Scribes and Their Patrons: on the Merit of Copying
Manuscripts in the Zoroastrian Tradition
Almut Hintze
In the Samvat year 1377, on Wednesday, Kārtikka Sudi 14, on the Fravardin day
of the month Ādar of the Parsi year 690,1 today, here in Thana, on the shore of
the sea, at the time when Sultan Giyāsadin was establishing his sway, the Parsi
merchant Čāhil, son of the Parsi merchant Sāngan, having sent a letter full of
compliments and an honorarium for copying, caused this book to be written for
the merit of his soul by the Parsi priest Mihirwān who came from the country
of Irānland. Whosoever preserves or reads this book of the Shāhnāmā Gushtāsp,
the Pandnāmā Ādarbād Māraspand will reflect merit upon the merchant Čāhil
and also upon his ancestors whose souls have been emancipated.2
This is how the Sanskrit colophon of one of the oldest extant Zoroastrian manuscripts, the Pahlavi codex MK, records the circumstances under which Čāhil
Sāngan from the Gujarati seaport of Khambāt (Cambay) invited and funded
the learned Iranian Zoroastrian priest Mihrābān, son of Kayhusraw, to travel
from Iran to India in the early fourteenth century in order to share his knowledge about Zoroastrian rituals, and his skills in copying manuscripts, with
his Indian counterparts.3 The Sultan referred to is Ghazi Malik, later called
1
2
3
As noted by Anklesaria 1913, p. 7, fn. 1, the year should in fact be 691 AY in agreement
with the year given in the other colophons of MK. – I am grateful to Dr Elizabeth
Magba and Mr William Schimrigk-Biagini for copy-editing this article.
Translation by H. M. Bhadkamkar apud Hodiwala 1920, p. 124. The point of reference
of the “Parsi year” is the year 631 CE, the year of the ascension of Yazdegerd III, the last
Sasanian ruler. Elsewhere it is referred to as Anno Yazdegerd (AY). In Iranian manuscripts dates are usually given according to year 20 of Yazdegerd’s rule, i. e. 651 CE, the
year that marks the end of Sasanian rule and the beginning of the Islamic period of Iran.
The manuscript’s name MK derives from the initials of its scribe Mihrābān Kayhusraw.
The Sanskrit text quoted above is lost in MK but was transcribed by Dastur Jamšēd Jāmāsp
Āsā Farīdūn in the manuscript JJ in 1767 CE (1136 AY). The transcribed text, printed in
Devanagari script in JamaspAsana (1913, p. 169) is as follows: saṃvat 1377 varṣe kārttiku
śudi 14 budhe pārsī sana 690 varṣe māh ādara rōj pharūaradīna ādyaha ṭhāṇāṃ velākule
sūlatān śrī geyāsadīna rojya paripaṃthayatītyevaṃ kāle erāṃnajamīṃdeśāt samāyāt
pārasī ācārya mihiravānasya bahumān lekhāpanaṃ kāgalaṃ ca pradāya pārasī vyava
sāṃgaṇa sūta vyava cāhilena puṇyārthaṃ etasya pāśvārt pustakamidaṃ likhāpitaṃ
śāhanāmā gustāspa paṃdanāmā ādarpāda māraspaṃda nāmā yaḥ kopi pustakamidaṃ
rakṣati paṭhati vā tene vyava cāhilasya pūrvajānām suktātmanāṃ tathā etasya nimattaṃ
146
Almut Hintze
Ghiyas-ud-din Tughlaq (r. 1320–1325 C. E.), first ruler of the Tughluq Dynasty
of the Delhi Sultanate. The colophon establishes a historically accurate synchronism between the early years of the Sultan’s reign and the completion of the
manuscript in Anno Yazdegerd (AY) 691 (10 October 1322 CE).4 MK is one of,
if not the oldest surviving manuscript which Mihrābān Kayhusraw transcribed
upon his arrival in India.5 The fact that his name also appears as that of the
scribe in the colophons of several other manuscripts copied in India between
1321 and 1351 CE, and possibly also later,6 suggests that his stay extended for at
least thirty years.
Mihrābān Kayhusraw’s host and sponsor, Čāhil Sāngan did not himself belong to the priestly class, but was a lay Zoroastrian. The interest which he nevertheless took in the preservation of the Zoroastrian religious tradition, proved
vital for the survival of the Avestan Yasna and Vidēvdād and their Pahlavi
translations up to the present day. Mihrābān Kayhusraw’s manuscripts are not
only the oldest extant bilingual manuscripts of the Avesta, but also the ancestors of all other surviving manuscripts of this class of texts.7 The role which
Čāhil Sāngan plays in the history of the Zoroastrian tradition illustrates the
mutual dependency between the Zoroastrian priesthood and the laity. Such a
reciprocal relationship is most prominent in connection with the performance
of rituals, in which members of the laity depend on the priests as ritual experts.
They engage the priests and hire them to perform rituals on their behalf. The
priests have the specialist knowledge required to recite and interpret the sacred
Avestan texts and to perform rituals. The merit for commissioning and funding
a ritual accrues to the account of the patron who commissioned it. The priests in
4
5
6
7
puṇyaṃ karaṇīyaṃ. Colophons in Sanskrit also occur in the manuscripts L 4 and K 5 copied by Mihrābān, see Cantera 2014, p. 145.
Westergaard 1993, p. 11, fn. 2; Sanjana 1895, p. xlix. On the Delhi Sultanate see
Jackson 1999. Day Ādar, month Frawardīn 691 AY, which is given as the date in MK’s
fifth colophon and in the Sanskrit colophon, corresponds to 10 October 1322, see Anklesaria 1913, pp. 6–8. On Mihrābān’s coming to India and his activities there, see
Westergaard 1993, p. 3, n. 1; p. 11, n. 1; Tavadia 1933, col. 569; and Cantera 2014,
pp. 140–147.
The Ardā Wirāz Nāmag and the Mādayān ī Yōšt ī Fryān of the miscellaneous codex K 20
bear earlier dates (1321 CE), but since they are transcribed from an Iranian manuscript,
there is the possibility that Mihrābān copied them whilst still in Iran, see Cantera 2014,
p. 140 f., fn. 136, who dates the arrival of Mihrābān in the first half of 1322 CE.
Westergaard 1993, p. 3 and fn. 1. On the manuscripts copied by Mihrābān in India, including possibly one in 1363 CE, see below, section 3. The year 720 pārsīg of colophon 2
is the latest of the three colophons of K 20. It probably corresponds to 1351 CE, cf. Piras
2000, pp. 14–15, on the three colophons of K 20 (with references). Cantera (2014, p. 142
and fn. 138) considers the date 720 to be equivalent to 1371 CE, but notes that it appears
to be too late for Mihrābān Kayhusraw.
To date no manuscripts of the Pahlavi Vidēvdād have been recovered in Iran, although
evidence for its existence comes from an interlinear Pahlavi translation in the manuscript 4000_Ave 976 of the Vidēvdād Sāde, see Skjærvø 2014, p. 10, and fn. 25 below.
Scribes and Their Patrons: on the Merit of Copying Manuscripts
147
turn derive their income from the rituals they perform on behalf of members of
the laity. Patronage is thus a fundamental and widely recognized feature in the
framework of Zoroastrian ritual practice. It forms part of the system of merit
and reward that is rooted in prehistoric Indo-Iranian times.8 Yet, the role which
it has played in the tradition of Zoroastrian manuscripts has so far attracted
little attention.
Copying a manuscript was a time-consuming, laborious and expensive activity. In the colophons that are included in many of the manuscripts,9 the scribes
usually state at whose request the manuscript was copied. Three major groups
of people are mentioned in this connection:
1. the scribe himself;
2. another priest;
3. a member of the laity.
