Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1hose the more common inherent a; read Jjivas. Uzitithyot is taken by some as we + 2iithyoi = ud + hd + tyod = ‘calling out’, dat. infin. of zw = ha, hod, ‘publicly to call out (?) his name, so should he punish him (khrénydd(¢))’. Another prefers we + withyoi, a dat. from uz + dti = ‘to helping out’. I am of the opinion that the saé(é)tu here, as in v. 1, is hostile, and therefore following a simple and common- place suggestion, I compare uziithydoscha, zw 4+ ug = ‘to rush out’, here figuratively, as = ‘for his (enforced) headlong flight’, i. e. ‘his expulsion’, or possibly mentally ‘in his outburst’ (go in English), ‘for his outburst of audacity’, cp. the fig. use of jaty@, cp. jutdye for form. So taken, we should regard °ydéz as a shortened (?) dat. for uzedithaydi (2), ep. erezejydi. Uztithydoscha(f.) may be a transition to the 7 declension. Some take khriinyad(t) as abl. = ‘bad treatment’; this, probably to avoid a new sentence in e, but ¢ is the thing said. Some have coloured: ‘When one in the course of — 4 ordinary life has observed one coming with speed upon the companions of — the association, or of his own tribe, as soon as the pious perceives the wicked he should mention it at once to the connection, to rescue them from bad treatment’. The Pahl. trir. seems to have vead vdeo for vd. Adds may well be correctly rendered by ayehabanishni, Uzitithyoi is rendered in the sense of the prefix wz = ud. As an alternative to my former most im- partial, if not partially unfavourable rendering, read as closer, and without gloss: ‘He whose is authority derived [] through You is no bestower of favours [] in the following case: The injurer comes, [] (4) but he remains in the beneficent wisdom and in the covenant of the blessed doctrine (gen. by position) [ }. (c) In his just living he is righteous, and him who is evil[ ] (d) he has judged, and that is thus [] his proclaiming to his own (his re- lation) [] (€), whom A. has lifted up (equalling ‘in his lifting up’) from impiety (khrdmydd(t) as abl. (so others)) []’. Read perhaps gvikhranth for the avdrinih of D. and Pers, Spiegel well suggested att for aétind in d; see has, and asti, and render accordingly. As an alternative I had rendered i CRT I a ont \i 5: ty } a i 553 jivaniyah with an asterisk of doubt as in the usual sense of the suffix, but Ner. may have meant ‘living’ by the word (jivas); but again see zivinishno which seems causative. Whether it can mean, ‘who ought to live (according to to the truth)’ is doubtful. See the gloss for the justification of my (however doubted) rendering. In view of the context I can only correct to vachyah; Sp. transcribes P. vdkyyah (2); see gobishné, other MSS. vdbhyah (2), and wydkabhya (?). 6. Caesura after the fourth, but see e; disregard as usual my former informal divisions. Some writers render line a:- ‘Who does not come to help, although he can’ (?). We should naturally call ddémén a loc.
2yah; Sp. transcribes P. vdkyyah (2); see gobishné, other MSS. vdbhyah (2), and wydkabhya (?). 6. Caesura after the fourth, but see e; disregard as usual my former informal divisions. Some writers render line a:- ‘Who does not come to help, although he can’ (?). We should naturally call ddémén a loc. sg., but this is improbable here with a verb of motion; here ddman = déméani, acc. pl. neut., cp. dh@mdéni; for ‘to the creatures’ in my former printing read ad habitationes, so, better. Haithyd as = ‘truly’ seems to me a waste of a word on a forceless adverb. Also see the metre. I follow the older MS., as the Pahl. trlr. seems to have read an imperfectly written | swoop gy, or does he afford us a better reading, bad(é)thahya = “of terror’, or ‘terror-inspirer’? The masc. form of °thahyd would show it to be in apposition, not in agreement, with Drujé. Or the word may be neither in agreement nor apposition with Drijé. Some writers would render the last line: ‘as Thou did’st constitute the souls (?) at first’ (?), a very old suggestion. Those who regard literal exactness in the Pahl. trl. as essential to its value as an evidence to radical meanings may be again scandalized by the persistent addition of the forms of madano to his translation of yas. Yas is translated by min here, and also elsewhere; yet an alternative trl. was added for yastém (sic), 2ak madé yekaviminéd, cp. Y. 43, 16; 44, 19. This of course throws his whole rendering into confusion as a