Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1I, 3). Each of them appears to have written a complete ‘teaching’ or dissertation upon the ceremonial laws, from which the quotations are taken (see § 6). * That is, in collecting the opinions of the ancients, he has twisted them so as to suit his own views. ® The last of the future apostles (see Dd. II, 10), not the commentator of the same name mentioned in § 1. ‘ Literally ‘fraternity.’ 5 From pollution or sin. * See § 2. 300 EPISTLES OF MANOSKIHAR. same kind of full religious diffusion—are the swift action of the patron spirit, which, for the sake of preparing him for a deliverance that is not falsifying revelation axd zs without disputants, is a kind regard for the deliverance itself of 42m whose spiritual life (hOkS) it is. 5. As ¢o that which is thought by him?’ of those deliverances sent down, completed, azd announced, I consider more particularly about the meaning of one thing, which is their solemnized observance. 6. The solemnized observance of Médyék-méh is in the teaching? of Médydk-méh, and those of Afarg and Séshans are each one meditated and indicated in a teaching ; and the pointedly superior position of each one of them is mentioned by him in hes statement of any teaching and of the decision set up. 7. Also with a kind regard for his own choice he Aas thought it (the former teaching) imperfect, and, on account of what was not attained by it— which was a re-explainer of the same good ideas provided—z¢s dissimilarity to it is not unnoticed * §. But when one hears the re-explainers of a true reply he is well protected (hQ-zinhartdd) by complete mindfulness‘, avd is himself confident that the teaching of Médyék-m4h is not the whole statement of Médyék-méh, for there are many opinions of 1 Zad-sparam the writer of the decree mentioned in § 1. 3 The word £4stakd means usually a written course of teaching or exposition, a commentary, dissertation, or manual of instruction. * Implying that Z4d-sparam had been more inclined to enforce his own opinions than to examine those of the commentators. * The Pahl. translation of Av. A4rmaiti, ‘devotion,’ which is usually personified as a female archangel protecting the earth. EPISTLE I, CHAPTER V, 5—VI, I. 301 Médyék-mah! which have decided 2” another manner; not ‘hat whatever Médyék-m4h said is not good, dué¢ in the teaching of Médyék-mah 2¢ is certain that even what is not proper is mentioned many times as a possibility * CuaptTer VI. 1. As ¢o that which is written in that epistle, that in the teaching of Séshdns he thus states, that ‘of both the purifiers necessary he is suitable by whom the ritual is performed ’, they have been similarly very unanimous that when one is incapable (at Q)¢ it is the other at is suitable, who is written of in connection with him; and that, moreover, because the statement of Afarg is in a teaching of his®, and, on
21 J inserts ‘rules which are mentioned in the special teaching of Médyédk-m4h.” It appears probable that the author had access to much more complete commentaries than the fragments now extant in the Pahlavi version of the Vendidad. 2 Meaning, probably, that Médyék-m&h was disposed to relax the rigid enforcement of the law in cases of doubt or difficulty, as the Avesta itself does in several cases. > Quoted from Pahl. Vend. IX, 132, 4, where it may be read either as an opinion of Afarg (as mentioned in our text), or asa statement of the Pahlavi translator, who would, therefore, appear to have been Séshans. A complete translation of the Pahlavi version of Vend. IX, 1-145 and the commentaries relating to the Bareshnfim ceremony, which are frequently alluded to in these epistles, will be found in App. IV. * Perhaps ‘impotent,’ as the Rivayats (Mro, fol. 103 a) provide that a purifier shall be neither aged nor youthful, not less than thirty years of age. 5 See note 3, above; from this it appears that Afarg was the earlier commentator. 302 EPISTLES OF MANOsKfHAR. that account, that declaration of his seemed ¢o de from him, which is as though z¢ were decided by him. 2. Then, when one reaches the eulogistic (afrasinak6) reply of his re-explainer, owing to his just will it is itself well perceived that Afarg comes into account as one of the high-priests; and that which is the special teaching of Séshans fas mentioned that they have been very unanimous that when there is one he would be suitable’. 