Hōšang:

Mf4 (p. 599 line 12) har kē (13) xwānād

ayāb hammōzād ayāb paččēn az-iš (14) kunād

jādagīh ī man nibištār pad patet bawēd

“(12) Everyone who reads [it],

or teaches [it] or makes a copy of it,

(14) for me, the writer, will be in repentance.”Footnote 101

By translating jādag as “for, the share of”, the sequence of jādag anōšag ruwān māhayār ī farroxzād makes sense. The reason is that anōšag ruwān, the descriptor of māhayār ī farroxzād, could entail that the scribe wrote the manuscript “for (the penitence of) the immortal souled (= deceased)” Māhayār Farroxzād.Footnote 102 Therefore, the first Pahlavi Yasna manuscript was written for its creator, Rōstahm Dād-Ohrrmazd, and Māhayār Farroxzād. It should be noted that a particular manuscript could have been written for more than one person, for example, the Indian Pahlavi manuscripts J2 and K5 written by Mihrābān Kayhusraw.Footnote 103

7. The reading of as bīšāpuhr and the honorary title anōšag preceding man māhwindād ī narmāhān ī wahrām mihr

7.1 az ham bīšāpuhr awestān az kāzerōn rōstāg “from the same Bīšāpuhr province, from the region of Kāzērōn” (lines 12–13)

Reading bīšāpuhr awestān ()Footnote 104 as bēšāžvārānistān, West (Reference West1896–1904: 84–5) translates the expression as “the salubrious place”, later followed by Dhabhar (Reference Dhabhar1923: 115–16). While Cantera and de Vaan (Reference Cantera and de Vaan2005: 37, fn. 23) indicate that the form byšʾcwʾl is unknown elsewhere, they accept West's suggestion and follow his reading of with a slight emendation as bēšāzwār awestām “the salubrious district” (Cantera and de Vaan Reference Cantera and de Vaan2005: 36–7). It should be noted that in contrast to what West suggests, is separated from in the manuscripts.

Tavadia (Reference Tavadia1944: 325) translates as Gau Vēhšāpuhr (the district of Vēhšāpuhr) and considers the Pahlavi spelling to be a late or corrupt form of Vēhšāpuhr (Tavadia Reference Tavadia1944: 338). This form actually occurs in the Šahrestānīhā ī Ērānšahr,Footnote 105 although it seems to be incorrect (Sundermann Reference Sundermann1986: 294). While the corresponding (correct) spelling byš(ʾ)pwhr occurs on bullae, a seal and an inscription in Pahlavi, the variant byšʾpwhr agrees with the Pahlavi spelling of the colophon.Footnote 106 Therefore, Tavadia's reading is well supported. Mazdapour (Reference Mazdapour1375/1996: 81) also renders as “the province of Bīšābur”.

With Tavadia and Mazdapour, I am inclined to suggest that bīšāpuhr awestān is the correct reading. This suggestion is corroborated by three recently discovered Sasanian clay bullae of (a) Zoroastrian priest(s) from (the province of) Bīšāpuhr (byšpwhly), (the region of) Kāzerōn, which shows that Kāzerōn was a region in the administrative division of Bīšāpuhr (Ghasemi et al. Reference Ghasemi, Gyselen, Noruzi and Rezaei1396/2017: 94, 99). It should be noted that writers of the early Islamic period also state that Kāzerōn belonged to the administration of Bīšāpuhr (Ghasemi et al. Reference Ghasemi, Gyselen, Noruzi and Rezaei1396/2017: 101).

The anaphor ham, preceding bīšāpuhr, could hypothetically be interpreted in different ways:

1) Māhayār Farroxzād came from the same province whose name was in the mind of the scribe of the second colophon, Māhwindād Narmāhān, that is, his own unattested province.

2) As suggested by Tavadia (Reference Tavadia1944: 339), Mahayār Farroxzād could have been the brother of the famous Zoroastrian high priest of the ninth-century Adurfarrbay Farroxzādān. Assuming everybody knew Adurfarrbay Farroxzādān, ham bīšāpuhr could mean that Mahayār Farroxzād came from the same province as that of his brother.

3) The anaphor ham could have been a late insertion by Hōšang. According to this interpretation, ham refers back to Kāzerōn, the region of Māhpanāh Āzādmard, which had already been mentioned in the first colophon.

7.2 anōšag ī man māhwindād ī narmāhān ī wahrām mihr “I, the immortal Māhwindād son of Narmāhān son of Wahrām Mihr” (lines 13–14)

The honorary title anōšag “immortal”, occurs before man māhwindād “I, Māhwindād”, the scribe of the second colophon. However, in his colophon in the manuscript B of the Dēnkard, as mentioned in section 6.1, he simply refers to himself as man māhwindād ī narmāhān ī wahrām mihrābān. Therefore, the honorary title might have been inserted later by another scribe. This possibility is supported by the fact that scribes usually described themselves with modest titles such as dēn bandag “the servant of the religion”.

8. Text of the first colophon in T54 and the colophon of Kāyūs

In T54, the beginning of the first colophon runs as follows:

T54 (2v line 12) … ud ham čim rāy ī nibišt pad (13) hamuskārišnīh

pērōzgar man dēn bandag kāyūs (3r 1) pus dastwar suhrāb

pus dastwar rōstam (2) pus dastwar mānōg

pus dastwar mihrānōš pus (3) dastwar kay-kawād

pus dastwarān dastwar ī (4) māhayār rānān

andar bilād ī hindūgān Footnote 107 sākon ī kasabag ī nōg sārīg

(5) az paččēn hērbed hōšang syāwaxš šahryār (6) baxtāfrīd šahryār …

“(2v line 12) and for this reason, (I) wrote [this copy] with (13) the inspiration of

the victorious [Yazds], I, the servant of the religion, Kāyūs (31r line 1) son of the priest Suhrāb,

son of the priest Rōstam, (2) son of the priest Mānōg,

son of the priest Mihrānōš son of (3) the priest Kay-Kawād,

son of the priest of priests (4) Māhayār Rānān

in the lands of Indians, resident of the town of Nōg Sārīg [=Nawsāri]

(5) from the manuscript of the priest Hōšang Syāwaxš Šahryār (6) Baxtāfrīd Šahryār.”

The additional text in T54, which is absent from all other manuscripts, is inserted between man dēn bandag “I the servant of the religion” and (hērbed) hōšang. Footnote 108 The text in T54 continues as in the other manuscripts with the minor variations as collated in section 4. The following table summarizes the difference between the text of the first colophon in T54 and Pt4 (3r21–3v3). Phrases that are identical in T54 and Pt4 are set in bold characters:

In T54, the first-person pronoun man “I” is associated with Kāyūs rather than with Hōšang.Footnote 109 Dhabhar (Reference Dhabhar1949: 6) had stated that Kāyūs “has incorporated his name in the long colophon given at the beginning by the original writer Hoshang Siyavakhsh”. That the additional text in T54 (Kāyūs's text) has been inserted into the original colophon of Hōšang by Kāyūs is indicated by the Arabic loan words bilād “lands”, sākon “resident” and kasabag “town” in Kayūs's text (fol. 3r line 4). Elsewhere in the two colophons, the Pahlavi words rōstāg “region”, deh “town” and būm “land” are used to refer to geographical locations and there is only one Arabic personal name, Abunasr.

In G14, the story of the compilation of Kāyūs's (= Kāwūs in G14 and T6) manuscript is also given with three major differences:

  1. 1) Kāwūs's text appears as a separate colophon at the end of the second part of the Introduction, as noted in section 2.

  2. 2) The completion date of Kāwūs's manuscript, ay 1149 (1780 ce), is provided in the colophon.

  3. 3) Kāwūs appears as the third person:

G14 (21r line 6) ud ēn daftar fradom andar hindūgān

dastwar kāwūs (7) pus dastwar suhrāb

pus dastwar rōstam pus dastwar mānak

(8) pus mihrnōš az pušt ī māhayār rānān

andar kasabak ī nōg sārīg

(9) andar rōz hordād ud māh ī farrox frawardīn

sāl abar 114- (10) 9 yazdgirdīg šāhān šāh ī ohrmazdān nibišt ēstād

az (11) abar ō ōy nibēsēd xub frazām kāmag hanjām bawād

pad (12) yazdān ayārīh

“(6) And this manuscript first [was written] in India.

The priest Kāwūs (7) son of the priest Suhrāb

son of the priest Rōstam son of the priest Mānak

(8–10) son of Mihrnōš a descendant of Māhayār Rānān

had written [it] in the town of Nōg Sārīg

on the day Hordād and the blessed month Frawardīn,

the year 1149 of Yazdgird, King of Kings, a descendant of Ohrmazd.

From [it] (11) [who] writes for him, may he be of good fortune [and] successful

through (12) the assistance of the Yazds.”

Therefore, the completion date in the third colophon of the manuscript G14 must refer to that of the original manuscript of Kāyūs rather than to that of G14. As a result, G14 is an undated copy since it cannot be a production of Kāyūs in 1780 ce. The following pieces of evidence corroborate that T54 is as old as Pt4 and Mf4 and suggest that, completed in 1780 ce by Kāyūs, T54 was probably the direct or indirect source of G14:

  1. 1) Although the name and colophon of Kāwūs are absent from Pt4, according to the family tradition of its owner, the manuscript was written by Dastur Kāvasji Sohrābji Mihirji-rānā (Geldner Reference Geldner1896: Prolegomena xiii).

  2. 2) According to Dhabhar's (Reference Dhabhar1949: 6) observation, T54 is very close to Pt4. My preliminary comparison of the Pahlavi version of the manuscripts also confirms that in cases of significant variant orders between Pt4-Mf4 on the one hand, and G14-T6 on the other hand, T54 agrees with Pt4-Mf4. For example, the order of the Avestan original xvarənaŋvhastəmō zātanąm huuarə.darəsō maṣ̌iiānąm and the Pahlavi version of huuarə.darəsō maṣ̌iiānąm, occurring in Yasna 9.4, varies between the manuscripts Pt4-Mf4-T54 and G14-T6:

    Another example of such different orders between the manuscripts is observed in Y 9.11 (data not shown).

    3) The quality of the text of the colophons in T54 exceeds that of its related copies of the Kāyūs family, that is, G14 and T6, as discussed in the following section.

9. Variant readings of the geographical locations, personal names and the first-person pronoun man “I” preceding māhwindād in G14 and T6

As far as the geographical origin of scribes is concerned, according to Pt4, Mf4 and T54 they come from the central and western parts of Iran:

Hērbed Māhpanāh Āzādmard: kāzerōn rōstāg “the region of Kāzerōn”

Rōstahm Dād-Ohrmazd: būm ī spāhān, rōddašt rōstāg, warzanag deh “the land of Spāhān, the Rōd-Dašt region, the town of Warzanag”

Māhayār Farrōkhzād: bīšāpuhr awestān kāzerōn rōstāg “the province of Bīšāpuhr, the region of Kāzerōn”

Abu-Nasr Mardšād: būm ī šīrāz “the land of Šīrāz”.

In G14 (19v line 12), kʾclwn “Kāzerōn” is spelled as kʾp̄uhl “Kabul?”:

az ham bīšāpuhr awestān az kābul? Rōstāg (Māhayār Farroxzād came) from the same Bīšāpuhr province, from the region of Kābul?

However, while it is obvious that Bīšāpuhr and Kābul are geographically unrelated, the expected spelling of Kabul is kʾp̄wl. With the reading of G14, it might be possible to associate kābul with the following anōšag ī man māhwindād “I the immortal Māwindād”, the scribe of the second colophon. This suggestion is also unlikely because Māhwindād has another colophon in the manuscript B of the Dēnkard in which he states that he copied the Dēnkard from a copy that he had found in Baghdad.Footnote 121 It stands to reason then that he came from somewhere in Mesopotamia or environs west of the Iranian plateau.

In T6, which also provides the interlinear New Persian translation of the colophon text, more cities are identified with those in eastern Iran:

Hērbed Māhpanāh Āzādmard: T6 (fol. 6v line 13) “Kāzerōn” (in the New Persian version ﻜﺎﺑﻮﻞ “Kabul”).

