Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1ned not a single correct hint but this, it would still be invaluable. We read volumes of Pahlavi literature, and hundreds of Vedic Hymns with the avowed purpose of getting light on a very few Gathic expressions, surely then it is worth our labour to master these Pahl. translations however difficult. Haug says of viduyé: Viduyé kann keine Infinitivform seyn, wie ich friiher annahm, sondern ist nur eine erste Person medii, wie klar aus 29, 3 hervorgeht’. In this remark Haug has been followed, I believe, by no one. Md seems a possessive (cp. Ved. tod, also thwd, thwamd?), or an adv. instr. (cp. tod inst.), or an adv. ace. Cp. yé(e)hya ma aithtSchid(t) dvaé(é)tha beside ka tém ahyd maé(é)nis anhad(t). (Jackson keenly suggests the force in ereshi§ as governing md). Ereshis. 1 formerly compared rishi; ‘of which my prophet speaks’, but, on reflection, as ever, I turn to the hint of the Pahl.; cp. ereshva (suffix only diff.) ereshis is to ereshva, as ashi to ashavan (approximately); it means ‘my standing’, ‘character as upright’. Haug only mistook the case, reading ereshes = rectitudinis. But for the moi, of line a, mé might well equal smd. Does néid(t) anhad(t) etc. refer to futurity, or to ‘what is allowed’? In view of v. 14, we should say the first, so Spiegel, De Harlez, Jackson, and others, but the connection here suggests ‘what’ is allowed’; ‘that I should ponder whence is my uprightness, my justification, and those things which may not be permitted’ (in accordance with this inquiry). I formerly however preferred the other view. Haug: ‘was nicht war, noch sein wird (das Unrichtige, Falsche)’; but Roth; ‘was nicht sein soll oder was sein soll’. It must be confessed that the conjunctives only feebly express obligation here. Pahl. Vichidyai = vijardé, freely but well. Véduyé(é) is rendered by an expression which may well have infin. force; daidydi, as an infin. for imper. which, in other combinations, it may well be. But méichd is repro- duced by avd li (?), not so in Y. 53, 5, where it equals minishno. (Men might indeed well represent mam, as é@t frequently represents the nasal - yowel. Here however mea = man = mentem is called for.) Min = yé(e)hy@ should be gen. by position, or at least in an oblique case; see Ner.’s yena, Adharmazd should equal the voc. A. M., and that notwith- 454 standing a certain awkwardness which such a rendering involves in the treatment of yemalelinéd (2 is to be applied to /@ aitd, ‘that also, OA, which is not, and that which is’. A scholarly friend modifies a former reading hi- varth = ‘good judgment’ by hanvaérth comparing hanv(w)ar = ‘smooth’, ‘even’, and hanbar = ‘fair’, ‘good’. The Parsi-persian seems avd rishan (?) (is it Rashn) = rast. M‘ seems avd arsh; cp. arshikht = erezhukhdhdi. As more ordinary Pahl., read 4: ‘and which is mine throagh what is his, and that which is - - - also’, and in c: ‘Even A. declares - - -’. Ner.’s achchhedah probably rests on éreshis (sic), an @ priv.; cp. évidvdo.
2avd rishan (?) (is it Rashn) = rast. M‘ seems avd arsh; cp. arshikht = erezhukhdhdi. As more ordinary Pahl., read 4: ‘and which is mine throagh what is his, and that which is - - - also’, and in c: ‘Even A. declares - - -’. Ner.’s achchhedah probably rests on éreshis (sic), an @ priv.; cp. évidvdo. (Achchhedah (so I think J3.) yt} 6. Ahmdi and Mazddi belong obviously together. Spiegel and De Harlez have rendered vahistem in the sense of a ‘reward’, Jackson regard- ing the word as understood. To reduce the verse to the expression of a ‘reward for the man who declares the truth’, and ‘the promise of the king- dom of Mazda’, as that ‘reward’, seems to take the passage wholly out of its connection, Yé méi vidvdo vaochad(t) has obvious reference to tad(é) mot vichidydt vaochad of the previous vy. uttered not by the worshipper, but by the Divine Being. This v. 6 means that what Ahura had uttered, or may utter, as His mathra, in answer to v. 5, was to him a vahista; see Y. 45, 3; ad(f) fravakhshyd + ++ paourvim [dat(é)nam (?)