8 See line & as to caesura. Some scholars, properly seeking new renderings, might take vivareshd as = vrij (varj) + a: ‘I am desiring to turn Him toward us’, cp. RV. I, 33, 1- - gdvam kétam param dvdrjate nah; but cp. staotais nemanhd d vivareshd with yoi im ve noid(t) tha mathrem var(e)shent?, v.3. Var(e)z is used in its usual sense ‘of performance of duty toward (@) Him with hymns of self-humiliating praise’. See the position of mé as against that of nas in RV. I, 33, 1. © Yet the suggestion is a fine one, if still not so probable. Var(e)z (varj) is far more restricted in its use in the Avesta than in the Rig Veda. Some might colour as follows: ‘Him do I strive with worshipful songs to turn toward me, for well have
I seen him with the eyesight of thought, and word, and deed, knowing him in truth as A.M. May we make our Songs to reach to the place of praise’.
probable that no instances of the defective Ved. term. an, Nn. s. m. of the f
pres. part., should appear beside the terminations 6 for as = @s — ants, which, together with its fuller form, preserves the sign of the nom. s, lost in the Sansk. uncovered term.; cp. ugdn of Agni, Indra, etc. Some scholars
render khshathrd in the sense of ‘fields’, but shdithréd = kshétrani would be the more natural text for that. Ved. kskatrd, used of Varuna, Indra, and others, hardly descends to the fields, and in the Gathdas Khshathra, as the personified Sovereign Power of the Iranian Deity, is actually besought ‘to come’ to the invoker in formal association with Vohu Manah, Asha, and Ar(a)maiti. Read my former printing, every thing, and, ours. Some able scholars would colour: ‘Him will I propitiate in common with the faithful: may He afford them, as they wish it, plenty and success. May M. A. grant lands and fields for our nourishment, till the faithful in reality form an intelligent community’.
in Y. 44, 3, ete. Correct of course Ner.’s asmah, read my former printing
yat. But the impossible (?) yam is now explained by the original MS. J.3 as a part of vayam; °cha should be read va; vayam smah, and this in spite of a desired cha. Sansk. v could be easily misread ch, and one MS., Jie is especially doubtful.
10. Anmaint would be naturally compared with anmd Y. 28, 7, and ammainé(é) in Y. 44, 20, but the suggestion of the Pahl. may lead us to a still better explanation; **andmni (sic) might be loc. adverbial = ‘ (famed) beyond our power to name’; ‘who is heard of in unnamed measure’. My rendering in S. B. E. XXXI. where dan is taken for dédm, acc. infin., and also my alternative rendering here must both of them labour under the difficulty that the two dat. hd with a verb, like choist (see also ahmdi stot), would seem to bear especial receptive dative force, the infin. (?) din (dim) being unusually distant. Unwilling to violate the language, I had previously
‘taken chdist as expressing the act of the worshipper, whose offering explained
the extension of Ahura’s fame, dan also expressing the ascription of Weal and Immortality to Ahura, which he possessed for His people. I now once more think dan suspicious as an infin., for it may well be a pres. part. (or aor. pres. part.); cp. wsén (wedn), as it is improbable that the loss of s from ucdns, etc. should not have begun in the Zend. Line c, hyad(t) hoi Asha Vohuché chéist Mananhd might be parenthetic, dén being in agreement with Ahurd understood from 0; see Y. 43, 3 where line ¢ comes e awkwardly
after Ahuré. Some might render, with slight change of text: ‘With these festive words of devotion will I rejoice Him who is called A. M., as He really in grace has promised to grant in the kingdom Welfare and Life (?), and to the people power and help’. J.* has chéistd = ‘sacrifices are directed’.
