Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1Unfortunately the latter part of this discussion is missing, although the loss of text is probably not very extensive. The original Pahlavi text of the Sikand-gdm4nik Vigdar has not yet been discovered, although there are several existing copies of a Pahlavi version of the earlier part of the work, which are evidently reproductions from the Pazand text. These pseudo-Pahlavi manuscripts usually end with the fifth chapter, and are certainly superior to the similiar reproductions of the Din4-i Mainég-i Khirad, represented by K22 (see p. xix). Yet they generally use the adjective suffix -ik for the abstract suffix -ih, because both these suffixes become -i in Pazand ; they often have kabed, ‘much,’ for afas, ‘and by him,’ when the P4zand has vas by mistake for vas; they also substitute the Pazand misreading ain4 for the true Pahlavi adinas; besides adopting other occasional miswritings for which the P4zand version alone is responsible. Such manuscripts could be of no critical value, unless they had descended from some family of Pazand manuscripts which had left no surviving representatives in Pazand, and this does not appear to be the case. A specimen of these Pahlavi reproductions is contained UNIVE body Cy se peti in the last 36 folios of L15, No. 15 of the and Pahlavi manuscripts in the India Office Library in London. It commences with the words ‘all the angels’ in Chap. I, 4, and ends with Chap. V, 71; the handwriting being the same as that in L26, a manuscript that contains a date corresponding to A.D. 1737. In fols. 9-16 of BM. No. 22,378 of the Additional Oriental manuscripts in the British Museum Library, there is a modern fragment of this reproduced Pahlavi text, interlined with a transliteration in the Persian character, and alternating with a Persian paraphrase. This fragment contains only Chap. I, 1-31. The reproduced Pahlavi text also occurs, in parallel columns with the usual Pazand and Sanskrit versions and a Persian paraphrase, in R, an imperfect polyglot manuscript given to the late Mr. J. Romer by a Dast@r in Surat. Of this foolscap-folio manuscript Mr. Romer sent pp. 16-31 (with the first fifteen pages of a Pahlavi-Persian Bundahis) to the late Professor M. J. Miiller, through Mr. Poley; he also sent pp. 32-63, 82-93 to the late Professor H. H. Wilson on 3rd December 1836, who afterwards transferred them to Professor Max Miiller; and he gave pp. 64-81, 99-143 to the late Mr. Norris. The first of these fragments, together with that of the Bundahis now constitute No. 10 of the Miiller Collection in the State Library at Munich; the next two fragments were presented to the India Office Library, and the two last mentioned were acquired by it, in 1876. It is most probable that the first fifteen pages of this polyglot manuscript were not given to Mr.
210 of the Miiller Collection in the State Library at Munich; the next two fragments were presented to the India Office Library, and the two last mentioned were acquired by it, in 1876. It is most probable that the first fifteen pages of this polyglot manuscript were not given to Mr. «omer, but the first fifteen pages of the Bundahis were substituted for them. The portion extant (pp. 16-143) contains all four versions of Chaps. I, 28-V, 57, with the Sanskrit and Persian versions of Chap. I, 25-27, and the Pahlavi and Pazand versions of Chap. V, 58-62; and the latter two versions are everywhere interlined with a transliteration in Persian characters. This manuscript is modern and of no particular critical value; but, as the combination of the four versions is rare, if not unique, it would be very desirable to discover the rest of the manuscript. INTRODUCTION. XXX PAHLAVI TEXTS. In another manuscript, No. 18 of the Anquetil Collection in the National Library at Paris, the reproduced Pahlavi text has the usual Pazand version written above it. This manuscript, which is in the form of a roll, begins at the same point as L15 (see p. xxix) and ends with Chap. V, 95, which is said to be the usual extent of other manuscripts of this class in India. A copy of this manuscript is No. 23 of the Miller Collection in the State Library at Munich. An extension of the same reproduced Pahlavi text, with the P4zand version written above it, and alternating with the Sanskrit version, is contained in K28, No. 28 of the Ir4nian manuscripts in the University Library at Kopenhagen. It is an imperfect octavo manuscript, of which only 66 folios remain, written eleven lines to the page, and, in its present state, it is undated, but seems to be fully 150 years old. The portions of the text that it still contains are only Chaps. I, 1-II, 8; III, 1-25; III, 36-IV, 106; VIII, 103- IX, 16; IX, 30-X, 13; X, 71-XI, 28; XI, 55-61; so that more than half the text that ought to be included within its extreme limits is missing ; but its original extent, within the same limits, was more than double the usual length of the reproduced Pahlavi text, as stated above. In this particular, of unusual length, only one other manuscript of that text seems to be known in India that resembles it, in addition to the imperfect copy next described. K28 contains Néryésang’s usual Sanskrit introduction (see p. xxxiii), and differs from the oldest Pazand manuscript AK in only two or three instances, and these variations can be explained as corrections made on the authority of the Sanskrit version.
