jivaniyah with an asterisk of doubt as in the usual sense of the suffix, but Ner. may have meant ‘living’ by the word (jivas); but again see zivinishno which seems causative. Whether it can mean, ‘who ought to live (according to to the truth)’ is doubtful. See the gloss for the justification of my (however doubted) rendering. In view of the context I can only correct to vachyah; Sp. transcribes P. vdkyyah (2); see gobishné, other MSS. vdbhyah (2), and wydkabhya (?). 6. Caesura after the fourth, but see e; disregard as usual my former informal divisions. Some writers render line a:- ‘Who does not come to help, although he can’ (?). We should naturally call ddémén a loc. sg., but this is improbable here with a verb of motion; here ddman = déméani, acc. pl. neut., cp. dh@mdéni; for ‘to the creatures’ in my former printing read ad habitationes, so, better. Haithyd as = ‘truly’ seems to me a waste of a word on a forceless adverb. Also see the metre. I follow the older MS., as the Pahl. trlr. seems to have read an imperfectly written
| swoop gy, or does he afford us a better reading, bad(é)thahya = “of
terror’, or ‘terror-inspirer’? The masc. form of °thahyd would show it to be in apposition, not in agreement, with Drujé. Or the word may be neither in agreement nor apposition with Drijé. Some writers would render the last line: ‘as Thou did’st constitute the souls (?) at first’ (?), a very old suggestion. Those who regard literal exactness in the Pahl. trl. as essential to its value as an evidence to radical meanings may be again scandalized by the persistent addition of the forms of madano to his translation of yas. Yas is translated by min here, and also elsewhere; yet an alternative trl. was added for yastém (sic), 2ak madé yekaviminéd, cp. Y. 43, 16; 44, 19. This of course throws his whole rendering into confusion as a syntactical reproduction. Jsmand ig referred to is = ichchh = ‘to wish’, probably erroneously. Baé(é)thahyd, or some form from 04 = bhi = ‘to fear’, was read for haéé)thahyd, perhaps an improvement. Hithim if read, Y. 34, 10, and hithaos, Y. 48, 7, are not rendered by the trir. by any forms of 07. The letters ep and J have become confused in our surviving MSS. Vad in line e, together with the gloss, turns the rendering toward the future. One would naturally render sampraptam ‘acquisition’, either as equalling samprdptim, or as the past part., but see its original. Haug read ¢rasantyas (so), and rendered der zittern muss. Ner. prob. wrote trdsayantyah (sic) perhaps meaning ‘he must be feared’ (so), the gloss may be doubtful. Pahl. and Gatha favour this. Ner. seems to have had his eye onthe Gathd rather than on the Pahl. in vikdgayitd. He read vahisto as a form of vakhsh, showing that it
probably stood wholly, or partly, in the Pahlavi character; and he renders
Fed ee eee
vakhsh generally by kde. I render alternatively, ‘who causes the wicked to prosper’. I correct the impossible grat of the MSS. to yah in d, see min and yahmdi; I have found gr elsewhere miswritten for y.
7. Caesura after the 4, here less difficult. Disregarding informal divisions after the 6, read my former printing mavaité(é), anyds twatto, and alternative dabit, tenebit. One writer would prefer referring didareshaté to darsh (Ind. dharsh) as a reduplicated aor. ‘when the superstitious dares - to do me a harm - - - when the time is fulfilled - -’ (thraostd loc. of °ti — ‘in the fulfilling’, but see pdyim). Regarding my former printing as an alternative, I now offer another; read dadhdo, as n@ seems merely enclitic: ‘whom hast Thou set?’ I would also modify my former spectabat for didareshatd. The word may be an s aor. of dar(e)z ‘held (or ‘will hold’) me for harm’. Some hazardously follow authority with a 224 pers. ThraoSta is 374 sg. mid. s aor. See 8. B. E. XXXI, p. 138. Others had rendered: — ‘What help can one bring me? when an evil man marks me - - - make known this marvellous power to my soul’. One writer would render daé(é)- — naydi, ‘that I may lay it to heart’.
