Kartīr, Founder of Sasanian Zoroastrianism

Author(s): M. Sprengling
Reviewed work(s):
Source: The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, Vol. 57, No. 2 (Apr.,
1940), pp. 197-228
Published by: The University of Chicago Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/529028 .
Accessed: 18/06/2012 18:15
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The
American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures.
http://www.jstor.org
KARTIR,
FOUNDER OF SASANIAN ZOROASTRIANISM
M. SPRENGLING
With the
campaign
of 1939 the Oriental Institute concluded its work in
Persepolis
and environs. A trial
dig
down one wall of the so-called Kaabah of
Zoroaster,
which faces the
Naq?
i Rustam tombs of the Achaemenids with the
reliefs of the
early
Sasanians beneath
them,
had in 1936
brought
to
light
a
badly
corroded but
evidently very important
and
lengthy inscription
in
Sasanian Middle Persian
language
and
writing,
Herzfeld's Parsik. A
prelimi-
nary publication
of a first
reading
from excellent
photographs
was
published
in
AJSL,
LVIII
(January, 1937),
126-44. Additional details were added in
ZDMG,
XCI
(1937), 652-72, where, likewise,
at the
request
of Paul
Kahle,
a
photograph,
much reduced in
size,
was
printed
in a halftone
reproduction.
A limited number of somewhat less-reduced
photographic copies
had been
distributed in various
European
and American centers. First
publicly
to iden-
tify
the
inscription
as
belonging
to
Sapor
I was Professor W.
Henning,
now of
the School of Oriental Studies in London
(BSOS, IX, 823-49).
Professor
Arthur Christensen had at about the same time made a similar
identification,
on which he read a
paper
at the
meeting
of the International
Congress
of
Orientalists at Brussels in the autumn of 1937. A few of his results
appeared
in his L'Iran
sous
les
Sassanides
(passim), chiefly
in the matter of titles and
offices,
and in the
Cambridge
Ancient
History, XII,
109-37. An article from
this writer's
pen, properly fixing
the form
pit-vadath-andar-im
in the
meaning
"(related)
to me
by
another father
marriage,"
and
adding
a few other
details,
is in India and
should,
if Ahuramazda is
propitious,
be in
print by
now.
Herr
Henning
has
promised
another
study,
which seems not
yet
to have
ap-
peared.
Beside a number of
communications,
which have reached this writer
by private correspondence,
this is all that has come to
my
notice
by way
of
public
contributions to the
reading
of the KZ
inscription
found in 1936.
In the
campaign
of 1939 the
OI expedition
uncovered all four faces of the
Kaabah down to the foundations. With this work it
developed
that three of
the
faces,
all but the one
facing directly
toward the rock
wall,
which is made
unsuitable
by
the
doorway
and the staircase
leading up
to
it,
contained exten-
sive
inscriptions.
The two new
sides,
uncovered
apparently
for the first time
since dust and sand
began
to
heap up against them,
the south and west
sides,
contain the Greek and the Parthian version of
Sapor's great inscription.
Though
also somewhat
marred, especially
in the
upper lines,
these two ver-
sions are so well
preserved
that an almost
complete reading
is
possible.
In the
meantime,
later in the 1939
season,
another
inscription
underneath
Sapor's
Sasanian or Parsik came to
light. Judging
from the scale of the excel-
197
198 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SEMITIC LANGUAGES
lent
photographs,
it
begins,
on the tier of stones below that on which
Sapor's
inscription ends,
about 15-16 cm. underneath the last line of the
royal
in-
scription. Perhaps
because at this level the stones
directly
beneath were not
so well
adapted
for the
purpose,
the lower
inscription begins
at a
point
about
two-thirds of a line to the left of the
beginning
of
Sapor's
lines. A rule held
against
the
beginning
of the lower
inscription's
lines cuts
Sapor's
line 34 in
the
t
of
yztan,
and line 33 in the M of
Mtrhwst.
Thus the lines of the lower
inscription
run
parallel
with
Sapor's
lines for about 26
cm.,
but that is not all
of their
length. They
continue on for about 160 cm.
beyond,
until
they
are
stopped by
the southeast corner
pilaster. Being
thus about 186 cm.
long
over
all, they
are more than twice as
long
as
Sapor's lines;
in
fact,
somewhere be-
tween two and a half and two and a third times the
length
of
Sapor's.
The
reason for this seems to be that there was not
enough good writing
surface at
the bottom to continue in that
direction, though
the
inscription itself,
with its
nineteen lines
(really eighteen,
since two of them are
half-lines)
and its some-
what smaller
letters,
is at least as
long
as
Sapor's.
The last two
lines,
18 and
19,
run over onto the tier of stones next belowthat at the
very top
of which it
was
begun.
The whole is so well
preserved that,
in contrast with the much-
corroded
royal inscription
over
it,
it is
pretty easily legible throughout
its
entire
length.
If the corrosion of the
upper inscription
is due to the disturb-
ance of the
covering
soil
by
the
dig,
some
sixty-five years ago (mentioned by
Curzon in his
Persia, II, 144,
referred to
by
this writer in
ZDMG, XCI,
652
f.)-probably
a crude and
inexpert
affair-then that semiofficial
sondage
did not extend to the level of this new
inscription,
and that is a
happy
coinci-
dence.
For this
new, completely preserved inscription
on the lower
part
of the
east wall of the Kaabah of Zoroaster at
Naq?
i Rustam is not
only fully
as
long,
it is also
fully
as valuable and
important
as the
royal inscription
of
Sapor.
This is the
life-story
of a
figure
with which Ernst Herzfeld has been
playing tantalizingly
for some fifteen to
twenty years.
It
may
be that he dis-
covered him first in the monumental
inscription
of Narseh at
Paikuli,
the
initial solution of whose
picture-puzzle,
however
imperfect,
remains to this
date Herzfeld's
greatest
contribution to Pahlavi science. The
great
man oc-
curs there in
apparently questionable company--first
listed without him in
lines 7 and 8-in line 15 of the Pahlavik. In the Paikuli volumes Herzfeld
published,
from and with the old
photographs
of
Stolze,
as he tells us in
BSOS,
VIII
(1937), 941,
two
inscriptions
of this
great dignitary,
whom from
that time forth he names
persistently
"Kartir
Hormizd,
the
m6bed;
kartir
i
Hormizd;
the
kartir";
later "KartFr of the
king
Hormizd
I."
Herzfeld was
not the first to
play
with these matters. In
Paikuli, I, Glossary,
Nos.
556-58,
on
page 209,
at the
top
of the
page,
he
acknowledges
some indebtedness to
Theodor N6ldeke
"in the introduction to Stolze's
Persepolis," meaning,
we
take
it,
N6ldeke's Bemerkungen
zu den
Inschriften
in the introduction to Vol-
ume II of that work.
Herzfeld
quotes
with some
degree
of
approval N6ldeke's
KARTiR
199
suggestion
that Kartir
may
mean
something
like "friend."
N6ldeke's second
suggestion, "protector,"
is
ignored.
But Herzfeld makes another
quotation
when he
says:
"The
interpretation
'crown'
by
Thomas and West is
probably
a mere
guess."
Whence he
quotes this,
Herzfeld does not
say.
If he is
quoting
directly
from the work of West and
Thomas,
then Herzfeld's excuse for an
oversight pointed
out
by
Schaeder in
BSOS, VIII, 745,
becomes
doubly
curious and
unintelligible,
when he
says
in
BSOS, VIII, 941,
note 2: "I had
overlooked the
reading
. . . . in
Westergaard's
rare book." Schaeder referred
to no rare book but to a statement
by
N6ldeke in
ZDMG, XLVI,
139. And
N6ldeke
states
clearly,
whence he knows
Westergaard's
text of Kartir
NiRst;
he names his source in the Stolze
volume,
when he
says: "Westergaard's
Abschrift,
welche kiirzlich von West
herausgegeben und,
soweit
m6glich,
erklirt
ist
(Indian Antiquary,
1881
Febr., pg.
29
sqq.),"
and the Indian
Antiquary
is
certainly
no rare book of
Westergaard's.
N61ldeke
read the form
vaspwhrkn,
to which he refers in
ZDMG,
where all of us can read
it,
in the
only
facsimile of
Westergaard's copy
ever
published (Indian Antiquary,
February, 1881, facing p. 30,
near the end of 1.
6).
That remains to the
present
day
the best edition of the text of
Kartir, NiRst,
in
public print.
Farther on
N6ldeke
refers in his remarks on this
publication
to
readings by
Thomas as
well as
by West,
but he ascribes the
rendering
"crown" to
neither,
but to
Haug, rejecting it,
not as a mere
guess,
but
chiefly
on the
ground
of an im-
possible etymology.
In this instance Herzfeld is
right against N6ldeke,
for
Haug
himself
says (Essay
on
Pahlavi, pp.
65
f.):
"Thomas and West
identify
it with the Heb. ktr
'crown,'
the cidaris of the Persian
kings;
and I cannot
propose any
better
explanation."
The first occurrence of the curious crown-
idea seems to be connected with a
misreading by
Edward Thomas of the end
of line 27 of
Kartir, NiRj,
in his article on "Sassanian
Inscriptions,"
JRAS
III
(new ser.; 1868),
272. Our
copy
of the
following
volume of JRAS lacks
West's
follow-up article,
which
may
have extended to the name Kartir the
curious
notion;
in his
extraordinary,
emended translation of
Kartir, NiRst,
West
simply
translates
everywhere
"crown" without note or
explanation.
In
this connection we recall another Kartir-or is it the same?-KLTYL
SHPWH•.RY,
found on a seal in Florence
by
A. Mordtmann
(ZDMG,
XVIII
[1864], 37,
No.
114,
and Pl.
I, upper right).
Justi's
explanation (Namenbuch, s.v.), wrong
etymologically,
is in
meaning
near
Henning (BSOS, IX, 84).
All this makes it
clear that the
great
old Dane
Westergaard,
the
English
scholars West and
Thomas,
and the German Martin
Haug
had known these Kartir
inscriptions
and worked on them
by
1881.
N6ldeke
speaks
of others as
well, naming
of
them
only Flandin,
the Frenchman. With Stolze there had worked the re-
doubtable
Andreas,
from whose
"Zeichnung"
N6ldeke
expected
at least some
help;
all that came of
it,
as of much
else,
was one
reading
in a footnote in
L'Empire
des Sassanides of Andreas'
admirer,
Arthur Christensen
(p. 20,
n.
6),
wrong,
as not
infrequently,
and therefore
dropped
from the same footnote in
its new
form,
L'Iran
sous
les
Sassanides
(p. 95,
n.
1).
Herzfeld in
Paikuli, I,
200 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SEMITIC LANGUAGES
89-93,
read more of
Kartir, NiRj,
and
presented
a better
rendering
of it than
had been done
before,
as a
comparison
of his work with
Ndldeke's
rendering
of lines 27-31 in the
Stolze
volume will
easily
demonstrate.
In his
"Reisebericht
in
ZDMG,
LXXX (N.F., V) (1926),
Herzfeld first
told,
on
pages
246 and 256
f.,
of three
inscriptions
of the
great dignitary.
He retains
from Paikuli a mistranslation
making
the man warden or administrator of the
mint
from
Sapor
I to Bahram
II;
this has since been
changed.
Of the two in-
scriptions
near
Istakhr
he
says
that he formed them
off, meaning, presumably,
in our
language,
that he made
squeezes
of them. Of
NiRj
he
says
that he has
now a
complete decipherment
and a determination and
explanation
of the
words until then
remaining unintelligible.
With these two Herzfeld then re-
fers on
page
246 in
passing
to another
inscription
of the same man at Sar
Mashhad
(SM),
much better
preserved,
of whose sentences some
agree
with
NiRj,
others with NiRst. From the fact that thus in three
places
in Firs
Kartir
had
inscriptions
to the honor and
memory
of his
name,
Herzfeld now
deduced that he must have been
satrap
of
Firs,
an
assumption
which
again
he
seems never to have
abandoned, though
there is not a bit of other evidence for
it, and,
as will be
seen,
there is
good
evidence now come to
light against
it. On
pages
256 f. Herzfeld fixes the location of Sar
Mashhad,
a
village
at the north-
ern end of a
tip, branch,
or offshoot of the
plain
of Farrashband and "Gire"
(= Jira, Girrah, Jirrah),
southeast of Shiraz.
There,
above a notable relief of
Bahram
(Varahran) II,
is found what Herzfeld considers the
largest
of
Sasanian rock
inscriptions, fifty-nine
lines about 5 meters
long
with letters
about 4 cm.
high.
Aside from
repeating
the other
two,
Herzfeld
says,
it
goes
beyond
these in historical statements. One of the
supposed additions, partly
misread both here and
elsewhere,
which mentions
Christians,
is found also in
NiRst,
as will be shown. If
actually,
as Herzfeld
says
at this
point,
but no-
where
else,
the names of
Spfihn,
Kirman, Sakastan,
etc.,
are mentioned in
SM,
then that would be a true addition to
anything up
to the
present
found
elsewhere.
In his
Archaeological History of Iran,
delivered in lecture form in
1934,
published
in book form in
1935,
Herzfeld recurs to the man and his
inscrip-
tions after a rather fanciful statement on various
early
written forms of the
Avesta,
with which H. S.
Nyberg,
Die
Religionen
des alten Iran
(trans.
Schaeder
[Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1938]; Swedish,
Irans
forntida religioner [Stock-
holm, 1937]), pages 404-29,
must now be contrasted. In that connection
Herzfeld then
sketches,
from the material above outlined with the
help
of
some earlier historical sources
and,
most
largely,
of much later
romancing
literature,
a
picture
of the man and his
work,
in which fact and
fancy
are not
easy
for the non-Iranist to control and
distinguish.
Kartir
(now
become
Karter)
remains to Herzfeld a
title;
the
name,
he
insists,
we do not know
(cf. Henning,
loc. cit.), though
he
suspects
it
may
have been Tansar. The
functions named for him are:
governor
of
Frs,
retained from
ZDMG; high
priest,
a
misreading
retained from
Paikuli,
I
(transcription
and translation
KARTIR 201
(p. 91,
1.
23), Glossary (pp.
