Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1Their general contents are known from the analysis of the Nasks given in the Dinkart (VIII, ch. 28, 29 ; West, Pahlavi Texts, IV, 92-97). These two Zend treatises were treated like the Vendfd4d, that is to say, were translated and commented on in Pahlavi, at least partially. They have not come to us in any Sada manuscript, but are to be recovered from their Pahlavi expansion, the so-called Pahlavi Nirangistan ', which presents nearly the same aspect as the Pahlavi Vendidad, that is to say, it contains the Zend original text with a Pahlavi translation, and a lengthy commentary, in which latter many connected questions are treated and a considerable number of Zend quotations from other Nasks are adduced. The first thing to do is to distinguish what belongs to the principal text, which is the object of the commentary, and what are the Zend quotations adduced from elsewhere bythe commentator. The distinction of the two components is easily seen, as the principal text is always accompanied by a translation, whereas the quotations are not. They are either formulas recited during the performance of the ceremonies, or texts adduced as demonstrative or explanatory of such or such statement*, These quotations once removed, there remains a continuous text which answers closely to the analysis in the Dfnkart. But a comparison with that analysis, as well as internal evidence, shows that only a part of the original text is preserved, and that * It has been long known under that title, but ought to be called ‘Erpatistin and Nfrangistan.’ * They are adduced with the uniform words... min.. padt&k yahvfinét, ‘it appears from the passage: ...’ "a VI. ERPATISTAN AND NfRANGISTAN. 301 the Pahlavi manuscript, as it has come to us, is the juxtaposition of portions of two independent books, the Erpatistan and the Ntrangistan proper, the beginning and end of both being lost. In other terms, it contains a part in the middle of the Erpatistén' and the greater part of the Nirangist4n, the end of the latter being lost as well as a short passage at its beginning *. All the manuscripts of the Nirangistén, known to be in existence, present the same juxtaposition, as they are descended from one and the same manuscript, of which the copyist, having in his hands a fragment of the Erpatistan and a more complete Nfrangist4n, copied the two as one and the same book, which took the name of the larger fragment. This leaves room to hope for the further discovery of older independent manuscripts of either book. Here is a summary of the matter treated of, with references to the analysis in the Dinkart :— Farcarp I. First Part (FRAGMENT OF THE ErpaTIsTAn). I. §§ 1-9. The priest on duty out (Dinkart VIII, ch. 28, § 2 ?). II. §§ 10-18. The student priest (Dk. ibid. § 3?). Szconp Part (NigancisTAN PROPER). I. §§ 19-27. The Z6t and the Raspt (Dk. VIII, ch. 29, § 1). II. § 28. The Darfn (Dk. ibid. § 2). III. §§ 29, 30. Strong drink forbidden during the sacrifice (Dk. § 3).
228, § 2 ?). II. §§ 10-18. The student priest (Dk. ibid. § 3?). Szconp Part (NigancisTAN PROPER). I. §§ 19-27. The Z6t and the Raspt (Dk. VIII, ch. 29, § 1). II. § 28. The Darfn (Dk. ibid. § 2). III. §§ 29, 30. Strong drink forbidden during the sacrifice (Dk. § 3). IV. §§ 31-37. The recitation of the Gathas (Dk. § 4). V. §§ 38-40. The sacrifice performed by a Zét, or a RAspf, in a state of sin (Dk. §§ 5, 6). Farearp II. I. §§ 41-45. The celebration of the Gahanbars (Dk. §§ 7, 8). II. § 46-51. The limits of the several Gahs (§ 46, G&h * §§ 1-18 belong to the Erpatistan. * OF the twenty-five paragraphs in the Dfnkart analysis, part of § 1, the whole of §§ 2-16, and part of § 17 are represented in the extant Nirangistan. But one must bear in mind that the analysis in the Dinkart was not based on the Zend Nasks, but on their Pahlavi commentaries, so that it refers occasionally to matter not treated of in the Sada text. 302 FRAGMENTS OF THE NASKS. Ushahin.—8§ 47, 48, Gah Havan.—§ 49, Gah Rapithwin.—§ 50, G&h Uzirin.—§ 51, Gah Aiwisrfthrem.