Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1Ner. saw only the idea of ‘holiness’ in ashtm, and not that of ‘rewarded holiness’, ‘blessedness’, ‘recompense’? See other occurrences. I think that his ddhyataya = dvddih = dyaptéd shows that the idea of ‘portion’ was prominent. It is to be noticed that Ner. renders dvddih in Y. 53, 1. by ddyatdm. He seems to have transliterated azddth instead of avddith there. Ner. errs in departing from the treatment of Spendarmad by the Pahl. trlr. He does not read srayént, nor yemaleldndni, nor does he accept vddinyén as an imper., in which last particular he may well be right. Otherwise his rendering of the Pahl. trlr. is important, although, as. always, not exactly corresponding to our present Pahl. text. The Parsi- persian corroborates D. J.’s aé for 1. 8. The uw in vdunus may be epenthetic, compare vani. Otherwise the weak stem vavanis, perf. part. of van, furnishes the analogon. The two may be related. The long @ reminds one of the per- haps falsely written, but still hardly accidental, long @ in vdurdimardi, vdurayd, and in ashduné(é) (?).etc. It may have its explanation in the absence of an expressed v, as if vdwnus represented vavanus, vdurdimaid? vava- roimaidi, vdurayd, vavarayd, ashduné(é), ashavané(é). Frashaostrdi. F. was the brother (?) of Jamaspa, and of the family of the Hvégva. The name was pronounced Ferashaostra causa metrt. The name may mean ‘head, or fleet (?) camels’, fra + ds (= priiich) + a+ ustra (or to priksh (?)), Rdonhanhoi is a second sg. conj. s aor. of rd. So far as its outward appearance is concerned, it might also be a 1st sg. conj. aor. of r@h, ‘that I may give it’. Cp. the 1st sg. conj. aorists in se from present stems, cited however by Whitney as ‘difficult’, Haug translates praedeo first, ‘and du verlethen magst later, and not as alternatives, but this irregularity should not be censured. He had changed his mind since the first had been printed, and . 405 the types had been distributed, an inconvenience which is inevitable in extended works on such severe subjects. The rendering as a 1st person, although sagacious, is, I think, not so probable. Ahura would more naturally be referred to as ‘giving for all the age of the Good Mind’. That Z. should pray that he. might give the gift for ‘all the future’ sounds too advanced. We should also at least expect the 1st pl., and not the 1st sg. The last line simply completes the prayer as to the element of time. Some would recoil from an obvious sense -of vanhéuS manaxhd as equalling the future career of the beatified people ending in Heaven. Op. Y. 30, 4. apemem anhus - - - ad(t) ashdwné(é)(?) V. M. I do not think that this gen. can equal the frequent adverbial instr. in the sense ‘from grace’. In the Pahl. déshand (same signs as déshan?) might be read as being less in disagreement with hazaoshem, which may however, on the other hand, have been understood as ham zaoshem, a 1st sg. conj. There is no reason to suppose that the trlr.
2l the frequent adverbial instr. in the sense ‘from grace’. In the Pahl. déshand (same signs as déshan?) might be read as being less in disagreement with hazaoshem, which may however, on the other hand, have been understood as ham zaoshem, a 1st sg. conj. There is no reason to suppose that the trlr. mistook the accusative form of Ahurem for the yoc.; and, as he had just translated yds@ by bavihinam (see verse 1), it is not probable that he was ignorant of its form here in line 6, although it is of course possible that some other form was present before him. The gloss, like the others which refer to discipleship, is simply the expression of later didactic, and, perhaps priestly, tendencies. Véwnus is either freely trans- | lated by a form of vid, or else taken literally in the sense of van = ‘to conquer’, and so ‘to obtain’. The trlr. certainly knew what van meant in its sense of ‘overcome’ (see Y. 31, 4). He renders é¢ as a particle. Réorhanhoi was recognized by the trlr. as to root and form. Dropping the glosses, we might render: ‘Since they have sympathy with the best thing, O thou (omitting 7 with D. J.) best one! with the best Righteousness, let me gain it over, by, or as, prayer, OA., as appertaining to the man Frashéshtar (gen.; insert the 7), and as my acquisition also. Even to those (certainly free, and not erroneous) may’st thou therefore be bountiful unto all time through the Good Mind’. Some