ٴĪ, name given to the New Persian literary language at a very early date and widely attested in Arabic (e.g., Eṣṭaḵrī, p. 314; Moqaddasī [Maqdesī], p. 335; Ebn Ḥawqal, p. 490) and Persian texts since the 10th century. The Persian translator of Ṭabarī’s ղڲī (between 350/961-62 and 365/975-76; I, p. 5), Abū ʿAlī Moḥammad Balʿamī in his continuation of Ṭabarī’s īḵ (352/963-64; Gryaznevich and Boldyrev, p. 53), Keykāvūs Rāzī in his ܲٴ&Dz;-峾 (before 368/978, according to Rempis), and Ḥakīm Meysarī in his Ա&Dz;-峾 (367-70/978-81; apud Lazard, Premiers poètes I, p. 182) all claimed to be writing in 岹ī. Ferdowsī (&Dz;-峾, ed. Moscow, VIII, p. 254), in his account of the origins of Kalīla wa Demna, reported that the Arabic version had been translated by Balʿamī into 岹ī on the order of the Samanid Naṣr II (301-31/914-43). The term 岹ī also referred to a spoken language as early as the time of Jāḥeẓ (mid-9th century; p. 13); Arabic historians and geographers of the following century also used it in that sense (e.g., Masʿūdī, p. 78; Moqaddasī, p. 335).
ٲī was contrasted to Pahlavi, sometimes when the latter term designated literary Middle Persian, as in the ܲٴ&Dz;-峾 (p. 2) and the &Dz;-峾 (Moscow, VIII, p. 254), and sometimes when it referred to Medo-Parthian dialects, as in Masʿūdī (p. 78) and probably also in the &Dz;-峾 (I, p. 44, in connection with the word ī “ten thousand”). It was sometimes also distinguished from ī. Moqaddesī (p. 259) mentioned 岹ī as one of the Iranian dialects “that together are known as 貹ī.” A century later Keykāvūs b. Eskandar (in ca. 475/1082-83; p. 208) advised letter writers to avoid the use of “pure ī” (ī-e moṭlaq), that is, free of Arabic words, “for it is displeasing, especially ī-e岹ī, which is not usual,” implying the existence of other kinds of ī. ٲī thus seems to have been a variety of ī, as is confirmed by the expression ī-e 岹ī (Ar. al-fārsīya al-dārīya) frequently found in early text. The variant ī o 岹ī, which also occurs in Persian manuscripts (e.g., &Dz;-峾 VIII, p. 254), is a distortion, as Parvīz Ḵānlarī correctly noted (p. 273).
The original meaning of the word 岹ī is given in a notice attributed to Ebn al-Moqaffaʿ (Ebn al-Nadīm, ed. Tajaddod, p. 15; Ḵᵛārazmī, Mafātīḥ al-ʿolūm, pp. 116-17; Ḥamza Eṣfahānī, pp. 67-68; Yāqūt, DZ IV, p. 846). This notice, which probably reflected the linguistic situation in Persia at the end of the Sasanian period, includes mention of 貹ī, literally, “the Parthian language” (or the dialects that grew out of it), ī, and 岹ī. According to Ebn al-Moqaffaʿ, ī was “the language spoken by the mowbeds (priests), scholars, and the like; it is the language of the people of Fārs.” It is obvious that this language was none other than Middle Persian, traditionally known as Pahlavi. As for 岹ī, “It is the language of the cities of Madāʾen; it is spoken by those who are at the king’s court. [Its name] is connected with presence at court. Among the languages of the people of Khorasan and the east, the language of the people of Balḵ is predominant.” This notice has given rise to considerable discussion. The etymology given for the name is clear: It is derived from the word for dar (court, lit., “gate”). ٲī was thus the language of the court and of the capital, Ctesiphon. On the other hand, it is equally clear from this passage that 岹ī was also in use in the eastern part of the empire, in Khorasan, where it is known that in the course of the Sasanian period Persian gradually supplanted Parthian and where no dialect that was not Persian survived. The passage thus suggests that 岹ī was actually a form of Persian, the common language of Persia. If that conclusion is correct, what was the relationship between ī and 岹ī, and how did the latter term come to be applied specifically to literary New Persian at the time of its emergence?
On the basis of Moqaddasī’s report (p. 335) that 岹ī was the chancery language in Bukhara, it has been thought that it was from the beginning a kind of formal Persian. Ḵānlarī (pp. 280-81) put forth the hypothesis that 岹ī had been an official and administrative language of the Sasanian court, had become established in the east by officials of the Sasanian kingdom, and had thus became the chancery language of Khorasan. There is no doubt, however, that the official and administrative language of the Sasanians was not 岹ī but Middle Persian (so-called Pahlavi). Ebn al-Moqaffaʿ’s account clearly indicates that 岹ī was a spoken language, and it is obviously as a spoken language that it spread to the east. The founders of Persian literature, who were poets, rather than prose writers, naturally resorted to the language that they spoke. Moqaddasī’s statement was made at a time when 岹ī had already been in literary use for nearly a century.
