Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1Huropean language, with Neryosangh’s Sanskrit text edited with the collation of five MSS., and with a first translation, - also with the Persian text contained in Codex 12> of the Munich Collection edited in transliteration, together with a commentary, being the literary apparatus and argument to the translation of the Gathas in the XXXIst volume of the Sacred Books of the East by L. H. Mills, D.D., Hon. M.A. Oxon. Part IV. Commentary. This work is published with the assistance of the Secretary of State for India in Council (of Her Britannic Majesty’s Government), and also with that of the Trustees of the Parsi Panchayet Translation Fund of Bombay. To be had of F, A. Brockhaus in Leipsie Oxford 1892, Druck der Universitits - Buchdruckerei yon E. Th. Jacob in Erlangen. Commentary. As the Gathic texts have been somewhat extensively treated above, and as further discussion of the Gathds, will, it is hoped, be presented, ordinary knowledge as to the Gathic language is here presupposed. The Pahlavi translations however have necessarily claimed a fuller comment, owing to the circumstances mentioned in the Preface. In the texts and translations above we have the preliminary translations of the Pahlavi made in the light of the glosses, and more in accordance with the rules of ordi- nary Pahlavi syntax, here however I endeavour to give the final and more accurate treatment with glosses for the most part dropped, and with the flexible Pahlavi words brought as nearly as possible into harmony with their Gathic originals. But the reader will understand that space for this can only be spared while treating the first few chapters. And even here more space than is occupied would be desirable Y. XXVIU, 0. This introductory verse is, as of course, of later origin than the Gathdas. Its dialect also shows the later termination in ahé(e) (= ahya probably), and also fr@ for the Gathic fré = frd + wu; but except in the possible instance of ahé(e), the long finals are preserved, and also the more ancient vé for v6. Géurvdin = géurwaya(e)n, as the 4, originally and permanently a Pahlavi letter, like many other Zend letters, is a consonant here equalling y, as often in Pahl., and, as also in Pahl., containing inherent a. The Pahlavi adds glosses which are not objectionable; but géurvdin (if read) was not rendered with future subjunctive force. Neryosangh adds copiously to the glosses of the Pahlavi with interesting matter however obscurely expressed. 1. Texts. A voc. Mazdd in a has been read with many MSS. to avoid the accumulation of genitives; see also the voc. Mazdd in verses 2, 6, 7,9, 10, 11, also the vocatives in 3, 5 and 8. Holding to the gen. with some MSS., we would have ‘of Mazda, the bounteous spirit’. Haug first suggested the rendering vispeng as an acc. pl. neut., otherwise it would be an acc. pl. masc. used adverbially, as often occurs with similar forms. S(k)yaothna accords with the metre.
2tives in 3, 5 and 8. Holding to the gen. with some MSS., we would have ‘of Mazda, the bounteous spirit’. Haug first suggested the rendering vispeng as an acc. pl. neut., otherwise it would be an acc. pl. masc. used adverbially, as often occurs with similar forms. S(k)yaothna accords with the metre. Acting on the remark made above, I will treat the Pahlavi of this verse with the strictest reference to its original, and indeed will bring its very flexible forms more than elsewhere into harmony with the Gatha. 50 894 I have therefore regarded the word bavihtinam = ydséd as having appli- cation throughout the verse, and that, notwithstanding the intervening glosses. Later I have recoiled, I fear, too much from this procedure in my anxiety to avoid favouring the Pahlavi as to its approximately literal character. The first gloss here is however by no means objectionable, anticipating the till now prevailing, and not impossible, reading ‘Mazddo’ as a gen. in line 0. The second is directly in point; the offerer was in the act of effecting the ‘mediation of the Yazads’. The third gloss, ‘the mind also’, is especially intelligent. That ‘for his own joy’ is better than ‘by it, the mind’s own joy’ (the word ‘mind’s’ is only in the gloss) is proved by 7 Adharmazd nafshman. Pavan Gdsdnikth only expressed the universal conviction of Parsis, although of