Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1religious ceremonies ; and how the angels assist them against the evil spirits, so that Vahram the Vargavand is enabled to destroy the fiendish races, as already detailed, and Péshyétani becomes supreme high-priest of the Iranian world. Finally, the writer gives some details regarding the missions of the last three apostles, returning for that purpose (III, 44) to the birth of Hdshédar, the first of the three, whose millennium witnesses both the invasion and the destruction of the fiendish races. Hfshédar proves his apostolic authority, to the satisfaction of Vargavand and the people, by making the sun stand still for ten days and nights. His mission is to ‘bring the creatures back to their proper state;’ and it is not till near the end of his millennium that Péshyétand appears, as before described. As this millennium begins with the invasion of the fiendish races and the fall of the Sasanian dynasty, it must have terminated in the seventeenth century, unless it was to last more than a thousand years. A very brief account is then given of the millennium of Hdshédar-mah, the second of the three apostles, whose mission is to make ‘the creatures more progressive’ and to destroy ‘the fiend of serpent origin’ (Az-i Dah4k). During his millennium (which appears to be now in progress) mankind become so skilled in medicine that they do not readily die; but owing to their toleration of heretics the evil spirit once more attains power, and releases Az-i Dahak, from his confinement in Mount Dimavand, to work evil in the world, till Adharmazd sends his angels to rouse Keresdsp the Samén, who rises from his trance and kills Az-i Dahak with his club at the end of the millennium. Afterwards, Sdshyans, the last apostle, appears to ‘make the creatures again pure;’ when the resurrection takes place and the future existence commences. Whether this text, as now extant, be the original commentary or zand of the Vohiman Yast admits of doubt, since it appears to quote that commentary (Chap. II, 1) as an authority for its statements; it is, therefore, most probably, only an epitome of the original commentary. Such an epitome would naturally quote many passages verbatim INTRODUCTION. liti
2II, 1) as an authority for its statements; it is, therefore, most probably, only an epitome of the original commentary. Such an epitome would naturally quote many passages verbatim INTRODUCTION. liti from the original work, which ought to bear traces of translation from an Avesta text, as its title zand implies a Pahlavi translation from the Avesta (see p. x). There are, in fact, many such traces in this epitome, as indicated by the numerous sentences beginning with a verb, the mode of addressing Adharmazd, the quotation of different opinions from various commentators, and other minor peculiarities. Some of these might be the result of careful imitation of other commentaries, but it seems more likely that they are occasioned by literal translation from an original Avesta text. In speculating, therefore, upon the contents of the Bahman Yast it is necessary to remember that we are nfost probably dealing with a composite work, whose statements -‘may be referred to the three different ages of the Avesta original, the Pahlavi translation and commentary, and the Pahlavi epitome of the latter; and that this last form of the text is the only old version now extant. With regard to the age of the work we have the external evidence that a copy of it exists in a manuscript (K20) written about five hundred years ago, and that this copy is evidently descended from older manuscripts as it contains several clerical blunders incompatible with any idea of its being the original manuscript, as witness the omissions noted in Chaps. II, 10, 13, 14, 22, 27, 45, III, 30, 32, the misplacement of II, 18, and many miswritings of single words. Owing to the threefold character of the work, already noticed, the internal evidence of its age can only apply to its last recension in the form of an epitome, as an oriental editor (to say nothing of others) generally considers himself at liberty to alter and add to his text, if he does not understand it, or thinks he can improve it. That this liberty has been freely exercised, with regard to these professed prophecies, is shown by the identification of the four prophetical ages of the Stidgar Nask in the first chapter of the Bahman Yast being different from that given in the Dinkard, The Dinkard quotes the Stddgar Nask (that is, its Pahlavi version) as identifying the iron age with some period of religious indifference subsequent to the time of Atar6-p4d son of M4raspend, the supreme high-priest and liv PAHLAVI TEXTS.
