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

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 partes); p. 12k, “let them’; p. 345, gundh (Parsi-p); p. 353, giyad; p. 359, gunah; p. 361, or ‘barand’, Amakht-éstéd + mi-amiizad; p. 375, dehad, ‘vagtind’ or ‘vagtinad’, or ‘fartbtar’; p. 376, bentman; p. 377, khalig, or Janishthah’, k@’im-mand ; p. 379, paripurnam; p. 383, or ‘vagtinad * (sic), or ‘dabinad’* (sic); p. 385, hamishah, pasbani; p. 386, nazdtki, or ‘barand’; p. 387, or ‘dabinad’* (sic); p. 388, zahydcha; p. 389, ‘jih’ or ‘jeh’; p. 391, or ‘khurushidar*’, or ‘faribandah’ or ‘firj° ’, or ‘farib’ (faréb). Pages 355 —393 have been printed many years, hence the more frequent alternatives and improvements suggested. As stated provisionally on page XXV in 1892, I have used the proper v instead of w = v in the entire Gatha Ustavaiti for the reasons there given and while warning readers as to the peculiar w = » in the rest of the book. I have elsewhere also purposely varied from S.B.E. XXXI (1887), and even from the Commentary (1890) here and there as opinions have advanced. The student should of course prefer the later opinion where two vary from each other. It would have been beneath the dignity of this most difficult subject had I refrained from improvements up to the last deterred by a regard for a petty uniformity as to every minute detail, an error into which I fell in my earlier edition. It is mechanically impossible to print such a work in a distant country without a lapse of time during which opinions change. I would repeat again what I formerly intimated, which is that I have studiously avoided the foolish if fashionable custom of stating emphatically views which I do not believe to be true; up to the last I give the less probable suggestions in the notes, or in the frequent alternatives. Finally I would remind my readers that my dictionary of the Gathas has long been in manuscript, and that I hope now to furnish it, only delaying to complete a Sanskrit rendering as a preliminary study. My dictionary will be curtailed, and if time is given, will cover the entire Avesta texts. (Feb. 1894),