Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1The 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. These hypotheses, regarding the threefold origin of the present form of this Yast, derive some confirmation from the inconsistencies in its chronological details ; especially those relating to the periods of the invaders’ reign and of Hishédar’s birth. The Zoroastrians have for ages been expecting the appearance of Hdshédar, the first of their last three apostles, but have always had to postpone their expectations from time to time, like the Jews and other interpreters of prophecy; so that they are still looking forward into the future for his advent, although his millennium has long since expired according to the chronology adopted in the Bahman Yast. This chronology, of course, represents the expectations of Zoroastrians in past times, and seems to express three different opinions, First, we have the statement that the last great battle of the demonraces is to take place at the end of Zaratdst’s millennium (see Chap. III, 9), when the wicked will be so destroyed (compare III, 22, 23) that none will pass into the next millennium (III, 11), which is that of Hdshédar (III, 43). And that the reign of evil is to precede the end of Zaratist’s millennium is evidently assumed also in Chap. II, 41, 63. Such opinions may reasonably be traced to the original Avesta writer, who must have expected only a short reign of evil to arise and fall near the latter end of Zaratist’s millennium, which was still far in the future, and to be followed by the appearance of Hashédar to restore the ‘good’ religion. Secondly, we are told (I, 5, II, 22, 24, 31) that the invasion of the demon-races, with its attendant evils, is to take place when Zaratist’s millennium is ended ; on their appearance Hashédar is born (III, 13), and when he is thirty years old (compare III, 14 with III, 44) Vahram the Vargavand is also born, who at the age of thirty (III, 17) advances into Iran with an innumerable army to destroy the invaders. Such statements may be attributed to the original Pahlavi translator and commentator who, writing about A.D. 570-590, would have before his eyes the disastrous \vi PAHLAVI TEXTS.
2Such statements may be attributed to the original Pahlavi translator and commentator who, writing about A.D. 570-590, would have before his eyes the disastrous \vi PAHLAVI TEXTS. reign of Adharmazd IV, the son and successor of Khasré Néshirvan, together with the prowess of the famous Persian general Bahram XK 6pin, which drove out all invaders. This writer evidently expected the reign of the demon-races to last less than a century, but still at some period in the near future; merely illustrating his theme by details of the disasters and wars of his own time. Thirdly, we find it stated (III, 44) that Hashédar will be born in 1600, which seems to mean the sixteen hundredth year of Zaratdst’s millennium, or six hundredth of his own (say A.D. 1193- 1235), also that the reign of the demon-races is to last a thousand years (III, 34), and that Péshyétand does not come to restore the religion till near the end of the millennium (III, 51); it also appears (III, 49) that Vargavand occupies a prominent position when Hashédar comes from his conference with Atharmazd at thirty years of age (III, 44, 45). Such details were probably inserted by the compiler of the epitome, who had to admit the facts that the reign of the demon-races had already lasted for centuries, and that Hfshédar had not yet appeared. To get over these difficulties he probably adopted the opinions current in his day, and postponed the advent of Hdshédar till the beginning of the next century in his millennium, and put off the destruction of the wicked, as a more hopeless matter, till near the end of the millennium. Both these periods are now long since past, and the present Zoroastrians have still to postpone the fulfilment of the prophecies connected with their last three apostles, or else to understand them in a less literal fashion than heretofore. For the Pahlavi text of the Bahman Yast the translator has to rely upon the single old manuscript K20, already described (p. xxvii), in which it occupies the 134 folios immediately following the Bundahis ; these folios are much worn, and a few words have been torn off some of them, but nearly all of these missing words can be restored by aid of the Pazand version. The Pahlavi text is also found in the modern copies of K20 at Paris and Kopenhagen, but these copies (P7 and K21) have no authority independent of K20. In India this text has long been exceedingly rare, INTRODUCTION. Ivii and whether any copy of it exists, independent of K20, is doubtful.
