BEITRAGE ZUR IRANISTIK Gegriindet von Georges Redard, herausgegeben von Nicholas Sims-Williams Band 42 Avzandnimé Adam Benkats WIESBADEN 2017 DR. LUDWIG REICHERT VERLAG Azandnamé An edition and literary-critical study of the Manichaean-Sogdian Parable-Book Adam Benkato WIESBADEN 2017 DR. LUDWIG REICHERT VERLAGBibliogrfiche Information der Deutschen Nationalhibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliochekverzeichoet dese Publikaion in der Deutschen Nationsbibliogeaie;detalierebibliografische Daten sind im Inert ber hep//deb dab de abrufba. (© 2017 Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag Wiesbaden ISBN: 978-3-95490-2361 ‘wwvrreicher-verlagde as Weck cnshelich leaner Tn wherechich chit Jed Verwersang auetal dx eagen Grenzen der Uiheberrecngsetzes is oe “Zsimmng der Veragerunlnig nd sraae _as gt nsbsonere far Vevliigngen Ubersewungen, MikroverSnungen ed di Spscrung un Weubting in eiroachen Systeme Godeocke st urlrciem Papier aerngbessndig pel) Printed in Germany Acknowledgments It is my great pleasure to dedicate @ few words of gratitude 1 those who lent me thoit knowledge and advice during the research which produced this book. My research on this text was begun asa doctoral student atthe School of Oriental and African Studies, Unive sity of London, and my doctoral supervisors, Almet Hintze and Nicholas Sims-Wiltams, ‘were instrumental in the completion ofthe resulting thesis. To Nicholas Sims-Williams, in particular, I am grateful for his tireless feedback, patient answering of queries both obscure and obvious, and many suggestions which have made this work mauch better. Frangois de Blois and Frantz Grenet also made several helpful suggestions during my doctoral examina- [extend my warmest thanks to the members of the Turfanforschung at the Berlin- Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften, First my hosts during several research Visits asa praduate student, then my colleagues, my work on ths text could not have been completed without their collegiality, expertise, and advice: Desmond Durkin-Meistererst, ‘Yukiyo Kasai, Susann Rabuske, Simone-Christiane Raschmann, Christiane Reck, and Ab- .. 324 Heterograms 3.2.5 Word Composition... 3.2.6 Particular Spelings 3.2.7 Punctuation vn 3.2.8 Corretion of Mistakes. 33 Grammatical sketch 331 Antide 33.2 Nouns and Adjectives 333 Verbs. 334 Notes on tenses ve 34 Conclusions ution of the Azandnime 4.1 Fragments of Parable of a Judge (AND). 42 Parable of the Religion and the Ocean (ANS-136) 43. Parableof the Two Snakes (ANI36-201) 44° Paratexts(ANe,c, ei. 44.1 Flrsttext: Ch’So 20503r (AN) 442 Scoond text: Ch/S0 20128 (ANGI). 44.3, The rest ofthe reeto(ANe) 444 They L' prt formula, 45 Other fgments ofthe Parable ofthe Religion and the Ocean 45.1 M7420 (ANey: Abstract in Manichaean sept 45.2 So 18070: A second version in Sogdian seript?. 15 Is 2 29 29 3 3 33 x a 4 36 36 37 38 a8 40 Al a3 a 0 0 ss 82 2 103 03 103, 07 42 voll 14a Azandaims 5. Textual commentary on the Azando 8m... S.A Introduction nnn 5.2 Parable ofthe Religion and the Ocean 52.1 Textual analysis 5.22 Adaptation of the Buddhist World-Ocean’ texts 53, Parable of the Two Snakes 53.1 Textual Analysis. 54 Parable of the hudge. 55 Conclusion 6. Interpreting the Manichaean Parables 6.1 Parables in Manichacan religious practice 62 Parables as didactic narratives. 63 Concluding thoughts Glossary ‘Menichacan parables in Iranian languages Bibliography. Index Verborum. Index Locorum, 47 47 120 122 136 145 146 136 156 139 163 164 169 im 190 194 207 209 ‘Table: Fed Fragments. ‘Table 2: Text of Chinese recto of AN, ‘Table 3: Line-numbering system ‘Table 4: Fnd-signanires Table 5: Manichaean fragments with Toyo find-signatures. ‘Table 6: Forms of selected letters in AN ‘Table 7: Characteristics ofthe World-Ovean, List of Tables Abbreviations and Conventions Languages Av. Avestan Bact, Bactrian Ch. Chinese EMC Early Middle Chinese Gk, Greek (Ancient) TE Indo-European Kot. Khotanese hw, Khwarezmian MP Middle Persian NP New Persian Ol, Old franian OP Old Persian Oss. Ossctic OTk Old Turkic (Uighur) Pub Parthian penance WMlr, West Middle Iranian Yagh. Yaghnobi Grammatical and other ab a a at, et, dem, £ gen imp ablative adjective adverb conjunction causative dative efiite demonsteative eminine genitive imperfect Sogdian Conventions vzoe imp. inde. Buddhist Sogdien Christian Sogdian “Manichaean Sogdian Sogdian (script) imperative indefinite infinitive intransitive literally ‘masculine mile (voiee) ‘manuseript(s) preterite 19 21 4 30 13910 num, — number pron. pronoun bl. oblique sl. paststem opt. optative pic. partsiple par. particle ut tansitve pass, passive (voice) R rect pl plural sg. singular pot. potential Vo weno pp. past participle yee. vocative pres, present (tense) ‘The following conventions are used in the text edition: [xyz] = restored letters, (xy2) = uncertain reading of panially preserved or unclear letters, proximate number of ‘missing or illegible letters,» 7+ = punctuation marks (see section 3.2.7). In the apparatus, the following conventions should be noted: WS = a reading of Sunderman, BT 15; DMT = ‘reading or correction of the DMT; NSW = a reading or correction of N. Sims-Willisms published in either BT 15 or in Yoshida (1988); YY ~ reading or correction of Y. Yoshida in Yoshida (1988) Finally, in the translation and commentary, note the following conven tions: (5) = approximate point at which eg. line S ofthe Sogdian text begins: (word) = an English word supplied for ease of translation; [word] = a Word restored in the Sogdian text 1. Introduction ‘The discovery of Manichaean sources from Central Asia happened in a reatively short period of time, but the recovery of Manichaean discourse as preserved in those sourees has ben @ much longer process. As with any ancient or medieval community, tha discourse is only known tous through the texts let behind. And although the texts are now available to modem scholars, understanding them is not always a sirsginfinwaud process. The chal= lenges are manifold: unknown scripts and languages, a hitherto unknown religion with its unique perspective and practies, and in the case of the Central Asian soures, extreme damage tothe texts. Making these unique primary sources available to the scholarly world has proceeded fragment by fragment, heginning wit their deipherment and building upon accompanying historical linguistic research, As these sources have become beet under- ‘ood, scholars have discovered what the Manichaeans themselves lad to say about their religion—a religion that had, until the tventieth century, only been known from polemicel ecounts, Over the past century, the editing and translation of Manichacan texts has taken various forms united by an essentially philological approach, This approach, in Jason BeDubn’s upt formulation, is “concerned with translating Man- Jehacan testimony into a comprehensible body of literature” (BeDulin 2001, $). This disci> pline, which may be called "Manichacan philology”—to attempt to popularize a term—is, then, one that ranges fiom deciphering a text to producing a translation that adheres to a standardized terminology. Though BeDuhn and others have rightly pointed ou tha the only sources ftom which We can know anything about the Manichaeans ar textual, those textual sources include not only the primary sources, but are also modem scholar” editions of ‘Manichacan texts. As the medievalist Stephen Nichols notes, “editions are indeed one of the principal ways that medieval lierary artifacts survive into our time, and editing them is certainly a major vehicle for institutionalizing them within the academy” (Nichols 1994, 114), Speaking mostly of medieval European philology, Nichols emphasizes that editing tents is offen seen to be the most important practice of philology, and hence to some it ‘would seem self-evident that a text edition is a worthwhile undertaking—a claim which I larly do not intend to contest. It has also been true for scholars of Manichaeism that text- ‘editing isa main concern; as Sunderman once noted, “it goes without saying tht the ei tioa of texts is and remains forthe foresceable future the prime task of Turfan philology” (2009, 263) To that end even those scholars of Manichacism who would not sel identity as linguists of even philologists have also published editions of fragments. Every scholar Who has edited a Manichaean text has realized that, because of the poor state of preserva tion of our texts, there isnot great resemblance with other philological pracices. The re- semblance resides mainly, to understate the poin, inthe fac that there are manuscripts and ‘we want fo edi them. For example, as discussed in ereater depth shor, critical editions of Manichaean texts are rarely if ever possible, while in other fields, including other Iranian textual traditions such asthe Avestan and Pahlavi, they are the norm. ‘One of the main concems of those working withthe primary Manichaean sources has been the reconstruction and recovery of aspects of Manichaean doctrine or practice, as much as is possible on the basis ofthe fragmentary texts. One can therefore not exclude from a disetssion of *Manichaean philology” the fact that some of the most successful applications thereof are actually not only the establishment of editions of iniividual texts but also the recovery of aspects of Manichacan doctrine and practice by a painstaking pro- cess of editing and comparing many texts i different languages. This has resulted in the2 Aaandaine successful reconstruction of, for example, the Msnichacan commandments for Plect and for Hearers and the Manichaean daily prayers! To those whose fields have an overabundance ‘of fully. preserved textual witnesses this may seem abit strange. Bu it must be emphasized that, for Manichacism, in most cases no discussion of doctrine, depiction of ritual or even piece of literature is completely or unambiguously preserved. As a result, one of the most {important recent studies of Manichacism and perhaps the most successful employment of the Manichacan philological method is BeDubn's reconstruction and analysis of the central ritual ofthe religion: the dily meal of the Manichaean Flee. BeDubn's stay attempts t0 situate the textual sources ina historical community by recensructing the disciplines and ritual systems to which they attest, “Manichaean phifology” therfore can be said to have ‘to goals that are simultaneous and inform each other: to translate the testimony of the sources, and io extract from the sources information about thei historical context The editing of Manichaean (especially ranian) texts must