Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1from _what follows. The long since circulated view that hw-7t? an-7t? mean ‘for good and for ill’ (lit. for good progress, and for non- progress (hindrance), seems rather mechanical*and improbable, the more so, as hyad(f)cha com- mences a new expression of ideas. The Pahl. has yw (2 )@))6) in Pahl. letters, adding nahinih in letters appa- rently Zend (so Sp.); but DJ.’s MS., reads joyw (a6) in Pahlavi, with ahinh clearly written as decipherment (?) over it in Zend. There should however be no hesitation in reading some of the Zend letters as having Pahl. value, if we were led on to such a view by sufficiently positive indications; and as} should be y, we must read Jopy (7) as = joy , and might suppose it possibly intended to express khvaén (see Y. 32, 7, (Pahl.) where the Parsi-persian probably saw _jopv ), and consider ahinh as gloss, regarding the final / as an accidental anticipation of the following Pahlavi letter which, although properly equal- ling a, may express #. So deciphering, we should have khvaén [ahin| = ‘olittering [dart]’, ahin to hi = si(?) = ‘to hurl’ (asé). But this sheds no light on ditichd éneitt; nor does it gain any light from those words, owing to hyad(t)ché which interposes between rashé and the first line which has no reference to the wicked, or to punishment. It is to be noticed that two purely Pahlavi letters correspond with the first two of the Gatha, 57(n), ahinh, as : a 448 or nahinih (Sp.) being in Avesta characters). But the mdénich must also not be forgotten, as it repeats the °chd. Does the trir. freely render s7é7 by man, referring it to the reflexive pronoun ?, So that the 2 in 67° could be partially compared with the 7 pronouns, Ai = si, im, éd (cp. yim(?) for yem, or yém). Have we here éi#i = ba + ti = sva + suffix? This also sheds light on éaé(é)tt. Where does the baé° come from, as opposed to ba, dato? Vaél(é)td contains a gunated 07°. Here in sétiché it is not gun- ated. The meaning ‘of himself’ is admirably in place, as has long since been shown by Haug and Spiegel. For a quasi suffix to 5a = sva com- pare the clumsy édpaithydd(t), a compositum; cp. the Sk. suffix #2 when without numeral value. (But an exact correspondence between Zend and Sansk. suffixes is not to be expected). As to éneiti, we at once think, with Justi, of ainit? = Ginitichd (an + in +7 -+ t?) = ‘with absence of severity’. Here however we have less possible trace of the a priv. If inis present at all, it is in the sense of ‘ furtherance’; ‘from himself, and to bless us’. It might be called an infin. Or (if we emend to énait?) we might see a finite verbal form, and consider an = ‘to breathe’ (Haug): ‘from himself he inspires (‘breathes’) them’; or, more probably, he ‘propagates them’ (enait? to an = in, as akhsh to ksh; cp. ‘anmd, anmainé(é) = pavan astibth, or stubd /é).
2ght be called an infin. Or (if we emend to énait?) we might see a finite verbal form, and consider an = ‘to breathe’ (Haug): ‘from himself he inspires (‘breathes’) them’; or, more probably, he ‘propagates them’ (enait? to an = in, as akhsh to ksh; cp. ‘anmd, anmainé(é) = pavan astibth, or stubd /é). Retaining the more mechanical explanation that é¢ticha (= hu + itt + chd), we should have in the Gatha; ‘for blessing (dat.) to his people he furthers, or inspires, them’. It is also very possible indeed that sttichéd is twice translated by miinich, and by 9pw which may represent khw(vjad = ‘self’,as 9 can express d in Pahl., while in Zend 2 = hv, The Avesta letters nahinth (2), or nahinh, would then represent gloss, or be perhaps resolvable into na. + ahinth, for na ait *ahini = ‘there is no violence’ (recall nd-mard, na-durust, nd-umid, also vnane, etc.), a rendering for éneiti in the sense of ainitichd, Y. 58, 4. Amikhtishno would render énaiti (sic) in the sense of either ‘inspire (?)’, or ‘propagate’, or indeed éneét? as an infin. noun. But no reasonable certainty can be arrived at as to the matter, and both Gath and Pablavi are obscure. No sincere and judicious commentator will affect to be confident, much less to dogmatize in such a case. Aipi is taken merely in the sense of ‘also’ by some writers; ‘also by these things’. The meaning of api should be’ ‘after’, but perhaps in the sense of ‘in addition to (these things)’; ep. aipi.chithid(t). Some are inclined to colour: ‘If ye, O men, lay to heart the pray- ers which Mazda gave for welfare and security, namely misfortune for 449 the evil, and prosperity for the righteous, then one day salvation shall be your portion by that means’. Y. XXXL. See for introductory summary S. B. E. XXXI., pp. 36—53. Changes in opinion decided upon since its composition are not always noted here. 1. With Roth (followed by De Harlez and Jackson) marenté means pre- dominantly ‘remembering’. Haug’s dicentes is, I think, here to be preferred, so Spiegel’s hersagend; cp. Pahl. hédshmirém, radically the same word (see hismarenté). Recitation was the only mode of memorizing, and transmitting ancient doctrines and their documents. The composer was in no danger of ‘forgetting’. The Vedic occurrences of smar (smri) do not refer to human beings about to announce doctrines, but to Indra and Soma VII, 104, 7, and to the Acvins X. 106, 9; but see the later Sansk. meanings ‘teach’, ‘assert’, also the smriti in the sense of ‘explained as’, or ‘named’. See Y. 55, 6, where framaremna must mean ‘being recited’, also A. 3, 5 (or 4, 5) framarditi rapithw(v)inem. There is reason to suppose that the Aryan mar (smar) meant to ‘count’, hence to ‘recollect’. Vimerenchaité(é), a 3*4 pl. athematically conjugated (beside merenichanté(é)). Spiegel, Justi, and others formerly placed it in the sg. Pahl. Omit avd (so DJ.), avoiding the improbable meaning ‘to You’.
