The Zoroastrian Manuscript in the Collection of the Institute of Oriental Manuscripts, RAS (Short Reference and Structure)

Abstract

The article introduces unique Persian manuscripts in the collection of the IOM, RAS specially devoted to Zoroastrian matters. In short Zoroastrian scriptures composed in New Persian during the 12th-17th centuries, were not literal translations from the Pahlavi, but free interpretations of the old sources, adapted to the changing circumstances of life.

Full Text

Aliy Kolesnikov The Zoroastrian Manuscript in the Collection of the Institute of Oriental Manuscripts, RAS (Short Reference and Structure) Abstract: The article introduces unique Persian manuscripts in the collection of the IOM, RAS specially devoted to Zoroastrian matters. In short Zoroastrian scriptures composed in New Persian during the 12th-17th centuries, were not literal translations from the Pahlavi, but free interpretations of the old sources, adapted to the changing circumstances of life. Key words: Zoroastrian manuscripts, colophon, rivayat, Pahlavi, New Persian, dastur, mobad, xerbad The number of Persianized Arabographical scriptures collected in the Institute of Oriental Manuscripts, RAS, in St. Petersburg, amounts to over three thousand Persian and Tajik manuscripts on Islam, on the ancient and medieval history of Iran and countries of Central Asia, on the religion and culture, astrology, medicine and other sciences of Islamic world. Only one manuscript in this collection, according to the Short Alphabetical Catalog published in 1964 by a group of Leningrad Iranologists, is devoted to Zoro- 1 astrian matters (Mazdayasna). This is manuscript C 1869, containing 234 paginated folios with 15 lines of cursive text in nasta'lik on each page; page size is 26×15.5 cm, including the area under text proper equal to 19×9.5 cm. The manuscript has a number of faults as follows: (a) loss of some sheets of paper after folios 12, 24, 33 and 234 (modern pagination); (b) serious damages and tears on folios 226, 227, 228, 229 and 231; (c) folios from 64b-66a, 217b-218b and 219a have large gaps and lacunae. © Aliy Ivanovich Kolesnikov, Institute of Oriental Manuscripts, Russian Academy of Sciences 1 For details, see: AKIMUSHKIN, KUSHEV and al. 1964, 544-545. Due to the absence of the last sheets in the manuscript and the lack of the final colophon at the end of the text, the list of shortcomings of C 1869 may be increased. In spite of all that, we can estimate the approximate time of compilation of the manuscript from indirect evidence, specifically from internal colophons attached to three compositions within the Zoroastrian compendium. The first one (on f. 62a, under the so-called Tahmuras rivayat) is written in Pahlavi using New Persian characters and gives the 8th day of 11th month in the year 896 of the Yazdegerd era as the date of its compilation: andar rōz ī day pa adur ū māh ī wahman ū sāl hašt sad nawad ū šaš pas az sāl ī min be ōy yazdgerd, šāhān-šāh ī šahriyārān… The second colophon (on f. 153b, after Ardā Wirāf-nāme), executed in mixed Arabo-Persian style, indicates the 2nd day “of the old month Mordad” in the same year: yutatamma tamamat al-kitābu wirāf-nāme az tārīx-e dowwom-e mordād māh-e qadīm-e senne-ye 896. Lastly, the Letter of Iranian dasturs (religious instructors), addressed to Zoroastrian clergy and other sections of their co-religionists in India, was written on the 13th day of the month of Bahman in the year 896 [C 1869, f. 154b]. Thus, all three dates fall within narrow time limits-the 2nd half of 1526 and the 1st half of 1527. Even if we assume, that the compilers had in mind the post-Yazdegerd era (beginning in C.E. 651), the time of compilation becomes 1546-1547. Although all other (undated) compositions inside C 1869 could have been written later, the time span between earliest and latest compilations in one manuscript could not be enough to date C 1869 later than the 1st half of the 17th century. The correctness of our assumption about the time of compilation is borne out by collating manuscript C 1869 with a similar Zoroastrian compendium in the collection of the Bibliothèque Nationale de France. 