Māhayār Farrōkhzād: T6 (fol. 7r line 6) ham nēšāpur xujestān Footnote 122 (). Moreover, T6 (7r line 6) writes ? Likewise, is translated in the interlinear New Persian version as ham nēšāpur xujestān az kābul (ﻫﻢ ﻨﻴﺸﺎﭙﻮﺭﺨﻮﺠﺴﺘﺎﻦ از کابل) “from Nēšāpur Xujestān from Kābul”, both of which, nēšāpur and xujestān, are located in Khorasan.Footnote 123

Like G14, the text of T6 seems to be subject to re-interpretation according to the scribe's mindset. The reason for this is that in fol. 6v line 13, the word in the Pahlavi version is spelled apparently as kʾclwn' /kāzerōn/, while in the New Persian version ﻜﺎﺑﻮﻞ “Kabul” is given. Furthermore, ? “Kābul?” in fol. 7r line 6 is probably the corrected variant of the original . In G14 (fol. 19v lines 5–6), T6 (fol. 6v line 12), the name of the famous scribe mihrābān spendyād mihrābān (= mihrābān spendyār mihrābān in J2) is also replaced by kē ābān spendād kē ābān “who is Ābān Spendāt who is Ābān?”:

Pt4 (3v 1) … man dēn bandag hōšang (2) syāwaxš šahryār baxtāfrīd šahryār

az (3) paččēn hērbed mihrābān spendyād mihrābān (G14 T6: kē ābān spendād kē ābān)

“(1) I, the servant of the religion, Hōšang (2) Syāwaxš Šahryār Baxtāfrīd Šahryār,

[wrote this copy] from (3) the copy of hērbed Mihrābān Spendyād Mihrāban (G14 T6: who is Ābān Spendād who is Ābān).”

In addition, as collated above, G14-T6 write narmāhān and abunasr as rumāhān? and ābānnasr?Footnote 124, respectively, and tend to omit the relative pronouns.

As regards the Pahlavi sign (= man), it precedes māhwindād ī narmāhān ī wahrām mihr in Pt4, Mf4 and T54. By contrast, in G14 (fol. 19v line 13) and T6 (fol. 7r line 6), it appears as which can be transliterated either heterographically as MN (= az “from”) or eteographically as mn (= man “I”). The corresponding interlinear New Persian translation از “from” in T6 agrees with the former reading. Pt4 (3v14) az ham paččēn paččēn-ē az also appears as az paččēn az in G14-T6. The following table compares the concluding words in Pt4 with those in G14-T6:

As shown above, the colophons in G14 and T6 have several corrections elsewhere. Furthermore, man … narmāhān … az ham paččēn paččēn-ē az rather than az … rumāhān … az paččēn az is present in their related manuscript T54, whose quality is superior to that of G14 and T6. Therefore, it is possible that the scribes of G14 and T6 corrected the spelling of to which frequently occurs in the colophons, and omitted (ham) paččēn-ē as it was thought to be erroneously repeated.

10. Conclusions

As regards the filiation of the second colophon, I have argued that Māhwindād Narmāhān copied the Pahlavi manuscript of Rōstahm Dād-Ohrmazd. The latter was the one who had combined a manuscript containing the Avestan text of the Yasna with another manuscript containing the Pahlavi version of the Yasna for himself and for the deceased Māhayār Farroxzād. I have also suggested that Farrbay Srōšayār was the scribe of the manuscript that was the source of the Pahlavi version of Rōstahm Dād-Ohrmazd's manuscript. Moreover, the second colophon shows that Rōstahm Dād-Ohrmazd, the scribe of the first known Pahlavi Yasna manuscript, was from Spāhān. Reading the debated as bīšāpuhr awestān, I propose that Māhayār Farroxzād came from “the province of Bīšāpuhr”.

For the different filiation of the first colophon in T54, I have suggested in the present article that Kāyūs added his late text to the first colophon in which he described himself as the copyist of the manuscript of Hōšang. Moreover, among T54, G14 and T6 associating themselves with Kāyūs, the quality of the first is superior and closer to that of Pt4 and Mf4. Although the completion date of T54 is unattested in the manuscript, I have proposed that this date may be found in G14. The reason for this is that the Pahlavi colophon of G14, which is placed after the Introduction, declares that Kāwūs (= Kāyūs in T54) completed his copy in ay 1149 (1780 ce). However, Kāwūs must be considered as a historical figure in G14, since his name occurs in the third person in the colophon of this manuscript; also the quality of T54, in whose first colophon Kāyūs speaks, is closer to that of Pt4 which is traditionally considered to be written by Kāyūs.

Footnotes

*

I would like to express my sincere gratitude and appreciation to Professor Almut Hintze for her insightful and invaluable comments, and criticisms on earlier drafts of this article. Any mistakes and shortcomings in this paper are of course mine.

The ideas of this research gradually developed during my PhD and postdoctoral research, and I wish to thank my various funders for their support. For my PhD, I received the Zartoshty Brothers full tuition fee scholarship from the Zoroastrian Trust Funds of Europe, supplemented by the Ouseley Memorial Scholarship, Houtan Scholarship, Vakhshoori Scholarship, Soudavar Memorial Scholarship, FEZANA Scholarship and Kamran Djam Scholarship. My current postdoctoral research is funded by the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (The Multimedia Yasna (MUYA), grant agreement no. 694612).

1 For Middle Avestan see Tremblay (Reference Tremblay, Panaino and Piras2006: 233–81) and also Hintze (Reference Hintze2014a:17–19).

2 While New Persian sources mostly call the language Pahlavi, the term Pārsīg is employed in original sources in Pahlavi/Pārsīg. I chose Pahlavi in the present paper because manuscripts containing the translation-cum-commentary of the Avestan original in this language are traditionally called the Pahlavi manuscripts. For a review on the occurrences of Pahlavi and Pārsīg see Sadeghi (Reference Sadeghi1357/1978: 13–20).

3 For a review see Kellens (Reference Kellens1987: 35–44), also Hintze (Reference Hintze2007: 2, 22–4) and Skjærvø (Reference Skjærvø and Winfuhr2009b: 43–6).

4 Facsimiles of the manuscripts J2 (Ferrer-Losilla Reference Ferrer-Losilla2012) and K5 (Ferrer-Losilla Reference Ferrer-Losilla2015) are available on the website of the Avestan Digital Archive. While the manuscript J2 has a Pahlavi colophon, the manuscript K5 has three colophons, i.e. two in Pahlavi and one in Sanskrit. For an English translation of the colophons of J2 and K5 see Unvala (Reference Unvala1940: 120–1, 128–30). For a recent English translation of the Sanskrit colophon of K5 see Goldman (Reference Goldman2018: 5).

