The Zoroastrian Myth of Migration from Iran and Settlement in the Indian Diaspora (Numen Book Series ; Texts and Sources in the History of Religions)

The Zoroastrian Myth of Migration from Iran and Settlement in the Indian Diaspora

Numen Book Series Studies in the History of Religions

Texts and Sources in the History of Religions Series Editors

Steven Engler (Mount Royal College, Calgary, Canada) Richard King (Vanderbilt University, Nashville, U.S.A.) Kocku von Stuckrad (University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands) Gerard Wiegers (Radboud University Nijmegen, The Netherlands) Advisory Board

r.i.j. hackett – g. ter haar – a. tsukimoto t. jensen – i.s. gilhus – g.i. lease – a.h. khan b. bocking – f. diez de velasco m. joy – a.t. wasim

VOLUME 124

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’

By

Alan Williams

LEIDEN • BOSTON 2009

This book is printed on acid-free paper. This research for this book was partly funded by

www.ahrc.co.uk On the cover: The ‘Walking Mango Tree’ at Sanjan is, according to local legend, a very ancient sacred tree said to have been planted by the Parsis when they first landed at Sanjan. It is believed that this tree has ‘walked’ several kilometers from the seashore to where it is presently situated. Over the centuries it has put out branches so low that they have taken root in the ground as a new trunk, the original trunk eventually dying and the process having been repeated many times, as if it is ‘walking’ into India. The tree still bears small, red mangoes. Indeed it may have been planted by Zoroastrians as a pious vaqf (‘bequest’) or yād-bud ‘memorial’, for trees are sacred in Zoroastrian tradition, as representatives of the amahraspand Amurdād, ‘Immortality’, and were often planted around fire-temples. Photograph by Dr Ruksana Nanji. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Williams, Alan, 1953– The Zoroastrian myth of migration from Iran and settlement in the Indian diaspora : text, translation and analysis of the 16th century Qesse-ye Sanjan ‘the story of Sanjan’ / by Allan [sic] Williams. p. cm. — (Numen book series ; 124) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-90-04-17698-0 (hardback : alk. paper) 1. Kayqubad, Bahman. Qissah-i Sanjan. 2. Parsees—History. 3. Parsees—Migrations. I. Kayqubad, Bahman. Qissah-i Sanjan. English. II. Title. III. Series. BL1530.W55 2009 295.0954—dc22 2009027840 ISSN 0169-8834 ISBN 978 90 04 17698 0 Copyright 2009 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Hotei Publishing, IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. printed in the netherlands

In memory of Shehnaz Neville Munshi Tir Māh, Srosh Ruz—Tir Māh, Ashtād Ruz December 19, 1947–December 14, 2003

CONTENTS Preface .......................................................................................... Acknowledgments ......................................................................

ix xi

I. Introduction ................................................................................

1

II. The Narrative of Journey: Synopsis and Structure ...............

23

Illustrations III. Transcription and Translation .................................................

53

IV. Commentary ...............................................................................

143

V. A Mirror or a Clock? Considering History and the Myth-Story ..................................................................................

205

VI. Conclusion ...................................................................................

223

Appendix: The Sixteen Sanskrit Ślokas of Ākā Adhyāru .... Bibliography ................................................................................ Indices ..........................................................................................

229 239 243

PREFACE I started work on the Qeṣsẹ -ye Sanjān long before I had any intention of publishing it, for my own personal use and simply because I had found previous translations and treatments of the text to be lacking. The text intrigued me as I discovered that, although many scholars and members of the Zoroastrian religion have referred to it, in modern times very few indeed have ever seen the Persian text, let alone studied it. This was surprising, considering how much the story, of which the Qeṣsẹ -ye Sanjān is the written basis, is so much referred to, both in popular tradition and in literature, and is still familiar to Parsis. Among scholars who had never actually read the Persian text I had heard it described variously in terms such as ‘folk-chronology’, and ‘questionable pseudo-history framed in doggerel’—this was not how I saw it. Beginning with the lithographed text in Unvala’s Darab Hormazyar’s Rivayat, I became aware of how the verse composition, poetic structure and varied styles of the poem greatly enhanced and amplified the Persian, in comparison to the prosaic translations I had come across in print. After working both in Zoroastrian Pahlavi and Avestan texts in the past, and more recently the poetry of Classical Persian, I hope that I have been able to look at the Qeṣsẹ -ye Sanjān in a new light. One of the turning points in my appreciation of this poem came during conversations with Shehnaz Munshi, who helped me to understand the Parsi reception of the text and some of the Gujarati translations. With her lively knowledge of Parsi traditions and her own embodiment of Zoroastrian teachings, her musical understanding of Parsi Gujarati texts, songs and verses led me to listen more closely to the poetry of this relatively rare phenomenon—an old, Persian, Zoroastrian poem. It is to the memory of Shehnaz Munshi, a true Zoroastrian, that I dedicate this book.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I was able to write up my work and to prepare this book in a period of research leave made possible by the AHRC (Arts and Humanities Research Council) and the University of Manchester, by each funding a semester’s leave in the academic year 2007–8. I wish to record a debt of gratitude to several institutions and individuals who have helped me in finding material. First, I am grateful to the Trustees of the K.R. Cama Oriental Insitute in Mumbai for their allowing me to have photographs of the 11 folios of the Qeṣsẹ -ye Sanjān SH manuscript of Dārāb Hormazdyār’s Revāyat and for granting me permission to publish them in this book. Whilst I was in Mumbai I was fortunate enough to be able to benefit from the deep learning of two High Priests, namely Dasturji Dr Firoze M. Kotwal, and Dasturji Dr Kaikhusroo M. JamaspAsa, to whom I owe a debt of gratitude. I also thank Mrs. Bharati Gandhi of the First Meherji Rana Library in Navsari for her help in locating manuscripts there, and similarly to the staff of the British Library, the John Rylands University Library of Manchester and the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris. I would like to express my appreciation of the support and help I have received over many years from Khojeste Mistree and Firoza Punthakey Mistree, and indeed their colleagues in Zoroastrian Studies. Thanks are due also to Pheroza Godrej for her tremendous hospitality and for organizing a conference at the Prince of Wales Museum in Mumbai, at which I delivered an early version of Chapter 5 as a lecture. Similarly I am grateful to Professor Shaul Shaked (Jerusalem) for organising several conferences on Irano-Judaica, which stimulated some of the ideas in this book. I thank Professor Philip Kreyenbroek (Göttingen) for photographing a manuscript in India for me, and for his ever-encouraging support for all things Iranological. Professor Albert de Jong (Leiden) kindly read the manuscript of this book and offered helpful comments. Professor John Hinnells (formerly of Manchester) has been a stalwart supporter of my work in this field, and I wish to record how much I have benefited from conversations with him on this particular subject over the years. Thanks also to Professor James Russell (Harvard) for his expert reading of my work on all matters Zoroastrian. Professor John Brockington (Edinburgh) and Dr William Johnson (Cardiff) generously

xii

acknowledgments

gave of their time to scrutinise the Sanskrit texts of the Ślokas of Ākā Adhyāru, for which I thank them. I am also grateful to Dr Rukshana Nanji, an archaeologist working on the site at Sanjān, who has provided me with the photograph which appears on the front cover of this book. I have very much appreciated the very efficient editorial work of Brill, including Maarten Frieswijk and Marjolein Schaake, and also the Commissioning Editor, Regine Reincke. I am fortunate to work in the company of a group of harmonious scholars at the University of Manchester, my colleagues in Religions and Theology, whose company is always challenging and convivial in equal measure. I have enjoyed, all through the long gestation of this book, the good friendship and unfailing intellectual stimulation particularly of Sarah Stewart and Andrew Campbell Tiech, and also of many other friends, too numerous to mention, associated with SOAS and the Iran Heritage Foundation, without whom an academic life in Iranian studies would have been much less interesting. Having said all the above, I remain, of course, solely responsible for the translations, views, opinions and any errors in the present study. Manchester, May 2009

Alan V. Williams

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION The Purpose of this Study The purpose of the present work is five-fold: (1) to produce a new edition of the Persian text of the Qeṣsẹ -ye Sanjān (hereafter QS) from the best and oldest manuscripts; (2) to offer a new, literal translation into English blank verse parallel to the transcribed, romanised Persian text; (3) to provide a detailed commentary on the text; (4) to discuss the narrative structure of the text, and (5) to discuss the mythological and religious dimensions of what is a foundational document of Parsi Zoroastrian culture. As the main purpose of this work is the presentation of the text, I have made it central to the book, and all discussion of the subject matter takes place in direct reference to the verses of the text. The reason for the relative brevity of this book is that I have intended from the outset to focus as completely as possible on the primary source, and not to engage in using the QS as a springboard for a reconstruction of Parsi history, as it has so often been used before. My work is directed to the attention of a new audience of scholars and students who are interested in what this unique text had to say in 1599, and how it has been received down to the present day. For Zoroastrians today in India, Iran and in their diaspora communities around the world, it will have a particular resonance. It is well known to Zoroastrians, but is not directly known—like a venerable family member who passed away long before the birth of present generations. It is centuries since the QS has been familiar to Zoroastrians in its Persian form. It remains something of a linguistic oddity, having been composed by a mother-tongue Gujarati speaker, in a style of Persian that was a learned literary-religious survival in a centuries-old Zoroastrian tradition of Persian verse composition. Today there are only a few scholars in the world who would take the trouble to go back even to the old, secondary literature on the text in English or Gujarati, found in old and rare books, let alone who would seek out and study the Persian manuscripts of the QS. In its original Persian form it remains unknown to all except a very few among Parsi Zoroastrians—which has been one of the reasons finding manuscripts

2

chapter one

has been difficult. The text is known only through old renderings into English, mostly in prose, usually derived previous English, Gujarati or even Urdu translations of the original Persian. Yet the QS is at the core of the popular narrative which informs collective and personal, modern Parsi identity. In the writing down of the few hundred verses of the QS we have a moment of fixity and stabilisation in what must have been a continuum of traditional reflection on the Zoroastrian presence in India: it has continued to be been repeated and enhanced ever since in oral tradition, including colourful variations, elaborations and additions. The Author and the Composition of the Qeṣsẹ -ye Sanjān The author, Bahman Kay Qobād Sanjāna, who figures so largely both in the opening and closing verses of the QS, ‘came of a family noted for its literary tastes and aptitude for the composition of Persian verse’.1 Bahman, who was a high priest (dastur) in Navsāri, Gujarat, names himself not once but four times in the text (32, 49, 55, 407) and, in case we have forgotten him by the end of his work (425), also by an Indian name, Vikchu in Persian, i.e. Gujarati Vikji: hamedun gar tu nām-e man nadāni darun hendi zabān vikchu bekhwāni If it be that you do not know my name, then call me Vikchu in the Hindi language.

Modi,2 and at one time S.H. Hodivala, thought that Ekji [sic for Vikji] was Bahman’s second brother. In fact it is his own name: Bahman had only one brother Qavāmoddin (Qiyāmoddin, Kāmdin), as mentioned in Bahman Aspandyār’s revāyat of 1626–7. 3 In the prose version he is named as dastur vikji-ye dastur kayqobād ‘Dastur Vikji son of Dastur Kay Qobād’ immediately before dastur qavāmoddin-e dastur kayqobād, Dastur Qavāmoddin son of Dastur Kay Qobād’ and in the verse passage:4 1

Hodivala 1920, 92. Modi 1917, 7, and Hodivala 1920, 92, but Hodivala later identified Vikji as Bahman himself and not a brother of his in Hodivala 1920, 328, n. 92. 3 Tr. Dhabhar 1932, 591 and 592, text Unvala 1922. II 149, 158. 4 Dhabhar correctly identifies Vikji as ‘Bahman Kaykobād . . . author of the Kissa-i Sanjan’ 1932, 591, n. 3, 592 n. 5. 2

introduction

3

hamān vikji bahman-e kayqobād barādarsh qavāmoddin-e bād shād May Vikji Bahman, son of Kay Qobād, be happy and Qavāmoddin, his brother.’5

At the time of his writing it appears that Bahman’s father, Dastur Kay Qobād Sanjāna, was still alive, but that his grandfather, Dastur Hormazdyār (Gujarati Hamjiyar), was deceased, as we read in the QS verses 408–9: degar midān ke bābam kayqobād ast delash dar yād-e irānshāh shād ast pedar budash ke hormazdyār dastur maqāmash dar garus̠mān bād por nur And Kay Qobād, know also, is my father, whose heart rejoices in Irān Shāh’s memory. His father was the dastur Hormazdyār: long may he dwell in brilliant Garōdmān!

Kay Qobād is mentioned in the revāyat of Kaus Māhyār of 16016 immediately after Dastur Hushang bin Āsā, who was the senior Dastur in Navsāri. This Hushang is named in some later manuscripts of the QS, (verse 67A) as having been the learned dastur from whom Bahman had heard the story which he, Bahman, turned into the QS: zahi dastur nāmash bud hushang be dānesh dar hamishe bud bā shang How excellent, the dastur’s name was Hushang in wisdom he was always in abundance.

The facts that Bahman’s father was alive at the time of writing and that Bahman himself is mentioned in the revāyat of 1626–7 both suggest that Bahman was not in fact very elderly in 1599, in spite of his claims:7 javāni rafte o piri raside sahi sarvam be jannat sar keshide ze maskinānst maskin bahman-e pir Now youth has gone and old age has arrived: my cypress straight has bowed to Paradise. Old Bahman is the lowliest of the lowly: . . .

5 6 7

My translation, text Unvala 1922, II, 151.14. Unvala 1922. II.451. QS vv. 54–55a.

4

chapter one

S.H. Hodivala believed him to be ‘already considerably advanced in age at the time’.8 Bahman’s statement about his old age, however, occurs in a passage (verses 50–62) which is omitted from some older MSS and which may well have been inserted later in Bahman’s life when he would indeed have been closer to death and the judgment of his soul, for which he begs the reader’s blessings. As Hodivala also reminds us, one of Bahman’s grand-nephews, i.e. Qiyāmoddin’s grandson, was Dārāb Hormazdyār, the first systematic classifier of the Persian revāyats, who ‘himself was not devoid of some skill in [Persian] verse as is proved by his metrical version of the Minokherad [Pahlavi Mēnōg ī Xrad].9 Hodivala adds that one of Qiyāmoddin’s sons, Dastur Burzo, is mentioned several times in the revāyats from 1626–1670 and also in the Persian text Dabestān-e Maz̠āheb. Modi reports that Hodivala traced the pedigree of Bahman’s grandfather, Hormazdyār, in a distinguished lineage through the Sanjana dasturs Padam, Kāmā, and Narsang to the dastur Nāgan Rām, mentioned in the QS verse 396, namely one of the three priests who brought the Irān Shāh āteshbahrām from Bansdah to Navsāri.10 Bahman’s literary learning and authorial skills are put to effective use in the composition of the QS. The text seems quite deliberately to celebrate his own distinguished lineage, and indeed his own personal standing in his community and for posterity. It would appear that the principal function of the work is to celebrate the Zoroastrian tradition. Bahman achieves this primarily through the glorification of his own heritage of the Sanjana priesthood by telling the story of the āteshbahrām, originally founded at Sanjān, which he refers to as the Irān Shāh fire. Indeed, a more appropriate name for the text might be Qeṣsẹ -ye Āteshbahrām-e Sanjān. He makes a point of emphasising, at every available opportunity, the Sanjana priesthood’s care of the fire from its establishment (195–220), and their tending of it over the centuries (234–239, 355–365, 385–399). He tells the story as dramatically as possible, using all the rhetorical and dramaturgical devices known to him. Just as significantly, he excludes any elements which would detract from his principal aim. By comparison with the Qeṣsẹ -ye Zartoshtiān-e Hendustān of a later author we can see how Bahman filters out any 8

Hodivala 1920, 92. Hodivala 1920, 92. 10 Modi 1917, 7f., citing Hodivala, Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, no date, XXIII, 367. See also Kotwal 1990. 9

introduction

5

references to friction and dispute in the Parsi community. He goes to considerable lengths to indicate that he himself is by no means the source of the work. The strong impression is left on the reader’s mind that this is a work of a venerable tradition of authentic priestly lineage going back to the prophet Zoroaster himself. Themes and Significance In the QS we have a story of defeat and victory, leaving and arriving, revenge and reconciliation. In the broad brush-strokes of an idealised story, the QS tells of a whole civilisation—Iran—smashed, and of how the Zoroastrians, who were inspired and guided by their religion, sought to make a new home in a new land. In a triumphal corollary and response to this loss and displacement it also tells of how the Zoroastrians of Iran became the Persians of India, the Parsis. As their story, held close to the heart of their culture, it was for a long time kept at the priestly élite centre of the community. Since the text’s composition over 400 years ago it has been a charter of authentic Parsi identity. It tells of Zoroastrian self-transformation, necessitated by a disastrous fate, and their having to leave the past behind, to salvage something on which to build a future. Some years ago I showed this text to an anthropologist colleague, expert in Indian sociology: he immediately exclaimed ‘Rite de passage! Rite de passage!’11 It is true that it has the features of such a myth of transition, and this will be discussed below.12 However, it also has broader significances for the erstwhile migrants who are now the Parsis. In some sense the QS represents a reconciliation with the past, and particularly with the emotions of loss, abandonment, nostalgia and shame at having left Iran. Such emotions endured into the 20th century, as witnessed by an article—notorious for its name and contents—Kisse-Sanjan—A Palpable Falsehood.13 In this polemic, in what Bhathena himself calls his own ‘agitation’, the author expresses outrage that the ‘humiliating’ QS (which he also refers to as ‘the imaginary

11 The late Professor David Pocock, formerly Professor of Social Anthropology, University of Sussex. 12 More recently I had the good fortune to read the text with the late Professor Mary Douglas, and discuss many of the ideas which are to be found in Chapter 5 with regard to the mythological dimensions of the QS and their foundations in eschatological thinking. 13 By B.N. Bhathena, 1944.

6

chapter one

Kisse-Sanjan’) is a piece of ‘priestly propaganda’ of a ‘diseased imagination’ that traduces the Parsis as ‘cowards who fled from their motherland leaving their king and country to the mercy of the Arab invaders’. Now we may regard Bhathena’s reading of the text as the nadir of illconceived, historicism and a confusion of fact and meaning, fuelled by sectarian rivalry. But Bhathena himself expresses what the QS apparently set out to resolve, namely a residue of emotions, possibly of guilt, fear and insecurity, with regard to the host community, combined with what appear to be feelings of vengeance, antipathy and superiority towards the Muslims who had forced them out of Iran so long ago. This knot of emotion is perhaps characteristic of the anomalous situation of the Parsi in India—perhaps also the migrant abroad and diaspora community in general—as a displaced minority. It is also a subject examined closely and with somewhat more dispassion than Bhathena, with varying degrees of success, by anthropologists and sociologists such as Paul Axelrod,14 Eckehard Kulke,15 and Tanya Luhrmann.16 The significance of the text is all the more keenly felt by Parsis as they have no other account of their origins as a community that once emigrated from Iran. Whereas Muslim, Christian and indigenous Indian communities each have numerous histories, ranging from sacred to secular, to document the past and present, the Parsis in effect have only the QS as a source text to tell of their leaving Iran and transition to India, then settlement, upheaval and resettlement in the centuries down to 1599. It is understandable why, for much of the 19th century and even into the early 20th, Parsis found themselves poring over this text to find evidence on which to construct a historically verifiable chronology. As we shall see, they reached no final consensus of opinion. After it was composed as a poem, it was copied and circulated for some two hundred years among the Zoroastrian priesthood and literate laity who could read Persian, and even fell into the hands of Europeans such as Sir John Malcolm. It was bound in with the manuscripts of the Persian revāyats which had passed between Iran and India in the 15th–18th centuries, and was copied with other Persian texts as part of the priestly literature. Though a considerable number of 17th and 18th century copies of the QS survived into the 19th and early 20th

14 15 16

Axelrod 1980. Kulke 1978. Luhrmann 1996.

introduction

7

centuries, it was not, it seems, widely disseminated in this earlier period. It served as the model for subsequent texts about later events, most importantly the late 18th century ‘Story of the Zoroastrians of India’ Qeṣsẹ -ye Zartoshtiān-e Hendustān (QZH) of Shāpurji Maneckji Sanjana (1735–1805). Certainly, in the first half of the 19th century, perhaps earlier, translations of the QS into Gujarati were made and published, which had long been the Parsi vernacular language, and also into English. Thus, in printed form, the QS became more widely known among the newly-educated urban Parsis of Bombay, and to certain British residents who took an interest in such things. There followed a period of decades when scholars, priests, laymen and even a few Europeans, argued over the veracity of the text as a factual history. Two dates in particular were sought out: the arrival of the Zoroastrians on the Indian mainland, and also the date of the military encounters which are known as the Battle of Sanjān. Of the several competing theories of dating the ‘arrival’ of the Parsis in India, two found currency in the Parsi community, namely of the early 8th century and the mid-10th century. More importantly, the account of the QS seems to have become accepted at such a deep level that the Parsis could think of themselves as having started out only just as the QS tradition had taught them, i.e. as ‘Parsi Pilgrim Fathers’, on the analogy of the American Pilgrim Fathers. The prolific religious scholar and historian, Jivanji Jamshedji Modi (1854–1933), himself a priest of the Sanjana lineage like our author Bahman, used this comparison with the first American immigrants as an argument for the facticity of the QS. Early on in his polemical reply to critics of its historicity, he cited no less than eight respects in which ‘the American Pilgrim fathers resembled that of our Indian Pilgrim fathers . . .’17 To take another example, R.B. Paymaster’s Early History of the Parsees in India begins:

17 Modi 1917, 13, lists the following resemblances to the Pilgrims who landed at Plymouth in 1620: (1) Both left their own dear fatherland for the sake of their religion, dearer than their land. (2) Both had ‘double emigration’, i.e. emigration to more than one country . . . (3) Both passed periods of Exile in other lands before they finally settled and flourished as a colony. (4) Both had met the difficulty and danger of ‘the stress of weather.’ (5) Both had to ‘sign, before landing, a compact of government’ (6) Both maintained their existence as a colony . . . (7) Both had to meet the ‘rigours of a new country’—a country altogether different from their fatherland and both had, at first, owing to poverty, “struggles for existence.” (8) But both survived and founded “other little towns”, a little away from their first ‘settlements.’

8

chapter one After the downfall of the Sasanian Empire in Iran, a band of Zoroastrians, for the preservation of their ancient faith, left their mother land and came to India to settle on the western coast of the country.18

Paymaster has no other authority than the QS for this statement: even though he admits that ‘no records are available to give us a proper history of the Parsees of those early days’, both his Introduction and his first chapter, ‘The Parsee Pilgrim Fathers’, are written faute de mieux on the premises of the QS. Alongside the strong influence of the QS on Parsi identity in the 19th and 20th centuries, there was an equally strong outpouring of Parsi ingenuity—for needs must—to construct a whole Parsi history out of the QS, and from fragments of evidence elsewhere, wherever they could be ‘found’. The QS may now have a double significance for Parsis in the 21st century, dispersed as they are across the world. The QS both reaffirms the values of their past both as Iranians and as Zoroastrians, but also gives an account of their future, living away from Iran and yet, through the symbolic fire of their ancient religious tradition, remaining with a Zoroastrian ‘Iran’ at the centre of their cultural and religious imagination. The reason the text gives for the departure from Iran is, as they tell the rajah who encounters them on the shores of India, ‘for the sake of our religion’ (ze bahr-e din). This may very well be the case, but perhaps it is necessary to understand that here religion (din) refers not to some narrowly conceived faith affiliation or ritual tradition in the modern sense of ‘religion’, be it Christian Islamic or Zoroastrian, but rather as a whole Zoroastrian way of life, comprising social, ethical and indeed economic norms and practices that had become prohibited to them under Islamic domination. In the last century, when Indian Parsi Zoroastrians have left India and sought new homes in the West, their relocation is seen to have been an act of unforced ‘economic (and also educational / professional) migration.’ On a few occasions, it must be remembered, Parsi migration been motivated by political necessity, as in the case of Ugandan Parsis who, like other Asian communities, were expelled by Idi Amin in August 1972. In general however, the Parsi experience of migration has been voluntary. In the case of Iranian Zoroastrians, the situation has been different. It is reported that Iran’s Zoroastrian community has shrunk by half since the 1979 Islamic revo-

18

Paymaster 1915, iii.

introduction

9

lution.19 For Iranian Zoroastrians, and also for many other Iranians of various religious and ideological affiliations, their migration from Iran to the West has been in the fullest sense economic, and not merely for religious reasons, as they have left for reasons of finding the liberty to live as citizens in society. It may be that in spite of the religious motivations attributed to the émigrés of the QS, the situation was not that much different in kind, namely that their whole livelihood, in the widest sense, was under dire threat. For modern Iranians and also for Parsi diaspora communities who have chosen, for different reasons, to leave their homeland, the QS may be seen to be an old prototype of their own cultural and geographic relocation / dislocation. The brevity of the text is deceptive, as the sweep of its narrative extends over thousands of years. Its generally very positive tone is also something of a veil which conceals deeper, somewhat turbulent, emotions. The traumas of losing their monarchy, abandoning their homes and forsaking their motherland, not to mention the anxieties of being a very small minority abroad, are present throughout the story; yet, by the end of the narrative, they are addressed and apparently resolved. The quiet ordinariness of the latter part of the QS signifies a triumph over the dramatic upheavals of the first two-thirds of the story. Narrative Synopsis and Analysis In Chapter 2 of this work I have provided a synopsis and analysis in which I have emphasised the poetic and mythological rhythms and structures of the narrative. I argue that it is important to see it as a ‘composition’ which, as the term implies, is intended to deliver more than mere information. It is here, perhaps, where I depart most from previous approaches to the text, namely in analysing the poem as a whole which has some kind of literary, and indeed religious, integrity.20 The narrative of the QS is dominated by the twin themes of survival and triumph: the Zoroastrians are inspired and aided by their religion to overcome all obstacles, though it might involve great hardship, in order to re-establish themselves in a homeland. Reciprocally, they tend the faith and the fire that inspires them. In Chapter 2 I suggest that this narrative is underpinned and driven by the very structure of the 19 20

Reuters News Agency, Wed. Feb. 20, 2008. I argued this point in a previous essay in Williams 2007.

10

chapter one

poem. If the narrative is the melodic line of the composition, its poetics is the rhythmic and harmonic structure, setting and changing the mood by its movements, and articulating the religious ethos. The text consists of five movements, which are put together in a way that appears so familiar and natural to the Zoroastrian reader that the structure passes unnoticed except to the most attentive reader. This is, I suggest, because the structure is intrinsic to the particular religious tradition. It is achieved not through the formally divided subsections which are in some manuscripts indicated by headings (which were probably added after Bahman’s composition), but rather according to the marked changes of style and register of the component parts, similar to rhythmic and key changes in the movements of a symphonic composition. The five parts of the text each move through stages of progression to a resolution. I have represented this structure, as I understand it, in a synoptic diagram (p. XX). By comparison with works such as the 18th century Qeṣsẹ -ye Zartoshtiān-Hendustān (which has a weaker poetic structure), or certain Zoroastrian Persian and Pahlavi works in prose, it has a much greater literary and religious coherence. In Chapter 2, and more so in Chapter 5, I discuss the mythological dimension of the work which, I suggest, has helped to make such a great impact on Parsi Zoroastrians. This is a difficult area to explore, as the inquiry encroaches upon the realm of religious identity and imagination which is often taken for granted, both by Zoroastrians and by academic specialists of Zoroastrianism, as an essential verity, and is therefore tacitly regarded as priveleged and exempt from analysis. This is one of the texts which is the very source of the Parsi Zoroastrian muthos—a virtually sacrosanct area hedged around by features of the text which act as protective barriers. Such features are difficult to define positively, simply because they appear to be negative factors. I mean that those features which appear to make the text more tenuous and even unlikely actually make it more authoritative and cogent. I mention three of these features which serve to protect the imperviousness of the text. First, the fact that it the QS is the sole such narrative of the Zoroastrian ‘migration’ means that, while it is uncorroborated by external evidence, like many a religious or quasi-religious text, it has no competitor to challenge its statements. Second, the fact that it contains no dates except that of its own composition puts it outside time: the very vagueness of its references to the passage of time in blocks of hundreds of years is reminiscent of the genre of Zoroastrian apocalyptic texts, and in effect this contributes to its mythopoeic power. Third, its poetic genre may

introduction

11

have suggested to some modern scholars that it was not to be trusted as a historical work, but nevertheless its transcendence of prosaic history lends it an aura of unassailability that is normally apparent only in scriptural texts. The Text in Transcription In Chapter 3 I have adopted a slightly unconventional way of presenting the text. Persianist scholars and Iranian readers will perhaps baulk at the transcribed form of the text and might prefer to have a printed21 or handwritten version of the text in Arabic script.22 I made the decision to have a transcribed, romanised Persian text for two reasons. First, it is easier to indicate textual readings in the romanised transcription (which Middle Persianists commonly do, for this reason, for Pahlavi, Manichaean Middle Persian and Parthian). Second, it is hoped that Parsi and Western students of the history of religions, who may not necessarily know the Persian Arabic script, will read this book, and that the text will thus be at least legible to them in romanised transcription. Manuscripts My edition does not constitute a definitive reading to represent an Urtext. I intend it to be the best possible reading from the MSS available. The manuscript tradition of the QS is not like that of a text from Classical antiquity or medieval Europe: the MSS of the QS are somewhat pre-contaminated so that one cannot realistically aspire to reconstruct an Urtext. Given the quality of the materials used, the unfavourable conditions of the climate of India and the not altogether favourable preservation facilities of its libraries until even the present day, it is a wonder that even a few have survived. In the preparation of this edition and translation I have relied principally on the oldest MS I could find, namely SH. I chanced upon this MS when searching through the volumes of the K.R. Cama Oriental Institute in Mumbai. This MS of the QS was found to have been included at the end of an old autograph copy of Dārāb Hormazdyār’s Revāyat. I had known from

21 22

E.g. Clinton’s Shāhnāma, 1996. E.g. Cereti’s QZH, 1991.

12

chapter one

Modi’s Introduction to Unvala’s Dārāb Hormazyār’s Rivāyat that at the time of his writing in 1922 there were three autograph MSS of this very large text, which dated from the late 17th century, namely BU: the Bombay University MS MU: Ervad Manockji Rustomji Unvala’s MS, from which most of Unvala’s edition was lithographed SH: the MS belonging to S.H. Hodivala (‘Shapurshaw Hormusji Hodiwala’).

From his study of the colophons in these MSS Modi23 ascertained that ‘S.H. is certainly the oldest’. The portions of the Revāyat ‘were written at different dates and were latterly bound up in volumes, haphazard to a certain extent.’24 Of these three MSS only MU and SH contained the QS. SH gives eight dates, of which seven are of the colophons at the end of different portions, and one is of the Introduction. These dates range from 1043–1053 A.Y. / 1674–1684 C.E., with the colophon at the beginning of the Introduction giving Ruz 6 (Hordad) Māh 1 (Farvardin) 1047 A.Y. = November 12, 1677 C.E. There is a colophon on the folio immediately preceding the beginning of the QS, as follows, which indicates that this was the end of the book, and states the name of the author and scribe: ruz-e mobārak-e daypādar māh-e bahman-e sanat-e yakhazār chehel va noh-e yazdejerdi nevisande-ye hirbad-e dārāb ben hirbad-e hormozdyār ben hirbad-e qavāmoddin ben hirbad-e kay qobād ben hamjiyār ze laqab-e sanjāne az nasl-e mubad-e niriyusang daval On the blessed day of Daypādar, in the month of Bahman, 1049 AY [= September 9, 1680 A.C.] written by Herbad Darab, son of Herbad Hormazdyār, son of Herbad Qavāmoddin, son of Herbad Kay Qobād, son of Hamjiyār, of the surname Sanjāna, from the line of the Mowbad Niriyusang Davval.

The 11 folios of the QS in SH (Folios 556 verso–561 verso) are bound in at the end of the volume of SH and there is no colophon and no date after the text: photographs of these folios of SH are reproduced on pp. 41–52 below. The handwriting is somewhat untidy and apparently hurried, or that of an elderly writer: there are numerous mistakes 23 24

Unvala 1922, 19. Ibid., 21.

introduction

13

which have either been corrected above the verses or in the margins, by the same hand. The spaces for the headings have been inserted but not the headings. In later MSS the headings have all been inserted. It is my conclusion that SH is an original, early working copy of the QS in Bahman’s own hand, which has been preserved by his family and bound in for safe keeping by his great grand nephew, Dārāb Hormazdyār, in his own Revāyat compilation. S.H. Hodivala ‘relied for the most part’ on this manuscript in making his own translation, comparing it with ‘the Manuscript which Eastwick used’, i.e. a MS of 1129 C.E. / 1759 C.E.25 and the lithographed text which is published in Unvala (1922). Paymaster (1915) had used a MS of 1112 A.Y. / 1743 C.E., which he referred to as ‘the University [of Bombay] edition.’ I was unable to locate the old MS MU of Dārāb Hormazdyār’s Revāyat, which according to Modi contained the QS,26 and which formed the basis of Unvala’s lithographed edition; however I have compared SH with the version in Unvala’s edition, which I designate U. I have also been able to consult and compare a dozen or so MSS of the QS from the 18th and 19th centuries. In the edited text I have noted variants in the following five MSS located in Navsāri, London and Paris: N: a MS in the Meherji Rana Library at Navsāri, which is a copy of SH made for Erachji Sanjana by a Muslim copyist Gholām Mahmud in 1242 / 1873. This is virtually an exact copy, written in a neat hand, often clarifying obscure words, correcting mistakes of SH, and filling in the headings. It does not have the section 50–62 which is omitted in SH. BL1: a MS in the British Library27 which contains the Zaratushtnāme (foll. 1–76 ) and a copy of the QS (foll. 77 v.–98 v. and 99 v. dated 1107 A.Y. = 1738 copied by rostam ebn-e mobad bahrām ebn-e garosmāni. It seems to be a copy of the SH MS. There is a note at the end of the volume ‘These works from Dastur Kāus of Surat. This MS was given to me by Mr Duncan (signed) JM’ (= John Malcolm). BL2: a MS in the British Library28 of which the first 18 folios are the QS, copied 1179 AY = 1809/1810 by Edal Daru. The MS belonged to Sir John Malcolm.

25 26 27 28

Hodivala 1920, 94. Unvala 1922, 19 and 42ff. British Library reference ADD27268. British Library reference ADD24413.

14

chapter one P1: a MS in the Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris29 of the QS and the Zaratushtnāme [ZN] copied at Surat in 1103/1735 by Rostam Manek Dārāb Hoshang Neryosang Sair Khurshid Akouz Sanjana. The colophon on fol. 99r. is referred to by Unvala30 without mention of the QS which precedes the ZN (which he does mention). This colophon was copied in P2 (see below) on fol. 38v. P2: a MS in the Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris31 is a collection of Persian works dated 1174 A.Y. / 1805 copied for Anquetil Du Perron As well as the QS it includes the Zaratushtnāme, Ardā Virāfnāme, ‘Olemā-ye Eslām, Ṣaddar, and Jāmāspnāme. P2’s text of the QS, like the colophon, is an exact copy of P1, and occasionally corrects mistakes in P1. A further colophon reads: Again a copy of this book is made according to the order of Seigneur Sāheb, generous, the brother of the head of the factory of the French on the 22nd of Rabi‘al-thāni year in the port of Surat.

The Translation The translation in Chapter 3 is into blank verse.32 I confess to holding the firm belief that a translator should attempt to convey across the language barrier something of the form as well as the semantic meaning of a text, and in the case of a verse original this requires a metrical translation. Contrary to the remark of Robert Frost’s that ‘poetry is what gets lost in translation’, I maintain that something can also be found, but it can certainly be lost if it is thrown away in a pile of prose. Something can be discovered in a poetry translation so long as the reader retains the sense that one is in a poem. It is hoped that something of the poetic qualities of the original, namely the musical rhythms and imaginative colours, may to some extent come through in the translation, however modestly. In Muslim Persian literature it is a commonplace that poetry (verse, song and incantation) is the highest medium of expression. Throughout history, going back to Zoroaster’s own verse Gāthās, it was also central to Zoroastrian religious expression—though so much

29 Catalogue des manuscrits Persans de la Bibliothèque National, E. Blochet, Paris 1905. (198 p. 159f. = Supp. Pers. 200). 30 In Unvala 1940 p. 34, in his notice of Suppl. pers. 200. 31 Suppl. pers. 48. 32 I used this metre for my translation of the first book of Jalāloddin Rumi’s Masnavi Williams 2006, as did Jerome W. Clinton for his translation of Ferdowsi’s Shāhnāme Clinton 1996.

introduction

15

was destroyed after the Islamic conquest of Iran. Literate Parsis, whose mother tongue was Gujarati, could compose works in verse right down to the 18th and 19th centuries. In the Persian revāyats, for example, composed between the 15th and 18th centuries, the texts frequently fall into extended passages of verse couplets in hezaj and motaqāreb metres.33 Verse composition gives the content of the text the authority of a higher register than prose. The discipline of metre and rhyme produce a more formal and ‘polished’ result. The mnemonic quality of verse forms is well known: Zoroastrian prayers are generally said from memory by priests and also by some of the laity: verse is still considered to be a most appropriate medium of religious communication. I have dispensed with rhyme, as I regard it as unsuited to a serious text in modern English,34 has allowed the translation to remain reasonably close to the literal meaning of the original couplets. It remains to say something here about the form of the Persian text in order to put the translation into proper context. The Poetic Form of the Text The QS is written in one of the classical Persian metres called bahr-e hazaj-e mosaddas-e maḥ zu ̣ f (‘the six-fold, apocopated shaking metre’). The metre hazaj has the basic element of the foot (rokn) mafāʾīlon ⏑———; the QS uses the most standard form of the metre for long narrative poems in which each verse (bayt) comprises two hemistiches (meṣrāʿ) of three repetitions of mafāʾīlon, and of which the last foot of each meṣrāʿ is shortened (maḥ zu ̣ f ‘apocopated’) by one syllable to ⏑—— (the last syllable can also be short). Hence the full bayt is:

33 As recently as 1927, two Zoroastrian priests, Ervads M.N. Kutar and F.N. Kutar, composed their own Persian poem as the opening contribution to a major scholarly work in Iranian studies, the Festschrift volume for J.J. Modi, consisting of fifty Persian verses in the epic motaqāreb metre (of e.g. Ferdowsi’s Shāhnāme), with an English translation. Another contribution in the same volume, pas az sāsāniyān, by one A. Spenta (!), comprised 62 verses in (more or less) the same metre, but without translation. See Dr Modi Memorial Volume, Bombay, 1930, 1–6; 375–377. 34 Whilst Persian verse couplets fit relatively easily into rhymes, partly because of the inflected forms of the verb and the wealth of particles, modern English does not suffer rhyme gladly. Rhyme—except except in the hands of the most skilful poets—tends to be perceived as having either infantilising, comic or archaising effects. Blank verse, which does not use rhyme, but rather depends on the iambic metre, is a natural and flexible medium for narrative, argument and description—as Shakespeare, Milton and other great English poets have shown.

16

chapter one ⏑——— / ⏑——— / ⏑——

⏑——— / ⏑——— / ⏑——

as in 81: ze kār-e din konun guyam khabardār

chonān shod bāz behdin zār o bizār

I speak now of Religion’s fate, so listen, how once again our noble faith was weakened.

The bayt of 22 syllables is the masnavi variety of the bahr-e hazaj in which the rhyme occurs only twice, at the end of each meṣrāʿ (i.e. aa, bb, cc, dd, ee). According to L.P. Elwell-Sutton ‘this strongly suggests a connection with the poetry of the Pahlavi books, where the eleven syllable line is also the norm, though the metrical pattern is less clear’,35 but I can neither confirm nor refute this claim. The most famous Classical Persian poems in this metre are Nezāmi’s Khosrov o Shirin, Faridoddin-e ʿAṭṭār’s Elāhināme and Asrārnāme, and Maḥmud-e Shabestāri’s Golshan-e Rāz. However, as a Zoroastrian text written in a classical metre of Persian literature, the QS has a doubly hybrid status as a work of non-Muslim religious literature composed in India by an author whose mother-tongue was Gujarati. In fact its traditional genre owes as much to Sasanian or even older, epic and religious story as it does to 16th century Indian or even 12th century Persian texts. As the QS was written by a well-educated priest, who came from a notable family of dasturs (‘authorities’ of the religion), and who was well-versed in Persian literature, the intertextual allusions are to a wide range of religious and literary sources in both Islamic and Zoroastrian Persian (including Pahlavi and Avestan). For example, the introductory doxology (1–63), which includes a passage which emulates Quranic and Sufi styles, is also based on a long tradition of Zoroastrian monājāt, or devotional verses, addressed to God.36 The long section of battle scenes in the latter part of the text (243–352) imitates the style of Ferdowsi in the Shāhnāme (e.g. 279, 293–295a) and even quotes directly from that text (347). Bahman manages to sustain the metre and the rhyme without the infelicities and outright mistakes such as are to be found in certain Indian Zoroastrian attempts at Persian poetry, and occasionally his verses show considerable colour and flare.

35 36

Elwell-Sutton 1950, 245. On Zoroastrian monājāt see the new study by Beate Schmermbeck, 2008.

introduction

17

In all there are more than 260 lexical items of Arabic origin in the QS, ranging from very common words such as jomle ‘whole, all’, moshkel ‘difficult’, to very specifically Islamic terms such as z̠ekr ‘remembrance’, qeble ‘prayer niche’, imān ‘belief’; almost one-third of all the Arabic words in the text occur in the 63 verses of the doxology. Use of Arabic vocabulary, even in expressing specifically Zoroastrian religious ideas, seems to come naturally to Bahman as if he is not aware of the cultural origins of the words. He would seem to have been guided more by his prosodical sense of whether a word would fit the metre rather than by religious preference in his choice of terminology. Interestingly, however, in certain passages, such as in the description of the purity rules pertaining to women (167–180) (where his model is Pahlavi and priestly usage), and also in martial passages (where he is imitating Ferdowsi), Arabic vocabulary vanishes from the page. The language of the text is fairly clear, except for one or two obscurities, which are indicated in the commentary. Compared with the Qeṣsẹ -ye Zartoshtiān-e Hendustān37 there are a few archaic forms, e.g. the use of mar without rā (373A) and classical forms such as the durative hami + present (e.g. 176), (hami + past tense in (e.g. 92, 394 etc.), and with the classical durative enclitic -i on the past tense of the verb (369, but without hami and the durative sense in 365). Simile and Metaphor in the QS Of the 17 overt poetic similes in the QS, 13 are in the battle passages. Bahman compares his warriors to lions (286, 324 329), leopards and crocodiles (278) drunkards (329) and rovers (323). Blood spurts like fountains (298), runs like rivers (339) swells like a sea (340) and rushes like the ocean waves over the world (341), its earth darkened as if it were smeared in pitch and blood red as tulips (297). The dasturs in their urvisgah shine like the sun in purity (208): but, by contrast, the dead warriors were drowned in iron from head to foot / till they were gleaming like the brilliant sun (300). Bahman’s uses of metaphor are, as one would expect in poetry, far too numerous to mention: most are quite conventional, such as his reference to his old age, ‘my cypress straight has bowed to Paradise’ 37 See Cereti’s discussion of Pahlavi forms and other archaisms occurring in the QZH in Cereti 1991, 18–24.

18

chapter one

(54), or his stringing pearls as a poet (74, 182). The good religion is personified as being broken (79), brought to despair (81), becoming humiliated (83) and heaven is crooked when it takes man away. (241). His imagery is, again, more graphic in battle, when the earth was distressed (273) was boiling over, (313) and night and day were stunned to witness what they saw. Commentary Chapter 4 is a Commentary on the text which considers the QS in relation to the larger context of older Zoroastrian texts in Persian, Pahlavi and Avestan. It is also compared with later texts such as the Qeṣsẹ -ye Zartoshtiyān-e Hendustān, which is modelled on the QS to the extent of paraphrasing some passages closely, but which goes into the details of intra-community disputes that are unmentioned by Bahman. The Commentary is not organised thematically but according to the sequence of verses of the QS, which are always referred to in bold print. A Mirror or a Clock? Chapter 5 has this interrogative title because I wish to propose an alternative way of approaching the QS, i.e. instead of regarding it negatively as a rhymed chronicle of poorly reported historical events, I wish to investigate the possible intentions and achievement of the author in writing such a text. The study is not about the historicity of the QS, nor was it ever my wish to write a study of the historical development of the Zoroastrian Parsi community in India based upon the QS. It is well known that there is only one actual date mentioned in the text, which is that of the author’s completion of its composition in December 1599. To attempt to match satisfactorily the story of the QS, which is entirely intra-religious (i.e. for the Zoroastrian Parsi community), with the history of India and Iran as understood by modern academic historians, would be a well-nigh impossible task. The contribution of this book, I hope, is to enable historians of religion, as well as historians of Iran and India, to have an edition and translation of the QS readily available with some suggestions as to how to approach it from the fields of religious and literary studies. Social, political, economic historians, and specialists in the history of the Parsis can perhaps draw their own conclusions from the text. I do not intend in this study to reproduce

introduction

19

the controversies and polemical discussions that have surrounded the QS in the last 150 years of Parsi and orientalist scholarship. This is not because I shall treat the text in a vacuum, but in order to break the habit of the past century and a half. Much of what was said and written about it in that period, I suggest, was motivated by reasons other than strictly an interest in the text itself. The controversies were bound up in the tensions and anxieties of social, religious and political circumstances in which the 19th and early 20th century Parsis found themselves situated in British colonial India. The text itself—the actual Persian verses of the composition—‘took a back seat’. Parsi scholars recognised its importance as being the only account of the so-called ‘arrival’ of the Zoroastrians from Iran on Indian shores. Translations were not particularly satisfactory. The first published English translation,38 that of E.B. Eastwick in 1844, was marred by inaccuracies and by a hostile commentary in footnotes by the Church of Scotland savant and missionary polemicist, the Revd Dr John Wilson. To many scholars the pressing concern and sole interest of the text was whether it could solve the problem of dating the origin of the Parsi community in India, and of establishing a proper chronology in relation to the known events of history. The lack of sympathetic understanding of the text and its author by some scholars (though not all) resulted from its being regarded as a bone of contention rather than as a uniquely valuable document from the pre-modern period. Discussions have been dominated by the problem of addressing other scholars’ constructions of putative chronologies from the text.39 They have questioned the very ‘authenticity’ of the text. To sum up, with an obvious exaggeration: to read the QS with the sole purpose of finding a historically satisfactory chronology of the Zoroastrians down to 1599 is rather like going to see a performance of Hamlet only for the purpose of learning a lesson in Danish history. Both texts stand as far apart in terms of literary accomplishment as they do in terms of geographical origination, but both, I would submit, are fundamentally about questions of meaning and value, not about dates, dynasties and trade-routes. 38 The Persian text has not appeared in print along with any literal English translation since Eastwick’s publication. 39 Mostly it has been Parsi scholars who have done this in the 20th century; notably, the Russian scholar, K.A. Inostrantsev also attempted to do so in 1923 (see further Commentary, v. 103). More recently S.A. Nigosian has regarded the ‘Quissa-i Sanjan’ [sic] as a ‘chronicle’, as ‘unsatisfactory’ and therefore wonders whether it has any factual basis (in 1993, 43f.).