—Dk. § 9). III. §§ 52-64. The offerings for the Gahanbérs (Dk. § 10). IV. §§ 65-71. The libations (Dk. § 11). V. §§ 72-84. The functions and place of the Z6t and RA&spfs at the sacrifice (Dk. §§ 13, 14). Farearp III. I. §§ 85-87, 91-96. The Késtf and Sadara (Dk. § 15). II. §§ 88-90, 97-104. The preparation of the Baresman (Dk. § 16). IIT. §§ 105-109. The firewood and the implements for the sacrifice (Dk. § 17). - The interpretation of these texts is beset with no ordinary difficulties, the first being the technical character of the matter treated of, which no amount of philological ingenuity, left to its own devices, can elucidate, then the corrupt state of the text. No standard translation of the Zend can be expected till the whole of the Pahlavi Nfrangistan has been deciphered and translated. However, with the help of the Dinkart analysis and of the Pahlavi Ntrangistan, as far as I could make it out, I believe I have succeeded in presenting a rough partial translation, which may give a correct general idea of the whole, and may help to some extent to clear the ground and be useful even in a further exploration of the Pahlavi Nirangistan.
3All known copies of the Nfrangistén—which are indeed few in number—are descended from two manuscripts. One, belonging to Dr. Hoshangji of Poona (MS. H), was copied in India, in the ° year 1727, from a manuscript which was brought from Iran in 1720 by Dastur Jam4sp Vilayati and seems to have been written in 1471. The other, belonging to Tahmuras D. Anklesaria (MS. T), was written in Iran. Its date is unknown, though it is certainly older than Dr. Hoshangji’s manuscript. Both manuscripts belong to the same family, as they both present the same juxtaposition of the Erpatistan and Nirangistan. Tahmuras’ copy has lost several pages at the end; from § 91 onwards, we are dependent only on Hoshangji’s copy. But Tahmuras’ manuscript, besides being more complete in the rest of the text, is by far more correct ; and how far this is the case the reader may judge for himself by a glance at the translation: from § 91 onwards we have been obliged to leave most of the text untranslated as hopelessly corrupt. In February, 1887, having been asked by the Parsi community VI. ERPATISTAN AND N{RANGISTAN. 303 at Bombay to deliver a lecture on the Parsi literature, I took advantage of the approaching Jubilee of the Queen to recommend the creation of a Victoria Jubilee Fund for the publication of the unedited Pahlavi literature. The appeal was readily answered, a fund raised, and it was decided that the publication should begin with the Nfrangistan. Unfortunately, in the realisation of the plan, the scientific experience of the young Parsi school did not prove quite equal to its good will. Instead of printing from the better manuscript, with the various readings of the inferior one in foot-notes, the committee for publication had the less good manuscript photozincographed. We have not yet in hand the Jubilee edition, but may hope that at least the variants of Tahmuras’ manuscript have been annexed to it. We have thought it advisable, meanwhile, to give here for the use of scholars the Zend text, of which only a few manuscript copies are extant in Europe’. 1 We have already published it in our French Avesta, but that edition is too scarce and too expensive to be of general use.—The text given represents essentially Tahmuras’ copy, corrected here and there from Hoshangji’s manuscript. The barbarous forms are many, and a considerable number of them might be easily corrected: however, whenever they did not make the meaning more obscure, we thought it better to let them stand as they were, because in the degenerate stage in which the Zend language presents itself to us, there is no uniform standard from which one may view and to which one may reduce the erring forms. VI. ERPATISTAN AND NiRANGISTAN. Farcarp I, First Part. ERpaTISTAN. I. The priest officiating out of his house. 1. Knmé (read keméd) nmanahé athaurunem paraydd ? Y6 ashai beregydstemé, Hvéisté va ydistd ; Yim va ainim hapé-gaétha (read hadhé-gaétha) ;
