A Walk through the Iranian Heavens: For a History of an Unpredictable Dialogue between Nonspherical and Spherical Models 1949743144, 9781949743142

Table of contents :
Dedication
Tabel of Contents
Preface
Introduction
1. A Methodological Problem: Celestial Sphere and Spherical Astronomical Models as a Result of a Mental Construction
2. The Ancient Iranian Witness
3. The Name Σπιθραδάτης / Σπιθριδάτης and its Importance in the History of the Debate on the origin of the Sphere in the Iranian world
4. The Ancient Iranian Cosmography and its Evolution
5. Order and Disorder in the Spherical Models
6. First Conclusions and Further Problems
7. Addenda
8. Plates
9. List of the Plates
10. Bibliographical References
11. Indexes

Citation preview

Ancient Iranian Series Editor Touraj Daryaee (Irvine) Editorial Board Samra Azarnouche (Paris) Chiara Barbati (Pisa) Matthew P. Canepa (Irvine) Carlo G. Cereti (Rome) Hassan Fazeli Nashli (Tehran) Frantz Grenet (Paris) Simcha Gross (Pennsylvania) Almut Hintze (London) Nasir Al-Kaabi (Kufa) Irene Madreiter (Innsbruck) Antonio Panaino (Ravenna) Céline Redard (London) Robert Rollinger (Innsbruck) Vesta Sarkhosh Curtis (London) M. Rahim Shayegan (Los Angeles) Mihaela Timuş (Bucharest) Giusto Traina (Paris) Yuhan S.-D. Vevaina (Oxford)

Ancient Iran Series Editor in Chief Touraj Daryaee (University of California, Irvine) Managing Editor Sherivn Farridnejad (Free University of Berlin, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna) Editorial Board Samra Azarnouche (École pratique des hautes études) Chiara Barbati (University of Pisa) Matthew Canepa (University of California, Irvine) Carlo Cereti (Sapienza University of Rome) Hassan Fazeli Nashil (University of Tehran) Frantz Grenet (Collège de France) Simcha Gross (University of Pennsylvania) Almut Hintze (SOAS University of London) Nasir Al-Kaabi (University of Kufa) Irene Madreiter (University of Inssbruck) Antonio Panaino (University of Ravenna) Céline Redard (SOAS University of London) Robert Rollinger (University of Inssbruck) Vesta Sarkhosh Curtis (British Museum) M. Rahim Shayegan (University of California, Los Angeles) Mihaela Timuş (University of Bucharest) Rolf Strootman (Utrecht University) Giusto Traina (University of Paris-Sorbonne) Yuhan S.-D. Vevaina (University of Oxford)

VOLUME 9 The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/ais

A WALK THROUGH THE IRANIAN HEAVENS For a History of an Unpredictable Dialogue between Nonspherical and Spherical Models

Antonio Panaino

A Walk through the Iranian Heavens For a History of an Unpredictable Dialogue between Nonspherical and Spherical Models

© Antonio Panaino 2019 Antonio Panaino is hereby identified as author of this work in accordance with Section 77 of the Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988 Cover and Layout: Kourosh Beigpour | ISBN: 978-1-949743-14-2 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publishers. This book is sold subject to the condition that it shall not, by way of trade or otherwise, be lent, resold, hired out or otherwise circulated without the publisher’s prior consent in any form of binding or cover other than that in which it is published andcondition is redundant.

In memory of my friend Salvo De Meis Sulmona, July 23, 1930 – Milan, June 13, 2016

Ein Wort Ein Wort, ein Satz –; aus Chiffren steigen erkanntes Leben, jäher Sinn, die Sonne steht, die Sphären schweigen und alles ballt sich zu ihn hin. Ein Wort – ein Glanz, ein Flug, ein Feuer, ein Flammenwurf, ein Sternenstrich – und wieder Dunkel, ungeheuer, im leeren Raum um Welt und Ich. Gottfried Benn, Statische Gedichte, Zürich 1948.

Tabel of Contents

Preface ……………………………………………………………………………… 7 Introduction ……………………………………………………………………….. 9 1. A Methodological Problem: Celestial Sphere and Spherical Astronomical Models as a Result of a Mental Construction ………..13 2. The Ancient Iranian Witness ……………………………………………….. 33 3. The Name Σπιθραδάτης / Σπιθριδάτης and its Importance in the History of the Debate on the origin of the Sphere in the Iranian world …………………………………………………………… 43 4. The Ancient Iranian Cosmography and its Evolution …………….. 55 5. Order and Disorder in the Spherical Models ……………………….. 101 5.1. Models ……………………………………………………………………… 101 5.2. The Direction of the Invasion: A Cosmographic problem …..132 5.3. Debates, Controversies and Polemics …………………………… 139 6. First Conclusions and Further Problems ……………………………… 151 7. Addenda ………………………………………………………………………….. 158 8. Plates ……………………………………………………………………………… 161 9. List of the Plates ………………………………………………………………. 168 10. Bibliographical References ………………………………………………. 169 11. Indexes ………………………………………………………………………….. 207

PREFACE

T

his book by Antonio Panaino discusses the development of the Iranian cosmographical world and its interaction with the Greek, Mesopotamian and Indic civilizations. By undertaking such a study, the author places the Iranian intellectual tradition in perspective vis-à-vis other ancient civilizations and demonstrates the depth and importance of the Mazdean tradition, which was able to absorb and systematize foreign knowledge. Panaino shows the presence of both Aristotelian and Neo-Platonist traditions in the Iranian intellectual scene, though somewhat changed and acculturated to the Mazdean ideas and world-view. Hence, the book is a lively and interesting study of the juxtapositioning of various scientific and philosophical ideas at play in the Mediterranean, Iranian and Indic worlds. The Dr. Samuel M. Jordan Center for Persian Studies is pleased to publish this work by one of the foremost scholars of Iranian Studies, whose knowledge in astronomy and cosmology is well-known. It is hoped that his work further stimulates other studies in the field of Mazdean philosophical and scientific outlook. Touraj Daryaee Director of the Dr. Samuel M. Jordan Center for Persian Studies

INTRODUCTION

T

he present study offers a broader reflection on the concept of a “sphere” and its origin in astronomical and cosmological frameworks before starting an investigation of the cosmographical models provided in Pre-Islamic Iranian sources. There, in fact, we find a simple scheme with the heavens opposed to the earth or a more elaborated structure with three superimposed heavens. The later diffusion of a spherical model was not at all “natural,” but appeared slowly as the fruit of complex intellectual labor. We must observe that there is no ground for some older hypotheses stating that the ancient Iranians had already imagined the concept of a cosmic “sphere,” thus adopting a name like *spiθra- in order to refer to the firmament and the heavenly globe. Despite the existence of an Old Iranian stem *spiθra-, simply meaning “white”, Pahlavi spihr and cognate forms must be considered a loanword from Greek, perhaps via Syriac. This investigation emphasizes the fact that in the standard Old Iranian representation of the celestial world, the lowest heaven was very peculiarly attributed to the stars, that of the Moon was placed in the middle level, while that of the Sun was the third one, i.e. the level closest to the abode of Ahura Mazdā. This pattern finds strong

10

Antonio Panaino

resonance, and probably results from direct or indirect Oriental influence. in some traditions included in the Greek fragments belonging to the Pre-Socratic philosophers, the heaven of the stars was presented as the closest one to the earth. The origin of this very peculiar cosmography certainly dates back earlier. In fact, a group of Akkadian texts from the beginning of the first millennium BCE, although their archetype could be older, refers to three different heavens, each one made of a different precious stone. According to this scheme, the lowest celestial level was also ascribed to the stars. It is probable that this cosmic architecture played a certain influence on the Iranian peoples, but such a hierarchic model was reasonably incorporated into the Mazdean tradition under the theological assumption that the souls ascending to the Paradise of Ahura Mazdā (located on a fourth and higher level) should pass through different progressive steps, each one distinguished thanks to its increasing brightness. Then, the stars, Moon and Sun also assume an esoteric meaning. In later times, other cosmographic patterns were developed, probably with reference to the planets, although the traditional idea that the stars should stay below the heaven of the Moon was formally maintained, despite evidence indicating that the Sasanian astronomers knew that this sequence was impossible from the observational point of view. More intricate is the history of the mixture and coexistence of different cosmographical models. The Iranian peoples not only became acquainted with Babylonian astral doctrines, as in particular, the one concerning the separate existence of a particular group of wandering astral bodies, i.e. the planets, but in the course of time they also accepted Greek and Indian astronomical and astrological patterns. Particular relevance was attributed to a cinematic model in which the planetary motions, in particular the phenomena of the retrogradation, were explained thanks to the action played by a number of celestial wind-ropes or cords. Many arguments show that this pattern entered Iran via India, albeit it was soon widespread in many cultural contexts, not only in the Zoroastrian, but also in the Manichaean and Mandaean systems. The paradoxical endurance of a doctrine that posits the heaven of the stars as the first layer of the sky, before that of the

Introduction

11

Moon, witness of a primitive representation of the planetary motion, cannot be invoked as part of an argument showing that the Iranians did not know the concept of sphericity and that they simply adopted the Pahlavi word spihr from Greek σφαῖρα, but ignored its true meaning. On the contrary, this research highlights a series of pertinent arguments supporting the evidence that the Pre-Islamic and Early Islamic Iranian uranography, despite some bold contradictions, was able to compress a traditional representation of the heavens into a spherical model, accepting Ptolemaic patterns and schemes openly in contradiction with the coexistence of older models and peculiar cosmographic concepts. The presence in Sasanian (and post-Sasanian) Iran of contrasting visions of the heavens, including Ptolemaic, and anti-Ptolemaic, and even anti-Aristotelian, theories (as the one of the Celestial Tabernacle defended by Cosmas Indicopleustes), confirms the intellectual complexity of the multi-cultural and multi-religious debate current in this area in Late Antiquity (Plate 10). The present study will also show that in Iran a special interest was given to some cosmographic and uranographic problems, which played a very subtle role not only in the dialectical relationship between science and religion, but also in the one between contrasting theologies and philosophies. This study is dedicated to the memory of a good friend of mine, Dr. Eng. Salvo De Meis, with whom I have shared many unforgettable moments discussing a number of problems in the history of ancient sciences. After his death (Milan, June 13, 2016), my campus was given Salvo’s private library as a precious legacy in order to avoid a dispersion of rare books dedicated to an area of investigation, which, positioned between the natural and human sciences, usually risks falling into the void. His example remains a beaming light for us, and I hope with this volume to offer an original contribution to a field that he loved so deeply and to which he strongly contributed with his own original work. I take the present occasion as a good moment to express my deepest thanks to Salvo’s wife and his sons, Enzo and Marco, for their generous collaboration in the execution of the last wills left by our fellow.

12

Antonio Panaino

I must thank colleagues at the Max Planck Institute of Berlin, in particular Dagmar Schäfer and Sonja Brentjes, who strongly encouraged this investigation in the framework of a larger study about the vision of the cosmos in antiquity. The core of this research was actually written for a workshop on the “Visualisation of the Heavens,” held in Berlin April 17-18, 2018, although the research collects a number of materials previously selected and analysed. I also want to express my gratitude to the “Einstein Center Chronoi” at the Freie Universität Berlin and the Max Planck Institute, once again, which has kindly provided financial support for this publication in the framework of my fellowship with this prestigious institute. In particular, I desire to thank my colleagues Prof. Eva Cancik-Kirschbaum and Dr. Irene Sibbing-Plantholt (Berlin, Einstein Center Chronoi) for their generous support of my research activities. I also desire to express my gratitude to a number of colleagues and friends who have followed the development of this work, supporting my research with a great number of suggestions, corrections, remarks and questions. To all of them, I send the warmest expression of my gratitude; in particular, I want to thank Amir Ahmadi (Monash University), Samra Azarnouche (EPHE, Paris), Domenico Agostini (Tel Aviv University), Gian Pietro Basello (University of Naples, L’Orientale), David Brown (Berlin), Shervin Farridnejad (Freie Universität zu Berlin), Alessandro Iannucci (University of Bologna), Paolo Ognibene (University of Bologna), Mathieu Ossendrijver (Humboldt Universität zu Berlin), Enrico Raffaelli (Toronto University, Mississauga), Velizar Sadovski (Institut für Iranistik, Österreichische Akademie für Wissenschaften, Wien), John Steele (Brown University): and Alessia Zubani (University of Bologna – EPHE). To Touraj Daryaee, who generously offered to host the publication of this book in one of the scientific series directed by him, my deepest expression of friendship. Ravenna, November 2018

1. A METHODOLOGICAL PROBLEM: CELESTIAL SPHERE AND SPHERICAL ASTRONOMICAL MODELS AS A RESULT OF A MENTAL CONSTRUCTION

When we speak of cosmic models with reference to ancient civilizations, we surely enter a very embarrassing, if not highly tantalizing, subject. In fact, there is a great risk that, more or less unconsciously, we superimpose our modern perception of realia on the ancient descriptions of the world and its phenomena, despite some caveats we should first consider, but which generally are forgotten or ignored. In this case, I must insist on the prudent warnings expressed by David Pingree in one of his most important methodological contributions, “Hellenophilia versus the history of science” (Isis 82, 1992), in which he invited a new generation of history of science specialists to get out of the Greek framework and its basic schemes without assuming a priori any derogative evaluation of other models and visions of the universe, although they might seem strange or even irrational. I have never forgotten that lesson, currently sometimes still ignored, as I also have never avoided to study and scrutinize the

14

Antonio Panaino

peculiarities of other ancient models, although they might appear de visu peculiar, inconsistent, contradictory or simply bizarre. Pingree's writing convinced me to be very careful in my interpretation of the original sources, particularly their descriptions of phenomena, and also to avoid in my translations words or expressions that implicitly could (compellingly) evoke (even in an unconscious way) a related scheme based on post-Greek or pre-modern standard Western representations of the world. In other words, there is nothing less natural than the description/interpretation of nature, because any explanation we find in the ancient sources just shows that the interpretations are mostly “cultural,” and that different peoples can see different reasons behind phenomena, which (for us) should be apparently the same. These expectations frequently clash with the reality of the verified facts. In the case of the celestial sphere, Michel-Pierre Lerner,1 in the framework of a very systematic investigation dedicated to the development of the concept of sphericity in the ancient world, has collected considerable pertinent evidences showing that this particular geometric model is not per se automatically deducible from the observation of nature. On the contrary, it is a fine result of an intellectual construction2. Then, the history of the concept of “sphere” and “sphericity” presents us with a number of interesting questions. This methodological and theoretical subject is preliminary to any discussion dedicated to the structure of the heavens in the Iranian uranography because it would be peculiar to speak of the heaven(s) without considering their cosmographical 3 framework. The risk, again, would be that of assuming a priori that it was just “spherical”, because for us the abstract representation of the heaven presupposes the geometrical construction of two hemispheres. But, in fact, this is what normally happens in many current studies 1

1996, I: 6-28, passim. See Neugebauer 1975 (HAMA, Part II, Book 3): 577. 3 In this article I will adopt the terminology introduced by Cullen (1996: XI, n. 2), in which “cosmography” is used in order to describe the shape and size of heaven and earth with respect to “cosmology,” which concerns the dynamics of the universe, its genesis and development. However, I must remark that in some cases, a sharp separation between these two fields becomes impossible, and we will try to adopt the most reasonable options. 2

A Methodological Problem

15

where the approach to the complexity of ethno-cultural differences in representations of the astral phenomena and astral models is not treated with the necessary consideration and prudence. Introductions to the ancient Iranian cosmic models commonly adopt words like "sky vault" without any additional remarks (the same problem occurs frequently with regard to the Mesopotamian framework). Furthermore, we refer to the “celestial sphere” or to the “cosmic sphere” without any necessary discussion of the actual presence (or not) of this geometrical and mathematical pattern in the sources we are reading. In the case of some ancient civilizations, if we try to scrutinize the actual state of the facts we still remain in doubt about the real existence of a proper word exactly expressing this geometrical concept. For methodological reasons, it is necessary to specify that we must preliminarily distinguish between which kind of cosmic sphericity we are referring. Actually, we can start with an (apparently) simpler perception of the sky vault as a hemispheric surface. This intuition led to the development of a globular shape, eventually divisible into two equal hemispheric cups, which represented a basic step, at least with respect to the precise determination of the sphericity of earth and heaven. A different, more abstract and complex model is the one based on the supposition that even the astral bodies were moving around the earth in circular orbits, whose motion, at least according to some ancient astronomical models, was justified by means of the introduction of a variable number of additional (transparent) spheres4. This was, for instance, the system basically shaped by Eudoxos of Cnidus in the fourth century BCE. In the present discussion I will start by focusing mainly on the first step, i.e., on the intuition of the spherical vault of the heavens. This pattern soon assumed the force of a cosmic model well defined and distinguished with respect to nongeometrical

4

A different problem I must mention, although its treatment cannot be supported in the present discussion, concerns the philosophical determination of the cosmic sphere as a limit containing the universe in itself or simply as a border beyond which the infinite is located; see Mondolfo 1956: 271-361, passim.

16

Antonio Panaino

mythical constructions, as that of the cosmic egg5, or the subdivision of the heavens into different, sometimes superimposed, levels6. At a certain point, the meeting or, sometimes, the clash between different representations of the heavens produced interesting solutions, upon which we will focus on. For instance, with regard to the Mesopotamian framework of round astrolabes, engraved on round tablets, and describing the constellations, can we infer that these sources clearly refer to a true spherical model? Their name, Kakkabū3ta.ám, “The Three Stars Each7”, has nothing to do with the idea of a circle, although the reference to the “Cattle Pen” (Sumerian TÙR = Akkadian tarbaṣu) implies at least an image of the heavens as circular. But circular is not compellingly spherical, as is sometimes wrongly assumed! If we can assume a relation between the circle and the sphere, we cannot infer that the reference to the first image also compellingly includes the latter8. 5

Although the image of an “egg” certainly includes the perception of a vault, this is not in geometrical terms a hemisphere (stricto sensu), and its presence does not compel one to presume a geometric sphere. Frequently it is the lack of precise distinction between these or related terms that produces ambiguities and confusion. Scattered references to the heaven as an “egg” occur also in the Zoroastrian Pahlavi literature, as shown by Bailey (1971: 135-136). 6 In the Young Avestan sources we will find the image of the egg and that of the superimposed levels of the heaven. 7 Horowitz 2014: 9, passim. 8 In this regard one can benefit from some additional remarks put at my disposal by M. Ossendrijver, who reminds me that some other sources also show a well known adoption of the concept of circularity in the Mesopotamian work, although their presence does not combine to produce the concept of sphericity. This is the case, e.g., of the so-called ziqpu-star lists (on which see now Steele 2015; Idem, 2017). “These stars,” as Ossendrijver remarks, “roughly fill out a circle (analogously to the later Normal Stars), with the added feature that their distances add up to (roughly) 360 USH. In the unusual tablet AO 6478 (ca. 200 BCE) a second sequence of distances expressed in bēru is tabulated, at least suggestive of a huge circle of stars (though the meaning of these distances is not clear and open to debate). In the lunar eclipse omens of Enuma Anu Enlil edited by Francesca Rochberg (1988) the Moon is divided into quadrants that are named after canonical geographical regions in and around Mesopotamia.” Very fittingly, Ossendrijver remarks that, “it has not been discussed that this suggests (though this is somewhat speculative) that the lunar disk was viewed as a kind of analogue, mirror image or model of the shape of the Earth”.

A Methodological Problem

17

Thus, the “Cattle Pen,” as Horowitz 9 has explained, is a fitting reference to the place where the “stars,” corresponding to “cows” (Sum. ÁB = Akk. arhu, littu), are herded together, but also where “planets10,” usually referred to as “(wild?) sheep11” (Sum. UDU.IDIM = Akk. bibbu), move around. This circular shape12, which sometimes refers to the circular halo occasionally observable around the main astral bodies (but also the ringed-form frequently assumed by cattle-pens in the Middle-East), demonstrates that the heavens were eventually conceived as round or rounded, but not exactly as spherical. I still remember long methodological discussions on this subject with Pingree himself, and I would say that in this case we cannot reach any definitive conclusion. Furthermore, we are reasonably recommended to cast doubts upon the conceptual adoption of any proper spherical model in all those cases mentioned above. It is necessary that we clarify a priori the use of terms like “vault” or “sphere”. It is highly improbable that the model of a spherical vault, following the rules of trigonometry, had been originally conceived in Mesopotamia or in Iran before the late Hellenistic period. And we presently do not find any specific technical term in the ancient Iranian language or in the Mesopotamian larger Sprachgut exactly corresponding to the geometrical idea of “sphere,” as, on the contrary, would have been the case for Plato, Aristotle or their close predecessors. Perhaps, we could identify terms describing something similar to a ball, or referring to a round or circular shape, as, e.g., Assyrian kudurru (kadurru, kudāru),13 which was probably a sort of basket, or Hebrew kaddur “ball” [see ‫ַּכּדּור‬, m.] in Is. XXII:18,14 but we are in a legitimate 9

Horowitz 2014: 14-15. Cf. Casaburi 2003. On the planets in the Mesopotamian framework, see Brown 2000. 11 See the discussion in Horowitz 2014: 15, n. 61. 12 I must remark that Lerner (1996, I: 8) commits a peculiar ingenuity, when he assumes that the Babylonians adopted “une surface sphérique de référence.” They knew circular models, as the astrolabes, but the presence of spherical structures is in any case unattested, and its supposition is based on an incorrect inference. 13 CAD 1971, vol. 8: 496-497. 14 Gesenius 1962: 335. 10

18

Antonio Panaino

position to doubt that the same words could be properly adopted to represent abstract spherical models.15 An interesting question emerges from the observation that the Babylonian representation of the heaven of the stars, the lowest one in this cosmography (see below), was conceived as composed of jasper. Some sources state that Marduk drew the “constellations” (lumāšu) on it.16 But, since all the (fixed) stars preserved their apparent mutual positions, it is reasonable to infer that they were imagined not only as engraved on this celestial stone, but also as completely immobile.17 Thus, we should consequently deduce that the Babylonian sky-watchers thought that the (apparent) rotation of the constellations as the rising and setting of the single stars were due to the sky itself. Horowitz18 implicitly wonders whether this phenomenon had stimulated the suspicion that the stars were set on a rotating sphere. Furthermore, he writes on this proposal: 19 “The Sun, the Moon, and planets do not maintain fixed positions in relation to the stars, leading later Greek, Hebrew, and Arabic astronomers to speculate that these heavenly bodies were located on different levels or spheres from the fixed stars.” But this inference seems to me too optimistic, because of the lack of any other supporting statement. The postulate that 15

For instance, the Hebrew word does not describe a perfect ball, but just refers to a similar shape. In this work I do not examine the cosmological problems connected with the representation of the səphîrôt as “spheres,” a fascinating subject, which goes beyond the scope of my study. Of course, between səphîrôt and the Greek word for “sphere,” there is no etymological connection, despite some paraetymological attempts to show this. 16 Horowitz 2011: 13. 17 On the other hand, as Lanfranchi notes (2001: 154), following some considerations already started by Horowitz (2011: 43-66), it is not exactly clear whether the different heavens were considered to be completely made of stone, i.e. totally solid, or not. It is also possible that some generic references to these heavenly stones concern the different colours of the three layers of the sky, or that some parts of the heavens were simply composed of spaces of void. This alternative is supported by the evidence that, according to some mythological texts, the heavens were traversed by human beings and animals, so their consistency could not be (at least everywhere) exactly that of hard stone. See also Selz 2014. 18 Horowitz 2011: 15. 19 Horowitz 2011: 15.

A Methodological Problem

19

the motion of the heaven of the stars should be due to a concentric sphere rotating around the earth is nowhere documented for the Mesopotamian world. While the rotation of the celestial stone could find other cosmographic solutions, as that of a concave stony heaven, there is no compelling evidence for the postulate of a truly spherical stone. Certainly, the idea that the image of different heavens might have stimulated the elaboration of a series of spheres is not at all absurd in itself. On the contrary, it is reasonable to see in this model one argument in favor of the later elaboration of concentric spheres, explaining the different motions for distinct categories of astral bodies. Certainly promising is the suggestion that the elaboration of a starred heaven, made of stone, might have inspired the widespread idea that the earth was firstly covered, later surrounded, by an (increasing) number of moving transparent stones. The physical matter of this stone changed; at least in the West, it became the fascinating (albeit fictitious) fifth element, the ether,20 whose existence produced violent debates. Certainly, the common point is the one starting from the principle that in the absence of the void, the astral bodies would be set or mounted like gems in a larger stone or embroidered in a heavenly mantle.21 These remarks represent the point of view of an Iranologist, and so my colleagues in the Assyriological domain could rightly maintain 20

The classification of an exactly correspondent substance in the Pahlavi sources is not clearly documented. Shaki (1970: 308-312, in particular 311) suggests that Pahl. kōd, “amorphous mass” (in its immaterial dimension), as framed in the initial stages of the creative (or emanatory) process, played the same function, at least according to the formulations included in the third book of the Dēnkard (but the question is very intricate and difficult to resolve; cf. again Shaki 1970: 284, n. 61, with additional bibliographical references and etymological speculations). 21 This, for instance, is the Iranian image (see below); in the later sources the substance of the heavens is considered of precious stones or of hard metal. West (2003: 589-590) noted that in the Prometheus Vinctus by Aeschylus, the goddess of the Night is referred to as ποικιλείμων “of variegated (patterned, embroidered) dress,” and remarked that a similar association was “suggested by the starspangled robes that Babylonian deities often wear in representation of the ninth to seventh centuries, and by the word burūmū or burummū used in the literature of the period for the starry sky.”

20

Antonio Panaino

a deep skepticism toward them.22 For these reasons I have tried to consult with some prominent scholars in the field, who have shown a deep interest in astral matters. In this regard Dr. Mathieu Ossendrijver kindly wrote23 to me: “As far as I know there still is no evidence for a concept of sphericity in Mesopotamian astral science and no word for ‘sphere’ appears to be used in that field. There are, indeed, frequent occurrences of terms for disk and circle and there are circular texts such as the astrolabes and the Neo-Babylonian ‘Sippar planisphere’ and several others, but I agree that this does not amount to or imply a notion of sphericity; there is also no evidence that Babylonian scholars knew about the sphericity of the earth. For instance, the astronomical texts from Niniveh, Babylon and Uruk do not take into account that these cities are at different latitudes, which affect risings and settings, and the same is true for sundials and shadow tables. As far as the astronomical texts are concerned the earth was taken to be flat – at least as far as the current sources indicate.” David Brown simply remarks: “We have expressions in cuneiform such as kippat šamê “circle of the heavens,” but nothing approaching the σφαῖρα.” As for myself, I simply remember that Wilfred G. Lambert24 wrote the following with reference to Babylonia: “The idea of a vault 22

Neugebauer’s statement (1957: 100) concerning the Hilprecht collection, and referring to the existence of a cosmic model of the universe with eight different spheres, beginning with the sphere of the Moon, is very peculiar. In fact, it is unclear whether Neugebauer was using the term “sphere” with generic reference to a stratum or layer of the heaven or really to a sort of concentric model, whose existence for the Kassite period is very implausible. Furthermore, the Akkadian word translated as “sphere” is not given, and probably it does not exist. Neugebauer did not confirm this hypothesis in his later studies (1975, HAMA, Part II, Book 3: 577). Cf. also Lerner 1996, I: 253, n. 29. 23 Emails of March 19, and 21, 2018. 24 Lambert 1975: 61-61. We can remark that Bottéro and Kramer (1989: 71-72, 662663) have also insisted on the difficulties emerging from any attempt at deducing a mechanical model of the universe from mythological sources; see also Lerner 1996, I: 253, n. 30.

A Methodological Problem

21

of heaven is not based on any piece of evidence.” All these statements invite us to reconsider the more optimistic assumption advanced by Otto Neugebauer, when he wrote: “That the Babylonian astronomers assumed a spherical sky, or, to put it more cautiously, a spherical surface of reference, seems undeniable in view of orthogonal ecliptic coordinates. However, we do not know how far this concept was considered to be a description of physical reality. We are also not sure whether these ecliptic coordinates were ever used much beyond the zone of the ecliptic and the «Normal Stars.»”25 Despite this enthusiastic definition, Neugebauer himself introduced a list of prudent limits countering his previous conclusions.26 Furthermore, we must distinguish between ideas commonly shared in a civilization, and thus contemporaneously adopted, and technical categories, which in any case cannot be deduced following a priori assumptions. For instance, it is clear that in second millennium Babylonia the image of the heavens as a flat roof and of the earth as equally flat was well established. This is evident in the Enūma eliš: Tablet IV,137-138,27 actually states with reference to the triumph of Marduk over the demoness Tiāmat: iḫ-pi-ši-ma ki-ma nu-un maš-ṭe-e a-na ši-ni-šu mi-iš-lu-uš-ša iš-ku-nam-ma šá-ma-mi uṣ-ṣal-lil 25

Neugebauer 1975 (HAMA, Part II, Book 3): 577. In reality, we can observe a certain contradictory approach to the problem, which has been noted also by Cullen (1996: 40, n. 38). In fact, Cullen remarks that Neugebauer (1975 [HAMA I]: 348) stated that the concept of circular motion was not a priori necessary, while in HAMA I: 577, he seems to imply the opposite. Again, Neugebauer himself in HAMA I: 547 rejected any notion of spherical astronomy with regard to the so-called “Normal Stars” of Babylonian astronomy. My impression is that Neugebauer did not focus on the subject itself, because he was more interested in the solution of more difficult astro-mathematical problems than in the epistemological definition of the genesis of a cosmological and cosmographical concept itself. 27 Text according to Lambert 2013: 94. Cf. Livingstone 1986: 79. Cf. Deimel 1934: 53, 54. 26

22

Antonio Panaino

“He split her in two like a fish of the drying place. Half of her he positioned and made flat like a roof, the heaven.”

In Tablet V,6228 we find a description of the other half of Tiāmat’s body: [mi-šil-šá u]ṣ-ṣal-li-la er-ṣe-ti uk-tin-na “Half of her he made flat and firm, the earth”.

I must observe that I have only found a strong voice against this common point of view, which has been raised by Margaret Huxley.29 This scholar, after having analysed a series of texts published by Alasdair Livingstone,30 and referring to a Babylonian cosmography in which the heavens are divided into three superimposed levels made of different stones, of which only the lowest one belongs to the stars, concluded that “in ancient Mesopotamia the sky was thought to be a rotating sphere with a polar axis.” The arguments she collected are interesting,31 but start from the weak assumption that the elaboration of the concept of a circular horizon would allow for the elaboration of a spherical cosmos. This is evident in the fact that Huxley, 32 observing that the Old Babylonian people started to adopt in early times a subdivision of the circle into 360 units, also deduced that the “concept of a spherical heaven was developed.” She thus dated this discovery no later than the second millennium BCE. Her conclusions try to rationalize all the data according to an a priori model, which was never described in its wholeness in any source, and are based on a number 28

Text according to Lambert 2013: 100. Cf. Livingstone 1986: 80. Huxley 1997. 30 See Livingstone 1986. For a long and detailed discussion of this material in direct connection with the Iranian cosmography, see below. 31 Huxley (1997: 197) suggests a reconstruction of the Mesopotamian cosmos, which can be compared with the one of Anaximander (see Plate 5). I think that this model is worthy of consideration, although I disagree with Huxley’s idea that the three heavens were properly concentric shells including one another. 32 Huxley 1997: 196. 29

A Methodological Problem

23

of unclear preconceived assumptions. For instance, there is no link between the discovery of the sexagesimal system and astronomy, as is well supported by Neugebauer.33 The crude inference that a circular model implies a spherical system is groundless, and its application very risky. 34 Actually, we can suppose that the rising and setting of the stars can give us the “logical” impression that they seem to rotate in a spherical globe, but if the earth was assumed to be floating on an ocean, how can we actually infer the complete rationale of such a mechanism? The possibility that even a cylindrical form35 of the heavens had included a sort of rotating and tipping inner arch cannot be excluded at all (if it was not the earth herself to move up and down in the waves of the ocean?). Thus, we can (and must) seriously consider the question of whether or not the Babylonians started to think about a truly spherical shape of the celestial “vault," but it is too risky to infer a positive answer from the unclear data at our disposal, especially if we try to analyze the data by using a modern deductive approach. In this regard the suggestion that the three different Mesopotamian heavens might correspond to concentric shells recalls too closely the homocentric spheres of Eudoxian and Aristotelian memory,36 a solution that seems implausible in the absence of any confirmed speculation about these intellectual categories. My perplexities, however, do not derive from an undervaluation of the intellectual depth of the ancient Oriental peoples, but from a skeptical attitude toward our own modern desire to see and explain what is uncertain in a Greek way, by introducing a number of conceptual inferences that are not confirmed in the sources of these “other” civilizations. Thus, we can conclude that it would be a bold mistake to presume 33

Neugebauer 1975 (HAMA, Part II, Book 4): 589, n. 3. For instance, the observation that the meaning of “disk” or the “area of a disk” were fitting for Akkadian ḫab-rat, also with reference to the Sun and the Moon (Neugebauer 1955, I: 197-198), does not imply that these astral bodies were conceived as spherical. See Livingstone 1986: 90. Ossendrijver, for his part, remarks that the reading of the Akkadian sign ḪAB is unclear. 35 Livingstone (1986: 81) has suggested this model. 36 See Schiaparelli 1875 = 1926 (= 1998); see also Neugebauer 1975 (HAMA, Part II, Book 3): 677-685. 34

24

Antonio Panaino

a priori that a spherical model was known in the ancient Orient in the absence of explicit descriptions and without the evidence of a fitting terminology. The same prudence must be maintained with reference to the ancient Egyptian cosmology, where the existence of a spherical model not only remains unknown,37 but its adoption proves highly improbable if we should deduce its adoption after the evidenced visualization of the heavens as a “flat roof, depicted by the hieroglyph ”.38 In this case it was Neugebauer39 to who emphasized the fact that “[i]n-numerable monumental representations show the sky goddess Nut stretched out in all her length over the country.” So, despite the enormous reputation of this culture, the Egyptian astral lore also did not operate with a spherical model for the heavens. With regard to the early Indian tradition, we may observe that the diffusion of a spherical architecture of the cosmos is a later acquisition and certainly it reflects the impact of Greek astronomical models.40 While Vedic and ancient Indian cosmologies ignored the existence of a celestial sphere, the images of a bowl (kapāla-), a vault or an egg (aṇḍa-) did occur.41 The heavens and the earth are described like “wheels” with an “axis” in a chariot (R̥ v. 10, 89, 4: yó ákṣeṇeva cakriyā ́ utá dyām ́ ),42 a simile that will prove śácībhir vísvak / tastámbha pr̥thivīm very important in further discussions. The traditional model of the world assumed that the earth was a flat-bottomed circular disk (but sometimes it is also quadrangular, or, better, “four-cornered”; cf. R̥ v. ́ iṃ cáturbhr̥ṣṭim),43 with a mountain at its center. Mount 10, 58, 3: bhūm 37

See Plumley 1975. Neugebauer 1975 (HAMA, Part II, Book 3): 577. 39 Neugebauer 1975 (HAMA, Part II, Book 3): 577. 40 See Pingree 1981: 554-555; cf. also Bhattacharyya 1971, passim. Kirfel’s (1920; 28*36*) presentation of the Babylonian influence in India was based on a hyperevaluation of the Mesopotamian cultural impact, and, in particular, presumed that the Babylonians had already developed a full adoption of the spherical model, which, as we will see, is false. On these problems, see now the discussions by Falk and Mercier in Brown 2018. 41 Kirfel 1920: 6-9. 42 Cf. Kirfel 1920: 7. Cf. Jamison – Brereton 2014, III: 1536: “for him who propped asunder earth and heaven with his powers, like wheels with an axle”. 43 Kirfel 1920: 9. Cf. Jamison – Brereton 2014, III: 1469. 38

A Methodological Problem

25

Meru (Sumeru in Buddhist sources) with its peak represented the axis mundi, surrounded by the continent Jambūdvīpa (plus six other islands [dvīpas]) and then by the Salt Ocean.44 This cosmography presents a number of correspondences with the Old Iranian one, as attested in Avestan sources, where we find the mount Harā Bərəz with its peak, Taēra, at the center of the main continent, surrounded by the other six climates (karšuuar-) of the world. In correspondence with the peak of Mount Meru, there is the North Pole, which only later became the so-called “Polar Star,” Dhruva, just as in Avestan we have the celestial vertebra, mərəzu-, corresponding to the Peak of Harā45. In the Purāṇic literature, there are some wheels, each one bearing a different astral body or even the nakṣatras, whose motions are due to a series of bonds made of wind. It is Brahmā himself who agitates these bonds. The same idea is evidenced in late antique Iran, especially in Manichaean as well as in Mazdean sources, where stars and planets are connected by means of windy bonds or ropes to the chariots of the Sun and the Moon, although this model assumes different shapes and reflects welldistinguished cosmic functions. In Iran the same basic system was used to explain the planetary retrogradation and was incorporated into the Mazdean dualistic opposition between stars and planets. Meanwhile, in the Manichaean framework, where all the astral bodies (with the exclusion of the Sun and the Moon) were demonized, these bonds were mostly considered an anti-demoniac instrument of control against the astral demons.46 When Greek spherical astronomy entered the Indian cultural area, Indian astronomers adopted a spherical earth surrounded by a number of spheres for the single planets, the luminaries, and one for the fixed stars, although the influence of earlier traditional cosmologies still played an enormous impact. For instance, the role of the wind-ropes, despite a severe criticism

44

For the subdivision of the earth into four continents, see Gombrich 1975: 125-126, passim. 45 See Panaino 1996, passim. 46 All these problems have been presented and discussed in detail in Panaino 1998.

26

Antonio Panaino

expressed by some great experts of the time such as Varāhamihira47 and other specialists, endured for centuries. The alleged role of the wind-ropes was still known by Arabic astronomers, perhaps also because of the Pahlavi sources, but strongly criticized by al-Bīrūnī himself in his Tafhīm.48 In the case of Chinese astronomy,49 the “Gaitian” theory (or “sky-ascover”) assumed that the sky was circular and the earth a square; sky and earth were parallel and conceived flat or both convex. The idea of a vault or a sort of globular model started to develop in written sources beginning in the third century BCE,50 but the speculations on these subjects seem to be much older, probably dating to the sixth century BCE, as Shigeru Nakayama51 pointed out in reference to Chūryō Nōda’s works.52 This old astronomical theory, as already remarked, was characterized by a circular sky usually compared with an umbrellalike canopy and a square earth.53 So, the determination of a truly spherical structure for the celestial model was still on the way. On this proposal, Christopher Cullen explicitly argues that second century BCE Chinese astronomers were operating “yet without the concept of the celestial sphere.”54 Nakayama shared the same evaluation.55 According to Cullen, their main interest, in fact, was dedicated to 47

Born 505 CE in Ujjain, India – died 587, in Ujjain. See Panaino 1998: 57-58 (with bibliography) with reference to the Tafhīm, paragraph 200 (about the “stationary places” or Rebāṭat), in which al-Bīrūnī criticized the doctrine according to which the planets were bound to the Sun. 49 I must deeply thank Prof. Bill Mak (Kyoto) for his precious advice on the up-todate status of the research in this field. 50 See Needham 1959, III: 210-212, 216-218, passim. As Prof. Mak writes me: “As it turns out, Chinese astronomers had different opinions at the very beginning. Starting from second century BCE, there were debates among the proponents between the ‘Gaitian’ and the ‘Huntian’ theorists, and even among themselves. The third-century text Needham referred to was Lüshi chunqiu, a compendium of learning assembled in the Qin state in 239 BCE. It is, however, neither the earliest, nor the sole source of the ‘Gaitian’ or ‘sky-as-cover’ theory.” 51 Nakayama 1969: 24-231, passim. 52 Nakayama (1969: 26) confers to Nōda 1933: 60. 53 See Cullen 1996: 50ff. 54 Cullen 1996: 53. 55 Nakayama 1969: 26, n. 4. 48

A Methodological Problem

27

“measurements of time intervals rather than of spatial intervals in the heavens.”56 Furthermore, Cullen himself has warned Western scholars against any simplistic approach to early Chinese astronomy based on the uncritical assumption that “the concept of the celestial sphere, with its equator and hour angle circles” had been adopted.57 Actually, while the Babylonians were more interested in horizon phenomena, Chinese astronomers directed observation towards what we would presently refer to as “meridian transits,” although both were mainly interested in time intervals or period relations.58 On the contrary, Greek astronomers developed their computational patterns adopting angular distances measurable on a spherical model of the heavens. Chinese astronomy started to adopt a spherical model of the heavens only about the first century AD, with the “enveloping sky” theory, although the premises may be older.59 In this respect, the same “Gaitian” school had an interesting secondary evolution, in which the curvature of both earth and sky was introduced, so that a globular shape with two parallel vaults appeared.60 But the “Huntian” theory made some steps forward. The form of the sky became spherical, although also in this case we must consider some caveats. As Bill Mak observes, “as for the ‘Huntian’ or ‘enveloping sky’ theory developed before the first century CE, the innovation was measurement of space rather than time. It is connected with the assumption of the heavens as a vast rotating sphere. In Chang Heng’s works (or Zhang Heng, 78-139 CE), the heaven is the egg of a hen, while the earth is the yolk. Some scholars such as Jao Tsung-I believe that it was influenced by the cosmic egg theory of the Indians and I tend to agree because it was quite an innovative idea for the Chinese at that time and was drastically different from the earlier theories, initiating a lot of debates. However, as 56

Cullen 1996: 53. Cullen 1996: 40-41. 58 See now also Rochberg 2014; cf. already Goldstein 2002; Bowen - Goldstein 1996; Aaboe 1980: 30; 2001: 66. 59 Cullen 1996: 39-66. 60 See Nakayama 1968: 31-35. 57

28

Antonio Panaino

Nakayama61 pointed out, it is incorrect to assume that the egg model implies a spherical earth. The yolk suggests the position and not the shape of the earth. Furthermore, the celestial sphere was equated to the Sun’s diurnal orbit at the equinoxes in important astronomical texts such as the astral treatise in Jinshu. To summarize, we can think it is quite clear that the ‘Gaitian’ theory evolved from the Chinese’s indigenous interest in season-based time measurement. The Huntian theory was new around the first century of the Christian era and certainly involved a spherical model, using angular measure on an armillary sphere. This was before Ptolemy, and after Hipparchus if we trust Ptolemy.” As we can infer from this summary of the facts and the problems, there is no need to suggest a direct relation between the Chinese spherical model and the Greek one. 62 Chinese astronomy had its own long evolution and the full acquisition of the concept of the cosmic sphere took a lot of time; and it is possible to assume that some ideas about the image of the “sky-ascover” developed in China without any strictly Western influence despite the opinion expressed on this subject by Joseph Needham.63 Yet, as Nakayama suggests, even if the “[a]cceptance of the armillary sphere firmly established the spherical model of the sky, […] the construction of terrestrial globes did not follow it.” This means that the two ideas are not compellingly connected in every occasion. The Greeks, for their part, did not elaborate upon the idea of a spherical cosmos64 in one shot. For instance, they started to use 61

Nakayama 1969: 39. A number of alleged hypotheses on the direct dependence of early Chinese astronomy upon the Mesopotamian world have been advanced, but they are untenable. See Steele 2013. Certain direct connections between the Chinese system and the Iranian one, as proposed by Leopold de Saussure, prove equally ungrounded; regarding these old hypotheses, see the discussion offered in Panaino 1990b. 63 Needham 1959, III: 257-257. 64 On the conceptual implications behind the use of the term κόσμος, see Vlastos 1975: 3-22. 62

A Methodological Problem

29

the word σφαῖρα, attributing to it the simpler meaning of “ball” 65 (σφαίρῃ παίζειν “play at ball”, Homer, Od. 6, 100), while the meaning of “geometrical sphere” or of “cosmic sphere” came later, and, as we will see below, it was based on a metaphorical extension of the simple image of a perfect “ball” to an abstract cosmological architecture. Simplistic statements like the one advanced by Rudolf Arnheim,66 who assumed that the sphere was the pure shape through which humanity had perceived the world encircling the earth, are completely misleading, and reflect an idealistic and intellectualistic vision of knowledge that completely disregards comparative sources and ethnological studies. If, according to Homer and67 Hesiod,68 the model of the world is unclear, and modern scholars debate its interpretation, the representation of the heavens as spherical seems to be located in the framework of the pre-Socratic philosophical speculations.69 But, within the parameters of this literature we find more questions than clear and undisputable answers. Certainly, we must concur with Gregory Vlastos that, “[…] the question whether the earth is flat or spherical remains in dispute among philosophical astronomers down to the end of the fifth century and even beyond: Plato so represents it in the Phaedo (97D-E);70 and we know from Aristotle (de 65

Liddell – Scott – Jones 1899: 1738. Arnheim 1976: 277-282. This passage has been rightly quoted and sharply criticized by Lerner 1996, I: 252, n. 27. 67 See Lerner 1996: 254, n. 43, also with reference to Geminos’ criticism of the paradox concerning the attribution to Homer of a spherical model. Cf. also Arrighetti 1966; Hardie 1985. 68 Lerner 1996: 6-12. 69 Lerner 1996: 12-15. 71 Concerning the form of the earth in this dialogue, if “flat” or “spherical,” see also the discussion in Kingsley 1995: 88-95, passim. Cf. also Fehling 1985: 196-206. Theon of Smyrna dedicated a long treatment to the sphericity of the earth in his book Expositio rerum mathematicarum ad legendum Platonem utilium, in particularly in the section on astronomy. See the translation by Delattre Biencourt 2010; a new edition of this Greek treatise (with an Italian translation) has been recently edited by Petrucci (2012). The work produced by Krates of Mallos (or of Pergamum) about the shape of the earth was extremely important for his times. See Mette 1936. On the role of Pythagoras in this debate, see Burkert 1972: 303-305, passim. 66

30

Antonio Panaino

Caelo II, 294B13-14 [= DK 13A20), that not only71 Anaximenes, Anaxagoras (fifth century), but even Democritus (whose lifetime extends well into the fourth),72 had clung to the view that the earth was flat.” 73 This sentence, left by Aristotle, (Ἀναξιμένες δὲ καὶ Ἀναξαγόρας καὶ Δημόκριτος τὸ πλάτος αἴτιον εἶναι φασι τοῦ μένειν αὐτήν. “Anaximenes, Anaxagoras and Democritus assume the flatness of the earth as the cause of its staying still.”) can be regarded as another reminder against some simplistic definitions of Oriental primitivism!74 The image of the σφαῖρος,75 i.e. “the condition of the Κόσμος, when brought together by Eros,” developed by Empedocles (27A), 76 certainly marks an important step. But it was the Pythagorean School hat defined a formulation of the concept of sphericity, if we can trust Aristotle’s reports preserved in the De Caelo II, 13, 293A21-24.77 With Plato,78 Eudoxos and Aristotle, the concept of a spherical celestial vault, including a spherical earth, around which the circular movements of the astral bodies (with regard to their respective spheres) take place, is definitively assumed. The sphericity of the earth is traditionally connected with Parmenides, circa 500 BCE, who also attributed to it 72

See the edition of Aristotle’s de Caelo by Longo 1962: 172, 173. In fact, he was probably born ca. 460 BCE and died ca. 370. 70 Vlastos 1975: 38, n. 37. 74 Vlastos (1975: 39, and n. 41) underlines that for Aristotle the sphericity of the earth became evident when the variations of the phenomena resulting from the difference in the observer’s latitude were finally taken into due consideration. In this respect, geography, astronomy and cosmography were strongly related, so that we may say that the geometrical investigation, in particular, gave a strong impulse to the development of the astronomical knowledge. Cf. also Fury 2009: 14-26. About the importance of Greek cartography, see, e.g., Jacob 1988. 75 Liddell – Scott – Jones 1899: 1738. On this concept, see Jaeger 1967: 140-142, 153, 162, 166. Cf. also Sedley 2007: 33-34, 62-66. 76 Lerner 1996: 15-16. See Hladký 2017. Cf. Bouché-Leclercq 1899: 12-14. 77 Lerner 1996: 16-18. Cf. the edition by Longo (1962: 162, 163). Cf. Burkert 1972. Important remarks in Degani 1961: 72-73 (and in the following addenda: Degani 1963 and in the posthumous word published as 2001). On the text of the De Caelo, see the work by Bowen – Wildberg 2009. 78 See Vlastos 1975: 49-65, passim. 73

A Methodological Problem

31

a central position,79 an explanation that was commonly accepted with all its cosmographic consequences.80 If the philosophical dialectics between the idealization of the spherical model and the prejudices that determined a certain evolution of the astronomical sciences represent a problem beyond the limits of the present discussion, we cannot ignore its importance.81 The intrinsic beauty attributed by Plato to the idea of sphericity in force of its most homogeneous (ὁμοιότατον) shape was foundational.82 According to an assumption of similar weight, the rotary motion, thus the image of a circular shape, was considered by Plato as the “most appropriate for reason and intelligence” (Timaeus 34A: περὶ νοῦν καὶ φρόνησιν μάλιστα οὖσαν).83 But, in this context, circular motion was intrinsically connected with a spherical system. In any case, if we follow the argument of David Reginald Dicks,84 Eudoxos85 was “the first Greek astronomer of whom we have direct evidence that he worked with and fully understood the concept of the celestial sphere, and the first to have attempted the construction of a mathematically based system that would explain the apparent irregularities in the motions of the sun moon planets as seen from the earth.” Then, Apollonius of Perga (200 BCE) tried to remove the earlier apparatus of the homocentric spheres introducing eccentrics,86 epicycles and deferents,87 while Hipparchus offered (circa 150 BCE) a large collection of astronomical data coming from the Mesopotamian world. 79

Cf. Neugebauer 1975 (HAMA, Part II, Book 3): 576. According to Hippolytus (Refutationes I,11), Parmenides supposed that the “whole” was eternal, un-generated and spherical in shape (σφαιροειδές). See Laks – Most 2016, II: 116-117. 81 See Neugebauer 1975 (HAMA, Part II, Book 3): 576-577; cf. again Lerner 1996:1828, passim. 82 Vlastos 1975: 29. Cf. Cornford 1937: 57-58. 83 Vlastos 1975: 31-32, passim. Cf. already Moreau 1939: 73-78. 84 Dicks 1970: 37. 85 Born c. 395–390 BCE, Cnidus, Asia Minor (now in Turkey) – died ca. 342–337 BCE, Cnidus. 86 The eccentric is a circle having the earth not exactly at its center. See Neugebauer 1959. 87 It is a small circular orbit that revolves along a larger, equally circular, orbit: this larger orbit, in turn, is called deferent. 80

32

Antonio Panaino

Consequently, when Ptolemy88 started his work, a strongly elaborated system was at his disposal due to this heritage, ultimately rooted in a Mesopotamian background. It was possible to frame a new system, which, as we will see, was more pragmatic and modern than might be expected.89 88 89

Born c. 100 AD – died c. 170 AD. Another important problem concerns the existence of the Greek planetary cosmology and its eventual mechanical representation. In fact, we cannot exclude that, not only little planetaria, but also even computing mechanisms representing the heavenly phenomena, were arranged. The recent impulse underpinning the study and interpretation of the “Antikythera Mechanism” has certainly given new emphasis to a general investigation of this tremendously interesting subject, full of intriguing implications and future perspectives. Remarkable for its clarity and informative presentation of the problems is the work by Jones (2017), whose bibliography offers a very large conspectus on the debate. Jones has contributed enormously to a refreshing approach to the study of the ancient mechanisms with enormous insight. We know that early Greek astronomers elaborated upon some astronomical instruments in ancient times, but the definitive attribution of the armillary sphere to a precise astronomer is a matter of discussion. For instance, the sort of astrolabe adopted by Hipparchus could be based on earlier and simpler instruments. And while Sarton (1959: 3) already ascribed Aristillus and Timocrates (3rd c. BCE) with a direct adoption of this sphere, other scholars are more prudent, although the role of Hipparchus cannot be excluded. Certainly, the armillary sphere became a very important device after Ptolemy described it in the fifth book of the Almagest, and its description was an object of commentary by later astronomers. Apparently, we do not possess Syriac sources on it, but the existence of a number of Arabic treaties on the armillary sphere, some of which are attributed to Ptolemy himself, is certain. The Risāla fi ḏāt al-ḥalaq by Yaʿqūb bin Isḥāq al-Kindī (died after 256/870 CE) is the most ancient Arabic text at our disposal on the armillary sphere; see the edition with translation by Celentano (1982). In this respect, it is unclear whether the Sasanians had a proper translation of the fifth book of the Almagest, but, given the number of Greek commentaries on it, in later antiquity, we can prudently doubt that the Persians had no idea of its existence and contents. On the contrary, the supposition that the Babylonians already had this kind of instrument at their disposal, as suggested by Zinner (1931: 69), seems to me highly improbable, particularly if their pattern was based on the full knowledge of the sphericity of the earth and the heavens. On this literature in general cf. again Celentano 1982: 3-10 (with additional bibliography). We must also observe that many sources describe the Sasanian throne and its room as a cosmic space, with a complex mechanism working and turning as an astronomical clock. See below at chapter 5.1. For a possible representation of an armilla in the Sogdian paintings of the “Ambassadors’ Painting” at Samarkand, see the discussion in Grenet 2003 and 2018: 248-250.

2. THE ANCIENT IRANIAN WITNESS

After this general excursus we can finally address the problem within the framework of ancient Iranian sources. A very pertinent witness emerges from a peculiar myth in which a young demon, named Snāuuiδka, raises a dangerous threat against the good creation of Ahura Mazdā before being smashed by the most famous Aryan hero, Kərəsāspa. This is the full content of the passage occurring in Yašt 19,43:90 yō janat̰ snāuuiδkəm yim sruuō.zanəm asəṇgō.gāum yō auuaθa viiāxmaniiata apərənāiiu ahmi nōit̰ pərənāiiu yezi bauuāni pərənāiiu ząm caxrəm kərənauuāne asmanəm raθəm kərənauuāne.

90

“(Kərəsāspa), who stroked Snāuuiδka, who (was) horned (and) with stony hands, who so declared: «I am an adolescent, not an adult. If I could become an adult, (then) I shall use the earth (as) a wheel, I shall use the sky (as my) chariot»”.

Recent editions of this text are: Hintze 1994a: 229-231; Eadem 1994b: 24; Humbach – Ichaporia 1991: 122; Pirart 1992: 60-61; 2010: 316; Lecoq 2016: 595.

