I would here recall the fact that Haug’s translation of the Pahlavi Yasna xxviii-xxxii, 1, (see the Essays, pp. 338-354,) was largely revised by Dr. West, and it is owing to this fact that this masterly performance has assumed its present shape. One might well enquire how far the learned public is aware of the exceptionally difficult nature of the Pahlavi documents with which Dr. West so ably deals in the Series of the S. B. E. In some respects the decipherment of Pahlavi surpasses in difficulty that of the most ancient Inscriptions in other languages, and our gratitude to this eminent scholar should be proportionate.
Finally, I have to thank those whose generous co-operation has made the appearance of this work (in its present form) possible.
And first among these I have the honour to name Major- General Sir Henry Rawlinson, Bart., &c., to whose interest I owe it that the Secretary of State for India in Council has subventioned me with a considerable sum.
Not less liberal has been the action of the trustees of the Parsi Punchayet Translation Fund of Bombay, who have assisted me with a subscription to the amount of nine hundred and twenty-five rupees (about),
Other friends who have taken copies, thereby enabling me
partially to meet the expenses involved, are gratefully mentioned in
my subscription list.
L. H. M.
Oxrorp, January, 1891.
P.S.—I am happy to add that Destoor Darab Peshotan Sanjana has, at my suggestion, offered the eM valuable MS. mentioned above to the Bodleian Library, and that it has been thankfully accepted.
che Se TA Ke afl
“Gena mee ieP er PP Bis} yn ak
pene npqeqle dea bie Bs, ‘ 7
OFT NG HPAI) LS 5 LES: ee
~ pre e gus ioe Sef Cafe perro ORIOLE 222
Bree Rigen Perey ew Pai lai Yer :
| Neuen 2h as Pt Baeeke kee ‘
bleep 218 Uae ee ee) noma pints .
Supplementary Introduction.
As I have stated in the preface, the first part of this book has been circulating among specialists for several years, although it has « Wever heretofore been offered for sale. ‘ _ The reason for this has also been long known (see my remarks in the Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenlindischen Gesellschaft 42. Band { S. 439, 1888). The book was never finished, one eighth part of it | standing in type, while the former portions had been so long printed: , that they had already become somewhat antiquated, and the second part consisting of the Commentary was entirely in manuscript, and in a different shape.
The completion of the work was rendered for the time impossible by my accepting the invitation of Professor Max Miiller as strongly urged by Professor Darmesteter, to undertake the translation of the Yasna, Visparad, Afrinagain, and Gahs in the XXXIst vol. of the Sacred Books of the Hast (see the London Athenaetim of April 12th, 1884). i But this interruption is really only apparent. The aon con- | tained in the XXXIst vol. of the S. B. E. pp. i—xlvii, as well as the | extensive summaries at the head of each chapter in that work, and _the comments there presented throughout were, and are, an integral c\part of this same exposition. If they had not been presented there, hey would have been presented here. This book contains, as is stated jon the title-page, the literary apparatus and argument to the other. /The entire discussion in that one is supposed to be under the eye of | the reader examining this, and this commentary especially is by no |= offered as an argument aside from the other.
What is said of S. B. E. XXXI, is naturally said, and with more emphasis, of the first volume of this work containing the Zend, Pahlayi, MGpahicrié and Persian texts with translations in its relation io this
oo
commentary, and this commentary is published at present chiefly for. the benefit of those scholars in Europe and in America who have for so long a time been using that volume. .
I state this the more distinctly on account of the perhaps painful succinetness and curtailment here practised. The commentary is pre- sented with its present great economy in the use of words from the necessity to restrict the work to practicable limits. Had I indulged in fully rounded explanations at every point, the book would have reached | a bulk one eighth or one quarter greater than its present dimensions. Nevertheless this present condensed treatment has only been hazarded in view of the fulness and simplicity of the other parts; aside from them the cost of extension would not have been considered.
In the first part of this work the Gathic text is presented with an amplitude for which as to some particulars I must apologize; see below:
For variations in the MSS. of the Gatha I refer to the rich col- lection of Geldner, who has supplemented Westergaard’s neglect in this respect, and surpassed Spiegel’s fulness, Prof. v. Spiegel having refrained from publishing a large mass of variations which he had collected under the mistaken impression that they would be superfluous.
I have two MSS. of considerable importance which Geldner has not collated, although I formerly had the impression that one of them was the same that he describes as J.4, but the learned possessor, Dr. Destoor Jamaspji Minocheherji, has corrected my misapprehension as. to this particular, not however before I had cited it several times as ' the supposed J.* (see on p. 521 where I commence the use of the ab- breviation J.*). My mistake was caused by the impression that Pro- fessor Geldner had mentioned all the MSS. in the possession of the Destoor in his edition. I give the variations in the Gathiec text of this MS. occasionally where they seem called for, but, as the reader can readily understand, I do not desire to note every item of mechanical variation in the Zend text here, although a still fuller report of the variations of MSS. than has been given elsewhere would be at times desirable.
I use Geldner’s abbreviations to designate the several Zend MSS., except Pi4., adding J.* for the Yasna MS. not yet collated by him. That is to say I use these abbreviations when citing the Zend texts; as to the texts of the Pahlavi translation see below.. .
