Prods Oktor Skjærvø, “Philological Gleanings from the Pahlavi Videvdad,” Iran Nameh, 29:2 (Summer 2014), 6-21. Philological Gleanings from the Pahlavi Videvdad Prods Oktor Skjærvø Harvard University I met Dr. Amouzegar in Tehran in 1972, the year of the 2500-year celebrations, as a student at the University of Tehran. In the spring of 1973, I then took her Pahlavi course, in which we read the Pahlavi version of Videvdad chapter 19. In this paper honoring Dr. Amouzegar’s contribution to Pahlavi studies in teaching and writing, I shall discuss a few philological issues gleaned from my reading of the Pahlavi Videvdad, in vivid memory of that enjoyable class. I had my first encounter with the Pahlavi Videvdad in about 1970, when my Sanskrit professor at the University of Oslo, Nils Simonsson, an avid student of Sanskrit commentary literature, suggested I should research the Pahlavi commentaries for my Master’s thesis. I began collecting material, but the Pahlavi commentaries were so different from the Sanskrit ones, I gave it up after a while, to work on the Sasanian inscriptions.1 Little did I 1. That semester in Tehran, I also attended a course by the deeply regretted Ahmad Tafazzoli in which we read one of Kerdīr’s inscriptions. ISSN 0892-4147-print/ISSN 2159-421X online/2014/29.2/6-21. 6 Iran Nameh, Volume 29, Number 2, 2014 then know that I would be immerging myself in the Pahlavi commentaries on Avestan texts forty years later, in the first decade of the twenty-first century, at the instigation of several talmudists who visited our department, first Professor Yaakov Elman of the Yeshiva, New York, then several of his students, who were all avid readers of the Pahlavi Videvdad and wanted my advice on the texts. I soon realized, however, that the editions of the Pahlavi Videvdad were often unreliable and that a lot of text-critical work was needed. Fortunately, Alberto Cantera’s online Avestan Digital Archive (ADA)2 was then available and facilitated the work enormously, and I set about compiling the critical apparatus I needed to answer my colleagues’ requests. The oldest Pahlavi Videvdad (hereafter PV) manuscripts are, as is well known, L4 in the British Library3 and K1 in the Royal Library of Copenhagen,4 both written by Mihrābān Kay-Husraw Mihrābān in 1323 and 1324, respectively.5 Both are incomplete at the beginning. L4 starts at folio 35 (PV.3.14) and misses folios 59–154 (from PV.4.29 to the end of the eighth chapter), and K1 starts at folio 93. In both there are damaged folios, of which sometimes only the margins are left. Several folios from the beginning of both are extant, however; 31 folios from the manuscript to which K1 belonged were in the possession of Mānekjī Rustamjī Unvala, who lent them to Jamasp for his edition ( Jamasp’s manuscript MU).6 2. http://avesta-archive.com 3. On the history of this manuscript, see Ursula Sims-Williams, “The Strange Story of Samuel Guise: An 18th-Century Collection of Zoroastrian Manuscripts,” Bulletin of the Asia Institute 19 (2005 [pub. 2009]), 199–200. 4. Published in facsimile in Arthur Christensen, ed., Codices Avestici et Pahlavici Bibliothecae Universitatis Hafniensis, vols. 10–11: Avesta Codex K 3a, K 3b and K1 Containing Portions of the Vendidad with Its Pahlavi Translation and Commentary (Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1941–1942). 5. On the descendants of these manuscripts, see also Alberto Cantera, “Lost in Transmission: The Case of the Pahlavi-Vīdēvdād Manuscripts,” BSOAS 73 (2010), 179–205; Miguel Ángel Andrés-Toledo, “Vīdēvdād 10-12: Critical Edition, Translation and Commentary of the Avestan and Pahlavi Texts” (PhD diss., University of Salamanca, 2009), 130–55. 