BAILEY, Harold Walter (b. Devizes, Wiltshire. Dec. 16, 1899; d. Cambridge, Jan. 11, 1996), one of the greatest scholars in the field of the comparative study of Iranian languages, especially notable for much ground-breaking work on the Middle Iranian Saka language of Khotan (FIGURE 1). Bailey was second of the three sons of Frederick Charles Quinton Bailey (1871-1952) and Emma Jane, née Reichardt (1871-1962). He attended Parnella House Primary School where he showed considerable promise. His schooling was, however, brought to an abrupt end when Harold was only ten years old. His parents decided to emigrate to Western Australia and bought 805 acres of virgin bushland about two hundred kilometres east of Perth. Hence it was that Harold Bailey never again attended a school, but worked with the other members of his family to clear the land and turn it into a farm. His spare time was devoted to reading and he devoured everything that he could find starting with the eight volume Harmsworth Encyclopaedia in which he first read about “Teheran” and “Avestan” and four other books containing lessons in French, Latin, German, Greek, Italian and Spanish. In 1919 he seems to have gained access to books in Sanskrit, Pali and Avestan. In A Study of History (Vol. X, pp.16-17) Arnold Toynbee cites Bailey as an example of someone whose curiosity had been roused by his early encounter with a subject through reading, despite the unpromising circumstances in which he was situated. He fancifully pictures the boy absorbed in his books “in the shade of an Antipodean haystack” while the family looked on “with a benign but whimsical gaze” during their “noonday rest from their common labours in the field.” Bailey’s extraordinary ability to remember any word he had seen in any language, which was described by many of the most erudite of his peers in later life as “phenomenal,” was without doubt in evidence in his youthful years. The extent of the knowledge he had somehow acquired can be gauged by the fact that he managed during his early time at the university to compose a long Sanskrit poem in the mandākrāntā metre. His parents recognized that they needed to provide further education for their exceptionally gifted son. Arrangements were therefore made for him to enter the fledgling University of Western Australia and a tutor was obtained through the good offices of the Headmaster of Perth’s well-known Scotch College to equip him with the wherewithal for this. Being 22, Bailey would have been older than others entering the university, but it is unlikely that the social aspect of a peer group would have mattered to him. He had no difficulty in matriculating and in his first year he attended courses in English, Latin, Greek and, in addition, Logic and Ancient Philosophy. Apart from his natural fascination for exotic tongues, his reading of Edwin Arnold’s Buddhist poem Light of Asia had inspired him to undertake a course in Oriental languages, but none was available.

His first two undergraduate years were highly successful and no doubt for financial reasons he took an appointment at the beginning of his third year as an Assistant Master at Guildford Grammar School. One of his former pupils, with whom he maintained a lifelong friendship, paid tribute in a book of school reminiscences to Bailey’s ability to inspire him with of a love of ancient history. (Max. B. Grace, "Ercildoune,” Guildford Reflections 1906-1925). The strain of combining his university work with schoolmastering must have taken its toll, for he needed to go into a sanatorium just before his final examinations in 1924. Despite this, he proceeded to the Honours course which he combined with tutoring in Latin. Meanwhile he was corresponding in Japanese with a penfriend whom he had especially acquired for this purpose. After graduating with First Class Honours, Bailey embarked on an MA degree, his thesis being a study of the religious views of Euripides as exemplified in his dramas. In this he adopted a conservative stance against the theories made popular by A. W. Verrall in his book Euripides the Rationalist which enjoyed a vogue at that time.Although this was not concerned with the linguistic field so dear to his heart, Bailey made a fine job of it. The thesis was never published, but won him a Hackett Studentship which took him to Oxford. Bailey thought highly of this honour and on the books which he acquired during his Oxford years he has written “Hackett Student” under his name. Bailey’s professor of Classics, George Wood, was clearly in no doubt about the ability of the young man and encouraged him to leave as soon as possible for England to begin work at Oxford where, as a Senior Student, he could complete the BA degree in two years. He did not have a college placement and so became a member of the Delegacy of Non-Collegiate Students; later this institution became St Catherine’s Society and in 1964 St Catherine’s College. Bailey was made an honorary fellow there in 1976.

During the Oxford years Bailey was at long last able to pursue Oriental Studies at an academic level. His official courses were in Vedic, Classical Sanskrit and Prakrit under F. W. Thomas and James Morrison. He was R. P. Dewhurst’s first regular student in Avestan, still called Zend at that time; he did not attend G. E. K. Braunholtz’s classes in Comparative Philology, as they were deemed too elementary for him. In addition to this, he attended lectures in Old Irish; throughout his life he maintained a deep interest in all things Celtic. He spent a good deal of time on Armenian, being awarded in 1928 the first Nubar Pasha Armenian Scholarship which he put to good use by working on the Armenian Alexander Romance. In this same year he learnt Georgian by transcribing all one thousand six hundred quatrains of Rustaveli’s Man in the Panther Skin from a copy in the Bodleian Library. It was fortuitous that soon after Bailey’s arrival the seventeenth International Conference of Orientalists took place in Oxford, for there he was able to make the acquaintance of such luminaries as Morgenstierne and Minorsky, as well as Konow and the two Leumanns who were working on Khotanese at that time. At a personal level Bailey, who suffered from arthritis in his early Oxford days and was conscious of his colonial background, found Oxford life somewhat daunting. He later told his good friend A. S. C. Ross “the whole English way of life was astonishing to me and from you I learned to understand it a little.” He was no doubt pleased to be able to make a return visit to Australia to see his family after two and a half years away,

He graduated with first class honours in 1929 and by good fortune an opening for him to continue on his chosen path was provided by the establishment of an Iranian lectureship in that year by the Parsee community in the London School of Oriental Studies. After appointment to this post, Bailey began work for an Oxford doctorate on an edition of the Pahlavi Greater Bundahišn and gave a course of ten lectures on Zoroastrianism. When the time came for the appointment of examiners for the dissertation, Bailey’s own name was the most frequently suggested. In the end the lot fell to Dewhurst, who knew little Pahlavi, and to ҳmile Benveniste, who, though Bailey’s junior by some years and not a Pahlavi specialist, had already gained a reputation as one the best Iranian scholars of his generation. Bailey was not satisfied that his edition was ready for publication and, after receiving his doctorate, laid it aside for many years. The fruits of his comprehensive study of Pahlavi literature at this time are to be seen in his difficult though important Ratanbai Katrak Lectures, published in book form with the title Zoroastrian Problems in the Ninth Century Books (Oxford 1943 revised reprint 1971). During his tenure of the London lectureship, Bailey travelled to Iran in 1932 going by way of Egypt and overland through Palestine, Syria and Iraq to Teheran with a week in Yazd where he delighted to hear Persian spoken around him. The following year he went to Cairo with the specific purpose of learning Arabic.

