of the .a declension, to represent ^ü-aaj = dya, i being a trace of the original pahl-zend i

436

^^v»^Ji»> and its pahlavi translations.

By L. H. Mills.

In my short article in this Zeitschrift Bd. XLIX, 3. Heft on

the ambiguity of certain characters in the avesta alphabet, I omitted

all argument aud did not state ' what I supposed was to be taken

for granted) which was, that the innovations which I presented

were suggested in a tentative spirit and therefore with very dif¬

ferent degrees of confidence. I would now answer an acquiescent

correspondent by saying that I think that the greek dat. suff. lo

as = Wl contains elements kindred to the sk. lat. dya, so that I

conjecture the avesta = di, as dat. of the .a declension, to

represent ^ü-aaj = dya, i being a trace of the original pahl-zend

i = )/ with an inherent a (as usuali, and I now think this to be

corroborated by tho metre of the Gathas in a predominance of

occurrences, while the possible twelve syllables in trislifup disarm

a counter-argument, but this was perhaps the least probable of the

several cases advanced.

I now desire to show scholars foutside of the extremely small

group of close experts in zend) what my argument for = yd

and I/a is founded upon. I was transcribing some Gathastrophes

into ])ahlavi many years ago, as I have transcribed them all into

indian [see Koth's Festgrilsse p. 192), and on writing •yJtv»juiÄ^>

fy. 28,.')) as pahlavi if^ijf I saw at once the 'motive' of the

mistake in the pahlavi translation, which is fS^ijf = nafshman

i f^-H) is f £ + -Hi sh + man] ; but this letter is also a compositum

in pahlavi equivalent to y + d. From this we have the rationale

of fhe error; the character ■.HJii'l represents two words in pahlavi,

ov one word and the main part ot another; and these two ex-

])ressions liave not one single letter in common; for they are ufyd

in the case of the zend and napsh in the case of the pahlavi. The

translation mifshman = ''self " or "own" for ufyd = ''I will weave 3 2

Mills, ■^^**Mii'S> and its j>ahlavi translations. 437

!my song)" is wholly senseless, and could in no wise have been

original. Some copyist or scholar, in the long line of succession,

was led astray by the appearance of the word ufydni which in

accordance with what I noticed in transcribing the word, must

have stood before him as iyaiJ] or or at least as i^'MJ^f.

The peculiarity in the appearance of this i^ü^Jf or Jj-H3€.>f which

led him to read this zend word ufyd as if its first two syllables

were but one, and as if that one were nafsh, could only have

been manifest in the characters w>^j and j.

The first I have already considered; as to f my statements

can be even yet more brief; the sign is used in pahlavi for both

n and u\ unless then the pahlavi translator who was first responsible for this error had seen the > of **A>ii^> before him in the form of j,

he could never have supposed that it was meant to represent n.

First of all we must remember what this circumstance prin¬

cipally recalls to us, which is that it is an universally accepted

fact that this zend word together with all (?) its compunions, was

during the early Sasanian and Arsacid jjeriods , written in a

character closely resembling the pahlavi letters or combinations

of letters, and so in an alphabet, the corresponding characters of

which (so far as this particular word is concerned) closely resembled

J^ejf or i\'*\}9jy, that is to say, the avesta texts themselves, and

not only the translations of the texts, were written in a quasi

pahlavi form (cp. the coins and the inscriptions). Now here are

two facts; 1st, that a pahlavi translator saw an ^ istead of vmjü

and f instead of > in some previous MS. in the word now tran¬

scribed as — sAj»jJJ^> (a part of the word .5jivwii^>) and so mistook this -f-ii = yd for >MJ = sh, and this f = m for j = n, rendering

nafsh[man) instead of ^ifyd\ and the other fact is that the word

-,j(v*x(ii^> = ufydni in its quasi original form, that is to say, in

the shape in which it stood during the early Sasanian and Arsacid

periods, actually did stand with all the rest of the avesta in some

such form as the one which misled this (later) translator, before

it was fully transliterated into the present zend letters. Can we

bring these facts together in the matter of time ? If so we shall be

in a position to say that we have found m this curious pahlavi

mistake a trace of the ancient zend-pahlavi writing.

