Art. V.—Contributions to the Knowledge of Parsee Literature.

Ed. Sachau

doi:10.1017/S0035869X00015963

Art. V.—Contributions to the Knowledge of Parsee Literature.

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 March 2011

Ed. Sachau

Article contents

Extract
References

Get access

Rights & Permissions

Extract

On comparing with one another the two most ancient periods of development of the Iranian mind, in language as well as in literature,—that primitive one, whose witness is the Avesta, with the period of renaissance under Sasanian rule,— we find at once this striking difference, that the former is purely national and Iranian, almost wholly free from any foreign influence, whilst the latter, as it appears in the Pahlavi translations and the inscriptions of the Sasanian kings, is overwhelmed by foreign, Semitic, or more accurately speaking, Aramæan elements. The difficulties in explaining the pure Persian substratum of the language of this latter period, for even here not every problem has yet been solved, are by no means to be compared with those offered by the Semitic forms and words, which appear to the Indo-german linguist utterly unknown, to the Semitic scholar more than strange. Though a great quantity of highly valuable material has already been collected and digested by European scholars, still I do not think it sufficient to enable us to decide in a satisfactory manner the following questions:—During what time did that close intercourse between the Iranian and Semitic races take place, the existence of which we are compelled to assume as the source of the Semitic portion of the Pahlavi language? Of what kind was this intercourse? And with which of the Aramæan nations in particular? The same questions demand an answer, in order to explain the numerous Iranian words which occur in the literature of the Babylonian Jews, in Syriac, in the Koran, and the most ancient Arabic poems.

Type: Original Communications
Information: Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society , Volume 4 , Issue 1 , January 1869 , pp. 229 - 283

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0035869X00015963 [Opens in a new window]
Copyright: Copyright © The Royal Asiatic Society 1869

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

^{page 230 note 1} Thomas, Bishop of Marga (beginning of the ninth century) gives in his (“History of Abbats”) a short report of Elias, Bishop of Mûḳân, who preached Christianity in the country of the barbarians “adjacent to the Dailamites.” His report, though decidedly not free from confusion, is of some interest. The god of their ancestors was called “created by God,” or “by the Yazata”); sacred to him there was a holy tree, growing in a valley, which the natives showed to Bishop Elias from the top of a mountain. Its name he calls “Âderâ” (with the Syriac termination “the fire”) “the head (lord) of the wood.” Elias proceeded to fell it (like Bonifacius felling Wodan's oak) “and the rest of the twigs around it, which they also called ‘sons of Yazd,’ the ‘little ones,’ he hewed and cut away.” Possibly this can be combined with one of the two trees Gaokerena and Vistukhma, both growing in the sea Vourukasha, and with the statement of Bundehesh, chap. 27, that every flower (!) is sacred to a Yazata. Cf. Assemani, Bibliotheca Orientalis, tom. 3.1, pp. 492–494.

^{page 230 note 2} Migne, Patrologiae Cursus completus, series graeca, tom. 42, p. 48.

^{page 232 note 1} The compositions of Farhâd, the most ancient Syriac church-father, are published in an excellent edition by Dr. W. Wright, London, 1869, Williams & Norgate; besides, the editor is about to make them more generally accessible by an English translation.

^{page 234 note 1} One of the chief râwîs is , to whom the first part of Z. and P. 8 is ascribed; others are

^{page 234 note 2} This translation (by J. A. Pope, London, 1816,) has become so rare, that neither the British Museum, nor the Library of the Roy. As. Soc. possess a copy of it.

^{page 235 note 1} This statement is confirmed by Wilson, the Parsee religion, p. 557, note 5.

^{page 236 note 1} For the purpose of comparison, I use only those extracts that are accessible to everybody in the careful edition of Spiegel (Gramatik der Parsisprache, Leipzig, 1851, pp. 128–155). The MS. of the Library of the India Office was not at my disposal, when I wrote this.

^{page 236 note 2} MS. .

^{page 238 note 1} MS. .

^{page 242 note 1} MS.

^{page 242 note 2} Cf. Pârsî râinidârî i ôgãmaãn, Neriosangh “pravṛttikâritâ yâ samaânâm.” Spiegel, P. 128, 11.

^{page 242 note 1} instead of the usual

^{page 242 note 2}

^{page 242 note 3}

^{page 242 note 4} = var i jam kard.

^{page 243 note 1} MS.

^{page 243 note 2} MS.

^{page 243 note 3} The meaning of is like that of Pahlavi

^{page 244 note 1} MS.

^{page 244 note 2} MS.

^{page 245 note 1} MS.

^{page 246 note 1} Cf. v. 40, 41.

^{page 246 note 2} MS.

