Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1is fairly rendered by zanishnd. Irikhtem = raspatak, Aside from its original, read 4; ‘who inculcate a smiting --- who have proclaimed - - -’, Ner. of course means ‘smiting’ by vighdtam = zanishnd. ‘Their smiting in the soul’ (gloss 4) shows that merely physical suffering was not borne in mind. Ner. seems to take it as meaning ‘cruel action’, perhaps understanding ‘terrible execution of punishment’. 8. Some able writers recoil from recognizing an evil sense in chikh- shnushd; where one is spoken of as ‘contenting’ it is not likely (so it is thought) that person could be regarded as causing evil to result through this ‘contenting’. But the other alternative is equally difficult; i. e. if an aé(¢)nah were said to be a benefactor. One scholar has seen the idea of ‘cannibalism’ here, ‘who having appetite for our men’. I think ‘desiring to ingratiate our men’ is a better meaning, even if we must note the unhappy result. Aé(é)shamchid(t) a (the gen. with d) equals ‘apud’ with the accus., ‘From among them, J am to be separated’. Vichithréi is to be preferred to vichithéi as loc. inf., ep. vichithrahyd. A reading nd, if occurring, might tempt us to render; ‘among these I am not in thy discernment (as thou seest me)’; but the reading does not seem to be reasserted, and we have all suddenly ceased to conjecture frequent corrections. Is line ¢ possibly a question of deprecative denial ? Haug’s rendering of the last line seems to me to contain error: ‘er, der die Menschen durch seine Gaben begliickte, und unsere Theile der Erde mit seinem Lichte erfiillte. Auch ich bin in Ihnen, nach deiner Entscheidung, Weiser !” The Pahl. at 4, aside from its original should be read: ‘Eat ye our flesh -- according to the size of breast, or arm’ = ‘as much as stomach can hold, or arm take’. ‘The breast-piece and fore-leg-piece’ were hardly meant. There is a question whether proktavdén was not intended to express a passive idea, cp. srid = sravi, ‘was proclaimed’. Otherwise we should call it, naturally, active ‘having proclaimed’. Bajishnd = bagd was rendered by dakhshinayd, as a sharing in the offering, and not as a mechanical dividing of the flesh. : 9. Jydtéus (ji@vatéeus) - - - khratam = ‘my scheme of life as revealed in my teachings for myself and my adherents’, is the better meaning. The opposer contradicts this, and so tends ‘to destroy’ it through his teachings. As to 7Stim, I follow the indication of ‘the Pahl. as explained by Ner. As the preposition apa in apayantd introduces two superfluous syllables, it is better to regard it as one of the similar frequent glosses, The verbal 479 prefix may, as in the Vedic Sanskrit, be separated from the verb, and yontd is the nom. sg. masc. of the verbal noun of yam and not, as was formerly held, a third pl. impf. It means ‘a taker (away)’ in apposition with duscastis. Omitting apd, apayantd, as a 3*4 pl., might afford us an in- stance of causative from 7 (cp. Ind.
2c Sanskrit, be separated from the verb, and yontd is the nom. sg. masc. of the verbal noun of yam and not, as was formerly held, a third pl. impf. It means ‘a taker (away)’ in apposition with duscastis. Omitting apd, apayantd, as a 3*4 pl., might afford us an in- stance of causative from 7 (cp. Ind. adhydpayati from 7); ‘they cause to go away’ = ‘they take away’. Téa ukhdd are better as instr. sg. than as adverbially used acc. nt. pl. (after Greek fashion). They might however be governed by gerezé(é); cp, RV. IV, 3, 5 kathé ha tdd Varundya tuam Agne kathé divé garhase. The Pahl. trlr. saw no second apa as in the reported apayantd, thus showing himself to be the first expurgator of the interpolated prepositions which make such havoc with the metre. He followed an earlier text, not that now written beside him. Had his renderings been more critically studied, many a correct emendation would have been made much earlier. Dropping the glosses in 4, we should have; ‘by whom my wealth, which is desired by a good mind, is borne away, etc.