The Pahl. trlr. saw a form of dar in dédareshaté. Thraostd was recognized as mid. for pass. by the trir. with the first pers. pronoun under- stood in the instr., so at least intelligently. Ido not think that the concrete — dastébar for the abstract dastva@m ought to arouse irritation, not even when we see that the syllable das probably induced the choice of the word dastébar, and that, notwithstanding also that the words are not etymologi-_ cally connected. They are kindred in idea. Ner.’s anyds tvattas I should j say was intended to express anye pdtdrah tvattas = ‘other protectors than Thee - -. Yushmdn may be meant for yushmdt. I should say that Ner. meant (as frequently) to form durgati (cp. abhimdtin). Haug would correct to °¢r, following the dictionaries, which should be done only with great caution here. Haug renders, ‘der schlechte’ A., but durgati is a noun. I have rendered viditvd with necessary freedom, so Haug. Ner. returns to an abstract in rendering dastuam. Durgatin is a common word with Ner., as Haug ought to have known, and he ought to have corrected his MS. to °t% not °tr.
8. Formal caeswra perhaps after the 4, yet see a, b. Athri§ to dar, cp. the Ved. proper name déri = ‘consumer’. Frésyad(t) = fra + w (= fre) + asyad(¢). One writer would render paityaoged(t) ‘contrariwise ’. Others refer it to Ved. ah related to vah, rendering ‘it is turned back’; putyaoged(t) td is supposed = paiti-aogdd, but see pactyaoget in Yt. 8, 51. Examining Y. 7,24, we should refer it to the curious forms aog, ao) (+ t, orf) — kindred to vach; see also Y. 41, 5, Y. 50, 11; paiti-aog would seem to
equal prdti-vach. Otherwise compare the root of djas; rendering ‘using force against’. We should naturally render ‘in retaliation’ which obviously fits this connection, and also the common meaning of pait? = prdti. Yet see the four times repeated pati? in Yt. 8, 51. There ‘back’ does not apply in three cases. It is a pity indeed to lose the good meaning ‘reta- liation’, but was it expressed? The items of defensive aggression do not contain the word aé(é)nah here. Té must be neut. pl. with yd, poss. refer- ring to S(k)yaothandis. As to the form of paityaoged({) we have difficulty. Sansk. roots in similar consonants are not extended by ¢; d(f) in jzd(Z), fraored(t) (var (vri) +1), does not carry us through, as ¢ and 77 are often exten- ded by ¢ Aneut. of the pres. part. seems almost equally improbable. A 374 sg. would be superfluous beside jasdid(t), see also Yt. 8, 51. I hold the word to be an adverbial expression, whether retaliative, or not, cannot be said, nor whether the word is an extended root-form, or a neut. of the pres. part.
Asar résh, although an intelligent rendering for dthris, is properly a transliteration accompanied with a translation. As shown above (p. 445), - x in Pahl. = ¢h in Zend here, and initial » may = 4@. Athar is an ap- proximate transliteration for dthris, and résh is good, although from ris. I render asar, ‘endless’, only under protest. The root as = ‘reach’ may have been recognized as in a causative and transitive sense in Srosyad(t), but I should say that réntnidar hdémanam could not have been intended for the needed sense ‘impelling toward me’. The trir., while elsewhere teach- ing us that pé@ may mean ‘to hold from good’ as well as ‘from evil’, is here thrown into syntactical error by rendering ‘protect’. In e he may have meant Adharmazd as a voc.: ‘He is not, OA., in any particular (damdno is gloss) a tormentor’. With glosses dropped, of course the trl. approaches nearer its original. Ner. means ‘always’ by his kaddchit = pavan kadarchat damané, so, everywhere with analogous forms.
