Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
17. The mother from whom I was born is Himéi, daughter of Freh-mah, who also was the righteous daughter ® ? This is probably a semi-Huzv4ris form of Frashéstar. * Perhaps this name should be read along with the next one, so as to give the single Pazand name Skinas or Skivas. * See Chap. XXXII, 1, for the last three generations, According to this genealogy Atarép4d-i M4raspendan was the twenty-third in descent from Manfiskihar, whereas his contemporary, Bahak (§ 1), was twenty-second in descent from the same. * No doubt M&nfséthar is meant; if not, we must read M&n(sdQrnamik in connection with § 5. ® Here written Nidar, but see Chaps. XXIX, 6, XXXI, 13. * Here written Mard-véh, but see § 8. ” Here written Aé-vikht, but see § 8; it may be Vis-bfkht, or Vés-bfikht. * The text is amfdar mfinas li agas zerkhfind Himéf dOkht-i Freh-m4h-if aharéb vikht (dQkht?). We might perhaps read ‘ Freh-mah son of Kah4réb-bfikht,’ but it seems more probable that §§ 7, 8 should be connected, and that the meaning intended is that Hamat was daughter of Freh-m4h (of a certain family) and of Pfyisn-sh&d (of another family); she was also the mother of the editor of that recension of the Bundahis which is contained in TD ; but who was his father? The singularly unnecessary repetition of the genealogy of the two brothers, Mitr6-ak4vid and Pfyisn-shad, in §§ 6, 8, leads to the suspicion that if the latter CHAPTER XXXIII, 4-11. 147 of M&ah-aydr soz of M&h-béndak, sox of M4h-bdkht. 8. Pfyisn-shad zs son of Mardan-véh, son of Afrébagvindad, son of Vindad-i-pédak, son of Vaé-bikht, son of Bahak, soz of V4é-bikht. = - g. All the other Mébads who have been renowned in the empire (khQdd4yth) were from the same family it is said, avd were of this race of M4nds- Athar'. 10. Those Médbads, likewise, who now exist are all from the same family they assert, and I, too, they boast, whom they call ? ‘the administration of perfect rectitude’ (Dadakth-i Ashévahisté)*. 11. Yid4n-Yim soz of Vahrim-shaa, son of Zaratist, Atar6-pid son of Maraspend, sox of Zad-sparham +, were his mother’s father, the former was probably his own father or grandfather. Unfortunately the text makes no clear statement on the subject, and § 10 affords further material for guessing otherwise at his name and connections. ' Compare Chap. XXXII, 4. * Reading va If& laband-i karftind.
2Unfortunately the text makes no clear statement on the subject, and § 10 affords further material for guessing otherwise at his name and connections. ' Compare Chap. XXXII, 4. * Reading va If& laband-i karftind. * This looks more like a complimentary title than a name, and if the editor of the TD recension of the Bundahis were the son or grandson of Mitré-ak4vid (§ 6) we have no means of ascertaining his name; but if he were not descended from Mitr6-ak4vid it is possible that §§ 10, rr should be read together, and that he was the son of Yidan-Yim. Now we know, from the heading and colophon of the ninety-two questions and answers on religious subjects which are usually called the D&distan-i Dinik, and from the colophons of other writings which usually accompany that work, that those answers were composed and certain epistles were written by M4nfséihar, son of Yfid4n-Yim, who was high-priest of Pars and Kirmfn in a.y. 2g0 (a.p. 881), and apparently a more important personage than his (probably younger) brother Z&dsparham, who is mentioned in § 11 as one of the priests contemporary with the editor of the TD recension. If this editor, therefore, were a son of Yfidaén-Yim (which is a possible interpretation of the text) he was most probably this same M4n(séthar, author of the D&gistén-i Dinik (see the Introduction, § 4). * The last name is very probably superfluous, Zad-sparham L2 148 BUNDAHIS. Zad-sparham son of Yod4n-Yim', Ataré-pdd son of Hamtid?, Ashévahist son of Freh-Srésh, and the other Mébads have sprung from the same family. 12. This, too, it says, that ‘in one winter I wed/ locate (g4kinam) the religion of the Mazdayasnians, which came out into the other six regions.’] having been written twice most likely by mistake. This Atar6-pid son of M4raspend was probably the one mentioned in the following extract from the old Persian Rivayat MS., No. 8 of the collection in the Indian Office Library at London (fol. 142 a) :-— ‘The book Dinkard which the dastfirs of the religion and the ancients have compiled, likewise the blessed Adarb4d son of Mahrasfend, son of Asavahist of the people of the good religion, in the year three hundred of Yazdagard Shahry4r, collected some of the more essential mysteries of the religion as instruction, and of these he formed this book.’ That is, he was the last editor of the Dinkard, which seems to have remained unrevised since his time, as the present copies have descended from the MS. preserved by his family and first copied in a.y. 369. 1 ZAd-sparham was brother of the author of the DAdistan-i Dintk ; he was high-priest at Sirkin in the south, and evidently had access to the Bundahis, of part of which he wrote a paraphrase (see Appendix). His name is usually written Zad-sparam. 2 In the history of the Dinkard, given at the end of its third book (see Introd. to Farhang-i Oim-khad@k, p. xxxiv), we are told as follows :— -
3His name is usually written Zad-sparam. 2 In the history of the Dinkard, given at the end of its third book (see Introd. to Farhang-i Oim-khad@k, p. xxxiv), we are told as follows :— - ‘After that, the well-meaning Atard-pad son of Hémid, who was the leader of the people of the good religion, compiled, with the assistance of God, through inquiry, investigation, and much trouble, a new means of producing remembrance of the Mazdayasnian religion.’ He did this, we are further told, by collecting all the decaying literature and perishing traditions into a work ‘like the great original Dinkard, of a thousand chapters’ (m4nak-i zak raba bin Diné-kart6 1000-darak6). We thus learn from external sources that the group of contemporary priests, mentioned in the text, was actively employed (about a.p. goo) in an attempted revival. of the religious literature of the Mazdayasnians, to which we owe either the revision or compilation of such works as the Dfnkard, D&distan-i Dintk, and Bundahis. CHAPTER XXXIII, 12—XXXIV, 4. 149 CHAPTER XXXIV} o. On the reckoning of the years ?. 1. Time was for twelve thousand years; and it says in revelation, that three thousand years was the duration of the spiritual s¢a¢e, where the creatures were unthinking, unmoving, azd intangible®; and three thousand years‘ was the duration of Gdyémard, with the ox, in the world. 2. As ¢4zs was six thousand years the series of millennium reigns® of Cancer, Leo, and Virgo had elapsed, because it was six thousand years when the millennium reign came to Libra, the adversary rushed in, and GAayémard lived thirty years in tribulation®. 3. After the thirty years’? MAshya and MAshyéi grew up; it was fifty years while they were not wife avd husband °, and they were ninety-three years together as wife and husband till the 4¢me when Héshyang® came. 4. Héshyang was forty years’, Takhmérup" thirty years, Yim till 42s glory!? departed six hundred and 1 This chapter is found in all the MSS. * TD adds ‘of the Arabs (Tazik4n).’ 5 See Chap. I, 8. ‘ See Chaps. I, 22, III, 1. ® This system of a millennium reign for each constellation of the zodiac can hardly have any connection with the precession of the equinoxes, as the equinoxes travel backwards through the zodiac, whereas these millennium reigns travel forwards. 6 See Chap. III, 21-23. 7 That is, forty years after the thirty (see Chap. XV, 2). ® See Chap. XV, 19, 20. ® See Chaps. XV, 28, XXXI, 1. 10 K20 omits, by mistake, from ‘together’ in § 3 to this point. " See Chap. XXXI, 2. % So in K2o, but M6 has nismé, ‘soul, reason,’ as in Chap. XXIII, 1; the word ‘glory’ would refer to the supposed divine glory of the Iranian monarchs (see Chap. XXXI, 32). 150 BUNDAHIS.
