Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1see tébdnd and caktiman, and further, which is significant, see sambalam rendering tikh- shdkihd, although probably as an ady., and Pers. kushishn in Y. 51, 19. Otherwise ‘provisions’ might apply figuratively. Diner is of course from the mistaken reading az din, proving however azdin to be ancient. I am tempted to render kéryam = ‘to be invoked’ (sic) = karitinishno, so, as altern., yet see kéryam (karomi) = kér in a. The Pahl. of the Pers. apartn?, D., aparinik, seems only explicable as @ + par + in + tk = ‘of a not hostile nature’, or a + dur + im ‘not cleaving’. Avérik is written by D. in Y. 28, 8 and Y. 30, 4, so that D. and the Pers. text of the Pahl., which very often coincide, evidently mean something. ‘Other (friendly help)’ is not so probable as ‘unhurtful friendliness’, ‘friendliness without alloy’. Déndn (so read) should be in order as imper. of the caus. (or pres. part. (?)). 2. Read °skereitim and as altern. °pisyast, or paisyasi; see the MSS. ; - stéi with some = astéé infin, of a2 = ‘to be’, ‘who will wish her to be, etc.’; better as dat. of st@ = ‘abiding place’; ‘land’; see sténg (transfer to a@ declension); erezhji§ = °inS. Whether pourusht (so) = pirishu = ‘among men (that share the sacred sunbeams)’ is a question. Otherwise paourushi, . 586 as the omission of the a is senseless, if it is ever inserted. Akd may be acc. pl. masc. for dkdn(s) shortened on account of the full term. in sténg, or, perhaps better, dkd.stéig is a compos. I would now render more in the sense of the Pahl. as ‘evident’ in the sense of ‘illuminated’, root how- ever ach, ‘enlightened’; see hvaré-pis(k)yast (so, or better, padsy°). I think pis is the best adapted root as giving the proper idea in hvaré.p°, or °paisyasi. Others have seen the root pas = spas here ‘among the men ‘seeing the sun’’, The case-form would seem accidental retention of original su for ha, loc. Such recurrences to originals should be expected. Ma, instr., cp. Ved. to@, or possessive (or possibly = sma). Nishdsyd@, ni + han (s, Aryan s as in san reappearing (hardly nis + han)); but, reading nishasya, we might recall ishasd, ni(7) + ishasyd. Lines ¢, d may well contain | the answer to kathé of a: ‘How shall the prophet seek for the prosperity of the holy herd, (representing the united tribes), he who desires her well- pastured for this land? How? Just-living lands which lie bathed in the recurring splendours of the sacred Sun (cp. Y. 43, 16); do thou grant these to be obtained by me (; the prosperous herds will follow)’. As davthinam is quite impossibly a deliberate error from ignorance (1s pers. for 3rd), the trlr. must have understood ishasdid(t) as an indefinite 3°4 pers., rendering in the sense of his khodstar homanam (v. 1). Khim shows that him stood with a Pahl. 4 = 4» which also represents kh. It is doubtful whether it ought not to be bracketed, being itself alternative trl., or else mere citation; him is translated sufficiently by denman.
2an indefinite 3°4 pers., rendering in the sense of his khodstar homanam (v. 1). Khim shows that him stood with a Pahl. 4 = 4» which also represents kh. It is doubtful whether it ought not to be bracketed, being itself alternative trl., or else mere citation; him is translated sufficiently by denman. It is further explained as gospend. Varziddér points to vdstravaitim, the fields, and the agriculturalist. For pis(k)yasi pa? must have been read, hence pd, or pesh° from par was seen in the sense of ‘defensive battle’, Can vadinidyén (D. has °did) be a pass. form for all persons? If not, where else is the pl. subject? Is it the collective géspend: ‘for whose liberal bestowal they, the herds, would be produced’? D. has hand for aé in ec. Line d is a puzzle. The word for- merly deciphered naskth, or naskash, I now consider gloss. All is tentative, but I strongly suspect that something like oa dehakih (sic, cp. dihkan) was intended. The Parsi-pers. Pahl. text hag letters which might = va dehi; see its trl. Read as altern. e, ‘Make ye the creation manifest [and that which is its hamlets] as an abode (2) to me in the world, and more’ (vésh, D. and P.; see Ner.). The word deciphered with doubt as visastag may be nasastak or nisastak = ‘abode’ (see Ner.) so written through mistaking mshasyd for a form of had (nishastan seems sometimes carelessly written masastan. M. has ni °or vi°), This suits the following words den ahvdnd. Notice that khodrth = hvaré cannot mean ‘comfort’ here. Ner. probably read Jak (for zak) = team, and again zak = ayam, the last alternatively. 587 Khim = gilam, vadinidyén was rendered as = vddényén by kdrayet. JA, J* and C. have khddyamtvam (sic). Khadanam renders khvd@rih mistaken for a form of khirdand. Read razdmandi for the formerly misprinted word (@ of unity, or of the abstract). 3. This strophe continues the prayer, but obliquely, passing to the 374 pers. Maedd is hardly instr. Axhaité has for its subject ‘the joy-creating Cow’ of v. 2, or a gaé(é)thaé understood; see dka st@ig in v. 2. ‘The Cow’ and the beatified settlements closely approached each other in association of ideas. Chdist, we should first say, finds its subject in yé; see 8S. B. EK. XXXI, p. 172, but this looks like too close a following of the syntax. Per- haps Ashem understood is meant. AshdcS, less in the sense of ‘reward’ than usual; ‘God’s sacred blessing’ is the sense, ‘prospered righteousness’. Read beatitudinis ut praemii sacri, so better. One scholar adopts ‘earthly lot and possession’ for ashi; this might well be the sense sometimes in the later Zend, but cp. Vsp. 9, 1 where ashdéS occurs with chistdis, and as qualified by daé(é)shaza, ‘with the healing virtue of the sacred blessing Ashi’.
