SALEMANN, Carl Hermann


SALEMANN, Carl Hermann (in Russian: Zaleman, Karl Germanovitsh), a leading Iranist scholar of his time, specializing in Middle and early Modern Persian (1849-1916). He was a Baltic German, born in Reval (now Tallinn) in Estonia on 28 December 1849. In 1867 he entered the Oriental Faculty of the University of St. Petersburg, where he studied in the Arabic-Persian-Turkish-Tatar and the Sanskrit-Persian sections. In 1871 he presented a candidate’s dissertation on the verb in Ossetic (part published in 1874). In 1873 he graduated with a master’s dissertation on the quatrains of Ḵāqāni (published in 1875). He became an assistant university librarian in 1875, and was promoted in 1879 to full librarian. In 1876 he started teaching Avestan and Pahlavi at the university, courses he was to continue all his life and which were to be attended by many Russian Iranists. In 1886 he was elected to membership of the St. Petersburg Academy; in 1889 he became an extra-ordinary academician, in 1895 an ordinary academician. In 1890 he succeeded V. V. Radlov (W. Radloff) as director of the Asiatic Museum and became responsible for its rich collection of manuscripts; in the same year he also assumed responsibility for part of the library of the Academy.

In 1902 the University of Giessen conferred an honorary doctorate on him. In 1903 he became a member of the Russian committee for the Study of Central and Eastern Asia, in 1904 a corresponding member of the Hungarian Academy, and in 1908 an honorary member of the Royal Asiatic Society. He died on 30 November 1916. He spent all his adult life in the exciting intellectual and academic environment of St. Petersburg. As the names of Salemann’s contemporaries in St. Petersburg such as S. F. Ol’denburg and O. Böthlingk, Radlov and V. Vasil’ev suggest, scholars and institutions in St. Petersburg were major contributors to the great progress that was being made in the study of the Oriental languages and literatures in the 19th century. In addition to the manuscript collections in a number of St. Petersburg institutions, the various Russian expeditions to Siberia and Central Asia brought back a wealth of information, including recordings of living languages and even ancient texts. One of Salemann’s activities as director of the Asiatic Museum was to extend its manuscript collection and its library. At regular intervals he published descriptions of newly acquired manuscripts and worked on catalogues of the holdings of Russian and European libraries. A major aspect of all of Salemann’s concerns was the need to secure the form and linguistic content of the sources. He devoted himself therefore to critical text editions and lexicographical and grammatical work.

Work on Zoroastrian Middle Persian. In his 1879 “Über eine Parsenhandschrift,Salemann edited a miscellany of Zoroastrian texts contained in the only Zoroastrian manuscript known in Russia at the time. Salemann concentrated on the two Pahlavi glossaries and provided an edition of the Avestan text of the Ohrmazd Yašt (Yt. 1), together with its translation into Pahlavi (in original characters) and a Pazand version of the same (in transliteration) and various other short texts. He established that the Avestan script was a development of Pahlavi script (pp. 18 ff.). In “Mittelpersische Studien" (1887, pp. 417 ff.) Salemann, in part reacting to the publication of many important Pahlavi texts by Sanjana in 1885, took the important step of transcribing two Pahlavi texts into a linguistically purely Iranian form, substituting Middle Persian words for the Aramaic heterograms in the manuscripts. In doing so, he departed from the mixed system of Haug and West, which regarded the Aramaic spellings as part of the language rather than as a feature of the writing system alone. He continued this work on other texts as part of an attempt to collect all the Pahlavi texts in European collections, some of which he also edited; but, apart form a notice (in 1890) on a visit to work on the collection in Copenhagen, none of this work was published (Perikhanyan, pp. 88-89). He also worked on a Pahlavi dictionary which is preserved unfinished in his papers (Perikhanyan, pp. 89 and n. 44).

