Sogdian letter fragments in the Institute of Oriental Manuscripts, St. Petersburg

Abstract

Among the Sogdian fragments from Turfan preserved in the IOM collections are a handful of epistolary texts. A new edition of these fragments is presented here as part of the author’s ongoing project on Sogdian letters from Turfan.

Full Text

Adam Benkato Sogdian Letter Fragments in the IOM, RAS Abstract: Among the Sogdian fragments from Turfan preserved in the IOM collections are a handful of epistolary texts. A new edition of these fragments is presented here as part of the author’s ongoing project on Sogdian letters from Turfan. Key words: Sogdian, epistolary texts, Turfan, Manichaeism Sogdian letter fragments An important part of the Sogdian corpora which have come down to us are epistolary texts. Indeed, both the earliest substantial Sogdian documents, the so-called ‘Ancient Letters’ (dating from around the early 300s CE and found in modern-day western China), and the only substantial corpus found in Sogdiana itself, the Mugh documents (dating from around the 720s CE), consist largely of letters. The Turfan collections around the world also preserve a number of epistolary texts, mostly fragmentary: the long texts from Bezeklik are the most recent substantial Sogdian texts to have been found, while smaller fragments are located in the Berlin Turfan collection, in Japanese collections, and in the Institute of Oriental Manuscripts, St. Petersburg. Finally, eight epistolary fragments were recently found in Khotan. Altogether, these texts give us a look at Sogdian epistolary traditions over some seven centuries. The edition and analysis of even fragmentary texts can contribute to efforts to reconstruct parts of those traditions - and eventually connect them with those of Central Asia and Iran more broadly. The fragments of the IOM The exploration of ruins in the Turfan oasis, and subsequent obtaining of cultural artefacts, was in fact initiated by Russian scholars in the final © Adam Benkato 27 decades of the 1800s. Although by the turn of the century state funding for large-scale expeditions was not available, several Russian scholars and diplomats in Central Asia were nevertheless able to obtain manuscripts and objects, often through purchase from local people. Some of the letter fragments forming the subject of this paper seem to have been obtained in such a way: the first three in the table below belong to those fragments collected (probably before 1909) by the Russian council in Urumqi, Nikolai Krotkov. The last two fragments, however, were obtained by Sergei Oldenburg during his 1909-10 expedition in the northern Tarim Basin. 1 It is however not possible to state with more precision the locations from which these fragments may have been obtained. 2 Reference number New shelf number Old shelf number Edition Description Sogdian text L44 SI 5387 SI Kr VI/706 No. 3453 Ragoza 1980, 36 26×25.5 cm 18 lines L27 SI 1432 SI Kr IV/217 No. 2963 Ragoza 1980, 25-6 13.2×12.5 cm 9 lines L63 SI 5532 SI Kr IV/806 No. 3553 Ragoza 1980, 44-5 7.5×11.2 cm 6 lines L111 SI 4788 SI O/124 No. 4247 Ragoza 1980, 73 8×7 cm 5 lines L118 SI 4797 SI O/134 No. 4257 Ragoza 1980, 76 8.5×27 cm 5 lines The above letter fragments were initially edited by A.N. Ragoza in her Sogdiiskie fragmenty central’noaziatskogo sobraniia Instituta vostokovedeniia (“Sogdian fragments in the Central Asian collection of the Institute of Oriental Studies”, R AGOZA 1980), the editio princeps of the Sogdian fragments which were known at the time in the Institute of Oriental Manuscripts (IOM). However, Ragoza’s edition contained a number of editorial and linguistic problems, several of which were pointed out by Sims- Williams (1981) in a review. Furthermore, the photographs included in that volume were not of good enough quality to facilitate further work. Thanks to 1 RAGOZA 1980, 7-8 2 For a useful summary of Russian work in Turfan and other oases, along with many references, see Sundermann’s entry in the Encyclopedia Iranica (S UNDERMANN 2004). For more details about the Sogdian fragments in particular and how they were obtained, see R AGOZA 1980, 4-11. 