Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1= ‘to cut’, see the Pahl, Ands(sh)é(é) might seem a negative infin. from the aor. stem of nas, or with nds — nas; a suff. sé(¢) would produce anas(sh)é = ‘to the non-attaining’ a sort of acc. infin., ‘that the dvafsha should not attain’; we are reminded of the Latin gerundives. For a neg. infin. cp. nahi-- partmdse (1,54, 1), Better to emend ands(sh)é = dnas(sh)é = ‘that I may reach 533 (to punish)’, or ‘to reach’, infin. (cp. endkhsta possibly in that sense); or dnds(sh)é might be @ + nas + se, s aor. inf. (?) of nas = ‘that they may perish’, or ‘that I may destroy(?)’. One scholar solves the difficulties by taking dvafsheng and Gistaschd as neuters. Others would colour somewhat as follows: ‘How could I give the evil into the hands of the pious, that he should threaten him with the words of Thy commands; that he should attain to (davdc) mighty power over the unbelieving, that he should seize the deceivers and tormen- tors (or, ‘I will seize’). Observe the extended explanation of Ashdi in the Pahl. I had rendered ce without favour and syntactically in the light of.Ner., but an alternative is positively necessary in the sense of the Gathd; so also in the gloss. Dind birdérén may be nom., avd not acc. Valman 7 gand (ganak, D.(?)) is gloss, and is also highly characteristic, as applied to Ganrak (or °ndk) Minavad. The infin. ddvéi is taken, as so often correctly, as a finite, and as expressing continuous action. Line ¢ is broken up, as I think, quite on modern prin- ciples, for facility of reproduction. Ands(sh)é(é) was recognized as an infin. with the a priv. To recast c, read: ‘Whom those who teach this Thy word will slay, and they are producing a mighty destruction of the wicked [] the pro- ducers of profanity are deceived, O A.; they are of the non-approaching ’. Ner. of course reproduces the Pahl. when taken as ordinary language, and without considering that it is hampered at every word by a supposed neces- sity to follow the literal order of the Gatha. Haug was entirely mistaken, when he supposed that dvafshé in Y. 53, 8 was rendered by Ner. by prasddah, which is gloss (= moed), the rendering being in the same sense as here; chhadmena = Pahl. frift. Sydma (C. (2) P.) referring to yekaviméiném is ob- viously preferable to smaye, although this latter is corroborated by J.3, J.4, J*. Without yekavimaném in the Pabl. smaye might be better, as not introducing a 1** pers. 15. Ahyd refers to the situation. I would, as in S, B. E. XXXI, p. 118, recall my former rendering cum for mad(f) as being only possibly correct. P6i mad(#) is either pdimad(t) = madpoi, pronoun in composition, — ‘for my protection’, or it is ablat. for gen.; ‘if thou hast power over me (my fate) for protection’, cp. Y. 48, 9 Kada vae(é)da yée(e)zt chahya khshay- atha, or finally péi may possibly be used without the immediate object, ‘to hold it off from me’. Then also mad(t) may possibly be the prep. Khshayé(e)ht = (with some merely) ‘art Thou able’.
2.; ‘if thou hast power over me (my fate) for protection’, cp. Y. 48, 9 Kada vae(é)da yée(e)zt chahya khshay- atha, or finally péi may possibly be used without the immediate object, ‘to hold it off from me’. Then also mad(t) may possibly be the prep. Khshayé(e)ht = (with some merely) ‘art Thou able’. It seems to possess more meaning in the Avesta. Avdi§ wrvdtdis, the instr. of relation or causality, ‘on account of the institutions’ which both parties, the Ashavan’s, and the Daé(é)va-party also claimed (after a fashion) as their own. Some seem to take the instr. as meaning ‘according to the predeterminations which Thou hast fixed’; 534 De Harlez, par les lois, Bartholomae, gemdsz den Bestimmungen, but the urvata, a modification of the vratd, were plainly the institutions of religion in a special sense. The expression seems a half appeal to Ahura in the sense, ‘the vratini which Thou dost desire to maintain, therefore surely Thou wilt give the day to the righteous party struggling in the Holy Cause’, Vananam, acc. sg. fem. from van = ‘to conquer’, or ‘to desire’. Some scholars would render: ‘Whether you can really take notice (? = pdt from pé in that Vedic Sense) of my person; when the hitherto irreconcileable hosts become united (?) under the conditions which Thou wilt fix for them, to which of them wilt Thou then give the predominance?’ What text may have stood before the Pahl. trlr. I cannot well con- Jecture. He knew what pot meant as from pd (see v. 16). Perhaps he thought fit to vary here, rendering ‘in manifestation ’, as what is ‘guarded’ Should be ‘kept in sight’. According to Spiegel’s text, anaochanhd is merely rendered by the Pahl. aé avd (so we should naturally decipher). In Dastur , Jamaspji’s MS. the letters are j¥ ya , which, in view of anaochanhd, may be read Parsi a, n, a, 7, dn = ‘the torments ’, or andkdn = ‘the (mutually) evil’. D.’s MS. has aé khénaks — ‘this house’ (?), or aé-déhanks — ‘having this intention’ (?), or perhaps a transliteration. Ner.’s anagvardn shows that he may have seen the letter 2, and not 2, reading perhaps anasdé (2) = ‘undecaying’, and as hd is regarded by some modern writers as an acc. pl. neut. suffix, the plural °dn should not be regarded as scandalously free. Or Ner. may possibly have seen andshan (?) in the word, reconstructing according to the gloss of the Pahl, which, as I hold, gives a mischievous misdirection. It is not at all certain that the Pahl. trir. read a form of dares (?) for what now stands as didere(gh)zhé: for the emphatic (see the recognition of the reduplication) ‘expounding’ of the doctrines might have expressed ‘sustaining them’. Vanandim was vaguely but not unnaturally rendered by ‘shaptrih’. In Ner. we have prarohina® again. Here it must equal pavan nikézishno, so in Y, 43, 11. 16. Formal caesura after the fourth, but seed and e where the sense opposes. Read my former texts tuition’ = [in turtionem|, potestatem (-habens) (?), and also pro civibus for pro vitis.
3rendered by ‘shaptrih’. In Ner. we have prarohina® again. Here it must equal pavan nikézishno, so in Y, 43, 11. 16. Formal caesura after the fourth, but seed and e where the sense opposes. Read my former texts tuition’ = [in turtionem|, potestatem (-habens) (?), and also pro civibus for pro vitis. My former translation records the opinion that in Jéthwi we might have the absolutive, cp. hated. This relieves the awkwardness of thwd, but on the contrary it demands a ‘certag’ understood. It is better to divide verethremjd, as I do in 8. B. E. XXXI, p. 119. This supplies the verb; ‘smiting with victory (cp. verethraja) to save all who are of, or for, Thy doctrine’, the instr. in the same sense as in the previous verse. Thwd. * senghd would then qualify yéé henit, which of a 535 course can hardly be left in this concrete connection to equal the Vedic ye santi = ‘all beings’. Even taking thwd senghd instrumentally in im- mediate connection with verethremjd (smiting victoriously by means of thy doctrine (cp. the unmistakable n@ him merdzhdydi thwahyd Mathrdis séngh- ahyd) a rendering by no means improbable) the yd¢ hent? gather from attraction a concrete sense. The words mean ‘those who are of the party whose weapons are the holy Mathra’s’. Haug’s gallant effort to emend ké verethrem jath® wa poiscng, ha - - chithrd=quis daemones-inimicos necavitve forma qui sunt diversd - + + is not judicious. Cithra-- - chizhdi stand in alliter- ated relation, and do not mean ‘promise ’, but like chichithwé (?) in Y, 43, 2 = ‘reveal’, ‘show’, cp. RV. VIII, 39, 3, sd devéshu prada chikiddhi. Dam by some eagerly cherished as an acc. infin. is closely related to dévg, as is ratim to patois; cp. dénsu-patni. Ahabis, inst. for dat., better = ‘for the people’ (as taught privately many years ago), than for ‘the worlds’, although this latter is specially GAthic. Ratém is concrete, as in Yi. 20; 22 ¥ 3-33.21 Sraoshd janta is another indication as to what is the missing subject in Y. 43, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15. Ahmdi yahmadi- - - kahmdichid(t) recall Y. 43, 1, line a. The ratu could be one of several prominent chiefs whom Ahura might choose; so very possibly also in Y. 43, 1. ‘May holy obedience be rendered to that saving governor, whomsoever thou may’st select’. Some would turn the sense somewhat as follows: ‘Who has the predominance ? Those whom Thou through Thy command hast appointed to protect? Grant an understanding (mdi dam = medhdm (?)) prince to the people’. If we regard chdshishnih as practically an infin., which we may well do, then the infin., as often with the trlr., may represent the imperative; we should then have; ‘let the teaching be clear’, which would not be far from chizhdt = designa. As Spiegel well suggests, ye sante in Ner. belongs in the text, and in J.2 it does not appear in the gloss. C. J.4 and Haug read hantdram pdtdrah, and appear, one or all, to leave out tava rakshayd, which stands clearly in the original MS.
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.