The Cambridge Chair of Sanskrit fell vacant at the end of September 1936 following the retirement of E. J. Rapson; Bailey was appointed and, not long after, elected a fellow of Queens’ College. This created a position for an Iranianist in London and Konow recommended Walter Bruno Henning, an outstanding scholar whose Jewish origins posed a threat to him in Nazi Germany. Bailey was delighted with the choice and not only arranged for Henning to occupy his former lodgings in London, but met him on the day of his arrival and even lent the penniless man some money. Bailey’s inaugural lecture The Content of Indian and Iranian Studies remains one of his most engaging works, surveying with undisguised enthusiasm this immense field in a style suited for a non-specialist audience which is unique among his important publications. His professorial duties involved him in much lecturing and supervising in Sanskrit and, until 1955, Prakrit and Pali, but his chief work of research was by now Khotanese, a labour which occupied him until 1989. In 1937 Bailey returned to be with his family, who had moved to Perth, and was treated as a celebrity by the West Australian press. He made the long sea voyage again in 1952 and 1963 when he was made an Honorary Doctor of Letters by the University of Western Australia; by this time both his parents were dead. He made his fourth and last visit in 1970-1971 when he directed the programme on “Central and Northern Asia” at the twenty-eighth International Conference of Orientalists. He lectured in Perth and was made an Honorary Fellow of the Australian Academy of the Humanities.

During the war the London School of Oriental and African Studies was forced to move to Cambridge and Henning, along with other scholars of German nationality, was interned. Bailey saw to the publication of Henning’s book Sogdica, for which he wrote a brief preface, and assisted the War Office’s Postal Censorship division with translation of some less familiar languages such as Georgian and Kurdish. Of greater importance was the work he did at the Research Institute of International Affairs housed at Balliol College Oxford and later in London, where at the invitation of Arnold Toynbee he joined the team of experts whose work it was to study foreign language newspapers for information of strategic importance; Bailey’s contribution was mainly in Albanian and Armenian, although at the end of the war he continued to give assistance with Russian and Ossetic. He was away from Cambridge for the three years he was engaged in this project. In 1944 Bailey was elected to the British Academy and was to be, it is thought, its longest serving member. Shortly afterwards he became a member of the Danish, Norwegian and Swedish Academies. In 1948 Bailey attended the Orientalist Conference in Paris where he expressed his intention to produce all the Khotanese material needed for the Iranian etymological dictionary which had been planned at the Bonn Conference of 1936. Unfortunately this project has never been realized although Bailey regarded his later published dictionary as a contribution to it.

It was thanks to Bailey that an Iranian lectureship was established in Cambridge in 1948 and Ilya Gershevitch, a pupil of Henning, was appointed to this position. At the same time Ossetic studies received a boost when Bailey convinced the University authorities to engage a native speaker of the less well-known and more archaic Digoron dialect to come to Cambridge as informant. Bailey had a special interest in epic poetry and during the course of his life read most of the major works of this genre in their original languages. At this time he worked on the Ossetic Nart tales. In 1966 he travelled to the Caucasus where he amazed an audience by addressing them in both Ossetic dialects. In the same year he represented the United Kingdom with two others at the eight hundredth anniversary of the great Georgian poet Shota Rustaveli in Tbilisi. On this occasion he was presented with a national costume and sword of which he was very proud. He is to be seen in this garb in the painting of him by Ronald Way which hangs in Queens’ College. When the portrait was unveiled in 1972, Bailey was hailed as the College’s “greatest scholar since Erasmus” (R. Coleman, The Cambridge Review, November 1996). Other initiatives of Bailey outside the mainstream of his work included bringing to Cambridge native speakers of Abaza and Tibetan, the former a Caucasian language which interested Bailey because of its unusually large number of consonants including some which at that time were being postulated for Proto-Indoeuropean. W. Sidney Allen worked with the Abaza informant at Bailey’s instigation and produced some important articles on the phonetics of this little-known language. The Tibetan informant was significant in aiding R. E. Emmerick, one of Bailey’s most brilliant students, to publish the Tibetan material concerning Khotan.

Although Bailey taught and inspired several generations of scholars, there was no one who worked so closely with him as Ronald Eric Emmerick, who like Bailey had come from Australia to do an undergraduate degree and subsequently a doctorate. Emmerick’s interest in Khotanese had been aroused before he left his native shores by reading Bailey’s 1938 inaugural lecture and from the time of his arrival in Cambridge in 1959 the two established a strong bond through their mutual interest; at first the relationship was one of teacher and pupil; it soon ripened into that of colleagues. Bailey’s fundamental work on the Khotanese texts was the starting point for Emmerick’s long series of meticulous exegetical publications. Together they may be described as the founders of modern Khotanese studies. The extent of their collaboration and depth of their mutual understanding can be gauged from Emmerick’s tribute to Bailey in the Proceedings of the British Academy 101 (1998) to which most of the material in this brief biography is indebted.

As Bailey had experienced little formal teaching during his own apprentice years, it is not surprising that he had little idea of teaching methods or the needs of an undergraduate coming to the study of a language at an elementary level. His courses were offered for those doing the philological component of the tripos and many began to study with him only to find that his lecturing methods did not meet their needs and quickly stopped attending his classes. For those who were prepared to teach themselves the basics of the language and went to Bailey to sit at the feet of a great man and absorb what they could from his wide-ranging philological exposition the experience was valuable and unforgettable. The lectures bore a marked similarity to his written work and chiefly consisted of studies of the etymologies of individual words. Thus, starting from a line of the Veda, he would give the root of a word and proceed to discuss its connections; he would linger on Iranian cognates often bringing his recent Khotanese discoveries into the discussion. Bailey prepared his lectures with care and they were mostly held in his set of rooms in Queens’ College, already so filled with books, journals and manuscripts that there was barely room to move. His viola and music stand were there to be seen. He had taught himself the violin but changed to the viola so that he could be part of a chamber music group which met regularly in his rooms on Sunday nights to play the quartets of Mozart and Beethoven. Gershevitch, a talented cellist, and Sir Gilbert Wiles, a retired Indian civil servant, were the other regular players. Bailey always treated his students, even the less capable ones, with great courtesy and displayed disarming modesty in assuming that they would always follow his arguments, often adding, ‘as you know’ to re-assure them. He liked to have his students and friends to tea and would always provide a freshly baked cake which he would cut up and serve while conversing about his current work.