5 Facsimiles of the manuscripts Pt4 (Zeini Reference Zeini2012), G14 and T6 (Andrés-Toledo Reference Andrés-Toledo2010) are available on the website of the Avestan Digital Archive. Mf4 is published by Jamasp Asa and Nawabi (Reference Nawabi and Jamasp Asa2535/1976). T54 which is kept at the First Dastur Meherji Rana Library “has been beautifully restored at the Kongelige Bibliotek, Copenhagen, in 2011 at the expense of the Zoroastrian Trust Funds of Europe” (Hintze Reference Hintze2012: 255). Cantera (Reference Cantera2014: 405–6) has provided unique numerical identifiers for each of these manuscripts. They are: 500_J2; 510_K5; 400_Pt4; 410_Mf4; 451_T54; 457_G14; and 420_T6.

6 The text appears at the beginning of the text of Yasna proper. For an example see Pt4 (folio 5v lines 6–7). Developed from the Avestan yašta- “worshipped”, yašt is a Middle Persian cognate of the Avestan yasna- which becomes yasn in Pahlavi. In the Pahlavi literature, yasn and yašt are used indiscriminately (for a review see Hintze Reference Hintze2014b). Cantera (Reference Cantera and Cantera2012: 294) refers to these copies as “combined manuscripts”. However, since manuscripts of this type (i.e. with both Pahlavi translation and ritual directions) are the only representatives of the Yasna with Pahlavi translation from Iran, the term Iranian Pahlavi Yasna is retained here. It should also be noted that the existence of ritual directions is not restricted to the YIrPs; they are also observable in their Indian counterparts, although less frequently. Examples include J2 109r lines 2, 6, 12 and K5 80v lines 5, 8, 13. For a study on the features of the manuscripts of the Iranian Pahlavi Yasna see Cantera (Reference Cantera, Agud, Cantera and Falero2013: 503–21).

7 The only manuscript that lacks the Introduction is 415_F2 which begins with Yasna 1 (Cantera Reference Cantera, Agud, Cantera and Falero2013: 505).

8 The first part of the Introduction appears in Pt4 fols 2v (line 1)–3r (line 21); Mf4 pp. 2 (line 1)–4 (line 6); T54 fols 1v (line 1)–2v (line 12); G14 fols 18v (line 1)–19v (line 3); and T6 fols 5v (line 1)–6v (line 9). Unlike other manuscripts whose folios are numbered by their editors, in the Mf4 published facsimile the pages are numbered by Jamasp Asa and Nawabi Reference Nawabi and Jamasp Asa2535/1976. It should be noted that the Introduction is repeated in pp. 13–18 in Mf4. However, the repeated text is not collated in the present article.

9 For an English translation of the first part of the Introduction see Dhabhar (Reference Dhabhar1923: 114–15).

10 The text of colophons occurs in Pt4 fols 3r (line 21)–3v (line 16); Mf4 pp. 4 (line 6)–5 (line 6); T54 fols 2v (line 12)–3v (line 7); G14 fol. 19v (lines 3–14); and T6 fols 6v (line 10)–7r (line 8). In her important article, as discussed in the present paper, Mazdapour (Reference Mazdapour1375/1996: 79–83) translates the Introduction into New Persian. Interpreting differently from other scholarly works on the colophons (see sections 4 and 5), she considers that more texts from the Introduction belong to the beginning and end of the colophons (Mazdapour Reference Mazdapour1375/1996: 80–2). However, an investigation into the opening and concluding words of the colophons is beyond the scope of the present paper and I therefore follow the scholarly consensus on this topic here.

11 Under the influence of New Persian, Kāyūs is spelt as kʾwws /kāwūs/ in G14 and T6.

12 For the text of the colophons and their translation see section 4.

13 It is present in fols 3v (line 16)–4v (line 19) of Pt4, pp. 5 (line 7)–8 (line 3) of Mf4, fols 3v (line 8)–5r (line 13) of T54, fols 20r (line 1)–21r (line 6) of G14 and fols 7r (line 9)–8v (line 3) of T6. For an English translation of the second part of the Introduction see Dhabhar (Reference Dhabhar1923: 116–17).

14 For an English translation of the third colophon of Mf4 see Dhabhar (Reference Dhabhar1923: 117–18); see also, Cantera and de Vaan (Reference Cantera and de Vaan2005: 41). ay stands for Anno Yazdgird which corresponds to 631 ce.

15 Ms. stands for manuscript.

16 While the New Persian colophon is silent about the source of T6, it is attested in the Gujarati colophon that T6 was copied from the manuscript of Kāvasji. I would like to thank Kerman Daruwalla, who kindly translated the Gujarati colophon at my request.

17 Tavadia (Reference Tavadia1944: 321) informs us of D.B. Desai's study of the colophon of Mf4 in Zartošti 2. 155ff. Describing it as mit … mehr gemutmaβten als getreuen Inhaltsangabe “with … a more conjectural than a faithful summary”, he does not provide a critical study of it. I was also unable to find Desai's work.

18 Pahlavi words are transcribed according to the system of MacKenzie (1971). As noted in fn. 10, although Mazdapour's suggestion about the opening and concluding words of the colophons differs from that of other scholars, the focus of the present study is on the core sections of the colophons, in which the names of scribes occur.

