Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1ater use of the expression azt in the Vend. I think that the ah? gé was the same whose soul bewails in Y. 29, 1. Of course all other documents are inferior to the Gathas on this point. The Indian af? finds its explanation here; see also above, p. 421. One scholar would refer s#s. to sad = ‘execute’. I was formerly inclined to take sas as the nom. of the root, but it is better to take it with Spiegel, Justi, and Bartholomae (in A. I. Verbum) as the usual sg. with loss of S. ‘Thou hast declared to me, O M. as the most wise’; see above, p. 516. Read my former printing mente-comparatis - -, - - nuntiabas |- ties, -abis| - «. The Pahl. trlr. seems to have read ménd for manz. His ‘announcing’ must be understood in the sense ‘inviting by announcing’, and so ‘acquiring’, ‘gaining’; see Ner.’s grihituh (sic). The root vid I think is present, even in the form nivékéd which I consider a corruption. For sds he probably read vas. Sas is correctly rendered by gift in Y. 43, 11, whereas forms of vas are freely rendered by Combinations with khdirsandth, as the root of usvaht is correctly seen, and freely rendered in v. 16. Gatha(a) Speitamainyiai(u). Yasna 47. For introduction, summary, and further comment see 8. B. EK. XXXI, pp. 145—147. 1. Caesura after the 4, yet see c; stress on the 7% syllable. Ahmadi = ‘to this one’ refers to some subject in a lost verse, cp. the ¢dthréy(v)a of Y. 43,2; see ahmdi in v.3, ashaoné(é)(?) v.4, ashdunéé) (sic) v.5. Other- wise it equals ‘to us’; exegetical difference nil, ‘to a representative saint’ = ‘tous’. Ihad formerly preferred regarding da@(dan) as the pres. part. from the stem dé in mutilated Vedic form; that is, with no sign of the nom., 564 and in agreement with Mazddo--- Ahurd, or ag 3ra pl.. of improper conj. aor., agreeing with the subjects involved in the instrs. + Ahuré. The verse is purposely and artificially crowded with the names of all the Ameshéspends (Vahista Mananhd being of course only a variant for Vohi M.), hence the possibly pl. form. Some hold to an acc, infin., leaving the strophe without a finite verb, Read Armaéti in my former free trl., and Sapiens as alternative in all occurrences of Magni-donator. The glosses. alone prevent a closeness in the translation. Many follow améné who do not adequately estimate the Pahl. elsewhere. As per contra, see ahmdi in. v. 3, v.6, and ashdwné(é) in v.5 which gathers up the sense of the previous verses. Mainyé was not mistaken for a voc. Read nikirido, khvéshan. Ner. renders ahmdi in the 1% pers. Mahdjnaninah does not accord with svdm?. Read °manyah. Mahattardt adrigyatvdt, poss. nigérend. 2. Hednd (2) = dnd na (2), or donha (?) = ‘with mouth’; see the Pahl.; with others, a corruption from anu which is referred to verezyad(t): see on Y. 29, 7. Oyd = aya (Spiegel), otherwise — avayd. Pahl. The gloss induces an awkward separation of d. Zak 2 Jarzdénak is corrected (as to form) by pavan dandkih which seems to have rendered an instr.
