Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1I, 49, 51, LVII, 5). It was originally created by AQhaymazd (Chap. VIII, 3, 8), and is superior to the archangels (Chap. I, 53); it can appear in a personal form, and undertake to be an instructor (Chap. I, 57, 60, 61); and it can likewise be used as a defence (Chap. XLIII, 6). With regard to the author of this treatise, and the age in which he lived, we have no further information than can be gathered from the contents of the book itself. The author was evidently a devoted Mazda-worshipper, and probably a layman, as has been already remarked, but he has given us no further hints about himself. Whether he wrote before or after the Arab conquest of Persia is doubtful. There are only two passages that might be strained into allusions to Muhammadanism: one in Chap. I, 18, which alludes to some heterodox religion injuring the property of the orthodox faith, but the author has just been talking of many sects, and the grievance here mentioned is much too INTRODUCTION. XVvii X common to be considered as applicable only to the Arabs ; the other passage is Chap. XVI, 37-48, which describes the advantages of ‘the moderate drinking of wine, and might be supposed to be written in indirect opposition to the Muhammadan prohibition of such indulgence. In either case the allusion is certainly far too obscure to form a fair basis for argument. On the other hand, Chap. XIII, 13, 14, speaks of the sovereignty of Vistasp existing in connection with the most powerful sect or form of devotion, which statement might be strained to imply that the government was still orthodox; and the definitions of good and bad government in Chap. XV, 12-39 could hardly have been written after the Arab conquest. The allusion to the continued conflict of the Ardmans and Tardnians with the Iranians, in Chap. XXI, 23-26, may possibly refer to some troublesome wars carried on by the Greeks and Turks against the Persians in the time of the author, and the late Dr. A. D. Mordtmann has suggested A.D. 580-590 as a probable period for such remarks, but, here again, the allusion is too obscure to be relied on.
2A. D. Mordtmann has suggested A.D. 580-590 as a probable period for such remarks, but, here again, the allusion is too obscure to be relied on. Very few of the author’s quotations can be identified, but this is no argument for a greater age than eight or ten centuries, as we know, from passages quoted in the Shayast La-sh4yast, Dadistan-t Dinik, and other works, that some of the lost Nasks must have been still extant as recently as that. The Avesta is quoted only twice by name, in Chaps. I, 27, XVI, 15; the former ‘passage has not been identified, but the latter may perhaps be from the Pazag Nask. Several quotations, however, are made from the diné or ‘revelation,’ a term which, when it refers to writings, is often applied by Pahlavi writers to the Avesta only. Of these passages Chap. XLIV, 18-23 is from the Vendidad, Chap. XXI, 24-26 may be from the Kidrast Nask, and six other quotations have not been identified. In other cases the quotations are merely prefaced by the phrase ‘zt zs declared.’ And of these the passage in Chap. LVII, 24-28 appears to be derived from the Vendidad, and that in Chap. TI, 155, 156 from the so-called Hadékht Nask, while eight other passages are unidentified. In this last class the quota- [24] b XVili PAHLAVI TEXTS. tions seem to be rather paraphrases than accurate translations of the original texts. Of the original Pahlavi text of the Din4-t Mainég-i Khirad only two manuscripts are yet known to exist; one of these (K43) is contained in No. 43 of the Iranian manuscripts in the University Library at Kopenhagen, and the other (TD2) belongs to Mr. Tehmuras Dinshawji Anklesaria of Bombay. The manuscript K43 is a small quarto volume of 178 folios, of which the Din4 occupies fols. 2-37, written fifteen lines to the page. The first and second folios also contain the conclusion of the larger Bundahis, of which the first 129 folios are missing from this codex, as described in SBE, vol. v, introd. pp. xxxix—-xli. And the latter part of the codex contains about one-fifth of the Dinkard, in several detached fragments, and four-fifths of the Bahman Yast. This manuscript was brought from Persia by the late Professor Westergaard in 18431, and the Pahlavi text of the Din4, which it contains, was published in facsimile by Andreas in 18827.
