Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1ts present, again he offers a flash of keen and independent exegesis. Then again we find alternative translation, but of course awkwardly arranged, while the alternative translations of the same GAtha word in the Pahlavi are often reproduced by him as if they were the translations of separate words. As regards the glosses in Neryosangh we may suppose that they are chiefly from the original hand, but we have very positive evidence that Neryosangh was not the only Parsi of his time who wrote in Sanskrit. The various readings in the Sanskrit translations of the - Yasna leave little doubt that Neryosangh’s successors often ventured on emendations of his text, but these differing readings are not often very extended. They however furnish us with evidence sufficient to enable us to doubt the originality of some of the glosses, and this should serve as a check against hypercriticism of his work. That I have reproduced his ideas with exactness, it is impossible for me to say, as it is impossible for others to deny. A literary translation in the usual sense of the term is of course not to be attempted, as this translation of a translation does not flow freely like an ordinary treatise. Alternative suggestions should be made at every step. I therefore desire my translation of Neryosangh, as of the Pahlavi, to be regarded as comment quite as much as translation, and as a treatment which may guard scholars against that superficial hypercriticism of Neryosangh in which Haug so unfortunately led the way. It might be asked why I do not afford more explanations of the very irregular Parsi-persian in the Commentary. But as the Persian is a translation of the Pahlavi, the discussions on the Pahlavi, of which its translation is merely a part, include a treatment of the Persian. This Parsi-persian text has been added not only to show its readings of the Pahlavi, and to give scholars an interesting specimen of the word for word translations of the Pahlavi of the Avesta, but also to assist the science of comparative philology as it bears upon the subject. Indeed I may say that this mass of native comment, Pahl. and Sanskrit, as well as Persian, is presented largely because it bears upon the question of the original Indo-germanic. The Sanskrit lies near to the Zend, and the ancient and middle Persian lie nearer to us than the Sanskrit. But of course their direct evidence was my more immediate object. And fergie their independent opinions, which although arrived XVII at under every disadvantage, are often keen and stimulating and also often correct, they offer us what are greatly more valuable than any opinions of their own, and that is, the broken fragments of original tradition. For I think we may fairly claim that a tradition of inter- pretation of the Avesta has existed from the first, and that we have portions of it in this mass of comment before us.
2us what are greatly more valuable than any opinions of their own, and that is, the broken fragments of original tradition. For I think we may fairly claim that a tradition of inter- pretation of the Avesta has existed from the first, and that we have portions of it in this mass of comment before us. And here I must pause for a moment to recall our reasons for supposing that such an original traditional exegesis of the Gathas was at all possible under any circumstances. First let us ask whether an original traditional exegesis of any very ancient lore preserved in MSS. is possible. We have undoubted tradition at least in texts. The Gathic text and the rest of the Avesta are in themselves a marvellous tradition, so is the Rig-Veda text, and so are all very ancient books. Rock inscriptions keep themselves, but what has kept the apparently frail life of ancient books? Their characters were imbedded in the human memory in the continuous life of generations. The sanctity which attached to the Gathas from the first was naturally calculated to awaken a keen solicitude for their preservation, and as a matter of fact we find that phonological laws have been observed in the forms in which the Gathés and the rest of the Avesta have come down to us, and minute distinctions have been preserved with curious fidelity; and this proves a tradition of scholarship. That certain original and correct ideas as to the meaning of Gathic words and passages have been preserved in this tradition is 4 priori very probable, but it is folly to expect anything approaching to a modern precision in the shape in which these remotely ancient opinions have survived to us. They are the descendants of descendants, and more often marred than assisted by later additions. I regard it therefore as a very false policy to take this mass of mutilated tradition as if it were original tradition, and I of course hold that we should dispute even the original tradition at times, if we could be sure that we had seized it, for I doubt very greatly whether even the contemporaries of Zarathushtra knew always what he meant, and I am strongly inclined to suspect that he at times even affected obscurity. I therefore regard it as the only critical procedure to follow the ‘tradition’ at one time and to disagree with it at another where the facts seem to call for such a course, and also to follow what may be | the original suggestions of ancient Parsi scholars which abound in these ~ Gt EK ( native translations, and which are in themselves no proper tradition in the original sense, and to follow them sometimes as opposed both to — original tradition and to modern conjectures where they seem superior to either of them, as is often the case. And ag we have no longer any external signs by which to distinguish between this original tradition _and this superadded ancient lore, we must rely wholly on our critical acumen to guide us in our procedure.
3and to modern conjectures where they seem superior to either of them, as is often the case. And ag we have no longer any external signs by which to distinguish between this original tradition _and this superadded ancient lore, we must rely wholly on our critical acumen to guide us in our procedure. We have then comparative philology, original tradition, and the results of ancient scholarship in these translations; and each is a distinct and independent factor bearing upon the exegesis of their original. It is of course very important that we should recognize these ancient works as our instructors in the past, for on that recognition depends their influence npon us in the future. Not only has the entire ground-work of our original information been laid by them, but often our latest and most subtle distinctions might have been much sooner made had we heeded their indications. Our discoveries are often -rediscoveries. (See on Y. 48, 8.) Like the companions of Columbus it is easy for us to balance the egg, after they have shown us the way. The great task they leave us is to find the exact point and meaning of the rich lore to which they roughly introduce us. As was said in the preface, the Introduction proper to this work is to be found on pp. i—xlvii of the XXXIst vol. of the S. B. E., but as that was published so long ago as May, 1887, it is to be expected that I should have on reflection some modifications to offer. And there are indeed two points on which I now feel less hesitation than I did then. The first is as to the probable age of the Gathas. As is seen, I have made the endeayour to place them as late as possible, and at the time of publishing I had reached the conclusion that they may date as late as about 1000 B.C. while also possibly so old as 1500 B.C. But since then I have ceased to resist the conviction that the latter limit may be put further back. If they antedate. the worship of Mithra (which is however almost incredible) they would appear to be the oldest written compositions which have reached us not inscribed on stone. But looking at all the facts, the ancient, or better the little altered, state in which our Aryan speech appears in them, the absence of Mithra, Haoma, and of the throng of Gods which are common to the later Avesta and to the Rig-Veda, they seem to express a religious aspiration so bereft of superstition that it must have taken a very long time for it to have XX degenerated either for the first, or for the second, time into the religion of Mithra, Haoma, and the rest, as we have it in the Yashts and in the Rik. But those deities were beyond a doubt very ancient indeed. If the Gathds antedated their cult, there is no telling how old they may be. The decision of criticism is to refrain from conjectures too closely limiting their age. The other particular as to which I would now abandon my scepticism is the poetic personification of the Bountiful (or Holy) Immortals.
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.
1ts present, again he offers a flash of keen and independent exegesis. Then again we find alternative translation, but of course awkwardly arranged, while the alternative translations of the same GAtha word in the Pahlavi are often reproduced by him as if they were the translations of separate words. As regards the glosses in Neryosangh we may suppose that they are chiefly from the original hand, but we have very positive evidence that Neryosangh was not the only Parsi of his time who wrote in Sanskrit. The various readings in the Sanskrit translations of the - Yasna leave little doubt that Neryosangh’s successors often ventured on emendations of his text, but these differing readings are not often very extended. They however furnish us with evidence sufficient to enable us to doubt the originality of some of the glosses, and this should serve as a check against hypercriticism of his work. That I have reproduced his ideas with exactness, it is impossible for me to say, as it is impossible for others to deny. A literary translation in the usual sense of the term is of course not to be attempted, as this translation of a translation does not flow freely like an ordinary treatise. Alternative suggestions should be made at every step. I therefore desire my translation of Neryosangh, as of the Pahlavi, to be regarded as comment quite as much as translation, and as a treatment which may guard scholars against that superficial hypercriticism of Neryosangh in which Haug so unfortunately led the way. It might be asked why I do not afford more explanations of the very irregular Parsi-persian in the Commentary. But as the Persian is a translation of the Pahlavi, the discussions on the Pahlavi, of which its translation is merely a part, include a treatment of the Persian. This Parsi-persian text has been added not only to show its readings of the Pahlavi, and to give scholars an interesting specimen of the word for word translations of the Pahlavi of the Avesta, but also to assist the science of comparative philology as it bears upon the subject. Indeed I may say that this mass of native comment, Pahl. and Sanskrit, as well as Persian, is presented largely because it bears upon the question of the original Indo-germanic. The Sanskrit lies near to the Zend, and the ancient and middle Persian lie nearer to us than the Sanskrit. But of course their direct evidence was my more immediate object. And fergie their independent opinions, which although arrived XVII at under every disadvantage, are often keen and stimulating and also often correct, they offer us what are greatly more valuable than any opinions of their own, and that is, the broken fragments of original tradition. For I think we may fairly claim that a tradition of inter- pretation of the Avesta has existed from the first, and that we have portions of it in this mass of comment before us.
2us what are greatly more valuable than any opinions of their own, and that is, the broken fragments of original tradition. For I think we may fairly claim that a tradition of inter- pretation of the Avesta has existed from the first, and that we have portions of it in this mass of comment before us. And here I must pause for a moment to recall our reasons for supposing that such an original traditional exegesis of the Gathas was at all possible under any circumstances. First let us ask whether an original traditional exegesis of any very ancient lore preserved in MSS. is possible. We have undoubted tradition at least in texts. The Gathic text and the rest of the Avesta are in themselves a marvellous tradition, so is the Rig-Veda text, and so are all very ancient books. Rock inscriptions keep themselves, but what has kept the apparently frail life of ancient books? Their characters were imbedded in the human memory in the continuous life of generations. The sanctity which attached to the Gathas from the first was naturally calculated to awaken a keen solicitude for their preservation, and as a matter of fact we find that phonological laws have been observed in the forms in which the Gathés and the rest of the Avesta have come down to us, and minute distinctions have been preserved with curious fidelity; and this proves a tradition of scholarship. That certain original and correct ideas as to the meaning of Gathic words and passages have been preserved in this tradition is 4 priori very probable, but it is folly to expect anything approaching to a modern precision in the shape in which these remotely ancient opinions have survived to us. They are the descendants of descendants, and more often marred than assisted by later additions. I regard it therefore as a very false policy to take this mass of mutilated tradition as if it were original tradition, and I of course hold that we should dispute even the original tradition at times, if we could be sure that we had seized it, for I doubt very greatly whether even the contemporaries of Zarathushtra knew always what he meant, and I am strongly inclined to suspect that he at times even affected obscurity. I therefore regard it as the only critical procedure to follow the ‘tradition’ at one time and to disagree with it at another where the facts seem to call for such a course, and also to follow what may be | the original suggestions of ancient Parsi scholars which abound in these ~ Gt EK ( native translations, and which are in themselves no proper tradition in the original sense, and to follow them sometimes as opposed both to — original tradition and to modern conjectures where they seem superior to either of them, as is often the case. And ag we have no longer any external signs by which to distinguish between this original tradition _and this superadded ancient lore, we must rely wholly on our critical acumen to guide us in our procedure.
3and to modern conjectures where they seem superior to either of them, as is often the case. And ag we have no longer any external signs by which to distinguish between this original tradition _and this superadded ancient lore, we must rely wholly on our critical acumen to guide us in our procedure. We have then comparative philology, original tradition, and the results of ancient scholarship in these translations; and each is a distinct and independent factor bearing upon the exegesis of their original. It is of course very important that we should recognize these ancient works as our instructors in the past, for on that recognition depends their influence npon us in the future. Not only has the entire ground-work of our original information been laid by them, but often our latest and most subtle distinctions might have been much sooner made had we heeded their indications. Our discoveries are often -rediscoveries. (See on Y. 48, 8.) Like the companions of Columbus it is easy for us to balance the egg, after they have shown us the way. The great task they leave us is to find the exact point and meaning of the rich lore to which they roughly introduce us. As was said in the preface, the Introduction proper to this work is to be found on pp. i—xlvii of the XXXIst vol. of the S. B. E., but as that was published so long ago as May, 1887, it is to be expected that I should have on reflection some modifications to offer. And there are indeed two points on which I now feel less hesitation than I did then. The first is as to the probable age of the Gathas. As is seen, I have made the endeayour to place them as late as possible, and at the time of publishing I had reached the conclusion that they may date as late as about 1000 B.C. while also possibly so old as 1500 B.C. But since then I have ceased to resist the conviction that the latter limit may be put further back. If they antedate. the worship of Mithra (which is however almost incredible) they would appear to be the oldest written compositions which have reached us not inscribed on stone. But looking at all the facts, the ancient, or better the little altered, state in which our Aryan speech appears in them, the absence of Mithra, Haoma, and of the throng of Gods which are common to the later Avesta and to the Rig-Veda, they seem to express a religious aspiration so bereft of superstition that it must have taken a very long time for it to have XX degenerated either for the first, or for the second, time into the religion of Mithra, Haoma, and the rest, as we have it in the Yashts and in the Rik. But those deities were beyond a doubt very ancient indeed. If the Gathds antedated their cult, there is no telling how old they may be. The decision of criticism is to refrain from conjectures too closely limiting their age. The other particular as to which I would now abandon my scepticism is the poetic personification of the Bountiful (or Holy) Immortals.
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.