New information on the dialectology of Persia at the beginning of the Islamic period now permits a clearer understanding. It is known that ancient Judeo-Persian texts, probably originating in southern Persia (cf. Lazard, 1968), represent local dialects clearly different from those of Khorasan and Transoxania, from which literary Persian originally developed. The recent discovery in Mašhad of a manuscript of the ϴǰʾ-e Qods, a translation of the Koran into a Persian dialect related to early Judeo-Persian, confirms the dialectological significance of details already known from the latter. The work apparently originated in Sīstān in the 11th century. One of the most interesting features common to this ϴǰʾ and early Judeo-Persian is the abundance of words that were well known in literary Middle Persian and unknown in literary New Persian, evidence that there were important differences between the common language spoken in the south and that in use in the north. The former, as represented by literary Middle Persian, retained most its ancient form; the latter evolved from the same Persian language, which had spread throughout the north, but evinced the influence of the dialects that it had supplanted there, particularly Parthian. It thus diverged noticeably from the original form. Both were called ī (Persian), but it is very likely that the language of the north, that is, the Persian used on former Parthian territory and also in the Sasanian capital, was distinguished from its congener by a new name, 岹ī ([language] of the court). It was only natural that several centuries later literary Persian, based on the speech of the northeast, bore the same name.
Bibliography:
Dehḵodā, s.v. ٲī. P. A. Gryaznevich and A. N. Boldyrev, “O dvukh redaktskiyakh ‘Taʾrikh-i Tabarī’ Balʿamī” (On two translations of Balʿamī’s īḵ-e Ṭabarī), Sovetskoe Vostokovedenie, 1957/3, pp. 46-59.
ḥeẓ, Ketāb al-bayān wa’l-tabyīn, ed. M. Hārūn, III, Cairo, 1368-69/1949.
P. N. Ḵānlarī, īḵ-e zabān-e fārsī, new ed., I, Tehran, 1365 Š./1986.
Keykāvūs b. Eskandar, ū-峾, ed. Ḡ.-Ḥ. Yūsofī, Tehran, 1346 Š./1967.
Keykāvūs Rāzī, ܲٴ&Dz;-峾, ed. F. Rosenberg, St. Petersburg, 1904; repr. Tehran, 1338 Š./1959.
Abū ʿAbd-Allāh Moḥammad Ḵᵛārazmī, Mafātīḥ al-ʿolūm, ed. G. van Vloten, Leiden, 1895.
G. Lazard, “La dialectologie du judéo-persan,” in Studies in Bibliography and Booklore 8, 1968, pp. 77-98.
Idem, “Pahlavi, parsi, dari. Les langues de l’Iran d’après Ibn al-Muqaffaʿ,” in C. E. Bosworth, ed., Iran and Islam. In Memory of the Late V. Minorsky, Edinburgh, 1971, pp. 361-91.
Idem, “Lumières nouvelles sur la formation de la langue persane. Une traduction du Coran en persan dialectal et ses affinités avec le judéo-persan,” in S. Shaked and A. Netzer, eds., Irano-Judaica II, Jerusalem, 1990a, pp. 184-98.
Idem, “Parsi et dari. Nouvelles remarques,” in Aspects of Iranian Culture. In Honor of R. N. Frye, Bulletin of the Asia Institute, N.S. 4, 1990b, pp. 239-42.
Idem,"Rīšahā-ye zabānī-e fārsī-e adabī,” Ī-峾 11/4, 1371 Š./1993, pp. 569-84.
ϴǰʾ-e Qods, ed. A. Rawaqī, Tehran, 1364-65 Š./1985-86.
C. Rempis, “Qui est l’auteur du Zartušt-Nâmeh?” in Mélanges d’orientalisme offerts à Henri Massé . . ., Tehran, 1963, pp. 337-442.
Abū Jaʿfar Moḥammad Ṭabarī, ղڲī, tr. as Tarjama-ye tafsīr-e Ṭabarī, ed. Ḥ Yāḡmāʾī, 7 vols., Tehran, 1339-44 Š./1960-65.
(GILBERT LAZARD)
Originally Published: December 15, 1994
Last Updated: November 17, 2011
This article is available in print.
Vol. VII, Fasc. 1, pp. 34-35
