The Pahl. trir., glosses aside, may be considered as proceeding with substantial correctness. Ishathd is taken in its sense of ‘wish’ (see the gloss), and freely as a 34 sg., but bavihinéd is also a Qna pl, The trlr. had fre- quently rendered the term. °‘id, and could not have departed from his other renderings from pure ignorance. Read 0 alternatively ; ‘and ye who are desiring if from near and from afar’. The divided mazddonhédum misled the trir. as it did all his successors till a recent period, and this should afford an explanation of many similar errors. In mazddonhé (sic) he sees the clumsy meaning necessary to that text. Péddk = prakatam = chitre. The conj. in meras(k)yad(#) was recognized in marenchindd, and dveretd was reproduced as active and transitive in the word hémnunéd. Haug, not aware of the Pahl. free forms, declared Ner. to have rendered géshédim as a noun in the dual. Ner. was rendering gésh dén in the gl. = nydkshishno in the text. The Pahl. renders infin. for imper. Ner. is more graphic with his
noun in the text, while the Pahl. trlr. places gosh dén in the gloss. Read my former misprint °kyiyate; dushtagishydyita@ seems in order as a denom. not needing alteration, although °ydpitd is in analogy with an arthdpayati, cp. Max Miiller’s Sansk. Gram. German. trl. s. 319. Is durgatiyam meant for & comparative with primary suffix, for °“¢yah?; see the Pahl. comparative form; or it is a needless variation ?
2. Paouruyé(é) = paourvyé ace. du. masc., see p. 436; we = Wine
will proclaim the two spirits ‘at first’? is weak and improbable. Some would render ‘earlier than the world’. See Y. 30, 4 vahistem mand, and Y. 30, 6 achistem mano. Spanydo - - angrem corresponds to vahyd, akemchd in Y. 30, 3. Disregard the divisions of the lines at the 6t syllable which were formerly printed to guide non-experts in catching the supposed rhythm. Read my former text wrvand,
J.? has advydpara®, J.* (2) the same, or adhy®, but the same characters represent adv in yadvayam (sic) v.6, c. One MS., which is properly J.4 not J.*, is reported by a friend to have asadvydpdrt in 2 d. Either read avydpar° throughout with Sp.’s MSS. ©. and P., or correct to asadvydpar° where needed. This latter is of course the better reading, if it were really genuine. Read antar bhu®, ndchd tmdnah, In the Parsi-pers. the wa in the interior after mén had better be u, and this notwithstanding the curious, and one would say positively erroneous, Pazarfa “, which intrudes every where, even at the beginnings of sentences, while the Pahl. va, its original — holds, as we suppose, throughout, and not only at the beginnings of sen- tences. For this latter reason I had formerly preferred reading wa (= va) throughout in this mixed Parsi and Persian. But with some ~ is orig. uta.
3. Caesura after the 4th syllable, yet see lines c, d, e. Read in my old free trl 6; ‘Which unto - ’; e ‘Theirs’, All the divisions of the lines are wholly informal. Avdé is loc.; Is it purely adverbial, or = in miseria? Read my former text pavan shan in e. In Ner. ddau = Jratim. Read my former printing antar bhuvane.