149 and
204); high judge,
whence derived not
stated. He is now said to have served under five
kings:
Ardashir
I, Shapur I,
Hormizd
I,
Bahram I and
II,
Ardashir
probably
derived from the
misreading
of NiRst
(Paikuli, I, 92).
The dates of his
activity
"in official
position"
are
given
as "from about 230 to
293,"
the latter from the Paikuli
inscription,
the
former from the
misreading
of Ardashir. The series of heretical
religious
groups,
more
extensively
read here than in
ZDMG,
but in
part
misread in a
"passage, unfortunately
isolated
by gaps,"
is
juxtaposed
with a curious
pas-
sage
from an Armenian
historian,
and the whole is then welded
together
to
make Kartir the author of a
supposed
edict of tolerance issued
by Shapur I,
which,
as will be
seen,
is the exact
opposite
of the truth. The
parallel
between
Kartir and the romances of Tansar and
ArdavirZz
is
thereupon attractively
elaborated
(Arch.
Hist.
Iran, pp. 100-103).
Beyond
this there have come to our notice
only
a series of statements on
bits of these
inscriptions,
from
single
words to a sentence or
two,
scattered
through
various
publications
of Herzfeld's. With no
attempt
at
completeness
of enumeration we note
AMI, VII, 15, 19, 49(?), 54, 55; Altpers. Ins., pages
61-63, 141, 146, 163, 171(?), 173, 180,
196
f.,
212
ff., 220, 225,
234
f., 314.
In
the
very
last
place
here listed Herzfeld seems
again
to reduce the number of
kings
under whom Kartir served to
four,
not named.
The
picture
of
early
Sasanian times which Herzfeld has drawn from his
incomplete material,
and which has been broadcast in the world under the
aegis
of his
well-publicized name,
is most
clearly
and most
fully
corrected and
supplemented by
the new Kaabah of Zoroaster material
brought
to
light by
Erich
Schmidt.
The new Kartir
inscription (KKZ)
exists
only
in the one
Sasanian
Persian
(Parsik) form;
but this is so
perfectly preserved
and so
easily legible
that it has been
possible
to work it over
pretty thoroughly
in the
six or
eight
weeks since it was
placed
into the writer's hands. As will
appear,
there
are,
of
course,
still a number of
points imperfectly
or not at all under-
stood
by
this writer.
Nevertheless,
the work is far
enough along,
so that an
intelligible account,
in
large part
a
translation,
can be
presented.
This
being
so,
it seems to the
writer,
on the one
hand, unjust
to the
scholarship
of the
world to withhold from it at this
point
as full an account as
possible,
however
preliminary
this
may be; and,
on the other
hand,
foolish to waste time in
first
trying
to solve all
problems
alone or
solely
with the aid of our
excellent,
but in these matters
insufficient, Chicago staff,
instead of
letting
other
scholars
elsewhere,
who
may
have much-needed information
ready
at
hand,
join
in such solutions before
presenting
a final or definitive
publication.
Much
money
can be wasted in that
way,
as the
expensive
Paikuli
volumes,
a most
unsatisfactory, very preliminary publication
in
spite
of Herzfeld's brilliant
solution of so
large
a
part
of that
picture-puzzle,
have demonstrated. It cer-
tainly
is
cheaper, better,
and in
every way
more sensible to make one's
preliminary
mistakes and to exhibit one's own insufficiencies to others for
public
or
private
correction and
supplementing
in the
pages
of a
periodical
202 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SEMITIC LANGUAGES
such as AJSL. A word or two more will be said anent this matter farther
along.
For the
present
we offer our new Kartir material.
In the first
place
we note
that,
as Kartir is mentioned latest in date in Nar-
seh's Paikuli
inscription,
so his first mention in
history
occurs in all three of
the
Sapor inscriptions
on the Kaabah of Zoroaster. He
is, indeed,
to
Sapor
of
the
pit-vadath-andar-im,
as are all those there
mentioned, i.e.,
he
belongs
to
the now
royal family.
He is
not, however,
in
Sapor's
list
among
the
great
and
outstanding
members of his
court,
but well down in the list. He is
found,
not
among
the men enumerated as
having
served under
Ardashir,
but
among
those named for
Shapur's (=
Greek
Sapor)
time
only.
In the
thirty-four-line
Sasanian version his name occurs in about the middle of the next to the last
line
(1. 33)
as
Kartir,
the
ayhrpat.
The
ending
of the
inscription
is consider-
ably
more elaborate in both the Parthian and the Greek
version,
while in the
Sasanian, apparently
written
last,
the
weary
scribe or
stonecutter,
or both in
collaboration,
curtailed the
repetitious
material
severely.
In the
thirty-line
Parthian we find near the end of the first third of line 28
Kartir,
the
ahrpat.
In the
seventy-line
Greek form he occurs at the end of about the first third of
line
66, curtly,
as
Karteir,
the
magus,
which is
significant
for the
meaning
and
standing
of the
ayhrpat, ahrpat, herbedh,
in this earliest Sasanian time. That
is all that is said about him. He must not be confused with another
man,
whose name is
exactly
the same as his in
Persian,
but
slightly
different in the
Greek,
and who occurs still farther down the
list,
in the
Sasanian,
line
34,
Kartir
Artavan;
in the Parthian near the end of line
28,
Kartir Artabanu
(or
Artabanaw);
in the Greek in the middle of line
67,
Kirdeir
(possibly Kirder)
Irdouan
(possibly
corrected to
Erdouan).
For the Greek form of this name
Henning's kyrdyr, BSOS, IX, 84; kyrdgpr, MirMan., I,
41
(=[218]); II,
57
(=[3481); III,
57
(= [902]); qyrdg'r, ManBBb., Glossar, page 112,
deserve
notice and
comparison.
There is not the
slightest
indication that for our man
in
particular
Kartir is a
title;
it is used
simply
like all the others roundabout
it as a
proper
name. In his own
inscription
the case is
just
as
clear,
and his
office under
Shapur, just
as
here,
is that of herbedh
(ayhrpat).
On the Florence
seal and in the second name here we
may
have an
epithet
with a
king's
name
following,
or one Kartir is
distinguished
from others
by
the name of his lord
or father.
Our Kartir's own
inscription
was written some
twenty years later,
when he
had attained a far different rank and station. It
begins,
as has been
pointed
out,
a little below and leftward of the
royal inscription.
The leftward
position
may
be due
solely,
as has been
suggested,
to the accident of
good writing
surface on the
stones;
it
may possibly
have been influenced
by
some idea of
indicating
rank below the
great king,
after the manner of
seatings
at a
diplo-
matic table.
Apparently
all of Kartir's
inscriptions
which we know
(the
be-
ginning
of SM is known to Professor Herzfeld and God
and, perhaps, Nyberg,
but not to us
ordinary mortals)
are
thought
of as
beginning
in some such
position.
For the
royal inscription here,
whose
beginning
now is clear as
crys-
KARTIR 203
tal,
starts off
royally: "I, Mazdayasnian god, Shahpuhr."
Then Kartir starts
off--shall
we
say?-semiroyally, right
after the
great king
of
kings:
"And
I, Kartir,
the
magus-chief." Right
here the
difficulties,
even in a
perfectly preserved
Sasanian
inscription, begin. They
lie in this case and fre-
quently
in the verbal forms and their use and the determination of their
syntax
with the other words
forming
a sentence. The series of words
following
magupat, "unsweetened,"
runs as follows: "the
gods (yazddn)
and
Salhpuhir-y,
king
of
kings, well-serving
(h.parasta-y)
and
good-willing
(hiikamak-y)
hvytnn."
There is not the
slightest
doubt about the
reading
of the verbal
form. At the end of line 1 in the NiRst
duplicate
Herzfeld
prints,
in absolute
agreement
with
Westergaard's copy,
from which he deviates
erroneously
at
the
beginning
of the
line,
hvytn;
how he can have read that from the Stolze
photograph,
so far as either the
reproduction
in Stolze's volume or his own
slightly improved copy go
to
show,
is a
mystery;
what other
help
he had then
remains
undisclosed,
and such other
photographs
or
squeezes
as he now has
remain
unpublished
these fifteen
years;
SM
may
have some
light,
but we do
not have it. The
writing
of the Semitic
ending, -tn,
as if it were the Persian
infinitive
ending -tan,
for
-t4n,
or
-tsn,
need not trouble us too
greatly
at this
point;
it seems almost a habit with
Kartir,
the nature and
meaning
of which
can
safely
be left to be examined later in a different and
larger
context.
Final -n should be the Persian
ending.
Unless one assumes here an error to
be
emended,
there
appear
to be but two
possibilities
with such an
ending.
From Turfan Middle Persian we have learned that the first
person
of the
subjunctive
and the
present participle
both end in -an. From the Pahlavi
Psalter,
which uses Semitic
masks, Henning (Verbum, ZII,
IX
[1933/4], 235,
1. 9
[hereafter Henning,
or H
Vb, page, comma, line])
lists one occurrence of
the
subjunctive
form with defective
writing (it
must be
ASABEH.UNn,
not
HASKEH.UNn).
But what is a
subjunctive,
or even a
present participle,
doing
here? A
first-person singular
of the
subjunctive
is
wholly
out of
place.
With the
participle
"I"
(DNH), being
the nominative
case,
would have to be
subject
of the verb
"know,"
the
object
in turn
being
the
gods
and the
king
as
h.aparasta,
"well-serving,"
which is out of the
question.
The
gods
and
Shahpuhr
must be the
objects
of the verbal
power
inherent in
hfiparastd
and
hikdmak;
in other
words, objective genitives
with these
adjectives.
Thus
emendation seems forced
upon
us. Two
very slight
corrections are
plausibly
possible;
instead of final -n read
-t,
as is done with
apparently
the same verb a
few words farther
on,
or with the
duplicate
on the
NiRst
rock-wall omit one n!
As a third
possibility
one
might
consider the first n an error for v.
Any
one of
the three
writings
would be read in Persian as the
preterite singular, really
a
past, passive participle:
"I .... am
known,
have become known as
god-
serving,
etc." If the verb is "to
be,"
a
participle
will serve: "I ....
being
god-serving, etc.,"
the
following apim introducing
the
apodosis.
These first few lines have their own
peculiar
difficulties.
They appear
on
the
photograph fainter, finer, perhaps
more worn than the rest. One is at
204 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SEMITIC LANGUAGES
times
tempted
to believe that
they
were first intended to form a little whole
by
themselves and that between their incision and that of the rest a con-
siderable
space
of time
may
have
elapsed.
Then or later Kartir himself or the
scribe to whom he dictated or
gave
orders
may
have
erred,
or the
copy
from
which the stonecutter or the scribe who traced for him worked
may
have been
unclear or
blurred,
or the
attempt
to re-write an earlier formulation
may
have
been
partially bungled,
etc. Whatever the actual case
may be,
this
prelimi-
nary reading goes
forth with this writer's mind
inclining
toward the belief in
accidental error
here;
the truer
reading originally
intended
being
that of
NiRj,
line 2:
YHIWWA HIWHm;
possibly
a
bungling priestly
scribe tried to
write some other form of HWH to stand for Persian bitt
ham,
or this is used in
this
priestly writing,
which has another mask for "to
know,"
for some
past
form of "to
be," perhaps
an Avestan
perfect. Suggestions
or a solution will be
welcomed. The
meaning
in
general
is
fairly clear,
even
though
this
problem
remain unsolved. Kartir
proceeds:
"and I
(me? apm)
for that service
(spSs-y),
which
by
me
(ZYm)
for the
gods
and
Shahpuhr, king
of
kings,
was done
(kl=rt-y),
was known
(or
"he
knew")." Again
there is trouble with this word. It looks as
though
the cutter
had
begun
to incise
WH,
which
perhaps
he should have written in the
former
place, and, having
there been
reproved
for his
error, barely
saved
by
an
emergency alteration,
he fell here into the
opposite error,
which was then
before absolute
completion
turned into
something
that
might
serve as
H
WYTNt. Or should this after all be intended for a form of
HIWH,
to make
the whole thus far mean: "and
by
me for that
service,
that which
by
me for
the
gods
and
Shahpuhr, king
of
kings,
was to be done"? The
following
two
words would then fit in
beautifully:
"that
by
me
(ZKm)
was done"
(WBYDWNt,
final -t
being doubtful). Perhaps
after all
someone-Kartir,
or
his
secretary,
or the tracer on the
stone,
or the cutter-was
having
trouble
with the verbal masks and
confusing
HWYTN
and
HWH;
or,
as
suggested,
Kartir was
following priestly usage,
hitherto unknown to us. There is
not,
to
my knowledge,
a
single
occurrence of
H
WYT(W)N
in the
inscriptions
which
definitely
demands the
meaning
"to know." All rather favor a
meaning
"to
be," i.e.,
H instead of
.,
hawftteln.
For a
meaning
"to know" the Aramaic
evidence is
extremely
dubious for the root assumed. We
merely
know that the
intensified form
hawwd
means
primarily
"to
show, point
out" and
secondarily
"to
inform,"
but the
assumption
that a
simple
stem ever existed with the
meaning
"to know" is unfounded. This
reading
and
interpretation
seem to
be a
pure guess by
Martin
Haug,
which we have carried
on,
because it was
seductive,
and no one
questioned
it or
thought
of a better. The traditional
Pazand
reading
of the BPhl is
aniton-.
It can
easily
be read
yddcittn,
and
with the evidence at hand that is what should be read. The old Semitic mask
in the
meaning
"to be" was discarded in BPhl because of its
similarity
to the
form
meaning
"to
know,"
and because whatever form of the verb "to be" it
stood for became
definitely
obsolete in Persian.-The statement thus far
KARTIR 205
predicates
for Kartir faithful
service,
on the one
hand,
but
also,
in contrast
with statements under
succeeding kings,
distinct subordination to
Shapur,
king
of
kings.
If we see
rightly,
this is borne out
by
what follows:
"and
(uncertain, indistinct;
if
present, then,
as in the Arabic
Idl,
it makes
the
following
clause
grammatically subordinate,
=
"while";
the same
meaning
and connection
may
inhere in the
clause,
even
though
the v- should not be
here) Shahpuhr, king
of
kings,
for the court
(BBD)
and
country ('tr-y) upon
country, region (gyvak, perhaps simply "place") upon region, throughout
the
whole
empire
(ham'tr-y)
over the
magus-estate (mgvstn,
the entire
class,
order,
or caste of the
magi) (was) absolutely sovereign
(kdmkdl=
r-y
Wpdth-
dMy)."
