Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1The independent value of BK is that it supplies the contents of the seventy-one folios lost at the beginning of K35, and of about nineteen of the folios missing at the end of that codex. A third manuscript of the first class, which may be even more important than K35, was brought to Bombay from Persia about fifteen years ago, and belongs to Mr. Tehmuras Dinshawji Anklesaria, of Bombay, but it has not been available for settling the texts translated in this volume. It is here called TK, and is described as still consisting of 227 folios, though seventy folios are missing at the beginning and about fourteen at the end. In its present state, therefore, it must begin very near the same place as K35, but it extends much further, so as even to supply nearly half the contents of the eleven folios missing from BK;; it does not, however, include the contents of the last three folios of BK. According to a colophon appended in this manuscript to the ‘Sayings of Za4d-sparam, son of Yddan-Yim, about the formation of men out of body, life, INTRODUCTION. XVii and soul’ (see Zs. XI, 10, note), some copy of these ‘sayings’ was written by Gépatshah Rist6m Bandér Malka-mard4n in the land of Kirman. This Gépatshah was evidently a brother of Vahrém, the grandfather of the Marzap4n who wrote the colophon found in BK and supposed to have been copied from K35 (see pp. xv, xvi). If, therefore, this colophon in TK has not been copied from some older MS., it would indicate that TK is two generations older than K35. A recent copy of TK exists in the library of the highpriest of the Parsis in Bombay, to whom I am indebted for the information that its text does not differ from that of K35, at the two points (Dd. XCIII, 17 and Ep. III, 11) where some omission of text may be suspected. The manuscripts of the second class appear to be all descended from an old, undated codex brought to Bombay from Persia about sixty-five years ago’, and recently in the library of Mr. Dhanjibh4i Framji Patel of Bombay. From what is stated, concerning the contents of this codex, it appears to commence with about three-fourths of the miscellaneous religious writings, found at the beginning of BK; and these are followed by the altered text of the D4distan-i Dinik, as appears from the copies described below, but how the codex concludes is not stated. It may, however, be supposed that it contains as much of the third series of writings as is found in the manuscript J, a copy of this codex which ends in Ep. II, vi, 2. This manuscript J belongs to the library of Dastdr JAamAspji Minochiharji in Bombay; it commenced originally at the same point as the codex just described, and, so far as it has been examined, it contains the same altered text of the Dadistan-i Dinik. There is, therefore little doubt that it was originally copied from that codex, but a considerable
2There is, therefore little doubt that it was originally copied from that codex, but a considerable 1 There is some doubt about this period. Dastfr Peshotanji mentions thirty or forty years, but in the MS. J, which appears to have been copied chiefly from this codex in Bombay, the date noted by the copyist of the older part of that MS. is ‘the day Rashn of the month Khfrdad, a.y. 1188’ (21st December 1818, according to the calendar of the Indian Parsis), showing that the codex must have been at least sixty-four years in Bombay. [18] b XVili PAHLAVI TEXTS. portion of the additional matter at the beginning of BK has been prefixed to it at a later date. The oldest portion of this copy, extending to Ep. I, vii, 4, bears a date corresponding to 21st December 1818; the date of a further portion, extending to Ep. II, vi, 2, corresponds to 12th February 1841; and a third portion copied from BK, at the beginning of the manuscript, is still more recent. Another copy of this codex, or of the Dadistan-i Dinik contained in it, exists in the library of the high-priest of the Parsis in Bombay; and from this copy the text of the Dadaistan-i Dinik contained in M14 was transcribed. This latter manuscript consists of two volumes, written in 1865 and 1868, respectively ; the first volume containing Chaps. I, 1-XX XVII, 9, and the second volume Chaps. XXXVI, 1-XCIV, 15 of the altered text of the Dadistan-i Dinik. Other copies of the Dadistan-i Dinik, which have not been examined, are to be found in India, but, unless descended from other manuscripts than K35 and the abovementioned codex recently belonging to Mr. Dhanjibhai Framji, they would be of no further use for settling the text. Of the manuscripts above described the following have been available for the translations in this volume :—K35 for the whole of the Dadistan-i Dinik and the Epistles ; M14 for the whole of the Dadistan-i Dinik alone; BK for Dd. I, 1-VI, 31, X, 2-XIV, 32, LXXXVIII, 9-XCIV, 15, the whole of the Epistles, the legend about the soul of KeresAsp (see pp. 373-381), and the extracts from the Pahlavi Rivdyat in these codices relating to Khvétik-das (see pp. 415-423); and J for Dd. I, 1-XX XIX, 10°; LXXXVIII, 9- LXXXIX, 14, XCI, 7-XCIV, 15, Ep. I, i, 1-II, ix, 75, the 1 The text of Chaps. VI, 3-X, 2 has been lost, and recently supplied from J. ? No copy of the intermediate chapters obtained by the present translator, and several of the original folios have been lost. * No copy of the intermediate chapters taken by the present translator. * Chaps. LXXXIX, 1-XCI, 7 omitted. 5 Ep. II, vi, 2-ix, 7 being copied from BK and wrongly inserted in Dd. XXXVII, 33 (see p. 89, note 5). INTRODUCTION. xix legend about Keresdsp, and the extracts relating to Khvétik-das, Other manuscripts, used for the remaining extracts translated in the Appendix, will be mentioned in § 4 of this introduction.