34

Antonio Panaino

From the literal content we can easily deduce that the “earth” (zam-, f.) correlated to a “wheel” (caxra-, m.), i.e. it was conceived as round, while the image of the sky was associated with the shape of a chariot (raθa-, m.). The intention expressed by the demon Snāuuiδka91 is that of jumping on an imaginary gigantic chariot in which the earth corresponds to its single wheel and the sky to the carriage of the wagon exactly placed upon that (single) wheel. In this way the braggart pretends to destroy the creation fashioned by Ahura Mazdā, disentangling the whole cosmic order. There is no doubt after, following the Avestan sources, that the supreme Zoroastrian god was the one who gave order to the world and who shaped heaven and earth. According to the Old Persian inscriptions, it was A(h)uramazdā, the highest Persian god (baga-, m.), the one who

91

It is a pity that the sources on the cycle of the demon Snāuuiδka are limited only to this passage (see Bartholomae 1904: 1630). I must recall that the presence of an attribute like asəṇgō.gāuua-, “possessing stony hands,” is very interesting and supports the connection between this myth and that of the celestial Dragon, usually written gwcyhl and read Gōzihr, i.e. “having the shape/origin of the Bull” (because it is normally derived from Av. gaociθra-, the standard epithet of the Moon-God, whose adoption for an astral demon is a peculiar and unexplained fact). On the contrary, I have tried to explain the Pahlavi form as Gawčihr “having the shape of a (demoniac) hand,” with reference to the monstrous hands of Rāhu (see Panaino 2005). Snāuuiδka actually is the only demon to have such a qualification and his direct involvement in a celestial battle offers a fitting connection between his epithet and the one attributed to the heavenly Dragon responsible for the eclipses. Pirart (1992: 60), prefers to explain asəṇgō.gāuua- as meaning “having a stone in the hand” in the light of the Vedic example of vájrabāhu-, “who has a stone in the hand.” But Hintze (1994a: 230) calls attention also to another Vedic compound like híraṇia-hasta-, “having golden hands.” Although the second part of the proper name of this demon remains unclear in its formation, we can reasonably presume the presence of a stem *snāuui-, strictly connected with Av. snāuuar- and Ved. snā́van-, n., “sinew, cord, string” (but cf. Mayrhofer 1977, I/76). Henning (apud Gershevitch 1969: 201) already with the minuscle letter suggested a derivation from *snāuui-aδka- “wearing a coat made of sinews.” Furthermore, the presence of a reference to cords in the name of this particular demon could be connected with a myth concerning the action of disarticulating the whole cosmos by pulling it to and fro by means of ropes or binds or something similar.

The Ancient Iranian Witness

35

created (adā or adāda) “heaven” (asman-, m.)92 and “earth” (būmī-, f.). Thus, Snāuuiδka’s promised an action that, if realized, would represent a universal earthquake. The present myth apparently authorizes us to deduce that the image of a circular shape for the earth was current among ancient Iranians, while in the case of the sky we do not exactly know its precise shape, but it should look like the carriage of a chariot. This means that the form of the earth, if seen from its side, should be basically round. I have tried to offer an attempt of visualisation of this model (see Plate 1). In any case, it would be a great mistake to conclude that the Iranians had already developed a categorization of the cosmic sphere, imagining it as a real mundus or as a globus with two superimposed and symmetric hemispheres, with the earth exactly located at the center. With close regard for the Avestan sentence caxrəm kərənauuāne asmanəm raθəm, Éric Pirart93 not only quoted a comparable context from R̥ v. 10,101,7 ([…] rátham ít kr̥nudhvam […] áśmacakram, “Just make your chariot […] its wheel the (pressing) stone […]”),94 but has also rightly mentioned another sentence from which we can deduce that the Indian poets might compare heaven and earth with two wheels: 92

N.B. Old Persian asman-, m. (acc. asmānam), seems to present an unexpected phonological outcome with its internal -s- < Indo-Iranian *aćman-, instead of the postulated regular result (*aθman-); here, in reality, the problem concerns the outcome of Indo-European cluster *km > Indo-Iranian *ćm > Proto-Iranian *tsm > O.P. -θm- / Av. -sm-. See Schmitt 2014: 139-140. Lipp (2009: 193-194, n. 102) explains this divergence, suggesting that this stem was a loanword from a northern Iranian dialect like that of the Medes or from the Avestan sacral language. As E. Raffaelli reminds me, in the third Book of the Dēnkard, Pahlavi rah (“chariot”) seems to be frequently referred to as the “heavens,” probably taken as a “wheel,” with reference to the Zodiac, as, e.g., assumed by de Menasce (1973: 335); cf., e.g. Dk. III, 371, 5: čiyōn rah ī xwānēnd spahr-iz ud rōšnān ī andar xwaršēd māh ud starān […] “ainsi la Roue, qu’on appelle aussi la Sphère, et les luminaires qui sont dedans, soleil, lune, étoiles […].” In this respect, rah keeps (or finds again) the earliest meaning of “wheel.” See now the detailed discussion about Pahlavi rah and rāh in Panaino 2019c: 101-106. 93 Pirart 1992: 61. 94 Cf. the translation by Jamison – Brereton 2014: III: 1560: “Just make your chariot [one that brings well being. Dip out the wellspring whose buckets are the wooden soma (cups)], its wheel the (pressing) stone […].”

36

Antonio Panaino

R̥ v. 5,30,8: yújaṁ hí mā́m ákr̥thā ā́d íd indra śíro / dāsāya námucer mathāyán áśmānaṁ cit svaryàṁ vártamānam / prá cakríyeva ródasī marúdbhyaḥ. “For you have made me your yokemate, Indra just afterwards stealing the head of the Dāsa Namuci, which was rolling, (like?) a whizzing stone, like the two world-halves (that roll) forth like two wheels, for the Maruts.”95

If the Vedic reference to a “wheel” appearing as áśmacakram evokes the problem of the heaven of stone, that we will discuss later, R̥ gveda 5,30,8, presents an uncertain image of the cosmos, in which the two halves of the world appear as two wheels, but where the turning motion of the heaven (and of the earth?) seem(s) to be associated again with the image of a stone. Given the intricate mythological framework and its metaphoric description, it is difficult to deduce a real cosmography from this passage. Certainly, we can state that the reference to the parts of the chariot and in particular to its wheel(s) had a special favour in ancient sources. In fact, the description we have found in the text of Yašt 19, where the wheel corresponds to the earth and the carriage of the chariot to the heavens, simply refers to a primitive representation of the world, which deserves a deeper investigation, and which might eventually open a new direction in our research. In fact, the comparison of heaven and earth with the parts of the chariot is not isolated at all and presents some apparent similarities with respect to another important tradition. In fact, some Chinese literary texts, which have been discussed by Cullen,96 present us with a striking resemblance. We can start with a poem by Song Yu, written about 300 BCE, stating: “The square earth is a chariot. 95 96

Translation according to Jamison – Brereton 2014: II: 693. Cullen 1996: 50. I follow here Cullen’s translation.

The Ancient Iranian Witness

37

The round heaven is its canopy.”

The Kao gong ji (“Artificers’ record”), a pre-Qin document, states: “The squareness of the chariot’s body images the earth; the roundness of the canopy gai images heaven; the thirty spokes of the wheels image days and months; the 28 spokes of the canopy image the stars [of the 28 lodges]” (Zhu li zhu shu 40, 7a-7b).97

We can remark that the gai, or “canopy,” corresponds to a sort of large umbrella covering the whole body of the chariot. Although this was not a spherical conceptualization of the universe, it seems to show an empirical cosmography. While the Avestan text describes the earth as a round wheel, and the heavens as corresponding to a carriage, these two Chinese sources assume that the heavens are round like an umbrella, and the carriage's squareness represents the earth (Plate 2). These crossed correspondences are impressive and peculiar at the same time, so that a direct comparison between these two descriptions is not simple. The Chinese observation takes into consideration the highest and middle parts of the chariot, while the Avestan one considers the lowest and the middle parts. But, we can wonder if the Avestan description of the earth as round actually reflects the common point of view among the ancient Iranians or if in this text the demon Snāuuiδka, in his attempt at disrupting the cosmic order, has simply reversed its structure, using the higher part, i.e. the heavens, as the earth, moving it down, and the carriage as the heavens (Plate 1). If so, we should infer that the visions of the earth and of the heavens were essentially similar. This comparison can be supported if we include the Vedic witness about the two wheels corresponding to heaven and earth in R̥ v. 5,30,8. Unfortunately, this is simply a guess, and it is impossible to conclude which solution is correct, although such a potential alternative can be considered, in particular if we presume that the threat of Snāuuiδka aims really at a complete upheaval of the

97

Cullen 1996: 50.

38

Antonio Panaino

cosmos.98 In fact, the demon does not desire to ride the “universal” chariot, but wants to wreck it. In this framework, a complete reversal of the expected order could be plausible. On the contrary, if we suppose that the intimidation expressed by Snāuuiδka was based on a common perception of the ancient Iranian cosmography, we will simply deduce that the shape of the earth was circular (but not spherical!), and that this myth evoked a cosmographic chariot (without any kind of geometric perspective, as in primitive pictographs) in which the carriage was simply imagined as a flat quadrangle, like a sort of sail or canvas, whose extremities could even be rounded. In this case, too, we cannot again speak of sphere or of any approximately globular 98

Widengren (2006: 53-54) has remarked that in the Mazdean temple of Šīz, the basement was cubic, while its cupola represented the vault of the heaven (with reference to Ringbom 1951: 78-109; but see also Naumann 1977 and Huff 2008). In this case, the quadrangular shape would recall the earth, and the wheel the vault. Although worthy of consideration, this example is not definitive, and the architecture of the temple can find many other cosmographic reasons without a direct derivation from the same tradition of this Avestan myth. The presence of a cupola, in turn, does not imply the direct knowledge and adaptation of a true spherical model, although the problem must be properly assessed. I must remark that this interesting article by Widengren was specifically written in Italian for a conference held in Rome in the year 1955, whose proceedings were published in 1957, but on that occasion without Widengren’s contribution. The original Italian draft of this text was found some years ago and finally published by B. Melasecchi (see Widengren 2006) in its genuine form, while it does not appear, as explained, in the earlier volume, edited in French for the “Serie Orientale Roma” (SOR) of the Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente (IsMEO). I must remark that the origin of the first dome of Sasanian architecture, which covered the square throne hall of Ardašīr I's first castle at Qal'e-ye Dokhtar near the town of Ardašīr Xwarrah (Firuzabad), is a subject of the utmost importance, particularly if we accept its dating to the period prior to the victory over Ardawan proposed by D. Huff, as will be treated by Ms. Mehrnaz Partow in her MA dissertation on the architecture of the castle. The subject of the ideological aspects of Ardašīr's architecture and urbanism is one of the fields which will be addressed by the new project of the Iranian-Italian Joint Archaeological Mission in Fars directed by Alireza Askari Chaverdi and Pierfrancesco Callieri, "From Firuzabad to the Persian Gulf." This kind of architecture might have had enormous influence upon the later elaboration of the cosmic royal chamber that the Sasanian dynasty developed in the framework of a self-representation of the king as a kosmokrator. I thank Prof. Pierfrancesco Callieri for his kind support in discussing with me some of these problems, offering his expertise in the treatment of the subject.

The Ancient Iranian Witness

39

shape. Unfortunately, any other geometric inference would be devoid of supportive evidence. In some aspects, the Mazdean “sky” or “heavens” was not simply a divine force, but even a divinity, because it was expressly worshipped in Avestan liturgies (asmanəm yazamaide, “we worship Asman”);99 created in 40 days100 as the first of the seven divine creations enacted in the visible dimension (the others were: earth, water, plants, the cattle, man, and fire). He assumed the role of a sort of “fortress” (drubušt,101abāzdārišnīh) or even of a “valiant warrior” (arwand artēštār)102 in the battle against Ahreman.103 The Sky can feel afraid, for instance, when Ahreman attacks and pierces him,104 but he also reacts by imprisoning the devil until the last battle.105 As we have previously observed, the separation of earth and heavens is an act attributed to Ahura Mazdā, or even evoked by the highest god himself, as in Yašt 13,2:106 […] vīδāraēm zaraθuštra aom asmanəm “[…] I have held apart,107 o Zoroaster, yonder sky 99

See a number of fitting occurrences as Y. 16,6; 42,3, etc., carefully listed by Bartholomae 1904: 2008. 100 See Bundahišn IA,20: Pakzad 2005: 31. See Bailey 1971: 121-122, 139, passim; Zaehner 1972: 284, 320. 101 See Bailey 1971: 140, with reference to Bundahišn IA7; Pakzad 2005: 27. 102 See Bundahišn VIA,2; Pakzad 2005: 89; Bailey 1971: 134. Note that the Frawahrān support the military action of the stars against the attack of Ahreman (as shown in the pertinent texts collected by Bailey 1971: 142-144), and that they have taken part in the motion of the stars, as already stated in the Young Avestan sources (in particular Yašt 13, 53-58). See also Kellens 2009: 39. 103 See Bundahišn IA,4; Pakzad 2005: 26; cf. Zaehner 1972: 283, 318. 104 See Bundahišn IV,10; Pakzad 2005: 59; Bailey 1971: 144; Anklesaria 1956: 48-49. 105 See Bundahišn IV,4,1; Pakzad 2005: 60; Anklesaria 1956: 48-49. 106 Malandra 1971: 69, 111. Bailey (1971: 128) has identified a resonance of few verselines of this stanza in Bundahišn XXXIV,5: asmān abē-stūn pad mēnōg-ēstišnīh dūr-kanārag ud rōšn ud az gōhr ī xwēn-āhan […] “the heaven without columns, (located) in the mental existence, with far borders, bright, of the substance of a shining metal […]”. Cf. Pakzad 2005: 376; Anklesaria 1956: 184-285. 107 In R̥ gveda 2,27.9, the verb dhār- (dhārayanta) is equally used with reference to the act performed by the Ādityas upholding the trī́ rocanā́ diviyā́ “the three bright heavens” for the sake of “the just man” (r̥jáve mártyāya). The Avestan passage, with the introduction of the preverb vī' , emphasizes the modality of this enterprise, aiming at obtaining a separation of the sky from the earth.

40

Antonio Panaino

yō usca raoxšnō frādərəsrō which (is) above, shining, transparent, yō imąm ząm āca pairica buuāuua which surrounds (lit. “has been”) all around this earth, mānaiiən ahe yaθa vīs aēm as it were a bird (around) an egg,108 yō hištaite mainiiu.stātō which abides as mentally established109 handraxtō dūraēkaranō firmly fixed, with far-off limits, aiiaŋhō kəhrpa xvaēnahe with the body of beaming steel110 raocinō aoi θrišuua. shining over the (three?) thirds (of the earth).”

108

See Henning 1954. We can just note that according to Y.19,7, there is an interesting reference to the shape of the earth, which appears “as much in thickness as in breadth” (īm zā˚ auuaiti bązō yauuaiti fraθascit̰). 109 For the interpretation of the compound mainiiu.stāta-, see Panaino 2012b: 177. 110 Malandra (1971: 69, 111) interpreted Av. aiiah- as “crystal,” following Bailey (1971), but this solution is a priori. In fact, many Pahlavi passages state that the sky must be protected with an armour corresponding to his own body. Although in Pahlavi sources “crystal” was included among the eight types of metals (Bailey 1971: 127-131, 144), there is no need to discharge all the comparative data about the value of Av. aiiah-, which goes with Ved. áyas-, Latin aes, Gothic aiz, etc., as the denomination of a kind of metal and not of a precious stone (see also Katz 2003: 256). Schwartz (1986: 642-643) insists on the fact that aiiah- corresponds with Old Indian ayas- “ore,” “which appears to be connected with the words meaning ‘bright’ in other Indo-European languages.” Schwartz (ibidem) assumes that the Pahlavi translation āhen “iron” (xvaēna- aiiah- = xwēn āhen) of aiiah- would be due to the similarity of āhen with aiiah-, in particular in the genitive, declared to be aiiaŋhō.

The Ancient Iranian Witness

41

As Harold W. Bailey remarked,111 the separation of the heavens from the earth also implies an explicatory description of the stability of the heavens itself. But Avestan texts are silent on this problem, while the Pahlavi sources (like Bundahišn XXXIV,5)112 clearly state that Ohrmazd created the heavens “without columns” (abē-stūn) in its mental dimension, with remote boundaries (dūr-kanārag). This image (a-stūn) is repeated by Zādspram (Wizīdagīhā XXXIV,20),113 with the additional information that the sky was not only “without support” (an-abar-dāštār), but also that this support (dāštār) was absent “in any side.” Then, the Sasanian and post-Sasanian model of the universe is finite, given with “limits” (kanārag; cf. Av. karana-), though this well determined shape was probably imagined in earlier times because the compound dūraēkarana- occurs with specific reference to the “heavens” already in the passage of the Frawardīn Yašt we just quoted above. But the contents of the previously mentioned stanza of Yašt 13,2, are very important because they confirm the presence, also in Iran, of the primitive image of the cosmic egg,114 which introduces in a preliminary form the intuition of a concave shape of the sky, although it cannot be taken as evidence of the idea of sphericity. These preliminary considerations become extremely important for the comprehension of some further problems, which I will try to bring to the reader’s attention. Iranian studies have rarely endorsed 111

Bailey 1971: 123-124. Pakzad 2005: 376; Anklesaria 1956: 284-285. 113 Gignoux – Tafazzoli 1993: 118-119 (transcription and translation). 114 See Rezania 2017: 160-162 with very pertinent additional remarks. Rezania has developed in this work a number of relevant considerations on the ancient Iranian cosmography, but, in many cases, he seems to presume a spherical vault as an a priori fact. For instance, some of the – I must say, beautiful – images describing the ancient cosmic models that he has offered contain certain graphic solutions a priori implying a spherical globe, although its determination is not justified for the earliest phases of the Iranian cultural tradition. In some cases, he also explicitly adopts terms like “Sphäre” or “Sphären” (e.g. Rezania 2017: 171, 173, passim), which, in my opinion are unfitting for the Avestan sources, although I agree with some of his observations. I must also say that these remarks have no polemical intent, but just show the need to focus on a subject that frequently has not been considered as theoretically relevant by very competent specialists. 112

42

Antonio Panaino

an epistemologically technical treatment concerning the shape of the Mazdean cosmic models. The problem, in fact, has been frequently analysed in a generic, although not exactly superficial, way; using proper reflection on the scientific implications connected with the terminology, we postulate and adopt without considering a broader conspectus, not only from an astronomical point of view, but also from an ethno-anthropological perspective. Modern scholarship, for many reasons, has been mostly interested in very sophisticated linguistic analyses, without taking real interest in the technicalities connected with the history of sciences. Thus, a mixture of IndoEuropean linguistics and apparently sound comparative philological skills have been used to prove or disprove the existence in Ancient Iran of a prehistoric representation of the “sphere,” without a proper methodological assessment of the subject. In this study, I will try to resume the main lines of the previous debates and provide the suggested solutions and (probable) definitive interpretation of the facts.

3. THE NAME ΣΠΙΘΡΑΔАΤΗΣ / ΣΠΙΘΡΙΔАΤΗΣ AND ITS IMPORTANCE IN THE HISTORY OF THE DEBATE ON THE ORIGIN OF THE “SPHERE” IN THE IRANIAN WORLD

It was Theodor Nöldeke115 who suggested that it was possible to identify a genuine Old Iranian word meaning “heavens” already in the Old Persian name Spiθradátēs or Spiθridátēs (in Greek sources written exactly as Σπιθραδάτης / Σπιθριδάτης).116 According to Nöldeke, the Old Iranian stem *spiθra- would have been the expected antecedent of the Pahlavi word spihr “sphere,” used in astronomical and astrological contexts with the precise meaning of “celestial sphere,” as in the Greek astronomical tradition. While Paul de Lagarde,117 on the contrary, had previously assumed that the Pahlavi stem should have been considered a loanword from Greek σφαῖρα, identifying its presence already in a series of Syriac and Aramaic words (whose orthography would 115

Nöldeke 1888: 37, 38. See Justi 1895: 310. 117 1868: 63, in note. 116

44

Antonio Panaino

have been followed in Pahlavi spihr, but see also New Persian sipihr), Nöldeke rejected this solution under the assumption that we should expect something like espêrâ in Aramaic (but the outcome seems to be exactly like the Syriac one, see below) and not esfêrâ, in order to explain the origin of the Middle and New Persian outcomes. Only in common or popular Aramaic the outcome with p- was normal, as, e.g., in the case of piāle against Gr. φιάλη, while it would be doubtful whether the word for “sphere” might be normally used in the everyday language. Nöldeke also remarked that the presence of an -h- in Pahlavi. spihr would have been inexplicable if this word were a direct outcome of Gr. σφαῖρα,118 while its derivation from Old Iranian *spiθra- would prove perfectly sound. And, so, the ideas of Nöldeke ran counter to those of de Lagarde. Sine ira et studio, we must observe that an Old Iranian *spiθracan be easily explained from Indo-Iranian *ćṷitrá- “white,” so that its semantic interpretation as “heavens,” or even “sphere,” remains highly uncertain: although this semantic association would be possible, we will show that its assumption for an archaic period was based on unsupported inferences. In fact, we have no ground to state that in Iran (if it was so, and we do not know at all) the same word for “heaven” assumed also the geometric and cosmographical meaning of “celestial sphere.” For instance, in the previous pages it has been shown that this was also not the case for the early Greek cultural tradition. We can observe that Rüdiger Schmitt,119 very prudently, did not exclude the possibility that this stem might be used as a mechanical reference to 118

The etymology of Gr. σφαῖρα is, in its turn, unclear; Frisk (1970, II: 826-827) and Chantraine (1999: 1073-1074) mention the possible link with the family of the verb σπαίρω, “to flounce, beat, quiver,” under the assumption that the shift between a voiceless consonant and an aspirate one could be considered of “emotional” origin (in any case, see the standard reference to Hiersche 1964: 196-197). On the contrary, Beekes (2009, 2: 1427) radically excludes this alleged connection on semantic grounds and for the difficulty in finding an explanation for the initial cluster. In any case, we must observe that no other Indo-European cognate word seems to be attested, while at least the structure of the stem with a suffix *–i̭ā- (as in μοῖρα, μάχαιρα) can be recognized. For the geometrical implications assumed by this particular term, see Mugler 1959: 406-407. 119 2006: 190-191, but with reference to Schmitt 1993: 396.

The Name Σπιθραδάτης / Σπιθριδάτης and its Importance in the History

45

a certain (unknown) celestial divinity,120 but he did not assume the risk to presume a so precise technical meaning as the one of “(celestial) sphere.” Gignoux,121 for his part, considered the Middle Persian name spyhld’tk /Spihr-dādag/ to mean, “donné par le firmament,” according to the earlier etymological interpretation suggested by Nöldeke, but in reality anticipated by Philipp Keiper, 122 who, for his part, had assumed that *spiθra- simply meant “pure.” If so, *spiθra-data- could be interpreted as “donné en cadeau par Spiθra, i.e. le pur, dans lequel il faut peut-être retrouver un surnom d’Auramazda, ou l’expliquer ainsi: crée comme un pur.” We also can note for the sake of historical completeness that Keiper attributed the alternative explanation, as “donné par le ciel,” which we will find again in Nöldeke (which we will find again in Nöldeke) to Julius Oppert, but, to Julius Oppert, but without any clear (bibliographic) reference. This subject remained untouched for many years until Walter Bruno Henning123 refreshed it, observing that Pahlavi. spihr should be considered as a loanword from σφαῖρα, in which -hr- could be easily explained as a reversed (or pseudo-historic) false orthography, analogically reshaped on the model of Mihr (< Miθra-), but simply pronounced Mīr, just as spihr was actually spelled spīr.124 But this assumption is based on a very important remark that sometimes has been forgotten or ignored. In fact, Henning insisted on the unetymological nature of a so peculiar Pahlavi spelling like spihr, which becomes strikingly evident when we carefully observe the different orthography it assumed in Manichaean Middle Persian texts; here it was written‘spyr.125 This spelling actually confirms that any 120

See again Schmitt 1993: 396. Gignoux 2003a: 60, Nr. 307. 122 Keiper 1884: 85: 226. 123 Henning 1942: 239-240, and n. 2 (= Henning 1977, II: 105-106). Cf. Panaino 2002. 124 See Henning 1942: 239-240, and n. 1 (= Henning 1977, II: 105-106). 125 The orthography of Parthian (Nisa) ‘spyr [/spir?/] seems to confirm this statement, but the uncertainty in the reading prevents any strong conclusion; see Schmitt 2016: 194-195, Nr. 450. 121

46

Antonio Panaino

speculation about a direct derivation from a supposed Old Iranian stem *spiθra- is unnecessary, and in any case not compelling at all. 126 There is no need to justify the presence and the origin of an internal -h-, which in (spoken) Middle Persian never existed, and which was registered only in Pahlavi (for inner orthographic reasons), but not in the Manichaean script.127 Then, we may state that Henning’s conclusion is well established thanks to a remarkable series of fitting observations, and not without a serious reconsideration of the previous etymology advanced by Nöldeke. Despite all these observations, Shapuhr Shahbazi,128 in one of his last articles, again argued for the genuine Iranian derivation of the word for “sphere,” strongly criticizing Henning’s approach to the history of this word. From the formal point of view Henning also noted that an Old Persian proper name like *spiθra-dāta- might find a very simple and appropriate etymological interpretation as meaning, “having white teeth,” with *spiθra- “white” as first member plus a second compositional element like Avestan dātā-, f. “tooth.” 129 In this case, Henning130 quoted the fitting model of a Greek (later) compound like λευκόδους, adopted as the name of the “shrew.” On the other hand, it must be observed that Henning

126

We can also remark that the derivation of Babylonian Iš-pi-ri-da-a-ta from an Old Iranian *Spihra-dāta- < Spiθradāta-, suggested by Stolper (1994: 620ab), has been rejected by Schmitt (2002: 70, n. 83), on the ground that an outcome like –hr- from -θr- must date chronologically much later. Cf. Tavernier (2007: 314, 4.2.1600) for further bibliographical details. 127 Nyberg (1974, II: 178) rejected Henning’s explanation, because, in his view, the presence of the “-h- in spihr would be an inorganic insertion.” It is not clear whether Nyberg had considered the Manichaean Middle Persian reading as representing the same word, or not. In any case, Nyberg also assumed that “the sense of spihr may have been influenced by σφαῖρα, but its formal independence is proved by NP sipihr which belongs to the living language.” This objection is unclear, because the Manichaean spelling /spir/ would produce the same outcome in New Persian. If we look at the name of the Iranian god Miθra, Pahl. mihr (Man. myhr), the New Persian outcome is equally Mihir/Meher. 128 Shahbazi 2002: 18, n. 57. 129 Bartholomae 1904: 728. 130 See Henning 1942: 239, n. 2 (= Henning 1977, II: 105). Cf. also Nyberg, 1933: 197.

The Name Σπιθραδάτης / Σπιθριδάτης and its Importance in the History

47

probably did not know (or recall)131 that Émile Benveniste,132 for his part, had excluded the existence of the Avestan stem *dātā-, f., already considered doubtful by Christian Bartholomae himself,133 simply proposing a better reading as datā- (mss K1, L4), although with the same meaning of “tooth.” In later times Schmitt excluded this etymological solution134 under the reasonable assumption that the second element (-δάτης) should be derived from an Old Iranian stem like °dāta-, “given/ created,” whose frequency is remarkably high, although he prudently observed that the reference to “spiθri/a-” should be considered with great caution. In fact, it is unclear whether that stem already in the Old Iranian period possessed the cultural implications of a term like “sphere,” (which could be strongly ahistorical when projected backwards, as we have seen before), or if it had assumed the force of a divine name meaning “destiny,” or again if *spiθra- (< *ćṷitrá-) had been elliptically used with reference to an unmentioned divinity or astral being.135 From the strictly etymological point of view, I must observe that the Greek orthography of this proper name, as it was transmitted, albeit not without ambiguities already in the manuscript tradition136 (Σπιθραδάτης / Σπιθριδάτης; see also the spelling ΣΠΙΘΡΙ on coins),137 do not permit one to distinguish clearly if –δάτης should be compellingly derived from an O.Ir. °dāta- or if we can see in it a reflex of a similar stem *datā- (exactly like Av. datā-, f., “tooth”), whose outcome in composition would have been inevitably neutralized in Greek script with an undistinguishable *-dā̆ta-. Thus, there is no reason to exclude a priori the simple and fitting etymology suggested by Henning, although we may simply refer to *spiθra-data-, and no 131

We must consider that Henning wrote this article during the war, and that soon he was encamped in the island of Man. 132 Benveniste 1931: 87-88. 133 Bartholomae 1904: 728, in note; see again Benveniste 1931: 88, n. 1. 134 See Schmitt’s detailed and very informative discussion in Schmitt 1993: 394-396; cf. also Schmitt 2011: 344-345. 135 Schmitt 1993: 395-396. 136 See the discussion offered by Schmitt 1993: 394-395. 137 Alram 1986: 103-104, Nr. 309-313.

48

Antonio Panaino

more to *spiθra-dāta-. As a matter of methodological prudence, we are obliged to remark that Iranian names appearing in Greek with a final –δάτης are usually derived from *dāta-, but the occurrence of a single deviation from this standard is neither impossible nor implausible, in light of many Sanskrit compounds like: Pāṇḍara-danta-, (mf[ā]n.) “having white teeth” (“tusks”), said of an elephant;138 śukla-daṇṣṭra-tā-, f., “having white teeth” (one of the eighty minor marks of a Buddha” (Dharmas. 84);139 śuklá-dat-, m.f.n., “white-toothed” (Ait.Br., Bh.P.);140 śukla-daśana-, mfn., “id.” (MW); śúci-dat-, mnf., “bright-toothed,” R̥V;141 śuddha-dat-, mfn., “white-toothed,” Pāṇ., V, 4, 145;142 śuddhadanta-, mfn., “id”, ibid.; “made of pure ivory,” MBh.;143 śubhrá-dat-, mf[ī́]]n., “having white teeth,” Pāṇ. V, 4, 145;144 śubhrá-danta-, mf[ī́] n., “id.,” Mr̥cch.;145 śubhrá-dantī́-, f., as the name of the female of the elephants Puṣpa-danta (cf. śubha-dantī) and Sārvabhauma, L.146, etc. From the ethno-anthropological point of view we can also point to the use of epithets referring to teeth and fangs, normally attributed to animals (like elephants, tigers, wolfs), as in the fitting case of “White Fang,” which is also the title of a most famous novel by Jack London (first published in 1906). But the most striking example can be seen in the origin of the current name attributed to a special technological device presently known as Bluetooth. This peculiar name corresponds to the Anglicized version of an ancient epithet of the tenth century king (konungr) Haraldr Gormsson (935-987), nicknamed in Old Norse blátǫnn, i.e. “Blue-tooth”.147 This was the king who unified the rival Danish tribes, as the technological device unifies other different instruments. The same bahuvrīhi survives in Swedish as Blåtand. 138

Monier-Williams 1899: 616b. Monier-Williams 1899: 1080c. 140 Monier-Williams 1899: 1080c. 141 Monier-Williams 1899: 1081b. 142 Monier-Williams 1899: 1082a. 143 Ibidem. 144 Monier-Williams 1899: 1084a. 145 Ibidem. 146 Ibidem. 147 See Peterson 2015: 134. 139

The Name Σπιθραδάτης / Σπιθριδάτης and its Importance in the History

49

I would like to add that, spiθra° “white” (like Ved. śvitrá-, “white”), as an adjective belonging to the so-called “Caland-system,” 148 can be easily compared with the Avestan compound spiti-dōiθra- “whiteeyed.” In this system, we can put also Vedic śvetá-, śvítna-, and in particular, śvityac- (obl. śvitīc-), “white-eyed”; śvitāná- “bright.” 149 But the last argument in favour of Henning’s solution was in my opinion the most significant also from an epistemological point of view. Henning remarked that spihr in Pahlavi was not simply the “heavens,” “sky” or “firmament,” but exactly and strictly “sphere” (from which we can derive a secondary meaning like “fate,” “destiny”), i.e. a geometrical and geospatial “category”150 never attested before Late Antiquity in the Iranian world and apparently unknown in the Mesopotamian ancient world. I must say that Henning was the only scholar to pay attention to this epistemological aspect of the debate, but despite his insightfulness, his solution did not receive the consideration it deserved. I would like to remark that not only Pahlavi and Manichaean Middle Persian accepted such a learned Greek loanword (perhaps even Parthian), but that this phenomenon was common to many other Oriental languages like Syriac ̕espērā,151 Ethiopic ṣpīr,152 and Armenian spʿer̄ (from which Georgian spero “ball”).153 In this regard we can wonder whether spihr/ʿspyr does not reflect a direct borrowing, but rather an adaptation of the Greek word that entered Iran via Syriac ̕espērā (> MP. /spīr/). 148

1892; 1893. The comparison between Pahl. spihr and Ved. śvitrá-, suggested by Lowe (2011: 5.1), is certainly based on the derivation from spiθra°, but, then, it cannot be used in order to demonstrate the meaning “sphere”; its mention without further qualifications is misleading. 150 In this sense, the concepts of Kreis und Kugel have been very fittingly discussed by Krafft 1976 in the Historische Wörterbuch der Philosophie. Strongly related, “circle” and “sphere” certainly present a dialectical connection, although any reference to a circle cannot compellingly imply the inference that even the latter concept was known and/or currently adopted. This important distinction is frequently unconsidered or ignored. 151 See Schwyzer 1939: 159, 161. 152 See Schwyzer 1939: 161. 153 Bailey 1945: 28 (= 1981: 250). 149

50

Antonio Panaino

It is also interesting to note that as modern languages have assumed the astronomical implications of the Greek word σφαῖρα via the Latin loanword sphaera, which very rarely was used with reference to ball-games,154 a similar process seems to have penetrated late antique Oriental languages via a Semitic intermediation or, more prudently, under a Syriac direct or indirect influence, probably effective both in pronunciation and in orthography. From the ethnoanthropological point of view, we should more carefully consider the cases in which the references to something “spherical” have been addressed not only to an object, e.g., used in a game (as it commonly happened in the Greek framework), but explicitly to a cosmographical concept. In the Greek framework, as we noted in the opening section of this study, the term used for “ball” was exactly σφαῖρα,155 which was later extended also to any globular object and to the celestial sphere. Certainly, the semantic history of this word does not contradict this, as a hyper-intellectualized, anti-historical, vision of the development of astronomical knowledge sometimes tends to do. The assumption that the world, the heavens and the earth, can be compared with a spherical body, is not at all immediate and “natural” or even primitive and obvious, but its determination has been the long fruit of a speculative and theoretical observation and of a fine geometrical abstract representation of the cosmos. In epistemological terms, the association of a “ball” called σφαῖρα with the celestial and terrestrial spheres presupposed the elaboration of an abstract geo-astronomical conceptualization such as the one of the solid shapes of the two heavenly vaults.156 In this way, the surface of the cosmos was presumed to be spherical and solid, a model which, again, was not natural, but intellectual! If we also consider the origin of the idea underpinning the rationale of the (many) concentric spheres justifying 154

Mendner 1956: 77. See Hommel 1949; Mendner 1956. 156 See, for instance, Euclid’s Phenomena 2, 13; 6, 17; cf. Berggren – Thomas 1996: 4344, 46, 115-118, passim. The philosophical complexity of the problem is shown by Brendel (1936; English translation 1977), and more recently in the trilogy Sphaeren I-III by Sloterdijk (1998, 1999, 2004). 155

The Name Σπιθραδάτης / Σπιθριδάτης and its Importance in the History

51

the planetary motions and their irregularities, we conclude that we are dealing with a philosophical assumption and a related prejudice, which, for instance, was not a priori, and did not allow one to consider (at least for some time) even the plausibility of an elliptical motion. Given these general considerations, we are compelled to remark that the assumption that an Indo-Iranian word might mean “sphere,” not in a basic and primitive sense such as that of a “ball,” “globular object,” but that of (geometrical cosmic or celestial) “sphere” is totally implausible. But if that ancient word just meant the “heavens,” as sometimes suggested, it is implausible that it could also be used to mean “sphere,” and in any case, its new sematic value should have been determined under the force of the Greek and Syriac correspondent forms. Before concluding this chapter, we can also analyse Harold W. Bailey’s intermediate solution, which is generally neglected. Bailey157 actually assumed that Pahlavi spihr was the direct continuation of an Old Iranian *spiθra-, as suggested by Nöldeke,158 but accepted Henning’s solution deriving Manichaean Middle Persian and Parthian ‘spyr /spīr/ or /spēr/ as a loanword from Greek σφαῖρα. Those words would overlap and confuse each other in the current usage, so that the older meaning would be still visible, according to Bailey,159 in very many cases like the Selections of Zādspram XXX,1,160 where asmānīg spihr ī gardišnīg would simply concern “the celestial revolving sky.” But we may object that a better reading of the whole passage as ku-š homānāgīh ōwōm +gōy-dēs asmānīg spihr ī gardišnīg […] confirms the most pertinent reference to the sphere. In fact, the passage can be

157

Bailey 1971: 147. The only caveat introduced by Bailey (1971: 147, n. 2) concerns the fact that the initial sp- indicates its non-Persian origin. 159 Bailey 1971: 147-148. 160 Gignoux – Tafazzoli 1993: 96-96 (transcription and translation). 158

52

Antonio Panaino

translated as “he is (i.e. the cosmic model of the human being)161 in the likeness of the celestial sphere in the form of a bowl (gōy-dēs), which turns.” The image of the bowl (+gōy-dēs)162 is patent evidence of the fact that spihr was directly associated with a cosmic sphere, a sort of globus. Thus, all these tricky attempts to the lexicographical impact of the Greek loanword are based on solutions a priori, while there is no compelling reason to exclude a fitting reference to the celestial sphere. Furthermore, Bailey’s conclusions are, in this respect paradoxically in contrast with a number of statements that he himself introduced about the spherical shape of the heavens in the Zoroastrian Pahlavi 161

This text proposes a comparison between the shape of the human being and the cosmic dimension, so that in the whole chapter we find examples of melothesia and similar concepts. Different is the case of the chapter XLVI of the Pahlavi Rewāyats to the Dādestān ī Dēnı̄g. There, in fact, the creation of the world is presented according to an unusual and strange version. Although not in direct contrast with the basic sequence of the events as attested in other Zoroastrian cosmological sources, here God creates the world from the body of a man. While Bailey (1971: 121) considered this doctrine as reasonably of foreign origin, Zaehner (1961: 259-261; 1972: 259) assumed a precise Hindu origin for it, insisting on the comparison with the famous Vedic hymn to the sacrifice of the cosmic man, the Puruṣa (R̥ v. 10,90 or Puruṣasūkta). Although a far Indian resonance remains in my opinion not impossible, we must also consider the influence of a speculation, plausibly of Western origin, in which the idea of the Cosmic Man and that of the correspondence between macro- and micro-cosmos were established. In this respect, the alternative solution, already suggested by Zaehner (1972: 128), that the macrocosm could be interpreted in the same perspective assumed by some Gnostics, explaining it as the πρότος ἄνθρωπος, is not completely ungrounded. On the other hand, Zaehner’s theory is based on the assumption that this doctrine was specifically attested among Zurvanites, according to a reconstruction of the Zoroastrian history that attributes to this sect an enormous relevance; nonetheless, this theory is now considered insufficiently grounded. On the contrary, we can see a very prudent and well argued treatment of this intriguing chapter of intellectual history by Williams (1985; 1990, II: 202-206), who has taken into consideration all the possible sources of comparison in the framework of Mazdean literature, emphasizing the peculiarity of this text, but excluding a direct Indian derivation. Zaehner's (1972: 136) assumption, that in this source Pahlavi spihr represents the Zoroastrian reflex of the Indian puruṣa-, is in my opinion ungrounded and untenable. For his part, Molé (1963: 406-411) also has discussed the originality of this passage, insisting on its independence with respect to Indian or Hellenistic influences; cf. also Gnoli 1965: 338-339. 162 For this reading, see Gignoux – Tafazzoli 1993: 168-169.

The Name Σπιθραδάτης / Σπιθριδάτης and its Importance in the History

53

scripts.163 In particular, Bailey referred to two pertinent places, one from the Bundahišn and the latter from the Pahlavi Rewāyats to the Dādestān ī Dēnı̄g: Bundahišn IA,7:164 fragān bun ī asmān čand-iš pahnāy ī-š drahnāy čand-īš drahnāy ī-š bālāy čand-iš bālāy ī-š zahā +ham-handazag […] “of the basic boundary of the sky the width is as great as its length, its length as great as its height, and its height as great as its depth, wholly equal […]”165

and to Pahlavi Rewāyats to the Dādestān ī Dēnı̄g XLVI,4: u-š nazdist asmān az sar be brēhēnīd u-š gōhr az *ābgēnag ī sped u-š pahnāy ud bālāy rāst u-š zahaīh ī fragān ān and ast čand pahnāy ī *tuhı̄gīh u-š winārišn pad nar ī ahlaw ud dahmān āf(r)īn u-š dāštārīh ī gētīg nēst Ohrmazd abāg dām ud dahišn andar nišīnēd. “And first he created the sky from the head, and (its) substance (is) white crystal, and its width and height (are) equal, and the depth of its foundations is as much as the breadth of the emptiness, and the management (is) by the righteous male and Dahmān Āfrīn,166 and there is no physical support for it; Ohrmazd resides within (it) with the creature of the creation”.167

163

Bailey 1971: 135-136. Pakzad 2005: 27; cf. Anklesaria 195: 22-23. 165 For the translation, see Bailey 1971: 135. As already remarked, Widengren (2006: 54-55) tries to compare this description of the heavens with the architectural form of the Parthian and Sasanian Temple of Šīz, with its cubic base, and a superimposed cupola imitating a sky-vault (Ringbom 195: 78-109; Naumann 1977; Huff 2008). The suggestion deserves to be considered, although a direct connection between these two traditions is not compelling and cannot be demonstrated. 166 Cf. Zaehner 1972: 136. 167 Williams 1990: I: 161; II: 72. 164

54

Antonio Panaino

Bailey remarked upon the similarity shared with Aristotle’s formulation reported in de Caelo II, 286B10-ff.,168 which should be a pertinent reflex. I am not sure that the fragān bun of the above mentioned passage really represents the ἔσχατον of Aristotle, as suggested by Bailey,169 but the question is open and awaits further evidence and argumentation. Certainly, the Pahlavi texts put the earth at the center of the sky and imagine the heavens (or some of its layers170) as spherical. Only the last sentence requires a more detailed explanation, which I postpone by a few pages, because it will be treated in the framework of a more fitting subject. Thus, we can conclude the first step of our investigation: there is no reason to presume that the idea of sphericity was present in Iran before a, reasonably later, probably post-Achaemenid, Greek influence. The first compositional element of the name Σπιθραδάτης / Σπιθριδάτης probably means “white,” and in any case there are not sufficient grounds to state that it had an important cosmic value in ancient Iran. More complex is the history of the adaptation of the concept of sphericity in the Iranian world, but this is a subject we will discuss in a further section of this study. At the moment, we observe that it would be peculiar to presume knowledge of this concept in Iran before in Mesopotamia, and that it would be even more farfetched to ascribe its elaboration to the Proto-Iranian phase, as if it were an ancestral datum belonging to the early Aryan heritage.

168

Ed. by Longo 1962: 120-123. In this paragraph, Aristotle sharply states that: “the form of the heaven must be necessarily spherical [..-]” (Σχῆμα δ’ ἀνάγκη σφαιροειδὲς ἔχειν τὸν οὐρανόν […]). 169 Bailey 1971: 135. 170 On the orthography of spihr and spahr, see the final Addendum 1 at p. 158.

4. THE ANCIENT IRANIAN COSMOGRAPHY AND ITS EVOLUTION

It is in a context in which the heavens and earth have been originally perceived, probably, the former as quadrangular, the latter as round, but, in any case, not spherical at all, that we must frame the Iranian vision of the universe in its progress. In reality, we should consider a more archaic perspective, and in some respect refer to an Indo-Iranian background, where we can observe some striking resonances reasonably evident due to a common origin. In Old Avestan sources the sky was referred to (in plural) as nabah-, n., “mist, cloud, vapor” (Y. 44,4, kasnā dərətā ząmcā adə̄ nabā˚scā auuapastōiš “who upheld the earth down below, and the nimbi [= “heavens”] (above to prevent them) from falling”;171 literally, Av. nabā˚s

171

Humbach, 1991: 157; Bartholomae 1904: 1040; Kellens – Pirart, 1990: 274. The sentence concerns the creative action performed by Ahura Mazdā.

56

Antonio Panaino

would mean “nimbi” or, to use a less archaic English word,172 “clouds,”173 but we can also find (in plural) the term raocah-, n., “light” (Y. 36,6, imā raocā˚ “these lights”; Pahl. ān ī rōšnīh;174 Y. 37,1, raocā˚scā dāt̰ būmīmcā “(Ahura Mazdā who) created the Lights (of the sky) and the earth.”175 The use of a word meaning “cloud” in order to describe the heavens is not isolated, and it corresponds to the English adoption of the word “sky,” which derives from an Old Norse term for “cloud.”176 Neither diiau- nor asman- appear in Old Avestan; on the contrary, they appear only in Young Avestan literature, where diiau-/diiu-, m. (cf. Ved. dyáv-/ dív-, m./f.) is only a hapax legomenon, preserved as a fossilized form in the, so to say, “permafrosted” expression […] patat̰ diiaoš “(Aŋra Mainiiu) fell down from the sky.”177 According to Jean Kellens,178 nabah172

See The Oxford English Dictionary, Oxford 1913, vol. VII, p. 153, sub nimbus. This semantic solution is seen in many other Indo-European languages, like Hittite (nēbis-), Slavonic (nebo), and Celtic (e.g., Old Irish nem, etc.), as noted by West (2007: 343). 174 Cf. Malandra – Ichaporia 2013: 54, 224; Av. text in Narten 1986: 41, 166; Hintze 2007: 34-35. 175 Bartholomae 1904: 1489-1491; Kellens – Pirart, 1990: 308; Narten 1986: 43, 169; Hintze 2007: 35. In the Pahlavi version (Malandra – Ichaporia 2013: 54, 225), we find: u-š rōšnīh dād ud būm-iz. 176 See Bjorvand – Lindeman 2007: 990. Cf. Buck 1949: 52-53; West 2007: 343. Lazzeroni (1973: 117-119), in the framework of a pertinent criticism of a famous article by Reichelt (1913) concerning the myth of the stony heaven, has suggested the existence of a Proto-Aryan mythic association between the image of the “heavens” and that of the “cloud,” so that with the decaying of this ancestral tradition the name of the cloud would have been adopted also for that of the “heavens.” The hypothesis is fascinating, but it does not explain the widespread use in the Indo-European framework of similar phenomena, which cannot be ascribed to an Indo-Iranian model, so that, in my opinion, this subject still needs a strong revision, and no conclusion can be considered definitive. On this argument, see now the pertinent contribution by Malzahn 2016. 177 Cf. Yt. 3,13; see Bartholomae, 1904: 761-762; the reader will find a detailed discussion of the textual and interpretative problems connected with the present passage in König 2016a: 181-183, 313-318, 392. In any case, it is clear that the Pahlavi translator was in no better condition to understand this part of the text. There is an open question as to whether Finnish taivas “sky” derives from Baltic *daivas or from Indo-Iranian *daiṷas; see Katz 2003: 81. 178 Kellens in Kellens – Pirart, 1988: 33. On the Indo-European name of the sky cf. also Haudry 1987b; Vaséveren 1999. 173

The Ancient Iranian Cosmography and its Evolution

57

(in the Gāθās) and raocah- (in the Yasna Haptaŋhāiti)179 were deliberate substitutions of the inherited ancient name of the heavens. Probably, in the latter case, the situation is more intricate, if the two passages (as it seems) contain an allusion to the heavenly structure mentioning the “Lights,” which protect the highest Paradise in later cosmographical sources.180

179

See Hintze 2007: 149-150, 162-167, 352. Although Hintze (2007: 149-150, 164-165) does not accept the interpretation of Kellens, stating that it would be at odds with the presence of a near deictic like ima- “this” (Y. 36,6: imā raocā˚), so that “these lights” (or “this light,” as Hintze translates) should be in the proximity of the speaker, the situation thus becomes more complex. In fact, I must observe that the plural “lights” are frequently found in Young Avestan literature with direct reference to the infinite “heavenly Lights”, normally placed above the Sun’s layer. Thus, they correspond to a cosmic level, and it is not so strange to find that the Yasna Haptaŋhāiti defines the Sun as “the most beautiful body among the bodies” (sraēštąm […] kəhrpə̄m kəhrpąm). Hintze (2007: 150) fittingly quotes Vedic parallels (R̥ v. 1,113,1 and 10,1170,3) like śréṣṭhaṁ jyótiṣāṁ jyótir “the most beautiful light of lights,” but we must recall that the word jyótis-, “light,” also has, for its part, strong astral implications also in Sanskrit literature. In particular these lights in Avestan sources do not simply refer to the light of the day, which, of course, is connected with the presence of the Sun, but represent a cosmic force, the one that protects the Paradise of Ahura Mazdā. It is interesting to note that Bundahišn III directly evokes this passage, because there the station of the “Lights” is divided into two levels, one (the fifth in the cosmic scheme) concerns the “Infinite Lights” (anagr ī rōšn), where the Sun (xwaršēd) resides; the latter is the seventh one, belonging to the “Throne” (gāh) of Ohrmazd, where the “Endless Lights” (asar rōšnīh) reside as well. Thus, I think that Kellens’ assumption is not correct, because here raocah- is not just used instead of asmanor any other word for “sky, heaven,” but because these two passages are focusing on a more complex heavenly structure, which is evoked mentioning one of the highest layers of the heavens. In this respect, the exact opposite is expressed by means of the sentence raocā˚scā dāt̰ būmīmcā (“who created the Lights and the earth”) in Y. 37,1, the mention of raocah- and būmī- insists on the largest distance between the highest heavens and earth. Then, this is an innovation with respect to the traditional use. The reference to the deictic in Y. 36,6 can be explained in a different way. It is an expression of proximity with the divine abode, which can be known by means of the ritual, in which the superb form of God can be perceived by the initiate. Thus, the text probably presents the (heavenly) Lights, and the Sun (compared with the visible body of God). i.e. the highest levels of the Avestan cosmos, in a descending order. See below, the discussion concerning the debated connection of the “Endless Lights” with the Throne of Ahura Mazdā.

180

58

Antonio Panaino

We may note that nāb́ haḥ, apparently another word (usually nāb́ h-, f., “spring, an opening fissure”), in R̥ v. 9,74,6 referred to the four heavenly streams (cátasro nāb́ ho),181 while aśman- is found to be associated only with the significance of “stone”, although its relations with the heavens, patent in the Iranian framework (with the last meaning it actually occurs in Avestan and in Old Persian),182 are not absent at all.183 The opposition of earth/heavens is normal in the Young Avestan sources like: Y. 42,3: ząmcā asmanəmcā yazamaide “we worship the earth and the heaven”; Yt. 10,95: antarə ząm asmanəmca “between heaven and earth”; Yt. 13,2: imąm ząm … aom asmanəm “this earth (here) … that heaven (there)”.

In Old Persian sources we find the standard sentence: De, 2-3: A(h)uramazdā haya imām būmīm adā, haya avam asmānam adā “A(h)uramazdā who created this earth, who created that sky”.

The mythical representation of a sky made of stones has been the subject of an important discussion by Hans Reichelt.184 This scholar tried to reconstruct an earlier myth in which a primordial hero had to break the sky in order to obtain light and rains,185 but his suggestion 181

Lüders 1951: 285-286. Cf. Jamison – Brereton 2014, III: 1308. Cf. Brandenstein – Mayrhofer 1964: 107; Schmitt 2014: 139-140 (see the entries asan-, m., and asman-, m.; asman- < *IIr. *aćman- is dialectologically not Persian, but it comes from another dialect); cf. also aθanga-, m./n., “stone” and aθangai̭na/°ni,-“stony” (< O.Ir. *atsanga-; cf. Av. asəṇga°-“id.”; Schmitt 2014: 141-142). For the suffix -ga-, see Nussbaum 1986: 2-3, and the note 3. 183 See again the discussion in Lazzeroni 1973. Cf. Reichelt 1913: 26, passim. 184 See Reichelt 1913; cf. also see Lazzeroni 1973 and Crevatin 1974; 1975; 1976-77. 185 See, for instance, Reichelt’s synthesis (1913: 44-45), and the following statement that the Mazdean world does not preserve it anymore; this peculiar statement is justified in light of the reforms of Zoroaster, who would have radically changed many patterns of the Indo-Iranian tradition (Reichelt 1913: 45-46), but this kind of solution becomes ad hoc and is difficult to be accepted. Cf. also Harmatta 1998. 182

The Ancient Iranian Cosmography and its Evolution

59

has been subsequently questioned and with good reason, because it is evidenced nowhere.186 We simply know that in Avestan asman- means “heaven”187 (as asman- in Old Persian; cf. Sogdian (a)smān [sm’n]),188 while asan- is “stone” and the derivative asnuuaṇt- “stony,” asmana“idem.” For its part, Vedic áśman-, m.,189 certainly means “stone” (and there are not undisputable attestations meaning “heaven” in the R̥ gveda), but this word is used also for the stony place where the sun has to go during the night, as shown by Franciscus B. J. Kuiper190 with reference to R̥v. 7,88,2: svàr yád áśmann adhipā́ u ándho […] “when the sun (is) in the rock and darkness is master”.191 In this respect, also, the Avestan syntagmatic sequence asmanəm xvanuuaṇtəm, “the 186

See Durante 1976: 59-60, an in particular the n. 15. With regard to the Iranian world, I must observe that Bailey (1971: 124-125) was not wrong when he remarked that a relation between Avestan asman- and asan-, even despite potential etymological difficulties (which can be reasonably resolved, as shown in the following note), did not produce any serious problem in a synchronic speaker, because the two words were in any case presumed to be mutually related. 187 For the Av. stem asman-/ašn-, see the gen. ašnō, the outcome of which can be easily explained in the light of Ved. áśmā, gen. áśnaḥ < *h2éḱ-mōn, * h2(e)ḱ-mn-ós. This declension shows an old amphidynamic Ablaut pattern. On some further Vedic derivative stems like aśani-, cf. Malzahn 2016: 200 (and notes 44 and 49); see also Nussbaum (2010: 269), whose treatment of the particular structure of this stem can be quoted in extenso: “As is well known, RV nom. sg. áśmā, acc. áśman, and loc. áśman(i) (plus inst. pl. áśmabhiḥ) have beside them not only regular-looking oblique case forms like inst. sg. áśmanā etc., but also inst. sg. áśnā and gen.-abl. sg. áśnaḥ with descriptively missing -m-. This is matched, furthermore, in Iranian, where YAv. nom. sg. asma ‘stone; heaven’, acc. sg. asmanəm (OP asmānam) has a frequently attested gen. ašnō”. In n. 3 (ibidem), Nussbaum remarks: “In Avestan, unlike Vedic, the m-less oblique has served as the basis for the back-formation of a number of nom. and acc. forms in asān- and asan-. So, e.g., already GAv. asənō (nom. pl. used as acc.) Y. 35.5.” Nussbaum again explains these forms in the framework of the theory developed by Johannes Schmidt in a work (1895: 87-159), where he discussed the PIE -Cmn- sequences, and the conditions under which these were reduced to -Cn- or -Cm-. For the Avestan occurrences, see Bartholomae 1906: 207-208, sub asan-, m. The connection of a Proto-Germanic form like *hemena- < *ḱemen-o-, in its turn built on *(h2)kmen-, is doubtful. See West 2007: 342, n. 7; cf. Reichelt 1913: 23-25. 188 Gharib 2004: 355, entry n. 8813. 189 Mayrhofer 1992 [EWA], I: 137-138. 190 Kuiper 1964, passim. 191 Jamison – Brereton 2014: II: 995. Cf. also Lazzeroni 1973: 110.

60

Antonio Panaino

sunny heaven,” would be derived from an older pattern meaning, “the rock where the (nocturnal) sun stays.” N.B. Av. asnuuaṇt-, m., alone, is also the name of a mountain,192 while asmō.xvanuuaṇt-, m.,193 is the proper name of a pious Zoroastrian in the Avesta.194 Schwartz195 has rightly focused on the evidence that Avestan asman- originally meant “stone,” and traces of this earlier meaning are still to be found in the Avesta. The word is used in Vidēvdād 14.10 to describe the material out of which a mortar is made, and in Yasht 17.20 we have asmankatō.masah-, “a stone as big as a house,” as metaphor for the Ahuna Vairya prayer with which Zoroaster lays low the Devil. In a similar context (in Vidēvdād 19.4), we find asan- katō.masah-, but with asmanreplaced by the common word asan-, which is cognate but used only for “stone.” I must remark that the exact Pahlavi translation of the Avestan compound katō.masah-, i.e. kadag-masāy, “having the size of a room,” is used as a technical term to distinguish the “magnitude” of the stars in Bundahišn II,16.196 If Gr. ἄκμων (“anvil,” “meteor,” “heaven”) 197 has become a personification of the sky,198 because it was openly connected with Uranus or with other celestial beings199 it certainly assumed the value of “meteorite” or of “thunder” in close connection with the celestial space. Actually, the association with a meteoric stone, and its relation with οὐρανός, show the complexity of the problem and the plausibility of an older metaphoric association that was at least shared in the GreekIranian domain. The well-attested meaning of “anvil,” for its part, 192

Bartholomae 1904: 220. Bartholomae 1904: 221. 194 Mayrhofer 1977: 1/22. Very interestingly, the compiler of the list of Yašt 19,96, wrote not only asmō.xvanuuaṇt- (in the genitive form: asmō.xvanuuaṇtō), but also registered the variant ašmō.xvanuuaṇt-, m. (gen. ašnō.xvanuuatō). 195 See Schwartz 1986: 642. 196 See Panaino 2004a: 273. Cf. Henning 1942: 233-234. 197 Beekes 2010: 52-53; Chantraine 1999: 48; Frisk 1960, I: 54. 198 West (2007: 342-342) discusses the Earlier Greek poetic reference (Alcman and other authors) to ἄκμων as the father of Οὐρανός. Cf. also Reichelt 1913: 26-28, passim. 199 See Durante 1976: 59-60. A pertinent discussion is offered by Beckwith 1998 with remarks also on Mediaeval Greek sources. 193

The Ancient Iranian Cosmography and its Evolution

61

probably connected with the image of a “stone,” confirms this suspicion .200 Certainly, “stone” remains the only basic meaning for the BaltoSlavic inherited lexicon (see Lithuanian akmuõ [m.], Latvian akmens [m.].201 Russ. kámen [m.], etc. [from Balto-Slavic *(?)akmen-), and these semantics finds their correspondences in Iranian and Vedic traditions, so that an Indo-European *h2eḱ-men- should be plausibly postulated.202 Certainly, we observe that an Avestan metaphor (Yt. 13,3: asmanəm… yim mazdā˚ vaste vaŋhanəm stəhrpaēsaŋhəm mainiiu. tāštəm “the heaven that Ahura Mazdā takes on as a mantle star-decked and fashioned as the thought”)203 describes the heavens as Ahura Mazdā’s mantle engraved204 with (precious) stones (corresponding to his luminous stars),205 and that the association between stones and the celestial space, particularly the nocturnal one, is not at all devoid of logic, as sometimes has been presumed.206 The same observation can be made for the “belt” (aiβiiā˚ŋhana-, n.)207 of Ahura Mazdā (Y. 9,26; V. 200

West (2007: 342) recalls that “in Homeric formula the sky is of bronze (χάλκεος, πολύχαλκος) or iron (σιδήρεος).” 201 Derksen 2015: 220 (sub *kamy, m. “stone, rock”). Cf. also West 2007: 342-342, with reference to the Lithuanian formula Perkū́no akmuõ, i.e. “Perkunas’ stone” in order to call the “thunderstone.” See also Bjorvand – Lindeman 2007: 461-463; cf. Reichelt 1913: 56-57. On the phonetic difficulties due to the presence of the velar -k- in Lithuanian akmuõ, instead of the expected *ašmuõ, see Beckwith 1998: 94. 202 Maher 1973; Lühr 2000: 70. 203 About mainiiu.tašta-, see Panaino 2012b. 204 Schlerath (1990; cf. also Mayrhofer 1996: 169-170) has studied this image, showing that the sequence vaste vaŋhanəm stəhrpaēsaŋhəm of Yt. 13,3, can find a direct parallel in the Vedic figure vástrāṇi […] péśanāni vásāno, attested, for instance, in R̥ v. 10,1,6ab. This correspondence supports the reconstruction of an Indo-Iranian pattern such as *vas- *vastra- *paić-. For his part, Jackson (2002: 51-52) has shown that the sequence (stəhr-)paēsaŋhəm mainiiu.tāštəm also follows an inherited stylistic model like *paić- […] man-(as)- tacś-, thanks to the comparison with R̥ v. 3,60, and, in particular, the verse-line ápimśata […] mánasā nirátakṣata. Jackson suggests the existence of an archaic pattern for the common image of a deity dwelling in the sky, “who puts on (*vas-) the star-adorned (*star- *paić[a]-) vault of heaven as a garment (*vastra-),” and also insists on the earlier representation of this divine garment as “thought-fashioned or created by the spirit (*man-(as)*tacś-).” See also the discussion in Panaino 2012b. 205 Bartholomae 1904: 1606. 206 See Durante 1976: 59. 207 Bartholomae 1904: 98.

62

Antonio Panaino

18), which is equally stəhrpaēsaŋha- “star-decked” and mainiuu.tāšta-, “fashioned like the thought,” then intangible, at least from the human perspective. Certainly, Ahura Mazdā, Spəṇta Mainiiu and Asman receive some epithets that confirm and emphasize their “celestial” or “heavenly” role. We have seen before how the highest Zoroastrian god can use Asman as his mantle, and wear a belt that is full of stars. This belt inevitably evokes the one that encircles asmān in the Dādestān ī Dēnīg XXXVI,34-36.208 In particular, the paragraph XXXV, referring to the attack of the demonic army, states that these demons, trying to reach the Paradise (Garōdmān) of Ohrmazd, which was located in the uppermost heavens (here presented as abardom srišwardag, i.e. the uppermost third [of the universe]), stopped in front of the upper sky (abēzag asmān ī mayān srišwardag), literally the “pure sky of the middle third part.” This text offers the best source of direct comparison with respect to some Avestan statements: ānōh haspīhist ēstēd mēnōg-waxšīg ān ī band-drubuštīh kē-š harwisp bandān nigāh. awiš ī xwad ast wuzurg xwarrah kē-š harwisp bandān nigāh dēn [ī] abēzag [ī] guman-wizār brāzīhist bāmīg ud dūr-payrōg čiyōn ēbyānghan ī star-pēsīd ī mēnōgăn-tāšīd weh-dēn ī māzdēsnān ēdōn-iz brāzīd rōšnān ī purr-xwarrahān. “There had been laid down in (a state of) mental existence the fort of the knot, under whose watch all the bonds (stay). Over it, to whom it belongs the Great Xwarrah (Glory) (and) under whose watch all the bonds (stay), the pure and doubt-resolving Dēn (Religion) shines, brilliant, far-beaming like the (sacred) girdle, (which is) star-decked, mentally-fashioned, (i.e.) ‘the Good Religion of the Mazdeans’ (Weh-Dēn ī māzdēsnān). There (it) shines (with its) lights full of Glory.”

This girdle corresponds to the Dēn ī māzdēsnān, which, as we know from other Pahlavi texts, is nothing but a representation of the Milky

208

See the text and the translation edited by Jaafari-Dehagi 1998: 123-125.

The Ancient Iranian Cosmography and its Evolution

63

Way.209 The bonds belong to a model of the heavens in which all the astral bodies are moved by means of wind-ropes. In the Zoroastrian framework this system was developed in order to explain the retrogradation of the planets and to introduce a theological pattern concerning the divine domination of the planetary demons. Then, we may conclude that the heavens are part of the body of Ahura Mazdā, but that this part of the complex Zoroastrian celestial system is the one, which results untouchable to Ahreman (see below), whose action is limited to the terrestrial and atmospheric dimension and to the lower strata of the celestial structure (i.e., the heaven of the stars). For his part, the primordial mental force corresponding to Spəṇta Mainiiu wears (vaste) “the hardest stone” (xraoždištəng asə̄nō), according to a famous Gāθic passage (Y. 30,5). In this case, I agree with Bailey,210 who assumed that “the meaning of xraoždišta- ‘hardest’ seems unmistakable.” This passage was well understood in the Pahlavi commentary, where the stones were immediately connected with the “sky” (asmān).211 This statement is not isolated, and the sky, although made of metals, in general is associated with a kind of precious or semiprecious stone. Furthermore, and more pertinent for our reflection on the cosmic model of the heavens, Dādestān ī Dēnīg XC,212 clearly specifies that “the sky (asmān) is round (gird), wide (frax) and high (buland), and its interior is equally extended like an egg (xāyag-dēs),213 and it has visible brightness (gētīg rōšnīh), being stone (sag) of all stones (hamāg sagān) the hardest (saxttom) and most beautiful.” We must come back for a while to Dādestān ī Dēnīg XXXVI,1536,214 where we found a peculiar subdivision of the “sky” (asmān) in three thirds (DD. XXXVI,15: pad 3 srišwardag).215 This kind of fractional 209

See Henning 1942: 240-241 (= 1977, II: 106-197). Bailey 1971: 125. 211 Malandra – Ichaporia 2013: 33, 210. Cf. Bailey (1971: 126-127), who fittingly quotes a passage occurring in the Dēnkard IX,30,7 (Madan 1911, II: 829, 15-17), where a paraphrase of this Gāthic verse can be identified. Cf. West 1892: 242. 212 Bailey 1971: 127. 213 This image was already present in Yašt 13,2; see below. 214 See the text and the translation edited by Jaafari-Dehagi 1998: 116-125. 215 The description given by Bailey 1971: 141 is unclear. 210

64

Antonio Panaino

distinction is by itself thrilling, because it reminds us immediately of the pattern of the triplication of the earth enacted by Yima in the second chapter of the Widēwdād.216 In order to make the earth three times bigger than in origin, Yima enlarges it in the three following steps. The first of “one third” (aēuua θrišuua); the second time of “two thirds” (duua θrišuua), the third of “three thirds” (θribiiō θrišuuaēibiio).217 By means of this algorithm, the Iranian composer of the text was able to justify a ritual triplication of the same original dimension in three different moments. Furthermore, this kind of insistence on the triads is a frequent Mazdean pattern, as the one of the three standard commandments (“good thoughts,” “good words”, “good deeds”),218 which were connected with the first three celestial steps toward the Paradise, etc. In the present case, the three thirds of the asmān are so divided:

216

See Panaino 1997b; 2012a; 2013a, passim. My conjecture is supported by the fact that when Ahreman invaded the creation, he firstly came to one third of the earth, then to two thirds of it, and finally to the whole earth (see Bundahišn VII,1; Pakzad 2005: 118; Anklesaria 1956: 86-87); this proportion follows the one adopted by Yima in the second chapter of the Widēwdād in order to multiply the dimension of the earth. In particular Rezania (2017: 180-198, passim) offers a broader discussion on the cosmographic shape and geographic subdivision of the earth, also with reference to the performances played by Yima in his mythical cycle. On the cosmographic shape of the vara-, see again Rezania 2017: 207-224, with a discussion of the previous interpretations. 217 The presence in these Avestan occurrences of fractions expressed with numerator and denominator is very important, as the adoption of an “apparent fraction” as “three thirds”, a solution that was very rare in antiquity and that corresponds to a sophisticated elaboration in terms of abstraction. In these fractions, the suffix adopted for the denominator was not -ṷa- or -šuua-, as frequently stated. On the contrary, -šuua- was the ending of the locative plural, plus the postposition particle -āˇ, which at a certain point was grammatically normalized as a new suffix, and then declined as it happens in θribiiō θrišuuaēibiiō. See Panaino 1997b (with large bibliography on the subject and a general discussion of the mathematical problems connected with the fractional numeration). 218 On this pattern, see also the Ardā Wīrāz Nāmag; Bundahišn. XXVII,26; Mēnōg ī Xrad VII,8-12; Pahlavi Rewāyats to the Dādestān ī Dēnīg XXIII,13. On the arrangement attested in the Ardā Wīrāz Nāmag, in particular, see the more detailed discussion below.

The Ancient Iranian Cosmography and its Evolution

65

1) abardom srišwardag, “the uppermost third” of the heavens, is a stronghold where Garōdmān (the Paradise) is located; Ohrmazd and the Amahraspand are there. It seems to cover the space between the end of the station of the stars and the Paradise. Ahreman and his army cannot reach it (DD. XXXVI,16).219 2) mayān srišwardag, “the middle third part” of the heavens, is a sort of intermediate space, which includes the different levels of the stars, Moon and Sun, despite the fact that many earlier sources place them on three separate layers (DD. XXXVI,19-24).220 Furthermore, as the special place arranged for the battlefield against Ahreman, this cosmic area is the abode of the gētīg beings, in particular humanity. This “third,” despite the fact that it is usually named “middle,” is mentioned as the last one. 3) ērtom srišwardag, “the lowest third” of the heavens, is a prison, full of darkness and demons (DD. XXXVI,18).221 Its location is not so clear. Apparently, it should stay below the earth, as a sort of antiterra. This threefold division is isolated, and, in part, it clashes with other representations that we will soon analyze. What is very odd in this case is the fact that in the lowest level of the asmān we must also include the darkness, and an infernal dimension. As noted before, the reference to three thirds seems to be the fruit of speculation, although I cannot state in which period it was established. The possible resonance of Yašt 13,2, a stanza with a certain cosmographic importance, which also refers to the “thirds” of the earth, is rather interesting.

219

See the text and the translation edited by Jaafari-Dehagi 1998: 116-117. See the text and the translation edited by Jaafari-Dehagi 1998: 116-119. We are not compelled to assume that in this third the bodies there mentioned were just placed on a common layer, because they could belong to the same third, although placed on different superimposed strata. These details are ignored, and it is difficult to be very accurate with respect to the reconstruction of all the variants attested in the sources. 221 See the text and the translation edited by Jaafari-Dehagi 1998: 116-119. 220

66

Antonio Panaino

In this presentation of the data, we can list also the Avestan word for “firmament,” θβāṣ̌a-, n.222 (Pahl. spāš) from Old Iranian *θβarta- (cf. Skt. tvar- “to hurry”). so meaning, “he who hurries”; θβāṣ̌a- was probably a divinity of the entourage of the god Miθra, three times mentioned together with Zruvan, the god of infinite and limited times.223 Its complete identification with the Pahlavi spihr, suggested by Zaehner,224 becomes untenable after the previous considerations, but it might simply designate a particular manifestation of the heavenly “space” with reference to its apparent turning motion. Yet, any other inference is difficult because of a dramatic lack of textual data.225 In the Avestan literature, the sky is normally described as composed of three levels, in ascending order, i.e., the heaven of the stars, the heaven of the Moon and the heaven of the Sun. Upon the last one, the Endless (lit. “without beginning”) Lights (anaγra raocā˚ )226 and the Paradise, garō.nmāna- stay.

222

Bartholomae, 1904: 797-798. In this study, I cannot discuss again the importance on the Iranian doctrines concerning the concept of Eternal and Limited Time: on this subject, see Junker (1923), Benveniste (1929), Nyberg (1931a), Scheftelowitz (1926; 1929), Christensen (1931; 1944), von Wesendonk (1931), Schaeder (1941), Molé (1959) Zaehner (1955 = 1972), Bianchi (1958), Degani (1961; 1963; 2001), Scarcia (1979), Boyce (1957; 1982; 1990), Gnoli (1962; 1963; 1984), Shaked (1971; 1992), Gignoux (1999); Choksy 2005: 10011-10015; Patton 2009: 189-212; and, more recently, Rezania (2010) and de Jong (2014). See also Panaino 2016b; 2016c: 90-96; 2017c; 2017d; 2017e; 2017f. 224 Zaehner 1972: 89. 225 Thus, we can presume that the image of a turning sky implies that of a circular area, but we cannot postulate that also a solid representation as a sphere was implicitly meant. 226 In some Vedic texts, as noted by Lüders (1951: 66-71, 73-75; cf. also Rezania 2017: 169, n. 286), nā́ka- represents the “visible sky”, while rocaná- (to be obviously compared with raocā˚ anaγra) is the “invisible heaven”. I have also previously observed (Panaino 1995b: 214) that in few Indian sources like Śatapathabrāhmaṇa 9,6.3.6 and Br̥hadāraṇyakopaniṣad 3,6.1, the sequence Sun, Moon and stars is attested. 223

The Ancient Iranian Cosmography and its Evolution

67

This order is well known and widely attested (Y. 1,16;227 Y. 2,11; Y. 22,18; Yt. 10,145; Yt. 13,57; Vd. 11,1, 2,10; G. 3,6 etc.). Sometimes we only have the sequence, Moon, Sun and Endless Lights (Y. 71,9; Vd. 7,52; Vd. 11,1). Rarely, the normal order is reversed (Vd. 9,4), i.e., Sun, Moon, stars, probably because the three layers are listed starting from the highest to the lowest one. Formally, we could even speak of four, or, occasionally, of five heavens, but the basic system was threefold, at least with reference to what was really considered to be the visible part 227

In this passage, the raocā- anaγra- are also xvaδāta-, i.e. “which follow their own laws” (Bartholomae 1904: 1862). I prefer this translation to that of “self-created,” because in the Mazdean tradition, all the astral beings are creatures of God. Very fittingly, Shaki (1970: 303, n. 155) insists on the fact that in Vd. 2,40, the “Endless” lights, referred to as xvaδātaca raocā˚ , are also distinguished from the “transient Lights,” named stiδāta-ca, a syntagm translated in Pahlavi as gētīg rōšnīh “living (= material) light.” We must observe that this passage concerns a description of what is visible inside the vara- built up by Yima. If Bartholomae (1904: 1607) interpreted the hapax stiδāta as referring to what is “perishable,” thus subjected to the rules of the mixed world, Skjærvø (2008: 505) has suggested that the distinction was of a different nature: while the stiδāta- Lights would be connected with the duration of the world, the xvaδāta- ones were “established of themselves,” but this interpretation does not take into consideration the fact that all the Lights were placed by God, and that nothing is actually self-created outside of the action of Ohrmazd. See, also, the discussion by Goldman (2015: 199-201). I cannot exclude, as Shaki assumes (ibidem), that in the framework of Pahlavi philosophical literature, the Endless Lights were considered “increate,” and that the “all-embracing hypostasis called asar karp, which immediately suggests itself as a counterpart to the Platonic World of Forms or Ideas, is itself twofold or composed of two instruments […]. One is the Spirit of the Power of the Souls [vaxš], and the other the Spirit of the Power of Nature [čihr].” Shaki insists also on a number of Dēnkard passages concerning the role of the Endless Lights as a direct emanation of the Creator, but capable of emanating the Endless Form (asar karp) and other powers, which seem to generate the Firmament, defined as a wheel (rah). But this wheel corresponds to the “revolving heaven” (spaxš) and the sphere (spihr), in which the “congeneric luminaries, the Sun, the Moon and the stars are as generative (elements)”; cf. again Shaki 1970: 284-285; de Menasce 1973: 329-330; Zaehner 1972: 369; Dēnkard III,365; Madan 1911, I: 349-350; Dresden 1966: 268-269). However, Shaki (1970: 305, passim) underlines the correspondences with the Plotinian tradition and its emanatory system, an argument based on which it would be necessary to come back to in a future work. The idea of emanation seems to have been defined by means of a redetermination of the semantic family of baxt, baxtag, etc., where the basic meaning of “allotment,” “dispensation” has assumed a new force; on the semantic field cf. Panaino 2013b. See on this phenomenon Shaki 1970: 281, n. 29, and passim.

68

Antonio Panaino

of the sky.228 Equally, the direct connection between the ascension of the soul through the (first) three heavens in the afterlife judgment and the three commandments of the Zoroastrian faith (“good thoughts,” “good words,” “good deeds”)229 show the importance of this triadic scheme, which is frequently repeated in the Mazdean sources. This pattern has nothing to do with later planetary orders with seven layers and it is independent from this conceptualization of the heavens. The most archaic models of the universe, in fact, ignore the existence of the planets as distinguished astral bodies, because only stars, Moon and Sun are clearly mentioned. And, this is certain in Ancient Iran. This limit is no wonder. In fact, in some peripheral areas of the Greek speaking world, as late as the fourth century BCE, the real diversity of 228

In fact, nobody can deny that the stars, Moon and Sun (later also the planets when they were carefully distinguished from the stars) are visible with naked eyes. Windfuhr also (1983: 637, and n. 32 at p. 642) assumes that the “Infinite Lights” represent a different nocturnal luminary phenomenon of the sky (the Zodiacal light), which would be visible, but I am skeptical about this solution. 229 See the presentation of the three steps made by the soul ascending to the Paradise, as attested, e.g., in the Ardā Wīrāz Nāmag VII-IX (Gignoux 1984: 52-57; 161-162; Vahman 1986: 98-101, 196-197). The first one, connected with “good thoughts” (humat), was in the station of the stars (ō star pāyag); the second, associated with “good words” (hūxt), in the station of the Moon (ō māh pāyag); and finally, the third one (good deeds; huwaršt) in the station of the highest ones among the highest lights, which is explicitly associated with the light of the Sun (rōšnīh ī bālistān bālist […] kē-šān rōšnīh ō rōšnīh ī xwaršēd hōmanag būd). It is clear that in this third step we find an echo of the Yasna Haptaŋhāiti, because the definition of the Sun as the light, which is in the likeness of the highest one among the highest lights, is reminiscent of the contents of Y. 36,6. Cf. also Dādestān ī Mēnōg ī Xrad VII,9-12, XXX,1-2 (Goldman 2015: 46, n. 255). See, also, the pertinent discussion at the beginning of this chapter. A fourth step, directly to the station of the light of the Garōdmān (ō ān ī rōšn garōdmān), is also included (Ardā Wīrāz Nāmag 10; Gignoux 1984: 56-57; 162-163; Vahman 1986: 100-101, 197). Again, here, the “lights” are divided into two levels, one in connection with the Sun, and another with the Paradise. Considering the Old Avestan attestations, I cannot say that this pattern was simply later, but it could also represent an alternative model, or simply a different way to emphasize the role of the Sun. We must also note that in Yašt 3 (König 2016a: 133-136, 258-266, passim) the three steps and the three moral directions (humata-, hūxta- and huuarəšta-) lead directly to the Paradise (Garō. nmāna-). Already, according to the Avestan version of the Hāδōxt Nask 2,15, the fourth step leads directly into the Anaγra Raocā˚ (cf. Goldman 2015: 46-47; Piras 2000a: 54). Cf. also Windfuhr 1983: 634.

The Ancient Iranian Cosmography and its Evolution

69

the planets was ignored, as Vlastos230 has remarked upon the evidence that even in Plato’s Laws (821C), the Cretan interlocutor has no precise idea of them. The Endless Lights and the Paradise were just superimposed upon the threefold sky in order to locate the highest abode of Ahura Mazdā. This basic order, notwithstanding its astronomical absurdity, was the correct one, as the Rašn Yašt clearly confirms.231 In this (relatively) later Avestan text, in fact, the yazata- Rašnu (Yt. 12,9-37)232 travels among the seven Karšuuars (Yt. 12,9-15), ascends to the peak (Taēra) of mount Harā (Yt. 12,25), and progressively233 moves toward Vanaṇt (Vega [West];234 Yt. 12,26), Tištriia [Sirius; east];235 Yt. 12,27) and Haptōiriṇga 230

Vlastos 1975: 43-44, passim. See Bicknell 1970. Cf. Burkert 1972: 300-301. A most recent description of the subject is accessible in Jones 2007:161-19. 231 Panaino 2015: 242, 246. 232 See the new edition and translation of the Avestan text by Goldman 2015: 140206. Cf. also Windfuhr 1983. 233 The main stars mentioned in this hymn are presented again, sometimes with an order, slightly modified, in chapter XLIX (= XLVIII) of the Mēnōg ī Xrad. This is the case of the three groups of stars defined as afšciθra-, zəmasciθra-, and uruuarō. ciθra-, attested as stārag ī āb-čihrag, star ī urwar-čihrag, and gōspand-čihrag. It is peculiar that the second group, corresponding to the Avestan stars connected with the “earth,” does not find a proper translation in Pahlavi, where we find the stars having the “cattle-germs” (gōspand-čihrag), but placed in the third position. See West 1885: 90-93; Anklesaria 1913: 135. 234 About this divinity and his Avestan hymn, see Panaino 1989. 235 A special problem recently discussed by Rezania (2017: 162-168, passim) concerns the geographic and cosmographic location of the Vourukaṣˇa Sea, where part of the fight of the Star Sirius against the demon Apaoša takes place. Rezania tries to collect the best arguments in favor of a celestial dimension of this watery space, although there are also some passages pointing to a terrestrial identification. The problem is controversial, and in my opinion, difficult to solve. Probably, the role of this Sea in the framework of the myth of the liberation of the waters, played by Tištriia against the Pairikā Dužiiāiriiā and the other shooting stars of her army (literally the “starred-worms” stārō.kərəma-), has also involved the cycle summarized in the battle between Tištriia and Apaosǎ, which apparently has no special astral connotation. On the other hand, Rezania is right in focusing on some astral aspects of this Sea, which deserve further investigation. Very prudently, Goldman (2015: 39-40) has simply remarked that the attested sources do not offer sure grounds for a certain location of this ocean or sea, but that, in later times, surely in Bundahišn VIII,5, the Sea Frāxwkard was placed in the central continent (or kišwar) named Xwanirah.

70

Antonio Panaino

(Ursa Major ([north]; Yt. 12,28).236 Then, Rašnu rises to the heaven of the stars “having the shape of the water-drops” (afšciθra-; Yt. 12,29)237, to the heaven of the stars “having the shape (or ‘the germen’) of the earth” (zəmasciθra-; Yt. 12,30),238 to the heaven of the stars, “having the shape (or ‘the germen’) of the plants” (uruuarō.ciθra-; Yt. 12,31)239 and to the heaven of the stars of Incremental Mindfulness (spəṇtō. mainiiauua-; Yt. 12,32).240 Afterward, he ascends to the heaven of the Moon (māh-; Yt. 12,33)241 and to that of the Sun (huuar-; Yt. 12,34),242 then, to the “Endless Lights” (anaγra- raocah-; Yt. 12,35),243 to the “Best Existence” (ahu- vahišta-; Yt. 12,36)244 and to the Paradise, the “House of praise”245 (garō.nmāna-; Yt. 12,37).246 In this most important text, the lowest heaven, the heaven of the stars, is newly split up into other different levels. But this is probably an alternative development,247 a sort of variatio,248 based on a similar structure, whose origin and intriguing rationale we shall try to analyze more deeply in connection with some new subdivisions of the sky into five, six or also seven (if we include the “clouds”249 in our computation) heavens,250 as one 236

Cf. Goldman 2015: 183-186. See the discussion in Panaino 2005. Cf. Goldman 2015: 187-190. 238 Cf. Goldman 2015: 191. 239 See Panaino 2005: 814-815; Goldman 2015: 192. 240 Cf. Goldman 2015: 193. 241 Cf. Goldman 2015: 194. 242 Cf. Goldman 2015: 195.197. 243 Cf. Goldman 2015: 198-201. 244 Cf. Goldman 2015: 202. 245 But, according to Karl Hoffmann apud Kellens (1974: 28-29), “la demeure de l’accueil”; for the other hypotheses, see Kellens, ibidem, in n. 3. 246 Cf. Goldman 2015: 203-204. 247 Rezania (20: 172-174) proposes an interesting attempt at interpreting the cosmography of the Rašn Yašt, which is described as a “semifraktale Himmelshierarchie.” 248 See the previous considerations about the reception of Y. 36,6, discussed in this chapter. 249 This caveat is necessary in order to avoid confusions concerning the original place of the atmospheric level which was distinguished. See more below. 250 But, only in later Pahlavi sources, some of these layers were thought to be spherical; on the contrary, with regard to the Avestan period, there is no evidence supporting the adoption of this concept. 237

The Ancient Iranian Cosmography and its Evolution

71

Avestan fragment and the Iranian Bundahišn II,A28,10-ff., and III,7, give account. In brief, we can observe that the Rašn Yašt presents us with twelve different astral loci (i.e. “places”). In this phase of our discussion, I do not want to adopt any term that a priori might determine an (implicit) interpretation of the facts. Actually, we do not know if all of these loci mentioned in connection with the motion of Rašnu were superimposed, or, on the contrary, if some of them were placed exactly on the same level, but in a different direction. They are certainly twelve, and follow the description of the seven Karšuuars: the seven regions of the Earth, one central and the rest surrounding it (Yt. 12, 9-15);251 then, the three “Aquatic Features” (Yt. 12,16-19: the Vourukaṣ̌a Sea, the Saēna Tree, and the Raŋhā River;252 the three other generic “Terrestrial Features” (Yt. 12,20-22);253 and the three “Mountainous Features” (probably peaks; Harā, Hukairiia, and Haraitī), listed in Yt. 12,23-24. A clear graphic description of this list can be found in the recent edition of this hymn by Goldman.254 Then, the twelve celestial places, located in the heavenly dimension (I call them neither “spheres,” because in that period this concept was highly improbable in Iran, nor “layers” or “Stufe,” for the reasons already given above), were as follows: Seven referring to different kinds of stars; Two referring to the Luminaries (Moon and Sun); Three referring to the highest paradisiacal abode. 251

Goldman 2015: 35-39. Goldman 2015: 39-40. We must note that the text mentions the waters of the Raŋhā River (Yt. 12,18), and then the acme of Raŋhā again (Yt. 12,19). 253 These are the “borders of earth” (Yt. 12,20: karan-, m., “border”), the “middle of earth” (Yt. 12,21: vīmaiδiia-, n., “middle”; Bartholomae 1904: 1449), and “anywhere on earth” (Yt. 12,20: kauuacit̰, “anywhere”); Goldman 2015: 40-42, 166-169. I must remark that vīmaiδiia-, perhaps, means something more than “middle,” because this interpretation does not explain the presence and the function of the initial vī-. One possibility is to see there not just a reference to two extremely opposite sides (as in the case of karan-), but a description of the borders of the middle area. Skjærvø (2005: 315, n. 7; 2007: 106) suggested “border”, but see, again, Goldman 2015: 168, and n. 870. 254 See Goldman 2015: 36. 252

72

Antonio Panaino

The total sum of all the mentioned loci, starting with the seven continents of the earth and stopping with the Paradise, is of twentynine.

We can assume that the seven continents must stay on the same level, and that the list starts with a geographical motion of the god Rašnu around the earth.255 We must presume also the same condition for the three “Aquatic Features,”256 which concern the Raŋhā River (twice mentioned), and the Vourukaṣ̌a Sea. Here, the situation is much more complex, because these places are certainly located on the earth, although their symbolism presumably also had a celestial value.257 The three general “Terrestrial Features” just show that Rašnu’s motion was imagined as from the “edges” of the earth to its “middle,” and then to “anywhere.” In any case, we cannot immediately identify a sort of, strictly speaking, upward motion here. The three “Mountainous Features,”258 corresponding to mount Harā, mount Hukairiia, and the Peak of Haraitī, confirm the favor attributed to the triadic pattern, according to a model that we have previously found in the three “Terrestrial Features.” But their vertical shape also shows that the god’s motion is now certainly rising. We can also state that these three mountains (at least at the level of their peaks) refer to the atmospheric level, but in particular, we also must observe that at least two mountains have a clear astronomical relationship. Mount Hukairiia (in Pahlavi Hukar) is considered the peak around which the star Sadwēs259 rotates, according to Bundahišn XVII,18-19.260 255

See Goldman 2015: 37-39. Goldman 2015:39-40. See, also, Rezania 2017. 257 In this respect, the long discussion started by Rezania (2017) is absolutely fitting. The problem remains open in many respects because the sources are too contradictory, and in some cases we have difficulty distinguishing between a real geography and a speculative cosmography. Furthermore, we cannot exclude the existence of different interpretations already current among the ancient Iranian tribes. See more below. 258 Goldman 2015: 41-42. 259 About the astronomical identification of Av. Satauuaēsa, Pahlavi Sadwēs, with Deneb, α Cygni, see Panaino 2008a; 2011a. 260 See Goldman 2015: 41-42, who quotes Indian Bundahišn XXIV,17; cf. Pakzad 2005: 224. 256

The Ancient Iranian Cosmography and its Evolution

73

This star is certainly connected with the southern direction (sadwēs nēmrōz spāhbed)261 in the cosmic battle against the planetary demons as presented in the Pahlavi sources, but its importance was already well known in the Avestan framework, where it plays the role of one of the most important helpers of Tištriia in the myth of the liberation of the waters. For its part, the Peak of Haraitī (or taēra- haraiθiiā-) is expressly presented in the Rašn Yašt, stanza 25, as “the Peak of the lofty Haraitī around which my stars, the Moon and the Sun revolve” (taērəm haraiθiiā˚ bərəzō yat̰ mē aiβitō xuruuisiṇti starasca mā˚sca huuarəca).262 It is clear, as confirmed also in the Bundahišn VB,1-2,263 that this Peak plays the role of axis mundi, and that this Avestan tradition was well preserved in later sources (čiyōn gōwēd kū Tērag ī Harburz kē ān ī man xwaršēd ud māh stārag az pas abāz wardēd). The first of the three mountains to be mentioned in Yašt 12,23, i.e. harā- bərəzaitī, i.e. the “Lofty Harā” was considered the first peak (Yt. 19,1)264 of a round chain of a total of 2,244 mountains, which according to the Zamyād Yašt (Yt. 19,7)265, encircle the earth. In a few words, we have a round mountainous chain in which Harā is the most eminent peak around which there is no night and across which the Sun comes, 266 then a central mountain corresponding to Haraitī (with all the astral bodies rotating around it), and the golden Hukairiia, whose waters, belonging to the Arəduuī, pour down onto earth,267 and whose southern peak is connected with Sadwēs. Finally, we can discuss the level of the stars, where we find seven different references. Three correspond to Vanaṇt (Vega), Tištriia (Sirius) and the constellation Haptōiriṇga, i.e. Ursa Major. I do not see reasons for any supposition placing these stars on different celestial levels. Probably, with the exception of Haptōiriṇga, which is a circumpolar 261

Cf. Bundahišn II,6; Pakzad 2005: 89, and notes 89 and 90. But, according to the ms K20, we have sadwēs xwarāsān spāhbed. 262 Cf. Goldman 2015: 42, 179-182. 263 Pakzad 2005: 81; Goldman 2015: 42. 264 Hintze 1994: 66-70; 1994b 13; Humbach – Ichaporia 1998: 27, 63-66. 265 Hintze 1994: 89-90; 1994b 14; Humbach – Ichaporia 1998: 28, 80. 266 See Windfuhr 1983: 628. 267 See Windfuhr 1983: 628.

74

Antonio Panaino

constellation, thus always visible in northern latitudes, the stars were probably mentioned, as rightly already pointed out by Goldman, 268 because they rarely appear together in the sky. And, when it happens (usually in winter), they stay on the opposite sides of the horizon, while Sirius is starting its nocturnal rising on the eastern horizon at sunset, more or less simultaneously with Vega’s setting in the North East. Again, we find here a motion from the two opposite sides of the sky toward the center or the north. The following mention of the other three categories of stars, the ones which are named afšciθra-, zəmasciθra- and uruuarōciθra-, can be considered in two different ways: they either belong to a higher level of the heavens or they just must be connected with the already mentioned stars. We know that Tištriia was the chief of all the starred army, and that in this form of the myth, as it appears in the Tištar Yašt, all the stars were worshipped as afšciθra-, while Haftōring in the Bundahišn VII,2-3269 is classified as belonging to the group of the zamīg-čihr, which exactly corresponds to the Avestan compound zəmasciθra-. Although we do not know anything about the “nature” of Vanaṇt, neither from Avestan, nor from Pahlavi sources, we can only infer by exclusion that it should correspond to the group of the uruuarōciθra- stars. In this case, they are the symbolic representative of the three asterisms previously mentioned. Rezania270 however, is of the opinion that, due to the assumption that the lowest heaven is certainly the one of the stars, it must inevitably correspond to the level named afšciθra-, while the remaining two groups of stars, the zəmasciθra-s and uruuarōciθra-s, must constitute two superior layers. I do not see any special advantage in this extra complexity, as I do not find any argument supporting the statement that these three categories must compellingly represent three superimposed levels, while there is reasonable ground to establish a direct correspondence between the three asterisms Vanaṇt, Tištriia and Haptōiriṇga and the three following categories of stars. The scheme in which 268

Goldman 2015: 44. See also the discussion already in Panaino 1999b. Pakzad 2005: 118-119; Goldman 2015: 45. 270 Rezania 2017: 171-175; see also the two graphic schemes at p. 174 and 175. 269

The Ancient Iranian Cosmography and its Evolution

75

only the afšciθra- stars are mentioned after the reference to three of their most important asterisms, while the other two groups are anonymously left without any clarification, sounds peculiar. This text, on the contrary, insists on the use of symmetric patterns, as the reference to seven and three. The choice to consider these three asterisms (i.e. the two single mentioned stars and a constellation), all included under the denomination of afšciθra- as representing one single heaven, disentangles this pattern. I also cannot follow Rezania’s argument,271 when he assumes that the cosmographic model attested in the Rašn Yašt is not later than the standard one. The ancient Iranian cosmography was in continuous evolution. In my opinion, the Rašn Yašt develops the representation of the celestial geography in order to emphasize the motion of Rašnu, as a yazata- able to go everywhere in the universe, so moving horizontally or vertically. From a simple 271

Rezania 2017. 171. In the catalogue of the Yašts this text does not belong to the group of the so-called Great Yašts, although I have never stated that it was among the latest ones. Certainly, its formulary structure, full of repetitions and its kind of composition, places it in a phase later than that of the Frawardīn, Tištar, Mihr or Zamyād Yašts. In particular, my evaluation was given with respect especially to the Tištar Yašt, which contains a great amount of very old astral material, and whose structure cannot be considered contemporary with that of the Rašn Yašt. For instance, the creation of three categories of stars, afšciθra-, zəmasciθra- and uruuarōciθra-, without any mythological framework or textual reference, is just a later elaboration, and corresponds to the general trend, well attested in Iranian sources, of creating triads and esoteric multiples of the number three. On the other hand, we have no explication of the reason for which a group of stars should be connected with the earth or the plants, while the connection with the water (or as I as assume with “water’s drops”) has a clear and fitting explanation; the stars represent the cosmic order and bring waters in the form of rains against the falling stars, which bring famine. Of course, one can suppose that there were texts we have lost, but this multiplication of categories, done according to a triadic pattern, simply follows the basic principle of the triplication of an original single unit. There is also the possibility to associate these different kinds of stars with special constellations, but the Pahlavi traditions just indicate that single stars or already well denominated constellations were associated with them. In any case, although I still assume that they were associated with the previously mentioned asterisms, there is no argument to exclude a priori that somebody imagined them as a superimposed level despite the fact that this construction becomes too intricate. For instance, the mention of the constellation Haptōiriṇga as the third one, can be just due to the fact that it is the northernmost one of the list, but also because it was circumpolar, so that it became higher than the others.→

76

Antonio Panaino

system in which we have three foundational levels, we observe a conflation of the atmospheric dimension and the explosion of the celestial one. We must also remark that the system attested in this text does not find any clear and corresponding description in other sources, in Avestan or in Pahlavi. Consequently, we cannot assume a priori the weight of its real diffusion and coherence, although it probably contains some innovations that endured with a certain success, as I will try to show soon. In particular, between the old Avestan and later Avestan phases, the new definition of the importance attributed to the difference between eternal and limited time,272 in connection with the millenarian or chiliadic patterns and with the idea of the beginning of the astral motion due to the action played by the Frauuaṣ̌is as a strong reaction against the invasion of Aŋra Maniiu,273 produced a → In this case, any sharp distinction is difficult, because all these possibilities are potentially valid. On the other hand, we can assume that in the correspondence of the seven kiršwars of the earth, we can postulate seven different astral loci in the heaven of the stars as well. Coming back to a strictly linguistic consideration, Goldman (2015: 7-8) has collected all the fitting arguments showing that, despite the fact that we cannot discharge the Rašn Yašt as a text devoid of interest, as sometimes happened in the past according to some inadequate stylistic criteria, it presents a number of later phenomena, like the collapse of the nominal system, patently visible in the frequent use of the dative instead of the genitive, the use of upa with nominative, etc. In particular, I must insist on the fact that all the stanzas in which such a peculiar construction (upa with nominative) occurs (a construction that clearly confirms the fact that the composition of these portions of text came later and was based on an imitation of earlier patterns, but without a fluent and current mastery of the Avestan declination), are those concerning the constellation Haptōiriṇga, the afšciθra-stars, the zəmasciθra-stars, and the uruuarō.ciθra-stars (Yt. 12,28,29,30,31,32). In this respect, the cosmology presented in this text cannot be a priori considered of the same age of the one attested in the Tištar Yašt, and the suspicion that here we are dealing with a triplication of the lowest heavenly starred layer, becomes a reasonably sound hypothesis. We cannot but conclude that the final compositional shape of the Rašn Yašt seems to be later (with respect to some other Young Avestan hymnological sources), although it probably contains a lot of earlier material. The problem is, of course, in the discrimination of these different linguistic strata. Furthermore, it is also necessary to consider that the formal arrangement of this text presents some peculiarities (as underlined by Goldman 2015: 5-6) with respect to the standard structure of the Avestan hymnology. 272 See Kellens 2000; 2009; Panaino 2003; 2017c. On the action played by the Frauuaṣˇis, see also Windfuhr 1983: 637-638. 273 Panaino 2017c.

The Ancient Iranian Cosmography and its Evolution

77

radical change, in which the whole role of the astral beings assumed a highly strategic value. Coming back to the uranography of the Rašn Yašt, I must insist on the fact, as already pointed out by previous scholars,274 that the seventh group of stars, i.e. that of the stārō spəṇtō.mainiiauua- (i.e. the “stars belonging to Spəṇta Mainiiu”), must be considered to be the earliest prototype of the Pahlavi spihr ī a-gumēzišnīh, which we will find in the cosmography of the Bundahišn. This celestial layer is technically defined as the “Sphere above the sphere,” and was exactly placed above the sphere of the fixed stars (spihr ī axtarān). We can eventually discuss whether the three groups of stars classified as afšciθra-, zəmasciθraand uruuarōciθra- belong to this higher (and uncontaminated) level, a solution that I do not assume to be plausible, because the “watery stars” already take part in the battle against the planetary demons, so that they patently fight in a mixed and polluted dimension. In favor of this second solution there is the already emphasized evidence that, also in the Pahlavi uranography, the sphere of the fixed stars is the one where the conflict with the planetary demons takes place, and where the interferences with the atmospheric phenomena are possible, while the spihr ī a-gumēzišnīh (Bundahišn II,11)275 is the one left out of the “mixture” (gumēzišn) with the evil forces of Ahreman. As we will see below more in detail, this superior sphere resisted against the direct attack attempted by Ahreman to pierce the higher heaven, so that it remained pure and uncontaminated. This was certainly an important element in the process of construction of the Iranian celestial cosmography, because it shows a later evolution, in which the simple heaven of the stars was divided into two main levels, in which one (with all its internal subdivisions) is a battlefield, while a higher layer was considered to be untouchable and pure. The attribution of this stratum, which only in Pahlavi texts became a proper sphere (although with some inevitable contradictions emerging from the geometrical shape of a sort of spherical homocentric model), to a 274 275

See Windfuhr 1983: 629; Goldman 2015; 45-46. Cf. Rezania 2017: 172-175. Pakzad 2005: 39; cf. Henning 1942: 232-233.

78

Antonio Panaino

divine personality like that of Spəṇta Mainiiu is of highest importance. In fact, it shows the theological prominence attributed to its function in the strategy of defense of the celestial abode of Ahura Mazdā, but also develops some astral characters unique to Spəṇta Mainiiu, who was given with “the hardest stone” (xraoždištəng asə̄nō), according to Y. 30,5. An older isolated reference now assumes a different weight. The elaboration of the heaven of the stars of Spəṇta Mainiiu in order to represent a special heaven, intangible with respect to Ahreman’s invasion, as a sort of cosmic barrier, not only finds its theological explication in the role of the good primordial “twin” as an antidemoniac force par excellence, but sheds new light on the rationale behind the cosmographic list of the Rašn Yašt. It is difficult to avoid the suspicion that a functional connection was placed behind the choice to arrange twelve celestial loci, in particular, the seventh one, that of the spəṇtō.mainiiauua- stars (Yt. 12,32), marking the beginning of the uncontaminated area of the superior heaven, and the development of the Mazdean millenarianism. If six millennia mark the period of the gumēzišn, they are functionally linked with the six initial places of Rašnu’s travel in the areas where the battle with the devilish antagonist is possible; when he finally enters the free zone, starting with the barrier of the spəṇtō.mainiiauua- stars, he can move to the Paradise in a pure dimension. This space is the one out of the mixture. Its six loci represent the first six millennia of the divine creation, and the area in which the prominent yazatas can enter or exit according to their needs, in harmony with a doctrine that is also attested in the Tištar and Mihr Yašts.276 With this reference to the number twelve we find an explicit simile with the space of the conflict, but also with the time of its duration. This distinction is of lesser relevance for the yazatas, who have the power to transcend human time, and can move into the time of God, which is qualitatively different. In this respect, the Rašn Yašt is a text 276

See again Kellens 2000; 2009; Panaino 2003; 2017c. The reference to the number twelve could be also connected with the twelve cosmic months and then with the relative constellations, although we do not know whether at the time of the introduction of this scheme the Babylonian Zodiac was fully developed (and if the Iranian people already had knowledge of it).

The Ancient Iranian Cosmography and its Evolution

79

given with a deep speculative insight. In any case, the complexity of this cosmographic model is isolated, because we find other sources in which the uranographic structure is simpler. We can start with a most interesting Avestan fragment, whose Vorlage is ascribed to the original Hāδōxt Nask,277 but which is preserved in an additional Parsi text belonging to a missing part of the Gizistag Abāliš278 and also in the framework of a (fragmentary) Pahlavi text (published by Jamasp-Asana),279 where the same Avestan sentence is followed by a Pahlavi translation. This source gives the following stations in ascending order. The Avestan text follows the editorial reconstruction suggested by Bartholomae280 with few changes. The meaning of a peculiar Avestan word like mānō, “cloud,” has been explained after the Pahlavi translation (abr-pāyag) of the fragment, not known by Bartholomae,281 as already remarked by Henning (1942): (Avestan) +žnu.bərəzō nərə.bərəzō +gairi.bərəzō mānō stārō maŋhō huuarō anaγra +raocā˚ (Pahlavi) zānūg-bālāy mard-bālāy gar-bālāy abr-pāyag stārag-pāyag māh-pāyag xwaršēd-pāyag ān ī asar ī rōšn ī xwa-dād. (New Persian) zānū bālā mard bālā kūh bālā setāra-pāya māh-pāya xuršēd-pāya anagr rōšan. (Av.) “(of) the height of a knee, (of) the height of a man, (of) the 277

But this is not attested in the survived text titled Hādōxt Nask. See now Piras 2000a. This list of astral layers (to which Henning 1942: 239 = 1971, II: 105, made direct reference, although the page is wrong: 72, not 172) was firstly edited thanks to a chapter taken from a Pārsi manuscript, but belonging to the same tradition of the Gizistag Abāliš. The Avestan fragment with a Persian text was appended to the notes of the text of the Gizistag Abāliš in the edition of Barthelemy 1887: 55-56. Its Vorlage, in any case, is attributed to the tradition of the Hādōxt Nask. Note that Barthelemy (1887: 56) gave a French translation of the whole passage, but omitted (without remarks) the absence of any translation for Avestan mānō. 279 1913: 72. The same manuscript has been transcribed and translated (in New Persian) by M. jr. Jamasp-Asana 1992: 72. 280 Bartholomae 1904: 514, 1168, 1170, 1712, 1847. 281 Bartholomae 1905: 1168, mānō is without translation. Bartholomae (in the note) remarks that the Persian text does not give a translation for it, but also wonders whether New Persian paya “station” can be connected with it. 278

80

Antonio Panaino

height of a mountain, (of) the clouds, the stars, the Moon, the Sun, the Endless Lights.” (Pahl.) “the height of a knee, the height of a man, the height of a mountain, the station of the clouds, the station of the stars, the station of the Moon, the station of the Sun, (and) the one of the Endless Lights following their own law.” (N.Pers.) “the height of a knee, the height of a man, the height of a mountain, the station of the stars, the station of the Moon, the station of the Sun, the station of the Endless Lights.”

The Persian text, accompanying the Avestan fragment, states that the matter concerns the garōtmān-i mān-i hūrmazd, i.e. the “Paradise, which is the house of Hūrmazd”; the text is clearly interrupted and its grammar peculiar, but in any case it still preserves a late memory of the original cosmographical scheme. This text confirms the traditional pattern with the sequence of the stars, Moon, Sun and “Endless Lights,” in connection with the Paradise. Very interestingly, the level282 of the “clouds,” which should belong to a separate atmospheric layer (probably together with the different peaks of the mountains, as it seems to happen in the Rašn Yašt),283 is mentioned with the same formula adopted for the following layers, so that, apparently, from the formal point of view with regard to the way in which this source presented the ascending motion of the soul, it seems that the celestial levels were listed as five, properly. Of course, from the general point of view, this was not the real case,

282

As we will see, it is difficult to affirm that, e.g., the level of the stars was considered to belong to a spherical model in the Avestan text, because such an interpretation would probably be anachronistic. The case would be different for the Pahlavi and the Persian texts. 283 See Goldman 2015: 41-42; Rezania (2017: 176-180) offers a detailed and important discussion on the cosmographic role of the mountains. On this subject, Windfuhr (1983: 629-630, passim) proposed different solutions, worth considering from the point of view of the history of the debate.

The Ancient Iranian Cosmography and its Evolution

81

but the pattern of this list is certainly peculiar.284 Clearly Bundahišn IIA describes the sky on new astronomical grounds. Now it seems to be spherical, although we must discuss some theoretical problems; the lower sphere (spihr) is that of the fixed stars, i.e., the zodiacal circle, with the twelve constellations plus other extra-zodiacal stars. Tištar is the general of the East, Sadwēs of the South, Wanand of the West, Haftōring of the North, and Mēx ī Gāh (Polaris) the General of the generals.285 Another sphere is placed on the top of the first one; this is the higher sphere of the “Unmixable stars” (awēšān starān ī agumēzišnīh), whose General is the Tyche (Xwarrah or Farreh) of the Good Religion. In this case, we have, respectively, the galactic sphere and the Milky Way.286 Over this sphere, the Moon (māh) and the Sun (xwaršēd) are appointed, and above the Sun we find the Throne (gāh) of the Amahraspand in contact with the Endless Light (asar rōšnīh) and the superb Throne (gāh) of Ohrmazd. Between the

284

In this way, I desire to answer to some critical remarks correctly pointed out by Rezania (2017: 171), who noted that the “clouds” must belong to the atmospheric level, so that they do not form a fifth celestial layer; but, we must also remark that in the process of the ascent of the soul to the Paradise we should expect a sequence like *mānō.bərəzō, while this fragment just lists the “clouds” together with the higher levels, and not with the previous one. In any case, this is not a serious problem, because these classifications are our attempt at establishing a rationale behind ancient patterns. In other words, if we emphasize the importance of the textual presentations, it seems that the “clouds” are the lowest celestial level; if we just consider the traditional function of the “clouds,” they belong to the intermediate space, although already in Old Avestan sources they can be considered, as we have already seen, an alternative designation of the heavens. What is important, in my opinion, is the way we try to focus on the different aspects of the problem. I would also like to remark that according to Bundahišn III,7-8, it was Ohrmazd who created seven heavenly stations in the likeness of himself plus the six Amahraspand (see below). This comparison simply shows that the pattern was not static, and that the current cosmography was subjected to adaptations and changes. 285 On this subdivision, see Panaino 1999b; on the concept of Pole, see Panaino 1995/96. 286 Henning, 1942: 239-240.

82

Antonio Panaino

earth and the (lower) sphere, the wind (way),287 the clouds (abr) and the lightning Fire (ātaxš ī wazišt) were placed by Ohrmazd. According to Ir.Bd. III,8,288 a similar model, but with important peculiarities, is described: seven stations are clearly listed, but the text begins referring only to six in order to compare them with the original six creations of Ohrmazd.

287

The atmosphere, to which the wind layer corresponds, is part of the ancient cosmographical models. In the Vedic system, it was antarikṣa-, i.e. the area placed between heaven and earth, or rajas-, n., (the watery region of mists and clouds, wind and rain), and sometimes it was divided into three other levels as well (see Kirfel 1920: 5, passim; Panaino 1995b). Actually, in several Vedic passages a more complex cosmology is developed, where there are nine levels, i.e., three heavens, three atmospheres, and three (superimposed) earths. Usually only two of the three atmospheres (rajas) are referenced, but sometimes there are references to three. We can observe, however, that also the Iranian cosmology probably also knows three levels of the atmosphere, if they are represented by mount Harā, mount Hukairiiā and the Taēra (Peak) of mount Haraitī, which Rašnu ascends step by step (Windfuhr 1983: 628-629; cf. also Reichelt 1913: 46-51). In the cosmic drama of the primordial fight between Ohrmazd and Ahreman, the wind also occupies the area between the kingdom of light and the darkness. This wind, corresponding to Way, is divided (see Bundahišn I,5, 44-45; Pakzad 2005: 6, 19) into two dimensions; one closer to the light, which is the “Good Wind” (Way ī weh), while the opposite one is the “Wicked Wind” (Way ī wattar), which is also associated with the demon Astwihād (in Bundahišn V,1; Pakzad 2005: 71). The Good Wind (ibidem) is connected with the act of creation, and is considered dagrand-xwadāy, “having a long dominion.” The present division of the role attributed to the ancient god Vaiiu, emphasizes the ambiguous characters of this divinity. In the framework of the philosophical sources of Late Antiquity and the early Middle Age periods, as the Dēnkard, way is also presented as one of the four cosmic elements or čahār zāhagān (“water” [āp], “fire” [ātaxš], “air” [way] and “earth” [gil]). Cf. Shaki 1970: 279, passim. We must recall that a simple triadic scheme with the sequence of earth, heaven and wind is already attested in a sentence, frequently repeated in the Yasna liturgy (I,16; 3,18, etc.) aiŋˊhā˚sca zəmō auuaiŋˊheca ašnō vātaheca aṣ̌aonō, “of this earth and that sky and of the pious wind”; Rezania (2017: 1629, who has rightly called general attention to this fact, also suggests that Niyāyišn I,8 contains a reference to a threefold sequence, there expressed with reference to Tištriia, Vanaṇt, Tištriiaēinī, Θβāṣ̌a, as representative of the heavenly layer, while Zruvan and Vāta would be connected with the atmospheric intermediate space. 288 Anklesaria 1908: 32-33; Anklesaria 1956: 38-39; Nyberg 1929: 230-231; Zaehner 1972: 322, 333-334.

The Ancient Iranian Cosmography and its Evolution

83

In fact, according to Bundahišn III,7-8,289 Ohrmazd has fashioned the heavens into seven levels or stations in the likeness of himself plus the six Amahraspand: first he made the cloud station (abr-pāyag); second the sphere of the fixed stars (spihr ī axtarān); third the unmixable stars (star ī a-gumēzišnīh); fourth the Paradise (Wahišt), where the Moon resides (ī māh pad ān pāyag ēstēd); fifth the Heaven, also called “Infinite Lights” (anagr ī rōšn), where the Sun resides (ī xwaršēd pad ān pāyag ēstēd); sixth the Thrones (gāh) of the Amahraspand; and seventh the Throne of Ohrmazd in the Endless Lights (asar-rōšnīh). These subdivisions are very strange, because the three older layers, the one of the Moon, the one of the Sun, and the one of the Infinite Lights (Av. Anaγra Raocā˚ ), have been respectively associated with that of Wahišt (fourth station; Paradise, instead of Garōdmān), that of the Infinite Lights (anagr ī rōšn), i.e. the fifth layer, and finally with the highest level, where the Throne of Ohrmazd is connected with the Endless Lights (asar-rōšnīh). Clearly, the layer usually attributed to Avestan Anaγra Raocā˚ has been split up into two different stations, one named anagr rōšn, the other named asar-rōšnīh.290

289 290

See Anklesaria 1956:38-39; Pakzad 2005: 45-46. Cf. Goldman 2015: 48. The same observation has been made by Goldman 2015: 48-49.

84

Antonio Panaino

In reality, there is no actual difference between them: anagr rōšn and asar-rōšnīh are, quite simply, synonyms.291

291

I insist again on the importance of this division and its background, as shown in some previous notes. With regard to the older structure of the Rašn Yašt, Rezania criticises (2017: 173, n. 298) Windfuhr (1983: 635) and me (Panaino 1985b: 208), for our attempts to associate the Vahišta ahu with the place where the Thrones of the Amahraspand could be located, on the statement that both passages of Vd. 19,32 and 36 (Redard 2010: 2-218, 229-233), demonstrate that Ahura Mazdā and the Aməṣ̌a Spəṇtas must stay together on the same level in the Garō.nmāna. The first of these two passages of the Widēwdād, simply mentions the golden Thrones (gātuuō zaraniiō.kərətō; Pahl. gāh ī zarrēn-kard) of Ahura Mazdā and of the Aməṣ̌a Spəṇtas followed by the other pious Mazdeans; the second one is more interesting, because it really places the maēθana-, i.e. the “abode” of all the highest Mazdean hierarchy in the Garō.nmāna, but it does not explicitly mention their thrones. But is this statement a real compelling argument against other traditions? In this chapter of the Widēwdād, the sequence of the astral places in the direction of the Paradise is completely different with respect to the one of the Rašn Yašt, and probably it does not follow an explicit pattern, as observed by Goldman (2015: 34). For its part, the passage of Bundahišn III is, for instance, patently different. There, the Amahraspand and Ohrmazd stay in two different levels, while the structure attested in the Rašn Yašt clearly presents by itself another tradition. Redard (2010: 230-231) has also observed the presence of some distinct traditions, for instance also in the case of the misuuan- gatu- (Pahl. hamešag-sūg gāh), “the mixed place” (Pahl. tr. “whose profit is permanent”), which is located on different levels, differing according to sources. But she has also noted that the order of the places mentioned in Vd. 19,36 presents some oddities. Coming back to the general discussion, just as a matter of exemplification, if there is a layer named as belonging to Spəṇta Mainiiu, can we imagine that this divinity was not there, although, according to Vd. 19,36, he should stay in Garō. nmāna?! I think that there is no need to be dogmatic in these matters, while we are frequently confronted with doctrinal varieties, or sometimes, simply in the presence of a longer or shorter presentation of the facts. While the Rašn Yašt offered a large conflation of the celestial material, the Widēwdād is very strict, but these divergences are all compatible, because the three layers of the Paradisiacal abode, i.e. in ascending order: Anaγra Raocā˚ , Vahišta Ahu, and Garō. nmāna, are nothing but an inner division of the Paradise itself. Thus, we can simply mention the Garō.nmāna insisting on its unity, or we can emphasize its different layers.

The Ancient Iranian Cosmography and its Evolution

85

We can list these stations occurring in the Pahlavi sources: (1) clouds (abr-pāyag); (2) firmament of stars (spihr ī axtarān); (3) unmixable stars (star ī agumēzišnīh); (4) Paradise (Wahišt) where the Moon (māh) resides; (5) Infinite Light [anagr ī rōšn] where the Sun (xwaršēd) resides; (6) the Throne (gāh) of the Amahraspand; (7) the Throne (gāh) of Ohrmazd where the Endless Light (asar rōšnīh) resides. This text shows that it was possible to double the level of the Infinite Lights, as we will see later. Chapter XLVI,7292 of the Pahlavi Rewāyats to the Dādestān ī Dēnīg also offers a numerical quantification of the distances among these stations with an interesting distribution of the layers: “The depth of (Mount) Harburz (is) much as the breadth of the earth. Around (is) Harburz as the foundation and its breadth is so much (also). Harburz and the earth (were formerly) in the star station in the direction of the sky. From the star station to the Moon station (is) 34,000 parasangs or more, from the Moon station to the Sun station 34,000 parasangs, from the sun station to the sky 34,000 parasangs, from the star station to here 34,000 parasangs, and from this place to the sky below 9,000 parasangs”.293 While Mount Harburz, as also explained in the Bundahišn 5B1-3,294 with its chains surrounds the Ērān-wēz (and implicitly all the liveable earth), its peak, which plays the role of an axis mundi, is the central point of orientation. There are 180 windows in the East and in the

292

Williams 1990, I: 162-163; II: 73. Bailey (1971: 136) states that the total distance makes in all 136,000 parasangs, but this is the distance of the four celestial layers without that between the stars station and the earth, which is 9,000 parasangs. In that case the total distance makes 145,000. On the parasangs as units of distance, cf. Henning 1942. 294 Pakzad 2005: 81-82. 293

86

Antonio Panaino

West, through which the luminaries and the stars rise and set. 295This text (cf. RDD. XLVI,6) presents a particular doctrine, which attributes the earth and its mountains a close physical connection with the star station. Practically, after Ahreman’s invasion, the whole earth would have been drawn down by the force of the devil with its circle of mountains.296 In any case, it is also clear that this peculiar source connects the earth and the Harburz with the station of the stars.297 Then, we find the sequence: stars – Moon – Sun, and again the sky (asmān) station, which probably concerns the higher level of the heavens, i.e. the area of the “Infinite lights,” but the text reverses the order and comes back to describe the distance between the lowest celestial station, that of the stars, and the ground (in the text “here”, Pahl. ēdar). This final part of the cosmic description is confused and inconsistent; we can only maintain that between the star station and the earth there are 9,000 other parasangs. I have discussed in details these models in other works;298 what is most pertinent here concerns the intercultural resonances appearing in these cosmographical schemes. If we can still see the presence of an earlier Indo-Iranian background, which, in any case, might have been already influenced by other remote cultural contacts, we cannot avoid observing at least two striking direct points of comparison: one with the Greek world and another with the Babylonian tradition. Already, Robert Eisler,299 Walter Burkert300 and Jacques Duchesne-Guillemin301 295

See MacKenzie 1964: 517, and the Figure 2 at p. 519; Bailey 1971:139; Panaino 1997a: 258-273. 296 This reference must be taken into serious consideration because it confirms the fact that Ahreman’s attack moved from the bottom of the heavens, not from top. See below. 297 This connection should be taken into consideration in the summarising of the data concerning the symbolic relations between the heavens and stones. 298 See, in particular, Panaino 1995b. Panaino 1996 deals with the related idea of the Peg of the Cosmos, and its distinction with respect to the so-called Pole Star, which was a later astronomical concept. 299 Eisler 1910. 300 Burkert 1963. 301 Duchesne-Guillemin 1956; 1962; 1966 (reprinted in Idem 1978).

The Ancient Iranian Cosmography and its Evolution

87

called upon the attention of Classicists and Orientalists regarding the Iranian-Greek parallels in the uranography of Anaximander of Miletus (VI sec. BCE),302 but also303 of Metrodorus of Chios (IV BCE), a disciple of Democritus, and of Crates (presumably the Theban Cynic; IV-III BCE), where the normal order of the celestial bodies was: stars, Moon, and Sun, as in the Avestan texts. See, in particular, Diels – Kranz 1989, I: 86, Fr. 12A18 (Colli 1992, II: 196, Fr. 11b [16 b]) - Aëtius II,15,6 (= Dox., Diels 1929: 345 a 7-12; Reale 2017: 190-191): Ἀναξίμανδρος καὶ Μητρόδωρος ὁ Χῖος καὶ Κράτης ἀνωτάτω μὲν πάντων τὸν ἥλιον τετάχθαι, μετ᾿ αὐτὸν δὲ τὴν σελήνην, ὑπὸ δὲ αὐτοὺς τὰ ἀπλανῆ τῶν ἄστρων καὶ τοὺς πλανήτας. 16,5 (Diels 355) Ἀναξίμανδρος ὑπὸ τῶν κύκλων καὶ τῶν σφαιρῶν ἐφ᾽ ὧν ἕκαστος [sc. ἀστήρ] βέβηκε φέρεσθαι [sc. τοὺς ἀστέρας]. “Anaximander and Metrodorus of Chios and Crates maintain that the Sun was posed in the highest position among all the astral bodies; after it the Moon, and beneath them the fixed stars and the planets. (16,5) Anaximander assumes that the stars are carried by circles and spheres where each one of them is placed.” 304

This description of the cosmic system is confirmed by other fragments (Diels – Kranz 1989, I: 84, Fr. 12A11; Colli 1992, II: 202, Fr. 11 [B 22]; Reale 2017: 184-185), the first from Hippolytus, Refutationes I,6,5:

302

See Vlastos 1975: 40-42. Dreyer (1953: 14) remarked that Anaximander’s cosmography shows that the care for the observation of the true celestial phenomena was very limited in antiquity. For a graphic reconstruction of the cosmic model suggested by Anaximander, see Plate 3, which follows Ekschmitt 1990: 25. Lanfranchi (2001: 161-162) assumes as very plausible the cultural influence of the Mesopotamian cosmic model on the Iranian one, and its impact on the Greek world (with reference also to Lanfranchi 2000). 303 Cf. Kahn 1960: 90, n. 2. 304 Kahn (1960:59) fittingly remarks that the statement according to which the movement of the heavenly bodies is due “to the circles and the spheres upon which each one is placed,” “implies a distinction between ἀστήρ and sphere which is meaningless within Anaximander’s system.”

88

Antonio Panaino

[…] εἶναι δὲ τὸν κύκλον τοῦ ἡλίου ἑπτακαιεικοσαπλασίονα 305 τῆς σελήνης, καὶ ἀνωτάτω μὲν εἶναι τὸν ἥλιον, *** κατωτάτω δὲ τοὺς τῶν ἀπλανῶν *** ἀστέρων κύκλους. “[…] The circle of the Sun is 27 times the size of the Moon ; the Sun is highest, and the circles306 of the fixed stars are lowest.”307

Then, we can compare another fragment preserved (Diels – Kranz 1989, I: 87, Fr. 12A21; Colli 1990, II: 184, 186, Fr. 11 [B 9] b) in Aëtius, II,20,1 (cf. Dox., Diels 1929: 348 a 3-9): Ἀναξίμανδρος (sc. τὸν ἥλιόν φησι) κύκλον εἶναι ὀκτωκαιεικοσαπλασίονα τῆς γῆς, ἀρματείωι τροχῶι παραπλήσιον, τὴν ἁψῖδα ἒχοντα κοίλην, πλήρη πυρός, κατά τι μέρος ἐκφαίνουσαν διὰ στομίου τὸ πῦρ ὥσπερ διὰ πρηστῆρος αὐλοῦ. καὶ τοῦτ᾽ εἶναι τὸν ἥλιον. “Anaximander (says that the Sun) is a circle 28 times308 the size of the earth, like a chariot wheel, with its felloe hollow and full of fire, and showing the fire at a certain point through an aperture as though through the nozzle of a bellows. And this is the Sun.”309

305

For this integration, see the critical apparatus; cf. Colli 19, II: 202, with reference to line 22. 306 I would like to remark that if κύκλος can be theoretically translated as “sphere,” and this solution is quite possible and frequently chosen in the case of later Greek authors (Kahn 1960: 89, n. 1), Kahn himself (1960: 88-89, 187) has shown that in Anaximander we must think of a “ring,” so that the layers of the heaven can also be figured to be a series of bands or zones. In the precise case of the dimension of the Sun and the Moon, the simplest solution is that this term refers to the circular dimension of their shape (for the Moon, at least when it is full), although in that case, Anaximander supposed that we just see the hole through which the fire can be observed. We know well that the original and basic meaning of κύκλος was, in fact, “wheel.” 307 See Kahn 1960: 61-63; Guthrie 1971: 93; Kirk – Raven – Schofield 1983: 134-135; Colli, 1992: 203. For the reasons above mentioned, the translation of κύκλους as “sfere” in Reale (2017: 185) remains questionable. 308 On this figure, see Kahn 1960: 62 with a summary of the different interpretations. 309 Cf. Kahn 1960: 58-59; Guthrie 1971: 93; Kirk – Raven – Schofield 1983: 135; Colli, 1992: 185, 187. Cf. Reale 2017, with a different interpretation of the text.

The Ancient Iranian Cosmography and its Evolution

89

Although Anaximander’s cosmographic model presents some innovations, as for instance the location of the Earth, probably slightly cylindrical or κυλινδροειδή (with its diameter three times its height, or, according to a different interpretation, its height three times its width),310 floating at the center of the universe without any support, it does not properly work with true spherical mechanisms, but still preserves some primitive characteristics. In this respect, we can observe, as already shown in a previous discussion, that the idea of “circle” does not necessarily imply that of “sphere,”311 which, as Sambursky also emphasizes,312 was not current in the Milesian School. For the present analysis it is also necessary to recall that it was Diels313 to suppose the presence in the (above quoted) fragment 12A11 (from Hippolytus) of a significant lacuna, in which the planets might also have been mentioned, but in this case they should be placed at the same distance from the earth.314 Nevertheless, their presence in this context is not determinant, in particular if we consider that the exact classification and distinction of these astral bodies was not very relevant for that period. Apparently, the structure of the world was mathematically established according to a numerical proportion: the size of the Sun and of the Earth is the same; the diameter (or the circumference)315 of the Sun-wheel (or ring) is twenty-seven times

310

See Naddaf 1998: 4. Although Diogenes Laertius (II,2) stated that Anaximander was the first to arrange a model of the celestial sphere, this statement is unclear, and its real implication cannot be determined a priori. In fact, it might have adopted the circles, as attested in the fragments, and not really spherical mechanisms. 312 Sambursky 1956: 12. 313 Cf. Diels – Kranz 1989: 84, in the critical apparatus, line 15. 314 On this problem, see Kahn 1960: 61; Kirk – Raven – Schofield 1983: 136. 315 The proportion, in any case, would be the same, as well demonstrated by Naddaf 1998: 9-14, passim, although this scholar concludes his considerations assuming that Anaximander was probably referring to the diameter. 311

90

Antonio Panaino

according to Aëtius (or twenty-eight according to Hippolytus)316 the size of the Earth, while the diameter (or circumference) of the Moonwheel is eighteen earth-diameters and the Star-wheels were probably317 nine (or ten) earth-diameters.318 In this way, three superimposed “rings” or “wheels” (κύκλοι) were shaped around the Earth, at the center of the universe, according to a proportional numerical pattern, whose base was three.319 According to Diels (1897: 231-237), the numerical and geometrical ratio should be represented as follows: nine (stars) – eighteen (Moon) – twenty-seven (Sun), and it could be connected with a numerological speculation of shamanistic origin about the number “three,” in order to arrange the Cosmos upward in 3 x 9 distinguished levels. The same ratio appears in the drum-shaped earth, its depth being a third of its diameter.320 Although the relevance of the triadic speculation is significant, the inference that it should be due to a shamanic influence is unnecessary and in my opinion even misleading.321 A comparable statement seems to be made also in Parmenides (V BCE; Diels – Kranz 1989, I: 224; Fr. 28A40a (cf. Dox., Diels 1929: 345 b, 14-18; Reale 2017: 470-471), via Aetius, II,15,7 but, according to Guthrie,322 this information could also be the fruit of a misunderstanding of the doxographer: Παρμενίδης πρῶτον μὲν τάττει τὸν Ἑῶιον, τὸν αὐτὸν δὲ νομιζόμενον 316

Rey (1933: 65) writes: «Si l’on remarque que dans le second texte il nous est dit que le soleil est égal à la terre, mais que son anneau est 27 fois plus grand, toute contradiction disparaît; 27 se rapporte à la circonférence intérieure de l’anneau, 28 à la circonférence extérieure. De même pour la lune. La cohérence semble hors de doute». But, cf. Kahn 1960: 59, 62. 317 It is, in fact, missing in the extant fragments. 318 See Guthrie 1971: 95-96; West 1971: 86, n. 3. 319 See the conclusions on this pattern by Naddaf 1998: 13-16. 320 See Rey 1933: 65-69; Kahn 1960: 55-56, 61-63, 76-84, 86-98; Kirk – Raven – Schofield 1983: 134. 321 I recall again that a similar idea occurs in the pattern adopted for the triplication of the earth performed by Yima, which is enlarged the first time of one third, the second time of two thirds, and the third time of three thirds, i.e. for a total amount of nine thirds (i.e. three). 322 Guthrie 1971: 95, n. 1.

The Ancient Iranian Cosmography and its Evolution

91

ὑπ᾿ αὐτοῦ καὶ Ἕσπερον, ἐν τῶι αἰθέρι· μεθ᾿ ὃν τὸν ἥλιον, ὑφ᾽ ὧι τοὺς ἐν τῶι πυρώδει ἀστέρας, ὅπερ οὐρανὸν καλεῖ. “Parmenides firstly puts the Morning (star, i.e. Venus), which he considers to be the same as Hesperos (i.e. the evening star), in the ether; after this the Sun, under which the stars in the fiery (region), that he calls Ouranos (i.e. sky).”323

In any case, Empedocles (V B.C.; Diels – Kranz, 1989, I: 292-293; Fr. 31A50), Leukippos (V BCE; Diels – Kranz, 1989, II: 71; Fr. 67A1, 33) and Metrodoros of Chios (Diels – Kranz 1989, II: 232; Fr. 70A9) also placed the Sun on a celestial level higher than that of the stars.324 Anaximenes, at about the second half of the sixth century, protested against this view, according to a fragment preserved in Hippolytus, Refutationes I,7,6; (cf. Colli 1992, II: 228-229, Fr. 12, 7 [B 13]); see Fr. 13A7 (Diels – Kranz, 1989, I: 92; Reale 2017: 204-205): τὰ δὲ ἂστρα μὴ θερμαίνειν διὰ τὸ μῆκος τῆς ἀποστάσεως. “the stars, however, – he said – do not heat because of (their) great distance (lit. because of the greatness of (their) distance)”.

The position of the stars nearer to the earth raises some problems, because, as Guthrie notes,325 it is contrary to later Greek astronomy.326 323

Cf. Laks – Most 2016:, II: 64. 65. Cf. Boll 1912: col. 2565; Bidez – Cumont 1938, II: 229-230, n. 2; Burkert 1963: 104, n. 21. 325 Guthrie 1971: 95. 326 Kahn (1960: 90) suggests that Anaximander, like all Greeks, “believed that fire tends upwards. The surge of flame towards heaven is, as it were, a fact of experience, and this view of the matter is confirmed for Anaximander by the mention of a sphere of flame which grows outside of – and hence above – the terrestrial ἀήρ. There would then be a general tendency for fire to collect more abundantly near the periphery of the heavens. If the stars provide such a little light, it must be because they contain a smaller proportion of fire and belong rather to the region of air.” But this correct statement does not exclude the connection with Oriental parallels, while the hypothesis assumed by Kahn (with reference to Duchesne-Guillemin 1965: 115), that the Iranian peoples could have been influenced by Anaximander’s model, neglects the Avestan data completely. See more below. 324

92

Antonio Panaino

Burnett327 and Kahn328 assumed that ἀήρ did not obscure the brighter but more distant bodies, and Dreyer329 supposed that in the time of Anaximander the astronomical observations were primitive, and the occultation of the bright stars was still unnoticed. It is more reliable that Anaximander’s cosmology was still speculative, as suggested by Kird – Raven – Schofield,330 and probably more interested in the discovery of a geometric harmony of the universe, that became basic for the development of Greek astronomy.331 As we have seen, Diels for Anaximander’s cosmology, but also Burkert332 and West333 for the Iranian order, suppose a shamanistic background.334 As in past studies, I still insist on the fact that this inference is completely unnecessary and ungrounded. Particularly with regard to Anaximander, it is far-fetched, and cannot be justified with the argument that he had imaged the astral bodies like holes in the sky. For instance, his doctrine does not present any serious reference to the idea of the soul’s ascension or of the so-called Himmelsreise,335 while we can find only a statement by Theodoretus (IV-V A.C.) on the fact that the ψυχή is “of an airy nature.”336 There is not sufficient material for a conclusion with such heavy implications. Is this cosmological model Iranian? I agree with Burkert337 and West,338 when they recall that the order of Stars – Moon – Sun is not Babylonian. But, these scholars339 were not far from a definitive solution when they remarked that the jasper heaven in Babylonian cosmology 327

Burkert 1930: 68. Kahn 1960: 90-91. 329 Dreyer 1953: 14. 330 Kird – Raven – Schofield 1983: 134. 331 Sambursky 1959: 14-16. 332 Burkert 1963: 110-111. 333 West 1971: 90. 334 A more detailed history of the problem and of the debate has been presented in Panaino 1995b. 335 Cf. Bousset 1901. 336 Kahn 1960: 71, 114. 337 Burkert 1963. But. cf. also Culianu 1983; Idem 1984. 338 West 1971: 91. 339 As Hölscher 1953. 328

The Ancient Iranian Cosmography and its Evolution

93

was the lowest of the three heavenly layers. Unfortunately, these scholars were not aware that clearer sources were at their disposal, so West continued to make unfitting reference to the three zones of Anu, Enlil and Ea, which are well known in Babylonian astronomy, but whose role is completely different, when directly compared with the Iranian and Anaximander models (Plates 3 and 4/5). Actually, we have other fitting sources340 about the three heavens: in a so-called “Mystical Miscellanea,”341 i.e. “a compilation of esoteric material,”342 a later work with respect to the Enūma Eliš, Marduk is given the most important position in the Pantheon by Anu and Enlil; he is attributed with the indispensable power with regard to the destinies of mankind. Originally, he was simply in the Esagila, the temple between Ešarra (probably the lowest sky according to Lambert’s explanation)343 and Apsû (the sweet underworld waters). In this non-literary text,344 we find the following description of the world (VAT 8917, obv. 30 – rev. 3):345 30 šamûú elûti(an.ta)ti na4lu-lu-da-ni-tú ša da-nim 300(5 UŠ) dí-gì-gì ina lìb-bi ú-š[e]-⌈šib⌉ 31 šamûú qablûti(murub4)ti na4sag-gil-mud ša dí-gì-gì be-lum ina libbi paramāḫi(bára.maḫ) ina lìb-⌈bi⌉ 32 i-na parakki(bára) na4uqnî(za.gìn) ú-šib GIŠ bu-ṣi- NA4 el-me-ši ina libbi ú-nam-mir 33 šamû⌈ú⌉ šaplûtu(ki.ta)meš na4aš-pu-u ša kakkabāni2 lu-ma-ši ša ilānimeš ina muḫḫi(ugu) e-ṣir 34 ⌈i-na libbi⌉ [dan]nat([ka]la.ga) erṣetitì elīti(an.⌈ta⌉) zi-qi-qu amēlūti(nam.lú.ùlulu) ina libbi ú-šar-bi-iṣ 340

See Meissner 1925: 108, with some references to previous editions in notes 1 and 2. 341 Livingstone 1989: 99. 342 Lambert 1972-75: 412a-b. 343 Lambert 1975: 57-58. 344 This version probably “consists of phrases apparently excerpted from a lost literary text,” according to Lambert 1972-75: 412b. 345 I follow the edition and translation by Horowitz 2011: 3-4, also considering Livingstone 1989: 82. This text was found in the home of an exorcist in Aššur; it belongs to the second part of the VII century BCE. Cf. Lanfranchi 2001: 152, n. 8.

94

Antonio Panaino

35 [ina libbi danna]t[kala.g]a) erṣetitì qab[lī]tu(mu[ru]b4)tu dea(DIŠ) abā(ad)-šú ina libbi ú-še-šib 36 [X X X X ] X si-ḫu ul ú-maš-ši 37 [ina libbi dannat(kala.ga) erṣetī]tì šaplītu(ki.ta)tú nēru(geš.u) d⌈a-nun⌉na-⌈ki⌉ ina lìb-bi e-ṣir 38 [ X X X X X X X ] BU MU XX [ X ina] ⌈lìb-bi na4⌉aš-pu-u 30 “The Upper Heavens are Luludānītu stone. They belong to Anu. He (i.e. Marduk) settled the 300 Igigū (gods) inside. 31 The Middle Heavens are Saggilmud stone. They belong to the Igīgū (gods). Bēl (i.e. Marduk) sat on the high throne within, 32 the lapis lazuli sanctuary. And made a lamp? of electrum shine inside (it). 33 The Lower Heavens are jasper. They belong to the stars. He drew the constellations of the gods on them. 34 In the … …. of the Upper Earth, he lay down the spirits of mankind. 35 [In the …] of the Middle earth, he settled Ea, his father. 36 […..] . He did not let the rebellion be forgotten. 37 [In the … of the Lowe]r earth, he shut inside 600 Anunnaki. 38 […….] … […. in]side jasper.”

A shorter text, but probably older (Old Babylonian and Kassite periods) and original, “because the extra lines of the long version plainly contradict it,”346 is contained in the astrological compendium K 250+ and duplicates347 (cf. AO 8196 iv 20-22): iv 20 iv 21 iv 22

346

[šamûú e]lûtutu4 na4lu-lu-da-ni-tu4 šá da-nim [šamûú] qablûtu(murub4)tu4 na4sag-gil-mud šá dígìgì ⌈ šamûú⌉ šaplûtutu4 na4aš-pú-ú šá kakkabānimeš

Lambert 1975: 59. Weidner 1959-60: 106, 110; Lambert 1975: 58; 1972-75: 412a-b; Livingstone 1986: 86. The text belongs to the late-Babylonian phase, ca VI-IC century BCE; its origin is unknown. The text and the translation edited here mainly follows Horowitz 2011: 4 and Livingstone 1998: 86.

347

The Ancient Iranian Cosmography and its Evolution

95

“The upper [heavens] are Lulludānītu stone, of Anu. The middle [heavens] are Saggilmud stone, of the Igīgū. The lower heavens are jasper, of the stars.”

Livingstone348 suggested that the different types of stones349 could represent the colors350 of the three heavens, but it is interesting to stress that as Marduk sits on his throne of lapis lazuli, surrounded by a light of electrum (elmešu), in the Book of Ezekiel, God sits above the heaven of firmament,351 i.e. the heaven of the stars, on a throne of lapis lazuli, surrounded by a gleam of amber, as well demonstrated in an important study by Peter Kingsley.352 I must also remark that Gebhard Selz353 has very fittingly emphasized the fact that already in Sumerian the word for lapis lazuli (ZA.GÌN) was the only one used for the “blue colour,” so that we may infer that a direct connection between the blue-sky and this semi-precious stone was introduced very early in the Mesopotamian framework. Furthermore, Wayne Horowitz had dedicated some very important pages to this cosmographic structure in his study on the Mesopotamian cosmic geography.354 In particular, 348

Livingstone 1986: 86, 88. Cf. Meissner 1925: 108; Thompson 1936: 75-76; 11-ff.; Weidner 1959-60: 110; Landsberger 1967: 154-155. 350 Livingstone 1986: 86. 351 See, also, Oppenheim 1981: 640-641, with reference to Exodus, XXIV,10; cf. also L’Orange 1953: 48-50. According to Genesis I,14-17, the Sun, the Moon and the stars are placed “in the firmament,” or beneath it, i.e. they seem to stay on the same level. The sky (rakia) or firmament (šamayim) is stretched above the earth; it is solid and resting on pillars; there are also waters above the firmament. The heaven above the waters is the “heaven of heavens,” the abode of God (cf. Jacobs 1975: 68-70). Then, the levels of the sky are three: (1) the heaven of heavens (or highest heaven); (2) the waters above the firmament; (3) the firmament (or sky), where the Sun, the Moon and the stars are positioned, or even four, if the last group was placed under the firmament as in an independent level. Cf. also Lanfranchi 2001: 154, n. 12. 352 Kingsley 1992: 339-342. 353 Selz 2014: 55. 354 Horowitz 2011: 3-15. See, also, the important study by Huxley 1997, which assumes the sphericity of the Babylonian system. In this system, apart from the three heavens, there are also three earths (upper, middle and lower), to which Marduk assigns men, Ea and the gods of the underworld. Livingstone 1986: 87-88. 349

96

Antonio Panaino

he has remarked that the attribution to the second heaven of the saggilmud-stone, whose appearance seems to be that of the lapis lazuli, implies that at least part of it was visible from the earth's surface,355 while the association of the Upper Heaven with the luludānītu-stone remains unclear.356 The Middle Heaven is particularly interesting because some sources (as KAR 307 31-32) place in it the cella of Bēl or his sanctuary. Something, probably a lamp of electrum,357 shines in this lapis lazuli building. Here the comparison with the gleam of amber of the Book of Ezekiel seems to be striking. The lowest Heaven was made of jasper (na4aš-pú-u), which is translucent358 (as also confirmed by Pliny, Historia Naturalis 37, 37, 115), in particular the Persian variant of this kind of stone. Horowitz359 fittingly observes that the Middle Heaven should have been visible through the lowest one, which was translucent and partly transparent, while there is no evidence that the saggilmud-stone was equally translucent. So while the pavement of the intermediate level was visible from the earth through the (translucent) jasper-lowest Heaven, the highest Heaven was visually inaccessible. Thus, the abodes of Anu, the Igīgū and Bēl (or Marduk), remained beyond the limits of human perception. With regard to these sources, Giovanni B. Lanfranchi360 remarks that the attribution of the highest heaven to Anu is due to the prominent role of this God in the Sumeric pantheon of the third millennium. Meanwhile, it is already with the Enūma eliš, in the second millennium, that Anu, surrounded by the Igīgū (to whom the second heaven is attributed in AO 8196, while according to VAT 8917 they stay on the highest one), transfers his power to Marduk. Lanfranchi361 also notes that the position of Marduk in the second heaven (at least according to VAT 8917) emphasizes the uranographic role of this divinity, who literally “drew the constellations

355

Horowitz 2011: 11. Horowitz 2011: 10. 357 Horowitz 2011: 12-13. 358 Horowitz 2011: 13-14. 359 Horowitz 2011: 13-15. 360 Lanfranchi 2001: 152-156, 157. 361 Lanfranchi 2001: 154-155. 356

The Ancient Iranian Cosmography and its Evolution

97

of the gods” on the third heaven. The verb chosen for this action is eṣēru, “to draw, engrave,” specifically used for the scribal performance.362 It is interesting to remark that in the later Iranian tradition, the substance (gōhr) of the heavens (asmān) was made of white and bright “crystal” (ābgēnāg),363 or of “male diamond,”364 Meanwhile, from the Endless Lights (Av. anaγra- raocah-, Pahl. asar-rōšnīh), which are placed on the fourth celestial level, in close connection with the Paradise of Ohrmazd, a material like “the ember of fire” (xward ī ataxš),365 pure in light, was created. Thus, the sky receives its light from the Sun.366 The reference to a celestial ember, in proximity to God, also in the Mazdean framework, is certainly worthy of comparison with the light shining in the celestial abode of the Mesopotamian and Jewish sources, as well. All the data at our disposal show an intricate ramification that cannot be the fruit of a pure coincidence. The hypothesis that the representation of the threefold sky was simply an original Iranian tract is no more tenable. This statement was acceptable until the emergence of Babylonian evidence that was not so clear. It is now reliable to think that the idea of a threefold division of the sky, originally attested in Mesopotamia, also influenced the Iranian view of the heavens, where it was reorganized according to the simple idea that by ascending through different levels the quality and quantity of light also had to

362

See Horowitz 2011: 14-15; Lanfranchi 2001: 154. See Pahlavi Rewāyats to the Dādestān ī Dēnīg XLVI,4 and XLVI,8 (Williams 1990, I: 160-163; II: 72-73); Dēnkard III,192 (Madan 1911, I: 206, 2-4; Dresden 1966: 160; cf. Bailey 1971: 133, and n. 2). For the etymology of this word and other connected problems, see again Bailey 1971: 129-135, passim. Cf. also Zaehner 1972: 136, 365; de Menasce 1973: 199. Chapter III, 192 of the Dēnkard is very interesting for the presence of the word zamanāg, which is specifically used for the period of the six millennia; the same word is adopted in chapter XXVII for the “colors of time” (zamānag rang). On this very interesting subject, see Gignoux 2002b: 121122. 364 The “sky” is in fact of the “substance of the male diamond” (gōhr ī almāst ī nar), as stated in Bundahišn IA,7: Pakzad 2005: 27. 365 See Pahlavi Rewāyats to the Dādestān ī Dēnīg XLVI,2: Williams 1990, I: 160-163; II: 72-73. 366 See Bailey 1971: 137. 363

98

Antonio Panaino

increase.367 In that way, if the brilliant stars occupy the lowest level,368 the luminous (but also disappearing) Moon stays in the intermediate heaven, while it is the Sun to beam in the highest level. Thus, we may say that the Iranian adaptation followed a theological idea based on the importance of light, which is absolutely coherent with its theological tradition. I must say that this process, probably more articulated and complex, was favored by some apparent similarities as the traditional trend in the Indo-Iranian cultural world to prefer triadic patterns, whose existence in the case of the cosmic model, was probably archaic and independent.

367

On this delicate subject I assume a prudent position, which needs to be explicitly formulated. In my opinion, on some subjects a circulation of ideas was current in the framework of the ancient Iranian world, and probably also in Northern India. As some themes directly connected with the myth of the star Sirius offer a great number of impressive resonances between Mesopotamia, India and Iran, in particular around the continuous references to the image of the arrow, of the archer or of the target of an arrow (see Panaino 1990a), equally I think that the progressive enlargement of the basically triadic scheme, “earth, atmosphere, sky,” was developed under the influence of prestigious models coming from the Babylonian world. On the other hand, these patterns were not just followed without a process or reinterpretation. Rather, they should have inspired or offered a comparative stimulus in the reorganization of the celestial space, according to a theological description of the increasing level of light in the ascent from the stars, via the Moon level, to the Sun and the Paradise of Ahura Mazdā. From my point of view, the location of the stars on the lowest heavenly level, a solution that goes against the natural observation of the visible facts, is the most impressive phenomenon pointing to a contamination from an external, Mesopotamian, influence. Cf. Rezania 2017: 169-170. 368 As noted by Lanfranchi (2001: 160-161, and n. 27), the role attributed to the Luminaries and the planets is not clear from the quoted Mesopotamian sources. The texts, in fact, make reference only to stars or constellations without any additional distinction, but a crude perception of the relative distances among them should have been conceived. The occultation of the planet Jupiter from the Moon, for instance, is explicitly mentioned in an astrological report of the year 676 BCE, with reference to the fact that the Moon was covering Jupiter (Hunger 1992: 438, 4), so that it is impossible that a basic knowledge of the relative distances was not known. The attested interpretation (in Mesopotamia and Iran, but also in Anaximander) of the facts answers a different way of analysing the problem, whose rationale escapes our present comprehension.

The Ancient Iranian Cosmography and its Evolution

99

With regard to the relations with the West, I must observe that Charles Kahn’s attempt369 at rejecting any Iranian influence on Anaximander’s cosmic system is completely unacceptable on methodological grounds. He simply discharged the weight of the problem ascribing the pertinent Iranian doctrines only to a later period. In fact, he restricted his reference to the post-Sasanian Bundahišn,370 proposing an opposite theory in which a Greek influence would have shaped the arrangement of the Mazdean cosmology of the Achaemenid period. Unfortunately, Kahn ignored (or desired to ignore) all of the Avestan evidence. It is a pity that this important problem was discussed just in a short note,371 without any serious consideration for the relevant number of indisputably ancient Iranian sources. It is not clear if the same Mesopotamian influence also involved the Indian uranography, as suggested by Willibald Kirfel,372 where, like in Iran, three heavens are known,373 but also three earths like in the Babylonian non-literary texts.374 The evidence of the Mesopotamian 369

See Kahn 1960: 90, n.1. In the note 1 of p. 90, Kahn simply quotes Zaehner 1972: 333, and Eisler 1910, I: 90, n. 3. Even more paradoxical is the quotation of Duchesne-Guillemin (1956) by Kahn, whose mention is given only in order to ensure the reader that the Bundahišn is a later work. On the contrary, all the pertinent Avestan data are not discussed, so that the refutation of the Iranian hypothesis is inevitably sound, although unilateral and idiosyncratic. 371 It is peculiar that the reference to Eisler’s note disregards the fact that the text of the German scholar occupies practically p. 91, too, where he mentioned also the Avestan Yašt to Rašnu, plus a number of additional Pahlavi sources. Eisler’s presentation of the Himmelsreise should have induced at least a suspicion in Kahn, who probably desired to eliminate this embarrassing problem. With regard to the intercultural relations between Iran and the Greek world, see the important observations in Degani 1961: 214-116, with respect to the concept of limited time and eternity. 372 Kirfel 1920: 31*. 373 This is as Kirfel already supposed (1920: 31*). It would be useful to know that Haudry (1987: 17) has supposed that the Indo-Europeans originally had three different heavens, one corresponding to that of the day, another nocturnal, and a third one crepuscular or auroral. This hypothesis is discussed and criticized by Vanséverin 1999: 133. 374 On the three earths, see the commentary of Livingstone 1986: 87-88. Cf. also Horowitz 2011: 16-19. 370

100

Antonio Panaino

origin of the threefold sky seems to be compelling for the Avestan framework, where the lowest heaven is that of the stars. But we have to consider that on the Iranian side the subdivision of the earth into three levels was not attested. It is possible that the Avestan model suffered a certain Mesopotamian influence, but not without mingling it with some conceptions belonging to an earlier Indo-Iranian heritage, as some unsystematic correspondences between Avestan and Vedic cosmology show. This statement is supported by a number of elements appearing in the cycle of the star Sirius,375 which was extremely significant in Iran. With this secondary (Iranian) development, probably, some philosophers of the Ionian school like Anaximander were well acquainted, and they adopted it. From the Iranian area, but, presumably, via a Babylonian mediation, the representation of the sky became widespread in many religious traditions. But the general criteria adopted by Anaximander in the description of his cosmic model show a new and independent re-elaboration based on a geometrical and rational attempt to describe the principia of our world. And this was a Greek development.

375

See Panaino 199a; 1995.

5. ORDER AND DISORDER IN THE SPHERICAL MODELS

5.1. Models We have previously anticipated the presence of a problem. In fact, although we have discussed the history of the Pahlavi word spihr, it is necessary to verify to which kind of celestial model it strictly makes reference. This is a sort of semantic screening never endorsed before for the present semantic area in Pahlavi sources. Thus, in this chapter we will try to verify the rationale behind the astral models adopted in late antique Iran, in particular under the Sasanians and later. This investigation will show that the Mazdean astronomers/ astrologers, while adopting a Ptolemaic spherical model, did not avoid the incorporation of earlier traditions, whose core was based on the presence of three (or multiple) layers of the sky (later eventually reshaped even into a seven levels system). The Mazdean model's organization followed different articulations. If we do not possess sources explicitly confirming the adoption of the idea of homocentric or simply concentric spheres, we can recognize the presence, at least, of

102

Antonio Panaino

two different spheres, one “galactic” and another one, “extragalactic.”376 This datum confirms the existence of a model in which one sphere was contained in the following one, etc. 377 For practical reasons it would be useful to start examining the astronomical material preserved in the second chapter of the Bundahišn in order to verify the real state of the Zoroastrian cosmography with regard to the concept of sphericity and its actual use:378 The text starts with the statement that Ohrmazd set between the sky and the earth the fixed stars (starān ī axtarīg), the wandering stars (ud ān-iz nē axtarīg; i.e. the planets), then the Moon and the Sun. This description is correct, but too simple, because in reality the planets entered the creation from outside during the attack of Ahreman. This introductory description permits us to conclude that the planets were considered as operating in the same sphere of the stars, against which they fight. Ohrmazd fashioned (brēhēnīd) the (celestial) sphere (spihr) and set (gumārd hēnd) on it the fixed stars (starān ī axtarīg; Bd. II,2), the twelve Zodiacal signs (simply referred to as the “twelve ones”; dwazdah) and the twenty-seven (or twenty-eight)379 lunar mansions (xwurdag). The constellations received the support of another 6,488,000 small stars (Bd. II,4). According to Bd. II,8, Ohrmazd established this sphere like the year: the twelve constellations fixed on it were directly compared with the twelve months of the year, and each constellation was attributed, as expected, thirty degrees, just as each month contains thirty days-and-nights (or nychthemera). Bd. II,10 openly states that Ohrmazd established the sphere of those stars like a spinning wheel

376

Henning 1942: 204 (= 1977, II= 106), preferred to define “galactic” as the higher sphere. In any case, I agree on the fact that this higher sphere included the Milky Way. 377 The presence of different and constrasting models in the Iranian world is well attested; for instance, the Manichaeans, as visible from the Sogdian manuscript M 178, arranged the cosmos into ten different Firmaments with a peculiar shape; each one has twelve Gates plus another four in connection with the cardinal points, but the structure is much more complex; see Henning 1948; cf. Panaino 1997a: 258-273. 378 Henning 1942; Anklesaria 1956: 30-37; Pakzad 2005: 34-42. 379 See the discussion in Belardi 1977: 121-136, passim.

Order and Disorder in the Spherical Models

103

(čahrag-ēwēnag), so that at the time of the “Mixture” (gumēzišn) it could start revolving. Until this step the model is certainly spherical. Then, (Bd. II,11) God fixed (winnārd) other, unmixable stars (awēšān starān ī a-gumēzišnīh) above these, so that, when the Adversary (i.e. Ahreman) came into creation, they repelled him in battle, keeping him away from carrying his pollution higher up. Ohrmazd also appointed the Glory (xwarrah) of the good (weh) Mazdean dēn as general over them; we know that this Xwarrah ī weh dēn ī māzdēsnān corresponds, as suggested by Henning,380 to the Milky Way.381 The text goes on (Bd. II,11), explaining that the reason for this particular denomination of “unmixable stars” (star ī a-gumēzīšnīh) is due to fact that Ahreman was unable to pollute them.382 This Pahlavi source (Bd. II,11) precisely clarifies that according to the astronomers (axtar-āmārān) this is “the sphere above the sphere” (spihr ī azabar spihr), which has no “reckoning” (hangārag) and “progression” (wihēz), because the sky-watchers cannot observe in these pure and uncontaminated astral bodies any characteristic of the mixed ones. The last sentence is intriguing, because the term wihēz- has been tentatively interpreted by Henning as “precession.” 383 But, also in this case, the postulate of a superior sphere without any progress or precession (or trepidation)384 implies that the higher (second) “Sphere above the Sphere” is a sort of level sharing some qualities with the Primum mobile and the

380

1942: 240-241 (1977, II: 106-197). Witzel (1998) has suggested that in Iran the “Milky Way” was associated with the Vedic celestial river and divinity Sarasvatī, corresponding to the Avestan goddess Anāhitā. 382 On this passage, see Pakzad 2005: 39; cf. Henning 1942: 240 = 1977, II: 107. Cf. Nyberg 1929: 298-300. 383 1942: 233, n. 1 (= 1977, II: 99, n. 1). 384 On the probable knowledge of the theory of the trepidation of the equinoxes in Sasanian and post-Sasanian astronomy, see Panaino 2018b. 381

104

Antonio Panaino

Empyreum,385 while the sphere of the stars resembles the Eight Sphere or the Sphere of the fixed stars. On this structure, which is completely spherical, at least in a generic sense, we find other levels, incompatible with a consistent astronomical model in condition to save the observation of the phenomena. In fact, Bd. II,12, declares that above the sphere of the unmixable stars, which should be immobile386 and untouched by the presence of Ahreman, Ohrmazd fashioned the Moon, and its celestial layer, then, above it, that (Bd. II,13) of the Sun. (14) The text specifies that God appointed the Sun and Moon as captains of the mixed (axtarān ī gumēzišnīg) and unmixed (a-gumēzišnīg) stars; furthermore, it is clearly stated that, “they are all bound to the Sun and Moon” (hamāg band ō xwaršēd ud māh). Above the Sun (Bd. II,15), Ohrmazd finally fashioned the Thrones (gāh) of the Amahraspand (the Beneficent Immortals), which are fastened to the Endless Light, where the Throne of Ohrmazd is located. In practice, there were six creations or layers, whose shape is not described, but we can reasonably infer that some of them were globular. This can be presumed for the higher stations of the two Luminaries, but it is unclear for those of the Infinite Lights, and in particular for Garōdmān. Theoretically, we could 385

I define it as “a sort” of Primum Mobile, because this sphere is moving in the Mediaeval systems, while here it is described as immobile (as the Empyreum), although this becomes impossible, because the Milky Way, which is placed in it, apparently moves. In reality, it corresponds to the heaven of the Infinite Lights, which was conceived as completely outside of a real astronomical motion, but this heaven has been placed before the Garōdmān. In the Mazdean system, in fact, only Garōdmān can actually correspond to the Empyreum. With regard to the distinction between the system developed by Ptolemy with a ninth sphere, which carries no star, and the previous ones, see the discussion in Philoponus, Against Proclus, 537,5-10 (in the translation by Wilberding 2006: 54). 386 The Sun, which occupied the highest level among the three celestial layers, was also immobile and stationary so that it was always noon. Only when Ahreman invaded the creation and broke the heavens, were the Sun also put into motion (Bailey 1971: 138). The 3rd book of the Dēnkard and other sources refer to a strange doctrine according to which the attack of the Druǰ put down the Sun of four digits, and every millennium starting with that in which Zaradušt was born, the Sun started to move up in order to reach the original position, This doctrine probably contains a theological adaptation of the theory of the trepidation of the equinoxes. For a detailed discussion of it, see Panaino 2018b.

Order and Disorder in the Spherical Models

105

also wonder whether, starting with the Moon, all these superior heavens were just superimposed one above the other. But the fact that the cosmic battle between the planets and the fixed stars also involves the role of the Sun and the Moon, as the presence of the “Dark Sun” (Mihr ī tamīg) and the “Dark Moon” (Māh ī tamīg) representing the two invisible planets, which justify the phenomenon of the eclipses,387 allows us to assume that some of these heavens were spherical. Of course, this observation does not imply that the system did not contain bold inconsistencies, and that in some respects it appeared astronomically absurd. Another argument supporting the sphericity of the universe can be deduced from the fact that the calculation of the planetary motions followed, as we have seen for the radius of Mercury’s epicycle, some numerical patterns of strict Ptolemaic derivation, which doubtless followed a spherical model, although with a number of complications. Very odd is the co-existence of a spherical model of Greek derivation and the traditional tripartite heavens, in which we see the Infinite Lights, and the Paradise of Ohrmazd. The Bundahišn II,16,388 just explains that these were, “the six stations of the six creations, corresponding to the six material creations” (ēn-iz ast šaš pāy ī šaš dahišn čiyon šaš dahišn ī gētīg). The division into seven layers would be obtained by means of the addition of the atmospheric level, placed between the earth and the sphere of the stars (as in Bd. II, 17),389 if we consider that the text insists on the fact that Tištar (and with him, implicitly, the “watery” stars) takes part in the natural phenomena and contributes to the distribution of the celestial waters to the earth. In any case, this possible sevenfold subdivision has nothing to do with the planetary spheres of the Greek world, and its classification remains

387

This was an Indian idea. In Sanskrit sources we can find references to the navagraha-, i.e. the “nine planets,” because this Indian list does not include only the five visible planets (plus the Sun and the Moon), but also Rāhu and Ketu, i.e. the two “dark” planets, considered responsible for the eclipses. 388 See Pakzad 2005: 40; Henning 1942: 233. 389 See Pakzad 2005: 40; cf. Henning 1942: 233.

106

Antonio Panaino

only a modern classificatory option.390 Much more peculiar is the fact that the cinematic model is strongly contradictory. If the sphere of the mixable stars is the one in which the battle takes place, it should be in direct contact not only with the planets, which in fact move on the same level, but also with that of the two Luminaries. The presence in between the sphere of the unmixable stars, which practically corresponds to a superb dimension, pure and immobile, completely destroys the rationale of the harmony of the spheres.391 In fact, the sphere of the unmixable stars could be taken, prima facie, as correspondent to the “Infinite Lights,” according to the Avestan cosmographical system, and then in close connection with the abode of the Amahraspand and of Ohrmazd. But the location of this second starred layer in an intermediate position between the heaven (or sphere) of the stars and that of the Moon completely disentangles the rationale of a spherical system, if perceived according to a sort of homocentric model (in which one sphere incorporates another one). In reality, the situation can be explained if we consider this cosmic model as a direct development of the level primitively attributed to the stars belonging to Spəṇta Mainiiu, the stārō spəṇtō.mainiiauua, in 390

In this respect, I do not reject Rezania’s observation (2017, passim) on the distinction between the atmospheric level and the heaven of the stars. I only insist on the fact that the basic tripartite division into earth, atmosphere and sky is, in its most simple realization, common to the Indo-Iranian domain; it is actually well documented in the earliest Indian sources, although later we also find a multiplication of the three essential layers, which even become nine, at least in some Sanskrit texts. See Kirfel 1920, passim; Lüders 195: 57-78, passim; Klaus 1986: 23-47. 391 On the concept of harmony of the spheres and astral immortality, see Burkert 1972: 350-368. It is useful to remember that Greek philosophy presented different possibilities with respect to the role of the First Heaven; as well stated by Duhem (1913, I: 81): “Tous les mouvements qui se produisent dans le Monde ont une ‘Cause première, un premier Moteur ; selon la Philosophie d’Aristote, ce premier Moteur sera immobile ; selon la Philosophie de Platon, ce premier Moteur est, en même temps, mobile, il se meut lui même, il est l’Ame du Monde ; les commentaires de Simplicius posent implicitement l’accord, en ce point, de la Métaphysique de Platon avec celle d’Archytas ; ils supposent, en la doctrine du pythagoricien de Tarente, l’affirmation d’une Ame mobile, principe de tous les mouvements qui se succèdent dans l’Univers”. Cf. also Moreau 1939: 69-80.

Order and Disorder in the Spherical Models

107

the Rašn Yašt. But the Avestan layers were not framed in a spherical system, and then their order did not produce particular contradictions, with the exception of the peculiar position of the stars in the lowest place. In the framework of a theologically traditional system, in which the spherical pattern was inconsistently introduced, we face many oddities. For instance, we should imagine that the bonds connecting the stars to the Sun and the Moon, but also the other ropes blocking the too irregular motion of the planetary demons (which are bound to the chariots of the Sun,392 according to Bd. V,A,8),393 must inevitably pass through the heaven of the unmixable stars. This is impossible, of course, because that heaven or sphere was pure and untouched (i.e. uncontaminated) by any direct connection with the demonic creatures. Thus, we are compelled to conclude what follows: although the Sasanian astronomical model was based on the knowledge of a spherical system, whose structure was certainly of Greek origin, because the texts refer to clear Ptolemaic concepts, its final shape, at least in the framework of a cosmological text like the Bundahišn, was the fruit of a strong theological mediation with a traditional inherited scheme. This fusion produced some peculiar outcomes, such as the preservation of the heaven of the unmixable stars, which re-adapted the celestial layer once belonging to the “stars of Spəṇta Mainiiu” (see Plate n. 9). Another bold contradiction emerges when we observe that the demonization of the planets excluded any direct description of their different spheres (see the final Addendum 2), while apparently placed all of them on the same sphere, although these demons were bound to the Sun and the Moon (with further inconsistencies). Another difficulty is visible in the fact that if the “Sphere Above the Sphere” constitutes a sort of globular barrier against the forces of Ahreman, which are blocked inside the creation, not only on the earth but also in the atmosphere and in the first heaven (corresponding with the sphere of the stars), how can we explain the action of the Dark Sun 392

On the contrary, the “Dark Sun” and the “Dark Moon” were bound respectively to the chariot of the Sun and the one of the Moon. See Bd. V,A,8; V,B,12; MacKenzie 1964: 516, 519; Panaino 1998: 74-75. 393 MacKenzie 1964: 516. Panaino 1998: 74-75.

108

Antonio Panaino

and Dark Moon? If they are, as presumable, in the same sphere or layer of the Sun and the Moon, they stay above the sphere of the unmixable stars, which is uncontaminated. If they are in the lowest sphere, their bonds must again pass through the sphere of the unmixable stars, because the Moon and the Sun are placed above that. This contradiction was probably explained by stating that the celestial ropes have a divine protective function, and that they are positive, so that their action does not contaminate the purity of the second sphere. In any case, the inconsistency of this model is obvious, and its artificial arrangement clear. We must also note that the acceptable parameters contained in the Zīg show that the mathematical patterns adopted by Sasanian astronomers were sufficiently good, so that we find another argument supporting the fact that the theoretical model here described was completely fictitious, and that the one who described it, were well aware of this fact. In reality, the Sasanian (and post-Sasanian Mazdean) astronomers adopted a more coherent scheme, at least from the point of view of the practical calculation of the planetary ephemerids as well as in the case of the other phenomena concerning the Sun and the Moon. We must also consider that it was possible to assume that the other spheres or layers corresponding to the one of the Moon, of the Sun, of the Infinite Lights, and of the Paradise, were arranged around the central sphere of the stars, and the second one, belonging to the unmixable stars, only after Ahreman’s invasion and his definitive imprisonment in the creation. This (alternative) solution would explain how was it possible to imagine that Ahreman had entered the celestial creation without passing throughout all the superimposed spheres in order to reach the earth, so inevitably passing through the highest sphere belonging to the Paradise, a kind of trajectory that would be impossible. In fact, if Ahreman originally had the possibility to directly attack Ohrmazd and his Palace, he would not have descended into the earthly world. More precisely, we must presume that the Sphere above the Sphere, the one made by the unmixable stars, also took its shape just immediately after Ahreman’s invasion in order to block him and his army inside. If this (second) sphere, so strong and impenetrable, had

Order and Disorder in the Spherical Models

109

been already created before the attack, Ahreman would have remained outside of the creation, and the trap would have no longer worked out. Thus, it is logical that it was shaped only later. We can presume this for the rest of the spheric system. Of course, the present explanation, which is not explicitly attested in the extant sources, although it is not openly contradicted by other evidences as well, remains a most reasonable possibility to be considered either, framework of a more sophisticated attempt at logical reconstruction of the genesis of the present cosmos. An astronomer of the Sasanian period, who eventually desired to harmonize theology and uranography, might easily give such an explanation. In this respect, the Sasanian astronomers had potentially good arguments to use without the difficulties of the cosmographic Western models of the heavens, saving the phenomena but also the intrinsic logic of their cosmic model. A certain number of divergent positions took place with regard to these cosmographic matters. For instance, we have seen that in the Pahlavi Rewāyat to the Dādestān ī Dēnı̄g XLVI,4, Ohrmazd resides within the asmān (“sky”) with the creatures of the creation. What does it mean? Does it also mean that Ohrmazd was blocked into the creation or even that he was moving into the sphere of the stars? Not at all! In fact, we have seen that the Pahlavi texts with asmān generically refer to all of the complex cosmographic heavenly system, and that some sources also present a peculiar division of the asmān into three (superimposed) thirds. The presence of Ohrmazd in the "heavens" means only that he is in the Garōdmān, which, notwithstanding the coexistence of different traditions, inevitably corresponds to our Empyreum. It was like the supreme place (sphere?), the highest level, the impenetrable fortress,394 which can be located on the highest point of the Uppermost third of the heaven. This area was out of the struggle and uncontaminated. So, Ohrmazd, who has taken his supreme watching post in it, can follow the development of the battle. He is out of the historical, limited time, because this sphere is immobile, and moves the rest of the cosmos, while Ahreman, 394

Cf. Windfuhr 1983: 637-638.

110

Antonio Panaino

blocked between the sphere of the stars (the role of the higher levels (spheres?) of the Moon and of the Sun is cosmo-graphically unclear in some precise aspects of its purely “theological” κίνεσις), is embedded into the limited time. Ohrmazd enters395 the limited, measurable, time only at the end of the battle, i.e. at the conclusion of the cosmic cycle of 12,000 years, when he will defeat Ahreman forever, so celebrating the final sacrifice of the bull Hadayōš (or Hadayanš)396 that will produce the definite apokatastasis. In this respect, Ohrmazd does not stay completely outside of a hierarchic cosmographic structure of the universe, in a sort of nowhere zone, but his location is separate and protected from any direct involvement in the battle. We know for certain that later Pahlavi sources (Wizīdagīhā ī Zādspram XXXIV,20) explicitly stated that Ohrmazd placed the earth in the center of the sky (zamīg wīnnārd mayānag asmān).397 While the Sasanian scholars certainly knew of the existence of different Hellenistic models (and probably not only them, but also those modified in India), this evidence does not allow us to presume that they entirely accepted the “planetary hypotheses” described in these works as exactly representing the physics of the heavens. Henning had already emphasized the fact that despite the high level of development of Pre-Islamic Iranian astronomy and its study of Greek scientific sources, the Pahlavi texts apparently seem to ignore a basic observational fact, i.e. that the stars must be farther from earth than the Moon and the Sun, or do not seem to be in trouble with phenomena like the lunar occultation of the zodiacal stars, whose occurrence would be impossible according to the Zoroastrian astral model. More likely, they knew well the mathematical and observational 395

Kellens (2000) has shown that, according to Later Avestan sources, the Mazdean divinities can enter and exit the limited time and the mixed dimension of the battle against the demons. The same doctrine is confirmed in the Dādestān ī Dēnīg XXXVI,17, where it is stated that the divine beings taking part in the battle against Ahreman and his forces can go to rest in the highest third of the heavens (see Jaafari-Dehagi 1998: 116-127). 396 See already Molé 1960; 156-160. 397 Gignoux – Tafazzoli 1993: 118-119 (transcription and translation). Bailey 1971: 135-136.

Order and Disorder in the Spherical Models

111

parameters398 behind all of these phenomena (with the related cinematic models adopted to explain their repetition), but officially, at least in the framework of commentaries of religious nature, as the Bundahišn for instance, respected a theological dogma, based indeed on the doctrine of the increasing quantity of light in direct connection with the progressive ascent to Paradise. Nonetheless, it is not clear whether this theological embarassment produced a relevant interdiction of working astronomical patterns. The careful redaction of official “Royal Astronomical tables,” the Zīg ī Šahryarān,399 and the obsessive evaluation of the annual phenomena for astrological purposes, especially when we consider the Sasanian practice of continuous astrology and the strong role played by the doctrine of the Great Conjunctions of Jupiter and Saturn,400 compellingly signify that the Sasanian astronomers and astrologers adopted not only mechanical models including many spheres, but probably also epicycles and 398

I mean that they did not know the real celestial mechanics (nobody knew it at that time), but that they had at their disposal Ptolemaic models (but also Indian systems) by means of which it was possible to derive astronomical parameters that gave reasonably correct results, or in any case acceptable from the observational point of view. This fact does not imply that they necessarily assumed these celestial models to be strictly corresponding to the real apparatus of the heavens in physical terms. What was important is the precise prevision of the phenomena, not the ontological dimension of the divine creation, which was already explained in theological terms. In a few words, as well stated by Duhem (1908: 25, with reference to Simplicius, In Aristotelis quatuor libros de Caelo commentaria, I, Comm. 6; see ed. Heiberg 1896, I: 32), it was already essential for many Greek astronomers just “to save the phenomena,” not to explain the absolute reality of the super-lunar world, which was beyond the limits of human knowledge. I would like to add to the pertinent sources insisting on the need to save the phenomena also the Commentary by Simplicius on the Second Book of the de Caelo, which is now available in the edition and translation by Aujac, as an appendix to the edition of Autolycos of Pitane (2002: 156-190). A very clear application of this principle can be read in the work by Medieval scholar (d. ca. 1360) Jean Buridan (Questiones super octo Physicorum libros Aristotelis; liber VI, Quæstio IV, fol. XCVII, col. c; see Duhem 1956, VII: 38). Again, on the intellectual approach of Simplicius on the problem of the planetary motions, see the monographic study by Bowen 2013. 399 Panaino 1998: 19-50, passim. 400 Buscherini 2013, passim. Cf. Kennedy 1964.

112

Antonio Panaino

eccentrics, although this fact did not imply that they had attributed a physical reality to these geometrical models. It would be pertinent to recall what has frequently gone unnoticed; i.e. the fact that, as Duhem explained already in 1908,401 Ptolemy and his close followers did not believe in the physical existence of their whole and highly sophisticated model of the heavens. They, as for instance Proclus,402 openly affirmed that the epicycles and eccentrics were necessary in order to save the phenomena, but not to explain the true architecture of the heavens. With the introduction of the equant, Ptolemy created a new geometrical point on the opposite side of the eccentric (Plate 6). This solution practically violated the uniformity of the circular motion, although Ptolemy was so clever as to save the philosophical dogmas by establishing that the center of the epicycle moved along a perfectly circular orbit around the eccentric, but with uniform time spent around the equant.403 In any case eccentric and equant removed the earth from the center of the cosmos; in a few words its impact was worse than that of a cosmic earthquake. Conversely, we find a group of followers of Aristotle, who – century after century, until Copernicus – rejected epicycles and eccentrics because their physical existence would heavily contradict the supposed harmony of the perfect circular motion and the solid structure of the celestial building, so failing to save the visible phenomena and inevitably incurring bold mistakes of calculation, when exact predictions or explanations of the astronomical data were expected. If the Sasanian observers had only minimal access to the theoretical debate existing in the Western astronomical circles, and there is no reason to deny them this kind of knowledge, it is reasonable that they were in the position to understand that the adoption of these cinematic patterns would imply only the use of an empirical procedure. They were not compelled to accept any dogma stating that the world should physically correspond to a real model

401

Duhem 1908: 1-27, passim. Cf. Duhem 1908: 20-22, passim. 403 See Clagett 1988: 123. De facto, the equant point and the equant circle strongly modified the Platonic principle of uniform motion! 402

Order and Disorder in the Spherical Models

113

that Ptolemy404 himself did not consider as true in a physical sense, but only “correct” from the observational and predictive point of view regarding the occurrence of the expected astronomical phenomena. In this respect, there is no wonder when we discover that the Hindu cosmographic model of the cords of wind, which we have already mentioned, was preserved despite its oddity both in India and in Iran.405 Pingree406 rightly wrote that religious scruples preserved older mythological images, saving them from an inevitable disappearance, but we are in the position now to say more. Can we really declare that some aspects of the Greek prejudices concerning the indispensable sphericity of the planetary motions, the idea of compact spheres, the complexity of eccentrics, equants and epicycles, whose physical reality did not convince at all the scholars of Aristotelian background, had penetrated the Indian and Iranian worlds without finding any special perplexity? Furthermore, the survival of old cosmographic interpretations of the realia is absolutely comprehensible; in fact, we can easily adopt Ptolemaic parameters (with some of the cinematic models and the cosmological patterns connected with them), but at the same time we continue to work with the postulate that the circular motions are due to cords of wind, and that the peculiar phenomena that need special models, correspond to the multiple actions of different celestial cords. It is sufficient only to admit that this cosmic system seems to be less elegant than the Ptolemaic one, because the game is apparently played with cords instead of eccentrics and epicycles, but, in any case, both systems are cosmologically wrong with respect to what we now consider to be the astrophysical scientific consensus. The embarrassment of the discrepancy between the Ptolemaic model and the physical reality became so great that a few Arab scholars, as Al-Ṣābi’ Tābhit ibn Qurrah al-Ḥarrānī407 or Abū ʿAlī 404

Cf. Duhem 1908: 17-20, passim, with particular reference to Mathematiké Syntaxis XIII, chap. II, ed. Halma 1816, vol. II: 374-375; ed. Heiberg 1903: 531-534; see also the translation by Toomer 1984: 600-61. 405 See Panaino 1998, passim. 406 Pingree 1981: 554-555. 407 Born c. 836, Syria – died 901, Baghdad, Iraq.

114

Antonio Panaino

al-Ḥasan Ibn-al-Haythan,408 tried to harmonize Ptolemy’s eccentrics and epicycles with Aristotelian physics,409 a solution which also provoked in a cultural and religious framework as different as the Islamic one a strong reaction against the Almagest and Ptolemy himself.410 I cannot follow this polemical debate in its entirety (actually this intellectual struggle endured, as noted before, until Copernicus),411 but it is clear that the subject was tantalizing and attracted a great number of scholars in different periods and in various countries. For these reasons, I cannot follow van Bladel412 when he states that the Mazdean religion played a negative role in the diffusion of the spherical model of Ptolemaic origin, also because, as we have seen, it was not necessary to follow Ptolemy in order to arrange a spherical system. Plato and Aristotle proposed spherical models without pretending the same cinematic complexity (but also without the same precision). If the reference to the two spheres of the stars in the second chapter of the Bundahišn should be considered as insufficient on its own to confirm that the Persians had known a spherical system, the patent adoption of numerical parameters based on the evolved Ptolemaic model of the cosmos should demonstrate this statement without any further ado. Actually, Bundahišn V,A,8413 makes reference to the length of the cord of Mercury, 1,850 = 22° 30’ (sexagesimal), i.e. 30° 50’, exactly corresponding to the maximum of the radius of the epicycle of this 408

Born c. 965, Basra, Iraq – died c. 1040, Cairo, Egypt. Duhem 1908: 27-40; Kuhn 1985: 46-98, passim. 410 Pedersen (1993: 86) rightly notes that Ptolemy tried to limit any emphasis on the visible departure from the basic Aristotelian assumptions produced by the introduction of the equant. On the other hand, he (1993: 69-70, 86-89) clearly showed the limits of Eudoxus’ system and those present in the Aristotelian model of the heavens. Formally, Ptolemy avoided any direct polemics with Aristotle and in his Planetary Hypotheses practically subscribing to a physical universe composed of spheres, although he admitted the presence of several ethereal bodies representing the deferent and the epicycle, plus some additional bodies in order to maintain the latter in the correct place. 411 Duhem 1908: 40-77, passim. Cf. also Duhem 1914, II: 130-179. 412 2007: 235-236. 413 MacKenzie 1964: 516; Panaino, 1998: 74-75; Pakzad 2005: 79. Cf. Zaehner 1972: 164. 409

Order and Disorder in the Spherical Models

115

planet, as attested in the Almagest IX,9.414 This example not only helps demonstrate that the Almagest was already known in Persia before the Arabs (and probably translated in Pahlavi),415 but also that the cinematic model explaining the planetary elongation was adapted to the traditional doctrine of the wind-ropes. The references mentioned by van Bladel confirm the endurance of a traditional vision of the heavens, but, the quotation of Widēwdād 19416 evoked by van Bladel is totally unfitting, because at the time of the (oral) composition of Avestan texts as the one that is mentioned, there was no historical basis for any spherical model in any place. Furthermore, the following mention of the text concerning the so-called vision of Sasanian high priest Kirder is not pertinent. This is an esoteric source (probably concerning a very special ritual), in which a sort of simulation of the after-life journey was enacted by a group of priests (while, in reality, Kirder does not say anything, because other persons declare what he should see during his apparent state of “ritual” insight).417 From a source of that kind, it would be impossible to detect any precise astronomical cosmography, instead of a mere reference to a traditional cosmographic model. The search for something more substantial is a desperate attempt, just like that of deducing a cinematic model from the Mithraslithurgie418 or from a magical papyrus. In reality, Sasanian astronomy incorporated spherical astronomy and its cinematic values 414

Toomer 1984: 459 (cf. the Gr. text, ed. ed. Heiberg 1903: 279); cf. also Panaino 1990a: 75, n. 97. We can note that the same Pahlavi passage states that the chord of Venus was 2,831 minutes of arch from the Sun; this is the maximum of the equation of the anomaly of Venus in the Zīg ī Xusraw Anōšag-ruwān (cf. Pingree and Kennedy in al-Hashimi 1981: 220); cf. also Pingree 1997: 40. 415 Fitting arguments in favour of this conclusion are collected in Panaino 1998: 25, 29, 36-38, 174-175 (with bibliographical details). We cannot state that the Pahlavi translation contained the whole text, but at least many excerpts of it. For instance, it is reasonable to suppose that the tables with long lists of numbers were read directly according to the Greek version. In any case, its contents were known and accessible to professional astronomers and astrologers. 416 See the critical edition of the Avestan text by Redard 2010. For the Pahlavi text, see Moazami 2014. 417 See Panaino 2011b. 418 Dietrich 1910; Zago 2010.

116

Antonio Panaino

in a framework that still maintained some peculiar assumptions. Thus, the two spheres of the mixable and unmixable stars were placed below those of the Moon and of the Sun, but the role they played in imprisoning the demons after Ahreman’s irruption in the creation implied that their location was in a higher position. In fact, if the planetary demons fight against the cardinal stars, and the Dark Moon and the Dark Sun combat against the divine Moon and Sun, it is necessary that at least one level of the extra-galactic sphere, in connection with the Milky Way, was in a position from which it was possible to block any potential attempt of the demons to fly away. In fact, it is also evident tha the astral demons cannot evade the heaven, and that they are prisoner of the barrier created by the stars. The image of the sphere is directly evoked also in the later Pahlavi-Pāzand text entitled Škand-gumānīg wizār of Mardān-Farrox ī Ohrmazddadān (second half of the ninth century AD). While in IV, 3,6, 8,419 the spihr (in Pahlavi) is mentioned with generic reference to the heaven of the stars, the attestation of VI,20420 is more clearly appropriate for the revolving sphere (Pāzand spihir),421 which is connected with the return of the years, the months, the days, and the hours (vardišni i sālą, māhą, rōžą, jamąna) as well as the revolution of the fixed stars, of the Sun, and of the Moon (gardašni i spihir u stāraa i pasāxtaa u xvaršēt u māh). The text literally states that this revolution, “is ordered according to a regular motion and a natural revolution” (i vīnārdaa i hvaspīn u ciharī-gardašni).422 In ch. XIV, 70-74, the spihir is mentioned twice. This passage occurs in the framework of the chapter against Judaism, and it concerns a sentence attributed to an angel, who says: “If I would destroy the sphere and fashion a new heaven and the earth again, and if I reorganize the motion of the stars, it is not certain that, after this, your destiny would be better or worse” (bē agar spihir vašōwom u āsmą zamī ež nō dahom u rawešni i stārą ež nō 419

See de Menasce 1945: 51, 52. See de Menasce 1945: 78-82. 421 In the Pāzand texts, forms like spihr, spihar, and spehir also can be found according to Nyberg 1974, II: 178. 422 Ibidem. 420

Order and Disorder in the Spherical Models

117

pasāžom u dahom ež ą frāz nē pēdā kut baxt vahe oftet ayå vatar).423 The Mazdean commentator remarks that this sentence confirms that the lot of humans is not in the hands of the God of the Jews, and that “the revolutions of the sphere, the Sun, the Moon, the stars are not in his science, in his will, or in his power […]” (u gardašni i spihir u xūr u māh u stāragą nē andar farawastaa dānąšni u kām u farmąn i ōi).424 Another passage preserved in ch. XV (against the Christians) is remarkable, because it contains an interesting objection against the divinity of Jesus Christ. In fact, Mardān-Farrox notes (XV, 33) that it would be peculiar if God had really abandoned “his royal throne, the heaven, the earth, the sphere, his responsibility of govern and his protection” (xvadāī gāh āsmąn zamī spihr awarē ham ež rāinīdārī u pānāī hištan)425 in order to descend into the world in an imperfect human body. This statement is very interesting because it confirms that the political doctrine of the “telecracy,” according to the brilliant formulation of Sloterdijk, 426 concerning the use of “the (controlling) power from afar”, which was well expressed in the pseudo-Aristotelian treatise entitled de Mundo, 398b, 8-10,427 was known in Post-Sasanian Iran, and presumably already in Sasanian times.428 There is no reason to affirm that in this passage spihir did not mean “sphere,” but only “heaven,” “sky” or “firmament,” because the word for “heaven” (āsmąn) was

423

See de Menasce 1945: 200-201. Ibidem. 425 See de Menasce 1945: 212-213. 426 See Sloterdijk 1999: 711-715. The concept of “telecratic monarchy” occurs at p. 711: “Die Großköniganalogie illustriert prägnant jenes Konzept telekratischer Monarchie von einer souveränen Mitte aus, das in Missionslogik des frühen Christentums wie in der claudisch-julischen, besonders aber in der domitianischen Herrschertheologie, zum politikprägenden Denk- und Handlungsmuster geworden war”. Vernant (1963 = 1996: 209-215) has suggested an ideological connection between cosmic models and social structures with close reference to Anaximander’s spherical conception of the world and democracy. In later times, the spherical model assumed opposite implications. The image of the globe became the symbol of the cosmocratic power of the emperor like a persona sacra. See also Schramm 1958. 427 See Panaino 2019, in the note 18. 428 See Panaino 2019. 424

118

Antonio Panaino

clearly mentioned in the same context.429 In ch. XVI, 14, 19, 29,430 finally we find the use of spihir with reference to the Manichaean doctrine of the binding of the planetary demons and of the astral bodies.431 In this case, too, there is no compelling reason to separate the meaning of these occurrences from the standard one. The spherical heaven was not at all in contrast with the presence of wind-ropes or cords, whose presence was incorporated into the Mazdean and Manichaean tradition, although this peculiar model did not exclude or directly counter the use of spherical patterns and Ptolemaic parameters. Another point supportive of the present explanation of the facts can be deduced from the ancient etymological explanations of the name given to the Royal Astronomical Tables of the Persian kings (Ar. Zīǰ al-Šahriyārān; Pahl. Zīg ī Šahryārān). While the direct derivation of Arabic zīǰ from Pahlavi zīg is evident and requires no discussion, all the semantic implications of the names zīǰ and zīg, particularly in the sense of “astronomical handbook,” have involved a much more detailed discussion. Abu ‘r-Raiḥān Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad al-Bīrūnī,432 one of the most prestigious scholars of the Islamic Middle Ages, at the beginning of the third book of his Qānūn al-Masʿūdī,433 following 429

The horoscopic practice in Zoroastrian Iran and its adoption of Greek and Indian methods seems to imply the knowledge of spherical parameters, although in several places, the reference to the term spihr could be interpreted as too generic. But, for instance, in the case of Šāyest nē-Šāyest XXII,31 (“May fate be your friend! And the sphere (be your) guardian for this day” [baxt-it ayār bawād spihr pāsbān ō *īm rōz (…)]), the spihr is directly connected with the sky in its astronomical and astrological configuration, and then also with the destiny (see Kotwal 1969: 92-93). About the use of spihr again with reference to the destiny established by the gods’ will in conformity with the motion of the heavenly sphere, see Mēnōg ī Xrad II,28 (“[…] according to the destiny of the sphere and the will of the gods”; […] bē pad brēhēnišn ī spihr ud kāmag ī yazdān bawēd); Anklesaria 1913: 12; West 1885: 10 (but this translation is too free); cf. also Nyberg 1931b: 206 sub spihr. Neryoseng translated brēhēnišn ī spihr with Sanskrit rāśigraha-cakra- (cf. again Anklesaria 1913: 12). 430 See de Menasce 1945: 254-255. 431 See Panaino 1998, passim; cf. also Panaino 2019 (in the press). 432 He was born in Khwārizm in 973 – and died in Ghazni in 1048. 433 al-Bīrūnī 1954, I: 271; translation and commentary by de Blois in Panaino 1998: 155-157.

Order and Disorder in the Spherical Models

119

a well established grammatical tradition, made a number of linguistic speculations about the origins of Arabic zīǰāt “scientific books,” zīq “hemmed border (of a garment), plumb line” (the last meaning only in the lexica), and in particular, Persian zih, which seems to be related to two Pahlavi words like zih (zīh?), “bowstring” and zīg, certainly in the meaning of “hammed border.” François de Blois, who has shown, thanks to our better knowledge of some linguistic phenomena, a number of inconsistencies in this reconstruction, has also tried to reconstruct in detail the theoretical approach of al-Bīrūnī to this problem. In particular, de Blois has observed, although with deep caution, that the etymological speculation of al-Bīrūnī might be framed as whether the Sasanian Persians had used the word zīg, basically meaning “rope, tow-line,” with the technical sense of trigonometric “chord.” If so, Pahlavi zīg would be the fitting translation of the Greek χορδή, i.e. “chord” (again in a trigonometric framework). Starting from this step, Pahlavi zīg “could have taken the meaning of ‘table of the chords’ and finally have come to designate an entire astronomical handbook, which naturally contains trigonometric tables, often at the beginning.” This reconstruction of al-Bīrūnī’s assumption, as reinterpreted by de Blois,434 although it is only based on a plausible hypothesis, finds a number of supportive data. In fact, we know well that the Persian cosmological model adopted the theory of the wind-ropes of Indian origin, so that a number of planetary phenomena, in particular that of the retrogradation, were attributed to the actions of “real” cords, which pulled the planets to and fro. In his book on the Transits,435 al-Bīrūnī again stated that the zīǰ, in the meaning of “set of astronomical tables,” was so called because of the fact that it discusses the “chords” (zīǰ) in them. Furthermore, al-Bīrūnī explicitly mentioned the fact that in this usage we can see “its primary sense,” based on the opinion of the ancients, which concerns “the halters (or bonds) of the planets with the Sun and their retrogradation from the tension of the chord

434

Apud Panaino 1998: 156-157. Ed. of al-Bīrūnī’s Transits 1959: 129 by Kennedy. For Kennedy’s commentary, see al-Bīrūnī: 1959: 129; cf. also Panaino 1998: 154-155.

435

120

Antonio Panaino

tightened by it, and its forward motion by its slackening.” As Kennedy has remarked,436 the direct connection between the phenomenon of the retrogradation and the function of the epicycle produced an inevitable association between the mythical cords of the ancients and the cinematic model of the epicycles. Thus, the Arabic wattar (“chord” and “cord,” as well)437 was employed for phenomena happening on the epicycle. This apparently minimal remark confirms the fact that the primitive model adopting astral ropes or cords was embedded into a new, modern, up-to-date system, although some good astronomers as al-Bīrūnī certainly knew that it was obsolete and inappropriate. But it is sure that this doctrine was followed at the time, and that the fusion of these concepts took place much earlier than al-Bīrūnī’s age, so that we can reasonably frame its occurrence in the Sasanian period. Coming back, just for a while, to the political and ideological implications of the “sphere” in the visual language of the power, I return to the subject of the fresh considerations expressed by Sloterdijk about the concept of “telecracy,” to insist on some pertinent references attested in late Antiquity Latin and Greek sources.438 I will start with Petrus Chrysologus, bishop of Ravenna in the sixth century AD, when he tries to describe the image of the Sasanian king and his astral connotations. The text runs as follows:439 neue sumus ut persarum reges, qui subiecta nunc pedibus suis sphaera ut polum se calcare dei uices mentiuntur? nunc radiato capite, ne sint homines, solis resident in figura; nunc inpositis sibi cornibus, quasi uiros se doleant, effeminantur in lunam; nunc varias velut siderum sumunt formas, ut hominis perdant figuras […]

436

Kennedy 1959: 29; Panaino 1998: 155. In the English usage, chord refers to the trigonometric “cord” (or, in music, to an accord of three or more pitches played at the same time), while cord is just a “string” or a “rope” (as primary meaning). 438 I have offered a more detailed treatment of these sources in Panaino 2004a. 439 Sermo 120, 2, according to the edition by Olivar 1997: 390-391; cf. L’Orange 1953: 43-42, 64-65, 134-135. 437

Order and Disorder in the Spherical Models

121

“And are we not like the Persian kings, who lie by saying that, after they have subjected the sphere under their feet, trample (on it) as on a pivot in the place of the gods? Now with a beaming head, they sit in the image of the Sun, as though they were not humans; now, putting horns on themselves,440 as if they were regretting to be men, they become like women in the Moon; now they assume various forms like (those) of the stars in order to lose their human shape […].”

The Persian kings trample on the cosmic sphere, which lays under their feet and so they behave like Pagan gods. I have already discussed and in detail the most important symbolic elements reported in this description, as in particular the patent evocation of the royal xwarrah and the beaming head of the royal person.441 More important here is the relevance of the superb throne of the Šāhān Šāh, who appears as a cosmocrator and finds fitting correspondences also in the Arabic sources.442 The same tradition is preserved by Hesychius, (sub voce οὐρανός),443 who remarks that the Persians named the royal chamber “heavens”: οὐρανός· ὁ κατηστερισμένος τόπος. Πέρσαι δὲ τὰς βασιλείους σκηνὰς καὶ αὐλάς, ὧν τὰ καλύμματα κυκλοτερῆ, οὐρανούς (ἐκάλουν). “Heaven; a place adorned with stars: The Persians (called) “heavens” the royal palaces and halls, of which the coverings were made round.” 444

The extreme importance attributed to the architectural shape of the sacred space, especially in the framework of the royal palace, and the special focus attributed to the centrality of the throne, is a kind

440

See L’Orange 1953: 38, 64-65. See Piras 2000b: 22. 442 See Christensen 1944, passim. 443 See Hesychius, ed. Schmidt 1861, III: 242; entry 1840 in the edition Latte 1953, vol. I. 444 Cf. L’Orange 1953: 22. 441

122

Antonio Panaino

of phenomenon in which Byzantine445 and Persian kingships showed many similarities, imitations and competitions. In this respect, we shall call the reader’s attention to Patriarch Nikephoros (ca. 758 – 828) in his Breviarium historicum de rebus gestis post imperium Mauricii (or Ἱστορία σύντομος ἀπὸ τῆς Μαυρικίου βασιλείας), 12, 43-47, a source in which he partly follows the Chronicle by Theophanes Homologetes (765 – 817/18 AD):446 ἐφ᾽ ἑνὸς δὲ τούτων (sc. τῶν πυρείων) εὕρηται, ὡς Χοσρόης ἑαυτὸν θεοποιήσας ἐν τῇ τούτου στέγῇ ἑαυτὸν καθήμενον ὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ ἀνεστήλωσεν, ἄστρα καὶ ἥλιον καὶ σελήνην συγκατασκευάσας, καὶ ἀγγέλους περιεστῶτας αὐτῷ, καὶ βροντὴν διὰ μηχανῆς ποιεῖν καὶ ὕειν ὁπότ᾿ ἂν θελήσειεν. “In one of these (temples of fire) it was discovered that Chosroes made himself into a god (and) put up his own picture on the ceiling, as whether he were seated in heaven, and fabricated stars, Sun and Moon, and (even) angels standing around him, and thanks to a mechanism he produced thunder and rain, whenever he so wished.”

But the same tradition was repeated by Georgio Monachos (ninth c., known also as Georgios Hamartolos, i.e. “George the Sinner”) in the fourth volume of his Χρονικόν σύντομον, in a passage where he closely follows the text of Nikephoros and thus, presumably, that of Theophanes. The text of Georgios Monachos, in fact, was probably written after 876:447 Ἡράκλειος δὲ ὁ βασιλεὺς εἰς τὴν Περσίδα εἰσβαλὼν τάς τε πόλεις

445

See Carile 2002: 80-86. We may remark, following L’Orange (1953: 16-17, passim), that the image of a turning or revolving castle continues in the Middle Ages, as, for instance, in the Perlesvaus, Lancelot and Gauvain “approchent le chastel et voient qu’il tornoie tout environ plus tost que vent ne cort” (Potvin 1866, I: 195; Sypherd 1907: 149-150). In the same framework we must consider also the shape of the “Round table” of King Arthur, “qui tornoie comme le monde” (see again L’Orange 1953: 16, n. 3). 446 See Mango, sub Nikephoros, 1990: 56, 57. Cf. L’Orange 1953: 20-21. 447 Text according to the edition de Boor 1904: 671-672.

Order and Disorder in the Spherical Models

123

καθῄρει καὶ τὰ πυρεῖα διέστρεφεν, ἐφ’ ὧν εὑρέθη Χοσρόου τὸ μυσαρὸν ἐκτύπωμα ἐν τῇ τοῦ οἴκου στέγῃ ὥσπερ ἐν οὐρανῷ καθήμενον. ἑαυτὸν γὰρ ὁ ἄθεος ἀποθεώσας οὕτως ἀνεστήλωσεν, ἐν ᾧ ἄστρα καὶ ἥλιον καὶ σελήνην κατασκευάσας ἀγγέλους περιεστῶτας αὐτῷ σκηπτούχους καὶ βροντὴν διὰ μηχανῆς γίνεσθαι καὶ βρέχειν (672) ὁπόταν θελήσειεν ἐτεχνάσατο. “When King Heraklios invaded Persia, started to demolish (its) towns and destroyed the Fire-temples, where the abominable image of Chosroes was found on the house’s ceiling as sitting in heaven. In fact, the godless one who made himself a god, after he had sharpened in his home stars, Sun and Moon and angels standing around him, he cunningly devised a way to produce, thanks to a mechanism, thunder and rain, whenever he wished.”

Then, we can also quote Kedrenos’ account attested in his Σύνοψις ἱστοριών (12th c.),448 equally based on Theophanes’ report,449 and again dedicated to the image of Xusraw seen by Heraclius during the capture of the Sasanian residence in Ganzaca in year 624 AD: (I, 721, 18) […] καὶ καταλαβὼν τὴν Γαζακὸν πόλιν, ἐν ᾗ ὑπῆρχεν ὁ ναὸς τοῦ πυρὸς καὶ τὰ χρήματα Κροίσου τοῦ Λυδῶν βασιλέως καὶ ἡ πλάνη τῶν ἀνθράκων, καὶ εἰσελθὼν ἐν αὐτῇ εὗρε τὸ μυσαρὸν εἴδωλον τοῦ Χοσρόου, τό τε ἐκτύπωμα αὐτοῦ ἐν τῇ τοῦ παλατίου σφαιροειδεῖ στέγῃ ὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ καθήμενον, καὶ περὶ τοῦτο ἥλιον καὶ σελήνην καὶ ἄστρα, (I, 722, 1-4) οἷς ὁ δεισιδαίμων ὡς θεοῖς ἐλάτρευε, καὶ ἀγγέλους αὐτῷ σκηπτροφόρους περιέστησεν. ἐκεῖθέν τε σταγόνας στάζειν ὡς ὑετοὺς καὶ ἤχους ὡς βροντὰς ἐξηχεῖσθαι ὁ θεομάχος ταῖς μηχαναῖς ἐπετεχνάσατο.

“And after the conquest of the town of Ganzaca, where the fire-temple, 448

1838-39: 721-722. See also Herzfeld 1920: 17-20. Cf. also Ackerman 1937. See the discussion of these sources in Herzfeld 1920: 17-20. The Chronographia by Theophanes has been edited by de Boor 1883. Cf. L’Orange 1953: 18-21.

449

124

Antonio Panaino

the treasure of Croesus, king of the Lydes, and the false veneration of charcoal were located, when (Heraclius) entered there, he found the abominable image of Chosroes, (with) his figure in the doomed chamber of the palace, as though he were enthroned in heaven and around it (were represented) the Sun, the Moon and the stars, to whom (the Persian king) was paying a superstitious fear as he were serving the gods, and he set around angels bearing sceptres to him. (Chosroes), fighting against God, arranged a machine which, from that place let fall drops of rain producing sounds like those of thunders.” 450

A Christian tradition, connected with the dramatic story of the Sacred Cross,451 taken from Jerusalem by the Persian army of Xusraw II as a trophy in the year 614, also concerns the Royal Palace and the Throne of the Šāhān Šāh. A very fitting passage was, in fact, preserved in the Martirologium of St. Ado452 of Vienna (dead in 874), which described the image of the Sasanian king as cosmocrator. This source, as suggested by L’Orange,453 probably followed a Vorlage belonging to the tradition of the Exaltatio Sanctae Crucis: Fecerat namque Cosroe rex eorum turrim argenteam, in qua interlucentibus gemmis thronum exstruerat aureum, ibique solis quadrigam et lunae vel stellarum imaginem collocaverat, atque per occultas fistulas aquae meatus adduxerat, ut quasi Deus pluviam desuper videretur infundere. Et dum subterraneo specu equis in circuitu trahentibus, circumacta turris fabricate moveri videbatur, quasi quodam modo rugitum tonitrui, juxta possibilitatem artificis, mentiebatur. In hoc itaque loco, sedem sibi paraverat, atque iuxta eam, quasi collega Dei sibi crucem Dominicam posuit, filioque suo regno tradito, ipse in fano hujuscemodo residebat. Mortuo vero Phoca, Heraclius imperator 450

Cf. L’Orange 1953: 19-20. I have discussed some aspects of these events with a large bibliography, which is unnecessary to repeat here; see Panaino 2004b: 852-853, and the notes 356 and 357. 452 Cf. L’Orange 1953: 20-21, n. 2. 453 L’Orange 1953: 20-21, n. For the text, see also Migne 1852: [Patrologia Latina 123]: 356-357. 451

Order and Disorder in the Spherical Models

125

creatus, vir strenuus et armis exercitatus. Qui adversus Persas bellum agressus, occiso Chosroe, quem in turre jam dicta sedentem invenit, Persas in deditionem recepit, lignumque gloriosissimae crucis exinde repedans secum tulit, et Hyerosolumam, unde sublatum fuerat, cum magna veneratione restituit. “In fact, their King, Cosroes, had made a silver tower, where he had built up a golden throne (intermingled) with shining gems, and there he had also set the (four horses)-chariot of the Sun and of the Moon or the image of the stars, and by means of invisible water-pipes he had introduced the channels of water, so that it seemed that he himself, like a god, were sending rains from above. And while some horses pulled (it) around in a subterranean room, the circular fabric of the tower seemed to revolve on its axis, (and) it offered a simulation, like a thunder’s roar, according to the possibility of the construction. Thus, in this place, (Cosroes) had prepared his abode, and near it, as whether he were a fellow of God, he placed the Cross of the Lord, and given his kingdom to his son, he himself resided in this temple. After Phocas’ death, Heraclius was made emperor, a vigorous man, well trained in weapons, who aged war against the Persians. After the death of Cosroes, whom he found sitting in the already mentioned tower, (Heraclius) accepted the capitulation of the Persians and took with himself the wood of the most glorious Cross, returning it from there and gave it back with great re-verence to Jerusalem, from where it was taken away […].”

Although the conclusion of the passage is not historical, but selfcongratulatory from the point of view of the Christian victory, because, as we know, the rescued Cross never went back to Jerusalem, probably having been intercepted by an Arab attack, the rest of the story perfectly fits into the framework we are describing, and shows the fame of the Throne chamber of the Great Persian king.

126

Antonio Panaino

The existence of an astral dimension of the Sasanian Throne454 is a symbolic mark consistently confirmed in Arabic455 and Persian sources, where more or less extensive descriptions of the superb Taxt ī Ṭāqdīs of Xusraw II456 were offered by Th‘ālibī457 and Ferdowsi.458 According to these sources, the royal chamber in Nišābuhr had a doomed roof working like a planetarium,459 where the Luminaries, the planets and the twelve zodiacal constellations turned around so that it was possible to cast horoscopes and deduce the moment of the day as it were a sort

454

See L’Orange 1953: 18-27 and passim. L’Orange also insists on the real movement of the throne itself, very important in court rituals, particularly at Byzantium. I will refer to the “Throne” with a capital letter, when I want to underline the architectural dimension of a special area in the royal palaces, which was devoted to a court liturgy, and which did not exclusively refer to a particular beautiful seat for the king. This (the throne), of course, had a central role, and its importance was foundational, but the Throne had a more articulated ambiance. 455 According to Ṭabarī (cf. Nöldeke 1879: 79-80), an architect working at the court of Yazdgird declared to be able to build palaces revolving with the sun. Cf. L’Orange 1953: 20-21. 456 In reality, Th‘ālibī hesitates between Xusraw I and Xusraw II; see Zotenberg 1900: 698. 457 See Zotenberg 1900: 698-700; cf. Christensen 1944: 466-469. 458 Cf. Firdousi, ed. Mohl 1878 (vol. VII), pp. 306-315, lines 3634-3722. Caiozzo (2011: 40) remarks that in a miniature preserved in a Timurid copy of the Šāhnāme, preserved in London, the ancestral kings of Iran are sitting on thrones with seven levels, each one of a special color, so that, as in the case of Ecbatana, they can be associated with the planetary bodies. 459 In the present discussion we should also include the previous remarks (see before at chapter I) concerning the existence of astronomical mechanisms in Late Antiquity. On these automatic devices, see also Brett 1954. Also very important is the discussion in Diehl (1900) concerning the great clock of Gaza, as described in one of his Ἐκφράσεις (“Descriptions”) by Procopius (end of the fifth century – first thirty years of the sixth), to be well distinguished from Procopius of Caesarea; see now Amato 2010 and Bäbler 2010. This monumental artistic clock, presented in the sixth Ἔκφρασις of Procopius, was probably moved by water, and had twelve doors with a Heracles getting out from one of them at every hour. It was not a very advanced model, but in any case its existence confirms the diffusion of these instruments in a territory very close to the Iranian border. The same clock is considered as a prototype for future more evolved clocks already attested in the early Islamic world.

Order and Disorder in the Spherical Models

127

of astronomical clock.460 Even the seven continents of the world were represented.461 This is the description of the Throne according to Th‘ālibī:462 This throne was surmounted by a canopy made in gold and in lapis lazuli, where the sky, the stars, the signs of the zodiac, and the seven climates were represented, and also the kings in their various different attitudes, during a banquet, in a battle or hunting. There was also a mechanism, which indicated the hours of the day. The throne too was completely covered by four carpets of brocade woven with gold and adorned with pearls and rubies, and each one of these carpets was connected with one of the four seasons.

In the case of Ferdowsi,463 the description is longer and full of mythical additions, because the throne of Xusraw II Parwēz was presented as a renovation of the earlier one, made under Farīdūn and which had been improved by all of the kings of Iran, one after the other, until Iskandar (Alexander) decided to destroy it. It is important to remark that it was Jā̌ māsp under a request by Lohrasp who would have started to represent the images of the astral bodies on the throne and prepare the mechanisms for the astronomical calculations, so that the following kings tried to improve the beauty and efficiency of this instrument, which Alexander broke for ignorance. The Lords of the country did their best to save and preserve many fragments of the throne for the future, and, in fact, when its was reconstructed, all these scattered parts were joined again, with the cooperation of many artisans coming from different countries, even from Rum and China. This story clearly follows the same patterns adopted in the case of the recovery of the ancestral Iranian wisdom, supposedly contained in a particular version 460

The interpretation of the Ṭāqdīs as a clock was advanced by Herzfeld (1920: 1620, passim), but Saxl (1922) and Kampers (1924: 40, n. 1) seriously challenged this solution. See also Christensen 1944: 468 and Ackerman 1937. 461 See Herzfeld 1920: 16-19. 462 See again Zotenberg 1900: 699. 463 Cf. Firdousi, ed. Mohl 1878 (vol. VII), pp. 306-315, lines 3634-3722.

128

Antonio Panaino

of the Avesta, destroyed again by Alexander, and later recovered under the impulse of the Sasanian dynasty, as it was narrated in the fourth book of the Dēnkard,464 but which was known also from other sources.465 According to the Šāhnāme, the reconstruction of the throne, decided by Xusraw Parwēz, took two whole years. Although I cannot analyze in extenso the evidence of this source, some particular details must be discussed. First of all, the Throne is enormous, and clearly represents a complex architectural structure, which hosted a very complex series of rituals and ceremonies. For instance, for every one of the thirty days of the month a different carpet was placed. The whole construction, which turned around in accordance with the four seasons, according to Ackerman,466 should have been light, probably wooden, because it turned around its axis, and its dome, of hemispherical shape, represented the sky and its visible astral bodies. Ackerman467 assumed that the Throne was turned by horses, although we must observe that this detail does not appear in the Byzantine or in the Islamic sources, but only in St. Ado’s description. So we cannot surely identify its origin, and we may suspect that it was part of a hostile representation of the Sasanian Palace, because this description belongs to texts referring to the True Cross of Christ and its capture by the Persians. On this Throne, the twelve signs of the Zodiac, the seven planets, and in particular the Moon with the constellations were very recognizable. From Ferdowsi again we can assume that the Throne was imagined as a mechanism giving an expert observer (an astronomer) the possibility to recognize some particular astronomical 464

See Madan 1911, I: 412,3–415,3; Bailey 1971: 81, passim; cf. Zaehner 1955 (1972): 145, text H; de Menasce, 1958; Shaki 1981: 119; Cereti, 1994-95: 121, 128, n. 63; 2001: 59-61; Panaino 1999a: 88-89 (here the pattern of the reacquisition of a lost wisdom is analyzed in connection with the context of the Pahlavi text on Chess and Backgammon in the framework of the Sasanian political ideology. Cf. also Shaked 1994: 100; van Bladel (2009: 33-36, passim), in particular has collected a large conspectus of sources showing the importance of the Sasanian period for the transmission of Greek sources to Iran; Raffaelli 2017: 172-174. 465 Pingree 1968: 7-10, with reference to Ibn Nawbaxt on which cf. Nallino 1922: 363 = 1948: 302-303; Pingree 1975: 5. 466 Ackerman 1937: 106-107. 467 Ackerman 1937: 106.

Order and Disorder in the Spherical Models

129

phenomena and to deduce the following hours of the night and periods of the year. In particular, Ackerman468 has called our attention to the fact that, according to Ferdowsi, the Throne had three platforms, occupied by three different classes of courtiers. On the top one, the dehgān and the dastūrs had the right to sit; its surface was of turquoise. The middle one, of lapis lazuli, was occupied by the knights, while the lowest one, marked with rams’ heads, was attributed to the other courtesans. Ackerman, in my opinion very fittingly,469 also assumed that these three layers might correspond with three superimposed heavens: more precisely, the topmost to that of the Sun (turquoise), the middle one (lapis lazuli) to that of the Moon, and the lowest one to that of the stars, although he did not observe that this correspondence could be quite striking, because the Mazdean heavenly order (from top down: Sun, Moon and stars) would be well respected and represented.470 The highest level, with the throne or seat of the king, was on a fourth level, corresponding to the “Infinite Lights,” which opens the path to the Paradise or the Empyreum, where the abode of Ahura Mazdā was located. In this respect, the microcosm of the royal chamber mirrored the magnificence of the heavenly machine God. Furthermore, Ferdowsi’s poetic presentation emphasized the presence of a golden Chinese curtain with the images of the Luminaries and the planets.471 This marvellous curtain also contained the description of the seven kišwars of the earth, and the portraits of 468

Ackerman 1937: 107-108, and n. 2 with further bibliography. Ackerman 1937: 108. Ackerman suggested that this model finds a certain correspondence in a Sasanian bronze salver of the seventh century AD, preserved at the “Staatliche Museen Berlin.” L’Orange (1953: 26-269) casts some doubts on Ackerman’s idea that the picture preserved on the bronze was contemporary with the building of Xusraw’s Throne. In this respect, I think that L’Orange is correct, and the bronze of Berlin in any case represents an idealization, and cannot be a sort of picture of the realia. 470 Ackerman (ibidem) insisted on the heaven of the planets, but this is not necessary; the heaven in which planets and stars fought, was the lowest one, as we have already seen. 471 The presence of the planets can be easily explained. In fact, if the mechanism was a sort of planetarium, their motion was indispensable, despite the fact that these astral bodies were theologically considered as demons. 469

130

Antonio Panaino

forty-seven great kings, whose heads, crowns and faces were very visible. In conclusion, we can remark that, although the dimension of the Throne according to the Persian text seems to be enormous,472 this evidence is not a problem per se, because in general it is miniaturization that presents severe problems, not a great hydraulic machine. Thus, the special phenomena attributed to this mobile machine were not very intricate,473 so that it might really reproduce the motion of the main astral bodies and the progressive alternation between night and day,474 in accordance with the technical (and scientific) competences widespread in Late Antiquity at the highest socio-political levels of the two main rivalling empires around the Mediterranean area. It is possible that in the case of Ferdowsi and Th‘ālibī, both sources follow a common textual Vorlage,475 perhaps belonging to the Xwadāy Nāmag,476 while, as Herzfeld already emphasized,477 while we can exclude any direct influence of a visual observation in situ of the mechanism. But, despite this fact, all the textual data, scattered among Byzantine, Arabic, Persian, and Latin sources, confirm that a substantial knowledge of the intricate symbolic value of the sphere, even in the political language of the power, was current in Sasanian Iran, so that the ignorance of this geometrical figure and its astronomical implications, including also some visual features, should be considered impossible. The Greek and Latin sources insist on the existence of a mechanism (perhaps, more mechanisms, if we consider that the 472

See Ackermann 1937: 106. Caiozzo (2003: 56-63; 2011: 40) emphasizes (in direct connection with the Sasanian framework) the symbolic importance of the construction of an amazing portico with automatic musicians and astral bodies, in the framework of a hydraulic clepsydra, built for the Artuquids (a Turkmen dynasty of Western Anatolia). This marvellous water clock was built and described by al-Jazarī (1136–1206) in his The Book of Knowledge of Ingenious Mechanical Devices (Hill 2012: 200-212, passim). 474 As Bernardini (2004: 358, n. 16) recalls, the New Persian term ṭāq can also be connected with the idea of a celestial “vault.” 475 Herzfeld 1920: 16-17, and notes 3 and 4 with a detailed bibliography dedicated to a selection of Classical studies on the subject. 476 See now the monographic studies by Hämeen-Anttila 2018. 477 See, in particular, Herzfeld 1920: 3. 473

Order and Disorder in the Spherical Models

131

texts concern different residences), which could be interpreted as a hydraulic clock, a kind of μηχανή. Then, Arabic and Persian texts confirm this evidence, although we do not know the technical details of any Persian Kunstuhr, but we may conclude that in this respect the Sasanian ambiance478 was also not different from the Western one, in which these “miraculous” instruments attracted public wonder and amazement, but also confirmed the superior dimension of the royal power.479 Before concluding this part of the book, I would like to call the reader’s attention to the fact that Herzfeld480 also tried to associate the image of the throne481 of Ganjeh with the one visible on the famous cup of Klimova, now at the Hermitage Museum. Although this interpretation has been rejected, and the image has been explained as a representation of the royal ascension to heaven, Grenet482 has recently called attention to the reappraisal of Herzfeld’s interpretation 478

See Harper 1979. Cf. also von Gall 1971. On the Islamic interest for the Sasanian pattern of the Throne chamber, see Bernardini 2004. The ideological aspects of these architectural and technical programs have been focused upon quite well by Caiozzo 2011: 37-42, passim. Furthermore, Caiozzo (2011: 37) rightly emphasizes the cosmic relevance of the round urban shape of Baghdād (L’Orange 1953: 12-14, 18-19), comparable with the circular order of the seven walls of different colors (each one in symbolic connection with a planet) in Ecbatana (Herodote I,98), or again with the helicoidal minarets of Samarra, evoking the form of the ziggurat. Another aspect worthy of consideration, fittingly mentioned by Caiozzo (2011: 41), concerns the beautiful couple of the calidarium belonging to the Palace of the Umayyad caliph Walīd II at Quṣayr ‘Amra, which contains a fresco representing the Zodiac and the circumpolar constellations. On the ideological implications of this fresco, see Lehman (1945: 1-27), Saxl (1940: 289-295). More recently, Caiozzo (ibidem), very interestingly, has called attention to the interpretation offered by Van Reeth (1999), who suggested that this bathroom with its astral cycle was arranged in a sort of esoteric framework, so working as the place where the initiate should be introduced into a new paradisiacal dimension. 480 Herzfeld 1920, passim. 481 Grenet (2018a: 242) remarks that the strong interest of Xusraw II in astronomical machines incurred the priestly censure, and that the Zoroastrian Church opposed it. This is one interesting example of the typical contrast between the royal prerogatives in assuming a cosmic function and the desire of control maintained by the clergy. 482 Grenet 2003; Idem 2018: 242-243. 479

132

Antonio Panaino

by Vladimir Lukonin and Boris Marshak483 with a substantial approval of their conclusions. The Russian scholars, in fact, have assumed that this cup does not describe the king, but only astral gods, and that the clock mechanism would be shown at the moment of dawn, when the Moon God, seated on the chariot, is ready to set, while Mihr, as the Sun God, would be ascending. 5.2. The Direction of the Invasion: A Cosmographic Problem Coming back to the Mazdean cosmographic model, there are some aspects that are not completely clear. We know that Ahreman and his army entered the world from the northern side of the heaven (i.e. the demonic side for the Zoroastrians), and that they opened a hole in it, and then they were immediately trapped inside the good creation, where the demonic army would have been completely defeated at the end of the chiliadic cycle according to the Zoroastrian eschatology. This is at least, the basic description of the invasion, but its real celestial dynamics presents us with some difficulties and/or inconsistencies, which have never been properly discussed. If Ahreman pierced the heavens from the northern direction, as the sources unanimously state, we are immediately made to deduce that it was arriving from the top of the sphere, but many Zoroastrian sources insist on two peculiar facts, which patently contradict this conclusion: 1) The area of the Infinite Lights and Garōdmān has been never touched by the demonic contamination, as it seems to be also the sphere (lower one with respect to Garōdmān) of the “unmixable stars,” which are located, as we have already noted, in the Sphere above the Sphere (i.e., just above the sphere of the fixed stars), with the lowest one in contact with the atmosphere. Thus, there is an area of the heavens that certainly remained pure and uncontaminated. But, as I have previously suggested, the Sphere above the Sphere corresponds to a duplication of the Primum Mobile, which is correctly represented by the 483

See apud Overlaet 1993, no. 63. Cf. also Grenet 2008: 242.

Order and Disorder in the Spherical Models

133

Anaγra Raocā˚ or asar rōšnīh, so that this bi-location creates some geometrical difficulties. 2) The demons try to ascend towards the direction of the Paradise, which they want to attack, pollute and destroy.484 This is clear and plausible, because Ahreman would like to attack Ohrmazd in person in his celestial palace. The Zoroastrian gods, for their part, can rest in this place, and from it they enter the battlefield again. But if the demons entered the world from the north, how was it possible that they did not also trespass the other spheres around the heaven of the stars? It is clear that a fitting explanation cannot be found in a properly geometrical or mathematical approach, because the way of thinking adopted in that dramatic description of the events followed the fantasy of a mythological vision, not the rationale of a scholarly representation. But, as we previously remarked, these visions were (at least later) mixed with some cosmographical details, in which fantasy and science were blended together. My suspicion is that the invasion from the north,485 which for us is evidently from the top of an imagined globular structure (albeit it is possible that this idea was elaborated when the model of the heavens was not spherical at all), was probably imagined from the bottom (or the northern side) of the heavens. In fact, we must recall that, at least in all the mss descriptions of the Mazdean installation of the ritual priests, the south is put on the top of the page,486 while the north is painted on the bottom, east and west being respectively on the left and on the right sides.487 So, the fantastic image of the invasion was based on a motion from the north, but in 484

See, again, Dādestān ī Dēnīg XXXVI,34-36; Jaafari-Dehagi 1998: 123-125. See Bundahišn IV,10; Pakzad 2005: 59; Bailey 1971: 144; Anklesaria 1956: 4849. 486 See, e.g., Cantera 2014: 373; Haug 1884: 332, n. 1; Modi 1937: 517. 487 It is interesting to note that today the astrological diagrams still draw east at the left and south at the top, as it was done in the earlier Egyptian astrological charts; it was Ptolemy who changed the order of the geographical directions, putting west at the left and north at the top of his geographical maps. See Gordon 1971. 485

134

Antonio Panaino

which the north was down. In that way the motion of the demons was upwards, not the contrary! If we look at the “Horoscope of the World,” as presented in chapter VA of the Bundahišn,488 we see that the “ascendant” (better, the true “horoscope”, i.e. the rising point of the thema mundi in the east) was at 19° of Crab, and that Jupiter was there; the Medium Caeli was in Lamb, then the Imum Caeli was in Libra, where Saturn also took place (see Plate 7). As stated in the text, Saturn is the direct enemy of Mēx ī Gāh, the Pole, but later the Polar Star,489 and represents the north. Thus, we may assume that Ahreman entered from that direction, although his army should not have passed exactly through the Zodiac, but in another part of the sky, closer to the circumpolar area. This supposition is confirmed by the fact that the following astrological chapter VB,1617 precisely states:490 “As the millennium of lordship came to the Libra, which is the ʻdejection of the dejections’491 of the Sun (lit. Mihr), the aggressor (petyārag) rushed in from below (az azēr). Saturn was in Libra in his exaltation” (čiyōn hazārag xwadāyı̄h ō tarāzūg mad ī ast nišēbān nišēb ī mihr, petyārag az azēr andar dwārist. kēwān pad tarāzūg pad bālist ī xwēš). But the text also adds (VB,17) that Libra was down (čiyōn tarāzūg) in that moment.492 Here I do not intend to discuss the role of Saturn as Lord of the first millennium of the gētīg period, a subject I have already treated with Pingree493 in a special article some years ago, but I want to emphasise the special position of the constellation of the Libra (Tarāzūg), in whose proximity Ahreman invaded the world. Thus, we can conclude that Ahreman invaded the world from the north, but moving from below (see Plate 8). 488

MacKenzie 1964: 514-515; cf. Pakzad 2005: 77; Anklesaria 1956: 60. See also Raffaelli 2001: 72-73, 74, 76-80. 489 For this difference, see Panaino 1995/96; Raffaelli 2001: 105. 490 MacKenzie 1964: 521. 491 In Pahlavi, nišēbān nišēb, corresponding to the Greek expression ταπείνωμα ταπεινομάτων; this is the weakest place for an astral planetary body in the horoscopic thema. Cf. Bouché-Leclercq 1899: 192-299. 492 I follow MacKenzie 1964: 542, n. 50. See a different solution in Pakzad 2005: 87. 493 See Panaino 1996b. See Raffaelli (2017) for some new remarks.

Order and Disorder in the Spherical Models

135

I would also like to introduce a new remark. When we try to represent the description of the primordial state of the universe before the beginning of the battle between Ohrmazd and Ahreman in a visual form, we see that the Bundahišn, particularly in its first chapters, very clearly puts Ohrmazd on the top, in the light, while Ahreman is down, deep in the darkness. These two spirits are divided by the Wind, which is divided into two entities, one corresponding to the Good Wind, the latter to the Bad one. This representation is surely archaic, and seems to reproduce the triadic scheme of the primitive world, with one level for the heavens, one for the intermediate or atmospheric space, and the lowest one, usually corresponding to the earth (and the underworld) with the most tremendous darkness, which symbolically anticipates the image of the hell. At the same time, these three levels must be considered from the point of view of the mythological elaboration, and their distribution is not a scientific fact. The same idea of “up and down” would be formally nonsensical in the infinite, but here it implies a moral judgment, a distinction a priori between what is right and what is wrong. According to the dynamics of the battle, when Ahreman rises up from the state of stupefaction in which he was laid down by Ohrmazd with the recitation of the Ahunwar prayer, he begins his invasion. In this framework, it is evident that his aggression moves from the bottom of the universe, from the darkness to the light passing throughout the atmospheric level of the two winds. Of course, also in a true spherical cosmic scheme, any direction would be indifferent, because there is no up or dawn. But if the image of the invasion had been shaped, as I presume and we can deduce from some Young Avestan sources, in an earlier phase, certainly before the full acceptance of the spherical model, it would appear perfectly sound. Then, with their attack, the demons entered the creation from outside passing through the heaven of the stars, but it is not clear if they were able to bring direct damages also to those of the Moon and Sun; certainly, they did not reach the higher celestial strata. These demons also surely entered the atmosphere and poisoned the earth. The highest levels of the sky, in the earliest version of the myth, should have been seen as a sort of paradisiacal castle, encircled by

136

Antonio Panaino

an unlimited number of stars. I suggest that in origin the heavenly structure was more or less like a ziggurat,494 with a certain number of ascending levels: the earth was on the ground, then the atmosphere, the heaven of the stars, and those of the Moon and of the Sun. Above these were the Infinite Lights and the Paradise. Ahreman should have entered the heaven of the stars not from the center and the top of the structure (because in this case he would also trespass through the highest strata of the universe, comprising the Paradise and the Infinite Lights), but from the northern side of the lowest position of the heaven of the stars, close to the atmosphere. The spherical reorganization, with the absurd maintenance of the sphere of the stars in the lowest position, introduced the Sphere Above the Sphere (corresponding to the level of stars of Spəṇta Mainiiu) as an echo of the Western heritage, but then reproduced the older pattern with the location of the spheres of the Moon and of the Sun, plus the superior levels of the heavens. The highest levels, imagined as perfectly pure and uncontaminated, if embedded into a perfectly spherical scheme, become absolutely incompatible495 with the dramatic description of Ahreman’s invasion, if we imagine that they were created together with the earth. If someone recognized this problem, the organization of these celestial layers might be simply considered as a sort of fortress (as it actually was described), 494

The reference to the ziggurat as a cosmic model in connection with the planetary order can be found in Caiozzo (2011: 37), who compares the shape of this Mesopotamian architectural structure with the helicoidal minarets of Samarra, in connection with an astral cult; see also L’Orange 1953: 10; Idem 1959: 428483. 495 According to chapter II of the Bundahišn, par. 11, the unmixable stars were so called because they did not mingle with Ahreman and his army. See Henning 1942; Anklesaria 1956: 32-33; Pakzad 2005: 39. The same idea is also contained in the chapter VIJ of the Bundahišn (Pakzad 2005: 117; Anklesaria 1956: 84-85), which simply explains that these stars did not allow the darkness to reach the higher level. According to chapter XLIX (= XLVIII),16-17 of the Mēnōg ī Xrad, the motion of the sphere and of the stars fighting against many kinds of demons is around hell ([…] dēwān ud druzān ud parīgān ud ǰādūgān ī pad hamēstārīh ī spihr ud axtarān hēnd. (17) u-š rawišn pērāmōn ī dōšox). Cf, Anklesaria 1913: 126; cf. West 1885: 92.

Order and Disorder in the Spherical Models

137

surrounded by the Infinite Lights, but not spherical, or the spherical architecture, as we remarked before, should be postulated as simply erected in a period following Ahreman’s irruption. Another possibility, which was reasonably the basic one in a pre-spherical phase, was that of imagining a sort of cylinder in the eastern direction, probably protected by Sirius496 and the stars in the eastern quadrant, which is the one in the most divine direction. We do not know if anybody cared for this, as from the extant literature; actually, all these remarks, here collected, have never been the focus of past studies, and, as far as I know, the present discussion is the first attempt at a serious treatment of this cosmographic problem. But if one cared, the possible solution, as previously suggested, would be that of presuming that the other superior spheres were arranged after Ahreman’s invasion. The problem is that the extant sources are silent on this precise problem and we must speculate on its possible solutions. I have used the plural, because it is probable that that the opinions were different. In order to summarize this intricate discussion, we know for certain497 (and this is one of the few subjects on which the history of Zoroastrianisn, usually in turmoil, gives a solid point of reference) that the myth of the aggression by Ahreman had already been shaped in the Young Avestan framework, and that it was directly connected with the millenarian doctrine and the distinction of the world into two ontological dimensions, one “mental,” the other “living” (Av. mainiiauua- / gaēiθiia-; Pahl. mēnōg / gētīg). In this framework, the elaboration of a cosmic model with three levels (stars, Moon and Sun), above which the “Infinite Lights” and the Garō.nmāna- (Garōdmān) were shaped,498 followed a simple and primitive shape. This pattern certainly ignored the concept of sphericity, and so the idea of an aggression of Aŋra Mainiiu without corrupting the Infinite Lights

496

See Belardi 1977: 163-182; cf. Windfuhr 1983: 637-638. See Kellens 2000: 2009; Panaino 2003; 2017c. 498 On the theological and philosophical implications of the distinction between mēnōg and gētīg, see Gnoli 1962; Shaked 1971; Panaino 2016c: 57-58, passim. 497

138

Antonio Panaino

did not produce any special problem.499 Any potential inconsistency would be resolved by imagining that the attack should come from the side of an originally cylindrical construction, not by bypassing a series of concentric spheres, whose presence was introduced just later. A more advanced model, framed as a sort of upgrade of the Young Avestan system, was the one introducing the starred heaven belonging to Spəṇta Mainiiu, which inspired the Sphere of the unmixable stars. This additional astral level offered a new precise line of separation between the lower dimension (where mixture and fighting were normal) and the higher and uncontaminated one. Thus, the heaven of Spəṇta Mainiiu became the source of the later Sphere above the Sphere, we have found in the Pahlavi texts. But, at this point, when the system was embedded into the new spherical shape, some problems emerged. One is that of the duplication of the area attributed to the unmixable stars, but another difficulty emerged with regard to the form of the heavens that were now placed above the Sphere above the Sphere, in particular the one of the Infinite Lights. In fact, in a homocentric spherical system, if one body must reach the center (i.e. the earth) of the model, it inevitably must pass throughout all the other surrounding external spheres. I cannot exclude that in the present case these levels were not considered spherical (at least this was a primitive, pre-spherical image), and that they were imagined in the eastern upper side, again, as a sort of cylinder. Another possibility is to consider the expansion of the Infinite Lights as just following the invasion, as a sort of envelope encircling the minor spheres. Nevertheless, there is no need to assume that the Throne of the Amahraspand and the Paradise of Ohrmazd were conceived as a true sphere. These elements that counter or cast doubts on the full elaboration of a spherical model of the universe show the impending contradictions into which Sasanian astrology and uranography were thrown after meeting with Greek 499

The introduction of a special celestial level attributed to the stars belonging to Spəṇta Mainiiu in the Rašn Yašt, thus, assumes a remarkable importance, because in this respect the two primordial twins are again opposed to one another. Aŋra Mainiiu, prisoner of the earthly creation, cannot ascend to the higher level, because he is blocked by the strongest heaven of the stars belonging to his twin.

Order and Disorder in the Spherical Models

139

astronomy. The problem was left dormant, or at least so appears in our texts where science and myths occur in the same pages, apparently without clashing with each other. At the same time, it is also evident that the ancient pattern did not remain untouched, because the impact of spherical astronomy and of much more modern concepts is visible in the sources. We must accept the evidence of a number of bold contradictions, which appear peculiar for us, sometimes intolerable, but that did not scandalize these people, or at least so it appears, although we can suspect that other opinions on these difficult subjects existed, though they were not preserved, perhaps because too rational or even heretical. In any case, the postulate that the architecture of a spherical fortress, shaped with homocentric structures one inside the following one, was erected only after the attack of the devil, remains a reasonable postulate, which, despite the absence of any explicit description, must be taken into proper consideration. 5.3. Other Debates, Controversies and Polemics Before concluding this intricate point, I would like to remark that the Mazdean pattern of the ascent of the soul to the Paradise could not be adopted alone as a fitting way to explain the mixture of scientific and traditional doctrines in the later Zoroastrian tradition. The theological scruples heavily interfered with the elaboration of a consistent cosmic model, and this phenomenon gives us just superficial ideas of the complexity emerging from the theoretical debate known by some levels of the Sasanian and post-Sasanian Mazdean society. In fact, if we cannot pretend that the determination of a model for the cosmic spheres was not an everyday matter of discussion, and we legitimately suspect that the majority of the persons even ignored it, the textual evidences present us with the tip of an iceberg, in which sciences and theology were subjects worthy of struggle and open to mutual interferences. In this respect, the problem was not only Persian or strictly Mazdean, but was, mutatis mutandis, current in many other late antique societies, where the intellectual elaboration gained such high levels as to produce such intellectual contrasts and contradictions. Accordingly, I call the reader’s attention to the fact that this historical

140

Antonio Panaino

period attests a number of paradoxical situations, which are framed in exciting multilateral and multicultural dimensions. For instance, in the mainstream of Christianity in Iran, as the dyophysite one, the planetary motion was given a very primitive explanation, according to which the planets were simply moved by angels.500 A similar belief was expressed also by Origen, who wrote (Homilies on Jeremiah, 10,6) that, “an angel is assigned to the Sun, and another to the Moon, and another to the stars. These angels, whom we accompany as long as we are on the earth, either rejoice or grieve with us when we sin.” 501 This and other peculiar theories, as the one that the earth was flat, were proposed by Cosmas Indicopleustes502 in his Christian Topography.503 This scholar, strongly dyophysite, maintained close relations with the great Persian Katholikos, Mār Abā,504 Patriarch of the Church of the East between 540-552 AD, and his studies were known and appreciated in Iran, mostly via Syriac translations. In particular, in this book, Cosmas tried to reject the Ptolemaic spherical model for one in which the heavens formed the image of a tabernacle, as a box with a curved lid (see here Plate n. 10), in the likeness of the same image given by Moses in the book of Exodus.505 John Philoponus, also called John the Grammarian (c. 490–570 c.), one of the most important Neo-Platonists of Late Antiquity, moved a number of strong critics,506 against this fantastic theory, which, despite its embarrassing peculiarity, found a certain number of followers. A balanced description of the facts507 500

See Panaino 2017a; cf. Wolska-Conus 1990: 155-191. About the important influence of the School of Theodorus of Mopsuestia on cosmographic problems in Iran and even in the Islamic framework, see Radtke 1998: 330-332. 501 See Scott 1991: 128-129. 502 A sixth century Byzantine geographer, born in Alexandria, Egypt. 503 For the iconographic aspects of Cosmas description of the cosmos, see Kominko 2013; Anderson 2013. 504 See Berti 2007: 2017. 505 See the edition of the Christian Topography of Cosmas by Wolska-Conus in the bibliography, which also reproduces a limited, but very pertinent, number of mss illustrations. For a larger presentation of the illustrations preserved in the mss of Cosmas, see Kominko 2013. 506 See Sambursky 1962: 154-175; Panaino 2017a, passim. 507 See Scott 1991: 12-13, passim.

Order and Disorder in the Spherical Models

141

should remark that all these speculations about the stars and the planets, their soul and power, are old, and that their origin does not depend on an alleged Oriental mysticism, but that this fantasy partly goes back to Plato and the tradition of the Epinomis, where the planets, like the stars, were considered alive (Timaeus 38E5),508 so that they even play a role in the creation of the individual human souls, whose number is equal to that of the stars (Timaeus 41D8).509 Then, these astral beings were considered like gods, and in the Laws (945C4-946A1, 946B5-C2, 947A5-6), they are compared with the priests of Apollo, who corresponded to the Sun god.510 Although Aristotle strongly modified some doctrines of his master, in his first works he still maintained that the stars and the planets were living and “ensouled.” 511 The Hellenistic tradition enforced these speculations. For instance, we find in Nicomachus of Gerasa,512 a mathematician of the first century, a reference to the association between planets and angels, an idea that was also current in the esoteric literature as confirmed by a Magical Papyrus (PGM I. 74-76).513 All these data concur to show that the subject had intricate origins, and found even more complex developments. For instance, in the same process of 508

Cf. Cornford 2014: 112-114. This passage is extremely interesting, because here we find for the first time the idea that the astral bodies are bound with “living bonds” (δεσμοῖς τε ἐμψύχοις). It is quite possible that this doctrine had a far-reaching resonance or a more or less direct effect on the development of the cosmic model, attested in Indian sources, but also in Iran, and concerning the wind-ropes that move the stars and the planets. See Panaino 1998: 52-53, n. 74. 509 Cf. Cornford 2014: 142-143. 510 Scott 1991: 15. 511 See again Scott 1991: 30-31, and n. 36, passim. As Jaeger (1923: 153-157, in particular 154, n. 1) has already shown, Aristotle originally accepted the main lines of the view assumed by Plato (and his school, as visible, e.g., in the Epinomis 982A-984A) with regard to the ἀρίστη βούλευσις, “the best deliberation” of the astral souls and the existence of an astral will. Later, he rejected such a mythical vision of the heavens and thanks to the role attributed to the fifth element, the ether, he shaped a kind of cosmic physics without astral souls. About the ether (or aether), see Wildberg 1988. 512 He was born at the end of the first. AD, in Gerasa, Roman Syria (now Jarash, Jordan). 513 See Scott 1991: 60. Cf. Preisendanz 1973-74; Betz 1986: 5.

142

Antonio Panaino

demonization endorsed in the Iranian framework, after an earlier phase of assimilation in which the Babylonian nomenclature of the planets was accepted and adapted to the Mazdean patterns, the planets were demonized. This explains the peculiar fact that the planets in Iran have names of positive divinities (Ohrmazd [Jupiter = Marduk], Anāhīd [Venus = Ištar], Wahrām [Mars = Nergal], Tīr [Mercury = Nabû], the only exception being that of Kēwān [Saturn], whose name is of direct Akkadian derivation (kaja-mānu-, “the permanent, steady”),514 while they are astral demons.515 The brutal change of orientation that produced the demonization of the five planetary beings from divinities to demons can find an accommodation in the framework of Zoroastrian dualism, which attributed to the stars all the astrological positive influence, while the planets were considered responsible of all the negative events. Another reason can be seen in the basic fact that the planetary motion, when it is “direct” (West > East), goes in a direction exactly opposed to the one of the fixed stars. This evidence in itself would have been sufficient for some perplexities, among peoples who considered the stars divine, but the additional fact that the planetary bodies were sometimes stationary, and then that they could 514

The Pahlavi outcome as Kēwān, Sogdian Kēwān (kyw’n) and New Persian Keyvān, derived through a spelling like *kayawānu-. We must note that, exactly as Saturn was associated with Κρόνος in Greek sources, in reality it was another god, named Zurwān, the Iranian divinity of eternal time, to be considered its, probably more fitting, Iranian parallel. I must briefly remark that the traditional assumption that Saturn would be named zruan (written zrowan) even in Armenian is based on a false reconstruction of the data. In no place Zrowan is attested as the true name of this planet, which was normally called Erewak, while it occurs only as the corresponding form used to denominate the Zoroastrian god Zurwān. For a detailed explanation of this misunderstanding, see now Panaino 2019c: 36-18. In this study the reader will find a further discussion concerning the complex history of the demonization of the planets in Iran. It would be pertinent to recall that in any case the term Kiwan was used in the Mandean Book of the Zodiac, and that it is highly probable that the Greek association between Chrónos and Saturn (as it happened in the Latin tradition with Saturnus) was known also in Sasanian Iran, but this association cannot be projected in a remote past and used for further speculation about Zurwān in Achaemenid times. 515 For a detailed discussion of this subject, see Panaino 2016a (with additional bibliography).

Order and Disorder in the Spherical Models

143

even start a retrograde motion, was associated with the unpredictable movement of the falling stars, already demonized in Avestan texts. In any case, the radical reaction of the Zoroastrian tradition against the planets covers a hidden and embarrassing wound. The censure of the astral gods of the ancient paganism and the inversion of their role produced a visible caesura with certain aspects of the Hellenistic culture and its dominating fascination toward apotelesmatics. This answer was a reaction to some extent more radical than that we find in many Christian speculative debates of the late antique period. Thus, the astrological technique was not refused, but the tremendous power of the planetary “spirits” was encapsulated into a rigid theological system, which reduced their prestige. In my opinion, the pragmatic approach of astrology, in which the role of the planets was ethically unimportant, because their influence resulted positive or negative, mostly according to the geometric arrangement at their mutual positions in the Zodiac (the theory of the aspects), produced a strong rejection and a redetermination of their functions. This, of course, was the position of the theology in its highest attempt at embedding a foreign art in a traditional vision of the world, but we know that in reality normal people were less interested in doctrinal scruples, and appeared more excited by the possibility of foreseeing the future, thanks to the help of the celestial writing. As we have seen, just a superficial consideration of these polemics can give us an introductory picture of the complexity and the multidimensionality of the subject, and of its inter-cultural implications. It is not my desire here to discuss in detail this dramatic (and paradoxical) chapter in the history of astronomy, as there is no reason to emphasize the impact of Cosmas’ cosmology, which was limited, at least in the West. But, it is important to recall that, paradoxically, the preservation of the Ptolemaic model in the framework of western Christianity (in the geographic “Western” perspective, I include Byzantium, of course, because here we have taken the Iranian world as our point of observation) was inevitably supported by the contrast with the theological model supported by Cosmas and some of the

144

Antonio Panaino

so-called Nestorians.516 I think that van Bladel is right when he insists on the importance of this doctrine in the Persian world, particularly in the influential Christian milieu, and on the impact of some Syriac sources517 that supported this anti-Ptolemaic representation of the cosmos. On the other hand, I cannot follow him, when he concludes that the Zoroastrians, too, followed a system close to the one of Cosmas, with a generic image of a celestial dome, but without any cinematic model of Aristotelian and Ptolemaic derivation. I have tried to show here that the Pahlavi texts do not allow us to conclude that the word spihr was simply used as a generic word synonymous with “heaven” or “sky” (asmān), without any more or less explicit epistemological connection with the geometrical image of the sphere. The presence of traditional doctrines like that of the location of the stars on the lowest cosmic level, or the adoption of the heavenly bonds, which had an enormous success in Indian astronomical models since older times,518 prevented neither the knowledge, nor the use of Ptolemaic cinematic and geometric patterns. But, as in the Western intellectual world, the contrast between the astronomical need for saving the phenomena for observational reasons, and the philosophical dogma insisting on the perfection of the homocentric sphere, placed around an earth, an immobile center of a system moving in circle without other disturbing devices, produced a violent contrast for many centuries, so the absurdity of the heavenly tabernacle placed against Ptolemy and Aristotle at the same time, equally had its own impact. But the 516

Cf. D’Alverny 1957: 271-300; Panaino 2018, passim. For instance, van Bladel (2007: 240) mentions the explanation offered by Cyrus of Edessa (Macomber 1974: 124), a student of Mār Abā, to Jesus’ ascension. Cyrus affirmed that Jesus entered into heaven without piercing it, as water is taken up in a plant thanks to its roots and internal channels. His comparison of this metaphoric description with the Manichaean role played by the cosmic ρίζαι, “roots” (as attested, for instance, in the Acta Archelai VIII,4-7-IX; see Panaino 1998: 113-122, passim, with further bibliography), if not completely unfitting, seems to me far-fetched. 518 I must insist on the fact that already in the Avestan Hymn to Sirius we find the image of a divine rope used by Tištriia to block the chief of the astral demons (Yt. 8,55). See Panaino 1990: 78; 1998: 81-86. 517

Order and Disorder in the Spherical Models

145

Sasanian and post-Sasanian Mazdean cultural world had, at least at certain level, the intellectual resources to face and even to elaborate these foreign ideas in a critical way. I can prudently suggest that at least some of the Mazdean astronomers might consciously share the same pre-Positivist519 attitude developed in some crude observations current among Greek colleagues, who simply considered the Ptolemaic system true only from the point of view of the correctness in the prevision of the phenomena, but not for itself in cosmo/onto-logical physical terms. Something closer to such a pragmatic result must be inferred from the fact that the level they obtained in the precision of astronomical calculations was high, so that the Persian method, at least the one adopted in the calculation of the Royal Astronomical Tables, was based neither on Cosmas nor even on Aristotle. Otherwise, despite an enormous credit,520 preserved even during the Islamic domination, the reputation of these sources would have been soon ruined. Furthermore, as we have seen, some other scattered technical references also appearing in the religious sources, surely confirm that they knew Ptolemy and his methods well.

519 520

This observation was already expressed by Duhem 1908: 23-24. See, for instance, Kennedy 1956; large bibliography in Panaino 1998.

146

Antonio Panaino

So, if we look at the contemporary debate in Sasanian Iran,521 we may imagine at least a certain number of contrasting positions: the one widespread among the followers of Cosmas, but also those of the Ptolemaic and inevitably the Pro-Aristotelian supporters among monophysite or Melkite Christians. Greek pagan philosophers, whose works were known, had their own contrasting points, and the Zoroastrian theologians, after the mixture of Greek, Indian and Iranian doctrines, tried to produce their contradictory model, as we know. 521

It would be a big mistake to underscore the importance of the philosophical and theological debates at the highest levels of the Sasanian society. This trend was probably underpinned after the arrival in Iran of some Pagan philosophers after the edict against the philosophical schools (in particular the Academy) in Athens by Justinian in the year 529. Despite the hostile report given by Agathias, the Persian king, Xusraw I, and the royal ambiance, was really interested in Western ideas, and in any case showed a very tolerant and protective attitude with regard to these political and intellectual immigrés. They actually obtained a sort of diplomatic protection by means of special international agreements, when they decided to come back to the West. Another interesting fact concerns the existence of works like the Solutiones eorum de quibus dubitauit Chosroes Persarum rex by Priscianus of Lidia. The intellectual relevance of this book has been recently emphasized by Marcotte 2015, who rightly insists on the NeoPlatonic component present in this treatise, and on the transmission of this philosophical tradition in late antique Iran. Furthermore, Marcotte calls general attention to the specific complexity offered by the contents touched upon during the debate that apparently occurred between Xusraw I and Priscianus himself. On this subject, see also Tardieu (2015) and Dan (2017, with a large bibliography). Furthermore, we must consider the importance of the theological controversies, which not only opposed Zoroastrians to Christians and other religious minorities, but also the polemics arisen in front of the Persian court by the same Christians against members of other Christian Churches. The inter-Christian controversies were very heavy and produced enormous negative consequences, in a way that implied a direct involvement of the Mazdean court in these affairs. The nonfictional dimension of these theological (but also political) struggles and the apparent high level of the debates held at the Sasanian court imply a kind of social and political phenomenon currently studied by many scholars, as recently remarked by Walker (2006: 172-180 and passim) on the footsteps of some pertinent considerations already advanced by A. Guillaumont and other scholars. See also Watt 2005. Cf. also Panaino 2001a; 2001b; 2017a; Panaino 2017b. It is interesting to recall the debate between Tardieu (1990: 131; 1994, 2: 309–318) and other French scholars against Cameron 1969 (= 2016) with regard to the place where the seven Greek philosophers came back, whether Athens or Hārrān. On the whole history, see also Frendo 2004.

Order and Disorder in the Spherical Models

147

But this does not signify that the Zoroastrians had refused a spherical model, or that some of them, more specialized in the technicalities of the field, had even rejected the more advanced Ptolemaic cinematic patterns. Equally, it is unnecessary to assume that the adoption of Ptolemy compellingly included a dogmatic acceptance of his models. For instance, when we try to compare the different views about the planets, their identity and role, the situation becomes much more paradigmatic: while some pagans, following Plato's ideas, could state that the motion of the stars and the planets was due to their rational souls, advancing in perfect circles,522 the Zoroastrians saved the stars as divine beings, and considered the planets as demons (not without the patent contradiction of attributing them with very positive names, and recognizing some astrologically positive actions for at least to two of them: Jupiter and Venus).523 For their part, the Christian Neo-Platonists, following the astronomical descriptive model of the universe of Ptolemy, like Philoponus,524 considered them to be simple astral inanimate objects, while the disciples of Theodorus of Mopsuestia525 and Cosmas presumed, as we have previously emphasized, the presence of angels determining their motion. This scenario could be increased regarding regarding other religious varieties, but it is at least sufficient to show that complexity of 522

See Vlastos 1975: 49-65. Cf. Moreau 1939: 94-98. It would be useful to recall that in the Mazdean system of Late Antiquity, the five planets are animated powers, but of demonic nature, while only the luminaries and the stars are positive. See Panaino 2016a. Then, from the strict rules of the astrological praxis, Anāhīd and Ohrmazd, i.e. Venus and Jupiter, were “good” (kirbakkar “beneficent”); Wahrām and Kēwān, i.e. Mars and Saturn, were bad (bazakkar “maleficent”), while Tīr, Mercury, was good or bad according to the changing planetary configurations. 524 The Treatise on the Astrolabe by Philoponus (2015, ed. Jarry) shows direct links with the Ptolemaic astronomical tradition, but in particular his Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics, contains some sharp reflections about the difference between the scope of mathematical astronomy and that of physics, which put Philoponus in the group of scholars who accepted the principle that the phenomena should be saved. See the pertinent discussion by Philoponus appended to the edition of Autolycos of Pitane (2002: 151-156). 525 Born c. 350, Antioch, Syria – died 428/429, Mopsuestia, Cilicia (now part of Turkey). 523

148

Antonio Panaino

the market.526 It was, in fact, Johannes Philoponus (De Opificio mundi, I,12,527 written about the half the sixth c.),528 who attacked Theodorus of Mopsuestia, accusing him of this ridiculous doctrine. According to D’Alverny529, the attribution of angelic powers to the planetary motion would have inspired Islamic philosophers such as Ibn Sīnā530 and Abū Ḥāmid Muḥammad Ibn Muḥammad Aṭ-ṭūsī al-Ghazālī,531 thanks to a sort of Aristotelian and Plotinian transposition of this doctrine. For his part, Cosmas Indicopleustes, in his Christian Topography, IX,3, assumed, again following Theodorus of Mopsuestia, that god himself had ordered the angels to govern the astral bodies, just as “invisible powers” (αἱ ἀόραοι δυνάμεις).532 In reality, Theodorus in his comment to Colossians I,16,533 openly stated that the angels governed the air, the Sun, the Moon and the stars, in order to move all the things in conformity with the terms imposed by god.534 But this scenario offers unexpected surprises. In fact, while Philoponus brutally ridicules the “angelification” of the planets, he tries to defend the astronomical 526

The reader should not consider these examples as fictitious, because we knew that Christian astrologers were active at the Sasanian court, where they played a certain influence, also thanks to their competences in “iatromathematics”. On this aspect of the multicultural dimension of the Sasanian court, see again Panaino 2017a. 527 Cf. Philoponus, De Opificio mundi (ed. Reichardt), 1897; 28-29; Kihn 1880: 425. Very important considerations in Sambursky 1962; Schamp 2000. New German translation in Scholten 1997, I: 124. Cf. also Philopon 2004: 54-55. 528 For the age of this work see Schamp, 2000: 134-154. Cf. also Walker 2006: 191-194 and passim. 529 See D’Alverny 1957: 282, n. 8; see also Wolfson 1965: 81-91. 530 Born near Bukhara 370–429 AH / 980–1037 AD. 531 Born 1058, Ṭūs, Iran – died Dec. 18, 1111, Ṭūs. 532 Wolska-Conus 1973: 206-207; Eadem 1962: 168-181; but see the review of this book by Nautin (1965: 209-210). Cf. also Walker 2006: 193 and n. 105. About these passages in Cosmas see also the old edition by Winstedt 1909, 117D (Lib. II): 8384, but also 152 D (Lib. III): 107; 301 C (Lib. V): 217; 404 D – 405 A (Lib. IX): 287-288; 429 A (Lib. X): 309; cf. also Wolska-Conus 1968: 400-405 (Lib. II, 83-86); 470-472 (Lib. III, 34); Eadem 1970: 330-331 (Lib. V, 220). The reader will find interesting remarks by Wolfson 1965: 70. See also Chadwick 1987: 51-52. 533 See the edition by Swete, 1880: 270-271. Cf. Wolfson 1965: 70. 534 Some reflexes of these doctrines, via Arabic sources, are still visible in Thomas Aquinas; see Wolfson 1965: 87-93.

Order and Disorder in the Spherical Models

149

system of the Ptolemaic tradition against the theological model of Theodorus of Mopsuestia and Cosmas Indicopleustes (VI sec.),535 but, at the same time – and against any presumable expectation –, he finds inspiration in Origen, so accepting his idea that the astral beings are living signs of the destiny, although unable to properly determine it.536 In this respect, Philoponus moves on an ideal doctrinal line that connects him with Theophilus of Edessa.537 Thus, we can say that the struggle assumed a very high level and the dimension of the polemics became wide and deep, full of paradoxes and of unexpected alliances. In this framework, Philoponus denied that the stars and the astral beings were alive, and declared (in direct contrast with Aristotle) that the heavenly events were governed by the same physical laws working on earth. While the thought of Philoponus did not receive the respect it deserved, certainly the idea that the heavenly bodies had a rational soul endured, and we can find it still in Thomas538 Aquinas.539 Very fittingly, Magdalino540 has remarked upon how the condemnation of Theodorus of Mopsuestia paradoxically preserved the Ptolemaic cosmology from further extreme attacks, and favored the preservation of the spherical model.

535

Wolska-Conus 1990: 155-191. But, see also the text of IX, 8-11 (Wolska-Conus 1973: 214-219). Note that Berti (2017: 45-46) insists on the role played by Mār Abā in the development of the cosmography of Cosmas Indicopleustes, while Kominko 2013 disregards this problem. 536 On this subject, see, in particular, the study by Scott 1991: 144-145, passim. Cf. also Magdalino 2006: 30-31. Despite the hostility of Theodorus of Mopsuestia for Origen, two different Origenian schools played their own action in the framework of the Persian Church. Their role was significant also thanks to the teachings of the Rector of the Nisibi School, Ḥenānā, elected in the year 572. On his role, see Widengren 1984: 18-19. Cf. also Reinink 1999: 182-187. 537 Born around m. 785 – dead in 785, a Christian Maronite, according to al-Qiftī, chief of the astrologers of al-Mahdī, the third Abbasid caliph. 538 Born 1224/25, Roccasecca, near Aquino, Terra di Lavoro, Kingdom of Sicily [Italy] – died March 7th, 1274, Fossanova, Latium, Papal States; canonized July 18, 1323. 539 Scott 1991: 166. 540 Magdalino 2006: 31.

150

Antonio Panaino

Although we cannot say that Sasanian Persia was an “open society” in modern terms, certainly its framework was not unilaterally closed or compellingly reduced to primitive marginal roles. The State was surely theologically oriented in a strongly confessional way, but this condition, in many ways common to more or less all of the other imperial societies of the same period, did not prevent cultural circulation, intellectual debate and a certain freedom in the cosmographic elaboration. A certain room was left for intellectual competitions and contrasts, not only in the case of polemics between religions, but also inside the theology of each doctrine. The conflicts and the debates, then, became multilateral, with unpredictable alliances, and unexpected enemies, inside and outside.

6. FIRST CONCLUSIONS AND FURTHER PROBLEMS

I hope to have shown that the Iranian cultural world, also in the Pre-Islamic period, and particularly in Late Antiquity, took active part in an intellectual debate, where contrasting opinions were significantly developed, and strongly rooted in scientific and/or theological reasons. The image of an Iranian world placed at the margins of “higher” civilizations in a provincial condition in which scholarly controversies about cosmology, cosmography and uranography were minimal and devoid of dialectic complexity becomes unsound. The Iranian world since the Achaemenid period was open to many external influences, so that not only Babylonian theories, but also other patterns of Egyptian, Indian and Hellenistic derivations were acclimatized. In this respect, the history of the adaptation of the concept of “sphere” in the Iranian world has represented a deep problem, whose complexity emerges from the evident contradictions we have observed in the cosmographic description of the celestial world. All of these inconsistencies do not show that the Iranians, the Mazdeans in particular, had refused strong innovations as those offered by Ptolemaic and other cinematic

152

Antonio Panaino

models, maintaining an anti-spherical model for the universe, but that they tried to frame a compromise between past and present. Traditional, theologically founded, dogmas were mixed with other doctrines. We do not know if the Mazdean theology assumed the Ptolemaic cinematic system as physically true, but we know that a certain prudent skepticism was also present among the best Greek astronomers, who distinguished between physical truth and the simple description of the phenomena. In this work I have tried to focus on some problems and, instead of resolving many issues, I inevitably must acknowledge to have discovered a number of other unresolved questions, whose analysis is presently only a work in progress. The presence and impact of the Aristotelian tradition in Iran, which deserves a monographic work, probably by a team of scholars, needs new foundational remarks. The dialectics between Neo-Platonism and Aristotelianism must be rediscussed,541 considering the fact that in Iran both trends were present, and that the intellectual fight was multi-lateral. For instance, if we would consider the problem of the eternity of the world, strongly argued by Aristotle,542 but opposed by Philoponus,543 the Mazdean philosophical milieu would have reacted in a third way. This world, fruit of the divine creation in order to face Ahreman, will be limited, as its time, but there is another

541

In addition to the classical works by Casartelli (1884: 1889), Bailey 1942 (and 1971), and Shaki (1970; 1973; 1975; 1981; 1999; 2003), see König 2016b and 2017. The presentation offered by Teixidor (2003) of the role played by the Syriac tradition in Iran is very interesting. 542 Cf. Jaeger 1923, passim; Mondolfo 1956; Degani 1961: 93. 543 See the collections of texts belonging to the tradition of the work written by Philoponus Against Aristotle, On the Eternity of the World, in the translation by Wilberg (1987). On this subject, Philoponus wrote another important work (2014, with the translation by Share) against Proclus. About this philosophical problem, see Sorabji 1987: 164-178. Cf. also Samburski 1972, and Davidson 1969; Idem 1979. The Islamic philosophical School known as Kalām adopted some arguments taken by Philoponus against the eternity of the world (Craig 1979: 8-9). Brague (2003) also analyzes the concept of time in Plato and Aristotle. The reader can find useful remarks in Duhem 1913: 80 (with reference to Simplicius), 242-345 (with reference to Aristotle).

First Conclusions and Further Problems

153

qualitative dimension544 of the existence and of the time, which will be eternal. Thus, if God and his own time are eternal, the divine creation is limited, and does not exist forever and always, but after the process of final renovation, which will extinguish the limited time and the creation as it is now, it will really exist forever. In this context, the eternity of (God’s) time does not coincide with the eternity of the world.545 Thus, it is probable that the Zoroastrian point of view would be closer to that of Philoponus, and of some Christians who considered the “time” of this world as limited. This is just the beginning of another possible booklet, and a reflection of the way we could frame new discussions.546 The same can be observed in the case of the problem 544

The Zoroastrian speculation was certainly able, at least in the ninth century, to focus on the qualitative individual experience of time in terms of psychological perception; on this specific aspect, see a brief but dense chapter of the Dēnkard III,221 (de Menasce 1973: 233), see in particular Gignoux 2003b: 116-117. 545 About these cosmological problems, see Bianchi 1984:43-73, passim. 546 There are, in fact, some fitting statements, which, properly analyzed, might offer an important overview on the late Mazdean philosophical representation of the concept of time. For instance, if we start with the Dēnkard III,193 (de Menasce 1973: 201), we find that time was conceived as eternal in itself, and that “duration” was its essence, at least in potentia. So we have here a description of eternity as a potential quality. On the other hand, its limit or delimitation (kanārag) is visible by means of the astral motion in the celestial vault (spāš). According to Dēnkard III,185 (de Menasce 1973: 193) God is certainly master of the time, but, with respect to Limited Time, his power is equally limited (kanaragōmand) as far as it is concerned what is possible (probably because of the presence of a powerful Antagonist); on the contrary, God’s power remains unlimited with respect to what is “undetermined” (abrīn). In this note I can only start a brief reflection, which I hope to develop in another work, but it is necessary to emphasize the fact that in the Mazdean philosophy the category of the “in-determination” is not seen in the same negative way as it was in the Greek tradition, where the infinite and the undetermined are generally associated with imperfection (see Mondolfo 1956). In this respect the Dēnkard III,284 (de Menasce 1973: 280) emphasizes eternal time (akanārag) in its undivided state, without past and future, but its division is possible because Ohrmazd has enacted a creation in a discrete (brīnōmand) time. The idea that the limitation of the time was necessary for the creation is also emphasized in Dēnkard III,284 (Madan 1911, I: 293,15-294,3; Dresden 1966: 223224; Zaehner 1972: 391-392; cf. also de Menasce 1945: 250; Idem 1973: 280; Gignoux 2003b: 118-119). Dēnkard III,267 (de Menasce 1973: 270) adopts an Aristotelian terminology, and makes reference to the “making of time” (zamānag-kunišn), which finds its “realization of the operation” (kār-framāzišn) in the limits →

154

Antonio Panaino

of the motion of the celestial sphere: if the world remained for six millennia in a mēnōg immobile state, and the stars and the planets started to move on only after the irruption of Ahreman, how was it possible to deduce the passing of the time? If the astral bodies are the visible form of time, as already explained in the Platonic tradition, which time was running, when they were stationary? The problem is no more of a mythological nature, because in that case an answer could be easily given; but the question is of a philosophical nature! Was the gētīg dimension, due to its prototypical state, able to mark time without the existence of motion? Or, again, is Ohrmazd’s mind the motion itself, the Primum Immobile, also moving the rest without any other visible actors? If God was in the highest level of the heavens, in the external limit of the creation, in a place where no damage was possible, completely separated from the future “Mixture,” and without any motion, his time was simply a duplicate of an eternal state. But in this respect, did the Zoroastrians assume that God himself was the force giving impulse to the world a priori, when it was attacked, or is Bailey right, when he concludes547 that the Mazdean doctrine of → attributed to time itself (ī-š zamān brīn-kanārag), but the Mazdean doctrines introduce an original dialectical process involving a primordial eternity, when time was undivided, followed by its division (the creation of the limited time), and concluded with the return to the indivisibility. The creation has been fashioned andar zamān “in time” (with time), as stated in Dēnkard IV,31-32 (Madan 1911, I: 416, 14-22; Dresden 1966: 324-325). The continuity of time is assumed to be regular as shown by the fact that everything past will be future at a certain moment, while what is future will become past. Nothing can exist outside of Space, while things in their quiddity are finite. Also, the Void is involved, because “all Space is from the Void. The Void qua space is said to be infinite through being noncontingent just as the being of the Creator (is said to be infinite) through Time. Sub specie aeternitatis, it is said, there is no such thing as present and past” (ud gyāg-iz hamāg az tuhīgīh ud tuhīgīh mānāg gyāgīg akanārag guft pad a-bastagīh čiyōn pad zamān dādār astīh akanārag zamanīhā abar-iz-išn nēst tis guft čiyōn ī būd bawēd; cf. Zaehner 1972: 215; de Menasce 1945: 251). An important criticism of the Manichaean creational myth, which also involves its idea of time and space, is contained in the Škand-gum̄anīg wizār, XVI,51-111, as remarked by de Menasce 1944:245-251 (discussion of the source), 254-259 (text and translation). The same text is transcribed and translated by Zaehner 1972: 392-396. On this subject in general see again Gignoux 2003b. 547 Bailey 1971: 138.

First Conclusions and Further Problems

155

the astral motion attributed the astral κίνεσις to Ahreman? This is apparently what is stated by Manuščihr, when he writes that the Druǰ caused the motion of the visible heaven.548 In the latter case they would have opposed Aristotle, who actually ascribed the motus to the nature itself. We know that when Ahreman invaded the sphere and pierced it, the world started to rotate, but our conclusion can be superficial. In the Young Avestan tradition, the spinning force was given to the stars by the Frauuaṣ̌is, but the memory of this important tradition was not well preserved. In the Western world, but in a framework that could also be understood in Iran, Philoponus suggested (De opificio I,12)549 that the movement of the heavens should be ascribed to a “motive force” impressed on the celestial bodies by God at the time of creation. Thus, we can imagine that the problem, very clearly resolved in the most ancient times, was known and framed in a different way in the later Mazdean theology, and that raised some discussions at least regarding

548

Cf. Bailey 1971: 85 and n. 1, with reference to Dādestān ī Dēnīg, XC,3. I must call general attention to the pertinent iconography of a recently discovered colossal image of a giant (six meters high), depicted on a wall from Akchakhankala (Chorasmia), who holds a celestial belt. Grenet (in two articles by Betts et alii 2012 and 2015, and in Grenet 2018b). has interpreted this image as a collective representation of the Frauuaṣ̌is just reduced to only one figure. If so, this iconography would be extraordinarily important, because it offers a visual representation of the myth of the heavenly motion propelled by the action of the Frauuaṣ̌is at the moment of Ahreman’s invasion of the creation. We must also remark that the visualization of a Frauuaṣ̌i underpinning the celestial belt directly confirms the Avestan doctrine contained in the Yašt 13,29, where it was stated that the Frauuaṣ̌is supported the sky (upa.dāraiiǝn asmanǝm). This statement also involves a number of ritual implications. In fact, in the framework of the royal palace of Akchakhan-kala, the Frauuaṣ̌i is painted in front of another giant, representing Sraoša (and his bird-priests, probably two sraošauuarəza-). This iconographic couple thus assumes in my opinion also a liturgical meaning. As the priest constitutes his one ritual Frauuaṣ̌i- at the beginning of the yasna, she appears in front of him (and in front of Sraoša, who assumes priestly functions), supporting the motion of the heaven and its regular cycle until the end of the time of the battle against the forces of the darkness. 549 This is a passage we have already discussed with reference to the theory of Cosmas Indicopleustes and the action of the angels moving the astral bodies.

156

Antonio Panaino

some of its most precise aspects.550 We cannot forget that in a few cases Ahreman involuntarily assumed a positive function, and we have, in fact, certain popular myths that attributed to him the way to create all the astral bodies,551 but this subject is more complex. Did the creation need an impetus from outside (i.e. Ahreman) or was it ready to start according to the previous project of Ohrmazd? Perhaps both solutions were equally plausible, and a sort of dialectical process between them cannot be excluded. But a Dēnkard passage552 clearly states that a “struggling impulsion” (lit. “urge”), kōxšišnīg ōštab,553 was at the origin of the material (i.e. “living”) creation, so that we can prudently wonder whether Zoroastrians had an echo of Philoponus’ speculations about the theory of the impetus,554 and then if an adaptation of emanationist doctrines, partly of Plotinian derivation, saved the divine action in the formation of the firmament. The time of God before the real battle (as that of Ahreman before the aggression), although already framed in the “limited time,” was 550

But with close regard to the Prime Cause, Shaki (1999) remarks: “In the syncretic philosophical system of the Dēnkard, Book 3, the prime mover is the Creator Ōhrmazd, and in the Book 4, under the influence of Peripateticism, the Supreme Cause (čimānāg), a novel formation distinct from čimīg (causative). He is defined as a being of unique principle, which is of necessity the supreme cause, not merely causative (yak buništ-iz xwad čimānāg ast ne čimīg; Dēnkard, p. 409). Ōhrmazd in his omniscience and will power is determined in action by the bounds of time, and in time by the bounds of action (Ōhrmazd pad harwisp-āgāh xrad kāmīg handāzišn brīd pad kār zamān kanārag pad zamān kār kanārag; Dēnkard, p. 228, tr., p. 218).” 551 See Panaino 2008b with additional bibliography. 552 Dēnkard III,123; Shaki 1970: 278-280, 294-300; cf. Bailey 1971: Appendix IV; de Menasce 1969: 193-200; 1973: 125-128; Madan 1911, I: 120,15-121,13; Dresden 1966: 90-91. 553 See Shaki 1970: 278-280. 554 See Zimmermann 1987; Wildberg 1988: 236-246, passim; Idem 1999; Wolff (1978). In a few words, Philoponus assumed, against Aristotle, that a body thrown in the air moves thanks to a kinetic force impressed on it by the mover; this force exhausts itself during the motion. On the contrary, Aristotle supposed that in order to obtain a motion, mover and moved must be in direct contact, so that, for instance, the air traversed by a projectile must rush around it and push it again from the back.

First Conclusions and Further Problems

157

perceivable only by God, and as a time of–and–for Ohrmazd, its visibility (in terms of astral mechanisms) was not necessary. Thus, it was measurable just by God, as a mental time, before its visible living enactment. We cannot forget that, despite the fact that in certain circumstances the time is not perceived, this does not mean that it does not exist, of course, with the exception of a person moving at the speed of the light. But the Zoroastrians did not know yet, even from the point of view of Ohrmazd, the God of infinite light, the difference between being immobile or in motion would be nonsense. This and other problems deserve to be investigated in the near future. For the moment, I hope to have shown, at least with regard to the state of the arts in the cosmographic debate, that the Iranian late antique world was part of a larger intellectual community.

7. ADDENDA

Addendum 1 As I have explained with more details in Panaino 2019c: 104-104, n. 74, Shaki (1970: 285, n. 77) assumed that the correct reading of the word spihr should be spahr, while de Menasce preferred in some occurrences spaxš. In reality, the mss seem to support Shaki’s choice, but, as already remarked by Zaehner (1972: 89 = 1955), spahr seems to be just a variant of spihr (actually Zaehner, ibidem, stated they were semantically equal). Furthermore, Zaehner assumed the equivalence spihr, spahr, spāš (= θβāša-, n., “firmament”), but spahr was explained as an alternative outcome of θβāša-. This final interpretation is in my opinion unclear, because in many passages spihr and spahr alternate in the mss tradition, so that the main problem is not in the outcome -hr- or –hl-, but in the presence of an -a- instead of an -i-. Thus, there are some possible solutions: 1) to presume (with Zaehner) that spahr was a simple alternative derivation from θβāšainstead of spāš; 2) to explain the origin of this word as due to a Kreuzung between Pahl. spāš (regularly from Av. θβāša-) and spihr thanks to a pseudo-etymological connection of the two words. 3) the explanation suggested by Nyberg (1974: 124, sub voce mahmānēh, “dwelling”), according to whom “the change of -ēh- > -ăh-“ (but also the one -ih- > -ah-) “before a consonant was a characteristic

Addenda

159

of the SW language.” The peculiarity of this special outcome (with respect to Av. maiθa-māna-) would be clearly visible in the light of Parthian myhm’n (mehmān) “guest”. In any case, I would exclude any direct influence on the reading spahr of the contemporary spelling of Greek σφαῖρα (in which the diphthong -ai-̯ was pronounced –e-, if not even -i- by Persian speakers). Rightly, de Menasce (1973: 424) observed that the orthography of the “Avestan” words, which are “Pahlavized” in passages like Dk. III,365, is very difficult, but the orthography spahr is well attested, and it represents a pertinent variety of spihr to be considered, although I cannot accept Shaki’s statement that spahr was the genuine form, while spihr the popular one. Of course, we could read sp’hl even spaxr, “merrymaking, revelry”, as MacKenzie (1971: 164, col. 145, but see the caveat below). The Manichaean Middle Persian and Parthian sources about ‘spyr (ispīr/ispēr), “sphere”, do not support this solution. Addendum 2 In a variety (according to a Persian Rivāyat, [on which see Zaehner 1955: 416-417, note m]) to the Persian text of the Olamā-ye Eslām, “The Doctors of Islam,” (a polemical source of Zurvanite orientation), every planet (plus the Sun and the Moon) is attributed a proper heaven (presumably spherical), so that Saturn was in the seventh one, Jupiter in the sixth, Mars in the fifth, the Sun in the fourth, Venus in the third, Mercury in the second, the Moon in the first, while below this level the heaven of the heavenly Dragon (Ja͛ wzahr), was introduced. This distribution follows a well-known traditional pattern, and probably reflects a later adaptation of Zoroastrian cosmography to a more conventional description of the homocentric spheres, well known in the Hellenistic world and in Islamic times. The text presents some peculiar doctrines, based on a transformation of older, probably Sasanian, models. For instance, according to this Rivāyat, the astral demons were seven (so including the two Luminaries), and were placed on the celestial “sphere” (sipihr), but only the most negative ones, were bound by means of invisible bonds to the eight heaven (fālak). This and other details show that

160

Antonio Panaino

we have to contend with a later cosmological model mixing some patterns already present in the Pahlavi sources with some foreign astronomical and astrological traditions. I am preparing a separate study on the astral contents of this document.

8. PLATES raθa-, m., “chariot” = asman-, m., “sky”

caxra-, m., “wheel” = zam-, f., “earth” Plate 1: Visualisation of the cosmological model according to the Avestan text of Yašt 19,43.

162

Antonio Panaino

Plate 2: The Chinese Cosmic Chariot

Plates

163

Plate 3: The Cosmic Model of Anaximader

164

Antonio Panaino

Plate n. 4: The Mesopotamian Cosmos according to the reconstruction by A. Livingstone (1986: 82).

Plate 5: The Mesopotamian Cosmos according to the reconstruction by M. Huxley (1997: 197).

Plates

165

Plate 6: Equant points and circles (from Clagett 1988: 123).

166

Antonio Panaino

Plate 7: The Zoroastrian World-Horoscope (from MacKenzie 1964).

Plates

167

Plate 8: The Standard Avestan Celestial Model

Raocā˚ Anaγra Spəṇtō.mainiiauua stārō Heaven of the visible stars

Plate 9: The (simplified) Avestan Celestial Model according to theRašn Yašt

168

Antonio Panaino

Plate 10: The Cosmic Tabernacle of Cosmas Indicopleustes.

9. LIST OF THE PLATES Plate 1. Visualisation of the cosmological model according to the Avestan text of Yašt 19,43. Plate 2: The Chinese Cosmic Chariot. Plate 3: The Cosmic Model of Anaximader Plate 4: The Mesopotamian Cosmos according to the reconstruction by A. Livingstone (1986: 82). Plate 5: The Mesopotamian Cosmos according to the reconstruction by M. Huxley (1997: 197). Plate 6: The Equant points and circles; from Clagett 1988: 123. Plate 7: The Zoroastrian World-Horoscope (after MacKenzie 1964). Plate 8: The Avestan Celestial Model. Plate 9: The Avestan Celestial Model according to the Rašn Yašt. Plate 10: The Cosmic Tabernacle of Cosmas Indicopleustes.

10. BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES

Aaboe, A. (1980) Observation and Theory in Babylonian Astronomy. Centaurus 24, pp. 14-35. Aaboe, A. (2001) Episodes from Early History of Astronomy. Berlin – New York. Ackerman, Ph. (1937) The Throne of Khusraw (The Takht-i Taqdis). Bulletin of the American Institute for Iranian Art and Archaeology 5/ 2, pp. 106-109. Alram, M. (1986) Nomina Propria Iranica in Nummis. Materialgrundlagen zu den iranischen Personennamen in Münzen. Textband. (Iranisches Personennamen, Band 4). Wien. Amato, E. (2010) La produzione letteraria di Procopio. In Rose di Gaza: gli scritti retorico-sofistici e le Epistole di Procopio di Gaza. A cura di E. Amato. (Hellenica, 35). Alessandria, pp. 1-165. Anderson, J. C. (2013) The Christian Topography of Kosmas Indikopleustes: Firenze, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, plut. 9.28. The Map of the Universe Redrawn in the Sixth Century. (Folia picta: Manoscritti Miniati Medievali, 3). Rome. Anklesaria, T. D. (1908) The Bûndahišn Being a Facsimile of the TD

170

Antonio Panaino

Manuscript No. 2 brought from Persia by Dastur Tîrandâz and now preserved in the late Ervad Tahmuras’ Library. Edited by the Late Ervad Tahmuras Dinshaji Anklesaria with an Introduction by Behramgore Tahmuras Anklesaria. Bombay. Anklesaria, T. D. (1913) Dânâk-u Mainyô-i Khrad. Pahlavi, Pazand and Sanskrit Texts. Bombay. Anklesaria, B. T. (1956) Zand-Ākāsīh. Iranian or Greater Bundahišn. Transliteration and Translation in English. Bombay. Aristotele (1962) De Caelo. Introduzione, testo critico, traduzione e note di O. Longo. (Classici Greci e Latini con testo a fronte, Seconda Serie. Opere di Aristotele, 1). Firenze. Arnheim, R. (1969) Visual Thinking. Berkeley (CA) (reprint 1997). Arrighetti, G. (1966) Cosmologia mitica di Omero e Esiodo. Studi Classici e Orientali 15, pp. 1-60. Autolycos de Pitane (2002) La sphère en mouvement. Levers et couchers héliaques. Testimonia. Texte établi et traduit par G. Aujac avec la collaboration de J.-P. Brunet – R. Nadal. Paris. Bäbler, B. (2010) Prokop von Gaza: Der Gemäldezyklus. In Rose di Gaza: gli scritti retorico-sofistici e le Epistole di Procopio di Gaza. A cura di E. Amato. (Hellenica, 35). Alessandria, pp. 560-618. Barthelemy, A. (1887) Gujastak Abalish. Relation d’une conférence théologique présidée par le calife Mámoun. Texte pehlvi publié pour la première fois avec traduction, commentaire et lexique. Paris. Bailey, H. W. (1945) Asica. TPS, pp. 1-38 (= Bailey 1981: 223-260). Bailey, H. W. (1943) Zoroastrian Problems in the Ninth Century Books. (Ratanbai Katrak Lectures). Oxford (reprinted with a new Introduction by the author, Oxford, 1971). Bailey, H. W. (1981) Opera Minora. Vol. 2. Ed. by M. Nawabi. Shiraz. Beckwith, M. C. (1998) The ‘Hanging of Hera’ and the Meaning of Greek ἄκμων. Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 98, pp. 91-102. Beekes, R. (2009) Etymological Dictionary of Greek. With the assistance of L. van Beek. 2 vols. (Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series, 10/1-2). Leiden – Boston. Belardi, W. (1977) Studi Mithraici e Mazdei. (Biblioteca di Ricerche Linguistiche e Filologiche, 6). Roma.

Bibliographical References

171

Benveniste, E. (1929) The Persian Religion according to the chief Greek Texts. (Ratanbai Katrak Lectures, 1). Paris. Benveniste, E. (1931) Trois étymologies latines [aprilis, dēns, nemus]. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 32/1, pp. 68-85. Berggren, J. L. – Thomas, R. S. D. (19) Euclid’s Phaenomena. A Translation and Study of a Hellenistic Treatise in Spherical Astronomy. (History of Mathematics, 29). Providence, Rh.I. Bernardini, M. (2004) Le succès de l’icône du Ṭāq à l’époque islamique. Oriente Moderno 23 (84), N.S. 2/2004 [Special issue: Kunst und Kunsthandwerk im Islam, 2. Bamberger Symposium der islamischen Kunst 25.-27. Juli 1996 herausgegeben von B. Finster – Chr. Fragner – H. Hafenrichter), pp. 255-273. Berti, V. (2017) Mar Aba the Great on Exodus: Fragments from the Commentary of Ishoʿdad of Merv and the Christian Topography of Cosmas Indicopleustes. Cristianesimo nella Storia I, pp. 27-50. Betts, A. – †Yagodin, V. N. – Grenet, Fr. – Kidd, F. – Minardi, M. – Bonnat, M. – Khashimov, St. (2012) The Akchakhan-kala Wall Paintings: New Perspectives on Kingship and Religion in Ancient Chorasmia. Journal of Inner Asian Art and Archaeology 7, pp. 125-165. Betts, A. – †Yagodin, V. N. – Grenet, Fr. – Kidd, F. – Minardi, M. – Bonnat, M. – Khashimov, St. (2015) Des divinités avestique sur les peintures murales d’Akchakhan-kala, Ouzbékistan. In Comptesrendus des Séances de la Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 2015 (3). Paris, pp. 1369-1396. Betz, H. D. (1986) The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation including the Demotic Spells. Chicago – London. Bhattacharyya, N. N. (1971) History of Indian Cosmological Ideas. New Delhi. Bianchi, U. (1958) Zamān i Ōhrmazd : lo Zoroastrismo nelle sue origini e nella sua essenza. Torino. Bianchi, L. (1984) L’errore di Aristotele. La polemica contro l’eternità del mondo nel XIII secolo. (Pubblicazioni del Dipartimento di Filosofia dell’Università di Milano, 2). Firenze. Bicknell, P. (1970) Early Greek Knowledge of the Planets. Eranos 68, pp. 47–54.

172

Antonio Panaino

al-Bīrūnī (1954-56) Kitāb al-Qānūn al-Mas‘ūdī. 3 vols. Hyderabad (Deccan). al-Bīrūnī (1959) Al-Bīrūnī on Transits: A Study of an Arabic Treatise entitled Tamhīd al-mustaqarr li taḥqīq ma‘nā al-mamarr, by Abū al-Rayḥān Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad al-Bīrūnī (d. 1048). Translated by M. Saffouri and A. Ifram, with a Commentary by E. S. Kennedy. Beirut. al-Bīrūnī (1934) Kitāb al-tafhīm li-awā’il ṣiṇā‘t al tanjīm. The Book of Instruction in the Elements of the Art of Astrology, by Abu’l-Rayḥān Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad al-Bīrūnī, written in Ghaznah, 1029 A.D. Reproduced from Brit. Mus. Ms. Or. 8349. The Translation facing the Text by R. R. Wright. London. al-Bīrūnī (1318 Š = 1939) Kitāb al-tafhīm … ta’līf i ustād Abū l-Raiḥān Muḥammad b. Aḥmad i Bīrūnī …, ba tasḥīḥ va muqaddima va šarḥ va ḥavašī i Ôalāl i Humā’ī. Tehran. Bjorvand, H. – Lindeman, Fr. O. (2007) Våre arveord. Etymologisk ordbok. Revidert og utvidet utgave. Oslo. Bladel, K. van (2007) Heavenly Cords and Prophetic Authority in the Quran and Its Late Antiquity Context. BSOAS 70/2, pp. 223-246. Bladel, K. van (2009) The Arabic Hermes. From Pagan Sage to Prophet of Science. (Oxford Studies in Late Antiquity, 1). Oxford. Boll, Fr. (1912) Hebdomas. In Paulys Real-Encyclopädie der Classischen Altertumswissenschaft. Neue Bearbeitung. Siebenter Band. Vierzehnter Halb-Band. Stuttgart, cols. 2547-2578. Bottéro, J. – Kramer, S. N. (1989) Lorsque les dieux faisaient l’homme. Mythologie mésopotamienne. Paris. Bouché-Leclercq, A. (1899) L’astrologie grecque. Paris. Bousset, D. W. (1901) Die Himmelsreise der Seele. Archiv für Religionswissenschaft 4, pp. 36-169, 229-273. Bowen, A. C. (2013) Simplicius on the Planets and Their Motions: In Defense of a Heresy. (Philosophia Antiqua, 133). Leiden – Boston. Bowen, A. C. - Goldstein, B. R. (1996) Geminus and the Concept of Mean Motion in Greco-Latin Astronomy. Archive for History of Exact Science 50, pp. 157-185. Bowen, A. C. – Wildberg, Chr. (2000) New Perspectives on Aristotle's De caelo. (Philosophia Antiqua, 117). Leiden – Boston.

Bibliographical References

173

Boyce, M. (1957) Some Reflections on Zurvanism. BSOAS 19, pp. 304-316. Boyce, M. (1982) A History of Zoroastrianism. II. Under the Achaemenians. (HO, I.1.2.2A). Leiden. Boyce, M. (1990) Some Further Reflections on Zurvanism. In Iranica Varia. Papers in Honor of Professor Ehsan Yarshater. (Acta Iranica, 30). Leiden, pp. 20-29. Brague, R. (2003) Du temps chez Platon et Aristote. Paris. Brendel, O. J. (1936) Symbolik der Kugel. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archaeologischen Instituts, Römische Abteilung 51, pp. 1-95. Brendel, O. J. (1977) Symbolism of the Spheres: Contribution to the History of Earlier Greek Philosophy. (Études préliminaires aux religions dans l’Empire Romain, 67). English translation by M. W. Brendel. Leiden. Brett, G. (1954) The Automata in the Byzantine “Throne of Solomon”. Speculum 29/3, pp. 477-487 Brown, D. (2000) Mesopotamian Planetary Astronomy-Astrology. (Cuneiform Monographs, 12). Groningen. Brown, D. (2018) The Interactions of Ancient Astral Science. With contributions by J. Ben-Dow – H. Falk – G. Lloyd – R. Mercier – A. Panaino – J. Quack – A. van Lieven – M. Yano. (Vergleichende Studien zu Antike und Orient, 3). Bremen. Buck, C. D. (1949) A Dictionary of Selected Synonyms in the Principal Indo-European Languages. Chicago. Burkert, W. (1963) Iranisches bei Anaximandros. Rheinisches Museum für Philologie, N.F. 106, pp. 97-134. Burkert, W. (1972) Lore and Science in Ancient Pythagoreanism. Translated by E. L. Minar, Jr. Cambridge (Mass.) Buscherini, St. (2013) L’Astrologia storica. La teoria delle congiunzioni di Giove e Saturno e la trasmissione dei loro parametri astronomici. (Indo-Iranica et Orientalia, Series Lazur, 11). Milano. CAD (1971) The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Vol. 8. K. Ed. by M. Civil – I. G. Gelb – A. L. Oppenheim – E. Reiner. Chicago. Caiozzo, A. (2003) Images du ciel d’Orient au Moyen Âge. Une histoire

174

Antonio Panaino

du zodiaque et de ses représentations dans les manuscrits du ProcheOrient musulman. Paris. Caiozzo, A. (2011) Réminiscences de la royauté cosmique dans les représentations de l’Orient médiéval. (Cahier des Annales islamologiques, 31). Paris. Caland, W. (1892) Beiträge zur kenntniss des Avesta. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 31, pp. 256–273. Caland, W. (1893). Beiträge zur kenntniss des Avesta. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 32, pp. 589–595. Cantera, A. (2014) Vers une édition de la liturgie longue zoroastrienne: pensées et travaux préliminaires. (Studia Iranica, Cahier 51). Paris. Cameron, A. (1969) The Last Days of the Academy at Athens. Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 195. (New Series 15), pp. 7-29 (reprinted in Idem, 2016: 205-245). Cameron, A. (2016) Wandering Poets and Other Essays on Late Greek Literature and Philosophy. Oxford. Carile, A. (2002) Regalità sacra ed iniziazione nel mondo bizantino. In Sulla soglia del sacro: Esoterismo ed Iniziazione nelle grandi religioni e nella tradizione massonica. Firenze, 1-3 marzo 2002. Atti del Convegno di Studi. A cura di A. Panaino. Milano, pp. 75-96. Casaburi, M. C. (2003) Tre-stelle-per-ciascun(-mese): l’astrolabio B: edizione filologica. (Supplemento n. 93 ad Annali [Sez. Orientale], vol. 62 [2002]). Napoli. Casartelli, L. Ch. (1884) La philosophie religieuse du Mazdéisme sous les Sassanides. Ph.D. diss., Louvain. Casartelli, L. Ch. (1889) The Philosophy of the Mazdayasnian Religion under the Sassanids. Translated by F. J. JamaspAsa. Bombay. Cedrenus, G. (1838) Georgius Cedrenus Ioannis Scylitzae Ope ab Immanuele Bekkero suppletus et emendatus. Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae editio emendatior et copiosior, consilio B.G. Niebuhrii C. F. instituta, auctoritate Academiae Litterarum Regiae Borussicae continuata. Tomus Prior. Bonnae. Celentano, G. (1982) L’epistola di al-Kindī sulla Sfera Armillare. (Supplemento n. 33 agli Annali dell’Istituto Universitario Orientale di Napoli, 42 [1982], fasc. 4). Napoli.

Bibliographical References

175

Cereti, Carlo G. (1994-95) Prolegomena allo studio del quarto libro del Dēnkard. Studi Orientali e Linguistici 5, pp. 107-129. Cereti, Carlo G. (2001) La letteratura Pahlavi. Introduzione ai testi con riferimenti alla storia degli studi e alla tradizione manoscritta. (Sīmorγ). Milano. Chadwick, H. (1987) Philoponus the Christian Theologian. In Philoponus and the Rejection of Aristotelian Science. Ed. by R. Sorabji. Ithaca, New York, pp. 41-56. Chantraine, P. (1999) Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque. Histoire des mots. Avec un Supplément sous la direction de A. Blanc – Ch. de Lamberterie – J.-L. Perpillou. Paris. Choksy, J. K. (2005) Zurvanism. In Encyclopedia of Religions. Ed. By L. Jones. Vol. 14. Detroit (2nd edition), pp. 10011-10015. Christensen, A. (1931) A-t-il existé une religion zurvanite? Le Monde Oriental 25, pp. 29-34. Christensen, A. (1944) L’Iran sous les Sassanides. Copenhague (deuxième édition). Clagett, M. (1988) Greek Science in Antiquity. Princeton Juncion (New Jersey; first edition 1955; reprint of the 1966 edition). Colli, G. (1992) La sapienza greca. Vol. II. Epimenide, Ferecide, Anassimandro, Anassimene, Onomacrito. Milano. Cornford, Fr. M. (1937) Plato’s Cosmology. The Timaeus of Plato with a running commentary. New York (reprinted Mansfield Centre, CT 2014). Craig, W. L. (1979) The Kalām Cosmological Argument. London (reprint 2018, Eugene, Oregon). Crevatin, F. (1974) Un problema di ‘Antichità’ indeuropee: il «cuneo del fulmine» (Parte prima). Incontri Linguistici 1, pp. 61-81. Crevatin, F. (1975) Un problema di ‘Antichità’ indeuropee: il «cuneo del fulmine» (Parte seconda). Incontri Linguistici 2, pp. 47-60. Crevatin, F. (1976-77) Un problema di ‘Antichità’ indeuropee: il «cuneo del fulmine» (Parte terza). Incontri Linguistici 3/1, pp. 29-40. Culianu, I. P. (1983) Psychanodia. I. A Survey of the Evidence Concerning the Ascension of the Soul and its Relevance. Vol. 1. Status quaestionis. (Religions orientales dans l’Empire romain, 99). Leiden.

176

Antonio Panaino

Culianu, I. P. (1984) Expériences de l’extase. Extase, ascension et récit visionnaire de l’hellénisme au Moyen Age. Préface de M. Eliade. (Bibliothèque historique). Paris. Cullen, Chr. (1996) Astronomy and Mathematics in Ancient China: the Zhou Bi Suan Jing. (Needham Research Institute Studies, 1). Cambridge. D’Alverny, M.-Th. (1957) Les Anges et les Jours. Cahiers Archéologiques 9, pp. 271-300. Dan, A. (2017) Les Solutiones ad Chosroem de Priscien de Lydie et les transferts de savoirs pendant l’Antiquité tardive et le Moyen Âge. In Orbis Disciplinae. Hommages en l’honneur de Patrick Gautier Dalché. Éd. par N. Bouloux – A. Dan – G. Tolias. Turnhout, pp. 557-606. Davidson, H. A. (1969) John Philoponus as a source of Medieval Islamic and Jewish proofs of creation. Journal of the American Oriental Society 89, pp. 357-391. Davidson, H. A. (1979) The Principle that a Finite Body can Contain Only Finite Power. In Studies in Jewish Religious and Intellectual History Presented to Alexander Altmann. Ed. by S. Stein – R. Loewe. Alabama, pp. 75-92. Degani, E. (1961) ΑΙΩΝ. Da Omero ad Aristotele. (Università di Padova. Pubblicazioni della Facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia, 37). Firenze. Degani, E. (1963) Epilegomena su ΑΙΩΝ. Rivista di Filologia e Cultura Classica 91, pp. 104-110. Degani, E. (2001) ΑΙΩΝ. (EIKASMOS, Quaderni di Cultura Classica. Studi, 5). Bologna. Deimel, A. (1934) “Enuma Eliš” und Hexaëmeron. (Sacra Scriptura Antiquitatibus Orientalibus Illustrata, 5). Rom. Derksen, E. (2015) Etymological Dictionary of the Baltic Inherited Lexicon. (Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series, 13). Leiden. Dicks, D. R. (1970) Early Greek Astronomy to Aristotle. Ithaca, New York. Diels, H. (1897) Über Anaximanders Kosmos. Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 10, N.F. III. Band, pp. 228-237. Diels, H. (1917) Über die von Prokop beschriebene Kunstuhr von Gaza. (Abhandlungen der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der

Bibliographical References

177

Wissenschaften, Philologisch-historische Klasse, no 7, pp. 1-39). Berlin. Diels, H. (1929) Doxographi Graeci. Berolini et Lipsiae (Ist ed. 1879). Diels, H. - Kranz, W. (1989) Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker. Griechisch und Deutsch. 3 Vols. Berlin (3rd ed. 1912). Dresden, M. J. (1966) Dēnkart. A Pahlavi Text. Facsimile Edition of the Manuscript B of the K. R. Cama Oriental Institute Bombay. Wiesbaden. Dreyer, J. L. E. (1953) A History of Astronomy from Thales to Kepler. Revised with a Foreword by W. H. Stahl. New York (2nd edition). Duchesne-Guillemin, J. (1956) Persische Weisheit in griechischem Gewande? The Harvard Theological Review 49, N. 2, pp. 115-122. Duchesne-Guillemin, J. (1962) Fire in Iran and in Greece. East and West, N.S., 13, June-September, pp. 198-206. Duchesne-Guillemin, J. (1966) D’Anaximandre à Empédocle: contacts gréco-iraniens. In Atti del Convegno sul Tema: La Persia e il Mondo Greco-Romano (Roma 11-14 aprile 1965. Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei). Roma, pp. 423-431. Duchesne-Guillemin, J. (1978) Opera Minora. Vol. III. Iran-Grèce-Israëletc. Téhéran. Duhem, P. (1908) ΣΩΖΕΙΝ ΤΑ ΦΑΙΝΟΜΕΝΑ. Essai sur la notion de théorie physique de Platon à Galilée. (Mathesis). Paris (reprint Paris 1994). Duhem, P. (1913) Le système du monde. Histoire des doctrines cosmologiques de Platon à Copernic. Tome premier. Paris. Duhem, P. (1914) Le système du monde. Histoire des doctrines cosmologiques de Platon à Copernic. Tome II. Paris. Duhem, P. (1956) Le système du monde. Histoire des doctrines cosmologiques de Platon à Copernic. Tome VII. Cinquième partie : La physique parisienne au XIVe siècle. Paris. Durante, N. (1976) Sulla Preistoria della Tradizione Poetica Greca. Parte seconda: Risultanze della Comparazione indoeuropea. (Incunabula Graeca, 44). Roma. Ebeling, E. (1931) Tod und Leben nach den Vorstellungen der Babylonier. Berlin. Eckschmitt, W. (1989) Weltmodelle. Griechische Weltbilder von Thales bis Ptolemäus. (Kulturgeschichte der Antiken Welt, 43). Mainz am

178

Antonio Panaino

Rhein. Eisler, Fr. (1910) Weltenmantel und Himmelszelt: religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur Urgeschichte des antiken Weltbildes. Band 1. München. Fehling, D. (1985) Das Problem der Geschichte des Griechischen Weltmodells vor Aristoteles. Rheinisches Museum für Philologie, N. F. 128, Heft 3/4, pp. 195-231. Firdousi, A. (1878) Le Livre des Rois par Abdoul’kasim Firdousi publié, traduit et commenté par M. J. Mohl. Tome septième. Paris (reprint Paris 1976). Frendo, D. (2004) Agathias’ View of the Intellectual Attainments of Khusrau I: A Reconsideration of the Evidence. Bulletin of the Asia Institute, N.S. 18, pp. 97-110. Frisk, H. (1960) Griechisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch. Band 1. Heidelberg. Frisk, H. (1970) Griechisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch. Band 2. Heidelberg. Furley, D. (2009) Cosmic Problems. Essays on Greek and Roman Philosophy of Nature. Cambridge (1st edition 1989). Gall, H. von (1971) Entwicklung und Gestalt des Thrones im vorislamischen Iran. Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran, N. F. 4, pp. 207-235. Georgio Monachos (1904) Georgii monachi Chronicon. Herausgegeben von C. de Boor. 2 vols. Leipzig: Teubner. Gershevitch, I. (1969) Amber at Persepolis. In Studia Classica et Orientalia Antonino Pagliaro Oblata. Vol. II. Roma, pp. 167-251. Gesenius, W. (1915) Hebräisches und Aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das Alte Testament. Berlin – Göttingen – Heidelberg. Gharib, B. (2004) Sogdian Dictionary. (With Addenda and Corrigenda). Tehran (2nd ed.). Gignoux, Ph. (1984 Le livre d’Ardā Vīrāz, translittération transcription et traduction du texte pehlevi. (Bibliothèque Iranienne, Cahier 14). Paris. Gignoux, Ph. (2003a) Noms propres sassanides en moyenperse épigraphique. Supplément [1986-2001]. (Iranisches

Bibliographical References

179

Personennamenbuch, Band II. Mitteliranische Personennamen, Faszikel 3). Wien. Gignoux, Ph. (2003b) Zamān ou le temps philosophique dans le Dēnkard III. In Religious themes and texts of pre-Islamic Iran and Central Asia. Studies in honour of Professor Gherardo Gnoli on the occasion of his 65th birthday on 6th December 2002. Ed. by C. G. Cereti – M. Maggi – E. Provasi. (Beiträge zur Iranistik, 24). Wiesbaden, pp. 115-122. Gnoli, Gh. (1962) Un particolare aspetto del simbolismo della luce nel Mazdeismo e nel Manicheismo. AION N.S. 12, pp. 95-128. Gnoli, Gh. (1965) Review of M. Molé, Culte, mythe et cosmologie dans l’Iran ancient, Paris 1963. Rivista degli studi orientali 40/4, pp. 334-343. Gnoli, Gh. (1984) L’évolution du dualisme iranien et le problème zurvanite. Revue de l'histoire des religions 201/2, pp. 115-138. Goldman, L. (2015) Rašn Yašt. The Avestan Hymn to ‘Justice”. (Beiträge zur Iranistik, 39). Wiesbaden. Goldstein, B. R. (2002) On the Babylonian Discovery of the Periods of Lunar Motions. Journal for the History of Astronomy 33, pp. 1-13. Gombrich, R. F. (1975) Ancient Indian Cosmology. In Ancient Cosmologies. Ed. by C. Blacker and M. Loewe. London, pp. 110-142. Gordon, B. L. (1971) Sacred Directions, Orientation, and the Top of the Map. History of Religions 10/3, pp. 211-227. Grenet, Fr. (2003) L’Inde des astrologues sur une peinture du VIIIe siècle (Planches 2-3). In Religious themes and texts of pre-Islamic Iran and Central Asia. Studies in honour of Professor Gherardo Gnoli on the occasion of his 65th birthday on 6th December 2002. Ed. by C. G. Cereti – M. Maggi – E. Provasi. (Beiträge zur Iranistik, 24). Wiesbaden, pp. 123.129. Grenet, Fr. (2018a) The Circulation of Astrological Lore and its Political Use between the Roman East, Sasanian Iran, Central Asia, India, and the Türks. In Empires and Exchanges in Eurasian Late Antiquity. Rome, China, Iran, and the Steppe, ca. 250-750. Ed. by N. Di Cosmo – M. Maas. Cambridge, pp. 235-252. Grenet, Fr. (2018b) Was Zoroastrian Art Invented in Chorasmia? Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 24, pp. 68-86.

180

Antonio Panaino

Guthrie, W.K.C. (1971) A History of Greek Philosophy. Vol. I. The Earlier Presocratics and the Pythagoreans. Cambridge. Halma, N. (1816) Composition mathématique de Claude Ptolémée ou Astronomie ancienne, traduite par la première fois du grec en français sur les manuscrits de la Bibliothèque du Roi par M. l’Abbé Halma, suivie des notes de M. Delambre. Tome 2. Paris. Hämeen-Anttilla, J. (2018) Khwadāynāmag. The Middle Persian Book of Kings. (Studies in Persian Cultural History, 14). Leiden – Boston. Hardie, P. H. (1985) Imago mundi: Cosmological and Ideological Aspects of the Shield of Achilles. Journal of Hellenic Studies 105, pp. 11-31. Harmatta, J. (1998) The myth of the stone heaven in Eurasia. Acta Antiquae Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 38, pp. 307-313. Harper, P. O. (1979) Thrones and Enthronement Scenes in Sasanian Art. Iran 17, pp. 49-64. Haudry, J. (1987a) La Religion cosmique des Indo-Européens. Milan – Paris. Haudry, J. (1987b) Le nom indo-européen du “ciel-diurne”. LALIES 5, pp. 36-46. Haug, M (1884) Essays on the Sacred Language, Writings, and Religion of the Parsis. London. Henning, W. B. (1942) An Astronomical Chapter of the Bundahishn. JRAS, pp. 229-248 (reprinted in Henning 1977, II: 95-114). Henning, W. B. (1948) A Sogdian Fragment of the Manichean Cosmogony. BSOAS 12, pp. 306-318 (reprinted in Henning 1977, II: 301-313). Henning, W. B. (1954) Ein unbeachtetes Wort im Awesta. In Asiatica. Festschrift Friedrich Weller zum 65. Geburtstag gewidmet von seinen Freunden, Kollegen und Schülern. Herausgegeben von J. Schubert – U. Schneider. Leipzig, pp. 289-291 (reprinted in Henning 1977, II: 437-440). Henning, W. B. (1977) Selected Papers. 2 vols. (Acta Iranica 14-15. Hommages et Opera Minora, V-VI). Téhéran – Liège. Herzfeld, E. (1920) Der Thron des Khosro. Quellenkritische und ikonographische Studie über Grenzgebiete der Kunstgeschichte des Morgen- und Abendalandes. Jahrbuch des preussischen

Bibliographical References

181

Kunstsammlungen 41/2, pp. 1-24, 103-147. Hesychius (1861) Hesychii Alexandrini Lexicon post Io. Albertum recensuit M. Schmidt. Vol. Tertium. Halle (reprinted in Amsterdam, 1965). Hesychius (1953) Hesychii Alexandrini lexicon. Herausgegeben von K. Latte. Band 1. Copenhagen. Hiersche, R. (1964) Untersuchungen zur Frage der Tenues Aspiratae im Indogermanischen. Wiesbaden. Hill, D. H. (2012) The Book of Knowledge of Ingenious Mechanical Devices: (Kitāb fī ma‘rifat al-hiyal al-handasivya) by Ibn al Razzaz al-Jazari. Translated and annotated by D. H. Hill. Dordrech – Boston. Hintze, A. (1994a) Der Zamyād-Yašt. Edition, Übersetzung, Kommentar. (Beiträge zur Iranistik, 12). Wiesbaden. Hintze, A. (1994b) Zamyād Yašt. Introduction, Avestan Text, Translation, Glossary. (Iranische Texte). Wiesbaden. Hintze, A. (2007) A Zoroastrian Liturgy. The Worship in Seven Chapters (Yasna 35-41). (Iranica, 12). Wiesbaden. Hladký, V. (2017) Empedocles’ Sphairos. Rhizomata 5/1, pp. 1-24. Hölscher, U. (1953) Anaximander und die Anfänge der Philosophie. Hermes 81, pp. 257-279, 385-418. Hommel, H. (1949) Tanzen und Spielen. Gymnasium. Zeitschrift für Kultur der Antike und Humanistische Bildung 56/1, pp. 201-205. Horowitz, W. (2011) Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography. (Mesopotamian Civilizations, 9). Second Printing with Corrections and Addenda. First edition 1998. Winona Lake (Indiana). Horowitz, W. (2014) The Three Stars Each. The Astrolabes and Related Texts. (Archiv für Orientforschung, Beiheft 33). Horn. Huff, D. (2008) The functional layout of the fire sanctuary at Takht-e Sulaiman. In Current Research in Sasanian Archaeology, Art and History. Ed. by D. Kennet – P. Luft. (BAR IntS, 1810). Oxford, pp. 1-13. Humbach, H. (1991) The Gāthās of Zarathushtra and the Other Old Avestan Texts. Part I: Introduction, text and translation. In collaboration with J. Elfenbein and P. O. Skjærvø. Part I. (Indogermanische Bibliothek. 1. Reihe, Leher und Handbücher). Heidelberg.

182

Antonio Panaino

Humbach, H. – Ichaporia, P. (1991) Zamyād Yasht. Yasht 19 of the Younger Avesta. Text, Translation, Commentary. Wiesbaden. Hunger, H. (1992) Astrological Reports to the Assyrian Kings. (State Archives of Assyria, 8). Helsinki. Huxley, M. (1997) The Shape of the Cosmos According to Cuneiform Sources. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 7/ 2, pp. 189-198. Jaafari-Dehaghi, M. (1998) Dādestān ī Dēnīg. Part I. Transcription, Translation and Commentary. (Studia Iranica, Cahier 20). Paris. Jackson, P. (2002) Verbis Pingendis. Contributions to the Study of Ritual Speech and Mythopoeia. (Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft: Vorträge und Kleinere Schriften, 72). Innsbruck. Jacob, Chr. (1988) Inscrire la terre habitée sur une tablette : réflexions sur la fonction des cartes géographiques en Grèce ancienne. In Les savoirs de l’écriture en Grèce ancienne. Sous la direction de M. Detienne. (Cahiers de Philologie, 14). Lille, pp. 273-304. Jacobs, R. L. (1975) Jewish Cosmology. In Ancient Cosmologies. Ed. by C. Blacker and M. Loewe. London, pp. 66-86. Jaeger, W. (1923) Aristoteles. Grundlegung einer Geschichte seiner Entwicklung. Berlin. Jaeger, W. (1967) The Theology of the Early Greek Philosophers. The Gifford Lectures 1936. Translated for the Gifford Lectures from the German manuscript by E. S. Robinson. Oxford (1st edition Oxford 1947). Jamasp-Asana, J. M. (1913) The Pahlavi Texts contained in the Codex MK copied in 1322 A.C. by the scribe Mehr-Âwân Kai-khûsrû. Vol. II. With an Introduction by B. T. Anklesaria. Bombay (reprinted with a Preface by M. Nawabi, Iranian Culture Foundation, 112, Tehran 1969). Jamasp-Asana, J. M. jr. (1992) Pahlavi Texts. (Transcription, Translation). Tehran. Jamison, St. – Brereton, J. P. (2014) The Rigveda, The Earliest Religious Poetry of India. 1-3 vols. (South Asia Research). Oxford – New York. Jastrow, M. (1888) On the Assyrian “kuduru” and the Ring of the Sun-god in the Abu-Habba tablet. Proceedings of the American Oriental Society 14 [1889], pp. 95-98.

Bibliographical References

183

Jones, A. (2017) A Portable Cosmos. Revealing the Antikythera Mechanism. Scientific Wonder of the Ancient World. Oxford. Jong, A. de (2014) Zurvanism. In Encyclopædia Iranica online. Ed. by E. Yarhater. New York, under the web site address http://www. iranicaonline.org/articles/zurvanism. Junker, H. (1923) Über iranische quellen der hellenistischen Aionvorstellung. In Vorträge der Bibliothek Warburg. Herausgegeben von Fr. Saxl. Band 1, Leipzig – Berlin, pp. 125-177. Justi, F. (1895) Iranisches Namenbuch. Wien. Kahn, C.H. (1960) Anaximander and the Origins of Greek Cosmogony. New York. Kampers, F. (1924) Vom Wedergang der abendländischen Kaisermystik. Leipzig – Berlin. Katz, H. (2003) Studien zu den älteren indoiranischen Lehnwörtern in den uralischen Sprachen. Aus dem Nachlaß herausgegeben von P. Widmer – A. Widmer – G. Klumpp. Heidelberg. Keiper, Ph. (1884-85) Les noms propres perso-avestiques et l’Age de la légende zoroastrienne. Le Muséon 4, pp. 211-229, 338-358. Kellens, J. (1974) Les noms racines de l’Avesta. Wiesbaden. Kellens, J. (2000) L’ellipse du temps. In Anusantatyai. Festschrift für Johanna Narten zum 70. Geburtstag. (Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft, Beiheft 19, N. F.). Dettelbach, pp. 127-131. Kellens, J. (2009) Structure de l’espace-temps dans le mazdéisme ancien. In The Past in the Past. Concepts of Past Reality in Ancient Near Eastern and Early Greek Thought. Ed. by H. M. Barstad – P. Briant. Oslo, pp. 37-45. Kellens, J. – Pirart, E. (1988) Textes Vieil-Avestiques. Vol. I. Introduction, texte et traduction. Wiesbaden. Kennedy, E. S. (1956) A Survey of Islamic Astronomical Tables. Transactions of the (American) Philosophical Society, N.S. 46, 2, pp. 123-177. Kennedy, E. S. (1964) Ramifications of the World-Year Concept in Islamic Astrology. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Congress of the History of Science, Ithaca, NewYork, 26 VIII 1962 – 2 IX 1962. Vol. I., Paris, pp. 23-43.

184

Antonio Panaino

Kihn, H. (1880) Theodor von Mopsuestia und Junilius Africanus als Exegeten. Nebst einer kritischen Ausgabe von des letzteren Instituta regularia divinae legis. Freiburg en Brisgau. Kingsley, P. (1992) Ezekiel by the Grand Canal: Between Jewish and Babylonian Tradition. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (Third Series) 2/3, pp. 339-346. Kingsley, P. (1995) Ancient Philosophical Mystery, and Magic. Empedocles and Pythagorean Tradition. Oxford – New York. Kirfel, W. (1920) Die Kosmographie der Inder nach den Quellen dargestellt. Bonn – Leipzig. Kirk, G. S. – Raven, J. E. – Schofield, M. S. (1983) The Presocratic Philosophers. A Crytical History with a Selection of Texts. 2nd Edition. Cambridge. Klaus, K. (1986) Die altindische Kosmologie. Nach den Brāhmaṇas dargestellt. (Indica et Tibetica, 9). Bonn. Kominko, M. (2013) The World of Kosmas: Illustrated Byzantine Codices of the Christian Topography. Oxford. König, G. (2016a) Yašt 3. Der avestische Text und seine mittel- und neupersischen Übersetzungen. Einleitung, Text, Kommentar. (Sociedad de Estudios Iranios y Turanios, Supplementa 1). Girona. König, G. (2016b) A Re-thinking of Mansour Shaki’s contributions to the philosophical writings in Pahlavi. In Memorial Volume Mansour Shaki. Ed. by M. Jaafari-Dehaghi. (Series of Iranian Studies at the Centre for the Great Islamic Encyclopedia). Quarterly Journal of Languages and Inscriptions 1/1, pp. 4-26. König, G. (2017) The Pahlavi literature of the 9th century and Greek philosophy. Iran and the Caucasus, 22/1, pp. 8-37. Kotwal, F. (1969) The Supplementary Texts to the Šāyest nē-Šāyest. (Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab Historisk-filosofiske Meddelelser 44,2). København. Krafft, F. (1976) Kreis und Kugel. In Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie. Herausgegeben von J. Ritter – K. Gründer. Band 4. Basel – Stuttgart, cols. 1211-1219. Kuhn, Th. S. (1985) The Copernican Revolution: Planetary Astronomy in the Development of Western Thought. Second edition renewed by

Bibliographical References

185

the author. Cambridge (firs edition Cambridge 1957). Kuiper, F. B. J. (1964) The Bliss of Aša. Indo-Iranian Journal 8, pp. 96-120. Laks, M. Most, G. W. (2016) Early Greek Philosophy. Western Greek Thinkers. Part 2. Edited and translated. (Loeb Classical Library 528). Cambridge (Mass.) Lagarde, P. de (1868) Beitraege zur baktrischen Lexicographie. Leipzig. Lambert, W. G. (1972-75) Himmel. In Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie. Vierter Band. Berlin – New York, pp. 411-412. Lambert, W. G. (1975) The Cosmology of Sumer and Babylon. In Ancient Cosmologies. Ed. by C. Blacker – M. Loewe. London, pp. 42-65. Lambert, W. G. (2013) Babylonian Creation Myths. (Mesopotamian Civilizations 20). Winona Lake (IN). Landsberger, B. (1967) Über Farben im Sumerisch-Akkadischen. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 21, pp. 139-173. Lanfranchi, G. B. (2000) The Oracle of Apollo to Croesus. Mesopotamian Astrology and Mathematical Astronomy in Herodotus’ Histories. In Patavina Orientalia Selecta. Ed. by E. Rova. (History of Ancient Near East, Monographs IV). Padova, pp. 262-278. Lanfranchi, G. B. (2001) La volta celeste nelle speculazioni cosmografiche di età neo-assira. In 3° Convegno internazionale di Archeologia e Astronomia. L’Uomo Antico e il Cosmo (Roma, 15-16 maggio 2000). (Atti dei Convegni Lincei, 171). Roma, pp. 149-162. Lazzeroni, R. (1973) Il cielo di pietra. Studi e Saggi Linguistici 13, pp. 107-119. Lecoq, P. (2015) Les livres de l’Avesta. Textes sacrés des Zoroastriens. Paris. Lehman, E. (1945) The Dome of Heaven. The Art Bulletin 27, pp. 1-27. Lipp, R. (2009) Die indogermanischen und einzelsprachlichen Palatale im Indoiranischen. Band I: Neurekonstruktion, Nuristan-Sprachen, Genese der indoarischen Retroflexe, Indoarisch von Mitanni. Heidelberg. Livingstone, A. (1986) Mystical and Mythological Explanatory Works of Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars. Oxford.

186

Antonio Panaino

Livingstone, A. (1989) Court Poetry and Literary Miscellanea. (State Archives of Assyria, 3). Helsinki. L’Orange, H. P. (1953) Studies on the Iconography of Cosmic Kingship in the Ancient World. Oslo (reprint New Rochelle [New York] 1982). L’Orange, H. P. (1959) Expressions of Cosmic Kingship in the Ancient World. In The Sacral Kingship. Contributions to the Central Theme of the VIIIth (sic) International Congress for the History of Religions (Rome, April 1955). La regalità sacra. Contributi al tema dell’VIII Congresso Internazionale di Storia delle Religioni (Roma, Aprile 1955). (Studies in the History of Religions, Supplements to Numen, 4). Leiden, pp. 481-492. Lowe, J. (2011) Caland Adjectives and Participles in Sanskrit and ProtoIndo-European. 23rd UCLA IEC, 28 October 2011. Lüders, H. (1951) Varuṇa. Aus dem Nachlaß herausgegeben von L. Alsdorf. I. Varuṇa und die Wasser. Göttingen. Lüders, H. (1959) Varuṇa. Aus dem Nachlaß herausgegeben von L. Alsdorf. II. Varuṇa und das R̥ ta. Göttingen. Lühr, R. (2000) Die Gedichte des Skalden Egill. (Jenär indogermanistische Textbearbeitung, 1). Dettelbach. MacKenzie, D. N. (1964) Zoroastrian Astrology in the Bundahišn. BSOAS 27/3, pp. 511-529. Macomber, W. F. (1974) Six Explanations of the Liturgical Feasts by Cyrus of Edessa. An East Syrian Theologian of the Mid Sixth Century. (Corpus Christianorum Orientalium, 356. Scriptores Syri, 156). Louvain. Madan, Dh. M. (1911) The Complete Text of the Pahlavi Dinkard, published by the “Society for the Promotion of Researches into the Zoroastrian Religion”. Part I. Books III-V. Part II. Books VI-IX. Bombay. Magdalino, P. (2006) L’Orthodoxie des astrologues: La science entre le dogme et la divination à Byzance (VIIe-XIVe siècle). Paris. Maher, J. P. (1973) *Haeḱmon: ‘(stone) axe’ and ‘sky’ in I-E/Battle-Axe culture. Journal of Indo-European Studies 1, 441-462. Malzahn, M. (2016) Vedic asani-: Another Stone from Heaven? In Tavet Tat Satyam. Studies in Honor of Jared S. Klein on the Occasion of His

Bibliographical References

187

Seventieth Birthday. Ed. by A. M. Byrd – J. DeLisi – M. Wenthe. Ann Arbor – New York, pp. 191-203. Malandra, W. W. (1971) The Fravaši Yašt. Introduction, Text, Translation and Commentary. University of Pennsylvania, Ph.D. (University Microfilms). Ann Arbor (Michigan). Malandra, W. W. – Ichaporia, P. (2013) The Pahlavi Yasna of the Gāthās and Yasna Haptaŋhāiti. Wiesbaden. Marcotte, D. (2015) Chosroes Ier et Priscien: Entretiens de physique et de météorologie. In Husraw Ier. Reconstruction d’un règne. Sources et documents. Textes réunis par Chr. Jullien. Paris (Studia Iranica, Cahier 53), pp. 285-304. Mayrhofer, M. (1977) Iranisches Personennamenbuch. Vol. I, Faszikel 1: Die avestischen Namen. Wien. Mayrhofer, M. (1992) Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischen. I. Band. Heidelberg. Meissner, B. (1920) Babylonien und Assyrien. Erster Band. Heidelberg. Meissner, B. (1925) Babylonien und Assyrien. Zweiter Band. Heidelberg. Menasce, J. de (1945) Škand-Gumānīk Vičār: la solution décisive des doutes; une apologétique Mazdéenne du IXe siècle ; texte pazandpehlevi transcrit, traduit et commenté. (Collectanea friburgensia. Nouvelle série, Fasc. 30). Fribourg en Suisse. Menasce, J. de (1958) Une encyclopédie mazdéenne. Le Dēnkart. Paris. Menasce, J. de (1969) Une chapitre cosmogonique du Dēnkart. In Pratidānam. Indian, Iranian and Indo-European Studies presented to Franciscus Bernardus Jacobus Kuiper on his sixtieth Birthday. Ed. by J. C. Heesterman – G. H. Schokker – V. I. Subramoniam. (Janua Linguarum, Series Major 34). The Hague, Paris, pp. 161-167. Menasce, J. de (1973) Le troisième livre du Dēnkart traduit du pehlevi. (Travaux de l’Institut d’Études Iraniennes de l’Université de Paris III, 5 – Bibliothèque des œuvres classiques persanes, 4). Paris. Mendner, S. (1956) Das Ballspiel im Leben der Völker. Münster. Mette, H. J. (1936) Sphairopoiia. Untersuchungen zur Kosmologie des Krates von Pergamon. Mit einem Anhang. München. Migne, J. P. (1852) Patrologiae cursus completus. Series Latina. 123. Seculum IX. Usuardi Martyrologium ex recensione R. P. Sollerii et ad

188

Antonio Panaino

editionem benedictinam collatum praemittuntur Sancti Adonis Opera. Tomus Primus. Paris. Moazami, M. (2014) Wrestling with the Demons of the Pahlavi Widēwdād. Transcription, Translation, and Commentary. (Iranian Studies, 9). Leiden. Modi, J. J. (1937) The Religious Ceremonies of the Parsis. Bombay (2nd ed.) Molé, M. (1959) Le problème zurvanite. Journal asiatique 247, pp. 431-469. Molé, M. (1960) Rituel et eschatologie dans le mazdéisme. Numen 7, pp. 148-160. Molé, M. (1963) Culte, mythe et cosmologie dans l'Iran ancien. (Annales du Musée Guimet, Bibliothèque d’Etude, I, 69). Paris. Mondolfo, R. (1956) L’Infinito nel pensiero dell’Antichità classica. Firenze. Monier-Williams, M. (1899) Sanskrit-English Dictionary. Oxford. Moreau, J. (1939) L’âme du monde de Platon aux Stoïciens. Paris. Mugler, Ch. (1958-59) Dictionnaire historique de la terminologie géométrique des Grecs. 2 vols. Paris. Naddaf, G. (1998) On the Origin of Anaximander’s Cosmological Model. Journal of the History of Ideas 59/1, pp. 1-28. Nakayama, Sh. (1969) History of Japanese Astronomy. Chinese Background and Western Impact. (Harvard-Yenching Inst. Cambridge, Mass., Monographic Series, 18). Cambridge (Mass.). Narten, J. (1986) Der Yasna Haptaŋhāiti. Wiesbaden. Naumann, R. (1977) Die Ruinen von Tacht-e Suleiman and Zendan-e Suleiman und Umgebung. (Führer zu Archäologischer Plätzen in Iran, Band 2). Berlin. Nautin, P. (1965) Review of W. Wolska-Conus 1962. Revue de l’Histoire des Religions 168/2, pp. 209-210. Needham, J. (1959) Science and Civilization in China. With the collaboration of W. Ling. Vol. 3. Mathematics, and the Sciences of the Heavens and the Earth. Cambridge. Neugebauer, O. (1955) Astronomical Cuneiform Texts. Babylonian Ephemerides of the Seleucid Period for the Motion of the Sun, the Moon, and the Planets. Vol. I. Introduction. The Moon. Vol. II. The

Bibliographical References

189

Planets. Indices. Vol. III. Plates. London. Neugebauer, O. (1957) The Exact Sciences in Antiquity. New York. Neugebauer, O. (1959) The Equivalence of Eccentric and Epicyclic Motion According to Apollonius. Scripta Mathematica 24, pp. 5-21 (reprinted in Idem 1983: 335-351). Neugebauer, O. (1975) A History of Ancient Mathematical Astronomy [HAMA]. 3 vols. Berlin – Heidelberg – New York. Neugebauer, O. (1983) Astronomy and History. Selected Essays. Berlin – Heidelberg – New York. Nikephoros (1990) Nikephoros Patriarch of Constantinople, Short History: Text, Translation and Commentary. Ed. by C. Mango. (Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae. Series Washingtonensis, 13). Dumbarton Oaks, Washington. Nōda Chūryō (1933) Shūbi sankei no kenkyū. (An enquiry concerning the Chou pi suan ching). (Academy of Oriental Culture. Kyoto Institute Monograph Series, 3). Kyoto. Nöldeke, Th. (1879) Geschichte der Perser und Araber zur Zeit des Sasaniden. Aus der arabischen Chronik des Tabari übersetzt und mit ausführlichen Erläuterungen und Ergänzungen versehn. Leyden [reprinted 1973]. Nöldeke, Th. (1888) Persische Studien. Band I. Wien. Nussbaum A. (1986) Head and Horn in Indo-European. (Untersuchungen zur Indogermanischen Sprach- und Kulturwissenschaft, N.F. 2 – Studies in Indo-European Language and Culture, N.S. 2). Berlin. Nussbaum A. (2010) PIE -Cmn- and Greek τρᾱνής ‘clear’. In Ex Anatolia Lux: Anatolian and Indo-European Studies in Honor of H. Craig Melchert on the Occasion of His Sixty-fifth Birthday. Ed. by R. Klein – N. Oettinger – E. Ricken – M. Weiss. Ann Arbor – New York, pp. 269-277. Nyberg, H.S. (1929) Questions de cosmogonie et de cosmologie mazdéennes. Journal asiatique (avril-juin), pp. 193-310. Nyberg, H.S. (1931a) Questions de cosmogonie et de cosmologie mazdéennes. Journal asiatique (juillet-septembre), pp. 1-134; octobre-décembre, pp. 193-244. Nyberg, H.S. (1931b) Hilfsbuch des Pehlevi. II. Glossar. Uppsala.

190

Antonio Panaino

Nyberg, H.S. (1974) A Manual of Pahlavi. Vol. II. Ideograms, Glossary, Abbreviations, Index. Grammatical Survey, Corrigenda to Part I. Wiesbaden. Olivar, A. (1997) Sancti Petri Chrysologi Collectio Sermonum. Sermones [LXXIII-CXXIV]. Cura et studio A. Olivar. Mediolani – Romae. Oppenheim, A. L. (1981) Man and Nature in Mesopotamian Civilization. In Dictionary of Scientific Biography. Vol. XV. Supplement I. Topical Essays. Ed. by R. Adams – L. Zejszner. New York, pp. 634-666. Overlaet, B. (1993) Splendeur des Sassanides, l’empire perse entre Rome et la Chine (224-642 après J.C.) (Musées royaux d’art et d’histoire). Bruxelles. Pakzad, F. (2005) Bundahišn. Zoroastrische Kosmogonie und Kosmologie. Band I. Kritische Edition. (Ancient Iranian Studies Series, 2). Tehran. Panaino, A. (1989) L’inno avestico a Vanant. Atti del Sodalizio Glottologico Milanese 28 (1987), pp. 21-30. Panaino, A. (1990a) Tištrya. Vol. I. The Avestan Hymn to Sirius. (Serie Orientale Roma, 68, 1). Roma. Panaino, A. (1990b) Contatti sino-iranici nella cultura astronomica dell’Iran preislamico. In Dall’Europa alla Cina: contributi per una storia dell’Astronomia. Astronomia europea e cinese: Una duplice storicità a confronto, Convegno internazionale di studi, Napoli 1988. A cura di I. Iannaccone – A. Tamburello. Napoli, pp. 41–54. Panaino, A. (1995a) Tištrya. Vol. II. The Iranian Myth of the Star Sirius. (Serie Orientale Roma, 46, 2). Roma. Panaino, A. (1995b) Uranographia Iranica I. The Three Heavens in the Zoroastrian Tradition and the Mesopotamian Background. In Au carrefour des religions. Mélanges offerts à Philippe Gignoux. Textes réunis par R. Gyselen. (Res Orientales, 7). Bures-sur-Yvette, pp. 205–225. Panaino A. (1995/96) Uranographia Iranica II. Avestan hapta.srū- and mərəzu-: Ursa Minor and the North Pole? Archiv für Orientforschung 42-43, pp. 190–207. Panaino, A. (1996) Saturn, the Lord of the Seventh Millennium (with a contribution of D. Pingree). East and West 46, pp. 235–250. Panaino, A. (1997a) Visione della volta celeste e Astrologia nel

Bibliographical References

191

Manicheismo. In Atti del Terzo Congresso Internazionale di Studi: «Manicheismo e Oriente Cristiano Antico». Arcavacata di Rende – Amantea, 31 August – 5 September. A cura di L. Cirillo – A. van Tongerloo. Lovanii – Neapoli, pp. 249–295. Panaino, A. (1997b) Considerations on the ‘mixed fractions’ in Avestan. In Syntaxe des langues indo-iraniennes anciennes. Colloque international – Sitges (Barcelona), 4–5 mai 1993. Organisé par l’Institut du Proche-Orient Ancien (Université de Barcelone). Actes édités par E. Pirart. (Aula Orientalis – Supplementa, 6). Barcelona, pp. 91–109. Panaino, A. (1999a) La novella degli scacchi e della tavola reale. Un’antica fonte orientale sui due giochi da tavoliere più diffusi nel mondo eurasiatico tra Tardoantico e Medioevo e sulla loro simbologia militare e astrale. Testo pahlavi, traduzione e commento al Wizārišn ī čatrang ud nihišn ī nēw-ardaxšīr «La spiegazione degli scacchi e la disposizione della tavola reale». (Sīmorγ). Milano. Panaino, A. (1999b) The Cardinal Asterisms in the Sasanian Uranography. In La Science des cieux. Sages, mages, astrologues. Contributions réunis par R. Gyselen. (Res Orientales, 12). Buressur-Yvette, pp. 183–190. Panaino, A. (2001a) L’influsso greco nella letteratura e nella cultura medio-persiana. In Autori classici in lingue del Vicino e Medio Oriente. Atti del VI, VII e VIII Seminario sul tema: “Recupero di testi classici attraverso recezioni in lingue del Vicino e Medio Oriente” (Milano, 5–6 ottobre 1987; Napoli, 5–6 dicembre 1988; Bologna, 13–14 ottobre 1989). A cura di G. Fiaccadori. Roma, pp. 29–45. Panaino, A. (2001b) Greci e Iranici: confronto e conflitti. In I Greci. Storia, Cultura, Arte, Società. Vol. 3. I Greci oltre la Grecia. A cura di S. Settis. Torino, pp. 79–136. Panaino, A. (2002) A proposito dell’uranografia mazdaica e del concetto di ‘sfericità del mondo’ nella cultura astrale iranica preislamica. In Kosmos. La concezione del mondo nelle civiltà antiche. A cura di Cr. Dognini. (Studi di Storia greca e romana, 7). Milano, pp. 27–39. Panaino, A. (2003) Short Remarks about Ohrmazd between Limited and Unlimited Time. In Iranica Selecta, Studies in honour of Professor

192

Antonio Panaino

Wojciech Skalmowski on the occasion of his seventieth birthday. Ed. by A. van Tongerloo. (Silk Road Studies, 8). Turnhout, pp. 195–200. Panaino, A. (2004a) Astral Characters of Kingship in the Sasanian and Byzantine Worlds. In Convegno internazionale: La Persia e Bisanzio (Roma, 14 – 18 ottobre 2002). (Atti dell’Accademia dei Lincei, 201 – Is.M.E.O.). Roma 2004, pp. 555–594. Panaino, A. (2004b) La Chiesa di Persia e l’Impero Sasanide. Conflitto e Integrazione. In Cristianità d’Occidente e Cristianità d’Oriente (secoli VI-XI). 24-30 aprile 2003. LI Settimana di Studio della Fondazione Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo. Spoleto, pp. 765-863. Panaino, A. (2005) Pahlavi Gwcyhl: gōzihr o gawčihr? In Scritti in onore di Giovanni M. D’Erme. A cura di M. Bernardini – N. L. Tornesello. (Series Minor, 68). Napoli, pp. 795-826. Panaino, A. (2008a) Again about α Cygni in the Sasanian Astronomical Tradition. In Papers in Honour of Professor B. Gharib. Ed. by Z. Zarshenas. Tehran, pp. 33–39. Panaino, A. (2008b) The Zoroastrian Incestuous Unions in Christian Sources and Canonical Laws: their (distorted) Aetiology and some other Problems. In Controverses des Chrétiens dans l’Iran sassanide. Éd. par Chr. Jullien. (Studia Iranica, Cahier 36). Paris 2008, pp. 69-87. Panaino, A. (2011a) Sadwēs, Anāhīd and the Manichaean Maiden of Light. In Der östliche Manichäismus. Gattungs- und Werksgeschichte. Vorträge des Göttinger Symposiums von 4/5. März 2010. Herausgegeben von Z. Özertural – J. Wilkens. (Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, N.F. 17). Leiden, pp. 121–131. Panaino, A. (2011b) Apocalittica, escatologia e sciamanismo nell’opera iranologica di Ph. Gignoux. Con una nota sulla visione del mago Kirder. In Rabbo l’Olmyn. Maitre pour l’éternité. Florilège offert a Philippe Gignoux pour son 80e anniversaire. Édité par R. Gyselen – Ch. Jullien. (Studia Iranica, Cahier 43). Paris, pp. 205–243. Panaino, A. (2012a) The Triadic Symbolism of Yima’s vara- and Related Structures and Patterns. In Yama/Yima. Variations indo-iraniennes sur le geste mythique / Variations on the Indo-Iranian Myth of Yama/ Yima. Édité par S. Azarnouche – C. Redard. (Collège de France.

Bibliographical References

193

Publications de l’Institut de civilisation indienne, 81). Paris, pp. 111–130. Panaino, A. (2012b) Av. mainiiu.tāšta- and Other mainiiu- Compounds. In Iranistische und Indogermanistische Beiträge in Memoriam Jochem Schindler (1944-1994). Herausgegeben von V. Sadovski – D. Stifter. (Sitzungsberichte der Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historischen Klasse 832, Veröffentlichungen zur Iranistik, Nr. 51). Wien, pp. 169-183. Panaino, A. (2013a) Mortality and Immortality: Yama’s / Yima’s Choice and the Primordial Incest. In A. Panaino – V. Sadovski, Disputationes Iranologicae Vindobonenses, II. (Mythologica Indo-Iranica, I). (Sitzungsberichte der ÖAW. Philosophisch-historische Klasse, 845. Band, Veröffentlichungen zur Iranistik, Nr. 65). Wien, pp. 47-200. Panaino, A. (2013b) The ‘Gift’ of the ‘Givers’. In Gifts to a Magus. Indo-Iranian Studies Honoring Firoze Kotwal. Ed. by J. K. Choksy – J. Dubeansky. (Toronto Studies in Religion, 32). New York, pp. 137-145. Panaino, A. (2015) Cosmology and Astrology. In The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Zoroastrianism. Ed. by E. Stausberg. Chichester, West Sussex, pp. 235 – 257. Panaino, A. (2016a) Planets. In Encyclopædia Iranica. Ed. by E. Yarshater. Online edition, 2016, available at http://www.iranicaonline.org/ articles/planets (accessed on 20 September 2016). Panaino, A. (2016b) Between Astral Cosmology and Astrology. The Mazdean Cycle of 12,000 years and the final Renovation of the World. In The Zoroastrian Flame: Exploring Religion History and Culture. Ed. by A. Williams. London, pp. 113-133. Panaino, A. (2016c) Zoroastrismo. Storia, temi, attualità. (Storia e Scienza delle Religioni, 21). Brescia. Panaino, A. (2017a) Astrologi Cristiani alle Corti Sasanide e Cinese. Bizantinistica N.S. 18, pp. 149-165. Panaino, A. (2017b) Iranica nella Disputatio de Christo in Persia. Electrum 24, pp. 237-252. Panaino, A. (2017c) Vecchie e Nuove Considerazioni sul Millenarismo iranico-mesopotamico ed il Chiliasmo giudaico-cristiano. In Studi Iranici Ravennati II. (Studia Indo-Iranica et Orientalia; Series

194

Antonio Panaino

Lazur, 14). A cura di A. Panaino – A. Piras, Milano – Udine 2017, pp. 183-229. Panaino, A. (2017d) The Origins of Middle Persian Zamān and Related Words: A Controversial Etymological History. Iran & the Caucasus 21, pp. 150-195. Panaino, A. (2017e) Avestan aiiara- and asniia- (Y. 1,17; 2,17, etc.). IndoIranian Journal 69, pp. 303-330. Panaino, A. (2017f) Liturgies and Calendars in the Politico-Religious History of Pre-Achaemenian and Achaemenian Iran. In Persian Religion in the Achaemenid Period. / La religion perse à l'époque achéménide. Ed. by W. Henkelman – C. Redard. (Classica et Orientalia, 16). Wiesbaden, pp. 69-95. Panaino, A. (2018a) On Iran’s Role in the Transmission of Ancient Astral Science and the Ramifications thereof. In The Interactions of Ancient Astral Science. With contributions by J. Ben-Dow – H. Falk – G. Lloyd – R. Mercier – A. Panaino – J. Quack – A. van Lieven – M. Yano. (Vergleichende Studien zu Antike und Orient, 3). Bremen, pp. 482-514. Panaino, A. (2018b) The Trepidation of the Sun, The 57 Years of the Resurrection and the Late Mazdean Speculations on the Apocalypse. Studia Iranica 47/1, pp. 7-50. Panaino, A. (2019a) Sul confronto tra Dio ed il μέγας βασιλεύς nel Περὶ κόσμου attribuito allo (Pseudo[?])-Aristotele nella ricezione siriaca ed orientale. Bizantinistica N.S. 19 [2018], pp. 63-83. Panaino, A. (2019b) Late Antique Astrology and Uranography: Common and Antagonist Patterns in the Mazdean and Manichaean Approaches. In « Ils disent que… ». La controverse religieuse: zoroastriens et manichéens ». Colloque organisé les 12 et 13 juin 2015. Paris, Collège de France. Éd. par Fl. Ruani – M. Timuş. Paris, pp. 99-121. Panaino, A. (2019c) Old Iranian Cosmography. Debates and Perspectives. (Iranica et Mediterranea, 3). Milan. Panaino, A. (in press) The Reception and Survival of Mesopotamian, Greek, and Indian Thought. In The Blackwell Companion to the Sasanian Empire. Ed. by T. Daryaee – R. Shayegan.

Bibliographical References

195

Patton. K. Ch. (2009) Religion of the Gods: Ritual, Paradox and Riflexivity. Oxford. Pedersen, O. (1993) Early Physics and Astronomy. A Historical Introduction. Cambridge (revised edition; first edition Cambridge 1974). Peterson, P. R. (2015) Old Norse Nicknames. A Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of University of Minnesota. https://conservancy. umn.edu/bitstream/handle/11299/172669/Peterson_ umn_0130E_15864.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y Petrucci, F. (2012) Teone di Smirne: Expositio rerum mathematicarum ad legendum Platonem utilium. Introduzione, Traduzione, Commento. (Studies in Ancient Philosophy, 11). St. Augustin. Philopon (2004) La création du monde. Traduit par M.-Cl. Rosset et M.-H. Congourdeau. Paris. Philopon (2015) Traité de l’astrolabe. Texte établi et traduit par Cl. Jarry. Paris. Philoponus (1987) Against Aristotle, on the Eternity of the World. Translated by Chr. Wildberg. (Ancient Commentators on Aristotle). London – New Delhi – New York – Sydney. Philoponus (2006) Against Proclus On the Eternity of the World 12-18. Translated by J. Wilberding. (Ancient Commentators on Aristotle). London – New Delhi – New York – Sydney. Philoponus (2014) Against Proclus On the Eternity of the World 6-8. Translated by M. Share. (Ancient Commentators on Aristotle). London – New Delhi – New York – Sydney. Joannis Philoponi (1897) De Opificio mundi, Libri VII, recensuit G. Reichardt. Lipsiae. Pingree, D. (1968) The Thousands of Abū Ma‘shar. (Studies of the Warburg Institute, 30). London. Pingree, D. (1975) Māshā’allāh: some Sasanian and Syriac Sources. In Essays on Islamic Philosophy and Science. Ed. by G. F. Hourani. Albany, pp. 5-14. Pingree, D. (1981) History of Mathematical Astronomy in India. In Dictionary of Scientific Biography. Vol. XV. Supplement I. Topical Essays. New York, pp. 531–633.

196

Antonio Panaino

Pingree, D. (1992) Hellenophilia vs. the History of Science. Isis 83, pp. 554-563. Pirart, É. (1992) Kayân Yasn (Yasht 19.9-96). L’origine avestique des dynasties mythiques d’Iran. (Aula Orientalis Supplementa, 2). Sabadell – Barcelona. Pirart, É. (2010) Les adorable de Zoroastre. Textes avestiques traduits et présentés. Paris. Piras, A. (2000a) Hādōxt Nask 2. Il racconto zoroastriano della sorte dell’anima. Edizione critica del testo avestico e pahlavi, traduzione e commento. (Serie Orientale Roma, 88). Roma. Piras, A. (2000b) La corona e le insegne del potere nell’impero persiano. In La corona e i simboli del potere. Rimini, pp. 7-29. Plumley, J. M. (1975) The Cosmology of Ancient Egypt. In Ancient Cosmologies. Ed. by C. Blacker – M. Loewe. London, pp. 17-41. Potvin, Ch. (1866) Perceval le Gallois ou le Conte du Graal publié d’après les manuscrits originaux. Première partie : Le Roman en prose. Mons. Preisendanz, K. (1973-74) Papyri Graecae magicae. Die griechischen Zauberpapyri. Mit Ergänzungen von K. Preisendanz und E. Heitsch. Band I. 2. verbesserte Auflage. Stuttgart. Ptolemaeus, Cl. (1903) Syntaxis Mathematica, edidit J. L. Heiberg. Pars 2. (Claudii Ptolemaei Opera Quae Extant Omnia, Volumen 1). Lipsiae. Radtke, B. (1998) Persian cosmography, early Tafsīr, and Nestorian Exegesis. In La Science dans le Monde Iranien à l’Époque Islamique. Actes du colloque tenu à l’Université des Sciences Humaines de Strasbourg (6-8 juin 1995). Études réunies et présentées par Ž. Vesel – H. Beikbaghban – Th. de Crussol des Epesse. Téhéran, pp. 323-335. Raffaelli, E. G. (2001) L’oroscopo del mondo. Il tema di nascita del mondo e del primo uomo secondo l’astrologia zoroastriana. (Sīmorγ). Milano. Raffaelli, E. G. (2009) The Astrological Chapter of the Škand Gumānīg Wizār. In Kayd: Studies in History of Mathematics, Astronomy and Astrology in Memory of David Pingree. Ed. by Gh. Gnoli and A. Panaino. (Serie Orientale Roma 102). Rome, pp. 105–127. Raffaelli, E. G. (2010) L’astrologie dans le zoroastrisme d’époque sassanide: L’exemple de la 5ème section du Bundahišn. Special

Bibliographical References

197

issue: “Proceedings of the 6th EASR / IAHR Special Conference: Religious History of Europe and Asia, Bucharest, 20–23 September 2006, Volumes 4 & 5.” Studia Asiatica 11, nos. 1–2, pp. 63–87. Raffaelli, E. G. (2017) Astrology and Religion in the Zoroastrian Pahlavi Texts. Journal asiatique 305/2, pp. 171-190. Reale, G. (2017) I Presocratici. Prima traduzione integrale con testi originali a fronte, delle testimonianze e dei frammenti nella raccolta di H. Diels e W. Kranz. Con la collaborazione di D. Fusaro – M. Migliori – I. Ramelli – M. Timpanaro Cardini – A. Tonelli. Realizzazione editoriale e Indici di V. Cicero. Milano. Redard, C. (2010) Videvdad 19 : Édition critique, traduction et commentaires des textes avestique et moyen-perse. Éd. par C. Redard, sous la codirection de Ph. Huyse et de R. Wachter (Université de Lausanne), le 27 novembre 2010. (Thèse de doctorat. L’École pratique des hautes études [EPHE], Section des sciences historiques et philologiques). Paris. Reichelt, H. (1913) Der steinerne Himmel. Indogermanische Forschungen 32, pp. 23-57. Reinink, G. (1999) Babai the Great’s Life of George and the Propagation of Doctrine in the Late Sasanian Empire. In Portraits of Spiritual Authority. Religious Power in Early Christianity, Byzantium and the Christian Orient. Ed. by J. W. Drijvers – J. W. Watt. (Religions in the Graeco-Roman World, 137). Leiden – Boston – Köln, pp. 171-195. Rey, A. (1933) La jeunesse de la science grecque. Paris. Rezania, K. (2010) Die zoroastrische Zeitvorstellung. Eine Untersuchung über Zeit- und Ewigkeitskonzepte und die Frage des Zurvanismus. (Göttinger Orientforschungen, III. Reihe: Iranica, N.F. 7). Göttingen. Rezania, K. (2017) Raumkonzeptionen im früheren Zoroastrismus. Kosmische, kultische und soziale Räume. (Göttinger Orientforschungen, III. Reihe: Iranica, N.F. 14). Wiesbaden. Ringbom, L.-I. (1951) Graltempel und Paradies. Beziehungen zwischen Iran und Europa im Mittelalter. (Kungliga vitterhets historie och antikvitets akademiens handlingar, 73). Stockholm. Rochberg-Halton, Fr. (1988) Aspects of Babylonian Celestial Divination: The Lunar Eclipse Tablets of Enuma Anu Enlil. (AfO, Beiheft 22).

198

Antonio Panaino

Horn. Rochberg, Fr. (2014) Periodicities and Period Relations in Babylonian Celestial Sciences. In Extraction & Control. Studies in Honor of Matthew W. Stolper. Ed. by M. Kozuh – W. F. M. Henkelman – Ch. E. Jones – Chr. Woods. (Studies in Ancient Civilizations, 68). Chicago, Illinois, pp. 211-218. Sambursky, S. (1959) The Physical World of the Greeks. London. Sambursky, S. (1962) The Physical World of Late Antiquity. London. Sambursky, S. (1972) Note on John Philoponus’ rejection of the infinite. In Islamic Philosophy and the Classical Tradition. Essays Presented to Richard Walzer. Ed. by S. M. Stern – A. Hournai – V. Brown. Oxford, pp. 351-353. Sarton, G. (1959) A History of Science. Hellenistic Science and Culture in the last three Centuries B.C. Cambridge (MA). Saxl, Fr. (1923) Frühes Christentum und spätes Heidentum in ihren künstlerischen Ausdruck. III, Darstellungen und der WeltenkönigsIdee. Wiener Jahrbuch für Kunstgeschichte 2 (XVI), pp. 102-121. Saxl, Fr. (1940) The Zodiac of Quṣayr ῾Amrah. In Early Muslim Architecture. Part II: Early Abbasids, Ummayyads of Cordova, Aghlabids, Tulunids, and Samanids. Ed. by K. A. C. Creswell. Oxford, pp. 289-295 (second edition as vol. 1, in two parts, Oxford, 1969, pp. 424-443. Scarcia, G. (1979) Zurvanismo subcaucasico. In Zurvān e Muhammad – Comunicazioni iranistiche e islamistiche presentate al Primo Simposio Internazionale di Cultura Transcaucasica, Napoli–Bergamo–Venezia, 12-15 giugno 1979. (Università degli Studi di Venezia, Quaderni dell’Istituto di Iranistica, Uralo-Altaistica e Caucasologia dell’Università degli Studi di Venezia, Cafoscarina 2). Venezia, pp. 15-21. Schaeder, H. H. (1941) Der iranische Zeitgott und sein Mythos. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 95, pp. 268-299. Schamp, J. (2000) Photios et Jean Philopon: Sur la date du De Opificio Mundi. Byzantion 70, pp. 134-154. Scheftelowitz, Is. (1926) Neues Material über die manichäische Urseele

Bibliographical References

199

und die Entstehung des Zarvanismus. Zeitschrift für Indologie und Iranistik 4, pp. 317-344. Scheftelowitz, Is. (1929) Die Zeit als Schicksalsgottheit in der indischen und iranischen Religion (Kāla und Zruvan). (Beiträge zur indischen Sprachwissenschaft und Religionsgeschichte, Heft 4). Stuttgart. Schiaparelli, G. (1875) Le Sfere omocentriche di Eudosso, Callippo e di Aristotele. (Memorie del Reale Istituto Lombardo di Scienze Matematiche e Naturali 13, 1974. Pubblicazioni del Reale Osservatorio di Brera in Milano, 9. Milano (reprinted in Schiaparelli 1926, II: 2-112. Schiaparelli, G. (1926) Scritti sulla Storia della Astronomia Antica. Parte Prima. Tomo secondo. Bologna (reprint a cura di A. Panaino, Milano 1998). Schlerath, B. (1990) Indoiranisch vastra- ntr. “Gewand, Kleidung”. Orientalia 59, pp. 251-254. Schmidt, J. (1895) Kritik der Sonantentheorie. Weimar. Schmitt, R. (1993) Die iranische Namen in den ‘Hellenika von Oxyrhynchos’. In Sprachen und Schriften des antiken Mittelmeerraums. Festschrift für Jürgen Untermann zum 65. Geburtstag. Innsbruck, pp. 385-401. Schmitt, R. (2002) Die Iranischen und Iranier-Namen in den Schriften Xenophons. (Iranica Graeca Vetustiora. II). Wien. Schmitt, R. (2006) Iranische Anthroponyme in den erhaltenen Resten von Ktesias’ Werk. (Iranica Graeca Vetustiora. III). Wien. Schmitt, R. (2011) Iranische Personennamen in den griechischen Literatur vor Alexander der Gr. (IPNB V/5A). Wien. Schmitt, R. (2014) Wörterbuch der altpersischen Königsinschriften. Wiesbaden. Schmitt, R. (2016) Personennamen in Parthischen Epigraphischen Quellen. Faszikel 5. Mitteliranische Namen. Band II. (IPNB II/5). Wien. Scholten, G. (1997) Johannes Philoponus. De Opificio Mundi: Über die Erschaffung der Welt. 3 Bände. Freiburg. Schramm, P. E. (1958) Sphaira Globus Reichsapfel. Wanderung und Wandlung eines Herrschaftszeichens von Caesar bis Elizabeth II, Ein Beitrag zum »Nachleben« der Antike mit 94 Lichtdrucktafeln und 6

200

Antonio Panaino

Textabbildungen. Stuttgart. Schwartz, M. (1985) The Old Eastern World View according to the Avesta. In The Cambridge History of Iran. Vol. II. The Median and Achaemenian Periods. Ed. by I. Gershevitch. Cambridge, pp. 640-663. Schwyzer, Ed. (1939) Griechische Grammatik auf der Grundlage von Karl Brugmanns Griechischer Grammatik. Erster Band. Allgemeiner Teil. Lautlehre – Wortbildungen Flexion. München. Scott, A. (1991) Origen and the Life of the stars. A History of an Idea. Oxford (reprint 2001). Sedley, D. (2007) Creationism and Its Critics in Antiquity. (Sather Classical Lectures, 66). Berkeley – Los Angeles – London. Selz, G. J. (2014) The Tablet with ‚Heavenly Writing’, or how to become a star. In Non licet stare caelestibus. Studies on Astronomy and Its History offered to Salvo De Meis. Ed. by A. Panaino in collaboration with E. Bacchi – St. Buscherini – P. Ognibene. (Indo-Iranica et Orientalia, Series Lazur, 13). Milano – Udine, pp. 51-67. Shahbazi, Sh. (2002) Recent Speculations on the “Traditional” Date of Zoroaster. Studia Iranica 31/1, pp. 7-45. Shaked, Sh. (1971) The Notions mēnōg and gētīg in the Pahlavi Texts and Their Relation to Eschatology. Acta Orientalia 33, pp. 59-107 (reprinted in Shaked 1995). Shaked, Sh. (1992) The Myth of Zurvan: Cosmogony and Eschatology. In Messiah and Christos: Studies in the Jewish Origins of Christianity, presented to David Flusser. Ed. by I. Gruenwald – S. Shaked – G. G. Stroumsa. (Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum, 32). Tübingen 1992, pp. 219-240. Shaked, Sh. (1994) Dualism in Transformation: Varieties of Religion in Sasanian Iran. London. Shaked, Sh. (1995) From Zoroastrian Iran to Islam. Studies in Religious History and Intercultural Contacts. (Variorum Collected Studies Series, CS 505). Aldershot (UK) – Brookfield (Vermont). Shaki, M. (1970) Some Basic Tenets of the Eclectic Metaphysics of the Dēnkart. Archív Orientální 38, pp. 277-312. Shaki, M. (1973) A Few Philosophical and Cosmological Chapters of the Dēnkart. Archív Orientální 41, pp. 133-164.

Bibliographical References

201

Shaki, M. (1975) Two Middle Persian Philosophical Terms LYSTKʾ and MʾTKʾ. In Iran ancien: Actes du XXIXe Congrès international des Orientalistes, Section organisée par Ph. Gignoux. Paris, pp. 52-57. Shaki, M. (1981) The Dēnkard Account of the History of Zoroastrian Scriptures. Archív Orientální 49/2, pp. 114-125. Shaki, M. (1999) Falsafa I. Pre-Islamic Philosophy. In Encyclopædia Iranica. Ed. by E. Yarshater. Vol. 9. New York, pp. 176-182. Shaki, M. (2002) Greek influence on Persian thought. In Encyclopædia Iranica. Ed. by E. Yarshater. Vol. 11, New York, pp. 321-326. Skjærvø, P. O. (2005) Review of Nicholas Sims-Williams, Bactrian Documents from Northern Afghanistan, I. Legal and Economic Documents. JAOS 125/2, pp. 311-316. Skjærvø, P. O. (2007) The Videwdad: Its Ritual-Mythical Significance. In The Birth of the Persian Empire. (The Idea of Iran, 1). Ed. By V. S. Curtis – S. Stewart. London, pp. 105-141. Skjærvø, P. O. (2008) Jamšid. i. Myth of Jamšid. In Encyclopædia Iranica. Vol. 14. Ed. by E. Yarshater. London, pp. 501-522. Simplicius (1896) In Aristotelis quatuor libros de Caelo commentaria, consilio et auctoritate Academiae Litterarum Regia Borussicae edidit I. L. Heiberg. Volumen VII Simplicii de Caelo. Berolini. Sloterdijk, P. (1998) Sphären I – Blasen, Mikrosphärologie. Frankfurt am Main. Sloterdijk, P. (1999) Sphären II – Globen, Makrosphärologie. Frankfurt am Main. Sloterdijk, P. (2004) Sphären III – Schäume, Plurale Sphärologie. Frankfurt am Main. Sorabji, R. (1987) Infinity and Creation. In Philoponus and the Rejection of Aristotelian Science. Ed. by R. Sorabji. Ithaca, New York, pp. 164-178. Steele, J. (2013) A Comparison of Astronomical Terminology, Methods and Concepts in China and Mesopotamia, with some Comments on Claims for the Transmission of Mesopotamian Astronomy to China. Journal of Astronomical History and Heritage 16/3, pp. 250-160. Steele, J. (2015) Late Babylonian Ziqpu-Star Lists. In Traditions of Written Knowledge in Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia. Ed. by A.

202

Antonio Panaino

Imhausen – D. Bawanypeck. (Alter Orient und Altes Testament: Veröffentlichungen zur Kultur und Geschichte des Alten Orients und des Alten Testaments nr. 403.) Münster, pp. 123-151. Steele, J. (2017) Rising Time Schemes in Babylonian Astronomy. Dordrecht. Stolper, M. (1994) Iranians in Babylonia. JAOS 113, pp. 617-624. Sypherd, W. O. (1907) Studies in Chaucer’s House of Fame. London. Tardieu, M. (1990) Les Paysages reliques. Routes et haltes syriennes d’Isidore à Simplicius. Louvain – Paris. Tardieu, M. (1994) Chosroes. In Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques. Éd. par R. Goulet. Vol. 2. Paris, pp. 309-318. Tardieu, M. (2015) Les curiosités scientifiques des rois: Chosroès et Frédéric. In Husraw Ier. Reconstruction d’un règne. Sources et documents. Textes réunis par Chr. Jullien. Paris (Studia Iranica, Cahier 53), pp. 305-329. Tavernier, J. (2007) Iranica in the Achaemenid Period (ca. 55-330 B.C.). Lexicon of Old Iranian Proper Names and Loanwords, Attested in Non-Iranian Texts. (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, 158). Leuven – Paris – Dudley. Teixidor, J. (2003) Aristote en syriaque. Paul le Perse, logicien du VIe siècle. Paris. Theodorus of Mopsuestia (1880) Theodori Mopsuesteni in Epistolas B. Pauli Commentarii, The Latin Version with the Greek Fragments. Ed. by H. B. Swete. Vol. I: Introduction. Galatians, Colossians. Cambridge. Theophanes (1883) Theophanis chronographia. Herausgegeben von C. de Boor. Vol. 1. Leipzig (reprinted Hildesheim, 1963). Thompson, R. C. (1936) A Dictionary of Assyrian Chemistry and Geology. Oxford. Théon de Smyrne (2010) La Recours au savoir scientifique : arithmétique, musique, astronomie. Présentation, traduction et annotations par J. Delattre Biencourt. Toulouse. Toomer, G. J. (1984) Ptolemy’s Almagest translated and annotated. London. Vahman, F. (1986) Ardā Wirāz nāmag. The Iranian ‘Divina Commedia’.

Bibliographical References

203

(Scandinavian Institute of Asian Studies Monograph Series, 53). London – Malmo. Van Reeth, J. M. F. (1999) La représentation du ciel et du zodiaque dans le palais umayyade de ‘Amrâ. In Le ciel dans les civilisations orientales. Heaven in the Oriental Civilizations. (Acta Orientalia Belgica, 12). Éd. par C. Cannuyer – F. Mawer – J. Ries. Bruxelles – Louvain-La-Neuve – Leuven, pp. 137-151. Vanséveren, S. (1999) Le ciel dans les études indo-européennes: problèmes et méthodes. In Le ciel dans les civilisations orientales. Heaven in the Oriental Civilizations. (Acta Orientalia Belgica, 12). Éd. par C. Cannuyer – F. Mawer – J. Ries. Bruxelles – Louvain-LaNeuve – Leuven, pp. 125-136. Vernant, J.-P. (1963) Géométrie et astronomie sphérique dans la première cosmologie grecque. Pensée 109, pp. 82-92 (reprinted in Vernant 1996: 202-213). Vernant, J.-P. (1996) Mythe et Pensée chez les Grecs. Études de psychologie historique. Paris. Vlastos, G. (1975) Plato’s Universe. Oxford. Walker, J. Th. (2006) The Legend of Mar Qardagh: Narrative and Christian Heroism in Late Antique Iraq. (The transformation of the classical heritage, 40). Berkeley – Los Angeles – London. Watts, Ed. (2005) Where to Live the Philosophical Life in the Sixth Century? Damascius, Simplicius, and the Return from Persia. Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 45, pp. 285-315. Weidner, E. F. (1922) Der Zug Sargons von Akkad nach Kleinasien. Boghazköy Studien 6, pp. 57-99. Weidner, E. F. (1959-60) Ein astrologischer Sammeltext aus der Sargonidenzeit. Archiv für Orientforschung 19, pp. 105-113. Wesendonk, O. G. von (1931) The Kālavāda and the Zervanite System. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, January, pp. 53-109. West, E. W. (1885) Pahlavi Texts. Part III. Dînâ-î Maînôg-î Khirad, SikandGûmänîk Vigâr, Sad Dar. (Sacred Books of the East, 24). Oxford. West, E. W. (1892) Pahlavi Texts. Part IV. Contents of the Nasks. (Sacred Books of the East, 37) Oxford.

204

Antonio Panaino

West, M. L. (1971) Early Greek Philosophy and the Orient. Oxford. West, M. L. (2003) The East Face of Helicon. West Asiatic Elements in Greek Poetry and Myth. (1st edition 1997). Oxford. West, M. L. (2007) Indo-European Poetry and Myth. Oxford. Widengren, G. (1984) The Nestorian Church in Sasanian and Early Post-Sasanian Iran. In Incontro di Religioni in Asia tra il III e il X secolo d.C. Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Studi Storico-Religiosi, Venezia, 16 - 18 novembre 1981. A cura di L. Lanciotti. Firenze, pp. 1-30. Widengren, G. (2006) Aspetti simbolici di templi e luoghi di culto del Vicino Oriente Antico. In Il simbolismo cosmico. A cura di B. Melasecchi. (Il Nuovo Ramusio, 2). Roma, pp. 39-55. Wildberg, Chr. (1988) John Philoponus’ Criticism of Aristotle’s Theory of Aether. (Peripathoi, Band 16). Berlin – New York. Wildberg, C. (1999) Impetus Theory and the Hermeneutics of Science in Simplicius and Philoponus. Hyperboreus 5, pp. 107-124. Williams, A. (1985) A Strange Account of the World’s Origin: PRDd. XLVI. In Papers in Honour of Mary Boyce. (Acta Iranica, 25). Leiden, pp. 683-597. Williams, A. (1990) The Pahlavi Rivāyats Accompanying the Dādestān ī Dēnīg. Part I: Transliteration, Transcription and Glossary. Part II: Translation, Commentary and Pahlavi Text. (Historisk-filosofiske Meddelelser, 6: 1-2. Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab). Copenhagen. Windfuhr, G. L. (1983) Where Guardian Spirits Watch By Night And Evil Spirit Fail: The Zoroastrian Prototypical Heaven. In The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth. Essays in Honor of D. N. Freedman in Celebration of His Sixtieth Birthday. Ed. by C. L. Meyers and M. O’Connor. Philadelphia (Pennsylvania), pp. 625-645. Winstedt, E. O. (1909) The Christian Topography of Cosmas Indicopleustes. Cambridge. Wiztel, M. (1984) Sur le chemin du ciel. Bulletin de études indiennes 2, pp. 213-279. Wolfson, H. A. (1965) The Problem of the Souls of the Spheres from the Byzantine Commentaries on Aristotle through the Arabs and St. Thomas to Kepler. Dumbarton Oaks Papers XVI, pp. 67-93.

Bibliographical References

205

Wolff, M. (1978) Geschichte der Impetustheorie. Untersuchungen zum Ursprung der klassischen Mechanik. Frankfurt am Main. Wolska-Conus, W. (1962) La Topographie chrétienne de Cosmas Indicopleustès. Théologie et science au VIe siècle. (Bibliothèque Byzantine. Études, 3). Paris. Wolska-Conus, W. (1968) Cosmas Indicopleustès. Topographie chrétienne. Livres I-IV, Tome I. (Sources chrétiennes, 141). Paris. Wolska-Conus, W. (1970) Cosmas Indicopleustès. Topographie chrétienne. Livres V, Tome II. (Sources chrétiennes, 159). Paris. Wolska-Conus, W. (1973) Cosmas Indicopleustès. Topographie chrétienne. Livres VI-XII, Tome III. (Sources chrétiennes, 197). Paris. Zaehner, R. Ch. (1961) The Dawn and Twilight of Zoroastrianism. London. Zaehner, R.Ch. (1972) Zurvan, a Zoroastrian Dilemma. With a New Introduction by the Author. New York (1st ed., Oxford 1955). Zago, M. (2010) La ricetta di immortalità. Testo Greco a fronte. (Saturnalia, 24). Milano. Zimmermann, Fr. (1987) Philoponus’ Impetus Theory in the Arabic Tradition. In Philoponus and the Rejection of Aristotelian Science. Ed. by R. Sorabji. Ithaca (New York), pp. 121-129. Zinner, E. (1931) Die Geschichte der Sternkunde von der ersten Anfängen bis zur Gegenwart. Berlin. Zotenberg, H. (1900) Histoire des rois des Perses par Aboû Mansoûr ‘Abd al-Malik Ibn Mohammad Ismâ‘îl al-Tha‘âlibî. Paris (reprint Amsterdam 1979).

11. INDEXES

Words Index Indo-European 61 *h2eḱ-men-: *h2éḱ-mōn: 59, n. 187 * h2(e)ḱ-mn-ós: 59, n. 187

*spiθra*spiθra-data*spiθra-dāta-

9, 43-48, 51 45, 47 46, and n. 126

Avestan aiβiiā˚ŋhana-: 61, n. 233 anaγra-: 66, 67, n. 227; afšciθra-: 69, 70, 74-77 Indo-Iranian aiiah-: 40, n. 110 *ćui̭trá44, 47 asan-/ asman-/ašn-: 39, 56, 58 and *daivas 56, n. 177 n. 182; 59, n. 186, 60 *paić- […] man-(as)- tacś-: 61, n. 204 asəṇga°-: 58, n. 182 asəṇgō.gāuua-: 34. n. 91 Old Iranian asmana-: 59 *aćman-: 35, n. 92 v asmō.x anuuaṇt-: 60, and n. 194 *aθman-: 35, n. 92 *atsanga-: 58, n. 182 ašmō.xvanuuaṇt-: 60, n. 194 *θβarta-: 66 asnuuaṇt-: 59, 60

208

ima-: 57, n. 180 upa: 78, n. 271 katō.masah-: 60 karan73, n. 253 karana-: 41 karšuuar-: 69, 71 kauuacit̰: 71, n. 253 gaēiθiia-: 137 gaociθra-: 34, n. 91 garō.nmāna-: 66, 68, n. 229, 70, 72, 84, n. 291; 137 xraoždišta-: 63, 78 v x aδāta-: 67, n. 227 caxra-: 34 datā-: 46-47 *dātā-: 46-47 diiau-/diiu-: 56 dūraēkarana-: 41 θβāṣ̌a-: 66, 84, n. 287; 158 būmī-: 57, n. 180 nabah-: 55-56 nabā˚s: 55 mānō: 79 and n. 278 mainiiauua-: 137 mainiiu.tāšta-: 62 mainiiu.stāta-: 40, n. 109 mərəzu-: 25 raocah-: 56, 57, 70 uruuarō.ciθra-: 69, n. 233; 70, 71, 75, n. 271, 76, 79 satauuaēsa-: 72, n. 259 stārō.kərəma-: 69, n, 235 stiδāta-: 67, n. 227 stəhrpaēsaŋha-: 61, n. 204 spəṇtō.mainiiauua-: 70, 77, 78, 106

Antonio Panaino

spiti-dōiθra49 snāuuar-: 34, n. 91 *snāuui-aδka-: 34, n. 91 vara-: 64, n. 216; 67, n. 227 vīmaiδiia-: 73, n. 53 zam-: 34, 161 zəmasciθra-: 69, n. 233; 74, 75 n. 271; 77 humata-: 68, n. 229 hūxta-: 68, n. 229 huuarəšta-: 68, n. 229 Old Persian adā: 34 adāda: 34 aθanga-: 58, n. 182 aθangai̭na-/°ni-: 58, n. 182 asan-: 58. n. 182 asman-: 35, n. 92; 58, n. 182, 64; 156 baga-: 34 būmī-: 35 Pahlavi and Manichaean Middle Persian āb-čihrag: 69, n. 233 abē-stūn: 39 ābgēnāg: 53, 97 abr: 79, 82, 83, 85 abrīn: 153, n. 546 abr-pāyag: 79, 83 a-gumēzišnīh: 77, 83, 103 āhen: 40, n. 110 an-abar-dāštār: 41 anagr rošn: 83, 84 asar-rōšnīh: 83, 84, 97

Indexes

a-stūn: 41 ‘spyr 45, and n. 125; 49, 51 asmān: 53, 62, 63, 64, 65, 86, 97, 109, 110, 144 asmānīg: 51 ātaxš ī wazišt: 82 axtarīg: 102 baxt: 68, n. 227; 117, 118, n. 492 baxtag: 68, n. 227 bazakkar: 147, n. 523 brīnōmand: 153, n. 546 buland: 63 čahār zāhagān: 82, n. 287 čihr: 67, n. 227 dagrand-xwadāy: 82, n. 287 dāštār: 41 frax: 63 frāxwkard: 69, n. 235 gāh: 57, n. 180; 81, 83, 84, n. 291; 85, 104, 117, 134 gardišnīg: 51 garōdmān: 62, 65, 68, n. 229; 83, 104 and n. 385; 109, 132, 137 gil: 82, n. 287 gird: 63 gōhr: 97 gōspand-čihrag: 69, n. 233 + gōy-dēs: 51-52 gumēzišn: 77 hamāg sagān: 63 hangārag: 103 kadag-masāy: 60 kanārag: 41, 153, n. 546 kanaragōmand: 153, n. 546 kār-framāzišn: 154, n. 546

209

kirbakkar: 147, n. 523 kōd: 19, n. 20 mahmānēh: 158 Mēx ī Gāh: 81, 133 Mihr 45, 46, n. 126; 75, n. 271; 78, 105, 132, 134 nēmrōz: 73 nišēbān nišēb: 134, and n. 491 petyārag: 134 rah: 35, n. 92; 67, n. 227 rāh: 35, n. 92 rang: 97, n. 363 rōšnīh: 56, and n. 175; 57, n. 180; 63, 67, n. 227; 68, n. 229; 81, 83, 84, 85, 97, 133 sag: 63 saxttom: 63 spahr: 158 spāhbed: 73 spaxr: 158 spāš: 66, 153, n. 546; 158 spihr: 9, 11, 43-45, and n. 127; 46, 49, and n. 149; 51, 52, and n. 161; 66; 67, n. 227; 77, 81, 83, 85, 118 and n. 429; 158 Spihr-dādag: 45 tamīg: 105 Tarāzūg: 134 urwar-čihrag: 69, n. 233 wahišt: 83, 85 wihēz: 103 xāyag-dēs: 63 xraoždištəng: 63, 78 Xwanirah: 69, n. 235 xwarrah: 81, 103, 121

210

Antonio Panaino

zamanāg: 97, n. 363 zamānag-kunišn: 153, n. 546

Ethiopic ṣpīr

Pāzand spehir: spihar: spihir:

49

New Persian Ja͛ wzahr: Mihir/Meher: sipihr zīj: zih, zīh:

158 46, n. 127 46 n. 127; 158 118-119 119

Armenian Erewak: Zrowan: spʿer̄

142, n. 514 142, n. 514 49

Georgian spero

49

Aramaic esfêrâ piāle

44 44

Greek ἄκμων: 60, and n. 198 ἀστήρ: 87, and n. 304 -δάτης: 47 ἔσχατον: 54 Καιμχαμ: 142, n. 514 κίνεσις: 155 κύκλος: 88, n. 306 κυλινδροειδή: 89 μάχαιρα 44, n. 118 μηχανή: 122, 123, 131 μοῖρα: 44, n. 118 οὐρανός: 60, and n. 198; 121 ποικιλείμων: 19, n. 21 πολύχαλκος: 61, n. 200 ρίζαι: 144, n. 517 σιδήρεος: 61, n. 200 σπαίρω: 44, n. 118 Σεγές: 142, n. 514 Σπιθραδάτης: 47, 54 Σπιθριδάτης: 47, 54 σφαῖρα:11, 20, 29, 43, 44, and n.118; 45, 46, n. 127; 50-51 σφαίρῃ παίζειν: 29 σφαιροειδὲς: 31, n. 80; 54, n. 168 ταπείνωμα: 134, n. 491 ψυχή: 92 χάλκεος: 61, n. 200 χορδή: 119

49

Modern Greek λευκόδους: 46

118, n. 421 118, n. 421 118-119, 120

Parthian (Nisa) ‘spyr: 45, n. 125; 49 mehmān: 158 Sogdian (a)smān [sm’n]: 59

Syriac ̕espērā

Indexes

Latin aes: globus: impetus: mundus: Saturnus: sphaera:

211

40, n. 110 35, 52 156 35 142, n. 514 50

Vedic and Sanskrit aṇḍa-: 24 antarikṣa-: 82, n. 287 áyas-: 40, n.110 áśmacakra-: 35-36 áśman-: 58-59 kapāla-: 24 jyótis- : 57, n. 180 tvar-: 66 dyáv-/dív-: 56 dvīpa-: 25 dhār-: 39, n. 107 navagraha-: 105, n. 387 nā́ka-: 66, n. 226 nā́bh-: 58 Pāṇḍara-danta-: 48 puruṣa-: 52, n. 161 rajas-: 82, n. 287 rāśigraha-cakra-: 118, n. 429 rocaná-: 66, n. 226 vájra-bāhu-: 34, n. 91 śuklá-dat-: 48 śukla-daṇṣṭra-tā-:48 śukla-daśana-: 48 śúci-dat-: 48 śuddha-dat-: 48 śuddha-danta- : 48

śubhrá-dat-: 48 śubhrá-danta-: 48 śubhrá-dantī́-: 48 śvitrá-: 49 śvítna-: 49 śvityac- (obl. śvitīc-):49 śvitāná-: 49 śvetá-: 49 híraṇia-hasta-: 34, n. 91 Hittite nēbis-:

56, n. 173

Proto-Germanic *(h2)kmen-: 59, n. 187 *hemena- < *ḱemen-o-: 59, n. 187 Old Norse blátǫnn konungr

48 48

Swedish Blåtand

48

English Bluetooth nimbi:

48 55

German Kreis und Kugel: 49, n. 150 Old Irish nem:

56, n. 173

212

Antonio Panaino

Lithuanian akmuõ:

61

Latvian akmens:

61

Russian kámen:

61

Baltic *daivas

56, n. 177

Finnish taivas:

56, n. 177

Sumeric ÁB TÙR: UDU.IDIM: USH: ZA.GÌN:

17 16 17 16, n. 8 93, 95

Akkadian and Babylonian arhu: 17 na4 aš-pú-u: 98 bēru: 16, n. 8 bibbu: 17 burūmū or burummū:19, n. 21 eṣēru: 99 ḪAB: 23, n. 34 ḫab-rat: 23, n. 34 Iš-pi-ri-da-a-ta: 46, n. 126 kadurru: 17 kaja-mānu-: 124 and n. 514 3ta.ám kakkabū 16

kippat šamê: kudāru: kudurru: littu: luludānītu: lumašu: saggilmud: Šāḫitu: tarbaṣu: ziqpu:

20 17 17 17 94, 96 18 94, 95, 96 142, n. 514 16 16, n. 8

Hebrew kaddur: rakia: šamayim:

17 95, n. 351 95, n. 351

Arabic Rebāṭat: wattar: zīǰ:

26, n. 48 120 118-119

Mandean Kiwan:

142, n. 514

Chinese gai:

37

Index of the Quoted Passages Vedic and Sanskrit Texts R̥ v. 1,113,1: R̥ v. 2,27,9: R̥ v. 3,60:

57, n. 180 39, n. 107 61, n. 204

Indexes

Yt. 3,13: 56, n. 177 Yt. 8,55: 144, n. 518 Yt. 10,95: 58 Yt. 10,145: 67 Yt. 12,9-37: 69 Yt. 12,9-15: 69, 71 Yt. 12,16-19: 71, and n. 252 Yt. 12,18: 71, n. 252 Yt. 12,19: 71, n. 252 Yt. 12,20: 71, n. 23 Yt. 12,21: 71, n. 253 Yt. 12,20-22: 71, and n. 253 Yt. 12,23: 75 Yt. 12,23-24: 71 Yt. 12,25: 69 Yt. 12,26: 69 Yt. 12,27: 69 Yt. 12,28-32: 76, n. 271 Yt. 12,28: 70 Yt. 12,29: 70 Avestan Texts Yt. 12,30: 70 Y. 1,16: 82, n. 287 Yt. 12,31: 70 Y. 2,11: 67 Yt. 12,32: 70, 78 Y. 3,18: 84, n. 287 Yt. 12,33: 70 Y. 16,6: 39, n. 99 Yt. 12,34: 70 Y. 22,18: 67 Yt. 12,35: 70 Y. 30,5: 63, 78 Yt. 12,36: 70 Y. 35,5: 59, n. 187 Yt. 12,37: 70 Y. 36,6: 56, 57, n. 180; 68, n. 229; Yt. 13,2: 39-41, 58, 64, n. 213, 66 70, n. 248 Yt. 13,3: 61, and n. 204 Y. 37,1: 56, 57, n. 180, Yt. 13,13: 61 Y. 42,3: 39, 58 Yt. 13,53-58: 39, n. 107 Y. 44,4: 55 Yt. 13,57: 67 Yasna Haptaŋhāiti: 57 Yt. 17.20: 60 Y. 71,9: 67 Yt. 19,1: 73 R̥ v. 5,30,8: 35, 37 R̥v. 7,88,2: 60 R̥ v. 9,74,6: 58 R̥ v. 10,1,6ab: 62, n. 204 R̥ v. 10,58,3: 24 Rv. 10,89: 24 R̥ v. 10,90: 52, n. 161 R̥ v. 10,101,7: 35 R̥ v. 10,1170,3: 57, n. 180 Aitareya Brāhmaṇa, 48 Br̥hadāraṇyakopaniṣad 3,6.1. 66, n. 226 Bhāgavata Purāṇa: 48 Dharmasaṃgraha 84: 48 Mahābhārata: 48 Mr̥cchakaṭikā: 48 Pāṇini, V,4,145: 48 Śatapathabrāhmaṇa 9,6.3.6: 66, n. 226

213

214

Antonio Panaino

ch. II,16-17: 107 Yt. 19,7: 73 ch. II,A: 81 Vd. 2. 64, and n. 216 ch. II,A28,10-ff.:71 Vd. 2,40: 67, n. 227 ch. III,7: 71 Vd. 2,10: 67 ch. IV,10: 39, n. 104; 135, n. 485 Vd. 2,40: 67, n. 227 ch. IV,1: 39, n. 105 Vd. 7,52: 67 ch. VA: 116-117, 136 Vd. 9,4: 67 ch. VA,8: 109, 116 Vd. 11,1: 67 ch. VB, 1-2: 75 Vd. 14,10: 60 ch. VB,16-17: 136 Vd. 19: 117 ch. VIA2: 39, n. 102 Vd. 19,4: 60 ch. VIJ: 136, n. 495 Vd. 19,32: 84, n. 291 ch. VII,1: 64, n. 216 Vd. 19,36: 84, n. 291 Hāδōxt Nask 2,15:68, n. 229; 79 ch. XVII,18-19: 74 ch. XXXIV,5: 39, n. 106; 41 and n. 277 Indian Bundahišn Niyāyišn I,8: 82, n. 287 ch. XXIV,17: 74, n. 260 G. 3,6: 67 Dādestān ī Dēnı̄g ch. XXXVI,15- 36:63 Old Persian Inscriptions ch. XXXVI,17: 110, n. 395 De, 2-3: 58 ch. XXXVI,34-36: 62, 65-66, 135, n. 484 Pahlavi Texts Ardā Wīrāz Nāmag VII-IX: 65, n. ch. XLVI,4 and 8: 97, n. 362 ch. XC: 64 218; 68, n. 229 155, n. 548 Ardā Wīrāz Nāmag VII-X: 68, n. ch. XC,3: Dādestān ī Mēnōg ī Xrad 229 ch. VII,9-12: 69, n. 229 Bundahišn ch. XXX,1-: 69, n. 229 ch. IA,4: 39, n. 103 ch. IA,7: 39, n. 101; 53, 97, n. 364 Dēnkard III 157, n. 550 ch. IA,20: 39, n. 100 III,123: 158, n. 552 ch. II. 116 III,164: 155, n. 546 ch. II,2-11: 104-105 III,185: 155, n. 546 ch. II,11: 79, 138, n. 495 III,192: 97, n. 363 ch. II,12-15: 106 III,193: 153, n. 546 ch. II,16: 60

Indexes

III,267: 153, n. 546 III,221: 153, n. 544 III,284: 153, n. 546 III,365: 158 IV,31-32: 154, n. 546 IX,30,7: 63, n. 211 Gizistag Abāliš (Av., Pahl. and Pers. fragments): 79-80 Mēnōg ī Xrad ch. II,28: 118, n. 429 ch. LXIX,16-17: 136, n. 495 Pahlavi Rewāyats to the Dādestān ī Dēnı̄g, ch. XXIII,13 : 64, n. 218 ch. XLVI: 52, n. 161 ch. XLVI,2: 97, n. 365 ch. XLVI,4: 53, 97, n. 363; 111 ch. XLVI,7: 85 ch. XLVI,8: 97, n. 363 Šāyest nē-Šāyest XXII,31:120, n. 429 Škand gumānīg wizār ch. IV,3,6,8: 116 ch. XIV,70-74: 116-117 ch. XV,33: 117 ch. XVI,14,19, 29: 118 ch. XVI,51-111: 154, n. 546 Xwadāy Nāmag: 130 Wizīdagīhā ī Zādspram XXX,1: 51 XXXIV,20: 41, 110 Persian Texts Ferdowsi, Šāhnāme: 126-130 Olamā-ye Eslām: 158- 159

215

Greek Texts Aeschylus, Prometheus Vinctus: 19, n. 21 Aëtius, II,15,6 87 II,15,7: 90-91 II,20,1: 88, 89 Aristotle, de Caelo II, II, 13, 293A21-24:30 286B10-ff.; 54 Pseudo-Aristotle, De mundo, 398b,8-10: 117 Autolycos: 111, n. 398; 147, n. 524 Cosmas Indikopleustes, Christian Topography: 140 IX,3: 148 Empedocles (27A):30, 91 Euclid, Phenomena 2, 13; 6: 50, n. 156 Hegemonius, Acta Archelai VIII,4-7-IX: 144, n. 517 Hesychius: 121 Hippolytus, Refutationes I,6,5: 87-88 I,7,6: 93 I,11: 31, n. 80; 90 Homer, Od. 6, 100:29 Georgios Kedrenos, Σύνοψις ἱστοριών I,721,18: 123-124 Georgios Monachos, Χρονικόν σύντομον:122-123 Nikephoros, Breviarium, 12, 4347: 122 Origen, Homilies on Jeremiah, 10,6: 140

216

John Philoponus, Against Aristotle. On the Eternity of the World: 153, n. 543 Against Proclus, 537,5-10: 105, n. 385 Treatise on the astrolabe: 148, n. 524 Commentary in Aristotle’s Physics: 148, n. 524 De Opificio mundi, I,12:148, and n. 526; n. 527 Plato, Laws, 821C:69 945C4-946A1, 946B5-C2, 947A5-6: 141 Epinomis: 143 982A-984A: 143, n. 511 Timaeus 34A: 31 38E5: 141 42D8: 141 PMG, I. 74-76: 141 Procopius of Gaza, Ἐκφράσεις: 126, n. 459 Ptolemy, Almagest 32, n. 89 or Mathematiké Syntaxis XIII, ch. II: 113, n. 404 IX,9: 115 Planetary Hypotheses: 114, n. 410 Simplicius, In Aristotelis quatuor libros de Caelo commentaria, I, Comm. 6: 111, n. 398 Theodorus of Mopsuestia, Colossians I,16: 148 Theon of Smyrna, Expositio rerum mathematicarum ad legendum Platonem utilium: 29, n. 71 Theophanes Homologetes,

Antonio Panaino

Chronicle:

122

Latin Texts Jean Buridan, Questiones super octo Physicorum libros Aristotelis; liber VI, Quæstio IV, fol. XCVII, col. c: 111, n. 398 Martyrologium of St. Ado: 124125, 128 Petrus Chrysologus, Sermo 120,2: 120-121 Pliny, Historia Naturalis 37, 37, 115: 96 Priscianus of Lidia, Solutiones eorum de quibus dubitauit Chosroes Persarum rex: 146, n. 521 Hebrew Texts Exodus, XXIV,10: 95, n. 351; 142 Ezekiel: 95 Genesis I,14-17: 97, n. 351 Is. XXII:18: 17 Arabic Texts al-Bīrūnī, Tafhīm:26, and n. 48 Qānūn al-Masʿūdī: 118 Transits: 119-120 al-Jazarī, The Book of Knowledge of Ingenious Mechanical Devices:130, n. 473 al-Kindī, Risāla fi ḏāt al-ḥalaq: 32, n. 89 Th‘ālibī: 126, 127, 130

Indexes

Mediaeval French Texts Perlesvaus: 122, n. 445 Akkadian texts AO 6478: 16, n. 8 K 250+ and AO 8196 iv 20-22: 94-96 Enūma Anu Enlil: 16, n. 8 Enūma eliš: 93, 96 Tablet IV,137-138: 21 Tablet V,62: 22 VAT 8917, obv. 30 – rev. 3: 93-96 KAR 307 31-32: 96

Chinese Texts Song Yu, poems: 36 Kao gong ji: 37 Zhu li zhu shu 40, 7a-7b: 37 Index of the historical Persons and ancient Authors Alexander: 127 Anaxagoras: 30 Anaximander: 87, and n. 302; n. 304; 88, and n. 306; 89, and n. 311; 315; 91, n. 326; 92, 93, 98, n. 368; 99, 100, 117, n. 426 Anaximenes: 30, 91 Archytas: 106, n. 391 Aristillus: 32, n. 89 Aristotle 17, 29, 30, n. 72; n. 74; n. 74; 54, n. 168; 108, n. 391;112, 114, n. 410; 116, 141, n. 511; 144,

217

147, n. 524; 149, 152, and n. 543; 155, and n. 554 al-Bīrūnī: 26, 26, n. 48; 118-120 Chang Heng (or Zhang Heng):27 Chosroes (see also Xusraw):115, n. 415; 122-126, 146, n. 521 Cyrus of Edessa: 144, n. 517 Copernicus: 112, 114 Cord/Chord: 114, 118-120 Cosmas Indikopleustes:140, n. 503; 143-151, and n. 535 Crates: 87 Croesus: 124 Dastūr: 129 Dehgān: 129 Democritos: 30 Eudoxos: 15, 30, 31 Empedocles: 30, 91 Epicycle: 31, 105, 111, 120 Geminos: 29, n. 67 al-Ghazālī: 148 Great Conjunctions: 111 Ibn Qurrah al-Ḥarrānī: 113-114 al-Hashimi: 115, n. 414 Ibn-al-Haythan: 114, 149, n. 536 Heraklios/Heraclius: 123-124 Hipparchus: 28, 31, 32, n. 89 Hippolytus: 311, n. 80; 91 Hesiod: 29 Homer: 28-29 Ibn Nawbaxt: 128, n. 465 al-Kindī: 32, n. 89 Krates of Mallos: 29, n. 71 Leukippos: 91 Manuščihr: 155

218

Mār Abā: 140, 144, n. 517; 149, n. 535 Mardān-Farrox ī Ohrmazddadān: 116-117 al-Mahdī: 149, n. 537 Metrodoros of Chios: 91 Origen: 149, and n. 536 Parmenides:30, 31, n. 80; 90, 91 Plato 17, 29, 30, 31, 69, 106, n. 391; 114, 141, and n. 511 John Philoponus: 104, n. 385; 140, 147, and n. 524; 148, n. 527; 149, and n. 543; 153, 155, 156, and n. 554 Ptolemy: 28, 32, and n. 89; 104, n. 385; 112-113, 114, and n. 410; 116, 133, n. 487; 144, 145, 147 al-Qiftī: 149, n. 537 Simplicius: 106, n. 391; 111, n. 398; 152, n. 543 Ibn Sīnā: 148 Song Yu: 36 Theodoretus: 92 Theodorus of Mopsuestia: 140, n. 500; 147, and n. 525; 148, 149 Theon of Smyrna: 29, n. 71 Thomas Aquinas: 151 Timocrates: 32, n. 89 Varāhamihira: 26 Xusraw I: 146, n. 521 Xusraw II: 123-125, 126-128, 129, n. 469, 131, n. 481 Walid II: 131, n. 479

Antonio Panaino

Index of the main Subjects Academy (Athens):146, n. 521 Amber: 96, 97 Aməṣ̌a Spəṇtas (Amahraspand): 65, 81, and n. 284; 83, 84, n. 291; 85, 104, 106, 138 Anāhitā: 105, n. 381 Anaγra Raocah: 66, and n. 226; 67, n. 227; 68, n. 229; 69, n. 229; 70, 72, 79, 83, 84, n. 292; 86, n. 86; 97, 133, 165 Anomaly of Venus: 115, n. 414 Antikythera Mechanism: 32, n. 89 Anu: 93, 94, 95, 96 Apaoša: 69, n. 235 Armilla: 32, n. 89 Axis mundi: 25, 73, 85 Backgammon: 128, n. 464 Ball: 18, and n. 15; 29, 49-51 Bēl: 94, 96 Calidarium: 131, n. 479 Chess: 128, n. 464 Colors: 18, n. 17; 95, 97, n. 363; 131, n. 479 Clock: 32, n. 89; 126, n. 459; 127, and n. 460; 131, n. 473;132 Clouds: 56, 70, 80, 81, and n. 284; 82, and n. 287; 85 Cord of Mercury: 114-116 Dark Sun: 116 Dark Moon: 116 Dāsa Namuci: 36 Decans: 142, n. 514 Dhruva: 25 Diamond: 97, and n. 363

Indexes

Dragon: 34, n. 91 Druǰ: 104, n. 386 Ea: 95, n. 354 Eight Sphere: 104 Elements: 82, n. 287 Ērān-wēz: 85 Farīdūn: 127 Fractional division of the cosmos: 64-66, and n. 217 Fractions: 64, n. 217 Frauuaṣ̌i: 75, 76, n. 272; 77, 155, n. 548 Gaitian theiry: 26-28 Great Yašts: 75, n. 271 Hermitage Museum: 131 Homocentric spheres 23, 31, 78, 101, 106, 138, 139, 144 Huntian Theory: 26-28, 140, iatromathematics: 148, n. 526 Jesus’ ascension: 144, n. 517 Kalām: 153, n. 543. Karšuuar/Kišwar: 25, 69-71, 129 Kərəsāspa: 33 Lohrasp: 127 King Arthur: 122, n. 445 Haptōiriṇga: 69, 73, 74, 75, n. 271; Igīgū: 94, 96 Imum Caeli: 134 Jasper: 18, 92, 94, 94, 95, 96 Kirder: 115 Klimova: 131 Kunstuhr: 131 Lapis lazuli: 95, 96, 97, 127, 129 Marduk: 18, 21, 93, 94, 95, and n. 354; 96, 142

219

Maruts: 36 Melothesia: 52, n. 161 Milky Way: 81, 102, n. 376; 103, and n. 381 Mountains: 24, 60, 71, 72, 73, 80, and n. 283; 86 Miθra/Mihr: 45, 46, n. 127; 66, 75, n. 271; 78, 105, 132, 134 North Pole: 25 Occultation: 92, 98, n. 368; 110 Orientation: 133, n. 487 Pairikā Dužiiāiriiā: 69, n. 235 Paradise: 68, n. 229; 69, 70, 72, 78, 60, 81, and n. 284; 82, m. 287; 83, 84, n. 291; 85, 86, n. 291; 97, 98, n. 367; 105, 108, 111, 129, 133, 136, 139 Parasangs: 85, and n. 293; 86 Perkunas: 61, n. 201 Phenomena: 114-115 Planetaria: 32, n. 89; 126, n. 459 Planets: 10, 17, and n. 10; 18, 25 26, n. 48; 31, 63, 68, and n. 228; 69, 87, 89, 98, n. 368; 102, 105 and n. 387; 106,107, 119, 126, 128, 129, and n. 470; n. 471; 140148, 158 Primum Mobile: 103, 104, n. 385; 132, 154 πρότος ἄνθρωπος: 52, n. 161 Puruṣa: 52, n. 161 Quṣayr ‘Amra: 131, n. 479 Raŋhā River: 71, and n. 252; 72 Rašnu: 70-71; 73, 76, 78, 82, n. 287; 99, n. 371

220

Retrogradation: 10, 25, 63, 119120, 136, 142-143 Spəṇta Mainiiu: 62, 63, 77, 78, 84, and n. 291; 106, 136, 138, and n. 499 Sacred Cross: 124-125, 128 Sadwēs: 72, 73, and n. 259; 75, 81 Saēna Tree: 71 Samarra: 131, n. 479; 136, n. 494 Sarasvatī: 103, n. 381 Sirius: 69, and n. 235; 73, 74, 98, and n. 367; 100, and n. 375; 137, 144, n. 518 Snāuuiδka: 33-38 Stones (precious):10, 18, and n. 17; 19, and n. 21; 22, 34, n. 91; 35, and n. 94; 36, 40, and n. 110; 58, and n. 182; 59, and n. 187; 60, 61, and n. 201; 63, 78, 86, and n. 297; 93-96 Taxt ī Ṭāqdīs: 126, 127, n. 460 Taēra of Harā: 25, 69, 73,82, n. 287 Telecracy: 117 Temple of Šīz: 38, n. 98; 53, n. 165 Throne: 81, 83, 84, n. 291; 85, 95,104, 117, 121, 124, 125, 126130, 131, and n. 479,132, 138 Tištriia: 69, and n. 235; 73, 74, 75, 82, n. 287; 144, n. 518 Trepidation: 103, n. 384; 104, n. 386 Tyche: 81 Triplication of the earth: 64-65, 75, n. 271 Uranus: 60 Ursa Major: 69, 73

Antonio Panaino

Vahišta Ahu: 70, 84, n. 291; 84, n. 291 Vāta: 82, n. 287 Vega: 69, 73, 74 Vanaṇt 70, 73, 74, 75, 82, n. 287 Void: 154, n. 546 Wind: 10, 25, 26, 63, 82, n. 287;115, 117, 118, 119, 135,141, n. 508 Yima: 64, and n. 216; 67, n. 227; 91, n. 321 Zīg: 108, 111, 115, n. 414; 118,119,145 ziggurat: 131, n. 479; 136 and n. 494; ziqpu-stars: 16, n. 8 Zodiac, etc.: 68, n. 28; 78, n. 276; 81, 102, 110, 126, 127, 128,131, n. 479; 134, 142, n. 514; 143 Zruvan/Zurwān: 66, 82, n. 287; 142, n. 514 Geographical Places Bagdād: 133, n. 479 Ecbatana: 126, n. 458; 131, n. 479 Gaza: 126, n. 459 Ganzaca: 123 Harburz: 73, 85, 86 Nišābuhr: 126 Nisibi: 149, n. 536 Mythical Places Harā: 25, 73 Haraitī: 71, 72, 73, 82, n. 287 Harburz: 73, 85, 86 Hukairiia: 71, 72, 73, 82, n. 287 Meru: 25 Sumeru: 24 Vourukaṣ̌a Sea: 69, n. 235; 71, 72