Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1ippings are not unknown in the Avesta, cp. Y. 43, 3, where the last line does not appear to refer to the one immediately preceding. Read as altern: 76 602 ‘Then the soul of the righteous crushes that of the wicked truly, whose — soul makes reproaches openly on the C. Bridge, the soul of the righteous by his deeds and his words reaching the paths of Asha (beyond the Bridge)’, — D. reads jéh in a, has zak ¢ valman in 6, M.! om. nafshman in c, D. has pavan Ahar°. The dual of the Pahl., with the gloss, recalls the sins alluded to in v. 12. Mar va jéh may be altern. trl. for mared°, mar rendering the 1% syllable, and duit? being misread, The real trl. of mared? is hdshmir®, And ribins might be read; see the Pers.; ‘that soul of whom’. J.3 has *yor, J.3 seems diner (so read). J.* shows signs of Jihvaydm; J* has jihvdm. Correcting to °vdydm or °vayd, we might read: ‘the path of right® is destroyed by their tongue - .’, Ner. prob. read Pahl. géf#; see the Pahl. of the Pers. (the Pers. being itself obscure); see bhuvana®. Lekhyakam « - gananam (so) reflect hoshntir®; bumbdaim is onomatopoetic. Perhaps I must abandon jeh in the Parsi-pers. Git (?) = gétt (so sometimes) is probably written, but see Y. 53, 6. Ruwdn as more Parsi, otherwise rawdn (ravan). Khriishéd is probably a clerical blunder, or it may be meant for a Parsi 3ra sg. 14. Possibly, ‘not faithful to the precepts’. Some might render: ‘Not obedient to the establishments or to the institutions are the K., far (2) (arém?, cp. dré) from field labour, injuring (séidé to sad as in sddra@) the herd without any occasion (2) (@rdis 4, i. e. readily) in spite of their actions 4 and their vows; yea this vow (yé séenhd = ‘which vow’) will bring them at 4 last into Satan’s house’. I take arzm as in the sense of ara (cp. Ar(a)maiti = ard°). Ardi§ 4 1 take in a kindred sense as equalling ‘in the matter of — complete well-being for the kine injuring, or not inculeating (favouring) (the nééd carried down from line a): , Senhé as loc. of °u. We might suspect 75 sevhd; ‘who shall present these (irrational) praises at last in Hell’; cp. the reverse in Y. 45, 8. Read senhdischa, and final - -D. has them insertion in 4, gl. with yekavimiind; M.* has *minéd in b, gl.; D. va man calm? inc, Kar = ‘husbandry’ here as the ‘duty’. . Through some ac- cident ardis, often correctly recognized, is rendered as possessing @ priv., or is the force of Zé felt from a? In Y. 38, 5 séid° is rendered by a word kindred to dmékhténd (sic). But note apadinan kiishishnth as an altern. i pointing to a poss. connection with the root sddrd, © might be read aside from its orig. and with gloss; ‘which teachings are delivering them [their — own souls] to the - -’. J4 has cikhdpayanti (sic), and cishydpayanti, J.* has -— cikhy® in the first instance; J.3 has gikhyd in the second instance, all in b; ‘4 J3, J* have gikhyd? in ce; J.4 hag gishya°.
2ht be read aside from its orig. and with gloss; ‘which teachings are delivering them [their — own souls] to the - -’. J4 has cikhdpayanti (sic), and cishydpayanti, J.* has -— cikhy® in the first instance; J.3 has gikhyd in the second instance, all in b; ‘4 J3, J* have gikhyd? in ce; J.4 hag gishya°. Nirvane curiously corresponds | to apadmdn, but see it — afdim, apémem in c, We might render c; ‘be- cause (but see the Pahl.) they are teaching thus, the household (2) of the 603 D. in their end deliver [their own soul(s)] to the castigation’; but °san- natdm (acc. of goal) should be read. Burand as more orig. Parsi; other- wise arand. Hstéd written under dmiz® was intended to follow dmdkhd. Read perhaps dkhar, I supposed the very imperfect letters in c to be an attempted imitation of demand; but such is their wretched condition that I now think lad-khdnah may have been meant! 