Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1s 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. /sheg, and was of course originally suggested by it. I cp. 4 459 psd; cp. fsératu; cp. vigvdpsnia, so fshu = psu; cp. dpsavas, RY. VI, 4, 6 (so all). i Roth correctly followed the ancient rendering of davischind, which would still be preferred, if it were not ancient. Haug’s daévagchind (?) = deos quosque colens is not defensible. Others ‘striving’ (du = ‘to press’). Humeretéis, the Iranian smriti [(susmrit/) (not in its later narrowed sense; cp. marenté)|, is the body of memorized, and recited doctrine, agusta to the Druj-worshippers, but vahista to the heart-devoted (Y. 31, 1). The sentiment of vy. 1 is repeated in a different form here. As ordinary Pahl. aside from its original, read a: ‘They assign to that husbandman - - -’ so, the perhaps later gloss, and also (naturally) Ner., but see the Gatha forms which the Pahl. trlr. could not have mistaken. Fravéftend freely for fravareté etc. The last gloss seems not to be relevant. Aside from its original, line c; ‘Atharmazd does not allot to him who is that idle persecuting heretic and deceiver any share in the good recited lore’. In Ner. métrikritam is free for fravaretd. Visphdrayitre expresses the idea in /sheg = fshénghim. Haug’s rendering for visphdrayatd (?) is mistaken ; °tre = ‘to the extender’ is better. Pravarshati, in the rare figurative use of vrish (no vdridan, as elsewhere, in the Pahl.). 11. Gaé(é)thdoscha is better in the concrete sense of ‘settlements’, and _ daé(é)ndoscha = ‘laws’ here rather than ‘consciences’. See the three intelligently related ideas, the people, their laws, and their comprehension of them. Skyaothandcha are the sacred actions of obedience to the law, moral, ceremonial, and civil. * Varenévig combines the idea of the religious choice, the creed, with individual religious volitions; cp. @ varendo vichithahya, Y. 30, 2; Y.48.4. Dé@yé(é)ité(é) may be a better reading than ddzté(é) (cp. ddyaména), as it adds a syllable to the line. Ddyé(é)té(@) (or ddité) = ‘takes’, ‘accepts’; varenéng, the articles of his creed; lit. his choices. Otherwise ‘may place his faith’, ‘settle his choices’. Others ‘whereby every man may carry out his views’, and ‘whereby one may freely express his belief’. Haug is better with his Udi optiones vir-liber facit: Spiegel is more concrete, defining ‘die Wiinsche nach dem Jenseits’. As it is most unscholarly to criticize the free deviations of the Pahl. trirs., with whom exact reproduction was next to impossible, the Pahl. trl. should be regarded here as remarkably faithful, except in c, where however it gave us the first needed indications. In Ner. tvayi = tvadiye. 12. Ahyd@, as reflexive, sheds light on ahyat v. 10.
2free deviations of the Pahl. trirs., with whom exact reproduction was next to impossible, the Pahl. trl. should be regarded here as remarkably faithful, except in c, where however it gave us the first needed indications. In Ner. tvayi = tvadiye. 12. Ahyd@, as reflexive, sheds light on ahyat v. 10. Some render ce: ‘The one striving (?) after insight(?) (Armaiti) tests in spirit on which side the error is’, Mainy@ equals the two spirits, whose contrasted influence q 460 had just been mentioned; cp. Y. 30, 3. As to maé(é)thd, the unvarying testimony of the Pahl. points to maé(é)tha = maé(e)thana. See also Y. 33, 9 tathréd maé(é)\thé mayd vahista bareti mananhd; see also Y. 34, 6. For the idea of ‘abiding’, ‘abode’, cp. Y. 33,5; 43, 3; 46, 16. Spiegel has retained the correct general sense of maé(é)thd, although he takes the word positively as a pl. noun; I think it is adverbial instr., or nom. dual. adj. = ‘abiding’*. Pahl. Béland for baraité is of course no attempt at direct translation. The ‘highness’ of the voice renders the idea of ‘lifts’, the form of the word having been possibly suggested by its likeness to bérd, as the / is better rendered in Pahlavi by what we understand to be now the Zend letter . If proof is required that the Pahl. trirs. knew the meaning of bar = dhri, see Y. 50, 6, where the identical words vachim baraiti = gobishno yedrind. I had followed the Pers. and Ner., as literally understood, in transliterating khézishno(?) and khézém (2), but