Reference to payment tends to be made only in the third case. In what follows
we shall look at two instances in which the copying of manuscripts was commissioned by lay-members of the community and explore the significance such
commissioning had for the survival of the Avesta. Focusing on two of the oldest
sponsors of whom we know, one from Iran and one from India, it will be argued
that the engagement of the laity with the religious tradition, and the funding of
priests to copy manuscripts and travel between the communities of Iran and
India, proved vital for important manuscripts to be copied and preserved. I am
delighted to dedicate this article to my esteemed colleague and friend John
Hinnells in admiration for his ground-breaking research on the Parsis and
their diasporas.
1. Māhdād, son of Ādurweh
One of the earliest patrons whose name is mentioned in the manuscripts is
Māhdād, son of Ādurweh. We do not know much about him other than his
name, which appears in connection with the oldest known, but no longer extant, manuscript of the Pahlavi Vīdēvdād. He is said to have used some of his
wealth to engage the priest Ardašīr, son of Wahuman, to copy the manuscript
of Hōmāst. The work was completed in 554 AY (= 1185 or 1205 CE)10 in Sīstān.
8
9
10
On the role of patronage in the relationship between priesthood and laity, see Stausberg/Karanjia 2015, pp. 366–369; Stausberg 2004, pp. 86–90; Kreyenbroek 1987,
p. 188 f.; and on its Indo-Iranian roots Hintze 2004.
On the colophons, see Cantera 2012 b, pp. 321–322; and for an edition and translation
of the colophons of Zoroastrian manuscripts in libraries in Europe see Unvala 1940.
Sanjana (1895, p. xxxviii, fn. 4) assumes that year 20 of the Yazdegerd Era is meant
although the year 20 is not explicitly stated and accordingly posits the date of Ardašīr’s
manuscript as 1205 CE. Cf. Cantera 2012 b, p. 323, fn. 44.
148
Almut Hintze
It was carried out for Māhyār, son of Māhmihr, a priest of the Zoroastrian
community in Ucha in the Panjāb.11 Māhyār had travelled to Sīstān in order to
obtain a copy of the Pahlavi Vidēvdād, which at the time was no longer available among the communities of India,12 and he returned to Ucha with Ardašīr
Wahuman’s copy. While this manuscript is lost, what survives to the present
day are two copies of a copy of that copy. These are the manuscripts 4600_L 4
and 4610_K 1, written by Mihrābān Kayhusraw in 1323 and 1324 respectively.13
They include three successive colophons. The first belongs to Ardašīr Wahuman’s manuscript, the second to the source from which they were both copied,
and the third to themselves. The entire extant Pahlavi Vidēvdād descends from
these two manuscripts.14 While with regard to L 4 the colophons survive only
in copies descending from that manuscript, they are preserved intact in the
manuscript K 1. In colophon 1, Māhdād Ādurweh’s benefaction is recorded as
follows (Figs. 1–2):15
11
On the city of Ucha in the Panjab, see Westergaard 1993, p. 3 f., fn. 4; Sanjana 1895,
p. xxxvi, fn. 2; Cereti 2007, p. 218. Cunningham locates Ucha 45 miles northeast of
the confluence of Panjnad and the Indus at Mīthunkot, see Sastri 1924, pp. 277–278.
Zoroastrian presence in the Panjab, in particular Multān, is attested from the 6th century CE, see Stausberg 2002, p. 374 and fn. 338. Tavadia (1944, pp. 309–312) considers
the possibilities that the Parsis of Ucha in the Panjab, and with them the manuscript,
later either moved to Gujarat, or relocated to Sistan, from where the manuscript would
have been taken to Gujarat. Anquetil Duperron (1771, I, p. cccxxiii; and I.2, p. iv)
reports a Parsi tradition according to which, at least 400 years before his time (i. e. before ca. 1370 CE), Dastur Ardešīr came from Sistan to Gujarat and gave to the Parsis
the Pahlavi Vidēvdād, from which the two Indian Pahlavi Vidēvdād traditions descend,
cf. Westergaard 1993, p. 4 with n. 1, and p. 5; Geldner 1896, p. xviii; and Cantera/
Andrés-Toledo 2008, p. 82.
12 Cf. Cantera/Andrés-Toledo 2008, p. 81.
13 For the system of numbering Avestan manuscripts, see the table in Cantera 2014,
pp. 403–414.
14 Cf. Cantera 2010, p. 180; and 2014, p. 149. On the manuscripts descending from L 4, see
Cantera 2007, p. 133 f.; and Martínez Porro 2012.
15 For the facsimiles of K 1 see Barr 1941, II, p. 289. Images were also published by AndrésToledo on the website of the Avestan Digital Archive, but here fol. 2 r corresponds
to fol. 93 r (Vd 5.26) of the manuscript, as fols. 1–92, which are lost, are not taken into
account. The numbering of folios in the Avestan Digital Archive is therefore 92 folios
behind that of the actual manuscript. The text of the three colophons of K 1 was published by Sanjana (1895, pp. xxxvi–xli) in the original Pahlavi script with an English
translation and, of the first colophon only, by Spiegel (1860, pp. 8–10) with a German
translation. Copies of K 1 include 4630_P 2, and of L 4 4712_Bh 11, 4713_E 10 and the
currently lost ms. Pt 2, whose colophons are printed and translated in Sanjana (1895,
pp. xliv–xlix). Cereti (1996, pp. 447–450) collates the text of the three colophons of
K 1 with that of Bh 11 and Pt 2 (based on Sanjana) and provides a transcription and
translation. The lines from ⟨ptš krt’ bwt⟩ (l. 11) of the colophon of K 1 are also translated and discussed by Cantera (2014, p. 135 f., fn. 132). The text above is based on the
facsimiles of K 1.
Scribes and Their Patrons: on the Merit of Copying Manuscripts
Fig. 1: 4610_K 1 fol. 338 v 2–16
Fig. 2: 4610_K 1 fol. 339 r 1–4
149
150
Almut Hintze
4610_K 1 fols. 338 v 2–339 r 4
[2] plcpt' PWN plcʾmynyt' [3] PWN ŠRM šʾtyh lʾmšn' ẔNH kwlʾsk PWN
BYRʾ tyl [4] ŠNT MDM Y 500 50 ʾLBʾ YWM slwš plhw' MNW [5] npšt'
YKʿMWN-ʾt ʾyltšyl-Y whwmn' Y lwcwyh šʾbwlcyn [6] šʾmlt' MNW-š lwbʾn'
ʾnwšk YḤWWN-ʾt MN YDH npyk ʾnwšk [7] lwbʾn' ʾylpt' hwmʾst' whšt' bʾhl
šʾtʾn' Y ʾwhrmẕd
[8] ḆY̱ Ṉ štr' systʾn' npšt YḤWWN-t MN plmʾnyh ʾwstʾt [9] hmʾy hwnl ms NKḆ̂
ŠPYL g̈whʾl scyb(?) Y stʾdšn' [10] MNW-š lwbʾn' ʾnwšk YḤWWN-ʾt mʾhd̂
ʾt
ʾtwrwyh MN [11] dyndʾl MN ZK NPŠH hwʾstk ʾwcynk ptš krt' bwt PWN
[12] mʾhyʾl Y mʾhmtr' ʾylpt MN hndwkʾn MN ʾwck štr' MNW knʾl Y [13] MYʾ
synd̂MNW PWN dyn'-yk ŠPYL lwt KRYTWN-t. 6 ŠNT [14] PWN nzdyk
̂ Y [15] MNDʿM-1 hmwht' ʿL hndykʾn' mt'
ʾylptʾn' sg stʾn' YḤWWN-t. ʾP̄-š dyn'
̂ [16] ywdtdywd̂
ʾP̄-š ẔNH dptl
ʾt LWTH znd̂PWN ZNH kwstk YḤWWN-t ʾP̄-š
(fol. 339 r 1) [1] MN TMH ʾhlwb' d̂
ʾt wnd̂
ʾt YKʿMWN-ʾt'.