28 the new, high resolution photographs kindly provided to me by the IOM, a completely new edition of these fragments will be presented here, ordered according to the length and importance of their content. Edition of Fragments 3 L44 The most substantial of the letter fragments in the IOM, and perhaps, judging by its format, style of script, and use of numerous epistolary formulae, the only genuine (as opposed to draft) letter. Though it is incomplete and preserves only the, often hyperbolic, formalities which typically appear at the beginning of letters, a good deal of sense can be brought out of the text by comparison with other letter fragments, though unfortunately little in the way of content. It is at least clear that it is a letter from a queen of Ark (ʾrkcʾnch xʾtʾwnh) to a Manichaean ‘teacher’ (mwckʾ). 1 [ s](p)ʾs nkʾβty-pʾzʾn δykh ZY ptškwʾnh 2 [ RBch ʾnwt]y cnn wyspnʾcyw ʾnwtyh msyʾtr ZY cnn 3 [wyspnʾcw ʾʾδy ʾyw γ]wʾncykstr xyδ wyn ZY xyδ wyškyr ʾxšʾnky ptβʾyšcnw 4 [ ] mwckʾ γwβtk nʾm kw 5 [ ](.)ry sʾr 6 cnn xypδ wyn-nmʾn šyr-ʾʾγδch kštrh 7 ʾrkcʾnch xʾtʾwnh ptškwʾnh cnn δwr (zʾyh) 8 [rtβn ](w)ʾnʾkh pδkh wʾβryδ nmʾcyw βrʾym cʾnw ZKn zwrny zwrny 9 cykt pwtʾyšty sʾr nmʾcyw βrʾnt • rtβγ kδʾ šmʾx trtsʾr pr 10 ʾskʾ prn RB(kw ptβ)yw šyrʾkk ẒY βγ wrcyʾ ʾskwδʾ mʾx 11 [xypδ γrʾywh nwšch my](n)ym (mʾx) ms mδy nwr myδ prm zwk 12 [ʾskwym ](.. p)tškwʾnh βrʾyšʾym pʾrZY βγ pr 13 [ ](. .ʾn)w trtsʾr ʾʾγtyt mʾtʾymn 14 [ ]y ʾxšʾnkwʾy βyrtδʾrm rʾmʾnt 15 [ ](.) ʾskwym ywʾr βγ pr mʾx wʾxš 16 [ ]sʾr ʾʾ(γtym)n ZY [..](δ)[..] ʾntʾwxcnʾʾk 17 [ ](k)npy ʾkrty xw(ty) (m)[ ](.y) 18 illegible traces 3 Transliteration convention used are: (xyz) = partially legible letters, [xyz] = completely restored letters, [.] or (.) = one missing or illegible letter. 29 Translation (Lines 1-5) [...in(?)] service (and) submissive, a letter and humble request [...(to the) great hope], greater than every hope, the sight (of whom) is more important than [(that of) every (other) person], excellent, reverend [...] Teacher whose name is praised, [So-and-so]. (Lines 6-7) From your well-wishing, humble Queen of Ark, hopeful (of seeing you), a message from far away. (Lines 8-12) We pay homage to you just as one (pays homage) to the Buddhas of the various periods. If you, Sir, are well and at ease there, Sir, in high fortune and great honor, then we [consider ourselves immortal]. We are well up until the present day [...] (Lines 12-17) We send a message because, Sir, [...] we had come there [...] excellence, I obtained. Always [...] we remain, but, Sir, the news at us [...] we came to [...] and worry [...] became less itself [...] Commentary 1 nkʾβty-pʾzʾn is a compound meaning ‘submissive’, literally ‘of bent (nkʾβty) mind (pʾzʾn)’. That the corresponding abstract noun nkʾβtpʾznkyʾ ‘submissiveness’ is a Manichaean technical term referring to the sixth part of the first cardinal virtue frytʾt ‘love’ could perhaps be taken as another indicator of this document’s Manichaean context. 2-3 ZY cnn [wyspnʾcw ʾʾδy ʾyw γ]wʾncykstr xyδ wyn ZY xyδ wyškyr was paraphrased differently -“seeing you and meeting you face to face is more necessary to me than (every other sight)” - by Sims-Williams (1981, 236), assuming a restoration of something like [wyspnʾcw wyn]. Sims-Williams noted further that wyškyr must be the verbal noun of the verb wyškyr ‘to open the eyes’; also compare So 18162/v/5/ ZKw cšmw wškyrym ‘we open our eye(s)’ (unpublished fragment, my reading). 