The high point of Salemann’s published work on Zoroastrian Middle Persian is undoubtedly his long description of it (1901) in the Grundriß der iranischen Philologie (q.v.). This essay is characterized by great attention to the details of the difficult orthography and the use of related material especially from Classical New Persian and Judeo-Persian but also from modern dialects and even only remotely related languages such as Yagnobi. By chance this work also marked the end of an era, since the discovery of Manichean Middle Persian, besides the closely related Parthian and other Middle Iranian languages such as Sogdian and Saka only three years later, was to augment and change the study of all these languages and, in time, to affect our understanding of Zoroastrian Middle Persian as well. The clarity of Middle Persian in Manichean script has allowed many points in the morphology to be grasped more fully, and the Manichean Parthian material has provided the key to a systematic recognition of the many Parthian words in Middle Persian which, in turn, cleared up many points in the historical phonology of Middle Persian. Salemann’s work is now dated (though it has not yet been replaced) but was, in part, the model on which Henning and Ghilain based their diachronic descriptions of the Middle Persian and Parthian verb in the Turfan material. In 1930 an English translation of Salemann’s grammar of Middle Persian by a former student of Salemann’s, L. Bogdanov, was published (the introduction is dated 29 November 1922); already in 1903 Bogdanov had translated the work into Russian, but this was never published (it is extant among his papers, according to Perikhanyan, p. 87, n. 33).

In 1901 (Grundriß I, p. 249) Salemann expressed his scepticism that a complete picture of the structure of Zoroastrian Middle Persian would ever be possible. He set about improving his Middle Persian grammar even before it appeared: In his article on the passive formation with -yh- in Middle Persian he uses a Judeo-Persian text (a commentary on Ezekiel) to establish the reading, thereby confirming the Pazand -ih- for the same, which he had apparently been reluctant to accept. The Turfan material would soon provide further confirmation. In his Manichaeische Studien (pp. 149-70) Salemann made a first attempt to add the grammatical evidence from the Turfan fragments to the paragraphs of his grammar. But he was hampered by his recognition that there were “at least two different forms of Middle Persian” (p.149) in the Turfan texts without being able to divide these variants into the two distinct though closely related languages Middle Persian and Parthian. This task was to be performed by Paul Tedesco (in “Dialektologie der westiranischen Turfantexte,” Le Monde Oriental 15, 1921, pp. 184-258) only after Salemann’s death, though the two languages were distinguished by F. C. Andreas in 1905 and O. Mann in 1909. Salemann did come very close to this conclusion himself, as can be seen in his treatment of two distinct series of number words (p. 160). He establishes that the endings of the subjunctive are, in contrast to Zoroastrian Middle Persian, quite well represented, though he mixes Middle Persian and Parthian forms in his table (p. 166). From the general agreement between Zoroastrian and Manichean Middle Persian he concludes that the ‘non-Iranian elements’ in Zoroastrian Middle Persian had not penetrated into the language itself (p. 170), thus supporting his own treatment of the Aramaic elements as merely part of the writing system.

Work on other languages. As a librarian concerned among other things with the cataloguing and augmentation of manuscript collections, Salemann was often able to give first reports on manuscripts of various contents in various languages ranging from Persian to Chagatai (q.v.). Already his master’s thesis demonstrated his ability to edit a text on the basis of a number of manuscripts. Salemann made important contributions to Classical Persian lexicography. In 1887 he published, from a manuscript in the Asiatic Museum, the fourth part (lexicology) of Meʿyār-e Jamāli, a 14th-century Persian rhyming dictionary preserved in a manuscript in the Asiatic Musuem. (The only other edition of this work is apparently Vāža-nāma-ye fārsi, baḵš-e čahārom-e Meʿyār-e Jamāli, ed. Ṣ. Kiā, Tehran, 1958, which I have not seen, and therefore I cannot comment on its possible relation to Salemann’s edition.) He published a report on this the following year, listing further manuscripts of the whole work and providing additional information. There he shows how later lexiographers used the material in this work. In 1895 he published the first part of a 17th-century dictionary of the Šāh-nāma, valuable in particular for the many quotations from the Šāh-nāma contained in it.

