to Ner. in not accepting his prayatnaydmi in the sense of Spiegel, as against Haug’s less experienced remark, who finds the word auffallend (probably and naturally because the Pahlavi was then practically unknown to him). Read with Spiegel ‘I take care’, or at least ‘I make effort’ rather than ‘I resist’; cp. prayatna.
12. Improvements to my former texts; caesura after the 42, yet see e; disregard the informal divisions in the lines; omit e¢, and read tua for te de; read se opponit. Ydis peresdi may = ‘of those with whom I am now questioning, debating’, better as adverbial. Mé is used with thwd savd, the latter being taken like a Greek adverbial: ‘Who, as the enemy of the
Faith, is opposing me in the matter of Thy blessed provisions of grace for
Thy people’. It might also = sma, but see peresd. Chyanhad(t) is com- pletely in order as ché instr. of chi (chi$) and anhad(f) (or possibly cht = chit) = qui fit, an idiomatic expression like the colloquial ‘may be’. ‘How, by what means, does it happen?’ Some would render; ‘- - - Which is the righteous, he with whom I have intercourse, or the evil? Which of the two avails? -- Am I the evil, or is the faithless the evil, who hinders me in Thy cause? ++ -, Others, partly following: ‘Which of them with whom I here speak, is a friend of the truth, which of the lie?’
I have been rigidly impartial in line 6, but hampdérsids may represent the 15* person as well as the 34, and that the trlr. was not ignorant that peresd was a first person is proved by the preceding line, and the first lines throughout. Gandk will not of course at present be questioned as a regular form and proper name. Line e contains the original exegesis of chyanhad(#) which all have followed, but which I have first explained; see S. B. E. XXX], p. 117. AZ is here, as so constantly, understood, from whence ds At, =) cht + anhad(t). In e pavan ydtinishni is apparently an alternative translation for what of ayém may have stood in the MS. used by the earlier Pabl. trlr. He first rendered correctly but freely valmanshén, and then he (or more pro- bably some successor) inserted the pavan ydtdnishnd, suspecting the presence of some form of 7 = ‘to go’. Mainyé(e)té(é) was not mistaken for a first person. The 3*4 pers., with the passive, freely expresses 15t, 224 or 3rd, It js also not impossible that m of ayém, being detached from the other letters, gave the suggestion which accidently led to the free use of the first person.
13. Caesura after the 4th, yet see the awkwardness in d and e; dis- regard my former informal divisions of the lines; read °yéint?. Read nobis rather than follow the less accredited reading ahméd(t), and perhaps illustrant is more exact. Ndshdmd, 1 pl. s aor. conj. of nas; addivyé(e)inti, to div, divya; cp. sudivas. The Pahl. trlr. seems also to have seen the word in a similar sense. Others see the root dé as in duvdsas, and render ‘do not strive after’, One reads hachénd as an acc. pl. in agreement with Ashi. Hachemné might be the middle participle from a thematic stem. Some would give the following cast: ‘How shall we drive from hence the evil one (Satan) hence to those who, full of opposition, do not zealously strive after the right, and will know nothing of intercourse with the faithful’?
The Pahl. with a natural blunder refers perendonhé to par = ‘to battle’. The second J¢may be an echo from the first, and may therefore not indicate that the trlr. read an a priv. in ddivyé(e)int?. Ner. does not notice the second /@. The idea of mental illumination is conveyed by mnikézénd, and by Ner.’s pratipddayanto (so better than Haug’s °nte(?) as the part. expresses amat). Amatshan is difficult; ‘when in them they observe’, ‘when to them they speak it’. Chékhnare is freely but correctly rendered.