3XXXVII, 33 (see p. 89, note 5). INTRODUCTION. xix legend about Keresdsp, and the extracts relating to Khvétik-das, Other manuscripts, used for the remaining extracts translated in the Appendix, will be mentioned in § 4 of this introduction. The existence of two versions of the text of the Dadistan-i Dinik would have been a source of much perplexity to the translator, had it not been soon apparent that the version represented by M14 was merely a revision of that in K35, attempted by some editor who had found much difficulty in understanding the involved phraseology of Mandséihar. There are, undoubtedly, some corrupt words and passages in K35, where the revised version may be followed with advantage, but nine-tenths of the alterations, introduced by the reviser, are wholly unnecessary, and in many cases they are quite inconsistent with the context. Under these circumstances it has been the duty of the translator to follow the text given in K35, wherever it is not wholly unintelligible after prolonged study, to note all deviations of the translation from that text (which are usually small), and merely to mention the variations of the revised text, so far as they are intelligible, in the notes. The writings of M4ndskihar are certainly difficult to translate, not only from the involved and obscure style he affects, but also from the numerous compound epithets he uses, which are not easy either to understand with certainty, or to express clearly in English. The only other Pahlavi writings that approach them in difficulty are those of his brother, Z4d-sparam, and those of the author of the third book of the Dinkard, who seems to have also been a contemporary writer. Toa certain extent, therefore, an involved style of writing may have been a failing of the age in which he lived; and his works, being of an epistolary and hortatory character, would naturally be more abstruse and idiomatic than simple narrative ; but much of the obscurity of his style must still be attributed to his own want of clear arrangement of thought and inadequate, though wordy, expression of ideas, the usual sources of all obscure and rambling writing. When to the difficulty of tracing the thread of an argument b2 XX PAHLAVI TEXTS. through the involved obscurity of the text is added the perplexity occasioned by the ambiguity of many Pahlavi words, it can be readily understood that no translation is likely to be even approximately accurate, unless it be as literal as possible. The translator has to avoid enough pitfals, in the shape of false constructions and incorrect readings, without risking the innumerable sources of error offered by the alluring by-paths of free translation. If, therefore, the reader should sometimes meet with strange idioms, or uncouth phrases, he must attribute them to a straining after correctness of translation, however little that correctness may be really attained.
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 independent value of BK is that it supplies the contents of the seventy-one folios lost at the beginning of K35, and of about nineteen of the folios missing at the end of that codex. A third manuscript of the first class, which may be even more important than K35, was brought to Bombay from Persia about fifteen years ago, and belongs to Mr. Tehmuras Dinshawji Anklesaria, of Bombay, but it has not been available for settling the texts translated in this volume. It is here called TK, and is described as still consisting of 227 folios, though seventy folios are missing at the beginning and about fourteen at the end. In its present state, therefore, it must begin very near the same place as K35, but it extends much further, so as even to supply nearly half the contents of the eleven folios missing from BK;; it does not, however, include the contents of the last three folios of BK. According to a colophon appended in this manuscript to the ‘Sayings of Za4d-sparam, son of Yddan-Yim, about the formation of men out of body, life, INTRODUCTION. XVii and soul’ (see Zs. XI, 10, note), some copy of these ‘sayings’ was written by Gépatshah Rist6m Bandér Malka-mard4n in the land of Kirman. This Gépatshah was evidently a brother of Vahrém, the grandfather of the Marzap4n who wrote the colophon found in BK and supposed to have been copied from K35 (see pp. xv, xvi). If, therefore, this colophon in TK has not been copied from some older MS., it would indicate that TK is two generations older than K35. A recent copy of TK exists in the library of the highpriest of the Parsis in Bombay, to whom I am indebted for the information that its text does not differ from that of K35, at the two points (Dd. XCIII, 17 and Ep. III, 11) where some omission of text may be suspected. The manuscripts of the second class appear to be all descended from an old, undated codex brought to Bombay from Persia about sixty-five years ago’, and recently in the library of Mr. Dhanjibh4i Framji Patel of Bombay. From what is stated, concerning the contents of this codex, it appears to commence with about three-fourths of the miscellaneous religious writings, found at the beginning of BK; and these are followed by the altered text of the D4distan-i Dinik, as appears from the copies described below, but how the codex concludes is not stated. It may, however, be supposed that it contains as much of the third series of writings as is found in the manuscript J, a copy of this codex which ends in Ep. II, vi, 2. This manuscript J belongs to the library of Dastdr JAamAspji Minochiharji in Bombay; it commenced originally at the same point as the codex just described, and, so far as it has been examined, it contains the same altered text of the Dadistan-i Dinik. There is, therefore little doubt that it was originally copied from that codex, but a considerable
