No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 March 2011
Zartūšt asked of Aūharmazd thus: O Aūharmazd, Spirit (good) and bountiful, Creator of the bodily worlds, holy, …. [this (is: hanā=aē for aēγ, that is to say, the meaning is this), that it is Aūharmazd (who is) the holy Creator, not merely ‘ the bodily worlds’ which are holy; the rest is for (ordinary) praise. Some (text) says (i.e. reads) ‘ dātār, aharūv′’ (so putting the aharūv′' of the text in unmistakeable position as applying to Aūharmazd)].
page 295 note 2 In order to include a gloss omitted in the section 1–11, above referred to, I cite 1–5 from the “ Mélanges Kern,” 1903, p. 145.
page 295 note 3 Referring to other MSS. So it is far better to understand the frequent expression ‘ there is who says.’
page 295 note 4 This gloss, from our old MSS. in Oxford, DJ. or J2, was omitted both in text and translation from the work already cited.
page 295 note 5 This section in the original Yasna is of special importance, as it contains an attempted explanation of the Avesta in the Avesta itself; and also because the Ahunavairya prayer (though only a post-Gāthic piece in the metre of the Ahunavaiti Gāθa) has, owing to its terms (see the translations), been supposed to have some analogy with the Logos of St. John. This supposition was, however, critically groundless. The words ‘ Ahuna-Vairya’ had become abbreviated into Hono-ver ; and this has later been seriously mentioned, even by great authorities up to the present date, as bearing upon the question of the Introduction to the Fourth Gospel, and other Semitic features. The square brackets are the glosses, and the parenthetical curves contain my explanations.
page 296 note 1 Of course an error corrected by me in 1892–94; see Gāθas at Y. 28, 5, pp. 8 and 398.
page 296 note 2 This stands for universal regularity of conduct.
page 296 note 3 For the translations of 5–11, which are important, see the “ Mélanges Kern,” Leide, 1903, pp. 146–147.
page 296 note 4 See the “ Mélanges Kern,” pp. 145–146.
page 297 note 1 See the words ‘ yaθā ahū … Here begins the Commentary proper upon the Ahuna Vairya.
page 297 note 2 See the word ratuš in ‘ yaθā ahū ratuŝ …’
page 297 note 3 Notice min = ‘ of’ used to express the gen. which is generally expressed by either ‘ position’ or by ‘ Ī. ’
page 297 note 4 The type of quadrupeds representing all of them.
page 298 note 1 Recall the Angel of the Apocalypse whose position was in the Sun.
page 298 note 2 Aside from the original we should of course read ‘ Forth I said’; see Nēr. But the gloss in 22 should control what precedes, we not forgetting that the terms of such translations should not hinder a rational exegesis so long as it is at all possible. Otherwise we should merely report; ‘ Forth with my bountifulness and in the interests of the spiritual life, I said.’ We might indeed regard the gloss in 22 ‘ av' Z. gūft ’ as offering an alternative and so translate. Undoubtedly ‘ I said’ is more natural for ‘ am gūft’ (so Nēr.) than ‘ to me he said’; but then ‘to me’ or ‘my’ looks better for ‘ li ’ than Nēr.'s aham; i.e. in view of the original ‘ me.’ So ‘ am tūvan gūftan’ more naturally equals ‘ it is possible to me to tell’ than ‘ it is possible to tell to me.’ Ner.'s blunder in rendering ‘ me’ induces an inconsistency only to be relieved by force.
page 298 note 3 Lit. ‘spirituality’; ‘the interests of Heaven.’
page 298 note 4 See ṣyaoθnōtāitya ṣyaθnanãm.
page 298 note 5 These forms in -ãñd and -yēn are evidently indefinite, and afford us a good example of the reason of their use as imperative 2nd singulars; ‘ they should do ’ is ‘ one should do,’ and then ‘ do thou.’
page 298 note 6 See Anhēuš Mazdāi.
page 298 note 1 One naturally supposes from this word ‘ ever’ that reference is made to the whole Ahunaver and to all possible inspired utterances. Otherwise the thoughts of the composer seem to rest on the word ṣyaθnanãm (see ‘ pavan kartūm’) as the most efficient expression in the prayer. Possibly one idea occurred to one author and the other to a later reviser.
page 299 note 2 So if reading ‘ min’; see ashātčīt.
page 299 note 3 It is not at all necessary to suppose that a dull superstition is here expressed. The Ahunaver, if thoroughly learned and acted upon, would of course lead the soul toward Heaven.
page 300 note 1 aē denã = lit. ‘ this that.’ See where ‘ actions’ are insisted upon.
page 300 note 2 See ‘mazdãm manas.’ The reader should hear in mind throughout that the Pahlavi translations here as elsewhere are seldom strictly correct as regards the ultimate points of the syntax. Their great value consists in evidence as to presence of textual terms and of their precise meaning. See the critical translation in SBE. xxxi at the places, pp. 259–266.