see dnushakhs, and the words, as transliterated below, correspond also elsewhere to hakhs (see Spiegel’s Comm. vol. 1. pp. 223, 437) and are radically related to it; they should be rendered as Haug has done (Essays, page 350) by ‘solicitation’. I would modify by ‘arouse’. Here then we have a case where the Pahl. trlr. seems to be utterly at fault, but on examination it turns out that he was one of the earliest foreigners who knew the origin of the Sanskrit word dnushdk. The pronuntiation might have been hdjém, hakhchém (?), or hakhjém. May not the origin of the intransitive khézém, khézishné, be found here, as from hakhsh = hach + s, cp. afrizad from afrikthtan (ruch), stead stikhtan (such = guch), etc.? (ce) ‘who takes counsel with his perfect mind, and with the spirit, his is the abode beyond’, is certainly free as opposed to being erroneous. Ar(a)maiti§ is admirably rendered in the concrete, as ‘the man with the perfect mind’. Ner. refers hamparsédé to man, and not to minavad. (*Notice Zend athra, yathra). 13. Ar(a)maiti may be the subject here (so De Harlez followed by Jackson); see the foregoing peresdité(é). But maé(é)thd is not to be under- stood with dvts(k)yé and tayd, not having any such sense here as ‘faults’. Roth (who however regards maé(é)thé as meaning ‘faults’) renders, after the proper indications, ,,Die Anschldge, die man offen oder im stillen abredet, o Mazda -- -“, Frasé@ (inst. sg., or acc. pl.
3(é)thd is not to be under- stood with dvts(k)yé and tayd, not having any such sense here as ‘faults’. Roth (who however regards maé(é)thé as meaning ‘faults’) renders, after the proper indications, ,,Die Anschldge, die man offen oder im stillen abredet, o Mazda -- -“, Frasé@ (inst. sg., or acc. pl. nt.); peresdité(é) refers to the discussions and inquiries (see v. 1, 2, 8, 5, 9, 11, 12). Antithesis prevails throughout (a form of rhetoric having its origin in the antithetic dualism of the doc- trine); here it lies between the true examiner of facts, the vichird has, Y. 46, 5, and the heedless judge ‘who binds on the heaviest penance’, and not between the ‘open and secret questions’; that.antithesis is subordinate. The man who, with Armaiti (his piety), questions the open and the difficult i. a 462 is the vidvdo, the vdstrya v. 9, and fshuyant (the good have the first place in the antitheses), and the yé vd kaséus is the évidedo, and the avastrya; see vy. 17. Peresdité(é) may be middle for passive, but this is indifferent; ‘what are asked’, or ‘what questions she asks’. The middle ayamaite(é) (read dyam°; » has Pahlavi initial value = @ or @) gives colour to the rendering ‘who binds on himself the greatest penance for a little fault’ (De Harlez and Jackson); but such exaggerated virtue is not probable. The middle may refer to the fact that the action referred ulti- mately to the subject. Chashméig = chashman, loc. gig = an; ep. kdrman etc. Thw(v)isré is also locative from thwisrd; cp. Ved. agnit, uiditd, apraté. Others render voc. (De Harlez and Jackson), but ‘glittering’ applies better to the eye than to the entire person of the apostrophized Deity. Also the voc. and nom., standing side by side, are a little difficult. Haug here again relapses into rash conclusions in his anxiety to differ from the indications of Ner., frasé = caetera (porro) (2), Mazdd = res sapientes (?), biijem = voluptatem (?). Roth justly (as so frequently throughout his masterly Y. XXXI)} follows the hint, or indication, of Ner. as to the root meanings of each word here where Haug abandons Ner., and in fact as to every word in the verse save one. As ordinary Pahl., render: ‘He who consults etc.’; but such a rendering is not complete in the case of these translations. The Pahl. in 4 is keen and concrete, but I must differ. Chashméng seems recognized as a loc. Thuw(v)isra seems read as some form of dva, dvi°. Or was the idea of tvish rendered by that of ga@méjaké, a ‘mixing’ recalling an ‘agitation’, ‘vibration’? Ner.’s prachchhannena = nthawik = tayd. Ekahelayd, = ‘with one impulse*’, for guméjaké, contains a word somewhat kindred to thw(v)isrd. _ 14. I think dt? should be taken in its more natural sense ‘goes, ‘are passing by’ (neut. pl. subject).
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.
