Akbar’s Yogavasistha in the Chester Beatty Library’ By Heike FRaNKe, Halle (Saale) Summary: Two emperors of the Indo-Muslim Mughal dynasty, Akbar (x, 1856-1605) and his son and heir Gahangir (r. 1605-1628), are well known for their patronage of arts and crafts. Especially painting was held in high esteem, and father and son almost vied with each other in the production of pictures and illustrated books. Usually, these pieces of art can be easily assigned to the patronage of either Akbar or his son. One of them, however, a Persian translation of the religio- philosophical Laghu-Yogavasistha, poses a conundrum concerning its place of origin. Since this manuscript, now kept in the Chester Beatty Library in Dublin, bears an autograph of Gahingir, it was thought to be made for him. Nevertheless, the preface of this text proves clearly that chis translation was done at Akbar’s behest. The present paper deals with the question, how such contradicting state- ments could happen. It gives a short overview of the different Persian translations of the Laghu-Yogavasistha and, according to a comparison with the Persian text, offers a new identification of seven illustrations in the Chester Beatty manuscript. The founder of the Mughal dynasty, Zahir ad-Din Muhammad Babur (1483-1530), was himself a scion of the house of Timiir. Although he was born in Fergana, a province located in the northeast of modern Uzbekistan and hence far away from the urban centers Samargand and Herat, he was nevertheless acquainted with the Timurids’ methods of how to cultivate his public image. Already his forefather Timir had recognized the benefits of promoting himself through art and encouraged painting and building to this end. Timur’s successors followed this example and especially painting was developed as an important means of political propaganda, Notably Sultan Husayn Mirza (d. 1506), the last Timurid ruler on Persian soil, who gathered the best poets, painters, and calligraphers at his court in Herat, was regarded as the paragon of urban sophistication? Babur reports that he was acquainted with the celebrated style of paint- ing being done in Herat, but we do not know whether Babur himself em- ployed painters at his varions courts. It seems that only his son Humayun ® ‘This article is a partial result of the rescarch project “Indo-Persische Ubersetzungs- literatur” located at the Institute of Oriental Studies and the Tnstitute of Tndology (Martin-Luther-Universitit Halle-Wittenberg). CEL. Lnactt: Mughal and other Indian Paintings. London 1998, p. 158 2 TW. Lenra/G.D, Lowny: Timur and the Princely Vision. Persian Art and Culture in the Fifteenth Century. Los Angeles 1989, p. 32. Rees eee360 Heike PRANKE (1508-1556) took decisive steps to establish the first Mughal studio of paint ing. Akbar (1542-1605), Humayun’s successor, encouraged painting in a way that was unprecedented. Today we know of 45 illustrated manuscripts that were produced in these workshops, bnt many more may have since been lost. Apart from the “classics” of Persian literature, like Nizami’s Hams, or the Bostan and Golestan by Sadi, Akbar ordered to illustrate several dynastic histories including the multi-volumed Akbar-ndma. Moreover, since the late 1570s Akbar had a number of Sanskrit texts translated, part of which were also furnished with illustrations. Manuscripts like the Mahabharata and the Ramayana, kept in the Maharaja Sawai Mansingh Museum in Jaipur, enjoy worldwide attention today. Although the translating of Sanskrit literature into Persian has been an integral part of the Indo-Persian cultural encounter ever since the Paficat- antra was rendered into Middle Persian in the sixth century cr, we can rec~ ‘ognize an apogee of these activities during the reign of the Mughal emperor Akbar. The translations from Sanskrit were ghtly knotted with ambitious political efforts to weld the inhabitants of the Mughal empire on a religious and cultural level into a homogencous whole. While the often mentioned Din-i ilabi was intended to collect the numerous denominations of India into one all-embracing religion under Akbat’s leadership, the Persian lan- guage was meant to unite the subjects linguistically, The translations into Persian aimed at making the Sanskrit works part of a cultural heritage eve- ryone felt closely linked to.’ Hence, some of these translations were copied several times and dispersed to important high officials to ensure that they received proper consideration. Akbar’s son Salim (b. 1569), who ascended the throne as Gahangir in 1605, equalled his father in his patronage of the arts. Already during his time as crown prince he maintained his own atelier and competed with the emperor for the most beautiful and interesting illustrations. A phase which proved es- pecially prolific concerning Mughal painting, was Salim’s stay in Allahabad, a town at the confluence of Ganga and Yamuna. Because of the strategic im- portance of Allahabad, Akbar had build a fort there that was one of the four important strongholds of the empire. When Salim rebelled against his father shortly before his 31° birthday, he moved his establishments into this for- tress where he remained from August 1600 until November 1604, interrupted by some months in Agra from about April to October 1603. Quite a number of illustrated manuscripts were produced in Allahabad for Salim, while at the same time the painters at the imperial court in Agra worked for Akbar. ) HL. Pranwe: Akbar und Gahangir. Untersuchungen zur politischen und religiisen Legitimation in Text und Bild. Scheneleld 2008, pp. 133-159 iniversiti’s: und LandesbibliethekeAkbar’s Yogavasiseha in the Chester Beatty Library 361 An illustrated manuscript from this period, a Persian translation of the San- skrit Laghw-Yogavasistha kept in the Chester Beatty Library in Dublin, is the topic of this article. This religio-philosophical text, transliterated as Gag Basistha, deals with the illusory nature of the empirical world and the way to mental deliverance. Its main protagonists are the wise and holy Vasistha and his royal disciple Rama who, regardless of his future occupation as tem- poral ruler, gains perfect knowledge and becomes a jiwan-mukt, a person freed during lifetime. Obviously, the Mughal emperors were especially interested in this text, since quite a number of translations exist. The union of spiritual enlighten- ment and temporal duties, as it was presented in the Laghu-Yogavasistha, was completely congruent with the public image promoted of Akbar, and at least in part of his immediate successors. On the basis of its dating given in the colophone of the Chester Beatty Gog Basiitha, T.W. ARNOLD ascribed this manuscript, which contains no reference to its place of origin, to Akbar.’ About sixty years later, Linpa Lact rejected this ascription.’ Owing to a note that seems to be affixed by Gahangir on the first folio, she assumed that this manuscript was made by order of prince Salim. ‘The present article mainly pursues two aims: 1. By adducing evidence from the manuscript itself it wants to show that ARNOLD was ~ at least partly ~ right with his ascription to Akbar, and 2. it will describe all those illustrations that have not yet been interpreted correctly. 1. The translation of the Chester Beatty Gog Basixtha ‘The colophone of the Chester Beatty Gog Basistha is dated fiftheenth Azar of the Ilahi-year 47 (December 1602)°, but contains no reference to the place where it was written. 'T.W. ARNOLD saw “no adequate reason for doubt- ing the correctness of this date” and concluded Akbar to be the patron of this translation as well as of this manuscript.’ However, Linpa Lracu de- ciphered a note on the margin of fol. Iv from which she infered that this ‘TW. Ansoun: The library of A. Chester Beatty: a catalogue of the Indian mini~ atures. London 1936, p. 22. 5 Leacwr 1995, p. 155. The wrong date given in Lracn 1995, p. 155 was already corrected in E, Wxrcnrr: Muragga’. Imperial Mughal Albuans from the Chester Beatty Library Dublin. Alexandria, Virginia 2008, p. 226. 7 ARNOLD 1936, 22, Rees eee362 HIKE FRANKE manuscript must have been commissioned by prince Salim when he resided in Allahabad.’ Since Linpa Lracn did not give the full transcription and tanslation of Gahangit’s note, it may be useful to quote it here completely, although the last part can be read and translated only tentatively: Allahu akbar ~ in kitab-i Gog Basistha, ki az bikayat-i mutagaddimin ast &i (2 dar zaman-i Sah-zardagi Gie!) dar sinn-i bist-u ...? (alagi dar baldavi ... az hindi... $4 awardam, be ib ast, agar & (2) kasi ba hot Simiid wa agar az sad yal taba... albatta (2)... (u)mid ki bie Sinad (2) ... (az) adat-i zahir ... batin ba-maqsad. “God is great! — This book Gog Basistha [sic!] which belongs to the stories of the ancients, (and) which I translated in the time when [ was erown-prince in my twenty...funreadable}...th year in the town of ...