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.

1suggestion, render vaé(é)shd simply ‘hell’ properly comparing Vd. 8, 35; I prefer a concrete. An agent is present. Our first impression is to read dvaé(é)shd for vaé(é)shé (with the Pahl. trlr.), and our last opinion does not differ much from that. . Compare the addition of a dental in douj, dbish. If a dental may be added at one stage of the language, a dental may fall off at another; see also the word in the daughter language, bésh. Otherwise Ved. bhish(@) (= ‘with terror’) might throw light on the matter; ‘the terrible one’. Reading vishd, we might possibly understand ‘ poison’, with allusion to the poison brought to the wicked by the spirits of the lost on their entrance into Hell, and transferred to the figurative and concrete sense of ‘evil-minded’ (ep. the vishavant dragon, Y. 9, 11, also the ‘poison-casting’, azhdis vishovaée(é)- pahé(é), Y. 9, 80). Some scholars, reading rdsté (emended) as a form equi- valent to the Vedic rish + ni = ‘to stick full’, ‘to fill’, would render: a ‘Hell is full of unbelievers’. Others: ‘To the unbelieving belongs (Sk. rddh) ; hell’. 7éi as a nom. pl. is a great mistake. Narepis is taken by one scholar as ‘men -expelling’, to ‘those who expelled Z.’. I prefer ‘hero- Supporting’, ‘adherents to the cause’, nar + pi (= ‘to nourish’). Rij7s, so I prefer with some of the oldest MS., and with the Pahl. trlr. I can only refer it to Ved. rich = ‘to abandon’, as = ‘rejected’, ‘exiled’, cp. the hostile combination who were adverse to Z., Y. 46, 1. Rédst? (to réd); I translate ‘renders’; cp. Ved. rddh in the sense of ‘bring to a state’, in the Rik generally however in the ‘good’ sense, but here rdsti must express some > ow 619 ‘evil’ result. Others.suggest raj#s, n. pl. in the sense ‘men of Ragha’, comparing rajéid(t). ‘The men of Ragha who expel their heroes narepis (2) are peshdtanuvd, damned’ (?) (so one scholar). There is little probability however that Z. was ever expelled from Ragha,. if indeed he was (as Y. 19, 18 seems to indicate) a native of the place. The later documents are never to be trusted on historical points. Aé(é)shasd shows the curiously extended form. We should expect aé(é)shd = ésha. But, as in zshdsa, we have both the sh of zsh (esh), and the s = chchh, of ichchha, see on Y.31, 4. I render ‘through the wish’, that is, ‘the evil prayers of the opposed creed which strives to conquer the holy order’. Dé is a mere help which is sometimes still used in pronouncing, or writing, j, as in the word, Djdmdspa; jid(t)- aretd (instr.) equals aretd-jid(f)4 = ‘virtue-conquering’, ‘truth- slaying’, ‘opposed to the holy order of the Zarathustrian creed’. Peshdtan(u)vd (gen.) is the Peshotan, the reprobate, either the ‘excluded person’, or the ‘ Bridge- person’, one who cannot pass the Chinvad(t)(or °vaiit); so, distinctly in the Pahl, ‘a person without; i. e. not passing over’ the Bridge’. Others prefer a nom. pl.: ‘Those forgetful of duty (n. pl.) are excluded, or damned’.

2he Peshotan, the reprobate, either the ‘excluded person’, or the ‘ Bridge- person’, one who cannot pass the Chinvad(t)(or °vaiit); so, distinctly in the Pahl, ‘a person without; i. e. not passing over’ the Bridge’. Others prefer a nom. pl.: ‘Those forgetful of duty (n. pl.) are excluded, or damned’. I have translated as ever, as directly as possible, and with no desire to repudiate the most probable renderings simply because they have been suggested before by the Pahl. trlr. Some have coloured: ‘Hell is full of unbelievers - - those forgetful of duty are excommunicated. Is it the righteous Lord who deprives them of life and freedom?’ D. has vd béshishn, M.t va véshishnd, M.' vddinyén, D, and M.1 réshinénd (a), D. 2to bef. yek° (0), D., wigh padakhshalth, min valman, spells daregish va dsdno diff. (d). Hémnuninidér may be denom. = ‘believers’ (?). Mdstt is freely recognized in drdstér by the Pahl. trlr. Rijistnénd (? réjinénd) points to riji5 in an etymological sense. Aé(¢)shasd to bavihtin® = ‘wish’; jéd(t) freely = zado. Dastébarth helps out bindakih = aretd, from dastébar above. Peshdtan(u)vd one of the most familiar ideas to the Parsis of all ages is rendered by ‘persons without the Bridge’, i. e. those who cannot pass the Chinvad(?). Jydtéus was probably included with hémithydd(t), and freely rendered by makhitinéd (jydtu itself had been easily recognized; see Y.31, 15; Y. 32, 12, etc.). Hémithydad(t) was again and further expressed by haméstdrinéd. Whence come kininédo (Ner. dveshasya) for itoischa? Yatdis (9 as Pahl. y with inherent «) would not help much; yati hardly accounts for kin®. Pos- sibly it is pure gloss, kdmak being regarded as expressing vasé - itdischd. Asano seems free for vahyd. I suppose duhkritena (so) must be intelligently free: of what is it the imitation? Vaé(¢)shd = piddm; samdrachand(h) = drastér (this time) = raj?§ (so); labdh®? = narepis (with °rep® (so) = rap = labdh!); tandvaragundha = ‘the tandpihar = ‘sin’ + ha(d), Pers. sign of pl. 620 Theirs is the evil’ should refer to the sinners, cp. teshém tandvar®. For the last time let me say that censure expressed upon these ancient native translations on account of the shattered condition of their syntax is uncalled- for, and may be now said to be abandoned by all scholars who understand them. Sometimes no syntax is attempted in them, and often they follow texts which have long since disappeared; but, as indicating the root-ideas present, they have taught us the beginnings of Zend Philology, and there- fore should be studied in all their bearings for additional light. 621 Improvements, alternatives and corrections. The full notice of the errata of pp. 1—153 will be given later together with those of pp. 154— 393 not yet fully in type; p. 398, read gairim, and dmikhtan; p. 399, read mathra for mathra; -p. 404, read = srayéni; p. 407, read ydith®, viparyayi; p. 408, read asidak and vdizhdim; p. 409, iS, and yemaleltni, 4th line from bottom; p.

