Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1he ‘fire’ in the later Avesta was closely as- sociated with Ashavahishta, Read my former printing tasya ’smdkam, sadai va, ghatitd ’si, So, better. Adhyavyavasdyasya J.4, C., P., is not an impos- sible form; ep. vya°. 11. As to caesura after the 4th, see d, and e(?). If v. 10 originally preceded v. 11, yas must recall yé of v. 10, and refer to Ahura, then yé hot would refer to the saint who was excepted and severed (anyéng ahmdad(t)) from the alien masses (“paré.mas(k)yascha) who profanely despised Ahura. If no connection exists (!) between v. 11 and tam . . yé in v.10, tem -. ye in v. 9, ¢ém in y. 8, yé(e)hyd@ in v.’s 7, 6, etc., then of course yas may refer to the worshipping leader, for, aside from all connection, that would be 547 the natural view. Dzig = dédns, to ddnsu; etc., otherwise to ddn (?), ddmpati. Some prefer daé(é)né@ as a nom., and as describing the conscience of the Saos(k)yant, with spent@ = ‘pure’. P(a)td is difficult as applied to a leader , in view of p(a)tarem if possibly applied to Ahura (?) in v. 4. One would suspect intentional obscurity, which is often elsewhere also apparent. I was formerly even inclined to suppose brdtd to be applied in a most unusual way. Some might render: ‘If one despises the Daé(é)vas and foreigners who despise him with the exception of him who showed him vene- ration, sach a commanding protector’s conscience can be pure (feeling itself guiltless). He is a true brother and father of thy folk., M. A.’ The Pahl. trlr. here, as so often, mistakes yastd for a participial form. It can be easily seen how very much closer to its original the Pahl. trl. would be, if this error were corrected. Sid-hdmanddni Dastdbar should be strictly regarded as. gen. by position, also Ner. rendering the first word at least in that form. Read my former printing in ¢ ‘is different’, ‘beneficial ones’, Hormijda; also wu in the Parsi-Pers. (e), as better, notwithstanding the mixed dialects. Yasna XLVI. For summary, and additional comments, see 8. B. E. XXXI, pp. 130- 144. Changes in opinion arrived at since its publication are not always noticed here. 1. For caesura in e read Thuwd (Thuva). J.* has néméi twice. Pairt has been read pard, or taken in that sense after a suggestion which had circulated for years. Pard would indeed relieve difficulty; ‘they cast me out from’; but pacr? can hardly equal pard. In Y. 19, 7 Patra dim tanava azem yo A. M. urvdnem hacha vahistéd(t) anhaod(t) and in Y. 71, 15 pairi té(é) - - - hacha achistdd({) anhaod(t), the exclusion is ex- pressed by the strongest form of the abl. hacha -- - °dd(f), not by the pairi; cp. dhé + pari = ‘to enclose’, paridht = ‘enclosure’. Pair? means here either ‘among’ apud, or ‘on the part of’; Sk. meanings approach. Z. was not ‘cast out’ by the hostile éaé(é¢)tu connection. He had long waged open and defiant war with it, and in Y. 44, 15 we have allusion to actual battle; and as to the friendly éaé(é)tw, see v.’s 14, 15 fig.
2ure’. Pair? means here either ‘among’ apud, or ‘on the part of’; Sk. meanings approach. Z. was not ‘cast out’ by the hostile éaé(é¢)tu connection. He had long waged open and defiant war with it, and in Y. 44, 15 we have allusion to actual battle; and as to the friendly éaé(é)tw, see v.’s 14, 15 fig. in this particular hymn where the most prominent members are on his side. He is complaining of the general indifference, with the evil and openly adverse tyrants in climax. Khshndus is either a noun khshndu + §, or a 34 sg. s aor. of khshnu, and = khsndust, cp. dérest. Khshndus as 3'4 sg. is difficult in Y. 51, 18, and ¢ does not fall off from § Verezénd = vrijdna = ‘the (lower) masses’, as ‘householders’, or ‘workmen’; cp, also wrijdna = 548 ‘strength’. Héchd I had thought better as equalling haé(é)chd (hic + cha@) in the sense (mihi) talique; but héchad may be irreg. for haschd, see Y. 58, 4, and may be an exclamatory, ‘such an one’. Possibly hachd is the proper reading, see the Pahl. Those who are anxious to render ‘they exclude me from’ might gather support from the Pahl. dard, which may even more naturally mean ‘out of’ than ‘up’. I had rendered daré however in the light of Ner. Khvéshdno and ayarmdndn are gen. by position, see their originals. No one, it is to be hoped, will venture to doubt that yehabind hémanam = ‘I am given (up, or forth)’ is free = ‘they give me’. The form was chosen by a quasi attraction. Khshndus was taken as the verbal form, and rendered in the pl. in view of its subject. Varénikich is difficult. As however varhémand may mean ‘productive’ it is possible that its root is also present in this word here; and that root may be dar, as 6 interchanges, freely with v. Otherwise var may be the root, ‘the devoted class’. Hamsdyakich freely expresses ‘the connection’, probably rendering the reading hachéd = ‘the accompanying’, or ‘connected’. Samvidanti (J.3, J, etc.) seems to show that shndyénd was not deciphered, but. shndsend from shndkhtand = ‘to know’, and this would hold even if °vnd° is read. Yet the Pahl. root in shndyinam = khnaoshdi is correctly rendered by Ner. by satkéraydmi in his usual manner. He could not have seen a difference between the root- meanings of shndyénd and shndyinam, so rendering them, one by ‘recognize’, and the other by ‘propitiate’. Or did he mean samvindanti (sic) in nearly the same sense as satkdraydmi, that is, in the sense of ‘accept’, and so ‘conciliate’? Or, finally, seeing the same root in shndyénd and shndyinam, did he render differently intentionally, and as if alternatively? 2. As to caesura, seee. One is tempted to refer kamnafshvd to °van; with w absorbed in the v, but md@ would then look as if = smd, which in the Rig Veda never appears at the beginning of a pada, or a sentence. Some prefer a nom. pl. neut. I prefer causal instr. sg. stem uw; ‘on account of my poverty in wealth (i. e. flocks)’. A nom.
3pted to refer kamnafshvd to °van; with w absorbed in the v, but md@ would then look as if = smd, which in the Rig Veda never appears at the beginning of a pada, or a sentence. Some prefer a nom. pl. neut. I prefer causal instr. sg. stem uw; ‘on account of my poverty in wealth (i. e. flocks)’. A nom. (so I formerly held) is rather oes Chagvdo to azém understood as the subject of gerezdi, ‘1 beseech- ing’, syntactically it would seem to belong to Ahurd, ‘Thou searching outs for me’. Akhsd should be taken in its proper sense; cp. Y. 65, 9, Y. 28, 5. ‘Declare to me’, i. e. ‘let me experience’, ‘teach me’. The 7S¢¢ (wealth) is antithesis to the poverty just described, cp. Y. 34,5. The rendering nimm wahr is very old and had long circulated among learners, which is however rather in its favour. Read my former printing cwpiens. Read the Pahl. b ‘since small flocks are mine’, kam-ramak as a compositum, and ‘since I am. possessed of fewest men’, kam-gabrd also a compositum. Was the om s e. i 549 am used because of the letter m in rafedhrem? It = ‘my’, but see Ner. Chagvdo seems to have been regarded as unmanageable in its difficult sense as a nom. sg. = ‘desiring’, ‘seeking’ in agreement(?) with the subject who ‘bestows’. It was either taken as a nom. absolute, ‘I desiring’, or its root idea was simply expressed by kdmaké. Read ‘gives his friend’. Akhsé was probably taken as the pres. part. rather than freely as the 254 sg. conj. ‘In the teaching’ = ‘teaching’, or ‘in the teaching may’st Thou give me’ = ‘may’st Thou teach me’. The difficult translation of Ner. requires alter- natives. Ner.’s kémchit, which generally renders ‘thing’, is here used to express ‘little’ = kam. But the na would then be superfluous. ‘I am not possessed of a little company’ is not meant. Kéimchana (J.*) would relieve all difficulty as to the sense, but see kam in the Pahl. and kim- chittarad. If kimchit na is to stand, its sense must correspond to that of kim cha na, and this in spite of its enforced use as practically = kam*, That Ner. meant something intelligible is quite as probable as that he had his eye on the Pahl. The passage presents a puzzle. Haug’s reading narachayah is mistaken in its trl., and is against other MSS. and the Pahl, yet it _ may be preferable. My former text na = ‘not’ certainly afforded an ad- mirable sense, if samchayah can be taken as an adj., but see the Pahl. with no Jd, yet the navin the Gatha, kamna°, may have given rise to this negative. Or perhaps ndé was intended, and read irregularly as in a com- positum with sam°. Haug errs in supposing kimchit to mean in yeglichem Ding. Kimchit (= ‘little? = kam) + né + samchayah might mean irregu- larly, ‘a man having little wealth’. There is no gabrd after kam, but see the syllable na in khamnafshvd. Aside from 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.