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1Their general contents are known from the analysis of the Nasks given in the Dinkart (VIII, ch. 28, 29 ; West, Pahlavi Texts, IV, 92-97). These two Zend treatises were treated like the Vendfd4d, that is to say, were translated and commented on in Pahlavi, at least partially. They have not come to us in any Sada manuscript, but are to be recovered from their Pahlavi expansion, the so-called Pahlavi Nirangistan ', which presents nearly the same aspect as the Pahlavi Vendidad, that is to say, it contains the Zend original text with a Pahlavi translation, and a lengthy commentary, in which latter many connected questions are treated and a considerable number of Zend quotations from other Nasks are adduced. The first thing to do is to distinguish what belongs to the principal text, which is the object of the commentary, and what are the Zend quotations adduced from elsewhere bythe commentator. The distinction of the two components is easily seen, as the principal text is always accompanied by a translation, whereas the quotations are not. They are either formulas recited during the performance of the ceremonies, or texts adduced as demonstrative or explanatory of such or such statement*, These quotations once removed, there remains a continuous text which answers closely to the analysis in the Dfnkart. But a comparison with that analysis, as well as internal evidence, shows that only a part of the original text is preserved, and that * It has been long known under that title, but ought to be called ‘Erpatistin and Nfrangistan.’ * They are adduced with the uniform words... min.. padt&k yahvfinét, ‘it appears from the passage: ...’ "a VI. ERPATISTAN AND NfRANGISTAN. 301 the Pahlavi manuscript, as it has come to us, is the juxtaposition of portions of two independent books, the Erpatistan and the Ntrangistan proper, the beginning and end of both being lost. In other terms, it contains a part in the middle of the Erpatistén' and the greater part of the Nirangist4n, the end of the latter being lost as well as a short passage at its beginning *. All the manuscripts of the Nirangistén, known to be in existence, present the same juxtaposition, as they are descended from one and the same manuscript, of which the copyist, having in his hands a fragment of the Erpatistan and a more complete Nfrangist4n, copied the two as one and the same book, which took the name of the larger fragment. This leaves room to hope for the further discovery of older independent manuscripts of either book. Here is a summary of the matter treated of, with references to the analysis in the Dinkart :— Farcarp I. First Part (FRAGMENT OF THE ErpaTIsTAn). I. §§ 1-9. The priest on duty out (Dinkart VIII, ch. 28, § 2 ?). II. §§ 10-18. The student priest (Dk. ibid. § 3?). Szconp Part (NigancisTAN PROPER). I. §§ 19-27. The Z6t and the Raspt (Dk. VIII, ch. 29, § 1). II. § 28. The Darfn (Dk. ibid. § 2). III. §§ 29, 30. Strong drink forbidden during the sacrifice (Dk. § 3).
228, § 2 ?). II. §§ 10-18. The student priest (Dk. ibid. § 3?). Szconp Part (NigancisTAN PROPER). I. §§ 19-27. The Z6t and the Raspt (Dk. VIII, ch. 29, § 1). II. § 28. The Darfn (Dk. ibid. § 2). III. §§ 29, 30. Strong drink forbidden during the sacrifice (Dk. § 3). IV. §§ 31-37. The recitation of the Gathas (Dk. § 4). V. §§ 38-40. The sacrifice performed by a Zét, or a RAspf, in a state of sin (Dk. §§ 5, 6). Farearp II. I. §§ 41-45. The celebration of the Gahanbars (Dk. §§ 7, 8). II. § 46-51. The limits of the several Gahs (§ 46, G&h * §§ 1-18 belong to the Erpatistan. * OF the twenty-five paragraphs in the Dfnkart analysis, part of § 1, the whole of §§ 2-16, and part of § 17 are represented in the extant Nirangistan. But one must bear in mind that the analysis in the Dinkart was not based on the Zend Nasks, but on their Pahlavi commentaries, so that it refers occasionally to matter not treated of in the Sada text. 302 FRAGMENTS OF THE NASKS. Ushahin.—8§ 47, 48, Gah Havan.—§ 49, Gah Rapithwin.—§ 50, G&h Uzirin.—§ 51, Gah Aiwisrfthrem.