This is, however, not the immediate point which I hope to

make clear in the present communication; what I desire to prove

is not that we have certainly a proof of the existence of an an¬

cient form of writing up to a certain date, but that at some period

of time, ]ierhaps a few hundred years after the development of the

present full and clear zend alphabet, thcre llnye.rcd or there arose

29*

438 Mills, fi^'JMii^'^ and its paMavi translations.

(this is the point), an ambiguity in some of those now so clear

characters, aud that we have an instance of this in the text before

us; and that a similar ambiguity appears in other connections

where its discovery is vital to the forms of zend grammar (happily

not so much to their actual force , for we have recognised many

of these obscure forms at their just grammatical value and in some

of the most important occurrences, and this notwithstanding the

most perplexing of disguises).

But there doubtless remain still many instances, as yet totally

undiscovered, where the application of a criticism (kindred to this

present attempt) to grammatical difficulties would solve them, or

would at least greatly relieve them even from the syntactical em¬

barrassments with which they are surrounded.

It is neither strictly, nor at all necessary for me to prove

that this peculiarity in the appearance of certain characters has

descended in an unbroken Mne from the period when the zend, as

well as the pahlavi texts of the avesta, stood in the pahlavi

characters ; nor is it at all essential to the question to show how

the peculiarity under consideration arose, whether by pure accident,

through ignorance , or by design ; for the question is simply to

prove that it existed, and that it accounts for certain very curious

phenomena; in other words I merely say that I think that it is

plain that we have found a proof that >*0 was written for Mjuii

during a certain interval of time before it was later written or

re-written, as ujjii, and that f was written for >

This usage may have been a reversion to the earlier custom

after centuries during which vvxiii was written in this full form

in a certain family of MSS., as it is now at present written in

this particular zend-gathic word y)^*AMii^> ufydni in every MS.

which has survived to us , and this , close beside its erroneous

translation in the pahlavi. And this is not the only instance in

which at least this s»x(ii as in -^^•M^ii^'^ was written in such a

manner as to deceive the commentator, for our most interesting

pahlavi error recurs at another place in the Gäthas, that is to say,

at y. 43, S, and also at y. 20, 1, in the later yasna, the only

plaoes provided with pahlavi translations where forms from the

stem ufya occur, as other occurences of ufyeimi (sic) (the exact

form of the word at y. 26, 1) are probably, together with y. 26,1,

recurrences of one and the same original and more ancient text

which has been lost. So far then as my present purpose is con¬

cerned, it makes, as I have intimated, no difference (whatsoever)

hmv the mistake which I am considering originated; the sole

question critically involved being whether it prevailed, at a certain

unknown period of time, and whether it proves the possibility

Mills, -fS^^MJiiily and its pahlaei translations. 439

of further ambiguity, especially in the use of this character >*ii ;

for this ambiguity, if once granted, explains many difficulties.

The occurence of the ambiguity of this character in the present

instance is however so striking that it surpasses in its power to

convince us any of those occurrences which were cited in this

Zeitschrift as above quoted.

But although the manner in which the misapprehension to

which I have alluded took place is not the main point at issue

with me at the present moment, it will yet be interesting, and

I hope profitable, to dwell for a little on the genesis of the

circumstance, and in the course of our discussion of this inferior

detail we cannot fail to gain corroborative evidence as to the

general proposition, namely that some of the characters in the

zend alphabet represent more that one soimd.

To put the whole case, then, once more in its bare outlines:

it is this: — ^^v*jwiJ^> = u/ydni stands, let us say, so written in

the zend, in all (?) our present zend MSS. of the Gäthas (barring

the debris of the valuable variations). Beside this ufydni and

closely following it, there stands a pahlavi translation nafshman.

No one not blinded by prejudice will deny for a moment that

this nafshman could not possibly have occurred to a pahlavi trans¬

lator, if it had not been that sAX»ii = yd of ufydni was at some

one time, and in some MSS., written in its older form 'MJ, and

that this MS. so written came before the eyes of the person who

first translated this ^ = vwJi = yd in this present case as if it

were 'MJ = ^h, w^j = sh being correct for many cases, but not for this.

The zend letter > must also have come before the eye of

the translator in its more ancient form, that is to say, in the shape

of the pahlavi j, which has u for one of its values as well as n.