5 Sundermann (1992, 80) suggested inserting [ctβʾr-twγ]ry into the gap at the beginning of the line. Besides there being no context to motivate the assumption that ‘Four Tughristan’ must be named, a place-name is not required in this part of the address, and as far as I can tell appears in no parallels. 6 The adj. šyrʾʾγδʾk (f. šyrʾʾγδch). ‘well-wisher’ occurs in other letter fragments, sometimes in combination with šyrxwzk ‘friend’ or šyrδrγty / šyr-zγty (on which see Y OSHIDA 2000, 47). 30 7 ʾrkcʾnch f.sg. of the adjective ʾrkcʾny a. ‘of (the city) Ark’ (-cʾny adjectival suffix). An alternative adjectival formation is ʾ rkcyk (with -cyk suffix). 8-9 The formulation of these lines, as already noticed by Sims-Williams (1981, 235) is strikingly similar to that of a phrase in Ancient Letter 5, as follows: L44/8-9/ [rtβn ](w)ʾnʾkh pδkh wʾβryδ nmʾcyw βrʾym cʾnw ZKn zwrny zwrnycykt pwtʾyšty sʾr nmʾcyw βrʾnt ‘According to custom, we pay homage to you just as one pays homage to the Buddhas of various periods’. AL5/3-4/ ʾYKZYβn xwty [wynʾn ʾPZY]tn ʾc nztw nmʾcyw βrʾn ʾY[KZ]Y wyšnw βγʾnw ‘If I might see you myself and might pay homage to you from nearby [as] (homage is paid) to the gods’. 4 The main difference is that in L44 ‘Buddhas of various periods’ are referred to, instead of the βγʾnw ‘gods’ of the Ancient Letter. Further references to these ‘Buddhas of various periods’ include M 134ii/v/8-9 zwrnyy zwr[nyy p]wṭyšṭ ʾʾγṭnd ‘the ~ came’ and L106/3 wyspw zwrnycyktw pw[tʾyšt] ‘all ~’. A very likely attestation of this phrase found in So 14187+/2-4/ [zwrn]y zwr[ny]-cykt pwttyšty pšʾ[γ]ry[w]ʾk ZY pr[w] βrʾyštʾk ‘[I was waiting] for the paraclete of the Buddhas of the different periods and for the Apostle’ makes it certain that it is a Manichaean reference to the prophets who appeared from time to time before the coming of Mani-what another text describes as ptγʾmβrt ZY βγʾy ʾzγʾnt ‘envoys and God’s messengers’. 5 The restoration of rtβn (where -βn is the 2pl. enclitic pronoun) at the beginning of /8/ is mine on the basis of the parallel with AL5. 13 ʾʾγtyt mʾtʾymn is the so-called periphrastic perfect, formed by the pp. ʾʾγtyt (here pl.) and auxiliary verb mʾtʾymn (1pl.itr.pret.). 14 Yoshida (p.c.) suggests that ʾxšʾnkwʾy βyrtδʾrm may mean something like ‘I obtained magnificence’, where ʾxšʾnkwʾy refers to a rank or honorable title of some sort. He draws my attention to the Mugh document B-17 where in /11/ one finds the expression RB pδβrw ZY ʾγrʾnʾwkw ʾʾβrʾnt ‘they brought (me) a high rank and honor’. 4 From the edition of SIMS-WILLIAMS et al. 2001, 92-3. 5 See RECK 2009, 248-9. 31 L44 (SI 5387) The Manichaean Context of L44 Although L44 is rich in epistolary formulae and relatively clearly written, it is rather poor in content, as the body of the letter is hardly preserved. Nevertheless, the sender’s title (ʾrkcʾnch xʾtʾwnh ‘Queen of Ark’) and recipient’s (mwckʾ ‘teacher’) may be the most important words of the fragment, and the latter together with the phrase zwrny zwrnycykt pwtʾyšty ‘(to the) Buddhas of the various periods’ make it certain that L44 originates from a Manichaean context. 32 It is already known that there was at one point a Manichaean community in Ark itself, to be identified with modern-day Qarashahr to the west of Turfan, according to Henning’s arguments (1938, 564-71). Indeed, the hymnbook Mahrnāmag was begun there in 762 CE, as its colophon states, before being taken to Qocho and completed some decades later: M1/186-9/ pd mʾnystʾn ʿy ʾrk ʾwftʾdg w: nyhʾdg bwd ‘(This hymnbook) lay about and was deposited in the monastery of Ark’. 