15. Or we might colour: ‘What reward Z. promised beforehand, Mazda, will meet (will fulfil, vouch for) in Garodman. That I promise myself (chivish?) from V. M. and your real (Ashdchd) helps’. I hardly think however that this excellent meaning lies directly in the words. Chivishi poss. to a chév, 18 sg. mid. ish aor; ‘I will take’, or ‘I will speak, declare these things’. But I think chevish? must at least have originated from a use of chdish = chésh, as a strengthened chish; the 6 once introduced, was changed into the cognate v; chéist may have been the cause of the con- fusion; form 37? sg. pass. aor. like ageshi. Whether a 1* sg. zsh aor. of chi is the real form = chédisht = chéshi = chayishi (2) like agayish?, is doubtful. Read final to D. has min mozd in a, °dnd pésh in b, zak lektiim in e. 16. Some might render magahyd khshathréd: ‘owing to the force of his devotion’, I would never render kishathréd without attaching its meaning more or less directly to the sense in which it is most prominently used. A commonplace ‘by force of’ is hardly poss. in the Gatha. <Athd né sazdydi ’ usta, according to some scholars is: ‘thus will it be to us pleasing that he should command us’. Us#d (orig. loc. of °t7), is, I think, exclamatory, quasi indeclinable, and used here as the subject to ast¢ understood. The infin. is predicative. D. has khitddyth, javidich, in a; M.\ zésh in 6, (but may not zakash (so M.t) be the true reading ?). D. has ? with DJ. in 4, and mindavam 2 in }, el.; D., as DJ. in c. Read as altern. without gl.: ‘V. is successfully deserving (gaining) through the sovereignty of the Magianship - - + it is that which is (at mén) wise (= chistém) according to A.’s estimate (= ‘as he conceived by, or with, A.’), He the bountiful Ahura, (¢ in aéténdt is gl.) - ’. Avarmand, cp. Y. 32, 13 poss. = ‘the haughty’. Levatman pd = paddis, Y. 50, 8 (see also Visp. 16, 2, Sp.) shows that the trlr. did not err here from ignorance; he distrusted an obvious trl., and fell back upon patois = padih (Y. 45, 11). J.4 has Kai, J.* Kai Vir, JP Kai.
3, (¢ in aéténdt is gl.) - ’. Avarmand, cp. Y. 32, 13 poss. = ‘the haughty’. Levatman pd = paddis, Y. 50, 8 (see also Visp. 16, 2, Sp.) shows that the trlr. did not err here from ignorance; he distrusted an obvious trl., and fell back upon patois = padih (Y. 45, 11). J.4 has Kai, J.* Kai Vir, JP Kai. Nirvane shows again the interesting mistransliteration; fare° was read farj° sug- gesting farjdm; c freely conveys the general idea. 17. Some might be inclined to consider, hardly to adopt, the desiderative of dha, didhish® as an emendation for daé(¢)ddist; cp. the adject. nominal 604 form didhishu; (cp. RV., X, 18, 8 hastagrdbhdsya didhishés tdve *dém pdtyur — janitvudm abhi sdm babhiitha) ‘This F. the H. has presented to me a beloved . person that I should wed her, as A. M. can bestow a desired gift upon a good being (? daé¢)naydi vanhuydi) to attain the desire (cp. gridh) of — Righteousness’. The Pahl. trlr. (with the later Avesta, and the later tra-_ dition) names the wife of Z. Hvégvi, obviously a fem. of Hvogva. We may — then suppose that Frashaostra was an elder brother, or father (so the Pahl. trlr.), and presented her to Z., which would place this composition celebrat- _ ing the event at an earlier period in Z.’s life, whereas Y. 53, as celebrating — the marriage of his daughter would fall some fifteen years later. That Z.’s — daughter, Pouruchista, was afterwards married to a Jamaspa, and that Frashaostra and a Jamaspa were supposed to have been brothers makes: scarcely any difficulty, as names have in all ages constantly descended from father to son; also an elder brother might present a bride. Perhaps this bride’s name was Chisti (cp. paouruchista); or she may have been regarded a as impersonating ‘wisdom’; cp. similar Semitic use; see Y. 29, 1. There the Kine (i. e. the people) wail (gerezhdd) for the help of Asha. If this piece were composed at the marriage stage of Z.’s life, the troubles © were fresh to him; few victories had been won; and the wailing cry was appropriate. Read is(k)yam. D. has frashdshtar 7 - + nikezdd kerpat in a, ychabiindd, gl.; diné ¢ shapir - - va 2ak 4 Gné, or avd (?) b, om. va (so Mt) inc. Read dentman as better than dartman. The trir, saw the intens., also improp. conj. (see D.), also the imper. rendered by the conj. Arete here perhaps = ‘the desired thing’. Gerez®, as = grih®, suggested griha, hence the blunder in c; gridh is the underlying word, or garh, J.* has also Hiog® (the letter resembling rte is av old fashioned o). J.* has also” mulyena and prob. patarajnt?, or jad? (anusvara omitted). J.4 is reported patardjndmcha. Ner. inserted sadai’va on account of the syllable °am. which in Pahl. char. might be read ham, suggesting hamd. Yédchandm - ‘the object of prayer’ here, = ‘the thing to be desired’. Dei points to yehabtinéd (2) as a 274 pl, imper.
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.
1ippings are not unknown in the Avesta, cp. Y. 43, 3, where the last line does not appear to refer to the one immediately preceding. Read as altern: 76 602 ‘Then the soul of the righteous crushes that of the wicked truly, whose — soul makes reproaches openly on the C. Bridge, the soul of the righteous by his deeds and his words reaching the paths of Asha (beyond the Bridge)’, — D. reads jéh in a, has zak ¢ valman in 6, M.! om. nafshman in c, D. has pavan Ahar°. The dual of the Pahl., with the gloss, recalls the sins alluded to in v. 12. Mar va jéh may be altern. trl. for mared°, mar rendering the 1% syllable, and duit? being misread, The real trl. of mared? is hdshmir®, And ribins might be read; see the Pers.; ‘that soul of whom’. J.3 has *yor, J.3 seems diner (so read). J.* shows signs of Jihvaydm; J* has jihvdm. Correcting to °vdydm or °vayd, we might read: ‘the path of right® is destroyed by their tongue - .’, Ner. prob. read Pahl. géf#; see the Pahl. of the Pers. (the Pers. being itself obscure); see bhuvana®. Lekhyakam « - gananam (so) reflect hoshntir®; bumbdaim is onomatopoetic. Perhaps I must abandon jeh in the Parsi-pers. Git (?) = gétt (so sometimes) is probably written, but see Y. 53, 6. Ruwdn as more Parsi, otherwise rawdn (ravan). Khriishéd is probably a clerical blunder, or it may be meant for a Parsi 3ra sg. 14. Possibly, ‘not faithful to the precepts’. Some might render: ‘Not obedient to the establishments or to the institutions are the K., far (2) (arém?, cp. dré) from field labour, injuring (séidé to sad as in sddra@) the herd without any occasion (2) (@rdis 4, i. e. readily) in spite of their actions 4 and their vows; yea this vow (yé séenhd = ‘which vow’) will bring them at 4 last into Satan’s house’. I take arzm as in the sense of ara (cp. Ar(a)maiti = ard°). Ardi§ 4 1 take in a kindred sense as equalling ‘in the matter of — complete well-being for the kine injuring, or not inculeating (favouring) (the nééd carried down from line a): , Senhé as loc. of °u. We might suspect 75 sevhd; ‘who shall present these (irrational) praises at last in Hell’; cp. the reverse in Y. 45, 8. Read senhdischa, and final - -D. has them insertion in 4, gl. with yekavimiind; M.* has *minéd in b, gl.; D. va man calm? inc, Kar = ‘husbandry’ here as the ‘duty’. . Through some ac- cident ardis, often correctly recognized, is rendered as possessing @ priv., or is the force of Zé felt from a? In Y. 38, 5 séid° is rendered by a word kindred to dmékhténd (sic). But note apadinan kiishishnth as an altern. i pointing to a poss. connection with the root sddrd, © might be read aside from its orig. and with gloss; ‘which teachings are delivering them [their — own souls] to the - -’. J4 has cikhdpayanti (sic), and cishydpayanti, J.* has -— cikhy® in the first instance; J.3 has gikhyd in the second instance, all in b; ‘4 J3, J* have gikhyd? in ce; J.4 hag gishya°.
2ht be read aside from its orig. and with gloss; ‘which teachings are delivering them [their — own souls] to the - -’. J4 has cikhdpayanti (sic), and cishydpayanti, J.* has -— cikhy® in the first instance; J.3 has gikhyd in the second instance, all in b; ‘4 J3, J* have gikhyd? in ce; J.4 hag gishya°. Nirvane curiously corresponds | to apadmdn, but see it — afdim, apémem in c, We might render c; ‘be- cause (but see the Pahl.) they are teaching thus, the household (2) of the 603 D. in their end deliver [their own soul(s)] to the castigation’; but °san- natdm (acc. of goal) should be read. Burand as more orig. Parsi; other- wise arand. Hstéd written under dmiz® was intended to follow dmdkhd. Read perhaps dkhar, I supposed the very imperfect letters in c to be an attempted imitation of demand; but such is their wretched condition that I now think lad-khdnah may have been meant! 15. Or we might colour: ‘What reward Z. promised beforehand, Mazda, will meet (will fulfil, vouch for) in Garodman. That I promise myself (chivish?) from V. M. and your real (Ashdchd) helps’. I hardly think however that this excellent meaning lies directly in the words. Chivishi poss. to a chév, 18 sg. mid. ish aor; ‘I will take’, or ‘I will speak, declare these things’. But I think chevish? must at least have originated from a use of chdish = chésh, as a strengthened chish; the 6 once introduced, was changed into the cognate v; chéist may have been the cause of the con- fusion; form 37? sg. pass. aor. like ageshi. Whether a 1* sg. zsh aor. of chi is the real form = chédisht = chéshi = chayishi (2) like agayish?, is doubtful. Read final to D. has min mozd in a, °dnd pésh in b, zak lektiim in e. 16. Some might render magahyd khshathréd: ‘owing to the force of his devotion’, I would never render kishathréd without attaching its meaning more or less directly to the sense in which it is most prominently used. A commonplace ‘by force of’ is hardly poss. in the Gatha. <Athd né sazdydi ’ usta, according to some scholars is: ‘thus will it be to us pleasing that he should command us’. Us#d (orig. loc. of °t7), is, I think, exclamatory, quasi indeclinable, and used here as the subject to ast¢ understood. The infin. is predicative. D. has khitddyth, javidich, in a; M.\ zésh in 6, (but may not zakash (so M.t) be the true reading ?). D. has ? with DJ. in 4, and mindavam 2 in }, el.; D., as DJ. in c. Read as altern. without gl.: ‘V. is successfully deserving (gaining) through the sovereignty of the Magianship - - + it is that which is (at mén) wise (= chistém) according to A.’s estimate (= ‘as he conceived by, or with, A.’), He the bountiful Ahura, (¢ in aéténdt is gl.) - ’. Avarmand, cp. Y. 32, 13 poss. = ‘the haughty’. Levatman pd = paddis, Y. 50, 8 (see also Visp. 16, 2, Sp.) shows that the trlr. did not err here from ignorance; he distrusted an obvious trl., and fell back upon patois = padih (Y. 45, 11). J.4 has Kai, J.* Kai Vir, JP Kai.
3, (¢ in aéténdt is gl.) - ’. Avarmand, cp. Y. 32, 13 poss. = ‘the haughty’. Levatman pd = paddis, Y. 50, 8 (see also Visp. 16, 2, Sp.) shows that the trlr. did not err here from ignorance; he distrusted an obvious trl., and fell back upon patois = padih (Y. 45, 11). J.4 has Kai, J.* Kai Vir, JP Kai. Nirvane shows again the interesting mistransliteration; fare° was read farj° sug- gesting farjdm; c freely conveys the general idea. 17. Some might be inclined to consider, hardly to adopt, the desiderative of dha, didhish® as an emendation for daé(¢)ddist; cp. the adject. nominal 604 form didhishu; (cp. RV., X, 18, 8 hastagrdbhdsya didhishés tdve *dém pdtyur — janitvudm abhi sdm babhiitha) ‘This F. the H. has presented to me a beloved . person that I should wed her, as A. M. can bestow a desired gift upon a good being (? daé¢)naydi vanhuydi) to attain the desire (cp. gridh) of — Righteousness’. The Pahl. trlr. (with the later Avesta, and the later tra-_ dition) names the wife of Z. Hvégvi, obviously a fem. of Hvogva. We may — then suppose that Frashaostra was an elder brother, or father (so the Pahl. trlr.), and presented her to Z., which would place this composition celebrat- _ ing the event at an earlier period in Z.’s life, whereas Y. 53, as celebrating — the marriage of his daughter would fall some fifteen years later. That Z.’s — daughter, Pouruchista, was afterwards married to a Jamaspa, and that Frashaostra and a Jamaspa were supposed to have been brothers makes: scarcely any difficulty, as names have in all ages constantly descended from father to son; also an elder brother might present a bride. Perhaps this bride’s name was Chisti (cp. paouruchista); or she may have been regarded a as impersonating ‘wisdom’; cp. similar Semitic use; see Y. 29, 1. There the Kine (i. e. the people) wail (gerezhdd) for the help of Asha. If this piece were composed at the marriage stage of Z.’s life, the troubles © were fresh to him; few victories had been won; and the wailing cry was appropriate. Read is(k)yam. D. has frashdshtar 7 - + nikezdd kerpat in a, ychabiindd, gl.; diné ¢ shapir - - va 2ak 4 Gné, or avd (?) b, om. va (so Mt) inc. Read dentman as better than dartman. The trir, saw the intens., also improp. conj. (see D.), also the imper. rendered by the conj. Arete here perhaps = ‘the desired thing’. Gerez®, as = grih®, suggested griha, hence the blunder in c; gridh is the underlying word, or garh, J.* has also Hiog® (the letter resembling rte is av old fashioned o). J.* has also” mulyena and prob. patarajnt?, or jad? (anusvara omitted). J.4 is reported patardjndmcha. Ner. inserted sadai’va on account of the syllable °am. which in Pahl. char. might be read ham, suggesting hamd. Yédchandm - ‘the object of prayer’ here, = ‘the thing to be desired’. Dei points to yehabtinéd (2) as a 274 pl, imper.
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.