course the original composer of the ‘GAthic doctrine’ did not mean to refer to that doctrine directly, and the gloss is in so far erroneous. Afzdyinishnih should be rendered as a genitive by position in accordance with its original, spevitahyd, as the Pahlavi translator has elsewhere shown that he could not mistake a genitive of the kind when fairly before him in his MS. That the line is free, and not intended to be verbatim throughout, as So many would thoughtlessly suppose, is proved by the fact that vanheus mananhé is either not rendered at all, or else rendered by dsn6 khiradé; and if it is thus rendered freely, it is most intelligently correct. We have then pavan rdmishn as free for 7 rdmishn, pavan minavadikth for 4 minavad, Ahardyih ¢ for pavan Ahardyih, and shndyishnd for pavan min shndyem. As to pavan khiradé as = khratim, the reader must not forget that pavan often means merely ‘as’. Otherwise the renderings should not be questioned. Zak, the gloss aside, may be genitive by position = ahyd (see Ner.’s asya); bavihtinam equals yasd, pavan niydyishn equals nemanhd; adstand yadman equals usténazasté ; Atharmazd may be either voc. or gen. by position, equalling Mazdd, or Mazdéo; Sratim = paourvim; pavan harvispd kinishns = vispeng S(k)yaothné (if an adverbially used plural masc.); 7 géshdérvan = géeu§ urvdnem.
3ihtinam equals yasd, pavan niydyishn equals nemanhd; adstand yadman equals usténazasté ; Atharmazd may be either voc. or gen. by position, equalling Mazdd, or Mazdéo; Sratim = paourvim; pavan harvispd kinishns = vispeng S(k)yaothné (if an adverbially used plural masc.); 7 géshdérvan = géeu§ urvdnem. Without glosses, which were probably not present in the rendering from which our surviving translation was written, we should have: ‘With praise of this Ipray, stretching out the hand in, or for, joy, (0) praying for the first gift of Atharmazd according to His spiritual nature, according to the prospering holiness which is in every action; and according to His understanding I pray for the contentment of Géshddrvan’. The translation is doubtless imperfect, but it cannot be reasonably neglected as the oldest extant. The connection of ahyd with rafedhrahyd was not credited, but the pavan of pavan |Gdsdnikth] might more properly be referred to Ahardyih = Ashé, in which case the rendering, which especially disclaims literalness (see | | 395 the absence of Vohimand) would be hampered with but little error. Line 6 might then read in view of the Gathic: ‘I pray for Atharmazd’s first gift which 7s bestowed according to His bountifulness, viz. I pray for the action which is with righteousness toward all’. There is the gravest doubt whether it is not imperatively necessary to render this, and all analogous passages, in this manner; for the izdfat is often understood, and the flexible Pahlavi may represent different grammatical forms in harmony with the context. Ner. gives a valuable translation of the Pahlavi, but with his eye on the Gatha. He is more decided than the Pahlavi mo ahyad = asya, main- yeus = adricyasya (or did he show us how to understand pavan minavadikth ?), and in translating Vanhéuws Mananhé literally by uttamasya manasah. He may well have had another text, not that now surviving to us, at these points. His glosses are more fall: but this is a doubtful ndeantea: The Parsi- persian renders a text which contained Vohéman in line ec, showing the value of its evidence as to readings of the Pahlavi. 2. Dévoi is dative inf. for imperative; root dé, suffix vé(¢), compare vidvé (viduyé(é)). Or it may be possibly from du, comp. Indian divas. The suffix then would be é¢). Some render rapaité ‘adherents’; I add an element of joyfulness; ¢dthré(¢) from ban. I read the interior short ¢ in pairijasdi. This verse is one of very many to prove that the subjects deeply en- gaging the mind of the composer were closely connected with the fate of souls in the spiritual world now and hereafter, as well as with the fate of our bodies here, The Pahl. trlr. could not credit the nom. yé; he rendered it as if it were yd; and some moderns have shared his error. He sees the conjunc- tive in jasd¢, and renders the infinitive dd@véi correctly as imperative (com- pare the English usage; ‘ye are to declare’; that is, ‘declare ye’).
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.
