Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1e did not fail to recognize the perfect 7. The ‘mathra of fatness’ (hardly ‘of invocation’) was the holy reve- lation, which (indirectly indicated in the vohd vastryad Y. 29, 1) protected and prospered husbandry, supplied material for the offering, food for the cattle, and for the consumers (cp. Y. 28, 10 barethya - + + sravdo). Hvé urushaé(éjibyd = hvo(a)rushae(éibyd, a reading long since discovered by Darmesteter from the Pahl. trlr, is attributed by one writer to another who received it at third hand. Eed, or (é €. d. vd) (sic) are parts of the same shattered word, or words, which we have in Y. 32, 16, and in Y. 47, 2, but in a still more corrupt condition; and they are invariably restored by the Pahl. trir. to a consistent form; that is, they are translated pimman, One writer is actually not aware that an attempt is here made by the Pahl. trlr. to render the text; and in fact the mechanical order of the words is inverted. Some, following authority, read éedvd = avd = dvitm. This is a brilliant suggestion, but hardly tenable. Haug read éedvd as ydvd (?) = tempore (?). The case is simply this. Ahura declares that he appoints Zarathustra (thwa) as the needed Ratu, who was to declare the provision for salvation, the voht vdstryd, the barethyd vaintyd sravdo Y. 28, 10, the ereshvd ukhdha Y. 28, 6, the mathré (rdddo) of Y, 28, 7, the mdthrem deditoi§ Y. 29,70 425 the sdsndo (gishatd) for which hudemém -- vakh(e)dhrahyd was needed, Y. 29, 8, etc. In harmony with this we have in Y. 31, 3, (hizvd) thwahyad donhd = pavan pimman followed by all (inadvertently by some). In Y. 32, 16 we have Zed né@ restored to its form donhd by the pémman of the Pahl. trlr.; so again in Y. 47,2, we have de@ nit: Hizvd ukhdhdis vanhéus zed nit (donhd; but see below) mananhéd, till finally (Y. 29,7 may have been composed later than other sections) we may have the seemingly senseless ée@ vd recon- structed once more, while, to show the exceeding great probability that the trlr. emends correctly, see the remains of the old error (?) still adhering to donhdé fully written in Y. 28, 11 mainye@us hachéd thwd éedonhé (sic) fol- lowing fré ma sishd -- vaochanhe(é). In Y.29, 6 we have the same conjecture apparently erroneously made which had been correctly made elsewhere several times; or else the trlr. reproduces, as often, an ancient Zend text differing from that which stands copied beside his own. As the trlr. had so often hit upon the truth, I think he correctly reconstructs éed@ vd (?) into donhd@, or some lost word meaning ‘mouth’ here. But this last case leads me to inquire whether he may not, as to some of the cases, put us on the track of a new stem. H(e)d, occurring four or five times, might possibly be a corrupt expression for éndé here, = instr. of &e)na = dnd = ‘mouth’. The letter f elsewhere, more than once, repre- sents nasalized long @ (a).
2ads me to inquire whether he may not, as to some of the cases, put us on the track of a new stem. H(e)d, occurring four or five times, might possibly be a corrupt expression for éndé here, = instr. of &e)na = dnd = ‘mouth’. The letter f elsewhere, more than once, repre- sents nasalized long @ (a). Compare 3Ee REO” fue = ameshé spenté for ameshéng spenténg = ameshdn(s) spentdan(s); f was sometimes written, or miswritten, for the two letters }¢ blended into one by ancient custom (cp. ¢ for im). * Surely this lies closer than the explanation of ¢¢ = yy = ¥- If this conjecture is correct, (it is of course given with reserve) v@ would be exceedingly well in place as meaning ‘indeed’ here (cp. Sansk. v@). We should then regard the de)d. nd (Y. 82,16 and Y. 47, 2) as equalling énd n@, and not needing full reconstruction, while a(e)donhd would, on the contrary, show the later creeping-in of the form énd, and its blending with the text. At all events every fact shows that the Pahl. trlr. indicates the reconstruction of some word meaning ‘mouth’ in each of these cases where donhad does not clearly stand; and all commentators suggest emendations. The Pahl. read as an ordinary text would be rendered: ‘He bestows bounty on the worker’; but val before kardar may represent the verbal prefix ‘the worker to’, ‘the completing artificer’. Maretaé(é)ibyd may have been ren- dered with an eye to an etymology, ‘mar’ being seen as = smar, and the allusion to ‘reciting priests’ is not inapt. 