Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1In consequence of the imperfect state of this manuscript it bears no date, but an old Sanskrit colophon has been copied by the writer of JE (one of the more modern manuscripts that are evidently derived from AK through one or XXxIi PAHLAVI TEXTS. more intermediate copies), and this may be fairly assumed to be the colophon of AK. This colophon may be translated as follows:—‘In the Samvat year 1625, in the current Saka year 1490, on the present day (?), the fourth day Shahrivar of the eleventh month Bahman, in the district of N4ga-mavdala’, in the royal reign of king Sul#4n Muzhaffar-shah, the book named Sikand-gdmanik Vigdr is written, for the use of Amalsh4h Kangash4h?, by the priest Asadin®, son of the priest Kak4. May it become auspicious! may it be beneficial!’ The date indicated by this colophon seems to correspond to the 23rd September 15684, but it may, of course, be doubted whether it originally belonged to AK, because the text to which it is appended in JE is incomplete. If it were attached to AK, the text in that manuscript must either have been originally incomplete, or some of the later folios must have been lost, while the last one, containing the colophon, was still preserved. If it did not belong to AK, it must have belonged to some later manuscript, because there is no doubt that JE has descended from AK, and could not, therefore, contain the colophon of an older manuscript than AK, unless it had been written in AK itself, or obtained in an irregular manner from some unrecorded source. For these reasons there seems little doubt that AK was written either in 1568, or earlier; and the general appearance of its folios favours this assumption. So far as it extends this is the best manuscript of the Sikand-gdm4nik Vigar that is known to exist, and the present translation has, therefore, been based upon its texts, 1 Probably an old name of Nausari. 4 This Kangash&h was probably a grandson of the Kangashah at whose instigation the Parsis in India carried on a correspondence with those in Persia in A.D. 1478-81, which is still preserved in the Persian Rivayats. And his father may have been the Mazekshah Kangasha4h who was the head of the Parsi laymen in Naus&ri in 1531, when he was 70 years old, as appears from the Hades& Namu (Bombay, 1831). 5 In a Gugarati memorandum, recently appended to JE, it is stated that the colophon of a Yasna Sadah, written in A.D. 1572 or 1576, gives the pedigree of this copyist as follows :—Asadin, son of K4k4, son of Dharp4l, son of Lakhmidar, son of Mébad K4mdin, son of Zaratist, son of Mébad Hormazdyar, son of Ramyéar. 4 Orit may be 1569, as the Saka date has been altered from 1491 into 1490. INTRODUCTION. XXXiil
21572 or 1576, gives the pedigree of this copyist as follows :—Asadin, son of K4k4, son of Dharp4l, son of Lakhmidar, son of Mébad K4mdin, son of Zaratist, son of Mébad Hormazdyar, son of Ramyéar. 4 Orit may be 1569, as the Saka date has been altered from 1491 into 1490. INTRODUCTION. XXXiil which are, no doubt, very nearly in the same state as when edited by Néryédsang; the Sanskrit version, especially, is far more correct than in the later copies. Many of the Pazand sections in Chaps. V-VIII are written in Pahlavi only, or in Pahlavi with the Pazand written above it ; but, in all cases, this Pahlavi is as corrupt as that of the reproduced Pahlavi manuscripts. The most complete manuscripts of the Pazand-Sanskrit _ version are JJ and JE, of which JJ is the oldest and best, but it has not yet been thoroughly examined. It is a small quarto volume of 182 folios of Indian paper, written fifteen to seventeen lines to the page, and belongs to Dastir Khurshédji Jamshédji of Nausari. From certain blunders and peculiarities, which its writer has copied, it is certain that this manuscript has descended from AK, and, also, that it has derived a few variations from some other source. Its Sanskrit text is not written inverted, as it is in AK, and it commences with Néryésang’s usual Sanskrit introduction, as translated in p. xx, but with the clause containing the names altered to the following effect :—‘ This book, named Sikand-gimanik Vig4r, is translated by me, Néryésang son of Dhaval, from the Pahlavi language into the Sanskrit language, and written from the difficult Parsi letters with the Avesta letters, for the joyful understanding of the good listeners to instruction, the true-minded.’ The texts in JJ are of the same extent as the translation in this volume, and are followed by a colophon in Persian, Sanskrit, and imperfect Pahlavi, which states that the manuscript was written by Dastir Jamshéd, son of Jam4sp, son of Asa, son -of Frédfn, inhabitants of Nausdri, and completed on the day Srésh of the month Vohfman, A.y. 1137 (corresponding to the 28th August 1768). The other manuscript, JE, which is as complete as the ‘translation in this volume, is a foolscap-folio volume of 132 folios, written eighteen lines to the page, and belongs to Dastir Héshangji Jam4spji of Poona. It corresponds very closely with JJ, but its Sanskrit (which is not written inverted) is rather more corrupt; and it contains the same indications of descent from AK as that manuscript does, [24] , c XXXIV PAHLAVI TEXTS.
