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

• l. in vy. 8 d) shows correct freedom, or else a differing reading; ‘may I be a receiver of your aid’ shows a sufficiently vigorous grasp of the sense of ‘be ye for my aid’. I now prefer dydjem; notice ydiS azdthd not rendered, showing freedom. Var. D. dddistdnd, déshak M1 D.; D. om. first va gl.,
• D. 7 avd 2 in both b, and gl.; D. va chir - - aé (so M.1) ¢, gl., D. giriftdr, zakam 7 (d), ¢ lekim gl. Ashavahishto is again rendered, as often, parisphutam by Ner., probable allusion to the ‘fire’ with which A. was associated; see on v. 8. One might consider Haug’s na gaknomi (d, gl.) as giving the better sense, but see the Pahl. and the leading MSS., ¢aknoti, P. °amti (3°4 pl). All but J.3 have nava(so); see 7 Lekidm; n and ¢ could be easily confused in MSS. J.3, sdhayatda (2), so P. (d, gl.). Hastind (2), or hasténd for hastend (2), or hastand (°ind occurs as a Pazand term.).

8. Read aredrahydchd. Lzhaydo, to ida, or to th, thd the idea of ‘worship’ is of course present; see S. B. E. XXXI, p. 174. Aredrahydcha is quite possible, and perhaps better, as concrete, ‘helpful and devoted worshipper’, see S. B. BE. XXXI. ‘Virtue’ of course bears an active sense here, see the altern. for the Pahl. word ‘efficiency’, possibly including also ‘insight’, cp. the New Pers. No one should object to the 1%* pers. srdyém (followed by the 1% sg. in 4), reproducing the participle. The glossist, if not the orig. trlr., mistakes, I think, the ‘metrical feet’. Aside from the gloss, read } as continuing @, no new sentence. Minishnik, as in Y. 28, 1, is an intelligent expression, shutting out a religion of gestures. Line ¢ shows freedom, the gen. being better rendered by adj. and verb. In d rabishnth has clear reference to ydmtdinam in 6, yet the termination of hunaretatd (etdtd), looking like some forms of ¢ = ‘to go’, may have suggested it! Hdnarih is rendered etymologically on account of the connection, otherwise read ‘skill’, D. has pd? in a, om. pavan, has yadmanth for the dastth of Sp. and M1. M.1 and DJ. have méanishnik (2) (6); D. transposes like the Pers. in c; D. ins. rai, (d). While the Pahl. trlr. or glossist renders paddis doubtfully, Ner. seems to plunge headlong into blunder with his ‘two feet’, but J.1’s pddya(d)bhydm shows a slight modification. Sp. is bold and perhaps correct in taking vikhydto’ smi actively; see the Pahl. If he is correct, what care Ner. requires! Haug mistakes, I think, in rendering avistdvdnim ‘the Avesta and Jend’. Jand renders the Zand (Zend) elsewhere. Zéhar, rendered balam, was misread (as few indeed would perceive) for zavdr (properly zavar). Nivdsanam points to DJ.’s mdnishnik (sic for minishnik); parisphutam, for Ashavahisht associated with the fire, might perhaps be rendered ‘brilliantly’ here. Also note that vahisht would be expressed by $449), 80 also vakhsh(t); and vahisht = ‘heaven’ suggests ‘light’,p. 592 while vakhsh is often rendered by Ner. as kég.

nishnik (sic for minishnik); parisphutam, for Ashavahisht associated with the fire, might perhaps be rendered ‘brilliantly’ here. Also note that vahisht would be expressed by $449), 80 also vakhsh(t); and vahisht = ‘heaven’ suggests ‘light’,p. 592 while vakhsh is often rendered by Ner. as kég. Does this similarity of vakhsht and vahisht explain this kég? Read guyan.

