5. Lathoi, or edthwéi (cp. jdntvam) is a significant poetical image; we should render ‘birth’, not ‘production’; paowrvim = paourvyem may be adj., or adverb. But if adv., it does not qualify daresem, but means ‘the birth at first’, and the antithesis is in wrvaé(é)se(¢) apemé(é). One scholar would see the ‘new-birth of life’ here. Roth took paowrvim as in Y. XXXI, 8 as adj., so also Haug here as not adv., primum = Urgrund. Hesitating to accept van as = vdni, one might think of m@zhdavan = °van. The rewards, estab- lished at the first, were to have their effect throughout probation, and their final result in the wrvaé(é)sé(é) apeémé(é). Ahem (hardly fem., an evil ashi), is
undoubtedly the fine abstract. Hunaré is poetical, rich with anthropo- © —
morphism, and should not be diluted. One scholar prefers ‘by thy favours’. Also the ‘turning of creation’ in its crisis should not be understood merely as dante.
Pahl. The verbatim order is not followed in a or e. Zanishnd avd zadar is admirably free. Tarsakdih = tarsdkasth — something as opposed to zanishno, hence = ‘revering recompense’. Urvaé(é)sé(é@) was not under- stood as a verbal form; vardéd igs tree (with forsaken verbatim order); urvaéé)sé(¢) is lit. rendered vardisknd in y. 6. Ner.’s paribhramati, so better, = ‘turns’ = vardéd. The. restricted meaning ‘change’ is not indicated, a ‘turning at*an end’ is the idea present.
6. Here Spentd thwd mainyt is better as adverbial, not sociative, instr. than as voc. which is however also perfectly possible, cp. v. 2. Khshathra, here especially in place, was par eminence the ‘Immortal’ of
the Restoration, ‘the Divine Royal Power’, ‘the Kingdom’. All four of the ‘Immortals’, here mentioned, represent of course these abstract attributes as incarnate in the faithful. Notice that Aramaiti discharges functions for the people; in Y. 47, 3 she is ‘given for the pasture’. Spiegel and Geldner take ratis as (lehrt) die Fiihrer, and herren (ernennen).
Pahl. A men = yahmi has undoubtedly fallen out. Pavan and vardishn belong positively together (see the Gatha); and yet this would be impossible according to ordinary Pahl. Hence, as my second rendering, read; ‘in which (min) changing (end) ye come’. So dén eak = ahmi should = ‘in that changing’. Even Vohtiman should be taken with pavan notwithstanding intervening matter, but I do not so translate. Ahardyih also should be
taken as lit. = ashd; but I refrain again. Valmanshdn ought certainly, as oblique by pos., to equal aé(@)ibyd; radé generally = ‘master’ should be rend- ered ‘law’ = ratds; om. pavan with P. Read d ‘to these to whom the
perfect mind is teaching a regulation’. Mahattaratvam (Haug) is not good, against other MSS. Paribhramatd, or paribhrdm? (2), = vardishné = urvae(é)- sé(¢) = ‘turning’, ‘changing (?)’. ‘Taught by the master’ is better in d.
7. Sraosha is probably the missing subject in 4; see v. 12, and pard- hyad(t) moi a jimad(t) Sraoshé - - -; see also Y. 44, 16. Aydré ig adverbial neut. = ‘day by day’, or ‘to day’. Dakhshdrd shows a double suffix @ + ra (cp. vdsard, etc.), acc. pl., or instr., Spiegel; as compos. aydré-dakhshard Geldner, as instr. Dishd, ‘shall I show’ (cp. Pahl.) 15* sg. unstrengthened aor. conj. of dis (dic, *dikshd). Another regards it 2x4 sg. opt. of dé. This may be con- sidered a test case for estimating the value of the Pahl. trl. What could possibly be suggested more appropriate to the word ‘signs’ on the one side than the word ‘show’ on the other. It would even call for a change of text in its favour. Az? obviously = quoad. Note that Z. came from one of the gaé(é)tha’s; he was not from a foreign province. Tanushi° is a tran- sition from a w stem to one in w§ or ush; cp. the transitions from Sk. stems in a to those in as. Pahl. Vohiman, free for pavan V., or supply pavan, omitted because the Gathic instr. stood in full sight on the paper used by the last transcriber. Yom, gen. or adverbial; the gloss yém 7 is misleading. Numid y. shows the root of dishd, and dakhshak vddinam shows the 1* pers. Madam = aibi properly = ‘concerning’, but lit. ‘on’. Rd is really super- fluous, yet it improves on madam as expressing the case.