Salemann collaborated with V. Zhukovskiĭ on a grammar of Modern Persian with a chrestomathy and a Persian-German-French glossary. It first appeared in German in 1889 and was reprinted many times. A Russian version appeared the following year (but without the chrestomathy and glossary). The description includes occasional historical notes. In 1897 he published a Judeo-Perisan poem from Bukhara. There and in his article of 1901 he was able to point to the very conservative character of Judeo-Persian; but the planned editions of various Judeo-Persian texts, some in the final stages of preparation, never appeared.

In regard to Iranian languages other than Persian, Salemman worked on Ossetic, Yagnobi, and Shugnan (Shughni). His work on Ossetic was confined to his student years and resulted in his first publication. In the 1880s Saleman did some work on Yagnobi materials gathered by a number of Russian travelers to the area which he apparently planned to publish and which are preserved in his papers (Perikhanyan, p. 91 n. 53). He also worked on Shugnan materials of similar origin, which resulted in a publication in 1895. In 1897 he travelled to Samarkand and onwards (but was prevented by a broken leg from reaching the Pamirs) and interviewed speakers of Shugnan and Yagnobi. In the latter case he learned that the language had two dialects which cleared up some confusion in the material already collected. In 1898 he placed much of the Yagnobi and Shugnan material at W. Geiger’s disposal for the latter’s work on modern Iranian languages for the Grundriß. In 1908 a second journey to Samarkand allowed him to gather more material in the two languages. Though Perikhanyan says the materials are in Salemann’s papers, no use seems to have been made of them by later scholars.

In the area of non-Iranian languages, Salemann worked on various Turkish languages. He translated the gospels of Matthew and Mark into Tatar for the British Bible Society, which published them in Kazan in 1882 and 1886. In 1891 he published some previously unknown verses in Saljuq Turkish from the manuscript of the Rabābnāme in the Asiatic Museum. In 1898 he published a Chagatai text and Turkish and Persian excerpts from manuscripts in the Asiatic Museum and supplied Uighur texts in additions made to a publication by Radlov (pp. xiv-xxviii in W. Radloff, Das Kudatku Bilik I, St. Petersburg, 1891). He also commented on the Codex Comanicus (1910). In the Academy Salemann oversaw the publication of many works by various scholars. In this connection K. Hadank was later to claim (in his edition of O. Mann, Kurdisch-Persische Forschungen, Abt. III, Vol. I, Berlin, 1926, pp. xxvi-xxvii; see also his “Erwiderung auf den Brief ‘Pro Salemann’ des Herrn Ivanow,” Islamica 3, 1930, pp. 486-90) that Salemann did not do enough to have Zhukovskiĭ’s work published. Given the considerable amount of his own materials that he did not bring to publication, it seems unfair to attribute the continued delay in publishing Zhukovskiĭ’s materials to any malice on Salemann’s part.

