Without glosses we might render the Pahl.: ‘Tell me that way which is provided by the Good Mind, (6) that is, the Religion of the benefactors. He who is in that way which is with good work, his is joyful-mindedness from righteousness - - - since by Thee a reward has been declared to him who is wise, in which way it is given by Thee (omit 7 with DJ. before lak) to that one’. ‘Where’ is closer to the Pahl in translating Ner.’s trl., line ¢; than ‘by which means’.
14. Tad(#) refers of course back syntactically to méehdem, but the ‘way’ is implied, and is referred to in huchistim. That verezené(é) and verezenad are the same word in different forms admits no doubt. The devout sage would not think of a pun in such a serious composition, although he might call in the aid of alliteration and jingle, as in Y. 28, 8. Yi, as the plural of majesty, might refer to Mazdd, as the subject of ddté, but the 2 makes it impossible. The yé¢ refers back to the hitkareté, a sg., just as moi in v. 13 refers back to ndo in vy. 12. I ought to have expressed ‘for’ in 8. B. EK. XXXI, p.90. Undoubtedly a dative is understood before yor; ‘to these well-doers who are furthering Your beneficent plans, O Ahura, through the holy (ashé a noun used adjectively, or an adverbial instr. meaning, ‘with the help of Sanctity’) service of their plans and intentions’. ‘In the stall of the kine’ (?) had long since been suggested, while verezénd is taken as an acc. pl. neut. in the sense of ‘villages’. If verezéné(¢) means ‘in the (cattle) culture’ as a locative infinitive (2), or noun, verezénd must mean ‘through the furtherance, with khratéus’. I now prefer frddé as plural, although I formerly preferred a singular which is also possible with Mazddé, td dathrem, sisha nédo, and the following v. 15, in view. Azydo I prefer as the ‘mother’ Cow, although ‘drivable’ seems grammatically simpler; see page 421. Haug’s propugnaculum for vairim is not desirable, nor is tuitus-es for fradé. Some would colour: ‘What a glorious gift, Mazda, thou dost impart to earthly beings (that is) to those who--- bring up your villages’.
Pahl. Omitting the ‘am’ of a with DJ., and dropping the gloss, we have: ‘For that, O A., which is the desire (desired thing) for that which is bodily and living, is granted’; see the Gatha; but to silence all cavil I had refrained too much from favouring the trir. So } without glosses ‘:-- to him
whose is the deed with a good mind, by whom service is rendered for the Cow Az -- -’. Is karmane used by Ner. as = ‘for the doer’?; see dchéra- yitre, but see also kinzshnd and s(k)yaothand. Ner, seems to collect two ancient opinions in swnirvdnajnda(na)tayd; hi-farzanakih contains farzdn, and as 2 and j are expressed by the same character in Pahl. the idea of farjdm = ‘end’ struck some early scholar (possibly having a defective MS.), but Ner. blends the two ideas, rendering both ‘end’, nirvédna = farjdm and jna(na)tayd = pavan farzdnakth = ‘with knowledge’. P. has °7idnat° in Y. 46,4.
15. On ishudem see Y. 31,14. Some take vasnd as qualifying ‘answering(?)’; ‘make the world assenting (?)’. It is very possible that we may have here an indication that the early Zoroastrians held that the future life was to be a continuation of an improved present. Others would colour: ‘Mazda, tell me the best words with word and work; for that pray I thee (reading ta té +--+ ishudyem)--.-’. ‘Make the world also consenting for the duration of Thy kingdom’. Jshudem with the Pahl. trlr. involves an expression of defect. Ddéo as (freely) = yehabiini-ait is not error; see Y. 43, 5 where ddo is rendered amatat yehabind. Ner.’s svechchhaya = pavan kémaki = vasnd should properly be referred to Ahura.
The Gatha UStavaiti(i), Yasna 43— 46.
