Towards a new edition of the Avesta: Problems and perspectives

Alberto Cantera acantera@usal.es

Geldner’s edition of the Avesta has been for almost a century the reference edition of the Avesta. The works of K. Hoffmann about the Avestan script and the transmission of the Avesta that were collected and summarized in Der sasanische Archetypus (1989), although still based on the data provided by Geldner, let feel for the first time the need of a new edition of the Avesta. K. Hoffmann criticized Geldner’s methodology for the choice of variants and developed a new one. Whereas Geldner was too dependent on the manuscripts he considered the best ones, mainly Mihrābān manuscripts of the Pahlavi Yasna and of the Pahlavi Wīdēwdād, K. Hoffmann postulated a detailed philological and linguistic analysis of each single form as the only sure method for the choice between different readings. Through this methodology he was able to establish the original value of many letters of the Avestan alphabet that were no longer distinguish at the time of copy of the available manuscripts and whose original value was not recognized by K. F. Geldner.

This discovery was the starting point for the re-edition of many single Avestan texts in the last 40 years. It has, indeed, become usual to edit, translate and comment an Avestan text as Ph.D. thesis. These editions continued to be based on Geldner data and not on the autopsy of the manuscripts. In the best of the cases some available manuscripts were checked, but the bulk of the data were imported from Geldner’s edition. In fact, from the editorial point of view the main advance of these editions was the application of Hoffmann’s method for the choice of the right variant, the adaptation to the new conventions of transliteration and an alternative arrangement of the apparatus, whose weak points were also recognized by Hoffmann. For the rest, these editions were based and reproduced the data of Geldner’s edition.

In the last years the Avestan Digital Archive I direct (dia 2) has made accessible a considerable number of Avestan manuscripts. Already 68 manuscripts have been indexed and published online complete or partially and around 150 manuscripts have already been digitized. For the first time after Geldner’s work we have access today to as many manuscripts or even more than Geldner. This new situation has brought to light that a new edition of the Avesta is really necessary. In many recent works I have tried to show the reasons why this new edition is necessary. Today I don’t want to repeat them once again, but to make some reflections about the different possibilities we have to make a new edition that solve the difficulties of Geldner’s edition. However, since some of you might not know my former works, for the main are still in press, let me start with a very short presentation of the reasons why Geldner’s edition needs to be substituted by a new edition.

The points of Geldenr’s edition that need to be improved cover the whole process of the editorial work, from the collection and collation of the manuscrpts to the constitutio textus and the shape of the apparatus. Geldner’s most substantial

improvement with regard to the former edition of Westergaard was that he had access to an important number of Avestan manuscripts available in India (dia 3), whereas Westergaard based his edition on the manuscripts available in Europe. However, some manuscripts from India arrived when the edition was already started or even finished. Furthermore, he did not select himself the manuscripts that were sent from India and, although most of the most important manuscripts were indeed sent to him, he might have missed some important codices. Actually, today we can confirm this hypothesis. As for the European manuscripts, he trusted too much the data provided by Westergaard and from existing European copies and collations and did not check himself all the European manuscripts. But the main weakness of Geldner’s edition regarding the collection of manuscripts is that the Iranian manuscripts of the Avesta are very insufficiently represented.

Since the travels of Westergaard (and later Browne and Jackson) to Yazd and Kerman the opinion was establishged among the scholars that there are not Avestan manuscripts of the Avesta in Iran (or very few). Many of them are supposed to have been destroyed and other sent to India. Accordingly, Geldner did not enterprise any search of Avestan manuscripts in Iran. Nevertheless, Geldner did have access, fortunately, to some Iranian manuscripts, since they were already in Europe (like K4 brought by Westergaard) or were in India and were sent to him together with the Indian manuscripts (dia 4). Around 12 Iranian manuscripts of the long liturgy were available to him, amkong them only for were actually copied in Iran. The rest are Indian copies of Iranian manuscripts:

a. Manuscripts in Europe a. Royal Library Copenhaguen: K1 (PV), K5 (PY), K4(Vyt-S), K7 (Vr),

K9 (VS, copy of Mf2) b. Indian Office Library: L4 (PV) c. JamaspAsana – Bodleian: J2 (PV)

b. Manuscripts sent from India a. Iranian originals:

i. Yasna-Sāde: Mf1 ii. Widēwdād- Sāde: Mf2, Jp1, Ml1

b. Indian copies i. PY: Pt4, Mf4

c. Manuscripts in “Iranian style”: Br2, K8, Kh1, Lb5

In the last years the joined efforts of some Iranian colleagues and of the Avestan Digital Archive have brought to light over 50 Iranian manuscripts of the Avesta. In the table (dia 5) you see the Indian and Iranian manuscripts of the long liturgy written before 1700 (manuscripts used by Geldner are in italics; unknown to him in bold; used by Geldner and missing today in italics and bold):

Iranian mss. Indian mss. Written in Iran Written in India Yasna-Sāde B3-L17 (1556)

K11 (1647) Lb2 (1661)

Yasna-Pahlavi J2 (1323) K5 (1324)

Yasna ī Rapihwin-Sāde

Ave976 (1607)

Wīsperad-Sāde 9345_M G18b (1647) Ave1066 (1697)

K7b (2/2 13th c.) D81 1572

Wīsperad-Pahl. K7a (2/2 13th c.) T12 (1552) Wīdēwdād Ave976 (1607)

Ave977/978 (1608) Mf2 (1618) Ave991 (1622) Ave992 (1623) Ave1001 (1632) Jp1 (1638) Ave1009 (1640) Ave1014 (1645) RSPA 230 (BL) (1647) Ave1027 (1658) Seller Shahrooz **

L1 (1435 ???) B2 (1626) R278 (1654) M2 (1657) T46 (1664) O2 (1681)

Wīdēwdād-Pahl. L4 (1323) K1 (1324)

Ml3 (1594) (copy of K1)

Wīštāp Yašt Mf9 (1647) Wyt- Yazd (without date, but 17c.)

G18a (1647)

As you might see, the number of Iranian manuscripts of the long liturgy written before the 18th century is now higher than the number of Indian manuscripts of the same period. Furthermore, the Iranian manuscripts show more archaic features than the Indian counterparts as well in the orthography as in the proper liturgy. Westergaard’s edition was based in the “European” manuscripts of the Avesta, Geldner’s in the Indian manuscripts and a new one must incorporate and give value to the Iranian ones. This is first reason why a new edition of the Avestan long liturgy is needed.

The Prolegomena of Geldner’s edition and his chapter on the Avestan literature in the Grundriss have been for long time the only list and description of the extant manuscripts of the Avesta and especially the only analysis of the dependences between the different manuscripts. Hoffmann and Narten affirmed in Der Sasanidische Archetypus that this is the main contribution of Geldner. However, today that the Avestan manuscripts are available we have detected many inaccuracies in the descriptions of Geldner. For example (dia 6), according to Geldner the manuscript B2 does not have any date, but it has a long colophon that bears the date (995 Y.E.) so that it is one of the oldest VS manuscripts known.

1 Mulla Firoz Library, Dhabhar 7-8

Actually, more important than this is the fact that, as I have tried to show in a long contribution that is going to appear in the next weeks, Geldner’s methodology for the analysis of the relationship between the manuscripts is wrong. Geldner’s foundation of his analysis was the main principle of stemmatics: the agreement in a significant error supposes a genealogical link between the witnesses. This principle was also the basis for the hypothesis of the hyparchetypes postulated by K. Hoffmann. Accordingly, all the manuscripts of the long liturgy on the one side and of the Xorde Abastāg on the other must go back to an already faulty hyparchetype (written around the 10th century), since they all share some transmission errors. Recently I have shown that manuscripts of the long liturgy that share the same error are not necessarily copied from each other or through an intermediary.

The manuscripts of the long liturgy were used in the priestly schools as guides for the learning priests about the right performance of the rituals of the long liturgy. Thus, the manuscripts were conditioned by the ritual practice of the community in which they were copied and conditioned themselves the ritual practice. A variant arisen as a transmission error in a manuscript can become canonical in one school and then influence other manuscripts copied later in the same school, even if they are copied from other written sources. Through the influence and authority of some schools and priests some variants became trendy and spread over wide areas and accordingly could be copied in many manuscripts of different origin. Therefore, the agreement in a significant error does not imply necessarily a genealogical relationship between two manuscripts and cannot be the basis either for building the stemmata of the manuscripts of the long liturgy or for assuming hyparchetypes.