1Huropean language, with Neryosangh’s Sanskrit text edited with the collation of five MSS., and with a first translation, - also with the Persian text contained in Codex 12> of the Munich Collection edited in transliteration, together with a commentary, being the literary apparatus and argument to the translation of the Gathas in the XXXIst volume of the Sacred Books of the East by L. H. Mills, D.D., Hon. M.A. Oxon. Part IV. Commentary. This work is published with the assistance of the Secretary of State for India in Council (of Her Britannic Majesty’s Government), and also with that of the Trustees of the Parsi Panchayet Translation Fund of Bombay. To be had of F, A. Brockhaus in Leipsie Oxford 1892, Druck der Universitits - Buchdruckerei yon E. Th. Jacob in Erlangen. Commentary. As the Gathic texts have been somewhat extensively treated above, and as further discussion of the Gathds, will, it is hoped, be presented, ordinary knowledge as to the Gathic language is here presupposed. The Pahlavi translations however have necessarily claimed a fuller comment, owing to the circumstances mentioned in the Preface. In the texts and translations above we have the preliminary translations of the Pahlavi made in the light of the glosses, and more in accordance with the rules of ordi- nary Pahlavi syntax, here however I endeavour to give the final and more accurate treatment with glosses for the most part dropped, and with the flexible Pahlavi words brought as nearly as possible into harmony with their Gathic originals. But the reader will understand that space for this can only be spared while treating the first few chapters. And even here more space than is occupied would be desirable Y. XXVIU, 0. This introductory verse is, as of course, of later origin than the Gathdas. Its dialect also shows the later termination in ahé(e) (= ahya probably), and also fr@ for the Gathic fré = frd + wu; but except in the possible instance of ahé(e), the long finals are preserved, and also the more ancient vé for v6. Géurvdin = géurwaya(e)n, as the 4, originally and permanently a Pahlavi letter, like many other Zend letters, is a consonant here equalling y, as often in Pahl., and, as also in Pahl., containing inherent a. The Pahlavi adds glosses which are not objectionable; but géurvdin (if read) was not rendered with future subjunctive force. Neryosangh adds copiously to the glosses of the Pahlavi with interesting matter however obscurely expressed. 1. Texts. A voc. Mazdd in a has been read with many MSS. to avoid the accumulation of genitives; see also the voc. Mazdd in verses 2, 6, 7,9, 10, 11, also the vocatives in 3, 5 and 8. Holding to the gen. with some MSS., we would have ‘of Mazda, the bounteous spirit’. Haug first suggested the rendering vispeng as an acc. pl. neut., otherwise it would be an acc. pl. masc. used adverbially, as often occurs with similar forms. S(k)yaothna accords with the metre.
2tives in 3, 5 and 8. Holding to the gen. with some MSS., we would have ‘of Mazda, the bounteous spirit’. Haug first suggested the rendering vispeng as an acc. pl. neut., otherwise it would be an acc. pl. masc. used adverbially, as often occurs with similar forms. S(k)yaothna accords with the metre. Acting on the remark made above, I will treat the Pahlavi of this verse with the strictest reference to its original, and indeed will bring its very flexible forms more than elsewhere into harmony with the Gatha. 50 894 I have therefore regarded the word bavihtinam = ydséd as having appli- cation throughout the verse, and that, notwithstanding the intervening glosses. Later I have recoiled, I fear, too much from this procedure in my anxiety to avoid favouring the Pahlavi as to its approximately literal character. The first gloss here is however by no means objectionable, anticipating the till now prevailing, and not impossible, reading ‘Mazddo’ as a gen. in line 0. The second is directly in point; the offerer was in the act of effecting the ‘mediation of the Yazads’. The third gloss, ‘the mind also’, is especially intelligent. That ‘for his own joy’ is better than ‘by it, the mind’s own joy’ (the word ‘mind’s’ is only in the gloss) is proved by 7 Adharmazd nafshman. Pavan Gdsdnikth only expressed the universal conviction of Parsis, although of course the original composer