19 G14 T6: deest.

20 Mf4 writes hērbed (hylpt) after bandag. For the additional text in T54, see section 8.

21 T6: šahryā (štr'yʾ).

22 Mf4 T54 G14 T6: ōy az (ʿL MN).

23 G14 T6: kē ābān spendād kē ābān (MNW ʾp̄ʾn' sp̄yn'dʾt (T6: sp'yndʾt) MNW ʾp̄ʾn').

24 T6: deest.

25 Mf4: māhp (mʾhp).

26 Mf4: deest.

27 G14 T6: deest.

28 Pt4 Mf4 T54: ; G14 T6: . Therefore, it can also be read as čandīn (cndyn') “many”.

29 T6: mard ī (GBRʾ Y).

30 G14: ud abarmāndagīg (W ʾp̄lmʾndkyk̠).

31 Mf4 T54: ud ō (W ʿL).

32 Tavadia (Reference Tavadia1944: 325) excludes ud ham čim rāy ī nibišt pad hamuskārišnīh pērōzgar from his translation of the text of the first colophon. West (Reference West1896–1904: 84), translates pad hamuskārišnīh pērōzgar as “for similar successful deliberations”. Rendering pad hamuskārišnīh as “for similar deliberation”, Dhabhar (Reference Dhabhar1923: 115) leaves pērōzgar untranslated. Cantera and de Vaan (Reference Cantera and de Vaan2005: 36) separate pērōzgar from the preceding pad hamuskārišnīh and translate pad hamuskārišnīh pērōzgar man dēn bandag hōšang as “for similar deliberation, I victorious servant of the religion hērbad Hōšang”. In other words, Cantera and de Vaan associate pērōzgar with man dēn bandag hōšang. However, they do not explain how Hōšang could have described himself both with the honorary title pērōzgar and the modest title dēn bandag in the same text. Mazdapour reads pad hamuskārišnīh pērōzgar and translates it as “با همسگالی < و الهام یزدانِ > پیروزگر ”. While the association of pērōzgar with Hōšang seems problematic, I have followed Mazdapour's interpretation here.

33 G14 T6: deest.

34 T6: deest.

35 T54 az az (MN MN) in which the first az is crossed out.

36 G14 T6: paččēn.

37 G14 T6: paččēn.

38 G14: jādag ud (jʾtk W).

39 G14 T6: deest.

40 G14 T6: deest.

41 T6: nēšāpuhr (nyšʾp̄wl).

42 T6: xujestān (xwjstʾn'): The reading x is shown by the diacritic dot above .

43 G14: kābuhl (kʾp̄whl); T6: In the New Persian version, it is rendered as kābul (ﻜﺎﺑﻞ ).

44 G14 T6: rōstāg ī (lwstʾk' Y).

45 G14 T6: az (MN).

46 G14 T6: deest.

47 G14 T6: rumāhān? (lmʾhʾn').

48 Mf4: deest.

49 G14 T6: deest.

50 G14 T6: deest.

51 G14 T6: ābān-nasr (ʾbʾn'nsl).

52 Mf4 T54: šāpuhr ī (šʾp̄whl Y).

53 G14: deest.

54 For the descriptor nōgdraxt “new tree” see Mazdapour (Reference Mazdapour1375/1996: 75, fn. 24).

55 Warzana (ورزنه ) is still the name of a city in the province of Isfahan. The only scholar who read it correctly is Mazdapour (Reference Mazdapour1375/1996: 75, 81). By contrast, West (Reference West1896–1904: 84–5), Dhabhar (Reference Dhabhar1923: 115), Tavadia (Reference Tavadia1944: 325) and Cantera and de Vaan (Reference Cantera and de Vaan2005: 36) interpret it more or less similarly as Vardhshūk, Varjuk, Varžūk and Waržuk?, respectively. Their interpretations agree with the reading of the interlinear New Persian version of the Pahlavi word in T6 (7r3), i.e. ورزوی . For corrections in T6 see section 9.

56 Beginning with Kāyūs, nine names occur in T54. However, as discussed in section 8, Kāyūs's name was added later to the first colophon.

57 Although West only translates the text, Geldner (Reference Geldner1896) in his Prolegomena, xxxiv, includes a diagram of the genealogical relationships of YIrP manuscripts, which agrees with West's translation. The above diagram is also based on that of Geldner. However, it should be noted that it is unclear from West's translation whether or not West thought that Māhpanāh Āzādmard directly copied the manuscript of Farrbay Srōšayār.

58 The diagram is drawn according to the translation of Dhabhar (Reference Dhabhar1923: 115–16) who like West, does not reconstruct the genealogical relationships with a diagram.

59 According to Tavadia's interpretation, the name of the scribe of the Avestan manuscript was Dādag Māhayār Farroxzād (see section 6.4). Moreover, Tavadia considers two other possibilities regarding the scribe of the Avestan text. The first is the possibility that the name of the scribe of the Avestan text is unattested and the second is that Farrbay Srōšayār can also be taken as the scribe of the Avestan text. The above diagram shows Tavadia's main suggestion, which also agrees with his translation (Tavadia Reference Tavadia1944: 325–6).

60 My translation from the New Persian original بواسطه ابهامی که در نگارش هست ، مرز جمله ها را نمی شود بصراحت باز شناخت و در نتیجه ، گاهی با جابجایی این مرزها می توان به استنباط معانی متفاوتی رسید .

61 My translation from Mazdapour's New Persian translation نوشتم … من ، بنده دین ، هوشنگِ سیاوخشِ شهریارِ بخت آفریدِ شهریار <از دستنویس آنکه > او از دستنویس هیربد مهرآبانِ اسفندیارِ مهرآبان <و> … .

62 The study of the quality of the language of the Introduction is beyond the scope of the present article. Briefly, Tavadia's main argument for the lateness of the colophon text is based on New Persian loan words or Persianized forms in the colophon of Hōšang Syāvaxš, which occurs on pp. 599–600 of Mf4 (see section 3).

63 West, Dhabhar, Tavadia and Mazdapour correct Mihr to Mihr(ābān). Their correction agrees with the name of the great grandfather of Māhwindād in his other colophon attested in the manuscript B of the Dēnkard (see section 6.1).

64 Dhabhar (Reference Dhabhar1923: 116, fn. 1) only suggests that the Pahlavi sign represents ruwān (lwbʾn') and therefore, he does not discuss whether it is a corrupt form or an abbreviation of ruwān.

65 .<از دستنویسی که نام >

66 .<برخود داشت >

67 My translation from Mazdapour's New Persian translation *<از دستنویسی که نام > انوشه <روان >: من ، ماه وَندادِ نَرماهانِ بهرامِ مهرآبان <برخود داشت > از همان دستنویس *

68 The first-person pronoun “I” refers to Hōšang.

69 My translation from Mazdapour's New Persian translation *<از دستنویسی که نام > انوشه <روان >: من ، ماه وَندادِ نَرماهانِ بهرامِ مهرآبان < برخود داشت > از همان دستنویس * دستنویسی از خواهش <و به سفارش > پیروزگر ، ابونصرِ مردشادِ شاهپور که از فرّخ بوم شیراز <بود >؛ … با تفصیل ، هات هات و

کَرده کَرده، به اوستا ، چنان که خوبتر <و درست تر > و بهتر شاید، نوشتم … <و > به خاطر و یادداشتن روز

فرجام و شادمانی و آسانی <و خوشی > و نیکویی بهشت را؛ چندان که با <شرح و > گزارش بهتر توانستم، نوشتم .