Notice the rendering of the reduplication in mimaghzhd by haméshak. The trlr., having twice rendered forms of anman by astéibd, here from some unknown reading renders a form of naman with the @ priv. and translated with especial intelligence what he understood as a word meaning ‘in his unnamed character’ by ‘in his ‘other’ name ’, also curiously departing from his nearly universal custom, in that he renders Mazdéo Ahiiro, not as a mere proper name. As to the syntax of the (syntactically only) difficult 6, he relieves himself with a gloss aighash gift, and by the above-mentioned description of Mazddo Ahuré, as if it might represent some other person than the supreme Deity. He could not credit chéist - - - hdi (see above) nor hd. In line e he gives positively an alternative rendering; s¢éi was regarded as a dat. infin. of std, and rendered as a pres., expressive of ‘con- dition’. But the trlr. at the same time would not reject a meaning ‘for the land’ which had descended in tradition; accordingly he adds Spendarmads, which he understood, as Ner. so often does, as a Synonym for ‘earth’, Din was probably taken as the pres. part., and rendered ‘he gives’, and his valman might well be regarded as in oblique case by position, omitting va with MSS. I formerly used a too severe impartiality. Read alternatively : ‘That one is to be magnified by us, etc... . (c) who revealed to that one righteousness and the good mind, the royal power, weal and immortality, to him (= his) és the giving one (= he who gives) the energy which is (2) the powerful characteristic(s)’, Alternative gloss ‘to Spendarmad (= ‘earth’, ‘land’) ‘who gives ’, etc. Critically treated the Syntax should follow the Gatha with almost total disregard of the ordinary syntactical force of the mechanically enforced Sequence of the words. In Ner. J 3, J.* have caktimatah. Agni is mentioned because the ‘fire’ in the later Avesta was closely as- sociated with Ashavahishta, Read my former printing tasya ’smdkam, sadai va, ghatitd ’si, So, better. Adhyavyavasdyasya J.4, C., P., is not an impos- sible form; ep. vya°.
11. As to caesura after the 4th, see d, and e(?). If v. 10 originally preceded v. 11, yas must recall yé of v. 10, and refer to Ahura, then yé hot would refer to the saint who was excepted and severed (anyéng ahmdad(t)) from the alien masses (“paré.mas(k)yascha) who profanely despised Ahura. If no connection exists (!) between v. 11 and tam . . yé in v.10, tem -. ye in v. 9, ¢ém in y. 8, yé(e)hyd@ in v.’s 7, 6, etc., then of course yas may refer to the worshipping leader, for, aside from all connection, that would be
the natural view. Dzig = dédns, to ddnsu; etc., otherwise to ddn (?), ddmpati. Some prefer daé(é)né@ as a nom., and as describing the conscience of the Saos(k)yant, with spent@ = ‘pure’. P(a)td is difficult as applied to a leader , in view of p(a)tarem if possibly applied to Ahura (?) in v. 4. One would suspect intentional obscurity, which is often elsewhere also apparent. I was formerly even inclined to suppose brdtd to be applied in a most unusual way. Some might render: ‘If one despises the Daé(é)vas and foreigners who despise him with the exception of him who showed him vene- ration, sach a commanding protector’s conscience can be pure (feeling itself guiltless). He is a true brother and father of thy folk., M. A.’ The Pahl. trlr. here, as so often, mistakes yastd for a participial form. It can be easily seen how very much closer to its original the Pahl. trl. would be, if this error were corrected. Sid-hdmanddni Dastdbar should be strictly regarded as. gen. by position, also Ner. rendering the first word at least in that form. Read my former printing in ¢ ‘is different’, ‘beneficial ones’, Hormijda; also wu in the Parsi-Pers. (e), as better, notwithstanding the mixed dialects.
Yasna XLVI.
For summary, and additional comments, see 8. B. E. XXXI, pp. 130- 144. Changes in opinion arrived at since its publication are not always noticed here.