3. That evidence, too, which many high-priests, and especially one teaching, are alike diffusing, is stated also in the teaching of Médyék-mah, that when he who is washing? understands the profession, then one purifier is plenty for him. 4. When it is abundantly declared, in particular by two teachings, ‘hat when there is one he is suitable, z¢ is then not to be rendered quite inoperative through the solitary statement of Afarg; for Afarg only said, as it appeared so to him himself, ¢ha¢ ‘two purifiers are requisite*’ 5. The customs of another highpriest are not declared to exist with like evidence ; and this is set aside (spégidd) even by him himself, that another custom is not suitable to exist, because his own view is mentioned as it appeared to him. 6. Those of the primitive faith have been fully * of the custom that other ome selected, as to this, where z¢ is the performance of the Vikaya (‘ exorcism’)5; because its explanation is this, that an ? See Pahl. Vend. IX, 132, 4, but the earlier part of the section refers to statements no longer extant. 2 That is, the person undergoing the purification. S See Pahl. Vend. IX, 132, 4, Ep. I, ii, 7. ‘ J inserts ‘ of the same opinion.’ * That is, they have considered one purifier sufficient for reciting EPISTLE I, CHAPTER VI, 2-9. 303
32 That is, the person undergoing the purification. S See Pahl. Vend. IX, 132, 4, Ep. I, ii, 7. ‘ J inserts ‘ of the same opinion.’ * That is, they have considered one purifier sufficient for reciting EPISTLE I, CHAPTER VI, 2-9. 303 opinion upon which the priests (magavég4n5) are without dispute is that which he says is the custom of a priest, and the business of the two priests, of whose other custom he speaks as much, is a performance by those two witnesses indicating the same as the priest. 7. This, too, is evident, that, by confession of Afarg, when there is ody one purifier he is to be considered as being suitable’; avd an attainment ¢o more evidence is that which is written by you, that Médyék-mah as said that every customary part (ptsak6) is to be washed three times ?, and now the purifiers do z¢ once. 8. That teaching remains zx the same manner as written by him, but the threefold washing of Médyék-mdh is not a washing to be striven for, but o”e to be well considered, of which he spoke ; and this, too, is not said by him, that when one shall not wash three times it is not proper’. g. Afarg said that when onze shall‘ wash once it is proper, and about this once the opinion of Médyékmah is the after statement, and the opinion of Afarg is the prior statement; avd since in the life of man the first ¢hznmg to be considered is about purity, not the indispensability of washing, and, further, the the passages from the Avesta (see Vend. VIII, 49-62, IX, 118) which are supposed to drive away the fiend (comp. Ep. II, ii, 7). 1 See Pahl. Vend. IX, 132, d. * See Pahl. Vend. IX, 132,7, where, however, the statement as to three times washing is attributed to Afarg, who is the prior authority quoted (as mentioned in § 9), and that as to once washing is attributed to Médyék-m4h, who is the after authority. * Reading 14 khalelanédd-ae 14 shdyed6 instead of 14 khalelnédd a-l4 shayedo. ‘ Reading a& instead of va a. This statement is attributed to Médyék-méh in Pahl. Vend. (see note 2, above). 304 EPISTLES OF MAN(OsKfHAR. pollution diminishes, about which it speaks in the religious cleansing, during so many times washing as is declared, then the consideration of it is a consideration about the one time which is the first computation’, 10, That which mentions more than once washing is a contradiction of the prior deponent, not a declaration; and the consideration of that operation, so long as z¢ zs declared, is about the statement of him who das mentioned once washing with the opinion of a prior deponent®, owing to the same veasons. 11. But if it be even that much washing which is the merit of the operation, then the statement of Afarg about these times’ is manifestly very preservative, azd that of Médyék-médh is a necessity for declaration. CuaptTer VII. 1. And as ¢o that which is written‘, that ‘in the teaching of Afarg z¢ is thus declared, that “for every single person, at the least’, one cup of water and
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.