of the ‘GAthic doctrine’ did not mean to refer to that doctrine directly, and the gloss is in so far erroneous. Afzdyinishnih should be rendered as a genitive by position in accordance with its original, spevitahyd, as the Pahlavi translator has elsewhere shown that he could not mistake a genitive of the kind when fairly before him in his MS. That the line is free, and not intended to be verbatim throughout, as So many would thoughtlessly suppose, is proved by the fact that vanheus mananhé is either not rendered at all, or else rendered by dsn6 khiradé; and if it is thus rendered freely, it is most intelligently correct. We have then pavan rdmishn as free for 7 rdmishn, pavan minavadikth for 4 minavad, Ahardyih ¢ for pavan Ahardyih, and shndyishnd for pavan min shndyem. As to pavan khiradé as = khratim, the reader must not forget that pavan often means merely ‘as’. Otherwise the renderings should not be questioned. Zak, the gloss aside, may be genitive by position = ahyd (see Ner.’s asya); bavihtinam equals yasd, pavan niydyishn equals nemanhd; adstand yadman equals usténazasté ; Atharmazd may be either voc. or gen. by position, equalling Mazdd, or Mazdéo; Sratim = paourvim; pavan harvispd kinishns = vispeng S(k)yaothné (if an adverbially used plural masc.); 7 géshdérvan = géeu§ urvdnem.
3ihtinam equals yasd, pavan niydyishn equals nemanhd; adstand yadman equals usténazasté ; Atharmazd may be either voc. or gen. by position, equalling Mazdd, or Mazdéo; Sratim = paourvim; pavan harvispd kinishns = vispeng S(k)yaothné (if an adverbially used plural masc.); 7 géshdérvan = géeu§ urvdnem. Without glosses, which were probably not present in the rendering from which our surviving translation was written, we should have: ‘With praise of this Ipray, stretching out the hand in, or for, joy, (0) praying for the first gift of Atharmazd according to His spiritual nature, according to the prospering holiness which is in every action; and according to His understanding I pray for the contentment of Géshddrvan’. The translation is doubtless imperfect, but it cannot be reasonably neglected as the oldest extant. The connection of ahyd with rafedhrahyd was not credited, but the pavan of pavan |Gdsdnikth] might more properly be referred to Ahardyih = Ashé, in which case the rendering, which especially disclaims literalness (see | | 395 the absence of Vohimand) would be hampered with but little error. Line 6 might then read in view of the Gathic: ‘I pray for Atharmazd’s first gift which 7s bestowed according to His bountifulness, viz. I pray for the action which is with righteousness toward all’. There is the gravest doubt whether it is not imperatively necessary to render this, and all analogous passages, in this manner; for the izdfat is often understood, and the flexible Pahlavi may represent different grammatical forms in harmony with the context. Ner. gives a valuable translation of the Pahlavi, but with his eye on the Gatha. He is more decided than the Pahlavi mo ahyad = asya, main- yeus = adricyasya (or did he show us how to understand pavan minavadikth ?), and in translating Vanhéuws Mananhé literally by uttamasya manasah. He may well have had another text, not that now surviving to us, at these points. His glosses are more fall: but this is a doubtful ndeantea: The Parsi- persian renders a text which contained Vohéman in line ec, showing the value of its evidence as to readings of the Pahlavi. 2. Dévoi is dative inf. for imperative; root dé, suffix vé(¢), compare vidvé (viduyé(é)). Or it may be possibly from du, comp. Indian divas. The suffix then would be é¢). Some render rapaité ‘adherents’; I add an element of joyfulness; ¢dthré(¢) from ban. I read the interior short ¢ in pairijasdi. This verse is one of very many to prove that the subjects deeply en- gaging the mind of the composer were closely connected with the fate of souls in the spiritual world now and hereafter, as well as with the fate of our bodies here, The Pahl. trlr. could not credit the nom. yé; he rendered it as if it were yd; and some moderns have shared his error. He sees the conjunc- tive in jasd¢, and renders the infinitive dd@véi correctly as imperative (com- pare the English usage; ‘ye are to declare’; that is, ‘declare ye’).
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.