3The Pahlavi text is also found in the modern copies of K20 at Paris and Kopenhagen, but these copies (P7 and K21) have no authority independent of K20. In India this text has long been exceedingly rare, INTRODUCTION. Ivii and whether any copy of it exists, independent of K20, is doubtful. The Pazand version is more common in Parsi libraries, but contains a very imperfect text. Of this version two modern copies have been consulted; one of these occupies fols. 38-62 of a small manuscript, No. 22 of the Haug collection in the State Library at Munich ; the other is a copy of a manuscript in the library of the high-priest of the Parsis in Bombay. Both these MSS. are evidently descended from the same original, which must have been a very imperfect transliteration of a Pahlavi text closely resembling that of K20, but yet independent of that MS., as a few words omitted in K20 are supplied by these Pazand MSS. (see B.Yt. II, 13, 14, 22, &c.) To a certain extent, therefore, these Pazand MSS. are of some assistance in settling the text of a few sentences, but the greater part of their contents is so imperfect as to be utterly unintelligible; they not only omit Chaps. I, 1-8, IT, 17, 30-32, 40, III, 9, 12, 17— 44, 58-63 entirely, but also words and phrases from nearly every other section of the text. Adhering scrupulously to the Pahlavi original for a few consecutive words, and then widely departing from it by misreading or omitting all difficult words and passages, this Pazand version is a complete contrast to the Pazand writings of Néryésang, being of little use to the reader beyond showing the extremely low ebb to which Pahlavi learning must have fallen, among the Parsis, before such unintelligible writings could have been accepted as Pazand texts. There is also a Persian version of the Bahman Yast, a copy of which, written A. D. 1676, is contained in a large Rivayat MS. No. 29, belonging to the University Library at Bombay. According to the colophon of this Persian version it was composed in A.D. 1496 by Rustam Isfendiyar of Yazd, from an Avesta (Pazand) MS. belonging to his brother Jamshéd. This Persian version contains less than three per cent of Arabic words, and is more of a paraphrase than a translation, but it adheres very closely to the meaning of the Pahlavi text from Chaps. I, 1 to III, 9, where a dislocation occurs, evidently owing either to the displacement \viii PAHLAVI TEXTS. of two folios in an older MS., or to the second page of a folio being copied before the first, so that §§ 10-14 follow §§ 15-22. From the middle of § 22 the folios of the older MS. seem to have been lost as far as the end of Hashédar’s millennium (§ 51), to which point the Persian version leaps, but the remainder of this paraphrase is much more diffuse than the Bahman Yast, and is evidently derived from some other Pahlavi work.
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.
1The 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. These hypotheses, regarding the threefold origin of the present form of this Yast, derive some confirmation from the inconsistencies in its chronological details ; especially those relating to the periods of the invaders’ reign and of Hishédar’s birth. The Zoroastrians have for ages been expecting the appearance of Hdshédar, the first of their last three apostles, but have always had to postpone their expectations from time to time, like the Jews and other interpreters of prophecy; so that they are still looking forward into the future for his advent, although his millennium has long since expired according to the chronology adopted in the Bahman Yast. This chronology, of course, represents the expectations of Zoroastrians in past times, and seems to express three different opinions, First, we have the statement that the last great battle of the demonraces is to take place at the end of Zaratdst’s millennium (see Chap. III, 9), when the wicked will be so destroyed (compare III, 22, 23) that none will pass into the next millennium (III, 11), which is that of Hdshédar (III, 43). And that the reign of evil is to precede the end of Zaratist’s millennium is evidently assumed also in Chap. II, 41, 63. Such opinions may reasonably be traced to the original Avesta writer, who must have expected only a short reign of evil to arise and fall near the latter end of Zaratist’s millennium, which was still far in the future, and to be followed by the appearance of Hashédar to restore the ‘good’ religion. Secondly, we are told (I, 5, II, 22, 24, 31) that the invasion of the demon-races, with its attendant evils, is to take place when Zaratist’s millennium is ended ; on their appearance Hashédar is born (III, 13), and when he is thirty years old (compare III, 14 with III, 44) Vahram the Vargavand is also born, who at the age of thirty (III, 17) advances into Iran with an innumerable army to destroy the invaders. Such statements may be attributed to the original Pahlavi translator and commentator who, writing about A.D. 570-590, would have before his eyes the disastrous \vi PAHLAVI TEXTS.
