dahishn. Ner. understood a naga (?) in the sense of nihan, that is, as a word given up, the root being loosely indicated. Néd might well be a Pahl. word descended from the Zend. As more ordinary Pahl. read: ‘to whom yet in that which happens there is great destruction - - - (6 with nihadad) > + - the one who conceals the gifts which belong to Thy disciples, etc’, 9. Yi is curious in view of avazazad(t), but it is attested by aée(é)ibyo. Vidushé is not from vid = ‘to worship’, and this is proved by its antithesis evistt (which however some would render ‘behind the back’ (of the congre- gation, V. M.). If the long 7 of vidushé points toward the nasalized vid, we must answer that in the older language of the Avesta the distinction be- tween the two forms had not worked itself out as in the Vedic. Vaé(é)demné has the two senses being ‘known’, and found, ‘obtained’, also ‘knowing’, ‘possessing’. Avazazad(t) is irregularly the sg. with the pl. pronoun, not a neut. See v. 3 where the fem. pl. may possibly agree (?) with the sg. verb; see also Y. 32, 13 where marekhtard.. - Jigerezad(t) is found, appar- ently a pl. masc. with sg. verb, Perhaps a correction is here indicated to °an, °en. But is it critical to Suppose that no irregularities ever occurred in ancient grammar?; cp. Greek pl. fem. with sg. verb. The word is obviously from 2¢ = hd, as is proved by the varying expression syazdad(t). As to mas, it is an ace. sg. neut. adverbially used, meaning, as the Pahl. trlr. long since indicated, ‘much’. It stands related to mazdi as hoares (= huvares) is related to sraosha - vereza. Reading mash, we might compare maksh (cp. tash = taksh), and as possessing the meaning ‘suddenly’, moz. This would agree quite well enough with the kabed of the Pahl. The 0 of moshuchd = Y. 58, 8 is occasioned by an epenthetic w before wu of the termination, moshuchéd = mokshuché = maukshuchd (so moghu = maughu). The meaning ‘man’, a very old suggestion, is difficult here, as it is in Y. 32,3. As to an Aryan marts; there is at least no Vedic root in r extended by ¢or ¢s in the noun; ¢ is an extension of ?,u, and 7%. Ashé nom. pl. neut. is the sub- ject of syazdad(t). Y. 32, 3, and this line ¢ of vy. 9 constitute an obvious parallelism to verse 8. As ‘Vohu Manah’ remains aloof in the one verse, ‘Asha’s blessings’ depart in the other. Haug, avazazat = progignendo (?) - ahmad(t) = ex hoc (2), auruné = discurrentes (?). Some might render: ‘Who (yd) contemptuously injures (?) the holy faith which is highly prized by Thy devoted one, behind the back (in the ignorance) (2?) of the pious congregation, such a man must fly before us, as the wild beasts’. The first hémand in the Pahl. is difficult. I ventured to suggest that it might be used as a suffix afztinih-biindak-minishnd-homand; otherwise I should introduce an dkds understood. Perhaps hémand = ‘is’ should be read. ‘Theirs is the bountiful and perfect mind -..’. For the pl. sed-
kinyén we might emend valman to valmanshdén, but even in ordinary Pahl. nothing is more common than sg. for pl., especially after a pl. has been once expressed. In ¢ ahmad(t) was read as ahmdd(t), possibly an improve- ment, and khrafstrd is taken comitatively. In Ner. satdm is possibly meant as a gen. pl., but it is difficult. We should expect °kshepsyanti in view of the Pahl.
10. Haitham is an impossible reading. I do not see any gain from hitam, although Ner. seems to hint in that direction. Hdtam (Haug = substantiam (2)) is not so probable. But the correction haithyam is clearly indicated by haithim (haithyem) ashahyad damim (Y. 31,8). As to the difficult é voyathra, all are at a loss. One suggestion might be the reading and rendering dvoya athraé with sandhi dvéydthré = ‘here and there’, cp. dvdya, Yt. 19, 63. Haug suggested quae moventur (?) which I formerly followed as to root idea only. But I think in this confusion we may in the main accept the hint of the Pahl. trlr., who sees the element of retribution pointing to verses 9 and 8 (amidst otherwise genial allusion). I think that the word is bayathra from 02. The interchange of and » is too familiar to need defence (cp. vadh and badh, etc.) and 6 often displaces a. The word is baya + tra, nom. pl. neut. ‘All these things are the elements of terror (cp. bayaznti(é), y.8) within Thy kingdom’ for these (aé(¢)ihyd) whom Asha deserts (v. 9), and from whom Vohu Manah is afar (v. 8). See also the reference to defence against foes amidst the genial allusions of the next verse. The Pahl. seems to have seen the presence of the adverb ava = ‘down’. Some would render: ‘, .. the holy Obedience (Armaitim), the true originator (or dwelling (?)) of rectitude - - -. All these good gifts are in thy kingdom here and there’ (valuable suggestions).
The Pahl. trlr. could not credit gerebam, or else he reports an earlier reading grabem. This he had rendered in Y. 31, 8 as here also (freely). Hi-khirad naturally means ‘the beneficently wise’, yet see the gloss, or alternative. Haithyam = hémnunishné; was haithyam, if here read, regarded as in its true sense ‘what is real’, ‘the accredited creature of A’? Hém- nunishnd goes back to a Semitic word meaning ‘true’, and ‘realizing as true’, i. e. ‘believing’, used also in connection with wrvata. Elsewhere haithim = haithyem is expressed in Pahl. by dshkdrak = ‘evidently real’. Avéyathra (2) is freely rendered as if an adverbial form from ava were seen. The passive kish? ait resulted from a more modern doubt as to the propriety of any active ‘striking down’ within the Holy kingdom; or perhaps render literally ‘is a striking down’, so, exceptionally, but, I think, possibly, in this exceptional Pahlavi. Ner. renders the Pahl. more as an ordinary document.
He seems to have read hi-deméinishnd; see the Parsi- persian veh®. Ner.’s
nikhétdyate (sic) I suppose to be for mzghdt°, or an intended denom. from °khéta. It was probably understood passively, possibly in the sense ‘bored into’, ‘pierced’.
11. Haurvdoscha (for haurvatdtscha) and Ameretatdosché (for amereta- tdtsché) must from their form be nom. sg.’s, yet one is not surprised to see them emended as acc. duals; see wtayiitt after vakhst taken transitively. But vakhst is oftener intransitive. Utayitit? tevtsht are characteristic and especially express the lasting beatitude of the faithful. I have a strong objection to the adverbial instr. sg. for wtayiitt tevish?, not that the cor- responding Haurvatatd Ameretatétd may not be in the instr. on occasion. Varethai @ seemed to me doubtful here in its usual sense; but, on the whole, I return now to the indication of the Pahl. trlr. Eternal for utayiit?, and, as a literal sense, may well be called suspicious; that however which is ‘continuous’ may be called ‘eternal’ in this connection. Vidvaée(é)sham Thwéi ahi seems clumsy enough. Védvisim might give some relief as a gen. pl., stem vidviS(sh); one might be inclined to suggest vidvaé(é)shamthwéi, an abstract (am = falsely nasalized a); ‘with these art thou in friendliness’, a very desirable rendering, if the proper text were at hand. As the words stand, their form reminds us of aé(@)shdim tdi d anhad(t), Y. 30,7. They can only be rendered ‘thou belongest to Thy defending devotees’ (stem vidvis(sh)); i. e. ‘Thou hast devoted defenders, who are, like the desired Ratu of Y. 29, 3, advaé(é)sha, exempt from hostile- oppression, and the vengeful passions which it must awake, and also able to avert them from the faithful’. Thwdi here may equal fedyi for the dat. = (simply) ‘Thy’. Haug barethai = in splendorem. Some would bring the meaning to the following: ‘Strength and long life inhere in nourishment; in the kingdom of the pious congregation faith (?) grows together with good order in in- creasing power; with these thou standest, Mazda, on friendly terms’.
