Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1from which it is descended, had lost many of its central folios before it was copied, and that the copyist did not notice the deficiency ; such unnoticed omissions frequently occur in Pahlavi manuscripts. M6 is the very old codex brought to Europe by Haug in 1866, and now No. 6 of the Haug collection in the State Library at Munich. It consists of 240 folios of very old, but well-preserved, Indian paper of large octavo size (to which thirteen others, of rather later date, have been prefixed) bound in two volumes. This MS. contains nineteen Pahlavi texts, written from seventeen to twenty-two lines to the page, and some of them accompanied by Avesta; eleven of these texts are also found in K20, and the Bundahis is the fourteenth of the nineteen, occupying fols. 53-99 of the second volume. Two of the other texts have dated colophons, the dates being fifty days apart in A. Y. 766 (A.D. 1397), and as there are 150 folios between the two dates there is every probability that they are the actual dates on which the two colophons were written. The arrangement of the Bundahis in this MS. is different from that in K20, giving the chapters in the following order :—Chaps. XV-XXIII, I-XIV, XXIV-XXVII, XXX, XXXII, XXXIV, and omitting Chaps. XXVIII, XXFX, and XXXI. These omissions and the misplacement of Chaps. I-XIV render it probable that the MS., from which the Bundahis in M6 was copied, was already in a state of decay; and this supposition is confirmed by upwards of fifty peculiar mistakes, scattered over most parts of the XXX PAHLAVI TEXTS. text in M6, which are evidently due to the illegibility of the original from which it was copied, or to its illegible words having been touched up by an ignorant writer, instances of which are not uncommon in old Pahlavi MSS. Eliminating these errors, for which the writer of M6 cannot be held responsible, he seems to have been a more careful copyist than the writer of K20, and supplies several words and phrases omitted by the latter. The close correspondence of K20 and M6 in most other places, renders it probable that they were copied from the same original, in which case K20 must have been written several years earlier than M6, before the original MS. became decayed and difficult to read. It is possible, however, that K20 was copied from an early copy of the original of M6; in which case the date of K2o0 is more uncertain, and may even be later than that of M6.
2became decayed and difficult to read. It is possible, however, that K20 was copied from an early copy of the original of M6; in which case the date of K2o0 is more uncertain, and may even be later than that of M6. Several MSS. of the Bundahis descended from M6 are in existence. One is in the MS. No, 121 of the Ouseley collection in the Bodleian Library at Oxford, and contains the chapters in the following order :—Chaps. XV-XXIII, I-VII,17 (to ‘ Arag river’), XII-XIV, XXIV-XXVII, XXX, VII, 12~XI; followed by Sls. Chap. XX, 4-17, also derived from M6. Another is in the library of DastOr JamAspji Minochiharji at Bombay, and contains the chapters also in a dislocated state (due to the misplacement of folios in some former MS.) as follows :—Chaps. XV-XXIII, I-XI, 5 (to ‘and the evil spirit’), XII, 2 (from ‘ Si#idav’)-XII, 12 (first word), XI, 5 (from ‘produced most for Khvaniras’)—XII, 2 (to ‘and Kéndras, Mount’), XXX, 32 (from ‘the renovation arises in’)}-XXX, 33, XXXII, XXXIV, Sls. Chap. XVIII, Bund. Chaps. XII, 12 (from ‘ Airak’)-XIV, XXIV-XXVII, XXX. A third is in the library of Dastr NéshirvAnji JamAspji at Poona, and contains the text in the same order as M6. A fragment of the Pahlavi text of the Bundahis, also descended from M6, occupies eight folios in the Additional Oriental MS. No. 22,378 in the Library of the British Museum ; it contains Chaps. XVIII, XIX, 17, and XX, 1-2 (to ‘one from the other’). There are also several PAzand manuscripts of the Bun- INTRODUCTION. XXXi dahis, written in Avesta characters, and likewise derived from M6. One of the best of these is No. 22 of the collection of Avesta and Pahlavi MSS. in the India Office Library at London ; it is old, and has the date a.Y. 936 (A.D. 1567) in a Pahlavi colophon on fol. 111, but this may have been copied from an older MS.; its contents are arranged as follows :—Chaps. XVIII-XXIII, I-XIV, XXIV-XXVII, XXX, XXXII, XXXIV, followed by several short Pazand texts, only part of which are derived from M6, and the last of them being left incomplete by the loss of the folios which originally formed the end of the volume; instead of these lost folios others, containing Chaps. XV-XVII, have been added and bound up with the rest. Another MS., No. 7 in the same collection, which is dated A.Y. 1174 (A.D. 1805), is a modern copy derived from No. 22 through one or more intervening MSS.}; it contains precisely the same text, but with many variations in orthography, indicative of the very uncertain character of Pazand spelling. Two fragments of the P4zand text are also contained in the MSS. No. 121 at Oxford, already mentioned ; they consist of Chaps. V, 3-7 (to ‘would have known the secret’) and XXV, 18-22. Another fragment, evidently copied from an old MS., is found on fols. 34, 35 of the Rivayat MS. No. 8 of the collection in the India Office Library ; it consists of Chap. XVIII, 1-8.