Yasna 43,
For summary and additional notes see 8. B. E. XXXI, pp. 91—106. Changes in opinion decided upon since its composition are not always noticed here. ;
1. The rendering in the gloss, of the Pahl. is no longer to be followed as to its fine idea. Read Pahl. (not as in Z. D. M. G. 42, s. 443): ‘Blessed is that one; blessing to him who 7s that one, to whomsoever’ (poss., ‘to every member of the holy community’). Uétd is loc. of wst used adverbially. (Haug, curiously, as imper. 274 pl. from the prep. us = seid auf. Gad(t) [(not in gad(f)éi = gaté infin., nor loc. in analogy with wrvaé(é)sé(¢)] is
_ either = ged(t) = gha + id, or an exclamatory form having its origin in gad(t#) ‘may it be, come’, a quasi amen. For vas with the dat. in the sense of ‘wish from thee’ cp. RV. 1, 30, 12 tdth@ tdd astu somapah sdkhe vajrin tdthd krinu ydthd ta (te) ugmdst’ shtdye. RY. 8, 45, 6 utd tedm maghavan chhrinu yds te vdshti, vavikshi tdt. Haug (followed by De Harlez and Geldner) brought lines a and 6 together. One scholar loses sight of the exclamatory character of wstd. Line a is complete in itself. For wtayiiti tevisht see ®. 34,11; 45, 10; 51, 7. Reading Ar(a)maiti we might avoid a voc., but see the connection. Réyé = ‘glorious distinctions’ (not ‘riches’; cp. raé(é)vant) is applied to Ahura some 9 times, to the sun about 4 times, to stars 7 times,
to the Aryan glory (ahé(e) raya barenanhacha) some thirty odd times, to the camel, to Haoma, and to Zarathustra, and in the sense of ‘rich’ once. So in the secondary stage of the Zend, the Pahl. parsi, rayé-hdmand universally = ‘glorious’ and the like. Gaé(é)m is a false transliteration; gaya(e)m is the word, = Hy = yd, or (by usage) = ya (ye). The ‘life of the good mind’ was the sum of the interests of the orthodox citizen. Pahl. Min gen. by position = dat. Takh(sh)ishnd ¢ tabantkiha should equal utaynite tevishi as to form, otherwise ‘-+ of the powerful ones’. The dahishnd in d is positively harmless, or auxiliary, as always, although doubtless used on account of d in °dydi. Tarsakdi (sic) = ‘venerating recognition of merit? (?). Ner.’s kebhyagchit was meant to equal ‘every one’, Rdjyam can hardly be brought nearer the Pahl. as adverbial. Ner. saw takh(sh)ishno? t? as gen. by position, here erroneously, Armait? = ‘earth’, but explained in gloss. Zdék ? raye-homand 7? tarsakdi (sic) = gen. by pos. erroneously, but note the fact of the case. As to hdvisht-himandth see Z. D. M. G. 42, 8, 443,
2, I like the rendering: ‘To him de the best of all things; let the beatified man receive the beatitude; but is it tenable’ ? Vathroya = bdthrova (y miswritten for v, as often, (ep. mruyé(é) for mruvé(é) ete.), and 6 = a before the labial) is from édéthrévan. Haug and-others, as a denom. Séthra + ya. Another as an adverb = dathrityd (cp. vasdyd) = ‘with desire for 6athra’. Is thwd possibly = thwa = thwam = tuem (twem); cp. tedm, nom. sg. = ‘thou’? Or is it acc. pl. nt. = ‘Thy (truths)’, or finally an inst. with spénistd mainya? Daiditd 3° sg. opt. mid. sense of ‘give’ to avoid a reflexive ahmai (but see above); cp. dasvd etc. mid. = ‘give’, also d@ mid. in the Ved. and Sansk. = ‘give’ at times, not ‘take’ (with prefixes), Otherwise it = ‘take, establish (for him (or us?))’. Haug and others ‘séi-det’ or ‘take’. The middle for active is more used in the Avesta than elsewhere; a slavish imitation of Vedic translations should be avoided. Chichithwd [(poss (?) Sedo continuing the sense of ddthrovd, ‘the beatified man perceiving’) not as quali- fying the subject of ddo, nor yet as chéchi, sutfixless ungunated imperat. (2?++ thwd) in 7, nor as instr. of chichitu (5 cp. chikité)| is a perf. imperat. (= *chikitsva; cp. chikiddhi, vavyitsea) miswritten for chichit.h(s)od (see the Pahl. followed by Justi) hardly = ‘perceive Thou, O M.’; chif must here = ‘in- dicate’, ‘reveal’, Is a gerund from an unmodified redup. root possible, chicht + ted = ‘guarding’?; see hafshi. Méyio, Ved. mdyé (hardly = | ‘joys’). Aydré = aydr (cp. rdzaré = rdzar) indeclinable with véspé instr., or neut. pl. adverbially. Ureddanha to vrddh.
Kvarth-himand = tdthrovd (so read), Ner. understood yehabinéd in das a 38" sg, It was possibly so intended, ‘what he gives’, but see the
Qnd go,.’s preceding, and dédo, Madam yehabinishnd is an expressive, if not valuable, auxiliary, replacing the usual dahishnd, yet (N. B.) it was, as often similarly, occasioned by the d in °danhd!