3m. There is reason to suppose that the Aryan mar (smar) meant to ‘count’, hence to ‘recollect’. Vimerenchaité(é), a 3*4 pl. athematically conjugated (beside merenichanté(é)). Spiegel, Justi, and others formerly placed it in the sg. Pahl. Omit avd (so DJ.), avoiding the improbable meaning ‘to You’. ‘As Yours’ is not at all too stiff for these cramped and fettered texts. In 6 ‘to those’ = aé(é)ibyéd is preferable to ‘those’ as I formerly rendered. So in c, valmanshdn = ‘to those’; see also the gloss. Valmanshén is oblique (in case) by position; and in these translations such pronouns, when trans- lating datives or ablatives, should be considered as elastic as ash, am etc. The trlr. could not possibly be ignorant of the case; see tdi, taé(é)chid(t) = valmanshdnich (Y. 32, 11), aé@)ibyd = pavan valmanshdn in Y. 28, 10, and Y. 30, 8, and = avd valmanshdn in Y. 29, 10, and 32, 12, and = min val- manshdn in Y. 34, 8; see aé(é)sham = min valmanshdn (Y. 34, 1), and the loc. yaé(é)sht = dén zak (sg. for pl.) in Y. 33, 5. The position of a Pahl. word often determines its case. Zarazdédo (see avi zak libbemman in Y. 31, 12) seems here freely referred to zaresh = ‘to draw (?)’, the word chosen having been determined, as often, by the outward shape of the words catching the eye. I prefer; ‘pro- claim blessings for the Druja’, transitive for the intransitive ‘appear’. Ner.’s pl. of majesty (?) Mahdjidnibhyah is noticeable. The translations, harmless glosses and freedom aside, have formed the basis for all later ones, 2. Spiegel and Justi, following the Pahl., render wrv@né(é) as an infin., and ‘for believing’ may be correct. Others also elsewhere accept a root 57 450 urd (urvdidydi). As dat. of urvan., the form is unusually full; ep. wrumé(é). An infin. might well be cognate to the noun urvan as possibly meaning ‘the mysterious speaker’; cp. rutajia = ‘knower of the (mysterious) humming’, ‘augur’. The idea of the soul also might well have been connected with that of internal humming, sounds in the ears, etc. Advdo, stem advah, (or advd, stem adva) = ‘undoubted truths’. Cf. Y. 29, 5’: ep. Ind. ddvayat, ddvayas = ‘true’, and dvayé = ‘falseness’. (Otherwise nom. sg. of adhvan = ‘way’ (?)). The allusion is to the wredtd agust@ inv. 1. <Aibi.deresté (cp. atbi.derestd Y. 50, 5) is a nom. pl. neut. in agreement with advdo. As a loc. sg. aibé.deresta was a keen suggestion of Roth’s. But a loc. of an abstract, or a quasi abstract, is not so well in place as qualifying the existence (ast?) of an object. An adverbal locative would be far more in place qualifying a verb expressed, and, in fact, any other verb understood except ‘to be’. Changing the text to atbi.deresté, and reading advd, the language would seem less modern, but even then the ‘better way seen for the soul’ is rather suspiciously deep, although it may well be possible. | | Vatydo may well be a nom. pl. neut, = vdsyansi (as mando = méndisi in agreement advdo); otherwise it is nom. 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.