9. Caesura at the 4%, yet see the difficulty in c. Some prefer ren- dering: ‘Who first, as a ready helper regarded me, as we first conceived Thee as the one to be invoked’. Another: ‘Who first believed me that we should reverence Thee as the mightiest’. I was very loath to abandon the ancient rendering for zevtstim; see S. B. E. XXXI, p. 139, note 2, and I recur to my earlier view that jw is the root (in an Iranian sense (cp. dst). We have either a root vowel modified by ¢, or two suffixes 75 + tya, zevis- tyam = *javishtyam, so for form. Others prefer a superlat. in istya (sic); see p. 406. As to chid(t), it often means ‘indicate’, or the like,‘in Iranian (see Y. 33, 2), also probably at times in the Hirt, Line d might seem
to some decisive for the positive distinction between Ahura and the Géué tashan, others would regard it as a plain case of poetic iteration, alluding to Ahura obliquely, ya tdi - - - y@ are Ahura’s: His Tashan Geus, = Him- self, practically speaks for Him. If there is any distinction, it is such as prevails between Ahura, and His spénista mainyu, who is at times referred to as identical with Him, see above p. 457. Some would prefer reading the second ashd, ashdi. I do not however at all recoil from recognizing the poetic iteration. TI also recognize the pl. neutr. of ashem somewhat un- willingly as = ‘holy regulations’, Read however as alternative: ‘what ordinances of Thine, yea, what the Kine’s creator has uttered for the holy order’. In §. B. E. XXXI, p. 139, I take md as possessive and in an abl. sense, ‘They seek as mine’, or ‘trom me’. But I offer as alternative my long since printed; ‘these things are impelling me (md, acc.) toward Thee’. Another would suggest mé@ as = smd. It was probably owing to Ner.’s asvddayati that I formerly transliterated chadshédo. Chdashidé is nearer the Gatha. As to ddshishno for zevistim, see above. Notice that the glossist here saw the meaning hdvishto in Ashavahishto, either reading some of the characters differently, or else seeing the ‘disciple’ in Ashi(a), as the orthodox citizen is called Vohu Manah, because inspired by that divine attribute. See also the gloss (?) in Y. 43, 1, e.
10. Caesura at the 4, yet see b. We might well suspect ashktm to retain its original sense here as puram indolem. A reward even in the shape of a blessing seems rather out of place as coming from the ‘men or women’; and a recognition of his character seems the more probable idea, But on the other hand princely men and women who might give recompense, at least in the form of contributions, are alluded to in the Gathas, Ashtm ashdi is exactly parallel with ukem aki . ashim vanhavé(é) Y. 43, 5. His vahistd may be those elements of material aid for the ‘cause’, the absence of which he bewails in y. 1, 2. Hakhshdi is also somewhat too definitively rendered ‘convert’. I think that a past conversion is im- plied in ddydd(t) vahista. ‘Incite? is the more proper sense of hakhsh, an extension of hach expressing ‘incitation through example’, ‘encouragement’. For tarsakdsh Sp. (2) and D., tarsakdish (sic) DJ. and M1, we need.an abstract, as the Pers. seems to understand. I suggest tarsdkdsth written often in these MSS. tarsakdsth, Y. 28, 7, etc. It has been thought that ¢arsddt might be read. This would be an abstract, and also valuable as containing the idea of ‘bestowal’ which inheres in ashi, but I am now doubtful as to the form. Hdjam (or hdcham (2), hakhcham (2) or khézam (?) (meaning only certain)) correctly renders hakhshdi. If pewan is irregularly a postposition, Jravdménd should be deciphered Sravamént (same signs) as literally
5st
equalling frafrd, ‘I will go with them to the Ch.’. The closeness of the Pahl. trlr. to his original here (glosses aside) should lead no critical in- quirer to expect the same elsewhere. The trlr. is sometimes of most value wheu it contains some indispensable hint amidst chaotic debris. This remark should be constantly borne in mind. Bhaktyd (bhakid J+. cannot be read, see pavan tarsakdsth(?)) in its sense of ‘portion’ may indicate a closer conception of the true meaning of ashi. I should have claimed the meaning ‘they praise’ in my former printing for prabruvanti. Ner. misread n for v in deciphering fravdménd, hence his ‘they praise’, but see the Pers. Read na(a)maskritaye (J.8, J.4) as better than namastutaye (P.). Haug ought to have ‘known that prakrishtam means pra in Ney.