3d beatitudinis ut praemii sacri, so better. One scholar adopts ‘earthly lot and possession’ for ashi; this might well be the sense sometimes in the later Zend, but cp. Vsp. 9, 1 where ashdéS occurs with chistdis, and as qualified by daé(é)shaza, ‘with the healing virtue of the sacred blessing Ashi’. ‘(Yea,) may the prophetic supplicator attain to his desire, the prospered and orthodox settlement which Asha, the holy order, has pro- mised, or may make sure to him (or ‘which he has gained for himself(?)’) the supplicator (nd enclitic) who may indeed cause that settlement to prosper through the power of Mazda’s holy blessing’. The last line shows vigorous idiom. The dregvant did not of course ‘share the string of settle- ments’, but they were border farms, the nearest to his territory. He possessed, that is, he had, them as his neighbours. It seems to approach the use of the idiom used in the previous verse. He prayed for the Cow which he already possessed, but he wished to possess her as rdnyé-skereitim and vdstravaitim. D. offers tarsakdsth, and tarsakdsth ¢ lanman yakhsenunéd in the gl. Other variations; D. om. first 7 in a, has rd@ in gl. (so M.1), om. va and pavan in c, has min valman ?@, and ins. 7 before dén, has yansegiinaid in d. Read nazdistd. Arjdnik occurs elsewhere for anhayd as from ah, ‘to be’. Here pavan Ahardyth makes it more explicable. Energetic normal ‘being’ had an element of ‘merit’ with the later Zoroastrianism, see Y. 32, 16, Pahl. The trlr. himself corrects our mistaken censures in the gloss of 4. K. and V. M. as subjects, or objects, do not imply that the instr. K. and V. M. were thought nom. or acc. Ndo (J.2) stood for n@ in the MS. used. ‘He increases’ is better understood than ‘he obtains’. I had followed advice in trans- literating tarsdahih, as no MS. then accessible afforded the needed abstract term. th. J.3 (2), J.4 have samam°(?) inc, Haug’s text of d is not to be de- fended in view of MSS., Pahl, and Gatha. Vibhaijandm here = vibhdgam. I strongly suspect that a fut. of grabh, grah, was earlier read in d, gl.; J. 588 is reported dkrahshyet (sic); see the Pahl., cp. (d@)grahishyati). I read arateshtér as nearer its original. Read gdv(f), or gait (?); Thad written gaa as nearer its orig., following certain authors. Read jthan or jahan; the first is more orig. 4. Read final 49. Read as altern. d; ‘let me hear the offerers (so I now prefer) face to face (dkdo as loc. adv.) in the Abode of Song’, or again, ‘in the attained-to (loc. of adj.) Abode of song’, or dkdéo may qualify the offerers, see 8. B. E. XXXI, p. 172. One writer boldly renders; — ‘that the prayer might stand on its path to the heavenly spaces (dkdo)’, with aredréng as gen. pl. (?). This sounds Vedic, but I would still take ashé as concrete. Akdo, if acc. pl. mase., = dkds = dkans, cp. ameshdo— = °dns; otherwise loc. sg. adv. of dku, cp. loc. dké = ‘near? (root ach); poss. loc. with demdné(é). Aredréig, more naturally = ‘things heard’, ep.
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.