3121 at Oxford, already mentioned ; they consist of Chaps. V, 3-7 (to ‘would have known the secret’) and XXV, 18-22. Another fragment, evidently copied from an old MS., is found on fols. 34, 35 of the Rivayat MS. No. 8 of the collection in the India Office Library ; it consists of Chap. XVIII, 1-8. The Pazand text of the Bundahis, derived from M6, is also written in Persian characters in M7 (No. 7 of the Haug collection at Munich), dated A.y. 1178 (A.D. 1809). It is interlined by Persian glosses, word for word, and consists of Chaps. XVIII-XXIII, I-XIV, XXIV-XXVII, and XXX on fols. 81-119, with Chaps. XV-XVII on fols. 120- 126, a repetition of Chap. XV and part of XVI on fols. 223-227, and Chap. XXXII on fol. 232. Thus far, it will be noticed, we have two good independent authorities, K20 and M6, for ascertaining the text of the Bundahis in the fourteenth century, so far as Chaps. I- ' This is proved by an omission in fol. 40, which clearly indicates the loss of a folio in an intermediate MS. XXXil PAHLAVI TEXTS, XXVII, XXX, XXXII, and XXXIV are concerned ; and we have also, in K20b, a second authority for so much of Chap. XXXI as occurs in K20; but for Chaps. XXVIII and XXIX we have nothing but K20 to rely on, and part of Chap. XXVIII is lost in that manuscript. Such was the _ unsatisfactory state of that part of the text until Dec. 1877, when information about the MS. TD was received, followed by further details and a copy of Chaps. XXVIII, XXIX, and XXXI-XXXIII in Oct. 18781. TD is a manuscript of the Bundahis which contains a much more extensive text than the MSS. already described, but whether it be an extension of the hitherto-received text, or the received text be an abridgement of this longer one, is likely to be a matter of dispute among Pahlavi scholars until the whole of the new text has been thoroughly examined. At any rate, the contents of this MS., combined with those of some MSS. of the Dadistan-i Dinik, afford a means of fixing the date of this recension of the Bundahis, as will be seen hereafter. This MS. belongs to a young Mobad named Tehmuras Dinshawji Anklesaria in Bombay, and was brought from Persia a few years ago by a Mobad named Khodabakhsh Farod Abadan. It occupies the first 103 folios of the volume containing it, and is followed by 112 more folios containing the Nirangistan. The first original folio, which contained the text as far as Chap. I, 5 (to ‘ endless light’), has been lost and replaced by another (which, however, is now old) containing some introductory sentences, besides the missing text. The last original folio of the Bundahis, containing the last five lines of the last chapter, has also been lost and replaced by another modern folio, which contains the missing text followed by two colophons, both expressing approval of the text, and asserting that the MS. was written by Gépatshah Rastam Béndar. The first of these colophons
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.