deal with «central methodo- logical problem: the ffagmentary condition of the sources. The history of Manichaesn ‘communities and corresponding chance preservation of Manichacan texts means that most ‘manuscripts have been reduced to fragments of varying size in varying, but never complete, slates of preservation. In ther damaged condition it i uncommon to find multiple frag ‘mens containing overlapping text, much less multiple witnesses of a tet. I has often been ‘noted that, given the length of time that Manichaean communities survived in Central Asia in panicular, nd the sheer volume of the surviving fragments of books, itis reasonable to assume that most texts in fact existed in multiple copies and have since been lost, de- strayed, or damaged. But that assumption, reasonable as itis, does litle for text editing practices; since multiple copie of texts are preserved only rarely, the default method of text, citing is therefore “diplomatic"—only a single witness is edited. It does nevertheless hap- pen that overlapping fragments, even of some length, are found. But in fact this usually {does not result in ertical edition, atleast in the form those take in Avestan, Pablavi, oF ‘medieval European text-edting practices. For example, when Henning (1945) published the {wo witnesses of the “Parable of the Pearl-Borer"—one in Manichacan script and one in Sogdian seript—he set them side-by-side but did not attemp: to collate them into a single “text Even in cases where fragments from more than a dozen different manuscript copies ‘of a text ate known to exist the resulting edition is still not aritical one, but is more accu rately refered 10 as “compiled”, to use Sundermann’s tem, because the fragments do not ‘overlap completely and the text can only be pieced together (usually with gaps) from malt ple non- or panially-overlapping fragments “Most editions of Sogdian texts—Buddhist, Christan, Manichaean, and “secular ‘economic documents or inscriptions) alike—are “diplomatic” by default, a there is only ‘one extant witness. In certain eases, notably the Buddhist aod Christian, the Sogdian wit- nesses are translations from known Chinese and Syriac souces, respectively. This means that new ot unusual words, forms, and syntax can often be interpreted with confidence by ‘comparison with the source ofthe translation, As Manichaeas Sogdian docs to some extent ‘consist of translations, there is also the possibility—though perhaps a likely as hoping for multiple Sogdian witnesses of one text—that both the source and the Sogdian translation fare extant. A few such cases have indeed been found, such as fragments of the Sogdian 7 See Sime Wiliams 19856 far te commande sn de Bl 2000 fr be daly pape. ‘See Stenson (991, 108 and (200% 20m whee he es sme examples of efor wick ere tne aounber of wines, ne compete ily pene 1 introduction b translation ofthe Parthian Huywdagmdn hymn-eyele and fragments of the Sogdian transla- tion of Mani's Middle Persian Living Gospel. Interestingly, it seems that no bilingual Man- ichacan manuscripts (that is, one manuscript containing the same text in two different lan ‘gauges) fom Turfun are attested (excepting Sogdian-Old Turkic worists), eventhough a ‘numberof miscellanies containing diferent texts in different languages ate now known. ‘Another related issue is actually reading the fragments. Many in both Manickaean and Sogdian script, though more so the former, ate often of a high quality and very carefully waitten, so that what is preserved can be read quite reliably. The main problem with the Sogdian scrip is tha, being cursive seript, many letters fll togethe in later manuseripts land cannot be easily distinguished from each other. Very often simply reading 2 word means deciding which combination of leters is more correct or more explainable, with tlicanative possible readings relegated to the apparatus or commentary. Such eases involve an editorial judgment made on the basis of philological, linguistic, o eodicological argu rments—this judgment does not corect an error onthe basis of other witnesses of the same text, but appeals to completly different manuscript inorder to establish the most probable reading of a given word, The editing actin these instances ean be considered “eclectic despite the overall edition being a “diplomatic” one. Even reliable manuscripts nevertheless contain variation in spellicg,seibal errors, and inconsistencies. In some cases it ean be established that a form is an error for an expected form, and the reasons for that error might be explainable. But in some cases no explanation is tobe found. Following diplomat practice, the edited texts usually contain no emenda- tions, but present the tex (in transliteration) as tis found in the manuscript, with unclear {orm and inconsistencies noted inthe apparatus and explained in the commentary. Howev= cr, even the processes of commenting and translating involve comparing the forms attested jn one text with parallels in other manuseripts in order to analyze them in the light ofthe (Sogdian, Parthian, ete.) language ab a whole, The edition, therefore, is never a work con- tained only ever within a single manuscript but rather always brings individual readings from other manuscripts into play. Nevertheless, the main advantage of our default “diplo- ‘matic” practice shouldbe clear: the resulting edition i a closer zopresentative of the histori- cal reality of the text than eritical or even compiled editions which in the end present a reconstructed text that probably never existed in that form. This shifts the Focus for us from the text as an object abstracted from any manuscript reality to the manuscript itself asthe ‘material and historical representative ofthe text it contains The present study attempts to Tocate a particular Manichaean manascrpt inthe cultural and religious context svhich produced, used, and transmitted it, It approaches the manu script not simply asthe vehicle conveying a particular text, but rather asa material artifact ‘conveying a particular literature stemming ftom ahistorical contet. I this, it aims fo bring ‘material philology to bear on Manichaean texts, moving away from the predominantly linguistic aspect of textual study to an empbasis on the manuscript ané discovering how itis ‘representative of the manuscript culture in which it was produceé. Broadly stated, the ‘manuscript raises @ variety of problems and questions—the relationship between text and paratext, the issucs of literacy and orality, the historical question of patronage and mani4 Kaandadne script production, problems of paleography and codicology, to name a few—but also ‘evokes questions about the historical moments) which produced and reproduced it? ‘Yet the historical realty of a text that we purport approximate in our editions is one in which we are also caught up. We can never surmount the problem that we, far removed fiom the original context ofthe manuscript, must continuously rely on our own judgment, ‘as well-informed as it may be, to decide which of multiple possible readings we will up- hold. These are editorial decisions tht in the end may not accurately reflect the text as it ‘Mani reportedly proclaimed: “The previous religions only existed in one country and one language, bat my rcligion is of the kind tha it will be manifest in every country and in all languages, and it will be taught in far away countries" If we acknowledge that text eating. is the central practice in recovering Manichaean testimony, we must also ‘acknowledge that we stand in an interesting positon in elation tothe sources we edit. After all, Mani wanted his writings to be promulgated jn all languages and the historical Mani- chacan communities certainly pursued this goal. By editing Manichacan texts, we not only further the survival of Manichaean literary artifacts, but also further the self-professed goal of those texts by adding English, German, French and several other modern languages to the Tanguages in which Manichacan texts exis. In ther words, for us, the production of a text edition can be said to be as “Manichaean” as itis “philological”. * Seeespesilly Nicol 197, 10-14 for autas of teri hilo! pracie and Nols 1994, 126-36 for ‘mor specie demonstaton of mati pilelogy appl parole itn. orth ia ing of atl ply ten fered anne” poe, see be pes ss of Spec (1950) “roo te Mile Pern veron othe Ten Pots ashton fom Grcne-Lieu 204, 10. 2. The manuscript and its context ‘The manuscript now known as the Parable-Book (Sogdian Zzand.ndmé, henceforth AN) is «relatively well preserved seroll containing Manichaean parables written in the Sogdian script and language, At over two hundred lines long altogether its the longest continuous “Manichaean text in Sogdian so far known, though hardly rivaling texts the length of the [Buddhist Sogdian Vessantars-Jataka (1,800 lines extant) or the Christian Sogdian E27 (pars of 120 folios extant). This fact should help give some appreciation of the state of ‘Manichacan textual afuirs end one of the main reasons thatthe edition and study of the better-preserved examples of Manichaean Sogdian literature isa worthwhile endeavor. This work presents a much-needed new edition ofall known fragments of the Parable-Book, supplied not only with overviews ofits oxthography’ and grammar and linguistic commen aries, but also an extended literary-critcal study of the lext within the context of Mani cchtean literature ‘Although the fragments of the Parable-Book were discovered in Turfan in the early 19005, they disappeared and were unknown to scholars of Sogdian and Maniehacism until the 1970s, when Wemer Sunderman became aware of a Chinese scroll (Ihe Sogdian verso ‘of which had not been identified as such) which was retumed to the Turfan archive by a ‘conservator, Sundermann identified the non-Chinese side es Sogdian, but soon realized that, ithad never been published nor cited, He was then direced to the Nachlass of Wolfeang. Lentz atthe University of Marburg.! In Lent’ Nachlass, Sundermann found that there were in fact four preliminary studies ofthe text by early scholis, none of which had ever seen the light of day: 1) An exact handwritten copy of ines 9-162 (omitting 69-70) made by A. von Le Coq, probably the discoverer of the seroll, forthe henefit of F-W.K. Miller, undat- ced; 2) A series of transcriptions and notes of individual words made by Maller on the basis ‘of Le Cog's copy, undated; 3) A transcription in Hebrew letters of lines 9-201, with a translation of some lines, and a preliminary report prepated by Lentz in 1924; 4) A tran- scription in Latin letters of lines 9-201 with