In the context of the Avestan Digital Archive I have developed software called TATEC (Tools for Avestan Text Criticism) for the analysis of the relationship of manuscripts that tries to offer an alternative to Geldner’s methodology. It has been created after the model of the Coherence Based Genealogical Method, developed at University of Münster for the Editio Graeca Maior of the New Testament. Electronic transliterations of parts of the manuscripts are automatically compared and we get thus indices of agreement between manuscripts that allow us to classify the manuscripts in groups of related manuscripts, but not to know which manuscripts in these groups have the oldest witnesses (dia 7). For establishing the relative chronology of the witness, each place of variation is examined and the different variants are organized in a local stemma (dia 8). The global stemma is the stemma that is most coherent with all the local stemmata.

But the most important reason for the necessity of a new edition of the Avestan long liturgy (the complex of ceremonies of the Yasna, Wisperad and the intercalation ceremonies) is, of course, the constitutio textus. As I have already mentioned, the new methodology of K. Hoffmann for the choice among the different variants of each single Avestan word have stimulated a long series of editions of single Avestan texts. But there is another point that is at least as important as the choice of the single reading fs and that till recently has got no attention at all: which text do we want to or should edit?

Despite Geldner’s (1896, p. xlvi) affirmation that “the higher criticism has … only a slight field in the Avesta”, different types of manuscripts present the Avestan texts differently according to their various purposes. The long liturgy is thus transmitted in two different types of manuscripts: the liturgical and the exegetical manuscripts. The liturgical manuscripts include complete descriptions of the different variants of the long liturgy (Yasna, Wisperad, Wīdēwdād, Wištāsp Yašt) consisting of ritual instructions in Pahlavi or Gujarati and the complete recitative in Avestan since they are guides for the correct teaching and learning of the performance of the ceremonies. The exegetical manuscripts address only a select elite of priests that are interested not only in the performance of the ceremonies, but also in understanding the contents of the Avestan recitatives. Accordingly they include the Avestan text and its Pahlavi translation. However, only the exegetical manuscripts of Yasna contain the complete recitative of the ceremony. For the rest of ceremonies they include only the parts of the ceremony that need to be translated because they do not appear in the Yasna or earlier in the same ceremonies. Thus the exegetical manuscripts of the Wisperad include 24 alternative texts to the Yasna that characterizes the Wisperad ceremony. These are the only 24 fragments of the Wisperad ceremony edited by Geldner. His edition can give the false impression that if we intercalate these 24 fragments at the indicated places of the Yasna ceremony, then the result would be a Wisperad ceremony. However, after the comparison with Wisperad ceremony as it appears in the liturgical manuscripts it does not hold true. The differences between a Wisperad ceremony and a Yasna ceremony are many more than the alternatives quoted in the exegetical manuscripts.

Nevertheless, Geldner considered, as Westergaard before him took, because of a false analysis of the transmission of the Avesta, the Pahlavi manuscripts as the best and oldest ones and made of them the basis for his edition. Accordingly, in his edition is edited only the recitative of the standard daily ceremony, the Yasna, but not the complete recitatives of the Wisperad or the intercalation ceremonies.

Furthermore, each variant of the long liturgy appears in different variations according to different parameters like the date of the ceremony, the place, the purpose, etc. Geldner seldom mentions any liturgical variations in the apparatus. The dedicatories are one of this important set of variables to take into account in the performance of each ceremony. All different variants of the long liturgy can be celebrated with different dedicatories. The Yasna manuscripts show almost exclusively the dedicatory of the daily morning ceremony which is edited by Geldner, but the manuscript ML 15285 (60) mentions as an alternative the dedicatory to Srōš. The Wīsperad and the Wīdēwdād appear, however, in the manuscripts with different dedicatories. An edition of the long liturgy should therefore also take into account the different dedicatories mentioned in the manuscripts as possibilities for each ceremony, and not just present the standard daily dedicatory that usually appears in the manuscripts of the Yasna ceremony and which is the only one edited by Geldner.