1from which it is descended, had lost many of its central folios before it was copied, and that the copyist did not notice the deficiency ; such unnoticed omissions frequently occur in Pahlavi manuscripts. M6 is the very old codex brought to Europe by Haug in 1866, and now No. 6 of the Haug collection in the State Library at Munich. It consists of 240 folios of very old, but well-preserved, Indian paper of large octavo size (to which thirteen others, of rather later date, have been prefixed) bound in two volumes. This MS. contains nineteen Pahlavi texts, written from seventeen to twenty-two lines to the page, and some of them accompanied by Avesta; eleven of these texts are also found in K20, and the Bundahis is the fourteenth of the nineteen, occupying fols. 53-99 of the second volume. Two of the other texts have dated colophons, the dates being fifty days apart in A. Y. 766 (A.D. 1397), and as there are 150 folios between the two dates there is every probability that they are the actual dates on which the two colophons were written. The arrangement of the Bundahis in this MS. is different from that in K20, giving the chapters in the following order :—Chaps. XV-XXIII, I-XIV, XXIV-XXVII, XXX, XXXII, XXXIV, and omitting Chaps. XXVIII, XXFX, and XXXI. These omissions and the misplacement of Chaps. I-XIV render it probable that the MS., from which the Bundahis in M6 was copied, was already in a state of decay; and this supposition is confirmed by upwards of fifty peculiar mistakes, scattered over most parts of the XXX PAHLAVI TEXTS. text in M6, which are evidently due to the illegibility of the original from which it was copied, or to its illegible words having been touched up by an ignorant writer, instances of which are not uncommon in old Pahlavi MSS. Eliminating these errors, for which the writer of M6 cannot be held responsible, he seems to have been a more careful copyist than the writer of K20, and supplies several words and phrases omitted by the latter. The close correspondence of K20 and M6 in most other places, renders it probable that they were copied from the same original, in which case K20 must have been written several years earlier than M6, before the original MS. became decayed and difficult to read. It is possible, however, that K20 was copied from an early copy of the original of M6; in which case the date of K2o0 is more uncertain, and may even be later than that of M6.
2became decayed and difficult to read. It is possible, however, that K20 was copied from an early copy of the original of M6; in which case the date of K2o0 is more uncertain, and may even be later than that of M6. Several MSS. of the Bundahis descended from M6 are in existence. One is in the MS. No, 121 of the Ouseley collection in the Bodleian Library at Oxford, and contains the chapters in the following order :—Chaps. XV-XXIII, I-VII,17 (to ‘ Arag river’), XII-XIV, XXIV-XXVII, XXX, VII, 12~XI; followed by Sls. Chap. XX, 4-17, also derived from M6. Another is in the library of DastOr JamAspji Minochiharji at Bombay, and contains the chapters also in a dislocated state (due to the misplacement of folios in some former MS.) as follows :—Chaps. XV-XXIII, I-XI, 5 (to ‘and the evil spirit’), XII, 2 (from ‘ Si#idav’)-XII, 12 (first word), XI, 5 (from ‘produced most for Khvaniras’)—XII, 2 (to ‘and Kéndras, Mount’), XXX, 32 (from ‘the renovation arises in’)}-XXX, 33, XXXII, XXXIV, Sls. Chap. XVIII, Bund. Chaps. XII, 12 (from ‘ Airak’)-XIV, XXIV-XXVII, XXX. A third is in the library of Dastr NéshirvAnji JamAspji at Poona, and contains the text in the same order as M6. A fragment of the Pahlavi text of the Bundahis, also descended from M6, occupies eight folios in the Additional Oriental MS. No. 22,378 in the Library of the British Museum ; it contains Chaps. XVIII, XIX, 17, and XX, 1-2 (to ‘one from the other’). There are also several PAzand manuscripts of the Bun- INTRODUCTION. XXXi dahis, written in Avesta characters, and likewise derived from M6. One of the best of these is No. 22 of the collection of Avesta and Pahlavi MSS. in the India Office Library at London ; it is old, and has the date a.Y. 936 (A.D. 1567) in a Pahlavi colophon on fol. 111, but this may have been copied from an older MS.; its contents are arranged as follows :—Chaps. XVIII-XXIII, I-XIV, XXIV-XXVII, XXX, XXXII, XXXIV, followed by several short Pazand texts, only part of which are derived from M6, and the last of them being left incomplete by the loss of the folios which originally formed the end of the volume; instead of these lost folios others, containing Chaps. XV-XVII, have been added and bound up with the rest. Another MS., No. 7 in the same collection, which is dated A.Y. 1174 (A.D. 1805), is a modern copy derived from No. 22 through one or more intervening MSS.}; it contains precisely the same text, but with many variations in orthography, indicative of the very uncertain character of Pazand spelling. Two fragments of the P4zand text are also contained in the MSS. No. 121 at Oxford, already mentioned ; they consist of Chaps. V, 3-7 (to ‘would have known the secret’) and XXV, 18-22. Another fragment, evidently copied from an old MS., is found on fols. 34, 35 of the Rivayat MS. No. 8 of the collection in the India Office Library ; it consists of Chap. XVIII, 1-8.