Bailey was knighted in 1960 and retired from the chair of Sanskrit in 1967. No doubt he was pleased to be free of his administrative and teaching responsibilities. He moved from his rooms in Queens’ College first to a flat in a block of apartments and in 1981 to Brooklands House, a Victorian mansion acquired three years earlier by the Ancient India and Iran Trust, of which he was chairman, where his enormous and uniquely valuable library could be adequately accommodated and made available to scholars. He was a keen gardener and had acted for many years as garden steward at Queens’. After leaving College he devoted more time to gardening and would plant thousands of bulbs for spring flowering. He tended his rarer blooms in a large conservatory, but the seasonal show of roses at Brooklands House was always beautiful.

After he ceased work on Khotanese, he devoted much of his remaining time to studying Iranian loanwords in Caucasian languages and went back to revise his 1933 edition of the Pahlavi Greater Bundahišn. This was finished in 1989. Unfortunately by this time his eyesight had deteriorated to the point that he needed large magnifying apparatus to work and his handwriting was becoming almost impossible to read. In the only copy of his text, which was intended for photographic reproduction, he tried to insert the many words in Pahlavi script in his own hand thereby rendering it illegible. For this reason it has never been published. As it became increasingly difficult for him to commit his unabated flow of thoughts to paper, his frustration was to some extent alleviated by the presence of scholars working and visiting at Brooklands House; at least he was able to talk about his ideas. He maintained his independence until close to the end of his life despite the worsening of his vision and hearing. To the end, however, physical deterioration did not impair his intellectual activity. Robert Coleman in his speech at Bailey’s funeral describes a visit he paid to his former teacher in Addenbrooke’s Hospital a few days before his death, during which the old man “suddenly launched into a fifteen-minute exposition of some new etymologies that had occurred to him,” concluding with his last recorded words, “‘I think I shall write this up when I come out; it should make a small monograph’.”

In scholarly, as well as political, matters, Bailey avoided controversy. He rarely sought the opinions of others and preferred to pass over in silence opinions with which he did not agree rather than become involved in argument. He prefaces his Dictionary with the disclaimer that the views it expresses are personal and may not be shared by others. He was sensitive to criticism and could take it personally on occasion, but he was not a man to bear a grudge. He never looked for recognition of his achievements other than the appreciation of other scholars. He was very surprised to receive the knighthood. He did, however, display considerable pride in showing his visitors the national costume which had been specially tailored for him and officially presented to him in Tbilisi in 1966. For such a distinguished man it is noteworthy that he only received four honorary degrees, those of Oxford, Western Australia, the Australian National University and Manchester, the last mentioned surprisingly in Divinity. Bailey was an agnostic, but confessed to adopting the mode of thinking of the practitioners of Zoroastrianism and Buddhism while working on their texts. He was not especially adept or practised in speaking any of the languages he knew so well. No doubt had circumstances arisen he could have developed this facility. As it was, the need to converse in languages other than English rarely occurred in the course of his life. He freely admitted that he “had never been much good at spoken languages.” To avoid embarrassment in situations where fluent conversation might be expected of him he gave this advice to Emmerick: “Learn and practise a few useful phrases, come out with one at an appropriate moment, then turn away quickly to someone else before you get an answer.” Bailey’s total dedication to his work was facilitated by the fact that he was unmarried and had meals provided by the College. Even after retirement he would cycle or walk the mile to College for one or two meals and to collect his mail each day. Walking and cycling were his chief means of exercise and his health was generally good, although he suffered from pernicious anaemia in 1956-8 which required hospitalization. He was a man who inspired great affection in those who knew him and he was a popular figure at Queens’, although the general tenor of his life and his way of thinking were remote from the everyday world.

Before embarking on a review of Bailey’s contribution to Khotanese studies, some details will be given of his publications in other fields. Although his teaching duties involved him in Vedic and Sanskrit, he published little that was principally concerned with these languages. As there is a large substratum of Indic in the borrowed Buddhist vocabulary of Khotanese and many of the texts are translations of Sanskrit and Prakrit originals, he continually makes authoritative reference to these languages, but his contributions to the understanding of Indic vocabulary, important as they, are made indirectly. Probably the most notable are his edition of parts of the Prakrit Dharmapada found in Khotan (“The Khotan Dharmapada,” BSOAS, XI, 3, 1945, pp. 488-512) and the article “Gāndhārī” (BSOAS, XI, 4, 1946, pp. 764-97). Both of these contain much valuable discussion of borrowed vocabulary from such Indian sources in Khotanese and other Central Asian languages The name Gāndhārī was coined by Bailey for this kind of Prakrit and has been used ever since.

Although he regarded Avestan as one of the most interesting of all areas of study, he published little that concerned it solely. His earliest published work was on Pahlavi. “To the Žāmāsp-nāmak,” published in two parts (BSOS, VI, 1, 1930 and VI, 3, 1931), contains an edited text with translation and commentary. It displays exactly the same magisterial command of the material which we find in his later writings: indeed it sets the pattern for these: elucidation of vocabulary by adducing parallels in the wide range of cognate languages of which he had such an extraordinary grasp, much of it stored in his memory. His profound knowledge of the Pahlavi exegetical literature is evident in Zoroastrian Problems in the Ninth Century Books,in which his explanations of a number of basic Zoroastrian words and concepts made a considerable advance in the understanding of this complex subject. N. Sims-Williams in his obituary of Bailey (BSOAS, LX, 1, 1997, pp. 109-116) fairly described it as “a masterly combination of philology and etymology in the service of the history of ideas.” In the sixth of these published lectures he gives his views on the development of the Avestan script, rejecting the theory developed by F. C. Andreas which had held the field until then. Henning (“The Disintegration of the Avestic Studies" TPS, 1942, pp. 40-56) and Morgenstierne (“Orthography and Sound-system of the Avesta,” NTS, 12, 1942, pp. 30-82)appear to have reached similar conclusions independently at this time.