An edition of the Zoroastrian long liturgy cannot be limited to the presentation of one standard version of the simplest celebration, the daily morning ceremony known as Yasna. A new edition of the Avesta should include the different variants of the liturgy (Yasna, Wīsperad or intercalation ceremonies) as well as the set of

variables of each of these variants depending on multiple factors (like date, place, purpose, dedicatory, etc.). The exegetical manuscripts and the Western editors usually reproduce only a complete ceremony, the daily morning ceremony, in a standard version. The liturgical manuscripts show, however, a vivid image of the ritual variations. This change of perspective implies important changes in the editorial process. The basis for establishing the text as a whole must be the liturgical manuscripts, and the ritual aspects must be taken seriously and should be presented conveniently in a new edition.

This implies the edition not only of the Avestan text, but also of the ritual directions mentioned in the manuscripts, for they are essential for knowing the ritual context of the Avestan recitatives. The Avestan texts are oral texts that do not exist beyond their performance. The ritual directions included in the liturgical manuscripts are the oldest available clues as to the performance of these texts. Furthermore, these ritual directions are considerably old, since in the Pahlavi version they go back to Sasanian times. Therefore I consider it most convenient to edit the ritual directions together with the Avestan text.

The last point I would like to mention is that, although one of the characteristic features of the ritual and especially of the long liturgy is its conservatism, inevitably the long liturgy has changed along the time. The way and the phonetics of the recitation has changed from the first performances of this ceremony to the performances in the time of our manuscripts (between the 14th and th 19th century) and is not the same in India as in Iran. This changes and differences have left traces in the manuscripts. Furthermore, also ritual changes have taken place along the time. Although the long liturgy as it appears in the manuscripts is basically the same that is described in the Nērangestān, we state many differences. Ritual differences are found as well between the Iranian and the Indian manuscripts. Therefore, when editing the long liturgy, we should edit the text that appears in a coherent group of manuscripts from the chronological and geographical point of view, quoting the alternative readings of the rest in the apparatus.

Summing up, the basic features of a new edition of the long liturgy should be (dia 9):

1. It must be based on the autopsy of the manuscripts and on a new analysis of the single manuscripts and the relationships of dependence between the different manuscripts.

2. The liturgies must be edited on the basis of the liturgical manuscripts. For the choice of the right variant exegetical manuscripts can also be used, since they derive from the liturgical ones. The exegetical manuscripts can be the basis for a separate edition of the exegetical versions of the ceremonies.

3. Since the Avestan texts are oral texts that are understandable only as a performance, the ritual indications must be edited together with Avestan recitative, at least the Pahlavi ones that continue directly the same tradition of the ritual directions contained in the Nērangestān.

4. The liturgical variation (multiplicity of ceremonies of the long liturgy and their different variants in different celebrations) must be reproduced in the edition.

5. Since the recitation of the liturgy changes with the time and there are also ritual changes, the text edited must be coherent from a chronological and geographical point of view. Therefore, the Iranian manuscripts that have proven to be more archaic in different aspects than their Indian counterparts should be the main basis for the text of the long liturgy.

I have spent most of the time of the last years trying to imagine the outlook of an edition of the long liturgy than fulfills all the requirements I have listed just now. In following I’m going to expose the guidelines of my actual provisional outlook of a new edition of the long liturgy.

1. The ritual instructions are edited together with the Avestan recitative, e. g. Y0.6 (dia 10):

2. When the Avestan recitative is different in the different ceremonies, then all the alternatives are edited, e.g. the frauuarāne of Y0.7 (dia 11) is different in the Yasna than in the Yasna I Rapihwin (dia 12) and than in Widewdad and Wištāsp Yašt. Therefore, in this positions the four different versions must be edited and numbered

3. When in a ceremony there are different variants, the different alternatives for each ceremony are edited and not just one, e.g. the dedicatory of Y0.8-12. First we edit the standard dedicatory for the Yasna, the only one included in Geldner’s edition (dia 13):

Then an alternative dedicatory for the Yasna to Srōš that appears in an Iranian Yasna manuscript and the dedicatory for the Yasna ī Rapihwin (dia 14).