20

chapter one

The QS was also pressed into service in inter-religious disputes concerning doctrine in the mid-19th century, when Zoroastrian texts came under the scrutiny of Christian missionaries. Most famous of such missionaries was the above-mentioned John Wilson in his sustained and learned40 polemic against Zoroastrianism, which was published in 1843.41 Half-way through his book, in a section entitled ‘Worship of Fire and the other Supposed Elements Admitted by the Parsis’, Wilson quotes a long passage from the QS,42 in both Persian and English translation, as part of his proof that Zoroastrians are blasphemous fire-worshippers. It is the only Persian Zoroastrian text he quotes like this on the subject, and he highlights the offending verses as if they manifestly convict the Parsis of the crime of blasphemy. In my discussions of the QS in Chapter 5 I have not avoided the subject of the chronologies that have been derived by the various scholars who have attempted to relate the statements of the text to events in the wider world. The scholars whose chronologies I have given most attention to are those who have had the most influence on Parsi and wider academic thinking, namely the 19th–early 20th century scholars J.J. Modi, S.H. Hodivala, and S.K. Hodiwala, and the author of the most recent book on the QS, H.E. Eduljee (1991). My treatment of the subject is in the form of a brief review rather than as a prelude to constructing my own new chronology. As I have said above, I am more interested in finding the religious and social meaning of the story as an enduring myth and charter of Parsi identity than in arguing one more time for a chronology which is, in the end, unverifiable. Chapter 6 brings together some conclusions and reflections. The Sixteen Sanskrit Ślokas of Ākā Adhyāru Chapter 7 focuses on these 64 lines of a Sanskrit text which has long been associated with the QS in Parsi tradition. As an outsider to Sanskrit literature, I hesitated as to whether to include consideration of this text, but I have felt it necessary to include a summary of a study by the 40 That is, considering the primitive state of Western scholarly knowledge of the Pahlavi and Avestan scriptures when he wrote it. 41 The Pársí Religion as Contained in the Zand-Avastá and Propounded and Defended by the Zoroastrians of India and Persia, Unfolded, Refuted and Contrasted with Christianity, Bombay: American Mission Press, 1843, 610 pp. 42 Vv. 153–181, Wilson 1843, 210–213.

introduction

21

Sanskritist Hanns-Peter Schmidt. Schmidt’s study results in a refutation of those scholarly views of the last century which sought to authenticate popular traditions about the Ślokas. In order to allow readers to make up their own minds about Schmidt’s arguments, and about the relevance of the Ślokas to the QS, I have also included Schmidt’s own literal English translation. The Eleven Facsimiles of the Folios of the SH Manuscript of the QS (reproduced pp. 42–52) As I indicated above, I am aware that some readers might have preferred to see the printed text of the QS in Persian script. However, for two academic reasons I have reproduced the text in romanised transcription. First, since an editor’s, as distinct from a translator’s, responsibility is principally to decide on particular readings of the source text, I have preferred to declare my readings in transcription, as is the practice in Avestan and Middle Persian textual scholarship, rather than to retain the text in the unvocalised Iranian script. Second, as a teacher of texts in original and translated languages, I am aware also of the benefits to students and to other readers, who do not know the original language, of having a romanised text running parallel to the translation. The reproduction of the SH manuscript allows those who are able to make their own readings of the text as it appears in the oldest extant MS.

CHAPTER TWO

THE NARRATIVE OF JOURNEY: SYNOPSIS AND STRUCTURE The Narrative Structure The narrative structure of the QS is relatively sophisticated as compared with most Zoroastrian texts in Persian or Pahlavi. In this chapter I give a synopsis of the text and in Fig. 1 a synoptic chart of the narrative sequence as an aid to understanding my analysis. In Fig. 1 the text is divided into five parts (§) A–E, of which §A and §E are the conventional opening and closing doxologies, which act both as auspicious symbolic amulets and also as actual physical protective layers around the central §§B–D of the main body of the narrative. Thus we have the scheme of five §§A–E A. B. C. D. E.

Opening doxology Journey to India Dispersal, victory and defeat in India Journey of the Irān Shāh Closing doxology

This sequence is the linear, syntagmatic flow of the story, which moves chronologically through the events of which Bahman tells his tale. As this type of syntagmatic cause-and-effect chain is the very stuff of story-telling, the new reader will immediately follow this ‘melodic’ line of the story. However, there is another narrative structure, operating simultaneously, which resembles the harmonic changes of a sequence of musical cadences. This I term the paradigmatic structure, represented in the repeated sequence 1, 2, 3 in the far left-hand column of the synoptic chart. This is the paradigmatic structure of many Zoroastrian texts, whether they be mythological narratives, doctrinal treatises or liturgical/ritual descriptions. In the ritual context it may be seen to operate as the sequence of preliminary, principal and closing rites. The simplest example of this is the Zoroastrian ritual technique of pronouncing the opening and closing bāj, the protective form of

24

chapter two

words, before and after prayers in the Avestan language and other acts of high religious significance.1 At the other end of the spectrum is the great cosmogonic-eschatological myth of Zoroastrianism, which unfolds in a threefold sequence. This is the ‘three times’ defining the creator god Ohrmazd’s divine plan for existence, namely of the Creation’, the ‘Mixture’ and the ‘Resolution’.2 The temporal sequence of these ‘times’ of the Pahlavi texts is as follows: (1) bundahishn ‘Creation’: in the beginning there was the primeval balance of eternal pre-existence, in which Ohrmazd was on high in Endless Light separated from evil, which lurked abysmally in Endless Darkness, by a void (Pahlavi tuhīgīh). Ohrmazd was, however, aware of the jealous, hostile spirit Ahriman/Gannāg Mēnōg. In response, and in order that evil might be defeated in a limited time, Ohrmazd created the time of the twelve thousand years, and fashioned a perfect spiritual and material creation of unique elements. (2) gūmēzishn ‘Mixture’: Ahriman attacked and corrupted the perfect elemental creation, and there followed the period of ‘Mixture’ (gūmēzishn) of good and evil, in which humankind has a decisive role in protecting the divine creation by means of Zoroaster’s religion; this is the present state of the world. (3) wizārishn ‘Resolution’: the forces of goodness and order will prevail over evil and disorder, at the time of frashegird ‘Renovation’, with the judgment and salvation of all souls. There will be a wizārishn, ‘resolution, separation’, of good from evil, when evil will be annihilated and the spiritual and physical conditions of existence will coalesce in a state of perfection; the perfection of the creation will resemble that of the bundahishn, but it will have been transformed into a new state of perfection in multiplicity and paradisiacal fecundity on earth as the mēnōg and gētīg worlds are merged into one another. This is the eschatological future of the world.

The process of the three times is fundamental to the theology and mythology of the Zoroastrian books: it defines Zoroastrian salvation history.3 This eschatological understanding of the nature and purpose of the unfolding of time is no less a fundamental theological principle of Zoroastrian religion than are Ohrmazd and Ahriman. The syntag-

1

See further Boyce & Kotwal 1971, and Williams 1988. Boyce devoted a chapter of her History of Zoroastrianism I 1975, 229ff. to this subject. 3 See also Sarah Stewart’s study of a Gujarati Zoroastrian text, Stewart 2007 in Hinnells and Williams 2007. 2

the narrative of journey: synopsis and structure

25

matic chain of unfolding events itself adheres to the tripartite structure of beginning, middle and end, which is as it were, governed by fate (as the text so often reminds us). There is also, however, a paradigmatic sequence, which is a divinely sanctioned pattern woven across history, giving meaning and purpose to the apparently random unfolding of events. The paradigmatic imprint on the QS affords it its characteristics as a Zoroastrian myth: it does not merely relate the way things happen, but also the way they must and should happen in fulfilment of the divine dispensation. According to the text of the QS the sequence of events in the world is foretold by Zoroaster in the Avesta (78–80); the religion is the way of action for success and progress in a hostile, fateful world.4 Simply put, it is an ethos of overcoming obstacles however difficult they may appear, since the promised outcome is the resolution of all strife in the world. The threefold structure of the QS would have been as familiar to the Zoroastrian of the pre-modern era as his or her prayers, as it pervades the syntax of doctrinal and mythological expression and of ritual and devotional performance. The effect of the author Bahman’s employing this traditional paradigmatic structure is to make the linear story all the more cogent and full of pathos. Synoptic Chart of the Narrative Structure The majority of the story focuses on two principal narratives: – §§B2–B3 the journey to, and first settlement in, Sanjān, India, and – §§C2–C3 the battles fought alongside a Hindu ruler against a Muslim invader who attacked Sanjān. These two main narratives, which are separated by a linking sub-narrative §C1 are framed by two further principal narratives, namely – §B1 the recounting of the history of the Zoroastrians down to the Muslim invasion, and – §§D1–D3 the description of the survival and prospering of the community after the invasion of Sanjān.

4

An irony of this prediction is that once the ‘Millennium of Zoroaster’ had come (as it does in v. 95), ‘the limit of the noble faith came too’, and thus the Zoroastrians are henceforth left unprotected by Zoroaster and must hereafter be protectors of the religion.

Nature of humanity and relationship with God

Mixture of good and evil

Present ↓

11–21 [Humanity]

2 Gūmēzishn

Past ↓

a. threat of attack; recruitment of Persians to Hindu army [243–269]

a. Layman Changā Āsā on pilgrimage in Bānsdah [367–381]

367–392 [Removal of Fire]

243–311 [1st Battle Against Islam]

98–135 [Removal] a. to Kuhestān (100 years) and to Hormuz (15 years) [98–109]

a. to Bahārut for 12 yrs [353–356] b. depart [356] c. settle with Irān Shāh fire in Bānsdah 14 yrs [357–366]

353–366 [Dispersal of the Parsis]

224–242 [Dispersal & Prosperity in Gujarat] a. 300 yrs dispersal in India [224–230] b. 200 yrs settlement [231–239b] c. 200 years = total 700 yrs [240–242]

D The Journey of the Irān Shāh

C Dispersal, Victory and Defeat in India

a. Zoroaster: Gushtāsp [77–89] Alexander [80–83] b. Ardā Virāf : Ardashir [84–86] Evil Spirit [87–88] c. Ādarbād : Shāpur [89–92] Muslims invade [92–97] End of Zoroaster’s Millennium

64–97 [History]

1–10 [In praise of God]

1 Bundahishn

Prototype Creation

B Journey to India

A Opening doxology

Time ↓

Synoptic Chart of Narrative Structure A1–3, B1–3, C1–3, D1–3, E1–3

on the author’s teacher and ancestors

406–414 [Blessings]

403–405 [In praise of God]

E Closing Doxology

26 chapter two

22–63 [Blessings]

forgiveness for the soul of the author

3 Wizārishn

Resolution

[Future]

A Opening doxology

Time ↓

(cont.)

312–352 [2nd Battle Against Islam]

a. Ardashir slays the Muslim champion [312–335] b. Ulugh Khan orders slaying of Ardashir in surprise attack [336–349] c. Hindu rajah & Persian forces perish [350–352]

a. encounter of the dastur & the rajah [136–147] b. conditions & settlement [148–193] c. Establishment of the Irān Shāh at Sanjān [194–223]

Removal of the Irān Shāh to Navsāri, and its establishment and care

393–402 [Arrival of Irān Shāh]

b. returns to Navsāri 382 c. proposes move of Irān Shāh to Navsāri [383–392]

b. 1st Hindus routed in 1st pitched battle [270–283] c. Ardashir rallies Persians to 1st victory [284–311]

b. to Diu (19 years) [110–116] c. to mainland India via storm [117–136] 137–223 [Arrival of the Zoroastrians in India & Establishing of the Irān Shāh]

D The Journey of the Irān Shāh

C Dispersal, Victory and Defeat in India

B Journey to India

for the author and closing of the QS

415–432 [Blessings]

E Closing Doxology

the narrative of journey: synopsis and structure 27

28

chapter two

In addition, the whole of this story is enclosed with an introductory and closing doxology in the voice of the author, §§A1–3 and §§E1–E3. The Opening Doxology §A1 1–10 The 63 lines of this doxology establish the order of things, setting the scene for the drama of the QS. In the first part the author aligns himself to God, first addressing God as Him, then more familiarly You; §A2 11–21 this leads to the description of the creation of man, ‘superior to the angels’ (21), whose faculties are created to enable him to remember God (16). Thanking God is its own reward (23) which leads the author to the main subject of the doxology: himself. §A3 22–63 In these 42 highly poetic couplets Bahman un-self-consciously implores God in two consecutive passages, 32–49A and 50–63, for piety (33f.), comfort (35, 61), forgiveness (36ff., 48f.), salvation (53), friendship (41, 55), and enlightenment (63). The Journey to India §B1 (64–97) begins with a shift of register, surveying the past through the eyes of ancestral tradition, introducing Bahman’s preceptor and master who told him this story (67–72) and who becomes the narrative voice of the whole tale (73–76). In one phrase, in 77, the reader is transported back to the days of ‘Holy Zoroaster’. Zoroaster foretells of three tyrants who will each weaken the religion (79ff.), Alexander, then an Evil Spirit, Mani (?), and thirdly the infidel invaders (Muslims). After Alexander and Mani (?) a king (Ardashir, Shāpur) and a priest (Ardā Virāf, Ādarbād) are both times named as restorers of the religion, thus mirroring the original partnership between king (Gushtāsp / Vishtāspa), and priest (Zoroaster). The tragedy is all the more poignant that when the kingship leaves Yazdegerd, and Iran is smashed, there is no defender of the faith to restore it (96f .). §B2 The Zoroastrians are forced to abandon everything and take to the mountains of Kuhestān where they remain 100 years (100f .). Then a wise man (dastur?) advises that they should leave (103f.). They move

the narrative of journey: synopsis and structure

29

to Hormuz on the south coast of Iran, where they stay for 15 more years. Again, a dastur advises them to leave (106ff.). It is clear that Muslim oppression is the cause of departure from Iran (110) and they sail towards India. They land on an island off the mainland of India and stay there another 19 years. For a third time a dastur divines an omen that they must depart for another place (118). A storm blows up (120), in which they pray for deliverance and promise that they will light a fire to Bahrām yazad if they reach India safely. Calm returns and they reach the coast of mainland India (136). §B3 (137–223) The travellers, led by a dastur, are met by a rajah whom they ask for asylum (panāhat o maqāmat ‘refuge and home’). At first he mistrusts them, and the dastur sets conditions for their settlement (151–158). The dastur gives him an account of the religion (161–182) and in return the rajah gives them a place in which to build their refuge and town (māvāy, shahri), which they name Sanjān.5 Some time passes and they ask for, and are granted, permission to establish a fire sacred to Bahrām. (194–203). The āteshbahrām is consecrated and named shāh-e Irān ‘King of Irān’ (220). The poem then mentions how the centuries passed and the Persians prospered and spread throughout the surrounding area. Dispersal, Victory and Defeat in India §C1 224–242 The story moves forward by seven centuries, in which the Zoroastrians disperse to different towns in Gujarat. §C2 243–311 The date is not specified but, at some time more recent to Bahman’s day, news arrives of the hostile troops of a Muslim Sultan Mahmud Shāh advancing on Sanjān under Mahmud’s general Ulugh Khān (253). The Zoroastrians accept an invitation by the Hindu ruler to enlist in the army to defend Sanjān (256–264). In the first battle the Hindus are routed (270–282); the Zoroastrian troops regroup, vastly outnumbered, and, led by the hero Ardashir in grisly battle scenes of carnage and gore, they save the day (283–309). The Muslims retreat

5

On the naming of ‘Sanjān’ see my note to v. 136 in the Commentary.

30

chapter two

and ‘Islam had fallen on that battlefield, slain in battle with the noble prince’ (307). §C3 312–352 The next day when the battle lines are drawn, Ardashir challenges and slays an unnamed Muslim warrior hero (325–335). Ulugh Khān is so angered to see this that he demands the slaughter of all opponents, and Ardashir and his comrades fall in another bloody battle (336–352). The Journey of the Irān Shāh āteshbahrām §D1 355–366 The Zoroastrians are again dispersed and take their sacred Irān Shāh fire for safekeeping to the hill of Bahārut where they remain for 12 years. They go to Bānsdah and are greeted by a tumultuous reception, where the Irān Shāh fire is established in its own precincts and is served by the community. §D2 367–392 A new phase of Parsi history begins as the layman Changā Āsā appears. He makes the pilgrimage to the Irān Shāh fire and subsequently proposes that they remove the fire from Bānsdah to Navsāri. §D3 393–402 The fire is removed to Navsāri and established there, and the community is seen to prosper. Closing Doxology §E1 403–405 As in the Opening Doxology, Bahman praises God, then §E2 406–414 at greater length calls down blessings on his teacher, ancestor, then §E3 415–432 devotes the last 18 verses entirely to calling down blessings on himself, with a final nod of gratitude to Zoroaster and the grateful reader.

the narrative of journey: synopsis and structure

31

Analysis and Discussion: The Threefold Structure The synoptic chart of the text, set out in five columns of three rows, is intended to indicate that the events as described in the QS are told in a way that follows and repeats a fundamental paradigm of process of Zoroastrian eschatological understanding. This is the progression characterised in the religious mythology as the succession of three stages of existence, namely from the beginning of bundahishn ‘Creation’ to the present gūmēzishn ‘Mixture’ of good and evil in this world, to the wizārishn ‘Resolution’ at the end of this world at the dawn of the next. A threefold grouping of the unfolding of events is a virtually universal feature of plot: given the importance and shape of eschatological time in Zoroastrianism, such a structure is dramatically and mythologically highly significant When the story of the QS begins in §B1, it does not start in the present moment of Bahman’s own time, nor even at the time of the emigration from Iran, looking backwards. Rather, the narrative looks forwards from the position of Zoroaster, i.e. at the beginning of the religious world. His ‘millennium’ (i.e. the basic unit of religious time) is set out as moving through two periods of oppression and recovery, and culminating in the third, final and apparently unrelieved oppression of the Islamic conquest of Iran. A powerful symbolic and structural parallel with the mythological-cosmological sphere is being suggested, namely between Ahriman’s invasion and corruption of the world and events of history down to the Islamic invasion and conquest of Zoroastrian Iran. In case the reader has missed this significance, the text spells out the message (94–97): By fate the days of Zoroaster ended: no one could even trace the Noble Faith. When Zoroaster’s thousandth year had come, the limit of the noble faith came too. When kingship went from Yazdegerd the king, the infidels arrived and took his throne. From that time forth Irān was smashed to pieces! Alas! That land of Faith now gone to ruin!

This is the lowest point of fortune in the text, and the remainder of the QS is the story of recovery from this position of abject defeat. The recovery is not continuous, but always one of gain and loss, advance and retreat, with the major features of the narrative being grouped in sets of three. In §B1 there had been three forces of good (ZoroasterGushtāsp, Ardā Virāf-Ardashir, Ādarbād-Shāpur) and three oppressive

32

chapter two

forces (Alexander, the Evil Spirit, Islam). In §B2, a wise man/dastur three times advises them to leave the refuge they have found. §B3 is a long episode in which the purpose of the journey is achieved, and their problems are resolved with the finding of a safe abode and the establishment of the āteshbahrām. However the short passage of §C1 is entirely retrospective (as §B1 was), and the author intimates that (again) the passing of the centuries is one of gradual decline, not prosperity, concluding with the words (241–242): When many years had overtaken them, and crooked heaven took them in this way The world became distressing to their heart: and heaven’s Fate resounded on their soul.

§C2, like §B2, begins with an invasion; the Zoroastrians fight three encounters, in two of which they are successful, but in the final battle they once again suffer a defeat by a Muslim army. The implication of the text is that the Zoroastrians are not fated to have military-political power in India, having lost it with the downfall of the Sasanians in Iran. The recovery which is allowed them in §§D1–3 is that of their prospering as the Parsi community, established on the basis of close cooperation between priestly and lay classes, in the course of which the fire is moved three times, to Bahārut, Bānsdah and Navsāri. With the safe installation of the Irān Shāh fire in Navsāri the story abruptly ends. The Text as Myth of Rite de Passage Over a hundred years ago Arnold Van Gennep first set out his theory of the central importance of rites de passage ‘rites of passage’ or ‘transitional rites’ in the life of an individual and society, culture and community. Transitions in individual and social life, at such times as birth, childhood initiation into adulthood, priestly ordination, marriage and funerary all require particular rites. Also, however, at the beginning of his study, Van Gennep discussed how territorial passages, such as journeys, provide ‘a framework for the discussion of rites of passage which follows.’ Territories have boundaries that are sometimes, but not always, natural physical features, such as a mountain range, or a sea. Crossing physical boundaries of natural geography, or the territorial boundaries of an ethnic or political group is analogous to those metaphorical ‘boundaries’ which are crossed between stages of life, when

the narrative of journey: synopsis and structure

33

rites de passage serve to mark the transition. Van Gennep identified three types of rites of transition: I propose to call the rites of separation from a previous world, pre-liminal rites, those executed during the transitional stage liminal (or threshold) rites, and the ceremonies of incorporation into the new world post-liminal rites.6

In the QS the physical journey of maritime and territorial transition serves as an eloquent metaphor of their cultural, political and social transition: indeed the dramas of fleeing for their lives in Iran, undergoing the perils of the storm at sea, and once in India, enduring the bloody pitched battles against the Muslims in the battles for Sanjān, are all rites of passage, marking stages in the evolution of the community. It is thus also a ‘journey’ of existential transformation from being Zoroastrians in Iran to being Persians (Parsis) in India. It has seldom been noticed that the term ‘parsi’ occurs only once in the QS, late on in the text at verse 365, after Iranian blood has been mixed with the earth of India on the battlefield, against the old enemy, Islam. The author of the QS establishes the original identity of Iranian Zoroastrianism in ‘the millennium of Zoroaster’ in the section I have marked as §B1 in the synoptic chart. This is, like the original Bundahishn period of creation, an idyllic past time. The victory of the Arabs over Yazdegerd III and the fall of the Sasanian dynasty mark the end of the era of Zoroastrian ascendancy in Iran. The transition of the Zoroastrians from Iran to another homeland begins in B2, which is a phase of liminality comparable to the mixed state of the Gūmēzishn. The journey is protracted by a long period of social timelessness, while the Zoroastrians take refuge in a symbolically ‘neutral zone’,7 hiding in the mountains of Kuhestān for ‘a hundred years’. The liminality of the Zoroastrians in Iran increases as they are said to have moved from Kuhestān to the southern perimeter of mainland Iran (Hormuz). The then leave Iran, by sea to reach a point which is, in symbolic terms again, a no-man’s-land, namely the island ‘Diu’ that is neither Iran nor mainland India, but close to India (116 suye hend). In order to reach India proper they must undergo the passage to India via a storm. It seems that their journey must cross the physical barrier of the natural

6 7

Van Gennep 1977, 21. See Van Gennep 1977, 17f.

34

chapter two

elements in a storm at sea. Heaven itself is implicated, and the forces of nature are assuaged only, as it happens, when the Zoroastrians enter into a contract with Heaven, promising to establish a fire to Bahrām if they arrive safely in India. This is a crucially important fulcrum point of the text, where Heaven seems to have spoken to them through violent nature, and secured the establishment of what is to become the all important symbol of their identity in India, the Irān Shāh fire. The newcomers may have arrived physically on Indian soil at this point, but they are still stateless, homeless wanderers, and still literally ‘liminal’. It is no coincidence that the passage of the QS which is best loved by the Parsi community, and which has been most elaborated upon in oral tradition, is imagined in Parsi memory as having taken place on a shore—yet no shore, beach or coast is mentioned here in the QS. The next 87 verses (136–223) describe the landing, negotiation and settlement with the local Hindu ruler at Sanjān. This is the social and cultural transition, which is negotiated by the dastur as representative of his community, and the rajah as symbol of Indian sovereignty. After a short linking narrative (224–242), §C is concerned with two battles which are recounted in vivid detail, in the longest passage of the text in 110 verses (243–352). Symbolic Vengeance The battles serve an important purpose in the text, the significance of which seems to have been previously missed or ignored by commentators. The battles are not merely an opportunity for the author of the text to treat the reader to lurid accounts of war in which Zoroastrian warriors saved the day. There is, I would suggest, a more serious purpose, and a deeper symbolic significance. In the first place the Zoroastrians triumph twice—the first in a collective victory by Zoroastrian troops, the second in an individual victory by the Zoroastrian hero—and they exact revenge on Islam in, literally, a poetic justice many centuries after they had been defeated at Qādisiyyah and Nehāvand by the Arab invaders of the Iranian homeland. The hero of the battle is the Zoroastrian warrior Ardashir. This champion is significantly named, since Ardashir was the first of the Sasanian kings who ruled 224–240 C.E. Our hero leads the Zoroastrians to victory in the first battle, in spite of their being grossly outnumbered. He then defeats an unnamed Muslim champion in a one-to-one combat of heroes. This is all described in a style which

the narrative of journey: synopsis and structure

35

is strongly reminiscent of the mortal combats depicted in the Iranian national epic, Shāhnāme ‘Book of Kings’ of Ferdowsi. In our text, once he has slain the Muslim warrior, Ardashir is then cruelly cut down in a surprise ambush attack launched by the furious Muslim general. §§C2 and 3 are less well known perhaps, nowadays, than the rest of the text, as they tell of ferocious battles and their significance was possibly somewhat lost on the 19th and 20th century audience. Bahman, however, seems to have put everything he knew of poetic art into this section of the text, in metaphor, simile and other dramatic devices, expecially in imitation of the epic poet Ferdowsi. In several respects the scenes are of symbolically central importance to the QS. First, the battles that follow are significant as the third of three rites of passage into India, the first two having been the rite of the natural elements of the storm at sea and the political negotiations of entry and settlement in the rajah’s territory. This third rite of battle engagement requires the forging and testing of their Iranian warrior prowess to prove their loyalty as Indian-Persians. Just as this was most costly, in terms of lives lost on the battlefield, as Zoroastrian blood was mixed with the soil of India, so also it was most recent, taking place perhaps less than two centuries before Bahman’s composition, and was therefore still a matter of pride and prowess to the Sanjana tradition of which Bahman is the poet and champion. The second main significance of the episode of the two battles against the forces of Sultan Mahmud, is, I suggest, that they symbolically evoke, and even replicate, the 7th century invasion of Arab Muslim armies and the two most famous battles, Qādisiyyah (636) and Nehāvand (642). Back then, according to Muslim sources, the Arabs had been victorious despite being outnumbered 4 to 1 and 5 to 1 respectively by the Sasanian army. In the present account of the QS the Hindu rajah is told that an attacking force of 30,000 cavalry surrounds him. Surprisingly, perhaps, to the modern reader, the rajah’s first action, after waking up from a faint at hearing the news, is to summon the Zoroastrian priests to call the Persians to arms to be in the vanguard of the battle. The rajah does this in spite of the old fourth condition (verse 157) of not bearing arms, which his predecessor Jādi Rāna is said to have imposed on the Zoroastrians as a condition of settlement in India. For the author of the QS it is a religious battle, not merely a military one against an invader army. It is fought by Zoroastrian warriors defending, as a matter of fulfilment of a promise of gratitude made in a speech by the dastur at the time of their arrival in India, just before he had described the beliefs of the Zoroastrian religion:

36

chapter two We are all friendly to the land of Hend, we’ll slash your enemies in all directions.8

This had been addressed not just to Jādi Rāna but to the sovereignty of their adoptive home, India, and the latter-day rajah has called upon the Zoroastrians’ gratitude for the favour of his predecessors (258–60), to which an ‘aged mowbed’, as if continuing the speech of his priestly forebear centuries before, replies: So long as one of us remains alive we shall behead a hundred thousand foes.9

The text reports that they mustered a band of 1,400 Zoroastrian warriors on the Hindu side (verse 267) against the army of Mahmud’s general Ulugh Khan. His forces are described in terms reminiscent of al-Ṭ abari’s description of the mighty Sasanian army at Qādisiyya, complete with the most famous feature of that battle, which is said to have terrified the Arab forces, namely elephants.10 The QS describes the scene thus (271–3): Then Ulugh Khan and all his cavalry put on their mail coats and approached the plain, They put bejewelled saddles on the horses, unfurled their banners on the elephants. They saddled up the horses for the battle: the field was shaken by the elephants.

According to the Zoroastrian account, the Hindu forces are all wiped out at an early stage of the first encounter: only the Zoroastrian warriors are left on the Hindu side, led by their foremost champion, Ardashir. Up to this point in the battle, there has been no mention of blood; the Zoroastrian warriors vow as they advance (285–6): Now is the time for battle, o dear friends. We must advance like lions to the front. If we assault them in a mass together we’ll spill the enemy’s blood with sharpened swords.

In the battle, lasting three days and nights (305), Muslim and Zoroastrian blood flows freely and is mixed with the earth (297–304):

8

V. 163. V. 262. 10 al-Ṭ abari, ‘The Battle of Al-Qadissayah and the conquest of Syria and Palestine’, tr. Y. Friedmann, SUNY, 1992. 9

the narrative of journey: synopsis and structure

37

The land and sky turned deepest red and black, the earth was tulip-red with soldiers’ blood, Blood spurting from their bodies like a fountain, the shields were smashed to pieces by the swords . . . The armour was the bane of human souls; the men made harm their guest at every moment. The men were drowned in iron from head to foot, till they were gleaming like the brilliant sun. On every side the spears were flying by, and blood was flowing on the blackened earth. And there were spears protruding from their breasts, their blood was oozing out of chain mail armour. None turned their faces from the warriors’ blows all called for fresh supplies of deadly weapons. Earth turned to iron by the horseshoe nails, the men submerged in blood up to their shins.

I quote this passage at length because it contains clues to understanding the significance of the episode. In these battles there is a libation of blood to the earth of India which is both a chthonic and a cathartic rite: it is literally a blood-bath and, even more poignantly, it is also a scene which would resonate in the Zoroastrian imagination, considering the vivid ancient imagery of the old Iranian religious eschatology. Mary Boyce has summed up the narrative of the eschatological tradition: The tradition tells of a great battle in which the yazatas, strengthened by their own and by man’s many minor victories, will meet the forces of evil in direct combat, with the Bounteous Immortals11 pitted against the daēvas and demons, and will utterly defeat them . . . (Zoroaster’s) references to the last things are more clearly . . . to the final great ordeal by which evil will be purged from the world. This the tradition describes as submersion in a river of molten metal, to be undergone by the whole physical world and by all humanity . . . ‘Then Fire and Airyaman Yazad will melt the metal in the hills and mountains, and it will be upon this earth like a river. Then they will cause men to pass through that molten metal . . . And for him who is righteous, it will seem as if he is walking through warm milk; and for him who is wicked it will seem as if he is walking in the flesh (pad gētīg) through molten metal’.12

The author of the QS is not consciously referring to the Zoroastrian eschatological narrative of the end of the world and the judgment of souls in the Greater Bundahishn; nor are the terms used to refer to the

11 12

Avestan amәša spәnta. Boyce 1975, 242, citing Greater Bundahišn, Anklesaria 1956, XXXIV.18–19.

38

chapter two

Muslim armies that invaded Iran in the 7th century C.E. consciously borrowed from the apocalyptic narrative of the Zand ī Wahman Yasn. It is rather that all three texts are part of a long religious tradition which is expressed in mythological and theological narratives of warring opposites, of good against evil, most naturally expressed in imagery of invasion, battle, war, victory and defeat. At this point in the QS the triumphant end of the first battle is couched in terms which are more mythologically resonant than would be the case if this were just a victory over a marauding invader. Verse 307, which announces: Islam had fallen on that battlefield, slain in the battle with the noble prince.

corresponds exactly to verse 97: From that time forth Iran was smashed to pieces. Alas! That land of faith now gone to ruin!

The latter-day victory on Indian soil is not merely an act of revenge against Islam, but it is a token of justice obtained; it is represented in the QS as a battle against ‘Islam’: An army was arrayed on either side, one for Islam, one for the Hindu prince.13

Ardashir, the Persian hero of the battle against the Muslim Sultan Mahmud, goes on to win another personal victory the next day against a Muslim champion. It is not insignificant that Ardashir is ‘girt with an Indian sword and spear in hand’ (kamar bar tigh-e hendi nayze bar kaff ).14 His act of beheading the Muslim hero seals his own fate: the Muslim forces are commanded to annihilate him and the rest of their opponents in vengeance for such an impious outrage against Islam. Once again blood flows (340–342): And as the armies struggled on both sides blood surged forth from their bodies like a sea. A wave came rushing from a bloody sea, and men exuded gore on every side. An ant could find no place upon that field, but then, without God’s law, what is a man?

13 14

V. 276. See Commentary, v. 324.

the narrative of journey: synopsis and structure

39

The phrase ‘without God’s law’ (bi ḥokm-e ḥaqq) signals that this is the lowest point in the text since the time of the Arab defeat of the Sasanians. It would appear, from the usages in the QS, that the terms qaẓā, zamāne and bakht refer to fate in the sense of ‘blind fate’, or morally neutral ‘fortune’, which is more or less synonymous in Zoroastrian thought with the process of bounded time of 12,000 years created by Ohrmazd as the battle ground on which good and evil struggle for supremacy. As if to close the battle and the narrative, the author meditates on Fate: Alas for such a valiant commander whom Fate had scattered to the winds at last! When inauspicious Fate has turned to anger the very hardest stone is turned to wax. And even though he fought and struggled so, to what avail if Fate had turned away?15

This episode, which had begun when Fate (zamāne) had earlier resounded on the souls of the Zoroastrians and the world had became distressing to their hearts (242), ends with Fate scattering Ardashir, their champion, to the winds (347) so that they must again disperse. A heading has been inserted after 352 and then the text announces: Those of the Noble Faith were scattered there.

This dispersal harks back to the chaos following the Muslim invasion of Iran (98–9): And at that time all those who fixed their hearts upon the Zand and Pāzand were dispersed. When every single layman and dastur went into hiding for Religion’s sake.

In Iran they had taken to the mountains (kuhestān), and now they take to the hill (kuh) of Bahārut in India. As compared with their the previous delay of 100 years their time in hiding is much shorter, and this time they have their king with them (355–6): A dozen years passed by upon this peak: the Irān Shāh was borne up there with them.

15

Vv. 347–9.

40

chapter two

The holy Irān Shāh fire is their fortune, and the Zoroastrians are able to reconstitute themselves as a community. This happens in a passage of just a few verses, when the fire is brought, as if with a royal escort, to reside in the town of Bānsdah (359–365): And then three hundred of them riding horses received them with a group of notables. They brought it to the town with much thanksgiving as when an ailing man receives a cure. From that time Bānsdah was like spring had come to bloom and in this way the years rolled by. From then on all the folk of good religion, wherever pure tradition had survived, The men and women and the old, went up to pay their homage to the Irān Shāh. In former times in much respected Sanjān they went for pilgrimage which had no equal, And in this way the Persians came to Bānsdah from every place, with many offerings.

This last verse has the first and only occurrence in the text of the name parsi ‘Persian’: after all their trials and rites de passage, they have finally become a community which is both fully Iranian and fully Indian, yet distinctively ‘Parsi’. The very adoption of the name ‘Parsi’ here seems to suggest a reconciliation with the dislocation and dispossession of the past. After a period of residence in Bānsdah the Irān Shāh is ceremonially relocated in Navsāri, the home of the author and which remains the orthodox religious centre of the Parsi community to this day. With this ‘homecoming’, and the installation of the King of Iran in its proper abode, the journey of repatriation is finally over: the text enters the present time as it closes in blessings and peace on the author.

ILLUSTRATIONS The Eleven Folios (Fol. 556 verso–Fol. 561 verso) of the SH Manuscript of Dārāb Hormazdyār’s Revāyat (1680), containing the Qeṣsẹ -ye Sanjān, in the Library of the K.R. Cama Oriental Institute, Mumbai.

fol. 556 verso, vv. 1–38

fol. 557 recto, vv. 39–91

fol. 557 verso, vv. 92–133

fol. 558 recto, vv. 134–177

fol. 558 verso, vv. 178–219

fol. 559 recto, vv. 220–260

fol. 559 verso, vv. 261–301

fol. 560 recto, vv. 302–342

fol. 560 verso, vv. 343–382

fol. 561 recto, vv. 383–423

fol. 561 verso, vv. 424–432

CHAPTER THREE

TRANSCRIPTION AND TRANSLATION Simplified romanised transcription system1

letter

name

transcription letter

‫ا‬, ‫آ‬ ‫ﺏ‬ ‫پ‬ ‫ﺕ‬ ‫ﺙ‬ ‫ﺝ‬ ‫چ‬ ‫ﺡ‬ ‫ﺥ‬ ‫ﺩ‬ ‫ﺫ‬ ‫ﺭ‬ ‫ﺯ‬ ‫ژ‬ ‫ﺱ‬ ‫ﺵ‬

alef be pe te se jim chim ḥe hoti khe dal z̠al re ze zhe sin shin

a, ā b p t s j ch ḥ kh d z̠ r z zh s sh

1

Written/‫ک‬/‫ ﻙ‬in the manuscript SH.

‫ﺹ‬ ‫ﺽ‬ ‫ﻁ‬ ‫ﻅ‬ ‫ﻉ‬ ‫ﻍ‬ ‫ﻑ‬ ‫ﻕ‬ ‫ک‬/‫ﻙ‬ ‫گ‬ ‫ﻝ‬ ‫ﻡ‬ ‫ﻥ‬ ‫ﻭ‬ ‫ﻩ‬ ‫ﻯ‬

name

transcription

ṣad ẓad ṭa ża ‘ayn ghayn fe qaf kaf gaf 1 lam mim nun vav he havaz ye

ṣ ẓ ṭ ż ʿ gh f q k g l m n v / ow /u h y/i

qeṣsẹ -ye sanjān

54 2

be nām-e izad3-e dānāy-ye sobḥān be har dam mi sorāyam nokte az jān

farāvān shokr mi guyam shab o ruz ke az shokrash marā jānast firuz bejoz z̠ekrash naguyam gāh o bigāh ke u bar ‘ālam āmad jāvedān shāh tavāngar u tavānā ust dāyem ke chashm-e bande binā zust dāyem be mā har jā panāh o dastgirast

5

konad bakh shande u puzesh paz̠ir ast hamu faryād-ras hamvār budast bemā dānesh bedād o din nomudast gharibān parvar o dārāy-e ‘ālam gonah amurz o laghzesh bakhsh-e ādam hamu hamvāre mā rā rahnamāy ast anis-e khalvat o moshkel-gushāy ast tu rā bar āfarin dast-e4 kamāl ast tu’i soltạ̄ n o molkat bizavāl ast

2 SH Folio 556v. begins. SH BL1 and N have no invocatory title. U and P1 be nām-e izad-e bakhshāyande-ye bakhshāyeshgar-e mehrbān; BL2 has qeṣsẹ -ye sanjān be nām-e izad-e mehrbān. 3 SH yazd. 4 U; SH, N dasti.

1–9 5

55

In God’s name, Who is Wise, the Most Sublime,* my soul sings His Delights in every moment.

I thank Him night and day in great abundance, my soul exhilarates in thanking Him. From dawn to dusk I say His Name alone, He is the Eternal Sovereign of the world. He is the Great, the Able One, forever, His servant’s eye has sight through Him forever. He is our refuge and protector everywhere,

5

forgiving, and accepting penitence. And He has been our constant source of refuge, He gave us knowledge, He revealed the faith. The strangers’ Guardian, Keeper of the world, forgiving sins, He pardons man’s backsliding. He also is our Everlasting Guide, the Friend in solitude, the Problem-solver. Your power is perfect over Your creation, You are the King, your rule is permanent.

5 U, P1 begin ‘In the name of God the Bountiful, the Merciful, the Loving’; N2 The Story of Sanjān In the name of God the Loving.’

56

qeṣsẹ -ye sanjān tu hasti bar khodāvandān khodāvand

10

‘aziz o bi nażir o bi hamāvand ze gel sāzi be qodrat shakl-e ādam tu jān āri daru shādān o khorram ze ṣolb andar raḥem noṭfe dar āri tu’i bar āb ṣurat mi negāri tu dādi noṭfe-’i rā ṣurat o tan tu dar vay sākhti ‘ālam mo‘ayyan zabān dādi tu ensān rā bezāher vali gowhar nehān bakh shidi ākher du chashmash dāde-’i az bahr-e didan

15

du gush āvarde-’i bahr-e shenidan zabānash dāde-’i az bahr-e goftār ke tā dar z̠ekr-e tu jonbad chu pargār tu shamm dādi pay-e khwoshbu nehādan tu pā dādi be tā‘at istādan si o du dorr be yak reshte keshidi maz̠āq andar dahān-e mā6 āfridi chonān bar lawḥ-e naqshat ‘ālam oftād7 ke bar ṣan‘atgari jān mitavān dād

6 7

The next syllable should be short for the metre, but is written long in all MSS. SH U, N chonān bar lawḥ ‘ālam naqshat oftād, which makes less good sense.

10–19 You are the Sovereign Lord of sovereign lords,

57 10

the Dear One, Peerless and Beyond Compare. You fashion with Your power man’s form from clay, You put the soul in him, gladsome and cheerful. You put the seed of loins into the womb, it’s You who paints the image on the waters. You gave a form and body to the seed: within it You have made the world established. You gave to humankind an outer tongue, but also You bestowed a hidden jewel. Two eyes You’ve given him to use for seeing, two ears You have attached that he may hear. You’ve given him a tongue to use for speech, to move like compasses remembering You. You gave a sense of smell to pick up fragrance, You gave him feet to stand upon in worship. And two-and-thirty pearls You strung in rows, and You created savour in our mouths. The world accords so with Your graven tablet, the soul would die to have Your artistry.

15

58

qeṣsẹ -ye sanjān be jān-e ‘āsheqān tu gham nehādi

20

be ghamshān dāde-’i ārām o shādi tu basti bar ‘adam naqsh-e du ‘ālam tu kardi bar malak sardār ādam mosallam bar tu mi zibad khodā’i kherad bar tu hami dāde govāhi tu rā hargah ke guyam shokr-e biḥadd zabānam zin sokhan har laḥże zibad maḥabbat dar geluyam rismān bast ke har jā mi keshad puyam bedin shast nadāram chāre-ye ḥokm-e khodāvand ke mā rā dar reẓā har jā dar afkand baqā rā kas na zibad joz khodāvand ke u bāshad hamishe bi hamāvand ze tu paydā shodast in jomle hasti ze ḥekmat naqsh dar ‘ālam tu basti tu ādam rā ze ṣalṣāl āfaridi bar u nām-e khelāfat bar keshidi taghayyor ānche napzirad tu bāshi kasi ku dast-e mā girad tu bāshi

25

20–29 You have put sadness in the souls of lovers,*

59 20

You’ve given to their sadness peace and joy. You fastened both worlds’ form to non-existence,* You made mankind superior to the angels. Completest lordship is adorning You,* and wisdom testifies to You alone. And when I give You words of boundless thanks, they beautify my tongue at every moment. For Love has tied a cord around my neck, I shall go where He leads me by this snare. I’ve no escaping from my Lord’s command, who scatters us wherever He might please. No one deserves eternity save God,* for He has no competitor forever. All this existence was revealed by You, You fixed the image in the world through wisdom.* For You created Adam out of clay, You named him with the title of vicegerent. You are the One who tolerates no change, You are the One who takes us by the hand.*

25

qeṣsẹ -ye sanjān

60

na kas mānad be tu nay mesl-e tu kas

30

hame hasti ze tu paydā shavad bas zamin o āsmān tu āfaridi tạ rāzash az bani ādam keshidi be dargāhat rokh āvardast bahman delash rā dar jahān mi dār rowshan delash az din-e beh ābād gardān sarash az qayd-e gham āzād gardān be din andar hamishe dār ma‘mur be faẓl-e khwish jānash kon tu por nur be joz tu kas navāzande nadāram be du giti ze tu omidvāram tu āmurzi gonāh ay mehrbānam ze tu auṣāf misanjad zabānam tu jān-e bi kasam rā chāre sāzi8 tu az alt ̣āf bande minavāzi be ke ru āvaram gar9 tu berāni kojā puyam ke joz tu nist sāni 10

khajal gashtam ze khāmi-ye sokhan-hā nadāram bahre’i zingune fan-hā

8 9 10

SH, N; U, N2 ze tu jān bi kasam . . . SH agar, corrected to gar in N. SH Folio 557r. begins.

35

30–39 No one resembles You, no one is like You,

61 30

all being has originated from You. You fashioned forth the heavens and the earth, You drew their ornament from humankind. Bahman has turned his face towards Your court,* uphold his heart resplendent in the world! Make his heart flourish with the Good Religion, keep free his mind from shackles of distress. Keep him abundant in Religion always, and by Your favour fill his soul with light. I have no comforter except for You in both the worlds my hope depends on You. You do forgive my sins, my Kindly One, my tongue enumerates Your attributes. You offer succour to the friendless soul, You soothe Your servant with Your kindnesses. Who shall I turn to if You should reject me? Where shall I run? You have no substitute. I blush to see the rawness of these words, I have no talent for such arts as these.

35

qeṣsẹ -ye sanjān

62

be pishat āmadam bā ‘oz̠r khwāhi

40

ke dāri tu hamishe pādshāhi be man yāri kon ay dārāy-e giti ke hastam bande khāk-e pā-ye giti nakhwāham sākht qeble joz dar-e tu che bar giram ke khub āyad bar-e tu marā dar zendegi hamrah tu bāyad11 ke in hamrāh hamrah mi nayāyad dar ākher charkh khwāhad kard khākam azin mordan che āyad tars o bākam suye jannat chu khwāhad raft jānam

45

ashem āri dar ān dam bar zabānam be har gah jān ze tan girad jodā’i fereshte dar bar-e man dar nomā’i abā fruhar ashu dah āshnā’i kazu girad ravānam roshanā’i gonah kaz man shode bāshad nehāni bebakhsh ay mehrbān az mehrbāni che ‘oz̠r ārad be tu in bahman-e pir ke dar khedmat hamishe kard taqṣir 12

taḥiyat bar zabān-e u rasāni dar in gune sokhan-hā bogz̠arāni

11 12

MSS beyāyad. 49a in SH, N, P1, BL1; lacking in U.