2h mouth’; see the Pahl.; with others, a corruption from anu which is referred to verezyad(t): see on Y. 29, 7. Oyd = aya (Spiegel), otherwise — avayd. Pahl. The gloss induces an awkward separation of d. Zak 2 Jarzdénak is corrected (as to form) by pavan dandkih which seems to have rendered an instr. mazda not taken as the proper name. (N. B. the Pahl. trir. was the first author of this suggestion which some follow in other places as a brilliant innovation ; see Ner.) Read va piimman with D. and also DJ.s va ptimman, 224 occur- rence. I did not read it formerly because DJ. seemed to have no va in the first occurrence. D. supplies aoa é, substantiating my conjecture, but it is a modern MS. Perhaps I have erred in following P.’s correction to mukhena- cha which I did in view of the 2n4 mukhenacha, yet see the awkward loc. Jthvdyam, which probably occasioned the more sensible instr. in the gloss. J.*, although here very carelessly written, affords the excellent emendation vaktum for kartum in 6 gloss. Read; ‘what it is fitting to declare with tongue and mouth, he declares as the better work, or ‘in a more beneficent manner’. I had corrected to mirvdne with Sp., as I had only his MSS. gene- rously loaned to me; read nirvénajndne (J), also dahan, pédaish, or paiddyish, 3. As improvements since my former printing, read mainyeus, skereitim. Read as alternative cle for ila, and ‘he’ for ‘she’ in my former printing ; (@) ‘Since he with good mind’s wisdom counsel taketh’. I would now prefer referring hem - frastd to the subject in ahmdi (unless rendered ‘to us *, ne which case the Cow (Kine, though pl., was used to avoid the poetic use of — ‘cow’) representing the tribes, would be the questioner, as in Y. 29), ‘To — us’ is difficult with the sg. frastd. Here we have perhaps the origin of the mythical identification of Aramaiti with the earth. Ahura appointed Piety 565 as the ultimate:cause of agricultural prosperity. But the sacred passage was afterwards rendered literally. Pahl. The sequence of words in @ proves accident, or freedom. The trlr. was not ignorant that ah? = hémanih; see Y. 32, 7; Y.34, 11; Y.51, 3; see Ner.’s asd. Ner. alsorenders ahmdi again in the 18* pers. Omit the hyphen after 6, which was a clumsy indication of connection. Samartham (so all) is a fair case to show that Ner.’s Sanskrit requires special treatment; here. ‘corresponding’, ‘good’, cannot. be the mean- ing. Nor is there any word in the Gathd which gives a clue. The word is here used in the sense of kold; yet some have supposed that Ner.’s text needs no translation. G'du with some as more orig., or gdv; ziydd. 4. Caesura at the 4; final «9, om. former misprinted‘?’. Regarding the trl. above as secondary, read as preferred alternative. Ab hoc spiritu vulnerantur scelesti [-daemonibus servientes (dregvantd)|, O M. (leg. Mazda) benefico |spiritu], non sic sancti | fideles|.
3as more orig., or gdv; ziydd. 4. Caesura at the 4; final «9, om. former misprinted‘?’. Regarding the trl. above as secondary, read as preferred alternative. Ab hoc spiritu vulnerantur scelesti [-daemonibus servientes (dregvantd)|, O M. (leg. Mazda) benefico |spiritu], non sic sancti | fideles|. Kaxigqui|-ae| etiam |dignitatis| vir sancto ad gratificandum erat |sit vel erit|, possidens etiam ens magni |-nae dig- nitatis| malus scelesto-infideli, [ad serviendum est]. Free trl.: ‘From Mazda’s bounteous one, not thus the pure, Though feeble men alone would serve the righteous, yet for the wicked stands the great in power’. Rdres(k)yanti (so) must be taken as an intens. with subject named in a lost verse, or else for dregvatd we must read dregvantd with many MSS. ‘The wicked are injured (that is, impeded and overthrown)’, cp. Y. 32, 13. There are else- where passive forms in #2 instead of ¢é; cp. also Vedic ranydthas ((?) active - term.), RV. 1, 112,18. As to the last two lines, see S. B. KE. XXXI, p. 149, note 5. We have from an able writer the very easy solution: ‘A man of small means is at the service of the righteous, but even one of large means is hostile (?) to the wicked’. But aké is thus referred to a member of the orthodox community in the good sense of ‘hostile to the wicked’ which is very difficult, as ak@ was an emphatic adjective singularly confined in its application to evil beings, and it is altogether impossible in this good sense with the energetic Akdd(t) - - Mananhé in the next strophe. ‘A man of little means only (recall kamndnd Y. 46, 2) is at the service of the righteous (this expresses the worldliness of the wicked, whose punish- ment is threatened from the mainyu), but when it is (or, he is) a man of means (ésvdchid(#)), yea, of much means (paraos) the wicked is at the service (kathé(é) necessarily understood) of the wicked’. That is, the cause is suffer- ing from the feebleness of its supporters (cp. Y.46, 1) while the destructive combination has its wicked men of wealth to help them. In the next verse the consolation is extended. Ashaoné(é) K.® (cp. maghéne) is far more critical than the conventional ashduwné of most MSS. which I have so reluc- tantly followed elsewhere. Had I not been hampered by former printing, 566 I should reject this ashduné(é) everywhere. But du probably arose from the accented syllable. Pahl. ‘Because of that’ = ‘influenced by’. Aharmék col- lective sg., asis Shédd. Ishould like to get rid of va (with the Pers.), but I Should have separated (not omitted) Sp.’s first stroke. Adharmaed in 6. Should be oblique by pos., and gadré is strictly gloss. Read without gloss in the light of the Gathda, ‘from the bountiful A.’s spirit’. The dat. ashaoné(é) (or according to convention ashduné(é) (?)) should determine 7 ahartibo (or with omitted 7; see D.J.) in the gen. of position with gabré = nd.
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.