Progress in the decipherment and comprehension of the related Middle Iranian language Sogdian was proceeding in parallel with Khotanese thanks in large measure to the work of ҳmile Benveniste and later W. B. Henning. Though Bailey kept abreast of developments in that field, he never devoted himself especially to it. Originally he had seen the task of publishing all the Khotanese material as a parergon to his main work on Zoroastrian studies and estimated that it would take about eleven years to complete the work of publishing texts, commentary and lexicon (see Khotanese Texts V p. xi). In the event, however, it proved so absorbing and his professorial duties so time-consuming that it occupied his attention for close to fifty years. For this reason his citation of Sogdian words is sometimes inaccurate in its spelling owing to the rapid advance of understanding and interpretation of the way that language was committed to writing. Nevertheless his insights have been immensely valuable to more recent Sogdian experts such as I. Gershevitch and N. Sims-Williams.

Of greater importance is his contribution to Tocharian studies. Bailey showed a particular interest in the two languages which bear this name. Like Khotanese they involve Buddhist writings in Brahmī script and were found by the early Twentieth Century explorers in the Tarim Basin. Bailey seems to have studied these languages from an early period and was clearly fully informed about the texts themselves and the secondary literature. Although not closely related within the Indo-European family of languages, Khotanese and Tocharian contain many loan words. Bailey was especially interested in Iranian loan words in Tocharian, but also examined and suggested etyma for the “native” words. He had transcribed all the Tocharian fragments in the India Office Library and in his 1937 article “Ttaugara,” (BSOS, VIII, 4, 1937, pp. 883-921), he published some texts with translation and commentary. In Indo-Iranian Languages and Peoples (ed. N. Sims-Williams, Oxford, 2002, p. 279), G-J Pinault gives a list of Bailey’s chief publications relevant to Tocharian among which the article “Recent Work in ‘Tocharian’” (TPS, 1947, [pub.]1948, pp. 126-53) is of prime importance. In his appreciation of Bailey in the same volume (p. 288), Ilya Gershevitch reviews the contents of the library at Brooklands House, noting that “although all the ancillary Indo-European sections are well-stocked, the ‘Tokharian’ comes nearest to self-sufficiency.”

Charles Dickens once said, “I rest my claim to the remembrance of my country on my published works.” In the case of Dickens his writings, particularly his novels, are his entire legacy. In the case of Harold Bailey the extent of his genius is only partly displayed in his published works, but it is upon these that he will be judged by posterity. His prodigious memory and unsurpassed knowledge of words left the world with him and future scholars will have to rely on the evidence of those who knew him to add this element into their assessment of his place among the greatest of scholars. Nevertheless it is his published work on the Saka language of Khotan that is Bailey’s chief claim to be considered in such company.

Bailey built upon the work of a number of earlier scholars, particularly Rudolf Hoernle, Ernst Leumann and Sten Konow. As early as 1902, Hoernle had recognized that the previously unknown language, written in Brahmī script, of documents excavated in 1900-01 by Aurel Stein during his first expedition to Chinese Turkestan, and of similar documents found in the vicinity some years earlier, was an Indo-Iranian one, related to modern Pamir dialects. In the years that followed he did pioneering work in its decipherment, in which considerable progress had been made by 1920. In 1916 Hoernle published an edition of part of a medical text, the Jīvakapustika, as Bailey was later to name it: this contained a lengthy description of the manuscript, the writing system and language, as well as a translation and reconstructed Sanskrit version. Leumann had published an edition of the Adhyardhaśatikā in 1912 and was later to publish an edition of The Book of Zambasta in a series of articles (Das Nordarische {Sakische} Lehrgedicht des Buddhismus, Leipzig, 1933-6). Konow’s 1916 article on “TheVajracchedikā” and “The Aparimitāyuḥ Sūtra” gave much ground-breaking explanation of the grammar and vocabulary of the language and the Norwegian scholar was the leader in the field until Bailey began his work in the thirties. His Primer of Khotanese was published a year after his death in 1948. It is fair, however, to say that Bailey quickly became the acknowledged expert and men like Konow and Leumann deferred to him as such.

It is clear from Bailey’s early writings on Pahlavi that he had been studying the Middle Iranian Sogdian and Khotanese with a view to their shedding light on lexical problems in the Ninth Century texts on which he was working. He shows considerable knowledge of Khotanese in the previously mentioned “Žāmāsp-nāmak” articles. His first visit to Konow in Oslo was in 1933 and thereafter he corresponded with him regularly especially about lexical items. It seems that he first found time to devote himself to the Saka manuscripts in the autumn of 1934 when he began his visits to the India Office for this purpose. He must have decided at that time to transliterate and see through the press all Khotanese manuscripts and fragments that had not been published previously. In 1937 he went to Paris to work on the texts in the Pelliot Collection in the Bibliothéque Nationale. Among the discoveries he made there was a Khotanese version of the story of Rāma which he not only transcribed but thought seriously enough about to be able to publish a translation and commentary of it in 1940.The following year he presented to the Cambridge University Press the first of his seven volume series Khotanese Texts containing five important works. The first of these, Ravigupta’s Siddhasāra, he accompanied with the Tibetan and Sanskrit versions. In producing the Sanskrit version Bailey worked from photographs of two manuscripts in the Oxford Indian Institute, unfortunately choosing most readings from the more legible but far less accurate of the two. The second text in this volume, Jīvakapustaka, is also medical. As has been mentioned, Hoernle had published part of it in 1916 and Konow was working on it independently at this time. When the volume finally appeared after the war, some were disappointed that it did not contain translations. Bailey, however, saw it as his chief task to publish all the material as quickly as possible so that it would be available to scholars. He worked very quickly and consequently here, as elsewhere, scholars like Emmerick working on the documents have found much needing correction in the light of subsequent research, but Bailey must be given credit for pioneering work requiring unique skill and knowledge.

