If we regard chdshishnih as practically an infin., which we may well do, then the infin., as often with the trlr., may represent the imperative; we should then have; ‘let the teaching be clear’, which would not be far from chizhdt = designa. As Spiegel well suggests, ye sante in Ner. belongs in the text, and in J.2 it does not appear in the gloss. C. J.4 and Haug read hantdram pdtdrah, and appear, one or all, to leave out tava rakshayd, which stands clearly in the original MS. J.° It would certainly be an advantage to get rid of tava, if we hold jathwa to be the better reading, but see the Pahl. Is cikshdydm, (see J.4?), an advantage? The thaloke paraloke of J.* should be read.
17. I would now read [ad eam] in c for my former rendering -ad [eam]; for my former rendering in d, me in principatu; and for rdthemo, viam-sacram-indicans-dux. Zarem, to Ved. jar = char (2), sense ‘terms of your convenant’. The Pahl. read dskereitim as a closer definition of zarem [-em], ‘the agreed-to consummation’; cp. @skrds for form, and partly for meaning. Reading dskaitim (?), @ + sak + ati we have ‘convenanted companionship’; with dskitim (dsketim (?)) we might have ‘that this (?) word
(vakhs - aé(¢)shd) reach Your abode’ (Haug in-habitationem vestram). With the Pahl. I read vakhs-aé(é)shd as a compos., aé(¢)sha with aor, stem of vach, cp. hyad(t) méz, ete. of v.18. If noun forms occur from the reduplicated root, cp. chikit, sasrit, didyiit, juhit; and with intensive reduplication, cp. jégi, yaviyiidh, vinivan, why cannot an aorist stem exist as a noun form. in com- position, or separated ? Another, ‘dass mein Lied wolgemut erschalle’. Con- sider also vdkhsh — vakhsh, vakhs; ‘that my prayer may be prospered’, Is vdkhs probable as vdch + sign. of nom. s?, cp. ch +s = khsh, as ch + in merekhshdna, etc. ? Aé(¢)sho hardly = ‘ fulfilled (?) wish’. Sardz, as infin. (?) hardly = ‘for ever’; the Pahl. sar, sar(dér) is the identical word at the next stage of the language, Haug’s in-tutela = sardi has been widely followed. Bazhdydi as = bhujé (Haug’s sug.): ‘to enjoy Weal and Deathlessnegs ’ iS interesting, but sardi would be awkward. The 7 of bhuj also holds as in bunjaydd(t) Va.7, 71, bijem, Y. 31,18 (see also the meaning ‘suffer’ for bhéjam RV. II, 28, 9 m&’hdm.. anydkyitena bhojam). Bizhdydi might be aor. infin.; ep. prabhishdni, ‘that W. and A. should be to the chief’, or a formation like the Latin ‘for the chief-being’, i, e. ‘to be a chief endowed with blessedness and immortality’. But although 7 holds, 7 ++ s might become zh (2), an aor. infin, of bhuj governing the acc, duals H. and A. Haurvatd and A may of course be inst. 8g., see Y. 31, 20, where some see gen. se. But bhish might be thought of in the sense ‘to seck to grant H. and A. to the chief’, cp. devéshy ydco martdya bhitshan RY. IX, 94, 3 (806, 8). Rathemé, cp. hizvd.raithim, Y, 50, 6, is literally = rathird = ‘wagoner x ‘guide’, cp. Y. 53, 6, ratha + ma. Or the Pahl. triy. may be right, referring to rdd (cp. ddd = dath (?)). Ye rathemé may perhaps refer to sardi, cp. the ratim of y. 16, but the syntax indicates the Mathra which guides; cp. Y. 34,13 tém advdnem ahurd yem mot mraos vanhous mananhd dae(é)ndo saos(k)yantim++-+, Some would render e; ‘who live completely, or perfectly, according to Thy word’. Some would give the following cast: ‘How can I enter into personal intercourse with you, and (how is it possible) that my word should reach to your abode, in order that he who lives entirely ac- cording to Thy law may enjoy happiness and life in his house’.