3121 at Oxford, already mentioned ; they consist of Chaps. V, 3-7 (to ‘would have known the secret’) and XXV, 18-22. Another fragment, evidently copied from an old MS., is found on fols. 34, 35 of the Rivayat MS. No. 8 of the collection in the India Office Library ; it consists of Chap. XVIII, 1-8. The Pazand text of the Bundahis, derived from M6, is also written in Persian characters in M7 (No. 7 of the Haug collection at Munich), dated A.y. 1178 (A.D. 1809). It is interlined by Persian glosses, word for word, and consists of Chaps. XVIII-XXIII, I-XIV, XXIV-XXVII, and XXX on fols. 81-119, with Chaps. XV-XVII on fols. 120- 126, a repetition of Chap. XV and part of XVI on fols. 223-227, and Chap. XXXII on fol. 232. Thus far, it will be noticed, we have two good independent authorities, K20 and M6, for ascertaining the text of the Bundahis in the fourteenth century, so far as Chaps. I- ' This is proved by an omission in fol. 40, which clearly indicates the loss of a folio in an intermediate MS. XXXil PAHLAVI TEXTS, XXVII, XXX, XXXII, and XXXIV are concerned ; and we have also, in K20b, a second authority for so much of Chap. XXXI as occurs in K20; but for Chaps. XXVIII and XXIX we have nothing but K20 to rely on, and part of Chap. XXVIII is lost in that manuscript. Such was the _ unsatisfactory state of that part of the text until Dec. 1877, when information about the MS. TD was received, followed by further details and a copy of Chaps. XXVIII, XXIX, and XXXI-XXXIII in Oct. 18781. TD is a manuscript of the Bundahis which contains a much more extensive text than the MSS. already described, but whether it be an extension of the hitherto-received text, or the received text be an abridgement of this longer one, is likely to be a matter of dispute among Pahlavi scholars until the whole of the new text has been thoroughly examined. At any rate, the contents of this MS., combined with those of some MSS. of the Dadistan-i Dinik, afford a means of fixing the date of this recension of the Bundahis, as will be seen hereafter. This MS. belongs to a young Mobad named Tehmuras Dinshawji Anklesaria in Bombay, and was brought from Persia a few years ago by a Mobad named Khodabakhsh Farod Abadan. It occupies the first 103 folios of the volume containing it, and is followed by 112 more folios containing the Nirangistan. The first original folio, which contained the text as far as Chap. I, 5 (to ‘ endless light’), has been lost and replaced by another (which, however, is now old) containing some introductory sentences, besides the missing text. The last original folio of the Bundahis, containing the last five lines of the last chapter, has also been lost and replaced by another modern folio, which contains the missing text followed by two colophons, both expressing approval of the text, and asserting that the MS. was written by Gépatshah Rastam Béndar. The first of these colophons
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.