Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T15:44:34.807Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The sraōšāuuarəza-priest and the usage of the srōš-barišnīh in the greater Long Liturgy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 May 2021

ALBERTO CANTERA
ALBERTO CANTERA*
Affiliation:
Frei-Universtat BerlinAlberto.cantera@fu-berlin.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this paper I postulate that the original function of the srāošāuuarəza- is the recitation of the formula sraōšō astu (srōš barišnīh), and provide an analysis of the function of this formula in the Long Liturgy. It has an Indo-Iranian background and plays an important role in the Long Liturgy. Because of the dependence of previous editions on the exegetical manuscripts, the formula has never been recorded in the different variations it displays in the liturgy. Some instances have never been edited at all, and others only partially, leading to an incorrect understanding of several texts included in this formula. Furthermore, I present some thoughts about the materials, problems, and methods for the study of the Avestan priestly college and its evolution.

Keywords

AvestanLong Liturgysrōš-barišnīhZoroastrianismritual
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society , Volume 31 , Issue 3 , July 2021 , pp. 479 - 514
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Royal Asiatic Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

In this paper, I quote the Avestan texts according to the numbering system that we have introduced in Corpus Avesticum Berolinense (http://cab.geschkult.fu-berlin.de). When the passages have correspondences in the edition by K. F. Geldner, Avesta. The sacred books of the Parsis (Stuttgart, 1886–1896), I add Geldner's numbering in parentheses to facilitate the use of the paper.

References

2 I mention here just a short selection of some works of these two scholars: Kellens, J., Zoroastre et l'Avesta ancient: Quatre leçons au Collège de France (Paris, 1991)Google Scholar, Kellens, J., Le pantheon de l'Avesta ancien (Wiesbaden, 1994)Google Scholar; Kellens, J., Essays on Zarathustra and Zoroastrianism (Costa Mesa, 2000)Google Scholar; Kellens, J., ‘Zoroastre dans l'histoire ou dans le mythe? À propos du dernier livre du Gherardo Gnoli’, Journal Asiatique 189 (2001), pp. 171–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kellens, J., La quatrième naissance de Zarathushtra (Paris, 2006)Google Scholar; Kellens, J., ‘The Gāthās, Said to Be of Zarathustra’, in The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Zoroastrianism, (eds.) Stausberg, M. and Vevaina, Y. S.-D. (Chichester, 2015), pp. 44–50Google Scholar; Skjærvø, P. O., ‘A future for Gathic Studies? The Ancient Iran Poet and his Poetry’, Bulletin of the Asia Institute 11 (1998 [2001])Google Scholar; Skjærvø, P. O., ‘Zarathustra: A Revolutionary Monotheist?’, in Reconsidering the Concept of Revolutionary Monotheism, (ed.) Pongratz-Leisten, B. (Winona Lake, 2011), pp. 317–350Google Scholar; Skjaervø, P. O., ‘The Gāthās as Myth and Ritual’, in The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Zoroastrianism, (eds.) Stausberg, M. and Vevaina, Y. S.-D., (Chichester, 2015)Google Scholar. However, there are still attempts to save the traditional view, e.g. A. Hintze, ‘Change and continuity in the Zoroastrian tradition’, (London, 2013).

3 On this point, see a short overview in Cantera, A., ‘Ethics’, in The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Zoroastrianism, (eds.) Stausberg, M. and Vevaina, Y. S.-D. (Chichester, 2015), pp. 315–332Google Scholar.

4 Kellens, J., ‘Considerations sur l'histoire de l'Avesta’ in Journal Asiatique 286 (1998), pp. 451–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 F. M. Kotwal and G. Kreyenbroek, The Hērbedestān and Nērangestān. Volume I: Hērbedestān (Paris, 1992); F. M. Kotwal and G. Kreyenbroek, The Hērbedestān and Nērangestān. Volume II: Nērangestān, Fragard 1 (Paris, 1995); Kotwal, F. M. and Kreyenbroek, G., The Hērbedestān and Nērangestān. Volume III: Nērangestān, Fragard 2 (Paris, 2003)Google Scholar; Kotwal, F. M. and Kreyenbroek, G., The Hērbedestān and Nērangestān. Volume IV: Nērangestān, Fragard 3 (Paris, 2009)Google Scholar.

