[ back ] 1. On Narseh’s inscription and seizure of power, see most recently Weber and Wiesehöfer 2010:89–132, in particular 103–121. Text and translation of the inscription follow Humbach and Skærvø 1978-1983.

[ back ] 2. On Warahrān II, see Weber 2009:559–643.

[ back ] 3. On Warahrān I, see Weber 2006–2007 [2008]:171–221.

[ back ] 4. On Warahrān III, see Weber 2010:353–394. See also the recent study of Gyselen 2005 [2009]:29–36, on the iconographic representations of Sasanian crown princes in the third century CE, including Warahrān III.

[ back ] 5. On different interpretations of the function of the (h)argbed, either as a military officer—that is, a “fortress commander”—or a financial officer, see Shayegan 2003b:94. For a diverging view of the office of the (h)argbed as a financial officer, compare Gnoli 2007:95–113, esp. 111; compare also Schwartz 2003:26–27; and Schwartz 2004:143–45; most recently, in comparison with the long-neglected Rabbinic sources, see Herman 2010:64–75, who seems to favor a military function.

[ back ] 6. For a comparison of NPi’s story pattern with that of DB, see Mori 1995.

[ back ] 7. On the notion of Lie and deception in ancient Iran, see now Skjærvø 2003:383–434, in particular 416–423; also Shayegan 2011:35–36. For the use of the Lie motif in ancient Near Eastern writings, which may apply to Achaemenid and Sasanian conditions as well, see Pongratz-Leisten 2002:181–209, in particular 232–242, for a discussion of Achaemenid inscriptions; esp. 236–237: “In summarizing the evidence drawn from the Mesopotamian and Persian sources we can establish that throughout the millennia the motif of the lie represents a central rhetorical device within the context of the literary narrative of disloyalty and rebellion against an overlord, i.e., within the context of breaking a treaty in the ancient Near East. In the cases of Esarhaddon and Darius it is connected to the critical historical moment of the succession to the throne, that is the breaking of the loyalty oaths and the attempts to consolidate the position of a royal successor or a usurper.”

[ back ] 8. For the reading of ǰā d ū g ī h “sorcery,” see Humbach and Skjærvø 1983:III.2:85.

[ back ] 9. On the Parthian imperfect form ah ā z <*ahāδ (HWE/-) and its Middle Persian equivalent (HWYTN/-), see Skjærvø 1998b:166–173.

[ back ] 10. For the reconstruction of this passage, see Humbach and Skjærvø 1983:3:2, 119.

[ back ] 11. The transliterated form is prksywt; on the meaning of prks- “favor; take care of,” see Humbach and Skjærvø 1983:3:2, 115. On other examples of past participles in -ywt, such as * šā y ā d (ah ē nd ē) and *paywad ā d, see Humbach and Skjærvø 1983:3:2, 108; and Skjærvø 1989:336. On the origin of phonetically written forms in -yw-, see Skjærvø 1986:430–431. Compare also Durkin-Meisterernst 2000:77–81.

[ back ] 12. On the optative in relative clauses, see Skjærvø 1989:346.

[ back ] 13. On the meaning of * ā g ā m “or,” see Humbach and Skjærvø 1983:III.2:111.

[ back ] 14. Already in his edition of the Paikuli inscription, Skjærvø suggested that the phrase P ā rs ā n k ā r fram ā dan could either signify “to govern the Persian army/people” or “to govern the affairs of the Persians”; see Humbach and Skjærvø 1983:III.2:35. A Manichaean Parthian fragment (M4574 Ri 3–4), pointed out to me by Skjærvø some time ago, confirms his suggestion (meanwhile published in Skjærvø 2009c:280–282) that the expression P ā rs ā n k ā r stands for “the Persian army/people.” The pertinent passage of the Parthian text published by Sundermann (1981:80) reads as follows: čē was k ā r (n ē ) z ā n ē nd k ū … B ā t maran k ā m ā d “then many people did not know that he wished the death for Bāt …” In this passage k ā r is unequivocally used in the meaning of “people (in arms)” and the entire passage is very reminiscent of two passages of DB: ya θā Ka m b ū jiya Bạrdiyam av ā ja k ā rahạy ā naiy azd ā abava taya Bạrdiya avajat ā “when Cambyses killed Bardiya, it did not become known to the people that Bardiya was killed” (DB 1.31–32); and k ā ram vasiy av ā janiy ā haya paranam Bạrdiyam ad ā n ā “[the people were much afraid of him,] (for) he killed many people, who previously had known Bardiya” (DB 1.51). See also the Bactrian equivalents: οδαβο χανο οοχωþ κιρδαδο οδο καρο δογγο ζανινδο “(if) a quarrel should be caused in the house, and the people are cognizant thus, (then)”; see Sims-Williams 2000:I:X22; and U3.

[ back ] 15. On this theme, see Skjærvø 1998c:99–107.

[ back ] 16. See Weber and Wiesehöfer 2010:108.

[ back ] 17. Skjærvø 1999:51.

[ back ] 18. On the Middle Persian block E1 of the Paikuli inscription, which has recently surfaced on the art market, and has afforded new insights by filling in some of the hitherto persisting lacunae, see Skjærvø 2006:113–117, whose reading we have followed here.