1. For caesura in e read Thuwd (Thuva). J.* has néméi twice.
Pairt has been read pard, or taken in that sense after a suggestion which had circulated for years. Pard would indeed relieve difficulty; ‘they cast me out from’; but pacr? can hardly equal pard. In Y. 19, 7 Patra dim tanava azem yo A. M. urvdnem hacha vahistéd(t) anhaod(t) and in Y. 71, 15 pairi té(é) - - - hacha achistdd({) anhaod(t), the exclusion is ex- pressed by the strongest form of the abl. hacha -- - °dd(f), not by the pairi; cp. dhé + pari = ‘to enclose’, paridht = ‘enclosure’. Pair? means here either ‘among’ apud, or ‘on the part of’; Sk. meanings approach. Z. was not ‘cast out’ by the hostile éaé(é¢)tu connection. He had long waged open and defiant war with it, and in Y. 44, 15 we have allusion to actual battle; and as to the friendly éaé(é)tw, see v.’s 14, 15 fig. in this particular hymn where the most prominent members are on his side. He is complaining of the general indifference, with the evil and openly adverse tyrants in climax. Khshndus is either a noun khshndu + §, or a 34 sg. s aor. of khshnu, and = khsndust, cp. dérest. Khshndus as 3'4 sg. is difficult in Y. 51, 18, and ¢ does not fall off from § Verezénd = vrijdna = ‘the (lower) masses’, as ‘householders’, or ‘workmen’; cp, also wrijdna =
‘strength’. Héchd I had thought better as equalling haé(é)chd (hic + cha@) in the sense (mihi) talique; but héchad may be irreg. for haschd, see Y. 58, 4, and may be an exclamatory, ‘such an one’. Possibly hachd is the proper reading, see the Pahl.
Those who are anxious to render ‘they exclude me from’ might gather support from the Pahl. dard, which may even more naturally mean ‘out of’ than ‘up’. I had rendered daré however in the light of Ner. Khvéshdno and ayarmdndn are gen. by position, see their originals. No one, it is to be hoped, will venture to doubt that yehabind hémanam = ‘I am given (up, or forth)’ is free = ‘they give me’. The form was chosen by a quasi attraction. Khshndus was taken as the verbal form, and rendered in the pl. in view of its subject. Varénikich is difficult. As however varhémand may mean ‘productive’ it is possible that its root is also present in this word here; and that root may be dar, as 6 interchanges, freely with v. Otherwise var may be the root, ‘the devoted class’. Hamsdyakich freely expresses ‘the connection’, probably rendering the reading hachéd = ‘the accompanying’, or ‘connected’. Samvidanti (J.3, J, etc.) seems to show that shndyénd was not deciphered, but. shndsend from shndkhtand = ‘to know’, and this would hold even if °vnd° is read. Yet the Pahl. root in shndyinam = khnaoshdi is correctly rendered by Ner. by satkéraydmi in his usual manner. He could not have seen a difference between the root- meanings of shndyénd and shndyinam, so rendering them, one by ‘recognize’, and the other by ‘propitiate’. Or did he mean samvindanti (sic) in nearly the same sense as satkdraydmi, that is, in the sense of ‘accept’, and so ‘conciliate’? Or, finally, seeing the same root in shndyénd and shndyinam, did he render differently intentionally, and as if alternatively?
2. As to caesura, seee. One is tempted to refer kamnafshvd to °van; with w absorbed in the v, but md@ would then look as if = smd, which in the Rig Veda never appears at the beginning of a pada, or a sentence. Some prefer a nom. pl. neut. I prefer causal instr. sg. stem uw; ‘on account of my poverty in wealth (i. e. flocks)’. A nom. (so I formerly held) is rather oes Chagvdo to azém understood as the subject of gerezdi, ‘1 beseech- ing’, syntactically it would seem to belong to Ahurd, ‘Thou searching outs for me’. Akhsd should be taken in its proper sense; cp. Y. 65, 9, Y. 28, 5. ‘Declare to me’, i. e. ‘let me experience’, ‘teach me’. The 7S¢¢ (wealth) is antithesis to the poverty just described, cp. Y. 34,5. The rendering nimm wahr is very old and had long circulated among learners, which is however rather in its favour. Read my former printing cwpiens. Read the Pahl. b ‘since small flocks are mine’, kam-ramak as a compositum, and ‘since I am. possessed of fewest men’, kam-gabrd also a compositum. Was the om