This paper is devoted to elucidating the prehistory of the Hittite quotative particle -ṷa(r) from its Proto-Indo-European preform *ṷerh₁-t ‘(s)he said’ with special attention to its vocalism. A detailed philological examination of the inner-Hittite data shows that the quotative particle is predominantly employed in word-final position in Old Hittite and later gradually comes to be more frequently used in word-internal position as the number of slots for clitics to be filled increases. Considering the general direction of this development, it would not be unreasonable to assume that -ṷa even more frequently occurred word-finally at the stage of pre-Hittite. The result of this analysis has an important consequence for clarifying the development of Hitt. -ṷa(r), ruling out the possibil ity that the a-vocalism of word-final -ṷa is a result of analogy from -ṷar-V and -ṷa-C. Analogical spread of the vocalism a from such slim bases to the preponderantly used word-final -ṷa is unlikely. Based on this result, we are naturally led to assume that a was introduced by a sound change, by which Proto-Anatolian word-final *e becomes *o due to the rounding effect of the preceding ṷ. Rounding influenced by a neighboring labial consonant is typologically quite unremarkable. After this round ing Hittite merges the vowels *o and *a to a. The development of Proto-Anatolian *e in Hittite is very complicated and the effect of neighboring consonants must be carefully considered. No serious student of historical linguistics doubts the importance of philology. This paper shows how detailed philologi cal analysis contributes to an accurate understanding of language history.

This paper clarifies how feminine behavior, which was regarded as an “act” in premodern Arab-Islamic society, has changed and become associated with sexual orientation as an innate “nature.” It focuses on the discourse on ʿAbbāda al-Mukhannath, who is said to have been a prominent boon companion in the Abbasid court in the ninth century, in order to discuss transitions in the understanding of the word “mukhannath” from the ninth to fifteenth centuries. By looking at descriptions of ʿAbbāda, which continued to be made generations later, not only as conveying information about him but also as discourses that reflect the image of mukhannath in each era, the changing perceptions of the mukhannath over time can be observed.

The analysis reveals the following three points. First, in depictions of ʿAbbāda by authors who died before the twelfth century, the accounts are to be found mostly in collections of anecdotes. These anecdotes focused on his behavior as mukhannath, describing his insolence and witty responses. Second, there is general agreement that in about the eleventh century, anecdotes were combined with foreign knowledge and reinterpreted in collections of anecdotes presented as a more systematic and practical knowledge. In response, an understanding, supported by foreign medical knowledge, that those who engage in sexual activity on the passive side are essentially of that nature was given to ʿAbbāda al-Mukhannath. Third, in depictions of ʿAbbāda by authors who died after the thirteenth century, the accounts appeared mainly in biographies and chronicles. In this process, the concept of a mukhannath and the trickster character assigned to ʿAbbāda formed in the anecdotes were incorporated as historical facts. This allowed the depiction of ʿAbbāda in the anecdotes to be understood as a property derived from his identity as a mukhannath.

In his writings, Šihāb al-Dīn Suhrawardī (d. 1191) – one of the leading philosophers of the medieval Islamic world, and known as al-Šayḫ al-išrāq – sets forth the idea that a subject as a human transcends from the material realm to the realm of light. This transcendence requires the transformation of the subject, and which Suhrawardī depicts so drastically that it does not seem, at fi rst glance, that the subject can remain the same as before. As such, it is seemingly diff icult to believe that “I” can continue to be “me” even after the transformation. However, according to him, the subject does not lose its identity in the process where, to use his term, “the commanding light” detaches and transcends as “the abstract light” from materiality toward “the light of lights.”

In this paper, I hypothesize that Suhrawardī uses the concept of intensity (šiddah) to explain such a transformation and that he incorporates it into his system of illuminative philosophy by expressing it through the metaphysical language of light. This paper aims to show, via the aspect of his theoretical philosophy, that the concept of intensity – which he established through his criticism of the Peripatetics – constitutes the basis of his theory of the transformation of the subject.

In the scholarship of Suhrawardī, there remains a lack of scrutiny of the so-called Peripatetic works, especially al-Mašāriʿ wa-al-Muṭāraḥāt, when compared to studies of Ḥikmat al-išrāq and the vision

ary tales written by mainly in Persian. I shall, however, indicate the fact that his discussion of natural philosophy – as discussed in al-Mašāriʿ and which is hitherto little-known – provides, to some extent, a clue to a rational and consistent analysis of his prima facie “mystical” metaphysics.

Al-Azhar Mosque in Cairo has been known as the most famous educational and religious institution in Egypt since the period of Ottoman rule (1517–1805). However, only a few studies have dealt with the mosque during the Mamluk period, despite the many available historical sources and the importance of its history.