49A

40–49A I have approached You with a plea for pardon,

63 40

for You have sovereignty for ever more. Show friendship to me, Keeper of the World, for I am dust on which the world may tread.13 I’ll make no niche except before Your door,* where should I turn that will seem good to You? You must be my Companion in my life, for this companion will not come with me.* At last shall fortune turn me into dust! What dread or terror have I of such death? And when my soul is bound for Paradise,

45

then bring Ashem [Vohu] upon my tongue.* Whenever my soul might depart the body, make manifest the angel to embrace me.* Acquaint me with my righteous farohar,* so that my spirit is enlightened by it. The sins which have emerged from me in secret, forgive them, Loving One, in loving kindness. What penance will old Bahman bring to You? For in Your service he has always failed. Bestow Your benediction on his tongue,

49A

and in this manner let the words come forth.14 13

Lit. ‘I am the servant (who is) the dust of the foot of the world.’ V. 63 would follow on naturally after 49 as in SH, N and would lead straight into the beginning of the following narrative at v. 64. 14

qeṣsẹ -ye sanjān

64 15

vali taqṣir-e u bakhsh o ravānash

50

bekon āzād az laghz-e nehānash qabuli dah sokhan rā dar monājāt ke didam az tu har gune karāmāt khodāvandā tu az man rāz dāni cherā bihude har su mi davāni dar in giti rahā’i az tu mā rāst cherā az digarān makhlaṣ konam khwāst javāni rafte o piri raside sahi sarvam be jannat sar keshide ze maskinānst maskin bahman-e pir tu yāvar bāsh o har jā dast-e u gir marā dar har du giti dāvari tu be ẓa‘f o nātavāni yāvari tu ze chashmam khwāb-e ghaflat shuy yā rabb be bidāri marā kon ruy yā rabb azin shive ke hastam man gonahkār nagiri bar man ay shāh-e neku kār na mi āyad ze ādam joz gonāhi be imān suye khwod benmāy rāhi

15

Vv. 50–62 are in U but lacking in SH, P1, BL1, N.

*55

50–59 But grant forgiveness for his misdemeanours,*

65 50

and free his spirit from his hidden errors. Indulge me with the words I am confiding, I’ve seen all kinds of miracles from You. O Lord, You know the hidden things within me, why do You send me running round in vain? In this world our salvation is from You, why should I look to others for asylum? Now youth has gone and old age has arrived, my cypress straight has bowed to Paradise. Old Bahman is the lowliest of the lowly, befriend him, take his hand in every place! In both the worlds You are my Sovereign Judge, in weakness and in helplessness my Strength. Wash from my eyes the sleep of my forgetting, O Lord, and turn my face to wakefulness. Though I am but a sinner by profession, O virtuous Majesty, do not accuse me. There comes from Adam nothing except sin! Do You reveal a path to You through faith!

55

qeṣsẹ -ye sanjān

66

be dargāh-e tu mi nālam be zāri

*60

ke nāmam dar gonahkārān nayāri agar tu bande-ye khwod rā navāzi bovad dar har du ‘ālam sar farāzi be fekrat ruy dar khwod karde budam taraddod dar khayāli mi nomudam ze tu ay qāẓi ḥājāt-e monājāt bekhwāham tā nomāyad ru karāmāt 16

goftār-e āmadan-e behdinān dar17 hendustān az shahr-e khorāsān konun beshnow shegefti dāstān-hā ze goft-e mowbadān o bāstān-hā agar guyam be taqrirash nagonjad

65

be kāghaz niz tahrirash nagonjad valiken man az-u andak bejuyam sokhan gar ṣad bovad man yak beguyam shenidastam man az dānāy dastur ke hamvāre be khubi bud mashhur18 hamu zand o avestā khwānde bude ze khwod ahremanān rā rānde bude be shahrash dar ‘ayān mi bud dastur kazu gashtast din payvaste por nur

16 This title is written in the left margin of SH and a space is left in the text between the two meṣrā‘s of v. 63, where it is written in P1, BL1, N and U. 17 U has also keshvar-e here. 18 After v. 67, P1, P2, BL1 (in l.h. margin), BL2 have the following verse (67A) zahi dastur nāmash bud hushang / be dānesh dar hamishe bud bā shang (P2 nang).

60–69 I plead in lamentation at Your court,

67 *60

You would not put my name among the sinners. If You should offer comfort to Your servant, his head will be exalted in both worlds. I turned my gaze to contemplating You, I showed endeavour in my meditation. I ask You, Judge of needs and silent prayers, that You reveal the wonders of Your Face. The account of the journey of the Behdins from the province of Khorāsān to the land of Hendustān Now listen to the tales of wondrous things,* told from the lore of priests19 and ancient sages. I tell it, but it’s not contained in telling,*

65

and writing cannot limit it to paper. But I would seek to tell a little portion, were there a hundred words, I’d say just one. I came to hear it from a wise dastur, whose goodness made him famous for all time. 20

And he had read the Zand and the Avesta, he’d rid himself of Ahriman’s dark forces.*

The dastur was conspicuous in his town, by him the faith was constantly enlightened.

19

I.e. mowbads. In several later manuscripts an extra verse (67A) names the author’s teacher: ‘How excellent, the dastur’s name was Hushang / in wisdom he was always in abundance.’* 20

qeṣsẹ -ye sanjān

68

dar ān ayyām ḥokmash bar hame kas

70

berafti o bekardi kār-e din bas azu har kas ke pursidi ze din rāz be goftārash bekardi kār-e din sāz be shahr-e khwishtan kostād budash be shāgerdān del o jān shād budash ze goft-e bāstān21 in dāstān goft nehāni rāz-hā-ye rāstān goft be yak ruz u be mā in qeṣsẹ gofte be niku’i dor-e akhbār softe hamān dastur in qeṣsẹ be man goft verā niki hamishe bād hamjoft ze goftārash hekāyat bāz guyam ze kār-e mard-e behdin rāz guyam dar ayyāmi ke shah goshtāsp bude ashu zartosht rāh-e din nomude be vestā dar begofte ḥāl-hā rā setamgar shah padid āyad shomā rā se bāre din-e beh bāshad shekaste kazu behdin shavad tārāj o khaste

21

pāstān in P1, BL1.

75

70–79 His power extended over all in those days,*

69 70

and he did much to benefit religion. And all who asked him of religion’s secrets would act upon his word in spiritual life. In his own town, in which he was the master, his pupils’ hearts and souls rejoiced with him. He told this tale just as the ancients told it, he spoke the hidden mysteries of the righteous. One day it was he told this story to us, strung beautifully the pearls of past events. For that dastur who told this story to me may goodness be his ever-present friend. I shall relate the story in his words, I’ll tell the secret deeds of Zoroastrians. In King Vishtāspa’s days, religion’s path was brought to light by Holy Zoroaster. He’d told of things to come in the Avesta,* ‘Oppressive kings will show themselves to you, Three times the Good Religion will be broken,* each time the faithful will be crushed and wounded.

75

70

qeṣsẹ -ye sanjān hamān shah rā setamgar nām bāshad

80

azu din-e behi bi kām bāshad ze kār-e din konun guyam khabar dār chonān shod bāz behdin zār o bizār sekandar shāh-shān āmad dar ākher kotob-hā sukht u dar din be żāher be siṣad sāl in din khwār gashte setam bar mardom-e dindār gashte pas az vay moddati shod din panāhi gerefte ardashirash pādshāhi degar bāre behi din tāze gashte be ‘ālam dar neku āvāze gashte be dargah izadi ardā-ye virāf ferestāde be minu bahr-e auṣāf vazān pas ham ganā minu gojaste mar in rah rā degar bāre shekaste be din-e beh khalal andākhte bāz bar āmad har ṭaraf az din bad āvāz pas az moddat ke āmad shāh shāpur degar bāre behi din kard por nur

85

80–89 The name of those same “kings” will be “Oppressor”,

71 80

and hence the noble faith become despairing.’ I speak now of Religion’s work, so listen, how once again the noble faith was weakened. At length King Alexander came upon them, he burnt religion’s holy books in public. Three hundred years this faith was brought down low, and tyranny oppressed its faithful people. Then after, for a while, the faith found refuge when Ardashir took sovereignty of it. And once again the noble faith could flourish, it came to be illustrious in the world. Ardā Virāf was posted to God’s court,* in order to describe the world of spirit. And after that the accursed Evil Spirit* wrought his destruction on this way again. Again he cast the noble faith to ruin, the faith came into ill repute all round. A time passed; when Shāpur came to the throne, he made the good faith full of light again.

85

qeṣsẹ -ye sanjān

72

chu ādarbād-e mahrasfand-e dindār

90

ze bahr-e din kamar baste dar in kār ze jens-e haft gune ruy āmikht hame bogdākhte chun bar tanash rikht 22

ze behdinān hami moshkel goshādash hamin din rā degar rah zib dādash

ham az shāpur shah tā yazdegar shāh raside din-e beh rā zinat o jāh sar āmad ruz-e zartosht az zamāne najoste kas ze behdini neshāne chu az zartosht sāl āmad hazāre23

95 24

ze din-e beh hami āmad kenāre chu az shah yazdegar shāhi berafte

ke joddin āmad o takhtash gerefte az ān moddat shekaste gasht irān darigh ān molk-e din oftād virān bedāngāhi shode har kas parākand har ānku dāsht del bar zand o pāzand chu behdinān o dasturān sarāsar ze kār-e din nehān gashtand yaksar

22

SH Folio 557v. begins. SH hazār corrected to hazāre in N. 24 After v. 95 BL1, BL2 have an additional verse (95A) chu rafte yazdegarshah az jahān bāz / namānde din be [di]dār(?) dar jahān sāz. 23

90–99

73

When Ādarbād-e Mahrasfand, the Faithful,*

90

resigned himself like this for the Religion, The seven brazen substances were mixed, all molten as they flowed upon his body. He solved the problems of the Zoroastrians, he gave this Faith its dignity again. From King Shāpur until King Yazdegerd, the Noble Faith was honoured and respected. By fate the days of Zoroaster ended: no one could even trace the Noble Faith. When Zoroaster’s thousandth year had come,*

95

25

the limit of the Noble Faith came too.

When kingship went from Yazdegerd the king,* the infidels arrived and took his throne. From that time forth Irān was smashed to pieces! Alas! That land of Faith now gone to ruin! And at that time all those who fixed their hearts upon the Zand and Pāzand were dispersed. When every layman and dastur at once went into hiding for Religion’s sake,

25 95A ‘When Yazdegerd the king went from this world / the faith did not appear to thrive on earth.’

qeṣsẹ -ye sanjān

74 26

maqām o jāy o bāgh o kākh o ayvān27

100

hame bogzāshtand az bahr-e dinshān be kuhestān hami māndand ṣad sāl chu ishān rā bedingune shode ḥāl ze bahr-e din-e khwod ishān be yakbār tafakkor kard dānā-ye neku kār be yārān goft injā niz chandin bemāndan moshkelast az bim-e joddin abā dastur o behdin-e yegāne be suye shahr-e hormuz shod ravāne dar ān keshvar chu sāl āmad dah o panj

105

ze dorvandān keshide har yaki ranj bedānja’i ke bud dastur-e dānā hamishe dar monajjem bud tavānā hamu dar zij-hā-ye kohne dide ke bar mā ābkhur ākher raside agar in bum bogzārim shāyad konun zin molk birun rafte bāyad va gar nah mā hame oftim dar dām kherad bātel shavad kāri28 bovad khām

26

This verse is mistakenly written after 101 in SH and is correctly placed in N: in SH a figure ‘2’ has been written over the first word of 101, and ‘1’ over that of 100. 27 P1 maqām o bāgh o kākh o jāy o ayvān. 28 U, N2; SH, N kār.

100–109 Left homes, lands, gardens, villas, palaces,

75 100

they left all for the sake of their Religion. They stayed in Kuhestān a hundred years,* for them conditions had become like this. One day a wise and virtuous man was thinking, and pondering the fate of their Religion. He told his friends, ‘It is so difficult for us to stay here, fearing infidels’.* He set off for the city of Hormuz,* with laymen and dasturs beyond compare. When fifteen years had passed in that domain, each one had suffered grief from infidels. A wise dastur there was in that domain, a master in the science of the stars. He looked in his old tables of the heavens, and said, ‘At last our life is finished here. It is correct for us to leave this land. We must now make an exit from this realm, Or else we shall all fall into a trap. To reason were in vain, a foolish thing.

105

76

qeṣsẹ -ye sanjān pas ān behtar ke az divān-e dorvand

110

bebāyad raft mā rā bar sar-e hend ze bim-e jān o bahr-e din hame kas gerizim bāz suye hend zān pas suye daryā chu kashti sāz karde hamāngah bādbān bar pāy karde zan o farzand dar kashti neshāndand be suye hend kashti tond rāndand chu kashti suye hend āmad yakāyak be dib oftād langar-vār bi shakk forud āmad gerefte jāy ānjā be gel dar mānd ākher pāy ānjā dar ān budand behdin nuzdah sāl shode ākher monajjem zad yaki fāl be zij andar bedide pir dastur hamāngah goft kay yārān-e por nur az injā raft bāyad jā-ye digar ke dar ānjā bovad ārām-e yaksar29 ze goftārash hame kas shād gashtand suye gujrāt kashti tiz rāndand

29

SH, P1 N; U ke dar ānjā buvad m’āvā-ye digar.

115

110–119

77

So it is better we set off for Hend,*

110

and that we leave behind the wicked devils. Let everyone escape henceforth to Hend, to save our lives and for Religion’s sake.’ And when a boat was ready on the sea, and even as the mast was raised aloft, The women and the children were embarked, and then to Hend they sped the boat apace. Now when the boat came close to Hend, at once they chanced on Dib, for anchorage no doubt. They disembarked and made their landing there, and there their feet remained on land at last. The faithful would remain for nineteen years, until at length their sage divined an omen. The old dastur consulted his star tables, and said at once, ‘Companions, full of light, We must depart here for another place, together in that place there will be peace!’ They all rejoiced to hear what he had said, full speed they sailed their boat to Gujarāt.

115

78

qeṣsẹ -ye sanjān chu kashti rah be daryā dar keshide

120

az ānjā āfat-e ṭufān raside hame dastur-e din ḥayrān bemāndand dar ān vartẹ chu sargardān bemāndand be dargah-e khodā rokh zār sudand be pā istāde30 zāri-hā nomudand ke ay dānā tu yāri ras dar in kār azin sakhti rahān mā rā be yak bār be yāri ras tu ay bahrām-e firuz azin moshkel marā gardān tu behruz be lot ̣f-e tu gham az ṭufān nadārim harāsi dar del o jān mi nayārim tu khwod faryād ras bichāragān rā nomā’i rāh tu gom kardagān rā azin gharqāb gar yābam rahā’i na hargez pish āyad zin balā’i azin daryā agar dar31 keshvar-e hend rasim ānjā be del shādān khorsand foruzim ātash-e bahrām-e pānā azin sakhti rahān o kon tavānā

30 31

MSS istād o. dar lacking in SH, inserted in N.

125

120–129 But once the boat made headway on the sea,

79 120

a most ferocious storm blew up from there.* The dasturs of the faith were all distraught, as they were cast adrift upon that whirlpool. They rubbed their faces, crying in God’s presence, they stood up straight and let their cries come out. ‘Wise Lord, come to our rescue in this plight, save us just once from this calamity! Victorious Bahrām, come to rescue me! Make things auspicious for me in this trouble! By your grace we’ll not suffer from the storm, there’ll be no dread within our hearts or souls. You are defender of the helpless ones! Reveal the way to us who’ve lost our way! If we should find salvation from this whirlpool, and no disaster falls on us again, If from this sea we reach the land of Hend, and are contented there with happy hearts, We’ll light a Fire of Bahrām, our Protector, O save us from this plight and make us strong!

125

qeṣsẹ -ye sanjān

80

paz̠iroftim māyān in ze karkar

130

ke joz vay mā nadārim ich digar ze yomn-e ātash-e bahrām-e firuz az-ān sakhti hame gashtand behruz hamān sā‘at qabul uftād zāri khodā dar kār-e ishān dād yāri khonak bādi vazide bā khorre nur hamān bād-e mokhālef shod az ān dur 32

chu kashtibān be nām-e pāk dādār zabān bogshād o zauraq rānd yakbār

hame dastur o behdin kard kosti hamāngah rānd andar baḥr kashti chonin ḥokm-e qaẓā shod ham az ān pas suye sanjān rasidand ān hame kas yaki rājā-ye nik ānjāy bude sar-e khwod rā darun pāki goshude mar u rā nām-e jādi rāne’i bud sakhi o ‘āqel o farzāne’i bud abā hedye be pishash raft dastur ke u dar ‘elm o dānesh bud mashhur

32

SH Folio 558r. begins.

135

130–139 We’ve undertaken this ourselves with God,

81 130

apart from Him we have no other help.’ They were all blessed in their adversity, by fortune of victorious Bahrām’s Fire. The very moment when their cry was heard, God gave them succour in their difficulties. A fair wind blew, there was a glorious light, the hostile wind then disappeared from there. The captain uttered, ‘By the Holy Name of God’, and straightaway he steered the vessel. All dasturs and all laymen tied their kusti, the boat was then propelled upon the sea. And after that it was the law of Fate that every one of them arrived at Sanjān.* There was a goodly rajah in that place, whose inner mind was open to the holy. The rajah, by the name of Jādi Rāna,* was generous, intelligent and learned. The dastur went before him bearing gifts: he was renowned for knowledge and for wisdom.

135

82

qeṣsẹ -ye sanjān do‘āyash kard goft ay rāy-e rāyān

140

darin shahri bedeh tu jāy māyān gharibānim o mā andar panāhat rasidastim dar shahr o maqāmat ze bahr-e din shodastim andarin jāy shenidastim chun budast yak rāy ze naṣl-e shāh-e rāyān nik kār33 ast be hend andar hamishe namdār ast34 dehad dar shahr o molk-e khwod panāhash konad dar ḥāli az shafqat negāhash azin akhbār mā gashtim khwosh ḥāl rasidastim pish-e tu be khwosh fāl konun dar shahr-e tu mā āmadastim be umidat ze dorvandān berastim hame mardān-e ān rāy-e neku kār be del khorram be jān shādān ze goftār vali chun didashān rā rāy zāde yakāyak dar delash bim oftāde be del āmad nahibash az pay-e tāj ke boknand in velāyat rā be tārāj

33

BL1, N; SH, P1 have nikrāst by mistake; P2 bikārast. After v. 143 BL1 has the additional verse (143A) shenidastim ke injā hast rāy / ke gar binad gharib āyad ze jāy 34

145

140–149 He paid him his respects, ‘O king of princes,

83 140

will you give us a place in this domain? For we are strangers, we have come to you for refuge and a home within your land. We’ve come here for the sake of our religion. We have heard tell there is a sovereign Descended from the noble king of princes,* who is forever famous throughout Hend,35 Who’d give asylum in his land and realm, and look upon our problem with compassion. And we were much delighted by this news,

145

and we have come auspiciously to you. And now that we have come into your kingdom, you are our hope we have escaped the wicked.’ Then all the people of the virtuous prince were jubilant and gladdened by these words. But when the noble prince looked on these folk, immediately his heart was gripped by fear. His heart was struck by terror for his throne, imagining that they would sack his country.

35 143A ‘For we have heard that here there is a king / who comes to help if he should see a stranger’.

qeṣsẹ -ye sanjān

84

az ān kesvat lebāsash rāy tarsid

150

nehāni rāz az dastur pursid begoft ākher ke ay dastur-e dindār begu mā rā tu avval serr-e in kār ke rasm-e dinatān ākher che bāshad nehāni che bovad żāher che bāshad man avval binam az din-e shomāyān azān pas jāyatān sāzim māyān degar ānke zabān-e molk-e khwod rā goz̠ārandash ke tā yāband māvā zabān-e shahr-e irān dur dārand

155

zabān-e molk-e hendi rā berānand sedigar ānke az pushesh36 z̠anān-hā bepushad pushesh-e hamchun zanān mā chahārom ānke in ālāt o shamshir goshāyand o na bandand ich jā gir 37

be panjom chunke kār-e khayr-e farzand konand ān shāmgah kābin bebandand

garin qowl-e shomā avval bovad rāst be shahr-e man shomā rā jāy o māvāst

36 37

SH pušešhā, corrected in P1, N. SH, N, P1, P2, BL1, U; In SH the verse is written vertically in the left margin.

150–159 The prince was frightened by their robes and vestments.

85 150

Aside, he asked the dastur of their mysteries. He said, ‘Dastur, defender of your faith, first tell me of the secrets of these matters. Tell me, what are the customs of your faith, what are the inner things, what are the outer? First I shall see the features of your faith,* then later we shall grant a place for you. And next, they must renounce the language of their own native land to gain asylum. They shall give up the language of Irān and speak the language of the land of Hend. Third, as to mode of dress, your womenfolk shall wear such garments as our women wear. The fourth, they shall lay down these swords and weapons, and never more shall gird them on again. The fifth, when they perform the noble act of children, on that night they should be married.* If from the first your word is true to this, you’ll have a place and refuge in my land.’

155

qeṣsẹ -ye sanjān

86

chu dastur in hame az rāy beshnid

160

be nāchār in hame goftār bogzid az ān pas goft bā vay mowbad-e pir ze din guyam shenow ay rāy-e por vir dar injā khwod mashow delgir az mā ze mā nāyad badi hargez dar injā hame hendustān rā yār bāshim be har jāneb tan-e khaṣmāt tarāshim yaqin dāni ke mā yazdān parastim barāye din ze dorvandān berastim hame bogzāshtim az harche bude be rah besyār doshvāri nomude 38

hamidun khānmān o molkat o rakht hame bogzāshtim ay shah neku bakht

gharibānim mā az tokhm-e jamshid adab dārim az mahtāb o khworshid sedigar gāv rā bā āb o ātash niku mi dāramash az jāye tābash parastesh mi konim az ātash o āb hamān az gāv vaz khworshid o mahtāb

38

V. 166, is lacking from SH, P1, P2, BL1, BL2, N.

165

160–169 Now when the priest heard all this from the prince,

87 160

he had to choose the things he said with care. So then the aged mowbad told him, ‘Listen,* I’ll tell you of our faith, o clever prince. Don’t be of heavy heart on our account, no ill shall ever come here by our doing. We are all friendly to the land of Hend, we’ll slash your enemies in all directions.39 Let us assure you that we worship God, for our Religion’s sake we fled the wicked. We all abandoned everything we had, we suffered many hardships on the way. 40

Our hearth and home and goods and our possessions —we gave up everything, auspicious king.

We strangers are descendants of King Jamshid, we pay our homage to the sun and moon. Three others we hold dear: the cow, and water, and fire for the sake of its resplendence. We offer our respect to fire and water, and likewise to the cow, the sun and moon.

39 40

Lit. ‘We shall cut the bodies of your foes etc.’ This verse is not in most manuscripts.

165

qeṣsẹ -ye sanjān

88

khodā dar dahr har chiz āfaridast

170

namāzash mi barim ku khwod gozidast hamān kosti-ye41 mā haftād o du tār bebandim o bekhwānim bā del abrār zanān-hā’i ke u dashtān neshinad be khworshid o samā o mah na binad ham az āb o ham az ātash bovad dur azirā kān bovad az khāṣe-ye nur ze har chizi konad parhiz-e besyār be ruz-e rowshan o andar shab-e tār neshinad tā ke zu dashtān shavad dur chu shuyad sar be binad ātash o khur degar ān zan ke u farzand zāyad chehel ruzash hami parhiz bāyad chonān parhiz shāyad chunke dashtān beparhizad nashāyad khwār hast ān42 43

ze zan farzand-e andak mah ke āyad az ān farzand ku morde bezāyad

na har jā’i ravad yā u betāzad abā kas goftogu’i ham nasāzad

41 42 43

BL1 koshti. P1, P2; SH, U, N, BL1 hasht. SH Folio 558v. begins.

175

170–179 God has created everything in time,

89 170

we honour it, for He has chosen it.44 We tie our kusti of six dozen strands, and we recite the holy words by heart. A woman going through her monthly period does not behold the sun or sky or moon. She also keeps away from fire and water, this is because they are akin to light. She is abstemious in everything, both in the light of day and dark of night. She sits until the period has left her;

175

when she ablutes, she’ll see the sun and fire. Again, a woman who has borne a child must be abstemious for forty days. She must abstain as menstruating women: if she does not abstain, it is unwholesome.45 And when a child is born before full term, and is delivered stillborn from the woman, She may not walk nor hurry anywhere, she may not socialise with anyone.

44 This object of this meṣrā‘ is ambiguous; 170b may also be translated: ‘we worship Him for He is excellent’, lit. ‘chosen’ i.e. ‘exceptional.’ 45 This verse is problematic and the translation is doubtful.

90

qeṣsẹ -ye sanjān hamān zan niz bā parhiz-e besyār

180

chel o yak ruz benishinad dar in kār degar har che ke rasm o rāh bude hame dar pish-e u yak yak nomude chu az din-e behi asrār goftand be aḥsan vajh dorr-e nokte softand chu hendu rāja in goftār-e dastur shenid o sar be sar del gasht ma‘mur hamāngah ḥokm karde ān neku rāy ke dar molk-e marā sāzid māvāy az ān mardom ke sāḥeb vir budand neku kholq o neku tadbir budand zamin-e ān yakāyak dar nażar kard farrākhi did o mowbad rā khabar kard be dashti dar qabul oftād yak jāy zamin khwosh bud ānjā kard māvāy qabul oftad mardom rā dar ānjā ze jangal bāz shahri shod hovaydā hame jangal biyābān bud o virān forud āmad hame bornā o pirān

185

180–189 This woman sits in total abstinence,*

91 180

for forty-one days long she sits like this.’ All other customs and the ways they had. he set out all before him, one by one, As they described the secrets of their faith, they strung the pearls of subtlety with skill. Now when the Hindu rajah heard the dastur his heart regained its equilibrium. Right then and there that goodly prince commanded, ‘Make for yourselves a refuge in my country.’ Some of the brightest intellects among them, sound in their character and in their judgment, Conducted detailed surveys of the land, and found a spacious place and told the mowbad. An area of the plain was found to suit them, the land was pleasant and they settled there. It was approved by the community, and there a town appeared out of the wasteland. Where all had been deserted empty wasteland, they congregated there, both young and old.

185

92

qeṣsẹ -ye sanjān chu dastur ān zamin-e nik rā did

190

dar ānjā bahr-e māndan jāy bogzid mar u rā nām-e sanjān kard dastur besān-e molk-e irān gasht ma‘mur46 az ān ruzash laqab sanjāne guyand bedān in shahr rā nāmash az uyand daru budand bā shādi o ārām be kām-e khwod hame kas raft farjām be yak ruz uftāde kār bā rāy hame raftand pish-e u be khwosh rāy bedu dastur goft ay rāy zāde dar in keshvar tu mā rā jāy dāde konun khwāham kandar keshvar-e hend neshānim ātash-e bahrām yakchand tohi kardan zamin bāyad se farsang ke bāshad rāst ānjā kār-e nirang dar ānjā mard-e bigāne nayāyad bejoz behdin-e farzāne nashāyad dar ānjā’i yaki joddin nabāyad vazān pas kār-e ātash rāst āyad

46

After v. 191, BL1 (not BL2), P1, P2 have the verse (191A) che khwosh jāyi bude dar nehāni / ke andar hend meslash nist sāni.

195

190–199 And when the dastur saw that pleasant land,

93 190

he chose a place in which they would reside. The dastur gave to it the name of Sanjān,* as in Irān, and it began to flourish.47 From that day on they use the name Sanjāna: the name is from that city, you should know. They dwelt there happily and comfortably, each person prospered just as he desired. One day they had some business with the prince: they went to him all joyful in their thoughts. The dastur said to him, ‘O noble prince,

195

you’ve given us a place in this domain. Now I would wish that, in this land of Hend, somehow we may set up the Fire of Bahrām.* We need to clear the land three leagues around,* so it is proper for the rite of Nirang.* No strangers shall encroach upon that place. It’s only for the blest ones of our faith.* There must not be a single joddin there, and then the ritual for the fire will work.

47 191A ‘It was a place so beautiful, so private, / that there was nowhere like it in all Hend.’

94

qeṣsẹ -ye sanjān konad dar vay kasi āvāz bi shakk

200

khalal oftad be kār-e din yakāyak begoftā rāy rokhṣat dāde am man dar in kār az shomā āzāde am man shodam bā jān dar in kār ekhtiyāram chonin shāhi bovad dar ruzgāram azin behtar che bāshad ay kheradmand be kār-e u halā zudi kamar band hamāngah ḥokm kard ān rāy zāde abā dastur yak khwosh jāy dāde hamāngah rāy-e jādi rāne hendu tohi karde zaminash rā be har su

205 48

bekarde dur se farsang joddin namānde kas daru joz mard-e behdin namānde gerd-e ān kas tā se farsang namānde kas daru joz mard-e farhang be gerdāgerd-e urvisgāh dastur be pāki har yaki tābande chun hur bodand ānjā be ruz o shab negahbān chonin kārash49 nomude ḥokm-e yazdān

48 P1 and P2 have this verse as hamāngah ḥ okm kard ān rāyzāde / abā dastur yak khwosh jāy dāde. 49 N; written kāram and corrected to kāraš in SH.

200–209 If someone makes a noise, no doubt that instant

95 200

the ritual will be rendered null and void.’ The prince said, ‘I have given my permission. On this I am at one with you completely. It was my choice with all my soul for this, that in my life there should be such a king. What could be better than this thing, O wise one? Now, quickly, gird yourself to do this work.’ And straightaway the noble prince commanded, he granted the dastur a lovely place. And then the Hindu rajah, Jādi Rāna, had this location cleared on every side. Three leagues around, the infidels were routed.* No one remained except the Zoroastrians. For three leagues round that place no one remained— No one remained except the men of learning. The dasturs stood around the urvisgah, all shining like the sun in purity, For they were keeping watch there day and night, as God’s will was revealed upon this matter.

205

96

qeṣsẹ -ye sanjān dar ān hengām har kas bud dānā

210

be kār-e din-e khwod har yak tavānā be chandān ruz o mah yasht o yazish-hā beyashtand o basi kardand takhshā be kār-e khwod shode mashghul behdin be din-e khwod nomude sāz chandin hamān shahzāde jādi rāne khwod niz ze har gune ferestādi basi chiz dar ān ayyām jomle kārkhāne shode dar dast-e behdinān ravāne bar ishān bude har jā kār āsān

215 50

ke āvarde bodand ālat khorāsān * be ān ālāt kān bud az khorāsān ‘amal kardand ānjā bi herāsān ke chandin qowm-e dasturān o behdin dar ānjā āmadand ān pāk āyin bodash hamrāh chandin kimiyāgar bar ishān kard āsān loṭf-e karkar basā az barg o sāz āvarde budand be ḥokm-e din hamān ātash nomudand

50

SH bedānsān ‘to that side’ i.e. ‘to Iran’, with khorāsān written in the margin.

210–219 In those times everyone was full of wisdom,

97 210

each one was strong in matters of his faith. For days and months the sacrificial rites were celebrated and performed with vigour. The faithful occupied themselves with duties, providing the requirements of their faith. And even nobly-born prince Jādi Rāna provided many things of every kind. In those days every workshop operating was in the hands of Zoroastrians. And, anyway, their work was easier: the requisites had come from Khorāsān. So, with these requisites from Khorāsān, they carried out the ritual fearlessly. Some families of dasturs and of laymen had come there with their holy institutions. And there were with them several alchemists* —God’s favour made things easier for them— They’d brought supplies and ample apparatus. They made the fire according to tradition.

215

qeṣsẹ -ye sanjān

98 51

be rasm-e din hame pirān o dastur

220

shah-e irān neshānde nur por nur dar ān ayyām din dāneste budand bedān dānesh ‘amal dar din nomudand dar in dowrān khodā dānad che dinast ‘amal kardan be din ākher yaqinast dar ān keshvar hame behdin o dastur yaki jashni nomude khāṣe bā sur bedinsān sāl-e siṣad shod kam o bish vaz ānjā chand mardom bā zan-e khwish parākande shode dar keshvar-e hend be har jāneb gerefte jāy-e delband be bānkānir ba‘ẓi ru nehādand kasān dar jāneb-e bahruch fetādand kasān dar jāneb-e baryāv raftand hame kas niz jā-hā tiz taftand kasān dar shahr-e aklisar rasidand kasān dar shahr-e kambāyat chamidand kasān dar shahr-e navsāri hame rakht keshidand ān hame bā khatṭ ̣ o bā bakht

51

SH Folio 559r. begins.

225

220–229 With sacred rites the priests and elders all*

99 220

set up the Irān Shāh in light on light.* In those days they knew all about their faith, and in that knowledge practised their Religion. In our time God knows what is true Religion: at least the ritual is certain in our faith. In that land all the dasturs and the laymen prepared a special jashn with a feast.* Three hundred years, or thereabouts, went by like this, and some men and their wives departed. They were dispersed throughout the land of Hend,* and everywhere they found a lovely place. Some went in the direction of Bānkānir, some people ended up around Bharuch, Some went in the direction of Baryāv, as everyone made haste to different places. Some folk came to the town of Anklesar, and some went to the town of Kambāyat. Some packed their things and went to Navsāri, and all went off with pleasure and good fortune.

225

100

qeṣsẹ -ye sanjān be har jā yāfte ārām har kas

230

hamānjā khāne-ye khwod kard zān pas basi shādi o ābādāni o ḥāl gozāridand zingune du ṣad sāl dar ān ayyām andar shahr-e sanjān ze dasturān na mānde khāne chandān abar ishān yaki ḥokm-e qaẓā shod nadānam ān hame dastur kojā shod yaki dastur bude dar niku’i javān o veh manesh dar charb gu’i marān dastur rā khwoshmast nāmash ke hamvāre be khubi bud kāmash pesar ku rā khojaste nām bude verā dar bāj o barsam kām bude yazesh kardan hamishe kār-e u bud ke dāyem bāj o barsam yār-e u bud hamidun dar yazesh bod kārdāni be urvisgāh zu mānde neshāni bebud ān pāktan dar nik nāmi be jannat bād u rā shādkāmi

235

230–239 Wherever each of them could find their peace,

101 230

they made their home thereafter in that place. They spent two hundred years in this condition in much delight, success and happiness. From those days in the city of Sanjān none of the dasturs’ houses have remained.* There came upon them a decree of Fate.* I do not know where all those dasturs went. There had been one, a virtuous dastur, a young man, of good mind, and eloquent, And Khwoshmast was the name of that dastur: his one desire had always been for virtue. His son, who had received the name Khojaste, took pleasure in the rites of bāj and barsom. His constant occupation was with worship, and his eternal friends were bāj and barsom. So much did he perform the act of worship, his mark is still there in the sanctuary. That holy man was of good reputation. May he attain to his desires in heaven!

235

102

qeṣsẹ -ye sanjān bedinsān haftṣad sāle goz̠ashte

240

dar ān shahrash basi awlād gashte chu chandi sāliyān bar vay goz̠ashte baru kaj āsmān zingune gashte yakāyak bar delash āmad jahān tang zamāne bahr-e jānash kard āhang 52

goftār-e dar ferestādan-e shāh maḥ mud lashkar rā53 barāye jang-e rāy-e sanjān o khabar yāftan-e u ze ba‘d-e chand sāl az dowr-e dowrān khabar bar shāh shod az rāy-e sanjān chu shod dar hend pānṣad sāl anjām vazān pas dar chapānir āmad eslām behi shāhi padid āmad abā bakht

245

dar ān shahr u neshaste bar sar-e takht hamash maḥmud solṭān khwāndandi ro‘āyā żell-e sobḥān khwāndandi chu shod ma‘lum ba‘d az sāl-hā chand suye sanjān yaki shāhast dar hend be ulugh khān54 vaziri goft yak ruz ke farmān shod chonin az shāh-e firuz abā lashkar bezudi suye sanjān ravad tā molk zu ārad be dast ān 52 U and N MSS have this heading in the main text; it is written in the left margin in SH in the same hand; in BL1, P1 and P2 it is written after v. 244. 53 So SH, U; N rā. 54 SH has nām-e sardār superscribed over ulugh khān.

240–249 In this way seven hundred years went by,

103 240

in that town many of his offspring lived.* When many years had overtaken them, and crooked heaven took them in this way, The world became distressing to their hearts, and heaven’s Fate resounded on their souls. The account of Shāh Maḥ mud’s sending the army for war against the prince of Sanjān and his finding out about it When many years of wheeling time had turned, the king got news about the prince of Sanjān.* Five hundred years had come to pass in Hend, and Islam had arrived in Chapānir.* A fortunate and virtuous king appeared,* and in that province sat upon on the throne. They called him by the name Sultan Maḥmud, his subjects called him ‘Shadow of the Glorious.’* Some years went by, and it became apparent there was a king in Hend who governed Sanjān, A vizier said one day to Ulugh Khan,* ‘The will of the victorious King is this, To go at once to Sanjān with an army, to seize control and take the kingdom from him.’

245

104

qeṣsẹ -ye sanjān be farmān-e shah-e solṭān maḥmud

250

borun āmad ze jā mānande-ye dud hame lashkar dar ān dam sāz karde ‘oqāb-e khwish rā parvāz karde ulugh khān chun sepah zānjā keshide suye sanjān-e ābādān raside khabar shod zān sepah bā rāy-e hendu ke āvarde basā lashkar ze har su gozide az du asbe si hazārash hame gurd-e nabard o nāmdārash azin akhbār rājā gasht madhush degar sā‘at beyāmad bāz dar hush hamāngah khwānd jomle mowbadān rā hame behdiniyān o herbadān rā bedishān goft ān rāy-e neku kār che tadbirast yārān-e vafādār niyāgānam shomā rā bar gozidast be kāretān hame niki gozidast darin kāram kamar bandid yaksar be jang andar shomā bāshid rahbar

255

250–259 By order of the Sultan, Maḥmud Shāh,

105 250

he went from there just like a puff of smoke,* That instant all his troops were at the ready, he raised his eagle banners for the fray. Once Ulugh Khan withdrew his troops from there, he made his way to prosperous Sanjān. News of those troops came to the Hindu rajah, that from all sides such forces had been mustered Of thirty thousand handpicked cavalry,* all double-mounted, famous battle heroes. The rajah fell unconscious at this news. An hour passed: he came back to his senses. He called the mowbads all to him at once,* and all the laity and all the herbads. The prince of virtuous action said to them, ‘What is the counsel of my faithful friends? My forefathers have shown you preference, in your affairs they showed you every favour. Now gird your loins in this my hour of need,* you will be in the vanguard of the battle.

255

qeṣsẹ -ye sanjān

106

gar eḥsān-e niyāgān bar shomārid

260

sar az shokrāne birun bar mayārid 55

pas āngah dād pāsokh mowbad-e pir azin lashkar mashu ay rāy delgir

zemā khwod har yaki tā zende bāshim ze dushman ṣad hazārān bar tarāshim ‘iyān dar jang rasm-e mā chonin ast ke mā tā zende bāshim arzesh in ast zemā yak kas nafar khwod bar nagerdad agar sang āsiyā bar sar begerdad ze goftārash pas āngah rāy zāde yakāyak jens rā khal‘at bedāde dar ān ayyām dar khur mard-e behdin bodand ānjā javān o pir chandin shomar karde ze behdinān yaksar hazār o chār ṣad āmad be daftar yakāyak chun bar asbān zin nehādand zade kus ān savārān istādand dar ān āvard ke behdin sarāsar keshide ṣaff be rāja dar barābar

55

SH Folio 559v. begins.

265

260–269 If you’ll count up the kindness of my forebears,

107 260

you’ll not withdraw yourselves from gratitude.’ And then the aged mowbad answered him, ‘My prince, do not be daunted by this army. So long as one of us remains alive, we shall behead a hundred thousand foes.* Behold, our way in battle is like this, long as we live, this is our dignity! No single man of us will turn his back,* not even if a mill-stone grinds his head.’ Then, at those words, the prince of noble birth bestowed on each all kinds of robes of honour.* In those days Zoroastrian men were willing, so many both the old and young were there. The Zoroastrians, counted altogether, made up a band of fourteen hundred men. At once when they had saddled all their horses, the drum was beaten and the horsemen rallied. The Zoroastrians on the battlefield were drawn in ranks together with the rajah.

265

qeṣsẹ -ye sanjān

108 56

jang kardan-e ulugh khān bā rāy-e hendu va gorikhtan-e ulugh khān az pish-e ardashir

padid āmad sefide az shab-e tār

270

forugh-e akhtarān rafte tah-e ghār vazānjā chun ulugh57 khān bā savārān zereh pushid o āmad suye maydān moraṣs‘̣ a zin bar asbān nehādand ‘alam bar posht-e filān bar nehādand ze bahr-e jang zin kardand asbān zamin-e jang tang āmad ze pilān sepahdārān sepah rā sāz karde selāh-e58 razm har jā bāz karde59 chu dar hāmun basi lashkar keshidand

275

hamāngah nāy-e ruyin bar damidand chonān ārāste lashkar ze har su yaki eslām o digar rāy-e hendu ke ruz o shab daru ḥayrān bemāndand tak-e asbān ze bāz jawlān bemāndand du sālār az du jāneb chu nehangān be kushesh har du yā hamchun palangān jahān gashte ze abr-e tire chun qir kazu bārid tigh o nayze o tir 56 This heading occurs in U, but is lacking in other MSS. A space was left blank for it in SH and N. In BL1, P1 and P2 it is written after v. 272. 57 Written alafkhān in P1 and P2. 58 SH has ālāt written above this word. 59 After v. 274, BL1, P1, P2 have the additional verse (274 A): abar aspān fakand bar gostavān rā / baru benshāndand ān pahlavān rā.

270–279

109

Ulugh Khan’s waging war with the Hindu rajah and Ulugh Khan’s flight from Ardashir White dawn shone forth out of the gloomy night,*

270

the starlight banished to the deep abyss. Then Ulugh Khan and all his cavalry* put on their mail coats and approached the plain. They put bejewelled saddles on the horses, unfurled their banners on the elephants. They saddled up the horses for the battle, the field was shaken by the elephants. The leaders of the troops prepared their forces, the arms of war were everywhere unsheathed.60 Just when the mighty armies were drawn up,

275

they blew the brazen trumpets on the plain. An army was arrayed on either side, one for Islam, one for the Hindu prince,* That night and day were stunned to see that sight,* the horses’ galloping exhausted them. Two hostile forces ranged against each other, like crocodiles or leopards locked in combat. The world was turned to pitch by blackened clouds of swords and spears and arrows raining down.

60 274A ‘The horses were bedecked with equine armour / and on them they installed the warrior heroes.’

110

qeṣsẹ -ye sanjān ze du ruye shode chandān bekoshte

280

be razm az koshte shod har jāy poshte na kas faryād-ras bud o na yāvar abar ishān chonin shod61 ḥokm-e dāvar na pirāmun bedide kas ze lashkar hame koshte shode62 dar jang bi mar be lashkar-gah goriz oftād nāgāh ke kas rā kas na beshnāsad ze bongāh be yārān goft ān behdin-e dindār na binam pish o pas az hend kas yār ze lashkargāh-e hendu shod gorizān bejoz behdin namānde kas be maydān konun hengām-e jangast ay ‘azizān bebāyad raft dar ṣaff hamchu sherān agar mā jomle bā jomle bekhizim be tigh o tir ze a‘dā khun berizim nakhost āmad ze behdin u be maydān ke nāmash ardashir āmad dar inān hamān dam ardashir-e nām-bordār be maydān tākht asb-e tiz raftār

61 62

shod lacking in SH, N. SH, N shod, but sense and metre require shode as in U, N2.

285

280–289 There were so many slaughtered on both sides,

111 280

that every inch of plain was strewn with corpses. There were no reinforcements and no helpers, such was the sentence of the Judge on them. Not one man in that army had survived,* all perished in the battle, beyond counting. Back in the camp a sudden flight began, and no one knew who was a friend or foe. The faithful Zoroastrian told his comrades, ‘I see no Hindu comrades anywhere. Now all the Hindu camp has been deserted, Zoroastrians alone remain in battle. Now is the time for battle, o dear friends! We must advance like lions to the front! If we assault them in a mass together, we’ll spill the enemy’s blood with sharpened swords!’ The first of all the Zoroastrians to come into the fray was Ardashir. At once the glorious Ardashir spurred on his swiftly charging steed toward the field.

285

112

qeṣsẹ -ye sanjān bejast o āmade yakbār dar ṣaff

290

gerefte āhanin yak nayze dar kaff be maydān istād o nayze dar dast zereh pushid dar tan tigh bar bast nakhostin tir bārān gasht har jā daride shod ṣalāḥ bar mard-e hayjā nehān shod āftāb-e ‘ālam afruz che dānad kas ke ān shab hast yā ruz shode pushide chashm-e mehr az gard fetāde har t ̣araf khwod mard bar mard tu guyi shod jahān andude az qir daru tābān shode almās-gun tir az ān nizevarān o gurzdārān kasi kam mānd ākher az hazārān zamin o āsmān shod tire o tār shode chun lāle khāk az khun-e sālār ze tan gashte ravān khun chu favāre separ az tigh gashte pāre pāre zereh āfat shode bar jān-e mardom ziyān63 har dam shode mehmān-e mardom

63

U, N2; SH, P1, P2, N zamān.

295

290–299 All at one leap he sprang up to the front,

113 290

he clutched a spear of iron in his hand. He stood there on the field, his spear in hand, his body clad in mail, he drew his sword. As first the arrows rained down everywhere, the order of the troops was torn apart. The world-illuminating sun was hidden,* and who could say if it were day or night? The solar eye was blinded by the dust, and all around man fell on fellow man. You might say all the world was smeared with pitch, all stuck with arrows glistening like diamonds. And out of all the macebearers and spearsmen, in all their thousands, few remained alive. The land and sky turned deepest red and black, the earth was tulip-red with soldiers’ blood. Blood spurting from their bodies like a fountain, the shields were smashed to pieces by the swords. The armour was the bane of human souls, the men made harm their guest at every moment.

295

qeṣsẹ -ye sanjān

114

ze sar tā pā yalān gharqe dar āhan

300

darakhshān bud chun khworshid-e rowshan du jāneb kard paykān-hā davā dow be khāk-e tire khun karde ravā row 64

nomude nayze-hā dar sine kāvosh ze jowshan-hā gerefte khun tarāvosh

na az zakhm-e yalān kas ruy gardānd hame ‘ālāt-e khunrize foru khwānd zamin shod āhanin az na‘l-e aspān be har su gharqe khun tā sāq mardān se ruz o shab bedinsān bud paykār ke dast o pā-ye mardān gasht bikār ze har su barq o tigh āmad darakhshān ze tigh-e tiz sar-hā shod sarafshān dar ān maydān eslām uftāde ke koshte shod be razm-e rāy zāde gorizān shod ulugh khān dar shab-e tār farāmush kard az bongāh o hanjār shode lashkar hame oftān o khizān ze pish-e ardashir āmad gorizān

64

SH Folio 560r. begins.

305

300–309 The men were drowned in iron from head to foot,

115 300

till they were gleaming like the brilliant sun. On every side the spears were flying by, and blood was flowing on the blackened earth. And there were spears protruding from their breasts, their blood was oozing out of chain mail armour. None turned their faces from the warriors’ blows, all called for fresh supplies of deadly weapons. The earth was turned to iron by horseshoe nails, the men submerged in blood up to their shins. Three days and nights the battle raged like this, till human hands and feet could serve no purpose, The flash of swords and lightning all around, as heads went flying from the sharpened weapons. Islam had fallen on that battlefield, slain in the battle with the noble prince. And in the black of night Ulugh Khan fled. He gave no thought for his accoutrements. And all of his battalions fell and staggered as they withdrew in flight from Ardashir.