6. Hoshang Jamasp, ed., Vendidâd: Avesta Text with Pahlavi Translation and Commentary, and Glossarial Index, vol. 1: The Texts (Bombay: Government Central Book Depôt, 1907), xxi–xxii. Philological Gleanings from the Pahlavi Videvdad 7 Moreover, twenty-nine folios from the beginning of the manuscript to which L4 belonged were recently discovered among Unvala’s papers in the Meherji Rana Library (now G151) and identified by my former student Daniel J. Sheffield.7 These folios go from the end of PV.1.2 to the middle of the commentary on PV.3.14, which means that only the first folio and one folio before L4 that begins later in the commentary on PV.3.14 are now missing from the beginning of the manuscript. All other known manuscripts, with one exception, are descended from those two and are critical for establishing the text where folios from L4 and K1 are missing or defective. L4 and several of the daughter manuscripts are accessible at the Avestan Digital Archive (e.g., B1, M3, F10 from K1; Bh11, T44, etc., from L4; there are a few cross-overs between the branches). Geldner’s manuscript Ml38 copied from K1 by Ardašīr Zīwā Wīkā Ardašīr Rām Kāmdīn in Broach in AY 963 (1594), was collated by Sanjana (ML),9 but, sadly, only where L4 is missing.10 The manuscript DJJ collated by Jamasp, however, according to its colophon, was copied by one of Jamasp’s ancestors in Navsari in 1767 from Ml3 (from K1).11 Sanjana’s manuscript PB, copied by “Magûpat Naorûz, son of Dastur Rûstakhma (Rustam), son of Aîrpat Varāhrām, surnamed Sanjânê, finished on the day of Aûharmazda in the month of Tishtar” in AY 1157 (1807), is likely to be the same as Geldner’s Pt2 from L4.12 Geldner does not mention the scribe or the date, and his number of folios, “315 pp.,” differs slightly from Sanjana’s 319, but since Geldner’s “Pt” refers to manuscripts belonging to P. B. Sanjana, the identity of the two is fairly certain. 7. My thanks to the trustees and librarian of the First Dastoor Meherjirana Library, Navsari, for providing me with excellent photos of the folios and to Dan Sheffield for arranging this for me. 8. Karl F. Geldner, ed., Avesta: The Sacred Books of the Parsis (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1886– 1896), vol. 1: Prolegomena, xi; Darab Peshotan Sanjana, ed., The Zand î Javît Shêda Dâd, or, The 8 Iran Nameh, Volume 29, Number 2, 2014 Pahlavi Version of the Avesta: Vendidâd (Bombay: Education Society’s Steam Press, 1895), xlii; this edition, unfortunately, has only chapters 1–9. 9. According to Sanjana, The Zand î Javît Shêda Dâd, xlii, the manuscript was “returned to Bombay.” 10. Sanjana, The Zand i Javit Sheda Dad, xlii. 11. See the colophons in Jamasp, Vendidâd, x–xvii. 12. Sanjana, The Zand î Javît Shêda Dâd, xlii, The unique known, but not accessible, manuscript not descended from K1, L4, but laterally related to them, is the manuscript that Jamasp called IM. This was written by Marzbān Frēdōn Wāhrom Rustōm Bundār in Kerman in 1585 and was given by Sohrābjī Kāvusjī Ashburner13 to Jamasp, who collated it for his edition, which also contains its colophon. The current whereabouts of IM are unknown.14 The descent of K1, L4, IM is as follows:15 Ms. of Hōmāst Šādān Ohrmazd | Ms. of Irdešīrī Wahuman ī Rōzweh Šāburzēn Šāmard (1205) | | Ms. of Rustem Mihrābān (after 1269) Ms. of Wēžan Wahrāmšāh Wēžan | | L4, K1: Mihrābān Kay-Husraw (1323, 1324) Ms. of Šahriyār Irdešahr Ērij Rōstahm Ērij | IM: Marzbān Frēdōn Wāhrom Rustōm Bundār (1585) The importance of IM is thus obvious: agreement between K1 and L4 potentially allows us to take a reading back to the manuscript of Rustem Mihrābān, while agreement between IM and K1 and/or L4 potentially takes the reading back to the manuscript of Irdešīr16. Finding IM has therefore been a great desideratum. xliv–xlix; Sanjana does not print the first two colophons, identical with the first two colophons in K1, but he does the third colophon, which is “the postscript proper to” Mihrābān (Geldner, Avesta, ix, xii). 13. On Ashburner and his family, see Ursula Sims-Williams, “Zoroastrian Manuscripts in the British Library, London,” in The Transmission of the Avesta, ed. Alberto Cantera (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2012), 188–90. 14. It is not unlikely to be in the large uncatalogued part of the collection of K. R. Cama Oriental Institute library, but other locations are possible; Yuhan Vevaina tells me the manuscript DH, written by the same scribe and also in the possession of the Ashburner family (Sims-Williams, “Zoroastrian Manuscripts,” 189), is now in the M. F. Cama Athornan Institute in Andheri, where he saw it in 2011. 15. Cf. Geldner, Avesta, xviii. 