[unreadable}, is a very good book. Whenever somebody hears it with the ear of understanding, and ii he considers only one percent of it, itis surely to be hoped that he will make the batin (“what is beyond this world”] his destination by the instrument of the zahir (“what belongs to this apparent world”}*? To conclude from this autographical note that Salim commissioned this manuscript during his time in Allahabad" confronts us with two incon- gruities: First, Gahangir did not state here that he ordered this manuscript but that he translated the book Gag Basistha. Even though we may not take this literally and expect himself to be the translator, it is nevertheless note- worthy that Gahangir himself does not claim to have made this illustrated Cog Basistha. Hence we could only conclude from his words that he com- missioned this translation when he resided in Allahabad. However, this supposition raises other problems, because Salim wrote that he made the translation when he was in his twenties. When he came to Allahabad in July 1600, he was already 31. A translation odered by Salim when he was in his twenties would have to bear a date between Ilahi 34 and Tabi 44. In [ahi 47, the date of the Chester Beatty Cag Basistha, the prince was already 33. To harmonize Salim’s note and the date of the manuscript, one could infer that the text was translated at least four years prior to 1602 and copied and illustrated only after the prince had moved to Allahabad. However, there are some arguments against this version either. Although Linpa LracH men- © Leacir 1995, p. 156. ® Dots mean: the paper is torn here, Questionmarks in brackets mean: the reading of the preceding word is not sure. Single letiers in brackets mean: the paper is torn here but these seem to he the missing letters. '® Cf. the translation by Jou Setter in his article “The inspection and valuation of manuscripts in the imperial Mughal library.” In: Artibus Asiae 57, 4, pp. 243-349 (see ‘esp. p. 300). 1” Leactt 1995, pp. 155, 158. Rees eeeAkbar’s Yogavasiseha in the Chester Beatty Library 363 toned the translator Farmuli speaking of Salim rather than Akbar as his patron,"? Farmuli’s preface (from fol. 1v to 3v) mentions, on the contrary, three times Akbar’s name. He is called Fol. 2r: 1] hatrat-i zillu Llabi sulayman-nikani hilafar-panabi sabib-giran Galal ud-Din Akbar paditah — hallada Llabi ta\ala nulka-bii(...] “[..4 His majesty, shadow of God, seal of Solomon, protection of the califate, lord of conjunction, Galal ud-Din Akbar Padiéah ~ may God perpetuate his reign! [..J” Fol. 2v: [..] hangima-yi mardanagi wa diliri furdg-afed-i péia bizabri wa Seri ma'raka-afrOz Saja'at bazm-drdy himmat wa sabateat Aba 'I-Muzaffar sultan-i salim Sab Akbar gazi—abbeda la-hit taal mulkea-bil! [...] [J [He is] an assembly of courage and valour, light-increasing, fierce and hion-like, from battle-illuminating valour, banquet-adorning magnanimity and munificence, Abu ’l-Muzaffar", the perfect sultan, Sah Akbar Ga may God perpetuate his reign! [..] Though the word “salim” looks at a first glance as if “prince Salim” was meant, a more accurate translation shows that “salim” functions as an ad- junct to sidtan and both qualifies the following “Sab Akbar”. Fol. 2v: wa ager samand-tabi‘at-rd dar maydan-i subanwart wa nukta-dani ba~ gawalan mi-arad suban-sindsan-i buland fitrat wa dgabi-manitan-i sitnda- hibrat ‘az wa qustir-i bod mu'tarif Suda mubr-i haranit bar lab mi-niband. twa Sabid barin ma'ni in abyat-ast ki badthat az masriq-i tab'-i waqgad wa zahan-naqgad an qibla-yi din wa dunya™ Cin nayyir-i sa‘adat Saraf tala piafea ~ bayt: ta buwad bar asman h*uried-i anwar bad3ah, bad3th-i haft kigwoar bad Akbar badsah _] And when he gallops about his steed-like temperament on the battlefield of rhetoric and the understanding of subtleties, the high-minded eloquent cones and those of praiseworthy experience with the nature of wisdom confess their errors and affix the seal of silence to their lips. A witness of this are the following verses ascending the height like the luminary of good fortune [as] 2 The translator's name is given on fol. 3 Tine 7, not as ARNOLD says on fol. 322, line 7— perhaps a reading error in the process of printing. Lipa Lractt corrects this er ror, of, Leactt 1995, p. 155. } For “Abu 'l-Muzaffar” as part of Akbar’s name ef. H. Brvextpor: The Akbar nama. New Delhi 1989 [repr.