They follow the three variants that the manuscripts include for the Wisperad, that is, the šnūman ī gāhānbār, the šnūman ī srōš and the šnūman ī ardā fraward:

And the also the dedicatories of the Widewdad and Wištāsp0 Yašt ceremonies.

This complex edition requires an equally complex apparatus. I distinguish 4 different apparatus, as you might see in the sample edition of the beginning of Y9 (dia 15):

1. an apparatus of parallel passages in the Avestan and Pahlavi literature . 2. an apparatus of witnesses. Since not all the texts are included in all

manuscripts, this apparatus is essential. 3. and finally, two separated apparatus: one for the readings and one for

phonetica and orthographica. Each single Avestan form appear with small variations almost in each manuscript and even in different passages in the same manuscripts. Thus, in a selection of manuscripts, a frequent word like ńiuuaēδaiiemi attests in its first attestation of Y 1.2 the 7 following variants besides the correct form: niuuaē.δaiiemi T 46 (4240); niuuaē.δaiieme R 278 (4220); niuuaē.daiiaēmi L 17 (100); niuuaēδaiieimi K 11 (110); naiuuae.saiiaimi G 97 (235); niuuaeiδaiiemi 4250 (dia 16).

If we consider that for many passages of the long liturgy we have far more than two hundred manuscripts, it is obvious that the record of each single variant in the apparatus of readings is almost unfeasible because of the size. More important is even the fact that the real alternative readings, that is, variants that are not purely phonetic or orthographical variants would remain hidden among the bulk of insignificant variants.

Let us see the variants of Y1.2 in a selection of manuscripts in both formats:

Y1.2

ńiuuaēδaiiemi. haṇkāraiiemi. vaŋhauue. manaŋhe. ašāi. vahištāi. xšaθrāi. vairiiāi. spəṇtaiiāi. ārmatəe. hauruuaṯbiia. amərətaṯbiia. gəuš. tašne. gəuš. urune. āθre. ahurahe. mazdå. yaētuštəmāi. aməšanąm. spəṇtanąm.

Y1.2,2 ńiuuaēδaiiemi haṇkāraiiemi] abbr. 420 (niuuaēδiiaemi), 4041 (ń. h.), 4100 (ń. h.) | ńiuuaēδaiiemi] niuuaē-δaiiemi δ3 (vl. niuuaē-δaiieme 4220). niuuaē-daiiaēmi 100. niuuaēδaiieimi 110. naiuuae-saiiaimi 235. niuuaeiδaiiemi 4250 | haṇkāraiiemi] han.kāraīaēme 100. həṇkāraiiemi 110. haṇkāraiiaemi 235 | vaŋhauue] vaŋhuue A (-40; ac. 60), 2010, 4000. vaŋhuiie 570. vaŋhauua 120 | manaŋhe] manaŋha 2020 | ašāi] ašāi A12, 100, 235 3 vahištāi] vahistāi 4250. vahe-štāe 100. vaheštāi α1, 4240 xšaθrāi] xšaθrāi A (-40; pc. 60), 510. xštrāi 4031 | vairiiāi] vaeriiāe α2 spəṇtaiiāi] spəm-taīāe α2. spəṇtaiiå δ2, 120, 2010, 420 (vl. spaṇtaiiå), 570 (vl. spəṇtāiiå), 4000, 4060. spəṇtaiiā 4100 | ārmatə e] ārmaetə e α2 (vl. ārmae-tə e 100). ārmaitə ē α1 (-235) A11, 410. ārmaitə e 450. ārmatē 2010 (ac.). ārmaitē Γ1 (pc. 2010) δ1, 235, 570, 4020. ārmaitə 4230, 4240. āramaitə ē 400. ārmatōiš 4020, 4031 (vl. [.]ramatōiš), 4060, 4100 hauruuaṯ biia] hauruuaṯ -biia 110, 2010, 4100, 4230 (pc.), 4240. haouruuaṯ -biia 235. hauruuatabīa α2. hauruuaδbiia 410, 2020, 4220. haoruuatbiiō 570. huruuatbiia 4010 (ac.) huruuat-biia 120, 4230 (ac.) 4 amə rə taṯ biia] amə rə taṯ -biia Α1 (-235), 4100, 4240, 4250. amə rə tatabiia 4230. amə rə tata-bīa α2. amə rə taδbiia 2010. ºbiiō 4010 (ac.) | gəuš1] gīuš 4031 | tašne] tašni α (-120), 450, 570. tašna 420. tašne A2 (-570) Γ1, 4031. tšnei 4230. tasni 120 | gəuš2] gīuš 4031 | urune] urue 4010 (ac.). uruni 120 | āθre] āθra 420. āθrō 4010 (ac.), 4240. āθri 4020. āθrahe 120 5 yaētuštəmāi] yaēt-uštəmāi A (-40). yaētuštumā α2. yetustəmāi 110 (ac.), 570. yaētustəmāi δ (vl. ºtimāi 4230). yaetustəmāi 110 (pc.), 130. yē-tuštəmāi A12, 409. yə tuštəmāi 420 (vl. yə -tuštəmāi), 4031, 4051. yaitustimāi 235. yaētištumāi A21. yaētuštəmå 4000 | amə šanąm] amə šanąm α (-235), 400, 410, 4060, 4230. amə šnąm A11, 450, 235, 570, 4240, 4250 spəṇtanąm] spəm-tanąm 230. spaṇtanąm 420. om. 4100

