The Sogdian Fragments of The British Library

NICHOLAS SIMS-WILLIAMS
THE SOGDIAN FRAGMENTS OF THE BRITISH LIBRARY
The Sogdian MSS. of the British Library ~ form a part of the collection o f
antiquities discovered by Sir Aurel Stein on his Central Asian expeditions of
1 9 0 6 - 8 : and 1913-163.
The publication of these MSS., begun by Gauthiot 4 and Miiller,s was
virtually completed by Reichett in 1928-31.6 Three additional fragments
were published by Benveniste in 1938. 7 Five more have been published only
in facsimile (see below, n. 10, and next page, n. 13). Since the nineteen-thirties
very substantial progress has been made in the study of Sogdian, with the
result that all these pioneering editions are to a greater or lesser extent
outdated. Several texts have been re-edited by Benveniste,s and a new edition
of six major Buddhist texts 9 by D. N. MacKenzie is in the press. Still badly
needed are modern editions o f the 'Ancient Letters" and other MSS. in the
older Sogdian script, ~~of the later Sogdian letters; H and of the miscellaneous
fragments edited here. ~2
In addition to the fragments published by Reichelt and Benveniste, the
present work contains the editio princeps of eighteen fragments which have
Formerly the library of the British Museum.

2 See Stein's Serindia, 5 vols., London, 1921 (= Ser.).
3 See Stein's Innermost Asia, 4 vols., London, 1928 (= L A.).
4 'Une version sogdienne du Vessantara J.~taka', JA, 1912, 163-93,430-510; (with
L de la Vall6e Poussin) 'Fragment final de la Ni'lakanthadhS_ranienbr~amiet en transcrip-
tion sogdienne', JRAS, 1912, 629-45. The Sogdian part of the text of the latter requires
the following corrections: line 29 "ry'fl.r'wkSy~flr; line 34 8rzy "wr.
5 'Reste ether soghdischen IJbersetzung des PadmacintLma.ni-dhfirani-shtra',SPA 1r
1926, 2-8.
6 Die soghdischen Handsehriftenreste des Briti~chen Museums, 2 vols., Heidelberg,
1928-31 (= R.).
"Notes sogdiennesl, 4] ", BSOS, 9/3, 1938, 495-519 (= B.). The article also contains
a list of corrections to the readings_ofMiiller and Reichett.
8 Vessantara J~taka, Paris, 1946; Fragment 3 (as P3.211 304) and the Rustam
fragment (as P13.II) in Textes sogdiens, Paris, 1940 (= TSP).
9 Namely Padm., Vim.,Dhu.,Dhy., Intox., Vaj.
1o 'Dokument IX" in R. ; T. VI.c.ii.1 in Ser., P1. CLVII; L.M. lI.ii.09 and LA. II.x.01-02
inL A., P1. CXXIV; L.A. IV.v.028 and L.L. 018 (unpublished).
1~ 'Dokument X' and 'Dokument XI'.
i2 For Fragments 2a (of which Reichelt's edition is for the most part still safisfaelory)
and 3 (re-edited by Benveniste) it has seemed sufficient to give a short list of corrections
to the readings.
1halo-Iranian Journal 18 (1976) 43-82. All Rights Reserved

Copyright 9 1976 by D. ReMel l~lblishing Company, Dordrecht-Holland
44 NICHOLAS SIMS-WILLIAMS
SO far been overlooked. 13 A number of these have previously been catalogued

as Uighur, or not at all. Though the present edition is intended to be complete,
it is not impossible that a few more fragments will be discovered in the future.
In particular there is now no record of Toy. I.ii.01014 and Toy. II1.031,1s
both described by Le Coq in/. A., II, 1048, nor of some of the fragments
listed as Uighur, ibid., 1 0 4 8 - 9 .
The fragments form an extremely heterogeneous collection, including a
magical text (No. 3), a Christian divination text (No. 18), an epic fragment
(Rustam, No. 13), graffiti ( 2 1 - 2 ) , and commercial (33) and medical fragments
(34), as well as Buddhist and Manichean works; amongst the most interesting l
are the Buddhist tale of the farmer and the fisherman (2a) and the Manichean
texts 5 - 6 (on the five sins corresponding to the five commandments for the
Electi). It has seemed simplest to adopt and continue the numeration
introduced by Reichelt for Fragments 2 a - 1 1 , incompatible though this is
with any classification of the fragments according to their contents. In the
event, the only principle in the arrangement adopted is that the fragments
belonging to Stein's 1 9 0 6 - 8 expedition (Nos. 2 a - 2 3 ) are given before those
from the 1 9 1 3 - 1 6 expedition (Nos. 2 4 - 3 4 ) . In each group, the fragments
previously published by Reichelt and Benveniste precede those published
here for the first time (Nos. 15-23, 2 6 - 3 4 ) .
In describing the fragments the terms 'formal script' and 'cursive script'
have been used. The 'formal script' is the square and regular book-hand
chiefly found in Buddhist works such as VJ and SCE and for this reason
sometimes referred to as the 'Sfitrascript'. Here a neutral term has been
preferred, since on the one hand there are Buddhist texts written in 'cursive
script' and in styles intermediate between 'formal' and 'cursive', and on the
other hand we have, in P3, at least one example of a non-Buddhist text
written in a style close to the standard 'formal script'. The 'formal script' as
here defined does not vary substantially from one MS. to another. 16 'Cursive',
on the other hand, is a blanket term covering a considerable variety of more
or less irregular and simplified script-styles, including some which have
1, This number includes one fragment (No. 27) which has been published in facsimile
(L A., P1. CXXIV) but excludes Fragment 10a (on which see below, p. 52).
14 Le Coq's description of this MS. might fit Fragment 29: 'Fr. of Chin. Buddhist text.
On back remains of some 1011of Soghdian text in a fair running hand'.
ts According to Le Coq, Toy. 111.031 consisted of an Uighur fragment together with a
smaller Sogd. fragment. The former is now numbered Or. 8212/1803, but there is no
trace of the latter.
~6 A specific distinctive feature of the 'formal script' is the writing of aleph as a
triangular dot with a small line protruding from the right-hand side. No aleph of this
shape occurs in any type of 'cursive'.
THE SOGDIAN FRAGMENTS OF THE BRITISH LIBRARY 45
commonly been called 'Uighur'. Whereas in the 'formal script' all the letters
of the alphabet are clearly distinguished from one another, with the
exception of r/c and non-final n/z and 7Ix, 17 in the various forms of 'cursive'
a considerable degree of ambiguity is found. Pairs of letters particularly
prone to be similar or even indistinguishable are: n(z)/', '/y, y/r, r/[3, 3'['s.
The observation 'cursive script' should therefore be taken as a warning,
implying that the reading proposed may contain an element of interpretation.
In the texts the following notation (based on Henning's system, cf.
BSOAS, 11/1, 1943, 56) is used:
/~ = reading certain (in the case of'cursive', subject to the proviso
mentioned above).
(/5c~) = reading uncertain, owing to damage, poor-quality paper, etc.
c?~.) = traces compatible with the reading proposed.
[/3c6 ] = letters wholly restored.
.... approximate number of illegible letters.

[ . . . ] = approximate number of missing letters.
It is a pleasure to thank Dr. Gershevitch for his many valuable suggestions
quoted below, and in particular for the appendix which he has contributed to
this article. Professor Schwartz also, with his accustomed generosity, has saved
me from a number of errors.la
Fragment2a
Or. 8212/88 = Ch. 00354.19 Published by R., I, 57 ff. Formal script. Another
fragment (02) from the same MS. and text was published (with a facsimile)
by Rosenberg, Izvesti/a, 1918, 8 1 7 - 4 2 . 2o Fragment 11 (below, p. 53) may
also belong to this MS.
The text of R. requires the following improvements: line 1 r t y m ( n ) . . [;
2 - 3 (k)[~tyc]/(k) [r'] (y ?mrS); 27 m w n ' w mrty Z Y 'Icy (thus already B., 497);
29 p r ' y m ' n t r'Swh (thus already B., 497).
~7 See BSOAS, 38/1, 1975, 132-4.

~s Apart from the abbreviations already listed, and those in common use, the following
occur below: BST II = Hansen, Berliner sogdische Texte II, Abhandlungen der Akademie
der Wissenschaften und der Literatur in Mainz, 1954, No. 15: Cod. Sogd. = Codices
Sogdiani, Copenhagen, 1940; 'Paris Texts' = Henning, 'The Sogdian texts of Paris',
BSOAS, 11/4, 1946, 713-40; STSC = Schwartz, Studies in the texts of the Sogdian
Christians, unpublished Berkeley dissertation, 1967; 'Tales' = Henning, 'Sogdian Tales',
BSOAS, 11/3, 1945, 465-87.
~9 All the fragments with signature Ch. (= Ch'ien-fo-tung) + number are described in
Ser., II, 924-5.
20 Reichelt (R., I, 71) gave this fragment the title 'Fragment 2', referring to the fragment
02 published by Rosenberg in Izvesti]a, 1920, 399-420, 455-74, as 'Fragment 1'.
Fragment 3
Or 8212/80B = Ch. 0093.B. Published by R., I, 61ff., and re-edited by
Benveniste, TSP, as lines 211-304 of P3. Facsimile in Set., IV, PI. CLVIII.
Formal script. The following list of corrections applies to Benveniste's
edition. In a few cases the correction marks a return to the reading ofR. A
few corrections to the Paris folios are included. These are based on the
facsimiles published in Cod. Sogd., P1. 154-8, and are additional to those
given by Henning, 'Paris Texts', 726-30, 735.
Line 1 delete punctuation; 25 rtyJw (one word); 37 ZKh; 78 nyz'y; 80
ZKn; 102 rtms; 147 np "ys'y Z Y ZKw; 170 n "'m t Z Y 3'5 'wz (final z distinct
from n); 22Opt'w; 227 p(tsg)'wc'y (s apparently cut out in the course of
piercing the paper and rewritten above); 246 rtyk6; 286 perhaps wrT'(7);
288 z'm and the s of 'ps~ryc written above the line; 295 add h (line-filler) at
the end of the line; 302 z ~vh (without point).
Fragment 4
Or. 8212/84 = Ch. 00289. Published by R., I, 68. A distinctive form of cursive
script, closely resembling that of Fragment 13 (Rustam), on which see below.
The two fragments are in fact probably the work of the same scribe, as
suggested by B., 498.
1 [ . . . . ] mwT~t mygt'y wgt'y w~t"y
2 'gtwTrn'y twrt'y 'Tw~t'yrtm a
3 wyS"rty 'YKZY 'skw'z 'Tw/~7'n MLK'
4 '~.s'yst yb 7wpw '~i8/37r 'wyh ~(w)5'nt'k
5 rwT~n'Trtimnyh prw ~yr'kw ~m'r'kh
6 pr'ys wr 'Tw 'sptk 'rt'w zrw~c
7 ~wd/~r' nm'c MN s'pt z'nwk'
8 'kw 7w'r'nt MN 7w'r'nt z'nwk'
9 'kw s'pt rtgw e m'y5 pty~kwy/~7'
10 [g](y)r'nk'rk 8'tkr' 6'tnm'nn f 8't
?
aAll occurrences of ~ in lines 1-2 are unambiguously} rather than s.

bhardly '.rs'ysty. esic. dhardly3'w. eor rt'rw, fsic (cf., p. 54 with
n. 44 below).
' . . . . At that time, when the king of the gods, the famous, ~1 skilful supreme
2~ < Av. fra-sasta-?

god, 22 was residing in the sweet-smelling (5) Paradise in Good Thought, there
came thither the perfect, righteous ZaraOu~tra, paid homage to him, ~3 from
the left knee to the right, from the right knee to the left, and addressed
him ~ thus: "O God, (10) beneficent law-maker, justly deciding 2s judge 26 . . . . " '.
The religious affiliation of the author of this text has been much discussed.
Schaeder (apud R., II, vii) made him a Manichean, while Rosenberg (OLZ,
1929, No. 3 , 2 0 0 ) considered Fragments 4, 5 and 6 'stark mazdeistisch'. On
the other hand Benveniste ('Notes . . . [ , I] ', JRAS, 1933, 5 3 - 5 ) m a i n t a i n e d
Reichelt's original assumption that all three fragments derive from a Buddhist
source, though later (B., 498) he left the question open. However, the
arguments adduced hardly bear the weight of interpretation put upon them.
In particular, the true facts have been obscured by the assumption that
Fragments 5 and 6 belong to the same MS. as 4, which is certainly incorrect,
in view of the dissimilarity of the hands, and by the general acceptance of R.'s
reading 'rs'ysty in line 4 and o f Schaeder's interpretation of it as ** 'lm 'ysty
'Ohrmizd'.
The theory that this fragment belongs to a Buddhist work is hardly
tenable in view of the equation of the '88/37 'supreme god', which in Buddhist
texts translates Mah~deva, with the 'king of the gods', a title which, by
common consent (Buddhist: Dhy., 1 7 3 - 4 ; Manichean: 27 P25.2), belongs to
Zurw~n. That the Sogdian Buddhists conceived of Mah~deva and Z u r w ~
(Brahma-) as quite distinct personages is clear from VJ, 913-16.
On the other hand, much of the text is made up o f words and phrases of
authentically Zoroastrian flavour. Some of these are already attested in
Manichean and Buddhist texts: rw~n'Tr6mn (Man. and Buddh.) = Av.
raoxJnom gar~ nm{mom; 'rt'w zrw~c (Man. "rt'w zr'wJc, Fragment 6.2) =
aJava zaraOu~trS; 7wpw ' 8 ~ 7 cf. ahurb mazd[t hvap5, Yt. 5.8528 (Man. xwp
22 The spelling '88fl~/is also found in VJ, 934;Padre., 38; and perhaps P12.16. The
usual spelling is "880~/("807 only in VJ, 911, 1211). The spelling with single aleph
(representing a long vowel) arises from the method of writing 8 as a small triangular dot
(like n/z/') and adding the ascender after the completion of the rest of the word. If the
scribe wrote only three instead of four triangular dots (whether intending to write "8~7
or merely by mistake), and then completed two as 68, he was left with a single aleph
only. [The spelling "8/~3,also occurs in TiiiS 23 (2), GMS, w
23 For ~w used as an oblique (GMS, w1367) cf. Fragment 13.37.
24 The reading rt~w has been preferred to rtTw because pt~kwy- is usually construed
with a direct object, seldom (as in VJ, 306) unexpressed.
2s See Hennlng, 'Tales', 485 with notes 1 and 2.
26 Restore 8't-(ll)-l~r].
27 See Henning, 'Paris Texts', 713, n. 6. [Also #3,'nT~y~, W.-L. i, 95, v. 7.]
28 The parallel was pointed out to me by Dr. Gershevitch.
xwrmzt_'~% M5266, R 8 - 9 , published by Henning, BSOAS, 12/2, 1948, 314).