[ back ] 19. On the reconstruction of E1,02: | [ud] amā pad wuzurg | parmenag/framenag, see Skjærvø 2006:114–115.

[ back ] 20. On the recontruction of E1,03 (and E2,03): | YNPKWN ud *wehm ā n | ō ēw ālag [mānēd?], see Skjærvø 2006:114–115; uzīdan “go, come out” is a possible reading for the Arameogram YNPKWN, as suggested by the Frahang ī Pahlawīg (see Utas 1988:95, xxi:9). Skjærvø (2006:116n13) rightly suggests that another Arameogram, that is, ODYTN, has the same meaning “go, come out,” which makes the attribution of uz ī dan to YNPKWN problematic: “The Frahang ī Pahlawīg gives uz ī dan ‘go/come out’ as the equivalent of YNPKWN, and MacKenzie accordingly transcribes it as uz ī d, but does not mention the Arameogram ODYTN, which also means ‘go/come out,’ but is not listed in the Frahang.” On the reading of <wydmʾn> as wehm ā n “of good/better spirits” rather than *w ī m ā n “dispirited,” or *widam ā n “heaving a sigh of relief,” see Skjærvø 2006:114.

[ back ] 21. Skjærvø 2006:114.

[ back ] 22. On this theme, see Skjærvø 1999.

[ back ] 23. See Shayegan 2011:35–38.

[ back ] 24. Shayegan 2011:35–38.

[ back ] 25. On the reconstruction of this passage, see Humbach and Skjærvø 1983:III.2:28–29.

[ back ] 26. For Narseh, see also Weber and Wiesehöfer 2010:104.

[ back ] 27. On the complicated issue of succession, and the procedures pertaining to it, in the Sasanian empire, see the more recent study of Huyse (2009:145–157); see also Börm 2007:111–119, and Börm 2008:431–435, for interesting pages dedicated to the topic, mostly through the prism of Procopius’ report (on Husraw I’s succession); and more recently Weber and Wiesehöfer 2010:104–105, with special bearing on Narseh’s case.

[ back ] 28. The suggestion of Huyse (2009:154–155)—“Insgesamt dürfte einiges dafür sprechen, daß die vom verstorbenen König getroffene Nachfolgeregelung erst durch die Krönungszeremonie vor den versammelten persischen Magnaten ihre Gültigkeit bekam, wobei diese durchaus die Möglichkeit hatten, Einspruch einzulegen, wie die Formulierung in der Pāikūli-Inschrift suggeriert”—whereby the designation of the royal successor had to be approved through acclamation by Persian grandees in order to be effective, seems to be just the case made by Narseh in his inscription at Paikuli; although it remains unclear whether this procedure (as a tool of disputation) was revived precisely because the accession of Warahrān III was contested or undesired, or because the latter’s rights to the throne were challenged because the correct procedure had not been observed. Weber and Wiesehöfer (2010:104) appear to favor the latter probability: “Diese Krönung soll ohne Wissen und Akklamation des Adels und der höchsten Würdenträger des Reiches (darunter des ‘Königs von Armenien,’ Narseh) erfolgt sein … Demnach hätte Wahnām Teile des Adels und die höchsten Würdenträger des Reiches vor vollendete Tatsachen gestellt.” We may agree with the careful wording of Börm (2008:433)—“In jedem Fall scheint die Annahme plausibel, daß Adel und Priesterschaft zumindest manchmal einigen Einfluß auf die Thronfolge hatten”—although the six modalities (three being necessary and three optional) deemed to be pertinent to the choice of the royal successor by the author (2008:435)—“Insgesamt lassen sich den Quellen sechs Faktoren entnehmen, die bei der Auswahl des neuen Großkönigs von Bedeutung waren und sich insofern in zwei Gruppen gliedern lassen, als die eine Hälfte (Zugehörigkeit zur Königsfamilie, körperliche Unversehrtheit und Wahl bzw. Bestätigung durch den Adel) prinzipiell unabdingbar zu sein schienen, während die übrigen drei (Primogenitur, Designation durch den Vorgänger und militärische Tüchtigkeit) zwar von Bedeutung waren, aber offenbar nicht notwendig beachtet werden mußten”—may not be substantiated in the case of Narseh. In the late third century and early fourth century, the factors that seem to matter are certainly Narseh’s belonging to the royal family (but so also did Warahrān III) and his being the choice of an important faction of the nobility (Warahrān III was also supported by mighty grandees); his physical wholeness remains unmentioned, but his (ethical and religious) rectitude is of consequence. Also of importance is his ability to protect Ērānšahr, which we may count as his “militärische Tüchtigkeit.” Thus, aside from the necessity of belonging to the royal house, other important criteria for the succession appear to have been variously weighted from case to case. See also Wiesehöfer 2010b:137.

[ back ] 29. For the restoration of 28E1,05: |frest ē m k ū Wah|n ā m, on the basis of the Middle Persian block E1 of the Paikuli inscription, see Skjærvø 2006:113–115.

[ back ] 30. On the possible meaning of the ideogram Pth. QYM– = Pth. ax ā z- “rise up” and QYM-t = axāšt, see Humbach and Skjærvø 1983:III.2:96–97.