16. Copied AY 554 in Sistan, cf. Sanjana, The Zand î Javît Shêda Dâd, xxxviii, n. 4: “As this date was written in Irân, it was probably counted from the 20th year of Yazdagard.” On Irdešīr see also Geldner, Avesta, xviii, b n. 1. Philological Gleanings from the Pahlavi Videvdad 9 When one searches for passages in the Videvdad in the Avestan Digital Archive, the default manuscript that shows up is Tehran University Library no. 11236 (here: TUL) = ADA no. 4000_Ave976,17 an Avesta Sade manuscript (written by Frēdōn Wāhrom Rustōm Bundār, father of the scribe of IM), which, by definition, should not contain the Pahlavi version and which I had been ignoring for my critical apparatus ever since it was uploaded to the ADA. As I was collating manuscripts for chapter 19 of the Pahlavi Videvdad a few months ago, however, I noticed that the TUL manuscript contained interlinear Pahlavi writing, and, out of curiosity, I decided to check it out. Comparison of the interlinear text with K1 and L4 and Jamasp’s critical apparatus quickly revealed a close to 100 percent agreement with the readings of IM as recorded by Jamasp, and further collation confirmed this. I then also noticed that the interlinear Pahlavi version began where IM begins according to Jamasp. This had two consequences: we clearly have a descendant of IM, and this descendant is quite faithful to its original. This control now also allows us to see that much of what has been taken as an indication of Mihrābān’s “carelessness” actually goes back to one of the ancestor manuscripts of L4 and K1. Unfortunately, since much of the Pahlavi text in TUL was written in the margins, much of the text was covered by repair paper over the years, both the side and bottom margins. Even so, there is probably more text left in TUL than in K1 and L4.18 Note also that not only chapter 12,19 but also chapter 11 are missing in TUL. 17. See Katayoun Mazdapour, “Twelve Newly Found Avestan Manuscripts in Iran,” in The Transmission of the Avesta, ed. Alberto Cantera (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2012), 165–66; and Miguel Ángel Andrés-Toledo and Alberto Cantera, “Manuscripts of the Wīdēwdād,” in The Transmission of the Avesta, ed. Alberto Can- 10 Iran Nameh, Volume 29, Number 2, 2014 tera (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2012), 208–9. 18. Some of the photos have also been trimmed too close, but some of the missing text is still present on an old microfilm of the manuscript (Markaz-e Asnād film no. 8495), of which Cantera provided me a pdf. 19. Cf. Andrés-Toledo, “Vīdēvdād 10-12,” 51–52. In the following, folio numbers are added to quotations from manuscripts not in the ADA, as well as TUL, as the Pahlavi here does not necessarily follow the Avestan. abē-gēwag This word found in PV.8.23 is spelled as follows: K1 fol. 169r <’c’ywk>20 (<’c = ’Sࡃ>) similar to <’cy-yywk>; F10, E10 <’c’’wk>; TUL fol. 136v <’c’ywk'>.21 There is little doubt that the word contains gēwag “shoe,” as read by Anklesaria,22 and the whole word I think must be read as <’Sࡃ’ywk> for <’Sࡃ’-yywk> or <’Sࡃy-yywk> abē-gēwag. 23 K1 TUL The Avestan has yō vastrəm upaŋhərəzaiti upairi aētəm iristəm ubdaēnəm vā īzaēnəm vā auuauua‫ ܤ‬aipi yaθa narš aoθrauuana; Bartholomae, however, preferred the reading āθrauuana (Pahlavi Videvdad and Indian Videvdad Sade manuscript branches), which he rendered as “pair of stockings,” to aoθrauuana (Persian Videvdad Sade manuscript branch).24 This word is also found in Nīrangestān 68.2, where āθrauuanō is rendered as pāybānag: čand 2 pāybānag <p’yyp’nk'> *mard <yww’> frāz *nihumbēd <hwmbyt'> tā ō nēmag ī paytištān “as much as two ‘foot-guards’ cover a man halfway up the leg,”25 and in the Wizirgerd ī dēnīg 80.2, vastruui āθrauuana 20. Transliterations are in pointed brackets <...>. 21. This is not visible on the ADA photo, but on the microfilm. 22. Anklesaria, Pahlavi Vendidâd, 201 read “pavâw—(gîva)” and rendered the phrase as “as much as a man’s footwear (‘gîva’).” 23. The prefix abē- is frequently spelled <’’-> instead of <’Sࡃy-> or <’Sࡃy঎-> 24. Christian Bartholomae, Altiranisches Wörterbuch (Strassburg: Trübner, 1904), col. 324. 