3prime ministerof ShahpdrII (A.D. 309-379); but the Bahman Yast (Chap. I, 5) quotes the Nask as identifying the same age with the reign of an idolatrous race subsequent to the time of Khfsr6é Néshirvan (A.D. 531-579). This example is sufficient to show that the compiler of the extant epitome of the Bahman Yast commentary largely availed himself of his editorial license, and it indicates the difficulty of distinguishing his statements from those of the former editors. At the same time it proves that the epitome could not have been compiled till after Iran had been overrun by a foreign race subsequent to the reign of Khdsré Néshirvan. It is remarkable that the compiler does not mention any later Sasanian king, that he does not allude to Muhammadanism, and speaks of the foreign invaders as Turanians and Christians, only mentioning Arabs incidentally in later times ; at the same time the foreign invasion (which lasts a thousand years) is of too permanent a character to allow of its having reference merely to the troublous times of Noéshirvan’s successor. Perhaps the most reasonable hypotheses that can be founded upon these facts are, first, that the original zand or commentary of the Bahman Yast was written and translated from the Avesta in the latter part of the reign of Khdsré Néshirvan, or very shortly afterwards, which would account for no later king being mentioned by name; and, secondly, that the epitome now extant was compiled by some writer who lived so long after the Arab invasion that the details of their inroad had become obscured by the more recent successes of Turanian rulers, such as the Ghaznavis and Salgfigqs of the eleventh and twelfth centuries. It is hardly possible that the epitomist could have lived as late as the time of Gingiz Khan, the great Mongol conqueror (A.D. 1206-1227), as that would bring him within 150 years of the date of the extant manuscript of his work, which has no appearance of being an immediate copy of the original ; but the rule of the Salgdqs would certainly have afforded him sufficient materials for his long description of the iron age. The Avesta of the Bahman Yast was probably compiled from older sources (like the rest of the Avesta) during a ee INTRODUCTION. lv the reigns of the earlier Sasanian monarchs; but it was, no doubt, very different in its details from the epitome of its commentary which still exists.
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.
1religious ceremonies ; and how the angels assist them against the evil spirits, so that Vahram the Vargavand is enabled to destroy the fiendish races, as already detailed, and Péshyétani becomes supreme high-priest of the Iranian world. Finally, the writer gives some details regarding the missions of the last three apostles, returning for that purpose (III, 44) to the birth of Hdshédar, the first of the three, whose millennium witnesses both the invasion and the destruction of the fiendish races. Hfshédar proves his apostolic authority, to the satisfaction of Vargavand and the people, by making the sun stand still for ten days and nights. His mission is to ‘bring the creatures back to their proper state;’ and it is not till near the end of his millennium that Péshyétand appears, as before described. As this millennium begins with the invasion of the fiendish races and the fall of the Sasanian dynasty, it must have terminated in the seventeenth century, unless it was to last more than a thousand years. A very brief account is then given of the millennium of Hdshédar-mah, the second of the three apostles, whose mission is to make ‘the creatures more progressive’ and to destroy ‘the fiend of serpent origin’ (Az-i Dah4k). During his millennium (which appears to be now in progress) mankind become so skilled in medicine that they do not readily die; but owing to their toleration of heretics the evil spirit once more attains power, and releases Az-i Dahak, from his confinement in Mount Dimavand, to work evil in the world, till Adharmazd sends his angels to rouse Keresdsp the Samén, who rises from his trance and kills Az-i Dahak with his club at the end of the millennium. Afterwards, Sdshyans, the last apostle, appears to ‘make the creatures again pure;’ when the resurrection takes place and the future existence commences. Whether this text, as now extant, be the original commentary or zand of the Vohiman Yast admits of doubt, since it appears to quote that commentary (Chap. II, 1) as an authority for its statements; it is, therefore, most probably, only an epitome of the original commentary. Such an epitome would naturally quote many passages verbatim INTRODUCTION. liti
