X
critical explanation of any of them in any of their parts (since Spiegel). I now desire to make the results of those exertions as accessible to the general public as may be. One very singular and most delicate duty meets me, just here. No one indeed but a very ill-informed person would expect any two independent translators to agree in toto in their rendering of the Gâthas, or of any other ancient compositions[1] of a difficult nature; but there is one modern translation which differs from all others by such marked peculiarities that it is quite necessary to pause for a moment upon it. It is none other than the French translation of the Gâthas in the work of my own colleague, the late Professor James Darmesteter. I will first premise what I have to say by the remark which may sound strange enough, but to which I would entreat uninitiated readers to give their closest attention. Among the higher circles of criticism, strange and reprehensible as it may be at first sight[2] appear, specialists in orientalism, as well as in other branches of research, do not value works chiefly on account of their practical accuracy as books for ordinary use. It is far too readily supposed that both the investigators and those who confide in them are already familiar with all that has been edited on the subject, so that vagaries and eccentricities on the part of any well-meaning expounder will not do so much harm, while their hazardous and even sometimes wild conjectures at least stir up disenssion. This well known fact may be even found printed. 'What helps' is valued, curiously enough, not on account of its correctness[3] but on account
- ↑ Witness the chaos in critical (?) opinions over on the Old Testament Scriptures (on the one side) and upon Homer (on the other), while with one sole exception opinion on the Gâthas are drawing closer together, and may well be comprehended within easily found alternatives.
- ↑ And also at 'second' sight; it is in my opinion as an indictment against the learning of the epoch that it treats all non-specialists as if they were children, but scandalous as it may seem, it is, for the present, still the fact
- ↑ But why can we not keep our hazardous suggestions for our notes? Must we forever assume an air of bigoted conviction while we suggest innvations which we hardly believe ourselves? I, for one, have guarded mine (which are often as bold as anybody's) by distinct remarks; see Zoitachrift der d, morgeuländischen Geselischaft, Oct. 1898, p.436.