If this means
anything,
then it means that a
king
like
Shapur
was
supreme
over the
magus-estate,
not in
any
sense subservient to it or domi-
nated
by
it. He
occupied
in
fact,
if not in
name,
the
position
of mTbedhdn
mobedh,
a title and function
which, apart
from the exercise of
personal
authority by
the
king
or
another,
seems not at that time to have
existed,
so
far as the evidence of these
early inscriptions goes.
The
highest
title and
office in the
magus
class in
early
Sasanian times seems to have been that which
Kartir received after
Shapur's
death and bore until
nearly
or
quite
to the
time of his own
death, magupat, although,
as will
presently appear,
in his case
a modifier is attached to the title. In
any case, very
soon after the
great
king's death,
he is what he calls himself without modifier at the
outset,
magupat,
and with that we shall find him
using
for himself the
adjectives,
which here describe
Shapur's position
in the
religious
affairs of the
empire
and
in its
magus-estate.
Likewise he ascribes here to
Shapur,
what later he claims
for
himself,
as he now
goes
on to
say:
"and
by
the command
(prman)
of
Shahpuhr, [LINE 2] king
of
kings,
and
the
provision (pv=
rvv=
rt-y)
of the
gods
and the
king
of
kings (in) country
upon country, region upon region, many (KBYV=R;
so
throughout,
never
KBD, always meaning vas, "much, many";
never
mas, meh, "great, high,"
as
Herzfeld
supposes,
whose
"high priest"
will
presently
be seen to be
pure
fancy)
works
(krtkan;
establishments rather than acts or
doings, liturgical
or
other?)
of the
gods (in)
abundance
(apzadyh-y-or
should one read as a sort
of
semicompound
with
objective genitive preceding, "gods' increase,
increase
of the
gods," not,
of
course,
in
number,
but in
reverence, worship, etc., given
to
them?),
and
many
fires of Varahran were established
(YTYBWNd),
and
many magimen (mgvGBR )
became
happy
(Vl=rvhm-y)
and
prosperous
(ptyhv-y),
and
many imperial
fires and
magi
were instituted
(WKBYR atvl=
ran
Wmgvn-y
path.tl=
r-y ITYMWNd)."
Here is Herzfeld's
"high priest."
He reads KBYR=mas and atrvan=
athravan,
voil. tout! But
KBYR
clearly
is not
mas,
but
vas,
and for the most
part
in this
oft-repeated phrase
our in-
scription
has so
clearly
atvlan
that there can be no
question
of athravan.
NiRj,
lines
23/24,
reads
simply
and
naturally:
"To
(or "through,"
or
"for")
me, Kartir,
above
all, kings ("the king," MLK%,
or MLK
n,
not
MN), rulers,
and lords execute valid
imperial
deeds for
(or
institute
by validly
executed
206 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SEMITIC LANGUAGES
imperial
documents":
GT-y
path~itl
=
r-y
HTYMWNd,
the final -d
being
doubt-
ful)
"atvv (or L?)=
ran
Wmgvn-y."
The
"imperial
deeds" or "documents"
will be discussed
later,
as
they
occur in our
inscription.
The first
thing
needed
is that we come down to earth with the term
iUTYMWNtn, hambd~tan.
The
Semitic word is
"seal," and,
as
Bthl., MirM, II,
37
f.,
has made more than
probable,
the Persian word is
hamb&atan,
hambd&-,
to be
distinguished
from
hamb&dtan,
hambdr-,
"to fill
up," though perhaps
at some time conflated and
confused with
it,
and
meaning
"to
fix,
make
firm, validate, validly
execute
(a
deed of sale or
endowment,
a
will,
or other
important document, chiefly
such as fixed
ownership
of
property),"
which is the sense of
sealing.
The acts
here mentioned
by
Kartir from his
angle
are those
which,
from the
king's
angle
fill the latter half of his
great inscription,
the establishment of "fires"
and the endowment of them with a
steady
and
enduring
income for food and
drink. "Letters close and
patent"
did not
greatly
interest Kartir of these
inscriptions,
as I see him. What interests
him,
as will become
increasingly
apparent
with our
progress
in
reading
this
inscription,
is the
spread through-
out the realm and even
beyond
its confines of Zoroastrianism as he under-
stood
it;
that means establishment of more and more fire- and other
houses,
supplying
them with
priestly
and other servants and with the
paraphernalia
of
service,
and
outfitting
these establishments with the
necessary
where-
withal,
kids and lambs and bread and
wine,
as can now be read with
certainty
in the
Shapur inscriptions.
With this in mind the writer
sought
for an
ap-
proximately satisfactory explanation
of this
pair
of
terms, probably synony-
mous or
nearly so,
as so
many
other
pairs
of words in these
inscriptions.
The
first "solution" which seemed to come near to
satisfying
these
requirements,
as it came to the writer's
mind,
was as follows: Modern Persian
tir,
"enter-
tainment, hospitality";
Avestan
ti~ray-, tftirya-,
"clabbered
milk, curds,"
tpyfiray-, "bread,"
tartav-,
"dry,
solid
(food)," or,
if
possible,
some other
derivative from
Orav-, "rear, keep, nourish," suggested
d,
"for," prenominal
with
tar,
"food," i.e., "alimony,"
such as in America
gold-digging divorcees,
elsewhere others as
well, enjoy. Mgvn
was a
poser.
It looks
exactly
like
Gathic
magavan-.
This has of late received much attention.
Bthl., AirWb,
columns 1109 f.
and 1111
f.,
with Geldner's earlier
exposition, rejected
all
connection with Vedic
maghd, "riches, gift," maghdvan, "giver,
donator."
Later
Geldner, Andreas,
Messina
(Ursprung
der
Magier), probably
with
Marquart,
and Maria Wilkins Smith
(Studies
in the
Syntax of
the
Gathas),
probably
with R. G.
Kent,
all fell back on the
relationship
with the Vedic and
interpreted maga-, "gift, gift
of
grace,"
and
magavan-
as a
participant
in the
gift.
Now
Nyberg (Religionen
des alten
Iran, p. 176)
and
Stig
Wikander
(Der
arische Mannerbund, p. 55) again
differ from all
these; but,
of
course,
Kartir
knew none of these moderns at all. He
could,
no
doubt,
recite the Gathas
with fluent
murmuring,
but what
meanings,
if
any,
he attached to their
words
escapes
us
pretty completely.
He
did, however,
know Brahmins and
KARTIR 207
Buddhists,
as we shall
see,
at least as well as did Khorasanian and
Soghdian
Manicheans. As the
very
small amount of the
vocabulary
of these Easterners
which we know shows at least two or three words loaned from or influenced
by
Sanskrit, why
should not Kartir's
speech
be influenced about as much?
Whether
through
this channel or a much older and less obvious one of
popular
or learned
transmission,
Kartir
may
be
using maga-
in the sense of
"riches,
gift."
The -vn
might
be to him as in Vedic not the
recipient
but the
giver
of
largess;
the
parallelism
with "alimonies" would
suggest things
rather than a
person,
and it is at least
possible
that he understood the whole form as a
plural
in the
meaning
above
assumed,
"endowments." The
complicated
con-
struction of these
assumptions
is as clear to their author as to others. A much
simpler reading
is
atfirdn,
"fires" other than Varahran
fires, namely, imperial
fires,
such as are founded in
Shapur's great inscription; mgvn might
then be
Vendidadic
ma'ya's,
"purification
halls with their
pits"-Kartir's religion
is
much more in the
spirit
and
practice
of the
Vendidad-Vid&vddt,
as
Nyberg
expounds it,
than Herzfeld's
story
in the Arch. Hist. Iran would make us
believe--or,
still more
simply,
as Herzfeld reads in
Paikuli,
it is after all the
plural
of
mgv, "magus,"
to tend these
fires,
even
though
elsewhere the
simple
magus appears
as
mgvGBRD. Precisely
such
guesses
as these can be
presented,
weighed,
and discarded at need much more
sensibly
and
cheaply
in a
journal
article than in an
expensive,
more or less
final, publication.
With this latter
reading
NTYMWNd exhibits
something
of that conflation of
meanings
men-
tioned
above,
and we read "were founded
fully endowed,
were
instituted,"
the
English passive properly translating,
as so often in
Aramaic,
an
impersonal
third-person plural.
This latter
reading
becomes more and more
probable,
as
we read
on,
until it becomes
absolutely
certain in line 11. No
Shapurian
toler-
ance and
broad-mindedness,
but Vendidadic
spirit, fanaticism,
and
practice
meet us further in the
statements,
which now follow:
"and Ohrmazd and the
gods great (L=RBD) profit (advantage, svt-y)
at-
tained
(YV.MTWN),
and
(to)
Ahriman and the devs
great damage (loss,
de-
struction?
mhykal=r-y)
ensued
(YI.WWNt)."
Mhykar
is a curious
form,
but it can
hardly
be read otherwise. As the
antonym
of
silt,
"profit,
advan-
tage,"
it must mean
something
like
"damage, loss, ruin,
destruction." In
meaning
it
corresponds
to Avestan
mahrka-,
or mahrkdi
(Bthl., AirWb,
col.
1146; GdirPh, I, ? 268,
No.
55;
288 with n.
1; 300, 1, 2;
and
301, 2).
Avestan h
means that r was unvoiced
(cf.
Greek
rough breathing
over
r5);
the result in
Kartir's
speech may
have been that h became the real
consonant,
while
unvoiced
r,
which at first had no volume of voice at
all,
took on a bit of
vocalic function and color and became some sort of
y-
or i-sound. It must be
remembered,
that Avestan
writing
was not
fixed,
until some
fifty
to a hundred
years
after Kartir and
corresponded
to the
pronunciation
of
priestly
schools
at court at that
time,
which need not have been
exactly
Kartir's
pronuncia-
tion. The
writing
here
may
be Kartir's
attempt
to write the same word in his
208 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SEMITIC LANGUAGES
own
pronunciation
in Sasanian
Pahlavi.
Final -r here is no absolute
proof
to
the
contrary, though
Avestan had -i or
nothing
at all. Such an r has a tend-
ency
to
appear
after
d, especially
when
pronounced J, elsewhere;
an eastern
American
lady's
charade for Norwood is a case in
point:
her
corsage
was a
mouse with its teeth set in a
piece
of
wood;
what did the mouse do?
Why,
gnawr wood,
of course! In our case other nouns in
-kar,
or -ar
following
other
consonants
(Horn, GdirPh, I, 2, ? 105, p. 139,
et
passim) may
have
helped
along
such a
pronunciation.
Another
possibility
would be to read
MHIY-=
zat-
(Schaeder,
Iran.
Beitr., I, 237)
with
-kar,
a word otherwise
unknown,
but
possible
both
linguistically
and as
expressing
Kartir's
thought
and action.
With this the account of
Shapur's reign approaches
its end. Kartir's interest
in it
is,
on the one
hand, wholly religious
or
ecclesiastical;
on the
other, per-
sonal. He now
says:
"And these
(WZNH) many (and-y)
fires
(here unmistakable, atvv=r-y,
which rather makes for
atvl=ran
in the
meaning "fires," though apart
from
that
phrase dtilr, "fire,"
does not seem to occur in these
inscriptions
with the
plural
affix
--n)
and
works,
which are written down
(MH
PWN
np't-y,
cf.
German
aufgeschrieben, viz.,
in this
inscription.),
that
by
me
(ZKm)
thus
(KN)
if
(H.YN
or
ht)
done, [LINE 3] Shahpuhr, king
of
kings,
to
(PWN)
the
crown
prince (vaspvtl
=
rkn)
a
testamentary
instruction
(PK
=
QDWN)
made:"
The
text,
as here
presented,
is clear and
unmistakable, except
for the "if
done," ht kl=rt-y,
at the end of line 2. It can be fitted with reasonable ac-
curacy
into the
gaps
of
Westergaard's copy
of the mutilated
duplicate, NiRst,
line
6,
the
only
real variant there
being
h,
for the
interesting
t
here,
in the
word for the crown
prince. Paikuli, I, 92,
is rather less
satisfactory,
and for
that we have seen Herr Herzfeld's reasons. The latest connected Herzfeld
text known to us for these
very words,
worked out from whatever
copies
he
now has at his
disposal, appears
in
AMI, VII, 19,
as follows:
ut
n
(Pahlavi
text has
only ZNH)
a... a.
.vy
[kirt] ak[a]n
(Pahlavi
text writes the second a
without mark of
doubt)
Ue andar 'ahr
(Pahlavi
text has
[H]tr[y]) .... i
sahpuhre
sAhdn
s&h
pa vdspuhrak[d]n
PQDWN kirt,
"und
diese .... werke,
welche im reich
[auf befehl?] Shdhpuhr's
des
k6nigs
der
k6nige
in
Vaspuhrakan
besichtigt
waren." We are
trying
to do Herr Herzfeld full
justice
in the re-
production
of his text and
rendering.
We
might
add that between Sahr and i
the Pahlavi text reads
.b
.
.
v,
the last two
symbols
doubtful.
PQDWN,
left
in doubt between two
meanings
at this
point
in
1935,
is not made
very
much
clearer in APIns
by
a whole series of
remarks, recurring passim
from
page
59
through
325. In the same tome
(p. 354)
he now translates
vaspuhrakin
as
"kronprinzlich,"
but leaves that lone word without context. That this text is
intended for
NiRst,
not for
SM,
is made
perfectly
clear
by BSOS, VIII, 941,
note
1, though
it is not made
fully clear, just
what SM does and does not have.
Against
this we have here a
full, connected, assured,
and
reasonably
clear
text. The archaic
Avestan, perhaps
better
Vendidadic,
form
vdsputhrakan
is
KARTIR 209
interesting
as
against
NiRst
vaspuhrakdn,
on which the
extremely
careful
Westergaard
and the later
reading
of Herzfeld
agree.