1I, 3). Each of them appears to have written a complete ‘teaching’ or dissertation upon the ceremonial laws, from which the quotations are taken (see § 6). * That is, in collecting the opinions of the ancients, he has twisted them so as to suit his own views. ® The last of the future apostles (see Dd. II, 10), not the commentator of the same name mentioned in § 1. ‘ Literally ‘fraternity.’ 5 From pollution or sin. * See § 2. 300 EPISTLES OF MANOSKIHAR. same kind of full religious diffusion—are the swift action of the patron spirit, which, for the sake of preparing him for a deliverance that is not falsifying revelation axd zs without disputants, is a kind regard for the deliverance itself of 42m whose spiritual life (hOkS) it is. 5. As ¢o that which is thought by him?’ of those deliverances sent down, completed, azd announced, I consider more particularly about the meaning of one thing, which is their solemnized observance. 6. The solemnized observance of Médyék-méh is in the teaching? of Médydk-méh, and those of Afarg and Séshans are each one meditated and indicated in a teaching ; and the pointedly superior position of each one of them is mentioned by him in hes statement of any teaching and of the decision set up. 7. Also with a kind regard for his own choice he Aas thought it (the former teaching) imperfect, and, on account of what was not attained by it— which was a re-explainer of the same good ideas provided—z¢s dissimilarity to it is not unnoticed * §. But when one hears the re-explainers of a true reply he is well protected (hQ-zinhartdd) by complete mindfulness‘, avd is himself confident that the teaching of Médyék-m4h is not the whole statement of Médyék-méh, for there are many opinions of 1 Zad-sparam the writer of the decree mentioned in § 1. 3 The word £4stakd means usually a written course of teaching or exposition, a commentary, dissertation, or manual of instruction. * Implying that Z4d-sparam had been more inclined to enforce his own opinions than to examine those of the commentators. * The Pahl. translation of Av. A4rmaiti, ‘devotion,’ which is usually personified as a female archangel protecting the earth. EPISTLE I, CHAPTER V, 5—VI, I. 301 Médyék-mah! which have decided 2” another manner; not ‘hat whatever Médyék-m4h said is not good, dué¢ in the teaching of Médyék-mah 2¢ is certain that even what is not proper is mentioned many times as a possibility * CuaptTer VI. 1. As ¢o that which is written in that epistle, that in the teaching of Séshdns he thus states, that ‘of both the purifiers necessary he is suitable by whom the ritual is performed ’, they have been similarly very unanimous that when one is incapable (at Q)¢ it is the other at is suitable, who is written of in connection with him; and that, moreover, because the statement of Afarg is in a teaching of his®, and, on
21 J inserts ‘rules which are mentioned in the special teaching of Médyédk-m4h.” It appears probable that the author had access to much more complete commentaries than the fragments now extant in the Pahlavi version of the Vendidad. 2 Meaning, probably, that Médyék-m&h was disposed to relax the rigid enforcement of the law in cases of doubt or difficulty, as the Avesta itself does in several cases. > Quoted from Pahl. Vend. IX, 132, 4, where it may be read either as an opinion of Afarg (as mentioned in our text), or asa statement of the Pahlavi translator, who would, therefore, appear to have been Séshans. A complete translation of the Pahlavi version of Vend. IX, 1-145 and the commentaries relating to the Bareshnfim ceremony, which are frequently alluded to in these epistles, will be found in App. IV. * Perhaps ‘impotent,’ as the Rivayats (Mro, fol. 103 a) provide that a purifier shall be neither aged nor youthful, not less than thirty years of age. 5 See note 3, above; from this it appears that Afarg was the earlier commentator. 302 EPISTLES OF MANOsKfHAR. that account, that declaration of his seemed ¢o de from him, which is as though z¢ were decided by him. 2. Then, when one reaches the eulogistic (afrasinak6) reply of his re-explainer, owing to his just will it is itself well perceived that Afarg comes into account as one of the high-priests; and that which is the special teaching of Séshans fas mentioned that they have been very unanimous that when there is one he would be suitable’. 