25. See Firoze M. Kotwal and Philip G. Kreyenbroek, The Hērbedestān and Nērangestān, vol. IV: Nērangestān, Fragard 3 (Paris: Association pour l’avancement des études iraniennes, 2009), 30–31. Philological Gleanings from the Pahlavi Videvdad 11 is rendered as wastarg pāy kū jāmag pāy “the garment of the foot, i.e., the ‘coat’ of the foot.”26 The two words are apparently separate, as Bartholomae has them, one referring to the shoe, the other to the stockings. Avestan aoθra is also found in PV.6.27, where mat aoθranąm framuxti “with the removal of the shoes” is rendered as ān ī ōy mōg frāz wēzēd, which appears to mean “he detaches his shoe.” The Avestan text of our passage therefore probably means “he who leaves a piece of clothing over this dead body, woven or of fur, as much as that of a man’s stockings.” The redactors of the Pahlavi passage, however, saw aoθra here, too, whatever the Avestan text they were familiar with may have had, and rendered it by the other word for “shoe”: gēwag (Persian: ÃÂ̳) kē wastarg abar hilēd abar ō ān rist tadag ayāb pōstēn ān and čand mard pāy abē-gēwag, which may have been intended to signify “he who leaves a garment on it, upon that dead thing, woven or of fur, as much as (the surface covered by) a man’s foot without shoe.” It should be noted that this only refers to the measure of area. No Zoroastrian would place a naked foot on the ground, much less on a carcass. āwām (awwām) In PV.3.8 we find the phrase ēdōn čiyōn mard-ēw kē az āwām-ēw dušxwārtar “like a man who is more suffering from āwām.” The word āwām is spelled as follows: G151/L4 fol. 29r <’w’m-1>; G34 <’w’my>, E10 <’w’m>; Bh11 <’঎b’m>;27 G10, G28 <’঎bymy>; B1 and ML/Ml328 have <’঎ b’m-1> and F10 <’wb’my>, while M3 has <’঎bym>. Sanjana’s “later copies” have <’w’m>, but it is not clear to me whether PB/Pt2 is one of these. If it is, then the spelling in E10 and G34 may go back to this manuscript. 26. Peśotan Behrāmji Sanjā৆ā, Daftar ī Wizirgerd dēnīg / Vajarkard Dīnī (Bombay: Jām-e Jamśed, 1848), 138–39. The section numbering is that of 12 Iran Nameh, Volume 29, Number 2, 2014 an edition being prepared by Daniel J. Sheffield. 27. Here, <঎> is the letter that resembles <b> or the numeral 1. The discrepancy between G151/L4 and its descendants E10 and G34, on one hand, and G10, G28, Bh11, and T44, which are clearly influenced by the K1 branch, on the other, is remarkable. An indication of how the K1 reading got into the L4 manuscripts is provided by T44, which has <’w’m঎MN ’঎bymy>. G151/L4 B1 M3 T44 This suggests that an old manuscript of the L4 line was collated with one of the K1 line and that the K1 reading was added above the reading already in the manuscript. In some manuscript copies, the added reading replaced the old reading, while in T44 or its ancestor it was added, although, even so one might have expected <’঎bymy MN ’w’m঎>. Remarkably, the spelling of the K1 line with its archaic <-঎-> appears to reflect the older spelling, which in the Psalter script would have been , although this letter is hardly ever encountered other than in final position. Coincidence? Since the common word āwām “age” is consistently spelled <’wb’m>, this āwām is no doubt the word meaning “hardship, suffering.”29 It is known from the inscriptions, where we have Middle Persian <’wd’m> and Parthian <’bgm>), cf.:30 KKZ §14 ud man Kerdīr az ahīy ōrōn pad yazdān ud xwadāyān ud xwēš ruwān rāy was ranj ud āwām dīd “and I Kerdīr 28. Sanjana, The Zand î Javît Shêda Dâd, 31. 29. Besides this āwām and the common āwām <’wb’m> “era,” there may also be an āwām “easy”; see D. Neil MacKenzie, “Pahlavi Plums,” in Orientalia J. Duchesne-Guillemin Emerito Oblata (Tehran and Liège: Bibliothèque Pahlavi, 1984), 368–69; MacKenzie, Iranica Diversa, ed. Carlo G. Cereti and Ludwig Paul, vol. 1 (Rome: Istituto Italia- no per l’Africa e l’Oriente, 1999), 182–83. It is possible that our word should be interpreted as awwām, which would reduce the awkwardness of the homonymity; see Desmond Durkin-Meisterernst, Dictionary of Manichaean Middle Persian and Parthian (Dictionary of Manichaean Texts III/1; Turnhout: Brepols, 2004), 65a. 30. See Walter B. Henning, “Mitteliranisch,” in Philological Gleanings from the Pahlavi Videvdad 13 experienced much suffering and hardship for the sake of the gods and the lords and my own soul.”31 I have noticed at least one example in a Pahlavi text: Kār-nāmag 11.4 ēn kārēzār xōn-rēzišnīh bē abāyēd hištan ud xwēš [for xwad] az ēn ranj ī [for ud] āwām <’wb’m> āsān kerdan “you must leave this battle and bloodshed and relieve yourself