YM
W ZK Y hnd̂ZK kwstk [2] MNW ZK YWM bwt ḤWH-d̂spʾhpt šʾhmlt'
mʾhyʾl [3] ʾylpt' šʾhmʾlt' mʾhyʾl Y šʾhzʾt' Y mtrg̈y w ẔNH [4] kwlʾsk lʾdynyt'
drwst' krt'. (Bh 11 and E 10 add: MNW lwbʾn' nwšk YḤWWN-ʾt)
[2] frazaft pad frazāmēnīd [3] pad drōd šādīh rāmišn ēn korrāsag pad māh tīr
[4] sāl abar ī panjsad panjāh čahār rōz srōš farrox kē [5] nibišt ēstād erdšīr-ī
wahuman ī rōzweh šāhburzen [6] šāhmard kē-š ruwān anōšag bawād az dast
nibēg anōšag [7] ruwān ērbad hōmāst wahišt bahršādān ī ohrmazd.
[8] andar šahr sīstān nibišt būd az framānīh ōstād [9] hamē hunar meh mādag
weh gōhr sazēb(?) ī stāyišn [10] kē-š ruwān anōšag bawād, māhdād ādurweh
az [11] dēnyār. az ān xwēš xwāstag uzēnag padiš kard būd pad [12] māhyār-ī
māhmihr ērbad az hindugān az uchag šahr kē kanār ī [13] āb sind kē pad
dēnīg weh rōd xwand. šaš sāl [14] pad nazdīk ērbadān saga stān būd. u-š dēn ī
[15] tis-ēw hamōxt ō hindūgān mad. u-š ēn daftar [16] ǰud-dēw-dād abāg zand
pad ēn kustag būd. u-š (fol. 339 r 1) [1] ānōh ahlaw dād windād ēstād.
ud ān ī hēnd ān kustag [2] ē ān rōz būd hēnd spāhbed šāhmard māhyār.
[3] ērbad Šahmard Māhyār ī šāhzād ī mihrjīw ēn [4] korrāsag rāyēnīd drūst kard.
(Bh 11 and E 10 add: kē ruwān anōšag bawād)
“[2] This book has been completed with completion, [3] in health, joy (and)
peace in Month Tīr, [4] year 554, day Srōš the auspicious. It [5] had been written
by Ardešīr, (son) of Wahuman, (son) of Rōzweh, (son) of Šahburzīn, [6] (son)
of Šāhmard, whose soul shall be immortal, from the manuscript of the immortal-[7] souled Ērvad Hōmāst, (son) of Wahišt, (son) of Bahršādān16, (son) of
Ohrmazd.
16
The position of the word wahišt bahr suggests that it forms part of Hōmāst’s genealogy. That bahr here belongs to the following šādān and constitutes the first term of a
compound name is also suggested by the lack of a gap between the two words. Cantera
(2012 b, p. 323) transcribes the name as bahlšādān. Elsewhere the expression wahišt bahr
means ‘who shares in paradise’, referring to a deceased person, e. g. in colophon 1 of the
manuscript MK, fol. 18 v 2, see JamaspAsana 1913, p. 16; Anklesaria 1913, p. 4 f. The
translation of Cereti (1996, p. 449) is accordingly ‘hērbed Hōmāst, whose lot is Heaven’
in agreement with Sanjana (1895, p. xxxviii), and Jamasp (1907, pp. xv [DJJ] and xxix,
xxx [IM]), who however, regard it as referring to Šādān.
Scribes and Their Patrons: on the Merit of Copying Manuscripts
151
[8] It had been written in the land of Sīstān following the order17 of the master
[9] of profound skill, of great substance18, of good lineage, worthy(?)19 of praise,
[10] (of him,) whose soul shall be immortal, Māhdād, (son) of Ādurweh, (son) of20
[11] Dēnyār. From his own wealth he had made the expenditure21 for the benefit
of [12] Māhyār, (son) of Māhmihr, a priest from India, from the city of Ucha,
which (is) at the bank of [13] the Water of Sind, which in the religious (texts) is
called ‘Good River’.22 For six years [14] he was near the Ērbads of Saga-stān. And
through him some religious [15] matter was learnt (and) came to Hindugān. And
this register [16] ‘Anti-Demon-Law’ with explanation came to this side through
him. And he (fol. 339 r 1) [1] had acquired it there as a righteous gift.
And of those of Hind who were (in) that region [2] in those days, the leader
(was) Šahmard, (son) of Māhyār. [3] Ērvad Šahmard, (son) of Māhyār, (son) of
Šahzād, (son) of Mihrjīw, [4] arranged (and) made this book correct. (Bh 11 and
E 10 add: whose soul shall be immortal.)”
Māhdād, (son) of Ādurweh is described as a ‘master’ (ōstād), who used his
personal resources (az ān xwēš xwāstag) to employ the priest Ardašīr, (son)
of Wahuman to copy the Pahlavi Vidēvdād in Sīstān. He had the manuscript
transcribed for the priest (ērbad) Māhyār, son of Māhmihr, who had travelled
to Sīstān from the land of Ucha located at the border of the river Sind. The tradition of the Indian Pahlavi Vidēvdād thus descends from that one manuscript
brought to India by Māhyār, son of Māhmihr.
The Pahlavi Vidēvdād also continued to be copied in Iran, but the only tradition for which evidence exists is the one that likewise descends from the manuscript of Hōmāst. This is the manuscript IM, which was copied in Kermān in
17
18
Tavadia (1944, p. 302) suggests reading az framān ī instead of the written az framānīh.
Cereti (1996, p. 448 with n. 13) assumes that the heterogram ⟨NKB̂
̱ ⟩ is here used
wrongly and is “deformed”. It would represent eteographic mdʾnk'/mayānag, which is
attested as a personal name on seals. According to him, the hypothetical “Mayānag”
would have ordered the copying of the manuscript, while Māhdād, (son) of Ādurweh
would have paid for it. Apart from the fact that this interpretation produces a redundant
character involved in the production of the manuscript, the emendation is palaeographically unsupported. It is also unnecessary because the heterogram NKB̂
̱ /1mādag ‘female’
frequently represents the homonymous 2mādag ‘essence, substance’, which fits the context well, as already noted by Tavadia (1944, p. 300 f.).
19 The spelling of this word in K 1 suggests a reading ⟨scyb⟩, but it is not clear what it represents. The manuscript 4711_Bh 11 fol. 277 v 1 has the form scʾk/sazāg ‘fitting, worthy’,
which could have resulted from the deliberate restoration of an obscure word. The unusual form in K 1 is also noted by Tavadia (1944, p. 301). I am grateful to Professor
Maria Macuch for a helpful discussion of this word and of ⟨NKB̂
̱ ⟩.
20 It seems that the scribe tried to erase the signs ⟨MN⟩ at the end of line 10 because the
ink is fainter. At any rate ⟨MN⟩ is unexpected here and could result from anticipation
of ⟨MN⟩ following the next word. Cereti (1996, p. 448, n. 14) suggests to emend MNW
dyndʾl/kē dēndār ‘who is pious’.
21 Bartholomae (1916, pp. 30–47) provides a detailed discussion of uzēnag ‘expense’,
which he derives from OIr. *uz-ai a̯ naka-, from the root i ‘to go’.