Salemann’s involvement with Russian and German explorers in Central Asia. One of the results of an expedition by V. I. Roborovskiī and P. K. Kozlov to Central Asia from in the years 1893-95 was a number of fragments in various languages that were given to the Asiatic Museum in 1898. In 1898 the Petersburg Academy of Sciences sent Dimitri Klementz on an expedition to Central Asia, in 1899 Radloff and Salemann stopped in Berlin before and after the Oriental Congress in Rome to show some of Klementz’s finds and to discuss a joint Russian-German expedition. (H. Härtel and M. Yaldiz, Die Seidenstraße, Berlin 1987, pp. 12-15). The collapse of Prince Ukhtomsky’s attempts to get funding in Russia left the way free for the first German expedition by the Ethnological Museum in Berlin in 1902, to which Radlov and Salemann contributed support in the form of help in obtaining visas, etc. Salemann had not recognized the Manichean script in the only such fragment (as he reports in Bruchstük [sic], p. 2) he had had access to in the Asiatic Museum since 1898, some years before F. W. K. Müller’s identification of the script. This fragment of 17 lines written on the back of a Chinese text did not provide a basis broad enough to encourage him to go further. He was to have direct access to other fragments in St. Petersburg only from 1908 on (the Krotkov Collection and 2 fragments found by Ol’denburg, see “Manichaica III,” p. 1). It was F. W. K. Müller, therefore, who, in 1904 on the basis of hundreds of fragments, recognized the script, identified the Iranian character of many of the texts, and established that the texts contained original Manichean literature. From his encouragement and support for the first German expedition Salemann duly expected access to the texts, but doubtlessly F. W. K. Müller’s discoveries enhanced the value of the manuscript fragments for the Museum so much that it became inconceivable to give them up. Salemann reacted by reworking the material published by Müller. He hoped for Müller’s cooperation in this (and expressed his gratitute for it in print, 1908, p. vi) but Müller did not in fact check Salemann’s re-edition.

From 1904 to 1913 in Bruchstük, Manichaeische Studien (presented to the Academy in 1905, augmented and published in 1908) and in “Manichaeica I-V” Salemann produced seven works devoted to the study of texts from Central Asia, publishing fragments housed in St. Petersburg, republishing fragments first published by Müller and Sachau and passing from Western Middle Iranian to Sogdian and, despite the title of the series, to Christian Sogdian texts. Bruchstük was his first reaction to Müller’s identification of Manichean script and the Western Middle Iranian language of many Turfan fragments by publishing the fragment that had been in the Asiatic Museum since 1898; though the fragment contained many difficulties, he was able to confirm Müller’s identification of the literature as Manichean. He proceeded to criticise Müller’s combined transliteration and transcription of the fragments, advocating the use of a pure transliteration into Hebrew letters (p. 8), to which he adhered in all his work on these texts. He followed this with some small fragments in Turkish not properly identified by Müller and then supplied a new transcription and translation into German of Škand gumānīg wizār, chapter XVI, which deals with Manicheism. He points to the Manichean Middle Persian terminology as a help to deciphering the Turfan fragments (p. 17).

In Manichaeische Studien he returned the texts in Müller’s 1904 publications to a form closer to the manuscript fragments. He added an extensive glossary, a reverse index, and notes on points of grammar that were a partial addition to and revision of his Middle Persian Grammar. It must be admitted, however, that, in arranging the fragments according to the almost entirely meaningless numerical signatures, Salemann took a step back from Müller’s very significant grouping of the fragments into text groups. His concerns were almost entirely linguistic: his glossary was the first attempt to deal with the vocabulary of the texts systematically; the reverse index is an essential tool for decipherers.

In the glossary to the Christian Sogdian texts in “Manichaica II” (texts first published by Sachau and Müller), Salemann added related words from Yagnobi and Ossetic, based on Andreas’s recognition of the relationship of Sogdian and Yagnobi (in a letter to Salemann in March 1907) and on Salemann’s own first hand recognition of “certain closer connections” betwenn Yagnobi and Ossetic years previously (p. 532). On pp. 552-58 he published the first attempt to describe Sogdian grammar; in 1913 he devoted the whole of “Manichaeica V” (20 pages) to supplementing this, using the newly published Christian Sogdian material in Müller (1912) and the Buddhist Sogdian material in various publications by Gauthiot (1911, 1912 and 1913, which Salemann lists in fn. 3 on p. 1126). He identified feminine forms noted but not identified by Gauthiot and even al-Biruni (fn. 10 on pp. 1132-33); in his treatment of the copula, he was the first to suggest a connection between the 3rd sing. pres. xcy and the pronoun xw, again with reference to Yagnobi (p. 1137). Furthermore, he studied the verbal system.

