Since its finding in AD 1939, Karder's Inscription of the Ka'be-ye Zardošt has been subjected to linguistic studies by many scholars, and ever since remarkable progress has been attained. Still, however, some difficulties remain to be solved. My paper, written for the purpose of some contributions in this field, is composed of three parts: 1. The text (in transcription) with its Japanese translation; 2. Syntactic and semantical studies; and 3. Notes. That the translation by me is somewhat different from those thus far published, may be evident from the following passages:
1.1: ‘And I will proclaim (HWYTNn=*niwehan), (I) Karder the mowbed, of loyal service and of loyal will toward the gods and Shabuhr, King of Kings. And made me Shabuhr, King of Kings, for that service which I had rendered to the gods and Shabuhr, King of Kings, —may you (or man) tell (HWYTNt=*niwehed) (to the people)! —absolute and authoritative within the Magian community in (matters of) the rites of the gods at court and province after province, place after place in the whole realm.’ (, 'P-m…ZK-m corresponds to Pahlavi, 'P-m…'-m [=a-m]. The like ZK-m is attested in 11. 2, 8, 13. That the ZK-m was most probably pronounced a-m, not an-am, can be made certain from ZK-n (ŠKZ, MP., 1. 21) that can be regarded as representing a-n, the n of ZK-n being added to prevent the only ZK from its being interpreted as an ‘he; that’. And once the writing ZK-n thus established for a-n, it is quite natural that the ZK- should be taken for a-; hence in my opinion ZK-m stands for a-m.)
Present indicative passive 3rd person singular: YTYBWNd=nišayd ‘it is founded’ (11. 2, 10, 14), HTYMWNd=awišid ‘it is sealed’ (11. 2, 7), , 'BYDWNd=kirid ‘it is made’ (1. 8, to be identified with kylyty, kylyt, klyty).
1. 13: ahlomog…|ke…|ne|pad wizar pahrist ‘the heretic who is not found on the nomination-list’, where wizar ‘separation’> ‘list on which only the names of approved mow are inscribed, those of heretic being expunged’.
For further details, see my paper ‘Some Remarks on Karder's Inscription of the Ka'be-ye Zardošt’ to be published in Orient, Vol. XVII, 1981.

View full abstract

The purpose of this paper is to study ^dlugal-é-mùš, who is an obscure god of Sumer in the E. D. III period. This paper consists of the following seven parts:
I. The first part is transliteration and translation of CIRPL. ENT 45, where he is inscribed as the deities of the Emuš with Inanna.
II. In this part, I have studied the meaning of é-mùš i. e. “mùš house”. Examining critically some views of mùš which is used in the literatures and considering what MÙŠ (ŠL 103) originally meant, I have come to the conclusion that é-mùš must have meant “house, a bundle of reeds standing for the goddess Inanna” and the chief-god of the Emuš must have been Inanna, not Lugalemuš.
III. Examining in detail ENT. 45 à 73, col. I, 11. 7-8, there are variable uses of -na- (the Sumerian, dative infix, 3 sg.) and -ne- (3. pl) that means the deities are a couple (Cf. M. Yoshikawa, OrNS 46, 448f.) i. e. Inanna and Lugalemuš is thought to be a couple in the period of Entemena.
IV. This part consists of transliteration and translation of ENT. 74 and I have referred to the several points of AO 24414 i. e. the royal inscription of Entemena (M. Lambert, RSO 47, 1ff.). On the latter inscription, Inanna is the tutelary goddess of Uruk. I venture to guess that Entemena must have invited her into the Emuš of Badtibira from Uruk on the baisis of the brotherhood agreement with Lugalkinišedudu of Uruk.
V. I have analysed the offering lists of unknown festivals of Ningirsu (ezem-še-kú-^dnin-gír-su-ka(-ka) and ezem-munu₄-kú-^dnin-gír-su-ka) during the late E. D. III period. Lugalemuš receives many kinds of sacrifices (flour, beer, fish, etc.), but he receives them not so much as the other deities. As a result of the analysis, I think that he must originally have belonged to the Lagaš Pantheon and that he must have been invited in Lagaš from Badtidira by Entemena.
VI. After Akkadian period, Lugalemuš is not seen at all in the various materials. The tuteraly god of the Emuš is Dumuzi or Lulal, not Lugalemuš.
VII. I tried to consider whether or not Lugalemuš is identical with Dumuzi, as insisted by A. Falkenstein and E. Sollberger. To my kowledge, Dumuzi is not referred to in the Fara and Abu Salabikh God_ Lists, and also he is not mentioned on the royal inscriptions of the E. D. III period. As for Dumuzi-abzu, she is thought as a goddess (Cf. Å. Sjöberg, TCS 3, 110.).
As a result of the considerations summarized above, I would like to take the following views: In the E. D. III period, Dumuzi did not exist or if he existed, he was not officially held in high repute. Lugalemuš must have kept an independent character during the E. D. III period. After the Akkabian Period, he must have been absorbed by Dumuzi.

View full abstract

Since 1976 I have translated his masterpiece The Blind Owl and his several short novels. I think that The Blind Owl is a work which can claim a position of importance in the world literature. He tried to fuse the culture of east and west through his work. And he also tried to interpret this world in which we are living through his work. Thirdly he tried to write his world of non-consciousness.
His style is clear and his works abound in attractiveness. In comparison with Jamalzade, Hedayat's sentence is rather short. It is claimed that Rilke's style had influence on that of Sadeq Hedayat. In my view, however, this is not a matter of influence; it is better to say they essentially share a same disposition.
There is no doubt the thoughts of Omar Khayyam had great influence upon Sadeq Hedayat. Both of them contempted Islam and showed a favor to Zoroastrianism. It can be said that they are sort of nationalist. Pessimism is a prevailing feature in their works. Sadeq Hedayat had a feeling that this world was not a suitable place where he should live. This sense had ailed him through his life.
Like Rilke his sense of time was extremely keen. Subjectivity is the essence of this sense. He translated Japanese folktale “Urashima Taro” into Persian. Hedayat was interested in this tale because Einstein's theory can be appllicable to it.
“One is everything” is the main theme of The Blind Owl. This thought is extremely Buddhistic. So The Blind Owl is very understandable to us Japanese.
Sadeq Hedayat was a man of the sense of beauty. This sense killed him. He abhorred rajjale-ha. But he could not lead a life of compromise. He committed suicide. But, exactly, he was killed by the hand of his own sence of beauty.

View full abstract