305

qeṣsẹ -ye sanjān

116

be jang andar basā doshman fetāde be firuze saranjām istāde

310

hame parde sarā o bongah o bār be dast-e ardashir āmad be yak bār 65

jang kardan-e ulugh khān bār-e digar be ardashir va firuzi yāftan-e ulugh khān bar rāy-e hendi

degar ruzi bar āmad khur ze kuhsār jahān rowshan shode az nur yak bār khorush āmad du ruye az du lashkar be jush āmad zamin yakbār-e digar ze āvāz-e dorāy66 o buq-e hendi basā sar-hā ke begriftand kondi degar bāre ulugh khān jang rā sāz nomud āvāz-e kus āmad por āvāz

315

sepahdār67 ardashir-e nām-bordār padid ānjā ravān āmad degar bār68 hamāndam goft bā rāy-e neku fan az-ishān ṣad ze mā budast yaktan konun mā rā che mi bini dar in kār ke lashkar āmade afzun khwod in bār69 dahimash jān-e khwod yā jān setānim bedin niyyat ham andar jang mānim

65 This heading is written left margin in SH, with a blank space left between meṣrāʿs of v. 312; it is written in the correct position here, in red ink, in N; bar rāy-e hendi is omitted in U and E; the whole heading is omitted in N2, C. 66 Written with a zamme over the dal in SH, N. 67 N2, C; SH, U, N sepah chu. 68 N2, C; SH, U, N padid āmad ravān ānjā degar bār. 69 After v. 318, P1 and P2 have the additional verse, written in margin in BL1 (318A) vali ān beh bovad mā rā az ān pas / miyān-e qalb hayjā miravam bas (BL1 miravim).

310–319 So many of the foe fell in the fray

117 310

that at the end of it he was victorious. And all the tents and weaponry and chattels came into the control of Ardashir. Ulugh Khan’s waging war for the second time against Ardashir and Ulugh Khan’s victory over the Hindu rajah Next day the sun came up above the hills, once more the world was set ablaze with light. A roar came up from both sides from the armies, and once again the earth was boiling over. The noise of bells and Hindu horns was such that many a head was seized by stupefaction. Ulugh Khan once again prepared for battle,

315

the deafening beating of the drum returned. When Ardashir the great renowned commander appeared there, charging for a second time, He told the virtuous rajah there and then, ‘For every one of us they have a hundred! How do you see us faring in these straits? This time an even greater force has come.70 We give our lives to them or we take theirs, with this resolve, let us remain in battle.

70

318A ‘This would be better for us after this / that I should go into the battle’s heart’.

qeṣsẹ -ye sanjān

118

dar in maydān be mā bāshad khodā dust

320

ke hamvāre be mā moshkel goshā ust barin goftār yaksar shād gashtand basi del-hā ze dard āzād gashtand pas āngāhi zereh pushid yaksar be jang-e khān beyāmad71 bār-e digar hamāngah ardashir-e nām bordār kamand āvikhte bar zin chu ‘ayyār besān-e sher-e nar āmad bar-e ṣaff kamar bar tigh-e hendi nayze bar kaff be tondi bāng bar zad kay hezabrān72 73

cherā māndid andar razm ḥayrān sepahdār-e shomā aknun kodāmast che dārad kām injā o che nāmast gavi āmad begoftā khwod manam hān ke dar yak zakhm rizam khun ze mardān bezir-e u yaki shulak jahande hami nazdik-e u āmad davande be jang-e u beyāmad nayze dar dast begerdide be har jāneb chu sar mast

71 72 73

SH inserted the letter dal mistakenly after beyāmad; N āmad. SH, N; U hazirān. U, māndid; SH, N māndand.

325

320–329 May God be our Companion on this field,

119 320

He is the answer to our problems always.’ They all rejoiced to hear what he had said, and many a heart was freed of its distress. And then he put his armour on in haste: and came to fight the Khan again in battle Right then, exalted Ardashir suspended a lasso on his saddle, like a rover. He charged the ranks just like a rampant lion, girt with an Indian sword and spear in hand.* He bellowed at them suddenly, ‘O lions!* Why are you left in disarray in battle? Now where is your commanding officer? What does he want here and what is his name?’ A warrior came and said, ‘I am the one who spills the blood of men in one fell blow!’ Beneath him was a swiftly leaping steed, which charged in his direction at a gallop. He came to battle with him, spear in hand, he reeled in all directions like a drunkard.

325

qeṣsẹ -ye sanjān

120

yaki bā ardashir āvāz dāde

330

konun hoshyār bāsh ay pākzāde be nazd-e tu beyāmad ham-nabardi konun benmāy az khwod dastbordi hamāngah ardashirash dād āvāz ke āmad ham-nabardat bā hame sāz be maydān har du ham chun sher gashtand ze jān-e khwish har du sir gashtand be ākher ardashir āmad baru chir ze posht-e shulak afkande verā zir kamand afkand o u rā dar keshide forud āmad ze asb o sar boride ulugh khān chu mar u rā did koshte del-e u rā az ān por dard gashte befarmud āngahi tā fāres o rāy shavad koshte namānad zende bar jāy be poshti-ye sepāh āmad chu74 kin khwāh be jang andar dahā dah khāst āngāh ṣadāy-e tigh-hā āmad chakāchāk ravān khun gashte hamchu juy bar khāk

74

MSS chu except SH chun.

335

330–339 And one of them called out to Ardashir,

121 330

‘Now have your wits about you, noble man! An adversary has ventured out to face you, now is the time to demonstrate your skill.’ That instant Ardashir called out to him, ‘Your adversary has come with all his weapons!’ Both men became like lions on the plain, for both of them grew weary of their lives.* When Ardashir prevailed with him at last, he threw him from the saddle of his horse. He threw his lasso and he dragged him forward, dismounted from his horse and chopped his head off. When Ulugh Khan beheld him lying slain, it filled his heart with pain to see him there. He ordered that the horseman and the prince be killed right there and none be left alive. Behind his troops he pressed for his revenge, as if a score of men rose up for battle. The noise of clashing swords began again, blood ran in rivers all across the earth.

335

qeṣsẹ -ye sanjān

122

chu du ruye sepah āvikhte shod

340

ze tan-hā khun chu daryā rikhte shod bar āmad mowj az daryā-ye khunin ze mardom har tạ raf āmad zabunin75 na jā mānde76 ke dar vay mur ganjad vali bi ḥokm-e ḥaqq kas khwod che sanjad 77

pas āngah ardashir andar miyāne bemānd ākher rasid u rā zamāne

yaki nāvak beyāmad bar miyānash borun āmad az ān su nāgahānash tanash az zakhm-hā sosti nomude ke har ‘ozvash ze khun favāre bude beyoftād ardashir az zin negunsar sepāhi gasht zu ḥayrān o bi par darighā ān sepahdār-e78 delāvar ke bar bādash zamāne kard ākher chu bakht-e shum khashm ārad bedānjā be sān-e mum gardad sakht-e khārā agar chandi nabard o kusheshi kard che sud ar bakht bar gashte az ān mard

75 76 77 78

SH, N zabunin by mistake. SH, N; U mānda. SH Folio 560v. begins. U; SH, N sepahdāri.

345

340–349 And as the armies struggled on both sides

123 340

blood surged forth from their bodies like a sea. A wave came rushing from a bloody sea, and men exuded gore on every side. An ant could find no place upon that field, but then, without God’s law, what is a man?* Then Ardashir advanced and took the centre: at last the hour of Fate had come for him. An arrow pierced him through the abdomen and came out straightaway the other side. His body was enfeebled by the wounds, his every limb became a bloody fountain. Then Ardashir fell headlong from the saddle— at this the army lost its head and wings! Alas for such a valiant commander, whom Fate had scattered to the winds at last! When inauspicious Fate has turned to anger* the very hardest stone is turned to wax. And even though he fought and struggled so, to what avail if Fate had turned away?

345

qeṣsẹ -ye sanjān

124

ze du jāneb sepah shod koshte besyār

350

sarān o nāmdārān-e79 neku kār hamāngah koshte shod ān rāy zāde be razm andar yaki ghughā fetāde darighā ān neku shahzāde hendu bemord o shahr virān gasht har su 80

goftār-e gorikhtan-e behdinān be kuh-e bahārut va raftan be suye bānsdah

hamān behdin shode ākher parākand yaki kuh nām bahārutast dar hend basi dar vay khazidand az pay-e jān nadārad chāre’i kas ḥ okm-e yazdān dah o du sāl bar vay raft yaksar

355

abā khwod bord irānshah barābar pas az moddat ke az ḥokm-e khodāvand be rāh āmad hame bā khwish o payvand barābar ātash-e bahrām bud pas besuye bānsdah āmad hame kas kazu āmad khabar dar bānsdah shahr beyāmad pishashān har yak abā mehr hamāngah khwish bā siṣad savārān paz̠ire shod be chandi nāmdārān

79

SH mistakenly nāmdān; other MSS nāmdārān. This heading is written vertically in the right margin of SH and a space is left between the meṣrā‘s of v. 353; in N it is inscribed in red ink in the correct place; in P1 and 2 it follows v. 353, and in BL1 after v. 354. 80

350–359 On both sides of the battle many perished,

125 350

the leaders and the worthy men of glory. The rajah-prince was also slaughtered there, there was an uproar on the battlefield. Alas for that good Hindu prince who died! On every side his kingdom was laid waste. Account of the flight of the Zoroastrians to the hill of Bahārut and their going to Bānsdah Those of the Noble Faith were scattered there. In Hend there is a hill named Bahārut.* And many scuttled there to save their lives: no one can contradict the laws of God. A dozen years passed by upon this hill. The Irān Shāh was borne up there with them. A time went by, as was decreed by God: they set off with their kith and kin together, And then it was that with the Fire of Bahrām all of the people came to visit Bānsdah. For news arrived of it in Bānsdah town that everyone should greet them with affection. And then three hundred of them riding horses* received them with a group of notables.

355

qeṣsẹ -ye sanjān

126 81

be ṣad tashrif āvardand dar shahr chonān chun dardmandi yāft pāzahr

360

az ānpas bānsdah shod chu bahārān baringune goz̠ashte ruzegārān pas az vay mardomān az naṣl-e behdin be har keshvar ke bud ān pāk āyin ze bahr-e khedmat-e ān shāh-e irān berafti az zanān o pir o mardān be pishin vaqt dar sanjān-e82 vālā shodi bahr-e tạ vāf-e bi masālā bedinsān pārsi dar bānsdah niz ze har jā āmadandi bā basi chiz 83

365

goftār-e dar āvardan change shāh az bānsdah ātashbahrām rā dar navsāri

barin bogz̠asht chun sāl-e dah o chār pas az vay gasht gardun bar sar-e kār yaki behdin padid āmad dar ān vaqt nabude mesl-e u kas ānchonān vaqt be dindāri beyāmad dar zamāne padid āmad az u chandi neshāne dahivad nām-e u changā bin āsā ke bā behdin hami kardi delāsā

81 The order of verses given in the transcription is that of U, P1, P2 which is logical and probably correct; In SH v. 362 is written before 361, but the numerals 2 and 1 have been written over them respectively, with a 3 over 363. N has the order 359, 361, 362, 363, 360, the copyist perhaps having been confused by the numerals in SH. 82 In SH there is a ẓamme over snjān, i.e. sonjān 83 This heading is written in the right margin of SH and a space is left between the meṣrā‘s of v. 366; pace Eastwick and Hodivala, this heading should come after v. 365, not 366 as in BL1; in N it is inscribed in red ink in the correct place as here.

360–369 They brought it to the town with much thanksgiving,

127 360

as when an ailing man receives a cure. From that time Bānsdah was like spring had come to bloom, and in this way the years rolled by. From then on all the folk of good religion, wherever pure tradition had survived, The men and women and the old, went up to pay their homage to the Irān Shāh. In former times in much respected Sanjān they went for pilgrimage which had no equal. And in this way the Persians came to Bānsdah* from every place, with many offerings. The account of the bringing of the Fire of Bahrām from Bānsdah to Navsāri by Changashāh When fourteen years had passed along like this, then heaven smiled upon their circumstances. At that time there appeared a faithful layman, there had not been one like him for so long. By Fate he came to succour the Religion, and several signs were manifested from him. The Mayor he was, his name Changā bin Āsā,* who treated the Good Faith with soothing heart.

365

128

qeṣsẹ -ye sanjān dar ākher vaqt ān niku khaṣālat

370

behi din rā namānde dar ‘eṭālat nabudi har ke rā koshti o ṣodre84 ze māl-e khwishtan mi dād badre basi tartib dar din kard ān mard nayāmad hich kas bar vay por az dard ke u darmān-e ān maskin nakarde del-e u rā be jān taskin nakarde85 dar ān ayyām chandi mard-e behdin ze eqbālash shodand ānjomle dar din az ān behdin ke kār-e din chonān kard zabānam sharḥ natvānad ‘ayān kard be yaksālash chonin niyyat nehāde be ātashgāh raft ān pākzāde dar āngāhash yaki jashn-e sade bud be shahr-e bānsdah ātashkade bud be māh-e ādar o dar ruz-e ādar hamān jashn-e sade bud ay barādar be hamrāhi hame behdin o dastur be burd ān dāvar-e dindār-e por nur

84

SH, N write this word with superscript zamme, i.e. sodre. After v. 373 BL1, P1 and P2 have an additional verse (373A): chonin tartib kard ān pākzāde / mar in du chiz bā har kas bedāde. 85

375

370–379 That man of goodly nature would not let

129 370

the good religion come to nought in future. Whoever had no koshti and no ṣodre,* he gave them money at his own expense. That man made much provision for the faith, and no one came to him in great distress To whom he did not give that wretched man a cure, and soothed the heart within his bosom. 86

In those days many laymen made their way back to Religion, all from his endeavours.

My tongue cannot describe in lucid manner

375

that man who worked so hard for the Religion. One year, fulfilling vows he’d undertaken, that pure-born one went to the House of Fire. At that time when there was a Jashn-e Sade, the fire-temple was in Bānsdah town. That Jashn-e Sade was performed, O brother, upon the day of Ādar, month of Ādar. That pious Governor, so full of light, brought with him all the laymen and dasturs.

86 373A ‘that nobly born one made so much provision / both these two things he gave to everyone.’

qeṣsẹ -ye sanjān

130

be didārash hame dar sajde budand

380

bedānjā-hā parastesh mi nomudand vazān pas har yaki bā shādi o nāz parasteshgāh mi rafti ze rah bāz az ānjā āmadi mardom ravāne abā shādi o rāḥat suye khāne 87

baru bogz̠asht az sālash du se māh pas āngah dar del āvard ān neku khwāh

hami yak ruz yaksar anjoman khwānd pas u goftār zān ātashkade rānd ke mi khwāham az ānjā shāh-e shāhān dar injā āvarim ay nik khwāhān agar ān shāh rā har ruz didār be binim kerfe bāshad khub o besyār degar ānast mā har sāl dar rāh keshim az vay farāvān ranj zin māh ke in māh ast dar bārān-e besyār dar ānjā raftan-e mā hast doshvār azin behtar che bāshad ay ‘azizān ravim ānjāy bā ahl-e tamizān

87

SH Folio 561r. begins.

385

380–389 They made prostrations at the sight of it,

131 380

and they performed their act of worship there. And after that, in happiness and joy, all made their way back from the place of worship. The people made their journey from that place, towards their homes with happiness and pleasure. In that year two or three months passed, and then it came into that philanthropic heart To call a meeting of the whole assembly that day, to speak about the fire-temple, ‘I wish that we could bring the King of Kings* from there to here, you people of good will. If every day we were to look upon that king, the merit would be very good. For, as it is, each year we take the road, and in this month there is great hardship for us. For this falls in the month of monsoon rains, to make the journey there is difficult. What would be better than this, my dear friends, would be to go there with our learned sages,

385

qeṣsẹ -ye sanjān

132

beyārim ātash-e bahrām-e firuz

390

ke tā didār-e u binim har ruz azu gardad fozuntar rezq o ruzi bovad behdin-hā rā del-foruzi ze goftārash hame kas shād gashtand hame az bānsdah āzād gashtand be ṣad tashrif āvardand u rā yaki khwosh khāne’i dādand u rā parastande bodand u rā se behdin be hamrāhash hami88 budand chandin hamash budand ruz o shab parastār bar u har gah movakkel bud ān yār yaki bod nām-e nāgan89 rām u rā be dindāri hamishe kām u rā degar dastur nāmash bud khworshid pedar budash qiyāmodddin-e jāvid sevom dastur jānān ebn-e sāyer be khedmātash hamishe bud żāher ‘eyāl o khaylkhāne bod be ishān hame budand hamrah shāh-e irān

88 89

N and others; SH mi. SH, BL1, P1, N; U nāgi.

395

390–399 And bring the Fire of Bahrām, the Victorious,

133 390

so that we see its vision every day. Our livelihood and income would improve, there would be happiness for all the behdins.’ All were delighted by the words he spoke, all would be freed from journeying to Bānsdah. They went and brought it with a hundred honours, bestowed for it a beautiful abode. Three Zoroastrians were serving it* —such men as these were always its companions. By day and night they were to act as servants: those friends attended it in every watch. One of them had the name of Nāgan Rām,* whose constant wish was to uphold religion. The second dastur had the name of Khworshid,* whose father was Qiyāmoddin Jāvid. The third dastur was Jānān ebn-e Sāyer,* and he was ever present in its service. These men had family and relatives, all were companions of the Irān Shāh.

395

qeṣsẹ -ye sanjān

134

be chandi shawkat o ‘ezzat rasidand

400

be chandin ‘ażmat o kheshmat gozidand be navsāri rasidand ān se dastur hami bā khaylkhāne az rah-e dur90 dar ān hengām ān dindār dāvar parastārān-e u rā bud yāvar ze bande bād dar ‘ālam salāmash miyān-e minuān bādā maqāmash 91

goftār dar khatem-e ketāb mi guyad

sepāsi bi qiyās o shokr-e bi mar be dādār-e jahān-e bande parvar zabānam rā ravān dar kār benhād

405

zi-loṭf-e khwod dari az ghayb bogshād marā kin qeṣsẹ benmudast dastur khodāyā dar du kownash dār ma‘mur man ān maskin ke bahman hast nāmam be navsāri bovad rakht o maqāmam degar midān ke bābam kayqobād ast delash dar yād-e irānshāh shād ast pedar budash ke hormazdyār dastur maqāmash dar garusmān bād por nur

90

After v. 401, BL1, P1 and P2 have the two additional verses: 401A, 401B be hamrāhash basi bud qowm-e behdin / be khedmat āmadand ān nik āyin be sāl-e haft ṣad hashtād bud o panj / ze shāh-e yazdegerd beshmār kon sanj 91 This heading is written vertically in the left margin of SH and a space is left between the meṣrā‘s of v. 403; it is written in red ink in the correct place in N.

400–409 They came with great respect and high esteem,

135 400

distinguished in magnificence and honour. In Navsāri the three dasturs arrived with all their families from far away.92 And at that time the pious Governor became companion to the fire’s servants. Peace in the world to him from me the servant! Amongst the spirits may he have his place! He gives account of the conclusion of the book* To Him be praise unmatched and thanks unmeasured, Who made this world, Protector of His servants. He set my tongue in motion on this subject,*

405

by grace He opened doors to unseen worlds. The dastur who revealed this story to me, O Lord, make him to prosper in both worlds. I am that wretched man whose name is Bahman, my house and dwelling place are in Navsāri. And Kay Qobād, know also, is my father, whose heart rejoices in Irān Shāh’s memory. His father was the dastur Hormazdyār: long may he dwell in brilliant Garōdmān!

92 401A–B ‘With him were many Zoroastrians / those men of good tradition came in service The year was seven hundred-eighty-five / since Yazdegerd the King, if you would count.’*

136

qeṣsẹ -ye sanjān laqab sanjāniyash dāni tu ay yār

410

be har dānesh shode sanjide dar kār azān dānesh laqab sanjāne budast ke u dar kār-e din ḥekmat nomudast degar dastur-e din nāmash nehādand be har jā rāh-e din az vay goshādand vesāqi bud dar navsāri u rā du ṣad sāl ast gar beshmāri u rā dorudash ṣad hazār az āfarin bād degar bar jān o bar arkān-e din bād abā firuzi o farmān-e yazdān bar ingune nebishtam ḥāl-e mardān bedān tā chu bekhwānad mard-e dindār do‘ā bar man rasānad ākher-e kār dorud az mā fozun bād az hazārān bar ān niku kheṣāl o ahl-e dowrān anushirvān ferestad bar ravān bāz az izad khwāhad āmurzesh be jān bāz abar jānash sanā bādā hamishe be jān o del ghanā bādā hamishe

415

410–419 And know, my friends, his surname was Sanjāna,

137 410

he was endowed with knowledge for his work. His surname of Sanjāna stood for knowledge, for he showed wisdom in Religion’s work. They also named him Dastur of Religion, in every place he opened them to faith. He had his residence in Navsāri, two hundred years ago or thereabouts.93 A hundred thousand blessings be upon him, his soul, and on the pillars of Religion. By God’s command and with auspiciousness, I wrote like this about our people’s times. Be sure that when a pious man might read it he will send up a prayer for me in future. ‘A thousand times and more we bless that man of noble heart and people of those times. May the Immortal Soul return his spirit and ask God for forgiveness for his soul! May there be always praise upon his soul and riches in his heart and soul for ever.’

93

Lit. ‘if you would reckon it’.

415

qeṣsẹ -ye sanjān

138

noh o shaṣt ast o noh ṣad yazdejardi

420

sanat kin qeṣsẹ shod khāme navardi be farvardin mah o dar ruz-e khordād shod in abyāt ākher az rah-e dād man in qeṣsẹ nebeshtam kardam etmām ze izad dād-e khwod jostam sar anjām94 dorudi chandi az khwānande khwāham kazu gerdad fozuntar āb o jāham 95

ravānash bā anushirvān bemānād ke u har gah be del khwāhad marā shād

96

hamedun gar tu nām-e man nadāni

425

darun hendi zabān vikchu bekhwāni man in qeṣsẹ begoftam ānche didam ze goftār-e bozorgān khwod shenidam vali ostād-e man karde dorostash chonin gol-hā darin golzār rostash khodāvandā97 dahash ‘omr-e ṭabi‘i ke bāshad sālash ayyām-e rabi‘i begoftam khwod chu man98 in dāstān rā negah kardam tariq-e rāstān rā

94

After v. 422, BL1, P1 and P2 have four additional verses 422A–D: ze goft-e pāstān in dāstān-hā / be goftam chand qeṣsẹ rāstān-hā chonin qeṣsẹ ke chunast shahd o shirin / be naẓmash gofte am tu yād gir in khodāvandā behi din tāze kard ān / kazu div āhriman āvāre kard an khodāyā dār din hamvāre por nur / be har jā jomle behdin bād ma‘mur 95 SH Folio 561v. begins. 96 SH, BL1, P1, P2 and N all have this verse, but it is lacking in other MSS. BL1, P1 vikju; P2 ikju. 97 So U etc.; SH, N khodāvand. 98 SH man chu, with numerals 2 and 1 written above.

420–429 My pen has told this story in the year

139 420

nine-hundred sixty-nine since Yazdegerd,* Farvardin month and on the day of Khordād, these verses ended on the path of justice. I wrote this story and completed it, and at the end I sought my gift from God.99 I ask for many blessings from the reader, from him my stature and repute will prosper. The one whose heart would ever wish me joy, may his own spirit join the Immortal Spirit. If it be that you do not know my name,

425

then call me Vikchu in the Hindi language. I told this story just as I have witnessed, as I myself have heard the great ones tell. And yet my master has corrected it, so many roses bloomed within this garden. O Lord, extend to him a natural life so that his years are like the days of spring. And even as I have set out this tale, I have observed the ways of truthful men.

99 422A–D ‘According to traditions of the ancient ones / I told the tales, the stories of the true ones This tale, which is as sweet as honey is / I’ve spoken like a string of pearls. Remember! O Lord, who has revived the good religion / the demon Ahriman has been cast out God ever keep the faith illuminated / may all the faithful prosper everywhere.’

140

qeṣsẹ -ye sanjān tu chu didi ze man in nik goftār

430

be man kon āfarin-hā-ye sazāvār sanā bi ḥadd o ‘add o vaṣf-e besyār hamishe bād bar zartosht-e dindār degar towfiq bād az lotf̣ -e yazdān ke bar jānam rasāni toḥfe hazmān 100

tmt tamām shod

100 SH, P1, P2, N; U tamim bi’l kheyr; BL1 kāram nez̠ām shod; N2 tmt tamām shod qeṣsẹ -ye sanjān velāyat.

430–432 When you behold these lovely words of mine, bless me with blessings such as I deserve. Unbounded and unnumbered thanks and praise for ever be to righteous Zoroaster. May you be also favoured by God’s grace, to bring rare gifts upon my soul for ever. It is completed

141 430

CHAPTER FOUR

COMMENTARY Benedictory formula: In the name of God the Bountiful, the Merciful, the Loving A dedication is written in MU and in later manuscripts in Persian but does not occur in the oldest manuscripts. In this form it appears to be an imitation of the Muslim bismillah: this had been a practice adopted by Zoroastrians for centuries, (the practice of uttering the bismillah itself having been in turn borrowed from the Christian trinitarian invocation of the Trisagion). In the MS BL1, where this dedication occurs, a slightly different dedication is also written, more Zoroastrian in appearance, in Pahlavi, pad nām ī dādār ohrmazd i rāyōmand ī khwarrahōmand, ‘In the name of Ohrmazd the majestic the glorious’. Such a dedication often preceded the text of a Pahlavi book, e.g. the beginning of the Zand ī Wahman Yasn: šnāyišn ī dādār ōhrmazd ī weh ī abzōnīg ī abzāyēnīdār ī rāyōmand ī xwarrahōmand, ‘Praise of the Creator Ohrmazd, good, bountiful, all-increasing, majestic and glorious.’1 In all texts of the QS a second benediction, in the 2nd person singular, occurs in verses 9–10 below. Title: Qeṣsẹ -ye Sanjān The full title by which the work is now known, Qeṣsẹ -ye Sanjān, is not written above any of the old manuscripts and was not used in the text of the work. BL2 has the descriptive heading āghāz-e dāstān-e behdinān-e fārs ke az velāyat-e irān be hendustān āmade and, ‘Beginning of the tale of the Zoroastrians of Persia who came from the homeland of Iran.’ The author Bahman refers to the work as qeṣsẹ twice in his opening doxology, in 74, 75, and four times in the closing passage, in 406, 420, 422, 426. He refers to his composition also by a synonym of qeṣsẹ , i.e. dāstān, translated as ‘tale’ in 64, 73, 422A and 429. According to Wehr’s

1

Tr. Cereti 1995b, 149.

144

chapter four

Arabic dictionary, the root qaṣsạ ‘cut, trim’ yields the noun qiṣsạ , ‘manner of cutting’ and, by extension, ‘narrative, tale, story’; closely related is the word qaṣaṣ, ‘clippings, cuttings, chips, snips, shreds, narrative, tale, story’.2 Steingass’s Persian-English Dictionary has a string of meanings for Persian qeṣsẹ : ‘a thing, affair, business, negotiation, history, tale, romance, fable, apologue, narration, pudenda’. Unlike English ‘history’, or ‘fable’ there are no implications of either facticity or of make-believe in the word qeṣsẹ . It is, more neutrally, ‘text’ (that is strands woven together), or ‘narrative’. 1–63 Proem The introductory doxology, or ‘proem’ is highly formalised, couched in the style and vocabulary of the typical panegyric to God, the Prophet Muḥammad and the patron, with which Islamic Persian and Arabic verse literary works begin. The 63 verses of the doxological proem contain almost one-third of the total of more than 260 different Arabic words in the text. The proem does not actually introduce the subject matter of the QS: rather it prefaces it with a passage in the voice of Bahman, divided equally between one section of monājāt,3 devotional address to God, followed by imprecation. The monājāt passage (1–31) is more literary in form than is found in instances of monājāt in Zoroastrian prayers. Bahman establishes the cosmological background, which seems to owe as much to Muslim poets such as Faridoddin ‘Aṭtạ̄ r as to Zoroastrian piety. While addressing God he describes: 1. the role of God in the creation, 2. the place of man in relation to God, 3. the role of man in relation to the creation. The imprecation (32–63) calls down blessings upon the author and asks for comfort, succour and forgiveness for himself (32–41). Bahman then includes a sustained plea for his own personal salvation (42–62).

2 3

Wehr, 1971, 765. See Schmermbeck 2008.

commentary

145

Iltifāt (pronominal and temporal transition) as a rhetorical feature The fact that Bahman uses Islamic, and specifically Qur’anic, vocabulary and themes in his account of creation and in his manner of thanking and appealing to God has been noticed by earlier readers of this text, such as S.H. Hodivala, and these will be discussed below. However a curious feature of this doxology has gone unnoticed by previous commentators, namely that in speaking about God, mankind, and the author himself, Bahman uses an interwoven series of various subjects, personal pronouns and verbal tenses. There is a process of shifting personal and temporal relationships between the persona of the text and the reader. In fact, this is a distinctive feature of Arabic literary and Qur’anic style. In Arabic it is called iltifāt, which means literally ‘turning one’s face to’, and refers to the rhetorical, stylistic device of ‘transition’ of person of the verbal subject and other grammatical elements. It is not surprising that readers of our Zoroastrian text have missed this device of iltifāt in the QS, for, indeed, as M.A.S. Abdel Haleem has explained in his discussion of iltifāt in the Qur’an, many modern Qur’anic scholars have overlooked it in the Qur’an.4 Abdel Haleem has analysed hundreds of instances of Qur’anic iltifāt and discussed their function. In our text, three (of Abdel Haleem’s six) types of iltifāt are used, namely: 1. change of person between between 1st, 2nd and 3rd person, 2. change in number between singular and plural, and 3. change in the tense of the verb. In verses 1–8 God is referred to in the 3rd person singular of the verb, and emphatically as He / Him (ash, u, hamu in 2b, 3b 4a, 5a, 6a, 8a). In verse 9, however, the personal pronoun of God suddenly shifts as he is emphatically referred to as You (tu) and this continues with 16 more instances of the 2nd person singular (tu) down to verse 23. Abruptly, again, this switches back to the third person in verses 24–6; here we have another sudden shift of iltifāt, which may be illustrated (26): baqā rā kas na zibad joz khodāvand ke u bāshad hamishe bi hamāvand

4 Abdel Haleem 1992. See also Neal Robinson’s study of among other things the same subject in Robinson 1996.

146

chapter four No one deserves eternity save God, for He has no competitor forever.

then, through the passive voice of 27a, the shift of iltifāt is effected: ze tu paydā shodast in jomle hasti ze ḥekmat naqsh dar ‘ālam tu basti All this existence was revealed by You: You fixed the image in the world through wisdom.

From 27 until the end of the proem at 63 the text reverts to calling God ‘You’. Meanwhile, however, there has been another process of iltifāt going on as the person of the plaintive (i.e. Bahman) has been shifting also. In verse 1 ‘My soul sings’ (mi sorāyam az jān lit. ‘I sing from my soul’) and the writer continues to be the 1st person singular down to verse 3. In verse 4 the human person changes, with the convention of speaking in the 1st person singular to 3rd person bande ‘the servant’. In verses 5–6 and 8, however, there is another transition, as the human subject changes from the singular to the plural, ‘our/us’. In addition to the pronominal shift between God as ‘He’ and ‘You’, and Bahman as ‘I’ and ‘he’, the author uses a shifting temporal frame indicated by tenses of the verb. Generally this is an alternation between what may be termed the ‘creative past’ (i.e. the mythological past tense of God’s creative action) and the ‘soteriological present’ (i.e. the human ontological condition for man of being in relationship to God in creation), and these shifts correspond to the changes in the pronominal designation of the human-divine relationship. In a few places, however, two slightly different tenses are used: in 11–12, on the creation of man, the creative present is used, presumably because the line refers both to the original act of creation and the repeated, present act of human procreation. Also there are five instances in the passage which move between what is termed here the ‘soteriological past’ and the ‘soteriological present’: these particular lines allude to the most intimate relation between the author and God, in terms of a contract of mutual obligation. To demonstrate the intricacy of the sequence of the three forms of iltifāt in this proem I set out the scheme of changing personal relations and verbal tenses in tabular form in Fig. 2:

commentary

147

Fig. 2 verses

pronominal relation

tense

(God)

relation

(human/ creation)

1–3

He

3s.~1s.

I

4 5–6 7 8 9–17

He He He He You

3s.~3s. 3s.~1p. 3s.~3s. 3s.~1p. 2s.~3s.

18

You

2s.~1p.

19–21

You

2s.~3s./p.

22

You

2s.~3s.

23 24–25

You He

2s.~1s. 3s.~1s.

27–28

You

2s.~3s.

29

You

2s.~1s.

30–31

You

2s.~3s.

32–34

You

2s.~3s.

35–48

You

2s.~3s.

50 51–54 55 56–58 59 60 61 62–63

You You You You You You You You

2s.~1s. 2s.~1s. 2s.~3s. 2s.~1s. 2s.~3s. 2s.~1s. 2s.~3s. 2s.~1s.

soteriological present his servant ↓ us ↓ man ↓ us ↓ creation/man soter. creative present us creative present/past mankind soter. pres. creat. past wisdom soteriological present I ↓ I soter. past present creation/ creative past Adam us soteriological present creation creat. pres. past he (Bahman) soter. past present I soteriological present 49– he (Bahman) ↓ I ↓ he (Bahman) ↓ I ↓ Adam ↓ I ↓ he (Bahman) ↓ I soter. past— present

As a rhetorical device, iltifāt works to emphasise theological roles in the dynamic relation between God and the one who addresses in the passage. As in the Qur’an, the divine 3rd person singular serves to affirm

148

chapter four

God’s transcendent objective reality, and correspondingly, the human 3rd person emphasises the subjective, created nature of man. The divine 2nd person pronoun is a mode in which God may be addressed as ‘Lord’ (our text does not, of course, use the Qur’anic majestic plural ‘We’, as Ohrmazd does not speak in the QS). Correspondingly, the human 1st person, singular and plural, emphasises human subjectivity in relation to the divine dispensation of the creative action. The shifting between past and present, and modes of creation and soteriology, similarly help to dramatise the narrative. In short, the effect of this sequence of pronominal and temporal transitions is to afford the text a quasi-scriptural style and mood, and hence to bring a numinous gravitas to the beginning of Bahman’s composition. The switching of persons is common in the Gāthās, especially between the 1st and 3rd person.5 There is frequent use of not only specifically Islamic terminology but also of Islamic stories of creation and soteriology, where one might expect allusion to Zoroastrian accounts. This is all in stark contrast to the style and contents of the 18th century Zoroastrian text Qeṣsẹ -ye Zartoshtiān-e Hendustān (QZH), by Shāpurji Maneckji Sanjana. Cereti, its recent editor, states that ‘(t)he first part of the Qesse-ye Zartoshtiān-e Hendustān is clearly taken from the Qesse-ye Sanjān . . .’ and that ‘(t) he almost exact correspondence shows that Shāpur must have had the Qesse-ye Sanjān on his desk while writing the Qesse-ye Zartoshtiān-e Hendustān.’6 This may be so, but in fact the opening of the later text is different in almost every detail from that of the QS. The author of the QZH mentions all the Zoroastrian material that is missing from the comparable section of the earler text: Ohrmazd, the fereshte ‘angel’ (= yazad ), the creation of the world in the six gāhānbārs, the prophet Zoroaster and his revelation from Ohrmazd through the amahraspand Bahman ‘Good Mind’, and the royal power khorre (Avestan xvarәnah). Though the QZH includes a considerable proportion of Arabic loanwords into Persian, the author avoids any overtly Islamic terms. It is, therefore, as if the later writer has not only borrowed from the QS but has also attempted to compensate for the earlier text’s Islamic style and

5 There is also switching between past, present and future tenses in the Gāthās. I am grateful to Dr Almut Hintze for this and for pointing out to me that this is one of the reasons why Kellens and Pirart think that the ‘I’ in the Gathas cannot be Zarathushtra because the ‘I’ switches to ‘he’ as soon as Zarathustra’s name is mentioned—see Kellens & Pirart, 1988, I, 17–20. 6 Cereti, 1991, 11.

commentary

149

content in its first part by re-Zoroastrianising the account of creation and early history of the faith in his own text. Early on in the QS Bahman mentions the act of ẕekr (ritualised Muslim, especially Sufi, remembrance of God,) twice (3, 16) and several attributes of the divine which seem much more to originate from a Muslim than a Zoroastrian context,7 for example, ‘Eternal Sovereign of the world’ (3 bar ‘ālam . . . jāvedān shāh), ‘the Great, the Able One’ (4 tavāngar u tavānā), ‘the Guide’ (8 rahnamāy), ‘the King’ (9 solṭān), ‘the Dear One, Peerless and Beyond Compare’ (10 ‘aziz o bi nażir o bi hamāvand). The section on the creation of man (verses 11–31) is apparently all Islamic in conception: it focuses exclusively on man, quite in isolation from the other elements of the Zoroastrian world (namely sky, earth, water, plant, animal and fire) in the account of the creation in the Pahlavi Bundahišn and other texts. (By contrast, it may be noted, these Zoroastrian elements are acknowledged in the ‘Account of the Creation of the world’ at the beginning of Ferdowsi’s Shāhnāme.) The omission of praise of the name of the Zoroastrian creator God Ohrmazd, the amahraspands, yazads and Zoroaster may be thought surprising in a Zoroastrian text: in fact inclusion of such a style of naming and praising the hierarchy of sacred beings in this way would reflect Muslim literary/religious practice, not Zoroastrian, as Avestan, Pahlavi and Persian Zoroastrian books do not generally begin with such panegyrics. Nevertheless, what is more telling of the influence of Islamic Persian religious and literary works on the writer is the range of Islamic symbols and concepts in this part of the text. The creation of man is altogether Islamic. Adam is said to have been fashioned out of clay (verses 11 gel ‘mud’ and 28 ṣalṣāl ‘clay’): Qur’an 15.26: ‘We created man from dry clay (ṣalṣāl), from black moulded loam’ (and cf. Qur’an 32.8–9). This is an idea which is quite alien to the Zoroastrian creation story in the Pahlavi books, where man is produced by the ‘first of the spirits’ Ohrmazd, in five parts, body (tan), vital soul (gyān), spiritual soul (urwān), spiritual form (ēwēnag) and immortal spirit ( frawahr). The Pahlavi Bundahišn says that the body of the first man, Gayōmard, was made of metal (āyoxšust), and that the first human couple was produced from his seed, which had been preserved in the earth after the attack of the evil spirit, Gannāg Menōg.

7 Schmermbeck’s new study of Zoroastrian monājāt 2008, however, cites instances of ẕekr and other central Sufi motifs in these texts; see e.g. 63f., 291, 309, 327.

150

chapter four

The vocabulary of verse 12, which mentions ṣolb ‘loins’, raḥ em ‘womb’, and noṭfe ‘seed’, is, however, immediately reminiscent of Qur’anic verses 86.7: ‘Let man reflect from what he is created; He is created from an ejaculated fluid that issues from between the loins (ṣulb) and the ribs’, and also Qur’an 22.5 ‘. . . remember that We first created you from dust, then from a living germ (Arabic nuṭfa), then from a clot of blood . . . we cause to remain in the wombs (Arabic arḥ ām, plu. of raḥ im), whatever We please.’ Similarly, verse 19 seems to echo Qur’an 85.21–22: ‘surely this is a glorious Qur’an, upon a preserved tablet’ (Arabic lawḥ maḥ fuż). Cf. also Qur’an 3.7; 36.79; 43.4.22. Bahman possibly misunderstood the Qur’anic image, and hence in several MSS the text seems to contain a mistake of word order, which was apparently corrected in a later MS. 20 You have put sadness in the souls of lovers . . . This verse is entirely typical of Persian poetry, especially Sufi mystical poetry, but is unusual in a Zoroastrian text. In Zoroastrian tradition, ‘sadness’ is said to be a reprehensible, negative emotion, since it is held to reinforce the grip of evil on human lives. The disapproval of sadness and its expression has its most graphic and extreme depiction in the Ardā Wīrāz Nāmag, when the righteous Wīrāz sees the souls of women in hell, whose heads had been cut off and separated from their bodies, and whose tongues were ever crying: when Wīrāz asked to whom those souls belonged, he was told: ‘These are the souls of those women who wept and lamented excessively in the world and beat their heads and faces.’8 21 You fastened both worlds’ form to non-existence . . . This has a strongly Qur’anic resonance e.g. to Qur’an 2.34, where God teaches Adam the names of all things and made man superior to the angels. Also, in mentioning ‘both worlds’ form’ seems to be referring to the Islamic concept of the ‘ālam al-ghayb (unseen world) and ‘ālam al-dunyā ‘this world’ rather than the two Zoroastrian worlds of minu and giti (Pahlavi mēnōg ‘spiritual world’, gētīg ‘physical world’). Cf. the monājāt of Bahrām Rāwari which begins khodāyā bozorgi torā khwod 8

Ardā Wīrāz Nāmag, ed. Vahman, 1986, 209.

commentary

151

sazāst / ke bar har du gitiat farmān ravāst, which Schmermbeck translates ‘O Gott, Größe ist Dir wahrhaft würdig / denn Deine Herrschaft erstreckt sich über beide Welten’.9 22–27 Completest lordship is adorning You . . . Lines such as these have a lyrical felicity lacking in most other Zoroastrian Persian texts, including the QZH: there is a virtually seamless joining of Sufi and Zoroastrian ideas. In verse 22a Lordship (khodā’i) is as much a Zoroastrian as it is an Islamic concept, and in 22b the mentioning of the Persian kherad ‘wisdom’ (Pahlavi xrad, Avestan xratu-) alludes to a Zoroastrian rather than Muslim concept of divinity. However verse 24 has resonances in both religious traditions in a hybrid image evoking the Sufi trope of ‘man the slave to Love’, or of the tether which God places on the human soul during sleep as in the verses of Rumi’s Mas̱navi He strips the saddle from the souls’ own steeds, this is the secret of ‘Sleep is death’s brother.’ But so they will come back again by day, He ties a lengthy tether to their legs. To bring them from that meadow in the day and from the pasture bring them back to burden.10

There is also a Zoroastian dēw Astwihād (Avestan astō.viδātu ‘untying of life’) who is said in the Pahlavi books to cast the noose of mortality around the neck of every human at death,11 but the tone of the QS does not suggest that Bahman is thinking of this demon. The resignation expressed in verse 25 is not thought of as a characteristically Zoroastrian sentiment, yet it is the expression of a sincere piety and love of God—an emotion which is just as original to Zoroastrianism as it is to any branch of Islam.12

9

Schmermbeck, 2008, 284f. I.403–5, tr. Williams 2006, 42. 11 Dādestān ī Dēnīg XXXVII, 44, 51–2, 108 and see Gray 1929, 201f. 12 Having been able, briefly, to peruse a pre-publication copy of Beate Schmermbeck’s new study of Zoroastrian monājāt Schmermbeck 2008, I find that there are many references in those texts both to ‘love’ and ‘slave(ry)’. Schmermbeck’s work demonstrates that use of Sufi mystical and erotic terminology in such Zoroastrian texts is more widespread than is commonly assumed, e.g. ‘Das sufistische Bild von dem durch Gottesliebe verbrannten Herzen, das wie ein Fleischspieß (kabāb) den Flammen der Liebe ausgesetzt ist, ist nicht nur in der sufistischen Literatur ein häufig verwendeter 10

152

chapter four 26 No one deserves eternity (baqā) save God

The dominant note of Sufi baqā is reiterated in verse 26, along with the notion of the Lord’s (khodāvand) incomparability bi hamāvand, which is a phrase used in Pahlavi texts. 27b You fixed the image in the world through wisdom Bahman reiterates the notion of divine wisdom, but now, perhaps because of metrical constraints, using Arabic ḥ ekmat. Then he returns to the imagery of Adam’s creation from clay, and God’s naming of him as his vicegerent (though for metrical purposes Bahman here uses the abstract noun khelāfat ‘vicegerency’): cf. Qur’an 2.30: ‘When your Lord said to the angels: “I am placing on the earth one that shall rule as my deputy (Arabic khalifat) . . .”’.13 29b . . . You are the One who takes us by the hand Schmermbeck has found an example of the theme of God’s taking his servant by the hand (dast . . . gir-) and accepting man’s excuses and penitence (‘oẕr) in Anṣāri’s monājāt to God.14 32–34 Bahman has turned his face towards Your court . . . Having switched to calling God in the more intimate 2nd person singular in verse 27ff., Bahman appears to be preparing his approach for the series of five petitions for his own salvation in three verses (32–34). In fact, this is just the beginning, as the appeal to God for his own personal salvation is the subject of the remaining verses of the doxological proem. The first part of Bahman’s petition, verses 32–38, is reminiscent of the oldest Zoroastrian scriptures, the Gāthās of Zoroaster. Bahman asks that God ‘keep free this mind from the shackles of distress’ (33)

Topos, sondern steht auch in den monāğāt für die absolute Gotteshingabe’ (ibid., 143). See also Shaked 1992. 13 Tr. Dawood 1956, 5. 14 Schmermbeck 2008, 27, and nn. 10, 12, citing Anṣāri, Monājāt-nāme-ye Khwāje ‘Abdollāh Anṣāri, ed. Nezhād Fard Lorestāni, 17, 20.

commentary

153

and laments ‘I have no comforter except for you’ (35), both of which are evocative of Yasna 29.1, when the Soul of the Cow complains to Ahura Mazdā: ‘the cruelty of fury and violence, of bondage and might, holds me in captivity. I have no pastor other than you . . . .’15 Similarly verse 38, ‘Where shall I turn to if you should reject me? Where shall I run? You have no substitute’, evokes Zoroaster’s own questioning in Yasna 46.1 ‘To what land to flee? Where shall I go to flee? They exclude me from my family and clan.’16 42 I’ll make no niche except before Your door . . . For a Zoroastrian priest to use the Islamic Arabic term qibla (Persian qeble) might seem strange, but it was not necessarily an uncommon usage and probably merely reflects, like the other foregoing Islamic elements in the Proem, the Islamic Persian milieu of the literature with which Bahman was familiar. 43b . . . for this companion will not come with me. ‘This companion’ refers to the physical body, which parts company with the soul when it returns to the physical elements of nature at death. 45b . . . then bring Ashem [Vohu] upon my tongue. With reference to this verse Hodivala (1920, 96 n. 4) quoted a statement in the Persian Ṣaddar Nas̱r, ch. 80, which elaborates on the merits of reciting the Ašәm Vohu prayer at death. It is in fact a very old Zoroastrian notion: a whole chapter of the Pahlavi Rivāyat is devoted to the value of Ašәm vohu recited on different occasions, which is itself derived from the the Avestan Hādoxt Nask. Chapter I.31–35 of this latter text says: What is the one recital of the Ašәm Vohu which is worth the whole region of Khvaniratha with cattle, and with wealth in prosperity, in greatness and goodness and excellence? Ahura Mazdā answered him: ‘That indeed, O pious Zarathushtra which a man recites at the extreme end of life,

15 16

Translated S.Insler 1975, 29. Translated S.Insler 1975, 81.

