Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1in the Gathas) will be again regarded (with Roth) as practically Ahura Himself; see remarks on Y. 31, 9, and Y. 51, 7 y@ gam tashd--- Maadd. Haug, fol- lowed by others, renders ra¢us as an abstract. I think that the Pahl. trlr. is correct with his xadé. The word is here beyond any doubt. a concrete. See ahi «++ ratus in verse 6, which distinctly refers back to it, just as it refers back to the vdstd of line c, verse 1. Gaoddyd (cp. gédhdyasam; go + dha = ‘to nurture’) and thwakhshé (cp. tvaksh, tvdkshas) are nom. sg. in poetical apposition with ratus. For the possibility of nom. masc. forms of the a declension, cp. gao- dayé(e) hé(e) (= gaodaychya) and thwakshdi, both of the a declension. The nominatives appear to me to sound well just in the places which the words occupy. Spiegel took the words as a compositum, ‘sich der Vieh- zucht befleissen’. Haug, bovwm-nutritum formando. Justi keenly saw a loc. in gaoddyd (u stem; comp. gaoddyum), and an acc. neut. in thwakhshd (cp. thwakhshanhd). The Pabl. trlr. gave the original clue as usual. Anhad(t) is understood with ratus -- + gaoddyd thwakhshd. Kem - + ahurem carries out the idea. Although on the whole preferring usta aS a second pl. pret. of vas, I by no means precipitately abandon the more idiomatic usta-ahurem = pavan nadikih khiddt as governed by daté ‘whom did ye appoint, etc. I am inclined to prefer my older rendering ‘dominantes’ to my later one ‘having power’. One scholar seems to prefer taking ddtd as a nom, pl. neut. of the part., or a 3" pl. aor. mid. in sense of pass., with khshayanté as gen. sing.: ‘Is thy regulation (?) for the cow thus that pas- tures should be given her on the part of the possessor (?), and with them also the care proper for the Kine?’ This view seems to take gaoddyé thwakhsho as nom., a great advantage. Déta is a 24 pl. act. aor. = ddhdta, or ddata. The Pahl. without glosses would come out still nearer to its original, as mén can mean ‘by whom’, or ‘by what’, and it should be so rendered, as it translates kathéd, the meaning of which the trlr. could not mistake. So min again in (6) should be read in the sense of hyad(t). Dddo may well mean ‘ye set, gave, or appointed’. Padakhshahth (sic (?)) (so DJ.) does not bring us any nearer khshayantd. Is it pddakhshah? Hadé was curiously divided here, (as other words were similarly divi- ded), into ha + dd, Aité, which partly renders it, might be taken as attih equalling ‘existence’ (cp. also the Sanskrit aséi in a similar sense). The trlr, may have taken add in the sense of ‘ever’: ‘Whose existence-time did ye appoint’; (see other discussions). Read as ordinary Pahlavi, we should have beyond a doubt; ‘who is q 414 thy herd-master [] (b) to whom this authority is given---?and who is the one who gives them pasture etc. - - -?; so I formerly rendered. 3. As to Ash@, we should be almost tempted to emend to Ashem. Otherwise I should regard the word as meaning ‘with his sacred truth’, a solemn ‘truly’.