6 The idea that the same ceremony could be celebrated with different “levels” of solemnity has already been advanced by A. Panaino: ‘We must insist on the fact that it was also in ancient times possible to perform other ceremonies with just two priests, or also with one single priest. Then, the reduction of the number of the priests was de facto a sort of diminutio of level in the prestige and importance of the ceremony, although they were still considered “solemn”’, see Panaino, A., ‘The Avestan Priestly College and its Installation’, DABIR 6 (2018), p. 90 n. 20Google Scholar.

7 The priest āsnātar shows abbreviation of the ā of the root in antepenultimate syllable, hence the acc.sg. āsnatārəm, but dat.sg. āsnāθre, g.sg. āsnāθrō. It could perhaps be explained as an attempt to avoid the succession of three ā. This word should be added to the list of words with an apparent shortening of ā in the antepenultimate syllable without ending in °ca or ° cit̰. See M. A. C. de Vaan, The Avestan vowels (Leiden, 2002), p. 108.

8 On the list of the seven priests and its Vedic correlate. See Sadovski, V., ‘Ritual formulae, Structures and Activities in Vedic and Avestan Liturgies between Cultic Practice, Mythology, and Social Ideology’, Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 71/1 (2017/2018), p. 117Google Scholar ff.

9 F. M. Kotwal and P. G. Kreyenbroek, The Hērbedestān and Nērangestān. Volume III: Nērangestān, (Paris, 2003), p. 99.

10 A. Cantera, ‘The taking of the wāz’, pp. 47–63.

11 For an analysis of the materials, see § 1.

12 cf. A3.4 sraōšāt̰ dąhišta arš.vacastəma.

13 See Grenet, F., ‘Was Zoroastrian Art Invented in Chorasmia?’, Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 24 (2018), pp. 68–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14 First identified as Sraōša by P. O. Skjaervø in: F. Grenet, P. Riboud et al., ‘Zoroastrian scenes on a Sogdian tomb in Xiʾan’, Studia Iranica 33 (2004), pp. 273–284; furthermore see Riboud, P., ̒ Bird-Priests in Central Asian Tombs of the 6th-Century China and their Significance in the Funerary Realm’, Bulletin of the Asia Institute 21 (2007), pp. 1–23Google Scholar; M. Shenkar, ̒ A Sasanian Chariot Drawn by Birds and the Iconography of SraōMimesis e Rito. I Preti alati del cerimoniale mazdaico.ša’, Commentationes Iranicae. Vladimiro f. Aaron Livschits nonagenario donum natalicium, (eds.) S. Tokhtasev and P. Lurie (Petersburg, 2013), pp. 211–222; Panaino, A., ‘Mimesis e Rito. I Preti alati del cerimoniale mazdaico’, Bizantinistica 16 (2016), pp. 41–61Google Scholar.

15 aiβiiāxštaiiāt̰, as edited by Kotwal and Kreyenbroek, must be a typo. See F. M. Kotwal and P. G. Kreyenbroek, The Hērbedestān and Nērangestān III, p. 266.

16 F. M. Kotwal and P. G. Kreyenbroek, ibid, p. 267.

17 Nevertheless, the representation of the sraōšāuuarəza in the manuscript depictions of the ritual area locate him always in the south, behind the fire.

18 V. Sadovski, ‘Ritual formulae’, pp. 81–134. On this role of the brahmán and how he performs it, see the recent book by McClymond, K. T., Ritual Gone Wrong: What We Learn from Ritual Disruption (Oxford, 2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

19 A. Cantera, ‘The taking of the wāz and the priestly college in the Zoroastrian Long Liturgy’, Journal Asiatique 304.1 (2016), p. 51f.

20 In the description of the lesser Drōn i Ābān, the hāwanān is the priest who invites the zaōtar, but there is no mention of him partaking of the drōn too. This information is confirmed by the manuscripts. There, when the rāspīg invites the zaōtar, he does so at the place of the hāwanān (pad gāh ī hāwanān), Only ms 2101 (a late manuscript with the nērangs in Persian) says that the rāspīg is at the place of the frabərətar, where according to the Nērangestān, the sraōšāuuarəza recites part of this text.

21 F. M. Kotwal and P. G. Kreyenbroek, The Hērbedestān and Nērangestān III, p. 253.

22 A. Cantera, ‘The taking of the wāz’, passim and particularly p. 59ff.

23 The frabarətar takes it again from him shortly after, in VrS89.24, as indicate by most manuscripts. They mention that the rāspīg takes the wāž at the place of the frabarətar (pad gāh ī frabardārān).