1see tébdnd and caktiman, and further, which is significant, see sambalam rendering tikh- shdkihd, although probably as an ady., and Pers. kushishn in Y. 51, 19. Otherwise ‘provisions’ might apply figuratively. Diner is of course from the mistaken reading az din, proving however azdin to be ancient. I am tempted to render kéryam = ‘to be invoked’ (sic) = karitinishno, so, as altern., yet see kéryam (karomi) = kér in a. The Pahl. of the Pers. apartn?, D., aparinik, seems only explicable as @ + par + in + tk = ‘of a not hostile nature’, or a + dur + im ‘not cleaving’. Avérik is written by D. in Y. 28, 8 and Y. 30, 4, so that D. and the Pers. text of the Pahl., which very often coincide, evidently mean something. ‘Other (friendly help)’ is not so probable as ‘unhurtful friendliness’, ‘friendliness without alloy’. Déndn (so read) should be in order as imper. of the caus. (or pres. part. (?)). 2. Read °skereitim and as altern. °pisyast, or paisyasi; see the MSS. ; - stéi with some = astéé infin, of a2 = ‘to be’, ‘who will wish her to be, etc.’; better as dat. of st@ = ‘abiding place’; ‘land’; see sténg (transfer to a@ declension); erezhji§ = °inS. Whether pourusht (so) = pirishu = ‘among men (that share the sacred sunbeams)’ is a question. Otherwise paourushi, . 586 as the omission of the a is senseless, if it is ever inserted. Akd may be acc. pl. masc. for dkdn(s) shortened on account of the full term. in sténg, or, perhaps better, dkd.stéig is a compos. I would now render more in the sense of the Pahl. as ‘evident’ in the sense of ‘illuminated’, root how- ever ach, ‘enlightened’; see hvaré-pis(k)yast (so, or better, padsy°). I think pis is the best adapted root as giving the proper idea in hvaré.p°, or °paisyasi. Others have seen the root pas = spas here ‘among the men ‘seeing the sun’’, The case-form would seem accidental retention of original su for ha, loc. Such recurrences to originals should be expected. Ma, instr., cp. Ved. to@, or possessive (or possibly = sma). Nishdsyd@, ni + han (s, Aryan s as in san reappearing (hardly nis + han)); but, reading nishasya, we might recall ishasd, ni(7) + ishasyd. Lines ¢, d may well contain | the answer to kathé of a: ‘How shall the prophet seek for the prosperity of the holy herd, (representing the united tribes), he who desires her well- pastured for this land? How? Just-living lands which lie bathed in the recurring splendours of the sacred Sun (cp. Y. 43, 16); do thou grant these to be obtained by me (; the prosperous herds will follow)’. As davthinam is quite impossibly a deliberate error from ignorance (1s pers. for 3rd), the trlr. must have understood ishasdid(t) as an indefinite 3°4 pers., rendering in the sense of his khodstar homanam (v. 1). Khim shows that him stood with a Pahl. 4 = 4» which also represents kh. It is doubtful whether it ought not to be bracketed, being itself alternative trl., or else mere citation; him is translated sufficiently by denman.
2an indefinite 3°4 pers., rendering in the sense of his khodstar homanam (v. 1). Khim shows that him stood with a Pahl. 4 = 4» which also represents kh. It is doubtful whether it ought not to be bracketed, being itself alternative trl., or else mere citation; him is translated sufficiently by denman. It is further explained as gospend. Varziddér points to vdstravaitim, the fields, and the agriculturalist. For pis(k)yasi pa? must have been read, hence pd, or pesh° from par was seen in the sense of ‘defensive battle’, Can vadinidyén (D. has °did) be a pass. form for all persons? If not, where else is the pl. subject? Is it the collective géspend: ‘for whose liberal bestowal they, the herds, would be produced’? D. has hand for aé in ec. Line d is a puzzle. The word for- merly deciphered naskth, or naskash, I now consider gloss. All is tentative, but I strongly suspect that something like oa dehakih (sic, cp. dihkan) was intended. The Parsi-pers. Pahl. text hag letters which might = va dehi; see its trl. Read as altern. e, ‘Make ye the creation manifest [and that which is its hamlets] as an abode (2) to me in the world, and more’ (vésh, D. and P.; see Ner.). The word deciphered with doubt as visastag may be nasastak or nisastak = ‘abode’ (see Ner.) so written through mistaking mshasyd for a form of had (nishastan seems sometimes carelessly written masastan. M. has ni °or vi°), This suits the following words den ahvdnd. Notice that khodrth = hvaré cannot mean ‘comfort’ here. Ner. probably read Jak (for zak) = team, and again zak = ayam, the last alternatively. 587 Khim = gilam, vadinidyén was rendered as = vddényén by kdrayet. JA, J* and C. have khddyamtvam (sic). Khadanam renders khvd@rih mistaken for a form of khirdand. Read razdmandi for the formerly misprinted word (@ of unity, or of the abstract). 3. This strophe continues the prayer, but obliquely, passing to the 374 pers. Maedd is hardly instr. Axhaité has for its subject ‘the joy-creating Cow’ of v. 2, or a gaé(é)thaé understood; see dka st@ig in v. 2. ‘The Cow’ and the beatified settlements closely approached each other in association of ideas. Chdist, we should first say, finds its subject in yé; see 8S. B. EK. XXXI, p. 172, but this looks like too close a following of the syntax. Per- haps Ashem understood is meant. AshdcS, less in the sense of ‘reward’ than usual; ‘God’s sacred blessing’ is the sense, ‘prospered righteousness’. Read beatitudinis ut praemii sacri, so better. One scholar adopts ‘earthly lot and possession’ for ashi; this might well be the sense sometimes in the later Zend, but cp. Vsp. 9, 1 where ashdéS occurs with chistdis, and as qualified by daé(é)shaza, ‘with the healing virtue of the sacred blessing Ashi’.