4. Formal caesura after the fourth, yet see c. My former volens in e Should be supplemented with aspiciens. Great obscurity is here present. Some scholars, chiefly anxious to differ from predecessors, do not hesitate at a first-personal vaé(é)dé of course thoroughly possible, but see vidvdo in v. 3 referring to Ahuréd. A voc, Mazda is also not so probable just here; see Mazddo A. in the 3r4 pers. nom. in y. 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10. The nom. is characteristic, and the formal address is to the people; see the voc. only in v. 11. But who is the ‘father of the Good Mind’, ‘the father of the Saints’, possibly the saintly monarch whose daughter is ‘Piety’. Then comes
line e with the mention of A. as ‘undeceivable’, a repetition of the idea in line 6., vaé(é)dd. The Monarch could only be referred to as priestly, and representing all virtues in his person; possibly Zarathustra is meant; hence he is referred to immediately after the mention of the Mdathra which he delivered. We might be tempted to regard @ of Mazdd (so) as having lost its nasalization, Mazda = Mazddim: ‘I know Mazda, who appointed him - -’. Finally have we here oblique diction, ‘the Father of the Good Mind and of Piety’ strongly suggests Ahura. Shall we render: ‘I know M. the Father, etc’. Or finally, can the meaning be: ‘M. A. knows, who appointed = ‘constituted Himself’ by His gracious revelation the Father, (‘begetting them again by the living word’). Véspd-hishas might be taken as a compositum, or not. Hishas seems a reduplicated root noun from shas; i. e. unless we can correct to d@ ishas, gy stood as Pahl. s = h% or 4, to ish, ishasd, Y. 31, 4; ishasdtd(t), Y. 50, 2. For meaning see the Pahl., followed by very many; ‘not deceived and all-searching’ (or, ‘all viewing’). Some might give the following cast: ‘I will now make known what is the dearest thing in this world to him; I know well (ashdd(f) hachd@) the father of the diligent pious man, who has established it. But his daughter is Obedience which ex- presses itself in good deeds; Ahura is not to be deceived, the one present to all’.
We can easily forgive the khvétak-das (or °dath) of the Pahl. glossist; I read varetd in c, and omit va in d. The old-fashioned Sansk. letter, which looks so much like rte, is 0, shuaetuo® is the word, not shuaeturte®.
5. Consider: ‘They who render me obedience - - - in this come to Weal and Immortality (acc. du. of goal) for the deeds of the good spirit. I (2) say (?) it, Ahura (2). Ahurd has thus no verb; but see fravakhshyd. Can Ahuré be its subject? Improbable; see mraod(t) spentétemd. Reading jimem.; ‘to them I will come with W. and I. for their action done in a good spirit’. But the 1** pers. ‘I, Ahura’ would be isolated in the piece; see the 3°41 yerse. See Ahwrd-[°em] in v. 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9,10. A first person is also improbable as Ahura, on account of line a with its first pers. verb, with another subject. I defend as altern. my rendering, now several years old, that the duals combined plus Ahwré are the subject, if jimen is read; and He elsewhere ‘comes’. Otherwise I would accede to the very suspicious 1st sg. jimem, in spite of the 1s* pers. of the. speaker expressed throughout in fravakhshyd. There is a question whether we may not have the pres. part. in jimen ‘to them A. zs coming’. Pahl. Read ¢ without gloss: ‘who renders Srdsh obedience to me, and inculcates [it] - -’. This is of impor- tance to show the havoc in these trls. made by glosses. Chayaschd rendered by a verbal form should scandalize no competent scholar; perhaps a present
part. was seen. ‘Offering obedience and attention’ involved transmitting the doctrine. Chayaschd, if standing in the Pahl. character, may have acci- dentally suggested chish. Ner. Line 4 was formerly rendered freely of course by me; vdchah was not intended to be rendered as a gen. sg., but as a nom. pl. in agreement with deydh. Samldpe of itself expresses ‘in the course of speech’; and I corrected the vachah of the MSS. (with Spiegel) on account of deydh which is otherwise unmanageable, having had also an eye to vdk in a; see also yd(f). Lit. ‘the utterances to be delivered in discourse, which express... Read my former text idam eva, also the bracket after anyeshdm.