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.
17. The mother from whom I was born is Himéi, daughter of Freh-mah, who also was the righteous daughter ® ? This is probably a semi-Huzv4ris form of Frashéstar. * Perhaps this name should be read along with the next one, so as to give the single Pazand name Skinas or Skivas. * See Chap. XXXII, 1, for the last three generations, According to this genealogy Atarép4d-i M4raspendan was the twenty-third in descent from Manfiskihar, whereas his contemporary, Bahak (§ 1), was twenty-second in descent from the same. * No doubt M&nfséthar is meant; if not, we must read M&n(sdQrnamik in connection with § 5. ® Here written Nidar, but see Chaps. XXIX, 6, XXXI, 13. * Here written Mard-véh, but see § 8. ” Here written Aé-vikht, but see § 8; it may be Vis-bfkht, or Vés-bfikht. * The text is amfdar mfinas li agas zerkhfind Himéf dOkht-i Freh-m4h-if aharéb vikht (dQkht?). We might perhaps read ‘ Freh-mah son of Kah4réb-bfikht,’ but it seems more probable that §§ 7, 8 should be connected, and that the meaning intended is that Hamat was daughter of Freh-m4h (of a certain family) and of Pfyisn-sh&d (of another family); she was also the mother of the editor of that recension of the Bundahis which is contained in TD ; but who was his father? The singularly unnecessary repetition of the genealogy of the two brothers, Mitr6-ak4vid and Pfyisn-shad, in §§ 6, 8, leads to the suspicion that if the latter CHAPTER XXXIII, 4-11. 147 of M&ah-aydr soz of M&h-béndak, sox of M4h-bdkht. 8. Pfyisn-shad zs son of Mardan-véh, son of Afrébagvindad, son of Vindad-i-pédak, son of Vaé-bikht, son of Bahak, soz of V4é-bikht. = - g. All the other Mébads who have been renowned in the empire (khQdd4yth) were from the same family it is said, avd were of this race of M4nds- Athar'. 10. Those Médbads, likewise, who now exist are all from the same family they assert, and I, too, they boast, whom they call ? ‘the administration of perfect rectitude’ (Dadakth-i Ashévahisté)*. 11. Yid4n-Yim soz of Vahrim-shaa, son of Zaratist, Atar6-pid son of Maraspend, sox of Zad-sparham +, were his mother’s father, the former was probably his own father or grandfather. Unfortunately the text makes no clear statement on the subject, and § 10 affords further material for guessing otherwise at his name and connections. ' Compare Chap. XXXII, 4. * Reading va If& laband-i karftind.
2Unfortunately the text makes no clear statement on the subject, and § 10 affords further material for guessing otherwise at his name and connections. ' Compare Chap. XXXII, 4. * Reading va If& laband-i karftind. * This looks more like a complimentary title than a name, and if the editor of the TD recension of the Bundahis were the son or grandson of Mitré-ak4vid (§ 6) we have no means of ascertaining his name; but if he were not descended from Mitr6-ak4vid it is possible that §§ 10, rr should be read together, and that he was the son of Yidan-Yim. Now we know, from the heading and colophon of the ninety-two questions and answers on religious subjects which are usually called the D&distan-i Dinik, and from the colophons of other writings which usually accompany that work, that those answers were composed and certain epistles were written by M4nfséihar, son of Yfid4n-Yim, who was high-priest of Pars and Kirmfn in a.y. 2g0 (a.p. 881), and apparently a more important personage than his (probably younger) brother Z&dsparham, who is mentioned in § 11 as one of the priests contemporary with the editor of the TD recension. If this editor, therefore, were a son of Yfidaén-Yim (which is a possible interpretation of the text) he was most probably this same M4n(séthar, author of the D&gistén-i Dinik (see the Introduction, § 4). * The last name is very probably superfluous, Zad-sparham L2 148 BUNDAHIS. Zad-sparham son of Yod4n-Yim', Ataré-pdd son of Hamtid?, Ashévahist son of Freh-Srésh, and the other Mébads have sprung from the same family. 