As to the letter ^ = /, it also must have looked more like its

original pahlavi <ij = f or jo, or v, and this for the reason al¬

ready given.

ii was once quite certainly written i, for a pahlavi ü for

pahlavi y is entirely unknown; «AJUi as = »MJ is originally nothing

more than a cursively written <aaj + i the two marks have flowed

together ; and as this similarity exists, therefore «HJS^) = nafsh[man)

in the translation recalled a form of zend writing which was

original to the Arsacid period. But no trace of it remains in

the spelling of these two particular zend words fS^*Mji^> and

— «vk)ii^> in our present extant zend MSS. which show invariably

vAA^ii for ya and not >H3 for yd in these two particular words.

3 2 *

440 Mills, f)f\j'jjii'S^ and its pahlavi translations.

As the points here involved have been regarded as in so far

important that they have been more than once extensively alluded

to by one whose services to zönd-philology have been paramount

(as also by leading scholars in private communications), and as I

have only stated them here and elsewhere in their bare outlines,

it is proper that I should now discuss them, carefully, once for

all; and it is obvious that if I intend my discussion to bc at all

exhaustive, 1 must abandon entirely that extreme brevity which I

practised on former occasions both in this Zeitschrift and in the

commentary in my work on the Gathas. ') I propose ßrst to examine

the facts above stated without discussing the question of a descent

unbroken, or broken, in the line of MSS. which once read s4A.iii

as >MJ ; secondly to show the bearings of the facts on other curious

occurrences of serious importance, and entirely regardless of the

question as to the origin of the error; but thirdly I desire to show

what may be said in behalf of the view that ujjW ya was written

in the word ^j-hJ^j from the time of the Arsacids in an

unbroken line of MSS. till the date of the period when this same

>H?, yd, in this particular word was written ujui in those MSS.

trom which our present zend text of this word was taken in its

form generally at present in use; in other words I will endeavour

to say something for the view that an uriginal i?) »MJ for yd, or

ya lingered in the word, or words, in some MSS. long after it ciusal

to appear in that form in most of the othei occurrences of word.i

which contain the characters. And it will be better to discuss the

matter negatively, so to sptak; that is to say, it will bring out

the points more clearly if we raise at the outset every objection

whieh we can think of.

[Kot pausing to consider a possible question ridiculous to n

zendist) as to whether the pahlavi translation may not be itself

in the right after all , so that we have here one of those half

Semitic hybrid formations so common to the pahlavi but unknown

to the zend, and that therefore we should actually correct our zend

text, and read in it nafshdid sic = "1 will be his own"' instead

of our dee])ly interesting gatha-vedic ufydni = •'! will weave my

song J, let me ask more practically, not whether no/i^ may be a

part of a hybrid word, but whether mfshman is really and in fact

the pahlavi trun.-lation which we have before us; have we nof

made a mistake at this curious rendering itself; and should we

not read our pahlavi (G»M?4;f as vfydmun (sic. whatever that might

mean as pointing to a root uf. or rup, "to weave'' , for the clia-

racters may spell a word like that, if such a word existed? My

1 Sec .\ study uf the Five ZaialluJshtriaiV Gatlias. |)p. 397, 4.)7. etc.

3 2 *

MUh, fi^MUjiii^^ and its pahlavi tranalatimu. 441

answer is: not only would ufydman be nonsense, as it stands, but

we have a persian translation of jS>H)ejj in the sense of "self"

or "own" in one of our MSS. of the pahlavi, and if we suspect

this persian translation to be modern , we have Ner. 's svddhino

''smi, see y. 28, which certainly carries us back some five or

six hundred years with no hint whatsoever looking to vap. And

if we doubt Ner. 's main text, there are his glosses, ret svddhinatayd

yushmäkam tishthdmi; questioning these, we have the gloss of the

pahlavi translation to the same efteot, adding ash nafshman /.omandnt.