of this suffering and hardship.”32 The collocation of ranj and āwām is common in Manichean texts and proves we should read ranj ud āwām for ranj ī āwām.33 In Manichean Middle Persian the word is spelled <’w’m>, for instance, in the phrase ranz āwām burdan “suffering and hardship” in M1/216–7/.34 Similarly, Manichean Parthian has <’bg’m> in the phrase kē burd abγām “who bore much hardship.”35 āwās- āwād In a recent article, I discussed the verb āwās- “to dry (out),” āwāsēn- “to dry” (something), suggesting that the verb could possibly be interpreted as ā-wā- “blow upon,” with an s-present.36 The case for such an etymology is now somewhat strengthened by the form āwād <’wb’t> in the commentary Handbuch der Orientalistik, I: Der Nahe und der Mittlere Osten, vol. 4: Linguistik (Leiden and Cologne: Brill, 1958), 71; Martin Schwartz, “Proto-Indo-European √ĜEM,” in Mounumentum, Ed. H. S. Nyberg II (Tehran and Liège, 1975), 202–3 and n. 23 with further references; for text references, see Helmut Humbach and Prods Oktor Skjærvø, The Sassanian Inscription of Paikuli (Wiesbaden: Reichert, 1983); pt. 3.1: Restored Text and Translation, 83; pt. 3.2: Commentary, 98–99. 31. D. Neil MacKenzie, “Kerdir’s Inscription,” in Georgina Herrmann, The Sasanian Rock Reliefs at Naqsh-i Rustam: Naqsh-i Rustam 6 (Iranische Denkmäler Lief. 13, Reihe II: Iranische Felsreliefs; Berlin: Dietrich Reimer: 1989, 54–55; MacKenzie, Iranica Diversa, 245: “at great trouble and pains.” 32. Darab Peshotan Sanjana, ed., The Kârnâmê î Artakhshîr î Pâpakân (Bombay: The Education 14 Iran Nameh, Volume 29, Number 2, 2014 Society’s Steam Press, 1896), 56. I have checked the readings against the manuscript (MK), which is being prepared for publication by Almut Hintze, who kindly made the page in question available to me. 33. Frantz Grenet, ed., Le geste d’Ardashir fils de Pâbag: Kārnāmag ī Ardaxšēr ī Pābagān (Die: Éditions A Die, 2003), 108–9, keeps ranj ī āwām “soucis temporels.” 34. See Mary Boyce, A Reader in Manichaean Middle Persian and Parthian (Tehran and Liège: Bibliotheque Pahlavi, 1975), 53, text s4. 35. See Mary Boyce, “Some Parthian Abecedarian Hymns,” BSOAS 14 (1952), 438, 440, verse 19 (Boyce has “torment”). 36. Prods Oktor Skjærvø, “‘If Water Had Not Been Made to Dry up, This Earth Would Have Been Drowned’: Pahlavi *āwās- ‘to dry’,” in Language and Nature. Papers Presented to John to PV.6.32 on how to bring dead matter out of water: pad Ћud Ћāmag āhenЋišn37pad Ћud gyāg rēzišn ud Ћāmag pad huškar šāyēd gyāg ka bē āwād ā pāk “It should be pulled up in a separate vessel (and) be poured into a separate place. And the vessel can (be cleaned) by a ‘drier’.38 When the place has dried up, then it (too) is clean.” Anklesaria, though giving no transcription, already suggested the meaning “dried up,”39 and it is easily analyzed as the past participle of ā-wā-40. grāy Various readings and morphological explanations have been proposed for this word,41 most commonly spelled <yl’y>, which is simply the old comparative of garān “heavy,” Old Iranian *grāyah- from garu-, Av. gouru-, formed like frāy, Av. frāiiah- from paru-, Av. pouru-. The form garān is the replacement of the expected form from *garu-. Both garān “heavy” and grāy “heavier” are commonly used to denote grades of sin, and we even find sins that are not only garāntar “more ‘heavy’” but grāytar “more ‘heavier’” (sometimes spelled grātar). Compare, for instance, Pahlavi Videvdad 13.24 ēn tanābuhl-ēw rāy grāy bawēd čē pad adwadād ōzad estēd “for this one tanābuhl it becomes a ‘heavier’ (sin), for it was Huehnergard on the Occasion of his 60th Birthday, ed. Rebecca Hasselbach and Na‘ama Pat-El (Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 2012), 347–58. ,ֈË¿²Àŀ§ “,Ã|̇YÂÅ d‡Âz]M” ,c{Z ‡ ¦‡ÂË   ,ÇZ¼‹ 37. Manuscripts: TUL <’hnc->; K1, Bh11, T44 <’šnc->. 38. The nature of the hušk(k)ar is uncertain. Tavadia renders it as “dried things,” which does not suit this context. See Jehangir C. Tavadia, Šāyastne-šāyast: A Pahlavi Text on Religious Customs (Hamburg: Friederichsen, de Gruyter, 1930), 43, on Šāyist nē šāyist 2.32. 39. Behramgore T. Anklesaria, Pahlavi Vendidâd: Zand-î Jvî‫ܒ‬-Dêv-Dâ‫ܒ‬, ed. Dinshah D. Kapadia (Bombay: K. R. Cama Oriental Institute, 1949), 144. See also Dinshah D. Kapadia, Glossary of Pahlavi Vendidad (Bombay, D. D. Kapadia, 1953), 212, for various readings and suggestions. 