The Pahl. trlr. seems to fail to see a first person in chardni, if indeed he possessed such a text. He well knew however what °dnt meant. Pos- sibly he omitted the expression of the first person as being obvious; see it in line a. Omitting va in d with DJ. and the Pers., we might read; ‘when also (min = amat = hyad(t)cha, but see Ner.) that which is my beseeching (2? khvastér) word(s) shall be verified’ (see the gloss). Pagchdtyasya well renders 2 pasind. I do not think that Haug’s unsupported pagchat asya is justified in view of the Pahl., and other frequent occurrences of yt,
Read pravyittih in former printing. One is naturally surprised to see the older form dadanti, and one would therefore prefer Haug’s dadati (so J.), but a pl. is required.
18. Most MSS. have handn?, read apivait?. Katha, like ‘how’ in Eng- lish, is often scarcely more than a sign of interrogation, Mizhdem may have its more original sense, cp. midhd, the animals being expected booty; cp. RV, 169, 2 svdrmivhasya pradhdnasya, Apivaiti, so better, is 3" sg. pass. aor, of vad, Some seem to have seen a form of pi, pinw here. Haur- vdtd and A. can hardly be nom. dual with a sg. verb; they might be quasi predicates: ‘Since it, the reward, was announced to me as equalling Welfare and Deathless life’; or an instr, (which is in itself thoroughly pos- sible, with A? referring to the two parts of the treasured reward, the mares
and the camel) might express ‘by, or in accordance with, the Divine H. and
A? Or, finally, H. and A. might be simply the means by which the bles- sing was assured: ‘It was made known to me by my happy fate that I. Some scholars would give the following cast: ‘Shall I really (hatha ashda(?))
_ give away (?handn?) as a reward, the ten pregnant mares and the camel,
which grew (form of pi, pinw (?)) to me unconsumed and living, (I. A. (?)), that I should give them to another’. Héman, in d of the Pahl, was corrected after the Persian, but I might of course have written the verbal form hémanam, which may = ‘1’, The pers. pronoun is here well in place, and ‘I thoroughly know H. and A.’ = ‘H, and A, are made known to me’, supposing that tho trlr, took that view of line d. I had translated ‘when IT am thus’ from excessive cautiousness, as the use of ‘I am’ for ‘I’ was probably mediated by some such understanding. There is no doubt that the trlr, read ¢aibyd in e (see Ner.) with am understood; ‘are given to Thee by me’.
19, Caosura after the 4, yet see c; read yas tad(t); disregard my former divisions of lines except as marking the stress on the 7, Some scholars who render handnt, or handné(é) in the preceding verse ‘shall I really give away’ render hanevit? here: ‘to him who ought to receive it? (so, correctly). Some scholars seem to read erezhukhdhai as = ‘to the one who has kept his promise’. This follows a very old suggestion long privately circulated, but ereehukhdhdi is probably a special and concrete term for ‘the orthodox disciple’, ep. Y. 31,12; Y. 31, 19, and especially adrujanto in Y. 31, 15; tho truth-speaker in antithesis to the adherent to the Lie- Demon. Notice the idiomatic tém for ahmdai, also ¢m. Maéa(?)nis (so better than mainis; ep. Ved. mentm) = ‘anger blow’, cp. a Ved. sense of many. But,
as td(t) ++ nd = ndid(?) is suspicious with °wkhdhd (so) nd, read: ‘When one does
not give the appointed prize to him who has earned a right to it, who verily as a loyal saint does not give it--’; or y@- + nd (quasi enclitic), The Pahl. trir., amid much correctness, manages to insert a mado, as an alternative not affecting the sense. He probably wished to show that he was aware that yastéd could be a part. (cp. yattd). It is hardly probable that he actually thought yasé@ (so he must have read) such a form. Else whence his smn which must = yas°. The same thing occurs in Y. 31, 7; see mimash there after madash. But his rendering for né = gabré may well be excused as enclitic with erezhukhdhai, for so he read. If 4 could be omitted, rdsté would be nom. = °ukhdha (so), and gabré regular. Maé(é)nis — (or mainis) is rendered in its result. Notice that Ner. varies his naro by nd. —