syntactical reproduction. Jsmand ig referred to is = ichchh = ‘to wish’, probably erroneously. Baé(é)thahyd, or some form from 04 = bhi = ‘to fear’, was read for haéé)thahyd, perhaps an improvement. Hithim if read, Y. 34, 10, and hithaos, Y. 48, 7, are not rendered by the trir. by any forms of 07. The letters ep and J have become confused in our surviving MSS. Vad in line e, together with the gloss, turns the rendering toward the future. One would naturally render sampraptam ‘acquisition’, either as equalling samprdptim, or as the past part., but see its original. Haug read ¢rasantyas (so), and rendered der zittern muss. Ner. prob. wrote trdsayantyah (sic) perhaps meaning ‘he must be feared’ (so), the gloss may be doubtful. Pahl. and Gatha favour this. Ner. seems to have had his eye onthe Gathd rather than on the Pahl. in vikdgayitd. He read vahisto as a form of vakhsh, showing that it probably stood wholly, or partly, in the Pahlavi character; and he renders 70 Fed ee eee 554 vakhsh generally by kde. I render alternatively, ‘who causes the wicked to prosper’. I correct the impossible grat of the MSS. to yah in d, see min and yahmdi; I have found gr elsewhere miswritten for y. 7. Caesura after the 4, here less difficult. Disregarding informal divisions after the 6, read my former printing mavaité(é), anyds twatto, and alternative dabit, tenebit. One writer would prefer referring didareshaté to darsh (Ind. dharsh) as a reduplicated aor.
3ound gr elsewhere miswritten for y. 7. Caesura after the 4, here less difficult. Disregarding informal divisions after the 6, read my former printing mavaité(é), anyds twatto, and alternative dabit, tenebit. One writer would prefer referring didareshaté to darsh (Ind. dharsh) as a reduplicated aor. ‘when the superstitious dares - to do me a harm - - - when the time is fulfilled - -’ (thraostd loc. of °ti — ‘in the fulfilling’, but see pdyim). Regarding my former printing as an alternative, I now offer another; read dadhdo, as n@ seems merely enclitic: ‘whom hast Thou set?’ I would also modify my former spectabat for didareshatd. The word may be an s aor. of dar(e)z ‘held (or ‘will hold’) me for harm’. Some hazardously follow authority with a 224 pers. ThraoSta is 374 sg. mid. s aor. See 8. B. E. XXXI, p. 138. Others had rendered: — ‘What help can one bring me? when an evil man marks me - - - make known this marvellous power to my soul’. One writer would render daé(é)- — naydi, ‘that I may lay it to heart’. The Pahl. trlr. saw a form of dar in dédareshaté. Thraostd was recognized as mid. for pass. by the trir. with the first pers. pronoun under- stood in the instr., so at least intelligently. Ido not think that the concrete — dastébar for the abstract dastva@m ought to arouse irritation, not even when we see that the syllable das probably induced the choice of the word dastébar, and that, notwithstanding also that the words are not etymologi-_ cally connected. They are kindred in idea. Ner.’s anyds tvattas I should j say was intended to express anye pdtdrah tvattas = ‘other protectors than Thee - -. Yushmdn may be meant for yushmdt. I should say that Ner. meant (as frequently) to form durgati (cp. abhimdtin). Haug would correct to °¢r, following the dictionaries, which should be done only with great caution here. Haug renders, ‘der schlechte’ A., but durgati is a noun. I have rendered viditvd with necessary freedom, so Haug. Ner. returns to an abstract in rendering dastuam. Durgatin is a common word with Ner., as Haug ought to have known, and he ought to have corrected his MS. to °t% not °tr. 8. Formal caeswra perhaps after the 4, yet see a, b. Athri§ to dar, cp. the Ved. proper name déri = ‘consumer’. Frésyad(t) = fra + w (= fre) + asyad(¢). One writer would render paityaoged(t) ‘contrariwise ’. Others refer it to Ved. ah related to vah, rendering ‘it is turned back’; putyaoged(t) td is supposed = paiti-aogdd, but see pactyaoget in Yt. 8, 51. Examining Y. 7,24, we should refer it to the curious forms aog, ao) (+ t, orf) — kindred to vach; see also Y. 41, 5, Y. 50, 11; paiti-aog would seem to 555 equal prdti-vach. Otherwise compare the root of djas; rendering ‘using force against’. We should naturally render ‘in retaliation’ which obviously fits this connection, and also the common meaning of pait? = prdti. Yet see the four times repeated pati? in Yt. 8, 51. There ‘back’ does not apply in three cases.
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.