In many of his publications Salemann used Hebrew characters. In the Middle Persian grammar he did this unwillingly (Salemann, 1901, p. 323; the publisher had no Pahlavi font); in the English translation a Pahlavi font is used instead, except for heterograms. He was nevertheless following tradition, since, as pointed out by Bogdanov (in Salemann, 1930, p. v), M. J. Müller (“Essai sur la langue Pehlvie,” in JA, 3rd ser., 7, 1839), Spiegel, and, for a time, Haug had used Hebrew characters. In transliterating texts in Manichean script into Hebrew script Salemann (1904, p. 8) stressed his desire to give a non-interpretative reproduction of the original. Though F. W. K. Müller continued to use his own system, Andreas and his students (including Barr, Lentz, and Henning) followed Salemann until Henning switched to a transliteration into Latin characters in 1934.

If Salemann’s Grammar, 1900 (together with the unpublished Russian and the English translation, 1922, publ. 1930, but leaving the original unchanged), show Salemann’s understanding of Zoroastrian Middle Persian at an advanced but almost immediately time-encapsulated stage, his work on the Turfan fragments in Berlin (albeit at a distance) and on the Manichean fragments in St. Petersburg show his impressive attempts at, and successes in, coming to terms with a large body of new material in the languages Middle Persian, Parthian, Sogdian, and even Turkic. It is certainly greatly to be regretted that the lack of cooperation between F. W. K. Müller and Salemann limited what Salemann could do, since he did not have access to the originals and was obliged to rely entirely on what Müller made of them in print (and mostly without facsimiles).

Though it is difficult to point to any work of Salemann’s that can be fully endorsed from the present-day viewpoint, there can be no doubt that his tenacity and, particularly with regard to the new material, his willingness to publish his results quickly (in contrast, for example, to Andreas, many of whose works were only published by his students after his death) contributed greatly to the advancement of the study of the newly found texts, thereby ensuring the very progress that would make some parts of his work obsolete.

Bibliography: Abbreviations. IIAN - Izvestiya imperatorskoĭ akademii nauk/Mémoires de l’Académie impériale des sciences de St.-Pétersbourg. Zapiski IAN - Zapiski imperatorskoĭ akademii nauk/Mémoires de l’Académie impériale des Sciences de St.-Pétersbourg. ZVORAO -Zapiski Vostochnogo otdela Russkogo arkheologicheskogo obshchestva, St. Petersburg.

Sources for Salemann’s life and work. Obituary by S. F. Ol’denburg, in IIAN, 1917, pp. 281-86 (with a portrait facing p. 281). V. V. Bartol’d, “Karl Germanovitsh Zaleman. 1849-1916,” in V. V. Bartol’d, Raboty po istorii vostokovedeniya (= Sochineniya, IX), Moscow, 1977, pp. 599-618. A. N. Kononov, ed., Biobibliograficheskiĭ slovar’ otechestvennykh Tyurkologov. Dooktyabr’skiĭ period, Moscow, 1974, pp. 163-64. B. V. Lunin, Istoriografiya obshchestvennykh nauk v Uzbekistane. Bio-bibliograficheskie ocherki. Tashkent, 1974, pp. 175-80. A. G. Perikhanyan, “Karl Germanovich Zaleman,” in Ocherki po istorii russkogo vostokovedeniya, Sbornik IV, Moscow, 1959, pp. 79-115 (particularly valuable as it contains numerous and detailed references to Salemann’s papers in the archive of the Academy).

Selected bibliography of Salemann’s works in German, in Latin, and in Russian (under the name Zaleman) in chronological order. In the following list the Russian form of his name is always listed when it occurs as such. The orthography of some of the German works is not standard. Salemann developed this himself as a schoolboy on the model of the Grimm brothers (Perikhanyan, p. 80) and used it in publications of the Academy.