6 Furthermore, in M1 (lines 88-9) a king of Ark (ʾrkcyq xwṭʾw) is mentioned among the many dignitaries who provided support for the Manichaean activities that resulted in the hymnbook’s completion after 800. That a Manichaean community existed in Ark during the 8th-9th cc. is also attested in a hymn fragment which praises the Manichaean leader (whose name and title are missing) ‘of the famous blissful, prosperous country of Ark’ (ʿy nʾmwrng frwxʾ [h]wʾbʾd šhr ʿy ʾrq). 7 It is therefore quite certain that the letter stems from a genuine Manichaean context. A date, however, cannot be ascertained since the end of the letter where dating formulae typically appear is lost and because this queen may have reigned in Ark, or been the wife of a reigning king, at any essentially time during the Manichaean presence in the area. Despite the lack of detailed content from which historical arguments could be made, Tremblay, in his book on the history of Manichaeism in Central Asia, nevertheless attempts a much more specific interpretation. Claiming that the sender of L44 was the spouse of a certain Yen-t’u-fu-yen (who reigned in Ark around the year 719, according to the Chinese T’ang-chou), Tremblay states that therefore the letter must have been written before 719. 8 He restates these points on another page, saying “Yen-t’u-fu-yen, king of Agni in 719, was perhaps named *Altun Bodun; his wife, author of the Sogdian letter L44, was in any case a Turkic qatun”, 9 and goes even further 6 My English translation of the Middle Persian. Original edition and German translation by MÜLLER 1913. 7 Edited in DURKIN-MEISTERERNST 2014, 282-3. The adjective ‘of Ark’ is also listed in the Sogdian nʾβnʾmʾk ‘Book of Nations’ which exists in two slightly different versions: Ch/So 20166 (published in H ENNING 1940, 8-11) and O 7466 (published in KUDARA et al. 1997, 143); in the former it follows ‘Kuchean’ while in the latter it follows ʾβšʾwy[...], an unknown word. 8 TREMBLAY 2001, 92. 9 “Yen-t’u-fu-yen, roi d’Agni en 719, se nommait peut-être *Altun Bodun; son épouse, auteur de la lettre sogdienne L44, était en tout cas une qatun turque” (T REMBLAY 2001, 38n58), my translation. 33 at another point, stating that “the sole fact that [L44] was written by a queen of Agni to a mozak before 694[!?] makes it a valuable historical document”. 10 To emphasize this relatively early dating, Tremblay goes on to describe the language of L44 as an “archaic linguistic stratum” to be dated to the sixth century CE-presumably an over-interpretation of Sims-Williams’ comment that “[L44’s] phraseology strikingly resembles that of the ‘Ancient Letters’ and of the more formal and archaic of the Mugh letters”. 11 It seems that Sims-Williams rather intended to highlight the fact that L44 contains a number of epistolary formulae which are also present in the Mugh documents and Ancient Letters, and are archaic in the sense that they were maintained in Sogdian letter writing over several centuries and in places far away from Sogdiana. The process by which Tremblay arrives at either date, however, is completely opaque and he offers no proof to support his claim that the sender of L44 was the spouse of a sovereign named Yen-t’u-fu-yen. This is at best a guess: with neither personal names nor dates in the fragment, there is nothing concrete to link it with a particular person or place known from other historical sources. A different tack is taken by Moriyasu in his work on the history of Uighur Manichaeism, in which he argues that Ark was the capital of the west- Uighur empire from around the third quarter of the 9th c. on (2004:165). Regarding L44, Moriyasu refrains from