translation 9f 9-155 and 188-201 made by Lent in 1939." The dates imply tht Lentz may have had access to the text as late as 1939 (iPhis tran scription dated then was based on a new reading). In 1935, all of the manuscripts in Bern were packed away and secured in various places, eventually to be returned after the war,’ Te is not clear when the scroll was returned to the Akademie and then sent for conservation, ‘ut it was at any rate included with the Chinese rather than the Iranian fragments, which ‘explains why it originally had the signature Ch 584, It was perhaps even originally kept ‘Wotan Lent (1900-1986) was of couse, a younger cotrpary af Mle’ a ne of the as sen ing nk wt techs gern of th scolar fhe Tarn mater. pote ws, Sande ‘muon enphasies, "the ony schol who cul ave ha knowl ofthe Taran colton i i re-nar st” (MPB, 8. Not tht wht glen ne 9 caetpan ine in his elton awa in at he Fst eof he Se staan intone a, For deci of what appt vious gents ding an ae he wa ler Boye 1960, 2416 Kaandnae ‘with the Chinese fragments, and hence not photographed for W. B. Henning inthe 1930s along with the oer Iranian fragments * "As Sundermann relates (BT 15, 7-9), the older notes that he found were sil valuable, ‘especialy since they revealed that in 1924 and perhaps even in 1939, there was slightly more text preserved om the damaged edges of the scroll than there was in 1970. In the meantime, the main part ofthe seroll had broken in wo pieces and was not restored in the correct order but with the two pieces switched, a state in whieh it remains today. Sunder- ‘mann began working onthe text aleeady at that time, but as he was simultaneously working fon a number of major texts he was not able to complete his work om it for more than dec ade. By virtue of his broader work in the Turfan archives, Sundermsnn was able not only t0 supplement the rediscovered long fragment with two more fragments which precede the original long fragment without a break, but also to identity two further fragments which belong to the sime scroll (Though he was unable to determine their order relative to the ‘main fragment) He als identified a thin paper stip, cu from a Chinese serol, which con- tains an abstract in Menichaean script ofthe first parable. After receiving a numberof eom- ‘mens from both Hiya Gershevitch and Nicholas Sims-Williams, Sundermann finally pub lished, in 1985, approximately 80 years after its discovery, the text ofall the known frag~ ‘ments ofthe scroll inthe “Berliner Turfantexte" series. This publication included a glosa~ 1y, brief discussion ofthe contents, and appendix by Friedmar Geitler containing a discus- sion of folkloric motif ‘Sundermann’s edition of AN received two substantial reviews, one by Yutaka Yoshida (1988) which focused on philological and linguistic issues, and one by Wolf Oerter (1988) ‘which dealt with some thematic and terary issues. Yoshida’s review, which also included some further comments of Sims-Williams, improved @ number of readings and translations ofthe Sogdian text; furthermore, Yoshida was able to identify the text on the Chinese side of the smaller fragmens, In recent yours, futher fragments belonging to the seroll have been found, From the Berlin Turfan collection Yoshida identified two fragments (part of sroup of fragments that had been stored in Leipzig but only retumed to Berlin in 1993), ‘while across the world, his work on the fragments from Turfin housed in the Otani collec- tion in Japan brought a further, much smaller fragment to light® Yoshida (1999, 195) was then able to place all of the fragments in their correct order onthe bass ofthe Chinese text ‘of the fragments’ original recto sides. Finally, Christiane Reck (2006, 178-79) also ident fied another fragment in Sogdian script which seemingly preserves part ofthe parable of the World-Oeean, but from a different manuscript altogether. AII the fragments of and related to the ‘Parable-Book’ are decried in detail in section 2.2 and edited in chapter 4 “The past two deeades have seen further corrections and improvements on Sundermana’s original readings, not only in disparate articles and reviews, but also in individual entries of The tempted to ack own the aera of Let th Sunderman conse in Marr, however wih tose The chive ainsi Mati at oo ae 20 lng aware of ay popes of Lent ep there Assn them, Lent “hndachilche Nahi” ha een eto the Abs Universe in Den Ink However Autos posses 0 Nac of Lot sich a ony ema pein bsp {oe Mino Kush The sought for maison he Parbie-ok ae also note Be oun among Lenz por inthe Univers of Hanbury oor among Sudern’s papers 0m i he possi the Tun- Faschane My hank o Casa Lindh Rent Steer Raab Mab, Nik Are Peden of Aa ‘ns Lie Pal of Hanbug and Chistne Rec l of whom bed me ok fr bes materials See Rok 2006, 112) for dein of ani fom Leip and IFOC, 152 fr he insti pubic Son ofthe Ot fapment soning thst. 2'The manascri nd its context " Inajor reference works such a5 the Dictionary 2f Manichacan Texts. Moreover, since ine ‘uit and philological esearch on Sogdian has been continuously advancing inthe past three decades, various studies have improved our understanding of indvidasl passages Simattneously, the publication of Manichacan texts has inereased manifold” 18 thus ‘efi, ftom the point of view of both Sogdian linguistics and Manichaean literature, 10 fave a new and updated edition ofthe Parable-3ook, gathering all corectons and updates ina single place while adding further ones based on a new reading ofthe original man sexpt This wll have the benefit of allowing ol, erencous readings and some misleading translations to be discarded, while providing 4 fresh translation that canbe the basis of focused linguistic and literary studies. While @ new edition can surely be considered a de- sidertum, i must be said tat the aforemeatioed reasons slone ae not the mest compel- Ting, fr tac any alla wil» yun Kun lage uf Sogdian snl Matches Irate could, with time, put together heir own working eton ofthis text. Sundrmann was te fist scolar working os Iranian Manichacan texts to conceive of the parables as a Manichacan literary gene in thr own righ, and in ft aso the fist to systematically employ the texts” own lierary-stgorcal terms (in particular “parable for and) in his studies However despite these ahievemets, he devoted comparatively less aucaion tothe elucidation and literary analysis the parable than he dito his important editions of Manichacan texts. That Sunderman was no doubt eapable of such work is evie dent ftom his lengthy, and methodologically comparable, literary analysis of Manichacan texs containing historical information Moreoer, t should not o unmentioned that he tad indced made preliminary investigations in the content and eoxposion ofthe para ‘bles ais clear ftom the prefaces wo his editions of some Middle Persian and Parthian part- ‘bles (1973, 8) aswell as AN (MDPB, 5-10), besides the section on parables in his paper on Manichacan prose iteratur (1984, 236-38), Hisedtion ofthe Parable-Book, however, only included brief comments en some ofthe context ofthe texts, mostly in footnotes, besides Geifle's appendix discussing motifs in the pale ofthe “Two Snakes’ (apud MPB, 59. 67), The origins of the two main parables of AN remained opaque forthe time, but fe- tnermore, an analysis of how the parables exphined aspects of Manichaean doctrine or in ‘what ways they exemplified and could shed fight onthe gare of parables in Manichacan literature was absent. The review of Oerer (198) highlighted some ofthe Manichaeen themes ofthe Parable-Book in connection with the Coptic sources, but only bref. Sun ermann di of course retura periodically to philological and text-rtial problems arising fiom the pales in these regards one can refer espevaly to his analysis of the term 1st we Gonsolation’ oecurting in Talel or his paper laying out some ofthe Buddhist pae- “Tis ncades to eta f AN a ete by Suaderann i andooks of Manica ext The ist is by Han Joachim Km (1993, 1749), wich seen ew tain of Shdemann' Gran i lation, an he con by Elo Proves 2008) whi, nagh no inhing a new ea, sens rs nthe rg Soin, See Sunde’ plein dscusin of he cteon of Macaca erste (19) and the xpd English eon heen 00H) ‘Sutera ert eed he ets which eine at sich (BT 1) thn in eter ser of pbs (is Suton ur rchengscihichen rar der icon Manche) provide ting tn ery de ‘ale, commentary on thsi detals of he ex1s Azania allel tothe ‘Parable of the Religion and the Ocean’ in AN. However, until now the text has lacked a thorough and comprehensive literary study. ‘A number of unanswered questions have hung over the study of the Manichaean par ables, Why and by whom were such texts created? What didactic, enteraining, o literary ‘purpose di they serve? How were they used, and for whom were they intended? In my pinion, these questions can only be answered by the text-citical analysis ofthe parables ttemscves, The best text on Which to base such an analysis is none other than AN, primar ly beeause ofits Jength, but also because two stylistically rather different parables are ex- tant, On the one han its many unique words and examples of syntax are valuable not only for Sogdian linguistics, but also for Manichaean terminology in Sogdian. On the other hand the length of each parable means that they are fiutful round for inferextual analy sis, as Coldit (2015) has already demonstrated. Anew study of AN must sherefure Dlaee these opportunites. Indeed, in philological work on Manichaean texts, the linguistic and literary approaches are inexticable from one another, This study therefore attempts 9 pro- ‘vide as well-rounded an approach othe text as possible on the basis of the idea that « man- “setipt docs not only provide linguistic details, but also can tell us about its context, while ‘Smullancously contextualizng the works it contains. The study begins from a codicolog al and linguistic analysis of the manuscript as a whole (Chapter 3), sltempting fo shed light ‘on ths content in which it was produced, The focal point of the study i, naturally, the new fad apdated edition of the text (Chapter 4), furnished with commentaries which focus ‘main y on addressing problems of linguistic analysis and translation, wit atfention to more ‘eneal issues of Sogdian linguistics where appropriate. The new edition is taken as the basis ofthe following text-ritical commentaries on each parable (Chapter 5). These com- _meataresattenp, in the frst pace, to provide an exhaustive literary analysis by highlight- ing intertextual motif, unpacking references to cosmology and eschatology, and comparing paralels in style and diction, They also constitute exercises in source eitcism, one for a ‘Manichaca text that has extant aon-Manichaean parallels, and another for a txt which has rnone and may not even be an adaptation ofa single text as such. final discussion (Chap- {er 6) atempis to address some of the issues that arise from this typeof study and in its turn ‘address some of the questions posed atthe beginning of this paragraph while dispelling ‘older notions ofthe parables as mere “tales” of no religious importance. The edition ofthe Sogdian text is completed with a glossary, while the issue ofits historical content is provid- ‘ed by a brief historical discussion regarding the Manichacan commanity of Toyog (section 23). 