A volume separate from the main series called Khotanese Buddhist Texts was published in London in 1951. The following year Khotanese Texts II,containing the other longer documents from the London and Paris collections, appeared. Khotanese Texts III, published in 1956, contained 75 texts including the Avalokiteśvaradharānī, the manuscript of which belonged to the Petrovsky Collection in St Petersburg but had been for a long time in the hands of the Leumannsin Swizerland. To produce the fourth volume, which was devoted to texts from the Hedin Collection in Stockholm, Bailey had to work from photographs before a trip to the Swedish capital gave him the opportunity to study the originals. Its publication was long delayed and only saw the light of day in 1961. In the introduction to this volume Bailey gives much valuable information about the background to the documents. The introduction to Khotanese Texts V, which completes the original aim of printing all the previously unpublished material,gives us a glimpse of Bailey’s plans for his future work on Khotanese. Rather than produce commentaries on the texts (as he had done in the fourth volume alone), he would devote his time to completing the dictionary, entries for which had been accumulating for many years. This was the time that Emmerick was doing his doctoral work on Khotanese grammar under Bailey’s supervision. For this it was necessary to use the longest and most important text of all, an original Buddhist poem which Bailey named after its chief character The Book of Zambasta. Ernst Leumann’s edition was seriously out of date owing to the greatly enhanced understanding of the language resulting from Bailey’s work. To fill this major gap Bailey and Emmerick worked jointly on a new version of the text with translation and lexical commentary. In the end, however, owing to difficulties raised by the Cambridge University Press, two separate books appeared: Emmerick’s edited text and translation (London, 1968) and Bailey’s Khotanese Texts VI (Cambridge 1967), which was a detailed vocabulary, providing a foretaste of what was to come in the dictionary.

Bailey was also responsible for producing a number of facsimile volumes containing Khotanese texts. These are Codices Khotanenses (Copenhagen, 1938) and four volumes in the “Corpus Inscriptionum Iranicarum” series, (1960-67). To accompany these in 1968 he published a text volume in the same series including transliteration, translation and commentary of some of the plates.

On his application for the Cambridge chair in 1936, Bailey was able to list some fifty reviews which he had written in the previous five years. Most of these appeared in the Bulletin of the School of Asian Studies and were rarely more than a page or two in length. As time went on he wrote fewer reviews and the total number is a little over ninety. That this was not a congenial activity to him seems clear from the fact that he wrote only one in the years following his retirement. Nevertheless Bailey’s assessment of the work of others makes interesting reading and sheds light on his generous attitude especially to those of modest ability. “The article cannot be considered illuminating” is for him an unusually harsh comment on an attempt to connect the ablative ending -az in Hittite with the Armenian ending - (Caucasica, 7, 1931, in BSOS VI, 3, 1931, p. 774). For the most part he finds something to praise, even when it is obvious that the work under review has little merit.

Elucidation of the vocabulary will be found throughout the numerous articles which Bailey wrote during all the time that he was working on Khotanese. Most of them deal with the etymologies of words and are written in a concise though lucid style, never dogmatic but revealing an exceptional knowledge and at times inspired penetration of all possible connections for the words under review. Although some of his suggestions would not be accepted now, they clearly indicate the scope of his expertise and the uniqueness of his ability to see so many related roots at a single glance in a way that possibly no other scholar has ever done. Much of this highly valuable material is to be found in the relevant entries in his dictionary which presents the results in summary form. There is also a good deal that is to be found only in the articles. Many of Bailey’s brilliant ideas have yet to find their way into etymological dictionaries of related languages. Some of them seem not to have been known or adopted by scholars in the fields involved. As one example I would cite an Avestan passage where a recent edition fails to recognize Bailey’s definitive exegesis. The phrase druča paruuąnča which occurs at Yašt 13.99 and Yašt 19.85 is explained by Bailey as meaning “from bow and arrow.” Here Khotanese sheds light on a previously obscure phrase by providing the words durna- “bow” and pūrna- “arrow” and yet in their recent edition of the Žamyād Yašt (Wiesbaden 1998), Humbach and Ichaporia translate the phrase at 19.85 as “with stock and knots.”

Not all articles dealing with words are restricted to discussion of etymology. “Madu: a Contribution to the History of Wine” (Tōhō Gakuhō, Kyoto, XXV, 1, 1954, pp. 1-11) is a good example of this and it is interesting that it should come from the pen of a teetotaller. Apart from etymological articles there is a valuable grammatical outline in “Languages of the Saka,” (Handbuch der Orientalistik,1958). A number of writings review Khotanese literature in a general way; these include “A survey of excerpted texts of Khotanese literature,” Chapter 4 (pp. 63-80), The Culture of the Sakas in Ancient Iranian Khotan, New York, 1982 and “Khotanese Saka Literature,” Chapter 34 (pp. 1230-1243), The Cambridge History of Iran, vol. 3 (2), ed. E. Yarshater, Cambridge, 1983. He treated of the closely related language of Tumshuq in a valuable article (BSOAS, XIII, 3, 1950, 649-70).

The fruits of a lifetime of etymological analysis by one of the finest linguists of all time are to be found in Bailey’s magnum opus, the Dictionary of Khotan Saka which became available to the world at large in August 1979. Amid the widespread acclaim with which its publication was greeted, there was a muted note among the reviews which came from a source which would have counted more in Bailey’s eyes than any other. While hailing the greatness of the achievement, Emmerick, who had copied by hand the whole of the dictionary as it was in 1963 at the suggestion of the author, was disappointed that full account had not been taken of recent scholarly work. The criticism was justified but perhaps too strongly expressed under the circumstances. In any case, it hurt Bailey deeply and, after Emmerick began to publish with P. O. Skjærvø corrections to the dictionary in a series called “Studies in the Vocabulary of Khotanese,” the friendship between the two was severely strained for some time.

After the publication of the dictionary and before he ceased work on Khotanese, forwarding all enquiries he received to Emmerick, Harold Bailey had one last word on the subject: a postscript, one might almost say a postlude, in view of the obvious enjoyment with which it was written, his last volume in the “Indo-Scythian Studies” series, Khotanese Texts Vol. VII. The title itself is a misnomer, as there are no texts to be seen here; instead there are twenty five brief essays on important names and places associated with Central Asian history and geography. In the preface to the fifth volume he had made clear that he saw his Khotanese discoveries as a contribution to cultural history. In the prologus to Volume VII, he elaborates on this theme and speaks of “new insights” proposed in what follows. He tackles the thorny problem of the name “Tocharian,” as applied to the peoples of “Argi” and “Kuči,” and uses etymology to throw light on the cultural identity and history of the “Huna,” “Saka” and other important peoples of the region. With undisguised relish and as though taking up a challenge he had set himself, he embarks on a quest for Iranian etyma where Turkish had been considered in the past. With a touch of humour familiar to those who knew him but normally absent in his writings, he speaks of the furor turcicus and furor altaicus which had driven those proposing such solutions. He also takes the opportunity to express second thoughts about some of his proposed etymologies in the Dictionary. The result is a jeu d’espirit which contains a number of somewhat speculative suggestions together with a wealth of extremely interesting and important information, much of which, it must be confessed, will be found in his earlier writings, which he quotes freely. For this reason the book has not usually been as highly esteemed by scholars as what had gone before. However, for the general philologist or non-specialist reader who wants to gain some idea of the flavour and style of Bailey’s writings from one book, this is possibly the best introduction.

