________________
132
BUNDAHIS.
son of Virafsang, son of Tâz, son of Fravak, son of Siyâkmak 1; by his mother Dahâk was of Udai?, son of Bayak, son of Tambayak, son of Owokhms, son of Pairi-urvaêsm", son of Gadhwithwo, son of Drugâskân, son of the evil spirit.
7. Frêdùn the Aspiyân ? was son of Par-törà 8 the Åspiyân, son of Sôk-törâo the Åspiyân, son of Bôrtôrâ the Åspiyân, son of Siyâk-törâ the Âspiyân, son of Spêd-tôrå the Åspiyân, son of Gefar-tôrà the Åspiyân, son of Ramak-târâ the Åspiyân, son of
· For the last three names, see Chap. XV, 25, 28.
• Pahl. Add in TD; compare the demon Uda' of Chap. XXVIII, 19. The following two names look like 'fear' and 'gloom-fear,' both appropriate names for demons.
* TD has Pâz. Owôikh ; compare Av. aoiwra, a species of nightmare,' observing that r and ô are often written alike in Pahlavi. · TD and K2ob have Paz. Pairi-urva-urvaêsm, and K20 has Pai-urvaêsm. OTD has Pâz. Gawithw.
So in TD, but K20 has Påz. Drus-i ayaskâ, and Kaob has Drug-i ayaska. It corresponds to Av. drugaska in Vend. XIX, 139, Vistâsp Yt. 26. This genealogy appears to trace Dahâk's maternal descent through a series of demons.
Av. Thraêtaona, son of Âthwya, but generally called 'the Åthwyânian,' who slew the destructive serpent (asi dahâka), see Yas. IX, 24, 25, Vend. I, 69, Âbân Yt. 33, 61, Gôs Yt. 13, Fravardin Yt. 131, Bahrâm Yt. 40, Râm Yt 23, Ashi Yt. 33, Zamyâd Yt. 36, 92, Âf. Zarat. 2. In the Shahnâmah he is called Feridun son of Abtîn.
This name is omitted in K20, but occurs in the other two MSS.; it is a Huzväris hybrid equivalent to Pâz. Par-gau and Av. Pouru. gau, which is a title of an Athwyânian in Âf. Zarat. 4, Vistasp Yt. 2. This genealogy consists almost entirely of such hybrid names, which have a very artificial appearance, though suitable enough for a race of herdsmen, meaning, as they severally do, one with abundant oxen, with useful oxen, with the brown ox, with the black ox, with the white ox, with the fat ox, and with a herd of oxen.'
So in TD, but the other two MSS. have Siyâk-tôrâ, which is probably wrong, as the same name occurs again in this genealogy.
Digitized by
Digitized by Google