24 Observe that the Pahlavi version glosses Av. vācim paiti.aδaiiāt̰ with aθā ratuš.

25 F. M. Kotwal and P.G. Kreyenbroek, The Hērbedestān and Nērangestān III, p. 263.

26 On this concept see A. Cantera, Vers une édition de la liturgie longue zoroastrienne: pensées et travaux préliminaires (Paris, 2014), p. 251f; A. Panaino, ‘Studies on the Recursive Patterns in the Mazdean Ritualism. The “Installation” and the so-called “Disinstallation” of the high Priestly College. fәrā amәšạ̄ spәṇtā gāθå gәū ruuāin’ in Homenaje a Helmut Humbach en su 95° aniversario, (eds.) A. Cantera and J. J. Ferrer Losilla (Girona, 2017), pp. 129–143. However, under the light of this eveidence the concept itself should be reviewed.

27 A. Cantera, ‘The taking of the wāz’ p. 51.

28 See Panaino, A., ‘The Avestan Priestly College and its Installation’, DABIR 6 (2018), pp. 86–100Google Scholar. Panaino also assumes a modernisation of the use of the formula (p. 91): “I think that Cantera is certainly right when he presumes that the ritual formulas still preserved in the Av. mss. reflect a certain conservatism (as, for instance, even in the case of the recitation performed by only two priests, which was known also in the Vedic context), but our confidence in their witness must be tempered by the consideration that, in any case, this is a fundamental material only for a partial reconstruction of the Sasanian liturgy, but still less for a determination of the earlier phases of the Avestan liturgy, in particular if we consider the inevitable phenomena connected with the process of modernisation of the Mazdean ceremonies, but also with the inner traditions of the different priestly schools. For instance, the apparently lesser importance attributed to the sraošāuuarəza- in the wāž formulary results peculiar, if we think that this priest had fundamental functions and that he also assumed a symbolic prominent role, as representative of the god Sraoša, in his nocturnal protective action, which was extremely significant for the solemn nocturnal liturgies including the intercalation of the Widēwdād chapters. Furthermore, we must observe that the sraošāuuarəza- had a very remarkable role in the Central Asian iconography, where his representations as a winged-priest or bird-priest play a very important symbolic function with direct connection to ritual performances in support of the souls of the dead”. Although I agree with Panaino's general statement, I cannot accept his reservations concerning the Sasanian liturgy. There has, of course, been an evolution in the performance. However, the combined use of the information available from different times allows us to trace the historical outline of the evolution of the priestly college with a certain degree of accuracy. The Avestan formulaic materials like the taking of the wāž do in fact allow a degree of modernisation and adaptation, whereby they cannot be taken uncritically as evidences of a performance in Antiquity. However, the degree of innovation must be calibrated carefully. The universalisation of change in the use of certain types of taking of the wāž is of course possible, but it is more doubtful that systematic differences (like the ones between the greater and lesser performance of the LL after the installation of the priests) might be late adaptations.

29 It is a strongly abbreviated copy by Erachji Sorabji Kausji Meherji Rana in 1878 of a lost manuscript of the Yasna by Rustom Guštāsp Ardešir in 1711. It contains extremely interesting ritual instructions that often remind of the instructions found in the Nērangestān.

30 Rezania, K., Raumkonzeptionen im frühen Zoroastrismus. Kosmische, kultische und soziale Räume (Wiesbaden, 2017), p. 278ffGoogle Scholar.

31 This is how the Avestan Nērangestān (N13) should be interpreted when it affirms that the recitations make the ratu- happy, when the priests recite in two or three sitting groups (biš.hastrəm/θriš.hastrəm).

32 We even find fluctuations between both positions in the manuscripts. Thus, according to all manuscripts, it is at the position of the hāwanān (pad gāh ī hāwanān) that the rāspīg invites the priests to partaking the drōn in Y8.3 [GY8.2] (xᵛarata narō). However, the manuscript ms. 2101 attributes this function to the frabardār.

33 See http://ada.geschkult.fu-berlin.de/cab/

34 Kotwal, F. M. and Kreyenbroek, P. G., The Hērbedestān and Nērangestān. Volume II: Nērangestān, Fragard 1 (Paris, 1995), p. 101 n. 339Google Scholar.