1874. “Versuch über die Conjugation im Ossetischen,” Beiträge zur vergleichenden Sprachforschung 8, Abt. I, 1874, pp. 48-80.

1875. “Chetverostishiya Khakani. Izdal i perevel K. Zaleman, Dissertatsiya na stepen’ magistra persidskoĭ slovesnosti, predstablennaya fakul’tetu Vostochnykh yazykov,” St. Petersburg, 1875.

1877. “Briefliches über eine Schale mit Pehlewi-Inschrift,” ZDMG 31, 1877, pp. 541-42.

1879. “Über eine Parsenhandschrift der Kaiserlichen Oeffentlichen Bibliothek zu St. Petersburg,” in Travaux du 3e session du Congrès internationale des Orientalistes 1878 II, St. Petersbourg and Leiden, 1879, pp. 493-591. “Über eine pehlevisch-arabische Münze,” ZDMG 33, 1879, p. 511.

1880. K. G. Zaleman, “Ocherki istorii drevnepersidskoĭ ili iranskoj literatury,” in V. F. Korsh, Vseobshchaya istoriya literatury I/1, St. Petersburg, 1880, 157-190.

1883. Rev. of V. Miller, Osetinskie étudy I-II, Moscow, 1881-82, Literaturblatt für orientalische Philologie 1, 1883, pp. 138-46.

1884. Rev. of P. de Largarde, Persische Studien, Literaturblatt für orientalische Philologie 2, 1884, pp. 76-86.

1887. “Mittelpersische Studien,” IIAN 31, 1887, pp. 417-40; and Mélanges Asiatiques 9/3, 1887, pp. 207-53. “Neue Erwerbungen des Asiatischen Museums,” Mélanges Asiatiques 9/3, 1887, pp. 321-402. K. G. Zaleman, V. R. Rozen, “Spisok persidskim, turetsko-tatarskim i arabskim rukopisyam biblioteki SPb. universiteta,” ZVORAO 2, 1887, pp. 241-62. C. Salemann, Shams i Fachrîi Ispahânensis lexicon Persicum id est libri Mi’jâr i Gamâlî pars quarta quam ad fidem codicis Petropoliotani recognitam ..., fasc. prior, textum et indices continens, Casani [Kazan], 1887.

1888. “Bericht über die außgabe des Mi’jâr i Jamâlî,” Mélanges Asiatiques 9, St. Petersburg, 1888, pp. 417-32 and various supplements on pp. 433-594 (followed by a table showing the genealogy of various Persian lexica). K. G. Zaleman, “Novye materialy po yagnobskomu yazyku,” ZVORAO 3, 1888, pp. 128-29. K. G. Zaleman and V. R. Rozen, “Spisok persidskim, turetsko-tatarskim i arabskim rukopisjam biblioteki SPb. universiteta,” ZVORAO 3, 1888, pp. 197-222 (= Indices alphabetici codicum manuscriptorum Persicorum, Turcicorum, Arabicorum qui in Bibliotheca imperialis literarum Universitatis Petropolitanae adservantur, Petropoli 1888). V. Radlov, V. Vasil’ev, and K. Zaleman, “O russkoĭ lingvisticheskoĭ azbuke. Doklad Istoriko-filologicheskomu otdeleniyu” in IIAN 32, 1888.

1889. Rev. of A. Müller and H. Gies, Türkische Grammatik ..., Berlin 1889, in ZVORAO 3, 1889, pp. 391-94. Carl Salemann and Valentin Shukovski, Persische Grammatik mit Literatur, Chrestomathie und Glossar, Porta Linguarum Orientalium 12, Berlin, 1889 [and reprints].

1890. K. G. Zaleman, V. A. Zhukovskiĭ, Kratkaya grammatika novopersidskago yazyka s prilozheniem metriki i bibliografii, St. Petersbourg, 1890. K. G. Zaleman, “O rezul’tatakh poezdki, sovershennoĭ letom 1889 g. v Kopengagen,” Zapiski IAN, 1890, pp. 91-95.