Others appear here for the first time: ~yr'kw Jm'r'kh = vohu manS; 'sptk =
spit~tma- (popular re-interpretation); MN s'pt z 'nwk' 'kw 7w'r'nt MN
Tw'r'nt z'nwk' 'kw s'pt cf. h~vOya b~zvO da~ina~a da~ina b~zv6 h~aya~a,
Yt. 17.22 (etc.). 28 Finally, as Dr. Gershevitch has brilliantly recognized, the
first two lines of the fragment, hitherto totally unintelligible, contain a copy
of the prayer AJom vohft, written, however, not in Avestan, but in a form of
Sogdian far older even than that of the 'Ancient Letters' (see Dr. Gershevitch's
Appendix, below, pp. 75-83).
The occurrence in this text of such a wealth of Zoroastrian lore by no
means excludes the possibility that its author may have been a Manichean.
The Iranian Manichees possessed detailed knowledge of the doctrines and
practices of Zoroastrianism (from which many of them must have been first-
generation converts). See, for instance, Henning, 'Tales', 476 (the doctrine of
the individual da~n~); BSOAS, 11/1, 1943, 7 3 - 4 (Vi~t~spa and Hutaos~);
and especially Mitteliranische Manichaica, II, SPA W, 1933, 3 1 9 - 2 0 (ritual), 29
where a number of Zoroastrian technical terms are used. Though there is no
reason in principle why there should not have existed a Zoroastrian literature
in Sogdian, 3~ it is perhaps more probable, since there is no proof to the
contrary, that this MS. is Manichean. More positive support for the Manichean,
as opposed to the Zoroastrian, hypothesis may be derived from the following
line of argument (suggested by Dr. Gershevitch): the author cannot have been
unaware that the 'supreme god' addressed by ZaraOu~tra was in fact Ahura
MazdL Had he been a Zoroastrian he would have named him as such. Being
a Manichean, however, for whom xwrmzt was the Primus Homo, he was
obliged to define ZaraOu~tra's god without naming him. 3~ Finally, since
Fragments 4 and 13 are probably written in the same hand, attention may be
drawn to the occurrence in the latter of kt- 'that' (lines 10, 30, 37), on which
see below, p. 55, n. 43, and of the exclusively Manichean spelling w/3' 'was'
(line 7). [See further below, p. 82, n. 116.]
Fragments 5 and 6
Or. 8212/83 = Ch. 00334 and Or. 8212/82 = Ch. 00335 respectively. Published
by R., I, 69-70. Cursive script. The two fragments probably belong to a
single MS., in view of their similar width, paper, handwriting and contents,
a8 The parallel was pointed out to me by Dr. Gershevitch.

29 See further Boyce,JRAS, 1966, 100-101.
30 Cf. Henning's remarks on P3 in 'Mitteliranisch' (HandbuchclerOrientalistik, Abt. I,
Bd. IV, Iranistik, 1), 85, and BSOAS, 28]2, 1965, 253.
31 And without necessarily identifying ZaraOu~tra's#7'n MLK', whom he knew
Zoroastrians called Xurmazd, with his own #'r'nMLK', Zurw~n.
though the writing of 6 is considerably smaller (possibly owing to lack of

space towards the end of the work). The Chinese texts on the verso sides
may also be by one hand, but the direction of the writing - as compared with
that of the Sogdian - runs opposite ways on the two fragments, showing that
the sheets were glued together anew for re-use.
1 w[ ]
2 Twrty (3) [ ]
3 'sk(wty) (nw)k(r)[ a 'rt'w] zr'w~c 7w
?
4 c]tyk' 7r'n 7nt'k' 'krt'nyh
5 Twn'x ZY 3'w mrt71-n'k tr('y)Tn 'ync ]kr'y
6 /3'y ZY pw ]/3'r r'zyh ZY Tw 7r/3 [ ]
7 /3n'y]'y ZY 7r/3 7'n'kh '(nT)w('y')[y ]
?
8 cnn wyr' pt'yn kwn'y ZY 3,w "/3rTs'k
9 mync m'n L' ptr'mt kwn'y rty~y
10 cntn ZKh ]yr'k(r)tyh 'krch/3'y
?
11 ZKn pry "/3rTs'k pw ~ ' r p(w) (p'~)
12 mrt3,rnk rty ]y 7w rw'n cn(n)[ ~'w t'r'y]
13 [tm] (') ZK zr'nk' nyst . [ ]
14 [ ] (k)8 [ ]
6 1 [ ] (k) pr 7r~ w'/~'y8 p(w) [ ] ......

2 [ ]. 'rt'w zr'w~c pncmyk 7[r'n 'krt'ny Twnx] c(yw')[y]
3 msy'tr nyst ZY '(M) z.Tm' w L6'y zY swntk '] ~ ' k ' (flr'k) b
4 p'rZY 7w zTm'(s)' [y ] (m) [r] (t) [7] mk p [ ] (z)]ty
ZY my
5 /3wt ZY gy ms p[y] (s~m(wr)~ (ZK) (r)[w'n cnn ] (~'(w)
(t'r)'y tm' ZK 9.
6 (z)r'nk' nyst rty ms ZK swntk z~ ['] (')k ~ry mrt(Tm')k
?
7 p(rym)'y~/3wmh 7r~ e 3,nt'k 'krtw 8(')rt rty ms cnn
??
8 . . . . . y pyS'r '[wy] h rw(7)~n'3'(r)~mnwh ZK pgknt 'krty ZY a
9 .[. ](z~t)y .[.]'(').[ ] pyS('r)z~tyZydcyw,y8
afurther traces visible here under the glass appear to belong to an unattached
scrap of paper, bsqueezed in at the end of the line. Capparenflyn,,/r#,
but the first stroke may have been intended to be cancelled because it
touches the h of [3wmh. dsic (wrongly B.).
' . . . . eats . . . . is . . . . Now, O righteous ZaraOugtra, the third serious evil sin
(5.5) is this, that a man should be a sinful s2 woman-chaser and without
shame . . . . ,3s that he should deceive many w o m e n , a4 and break up many
homes, and divide the wife from the husband, that he should not be able to
subdue his lascivious mind. (5.10) However great a virtuous action may have
been performed by him, the lascivious, shameless, dishonourable man, there
is no deliverance (for) his soul from black, dark hell . . . . (6.1) . . . . by many
such great . . . . N o w , 0 righteous ZaraOu~tra, the fifth serious 3s sin is this -
there is none greater than this - that one should be lying 36 and deceitful-
tongued; for the lying m~n is hateful to me in this life(?), (6.5) and even
after (his) death there is no deliverance (for) his soul f r o m black, dark hell.
Moreover, the man who has a deceitful tongue has done much evil on this
earth, and even in Paradise there has been havoc 37 because of(his) lies, and . . . .
hateful . . . . Because of this he is hated, and because o f this . . . . '.
Since the fifth 'serious sin' is said to be the greatest ( 6 . 2 - 3 ) , it is reasonable
to suppose that it is also the last and that the five sins are listed in ascending
order of seriousness. The Manichean provenance of this text is put b e y o n d
doubt by comparison with the corresponding 'five commandments for
Electi' (M 14, V 2 1 - 2 , Waldschmidt-Lentz, 'Manich/iische Dogmatik', SPA W,
1933, 548), which are listed in the opposite (descending) order of importance.
Of these the first is r~ty 'k 'truth' (: .z3,m' 'lying', 6.3), the third 6 y n c y h r y f t
'chastity 'aS (: "~rTs'k 'lasciviousness', 5.11); while Twrty 'eats' in 5.1 is not
32 Dr. Gershevitch points out that tr('y)'yn (= Man. t_ry3,n,Henning, 'Tales', 486, note h)
is the adj. corresponding to the noun Oss. tiir~Tiid 'si~; pity', showing that its base is gan-
(and not gam- as proposed by Bailey, BSOAS, 12/2, 1948, 331). Originally, he'suggests,
*taraz-gan- may have been a term in archery 'hitting beyond (the mark), missing',
*taraz-gati- 'miss', whence 'sin' (and ultimately 'pity' like Italian peccato 'sin; (it is a)
pity', of. also German Schade, French domrnage).
33 Neither the meaning ofr'zyh (r'nyh) nor its syntactic function are clear. Possiblypw
~g'r r'zyh is a set phrase (like Man. (p)w kws kyr'n GMS, w 'without shame (or)
secrecy (r~zyh, abstract of r~z 'secret'), i.e. modesty'. Ifr'nyh, perhaps 'in pleasure', to
rv/Tan-.
34 Or 'husbands'?
3s There is insufficient room to restore the pleonastic 3,nt'k' (as in 5.4) as well as the
essential words 7[r 'n 'krt 'nv ~/wnx] .
36 The correct restoration of this line is naturally uncertain. For the interpretation of
'(/14) z.ym' as equivalent to an adjective (Av. **ha~a-drugma-) 'lying' cf. P2.588-9
'M w'r~s' Z Y ~M]'t'wq,y'kh 'skwty 'he is joyful and contented', 1164-5' M tns ZI/ 'M
'nt'w~c 'sk'wty 'he is regretful and unhappy', etc. Instead of w [/3~vZY] one might
restore w[ '#'y ZK ] and translate: 'that the deceitful-tongued (man) should speak with
lies'.
37 < *Vpa-'~kanda- (regarding the ?~cf. GMS, w167 The translation 'havoc' was
suggested by Dr. Gershevitch.
38 See Henning, BBB, p. 15.
inappropriate to the passage corresponding to the fourth commandment

qwcyzprty' 'purity of mouth'.
Fragments 7 - 1 0 a
Or. 8212/111 = Ch. lviii.0012. Five fragments of a scroll, four of them
published by R., II, 77ff., the fifth (10a) unpublished. The script is inter-
mediate between 'formal' and 'cursive'. Thus, though the form of aleph
typical of the 'formal' script (cf. above, p. 44, n. 16) occurs only once, 39 aleph
is in general well-differentiated from n/z (for exceptions see notes e and f to the
text). That these fragments belong to a single MS. was pointed out by Stein,
Ser., II, 925 (wrongly R.). According to Benveniste, TSP, 105, Fragment 7
belongs to the same MS. as P8. It is in fact another copy of the same text,
lines 7 - 1 3 corresponding to P8.1-7. Similarly Fragment 10 = P8.19-25.
The other fragments, which have no corresponding passages in P8, must belong
to the earlier part of the text (missing in P8). These facts suggest that the
fragments are likely to belong to the Paris MS. P8bis (another copy of
P8.67-102), a hypothesis which is supported by the sirailarity of the writing
of P8bis to that of the fragments and by the spelling pw6yst~ passim, against
pwtyst~ inP8.
7 1 o a p~y' ty p~y' (ty) k' kp. [
2 tr'/3yt' mntr' '~'7(') [
?
3 nm'w pwtt nm'w ~ rm nm'w [ snk
4 nm'cw ~r'm 'wyn rtn~y(k) [yn pwty prn
?
5 nm'cw ~r'm 'wyn k~'ymnk(r) [ p] (wty) prn [
??
6 nm'cw/3r'm 'wyn typ'nkr pwtty prn [
7 nm'cw flr'm 'wyn py~'ckwr/3yr'wr pri3r'c b pwty (p) [rn
8 nm'cw/3r'm 'wyn "myt' pwtty pm [
9 nm'w nm'cw ~r'm 'wyn nw 1-L(P)W nw RYPW knky c
pt~m'r p[wt'y]ty prn
10 nm'cw ~r'm 'wyn nw 1-LPW nw RYPW pwSyst/3 'nt'c [prn
11 [nm] 'cw/3r'm 'wyn m'ytr'k pwSyst~ m(7)'(s) [~ prn
12 [nm'cw ~r'm] 'wyn/3'swmytr (pw)6 [yst/3 mT'st~ prn
13 [nm'cw/3r'm 'wy] (n) [
8 1 '](')pryw[n
?
2 "ry'/3] (r)'wk~y~ [/3r
?
39 In the word beginning ". [ in 9.9.