70 It should be noted that the manuscripts mark the end of the colophon text by placing punctuation or geometric design after šīrāz.

71 For the colophon text in the manuscript B of the Dēnkard see section 6.1.

72 West and Dhabhar read čiyōn as čandīn (see fn. 28).

73 For Warzanag and the readings of West, Dhabhar, Tavadia, and Cantera and de Vaan see fn. 55.

74 Different transcription methods have been used by scholars who edited the text of the colophons. In the present article, the transcriptions as they have appeared in their original works are provided for the quoted texts.

75 While Dhabhar (Reference Dhabhar1923: 115, fn. 5) compares it with the modern New Persian personal name Nozar < Avestan naōtara-, he does not provide any explanations for -axt. For the descriptor nōgdraxt “new tree” see Mazdapour (Reference Mazdapour1375/1996: 75, fn. 24).

76 Tavadia (Reference Tavadia1944: 325) reads māhpanāh ī azādmard ī panāh as māhpanāh ī azādmard ī [māh]panāh “Māhpanāh son of Āzādmard son of [Māh]panāh”. He interprets panāh “protector” as the corrupt form of the personal name Māhpanāh and refers to the common practice among Zoroastrians that the grandsons are named after their grandfathers (Tavadia Reference Tavadia1944: 326). However, his reconstruction is also ad hoc and entirely hypothetical and is not supported by any of the manuscript readings. In a similar way, editing āzādmard ī panāh as āzādmard-panāh, Mazdapour (Reference Mazdapour1375/1996: 75 and 75, fn. 18), takes āzādmard-panāh to be a proper name.

77 With the development of rn > rr, farrbay is preferred over farnbay and farnbag in the present paper.

78 DkM stands for Dēnkard, Madan's edition.

79 My translation.

80 Cantera and de Vaan (Reference Cantera and de Vaan2005: 41) translate the simple past nibišt as “have written”.

81 The translation is after Cantera and de Vaan (Reference Cantera and de Vaan2005: 41). For the translation of xwēš rāy see section 6.3.

82 The translation is after Unvala (Reference Unvala1940: 121). He translates the simple past nibišt (line 6), the plural yazdān (line 6), the simple past mad ham (line 7) and nibišt (line 10) as “have written”, the singular “god”, “have come” and “have written”, respectively.

83 The transcription of consonants and vowels of the New Persian texts is according to their developments in Modern Standard New Persian. For a review see Abolghassemi (Reference Abolghassemi1375/1996: 18); Windfuhr and Perry (Reference Windfuhr, Perry and Windfuhr2009: 425–6).

84 DHR stands for Dārāb Hormazyār Rivāyat.

85 My translation. According to the colophon, Hōšang Syāvaxš completed the copy in 747 Pārsī (ay 767), which shows a difference of 97 years from the completion date of Mf4 in ay 864. However, in DHR, II 371 (line 7), there is another colophon of Hōšang Syāwaxš according to which he completed a Pāzand text in ay 847.

86 My translation.

87 Cantera and de Vaan's (Reference Cantera and de Vaan2005: 36) exact translation is “The Abestāg … from one copy and the Zand from one (other) copy”.

88 Cantera and de Vaan (Reference Cantera and de Vaan2005: 37) write that West “concludes that Franbag, son of Srōšayār, had copied the manuscript from one Avestan and one Zand copy, both produced by Māhayār son of Farrōkhzād”. However, their suggestion is incorrect, because Cantera and de Vaan do not take into consideration the fact that West also adds “(and of)” in brackets before “me, the immortal Māh-vindāt̰ son of Naremāhān” (line 13). Later in the same article, they write that West assumed Māhayār Farrokhzād and Māhwindād Narmāhān Wahrām Mihr[ābān] to be the scribes of the Avestan and Pahlavi manuscripts, respectively (Cantera and de Vaan Reference Cantera and de Vaan2005: 39).

89 My translation from Tavadia's German translation Rōstaxm ī Dātōhrmazd … das Apastāk aus der Abschrift des [seligen Dātak [ī] Māhayār ī Farroxvzāt …] und den Zand aus der Abschrift des Seligen Farnbaγ ī Srōšayār für sich geschrieben hatte.

90 Tavadia reads jādag as the personal name dādag (see section 6.4).

91 For a review on the ezāfa constructions see Perry and Sadeghi (Reference Perry and Sadeghi1999: 127–8).

92 For the Pahlavi sign after abestāg az paččēn and zand az paččēn see section 6.2.

93 My translation from Tavadia's German translation Rōstaxm ī Dātōhrmazd … das Apastāk aus der Abschrift des … und den Zand aus der Abschrift des … für sich geschrieben hatte.

94 My translation from Mazdapour's New Persian translation رستم <پسر > دادهرمزد … اوستا را از دستنویسی و زند را از دستنوس … برای خویش نوشته بود.

95 For the meanings of xwēšīh and xwēš see Nyberg (Reference Nyberg1974: 223).

96 Subject, object, verb.

97 IrBd. stands for the Iranian Bundahišn. The text is after Anklesaria (Reference Anklesaria1956: 304–5).

98 T54 also puts the final stroke after .

99 Mazdapour's (Reference Mazdapour1375/1996: 81) New Persian translation is در جهت .

100 Tavadia (Reference Tavadia1944: 329) associates it with the Avestan yāta- “share”.

101 The text is after Cantera and de Vaan (Reference Cantera and de Vaan2005: 41).

102 For a review on the development of the meaning of anōšag ruwān in the post-Islamic period see Brunner (Reference Brunner1985: 98–9).

103 For an edition of the Pahlavi colophons in J2 and K5 see Unvala (Reference Unvala1940: 121, 129–31).

104 G14 (19v12): ; T6 (7r6): (see section 9).

105 For an edition see Daryaee (Reference Daryaee2002: 15, 50, 79).

106 For a review on Bīšāpur and its spellings see Keall (Reference Keall1989).

107 The words andar bilād ī hindūgān are written above the line.

108 The word hērbed is placed in brackets since apart from T54, it only occurs in Mf4.

109 In ergative constructions, the verb agrees with its direct object (or grammatical subject). Therefore, the verbal form does not reflect the person and number of the agent in sentences. For an English review of the ergative construction in Pahlavi see Skjærvø (Reference Skjærvø and Winfuhr2009a: 227–29). For a comprehensive study on the ergative construction and its development in Old and Middle Iranian languages see Jügel (Reference Jügel2015).