22 On the Pahlavi passages concerned with Weh Rōd, see Markwart 1938, pp. 114–133.
152
Almut Hintze
1575 CE.23 This manuscript, too, eventually found its way to India. According
to a note in Persian appended to the last folio, a Persian Zoroastrian named
Syāvaxš, (son) of Ohrmazdyār brought IM from Kermān to India and presented it as a gift to the “wealthy noble” Manekji Sohrabji Kavusji Ashburner
in 1853 CE, who then donated it to Dastūr Hōšang Jāmāsp of Pune.24 Sadly,
the current location of IM is unknown,25 if it still exists at all, but fortunately
Dastūr Hōšang used it in his edition of the Pahlavi version of the Vidēvdād and
records its variant readings. He also reproduces the three colophons of IM in
the original Pahlavi script accompanied by an English translation.26
The first colophon appears at the end of Vd 9 (IM fols. 98 r 20–98 v 6) and the
second and third at the end of the manuscript on fols. 158 r 17–159 r 13. Colophon 2 belongs to the manuscript of Ardašīr Wahuman and agrees with that
copied in K 1, except that it ends with Māhyār Māhmihr’s visit to Sīstān, which
would have taken place in 600 AY (see section 2 below), and makes no mention of
what happened to the manuscript in India. Colophon 1 after Vd 9 and colophon
3 at the end of the manuscript belong to IM proper. In addition, the second half
of colophon 3 recounts the story of the manuscript IM in reverse chronological
order, starting from the present copy and ending with Ardešīr Wahuman’s copy.
Only here mention is made of the transfer of the latter manuscript to India.27
Colophons 1 and 3 both state that IM was copied in Kermān in 944 AY
(1575 CE) by Marzbān Frēdōn Wāhrom28 from the copy of Šahryār Ardešīr
Ērīz Rustam Ērīz Kavād Ērānšah, who in turn copied it from the manuscript of
Wižan Wahrāmšāh Wižan for Ādurgašasp Yazdayār Wižan Wahrāmšāh. The
name of the latter, which is only mentioned in colophon 3, suggests that he was
23 On the manuscript, see Andrés-Toledo/Cantera 2012, 235.
24 The full name of the Persian Zoroastrian was Syāvaxš Ohrmazdyār Syāvaxš Rustam
Ohrmazdyār, see Jamasp 1907, p. xxiv; and Sims-Williams 2012, pp. 188–190.
25 Cf. Skjærvø 2014, p. 9, fn. 14. The Pahlavi version of IM survives interlinear, written between the lines of the Avestan text in the Vidēvdād Sāde manuscript 4000_TU 1 (Ave 976),
see Skjærvø 2014, p. 10. The latter manuscript was written in Šarif Ābād in 1607 (or 1637)
by Frēdōn Marzbān Frēdōn Wāhrom Rustom Būndār Šāhmardān Dēnyār, the son of
the scribe of IM, see Mazdapour 2012, pp. 165–166; Andrés-Toledo/Cantera 2012,
pp. 208–209; and Cantera 2014, pp. 90–91. Facsimiles of 4000_TU 1 (Ave 976) were
published online by Alberto Cantera in the Avestan Digital Archive and one page
by Cantera (2014, p. 36), showing the interlinear Pahlavi translation of the Avestan
text. The only Iranian manuscript of the exegetical Avesta currently known is a fragment of the Iranian Pahlavi Visperad covering Vr 1.4–10.2. It constitutes the second part
of the manuscript TD 4, see Cantera 2014, p. 91; and, on the first part of the manuscript
(TD 4 a), König 2014, pp. 61–62.
26 Jamasp 1907, pp. xxiv–xxxi. On the colophons, see also Cantera 2012 b, p. 323.
27 Jamasp 1907, pp. xxvii–xxvix.
28 The full name of the scribe of IM is given as Marzbān Frēdōn Wāhrom Rustom Būndār
Šāhmardān Dēnyār. He belongs to an illustrious priestly family of Kermān, where they
had migrated from Khorasān. Members of this family have copied a large number of important Avestan and Pahlavi manuscripts, see Hodivala 1920, p. 294 f., fn. 33; Unvala
1940, p. 191 (family tree); König 2014, pp. 50–60; Cantera 2014, pp. 93–96.
Scribes and Their Patrons: on the Merit of Copying Manuscripts
153
the grandson of Wižan Wahrāmšāh Wižan.29 This means that two generations
or ca. 60–100 years lie between the copy of Šahryār Ardešīr and that of Wižan
Wahrāmšāh Wižan, who in turn copied the manuscript of Ardešīr Wahuman
Rōzweh Šahburzīn Šāhmard, which was completed in 554 AY (1185 CE).30
2. The colophon of Ardašīr Wahuman
and the date of Māhyār Māhmihr’s visit to Iran
The colophon of Ardašīr Wahuman’s manuscript of 554 AY (1185 CE) is thus
found in the Pahlavi Vidēvdād manuscripts of both the Iranian and Indian traditions. The colophon of IM, however, differs from those of the Indian branch
in so far as it records the year 600 AY (= 1231 CE) for Māhyār Māhmihr’s visit
to Iran, entailing a gap of 46 years between the visit and the year when Ardašīr
copied the manuscript of Hōmāst. By contrast, the colophon of K 1 states no
date for Māhyār Māhmihr’s visit but relates instead that he stayed with the
Ērbads of Sīstān for six years.
A possible explanation for the discrepancy is that the figures result from a
transmission error in one of the two branches. Thus, according to Mirza, who
considers the information provided by the colophons of IM to be more authentic, the figure “six” in the Indian manuscripts is an error for “600”. He reconciles the time gap of 46 years by assuming that there is no evidence that Ardašīr
Wahuman copied the manuscript of Hōmāst “for Māhyār”.31 However, this
view is contradicted by the unequivocal statement in the colophon that payment
for copying the manuscript was made on behalf of Māhyār Māhmihr:
K 1 fol. 338 v 11–12
az ān xwēš xwāstag uzēnag padiš kard būd pad māhyār-ī māhmihr ērbad az
hindugān
“From his own wealth he had made the expenditure for the benefit of Māhyār,
(son) of Māhmihr, a priest from India.”
The payment was made for Ardašīr Wahuman’s copy that was completed in
554 AY. The same objection applies to Cantera’s proposal to combine the two
dates and assume that Māhyār Māhmihr visited Iran around the year 600 AY
(1231 CE) and stayed there for six years.32 Conversely, Jamasp (1907, p. xxxi)
considers the tradition of K 1 to be more authentic and the figure of the year
29 Mirza 1987, p. 331 f. Cantera (2014, p. 96 and fn. 78) discusses the genealogy of Wižan
Wahrāmšāh Wižan in greater detail.
30 On the genealogy of IM, see also Mirza 1987, p. 331; and Cantera 2014, pp. 135–137.
31 Mirza 1987, p. 332.
32 Cantera 2014, p. 135. Cantera and Andrés-Toledo (2008, p. 81 f.) seem to imply that
the ancestor of IM was copied in India from Ardešīr Wahuman’s manuscript and then
taken back to Iran.
154
Almut Hintze
Fig. 3: IM Colophon 2
Fig. 4: IM Colophon 3
Fig. 5: K 1 fol. 338 v 13–14
600 to be one of several mistakes in the manuscript IM,33 although he gives no
indication as to the reading he would expect to find in IM. The relevant passages
in IM and K 1 are both very similar and yet different:
IM Colophon 2 (Jamasp 1907, p. xxvi, ll. 12–13, and Fig. 3 above)
ŠNT' MDM 600 PWN yẕdkrt' [13] MLKʾ-ʾn MLKʾ
sāl abar šaš sad yazdegerd [13] šāhān šāh
“In the year 600 of Yazdegerd, (13) the king of kings.”
IM Colophon 3 (Jamasp 1907, p. xxviii, ll. 11–12, and Fig. 4 above)
ŠNT' MDM 600 PWN [12] nzdyk ʾylptstʾn' YḤWWN-t'
sāl abar šaš hezār pad [12] nazdīk ērbadestān būd
“In the year 600 [12] he was near the priestly school.”