70 per cent of the compositions in both manuscripts have the same titles and, probably, identical contents. According to Catalogue des manuscrits Persans de la Bibliothèque Nationale, published by Edgar Blochet, the gap in time between the earliest treatise (Ardā Wīrāf-nāme, 1585) and the latest one inside the BNF manuscript Ketāb-e Jāmāspī (1617) does not ex- 2 ceed 32 years. Among the external features of C 1869, the autograph by James Darmesteter should be mentioned. On a separate leaf, attached to the first numbered folio with the Persian text, at the top of the page a clear calligraphic inscription in black ink can be seen as follows: 2 BLOCHET 1905, 169, Nos. 14, 16. James Darmesteter, Surah, 22 Janvier 1887. That autograph is supplied with the dedicatory inscription, arranged in a column and made in English by a dastur of the Indian Zoroastrians in this way: Presented to Professor J. Darmesteter With the respectful compliments of Dastur Noshirvan bin Dastur Kaikhosru bin -“- Darab -“- -“- Rustum -“- -“- Bhikha bin -“- Jamshed bin -“- Behram -“- -“- Framroz -“- The dedicatory inscription, made by dastur Noshirvan, mentions seven generations of his ancestors, all dasturs as well. The Indian name of the donor was Dastur Nosherwanji Kaikhosru of Surat. The circumstances of the donation were described by the Parsi scholar J.J. Modi in his Introduction to the Jamasp-nameh. Modi notes, that in January 1887 he accompanied the French professor during his visit to the Parsee libraries in Naosari and Surat, and that this manuscript was then presented by Dastur Nosherwanji to Darmesteter as a souvenir of his visit to Surat (Surah in his spelling.-A. K.). Modi asserts: “The original manuscript seems to have had no colophon”. On their return to Bombay, Tahmuras Anklesaria “took a copy of that manu- 3 script with permission of Prof. Darmesteter”. The later travels of the original manuscript are not clear. Hypothetically, it could have been in the hands of the English scholar Edward W. West in London while he was engaged in producing an essay on the Modern Persian Zoroastrian literature of the Parsis for chapter “Pahlavi literature” in the 2nd volume of the Grundriss der 4 Iranischen Philologie. After West’s death, some part of his archives was bought by Academician Carl Salemann (in 1890-1016, Director of the Asiatic Museum in St. Petersburg) from the English Orientalist’s heirs. As regards the subjects compiled in manuscript C 1869, it is necessary to note that, in the Short Alphabetical Catalog, C 1869 is described as a “Compendium of Zoroastrian compositions translated from Pahlavi to New Per- 5 sian”. While accepting such a description on the whole, we have to recognize its highly provisional character, which calls for a more precise definition. In fact, that Compendium comprises a dozen and a half large and small treatises. Some of those really represent rough translations from Pahlavi (or more precisely, New Persian versions of the Pahlavi scriptures), while the others are original texts in New Persian composed in a later period. The compositions of the epistolary genre (i.e., letters and messages from Iranian Zoroastrians to their Indian co-religionists) usually contain quotations of long Avestic phrases made in Arabic characters without indication of short vowels and without any translation. The large compositions within C 1869 are as follows: 1) The Jāmāsp-nāme (“The Book of Jamasp”)-a Persian imitation in prose of the Pahlavi and Pazend versions of the Jāmāsp-nāmag, which deals with the predictions of a court sage in the reign of king Wishtasp about the future events in Eranshahr and the fortunes of Zoroastrianism (f. 1a-12b). 3 MODI 1903, XXVII-XXVIII. 4 WEST 1896-1904, 122-129. 