54 ae 426 The glosses are harmless but useless. Notice wkdgayatt = vakhshinéd ; go also elsewhere forms of vakhsh are rendered by those of kde. Spiegel boldly renders Ner. 4: ‘Ormazd vermehr?. I confess I am at a loss how to render either kag or kag as ‘increase’; but I am nevertheless strongly inclined to think that Prof. v. Spiegel is correct here. An author should be rendered according to his context, and the meanings ‘make appear’ and ‘produce’ come together in the word paiddyish = ‘production’. Ner. follows the Gathd more closely than he does the Pahl., although he is influenced by both. 8. That this strophe, or verse, is in immediate answer to the question in v, 7 needs not to be stated. Ahura igs the speaker in verse 6, with which this v. 8 has the closest relationship. This requires Mazddo as the proper reading in 6, and likewise makes it desirable to take that gen. in the sense of the dat.; (see the dat. in the sense of the gen. in Y. 80, 1, and elsewhere in the Avesta, as well as in the Brahmanas); or else, vice versa, it shows that Ashdichd stands in this sense of the gen. That Mazda, occurring at every point as the name of the Deity, should here be used as an ordinary acc. pl. = cognitiones, Spriiche (Haug), or an instr., and indeed in the sense of ‘from memory’, I do not regard as probable.
3or else, vice versa, it shows that Ashdichd stands in this sense of the gen. That Mazda, occurring at every point as the name of the Deity, should here be used as an ordinary acc. pl. = cognitiones, Spriiche (Haug), or an instr., and indeed in the sense of ‘from memory’, I do not regard as probable. (The rendering ‘from memory’ had long circulated.) The composer’s wording is obscure enough, but it is not probable that he should positively have intended to mislead his hearers in the Gathas. In the later Avesta we may have a play upon words. If the instr. is read at all, the only sense resulting could be ‘with the help of me, Mazda’, or ‘in accompaniment with me’ (?), and, ‘as my agent’, (‘I myself, as the source of revelation, really declaring the doc- trines’), but the name of God would not naturally stand in the instrumental. As to the names Zarathustra Spitama, the last was a family name; the etymology is obscure. I should be inclined to refer it to the root of spayathrahya; (spt = ¢vi). The form seems a superlative, the meaning the ‘most august’. Zarathustra has only its last member clear, wstra = ‘a camel’; agpa = ‘horse’, and wstra, were common component parts of names. Zarath might mean ‘glowing’ and refer to a light colour;’ ‘yellow-camels’ might be the sense, as Frashaostra meant ‘fleet-camels’(?). The form might be the weak participial stem of 2ar = hri (cp. haritdcva), zarath = zarat, th = ¢ (irregularly), An erroneous opinion was, that Zarathustra = zar = eairt = ‘golden’ and tusht (?) = Tistrya = ‘the star Tishtar’, and so ‘golden- star’. Then Haug’s views were eccentric, zar = jar ‘sing. and ustra = uttara = weiter, and so ‘excellent-singer’. His later view is hardly better, jarat = ‘old’, and ustra = ‘superior’. A man’s name should not be ex-— plained from his distinctions, or his history, in cases where it bears a strong — 427 likeness to those of his kinsman. Haug capped the climax of absurdity when he found the name of Zarathustra in the Rig-Veda. He finds him described R. V. VII, 37, 7 as ‘den die Leute von seinem Eigenthum vertrieben haben’; so in R. V. X, 85, 36 he reads Jaradashtir, Zarathustra. The word means ‘old man’, ‘age’, and is so accepted. The name Z. after having been ren- dered distinguished by its great bearer, acquired sanctity, and was later applied to a class, of chiefs, or Dasturs. The above remarks are made in no hostile sense against the energetic Haug, but as a caution to students in Bombay, where he was well known. It is better to regard charekerethrd as equalling ‘counsels’ rather than ‘deeds’. The root of krdtw may be accepted for it. Hudemém seems figur- atively used as ‘position’, ‘standing’, ‘good footing’ in the community (cp. Sk. dama + su). It contains some of the elements of hushiti; cp. sukshema = ‘peaceful times’. Haug referred the word to su + dhmé = das Be- geisterung weckende Redefeuer (2). Others reading hudémim (for hu + ddmim) render: ‘having good wisdom’, ‘clever’.
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.