That it
designates
a
person,
not a land or other
thing,
is
perfectly clear;
we shall
presently
meet
verbal statements in the
second-person singular
in the "instruction" which
follows. Nor can there be much doubt as to what
person
is intended.
Shapur
is
approaching
the end of his
reign
and
life,
which are summed
up,
so far as
they
interested the
priest,
in the first two lines.
Following
the end of the
instruction we have a brief statement on the records of
Shapur's reign
and the
manner in which Kartir
appears
in them. Then
Shapur disappears
from this
earthly
scene in an
interesting phrase,
which Herzfeld with the
fragmentary
state of his material has
misunderstood,
and his
successor-designate,
Ohr-
mazd,
becomes
king
of
kings
in his stead. It is this
successor-designate,
the
crown
prince Ohrmazd,
who is here
given
his
proper
title
vdsputhrakdn.
That
is the form of the title in
Shapur's
time. It means
exactly
the same
thing
as
pus
i
vdspuhr
in the
curious,
late Pahlavi
text,
which the writer thus far
knows
only
from a number of notes and
quotations, chiefly
those of Herzfeld
(AMI, II, 20,
n.
1; VII, 18; Schaeder, BSOS, VIII, 744; Herzfeld, BSOS,
VIII, 943).1
Herzfeld's
interpretation
of
vdspuhr (over against vispuhr)
as "of
the
high nobility," though
admitted
by Christensen, Schaeder,
and
others,
becomes doubtful for this
early
Sasanian
time,
when one sees the Parthian
and, especially,
the Greek text of
Shapur's great inscription.
In
any case,
and
whatever
may
be the true
linguistic analysis
of the entire
form,
there can be
little doubt that our
vdsputhrakdn,
AiRst
vdspuhrakdn
(cf.
further
Henning,
MBBb, p. 73,
note on 1.
579,
and
Benveniste, BSOS, IX, 506-8,
with Schae-
der, BSOS, VIII, 737)
=
pus
i
vdspuhr (-n
=
pus i,
as in Ardashir i
Pdpakdn,
etc.)
= "crown
prince,
heir
apparent"
to
Shapur's sovereign
throne. It is not a
plural
and means neither
"princes"
nor "nobles" in the Karnamak i Ardashir
(Nyberg's I,
25 and
28);
it is a
singular
and means "the crown
prince,"
who
appears
in
person
in
I,
32
(cf. 36),
as
pus
i mas i
Ardavan,
"the
oldest, greatest
son of Ardavan." The
king's
sons
only
are named as those in whose
company
Ardashir is to have the honor of
being
trained. The nobles
appear
at best
only
in the mass of
asvdr&n, I,
34. The
vaspuhrakdn's
accountant is to
begin
with
the
manager
of the finances of the crown
prince.
The crown
prince's land,
his
Wales,
in
Shapur's
time is
Armenia, i.e.,
as much or little of eastern Armenia
as Iran held
against
Roman
"aggression," plus, probably,
a base of
operations
on the soil of western Iran. As
Shapur's inscription shows,
his heir
apparent
and
designate, Ohrmazd,
is in
Shapur's
lifetime
"great king
of
Armenia,"
or
"of the Armenians." This
goes
far to settle the
dispute
about Armenia be-
tween Schaeder and Herzfeld in the
places quoted.
It corrects a
notion,
de-
rived
by
Christensen
(L'Iran sous
les
Sassanides, p. 97)
and others from
I
Just before
going
to
press,
the
text, with translation, notes, etc., by
Tavadia
(Jour.
Cama Inst., No. 29, December, 1935), has come to hand. It
suggests
no
change
from
any-
thing
said here.
210 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SEMITIC LANGUAGES
Herzfeld
(Paikuli, I, 41-48),
that in
early
Sasanian times Khorasan was this
Wales or crown
prince's
land. For
PQDWN
Herzfeld's references to
Cooke,
NSI, page
243
(text
and translation are on
p. 241),
and
Lidzbarski, HbNSEp,
page
503
(the
text is on
p. 451),
mean one
single
occurrence of the word in one
Nabataean
inscription
at
Petra,
the
meaning being something
like "com-
mand, order, charge, injunction."
The other
places quoted by
Herzfeld in
AMI, VII, 18,
note
1,
have
nothing
to do with this
form,
which is not a verb
but a noun. More
important
than these is the
PQDWN()
of late Hebrew and
Aramaic,
defined
by Dalman, s.v.,
as "a
deposit, goods
left in
charge
of some-
one."
Syriac
seems no
longer
to have this
form,
but it is
noteworthy
that
there the related form
puqddna
is used in
legal terminology
for a last will and
testament. More Semitic material
might
be
added,
but it does not seem nec-
essary
at this
juncture.
For the Persian
equivalent
Herzfeld
(AMI,
loc.
cit.)
proposes
hands or
tukhshidan,
to which
APIns, passim,
adds further theories
and
suppositions along
the same
line;
all are
pure guesses,
substantiated
by
nothing
elsewhere. The word occurs in
FrPhl, XVII, 2,
in a short
chapter
on
judicial procedure.
Aside from the fact that the
chapter itself, though short,
is
not
overly lucid,
the treatment of our word suffered
considerably
from the
youthful
Junker's
inexperience, chiefly
in
Aramaic,
of which he knew
hardly
anything,
but also in
English,
which
he,
as did Herzfeld for
Paikuli,
had to
use to
satisfy
the wishes of Parsee
patrons
and donors. The form
PQDYN,
chosen
by Junker,
in itself less
probable,
is
proven wrong by
the form in this
inscription,
which has been
relegated by
Junker to the variants in the foot-
notes. The Pahlavi
word,
for which it
stands,
is
patymar,
rendered in Pazand
by pdtimdr
and
padhimdr. This, by itself,
elucidates little and
is, indeed,
in
sore need of elucidation. Junker's
English
in the
Glossary (p. 122)
is of little
help.
Nor do his notes there furnish much-needed assistance. The
Nirangis-
tan passage,
to which one is referred with
AirWb,
column
828, paitika-, merely
adds further
density
to the
general obscurity.
Of the modern Persian lexicons
Junker cites
only
the
Burhdn
i
Qdticu, page
174
(new ed., I, 259).
Junker
abbreviates the
attempt
at a definition there
given,
as does
Steingass.
Vullers
renders the Persian into Latin in
full,
so that he who knows no Persian can see
that in modern Persian this is a mere
dictionary word,
a learned
transcription
into modern Persian
script
of
something
the author knows in what he calls
Zand
and
Pazand,
identical in form and in what he conceives to be the mean-
ing.
But the
meaning given, "haste, dispatch,"
is that
assigned
in our FrPhl
chapter
to the Semitic word
immediately following,
which
begins
and ends
like our
word,
but for the rest is
quite
different. This modern Persian dic-
tionary
word and its definition is
simply
the result of a
poor reading
or a
poor
copy
of our
FrPhl,
in which two
important
words have been omitted and the
two Persian words that defined them were made to define each other. The
real
meaning
of the word
must,
with the
help
of our
context,
be reached
by
another
path.
In the first
place, despite
the
Pdzand,
the true
reading
of the
KARTIR 211
Pahlavi
rendering
in the FrPhl is
pdtfimr
or
pdtemdr,
all vowels
long,
not
with short i. In the second
place
its use at the head of the
chapter
shows that
this was a word which could be used to
designate legal
or
judicial
action or
charge
in
general. Now, reading -?m&r,
we find that Junker's own research
and
discovery
in FrPhl
(pp.
38
f.) helped
Bartholomae to solve a series of
words much used in Middle Persian
legal lore,
all
exhibiting
-?mdr,
but with
three
preformatives
other than our
pat-, namely, pa-, pas-,
and ham-
(ZSasR,
I, 21,
n.
1,
and
II,
49
f.). P8amdr
is the first
charge
or
deposition
in
court,
the
complaint, presently
used for the
plaintiff
in
person;
pasamdr
is the suc-
ceeding
or
aftercharge,
the
countercharge,
and then the defendant who makes
it;
hanmmdr
is the
charge together,
the entire courtaction or
lawsuit, charge
and
countercharge,
with
interesting developments
in the
personal
direction.
With
this in mind we see that
pdtemrr,
with a
qualitative
or
adjectival
flavor
in most words in this
inscription
introduced
by pati- (for
whose form see
H
Vb, pp. 228-30), represented by
Aramaic
PQDWN,
must mean the
solemn, legally binding charge, deposition, injunction, instruction,
direction
in
general,
and here
specifically
a
testamentary
instruction or direction. Such
testamentary charges
or instructions from a
dying
or
departed
monarch to the
son who succeeds him are not uncommon and not limited to
Asia;
some are of
essay
or even of small-book
length.
Nor is it rare to find such an instruction
favoring
the man who
quotes
it or in whose interest it is
quoted. Rarely
do
we find
father, son, recipient
of
favor, quoter,
and
quotation
in an
actually
contemporary
document as here. If one should balk at
pdtemor,
as here ex-
pounded,
the
only
other alternative known to this writer would be to read in-
stead
framdn,
used of a similar
testamentary
instruction in
MhD, 105, 5-10,
as
read, transliterated, translated,
and annotated
by
Bartholomae
(ZSasR, V,
17
f.).
This would be less
good
for various
reasons, among others,
because
with it the verb
"give"
would seem to be more
usual,
whereas in our
inscrip-
tion we find "made."
Shapur's
instruction to his crown
prince
is:
"To
you (QYKt)
within the house
(BYT )
this one
(ZNH)
should be
(ayv
YH.IWWN)."
Kft, introducing
direct
speech, is,
of
course, simply
a colon in our
usage.
BYT, is
khanak, probably
the
royal palace
or
residence;
the summer
residence at
any
rate seems in this
early
Sasanian time to have been at
Istakhr,
not at
Ctesiphon.
"This
one," ?n,
can
hardly
refer to
anything
or
anyone
else than Kartir.
Ayv
is
evidently
the
preverbal optative particle,
in
Turfan for the most
part
hyb
(cf.
H
Vb, ? 30, b, pp.
247
f.; Ghilain, Essai,
p. 111);
neither
Henning
nor Ghilain mention the form found here nor the
verb form found with it.
Nyberg (MO,
XVII
[1923], 227)
mentions our Sasa-
nian form
briefly.
Herzfeld lists it without
any
reference in
Paikuli, I,
Glossary, page 131,
No.
57;
it is found a number of times in
Kartir, NiRj,
as
published
in
Paikuli, I, 91,
lines 15-17. Bartholomae
(ZairWb, p. 86)
lists
the form as "Dialekt" from
Miiller's
publications;
in
Henning's
MBBb it is
listed
only
in the
Soghdian glossary,
and there with a
question.
It is
perfectly
212 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SEMITIC LANGUAGES
clear
here;
v
brWt,
in
fact,
is almost a command: "Let him be!"
GdirPh, I, 1,
page 315, ? 117,
is
inadequate
at this
point.
"and as
(v'ygvn) you may perceive (YDW=cYTNay)
that
()YK)
was done
(kl=rt-y) (by
or
for)
the
gods
and us
(WLNH)
well
(SPYR),
thus
(avgvn)
let
be done
(W= cBYDWN)!"
This is the end of the instruction. The last
verb,
the bare Semitic
form,
as at the end of the
foregoing phrase,
is
manifestly
governed by
the
?v,
which is not
repeated.
Most
interesting
in this section is
the
subjunctive second-person singular
of the verb "to
know, perceive, recog-
nize." The Semitic mask is the correct
reading
of Book
Pahlavi,
as shown
above;
what looks like the BP mask in the
inscriptions
is
peculiar,
as has been
noted above in line
1,
and as Herzfeld notes
(Paikuli, I, Glossary,
Nos.
356/7, p. 184,
bottom of col.
1).
The
first-person singular
of our verb and
mood occurs in the Pahlavi
Psalter,
read
by Henning (Vb, 235, 8)
ddndn.
The
third-person singular, probably subjunctive,
is found in our
inscription,
line
17,
and in
NiRj (Paikuli, I, 92,
1.
27).
The
optative, third-person singu-
lar,
occurs in
NiRj (ibid., p. 91,
1.
17).
The
third-person plural subjunctive
is
found in the Sasanian of Narseh
(Paikuli, I, 100)
at the
beginning
of line 14.
The Parthian has a different Semitic mask
(Paikuli, Glossary,
Nos.
466/7).
It is found in the Parthian of Narseh at Paikuli four times:
(1)
near the end
of line 9
(p. 98)
in what is
probably
a
first-person plural subjunctive; (2)
in
about the middle of line 12
(p. 100)
in a
place questioned
in both translitera-
tion and
translation,
which seems to be the Parthian version of Sasanian line
14; (3)
in the middle of line 27
(p. 108), third-person singular subjunctive;
and
(4)
in line 40
(p. 116),
in the
first-person plural subjunctive (Herzfeld
is
probably
wrong
in
reading
the
singular);
the reference to
B', 11, 4,
in
Herzfeld's
Glossary,
which would have to be line
11,
is
unintelligible
to
me,
since no such form is found there. Herzfeld's
guess
that this Semitic mask
stands for the alternative Persian derivative from an old
root, meaning
"to
know," namely, 'ndkhtan,
is most
attractive,
but now
unnecessary,
and
Henning,
as
quoted above,
does not seem to
accept, or, perhaps,
know it. On
the other
hand,
Herzfeld has
completely
overlooked the fact that this word is
used in the
inscriptions
and the Psalter
apparently only
in subordinate
moods,
subjunctive
and
optative.
The Semitic form of the Sasanian is
particularly
curious. Herzfeld's
sketchy analysis
both in the
Glossary
and in the treatment
of the verbal forms does not do it
justice;
his treatment
apparently
misled
Schaeder,
who seems to consider
only
the
Parthian,
when he
places
this mask
under his
imperfects (Iran. Beitr., I,
236
[38]). Actually
it is
very simply
the
plural
of the
present participle
with the addition of the
personal pronoun
of
the
second-person plural enclytically.
It is the form
recognized by Nyberg
for
the forms of final weak verbs
(MO,
XVII
[1923], 225,
and in the
glossary
and
elsewhere in his
Handbuch)
after Andreas
(ZDMG, XLIII,
34
ff.).
How "re-
cent" it
is,
is
something
of a
question.
