Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1From this point the whole of the rest of this colophon, including the aphorisms, is also found in K. INTRODUCTION. XXXV (This is followed by a long succession of aphorisms, and the colophon winds up with some threats against those who shall misuse the manuscript.) As this colophon mentions only the ‘last portion’ of the Dinkard, and is appended to the text of Dk. III-IX, it is probable that the first portion of the work, Dk. I, II, had already become separated from the rest within 150 years of its revision and completion. And if Mah-vindad did not copy from the original manuscript of Atarp4d, he must certainly have done so from a very early transcript. The second colophon was written by Shatr6-ay4r, son of Erdishir, son of Airtk, son of Rostam, son of Airth, son of KubAd, son of Airan-shah, who completed his copy on the day Atharmazd of the month Spendarmad in the year 865 after the 20th year of Yazdakard [3rd October, 1516], having transcribed it from a copy written by Mar’zap4n, son of Spend-dad, son of Mar’zap4n, son of ‘Mitrd-ép4n, son of Spend-dad, son of Mitré-dp4n, son of Mar’zap4n, son of Dahisn-atyyar, son of Rég-véh, son of Shah-mard. The date of Marzapan’s copy may be approximately fixed by observing that his father’s first cousin wrote a copy of AV. and Gf., mentioned in K2o0, in the year 690 of Yasdakard, while his great great granduncle wrote a similar copy, mentioned in MH6, in the P4rst year 618. If this Parsi year be reckoned from the era of the 2cth year of Yazdakard, as seems probable’, these dates give 52 years for three generations; and Mar’zap4n, living one generation later than the writer of A. Y. 690, may perhaps have written his copy of the Dinkavd about A.Y. 707 [A.D. 1338]; so that there was probably another copyist, intermediate between him and M4h-vinddad-i Naremahan, of whom no record has been preserved. Shatré-ayar concludes his colophon by quoting a long passage from the first colophon, as already stated in p. xxxiv, n.1, and by acknowledging his obligations to three other persons whom he names. This colophon is the last that now remains attached to the manuscript B, but it was formerly followed 1 Observe the use of the phrase ‘ Parsi year’ in the third colophon and in the manuscript K (see p. xxxviii). c2 XXXVI PAHLAVI TEXTS. . by a third colophon, written by the actual writer of B, and preserved in copies transcribed from B since its arrival in India.
2xxxviii). c2 XXXVI PAHLAVI TEXTS. . by a third colophon, written by the actual writer of B, and preserved in copies transcribed from B since its arrival in India. This third colophon was written by M4h-vindad, son of Va4hram, son of Erdishir of TOrkabad, who completed his copy, from that of Shatré-ay4r, on the day Avan of the month Khirdad in the Parst year 1009 after the 20th year of Yazdakard [21st December, 1659, N.S.]. This copy, which constitutes the manuscript B, was afterwards approved by Vahr4m, soz of M&h-vindad, son of Ristém, son of Andshak-raban, soz of Rdstim of Tark4b4d, who blesses the writer of the second colophon, on the day Tistar of the month Vohdman in the year 1038 of Yazdakard [18th August, 1669, N. S.]. It was also finally seen and approved by Rastdm, soz of GistAsp, son of Erdishir, who likewise blesses the writer of the second colophon ; and the appfoximate date of this approval may be guessed from the fact that Rdst4m GistAsp is known to have copied one manuscript in A.D. 1706, and another in 1741. Regarding this manuscript B, written in 1659, it appears from Mulla Firdz’s Avigéh Din (Bombay, 1830) that Mulla Bahman, son of Mulla Behram, a Parsi priest of Yazd, brought this manuscript of the Dinkavd from Iran to Surat in 1783, and, having shown it to Aspandiarji Ratanji-shah, he lent it to Kausji Rustamji, then Dastdr of Surat, and allowed him to have it copied. Mulla Bahman had great difficulty in obtaining the return of his manuscript, and when it was returned many folios were missing. It was after this loss of folios that Aspandiarji had several other copies transcribed from the defective manuscript, to be sent to various persons, and all these copies were therefore equally defective. This manuscript B, thus defective, afterwards came into the possession of Mulla Firdz, who was high-priest of the Kadmi Parsis in Bombay; and, after his death in 1830, it descended to his successor. In 1875 it belonged to Dastir Sohr4bji Rustamji, high-priest of the Kadmis, through whose courtesy, and that of Dastir Dr. Jamaspji Minochiharji, it was then lent to me long enough to INTRODUCTION. XXXVii enable me to copy and collate two-thirds of Dk. III and _ to collate Dk. IV-IX; and Dastdr Jam4spji, afterwards, kindly supplied me with a copy of the remainder of Dk. III.
