Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1rder 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. as his chief text, and more as ordin- ary language. GZ 8. The Pahl. trlr. affords an indication of value for Y. 53,3, but erro- — nous here. Haug, als den Hohen (in der Natur), but Spiegel selected the proper root yaz. We have yé(e)etm and yazim, to °ydjya, or ydjyu. Both need explanation, but yé(e)etm needs less; 7 represents Pahl. 9, which may equal y with inherent a (e). Yé(e)eyam, or °yem, is the word; yeetm should never be written. For yezyum, we must supply the frequently missing pen-strokes, as in jydite, which shows a loss of one stroke and the 4 perversion of others, for jéwdite, and jam for jivam, ((?) *oy = Gay », or », has here a = va, read ¢s)y9y,). There is really little choice otherwise between yezyem (°yam) and yazyum. De Harlez presents the graphic sug- — gestion that a word meaning uterus may be before us; ‘the womb of the creation’. It would be much to be desired, if such pregnant conceptions abounded in the Gathas. (*— = ») (?) im jam (so better) is miswritten for 2.) Stéi [(hardly an infin. here: ‘I think thee ‘to be’ (?) first’, which © seems as awkward as ‘I wish it to come’ in Y. 43, 1)] = (with Roth) ‘for — the land, or people’. The meaning sth@ in RV. is vague, but see dsta, and — sti, for meaning, and poss. partial analogy; root std, or ak = as (for stayé(?)). Haithim (sic for haithyam (or °em)) = satydm hardly = ‘eternal’, — desirable as such an equivalent would be; ‘real’ is also suspicious from its — depth; ‘truly good’ would be better, the ‘real’, and the ‘good’ approaching each other in Zoroastrian ideas; cp. Y. 43, 3; see also the Sansk. meaning ‘good’, ‘beneficial’. The earlier trlr. read yazdm (not yazyum) here, as he did yé(é)zv@ in Y. 53, 3, rendering 2ékth, as = Ved. yaht = ‘son’, so also in Y. 53, 3. _ And it was just this error of his in translation which threw his treatment out of gear, leading him to force the meaning, and change (so to speak) © his text. Observe his correct suggestions in 0, and the certainty of freedom, as against error, iu c. Ner. follows his pavan 2akih in yonttayd. 9. We should at first sight render thwéc = thwé(é) = tvé loc., but it is nom. sg. fem.; cp. 6¢ = 56, n. s. m., daé(é)ch@ (apparently = 060 4+ A chad) fem.; so here thwé = thwéd nom. sg. masc., and thwéi for thwé(é) fem: Thwéi cannot be n. s. f. in that shape; it would be loc., or even irreg. dat. i. fi Rt ¥ te ¢ i.
2ender thwéc = thwé(é) = tvé loc., but it is nom. sg. fem.; cp. 6¢ = 56, n. s. m., daé(é)ch@ (apparently = 060 4+ A chad) fem.; so here thwé = thwéd nom. sg. masc., and thwéi for thwé(é) fem: Thwéi cannot be n. s. f. in that shape; it would be loc., or even irreg. dat. i. fi Rt ¥ te ¢ i. a % * ¥ i 457 But é7 here represents Yor 0; these, while generally expressing (¢)(é), do not by any means always express them; 9; to were originally Pahlavi Signs, modified ayy (Ho to express length), and originally represented (as gy) either yd, or dy, or a7, beside other sounds. Understood as this latter, they express what we call é(¢,¢), the so-called Zend letter; but the signs yx, a9, represent also obviously yd@ here and elsewhere; thwdi = bash = qousd (y905) = 05 , the & having inherent a, as often in Pahl., 105% = thwayd n. s. fem. = ‘thine’; so 5aé(@)chd = baydchd; cp. svaya(m); see above, p. 436 fig., and on Y. 46, 11. Is tash@ nom. for voc. (with Roth)? Taken as such the line reads most naturally, and voc., as some hold of Ash@ in Y. 29, 3 possibly stands sometimes for nom. Also is not @ an interjection (cp. N. P. @), ‘O creator’ its force explaining the apparent nom. May not @ in ¢ashé@ also = an, as often; @--- tashé = @ tashan? Otherwise @ goes with as, thwé(é) not being a loc. Spiegel (followed by De Harlez, Bartholomae and others) regarded the form of the word as expressing its syntactical force, the Pahl. trlr. having placed the idea originally before him. This is of course the first impression made by the line. ‘Thine was the creator - - - the spiri- tual wisdom, or wisdom of the spirit’. But why should Ahura require a second creator for the most sacred object jn nature next to the saintly Tranian citizen? He himself is positively said (Y. 51, 7) to create the Cow. ye gam tashd? Common sense should furnish the answer. As Ahura is elsewhere said to act through this mainyu, (so possibly in Y. 51, 7; see also v. 3;.