35 J. Kellens, Études avestiques et mazdéennes vol. 4. L'acmé du sacrifice. Les parties récentes des Staota Yesniia (Y27.13-Y59) avec les intercalations de Visprad 13 à 24 et la Dahmā Āfriti (Y60-61), (Paris, 2011), p. 70. Surprisingly, this formula is not mentioned at all in the impressive recent comparison of Vedic and Avestan ritual formulas published by V. Sadovski, ‘Ritual formulae’.

36 X. Tremblay, Annexe II to ‘Xavier Tremblay et la liturgie longue proto-indo-iranienne’ in Études de linguistique iranienne in memoriam Xavier Tremblay, (ed.) É. Pirart (Leuven-Paris-Bristol, 2016), pp. 65, 76.

37 See already É. Pirart, ‘Les fragments vieil-avestiques du Y 56’ in Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 52 (1991), pp. 127–135.

38 X. Tremblay, ‘Le pseudo-gâthique. Notes de lecture avestiques II’, in Proceedings of the 5th Conference of the Societas Iranologica Europaea, held in Ravenna, 6–11 October 2003. Vol. I Ancient and Middle Iranian Studies, (eds.) A. Panaino and A. Piras (Milan, 2006) pp. 270ff.

39 É. Pirart, ‘Les fragments vieil-avestiques’, pp. 127–135.

40 X. Tremblay, ‘Le pseudo-gâthique’, p. 271f.

41 The introduction to the Fšūšō Mąθra appears only in the greater LL: VrS75.2-11.

42 É. Pirart, ‘Les fragments vieil-avestiques’, pp. 127–135; X. Tremblay, ‘Le pseudo-gâthique’, pp. 270ff; J. Kellens, Études avestiques et mazdéennes vol. 4, p. 63ff.

43 See above note 29.

44 See the text in Appendix 1 § 3.

45 This is the instance of the formula in the greater LL that is edited with more detail in Geldner. Nonetheless, Geldner divides it in two different karde: the introduction to the speaking of the rāspīg at the end of karde 14 and the rest as part of karde 15. He follows some (but not all) exegetical manuscripts, but this way of editing renders it impossible to understand the formula's well-established structure.

46 Kotwal, F. M. and Boyd, J. W., A Persian offering. The Yasna: a Zoroastrian high liturgy (Paris, 1991)Google Scholar.

47 The combination of Y51.23 [GY51.22] with vohū. xšaϑrəm. vairīm. bāgəm. aibī.bairištəm has to be compared with Y69.3. The whole chapter Y69 is a sevenfold repetition of Y51.23 (GY51.22). The first recitation is closed with vohu manō vahištəm; the second and third by aṣ̌əm vohū vahištəm astī; the three last ones, by vohū xšaϑrəm vairīm bāgəm aibī.bairištəm.

48 For the link between the god Sraōša and Y51 see J. Kellens, ‘Fabriquer un dieu avec du gâthique: le cas de Sraoša’, in Le Sort des Gâthâs et autres études iraniennes in memoriam Jacques Duchesne-Guillemin, Acta Iranica 54, (ed.) É. Pirart (Leuven, 2013), pp. 93–100.

49 A different variant of the formula appears in Y27.7 (GY27.6), announcing the filtering of the haōma that is to be performed during the four Ahuna Vairiia of Y27.9 (GY27.7) and the subsequent Old Avestan quotations [on this variant, see J. Kellens, Études avestiques et mazdéennes vol. 3. Le long préambule du sacrifice (Yasna 16 à 27, avec les intercalations de Visprad 7 à 12) (Paris, 2010), p 111:

haōma. pairi.harəš́iieṇte. mazda.xšaϑra. aṣ̌a.ratauuō. vaŋhuš. sraōšō. yō. aṣ̌ahe. hacaite. mązaraiia. hə̄ca. iδa. yōiϑβā. astu.

“The haōma-twigs are going to be filtered that are bestowers of the power of Mazdā and the articulations of the Order. The good (divine) Sraōša who is accompanied (by Aṣ̌i) who bears great richness should already have taken his ritual place”.

50 In the greater LL, three Aṣ̌əm Vohū often precede this stanza, with the only exceptions being VrS89.16 and when it follows a Frauuarāne: VrS15.2 (after Y15.1 satica vaṇtāca… that follows a Frauuarāne) and VrS87.1.

51 In Y15, the zōt according to the indications of Kotwal and Boyd.

52 This section shows an important difference that distinguishes it from the other. In this case, the yasna does not appear in the lesser performances, but it is exclusive of the greater performance. The case is comparable with the yasna of VrS11.33-5 (GVr4.1).