}, vol. 1, p. 1456, n. 6. © The expression "Die wa dunya” points to Akbar’s claim to reign over the temporal and the spiritual world. Cf, FRANKE 2005, pp. 232-239. err364 HIKE FRANKE an improvisation" from the place of sun-rise of this bright genius and under- standing eritie, this gibla of religion and world, as long as in the sky the resplendent sun will be the badah, may Akbar Badah be the badiah of the seven climes. This threefold mention of Akbar leaves no doubt that this translation was not ordered by Salim, But how does it happen that Salim declares this trans- lation to be his? We get nearer to the answer if we remember that there is a rendering done by the scholar Nizam ad-Din Panipati thatwas indeed made for the prince. While only two copies of the translation for Akbar could be located — the illustrated one in the Chester Beatty Library and another one in the Punjab Public Library of Lahore" — Salim’s/Gahangir’s version, transliterated as “Gag Basista”, came down to us in many manuscripts. It turned out to be a difficult task to discern all manuscripts of Panipati’s ver- sion’, because his text is handed down in different forms: Either with" or without" preface, ending sometimes with sarga (Skt. “chapter”) 43, some- © ‘This means that Akbar extemporized these verses. 1 Mawatin Ansan ‘Apnisi: Tafjil-i fibrist-i makhqapat-i farisiya. Lahore, Punjab Public Library 1963, no, 22. A synopsis of the text under the title Muntahab (“Selection”) or Hudasa ("The pur- est and best part”) bears witness to the interest shown in this translation. Gar.att N&TST and C.W. Exnyr assumed this to be an independent translation. CL Savyip MUILA MAD GataLt Na’IsT wa N(axavan) Sivanki) Sunta: Gag Basist. Dar falsafa coar *irfan-i hind. Targumacyi Nizam Panipati. “Teheran 1360 HS (1981) (Lind Sinasi 18), p. ta’. CW. Exnst: “Muslim Studies of Hinduism? A Reconsideration of Arabic and Persian Translations from Indian Languages.” In: Iranian Studies 36.2 (2003), pp. 173-195, note 446. But as Muyraa't has proven, the Muntakbab-iJog Basisht isa selection of various pas- sages from the Panipati-version. This is why this text cannot be considered a translation of its own. Cf, Fareuctan Murrapa’t: “Muntakhab-i Jug-Basasht or Selections irom the Yoga-Vasistha, Attributed to Mir Abu'l Qasim Findiriski. Critical edition of the Persian text and translations into English with introductory studies, notes, glossary and index” (Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Harvard University, 1976), p. xl £ Manuscripts containing the preface of Nigam ad-Din Panipat have the following incipit, “sukr u sips bi-giyas sazdwatr-i batrat-i dadar*. Fg, (a) London, BM, Or. 8443; (b) Kalkutta, Asiatic Society of Bengal, no. 1699; (c) Qum, ‘Azami no. 5252 (see Savyib Arman Husaynit Fibrist-i nushaha-yi batt — kitab-bana-yi ‘umarni bacrat-i Ayauillah 4-‘Azami Nagafi Mar'ait. Vol. 14. Qum 1987 (1366 H8), p. 47£).(d) Qum, ‘Azami ao. 6999, fol. 14-354y (Savvy Auman Husaysk Fibrist-i nusbaha-yi hasti — kitab-bana-yi ‘umimi bazrat-i Ayatullah |‘Azami Nagafi Mar‘ass. Vol. 18. Qum 1989 (1368 H3), 1708). ao ee Walker 117; (b) London, India Office, no. 806, (¢) Paris, Biblioth¢que Nationale (see E. Blocuw': Cataloge des Manuscrits Persans. Paris 1905, no. 223, (4) London, British ‘Museum Add. 5644, They all start with “brabmandn-i hind-ra dar wabdat-i aat-i baqg subbana taala”. eresAkbar’s Yogavasiseha in the Chester Beatty Library 365 times with sarga 46.2 Nevertheless, it concerns always the same translation of which approximately fifteen copies are kept in European, Iranian and In- dian libraries, museums and private collections. In 1981 Murammap Riza Gat ALT NX’1NT published a critical edition of Panipati’s rendering?" In the preface of his book he mentions that copies of this translation are to be found not only in the important libraries of Iran but also in numerous public and private book collections in the provinces of the country.2? Consequently, we can assume an even wider spread of this text than the inventory apparent in the catalogues makes suppose. Below some excerpts from Nizam ad-Din Panipati’s preface” to give proof that his text is the translation for Salim: pe Gtin “ali-batrat-i muta‘éli-yi mangabat ‘utdrid-fitnat mustari-tal‘at malik- i sivat falak-vutbat Faridiin-manzar Gamsid-mabbar abtar anj-i ‘azamat wa kamgari nayyir-i dsman-i ‘izzat wa babtyari hizabr-péla-yi Saga'at wa mardanagi Aflatin-danis Aristo-farzinagi 22 dah wa Sthndda-yi gabaniyan wa nitr-dida-yi buday-gan