1. The sage asked the spirit of wisdom (2) thus: ‘Of mankind which are more conversant with good and evil?’
3. The spirit of wisdom answered (4) thus: 'Of mankind he whose sojourn [1] and business are with the bad [2], and they provide him a name for good repute and goodness, is the man more conversant with good. 5. And he whose sojourn and business are with the good [3], and they provide him a name for disrepute, is the man more conversant with evil.
6. ‘Because it is said, (7, 8) that whoever joins with the good brings good with him, and whoever [ p. 107 ] joins with the bad brings [4] evil—(9) just like the wind which, when it impinges on stench, is [5] stench, (10) and when it impinges on perfume, is perfume,—(11) it is, therefore, notorious [6], (12) that he whose business is with the good receives good, (13) and he whose business is with the bad receives [7] evil; (14) but, even then, both are to be considered as an experiment (aûzmâyisnŏ) [8].’
(106:3) Reading nisastŏ. L19 has ‘whose business is most (vês-ast),’ both here and in § 5. ↩︎
(106:4) L19 has ‘the good.’ ↩︎
(106:5) L19 has ‘the bad.’ ↩︎
(107:1) L19 has ‘will bring with him’ in both clauses, but the repetition is unnecessary in Pahlavi. ↩︎
(107:2) L19 has ‘will bring with it,’ both here and in § 10. ↩︎
(107:3) L19 has ‘proper to know.’ ↩︎
(107:4) K43 does not repeat this verb. ↩︎
(107:5) L19 has ‘by the result (anzâmesn).’ The meaning is that, though a man’s character is generally in accordance with the company he keeps, this must not be assumed without proof; and when the contrary is the case, as stated in §§ 4, 5, his own disposition must be of a very decided nature. Nêryôsang seems to have misunderstood the author’s argument, and, supposing §§ 6-13 to contain a mere illustration of §§ 4, 5, he considered it necessary to transpose ‘the bad’ and ‘the good’ in §§ 4, 5, so as to make the illustration applicable. ↩︎