5 AKIMUSHKIN, KUSHEV and al. 1964, 544-545. The composition is undated. In the commentary on my Russian translation of the Jāmāsp-nāme, I tried to reveal differences in structure and meaning between all three versions. While translating the Jāmāsp-nāme, I collated the text in manuscript C 1869 with the one in the Bodleian library and with the 6 printed Persian version in Modi’s edition of the Jāmāspī. 2) The Rivāyat, or collection of religious traditions, attributed to Tahmuras Anklesaria (f. 13a-64a). There are considerable lacunae at the beginning, in the middle and at the end of the rivāyat. The internal colophon is accompanied by a postscript as follows: “The rivāiyat, which was first composed in Zend letters [i.e., in Middle Persian], has been rewritten by the scribe in Persian in order that this composition would be understandable for an Iranian reader”. 3) The Mīnū-ye xerad (“The Spirit of Mind”)-an abridged Persian version of the original Pahlavi composition known as the Dādestān ī mēnōg ī хrad (“Judgements of the Spirit of Mind”) (f. 71b-78a). It has no date. 4) The Dāstān-e Anūšīrwān-e ‘ādel (“The Story of Anushirwan the Just”)- the original New Persian treatise, dated by indirect indications to no earlier than the 10th century (f. 114b-128a). By indirect indications I am referring to the putative author of “The Story”, a certain Abu-l-Khayr Amri, who died in the first half of the 11th century. One of the two Abu-l-Khayrs could have been the author: (1) the father of the Sufi poet Abu-Sa‘id b. Abi-l-Khayr, d. 7 in 1049, or (2) the Christian physician, theologian, philosopher and transla- 8 tor Abu-l-Khayr b. al-Khammar (942 ca 1030), who converted to Islam. This work consists of three separate parts. The first one consists of a description of a certain Zoroastrian temple complex situated in Pars province. The account of the temple complex reminds me of the description of the ruins of 9 ancient Persepolis in an archaeological work by Donald Wilber. Abu-lKhayr Amri (sic!) comes into contact with Zoroastrian priests of the temple and obtains from them the Farrox-nāme (“The Book of Luck”). He translates “The Book” from Pahlavi into New Persian, “in order that every reader can grasp the meaning of the scripture and take benefit from its contents”. The second part of “The Story of Anushirwan the Just” retells the narration of the Farrox-nāme about the audiences of Khusro Anushirwan with his court advisers from his immediate entourage. The third part relates the legend of a visit by Caliph al-Ma’mun (813-833) to the tomb of Anushirwan. The unknown author of the Zoroastrian manuscript (19th century), prepared 6 SACHAU, ETHÉ 1889: Col. 1115, No. 1955 (Ousley, 44, f. 50a-63b); MODI 1903. 7 RYPKA 1959, 216-217. 8 MADELUNG 1983, 330. 9 UILBER 1977, 33-38. for Sir John Malcolm, ascribes that visit to another Abbasid caliph-Harun 10 al-Rashid (786-809). A short reference to “The Story of Anushirwan” can be found in a piece of 11 research on the Persian rivāyats. A Russian translation of the work accom- 12 panied by a commentary was published in 2008. 5) The Ardā-Wīrāf-nāme (“The Book of Wiraf the Just”). A free retelling of the original Pahlavi story about the journey of Wiraf’s soul to the other world and her visit to abodes of Paradise and Hell (f. 130b-153b). The original Pahlavi text of “The Book” had appeared in the late Sasanian period (6th-7th centuries). The New Persian version, judging by the colophon, was copied by a scribe in the first half of the 16th century. Some modern researches have been specifically devoted to examining the numerous differ- 13 ences between the Pahlavi and the New Persian versions. The main distinctions are obvious: the different composition of both versions, the New Persian version draws attention to more details, more optimistic descriptions 14 and richer vocabulary. 