"Those of us who attempt to walk in Bailey’s footsteps cannot fail to feel both humility and gratitude at the scale of his achievements, even though we may occasionally discover him to be in error on one point or other.” Workers in the field would surely endorse these words of Nicholas Sims-Williams (BSOAS, LX, 1 1997). Without doubt, the whole domain of Iranian studies has been incomparably enriched by his phenomenal contribution.


Select Bibliography:

N.B. A complete bibliography of Bailey’s published writings 1930-1970 complied by R. E. Emmerick and D. M. Johnson appeared in BSOAS, XXXIII, 1 1970, pp. ix-xiv. A further list of articles appeared in Acta Iranica, 20, 1979, pp. 33-5.

Emmerick completed a comprehensive bibliography, including reviews, covering all years until the last published works (1993). This has not yet been published and I am indebted to Professor N. Sims-Williams for the copy used for this selection.

Books: The Content of Indian and Iranian Studies: an inaugural lecture delivered on 2 May 1938. 35 pp. C.U.P., Cambridge, 1938.

Codices Khotanenses, Monumenta linguarum Asiae Maioris II, facsimiles with introduction, xiii, 183 pp., Copenhagen, 1938.

Zoroastrian Problems in the Ninth-Century Books (Ratanbai Katrak Lectures), vii, 235 pp., Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1943.

Reprint with new introduction and index, lii, 245 pp., 1971. (ed.): Khotanese Texts, Vol. I, x, 257 pp., C.U.P., Cambridge, 1945.

Second edition in Khotanese Texts I-III, C.U.P., Cambridge, 1969. (ed.): Khotanese Buddhist Texts, (Cambridge Oriental Series, 3), ix, 157 pp. Taylor’s Foreign Press, London, 1951.

Revised edition: C.U.P., Cambridge, 1981. (ed.) Indo-Scythian Studies; being Khotanese Texts, Vol. II,x, 134 pp. C.U.P., Cambridge, 1954.

Second edition in Khotanese Texts I-III, C.U.P.,Cambridge, 1969. (ed.) Indo-Scythian Studies; being Khotanese Texts, Vol. III,viii, 140 pp. C.U.P., 1956.

Second edition in Khotanese Texts I-III, C.U.P.,Cambridge, 1969. Saka Documents I-IV,Corpus Inscriptionum Iranicarum, Part II, vol. V, Portfolios I-IV, London, 1960, 1961, 1964, 1967. (ed.) Indo-Scythian Studies; being Khotanese Texts, Vol. IV,viii, 192 pp. C.U.P.,Cambridge, 1961. (ed.) Indo-Scythian Studies; being Khotanese Texts, Vol. V,xiii, 395 pp. C.U.P., Cambridge, 1963. (ed.) Indo-Scythian Studies; being Khotanese Texts, Vol. VI. Prolexis to the Book of Zambasta. xix, 463 pp. C.U.P., Cambridge, 1967.

Saka Documents Text Volume [I], Corpus Inscriptionum Iranicarum, Part II, Vol. V, Texts I, viii, 129 pp., plate. Percy Lund, Humphries and Co. Ltd., London, 1968. Dictionary of Khotan Saka, xvii, 559 pp. C.U.P., Cambridge, 1979.

The Culture of the Sakas in Ancient Iranian Khotan,” (Columbia lectures on Iranian Studies, 1), xii, 109 pp., Delmar, New York, 1982. (ed.) Indo-Scythian Studies; being Khotanese Texts, Vol. VII, xvi, 147 pp., C.U.P.,Cambridge, 1985.

Articles; A number of important articles are reprinted in Opera Minora, Articles on Iranian Studies,” vol.1, 463 pp. and vol. 2, 504 pp., ed. M. Nawabi, Forozangah Publishers, Shiraz, Iran, 1981.

“Iranica [(I)],” JRAS, 1930, 1, pp. 11-19.

“To the Žāmāsp-nāmak. I,” BSOS, VI, 1, 1930, pp. 55-85.

“To the Žāmāsp-nāmak. II,” BSOS, VI, 3, 1931, pp. 581-600.

“Western Iranian dialects,” TPS, 1933, [pub.] 1934, pp. 46-64.

“Iranian Studies, III,” BSOS,VII, 2 1934, pp. 275-98.

“Iranian Studies, V,” BSOS, VIII, 1, 1935, pp. 117-42.

“Handschriften aus Chotan und Tunhuang,” ZDMG, XC, 3, 1936, pp. 573-78.

hīnāysä ’general’,” pp. 790-91 in F. W. Thomas, “Some Words found in Central Asian Documents,” BSOAS, VIII, 2-3, 1936.

“An Itinerary in Khotanese Saka,” Acta orientalia, XIV, 4, 1936, pp. 258-267.

“Yazdi,” BSOS, VIII, 2-3, 1936, pp. 335-61.

Ttaugara,” BSOS, VIII, 4, 1937, pp. 883-921.

“Hvatanica[, I],”, BSOS, VII, 4, 1937, pp. 923-936.

“Hvatanica, II,”, BSOS, IX, 1, 1937, pp. 69-78.

“Hvatanica, III,”, BSOS, IX, 3, 1938, pp. 521-543.

Vajra-praj…nā-pāramitā" ZDMD, XCII, 2-3, 1938, pp. 579-93, 605-6.

“The Jātaka-stava of Jnānayaśas,” BSOAS, IX, 4, 1939, pp. 851-859.

“The Rāma Story in Khotanese,” JAOS, LIX, 4, 1939, pp. 460-8.

“Turks in Khotanese Texts,” JRAS, 1939, 1, pp. 85-91.

“Rāma[, I],” BSOS, X, 2, 1940, pp. 365-76.

“Rāma, II,” BSOAS, X, 3, 1940, [pub] 1941, pp. 559-98.

Ttāgutta,” BSOAS, X, 3, 1940, [pub] 1941, pp. 599-605.

“Hvatanica, IV,” BSOAS, X, 4, 1942, pp. 886-924.

“A Turkish-Khotanese Vocabulary,” BSOAS, XI, 2, 1944, pp. 290-6.

“The Khotan Dharmapada,” BSOAS, XI, 3, 1945, pp. 488-512.

“Gāndhārī,” BSOAS, XI, 4, 1946, pp. 764-97.