53 The proper yasna is VrS13.7 (GY13.7) preceding the closing Yeŋhē Hātā.

54 This is clear for both Yasna Haptaŋhāiti. In the case of the second part of the Āb-zōhr, the reference could be to the text of the proper libation; the yasna to the waters of the Yasna Haptaŋhāiti (Y38.2-5). The other two passages are followed by Middle Avestan sections: the extended Frauuarāne of Y12 and the Fšūšō Mąϑra.

55 Geldner, K. F., Avesta. The sacred books of the Parsis (Stuttgart, 1886–1896)Google Scholar.

56 The standard formula is sometimes extended by additional texts I call extensions. They are described below.

57 It indicates whether or not the standard formula is extended with an additional text.

58 I understand this compound to be a variant of the frequent aṣ̌ahe ratu-, cf. J. Kellens, Études avestiques et mazdéennes vol. 4, p. 111.

59 J. Darmesteter refers to this repetition in Le Zend-Avesta (Paris, 1892), not edited by Geldner. J. Kellens comments on it in Études avestiques et mazdéennes vol. 4, p. 111: “Le Vr 15 est répété avant le Yasna Haptaŋhāiti dans le Vr 21 et encore une fois, selon Darmesteter (ZA I, 478), mais d'une manière invérifiable, avant le Y 58.” The manuscripts themselves enable this to be readily confirmed.

60 On this stanza, see J. Kellens, Études avestiques et mazdéennes vol. 4, p. 24.

61 In a recent paper Sadovski attributes to the second Yasna Haptaŋhāiti a second animal sacrifice and a new offering to the fire (V. Sadovski, ‘Ritual formulae’, p. 95). This is quite unlikely. First, there is no mention at all that the second recitation includes a new sacrifice. Second, its status within the LL is different from the one of the recitation of the first, as is made obvious by the fact that the second Yasna Haptaŋhāiti is recited by the rāspīg and not by the zaōtar (a common pattern in these kinds of repetitions). Furthermore, it is clear that whereas the focus of the first recitation is on the sacrificial fire, the emphasis of the second one is on the sacrifice to the waters. This is clearly shown by a different commentary repeated twice in the greater LL at the end of each recitation:

The table of the structure of the LL presented by Sadovski represents neither a Yasna nor a Visperad ceremony. It includes elements exclusive to the greater performance of the LL, such as the investiture of the priests or the second Yasna Haptaŋhāiti, but not others such as the second Drōn Yašt, which is a key component of the greater performance and implies a different arrangement of the end of the liturgy. See Cantera, A., ‘Why Do We Really Need a New Edition of the Zoroastrian Long Liturgy?’, in The transmission of the Avesta, (ed.) A. Cantera (Wiesbaden, 2012), pp. 452Google Scholar ff.; A. Cantera, ‘A Substantial Change in the Approach to the Zoroastrian Long Liturgy. About J. Kellens’ Études Avestiques et Mazdéennes’, Indo-Iranian Journal 59, pp. 163 ff.

62 The Old Avestan quotation has been reinterpreted in this way, as shown by the parallel yā̊ nō ištā̊, when referring to the Frauuaṣ̌is.

63 It is very interesting to state that the action of mazdāti- is attributed only to the Yasna Haptaŋhāiti and Fšūšō Mąθra, whereas zrazdāti- is also applied to the Yasna Haptaŋhāiti and to the Gāθās (VrS41.3 [GVr14.2], VrS51.2 [GVr16.0], VrS57.2 [GVr18.0], VrS62.2 [GVr17.0], VrS64.2 [GVr20.0], VrS65.37 [G21.0], VrS69.2 [GVr23.0], VrS71.2 [GVr 24.0]. In this ritual action of “putting a text and the ritual action it accompanies in the mind” we may find the clue for understanding the meaning of mazdā- in the name of Ahura Mazdā. Like Sraōša, Aṣ̌i- etc., Mazdā also seems to be a deification of a ritual process.

64 J. Kellens, Études avestiques et mazdéennes vol. 3, p. 82.

65 It means the celebrations of the five intercalary days at the end of the year and, by extension, any of the six seasonal festivals.

66 Until vaŋhuš aṣ̌iuuā̊, the extension also appears in the corresponding passage of the Yasna (Y65.16-18) and in Y56 (Y56.2).

