am used because of the letter m in rafedhrem? It = ‘my’, but see Ner. Chagvdo seems to have been regarded as unmanageable in its difficult sense as a nom. sg. = ‘desiring’, ‘seeking’ in agreement(?) with the subject who ‘bestows’. It was either taken as a nom. absolute, ‘I desiring’, or its root idea was simply expressed by kdmaké. Read ‘gives his friend’. Akhsé was probably taken as the pres. part. rather than freely as the 254 sg. conj. ‘In the teaching’ = ‘teaching’, or ‘in the teaching may’st Thou give me’ = ‘may’st Thou teach me’. The difficult translation of Ner. requires alter- natives. Ner.’s kémchit, which generally renders ‘thing’, is here used to express ‘little’ = kam. But the na would then be superfluous. ‘I am not possessed of a little company’ is not meant. Kéimchana (J.*) would relieve all difficulty as to the sense, but see kam in the Pahl. and kim- chittarad. If kimchit na is to stand, its sense must correspond to that of kim cha na, and this in spite of its enforced use as practically = kam*, That Ner. meant something intelligible is quite as probable as that he had his eye on the Pahl. The passage presents a puzzle. Haug’s reading narachayah is mistaken in its trl., and is against other MSS. and the Pahl, yet it _ may be preferable. My former text na = ‘not’ certainly afforded an ad- mirable sense, if samchayah can be taken as an adj., but see the Pahl. with no Jd, yet the navin the Gatha, kamna°, may have given rise to this negative. Or perhaps ndé was intended, and read irregularly as in a com- positum with sam°. Haug errs in supposing kimchit to mean in yeglichem Ding. Kimchit (= ‘little? = kam) + né + samchayah might mean irregu- larly, ‘a man having little wealth’. There is no gabrd after kam, but see the syllable na in khamnafshvd. Aside from the Pahl. it =: ‘I am little provided with masses of men’, but see kimchit naro as a quasi compositum, its true sense being ‘having few men’; so I read as alternatively; also the Pahl. kam-gabra is a bahuvrihi. Read my former printing yad asmé, iti(b), tad, etad, yan mitram, so, better; read its reward. *Poss.: ‘Iam not even(?) alittle --’.
3. Caesura after the 4; line a has only ten syllables; asn@m may have been pronounced asnaam; verené, two syll. Read my former asterisk- marked words for wkhshdnd and vereeddis illustrantes, and sublimibus. Kadd, like similar forms in the Rig Veda and the English, is here merely rhetorical. ‘When are?’ = ‘are?’: so, similarly often elsewhere. Some would render; ‘when are the mornings coming?’, a pleasing and long familiar suggestion.
As noticed in S. B. E. XXXI, p. 135. I prefer at present the view offered in the Pahl. trl. at Y. 50, 10. The trlr. there reports the rendering ‘enlighteners’. As Ludwig says of Sdéyana, we must emend the Pahlavi translations from their own suggestions. The expression is used figuratively for the salvation-schemes of the Saos(k)yaiits ‘who bring religious light’,
‘Increasers of the days’ would convey the same idea as ‘enlighteners’, ‘increasers of the light of mental dawn till it reached twilight and full day’. For anhéus darethrai, cp. yé ahtim ishasas aibt, Y.51, 19. The expressions, ‘life’, ‘world’, both conveyed the idea of the world as governed by the precepts of the Holy Faith. Some would colour a, 6, ‘when, O A, will the auroras of the days come when the good kingdom is established’? Vereedaz§ corresponds as to form, and perhaps meaning too, with vriddhdis, but a form of orig extended by d is not impossible as the analogon. J.* has sdstré = ‘Oruler’.