3 ] k 6/3'y~ p.[
4 ] .k 7cy rty p[
5 ] pttpy 'ywzn(k) ['y8
?
6 n] yz/3'n'k 'nq,t [k
7 ] rty'ky 'wy(h)[
1 ] .swty [
2 1. 'y~ rt[y
3 ].'yn c'm wys[
4 8'm] 6'r'k d "ry'13r'wk [6yg~r
5 ]. 6~'nekrgny 'yw(z)[nk'y5
q
6 ].ty' 8'r'y rty '. [

7 ] y rty 'wyh y'n. [f
8 ] (y)g rty cnn wys (p)[n'
? ?
9 ] 'k ptsrwm ". [
10 ](w) y'nh f cw.[
11 wyspy] 6r'k "s('.) [
10 1 [nm'cw/3r'm 'wyn s] wttr]n(y) (p)[w6yst~ mT's~ prn ]
?
2 [nm'cw/3r'm 'wyn ] (sw) ttrs'yng [pw6yst/3 m3"st/3 prn ]
??
3 [nm'cw/3r'm 'wyn] cntr/3rwcw[n pw~iyst~ mT'st~ prn ]
4 [nm'cw 13r'm 'wyn] swry#rwcw(n) [ pw6yst/3 mT'st/3 prn ]
?
5 [nm'cw/3r'm 'wyn rTw~] (n)y mwk~ ny(r) [~'n prn ]
?
6 [nm'cw/3r'm 'wyn wy] sp 7r/3'k [t pwt'n'k 'nw'z'k prn ]
7 [nm'cw 13r'm 'wy] (n) (pw)6(y) [st~'n'k 'nw'z'k prn ]
? ?? ?
apunctuation mark. bread pr[3r'c also in P8.1. ereading certain.

dcf. P8.61 etc. efor the fourth letter (apparently n) cf. the ' of Or'm,
P8bis.13. fapparently yzn- (ynz-) in both cases; there seems to be no
other ' in the fragments o f this MS. similar to the second letter, but the
material is insufficient to exclude this reading, gsic.
It is not worth printing Ilia, which contains the ends of eight lines written in
columns, each ending with the word pw] 6 [y] st[3 (or traces thereof) followed
by a wide margin (maximum width 78 mm.) which may nevertheless not be
complete at any point. This fragment evidently formed part of an enumeration
or invocation similar to that in Fragments 7 and 10.
The chief point of interest here is the expression nw 1-L{P)W nw R YPW
knky pt]m'r p [wt'y~ty prn] 'the fortune of the Buddhas whose-reckoning-is-

ninety-nine-thousand-fold', for which P8.3 has merely nw 1-LPWnw R YPW
pwt'y]ty ac prn 'the fortune of the 99,000 Buddhas'. The unique suffix -knky
is to be compared with the (mostly distributive) -k- suffixes discussed by
Gershevitch, TPS, 1948, 6 3 - 5 . It may be analysed as containing the suffix
*-k~na- or *-k~na-ka-, cf. NPyag~n(e), Pahl. ~k~nag, etc., 4~ further extended
by, respectively, the Sogdian suffix -ky or the element -y of this suffix. 41
Fragment 11
Or. 8212/177. According to the British Library's Handlist, this fragment,
which has no signature, was found amongst the Chinese MSS. (presumably
those from Ch' ien-fo-tung). Published by R., II, 80. Formal script. As
suggested above, p. 45, this scrap may belong to the same MS. as Fragments 2
and 2a, as the paper, the ruling and the handwriting all appear identical. A
further indication is the occurrence in 11.4 of 'tn, since this form occurs
five times in 2 and 2a and only three times 42 in the rest of the published
literature
1 ] (p)'t (..k) [ ]
2 ] m 'PZY cnn 3'wnTw mrt3"m'
3 ] s c'wn cyw'nt mst'
4 ~] y ' ~ v 'BY' 'tn 'Th
5 ] ny"z p'r't 6'r'nt rty
6 ](w) ' ] . . . [ ]
' . . . . and from that man . . . . from that drunkard . . . . his father and
mother . . . . nourished him in his need and . . . . '.
Fragment 12
Or. 8212/113 = M. Tagh a.0048. Cf. Ser., III, 1289, 1295. Published by R.,
II, 64, as 'Fragment A'. Part of the right margin is preserved. Verso blank.
Cursive script.
1 "/Sy pc3,.m 5.[
2 ZY 5/Ympnwh 2 a . [
[the rest of the fragment is blank.]
azY less likely.
4o Dr. Gershevitch refers also to Arm. dahekan 'SpaX#~, 8rW&p~ou'(Htibschmann,

Armenische Grammatik, I, Leipzig, 1897, 133), on which he provides the following note:
'On the evidence of OP *pan~uka-, *daOahwaka-,etc. "piece worth 5, ~ , etc." (JNES,
24, 1965, 184), the suffix ofclahekan (literally "piece worth ten, a decade") would seem
demonstrably to represent a secondary enlargement of a -ka- that was a numeral
abstract suffix'. (Cf. Skt. trik[z-'triad; three-fold', etc.)
41 For the shortening of~ before n see GMS, w (and 121).
42 Dhy., 69 and 74; P9.84.
The spelling 8i'mpnwh is also found in the Manichean missionary history

(Sundermann, Acta Or., 36, 1974, 137) and in Tale J, line 4. Henning, 'Tales',
483, left open the question whether Tale J is a Manichean or a Buddhist
story. However, the group -rap- occurs in Buddhist texts very nearly
exclusively in foreign words, hardly ever for [mb] in native words. The
Buddhist spelling of this word is (') 6i'npnwh. Almost certainly, therefore,
both Tale j43 and Fragment 12 are Manichean texts.
Fragment 13 (Rustam)
Or. 8212/81 = Ch. 00349. Published by R., II, 62-3, and again by Benveniste,
TSP, 134-6, together with the Paris fragment P13. Facsimiles of both are in
Cod. Sogd., P1. 193-4. In the text printed below the two fragments are
fitted together as proposed by Henning, 'Tales', 465, n. 2. For P13 my
readings are based on the published facsimile. The MS. is written in the
distinctive cursive script also found in Fragment 4, in which it is sometimes
difficult to distinguish n(z)/', '/y, y/r, s/~, s/7 (although all these letters are
also often distinct, especially in initial position).
Dr. Gershevitch, under whose guidance I first read this text, has kin&y
given me permission to quote a number of interpretations made by him both
then and after reading a first draft of the present article. In addition, Dr.
Gershevitch has passed on to me a number of readings by Henning, from whose
copy of Benveniste's edition Henning had allowed him to transcribe them into
his own. Of particular importance is Henning's recognition that the sign
variously interpreted by Benveniste as a final -n or a redundant off-stroke is
always to be read -n. It is a peculiarity of the scribe 44 that many words (and
not just cnn and 6nn) are spelt by him with final -nn beside -n.
1 wrcwnk(ry')[ Tw 5yw] t a ywny8 a tr~'nt (kw)[ a knSh]

.~.? ?
2 s'r 'Tw rwstmy m'y6 kw knSir prm ']kr'k ]w'
3 7ri MN pr]p'r myr'nt 1-LPW 7r]y'kh b i'w'nt
4 t3'ty 'wyh knSyh ZKw knSirt iynt'nt 'Tw
5 rwstmy zyw'rt prw RBkw ]ym'm ]w' kw ]yr'kh
6 wy]Twrt mnc'y pyrSnn e syTw'y 'spw prw wy~ w'c
7 7wty mn]pn d 7wrt 7wr' ~'twTw wl' 'nsp'kh e
8 pr'y]trn nyp6 "7"z 'wilt 7w 6ywt prw nl'yr prw
4~ Note also kt 'that' in Tale J, line 5, since this form has only been found in Man. and
Chr. MSS. (cf. above, p. 48).
44 Cf. 8 'tnm'nn in Fragment 4.10.
9 'nst f w'{t'nt 'yw 61~tym'yti w'/Tnt RBkw 7nt'kw ~'

10 RBkw ~'r MN m'Tov s'r ktcnn a "ywt'c ITr'k 'wy
11 knSyh w'n'kw mnt'7s'ymnn a 'cw L' zn'ym a kt'r
12 s'tw myr'ym 'ny'msym kt'r ZKn a 7wt'wty ZKw kynh
13 Twz'ym 'Tw ~ywt "7'z'nt pr~t't 'kyty MN prtr
14 lq3nyTngprTt'k h m't'nt RBkw Tr'nn a pr~t'kh
15 'M 3,ns zyn i 'M RBkw 'n7'w kn~i/~rtpyn'nt ZKw
16 7r/3w6 rw [np'] 5 ['k a 7r] 13wrtnl~'r Trl~wpy6h/~'r'k
17 7r/3 yTn'ychJ (fl')r'k 7r13k's/~'r'k 7rl~ MN
18 rwpsh 13'r'k Tr/3 'kwty/3'r'k 7r~ prw kyrmw
19 prw krps'k/3'r'k 7r13p~'k 7r13'kyty TW m'y8
20 prn"y'nn gw"y mkTw crks 'tTw ky6~y k 7r~w ptkwn
21 sry c'8 r s'r 'Tw p'8 t 'sk'ys'r 7r'yntn rwgn [t] l
22 (R)Bkw m zwm'k syTw'y'nt w'r wl3rh zy6nn R(B)[kw] m
23 twntr ~yk'/3'ntn zw~ w'c'nt "tr 813'n pzty
24 wytr'nt Y'TY rwstmy prwy6'k rtyms "ys 'Tr162
25 13wSn/3r'nn~ rT~y ZKw rwstmy wyTr'ygP mnsptq 'Tw
26 rwstmy MN 7w/3n' zT'rt ptymync ZKw pwrgnk'
27 crm nTw6nn ~ rwnstn ny/3'ynt 13'z78 prw rTgw
28 p'6~'r kw 8ywt s'r c'n'kw 'TW rwstmy MN ~ [w] r ZKw
29 5yw 'sp'8 wyn ZKn r rTgy m'y6 w'~ "(ys) ZY ~7'
30 [kl3nw]k/3nw trg . [...] (k) [. ] wn'ym ktTw 6ywt kw torT'
31 [s'r ] rT~y ptysynt ywny6 zyw'rt 7w
32 rwstmy c'n'kw 'T0v 6ywt wyn'nt ywny6 z7'rt ZKw
33 /3'r'ycyk'/3r'p']'nt w/3yw 7w p6'k 'sp'8 'yw
34 6/3tym'y6 w'/Tnt 'kSry ZKn sr~'nk' 7w myn'y
35 'nTw'st 'sk'tr 'M m'Tw "7'ns s L' pr~t't ~wt
36 k'm ]w kS'c L' w'c'y6 k'm gw ms L' pt'ywy~'t
37 p'rZY m'y6 zw'ntkw 'ny's6' kt~w '13zyw~r's zTw
38 tr'nk' 'ngt'ymn Tw 6ywt 'yw 6/3ty gyr wys'y6'nt
39 sTtm'nn p'zTyr'nt wytr'nt ZKn rwstmy '~krcy
40 wy6'yty zyw'rt 'Tw rwstmy t3r' z'w'rt prw fiywt
41 mkTw 67'n gr3'w prw nT~'yr ktTw '/~t'r (p)[rw] 1
42 rm'kw 7Y6h mkTw w'rTn'k prw (7)[rTwsy~kt'rTw]

43 syrrnu prw z6Thv rgn "7'(') [z
44 [ ] (..'nt) [ ] .... n m [
athus Henning. b-rrsy 'kh or 2tr~,y 'kh less likely. CthusHenning (cf.
JRAS, 1944, 140, n. 1); hardly p'r~nn, dthus Schwartz,STSC, 12.
ethus Schwartz,STSC, revisions (to p. 13), 2; hardly 'n'~p'kh. fthus
Henning; less likely "st, 'rst, hardly 'n~t. gor k[3nyznn, hthus Henning;
hardly pr'~t'k, iHenning, loc. cir. Jy~n'ych less likely, kor kr6bJy.
lsuggestion of Dr. Gershevitch. mdoubtful, nHenning, apud
Gershevitch, JRAS, 1946, 180. ~ ~w6 '#r'nn. Preading by Dr.
Livshitz (see AM, 18/1, 1973, 97). qreading by Professor Schwartz
(private communication), rHenning, 'Tales', 465, n. 2. Ssic;spelt
thus, with clear n, also in P9.12. tthus Bailey in The Legacy of Persia,
ed. A. J. Arberry, London, 1953, 187; or pt2rwr6 '. U-rr-clearly written
but hardly correct (Dr. Gershevitch suggests that *sykrn is intended, see
further below). Before this word there is a small hole in the paper, but no
letter is missing. Vz~]h/n6~h less likely.
' . . . . magic. The d e m o n s immediately fledt to the city. Rustam thus

went in pursuit as far as the city-gate. Many (demons) died from being
trampled; (only) a thousand managedt to enter the city. They shut the gates.
(5) Rustam turned back with great renown, went to a good pasture, stopped,
took off the saddle 4s (and) let (his) horse loose on the grass. He himself
rested, 46 ate food, was satisfied, 47 spread a rug, 4a lay down (and) began to
sleep.t
'The demons stood in consultation 49 in an assembly.t They isaid to one
another: " I t was s~ a great evil, (10) a great shame on our part, that we were
thus herded sl in the city by a single rider. Why s2 do we n o t strike? Either let
us all die (and) be annihilated s3 or let us exact s4 vengeance for (our) lords!".
The demons - (those) who had been left overt from the battler - began to
prepare great heavy equipment (15) and strong armour, ss In great haste they
opened the city-gates. Many archers, s6 many charioteers, many (demons)
t See the commentary following this translation.
4s For pyr- < pari- Dr. Gershevitch compares pyt- < pati- in pyt~ 'r, pyts'r (Anc. Lett.),
pytsr6 (TSP).
46 See Schwartz, STSC, 11-13.
47 For ]'tw'rw referring to the satisfying of hunger cf. VJ, passim; P3.217; Giw., 118.
48 See Schwartz, STSC, 13, and revisions, 2.
49 See Henning, 'Paris Texts', 715.
so Benveniste translates ~' as 'and', but the word to which he refers (#', VJ, 65b;f', Dhy.,
24) means 'or'.
5, Cf. 'nt'c 'gathering'. Henning, apud Gershevitch, GMS, w implies a derivation
from the same root (tak-) but translates 'we fled'. Benveniste, perhaps rightly, emends
to rnntr' ~s-.
s2 Translation suggested by Dr. Gershevitch (cf. GMS, w
s3 On 'ny'ms- see Henning, 'Paris Texts', 715; for the context cf. BSTlI, 878.13,
my 'rant 'they annihilated' (see Schwartz, STSC, 13-14).
s4 Literally 'ask, demand'. CL NP kT-nxw~stan 'take revenze'.
s5 Or 'weapons' (see Henning. JRAS, 1944, 140, n. 1).
5n Cf. pry tir'wnp'6 "y (SCE, 135), which compound probably belongs to GMS,
w rather than (b).
riding elephants, many riding . . . . ,t many riding pigs, many s7 riding foxes,
many riding dogs, many riding on snakes (and) on lizard s , many on foot,
many who s8 (20) went flying s9 like vultures and . . . . . t many upside-down,
the head downwards and the feet upwards, (all these demons) bellowed out a
roar,t for a great while they raised rain, snow, hail (and) great 6~ thunder, they
opened (their) jawst (and) released fire, flame (and) smoke. They departed in
search of the valiant Rustam.
'Then also came the (25) perceptivet Rax] (and) woke Rustam. Rustam
arose 6z out of (his) sleep, quickly donned (his) leopard-skin garment, tied on
(his) quiver, mounted Rax] (and) hastened towards the demons. When Rustam
saw from afar the army of the demons, he said to Rax~: "Come, sir, (30)
retreat little by little; let us perform a trick 62 so that the demons pursue us to
the forest" . . . Raxg agreed. Immediately Rustam turned back. When the
demons saw, at once both the riding-animals and the infantry quickly hurled
themselves forward. 63 One to another they said: "Now the chieffs hopet (35)
has been broken; no more will it be possible (for him) to offer battle 64 with us.
Never let him escape! Moreover do not kill 6s him, but take (him) alive 66 that
we may s h o w 67 him evil punishment (and) harsh torture!". The demons
encouraged one another greatly; they all shouted out together (and)
departed in pursuit of Rustam. (40) Then Rustam turned back, attacked 6a the
~'See the commentary following this translation.
sT MN is perhaps partitive, governing the compound rwpsh-#'r'k.

