Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1‘ Except Chaps. XXII, XXIII (see the note on the heading of Chap. XXII). - lxiv PAHLAVI TEXTS. The Nasks quoted are the Stdgar (Sls. X, 8), the Bagh (X, 26), the Damdad (X, 22), the Paz6n (IX, 9), the Ratistaitih (X, 29), the Kidrast (X, 28), the Spend (X, 4), the Nihaddm (X, 3, 22, 23), the Dibasrigéd (X, 13), the Hasparam (X, 21), and the Sakadim (X, 25), very few of which are mentioned even in the Pahlavi Vendidad. The second treatise mentions only one commentator, Vand-Agharmazd, but it quotes eight of the Nasks no longer extant; these are the Stddgar (Sls. XII, 32), the Damdad (XII, 5, 15), the Spend (XII, 3, 11, 15, 29), the Bag-yasné (XII, 17), the Nihaddm (XII, 15, 16), the Hdsp4ram (XII, 1, 7, 14, 31, XIII, 17), the Sakaddm (XII, 2, 10, 12, XIII, 30), and the Hadékht (XII, 19, 30, XIII, 6, 10). Of two of these Nasks, the Bagh and H4dékht, a few fragments may still survive (see notes on Sls. X, 26, Haug’s Essays, p. 134, B. Yt. III, 25), but those of the latter Nask do not appear to contain the passages quoted in the Shayast 14-shayast. With regard to the rest we only know that the Damdad, Hisp4ram, and Sakadim must have been still in existence about A.D. 881, as they are quoted in the writings of Zad-sparam and Mandséihar, sons of Yadén-Yim, who lived at that time (see pp. xlii, xlvi); and the Nih4adam and Hdsp4ram are also quoted in the Pahlavi Vendidad. It is true that the Dinkard gives copious information about the contents of all the Nasks, with two or three exceptions ; and the Dinkard seems to have assumed its present form about A.D. 900 (see Bund. X XXIII, 11, notes); but its last editor was evidently merely a compiler of old fragments, so there is no certainty that many of the Nasks actually existed in his time. Thus far, therefore, the internal evidence seems to prove that the two treatises called Shayast l4-shayast, which constitute the first two parts of the present translation, are more than a thousand years old. On the other hand, they cannot be more than three centuries older, because they frequently quote passages from the Pahlavi Vendidad which, as we have seen (p. xlvi, note 1), could not have assumed its present form before the time of Khasré Néshirvan (A.D. 531-579). As they contain no reference to any INTRODUCTION. Ixv
2xlvi, note 1), could not have assumed its present form before the time of Khasré Néshirvan (A.D. 531-579). As they contain no reference to any INTRODUCTION. Ixv interference of the governing powers with the religion or priesthood, it is probable that they were written before the Muhammadan conquest (A.D. 636-651), although they do not mention the existence of any ‘king of the kings,’ the usual title of the Sasanian monarchs. And this probability is increased by there being no direct mention of Muhammadanism among the contemporary religions named in Chap. VI, 7, unless we assume that passage to be a quotation from an earlier book. We may, therefore, conclude, with tolerable certainty, that the Pahlavi text of the first two parts of the present translation of the Shdyast 14shayast was compiled some time in the seventh century ; but, like the Bundahis and Bahman Yast, it was, for the most part, a compilation of extracts and translations from far older writings, and may also have been rearranged shortly after the Muhammadan conquest. The fragments which are collected in the appendix, or third part of the present translation, are probably of various ages, and several of them may not be more than seven centuries old. The commentator Bakht-afrid, whose work (now lost) is quoted in Chap. XX, 11, may have lived in the time of Khasré6 Néshirvan (see B. Yt. I, 7). And Chap. XXI must certainly have been written in Persia, as the lengths of noonday shadows which it mentions are only suitable for 32° north latitude. As regards the last two chapters we have no evidence that they are quite five centuries old. For the Pahlavi text of the Shayast 14-shayast and its appendix we have not only the very old codex M6 (see p. xxix) for the whole of it, but also the equally old codex K20 (see p. xxvii) for all but Chaps. XV-XVII, XX, XXII, and XXIII in the appendix. In M6 the first two parts are separated by twenty folios, containing the Farhang-i Oimkhaddk, and the second part is separated from the first three chapters of the appendix by four folios, containing the Patit-i Khad; the next three chapters of the appendix are from the latter end of the second volume of M6, Chap. X XI is from the middle of the same, and the last two chapters are from some additional folios at the beginning of the fs] e Ixvi PAHLAVI TEXTS. first volume. In K20 the first two parts are separated by ninety-two folios, containing the Farhang-i Oim-khadak, Bundahis, Bahman Yast, and several other Pahlavi and Avesta texts ; Chap. XVIII precedes the first part, Chap. XIX precedes the second part, and Chap. XXI is in an earlier part of the MS.