Thus, four lines of Avestan text take almost one complete page of the edition, although from the point of view of the text constitution only a few of them might be of interest. It is obviously very impractical to include all the phonetica and orthographica as done in the sample. A distinction between significant variant readings on the one hand and phonetica/orthographica on the other, and a division of both into two separate apparatuses would make the use of the apparatus more comfortable:

Y1.2

ńiuuaēδaiiemi. haṇkāraiiemi. vaŋhauue. manaŋhe. ašāi. vahištāi. xšaθrāi. vairiiāi. spəṇtaiiāi. ārmatəe. hauruuaṯbiia. amərətaṯbiia. gəuš. tašne. gəuš. urune. āθre. ahurahe. mazdå. yaētuštəmāi. aməšanąm. spəṇtanąm.

Y1.2,2 vaŋhauue] vaŋhuue A (-40; ac. 60), 2010, 4000. vaŋhuiie 570. vaŋhauua 120 | spəṇtaiiāi] spəṇtaiiå δ2, 120, 2010, 420 (vl. spaṇtaiiå), 570 (vl. spəṇtāiiå), 4000, 4060. spəṇtaiiā 4100 | ārmatə e] ārmatōiš 4020, 4031 (vl. [.]ramatōiš), 4060, 410 | āθre] āθra 420. āθrō 4010 (ac.), 4240. āθri 4020. āθrahe 120

Y1.2,2 ńiuuaēδaiiemi haṇkāraiiemi] abbr. 420 (niuuaēδiiaemi), 4041 (ń. h.), 4100 (ń. h.) | ńiuuaēδaiiemi] niuuaē-δaiiemi δ3 (vl. niuuaē-δaiieme 4220). niuuaē-daiiaēmi 100. niuuaēδaiieimi