3K28 contains Néryésang’s usual Sanskrit introduction (see p. xxxiii), and differs from the oldest Pazand manuscript AK in only two or three instances, and these variations can be explained as corrections made on the authority of the Sanskrit version. An imperfect and modern copy of the Pahlavi-Pazand- Sanskrit texts is also contained in twenty-two folios prefixed to AK (described below). This copy commences with Néryésang’s Sanskrit introduction, and includes only Chaps. I, 1-IV, 100 and X, 71-XI, 47. Its writer has intended to give the three versions in successive sentences, but, after Chap. I, 23, the Pazand and Sanskrit sentences are less and less frequently written, till they cease altogether after I, 43, with the exception of one or two isolated sections. In INTRODUCTION. XXxI several cases he has also substituted the correct abstract suffix -th for the usual incorrect -ik, but this correction is generally confined to abstract nouns in common use. As none of these Pahlavi manuscripts can be considered otherwise than as reproductions from the P4zand, it is to the Pazand-Sanskrit version of Nérydsang that we must still look for the nearest approach to the original text of the work. It is in this version, too, that we find the greatest extent of text still extant, although the Sikand-gim4nik Vigar seems to possess the peculiarity of wearying out all its copyists at some point or other, so that not only is there no complete copy of the work known, but also nearly every copyist has stopped his work at a different place. The oldest known manuscript of the PA4zand-Sanskrit version belongs to Dastir Héshangji Jam4spji of Poona, and is called AK, because it is supposed to have been written by Asadin, son of Kaka. In its present state this manuscript consists of seventy-seven small quarto folios of very old, discoloured, Indian paper, written sixteen lines to the page, and containing the Pazand version in short sentences, alternating with a word-for-word Sanskrit translation of each sentence; the Sanskrit being written upside down, for the sake of forming a continuous line with the reversely-written Avesta characters of the Pazand. From other manuscripts it is known that this Pazand-Sanskrit version was compiled by Néryésang, son of Dhaval, but in this manuscript his usual Sanskrit introduction is lost with the first three folios of the text, and the existing seventyseven folios contain only Chaps. I, 16-XI, 145. As this extends only one folio beyond the middle of the whole of the text that is extant, it is supposed that this old manuscript was divided into two nearly equal moieties on the occasion of some division of property, of which the earlier moiety has been preserved, and the later one either lost, or destroyed, or buried in some inaccessible library.
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.
1Unfortunately the latter part of this discussion is missing, although the loss of text is probably not very extensive. The original Pahlavi text of the Sikand-gdm4nik Vigdar has not yet been discovered, although there are several existing copies of a Pahlavi version of the earlier part of the work, which are evidently reproductions from the Pazand text. These pseudo-Pahlavi manuscripts usually end with the fifth chapter, and are certainly superior to the similiar reproductions of the Din4-i Mainég-i Khirad, represented by K22 (see p. xix). Yet they generally use the adjective suffix -ik for the abstract suffix -ih, because both these suffixes become -i in Pazand ; they often have kabed, ‘much,’ for afas, ‘and by him,’ when the P4zand has vas by mistake for vas; they also substitute the Pazand misreading ain4 for the true Pahlavi adinas; besides adopting other occasional miswritings for which the P4zand version alone is responsible. Such manuscripts could be of no critical value, unless they had descended from some family of Pazand manuscripts which had left no surviving representatives in Pazand, and this does not appear to be the case. A specimen of these Pahlavi reproductions is contained UNIVE body Cy se peti in the last 36 folios of L15, No. 15 of the and Pahlavi manuscripts in the India Office Library in London. It commences with the words ‘all the angels’ in Chap. I, 4, and ends with Chap. V, 71; the handwriting being the same as that in L26, a manuscript that contains a date corresponding to A.D. 1737. In fols. 9-16 of BM. No. 22,378 of the Additional Oriental manuscripts in the British Museum Library, there is a modern fragment of this reproduced Pahlavi text, interlined with a transliteration in the Persian character, and alternating with a Persian paraphrase. This fragment contains only Chap. I, 1-31. The reproduced Pahlavi text also occurs, in parallel columns with the usual Pazand and Sanskrit versions and a Persian paraphrase, in R, an imperfect polyglot manuscript given to the late Mr. J. Romer by a Dast@r in Surat. Of this foolscap-folio manuscript Mr. Romer sent pp. 16-31 (with the first fifteen pages of a Pahlavi-Persian Bundahis) to the late Professor M. J. Miiller, through Mr. Poley; he also sent pp. 32-63, 82-93 to the late Professor H. H. Wilson on 3rd December 1836, who afterwards transferred them to Professor Max Miiller; and he gave pp. 64-81, 99-143 to the late Mr. Norris. The first of these fragments, together with that of the Bundahis now constitute No. 10 of the Miiller Collection in the State Library at Munich; the next two fragments were presented to the India Office Library, and the two last mentioned were acquired by it, in 1876. It is most probable that the first fifteen pages of this polyglot manuscript were not given to Mr.
