Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1of the surname Sang4nd, of the family of the priest Néryésang Dhaval.’ The date mentioned in this colophon corresponds to the 28th September 1679, new style. A third copy of the Persian text is contained in J15,a small quarto volume, No. 15 in the library of Dastdr JamA4spji Minochiharji in Bombay. In this volume the prose Sad Dar occupies the last thirty-six folios, and is written thirteen lines to the page, but is not dated. This manuscript has been consulted in only a few passages, and usually where the other copies differ considerably. Regarding the variations in the text of these manuscripts it will be noticed, on reference to the foot-notes to the translation, that there is usually considerable agreement among the three Persian manuscripts (Lp, B29, J15*) when they differ from the Avesta-Persian text of La. In a few cases the text of La is undoubtedly defective, and then Lp or B2g may perhaps supply the original reading which has come down to them through some collateral line of descent. But, in the great majority of instances, their variations {especially those of B29) seem to be intended either to make the text more intelligible, or to correct some statement that the copyist thought doubtful. That none of these three manuscripts is derived from La is proved by the fact that they all contain a passage (Chap. XIX, 4-6) which 1 A variation of this pedigree has already been quoted in p. xxiv. ? Allowing for the fact that this last has been only occasionally used. INTRODUCTION. xliii the writer of La has omitted by mistake. There is, however, more agreement with La to be found in Lp than in the other two manuscripts. The arrangement of the chapters in La is confused by the
2xxiv. ? Allowing for the fact that this last has been only occasionally used. INTRODUCTION. xliii the writer of La has omitted by mistake. There is, however, more agreement with La to be found in Lp than in the other two manuscripts. The arrangement of the chapters in La is confused by the accidental combination of a portion of Chap. XLVIII with a portion of Chap. L, while Chap. XLIX, omitted in its proper place, has been subsequently added at the end of the work. In Lp Chap. XLIX follows Chap. LIII, and, Chaps. L and LV being omitted, the full number of a hundred chapters is obtained by repeating Chaps. XLIX and C at the end of the work. As this confusion in Lp occurs in the same portion of the work as that in La, though it differs somewhat in its details, and as it has been shown above that Lp cannot have been derived from La, it is reasonable to suppose that La and Lp were both derived from some older manuscript, in which some portion of the middle of the work had been omitted or lost, and that the writers of La and Lp adopted different modes of supplying the deficiency from other manuscripts. This confusion does not occur in B29 and J15, which two manuscripts agree in arranging the chapters as they are placed in this volume; they must, therefore, be derived from the original prose Sad Dar through some collateral line of descent, independent of the manuscript in which the confusion originated. _ In the metrical Sad Dar nine of the later chapters are scattered about among the earlier ones, thus the 82nd chapter occurs next after the 16th, the 83rd after the 23rd, the 84th after the 24th, the 85th after the 27th, the 86th after the 57th, the 87th after the 58th, the 88th after the 7oth, the 89th after the 72nd, and the goth after the 73rd. And, besides this variation, a chapter about the advantage of daily ceremonies in honour of the guardian spirits follows the 65th chapter, a very long chapter about the season festivals is substituted for the 93rd chapter, and the 1ooth chapter is omitted. So far as five of the scattered chapters (85-8y) are concerned, the reason for their change of position was probably to bring them into closer connection with other chapters treating of similar subjects; but this explanation will not xliv PAHLAVI TEXTS.
3So far as five of the scattered chapters (85-8y) are concerned, the reason for their change of position was probably to bring them into closer connection with other chapters treating of similar subjects; but this explanation will not xliv PAHLAVI TEXTS. apply to the remaining four chapters (82-84, 90). It might be argued that the more methodical arrangement of the five chapters (85-89) favours the supposition that the metrical Sad Dar may be older than the prose one, but, independent of the fact that this argument does not apply to the four other chapters, it is quite as reasonable to suppose that the later editor would endeavour to improve the arrangement of his text, and to remedy whatever he thought defective. The pre-existence of the prose Sad Dar may be fairly assumed on the positive evidence afforded by the statement of the long-metre Sad Dar, mentioned in p. xxxvii, in default of any clear statement by the author of the metrical Sad Dar as to the originality of his work. Since the above was written, the translator has had an opportunity of examining a Persian text of the prose Sad Dar, written in Persia by Rustam Gustasp Ardashir, and completed on the 19th July 1706. In this manuscript, the introductory chapter is practically the same as in La, with a few variations. Thus, the invocation in § 1 is as follows :— ‘In the name of the sacred being, administering justice. The beginning of the book Sad Dar; may it be a good gift!’ And § 6 runs as follows:—‘On this occasion I, Bahman, a servant of the religion, am confirmed by the book of the mébad of mébads fran-sh4h, son of Yazad-y4r, son of Tistar-y4r, son of Adar-b4d, so that every one who reads z¢ and orders duty ¢o de done brings a reward to the souls of those persons.’ The arrangement of the chapters is the same as in the metrical Sad Dar}, and the text differs from La in many more small details than in B2g; it often inserts additional sentences, and is generally more diffuse, without giving more information to the reader. The Avesta of the passage quoted in Chapter XL, 4 is omitted, and only the first three words of that quoted in Chapter XIV, 3 are given. Notwithstanding their numerous variations, the resemblance of Bahman’s text to that of La is too great 1 As far as the long chapter about the season festivals (see p. xliii), but this is subdivided into six chapters (one for each festival) which conclude the work. The same arrangement also occurs in the Gugarati translation of the longmetre Sad Dar. INTRODUCTION. xlv
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.