40. Cf. Sogdian wās- “blow.” 41. See, for example, Alberto Cantera “Beiträge zur Pahlavi-Lexicographe,” Orientalia Suecana 55 (2006), 30–38, with numerous examples; Cantera read the word as garā and compared Pahlavi -ā in other original u-stems, such as Pahl. nasā [nasāy], Av. nasu, bāzā [bāzāy], Av. bāzu, but nasāy is from forms from *nasāw- (Av. nasāum, nasāuuō), and bāzāy perhaps from *bāzāw- (cf. Av. darəga.bāzāuš “with long arms”), whereas gouru- is a regular u-stem. Philological Gleanings from the Pahlavi Videvdad 15 killed by adwadād (abandonment).”42 Dēnkard 3.26.2 mardōm ud sag nasāy grātar rēmanīh ī az daštān zan paydāg “it is manifest that dead matter of men and dogs are a more ‘heavier’ pollution than menstrual offal of a woman.”43 nisēy This word, which is spelled exactly like nasāy < ns’y> “dead matter,” is, however, different from it, referring specifically to dead fetuses and abortions. It is found in PV.3.40 ud nasāy-nigānīh pad harw tis-ēw ōh bawēd bē pad nisēy “(the sin of ) burying dead matter is in the usual way for everything except for aborted fetuses” and in PV.5.49: Abarg guft ay ēk-māhag ud 10-māhag kār nēst čē ābustan ud nisēyīh pad ēwarīh bawēd tā ēwar dānd kū ābustan ham hamē ka-š tis-ēw padiš paydāg bawēd ā-š pad ēd dārišn kū az daštān ka ēwar dānd kū ābustan ham bē ka ēwar dānd kū nisēy tā pad če’ān-iz nē dārišn “Abarg said: (Whether the duration) of one or ten months, it does not matter, for being pregnant and having aborted is (determined) by whether there is ‘certainty’ (or not). As long as she knows for certain that she is pregnant, when something appears on her, she should consider it to be from menstruation. When she knows for certain that she is pregnant, unless44 she knows for certain that it is a dead fetus, it should be regarded as of no (legal) consequence.”45 42. Jamasp, Vendidâd, 471. 43. Mark J. Dresden, ed., Dēnkart: A Pahlavi Text: Facsimile Edition of the Manuscript B of the K. R. Cama Oriental Institute Bombay (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1966), [15]. 44. On bē ... tā “except, unless,” see Prods Oktor Skjærvø, “OL’ News — ODs and Ends,” in Exegisti Monumenta. Festschrift in Honour of Nicholas Sims-Williams, ed. Werner Sundermann, Almut Hintze, and François de Blois (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2009), 479–95. 16 Iran Nameh, Volume 29, Number 2, 2014 45. I think the word spelled <c’nc> should be read as če’ān-iz and that it contains the plural of čē used in a petrified form. Cf. ke’ān <MNW’n'> the plural of kē in Pahlavi Yasna 43.7 kē hē ud az kē’ān hē “who are you, and from whom are you?” The word was discussed in detail with numerous examples by Cantera, in “Beiträge,” 17–27, with reference to earlier interpretations (20); the above example is discussed 25–26. It is also found in several Pahlavi texts, e.g., Ardā Wirāz-nāmag 44.3 ōy druwand zan kē-š pad gētīy kōdak ī xwēš nisēy ud tabāh kard bē abgand46 “that wicked person who, in this world, harmed and aborted his own child.”47 The corresponding verb is nisistan, and a woman who has had an abortion is said to be nisistag, e.g., Dēnkard 5.23.22 zan ī nisistag šustan čim “how should one wash a woman who has had an abortion?” (zan ī nisistag also in 5.24.19c, 22). 48 For a while, I too thought this should be read as wisēy49 and wisistag from wisinn- wisist “break/split off,” but Manichean Middle Persian has <nysyਏ> nisē “aborted,” which I think settles the matter. The meaning is clear in Šābuhragān 297–303 (M7981/I/R/ii/27-33) u-šān awiš ruzdist ud abē-ōš bud hēnd ēg-išān hān xwēš zahag aziš nisē bud hēnd “and they lusted for it and became unconscious; then those children were aborted from them.”50 The use of the word in BBB 652–6 is less obvious, but not surprising from the Manichean point of view: ōy ardāw čē sūd kē gōwēd kū zōr pad hannāmān dārēm ka pad čašm gōš ud anīž hannāmān nisē kund “what is the use for a righteous person who says: ‘I have a power in the limbs’, when he keeps aborting (that power = the light?) through eyes, ears and other body parts.”51 46. This is the common Pahlavi verb for “to abort,” cf. New Persian afgāne “abortion.” 