page 300 note 3 This looks as if ‘ the thought of Aūharmazd’ was regarded as being shared by his faithful worshipper. Or meaning ‘ thought with regard to A.’
page 300 note 4 See Gāθas at Y. 28, 11, etc.
page 300 note 5 Here feeling the influence of χšaθrem ča.
page 300 note 6 The Gāθic lore here referred to is the Ahuna-vairya, which is regarded as its epitome, of course erroneously.
page 301 note 1 The Gāθic lore here referred to is the Ahuna-vairya, which is regarded as its epitome, of course erroneously.
page 301 note 2 There is no hujītīš = ‘amenities’ in the Ahunaver. The force of vaṅhēuš = ‘ of the good’ may have been felt; ao influencing the idea of ‘ government’ as ‘ good-government,’ thus hearing on the idea of amenity.
page 301 note 3 So I think better as more realistic (see the word ‘ actions’) below ; but Nēr. understood perhaps something like ‘explanation,’ ‘who performs a thing which is more upright with a demonstration.’ So ; and not perhaps meaning a physical gesture; see also the original. (Or did Nēr. mean ‘ provide with a sign’ ?)
page 302 note 1 This word ‘summing up’ is a mistake, owing to the outward shapes of ‘ kārayẹiti’ which suggested ‘ angartāgīh’; hut it is still acceptahle enough as a free translation.
page 302 note 2 Recognises His act of creation.
page 303 note 1 Referring to the original noble passages of the Avesta ; see Gāθas, xxxiv, 5r pp. 136, 501, and liii, 9, pp. 390, 619, etc.
page 303 note 2 Zanešn' is not strictly correct for akō.
page 303 note 3 The interdict was of course also spoken ‘ among’ the wicked.
page 303 note 4 See Gāθas, p. 220 and p. 540.
page 304 note 1 Literally; ‘ for he who takes ….’
page 304 note 2 Nēr. takes it for granted that ‘upon this thing’ means upon the ‘ Dēn ’ (naturally enough).
page 305 note 1 Possibly ‘ who recited the Office’; this, notwithstanding the gloss, which may be always later. Nēr. has, however, gurupāṭ‘ite, ‘ made to read by the Guru.’ In the gloss gurusaṁyukte, ‘united,’ that is ‘in accredited relation’ with the Guru.’
page 305 note 1 This clearly shows that Raγa had exceptional claims to be associated with Zaraθuštra, if only traditionally, as his birthplace. Each Province evidently had a Fifth supreme Spiritual Officer called the ‘Zaraθuštra.’ But in Raγa some traditional religious (or family) descendant of the great Prophet evidently resided. So that a fifth on whom the title had been bestowed by appointment was not needed in Raγa as in the other Provinces.
page 306 note 3 This expression ‘ track’ looks as if the translator's thoughts were here turning toward the Other World. Compare the expressions ‘ star-track,’ ‘ moontrack,’ etc., in the Ardā-Ī-Vīrāf.
page 306 note 3 See ‘ manaṅhō' again.
page 306 note 4 The first point after the Introduction being vaṅhēuš dazdā manaṅho; see the expression manas paoiryō (sic), referring again to the prior position of the word manaṅhō in the formula.
page 307 note 1 Generally speaking, the concrete, i.e. ‘ the man of true speech,’ is to be preferred, but here the ‘ good speech’ is best.
page 307 note 2 Hardly ‘ as our share’ reading χelkūn, for av' kevan'; Nēr. does not render.
page 307 note 3 ‘ Aša indeed as the first’ may allude to the ‘ Ašem Vohu’ formula in the mind of the Commentator; but see Ashātčīt as the first Ameša mentioned in the Ahuna.
page 307 note 4 The word hūvaršt (see ṣyaoθnanãm again) may also have recalled the ‘ ašem vohū vahištem’ (hū = vohū).
page 307 note 5 This curious error arose from the resemblance of -čvãs to vãs = vančce = ‘ to desire.’ Nēr. follows it.
page 307 note 6 This gloss seems intended to remove any ambiguity from the word kāmakīh, which might possibly be thought to refer to ‘ caprice’ (?).
page 307 note 7 Having in mind aēša-χšθrem of Y. 29, 9, as to which see Gāθas at the place.
page 308 note 1 Or ‘ how much of it ’ ; see Nēr.'s ‘ kiyat.’
page 308 note 2 It would be still better to read the origiual āvasō, and note avasō = ‘ with power in accordance with his desire.’ ‘Without undue or wanton desire ’ would be a poor rendering even for the a-priv. form.
page 308 note 3 A form of vaš ‘ to increase’ being again seen in vahištō.
page 308 note 4 Literally ‘ this’ (the meaning is ‘ this’).