1= ‘to cut’, see the Pahl, Ands(sh)é(é) might seem a negative infin. from the aor. stem of nas, or with nds — nas; a suff. sé(¢) would produce anas(sh)é = ‘to the non-attaining’ a sort of acc. infin., ‘that the dvafsha should not attain’; we are reminded of the Latin gerundives. For a neg. infin. cp. nahi-- partmdse (1,54, 1), Better to emend ands(sh)é = dnas(sh)é = ‘that I may reach 533 (to punish)’, or ‘to reach’, infin. (cp. endkhsta possibly in that sense); or dnds(sh)é might be @ + nas + se, s aor. inf. (?) of nas = ‘that they may perish’, or ‘that I may destroy(?)’. One scholar solves the difficulties by taking dvafsheng and Gistaschd as neuters. Others would colour somewhat as follows: ‘How could I give the evil into the hands of the pious, that he should threaten him with the words of Thy commands; that he should attain to (davdc) mighty power over the unbelieving, that he should seize the deceivers and tormen- tors (or, ‘I will seize’). Observe the extended explanation of Ashdi in the Pahl. I had rendered ce without favour and syntactically in the light of.Ner., but an alternative is positively necessary in the sense of the Gathd; so also in the gloss. Dind birdérén may be nom., avd not acc. Valman 7 gand (ganak, D.(?)) is gloss, and is also highly characteristic, as applied to Ganrak (or °ndk) Minavad. The infin. ddvéi is taken, as so often correctly, as a finite, and as expressing continuous action. Line ¢ is broken up, as I think, quite on modern prin- ciples, for facility of reproduction. Ands(sh)é(é) was recognized as an infin. with the a priv. To recast c, read: ‘Whom those who teach this Thy word will slay, and they are producing a mighty destruction of the wicked [] the pro- ducers of profanity are deceived, O A.; they are of the non-approaching ’. Ner. of course reproduces the Pahl. when taken as ordinary language, and without considering that it is hampered at every word by a supposed neces- sity to follow the literal order of the Gatha. Haug was entirely mistaken, when he supposed that dvafshé in Y. 53, 8 was rendered by Ner. by prasddah, which is gloss (= moed), the rendering being in the same sense as here; chhadmena = Pahl. frift. Sydma (C. (2) P.) referring to yekaviméiném is ob- viously preferable to smaye, although this latter is corroborated by J.3, J.4, J*. Without yekavimaném in the Pabl. smaye might be better, as not introducing a 1** pers. 15. Ahyd refers to the situation. I would, as in S, B. E. XXXI, p. 118, recall my former rendering cum for mad(f) as being only possibly correct. P6i mad(#) is either pdimad(t) = madpoi, pronoun in composition, — ‘for my protection’, or it is ablat. for gen.; ‘if thou hast power over me (my fate) for protection’, cp. Y. 48, 9 Kada vae(é)da yée(e)zt chahya khshay- atha, or finally péi may possibly be used without the immediate object, ‘to hold it off from me’. Then also mad(t) may possibly be the prep. Khshayé(e)ht = (with some merely) ‘art Thou able’.
2.; ‘if thou hast power over me (my fate) for protection’, cp. Y. 48, 9 Kada vae(é)da yée(e)zt chahya khshay- atha, or finally péi may possibly be used without the immediate object, ‘to hold it off from me’. Then also mad(t) may possibly be the prep. Khshayé(e)ht = (with some merely) ‘art Thou able’. It seems to possess more meaning in the Avesta. Avdi§ wrvdtdis, the instr. of relation or causality, ‘on account of the institutions’ which both parties, the Ashavan’s, and the Daé(é)va-party also claimed (after a fashion) as their own. Some seem to take the instr. as meaning ‘according to the predeterminations which Thou hast fixed’; 534 De Harlez, par les lois, Bartholomae, gemdsz den Bestimmungen, but the urvata, a modification of the vratd, were plainly the institutions of religion in a special sense. The expression seems a half appeal to Ahura in the sense, ‘the vratini which Thou dost desire to maintain, therefore surely Thou wilt give the day to the righteous party struggling in the Holy Cause’, Vananam, acc. sg. fem. from van = ‘to conquer’, or ‘to desire’. Some scholars would render: ‘Whether you can really take notice (? = pdt from pé in that Vedic Sense) of my person; when the hitherto irreconcileable hosts become united (?) under the conditions which Thou wilt fix for them, to which of them wilt Thou then give the predominance?’ What text may have stood before the Pahl. trlr. I cannot well con- Jecture. He knew what pot meant as from pd (see v. 16). Perhaps he thought fit to vary here, rendering ‘in manifestation ’, as what is ‘guarded’ Should be ‘kept in sight’. According to Spiegel’s text, anaochanhd is merely rendered by the Pahl. aé avd (so we should naturally decipher). In Dastur , Jamaspji’s MS. the letters are j¥ ya , which, in view of anaochanhd, may be read Parsi a, n, a, 7, dn = ‘the torments ’, or andkdn = ‘the (mutually) evil’. D.’s MS. has aé khénaks — ‘this house’ (?), or aé-déhanks — ‘having this intention’ (?), or perhaps a transliteration. Ner.’s anagvardn shows that he may have seen the letter 2, and not 2, reading perhaps anasdé (2) = ‘undecaying’, and as hd is regarded by some modern writers as an acc. pl. neut. suffix, the plural °dn should not be regarded as scandalously free. Or Ner. may possibly have seen andshan (?) in the word, reconstructing according to the gloss of the Pahl, which, as I hold, gives a mischievous misdirection. It is not at all certain that the Pahl. trir. read a form of dares (?) for what now stands as didere(gh)zhé: for the emphatic (see the recognition of the reduplication) ‘expounding’ of the doctrines might have expressed ‘sustaining them’. Vanandim was vaguely but not unnaturally rendered by ‘shaptrih’. In Ner. we have prarohina® again. Here it must equal pavan nikézishno, so in Y, 43, 11. 16. Formal caesura after the fourth, but seed and e where the sense opposes. Read my former texts tuition’ = [in turtionem|, potestatem (-habens) (?), and also pro civibus for pro vitis.
3rendered by ‘shaptrih’. In Ner. we have prarohina® again. Here it must equal pavan nikézishno, so in Y, 43, 11. 16. Formal caesura after the fourth, but seed and e where the sense opposes. Read my former texts tuition’ = [in turtionem|, potestatem (-habens) (?), and also pro civibus for pro vitis. My former translation records the opinion that in Jéthwi we might have the absolutive, cp. hated. This relieves the awkwardness of thwd, but on the contrary it demands a ‘certag’ understood. It is better to divide verethremjd, as I do in 8. B. E. XXXI, p. 119. This supplies the verb; ‘smiting with victory (cp. verethraja) to save all who are of, or for, Thy doctrine’, the instr. in the same sense as in the previous verse. Thwd. * senghd would then qualify yéé henit, which of a 535 course can hardly be left in this concrete connection to equal the Vedic ye santi = ‘all beings’. Even taking thwd senghd instrumentally in im- mediate connection with verethremjd (smiting victoriously by means of thy doctrine (cp. the unmistakable n@ him merdzhdydi thwahyd Mathrdis séngh- ahyd) a rendering by no means improbable) the yd¢ hent? gather from attraction a concrete sense. The words mean ‘those who are of the party whose weapons are the holy Mathra’s’. Haug’s gallant effort to emend ké verethrem jath® wa poiscng, ha - - chithrd=quis daemones-inimicos necavitve forma qui sunt diversd - + + is not judicious. Cithra-- - chizhdi stand in alliter- ated relation, and do not mean ‘promise ’, but like chichithwé (?) in Y, 43, 2 = ‘reveal’, ‘show’, cp. RV. VIII, 39, 3, sd devéshu prada chikiddhi. Dam by some eagerly cherished as an acc. infin. is closely related to dévg, as is ratim to patois; cp. dénsu-patni. Ahabis, inst. for dat., better = ‘for the people’ (as taught privately many years ago), than for ‘the worlds’, although this latter is specially GAthic. Ratém is concrete, as in Yi. 20; 22 ¥ 3-33.21 Sraoshd janta is another indication as to what is the missing subject in Y. 43, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15. Ahmdi yahmadi- - - kahmdichid(t) recall Y. 43, 1, line a. The ratu could be one of several prominent chiefs whom Ahura might choose; so very possibly also in Y. 43, 1. ‘May holy obedience be rendered to that saving governor, whomsoever thou may’st select’. Some would turn the sense somewhat as follows: ‘Who has the predominance ? Those whom Thou through Thy command hast appointed to protect? Grant an understanding (mdi dam = medhdm (?)) prince to the people’. If we regard chdshishnih as practically an infin., which we may well do, then the infin., as often with the trlr., may represent the imperative; we should then have; ‘let the teaching be clear’, which would not be far from chizhdt = designa. As Spiegel well suggests, ye sante in Ner. belongs in the text, and in J.2 it does not appear in the gloss. C. J.4 and Haug read hantdram pdtdrah, and appear, one or all, to leave out tava rakshayd, which stands clearly in the original MS.
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.