47. Cf. Philippe Gignoux, Le livre d’Ardā Vīrāz (Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1984), 92–93, where nasā: “et fait de son propre enfant un cadavre”; Fereydun Vahman, Ardā Wirāz Nāmag: The Iranian “Divina Commedia” (London: Curzon Press, 1986), 138–39: nasā. 48. See Jaleh Amouzgar and Ahmad Tafazzoli, Le cinquième livre du Dēnkard (Paris: Association pour l’avancement des études iraniennes, 2000), 74, 92, 96. They have wisistag in the text, but wisastag in the glossary, which is probably a lapsus. There is also wisinn- wisist “to split, separate (from),” e.g., D. Neil Mackenzie, A Concise Pahlavi Dictionary (London and New York: Ox- ford University Press, 1971), 91; Shaul Shaked, ed., The Wisdom of the Sasanian Sages (Dēnkard VI) by Aturpāt-i Ēmētān (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1979), 10. 49. Persian gosi, as in gosi kardan, which, however, means “to send, dispatch.” 50. See Manfred Hutter, Manis Kosmogonische Šābuhragān-Texte: Edition, Kommentar und literaturgeschichtliche Einordnung der manichä -isch-mittelpersischen Handschriften M 98/99 I und M 7980–7984 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1992), 42–43; Hutter (53) translates as “Zerstörung,” following Henning (see the next footnote). 51. Walter B. Henning, Ein manichäisches Betund Beicht-buch, Abhandlungen der Preus Philological Gleanings from the Pahlavi Videvdad 17 The enclitic particle -ib While reading the Pahlavi in TUL, I noticed that the Pahlavi rendering of Avestan hō bā was what prima facie appeared to be ān-iz. There were several curious variant readings, however, which made me look into the matter more closely. The readings are as follows:52 Av. hō bā, Pahl. ān-ib: PV.7.79: K1 fol. 157r <ZKyc>; PB/Pt2 <ZKy> (?); G28, T44 <ZK y PWN>, E10 <ZK PWN>, G34 <ZK p> (with <p> blotted out),53 TU fol. 130v <ZK PWN>. — PV.9.52: K1 fol. 217v <ZKy>, L4 <ZK>, TU fol. 171v <ZKp>. Av. hō bā mē, Pahl. ān-ib man: PV.18.34: K1 fol. 293v, L4 <ZK pl>; IM, TU fol. 235r <ZK pltwm>;54 — PV.18.40: K1 fol. 294v, L4, IM <ZK pwl>, TU fol. 235v <ZK y pwl>; — PV.18.46: K1 fol. 297v, IM, TU fol. 236r <ZK y pwl>, L4 <ZK / pl>. Av. aēuuaθa bā, Pahl. ēdōn-ib: PV.5.17: B1, M3 <’ytwn’ p>; ML/Ml3 <’ytwn'yc>; F10, Bh11, T44, G10, G28, G34, E10, TU fol. 98v <’ytwn(') PWN>; BP/Pt2 <’ytwn' ZK>.55 The same particle renders bā in Yasna 35.5 huxšaθrō.təmāi bā: Mf4 p. 40956 and Pt4 fol. 159r <OL PWN OLE y>, J2 <OLc ’w' OLE P[->, K5 fol. 177r <OLEc>,57 i.e., ō-ib ōy ī hu-xwadāytom. sischen Akademie der Wissenschaften no. 10 (Berlin 1936), 38, 112; Henning, following F. W. K. Müller, translated nisē here as “Verderben, Vernichtung,” but compared nisē būd “be aborted.” 52. In the repeated ya. bā paiti in PV.3 (only descendants of K1, L4 are extant), in mąnaiiən bā in PV.5.23, 7.55, 9.46, 47, in hāu bā in PV.17.2, and in jahi bā, in PV.18.62 (K1, L4, TUL), bā has no Pahlavi equivalent. 53. Note again the archaism in G34 (see on āwām, above). 54. Anticipating by rationalization the following fradom: ān-ib man az awēšān gušnān fradom. 18 Iran Nameh, Volume 29, Number 2, 2014 55. Sanjana, The Zand î Javît Shêda Dâd, 75. Jamasp, Vendidâd, 160, also has ēdōn <ZK>, but gives no manuscript readings. 56. Kaikhusroo M. JamaspAsa and Mahyar Nawabi, ed., Manuscript D 90: Yasnā With Its Pahlavi Translation, parts 1–2 (Shiraz: Asia Institute of Pahlavi University, 1976), pt. 2, 409 (The Pahlavi Codices and Iranian Researches 19–20). 57. Arthur Christensen, ed., Codices Avestici et Pahlavici Bibliothecae Universitatis Hafniensis, vol.9: The Avesta Codex K5 (Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1937–39), pt. 2. Bartholomae (col. 953) also compared the Pahlavi rendering of Avestan hə۬ti bāδa māuuaiiacit in PV.18.31: K1 fol. 293r and TUL fol. 234v <HWENd plp>, which would seem to be the older reading, for which L4 fol. 249v has <HWENd plyc’>. Clearly, the scribe again did not understand the original and divided the letters so as to produce a more likely word,58 but we should probably read <HWENd-p lyc'> hēnd-ib man-iz. We see that all these readings point to an original <-p>, not <-yc>. This brought to mind the Parthian enclitic <-p> in the Pahlavi version of Šāpūr’s K1 L4 TUL Hajjiabad inscription: <LHwp YDA ৫B HWYN> “his hands are indeed good.”59 It also evoked a vague memory that sent me to Nyberg’s Glossary, where he cited not only Parthian <LHwp>, but several passages from book 7 of the Dēnkard included in his text selections:60 Dēnkard 7.2.31 B[481]61 abar-ib-im <QDM pm> rawišn “I must indeed go up (into the nest)”; Dēnkard 7.2.67 B[487-488] (the First Bull speaks) 58. The reading of L4 produces a known word (pardaz, meaningless in the context), and therefore is probably a correction. It is less likely, perhaps, although possible, that L4 has the older reading, while TUL and K1 have both changed the original reading to the nonsense word <plp>. 