154

chapter four praising good thoughts and good words and good deeds, renouncing evil thoughts and evil words and evil deeds.17

46b . . . make manifest the angel to embrace me This verse refers to the Zoroastrian doctrine of the righteous soul’s meeting with an angelic figure at the end of the third day after death as dawn begins to show. This figure is female, the Daēna (Avestan) or Dēn (Pahlavi). She is also known as ‘the maiden’ (Pahlavi kanīg, or duxt) or ‘the woman’ (Pahlavi zan). Her appearance is beautiful or ugly according to how a man has fashioned her by his good or wicked deeds in his lifetime. She is described in the Avestan Hādoxt Nask as follows: On the passing away of the third night, when the dawn appears, the soul of the pious man appears passing through trees and sweet scents. To him there seems a wind blowing from the more southern side, from the more southern quarters, a sweet scent much more sweet scented than other winds. Then inhaling that wind with the nose, the soul of the pious man considers. ‘Whence blows the wind, the most sweet-scented wind which I have ever inhaled with the nostrils. Advancing with this wind, there appears to him what is his own religion, in the body of a beautiful maiden, brilliant, white armed, well-grown, high statured, tall, with prominent breasts, straight, noble, with a dazzling face, of fifteen years, with a body as beautiful as the most beautiful of creatures. Then the soul of the pious man spoke to her, asking: What virgin art thou, whom I have seen here as the most beautiful of virgins in form? Then answered him his own religion: I am, O Youth, thy good thoughts, good words, good deeds (and) good religion, on account of which good religion in thy own possession everyone has loved thee for such greatness, and goodness, and beauty, and perfume, and victoriousness, which overcomes enemies, as thou appearest to me . . .18 .

47 Acquaint me with my righteous farohar . . . Farohar is the uniquely Iranian concept of the ‘guardian spirit’ (Pahlavi frawahr, Avestan fravaši), with which each soul or spirit, (ravān in the QS) is reunited after death. The principal scriptural sources for

17

Tr. M. Haug, with changes to the transcription, in Haug and West 1971, 308f. See further Williams 1990, vol. 2, 180f. 18 HN II.18–26, Tr. M. Haug in H. Jamaspji Asa and M. Haug, 1872, 310–4. For a discussion of the daēna see further Boyce 1975, 238–40. See also Pavry, 1929, 28–48.

commentary

155

this doctrine are not the Avestan Gāthās, which do not mention the fravaši, but rather the Old Avestan Yasna Haptanghaiti in the Gathic dialect, and then the Younger Avestan Yašt 13, known eponymously as the Farvardin Yašt, which is devoted and addressed to the fravašis. In popular religion, as in our text, the term seems to have meant the spirit of confessional faith, and to have become similar to the female figure of the daēna as the reflection and spiritual counterpart of a virtously lived life. It remains in the spiritual (mēnōg) world during the soul’s life in the body in the physical world (gētīg).19 50–63 But grant forgiveness for his misdemeanours . . . Verses 50–63 are not written in the older MSS., but as they are given in Unvala’s lithographed edition they are generally accepted to be original. This adds another 14 verses to the previous number (19–33) asking forgiveness and deliverance for Bahman, which would then seem to be out of proportion in this relatively short work (29 verses). The style of the additional verses conforms to that of the preceding text; the (albeit exaggerated) self-disparagement of e.g. 54–55 has a ring of authenticity, but their absence from the earliest manuscripts suggests that they may be a pious addition by a later writer. One of the strongest arguments that verses 50–63 were composed by Bahman is that the sequence of iltifāt is sustained seamlessly across 49–50 and with sufficient skill that the rhetorical effect on the reader is conveyed without being noticed. 64–80 Narrative shifting in the QS In this passage we find another form of iltifāt (see above): the author has projected a series of several narrators, with each successive narrator nested within the preceding. In 64, there is both a claim and a disclaimer: first, that these are ‘wondrous things’ (64a), and then, that what follows is not of Bahman’s own invention, but is ‘told from the lore of priests and ancient sages’ (64b). Verses 67–75 then introduce the dastur, Hushang, as we learn from verse 67A, with some background about him down to 76 where the author appears to hand over to him. Immediately in 77 the narrative voice is given to ‘Holy Zoroaster’, who,

19

See further M. Boyce ‘Fravaši’ in Encyclopedia Iranica.

156

chapter four

in 78 refers directly to the authority of the Avesta for the prophecy which follows in 79–80.20 I have closed the quotation with a speech mark at the end of verse 80, but it is left uncertain as to who is the speaker of 81–93—Zoroaster, Hushang or Bahman. The past tense and the mention of Zoroaster’s name in 94 would suggest that it is not Zoroaster but Hushang-Bahman, who have coalesced, so to speak, into one narrator and remain so until the concluding doxology.21 Indeed the personal pronoun ‘I’ of the narrator does not occur again, apart from a momentary remark made aside in verse 233 (q.v.), until 407 in the concluding doxology. In his introduction to the study of narrative, Jeremy Tambling has shown how such narrative shifts work to great rhetorical effect in many kinds of literature. Discussing the opening of Milton’s Paradise Lost, Tambling says: Definitions that might apply to the narrator are (a) that he appears to be humble, (b) supremely confident, (c) assured of the value of the material being used, and (d) writing material more than epic in scope. The reader is to gather that the authority of the ‘Heav’nly Muse’, of Moses, of ‘the Oracle of God’ . . . is at work here, teaching and instructing . . . . . . Milton the seventeenth century writer is swallowed up in this authoritative narrator, who is a projection of the poet—his narratives of himself—constructing himself as a writer who by another narrative fictionalizing is not the actual writer, but simply the secretary of the Muse. . . . What is crucial is that the narrator is not an identical concept to that of the author.22

The case is very similar in our text: Bahman Kay Qobād, the late 16th century priest, has established himself as writer in the long proem, and has then ceded his position to other influences and authorities. The overall effect of this shifting and seeming disappearance of the narrator is not consciously perceived by the general reader/listener, but it has a twofold effect. First, it enhances the authority of the narrator, transferring from the fallible ‘I’ of ‘old Bahman, the lowest of the low’ of 55, to the ‘wise dastur’ of 67, then to Zoroaster in 77, and ultimately to the scriptural source in 78–80. Second, and as a result, it naturalises the events that are to be described: since the events leading down to the time of the Islamic invasion have been predicted in the Avesta, so, 20 Cereti 1995a, 142, notes ‘A similar prophecy can be found in the Zoroastrian apocalyptic text Ayādgār ī Jāmāspīg’. 21 See below, where Bahman formally thanks his dastur (406) and identifies himself again as Bahman alone (407). Once again there is a disclaimer, in 426, followed again by acknowledgment of his master (ostād) in 427. 22 Tambling 1991, 11.

commentary

157

by implication, the events of what is to come, in the narrative of the journey and settlement in India, are seen not as accidentally arising from contingencies, but rather are ‘meant to be’ by divine will or by the will of fate.23 The reader is thus subtly more persuaded of the veracity of the account: ‘. . . narrative interpellates the reader into certain positions of near-passive agreement to an ideological position.’24 64 Now listen to the tales of wondrous things At verse 64 the historical narrative of the QS begins with a twofold literary reference, first (64a) to the Mas̱navi of Rumi (Mowlānā Jalāloddin Balkhi) and second (64b) to the Shāhnāme of Ferdowsi. First, ever since Rumi declaimed the verse beshnow in nay chun shekāyat mi konad / az jodā’ihā hekāyat mi konad ‘—listen to the reed as it is grieving, it tells the story of our separations’, at the beginning of his Mas̱navi, no poet writing in Persian, however minor—even in India—could thereafter write beshnow when he is about to begin to tell a story without recalling that particular verse to the literate reader. Second, we are almost simultaneously (and also at verse 73) reminded of the way in which Ferdowsi refers back to his ancient sources, as at the beginning of the story of Rostam and Sohrāb in the Shāhnāme: ze goftār-e dehqān yaki dāstān bepayvandam az gofte-ye bāstān ze mowbad barin gune bar dāsht yād ke rostam yaki ruz az bāmdād In the dehqān’s story there is a tale that I have versified from ancient narratives. The mobad starts his recollections thus Rostam one day just as the sun rose up . . .25

This nuanced introductory verse in the QS, after the long panegyric and invocation, seems to suggest that Bahman was striving after some literary finesse in his composition.

23 24 25

See above Introduction on ‘Fate in the QS’. Tambling, op. cit., 37. Clinton 1996, 4–5.

158

chapter four 65–66 I tell it, but it’s not contained in telling . . .

These two verses similarly resonate with an old Sufi idea, namely that what the poet actually tells in writing is only a small fraction of the reality he attempts to describe. Rumi declares, for example, tā ke dar har gush nāyad in sakhon / yak hami guyam ze ṣad serr-e ladon This discourse does not fall on every ear / I tell one in a hundred heavenly secrets.26

This idea can be traced back to the idea of the written Qur’an being only a portion of the umm al-kitāb, the original copy of the Book with Allāh in heaven, from which the revelations of the Qur’an come and which is written in a carefully preserved tablet.27 67A How excellent, the dastur’s name was Hushang After 67 an additional verse 67A names the author’s teacher as Hushang. Bahman has to rhyme Hushang’s name with an unusual word in this context, bāshang or pāshang, ‘bunch of grapes’. Modi suggests it is a metaphor for ‘juicy or excellent’ (1905, 4, n. 1). Alternatively it may be read bā shang ‘beautiful’. S.H. Hodivala reports the verse’s presence in the Paris MS of Anquetil Du Perron (it is also to be found in the contemporary MS. in the British Library) and concludes ‘There can be no doubt, therefore, of its genuineness.’ (1920, 97, n. 6). Admittedly, it is true in its statement of fact, but whether the verse was originally part of Bahman’s composition, like the additional 14 verses of the doxology, is not proven. In several publications Modi and Hodivala give detailed accounts of this celebrated dastur who was Bahman’s preceptor and ostād. Hushang’s ancestry includes a number of distinguished priests. The scholar-priest F.M. Kotwal has traced a genealogy of the Parsi priesthood back to the earliest known ‘common ancestor of almost all Parsi priests’,28 namely Shāpur Shahriyār in the 12th century. In this genealogy the priest Hushang of the QS is directly descended some 20 generations from Shāpur Shahriyār and six generations from the

26 27 28

Masnavi I. 1772. See Encyclopaedia of Islam, ‘Umm al-Kitāb’. Kotwal 1990, 166.

commentary

159

priest Khworshid, i.e. one of the three priests who are named in verses 396–398 as having escorted the Irān Shāh fire from Bānsdah to Navsāri, the other two being Nāgan Rām and Jānān ebn Sāyer. In the revāyat of Kāus Māhyār, who is thought to have been sent from Iran to the Parsis of India in c. 1601, i.e. at approximately the same time as the composition of the QS, Hushang is named along with Bahman’s father Kay Qobād and one other as the leader of the community in Navsāri: dasturān-e dindārān-e din chāshidārān-e din āmuzgārān-e patit goftārān-e niyāyesh kardārān-e dorost avestāyān-e rāst dāvarān chun ostovān-e din-e zarātoshti dastur-e mo‘ażżam va pishvā-ye din-e urmazdi dastur-e hushang bin āsā va dastur-e kayqobād bin hamjiyār va dastur noshirvān bin āsdin rā . . . dorud va do‘ā-ye farāvān rasānide qabul bād29 We invoke innumerable blessings and benedictions on the pious Dasturs, who are devoutly religious, the teachers of the religion, reciters of the patet, offerers of Nyaish, reciters of correct Avesta, truthful judges, like the Dasturs of the Zoroastrian religion, e.g., on the honoured Dastur and leader of the religion of Ohrmazd, Dastur Hushang son of Asa and Dastur Kaykobad b. Hamajyar and Dastur Noshirvan b. Asdin . . . may these be accepted by them.30

Modi examined all the evidence for the credentials of Dastur Hushang and, in his defence of the authenticity of the QS, citing S.H. Hodivala,31 he comes to the following conclusion: Bahman Kaikobad the author and the pupil, and Dastur Hoshang Asa the teacher (ustād) who supplied further materials to the author, were lineally descended from the two persons who were living at the time of the Sack of Sanjan and who were two of the very three priests who at the instance of Changashah, carried the Sacred fire of Iranshah to Naosari. Hoshang had a son, Shapur, who also is spoken of as a leader of Naosari. He is mentioned in a letter from Persia (makhtub-e velāyat bar dasturān-e hend) dated 996 Yazdazardi (i.e. 1627 A.D.) . . . We learn from all these facts, that Bahman Kaikobad must have had before him written notes of his own great ancestor, and also those of the great ancestor of Dastur Hoshang—ancestors who had a direct hand in one of the principal events narrated in the Kisseh-i Sanjan.32

29 30 31 32

Text in Unvala 1922, vol. 2, 451. Tr. Dhabhar 1932, 614. Hodivala’s article in the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, XXIII, 306. Modi 1917, 8.

160

chapter four

It must be said that although Modi comes to such a firm conclusion, it is ultimately only a supposition. While it is likely that indeed Bahman had the notes of Khworshid Kāmdin, Hushang’s sixth generation ancestor, and of his own seventh generation ancestor, Nāgan Rām, there is no source which explicitly states that fact. 68b . . . he’d rid himself of Ahriman’s dark forces The Persian ahremanān is an abbreviation for the phrase common in Pahlavi ahreman ud dēwān ‘Ahriman and the demons’. The Pahlavi Dēnkard VI.264 explains: It is possible to put Ahreman out of the world in this manner, namely every person, for his own part, chases him out of his body, for the dwelling of Ahreman in the world is in the body of men. When he will have no dwelling in the bodies of men, he will be annihilated from the whole world; for as long as there is in this world dwelling even in a single person to a small demon, Ahreman is in the world.

Shaked,33 who translates this passage, draws attention to a similar passage (ibid., 275) in Dēnkard III.199, which I translate: ‘Drive the demon from your body, for when you drive them from your self, then you drive them from the whole world.’ 70 His power extended over all in those days ḥ okmash, ‘his power’, refers to his religious authority as a dastur, which word itself means ‘authority’ in Pahlavi (dastwar), but this translation helps to make the point that at this period in 16th century India, the High Priest still wielded considerable power in the community, far greater than that of the Zoroastrian priesthood in modern times. 78 ‘He told of things to come in the Avesta’ ‘Things to come’ i.e. the conditions (Arabic ḥ āl-hā, ‘states’) through which the religion and community of the faithful would have to pass and which were predicted by the Avesta. Here, with a nimble literary sleight of hand, the story is handed to Zoroaster himself in a brief passage of

33

Shaked 1979, 103.

commentary

161

restrospective prediction (to borrow a term from seismology), i.e. in which it is as if the ancient prophet is foretelling the events to come. Yet he speaks with the knowledge of hindsight as well as prophecy: including Zoroaster as a present witness in the narrative is a powerful rhetorical device of Zoroastrian traditions, e.g. in the Pahlavi books, where questions are asked of, and answers are obtained from, Zoroaster himself. What seems to be mere piety is, on closer inspection, a rhetorical device that has a persuasive effect on the reader. 79 Three times the Good Religion will be broken In the QS Zoroaster predicts that three times an ‘oppressor’ will bring down the religion: setamgar is an epithet not a personal name, pace B.N. Bhathena who wrote: The so-called prediction of Avesta, about the destruction of Zoroastrian religion at the hands of Sitamgar, as stated at the beginning of the KisseSanjan is absolutely baseless.34

Scholars have speculated as to which historical figures Bahman may be referring to in this passage, comparing these line of the QS with a passage in the Pahlavi Zand-ī Wahman Yasn (hereafter ZWY), on which see below note to line 86. The scheme is, however, much simpler than that of the ZWY. If we set out the events referred to in verses 77–97 in tabular form we have the following three pairings of King and High Priest, interrupted by an oppressor: 77 King Gushtāsp : his priest is Zoroaster 82 first oppressor Sekandar Shāh [331 B.C.] 83 faith brought down low for 300 years and oppression ………… 84 Ardashir took sovereignty [224 C.E.] : his priest is Ardā Virāf (86) 87 second oppressor Evil Spirit [the wicked Mani?] ………… 89 Shāpur [II] came to the throne [r. 309–379] and his priest is Ādurbād ī Mahrasfand (90) 93 Shāpur to Yazdegerd III [approx. 300 years] ………… 95 end of millennium of Zoroaster; infidels arrive 97 Iran was shattered

34

Bhathena 1943, Foreword.

162

chapter four

In contrast to this sequence in the QS, in the QZH it is said there is only one period when the religion will be brought low before the coming of the Arabs, namely after the coming of Alexander (QZH 87) after which it will be revived by Ardā Virāf in the reign of Ardashir (QZH 95ff.): Ādarbād and Shāpur are not mentioned. In 82 sekandar shāh is Alexander of Macedon. Though Alexander may have burned the royal palace at Persepolis, destroyed the archives, and even had priests slain, as Zoroastrian tradition reports, there were not, at this time in fact ‘religious books’ as such in existence: Mary Boyce has suggested this explanation for the tradition that ‘books’ were destroyed: In those days, when all religious works were handed down orally, the priests were the living books of the faith, and with mass slaughters many ancient works (the tradition holds) were lost, or only haltingly preserved.35

With regard to verse 83 the 9th cent. Pahlavi book Ardā Wīrāz Nāmag states that after the attack of Alexander and the burning of the scriptures and killing of priests: he cast hatred and strife, one with the other amongst the nobles and householders of the country of Iran; and self-destroyed, he fled to hell. And after that, there were confusion and contention among the people of the country of Iran, one with the other.36

The Pahlavi text then introduces ‘the blessed and immortal Ādurbād son of Mahraspand’, who underwent the ordeal by fire (as alluded to in the QS, verses 90–91), and only then introduces Ardā Virāf (the Persian spelling, which is a mis-reading of the Pahlavi name). In the QS, however, Ādurbād is said to be the priest who ministered to King Shāpur (89–90), i.e. long after Ardā Virāf and King Ardashir (84–86). This is also the case in the QZH, and in the Persian prose introduction to the Pahlavi Ardā Wīrāz Nāmag.37 As Cereti notes, ‘We thus have an interesting ‘mytheme’ widespread among Indian Zoroastrians that links Ardā Wīrāz with Ardašir’.38 In a passage from the Persian ‘Book of Oath’ (Sugandnāme) in the Revāyats the order of events is again similar to that of the QS and QZH:

35 36 37 38

Boyce 1979, 79. Tr. Haug and West 1871, 143. Tr. Haug-West 1871, XV–XVI and LXXXIV–LXXXVII. Cereti 1995, 142.

commentary

163

. . . when Sikandar Rumi (Alexander the Greek) came and killed Dara (Darius) and burnt many books of Avesta, Zend and Pazend, he ruled for a time and the affairs of religion became very delicate and every day they became more delicate until Ardashir Babegan sat on the throne and underwent all these troubles for the work of (restoring) the religion when he sent Ardai Viraf to the spiritual world for those nirangs (i.e. religious formulae) of the religion which Zartosht Asfantaman had brought from before God the most High. . . . Afterwards in the time of Shapur Ardashir, as a great number of people were full of doubt, the high-priest AdarbadMarespand who was descended from Zartosht Asfantaman on his father’s side and from Gushtasp on his mother’s . . . etc.39

In the QS, as is normal in the Persian texts, no mention is made of the Arsacid dynasty of Zoroastrian monarchs from the mid-2nd century B.C. to the early 3rd century C.E.40 As Hodivala correctly points out, the interval between the defeat of Darius at Arbela in 331 B.C. and Ardashir Papak’s succession in 226 A.C. is 557 years, not 300 years. In this instance we see, as we shall see again, that the number of years given in the QS is intended to indicate the order of magnitude rather than a precise interval. Modi passes over this point in his defence of the veracity of the QS in his two main discussions of the text, being preoccupied rather with ‘events’ after the fall of Yazdegerd III.41 86 Ardā Virāf was posted to God’s court Ardā Virāf is the legendary hero the Righteous [Priest] Wirāz, famous throughout Zoroastrian literature, whose story is told in the eponymous Pahlavi text Ardā Wīrāz Nāmag. The text also exists in Pazand, Persian and Gujarati. According to the Pahlavi text, ‘when the religion was in confusion and people in doubt’, an assembly of religious leaders selected Wīrāz from among all the righteous priests to go to the spiritual world. He was administered a potion of wine and henbane and for seven days and nights his soul was in Paradise (briefly) among the blessed and then (for a much longer time) in Hell among the damned. He returned to relate to the religious leaders what he had seen. The text is largely a graphic account of the sins and punishments of the wicked in hell, and a warning to the living. Hodivala thinks ‘the writer here follows pretty

39

Tr. Dhabhar 1932, 46; Unvala 1922, vol. 1, p. 50, ll. 7ff. On the ‘faked Sasanian genealogy’ linking the Sasanians with their Achaemenian predecessors see Boyce 1979, 126ff. 41 Modi 1905, 5 and 1917, 8. 40

164

chapter four

closely the Bahman Yasht (i.e. ZWY) II.15–22’42 (N.B. Hodivala is in fact referring to chapter III of ZWY). However, although that passage is in the form of a prediction, it is Ohrmazd’s prediction to Zoroaster, not Zoroaster’s own prediction as in the QS, and it is in the form of seven, not three, epochs. The ZWY is not helpful in shedding light on this sequence of the QS. 87 And after that the accursed Evil Spirit We are not specifically told who this ganā minu ‘evil spirit’ might be, but the Persian epithet gojaste ‘accursed’ seems to give it away. In the Pahlavi Zoroastrian tradition the ‘false prophet’ Mani is dubbed druz ī gizistag ‘the accursed demon’. In Dēnkard III two well-known passages stand in parallel, contrasting the ten counsels of the holy Adurbād ī Mahraspandān with those of the ‘accursed demon Mani’.43 It is thought that Mani [216–277 C.E.] was given permission by Shāpur I to preach freely throughout the Sasanian kingdom of Iran in the decade 250–260: in this period he wrote his compendium of religious teachings, named in honour of the king, Shābuhragān and travelled all over Iran. Cereti is surely correct in concluding that this idea, like the ‘mytheme’ of ‘the relationship between Ardašir and Ardā Wīrāz’ formed part of ‘the “mythical history” of the Zand-ī Wahman Yasn Parsis’.44 Whether it corresponds to actual history is another matter altogether, and the text of the QS cannot be used as ‘confirmation of the temporary conversion of Shāpur I to Manichaeism’.45 90–92 When Ādarbād-e Mahrasfand the Faithful The figure of Ādarbād-e Mahrasfand is the closest equivalent Zoroastrianism has to a Christian saint. As High Priest of Shāpur II (309–379), and embodiment of orthodoxy and austerity, he is famed in the tradition for having undergone an ordeal by molten metal to prove the truth

42

Hodivala 1920, 98, n. 9. Text Madan 1911, 216f, tr. Menasce 1973, 208f. See also Williams 1990, vol. 2, 257ff. 44 Cereti 1995a, 144. 45 That is, one would agree with Cereti’s implication (ibid., 143 that one should not be tempted to accept such evidence). 43

commentary

165

of his doctrines. He emerged victorious, as Zaehner put it, ‘during his controversy with all manner of sectarians and heretics. He triumphed over the greatest of the heretics among them, who were also called “fatalists”.’46 In the Persian Revāyats his name is mentioned in an oath immediately after that of Zoroaster, and before all the souls of the fravashis of the pious.47 As mentioned above in the note to verse 83, it was believed that his ancestry went back patrilineally to the prophet Zoroaster and matrilineally to Zoroaster’s royal patron, Gushtasp. 95 When Zoroaster’s thousandth year had come Several of the 9th century C.E. Pahlavi texts interpret the fall of the Sasanian dynasty as a sign of the end of the millennium of Zoroaster. The text that goes into the fullest description of the conditions of the end of the millennium, and some, albeit jumbled, chronological detail, is the Zand-ī Wahman Yasn.48 This states that the millennium which follows Zoroaster’s will be that of Hušēdar, the first ‘Saviour’ (Pahlavi sōšāns) who, the text states, ‘will be born in 1600’.49 In several footnotes to his translation of the text, E.W. West50 calculated that the millennium of Zoroaster ended between 593 and 635, and that Hušēdar was born in the 600th year of his own millennium, i.e. between 1193 and 1235. West came to the conclusion that this millennium would therefore have ended ‘about A.D. 1593–1635’. Considering the coincidence of his calculation with the date of composition of the QZH, West’s final comment on this matter is worth quoting in full: An enthusiastic Parsi interpreter of prophecy might urge that though this period did not witness any revival of his religion, it did witness a restoration of the Persian empire under Shāh Abbās, and also the first beginning of British power in India, which has been so great a benefit to the scanty remnant of his fellow-countrymen.51

46

Zaehner 1961, 187, citing Škand Gumānīg Wizār, tr. De Menasce 1945, 10.70–1. Unvala 1922, vol. 1, p. 46, l. 6; tr. Dhabhar 1932, 40. 48 For further references see Williams 1990, vol. 2, 226f. 49 ZWY ed Cereti 1995b 9.1: ušēdar rāy paydāg kū pad ēk hazār ud šaš sad sāl be zāyed. The Pahlavi Rivāyat 48:1 states that he will be born 1500 years after Zoroaster— see Williams 1990, vol. 2, 228, n. 4. 50 West 1901, 219, n. 1, 228, n. 6 and 231, n. 1. 51 West 1901, 231, n. 1. 47

166

chapter four 96 / 133 The loss of the kingship and the return of khorre/ xvarәnah

Once the kingship has left the last Iranian Zoroastrian king in verse 96 the Zoroastrians are said to suffer a series of misfortunes, culminating in the storm at sea between Diu and Sanjān. As soon as the dasturs give their pledge to light a fire of Bahrām if they are saved: they are granted succour in their difficulties (132) and in the next line ‘a fair wind blew, there was a glorious light’, lit. ‘a fair wind with the light of khorre blew’. This is very significant, as khorre, and its alternative spelling farr, is always connected in Zoroastrian Persian with the spiritual entity xvarәnah (in Avestan, Pahlavi xwarrah), ‘Glory’. Xvarәnah is brought to the earth by Miθra or Vәrәθraγna / Bahrām, mentioned in 131. Darmesteter describes xvarәnah as ‘the supernatural light which is the expression of all virtue, all light and felicity.52 Gray states ‘It is evident that he was a divinity of light, and in the historic period very often a god of royal fortune . . .’53 In the story of Yašt 19 king Yima’s (Jam, Jamshid) sinfulness causes the royal glory of xvarәnah to depart from him; in the Pahlavi tradition it is said that he ruled for 616 years and 6 months before his xvarәnah departed him, after which he was in flight for 100 years. In the QS there is no suggestion that the royal glory left Yazdegerd for the same reason, but nevertheless this story would be in the Zoroastrian reader’s mind, reinforced by the period of flight for over 100 years. The return of the xvarәnah suggested in verse 133 signals the beginning of better fortune for the Zoroastrians. In the style and content of the introductory passages, there have been obvious differences between the QS and the QZH, but as the texts progress the differences are subtler in kind. In the QZH, in his wording of the verses describing the fall of Yazdegerd, the author Shāpurji Maneckji Sanjāna has closely followed the text of the QS but not without changing much of the vocabulary and phrasing in an act of conscious differentiation. For example compare the text of QS (95A–101) with the following quotation of a passage in QZH (103–9): QZH

52 53

chun rafte shāh-e yazdejerd azin bām namānde din-e beh rā zinat o nām ke raft az yazdegerd shah pādshāhi gerefte takht jod din az tabāhi

Darmesteter 1892–3, i.7, n. 2. Gray, 122.

commentary 105

105

167

azān moddat kharābi shod be irān darigh ān din o molk oftād o virān dar ān ayyām har kas shod parākand har ān ku dāsht del be zand o pāzand hame dastur o behdin gasht virān barāye din nehān gashtand chandān chu dasturān [o] behdinān be yakbār fekr kardand o raftand ān neku kār ze tars o bim-e jod dinān nehān mānd ke tā ṣad sāl dar kuhestān mānd When Yazdegerd the king had left this world the noble faith was robbed of grace and fame. When kingship went from Yazdegerd the King the throne was seized by infidels to ruin. From that time forth corruption came to Iran Alas! That faith and kingdom fallen, ruined. In those days everyone became dispersed, all those whose hearts were set on Zand and Pāzand— The priests and laymen all in desolation, so many had to hide for their religion. When now at once those virtuous priests and laymen considered and decided to depart, they hid in fear and terror from the Muslims they stayed in Kuhestān a hundred years.54

It is noteworthy that for QZH 103 Shāpurji has reworked QS 95A, a verse which, as far as we can ascertain, first occurs in the 1735 MS of the QS. It is also noticeable that verses 108–9 of the QZH do not correspond to the text of QS. 96b the infidels arrived and took his throne The word translated as ‘infidels’ joddin refers to Arabs: it means lit. ‘(those) of other religion’, and refers to Muslims in general in 103; however, in 199 and 206 it refers to any non-Zoroastrian. In the Pahlavi books Muslims are never referred to using the Persian/Arabic term mosalman, but generally by the term Iranian terms jud dēn and ag-dēn (‘of evil religion’); druwand ‘sinful, wicked’ is a term reserved for Muslims, and hence the QS has dorvand for Muslims in 105, 110, 146, 164. In the Persian Revāyats the term Islam is never used, for reasons

54

Transcribed from Cereti 1991, 36, with my translations.

168

chapter four

of safety;55 in the relative security of late 16th century India, Bahman can mention Islam by name at 244, 276, 307. 101 They stayed in Kuhestān a hundred years The journey to India begins here with the statement that they left their homes for Kuhestān ‘the mountainous region’ of Khorasan in the North East of Iran—a detail which is repeated in QZH 109. Modi and S.H. Hodivala argued that this is where the original Khorāsāni town of Sanjān was located.56 103 He told his friends: ‘It is so difficult for us to stay here, fearing infidels’ This is the shortest of the speeches in the QS. Speech and dialogue are devices used to good effect by Bahman to advance the narrative. A wise man / dastur (not necessarily the same person) makes a speech at 103, 107–111, and 117–118. Shāpur imitates this style in the QZH, perhaps with less success. K.A. Inostrantsev thought that the movement from the mountains of Khorāsān to Hormuz after a hundred years had to be put into connection with the tremendous commotions which took place at that time in the Musulman world at the passing of the power to the ‘Abbāssids, and with certain eschatological expectations.

He goes on to speculate on the reasons for the movement and migration at this time . . . From the chronological point of view the motives for the final decision of the Parsī community to settle in India might have been the taking of the oath of allegiance, during the lifetime of Caliph Mansūr, to his son Mahdī, which resulted in a strong Irānian movement in Khorassān bearing marks of Messianism . . .57

55 An exception is the apocalyptic text Jāmāspji, in Unvala 1922, II. 111ff., tr. Dhabhar 1932, 493ff. 56 Modi 1917, 18 refers to his own article in the Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society (J.B.B.R.A.S.) XXI, and also Hodivala’s in the J.B.B.R.A.S. XXXIII. 57 Inostrantsev 1923, 70.

commentary

169

The difficult conditions suffered by the Zoroastrians in Iran was not just a story from the remote past for Bahman, but something of which he would have been aware as a present reality from his knowledge of the revāyats from the priests of the Yazdi community, which had, by Bahman’s time, been well-known among Parsi priests for over a hundred years. For example, in a letter of Kāmdin Shāpur to the Zoroastrians of India dated 928 A.Y. = 1559, it is written that it will be a long time before they can expect the future saviour Bahrām Varjāvand to come: In what manner can he come to us (we do not know) for, in this quarter, the Atash Bahrām and all the Behdins are distracted and distressed (parishān va sar gardānand). In this desert [Iran is meant] this will not be practicable.

The writer is immediately moved to verse, which I quote in Persian: robā‘i del-e mā hamchun zabān dar jaras oftāde ast yā chun bolbol ke asir-e qafas oftāde ast zin chaman morgh be parvāz bedānjā narasad kaz shomā tā bar mā rāh bas oftāde ast58 Quatrain: Our hearts have fallen into prison like the tongue (in the mouth), or they are like the nightingale which is a prisoner in the cage; from this garden the bird cannot fly to that place, for the road between you and us is very much in a shattered state.59

104 He set off for the city of Hormuz . . . As S.H. Hodivala and others have noted, this is not the island of Hormuz, in the Strait of Hormuz between the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman, but rather the town Hormus on the mainland of Iran (the town was moved, along with its name, to the island c. 1300 A.C. after repeated attacks by marauding raiders). As Hodivala reports, ‘Ibn Battuta . . . discriminates between Hormuz or Moghistan on the main land and New Hormuz on the island of Jerun . . .’ and also comments, ‘the name Moghistan the land of the Moghs—Fire-worshippers—is most instructive and significant.’60

58 59 60

Unvala 1922, vol. 2, 7–10. Tr. Dhabhar 1932, 619. Hodivala 1920, 100, n. 19.

170

chapter four 110 So it is better we set off for Hend

The text of the QZH differs from that of the QS in two important respects at this point. Whereas in QS it is clear that only one boat is mentioned, in the QZH 119 we have the verse: be daryā zawraq o keshti basi bud hamān vaqt bādbān rā bāz bogshud Upon the sea were many boats and ships which at that moment had unfurled their sails.61

The text continues to mention that there were many vessels travelling together (yet Shāpur is inconsistent in using singular and plural nouns, pronouns and verbs for them, as if he has one eye on the singular of the QS text). Shāpur may have corrected the older text thinking that, logically, there must have been more than one vessel. In the 17th century the English traveller and East India Company Chaplain Henry Lord62 stated that seven junks made the voyage to India: Hodivala quotes portions of Lord’s text (which is full of oddities) and dismisses the account with a flourish: The inconsistencies in this halting and incongruous narrative scarcely deserve or require any express mention, but the quotation proves that there were other traditional versions which were available to and occasionally made use of by those curious inquirers, who speculated on these events in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries much as we have done in the nineteenth and do in the twentieth.63

Indeed the QS narrative, with its account of only one vessel has greater dramatic effect, since the central action of the appeal to heaven must in any case be located in one vessel alone. The second main difference between the QS and the QZH in this section also seems to reflect a rationalisation of the QS story: in the QZH the storm at sea takes place not, as in the QS 120–136, on the journey from Diu to Sanjān but rather on the longer journey from Hormuz to Diu (QZH 122–139). One can only speculate why Shāpur may have ‘corrected’ Bahman’s account in this regard (whereas in other details of the incident he followed the QS account closely). Perhaps Shāpur thought that a storm would have been more likely to have occurred on 61 62 63

Transcribed from Cereti’s edition 1991, 37, with my translation. Lord 1630, 3f. Hodivala 1920, 11. On Henry Lord see further Firby 1988, 98ff.

commentary

171

the first voyage just because it was a much longer journey and in waters more remote from his own, known territory. In fact, however, on this longer voyage the émigrés would have stayed close to the mainland coastline of the Gulf of Oman, along known shipping routes that would have allowed them to put into various ports for shelter and supplies along the way. In fact, however, to sail from Diu on the southern tip of Kathiawar to Sanjān on the western coast of Gujarat would have necessitated crossing the Gulf of Cambay, which is subject to intense tropical cyclones, and which is notorious for its typhoons and storm surges and consequently its many shipwrecks. There is a third possible reason for supposing that Shāpur altered the QS account, which relates to the following verses in each text: QS 127–129

QZH 130–13264

azin gharqāb gar yābam rahā’i na hargez pish āyad zin balā’i

azin ṭufān rahāy-e mā beyābim besuye shahr-e hendustān shetābim Deliver us from this storm! If we survive, let’s hasten to the land of Hendustān.

If we should find salvation from this whirlpool, and no disaster falls on us again, azin daryā agar dar keshvar-e hend rasim ānjā be del shādān khorsand If from this sea we reach the land of Hend and are contented there with happy hearts foruzim ātash-e bahrām-e pānā azin sakhti rahān o kon tavānā We’ll light a Fire of Bahrām, our Protector, O save us from this plight and make us strong!

varahrām ātash ānjā ke neshānim azin sakhti u ṭufān bāz mānim There we shall found a fire to Varahrām if we endure this hardship and this storm. paz̠iroftim inkār az del o jān morād-e mān rasān ey pāk izdān We take this task on with our heart and soul Grant us our wish O God of holiness!

Thus, both texts speak of establishing a fire to Bahrām upon arrival in India; yet, the QZH does not speak of the Zoroastrians founding the fire when they landed on Indian soil in Diu, where they remained for 19 years, but at Sanjān as in the QS: this is a detail Shāpur could 64

Transcribed from Cereti 1991, 38, with my translation.

172

chapter four

not alter, even though he brought the storm forward. All these factors taken together would suggest that Shāpur’s corrections of the QS were misconceived. 120–135 The Storm Often in religious literature, and in literature in general, the storm is not just the backdrop to events and moods of a crisis of major transformation, but may actually embody and directly signify the transformation.65 The episode of the storm in the QS is, as much as the landing at Sanjān and the establishment of the fire, a critical moment in the drama of relocation. Iran having been ‘shattered’ (97) at the time of the Arab victory over Yazdegerd, and the community dispersed (98), the storm appears as a culmination, if not personification, of all the troubles of the past, dramatised by the force of nature itself. The structure of the narrative leading up to the storm is a series of four episodes of leaving their abode and moving on (100, 104, 113, 119) alternating with three of remaining (101, 105, 116). The verb māndan ‘remain / stay’ had been used for their sojourn in Kuhistān (101) and on Diu (115). Now, in the storm, hame dastur-e din ḥayrān bemāndand dar ān varṭe chu sargardān bemāndand The dasturs of the faith were all distraught, as they were cast adrift upon that whirlpool.66

Thus māndan, lit. ‘remain’ is the verb used in place of the verb ‘to be’, as if to emphasise that their refuge is no longer terra firma, but the trap of a maelstrom,67 and they can appeal to heaven alone. First they call upon the Wise One (dānā) i.e. Ohrmazd, for deliverance, then to Bahrām (Avestan Vәrәθraγna), the yazad of victory in war and deliverance in danger, addressed as Victorious Bahrām (bahrām-e firuz).68 The ancient hymn to Vәrәθraγna (Yt. 14) was regularly invoked on

65 See my comparison of the storm in the QS with a storm in a poem by the 12th century Jewish poet and philosopher, Judah Halevi c. 1075–1141, Williams, 2003. 66 V. 121: there is be a reversal of this image, in v. 277, when day and night are ‘left astonished’ (ḥ ayrān bemāndand) at the sight of the Muslim and Hindu armies (q.v.). 67 Cf. v. 109. 68 Hence, at two points in the text the fire is referred to as ātash-e bahrām-e firuz (131, 390).

commentary

173

behalf of those who went on journeys, and at other times of peril.69 It is significant that no fewer than six couplets (124–129) are given over to praying to Bahrām: however, though they make the promise in favour of Bahrām, the arrangement is said to be accepted from the Creator in verse 130. What makes this act of dedication to Bahrām/Vәrәθraγna most significant, just at the point where all might be lost at sea, is that, as Mary Boyce has put it, Varahram was not only venerated for his immediate power to help, but was longed for as an eschatological figure, whose visible coming would one day herald the restoration of the Good Religion, the overthrow of its persecutors, and the glorious end of time.70

Neither Ohrmazd nor Bahrām appears in the narrative to answer the desperate suppliants, nor is a divine response expressed in terms of a calm replacing the storm, but rather that (134) A fair wind blew, there was a glorious light, the hostile wind then disappeared from there. The captain uttered ‘By the Holy Name of God’, and straightaway he steered the vessel.

Thus the text immediately continues the previous impetus to move on until they find their next abode. There is no rejoicing nor gratitude, nor brooding over things to come: the adversity, arising from nature, has been overcome by reaffirming the contract with the power that controls nature. The effect of this brief but powerful scene of the QS is to achieve the mythical reinforcement of what was (by Bahman’s time) known to have been a historical actuality. The establishment of the holy fire in India is given divine sanction in the story of a promise made by a dastur appealing to Heaven itself, made in the Zoroastrian belief in a contractual relationship between man and the Creator. 136 And after that it was the law of Fate, that every one of them arrived at Sanjān There appears to be an anomaly here, since the QS (185–191) goes on to say that Sanjān was founded and named by the Zoroastrians themselves once they had been given permission to settle in India by Jādi Rāna. 69 70

See further Boyce 1977, 69ff. Ibid., 71.

174

chapter four

The mention here at 136 of Sanjān as the name of an already existing location suggests what archaeologists and historians already suspect, namely that Sanjān in fact existed long before the Zorastrians arrived there. Rukshana Nanji, reporting on the archaeological evidence for the landing at Sanjān, provides a summary of the evidence, which I quote at some length: Epigraphic records such as the inscriptions of Buddhavarsa (671 AC), Amoghavarsa (871 AC), the Chinchani Copper Plates (926–1053 AC), etc. provide irrefutable evidence that Sanjan existed as far back as the seventh century, at the very least. An inscription that has not yet received attention in the study of the antiquity of Sanjan is the Nagarjunakonda inscription of Abhira Vasushena. This inscription dated by D.C. Sircar to 278 AC, mentions the grant made by a group called the Yorajis of Sanjayapura. Sircar equates Yoraji with Yavannas or the Indo-Greeks and Sanjayapura with Sanjan. If indeed this inscription records the presence of a nonIndian dynasty in Western India at this time, they could well have been subordinates of the Sakas of Western India.71 If this epigraphic record is viewed in the light of the archaeological evidence, we find that it is not improbable that the antiquity of Sanjan can indeed go back to the third century. The presence of ringwells, the sherds of Red Polished Ware and perhaps some of the early coins identified by Gokhale as being Satavahana issues lend credence to the fact that there was an old established settlement either at Sanjan or in its immediate vicinity prior to the migration. The newcomers may have established a satellite settlement or added to the growth of the old settlement in the later period. The inscriptions of Buddhavarsa establish the existence of the settlement by 671 AC as a definite fact.72 Amoghavarsa’s inscription mentions the settlement in 871 AC and refers to it as a group of 24 villages (Bhandarkar, EI XVIII).73

Nanji’s suggestion that the Zoroastrian immigrants may have established a satellite settlement in the vicinity of a previously existing ‘Sanjayapura’ fits with the statement in 187 that ‘an area of the plain was found to suit them’ (be dashti dar qabul oftād yak jāy), and it was a good piece of land (187, zamin khwosh bud, 190 zamin-e nik). If indeed the Gujarati name of the already existing town was Sanjayapura, it makes good sense that the Zoroastrian priests would have ‘Persianised’ the name of their own immediate settlement to something familiar from their native

71 D.C. Sircar, ‘Nagarjunakonda Inscription of the Time of Abira Vasushena, Year 30’, in D.C. Sircar (ed.) Epigraphia Indica, Vol. XXXIV (1961–62), 197–204, 1963. 72 S. Konow, ‘Sanjan Plates of Buddhavarasa’, in F.W. Thomas (ed.) Epigraphia Indica, Vol. XIV (1917–18), 144–52. 73 Nanji 2008, 51.

commentary

175

land. Hence the apparent anomaly in the QS can be perfectly reconciled: ‘Sanjān’ (in verse 136) is the Persianised name for a previously existing Gujarati town ‘Sanjayapura’: here the new arrivals were given a plot of land, and they called their own settlement by the similar sounding name of a town in Iran (verse 191). As is well known, the Gujarati name of the maritime town port was similarly adapted to ‘Sindan’ in the accounts of contemporary Arab and Persian writers.74 138 The rajah, by the name of Jādi Rāna There have been many attempts to identfy the Jādi Rāna of the QS. Wilson thought that the name was a corruption of the Hindu name Jaydeva and that he was the same king as Jayadev or Vanrāj of Anhilwād Pātan who reigned from 745–806 A.C.75 S.H. Hodivala seems to have been convinced that he had correctly identified Jādi Rāna as one Vajjadadeva of the Silahra dynasty (but see my note on 143 below) who ‘reigned about 940 A.C.’—thus requiring Hodivala ingeniously to move the ‘landing’ at Sanjān forward into the tenth century. Modi’s solution was to take the text as it stood, and to make the ostensibly plausible suggestion that what the writer meant was the local ruler, and not the king of Gujarāt, whose capital was at Pattan, more than 150 miles away from Sanjān.76

This suggestion is credible if the title ‘king of princes’ (140, 143) and the phrase ‘a virtuous man and famous throughout Hend’ are taken as no more than the flattering hyperbole of the dastur’s panegyric. In the mytho-logic of the story, the rajah represents the royal authority of India and nothing less: he admits the Zoroastrians not just to a coastal town, nor even to Gujarat, but to ‘the land of India’—Hendustān—and in that sense the historicist attempt to identify an actual personage is perhaps to miss the point.

74 Mas’udi, Buzurg-e-Shahiyar Al-Rem-Hurmuzi, Al-Istakhri, Al-Idrisi, Ibn Hawqal: for references to primary and secondary sources see Nanji 2008, 52. 75 Wilson’s annotation to Eastwick’s translation of the QS, Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, Vol. I.4 (1842), 175, n. 3. 76 Modi 1905, 11.

176

chapter four 143 Descended from the noble king of princes

‘King of princes’ translates shāh-e rāyān. QZH has the comparable rāy-e rāyān at 151b and 171a. S.H. Hodivala thought that the reading of this line in the QS was corrupt and that it ‘cries for correction’.77 He therefore made the suggestion that this verse should not be read as we have it, but rather ze naṣl-e shallahrayān nik kār ast be hend andar hamishe nāmdār ast

which Hodivala translates thus: We have heard that in this place is a Raja descended from the Shilahras of virtuous acts, who are ever renowned throughout Hendustan.

Unfortunately this emendation is rather too radical. In fact it is impossible, for reasons of prosodial discipline. For although Hodivala thought ‘Nothing can be plainer or clearer than this’, and though it fitted very well his theory by which he brought the date of the Parsi arrival in India down to the early 10th century C.E., the fact is that his emendation does not work because it is metrically incorrect. Bahman could not have written shallahrayān because the verse requires the rhythm fā‘elāton (— ∪ — —) at this point, and shallahrayān has the measure — — ∪ —. Hodivala also cites seven alternative spellings of the name of the dynasty to which he supposed Jādi Rāna belonged, but similarly none fits the metre of the verse in this position. Hodivala’s argument for the 10th century date of the arrival thus falls at this first metrical fence. See further Chapter 5. 153 First I shall see the features of your faith This statement, which is traditionally taken as the first of five conditions of settlement in India, is comparable to QZH 162, where Jādi Rāna asks for an account of the faith alone. It is noteworthy that from here in the QS, in the four conditions that follow, Jādi Rāna switches the person he commands to the 3rd person plural pronoun (except ‘your womenfolk’ in 156), having previously addressed the dastur in the 2nd person singular. In the QZH Jādi Rāna does not stipulate four other

77

Hodivala 1920 75f.

commentary

177

conditions: instead the dastur makes a brief reply about the religion, in four verses (166–169) which correspond to two verses of the dastur’s speech in QS, i.e. 167–168. It is to be noted that after the description of the ‘customs of the faith’ (i.e. 182) there is an ellipsis, in that Bahman omits to state that the dastur ever agreed to the four additional conditions mentioned in 154–158. 158 The fifth, when they perform the noble act of children, on that night they should be married I have translated this verse as literally as possible, though in the original Persian there is a deliberate circumlocution (kār-e khayr-e farzand). I interpret the verse as an insistence that sexual relations should take place within marriage, i.e. not as a stipulation that marriage must take place in the evening. There is a certain lack of clarity in the Persian, which is reflected in the fact that there are several slight variants in the MSS. In SH it is written vertically in the margin, as if it is an afterthought, and, curiously, an eẓāfe has been written after shāmgah (an alternative spelling of shāmgāh) and copied exactly in N1: however this makes neither metrical nor grammatical sense. The verse has been mistranslated in the past, and the misinterpretation has stuck in Parsi culture, leading some to believe that this is the origin of a tradition that Parsis wed in the evening. For Zoroastrians, however, this would be an inauspicious time for any such contract to be made. E.B. Eastwick rendered the verse: Fifthly when a son is married, / The marriage procession must be at night.