“Recent Work in ‘Tocharian’,”TPS, 1947,[pub.]1948, pp. 126-53. “Irano-Indica[, I],” BSOAS, XII, 2, 1948, pp. 319-32.

“A Khotanese Text concerning the Turks in Kantsou,” AM, NS, I, 1, 1949, pp.28-52.

“The Present State of Khotanese Studies,” in Actes du XXIme Congrés Internationale des Orientalistes, Paris, 23-31 juillet 1948. Paris, 1949, pp.166-7.

‘L’accento in Osseto Digoron,” Ricerche Linguistiche, I, 1, 1950, pp. 58-66.

“The Tumshuq Karmavāca,” BSOAS, XIII, 3, 1950, pp. 649-70.

“Irano-Indica,” IV, BSOAS, XIII, 4, 1951, pp. 920-38.

‘The Staël-Holstein Miscellany’, AM, NS, II, 1, 1951, pp. 1-45.

“Kusanica,” BSOAS, XIV, 3, 1952, pp. 420-34.

“Analecta Indoscythica, I,” JRAS, 1953, 3-4, pp. 95-116.

“Ariaca,” BSOAS, XV, 3, 1953, pp. 530-40.

Madu: a Contribution to the History of Wine,” Tōhō Gakuhō, Kyoto, XXV, 1, 1954, pp. 1-11.

“Buddhist Sanskrit,” JRAS, 1955, 1-2, pp. 13-24.

“Languages of the Saka,” Handbuch der Orientalistik, I, Abt., IV. Bd., Iranistik, 1, Linguistik, 1958, pp. 131-54.

“Ambages Indoiranicae,” Annali Ist. Or. Napoli, Sez. Ling., I, 2, 1959, pp. 113-46. “Iranian arya- and daha-,” TPS, 1959, [pub.] 1960 pp. 71-115.

“Vijaya Sangrāma,” AM,NS, VII, 1-2, 1959, pp.11-24.

“Iranian arya- and daha-, supplementary note,” TPS, 1960, [pub.] 1961, pp. 87-8.

“The Preface to the Siddhasā ra-śāstra,” in A Locust’s Leg: Studies in Honour of S. H. Taqizadeh, ed. W. B. Henning and E. Yarshater, London, 1962, pp. 31-8.

“The Profession of Prince Tcūm-ttehi,” in Indological Studies in Honour of W. Norman Brown, (American Oriental Series, XLVII.), ed. Ernest Bender, New Haven, 1962, pp.18-22.

“Romantic Literature in Early Khotan,” in Mélanges d’Orientalisme offerts à Henri Massé à l’Occasion de son 75éme Anniversaire. (Publications de l’Université de Téhéran, No. 843.), Imprimerie de l’Université, Teheran, 1963, pp. 17-20.

“Saka Miscellany,” in Indo-Iranica: Mélanges presentés à Georg Morgenstierne à l’Occasion de son 75éme Anniversaire, Wiesbaden, 1964, pp.8-12.

“Iranian in Armenian,” Revue des Études Arméniennes, NS, II, 1965, pp. 1-3.

“A Metrical Summary of the Saddharma-puṇḍarīka-sūtra in Gostana-deśa,” Bulletin of Tibetology (Gangtok, Sikkim), II, 2, 1965, pp. 5-7.

“Vajrayāna texts from Gostana,” in Studies in Esoteric Buddhism and Tantrism in Commemoration of the 1150th Anniversary of the Founding of Koyasan. Koyasan University, Koyasan, 1965, pp. 27-39.

“Viśa Samgrāma,” AM, NS, XI, 2, 1965, pp. 101-19.

“The Sudhana Poem of Ṛddhiprabhāva,” BSOAS, XXIX, 3, 1966, pp. 506-32.

“A tale of Aśoka,” Bulletin of Tibetology, (Gangtok Sikkim), III, 3, 1966, pp. 5-11.

“Saka śśandrāmata,” in: Festschrift für Wilhelm Eilers: ein Dokument der Internationalen Forschung zum 27. September 1966, ed. Gernot Wiessner, Wiesbaden, 1967, pp. 136-43.

“Kaniska,” in Papers on the Date of Kaniska, ed. A. L. Basham, Leiden, 1968, pp. 35-8.

Avesta and Saka,” IIJ, XI, 4, 1969, pp. 289-292.

“A Range of Iranica,” in W .B. Henning Memorial Volume, (Asia Major Library) ed. M. Boyce and I. Gershevitch, London, 1970, pp. 20-36.

Sad-dharma-puṇḍarīka-sūtra, the summary in Khotan Saka"(Occasional paper 10). The Australian National University, Faculty of Asian Studies, Canberra, 1971 (reprinted with errata 1973).

“Trends in Iranian Studies,” Memoirs of the Research Department of the Tokyo Bunko, No. 29, Tokyo, 1971, pp. 1-16.

“The Culture of the Iranian Kingdom of Ancient Khotan in Chinese Turkestan,” Memoirs of the Research Department of the Tokyo Bunko, No. 29, Tokyo, 1971, pp. 17-29.

“Story-telling in Buddhist Central Asia,” Acta Asiatica, Bulletin of the Institute of Eastern Culture, 23, Tokyo, 1972, pp. 63-77.

“Taklamakan Miscellany,” BSOAS, XXXVI, 2, 1773, pp. 224-27.

“The Pradakṣiṇā-sūtra of Chang Tsiang-kuin,” Buddhist Studies in Honour of I. B. Horner, ed. L. Cousins et al., Dordrecht, 1974. pp. 15-18.

“Saka cadarno and Surkh Kotal kara-lrangga,” Mélanges Linguistiques offerts à ҳmile Benveniste, Paris, 1975, pp. 33-35.

“Mahāprajnā-pāramitā-sūtra,” Prajnāpāramitā and Related Systems: Studies in Honor of Edward Conze, ed. L. Lancaster, Berkeley, 1977, pp. 153-162.

“The Bodhisattva in the Prajnā-pāramitā,” Senarat Paranavitana Commemoration Volume, ed. Leelananda Prematilleke, et al., Leiden, 1978, pp. 20-21.

“North Iranian Problems,” BSOAS, XLII, 2, 1979, pp. 207-210.

“Professor Georg Morgenstierne,” (obituary), JRAS, 1979, pp. 95-96.

"Ossetic (Nartä),” Traditions of Heroic and Epic poetry, vol. 1, ed. A.T Hatto, London, pp. 236-67.

