Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1me profit for specialists in the general grouping of the differing translations aside from their more immediate study. The differences in these historical renderings in the Pahlavi, San- skrit, and Persian from those adopted by us of to-day should be highly salutary in the lesson which they convey. The imperfections, self- contradictions, and at times puerile suggestions which appear in them furnish one of the most interesting cases of traditional uncertainty ever succinctly presented, and are nearly as important in warning us against implicit confidence in ‘tradition’ as their, on the whole, astonishing - approaches to accuracy are important to warn us against its neglect. Specialists in Vedic and even those in Semitic exegesis should read these commentaries carefully if only to learn how curiously ancient critics could err, as well as how wonderfully they could succeed; and they should apply the lesson gained to their own departments, neglecting no ancient hints, but taking special care not to follow them implicitly, above all things to distrust what seem to be at first sight their indications as to grammar. With these remarks I offer my texts again, and this time not only to specialists but to the public, and I do not think that any scholar will deny that they form a useful book; but I must warn inexperienced readers that such productions, unless carefully guarded by a body of pupils, are apt to become the objects of jealous opposition, sometimes, as we have too sadly seen in the past history of Zend philology, of a jealousy excited to a morbid pitch. It would evenseem at times as if this contemptible passion afforded the only factor in criticism, and as if it were all the more prevalent the higher the sphere of labour in which it has its play. Individuals engaged in the humblest mechanical pursuits sometimes present a favour- 1) For instance, what difference does it make to Comparative Theology whether the composer said ‘finding the way to Ahura’, or ‘finding the throne of Ahura’ ?; each is a valuable idea, and one or the other is certainly present in Y. 28, 5. Or take even line c; we may have there either ‘we keep off the flesh-devouring fiends’, or ‘we convert their polluted victims’. But either is a good theological idea, and often repro- duced in its main meaning in different places. XXVIII able contrast in this respect with those engaged in the most important researches. L. H. Mills. [Since printing the above a discovery has been made which adds greatly to the value of the MS. D. (or Pt.4). We are now convinced that its descent can be traced from a copy made early in the eleventh century (through a copy made by an ancestor of the writer of K.®° and J.”) to the well-known copy by Héshang Siyaévakhsh (a writer of A. D.
2as been made which adds greatly to the value of the MS. D. (or Pt.4). We are now convinced that its descent can be traced from a copy made early in the eleventh century (through a copy made by an ancestor of the writer of K.®° and J.”) to the well-known copy by Héshang Siyaévakhsh (a writer of A. D. 1478) which must have been brought to India, as Destour* Darab Peshotan Sanjana says it was from it that Pt.4 (D.) was copied in 1780*, as well as another copy which he has; Mf.‘ (or Mf.) is also a third copy from this Hodshang’s MS. I will take a later opportunity of referring to the remoter original of these three precious copies (an original of different family from DJ. (J.*) and K.*). But whether we can fix its date in the eleventh century or not, one thing is certain, and that is that this D. (Pt.4) is a verified copy of a MS. written only 155 years after DJ. (J.*), and K.> and from a distinctly different original. I must also add that we have probably discovered that DJ. (J.2) is older than K.*, but more of this hereafter. I should add that my notes of the variations in Mf. (or Mf. which stands for the Moolla* Feeroz* Library in Bombay) were lent me by Dr. West, he having transcribed them in his copy of Spiegel’s text together with his notes of DJ. (J.2) and D. (Pt.4)]. May 1892. Dee, 1893. Zendists do not now need to be told that the date till recently assigned to the MS. DJ. (J.2) as Dec. 9, 1323 A. D. has been deceided by West, Darmesteter and myself to be impossible, and that we have fixed upon Jan. 26, 1323 A. D. as the proper date. The question will be found reasoned out in my paper ‘On the Zend MSS. recently presented to the Bodleian Library’ read at the Ninth International Con- gress of Orientalists held in London on Sep. 10th, 1892 (see the Trans- actions, Vol, U, pages 517, 518*) and later in my Introductory note to the collotyped Edition of the MS. DJ. (J.2) pages VI and VII. With regard to that MS. I have a little explanation to make. My distinguished colleague Professor Darmesteter has relieved the uni- formity of generous praise by calling attention to the fact that I do not cite some marginal glosses which appear on its folios those of DJ. =" Cae og iP tiie Bin: eel a piece atta a al i i al i a a tl ane XXIX (J.2)*1, but he omits to state that these scraps of sentences have little if anything to do with the text-substance of the Pahlavi Commentary, for they are quite generically different from the usual glosses. Their chief connection with the text is their for the most part superfluous or value- less indication as to who the leading speakers are; but this is either obvious from the texts themselves or else doubtfully explained by these trivial comments. On the other hand I might pleasantly retaliate and ask why my friend does not cite them, as they have some reference to ritual with which his work especially deals.
3the leading speakers are; but this is either obvious from the texts themselves or else doubtfully explained by these trivial comments. On the other hand I might pleasantly retaliate and ask why my friend does not cite them, as they have some reference to ritual with which his work especially deals. The Pahlavi texts in this present book are treated in close connection with other matter and Space could not be spared for such additions here for the reason that they were all to be published in fac-simile elsewhere *2, I may also add an article in a prominent periodical explaining them in detail. At this late date I may be permitted to say a word by way of retrospect as to one minor feature of my work, viz my Persian text, I am more than ever pleased that I have edited it for we have had Some rich results from it. All scholars, I trust, appreciate the high value of Darmesteter’s advanced suggestions even where we are not able to follow them; but we owe some of the most striking of them to this text; compare for instance gazishn in Y. 30, 11 which is accepted by D. while wrongfully rejected by Haug, West, and myself (see however my improve- ments, page 622), and then zedézag at Y. 53, 7 gave us D.’s interesting views there**; see also Y. XXXIV, 5 where D.’s piquant remark as to the Dervishes finds its original in the Parsi-persian darvishdn, and so throughout. | I have endeavoured in my Paper on the Zend MS. and in these last texts to point out once more, and with more emphasis than ever *! See the Revue Critique of Paris, Sep. 18th 1893. I am particulary gratified that both Justi and Darmesteter accept what I am forced to term my important dis- covery that some Zend letters are polyphones; see the Gittingische Gelehrten An- zeigen of May 15th 1893, and Darmesteter’s translation Vol. III, p. xc1l as compared with S.B. EB. XXXI, p. XXXIV, and this work in the Commentary here and there throughout. * See the Ancient MS. of the Yasna... generally cited as J.? now in the pos- session of the Bodleian Library edited with an introductory note by L. H. Mills, DD.,etc. Oxford at the Clarendon Press MDCCCXCIII, price 10 guineas, pp. 848—441, 542—601. *8 That Professor D. has made an oversight as to the meaning lakhvar yekavi- munéd (which occurs in the sense of ‘recoil from’ ‘khvetfi-dath’, cp. Y. 45, 3; gee also lakhvar, Y. 46,4), does not detract from the stimulating character of his suggestion, XXX the self-stultification which results from rendering the Pahlavi .trans- lations as if they were continuous documents written in the good Pahlavi of the Arda. Viraf, and I have still more clearly shown them to. be a mass of partly literal, partly free, and at times (be it remarked) alternative translations and comments; and I would again say that to treat them without the closest recognition of these facts would be mere incompetence if it were not also imposture.
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.
1me profit for specialists in the general grouping of the differing translations aside from their more immediate study. The differences in these historical renderings in the Pahlavi, San- skrit, and Persian from those adopted by us of to-day should be highly salutary in the lesson which they convey. The imperfections, self- contradictions, and at times puerile suggestions which appear in them furnish one of the most interesting cases of traditional uncertainty ever succinctly presented, and are nearly as important in warning us against implicit confidence in ‘tradition’ as their, on the whole, astonishing - approaches to accuracy are important to warn us against its neglect. Specialists in Vedic and even those in Semitic exegesis should read these commentaries carefully if only to learn how curiously ancient critics could err, as well as how wonderfully they could succeed; and they should apply the lesson gained to their own departments, neglecting no ancient hints, but taking special care not to follow them implicitly, above all things to distrust what seem to be at first sight their indications as to grammar. With these remarks I offer my texts again, and this time not only to specialists but to the public, and I do not think that any scholar will deny that they form a useful book; but I must warn inexperienced readers that such productions, unless carefully guarded by a body of pupils, are apt to become the objects of jealous opposition, sometimes, as we have too sadly seen in the past history of Zend philology, of a jealousy excited to a morbid pitch. It would evenseem at times as if this contemptible passion afforded the only factor in criticism, and as if it were all the more prevalent the higher the sphere of labour in which it has its play. Individuals engaged in the humblest mechanical pursuits sometimes present a favour- 1) For instance, what difference does it make to Comparative Theology whether the composer said ‘finding the way to Ahura’, or ‘finding the throne of Ahura’ ?; each is a valuable idea, and one or the other is certainly present in Y. 28, 5. Or take even line c; we may have there either ‘we keep off the flesh-devouring fiends’, or ‘we convert their polluted victims’. But either is a good theological idea, and often repro- duced in its main meaning in different places. XXVIII able contrast in this respect with those engaged in the most important researches. L. H. Mills. [Since printing the above a discovery has been made which adds greatly to the value of the MS. D. (or Pt.4). We are now convinced that its descent can be traced from a copy made early in the eleventh century (through a copy made by an ancestor of the writer of K.®° and J.”) to the well-known copy by Héshang Siyaévakhsh (a writer of A. D.
2as been made which adds greatly to the value of the MS. D. (or Pt.4). We are now convinced that its descent can be traced from a copy made early in the eleventh century (through a copy made by an ancestor of the writer of K.®° and J.”) to the well-known copy by Héshang Siyaévakhsh (a writer of A. D. 1478) which must have been brought to India, as Destour* Darab Peshotan Sanjana says it was from it that Pt.4 (D.) was copied in 1780*, as well as another copy which he has; Mf.‘ (or Mf.) is also a third copy from this Hodshang’s MS. I will take a later opportunity of referring to the remoter original of these three precious copies (an original of different family from DJ. (J.*) and K.*). But whether we can fix its date in the eleventh century or not, one thing is certain, and that is that this D. (Pt.4) is a verified copy of a MS. written only 155 years after DJ. (J.*), and K.> and from a distinctly different original. I must also add that we have probably discovered that DJ. (J.2) is older than K.*, but more of this hereafter. I should add that my notes of the variations in Mf. (or Mf. which stands for the Moolla* Feeroz* Library in Bombay) were lent me by Dr. West, he having transcribed them in his copy of Spiegel’s text together with his notes of DJ. (J.2) and D. (Pt.4)]. May 1892. Dee, 1893. Zendists do not now need to be told that the date till recently assigned to the MS. DJ. (J.2) as Dec. 9, 1323 A. D. has been deceided by West, Darmesteter and myself to be impossible, and that we have fixed upon Jan. 26, 1323 A. D. as the proper date. The question will be found reasoned out in my paper ‘On the Zend MSS. recently presented to the Bodleian Library’ read at the Ninth International Con- gress of Orientalists held in London on Sep. 10th, 1892 (see the Trans- actions, Vol, U, pages 517, 518*) and later in my Introductory note to the collotyped Edition of the MS. DJ. (J.2) pages VI and VII. With regard to that MS. I have a little explanation to make. My distinguished colleague Professor Darmesteter has relieved the uni- formity of generous praise by calling attention to the fact that I do not cite some marginal glosses which appear on its folios those of DJ. =" Cae og iP tiie Bin: eel a piece atta a al i i al i a a tl ane XXIX (J.2)*1, but he omits to state that these scraps of sentences have little if anything to do with the text-substance of the Pahlavi Commentary, for they are quite generically different from the usual glosses. Their chief connection with the text is their for the most part superfluous or value- less indication as to who the leading speakers are; but this is either obvious from the texts themselves or else doubtfully explained by these trivial comments. On the other hand I might pleasantly retaliate and ask why my friend does not cite them, as they have some reference to ritual with which his work especially deals.
3the leading speakers are; but this is either obvious from the texts themselves or else doubtfully explained by these trivial comments. On the other hand I might pleasantly retaliate and ask why my friend does not cite them, as they have some reference to ritual with which his work especially deals. The Pahlavi texts in this present book are treated in close connection with other matter and Space could not be spared for such additions here for the reason that they were all to be published in fac-simile elsewhere *2, I may also add an article in a prominent periodical explaining them in detail. At this late date I may be permitted to say a word by way of retrospect as to one minor feature of my work, viz my Persian text, I am more than ever pleased that I have edited it for we have had Some rich results from it. All scholars, I trust, appreciate the high value of Darmesteter’s advanced suggestions even where we are not able to follow them; but we owe some of the most striking of them to this text; compare for instance gazishn in Y. 30, 11 which is accepted by D. while wrongfully rejected by Haug, West, and myself (see however my improve- ments, page 622), and then zedézag at Y. 53, 7 gave us D.’s interesting views there**; see also Y. XXXIV, 5 where D.’s piquant remark as to the Dervishes finds its original in the Parsi-persian darvishdn, and so throughout. | I have endeavoured in my Paper on the Zend MS. and in these last texts to point out once more, and with more emphasis than ever *! See the Revue Critique of Paris, Sep. 18th 1893. I am particulary gratified that both Justi and Darmesteter accept what I am forced to term my important dis- covery that some Zend letters are polyphones; see the Gittingische Gelehrten An- zeigen of May 15th 1893, and Darmesteter’s translation Vol. III, p. xc1l as compared with S.B. EB. XXXI, p. XXXIV, and this work in the Commentary here and there throughout. * See the Ancient MS. of the Yasna... generally cited as J.? now in the pos- session of the Bodleian Library edited with an introductory note by L. H. Mills, DD.,etc. Oxford at the Clarendon Press MDCCCXCIII, price 10 guineas, pp. 848—441, 542—601. *8 That Professor D. has made an oversight as to the meaning lakhvar yekavi- munéd (which occurs in the sense of ‘recoil from’ ‘khvetfi-dath’, cp. Y. 45, 3; gee also lakhvar, Y. 46,4), does not detract from the stimulating character of his suggestion, XXX the self-stultification which results from rendering the Pahlavi .trans- lations as if they were continuous documents written in the good Pahlavi of the Arda. Viraf, and I have still more clearly shown them to. be a mass of partly literal, partly free, and at times (be it remarked) alternative translations and comments; and I would again say that to treat them without the closest recognition of these facts would be mere incompetence if it were not also imposture.
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.