2II, 1) as an authority for its statements; it is, therefore, most probably, only an epitome of the original commentary. Such an epitome would naturally quote many passages verbatim INTRODUCTION. liti from the original work, which ought to bear traces of translation from an Avesta text, as its title zand implies a Pahlavi translation from the Avesta (see p. x). There are, in fact, many such traces in this epitome, as indicated by the numerous sentences beginning with a verb, the mode of addressing Adharmazd, the quotation of different opinions from various commentators, and other minor peculiarities. Some of these might be the result of careful imitation of other commentaries, but it seems more likely that they are occasioned by literal translation from an original Avesta text. In speculating, therefore, upon the contents of the Bahman Yast it is necessary to remember that we are nfost probably dealing with a composite work, whose statements -‘may be referred to the three different ages of the Avesta original, the Pahlavi translation and commentary, and the Pahlavi epitome of the latter; and that this last form of the text is the only old version now extant. With regard to the age of the work we have the external evidence that a copy of it exists in a manuscript (K20) written about five hundred years ago, and that this copy is evidently descended from older manuscripts as it contains several clerical blunders incompatible with any idea of its being the original manuscript, as witness the omissions noted in Chaps. II, 10, 13, 14, 22, 27, 45, III, 30, 32, the misplacement of II, 18, and many miswritings of single words. Owing to the threefold character of the work, already noticed, the internal evidence of its age can only apply to its last recension in the form of an epitome, as an oriental editor (to say nothing of others) generally considers himself at liberty to alter and add to his text, if he does not understand it, or thinks he can improve it. That this liberty has been freely exercised, with regard to these professed prophecies, is shown by the identification of the four prophetical ages of the Stidgar Nask in the first chapter of the Bahman Yast being different from that given in the Dinkard, The Dinkard quotes the Stddgar Nask (that is, its Pahlavi version) as identifying the iron age with some period of religious indifference subsequent to the time of Atar6-p4d son of M4raspend, the supreme high-priest and liv PAHLAVI TEXTS.
3prime ministerof ShahpdrII (A.D. 309-379); but the Bahman Yast (Chap. I, 5) quotes the Nask as identifying the same age with the reign of an idolatrous race subsequent to the time of Khfsr6é Néshirvan (A.D. 531-579). This example is sufficient to show that the compiler of the extant epitome of the Bahman Yast commentary largely availed himself of his editorial license, and it indicates the difficulty of distinguishing his statements from those of the former editors. At the same time it proves that the epitome could not have been compiled till after Iran had been overrun by a foreign race subsequent to the reign of Khdsré Néshirvan. It is remarkable that the compiler does not mention any later Sasanian king, that he does not allude to Muhammadanism, and speaks of the foreign invaders as Turanians and Christians, only mentioning Arabs incidentally in later times ; at the same time the foreign invasion (which lasts a thousand years) is of too permanent a character to allow of its having reference merely to the troublous times of Noéshirvan’s successor. Perhaps the most reasonable hypotheses that can be founded upon these facts are, first, that the original zand or commentary of the Bahman Yast was written and translated from the Avesta in the latter part of the reign of Khdsré Néshirvan, or very shortly afterwards, which would account for no later king being mentioned by name; and, secondly, that the epitome now extant was compiled by some writer who lived so long after the Arab invasion that the details of their inroad had become obscured by the more recent successes of Turanian rulers, such as the Ghaznavis and Salgfigqs of the eleventh and twelfth centuries. It is hardly possible that the epitomist could have lived as late as the time of Gingiz Khan, the great Mongol conqueror (A.D. 1206-1227), as that would bring him within 150 years of the date of the extant manuscript of his work, which has no appearance of being an immediate copy of the original ; but the rule of the Salgdqs would certainly have afforded him sufficient materials for his long description of the iron age. The Avesta of the Bahman Yast was probably compiled from older sources (like the rest of the Avesta) during a ee INTRODUCTION. lv the reigns of the earlier Sasanian monarchs; but it was, no doubt, very different in its details from the epitome of its commentary which still exists.
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.