3It corresponds very closely with JJ, but its Sanskrit (which is not written inverted) is rather more corrupt; and it contains the same indications of descent from AK as that manuscript does, [24] , c XXXIV PAHLAVI TEXTS. with the same variations derived from some other source. It commences with Néryésang’s usual Sanskrit introduction, and at the end of the text it has the old Sanskrit colophon translated above, and supposed to belong to AK. And this is followed by a Persian colophon, written on the day Hérmazd of the month Bahman, A. Y, 1211 (corresponding to the 26th July 1842), and stating that this manuscript was copied from that of Asadin, son of K4ké, in Bombay, by Jamshéd, son of Edalji, son of Bahmanji, son of the writer of JJ. From this it might be too hastily assumed that the old manuscript AK was still complete as recently as 1842; but, if such were the case, it would be difficult to understand why Dastdr Héshangji could learn nothing about its missing moiety some twenty-five years afterwards, when he made searching enquiries on the subject; and it would be still more difficult to explain the variations in JE, already mentioned as derived from some other source than AK. It is more probable that the writer of JE found the old colophon of AK copied at the end of a more recent manuscript, which led him to believe that the latter was written by Asadin, son of Kaka. That the first folio of AK had already been lost, considerably more than a century ago, appears from PB3, No. 3 of the Burnouf Collection in the National Library at Paris, which was evidently copied from a copy of AK, and is certainly more than a century old, judging from the general appearance of the paper on which it is written. This manuscript, which was given to Burnouf by Mr. Mamzekji Khurshédji of Bombay, is a small octavo volume of 125 folios of Indian paper, written twelve to sixteen lines to the page, and contains the Pazand-Sanskrit text of Chaps. I, 5-53, and II, 5~X, 66: the Sanskrit being written upside down, as in AK. The loss of Nérydésang’s Sanskrit introduction and Chap. I, 1-4 of the text indicates that the first folio of AK was already missing when the original of PB3 was copied, and several lacunae in the earlier folios, which have been filled up in red ink from some other source, indicate the torn condition of the earlier folios of AK. The loss of Chaps. I, 54—-II, 4 is due to two folios INTRODUCTION. XXXV being absent between folios 11 and 12 of PB3; and after Chap. X, 66 all further folios have been lost.: In some sections in Chaps. VI and VIII, where the Pazand text is written above its Pahlavi equivalent in AK, much confusion * has been occasioned in PB3 by reading the Pazand and Pahlavi versions as two successive lines of text; and it is evident that this confusion originated in some manuscript intermediate between AK and PB3, though it has been increased by further blundering on the part of the writer of PB3 itself.
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.
1In consequence of the imperfect state of this manuscript it bears no date, but an old Sanskrit colophon has been copied by the writer of JE (one of the more modern manuscripts that are evidently derived from AK through one or XXxIi PAHLAVI TEXTS. more intermediate copies), and this may be fairly assumed to be the colophon of AK. This colophon may be translated as follows:—‘In the Samvat year 1625, in the current Saka year 1490, on the present day (?), the fourth day Shahrivar of the eleventh month Bahman, in the district of N4ga-mavdala’, in the royal reign of king Sul#4n Muzhaffar-shah, the book named Sikand-gdmanik Vigdr is written, for the use of Amalsh4h Kangash4h?, by the priest Asadin®, son of the priest Kak4. May it become auspicious! may it be beneficial!’ The date indicated by this colophon seems to correspond to the 23rd September 15684, but it may, of course, be doubted whether it originally belonged to AK, because the text to which it is appended in JE is incomplete. If it were attached to AK, the text in that manuscript must either have been originally incomplete, or some of the later folios must have been lost, while the last one, containing the colophon, was still preserved. If it did not belong to AK, it must have belonged to some later manuscript, because there is no doubt that JE has descended from AK, and could not, therefore, contain the colophon of an older manuscript than AK, unless it had been written in AK itself, or obtained in an irregular manner from some unrecorded source. For these reasons there seems little doubt that AK was written either in 1568, or earlier; and the general appearance of its folios favours this assumption. So far as it extends this is the best manuscript of the Sikand-gdm4nik Vigar that is known to exist, and the present translation has, therefore, been based upon its texts, 1 Probably an old name of Nausari. 4 This Kangash&h was probably a grandson of the Kangashah at whose instigation the Parsis in India carried on a correspondence with those in Persia in A.D. 1478-81, which is still preserved in the Persian Rivayats. And his father may have been the Mazekshah Kangasha4h who was the head of the Parsi laymen in Naus&ri in 1531, when he was 70 years old, as appears from the Hades& Namu (Bombay, 1831). 5 In a Gugarati memorandum, recently appended to JE, it is stated that the colophon of a Yasna Sadah, written in A.D. 1572 or 1576, gives the pedigree of this copyist as follows :—Asadin, son of K4k4, son of Dharp4l, son of Lakhmidar, son of Mébad K4mdin, son of Zaratist, son of Mébad Hormazdyar, son of Ramyéar. 4 Orit may be 1569, as the Saka date has been altered from 1491 into 1490. INTRODUCTION. XXXiil