20. Chithend interrog. particle, possibly originally = in quo modo, or | with force of English ‘how ever’. Hukhshathré, better as nom. pl. with the Pahl., although an instr. sg. adv. is not impossible: pl. mases. in d are possible, but irregular. Daé(é)\v4 = Daé(é)va-worshippers (yet cp. sukshatré applied to — Varuna, Mitra, Indra, and cp. the Devdsas sukshatrisas). Kam = kam; — (irregularly spelt) placed after the dat. for emphasis; otherwise, if in order, — it might refer to a gam understood, ‘what cow’ (have they possessed)? Haug’s existentiam is not desirable, Ddté 3r4 pl. aor. mid. = ‘they have taken’, or poss. ‘given’. Anmainé(é) , correctly rendered by the Pahl., root an = im (but even nam + a is not so impossible; see p. 442) is dat. for — instr. or loc. adv. Uridéyatd is 34 sg. pret. caus. mid. of rud, or also possibly — irreg. 3°4 pl. with Kavd in a collective Sense, and as feeling the influence — of the subjects preceding, the K. and U.; see also the pl. mézen. Some would — render: ‘Have the infidels ever been good agriculturalists? Ask those only — who observe them (seeing a form of pag = spag in pes(k)yé(e)intt (?)) how — (ydis) the stupid, passionate, and abandoned to wrath, cause the Cow to groan (rud = ‘to weep’). Never do they favour her aright . . »’, Chigiin = chithend. ‘How’ is often merely a sign of a question in English and in other languages. Are the trlrs. right in seeing a form of pd in pes(k)® (pa= — padirarinénd Y. 32,13). Yemalelind aigh is gloss, see Ner., the evil party saw _ something laudatory in the transcribed word usikhshchd. The dative is I think expressed in Khéshmé (or Aésh°) avich-+ +. Astibd is very valuable. Rdndkih daddr may be intended to convey a correct idea of wridéyatd. The ever- recurring form of dédand for a Zend syllable with a d, should be condoned as harmless, the trirs, fearing to omit the smallest particle on which to hang a meaning. Searching for misunderstandings, see again uriidédyata; ru (= sru) = ‘to go’ may have caught the trir.’s attention, hence rdnakih. | Many might be scandalized at mozd for mézen, but the two words may be
radically connected. J.3 has kdydm (2), others °yam (?), but J.4 is reported as kdyanti; see Burnouf, Dict. Sans. J.4 seems nirvitmdna (?), nir-+-vid+man(?); J. nirvidtman (a2); see anirvinne = astibd. Line c is added from later hands. Pradadanti, reported by Haug, is an improvement. Haug persistently writes sadh® for sadv°; whether he, or his MS., was to blame, remains a question.
Yasna 45.
See for summary and additional translation and comment S. B.E. KX pp. 122—130. Changes in opinion arrived at. since its composition are not always noted here.
1. Chitré = chithrani with vispd; @ = é from yg (which was miswritten f) = gi = dm (cp. in ameshe = ameshdn); the 7 has disappeared as from
mizhdavin = mizhdavéni. Otherwise @ may = am, or even am (fem.) with @m (?). Im (only a particle in the RV.) has retained life as a pron. in the Av., (cp. 75), and may refer to daé(énd@ understood (see v. 3), it is also possibly a particle, while elsewhere a living pronoun. Mazddonhidim (valuable correction of Roth’s long privately circulated) = madh + dda, 2p. sa. aor. mid. *madh+dha+sa(s)+dhvam, or mad°. Avereté active sense, as hievd is more than soc. instr. (‘hemmed in with his tongue’) ‘confessing’ seems the better sense; the*word is a sort of deponent, not impossibly part. perf., otherwise dvaretd from °tar = ‘confessor’. My former free trl. de- pended on the old reading which was universally current at the time of printing, read it: ‘Now therefore all things well do ye ponder’. Asa slightly different cast read; ‘for ye can now mark all things, for it is to be under- stood that the false teacher will not for the second time - -’.