2.1 Description of the manuseript “The corect order of the fragments constituting the Parable-Book was adduced by Yoshida ‘on tke basis ofthe Chinese text of the recto for those fragments published by Sundermann (1988, 148) and then agin (2001, 195) for fragments later discovered to belong to the text It ean also be seen from the Chinese sides thatthe last Line of Otani 7543 belongs “derma (998) and (199) espectey Tale is ore thn ely a Manisha tx. Sunderman Showed by his esse of mer, even Gough te Minchaan expansion tht wood ave been p= ‘vedi he pion ot. Sdemann’s sett Manicica epnyhios, oh sigh oy ‘bits hype "Se Yeh 148 4 othe omer gop and 2001 195 forthe ter rep 2-The manwsrip and its context, » with the fist line of Ch/So 20128, though there is small horizontal gap between them (eck 2006, 26). Two other relevant fragments ftom different manuscripts are also edited here" ‘Table [: Fated Fragments" "Seelforms no. | Sis (an) | Comments ma] Ouanis43 | 5x43 R'Ch ext TOC, 152 Vi SiinesofSogd Giiso20128—9Sx1S— Ce TS ws Vines ofSopd. | ANG TGusomHT TLS PRC | V.otines of Sons Ch/So 20199 Ax I7 | Re Ch. text BT 1S as | [Wettne orSoed, AN GBONTT — OGRE REC text with Sop. | — ' V2 lines of Sop | | hiv ooias 177x228 | ReCh text with Sogd BT IS R | Ohiso 150005) | + V:=200 lines of Sogd. as ANe = ChiS020182 370x264 V-BT IS 1s AND So 18070 3x5 R: Sogd. |= | | V: Soad. | I iad | | | M7420 [2xSS PE Ch tex BTiS | V:26lines of Sogd. | ANE. Reconstructed length: ~4.35m Reconstructed wideh:—26dem All fragments are preserved under glass with the exception of ChiSo 20182, the greater part of the scroll, which is reinforced with translucent Japanese paper and stored in a rol-case. The scroll tsel is made of ight broven paper, originally with Chinese written on one side and the ofher side blank, later used forthe Sogdian. The Sogdian scripts rather large and cursive, in black ink, not particularly neatly written, though not difficult to read either. The lines are broadly spaced, but quite regularly, with roughly one line per 1.7 em, There ino lining of the margin oe text-lines. Apat from the very damaged intial section ofthe serol, nama puked ater his eon of he srl, Sunde ted sl rages, Cho 17000), whe be supecretabeleg the Parable Book (1991, 247) However te ext on the Chine sid tha fapment dor ota sch 8 entieto oe Reck 206, 15) sn intel ere Digi images of al he rapmnt in the Brin cll may e conse eine athe Digs Torin ‘Archiv etn Now dl),1» rane most lines are almost completely preserved. The entire text seems to bein the same hand. Some of the notes and scribbles on the Chinese side are not ina distinguishably different hand, but some lines are in a different hard and writen with @ thinner pen. The only dis- ‘crepancy is one line of ted Sogdian seript written perpendicular tothe Chinese text, In se¥= feral places one can see where sheets of paper were glued together by the original pa- permakers to form and extend the length of the seroll; such joins are visible on the frag- ‘ments Ch’So 20503 at VS and ChvSo 20511 between V1 and V2 as well asin many places fon Ch/So 20182. "rom the order of the shortr fragments lof whiel proved te mi figment, it ap- pears thatthe seroll was discovered rolled up, or that perhaps it was stored and transported rolled up, which caused the outer layers to break off fst resulting in & numberof frag. ‘ments a8 well as damage tothe initial section of the main fragment. I is not known if the fragments were found with the scroll though one presumes that they would have originally been transported together had this been the case. One can also infer, from the regular pat tem of teers on the edges of the papcr (which occur from the beginning of ChiSo 20182+ up to about line 47), that it was damaged while still rolledup." From that point until the ‘manuscript breaks off at about ine 202, the rest of the text is relatively well preserved. FFven the damaged beginning of the scroll may he restored with some confidence by com- parison with other pats ofthe text, Its uncertain if the Sogdian text ofthe sroll orginally fended where the scroll ends aow, of whether it would have continued. Since there is no explicit formula for the final parable, and since the known Chinese text continues, it probable that there was mote Sogdian text ater what is curently preserved. (On the whole the edition presented here isa diplomatic one based on a single witness, with the exception that part ofthe text i diplomatic with recourse toa partial witness, the abstract, Table 2: Text of Chinese recto of AN Fragment "Feat oF Rect inthe Taisho Tasik Otani 7543, Vol.9p. 70282527 ChiS0 20128 Vol. 9p. 702e! (ChiSo 20511 Vol. 9p. 702¢5 — 9 (approx.) [Cho 20199 Vol. 9p. 702¢12— 17 approx.) So 20503 ‘Vol. 9 p. 702226 ~29 ChiSo20182¢ ‘Vol.9 p. 70362 — 705a ‘The Chinese text preserved on the recto of the Parable-Book fragments i indicated in Table 2. Since the Chinese tex is known and can be compared withthe corresponding text in the Taishd Triptaka (Losaiky8) which provides a woeful line-numbered reference, this gives an idea of how many columns of Chinese are missing between fragments, which in tur gives 1 rough idea of how many’ lies of Sogdian text are missing between the fragments (see ‘Kudara 2000, 340-342), The Chinese text of the recto contains the 48" chapter of the Da faa guang, fo hua yan jing oF Buddhavaxamsatasita, As isthe case with all Sogdian texts ssl wih sia ear ao sgn tat wa damaged while il led phe mint man ‘sei 1 TB 65:0 (Leer A) orn Bezklon whieh se Gul 2005, 180 2 The manuserpt and its context a ‘written on the versos of Chinese scrolls, the Sogdian and Chinese texts have no relationship With one another. Considering thatthe two fully preserved parables are 131 and 65 lines long, respective- ly itis likey that the closely-grouped fragments preceding the main pat ofthe scroll, total= ing pethaps 40 lines including text and gaps, all belong to the same, partially preserved, parable. On that basis I edit them together, with a new system of Hine numbering for ease of reference. The line numbers of the main part (AN) as well as ANe are unchanged from ‘Sundermann's edition, The text on the Chinese recto edited as ANe by Sunderman is also sven nev linc numbers, for reasons explained in scetion 44, The ine numbering system of the present edition is show inthe following table ‘Table 3: Line-numbering system Fragment [Now Line Numbers Ova Line Numbers Onan 7583 Ayia | Cchiso 20128 any TANAI-S s ANB “I ChiS0 20199 __avjie20 ANaL-7 “cso 20503 AN)21-27 ‘ChiU 6914 + ChiSo ANj 28-3 1 “1500065 ANDI-202 | cho 20182 mt iso 20508 = (ChiSo 20182 r ~TANeL-5, 10-26 In is initial work on the text, Sunderman discovered thatthe thre fragments comprising the main part of the scroll had, either initially or inthe years sinee their discovery, been assigned conflicting find-signatures. Table 4: Find-signatures eee ISS use 20085) Tins aan Ta Chi 015 lr CH) Tia ‘ChiSo 20199" ~~ TuT 184 coecames PrIrrieas isons rman ‘ChiSo 20503 Pr. ~ | T2083 =s ia rire ‘There are several discrepancies tobe noted. First, the longest fragment (Ch/So 20182) bears «find signature D indicating a ind-ite of Qocho (D = Dakiens-Sabr, referring tothe ruins of Qoeho), during the second expedition, while the find-signatures of the other two fag2 Azan ments which join it without # bwcah would indicate a findsite of Toyog during the third ‘expedition! The fragments Ch/So 20199 and Ch’So 20128 bath have find-signatres indi- ‘ating Toyog, second expedition, It seems unlikely that the serall was broken apart and left in two sites many kilometers distant from each ther." Asa signature D only appears once, it appears to be an erroneous exception.” Secondly, two ofthe fragments beara signture T LT), meaning the third Turfan expedition (1906-1907) with ¢find-site of Tayog, But as Sundermann rightly notes te reports only mention te finding of Manichaean manuscripts in Toyoq during the second expedition (though iti also true that at the time of the third ‘expedition, the Manichaean contents ofa text would not have necessarily been identified on the spot), As will be noticed, he fragment M7420, containing an abstract of one parable, hha the signature TIT, indicating, if correct, that it was found during the second expedi- tion in Toyoq, Sundermana (J991b, 285) argued that che most grobable scenario would be that all fragments of the seoll were found in Toyog during the second Turfan expedition (1904-1908), However, itis not impossible thatthe fragments marked T IE (T) were in- deed found by the thitd expedition in the same location as the Fagment inthe Otani colle tion was found separately fom the fragments found by the German expeditions" 2.2. The texts from Toyoq ‘An overview ofthe archeological, historical, and textual eviderce regarding the Manichae- ‘an sources ftom Toyoq is worth undertaking, with the intention of problematizing some ‘isting assumptions and balancing what is know. Owing tothe nature ofthe source mate- Fil, atempting an in-depth study of the historical religious communities of Tayoq would be difficult and require much more attention o recent archeological work than can be pro= vided here. But since an investigation of the Manichaean aspect of the history of Toyoq is lacking in the academic literature itis hoped that the following discussion will at east be ‘Useful in better siouating the context ofthe Parable-Book, Tn contrast to the more numerous finds at Qocho'” the Manichaean manuscript frag- iments so far discovered at Toyog’,a small settlement about 20 km to the east of Qocho, tothe wor of Sunderman israel ht he asp of te Sande [Parbe-Book] ean tom opie ty some ive pople td nthe ops and aside ocho” (1991, 28 Sindemann hare sgge hat he "ue" ed by Mary Boy=i in ob, pr D* Baye 1960, 2x. 2 ray ave ee pled Its even pout, a8 N. SimeNillans sass 10 m5, that the min yr of the sol, Heng = we rene pecimes may lave ben tought in Gos by pope who wou! have tought i ow