1891. “Das Asiatische Musuem im Jahre 1890,” Mélanges Asiatiques, 10/1, 1891, pp. 283-86. “Noch einmal die seldschukischen verse,” Mélanges Asiatiques 102, 1891, pp. 173-245.

1892. C. Salemann, S. F. Ol’denburg, “Böhtlingk’s Druckschriften,” Mélanges Asiatiques 10, 1892, pp. 247-56.

1893. “Das Asiatische Museum im Jahre 1890. Nebst Nachträgen,” Mélanges Asiatiques 10, 1893, pp. 271-92.

1895. Abdulqâdiri Bagdâdensis Lexicon Šâhnâmianum, cui accedunt ejusdem auctoris in lexicon Šâhidianum Commentariorum Turcici particula prima, Arabici excerpta...: Ad fidem codicum manuscriptorum recensuit, annotationibus indicibus instruxit, edidit Carolus Salemann, Petropoli, 1895. K. G. Zaleman, “Shugnanskiĭ slovar’,” in D. L. Ivanova, Vostochnye zametki, St. Petersburg, 1895, pp. 269-320.

1897. “Judaeo-Persica nach St.-Petersburger Handschriften. I. Chudâidât, ein Jüdisch-bucharisches Gedicht,” Zapiski IAN 42. Nr. 14, St. Pétersbourg, 1897.

1898. K. G. Zaleman, “Otchet o svoeĭ poiezdkie v Srednyuyu Aziju v 1897 g.,” IIAN 8, 1898, pp. vi-viii. K. G . Zaleman, “Legenda pro Khakim-Ata,” IIAN 9/2, 1898, pp. 105-49.

1900. “Zum mittelpersischen Passiv,” IIAN 13/3, 1900, pp. 269-76.

1901. “Mittelpersisch,” in W. Geiger und E. Kuhn, eds., Grundriss der iranischen Philologie, Strassburg, 1895-1901, Erster Band, I: Abteilung, III, pp. 249-332.

1904. Ein Bruchstük manichaeischen Schrifttums im asiatischen Museum, St. Petersburg, Zapiski IAN, VIIIe Série. Cl. hist.-phil. VI, 6, 1904. K. Zaleman, “Po povodu evr eĭsko-persidskago otryvka iz Hotana,” ZVORAO 16, 1904, pp. 46-57.

1907. K. G. Zaleman, “Spisok persidskikh rukopiseĭ i knig, priobretennykh ot I.I. Desnickogo,” IIAN, 1907, p. 43. “Manichaeica I,” IIAN, 1907, pp. 175-84. “Manichaica II,” IIAN, 1907, pp. 531-58.

1908. Manichäische Studien I. Die mittelpersischen Texte in revidierter transcription, mit glossar und grammatischen bemerkungen, Zapiski IAN, VIIIe Série, Cl. hist.-phil., VIII.10, 1908.

1910. “Zur Kritik des Codex Comanicus,” IIAN 4, 1910, pp. 943-57.

1912. “Manichaica III,” IIAN, 1912, pp. 1-32. “Manichaica IV,” IIAN, 1912, pp. 33-50.

1913. “Manichaica V,” IIAN, 1913, pp. 1125-44.

1914. “Eranica 1-4,” IIAN 8, 1914, pp. 795-808.

Published posthumously. 1925. Indices alphabetici codicum manu scriptorum persicorum turcicorum arabicorum qui in bibliotheca Imperialis Literarum Universitatis Petropolitanae adservantur. Confecerunt C. Salemann et V. Rosen. (Supplementum confecit A. Romaskewicz.). Leningrad, 1925.

1930. A Middle Persian grammar. Translated from German by L. Bogdanov. Bombay, 1930.

(D. Durkin-Meisterernst)

Originally Published: July 20, 2005

Last Updated: July 20, 2005