12. This, too, it says, that ‘in one winter I wed/ locate (g4kinam) the religion of the Mazdayasnians, which came out into the other six regions.’] having been written twice most likely by mistake. This Atar6-pid son of M4raspend was probably the one mentioned in the following extract from the old Persian Rivayat MS., No. 8 of the collection in the Indian Office Library at London (fol. 142 a) :-— ‘The book Dinkard which the dastfirs of the religion and the ancients have compiled, likewise the blessed Adarb4d son of Mahrasfend, son of Asavahist of the people of the good religion, in the year three hundred of Yazdagard Shahry4r, collected some of the more essential mysteries of the religion as instruction, and of these he formed this book.’ That is, he was the last editor of the Dinkard, which seems to have remained unrevised since his time, as the present copies have descended from the MS. preserved by his family and first copied in a.y. 369. 1 ZAd-sparham was brother of the author of the DAdistan-i Dintk ; he was high-priest at Sirkin in the south, and evidently had access to the Bundahis, of part of which he wrote a paraphrase (see Appendix). His name is usually written Zad-sparam. 2 In the history of the Dinkard, given at the end of its third book (see Introd. to Farhang-i Oim-khad@k, p. xxxiv), we are told as follows :— -
3His name is usually written Zad-sparam. 2 In the history of the Dinkard, given at the end of its third book (see Introd. to Farhang-i Oim-khad@k, p. xxxiv), we are told as follows :— - ‘After that, the well-meaning Atard-pad son of Hémid, who was the leader of the people of the good religion, compiled, with the assistance of God, through inquiry, investigation, and much trouble, a new means of producing remembrance of the Mazdayasnian religion.’ He did this, we are further told, by collecting all the decaying literature and perishing traditions into a work ‘like the great original Dinkard, of a thousand chapters’ (m4nak-i zak raba bin Diné-kart6 1000-darak6). We thus learn from external sources that the group of contemporary priests, mentioned in the text, was actively employed (about a.p. goo) in an attempted revival. of the religious literature of the Mazdayasnians, to which we owe either the revision or compilation of such works as the Dfnkard, D&distan-i Dintk, and Bundahis. CHAPTER XXXIII, 12—XXXIV, 4. 149 CHAPTER XXXIV} o. On the reckoning of the years ?. 1. Time was for twelve thousand years; and it says in revelation, that three thousand years was the duration of the spiritual s¢a¢e, where the creatures were unthinking, unmoving, azd intangible®; and three thousand years‘ was the duration of Gdyémard, with the ox, in the world. 2. As ¢4zs was six thousand years the series of millennium reigns® of Cancer, Leo, and Virgo had elapsed, because it was six thousand years when the millennium reign came to Libra, the adversary rushed in, and GAayémard lived thirty years in tribulation®. 3. After the thirty years’? MAshya and MAshyéi grew up; it was fifty years while they were not wife avd husband °, and they were ninety-three years together as wife and husband till the 4¢me when Héshyang® came. 4. Héshyang was forty years’, Takhmérup" thirty years, Yim till 42s glory!? departed six hundred and 1 This chapter is found in all the MSS. * TD adds ‘of the Arabs (Tazik4n).’ 5 See Chap. I, 8. ‘ See Chaps. I, 22, III, 1. ® This system of a millennium reign for each constellation of the zodiac can hardly have any connection with the precession of the equinoxes, as the equinoxes travel backwards through the zodiac, whereas these millennium reigns travel forwards. 6 See Chap. III, 21-23. 7 That is, forty years after the thirty (see Chap. XV, 2). ® See Chap. XV, 19, 20. ® See Chaps. XV, 28, XXXI, 1. 10 K20 omits, by mistake, from ‘together’ in § 3 to this point. " See Chap. XXXI, 2. % So in K2o, but M6 has nismé, ‘soul, reason,’ as in Chap. XXIII, 1; the word ‘glory’ would refer to the supposed divine glory of the Iranian monarchs (see Chap. XXXI, 32). 150 BUNDAHIS.
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.