1e did not fail to recognize the perfect 7. The ‘mathra of fatness’ (hardly ‘of invocation’) was the holy reve- lation, which (indirectly indicated in the vohd vastryad Y. 29, 1) protected and prospered husbandry, supplied material for the offering, food for the cattle, and for the consumers (cp. Y. 28, 10 barethya - + + sravdo). Hvé urushaé(éjibyd = hvo(a)rushae(éibyd, a reading long since discovered by Darmesteter from the Pahl. trlr, is attributed by one writer to another who received it at third hand. Eed, or (é €. d. vd) (sic) are parts of the same shattered word, or words, which we have in Y. 32, 16, and in Y. 47, 2, but in a still more corrupt condition; and they are invariably restored by the Pahl. trir. to a consistent form; that is, they are translated pimman, One writer is actually not aware that an attempt is here made by the Pahl. trlr. to render the text; and in fact the mechanical order of the words is inverted. Some, following authority, read éedvd = avd = dvitm. This is a brilliant suggestion, but hardly tenable. Haug read éedvd as ydvd (?) = tempore (?). The case is simply this. Ahura declares that he appoints Zarathustra (thwa) as the needed Ratu, who was to declare the provision for salvation, the voht vdstryd, the barethyd vaintyd sravdo Y. 28, 10, the ereshvd ukhdha Y. 28, 6, the mathré (rdddo) of Y, 28, 7, the mdthrem deditoi§ Y. 29,70 425 the sdsndo (gishatd) for which hudemém -- vakh(e)dhrahyd was needed, Y. 29, 8, etc. In harmony with this we have in Y. 31, 3, (hizvd) thwahyad donhd = pavan pimman followed by all (inadvertently by some). In Y. 32, 16 we have Zed né@ restored to its form donhd by the pémman of the Pahl. trlr.; so again in Y. 47,2, we have de@ nit: Hizvd ukhdhdis vanhéus zed nit (donhd; but see below) mananhéd, till finally (Y. 29,7 may have been composed later than other sections) we may have the seemingly senseless ée@ vd recon- structed once more, while, to show the exceeding great probability that the trlr. emends correctly, see the remains of the old error (?) still adhering to donhdé fully written in Y. 28, 11 mainye@us hachéd thwd éedonhé (sic) fol- lowing fré ma sishd -- vaochanhe(é). In Y.29, 6 we have the same conjecture apparently erroneously made which had been correctly made elsewhere several times; or else the trlr. reproduces, as often, an ancient Zend text differing from that which stands copied beside his own. As the trlr. had so often hit upon the truth, I think he correctly reconstructs éed@ vd (?) into donhd@, or some lost word meaning ‘mouth’ here. But this last case leads me to inquire whether he may not, as to some of the cases, put us on the track of a new stem. H(e)d, occurring four or five times, might possibly be a corrupt expression for éndé here, = instr. of &e)na = dnd = ‘mouth’. The letter f elsewhere, more than once, repre- sents nasalized long @ (a).
2ads me to inquire whether he may not, as to some of the cases, put us on the track of a new stem. H(e)d, occurring four or five times, might possibly be a corrupt expression for éndé here, = instr. of &e)na = dnd = ‘mouth’. The letter f elsewhere, more than once, repre- sents nasalized long @ (a). Compare 3Ee REO” fue = ameshé spenté for ameshéng spenténg = ameshdn(s) spentdan(s); f was sometimes written, or miswritten, for the two letters }¢ blended into one by ancient custom (cp. ¢ for im). * Surely this lies closer than the explanation of ¢¢ = yy = ¥- If this conjecture is correct, (it is of course given with reserve) v@ would be exceedingly well in place as meaning ‘indeed’ here (cp. Sansk. v@). We should then regard the de)d. nd (Y. 82,16 and Y. 47, 2) as equalling énd n@, and not needing full reconstruction, while a(e)donhd would, on the contrary, show the later creeping-in of the form énd, and its blending with the text. At all events every fact shows that the Pahl. trlr. indicates the reconstruction of some word meaning ‘mouth’ in each of these cases where donhad does not clearly stand; and all commentators suggest emendations. The Pahl. read as an ordinary text would be rendered: ‘He bestows bounty on the worker’; but val before kardar may represent the verbal prefix ‘the worker to’, ‘the completing artificer’. Maretaé(é)ibyd may have been ren- dered with an eye to an etymology, ‘mar’ being seen as = smar, and the allusion to ‘reciting priests’ is not inapt. 