3This manuscript was brought from Persia by the late Professor Westergaard in 18431, and the Pahlavi text of the Din4, which it contains, was published in facsimile by Andreas in 18827. In this codex the text of the Dina-i Mainég-? Khirad begins in the middle of Chap. I, 28; but, as the copyist has prefixed an introductory heading to this imperfect text; it is evident that he, or some predecessor of his, must have copied the work, in this imperfect state, from some manuscript whose first folio had been lost. Besides this deficiency, ten folios of the text have-been lost from this particular codex; nine of these were occupied by Chaps. XIV, 1- XXVII, 49, and the tenth contained Chaps. XXXIX, 31- XL, 17. At the end of the work, Chap. LXIII is followed by a colophon to the following effect :—‘ Completed in peace and pleasure and joy on the day Shatvair6é of the month Avan of the year 938 of Yasdakard, king of kings, [26th May 1569]. I, Mitvé-Apan Anéshak-riban Rdstam Shatré-iyar, wrote z¢ for my own possession. From the copy 1 See Zend-Avesta, or the Religious Books of the Zoroastrians, edited by N. L. Westergaard (Kopenhagen, 1852-54), vol. i, introd. p. 8, note 3. 2 The Book of the Mainyé-i-Khard, also an old fragment of the Bundehesh, edited by F. C. Andreas (Kiel, 1882). INTRODUCTION. xix of Dastir Gadman-pirig Aspendiy4r Gadman-pirdg, and that from the copy of DastOr Shatrvé-aiyy4r Végan Khfisréishah, and that, as regards these several sayings, was written from the copy of the heavenly-destined Mah-vind4ad Naremahan with the righteous soul, and comes unto us from the realm of the Hindfis. May even our writing be in accordance with the will of the sacred beings.’ In addition to the date, the chief matter of interest in this colophon is its acknowledgment of the fact that the work had come from India, where the original Pahlavi text appears to have since become extinct. We have, therefore, in this text, merely so much of the work as had reached India, on which the Pazand- Sanskrit version of Néryésang, described below, was undoubtedly based ; and the possibility of hereafter finding the latter part of the work in Persia should not be overlooked. It is, however, upon the text contained in K43, so far as it is preserved, that the translation of the Dina-i Mainég-i Khirad in this volume is founded. Of the other Pahlavi manuscript, TD2, nothing further is known to the translator than a copy of the passages corresponding to those contained in the ten folios lost from K43, upon which copy the translation of those passages has been based.
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, 49, 51, LVII, 5). It was originally created by AQhaymazd (Chap. VIII, 3, 8), and is superior to the archangels (Chap. I, 53); it can appear in a personal form, and undertake to be an instructor (Chap. I, 57, 60, 61); and it can likewise be used as a defence (Chap. XLIII, 6). With regard to the author of this treatise, and the age in which he lived, we have no further information than can be gathered from the contents of the book itself. The author was evidently a devoted Mazda-worshipper, and probably a layman, as has been already remarked, but he has given us no further hints about himself. Whether he wrote before or after the Arab conquest of Persia is doubtful. There are only two passages that might be strained into allusions to Muhammadanism: one in Chap. I, 18, which alludes to some heterodox religion injuring the property of the orthodox faith, but the author has just been talking of many sects, and the grievance here mentioned is much too INTRODUCTION. XVvii X common to be considered as applicable only to the Arabs ; the other passage is Chap. XVI, 37-48, which describes the advantages of ‘the moderate drinking of wine, and might be supposed to be written in indirect opposition to the Muhammadan prohibition of such indulgence. In either case the allusion is certainly far too obscure to form a fair basis for argument. On the other hand, Chap. XIII, 13, 14, speaks of the sovereignty of Vistasp existing in connection with the most powerful sect or form of devotion, which statement might be strained to imply that the government was still orthodox; and the definitions of good and bad government in Chap. XV, 12-39 could hardly have been written after the Arab conquest. The allusion to the continued conflict of the Ardmans and Tardnians with the Iranians, in Chap. XXI, 23-26, may possibly refer to some troublesome wars carried on by the Greeks and Turks against the Persians in the time of the author, and the late Dr. A. D. Mordtmann has suggested A.D. 580-590 as a probable period for such remarks, but, here again, the allusion is too obscure to be relied on.