2There is, therefore little doubt that it was originally copied from that codex, but a considerable 1 There is some doubt about this period. Dastfr Peshotanji mentions thirty or forty years, but in the MS. J, which appears to have been copied chiefly from this codex in Bombay, the date noted by the copyist of the older part of that MS. is ‘the day Rashn of the month Khfrdad, a.y. 1188’ (21st December 1818, according to the calendar of the Indian Parsis), showing that the codex must have been at least sixty-four years in Bombay. [18] b XVili PAHLAVI TEXTS. portion of the additional matter at the beginning of BK has been prefixed to it at a later date. The oldest portion of this copy, extending to Ep. I, vii, 4, bears a date corresponding to 21st December 1818; the date of a further portion, extending to Ep. II, vi, 2, corresponds to 12th February 1841; and a third portion copied from BK, at the beginning of the manuscript, is still more recent. Another copy of this codex, or of the Dadistan-i Dinik contained in it, exists in the library of the high-priest of the Parsis in Bombay; and from this copy the text of the Dadaistan-i Dinik contained in M14 was transcribed. This latter manuscript consists of two volumes, written in 1865 and 1868, respectively ; the first volume containing Chaps. I, 1-XX XVII, 9, and the second volume Chaps. XXXVI, 1-XCIV, 15 of the altered text of the Dadistan-i Dinik. Other copies of the Dadistan-i Dinik, which have not been examined, are to be found in India, but, unless descended from other manuscripts than K35 and the abovementioned codex recently belonging to Mr. Dhanjibhai Framji, they would be of no further use for settling the text. Of the manuscripts above described the following have been available for the translations in this volume :—K35 for the whole of the Dadistan-i Dinik and the Epistles ; M14 for the whole of the Dadistan-i Dinik alone; BK for Dd. I, 1-VI, 31, X, 2-XIV, 32, LXXXVIII, 9-XCIV, 15, the whole of the Epistles, the legend about the soul of KeresAsp (see pp. 373-381), and the extracts from the Pahlavi Rivdyat in these codices relating to Khvétik-das (see pp. 415-423); and J for Dd. I, 1-XX XIX, 10°; LXXXVIII, 9- LXXXIX, 14, XCI, 7-XCIV, 15, Ep. I, i, 1-II, ix, 75, the 1 The text of Chaps. VI, 3-X, 2 has been lost, and recently supplied from J. ? No copy of the intermediate chapters obtained by the present translator, and several of the original folios have been lost. * No copy of the intermediate chapters taken by the present translator. * Chaps. LXXXIX, 1-XCI, 7 omitted. 5 Ep. II, vi, 2-ix, 7 being copied from BK and wrongly inserted in Dd. XXXVII, 33 (see p. 89, note 5). INTRODUCTION. xix legend about Keresdsp, and the extracts relating to Khvétik-das, Other manuscripts, used for the remaining extracts translated in the Appendix, will be mentioned in § 4 of this introduction.
3XXXVII, 33 (see p. 89, note 5). INTRODUCTION. xix legend about Keresdsp, and the extracts relating to Khvétik-das, Other manuscripts, used for the remaining extracts translated in the Appendix, will be mentioned in § 4 of this introduction. The existence of two versions of the text of the Dadistan-i Dinik would have been a source of much perplexity to the translator, had it not been soon apparent that the version represented by M14 was merely a revision of that in K35, attempted by some editor who had found much difficulty in understanding the involved phraseology of Mandséihar. There are, undoubtedly, some corrupt words and passages in K35, where the revised version may be followed with advantage, but nine-tenths of the alterations, introduced by the reviser, are wholly unnecessary, and in many cases they are quite inconsistent with the context. Under these circumstances it has been the duty of the translator to follow the text given in K35, wherever it is not wholly unintelligible after prolonged study, to note all deviations of the translation from that text (which are usually small), and merely to mention the variations of the revised text, so far as they are intelligible, in the notes. The writings of M4ndskihar are certainly difficult to translate, not only from the involved and obscure style he affects, but also from the numerous compound epithets he uses, which are not easy either to understand with certainty, or to express clearly in English. The only other Pahlavi writings that approach them in difficulty are those of his brother, Z4d-sparam, and those of the author of the third book of the Dinkard, who seems to have also been a contemporary writer. Toa certain extent, therefore, an involved style of writing may have been a failing of the age in which he lived; and his works, being of an epistolary and hortatory character, would naturally be more abstruse and idiomatic than simple narrative ; but much of the obscurity of his style must still be attributed to his own want of clear arrangement of thought and inadequate, though wordy, expression of ideas, the usual sources of all obscure and rambling writing. When to the difficulty of tracing the thread of an argument b2 XX PAHLAVI TEXTS. through the involved obscurity of the text is added the perplexity occasioned by the ambiguity of many Pahlavi words, it can be readily understood that no translation is likely to be even approximately accurate, unless it be as literal as possible. The translator has to avoid enough pitfals, in the shape of false constructions and incorrect readings, without risking the innumerable sources of error offered by the alluring by-paths of free translation. If, therefore, the reader should sometimes meet with strange idioms, or uncouth phrases, he must attribute them to a straining after correctness of translation, however little that correctness may be really attained.
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.