54 ae 426 The glosses are harmless but useless. Notice wkdgayatt = vakhshinéd ; go also elsewhere forms of vakhsh are rendered by those of kde. Spiegel boldly renders Ner. 4: ‘Ormazd vermehr?. I confess I am at a loss how to render either kag or kag as ‘increase’; but I am nevertheless strongly inclined to think that Prof. v. Spiegel is correct here. An author should be rendered according to his context, and the meanings ‘make appear’ and ‘produce’ come together in the word paiddyish = ‘production’. Ner. follows the Gathd more closely than he does the Pahl., although he is influenced by both. 8. That this strophe, or verse, is in immediate answer to the question in v, 7 needs not to be stated. Ahura igs the speaker in verse 6, with which this v. 8 has the closest relationship. This requires Mazddo as the proper reading in 6, and likewise makes it desirable to take that gen. in the sense of the dat.; (see the dat. in the sense of the gen. in Y. 80, 1, and elsewhere in the Avesta, as well as in the Brahmanas); or else, vice versa, it shows that Ashdichd stands in this sense of the gen. That Mazda, occurring at every point as the name of the Deity, should here be used as an ordinary acc. pl. = cognitiones, Spriiche (Haug), or an instr., and indeed in the sense of ‘from memory’, I do not regard as probable.
3or else, vice versa, it shows that Ashdichd stands in this sense of the gen. That Mazda, occurring at every point as the name of the Deity, should here be used as an ordinary acc. pl. = cognitiones, Spriiche (Haug), or an instr., and indeed in the sense of ‘from memory’, I do not regard as probable. (The rendering ‘from memory’ had long circulated.) The composer’s wording is obscure enough, but it is not probable that he should positively have intended to mislead his hearers in the Gathas. In the later Avesta we may have a play upon words. If the instr. is read at all, the only sense resulting could be ‘with the help of me, Mazda’, or ‘in accompaniment with me’ (?), and, ‘as my agent’, (‘I myself, as the source of revelation, really declaring the doc- trines’), but the name of God would not naturally stand in the instrumental. As to the names Zarathustra Spitama, the last was a family name; the etymology is obscure. I should be inclined to refer it to the root of spayathrahya; (spt = ¢vi). The form seems a superlative, the meaning the ‘most august’. Zarathustra has only its last member clear, wstra = ‘a camel’; agpa = ‘horse’, and wstra, were common component parts of names. Zarath might mean ‘glowing’ and refer to a light colour;’ ‘yellow-camels’ might be the sense, as Frashaostra meant ‘fleet-camels’(?). The form might be the weak participial stem of 2ar = hri (cp. haritdcva), zarath = zarat, th = ¢ (irregularly), An erroneous opinion was, that Zarathustra = zar = eairt = ‘golden’ and tusht (?) = Tistrya = ‘the star Tishtar’, and so ‘golden- star’. Then Haug’s views were eccentric, zar = jar ‘sing. and ustra = uttara = weiter, and so ‘excellent-singer’. His later view is hardly better, jarat = ‘old’, and ustra = ‘superior’. A man’s name should not be ex-— plained from his distinctions, or his history, in cases where it bears a strong — 427 likeness to those of his kinsman. Haug capped the climax of absurdity when he found the name of Zarathustra in the Rig-Veda. He finds him described R. V. VII, 37, 7 as ‘den die Leute von seinem Eigenthum vertrieben haben’; so in R. V. X, 85, 36 he reads Jaradashtir, Zarathustra. The word means ‘old man’, ‘age’, and is so accepted. The name Z. after having been ren- dered distinguished by its great bearer, acquired sanctity, and was later applied to a class, of chiefs, or Dasturs. The above remarks are made in no hostile sense against the energetic Haug, but as a caution to students in Bombay, where he was well known. It is better to regard charekerethrd as equalling ‘counsels’ rather than ‘deeds’. The root of krdtw may be accepted for it. Hudemém seems figur- atively used as ‘position’, ‘standing’, ‘good footing’ in the community (cp. Sk. dama + su). It contains some of the elements of hushiti; cp. sukshema = ‘peaceful times’. Haug referred the word to su + dhmé = das Be- geisterung weckende Redefeuer (2). Others reading hudémim (for hu + ddmim) render: ‘having good wisdom’, ‘clever’.
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.