|--im + » - mathrem (apposition); see v.6 here, Y. 45,4 Ad(f) fravakhshyd - -- vahistem (poss.to math- rem(?)), v.5 yyad(t) (hyad(t)) méi mraod(£) spentotemd --- maretaé(é)ibyd vahistem, certainly of inspired revelation, y6: méd ahmdi sraoshem dan. The vahistem was only indirectly a reward as of course; but its sense is peculiar = summum. The vanhéus vahyd = summum bonum (free) was applied to, or included, the ‘reward’, but vahiStem represents a larger, and supreme, con- ception;; cp. Y. 28, 8; Y. 43, 2, 41- (Weipa bee Asics Ne AD ile Y. 51, 22. Line ¢ is intended as encouragement in the struggle. No reader needs to be warned against Haug’s dicere-potest for vakhshat. The general indications of the Pahl. and Ner. have been followed by all. Valman , as being in the former part of the sentence, should be read as having gen. force; see its orig. As the trlr. has translated ahmdi avd valman in Y. 43, 2; Y. 44, 19; Y. 45, 10 etc., it is impossible to attribute ignorance to him here. He either intended valman = ‘his’ = ‘to him’, or his text is corrupt, or he is intentionally free. So of Adharmazd beyond all question; it renders Mazddi, as being itself gen. by position = ‘belonging to A.’; see Mazddi = 7 A., Y. 28, 5, pavan zak 7 A, Y. 31, 1; val. ++. A., Y. 33, 14, avd zak 7 A., Y. 53, 2. As to the gloss in 6, see Haug’s © essays, Ed. West., 34, p. 350 note: ‘In fifty-seven years Sdshans (and his — companions) prepare all the dead; all men arise, both (those) who are — 455 righteous, and (those) who are wicked’. In Ner. vikdgayati = vakhshéd: ‘so elsewhere vakhsh = kde. 7. In line @ a yd = yéna = ut might relieve difficulty, reading: ‘He who these things conceived, as the first One, in order that, like the -heavens (?), they might be clothed in light’; or a ché, omitted on account of the metre, might be supplied: ‘He conceived these things, and, as a propitious sign, the heavens were clothed (pret.
3t relieve difficulty, reading: ‘He who these things conceived, as the first One, in order that, like the -heavens (?), they might be clothed in light’; or a ché, omitted on account of the metre, might be supplied: ‘He conceived these things, and, as a propitious sign, the heavens were clothed (pret. for once) with light, or stars’. Cp. Y. 30, 1. y@ raochébis daresatéd urvdzd, where, in connection with references to the chants and sacrifices, the stars (?) were invoked to appear as propitious. It will not do to force the construction. Té = téna = ut seems forced; see its position: ‘He who first willed that the spaces of heaven should clothe themsclyes in light’ is hardly expressed in the language. The context shows that ‘glorious’ spiritual privileges and pos- sessions were at least included within the idea of athré. That word refers back to ¢@; td refers back to ¢é@chid(¢) in v. 5, and alludes likewise to mathrem, and to khshathrem just preceding (; see vakhshad(t) in one verse, and ukhshyd in the other). (As Ahura is clothed with stars (Yt. 13, 3 Yim Mazddo vasté(e) vunhanem stehr.paé(é)sanhem mainyu.tastem (notice “mainyu and manta), so he clothes the Immortals in beautiful forms, }Yt. 13; 81; see also Y. 12, 1. Vathra does not mean, directly and exclusively ‘the i osical heavens’, although Roth’s fine suggestion is most valuable. Its root is indeed sues see S. B. E. XXXI. p. 18; but see Y. 28, 2; Y. 43, 2; BY. 50, 5. Vathra was here far more morally than physically ‘heaven’; i. e. ‘it was a state, or scene, into which the beatified were introduced. Véthrem was a thing ‘given’ or ‘taken’ in Y. 43, 2; and to render the ‘physical heaven’ as a ‘thing given’ would hardly do. ‘He who conceived of them (and, in accordance with his conception, they were as glorious (heavenly) truths, (as the mathra, khshathra, the combined blessings of the sacred polity) clothed in (the) light (of manifestation)) + - -’. As to réithw(v)en (hardly an infin.), one would expect the middle, but the meaning is literally ‘flowed’, or ‘may flow’. The chid(f) of niirémchid(t) is better taken in a generalizing sense. Amid valuable suggestions, Haug is rather wild with his multitudinem “for roithwen, and suo-igne for gdthrad (bathrda), ; Pahl. Yasté rendered by a participle is less startling than many a “modern error. Mavtéd was not mistaken for a noun, although rendered by padmdné; see Y. 43. throughout. Freedom, and not radical error, like-— wise accounts for récthwen as gitmikhtd, and édthra as khvdrth (notice in passing that khvdrih, elsewhere = ‘peace and comfort’, here means ‘bril- 456 liancy’ beyond any doubt). Observe the order of words in b as not corre- sponding with that in the Gatha. A scholarly friend was inclined to regard ham khiddt as meaning ‘lord of both’, and he therefore preferred that reading to hamdé which DJ. reports. My former rendering of line ¢ was too unfavourable. Ner., as usual, renders the Pahl.
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.