1s 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. /sheg, and was of course originally suggested by it. I cp. 4 459 psd; cp. fsératu; cp. vigvdpsnia, so fshu = psu; cp. dpsavas, RY. VI, 4, 6 (so all). i Roth correctly followed the ancient rendering of davischind, which would still be preferred, if it were not ancient. Haug’s daévagchind (?) = deos quosque colens is not defensible. Others ‘striving’ (du = ‘to press’). Humeretéis, the Iranian smriti [(susmrit/) (not in its later narrowed sense; cp. marenté)|, is the body of memorized, and recited doctrine, agusta to the Druj-worshippers, but vahista to the heart-devoted (Y. 31, 1). The sentiment of vy. 1 is repeated in a different form here. As ordinary Pahl. aside from its original, read a: ‘They assign to that husbandman - - -’ so, the perhaps later gloss, and also (naturally) Ner., but see the Gatha forms which the Pahl. trlr. could not have mistaken. Fravéftend freely for fravareté etc. The last gloss seems not to be relevant. Aside from its original, line c; ‘Atharmazd does not allot to him who is that idle persecuting heretic and deceiver any share in the good recited lore’. In Ner. métrikritam is free for fravaretd. Visphdrayitre expresses the idea in /sheg = fshénghim. Haug’s rendering for visphdrayatd (?) is mistaken ; °tre = ‘to the extender’ is better. Pravarshati, in the rare figurative use of vrish (no vdridan, as elsewhere, in the Pahl.). 11. Gaé(é)thdoscha is better in the concrete sense of ‘settlements’, and _ daé(é)ndoscha = ‘laws’ here rather than ‘consciences’. See the three intelligently related ideas, the people, their laws, and their comprehension of them. Skyaothandcha are the sacred actions of obedience to the law, moral, ceremonial, and civil. * Varenévig combines the idea of the religious choice, the creed, with individual religious volitions; cp. @ varendo vichithahya, Y. 30, 2; Y.48.4. Dé@yé(é)ité(é) may be a better reading than ddzté(é) (cp. ddyaména), as it adds a syllable to the line. Ddyé(é)té(@) (or ddité) = ‘takes’, ‘accepts’; varenéng, the articles of his creed; lit. his choices. Otherwise ‘may place his faith’, ‘settle his choices’. Others ‘whereby every man may carry out his views’, and ‘whereby one may freely express his belief’. Haug is better with his Udi optiones vir-liber facit: Spiegel is more concrete, defining ‘die Wiinsche nach dem Jenseits’. As it is most unscholarly to criticize the free deviations of the Pahl. trirs., with whom exact reproduction was next to impossible, the Pahl. trl. should be regarded here as remarkably faithful, except in c, where however it gave us the first needed indications. In Ner. tvayi = tvadiye. 12. Ahyd@, as reflexive, sheds light on ahyat v. 10.
2free deviations of the Pahl. trirs., with whom exact reproduction was next to impossible, the Pahl. trl. should be regarded here as remarkably faithful, except in c, where however it gave us the first needed indications. In Ner. tvayi = tvadiye. 12. Ahyd@, as reflexive, sheds light on ahyat v. 10. Some render ce: ‘The one striving (?) after insight(?) (Armaiti) tests in spirit on which side the error is’, Mainy@ equals the two spirits, whose contrasted influence q 460 had just been mentioned; cp. Y. 30, 3. As to maé(é)thd, the unvarying testimony of the Pahl. points to maé(é)tha = maé(e)thana. See also Y. 33, 9 tathréd maé(é)\thé mayd vahista bareti mananhd; see also Y. 34, 6. For the idea of ‘abiding’, ‘abode’, cp. Y. 33,5; 43, 3; 46, 16. Spiegel has retained the correct general sense of maé(é)thd, although he takes the word positively as a pl. noun; I think it is adverbial instr., or nom. dual. adj. = ‘abiding’*. Pahl. Béland for baraité is of course no attempt at direct translation. The ‘highness’ of the voice renders the idea of ‘lifts’, the form of the word having been possibly suggested by its likeness to bérd, as the / is better rendered in Pahlavi by what we understand to be now the Zend letter . If proof is required that the Pahl. trirs. knew the meaning of bar = dhri, see Y. 50, 6, where the identical words vachim baraiti = gobishno yedrind. I had followed the Pers. and Ner., as literally understood, in transliterating khézishno(?) and khézém (2), but see dnushakhs, and the words, as transliterated below, correspond also elsewhere to hakhs (see Spiegel’s Comm. vol. 1. pp. 223, 437) and are radically related to it; they should be rendered as Haug has done (Essays, page 350) by ‘solicitation’. I would modify by ‘arouse’. Here then we have a case where the Pahl. trlr. seems to be utterly at fault, but on examination it turns out that he was one of the earliest foreigners who knew the origin of the Sanskrit word dnushdk. The pronuntiation might have been hdjém, hakhchém (?), or hakhjém. May not the origin of the intransitive khézém, khézishné, be found here, as from hakhsh = hach + s, cp. afrizad from afrikthtan (ruch), stead stikhtan (such = guch), etc.? (ce) ‘who takes counsel with his perfect mind, and with the spirit, his is the abode beyond’, is certainly free as opposed to being erroneous. Ar(a)maiti§ is admirably rendered in the concrete, as ‘the man with the perfect mind’. Ner. refers hamparsédé to man, and not to minavad. (*Notice Zend athra, yathra). 13. Ar(a)maiti may be the subject here (so De Harlez followed by Jackson); see the foregoing peresdité(é). But maé(é)thd is not to be under- stood with dvts(k)yé and tayd, not having any such sense here as ‘faults’. Roth (who however regards maé(é)thé as meaning ‘faults’) renders, after the proper indications, ,,Die Anschldge, die man offen oder im stillen abredet, o Mazda -- -“, Frasé@ (inst. sg., or acc. pl.
3(é)thd is not to be under- stood with dvts(k)yé and tayd, not having any such sense here as ‘faults’. Roth (who however regards maé(é)thé as meaning ‘faults’) renders, after the proper indications, ,,Die Anschldge, die man offen oder im stillen abredet, o Mazda -- -“, Frasé@ (inst. sg., or acc. pl. nt.); peresdité(é) refers to the discussions and inquiries (see v. 1, 2, 8, 5, 9, 11, 12). Antithesis prevails throughout (a form of rhetoric having its origin in the antithetic dualism of the doc- trine); here it lies between the true examiner of facts, the vichird has, Y. 46, 5, and the heedless judge ‘who binds on the heaviest penance’, and not between the ‘open and secret questions’; that.antithesis is subordinate. The man who, with Armaiti (his piety), questions the open and the difficult i. a 462 is the vidvdo, the vdstrya v. 9, and fshuyant (the good have the first place in the antitheses), and the yé vd kaséus is the évidedo, and the avastrya; see vy. 17. Peresdité(é) may be middle for passive, but this is indifferent; ‘what are asked’, or ‘what questions she asks’. The middle ayamaite(é) (read dyam°; » has Pahlavi initial value = @ or @) gives colour to the rendering ‘who binds on himself the greatest penance for a little fault’ (De Harlez and Jackson); but such exaggerated virtue is not probable. The middle may refer to the fact that the action referred ulti- mately to the subject. Chashméig = chashman, loc. gig = an; ep. kdrman etc. Thw(v)isré is also locative from thwisrd; cp. Ved. agnit, uiditd, apraté. Others render voc. (De Harlez and Jackson), but ‘glittering’ applies better to the eye than to the entire person of the apostrophized Deity. Also the voc. and nom., standing side by side, are a little difficult. Haug here again relapses into rash conclusions in his anxiety to differ from the indications of Ner., frasé = caetera (porro) (2), Mazdd = res sapientes (?), biijem = voluptatem (?). Roth justly (as so frequently throughout his masterly Y. XXXI)} follows the hint, or indication, of Ner. as to the root meanings of each word here where Haug abandons Ner., and in fact as to every word in the verse save one. As ordinary Pahl., render: ‘He who consults etc.’; but such a rendering is not complete in the case of these translations. The Pahl. in 4 is keen and concrete, but I must differ. Chashméng seems recognized as a loc. Thuw(v)isra seems read as some form of dva, dvi°. Or was the idea of tvish rendered by that of ga@méjaké, a ‘mixing’ recalling an ‘agitation’, ‘vibration’? Ner.’s prachchhannena = nthawik = tayd. Ekahelayd, = ‘with one impulse*’, for guméjaké, contains a word somewhat kindred to thw(v)isrd. _ 14. I think dt? should be taken in its more natural sense ‘goes, ‘are passing by’ (neut. pl. subject).
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.