210 of the Miiller Collection in the State Library at Munich; the next two fragments were presented to the India Office Library, and the two last mentioned were acquired by it, in 1876. It is most probable that the first fifteen pages of this polyglot manuscript were not given to Mr. «omer, but the first fifteen pages of the Bundahis were substituted for them. The portion extant (pp. 16-143) contains all four versions of Chaps. I, 28-V, 57, with the Sanskrit and Persian versions of Chap. I, 25-27, and the Pahlavi and Pazand versions of Chap. V, 58-62; and the latter two versions are everywhere interlined with a transliteration in Persian characters. This manuscript is modern and of no particular critical value; but, as the combination of the four versions is rare, if not unique, it would be very desirable to discover the rest of the manuscript. INTRODUCTION. XXX PAHLAVI TEXTS. In another manuscript, No. 18 of the Anquetil Collection in the National Library at Paris, the reproduced Pahlavi text has the usual Pazand version written above it. This manuscript, which is in the form of a roll, begins at the same point as L15 (see p. xxix) and ends with Chap. V, 95, which is said to be the usual extent of other manuscripts of this class in India. A copy of this manuscript is No. 23 of the Miller Collection in the State Library at Munich. An extension of the same reproduced Pahlavi text, with the P4zand version written above it, and alternating with the Sanskrit version, is contained in K28, No. 28 of the Ir4nian manuscripts in the University Library at Kopenhagen. It is an imperfect octavo manuscript, of which only 66 folios remain, written eleven lines to the page, and, in its present state, it is undated, but seems to be fully 150 years old. The portions of the text that it still contains are only Chaps. I, 1-II, 8; III, 1-25; III, 36-IV, 106; VIII, 103- IX, 16; IX, 30-X, 13; X, 71-XI, 28; XI, 55-61; so that more than half the text that ought to be included within its extreme limits is missing ; but its original extent, within the same limits, was more than double the usual length of the reproduced Pahlavi text, as stated above. In this particular, of unusual length, only one other manuscript of that text seems to be known in India that resembles it, in addition to the imperfect copy next described. K28 contains Néryésang’s usual Sanskrit introduction (see p. xxxiii), and differs from the oldest Pazand manuscript AK in only two or three instances, and these variations can be explained as corrections made on the authority of the Sanskrit version.
3K28 contains Néryésang’s usual Sanskrit introduction (see p. xxxiii), and differs from the oldest Pazand manuscript AK in only two or three instances, and these variations can be explained as corrections made on the authority of the Sanskrit version. An imperfect and modern copy of the Pahlavi-Pazand- Sanskrit texts is also contained in twenty-two folios prefixed to AK (described below). This copy commences with Néryésang’s Sanskrit introduction, and includes only Chaps. I, 1-IV, 100 and X, 71-XI, 47. Its writer has intended to give the three versions in successive sentences, but, after Chap. I, 23, the Pazand and Sanskrit sentences are less and less frequently written, till they cease altogether after I, 43, with the exception of one or two isolated sections. In INTRODUCTION. XXxI several cases he has also substituted the correct abstract suffix -th for the usual incorrect -ik, but this correction is generally confined to abstract nouns in common use. As none of these Pahlavi manuscripts can be considered otherwise than as reproductions from the P4zand, it is to the Pazand-Sanskrit version of Nérydsang that we must still look for the nearest approach to the original text of the work. It is in this version, too, that we find the greatest extent of text still extant, although the Sikand-gim4nik Vigar seems to possess the peculiarity of wearying out all its copyists at some point or other, so that not only is there no complete copy of the work known, but also nearly every copyist has stopped his work at a different place. The oldest known manuscript of the PA4zand-Sanskrit version belongs to Dastir Héshangji Jam4spji of Poona, and is called AK, because it is supposed to have been written by Asadin, son of Kaka. In its present state this manuscript consists of seventy-seven small quarto folios of very old, discoloured, Indian paper, written sixteen lines to the page, and containing the Pazand version in short sentences, alternating with a word-for-word Sanskrit translation of each sentence; the Sanskrit being written upside down, for the sake of forming a continuous line with the reversely-written Avesta characters of the Pazand. From other manuscripts it is known that this Pazand-Sanskrit version was compiled by Néryésang, son of Dhaval, but in this manuscript his usual Sanskrit introduction is lost with the first three folios of the text, and the existing seventyseven folios contain only Chaps. I, 16-XI, 145. As this extends only one folio beyond the middle of the whole of the text that is extant, it is supposed that this old manuscript was divided into two nearly equal moieties on the occasion of some division of property, of which the earlier moiety has been preserved, and the later one either lost, or destroyed, or buried in some inaccessible library.
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.