1ned not a single correct hint but this, it would still be invaluable. We read volumes of Pahlavi literature, and hundreds of Vedic Hymns with the avowed purpose of getting light on a very few Gathic expressions, surely then it is worth our labour to master these Pahl. translations however difficult. Haug says of viduyé: Viduyé kann keine Infinitivform seyn, wie ich friiher annahm, sondern ist nur eine erste Person medii, wie klar aus 29, 3 hervorgeht’. In this remark Haug has been followed, I believe, by no one. Md seems a possessive (cp. Ved. tod, also thwd, thwamd?), or an adv. instr. (cp. tod inst.), or an adv. ace. Cp. yé(e)hya ma aithtSchid(t) dvaé(é)tha beside ka tém ahyd maé(é)nis anhad(t). (Jackson keenly suggests the force in ereshi§ as governing md). Ereshis. 1 formerly compared rishi; ‘of which my prophet speaks’, but, on reflection, as ever, I turn to the hint of the Pahl.; cp. ereshva (suffix only diff.) ereshis is to ereshva, as ashi to ashavan (approximately); it means ‘my standing’, ‘character as upright’. Haug only mistook the case, reading ereshes = rectitudinis. But for the moi, of line a, mé might well equal smd. Does néid(t) anhad(t) etc. refer to futurity, or to ‘what is allowed’? In view of v. 14, we should say the first, so Spiegel, De Harlez, Jackson, and others, but the connection here suggests ‘what’ is allowed’; ‘that I should ponder whence is my uprightness, my justification, and those things which may not be permitted’ (in accordance with this inquiry). I formerly however preferred the other view. Haug: ‘was nicht war, noch sein wird (das Unrichtige, Falsche)’; but Roth; ‘was nicht sein soll oder was sein soll’. It must be confessed that the conjunctives only feebly express obligation here. Pahl. Vichidyai = vijardé, freely but well. Véduyé(é) is rendered by an expression which may well have infin. force; daidydi, as an infin. for imper. which, in other combinations, it may well be. But méichd is repro- duced by avd li (?), not so in Y. 53, 5, where it equals minishno. (Men might indeed well represent mam, as é@t frequently represents the nasal - yowel. Here however mea = man = mentem is called for.) Min = yé(e)hy@ should be gen. by position, or at least in an oblique case; see Ner.’s yena, Adharmazd should equal the voc. A. M., and that notwith- 454 standing a certain awkwardness which such a rendering involves in the treatment of yemalelinéd (2 is to be applied to /@ aitd, ‘that also, OA, which is not, and that which is’. A scholarly friend modifies a former reading hi- varth = ‘good judgment’ by hanvaérth comparing hanv(w)ar = ‘smooth’, ‘even’, and hanbar = ‘fair’, ‘good’. The Parsi-persian seems avd rishan (?) (is it Rashn) = rast. M‘ seems avd arsh; cp. arshikht = erezhukhdhdi. As more ordinary Pahl., read 4: ‘and which is mine throagh what is his, and that which is - - - also’, and in c: ‘Even A. declares - - -’. Ner.’s achchhedah probably rests on éreshis (sic), an @ priv.; cp. évidvdo.
2avd rishan (?) (is it Rashn) = rast. M‘ seems avd arsh; cp. arshikht = erezhukhdhdi. As more ordinary Pahl., read 4: ‘and which is mine throagh what is his, and that which is - - - also’, and in c: ‘Even A. declares - - -’. Ner.’s achchhedah probably rests on éreshis (sic), an @ priv.; cp. évidvdo. (Achchhedah (so I think J3.) yt} 6. Ahmdi and Mazddi belong obviously together. Spiegel and De Harlez have rendered vahistem in the sense of a ‘reward’, Jackson regard- ing the word as understood. To reduce the verse to the expression of a ‘reward for the man who declares the truth’, and ‘the promise of the king- dom of Mazda’, as that ‘reward’, seems to take the passage wholly out of its connection, Yé méi vidvdo vaochad(t) has obvious reference to tad(é) mot vichidydt vaochad of the previous vy. uttered not by the worshipper, but by the Divine Being. This v. 6 means that what Ahura had uttered, or may utter, as His mathra, in answer to v. 5, was to him a vahista; see Y. 45, 3; ad(f) fravakhshyd + ++ paourvim [dat(é)nam (?)