¥. 43, 6; Y. 44, 2 (?);.Y. 45, 6; Y. 47, 1, 5, 6 (?)), so here His khratu mainyéus, or mainyus is rhetorically and poetically mentioned as the direct agent, the tashan, instead of the indirect instrument. Or else the Géus tashan, like the Spenista Mainyu, may be vaguely personified, like the concept ‘Holy Spirit’ in parts of the Semitic Scriptures, as a Being who is in a sense a part of the Deity, but whom he may yet be said to possess as an attribute. The passage emphasizes the fact that Ahura alone with His spiritual wisdom was the source of the existence of the ‘clean’ creation as represented by the ‘mother Cow’, who also subordinately repre- sents the ‘holy people’. Haug renders c: ‘kommt sie von dem Landmanne her zu dem, der noch nicht Landmann war, und geht an ihm vorber’, supposing the subject to be the Erdgéttin, therefore Armaiti. Both he and Spiegel understand Armaiti in ahyd@i. De Harlez starts the inquiry whether ahydi 58 458 can refer to the earth on which the paths were made.
3dem Landmanne her zu dem, der noch nicht Landmann war, und geht an ihm vorber’, supposing the subject to be the Erdgéttin, therefore Armaiti. Both he and Spiegel understand Armaiti in ahyd@i. De Harlez starts the inquiry whether ahydi 58 458 can refer to the earth on which the paths were made. This is quite interesting. Roth however, as I think correctly, understands the Cow, but emending to vdstriydi, and reading aité(é) ditéé as an infin. As it is natural for a sentence generally (far from always) to begin a line, @ + 7té(é) is a 3rd so. of ¢ = ‘to go’. Some prefer ‘to leave the husbandman’, but the abl. may well be here that of the cause, and vdstry@ may be read with some MSS. The ‘paths’, as elsewhere, are the ‘ways of life’, the pastures of the cattle, and the village roads; cp. Y. 33, 5 pathd yaé(é)shi M. A. shaé(é)tt (shayat?) (figurative application). Owing to the stint in the use of words great uncertainty prevails as to the last half of line c; but however we may interpret it, it seems to show the possibility of the sacred Cow ‘going to’ the nézd(£) vdstrya, or ‘being aided’ by him. If we could regard the two vd as possessing only the emphatic sense, we might render; ‘she leaves the vdstrya indeed, who is verily no vdstrya (in faithfulness)’; but a rebuke to the faithless, or idle, is not in place here; the talk is of the Cow, and the next verse shows that she is called upon to make a choice. It was a case of momentous decision, as in Y. 30, 6. But here, unlike the Daé(é)vas who chose wrongly, she chooses - aright. Pahl. Notice the undoubted freedom as opposed to error in the trl. of dadéo pathim. The erroneous glosses are mischievous chiefly in forcing our renderings. Ayif = vd has dropped out of the defective MSS. Ner. however possessed a better one; see his vd. As more ordinary Pahlavi, read ¢: ‘and it is given to him who ap- proaches with husbandry, [that is, to him who fulfils duty and charity], but for him who is not a husbandman, etc.’. 10. Some prefer following the Pahl. as to A¢ = ‘the two things’. Haug takes Ar(a)maiti as expressed in 47, followed by De Harlez. HZ looks difficult as a nom., but see the context; it refers to the Cow.: In the Veda the corresponding word has ceased to be a pronoun; we can only compare ha, st. Chis is both masc. and fem. There is nothing gained by altering the text arbitrarily. For ahydi as reflexive, see ahyd in v. 12. Ahurem ashavanem gives strong support to the significant concrete suggested by the — Pahl. trlr. in Y. 29, 2 uStd-ahurem ‘a salvation-Lord’ (see S. B. E. XXX. p. 7, note 2), which I so reluctantly put in the second place. Spiegel’s suggested emendation of fshenght to fshenghim has been justified by the MSS. Fshéighim = fshenghyam (or °iyem?); cp. fshenghyd (Schleicher’s suggestions). Roth compared the root sphd = ‘to become fat’, and, for form, dhdsi, rendering Wartung, all of which is easily reconcileable with 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.