67 Cf. Y27.7 vaŋhuš sraōšō.

68 Av. vaŋᵛhīnąm could also be a transmission error, being imported from apąm vaŋᵛhīnąm.

69 See A. Cantera, ‘The taking of the wāz’, p. 59f.

70 According to Tremblay, Y56-58 are “une collection de prières récitées pendant le rituel par des acolytes (ātrǝuuaxša?), et adjointes en appendice au rituel majeur”. See X. Tremblay, Annexe II to ‘Xavier Tremblay et la liturgie longue proto-indo-iranienne’, p. 76.

71 In the greater LL, it is clear that this section is a ceremony for the fire, as the second Drōn Yašt introduced after Y59 clearly shows. This Drōn Yašt is clearly a Drōn for the fire.

72 In fact, Y57 can be understood as an extension of the sraōšəm aṣ̌īm yazamaide, closing the formula in many instances.

73 The parallelism between both is stressed by the fact that both sections dedicated to Srōš are free of variation in both the Yasna and the greater LL. During the Srōš Drōn, the list of the ratu is not the list of the Visperad, but instead the one of the Yasna. In Y56, the wāž of the Srōš Yasn follows the pattern of the Yasna rather than the one of the Visperad.

74 In a previous article, I formulated the hypothesis that the Visperad has a triadic structure, whose beginnings are marked by the presence of three Drōn-like rituals: the Srōš Drōn, the Hōmāst and the final Drōn to the Fire. Furthermore, I assumed that there are elements connecting the initial part with the dawn and the final with the afternoon. See A. Cantera, ‘A Substantial Change in the Approach to the Zoroastrian Long Liturgy’, p. 169ff. I still believe in this possibility, although I now consider that the presence of Sraōša in the first part of the liturgy has to be connected with his necessary presence for a successful performance. Nonetheless, the association of Sraōša with the dawn might be reminiscent of a time when the liturgy began in this early part of the day.

75 According to the manuscripts, this text is either recited by the frabardār (ms 2101) or the hāwanān (all the other mss). This is to be expected, as they are the priests who are next to the zōt. The fact that according to the Nērangestān, the srōšāwarz recites this imperative in the greater Drōn ī Ābān shows a clear tendency to ascribe to this priest the utterance of imperatives, at least within a greater performance.

76 cf. VrS31.9 and Y27.7 (GY27.6) hə̄ca. iδa. yōiϑβā. astu. , likely said also by the sraōšāuuarəza

77 A. Cantera, ‘The taking of the wāz’, p. 62.

78 A. Panaino, ‘The Avestan Priestly College’, p. 92f.

79 Kellens, J., Études avestiques et mazdéennes vol. 2. Le Hōm Stōm et la zone des déclarations (Y7.24-Y15.4 avec les intercalations de Vr3 à 6), (Paris, 2007), p. 101Google Scholar.

80 J. Kellens, ‘Deux apologues sur le feu rituel’, in Études de linguistique iranienne in memoriam Xavier Tremblay, (ed.) É. Pirart (Leuve-Paris-Bristol 2016), p. 197.

81 J. Kellens, ‘Deux apologues sur le feu rituel’, p. 195.

82 He might have also used the same formula for correcting errors during the performance. After detecting an error in the recitation, the srōšāwarz would attract the attention of the priest who has recited a text incorrectly or omitted one through sraōšō iδā astū… yasnāi , then recite the text correctly and with hiiat̰. paōuruuīm. tat̰. ustəməmcīt̰ call upon the priest to recite it again correctly.

83 Interestingly, all the Pahlavi Visperad manuscripts I have consulted include only səraōšō astū; that is, they do not include the first recitation of the section by the rāspīg, but the second by the zōt. Geldner (and TITUS) completes hiiat̰. paōuruuīm. tat̰. ustəməmcīt̰ on the basis of the liturgical manuscripts, as it would be the section recited by the rāspīg. Even more striking is the presence of the taking of the wāž of the zōt (of course, missing in the exegetical manuscripts). In any case, the presence of səraōšō astū in the exegetical manuscripts confirms the secondary nature of the exegetical manuscripts, if there were still any doubt.

84 Repetition of Vr15.1-5, albeit without hiiat̰. paōuruuīm. tat̰. ustəməmcīt̰.

85 It abbreviates Y15.2

86 It abbreviates Vr15.1-5

87 The repetition of the zaōtar is not correctly represented in TITUS. It is unclear why it is assumed that only the first stanza of the extension is repeated by the zaōtar.