1from _what follows. The long since circulated view that hw-7t? an-7t? mean ‘for good and for ill’ (lit. for good progress, and for non- progress (hindrance), seems rather mechanical*and improbable, the more so, as hyad(f)cha com- mences a new expression of ideas. The Pahl. has yw (2 )@))6) in Pahl. letters, adding nahinih in letters appa- rently Zend (so Sp.); but DJ.’s MS., reads joyw (a6) in Pahlavi, with ahinh clearly written as decipherment (?) over it in Zend. There should however be no hesitation in reading some of the Zend letters as having Pahl. value, if we were led on to such a view by sufficiently positive indications; and as} should be y, we must read Jopy (7) as = joy , and might suppose it possibly intended to express khvaén (see Y. 32, 7, (Pahl.) where the Parsi-persian probably saw _jopv ), and consider ahinh as gloss, regarding the final / as an accidental anticipation of the following Pahlavi letter which, although properly equal- ling a, may express #. So deciphering, we should have khvaén [ahin| = ‘olittering [dart]’, ahin to hi = si(?) = ‘to hurl’ (asé). But this sheds no light on ditichd éneitt; nor does it gain any light from those words, owing to hyad(t)ché which interposes between rashé and the first line which has no reference to the wicked, or to punishment. It is to be noticed that two purely Pahlavi letters correspond with the first two of the Gatha, 57(n), ahinh, as : a 448 or nahinih (Sp.) being in Avesta characters). But the mdénich must also not be forgotten, as it repeats the °chd. Does the trir. freely render s7é7 by man, referring it to the reflexive pronoun ?, So that the 2 in 67° could be partially compared with the 7 pronouns, Ai = si, im, éd (cp. yim(?) for yem, or yém). Have we here éi#i = ba + ti = sva + suffix? This also sheds light on éaé(é)tt. Where does the baé° come from, as opposed to ba, dato? Vaél(é)td contains a gunated 07°. Here in sétiché it is not gun- ated. The meaning ‘of himself’ is admirably in place, as has long since been shown by Haug and Spiegel. For a quasi suffix to 5a = sva com- pare the clumsy édpaithydd(t), a compositum; cp. the Sk. suffix #2 when without numeral value. (But an exact correspondence between Zend and Sansk. suffixes is not to be expected). As to éneiti, we at once think, with Justi, of ainit? = Ginitichd (an + in +7 -+ t?) = ‘with absence of severity’. Here however we have less possible trace of the a priv. If inis present at all, it is in the sense of ‘ furtherance’; ‘from himself, and to bless us’. It might be called an infin. Or (if we emend to énait?) we might see a finite verbal form, and consider an = ‘to breathe’ (Haug): ‘from himself he inspires (‘breathes’) them’; or, more probably, he ‘propagates them’ (enait? to an = in, as akhsh to ksh; cp. ‘anmd, anmainé(é) = pavan astibth, or stubd /é).
2ght be called an infin. Or (if we emend to énait?) we might see a finite verbal form, and consider an = ‘to breathe’ (Haug): ‘from himself he inspires (‘breathes’) them’; or, more probably, he ‘propagates them’ (enait? to an = in, as akhsh to ksh; cp. ‘anmd, anmainé(é) = pavan astibth, or stubd /é). Retaining the more mechanical explanation that é¢ticha (= hu + itt + chd), we should have in the Gatha; ‘for blessing (dat.) to his people he furthers, or inspires, them’. It is also very possible indeed that sttichéd is twice translated by miinich, and by 9pw which may represent khw(vjad = ‘self’,as 9 can express d in Pahl., while in Zend 2 = hv, The Avesta letters nahinth (2), or nahinh, would then represent gloss, or be perhaps resolvable into na. + ahinth, for na ait *ahini = ‘there is no violence’ (recall nd-mard, na-durust, nd-umid, also vnane, etc.), a rendering for éneiti in the sense of ainitichd, Y. 58, 4. Amikhtishno would render énaiti (sic) in the sense of either ‘inspire (?)’, or ‘propagate’, or indeed éneét? as an infin. noun. But no reasonable certainty can be arrived at as to the matter, and both Gath and Pablavi are obscure. No sincere and judicious commentator will affect to be confident, much less to dogmatize in such a case. Aipi is taken merely in the sense of ‘also’ by some writers; ‘also by these things’. The meaning of api should be’ ‘after’, but perhaps in the sense of ‘in addition to (these things)’; ep. aipi.chithid(t). Some are inclined to colour: ‘If ye, O men, lay to heart the pray- ers which Mazda gave for welfare and security, namely misfortune for 449 the evil, and prosperity for the righteous, then one day salvation shall be your portion by that means’. Y. XXXL. See for introductory summary S. B. E. XXXI., pp. 36—53. Changes in opinion decided upon since its composition are not always noted here. 1. With Roth (followed by De Harlez and Jackson) marenté means pre- dominantly ‘remembering’. Haug’s dicentes is, I think, here to be preferred, so Spiegel’s hersagend; cp. Pahl. hédshmirém, radically the same word (see hismarenté). Recitation was the only mode of memorizing, and transmitting ancient doctrines and their documents. The composer was in no danger of ‘forgetting’. The Vedic occurrences of smar (smri) do not refer to human beings about to announce doctrines, but to Indra and Soma VII, 104, 7, and to the Acvins X. 106, 9; but see the later Sansk. meanings ‘teach’, ‘assert’, also the smriti in the sense of ‘explained as’, or ‘named’. See Y. 55, 6, where framaremna must mean ‘being recited’, also A. 3, 5 (or 4, 5) framarditi rapithw(v)inem. There is reason to suppose that the Aryan mar (smar) meant to ‘count’, hence to ‘recollect’. Vimerenchaité(é), a 3*4 pl. athematically conjugated (beside merenichanté(é)). Spiegel, Justi, and others formerly placed it in the sg. Pahl. Omit avd (so DJ.), avoiding the improbable meaning ‘to You’.