such Pahl. trlr. doubtless preceded our present one. Ner. translates the Pahl. text before him in an interesting manuer, and both together gave us, as usual, our first rendering of the passage for the most part followed by all. 9, The reading aé(¢)shd is more suited to the metre than ishd. Haug remarks, reading vaondid(t) for vdo ndit (which everybody accepts), ‘Der Form nach ist (vaondit) ein regelrechter Ablativ eines Thema’s vaont, worm q 406 unschwer das Wedische vani (!) zu erkennen ist, fiir welches (p. 61) die Be- deutung Gabe, Spende (Gottes an die Menschen) nachgewiesen wurde’. He would have done better had he accepted the indication of Neryo- sangh, whom he at times so bitterly ridicules, but later so often followed. But, notwithstanding all, his criticism has been valuable. Some scholars apparently hold that ydndi§ means ‘prayers’ literally. But in all languages such an expression as ‘harass with these blessings’, used in a supplication addressed to the Deity, would imply the words ‘with prayer for’ as understood. It is a pity to split up needlessly the meanings of a word. Haug rendered zaranaé(é)md, incitemus; Ner. and the Pahl. have been followed by all. Dasemé(¢) may equal in ‘the tenfold’ in the sense of ‘completeness’: ‘We have made effort strenuously’. Cp. the Dacagva, the Demi-gods who help the offering to Indra. But dés = ‘to worship’ may also be the root, plus the suffix ma; read dds(e)mé(é) = ‘in the offering’, see the Pahl.
3followed by all. Dasemé(¢) may equal in ‘the tenfold’ in the sense of ‘completeness’: ‘We have made effort strenuously’. Cp. the Dacagva, the Demi-gods who help the offering to Indra. But dés = ‘to worship’ may also be the root, plus the suffix ma; read dds(e)mé(é) = ‘in the offering’, see the Pahl. This is the more possible as youthimd = * yetima must be read with its three syllables, and not ydith(e)méd. Two syllables in das(e)mé(é) - would permit us to accept the ordinary suffix ma. Haug rendered zevis- taydonhé (sic), vocati -bona-praebentes = die Giiter der Anrufung habend. I have been also inclined to refer zevistydonhd to zu = hu = ‘to invoke’, and to explain it as meaning ‘easy to be invoked’; but the root may well be zw = jd. Also a suffix dshté with irregularly extended termi- nation awkwardly and exceptionally transferred, to the a declension, would here show unusual irregularity. I now accept the root indicated by the Pahl. trlr. He refers the word to the extended (?) 7a, that is, to gush (?). Zu + ishtya seems the form. Zush = Jush has been strongly objected to on ac- count of the infixed 7 (ew + 7 + sh). We need not however be so deeply scandalized by this. 3 Words like the Indian yesh, beside yas, apparently modify a as if by an 7, and the important letter y seems to be infixed in the Indian chyu = Zend shu, or, quite as probably, the Zend shu has lost its y (so Haug). If we could accept the infix, zevish + tya would explain the difficulty. Ifwe prefer zu + ishti, we must regard the suffix for ishtayas (?), reading zevistaydonhé (= zevistayd) as a monster transferred to the a declension. Suf. taya is numerical. Better to accept two suffixes 7§ + tya. Levistydonhd = * javishtydsas (sic) (four syllables, but donhd might be read as three). One writer holds to a superl. in 7stya (?). ; We might consider it as governing savduham = (with change of accent) ‘prospering, furthering’: ‘Ye are promotive toward them who pro- mote your sovereign power’. 407 But the ché@ distinctly draws the whole line together. In line 8 we have vayem (not vaé(é)m) understood, and vé expressed. In line ¢ the second person is emphasized: ‘We are strenuous’(4)- +--+, and (ché) ‘ye are propitious, helpful, toward the aé(é@)shé-khshathrw (ec); (cp. Y. 29, 9). (Yoithima expresses the fact that the worshippers: aspired to possess the character of aé(é)shé - khshathra’s).. The meaning of aé(2)shd(a)-khshathremcha, or even of tshd(a)-khsha- -thremcha, is put before our faces by the expressions vasé-khshayas, vasé- khshathré, the meaning of which is not the same as that of aé(é)shd(a)- khshathrem, but closely allied to it. And yet some writers, following Haug, and animated by a desire to differ from the indications of the ancient translators, prefer two words of closely kindred meaning, ésh and kshatrd ‘strength’ and ‘power’, with great loss of point and sense. The Pahl. trlr.
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.