1hose the more common inherent a; read Jjivas. Uzitithyot is taken by some as we + 2iithyoi = ud + hd + tyod = ‘calling out’, dat. infin. of zw = ha, hod, ‘publicly to call out (?) his name, so should he punish him (khrénydd(¢))’. Another prefers we + withyoi, a dat. from uz + dti = ‘to helping out’. I am of the opinion that the saé(é)tu here, as in v. 1, is hostile, and therefore following a simple and common- place suggestion, I compare uziithydoscha, zw 4+ ug = ‘to rush out’, here figuratively, as = ‘for his (enforced) headlong flight’, i. e. ‘his expulsion’, or possibly mentally ‘in his outburst’ (go in English), ‘for his outburst of audacity’, cp. the fig. use of jaty@, cp. jutdye for form. So taken, we should regard °ydéz as a shortened (?) dat. for uzedithaydi (2), ep. erezejydi. Uztithydoscha(f.) may be a transition to the 7 declension. Some take khriinyad(t) as abl. = ‘bad treatment’; this, probably to avoid a new sentence in e, but ¢ is the thing said. Some have coloured: ‘When one in the course of — 4 ordinary life has observed one coming with speed upon the companions of — the association, or of his own tribe, as soon as the pious perceives the wicked he should mention it at once to the connection, to rescue them from bad treatment’. The Pahl. trir. seems to have vead vdeo for vd. Adds may well be correctly rendered by ayehabanishni, Uzitithyoi is rendered in the sense of the prefix wz = ud. As an alternative to my former most im- partial, if not partially unfavourable rendering, read as closer, and without gloss: ‘He whose is authority derived [] through You is no bestower of favours [] in the following case: The injurer comes, [] (4) but he remains in the beneficent wisdom and in the covenant of the blessed doctrine (gen. by position) [ }. (c) In his just living he is righteous, and him who is evil[ ] (d) he has judged, and that is thus [] his proclaiming to his own (his re- lation) [] (€), whom A. has lifted up (equalling ‘in his lifting up’) from impiety (khrdmydd(t) as abl. (so others)) []’. Read perhaps gvikhranth for the avdrinih of D. and Pers, Spiegel well suggested att for aétind in d; see has, and asti, and render accordingly. As an alternative I had rendered i CRT I a ont \i 5: ty } a i 553 jivaniyah with an asterisk of doubt as in the usual sense of the suffix, but Ner. may have meant ‘living’ by the word (jivas); but again see zivinishno which seems causative. Whether it can mean, ‘who ought to live (according to to the truth)’ is doubtful. See the gloss for the justification of my (however doubted) rendering. In view of the context I can only correct to vachyah; Sp. transcribes P. vdkyyah (2); see gobishné, other MSS. vdbhyah (2), and wydkabhya (?). 6. Caesura after the fourth, but see e; disregard as usual my former informal divisions. Some writers render line a:- ‘Who does not come to help, although he can’ (?). We should naturally call ddémén a loc.
2yah; Sp. transcribes P. vdkyyah (2); see gobishné, other MSS. vdbhyah (2), and wydkabhya (?). 6. Caesura after the fourth, but see e; disregard as usual my former informal divisions. Some writers render line a:- ‘Who does not come to help, although he can’ (?). We should naturally call ddémén a loc. sg., but this is improbable here with a verb of motion; here ddman = déméani, acc. pl. neut., cp. dh@mdéni; for ‘to the creatures’ in my former printing read ad habitationes, so, better. Haithyd as = ‘truly’ seems to me a waste of a word on a forceless adverb. Also see the metre. I follow the older MS., as the Pahl. trlr. seems to have read an imperfectly written | swoop gy, or does he afford us a better reading, bad(é)thahya = “of terror’, or ‘terror-inspirer’? The masc. form of °thahyd would show it to be in apposition, not in agreement, with Drujé. Or the word may be neither in agreement nor apposition with Drijé. Some writers would render the last line: ‘as Thou did’st constitute the souls (?) at first’ (?), a very old suggestion. Those who regard literal exactness in the Pahl. trl. as essential to its value as an evidence to radical meanings may be again scandalized by the persistent addition of the forms of madano to his translation of yas. Yas is translated by min here, and also elsewhere; yet an alternative trl. was added for yastém (sic), 2ak madé yekaviminéd, cp. Y. 43, 16; 44, 19. This of course throws his whole rendering into confusion as a syntactical reproduction. Jsmand