1he ‘fire’ in the later Avesta was closely as- sociated with Ashavahishta, Read my former printing tasya ’smdkam, sadai va, ghatitd ’si, So, better. Adhyavyavasdyasya J.4, C., P., is not an impos- sible form; ep. vya°. 11. As to caesura after the 4th, see d, and e(?). If v. 10 originally preceded v. 11, yas must recall yé of v. 10, and refer to Ahura, then yé hot would refer to the saint who was excepted and severed (anyéng ahmdad(t)) from the alien masses (“paré.mas(k)yascha) who profanely despised Ahura. If no connection exists (!) between v. 11 and tam . . yé in v.10, tem -. ye in v. 9, ¢ém in y. 8, yé(e)hyd@ in v.’s 7, 6, etc., then of course yas may refer to the worshipping leader, for, aside from all connection, that would be 547 the natural view. Dzig = dédns, to ddnsu; etc., otherwise to ddn (?), ddmpati. Some prefer daé(é)né@ as a nom., and as describing the conscience of the Saos(k)yant, with spent@ = ‘pure’. P(a)td is difficult as applied to a leader , in view of p(a)tarem if possibly applied to Ahura (?) in v. 4. One would suspect intentional obscurity, which is often elsewhere also apparent. I was formerly even inclined to suppose brdtd to be applied in a most unusual way. Some might render: ‘If one despises the Daé(é)vas and foreigners who despise him with the exception of him who showed him vene- ration, sach a commanding protector’s conscience can be pure (feeling itself guiltless). He is a true brother and father of thy folk., M. A.’ The Pahl. trlr. here, as so often, mistakes yastd for a participial form. It can be easily seen how very much closer to its original the Pahl. trl. would be, if this error were corrected. Sid-hdmanddni Dastdbar should be strictly regarded as. gen. by position, also Ner. rendering the first word at least in that form. Read my former printing in ¢ ‘is different’, ‘beneficial ones’, Hormijda; also wu in the Parsi-Pers. (e), as better, notwithstanding the mixed dialects. Yasna XLVI. For summary, and additional comments, see 8. B. E. XXXI, pp. 130- 144. Changes in opinion arrived at since its publication are not always noticed here. 1. For caesura in e read Thuwd (Thuva). J.* has néméi twice. Pairt has been read pard, or taken in that sense after a suggestion which had circulated for years. Pard would indeed relieve difficulty; ‘they cast me out from’; but pacr? can hardly equal pard. In Y. 19, 7 Patra dim tanava azem yo A. M. urvdnem hacha vahistéd(t) anhaod(t) and in Y. 71, 15 pairi té(é) - - - hacha achistdd({) anhaod(t), the exclusion is ex- pressed by the strongest form of the abl. hacha -- - °dd(f), not by the pairi; cp. dhé + pari = ‘to enclose’, paridht = ‘enclosure’. Pair? means here either ‘among’ apud, or ‘on the part of’; Sk. meanings approach. Z. was not ‘cast out’ by the hostile éaé(é¢)tu connection. He had long waged open and defiant war with it, and in Y. 44, 15 we have allusion to actual battle; and as to the friendly éaé(é)tw, see v.’s 14, 15 fig.
2ure’. Pair? means here either ‘among’ apud, or ‘on the part of’; Sk. meanings approach. Z. was not ‘cast out’ by the hostile éaé(é¢)tu connection. He had long waged open and defiant war with it, and in Y. 44, 15 we have allusion to actual battle; and as to the friendly éaé(é)tw, see v.’s 14, 15 fig. in this particular hymn where the most prominent members are on his side. He is complaining of the general indifference, with the evil and openly adverse tyrants in climax. Khshndus is either a noun khshndu + §, or a 34 sg. s aor. of khshnu, and = khsndust, cp. dérest. Khshndus as 3'4 sg. is difficult in Y. 51, 18, and ¢ does not fall off from § Verezénd = vrijdna = ‘the (lower) masses’, as ‘householders’, or ‘workmen’; cp, also wrijdna = 548 ‘strength’. Héchd I had thought better as equalling haé(é)chd (hic + cha@) in the sense (mihi) talique; but héchad may be irreg. for haschd, see Y. 58, 4, and may be an exclamatory, ‘such an one’. Possibly hachd is the proper reading, see the Pahl. Those who are anxious to render ‘they exclude me from’ might gather support from the Pahl. dard, which may even more naturally mean ‘out of’ than ‘up’. I had rendered daré however in the light of Ner. Khvéshdno and ayarmdndn are gen. by position, see their originals. No one, it is to be hoped, will venture to doubt that yehabind hémanam = ‘I am given (up, or forth)’ is free = ‘they give me’. The form