Here the Pahl. trlr. again positively explains his superfluous dahishno. He either shows that he means ‘time’ by it, or else he means to show that, by translating the syllable °dd by it, he on no account means to imply that he fails to see the meaning of kadd as the interrogative adverb of time. His vakhshiniddr should not be too seriously taken, as the ideas of ‘increase’ and ‘illumination’ often interchange with him, or Ner. Cp. Ner.’s renderings of forms of vakhsh by those of kag, as also here. Pavan pédakth does not necessarily show that the trlr. saw a form from dares in darethrai (cp. however th often expressed in Pahl. by »; darethrdi stood in the Pahl. char.), péddk may express what is ‘ produced’, as well as what is ‘evident’. The freedom, carelessness, or mistake, of s#d without the sign of the dat. may be accounted for by the fact that the final °di of athdi in its Pahl. form 4» is the same character as the @ of a Zend nom. fem., and Pahlavi characters still appeared frequently in the Zend text before the trlr. Ner.’s vikdgayitryo (so) is very welcome, as supporting the better rendering ‘en- lighteners’ for wkhshdné, but this support is somewhat illusory, forms of kag, as just stated, rendering those of vakhsh, and casting suspicion on our natural rendering of Ner.’s expressions when he uses forms of kde under other circumstances. Prabruvanti, as equalling a misread Pahl. Srandménd,
see fravdménd, should be taken in its sense of ‘praise’ rather than in its more literal sense.
4. The metre of c is greatly disturbed, especially by has, which may be interpolated. Here my former long since printed renderings may well stand as alternatives, but read °xés¢d. I preferred referring vazhdréng to vaz (see the Pahl.). Others seem to take it as a weakened form of vdstréng. Some — preferred frédrentdi§ (root ram) = ‘from comfort’, which is now abandoned. Some would read duehddbdo = duzhdabéo ‘an evil deceiver’. In my widely — circulated edition, I suggested many years ago zu = hi, and was inclined to read duzh(a)zébdo = duzhzdvéo = ‘evil-invoking’. I later preferred the hint of the Pahl. trir., Supposing the original form to have been duzhhae- énhvdo = ‘endowed with evil power’. This would however require the
omission of ids, see the metre, but has may well have slipped in from v. 5. Some prefer ahémustd, and render ‘not desired’. Others have compared Vedic mush, and rendered ‘the false-image of a lord’. Others again, too much inclined to read every s as ad render ahzmustéd (so reading) as _ nefandus = a+ sam + udita. I preferred ahim + uSsto from ush ‘to burn’, ‘consume’, cp. aoshah, ‘destruction’; so the (here somewhat shattered) Pahl. trl., indicates. Otherwise we might compare mush, and render ‘plun- derer of our life’, cp. whushayd(?) Y. 29, 1. Ihad rendered pathméng vias with chardd(f) in view, and also gdo fréretéis. ‘He will go the ways of prosperous wisdom with the symbolic Cow’, cp. Y. 31, 9. But char means ‘execute’ at times in the Rig Veda, and often in the later Indian. Path- méng as = ‘provision’, might still be referred to pathas for an etymology. The ‘paths’ for the Cow (Y. 31, 9) were as her pasture and her fodder. Even if we were obliged to use pdthmainydtemé in a different sense, it is _ how the fashion to see diff. meanings in the same word, and that when occurring in the closest connection. ‘Providing (stores) for the kine made _ With wise forethought’ is a most probable rendering; and I would so emend alternatively, as in S. B. E. XXXI, p.136. The suggestion /ré.gdo = ‘goer on before’ is very old, “which is of course in its favour; but I think that Jro gdo is poetic iteration from gdo fréretéis. Some might colour: ‘The sinner circumscribes the boundaries of the righteous - - - being an impostor - - - he who strips him of his land, or power, and his life, he goes on before the faithful. - -’. J.* has patha men.