2Such statements may be attributed to the original Pahlavi translator and commentator who, writing about A.D. 570-590, would have before his eyes the disastrous \vi PAHLAVI TEXTS. reign of Adharmazd IV, the son and successor of Khasré Néshirvan, together with the prowess of the famous Persian general Bahram XK 6pin, which drove out all invaders. This writer evidently expected the reign of the demon-races to last less than a century, but still at some period in the near future; merely illustrating his theme by details of the disasters and wars of his own time. Thirdly, we find it stated (III, 44) that Hashédar will be born in 1600, which seems to mean the sixteen hundredth year of Zaratdst’s millennium, or six hundredth of his own (say A.D. 1193- 1235), also that the reign of the demon-races is to last a thousand years (III, 34), and that Péshyétand does not come to restore the religion till near the end of the millennium (III, 51); it also appears (III, 49) that Vargavand occupies a prominent position when Hashédar comes from his conference with Atharmazd at thirty years of age (III, 44, 45). Such details were probably inserted by the compiler of the epitome, who had to admit the facts that the reign of the demon-races had already lasted for centuries, and that Hfshédar had not yet appeared. To get over these difficulties he probably adopted the opinions current in his day, and postponed the advent of Hdshédar till the beginning of the next century in his millennium, and put off the destruction of the wicked, as a more hopeless matter, till near the end of the millennium. Both these periods are now long since past, and the present Zoroastrians have still to postpone the fulfilment of the prophecies connected with their last three apostles, or else to understand them in a less literal fashion than heretofore. For the Pahlavi text of the Bahman Yast the translator has to rely upon the single old manuscript K20, already described (p. xxvii), in which it occupies the 134 folios immediately following the Bundahis ; these folios are much worn, and a few words have been torn off some of them, but nearly all of these missing words can be restored by aid of the Pazand version. The Pahlavi text is also found in the modern copies of K20 at Paris and Kopenhagen, but these copies (P7 and K21) have no authority independent of K20. In India this text has long been exceedingly rare, INTRODUCTION. Ivii and whether any copy of it exists, independent of K20, is doubtful.
3The Pahlavi text is also found in the modern copies of K20 at Paris and Kopenhagen, but these copies (P7 and K21) have no authority independent of K20. In India this text has long been exceedingly rare, INTRODUCTION. Ivii and whether any copy of it exists, independent of K20, is doubtful. The Pazand version is more common in Parsi libraries, but contains a very imperfect text. Of this version two modern copies have been consulted; one of these occupies fols. 38-62 of a small manuscript, No. 22 of the Haug collection in the State Library at Munich ; the other is a copy of a manuscript in the library of the high-priest of the Parsis in Bombay. Both these MSS. are evidently descended from the same original, which must have been a very imperfect transliteration of a Pahlavi text closely resembling that of K20, but yet independent of that MS., as a few words omitted in K20 are supplied by these Pazand MSS. (see B.Yt. II, 13, 14, 22, &c.) To a certain extent, therefore, these Pazand MSS. are of some assistance in settling the text of a few sentences, but the greater part of their contents is so imperfect as to be utterly unintelligible; they not only omit Chaps. I, 1-8, IT, 17, 30-32, 40, III, 9, 12, 17— 44, 58-63 entirely, but also words and phrases from nearly every other section of the text. Adhering scrupulously to the Pahlavi original for a few consecutive words, and then widely departing from it by misreading or omitting all difficult words and passages, this Pazand version is a complete contrast to the Pazand writings of Néryésang, being of little use to the reader beyond showing the extremely low ebb to which Pahlavi learning must have fallen, among the Parsis, before such unintelligible writings could have been accepted as Pazand texts. There is also a Persian version of the Bahman Yast, a copy of which, written A. D. 1676, is contained in a large Rivayat MS. No. 29, belonging to the University Library at Bombay. According to the colophon of this Persian version it was composed in A.D. 1496 by Rustam Isfendiyar of Yazd, from an Avesta (Pazand) MS. belonging to his brother Jamshéd. This Persian version contains less than three per cent of Arabic words, and is more of a paraphrase than a translation, but it adheres very closely to the meaning of the Pahlavi text from Chaps. I, 1 to III, 9, where a dislocation occurs, evidently owing either to the displacement \viii PAHLAVI TEXTS. of two folios in an older MS., or to the second page of a folio being copied before the first, so that §§ 10-14 follow §§ 15-22. From the middle of § 22 the folios of the older MS. seem to have been lost as far as the end of Hashédar’s millennium (§ 51), to which point the Persian version leaps, but the remainder of this paraphrase is much more diffuse than the Bahman Yast, and is evidently derived from some other Pahlavi work.
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.