3. That evidence, too, which many high-priests, and especially one teaching, are alike diffusing, is stated also in the teaching of Médyék-mah, that when he who is washing? understands the profession, then one purifier is plenty for him. 4. When it is abundantly declared, in particular by two teachings, ‘hat when there is one he is suitable, z¢ is then not to be rendered quite inoperative through the solitary statement of Afarg; for Afarg only said, as it appeared so to him himself, ¢ha¢ ‘two purifiers are requisite*’ 5. The customs of another highpriest are not declared to exist with like evidence ; and this is set aside (spégidd) even by him himself, that another custom is not suitable to exist, because his own view is mentioned as it appeared to him. 6. Those of the primitive faith have been fully * of the custom that other ome selected, as to this, where z¢ is the performance of the Vikaya (‘ exorcism’)5; because its explanation is this, that an ? See Pahl. Vend. IX, 132, 4, but the earlier part of the section refers to statements no longer extant. 2 That is, the person undergoing the purification. S See Pahl. Vend. IX, 132, 4, Ep. I, ii, 7. ‘ J inserts ‘ of the same opinion.’ * That is, they have considered one purifier sufficient for reciting EPISTLE I, CHAPTER VI, 2-9. 303
32 That is, the person undergoing the purification. S See Pahl. Vend. IX, 132, 4, Ep. I, ii, 7. ‘ J inserts ‘ of the same opinion.’ * That is, they have considered one purifier sufficient for reciting EPISTLE I, CHAPTER VI, 2-9. 303 opinion upon which the priests (magavég4n5) are without dispute is that which he says is the custom of a priest, and the business of the two priests, of whose other custom he speaks as much, is a performance by those two witnesses indicating the same as the priest. 7. This, too, is evident, that, by confession of Afarg, when there is ody one purifier he is to be considered as being suitable’; avd an attainment ¢o more evidence is that which is written by you, that Médyék-mah as said that every customary part (ptsak6) is to be washed three times ?, and now the purifiers do z¢ once. 8. That teaching remains zx the same manner as written by him, but the threefold washing of Médyék-mdh is not a washing to be striven for, but o”e to be well considered, of which he spoke ; and this, too, is not said by him, that when one shall not wash three times it is not proper’. g. Afarg said that when onze shall‘ wash once it is proper, and about this once the opinion of Médyékmah is the after statement, and the opinion of Afarg is the prior statement; avd since in the life of man the first ¢hznmg to be considered is about purity, not the indispensability of washing, and, further, the the passages from the Avesta (see Vend. VIII, 49-62, IX, 118) which are supposed to drive away the fiend (comp. Ep. II, ii, 7). 1 See Pahl. Vend. IX, 132, d. * See Pahl. Vend. IX, 132,7, where, however, the statement as to three times washing is attributed to Afarg, who is the prior authority quoted (as mentioned in § 9), and that as to once washing is attributed to Médyék-m4h, who is the after authority. * Reading 14 khalelanédd-ae 14 shdyed6 instead of 14 khalelnédd a-l4 shayedo. ‘ Reading a& instead of va a. This statement is attributed to Médyék-méh in Pahl. Vend. (see note 2, above). 304 EPISTLES OF MAN(OsKfHAR. pollution diminishes, about which it speaks in the religious cleansing, during so many times washing as is declared, then the consideration of it is a consideration about the one time which is the first computation’, 10, That which mentions more than once washing is a contradiction of the prior deponent, not a declaration; and the consideration of that operation, so long as z¢ zs declared, is about the statement of him who das mentioned once washing with the opinion of a prior deponent®, owing to the same veasons. 11. But if it be even that much washing which is the merit of the operation, then the statement of Afarg about these times’ is manifestly very preservative, azd that of Médyék-médh is a necessity for declaration. CuaptTer VII. 1. And as ¢o that which is written‘, that ‘in the teaching of Afarg z¢ is thus declared, that “for every single person, at the least’, one cup of water and
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.