If these be not sufficient, then we have a reserve of very

peculiar and significant value, for we have actual va'iations in the-

body of the pahlavi texts themselves. H^re again the same idea

which exists in this notable blunder is expressed, but in a totally

different word and from the other family of languages; in y. Wi, 8,

all the MSS. read khveshinishno- the base of which is hia = sva,

which is purely aryan, while at y. 26, 1. the next but one oldest

MS. and the sister codex to our Oxford MS. j 2, has khvi'shinam,

all question as to the sense in which these aryan-iranian forms

are used being put to rest by the pahlavi glosses, for it is these

in the occurrences now at this present moment alluded to, and

not the pahlavi texts which reproduce our veritable semitic

nafshman; at y. 13, 8, we have atgh patan nq/\A»ian ddrishw) . . .

avi) nafshman ktinishno, and at y. 2ti. 1, we have aigh. . .nafshma¬

ninam. This proves beyond any question whatsoever that nafshmun

is correct for the pahlavi jS^MJÄ.'f , and that it expresses a mis¬

conception which took place at a very remote period of time,

for the idea which nafshman expresses is reproduced in a word,

khvcsh", which had lost all trace of the for?n whieh gave it birth.

If nafshman, nafshmaninam etc. were inexplicable until they

were explained by '*MiJ\ = ufyd in fi^-'x.U^, or if^D] in con¬

nection with = nafsh in jS«HJ€^f nafshman, how much more

incomprehensible khvi'.shini.shno and khveshinam would be, if we did

not possess nafshman, vufshmumnaiv , etc. in the vi.rtaiits of the

pahlavi texts and in those of the glosses, in Ner.'s text also, and

in his glosses, together with the persian and its exegetical inter¬

polations.

The question then seems settled, so far as our present MSS.

are concerned; from the besinuiui^ to the end of the matter every

hint and every fact points in the same direetion.

Although, as I have said, it is not vital to my arf^ument to

show how this error arose , as 1 only . desire to show that uses

similar to that whieh caused this occurrence at one time existed,

and that they may have lingered from the original period, it will

vet be useful to discuss this question of the mode of origin. Not

the least probable view is that vujiJ^> = ufyd- as re-involved in the

442 Mills, -^SjiMJiiV^ and iis pahlavi translations.

form of ■*MV\ (these being approximately the original avesta-

pahlavi characters) was repeated by some early scholar from the

zend text and placed in the body of the pahlavi text, in which

repetition of the re-involved word he meant it, ^ejf, to be read

as ufyd (in ufydni) with no thought whatsoever of nafsh (as in

nafshman), and that this correct pahlavi writing of the zend word

was misunderstood as the pahlavi writing of a pahlavi word. The

theory is of course only possible on the supposition of caprice

or accident, for we may ask how any sensible man would re-

involve a clear zend word back into the obscure pahlavi character;

but then , it is precisely such unreasonable caprice that we are

called upon to meet and deal with at every step in all possible

discussions ; it is the incredible which appears as commonplace.

Or to put the explanation one step further back, was not an

^j»AA»ii^>, ufydni repeated in that (its zend) form in the body of

the pahlavi text, being later re-involved into the ancient pahlavi

as iyaejf, and this in good faith, and as meaning ufydni and not

nafshdni (sic), and was not this = ufydni the word which

was later misread nafshdni, so giving rise to our error of nafshman?

This however seems to be practically the same hypothesis as the

preceding; wherever — vwJi^> may have been found, whether in

the body of the zend text or transferred from that into the body

of the pahlavi text on the same piece of skin or paper and within

a few inches of its first insertion, only caprice or accident could

account for its having been taken out of its clear zend letters

and re-involved in the pahlavi terms; for the zend characters were

specially developed for the purpose of clearing up the obscurities

of the early zend-pahlavi writing (although the pahlavi translations

were intended to clear up the obscurities in the zend-gathie text,

strange as such a proposition may appear to those who do not

so carefully study their interior characteristics).

We are left then face to face with the original facts, with

one explanation of them which has been given; the error under

consideration may have been caused by accident or by caprice.

After the antiquated »«.y j^^d once been written instead of the

more newly developed «aajü (by accident or from caprice) the

progress of the matter becomes evident. The later translator then

wrote nafsh(man) for ufyd- in ufi/dni solely because this compo¬

situm which expressed the ;0 , allowed him to use a familiar word,

nafshman, meaning "self or "own"', instead of the more difficult,

but to us so exceedingly interesting ufyd in ufydni. (I may say

in passing that his translation nafshman concerns only »HJSJf, the

suffix man is in no sense a rendering of the suffix n{ which is

admirably reproduced by the use of the auxiliary word hdmandni,

Mills. fl^sAMütl^ and its pahlavi translations. 443

so that we are not obliged to bring the charge of grammatical

inaccuracy against the pahlavi translator in this instance, (as well

as the error in etymology); and it is a fortunate circumstance,

for we are not always able to clear him as to this particular).