In the translation of the Gatha texts I have used a simple Latin
after the example of Haug, a word for word translation into English being out of the question.
I have pursued the policy of alternative translation in these dif- ficult hymns, giving what was at the time of printing my _ preferred view in the verbatim, but sometimes adding alternative elements in the free metrical, and not hesitating to supersede both as well, as that in §. B. E. XXXI, by later and preferred views in the Commentary.
Beside these I cite various published and unpublished opinions which have circulated among scholars, taking especial care not to hold any individual, much less any one eminent individual, at all responsible for reported views which may nevertheless seem somewhat coloured after his. It is to be hoped that I have suggested nearly every possible view of the mass of difficulties which meet us in the Gathas, and many scholars will recognize some which have long been familiar, while others are entirely new. I have not cited the names of authors often, as opinions change frequently, and some scholars do not care to father discarded views.
The Pahl. trir. is not printed in its original characters, which would have been an exceptionally easy but expensive task. It is however edited with the collation of all the known MSS. and deciphered in Roman characters, which last together with its translation might be considered the crux of Zend philology.
In those parts of the work where I do not mention Spiegel’s readings I take it for granted that his text is under the reader's eye. It is practically that of the Copenhagen MS. numbered five, the only MS. accessible to occidental scholars at the time of Spiegel’s printing in 1858. The letters’ DJ. recall Destoor (Dastfir) Jamaspji’s MSS., see elsewhere. D. stands for the MS. of Darab Destoor Peshotan Sanjana. M.1, or M., stands for the Munich MS. mentioned elsewhere.
Neryosangh has been edited with the collation of five MSS. which comprise all those of most importance. The abbreviations are Jere ee for Destoor Jamaspji’s MSS., C. for that of Copenhagen, no. VI of Westergaard’s Catalogue transcribed by Professor v. Spiegel in 1845-46, and P. for that of Codex fonds d’Ang. nr. 11 collated by Dr. Spiegel with his transcription in 184—(?). Some variations of another but in- ferior Paris MS. may be gathered from the fragments of Neryosangh’s Sanskrit text published by Haug in his commentary. These of course © I do not republish. .
In editing the Parsi-persian text I have again refrained from the easy but expensive device of printing the original characters, which would have entirely spared me the often harassing duty of deciding on the short vowels in a codex badly written in a dialect composed of Pahlavi, Parsi, Persian and Arabic.
I have noted the variations in the Pahlavi text of this Parsi - per- sian translation from my texts in the reprinted portions, and from Spiegel’s text (K.°) in the older parts; [| ] marks omissions, [= —] marks insertions, thus [mini = madénad]. The first is the Parsi-pers. translation, the second is the Pahlavi text of the MS. in italies.
It is to be noticed that the Pahlavi text cited in the Talons of the Parsi-persian MS. stands for the most part in the traditional trans- literation, and it would have been a fortunate circumstance had I been able to present more extensive portions of this old-fashioned transliter- ation, as scholars are too liable to lose sight of it, and a knowledge of it is quite important at times.
I must now apologize for imperfections, or explain what may seem such. The first feature which I mention is one which I have heartily to regret, and that is the transliteration of the Zend text.
My reasons for this mistaken step were the following. When I first began to print, now about ten years ago, I was much disturbed at what seemed the certainty of ineurring very considerable expense with no return. As my means were not large, I could only rely on the friendly help of many gentlemen in whom I could never hope to , awaken more than a superficial interest in my subject. In my effort. to render the aspect of my pages less forbidding to those among such friends who might casually occupy themselves with the subject, I printed the Roman equivalents to the Zend characters immediately beneath them.
It is perhaps true that what I did has attained its purpose to Some extent, and that many scholarly men of other specialties in taking up my proof-sheets have felt led on by the sight of familiar letters, and I may also owe some important subscriptions indirectly to this otherwise so useless feature, but none the less at present I regret it.
More objectionable however are various dubious uses, which are, or were, some of them, unfortunately common to all Zendists.
The most serious of these is the use of the German w = English:
» in a work otherwise written in English for Zend yg and again the
use of German ¢ (properly /) for a letter which is for the most part our English w (half vowel). Avesta ») ought never to have been written
» in Germany, nor doI think that Avesta us = English » should have been transcribed by me as w while otherwise using the English language, but it must be remembered that this work was written mainly in Ger- many, and that it has been most used by German scholars; moreover I followed Haug’s example, who wrote thwé in_ his English Essays. Zendists have been too careless in these littler matters. Read English » everywhere for this really erroneous German w.
Then again formerly no distinction was noticed between yw and M,
as many MSS. use both for the same letter, and so at the time when I was first committed to by, as equalling hv (>) and /. Later it was noticed by Sallemann that bs corresponded more to # (some think to “h(?)), while yw oftener stood for dv or alone. I signify this distinction now at every occurrence of the letter in the notes. Then ro and were at first, and have been since my first printing represented by others by the same letter, ¢. It is of course better to distinguish between yo and by ¢ and ¢, or by some similar device. In the Commentary I write ¢, adding the distinction, thus 2 (e), and é (@), and this notwithstanding the unsightliness.