ig referred to is = ichchh = ‘to wish’, probably erroneously. Baé(é)thahyd, or some form from 04 = bhi = ‘to fear’, was read for haéé)thahyd, perhaps an improvement. Hithim if read, Y. 34, 10, and hithaos, Y. 48, 7, are not rendered by the trir. by any forms of 07. The letters ep and J have become confused in our surviving MSS. Vad in line e, together with the gloss, turns the rendering toward the future. One would naturally render sampraptam ‘acquisition’, either as equalling samprdptim, or as the past part., but see its original. Haug read ¢rasantyas (so), and rendered der zittern muss. Ner. prob. wrote trdsayantyah (sic) perhaps meaning ‘he must be feared’ (so), the gloss may be doubtful. Pahl. and Gatha favour this. Ner. seems to have had his eye onthe Gathd rather than on the Pahl. in vikdgayitd. He read vahisto as a form of vakhsh, showing that it probably stood wholly, or partly, in the Pahlavi character; and he renders 70 Fed ee eee 554 vakhsh generally by kde. I render alternatively, ‘who causes the wicked to prosper’. I correct the impossible grat of the MSS. to yah in d, see min and yahmdi; I have found gr elsewhere miswritten for y. 7. Caesura after the 4, here less difficult. Disregarding informal divisions after the 6, read my former printing mavaité(é), anyds twatto, and alternative dabit, tenebit. One writer would prefer referring didareshaté to darsh (Ind. dharsh) as a reduplicated aor.
3ound gr elsewhere miswritten for y. 7. Caesura after the 4, here less difficult. Disregarding informal divisions after the 6, read my former printing mavaité(é), anyds twatto, and alternative dabit, tenebit. One writer would prefer referring didareshaté to darsh (Ind. dharsh) as a reduplicated aor. ‘when the superstitious dares - to do me a harm - - - when the time is fulfilled - -’ (thraostd loc. of °ti — ‘in the fulfilling’, but see pdyim). Regarding my former printing as an alternative, I now offer another; read dadhdo, as n@ seems merely enclitic: ‘whom hast Thou set?’ I would also modify my former spectabat for didareshatd. The word may be an s aor. of dar(e)z ‘held (or ‘will hold’) me for harm’. Some hazardously follow authority with a 224 pers. ThraoSta is 374 sg. mid. s aor. See 8. B. E. XXXI, p. 138. Others had rendered: — ‘What help can one bring me? when an evil man marks me - - - make known this marvellous power to my soul’. One writer would render daé(é)- — naydi, ‘that I may lay it to heart’. The Pahl. trlr. saw a form of dar in dédareshaté. Thraostd was recognized as mid. for pass. by the trir. with the first pers. pronoun under- stood in the instr., so at least intelligently. Ido not think that the concrete — dastébar for the abstract dastva@m ought to arouse irritation, not even when we see that the syllable das probably induced the choice of the word dastébar, and that, notwithstanding also that the words are not etymologi-_ cally connected. They are kindred in idea. Ner.’s anyds tvattas I should j say was intended to express anye pdtdrah tvattas = ‘other protectors than Thee - -. Yushmdn may be meant for yushmdt. I should say that Ner. meant (as frequently) to form durgati (cp. abhimdtin). Haug would correct to °¢r, following the dictionaries, which should be done only with great caution here. Haug renders, ‘der schlechte’ A., but durgati is a noun. I have rendered viditvd with necessary freedom, so Haug. Ner. returns to an abstract in rendering dastuam. Durgatin is a common word with Ner., as Haug ought to have known, and he ought to have corrected his MS. to °t% not °tr. 8. Formal caeswra perhaps after the 4, yet see a, b. Athri§ to dar, cp. the Ved. proper name déri = ‘consumer’. Frésyad(t) = fra + w (= fre) + asyad(¢). One writer would render paityaoged(t) ‘contrariwise ’. Others refer it to Ved. ah related to vah, rendering ‘it is turned back’; putyaoged(t) td is supposed = paiti-aogdd, but see pactyaoget in Yt. 8, 51. Examining Y. 7,24, we should refer it to the curious forms aog, ao) (+ t, orf) — kindred to vach; see also Y. 41, 5, Y. 50, 11; paiti-aog would seem to 555 equal prdti-vach. Otherwise compare the root of djas; rendering ‘using force against’. We should naturally render ‘in retaliation’ which obviously fits this connection, and also the common meaning of pait? = prdti. Yet see the four times repeated pati? in Yt. 8, 51. There ‘back’ does not apply in three cases.
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.