No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Old-Iranian “Peership”
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 December 2009
Extract
In the course of studies connected with the social order of Iranian antiquity, I have broached, without expounding it in context, a problem contained in the expressions vispatiš, visō puθra, and vāspuhr. The matter has been taken up by H. H. Schaeder in his contribution to the volume dedicated to Sir George Grierson “ Ein parthischer Titel im Soghdischen,” where, while adopting the main results which I had abstracted from my epigraphical material, he argues against opinions imputed to, but never put forth by me. I may, therefore, be allowed to explain the view I really hold.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies , Volume 8 , Issue 4 , February 1937 , pp. 937 - 945
- Copyright
- Copyright © School of Oriental and African Studies 1937
References
page 937 note 1 Sch., l.c., p. 747.Google Scholar
page 938 note 1 I cannot refrain from telling a rather pertinent anecdote I remember from my childhood: a member of the Quitzow family said to a Hohenzollern prince: “ We have been in the Mark long before the Hohenzollern.“ The prince answered: “ Perhaps we were later, but surely more successful.”
page 939 note 1 Rostovtzoff accepts this view in Cambr. Anc. Hist. III, iii, p. 114, and identifies them also with the megistanes of Joscphus.Google Scholar
page 939 note 2 AMI., iv, 54.Google Scholar
page 939 note 3 AMI., ii. 52.Google Scholar
page 939 note 4 AMI., vi. 74.Google Scholar But the reading viθbiš in Dar. Pers.e, three times, is wrong; the text has thrice the normal hadā visaibiš bagaibiš “ with all the gods ”; there were no “ gods of the clans.”
page 940 note 1 Sch., l.c., p. 743, n. 2.Google Scholar
page 941 note 1 I profit of the occasion to correct myself: in AMI., vii, p. 19, 1. 8, the abridged names Sar Mashhad and Naqsh i Rustam for the two inscriptions, are by mistake exchanged; the passage containing the word vāspuhrakān stands in NiRst., and is omitted in SMshh.Google Scholar
page 941 note 2 I had overlooked the reading with a in Westergaard's rare book.
page 942 note 1 When writing the commentary to Paikuli in 1921, I had not yet studied the question, whether the two princes might have been “ heir presumptives ”, and I thought at that time that one or both of them might have been vispatiš of the royal clan.
page 942 note 2 Sch., l.c., p. 744, n. 1.Google Scholar
page 942 note 3 Sch., l.e., p. 746.Google Scholar