In this article, I examine the characteristics of the residents of al-Azhar Mosque, people’s perception of the mosque, and the relationship between the residents and the sultanate during the Mamluk period, in particular during the 15^th century.

This article concludes that:

1. From the 14^th century to the 15^th century the total number of residents of al-Azhar Mosque increased. This increase can be attributed to the support provided by the Waqf for the residents and to the emergence of the riwāq. In the 14^th century, the residents were mainly non-Egyptian ascetic recluses. But in the 15^th century, Egyptian students who sought the opportunity of a better education in Cairo and non-Egyptian scholars also appear in sources as residents.

2. Al-Azhar Mosque was regarded as a sacred place in Cairo at that time, and this may have been due to the customs and memories of the Fatimid period. This perception of sanctity may have been linked to the use of the term mujāwir (“resident of a sacred place”) for the residents of al-Azhar Mosque, and its character as an asyl.

3. From the second half of the 14^th century, the administrators of al-Azhar Mosque were leading amīrs. From the descriptions of the administration of the mosque, it appears that they had some obligations which cannot be seen at other institutions. In addition, the presence of the large number of residents seems to have been a source of anxiety for the sultanate from various perspectives: it sometimes tried to restrict or eliminate them and to justify its actions on religious grounds.

This study explores how Persianate storytellers (qīṣṣah-khwān, afsānah-gūyān) worked in the 16^th and 17^th Centuries. Relying mainly on Persian and Ottoman collections of biographies of poets (taẕkirah), some of which pertain to storytellers, the study seeks to identify as many Persianate storytellers of the 16^th and 17^th as possible. Storytellers recited the Ḥamzah-nāmah (the story of Ḥamzah, uncle of the Prophet Muḥammad), the Shāh-nāmah, and other works before kings and notables as well as in public squares or coffee shops for ordinary people. One manual for storytellers, Ṭirāz al-akhbār, written by ʿAbd al-Nabī Qazvīnī in Mughal India, outlines four styles of Persianate storytelling: Iranian, Central Asian (Tūrān), Indian, and Ottoman (Rūm). Thus, the manual’s author makes clear that he understood these four regions to share a common culture of Persianate storytelling. The migration of storytellers supported this shared culture. Most storytellers in India were migrants from Iran and Central Asia, and even in the Ottoman Empire, some storytellers originated in the Safavid Empire.

Furthermore, the reaction of the various legal and religious authorities to storytelling had some similarities. Iran’s Shiʿite ulama criticized not only Abū-Muslim-nāmah, which was related to Qizilbashism, but also the Ḥamzah-nāmah and storytelling in general, which included “false” stories. In his fatwa, the Ottoman legal authority Ebüssuûd stated that storytellers who spoke lies and caused quarrels among the audience should be punished as criminals.

Although the legal and religious authorities criticized storytelling, it never dissipated because it enjoyed widespread popularity. This fact may be suggestive of a gap between elite and popular culture in early modern Islamicate societies.

ABSTRACT Xuanzang visited Taxila in the earlier half of the 7^th century. He recorded three major stūpas in the region in his report, “The Great Tang Dynasty Record of the Western Regions.” The fi rst is the stūpa built at the spot where it was said that one of the Four Great Treasures will be revealed in thousands or hundreds million years. The second is the “Stūpa of the Sacrifi ced Head.” The third is the stūpa commemorating the spot where Kunāla put out his own eyes. J. Marshall identifi ed these three stūpas with archaeological sites, the fi rst one on the ridge above Baoti Pind, the second one on the Sarda hill, i.e., the Bhallar stūpa, and the third one on the northern slope of the Hathiāl hill, i.e., the “Kunāla Stūpa.” However, he did not identify any of them with the great stūpa in the remains of the Dharmarājikā Buddhist temple, which is the largest in the region. What is strange is that the “Kunāla Stūpa” is located only one kilometer from the Dharmarājikā stūpa. One cannot argue that Xuanzang did not mention the Dharmarājikā site because it had already been abandoned in his time, for he recorded the stūpa for one of the Four Great Treasures which had already been abandoned when he visited there. Considering the fact that according to archaeological data the Dharmarājikā site had already been abandoned at the time of Xuanzang’s visit in the 7^th century, the great stūpa there can only be identifi ed with the stūpa for the one of the Four Great Treasures. A more consistent explanation can be made if we think the city of Taxila was located around the central part of the present city of Rawalpindi in the Pothohār plateau. The other two stūpas might be identifi ed with the ruins in that plateau which A. Cunningham recorded in his old report.