59. See D. Neil MacKenzie, “Shapur’s Shooting,” BSOAS 41 (1978), 501. His interpretation of <YDA-৫B> dast-nēw as a compound is in my opinion wrong. The verb agrees with dast “hands,” and <LHw> hō is singular. See Prods Oktor Sk jærvø, “Case in Inscriptional Middle Persian, Inscriptional Parthian and the Pahlavi Psalter,” Studia Iranica 12:2 (1983), 1, 158. 60. Henrik Samuel Nyberg, A Manual of Pahlavi, Part 1: Texts, Alphabets, Index, Paradigms, Notes and an Introduction (Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz, 1964), 40, 46, 51, 53; Part 2: Ideograms, Glossary, Abbreviations, Index, Grammatical Survey, Corrigenda to Part 1 (Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz, 1974), 147. He also cited Manichean Parthian ōh-ub, ag-ub, mard-ub. 61. The chapter and paragraph division is that of Molé, La Légende de Zoroastre selon les textes pehlevis (Paris: Klincksieck, 1967). The page numbers are the numbers in square brackets in Dresden, ed., Dēnkart. Philological Gleanings from the Pahlavi Videvdad 19 ka-š-ib <AMTš // p>62 amāh menē duš-dānāg Ganāg Mēnōy kū harwistīn madār hom <HWE'm> pad zanišn nē amāh “When (= if ), indeed, you think, Foul Spirit, it of (≈ this about?) us that we will all come to smiting, (it) is not we.” Dēnkard 7.3.24-25 B[492] ān-ib <ZKp> tan-armēšt-dahišnīh pad margīh frāz wēnēnd63 ka pad zāyišn bē griyēnd ... ān-ib <ZKp> ī tō pusar frāz dīd ka-š pad zāyišn bē xandīd “And he (Brādrōrēš): ‘they see the infirmity of the body at death when they weep at birth’.64 ... And he: ‘your son definitely saw (the meeting with Wahuman) when he laughed at birth’”; Dēnkard 7.3.39-40 B[494] nūn-ib <KONp> tō an pad abar-barišnīh aš baram ... bē-ib <BRAp> tō an65 mar abar nigeram “(Dūrasraw said:) now I shall indeed bring my evil eye to bear upon you ... (Zardušt said:) and I shall indeed cast my glance upon you.” hāu bā is also rendered by <ZKp> (sometimes with space <ZK p> and the <p> connected with the following ahlaw) in the Hādōxt nask (H.1.7 [M51a <ZKyc>], 9, 11, 13, 15, 17).66 The particle has no Pahlavi equivalent in azəm bā te (H.2.11) and is rendered by bē in auuaδa bā (H.2.20).67 Since the particle had earlier been attested in Parthian only, Nyberg appears to have assumed that it actually was Parthian also in the Pahlavi text, but its relatively high incidence suggests it was not uncommon in Pahlavi, as well. The scribes had a hard time recognizing it, however, and changed 62. Nyberg, A Manual of Pahlavi, Part 2, 115 s.v. *kaš, with untenable explanation. Note that the word is written over two pages, so an error may also have crept in. 63. Thus Marijan Molé, La Légende de Zoroastre, 32; manuscript pad frāz wēnēnd margīh. 64. Mole, La Legende de Zoroastre, 33. 65. Mole, La Legende de Zoroastre, 36 reads <p LK ANE> as <plk’n MN(W)> frakān kē and <plk’n MN> frakān hač. 66. Bayerische Staatsbibliothek Cod.Zend M51a 20 Iran Nameh, Volume 29, Number 2, 2014 fols. 47r-50r (Bildnr. 122-128 at http://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/~db/0002/bsb00028015/ images/), K20 fols. 40r-42v, in Arthur Christensen, ed., Codices Avestici et Pahlavici Bibliothecae Universitatis Hafniensis, vol. 1: The Pahlavi Codices 20 & 20b Containing Ardāgh VīrāzNāmagh, Bundahishn etc. (Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1931). 67. M51a fols. 53r, 57r (Bildnr. 134, 142), K20 fols. 45r, 48r. the spelling <-p> to <-yc = -ySࡃ> and <-p'> to <PWN = -p"> or <-yc'>. The sequence ān-ib man <ZKp' L> or <ZKyp' L> remained in K1, L4, although with wrong word division, but was rationalized to <ZK y pwl> with the meaningless purr “full.” Philological Gleanings from the Pahlavi Videvdad 21