14, Notice the highly developed tone of the language ‘to slay the Druj-party with the Mathras’; ‘to kill the Lie with holy words’, Sa(i)nam, to sa (s?) = ‘to cut’, see the Pahl, Ands(sh)é(é) might seem a negative infin. from the aor. stem of nas, or with nds — nas; a suff. sé(¢) would produce anas(sh)é = ‘to the non-attaining’ a sort of acc. infin., ‘that the dvafsha should not attain’; we are reminded of the Latin gerundives. For a neg. infin. cp. nahi-- partmdse (1,54, 1), Better to emend ands(sh)é = dnas(sh)é = ‘that I may reach
(to punish)’, or ‘to reach’, infin. (cp. endkhsta possibly in that sense); or dnds(sh)é might be @ + nas + se, s aor. inf. (?) of nas = ‘that they may perish’, or ‘that I may destroy(?)’. One scholar solves the difficulties by taking dvafsheng and Gistaschd as neuters. Others would colour somewhat as follows: ‘How could I give the evil into the hands of the pious, that he should threaten him with the words of Thy commands; that he should attain to (davdc) mighty power over the unbelieving, that he should seize the deceivers and tormen- tors (or, ‘I will seize’).
Observe the extended explanation of Ashdi in the Pahl. I had rendered ce without favour and syntactically in the light of.Ner., but an alternative is positively necessary in the sense of the Gathd; so also in the gloss. Dind birdérén may be nom., avd not acc. Valman 7 gand (ganak, D.(?)) is gloss, and is also highly characteristic, as applied to Ganrak (or °ndk) Minavad. The infin. ddvéi is taken, as so often correctly, as a finite, and as expressing continuous action. Line ¢ is broken up, as I think, quite on modern prin- ciples, for facility of reproduction. Ands(sh)é(é) was recognized as an infin. with the a priv. To recast c, read: ‘Whom those who teach this Thy word will slay, and they are producing a mighty destruction of the wicked [] the pro- ducers of profanity are deceived, O A.; they are of the non-approaching ’. Ner. of course reproduces the Pahl. when taken as ordinary language, and without considering that it is hampered at every word by a supposed neces- sity to follow the literal order of the Gatha. Haug was entirely mistaken, when he supposed that dvafshé in Y. 53, 8 was rendered by Ner. by prasddah, which is gloss (= moed), the rendering being in the same sense as here; chhadmena = Pahl. frift. Sydma (C. (2) P.) referring to yekaviméiném is ob- viously preferable to smaye, although this latter is corroborated by J.3, J.4, J*. Without yekavimaném in the Pabl. smaye might be better, as not introducing a 1** pers.
15. Ahyd refers to the situation. I would, as in S, B. E. XXXI, p. 118, recall my former rendering cum for mad(f) as being only possibly correct. P6i mad(#) is either pdimad(t) = madpoi, pronoun in composition, — ‘for my protection’, or it is ablat. for gen.; ‘if thou hast power over me (my fate) for protection’, cp. Y. 48, 9 Kada vae(é)da yée(e)zt chahya khshay- atha, or finally péi may possibly be used without the immediate object, ‘to hold it off from me’. Then also mad(t) may possibly be the prep. Khshayé(e)ht = (with some merely) ‘art Thou able’. It seems to possess more meaning in the Avesta. Avdi§ wrvdtdis, the instr. of relation or causality, ‘on account of the institutions’ which both parties, the Ashavan’s, and the Daé(é)va-party also claimed (after a fashion) as their own. Some seem to take the instr. as meaning ‘according to the predeterminations which Thou hast fixed’;
De Harlez, par les lois, Bartholomae, gemdsz den Bestimmungen, but the urvata, a modification of the vratd, were plainly the institutions of religion in a special sense. The expression seems a half appeal to Ahura in the sense, ‘the vratini which Thou dost desire to maintain, therefore surely Thou wilt give the day to the righteous party struggling in the Holy Cause’, Vananam, acc. sg. fem. from van = ‘to conquer’, or ‘to desire’. Some scholars would render: ‘Whether you can really take notice (? = pdt from pé in that Vedic Sense) of my person; when the hitherto irreconcileable hosts become united (?) under the conditions which Thou wilt fix for them, to which of them wilt Thou then give the predominance?’