110. naiuuae-saiiaimi 235. niuuaeiδaiiemi 4250 | haṇkāraiiemi] han.kāraīaēme 100. həṇkāraiiemi 110. haṇkāraiiaemi 235 | manaŋhe] manaŋha 2020 | ašāi] ašāi A12, 100, 235 3 vahištāi] vahistāi 4250. vahe-štāe 100. vaheštāi α1, 4240 xšaθrāi] xšaθrāi A (-40; pc. 60), 510. xštrāi 4031 | vairiiāi] vaeriiāe α2 spəṇtaiiāi] spəm-taīāe α2 | ārmatə e] ārmaetə e α2 (vl. ārmae-tə e 100). ārmaitə ē α1 (-235) A11, 410. ārmaitə e 450. ārmatē 2010 (ac.). ārmaitē Γ1 (pc. 2010) δ1, 235, 570, 4020. ārmaitə 4230, 4240. āramaitə ē 400. | hauruuaṯ biia] hauruuaṯ -biia 110, 2010, 4100, 4230 (pc.), 4240. haouruuaṯ -biia 235. hauruuatabīa α2. hauruuaδbiia 410, 2020, 4220. haoruuatbiiō 570. huruuatbiia 4010 (ac.) huruuat-biia 120, 4230 (ac.) 4 amə rə taṯ biia] amə rə taṯ -biia Α1 (-235), 4100, 4240, 4250. amə rə tatabiia 4230. amə rə tata-bīa α2. amə rə taδbiia 2010. ºbiiō 4010 (ac.) | gəuš1] gīuš 4031 | tašne] tašni α (-120), 450, 570. tašna 420. tašne A2 (-570) Γ1, 4031. tšnei 4230. tasni 120 | gəuš2] gīuš 4031 | urune] urue 4010 (ac.). uruni 120 5 yaētuštəmāi] yaēt-uštəmāi A (-40). yaētuštumā α2. yetustəmāi 110 (ac.), 570. yaētustəmāi δ (vl. ºtimāi 4230). yaetustəmāi 110 (pc.), 130. yē-tuštəmāi A12, 409. yə tuštəmāi 420 (vl. yə -tuštəmāi), 4031, 4051. yaitustimāi 235. yaētištumāi A21. yaētuštəmå 4000 | amə šanąm] amə šanąm α (-235), 400, 410, 4060, 4230. amə šnąm A11, 450, 235, 570, 4240, 4250 spəṇtanąm] spəm-tanąm 230. spaṇtanąm 420. om. 4100

The apparatus of orthogrpahica can be left for the electronic edition of for a separed volume and then we would have a very handy edition.

Besides the number of apparatus, there are other important aspects in the shape of the apparatus for brevity and clarity. Since I don’t have the time for a discussion and I would like just to mention just one very briefly. The actual sigla used for manuscripts are quite confusing. For the manuscripts used by Geldner, usually Geldner’s sigla are maintained and for the manuscripts that Geldner does not describe, usually, the sigla that appear in the catalogues. This leads to confusions. For example, F1 and F2 are, according to Geldner, the famous Yašt codex and a Xorde Abastāg. In Dhabhar’s catalogue of the Meherji-rana Library an outline of the Avestan grammar and a Pahlavi Yasna. For the numerous manuscripts that were described neither in Geldner’s Prolegomena nor in the catalogues, the finder finds siglka ad hoc. For example, for the numerous manuscripts in Iran we use to give as name Ave + the year of writing (e.g. Ave976). Nevertheless, we have already two manuscripts copied in 976. Therefore, I have developed a new system for designating the manuscripts in which each manuscript gets a number and this number provides us information about the class of manuscript. Thus all manuscripts between 1 and 199 are Iranian Yasna Sāde, between 200 and 399 Indian Yasna Sāde, between 400 and 499 Iranian Pahlavi Yasna, etc.

I could comment many other aspects of how I imagine a new edition of the long liturgy, but let me end repeating the main points of my contribution. The weak points of Geldner’s edition of the Avesta are not limited the issues criticized by Hoffmann and his followers from the sixties of the past century (that is, bad methodology for choice of variants and a chaotic apparatus) but concern almost any phase of the editorial process. As for the collection of manuscripts, the main change is the recent discovery of numerous Iranian manuscripts of the Avesta. The analysis of the single manuscripts was not as careful as expected and the methodology for establishing the dependencies between the manuscripts inappropriate. Therefore , a new edition of the long liturgy (and any other Avestan text) cannot been undertaken before a new search and careful analysis of the manuscripts and othe Avesta transmission has been carried out. I’m trying to do that for long liturgy.

Furthermore, the problems of the constitutio textus do not concern just the choice between single reading of each single words of a well-defined text. Geldner took as a basis for his edition the Pahlavi manuscript, but this class of manuscripts does not reflect the ritual variety of the long liturgy accurately. Therefore, a new edition of the long liturgy must be based on the liturgical manuscripts and describe faithfully the ritual character of the Avestan texts of the long liturgy and its ritual variety.