K 1 fol. 338 v 13–14 (Fig. 5 above)
6 ŠNT [14] PWN nzdyk ʾylptʾn' sg stʾn' YḤWWN-t
šaš sāl [14] pad nazdīk ērbadān saga stān būd
“For six years [14] he was near the priests of Saga-stān.”
In IM the date 600 AY given at the end of colophon 2 in line 12, conflicts with
the date 554 AY at the beginning of the same colophon in line 2 (Jamasp 1907,
p. xxvi). The discrepancy in the dates suggests an error, but it is difficult to explain how such a glaring contradiction could have escaped the attention of the
scribe, who is likely to have had full command of the Pahlavi language. It therefore seems preferable to assume that IM records a genuine tradition according
to which in 600 AY Māhyār Māhmihr was in Iran and in possession of the
33
For the numerous corruptions and inaccuracies in the two colophons of IM, see the
apparatus in Jamasp 1907, pp. xxvi and xxviii. On errors in copying figures, cf. also
Westergaard 1993, p. 3, fn. 1.
Scribes and Their Patrons: on the Merit of Copying Manuscripts
155
manuscript which was completed in 554 AY by Ardašir Wohuman.34 This interpretation does not exclude the possibility that Māhyār Māhmihr stayed in Sīstān
for six years around 554 CE and learned from the local Ērbads. It furthermore
entails that he would have stayed on after his six years in Sīstān and travelled in
Iran, carrying the manuscript with him. In particular, he could have visited the
Zoroastrian communities in Khorasān and perhaps attended the local priestly
school (ērbadestān), as reported by IM.35
The differences between the two traditions are small in sound but substantial in substance: according to K 1, Māhyār Māhmihr was with the Ērbads in
Sagastan for six years, but according to IM he was in the Ērbadestān in the year
600. While a textual corruption of the latter from the former remains a possibility, assuming that the scribes were aware what they were writing, it nevertheless
seems more likely that K 1 and IM report two different traditions. K 1 records
the Sīstāni tradition, IM the Khorasāni version of the story. The implication
would be that around 600 AY Māhyār Māhmihr visited Khorasān with Ardašir
Wohuman’s manuscript, which would have been copied there before Māhyār
Māhmihr took it to India. The Khorasāni copy, which became ancestral to
IM, would have included the colophon, copied in IM as colophon 2, of Ardešīr
Wahuman’s manuscript for Māhyār Māhmihr.36 Colophons 1 and 3 of IM admittedly make no mention of such a copy intervening between that of Ardešīr
Wahuman and of Wižan Wahrāmšāh Wižan, but the latter cannot have been
its scribe, because relative chronology suggests that Wižan Wahrāmšāh Wižan
lived in the fifteenth to early sixteenth centuries. His approximate lifetime can
be established because Šahryār Ardešīr, who copied his manuscript, must have
belonged to the generation of his grandchildren (see above at the end of section 1).
Dastūr Šahryār Ardešīr’s lifetime can be established on the basis of the letters
exchanged between the communities of Iran and India (Rivāyat), where his
name appears as a signatory of the community in Khorasān in a Rivāyat of
Anno Hijri 916 (1538 CE) and, in its full length, as the author of a Rivāyat of
896 of year 20 of the Yazdegerd era (1547 CE).37 Subsequently, Šahryār Ardešīr’s
copy was taken to Kermān, where IM was copied.38
The colophon of Ardešīr Wahuman’s manuscript provides a number of indications suggesting that it primarily relates the story of Māhyār Māhmihr’s visit
to Sīstān, rather than being the scribe’s own record of his name, time, merits and
34
35
36
37
38
Such an interpretation is implied by the translation of Jamasp 1907, p. xxix: “Thereafter
it was made over, in the year six hundred of the Emperor Yazdakart, to Māhyāhr Māhmitra …” However, Jamasp silently adds “thereafter” and the verb “was made over”,
neither of which is fact in the Pahlavi text which he reproduces.
A scenario of this kind is envisaged by Tavadia (1944, p. 309), according to whom
Māhyār did not return back to the Panjab directly but visited other places in Iran, such
as Kermān, together with Ardešīr’s copy, which would have been copied there.
Cf. Tavadia 1944, p. 309; Mirza 1987, p. 331.
Dhabhar 1932, pp. 610 and 626–627.
Cantera 2014, p. 139.
156
Almut Hintze
wishes. This emerges from the fact that Ardešīr Wahuman’s name is introduced
not, as usual elsewhere in colophons, in the first person (“I am …”), but in the
third person.39 Furthermore, the pluperfect verbal forms nibišt ēstād and nibišt
būd (K 1 328 v 5 and 8) ‘it (i. e. the manuscript) had been written’ places the copying further back into the past and presents it as having occurred earlier than
other events, which were themselves already in the past. A further indication
that events from some time back in time are reported is the addition to Ardešīr
Wahuman’s name of the phrase kē-š ruwān anōšag bawād ‘whose soul shall be
immortal’. This phrase indicates that he had already died when the colophon
reached the form in which it has come down to us. Moreover, Māhdād Ādurweh,
the patron who funded the copying, was also dead at that time, as the same
phrase follows his name, too. By contrast, Māhyār Māhmihr seems to have been
still alive. Finally, the demonstrative pronouns at the end suggest that the colophon was written from the point of view of India, as the near-deictic pronoun
ēn ‘this’ in pad ēn kustag refers to India, while ānōh ‘there’ refers to Iran.40
The line of descendancy of the Iranian and Indian Pahlavi Vidēvdād is according to the table 1 on the next page.
Thus, all the extant manuscripts of the Pahlavi Vidēvdād ultimately derive
from a single source, the manuscript of Hōmāst (son) of Šādān (son) of Ohrmazd.41
3. Čāhil Sāngan
At some point in the decades following Māhyār Māhmihr’s return to Ucha in the
Punjab, the manuscript must have found its way to Gujarat, because Rustahm,
son of Mihrābān, copied it there in the late thirteenth century CE. Rustahm’s
colophons provide no information concerning the reasons for his journey to
India, except that he copied the manuscript ‘for his own purposes’ (xwēšīh xwēš
rāy K 1 fol. 339 r 8).42 By contrast, his great-grand nephew Mihrābān Kayhusraw
39
40
41
42
This was noted by Cantera 2012 b, p. 323.
K 1 fols. 338 v 16–339 r 1, IM (Jamasp 1907, p. xxviii, l. 14). However, in the following sentence ud ān ī hēnd ān kustag (K 1 fol. 339 r 2, cf. IM in Jamasp 1907, p. xxviii, l. 15), the
far-deictic pronoun refers to India. In IM the information on the fate of the manuscript
in India could have been added to colophon 3 at a later time.
For the implication this fact has for the textual criticism of the Pahlavi Vidēvdād, see
Cantera 2010.
The relevant passage of colophon 2 of K 1 is transcribed and translated by Cantera (2014,
p. 140). For a translation of the entire colophon see Sanjana 1895, p. xxxix. Rustahm was
the great-grand uncle of Mihrābān Kayhusraw and the brother of Mihrābān Kayhusraw’s
great-grandfather Spandyād. Mihraban’s paternal ancestors are listed most fully in
colophon 5 of the manuscript MK, fol. 160r 6–9 (cf. Jamasp-Asana 1913, p. 167; and
JamaspAsa/Hintze [forthcoming]). For the genealogy of Mihrābān Kayhusraw, see the
table in Unvala (1940, p. 192), who comments (n. 3) that Bahrām, the father of Marzbān
and son of Dahišniyār, is also omitted in M 51 b fol. 200 r (Unvala 1940, pp. 62–63).