As long ago as 1915 Paymaster noted that, as often, Eastwick had mistranslated the verse: E. [Eastwick] (l. 188) translates ‘marriage procession’ and so too Dr Jivanji Modi, but the words in the text have no connection with ‘procession.’ The words kār-e khayr mean ‘good work’ only.

Paymaster translated (demurely): ‘Fifthly, when there is some good work (marriage) in connection with a child, it must be performed in the evening.’78 S.H. Hodivala perpetuated Eastwick’s mistake with an

78 In Paymaster 1915, Paymaster’s translation 10, and note 1, referring to Eastwick in ibid., Eastwick’s translation 13.

178

chapter four

even looser translation ‘Fifthly, when your children are wedded, the marriage knot must be tied at evening time’.79 Similar mistranslations have occurred in the Gujarati versions. 167–180 The Dastur’s account of the Religion The reply of the priest (who is called both dastur ‘high priest’, and mowbad-e pir ‘aged mowbad’) begins with a preamble of five verses (161–166), after which his account of the Zoroastrian religion occupies only 14 verses of the text (167–180) of which nine are concerned solely with matters pertaining to the purity rules of women. At first sight the dastur’s choice of what he tells the rajah is puzzling, and it would seem that the author of the QZH also found it so, as in his report of the reply to Jādi Rāna (163–169) he omits all but the statements of QS verses 167–168. In the QS the dastur does not name Zoroaster, Ohrmazd, the amahraspands nor the yazads, nor the doctrines of the judgment, heaven, hell, the resurrection nor frashegird. His reply falls into two sets of three statements (§) as follows: §1 167–168: lineage from Jamshid and five objects of reverence: moon, sun, cow, water, fire; 169: restatement of the same objects of reverence in reverse order; §2 170: statement about God (khodā) creating in time; §3 171: mentions the rite of tying the kusti and recitation of holy words; §4 172–175: women in menstruation must not look at or touch the sacred elements; §5 176–177 after childbirth women must sit apart and abstain (i.e. from all contact with the rest of the world) for 40 days; §6 178–80 women after miscarriage or stillbirth may go nowhere and speak to no one for 41 days. §§1–3 are concerned with the matters of religion that Zoroastrianism shares with Brahminism, including descent from Yima (Sanskrit Yama), reverence for the elements, the cow and the wearing of the kusti ‘sacred thread’ (Sanskrit yajñopavita). This is the realm of public religion and the domain of men. Women do not figure in this part of the speech. 79

Hodivala 1920, 102f.

commentary

179

By contrast §§4–6 are statements concerned with women exclusively. There is a parallelism and connection, however, to the first group of statements: §4 mirrors §1: women must avert their gaze from sun and moon, and keep themselves far away from water and fire, i.e. the sources of purity and light are protected from the source of pollution of those elements in §4. §5 mirrors §2: women who have given birth to a new human life must abstain from looking and touching the sacred elements of which God is affirmed to be the Creator of everything in the world. §6 mirrors §3: the woman who has miscarried must be completely constrained in her movement and speech, which reflects the ritual of the tying of the kusti and reciting of holy words (the word nirang is probably behind the general, Arabo-Persian term abrār), both of which are used to smite evil as it attacks life. Zoroastrian women in the three conditions mentioned in §§4–6 are called bi namāz ‘without prayer’ in Zoroastrian tradition, because they are forbidden to utter holy words for a specified duration. The dastur’s words in the first three statements reassured the rajah of the similarity of the foreigners’ religion to his own: the latter three statements emphasise that this religion is internally coherent not just in the temple precincts but at large in Zoroastrian society. By stating that their womenfolk are well controlled by the religion the dastur indicates symbolically that their society as a whole is well controlled. Stipulations about the maintenance of purity rules with regard to men in particular would have been understood as being specifically about the private and personal conduct of men: by contrast, however, stipulations about the purity of women were understood to be indexical of societal norms and controls. The ritual solutions to the problems of regulating organic and specifically sexual life of women are a coded way of indicating that the Zoroastrians are highly competent at controlling and containing themselves at large. Such is generally the symbolic burden carried by women in many traditional societies.80 80 See in particular my essay on this section of the QS Williams, 1999. I have written about Zoroastrian purity rules in the light of Mary Douglas’s and other anthropologists’ work: Williams 1989, 1994, and 1997; see also Douglas 1966, and 1975, 47ff.

180

chapter four 180 This woman sits in total abstinence

The reason for her abstinence, according to the Persian Revāyat of Nariman Hushang dated 1478 C.E., is that she is zan-e nasāmand ‘a woman who has brought forth dead matter (nasā)’, and ‘for three days, no water or (food) cooked in water is allowable until the given hour on the fourth day and one more hour pass by and then it is allowable to give her water.’81 It may be noted that, in the Persian Revāyats generally, and in the older, Pahlavi and Avestan, texts on purity, meticulous attention is given to the rules governing the treatment of women after a still-birth. 191 The dastur gave to it the name of Sanjān The meaning of this verse as I have translated it is that the Zoroastrian dastur named the new town after a town called Sanjān in Iran. The verse is repeated in the QZH (175) with a variation in the wording of the second meṣrā‘ by Shāpur: mar u rā nām-e sanjān goft dastur / besān-e molk-e irān sākht por nur

Cereti, however, gives this verse with a quite different meaning from that of (my translation of) QS 191, as he translates: The dastur called it Sanjān and he made it full of glory as the land of Irān.

Nevertheless Cereti says in a footnote: ‘This verse would confirm the theory that Sanjan was founded by the Parsis and called thus after a village in the district of Kwaf in Khorasan’,82 i.e. in spite of his own translation he has understood the verse as I have translated it. However, as I have said in the note to 136 above, considering the amount of evidence that the port had existed for several centuries previously, it seems likely that the mention of their own settlement being called Sanjān refers to the Zoroastrians’ nostalgic act of self-identification with a place in their original homeland Iran and does not signify that they

81 82

Dhabhar 1932, 233, Unvala 1922, II, 381. Cereti 1991, 96 and fn. 107.

commentary

181

founded the port and larger town, of which their ‘Sanjān’ was almost certainly only a satellite. 194 One day they had some business with the prince Modi estimated that the āteshbahrām dedicated to Bahrām must have taken approximately five years to establish after the Zoroastrian arrival on the mainland of Gujarat—a reasonable guess, considering that, as he and the QS state, the religious requisites (ālāt) had had to be brought from Khorasan. S.H. Hodivala completely rejected this assumption, stating: ‘All that Bahman says is that they went to the Raja one day after they were settled in the town’83 (Hodivala’s italics). The italics disguise the fact that the text actually says: ‘one day they had some business with the prince’ (be yak ruz uftāde kār bā rāy) not ‘one day after they were settled in the town’. Similarly QZH has the verse hame mardān-e din raftand yaki ruz benazd-e jādi rāne bā del suz One day the men of the religion went enthusiastically to Jādi Rāna.84

The point is that this meeting with Jādi Rāna was just the beginning of a process that did not begin immediately after they were ‘settled in the town’, but which would have taken a considerable time to complete. Modi’s estimate of the time lapse remains plausible. 196–212ff. Establishment of the Fire of Bahrām As we may gather from the text of the QS, the consecration of an āteshbahrām is the highest and most elaborate rite of the Zoroastrian tradition, requiring meticulous preparation of the site and, also, as is detailed in the Vendidād85 and other ancient texts, the collection and purification of 16 different types of fire.86 The QS gives much more attention than does QZH to the requests of the dastur for what must

83

Hodivala 1920 104, n. 30. QZH 180, my translation. 85 Chapter 8.73–96. 86 For a general account see Modi, 1922, chapter IX, ‘Consecration Ceremonies. Consecration of the Sacred Fires and the Fire-Temples’, 210ff. 84

182

chapter four

be done to establish an āteshbahrām, especially with regard to the exclusivity and sacrosanct nature of the area around it. Verses 196–200, 205–207 of the QS are not represented in the QZH. 197a We need to clear the land three leagues around, ‘League’ here translates Persian farsang (modern farsakh) which is cognate with Old Persian parasang, a measure of distance thought to be equivalent to about 3 miles.87 The Greeks rendered the word as παρασάγγης and understood it to be about 30 stades (5.33 km or 3.3 English miles).88 Thus the text of the QS is recording a tradition that the land had to be cleared of non-Zoroastrians for 10 miles around. The text carefully explains the reason for the exclusion zone as stemming from the fragility of the rite of nirang for the consecration of the new āteshbahrām. The land where the new fire-temple is to be consecrated is reserved for Zoroastrian men of learning (behdin-e farzāne). Similarly, in 206 mard-e behdin probably refers to Zoroastrian priests, as again it is clarified in the 207 that they are to be mard-e farhang, i.e. learned men. 197b so it is proper for the rite of Nirang. Dastur Dr F.M. Kotwal, currently the leading authority on Zoroastrian ritual, defines nirang as follows: A Zoroastrian ritual: a short rite; ritual directions given in Pahlavi or Gujarati in Avestan liturgical texts; the text of the Pazand dībācha, so called from its opening words nīrang pīrōzgar bād (‘may the ritual be successful’); consecrated bull’s urine; a short, efficacious holy spell.89

The modern phenomenological categories ‘rite’ and ‘ritual’ have no exact equivalents in traditional Zoroastrian terminology. More specific terms are used, such as Pahlavi yazišn, yašt, nērang. Although in the QS we have the apparently general term kār-e din ‘religious action, 87 See A. Houtum-Schindler, ‘On the Length of the Persian Farsakh’, Proceedings of the Royal Geographical Society and Monthly Record of Geography, New Monthly Series, Vol. 10, No. 9 (Sep., 1888), pp. 584–588. 88 A.D.H. Bivar, ‘Achaemenid Coins, Weights and Measures’, Cambridge History of Iran, vol. 2, 628, citing Herodotus, The Histories, II.6. 89 Kotwal and Boyd, 140.

commentary

183

ritual’ (200, 210), it refers to the ritual, i.e. as denoted in this phrase kār-e nirang, ‘the act of nirang’. In fact, in the Pahlavi texts nērang had either the specific meaning of ‘incantation’ or, metonymically, as mentioned by Kotwal, it referred to the substance nērang/nirang which is the result of the priestly service of yašt ī nērang dēn.90 Yašt ī nērang dēn is the long rite for the consecration of gōmēz,91 into what came to be called nērang (Persian nirang), i.e. the sacred substance used in various acts of purification and consecration.92 ‘Nirang’ would have been essentially important for the highest rite of all, the establishment of an āteshbahrām. 206–207 Three leagues around, the infidels were routed . . . This is one of the few places in the QS where there is duplication of the sense in two successive couplets (cf. next note and 293–4). With the triple repetition of namānde [. . .] kas ‘No one remained’, and after the assertive claims of the petition to Jādi Rāna in 196–200, the whole passage is a deliberate affirmation of Zoroastrian religious exclusivity sanctioned and enabled by the sovereign owner of that land himself, Jādi Rāna. 215b–216a the requisites had come from Khorāsān This phrase is another instance of repetition for the sake of emphasis, as in verses 206–207. ‘Requisites’ is a translation of ālat (pl. ālāt), Arabic for ‘tool, instrument’ or as it is clearly used in verses 157 and 303, ‘weapons’. In this context, however, the term has the specialised, priestly meaning of the requisite elements,93 both of ritual apparatus and other, organic items, for sacred ritual, here specifically of constituting an āteshbahrām. Modi lists the general meaning of ālāt as ‘the sacrificial plates, cups and other instruments . . . religious utensils’ (Modi, 1922 271–3). Mary Boyce thought that the term here was a specific reference

90 See Mary Boyce’s discussion of Iranian Zoroastrian village practice in the 1960s in Boyce, 1977, 93f. and fn. 1. 91 The urine of the sacred temple bull. 92 On this see Kotwal and Boyd, 1982, esp. 168ff., and Kotwal and Boyd, 1991, and also Modi, 1922, ch. XI, ‘The consecration of the Ālāt or religious requisites’. 93 Kotwal’s definition in Kotwal and Boyd, 1991, 131, and see further 62–67.

184

chapter four

to the actual means for enthroning the āteshbahrām, and stated emphatically, in a personal communication, ‘it is 100% improbable (pace Hodivala and Eduljee . . .) to refer to a mason’s or a carpenter’s tools.’ Furthermore she wrote: the huge importance to the Parsi priests, of whatever panth, is that these ālāt—including ash from an Iranian āteshbahrām—provide a vital link between the Sanjana fire (and so all other Parsi āteshbahrāms) and the Iranian ones—a silsile which they suppose goes back to the earliest days of Zoroastrianism. Hence the stress on these ālāt being brought back from Khorasan.94

It is true that this is the interpretation the Parsi priestly tradition has put on this passage of the QS, but it is nevertheless surprising that such a crucial point of continuity and significance was not more emphasised by Bahman. In verse 219 he is elliptical in his reference to the making of the new fire, basā az barg o sāz āvarde budand be ḥokm-e din hamān ātash nomudand They’d brought supplies and ample apparatus: they made the fire according to tradition.

The QZH is more explicit, stating that two priests were sent to retrieve the ritual requisites from Velāyet ‘The Land’, i.e. Iran: du mowbad rā ze hendustān ferestād be sar ḥadd-e velāyet raft ān rād hame ālāt āvardand az ān jā be nazdik-e radān o mowbadān-hā ‘amal kardand be ān ālāt dastur ke āvarde bud az irān-e por nur chu az shahr-e khorāsān hamchonin sāz ke āvardand ān yārān bekhwod bāz berasm-e din-e zartosht-e sefetmān bekarde kār-e ātash nik mardān shode martab niku ātash varahrām neshānide verā dastur-e khwoshnām He sent two ritual priests from Hendustan those true men went up to The Land’s frontier. From there they brought all of the requisites back to the chief priests and the ritual priests. The dastur used those requisites in ritual

94

Personal communication, April 9, 2003.

commentary

185

which had been brought from luminous Iran. When those companions brought back by themselves all those ingredients from Khorasan, The good men made the fire according to the religion of Zartosht Spitamān. The fire of Varahrām was well prepared: the dastur of good name established it.95

218 And there were with them several alchemists. This verse seems to allude to the special insights afforded by God to alchemists (kimiyāgar), with their ‘supplies and ample apparatus’ (219 basā az barg o sāz) brought from Khorasan. What precisely their role was in the establishment of the āteshbahrām is not apparent, but it seems to be subsidiary. I deduce this from the fact that in 219 the tense of the verb changes from pluperfect āvarde budand ‘they had brought’ in 219a, to the preterite ātash nomudand ‘they made the fire’ in 219b, and that presumably the subject of the verb similarly changes from ‘the alchemists’ to ‘all of the priests and elders’ of the following verse (that is, it is not ‘the alchemists’ who are principally responsible for the establishment of the fire). 219b–220a They made the fire according to tradition, With sacred rites the priests and elders all In 219b Bahman uses the Arabic phrase be ḥ okm-e din, ‘according to tradition’, lit. by the law of the religion’, and similarly, in 220a, instead of using a Zoroastrian technical term for ‘ritual’, ‘rite’ (see above note to 197b), he uses the Arabic word rasm, which is generally translated as ‘custom, way’, as in QS 152, 181, 263. Considering that rasm has a root meaning of ‘draw’, ‘describe’, and ‘prescribe’, hence ‘rule’ and ‘custom’, it is appropriate for the prescriptions of how the place of the āteshbahrām must be drawn out. In 220b the verb neshānde, is a highly traditional usage, as neshāstan occurs in Pahlavi texts96 to describe the ritual establishment of the āteshbahrām. As I have noted elsewhere, 95

QZH 190–195, in my translation: see Cereti’s note to this passage of the QZH, Cereti 1991, 97, n. 117. 96 E.g. such as the Vendīdād 8 and Pahlavi Rivāyat Accompanying the Dādestān ī Dēnig 18.

186

chapter four

several passages in later Zoroastrian literature stress the importance of establishing “Victorious” fires (dedicated to Bahram, yazad of victory), and the vital role which these play in the survival of the community in Islamic times.97 220b set up the Irān Shāh in light on light Here at a central point of the QS, symbolically and textually, Bahman names the fire shah-e irān ‘King of Iran’, and also at verses 363 and 399. The name by which the fire is more widely known, Irān Shāh, is also mentioned in the QS, at verses 355 and 408. The text of the QZH 195, which has been derived from QS 220, does not name the fire, and indeed irānshāh/shāh-e irān is never named as such in the QZH. When discussing the Irānshāh fire in her EI entry on the subject, M. Boyce makes what is, in some respects, a strange opening statement: Irānshāh, the term now used by the Parsis as the name of their oldest sacred fire, the Ātesh Bahrām . . . established originally at Sanjān and now installed at Udwada, both in Gujarat; but this usage cannot be traced to earlier than the beginning of the twentieth century A.C.

She then discusses ‘the Iranian evidence’ for the use of the term as the name of the āteshbahrām of Kerman, citing the 1626/7 revāyat of Bahman Aspandiyār in which the dastur of Kerman, Nushiravān Marzbān, names it as such. She also finds that ‘Irānshāh’ is attested as a proper name borne by Iranian priests as early as the late 15th century. However, when she turns to discuss the evidence from outside Iran, she asserts: The Parsi evidence for the use of this term is purely literary, the only source being the Qesse-ye Sanjān, a poem composed by the priest Bahman Kaikobād, who completed it in 1599.

Boyce recognises that this composition predates that of the Iranian revāyat she previously cited as evidence for the term’s use in Iran, and so she has a ‘problem . . . as to how their similar use of the term Irānshāh came about’. She explains it in two ways, namely either that Bahman had been privy to literary contacts between Iranian and Parsi Zoroastrians, for which evidence has not survived, or alternatively that 97 See Williams 1990, vol. II, 156ff., referring to the Persian Rivāyats (ed. Unvala, 1922, I, 73, tr. Dhabhar, 1932, 62, and Ṣad Dar Bondahesh (Dhabhar 1909, 17. 1–5, tr. Dhabhar 1932, 515).

commentary

187

his use of the term ‘Irānshāh’ was part of a general Zoroastrian tradition of religious verse brought with them by the migrant Parsis and maintained by the priests of Sanjān since the founding of their sacred fire.

Boyce’s second alternative is tantamount to admitting that the QS could be the very evidence for the original naming of the Sanjān āteshbahrām which, in the dismissal of her opening statement, she refuses to acknowledge. Boyce notes that this name was not used to refer to this most sacred Parsi fire in other documents, from the 15th to the 18th century, and that it was merely referred to as the āteshbahrām: this is easily explained, since during all these centuries it was the only āteshbahrām in India. By the end of the 19th century there were a number of āteshbahrāms established in India, in Udvada, Navsāri, Surat and several in Bombay: it is understandable that by the late 19th and early 20th century, with the translation of the QS into Gujarati and English, the name Irānshāh should have come back into usage to distinguish it as the oldest āteshbahrām in the Parsi Indian tradition. Boyce thought that the Sanjana priests in the early 20th century had ‘evolved the explanation that [the āteshbahrām] had been so called because it was consecrated to be the earthly representative of Yazdegerd III’. In fact the interpretation is an obvious one to be derived from a reading of the QS. For example, before it is even consecrated it is referred to as a king (shāhi) by Jādi Rāna (202): It was my choice with all my soul for this, that in my life there should be such a king.

Later, Changā bin Āsā says (385–386): I wish that we could bring the King of kings from there to here, you people of good will. If every day we were to look upon that king, the merit would be very good.

Moreover, Boyce incorrectly cites Modi as having published this interpretation in his 1905 publication. Modi makes no mention of a connection with the Sasanian king. He used the name ‘Irân-shâh’ because he was discussing the text which names the fire as such.98 In sum, Boyce’s scepticism about the evidence of the QS concerning the name of the Irān Shāh fire seems misconceived. It is more

98

Boyce cites Modi 1905, 71–3.

188

chapter four

perplexing considering that the QS was written by a priest who was directly descended from the founding fathers of the Parsi priesthood, to whom the subject of the authentic descent of the fire from an Iranian āteshbahrām would have been a matter of the highest importance. Moreover, Boyce herself relies on the evidence of the QS (though unacknowledged): she states that the ‘privilege of serving the Fire remains with nine families all descended from the three priests who rescued it from the sack of Sanjān.’ To regard the evidence for the name ‘Irān Shāh’ as being purely literary is, in effect, to regard the QS as a ‘literary’ text (whatever, anachronistically in this context, that might mean), and not what it is, namely a religious poem written by a learned priest to record and glorify the tradition he represents. 223 prepared a special jashn with a feast Persian jashn is derived from Avestan yasna- ‘act of worship’: in Zoroastrian usage it came to mean a solemn feast, a congregational prayer of thanksgiving and a convivial meeting or social entertainment. This verse is repeated in the QZH. At times it is clear that the QZH is paraphrasing the QS, as for example when QS 224 and 225a are elided in QZH 198. 225–229 Dispersal in the land of Hend As the crow flies, Bānkānir (modern Wankaner) is 350 km north-west of Sanjān, in Rajkot; the other towns are, respectively: Kambāyat (modern Khambat) some 250 km, Bharuch (written Bahruch) and A[n]klisar (modern Ankleshwar) some 200 km, Baryāv (modern Variav) 130 km and Navsāri 100 km due north of Sanjān. It is significant, as Nanji has pointed out, that these five locations named as places of Zoroastrian settlement are, like Sanjān, coastal towns, or sites close to, the Gujarat coast.99 Nanji suggests, on this basis, and also on the evidence of the trade ceramics, glass beads etc. that have been excavated at Sanjan, that the Zoroastrian community was from the start a trading, not an agricultural, community: ‘Had they been predominantly agricultural,

99

Nanji 2007 50.

commentary

189

it is logical to suppose that they would have chosen to move into the more fertile plains of the hinterland.’100 227 Some went in the direction of Baryāv The QZH does not mention Baryāv. Three verses of the QS 230–232 sum up, without giving any detail, all the narrative of the QZH 202–230 in which all the areas of Zoroastrian habitation are divided into five districts (taqsim), and also the alleged pawning of Sanjān to the shāh of the farangāns, supposedly the Portuguese; but see Cereti’s note.101 232 From those days in the city of Sanjān none of the dastur’s houses have remained The QZH states, perhaps in error, the opposite sense of this verse (232b): ze mowbadān bemāndand khāne chandān102 ‘some of the mowbad’s houses have remained’.

Verses 233–239 of the QS are not represented in the QZH. 233 There came upon them a decree of Fate This verse is an example of an opaque, unspecified statement which has been seized upon by historians who have used the QS to find shreds of evidence—in this case S.H. Hodivala—supposedly pointing to historical events not even mentioned in the QS. Hodivala interpreted the verse as a reference to an event he thought had been glaringly excised from Parsi memory, namely that in 1419 A.C. the Irān Shāh āteshbahrām had been temporarily removed from Sanjān to Thānā. Hodivala’s elaborate arguments are not repeated here: they are to be found in his essay ‘The Traditional Dates of Parsi History’.103

100 101 102 103

Ibid., loc. cit. Cereti 1991, 99, n. 126. Ed. Cereti 1991, 99, with my translation. Hodivala, 1920, 18–36.

190

chapter four 240b in that town many of his offspring lived

This verse refers to the generations of Dastur Khojaste’s descendants who lived in Sanjān. Dastur F.M.P. Kotwal estimates that Bahman was the twelfth generation descendant of this dastur.104 From this point the QZH paraphrases the QS 240–267, i.e. down to the beginning of the battle encounters, all of which (QS 268–350) the QZH entirely omits. 243b the king got news about the prince of Sanjān The QS has moved ahead seven hundred years in 240. Verse 243 is oddly placed as it anticipates both the introduction of Sultan Mahmud in 246 without naming him, and also the sense of 247. The reference to a ‘prince (rāy) of Sanjān’ does, however, tend to support Modi’s suggestion that Jādi Rāna (and therefore also his successors), was actually a local ruler and not the King of Gujarat—see above note to 138. 244b and Islam had arrived in Chapānir This refers to the coming of Islam to India. Modi follows the Islamic historians who associate the beginning of Islam in India with Sabuktigin, dating his coming to India about 990. In fact Sabuktigin never crossed the Indus, having led only two expeditions against the Hindus, and it was his son Mahmud of Ghazna (r. 388–421 A.H. / 998–1030 C.E.) who can be credited, somewhat later than Modi’s date, of having brought Islam to India, i.e. in the early years of the eleventh century C.E. ‘Chapānir’ of the QS must be the great fort of Champānir / Champaner, now a UNESCO World Heritage Site 50 km north-east of Vadodara (Baroda). It was the seat of a Hindu dynasty from 1300 to 1484, when it was captured by Sultan Mahmud Shah I of Gujarat (r. 1459–1511).105 It seems safe to say that the poem’s Sultan Mahmud Shah is intended by Bahman to be this Sultan Mahmud Shah I of Gujarat (the only other Sultan Mahmud Shah of Gujarat was his grandson, who ruled for two and a half months in 1526). This does not mean, however, that Bahman 104

Kotwal 1990. Modi 1905, 32f. quotes from three Persian historical texts which all state that the Muslim conquest of Chāmpānir took place in 889 AH = 1484 A.C. 105

commentary

191

was correct in associating the events at Sanjān with this Mahmud Shah. Mahmud Shah I of Gujarat is known as Begaŕhā, from Gujarati be ‘two’ and gaŕh ‘fort’, because besides Champaner he captured another major Hindu fort, Junagaŕh in the Saurashtra peninsula (about 100 km from Diu). According to the historian John McLeod106 it is extremely unlikely that the battle reported in the QS ever occurred, or at least not in the way that it is described there.107 There is also a possible connection, according to Prof. McLeod, between the manner in which Mahmud features QS and Akbar’s final defeat of Mahmud Begaŕha’s great-great grandson, Sultan Muzaffar III who ruled 1560–1572. Muzaffar III was defeated by Akbar, who annexed the Gujarat Sultanate: six years later, Muzaffar escaped captivity and rebelled, eventually regaining control of much of Gujarat. In 1591, just 8 years before the composition of the QS, Akbar finally crushed Muzaffar, who killed himself shortly afterwards.108 245 A fortunate and virtuous king appeared Bahman’s complimentary description of Sultān Mahmud is somewhat surprising, since he was the very cause of Sanjān’s destruction. His reputation as having been the greatest of the Sultans of Gujarat, and whose glorious rule increased trade, agriculture and general prosperity, seems to have stood the test of time even in Zoroastrian memory. So widespread was his reputation as a great and cultured ruler, who was patron of both Muslim and Sanskrit literature at his court, that it is recorded that it was only a mortal illness which prevented him from receiving an embassy from the Safavid Shāh Ismā‘il in 1508.109

106 Prof. John McLeod of the Department of History, University of Louisville, to whom I am indebted for the above identification. 107 On Mahmud Begaŕhā see G.S. Colin’s entry in the EI, 6:50–51, which includes a good bibliography of primary and secondary sources; see also ‘Chāmpānir’, EI 2:10–11. 108 See the EI article on the history of Gujarāt, 2:1129. 109 Colin, in the EI, loc. cit.

192

chapter four 246b his subjects called him ‘Shadow of the Glorious’

Modi comments that the title żell-e sobḥ ān seems to be an allusion to the title of ‘the Protector of Religion’ (din panāh) given to him by his people.110 248a A vizier said one day to Ulugh Khān As the Encyclopedia of Islam notes, Ulugh Khān (Turkish ‘Great Khān’) is ‘a title borne by various of the ethnically Turkish Delhi Sultans in 7th–8th/13th–14th century Muslim India.’ The honorific title ‘was further borne by non-Turks including several Ḥ abshis, hence of servile, black East African origin, above all in the Sultanate of Gudjarāt.’111 Sultan ʿAlāʾoddin Khalji of Delhi, who brought Gujarāt under Muslim rule almost two hundred years before Mahmud Begaŕhā’s time, had a right-hand man named Ulugh Khān whom he had sent with an army to plunder. The Ulugh Khān of the QS probably represents a conflation of the renowned generals of exotic foreign origin.112 250 he went from there just like a puff of smoke, This simile for the speed of an action occurs frequently in Ferdowsi’s Shāhnāme, e.g. be giv āngahi goft bar sān-e dud ‘enān-e tagāvar bebāyad besud Then he gave the order to Giv, ‘You must seize the reins of your horse and go swiftly as smoke.113

254 Of thirty thousand handpicked cavalry, all double-mounted famous battle heroes. Hodivala (1920, 108 and n. 40) leaves the line as written, but thinks, like the author of the Parsi Prakash, that Bahman meant to write

110 111 112 113

Modi 1905, 32. EI ‘Ulugh Khān’, and see also the article on ‘Ḥ abshi’ EI, Vol. III, 16a. Again, I am grateful to Prof. McLeod for his learned opinion on these matters. Text Clinton 1996, 56/58, with my translation.

commentary

193

3,000 seh hazār not 30,000 (si hazār). Eastwick translated as ‘two thousand’, Anquetil Duperron ‘Soixante mille’(!). Hodivala also notes (1920, 108, n. 41): ‘A trooper is called “Duaspah” if he has two horses and “Sihaspah”, if three, in order to change horses during elgahars or forced marches.’ 256a He called the mowbads all to him at once The idea that the Zoroastrian priests and laymen were the rajah’s first port of call when he had recovered from his swoon is a beguiling conceit: according to the Jādi Rāna’s condition of settlement, by this time Zoroastrians had not been allowed to bear arms for seven centuries (see above verse 157). 259 Now gird your loins in this my hour of need He is asking not merely for advice, but that they should defend his kingdom with their lives, and that they should be leaders (rahbar) in the vanguard of the battle. This verse is therefore a fulfilment of the claim made in 163b ‘we’ll slash your enemies in all directions.’ 262b we shall behead a hundred thousand foes The hyperbole of this verse sets the tone of the next 90 verses. The battle scenes that follow are composed in the richest language of the whole text, not just in terms of graphic description of carnage, but even more so in the liveliness of the metaphor and imagery, and the inventiveness of the narrative structure, with its speeches, dialogues and reversals of fortune. At this climax of the mythological reverie Bahman musters all his resources to depict the heroism and pathos of the Zoroastrians on the battlefield of India. 264b No single one of us will turn his back . . . Like 163b, this is an example of a verse which is uttered in anticipation of the impending fulfilment later in the poem (e.g. 303).

194

chapter four 265b bestowed on each all kinds of robes of honour

khal‘at ‘robes of honour’ may have been given to reward them for their loyalty, or may refer to military regalia, uniforms or even the weapons of which they had been stripped by Jādi Rāna. The word is used in a similar passage in QZH 256. Hodivala, however, has a much more specific idea, which is worth repeating: I take this to mean a complete suit, i.e. of seven pieces. “There were,” says Irvine, “five degrees of khilat”, those of three, five six or seven pieces.* * A three piece khila‘at given from the khila‘at-Khānah consisted of a turban (dastar), a long coat with very full skirts (Jamah) and a scarf for the waist (kamarband). A five piece robe came from the Tosha Khānah (storehouse for presents), the extra pieces being a turban ornament (Sarpech) and a band for laying across the turban (Balaband). For the next grade, a tightfitting jacket with short sleeves called a Half-sleeve (Nimah-astin) was added. A European writer, Tavernier, (Ball, I, 163)114 thus details the seven piece Khilat: (1) cap, (2) a long gown (Kabah), (3) a close-fitting coat (arkalon) which I take to be allhaliq, a light coat, (4) two pairs of trousers, (5) two shirts, (6) two girdles, (7) a scarf for the head or neck.” Army of the Moguls, 29.’115

270 White dawn shone forth out of the gloomy night . . . Bahman uses the device found in martial epic narratives all over the world, that begins the description of battle with a reference to the dawn, both here and in verse 313.116 The normal order of things is inverted: instead of man observing heaven, now heaven watches the momentous human events on earth. 271ff. Then Ulugh Khān and all his cavalry . . . The following passage builds the intensity of the scene in stages, emphasising the might of the Muslim army in the bedecking of its troops, horses and elephants. Verse 275 adds another colour of the epic writer’s

114

I.e. Tavernier, Travels in India tr. by V. Ball. Hodivala, 1920, 109, n. 43, quoting from William Irvine, The Army of the Great Moguls (London, 1903). 116 Compare its use in e.g. Homer, Virgil, Ferdowsi and the anonymous Old French Song of Roland. 115

commentary

195

palette to the chaos, namely the din of the battlefield, also referred to in 313, 314 and 339. 276–352 The Battles Against Sultan Mahmud’s General Ulugh Khān The battle scenes are modelled on the most famous martial encounters of Persian literature, namely those of the Shāhnāme, both in terms of vocabulary and structure of the passages. The sequence of fighting in the QS is loosely structured on the most famous of all the Shāhnāme encounters, between Rostam and his son Sohrāb. In Ferdowsi’s text the encounter is exclusively between the two heroes who, with tragic irony, do not recognise each other as father and son. In the Shāhnāme the action takes place in three encounters over two successive days. In the QS there are three encounters, each followed by a dramatic pause for reflection: 276–282

283–287 288–309

312–321 322–346

347–352

between the armies of the Muslim general Ulugh Khān and that of the Hindu rajah aided by the Zoroastrians: the Hindu forces are routed; dramatic pause, when a ‘faithful Zoroastrian’ rallies the Zoroastrian warriors; they fight a battle for three days and nights, led by the hero Ardashir, until the Muslims are defeated and Ulugh Khān and his Muslim army retreat; dramatic pause, when troops are mustered on both sides; Ardashir goes out for single-handed combat with an unnamed opponent—whom Ardashir slays; in response Ulugh Khān orders that Ardashir and the Hindu rajah are slain in a revenge attack; dramatic pause, for reflection on the cruel blow Fate has dealt them. 276 . . . one for Islam, one for the Hindu prince

Bahman leaves the reader in no doubt that this is no mere political struggle, but the struggle of India for its Hindu religious heritage against the invasion of Islam—and so the Zoroastrians have an opportunity to revenge themselves for their defeats by the Arabs on the battlefields of Qādisiyya and Nehāvand.

196

chapter four 277 That night and day were stunned to see that sight . . .

This verse, and 279 and 293–295a are strongly reminiscent of Ferdowsi’s epic style and bring to mind many passages. For example, we may compare the following passage from the Shāhnāme, which seems to be directly imitated by Bahman: The flash of spears and lances through the dust were like bright flames seen through a deep blue haze. There were so many flags and shining spears, So many golden shields and gilded boots, It seemed a cloud as dark as ebony Had formed, and rained down drops of yellow pitch. In all the world there was no day or night . . .117

N.B. The case that Bahman is writing directly under the influence of the Shāhnāme is proved by verse 347 (on which see below). 282 Not one man in that army had survived It seems that this would refer to the Hindu army, as in 285: now the Zoroastrians come into their own. The device of an anonymous speech introduces the figure of the warrior who is to lead the Zoroastrians to victory. The fact that in 284 the speaker is called ān behdin-e dindār ‘the faithful Zoroastrian’ could imply that it was a priest warrior who urged them to have courage in battle (dindār is elsewhere used for Ādarbād-e Mahrasfand, for the dastur who speaks to Jādi Rāna, and for Changā Āsā). The close juxtaposition of the speech and the entrance of Ardashir also gives the impression that it was he who addressed the Zoroastrians as he leads them into battle:- so we have the coalescence of the priest and warrior located at the heart of the action. It is significant that he is named after the first Sasanian king, who has already been celebrated in verse 84 for having restored the religion again after the decadence brought by Alexander. 293–294 The world-illuminating sun was hidden . . . After 292, which states that order has been destroyed and the soldiers have run amok, this verse, the sense of which is repeated in the follow-

117

Tr. Clinton 1996, 79.

commentary

197

ing verse, is the first of a series of twelve descriptive couplets (293–304), each a vivid cameo of the horror of three days of butchery (305). 324 girt with an Indian sword and spear in hand This is another motif which recalls the Shāhnāme scene between between Rostam and Sohrāb, where it is said both heroes girt themselves with Indian swords. e.g., yaki tigh-e hendi be chang andarash, ‘and in his fist he held an Indian sword.’118 325–327 He bellowed at them suddenly: ‘O lions! . . . There is an epic tradition at least as old as Homer whereby warrior champions engage in a verbal exchange before or during their mortal combat.119 This passage is reminiscent of many in the Shāhnāme, e.g. before Gordāfrid’s fight with Sohrāb, in which the theme is ‘Where are your heroes, who your Pahlavāns / and who your brave and battletested chiefs?’ 333b . . . for both of them grew weary of their lives. At this point, just before victory turns suddenly to tragedy, there is an echo of Sohrāb’s encounter in the Shāhnāme, when he tells Humān of how Rostam had managed to distract him at the moment when he could have slain him: Humān replies: ay javān / be siri rasidi homānā ze jān ‘O youth, I see that you’ve grown weary of your life.’120 342b but then, without God’s law, what is a man? This is an example of an authorial intervention, in which a philosophical aside is voiced by someone external to the action of the narrative in the space of a single verse or an extended passage. An example from the Shāhnāme begins thus:

118

Clinton 1996, 90f. Famous examples are Achilles and Hector in Homer’s Iliad, Bk. 22, and Aeneas and Turnus in Virgil’s Aeneid, Bk. 12. 120 Shāhname, tr. Clinton 1996, 144–7. 119

198

chapter four jahānā shekofti ze kerdār-e tost ham az tu shekaste ham az tu dorost Oh, world! How strange your workings are! From you Comes both what’s broken and what’s whole as well.121

348 When inauspicious Fate has turned to anger, the very hardest stone is turned to wax. The comparison of the present passage of the QS with the Ferdowsi’s account of Rostam and Sohrāb’s tragic struggle may have seemed fanciful, as if it might be far-fetched that a Zoroastrian priest in India could have been so inspired by the Shāhnāme to attempt to write in imitation of it. Yet, a comparison of QS 348 with the following couplet from the Shāhnāme, at the beginning of the final encounter between Rostam and Sohrāb, proves not just that Ferdowsi was an influence on Bahman, but that Bahman was directly borrowing poetical ideas and imagery from him: harāngah ke khashm āvarad bakht-e shum konad sang-e khārā be kerdār-e mum Whenever evil fortune shows its wrath, It makes a block of granite soft as wax.122

353b In Hend there is a hill near Bahārut This is modern Bahrot, near Sanjān, on the Maharashtra-Gujarat border. Parsis still today go on pilgrimage there and celebrate jashns in honour of the place which, they believe, once protected their āteshbahrām for twelve years. 359 And then three hundred of them riding horses . . . The Irān Shāh fire is brought down from Bahārut and is greeted triumphantly by the people of the town of Bānsdah. Here Bahman uses imagery reminiscent of eschatological myth:

121 122

Ibid., 119. Ibid., 148f.

commentary

199

And then three hundred of them riding horses received them with a group of notables. They brought it to the town with much thanksgiving, as when an ailing man receives a cure (pāzahr). From that time Bānsdah was like spring had come to bloom and in this way the years rolled by.

The unexpected simile ‘as when an ailing man receives a cure’ is evocative of an epithet of Zoroaster and the eschatological saviour Sōshāns, ‘who will heal the world’. In 360 pāzahr (Pahlavi pādzahr) is literally ‘antidote’, i.e. against the poison meted out by the demons. Most evocative of an eschatological mood is the image cast in the metaphor of springtime. In a chapter 48.107 of the Pahlavi Rivāyat the state of the world after the judgment and renovation of the world is described in similar terms: And the principal kinds of plants will be restored, and there will be no diminution of them, but every place will be like the spring, resembling a garden in which there will be all kinds of plants and flowers; and with the wisdom of this world it is not possible to comprehend and know its wondrousness and worthiness and pleasantness and purity.123

365 And in this way the Persians came to Bānsdah . . . This is the first and only use of the term pārsi in the QS. It is as if the story, with this coining of the name of the new community, has moved from the many past ordeals of the Zoroastrians: it begins a present time that, within 50 more verses, will come down to the lifetime of the author in Navsāri. Bahman seems, from here onwards in the text, not to be looking back to the dark past, but rather at the much desired rebirth of the community, settled and expanding, not in flight. I therefore consider this verse to be the end of D1 and the beginning of D2 in the synoptic chart of chapter 2 above, which is the interim period of change which, with this help of Changā Āsā, is brought to resolution in D3, from 393 ff., with the removal of the Irān Shāh fire to Navsāri.

123

Williams 1990 I, 191; II 88.

200

chapter four 369 The mayor he was, his name Changā bin Āsā

Changā Shāh, as he is referred to in the Revāyat of Nariman Hushang (1478 C.E.), is addressed as sālār-e shahr-e navsāri ‘the chief of the town of Navsāri’,124 and anjomani nām khosrow ‘celebrated and renowned’. The revāyat also records that the Zoroastrians of Iran ‘pronounced blessings . . . and the mercy of God on Changā Shāh because he had ‘secured the exemption of the Behdins of Navsāri from the payment of the capitation tax ( jizyat).125 In the QZH he is referred to as Shāh Changā ebn-e Āsā. In the QZH the name irānshāh is not used for the āteshbahrām: instead it is referred to as ātesh-gāh, ātesh-kade, and ātesh-e varahrān. 371 Whoever had no koshti and no ṣodre, he gave them money at his own expense These terms for the two distinctive items of Iranian and Parsi Zoroastrian dress are variously written and pronounced in Persian and Gujarati pronunciation. Pahlavi kustīg, the sacred cord or waist girdle of 72 lambswool threads becomes kosti, koshti, kushti. Similarly, the Arabic word ṣudra/ṣodre ‘the upper part of the thorax’, became the Zoroastrian term for the sacred undershirt fine muslin, which is variously pronounced sudreh, sedra and sudr by Parsis. Both of these garments are worn by Parsi Zoroastrians from the time of their initiation (usually between age 7–11). Being a Zoroastrian and unable to afford these two fundamental tokens of Zoroastrian identity is here taken as an index of the direst poverty, which is relieved by the philanthropy of C̲h̲angā Āsā. 385–391 Speech of Changā Āsā With this emphatic restatement of the royal nature of the āteshbahrām, the QS has Changā Āsā deliver a speech of seven verses to the assembled community at Navsāri, in which he sets out the advantages of the change

124 125

Shāh.

Unvala 1922, ii, 379.5, Dhabhar 1932, 598. Dhabhar 1932, 600. The rivāyats of 1480 and 1511 are also addressed to Changā

commentary

201

he suggests. The QZH, by contrast refers only to an unnamed varahrān ātesh, in the course of a speech of a mere two and a half verses. The author Shāpurji then spends twelve verses describing the negotiations with the mowbad in Bānsdah. Just as Bahman had omitted the whole sequence of events surrounding the covenant of division of Zoroastrian settlements into five districts, which occupied verses 205–229 of the QZH, so here he remains silent on the journey to Bānsdah, negotiations with the mowbad there and return to Navsāri, which are described at some length in the QZH (292–305). His telling of the story is a more smoothly woven interaction between characters in the narrative, and creates a more positive, idealised impression of the ‘rightness’ of the move: the whole episode of requesting and carrying out the removal of the āteshbahrām from Bānsdah to Navsāri is condensed into just half a verse, 393b: They went and brought it with a hundred honours.

394 Three Zoroastrians were serving it, In this verse behdin, which often has the meaning ‘layman’, is better translated ‘Zoroastrians’, because the ritual context of transporting and caring for the fire would demand that priests, not laymen are meant. (In 401A we see that the three behdin were in fact dasturs.) 396–398 Nāgan Rām . . . Khworshid . . . Jānān ebn-e Sāyer From these three priests, as the scholar-Dastur, F.M. Kotwal says, the nine existing families of Sanjāna priests are descended. Nāgan, son of Rām, is Bahman Kay Qobād’s seventh generation ancestor. With regard to Khworshid Qiyāmoddin (also known as Khorshid Kāmdin), S.H. Hodivala asserts that Bahman’s own preceptor, Hushang, ‘was lineally descended from Khorshid-Kamdin, the [hirbed-e] khworshid-e bozorg-e sanjāna [“the great herbad Khworshid Sanjāna”] in the Revāyats of 1486 and 1511 . . .’126 Jānān ebn-e Sāyer is a Persian rendering of Chāiyyān son of Shāēr. He is called Chāndnān ebn-e Sāyer in the QZH where he also has the epithet ẕāher (which Cereti translates as ‘famous’,

126

Hodivala 1920, 86 (with changes to the transcription).

202

chapter four

explaining it as ‘exoteric, manifest’), perhaps for metrical rather than semantic reasons. 401B The year was seven hundred-eighty-five The date 785 A.Y. is equivalent to 1416 C.E. The oldest extant MSS in which this verse occurs are from the mid-18th century (BL1 and P1). The QZH has a similar verse: sanat gar yazdejerdi rā be dāni hashtād o panj bar haft sad bekhwāni127 If you would know the Yazdegerdi year Say it is eighty-five and seven hundred.

As Modi and Cereti both note, in the margin of the MS of the QZH someone has written in Gujarati that this is the year 788 after the Hejra.128 This would be equivalent to 1386 C.E. i.e. 30 years before the A.Y. date. 404 title: He gives account of the conclusion of the book The wording indicates that the title was not composed by the author but by a later editor, and hence suggests that all the titles, and perhaps also the divisions of the texts indicated by the titles, are later additions. 405 He set my tongue in motion on this subject As in the proem, Bahman’s style is constantly to switch the personal subjects of his verses: he starts with God, but here, after just one verse, he has returned to himself; he then moves to his preceptor/dastur (406), to himself again (407), to his father (408) and to his grandfather (409–414). Verse 415 refocuses on Bahman, and then he wishes for a prayer (do‘ā) for himself for future readers to perform (416), for which he provides a text in 417–419. The theme of Bahman’s reward for his labours is taken up in 422–424, and 430; he mentions his debt to his

127 128

Ed. Cereti 1996, 50, with my translation. Modi 1905, 51, n. 1; Cereti 1996, 102, n. 152.

commentary

203

master again (426–428), and then, with a pious nod to Zoroaster (431) finishes with a kindly wish to the reader to bless him again (432). 420 . . . nine-hundred sixty-nine since Yazdegerd This A.Y. date is equivalent to December 2, 1599 in the Gregorian calendar.129

129

Not 1600 or 1559 as Cereti has it 1991, 11, 13.