It does not seem to occur in the
Aramaic of the
papyri
and the older
inscriptions.
Kautzsch
(Gram.
des
Bibl.-
KARTIR 213
Aram., p. 140, ? 76, 2, c)
sees its
beginnings
in biblical Aramaic. Almost
per-
fect
replicas
of our form
may
be found in
Margolis, Babylonian
Talmud
Grammar, Glossary, page 120,
and
? 28,
note 2
(p. 36); ?
31
(p. 40);
Dalman,
Gram. des
jiid.-paldst.
Aram.
(2d ed., pp. 290/1;
1st
ed., p. 236),
in
?
65. For similar forms see also
N6ldeke, Syr. Gram., ? 64;
Mand.
Gram.,
? 175,
a. The omission of
-W-, -5-,
in the final
syllable
in this and other
forms
in this and other
inscriptions
and in BP deserves a bit of further
study,
which
cannot be undertaken here. The "let be done" at the end of the instruction
harks back to the end of line 2. What interests Kartir
particularly
is what is
done for
him,
what
opportunity
he is
given
for
doing
what he thinks
right
and
good. Perhaps
with the
optatival
?v we should
carry
over also "this one" and
read: "let this one
do,"
or "let be done for" or
"by
this one."
What now follows in
regard
to
records, etc.,
refers back to
Shapur's reign
as a
thing
of the
past,
thus
closing definitely
this
early
account of that
reign.
With this we come to what used to be Herzfeld's "mint"
(a
most attractive
guess
in the
early, imperfect stages
of his
readings),
now his "letters close" and
"letters
patent."
We are
truly sorry,
but we
really
cannot find
anything quite
so redolent of oddities in
antiquated
British administrative
technique
and
terminology.
We read more
simply
and
directly:
"And
(in?) imperial
documents and
records,
which
(MH;
or "of that
which,"
or "that
which")
at
(W=cLH=5)
the time
(W=cDN•)
under
(MDM) Shahpuhr, king
of
kings,
at court and
throughout
the
empire
(ham'tr-
y)
in
place upon place
were made
(krt-y;
or "was
done"),
for
(W=cLH;
or
?W="and,"
LH=
"him,
for
him, he"?)
this one
(HN';
or
"this")
thus
(5g3n)
stands written down
(MDM
YKTYBWN
YKWYMWNt) (QYK=):
Kartir,
the
(ZY) &hrpat,
and then
(WHIV=R) (DYK=): Shahpuhr, king
of
kings,
to
(W=cL)
the Varahran
[LINE 4]
throne
(gas-y) passed
on
(W=
c=
eZLWN)."
The
opening phrase
of this little section is much and
variously
discussed
by
Herzfeld. Its
reading
here is:
WGT-y
pah.'tr-y
Wmatgdan.
The
pah.atr
is a mere
mis-writing;
in nine other
places
in our
inscription,
five
of them
closely
related to our
phrase,
it is written
path.'tr-y;
for the other
phrase
in which it is found
regularly,
one
may
see the discussion on the
"imperial
alimonies and endowments" or
"imperial
fires and
magi"
in line
2,
where, also,
its
adjectival
character has been
brought
out. Lest
unhappy
criticism and useless debate
ensue, warning
is here
given
that this
writing
in
line 3 is in no sense a real
variant,
as is the Turfan
pa
hikh'ar
and
padikhsar
(H Vb, pp. 228-30),
a
word,
similar in
sound,
but of
quite
different
origin
and
meaning.
GT is a word for all sorts of
documents,
used in that
region
from
Sumerian to talmudic times.
Matgdan, clearly
related to the
mdtak
and
mdtak-
var of Sasanian and later
legal language, is,
on the other
hand,
the
parent
form of later
mdtiydn,
"account, story, history."
The two nouns must be over
a
large
area of their connotation
synonymous,
as are a number of others of
these words in
pairs
which
Kartir
loves. If it
pleases
Herr Herzfeld to think
214 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SEMITIC LANGUAGES
so,
we
may, perhaps,
consider the GT as a document or letter of investiture
and call that a "letter
close," though
that is not
certain,
nor even
likely.
What "letter
patent"
must then mean is
pretty
clear from what KartIr
says
is written in it: a record of
Shapur's reign,
in which he is listed as
"Kartir,
the
Mhrpat."
Such a "letter
patent"
is
right
above Kartir's
inscription
on the
Kaabah of Zoroaster. The
impression
one
gets distinctly
from Kartir's state-
ment is that he had in mind a number of such
inscriptions
all over the
empire.
If one wishes to
play
further with
mdtigddn
and
compare
it in some wise with
the Arabic umm
al-kitdb,
there is no
great
harm in
that, provided
one
recog-
nizes such
comparison
as a little
playful
and not to be
overpressed.
Another
question
is to what extent such records or chronicles were at that time
kept
on material other than stone. We are not far from a more or less official
Khwatdyndmak
or Shahndmah in these
words; exactly
how near is
difficult,
perhaps impossible,
to determine. Kartir
manifestly
thinks of the record of
Shapur's
death as included in these
"documentary records," as,
of
course,
it
is not on
any inscription
of
Shapur's
own. The
euphemistic, theological
ex-
pression
used for death in the case of
Shapur
and Hormizd
I,
and with a
slight
variance in terms for Varahran
I,
is new and
interesting. Herzfeld,
with the
fragmentary
state of
apparently
all his
material, sought
other
meanings
and
occasions. There can be no doubt of the real
meaning, though
the
picture
conjured up by
the
phrase may
be
variously interpreted. MDM, "under,
in
the
reign of,"
occurs also in the
Shapur inscription.
WLH is the
preposition
5
at least
once, probably
both
times,
unless the not
very likely
variant
reading
suggested
be
acceptable.
HND
most probably
refers to
Kartir,
as did ZNH
before. MDM YKTYBWN
again
a
compound, aufschreiben.
We
pass
on to the next
reign,
brief and not
very glorious,
but
eminently
satisfactory
to
Kartir,
who has this to
say
about it:
"And
Ohrmazd, king
of
kings,
over
(PWN)
the
empire
stood
(YKWYM-
WNt;
we
say, "occupied
the
imperial
throne" or
something
like
that),
and to
me
(apm, often!) Ohrmazd, king
of
kings, cap (kvlap-y;
Herzfeld
prints
this as
a
foreign
and unknown
word, Paikuli, I, 93,
1.
9,
and does not list it at all in
the
Glossary;
West's
fully
emended
reading [Indian Antiquary, 1881, p. 31]
is
involuntarily funny)
and
girdle (kmr-y) gave (YHBWA t)
and for me a
higher
(apil=rtl= r-y)
rank
(gas-y)
and
dignity
(pth.l=
r-y;
the Turfan word
quoted
from
Henning
above in the note on
pah.tr-y)
he
made,
and me at court and
(in) kingdom upon kingdom, region upon region,
over
(PWN)
the works of
the
gods
more absolute
(kamkal=rtl=r-y)
and more
sovereign
(path.adtl=
r-y; cf.
the word and form
quoted
from the Pahlavi
Psalter,
H
Vb, 229, 27)
he
made." A most
important statement,
when
compared
with the statement for
Shapur's time,
in which
Shapur
himself in these matters is declared in the
positive
form of these selfsame
adjectives
to have been
absolutely sovereign
over the
magus-estate. Beginning here,
and
increasingly throughout
these
inscriptions,
Ardashir's Tansar as a historical
figure
vanishes into thin air.
KARTIR 215
Right
here we are
witnessing
the
founding
of Sasanian Zoroastrianism and the
rise to
power
of the
magus
class in
early
Sasanian times. For such
things,
as
will
appear
in
increasing
measure with the further
publication
of the
Shapur
KZ
inscriptions,
Ardashir and his men had little time and
opportunity;
as
we
go
on with
Kartir,
it will become
increasingly apparent
that such
things
as Kartir here tells about did not
happen
before that time. It will
appear
also
that the extent of the
empire
in Ardashir's
time,
as
envisaged by
the so-called
Tansar and
by
modern
historians, by
him in
part misled,
is
exaggerated,
and
that,
in so far as it is true at
all,
it
refers,
on the one
hand,
to a much later
time
and,
on the
other, especially
to
Shapur's
time. What there is of
reality
for
early
Sasanian times in the Tansar
romance,
that
is, indeed, Kartir,
and
it is much more
probable
that the odd "Tansar" is a mere
misreading
of Kar-
tir than that Kartir's real name was Tansar. As we
proceed,
it will
appear
more and more
clearly
that
here, despite
a measure of
boastfulness,
is actual
reality, against
which we must measure the
romance,
not vice versa.
"and for me he made the name
(=title) Kartir,
Ohrmazd's
magupat,
Ohrmazd
WWHY.
(=
LHY
=bagh;
or
possibly bag?) upon (PWN)
name."
This
may
mean one of two
things.
It
may
mean that the Ohrmazd in this title
is to be understood not as the
king
of that name but as the
god (bagh)
Ohr-
mazd,
as we
might say
"after the name of
Ohrmazd-bagh,"
which latter com-
bination or
compound
occurs
frequently
in a similar form in the Manichean
material from
Turfan,
since this
figure occupies
a
prominent place
in the
Persian form of the Manichean
pantheon.
Because Kartir retains this title
long
after the death of Ohrmazd
I,
this
appears
to be the most reasonable
interpretation.
On the other
hand,
it
might
also mean that an
epithet (pat-
nam),
not otherwise
known,
but like those
mentioned, e.g.,
in Christensen's
L'Iran
(pp.
404
ff.), "King
Ohrmazd's
portion,"
or "fortune"
(bag, Horn,
GdnpPh,
No.
44, p. 269)
was conferred on
Kartir,
similar to one conferred
on him later. If this is the
meaning,
it is odd that
Kartir,
who loved his titles
and
epithets
and all honors conferred
upon him,
should allow such an honor-
ary by-name
to
drop completely
from view
thereafter, although
some reasons
for
discarding
this
particular epithet might
be found. It is
noteworthy that,
as an actual
title,
Kartir never received a
higher
than "Ohrmazd's
magupat."
The
specifying
limitation
suggests
that there were other
magupat's.
Since
Kartir seems never to have
sought
or obtained the rank of
magupatdn magupat,
it is most
probable,
that this rank and title did not then
exist, unless,
as has
been
suggested above, and,
on
partly faulty grounds,
in
ZDMG, XLI,
654
f.,
the
king
himself bore this
among
his titles. The tale of
great accomplishments
proceeds:
"and then also
(W'DYN0)
at that time
(in) country upon country, region
upon [LINE 5] region, many
works of the
gods
in abundance
(or
"of
gods'
increase")
and
many
fires of Varahran were
established,
and
many magimen
happy
and
prosperous became,
and
many imperial
fires and
magi
were insti-
216 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SEMITIC LANGUAGES
tuted,
and
(in) imperial
documents and
records,
which for the time of Ohr-
mazd, king
of
kings,
at court and
throughout
the whole
empire (in) place upon
place
were
made,
for this one
thus
stood written down:
Kartir,
Ohrmazd's
magupat,
and then:
Ohrmazd, king
of
kings,
to the Varahran throne
passed
on."
The next
reign
is likewise a short
one, though
somewhat
longer
than that
of Ohrmazd. For Kartir it is so uneventful that his
story
of it is
simply
a
clich6 of the
previous
one with
slight variations,
one of which deserves
special
attention,
because it rescues a much-abused word from its fate. This
means,
that Kartir seems not to have been in
Ctesiphon
for
any length
of time and
had little or no
power
or influence there. If it had been
otherwise,
he must
have taken
part
in Mani's
arrest, inquisition,
and
captivity,
which led to a
painful death, or,
at
least,
known of these
things
and mentioned
them;
for
he does know the Manicheans
among
other
heretics,
and with all of them he
has but little
sympathy
and
rejoices
in their discomfiture. The colorless
story,
with its own little difficulties of
syntax, etc.,
which will be taken
up
later in a
fuller
edition, goes
thus on its
way:
[LINE 6]
"And
Varahran, king
of
kings, king
of
kings Shahpuhr's
son and
king
of
kings
Ohrmazd's
brother,
stood
(arose?)
over the
empire,
and me
Varahran,
also
(vl
=
rhl=
rant), king
of
kings,
in
prominency
and
dignity
held
(PWN
agl=
radyhy
Wptyh.l=r-y
YHISNN)."
The
agraddh,
in this little
phrase
has
given
rise to much
high-flying theorizing
in the books of Herzfeld and of
the Andreas school. The case is
really very
clear and
simple
with a continuous
reading
of a
complete,
connected text. Kartir is not
worrying
about
deep
problems
in
high
and
heavenly ethics,
as Herr Herzfeld
imagines.
He is
telling
the world what a man he was and what
honors, titles, dignities,
and
positions
of influence he had. He is
really quite
a snob and is most concerned to
appear
in the
papers according
to his due
place
in the "social
register."
To
express
that,
agrd-
is the
fitting word,
with a
perfectly
clear and honorable
history
of
its
own,
not to be mixed
up
with
arg-,
as the Andreas school
does,
nor with a
new root
gar-, "collect,"
discovered
by
Herr
Herzfeld, APIns, pages
61 ff. It
is Avestan
ayra-, correctly
translated into Pahlavi
sar, "head, top, first,
etc." (AirWb,
cols. 49
f.,
114
f.);
Vedic
dcgra
(Grassmann, WbzRV,
cols.
10
f.). Agrddih, pseudo-learned
archaism or "inverse
writing"
for
agrdah
(cf.
Turfan
MP, Andreas-Henning, MirMan, I,
33=
205; II, 44=335; Henning,
MBBb, p. 107),
not
aglaDDhe
(Herzfeld, loc. cit.),
is
simply
the abstract noun
"firstness, topness, upper-crustness, prominence,"
or
better,
with
just
the
right
touch of
snobbishness, "prominency."