3d beatitudinis ut praemii sacri, so better. One scholar adopts ‘earthly lot and possession’ for ashi; this might well be the sense sometimes in the later Zend, but cp. Vsp. 9, 1 where ashdéS occurs with chistdis, and as qualified by daé(é)shaza, ‘with the healing virtue of the sacred blessing Ashi’. ‘(Yea,) may the prophetic supplicator attain to his desire, the prospered and orthodox settlement which Asha, the holy order, has pro- mised, or may make sure to him (or ‘which he has gained for himself(?)’) the supplicator (nd enclitic) who may indeed cause that settlement to prosper through the power of Mazda’s holy blessing’. The last line shows vigorous idiom. The dregvant did not of course ‘share the string of settle- ments’, but they were border farms, the nearest to his territory. He possessed, that is, he had, them as his neighbours. It seems to approach the use of the idiom used in the previous verse. He prayed for the Cow which he already possessed, but he wished to possess her as rdnyé-skereitim and vdstravaitim. D. offers tarsakdsth, and tarsakdsth ¢ lanman yakhsenunéd in the gl. Other variations; D. om. first 7 in a, has rd@ in gl. (so M.1), om. va and pavan in c, has min valman ?@, and ins. 7 before dén, has yansegiinaid in d. Read nazdistd. Arjdnik occurs elsewhere for anhayd as from ah, ‘to be’. Here pavan Ahardyth makes it more explicable. Energetic normal ‘being’ had an element of ‘merit’ with the later Zoroastrianism, see Y. 32, 16, Pahl. The trlr. himself corrects our mistaken censures in the gloss of 4. K. and V. M. as subjects, or objects, do not imply that the instr. K. and V. M. were thought nom. or acc. Ndo (J.2) stood for n@ in the MS. used. ‘He increases’ is better understood than ‘he obtains’. I had followed advice in trans- literating tarsdahih, as no MS. then accessible afforded the needed abstract term. th. J.3 (2), J.4 have samam°(?) inc, Haug’s text of d is not to be de- fended in view of MSS., Pahl, and Gatha. Vibhaijandm here = vibhdgam. I strongly suspect that a fut. of grabh, grah, was earlier read in d, gl.; J. 588 is reported dkrahshyet (sic); see the Pahl., cp. (d@)grahishyati). I read arateshtér as nearer its original. Read gdv(f), or gait (?); Thad written gaa as nearer its orig., following certain authors. Read jthan or jahan; the first is more orig. 4. Read final 49. Read as altern. d; ‘let me hear the offerers (so I now prefer) face to face (dkdo as loc. adv.) in the Abode of Song’, or again, ‘in the attained-to (loc. of adj.) Abode of song’, or dkdéo may qualify the offerers, see 8. B. E. XXXI, p. 172. One writer boldly renders; — ‘that the prayer might stand on its path to the heavenly spaces (dkdo)’, with aredréng as gen. pl. (?). This sounds Vedic, but I would still take ashé as concrete. Akdo, if acc. pl. mase., = dkds = dkans, cp. ameshdo— = °dns; otherwise loc. sg. adv. of dku, cp. loc. dké = ‘near? (root ach); poss. loc. with demdné(é). Aredréig, more naturally = ‘things heard’, ep.
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.