2414 thy herd-master [] (b) to whom this authority is given---?and who is the one who gives them pasture etc. - - -?; so I formerly rendered. 3. As to Ash@, we should be almost tempted to emend to Ashem. Otherwise I should regard the word as meaning ‘with his sacred truth’, a solemn ‘truly’. Iam reluctant to accede to a voc. for a nom. As to the commonplace ‘really’, as the mere adverb of emphasis, I regard it as very improbable, and as quite impossible when applied to the non-action of an inferior being. The sacred word is most emphatic, and solemn, and could not be applied in a trivial sense. Sarej@ Haug rendered (with néid(£)) (vera) non relinquens. Roth with Unterkunft (1871), both to srij. But the indication of the Pahl., as containing the idea of sar, gives, T think, the directly needed sense. I prefer sar(e) + jan = smiting back (the dvaée(é)shah and aé(¢)sh(e)ma) with authority, a determinative compositum with the sense of the instr. in the first member. Of course the bare stem sar(e) is better in place in such a compositum than any other form. I cannot accede to the interesting rendering of advaé(é)shéd by nullum- odium~-habens (Haug), qui ne leur nuise en rien (De Harlez), wolwollender (Bartholomae). : There is no question here of the good will of the Ratu who was so vehemently desired, but of his power. Could he be a ruler exempt himself from the daibishvatd dvaé(é)shdo (Y. 28, 6), and also able to hold those cala- mities afar (advaé(é)sha) from the threatened people? This was the inquiry.* That the Ratu, the divinely appointed rescuer, would be just and benevolent was a matter of course, what the wailing Cow desired to know was whether he would be an ae(é)sha-khshathra, or, on the contrary, an asiéira (verse 9), one unable ‘to strike back the fury of the invaders’. The entire question is as to the origin of sorrows, leading directly to the theo- sophic Y. 30. The Cow wishes to know why she was created. Her Maker dramatically turns to Asha, who is obliged to confess that there is no ratu advae(é)sha, whereupon she, the Cow, weeps again (y. 9). Line 6 requires special attention; and, as in many other cases, I would now modify the conclusions arrived at in 8. B. E. XXXI. It is universal custom with scholars engaged on such difficult subjects to claim the liberty to recall, or vary, opinions which are somewhat old, most writers in fact changing their views from six months to six months. Line 3} is only in so far certain as to its meaning that it distinctly states that an answer to the question contained in verse 2 is not to be had. At the first glance avaé(é)shim seems to contain within its idea the following yd, that is the natural result of the syntax (see also Haug, who however renders viduyé Pie See ee er eS eee : eae 415 by gnarus-sum): ‘Of those questions those are not for knowing which -- -’ But scholars avoid the abstracts where possible, and prefer ‘of these people’, that is ‘by those people’, and this,
3e natural result of the syntax (see also Haug, who however renders viduyé Pie See ee er eS eee : eae 415 by gnarus-sum): ‘Of those questions those are not for knowing which -- -’ But scholars avoid the abstracts where possible, and prefer ‘of these people’, that is ‘by those people’, and this, notwithstanding the following y@, Then we stumble on another prejudice; some writers are solicitous to show on every occasion that they are aware that y@ may equal yéna. Hence we must have yd entirely severed from avaé(é)sham: ‘Of, or by, those people, is that (or 7#) not to be known how ---’. Or, more glibly: ‘The people cannot know’. This is very agreeable and pleasing as a solution so far, and it may be best to accept it ‘in default of better’; but, as we have often the meaning ‘things’ expressed by the pl. neut. nom. or acc., we ought to recognize its possibility here. The construction *“avéshidm néd *vid(v)é yéna is difficult when * avé- sham néd *vid(v)é ydni stands beside it, as another reading. This brings us to shavaité(é), Reading the language just as its stands, the first and obvious idea, which it seems intended to convey, is ‘what things approach, influence, or moye’; nom. neut. with sg. verb (as usual), But here again those who exclude all sense but that of the commonplace, will hear nothing of ‘things’, ‘influences’, as being regarded as ‘exerting influence’. In face of all syntax and grammar, it must be always ‘persons’, and indeed ‘the people’ who do anything. According to this, ‘the stars in their courses could not have fought against Sisera’. Next comes the difficult ddréig, to explain which very able scholars simply read the Sansk. ddhrdin = ‘the lower ones’, and this, with ereshudonho = ‘the righteous’, makes up the good sentence ‘how the upright treat the lower ones’. (I think ‘upright’ however decidedly an inferior rendering here, even when accepting the general view which is presented. Ereshvaonhé would be far better when taken in antithesis to ddréng if rendered ‘lower ones’; how the ‘lofty’ (Amshaspands, rishvd’sas) treat the lower (mortals)’; the idea of ‘uprightness’, or ‘justice’, is not at all expressed in the connec- tion; the question is as to ‘power’; see above). But the first difficulty as to this rendering lies in shavaité(¢). I am especially pleased with the recognition of a nom. ereshvdonhd at the end of the sentence, however enforced that recognition may be, (for certain able writers seem to sever the syntax of the Avesta from that of the Rig- Veda as regards the simple fact that the nom. falls naturally to the end of the sentence); but what of the verb? Is shavaite(é) sg. for pl (cp. jégerezad(t) (2) and other instances), or is the proper reading Svaité(¢), after the ad class, and a third pl.? We natu- rally hesitate to accept this latter suggestion, but the word actually stands in some MSS. . 416 If we cannot accept yd = ydni as subject, shavaité(2) is apparently sg.