Scribes and Their Patrons: on the Merit of Copying Manuscripts
Iran
157
India
Hōmāst Wahišt Bahršādān Ohrmazd of Sīstān
Ardešīr Wahuman Rōzweh Šahburzīn Šāhmar,
554 AY (1185 CE)
copied, then original taken to India by
Māhyār Māhmihr
Šāhmardān Māhyār (corrected it)
Rōstahm Mihrabān Marzbān Dahišniyār
3 generations
Mihrābān Kayhusraw Mihrabān Spandyād
Mihrabān Marzbān Bahrām
4600_L 4 692 AY (1323 CE) in Navsari
4610_K 1 693 AY (1324 CE) in Cambay
Wižan Wahrāmšāh Wižan,
15th cent.
2 generations
Šahryār Ardešīr Ērīz Rustam Ērīz Kavād Ērānšah
in Khorasān, 16th cent.
Marzbān Frēdōn Wāhrom Rustom Būndār Šāhmardān
Dēnyār of Kermān, 944 AY (1575 CE)
Table 1: Geneaology of Hōmāst’s manuscript of the Pahlavi Vidēvdād
158
Almut Hintze
of the district of Dizūg in Sīstān43 travelled to India at the explicit invitation
of Čāhil Sāngan. This is stated in the colophon quoted at the beginning of this
article and in other colophons of manuscripts copied by Mihrābān. The city of
Khambāt (Cambay), where Čāhil Sāngan resided, is mentioned in verse 228 of
the Qeṣṣe-ye Sanjān, or ‘Tale of Sanjān’, as one of the places in India where the
Zoroastrians settled.44 Located at the head of the Gulf of Khambhāt and the
mouth of the Mahi River in north-western Gujarat, it was one of the two most
important and prosperous ports of India and was famously noted as a busy harbour by the Venitian traveller Marco Polo in 1293 CE.
Čāhil Sāngan is described as a merchant and he is likely to have been of considerable wealth.45 Just like his counterpart Māhdād Ādurweh in Sīstān a century and a half before him, he used some of his wealth to promote the study
of the Zoroastrian scriptures and the copying of manuscripts. The surviving
manuscripts copied by Mihrābān Kayhusraw and funded by Čāhil are either
bilingual Avestan-Pahlavi manuscripts or monolingual Pahlavi texts.46 At
Čāhil’s explicit request, Mihrābān completed the Pahlavi codex MK in Ṭhāṇā
on 10th October 1322 CE (Day Frawardīn, Month Ādur 691 AY), the Pahlavi
Yasna J 2 on 26th January 1323 (Day Wohuman, Month Frawardīn AY 692),47 the
Pahlavi Vidēvdād L 4 in Navsari on 28th August 1323 (Day Khurdād, Month
Ābān AY 692),48 the Pahlavi Yasna K 5 in Khambāt on 17th November 1323
(Day Asmān, Month Dēn 692)49 and the Pahlavi Vidēvdād K 1 in Khambāt on
13th May 1324 CE (Day Dēn, Month Tīr AY 693).50
The manuscripts that descend from L 4, provide a fourth colophon, which
is dated to the Pārsī year 732 AY (1363 CE). This colophon indicates that L 4,
which Mihrābān Kayhusraw completed in 1323 CE, was transcribed forty years
later by Mihrābān. Assuming that the latter is the same scribe, Mihrābān Kay43
Mihrābān’s hometown is mentioned in the colophon of the manuscript K 5 fol. 326 v, see
Unvala 1940, pp. 128–129. Kotwal (2010, pp. 181–182), following a personal communication by Professor Jamsheed Choksy, locates Dizūg 38 miles south of Zāhedān in
the province of Sīstān.
44 Williams 2009, pp. 98–99.
45 On Čāhil Sāngan, see Hodivala 1920, p. 126; and on the Sanskrit term that describes
him as a merchant, Cereti 2007, p. 216 f.
46 Cantera (2014) concludes that the manuscripts copied by Mihrābān reflect Čāhil
Sāngan’s interests, which would have been remote from the ritual practice.
47 For the text and a translation of the colophon of J 2 on fol. 385 v, see Unvala 1940,
pp. 120–121. Facsimiles were published by Mills (1893, p. 770) and on the website of
the Avestan Digital Archive, where the folio with the colophon is erroneously numbered
as 383 v.
48 The date of L 4, whose colophon is lost, is preserved in E 10 and Bh 11, which descend
from L 4, see Martínez Porro 2012, p. 248, fn. 2. For text and translation of the four
colophons of Bh 11 on fols. 278 r 4–281 r 3, see Cereti 1996, pp. 447–450.
49 For the colophon of K 5 see Unvala 1940, pp. 128–131.
50 Katrak (1980, pp. 230–232) reports about a further Pahlavi Yasna manuscript, MK 2,
which he attributes to Mihrābān Kayhusraw.
Scribes and Their Patrons: on the Merit of Copying Manuscripts
159
Fig. 6: Bh 11 fol. 279 r 2–6
husraw must have made a copy of his own manuscript of 1323 CE. All extant
manuscripts of the L 4-line descend from that copy,51 which no longer exists. By
contrast, the original L 4 itself survives to the present day. In the manuscript
Bh 11, which is housed in the Bhandarkar Oriental Institute of Pune, the text of
the fourth colophon runs as follows:
Bh 11 fol. 279 r 2–6 (Fig. 6)
̂ bwnd̂
ḆY̱ Ṉ ŠNT Y hp̄t [3] st 30 W TLYN' pʾlsy ʾMT L dyn'
k ʾylpt [4] Y̱ LYDWN-ʾt
̂
mtr' ʾp̄ʾn' ḆY̱ Ṉ bwm hndwkʾn' mt ḤWH-m [5] ʾP̄-m ḆY̱ Ṉ štr' nwksʾlyk ẔNH
kwlʾsk MN bʾhl [6] cʾhl smng̈ʾn kwmbʾytyk npšt'.
andar sāl ī haft [3] sad sīh ud dō pārsī ka man dēn bowandag ērbad [4] zād mihr
ābān andar būm hindugān mad hom [5] u-š andar šahr nōgsārīg ēn korrāsag az
bahr [6] čāhil samngān kumbāyadīg nibišt.
“(It was) in the Pārsī year seven hundred and thirty-two52 when I, accomplished53
in the religion, priestly-born Mihrābān came to the land of the Hindus, and in
the town of Nawsārī wrote this book for Čāhil Sāngan of Khambāt.”
51
52
See Cantera 2007, pp. 137 and 139 (stemma).
Cereti (1996, p. 449) transcribes haftsad wīst ud dō ‘seven hundred and twenty-two’
in agreement with the interlinear numeral 20 written below the corresponding Pahlavi
signs, but writes eight hundred and twenty-two in the translation (p. 450). None of the
these figures (including the interlinear one), however, correspond to the Pahlavi forms.
The year given in the manuscript Bh 11 is 732 and agrees with the one provided in E 10
and recorded by Sanjana (1895, p. xlvi) for Pt 2 (PB).
53 Although bandag(īh) and bowandag(īh) are frequently confused and misspelt (see
Macuch 2009, p. 260), the reading is usually ⟨bwndk⟩ in the expression dēn bowandag
in MK and in the colophons of other manuscripts, e. g. Mf 4 and Pt 4, while the spelling is
⟨bndk⟩ in the colophon of Ml 3 as reproduced in Sanjana (1895, p. xlii). Editors usually
emend ⟨⁺bndk⟩, thus for instance Cantera/de Vaan 2005, p. 35 with n. 2.