3. Vahyo is neut. acc. of goal. As to pathéd, notice the depth of the conceptions. For anhéws understood with mananhaschd, cp. vanheus gae(ée)m mananhd, v. 1. As sti is fem. in other occurrences, it is proposed to read dstt§ = ‘subjects’; ‘A dwells with his subjects’. But sts is masc. in the Rig Veda, while @ seems needed as a preposition to complete the sense. St$ = ‘worlds’, or ‘habitations’, here = stin§ (¢ = nasalized 7, as 7 in paiti = °in, op. A.1,14). See also the immediately preceding anhzus expressed, the two words ‘of the bodily’ and ‘the mental’ implying also an additional anheus understood. Cp. also ahvdo in Y, 28, 2. The meanings ‘bodily and mental lives’ were, as in English, closely approaching to the bodily and mental ‘worlds’; hence the @ st#§. Line e, in spite of d, is better referred to the human subject, huzentus suggests hu + zantu = ‘the good citizen’, although zantu is unknown to the Githis as describing a division of the population. Possibly the meaning is (with the Pahl.) the ‘beneficently wise’, for form, cp. janti. One able writer would render: ‘he who is pious as Thou art (?) true and holy, OM’. Thwdvait meant ‘like thee’ only as = ‘Thyself’. Otherwise it means ‘thy servant’, ‘worthy of thee’. It never institutes a comparison. Perhaps huzentus = ‘noble-hearted’, cp. sujana.
Omit avd, valman = hwvé, Gabrd, as ordinary Pahl., to shapir, other- wise on no account to shapir, which is of importance. As the Pahl. is nearly verbatim, ‘for him who is the good man’ is absolutely erroneous, although the natural result as ordinary Pahl. For gloss in ¢; cp. p. 454. Ner. renders as ordinary Pahl. Cikshdpayati is not meant for a caus. from a desid., but more probably for a denom. from ¢ikshd. Nirmalatard = roshand is meant to equal ‘more manifest’; so forms of gudh. Cuddha- satkartd seems to indicate some form of shndyidané in the Pahl.; so sat + kar® in Y. 28, 1; Y. 80, 5; 46, 1, 13, 18; but see Y. 46, 5; Y. 49, 5.
4. Zastd is translated by pavan tabdind as elsewhere. The use of zastd to express ‘energy’ is constant; cp. ustdnazastd Y. 28, 1; 50, 8; (of prayer) etc. éspecially see zastavad(t) Y. 29, 9; 2astd.istdis Y. 34, 4, zastd- istd Y. 50, 5. Hafsht is 24 ¢., cp. sap. sdpati, hap is here athematically conjugated. Ash@§ is remarkable as applied to the wicked; but note that the mention of the ashdvan in immediate connection. Ashis, the holy regu- lation as to rewards, ‘the blessing’, could never mean ‘punishments’ for the wicked except in such a connection as the present. Garemd is inst. sg.
Pahl. Zak 7 kold is natural for td (= ¢é(?)), and an error of such a kind should be absolutely unnoticed, or else favourably noticed, as it refers
intelligently to the two lives in y. 3. Pavan tébdné is expressively free for zastd; cp. pavan tibdnd = zastavdd(t), Y. 29, 9; so = zastd, Y. 34, 4; Y.50, 5; otherwise zastd = yadman (lit.) four times, dastih (sic) once, while the dual is lit. expressed twice; ignorance is not present, yadman need not be supplied. Benafshman = hafsht shows the existence of Pahl. character wholly, or partly, in the Zend text used by earlier translators, which was
not that now written before the trl. in our MSS. SLOOHY = 4190449,
which also = afesh(?); some mark on the paper made ndfesh 7, suggesting napesh 7 = ‘self who’. This error is of more value than many correct suggestions combined, showing that the Gatha once stood partly, or wholly, in the Pahl. character, and solving innumerable difficulties; cp. v. 8, algo Y. 28, 8. Yehabinéd, 24 pl. or 8" sg. Atréd, agirdid (2), or, better a dirikht, was formerly, from an excessive scrupulousness, rendered by me as . having a priv., but see Pers. and Ner. Sdshéns is an ancient Parsi com- mentator quoted on account of haz@ elsewhere = ‘evil force’ and yet associated with V. M.; but Gathic Zoroastrianism was not so sensitive.