And this error once perpetrated by accident or caprice, has con¬

trolled all traditional exegesis of the word in its various forms

ever since, an object lesson warning us to be cautious in the use

of the pahlavi texts, which should never be slavishly followed.

But I must criticise, or at least explain, the theory of the

origin of the mistake, as having arisen through accident, admirable

as that theory always is. It being conceded to me by those whose

judgment I regard as safest that the original zend-pahlavi character

for yd was often ^ (or something practically identical with it)

is it not reasonable to suppose that this feature lingered in some

families of MSS. long after the transliteration into the clear zend

had become complete in others, for beyond all manner of doubt

there was a transition period which extended to a time long after

most of the old and ambiguous (pahlavi) signs had been given

up. and before all the new ones had been universally applied or

fully developed. Although it is not at all necessary to my main

argument, I am inclined to believe that this was the fact, and

that there existed for a very long time a family of MSS. in which

these old letters lingered, in certain words, and especially in this

word imder discussion ; and I believe that those MSS. which re¬

produced this ^ in this particular zend word ^J^^^j instead ot

«AA.iii as in •5J^»*juii^>, have perished, just as that line of zend-

pahlavi translations has perished which most probably contained

the original, and therefore necessarily correct pahlavi (?), or still

earlier zend-pahlavi , translation and exegetical explanation of ufydni,

for no expert will concede for a moment that nafshman humandni,

or any of its equivalents, was the primitive and orginal explanation

of the text, when such an explanation of this rendering can be

offered as that which I have given from the character of this >aü,

for it is precisely this letter, or compositum, which in its

slightly altered form of /O , survives to this very day in very

many other words where the syllable vcuii, Mii, or jii, would

be expected; (see this Zeitschrift Bd. 49 III. Heft as above cited

where I have mentioned only a very few instances, which have

been for the most part accepted by those whom I regard as

persons best qualified to judge as to questions involving the zend-

pahlavi translations). And this fact, if it be a fact, may well

banish all positive necessity for the supposition of an accidental

change in the method of writing the letters under consideration

(admirable as the theory of pure accident often is) to account for

444 Mills, fii\*Mii<i^ and its pahlavi translations.

nafshman homandni as an attempted translation of ufydni. = yd

may on the contrary have lingered in an unbroken line in our zend

MSS. from the very first zend-pahlavi writing till to-day. But

it leaves us under the necessity of supposing, what was indeed

very like an accident, and this was either that (in the ease of

this particular stem ufyd) some copyist, more or less a scholar,

saw the fully written •jjjkvwij^> ufydni in some one of the MSS.

at his side, and inserted it into his zend-gathic text, while he

retained') his erroneous pahlavi translation, nafshman /lomandni;

and that this more fully written •5j^**juii^> has descended to our¬

selves, while on the contrary all the MSS. which once read

ij^a^j (or the like) have perished; or else it calls for the sup¬

position that the copyist simply corrected the old ^Jj'^tJj (or

i\'^9J\, ^)^9}\) in his zend MS. by writing ) as > and as

<Ajuii in order to make the appearance of the letters in this word

correspond to the already fully developed syllable [yd) which

he had just written before it and after it on different folios of

the parchment or the paper before him.

We may, however, cast more light on the difficulty of pure

accident as our theory for explaining nafshman for ufyd by quoting

the strange handwriting of the zend MS. J. 9 of which the Bod¬

leian Library possesses a photo-facsimile. It would be hazardous

to suppose these boldly varied signs to be the result of individual

caprice; they are so marked iw their peculiarity that it requires

study to decipher them. If they show a kind of writing which

was prevalent for some decades of years or more, in some remote

school of ancient philology, then the survival of dubious signs in

other schools looks still more probable. Unquestionably there

1) I may mention in passing that this apparently obvious fact aft'ords

us an incontestable proof of one most interesting and otherwise not so

easily attested circumstance, which is that the zend-pahlavi MSS. could not possibly have been meclianically copied onc from the other in every instance with mathematical cxactnccs. In very many instances our ancient