1ater use of the expression azt in the Vend. I think that the ah? gé was the same whose soul bewails in Y. 29, 1. Of course all other documents are inferior to the Gathas on this point. The Indian af? finds its explanation here; see also above, p. 421. One scholar would refer s#s. to sad = ‘execute’. I was formerly inclined to take sas as the nom. of the root, but it is better to take it with Spiegel, Justi, and Bartholomae (in A. I. Verbum) as the usual sg. with loss of S. ‘Thou hast declared to me, O M. as the most wise’; see above, p. 516. Read my former printing mente-comparatis - -, - - nuntiabas |- ties, -abis| - «. The Pahl. trlr. seems to have read ménd for manz. His ‘announcing’ must be understood in the sense ‘inviting by announcing’, and so ‘acquiring’, ‘gaining’; see Ner.’s grihituh (sic). The root vid I think is present, even in the form nivékéd which I consider a corruption. For sds he probably read vas. Sas is correctly rendered by gift in Y. 43, 11, whereas forms of vas are freely rendered by Combinations with khdirsandth, as the root of usvaht is correctly seen, and freely rendered in v. 16. Gatha(a) Speitamainyiai(u). Yasna 47. For introduction, summary, and further comment see 8. B. EK. XXXI, pp. 145—147. 1. Caesura after the 4, yet see c; stress on the 7% syllable. Ahmadi = ‘to this one’ refers to some subject in a lost verse, cp. the ¢dthréy(v)a of Y. 43,2; see ahmdi in v.3, ashaoné(é)(?) v.4, ashdunéé) (sic) v.5. Other- wise it equals ‘to us’; exegetical difference nil, ‘to a representative saint’ = ‘tous’. Ihad formerly preferred regarding da@(dan) as the pres. part. from the stem dé in mutilated Vedic form; that is, with no sign of the nom., 564 and in agreement with Mazddo--- Ahurd, or ag 3ra pl.. of improper conj. aor., agreeing with the subjects involved in the instrs. + Ahuré. The verse is purposely and artificially crowded with the names of all the Ameshéspends (Vahista Mananhd being of course only a variant for Vohi M.), hence the possibly pl. form. Some hold to an acc, infin., leaving the strophe without a finite verb, Read Armaéti in my former free trl., and Sapiens as alternative in all occurrences of Magni-donator. The glosses. alone prevent a closeness in the translation. Many follow améné who do not adequately estimate the Pahl. elsewhere. As per contra, see ahmdi in. v. 3, v.6, and ashdwné(é) in v.5 which gathers up the sense of the previous verses. Mainyé was not mistaken for a voc. Read nikirido, khvéshan. Ner. renders ahmdi in the 1% pers. Mahdjnaninah does not accord with svdm?. Read °manyah. Mahattardt adrigyatvdt, poss. nigérend. 2. Hednd (2) = dnd na (2), or donha (?) = ‘with mouth’; see the Pahl.; with others, a corruption from anu which is referred to verezyad(t): see on Y. 29, 7. Oyd = aya (Spiegel), otherwise — avayd. Pahl. The gloss induces an awkward separation of d. Zak 2 Jarzdénak is corrected (as to form) by pavan dandkih which seems to have rendered an instr.