^{page 246 note 3}

^{page 246 note 4} MS.

^{page 246 note 5} , = Paul. “liberalitas.” Cf I. v. 71.

^{page 246 note 6} See , v. 17.

^{page 247 note 1} Translation of “Fravash i ashôãn.” Cf. v. 42.

^{page 247 note 2} Ms.

^{page 247 note 3} Cf. Pahl. and

^{page 247 note 4} Ms.

^{page 247 note 5} Ms.

^{page 247 note 6} Ms. is the zand hikhra, Pahlavi (Spiegel, die traditionelle Literature der Parsen, Wien, 1860, p. 153, 1, 9).

^{page 247 note 7} Ms.

^{page 247 note 8} vourukasha.

^{page 248 note 1} translation of Zaothra, Zôr.

^{page 248 note 2} Ms.

^{page 250 note 1} Verse 32 is omitted, as the text is corrupt.

^{page 251 note 1} So Neriosangh “pitrbhrâtaran;” 'Êdal b. Dârâb in the “Farhangi Shâhnâma,” (MS. of the British Museum Add. 24413 f. 45 b. 2), “paternal and maternal grandfather.”,

^{page 254 note 1} Verse 38 is omitted as the text is corrupt.

^{page 255 note 1} Zoroastrische Indian, ed. Spiegel, , Berlin, 1863Google Scholar; Spiegel, Ayesta ubersetzt iii. p. lii. ff.

^{page 259 note 1} Metr.

^{page 261 note 1} MS. above it

^{page 262 note 1} MS.

^{page 266 note 1} Justi has dropped vispê between ashahê and anyaêhām; the Pahlavi translation is accurately this:

^{page 266 note 2} Instead of the other translation has .

^{page 267 note 1} The same family is mentioned in the colophon of Z. and P. 17 (a copy of the Yasna with the Sanscrit translation) dated 925 = 1557, and of Z. and P. 2 (dat. 1129 = 1761; pag. 703 ) By the uniform reading of the MSS., Dr. Justi's conjecture (Bundeh. page xix.) is excluded.

^{page 267 note 2} Both and I am inclined to consider as careless and false readings of (transliterated paraj peṭ in Z. and P. 8, last folio). Justi (Bundehesch, p.xix. 1. 12) prints twice , where both MSS. have

^{page 267 note 3} Leg.

^{page 267 note 4} In this place Indicative and Optative are used promiscuously, and and etc.

^{page 268 note 1} Compare Z. and P. 2, p. 703—

^{page 268 note 2} So translated on folio 201.

^{page 269 note 1} This phrase, which occurs in the colophon of almost every Parsee MS., hag originated from the Greek; it is developed, as usual, through the medium of the Syriac, , out of the κα of ναγιγνὡσκοντɛς ɛὕχɛσθ μαι κ.τ.λ which frequently occura in Greek MSS.

^{page 269 note 2} See Spiegel's translation of the Avastâ, ii. p. 1xxix.

^{page 271 note 1} It may be noticed here, that in Sanscrit, as written by Pársees, the is usually changed into sh: hûsht mînôishirad . As a curiosity of some interest, I give the Sanscrit colophon of Z. and P. 19 (a copy of the Mînôikhirad with Neriosangh's translation), a specimen of many of the kind.

“In the Samvat-year 1577, in the month Kârtika, on the 8th day, in the bright half, in the period of Srî Nâga; in the Pârsee-samvat 850 of Shâh Yazdagird Shahryâr, on the day Rashn, in the month Bahman; this book, Mînôikhirad, was written by Mihrbân b. Mahyâr, a native of Padampūr, and ordered to be written ( ) by Bahrâm b. Pâlha὇. If anybody reads or increases (?) or translates this, may in this affair my writing be pleasant (to him.). Well thinking, speaking and acting!” This was probably translated from Pahlavi, as corresponds to the word-separating stroke in Pahlavi ; of the I cannot give any account.

^{page 272 note 1} For this singular mistake in rendering û by î I cannot account. I have to add, that also in the transcription of Pahlavi, û is frequently expressed by t for instance, in the Pahlavi-Zand-Persian Glossary, Add. 22379 and 22378 (both by the same hand), etc.

^{page 276 note 1} The same phrase ocpurs in the Pahlavî colophon edited by Justi, Dr. (Bundehesch, pag. xix)Google Scholar.

^{page 282 note 1} By the way it may be mentioned, that Z. and P. 15 (India Office Library), which bears the title of Shikand Gumsânî, is a Patet in Pahlavî.

Article contents

Art. V.—Contributions to the Knowledge of Parsee Literature.

Extract

Access options

References

Save article to Kindle

Save article to Dropbox

Save article to Google Drive

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests