Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1‘Vohdman, son of Spend-dad, a hundred and twelve years; Hamai, daughter of Vohiman, thirty years; D4&rdi, son of Kihar-Azdd, that is, of the daughter of Vohiman, twelve years; D4arai, son of Darai, fourteen years; and Alexander the Riman® fourteen years. © ‘The Ask4nians should bear the title in an uninterrupted sovereignty two hundred and so many‘ years; and Artakhshatar, son of Papak, and the number of the SAsdnians dear it four hundred and sixty years, until the withering Arabs obtained a place® [as far as the year 447 of the Persians ; now ?¢ zs the Persian year 527]°.’ The colophon, which follows, states that the MS. was finished on the thirteenth day of the ninth month A.Y. 936 (A. D. 1567), and was written by Mitré-ap4n, son of Anéshakrdban, soz of Ristam. This MS. is, therefore, of nearly the same age as TD; but there has been no opportunity of collating the fragment of it, which is still extant, with the corresponding portion of TD. That it was a MS. of the same character as TD (that is, one containing the same text as K20, but with much additional matter) appears clearly ! From the beginning of Frédiin’s reign, when the millennium of Sagittarius commenced, * The usual way of spelling Zaratist in old MSS., excepting K20 and a few others. 3 Here written correctly Alaksandar-i Ardmaf, * Reading va and; as the final letter is d and not d it cannot be read nAvad as a variant of navad, ‘ninety.’ 5 The words are, vad ginak ayaft khfské-i Taztkand, but the exact meaning is rather doubtful. * The last date is doubtful, as the Pahlavi text gives the ciphers only for ‘five and twenty-seven,’ omitting that for ‘hundred.’ These Persian dates must either have been added by some former copyist, or Chap. XXXIV must have been appended to the Bundahis at a later date than the ninth century, when the preceding genealogical chapters were probably added to the original work (see p. xliii). ‘The Persian year 527 was a. D. 1158. INTRODUCTION. xli
2XXXIV must have been appended to the Bundahis at a later date than the ninth century, when the preceding genealogical chapters were probably added to the original work (see p. xliii). ‘The Persian year 527 was a. D. 1158. INTRODUCTION. xli from the fragment translated above. Regarding its original extent, it is possible to make an approximate estimate, by calculating the quantity of text which the 129 lost folios must have contained, from the quantity actually existing on folio 130. According to this calculation, the original extent of the text of the Bundahis in this MS. must have been very nearly 30,000 words; and it is remarkable that a similar calculation of the extent of the text in TD, based upon the actual contents of ten folios out of 103, gives precisely the same result. This coincidence is a strong argument in favour of the absolute identity of the text lost from Westergaard’s MS. with that actually existing in TD; it shows, further, that the original extent of the Bundahis may now be safely estimated at 30,000 words, instead of the 13,000 contained in K20 when that MS. was complete. That this fragment belonged to a separate MS,, and is not the folio missing from the end of TD, is shown not only by its containing more of the text than is said to be missing, but also by the first folio of the fragment being numbered 130, instead of 103, and by its containing fifteen lines to the page, instead of seventeen, as would be necessary in order to correspond with TD. / Regarding the age of the Bundahis many opinions have been hazarded, but as they have been chiefly based upon minute details of supposed internal evidence evolved from each writer’s special misinterpretation of the text, it is unnecessary to detail them. The only indication of its age that can be fairly obtained from internal evidence, is that the text of the Bundahis could not have been completed, in its present form, until after the Muhammadan conquest of Persia (A.D. 651). This is shown not only by the statements that the sovereignty ‘went to the Arabs’ (Chap. XXXIV, 9), that ‘now, ¢hrough the invasion of the Arabs, they (the negroes) are again diffused through the country of Iran’ (Chap. XXIII, 3), and that ‘whoever keeps the year by the revolution of the moon mingles summer with winter avd winter with summer’ (Chap. XXV, 19, referring probably to the Muhammadan year not corresponding with the seasons), but also, more positively xlii PAHLAVI TEXTS. by the following translation of an extract from Chap. 39 in TD :—
3XXV, 19, referring probably to the Muhammadan year not corresponding with the seasons), but also, more positively xlii PAHLAVI TEXTS. by the following translation of an extract from Chap. 39 in TD :— ‘And when the sovereignty came to Yazdakard he exercised sovereignty twenty years, and then the Arabs rushed into the country of Iran in great multitude. Yazdakard did not prosper (14 s4kaft6) in warfare with them, and went to Khirds4n and Tirkistan to seek horses, men, and assistance, and was slain by them there. The son of Yazdakard went to the Hinds and fetched an army of champions ; before it came, conducted unto Khfrds4n, that army of champions dispersed. The country of Iran remained with the Arabs, and their own irreligious law was propagated by them, and many ancestral customs were destroyed ; the religion of the Mazdayasnians was weakened, and washing of corpses, burial of corpses, and eating of dead matter were put in practice. From the original creation until this day evil more grievous than this Aas not happened, for through their evil deeds—on account of want, foreign habits (Aniranih), hostile acts, bad decrees, and bad religion—ruin, want, and other evils have taken lodgment.’ None of these passages could have been written before the Muhammadan conquest; but the writer, or editor, of the text as it appears in TD, supplies the means of approximating much more closely to the date of his work, in a passage in Chap. 41 of TD, in which he mentions the names of several of his contemporaries (see Chap. XX XIII, 10, 11), Among these, as already noticed, he mentions ‘Zad-sparham son of Yad4n-Yim,’ who must have been the writer of the Selections of Z4d-sparam, a translation of which is added as an appendix to the Bundahis in this volume. This writer was the brother of Mandskihar son of Yd4n-Yim, who wrote the Dadistan-i Dinik!, and from colophons found in certain MSS. of the Dadistan (which will be more particularly described in the next section of this introduction) it appears that this Mandssihar was 1 It is quite possible that Mandssthar was also the reviser of the Bundahis; see the note on Dadakth-i Ashévahisté in Chap. XXXIII, ro, eee INTRODUCTION. xlili
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.
1‘Vohdman, son of Spend-dad, a hundred and twelve years; Hamai, daughter of Vohiman, thirty years; D4&rdi, son of Kihar-Azdd, that is, of the daughter of Vohiman, twelve years; D4arai, son of Darai, fourteen years; and Alexander the Riman® fourteen years. © ‘The Ask4nians should bear the title in an uninterrupted sovereignty two hundred and so many‘ years; and Artakhshatar, son of Papak, and the number of the SAsdnians dear it four hundred and sixty years, until the withering Arabs obtained a place® [as far as the year 447 of the Persians ; now ?¢ zs the Persian year 527]°.’ The colophon, which follows, states that the MS. was finished on the thirteenth day of the ninth month A.Y. 936 (A. D. 1567), and was written by Mitré-ap4n, son of Anéshakrdban, soz of Ristam. This MS. is, therefore, of nearly the same age as TD; but there has been no opportunity of collating the fragment of it, which is still extant, with the corresponding portion of TD. That it was a MS. of the same character as TD (that is, one containing the same text as K20, but with much additional matter) appears clearly ! From the beginning of Frédiin’s reign, when the millennium of Sagittarius commenced, * The usual way of spelling Zaratist in old MSS., excepting K20 and a few others. 3 Here written correctly Alaksandar-i Ardmaf, * Reading va and; as the final letter is d and not d it cannot be read nAvad as a variant of navad, ‘ninety.’ 5 The words are, vad ginak ayaft khfské-i Taztkand, but the exact meaning is rather doubtful. * The last date is doubtful, as the Pahlavi text gives the ciphers only for ‘five and twenty-seven,’ omitting that for ‘hundred.’ These Persian dates must either have been added by some former copyist, or Chap. XXXIV must have been appended to the Bundahis at a later date than the ninth century, when the preceding genealogical chapters were probably added to the original work (see p. xliii). ‘The Persian year 527 was a. D. 1158. INTRODUCTION. xli
2XXXIV must have been appended to the Bundahis at a later date than the ninth century, when the preceding genealogical chapters were probably added to the original work (see p. xliii). ‘The Persian year 527 was a. D. 1158. INTRODUCTION. xli from the fragment translated above. Regarding its original extent, it is possible to make an approximate estimate, by calculating the quantity of text which the 129 lost folios must have contained, from the quantity actually existing on folio 130. According to this calculation, the original extent of the text of the Bundahis in this MS. must have been very nearly 30,000 words; and it is remarkable that a similar calculation of the extent of the text in TD, based upon the actual contents of ten folios out of 103, gives precisely the same result. This coincidence is a strong argument in favour of the absolute identity of the text lost from Westergaard’s MS. with that actually existing in TD; it shows, further, that the original extent of the Bundahis may now be safely estimated at 30,000 words, instead of the 13,000 contained in K20 when that MS. was complete. That this fragment belonged to a separate MS,, and is not the folio missing from the end of TD, is shown not only by its containing more of the text than is said to be missing, but also by the first folio of the fragment being numbered 130, instead of 103, and by its containing fifteen lines to the page, instead of seventeen, as would be necessary in order to correspond with TD. / Regarding the age of the Bundahis many opinions have been hazarded, but as they have been chiefly based upon minute details of supposed internal evidence evolved from each writer’s special misinterpretation of the text, it is unnecessary to detail them. The only indication of its age that can be fairly obtained from internal evidence, is that the text of the Bundahis could not have been completed, in its present form, until after the Muhammadan conquest of Persia (A.D. 651). This is shown not only by the statements that the sovereignty ‘went to the Arabs’ (Chap. XXXIV, 9), that ‘now, ¢hrough the invasion of the Arabs, they (the negroes) are again diffused through the country of Iran’ (Chap. XXIII, 3), and that ‘whoever keeps the year by the revolution of the moon mingles summer with winter avd winter with summer’ (Chap. XXV, 19, referring probably to the Muhammadan year not corresponding with the seasons), but also, more positively xlii PAHLAVI TEXTS. by the following translation of an extract from Chap. 39 in TD :—
3XXV, 19, referring probably to the Muhammadan year not corresponding with the seasons), but also, more positively xlii PAHLAVI TEXTS. by the following translation of an extract from Chap. 39 in TD :— ‘And when the sovereignty came to Yazdakard he exercised sovereignty twenty years, and then the Arabs rushed into the country of Iran in great multitude. Yazdakard did not prosper (14 s4kaft6) in warfare with them, and went to Khirds4n and Tirkistan to seek horses, men, and assistance, and was slain by them there. The son of Yazdakard went to the Hinds and fetched an army of champions ; before it came, conducted unto Khfrds4n, that army of champions dispersed. The country of Iran remained with the Arabs, and their own irreligious law was propagated by them, and many ancestral customs were destroyed ; the religion of the Mazdayasnians was weakened, and washing of corpses, burial of corpses, and eating of dead matter were put in practice. From the original creation until this day evil more grievous than this Aas not happened, for through their evil deeds—on account of want, foreign habits (Aniranih), hostile acts, bad decrees, and bad religion—ruin, want, and other evils have taken lodgment.’ None of these passages could have been written before the Muhammadan conquest; but the writer, or editor, of the text as it appears in TD, supplies the means of approximating much more closely to the date of his work, in a passage in Chap. 41 of TD, in which he mentions the names of several of his contemporaries (see Chap. XX XIII, 10, 11), Among these, as already noticed, he mentions ‘Zad-sparham son of Yad4n-Yim,’ who must have been the writer of the Selections of Z4d-sparam, a translation of which is added as an appendix to the Bundahis in this volume. This writer was the brother of Mandskihar son of Yd4n-Yim, who wrote the Dadistan-i Dinik!, and from colophons found in certain MSS. of the Dadistan (which will be more particularly described in the next section of this introduction) it appears that this Mandssihar was 1 It is quite possible that Mandssthar was also the reviser of the Bundahis; see the note on Dadakth-i Ashévahisté in Chap. XXXIII, ro, eee INTRODUCTION. xlili
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.