160
Almut Hintze
Fig. 7: Bh 11 fol. 279 r 7–9
The scribe gives his name, as in the third colophon, as Mihrābān,54 but omits
the name of his father. The fact that he adds that he came to the land of India
at the invitation of Čāhil Sāngan, suggests that he is Mihrābān Kayhusraw of
colophon 3, who was thus still active (or had become active once again) in India
in 1363 CE. The reason for the omission could have been that his father’s name
is mentioned in the preceding colophon. The text of colophon 4 continues:
Bh 11 fol. 279 r 6–9 (Figs. 6–7)
[6] hwʾstʾl [7] ḤWH-m MN KRYTWN-tʾlʾn' ẔNH npyk KRYTWN-yh ḆY̱ Ṉ
[8] cʾhl lʾy PWN ʾnwšk lwbʾn' ʾlcʾnyk YḤSNN-ʾt [9] cʾhl MN NPŠH ʾwcynk ptš
krt.
[6] xwāstār [7] hom az xwāndārān ēn nibēg xwānīh andar [8] čāhil rāy pad
anōšag ruwān arzānīg dārād. [9] čāhil az xwēš uzēnag padiš kard.
“I am desirous of the readers reading this book (that) they should consider Čāhil
worthy of an immortal soul. Čāhil made the expenditure from his own (wealth).”55
The words of the last sentence recall those in the colophon of Ardašīr Wahuman’s manuscript of 554 AY (4610_K 1 fol. 338 v 11–12, quoted above, p. 151)
with regard to the payment made by Māhdār Ādurweh from his own resources
178 years earlier on behalf of Māhyār Māhmihr to have the manuscript copied
that was destined to become the base of the entire extant Pahlavi Vidēvdād. In
both cases, wealthy merchants used their wealth to fund the copying of manuscripts. Colophon 4 of Bh 11 continues by stating the purpose of the work:
54 Apart from 4712_Bh11, this fourth colophon of the L4-line is also found in 4714_E 10
fol. 167 r 15–19, the facsimiles of which were published online by Kangarani and Cantera
in the Avestan Digital Archive, and in Pt 2 (PB), reproduced and translated in Sanjana
(1895, pp. xlv–xlvi). The colophon is transcribed and translated by Cereti (1996, pp. 449–
450) on the basis of Bh 11 and collated with Pt2 (PB).
55 The word xwāstag ‘wealth’ is missing in Bh 11 and E 10, but is present in Pt 2 (PB in
Sanjana 1895, p. xlvi). In Bh 11 fol. 279 r 9 the word hnd̂
wkʾn'/hindugān has been written
instead and then crossed out.
Scribes and Their Patrons: on the Merit of Copying Manuscripts
161
Fig. 8: Bh 11 fol. 279 r 10–12
Bh 11 fol. 279 r 9–12 (Figs. 7–8)
[9] L [10] npštʾl hm MN bʾhl-Y lwbʾn' ʿL ʾnwšk lwbʾn' cʾhl-Y [11] symng̈ʾn MN
̂ lwbʾn'
bʾhl-Y lwbʾn' ptl̂-Y hwt ʾYḴ whšt' [12] bʾhl-Y ʾnwšk' [or W?] ỵʾwy̤ tʾn
g̈lwtmʾnyk.
[9] man [10] nibištār ham az bahr ī ruwān ō anōšag ruwān cāhil ī [11] simngān
az bahr ī ruwān pidar ī xwad kū wahišt [12] bahr ī anōšag jāwedān ruwān
garōdmānīg.
“I am the scribe for the sake of the soul of Čāhil Sāngan of immortal soul, for the
sake of the soul of his own father, that paradise (is) the portion of the eternally
immortal soul (worthy) of the House of Welcome.”
By supporting the copying of manuscripts, the sponsors performed a good
deed that would not only ensure that the tradition continued, but would also
be added to their own personal account of good and bad deeds, which will be
balanced against each other after death at the moment of the judgement of their
soul. This belief is a major force that drives the activity of copying manuscripts
carried out by priests and sponsored by patrons.
Moreover, it was considered important that one’s name should be remembered
by future generations in order to aid one’s soul after death. Manuscripts were
suitable means of having one’s name perpetuated as they constitute a record that
enters the tradition and is handed on over generations. One of the standard formulae used in the colophons is the scribe’s threat to stand as an opponent in the
‘Assembly of Isadvāstar’, which forms part of the Universal Judgement at the
end of time, against anyone who erases his name or that of the patron from the
colophon.56 While a reminder of the sponsor’s name as well as that of the scribe
is a common feature in colophons, the manuscripts which Mihrābān copied for
Čāhil Sangan go beyond that to include the names and death anniversaries of six
generations of Čāhil’s ancestors. The list is presumably taken from the list of
56 Cf., for example, in the colophons of the Vištāsp Yašt Sāde manuscript K 4 (Unvala
1940, p. 127) and of M 46 (ibid., p. 52). On the ‘Assembly of Isadvāstar’ see Hultgård
2000, pp. 57–58.
162
Almut Hintze
names and death days in the rōznāmag, or Nāmgrahan in Parsi Gujarati, which
families used to compile.57
Within the priestly tradition, Mihrābān Kayhusraw’s name is also remembered in various Pazand texts for his merits as a scribe.58 Outside of it, regarding
his contributions to Avestan and Pahlavi scholarship, Hodivala (1920, p. 131)
aptly commented that his name “may not be widely known among our people,
but it does not deserve and ought never to be forgotten”. In addition, the names
of Māhdād Ādurweh and Čāhil Sāngan, the two Behdīns who funded the priests
Māhyār Māhmihr and Mehrabān Kayhusraw respectively, deserve to be remembered equally.
References
Andrés-Toledo, M. Á./A. Cantera 2012: “Manuscripts of the Wīdēwdād.” In:
Cantera 2012 a, pp. 207–243.
Anklesaria, B. T. 1913: “Introduction.” In: J. M. JamaspAsana: The Pahlavi Texts
Contained in the Codex MK copied in 1322 A. C. by the Scribe Mehr-Āwān Kaīkhūsrū. Bombay, pp. 1–62.
Anquetil-Duperron, A. H. 1771: Zend-Avesta, ouvrage de Zoroastre. 3 vols. Paris.
Barr, K. 1941: The Avesta codices K 3 a, K 3 b and K 1 containing portions of the
Vendidad with its Pahlavi translation and commentary. With an introduction
by K. Barr and a contribution on the restoration of the Ms K 1 by H. Ibscher.
2 vols. Copenhagen (Codices Avestici et Pahlavici Bibliothecae Universitatis
Hafniensis 10–11).
Bartholomae, Ch. 1916: Zur Kenntnis der mitteliranischen Mundarten I. Heidelberg (Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse, Abhandlung 9).
Cantera A. 2007: “The Pahlavi Vīdēvdād Manuscripts of the Meherji Rana Library
(Nawsari, India).” In: G. Hinojo Andrés/J. C. Fernández Corte (eds.): Munus
quaesitum meritis. Homenaje a Carmen Codoñer. Salamanca (Acta salmanticensia, Estudios filológicos 316), pp. 131–140.
— 2010: “Lost in Transmission: The Case of the Pahlavi-Vı ̄dēvdād Manuscripts.” In:
Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 73, pp. 179–205.
— 2012 a (ed.): The Transmission of the Avesta. Wiesbaden (Iranica 20).
— 2012 b: “Building Trees: Genealogical Relations Between the Manuscripts of Wīdēwdād.” In: Cantera 2012 a, pp. 279–346.
— 2014: Vers une édition de la liturgie longue zoroastrienne: pensées et travaux préliminaires. Paris (Studia Iranica, Cahier 51).
Cantera, A./M. A. Andrés-Toledo 2008: “The transmission of the Pahlavi
Vīdēvdād in India after 1700 (I): Jāmāsp’s visit from Iran and the rise of a new
exegetical movement in Surat.” In: Journal of the Cama Oriental Institute 68,
pp. 81–142.