It is neither
"beauty,
worthness"
(Andreas-Henning
and
Henning, loc. cit.),
nor
"Edelsinn,
Ehre"
(Henning,
MirMan, III,
49=
894,
for Parthian
argawift),
in the sense of
"high-minded-
ness,
sense of noblesse
oblige,
true
honor,"
but that
external,
surface
gloss,
much
prized by
some in all times and
places,
which is
expressed by
the British
ruling
caste and
Anglo-American
Gold Coast
plural
"honours." There can be
KARTIR 217
no doubt of the
identity
of MP
agra-
and Parthian
argaw,
as Herzfeld hints
(p. 62, top),
and there is no need whatever of further research for
this, though
there
may
be need for research on fusion and conflation of
meanings
in
Parthian and Armenian. There
is, indeed,
a
metathesis,
but in this not
Bthl.,
MirM, VI,
13
f.,
is
wrong,
as is
summarily stated,
H
Vb, 199,
30
f.,
but
Andreas, solemnly registered
in the footnote of a student or
admirer,
as often
(Waldschmidt-Lenz, Stellung Jesu, p. 41,
Anm.
1)-or
rather
Hfibschmann
(PSt, p. 60,
No.
547;
cf.
Arm.
Gr., p. 477,
No.
306; p. 92,
No.
5),
whose
"firstness" is
pretty clear,
but not
acknowledged.
For our
word, though
he
does not mention
it,
Bartholomae is
clearly right,
as Herzfeld
(loc. cit.)
ad-
mits with
quite unnecessary equivocation.
But Herzfeld's own
marshaling
of
"evidence" from NiRst and SM on the lower half of the same
page
is
mysti-
fyingly impressive only by
the
massing
of
fragmentary quotations
from un-
published
texts. In the first
place,
one is never
quite
clear whether he is
quoting chiefly
from the one or from the
other,
or in
very
truth from both.
The double numbers
separated by
commas
probably
mean the same
thing
as
those
separated by equals symbols previously.
If that is the
case,
the
very
careful
copy
of
NiRst,
made
by Westergaard nearly
a hundred
years ago,
when it was much less weathered than
now, clearly
shows that
Herzfeld,
assuming
absolute
identity
with
SM, supplements
NiRst from his
readings
of
SM with as much abandon as West
supplemented
it from the blue
sky.
If the
readings presented by
Herzfeld are the true
readings
of
SM,
then his
assump-
tion of the
identity
of the two
inscriptions
is
wrong.
A
comparison
of our
KKZ
inscription
with
Westergaard's
text of NiRst will show
beyond
a doubt
that these two are true
duplicates
with
slight
and
relatively unimportant
variants,
some of which have been
pointed
out. Our
inscription
has not a
single
one of the
mantically mystic lines,
which Herzfeld
presents
both here
and on
pages
212-15.
Moreover,
Herzfeld
inextricably intermingles
his
patax'ale
with anba'tan and his ideas about
sealing, though
pth.r-y
never has
a between
p
and
t,
nor t between
'
and
r,
while the word that occurs
adjec-
tivally
in
phrases
that sometimes have the verb
IfTYMWN and, quite
as
often
not,
is in our
text, except
for one
mis-writing
noted
above, always spelled
out in full
path.tr-y,
and the two are not the same
or,
even in
meaning, similar,
but
totally
different words. This fact
goes
far to
destroy
confidence in Herz-
feld's
disjointed quotations,
and we abide
by
our
simple, everyday reading,
until a better is
produced
with real
proofs.
The mask for
d&dt
here is inter-
esting
and
important;
it means that the BPhl
form, FrPhl, XXI, 2,
is not to
be read
YIHSNW,
but
YHSA
N;
-NN for
-nfin, defectively
written? The
meaning
of
pat,
abstract
noun,
ddatan
is not at all dubious or
difficult,
rather
perfectly
clear. It does not
always
mean
"dafiir halten,"
as Herzfeld
says
(APIns, p. 212), though
he
presently
translates
differently-which
is
merely
one
example
of the
mystifications
which fill
pages
211-16. It means
exactly
the same
thing,
as does
adjective
with
dd~tan
in the
Kdrnamak, I, 22,
and
218 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SEMITIC LANGUAGES
II, 1;
the whole matter is treated with
clarity, insight, straightforwardness,
and sufficient fulness
by Nyberg (Hb, Glossar, pp.
51
f.).
After this the
clich6
goes
on its
merry way:
"And I at court and in
country upon country, place upon place,
over the
works of the
gods
of all kinds
(.mygwnk-y)
absolutely sovereign
was made
(WBYDWN) (this
indicates an increase and extension of his
power
and
authority)
and then also
(WD YNe)
at that time
(in) country upon country,
place upon place, many
works of
gods'
increase and
many
fires of Varahran
were
established,
and
many
a
magusman happy [LINE 7]
and
prosperous
be-
came,
and
many imperial
fires and
magi
were
instituted,
and
(in)
documents
and
(!
Here for the first time
W, "and," appears
before the
adjective, splitting
the
pair
of terms to make an
apparent
trio. It
is,
of
course, possible
that that
was intentional and that our
adjective
is here used as a
noun, synonymous
or
partly synonymous
with the other two. Until that is
proved, however,
we
prefer
to consider this an accidental
mis-writing by
scribe or stonecutter and
the more
frequent
use the correct
one.) imperial
and
records,
which
(MH)
for
(WLH)
the time under
Varahran, king
of
kings,
were made
(kl= rt-y),
for this
(one?)
also
(WLH'
H.IN)
thus stood written down:
Kartir, (ZY)
Ohrmazd's
magupat,
and then:
Varahran, king
of
kings, (ZY) Sahpuhrson
(h
pvhv=
rkn),
to
(WL)
the
god-holding (?
The word is written
bgdan!)
throne
(gas-y)
passed
on."
Herewith the somewhat colorless
but,
for
Kartir,
not
unimportant reign
of
Varahran I is
brought
to an end. It is evident that under him the
power
of
Kartir and his Vidivdddic church was
considerably enhanced,
as the
recently
recovered
story
of Mani's end indicated. The contest between Manicheism
and the Zoroastrianism of that
day
on Persian soil was therewith
definitely
decided,
and the
magi
became a
power
in the land. These
early
Varahrans are
the makers of the fortune of Kartir and his church and
are, therefore,
his
especial
favorites. The next one is the last
king
mentioned in Kartir's own
inscriptions.
He is the
very special
favorite of the
energetic, scheming,
old
priest.
In Narseh's
Paikuli,
so far as can be seen from what is
published,
he
seems to be no
longer
in
favor,
but rather associated with the
opposition,
which was defeated. It would seem
altogether probable
that he should have
been
among those, perhaps
the
very
soul of
those,
who wanted to
put
a third
Varahran on the throne. This was foiled
by Narseh,
who was
probably strong
enough
to
put
the
magus-estate
and its leaders into a more reasonable
place
as over
against royalty,
but who
just
as
probably
had neither the intention
nor the
power
to check or set back the
development
of that Zoroastrian state
church which Kartir had reared and fostered and set on its
way.
The
heyday
of
Kartir's
glory
is the
reign
of Varahran
II,
which he now sets out to describe
in
glowing
colors:
"And
Varahran, king
of
kings,
who
(is) Varahranson,
who within the em-
pire ('tr-y) (is) generous (1
=
rat-y)
and true
(1= rast-y)
and
covenant-guarding
KARTIR 219
(mtl= rpan;
the writer knows that this is a
superliteral translation)
and well-
doing
(hvkl=
r-y)
and
good-deed-doing (krpkl= r-y),
over the
empire
stood
(arose?),
and
by (PWN)
the
grace
(dvual=rmyh-y;
cf. Nyberg, Hb, Glossar,
p. 58)
of Ohrmazd and the
gods
and for his own
(WNPSH) [LINE 8] spirit's
(l=rvban)
sake
(l=rad-y)
that of mine
(ZKm)
within the
empire
a
higher
(apl=rtl=r-y;
not
"dglatare,"
which is not found in this
inscription!)
rank
(gas-y)
and
dignity
(Wpth.l=r-y)
he made
(WBYDWN),
and to me the rank
and
dignity
of
(ZY)
the
great
nobles
(vel=rkan)
he
gave (YHIBWNt),
and me
at court and
(in) country upon country, place upon place,
for the whole em-
pire
(.amstl=r-y)
over the works of the
gods
more
powerful
(path.'adtl=r-y) and more absolute
(kamkal= rytl=r-y;
thus
written!)
he
made,
than
( YK)
as
(yn-
or
t-,
mis-written for
6ygvn)
formerly (KZY= has)
I had been
(YH.WWN
YWHm; so far as can be judged from his publications, this is one of Herzfeld's
deep religious mysteries),
and me for the whole
empire magupat
and
judge
(datvbl
=
r)
he
made,
and me
(of)
Stakhr-tfiir (sth
l=
r-y atvl
=
r-y) (for
a
name,
whose first element is Stakhr see
Htibschmann,
Arm.
Gr., p. 75,
No.
174, cf.
p.
508;
for
names,
whose second element is
"fire," Justi, Namenbuch, p.
486),
who
(is)
Anahit
(anahyt-,
the n is
Parthian,
the next word is
joined
close-
ly)
Artakhshatr and
Anahit,
who
(is)
the
lady (ML=RWTD),
master of cere-
monies
(advynpt)
and steward with
power
(path.a-y,
here
evidently
in some-
thing
like the later
meaning
of
katkhuday, general manager, manager plenipo-
tentiary)
he made
(These may
not be forms of the well-known
goddess,
but
elderly women,
a
queen dowager
and a
dowager duchess,
of
exactly
the same
kind as
those,
the
management
of whose estates and incomes honored and en-
riched clever and favored secretaries in Abbasid times. It
may,
of
course,
mean
"the
Istakhr
fire of Ardashir's Anahit and
Lady Anahit,"
both
referring
to the
goddess.)
and for me was made
(WBYDWNd)
the title
(SM), Kartir,
who
(is) [LINE 9] B
khtravinvarahran
(written
all in one
piece:
bvhtl=rvbanvl=
rhl=ran,
"He has
saved,
Savior
of,
the
soul,
the fair name and
fame,
of
Varahran,"
a sizable
title,
which
may
indicate that he was the
kingmaker
of
the
Varahrans),
who
(is)
Ohrmazd's
magupat."
This first
part
of our
inscription, very nearly
one-half of
it, is,
in the
guise
of
a brief record of the
reigns
of four
kings, really
a record of Kartir's climb
up
the
ladder of social
standing
and
power,
aside from one
secular(?)
sinecure
wholly
in the ecclesiastical
sphere.
With this all his
titles,
official
positions,
and
honors are
exhausted;
he has reached the acme and
very
zenith of his
career;
but nowhere do we find him
satrap
of Fdrs or
anything
else as secular as
that,
though
he
surely
was not the man to omit the mention of such an honorable
burden if it had ever been laid
upon
him. From this
point on, though
it is not
signalized
in
any way
in the
script,
we enter
upon
a new
type
of
account,
which sketches and sums
up
in a different
way
the deeds and
accomplish-
ments of Kartir for his church and
religion
and no
longer
in the main
simply
the
accretion
of his "honours." It starts off as
though
we were
going
to follow
220 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SEMITIC LANGUAGES
the well-beaten
path.
But there is no real
summary
of the
reign
of Varahran
II;
at least there is no mention of his
death,
because this
inscription
was evi-
dently
written and incised before that
happened.
Then
presently
we find our-
selves in an
entirely
different area and
atmosphere,
and we must not be too
greatly surprised
to be
back,
after a
bit,
in
Shapur's reign, though
we
certainly
do not start out there. This section is
arranged
not
chronologically but,
after
a
fashion, topically.
Kartir
appears
as a man consumed with zeal for his
Father's
house, acting
at times
harshly
and
violently,
at
others,
at least to his
own
kind, humanely
and
graciously,
in the interest of his God and
gods,
his
religion,
and his church. He acts to
purify
and
improve according
to his own
light
his church and
religion
and to establish it
firmly
and
widely
and at the
same time to check and set back
definitely
the establishment and
spread
of
any
other
religion
and church in his domain. In a manner and to an extent
not hitherto
suspected
we find him
setting
his
Mazdayasnian
church on the
path
of
foreign
as well as internal missions.
Naturally
we find him
active,
also,
as a benefactor and donor in his own
right.
All this
redounds,
of
course,
to the
glory
of
Kartir,
but it is a different
glory-the glory
of deeds accom-
plished
rather than that of "honours" received. Both are once more
briefly
summed
up together
in a little
concluding paragraph,
in which
Kartir,
the
successful,
ecclesiastical businessman
making
a
speech,
sets himself
up
as an
example, upon
which
coming generations
should
pattern
themselves. In all
this
activity,
described
by
a
contemporary eyewitness, Nyberg's picture
of
this
age
is
brilliantly justified.
There is an Avestan
tinge
in the
language,
chiefly
Vidivdddic phraseology
and
priestly patter recognizable
in Pahlavi
dress;
but there is neither mention nor hint of the existence of "The Avesta"
as a
written, sacred,
revealed book. There is not the
slightest
indication as
yet
of
any feeling
for the need of such a
document, though
other documents
are there in
plenty.
That
feeling
came and
grew only
with
growing opposition
to such
activity
as Kartir founded and
fostered,
until it issued in the sacred
book in sacred
writing
under Narseh's
grandson,
the redoubtable
Mazdayas-
nian and
heretic-baiter,
the
warrior-king Shapur II,
from whose time on in
some
measure
to the
present day
some sort of
activity,
with
ups
and
downs,
has
persisted
in the Parsee
community
in the
attempt
to
produce,
to
delimit,
and to refine for themselves and the world a canonized book of sacred revela-
tion.
Though
much else is
there,
some of it
surprisingly
new to our
knowledge,
for this one looks in vain in the succinct but full account of the ecclesiastical
and
religious activity
of himself and his
times,
to which Kartir now devotes
himself,
as he
proceeds:
"And in
country upon country
and
(!) place upon place throughout
the
whole
empire
the works of
(ZY)
Ohrmazd and the
gods superior (apl=rtl=
r-y) became,
and
(to)
the
Mazdayasnian religion (Wdyn-y mzdysn)
and
magi-
men
(no sign
of
plural) great (L=RB>) dignity (pth~ll=r-y, "honor, respect,
reverence";
it looks as if either
ptyhv-y,
used in 1. 2 and further on for the
KARTIR 221
magimen,
had been intended
and,
after
being slightly mis-written,
altered to
what we
have, or,
vice
versa,
our word was -written
by mistake,
and a
poor
attempt
to alter it was
made;
the usual
adjective
fits much better with the
verb)
there was
(YUjWWNt,
"greatly prosperous became"),
and the
gods
and
water
(MY:)
and fire
(atvv
=
r-y; just possibly ats-y)
and small cattle
(gvspnd-
y) great
contentment
(snvtyh-y;
H
Vb, 219,
14
f., Horn, GdnpEt,
No.