3In K20 the first two parts are separated by ninety-two folios, containing the Farhang-i Oim-khadak, Bundahis, Bahman Yast, and several other Pahlavi and Avesta texts ; Chap. XVIII precedes the first part, Chap. XIX precedes the second part, and Chap. XXI is in an earlier part of the MS. Derived from K20 are the two modern copies P7 and Kai (see p. xxviii). Derived from M6 are the modern copy of the first two parts in Mg (No. 9 of the Haug collection in the State Library at Munich), a copy of Chaps. XIV, XV in L15 (No. 15 of the collection of Avesta and Pahlavi MSS. in the India Office Library at London), a copy of Chap. XX, 4-17 in O121 (No. 121 of the Ouseley collection in the Bodleian Library at Oxford, see p. xxx), and a copy of Chap. XVIII in Dastar Jamdspji’s MS. of the Bundahis at Bombay. While an independent Pahlavi version of Chap. XXIII occurs in a very old codex in the library of the high-priest of the Parsis at Bombay, which version has been used for the text of the present translation, because that chapter is incomplete in M6, Pazand versions of some of the chapters, chiefly in the appendix, are to be found in some MSS,., but all derived apparently from M6. Thus, in the Pizand MSS. L7 and L22 (Nos. 7 and 22 in the India Office Library at London, see p. xxxi), written in Avesta characters, Chaps. XVIII, XX, XV follow the last chapter of the Bundahis, and Chap. XIV occurs a few folios further on. And in the Pazand MS. M7 (No. 7 of the Haug collection in the State Library at Munich), written in Persian characters, the following detached passages occur in a miscellaneous collection of extracts (fols. 126-133):—Chaps. XX, 14-16, X, 18, 19, IX, 9, 10, XX, 12, 13, 4, 5, VIII, 2, 4-14, XX, 11. A Persian version of Chap. XVIII also occurs in M5 (No. 5 of the same collection) on fol. 54. It does not appear that the Shayast 14-shayast has ever been hitherto translated into any European language ', nor 1 Except Chap. XVIII, which was translated into German by Justi, as the last chapter of his translation of the Bundahis (see p. xxvi). INTRODUCTION. Ixvii
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‘ Except Chaps. XXII, XXIII (see the note on the heading of Chap. XXII). - lxiv PAHLAVI TEXTS. The Nasks quoted are the Stdgar (Sls. X, 8), the Bagh (X, 26), the Damdad (X, 22), the Paz6n (IX, 9), the Ratistaitih (X, 29), the Kidrast (X, 28), the Spend (X, 4), the Nihaddm (X, 3, 22, 23), the Dibasrigéd (X, 13), the Hasparam (X, 21), and the Sakadim (X, 25), very few of which are mentioned even in the Pahlavi Vendidad. The second treatise mentions only one commentator, Vand-Agharmazd, but it quotes eight of the Nasks no longer extant; these are the Stddgar (Sls. XII, 32), the Damdad (XII, 5, 15), the Spend (XII, 3, 11, 15, 29), the Bag-yasné (XII, 17), the Nihaddm (XII, 15, 16), the Hdsp4ram (XII, 1, 7, 14, 31, XIII, 17), the Sakaddm (XII, 2, 10, 12, XIII, 30), and the Hadékht (XII, 19, 30, XIII, 6, 10). Of two of these Nasks, the Bagh and H4dékht, a few fragments may still survive (see notes on Sls. X, 26, Haug’s Essays, p. 134, B. Yt. III, 25), but those of the latter Nask do not appear to contain the passages quoted in the Shayast 14-shayast. With regard to the rest we only know that the Damdad, Hisp4ram, and Sakadim must have been still in existence about A.D. 881, as they are quoted in the writings of Zad-sparam and Mandséihar, sons of Yadén-Yim, who lived at that time (see pp. xlii, xlvi); and the Nih4adam and Hdsp4ram are also quoted in the Pahlavi Vendidad. It is true that the Dinkard gives copious information about the contents of all the Nasks, with two or three exceptions ; and the Dinkard seems to have assumed its present form about A.D. 900 (see Bund. X XXIII, 11, notes); but its last editor was evidently merely a compiler of old fragments, so there is no certainty that many of the Nasks actually existed in his time. Thus far, therefore, the internal evidence seems to prove that the two treatises called Shayast l4-shayast, which constitute the first two parts of the present translation, are more than a thousand years old. On the other hand, they cannot be more than three centuries older, because they frequently quote passages from the Pahlavi Vendidad which, as we have seen (p. xlvi, note 1), could not have assumed its present form before the time of Khasré Néshirvan (A.D. 531-579). As they contain no reference to any INTRODUCTION. Ixv
