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.
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. 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
(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. 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 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,
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.
I should here thank a few of my friends for glancing over my Latin verbatim translations as proof-readers thereby saving me from several oversights; but I should say that my object was to explain the subject by word-for-word renderings to be studied by students at the finger’s point, and not to execute a piece of dilettanteism by adhering to terms of the classical period which could not express so fully more modern ideas. I have been somewhat gratified as well as surprised to learn from these gentlemen (who are not experts in Zend) that they not only make out the meaning of these verbatims and paraphrases, but even find them of interest.
One final word as to a more recent conjecture that the Gathas, while being the oldest part of the Avesta, are with the rest of it so modern as the year One*. As all students are aware an opinion practically identical with this had been carefully considered in the shape of a doubt by all Zend-scholars and rejected as untenable. I re- member Professor Roth’s speaking of the reasons which induced him to believe the Gathas to be genuine and therefore remotely ancient; but I believe that I was historically the first person who ever published the oft-investigated query; see S. B. E. XXXI. Introduction, p. xxxvi fig. No one in rude and uncultured Iran in AD. I, or near it, could forge such docu- ments as the Gath&s with all their pulsation of personal life; and that there was actually a King of the name of Vishtaspa and a prophet called Zarathushtra at that late date seems equally incredible.
Our conclusion is that we have no alternative; we must accept the documents as genuine notwithstanding their remarkable character; and we must place them at such a period in history as is indicated by logical conclusions from the facts,
_
‘ea
we!
aCe
Ce
* ie ;
‘. ‘
cree,
Sr ore eas
Re rk eas POA wa et SS
Kigo ee WOE Piipianatrs ht
(
fe reeh * " an
craae a9 beth vsreht >) at rye
1 <
6 ee a a “
A ae = 7
rit Oeste 2 Arse y toes ;
ees ;
sO fe if
Ws kate Cte 2 ite
Fie! ao cee
Wh
a:
Gatha(a) Ahunavaiti(i) (Yasna cap. 28—34).
Introduction.
cgodsrraxy - Lee - bya : epiae = dawg . Cr} MD
fo Tangy - EW EAD . AUD fC» : me & pov )eayrda) nf : Josey
& aye}bspys . grGurge . «e ; beg & jeawrbreee
Transliteration. Yanim mané yanim vaché yanim é(k)yaothnem ashaon6 Zarathustrahe [=°hya]. (b) Fra Amesha Spenta Gathao géurvain®), (c)Nemé ve Gathao ashaoni§! (The letter v often = English w throughout, and w = v.)
Verbatim transl. Beneticium-corroborans [est] cogitatio, beneficium ver- bum, beneficium actio sancti Zarathushtrae. Ad-verbum fi. e. amplius, prorsus] Immortales Benefici Gathas faciant-ut-excipiant (vel G. excipiant)|. Laus vobis, Gathae sanctae!
Pahl. text transliterated. Yin minishnd, va! yan gdbishnd, va yan kunishnd?* yehevind i* aharibé Zaratishté. [Minishnd, va? gdbishné, vas Kinishnd i+ frarimé rai‘, pavan nadikih arjanik yehevaind]. ° (b) Fraz Ameshéspendand Gasané> vakhdind, {aighshand® pavan sti fraz dashté]. (c) Niyayishné avd lekim, Gasind i aharabd!
* DJ. om. * D. ins. gl as P. * DJ. ins. * D. om. * DJ.-omits kard va, D. om. kard. *so DJ. and D.; Sp. and M.* mim; see the Pers. *Mf. ins. i, and then as D. and P.
Pahl. transl. A blessing was the thought, and a blessing was the word, and a blessing was the deed of the holy Zaratisht. [On account of pious thoughts, words, and deeds he was deserving of happiness]. (b) The
-Ameshdspends took forth the Gathas, [that is, held them forth in the world]. (c) Praise to you, ye sacred Gathas! ey.
Ner.’s sansk. text. translit. Cobhanamanajh]* cobhanavacha[h/}?, karma* babhiva punyatma Jarathugtrafhj. [Manasah vachasah
swynle da) : Deeaasl pager» | wergnes 24499 oe v
epee » AED « Aur IQparqogngaysD | cern )rdusey - augSng . 49);
ssu}ob.s0gH9 -
26g»). PAD erpownrguwdyaygs | Russje-coea)dy
Trlit. Ahya yasa nemanha ustdna-zast6 raf(e)dhrahya
Mainyéus* Mazda paourvim [°viyem] spefitahya Ash vispéfig
Vanheus Kbratim Mananhé ya i se
Xxviii. 1. 3
The Anthem called ‘ Ahunavaiti’ (having the ‘Ahuna’ metre, and following the ‘Ahuna’ prayer).
Free transl. A strengthening* blessing* is the thought, a blessing is the word, a blessing is the deed of the holy Zarathushtra. Forth-on* (continu- ously) may the Bounteous Immortals take up (or ‘cause men to take up’) the chants. (c) Praise to you, ye sacred Anthems! sadvyaparatvat cubhanurtipo babhiiva, yady asau evai chakaral., (b) Pra- krishtarh Amaranam Mahattarandm Gathah Sathjagraha, [kila, tab panktya [-tyath*] nidarcayam‘ Asa [sa]}> panktya [-tyam*] nidarganaya®, Karyarh idar babhiiva yady? asau’ vismartum? nasa’ [(?) na tad (tah)] yatobhyahs [(?)yatebh- yah] komala!° yatha sarve ’pi karyanyayah" ye samagrebhyah Avistdarthebh- yah prakatah tan antar gAthash nidargayaih Asa, tabhyah'? pranamah'3 chakre], (c) yat: namo yusimabhyam, he Gathah punyatmanyah! * Anusyara omitted.
* J.3,J.* Omana, C., P. manasa. 2 J.’, J.* °vacha, P., C. “asa. 9J.3, P, karma, but