Sacred Books of the East, Vol. 31 — The Zend-Avesta, Part III / Yasna & Gathas (Mills, page scans)

Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.

1rance of cases the Sense is closed with the line, or in a few words passing the end of the line; cp. Homeric usage, etc. As striking examples of short sentences, see v. 10, 9, 8, 6. Especially is the accusative object not pushed far away from the beginning, dragging out the sentence 481 heavily. See verse 10 with the object in achistem vaé(2)nanhé(¢) , and with gam after it, but in quasi apposition; see sravdo, astim. I would therefore not drag the 374 sg. apayé(e)it? (agreeing with dregvdo understood) into service as an infin. (although not an accus.) from yam; ‘who have taught the wicked to --- to take away ---’(2). Can a(d)payé(e)it? be a denom. from dp = ‘to reach’, and so ‘to take’? It would indeed be a great satisfaction if we could refer apayé(e)it? to yam, as a dat. infin. *apayatt; cp. ydti and the datives in 7, but this was probably not very seriously suggested. It seems also most clumsy to attempt to explain the word as a formation ‘from the preposition (or verbal prefix apa); and one cannot resist a suspicion of it when explained as a causative of ¢ = ‘to go’; that is, ‘to cause the possession of wealth to leave the householder’. As to the sing. form, it simply refers back to a dregvdo understood as the nom. sg. of dregvaté. Or, if we wish to abandon anheuschd for anhvischd anhvascha (Haug and _ Geldner), they might still be explained as accus.; see apd md (acc. (?)) in v. 9; ‘he takes from the house-mistresses and the masters the possession of wealth’. Rdres(k)yan I would explain as a redup. form of rash with degeneration of a to e (cp. yaé(é)shé = Sk. yaksh, as a partial analagon, proving however too much), or as possessing an irreg. redup. syllable ré@ . for ri and = rires(k)yam as an optative perf. with intens. force, whereas we ‘should expect riris(k)yan (rish). Vahistdd(t) - - - mananhd may be the abl. of cause ‘on account ofhis best mind they would assail him’; or rdres(k)yan having the receptive sense of rish: ‘from the best mind of the holy may they receive injury’. Some might see a pass. notwithstanding the apparently active form of the term.: ‘Who are severely chastized by the better animus of the holy’; or, finally ‘who would utterly turn aside (sense carried over) the holy from the best mind’. As to this last, which, had we the proper verb, would seem the simplest from the syntax, it may be said, that, exegetically it is not so probable that the wicked either here, or in the next verse, should be said to cause ‘the saints’ to apostatize. (To make this sense more easy rdres(k)yan has been read as from sras, srans by some.) Pahl. More aside from the Gatha read; ‘- - this which is mine []-- they say that living existence is thus --- (b) The house-master and mistress speak thus: ‘We are chiefs of householders - - (c) and they wound him who is best and righteous - -. Did the Pahl. trir. really mean his kdshinénd (?) for chi = ‘to lay out in order’ and so ‘to discriminate’. The original trir.

2say that living existence is thus --- (b) The house-master and mistress speak thus: ‘We are chiefs of householders - - (c) and they wound him who is best and righteous - -. Did the Pahl. trir. really mean his kdshinénd (?) for chi = ‘to lay out in order’ and so ‘to discriminate’. The original trir. may have seen chikdya (di = @, yxy = (aya) with the term. teres separated, as so often, in the text before the real author of the trl., which was probably not exactly that which now stands written before his own text. Or else he renders chikditeres as a whole by kdshinénd (?), and ante tarth as a 482 an alternative note pointing to the separated °tereS, which in all human probability appeared in some early text. (He not only knew what chit meant, but, by recognizing it in chinasté, he introduced us to the entire subject of the variation in the modes of conjugations in the two sister tongues.) It is curious that he read yé(e)t? and not apayé(e)it?, which last is however quite necessary, both for sense and metre. Hankhetéind bard explained in the later (gloss) in the sense of ‘established’ may possibly mean in the text ‘uprooted’, dard might have here the force of pard (not its original); cp. the orig. Sem. sense of the verb. Over-translation occurs in the rendering of the syllable r@ in réres(k)yan by radih. It probably stood separated in the early codex used. Aside from his original, I would render Ner. a: ‘They are committing base sins hugely - - -, and commit sin with precedence’; but see the Pahl. gloss. 12. Yd hardly = yéna = ‘wherefore’, or quia, atthe beginning of the strophe; it equals yéna (with sravanhd), or yoni. But ‘what thingsmen (mareténé as nom.) would deliver (sic) apart from the best deed’ might refer to the wrvdkhs-ukhti treacherously spoken; see the emphatic aé(é)ibyé sharply pointing to maretdnéd, poss. as the object of blame. Then rdh, if present, might equal ‘take’, ‘render away’. Reading (s)rdonhayen, some follow the long cince circulated suggestion of sras, srans, = (s)ras (see above, v. 11) = ‘cause men to fall’ (?), srah = (s)rah. We might read rash (with the Pahl., and alternatively) as = ‘hinder’ (‘harm’, or ‘cripple trom’ (sic)). Ishanim, gen. pl. of isha, cp. (gav)ishds, etc.; it is not desirable to suppose an irregular shortened form. Haug, while ably recognizing the possibility of a nom. in maretand, falls into error by neglecting some of the keen suggestions of Ner., which are now practically followed by all. Hdictum-dicendo is bad for urvdkh& ukhti. We can forgive his oversight wr = ud = ‘out’; urv equals vr, and it is merely an ancient editor’s (sic) error. But he misses altogether the fine rendering of the Pahl. trlr. and Ner. for ashdd(t) varaté = ‘chosen above’, ‘chosen rather than’, he, Haug, rendering contra -verum se- circum- dedit. He, however, with Spiegel, ably recognizes ishanim, both of course following the hint of Ner. and the Pahl. as to the root idea. Pahl.