509,
cf.
Hiibschmann, PSt.)
befell
(MDMYH.MTWN,
modern Persian
bar-rasid),
and
Ahriman and the devs
(SDYan) great beating
(? snah-y;
AirWb,
cols. 1627
f.,
GdirPh,
I,
1, ? 33, 1,
n.
1, p. 14; ? 175, a, p. 95; p. 261, ? 22, b; 1, 2, top
of
p. 183;
Horn
GdnpPh,
No.
179, p. 291)
and hostile treatment
(? bityh-y;
cf. H
Vb,
180, 34-181, 3; AirWb,
cols. 814
ff.?) befell,
and the
teaching (kyF-y)
of
(ZY)
Ahriman
and the devs from
(MN)
the
empire departed (WDYTN;
W=c or
R;
cf.
Paikuli, Glossary, p.
228. A devic
word,
"ran
away"
or "was cast
out,"
would fit the context. In Semitic either of the alternatives would be
possible,
the first more
probable,
the
Videvdadic
word
being, perhaps, davarist, AirWb,
col.
765; Nyberg, Hb, Glossar, p. 63, or,
less
probably, bU
sp5kht.),
and
avag-
(or avba)pl= ri(?)akyl =ryd-y (this
is the first word
designating
some sort of
heretics;
no
guess
or combination for its
meaning,
which I have
yet found,
is
to me
satisfactory)
and Jews
(YHIWD-y)
and Buddhist monks
(SMN-y?
The
-y
and the
possibility
of another letter
following it,
the latter
especially,
are somewhat
doubtful;
for the rest the
reading
is
certain;
for the
meaning
see
Henning, List, BSOS, IX, 88; wrong, Herzfeld,
Arch. Hist.
Iran, p. 101;
the
correct
interpretation
was known for some time before the
appearance
of
Henning's article, Enc. Isl., IV,
324
f.; Gauthiot, Gr.
Sogd., p. 169,
end of
? 177.) [LINE 10]
and Brahmins
(BRMN-y.
Is the defective
writing
due to
connection
by popular etymology
with
bram-, "rove,"
or is it
merely phonet-
ic?)
and Nazarenes
(N
C=
SL=
R
-y)
and Christians
(KL=RSTYDAN; d,
as
usual, incorrectly archaizing;
-AN
may
be the
plural ending -an, -y,
which
so often
merely
marks the end of a word in this
script, being absent;
how
Kartir
distinguishes
Nazarenes from Christians is not
clear; perhaps
the one
are
Bardaisanites,
who
pretty certainly preceded
Mani even to Kandahar and
Sind,
and the other some
type
at that time
accepted
as
orthodox)
and MKTK-
y (Who
or what are
they?
It is
hardly possible
that
they
are
again
from
India, Jains
who seek mukti. It is
possible here,
as
often,
to read
yn
for
t,
but that does not
help much, unless, perhaps,
one considers the first k an
error, easy
to make in
Parsik,
for
n,
in which case one
might
find here an
acceptable
term for Manicheans with the
d
in Mani reduced in the
derivative.)
and Zandik
(ZNDYK-y,
almost
certainly
Manicheans.
Perhaps,
after
all,
under the
guidance
of Kartir this second Varahran was as crown
prince
the
real
instigator
of the
persecution
of heretics which
began
under his father and
to which Mani fell a victim. The
part assigned
to Khusrau Anashirviin as
crown
prince
in the action
against
the Mazdakites
by
some authors comes to
mind in this
connection.)
within the
empire
were driven out
(MH
YTN
222 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SEMITIc LANGUAGES
YH.WWNd;
the translation is a use of the word not unknown to the
Vidivddt;
the
meaning
here can
hardly
be
merely
"beaten." There is
purpose
in the
smiting,
which
may
be well
expressed by "persecuted.")."
There follows here a series of
phrases, practically
all
easily legible,
so far as
the
writing
is
concerned,
but
clumsily strung together, or,
at
least,
in
part
not
easy
to
interpret
and to construe. There seems to be no
verb,
in
any
case none
which fits the entire series. It is here set
down,
as best we can for this
pre-
liminary present:
"And idol
( vzdys-y)
destruction
(gvkanyh-y)
and
dwelling (glst-y;
thus with
Bthl., ZairWb, p. 29,
n.
2,
where note
especially
the
gristak
i d van from the
Bahman
Yasht,
and
MirM, III, ? 18c, pp. 22/3.)
of
(ZY)
the devs and
(!)
burn-
ing
down
(bytpyh-y;
the
reading
is not
absolutely certain,
but
very nearly
so.
B6-, "out, down," -tap-, "heat, burn," -ih, "-ing."
I have no better solution.
It looks like a
very
bad
hendiadyoin,
unless the one
"and," apparently super-
fluous,
as
indicated,
is a not unusual
error.)
and the
gods'
throne
(gas-y,
the
g
not
quite certain;
a defect in the stone makes it look like an
imperfect b)
and
nsdm-y (The writing
is
perfectly clear; reading
and
meaning
in connection
with the
preceding
"throne" must be the Parthian form of Persian
nsym,
listed in
Henning, MBBb, p. 112,
col.
2, "seat, resting-place,
nest." This is
preceded
and
paired
with a
preceding gdh, "throne,"
as
here,
in the text of the
confessional and
prayerbook
on
p.
27
[MS, p. 21],
11.
335/6. Herzfeld, AMI,
VIII, 75, speaks
of "the Middle Persian
expression
niam
uzdas~r~rh,
nests
of idol
worship,
in the
story
of Kai Khusrau's destruction of the
temples
on
Lake C'aeEast."
If one could be sure that this
expression really
occurs in a
Middle Persian
text,
that would show that the Zoroastrians used the word
["nest,"
not
"nests"]
in a
derogatory sense,
while the Manicheans
evidently
give
it no such connotation. The writer
spent
several
days looking
for it in his
copies
of
Bundahishn, Main2 i Khrat,
and Madan's
Dinkard,
but did not find
it. It
may
be another "Tomb of Zoroaster." Burhan i
Qdticu [p. 1403]
lists
"nest of devs" as an
epithet
for this world. With the
foregoing
idols and
devic
dwellings
these
probably belong
to those
paraphernalia
of
worship,
which in the
eyes
of Kartir were heretical and condemned. These
may be,
as
suggested
in the "Tansar" romance
[? 9,
ed.
Minovi, p. 22], old,
local
shrines,
antiquated
and become
irregular
and
illegal by
the institution of
new, officially
recognized,
and therefore orthodox "works of the
gods." They may
be
plural
in
meaning "god-thrones
and
-seats.")
were undone
(?
akyl=ryd-y;
a-
priva-
tive with
kirid,
H
Vb, 205, 34-206, 10, cf. 202,
21 f. The
meaning
thus
might
be "were left
uncultivated,
out of
commission,
declared void." Or
may
one
connect this form with Avestan
karet-, AirWb,
cols.
452-54, cf. top
of col.
467,
and translate "were
destroyed,
cut
down"?)."
Whatever difficulties
may
remain
unsolved,
the
mild, humane,
and
unnaturally
tolerant colors of Herr
Herzfeld's
palette
herewith fade out and
evaporate pretty thoroughly,
and
Nyberg's
saner and sounder
picture
of the
early
Sasanian
age
stands out in
KARTIR 223
brilliant and in
part
lurid outlines and hues. From here on to the
point
at
which the
description
of the
reign
of Varahran
II
breaks off before his
death,
we return to a bit of
clich6,
and once more we have for a while
pretty plain
sailing,
as the old
gentleman goes
on at a more
leisurely pace:
"And
(in) country upon country, place upon place, many
works of
gods'
increase and
many
fires of Varahran were established
(YTYBWNd),
and
many magimen happy
and
prosperous became,
and
many imperial
fires and
magi
were
instituted,
and
(in)
documents and
(!) imperial
and
records,
which
under
Varahran, king
of
kings,
who
(is) Varahranson, [LINE 11]
were
made,
this
(WLH)
down
(MDM)
thus
(KN)
stands written
(the
variation on the
usual mode of
expression
does not
appear very successful!): Kartir,
who
(is)
Bukht-ravan-Varahran,
who
(is)
Ohrmazd's
magupat."
Now the
chronologi-
cal scheme is
definitely
behind
us,
and we are due for a few more
surprises,
as
we learn that:
"And
by
me
(WLY), Kartir,
from the
very beginning
onward
(MN
KZY
wvrvn,
ha6 has
5rdn; cf.
Nyberg, Hb, Glossar, pp.
105
f.; Andreas-Henning,
MirMan, III, 55, hs,
1c
hs.)
for
gods
and lords
(MV=RWH.YN)
and for
my
own
spirit's (fame's!)
sake much
(KBYV=R)
trouble
(l=rn'-y)
and toil
(av=rdam)
was seen
(QZYTN),
and
by
me
(apm) many
fires and
magi
(atvl=
ran
Wmgwn-y;
no doubt about the
meaning
here. This fixes the correct
understanding
of this
oft-recurring phrase.)
within the
empire (country)
of
Iran
prosperous
were
made,
and
by
me
(apm)
also for
(PWN6)
Non-Iranian
country (tv
=
r-y,
as
before)
fires and
magimen (atvv
=
r-y WmgvGBRD),
which
(MH)
for the
country
of
(ZY)
Non-Iran were
(YIjWWN),
wherever
( YK)
the horses
(SWSYP)
and men
(GBR )
of
(ZY)
the
king
of
kings (Shapur's
name is
very probably
omitted
by
mere
inadvertence,
as will
presently appear)
arrived
(YfIMTWN;
it looks as
though immediately
after the -N a fainter
-dy
were
traced,
which
might also,
in
spite
of the
close,
even crowded
proximity
to
the
verb,
be intended for ZY. The
stone, however,
is defective at this
point,
and these
may
be mere
deluding cracks,
as not
infrequently elsewhere.);
for
Antioch, city, (ANDYVK-y 8tv=rdstn)
and
Syria, country, (SVL=
RYA-y itv= r-y), [LINE 12]
and what
(MH;
those
which?) (was
or
were)
over
(MDM,
"over the surface of" or
"for") Syria (were?)
few
(nsng-y; cf.
FrPhl,
XXV, 6,
with
p. 75,
and
Nyberg, Hb, Glossar, pp.
244 f. and 265. The late
Avestan
nisang, "downward,"
from Iran
"seaward,"
then
loosely
for "be-
yond,"
like our
"downtown,"
down the
line,"
with MDM used in the sense of
"following upon,"
has been
weighed and,
in the last
reading
for this
prelimi-
nary publication, discarded.);
Tarsus
(TYRSYST
or
TYRSSYT), city,
and
Cilicia
(KLKYA-y), country,
and those which were over Cilicia were
few;
Caesarea
(KYSL=RYA-y), city, Cappadocia (KPVTKYA-y), country,
and
those which were over
Cappadocia
were
few; (then)
forward
(WD
praY;
this
is a new start from
Iran,
northwest
by north,
as will
presently appear)
to
(WL)
GL=
RADKYDA-y (One
is at first
greatly tempted
to read here
224 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SEMITIC LANGUAGES
Galatia. The text which follows forbids that. This is a
country
or
kingdom
im-
mediatelysouth
or southeast of Armenia. It must be either
Gordyene-Carduene
itself,
which we shall find under another name in the
Shapur inscription, per-
haps
here with a name contaminated with the curious Kordrikh-Kordikh-
Kodrikh,
which
may
be
just
eastward of
Gordyene
and is in
any
case some-
where between Armenia and
genuinely
Iranian
territory,
or it
may
be that
Kordikh itself
[cf. Hiibschmann,
Die
altarmenischen Ortsnamen, IF,
XVII =
1904, pp.
334
f.; Marquart,
fEran'ahr,
pp.
169
f., 178].
The word
"country,"
here often used for
'tr-y, may
not be the
best;
alone or in
composition
it is
sometimes "the
empire,"
in
adjectival composition "imperial," i.e., current,
or
officially recognized,
or valid for the
empire; again
these
countries,
within
and without
Iran,
are those
"kingdoms"
which
gave
to the Persian
kings
the
title
"King
of
kings
of Iran and Non-Iran." If we remember
this,
it will not
be
unpardonable
to find this
preliminary
translation not
altogether
consistent
in this matter. The Greek of
Shapur
will be found
extremely interesting.),
country,
and Armenia
(AL=RMN-y), country,
and Iberia
(WL=RWCAN),
and Albania
(AL=RAN-y),
and Balasakan
(BLASKAN),
forward to
(WD
prao WL)
the
Alans' (ALANAN) pass (BB:) Shahpuhr, king
of
kings,
with
(PWN)
horses and men of his own
(ZY NP9H), pillage (vl=rtk-y)
and fire-
setting (atvl=rsvht-y)
and
laying
waste
(avdyl= ran; aviran, awiran, Horn,
GdnpPh,
No.
1087,
cf.
Hilbschmann, PSt, p. 105;
Arm.
Gr., p. 112,
No.
81;
Bthl., ZairWb, p. 110,
n.
1,
with "inverse"
d)
made. There also
by
me
(TMHCm) by
command of the
king
of
[LINE 13] kings
one
(yk; may
be
curiously
written
ZK, "that, those") magusman
and
fire,
which for
(WLH)
the
country was,
that
by
me was
put (made)
in order
(vnal= rsn-y;
so
written,
instead of
vyn-,
in Turfan and the Pahlavi
Psalter,
H
Vb, 193,
22
f.),
and
by
me not
(LD)
was
permitted (SBKWN;
robbery (?