- ++ [] which is longed-for (?) - - - etc’. The gloss spoils everything. Mahyd, untranslated in c, is taken up in the gloss, and the garetd which by itself might be read garzéd, as a 3*4 sg., or 224 pl., is positively fixed as a first sg. in the gloss, which otherwise would show alternative translation as from a later hand. Such instances are of the last importance in forming a critical estimate of the Pahl. trl. Aside from its original we sbould undoubtedly render; ‘it must be had in that way which is pleasing to Vohtiman - - -’, ‘which is spiritually that of Ashavahisht’. Ner.’s satém should be read in the light of hditim rendered aité. Otherwise we should naturally render ‘pleasing object’. His rendering of ¢ improves on the Pahl. 10. I can hardly accept the rendering ‘who makes the righteous wicked’. ‘Who establishes the appointed institutions of the wicked’, or, simply, ‘who offers the gifts of the wicked’ is the obvious meaning; cp. the Vedic ddta in tv@-ddtam; cp. also ddtrd. The Pahl. trlr. distinctly notices the meaning ‘correct institution’, as opposed to ‘incorrect institution’ in Y. 46, 15; we might expect a similar notice here. The ddthéjig dregvaté equal the addthaschd. As to vivdpad(t), seeS. B.E. XXXI, page 62. note 6, p. 67. supplementary note. V is miswritten for y, as so often y for v. We haye the word in Parsi-pahlavi literature, and not merely here in the Pahlavi commentary. It is eiydpad(t) = ‘to deprive of water’, ‘to render desert’, ‘waste’. Carried over, it means ‘to devastate’; it is a denom. without sign. The Pahl. vtydvdninéd restores to us both text and meaning in vtydpad(t) for the otherwise difficult vivépad(t). It is not certain that pavan péddkth 480 renders vadaré; as the Persian omits it, it is probably gloss. Adshishn yehabind renders vdizhdad, which, as in so many cases, appears to have stood divided in the MSS. used by the earlier trlr.
3eaning in vtydpad(t) for the otherwise difficult vivépad(t). It is not certain that pavan péddkth 480 renders vadaré; as the Persian omits it, it is probably gloss. Adshishn yehabind renders vdizhdad, which, as in so many cases, appears to have stood divided in the MSS. used by the earlier trlr. It probably seemed superfluous to translate vadaré, as its idea was included in adshishnd. It is Surprising that Haug does not criticize more contemptuously what he sup- poses to be Ner.’s text here, and what may perhaps have really been his text, ajdbhih = ‘with goats’ (see below). Had he possessed a knowledge of the Pahl. trl., he would have seen that Ner. probably intended akshdbhih (for akshdbhydm, or akshibhydm), ashe has akshibhyim = ash = ashibya in Y.9,91 (Sp.), and he would not himself have given us the very improbable suggestion that ashibyd = nequitiis; but, on the other hand, we might not have had his valuable remark as to k, ch, = 8, sh (before y). He ought to have examined the source of Ner.’s error, which, whether Ner. read gy = az, and thought of 2S = goat, or not, would have infallibly led to the recognition of the Pahl. ash = ‘eyes’. Of course Ner. may have meant after all ‘goats’: see the gloss which speaks of five-year-olds as well as three-year-olds; the former must refer to some animal. The gloss may be from a later hand, but this is not so likely in the case of Ner. Ner. misread vénishnd for gobishné, or for some word equalling vachasd. 11. Chid(¢) means ‘to perceive’, as well as ‘to call attention to’, which is properly a causative meaning. It means here ‘who have counselled’ (the Pahl. is excessively free; Haug, apparentes- sunt (?)). The tendency to take such a word as mazibés, an instr. sociative in the pl. as a mere forceless adverbial equalling ‘emphatically’, I regard as exaggerated. The cause Seems to be a feeling that dregvatd must be an ace. pl. (possibly because we have some gen. singulars with the original Aryan até), but surely, if berezatd and amavaté are genitives, so may dregvaté be. Dregvaté is also obviously the hod of v. 10, the duscasté§ of vy. 9, and the dregvantem of v. 5 and of v. 14, and the dregvaté of v. 16. Mazibss means ‘with the chiefs’, and is in antithesis to anhzuscha for anhvdsché which, notwithstanding ~ the unusual form of anhvascha (cp. dhenvds), I still hold to be the better reading as both gen. (see, for the meaning v. 9) with apayé(e)it?. The most unfortunate neglect of the close of sentences seems to me illustrated -in the rendering of some able men here. At times indeed whole strophes belong together in syntax, and even more than one strophe, but in the large preponderance of cases the Sense is closed with the line, or in a few words passing the end of the line; cp. Homeric usage, etc. As striking examples of short sentences, see v. 10, 9, 8, 6. Especially is the accusative object not pushed far away from the beginning, dragging out the sentence 481 heavily.
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.