6) The Šāyast-nā šāyast (“What is Allowed and What is not Allowed” or “How One Ought to Act and How One Should Not”) presents a collection of Zoroastrian traditions and legends, expounding in a popular manner (in New Persian) on cosmography, eschatology, liturgy, ethical instructions and prohibitions, etc. (f. 155b-215b). The initial chapters of the work, which deal with the creation of the Universe and mankind and the creative power of Ormazd, and the last chapters, which tell of the future Resurrection, have something in common with the Pahlavi version of the Indian Bundahišn. Perhaps for this reason the learned Parsis in India gave the Šāyast-nā šāyast the alternative title of the Saddar Bundaheš (“The Bundahišn of a Hundred Chapters”). The text of the work prepared for edition on the basis of three manuscript copies was divided by the editor into one hundred chap- 15 ters, each of which addresses an individual subject or problem. The contents of all seven known manuscript copies of the Šāyast-nā šāyast are identical, and copies of the New Persian version differ only insignificantly from one another. At the same time, none of them represent a word-for-word translation from the Pahlavi treatise with a similar title, the 10 RIEU 1879, 49-51. 11 DHABHAR 1932, 585-586. 12 KOLESNIKOV 2008, 105-124. 13 GHEIBY 2001, 3-16; YASTREBOVA 2009, 138-152. 14 KOLESNIKOV 2012, 405-431. 15 DHABHAR 1909, XXVII-XXXI. 16 Šāyest-nē šāyest. Therefore, the New Persian Šāyast-nā šāyast deserves keen attention of scholars as an independent historical source, which does not duplicate its Pahlavi predecessor. 7) The long message from Zoroastrian religious leaders of Iran to their coreligionists in India, which contains a lot of advice and instructions on the performance of liturgical and ritual practices (C 1869, f. 219b-234b). When citing passages from Zoroastrian prayers, the authors use the Avestan language transcribed in Arabic letters without indication of short vowels. Such passages cause additional difficulties for translators and researchers of the text. Manuscript C 1869 also includes about ten short compositions of various genres, devoted to Zoroastrian matters. Some of them deserve special mention, as follows: а) The Letter from Iranian dasturs to the Zoroastrian clergy and other bodies of their co-religionists in India, with enumeration of authors of the letter and names of addressees (C 1869, f. 154a-155a); b) The Mār-nāme (“The Book on Snakes”). Rhyming predictions of the consequences awaiting people who encountered a snake in a dream for all thirty days of the Zoroastrian month (C 1869, f. 216a-217a); c) A group of compositions entitled Ma‘nī wa Zand (“Meaning and Commentary”), concerned with exegesis of the main Zoroastrian prayers, interpretations of the Avestan nasks (parts of the Avesta), a narrative about the creation of the starlit heaven, etc. (C 1869, fols. 66b-71a, 78a-81b, 94a-96a, 128b-129b, etc.). The contents of the scriptures included in the manuscript C 1969 convince me that most of the texts require academic publication with translation and commentary. All the compositions included, both the translations from Middle Persian (Pahlavi) and original treatises in New Persian, originated in the Islamic era, after the conquest of Iran and Central Asia by the Arabs, more precisely, no earlier than the 11th or 12th centuries. An indirect pointer to that time is the inclusion of Arabo-Muslim loan-words in the New Persian texts. Among those lexical borrowings we discern the loan-words of neutral type, to be some sort of synonyms for well-known Iranian concepts, and Arabo-Muslim clichés in the character of compulsory Arabian attributes for the main Zoroastrian God, to make the curious Perso-Arabic amalgam like 17 Īzad-e ta‘ālā and Xodā-ye ‘azza wa jalla. 16 Cf.: TAVADIA 1930; KOTWAL 1969. 