s8 For the placing of 3,w cf. STii, 1.3, qy xw; BBB, b84, kt '.~ xw.
s9 See MacKenzie, The 'Sfttra o f the causes and effects o f actions' in Sogdian, London,
1970, 35-6.
60 Rather than the coloufless R(B)[kw] 'great' (or '(M)[ ] 'with'), a word for
'lightning' is perhaps to be expected. Possibly r(',/)[w~- + ?], cf. ] '3,~d'rntrwx~t 'began
to lighten'~ Giw., 31, which probably translates Syr. (b#q' d-h.#l) mb~qyn hww '(mighty
lightning-flashes) were lightening'. For the spelling cf. rTw~'nt, P25i (Man. text).
61 The meaning has been established by Professor Schwartz (private communication),
who also notes the past stem in Man. anspast@ 'active, zealous'.
62 Henning, 'Tales', 465, n. 2, restored [w'n 'kw] which would give the sense: 'let us
act in such a way that . . . . '.
63 Translation suggested by Dr. Gershevitch, who points out that frp'~- in Dhy., 17, is
likewise intransitive, as seen already by Weller, Monumenta Serica, 2/2, 1937, 369.
64 Dr. Gershevitch derives "~'ns (beside "~"s < *~-x~sa-, TPS, 1964, 3, n. 2) from
*~-x~s(a)n(a)-, of. GMS, w on nns < *n~s-n-.
6s Or 'devour' Ofpt'twrS' is read).
~6 Here m)'8 can hardly be translated 'thus'. In BSTll, rnyd is frequently used to
emphasize an adjective, e.g. rnyd ~wntw, 846.21. Examples from outside Chr. Sogdian
are to be found in P2.419 and P3.283.
67 CL Benveniste, JA, 1943-5, 105. n. 4.
68 Literally 'bore (his) forces on'.
58 N I C H O L A S SIMS-WILLIAMS
demons like a fierce lion upon the prey or 69 a hyenat upon the flock,t like a
falcon upon a hare(?) or a porcupinet upon a snake,t and began to destroy
them . . . . '.
Line 1 trj- (also in line 30): Benveniste has trs- 'tremble' in both passages.
However, *trs- < *~.sa- (not otherwise attested in Sogdian) should be a light
stem, whereas the imperative in line 30 appears to belong to a heavy stem.
Moreover, the meaning proposed does not suit the construction with k w . . .
s'r. I therefore read trJ- (< *tar~a-, without the inchoative suffix, giving a
heavy stem) and translate 'flee' (cf. Pashto t~Ycted,l 'id.' < *trsa-, Morgenstierne,
TPS, 1948, 70). This translation fits both passages, in particular clarifying the
situation in line 30. Further support comes from P11.19 trJn wytr'nt 'they
flee' and from Chr. Sogdian, in which tile expected tJ- < trJ- is attested by
STi, 7.7, tJ(t~) (assigned by Henning, BBB, p. 62 on 516, to Av. tara-) and by
the fra~Tnent edited by Schwartz, STSC, 46, line 4 (t(Jt)Lv], 3 sg. pret.?).
3-4 7r~y'kh ~'w'nt t~/ty: Dr. Gershevitch has recognized that t~/ty must
be an infinitive depending on ~'w-, and that the latter does not here mean
'approach, arrive' (as usually) but 'suffice, be able', cf. Arm. bavel 'suffice, be
able, etc.', Oss. miJ bon ni~u 'I cannot'. 7~He would connect Tr~y 'kh with
?n~'kh 'effort, toil' (SCE, 44), 71 taking it either as acc. of relation or
adverbially 'hardly, just' (cf. French k peine, Italian appena). Thus 3,Fsy'kh
~'w-, literally 'be sufficient in respect of exertion' or 'be just able', will mean
'manage' like Italian appenare.
8 'w~t: since this is treated as a heavy stem it is unlikely to derive from
*hufta-, which should have given a light stem * [uvd-] or * [xuvd-]. An
interpretation as [?wd] < *awa-hufta- is supported by the use of the same
preverb in Av. avar~(u)habda-, possibly also in Khot. ~m- and ~s- (if from
*awa-hurnna- and *awa-hufsa- respectively, as proposed by Bailey, Khotanese
Texts, IV, London, 1961, 133), 72 and by the corresponding imperfect w'fs,
BST11, 888 bottom.8, w'(~s, Fragment 2a. 13, which implies a present stem
t See the commentary following this translation.
69 Mistake for kt'r~iw (suggested by Dr. Gershevitch).

70 See Gershevitch in Iran and Islam, ed. C. E. Bosworth, Edinburgh, 1971, 274. 'Suffice'
is the meaning of Sogd. b'w- in BSTH, 827.58, cf. also/~'w ~sufficiency' (Henning,
BBB, p. 68 on 546) and the derivatives ~'wcy(k), *b'wnyq (STi, 7.12), b(')wwny (AM,
18/1, 1973, 96 on 75/78) 'sufficient, able'. See also Henning, ed. MacKenzie, A Fragment
ofa Khwarezmian Dictionary, London, 1971, 8 - 9 , s.v. ,~.2.
~1 Both from the root xar~-/xan~s-. But ~/n~y'kh (P6.151) probably belongs to Man. 7n~
according to Henning's second suggestion ('Paris Texts', 733).
72 Other possibilities are suggested by Emmeriek, Saka grammatical studies, I, London,
1968, 19, 20.
* [ORS-] <*awa-hufsa-. 73 Whether Sogdian possessed also the unpreflxed verb

cannot be determined from the material available. Yaghnobi has both afs-/
ufta and ftfs-/~fta translated 'fall asleep, sleep', which could be derived from
*hufsa-/hufta- and *awa-hufsa-/awa-hufta- respectively, if the short a is not
merely secondary. The formal distinction might at some stage have carried a
semantic distinction between 'sleep' and 'fall asleep'.
9 'nst: possibly 'assembly' or 'assembly-place' < *han-sta-, cf. Ved.
samsthk 'in the presence of', etc. (suggested by Dr. Gershevitch).
13 prtr: hapax legomenon 'battle' = OP p.rtara-. The form with -r-suffix
(as opposed to the -n-suffix in Skt. pi.tan~, Av. po~ana-) wilt be another
OP-Sogd. isogloss.
14 k~nyTn pr~/t'k m't'nt: the choice of the reading k~nyTn (rather than
k~nyznn, k~nynzn, etc.) is determined by comparison of the present phrase
with Tale A, 5 6 - 7 , yxnyy p 'rxs (in Sogdian script y '3yn 'k p 'r [~'s] ) 'was
(were) left over'. Onyxnyy see Henning, 'Tales', 469, n. 3. The compound
k[Jn-yTn may be taken as a karmadhdraya, literally '(as) a meagre remnant', its
second member being a noun *yxn-.
17 yyn'yeh (yyz'yeh) oryJn'yeh: Dr. Gershevitch points out that the
animals are listed in descending order of size. The yTn'ych is thus intermediate
in size between the elephant and the pig.
20 kygl3y or kr6~y: Benveniste did not see that this must be the name of
a bird (or other flying creature). If ky6/3y is the correct reading, Dr. Gershevitch
suggests that it is the 'bat', from *kaOwiya-, literally 'donkeyish', referring to
its ears, 74 to Av. kaOwgt- 'she-ass'. 7s If the word is kr6fJy, it could be derived
from an OIr. *krdwa-. ( < IE *k.rd(h)wo-), which would also account for NP
kul~'y 'crow', kulang 'crane'. 76 From the same IE form could come Latin
corvus 'raven', though this has been compared with Mlrish c ~ < *krowos.
~ See the commentary following this translation.
73 In GMS, w w'#s was explained as an analogical form (modelled on the imperfects

of verbs with preverb [~-] < *awa-), the present stem being assumed to be [ufs-] <
*hufsa-. Similarly Benveniste, JA, 1936, 230.
74 Cf. xr'yw~y 'donkey-eared' = 'hare'. A bird named after an animal is NP ~utur-mur7
'camel-bird' = 'ostrich'.
75 Av. kaOw~- has been linked with Gk. K&uOtou'pack-ass' by~H. Petersson, Lunds
o
Universitets Arsstcrift, N.F., 18/7, 1922, 41. In view of the possible connexion of
n&vOcouwith ~vO6r 'corner of the eye', Russian kut 'comer', etc. (see Chantraine,
Dictionnaire ~tymologique de la langue grecque, II, Paris, 1970, 492), Dr. Gershevitch
draws attention to the Iranian connexion of 'ear' fgau~a-)and 'corner' (NP g?9~a,Av.
~aOru.gao'ka-).
~6 For the final -~/of the former cf. zh~, and MP war~%on which see Schwartz, in J. R.
Hinnells (ed.), Mithraic Studies, 1I, Manchester, 1975, 410, n. 17.
21 7r'yntn rwgn [t] : the probable explanation of these words has been
found by Dr. Gershevitch. The verbal noun 7r'yntn belongs to the root grand-
seen in Bal. garand 'thunder', beside which we also have gran- (in Khot.
gran- 'growl'; Sogd. ?ryntq 'roars', BST11, 832.5;77 NP 7urr~an, Pahl.
?arr~mTdan 'thunder, roar', MMP grn'g 'thunder') 7s and gar- (Pashto "rar~
'thundering', Orm. ~[irY~k'roar'). Tg:Theverb rvd- may be an s-extension of
Skt. ru- (r6uti). Dr. Gershevitch also indicates the possibility that rwj'kh, VJ,
61e, is not the 'current' of the fiver (< rwJ- 'flow') but its 'roar', since 'it was
heard at a distance of two hundred parasangs'.
23 Jyk'~'nt zw[3: for Henning's interpretation (apud Gershevitch, JRAS,
1946, 180) as 'they split (= opened wide) their jaws', 8~Dr. Gershevitch
suggests comparing NP ~uk~f-/]ukuftan, Pahl. s~k~f-/~Icuftan 'open (of a
flower), blossom', which it is hard to separate altogether from NP, MP
~(i)k~ftan 'split, burst, break, tear'. - The form zw~ causes some difficulty,
since the only other forms of this word attested, Chr. zwby (acc.) and Man.
zwf" (probably abl.), have been taken to belong to a light stem zuv-/zuf- <
zafar- (Gershevitch, loc. cir.). If this is correct, one might consider the
possibility that zhv-/z~f- was lengthened under the influence of rw/3 'mouth'.
On the other hand, the forms zwby and zwf' could belong to an *-aka-stem,
in which case the unextended zw~ need never have been a light stem. Since
"wx < *axw and twx <*taxw are heavy stems,sl it is possible that *zafw
would have given a heavy stem zwfL The reconstruction *zafw ( < *zafwa-)
may also provide a more satisfactory explanation of the -w- ofzwf3 than does
zafar-, as no other example of a becoming u before a labial has been noticed.
25 ~w~n~r'nn or ~w6 '[3r'nn: both ~w~n and/3w~ a2 are attested in the
meaning 'perfume, (sweet) smell'. The second part of the compound might
be fr~n 'breath' or the suffix -vardn (GMS, w1133). The former possibility is
supported by P5.45, where f3w6n ~r"n is a karmadh~raya 'perfumed breath'.
The corresponding bahuvrThi 'having perfumed breath' probably occurs in
P3.206-7, where (3w6n-~r'n (thus read by Henning, 'Pads Texts', 735) is an
epithet of the wind, parallel to fJw6'ntk in P3.204. However, 'sweet-breathed'
is a rather surprising epithet for RaxL Dr. Gershevitch therefore suggests that
the second element of the compound may here be -vargn, and the meaning
'perceptive' (cLAv. baoSah- 'perception' beside bao~a- 'smell', NP b~y burdan
77 Possiblythe stem is not *'rryn- but *Trynt-, if -t- is here from -tt-.
~8 See Henning,BSOS, 9/1, 1937, 90.
79 Morgenstierne,An Etymological vocabularyof Pashto, Oslo, 1927, 26.
go DifferentlyAM, 18/1, 1973, 94.
sl See GMS, w167 and 527, andBSOAS, 38/1, 1975, 133, respectively.
82 The followingaleph could be taken as a compound-vowel.
THE SOGDIAN FRAGMENTS.OF THE BRITISH LIBRARY 61
'suspect'), which would suit Raxg both in general s3 and in the present
context. 84
34 myn'y: for discussion see MacKenzie, BSOAS, 33/1, 1970, 117, and
the references there cited. In the VJ passages myn(')y seems to mean 'hope'
rather than 'appearance'. Since the same translation suits the present passage,
it is unnecessary to postulate a different rnyn'y 'courage' or 'authority' here,
as is usually done.
41 '~t'r: LW, cf. MP halter 'hyena' (suggested by Dr. Gershevitch, who
refers to his remarks in 1ran and 1slam, 287, n. 24).
42 "rySh has been recognized by Dr. Gershevitch as the equivalent of
Pashto 3,~l~ 'flocks', OP gaiO&, MMP g~h in gyhb'n 'shepherd' (Henning, TPS,
1942, 56, n. 1). 8s
43 syrrn prw z8 7h: the explanation of these words is again due to Dr.
Gershevitch. The almost impossible form syrrn may be for *sykrn 'porcupine'
< *sikurna-, cf. Morgenstierne, Etymological vocabulary of Pashto, 73, s.v.
~kfin. - z87h 'serpent' or 'dragon' may stand for either [zSaxd] or []gaxd],
LW < Persian (MMP 'zdh ,g)86 or Parthian (~'d_h,g,86 cf. NP a2dah~).
Fragment 14
Or. 8212/87 = Toyuk 004. Cf. Ser., III, 1176. Published by B., 5 0 0 - 5 0 1 . No
margins. Verso Chinese. Cursive script, n/'/y/r difficult to distinguish.
1 ].[.] t .[
2 ] wrty a ZKw/3r.. [
3 ] y/3wt II re(s) [
4 ] y ~wt ZY r[
5 ] .m cw ZY ZKwy 8s[
6 ] y 'nTw'yt 8. [
7 prl] t'rn nySt b [
8 16116[
aor ] wnty. bor nr6 t.
s3 For Rax~'s sensitivity to smell Dr. Gershevitch refers to ~S~hn~ma,Moscow ed.,

VI, 330.160.
s4 Similarly #w6n-~r'n in P3.206-7 might be understood as 'smell- (or perfume-)bearing',
cf. Av. v~tObar&bao66 (on which see Gershevitch, The Avestan hymn to Mithra,
Cambridge, 1959, 159-60).
8s The phrase rm'kw "ry6h is an example of synonymous hendiadys, cf. GMS, w
86 Henning, Sogdica, 21, b8-9.
In line 7 Benveniste was misled by his own copying error into postulating
an unattested pl. *nyG 'yt to nyG 'y 'no-one'. If the correct reading is nyG t
'sits' (rather than nrSt 'groans'), the preceding word may well be [prj] t'rn
'carpet' (elsewhere pr}trn, but cf. the spelling wJt'rn, P8.198).
Fragment 15
Or. 8212/74 = M. Tagh a.IV.00166. Cf. Ser., III, 1295, 1457. Unpublished.
No margins, but line 3 is probably complete at the beginning. Verso blank.
Cursive script, similar to Fragments 4 and 13.
1 [ l.k '..[
2 [ I w m'Tw m6(6)[
3 'skw(')t a [.] .. [..] s m [~] t T~.' [
4 [ ] 8 [ ] yz..' m [.1 sn gw' 'ys (r.) [
5 [ ]~[l~[
aor 'skw(n)t.
Of interest here is line 4, which appears to show at least three verbs in

asyndeton. Of these * "sn- or *'nsn- (restoring m ['] sn or m [n] sn) was not
known previously, but is probably a prefixed form of sn- 'rise'. s7 If 7.z'is also
a verb, it may be the otherwise unattested simplex from which we have 'nTz-
'rise', thus in synonymous hendiadys (GMS, w 1637) with m [.] sn: 'he rose
(and) went, (and) came to...,.88 But it is at least equally likely that y/.'
(also ha line 3) is a noun.
Fragment 16
Or. 8212/112 = M. Tagh a.0049. Cf. Ser., III, 1289, 1295 (listed as 'Uigur(?)').
Unpublished. No margins. Verso blank. Cursive script.
1 ]k~z.[
2 ] .yn p. [
3 wys] pn'ych [
4 ].[](p)[
Fragment 17
Or. 8212/152(c) = Toyuk 002.c. Cf. Ser., III, 1176 (listed as 'Uigur').
s7 Cf. NP (etc.)xurgtsgm, on which see Benveniste, JA, 1936, 205, and Av. ~s(o)naoiti, as
interpreted by Klingensehmitt, MSS, 28, 1970, 71-4.
88 Dr. Gershevitch suggests that, in view of the apparent opposition between }w' and
:vs, 7z' might rather be an antonym of m[.]sn, perhaps 'crouched, squatted' to Parth. xz-
'creep' (Boyce, BSOAS,: 14/3, 1952, 441, n. 6), NP xaz~dan, as against the different
pres. stem in Sogd. z 'yxyzyy etc. (see Gershevitch, ibid., 488 - 93 ).
Unpublished. From the middle of a sheet, written in columns divided by a

'carelessly drawn vertical line' (cf. Henning, Sogdica, 1). Verso Chinese.
Cursive script.
1 ]m'k [
[one line left blank.]
2 ] (y) kwy .[
3 ] .w kwy [
4 ] (m) kwy [
5 ].s'.[
Probably a list of the giants of Mani's Kawan; lines 4 - 5 perhaps [S~] (m)
and [P~t] s~[hm] (see Henning, BSOAS, 11/1, 1943, 54-5).
Fragment 18
Or. 8212/182. No signature; according to the Handlist it was 'found among
the Chinese MSS. from the Thousand Buddhas'. Unpublished. Bottom of a
sheet with ruled lines and margins, once part of a scroll as shown by traces
of gum on the bottom margin. Verso blank. Regular cursive script, 'In and
7/s virtually indistinguishable.
1 (gmT)wn t3'w w'n'kw 'y(~ [c'n'kw]
2 7'w MN p'tk nyzty grTw (p) [r]
?
3 r'Sh np'stk 'skw'z z3,w wg'nty
4 c]'ntk w'nw k'm ktgw 3'wr'n 7w
5 /3yr zyr'yncc a kwb 7'w MN ]rTw
6 kwc'ykh m'y~ ms t'l~' zr'ynctk'm
7 'Tw fl3'Y MN pw Tw'n c w'7~ kyty
8 pr'/~'kh "Tt'kh 'sty I I
aaltered from zr'n-(?), the scribe having begun to write zr'nk'. bmistake
for ZKw. CTw"?
' . . . . Thus says the Apostle Simon: "You are like the cow (which had)
strayed 89 from the herd. 9~A lion was lying in the road, very hungry and
thirsty. Thus he wished: 'I shall eat her'; (but) God delivered the cow from the
s9 If nyzty is 3 sg. pret. (rather than the past participle, as here assumed) the meaning
will be: 'You are like this: a . . . . cow strayed . . . . '. The restoration [c'n'kw] in line 1
will not then be correct.
9o = NP p~da 'herd; pasture' (suggested by Dr. Gershevitcli).
lion's mouth. 91 So God will deliver you too from the . . . . 92 thingg3 which has
come upon you"'.
The key to the interpretation of this interesting fragment was supphed by
Dr. Gershevitch, who proposed that it might belong to an oracular book such
as is known in many languages, e.g. Turkish (Thomsen, JRAS, 1912, 190-214;
Bang and Gabain, 'Tfirkische Turfan-Texte [, I] ', SPAW, 1929, 2 4 1 - 6 8 , with
bibliography), Tibetan (Francke, SPA W, 1924, 7 - 1 2 ; 1928, 1 1 0 - 1 8 ) and
Sogdian (TiiDii 169), 94 to name only Central Asian examples. Such books
typically consist of short chapters or paragraphs containing more or less
cryptic anecdotes, often accompanied by a comment 'this is good' or 'this is
bad'. Sometimes the oracle is put into the mouth of a god or other personage.
The usual way of consulting these books was by throwing dice, each section
being headed by a different combination of pips or numbers; but in some
cases, where these are not given, other methods must be assumed to have been
used.
Of all this class of literature the closest in style and spirit to Fragment 18 is
the Christian Turkish fragment published by Le Coq, SPA W, 1909, 1205-8.
Here, for example, is one section, in a revised translation by Bang: 9s '18.
Befehl (Gebot). Giinstig ist er. So spricht der Apostel Zawtai: Du gleichst, Du
Menschensohn, jener Kuh, die yon Weitem fief nach ihrem Kalb, das sich
verirrt hatte. Als das Kalb die Stimme seiner Mutter hSrte, kam es schnell zu
seiner Mutter zuriickgelaufen und es (sic ?) wurde beruhigt (beruhigte sich).
Ebenso auch werden sich die Deinigen, welche sich (yon Dir) entfemt haben,
alsbald wieder in grosser Freude (mit Dir) vereinigen'. Each section of this
text is attributed to an 'apostle', a fact which enabled F. C. Burkitt (apud
Bang-Gabain, op. cir., 241) to recognize in it a version of what was known in
the West as the Sortes Apostolorum. It also entities one to assume that
~ m T ) w n 'Simon' (Syr. ~mCwn) in the present fragment is not vocative but
91 Dr. Gershevitch explains kwc'ykh as a pseudo-historical spelling for the obl. of

kwc'kh (phonetically *kwc'y, historical spelling kwc'ky h ).
92 The usual meaning of .yw'n is 'sin', hence pw .[w'n 'sinless, innocent', which is
hardly possible in the present passage. It is not clear whether we have here an entirely
different word (cf. perhaps Chr. xw'n, $17i, text 6) or the same ~w'n in a different
(more original?) sense.
93 For the meaning 'thing' el. Chr. w'x~ in STii, 1.68 ( - Syr. rndrn 'thing'), 92 ( - .sbwt'
'id.'), 90 ('yny w'x~ ~ hlyn 'these (sc. things)'), BSTII, 862, recto 5, 7. Chor. w'c 'thing'
and semantic parallels are quoted by Schwartz, STSC, 126. Here, however, the translation
'word' (referring to the oracle itself?) cannot be excluded.
94 Unpublished (reference by Dr. Gershevitch). A passage from this text was quoted by
Henning, 'Paris Texts', 737.
9s Mus~on, 39, 1926, 54 (typographically simplified).
nominative, the oracle being ascribed to one of the two apostles of that
name. This is then a Christian Sogdian text, like 'Dokument X' (see Henning,
BBB, p. 76 on 614, and Schwartz, Altorientalische Forschungen, I, 1974, 257,
n. 4).
Fragment 19
Or. 8212/194(0. Instead of a signature the fragment bears the legend 'FRAG.
S 1008', which seems to associate it in some way with the Chinese MS. S.
1008. 96 Unpublished. Right margin preserved. Verso blank. Regular cursive
script.
1 prw L' "Tt flT'y~tyh mrtTrn['yty
2 ('P)[Z] (Y cn)n w'tS'rty p(y)5'r '(m)w RB(k)[w
? ??? 9
3 'PZY wyspw w'tS('r)t pr flrt('wx )[
4 di(flr)'n cym'y~ (p)[y] 6(')r pr 6fl'r 'rt'(w)[
5 w't6 ['] (r)t '.. 'PZY prw ~(yr')kh [
9'~
Probably a Buddhist text, perhaps containing a vow like that of Prince
Sud~an (VJ, 9 8 - 1 0 4 and passim) to bestow gifts (line 4) on behalf of all
living creatures (lines 2 - 3 ) with a tranquil mind (line 3; cf. pw pz "rn 'pw
nm'n'kw 'without regret, without change of heart', VJ, 4 4 5 - 6 etc.).
Fragment 20
S. 1084. Chinese Buddhist scroll (confession and prayer texts with
Buddhan~ma), no. 6489 in L. Giles, Descriptive catalogue of the Chinese
manuscripts from Tunhuang . . . . . London, 1957, 205. Seven short lines of
Sogdian are scribbled with a brush in an almost entirely illegible cursive
script on the verso. Of these, the first is mostly obliterated by superimposed
Chinese characters, while the last two have been mostly rubbed off. Only
lines 3 - 4 can be read with any degree of plausibility.
3 ~ya pwt,k b 'yny
4 7w~ty c ZK
athe Uighur sign for l is used. bmistakefor pwst'k (cf. pwts'k in the
next fragment), possibly influenced by Uighurpytyk 'book'? %,w~tr
less likely.
' . . . . S~a-book. This is the chief . . . . '.
96 All MSS. with signature S. + number are from Ch' ien-fo-tung.

Fragment 21
S. 4083. Chinese Buddhist scroll, no. 3559 in Giles, op. cit., 97. The following
lines are written in a rough cursive script at the end of the scroll.
1 'yn'k pwts'k a pw'y b "YypSCZK ky ZY L' pyr'kt e
ZKd
2 'yw Try kyr kwn t(y)s
amistake for pwst'k, bpwty possible but less likely, c,dresp.ectively

above and below deleted pwts'k, emistakefor pyr't or pyr'y t; y badly
written, probably altered from r.
'This book belongs to Pw'y. 97 He who does not believe (this)...'.

In kyr and kwn Dr. Gershevitch has recognized the Sogdian equivalents of
NP kir 'penis' and/a~n 'anus'. Since Sogd. 7r- = NP xar 'donkey', the present
phrase should be compared with the following expressions from the
indigenous Persian dictionaries: kfln-i xar, variously glossed as 'coarse, stupid'
Y c
(Burh~n-i Q~.ti') and 'mischievous' (Farhang-i Su ~ri), kir-i xar 'stupid'
(Bah~r-i ' Ajam), kfin-i xar-rft kir-i xar mf-b~yad (FS). It is hardly possible to
offer an idiomatic translation of the Sogdian phrase, but the derogatory
intention is clear.
A similar note scribbled on a Chinese scroll was published by Henning,
'Tales', 482: 'Possibly: 'yny pwstk xiiii /37 (?) 7YP~ 7cy ky L ' pyr't
pr'ys[t] (?)98 s'rpSsn (?) "This book has 14 bundles (?). He who does not
believe it, can go to . . . . " '. Comparing this note with Fragment 21, one is
led to suppose that the writer of the former may have omitted by haplography
after 7yp6 7cy the words *t'nrn'n 7yp6 7cy 'belongs to so-and-so', cf. yet
another note of ownership quoted by Henning, loc. cit.: 'ZY "Ttprn (? -kr)
3YP6 o xx z'm k'75'Typ6 7cY "Belongs to ~,Tat-fam. Has 20 fine pieces of
paper" '
Fragment 22
S. 1360. Part of a Chinese Buddhist scroll, no. 964 in Giles, op. cit., 22. An
obscene drawing of a man with Chinese features and large hat, surrounded by
writing in rough cursive set out approximately as printed below. Little if
any distinction is made between n(z) and ', but the writing is otherwise
fairly clear.
97 Probably a Chinese name.

98 In view of the equally abrupt imperativet(y)s in the present fragment, pr'ys need not
be incomplete.
1 cyny a t ' m ' k 7ws b 7'w c

[drawing.]
2 6/3'm'n y m k y h d wr d sw'y e ZYms ct/3'r 1a
3 t'mk 3,'wsb rwzzyh2 a
4 'zz-w w'nw k'mskn f sw'y e pwskwryg ""
8/3ri 3a
ayny less likely, breading certain, e.rnw? dwritten as one word
ymkyhwr, probably because the h was added secondarily, eswzy?sw'#,
swn[3less likely, ffor k'm 'mskn. gther almost certain, but ~ possible.
hwritten rather small; the first letter perhaps k, the second perhaps %
imistake for ~#r'?.
'Chinaman . . . . me . . . . [drawing.] Madam Ymkyh . . . . here, and also

. . . . me. Thus I wish: . . . . [in margin:] Grant four desires'.
If the reading 99 and interpretation of the marginal comment is correct, it
may provide a clue as to the contents of the graffito, very little of which can
be interpreted, in spite of its completeness and comparative legibility, since it
consists largely of unknown words. Of these, 7(')ws and sw'y appear to be
verbs, probably imperatives. Since the two verbs occur twice each, they may
specify the 'four desires' mentioned in the margin.
Fragment 23
Or. 8212/1 14 =M. Tagh c.I.0071. Cf. Ser., III, 1295 (listed as 'Uigur(?)').
Unpublished. Top left hand corner of a page. Verso blank. Irregular cursive
script, faded and written on poor-quality absorbent paper;/3/r, n/'/y sometimes
ambiguous.
1 ] . pn'y~'y p(r)y' z't' rty
2 pg] "/3rw ~r' p'(r)'wty ZKn a
3 ] (c)'m' pt'yn/3't ZY a 6(gt)wc
?
4 ]. pnt w' 7ypSst mrt(7)m(y)
5 ]. ZY pw/3znw L' (p)w(rny) a/3[.] . [..] 8 [ . . . ]
6 ] . . . [ ] L(') ~wt b ZY pw/3z [n] w L' [ ] c
7 ] . L' prg'yt d/3. [ ]
adoubtful, bl3w'less likely. Clinepossibly complete, dother possible
readings are pr~nyt and p#'shyt;,in fact, the second letter would be a better
than it is an r.
' . . . . should perish, O (my) dear son, then . . . . carry provisions(?), for
. . . . should be separated from me and endure poverty . . . . friend (and)
99 For the spelling of rwzzy with double -zz- one may compare - apart from 'zz-w in
line 4 - only kwzz, SCE, 367.
intimate ~~176
. . . . and without shame, not full of . . . . is not . . . . and is not
without shame . . . . does not . . . . tot . . . . ,.
Fragments 24 and 25
Or. 8212/1689 = Kao. 070 + 071 and Kao. 072 + 073 respectively. Cf.
Benveniste in L A., II, 1031. Published by B., 5 0 1 - 2 . Each fragment has
been t o m in half; the pieces were re-joined by Benveniste. The statement in
B., 501, that these fragments belong to a single MS. is almost certainly
correct, that in L A. ('de la m~me 6poque, peut-~tre de la m~me main') is
unduly cautious. No margins. Verso Chinese and Uighur. Formal script.
24 1 ]. " t p ' k a Y'7(Y) fl'z'k n'm ykg[y
2 ] 8 n'm yk~"n 7wt3w pr 7r'm [
3 ] y cnn z'wry 'sk' Try ny~y(~) [
?
4 "] mrS'n "Sprm sry 't 7wy~[tr
5 ] ty prw 'ntw~/s ' m y n wyspw [
6 ] ( m ) ' y n ' y n t I[ [
7 -"1 n 7wflwt .. [
8 n] ' k " n a [
25 1 ] (')ntwT[s
2 ] (y)t b w m ' t ' (nt) [
3 ] 'k' '/3gy'ws n'm [
4 n'] k ' n c 7w~v m~'wn [a
5 ] (n)yp wzpTw [n'k
6 ] n ' m kwmp' [ntt
7 ] Y Y'7 [Y
asic. bnot l't. Cor tp'n. dOn Kao. 072 only l (k)'n -rw(#)[w m~'l-
(wn) [can be read; Kao. 073, which contains the middle part of this line
and the whole of lines 5-7 (for which I give the readings of B. ), is lost.
A certain amount of sense can be made of Fragment 24: ' . . . . t a Yaksa

named Brave-arrnt was sent by the king of the Yaksas,t . . . . ~5 by name, into
exitet . . . . he settled him by force on a high mountain . . . . and thus he
t See the commentary following the translation.
~o In w'-~/yp6st 'very own' we have an interesting addition to the list of elatives in

GMS, w The preceding word, pnt, may stand independently as a noun (ef. Vim.,
61) or, like w'-Typ6st, qualify mrt(~)mfy) (cf. pnt mrtTm "kty 'intimates', VJ, 395).
tox Ifpr~'yt is correctly read, it probably attests a new verb prY'y-, to be connected with
either 'p~v- 'cast out' or '#~v- 'endure'; p#~nyt could be precative < * Vpa-f~an..
THE SOGD1AN FRAGMENTS OF THE BRITISH LIBRARY 69
became altogether the chief and master of all the Yaksas together . . . . by toil
of all the . . . . they dwelt . . . . the kingst of the . . . . of the Ns . . . . '.
24.1 "tp'k: the broken context does not allow one to guess at the
meaning of this hapax legOrnenon. EtymologicaUy, perhaps *~-t~paka- to Skt.
~tapa- 'heat', Av. &t~p.aite, Sogd. 'ntph 'fever', etc. - The correct reading of
the rest of the line (B.: y'3~'n'k n'myk///) confirms the remarks of
Henning, 'Paris Texts', 719, who pointed out that the last word of the line is
'Yaksa', while 'y'Ts' is not an otherwise unknown spelling of this word, as
Benveniste had supposed, but part of the Yaksa's name. This name now
appears to be a translation rather than a transcription (B. : 'B~. a') of an
Indian name, cf. the Sogd. name in 25.3.
24.2 ykJ"n: B. read rk~"n, thus introducing the Raksa demons into ~ e
story and into Sogdian. - Though the last word of the line may be merely
7r'm ['k] 'wealth', the context gives some support to the translation 'exile'
adopted above. This is based on a comparison with Buddh. 7rmy 'n(y), chiefly
found in the phrase 7rmy 'n wn- (VJ, passim; P2.804) which Gershevitch
translated 'punish' (GMS, w1051 with n. 1), but for which Gauthiot had
deduced from context 'banish'. 1~ This meaning can be reconciled with
Gershevitch's etymology totvF~am - 'be angry' in view of Parth. dybhrg
'banished' < dybhr 'anger', Pahl. pad dyp'hl d~Jtan 'banish' or 'arrest'
< dyp'hl 'anger' (see Henning apud Boyce, TheManichaean hymn cycles in
Parthian, London, 1954, 187a). l~ On the other hand Chr. 7rm 'wy (BSTH,
893 bottom.28) does seem to mean 'punishment' as Gershevitch suggests.
The semantic development may have been 'anger' > 'punishment' > (a specific
punishment, namely) 'banishment') ~ Arm. dipah 'arrest' (Henning, loc. cit.)
shows a different, but parallel, specialization of meaning.
24.7 7w~wt: this is the only attestation of the pl. of 7w~/Tw~w, the
usual (but not invariable) final -w of which can scarcely be merely graphic, in
view of the present form and 7w/3wy ', Tale F, line 24, which may be the
abstract (used in a sense virtually identical to that of the simple 7w/3w, cf.
/3Ty 'q,'deity' -/37- 'god', thus: 'so that (Your) Lordship shall eat well').
"~ See the commentary following the translation.
lo5 In P2.804 7rmy'n wn- translates Chin. 'abandon'.

103 Semantically, *daip/d[p-aOra-'anger' (root meaning 'shine, blaze') may be compared
with Sogd. yp'q 'anger' < ~/-pak-, tfsnwq 'annoyance' < rv/'iap., etc.
~o4The latter part of this development may also be exemplified by Aram. (Ezra 7.26)
"~."c/W.." (< *srau~ygl-'punishment', cf. Rosenthal, Grammarof BiblicalAramaic, 3rd
printing, Wiesbaden, 1968, w which in view of the order of the penalties listed
(death -~Vj't~ .V_]"- confiscation of property - imprisonment) is most likely to mean
'banishment' (cf."Driver, Aramaic documents of the fifth century B.C., revised ed., 2nd
impression, London, 1965, 99).
25.6 kwmp'[nt] = Skt. kumbh~nda (a type of demon). This restoration

of Benveniste's is made plausible by the general tenor of the text, with its
Yaksas and (possibly) N~gas (24.8, 25.4), and in particular by the fact (cf.
above, p. 54) that the group -mp- is found mostly in loanwards.
Fragment 26
Or. 8212/1824 = Yar. I.i.02. Not referred to in/. A. Unpublished. No margins.
Verso Chinese. Neat, legible cursive script, all letters distinct including n/'/y.
1 ] (m)'Tw. [
2 ] .w wy~t [
3 ] (s)'t (s) [
4 ] (')skw'~n z-(w) [
?
5 ] (p)rT-t'nt [
?
6 ] wy'(fl) [r] t'k [
7 ]..k 's[
8 1.[
The word wy8 t in line 2 is unknown. In Sogdian the verb ~ (Av.
yard- 1 and 2) is common with preverbs (pt-, fr-, pr-, n-, z-) but the simplex is
not attested.
Fragment 27
Or. 12452/7 = M. Tagh 0449. Cf. Le Coq in/. A., II, 1048. Facsimile in/. A.,
III, P1. CXXIV. Unpublished. Left margin preserved. Verso blank. Careless
cursive script on absorbent paper; n/'/y, tilt, s/~ difficult to distinguish.
1 ] (fl)~'ys. [ ]
2 ]. nwr my~ prm flrT'wcy
3 ] pw pr'yk' py'mtt
4 ] wyspw 'pw rymy]
5 ] cwpr "y'w]t'yt a
6 ] .nc ~.5'n 'ysbl[
7 ~ 6 ' ] (n) 'ysbll [ ]
aor "y'w~st'nt. bor ~vs.
' . . . . vision . . . . up to the present day profit l~ . . . . lO6heals . . . . all
tgs = pr2dwcy, Dhy., 228. In P15.27 restore fl[r-r]'wcy.

1o6 Possibly [ '] pw pr'yk' 'without omission (literally 'surplus')' = Mugh 'pw pr'ykw,
A14.7. Also attested are pr'yk (beside p'r'yk) 'other', P3.151 (doubted by Henning,
THE S O G D I A N F R A G M E N T S O F THE B R I T I S H L I B R A R Y 71
without blame . . . . they w e r e tossed over . . . . come to the . . . . tomb 1~

. . . . came . . . . '.
Fragment 28
Or. 8212/1793. The fragment bears no signature, but an accompanying label
reads: 'Toy. 1.11.08 (L II) presumably'. Not mentioned in/. A. Unpublished.
Part of the left margin is preserved. Verso Chinese. Cursive script.
1 '] ptry a
2 1( )7w('r)h
??
3 l flr't
4 1.[.1 ('.)[ l
aor ] kp [.] try (possibly ]k[w] try).
From a list: ' . . . . father, sister, brother . . . . '.
Fragment 29
Or. 12,452E (6): no old signature. TM Top left hand corner of a sheet. Verso
Chinese. Irregular cursive script, the readings therefore very uncertain.
1 1.[ ].[ ]
2 1. ~yr(y) [ ]
3 ] t '~m(')'rw kw c y . . . [ ]
?
4 ] 5 [ ] ZY c'Twny 'skwy
5 ] (s) p'rZY MN a 'skw z(r)yw b
6 ]. cw ]wt 'skwn ZY
7 ]. 7yrt mrts'r
8 ] y 'zy'rt 'ys
9 ]. 'ySww c wy]wyny d nys(t)[ ]
?
10 ]. 'y~ ny~e cy(w)y~ n.[ ]
11 l(t) L(') ' . . [ ]
?
amn? bthe second letter is probably r, less likely y; the third letter might
be fl or r, the fourth p. Cperhaps a carelessly written 'yScw. dsic.
eZY~?
'Paris Texts', 727, but now supported by Chr. pryq, BSTH, 866.9,867.45), and pr'yk
'witch'.
~o7 On 7z~ "n see Henning, 'Tales', 479. Dr. Gershevitch suggests restoring the preceding
word as mwrt'sp'nc 'cemetery' (see M~langes linguistiques offerts 2tE. Benveniste, ed.
M. Moi'nfar, Paris, 1975, 211).
los The glass, which contains three fragments, bears the signature M.B. ix.02-04.
Fragment 30
Or. 8212/1778 = Mr. Tagh 0626 (the signature does not appear on the
fragment). Not mentioned in/. A. Left margin preserved. Verso Chinese.
Clear cursive script.
1 ]. . . . . . .
2 ] .[.] pt{kwym
3 1...[ ]
Fragment 31
Or. 8212/1813. The fragment bears no signature.I~ Right margin preserved.
Verso Chinese. Cursive script.
1 kp[..] (torya/3) [
2 pS~ (~)[
3 ~'ny~s[kwn
a(k) [wt] (try)?
?
Fragment 32
Or. 8212/1680 = Kao. 0106 (the signature does not appear on the fragment), n~
This is probably the fragment from Kao [-ch'ang] referred to in/. A., II, 590:
'a small piece of a text, apparently Manichaean, in Sogdian script'. From the
middle of a double page. Cursive script, in tiny neat handwriting, evidently
Manichean. The punctuation marks are decorated with red ink.
I? RI 1 ZY[ II? R 1 .[
2 cy.[ 2 w'.[
3 ZKw a .[ 3 .[
4 mrt(7)[m'k 4 [ ].[
5 7YP[8 5 Z Y L ' w[
6 pncz-nk'n c [
V 1 ]. V 1 ]o d
2 ]. 2 ]y
3 ]sw :: 3 ].
However, none of the fragments bears a signature itself, nor do these fragments fit the
description of M.B. ix.02-04 given by Le Coq,/. A., II, 1048 (the fragment M.B. ix.04
described by Le Coq is found under the number Or. 12,452B(12)).
~o9 According to the British Library's typewritten concordance the signature is Toy.
IV.ii.071, but according to L A., II, 625, this number belongs to a fragment of stucco.
iio A label on the packet Or. 8212/1872 (containing seven small fragments in Manichean
script) also bears the signature Kao. 0106.
4 ].y 7nt b 4 ]
5 ]t 5 ] (m)'y8 c ['1 nw
6 3'Y] p5 e 'z-~'/Yy
aor 'kw. bor ~/'t. ewritten as two words pncz nk'n. dpunctuation
mark. eor ].kS.
Fragment 33
Or. 8212/1763 = M. Tagh 038.d. Not listed in/. A. From the middle of a
double page, the sides being inscribed opposite ways up. m Verso blank.
Cursive script.
I? 1 pr'St 5.[ II? 1 (22)[
2 40p[ 2 rtms p(r')8(t) [
3 p(r')5 [t 3 [ ]h30[
4 [ I. pr ,&[a
[a line left blank.]
5 [ 1..[
anot a single word pr'8(t)[.
A commercial document, in which the only point of interest is the shape

of the numerals 22, 30 and 40. Two quite different forms of 20 appear in the
compound 40 (= 20 + 20), for which one may compare the 50 (= 20 + 20 +
10) in the Mugh document g12.2, 3 (thus correctly interpreted by Livshitz,
Sogdijskie dokumenty sgory Mug, II, Moscow, 1962, 155; Bogolyubov and
Smimova hesitate between 20 and 50 for the first cipher, but the sign they
read as 50 is everywhere to be read as 20, e.g. in line 2 of the same document,
where its shape may be compared with that of 20 on folios 20ft. of P2). The
30 (20 + 10) contains a 20 very similar to that in the Mugh document A4, R5,
cf. also the 30 in P2.374,539. In the probably incomplete 22 (20 + 1 + 1 + ?)
we have yet another form of 20, similar to the last, but apparently with the
loop at the top open, which is perhaps an archaic feature (cf. Henning, Aus
der Welt der islamischen Kunst, Festschrift fftr E. Kiihnel, Berlin, 1959, 39).
Fragment 34
Or. 8212/1811. The fragment bears no old signature but only the word
'Soghd.'. m Right margin preserved. Verso blank. Cursive script.
m Cf. the arrangement of the text on the fragment K.K.i.03.f = Or. 12,551B, illustrated
in L A., III, P1. CXXVI.
m According to the British Library's concordance Or. 8212/1811 = Toy. IV.vii.01.
However, the fragments contained in the packet Or. 8212/1811 (one Sogd., two Uighur,
two Chinese, one Chin./Uighur), none of which bears a signature, mostly do not fit the
descriptions of Toy. IV.vii.01 given by Le Coq, L A., II, 1048.
1 r'fl p y ' m t k'n . [

2 kt' 'yw 'styr "pw 'r(w) [rh
3 ..~[ ]..[ 1.[
Medical text: ' . . . . will heal the illness . . . . or one stater of water-
herbs(?) . . . . '.
Cambridge
APPENDIX
b y l L Y A GERSHEVITCH
One of the arguments adduced by Benveniste (JRAS, 1933, 54-5) for

Buddhist origin of Fragment 4 was that the first two lines, since they consist
of 'incomprehensible words that seem to give no sense whatever in Sogdian'
might be Sanskrit. But the two lines have remained as incomprehensible in
Sanskrit terms as they are in Middle Sogdian.
A reversal of Benveniste's reasoning therefore seemed called for: if the
fragment is not Buddhist but Mazdean, as Rosenberg had suggested and Sims-
Williams shows above is compatible with the third proposal, Schaeder's, that
the author was a Manichee, then the mysterious two lines might be Avestan.
Further encouragement to think so was provided by the realization that lines
7 - 9 read like an Avestan commonplace in Sogdian translation. But then the
first two lines, if they are Avestan, should not be commonplace but a text
too sacrosanct for translation. No sooner had this conclusion been reached
than the words of the abracadabra
(A) [...] mwT~t my~t'y w~t'y w~t"y
~twTrn 'y twrt'y 'Tw~t'yrtm
changed boundaries, and the charade resolved itself into the familiar
abecedarium
(a) a~m vohfi vahi~t~m asti
[wrt]m w 7~ tm yJt'y
(b) uJt~ as t{ u ~ t a ahm~i
w~t' yw~t"y ~tw 7rn'y--
(c) hyat_ a s ~ i vahi~t~i a~m
--t wrt'y 'Tw~t'y rtm.
Two scribal corruptions in (A) at once catch the eye, which need not be
older than the present manuscript copy of the text or the copy from which
it was copied. One is the double aleph of wjt"y as against the single aleph of
my~t'y. One might think this the result simply of an exchange of places of
w~t"y with w~t'y in careless copying. But, on grounds of orthographic
consistency which will be explained below, one suspects that it was not
wjt"y and w~t'y which exchanged places, but the -t"y and the -t'y which
respectively tailed on twr- and the second w~'-. To account for such a happening
one may suppose, for example, that the present copy, or a predecessor of it,
76 ILYA GERSHEVITCH
was from a manuscript with shorter lines, on four of which the words of the
first two lines of Fragment 4 stood distributed as follows:
[wrt] mwT~t
my~t'y wJt'y w]t"y
~gtwTm 'y twrt'y
'~w]t'yrtm.
After 'Tw]t'yrtm, on the same line, the text of lines 3ft. of Fragment 4 would
have begun, and in front of [wrt] mwTJt, on the same line, there would have
ended a lost text introductory to the abracadabra. The 'words' being meaning-
less to the scribe, if his eyes on reaching the second line-end strayed to the
third, he could without compunction on subsequently reaching the third
compensate it with the second for having prematurely usurped it. The
redistribution may serve to account also for the other scribal corruption in
(A), that of *wJt'Trn'y to 'JtwTm ~v. The former would have had its w]t'7-
standing above the 'Twit- of the fourth line, the same five letters in different
order, neither order making sense, and this in a language almost crazily
addicted to metathesis, and with preference for metathesis of w.
Accordingly in what follows we may as well operate with a slightly
emended version of(A), in which the seven words of the abracadabra read
(B) [wrt] mwT~t my~t'y w~t'y

wJt' Tm 'y twrt"y "7wjt'yrtm.
As we can no longer doubt that the story told in Fragment 4 was a
Manichean author's adaptation of Zoroastrian elements, we may be sure that
the ultimate source of (A) was Zoroastrian. But no written source that was
Zoroastrian should have failed to divide correctly the words of the a'~am vohfi
prayer. It would follow that the Zoroastrian source in question was oral. The
Manichean who recorded its sounds in writing distinguished not twelve
words - which he was in no position to identify - but four word-sequences.
He did so because it was into four phrases that he heard the prayer fall while
he listened to a Zoroastrian chanting it with three interruptions for breath,
the latter determined by the melodic structure of the chant.
That the recorder wrote down four word-sequences is clear from the
preservation in (A) of one of them, the last, and from the fact that only two,
namely the third and the fifth, of the remaining six 'words' of (A) have as
initial syllable a truly word-initial syllable of the Avestan prayer.
What the recorder wrote down, therefore, assuming for simplicity's sake
that he wrote not in Manichean script but in Sogdian script, will have been
(c) [wrt] mwT~tmy~t'y wJt'yw~t'y

wJt 'Tm 'y twrt "y 'Tw~t 'y rtm ,
THE SOGDIAN FRAGMENTS: APPENDIX 77
the phonetic reality which he thus represented being

(D) urt~mw~(x)xu~tomi~ff u~t~u~t[
u~t~hm@iturt~i oxuJtYzyirtom.
This was a phonetic reality which, once its Manichean recorder had parted
with his Zoroastrian informant, neither he, nor even less any later Manichean
reader or copyist could have easily recaptured from (C). But inability to
recapture it was hardly the sole reason why (C) became (B). The main reason
is likely to have been a concern to facilitate the repetition of the formula, since
shorter units of magic gibberish would invite fewer corruptions than long ones.
Though (C) cannot have been written down before the time of Mani (died
274 A.D.), and might be considerably later, the acquisition by the prayer of
the phonetic peculiarities seen in (D) does not require any dating later than
the transitional period from Old Sogdian to Middle Sogdian. Throughout this
period, as always, Zoroastrians must have made the prayer's diction an object
of painstaking drill.
Of the few changes which managed to slip through this drill, the one
affecting Olran. wahiJta- agrees with the latter's Middle Sogdian outcome
(o)xu~t (reached via woho~t and (o)xwoJt) as attested by the Sogdian name of
the Manichean third element, 'rtxw~t (see GMS, w We find (a)xuJt- in
the fourth sequence of (D) as part of the eleventh word of the prayer, and
would expect to find it also in the first sequence as part of the third word.
It would appear that the third word's initial merged in sentence-sandhi with
the end of the second word, thus giving rise to the one exception in (D) to
faithful preservation of the Olran. inflectional endings: *woh~ woho~t- >
*woxwah~t- > *wox-(~)xugt- (cf. the eleventh word) > wo(x)xu~t- (written
w3"~tin (A)). n3 The [x] preceding the u of(~)xu~t- happens to be, owing to
the earlier metathesis of [w], the phonologically expected Middle Sogdian
outcome of the [h] of Olran. wahi~ta-. But we should have expected to find
the [h] of wahi~ta- preserved and written 3' in (A), even if Middle Sogdian
phonology had required it to vanish. This is because in the eighth Old Iranian
word of the prayer, ahmdi, the tenacious Zoroastrian tradition succeeded in
preserving an [h] (written 7 in Sogdian script) which according to Middle
Sogdian phonology ought by all means to have disappeared (cf. GMS, w
It follows noteworthily that the Old Iranian version of the prayer which
underlies what we read in (A) had as ninth word not hyat, butyat.
Apart from (o)xuJt- and the absorption of the final t) of waht), the only
changes, all minor, which the drill did not avail to prevent are three vowel
replacements.
n3 This is why in the fourth sequence of (D) axu~st- and not oxwo~st- seems the likely
interpretation.
78 ILYA GERSHEVITCH
The first is revealed by the w of w]t"y in (A). As we learn from myJt'y

the Sogdian form which was used in the prayer where the Avestan has ast{
was zstt. What therefore happened is that in recitation ay-glide had come to
eliminate the hiatus between u]t~ and t~tt, whereupon the -iJt- of the resulting
sequence *u]t?tyi~t[became -uJt- by assimilation to the sequence's initial uJt-.
The assimilation quite likely took place several centuries after the appearance
of the glide, but it must have been a feature already of the recitation which
the Manichean recorder committed to writing. For no supposition involving a
later accident, graphic or phonetic, would account nearly so well for the fact
that the fourth 'word' of (A) begins with w-. It does not of course follow
that all Zoroastrian contemporaries of the Manichean recorder said ~
instead of ~ this point of the prayer, or even that those who said ~
did not think that at this point the prayer had a dead word for 'is', variant of
a by then equally dead i]t[. They would merely have been unaware that at
the time when i~tt~was still a live word no variant *uJtr it existed.
The second vowel replacement is o f u by i aftery in the fourth sequence of
(D), where in view of the third sequenee's urtai one expects *urtom. But had
the Manichean recorder heard *oxuJt?tyurtom, he would hardly have failed to
write w after y. 114
Finally, the third vowel replacement, which it is more convenient than
necessary to assume. One cannot exclude that, corresponding to the a of
Av. hyat_ there was an [a] (u~tdhm~yaturtdi) also in the Zoroastrian recitation
recorded in (C) as w]t'Trn'ytwrt"y. But if u turned into i after y in ~xu]t{yirtom
presumably at a time preceding the assimilation to u of the i of *u~t~yi]t{), it
is unlikely that a after y did not suffer the same fate.
The two instances, then, in (C) of a phonetically consonantal but
graphically anteconsonantal y preceded by a single aleph, viz.-'Trn ~t- and
-Tw]t'yr- should represent a faithful preservation of the Manichean recorder's
own way of writing spoken -t~y/-.His use of a single aleph to represent a long
in internal position would even in Sogdian script be regular (notwithstanding
the frequent doubling of aleph to exclude ambiguity), and agree with the
single aleph for ~ in (C) before the antevocalicy of wJt'ywJ- and before the
of (the emended) w~t'Tm-.
This raises the question as to why the rny~t'y of A, whose -~V stands for a
word-final vowel even in our (C), has an aleph. As the Middle Sogdian 3 sg.
pres. ending-t/of light stems is usually, and perhaps always, written -ty even
in Sogdian script, the reasonable conclusion to draw from the -t'y of-y~t'y is
~14After Ix], by contrast, it is here assumed that the u of (o)xu~t- was expressed in
writing only at one of the two occurrences of the word.
that the word was pronounced [i]t/]. If, as is quite likely, Middle Sogdian had
shortened all {-s in final position, a spelling different from -ty was here called
for. The use of-t)~ would then attest for the Old Iranian pronunciation of
the present version of the prayer the same secondary lengthening of final
short vowels in chanted recitation as is familiar from the Gathas.
It will now be clear why, in considering whether the wrong -')p of the
fourth word, w~t"y, of (A) required us to emend the third word, wJt'y, to
*w]t"y or the sixth word, twrt'y, to *twrt"y, we opted for the second
alternative. Undoubtedly the first alternative has much to commend itself:
the inversion of the word-order of the two almost identical words *wJt"y
w]t'y would be thoroughly credible, and *w]t"ywJ- would be an irreproachable
Sogdian spelling of uJtS-yu]-. But we should then be left on the one hand
with true word-final -)~ expressing -fin myJt'y and *w]t'y but -8i in twrt'y,
and on the other with internal -~y- being expressed by -~V-in 'Jtwym'y
(*w~t'Tm~v) and 'Tw~t'yrtm but by -')~- in *w~t"y, (A)'s third, emended,
word. By contrast, with double aleph confined as in (B) to twrt"y, neither of
these orthographic inconsistencies arises: the Manichean recorder will have
used-~ for-{, -')~ for-~i, and -)~- for-&-.
As for other vowels we have already noted -'- for -~-, -~- for -i- (in -~v- for
-~yi-) beside -y- for -i- in my]t'y, and the alternation of-r with -w- for -u- in
(~)xu]t- whose spelling 'Twit- agrees with -twrt- for -turt-. This leaves only
for internal and '- for initial o to be mentioned, and w, for the initial u- of
(C)'s second word-sequence. The latter peculiarity, on the strength of which,
bearing in mind twrt'y, I have restored (A)'s first word as [wrt] rnwTJt, agrees
with the initial w- in Sogdian script of wp'p 7ntrw corresponding to Av.
up~pa-gandar~wa-, and of wp'sy beside 'wp's'k for Skt. upSsaka-.
Once the few casualties embedded in (D) of mechanical recitation spread
over several centuries have been identified, it being noted that even the
serious Middle-Sogdification of wahiJtom had stopped short at -om, (D)
speaks to us in unadulterated Old Iranian, saying
(E) urtam wahft wahi~tam i~t[u~t~ i~t{

u~t~ ahm~i yat urt~i wahi~t~i urtam.
By Old Iranian any form of Iranian speech of the pre-Christian era is
meant that in respect of morphology differed from Indo-Iranian no more
than Avestan or Old Persian. There is no reason to think, let alone any proof,
that Old Iranian morphology did not break down soon after the Achaemenian
period in Sogdian, any less than it did in Bactrian, Parthian or Persian. In (E)
there is no difficulty about declaring the declensional endings -am and -~ti,
and the pronouns ahm~i and yat Old Iranian and not Middle Sogdian,
because the latter language has replaced the two endings with -w and -y
80 ILYA G E R S H E V I T C H
respectively, and has no recognizable descendant of either pronoun. But one

question will be asked: if to present (E) as unadulterated Old Iranian it was
necessary first to replace (D)'s axuJt- with wahiJt-, why is it right not to
replace (D)'s i~'t{with c/st/?
Before attempting this question let us realize that my~t'y's i~t{would be
the main phonological gain we derive from the identification of (A) even if
ijffhad to be denied Old Iranian status. For regardless of whether this form
existed already in Old Iranian or emerged only in the early Middle Iranian
period, it reveals that Man. Sogd. Cycy, Chr. ycy, was from an asti palatalized
to i~ti in one of the Sogdian dialects. Yaghnobi may descend from an
t~tidialect, in view of its i~t 'thou art'. Just as Manichean and Christian
Sogdian beside i~i used asti and xa~i for 'is', but had only i~ for 'thou art'
which we shall now simply derive from an early Sogdian *iJ-(h)i that had
replaced ahi as a result of extrapolation from iJti of a present stem *i~-; so
also Middle Yaghnobi may have had both *i~t and (x)ast for 'is' but only *iJ
for 'thou art'. When the language proceeded to generalize (x)ast, *i~t would
have found itself at a loose end, and having more body than */J, and no
longer a function conflicting with the latter's to fulfil, taken its place. The
form in~i of the 'Ancient Letters' probably owes its n to the stem 'n- as
Henning suggested, but would be secondary to i~i. In all these respects, GMS
must be corrected, as also in respect ofxa~i, whose ~ was analogical to lCl .... S,
and not vice-versa.
To return to the above question, the reason why it would be rash to
replace i]t[with astiin (E) is that, while wahi~t- did not survive into the
Middle Sogdian period as wahi]t- but only as either ~xu~t- or w~]t-/u~t-
(GMS, w n. 2), asti remained unchanged, a living word, in all Middle
Sogdian forms of speech, used beside the secondary [gti/i~i and the variants
which this came to generate. To replace in (E) the ~xujt- of (D) with wahi~t-
is to resurrect a dead father. To assign i~tfalso to (E) is to take account of the
father's never having died.
What compels us to take account of this is the fact that (A) has reached
us through a Sogdian Zoroastrian tradition which, if it behaved like the
Persian Zoroastrian tradition, would have handed down the prayer in
Zoroaster's own language, and would have so handed it down because it
would have received it in Avestan. To the Persian Zoroastrians not only the
prayer was sacrosanct, but also the Avestan diction of it. If the original
Sogdian converts to Zoroastrianism who stood at the head of the tradition
we have recaptured through (A) had received the prayer in Avestan language,
even if by then the Sogdian language had developed an i~ti beside asti, they
would have been most unlikely to give the prayer a non-Avestan touch by
replacing the Avestan asti, which also in their own language was asti, with
the i}t/which their own language had additionally acquired, ns

As to their treatment o f the prayer subsequently to their having received
it in Avestan, would they not all along know that this was a particularly holy
piece of Avestan to be handed down inviolate? Would they not know, at the
moment o f replacing the prayer's asti with iJti, that they were tampering with
a solemn traditional recitation?
It is hard to avoid the conclusion that what was received at the time of
conversion was not the Avestan text of the prayer. This remains so even if by
'receiving' one means an act of translation from Avestan into Sogdian. Such a
translation, in view o f the preservation of-am, -di, ahm~i and yat, could only
have taken place in the Old Sogdian period. The reason for undertaking it
would still have been that the Avestan prayer was sacrosanct. Would the
translator then not have striven to keep the Sogdian as close as possible to
the holy Avestan? What was there that required translation anyway, in the
Old Iranian period, other than a~om? Every one of the other Avestan words of
the prayer, including asti, was also Sogdian.
We are thus left with only one way o f accounting for i]ti: our original
converts did not take the three verse-lines o f the prayer from Avestan because
the tristich had been theirs before they became converts, a Sogdian heirloom,
complete with i~t/.
Modern translations of the a]om voh~ prayer vary. My own attempt
(BSOAS, 25/2, 1962, 369b) could do with an improvement: 'Truth is the
best possession: spontaneously (u]t~) Truth belongs at (his) wish (uJt~) to
him who is best towards Truth'. But neither this translation, nor any other
known to me, conveys anything that could not have been said o f Rta from
the time Rta was first thought of, in the fifteenth century B.C. or earlier.
Like Rta itself, the tristich could very well have been pan-Iranian, kept alive
~e
independently by Aryanava~jahians, Sogdians, and other Iranian peoples. To

Zoroaster, naturally, this succinct praise o f Truth appealed very much. When
in due course our converts learned how much the tristich had appealed to him,
they took to meditating on it with fervour. They would feel no compunction
about meditating on it not in its Avestan form but in the Sogdian form familiar
to them. They would feel no compunction because they would know that the
tristich was not an Avestan invention.
1is If instead ofmy~t'y (A) had had *mst'y, we should have had to worry as to whether
urta- might not be genuine Avestan, as well as Old Sogdian, cf. Av. ar~ta-. As it is, we
remain free to believe that the a].a-of the vulgate more or less reproduces the sound of
the ancient Avestan word for 'Truth'. But within the above reasoning we may say that
if the Sogdian converts received the prayer in Avestan language, they would have had a
very much better reason for replacing the a~a-which their own language did not have,
than the asti which it had.
82 ILYA GERSHEVITCH
Accordingly it is possible in a general way to place our converts in time

and in space. The time was Old Iranian on language grounds, presumably
therefore falling within the Achaemenian period. The space was an area of
Sogdiane where i~t/had come into being. The Yaghnob valley, with its i]t,
may have formed part o f it.
In some other parts o f Sogdiane the trisfich quite likely lived through
antiquity with its prehistoric asti intact. We are lucky in the Zoroastrian
c o m m u n i t y ancestral to the (A) tradition having been an iJti.community, as
otherwise we should not have known that palatalization began to attack certain
sounds o f Sogdian so early. An early date for Sogdian palatalization is not very
surprising, seeing that in nearby territory certain Avestan consonants (of which,
however, s was not one) were also affected b y palatalization in antiquity.
Whether we are lucky not only in Fragment 4 pointing to an Old Sogdian
9v ~ . .
date of t]ti, but also in tstt standing m Fragment 4 because the earliest
Sogdians to become Zoroastrians belonged to an t~t/-community, is something
one can only guess at. It will be remembered that Henning had reached the
conclusion ( B S O A S , 28/2, 1965, 250ff.) that on the whole Sogdiane
remained a country o f heathens until the end o f antiquity, b u t at some stage
some non-Sogdians who were not 'Avestans' either must have converted
some Sogdians, i~t/-men as has now become possible to suspect, to
Zoroastrianism.
Whatever the justice o f implications based on i~t/, Fragment 4 affords us a
first glimpse o f genuine Old Sogdian o f Achaemenian vintage. Even apart
from this, as Sims-Williams justly remarks, the fragment has a claim to
distinction, being b y far the earliest surviving manuscript of a Zoroastrian text. 116
Cambridge
aa~ By first-proof stage Sims-Williamsand I had received a valid criticism from Professor
Schwartz: we had overlooked that wn- for 'make, do' in Frg. 13.30 militates against
that text being Manichean (cL GMS, w if its scribe was really the same as wrote
Frg. 4, the latter should then also not be Manichean, and the two texts might constitute
our first specimens of identifiable 'Zoroastrian' Sogdian. But quite apart from the doubt
which must remain on the identity of hand, the arguments adduced above, p. 48, for
Manichean authorship of Frg. 4 seem to me so strong, and the probability of genuine
Zoroastrians having lost all orientation in the urtam waht~ prayer so remote, that so long
as the single wn- alone can be raised as solid objection I should consider it safer to reverse
the tables: the Manichean authorship of Frg. 13, conditional upon its hand being the
same as that of Frg. 4, would disqualify wn- from being the non-Manichean variant of
kwn-. Instead of t(k)l-] wn'yra 'let us perform a trick' one might then consider reading
](k)[.] wz'ym 'let us play a trick', and connect the new present stem *wz- 'play' with
NP bftz-, MP w~tz-, on which see Hiibschmann, Persische Studien, 22. The Sogdian short
would agree with Lat. vegeo (Pokorny, 1EIr 11 t7f.), to which in any case Pers. w/bdz-
is likely to belong. The possibility that despite Man. wz- 'fly' (GMS, w ](k)[.] wz'ym
might mean 'let us draw back', to Av. vaz-, may also deserve consideration.

The Sogdian Fragments of The British Library

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

The Sogdian Fragments of The British Library

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

NICHOLAS SIMS-WILLIAMS

THE SOGDIAN FRAGMENTS OF THE BRITISH LIBRARY

Formerly the library of the British Museum.

1halo-Iranian Journal 18 (1976) 43-82. All Rights Reserved

SO far been overlooked. 13 A number of these have previously been catalogued

.... approximate number of illegible letters.

29 p r ' y m ' n t r'Swh (thus already B., 497).

~7 See BSOAS, 38/1, 1975, 132-4.

aAll occurrences of ~ in lines 1-2 are unambiguously} rather than s.

2~ < Av. fra-sasta-?

xwrmzt_'~% M5266, R 8 - 9 , published by Henning, BSOAS, 12/2, 1948, 314).

a8 The parallel was pointed out to me by Dr. Gershevitch.

though the writing of 6 is considerably smaller (possibly owing to lack of

6 1 [ ] (k) pr 7r~ w'/~'y8 p(w) [ ] ......

inappropriate to the passage corresponding to the fourth commandment

39 In the word beginning ". [ in 9.9.

6 ].ty' 8'r'y rty '. [

apunctuation mark. bread pr[3r'c also in P8.1. ereading certain.

knky pt]m'r p [wt'y~ty prn] 'the fortune of the Buddhas whose-reckoning-is-

4o Dr. Gershevitch refers also to Arm. dahekan 'SpaX#~, 8rW&p~ou'(Htibschmann,

The spelling 8i'mpnwh is also found in the Manichean missionary history

1 wrcwnk(ry')[ Tw 5yw] t a ywny8 a tr~'nt (kw)[ a knSh]

9 'nst f w'{t'nt 'yw 61~tym'yti w'/Tnt RBkw 7nt'kw ~'

42 rm'kw 7Y6h mkTw w'rTn'k prw (7)[rTwsy~kt'rTw]

' . . . . magic. The d e m o n s immediately fledt to the city. Rustam thus

t See the commentary following this translation.

~'See the commentary following this translation.

sT MN is perhaps partitive, governing the compound rwpsh-#'r'k.

69 Mistake for kt'r~iw (suggested by Dr. Gershevitch).

* [ORS-] <*awa-hufsa-. 73 Whether Sogdian possessed also the unpreflxed verb

~ See the commentary following this translation.

73 In GMS, w w'#s was explained as an analogical form (modelled on the imperfects

aor ] wnty. bor nr6 t.

s3 For Rax~'s sensitivity to smell Dr. Gershevitch refers to ~S~hn~ma,Moscow ed.,

Of interest here is line 4, which appears to show at least three verbs in

Unpublished. From the middle of a sheet, written in columns divided by a

91 Dr. Gershevitch explains kwc'ykh as a pseudo-historical spelling for the obl. of

' . . . . S~a-book. This is the chief . . . . '.

96 All MSS. with signature S. + number are from Ch' ien-fo-tung.

amistake for pwst'k, bpwty possible but less likely, c,dresp.ectively

'This book belongs to Pw'y. 97 He who does not believe (this)...'.

97 Probably a Chinese name.

1 cyny a t ' m ' k 7ws b 7'w c

'Chinaman . . . . me . . . . [drawing.] Madam Ymkyh . . . . here, and also

A certain amount of sense can be made of Fragment 24: ' . . . . t a Yaksa

t See the commentary following the translation.

~o In w'-~/yp6st 'very own' we have an interesting addition to the list of elatives in

"~ See the commentary following the translation.

lo5 In P2.804 7rmy'n wn- translates Chin. 'abandon'.

25.6 kwmp'[nt] = Skt. kumbh~nda (a type of demon). This restoration

aor "y'w~st'nt. bor ~vs.

' . . . . vision . . . . up to the present day profit l~ . . . . lO6heals . . . . all

tgs = pr2dwcy, Dhy., 228. In P15.27 restore fl[r-r]'wcy.

without blame . . . . they w e r e tossed over . . . . come to the . . . . tomb 1~

A commercial document, in which the only point of interest is the shape

1 r'fl p y ' m t k'n . [

One of the arguments adduced by Benveniste (JRAS, 1933, 54-5) for

(B) [wrt] mwT~t my~t'y w~t'y

(c) [wrt] mwT~tmy~t'y wJt'yw~t'y

the phonetic reality which he thus represented being

The first is revealed by the w of w]t"y in (A). As we learn from myJt'y

(E) urtam wahft wahi~tam i~t[u~t~ i~t{

respectively, and has no recognizable descendant of either pronoun. But one