1is fairly rendered by zanishnd. Irikhtem = raspatak, Aside from its original, read 4; ‘who inculcate a smiting --- who have proclaimed - - -’, Ner. of course means ‘smiting’ by vighdtam = zanishnd. ‘Their smiting in the soul’ (gloss 4) shows that merely physical suffering was not borne in mind. Ner. seems to take it as meaning ‘cruel action’, perhaps understanding ‘terrible execution of punishment’. 8. Some able writers recoil from recognizing an evil sense in chikh- shnushd; where one is spoken of as ‘contenting’ it is not likely (so it is thought) that person could be regarded as causing evil to result through this ‘contenting’. But the other alternative is equally difficult; i. e. if an aé(¢)nah were said to be a benefactor. One scholar has seen the idea of ‘cannibalism’ here, ‘who having appetite for our men’. I think ‘desiring to ingratiate our men’ is a better meaning, even if we must note the unhappy result. Aé(é)shamchid(t) a (the gen. with d) equals ‘apud’ with the accus., ‘From among them, J am to be separated’. Vichithréi is to be preferred to vichithéi as loc. inf., ep. vichithrahyd. A reading nd, if occurring, might tempt us to render; ‘among these I am not in thy discernment (as thou seest me)’; but the reading does not seem to be reasserted, and we have all suddenly ceased to conjecture frequent corrections. Is line ¢ possibly a question of deprecative denial ? Haug’s rendering of the last line seems to me to contain error: ‘er, der die Menschen durch seine Gaben begliickte, und unsere Theile der Erde mit seinem Lichte erfiillte. Auch ich bin in Ihnen, nach deiner Entscheidung, Weiser !” The Pahl. at 4, aside from its original should be read: ‘Eat ye our flesh -- according to the size of breast, or arm’ = ‘as much as stomach can hold, or arm take’. ‘The breast-piece and fore-leg-piece’ were hardly meant. There is a question whether proktavdén was not intended to express a passive idea, cp. srid = sravi, ‘was proclaimed’. Otherwise we should call it, naturally, active ‘having proclaimed’. Bajishnd = bagd was rendered by dakhshinayd, as a sharing in the offering, and not as a mechanical dividing of the flesh. : 9. Jydtéus (ji@vatéeus) - - - khratam = ‘my scheme of life as revealed in my teachings for myself and my adherents’, is the better meaning. The opposer contradicts this, and so tends ‘to destroy’ it through his teachings. As to 7Stim, I follow the indication of ‘the Pahl. as explained by Ner. As the preposition apa in apayantd introduces two superfluous syllables, it is better to regard it as one of the similar frequent glosses, The verbal 479 prefix may, as in the Vedic Sanskrit, be separated from the verb, and yontd is the nom. sg. masc. of the verbal noun of yam and not, as was formerly held, a third pl. impf. It means ‘a taker (away)’ in apposition with duscastis. Omitting apd, apayantd, as a 3*4 pl., might afford us an in- stance of causative from 7 (cp. Ind.
2c Sanskrit, be separated from the verb, and yontd is the nom. sg. masc. of the verbal noun of yam and not, as was formerly held, a third pl. impf. It means ‘a taker (away)’ in apposition with duscastis. Omitting apd, apayantd, as a 3*4 pl., might afford us an in- stance of causative from 7 (cp. Ind. adhydpayati from 7); ‘they cause to go away’ = ‘they take away’. Téa ukhdd are better as instr. sg. than as adverbially used acc. nt. pl. (after Greek fashion). They might however be governed by gerezé(é); cp, RV. IV, 3, 5 kathé ha tdd Varundya tuam Agne kathé divé garhase. The Pahl. trlr. saw no second apa as in the reported apayantd, thus showing himself to be the first expurgator of the interpolated prepositions which make such havoc with the metre. He followed an earlier text, not that now written beside him. Had his renderings been more critically studied, many a correct emendation would have been made much earlier. Dropping the glosses in 4, we should have; ‘by whom my wealth, which is desired by a good mind, is borne away, etc.