Tyo: One ‘oui ope hs to ave een meted inthe records bua he see ond ‘Goto err works writen Cho or Khoo) fhe ua Scholtyspeling, ut ic at etal the menporay pice nme, The curent ae fe iy sn moder Ligh gare on spelled Kar aan Cine EB yo-hang. To be re specie, Kerja is he moder ty white ris srt to es Daan Sogdian tas cil cnt [nha tal Chines at DMT 8). Although Tamla (207,10) ses hat ake in 33 Taran wa er th Sogn he ‘Chinese wn camo ind ny ifr his ai, athe eres Sop aetna rae is in = Spin cot aed 69 CE ea cesta be ed ea mites of Hamas die Fis in ery fans of Cena dia, 199, 43% of the date fhe Aacet Let and Upp is rai. 2 The manuscript and its context a are far fewer in number, Toyoa seems 19 have hosted sites of importance for various rei- tious communities for centuries, and in modem times Toyog isa pilgrimage ste for Uighur Muslims. Buta number of other traditions seem to have existed there, as indicted by the numberof caves with religious art that have been atributed to both Buddhist and Mani chaean communities.” However, the history of the Manichacan community at Toyog, and indeed those of the other peripheral sites within Turfan such as Bezeltik and Sangim, is much less understood than that of the Manichaean community of Qocho, itself also not clearly documented. “Manichaean texts were found at Toyog during the second German Turfan expedition. “The accounts ofthe German excavations in Toyoq are quite general but do give the impres- sion that all the manuscript finds there came from a singe site: a so-called “library room” jn a ruined monastery “filled with great heaps of old manuseripts"—in particular, “fag. ‘ments of Manichaean, Syriae, Sogdian, and Uighur books and scrolls” This is trom Al- bert von Le Coa’s deseriptions ofthe finds descriptions that postdate the actual expedition and are repeated nearly verbatim in ll his various acvouns. The Acta of the Turfan expedi- tions ate unforsunately not much clearer, and the best detail [have been able to find is & leter of von Le Coq’s (dated 29.10.1905, during the second expedition) giving a very gen cra list of 49 items brought from Toyog” It is therefore no longer possible to atiribute fragments 10 specific locations within Toyog. Beeause of this insufficient description and the fact thatthe system of find-signatures was prone 1 mislabeling or no labeling at al, itis furthermore difficult be completely sure which fragments were actually found in Toyoq. and which were not. One can attempt to reconstruct larger picture of the texts tobe at- tsbuted to Toyog, but the atempe must rely on different cries ‘There are of course fragments which bear a Toyog find-signature, Furthermore, it has ‘often been mentioned tht a feature of the Manichacan texts from Toyoa is thatthe prevail ing book format isthe seroll (contrary to Qocho where the dominant format is the codex), and that in particular these are Chinese scrolls which have been re-used to write & new text Tepe ko Tapa, Toyo, oe Toy) he ws speing in sholary work. The mee Vig fr s fa, aa lt fre ty gi Toyo ale” appess in 13-couary Uighur Badhist anus (bas 210.705, Fran exe det ceesin of tha the Manchaea aves of Toyog, Bezel an Sangin, and siwunnn of whsther te Maihsean caver recede nail wih he Bist oo see Chao 196. ‘See Boyce 1960, vi far eferenoe ovo Le Cos scot of he epeos, 6 el asthe quotations reseed re ny ants om he Geran. Apprety TDs, he only pesca opal al four Tarn expedition was oot preset the estan of Tepeg. Ae reg teste, von Le Coq's tet postin he apnets wee fund tn Sunderman’ (etemiss) wordy, the remarkable ea of Be ‘oettons a eet desi rom acacia pat iw" (991, 283, See Boyce 1940 aan fra deception of thease” finite api by the exces and ler ere The Misco fr Asiiche Kan, Bein nd BBAW graciously permite me acest the complet iit ‘aed ahve of te Tr 4c which a clleton of the conespondse, repr an noes of meres ‘tte Tri exons, uly A. Grinwetl a A on Lr Cx, Unfrnay, te do rot seem 0 be tay arcaclopen deriions or even Sted dein of sacvdal ragment with reads 0 Toyo ‘or eampl inthe eter of 2910195 it abo, ny 6 he at ays singly Bi’, while no. 3t says tun’ (pesinably "rmichtsce Hance) risa wich von Le Cog amar cae Find sits adr infomion stout handed of agments eens ave bee ot (Baye 960, x),Aran fn the verso, Sundermana mention, for example, his estimate that of about 50 total Mani- cchacan fragments ftom Toyog, 30 ae re-ased Chinese serolls (Sunderman 1991, 286)— ‘we will see presently that this was actually @ low estimate. The fragments in Bein collee- tions that both bear 8 Toyog find-sgnature and have been identified as having Manichaean contents are organized in Table 5. Tis clear thatthe majority of Manichacan texts with a find-sgnature of Toyog are re- used Chinese serolis. The question that then aries is whether similar fragments with non- ‘Toyog find-signatures (oF none at all) canbe attibuted to a Toyog fnd-site. This has infact been argued in recent publications for several fragments that do not have a Toyog find- ignite, I'ewtied ut systematclly, the numberof fragments to be attibuted to Toyog will be somewhat higher than indicted in the table.” ‘Table 5 Manichaean fragments with Toyog find signatures Sept Language” Book Format Total i Codex. Chinese seroll Scroll 12 —[t Ta il However, the discussion 80 far takes into account only the fragments inthe Berlin Turfan ‘collection, asa system of find-signatues Seems not to have been developed for ether the Japanese or Russian expeditions tothe Turfan area, though it i clear that they did spend time in Toyoa* One would therefore hope to be able to establish a likelihood that certain texts in these olher collections are indeed from Toyog. For instance, regarding the fag ments now in St. Petersburg, one can add to the total 21 manuscripts, comprising a larger umber of oinable fragments, that are writen on the versos of Chinese serlls.” Regarding 2 Iecan protly te nseased quite sgt besides AN, for ample Co 1500 (FI sigma ic (a, als C0 20508 (wis Tyo sate) coasts Witt CSO 2515 (sithoat signature), bth re Ch, scroll CU 636 (T sigue coos wk CMU SSE (TH sant) both ae Ch sol ad 508 Se Boyer 16 130131 See Wiens 200, 515 ecg amber fhe Toyo agers. Ofte 8 Cb ses, 2a in Rai, Sar ing sri 1 tenn bot Ric and Mahan ri 2% Seeks, 120322 2 Foro summaries ofthe asin snd Spans wok Taran, see Zhang-Rong 199, 10-16, which ls roid ery ws oneview of te itary of Be ass, "os (2001 105-108) Lately hse apres wich he wa abet join tga to orn arr eat by comparing he et ofthe Chinese Hover, e ater ht te ajay fhe exe re wren the tecki f maou nga bowing Chinese Bai txts” (2001, 10S). Whether he mens By hie 2 The manuscript nd its coment, as the fazments in the Otani colletion in Kyoto Japan, brought back by Japanese expeditions fiom 1902-1914, an inspection ofthe eatalogve (see IFOC) reveals that a great many Sog- ian fagments also have Ch retos. Ithas been previously been argued thatthe majority of such texts ae of Manichacan provenance." Therefore, the Sogdian fragments in St. Peters- burg identified by Yoshida as having Chinese recto, a8 wel as those in Kyoto, ought 1 be Manichaean, And as we know that many Manichaean texts on Chinese serolls come from “Tayog, itis arguable that those in St Petersburg and Kyoto do as well. For completeness it should be mentioned that @ few fragments in Bactrian cursive and Syriac 5 “Toyo findsigntures, but thir assignment to Toyog isnot certain.” 'An important question is how the Manichacans acquired Chinese scrolls as terial They obviously hed ether a larg stock of Chinese serols or eontinuous access to a means of procuring them. Guldesi suggests the possibility that Manichaeans kept some non Manichacan texts in theie monastic liberies, for whatever reason, but that it is unclean, however, whether a shortage of paper forced them to write their new tents on the back of Chinese texts (2005, 177 n. 21), Though evidence for non-Manichaean text in Manichacen Iibrarcs is lacking, it does seem certain that a peper shortage of sors existed—for why else would paper be re-used? The Manichaeans of Toyog were seemingly aot producing their ‘own paper nor acquiring paper customized forthe writing of ther oa texs, and 50 Were probably limited to what secondhand paper they could acquire, This i in stark contest to the Sogdian Buddhist texts with Toyog fnd-signatures, none of which are re-used Chinese scrolls, and all of which are pustaka-books or serolls produced specifically for writing Bud- dist texts in Sogdian” Meanvtil, the re-wse of Chinese scrolls was a relatively widespread phenomenon in ‘Turfan, asa large number of Uighue Buddhist texts and Uighur “documents” are also wt- tenon them. This re-use has been explained by noting that Buddhist monasteries at ies received overwhelming amounts of texts produced via merit commissions; more tex, in fact, than they would be able to use or even store. That Buddhists would re-use surplus the majny af the St Peters callin i ot gute cle a canary check of Razor (1980) sows See iter la IFO, 46-47; Reck 200, 69-70, OF ore, may sass the cnt at iiely Manic: 1, br wt Fapnetsits fen posible dem the afliaon of he cet. “he Bacian agmens a cusive(eviouly called hepa’) sri al ave eet Bd gnats, 2 ‘which ae Tayo thnk all gents be abe onl ie? Rea tere ne so few Ci tan ret ata to Toy cane be cei athe wee coe aed E37 (M740 = 73) inary New Pein amped 02 Saget one with lay sigma ad he ti ith Toya 88 Sime Wilbans 2012, 115,18) Otherwise ES (omy C33) «Sogn Keto of Pasi eiales vi seeming Uigherertosrapiclafucss (ow publsod in BTS2, 65:7), Sye T3244 325 ae two fragment he Syriac langage with Toye Sd sanate f TT 297 ‘Ser Rests (2015 eaaloge of Baht Sopa apn in Soin srg. The Budi Soin fg rents ih Toy senate compre 24 al mawaci in} fgments 18 path, 28 sr, At st ‘one agent, coming Chinese rite in Son srt, ag by Yoni fo te thee eighth seanry 2013, 175). Furbormoe in Qoco, Sgn Manaus ral wer ted by Budi or ighar texts onthe Hak ‘eso (am etl So 14000, eed by Sunermats 1995) Ta, however, precy expanable by i ‘strc tn ator sipos: Maiescan monasteries in Qocho sem wo bate Become Budi er se26 Aranda Budahist texts is perbaps not surprising, bu its an interesting phenomenon thatthe Mani cchaeans too were able to acquire these tex "The difference in production between the Manichaean and Buddhist Sogdian texts raises the question of whether they were actually found inthe same place at all. Were the Mani cchaean texts found in the Manichacan caves, the Buddhist ones in a Buddhist cave? The records ofthe expeditions can unfortunately not answer this question for us. If there were indeed texts of different languages and scripts mixed into great heaps of old manuscripts” ina single “library room”, ii also possible that not all fragments found in it were actually produced there and that many were deposited over time for an unknown reason. The phe ‘nomenon would be similat, though not n scale, tothe famous “hbrary eave” of Dunhuang. “The question also arses of why the Manichaeans of Toyoq, or elsewhere, were com pelled to write ther texts on re-used paper, especially when one considers tht the texts found in Qocho suggest a well-developed and prosperous system of book production. Si dermann (19916, 286-88) summed up the difference well “ruin a [in Qocho} and the Mani- hacen stein the valley of Toyog, i seems, represen two phases and social layers of Man fchacan communal life in the kingdom of Qocho, ruin « preserving the Iranian literature of Manichaeism at its climax,..Toyog containing specimens of sill ively and active but ‘more demotic and debased literary production of a later time”. Only, however, insofar as is ‘meant the lower prosperity level oftheir book asin comparison with those of Qovho ean te literature from Toyag be described as “debased”. The reason for that dispaity is uns doubiely ted to te changing fortunes of Manichacism under the Uighur rulers, but in fact. litte more ean be said, We do not know exactly when a community was established in ‘Toyoa, we do not know exactly when it disappeared, and the extant Manichacan sources do not refer to any place that ean be idemified with it™ ‘Sunderman considered that “the borderline between both communities [Qocho and ‘Toyoa] is roughly speaking the year 1000”, as it was in 1007-08 thatthe Uighur ruler con- verted to Buddhism and the Manichaean monastery that is now ruin @ in Qocho became, it coms, # Buddhist one,” What happened to the Manichacans of Qocho after that is un known, Various sources indicate that the eversion ofthe Uighur rulers to Buddhism did not, at least immediately, mean a suppression of the Manichaean communities. Infact, the ‘Menichaeans seem to have flourished for a while longer. After these sources, which to- tether can be dated to the first quarter of the eleventh century, there is no more datable 3 Tah tine the enon th sare ny be for ha Frnt, MI nib = 97) ‘neon uber of Manicean communes, laine those in Oncho (en knova here is usualy, but not always, written uncon- ‘nected to following leters—that iin is final form without a tal. In contrast, the iitist <2> of the heterograms ZY and ZK: i usally connected, ut also with afew exceptions. ‘The table shows examples of both connected, unconnected, and final <2>. The leter <2> is never dotted underneath to represent the sound {2 normally given by <}> in “Manichcan script, so <2> represents both (7) and [2]. However, there are two examples of neither of which indiate (2: 187 rng “he exossed over’, and 17 y('> nk) ‘different’. The dot is most likely used to distinguish <-> from is connected to following lees asa rule, with only @ handful of excep- tions (twice in the word >-wkw) The letter itself s mostly unambiguous in this man serip, though the handwriting is sometimes careless enough that medial and fre not clearly differentiated. A regula exception seems tobe that when ZY or ra is fol- lowed by an enolitic such asa pronominal ene, the elements ate unconnected, ‘See Sime Willams 1978257. Tale foreampe rphoy hi ere wit pet consiteney.40 Keandadons Table 6: Forms of selected letters in AN . kaserk WRI atte ‘an key M91 ra ‘mn pate a Sime ee MN ang j , : "Sas ay SEGRIQ AST yew x'y 106) ye yw 9 ae ae . | 10. aaah, Tails 2 si xwye {3 Manusesit Formal ies u 3. is usally written with a horizontal tal, but writing with a downstroke til aso appears, pethaps to conserve space 4. Final is not clearly distinguishable from final aleph <>, as ean be seen inthe eft and center images. ‘5. Final is written in one of two ways cither along tail witha second, more vertical stroke, or a long tail with no vertical stoke. Both variants appear frequently in this ‘manuscript. The wpstoke, when used is obviously reminiscent of the sharp upstroke, or ‘up then right-stoke characteristic of in other varieties of the Sogdian and formal seripts, but in this manuscript iti clear tha itis not formed by one continuous stoke, but by & second stoke, Unfortunately the <-h> it many fragments shows this variation and it doesnot seem possible to classify types of script on this basis 6, The leters and are not distinguishable in ital position “The eters and do not appear distinguishable in inal positon, ether.” Final <5> is written witha diagonal left-pointing downstroke a the base, while initial and medial do not have this downstroke but instead connect to the following letter Along the baseline. 19. Some letters seem t0 have a final otiose asa way of shortening a lete with long tail. Tis isnot limited o inal <-K> but also incles othe letters such a final <> and

. 10, The seribe has a preference for ving along tal, word-finally, to letters for which a til is possible, especially <-> and <>, but also <> and <-e> (final

is nt atlested); this is also the ease for <-> and <->, for which ee 4, and <>, se 5 3.2. Orthography The following sections attempt to provide a discussion of some salient points ofthe ortho: raphy of AN 32.1 Vowels The representation of inital vowel is as follows. Initial [3] is usually indicated with a double aleph <">. However, in this manuscript the digraphs double-aleph <'"> and aleph- run ='n> are essentially identical. The decision to tansiterate "= or I is based on com parison: for example, the usual spelling of {am-] < *Aam- in Manichaean seipt is <'n> and 0 its assumed that the texts in Sogdian seri do nat represent the phonological develop- ‘ment (am > [a] known in Christian Sogdian. Initial [4i} and [8] are both spelled <'y> Initial [3] (usualy from ana) i spelled <'we> while intial <"W>, occurring twice, repre= ‘Se Sims lame 18 forthe into been ily fl 's comprebensive destin ofthe soavetons ele ty Manhunt in Sogdian sit doce net ‘ibe ast cts by Rack (2010), Yo 99, 28447 pve are oveew of thera Uiowhip betwen splines phonoleey, while OMS 73-8 is so wei ia his ead. Noe ht square rackets] ws fr pone repsanatons narra canon ni the ses en Use See Sin Walia 1981355 57 fr ging res on owes in Sodan ‘See BT 85, 184, Sometimes nal" rc haw esl in Maichaca et, at hse nstnces arese candid sents the diphthong [8] in "wmr'z ‘companion’ and "wpm “ikewise". A prothetic vowel, discussed more belo, appears often and is indicated with a single aleph <>. Regarding word-intemal vowels, a feature of the sexibe’s speling is thatthe digraph “<'y> varies with quite Frequently but seemingly without a particular pattern Both can be used for {i eg. “ink and mp representing [Bk] ‘ith’, or yr yw and yryw for [priv] ‘soul’, or [Be'mpd'ykt and. Be npdvkr for [atearpbaorkt] “worldly, 6 yt (Sans) “beasts; both 36 well fo [€} e.g. mrixm'yt and mrtemye representing [martoxmet] “men” (vith [2] ftom *-aka), m 38 md “dus, and so fort with many examples. Otherwise, alep in internal postion usually indicates (3: Ar “brothe', zr [2] ‘poison’, but can also ‘indicate [a]: "2 n [3zand) ‘parable’. The use of double aleph internally for [8) is limited to a few words: cw ‘tide’, dn Pr *Eleet’. A double aleph as part of a diphthong (ai) is found in kw" y “giant. Internal [3u] is given by <'w>, while intemal [0] is given by , pts ‘to hear’, rs "to roar, Sk “silent all fom *-au- (pote that e'wn for en is histori- cal spelling and so cannot be taken into account here). The digraph <'w> is also used for the etymological short vowel {0} in atleast sm wr- ‘ocean’, "ws Wray and pst both purified” (fr the latter two see commentary’ ad 8). But in other words such as te light stems swe- “pleasant” and swas- “be burned” it seems that [0 is represented by - "At the end of a word, [ai is given by <'y> (or <"'y> in hw"), [au} by , [B] by both and <'y>, and ff} by . There isa group of anomalous words, all of which are not clearly writen of are paially attested, where <'y> seems to be used for(i}. [-] oF 8h: “pry (ob), pr'y and wysp y oom. sg.) ptenp y*aka ending?) mere). Inthe Sogdian seript, words are oflen spelled with an inital aleph <> where inthe Manichacan and Syriac serpts they are not. This leph ean represent an initial short vowel tha is either the outcome of Ol, "a, J, oF a true prothetic vowel inserted before en initial ‘consonant cluster (in which ease celled “protheticaleph” after GMS §156). As the short ‘vowel i] probably did not occur in inital postion in Sogdian unless as part of a diphthong (Sims-Williams 19814, 387), the aleph probably represents a shor, central vowel such 2 [2] in both cases. For the prothetic vowel there isa least one allophone, namely that ‘Manichaean script corresponding to aleph in Sogdi- fan sript and which occurs only in eont of s-intial elutes like sp- and sits quality can be deduced as something lik [i] sine initial sin only otherwise precedes y (bid, 358 wit 1 32), Examples of words with this “prothticaleph” in AN include: is ‘uyh (262axtya) ‘suffering’, ‘metry [osmutck] ‘ofthe sea, ‘kr [ask] ‘embers. ‘The spelling of the *-aka ending in Manichacan texts in Sogdian script is essentially al- so an issue ofthe writing of a vowel, namely [8 from *[a'i] < *fek] (see Sims-Williams 1989, 184). Its spelling in AN varies between the historical spelling (the more com- mon for texts in Sogdian script) and the spelling whieh more closely represents its phonetic realty. The spelling with or ='y> seems to be more common in AN, but the ‘variation is such that tis hard to see any orthographical rule at work, and in several cases the same word is attested with the ending spelled both ways. I refrain from giving here an exhaustive list of words with an “aka suffix, but an example representative ofthe seeming- ly random state of affairs is the word “Apostle® which appears as Bri, fr yiy, and {ryiy. One could suggest thatthe seribe was wavering between on one and the historicel spelling with <()k> encouraged by the tradition of the Sogdian script, and onthe other @ spelling closer to the actual pronunciation of the ending as [2]. Note that & is doubled to ‘ when the seribe intends to indicate that a [K] is actually pronounced, eg. in Syr'kk (the word ny wk *Hearer is excluded from consideration, as its standard spelling with represents Pt. dg) ‘sManoserp formalities a 322. Consonants ‘The writing of consonants will only be treated in brief. The letter stands for both (¥] and [] sis typical in Sogdian seript, Examples of the former include fy [vat ‘gods’, while examples ofthe later include fry [St] ‘Apostle. There is some overlap, a5

also stands for [f], ep [fam] ‘siory” and pry- [f-] dear’ as well as (pl, 8. pre [pans ‘five’, Finally, <2 stands fer both (2] and [2]: + [28] ‘potson” and ryzy n [82y3n] “descabe’; = [ay] “land” and >'wr [awa] “strength 3.2.3, Final ln Sogtian seri, there are 90 reasons that final grapheme i used, one being to indicate a final long vowel [3], and the other being to mark nouns as feminine, in which case the leer does not necessity havea phonetic value. AN is no diferent in his regard. In particular, the words with = [3] are primarily nouns with the abstract sui [-] spelled ~yh> That such abstract nouns ace feminine anyway might be motivation for ‘sing rather dan <>, but <> cannot have anything fhe hana phonetic value in these eases. Otherwise, nous ening in -] ae spelled with <-> (hese happen tobe Tem. as well anda few examples of th ese ending a arc spelled . For the cass where > has no phonetic valu, note that words writen with an oh in the di. have -y and nat -yhin the bl, possibly to avoid confusing the ater fr [yi]. There are also afew cases of the historical spelling representing both [-] and [-k}- In prs th and yf yeh it cenainly stands fr [-, while pm, s Rh, and rwxtny’X as light stoms should end in [ik] As for feminine nouns, AN does not consistenily use a non-phonetic, Final <> to mark them. Unfortunately, many noans ae only atested once (and so vary ony with regard to other texts), but in dynidynh an alteration of the two spelings is atest. In other ex- amples, <> is added t0 nouns tht ate not etymologicaly fem. such a8 rw'n/rw'nh and evento the posp. Poth. This sugges that the femsinine-markng se of Was not are, but was rather an option which the serbe ony inconsistently applied, Ina stad of inh, ‘Wenitland distinguishes cases whee <> is phonetically relevant ffom those whee tis tot arguing thatthe latter usage is heterographic (1998, 103) and thus should be tans raed with 1 in capital ike other seteograms. However, though Wena also ean erates “h= 8} with (id, 104-05), the use ofthat cannot be considered heterograph- ic, even inthe bordetine cases of fe nouns ending in [-], a «one-to-one conespond- ence between sign (inthis case =h>) and sound (inthis cate (3]) docs not mest the {rounds for what is considered heterographie writing. Rater than mixing an AF sytem, inthis edition only use -h 324 Hetrograms [As AN is written in Sogdian script the use of heterograms is no surprise. The number of heterograms is relatively restricted as is usual for later texts in Sogdian script: for ‘the preposition cn ‘fom’, forthe negator ny ‘not’, <*M> ford with’. is used ‘The system inte by Wendin soloed, fr as cn el sls by. Yahbovih and P. Lage In the laters onary of psoas (201) al fe names ears af te ponte endive ‘See fuer the em of Sins Willa (19814, 380913} his iseKrandnaint {oral ofthe complementizer- [i], the conjunction ‘ [at] linking words and phrases, ‘andthe conjunction that introduces subordinate clauses.’ For the definite article, the only ‘oddity is tat there is a preference for writing phonetic xw over heterographic ZK (which ‘nly oceus twice; the other forms of appear without exception. Also interesting is the heterogram standing forthe interjection (6) *O!”. The heterogram for yr yw body’ occurs only once out of more than ten occurences of the word; in contrast the heterogram “grat” accu nine times while the form mz yx is only attested once Ginthe pt) 3.2.8. Word Composition ‘A convention employed in Sogdian script is that words consisting of more than one element ‘ean be written with those elements separated. Though occuring with great regularity, this ‘convention is not consistently employed. The usual scholarly practice is to represent word pars written separately in the manuscript by means of a hyphen inthe text eition, inorder to signal thatthe wond-pats are not tobe taken as individual words, though it blurs some- ‘what the distinction between separated word-pars and unconnected letters 1, ‘The elements of compounds are separated, except for the compound suffix *ska (usual- ly -y) which is atached to the final element. ‘ny'z'nkw krény “differenty-shaped’, yeonk ke'wny ‘dstinctionsmaking’, ev'nh ptz'm'kyh “understanding of the sou!’, Fant yet w'xiyt “loquacious, ‘yw 7y “of one taste’ 2. The durative verbal sufix -skwnw is written separately ffom the verb in most cases Be'wt skwn, Bot ska, yk wt skin, pty skwnw, wSty skwmw, wat shown, rwyt Bw skwnw; two exceptions are Sw'skwn and Br'yS'ntskwnw. The future sul “Kim canbe either connected or no: Bwtk'm but wy@Bxsiy k’m 3, Enolitis following the phras-intial conjuneton ry are writen together when the con- junetion is written r- but writen separately when itis written ty. Enciies are not di- rectly attached (in writing) othe complementizer ZY. 4. The comparative suffix -sr is mostly written separately from the word to which it i= saffised: knpy str, movreky ste, pyram str ryne'kk ste, CW'nty st; an exception is ‘yz akstr. The comparative Suffix -tr always appears connected, however: pryt, pooriry, ste, yt ‘athe (205) eto thee deen 2 stesso, arate, ad hype respectively, ‘ino shows hat they wer diffrent nora wing wp ta ert pei nie, heared of Sih nexamplifedby AN's ase of <2Y> ak The cm complete ore Zi which mars bo Iain cues od saber cases sued by Yost (20,341) besides Yakov (205,209 13) The le (td) dts ta" easly emp sex psionic whowe min sys fneton ves char demaresion Frm overview an ining plop pospesive an the we ofthe cme Then in Sopa ce Fanon 209. nw i argue ht the Sopa esas tea yogi Iyureonmon 3 Manuscript formas 7 ‘5. The adjectival suffix -eyk(w) is separated in pyrnm eykt, pymm cy, wit’ eykt, ‘zmk eykw, "'y'm eykw but connected in wrtncykw, wrincykt,” wStn'xeykw, wwyn'neykw. ‘The serbe of AN also follows these “rules” when a word needs fo be split over the end of one line and the beginning of another: 48 ky /2¥ 100 ‘aye est 55 Be ap yk 112 yawn(k]/ke'way 75 ptnlwy pen}! wy 188 xlw kty]/ Bey 88 ele] /s't 191 [rynck] str Indeed, excepting line 75, the examples conform to what we would expect (note that in Tine 100 the scribe wrote a plaral- tthe line-break as well as tthe end ofthe compeund). In faci, iis notable thet a similar understanding of boundaries within words can be seen in Manichaean texts in Sogdian script more broadly; te following list gives a representative, non-exhaustive sample. TaeASis ——ew[Z¥]/ my 72 sky !s't TaleAS26 ely] 5y LoH6 ede/s't La9i6 ny ly L915 wm't/'at Taker smynt/skwa_ Tale ys! TaleF/21 ‘psint/k’m Talel/13 Byrn $0 10920/5—xsnky str. Tale 2 "yftym L9tv/tt apy /stt So 1824812 mp'r/myey $0 202297112 e'Sr/s'r 202214 “sky se $0 2022920 awe’ kynt'y ‘There are furthermore numerous examples ofthe element $- ofthe preterite writen after the lie break (but happen tobe no examples in AN). As already mentioned, verbal utTix- es, enclitics, components of compounds, and some nominal sufixes seem to be understood as independent morphemes and thus able to be writen separately if necessary. That the 3p ending» nv andthe Isg subj. ending -m are writen after the break isnot surprising, but "'y/ ‘ym is interesting, suggesting the -f was pechaps understood as forming part of the conjuga- tional endings rather than the past stem, if tis not an example of an unjoined y (known from other mss). Though the evidence suggests a rather systematic way of splitting words, this orthographical feature has not heen commented on previously, and perhaps deserves & ‘more in-depth treatment along with investigation of what relationship these pattems bear to those of Manichaean texts in Manichaean scrip, as well as to texts in other Sopa script teaditions* recap th Busi Sopa Sua of Cases nd Ee the spliting of wards oe is mio the separation of word elements within ae (el Meitrest Duin Mesterrast 205), whe rely jes wih he pace dese here36 Arandoine 3.2.6. Panicular Spellings ‘The variant spelling xwmnex of the demonstrative pronoun snr occurs only in AN and G3, both of which are parables written in Sogdian serit on the versos of Chinese scrolls (this spelling is mentioned in Wendtland 201 1a, 52). The spelling xamwx and the xn x latest in some Buddhist and Manichacan texts together suggest a short vowel [9] oF [8}?) in the second syllable for which there was no standard expression in writing. Kas AN 16 xownwxynch ‘that woman’ 58 xwnwx ew ZY ‘that which .." 64 nw mmm ‘that time’ 70 xwnwxw [tmp] “those bodies" 79 xwnsvx yt) ‘that evil 190 ww mroxmy “hat man” Likewise, the writing wn or eww of the preposition usually written cn is limite to a hand= fualof tenis” In Manichaean sript tis only known in MI1S and M140+, while AN is re= sponsible for most af the attestation in Sogdian script witha few examples scattered els ‘where, Its agin interesting to note that AN and KGS share this feature. Kos AN 35° ewn iy(kmrs'r ynt 11 e'wn(w){'}t6'nft ‘among creatures’ “they came from ouside? 89 c'wn xyp sk'w (“from its height” 73 ewntw’ RBkw ‘ye 103 e'wn 'ny'tch “Be npdy ‘ny’ 2-"nksir (nent “from you the great thing.” “they are diferent fom the whele world” ‘Since both are texts in Sogdian script writen on the verso of Chinese scrolls, containing parables the possiblity that they are the work ofthe same scribe or contemporary group of scribes is enticing. 32.7 Punctuation “There isa single typeof punctuation inthe manuscript which consists of two shor, vertical stokes. This double-siroke punctuation scems to resemble the danda of the devanagati Script and so is represented with the symbol | in my transliteration to avoid implying that it is the same sign as the double-dot or ercled-dot punctuation (usually transliterated 00) common in other Manichaean manuscripts. An example of the double-stroke can be seen in {mage 1 below, Image 2 shows a more elaborate combined punctuation tha is employed to signal the end or beginning of «parable within the manuseript: it comes between the ending ff the parable and the expliit formula, or between the explicit and the ext parabe'sinei- pit It is represented in my transliteration with the figure ~. The two rightmost images ‘Show examples of double-dot and cicled-dot punctuation, both from codices repose 2 pepo plus demonseatve "hadron (ae Sins-Wiliams (emesis $990,277 win 3). 9 = RG hn 0 3. tw0 dows: 1. AN: double- 2. AN: combined 5 4. clreled dots ‘This sizoke-punctuation has not otherwise been identified in Manichaean texts, One might suggest that such punctuation is related tothe soll format, but in fact ether Manichaean Scrolls make use ofa simple dot-punctuatioa, The stroke-punctation, however, is typical of Buddhist Sogdian scrolls from both Turfan (images 1-2) and Dunhuang (image 3). A pune ‘uation mark similar to the combined punctuation of AN is found in ChiSo 13400 (image 4),also a Manichaean text written in Sogdian script onthe verso ofa Chinese sero.” s 9 i; “ sins toy enn Ti racer bee si 328 Comection of Mistakes Despite the occurence of a variety of spelling and other errors, the seribe mostly makes no cffor to correct them, with onl the thee following examples found." 