57 Kotwal 2010, p. 176.
58 Kotwal/Hintze 2008, p. 15, fn. 39.
Scribes and Their Patrons: on the Merit of Copying Manuscripts
163
Cantera, A./M. de Vaan 2005: “The colophon of the Avestan manuscripts Pt 4 and
Mf 4.” In: Studia Iranica 34, pp. 31–42.
Cereti, C. G. 1996: “Zoroastrian Manuscripts Belonging to the Bhandarkar Institute Collection, Pune.” In: East and West 46, pp. 441–451.
— 2007: “Some Primary Sources on the Early History of the Parsis in India.” In:
F. Vahman/C. V. Pedersen (eds.): Religious Texts in Iranian Languages. Symposium held in Copenhagen May 2002. København, pp. 211–221.
Dhabhar, B. N. 1932: The Persian Rivayats of Hormazyar Framarz and others. Their
version with introduction and notes. Bombay [repr. 1999].
Geldner, K. F. 1896: “Prolegomena.” In: K. F. Geldner: Avesta. The sacred Books of
the Parsis. Vol. 1. Stuttgart, pp. i–liv.
Hintze, A. 2004: “Do ut des: Patterns of Exchange in Zoroastrianism.” In: Journal of
the Royal Asiatic Society 14, pp. 1–19.
Hodivala, S. S. 1920: “The colophons of Mihirāpān Kaikhusru.” In: S. S. Hodivala:
Studies in Parsi History. Bombay, pp. 118–133.
Hultgård, A. 2000: “Persian Apocalypticism.” In: B. McGinn/ St. J. Stein/ J. J. Collins (eds.): The Encyclopedia of Apocalypticism. Vol. 1: The Origins of Apocalypticism in Judaism and Christianity. New York, pp. 39–83.
Jackson, P. 1999: The Delhi Sultanate: A Political and Military History. Cambridge/
New York (Cambridge Studies in Islamic Civilization).
Jamasp, D. H. 1907: Vendidâd. Avesta Text with Pahlavi Translation and Commentary, and Glossarial Index. With the assistance of M. M. Gandevia. Bombay.
JamaspAsa, K. M./A. Hintze [forthcoming]: The Pahlavi Codex MK. A Facsimile
Edition with Introduction. Wiesbaden (Iranica).
JamaspAsana, J. M. 1913: The Pahlavi Texts Contained in the Codex MK copied in
1322 A. C. by the Scribe Mehr-Āwān Kaī-khūsrū. Vol. 2. With an introduction
by B. T. Anklesaria. Bombay.
Katrak, J. C. 1980: “Mitro-Awan Kaikhusrov, his Avesta and Pahlavi manuscripts
and their colophons with date-equations.” In: Journal of the Cama Oriental Institute 48, pp. 220–240.
König, G. 2014: “Die Pahlavi-Literatur des 9./10. Jh. und ihre frühe Kodex-Überlieferung (II). Die Pahlavi-Kodices der Bundār Šāhmardān-Familie.” In: Estudios
Iranios y Turanios 1, pp. 43–73.
Kotwal, F. M. 2010: “Chāhil Sãgaṇ. A Devout Parsi Philanthropist of the Fourteenth
Century.” In: K. M. JamaspAsa/F. M. Kotwal (eds.): Hormazdyar Dastur Kayoji
Mirza Birth Centenary Memorial Volume (1907–2007). Udvada, pp. 176–192.
Kotwal, F.M./A. Hintze 2008: The Khorda Avesta and Yašt Codex E 1. Facsimile
edition. Wiesbaden (Iranica 16).
Kreyenbroek, Ph. 1987: “The Dâdestân î Dênîg on Priests.” In: Indo-Iranian Journal 30, pp. 185–208.
Macuch, M. 2009: “Disseminating the Mazdyasnian religion: An edition of the Pahlavi Hērbedestān Chapter 5.” In: W. Sundermann/A. Hintze/F. de Blois (eds.):
Exegisti monumenta. Festschrift in Honour of Nicholas Sims-Williams. Wiesbaden (Iranica 17), 251–277.
Markwart, J. 1938: Wehrot und Arang. Untersuchungen zur mythischen und geschichtlichen Landeskunde von Ostiran. Ed. by H. H. Schaeder. Leiden.
164
Almut Hintze
Martínez Porro, J. 2012: “The Manuscripts of the Family of L 4.” In: Cantera 2012 a,
pp. 347–354.
Mazdapour, K. 2012: “Twelve Newly Found Avestan Manuscripts in Iran.” In: Cantera 2012 a, pp. 165–172.
Mills, L. H. 1893: The Ancient Manuscript of the Yasna with its Pahlavi Translation
(A. D. 1323). Generally quoted as J 2 and now in the possession of the Bodleian
Library, reproduced in facsimile and edited, with an introductory note. Oxford.
Mirza, H. K. 1987: Outlines of Parsi History. 2nd edition. Bombay.
Piras, A. 2000: Hādōxt Nask 2. Il racconto zoroastriano della sorte dell’ anima. Edizione critica del testo avestico e pahlavi, traduzione e commento. Roma (Serie
Orientale Roma 83).
Sanjana, D. P. 1895: The Zand î Javît shêda dâd or The Pahlavi Version of the Avesta.
Vendidâd. Bombay.
Sastri, S. M. 1924: Cunningham’s Ancient Geography of India. Edited with Introduction and Notes. Calcutta.
Sims-Williams, U. 2012: “Zoroastrian Manuscripts in the British Library, London.”
In: Cantera 2012 a, pp. 173–194.
Skjærvø, P. O. 2014: “Philological Gleanings from the Pahlavi Videvdad.” In: IranNāmeh 29/2, pp. 6–21.
Spiegel, F. 1860: Einleitung in die traditionellen Schriften der Parsen. Vol. 2: Die traditionelle Literatur der Parsen in ihrem Zusammenhange mit den angränzenden
Literaturen. Wien.
Stausberg, M. 2002: Die Religion Zarathustras. Geschichte – Gegenwart – Rituale.
Vol. 1. Stuttgart.
— 2004. Die Religion Zarathustras. Geschichte – Gegenwart – Rituale. Vol. 3. Stuttgart.
Stausberg, M./R. P. Karanjia 2015: “Rituals.” In: M. Stausberg/Y. S. D. Vevaina
(eds.): The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Zoroastrianism. With the assistance of
A. Tessmann. Oxford, pp. 363–377.
Tavadia, J. C. 1933: Review of A. Christensen: The Pahlavi Codices K 20 and K 20 b
Containing Ardāgh vīraz-nāmagh, Bundahishn etc., Copenhagen 1931 (Codices
Avestici et Pahlavici Bibliothecae Universitatis Hafniensis 1). In: Orientalistische
Literaturzeitung 36, cols. 568–570.
— 1944: “Zur Pflege des iranischen Schrifttums.” In: Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 98, pp. 295–340.
Unvala, J. M. 1940: Collection of colophons of manuscripts bearing on Zoroastrianism in some libraries of Europe. Bombay.
Westergaard, N. L. 1993: Zendavesta or The Religious Books of the Zoroastrians.
Vol. 1: The Zend texts. Neu herausgegeben mit einem Essay über “Niels Ludvig
Westergaard und seine Avesta-Ausgabe” von R. Schmitt. Wiesbaden [first publ.
Copenhagen 1852–1854].
Williams, A. V. 2009: The Zoroastrian Myth of Migration from Iran and Settlement in the Indian Diaspora. Text, Translation and Analysis of the 16th Century
Qeṣṣe-ye Sanjān ‘The Story of Sanjan’. Leiden/Boston (Numen Book Series 124).