What text may have stood before the Pahl. trlr. I cannot well con- Jecture. He knew what pot meant as from pd (see v. 16). Perhaps he thought fit to vary here, rendering ‘in manifestation ’, as what is ‘guarded’ Should be ‘kept in sight’. According to Spiegel’s text, anaochanhd is merely rendered by the Pahl. aé avd (so we should naturally decipher). In Dastur
Jamaspji’s MS. the letters are j¥ ya , which, in view of anaochanhd, may
be read Parsi a, n, a, 7, dn = ‘the torments ’, or andkdn = ‘the (mutually) evil’. D.’s MS. has aé khénaks — ‘this house’ (?), or aé-déhanks — ‘having this intention’ (?), or perhaps a transliteration. Ner.’s anagvardn shows that he may have seen the letter 2, and not 2, reading perhaps anasdé (2) = ‘undecaying’, and as hd is regarded by some modern writers as an acc. pl. neut. suffix, the plural °dn should not be regarded as scandalously free. Or Ner. may possibly have seen andshan (?) in the word, reconstructing according to the gloss of the Pahl, which, as I hold, gives a mischievous misdirection. It is not at all certain that the Pahl. trir. read a form of dares (?) for what now stands as didere(gh)zhé: for the emphatic (see the recognition of the reduplication) ‘expounding’ of the doctrines might have expressed ‘sustaining them’. Vanandim was vaguely but not unnaturally rendered by ‘shaptrih’. In Ner. we have prarohina® again. Here it must equal pavan nikézishno, so in Y, 43, 11.
16. Formal caesura after the fourth, but seed and e where the sense opposes. Read my former texts tuition’ = [in turtionem|, potestatem (-habens) (?), and also pro civibus for pro vitis. My former translation records the opinion that in Jéthwi we might have the absolutive, cp. hated. This relieves the awkwardness of thwd, but on the contrary it demands a ‘certag’ understood. It is better to divide verethremjd, as I do in 8. B. E. XXXI, p. 119. This supplies the verb; ‘smiting with victory (cp. verethraja) to save all who are of, or for, Thy doctrine’, the instr. in the same sense as in the previous verse. Thwd. * senghd would then qualify yéé henit, which of
course can hardly be left in this concrete connection to equal the Vedic ye santi = ‘all beings’. Even taking thwd senghd instrumentally in im- mediate connection with verethremjd (smiting victoriously by means of thy doctrine (cp. the unmistakable n@ him merdzhdydi thwahyd Mathrdis séngh- ahyd) a rendering by no means improbable) the yd¢ hent? gather from attraction a concrete sense. The words mean ‘those who are of the party whose weapons are the holy Mathra’s’. Haug’s gallant effort to emend ké verethrem jath® wa poiscng, ha - - chithrd=quis daemones-inimicos necavitve forma qui sunt diversd - + + is not judicious. Cithra-- - chizhdi stand in alliter- ated relation, and do not mean ‘promise ’, but like chichithwé (?) in Y, 43, 2 = ‘reveal’, ‘show’, cp. RV. VIII, 39, 3, sd devéshu prada chikiddhi. Dam by some eagerly cherished as an acc. infin. is closely related to dévg, as is ratim to patois; cp. dénsu-patni. Ahabis, inst. for dat., better = ‘for the people’ (as taught privately many years ago), than for ‘the worlds’, although this latter is specially GAthic. Ratém is concrete, as in Yi. 20; 22 ¥ 3-33.21 Sraoshd janta is another indication as to what is the missing subject in Y. 43, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15. Ahmdi yahmadi- - - kahmdichid(t) recall Y. 43, 1, line a. The ratu could be one of several prominent chiefs whom Ahura might choose; so very possibly also in Y. 43, 1. ‘May holy obedience be rendered to that saving governor, whomsoever thou may’st select’. Some would turn the sense somewhat as follows: ‘Who has the predominance ? Those whom Thou through Thy command hast appointed to protect? Grant an understanding (mdi dam = medhdm (?)) prince to the people’.