3m. There is reason to suppose that the Aryan mar (smar) meant to ‘count’, hence to ‘recollect’. Vimerenchaité(é), a 3*4 pl. athematically conjugated (beside merenichanté(é)). Spiegel, Justi, and others formerly placed it in the sg. Pahl. Omit avd (so DJ.), avoiding the improbable meaning ‘to You’. ‘As Yours’ is not at all too stiff for these cramped and fettered texts. In 6 ‘to those’ = aé(é)ibyéd is preferable to ‘those’ as I formerly rendered. So in c, valmanshdn = ‘to those’; see also the gloss. Valmanshén is oblique (in case) by position; and in these translations such pronouns, when trans- lating datives or ablatives, should be considered as elastic as ash, am etc. The trlr. could not possibly be ignorant of the case; see tdi, taé(é)chid(t) = valmanshdnich (Y. 32, 11), aé@)ibyd = pavan valmanshdn in Y. 28, 10, and Y. 30, 8, and = avd valmanshdn in Y. 29, 10, and 32, 12, and = min val- manshdn in Y. 34, 8; see aé(é)sham = min valmanshdn (Y. 34, 1), and the loc. yaé(é)sht = dén zak (sg. for pl.) in Y. 33, 5. The position of a Pahl. word often determines its case. Zarazdédo (see avi zak libbemman in Y. 31, 12) seems here freely referred to zaresh = ‘to draw (?)’, the word chosen having been determined, as often, by the outward shape of the words catching the eye. I prefer; ‘pro- claim blessings for the Druja’, transitive for the intransitive ‘appear’. Ner.’s pl. of majesty (?) Mahdjidnibhyah is noticeable. The translations, harmless glosses and freedom aside, have formed the basis for all later ones, 2. Spiegel and Justi, following the Pahl., render wrv@né(é) as an infin., and ‘for believing’ may be correct. Others also elsewhere accept a root 57 450 urd (urvdidydi). As dat. of urvan., the form is unusually full; ep. wrumé(é). An infin. might well be cognate to the noun urvan as possibly meaning ‘the mysterious speaker’; cp. rutajia = ‘knower of the (mysterious) humming’, ‘augur’. The idea of the soul also might well have been connected with that of internal humming, sounds in the ears, etc. Advdo, stem advah, (or advd, stem adva) = ‘undoubted truths’. Cf. Y. 29, 5’: ep. Ind. ddvayat, ddvayas = ‘true’, and dvayé = ‘falseness’. (Otherwise nom. sg. of adhvan = ‘way’ (?)). The allusion is to the wredtd agust@ inv. 1. <Aibi.deresté (cp. atbi.derestd Y. 50, 5) is a nom. pl. neut. in agreement with advdo. As a loc. sg. aibé.deresta was a keen suggestion of Roth’s. But a loc. of an abstract, or a quasi abstract, is not so well in place as qualifying the existence (ast?) of an object. An adverbal locative would be far more in place qualifying a verb expressed, and, in fact, any other verb understood except ‘to be’. Changing the text to atbi.deresté, and reading advd, the language would seem less modern, but even then the ‘better way seen for the soul’ is rather suspiciously deep, although it may well be possible. | | Vatydo may well be a nom. pl. neut, = vdsyansi (as mando = méndisi in agreement advdo); otherwise it is nom. 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.