110 Pt4 (fol. 55r lines 12–21); Mf4 (p. 148 lines 15–17; p. 149 lines 1–8); T54 (fol. 99v lines 12–13; fol. 100r lines 1–10). While the Avestan text is after Geldner (Reference Geldner1886–1896: I, 39–40), the variant readings of the Avestan original between the manuscripts are not collated. The Pahlavi text is according to that of Pt4 and the variant reading of Mf4 and T54 are provided in the footnotes. Texts whose orders are different between the two groups of manuscripts are highlighted in bold.

111 G14 (fol. 53v lines 7–14; fol. 54r line 1); T6 (fol. 44v lines 11–13; fol. 45r lines 1–6). Whereas the Avestan text is after Geldner (Reference Geldner1886–1896: I, 39–40), the variant readings of the Avestan original between G14 and T6 are not collated. The Pahlavi text is according to that of G14 and the variant readings of T6 are provided in the footnotes.

112 Y 9.4Av. stands for Yasna, section 9, stanza 4, Avestan original.

113 The dash means that the corresponding highlighted text in the opposite column is not placed in the same position. The numbers (1), (2) and (3) show the corresponding texts whose orders are different.

114 Y 9.4Phl. stands for Yasna, section 9, stanza 4, Pahlavi version.

115 T54: deest.

116 T54: deest.

117 Mf4: ud mard.

118 T54: ud xwēškārīh.

119 T6: ka.

120 T6: deest.

121 For a review on Māhwindād's colophon in the Dēnkard see de Jong (Reference de Jong, Williams, Stewart and Hintze2016: 232).

122 The reading x in xujestān is expressed by one diacritic dot above . Three diacritical dots are placed above to indicate š.

123 For ﺨﻮﺠﺴﺘﺎﻦ , or ﺨﺠﺴﺘﺎﻦ according to Dehkhoda's Loghatnāma, see Dehkhoda (Reference Dehkhoda1319–1334/1931–1955: vol.VI, 9539); for ﻨﻴﺸﺎ ﭙﻮﺭ see Dehkhoda (Reference Dehkhoda1931–1955/1319–1334): vol. XV, 22952–22953).

124 T6 (7r8) interprets the word as ābānsar in its interlinear New Persian version.

125 Alternatively, with reading , which precedes māhwindād, as mn /man/, a translation could be “I, the immortal Māhwindād Rumāhān son of Wahrām Mihr [wrote] from the copy at the request of the victorious Ābānnasr Mardšād son of Šāpuhr from the blessed land of Šīrāz”.