predecessors studied as they progressed, culling now a word from one

older document beside them, now one from another, declining to follow

the pahlavi translation in one MS. while rctainig its zend text; sometimes rc-copyng the ])ahlavi translations before them and enriching them with interpolated renderings withaut era.iiny those wliirli they replaced, and so either offering alternative translations themselves or else affording the ready material to their succcssor.s for such productions; sec especially such cases as the double translation of yasU', in y. lil, 7, where the word was first rendered as a form of a yas (sic, = "to come", tlien more cor¬

rectly as tlie pronoun "wlio", see my Gdthas, page 1.2.

It was to be sure a priori probable that the ancient editors 'sic , some of thera, should select zend texts and texts of pahlavi translations

from differing MS. or from more than onc oral teacher, but here we

])ossess what seems to be an absolute proof of it.

Mills, .jJ)<AwiiÄ> and its pahlavi translations. 445

were schools where such an error as nafshman hömanäni for ufydni

could not have arisen, nor could it have remained undetected in

MSS. from other seats of primitive learning; but these schools

of higher learning must have been quite rare; not a trace of a

correction has survived to us. And that there were schools whose

MSS. read ^ (in its modefied forms) = yd, etc. and who some¬

times mistook the >*o = ,>0 = y<? for another letter or compositum

remains, as I hold, incontestable from the fact that we ourselves

afford an instance of persons who have made such an error. In

view of the fact that = = yd solves great grammatical

difficulties (as to form) in cases like ahf (?) for ahyd and Jcaine (?)

for kainyd, etc., etc. as well as in the case of the e.xplanation of

nafsh from the ambiguity of an ■jJ^-Mje^f or = vfydni we

have every reason to e.xpect, what criticism ought long since to

have found out, which is, namely, that our present extant zend

texts abound in ancient misapplications of the alphabet, for the

vowel inherent in the consonant is to be restored at every turn;

while half of the so-called impossible spellings in the avesta are

simply mistakes in supjdying the lost inherent vowel; for, as in

our modern pahlavi, all the short vowels were probably once

inherent in the consonants with occasional signs to refresh the

flagging memory.

All the rich irregularities of the MSS. are ' precious to us

as the debris of former more rational readings, for they furnish

lis with an invaluable cpiarry, out of which to select our materials

for reconstructions; but they render the theory of an intentional

caprice as an exclusive source of change very difficult, while they

assist us to believe that other ancient peculiarities which have

now perished lingered for centuries, leaving their traces in the

frequent oddity of our pahlavi translations, where in the midst

of renderings brilliantly suggestive we come upon such apjiarently

luicaused (?) eccentricities as our nafshman homandni; and they

corroborate the arguments which we present to prove that this

ancient original use of = ;y for MA)ii in which has

perished from f>\^i^> still survives in /üevow» as = >HJe>'«JW and

in the many occurrences of this amended >MJ for v«j5J.

I hope elsewhere to rebut in detail the once forcible, b\it

now antiquated argument that Ji - y has simply disappeared in

the ease of A3i>''" for ouii^VvU or v«juii£Vv«J, leaving as the result

of its disappearance a modification of ^ = o to /O = ß or of

= a, to {0^= ('• I '^■n opinion that ii seldom or never

■disappiars (in good readings) from »ajuü = yd, or from .A.»ii = ya

(excei)t as a mechanical accident), for (aside from the case of

446 Müh, •)>)^*Miiii'> and its pahlavi translations.

gj^ , ;ü, >*ü which. I have considered above) this Ji = y , is con¬

tained in a character which is practically always present in cases

where this ü = y, was supposed to disappear; that character is

which is wy, the contraction being also a displacement, some¬

what as in the case of °nuha for °hhva (term, of the imper. 2d

sg. med.); is a compositum = n . . y \ \zy'jJ~ mI^ is V^i^vj^iu^^

cp. ind. vdsyas, and vanho (sic) is really nonsense. In ;04>>a>~

for a.»(ii)iie>'3g/o the second ii, y, was probably permitted owing

• to the obscurity of the letter (y) included within or it was

simply a case of over-writing (that is to say of superfluous and

redundant letters) such as for re, for /*"^) ->Wjmx>,

for ?vAju, etc.