21572 or 1576, gives the pedigree of this copyist as follows :—Asadin, son of K4k4, son of Dharp4l, son of Lakhmidar, son of Mébad K4mdin, son of Zaratist, son of Mébad Hormazdyar, son of Ramyéar. 4 Orit may be 1569, as the Saka date has been altered from 1491 into 1490. INTRODUCTION. XXXiil which are, no doubt, very nearly in the same state as when edited by Néryédsang; the Sanskrit version, especially, is far more correct than in the later copies. Many of the Pazand sections in Chaps. V-VIII are written in Pahlavi only, or in Pahlavi with the Pazand written above it ; but, in all cases, this Pahlavi is as corrupt as that of the reproduced Pahlavi manuscripts. The most complete manuscripts of the Pazand-Sanskrit _ version are JJ and JE, of which JJ is the oldest and best, but it has not yet been thoroughly examined. It is a small quarto volume of 182 folios of Indian paper, written fifteen to seventeen lines to the page, and belongs to Dastir Khurshédji Jamshédji of Nausari. From certain blunders and peculiarities, which its writer has copied, it is certain that this manuscript has descended from AK, and, also, that it has derived a few variations from some other source. Its Sanskrit text is not written inverted, as it is in AK, and it commences with Néryésang’s usual Sanskrit introduction, as translated in p. xx, but with the clause containing the names altered to the following effect :—‘ This book, named Sikand-gimanik Vig4r, is translated by me, Néryésang son of Dhaval, from the Pahlavi language into the Sanskrit language, and written from the difficult Parsi letters with the Avesta letters, for the joyful understanding of the good listeners to instruction, the true-minded.’ The texts in JJ are of the same extent as the translation in this volume, and are followed by a colophon in Persian, Sanskrit, and imperfect Pahlavi, which states that the manuscript was written by Dastir Jamshéd, son of Jam4sp, son of Asa, son -of Frédfn, inhabitants of Nausdri, and completed on the day Srésh of the month Vohfman, A.y. 1137 (corresponding to the 28th August 1768). The other manuscript, JE, which is as complete as the ‘translation in this volume, is a foolscap-folio volume of 132 folios, written eighteen lines to the page, and belongs to Dastir Héshangji Jam4spji of Poona. It corresponds very closely with JJ, but its Sanskrit (which is not written inverted) is rather more corrupt; and it contains the same indications of descent from AK as that manuscript does, [24] , c XXXIV PAHLAVI TEXTS.
3It corresponds very closely with JJ, but its Sanskrit (which is not written inverted) is rather more corrupt; and it contains the same indications of descent from AK as that manuscript does, [24] , c XXXIV PAHLAVI TEXTS. with the same variations derived from some other source. It commences with Néryésang’s usual Sanskrit introduction, and at the end of the text it has the old Sanskrit colophon translated above, and supposed to belong to AK. And this is followed by a Persian colophon, written on the day Hérmazd of the month Bahman, A. Y, 1211 (corresponding to the 26th July 1842), and stating that this manuscript was copied from that of Asadin, son of K4ké, in Bombay, by Jamshéd, son of Edalji, son of Bahmanji, son of the writer of JJ. From this it might be too hastily assumed that the old manuscript AK was still complete as recently as 1842; but, if such were the case, it would be difficult to understand why Dastdr Héshangji could learn nothing about its missing moiety some twenty-five years afterwards, when he made searching enquiries on the subject; and it would be still more difficult to explain the variations in JE, already mentioned as derived from some other source than AK. It is more probable that the writer of JE found the old colophon of AK copied at the end of a more recent manuscript, which led him to believe that the latter was written by Asadin, son of Kaka. That the first folio of AK had already been lost, considerably more than a century ago, appears from PB3, No. 3 of the Burnouf Collection in the National Library at Paris, which was evidently copied from a copy of AK, and is certainly more than a century old, judging from the general appearance of the paper on which it is written. This manuscript, which was given to Burnouf by Mr. Mamzekji Khurshédji of Bombay, is a small octavo volume of 125 folios of Indian paper, written twelve to sixteen lines to the page, and contains the Pazand-Sanskrit text of Chaps. I, 5-53, and II, 5~X, 66: the Sanskrit being written upside down, as in AK. The loss of Nérydésang’s Sanskrit introduction and Chap. I, 1-4 of the text indicates that the first folio of AK was already missing when the original of PB3 was copied, and several lacunae in the earlier folios, which have been filled up in red ink from some other source, indicate the torn condition of the earlier folios of AK. The loss of Chaps. I, 54—-II, 4 is due to two folios INTRODUCTION. XXXV being absent between folios 11 and 12 of PB3; and after Chap. X, 66 all further folios have been lost.: In some sections in Chaps. VI and VIII, where the Pazand text is written above its Pahlavi equivalent in AK, much confusion * has been occasioned in PB3 by reading the Pazand and Pahlavi versions as two successive lines of text; and it is evident that this confusion originated in some manuscript intermediate between AK and PB3, though it has been increased by further blundering on the part of the writer of PB3 itself.
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.