3pp. 1—153 will be given later together with those of pp. 154— 393 not yet fully in type; p. 398, read gairim, and dmikhtan; p. 399, read mathra for mathra; -p. 404, read = srayéni; p. 407, read ydith®, viparyayi; p. 408, read asidak and vdizhdim; p. 409, iS, and yemaleltni, 4th line from bottom; p. 411, stenaccha; p. 415, avésham; p. 422, jiv for jiv; p. 425, yal tashidar, not kardar; p. 427, vindid and vindéd; p. 430 34 line from the bottom read ‘change of application’ for ‘change of accent’; p. 435 dlokayitacha; p. 441, A not A; p. 444, read 1s pl. 13 line from bottom; p. 450, middle, read vahyaio; p. 452, read tarsagai, not for tarsa- kasi; p. 454, read achchhedah only; p. 457 read ‘oS (not &) having in- herent a’; p. 459, dayé(e)ité(é); p. 460, read afrtikhtan, and pronunciation ; after hamptirséd6 insert (so reading). I attempted an extreme economy in words; p. 473, read min akharih (? or akharash), also asridim; p. 474, read ‘(k)yaothnem’, and ‘at the end of the line’ (not sentence); p. 478, — read 4th from top raspatak* (as in Y. 44, 2); also insert ‘if we read °kritam’ after ‘Ner. seems’, 9* line from top. There is little choice between vichithrdi and °thdi, it was after printing page 478 that I finally selected °thdi, and °thahya as in the texts; p. 479, read viyavaninid; p. 482, read ‘since’; p. 487, read ‘hamik’; p.489 middle, read vicharayita for vichdy°, a shock- ing misprint such as I had hoped that a friend who saw the proof-sheet would notice and report to me; p. 490, read ‘pacchatye’ with later acquired MSS., omit the rest; p. 492, vij is hardly to be considered with fra- voizhdim; the perfect is intensive; p. 493, ha-kurunem, read ha-kurenem ; p. 494, omit comma after blessing; p. 499, read °tayai for *taya, 5 line from bottom; p. 505, I meant of course that Ner. saw the exaggeration of demun*(?) = demand which seems to occur(?); p. 510, I now by all means prefer tarsagdi, so in v. 5; p. 512, tarsagdih for tarsagai, but this is more doubt- ful, perhaps it is tarsagAi ash; notice that it is something given by a su- perior to a receiver, and therefore not ‘reverence’ in the usual sense; p. 534, last line read hevt?; p. 539, nydkhshishnd; but either has authority; p. 544, vrijanydn(s); p. 584, read uttamamanasah 6™ line from the bottom; p. 589, I now prefer to transliterate tarsagaih, or tarsagahih, to tarsakaish, 10% line from the top (Dec. 1890). *1 Some of these misprints have been later corrected. 622 Page 10, read Sanctitatis; p. 11, Ardibahisht; p. 12, radh°; p. 13, Zarath° for Zarth®, or ‘°namanase = to the perfect. m.’, but I now prefer saiipurnamanase , voc., ‘O perfect-minded’; p. 21, yushmat; p. 23, Wik; p. 29, édin; p. 37, line 9t ‘abundant’ for ‘excellent’; p. 47, agh; p. 52, ‘ordeal’ for ‘service’, gazishné as in the Parsi-persian for yaz®, ‘in case that in the ordeal the biting may not be for me’; p. 74, avam; p. 80, ahtimbis; p. 96, as altern. read ‘Bos (masc. (?)) parte’ (frustatim, per par- tes); p.

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.