Section 1. Introduction 1.01. All the above-mentioned categories have been the subject of considerable interest in the last few years. T. Gotō (1987) has devoted a book to Class I presents (thematic presents with normal grade of the root and stable root accent) in Sanskrit, and H. Rix has published a monograph on Indo-European moods (1986) and an article on the middle voice (1988). B. Barschel (1986) has addressed the question of the antiquity of the subjunctive and optative, and their absence from the Anatolian branch of IE. The question of the special primary endings of the singular active in the thematic conjugation was reopened by W. Cowgill (1985). Yet despite all this attention some questions still remain puzzling.

The Chinese Manichaean ‘hymnscroll’ was discovered by Sir Aurel Stein in Tunhuang and is now preserved in the British Library, under the number Or. 8210(2659). Apart from Chinese translations from Iranian originals, it contains three hymns in Chinese transcription. These hymns were studied and partly reconstructed by Waldschmidt and Lentz. In particular, the third hymn was identified with the Parthian fragments M259c and 529 in the German Turfan collection together with their Sogdian translation TM351 and reconstructed almost completely, W.-L. i, pp. 80–93. Verses 12 and 13 of the first hymn were identified with the common Middle Persian phrase pr'zyśt 'wd j'yd'n zm'n 'wh byẖ, W.-L. i, p. 111, n. 4. The second hymn was identified with an Iranian fragment M260, W.-L. i, p. 6, and its verses 5–7 were reconstructed by Waldschmidt and Lentz in JRAS, 1926, 116–22, 298–9.

“It is so published that injury that comes upon the fruits lies upon the holder of the pledge, that which comes upon the stock, lies upon the farmer.”

For the interpretation of graβakāndār, bar and bun, one may refer to Bartholomae, MM., 1, 14.

‘Abdallāh b. Mu‘āwiya b. ‘Abdallam h b. Ja‘far b. Abī Tālib, great-grandson of ‘Alī's brother Ja‘far, rose up in Kufa in Muharram of 127/October 744. He was defeated by Umayyad forces in 130 (747–748), and killed by Abū Muslim in Khurāsaān. During the two years of his uprising, Ibn Mu‘āwiya established himself in the Jibāl and Fārs, where he appointed governors, collected taxes and struck his own coins. Ibn Mu‘āwiya's coinage is an important source for the revolt, which is among the most important uprisings of the late Umayyad period. It presents evidence for a strong and unified movement, and corroborates the interpretation of a ‘dress rehearsal’ for the ‘Abbāsid Revolution. This article suggests some alternatives regarding the chronology and geography of Ibn Mu‘āwiya's revolt through a re-examination of textual sources and new coinage, and shows the usefulness of numismatics for the historical study of early Islam.

This paper* examines how Zoroastrians designate themselves (internal/self-designations), and how they are designated by others (external designations). Focusing on the term Gabr/Gavr as the external denotation for Zoroastrians and the term Gabrī/Gavrūnī as the designation for their language, it argues that these terms, once common in Western scholarship as well as among non-Zoroastrian Iranians, have become obsolete due to their pejorative undertones. However, they have recently been revived by some scholars, who justify such use with reference to the alleged etymology of Gabr as meaning “man” and by the fact that even some Zoroastrians use Gavr/Gavrūn and Gavrī/Gavrūnī as an internal designation for themselves and their language. This paper critically examines these views and argues that neither the etymology nor the internal self-designation justifies the use of these terms and proposes the term Zoroastrian Darī as the more appropriate designation of the language of the Zoroastrians of Iran.

The importance of documentary sources for the history of the official postal system (barīd) in the first century of Islam has long been acknowledged. In addition to a small number of documents from the eastern part of the Muslim Empire, Egyptian papyri from the 90s/710s and 130s/750s form the main documentary sources for modern studies on the postal system. These papyri belong to a distinct phase in Islamic history. Papyri from other, especially earlier, phases have largely been neglected. The present article addresses the history of Egypt's official postal system from the Muslim conquest up to c. 132/750. It argues that the postal system gradually developed out of Byzantine practices and was shaped by innovations by Muslim rulers through which their involvement in the postal system's administration gradually increased. The article ends with an edition of P.Khalili II 5, a papyrus document from 135/753 on the provisioning of postal stations.

Muʿtazilite exegetical tradition has been defined primarily by reference to the theological dimensions of the tafsīr works authored by the Muʿtazila. This article is an attempt to go beyond this focus by exploring the significance of an exegete's affiliation to the tradition that is implicit in his selection of interpretations and his references to authorities. Focusing on the tafsīr of the tenth-century Muʿtazilite scholar ʿAlī ibn ʿĪsā al-Rummānī, the article analyses al-Rummānī's references to his three Muʿtazilite predecessors: Abū ʿAlī al-Jubbāʾī, Abū l-Qāsim al-Balkhī and Ibn al-Ikhshīd. The content of these references indicates that, for al-Rummānī, the authority of these Muʿtazilite scholars extended beyond their views on the theological implications of the Quranic verses. The context suggests that the scholars were part of a distinct exegetical tradition that allowed for certain differences of opinion.

A Sanskritist who reads for the first time a Buddhistic Sanskrit text such as the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka is struck at once by peculiarities of vocabulary and style which differentiate it from normal Sanskrit. If he limits himself to the prose parts, ignoring the verses, he will rarely encounter forms or expressions which are definitely ungrammatical, or at least more ungrammatical than, say, the Sanskrit of the epics, which also violates the strict rules of Pāṇini. Yet every paragraph will contain words and turns of expression which, while formally unobjectionable (if, perhaps, non-Pāṇinean), would never be used by any non-Buddhist writer.

The Geniza fragment T-S AS 161.50 contains three poems, all in Judaeo-Arabic, attributed to the Egyptian Sufi poet Muḥammad b. Ibrāhīm Abū ʿAbd Allāh, known as Ibn al-Kīzānī (d. 562/1167). None of the texts are present in his published dīwān. In the Egyptian section of his anthology Kharīdat al-qaṣr, Saladin's secretary ʿImād al-Dīn al-Iṣfahānī (d. 597/1201) testifies to the interest of Saladin in Ibn al-Kīzānī. We are thus in a unique position to evaluate the readership of this poet; while his followers called Kīzāniyya were already known, his popularity evidently extended not only across confessional lines to be read in a Jewish milieu, but also reached elite levels, despite his (according to ʿImād al-Dīn) “heterodox” beliefs. These new texts accordingly throw light on inter-religious and unorthodox currents normally not understood to have been promoted by Saladin and his avowedly Sunni successors.

This article attempts to shed new light on the significance of the Zhouyi (Changes of Zhou or Book of Changes) in Zhong Hong's intellectual biography, and sets forth insights into the way in which intellectual influences of philosophical strata are interwoven in the Shipin (Kriterion Poietikon), one of the major contributions to Chinese literary criticism during the Nanbeichao period. Departing from comments made by Zhong Hong's biographers about his expertise on the Zhouyi, the intricate textual fabric of his writings is explored in the light of the intellectual discourse of his day. The Shipin is read as a complex blend of scholarly traditions and original insights, a number of its underlying structural principles are interpreted as allusions closely linked to conceptual kernels which originate from the Zhouyi and its exegetical literature.

According to Islamic tradition the companions of Jesus in the Quran, the ḥawāriyyūn, were faithful disciples. Critical scholars largely agree that the Quran means to present the ḥawāriyyūn as such, and generally translate ḥawāriyyūn as “apostles” or “disciples”. Some add that ḥawāriyyūn is related to ḥawāryā, the Geʿez term used for the apostles in the Ethiopic Bible. In the present article I argue that while the Quran indeed means to signal the apostles of Christian tradition with the term ḥawāriyyūn, it does not consider the ḥawāriyyūn to have been faithful. The Quran praises the ḥawāriyyūn for their belief in Jesus (a belief that distinguishes them from other Israelites, i.e. the Jews) but reprimands them for abandoning his message. Hence emerges the exceptional position of Christians in the Quran: they are not condemned but rather exhorted to return to their prophet's teaching.