Notice once more that the Pahl. trlr. first explained the (to many) so difficult pad(f) in its sense of ‘detaining from good’. Dish stahamak shows that duzhazdbdo was taken as duzh + hazah + vdo. Ahim, literally omitted in the text, is literally expressed in the gloss (apa)gayéhé(¢). In line d, the frequently recurring rendering of yas + ¢a in its different forms by mado once more helps to mar the effect as that of an approximately literal translation. The important word jydtéus is not at all reproduced (see also Ner.), and yet many would criticize these trls. as invariably inten- ded to be closely literal. In e mén is a marring element, having no literal correspondont in the Gatha. It would be however unscholarly in the extreme to look for unbroken literal exactness here. In Ner. Tr have rendered pdpdt anyatha in accordance with the Pahl. Read my former printing degeshu vd, grdmeshu vd. The MSS. with one exception read °jndnatayd in e, I correct elsewhere after this reading.
5. Caesura after the 4%, yet see 4; Urvdtdis should be pronounced ordtois, cp. urvdtéd = vrata; then the caesura would fall after hu- (2). Read my former printing propter-superbiam ejus, vel Sortasse ad eum ejiciendum.,
also de verbis suis. Following the indication of the Pahl. trir. in this dif- ficult verse, I refer drité to dar (dir) = ‘to shatter’, cp. for form critd from ¢ré (to gir). Ayartem with the ablative, as ‘leaving his faith and companions’ (?) seems to me an extremely improbable suggestion. Others, modifying an old suggestion, would render ayantem with urvdtocs mithroibyd, as ‘withdrawing himself from the wrvditi and mithra (= ‘oaths and trea- ties’) - - -, one who holds to them (huzertus)’, etc. Urvdtoi§ « - mithroiby6o obviously belong to the huzéitus. Javds shows Pahl. writing in the Zend text, the 7 having been understood as a Pahl. consonant which often has inherent short vowel, this time 7; but this ¢ was not understood by the transliterator into Zend, and he chose the more common inherent a; read Jjivas. Uzitithyot is taken by some as we + 2iithyoi = ud + hd + tyod = ‘calling out’, dat. infin. of zw = ha, hod, ‘publicly to call out (?) his name, so should he punish him (khrénydd(¢))’. Another prefers we + withyoi, a dat. from uz + dti = ‘to helping out’. I am of the opinion that the saé(é)tu here, as in v. 1, is hostile, and therefore following a simple and common- place suggestion, I compare uziithydoscha, zw 4+ ug = ‘to rush out’, here figuratively, as = ‘for his (enforced) headlong flight’, i. e. ‘his expulsion’, or possibly mentally ‘in his outburst’ (go in English), ‘for his outburst of audacity’, cp. the fig. use of jaty@, cp. jutdye for form. So taken, we should regard °ydéz as a shortened (?) dat. for uzedithaydi (2), ep. erezejydi. Uztithydoscha(f.) may be a transition to the 7 declension. Some take khriinyad(t) as abl. = ‘bad treatment’; this, probably to avoid a new sentence in e,
but ¢ is the thing said. Some have coloured: ‘When one in the course of —
ordinary life has observed one coming with speed upon the companions of —
the association, or of his own tribe, as soon as the pious perceives the wicked he should mention it at once to the connection, to rescue them from bad treatment’. The Pahl. trir. seems to have vead vdeo for vd. Adds may well be correctly rendered by ayehabanishni, Uzitithyoi is rendered in the sense of the prefix wz = ud. As an alternative to my former most im- partial, if not partially unfavourable rendering, read as closer, and without gloss: ‘He whose is authority derived [] through You is no bestower of favours [] in the following case: The injurer comes, [] (4) but he remains in the beneficent wisdom and in the covenant of the blessed doctrine (gen. by position) [ }. (c) In his just living he is righteous, and him who is evil[ ] (d) he has judged, and that is thus [] his proclaiming to his own (his re- lation) [] (€), whom A. has lifted up (equalling ‘in his lifting up’) from
impiety (khrdmydd(t) as abl. (so others)) []’. Read perhaps gvikhranth for
the avdrinih of D. and Pers, Spiegel well suggested att for aétind in d; see has, and asti, and render accordingly. As an alternative I had rendered
CRT I a ont \i 5:
ty