In this Zeitschrift Bd. 49 III. Heft, I read ^iifüyi^) with

three MSS. correcting to = ^^ii^ujiii, cp. sk. iyd'ya, the

form ;o being perpetuated in this case to avoid the accumulation of

i's ; but reading ^^^ii^üü (sic) and writing ^^ii^iii , we would

have as = f in the place of sansk. a 01 d, the propriety of

which I greatly doubt. Sansk. a is supposed to be represented in

zend by at times; but almost, if not quite, always (in rational

readings) ^ stands in the place of an expected m only after y,

which is a part of this selfsame letter /{) = which is the

subject in debate. I have myself not the slightest doubt that this

^ which is supposed to equal sansk. sxj is simply our compositum

again as in the case of ^(lyM when deciphered as ahya = sk. asya;

cp. also gäthic ahyd. I think we have here again ^^ii«xu (ii) iii

iy[y]dyan pret. (?) perf., cp. sk. iyd'yd perf. with the ü redundantly

written as in the case of yeiihy[y)a (see above, ^ being used for

«AwiJ, or *iuJJ to avoid an accumulation of the signs J).

I may ask in conclusion; if the disappearing (?) ü, y leaves

the or »Ax» in the form of X) or J0^(= p, e), how comes it that

this supposed disappearance has no efl'ect in the modification of

other vowels; cp. for instance \ in \^s)J~ mI^ and ^-mj in

t-*x3iy>jJ~ a^»{oJJ ?

447

Padmasambhava und Mandärava.

Von Albert Grünwedel.

Als den Begründer des eigentümlichen hierarchischen Systems

der nördlichen Schule des Buddhismus, welches man mit dem Aus¬

druck Lamaismus zu bezeichnen sich gewöhnt hat, hat man nach

L. A. W a d d e 111) eine Persönlichkeit anzusprechen , welche uns

merkwürdigerweise nicht einmal mit ihrem wirklichen Namen bis

jetzt bekannt ist. ünter dem Beinamen „der aus dem Lotus ge¬

borene" Skt. Padmasambhava, Tib. Pad-ma'byuh-gnas oder „der

Mann von üdyäna" Tib. U-rgyan-pa ist diese Persönlichkeit, welche

zu den Zeiten des tibetischen Königs K'ri-sron Ide-btsan (740—786

n. Chr.) in Tibet gewirkt hat, der Mittelpunkt von allerlei Pabeln

und Mystifikationen. Alles , was über ihn erzählt wird , Mit aus

den geläufigen indischen Anschauungen, die man erwarten könnte,

heraus ; doch kann man sich aus dem Wenigen , was bisher über

ihn bekannt ist, kein Bild über seine eigentliche Wirksamkeit

machen. Sicher ist, dass die herrschende Kirche (die Gelbmützen)

ihn nicht kennen will, dass manche der ihm zugeschriebenen Aus¬

sprüche als blasphemische -) bezeichnet werden. Beachtet man dazu

die weitere Angabe, dass er in Käbul, also in einem unter persischem

Einfluss stehenden Lande geboren und gross geworden ist, so wird

der Mann, für welchen die lamaische Ikonographie einen äusserst

markanten und peinlich festgehaltenen Typus in eigenartiger Tracht ^)

(Tib. Za-hor-ma) besitzt, noch interessanter. Zu den weiteren

charakteristischen Angaben über ihn gehört das Auffinden heiliger

Bücher in Höhlen*) und das Wiedemiederlegen derselben in solchen

versteckten Orten „er habe von DäkinTs und anderen Gottheiten,

1) H. H. Risley, Gazetteer of Sikhim. 8. 244.

2) Veröffentlichungen aus dem Kgl. Museum für Völkerkunde zu Berlin, I, 2—3; S. 107.

3) Vgl. die Ahbildungen bei Schlagintweit, Buddhism (trad. Millou^, Ann.

du Musöe Guimet UI, PI. VII; Risley, Gazetteer of Sikhim PI. V; L. A. Waddell, Buddhism of T. or Lamaism, Lond. 1895, S. 25; Bastian - Festschrifl S. 463 (S. 5 des Sep.-Abdrucks).

4) Sarat Chandra Das, Buddhist Schools in T. JASB. 1882, 13. H. 123.