Bisclavret in Marie de France,” Cambridge Medieval Celtic Studies, 1, 1981, pp. 95-7.

“Indo-Iranica,” Indologica Taurinensia, VIII-IX (Dr. Ludwik Sternbach Commemoration Volume), 1980-81, pp. 15-18.

“Two Kharoṣṭhī Inscriptions,” JRAS, 1982, 2, pp. 149-155, plates II-VIII on pp. 142-148.

“Khotanese Saka Literature,” Chapter 34 (pp. 1230-1243), The Cambridge History of Iran, vol. 3 (2), ed. E. Yarshater, Cambridge, 1983.

“Vedic ksumpa- and related Data,” Amṛtadhārā, Professor R. N. Dandekar Felicitation Volume, ed. S.D. Joshi, Delhi, 1984, pp. 17-20.

“Durauzha the Drink Exhilarant,” South Asian Studies, 1, 1985, pp. 57-61.

“Apastāk,” Acta Iranica, 24, Leiden, 1985, pp. 9-14.

“Appendix I. Plant Names,” in Cambridge History of Iran, vol.2, ed. I Gershevitch, Cambridge, 1985, pp. 870-3 “An Iranian Miscellany in Armenian,” pp. 1-8, Armenian Studies. Études Arméniennes. In Memoriam Haïg Berbérian, ed. Dickran Kouymjian, Lisbon, 1986.

“Iranian Loanwords in Armenian,” in Encyclopaedia Iranica,vol.2, ed. E Yarshater, London and New York, 1987, pp. 459-465.

“Baga,” in Encyclopaedia Iranica,vol.3, ed. E Yarshater, London and New York, 1988, pp. 403-4.

“Iranian kēt ‘Foreteller’ and Related Words,” Acta Iranica, 30, Leiden, 1990, pp.6-9.

“Asiani and Pasiani,” in Bulletin of the Asia Institute, NS, vol. 7, 1993, pp. 9-10.

Reviews; G. Morgenstierne, Indo-Iranian Frontier Languages. Vol. I: Parachi and Ormuri, Oslo, 1926, in BSOS, VI, 3, 1931, pp. 768-9.

J.C. Tavadia, Šāyast-nē-Šāyast. A Pahlavi Text on Religious Customs, edited, transliterated and translated, with introduction and notes, Hamburg, 1930, in JRAS, 1932, 4, pp, 973-4.

J. Mansion, Esquisse d’une Histoire de la Langue Sanskrite, Paris, 1931, in JRAS 1932, 4, pp. 976-7.

H.S. Nyberg, Hilfsbuch des Pehlevi. Vol. II: Glossar, Uppsala, 1931, in JRAS, 1933, 4, pp. 1003-4.

S. Konow, Saka Studies, Oslo, 1932, in BSOS, VII, 2, 1934, pp. 412-3.

A. Meillet, Grammaire du Vieux-Perse, 2nd ed. rev. É. Benveniste, Paris, 1931, in BSOS, VII, 3,1934, pp. 700-2.

É. Benveniste, Essai de Grammaire Sogdienne, deuxiҳme partie. Morphologie, Syntaxe et Glossaire, Paris, 1929, in BSOS, VII, 3, 1934, pp. 702-3.

A.V. Williams Jackson, Researches in Manichaeism: with Special Reference to the Turfan Fragments, New York, 1932 in JRAS, 1934, 1, pp. 145-6.

A. Christensen, Les Kayanides, Copenhagen, 1931, in JRAS, 1934, 3, pp. 568-9.

ҳ. Benveniste and L. Renou, Vṛtra et Vṛθragna,Étude de Mythologie Indo-iranienne, Paris, 1934, in BSOS, VII, 4, 1935, pp. 975-6.

M. Leumann, Sakische Handschriftproben, Hamburg, 1934, in JRAS, 1936, 1, pp. 121-2.

É. Benveniste, Les Infinitifs Avestiques, Paris, 1935, in BSOS, VIII, 4, 1937, pp. 1155-6 W.B. Henning, Ein Manichäisches Bet- und Beichtbuch, Berlin, 1936, in BSOS, IX, 1, 1937, pp. 229-31.

A. Christensen, L’Iran sous les Sassanides, Copenhagen-Paris, 1936, in BSOS, IX, 1, 1937, pp. 231-3.

J. Nobel, Suvarṇabhāsottamasūtra. Das Goldglanz-Sūtra, ein Sanskrittext des Mahāyāna-Buddhismus, Leipzig, 1937, in BSOS, IX, 4, 1939, pp. 1054-5.

G. Morgenstierne, Indo-Iranian Frontier Languages. Vol. II. Iranian Pamir Languages, Oslo, 1938, in BSOS ,IX, 4, 1939, pp. 1057-8.

J. Duchesne-Guillemin, Les Composҳs de l’Avesta, Liége, 1936, in JRAS, 1939, I, pp. 112-7.

É. Benveniste, Codices Sogdiani,Copenhagen, 1940, in BSOAS, X, 4, 1942, pp. 1020-1.

S. Konow, A Medical Text in Khotanese, Ch II 003 of the India Office Library with translation and vocabulary, Oslo, 1941, in BSOAS, X, 4, 1942, pp. 1021-3.

R.G. Kent, Old Persian, Grammar, Texts, Lexicon, New Haven, 1950, in JRAS, 1951, 2, pp. 193-5.

J. Filliozat, La Doctrine Classique de la Médicine Indienne. Ses Origines et ses Paralléles Grecs, Paris, 1949, in BSOAS, XV, 3, 1953, pp. 628-9.

M.J. Dresden, The Jātakastava or “Praise of the Buddha’s Former Births", Philadelphia, 1955, in JRAS, 1958, I, pp. 104-5.

É. Benveniste ,Études sur la Langue Osséte, Paris, 1959, in JRAS, 1961, 1, pp. 53-56.

R.L. Turner, A Comparative Dictionary of the Indo-Aryan Languages, fasc. 1, Oxford, 1962, in JGLS, XLII, 1-2, 1963, pp. 68-9.

J. Brough, TheGhāndhārī Dharmapada, Oxford, 1962, in JRAS, 1963, 2, pp. 282-3.

M. Mayrhofer, Zum Namengut des Avesta,JRAS, 1979, I, pp. 59-60.

Search terms:

 بیلی، هارولد والتر Bailey Harold     


(John Sheldon)

Originally Published: July 20, 2002

Last Updated: August 24, 2011