17 KOLESNIKOV 2008, 92-95, 162-163; http://www.iranheritage.org/persian-renaissance/ absrtacts.htm; KOLESNIKOV 2013, 515-519. Under Islamic dominion, Middle Persian (Pahlavi) ceased to be the literary language for the whole Zoroastrian community and yielded its place to New Persian. The sphere of use of Pahlavi narrowed to the Zoroastrian clergy engaged in the copying of and commenting on ancient Mazdayasnian scriptures. As early as in the tenth century, a Muslim geographer stated that, in his time, New Persian was the spoken language in Pars (the central province of Iran) and that Pahlavi was regarded as the language of the former 18 Sasanian administrative office, which needed commentary. So the author of “The Story of Anushirvan the Just” translated “The Book of Luck” from Pahlavi into New Persian in order that the wise book would be understand- 19 able and useful for his compatriots. Finally, the 99th chapter of the Saddar Nasr instructed dasturs, mobeds and xerbeds not to teach the laity in Middle Persian (Pahlavi), while on the other hand reserving the right to learn Pahlavi for Zoroastrian clergy. The author of the rivayat believed this instruction dated from the time of Zoroaster’s personal contact with Ahura Mazda (Or- 20 mazd). In the Islamic era, most of the Zoroastrian treatises were being composed in classical Persian (i.e., New Persian) to be more accessible to vast circles of ordinary believers. An attentive look at Zoroastrian scriptures of the 11th to 17th centuries, composed in Eastern Iran and later brought to India in the form of rivayat, fortifies our conviction that those compositions had never been word-forword translations from a foreign language in the narrow meaning of the term, but rather free retellings of original Pahlavi writings in classical Persian or original Zoroastrian treatises written in New Persian. Some researchers deny genetic ties between the earlier (Pahlavi) and the later (New Persian) compositions dealing with similar problems on the ground of numerous variations found in medieval texts. Meanwhile, the practice of creating the so-called “translations” from foreign texts was by no means rare in Persian classical literature. Everyone engaged in research into medieval Iran knows that “The History of Tabari” by Bal‘ami (10th century) was not a simple compilation based on the Arabic text of the Ta’rīx al-rusūl wa-l-mulūk chronicle by al-Tabari (9th-10th centuries), but an abridged Persianized version of the primary source, marked by careful editorship with expulsion of doubtful and superfluous information, reiterations, etc. expunged. 18 MASALIK (Pers.) 1347/1969, 120: ه روزر ارن ت ن د ن را د ! 19 C 1869, fol. 115b. 20 DHABHAR 1909, 66-67. In the same way, the Arabic text of al-Istakhri’s (10th c.) geographical treatise was thoroughly re-worked in the translation of an unknown Persian interpreter of the 11th or 12th century. Examples of free translations which incorporated deviations from the literal meaning of the original texts could be prolonged, but there is no need to do so. Other aspects have to be borne in mind. Translators of the ancient treatises belonged to the educated milieu of the Zoroastrian clergy (xerbeds and dasturs), who knew the long-dead Avestan, the Middle Persian and the living New Persian languages-the latter being enlarged by Arab lexical borrowings and thus accessible for the majority of believers. The interpreters of the ancient texts were, moreover, strong experts in the Zoroastrian doctrine, keepers of traditions and law. They understood the problems of contemporary Mazdayasnians, the evolution of customs and rites in their society. There is evidence of increased interest in free translations and retellings of the ancient treatises among the Zoroastrian communities in Iran and India of the 12th-17th centuries, in the dissemination of such works in numerous copies, with the text remaining practically unchanged from copy to copy, patent errors by copyists aside. My own experience in research and commentary on the Jāmāsp-nāme, the Ardā-Wīrāf-nāme, the Mār-nāme and the Šāyast-nā šāyast has convinced me that textual variations in copies of the above-mentioned compositions have been reduced to a minimum. Therefore, it is necessary to direct our main efforts towards comparison of Zoroastrian New Persian compositions with their Pahlavi prototypes, when such a possibility exists, and towards research on the language and dialectal variants of the late texts, which also deserve detailed analysis. References MASALIK (Pers.) 1347/1969: Masālik wa mamālik. Tarjome-ye fārsī-ye “al-Masālik wa-mamālik” az qarn-e 5/6 hejrī, ta’līf-e Abū Ishaq Ibrāhīm Istaxrī / ba kūšeš-e Īraj Afšār. Tehrān: Ziba Press. AKIMUSHKIN O.F., KUSHEV V.V., MIKLUKHO-Maklay N.D., MUGINOV A.M., SALAKHETD-I NOVA M.A. 1964: Persidskie i tadzhikskie rukopisi Instituta narodov Azii (Kratkii alfavitnyi catalog) [Persian and Tajik Manuscripts at the Institute of the Peoples of Asia (Short alphabetical catalog)]. T. I. Moscow: Nauka. GRVL. BLOCHET, Edgar 1905: Catalogue des manuscrits Persans de la Bibliothèque Nationale. T. I. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale. DHABHAR, Bahmanji Nusserwanji (ed.) 1909: Saddar Nasr and Saddar Bundehesh. Bombay: Trustees of the Parsee Punchayet Funds and Properties. DHABHAR, Bahmanji Nusserwanji 1932: The Persian Rivayats of Hormazyar Framarz and Others. Their Version with Introduction and Notes. Bombay: K.R. Kama Oriental Institute. GHEIBY, Bijan 2001: “Ardā Wīrāz Nāmag: Some Critical Remarks”. Nāme-ye Irān-e Bāstān, vol. 1. No. 1. Spring and Summer 2001. Tehran: Iran University Press, 3-16. JASTREBOVA О.М. 2009: “Prozaicheskaia persidskaia versiia ‘Knigi o Pravednom Viraze’ iz kollektsii Instituta vostochnykh rukopisei RAN” [Prosaic Persian version of “The Book on the Righteous Viraz” in the Collection of the Institute of Oriental Manuscripts, RAS]. Pis’miennye Pamiatniki Vostoka [Written Monuments of the Orient]. No. 2 (11), Autumn- Winter 2009. Мoscow: Nauka, 138-152. KOLESNIKOV A.I. 2008: “Skazanie ob Anushirvane. Vvedenie i kommentirovannyi perevod s persidskogo” [The Story of Anushirvan. Introduction and translation from the Persian with commentaries]. Pis’miennye Pamiatniki Vostoka [Written Monuments of the Orient]. No. 1 (8). Spring-Summer 2008. Мoscow: Nauka, 105-124. KOLESNIKOV A.I. 2012: “Novopersidskaia versiia ‘Knigi o pravednom Viraze’ ” [The New Persian Version of “The Book of the Righteous Viraz”] / Kolesnikov A.I. Sasanidskij Iran. Istoriia i kultura [Sasanian Iran. History and culture]. St. Petersburg: Nestor-Historia, 405-431. KOLESNIKOV A.I. 2013: “Imena verkhovnogo bozhestva v novopersidskikh tekstakh zoroastriiskoi i musul’manskoi orientatsii X-XII vv.” [Names of God in the New Persian Texts of Zoroastrian and Islamic Origin from the 10th to the 12th Century]. Commentationes Iranicae. Vladimir A. Livchits nonagenario donum natalicium. Petropoli: Nestor- Historia, 515-519. KOTWAL, Firose M.P. 1969: The Supplementary Texts to the Šāyest nē-šāyest. København: Munksgaard. MADELUNG, Wilferd 1983: “Abu’l-Kayr b. al-Kammār”. Encyclopaedia Iranica, E. Yarshater (ed.), vol. I. London-Boston-Melbourne-Henley: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 330. MODI, Jivanji Jamshedji 1903: Jâmâspi, Pahlavi, Pâzend and Persian Texts with Gujarâti Transliteration of the Pahlavi Jâmâspi, English and Gujarâti Translations with Notes of the Pahlavi Jâmâspi, Gujarâti Translation of the Persian Jâmâspi, and English Translation of the Pâzend Jâmâspi. Bombay: Bombay Education Society’s Press. RIEU, Charles 1879: Catalogue of the Persian Manuscripts in the British Museum. Vol. I. London: Printed by Order of the Trustees. RYPKA, Jan 1959: Iranische Literaturgeschichte. Leipzig: Veb Otto Harrassowitz. SACHAU, Eduard and ETHÉ, Carl Hermann 1889: Catalogue of the Persian, Turkish, Hindûstânî and Pushtû Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library, begun by Prof. Ed. Sachau, Continued, Completed and Ed. by H. Ethé. Pt. I. The Persian Manuscripts. Col. 1114 (No. 1952), Col. 1115 (No. 1955). Oxford: Clarendon Press. TAVADIA J.C. (Ed.) 1930: Šāyast-nē-šāyast. A Pahlavi Text on Religious Customs. Transliterated and Translated by J.C. Tavadia. Hamburg: Friederichsen, De Gruyter and Co. UILBER, Donald 1977: Persepol. Arkheologicheskie raskopki persidskikh tsarei [Persepolis. The archaeology of Parsa, seat of the Persian kings] by J.L. Vlasova, afterword by M.A. Dandamaev. Мoscow: Nauka. GRVL. WEST, Edward William 1896-1904: “Pahlavi Literature”. Grundriss der Iranischen Philologie herausgegeben von Wilh. Geiger und E. Kuhn. Bd. 2. Strassburg: Verlag von Karl J. Trübner, 122-129.