—Dk. § 9). III. §§ 52-64. The offerings for the Gahanbérs (Dk. § 10). IV. §§ 65-71. The libations (Dk. § 11). V. §§ 72-84. The functions and place of the Z6t and RA&spfs at the sacrifice (Dk. §§ 13, 14). Farearp III. I. §§ 85-87, 91-96. The Késtf and Sadara (Dk. § 15). II. §§ 88-90, 97-104. The preparation of the Baresman (Dk. § 16). IIT. §§ 105-109. The firewood and the implements for the sacrifice (Dk. § 17). - The interpretation of these texts is beset with no ordinary difficulties, the first being the technical character of the matter treated of, which no amount of philological ingenuity, left to its own devices, can elucidate, then the corrupt state of the text. No standard translation of the Zend can be expected till the whole of the Pahlavi Nfrangistan has been deciphered and translated. However, with the help of the Dinkart analysis and of the Pahlavi Ntrangistan, as far as I could make it out, I believe I have succeeded in presenting a rough partial translation, which may give a correct general idea of the whole, and may help to some extent to clear the ground and be useful even in a further exploration of the Pahlavi Nirangistan.
3All known copies of the Nfrangistén—which are indeed few in number—are descended from two manuscripts. One, belonging to Dr. Hoshangji of Poona (MS. H), was copied in India, in the ° year 1727, from a manuscript which was brought from Iran in 1720 by Dastur Jam4sp Vilayati and seems to have been written in 1471. The other, belonging to Tahmuras D. Anklesaria (MS. T), was written in Iran. Its date is unknown, though it is certainly older than Dr. Hoshangji’s manuscript. Both manuscripts belong to the same family, as they both present the same juxtaposition of the Erpatistan and Nirangistan. Tahmuras’ copy has lost several pages at the end; from § 91 onwards, we are dependent only on Hoshangji’s copy. But Tahmuras’ manuscript, besides being more complete in the rest of the text, is by far more correct ; and how far this is the case the reader may judge for himself by a glance at the translation: from § 91 onwards we have been obliged to leave most of the text untranslated as hopelessly corrupt. In February, 1887, having been asked by the Parsi community VI. ERPATISTAN AND N{RANGISTAN. 303 at Bombay to deliver a lecture on the Parsi literature, I took advantage of the approaching Jubilee of the Queen to recommend the creation of a Victoria Jubilee Fund for the publication of the unedited Pahlavi literature. The appeal was readily answered, a fund raised, and it was decided that the publication should begin with the Nfrangistan. Unfortunately, in the realisation of the plan, the scientific experience of the young Parsi school did not prove quite equal to its good will. Instead of printing from the better manuscript, with the various readings of the inferior one in foot-notes, the committee for publication had the less good manuscript photozincographed. We have not yet in hand the Jubilee edition, but may hope that at least the variants of Tahmuras’ manuscript have been annexed to it. We have thought it advisable, meanwhile, to give here for the use of scholars the Zend text, of which only a few manuscript copies are extant in Europe’. 1 We have already published it in our French Avesta, but that edition is too scarce and too expensive to be of general use.—The text given represents essentially Tahmuras’ copy, corrected here and there from Hoshangji’s manuscript. The barbarous forms are many, and a considerable number of them might be easily corrected: however, whenever they did not make the meaning more obscure, we thought it better to let them stand as they were, because in the degenerate stage in which the Zend language presents itself to us, there is no uniform standard from which one may view and to which one may reduce the erring forms. VI. ERPATISTAN AND NiRANGISTAN. Farcarp I, First Part. ERpaTISTAN. I. The priest officiating out of his house. 1. Knmé (read keméd) nmanahé athaurunem paraydd ? Y6 ashai beregydstemé, Hvéisté va ydistd ; Yim va ainim hapé-gaétha (read hadhé-gaétha) ;
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
No commentary for this page.