1of the surname Sang4nd, of the family of the priest Néryésang Dhaval.’ The date mentioned in this colophon corresponds to the 28th September 1679, new style. A third copy of the Persian text is contained in J15,a small quarto volume, No. 15 in the library of Dastdr JamA4spji Minochiharji in Bombay. In this volume the prose Sad Dar occupies the last thirty-six folios, and is written thirteen lines to the page, but is not dated. This manuscript has been consulted in only a few passages, and usually where the other copies differ considerably. Regarding the variations in the text of these manuscripts it will be noticed, on reference to the foot-notes to the translation, that there is usually considerable agreement among the three Persian manuscripts (Lp, B29, J15*) when they differ from the Avesta-Persian text of La. In a few cases the text of La is undoubtedly defective, and then Lp or B2g may perhaps supply the original reading which has come down to them through some collateral line of descent. But, in the great majority of instances, their variations {especially those of B29) seem to be intended either to make the text more intelligible, or to correct some statement that the copyist thought doubtful. That none of these three manuscripts is derived from La is proved by the fact that they all contain a passage (Chap. XIX, 4-6) which 1 A variation of this pedigree has already been quoted in p. xxiv. ? Allowing for the fact that this last has been only occasionally used. INTRODUCTION. xliii the writer of La has omitted by mistake. There is, however, more agreement with La to be found in Lp than in the other two manuscripts. The arrangement of the chapters in La is confused by the
2xxiv. ? Allowing for the fact that this last has been only occasionally used. INTRODUCTION. xliii the writer of La has omitted by mistake. There is, however, more agreement with La to be found in Lp than in the other two manuscripts. The arrangement of the chapters in La is confused by the accidental combination of a portion of Chap. XLVIII with a portion of Chap. L, while Chap. XLIX, omitted in its proper place, has been subsequently added at the end of the work. In Lp Chap. XLIX follows Chap. LIII, and, Chaps. L and LV being omitted, the full number of a hundred chapters is obtained by repeating Chaps. XLIX and C at the end of the work. As this confusion in Lp occurs in the same portion of the work as that in La, though it differs somewhat in its details, and as it has been shown above that Lp cannot have been derived from La, it is reasonable to suppose that La and Lp were both derived from some older manuscript, in which some portion of the middle of the work had been omitted or lost, and that the writers of La and Lp adopted different modes of supplying the deficiency from other manuscripts. This confusion does not occur in B29 and J15, which two manuscripts agree in arranging the chapters as they are placed in this volume; they must, therefore, be derived from the original prose Sad Dar through some collateral line of descent, independent of the manuscript in which the confusion originated. _ In the metrical Sad Dar nine of the later chapters are scattered about among the earlier ones, thus the 82nd chapter occurs next after the 16th, the 83rd after the 23rd, the 84th after the 24th, the 85th after the 27th, the 86th after the 57th, the 87th after the 58th, the 88th after the 7oth, the 89th after the 72nd, and the goth after the 73rd. And, besides this variation, a chapter about the advantage of daily ceremonies in honour of the guardian spirits follows the 65th chapter, a very long chapter about the season festivals is substituted for the 93rd chapter, and the 1ooth chapter is omitted. So far as five of the scattered chapters (85-8y) are concerned, the reason for their change of position was probably to bring them into closer connection with other chapters treating of similar subjects; but this explanation will not xliv PAHLAVI TEXTS.
3So far as five of the scattered chapters (85-8y) are concerned, the reason for their change of position was probably to bring them into closer connection with other chapters treating of similar subjects; but this explanation will not xliv PAHLAVI TEXTS. apply to the remaining four chapters (82-84, 90). It might be argued that the more methodical arrangement of the five chapters (85-89) favours the supposition that the metrical Sad Dar may be older than the prose one, but, independent of the fact that this argument does not apply to the four other chapters, it is quite as reasonable to suppose that the later editor would endeavour to improve the arrangement of his text, and to remedy whatever he thought defective. The pre-existence of the prose Sad Dar may be fairly assumed on the positive evidence afforded by the statement of the long-metre Sad Dar, mentioned in p. xxxvii, in default of any clear statement by the author of the metrical Sad Dar as to the originality of his work. Since the above was written, the translator has had an opportunity of examining a Persian text of the prose Sad Dar, written in Persia by Rustam Gustasp Ardashir, and completed on the 19th July 1706. In this manuscript, the introductory chapter is practically the same as in La, with a few variations. Thus, the invocation in § 1 is as follows :— ‘In the name of the sacred being, administering justice. The beginning of the book Sad Dar; may it be a good gift!’ And § 6 runs as follows:—‘On this occasion I, Bahman, a servant of the religion, am confirmed by the book of the mébad of mébads fran-sh4h, son of Yazad-y4r, son of Tistar-y4r, son of Adar-b4d, so that every one who reads z¢ and orders duty ¢o de done brings a reward to the souls of those persons.’ The arrangement of the chapters is the same as in the metrical Sad Dar}, and the text differs from La in many more small details than in B2g; it often inserts additional sentences, and is generally more diffuse, without giving more information to the reader. The Avesta of the passage quoted in Chapter XL, 4 is omitted, and only the first three words of that quoted in Chapter XIV, 3 are given. Notwithstanding their numerous variations, the resemblance of Bahman’s text to that of La is too great 1 As far as the long chapter about the season festivals (see p. xliii), but this is subdivided into six chapters (one for each festival) which conclude the work. The same arrangement also occurs in the Gugarati translation of the longmetre Sad Dar. INTRODUCTION. xlv
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.