The first letter in this word
may
be a foreshortened
b,
in which case this writer can do
nothing
with it in
Middle Persian. It
may
be a
slightly exaggerated z,
with which we would have
zydan-y, i.e., probably ziydn, "damage,"
with "inverse" d. Or it
may
be a
curious
g,
which
might
be a clue for the
reading
of some of the curious
writings
of Pahlavi
equivalents
for Avestan
gaba-, "robber,"
and related words
[Air-
Wb,
cols. 488
f., cf. gyyg, "robber," Andreas-Henning, MirMan, II,
49=
340,
text, p. 14,
1.
23]. "Robbery"
fits the context
best,
but
"damage"
will
do.)
and
pillage
to be made
(kl= rtn-y; reading -tn
not
quite certain),
and what-
(ever)
thus
(KN) (by) anyone (:Y8) (as a)
deed
(kl=rtk-y)
had been com-
mitted
(kl
=
rt-y-the -y
odd with a defect in the
stone-YItWWN),
that also
by
me
away (BV
=
R)
was taken
(YNSBWN)
and
by
me
again
(LWHfL=
R)
to its own
country (WL NPSH8tv=r-y;
so
written!)
was left
(SBKWN
lfWHnd)."
This
completes
for the nonce Kartir's
activity
outside of Iran.
Here is
foreign
mission
work,
and here is a bit of ethics for Herr Herzfeld. We
observe,
that
practically
all this
activity
follows the tracks of
Shapur's
raids
and
conquests
northward and westward. This is not
altogether surprising,
KARTIR 225
since it is known that in these
regions Zoroastrianism, Zervanism,
and Mith-
raism had
gained ground
ere this.
Moreover,
these are all lands which
by
con-
quest
were held for a
longer
or shorter time
by
Iran's
early
Sasanian
rulers,
the time in all cases
being longer
than we had hitherto
believed,
as will become
clear with the further
publication
of
Shapur's great inscription. Mani,
who
also is claimed to have been with
Shapur
on these
campaigns,
sent his missions
southwest,
to
Egypt
and
beyond, and,
in lands under
Shapur
held
by Iran,
to
the northeast and
southeast,
for all of which Kartir
registers
no
activity
at all.
Just how
significant
this observation
is, may
be left for others to decide. We
return with the
priestly judge
to
Iran,
as he
proceeds:
"Then
by
me
(apm)
the
Mazdayasnian religion
and
magimen,
who
(were)
good
(hvp-y),
within the
empire upperclass (agl= rav-y)
and reverend
(pth.l=
rand-y; closely joined; hardly "many")
were
made,
and
arsvmvk-y (r
written 1.
What form or
compound
is this? Can it mean
"worthy,"
or
"right thinking"
or
"right speaking"? Something
else seems to be
suggested by
the
following
word.)
and
appointed
men
(gvml=
ryak
GBV= R; perhaps
a
compound
like
"magimen"),
who
(MNW) (were)
within the
magus-estate,
for
(PWN)
the
Mazdayasnian religion
and the works of the
gods,
not for trade
(?
vcal=r-y),
were
kept
(phl=rst-y);
they by
me
(WLHinm) (with) corporal punishment
(pvbl-y;
Bthl., ZairWb, pp. 9, 37,
and
193,
cf.
AirWb,
cols. 892 and
329.)
[LINE 14]
were chastised
(MHIYTN;
the T odd from a defect in the
stone),
and
by
me
reprimanded
(nhl=rvst-y;
exactly
our "called
down"!)
were
they
(H.
WHnd),
and of better odor
(dm SPYR)
made were
they."
To
judge
from the
American
scene,
as an American builder of a
political machine,
in ecclesiastical
or other
spheres,
would
proceed,
these
might
be men who had reached the
age
of
discretion,
if we can connect our
arsvmvk
with Avestan
arazuid-, AirWb,
col.
354,
and who were
given
little
jobs, gvmrcak
with this
interpretation being
a diminutive with diminished
d
between m and
r, i.e.,
a minor official or em-
ployee;
arsvmvk
may,
on the other
hand, perhaps
be connected with Avestan
aamaooya-,
in Turfdn
a.lam3gdn,
"heretics,
heretical teachers"
(Jackson,
Res. in
Manicheism, p. 122,
cf. 83 and
85),
in which case the
gvmrtak might
be derivable from the root
mrz, marz (Ghilain, Essai, p. 53), meaning,
as in
Parthian, "cleansed," perhaps
"set
apart" (Henning, List, BSOS, IX, 85,
nmrz-; MirMad, III,
18= 863 and 58=
903).
"Also
by
me
(apm) (for) many
fires and
magi imperial
documents were made
(for
"documents" here
"deeds,"
of
gift
or
endowment,
comes
easily upon
the
tongue),
and
by
the
provision
(pv=
rvv=
rt-y)
of the
gods
and the
king
of
kings,
and on
my part (WMN LY)
were
they
made. Within the
country
of Iran
many
fires of Varahran were
established
(YTYBWNd),
and
many kin-marriages
(hvytvtda.-y,
thus! Evi-
dently
a Pahlavi
writing
of the then current
pronunciation
of Avestan
xvadtuvada0a, AirWb,
col. 1860. Note -t- in the
place
of later -k-
[how
to be
explained?]
and final -h on the
way
to
-s!)
were
made,
and
many people
('NSWT'-y),
who to their vows unfaithful
(anastvan; cf.
Nyberg, Hb, Glossar,
226 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SEMITIC LANGUAGES
p. 24,
and note
privative
an- before initial
vowel,
and
regular
-v- instead of BP
-p- here!)
had become
(YHWWN),
those
(ZK)
faithful became
(YHIWWN),
and
many
were
(YRI.WWN)
those,
who
(MNW)
the
teaching (kys-y)
of the devs held
(davt-y),
and it
(aps) by
me
(MN LY)
was made
(kl=rt-y,
"brought about"):
those the
teaching
of the devs left
(SBKWN)
and
they
(ap')
the
teaching
of
[LINE 15]
the
gods accepted
(WHIDWN),
and
many
rtpsak (r
written 1. This word is troublesome. Two further occurrences show
that it is
something given by
rich and influential men in
great quantities,
probably
to
fire-temples
or other
places
of
worship. Nyberg
had it before
him, but,
not
having
our
inscriptional writing,
misread and
misinterpreted
it
in his Texte zum
mazdayasnischen
Kalender
["Uppsala
Universitets
Arsskrift,
1934," Program 2], pp.
40 and 41. It is
certainly
not a human
being,
as
Nyberg, laboring
over the text of Dankart
[ed. Madan], p. 275,
11.
9/10,
inter-
prets
it with evident
difficulty.
In that Dinkart text it means
things
with
which a
religious
act is
performed, exactly
like the two
phrases
which follow
with "and-and." Certain calendar weeks are favored for certain
activities,
... "and,
in
general, furthering
the world's foundation
and, also, advising
???ik of
rtpsak
and
worship <and) offering
of
myazd
for that
purpose."
It
is, perhaps,
even better for the
fixing
of the
meaning
of our word if we omit
the
"and," supplied by Nyberg,
and thus limit the
acts,
to which the
people
are exhorted as
being
useful for the furtherance of the world's
elements,
to
two:
first, rtpsak ....,
and
second, offering [izixn sdiCn, "offering-making"]
of
myazd. Myazd
are the solid
foods,
that are offered
[AirWb,
col.
1191].
The
liquid offering
in Avestan is a
ra•6wi
-, "mixture,
mixed drink"
[AirWb,
cols.
1483
f.].
In the Pahlavi of the
Nirangistdn
this is written
l= rtpi- [fol. 156,
1.
13]
and l=
rtpys- [fol. 157,
1.
17]; 160,1. 3,
it is l=
rytpy8-;
cf.
also
Nyberg, Hb,
Glossar, p. 194,
near the bottom. The
mixing-bowl
or
bumper
is Avestan
-bajina- [AirWb,
col.
1484],
for which the Pahlavi has
b&l,
which can be read
bazk,
a form attested
by
both Armenian and Jewish Hebrew and Aramaic
[Hilbschmann,
Arm.
Gr., p. 115,
No.
92].
From these data our word
cannot,
so far as I can
see,
with
certainty
be
derived;
but it is
certainly possible
that
we have here a
writing
of Kartir's
pronunciation
of a word that can well mean
"mixing-bowl,"
a
vessel,
which would suit our context and that of the Dlnkart
passage
well. The
following
word in the Dankart
might
then be a derivative
of
da-, "give,"
or
des-, "form,"
or
sa&, "prepare,"
and we would have the
people
admonished to
give
or
prepare mixing-bowls
or mixed drinks for
liquid
offering
and
offerings
of solid foods. It is not
necessary
at this
point
to dis-
tinguish
these two from the
partly synonymous
haoma-
and
zaoora-,
on the
one
hand,
and
draonah-,
on the other. Dr3n was too well known to
posit
for
it a
hypothetically possible
Semitic
LeTaFSdQ.
Here
"many mixing bowls")
were received
(WYDWN),
and much
(KBYR) Mazdayasnian (mis-written;
d
omitted) religion
in various
ways (gvnk-y gvnk-y)
and also other
(WDHV
=
RNE)
works of the
gods
much
(KBYR)
increased
(apzvt-y)
and
superior
KARTIR 227
(apl=rtl=r-y) became,
which
(ZY) upon (MDM)
this
inscription (namk-y)
are not
written,
because
(MH),
if
(4it)
it had been written
(YKTYBWN
ZIWH), then
()DYN)
too much (KBYR) would it have been
(YH.IWWN
.IWH).
By
me also
(apm)
for
my
own house also
(PWN NPSHI BYTD)
in
place upon place many
fires of Varahran were established
(nsast-y),
and
by
me
(apm) offering
was made
(YDBHWN)
for
(PWN)
those
(ZK) many (and-
y) fires,
which
by
me
(ZYm)
for
my
own house were established
(nsast-y),
(for)
each
(KL'; thus!)
throne
(gas-y; "altar"?),
throne
upon throne, mixing-
bowls
(?) MCXXXIII, [LINE 16]
and
they
were
(WYHWWN)
for one
(I)
year (SNT)
MMMMMM DCC XC VIII. And
by
me for
my
own house
other works also of the
gods
of various kinds
(gvnk-y gvnk-y) many
were
done,
which
by
me if
(h4t)
upon
this
inscription they
had been
written,
too
many
(KBYR
stands here as before for "too
many," just
as elsewhere the same
word stands
simply
for
"many, much.")
then would
they
have been. But
by
me
(BV= R'm)
this
inscription
for this
(WLH
l= rad-y)
was
written,
that
(:YK)
whoever in future
(pl=
rastl
=
r-y)
time
imperial
records or documents
or other
[LINE 171 inscriptions
sees
(H.IZYTNt),
that one
(ZK) may
know
(YDWYTNt)
that I am that Kartir
(WNH
ZK
Kl=rtyl=r-y
H.IWHm),
who
under
Shahpuhr, king
of
kings, Kartir,
the
Mhrpat,
was called
(KV=RYTN
IWHm),
and under
Ohrmazd, king
of
kings,
and
Varahran, [LINE 18] king
of
kings, Kartir,
who
(is)
Ohrmazd's
magupat
I was
called,
and under
Varahran,
king
of
kings,
who
(is) Varahranson, Kartir,
who
(is)
B
kht-ravin-Varahrin,
who
(is)
Ohrmazd's
magupat,
I was
called,
and whoever this
inscription
sees
(H.IZYTNt)
and
may
read
(Wptpvl= rsat),
that one
(ZK)
to the
gods
and lords
(M
V= RW.I
YN)
and his own
spirit (fame
and
good name) straight (1= rat-y)
and true
(l=
rast-y) may
be
(ayv
or
3YK
YUIWWN),
that one
(ZK)
thus
('vgvn),
as
(cygvn)
I
[LINE 19]
have been
(YH.IWWN H.IWHm),
so that
( YK')
he for this
(LZNH, im;
notice use for
oblique case!)
bone-endowed
(astvnd-y)
body (tn-y.
This is the nearest we come to "Tansar" in this
inscription!) good
fame
(hvsl=
rvbyh.-y)
and fortune
(apaty
h-y)
attain
(YH.IMTWNt)
and he
(ap')
for
(WLH;
no such other
preposition
with
preceding LZNH)
the bone-
endowed
spirit
salvation
(al=
rtadyhi-y)
may
attain to
(MDM
YH.MTWNt)."
This
inscription clearly
sets at rest
many problems
and draws for us a new
and reliable
eyewitness picture
of what was called the
Mazdayasnian religion
and what became of it in the
early
times of the
Sasanian
empire
in Iran. It
also
opens
new
problems
and
plenty
of work other than "war work" for
willing
and able heads and hands. With the new
Shapur
finds above and about
it,
it
opens
a new era for the
reading
and
publication
of Pahlavi
inscriptions.
This
should be of the
greatest
interest to the
wealthy, able,
and honored Parsee
community
in India and elsewhere and furnish them a marvelous
opportunity
to do a
great piece
of work for the enhancement of the
glory
of their
story.
We show here in a
preliminary,
but sufficient
publication,
what these new
inscriptions are,
and what
they
contain and mean. This is done in the best
228 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SEMITIC LANGUAGES
and
cheapest possible way through publication
in a
periodical.
To do more
than this at the
present juncture
with our material alone would be
distinctly
unwise,
a waste of effort and
money.
This is the time to start a
Corpus
of
Pahlavi
inscriptions,
some of which are
published
in
places widely
scattered
and in
part
difficult of
access,
others in
prohibitively expensive tomes;
still
others lie
unpublished, though copied by hand,
in
photographs,
and in
squeezes,
in
single copies
inaccessible to the commonwealth of scholars. Pub-
lication in a
great corpus
is called
for,
but this cannot
any longer
be a one-man
job.
There
must,
of
course,
be an
editor-in-chief,
but for the rest there must
be a
committee,
and this must be world-wide. With interest in America re-
stricted to
relatively
few
people
and with the shattered state of American
finance in
general
and of
private
wealth in
particular,
it can
scarcely
be ex-
pected
that such an
undertaking
would be
started, financed,
and
managed
in
America. This is a
great opportunity
for the Parsee
community
to institute a
fine
piece
of work in
clarifying
and
establishing
the
great
truths of their
past
history,
which with
expanding knowledge
is
becoming
an ever
greater
and
more
important part
of universal human
history.
UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
February 29,
1940