3ther the fine rendering of the Pahl. trlr. and Ner. for ashdd(t) varaté = ‘chosen above’, ‘chosen rather than’, he, Haug, rendering contra -verum se- circum- dedit. He, however, with Spiegel, ably recognizes ishanim, both of course following the hint of Ner. and the Pahl. as to the root idea. Pahl. Mian should be rendered according to yd, and that, notwith- standing the ye of Ner. The trlr. read (?) rdshayen, see réres(k)yan v.11. Some would render his Grehmak(h) as a ‘bribe’, see Ner., and the Parsi-persian, but in the more original Pahl. from which our last texts were taken it may well be a proper name. With the glosses dropped, the Pahl. is closer to the Gatha. In Ner. jivanimattdm, a clumsy abstract, might seem meant for a gen. pl., but see the GAtha, Pahl. and Per. Ichchhatém however im- proves on the Pahl. 483 13. Khshathra instr., or acc. pl. nt., see khshathrem in v. 12, In view of varaté one is tempted to correct hishasad(t) to dishasad(t) (sic); ay = Pahl. » = a; cp. jigerezad(t) kamé(é). A desid. of sad = ‘desired to seat himself (in the abode)’ long circulated, and was finally published, but Atshasad(f) is transitive. One is strongly tempted toread *marekhtaré gen. in apposition with mananhd. A nom. pl. requires hent? understood. Yaé(é)chd, as acc. dual, might refer to the khshathrem, and the Gdus. As nom pl., it would refer to the marekhtdrd with irreg. sg. verb, or read jigerezen. Notice the undoubted sentiment present, a mournful and hopeless wish for what the faithful possessed of prestige; this savours of civil war. Reading marekhtaré, we should have: ‘Which things (his hoped-for resources) the G. desired, or will desire (?) as acquired by his power in the abode of the Worst Mind, the destroyer of the world, which two things (the Power, and the emble- matic Herds, or possibly the authority, with the armed power) the G. was lamenting in his baffled desire, (and he was also lamenting with envious desire) the office of Thy prophet -- -’. Haug’s departures from the indi- cations of Ner., form, as usual, the measure of his more striking error; he renders hishasat = tradidit (?), jigerezat = contumelid-affecit (?), daresét = ab-impetu (2); but his incisive pioneer suggestions abound. Pahl. Aside from the Gatha render as of course: ‘He who desires - by him és desired that which is in the abode - - -’, etc. (as ordinary Pahl.). Marenchiniddr may be taken as sg. for pl. in accordance with hémand and tapahinénd. Gébdk first explained ditim to us. I had rendered ‘talkative’, but ‘spokesman’ is much better. Péshpdi may be taken as sg. for pl.; or, if ash is read, as equalling ‘chieftainship’. Valmanshén in c would naturally be read as nom., but see the Gatha. I offer however the alternative ‘those are keeping him (or it (?)), (or (again) them) - -’. In Ner. the emphasis in bard is reproduced by vigeshena. Pratiskhalanti = ‘impede’. J. has the better reading dyi® (sic); see dydtatvam (sic) explaining rdyiniddr in y.

The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.