Text of Confucianism Part 02

SR No.: 007676
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: James Legge
Publisher: Oxford
Publication Year: 1882
Total Pages: 2405
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 43 MB

Page 966

INTRODUCTION.
xvii
and soul' (see Zs. XI, 10, note), some copy of these 'sayings' was written by Gopatshah Rüstəm Bandar Malka-mardan in the land of Kirmån. This Gopatshah was evidently a brother of Váhrôm, the grandfather of the Marzapan who wrote the colophon found in BK and supposed to have been copied from K35 (see pp. xv, xvi). If, therefore, this colophon in TK has not been copied from some older MS., it would indicate that TK is two generations older than K35.
A recent copy of TK exists in the library of the highpriest of the Parsis in Bombay, to whom I am indebted for the information that its text does not differ from that of K35, at the two points (Dd. XCIII, 17 and Ep. III, 11) where some omission of text may be suspected.
The manuscripts of the second class appear to be all descended from an old, undated codex brought to Bombay from Persia about sixty-five years ago !, and recently in the library of Mr. Dhanjibhai Frâmji Patel of Bombay. From what is stated, concerning the contents of this codex, it appears to commence with about three-fourths of the miscellaneous religious writings, found at the beginning of BK; and these are followed by the altered text of the Dadistân-î Dînîk, as appears from the copies described below, but how the codex concludes is not stated. It may, however, be supposed that it contains as much of the third series of writings as is found in the manuscript J, a copy of this codex which ends in Ep. II, vi, 2.
This manuscript J belongs to the library of Dastar Jåmåspji Minochiharji in Bombay; it commenced originally at the same point as the codex just described, and, so far as it has been examined, it contains the same altered text of the Dadistân-î Dînîk. There is, therefore little doubt that it was originally copied from that codex, but a considerable
· There is some doubt about this period. Dastar Peshotanji mentions thirty or forty years, but in the MS. J, which appears to have been copied chiefly from this codex in Bombay, the date noted by the copyist of the older part of that MS. is the day Rashn of the month Khurdad, A.Y. 1188' (21st December 1818, according to the calendar of the Indian Parsis), showing that the codex must bave been at least sixty-four years in Bombay.
[18]
Digitized by Google