3Jamaspji Minochiharji, it was then lent to me long enough to INTRODUCTION. XXXVii enable me to copy and collate two-thirds of Dk. III and _ to collate Dk. IV-IX; and Dastdr Jam4spji, afterwards, kindly supplied me with a copy of the remainder of Dk. III. The manuscript has been bound in its defective state, and contains 322 folios, originally fourteen inches high and ten inches wide, written 20 to 22 lines to the page. When complete it appears to have consisted of 392 folios, all numbered in Persian words, but with several blunders, including one of fifty folios, so that the last folio was really numbered 442. Of the 70 folios not bound with the rest of the manuscript, fourteen were lying loose in the volume ; forty-three belonged to Dastir Rustamji Kaikobddji of Nauséri, with a copy of which I was kindly supplied by Dastdr Dr. Peshotanji Behramji of Bombay, who also enabled me to collate it with the original folios; and seven folios were lent to me by Dastdir Dr. Hoshangji Jam4spji of Poona, for the purpose of copying. The remaining six folios have not been discovered ; they comprise the first folio of the manuscript, containing the commencement of Dk. III, which was probably lost before the manuscript arrived in India; also one folio in Dk. VII, two in Dk. IX (see pp. 262, 270 of this volume), and the last two folios of the manuscript, containing the third colophon and final approvals (see p. xxxvi). I am likewise much indebted to the kindness of Professor Kielhorn, who gave me a modern copy of Dk. IY-IX (with the text in its defective state) which had been prepared at Poona, so that it was only necessary to collate this copy with the original text of the manuscript B. With the aid of all this liberal assistance I was enabled to obtain the whole text of the Dinkard, known to exist, in the course of a few months ; that it has since taken as much as sixteen years to find opportunities for translating and publishing rather more than one-fourth of its contents, will not surprise any one who is acquainted with the nature of the work that had to be done. The only known manuscript, independent of B, that contains any portion of the Dinkard, is the old codex K XXXVIiii PAHLAVI TEXTS.
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.
1From this point the whole of the rest of this colophon, including the aphorisms, is also found in K. INTRODUCTION. XXXV (This is followed by a long succession of aphorisms, and the colophon winds up with some threats against those who shall misuse the manuscript.) As this colophon mentions only the ‘last portion’ of the Dinkard, and is appended to the text of Dk. III-IX, it is probable that the first portion of the work, Dk. I, II, had already become separated from the rest within 150 years of its revision and completion. And if Mah-vindad did not copy from the original manuscript of Atarp4d, he must certainly have done so from a very early transcript. The second colophon was written by Shatr6-ay4r, son of Erdishir, son of Airtk, son of Rostam, son of Airth, son of KubAd, son of Airan-shah, who completed his copy on the day Atharmazd of the month Spendarmad in the year 865 after the 20th year of Yazdakard [3rd October, 1516], having transcribed it from a copy written by Mar’zap4n, son of Spend-dad, son of Mar’zap4n, son of ‘Mitrd-ép4n, son of Spend-dad, son of Mitré-dp4n, son of Mar’zap4n, son of Dahisn-atyyar, son of Rég-véh, son of Shah-mard. The date of Marzapan’s copy may be approximately fixed by observing that his father’s first cousin wrote a copy of AV. and Gf., mentioned in K2o0, in the year 690 of Yasdakard, while his great great granduncle wrote a similar copy, mentioned in MH6, in the P4rst year 618. If this Parsi year be reckoned from the era of the 2cth year of Yazdakard, as seems probable’, these dates give 52 years for three generations; and Mar’zap4n, living one generation later than the writer of A. Y. 690, may perhaps have written his copy of the Dinkavd about A.Y. 707 [A.D. 1338]; so that there was probably another copyist, intermediate between him and M4h-vinddad-i Naremahan, of whom no record has been preserved. Shatré-ayar concludes his colophon by quoting a long passage from the first colophon, as already stated in p. xxxiv, n.1, and by acknowledging his obligations to three other persons whom he names. This colophon is the last that now remains attached to the manuscript B, but it was formerly followed 1 Observe the use of the phrase ‘ Parsi year’ in the third colophon and in the manuscript K (see p. xxxviii). c2 XXXVI PAHLAVI TEXTS. . by a third colophon, written by the actual writer of B, and preserved in copies transcribed from B since its arrival in India.
2xxxviii). c2 XXXVI PAHLAVI TEXTS. . by a third colophon, written by the actual writer of B, and preserved in copies transcribed from B since its arrival in India. This third colophon was written by M4h-vindad, son of Va4hram, son of Erdishir of TOrkabad, who completed his copy, from that of Shatré-ay4r, on the day Avan of the month Khirdad in the Parst year 1009 after the 20th year of Yazdakard [21st December, 1659, N.S.]. This copy, which constitutes the manuscript B, was afterwards approved by Vahr4m, soz of M&h-vindad, son of Ristém, son of Andshak-raban, soz of Rdstim of Tark4b4d, who blesses the writer of the second colophon, on the day Tistar of the month Vohdman in the year 1038 of Yazdakard [18th August, 1669, N. S.]. It was also finally seen and approved by Rastdm, soz of GistAsp, son of Erdishir, who likewise blesses the writer of the second colophon ; and the appfoximate date of this approval may be guessed from the fact that Rdst4m GistAsp is known to have copied one manuscript in A.D. 1706, and another in 1741. Regarding this manuscript B, written in 1659, it appears from Mulla Firdz’s Avigéh Din (Bombay, 1830) that Mulla Bahman, son of Mulla Behram, a Parsi priest of Yazd, brought this manuscript of the Dinkavd from Iran to Surat in 1783, and, having shown it to Aspandiarji Ratanji-shah, he lent it to Kausji Rustamji, then Dastdr of Surat, and allowed him to have it copied. Mulla Bahman had great difficulty in obtaining the return of his manuscript, and when it was returned many folios were missing. It was after this loss of folios that Aspandiarji had several other copies transcribed from the defective manuscript, to be sent to various persons, and all these copies were therefore equally defective. This manuscript B, thus defective, afterwards came into the possession of Mulla Firdz, who was high-priest of the Kadmi Parsis in Bombay; and, after his death in 1830, it descended to his successor. In 1875 it belonged to Dastir Sohr4bji Rustamji, high-priest of the Kadmis, through whose courtesy, and that of Dastir Dr. Jamaspji Minochiharji, it was then lent to me long enough to INTRODUCTION. XXXVii enable me to copy and collate two-thirds of Dk. III and _ to collate Dk. IV-IX; and Dastdr Jam4spji, afterwards, kindly supplied me with a copy of the remainder of Dk. III.
3Jamaspji Minochiharji, it was then lent to me long enough to INTRODUCTION. XXXVii enable me to copy and collate two-thirds of Dk. III and _ to collate Dk. IV-IX; and Dastdr Jam4spji, afterwards, kindly supplied me with a copy of the remainder of Dk. III. The manuscript has been bound in its defective state, and contains 322 folios, originally fourteen inches high and ten inches wide, written 20 to 22 lines to the page. When complete it appears to have consisted of 392 folios, all numbered in Persian words, but with several blunders, including one of fifty folios, so that the last folio was really numbered 442. Of the 70 folios not bound with the rest of the manuscript, fourteen were lying loose in the volume ; forty-three belonged to Dastir Rustamji Kaikobddji of Nauséri, with a copy of which I was kindly supplied by Dastdr Dr. Peshotanji Behramji of Bombay, who also enabled me to collate it with the original folios; and seven folios were lent to me by Dastdir Dr. Hoshangji Jam4spji of Poona, for the purpose of copying. The remaining six folios have not been discovered ; they comprise the first folio of the manuscript, containing the commencement of Dk. III, which was probably lost before the manuscript arrived in India; also one folio in Dk. VII, two in Dk. IX (see pp. 262, 270 of this volume), and the last two folios of the manuscript, containing the third colophon and final approvals (see p. xxxvi). I am likewise much indebted to the kindness of Professor Kielhorn, who gave me a modern copy of Dk. IY-IX (with the text in its defective state) which had been prepared at Poona, so that it was only necessary to collate this copy with the original text of the manuscript B. With the aid of all this liberal assistance I was enabled to obtain the whole text of the Dinkard, known to exist, in the course of a few months ; that it has since taken as much as sixteen years to find opportunities for translating and publishing rather more than one-fourth of its contents, will not surprise any one who is acquainted with the nature of the work that had to be done. The only known manuscript, independent of B, that contains any portion of the Dinkard, is the old codex K XXXVIiii PAHLAVI TEXTS.
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.