2A. D. Mordtmann has suggested A.D. 580-590 as a probable period for such remarks, but, here again, the allusion is too obscure to be relied on. Very few of the author’s quotations can be identified, but this is no argument for a greater age than eight or ten centuries, as we know, from passages quoted in the Shayast La-sh4yast, Dadistan-t Dinik, and other works, that some of the lost Nasks must have been still extant as recently as that. The Avesta is quoted only twice by name, in Chaps. I, 27, XVI, 15; the former ‘passage has not been identified, but the latter may perhaps be from the Pazag Nask. Several quotations, however, are made from the diné or ‘revelation,’ a term which, when it refers to writings, is often applied by Pahlavi writers to the Avesta only. Of these passages Chap. XLIV, 18-23 is from the Vendidad, Chap. XXI, 24-26 may be from the Kidrast Nask, and six other quotations have not been identified. In other cases the quotations are merely prefaced by the phrase ‘zt zs declared.’ And of these the passage in Chap. LVII, 24-28 appears to be derived from the Vendidad, and that in Chap. TI, 155, 156 from the so-called Hadékht Nask, while eight other passages are unidentified. In this last class the quota- [24] b XVili PAHLAVI TEXTS. tions seem to be rather paraphrases than accurate translations of the original texts. Of the original Pahlavi text of the Din4-t Mainég-i Khirad only two manuscripts are yet known to exist; one of these (K43) is contained in No. 43 of the Iranian manuscripts in the University Library at Kopenhagen, and the other (TD2) belongs to Mr. Tehmuras Dinshawji Anklesaria of Bombay. The manuscript K43 is a small quarto volume of 178 folios, of which the Din4 occupies fols. 2-37, written fifteen lines to the page. The first and second folios also contain the conclusion of the larger Bundahis, of which the first 129 folios are missing from this codex, as described in SBE, vol. v, introd. pp. xxxix—-xli. And the latter part of the codex contains about one-fifth of the Dinkard, in several detached fragments, and four-fifths of the Bahman Yast. This manuscript was brought from Persia by the late Professor Westergaard in 18431, and the Pahlavi text of the Din4, which it contains, was published in facsimile by Andreas in 18827.
3This manuscript was brought from Persia by the late Professor Westergaard in 18431, and the Pahlavi text of the Din4, which it contains, was published in facsimile by Andreas in 18827. In this codex the text of the Dina-i Mainég-? Khirad begins in the middle of Chap. I, 28; but, as the copyist has prefixed an introductory heading to this imperfect text; it is evident that he, or some predecessor of his, must have copied the work, in this imperfect state, from some manuscript whose first folio had been lost. Besides this deficiency, ten folios of the text have-been lost from this particular codex; nine of these were occupied by Chaps. XIV, 1- XXVII, 49, and the tenth contained Chaps. XXXIX, 31- XL, 17. At the end of the work, Chap. LXIII is followed by a colophon to the following effect :—‘ Completed in peace and pleasure and joy on the day Shatvair6é of the month Avan of the year 938 of Yasdakard, king of kings, [26th May 1569]. I, Mitvé-Apan Anéshak-riban Rdstam Shatré-iyar, wrote z¢ for my own possession. From the copy 1 See Zend-Avesta, or the Religious Books of the Zoroastrians, edited by N. L. Westergaard (Kopenhagen, 1852-54), vol. i, introd. p. 8, note 3. 2 The Book of the Mainyé-i-Khard, also an old fragment of the Bundehesh, edited by F. C. Andreas (Kiel, 1882). INTRODUCTION. xix of Dastir Gadman-pirig Aspendiy4r Gadman-pirdg, and that from the copy of DastOr Shatrvé-aiyy4r Végan Khfisréishah, and that, as regards these several sayings, was written from the copy of the heavenly-destined Mah-vind4ad Naremahan with the righteous soul, and comes unto us from the realm of the Hindfis. May even our writing be in accordance with the will of the sacred beings.’ In addition to the date, the chief matter of interest in this colophon is its acknowledgment of the fact that the work had come from India, where the original Pahlavi text appears to have since become extinct. We have, therefore, in this text, merely so much of the work as had reached India, on which the Pazand- Sanskrit version of Néryésang, described below, was undoubtedly based ; and the possibility of hereafter finding the latter part of the work in Persia should not be overlooked. It is, however, upon the text contained in K43, so far as it is preserved, that the translation of the Dina-i Mainég-i Khirad in this volume is founded. Of the other Pahlavi manuscript, TD2, nothing further is known to the translator than a copy of the passages corresponding to those contained in the ten folios lost from K43, upon which copy the translation of those passages has been based.
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.