wa wali-yi ‘abd-i Sabansih-i zaman salim af-tab' zaki az-zahan Sultan Salim Bahadur pel: When [...] the sublime majesty of high glory, like Mereury in intelligence, with a countenance like Jupiter, a king of good manners, of sky-high rank, from his outward appearance like Feridun, in his interior like Jamshid, the predomi- nant star in the highest point of magnificence and happiness, a luminary in the heaven of power and prosperity, lion-like in valour and prowess, a Plato in knowledge, an Aristoteles in wisdom, pea: king and heir-apparent of all men, light of the eyes of god, crown prinee of the Sihansah of the time, gentle and from pure understanding, Sultan Salim Bahadur The manuscripts GaLAti Ni ini consulted for his edition of Panipati’s translation do not indicate the date of completion. The preface of Panipati, however, corroborates Gahangir’s marginal note in the Chester Beatty Li- brary, in that is was made before he acceded to the throne, because he is 2 H, Franke: “Die persischen Ubersetzungen des Laghuyogavasistha.” In J. Han- nroer (ed.): The Moksopaya, Yogavitsisiha and Related Texts. Nachen 2005, pp. 113-129, esp. p. 127, "ahs siden of Tipe? araaslaton is nedly avails My shuooes sheaks x0 Dr. Davin, Duranb-Guty for sending a copy to me from’Teheran 2 Op. 1981, p. lam. 2% Cp, GaLALT NA‘INT 1981. Pees366 HIKE FRANKE called “crown prince”. Besides, in his catalogue of manuscripts in the library of Qum, S.A. Husayni mentions the year 1006 # (= 1597/98 cx) as the date of translation.* Probably, this Gog Basista manuscript in Qum contains a date that had been omitted in other copies. In 1006 H, Salim was twenty- eight years old. This corresponds to Gahangit’s information as well as to the allusions of Panipati’s preface. Thus it is highly probable that Salim ordered his translation when he was twenty-eight years old, before he went to Al- lahabad and before Akbar had his one made.”* For the sake of completeness it should be mentioned here that besides the translations for Salim and Akbar, there is a third translation of the Sanskrit Laghu-Yogavasistha for prince Dara Sukoh (1615-1659) that was, according to its preface, finished in the year 1066 H (1658/1656 cr). Quite a number of copies from Dara Sukch’s translation’® are extant.2” One of them is kept as Add. 5637 in the British Library. Up to now this manuscript was thought to be written for Akbar, because the preface mentions the year 1006 # and the name “Muhammad Akbar Badah”. Except for this, the whole textagrees exactly with the translation for Dara Sukoh. For an unknown reason, the original date 1066 1H was exchanged for 1006 u, and the name Dara Sukoh for Akbar Bad3ah. To sum up, there are three® different translations: The first one was done for Salim by Nizam ad-Din Panipati, presumably in 1597/1598. The second one was ordered by Akbar and rendered into Persian by a certain Farmuli, a disciple of Kabir, in 1602. One copy of this is the Chester Beatty Gag Baststha. The third one was done for Dara Sukoh by an unknown translator in the year 1655/1656. . So the most obvious explanation for Gahangir’s note could be that he, during an inspection of his library, just made a mistake and thought the present translation to be his. Or perhaps, he was aware of this being a manu- script for Akbar but wanted to hint to the fact that he also ordered a transla~ tion of the Yogeodsistha - decently indicating that his text is the older one! - Husavnr 1987, ms, no, 5252 2 Tris noteworthy that Akbar’s translator Farmuli cooperated with the same author- ity, namely pathan Mira Haggipari (Farmult fol. 3a), who had already lent his support in rendering the text co Nizamad-Din Panipat, cf. Gatatt Na’INT 1981, p-3. 2 Concerning the question, who made the translation for Sukoh, see FRANKE 2005, p. 1171. . ® ‘Since 1968 a critical edition is available, cf. Tana Ctanp/S. A.H, Astor: Gog Baiist. Calcutta 1968. - - 2 There is also the Tubfab-i maglis of Sayh Sufi Sarif Klubgahani, mentioned by Dari SvxOn himself in the preface to his Cog Bafise. But this epitome of the Laghu- Yogaviaststha contains no more than a dozen folios; this small scale forbids to count it as a proper translation. Cl. W. Pexrscrt: Die Handschrifien-Verzeichnisse der kéiniglichen Bibliothek zu Berlin. Berlin 1888, no, 1077/4 and CHaNb/ADtDt 1968, p. 4, Rees eeeAkbar’s Yogavasiseha in the Chester Beatty Library 367 2, Description of some illustrations The comprehension of the Gag Baviitha-illustrations is complicated by the fact that they do not always show what is described in the text immediately before. Sometimes, the related passages precede the paintings by several fo- lios (ep. fols. 1521/121; 166r/161~), in other cases they follow the pictures (p. fols. 71/73 178v/180r; 41v/431). It was 'T.W. ARNoLD who first identi- fied the contents of the Gog Basistha-illustrations in 1936. Linpa Leact adopted ARNoxD’s interpretations for the most part, but offered more de- tailed descriptions. After a close examination of the text, an interpretation different from that proposed by ARNoLD and Leach emerges for some of the illustrations. Folio 7r (fig.1) is de- scribed by ARNOLD (p. 23) and Lracu (p. 161) as Rama (Pers. Raméand) standing before his father Dagaratha (Pers. Dasaratha), who sits on his throne, However, Rama looks much too old here and the whole scene fits much better to the text on the fol- lowing page relating how king Dagaratha had a golden armchair brought tothe Rishi Visvamitra (Pers. Vigvamitra). In consequence, the illustra- tion on folio 7r does not show Dagaratha on his throne, but the Rishi Viévamitra on the golden armchair. The kneel- ing person in front of him is not Rama, but his father Dasaratha who shows his deep respect to the wise man. Folio 41v belongs to the story of Queen Lila and King Padma: After Padma’s death, Lila is shown her husband’s new life as king Viduratha (Pers, Bidaratha). Fig, 1: Pol. 7r. Rama’s father, king Das. shows his deep respect to the Rishi Vigvamitea who sits on a golden armchair. atha,368 Heike FRANKE Lila is also allowed to sce their past incarnations as the brahmin couple Arundhati and Vasistha (Pers, Basistha). The illustration depicts a king or a prince carried in a litter and accompanied by his retinue. An old brahman on the right side in the foreground is watching the scene. Since we find a de- scription of prince Vidiiratha, the reincarnated husband of queen Lila, in the lines preceding the illustration, ARNOLD and Luack expected this prince to be illustrated here, However, the text on fol, 41r tells us that Vidiratha was enthroned while Rishis, brahmans and wise men were sitting in a row in the east, the bigger and smaller kings were standing in the west, elephants, horses and chariots filled the northern portal, and the gate to the south (fol. 41v;) was adorned with beautiful and graceful women.” This account does in no way correspond to our illustration, since one might expect to see a hall in the interior of a house and four groups of people ar- ranged around the king, It is more likely that fol. 41v was intended to ilhus- trate one of the following passages on fol. 434, where Sarasvati tells queen Lila the story of their former life as Vasistha and Arundhati: Seeing a king and his entourage passing while on the hunt, Vasistha is impressed and de- sires royal dignity for himself — a wish that ties him to the world and results inhis rebirth as Padma. So the king seems not to be Vidiiratha but the name- Jess king in the narration of the goddess. The brahman Lracn referred to as “yogi” is perhaps meant to be the brahman Vasistha, even though the text says that he is watching the king and his hunting party from the top of a mountain. AgNo1p’s and Leacn’s identification of fol, 58¥ as Vidiratha fight- ing with the king of Sindh is right. Just cwo details of the illustration seem worth mentioning: The sun in the top left and the mountain are specially mentioned in the text. On fol. 58r we read, “Meanwhile, Her Majesty the Sun deigned to rise above the mountain Aday (fol. 58v:) in a way as if she condescended just to behold this amazing battle.” Fol. 95r belongs to the story of Lavana (Pers. Lawana), who, in order to bring an imaginative sacrifice to full effect, had to live for twelve years in hardship and misery ~ also in his imagination. The explanation of the Rishi ® Fol, Air: wa rakbisarin wa brabmanan wa dandyan har day-iSarqisaf-rada nikasta~ and wa bar dar-i garbi ragha-yi buzury wa b*urd qitar-basia istada-and wa darwiea-i Samat az fi wa asb wa ‘araba pur-ast wa dartwiza-i fanitbt az zandn (fol. 41) sabib-i 5 Fol. 88r: wa dar in miyn bazrat-inayyir-ia eam bar kub-i Aday (580) cundn Saraf-i ula farmitd hi guya ba-gthat-+ tamaia-yt in harear-tiigarf tairef atoarda ast. ~The hon- orific formula for the sun is part of the stun worship as is was practised in connection with the Din-i ilabi, see FRANRE 2005, p. 203,