References

Abolghassemi, M. 1375/1996. Dastur-e Tārikhi-ye Zabān-e Fārsi [A Historical Grammar of the Persian Language]. Tehran: SAMT.Google Scholar
Andrés-Toledo, M.Á. (ed.) 2010. The Avestan Manuscript T6 (Pahlavi Yasna) of the First Dastur Meherji-rana Library in Navsarī. Avestan Digital Archive Series 26. ISBN 978-84-693-9948-4. Available online at https://ada.geschkult.fu-berlin.de.Google Scholar
Anklesaria, B.H. 1956. Zand-Ākāsīh: Iranian or Greater Bundahišn. Bombay: published by Dastur Framroze A. Bode.Google Scholar
Brunner, C.J. 1985. “Anōšag-Ruwān”, in. E. Yarshater (ed.), Encyclopædia Iranica I/1, 98–9. Available online at http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/anosag-ruwan-of-immortal-soul- (accessed 20 November 2018).Google Scholar
Cantera, A. 2012. “Building trees: genealogical relations between the manuscripts of Wīdēwdād”, in Cantera, A. (ed.), The Transmission of the Avesta, 279346. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.Google Scholar
Cantera, A. 2013. “Los manuscritos de Yasna con traducción pahlaví e instrucciones rituales (abāg zand ud nērang)”, in Agud, A., Cantera, A., Falero, A. et al. (eds), Séptimo Centenario de los Estudios Orientales en Salamanca, 503–21. Salamanca: Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca.Google Scholar
Cantera, A. 2014. Vers une édition de la liturgie longue zoroastrienne: pensées et travaux préliminaires. Paris: Association pour l'Avancement des Études Iraniennes.Google Scholar
Cantera, A. and de Vaan, M.. 2005. “Remarks on the colophons of the Avestan manuscripts Pt4 and Mf4”, Studia Iranica 34, 3142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daryaee, T. 2002. Šahrestānīhā ī Ērānšahr. Costa Mesa: Mazda Publishers.Google Scholar
Dehkhoda, A.A. 1319–1334/1931–1955. Loghatnāma, vols VI, XV. Tehran: University of Tehran, reprint 1998 (1377).Google Scholar
Dhabhar, B.N. 1923. Descriptive Catalogue of Some Manuscripts Bearing on Zoroastrianism and Pertaining to the Different Collections in the Mulla Feroze Library. Bombay: The Trustees of the Parsee Punchayet Funds and Properties.Google Scholar
Dhabhar, B.N. 1949. Pahlavi Yasna and Visperad. Pahlavi Text Series 8. Bombay: Trustees of the Parsi Punchayet Funds and Properties.Google Scholar
Ferrer-Losilla, J.J. (ed.) 2012. The Avestan Manuscript J2_500 (Yasna Indian Pahlavi) of the Bodleian Library (University of Oxford). Avestan Digital Archive Series 28. ISBN 978-84-695-7439-3. Available online at https://ada.geschkult.fu-berlin.de.Google Scholar
Ferrer-Losilla, J.J. 2015. The Avestan Manuscript 510 (K5), Pahlavi Yasna, of the Kongelige Bibliotek (Copenhagen). Avestan Digital Archive Series 79. ISBN 978-84-606-9784-8. Available online at https://ada.geschkult.fu-berlin.de.Google Scholar
Geldner, K.F. 1886–1896. Avesta; the Sacred Books of the Parsis, 3 vols. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer.Google Scholar
Geldner, K.F. 1896. “Prolegomena” in Avesta; the Sacred Books of the Parsis. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer.Google Scholar
Ghasemi, P., Gyselen, R., Noruzi, R. and Rezaei, A.. 1396/2017. “Bāzsāzi-ye Taqsimāt-e Ostān-e Sāsāni-ye Bišābur bā kašf-e nām-jāy-e jadid az gel-mohrhā-ye mohavate-ye tole Qaleh Seyfābād-Kazerūn [Reconstruction of the Divisions of the Sasanian Province of Bišābuhr Based on the Discovery of Some New Toponyms from the Administrative Bullae of Tole Qale Seyfabad (TQS), Kazerūn].” Pažoheš-hā-ye Bāstānšenāsi-ye Iran, 92101.Google Scholar
Goldman, L. 2018. The Sanskrit Yasna Manuscript S1: Facsimile Edition. Brill: Leiden, Boston.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
G14: The Yasna Manuscript (0457_G14). Available online at https://ada.geschkult.fu-berlin.de.Google Scholar
Hintze, A. 2007. A Zoroastrian Liturgy: The Worship in Seven Chapters (Yasna 35–41). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.Google Scholar
Hintze, A. 2012. “Manuscripts of the Yasna and Yasna ī Rapithwin”, in A. Cantera (ed.), The Transmission of the Avesta, 244–78.Google Scholar
Hintze, A. 2014a. “Avestan research. 1991–2014, Part I”, Kratylos, 152.Google Scholar
Hintze, A. 2014b. “Yašts”, in E. Yarshater (ed.), Encyclopædia Iranica. Available online at http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/yashts (accessed 18 June 2019).Google Scholar
de Jong, A. 2016. “The Dēnkard and the Zoroastrians of Baghdad”, in Williams, A., Stewart, S. and Hintze, A. (eds), The Zoroastrian Flame, 223–38. London: I.B. Tauris.Google Scholar
Jügel, Th. 2015. Die Entwicklung der Ergativkonstruktion im Alt- und Mitteliranischen: Eine Korpusbasierte Untersuchung zu Kasus, Kongruenz und Satzbau. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keall, E.J. 1989. “Bīšāpūr”, in E. Yarshater (ed.), Encyclopædia Iranica IV/3, 287–9. Available online at https://iranicaonline.org/articles/bisapur-town (accessed 18 December 2020).Google Scholar
Kellens, J. 1987. “Avesta i. Survey of the History and Contents of the Book”, in E. Yarshater (ed.), Encyclopædia Iranica III/1, 3544. Available online at https://iranicaonline.org/articles/avesta-holy-book (accessed 10 December 2018).Google Scholar
MacKenzie, D.N. 1971. A Concise Pahlavi Dictionary. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
MacKenzie, D.N. 1989. “Bundahišn”, in E. Yarshater (ed.), Encyclopædia Iranica IV/5, 547–51. Available online at http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/bundahisn-primal-creation (accessed 24 November 2018).Google Scholar
Madan, D.M. (ed.) 1911. The Complete Text of the Pahlavi Dinkard, I, II parts, III–IX books. Bombay: The Society for the Promotion of Researches into the Zoroastrian Religion.Google Scholar
Mazdapour, K. 1375/1996. “Sarāghāz-e Yazešn [The introduction of the Yazešn]”, Farhang 17, 7183.Google Scholar
Nawabi, M and Jamasp Asa, Kh. M. (eds). 2535/1976. Manuscript D90; Yasnā with Its PT. Shiraz: Asia Institute of Pahlavi University.Google Scholar
Nyberg, H.S. 1974. A Manual of Pahlavi, part II. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.Google Scholar
Perry, J.R. and Sadeghi, A.A.. 1999. “Eżāfa”, in E. Yarshater (ed.), Encyclopædia Iranica IX/2, 127–8. Available online at https://iranicaonline.org/articles/ezafa (accessed 10 December 2019).Google Scholar
Sadeghi, A.A. 1357/1978. Takvin-e Zabān-e Fārsi [The Development of the Persian Languages]. Azad University of Iran.Google Scholar
Skjærvø, P.O. 2009a. “Middle West Iranian”, in Winfuhr, G. (ed.), The Iranian Languages, 196278. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Skjærvø, P.O. 2009b. “Old Iranian”, in Winfuhr, G. (ed.), The Iranian Languages, 43195. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sundermann, W. 1986. “Studien zur kirchengeschichtlichen Literatur der iranischen Manichäer II”, Altorientalische Forschungen 13, 239317.Google Scholar
Tavadia, J.C. 1944. “Zur Pflege des iranischen Schrifttums in Mittelalter”, Zeitschriift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 98, 297339.Google Scholar
Tremblay, X. 2006. “Le pseudo-gâthique. Notes de lecture avestiques II”, in Panaino, A. and Piras, A. (eds), Proceedings of the 5th Conference of the Societas Iranologica Europaea Held in Ravenna, 6–11 October 2003, 233281. Milano: Mimesis.Google Scholar
Unvala, J.K. 1940. Collection of Colophons of Manuscripts Bearing on Zoroastrianism in Some Libraries of Europe. Bombay: The Trustees of the Funds and Properties of the Parsi Punchayet.Google Scholar
Unvala, M.R. (ed.) 1922. Darab Hormazyar's Rivayat, vol. II. Bombay: British India Press.Google Scholar
West, E.W. 1896–1904. “Pahlavi literature”, Grundriss der iranischen Philologie, vol. II, 75129.Google Scholar
Windfuhr, G. and Perry, J.R.. 2009. “Persian and Tajik”, in Windfuhr, G. (ed.), The Iranian Languages, 416544. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Zeini, A. (ed.) 2012. The Avestan Manuscript Pt4_400 (Iranian Pahlavi Yasna) of the Bodleian Library (University of Oxford). Avestan Digital Archive Series 39. ISBN 978-84-695-7772-1. Available online at https://ada.geschkult.fu-berlin.de.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4

Figure 5

Figure 6

Figure 7

Figure 8

Figure 9

Figure 10

Figure 11

Figure 12

Figure 13

You have Access Open access

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Zoroastrian ritual and exegetical traditions: the case of the Iranian Pahlavi Yasna
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Zoroastrian ritual and exegetical traditions: the case of the Iranian Pahlavi Yasna
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Zoroastrian ritual and exegetical traditions: the case of the Iranian Pahlavi Yasna
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *