Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1The only known manuscript, independent of B, that contains any portion of the Dinkard, is the old codex K XXXVIiii PAHLAVI TEXTS. . brought from Persia by the late Professor Westergaard in 1843, and now No. 43 of the Iranian manuscripts in the University Library at Kopenhagen. This codex contains about one-fifth of the text of the Dinkavd in two detached portions, together with other Pahlavi texts. The first portion occupies fols. 177-261, and comprises Dk. VI, of which one-eighth is missing, with Dk. III, Chaps. CLX and CCLXXXIII, and a colophon, all written in the district of Tark&ébad by Mitr6-dp4n, son of Anéshak-riban, son of Ristam, son of Shatr6-ayar, son of Mah-vindad, son of Vahram, son of Gishisn-ayar, son of Mitr6-dpan, and completed on the day Gés of the month Mitvé in the Parsi year 943 after the 20th year of Yasdakard [10th May, 1594, N.S.]. This copyist appears to have been a great-uncle of the writer who approved the manuscript B in 1669, ten years after it was written; and the original from which he copied was, no doubt, descended from Méh-vind4d-t Narem4han’s manuscript of 1020, as he appends to his colophon all the latter part of Mah-vindaa’s colophon (see p. xxxiv, n. 3). The second portion of the text of the Dinkard, contained in the manuscript K, is written by another hand on 42 additional folios, and comprises the last two chapters of Dk. ITI, the whole of Dk. V, and the first three-tenths of Dk. IX (as mentioned in p- 172, n. 1, of this volume). This manuscript supplies several short passages in the Dinkard, which are omitted by B, especially in the first portion of the text described above. It has also afforded much assistance in the translation of Dk. IX, Chaps. I, 1-XXXI, 17. Regarding the authorship of the summary account of the Nasks, contained in Dk. VIII, IX, it may be reasonably assumed, in default of any positive information, that the compiler was Atdrp4d, son of Héméd, the last editor of the Dinkarvd. And, as nothing is said about any previous treatise being consulted, it may be safely supposed that he had access to the Avesta texts and Pahlavi versions of all the Nasks he describes, fully three centuries after the Muhammadan conquest of Persia. The only Nask he could not obtain was the Vastag, and the Pahlavi version INTRODUCTION. XXXIX of the Nadar was also missing ; under which circumstances, the fully detailed accounts of these two Nasks, given in the Persian Rivayats, must be viewed with suspicion, until better evidence of their authenticity has been discovered than is at present available.
2XXXIX of the Nadar was also missing ; under which circumstances, the fully detailed accounts of these two Nasks, given in the Persian Rivayats, must be viewed with suspicion, until better evidence of their authenticity has been discovered than is at present available. The survival of so much of the sacred Zoroastrian literature, during three centuries of Muhammadan rule, indicates that the final loss of nearly all this literature was not so directly attributable to the Arabs as the Parsis suppose. So long as a considerable number of the Persians adhered to their ancient religion, they were able to preserve its literature almost intact, even for centuries; but when, through conversion and extermination, the Mazda-worshippers had become a mere remnant, and then fell under the more barbarous rule of the Tartars, they rapidly lost all their old literature that was not in daily religious use. And the loss may have been as much due to their neglecting the necessary copying of manuscripts, as to any destructiveness on the part of their conquerors; because the durability of a manuscript written on paper seldom exceeds five or six centuries. The statements of the Dinkard, about the classification and subdivisions of the Nasks, are corroborated and supplemented by those of Z4d-sparam (see pp. 401-405). The division of all literature into three classes of knowledge, religious, worldly, and intermediate, is one that would naturally suggest itself to any classifier’, but the names employed (which are transcribed from the Avesta, and do not exactly correspond with these three meanings) must have originated at a period when the Avesta language was still spoken. That such a classification cannot be very strictly carried out in practice is already admitted in Dk. VIII, Chap. I, 13. 1 Professor Darmesteter has suggested to me the very similar apportionment of the old Hebrew literature, mentioned in Jeremiah xviii. 18, thus :—‘ For the law shall not perish from the priest, nor counsel from the wise, nor the word from the prophet.’ And in Ezekiel vii. 26, thus:—‘ Then shall they seek a vision of the prophet: but the law shall perish from the priest, and counsel from the ancients.’ xl PAHLAVI TEXTS. The further division of the literature into twenty-one books, seven in each of the three classes, is a much more artificial arrangement, and can, perhaps, be best explained as an attempt to make the twenty-one words of the Ahunavair serve the purpose of a reminder for enumerating the Nasks in their proper order. This arrangement was probably made at some period when the scattered Avesta literature was being collected and re-arranged, the Pahlavi versions being then supplied, and the present Pahlavi names of the Nasks appointed. This may possibly have been the work of ‘composition and preservation’ attributed to Atarpad, son of M4raspend, in Dk. VIII, Chap. I, 22, when ‘the Nasks were enumerated’ (see Dk. IV, 27, in p. 415), which occurred in the fourth century.
3This may possibly have been the work of ‘composition and preservation’ attributed to Atarpad, son of M4raspend, in Dk. VIII, Chap. I, 22, when ‘the Nasks were enumerated’ (see Dk. IV, 27, in p. 415), which occurred in the fourth century. Why the established sequence of the Nasks, detailed in Dk. VIII, Chap. I, 12, should differ from the successive sequences of their three classes, given in §§ 9-11, is very imperfectly explained; but some of the reasons for the difference may perhaps be guessed. If the notation proposed in p. 7, n. 3, be adopted, the established sequence is Ga-4; H1-7; G5; L6; G7; L7, 1-5; G6, 1; in which the only Nasks that are out of their order in the classes are G1, 5-7 and L6, 7. The placing of G6, 1 next after L5 (that is, the HAadékht and Stdéd-yast next after the Vendidad) may perhaps have been owing to the constant use of these three Nasks in the liturgy, in which either the Vendidad, or the Hadokht'!, was frequently interpolatéd in the recitation of the Stéd-yast which comprised by far the larger portion of the present Yasna and Vispérad. But this position of the Stéd-yast, at the end of the list of Nasks, was probably considered derogatory to its sacred character by most of the writers of the Persian Rivayats, who have, therefore, restored it to its original place at the head of the Gathic Nasks. Dk. VIII, Chap. I, 15, states that G5 was placed after H7 because the Vastag was connected with the Vistasp-sdst6, probably by the nature of its contents. And, possibly, the sequence L6, G7, L7 of the Kitradad, Spend, and Bak4n-yast, between the Vastag 1 So long as it was preserved. INTRODUCTION. xli and Nikadim, may indicate some similar resemblance of contents; especially as, the contents of the Kitradaéd and Bakdn-yast were so far from being strictly legal that these Nasks were placed in a sub-class by themselves, and the connection of the Spend with the Gathas appears to have been merely historical. The Persian Rivayats place the Spend next after the Vastag, thereby bringing the two imperfectly Gathic Nasks together, as well as the two imperfectly legal ones; but then they also transpose the Ganabé-sar-nigad and the Hisparam, for which there seems to be no justification. With regard to the names of the Nasks, it is evident that several of the Persian names, used in the Rivayats, are more or less irreconcileable with the Pahlavi names in the Dinkard, and some others are improbable readings of the Pahlavi forms. In this translation the Pahlavi forms have been followed, as clearly more authentic than the Persian corruptions, and some few of the names have been read differently; while in other cases the most probable readings have been merely suggested in foot-notes, not on account of the Persian reading being justifiable, but because the evidence for the suggested reading is less complete than would be desirable.
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.
1The only known manuscript, independent of B, that contains any portion of the Dinkard, is the old codex K XXXVIiii PAHLAVI TEXTS. . brought from Persia by the late Professor Westergaard in 1843, and now No. 43 of the Iranian manuscripts in the University Library at Kopenhagen. This codex contains about one-fifth of the text of the Dinkavd in two detached portions, together with other Pahlavi texts. The first portion occupies fols. 177-261, and comprises Dk. VI, of which one-eighth is missing, with Dk. III, Chaps. CLX and CCLXXXIII, and a colophon, all written in the district of Tark&ébad by Mitr6-dp4n, son of Anéshak-riban, son of Ristam, son of Shatr6-ayar, son of Mah-vindad, son of Vahram, son of Gishisn-ayar, son of Mitr6-dpan, and completed on the day Gés of the month Mitvé in the Parsi year 943 after the 20th year of Yasdakard [10th May, 1594, N.S.]. This copyist appears to have been a great-uncle of the writer who approved the manuscript B in 1669, ten years after it was written; and the original from which he copied was, no doubt, descended from Méh-vind4d-t Narem4han’s manuscript of 1020, as he appends to his colophon all the latter part of Mah-vindaa’s colophon (see p. xxxiv, n. 3). The second portion of the text of the Dinkard, contained in the manuscript K, is written by another hand on 42 additional folios, and comprises the last two chapters of Dk. ITI, the whole of Dk. V, and the first three-tenths of Dk. IX (as mentioned in p- 172, n. 1, of this volume). This manuscript supplies several short passages in the Dinkard, which are omitted by B, especially in the first portion of the text described above. It has also afforded much assistance in the translation of Dk. IX, Chaps. I, 1-XXXI, 17. Regarding the authorship of the summary account of the Nasks, contained in Dk. VIII, IX, it may be reasonably assumed, in default of any positive information, that the compiler was Atdrp4d, son of Héméd, the last editor of the Dinkarvd. And, as nothing is said about any previous treatise being consulted, it may be safely supposed that he had access to the Avesta texts and Pahlavi versions of all the Nasks he describes, fully three centuries after the Muhammadan conquest of Persia. The only Nask he could not obtain was the Vastag, and the Pahlavi version INTRODUCTION. XXXIX of the Nadar was also missing ; under which circumstances, the fully detailed accounts of these two Nasks, given in the Persian Rivayats, must be viewed with suspicion, until better evidence of their authenticity has been discovered than is at present available.
2XXXIX of the Nadar was also missing ; under which circumstances, the fully detailed accounts of these two Nasks, given in the Persian Rivayats, must be viewed with suspicion, until better evidence of their authenticity has been discovered than is at present available. The survival of so much of the sacred Zoroastrian literature, during three centuries of Muhammadan rule, indicates that the final loss of nearly all this literature was not so directly attributable to the Arabs as the Parsis suppose. So long as a considerable number of the Persians adhered to their ancient religion, they were able to preserve its literature almost intact, even for centuries; but when, through conversion and extermination, the Mazda-worshippers had become a mere remnant, and then fell under the more barbarous rule of the Tartars, they rapidly lost all their old literature that was not in daily religious use. And the loss may have been as much due to their neglecting the necessary copying of manuscripts, as to any destructiveness on the part of their conquerors; because the durability of a manuscript written on paper seldom exceeds five or six centuries. The statements of the Dinkard, about the classification and subdivisions of the Nasks, are corroborated and supplemented by those of Z4d-sparam (see pp. 401-405). The division of all literature into three classes of knowledge, religious, worldly, and intermediate, is one that would naturally suggest itself to any classifier’, but the names employed (which are transcribed from the Avesta, and do not exactly correspond with these three meanings) must have originated at a period when the Avesta language was still spoken. That such a classification cannot be very strictly carried out in practice is already admitted in Dk. VIII, Chap. I, 13. 1 Professor Darmesteter has suggested to me the very similar apportionment of the old Hebrew literature, mentioned in Jeremiah xviii. 18, thus :—‘ For the law shall not perish from the priest, nor counsel from the wise, nor the word from the prophet.’ And in Ezekiel vii. 26, thus:—‘ Then shall they seek a vision of the prophet: but the law shall perish from the priest, and counsel from the ancients.’ xl PAHLAVI TEXTS. The further division of the literature into twenty-one books, seven in each of the three classes, is a much more artificial arrangement, and can, perhaps, be best explained as an attempt to make the twenty-one words of the Ahunavair serve the purpose of a reminder for enumerating the Nasks in their proper order. This arrangement was probably made at some period when the scattered Avesta literature was being collected and re-arranged, the Pahlavi versions being then supplied, and the present Pahlavi names of the Nasks appointed. This may possibly have been the work of ‘composition and preservation’ attributed to Atarpad, son of M4raspend, in Dk. VIII, Chap. I, 22, when ‘the Nasks were enumerated’ (see Dk. IV, 27, in p. 415), which occurred in the fourth century.
3This may possibly have been the work of ‘composition and preservation’ attributed to Atarpad, son of M4raspend, in Dk. VIII, Chap. I, 22, when ‘the Nasks were enumerated’ (see Dk. IV, 27, in p. 415), which occurred in the fourth century. Why the established sequence of the Nasks, detailed in Dk. VIII, Chap. I, 12, should differ from the successive sequences of their three classes, given in §§ 9-11, is very imperfectly explained; but some of the reasons for the difference may perhaps be guessed. If the notation proposed in p. 7, n. 3, be adopted, the established sequence is Ga-4; H1-7; G5; L6; G7; L7, 1-5; G6, 1; in which the only Nasks that are out of their order in the classes are G1, 5-7 and L6, 7. The placing of G6, 1 next after L5 (that is, the HAadékht and Stdéd-yast next after the Vendidad) may perhaps have been owing to the constant use of these three Nasks in the liturgy, in which either the Vendidad, or the Hadokht'!, was frequently interpolatéd in the recitation of the Stéd-yast which comprised by far the larger portion of the present Yasna and Vispérad. But this position of the Stéd-yast, at the end of the list of Nasks, was probably considered derogatory to its sacred character by most of the writers of the Persian Rivayats, who have, therefore, restored it to its original place at the head of the Gathic Nasks. Dk. VIII, Chap. I, 15, states that G5 was placed after H7 because the Vastag was connected with the Vistasp-sdst6, probably by the nature of its contents. And, possibly, the sequence L6, G7, L7 of the Kitradad, Spend, and Bak4n-yast, between the Vastag 1 So long as it was preserved. INTRODUCTION. xli and Nikadim, may indicate some similar resemblance of contents; especially as, the contents of the Kitradaéd and Bakdn-yast were so far from being strictly legal that these Nasks were placed in a sub-class by themselves, and the connection of the Spend with the Gathas appears to have been merely historical. The Persian Rivayats place the Spend next after the Vastag, thereby bringing the two imperfectly Gathic Nasks together, as well as the two imperfectly legal ones; but then they also transpose the Ganabé-sar-nigad and the Hisparam, for which there seems to be no justification. With regard to the names of the Nasks, it is evident that several of the Persian names, used in the Rivayats, are more or less irreconcileable with the Pahlavi names in the Dinkard, and some others are improbable readings of the Pahlavi forms. In this translation the Pahlavi forms have been followed, as clearly more authentic than the Persian corruptions, and some few of the names have been read differently; while in other cases the most probable readings have been merely suggested in foot-notes, not on account of the Persian reading being justifiable, but because the evidence for the suggested reading is less complete than would be desirable.
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.