1rder 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. as his chief text, and more as ordin- ary language. GZ 8. The Pahl. trlr. affords an indication of value for Y. 53,3, but erro- — nous here. Haug, als den Hohen (in der Natur), but Spiegel selected the proper root yaz. We have yé(e)etm and yazim, to °ydjya, or ydjyu. Both need explanation, but yé(e)etm needs less; 7 represents Pahl. 9, which may equal y with inherent a (e). Yé(e)eyam, or °yem, is the word; yeetm should never be written. For yezyum, we must supply the frequently missing pen-strokes, as in jydite, which shows a loss of one stroke and the 4 perversion of others, for jéwdite, and jam for jivam, ((?) *oy = Gay », or », has here a = va, read ¢s)y9y,). There is really little choice otherwise between yezyem (°yam) and yazyum. De Harlez presents the graphic sug- — gestion that a word meaning uterus may be before us; ‘the womb of the creation’. It would be much to be desired, if such pregnant conceptions abounded in the Gathas. (*— = ») (?) im jam (so better) is miswritten for 2.) Stéi [(hardly an infin. here: ‘I think thee ‘to be’ (?) first’, which © seems as awkward as ‘I wish it to come’ in Y. 43, 1)] = (with Roth) ‘for — the land, or people’. The meaning sth@ in RV. is vague, but see dsta, and — sti, for meaning, and poss. partial analogy; root std, or ak = as (for stayé(?)). Haithim (sic for haithyam (or °em)) = satydm hardly = ‘eternal’, — desirable as such an equivalent would be; ‘real’ is also suspicious from its — depth; ‘truly good’ would be better, the ‘real’, and the ‘good’ approaching each other in Zoroastrian ideas; cp. Y. 43, 3; see also the Sansk. meaning ‘good’, ‘beneficial’. The earlier trlr. read yazdm (not yazyum) here, as he did yé(é)zv@ in Y. 53, 3, rendering 2ékth, as = Ved. yaht = ‘son’, so also in Y. 53, 3. _ And it was just this error of his in translation which threw his treatment out of gear, leading him to force the meaning, and change (so to speak) © his text. Observe his correct suggestions in 0, and the certainty of freedom, as against error, iu c. Ner. follows his pavan 2akih in yonttayd. 9. We should at first sight render thwéc = thwé(é) = tvé loc., but it is nom. sg. fem.; cp. 6¢ = 56, n. s. m., daé(é)ch@ (apparently = 060 4+ A chad) fem.; so here thwé = thwéd nom. sg. masc., and thwéi for thwé(é) fem: Thwéi cannot be n. s. f. in that shape; it would be loc., or even irreg. dat. i. fi Rt ¥ te ¢ i.
2ender thwéc = thwé(é) = tvé loc., but it is nom. sg. fem.; cp. 6¢ = 56, n. s. m., daé(é)ch@ (apparently = 060 4+ A chad) fem.; so here thwé = thwéd nom. sg. masc., and thwéi for thwé(é) fem: Thwéi cannot be n. s. f. in that shape; it would be loc., or even irreg. dat. i. fi Rt ¥ te ¢ i. a % * ¥ i 457 But é7 here represents Yor 0; these, while generally expressing (¢)(é), do not by any means always express them; 9; to were originally Pahlavi Signs, modified ayy (Ho to express length), and originally represented (as gy) either yd, or dy, or a7, beside other sounds. Understood as this latter, they express what we call é(¢,¢), the so-called Zend letter; but the signs yx, a9, represent also obviously yd@ here and elsewhere; thwdi = bash = qousd (y905) = 05 , the & having inherent a, as often in Pahl., 105% = thwayd n. s. fem. = ‘thine’; so 5aé(@)chd = baydchd; cp. svaya(m); see above, p. 436 fig., and on Y. 46, 11. Is tash@ nom. for voc. (with Roth)? Taken as such the line reads most naturally, and voc., as some hold of Ash@ in Y. 29, 3 possibly stands sometimes for nom. Also is not @ an interjection (cp. N. P. @), ‘O creator’ its force explaining the apparent nom. May not @ in ¢ashé@ also = an, as often; @--- tashé = @ tashan? Otherwise @ goes with as, thwé(é) not being a loc. Spiegel (followed by De Harlez, Bartholomae and others) regarded the form of the word as expressing its syntactical force, the Pahl. trlr. having placed the idea originally before him. This is of course the first impression made by the line. ‘Thine was the creator - - - the spiri- tual wisdom, or wisdom of the spirit’. But why should Ahura require a second creator for the most sacred object jn nature next to the saintly Tranian citizen? He himself is positively said (Y. 51, 7) to create the Cow. ye gam tashd? Common sense should furnish the answer. As Ahura is elsewhere said to act through this mainyu, (so possibly in Y. 51, 7; see also v. 3;.