1 The text weit by Henning (16, 45-47) a Tale. The tl of Span ep ies om thao AN 1 fre dawson fie ciestion of misakes i the Macha texts fom Tuscan Be ued ‘eck (1985) and Laut (1992) Soin and Uighur eas especieas Asana 3.3. Grammatical sketch This section is intended to give an in-depth treatment of various grammatical features of [AN This is done with an eye to facilitating both linguistic analysis ofthe text a8 a whole as ‘well os comparicon with other Sogdian manuscript. Effort has boen made tn give repre= Satie, rather than exhaustive, examples for the forms cited, The abstract M7420 is only referred to in eases of unambiguous support for AN readings, while the text on the Chinese recto (ANe, ci, cit) is For the most part not counted in the analysis as it may be a Inter addi- tion. Though AN isthe longest continuous Manichacan text in Sogdian, it not nearly long ‘enough to yield compechensive or unambiguous information about the varity of Sogdian in ‘whieh it is written, Yet it hoped tha te following overview willbe beneficial to those ‘who hope fo glean some linguistic information from the manuscript. 33.1 Anticle [As the Parable-Book is written inthe Sogdian scrip, the definite article is writen by means ‘of heterograms, with the one exception that sw is writen almost ubigutously instead of ZK" The use of sw in this text is unexpected if one assumes that the distribution of the “nice should follow its etymology (eg. thatthe nom.sgan. form ofthe article should only mark nom.sgm, substantives), leading Sundermann to suggest that the seribe’s mastery of Sogdian was questionable (MPB, 7). However, itis actully not the case that the use of the ‘definite artile can be considered incorrect, excepting obvious spelling errors. An overview ofthe article can be given as follows. sw marks both m, and £. nouns in the singular: 139 rtuy yw Ayrmy krwpir nn'mxy—“the*® fist snake'® was named K.” 480 f'yitydymh the" Religion! ofthe Apostle" aw also marks both m, and f. nouns in the plural: 127 nye Syn yht xm these ar the™® horetis"** 37 ow fe'npd ykt “pe “the worldly” waters!" ‘What seems to be important isthe grammatical function ofthe noun marked by x: essen tially all nouas marked with sw ate the grammatical subject oftheir respective phrases and 4s such are in the nominative (flight stems) or direct (if heavy stems). There are only two ‘exceptions which, given the overwhelmingly consistent use of sw just outlined, ean be safely interpreted as spelling ercors (143 ZK yw ris ace. so probably an error for ZKw and 1146 rics ry also an error fora noa-nominative form). The corresponding feminine form is ‘written both heterographically as ZKih and phonetically as xh, It marks the feminine singu "nnd mite in th concordance of er stay on he Sodan finite ace is ZK cee in in [AN QOD, a, 1s al IT for osourences of ZKixw), Hower, a methodologically cron dei- ‘Son sh ines the instances whee Sune bt etal ZX, which aot be named aetna kom cng only tented instance rings the suber of tal ZKs down tof which oie temo fe 7K. Farce ven the esisecy fx a hs ev | oor sw oer ZK whe esi forms ofthe are. An pte cout of ZK cording othe presea eton woud be: mag 28 (26,2 ZR) fae Sang 5 C914 unas 3 Manuscript Frmalites x lar a handful of times but the plural only ence, and in all cases the substantives are gram- ‘matical subjects.” Though the fsg article “x marking plurals isa common phenomenon in Sogdian, itis not clear why a separate I form is used for ether singular or plural, when the ‘form cleaely works for both and in fact is used more often for f nouns than the faticle fell: Acconding &» Wendtland itis not uncommon foro to mark both mand f substan tives, with the exceptions being in fact texts which restrict its usage to the masculine (201, 350) She argues that was actually originally used for both, and tata separate f form came to be developed later but never quite took over completely. In view of Wend- tland’s study, the usage of aw in AN cannot be considered an exceptional or erroneous feature and indeed conforms to Manichaean Sogdian usage bid. 67-63. The heterogram ZKw (Formally ace.sg.m.) is also attested with m. and £ plurals (no fg, ‘oun with ZKw happens tobe attested) besides the expected msg. In at least one ease its tse is undiseemable because the tex is lost: 18 ZA [inp 71 pe 9] (7), In two cases, ZKW is written when xw is expocted. Although Gershevitch's suggestion (apud MPB, 25 n. 64) that ZKiw in these eases stands for [x3] in the way ZK stands for [xi i iteresting, itis safer to assume they are simply mistakes for x (besides the fact thatthe default reading of Kw is certainly [6], as proven by the use of ZKw to represent the interjection “OM spelled “wh in Manichaean script) ZK (gon.sgm,) is used for m.sg. nouns, and fsg. and pl nouns once each, ‘An unexpected case ofthe article is noted thrice: 29 ZKw sm wiry eye, where lo. _Zkiwyh iw be expected with eynr, 46 [ZKwlyh ryneyk “pt, where with myn "to resem ble" a gon, is expected, either ZKin if tis the common form in tis text, or ZKwyh as gen. pi, and 11S ZK fr ythw ptyh cymtr, where again Toc. article is expected with evn ‘The use of the article can therefore be shown schematically as follows!" nom. sg/pl _xw CxNZKh spradiealy for £98.) ace. seipl ZKw sen.se zKn gen. ph2Kwyh fov.sg ZKwyh ZKwy once) As for demonstratives, the following forms are attested:"® Proximal (stems >) Distal (stems xn) wn (86) ‘ony (6B. pl), "wn 298, wax (92) prcpositioned —eymyd ceywy8, eywysn ‘See Weld 20115 91-92 a on oneriew of ZK nd ih, 10 fran verve fh Soaian ets er cout 4 ose f ZR in AN hl Be ler See Wentand 2b 15:17 fr an overview of Zw tn Soin txts; the omy pds to her cot of ZK in AN, with which pel conan ar were have decd ile rego partial esraion ‘Sez Wend 20114, 485 for a biter overview of th om define sic in Manica ets Soe BT 35,195.96 form overview of sir fos a Christian Sogn x. ‘See Sins Wana 1904 Tre scusion of denswo Kemmis Finally, it has boon suggested that the “sccond-person demonstrative” Sw may occur inthis text, but the two possible examples thereof ate slightly ambiguous (see commentary ad 163), 332 Nouns and Adjectives Cases Given the relative frequency of what appear to be seibal errs, itis dificult to say with any certainty which forms shed some light on the text's grammar and which do nol. The inflection of light-stem nouns attested in AN is as follows (according to the spellings ofthe rmanuserpt mss. fs, pl om, y “h + sce. ow “h en yh Toe oh abl, : oh Some examples may show the generalization of light-stem nominative forms to other = es." In particular, a form in -y (nom./gen.msg,) seems to be used where non-nominative cases are expected: 37 hw sm wiry sr (for ae. sm war), 128 ZKw sm wiry fey (fo le sm wary), 136 MN... smewiry (for abl. sm'war’. Ifthe numerative was still used at this time, then once a form in -» is used: 112 ‘dw ps “two kinds" (perhaps num. if pd is to be considered nt not m.). The most likely explanation for 21 kw rwiiniyh fram sis that a genpl. inf was written instead ofthe expected ae.pl in ~1. On the whole, however, the expected forms are employed. Some ligh-stem nouns and adjectives ending in -w occur only in a single form which does not recive inflection (ef, GMS §1190). These ere ww ‘wife’, nw ‘ude’, pw ‘extremely’ and zm ‘time’ all of which behave thus in Sogdian more generally (compare BT 35, 193). ‘Regarding heavy stems, ther infletion is ir. -0, abl. -y, pl pl obl -p. The only heavy-stem vocalive in this text is fr” (m. sB.), which happens to be the only attested voe.sg in" of fir ‘brother (the -” being borrowed frm ligh-stem nouns). The possibility ‘that kyrm- “snake” is sometimes treated as a heavy-stem noun in tis text eannot be proven ‘conclusively ia view of seribal errors and possible limited generalization of -y endings. At least 116 rcw kyrm w kw WB “the snake (dit?) said’ canbe eited inthis regard, while 167 ZKw .. kyrmy murty Byr he found the snake dead” (written nom.sg, for ace, or abl. of heavy stem?) and 188 MY ‘Sw kyrmy yw .. xe» “ofthe two snakes, the firs is.” (a form in-y for expected ablsg. or ob. of heavy stem?) are uncertain!" The word pwrms (formal 7 nshis phenomenon se osha 2095, 508 and BT 35,193 "one casa eto the post th el esi speing eros. One fas hoy tym mostly in Bus hs eH igh form in Manicaan texts (CE GMS $512 and DMT, 1). ths Ses hate word svn percied a igh by some sees bute by ates. Ths probably deo he sequence ees ‘by yr being pronounced a pong 0 [Sn] oning te ranks of sath word 8 ms] an rn 3 Manuscript formalities 4 ly ace-sgm. occurs ina context requiring @ nominative or direct one possibility is that itis like ym a heavy-stom direct with otiose ‘The most productive form of comparative adjectives is tht with the suffix -str These include: ny’2 nbser ‘different’, kypystr “ess, murckysir “shorter, pyrnmstr “previo ‘ome kkstr ‘shorter, smaller’, tw noytr ‘stronger’. = wrkynstr “more powerful’, Some cor paratives in rare also used, but the sui isles widespread: yr “later, prytr “dearer” — There is one example of the superlative constuction “yw + comparative: yw syytr fine ext. — A single elative may occur, but its form is iregular:w "2 wr-kymsm (or w=. st 2 The agreement of adjectives and nouns does not differ from the usual expectations for Sogdian. With heavy stems, for example, morphological agreement between logically saureving udjecives and nouns is nor compalsory, e.g. nyt ‘py other waters (pl dit. > pl ‘bl. — Finally, two cases of distributive duplication occur, r'8 13 “along the path? and ny ny all acer’ 333. Verbs Forms based on the present stem Pres. (et) sg. Lom: skw'm Ip 2g — 2h Sax shorty, Bry Spl at myn’nt sty, i'w ‘The 3p. is overwhelmingly spelled ~nf; the only two exceptions are wea and pre nnt Pres mid, Bag. Lays wynly, pity Pres. du, 35g. L-tyskwaw: psty-skonw Hatsiownw: Be wtskwnw Pat Sag L-tyk’m: —wybiaasy-k'm Wak’ Boik'm Imp. (aet.) Bg Ls mye Hoo: Brxs,mné's,wypwS plots Sw'nt Imp mid: Only wo verbs "sr and komt (hoth 35) are atested in the imperfect middle th hs quaint sem envy (ce Sint Wiliams 1984, 210) A comparable sitaon sha of “targa ight sem, the ae for poof which ead as hen ste C2 "esis Wits 1982, 69 fer izusion of active noun rest with ey sens