6. Disregard my former informal division at the sixth syllable. Consider; “those who exist’, i. e. ‘the holy Immortals’, and for my former noun form, or interrogatum est, which were thoroughly possible, read consultans inter- rogavt; ‘in praise of whom I have consulted with the Good Mind in His saints, i. e. with Him and His holier representatives’. Frasht is a 18 se. mid. s aor. of pares = prachh; s + 5 = 5, sh; ep. frastd, ndshimd, fraoirisaiti, dareshad(t), etc. The word was formerly held by authors to be a 374 go. pass, aor., and the view that it is a 1st sg. had long privately circulated before its later publication. Yoé het? in the sense ‘all who exist’, so in the RV., seems rather unsubstantial, but may be correct; huddo understood would be safer. Auddo (suds) may allude to the Bountiful Immortals who are so frequently termed huddo in the Avesta. Some might colour: ‘Now will I make known the most important truth of all, righteously thanking Him who rightly guides all the living through His holy spirit. Let A. M. hear me, in whose glorification, I, of pious mind, concern myself - . »’,
The somewhat harmless glosses of the Pahl. trlr. should not scandalize the critical reader. The Sloss [Adharmazd nafshman|] (so read) spoils line 3. No reasonable critic will be hard on the free, ‘O A. hear’ for ‘let A. hear’. More fault might be found with the tame d@mizend, pres. for imper. in e. Read spéndk in c. Stut? was perhaps intended for stutih(r). Naisargikam always = dsm; it has otherwise never been explained. Is an inverted — nairyosangh its base?
7. Caesura at the 4 syllable. Jog = Jivd, or jivod. J was regarded as having inherent 7. Read my former text ishdoiti. With some rddanhd : is gen. sg. with ye(e)hya; better concrete n. pl. masc. subj. to dshdonté. ; Yée)hya refers obviously to the personal ahyé of v. 6. Ishdorte (which : Some render ‘enjoy’) = ‘will pray for’, or ‘let the offerers pray for’. The % verse is an encouragement to prayer for the liberal adherents. Ba)vante $ may well = ‘become’, and go ‘shall be’. Aé(é)shé may = ‘enjoying’ on
account of ‘the state of perfection’, but as ishdont? better = ‘seek’, aé(¢)shd, its noun, may = ‘seeking’; the soul progresses; see Yt. 22, etc. Nerds in its form can hardly be other than acc. pl. *nyins. Or we may read a gen. with dregvaté; see K.* neres (sic by transfer(?) of declension). The acc. would be the object of the force in sédrd, needing no prep. between. Sddrda is rendered by able scholars as loc. (?) ‘with an wtayitd in the noun sense’, ‘in a wretched continuance’, but A. was a sanctified idea which abhorred an ‘evil? adj. Tacha khshatrd, keenly rendered ‘these two places’, has the game objection. The sanctified word could hardly be applied to Hell. Ahura is difficult as ‘appointing Hell’, but this would be more possible in the Gathds, in which the extreme dualism may have been modified by previous monotheism; see ashi applied to the wicked, but never without mention of the ashavan. Some might possibly render at second hand: ‘The fruits of which devotion those who have been, and are, in life shall enjoy éshdont? (?); the soul of the pious shall be a participant (aé(¢)sho = ‘enjoying’) in Immortality, but the soul of the wicked (neres) will be a participant (aé(é)shé) in a con- tinuance (utayitd not with Am°) which is tormented (sdédrdé loc. of sadrz), and these two places A.M. determines’. Yq is hardly sufficiently explained here. The Pahl. trlr., I should say with little doubt, saw zshdont? divided, hence his first personal. Otherwise he is free, see the gloss in the first person thrown in after the 3*¢ pers. in 6. It is quite out of the question to suppose that he could mistake «shdonti for a first personal. Avéd is mis- chievous in c. The expositors probably did not think the ‘soul praying’ a natural idea, or avd might apply to khodstar. Tikh(sh)ishno(?) is again very pardonable for utayditt [°ta], as ‘persistent energy’ expresses ‘ persisting continuance’. If avd could be corrected, and the freedom of the first pers. is accepted in a, the line would fall into a shape closely approximating its original. The loc. of Ameretditi is recognized in the gloss; omit va in d. Ner. of course follows the Pahl. Yogyé@ as nom. pl. mase. ‘they are fit’ (to smite anew); the MSS. have yogra (?) = yoga (?).