¥. 43, 6; Y. 44, 2 (?);.Y. 45, 6; Y. 47, 1, 5, 6 (?)), so here His khratu mainyéus, or mainyus is rhetorically and poetically mentioned as the direct agent, the tashan, instead of the indirect instrument. Or else the Géus tashan, like the Spenista Mainyu, may be vaguely personified, like the concept ‘Holy Spirit’ in parts of the Semitic Scriptures, as a Being who is in a sense a part of the Deity, but whom he may yet be said to possess as an attribute. The passage emphasizes the fact that Ahura alone with His spiritual wisdom was the source of the existence of the ‘clean’ creation as represented by the ‘mother Cow’, who also subordinately repre- sents the ‘holy people’. Haug renders c: ‘kommt sie von dem Landmanne her zu dem, der noch nicht Landmann war, und geht an ihm vorber’, supposing the subject to be the Erdgéttin, therefore Armaiti. Both he and Spiegel understand Armaiti in ahyd@i. De Harlez starts the inquiry whether ahydi 58 458 can refer to the earth on which the paths were made.
3dem Landmanne her zu dem, der noch nicht Landmann war, und geht an ihm vorber’, supposing the subject to be the Erdgéttin, therefore Armaiti. Both he and Spiegel understand Armaiti in ahyd@i. De Harlez starts the inquiry whether ahydi 58 458 can refer to the earth on which the paths were made. This is quite interesting. Roth however, as I think correctly, understands the Cow, but emending to vdstriydi, and reading aité(é) ditéé as an infin. As it is natural for a sentence generally (far from always) to begin a line, @ + 7té(é) is a 3rd so. of ¢ = ‘to go’. Some prefer ‘to leave the husbandman’, but the abl. may well be here that of the cause, and vdstry@ may be read with some MSS. The ‘paths’, as elsewhere, are the ‘ways of life’, the pastures of the cattle, and the village roads; cp. Y. 33, 5 pathd yaé(é)shi M. A. shaé(é)tt (shayat?) (figurative application). Owing to the stint in the use of words great uncertainty prevails as to the last half of line c; but however we may interpret it, it seems to show the possibility of the sacred Cow ‘going to’ the nézd(£) vdstrya, or ‘being aided’ by him. If we could regard the two vd as possessing only the emphatic sense, we might render; ‘she leaves the vdstrya indeed, who is verily no vdstrya (in faithfulness)’; but a rebuke to the faithless, or idle, is not in place here; the talk is of the Cow, and the next verse shows that she is called upon to make a choice. It was a case of momentous decision, as in Y. 30, 6. But here, unlike the Daé(é)vas who chose wrongly, she chooses - aright. Pahl. Notice the undoubted freedom as opposed to error in the trl. of dadéo pathim. The erroneous glosses are mischievous chiefly in forcing our renderings. Ayif = vd has dropped out of the defective MSS. Ner. however possessed a better one; see his vd. As more ordinary Pahlavi, read ¢: ‘and it is given to him who ap- proaches with husbandry, [that is, to him who fulfils duty and charity], but for him who is not a husbandman, etc.’. 10. Some prefer following the Pahl. as to A¢ = ‘the two things’. Haug takes Ar(a)maiti as expressed in 47, followed by De Harlez. HZ looks difficult as a nom., but see the context; it refers to the Cow.: In the Veda the corresponding word has ceased to be a pronoun; we can only compare ha, st. Chis is both masc. and fem. There is nothing gained by altering the text arbitrarily. For ahydi as reflexive, see ahyd in v. 12. Ahurem ashavanem gives strong support to the significant concrete suggested by the — Pahl. trlr. in Y. 29, 2 uStd-ahurem ‘a salvation-Lord’ (see S. B. E. XXX. p. 7, note 2), which I so reluctantly put in the second place. Spiegel’s suggested emendation of fshenght to fshenghim has been justified by the MSS. Fshéighim = fshenghyam (or °iyem?); cp. fshenghyd (Schleicher’s suggestions). Roth compared the root sphd = ‘to become fat’, and, for form, dhdsi, rendering Wartung, all of which is easily reconcileable with 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.