I should say that té#banikihd was a pl. rather than an adverb here ; see its original. The trlr. takes vtdvaé(é)sham (?) etymologically, and adverbially. Ner. renders vakhshéd here, as he does its sister forms elsewhere, by a form of kdg. Did he understand ‘causing light’ as a spiritual ‘increasing’; or
was ukhsh possibly regarded as related to uwsh?; cp. ukhshd. Could he — have intended kag in the sense of ‘to speak’, mistaking vakhshéd (= vakhst) — for a form from vach? Tvam cannot be the abstract suffix here; see lak. —
12. Rdzaré = regulations (Haug arcanum (?) = Geheimniss). We might
take yd@ as equalling yéna, and viddyéd(t) with impersonal subject in the — sense of ‘take’; but such a view is not at all necessary. ‘The regulations ©
which may establish Your ashi’s’, ig quite tenable as a translation. Here ashi may well mean the sacred regulations, and not merely one of their _Tesults, a ‘reward’. Perhaps I have been somewhat too positive in S.B. £,
XXXI, p. 83. Rdshnim is, I think without any doubt, the equivalent of rdznam, the sonant.z becoming a mute before the nasal as in rashnu. The stem would be rdzan, of which rdzar(2) is a varying form (cp. dhmi and aharbhis, stems dhan and dhar). Haug rendered custodwm (to raksh (?)). Some would give the sense ‘how one regulates the sanctity of the feasts’. Vae(é)teng = *svaténs, preserving a suffix ta, not reported from the Vedic in this connection; so also we have the suffix tu in daéé)tu. This of course recalls ¢éti(chd) in Y. 30, 11. Vae(ee? is a gunated o7°. As an alternative suggestion, we might consider hu + @ + ita = ‘gladly trod’, Haug, ‘self-trod’ (ga = sva); but the influence of oaé(é)tu is too positive.
He would be an instance of an adversary blinded by prejudice who would object to the free 1* pres. nydkhsham as rendering the dat. infin. here. ‘I am listening, speak’ is very intelligent for ‘speak for my listening’. We might even say that the literal amézd@i = sishé is not really freer from error than the seemingly careless nydkhsham. Pavan V.khvéshih is free for bae(é)teng M. The meaning ‘it is possible’ might be justified for shdyad. In c. J.* has chetasi for chetsi. Sammdérjanam = ‘arrangement’ rather than ‘purification’. Haug might mislead when he says that oaé(é)teng is ‘siven’ by Ner. as nydyavantam. Its proper translation is of course svddhinam. ;
13. By an oversight in S. B. E. XXXI, p. 89, I did not sufficiently express the doce nos understood, which I had printed several years before. Sishd in v. 12 precedes mraos here, as sas in Y. 43, 11 precedes mraotd and mraos. The advdnem is here described, with an intelligence almost modern, as the holy precepts of the ‘Insight’. Hékeretd has been freely taken as the verbal noun, by many critics in spite of its ungunated form; hikar(e)td is of course preferable unless a neut. pl. is seen. As we should avoid the more abstract ‘good deeds’ if possible, we naturally prefer the possibility of the verbal noun, but an acc. pl. neut. with sg. verb is also very possible. As to wrvdkshad(t), (34 sg. aor. con). of vraz = vraj) I do not think it necessary to compare vraj, and to render ‘to go’ especially because a ‘way’ is spoken of. Ahura is said, Y. 33, 5, ‘to dwell in paths’. It is not well to run poetical diction into close prosaic precision, but vraj is to be compared as satisfying the conditions under which urvakhshad(t) ap- pears; ‘to progress’ is ‘to prosper’. The rendering, ‘the way whereby the well-doer may proceed from his righteousness’, in itself admirable, does not express the force of chéd(t) = ‘even’. ‘The way is the precepts by which the well-doer may by A. even (addition of idea) prosper’ is more probable; see the last line. He ‘prospers’ because ‘it assigns to the just a reward which Ahura will certainly see to be given’. This seems bereft of force,
if urvdkhshad(t) = ‘walk’; see also vraj in vaordzathd, Y. 50,5. No literal ‘walking’ is meant there. Haug errs as to wrvdkhshat = enata-swnt. Some might give’ the following colour: ‘Mayest Thou teach me, A. M. that way which is that of the pious congregation, and the manner of its prominent members, on which well-ordered way (or through a good regulator) it may walk aright; for this promises to the righteous a reward which thou, Mazda, dost confirm’.