2h mouth’; see the Pahl.; with others, a corruption from anu which is referred to verezyad(t): see on Y. 29, 7. Oyd = aya (Spiegel), otherwise — avayd. Pahl. The gloss induces an awkward separation of d. Zak 2 Jarzdénak is corrected (as to form) by pavan dandkih which seems to have rendered an instr. mazda not taken as the proper name. (N. B. the Pahl. trir. was the first author of this suggestion which some follow in other places as a brilliant innovation ; see Ner.) Read va piimman with D. and also DJ.s va ptimman, 224 occur- rence. I did not read it formerly because DJ. seemed to have no va in the first occurrence. D. supplies aoa é, substantiating my conjecture, but it is a modern MS. Perhaps I have erred in following P.’s correction to mukhena- cha which I did in view of the 2n4 mukhenacha, yet see the awkward loc. Jthvdyam, which probably occasioned the more sensible instr. in the gloss. J.*, although here very carelessly written, affords the excellent emendation vaktum for kartum in 6 gloss. Read; ‘what it is fitting to declare with tongue and mouth, he declares as the better work, or ‘in a more beneficent manner’. I had corrected to mirvdne with Sp., as I had only his MSS. gene- rously loaned to me; read nirvénajndne (J), also dahan, pédaish, or paiddyish, 3. As improvements since my former printing, read mainyeus, skereitim. Read as alternative cle for ila, and ‘he’ for ‘she’ in my former printing ; (@) ‘Since he with good mind’s wisdom counsel taketh’. I would now prefer referring hem - frastd to the subject in ahmdi (unless rendered ‘to us *, ne which case the Cow (Kine, though pl., was used to avoid the poetic use of — ‘cow’) representing the tribes, would be the questioner, as in Y. 29), ‘To — us’ is difficult with the sg. frastd. Here we have perhaps the origin of the mythical identification of Aramaiti with the earth. Ahura appointed Piety 565 as the ultimate:cause of agricultural prosperity. But the sacred passage was afterwards rendered literally. Pahl. The sequence of words in @ proves accident, or freedom. The trlr. was not ignorant that ah? = hémanih; see Y. 32, 7; Y.34, 11; Y.51, 3; see Ner.’s asd. Ner. alsorenders ahmdi again in the 18* pers. Omit the hyphen after 6, which was a clumsy indication of connection. Samartham (so all) is a fair case to show that Ner.’s Sanskrit requires special treatment; here. ‘corresponding’, ‘good’, cannot. be the mean- ing. Nor is there any word in the Gathd which gives a clue. The word is here used in the sense of kold; yet some have supposed that Ner.’s text needs no translation. G'du with some as more orig., or gdv; ziydd. 4. Caesura at the 4; final «9, om. former misprinted‘?’. Regarding the trl. above as secondary, read as preferred alternative. Ab hoc spiritu vulnerantur scelesti [-daemonibus servientes (dregvantd)|, O M. (leg. Mazda) benefico |spiritu], non sic sancti | fideles|.
3as more orig., or gdv; ziydd. 4. Caesura at the 4; final «9, om. former misprinted‘?’. Regarding the trl. above as secondary, read as preferred alternative. Ab hoc spiritu vulnerantur scelesti [-daemonibus servientes (dregvantd)|, O M. (leg. Mazda) benefico |spiritu], non sic sancti | fideles|. Kaxigqui|-ae| etiam |dignitatis| vir sancto ad gratificandum erat |sit vel erit|, possidens etiam ens magni |-nae dig- nitatis| malus scelesto-infideli, [ad serviendum est]. Free trl.: ‘From Mazda’s bounteous one, not thus the pure, Though feeble men alone would serve the righteous, yet for the wicked stands the great in power’. Rdres(k)yanti (so) must be taken as an intens. with subject named in a lost verse, or else for dregvatd we must read dregvantd with many MSS. ‘The wicked are injured (that is, impeded and overthrown)’, cp. Y. 32, 13. There are else- where passive forms in #2 instead of ¢é; cp. also Vedic ranydthas ((?) active - term.), RV. 1, 112,18. As to the last two lines, see S. B. KE. XXXI, p. 149, note 5. We have from an able writer the very easy solution: ‘A man of small means is at the service of the righteous, but even one of large means is hostile (?) to the wicked’. But aké is thus referred to a member of the orthodox community in the good sense of ‘hostile to the wicked’ which is very difficult, as ak@ was an emphatic adjective singularly confined in its application to evil beings, and it is altogether impossible in this good sense with the energetic Akdd(t) - - Mananhé in the next strophe. ‘A man of little means only (recall kamndnd Y. 46, 2) is at the service of the righteous (this expresses the worldliness of the wicked, whose punish- ment is threatened from the mainyu), but when it is (or, he is) a man of means (ésvdchid(#)), yea, of much means (paraos) the wicked is at the service (kathé(é) necessarily understood) of the wicked’. That is, the cause is suffer- ing from the feebleness of its supporters (cp. Y.46, 1) while the destructive combination has its wicked men of wealth to help them. In the next verse the consolation is extended. Ashaoné(é) K.® (cp. maghéne) is far more critical than the conventional ashduwné of most MSS. which I have so reluc- tantly followed elsewhere. Had I not been hampered by former printing, 566 I should reject this ashduné(é) everywhere. But du probably arose from the accented syllable. Pahl. ‘Because of that’ = ‘influenced by’. Aharmék col- lective sg., asis Shédd. Ishould like to get rid of va (with the Pers.), but I Should have separated (not omitted) Sp.’s first stroke. Adharmaed in 6. Should be oblique by pos., and gadré is strictly gloss. Read without gloss in the light of the Gathda, ‘from the bountiful A.’s spirit’. The dat. ashaoné(é) (or according to convention ashduné(é) (?)) should determine 7 ahartibo (or with omitted 7; see D.J.) in the gen. of position with gabré = nd.
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.