1Ner. saw only the idea of ‘holiness’ in ashtm, and not that of ‘rewarded holiness’, ‘blessedness’, ‘recompense’? See other occurrences. I think that his ddhyataya = dvddih = dyaptéd shows that the idea of ‘portion’ was prominent. It is to be noticed that Ner. renders dvddih in Y. 53, 1. by ddyatdm. He seems to have transliterated azddth instead of avddith there. Ner. errs in departing from the treatment of Spendarmad by the Pahl. trlr. He does not read srayént, nor yemaleldndni, nor does he accept vddinyén as an imper., in which last particular he may well be right. Otherwise his rendering of the Pahl. trlr. is important, although, as. always, not exactly corresponding to our present Pahl. text. The Parsi- persian corroborates D. J.’s aé for 1. 8. The uw in vdunus may be epenthetic, compare vani. Otherwise the weak stem vavanis, perf. part. of van, furnishes the analogon. The two may be related. The long @ reminds one of the per- haps falsely written, but still hardly accidental, long @ in vdurdimardi, vdurayd, and in ashduné(é) (?).etc. It may have its explanation in the absence of an expressed v, as if vdwnus represented vavanus, vdurdimaid? vava- roimaidi, vdurayd, vavarayd, ashduné(é), ashavané(é). Frashaostrdi. F. was the brother (?) of Jamaspa, and of the family of the Hvégva. The name was pronounced Ferashaostra causa metrt. The name may mean ‘head, or fleet (?) camels’, fra + ds (= priiich) + a+ ustra (or to priksh (?)), Rdonhanhoi is a second sg. conj. s aor. of rd. So far as its outward appearance is concerned, it might also be a 1st sg. conj. aor. of r@h, ‘that I may give it’. Cp. the 1st sg. conj. aorists in se from present stems, cited however by Whitney as ‘difficult’, Haug translates praedeo first, ‘and du verlethen magst later, and not as alternatives, but this irregularity should not be censured. He had changed his mind since the first had been printed, and . 405 the types had been distributed, an inconvenience which is inevitable in extended works on such severe subjects. The rendering as a 1st person, although sagacious, is, I think, not so probable. Ahura would more naturally be referred to as ‘giving for all the age of the Good Mind’. That Z. should pray that he. might give the gift for ‘all the future’ sounds too advanced. We should also at least expect the 1st pl., and not the 1st sg. The last line simply completes the prayer as to the element of time. Some would recoil from an obvious sense -of vanhéuS manaxhd as equalling the future career of the beatified people ending in Heaven. Op. Y. 30, 4. apemem anhus - - - ad(t) ashdwné(é)(?) V. M. I do not think that this gen. can equal the frequent adverbial instr. in the sense ‘from grace’. In the Pahl. déshand (same signs as déshan?) might be read as being less in disagreement with hazaoshem, which may however, on the other hand, have been understood as ham zaoshem, a 1st sg. conj. There is no reason to suppose that the trlr.
2l the frequent adverbial instr. in the sense ‘from grace’. In the Pahl. déshand (same signs as déshan?) might be read as being less in disagreement with hazaoshem, which may however, on the other hand, have been understood as ham zaoshem, a 1st sg. conj. There is no reason to suppose that the trlr. mistook the accusative form of Ahurem for the yoc.; and, as he had just translated yds@ by bavihinam (see verse 1), it is not probable that he was ignorant of its form here in line 6, although it is of course possible that some other form was present before him. The gloss, like the others which refer to discipleship, is simply the expression of later didactic, and, perhaps priestly, tendencies. Véwnus is either freely trans- | lated by a form of vid, or else taken literally in the sense of van = ‘to conquer’, and so ‘to obtain’. The trlr. certainly knew what van meant in its sense of ‘overcome’ (see Y. 31, 4). He renders é¢ as a particle. Réorhanhoi was recognized by the trlr. as to root and form. Dropping the glosses, we might render: ‘Since they have sympathy with the best thing, O thou (omitting 7 with D. J.) best one! with the best Righteousness, let me gain it over, by, or as, prayer, OA., as appertaining to the man Frashéshtar (gen.; insert the 7), and as my acquisition also. Even to those (certainly free, and not erroneous) may’st thou therefore be bountiful unto all time through the Good Mind’. Some such Pahl. trlr. doubtless preceded our present one. Ner. translates the Pahl. text before him in an interesting manuer, and both together gave us, as usual, our first rendering of the passage for the most part followed by all. 9, The reading aé(¢)shd is more suited to the metre than ishd. Haug remarks, reading vaondid(t) for vdo ndit (which everybody accepts), ‘Der Form nach ist (vaondit) ein regelrechter Ablativ eines Thema’s vaont, worm q 406 unschwer das Wedische vani (!) zu erkennen ist, fiir welches (p. 61) die Be- deutung Gabe, Spende (Gottes an die Menschen) nachgewiesen wurde’. He would have done better had he accepted the indication of Neryo- sangh, whom he at times so bitterly ridicules, but later so often followed. But, notwithstanding all, his criticism has been valuable. Some scholars apparently hold that ydndi§ means ‘prayers’ literally. But in all languages such an expression as ‘harass with these blessings’, used in a supplication addressed to the Deity, would imply the words ‘with prayer for’ as understood. It is a pity to split up needlessly the meanings of a word. Haug rendered zaranaé(é)md, incitemus; Ner. and the Pahl. have been followed by all. Dasemé(¢) may equal in ‘the tenfold’ in the sense of ‘completeness’: ‘We have made effort strenuously’. Cp. the Dacagva, the Demi-gods who help the offering to Indra. But dés = ‘to worship’ may also be the root, plus the suffix ma; read dds(e)mé(é) = ‘in the offering’, see the Pahl.
3followed by all. Dasemé(¢) may equal in ‘the tenfold’ in the sense of ‘completeness’: ‘We have made effort strenuously’. Cp. the Dacagva, the Demi-gods who help the offering to Indra. But dés = ‘to worship’ may also be the root, plus the suffix ma; read dds(e)mé(é) = ‘in the offering’, see the Pahl. This is the more possible as youthimd = * yetima must be read with its three syllables, and not ydith(e)méd. Two syllables in das(e)mé(é) - would permit us to accept the ordinary suffix ma. Haug rendered zevis- taydonhé (sic), vocati -bona-praebentes = die Giiter der Anrufung habend. I have been also inclined to refer zevistydonhd to zu = hu = ‘to invoke’, and to explain it as meaning ‘easy to be invoked’; but the root may well be zw = jd. Also a suffix dshté with irregularly extended termi- nation awkwardly and exceptionally transferred, to the a declension, would here show unusual irregularity. I now accept the root indicated by the Pahl. trlr. He refers the word to the extended (?) 7a, that is, to gush (?). Zu + ishtya seems the form. Zush = Jush has been strongly objected to on ac- count of the infixed 7 (ew + 7 + sh). We need not however be so deeply scandalized by this. 3 Words like the Indian yesh, beside yas, apparently modify a as if by an 7, and the important letter y seems to be infixed in the Indian chyu = Zend shu, or, quite as probably, the Zend shu has lost its y (so Haug). If we could accept the infix, zevish + tya would explain the difficulty. Ifwe prefer zu + ishti, we must regard the suffix for ishtayas (?), reading zevistaydonhé (= zevistayd) as a monster transferred to the a declension. Suf. taya is numerical. Better to accept two suffixes 7§ + tya. Levistydonhd = * javishtydsas (sic) (four syllables, but donhd might be read as three). One writer holds to a superl. in 7stya (?). ; We might consider it as governing savduham = (with change of accent) ‘prospering, furthering’: ‘Ye are promotive toward them who pro- mote your sovereign power’. 407 But the ché@ distinctly draws the whole line together. In line 8 we have vayem (not vaé(é)m) understood, and vé expressed. In line ¢ the second person is emphasized: ‘We are strenuous’(4)- +--+, and (ché) ‘ye are propitious, helpful, toward the aé(é@)shé-khshathrw (ec); (cp. Y. 29, 9). (Yoithima expresses the fact that the worshippers: aspired to possess the character of aé(é)shé - khshathra’s).. The meaning of aé(2)shd(a)-khshathremcha, or even of tshd(a)-khsha- -thremcha, is put before our faces by the expressions vasé-khshayas, vasé- khshathré, the meaning of which is not the same as that of aé(é)shd(a)- khshathrem, but closely allied to it. And yet some writers, following Haug, and animated by a desire to differ from the indications of the ancient translators, prefer two words of closely kindred meaning, ésh and kshatrd ‘strength’ and ‘power’, with great loss of point and sense. The Pahl. trlr.
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.