attempting to spin details out of its meager content, but notes that as the xātūn (OTk. qatun) would have been the spouse of the qagan, the fact that she was the xātūn of Ark supports the argument that the qagan’s seat was in Ark (2004:166). This would mean that a terminus post quem for the writing of L44 would be the 850s. Though Moriyasu’s arguments are more convincing in terms of locating the letter within a rough chronology, I refrain from attempting to refine it any further until new information comes to light. As for the Queen of Ark’s interlocutor, there are two possibilities. At first glance, one might assume that mwckʾ refers to the Manichaean title Možak ‘Teacher’, that is, the second-highest rank of the Manichaean church hierarchy after the head of the entire Church. As one of only twelve distributed throughout the world, this ‘Teacher’ would have therefore been 10 “Le seul fait qu’elle ait ete ecrite par une reine d’Agni a un mozak avant 694 en fait un document historique precieux” (TREMBLAY 2001, 218), my translation. 11 In Sims-Williams’ review of Ragoza’s original edition (1981, 235). Tremblay neither cites Sims-Williams nor offers any argument for his idea that the language of L44 has something to do with the 6th c. 34 the highest-ranking Manichaean clergyman in the area. 12 This assumption is perhaps commensurate with the fact that a Queen is the sender of the letter. However, it is not clear whether mwck actually means the same thing as the word mwjʾk or mwzʾk, since the latter is a Parthian loan (as typical for many Manichaean titles and technical terms in Sogdian) while mwck is the inherited Sogdian form. 13 In at least one Sogdian fragment, mwck should be understood as the common noun ‘teacher’ and not the rank ‘Teacher’: M 483+/11/ šmʾx frnyy ʾftʾr mwck ʾty xwštyy nyy γwt ‘many teachers and masters are not necessary for Your Honor’. 14 This being the case, it is then unclear how mwckʾ is used here in L44. Finally, it is worth noting how the queen’s status relative to the addressee is represented. For example, the formulae used to name the sender of a letter begins in practically every other attestation with the words cn xypδ βntk ‘from your servant’. In L44, however, the word ‘servant’ is avoided, no doubt unsuitable for a queen addressing anyone else. Furthermore, where long, hyperbolic phrases are sometimes composed to convey humility on the part of the sender, the queen of Ark simply adds a few pleasantries, describing herself as ‘hopeful (of seeing you)’, a ‘well-wisher’, and ‘humble’. Other letters fill this out with phrases such as kštr 100 RYPW myk βntk ‘(your) hundred-thousand (times) insignificant servant’ (i.e. Mugh B- 16) or nʾ-ʾspʾxštw ZY kw ʾspʾs nʾ prʾγtw ‘(the one who) has not served (you) and not arrived at (your) service’ (i.e. Bezeklik B). L27 This small fragment is written in a thick hand described by Sims-Williams as a “particularly repulsive, unpractised cursive” (S IMS-WILLIAMS 1981, 235 with accompanying translation). Indeed, the letters are not carefully formed, with for example r and β having practically identical shapes. Although the 12 Bezeklik letter B, for example, is addressed to mr ʾryʾmʾnw pwxr ‘Mar Aryaman-puhr’ whose rank is given as xwrsncykw mwz ʾ kw ‘Teacher of the East’. For more on the rank of ‘Teacher’ see L EURINI 2013, 187-9, and eadem, 159-220 for more on the hierarchy of the Manichaean Church in general. Note that some scholars prefer to render the title with ‘Docteur (de l’Eglise)’ as it is less ambiguous with the common noun ‘teacher’ and more comparable with the Latin equivalent magister. 