8. The Pahl. trlr. takes zsdydé as a denom. of is; so Haug and others. Y is here, as in odthroyd, miswritten for v., the stem being isdvan, isavan (for form cp. maghdvan). Another regards it as an opt. = dseyd. Notice the undoubted abstract, rafend, as the predicate of the first personal pronoun,
a necessary and unavoidable diction with abstracts, proving, if proof were
necessary, the depth and refinement of conceptions. Béstis seems to have the meaning of dbhish with @ = ‘to be active on behalf of’, ‘to care for’. Others, following Haug’s suggestion else where, bhwy, prefer ‘enjoyments’. Vasas(e) = vasah(?) before k, cp. °ascha = ahchd, vasas-khshathrahyd, compos., or we might emend vasé, reading vasé-khshathrahyd; see vasé and vasé(é) in MSS. Vasast brings 12 syllables. Haug suggested the possibility of a pres. part. stem; cp. stavas; Geldner, following, prefers vasase = vasas, nom. sg. But vasé-khshathrahyd is characteristic; cp. vasé-khshayas, v.1. Ddydi, so emend- ing dydi, dayd (MSS.) is 1s* sg. conj. mid., stem ddya (cp. ddyamdna). Dyd would bring 10 syllables, disturbing the metre. Dayd with ddasti$ would = ' *T will establish the supports’.
Pahl. I add the alternative, ‘Iam Z.’ for fairness, but hémanam other- wise without correspondent equals ego, as often elsewhere in the trls. of the Avesta. The term. of aajénhvad(f) curiously and accidentally caused the abl. (not in D. and Pers.), so in Y. 28, 6; Y. 31, 4; not so for zastavad(f), Y. 29, 9, emavad(t), Y. 33, 12, astvad(t), Y. 43, 16, aojonhvad(t) Y. 43, 16, spenvad(t) Y. 51, 21, dénvad(f) Y. 53,4. Rdminam = rafend hyem is of course admirable, although a noun is rendered in a verb (objected to by some). Yeheviinéd = the separated bu (sic), nadikih = °ustis (sic) orig. long %@ = =» 4 = u, u, = tw here (bu.usti$), hence yeheviinéd = bu + nadakih = usti§; or — °st?S may account for nadikih, bf as in Pahl. char. recalling bava (y = & or v); 6 and v in Pahl. may have both inherent a, or other short vowel.
Ufyd again suggested nafsh, as 49e)p in Pahl. = ufyd, or nafsh (nepesh)
clearly proving that the Gathic word guys stood as Pahl. 49¢)) before the original trlrs., hence his invaluable (sic) mistake; cp. nafshmanitnam (DJ.) = ufye(e)mi) in Y. 26,1. I formerly rendered khvéshinishnd, ‘an appropriating’; see Ner., but I conclude otherwise. Yadrichchhaya@ J. may well stand as against Haug’s yad ichchhayd@, and that, notwithstanding y@vad ichchhayd. Pracharémi (strictly ‘I advance’) should here = ‘produce’; see dedriinam. Haug’s ¢obhayishyati (?) might seem meant for a denom. = yeheviinéed nadttkth — (see nadikih = gabham vy. 1(2)). Additional is Prakrishté vdk Jarathuctrasya, pracnagcha (J.3) Hormijdasya, pratyuttara[a| vak Jarathugtrasya.
9. Vividuyé(@) = vt + vidve, infin. = ‘to know thoroughly’, or ‘to — possess (?)’; others, ‘for whom wilt thou decide(?). Manydi, 1% sg. conj. mid., governs rdtim nemanhd dshdhya, as the answer to kahmdi vividuyé vashi: ‘I will ponder the proper offering, in order that I may know it’. Or read — mandydi = ‘Twill cause men to ponder’; others, ‘tomake A. comprehensible’, infin., manydz. infin.(?). It is not impossible that the author meant to express again the idea of offering which we have in Y. 33, 14 where the expressions are
scarcely paralleled, even in Semitic religious lore. Md (adverbial accus., or instr., cp. 2d) may refer to this offering ‘by himself’ rather than ‘for himself’, Y. 33, 14 permits, and enforces, the most subtle and profound conception. Usually it is better to render in a sense as material as possible.
Pahl. Valman 7 A. in c. might indicate that Vohiman was intended as an instr. in 6, pavan being omitted because the Gathic Vohd - - Mananha stood on the same paper. If V. was recognized as subject in 3, oe was A, suggested for c which continues the subject? If then Vohiman can be instr. with unexpressed pavan, a multitude of like forms may be similarly and most critically explained. At all events it is not supposable that the trlr. could mistake a form in one line which he renders in the next. Li pirsido freely = ahyd frasém, or possibly he saw peresem; ferasem standing before
him in Pahl. char., ¢2)e) = ferasem, or peresem. (At) kdmak (ait) well = vashi. The m of rdtam again induced a not incorrect free addition of homanam = ‘lam’, or, ‘1’. Ahardyth should be gen. by pos. Isdi, as ever, to is = to wish (?). I formerly rendered e ‘for on Righteousness I am meditating, and will so do as long as I am a suppliant’. Ner.’s enaim may refer to a mdm understood (?), as Pahl. Zé is not otherwise noticed. Haug’s eee jidne looks preferable to vigishtajnane, yet see dkds-dahishnih (Haug): ‘wessen Verlangen ist nach deiner ausgezeichneten (?) Erkenntniss?’; cp. Gatha. 10. InS. B. E. XXXI, p. 90, I suggested a corruption from daidhis, ddis, causa metri. Now I would advocate a vriddhied 2° sg. s aor. Of ais *ddiksh(s) (sic, see déshd in v. 7). ‘Show me thy Sanctity’; cp. Y. 28, 5 Ashd kad(t) thwa daresant. Or ddis(s) might be the s aor. of dé, cp. for form bhdis bhi (loss of the personal ending). Others: ‘Thou shouldst see my righteousness since I call it here’, drem = °dram in abhydram (?). Arem is here used in distinct allusion to the adjacent Ar(a)maiti. ‘Ask us that we may be asked by thee (chmd = dsma) seems very improbable here in the Gathas. I do not think that we ought to shrink from 2hmd@ as a pronom. form, possessive or instr.; cp. khshma. Ehmad = ahmd, cp. alndi = asmé. For é = e, cp. akem = akem. An able scholar more lately returns to a closely similar view. He however regards the word as a gen. pl.(?). One renders: da man in der lage ist (khshayas), dich, den médchtigen herrn, LN al (aé(é)shem) zu stellen. (*If dais is from dé, it = ‘see after’, ‘provide for me’; thwd acc. of goal(?).) Pahl. ‘Bestow’ is a good general expression for ddis. The intensive is expressed by karitanishné k. The ¢ of amatat is gloss. See two glosses in b. Avdkth = ‘accompaniment’ here rather than ‘aid’, see hachimno. In Z. D. M. G. Vol. 42, s. 4594, I made an oversight in hastily comparing my text which was originally zak lak with my former text avo lak, and so accidently changed the proper text at the last moment before mailing.
11. Khshind-ukhdhdis, a compos.; cp. yushmé-dattasya, yushmi-nitas. Didainhé(é) in form would seem a redup. pres. 1% sg.; but pret. meaning seems needed. Can it be a perf. with rarer redup.; cp. vivakviins(?); a 34 pers. is most simple. It is of course most regularly a 1** sg. redup. aor. mid.-pass., or again in form it might be a pres. redup. 374 Sg. in é(é), Sas seems to be ob- jected to because ds does not become éig, but modes of writing are not vital. The orig. trl. of it as a sg. pret. of sah, sanh, cp. gans (Pahl.) seems indi- cated by wkhdhdss, mraotd, etc. One scholar renders as — chhants, to chhand = ‘seemed’ (see the well-known hymn); ‘trusting in men appeared to me destruction’ (?). Interior (or poss. initial) Sansk. chh may = Zend s; rad. ¢ may fall out. Another, abandoning any attempt at analogy (often most proper), renders; ‘my faith’ (ewraedditi§) ‘prepared’ for me sufferings among men’. Zarazdditi§ (hrid + dd) = ‘heart-devotion’, or concretely ‘heart- devoted one’ = ‘the one who approached’, made certain in y. 12 as Sraosha = ‘obedience’ poetically personified, a mere variant for zarazdditis. The following infin., whether taken as an immediate imper. = ‘do thou do’, or with a repeated sas understood, gives the clue to the treatment of uzireidyai (twice), and vdizdydi. Spiegel however, taking it as infin. for imper., followed by others, renders keenly ‘that will I do’; but ‘that to do’ was probably the ‘painful thing’; ‘that one commanded me to do’ is more natural.
Pahl. Zarazdd@itis (apparently) = riibdk-dahishnih, so zarazdéo in Y. 31, 1. First we must show from zeredachd = libbemman in Y. 31, 12 that the trlr. was perfectly aware of the proper word for ‘heart’ in Zend- Pahl. Then we must acknowledge that his réibadk dahishnih seems strangely
free. Ribak is a corrupted translation, or text. Leb = ) = ‘heart’ is
the Semitic original of libbemman, and it is possible that ) was reproduced