9. Read my antiquated translit. in my former printing mahydo, hyem, and as preferred altern. for my former trl. deatitudinés ut praemii sacri. Ashéis. Here again, as every where in the Gathas, we must adhere to the meaning ‘sacred’ ‘blessing’, ‘benefit’, and to this as verging upon the sense of ‘reward’. But here, as the context shows, the idea must be stretched as far as possible toward purae-indolis, the lit. meaning. The worshipper declares that he will approach the Deity with his Yasnas, and the ceremonial and morally righteous deeds ineuleated and inspired by the€Good Mind, and then, when he has become possessed of the sacred blessing of holy character, the consequence will follow; he will become the recipient of the wise man’s (or the good offerer’s) reward. It is illogical and senseless to render: ‘When I get my property, I will be its recipient’. It is | rather bold to render hudéndu§ (hu + dé = dha = ‘the well-disposer’, or — ‘offerer’) as governed directly by gereedd hyém; ‘then I shall eagerly attain — to the beneficent reward’. If it were not for the meaning ‘beneficent’ (so), — ‘seizer of’ with the gen. would be admirable. Ishayas would fit the metre better, which is important, but cp. the Ved. stem of 1st ish, ishya, and ishyan, the sense need not interfere, as the two sh’s are related. Gereedd, to gridh = ‘approach eagerly with desire’, Whether the influence of the important Y. 29,1 induced a use of gar(e)z (garh) for exclamatory prayer when no adverse circumstances were prominent in the connection, is a question, cp. Y. 51, 17. The Pahl. trlr. is free as to the case of tdvs; he was not ignorant of the instr. No one should object to ‘{ come toward Your sacrifice with praise’ for ‘I will come praising to you with sacrifices’, Yadé = pavan dahishno well = “in that dispensation or time’, see amat = ‘when’, and yet dahishno was used simply because of the syllable dd (as often in similar cases, a correct use caused by an outward form!). For tarsdahth correct tarsakdsth (so) without MSS.; see Ner.’s lakshméin which shows a sense of acquisition recognized in ashdés. Himanam pédakhshah should be considered a good rendering; see mahydo absorbed with freedom in homanam. HudandusS as gen, ig managed fairly. D. has 7? in a, tarsakdish (sic), or tarsagahih (?), °agah® (so) for °akds° (so), vddiinamam (? sic}, pddakhshah and °shahih (c). Arédhinam may be meant, as adj., yet see the Pahl. An illustration of Haug’s seemingly absolute want of acquaintance with the Pahl. trl.

andusS as gen, ig managed fairly. D. has 7? in a, tarsakdish (sic), or tarsagahih (?), °agah® (so) for °akds° (so), vddiinamam (? sic}, pddakhshah and °shahih (c). Arédhinam may be meant, as adj., yet see the Pahl. An illustration of Haug’s seemingly absolute want of acquaintance with the Pahl. trl. at the date of his Gathds is curiously given in his remark on ] sammukham and paidd (so); the word renders padiraké. Can Ner, mean — suddninam as if to ad dna, cp. 34 da = ‘cut’, or a 7m (?) dé = ‘to purify’?; or was he imitating huddndus, cp. dan@? J. fails to write anusvara in~p. 1p. 593 stutim as often elsewhere, J.* has lakshmim. which is also only added by a ‘later hand. 10. With a laudable desire to recognize as fully as possible everything which the composer of the Gathas has written in a feeling for nature, some would render vareshd ‘woods’, and change the text of 5 skyaothand to diskatd (= mountains) without the authority of MSS. I fear however that the word S(k)yaothand interprets the foregoing varesha aS a 18 s aor. conj. of var(e)z in the sense ‘What I shall do aé first, and what later as supplementing (= besides) these things (pairt dis). Ashd preceding Mazda, renders a conjunction of the two in Ahurd (= ‘Ye Gods *) very improbable; in fact the voc. Ashd@ is suspicious, perhaps adv. instr. is better. The hésh of the Pahl. trir. here (for wkshd) corrects his vakhshintddr at Y. 46, 3. Pairt is rendered by pésh = ‘before’, in the sense ‘in view OF OF Om account of’. D. pésho, or péshan (?) (°dn (?)); see Pers. Valmanshdn proves that the trir. distinguished between ai§ as a particle, and ds as a pronoun (see Y. 31,2). The loc. chashmam = °man was first seen and explained by the Pahl. trlr.; see also Ner. Rdshan + éd (for ait) is best. Sp.’s text (K.°) seems nearest to réshinéd (sic). M.1, D. have rédined (so) = ‘causes to grow’ ; cp. vakhsh rendering ukhsh° also rendered here as ‘light’, ards, see dakhshak. Arejad(t) may well have been read arédad(t) (ardh); one MS. gives a hint in areedad(f). Or D. might seem 1s6 (sic) + éd, in D., separated, for réshan + aité. M.1 has also atghshan. Pavan may = ‘as’, or ‘by’. Ards has been unnecessarily transliterated khris = ‘a cock’. Ner. had no such conception. For tarsdahth written in default of better for what seems tarsakdish (2), or °agahé(?), I would now correct to oLasth from other places, gl. aside, case oblique. Ner.’s yasya may be alternative for yat. Hosh (hash)is rendered as in, a figurative sense by chaitanyam. Samérachandm = ‘order’ in the sense of ‘embellishment’, or °rechandm (J.3, J.4) = ‘purification’ (?). All have manushyandm. Ner. must not be considered in his turn ignorant of all Pahl. grammar from his freedom in d. Read péshtnagan for the misprinted decipherment of the confused writing; read khriéis perhaps, but ‘cock’ was certainly not meant; cp. khraozh®, also old Pahl.-paz. gl. khrdéshd (so), khrishéd might better be khré°.