|--im + » - mathrem (apposition); see v.6 here, Y. 45,4 Ad(f) fravakhshyd - -- vahistem (poss.to math- rem(?)), v.5 yyad(t) (hyad(t)) méi mraod(£) spentotemd --- maretaé(é)ibyd vahistem, certainly of inspired revelation, y6: méd ahmdi sraoshem dan. The vahistem was only indirectly a reward as of course; but its sense is peculiar = summum. The vanhéus vahyd = summum bonum (free) was applied to, or included, the ‘reward’, but vahiStem represents a larger, and supreme, con- ception;; cp. Y. 28, 8; Y. 43, 2, 41- (Weipa bee Asics Ne AD ile Y. 51, 22. Line ¢ is intended as encouragement in the struggle. No reader needs to be warned against Haug’s dicere-potest for vakhshat. The general indications of the Pahl. and Ner. have been followed by all. Valman , as being in the former part of the sentence, should be read as having gen. force; see its orig. As the trlr. has translated ahmdi avd valman in Y. 43, 2; Y. 44, 19; Y. 45, 10 etc., it is impossible to attribute ignorance to him here. He either intended valman = ‘his’ = ‘to him’, or his text is corrupt, or he is intentionally free. So of Adharmazd beyond all question; it renders Mazddi, as being itself gen. by position = ‘belonging to A.’; see Mazddi = 7 A., Y. 28, 5, pavan zak 7 A, Y. 31, 1; val. ++. A., Y. 33, 14, avd zak 7 A., Y. 53, 2. As to the gloss in 6, see Haug’s © essays, Ed. West., 34, p. 350 note: ‘In fifty-seven years Sdshans (and his — companions) prepare all the dead; all men arise, both (those) who are — 455 righteous, and (those) who are wicked’. In Ner. vikdgayati = vakhshéd: ‘so elsewhere vakhsh = kde. 7. In line @ a yd = yéna = ut might relieve difficulty, reading: ‘He who these things conceived, as the first One, in order that, like the -heavens (?), they might be clothed in light’; or a ché, omitted on account of the metre, might be supplied: ‘He conceived these things, and, as a propitious sign, the heavens were clothed (pret.
3t relieve difficulty, reading: ‘He who these things conceived, as the first One, in order that, like the -heavens (?), they might be clothed in light’; or a ché, omitted on account of the metre, might be supplied: ‘He conceived these things, and, as a propitious sign, the heavens were clothed (pret. for once) with light, or stars’. Cp. Y. 30, 1. y@ raochébis daresatéd urvdzd, where, in connection with references to the chants and sacrifices, the stars (?) were invoked to appear as propitious. It will not do to force the construction. Té = téna = ut seems forced; see its position: ‘He who first willed that the spaces of heaven should clothe themsclyes in light’ is hardly expressed in the language. The context shows that ‘glorious’ spiritual privileges and pos- sessions were at least included within the idea of athré. That word refers back to ¢@; td refers back to ¢é@chid(¢) in v. 5, and alludes likewise to mathrem, and to khshathrem just preceding (; see vakhshad(t) in one verse, and ukhshyd in the other). (As Ahura is clothed with stars (Yt. 13, 3 Yim Mazddo vasté(e) vunhanem stehr.paé(é)sanhem mainyu.tastem (notice “mainyu and manta), so he clothes the Immortals in beautiful forms, }Yt. 13; 81; see also Y. 12, 1. Vathra does not mean, directly and exclusively ‘the i osical heavens’, although Roth’s fine suggestion is most valuable. Its root is indeed sues see S. B. E. XXXI. p. 18; but see Y. 28, 2; Y. 43, 2; BY. 50, 5. Vathra was here far more morally than physically ‘heaven’; i. e. ‘it was a state, or scene, into which the beatified were introduced. Véthrem was a thing ‘given’ or ‘taken’ in Y. 43, 2; and to render the ‘physical heaven’ as a ‘thing given’ would hardly do. ‘He who conceived of them (and, in accordance with his conception, they were as glorious (heavenly) truths, (as the mathra, khshathra, the combined blessings of the sacred polity) clothed in (the) light (of manifestation)) + - -’. As to réithw(v)en (hardly an infin.), one would expect the middle, but the meaning is literally ‘flowed’, or ‘may flow’. The chid(f) of niirémchid(t) is better taken in a generalizing sense. Amid valuable suggestions, Haug is rather wild with his multitudinem “for roithwen, and suo-igne for gdthrad (bathrda), ; Pahl. Yasté rendered by a participle is less startling than many a “modern error. Mavtéd was not mistaken for a noun, although rendered by padmdné; see Y. 43. throughout. Freedom, and not radical error, like-— wise accounts for récthwen as gitmikhtd, and édthra as khvdrth (notice in passing that khvdrih, elsewhere = ‘peace and comfort’, here means ‘bril- 456 liancy’ beyond any doubt). Observe the order of words in b as not corre- sponding with that in the Gatha. A scholarly friend was inclined to regard ham khiddt as meaning ‘lord of both’, and he therefore preferred that reading to hamdé which DJ. reports. My former rendering of line ¢ was too unfavourable. Ner., as usual, renders the Pahl.
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.