- ++ [] which is longed-for (?) - - - etc’. The gloss spoils everything. Mahyd, untranslated in c, is taken up in the gloss, and the garetd which by itself might be read garzéd, as a 3*4 sg., or 224 pl., is positively fixed as a first sg. in the gloss, which otherwise would show alternative translation as from a later hand. Such instances are of the last importance in forming a critical estimate of the Pahl. trl. Aside from its original we sbould undoubtedly render; ‘it must be had in that way which is pleasing to Vohtiman - - -’, ‘which is spiritually that of Ashavahisht’. Ner.’s satém should be read in the light of hditim rendered aité. Otherwise we should naturally render ‘pleasing object’. His rendering of ¢ improves on the Pahl. 10. I can hardly accept the rendering ‘who makes the righteous wicked’. ‘Who establishes the appointed institutions of the wicked’, or, simply, ‘who offers the gifts of the wicked’ is the obvious meaning; cp. the Vedic ddta in tv@-ddtam; cp. also ddtrd. The Pahl. trlr. distinctly notices the meaning ‘correct institution’, as opposed to ‘incorrect institution’ in Y. 46, 15; we might expect a similar notice here. The ddthéjig dregvaté equal the addthaschd. As to vivdpad(t), seeS. B.E. XXXI, page 62. note 6, p. 67. supplementary note. V is miswritten for y, as so often y for v. We haye the word in Parsi-pahlavi literature, and not merely here in the Pahlavi commentary. It is eiydpad(t) = ‘to deprive of water’, ‘to render desert’, ‘waste’. Carried over, it means ‘to devastate’; it is a denom. without sign. The Pahl. vtydvdninéd restores to us both text and meaning in vtydpad(t) for the otherwise difficult vivépad(t). It is not certain that pavan péddkth 480 renders vadaré; as the Persian omits it, it is probably gloss. Adshishn yehabind renders vdizhdad, which, as in so many cases, appears to have stood divided in the MSS. used by the earlier trlr.
3eaning in vtydpad(t) for the otherwise difficult vivépad(t). It is not certain that pavan péddkth 480 renders vadaré; as the Persian omits it, it is probably gloss. Adshishn yehabind renders vdizhdad, which, as in so many cases, appears to have stood divided in the MSS. used by the earlier trlr. It probably seemed superfluous to translate vadaré, as its idea was included in adshishnd. It is Surprising that Haug does not criticize more contemptuously what he sup- poses to be Ner.’s text here, and what may perhaps have really been his text, ajdbhih = ‘with goats’ (see below). Had he possessed a knowledge of the Pahl. trl., he would have seen that Ner. probably intended akshdbhih (for akshdbhydm, or akshibhydm), ashe has akshibhyim = ash = ashibya in Y.9,91 (Sp.), and he would not himself have given us the very improbable suggestion that ashibyd = nequitiis; but, on the other hand, we might not have had his valuable remark as to k, ch, = 8, sh (before y). He ought to have examined the source of Ner.’s error, which, whether Ner. read gy = az, and thought of 2S = goat, or not, would have infallibly led to the recognition of the Pahl. ash = ‘eyes’. Of course Ner. may have meant after all ‘goats’: see the gloss which speaks of five-year-olds as well as three-year-olds; the former must refer to some animal. The gloss may be from a later hand, but this is not so likely in the case of Ner. Ner. misread vénishnd for gobishné, or for some word equalling vachasd. 11. Chid(¢) means ‘to perceive’, as well as ‘to call attention to’, which is properly a causative meaning. It means here ‘who have counselled’ (the Pahl. is excessively free; Haug, apparentes- sunt (?)). The tendency to take such a word as mazibés, an instr. sociative in the pl. as a mere forceless adverbial equalling ‘emphatically’, I regard as exaggerated. The cause Seems to be a feeling that dregvatd must be an ace. pl. (possibly because we have some gen. singulars with the original Aryan até), but surely, if berezatd and amavaté are genitives, so may dregvaté be. Dregvaté is also obviously the hod of v. 10, the duscasté§ of vy. 9, and the dregvantem of v. 5 and of v. 14, and the dregvaté of v. 16. Mazibss means ‘with the chiefs’, and is in antithesis to anhzuscha for anhvdsché which, notwithstanding ~ the unusual form of anhvascha (cp. dhenvds), I still hold to be the better reading as both gen. (see, for the meaning v. 9) with apayé(e)it?. The most unfortunate neglect of the close of sentences seems to me illustrated -in the rendering of some able men here. At times indeed whole strophes belong together in syntax, and even more than one strophe, but in the large preponderance of cases the Sense is closed with the line, or in a few words passing the end of the line; cp. Homeric usage, etc. As striking examples of short sentences, see v. 10, 9, 8, 6. Especially is the accusative object not pushed far away from the beginning, dragging out the sentence 481 heavily.
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.