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 the Gathas) will be again regarded (with Roth) as practically Ahura Himself; see remarks on Y. 31, 9, and Y. 51, 7 y@ gam tashd--- Maadd. Haug, fol- lowed by others, renders ra¢us as an abstract. I think that the Pahl. trlr. is correct with his xadé. The word is here beyond any doubt. a concrete. See ahi «++ ratus in verse 6, which distinctly refers back to it, just as it refers back to the vdstd of line c, verse 1. Gaoddyd (cp. gédhdyasam; go + dha = ‘to nurture’) and thwakhshé (cp. tvaksh, tvdkshas) are nom. sg. in poetical apposition with ratus. For the possibility of nom. masc. forms of the a declension, cp. gao- dayé(e) hé(e) (= gaodaychya) and thwakshdi, both of the a declension. The nominatives appear to me to sound well just in the places which the words occupy. Spiegel took the words as a compositum, ‘sich der Vieh- zucht befleissen’. Haug, bovwm-nutritum formando. Justi keenly saw a loc. in gaoddyd (u stem; comp. gaoddyum), and an acc. neut. in thwakhshd (cp. thwakhshanhd). The Pabl. trlr. gave the original clue as usual. Anhad(t) is understood with ratus -- + gaoddyd thwakhshd. Kem - + ahurem carries out the idea. Although on the whole preferring usta aS a second pl. pret. of vas, I by no means precipitately abandon the more idiomatic usta-ahurem = pavan nadikih khiddt as governed by daté ‘whom did ye appoint, etc. I am inclined to prefer my older rendering ‘dominantes’ to my later one ‘having power’. One scholar seems to prefer taking ddtd as a nom, pl. neut. of the part., or a 3" pl. aor. mid. in sense of pass., with khshayanté as gen. sing.: ‘Is thy regulation (?) for the cow thus that pas- tures should be given her on the part of the possessor (?), and with them also the care proper for the Kine?’ This view seems to take gaoddyé thwakhsho as nom., a great advantage. Déta is a 24 pl. act. aor. = ddhdta, or ddata. The Pahl. without glosses would come out still nearer to its original, as mén can mean ‘by whom’, or ‘by what’, and it should be so rendered, as it translates kathéd, the meaning of which the trlr. could not mistake. So min again in (6) should be read in the sense of hyad(t). Dddo may well mean ‘ye set, gave, or appointed’. Padakhshahth (sic (?)) (so DJ.) does not bring us any nearer khshayantd. Is it pddakhshah? Hadé was curiously divided here, (as other words were similarly divi- ded), into ha + dd, Aité, which partly renders it, might be taken as attih equalling ‘existence’ (cp. also the Sanskrit aséi in a similar sense). The trlr, may have taken add in the sense of ‘ever’: ‘Whose existence-time did ye appoint’; (see other discussions). Read as ordinary Pahlavi, we should have beyond a doubt; ‘who is q 414 thy herd-master [] (b) to whom this authority is given---?and who is the one who gives them pasture etc. - - -?; so I formerly rendered. 3. As to Ash@, we should be almost tempted to emend to Ashem. Otherwise I should regard the word as meaning ‘with his sacred truth’, a solemn ‘truly’.
2414 thy herd-master [] (b) to whom this authority is given---?and who is the one who gives them pasture etc. - - -?; so I formerly rendered. 3. As to Ash@, we should be almost tempted to emend to Ashem. Otherwise I should regard the word as meaning ‘with his sacred truth’, a solemn ‘truly’. Iam reluctant to accede to a voc. for a nom. As to the commonplace ‘really’, as the mere adverb of emphasis, I regard it as very improbable, and as quite impossible when applied to the non-action of an inferior being. The sacred word is most emphatic, and solemn, and could not be applied in a trivial sense. Sarej@ Haug rendered (with néid(£)) (vera) non relinquens. Roth with Unterkunft (1871), both to srij. But the indication of the Pahl., as containing the idea of sar, gives, T think, the directly needed sense. I prefer sar(e) + jan = smiting back (the dvaée(é)shah and aé(¢)sh(e)ma) with authority, a determinative compositum with the sense of the instr. in the first member. Of course the bare stem sar(e) is better in place in such a compositum than any other form. I cannot accede to the interesting rendering of advaé(é)shéd by nullum- odium~-habens (Haug), qui ne leur nuise en rien (De Harlez), wolwollender (Bartholomae). : There is no question here of the good will of the Ratu who was so vehemently desired, but of his power. Could he be a ruler exempt himself from the daibishvatd dvaé(é)shdo (Y. 28, 6), and also able to hold those cala- mities afar (advaé(é)sha) from the threatened people? This was the inquiry.* That the Ratu, the divinely appointed rescuer, would be just and benevolent was a matter of course, what the wailing Cow desired to know was whether he would be an ae(é)sha-khshathra, or, on the contrary, an asiéira (verse 9), one unable ‘to strike back the fury of the invaders’. The entire question is as to the origin of sorrows, leading directly to the theo- sophic Y. 30. The Cow wishes to know why she was created. Her Maker dramatically turns to Asha, who is obliged to confess that there is no ratu advae(é)sha, whereupon she, the Cow, weeps again (y. 9). Line 6 requires special attention; and, as in many other cases, I would now modify the conclusions arrived at in 8. B. E. XXXI. It is universal custom with scholars engaged on such difficult subjects to claim the liberty to recall, or vary, opinions which are somewhat old, most writers in fact changing their views from six months to six months. Line 3} is only in so far certain as to its meaning that it distinctly states that an answer to the question contained in verse 2 is not to be had. At the first glance avaé(é)shim seems to contain within its idea the following yd, that is the natural result of the syntax (see also Haug, who however renders viduyé Pie See ee er eS eee : eae 415 by gnarus-sum): ‘Of those questions those are not for knowing which -- -’ But scholars avoid the abstracts where possible, and prefer ‘of these people’, that is ‘by those people’, and this,
3e natural result of the syntax (see also Haug, who however renders viduyé Pie See ee er eS eee : eae 415 by gnarus-sum): ‘Of those questions those are not for knowing which -- -’ But scholars avoid the abstracts where possible, and prefer ‘of these people’, that is ‘by those people’, and this, notwithstanding the following y@, Then we stumble on another prejudice; some writers are solicitous to show on every occasion that they are aware that y@ may equal yéna. Hence we must have yd entirely severed from avaé(é)sham: ‘Of, or by, those people, is that (or 7#) not to be known how ---’. Or, more glibly: ‘The people cannot know’. This is very agreeable and pleasing as a solution so far, and it may be best to accept it ‘in default of better’; but, as we have often the meaning ‘things’ expressed by the pl. neut. nom. or acc., we ought to recognize its possibility here. The construction *“avéshidm néd *vid(v)é yéna is difficult when * avé- sham néd *vid(v)é ydni stands beside it, as another reading. This brings us to shavaité(é), Reading the language just as its stands, the first and obvious idea, which it seems intended to convey, is ‘what things approach, influence, or moye’; nom. neut. with sg. verb (as usual), But here again those who exclude all sense but that of the commonplace, will hear nothing of ‘things’, ‘influences’, as being regarded as ‘exerting influence’. In face of all syntax and grammar, it must be always ‘persons’, and indeed ‘the people’ who do anything. According to this, ‘the stars in their courses could not have fought against Sisera’. Next comes the difficult ddréig, to explain which very able scholars simply read the Sansk. ddhrdin = ‘the lower ones’, and this, with ereshudonho = ‘the righteous’, makes up the good sentence ‘how the upright treat the lower ones’. (I think ‘upright’ however decidedly an inferior rendering here, even when accepting the general view which is presented. Ereshvaonhé would be far better when taken in antithesis to ddréng if rendered ‘lower ones’; how the ‘lofty’ (Amshaspands, rishvd’sas) treat the lower (mortals)’; the idea of ‘uprightness’, or ‘justice’, is not at all expressed in the connec- tion; the question is as to ‘power’; see above). But the first difficulty as to this rendering lies in shavaité(¢). I am especially pleased with the recognition of a nom. ereshvdonhd at the end of the sentence, however enforced that recognition may be, (for certain able writers seem to sever the syntax of the Avesta from that of the Rig- Veda as regards the simple fact that the nom. falls naturally to the end of the sentence); but what of the verb? Is shavaite(é) sg. for pl (cp. jégerezad(t) (2) and other instances), or is the proper reading Svaité(¢), after the ad class, and a third pl.? We natu- rally hesitate to accept this latter suggestion, but the word actually stands in some MSS. . 416 If we cannot accept yd = ydni as subject, shavaité(2) is apparently sg.
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.