13 The word for Možak is written variously as mwjʾk, and mwzʾk(ʾ) in Manichean sources (cf. S IMS-WILLIAMS and DURKIN-MEISTERERNST 2012, 116b for attestations). Thanks to Yutaka Yoshida for drawing this problem to my attention. 14 The entire fragment is edited in Benkato (2016) along with commentary. 35 full width of the fragment is preserved, it would be difficult to make sense of the handwriting if it were not for the fact that the fragment contains an otherwise well-known salutation formula. 1 [. . . . . . .]p [. . . . ʾt] 2 βγw xwtʾw R(Bkw ʾ nwth) 3 ZY (γ)rʾn pstʾ(t c)nn 4 (wys)pnʾcw ʾʾδʾy ʾyw 5 (γw)ʾncykstr ZY ʾyw 6 ʾ(xšn)kystr pr ʾ(zw)ʾnty 7 δʾm RBkw ʾnwth ZY γ(rʾn) 8 pstʾt cnn ʾδw cymʾ 9 ʾxšnky-st(r) [… To] the noble Lord, (my) great hope and firm support, the most necessary and excellent of everyone in the living world, great hope and firm support, more excellent than (my own) two eyes. L27 (SI 1432) 36 L63 A fragment in a relatively regular hand, though poorly preserved. Its classification as a letter is based on the words kw βγy ‘to the Lord’ and ptβyw ‘reverence’, which occur in a number of such fragments. 15 1 ](.) kw βγy my(.)[ 2] kw βγy m[..] [ 3 ʾpr]tmyʾn (wʾx)š p[ 4 ʾp](tʾ)ycsʾr ptwy(δ)[ 6]ʾw xw(ʾr)y [ V ptβyw ...to the lord... ...to the lord... ...Afartamyān’s news... ...in front, offer... ...to the sister 16 ... reverence 3 Sims-Williams and Durkin-Meisterernst (2012, 16a) suggest reading [ʾpr]tmyʾn, a personal name attested once otherwise, in Buddhist Sogdian. According to Lurje (2010, 95), the name means ‘first boon’. L63 (SI 5532) 15 See SIMS-WILLIAMS and HALÉN 1980, 7. 16 Suggestion of SIMS-WILLIAMS and DURKIN-MEISTERERNST 2012, 219a. 37 L111 No new photograph for this fragment is available, as its condition is too poor to allow for digitization work. However, Ragoza’s readings may be improved as the fragment contains parts of the epistolary formula used to indicate the addressee and the image given in her catalogue is relatively clear. 17 1 ʾtkw [pry]w (ʾx) 2 šnky pʾšcʾn 3 βrʾt š(mγ)wn sʾr 4 MN δwr zʾyh 5 ʾ(xšʾnky) To the dear, excellent, respected brother Šimʿon from far away excellent... 3 The personal name šmγwn was, as Sims-Williams (1981, 235) already noted, one of the few Semitic names in use by the Manichaeans of Central Asia. See Lurje (2010, 371) for further discussion. L118 + Дx 09961 L118 is very long, mostly blank fragment, the top of which joins with Dx 09961, together containing only seven partially-preserved lines of Sogdian text on the verso of a Chinese scroll. This text most likely contains simply a writing exercise, as no content beyond a few epistolary formulae is preserved and the placeholder tʾnmʾn ‘so-and-so’ for the addressee’s name is used. Some of the text can be confidently restored based on several parallels. The two fragments join at lines 3-5 where indicated. I thank Yutaka Yoshida for sharing his identification of the join; the reading and translation is mine based on new photos. 18 1 [ʾt βγʾnw] ʾnγwn[ 2 [ ](p)tβyw c(n)[w 3 [ ](t)ʾnmʾn[| ] sʾr pyšt To the godlike [...] [...] reverence [...] [...] So-and-so. Sent 17 RAGOZA 1980, 178, top. 18 Yoshida is preparing editions of a number of unpublished texts from St. Petersburg, including Dx 09961. His work should be consulted for more details about the fragment. It bears mentioning that although Chinese fragments with Dx signatures should have been found in Dunhuang, Yoshida (2001:115n11) points out that a number of them must have been found in Turfan. As Dx 09961 joins with a fragment bearing an O (for Oldenburg) signature, it is likely that both come from Turfan, as Oldenburg did not obtain fragments from Dunhuang. 