was chosen by a quasi attraction. Khshndus was taken as the verbal form, and rendered in the pl. in view of its subject. Varénikich is difficult. As however varhémand may mean ‘productive’ it is possible that its root is also present in this word here; and that root may be dar, as 6 interchanges, freely with v. Otherwise var may be the root, ‘the devoted class’. Hamsdyakich freely expresses ‘the connection’, probably rendering the reading hachéd = ‘the accompanying’, or ‘connected’. Samvidanti (J.3, J, etc.) seems to show that shndyénd was not deciphered, but. shndsend from shndkhtand = ‘to know’, and this would hold even if °vnd° is read. Yet the Pahl. root in shndyinam = khnaoshdi is correctly rendered by Ner. by satkéraydmi in his usual manner. He could not have seen a difference between the root- meanings of shndyénd and shndyinam, so rendering them, one by ‘recognize’, and the other by ‘propitiate’. Or did he mean samvindanti (sic) in nearly the same sense as satkdraydmi, that is, in the sense of ‘accept’, and so ‘conciliate’? Or, finally, seeing the same root in shndyénd and shndyinam, did he render differently intentionally, and as if alternatively? 2. As to caesura, seee. One is tempted to refer kamnafshvd to °van; with w absorbed in the v, but md@ would then look as if = smd, which in the Rig Veda never appears at the beginning of a pada, or a sentence. Some prefer a nom. pl. neut. I prefer causal instr. sg. stem uw; ‘on account of my poverty in wealth (i. e. flocks)’. A nom.
3pted to refer kamnafshvd to °van; with w absorbed in the v, but md@ would then look as if = smd, which in the Rig Veda never appears at the beginning of a pada, or a sentence. Some prefer a nom. pl. neut. I prefer causal instr. sg. stem uw; ‘on account of my poverty in wealth (i. e. flocks)’. A nom. (so I formerly held) is rather oes Chagvdo to azém understood as the subject of gerezdi, ‘1 beseech- ing’, syntactically it would seem to belong to Ahurd, ‘Thou searching outs for me’. Akhsd should be taken in its proper sense; cp. Y. 65, 9, Y. 28, 5. ‘Declare to me’, i. e. ‘let me experience’, ‘teach me’. The 7S¢¢ (wealth) is antithesis to the poverty just described, cp. Y. 34,5. The rendering nimm wahr is very old and had long circulated among learners, which is however rather in its favour. Read my former printing cwpiens. Read the Pahl. b ‘since small flocks are mine’, kam-ramak as a compositum, and ‘since I am. possessed of fewest men’, kam-gabrd also a compositum. Was the om s e. i 549 am used because of the letter m in rafedhrem? It = ‘my’, but see Ner. Chagvdo seems to have been regarded as unmanageable in its difficult sense as a nom. sg. = ‘desiring’, ‘seeking’ in agreement(?) with the subject who ‘bestows’. It was either taken as a nom. absolute, ‘I desiring’, or its root idea was simply expressed by kdmaké. Read ‘gives his friend’. Akhsé was probably taken as the pres. part. rather than freely as the 254 sg. conj. ‘In the teaching’ = ‘teaching’, or ‘in the teaching may’st Thou give me’ = ‘may’st Thou teach me’. The difficult translation of Ner. requires alter- natives. Ner.’s kémchit, which generally renders ‘thing’, is here used to express ‘little’ = kam. But the na would then be superfluous. ‘I am not possessed of a little company’ is not meant. Kéimchana (J.*) would relieve all difficulty as to the sense, but see kam in the Pahl. and kim- chittarad. If kimchit na is to stand, its sense must correspond to that of kim cha na, and this in spite of its enforced use as practically = kam*, That Ner. meant something intelligible is quite as probable as that he had his eye on the Pahl. The passage presents a puzzle. Haug’s reading narachayah is mistaken in its trl., and is against other MSS. and the Pahl, yet it _ may be preferable. My former text na = ‘not’ certainly afforded an ad- mirable sense, if samchayah can be taken as an adj., but see the Pahl. with no Jd, yet the navin the Gatha, kamna°, may have given rise to this negative. Or perhaps ndé was intended, and read irregularly as in a com- positum with sam°. Haug errs in supposing kimchit to mean in yeglichem Ding. Kimchit (= ‘little? = kam) + né + samchayah might mean irregu- larly, ‘a man having little wealth’. There is no gabrd after kam, but see the syllable na in khamnafshvd. Aside from 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.