CHAPTER FIVE

A MIRROR OR A CLOCK? CONSIDERING HISTORY AND THE MYTH-STORY It is . . . apparent that when Persia was overrun by the Arabs and the alleged ‘flight’ of the Parsis to India occurred, the latter by no means arrived as newcomers. In fact, it seems more than likely that the migration of Parsis to the westcoast of India was not so much a flight as a readjustment of commercial patterns which had arisen long before Islam and, to an extent at least, a response to new opportunities in the transit trade between the Islamic world and al-Hind. Persian dominance in the trade with India pertained in the eighth century and even in the ninth and tenth centuries unconverted Parsis are seen participating in the India trade from areas within the Abbasid caliphate. A possible explanation of the rise of more permanent settlements of Parsis on India’s westcoast is that Arab competition in the Persian Gulf forced them to shift the centre of their activities eastward. André Wink, Al-Hind. The Making of the Indo-Islamic World1

History and Myth-Story Historians of Sasanian and early Islamic Iran are aware of the activity of Zoroastrians (or ‘Parsis’ as Wink inaccurately refers to them) in maritime trading diasporas in those periods. Iranian Zoroastrians (not to mention other Iranian ethnic and religious groups) are known to have been trading with India for centuries before the dates that have been calculated for the arrival of the Parsis according to their chronologies of the QS.2 Wink considers that trade considerations, not religious persecutions, were the main cause of the Parsi exodus,3 and that the demise of Zoroastrianism in Iran was ‘a gradual process of several centuries’. He summarises the account of the QS in his chapter ‘Trading Diasporas in the Indian Ocean’, referring to it both as a story, and as a history

1

Wink 1990, vol. I, 105. On documentary evidence for Sasanian maritime activity and expansion into the Indian Ocean from Africa to Ceylon see, e.g. Whitehouse and Williamson 1973, 43–5. 3 Wink 1990, 105. 2

206

chapter five

(‘re-worked account’).4 Thus it emerges that for historians even the concept of ‘the arrival of the Parsis in India’ is a problematic question, and one which was more a preoccupation of Parsis under British rule than it would have been to the 16th century author of the QS. Nanji and Dhalla have recently reported on and discussed the archaeological evidence for ‘The Landing of the Zoroastrians at Sanjan’.5 They conclude that the most likely date for the migration to Sanjān to have taken place is at the start of the middle phase of their chronology, namely the early to mid-eighth century.6 Nevertheless, they express their general scepticism about the historicity of the QS account: During the nineteen-year stay at Diu, it is logical to suppose that they had contact with the mainland and would therefore have taken an informed decision to relocate themselves at the most hospitable and suitable point on the west coast. The idea that a ship-load of migrants buffeted by the winds was tossed ashore at Sanjan by sheer chance needs to be recognised as a myth.7

I shall discuss the QS in a more positive sense of the word ‘myth’ than Nanji and Dhalla’s use of the term in the latter part of this chapter when I suggest a range of mythological significances in the text. First a brief review is given of some previous scholars’ chronologies of early Parsi history as they have worked them out from the QS. As one author of a work on the QS, H.E. Eduljee, has said, Because it is the oldest account of matters that are of great historical importance to Parsis, the Kisseh has been thoroughly picked to extract the maximum information from it, and this has in turn given rise to controversies.8

The telling phrase in Eduljee’s statement is ‘maximum information’. The text has been seen as a source of chronological information, like a clock or a timetable, for over 150 years. It is not my concern to add to the controversies over which chronology to accept; rather I shall suggest an alternative to further ‘picking’ for ‘maximum information’. This alternative is to see the QS rather as a mirror of Bahman Kay Qobād’s own interests and those of the tradition he represented. Equally,

4 5 6 7 8

Ibid., 106f. Nanji and Dhalla 2007. Ibid., 54. Ibid., 53. Eduljee 1991, 1.

a mirror or a clock?

207

in the 19th and early 20th centuries the reception of the QS, and the controversies surrounding it, reflected the contemporary interests and preoccupations of the community and its intellectuals with regard to Parsi contemplation of the past and the search for an established historical identity in India. As the anthropologist Paul Axelrod wrote several decades ago, the QS is a myth that provides a charter for the capacity of the contemporary Parsi community to provide its members with a characteristic, and separate, identity.9 Axelrod uses the term ‘myth’ in the value-positive, anthropological, sense of a story which expresses a system of ideas, especially to validate social status and identity.10 This subject is taken up again in the latter part of this chapter. The extensive range of chronologies produced in the 19th and early 20th centuries may be seen as falling into three basic types: 1. the traditional chronology, couched mainly in the Gujarati texts; 2. the radical historical revision, best exemplified in the work of S.H. Hodivala; 3. the literalist reading, best exemplified in the work of J.J. Modi. The three focal points of all discussions on this subject are the following events in the QS: A. the Zoroastrians’ abandonment of their homes in Iran (100); B. the arrival of the Zoroastrians at Sanjān, India (136); C. the removal of the Irān Shāh āteshbahrām from Bānsdah to Navsāri (393). Event C. is related directly to another event. D. the Battle, or Sack, of Sanjān, as it has come to be known (243–352). For the Parsis in the 19th and early 20th century by far the most important date to establish was B., i.e. that of the arrival in India. As I have intended this book to be a study of the QS and not of Parsi history, I confine these discussions of the rival chronologies of past scholars to the issue of the dating of the landing B., and leave for other scholars,

9 10

Axelrod 1980, 152. See e.g. Leach 1954, 266.

208

chapter five

who have more of an interest and expertise in matters of Parsi history, to continue the debates on the matter of events A,11 C. and D. The Traditionalist chronology The ‘traditional’ date of the ‘landing’ is the Hindu date Samvat 772, 9th day of Shravan Shud, = 85 A.Y., day Bahman, month Tir = 716 C.E.12 Adding five years to this date it was calculated that the Irān Shāh fire was consecrated in 90 A.Y. = 720/21 C.E. This traditional date of the consecration was still popular and current relatively recently, thanks in part to the writings of S.K. Hodiwala.13 In the 1970s, some 50 years after S.H. Hodivala’s revisionist Studies in Parsi History14 which had refuted the traditional date and moved it forward by more than 200 years to ca. 936 (see below), the traditional date was still being publicly celebrated. On 19th March, 1972 a special congregation of Parsis celebrated the 1251st anniversary of the founding of the Irān Shāh fire: greetings and tributes were sent by no lesser figures than the President of India Varahagiri Venkatagiri, the Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, the Governor of Maharashtra, the Chief of Army Staff (a Parsi), the AirOfficer Commanding-in-Chief (a Parsi), a Justice D.P. Madon of the High Court at Bombay (a Parsi), and many other very eminent Indians. Even then there was some confusion among the worthy well-wishers as to whether they were celebrating the Irān Shāh’s 1250th or 1251st anniversary.15 In his essay in the volume of essays by 17 learned Parsi scholars which commemorated the event of the anniversary, the most eminent Parsi scholar of the time, the High Priest Dasturji Dr H.K. Mirza, pointed out,16 that the Hindu and Parsi dates mentioned above do not correspond, and that various theories had been propounded, and various years proposed ranging from the traditional 716 C.E. to 936

11 Event (A), it is fairly well agreed, was either 641 or 651, depending on whether one takes v. 96 as referring to the defeat or the death of Yazdegerd III. 12 Paymaster 1915, 4. 13 Hodiwala 1920, 1927. S.K. Hodiwala is not to be confused with S.H. Hodivala (on whom see below). 14 Hodivala 1920. 15 This is not the first time in history that so many have publicly acknowledged an anniversary based on such slender evidence: it is one in a long series of religious calculations of the date of origins, which goes back to the ‘creation’ of the world and the Garden of Eden. 16 Chamarbaughvala 1972, 2.

a mirror or a clock?

209

C.E. by Hodivala. Before going on to outline the rest of his ‘Historical Sketch’ along traditional lines, Mirza, perhaps somewhat wistfully in the context, noted: Traditional dates of events and identification of personalities in the early history of the Parsis in India constitute major problems, and they were the subjects of keen controversy. Many of the traditional dates seem to be inconsistent and inconclusive.17

Hodivala’s Historical Revision Modern academic opinion tends to reject the traditional chronology as being founded on a doubtful basis. Nearly a century ago, in October and November 1913, the historian S.H. Hodivala delivered two lectures in Bombay, to the Society for the Promotion of Zoroastrian Research, on ‘The Traditional Dates of Parsi History’, which were subsequently published in what remains his major work on Parsi history.18 The lectures were delivered in the knowledge of Modi’s 1905 book, A Few Events in the Early History of the Parsis, and amounted to a refutation of both the traditional dates and Modi’s reinterpretation of the QS. Hodivala’s introductory remarks illustrate the state of public confusion and also the frustration he felt in tackling the general ignorance of the subject in the community: I propose to devote an hour this evening to an examination of those traditional dates in the history of the Indian Parsis which, in spite of manifold contradictions and inconsistencies, are still quoted with an almost unreasoning confidence by many otherwise well-informed persons, on account of their supposed antiquity or perhaps, only for want of anything better to take their place. It must be a matter of sincere regret, all the same, to every one who desires to acquire and diffuse a well-grounded knowledge of the history of our people in this country, that statements made on the margins and fly-leaves of comparatively recent manuscripts by persons of whose competence, sources of information and sometime even names, we are most unblissfully ignorant, should continue to be taken upon trust and employed as arguments by scholars even in the twentieth century.19

17 18 19

Ibid., loc. cit., n. 1. Hodivala 1920, 1–17, 18–36. Lecture, 25th October, 1923, in ibid., 1.

210

chapter five

The best known traditional date of (A.) was reported in a Gujarati work, History of the Parsis20 of 1826, by Dastur Aspandiarji Kamdinji: Kamdinji focused on the Hindu calendar date Vikram Samvat 772, which corresponded to the 85th year after Yazdegerd III = 716 C.E. In the lecture which followed the opening remarks just quoted, and having just objected to employing arguments on the basis of ‘statements made on the margins and fly-leaves of comparatively recent manuscripts’, Hodivala himself went on to contribute an earlier instance of this traditional dating which, he unselfconsciously added, he had found in a Gujarati note in a mid-18th century manuscript containing the QS and other tales in ‘of Miscellaneous Persian verses’.21 This stated that the date was ‘Friday, Shravan Shud 9, Roz Bahman (2), Mah Tir (4), Samvat 772’.22 The problem which this traditional dating raised for readers of the QS was that it put the date of the Zoroastrians’ abandonment of their homes (QS 100) many years back before the Arab conquest to 616 C.E., i.e. during the reign of Khosrow Parviz, not to mention that, as K.R. Cama had pointed out already in 1870,23 the exact Hindu date does not correspond with the Parsi date cited in Aspandiarji’s book (and Hodivala’s older manuscript). Hodivala solved the problem with characteristic scholarly ingenuity, by making a radical revision to the traditional date and by disregarding the QS itself. By following M. Khareghat’s suggestion24 that the Vikram Samvat date should have been written 992, not 772, because the dates fitted perfectly for that year, Hodivala could announce to his audience: My theory is that V.S. 772 is a very old misreading of V.S.992 which has been transmitted from generation to generation and which is responsible for that chaos which still reigns in Parsi chronology.25

It must be said, however, almost a century after Hodivala’s lecture, that this correction of a supposed numerical mistake is the entire basis of Hodivala’s radical readjustment of the date of the Zoroastrian landing in India from the 8th century C.E. to 936 C.E. (i.e. Vikram Samvat 992).

20

Kadim Tarikh Parsioni Kasar. Hodivala 1920, 2. 22 Ibid., 2 and also given in Hodivala’s paper ‘Jádi Ráná and the Kisseh-i-Sanján’, in ibid., 68. 23 Yazdajardi Tarikh (1870), 17–21. 24 I rely upon Eduljee’s information (1991, 44, n. 5) that M. Khareghat’s calculations are given in S.K. Hodiwala’s Pak Iranshahni Tavarikh (1927), 32–37. 25 Hodivala 1920, 70. 21

a mirror or a clock?

211

As Eduljee recently asked, ‘How does one explain the difference between the Samvat dates 772 and 992?’26 The answer is that Hodivala could not produce any graphological or textual evidence whatsoever for his theory of a misreading. He could only assert: in the writings of the tenth and eleventh centuries A.C., the symbol for the number nine (9) is so very much like the modern Devanagari sign for seven (7) that that this is not the only mistake of the kind which has engendered confusion and controversy.27

Hodivala’s only ‘evidence’ was to cite the example of a scholar who had, some 27 years previously, made the same misreading of a Devanágari 9 for a 7 in a lecture on a quite different subject in the same room to the same Society. However, Hodivala was conscientious enough as a scholar not to be content with just shifting one date forward in time. His understandable scepticism with regard to the traditional datings spurred him on to make connections with events in 10th century Indian history. He had the idea of an emendation of verse 143 of the QS from shāh-e rāyān to ‘shallahrayan’ so that he could represent Jadi Rana as a descendent of the Shilahra dynasty, and even identify him as Vajjadadeva who, Hodivala declared as a result of an ‘approximate calculation’,28 ‘would . . . have become king just about 935 A.C., 991 Samvat Vikram’.29 One can imagine the mixture of shock and delight with which this series of ‘discoveries’ would have been greeted at his lecture, as Hodivala readjusted the Parsi arrival in one deft stroke by 220 years from 716 to 936 C.E. The new date had the advantage of belonging to a more accessible historical period, and he had revealed the identity of the anonymous princeling, ‘Jádi Rána’, to be none other than the illustrious Shilahran monarch Vajjadadeva. It may not have gone unnoticed that this new date also afforded the possibility of a grand celebration of a millennium of Parsi residence in India to look forward to within a generation of that 1913 lecture. Unfortunately, however, Hodivala’s emendation of verse 143 is as baseless as his emendation of the Gujarati numeral 772, as I have shown in my commentarial note to that verse. Since nobody has, to 26

Eduljee 1991, 6. Hodivala 1920, 70. 28 Ibid., 77. Hodivala’s approximate calculation was made on the basis that the 13 reigns of the Shilahras had lasted for a total of 252 years, which gave an average of 19½ years ‘for the duration of each chieftain’s rule’. 29 Ibid., 77. 27

212

chapter five

my knowledge, previously pointed out the insubstantiality of these basic assumptions of Hodivala’s ‘theory’ of the 10th century dating of the Parsi arrival, academic opinion has generally adopted it in favour of Modi’s apparently more naïve reliance on the text of the QS. For example, Mary Boyce repeatedly quoted it in her published works, and others have followed her.30 In spite of the complexity of the detail (and there are few areas more fraught with complexity than matters calendrical and chronological), there is at stake here a simple point of principle. If Hodivala’s radically revisionist date of 936 C.E. is to be accepted for the landing of the Parsis in India, the chronological pattern of the QS must be altogether dispensed with as being not merely historically useless, but actually misleading. For example, the QS states that the Zoroastrians landed on mainland India 100 + 15 + 19 = 134 years after the fall of Yazdegerd, not some 385 years after this event. It also states that 700 years had passed before the attack of Sultan Mahmud’s armies (v. 240). Bahman could just as easily have written 500. There is an alternative to Hodivala’s radical historical surgery, namely to take the text at (more or less) face value, as Modi and more recently Eduljee have done, but to regard the periods of time mentioned in the text as estimates of orders of magnitude of duration, not as years counted in a chronologist’s reckoning. Modi’s Literalist Reading Dastur Dr Jivan J. Modi was a learned High Priest and academic scholar with a position at the University of Bombay. Over many years he wrote numerous learned journal articles and also several monographs, most famous of which is his classic study of Zoroastrian rituals, The Religious Ceremonies and Customs of the Parsees.31 He was a great expert in the scriptural and exegetical texts, theology and ritual practice of Zoroastrianism, but he was not, it must be said, a professional historian of India. His chronology of the events mentioned in the QS is set out in two English language works, published in 1905 and 1917. The 1917 publication was entitled Dastur Bahman Kaikobad and the Kisseh-i-Sanjan. A Reply. At that time there was a strong movement amongst Parsis to

30 E.g. T. Luhrmann 1996, 78, and K.P. Mistree in Godrej and Punthaky Mistree 2002, 413 and 431f., n. 11. 31 Modi 1922.

a mirror or a clock?

213

erect a memorial column (stumb) in the town of Sanjān.32 The Joint Hon. Secretaries of the Iranian Association in Bombay had written to Modi, in late 1916, having learnt that it had been proposed that there should be an inscription on the column which would read: This column has been erected by the Parsis of India in pious memory of their Iranian ancestors who . . . landed at this once famous port and settled under the protection of its kind Hindu Ruler Jadi Rana.

In their letter to Modi,33 who was Hon. Secretary of the Sanjan Memorial Column Committee, the Iranian Association strongly objected that this inscription, about events which had reputedly happened some 800 years before, was based solely on oral tradition and was ‘improbable and controverted by known historical facts’. Modi’s reply—his 1917 work mentioned above—was published as an open letter to the Parsi community in staunch defence of the historicity and general authenticity of the QS. It focused specifically on the sources, the evidence and the facts of the QS, mustering arguments over some 82 foolscap pages, amplifying and expanding his 1905 publication. Modi had begun this previous book as a paper ‘A Few Events in the Early History of the Parsis’,34 composed in response to a number of questions on the history, religion, manners and customs of the Parsis sent to him by the French scholar, Mlle. Delphine Menant, who had herself published a work on the Parsis in 1898.35 Modi’s narrative in his 1905 book can be summed up as a ‘straightforward’ reading of the text of the QS, in so far as he took all the time periods stated in the text as given, and arithmetically calculated a chronology, occasionally allowing reasonable estimates where no information for certain events is given. The result is the following chronological table (Fig. 3). In his 1905 publication Modi started his chronology not in 641, when the last Sasanian king, Yazdegerd III, was defeated at the Battle of Nehāvand, but rather when he was murdered in 651, considering that this was when he lost his sovereignty.36 The remaining dates in the

32

The column was erected on February 15th, 1920. Modi includes ‘the letter under reply’ from the Iranian Association in his published response (1917), 83f. 34 Subsequently published as a book of the same name, Modi 1905. 35 Menant 1898, subsequently translated and expanded to 2 volumes by M.M. Murzban 1917. 36 Modi 1905, 9. Hodivala clearly revelled in reciting Modi’s series of revised dates for the ‘arrival’ in India, for like many thoughtful scholars, Modi several times readjusted his ideas—see Hodivala 1920, 67f. 33

214

chapter five Fig. 3. Modi’s Chronology

date

event

QS verse

651 651–751 751–766 766–785 785 785–790

end (death) of Yazdegerd III 100 years in Kuhestān 15 years in Hormuz 19 years in Diu arrive on mainland at ‘Sanjān’ estimated time for establishing site for āteshbahrām consecrated āteshbahrām 300 years settlement and dispersal 200 years of prosperity 700 years to the decline of Sanjān Battle of Sanjān falls to Alf [sic] Khan 12 years in Bahārut 14 years in Bānsdah āteshbahrām moved to Navsāri by Changā Shāh

96 101 104–5 116 136 194–219

790 790–1090 1090–1290 790–1490 1490 1490–1502 1502–1516 1516

220 224 231–239 240–242 352 355 366 393

chronology were arithmetical calculations based on the time periods mentioned in the text at the verses cited to the right of the table. Modi estimated that it would have taken approximately five years to establish the āteshbahrām. Although he disagreed with the traditional dating for the ‘landing at Sanjān’ as given in the Parsi Prakash, he observed that this source also gives the interval of five years for the founding of the āteshbahrām.37 In both the 1905 and 1917 publications Modi had attempted to balance the correspondence with known historical dates and the traditional account generally accepted from the Parsi Prakash. For the dates of the departure from Iran and for the landing in India he managed to remain within half a century or so of the traditional account. However, when it came to the two dates of later history which were hotly disputed, namely (D.) as referred to before, the date of the ‘Battle of Sanjān’ and (C.) the removal of the Irān Shāh fire from Bānsdah to Navsāri, Modi was obliged, by his own adherence to the temporal sequence of the QS, to depart from the traditional datings by some wide margin. Neither S.H. Hodivala, Modi, nor the traditionalist chronologies agree on these two.

37

Ibid., 12–13.

a mirror or a clock?

215

H.E. Eduljee In recent times H.E. Eduljee has reviewed and rejected the views of the traditionalists, of Modi, of S.H. Hodivala and of S.K. Hodiwala as unconvincing, and he has proceeded to give his own ‘Suggested Chronology.’38 In the course of some 20 pages of his own suggestions, following 17 pages summarising previous chronologies, Eduljee also departs from the temporal structure of the QS for his own chronology. He has the leaving of Iran take place in the mid 8th century, i.e. a century later than Modi (in his literalist reading of the QS), and sets the date of the ‘arrival’ a century and a half earlier than Hodivala. He concludes: It is not possible, on the basis of the Kisseh, to give exact dates for the movements of the first Zoroastrians who came to Gujarat as refugees . . . they arrived at Sanjan sometime in the early 780s. It is not possible to be more precise than this.

In fact Eduljee returns exactly to Modi’s dating of 785 C.E. for the ‘arrival in India’. On the dates (C.) and (D.) he is in agreement with the Traditional dates. As I stated at the beginning of this chapter I do not venture to resolve what I regard as unresolvable historical controversies in this study of the QS. Fig. 4 summarises the dates of the events (A.)–(D.) upheld in the principal competing theories: Fig. 4. Four Chronologies Event

S.K. Hodiwala J.J. Modi

S.H. Hodivala

H.E. Eduljee

(A) leaving of homes in Iran

582

651

802

747–762

(B) arrival in India

716

785

936

Mid 780s

(C) Battle of Sanjān

1405

1490

1465

1405

1504

1479/1491

1419

(D) Removal of 1416 (1419) fire to Navsāri

38

Eduljee 1991, 18ff.

216

chapter five

There can be no doubt that S.H. Hodivala was the finest historical scholar of the early modern period to apply himself to the questions raised by the QS. Yet his historicist approach to the text, de rigueur in the late 19th/early 20th century academic context in which he was working, was ultimately of limited value with regard to a text of such mythological and ‘traditional’ content. After a lengthy chapter of scholarly discussion of ‘The Sack of Sanjan,’ Hodivala came to the following conclusion: The truth is that Bahman’s notions of chronology were far from being so precise or clear as some people imagine. There is not a single date in his whole narrative, not an event of which we are told that it occurred in a certain year of any known era. The reason of this probably is that Bahman himself did not know in what year of the Yazdejardi or any other reckoning, the Parsis first landed at Sanjan or left Persia; in other words, he himself had no starting point. He therefore contents himself with stating everywhere in a rough and ready sort of way, that this event or that happened 100, 200, 500 or 700 years after some other—of which other, however, no data is given. . . . It is of course possible to interpret a few words of his strictly and make them the imaginary basis of a definite date for the Sack or for a charge of anachronism against the writer but it would be a mistake to do either.39

Here we have a thinly veiled criticism of Modi, who had taken Bahman’s periods of time so literally and who had ended up with a very late date for the sack of Sanjān. But Hodivala did recognise that, whilst Bahman was not a serious historian, . . . he was not an ordinary man. He belonged to a family possessing remarkable literary aptitudes and it would be folly to suppose that all his statements are unworthy of credit.40

Hodivala found an explanation for why Bahman had not got his history right—not only did he not care enough about it, but he felt contempt for it. The explanation is intricate, so I quote Hodivala at some length to allow him to make himself clear on this point: But it must also be recognised that he is occasionally out of his depth . . . Historical studies have never been much affected in the past by the learned of any persuasion in this country . . . Those Parsi priests of old

39 40

Hodivala’s own italics, Hodivala 1920, 64f. Ibid., 65.

a mirror or a clock?

217

who cared for letters in the seventeenth and even the eighteenth century were mainly interested in their own religious literature and looked upon all other departments of learning as only ancillary to their theological studies. For an accurate knowledge of the progress of Moslem conquest in India or elsewhere, they cared not only very little, but it was probably the very ‘abomination of desolation’ to them, annals only of the triumphs of those ‘Juddin’ who were the bitterest enemies of their ancient faith. The Moslem histories were in their eyes only worthless Biblia a Biblia [sic], books which were no books, works which they would not have read even if they could have got them. The exact systems of chronology for the establishment of which we make such strenuous efforts were in their estimation, only vanities and futilities and one date was to most of them just as good as another. And if there was here and there a person with a ‘chronological conscience,’ someone seriously anxious about ascertaining the precise sequence of events, he was rarely able to procure the books which could set his doubts at rest. Briefly, it is impossible to form anything like a just estimate of Bahman’s little poem without considering his environment and when we do so, we cannot but consider it a mistake to make laboured efforts to extract a definite chronological statement from a casual allusion in a passage confessedly vague and obscure.41

At this point Hodivala ends his lecture of the 11th October, 1913. Admirable as these reflections may have been, even this conclusion did not deter Hodivala from vigorously pursuing his historical inquiries in the series of lectures of the following weeks, on ‘The Traditional dates of Parsi History’, and on ‘Jádi Rána and the Kisseh-i-Sanján.’ However, if we look again at Hodivala’s statement, which is made from the point of view of an early 20th century, secular academic historian, that ‘in their estimation’ (i.e. such Parsi priests of old as Bahman), ‘the exact systems of chronology’ were ‘only vanities and futilities and one date was to most of them just as good as another’, we are obliged also to consider Bahman’s motivation from a positive point of view. In other words, we must do what Hodivala said we should, namely only form an estimate of the QS by ‘considering his environment’, and therefore understand Bahman’s achievement in terms of what it sets out to be, and not in terms of what it is not.

41

Hodivala’s italics, ibid. 65f.

218

chapter five The Mirror of Mythological and Ritual Features of the Text

If the QS is not, and was not intended to be, a historical work, it may be better seen as a mirror of Parsi self-understanding of the 16th century. There is a whole literary genre of works which is known in Europe as ‘Mirrors for princes’ (Fürstenspiegel), of which a comparable example in Persian would be the Qābusnāme of Kay Kā’us Ebn Eskandar. Such works were texts for rulers and their ministers to contemplate, whereby they might readily see the moral and political advice given by the author as directly applying to their own times and concerns. The QS is not a mirror in this sense, however. As I have pointed out in the Commentary chapter, the QS borrows both in style and in detail from the Shāhnāme of Ferdowsi: part, though not all, of the QS resembles also that genre of the national epic tradition of Iran in miniature, as it aspires to be the national epic tradition of the Parsis. Just as Iranian identity, national pride and ethos are reflected in the Shāhnāme, so the QS reflects Parsi identity, pride and ethos. The somewhat presumptuous comparison with the Shāhnāme has a further value. The events of the first two thirds of the Shāhnāme belong to mythological and legendary time, and are narrated in both heroic and romantic style. The events of the last third of that work are set in historical times, with stories of Alexander the Great, Parthian and Sasanian dynasties, but, as Clinton has observed, . . . the style of presentation does not change. Historical figures and events are presented as the stuff of myth and legend.42

So with the QS, even though there is mention of historical rulers such as Alexander, Ardashir, Shāpur and Yazdegerd, they are all portrayed as the stuff of myth and legend. Whereas the Shāhnāme comes to an end with the slaying of Yazdegerd III, and does not narrate the events of Islamic history, the main action of the narrative of the QS only begins at this point, and therefore it appears to be historical by the very fact of its narrating events in the ‘historical’ period. In fact, the events described continue to be expressed in a mythological, heroic and romantic style. It would be difficult indeed for a modern historian of Iran to use the Shāhnāme directly as a historical source—even that part of it which

42

Clinton Rev. Ed. 1996, xiii.

a mirror or a clock?

219

is quasi-historical.43 Yet Parsi historians, for two reasons, have been unable to resist the temptation to treat the QS in this way. As has been so often said, it is the only text that survives about Parsi origins: even a historian as sanguine as Hodivala, who recognised its unhistorical nature and himself argued for due restraint, could not hold back from pressing it into the service of the historian’s calculations. Second, when Hodivala observed that the traditional priestly disdain of Muslim historiography probably stemmed from an attitude that such works ‘were only worthless Biblia a Biblia, books which were no books’, he was also putting his finger on the reason for Bahman’s lack of interest in secular historiography. From Bahman’s point of view there is far more to be gained by telling the story in a romantic, heroic style, to allow the mythical dimension of the narrative to resonate for posterity. Whilst one cannot make a literary comparison to the high poetic art of the Shāhnāme, or equate Bahman’s work with the long years of scholarly editorial labour that Ferdowsi spent on oral and textual sources as he composed, it remains the case that the Zoroastrian writer appears to have been greatly influenced by the Shāhnāme and by the figure of the author. Both authors lament the downfall of the Iranian monarchy as it was replaced by Islamic authority. Above all, Bahman’s underlying theme, of the loss of divinely inspired kingship, is most reminiscent of the Shāhnāme. In the QS Bahman achieves a partial resolution of the loss, with the substitution of the consecrated fire of the Zoroastrian religion as the new shāh-e irān. Ferdowsi’s view of the Arab overthrow of the Iranian monarchy is just as bleak, but is not transformed by any religious consolation. Clinton quotes a passage from the Shāhnāme which is strongly anti-Arab in sentiment, and even critical of Islam, and which would have appealed to a Zoroastrian author writing about the Arab eclipsing of Iranian glory: They’ll set the minbar level with the throne, And name their children Omar and Osman. Then will our heavy labours come to ruin. Oh, from this height a long descent begins. You’ll see no throne or court or diadem; The stars will smile upon the Arab host.

43 Having said this, A.F. de Jong has pointed out to me that in several works Zeev Rubin has notably tried to do just this, as has Parvaneh Purshariati in her recent Decline and Fall of the Sasanian Empire, London: I.B. Tauris, 2008.

220

chapter five And after many days a time will come When one unworthy wears the royal robes. ... Then men will break their compact with the truth And crookedness and lies will be held dear.44

Another telling comparison is to be found in Bahman’s relationship to his preceptor. ‘Hushang’ remains unnamed, except in one manuscript, but echoes—again in miniature—Ferdowsi’s own predecessor, Daqiqi, whose work Ferdowsi took up and completed. Bahman acknowledges his debt to ‘Hushang’ in a series of twelve couplets (64–76) before he begins his narrative proper, and then again at the end (406). Connected to this, Bahman’s appeals for forgiveness for his present life, and blessings for the next, in the opening and closing doxologies, seem starkly aspirational: it is as if Bahman craved fame and immortality in the Parsi community such as Ferdowsi enjoyed in his own Iran. Bahman Kay Qobād was not a poet of the first rank. He was before all else a Sanjana Parsi Zoroastrian priest, albeit, like his forefathers and his preceptor Hushang, one with lofty poetic aspirations. Ostensibly, his text celebrates the greater Zoroastrian tradition and the whole Parsi community; but the reader is constantly aware of the lifeline of continuity which the Sanjana priestly tradition maintained in consecrating, nurturing and protecting the Irān Shāh āteshbahrām. Thus the Sanjana priesthood is as much the focus of the story as the Irān Shāh fire and the Good Religion in general. The three entities become as one, and thus the Sanjana lineage, as the living authority of the religion and guardian of the Irān Shāh, is in fact the direct beneficiary of the text’s glorification. Whilst no hint of conflict is indicated in the QS, it is known from the QZH and other texts that, later in the 17th century, the Sanjana priests were in bitter dispute with the Bhagaria priests who had originated from Navsāri and who had performed the religious rites for the local population prior to the Sanjana priests’ immigration to Navsāri. As Susan Stiles Maneck has written, To some extent the Qissa-yi Sanjan seems to have been written to stress the historic importance of the sacred fire and hence of the hereditary priesthood which tended it.45

44 45

Clinton 1996, xvii. Maneck 1997, 28, n. 17.

a mirror or a clock?

221

As Maneck goes on to note, the conflict between the Sanjana and Bhagaria priests has persisted down to the present, one of the most notable recent examples being the polemical tract of B.N. Bhathena (1943).46 In this sense, perhaps, the QS should be seen as a mirror of the 16th century context of the Sanjana lineage which had found itself in Navsāri. There are other factors, however, which have seldom, if ever before, been discussed in regard to the QS, and these will form part of the conclusion that follows.

46

Stiles 1997, loc. cit.

CHAPTER SIX

CONCLUSION The journey-text as mythological expression of triumph over adversity The QS as a text is not just about a journey: the text is itself a journey. My synoptic chart and the discussions in Chapter 2 were an attempt to demonstrate that the rhythms and registers of the QS follow a characteristically Zoroastrian understanding of progress, based upon the cosmological and eschatological patterns of that tradition. Progress, as defined in the thoroughly eschatological structure of thought in the Zoroastrian books, is the process of movement through three conditions, or times, of existence divinely ordained to defeat the attack of the evil spirit Ahriman upon the good creation. All human progress is set within the cosmic progression from the pristine ‘creation’ bundahishn to the worldly ‘mixture’ of gumēzishn to the hoped-for ‘resolution’ of wizārishn. Progress is therefore the act of recovery from attack and striving to victory, a goal of which is achieved only completely achieved at the end of time. The journey of the text extends geographically from Iran to India, and simultaneously it runs from collective misfortune to community settlement and success: in this journey Bahman has a narrative frame to depict the victory over all adversity as primarily due to the stewardship and fortitude of the Sanjana priesthood. The journey falls into the three stages of loss and leaving, transition and crisis, and arrival and establishment. Each stage of progress is marked by times of crisis, of rite de passage: of the natural world (in the storm at sea), of the socio-cultural world (the encounter with the Hindu rajah), and of the socio-political world (on the field of battle, for India and against Islam). Each crisis turns out to yield benefit: the storm results in the consecration of the āteshbahrām who becomes their ‘king of Iran’; the encounter with Jādi Rāna confers on them a site for Sanjān and for their fire-temple; the ordeal of battle against the forces of Sultan Mahmud repays the old debt to Jādi Rāna for the granting of asylum, as Zoroastrian warriors’ blood is mingled with the Indian earth in defence of the ‘Hindu’ interests. Through these three rites de passage they become

224

chapter six

‘the Parsis’ by verse 365. The dramatisation of events of the journey is such that the migrants from Iran are seen to have been transformed into ‘Parsis’ by, successively, a natural inevitable, a negotiated rational and a virtuously heroic process. Their status is sanctioned by fate and the forces of nature, and legitimised in their loyalty to ‘India’: it is not, therefore merely the outcome of the random contingencies of history. As the semiologist Roland Barthes found in his studies of mythical speech, ‘myth is constituted by the loss of the historical quality of things: in it, things lose the memory that they once were made.’1 In short, as he also famously put it, myth transforms history into nature.2 The mythical narrative of the QS thus elevates the whole subject of Zoroastrian migration and settlement in India to a level of meaning that could not be achieved by a historical narrative which merely described a sequence of human events. Vengeance Against Islam Two further themes are expressed in the drama of the QS, which are really two aspects of one condition of the Zoroastrians as a displaced community: one is the shame of the defeat of the last Zoroastrian monarch of Iran, and the other the distress of having forsaken Iran and lost the motherland. Though neither aspect is declared explicitly in the QS they are not far beneath the exasperated cry (97): From that time forth Irān was smashed to pieces! Alas! That land of Faith now gone to ruin!

It is not necessary to psychoanalyse the text: a close reading suffices to see that the QS is a small textual arena in which both shame and distress can be confronted and dispatched. The defeat of Yazdegerd III by the Arabs is represented as the last in a series of assaults by three evil oppressors, foretold in the Avesta, (78–80) who will crush the religion. As was shown in Chapter 2, verses 94–97 record the final,

1 ‘Le mythe est constitué par la déperdition de la qualité historique des choses: les choses perdent en lui le souvenir de leur fabrication.’ Roland Barthes, ‘Le mythe, aujourd’hui’, Mythologies, Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1957, 230, tr. Annette Lavers, Mythologies, London: Vintage, 1993, 142. 2 ‘Nous sommes ici au principe même du mythe: il transforme l’histoire en nature’, ibid., 215.

conclusion

225

fatal and irretrievable downfall of Iran, occurring as it does at the end of the millennium of Zoroaster. Verses 98–100 record that the Zoroastrians were dispersed, went into hiding, and then left their homes forever. But already, at this point, when time has apparently run out for the religion, and things are said to have reached their lowest point, the fight back has begun: the QS takes up the story of the faithful who endeavoured to act ‘for the sake of the religion’ (bahr-e din, 100, 102, 111, 142), just as Ādarbād had done when he underwent the trial by molten metal (verse 90). If this sounds heroic and romanticised, it because it is just that. The QS begins the journey with a nostalgic tale of loss: this sense of loss is gradually purged in overcoming a series of set-backs, down to the bloody struggle against Islam on the Indian battlefield. With the defeat of the Muslim forces in the first encounter, and Ardashir’s slaying of the Muslim warrior in the second a brief but glorious vengeance is exacted: a ‘poetic justice’. Fate again rears its head, however, when Ardashir is immediately slain in a reprise attack, which takes out the Zoroastrian warriors and the Hindu rajah. The implication of the text, however, which continues with the story of the Parsis ultimately surviving this latter-day Islamic victory (verses 353–403), is that, having lost Iran, the Parsis have earned their permanent home in India, at the cost of their warriors’ blood, even in spite of Islam. Loss and leaving of Iran are atoned for. Heroic virtue in action purges any residual shame felt for once having retreated from Iran, and in addition there is the consolation that as successor to their last monarch, Yazdegerd, they have the Irān Shāh fire they had promised in thanks to Bahrām / Vәrәθraγna. Social change, priesthood and laity Another type of transformation is also taking place in the unfolding of the QS, namely the shifting of power from the royal-priestly coalition to a priestly-lay coalition. The first part of the text, which refers to the ancient past, is dominated by the class of kings and their priests (synoptic chart B1); the period of transition and early settlement is directed by the guidance and ritual agency of the priesthood (B2–3, and C1); the military sections C2 and 3 are dominated by the warrior class (though this may also include priestly Zoroastrians); the final part of the main narrative (D1–3) introduces the laity as the guiding force of the community, mainly in the figure of Changā Āsā. The word for which laity/

226

chapter six

layman is most often the translation, behdin, has a range of meanings in the QS. In the earliest part of the text behdin translates Pahlavi weh dēn and means ‘the good religion’, i.e. Zoroastrianism (79, 81, 94). When behdin(ān) is used in contrast to dastur(ān) it clearly refers to the laity. Several times it is used inclusively to mean all Zoroastrians (e.g. 64a, 92, and on the battlefield 267, 269, 288 etc.). In the latter part of the text (367, 375) behdin is clearly used of a merchant layman, Changā bin Āsā (though it happens that the very last occurrence of the word denotes priests at 394). The priesthood retain authority as symbolic custodians of the Irān Shāh fire, but the role of Changā bin Āsā is new in the QS, as for the first time the community is led by a behdin, and he is heralded with a series of epithets which elevate him to the status of a deliverer (367–370). If the figure of Changā Āsā is expressive of a shift of power from priestly to behdin preponderance, then a new coalition of power is present: the moving of the fire from Bānsdah to Navsāri is a religious change instigated by this layman, not by a priest. It is not actually a religious necessity, but rather done for the convenience and happiness of the community: above all, it would be profitable for all: Our livelihood and income would improve: there would be happiness for all the behdins. (391)

In sum, the QS establishes the special place of the Sanjana priesthood in the tradition in preserving and improving the integrity and wellbeing of the Zoroastrian community in India down to the end of the 16th century. A question that is interesting to ask, but impossible to answer, is: to what extent was the author Bahman redactor of a number of sources, and how far was he responsible for the suppression of alternative stories of the origins of the Zoroastrians in India which might have run counter to the type of story he wanted to tell. There are signs in the text that this may have been the case, as he himself states (64–66): Now listen to the tales of wondrous things, told from the lore of priests3 and ancient sages. I tell it, but it’s not contained in telling, and writing cannot limit it to paper.

3

mowbads.

conclusion

227

But I would seek to tell a little portion, were there a hundred words, I’d say just one.

It may be objected that these verses deive from a tradition of coy dissimulation well known to the poets of classical Persian literature, but it may also unconsciously reveal that he had to be selective in the process of composition because there were other traditions current in popular tradition. At the end of the QS Bahman acknowledges that his preceptor has revealed the story to him (406) and has corrected his writing of it (427) with the mysterious phrase And yet my master has corrected it, so many roses bloomed within this garden.

By this he does not mean that he invented anything, and he quickly reaffirms his own truthfulness (429): And even as I have set out this tale, I have observed the ways of truthful men.

It has been argued throught this book that the QS does not merely record events in a quasi-historical narrative, but rather that it is a mythologised story that reflects Bahman’s and the Parsi Zoroastrian community’s interests and identity in India at the time of the text’s composition. Susan Stiles Maneck had perhaps come to similar conclusions about the QS in relation to Parsi culture, identity and theological change among the Parsis, when she says: The importance of the Qissa-yi Sanjan lies not so much in the accuracy of its reconstruction of events (where it is not reliable, especially in regards to chronology) as in its depiction of the way Parsis had come to view themselves, their relationship to the dominant culture, and their historic role within the Indian context in the sixteenth century. Later, the Qissa itself played a significant part in shaping Parsi identity.4

The anthropologist Paul Axelrod thought that the QS had a role as a myth in the Parsi community of modern times suggesting ‘that the myth provides a charter of the capacity of the contemporary Parsi community to provide its members with a characteristic, and separate, identity’.5 I suggest that there is more to this myth/story. The Zoroastrians of India already had a strong, characteristic and separate religious

4 5

Maneck 1997, 18f. Axelrod 1980, 152.

228

chapter six

identity which distinguished them from other groups around them very effectively as a ‘virtual caste’ outside the jajmani system. As we have seen, in the QS Bahman manages to emphasise the Iranian heritage of the Parsi Zoroastrians and at the same time to naturalise their identity as Indian in the Indian environment. This naturalisation did not require the surrender of their Iranian identity, but on the contrary, through the actions of his own Sanjana priestly tradition, Bahman shows how this was achieved by embodying their Iranian identity in the enthronement of a ritual-symbolic Iranian ‘king’ on Indian land. I have written elsewhere about the QS as effecting the ‘re-placement’ of Iran to India.6 In the theological view of a text such as Dēnkard III, in the ‘mixed world’ which has been attacked by evil, there is no permanent fixed abode available. In the QS, Iran itself is smashed to pieces (98). Iran will henceforth survive only in the Good Religion. In the introductory doxology of the QS, all references to ‘place’ are to the permanent, abiding place of God, Ohrmazd, in his own created world. In return God is ‘. . . our refuge and protector everywhere’ (5–6). As we have seen, the journey to a terrestrial safe haven is long and slow. Even once in India, they must still strive for their place. The narratives of the battlefield, which is the ultimate struggle for a place on earth, allow the drama of the text to be played out on a universally recognisable stage, evoking patriotic sentiment and using an imagery of violent, extreme conditions that are unacceptable in any other context. In the story, after their brief moment of vengeance, the Zoroastrians lose the battle (352). However, after a brief occultation of the Irān Shāh, heaven once again begins to smile on their circumstances and, within a matter of some 50 verses (403) the text has arrived at the concluding doxology of blessings. The symbolic re-placement of the old, fallen Iran which had been left behind, has been achieved in a new land, with its own sovereign in the āteshbahrām, ritually enthroned and hidden to all except the Parsi who may behold him, and guarded by his loyal courtiers, the Sanjana priests.

6

Williams 2008.

APPENDIX

THE SIXTEEN SANSKRIT ŚLOKAS OF ĀKĀ ADHYĀRU H.P. Schmidt’s Study of the Sixteen Ślokas The Sixteen Ślokas are famous in Parsi oral tradition as a supposed missing link to supplement that part of the QS which is concerned with the explication of the Zoroastrian religion to the Hindu rajah Jādi Rāna. Parsi tradition on this matter has been greatly influenced by the prominent studies of several 19th and early 20th century editors, principally those of S.K. Hodiwala. The Sanskrit scholar Hanns-Peter Schmidt has written a definitive study of the sixteen Sanskrit Ślokas1 in which he reviews Hodiwala’s edition and also other translations and treatments. As Schmidt says at the outset, ‘If the Sixteen Ślokas were genuine they would be one of the most important documents of the history of Zoroastrianism.’2 Schmidt’s study is exhaustive and compelling in its arguments and conclusions, but unfortunately it is difficult of access as it was published in an Indian learned journal from the 1960s. I provide below a summary of its contents, which will demonstrate that although the Ślokas are interesting texts in their own right, they cannot be linked to the QS as Parsi tradition would have them. The 64 lines of the text (each of the sixteen ślokas comprises four lines of 21 syllables) were traditionally believed to have been composed by the Sanjana priest Neryosang Dhaval (fl. late 11th/early 12th cent. C.E.).3 Neryosang was the Zoroastrian translator of the Yasna and other Avestan texts from Middle Persian translations, and also the Pahlavi Mēnōg ī Xrad and Škand Gumānīg Wizār. He was highly regarded in Parsi tradition and so it is, as Schmidt says, understandable, as Neryosang’s name was the only one kept alive in memory from the olden days as that of a master of Sanskrit, that he should have been believed to have been the author of the Sanskrit Ślokas, and even that he was thought to have been the dastur who negotiated with Jādi Rāna.

1 2 3

Schmidt 1960–61. Ibid., 158. See S.H. Hodivala, Journal of the K.R. Cama Oriental Institute 8, 1926.

230

appendix

However, Neryosang’s name does not appear in any of the manuscripts of the Ślokas, but rather the name of Ākā Adhyāru is given as the author,4 and perhaps, even more significantly, he, as a Sanjana priest, is not mentioned by Bahman in the QS.5 The Ślokas first appeared in printed English translation in 18086 and in Gujarati in 1826.7 However, the first edition of the Ślokas based on several Sanskrit manuscripts, ‘mainly supplied by Manekji Rustomji Unwala, one MS. by Jivanji Jamshedji Modi’,8 was by S.K. Hodiwala.9 Hodiwala includes a commentary which is in one of the Sanskrit manuscripts, but it ‘has been incompletely reproduced.’10 The Sanskrit commentary has Ākā Adhyāru as its author, but Hodiwala explained it as a slip of the pen, and seemed to set no store by the fact that a colophon at the end of the commentary also clearly mentions Ākā Adhyāru as author of the Ślokas and that ‘from a copy of the MS. used by Hodiwala we know that the name of the author of the commentary is Śivarāmā.’11 Schmidt says also that The text constituted by Hodiwala is a contamination, the various readings are given without indicating their sources. Critically the edition is therefore without any value.12

Schmidt is similarly critical of Hodiwala’s edition in Paymaster’s version of the QS13 and in Hodiwala’s own later Gujarati work;14 he also condemns S.D. Bharucha’s edition15 as corrupted for the same rea4 The explanation was that Neryosang, as principal dastur of the migrants, had mastered Sanskrit during the years they had lived in Diu. 5 In spite of this fact, and as if further proof were needed that many Western scholars have not troubled to read the QS for themselves, it is worth noting that S.S. Hartman perpetuates this popular fallacy with regard to the QS, in his 1980 publication (11), ‘It is reported that the leader of the Zoroastrians’ exodus was called Neryoseng Dhaval . . . and he led his people to Sanjan, where he was nominated dastūr, high priest. He brought along a sacred fire which has been tended since then and never gone out.’ 6 Robert Drummond, Illustrations of the Grammatical Parts of the Guzarattee, Mahratta & English Languages (Bombay 1808), s.v. pārāśi tathā pāraśeṇa, also partly translated by James Burgess, Indian Antiquary I (1872), 214–5, cited in Schmidt 1960–61, 158. 7 Cited in Schmidt 1960–61, 158. 8 Schmidt 1960–61, 159. 9 In The Dastur Hoshang Memorial Volume (Bombay 1918), 70–94. 10 Schmidt 1960–61, 159. 11 Ibid., 159. 12 Ibid., 159. 13 Paymaster 1915. 14 Hodiwala 1927. 15 Bharucha 1933.

the sixteen sanskrit ślokas of ākā adhyāru

231

sons.16 After describing the 16 manuscripts collated by Bharucha for his edition,17 Schmidt discusses the relationship of the MSS18 and then provides his own romanised transcription of the Ślokas,19 followed by a critical apparatus,20 translation,21 notes22 and summary of the contents of the text.23 Having compared the Ślokas with the relevant verses of the QS (165–185 in Paymaster, = 164–184 in our text), Schmidt arrives at his own conclusions. In the first place, Schmidt rejects Hodiwala’s idea that Bahman had pieced together his account of Zoroastrian beliefs in the QS from partial translations of the Ślokas.24 It is hardly necessary to disprove Hodiwala’s theory. The fact that there is not a single literal agreement between the Ślokas and the Qissah which does not presuppose the absolute ignorance of Bahman makes it untenable.25

Schmidt adduces evidence to show that it is unreasonable to think that Bahman could have been working from the Ślokas and represented such a stark misunderstanding of them in his QS. By way of summary, the following may be mentioned with regard to views held on the Ślokas. Popular tradition had maintained the author to be Neryosang Dhaval, though this is disproved by the fact that Ākā Adhyāru is named in the manuscripts. Mulla Firoze and Paymaster had thought Ākā Adhyāru to be the leader of the Parsis at the time of the immigration to India, but unfortunately there is no evidence for this. S.K. Hodiwala had thought that the Ślokas must have been written by a Parsi priest, since a Hindu could hardly be expected to use technical words like Hormazd, yazad, kusti, ātash etc. He thought that the Ślokas must be much older than the QS, having been composed shortly after the arrival in India, but after long enough to allow a Parsi priest to get complete mastery over Sanskrit. He thought that the vocabulary of the Ślokas excluded the

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Schmidt 1960–61, 159. Ibid., 159–162. Ibid., 162–168. Ibid., 168–170. Ibid., 170–175. Ibid., 176–178. Schmidt’s translation of the ślokas is reproduced below. Ibid., 179–186. Ibid., 186–188. Schmidt is referring to Hodiwala, Parsis of Ancient India, 66ff. Schmidt 1960–61, 190.

232

appendix

authorship of Neryosang himself who never wrote for Hindus, and dates the Ślokas prior to Neryosang ‘somewhere near A.D. 900 or 1000.’26 As Schmidt says, M.P. Khareghat, in the Preface to Hodiwala’s book, had refuted all the conclusions of the author (pp. iv–viii). Khareghat thought that the name Ākā and Adhyāru are clearly Hindu names. Most importantly for our consideration of the relation with the QS, Khareghat had stated: . . . the resemblance between the works of Bahman and Ako seems no more than would be due to the sameness of the subject, whereas the difference in treatment is so great as to leave little doubt that neither copied or attempted to copy the other in detail, even if he knew of the other’s work. Bahman’s work . . . is entirely in consonance with Parsi doctrine, sentiment and custom, whereas Ako’s is not so on various points . . .

Khareghat goes on to give a detailed explanation (which is summarised in Schmidt, 192f.) of how Bahman’s verses do not correspond to the descriptions of Zoroastrianism given in the Ślokas. I do not repeat these here in full because the reader will be able to make an independent evaluation by comparing the text of the QS with that of the Ślokas appended in this volume. Suffice it to say that (in Khareghat’s view) the Ślokas are a Hindu’s view of the Parsi religion, whereas (as would generally be agreed) the QS is a Zoroastrian priest’s attempt to summarise features of his own religion for a Hindu audience, namely the rajah and his attendants. The Ślokas appear to conform to the order of Hindu poetics, and speak of the five elements (pañcatattvam) of Hindu philosophy—space, air, fire, water, and earth—which are not recognised in Parsi religion as the constituents of the material world. The Ślokas’ description of dualism, putting Ahriman on a par with Hormazd, does not conform to that of post-Sasanian Zoroastrianism. Khareghat has several arguments to show that the author of the Ślokas was not a Parsi, and also some to disprove Hodiwala’s theory that Bahman has copied from the Ślokas, most important of which is that the QS account is more orderly and consistent.27 Schmidt finds no reason to disagree with Khareghat’s conclusions that the author of the ślokas ‘was either a Maga Brāhmaṇa or a Hindu who mistook the Parsis for Maga Brāhmaṇas.’ Schmidt explains that

26

Schmidt 1960–61, 192. Summarised from Schmidt’s analysis of Khareghat’s arguments in Schmidt, 192–194. 27

the sixteen sanskrit ślokas of ākā adhyāru

233

the most probable solution of the problem is that the Parsis engaged some Hindu priest for the composition of the Ślokas. They may have given him the correct information about their doctrines and customs, and he brought it into a suitable form not without introducing his own Hindu concepts in such places where they offered themselves as obvious counterparts to Parsi concepts.28

While Schmidt agrees with most of Khareghat’s refutations of Hodiwala’s ideas about the Ślokas, his comparison of the manuscripts leads him to refute Khareghat’s view that the composition of the Ślokas cannot predate the oldest MS, i.e. 1693, ‘must be considerably older than the earliest MS extant,’ and that the text of the Ślokas is older than the QS, ‘although Bahman has certainly not borrowed from it.’29 Schmidt goes on to state: The history of the text indicates that it was not generally known in the Parsi comunity of the 17th century and was not part of a sanctified tradition. There was undoubtedly a current oral tradition among the Parsis which related that the leader of the Parsi immigrants gave an account of Parsi beliefs and customs to Jādi Rāṇa of Sanjan. Bahman has summarized this tradition, but since he is silent about the name of the Parsi leader, the form and the language in which the account he was given, he had most probably no knowledge of them.

About the origin of the Ślokas Schmidt can only offer conjectures, namely that at some stage a Hindu priest, Ākā Adhyāru, might have been employed to bring a vague oral tradition of the Parsis, but his last word on the subject is somewhat negative: ‘On the whole the suspicion cannot be suppressed that the Sixteen Ślokas are a spurious product and cannot be considered as authentic.’30 H.-P. Schmidt’s Translation of the Sixteen Sanskrit Ślokas of Ākā Adhyāru31 1 Who, at the three divisions of the day (dawn, noon and sunset), meditate with Nyaish-prayers on the sun, the group of five elements—fire, 28 29 30 31

Ibid., 194. Ibid., 195f. Ibid., 196. Schmidt 1960–61, 176–178.

234

appendix

wind, earth, primordial space, water—constituting the seat of the three worlds, (and) on Hormazd, the Lord of the gods, who is powerful on account of many virtues, on him, the only merciful one: White, brave, heroic, abode of great strength—those are we Parsis. 2 Who, in this world at the time of bath, meditation, recitation (of the holy scriptures), libation to the fire, eating and excretion, keep the rule of silence mentioned in the scriptures (and) laid down by their own preceptors; who, in this world, worship the cow with manifold incense, good flowers and plenty of select fruits: White, brave, heroic, abode of great strength—those are we Parsis. 3 Who wear on their own bodies a beautiful garment of good cloth, which has the qualities of a coat-of-mail, (and) on their own waists a girdle, the woollen good Kusti, well-measured (with ends) like snakemouths; (who), in this world, cover their heads always with a splendid garment, whose bottom consists of two pieces of cloth: White, brave, heroic, abode of great strength—those are we Parsis. 4 Whose young women perform their (viz. the Parsis’) auspicious feast, accompanied by the singing of songs, at the marriage ceremony on auspicious days, and use pleasant smelling sandal, etc., on their bodies; (the women) who are pure by their behaviour, their conduct being of many virtues, attached to the precepts of the beautiful scriptures: White, brave, heroic, abode of great strength—those are we Parsis. 5 In whose house there is always (food), pleasant and full of sweet taste, and the giving of food; (whose) custom it is to donate lakes, wells and reservoirs here on the surface of the earth; who always practise the giving of property like clothes, etc., to people with the virtues of Brahmins: White, brave, heroic, abode of great strength—those are we Parsis.

the sixteen sanskrit ślokas of ākā adhyāru

235

6 There is as much joy as sorrow, bliss and grief, knowledge and ignorance, and as much right as wrong, unfuitful and fruitful deeds, and malady and health, and high and low, and equally the creator and the destroyer, consisting in light and darkness; on whose way it is thus laid down as two-fold—those are we white and brave ones. 7 Thrice one should drink cow-urine, purified by sacred formulas (and) prepared with excessive purity, for the purity of the soul; it is mentioned as the external and the internal bath; thereafter round the waist the girdle is tied without which there is neither sleep nor the muttering of prayers to be performed for the worship of the gods, etc.; the principle in whose law is constantly giving security—those are we white and brave ones. 8 There should be five times every day an oblation (to the fire) with pieces of aloe and sandalwood, which has been dried for six months, with fragrance of wood and camphor (and) with recited words formed to sacred formulas; they (the Parsis), namely, help the fire with efforts, so that it should not go into a heap of clouds even at the end of the ages; who have the law of truth as principle and do not enjoy women (unlawfully)—those are we Parsis. 9 For whose women there shall be purity in the menstrual period after the seventh night; and purity after one pure month at the time of a birth, thus (there shall be) purity of the body; (whose women) are of pleasant behaviour, sparkle like new gold ornaments, (are) strong and very powerful, since (they are) exceedingly pure and have laughing faces, (are) white, brave (and) heroic.

236

appendix 10

There is no intercourse with courtesans; at the time of the oblation to the manes there is special care of the fire for the preceptors equal to the fathers; there is no meat except in sacrifice; a woman in menses does not sleep on the earth; auspicious (are) the signs for a marriage; a woman who has lost her husband is never pure; whose behaviour is lofty everyday—those are we Parsis. 11 A woman who has given birth to a child does not engage herself in cooking work for forty days, remains completely silent, sleeps much, dedicates herself to muttering prayers after bathing and praising the sun; and they (the Parsis) always meditate on the worship of wind, fire, water, moon, and sun; whose caste is not inferior, providing constantly security—those are we Parsis. 12 Who always think of water, sky, moon, fire, wind, earth, sun, and Hormazd, the wise, imperishable, immortal, who is to be reflected upon by the mind, (and) of the recitation of their names, which provides constantly security and justice; in silence food is to be eaten and the cleaning of the body (to be done)—those are we Parsis. 13 (Who) wear according to the prescriptions of the preceptors the girdle of men and women—which is made of wool, golden providing pleasant fruits, of the same merit as a bath in the Ganges, made of whole threads, gold-coloured, beautiful, of the form of a snake, wide, taught in the scriptures—round the waist, round the wider part of the waist— those are we Parsis. 14 The noble ones are always pure through the five products of the cow, even if they kill cattle inconsiderately; purity (follows) the pleasant (drink) preceded by a bath in cow-urine after many days since there

the sixteen sanskrit ślokas of ākā adhyāru

237

is always the execution of the good teachings of the preceptors for the purpose of removing sins; whose behaviour is lofty every day—those are we Parsis. 15 The giver of the path of salvation is said (to be) on account of the observances prescribed and brilliantly composed by the ancient teachers, and the giver of heaven on account of the rules composed by their wise men; and the worship of all the three (deities) fire, earth, sun through flowers, etc., is fixed with joyful mind—those are we Parsis. 16 Hormazd, the Lord of the gods, effecting complete victory, the giver of increase in children and grandchildren, may protect you; he, effecting abundant wealth and luck, may destroy the sin. You Parsis, who are always victorious, who are in possession of the rule over victory, may come at will, (you) abode of great strength may achieve prosperity!

BIBLIOGRAPHY Abdel Haleem, M.A.S. ‘Grammatical Shift For Rhetorical Purposes, Iltifāt and Related Features in The Qur’ān,’ Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies LV/3, 1992, 407–431 Ambashthya, B.P. ed. Contributions on Akbar and the Parsis, Patna, 1976 Anklesaria, B.T. Zand-Ākāsīh: Iranian or Greater Bundahišn, Bombay, 1956 Anquetil Duperron, A.H. Zend-Avesta: Ouvrage de Zoroastre I–III, Paris, 1771, repr. New York, London: Garland, 1984 Axelrod, P. ‘Myth and Identity in the Indian Zoroastrian Community,’ Journal of Mithraic Studies 3, 1980, 150–165 Bahman, Kaikobad. Qissa-ye Sanjan, Teheran, Saziman-i Intisharat-i Furuhar, 1971 Balsara, P.P. Highlights of Parsi History, Bombay 1963 Bayley, E.C. History of Gujerat, 1886 Bhathena, B.N. Kisse-Sanjan—A Palpable Falsehood. Bombay, 1944 Boyce, M. A History of Zoroastrianism [I]. Leiden, E.J. Brill, 1975 —— A Persian Stronghold of Zoroastrianism, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1977 —— Zoroastrians Their Religious Beliefs and Practices, London, Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1979 —— Textual Sources for the Study of Zoroastrianism, Manchester, Manchester University Press, 1984 Boyce, M. and Kotwal, F.M. ‘Irānšāh.’ Yarshater, E. (ed.), Encyclopedia Iranica Bulliett, R. Conversion to Islam in the Medieval Period, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1979 Campbell, J.A. Bombay Gazetteer, vol. 13, pt. 1 Cereti, C.G. An 18th Century Account of Parsi History The Qesse-ye Zartoštiān-e Hendustān. Napoli, Istituto Universitario Orientale Dipartimento di Studi Asiatici, 1991 —— ‘The Qesse-ye Zartoštiān-e Hendustān and the Qesse-ye Sanjān, Notes on Parsi History.’ Proceedings of the Second European Conference of Iranian Studies, in Fragner, B.G. et al., (eds). Roma, Istituto Italiano Per Il Medio Ed Estremo Oriente, 1995a —— Zand ī Wahman Yasn A Zoroastrian Apocalypse, Roma, Istituto Italiano Per Il Medio Ed Estremo Oriente, 1995b Chamarbaugvala, R.M.D. 1251st Anniversary of Installation of Sacred Iranshah Atash Bahram, Bombay, R.M.D.C. Press, 1972 Clinton, J.W. (trans.) The Tragedy of Sohráb and Rostám from the Persian National Epic, the Shahname of Abol-Qasem Ferdowsi, Seattle, London, University of Washington Press, 1987, revised edition, 1996 Dawood, N.J. The Koran, London, Penguin, 1956 Dastur Hoshang Memorial Volume, being papers on Iranian Subjects Written by Various Scholars in Honour of the late Shams-ul-Ulama Sardar Dastur Hoshang Jamasp, M.A. Ph.D., C.I.E. Bombay, 1918 Dhabhar, B.N. The Persian Rivayats of Hormazyar Framarz and Others, Bombay, K.R. Cama Oriental Institute, 1932 —— Saddar Nasr and Saddar Bundahesh, Bombay, 1909 —— Descriptive Catalogue of all Manuscripts in the first Dastur Meherji Rana Library, Navsari, Bombay, 1923 Douglas, M. Purity and Danger, London, Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1966 Eastwick, E.B. (translation of QS), Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society I, 1842, 167–191. Also in Paymaster (1915)

240

bibliography

Eduljee H.E. ‘Kisseh-i Sanjan,’ Parsiana, vol. vii, no. 10, Aug. 1971, 11–15 —— Kisseh-i Sanjan, Bombay, K.R. Cama Oriental Institute, 1991 Ferishta, M.K. History of the Rise of Mahomedan Power in India, trans. J. Briggs, 1829, vol. 4 Firby, N.K. European Travellers and their Perceptions of Zoroastrianism in the 17th and 18th centuries [Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran, Ergänzungsband; 14], Berlin, 1988 Framji, D. History of the Parsis, London, 1884 Frye, R.N. (ed.), Cambridge History of Iran, vol. 4, 29–64, 486–494 Gignoux, P. ‘Pour une origine iranienne du bi’smallah,’ In Pad nām ī yazdān, Études d’épigraphie, de numismatique et d’histoire de l’Iran ancien, Paris, 1979, 159–163 —— Le livre d’Ardā Vīrāz, Translittération, transcription et traduction du texte pehlevi, Paris, 1984 Gray, L.H. The Foundations of the Iranian Religions, Ratanbhai Katrak Lectures Oxford, Bombay, K.R. Cama Oriental Institute Publication No. 5, D.B. Taraporevala Sons & Co., 1929 Hartman, S.S. Parsism The Religion of Zoroaster (Iconography of Religions XIV, 4), Leiden, E.J. Brill, 1980 Haug, M. and West E.W. The Book of Arda Viraf, Bombay/London, 1872, repr. Amsterdam Oriental Press, 1971 Hazra, R.C. Puranic records on Hindu rites and customs, Dacca, 1940 Hinnells, J.R. and Williams, A.V. (eds). Parsis in India and the Diaspora, London and New York, Routledge, 2007 Hodivala, S.H. Studies in Parsi History, Bombay, 1920 Hodiwala, S.K. Parsis of Ancient India, Bombay, 1920 —— ‘The Sixteen Sanskrit Shlokas Recited Before King Jadi Rana,’ Dastur Hoshang Memorial Volume, ed. J.J. Modi, Bombay, 70–94, 1918 —— Pāk Īrānśahnī Tavārīkh (in Gujarati), Bombay 1927; abridged English translation Extracts from History of Holy Iranshah, by N.D. Minocheher Homji, Bombay 1966 Inostrantsev, K. ‘The emigration of the Parsis to India and the Musulman World in the Middle of the VIII Century’, trans. L. Bogdanov in the Journal of the K.R. Cama Oriental Institute, no. 1, 33–70, 1923 Kellens, J. & Pirart, E. Les textes vieil-avestiques, Vol. 1. Wiesbaden, L. Reichert, 1988 Kotwal, F.M. ‘A Brief History of the Parsi Priesthood,’ Indo Iranian Journal, 33, 165–175, 1990 Kotwal, F.M. and Boyd, J.W. (ed. and tr.) A Guide to the Zoroastrian Religion A Nineteenth Century Catechism with Modern Commentary, Chico California, Scholars Press, 1982 —— A Persian Offering The Yasna: A Zoroastrian High Liturgy, Paris, Association Pour L’Avancement des Études Iraniennes, 1991 Kreyenbroek, Philip G. Living Zoroastrianism, Urban Parsis speak about their Religion (in collaboration with Shehnaz N. Munshi), London, 2001 Kulke, E. The Parsees in India A minority as agent of social change, München, 1974 (repr. New Delhi 1978) Lord, H. A Display of Two Forraigne Sects in the East Indies, viz: The Sect of the Banians, the Ancient Natives of India, and the Sect of the Parsees, the Ancient Inhabitants of Persia, together with the Religion and the Manners of Each Sect, Collected . . ., London, 1630 Luhrmann, T.M. The Good Parsi, The Fate of a Colonial Elite in a Postcolonial Society, Cambridge Mass., Harvard University Press, 1996 Maneck, S.S. The Death of Ahriman: Culture, Identity and Theological Change among the Parsis of India, Bombay, K.R. Cama Oriental Institute, 1997 Madan, D.M. Dinkard, 2 vols. Bombay, 1911

bibliography

241

Menant, D. Les Parsis: histoire des communautés de l’Inde, Paris, Annales de Musée Guimet, 1898 Menasce, J. de Le troisième livre du Dēnkart, Traduit du pehlevi, Paris, 1973 Mirza, H.K. Outlines of Parsi History, Bombay, 1974 Modi, J.J. Dastur Bahman Kaikobad and the Kisseh-i-Sanjan, A Reply, Bombay, British India Press, 1917 —— A Few Events in the Early History of the Parsis and their Dates, Bombay, 1922 —— ‘Qisseh-i Zartûshtiân-i Hindûstân va Bayân-i Âtash Behrâm-i Naosari,’ Bombay, Journal of the K.R. Cama Oriental Institute, 17 (1930, 1–63; 19 (1931), 45–57; 25 (1933) 1–147 —— The Religious Ceremonies and Customs of the Parsees, Bombay 1922, repr. Bombay, 1995 Morony, M. ‘Mad̲j̲ūs’ Encyclopaedia of Islam, ed. P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel and W.P. Heinrichs, Leyden, E.J. Brill Vol. V, 1110, col. 1–1118 col. 1 Nanji, R. and Dhalla, H. ‘The landing of the Zoroastrians at Sanjan: the archaeological evidence,’ in Hinnells, J.R. and Williams, A.V. (eds), Parsis in India and the Diaspora, London and New York, Routledge, 2007, 35–58 Nariman, G.K. ‘Was it religious persecution which compelled the Parsis to Migrate from Persia to India?’, Islamic Culture 8, 1933 Nigosian, S.A. The Zoroastrian Faith, Tradition and Modern Research, Montreal and Kingston, London, Buffalo, McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1993 Pagliaro, A. ‘Parsis’, Encyclopedia of Islam, 1st Ed. Pangborn, C.R. Zoroastrianism—A Beleaguered Faith, New Delhi 1982 Patell, B.B. Pārsi Prakāsh, Being a Record of Important Events in the Growth of the Parsi Community in Western India, Bombay 1878–88 (Gujarati), ser. ii, 1891 —— The Gujarāt Parsis from their Earliest Settlement to the Present Time, Bombay, 1898 Pavry, J.C. The Zoroastrian doctrine of a future life, New York, 1929 Paymaster, R.B. Kisseh-i Sanjan, Bombay, 1915 Robinson, N. Discovering the Qur’an: A Contemporary Approach to a Veiled Text, London, SCM Press, 1996 Russell, J.R. ‘Parsi Zoroastrian Garbās and Monājāts’, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1989, 51–63 Schmermbeck, B. Persische zarathustrische monāğāt, Edition, Übersetzung, Tradition und Analyse, Göttinger Orientsforschungen, III, Reihe, Iranica, Neue Folge 3, hg. von Philip G. Kreyenbroek, Wiesbaden, 2008 Schmidt, H.P. ‘The Sixteen Sanskrit Ślokas of Ākā Adhyāru’, Bulletin of the Deccan College Research Institute 21, (1960–61), 157–196 Seervai, K.N. and Patel, B.B. Gujerat Parsis, 1898 Shaked, S. The Wisdom of the Sasanian Sages (Dēnkard VI), Persian Heritage Series, ed. Yarshater, E. number 34, Boulder Colorado, Westview Press, 1979 —— ‘Some Iranian Themes in Islamic Literature,’ in Recurrent Patterns in Iranian Religions, From Mazdaism to Sufism, Proceedings of the Round Table held in Bamberg (30th September–4th October 1991), Paris 1992, 143–158 —— From Zoroastrian Iran to Islam: Studies in Religious History and Intercultural Contacts [Variorum Reprints, Collected Studies Series CS 505] Aldershot/Hampshire, Brookfield/Vermont 1995, 1–31 Stausberg, M. Die Religion Zarathustras, Geschichte—Gegenwart—Rituale, vols 1–3, Stuttgart, Kohlhammer, 2002, 2002, 2004 Stewart, S. ‘Parsi prayer and devotional song in the Indian diaspora,’ in Hinnells, J.R. and Williams, A.V. (eds), Parsis in India and the Diaspora, London and New York, Routledge, 2007, 59–77

242

bibliography

Tambling, Jeremy Narrative as Ideology, Milton Keynes, Philadelphia, Open University Press, 1991 Tieffenhalter, M. Description Historique et Geographique de l’Inde, Paris, 1785 Unvala, J.M. Collections of Colophons of Manuscripts bearing on Zoroastrianism in some Libraries of Europe, Bombay, 1940 Unvala, M.R. Darab Hormazyar’s Rivayat, 2 vols. Bombay, 1922 Vahman, Fereydun, (ed.) Ardā Wīrāz Nāmag, London and Malmo, Curzon Press, 1986 Wehr, H. A Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic, ed. J. Milton Cowan, London, George Allen and Unwin Ltd., Wiesbaden, Otto Harrassowitz, 1971 West, E.W. Pahlavi Texts, Sacred Books of the East, vol. V. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1901 Whitehouse, D. and Williamson, A. ‘Sasanian Maritime Trade’, Iran, 11 (1973), 29–49 Williams, A.V. ‘The Body and the Boundaries of Zoroastrian Spirituality,’ Religion, 1989, 19, 227–239 —— The Pahlavi Rivāyat Accompanying the Dādestān ī Dēnīg, Copenhagen, Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters, 1990, 2 vols —— ‘Zoroastrian and Judaic Purity Laws: Reflections on the Viability of a Sociological Interpretation’, Shaked S. and Netzer, A. (eds.), Irano-Judaica III, Jerusalem, BenZvi Institute, 1994, 72–89 —— ‘Zoroastrianism and the Body,’ in S. Coakley (ed.) Religion and the Body, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1997, 155–166 —— ‘Speaking of Purity: When the Zoroastrian High Priest first met the Hindu Rajah,’ in Erik Reenberg Sand and Jørgen Podemann Sørensen (eds), Comparative Studies in History of Religions, Copenhagen, Museum Tusculanum Press, 1999 —— ‘The Zoroastrian Qesse-ye Sanjān and Judah Halevi’s ‘aliya to Eretz Israel: Reflections on Two Contrasting Journeys in Faith’, in Shaul Shaked and Amnon Netzer, Irano-Judaica V, Jerusalem, Ben-Zvi Institute, 2003, 27–51 —— (trans.) Spiritual Verses Rumi Masnavi Book 1, London and New York, Penguin (Classics), 2006 —— ‘The Structure, Significance and Poetic Integrity of the Qesse-ye Sanjān,’ in Hinnells, J.R. and Williams, A.V. (eds), Parsis in India and the Diaspora, London and New York, Routledge, 2007, 15–34 —— ‘The Literary Re-placement of “Iran” in India: the Qeṣṣe-ye Sanjān of the Zoroastrian “Persians” (Parsis),’ Acta Orientalia Vilnensia 8, 2008, 15–39 Wilson, J. The Pársí Religion: As Contained in the Zand-Avastá and Propounded and Defended by the Zoroastrians of India and Persia, Unfolded, Refuted and Contrasted with Christianity, Bombay, 1843 Wink, A. Al-Hind: The Making of the Islamic World, vol. I Early Medieval India and the Expansion of Islam Bombay, Oxford University Press, 1990 Yarshater, E. ‘Iranian National History,’ in Cambridge History of Iran, vol. 3 (1), ed. E. Yarshater, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1983, 359–477 Zaehner, R.C. The Dawn and Twilight of Zoroastrianism, London, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1961

GENERAL INDEX Ādarbād (-e Mahrasfand) 26, 28, 31, 162, 164, 196, 225 Ahriman 24, 26, 32, 223, 232 Ahura Mazdā see Ohrmazd Airyaman yazad 37 Ākā Adhyāru 229–232, 233 Akbar 191 Alā’oddin Khalji, Sultan of Delhi 192 ālat (pl. ālāt) ‘requisite (ritual) implements’ 183–5 Alexander (Sekandar Shāh) 161, 162, 163, 196, 218 Al-Ṭabari amahraspand (Pahlavi) ‘blessed immortal’ 149, 178 Anklisar (town, modern Ankleshwar) 188 Arabic (in QS) 17, 144, 148 Arabs 33, 34, 39, 167, 195, 219, 224 archaic forms 17 Ardā Virāf 26, 28, 31, 150, 161, 163–4 Ardā Virāfnāme (Persian), Ardā Wīrāz Nāmag (Pahlavi) ‘Book of the Righteous Wīrāz’ 14, 150, 162, 163 Ardashir (Sasanian king) 26, 28, 31, 34, 161, 162, 218 Ardashir (warrior champion) 26–7, 30, 34, 38, 195, 196, 225 Ašәm Vohu (prayer) 153 Astwihād (Pahlavi) astō.viδātu (Avestan) ‘untying of life’, a Zoroastian demon 151 ātash (Persian) ‘fire’ 231 āteshbahrām (Persian) ‘fire of Bahram’, name of the most sacred grade of ritual fires 4, 29, 32, 181–188, 189, 198, 201, 214 author and composition of the QS 2–5, 144, 155, 156, 190–192, 194–6, 198, 201–2, 216, 219–20, 226–8, 230 ‘Aṭṭār, Faridoddin 16, 144 Avesta 25, 156, 160, 224 Avestan ix, 16, 18, 23 Bahārut (town, modern Bahrot) 32, 39, 198

26,

Bahman, Kay Qobād Sanjāna, also known as Vikchu/Vikji (q.v.) 2, 16, 18, 25, 28, 29, 34, 171, 172, 186, 223 Bahrām Varjāvand, a future ‘saviour’ 169 Bahrām (Avestan Vәrәθraγna, q.v.), yazad of victory 29, 34, 166, 171, 172–3, 186, 223, 225 bāj 23 Bānkānir (town, modern Wankaner) 188 Bānsdah (town) 26, 30, 32, 40, 159, 198, 199, 201, 226 Baryāv (town, modern Variav) 188, 189 ‘Battle of Sanjān’ 7, 26–7, 29–30, 32, 33, 216 behdin (Persian) ‘Zoroastrian, layman, (one who is of) the good religion’, 201, 226 benedictory formula 143 Bharuch (town) 188 Bibliothèque Nationale xi, 14 British Library xi, 13, 158 British rule in India 206 Bundahishn/Bundahišn (Pahlavi book) 37, 149 bundahishn (Pahlavi) ‘Creation’ 24, 26, 31, 33, 223 Burzo (Dastur) 4 caste (jajmani) system 228 Changā Āsā (also Changā Shāh, Shāh Changā ebn-e Asā), Parsi layman 26, 30, 159, 196, 200, 226 chronology Ch. 5; 20, 206; three types of chronology 206–14, 217; folk chronology ix, 18 Commentary, 18, Ch. 4 conditions of admission and asylum in India 176–8 cosmology 144, 223 Dabestān-e Maẕāheb, (Persian text) 4 Daēna (Avestan), Dēn (Pahlavi) female personification of one’s deeds post mortem 154

244

general index

daēva (Avestan), dēw (Pahlavi) ‘demon’ 37, 151 Daqiqi, Ferdowsi’s predecessor, who began the Shāhnāme 220 Dārāb Hormazdyār, (Gujarati Hamjiyar) grand-nephew of Bahman and grandson of Qiyāmoddin (q.v.) 4 Dārāb Hormaz(d)yār’s Revāyat ix, xi, 11, 12 Darius 163 dating (of arrival) 7, 176, 206; of battles 7; of removal of āteshbahrām to Navsāri 202; of QS 203 Delhi Sultans 192 Dēnkard (Pahlavi book) 160, 164, 228 diaspora community 6 Diu (island) 26–7, 33, 206 doctrine (Zoroastrian) 23, 25, 178, 233; (Hindu) 232 doxology 16, 23, 26–7, 28, 30, 145, 158, 228 eschatology and cosmogony 223

24, 198f.,

farohar (Persian), frawahr (Pahlavi), fravaši (Avestan)) ‘guardian spirit’ 154, 165 farsang, farsakh (Persian) ‘league’ 182 Farvardin Yašt (Younger Avestan Yašt 13) 155 Fate 39, 195, 198, 224, 225 Ferdowsi/Shāhnāme 16, 17, 35, 149, 157, 192, 195–8, 218–220 Gannāg Mēnōg (Pahlavi) ‘Evil Spirit’ 149 Gāthās of Zarathushtra 152, 153, 155 Gayōmard 149 gētīg (Pahlavi) ‘visible, material state’ 24, 150 Good Religion 226, 228 Gordāfrid 197 Gujarat 26, 29, 188, 180, 191, 192 Gujarat Sultanate 191 Gujarati ix, 1, 7, 15, 175, 177, 210, 211, 230 gūmēzishn, gūmēzišn (Pahlavi) ‘Mixture’ 24, 26, 31, 33, 223 Gushtāsp 26, 31, 165 Hādoxt Nask (part of the Avesta) 154

153,

Haptanghaiti (Yasna, part of the Avesta) 155 history and myth 18–20, Ch. 5 passim, 224; historicism 6, 216 Homer 197 Hormazdyār, (Gujarati Hamjiyar), grandfather of Bahman 3 Hormuz 26, 28, 33, 168, 169 Humān 197 Hušēdar (Pahlavi), the first ‘Saviour’ 165 Hushang (Dastur and teacher of Bahman) 155, 156, 158, 159, 220 Hushang bin Āsā (Dastur) 3 Ibn Battuta 169 iltifāt (Arabic) ‘turning one’s face to’, a literary-linguistic term for pronominal and temporal transition, 145–150, 155, 202 India (Hendustan, Hend) 5, 26, 29, 33, 34, 37, 157, 175, 188, 190, 193, 195, 223–6 Indian/Hindu 6, 26, 195, 196, 197, 232 Indus 190 Iran 5, 8, 28, 33, 219, 223–5, 228; trade with India 205 Irān Shāh, shāh-e Irān, ‘king of Iran’, name of the first āteshbahrām in India 4, 27, 29, 30, 32, 34, 40, 186, 198, 199, 207, 208, 219 Islam 33, 38, 167, 168, 190, 195, 223, 225; ~ic authority 219; ~ic terminology 148, 149 Jādi Rāna (Jādi Rāṇa) 35, 173, 175, 181, 194, 196, 233; Jayadev 175; Vajjadadeva 175 Jāmāspnāme (Zoroastrian Persian book) 14 Jamshid/Jam (Avestan Yima) 166, 178 Jānān ebn-e Sāyer (Chāiyyān son of Shāēr) 201 jashn (from Avestan yasna) ‘feast’ 188 joddin (Persian) ‘non-Zoroastrian’ 167 Jungaŕh (Hindu fort) 191 K.R. Cama Oriental Institute, Mumbai xi, 11 Kāmā (Sanjāna Dastur) 4 Kambāyat (town, modern Khambat) 188 Kāmdin Shāpur 169

general index Kāmdinji, Aspandiarji (Dastur) 210 khal‘at (Persian) ‘robes of honour’ 194 Khojaste (Dastur) 190 Khorasan 168, 181 khorre (Avestan xvarәnah, Pahlavi xwarrah) ‘royal power’ 166–7 Khosrow Parviz (Sasanian monarch) 210 Khworshid Qiyāmoddin (Khorshid Kāmdin) 2, 159, 160, 201 Kuhestān 26, 28, 33 kusti (Persian), kosti, etc., ‘sacred girdle’ 178, 200, 231, 234, 235, 236 laity 225–6 Lord, Henry 170 Maga Brāhmaṇa 232 Mahmud Shāh 29, 34, 35, 38, 190, 195 Mahmud Begaŕhā 191, 192 Mahmud of Ghazna 190 Malcolm, Sir John 6, 13 Mani 28, 161, 164 manuscripts, MSS xi, 1, 11–14 Meherji Rana Library, Navsari xi, 13 mēnōg (Pahlavi) ‘invisible, spiritual state’ 24, 150 Mēnōg ī Xrad (Pahlavi book) Minokherad (Persian) ‘Spirit of Wisdom’ 4 millennium of Zoroaster 25, 26, 33, 165, 225 ‘mirror’ 206, 218, and passim Ch. 5 monājāt (Arabic) ‘devotional address’ to God 16, 144, 150, 152 mowbad (Persian) ‘priest’ 178, 193, 201 MS Folios (photographs of ) 41–52 Muḥammad 144 Mumbai/Bombay xi, 7, 11 Muslim 6, 26, 29, 167, 194, 195 Muzaffar III 191 myth, mythological 5 and fn. 12, 9, 10, 23, 24, 25, 38, 206, 207, 216, 224 Nāgan Rām dastur one of the three priests who brought the Irān Shāh āteshbahrām from Bansdah to Navsāri 159, 160, 201 narrative, synopsis and analysis 9–11, 23–40; ~ shifting 155–7 Narsang (Sanjana Dastur) 4

245

Navsāri 2, 26–7, 30, 32, 159, 188, 199, 200, 201, 226 Nehāvand (battle) 34, 35, 195, 213 Neryosang Daval 229–232 Nezāmi 16 nirang 182 nyaish (Persian) ‘prayers’ 273 Nushiravān Marzbān, Dastur of Kerman 186 Ohrmazd (Hormazd) 24, 149, 164, 172, 173, 178, 231, 232, 233, 236, 237 ‘Olemā-ye Eslām (Zoroastrian Persian book) 14 Padam (Sanjana Dastur) 4 Pahlavi ix, 16, 17, 18, 23; ~books 149 Pahlavi Rivāyat Accompanying the Dādestān ī Dēnīg (Pahlavi book) 153, 185, 199 pañcatattvam (Sanskrit) ’five (Hindu) elements 232, 233 paradigmatic structure 23, 25, 31 Parsi ix, 5, 33, 40, 198, 228, 223; ~arrival 205, 206; ~community 220, 225; ~identity 2, 218; ~history 30; ~oral tradition 229; ~scholarship 19, Ch. 5 passim Parsi Prakash 192, 214 Parthian (dynasty) 218 pāzahr (Persian) ‘antidote’ 199 Persian, Classical ix, 18, 23, 150 Persian revāyats 6, 15, 162, 165, 167 Pilgrim Fathers 7, and fn. 17, 8 poetic structure ix, 9, 15–17 proem 144 purity rules 17, 178–180; ~ in the Sanskrit Ślokas 235, 236 Qābusnāme of Ebn Eskandar 218 Qādisiyyah (battle) 34, 35, 195 Qavāmoddin (also Qiyāmoddin, Kāmdin) brother of Bahman 2 Qeṣṣe-ye Sanjān title 149–50 Qeṣṣe-ye Zartoshtiān-e Hendustān of Shāpurji Maneckji Sanjāna 4, 7, 10, 18, 148, 151, 162, 166–7, 168, 194, 200, 201 Qiyāmoddin-e Jāvid 159 Qur’an 16, 145, 147, 149, 150, 152, 158 rajah 29, 34, 35, 175, 178, 195, 223, 225, 229, 232

246

general index

Revāyat of Bahman Aspandyār 2 Revāyat of Nariman Hushang 180, 200 Revāyat of Kaus Māhyār 3, 159 rites de passage ‘rites of transition’ 5, 32–4, 40 ritual, rite 23, 25, 181, 182, 185 Rostam 195, 197 Rumi (Mowlānā Jalāloddin Balkhi), author of the Masnavi 151, 157 Sabuktagin 190 Ṣaddar (Zoroastrian Persian book of ‘a hundred chapters’) 14, 153, 186 salvation history 24 Sanjān (town) 25, 26–7, 29, 34, 173–4, 180–1, 188–91, 198; Sanjayapura 174 Sanjana priestly lineage 4, 201, 220, 221, 226, 228, 230 Sanskrit xii, 191, 229, 230, 231 Sasanian (dynasty) 32, 34, 205, 213, 218 Saurashtra (peninsula) 191 Shabestāri, Maḥmud 16 Shābuhragān (book) of Māni 164 Shāh Ismā‘il (Safavid monarch) 191 shāh-e Irān see Irān Shāh Shāhnāme see Ferdowsi Shāpurji Maneckji Sanjāna, author of the Qeṣṣe-ye Zartoshtiān-e Hendustān 7, 148, 166, 201 Shāpur (Sasanian monarch) 26, 28, 31, 161, 162, 164, 218 Shāpur Shahriyār 158 Shilahra (Silhāra) 176, 211 simile and metaphor 17–18, 199 Śivarāmā 230 Ślokas of Ākā Adhyāru xii, Appendix 229–237 social change 225–6 ṣodre (ṣudra, etc.) ‘sacred shirt’ 200 Sohrāb 195, 197 Sōšāns (Pahlavi) ‘Saviour’ 199 storm 26–7, 29, 172–3 structure 1, 9–10, ch. 2, 172, 193, 195, 215, 223 Sufi 16, 150, 151, 152, 158

Synoptic Chart 23, 25, 26–7, 31, 33, 199, 223 syntagmatic structure 23, 25 al-Ṭabari 36 transcription 11 Thānā 189 themes and significance 5–9 theology 24, 38 translation 14–15 tripartite structure 25, 31 Ugandan Parsis 8 Ulugh Khān 29, 30, 36, 192, 194 Urdu translation 2 Vadodara (town, modern Baroda) 190 Vendidād (Zoroastrian book) 181, 185 vengeance 34–40 Vәrәθraγna (Avestan) yazata of victory, known also as Bahrām (q.v.) Vikchu/Vikji alias of Bahman 2, 138 Vikram Samvat (V.S.) 772/992 210 wizārishn, wizārišn (Pahlavi) ‘Resolution’ 24, 26–7, 31, 223 yašt, yazišn (Pahlavi) ‘worship’ 182–3 yazad (Pahlavi), yazata (Avestan) ‘god, being worthy of worship’ 37, 149, 178, 231 Yazdegerd III (last Sasanian monarch) 28, 31, 33, 161, 166, 213, 218, 224 Zand ī Wahman Yasht /Wohuman Yasn 38, (Pahlavi book) 161, 164, 165 Zaratushtnāme (Zoroastrian Persian book), 14 Zoroaster 25, 28, 30, 31, 149, 155, 160, 165, 178, 203 Zoroastrian(s) 28, 29, 30, 40, 188, 193, 225, 226; ~identity 200; ~religion 24~self-transformation 5; ~tradition 220; ~warriors 34, 36, 196, 223; ~women 178–181; ~ trading 205

INDEX OF MODERN AUTHORS Abdel Haleem, M.A.S. 145 Anquetil Du Perron, A.H. 14, 158, 193 Axelrod, P. 6, 227

Khareghat, M.P. 210, 232 Kotwal, F.M. xi, 158, 182, 201 Kreyenbroek, P. xi Kulke, E. 6, 207

Barthes, R. 224 Bhathena, B.N. 5–6, 161, 221 Boyce, M. 36, 172, 183–4, 186, 212 Brockington, J.L. xi

Luhrmann, T.

Cama, K.R. 210 Cereti, C.G. 148, 162, 164, 180, 185, 189, 203 Clinton, J.W. 196, 197, 218, 219, 220, 221 Darmesteter, J. 166 Dhalla, H. 206 Douglas, M. 5, fn. 12 Eastwick, E.B. 13, 19, 177, 193 Eduljee H.E. 206, 211, 212, 214, 215 Elwell-Sutton, L.P. 16 Firby, N. 170 Frost, R. 14 Gandhi, Indira 208 Godrej, P. xi Gray, L.H. 166 Hartman, S.S. 230, fn. 5 Hinnells, J.R. xi Hintze, A. 148, fn. 5 Hodivala, S.H. 2, 12, 145, 159, 163, 169, 175–8, 180, 192–4 and Ch. 5 passim Hodiwala, S.K. Ch. 5 passim, 229–31 Inostrantsev, K.A. Jamaspasa, K.M. Johnson, W.J. xi de Jong, A. xi, 219

19, 168

6

Madon, Justice D.P. 208 Maneck, S.S. 220–1, 227 McLeod, J. 191 Menant, D. 213 Mirza, H.K. 208 Mistree, K.P. xi Modi, J.J. 2, 7, 12, 158, 159, 163, 181, 190, Ch.5 passim, 230 Munshi, S. ix Mulla Firoze 231 Nanji, R. xii, 174, 188, 206 Nigosian, S.A. 19 Paymaster, R.B. 7, 13, 177, 230, 231 Pocock, D. 5, fn. 11 Punthakey Mistree, F. xi Purshariati, P. 219 Robinson, N. 145 Rubin, Z. 219 Russell, J.R. xi Schmermbeck, B. 16, 151, 152 Schmidt, H.-P. 229, 230 Shaked, S. xi Stewart, S. 24 Tambling, J. Unvala, M.R.

156 ix, 12, 230

Van Gennep, A. 32–3 Venkatagiri, Varahagiri 208 Wilson, Revd Dr John Wink, A. 205 Zaehner, R.C.

165

19, 20, 175

INDEX OF PROPER NAMES AND TECHNICAL TERMS IN THE TRANSLATED TEXT OF THE QS (references are to the verse) Adam 28, 59 Ādar (name of 9th month and 9th day) 378 Ādarbād-e Mahrasfand 90 Ahriman 68, 422C Alexander (sekandar) 82 Anklesar (town) 228 Ardashir (Sasanian monarch) 84 Ardashir (warrior) 270 (title), 288, 289, 309, 311, 312 (title), 316, 323, 330, 332, 334, 343, 346 Ardā Virāf 86 Ashәm (Vohu) 45 Avesta 68, 78 Bahārut (town) 353 (& title) Bahman 32, 49, 55, 407 Bahrām (yazad ) 124, (Fire of ) 129, 131, 196, 357, 366 (title), 390 bāj and barsom 236–7 Bānkānir (town) 226 Bānsdah (town) 353 (title), 358, 361, 365, 366 (& title), 377 Baryāv (town) 227 Bharuch (town) 227 Changashāh 369

366; Changā bin Āsā

dastur, (high-) priest 67, 69, 75, 99, 104, 106, 117, 121, 135, 160, 139, 150, 151, 183, 190, 191, 195, 204, 208, 217, 220, 223, 232–5, 379, 397–8, 401, 406, 409, 412 Evil Spirit (ganā minu) farohar

87

47

Garōdmān

409

Hend 110, 111, 113,114, 128, 143, 155, 191A

herbad (‘scholar priest’) 256 Hindi 425 Hindu 163, 183, 205, 253, 270 (title), 276, 284, 285, 312 (title), 314, 352 Hormazdyār (grandfather of Bahman) 409 Hormuz (town) 104 Hushang 67A Irān 97, 155, 191 Irān Shāh (also shāh-e irān) 363, 399, 408

220, 355,

Jādi Rāna 138, 205, 213 Jamshid 167 Jānān ebn-e Sāyer 398 jashn-e sade 377, 378 joddin 199, 206 Kambāyat (town) 228 Kay Qobād (father of Bahman) 408 Khorāsān (region) 215, 216 Khordād (for Hordād, name of 3rd month) 421 Khojaste (Dastur) 236 Khworshid (Dastur) 397 Khwoshmast (Dastur) 235 Kuhestān (region) 101 koshti (‘sacred girdle’) 371 kusti (kosti, ‘sacred girdle’) 135 Mahmud (called shāh and ṣoltān) 243 (title), 246, 250 mowbad (‘ritual priest’) 256, 261, sometimes used interchangeably with dastur 161, 186 Nāgan Rām (Dastur) 396 Navsāri (town) 229, 366 (title), 401, 407, 413 Pāzand 98 Persians (parsi)

365

250

index of proper names

Qiyāmoddin Jāvid (father of Khworshid) 397 Sanjān (town) 136, 191, 232, 243 (& title), 247, 249, 364 Sanjāna 192, 410, 411 Shāpur (Sasanian monarch) 89, 93 sudre 371 Ulugh Khan (Mahmud Shāh’s general) 248, 252, 270 (title), 271, 308, 312 (title), 315, 336 Urvisgah 208

Vikchu Bahman’s Hindi name 425 Vishtāspa (goshtāsp, Zoroaster’s royal patron) 77 Yazdegerd (yazdegerd, yazdegar, yazdegarshāh, Sasanian monarch) 93, 95A, 401B, 420 Zand 68, 98 Zoroaster (zartosht)

77, 94, 95, 431