2xlvi, note 1), could not have assumed its present form before the time of Khasré Néshirvan (A.D. 531-579). As they contain no reference to any INTRODUCTION. Ixv interference of the governing powers with the religion or priesthood, it is probable that they were written before the Muhammadan conquest (A.D. 636-651), although they do not mention the existence of any ‘king of the kings,’ the usual title of the Sasanian monarchs. And this probability is increased by there being no direct mention of Muhammadanism among the contemporary religions named in Chap. VI, 7, unless we assume that passage to be a quotation from an earlier book. We may, therefore, conclude, with tolerable certainty, that the Pahlavi text of the first two parts of the present translation of the Shdyast 14shayast was compiled some time in the seventh century ; but, like the Bundahis and Bahman Yast, it was, for the most part, a compilation of extracts and translations from far older writings, and may also have been rearranged shortly after the Muhammadan conquest. The fragments which are collected in the appendix, or third part of the present translation, are probably of various ages, and several of them may not be more than seven centuries old. The commentator Bakht-afrid, whose work (now lost) is quoted in Chap. XX, 11, may have lived in the time of Khasré6 Néshirvan (see B. Yt. I, 7). And Chap. XXI must certainly have been written in Persia, as the lengths of noonday shadows which it mentions are only suitable for 32° north latitude. As regards the last two chapters we have no evidence that they are quite five centuries old. For the Pahlavi text of the Shayast 14-shayast and its appendix we have not only the very old codex M6 (see p. xxix) for the whole of it, but also the equally old codex K20 (see p. xxvii) for all but Chaps. XV-XVII, XX, XXII, and XXIII in the appendix. In M6 the first two parts are separated by twenty folios, containing the Farhang-i Oimkhaddk, and the second part is separated from the first three chapters of the appendix by four folios, containing the Patit-i Khad; the next three chapters of the appendix are from the latter end of the second volume of M6, Chap. X XI is from the middle of the same, and the last two chapters are from some additional folios at the beginning of the fs] e Ixvi PAHLAVI TEXTS. first volume. In K20 the first two parts are separated by ninety-two folios, containing the Farhang-i Oim-khadak, Bundahis, Bahman Yast, and several other Pahlavi and Avesta texts ; Chap. XVIII precedes the first part, Chap. XIX precedes the second part, and Chap. XXI is in an earlier part of the MS.
3In K20 the first two parts are separated by ninety-two folios, containing the Farhang-i Oim-khadak, Bundahis, Bahman Yast, and several other Pahlavi and Avesta texts ; Chap. XVIII precedes the first part, Chap. XIX precedes the second part, and Chap. XXI is in an earlier part of the MS. Derived from K20 are the two modern copies P7 and Kai (see p. xxviii). Derived from M6 are the modern copy of the first two parts in Mg (No. 9 of the Haug collection in the State Library at Munich), a copy of Chaps. XIV, XV in L15 (No. 15 of the collection of Avesta and Pahlavi MSS. in the India Office Library at London), a copy of Chap. XX, 4-17 in O121 (No. 121 of the Ouseley collection in the Bodleian Library at Oxford, see p. xxx), and a copy of Chap. XVIII in Dastar Jamdspji’s MS. of the Bundahis at Bombay. While an independent Pahlavi version of Chap. XXIII occurs in a very old codex in the library of the high-priest of the Parsis at Bombay, which version has been used for the text of the present translation, because that chapter is incomplete in M6, Pazand versions of some of the chapters, chiefly in the appendix, are to be found in some MSS,., but all derived apparently from M6. Thus, in the Pizand MSS. L7 and L22 (Nos. 7 and 22 in the India Office Library at London, see p. xxxi), written in Avesta characters, Chaps. XVIII, XX, XV follow the last chapter of the Bundahis, and Chap. XIV occurs a few folios further on. And in the Pazand MS. M7 (No. 7 of the Haug collection in the State Library at Munich), written in Persian characters, the following detached passages occur in a miscellaneous collection of extracts (fols. 126-133):—Chaps. XX, 14-16, X, 18, 19, IX, 9, 10, XX, 12, 13, 4, 5, VIII, 2, 4-14, XX, 11. A Persian version of Chap. XVIII also occurs in M5 (No. 5 of the same collection) on fol. 54. It does not appear that the Shayast 14-shayast has ever been hitherto translated into any European language ', nor 1 Except Chap. XVIII, which was translated into German by Justi, as the last chapter of his translation of the Bundahis (see p. xxvi). INTRODUCTION. Ixvii
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.