38 4 [MN xypδ Lʾ ]ʾspʾ(x)[š]|t ZY pr ʾspʾs 5 [Lʾ prʾγ]t pw |[ʾ](s)pʾs šyr-zγty 6 [šyrʾʾγδy n](m)ʾn w[y]ny cynʾw[t] 7 [ ʾ]mʾrz-y [by your (servant who) has not served] and [has not reached] service [and is without] service, a friend [and well wisher, hope]ful and desirous of seeing (you), [...] attendant 3 As can be seen in the image, the words sʾr pyšt are written somewhat below the line of the preceding word, but seemingly not low enough to themselves form an entirely different line. 4 My restoration based on parallels. Lines /5-6/ restored by Yoshida (2000, 48). 7 ʾ]mʾrz-y, though unclear, may be connected with ʾmrzy in Bezeklik letter C, according to Yoshida (2000, 124-5). In the Dictionary of Manichaean Texts it is suggested that both may be connected with the Parthian word hʾmhyrz ‘attendant’ (Sims-Williams & Durkin-Meisterernst 2012, 9a), as in both attestations it forms part of the epithets used to indicate the humility of a letter’s sender with respect to the addressee. L118 39 References BENKATO, A. 2016. “Sogdian letter fragments in Manichaean script.” Studia Iranica 45/2, 197-220. D URKIN-MEISTERERNST, D. 2014: Miscellaneous Hymns. Middle Persian and Parthian Hymns in the Turfan Collection (Berliner Turfantexte 31). Turnhout. H ENNING, W.B. 1938: “Arghi and the ‘Tokharians’ ”. Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies 9/3, 545-571. H ENNING, W.B. 1940: Sogdica. London. KUDARA, K., W. SUNDERMANN and Y. YOSHIDA. 1997: Iranian Fragments from the Ôtani Collection. Kyoto. L EURINI, C. 2013: The Manichaean Church. An essay mainly based on the texts from Central Asia. Rome. L URJE, P. 2010: Personal Names in Sogdian Texts (IPNB II/8). Vienna. M ORIYASU, T. 2004: Die Geschichte des uighurischen Manichäismus an der Seidenstrasse. Forschungen zu manichäischen Quellen und ihrem geschichtlichen Hintergrund. Wiesbaden. M ÜLLER, F.W.K. 1913: “Ein Doppelblatt aus einem manichäischen Hymnenbuch ‘Mahrnamag’ ” Abhandlungen der königlichen Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. R AGOZA A.N. 1980: Sogdijskie fragmenty central’noaziatskogo sobraniia Instituta vostokovedeniia. Moscow. R ECK, C. 2009: “Snatches of the Middle Iranian ‘Tale of the Five Brothers’ ”. Letter of the Seal”. In New Light on Manichaeism: Papers from the 6th International Meeting of the IAMS, ed. J. BeDuhn. Leiden, 241-257. S IMS-WILLIAMS, N. 1981: “The Sogdian Fragments of Leningrad”. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 44/2, 231-40. S IMS-WILLIAMS, N. and D. DURKIN-MEISTERERNST. 2012: Dictionary of Manichaean Texts. Volume III, 2: Texts from Central Asia and China (Texts in Sogdian and Bactrian). Turnhout. S IMS-WILLIAMS, N., F. GRENET, and É. de la VAISSIÈRE. 1998: “The Sogdian Ancient Letter V”. Bulletin of the Asia Institute 12, 91-104. S IMS-WILLIAMS, N. and H. HALÉN. 1980: The Middle Iranian fragments in Sogdian script from the Mannerheim collection (Studia Orientalia 51/13). Helsinki. S UNDERMANN, W. 1992: “Iranian Manichaean Turfan Texts concerning the Turfan region”. In Turfan and Tun-Huang. The Texts: Encounter of Civilizations on the Silk Route, ed. by A. Cadonna (Orientalia Venetiana 4). Florence, 63-84. S UNDERMANN, W. 2004: “Turfan Expeditions.” Encyclopedia Iranica, online edition, available at: http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/turfan-expeditions-2 T REMBLAY, X. 2001: Pour une histoire de la Sérinde. Le manicheisme parmie les peuples et religions d’Asie Centrale d’après les source primaires. Vienna. Y OSHIDA, Y. 2000: “Studies of Sogdian texts”. Tulufan xinchu Moni jiao wenxian yanjiu [Studies in the Manichaean texts recently discovered at Turfan]. Ed. Liu Hong-liang. Beijing, 3-199 [in Chinese]. Y OSHIDA, Y. 2001: “On the Sogdian fragments of the St. Petersburg collection”. Contributions to the Studies of Eurasian Languages, Series 3, Issues in Eurasian Languages 1, 105-117.