11. Disregard as usual my former informal divisions after the 6% syllable. Ydjén may seem suspicious in a reflexive sense, but see Y. 49, 9 hyad(t) daé(é)ndo vahisté(é) yijén mizhdé(é). Other verbs of gesture have reflexive sense in the active; vigvam asyd ndndma chdkshase, RY. 1, 48, 8. The 72 of mashtm is the old Pahlavi character » which has the force of ya at times; the word is, I think, marshyam = martyam. wy may be some- times, and perhaps wassoriginally, an 4% + ‘ cp. Asha = rita. As to
pae(é)chd, we should properly read saydchd, cp. svaya(m). Vaélé) = 00H as yaé(é) = ydi (before chd), and 6 = @(@) as in khshathroi = °thré(é). But is in the present case mistransliterated. Vee) as nom. sg. fem. is senseless. here = yy, a lengthened 4 which is actually a united » + 9, written together in a-loop and = yd. The word without ch@ and
in Pahl. char. would be yj , yw = iv with inherent a, as often, and 1%
= yd, hvayd, n. s. £., see pp. 436, 457. Khraozhdad(t), so the oldest MSS. with the Pahl. trl., seems a vriddhied and extended form of khrus (Ved. kruc). I would therefore amend my former rendering se induret in the sense of the free trl., ‘utter cries’; cp. Yt. 22, where the soul’s own self confronts and affrights the wicked, and where evil spirits howl at him revilingly. Reading khraodad(t) we have; ‘whose soul will rage’. Demdndi. One scholar prefers demdnd; ‘the houses (astayd) of Satan become forever their abodes’. One writer prefers hadéma, dém, domus, as the related words, suffix @na. But I think it by no means impossible that nmdéna should be compared, the de being regarded as no more organic than the n. The dat. form would favour, ‘subjects (astayd) to the abode of the D.’. Otherwise I should take the dat. in the sense of the loc. In S. B. E. XXXI, I followed the Pahl., rendering ‘habitations’; but I do not think that Zend
Be
Philology becomes any more respectable by rejecting good suggestions simply and solely because they have been once made; astayé would be far more probable as ‘bodies’, to dsthi; the souls are represented figuratively as ‘ad- vancing bodily’ in v. 10, here as ‘coming’; ‘bodies’ is appropriate. Kyhra- sishnd yehabind affords both text and trl. here, and in Y. 51, 13. Astishné = astayd not impossibly affording the more correct idea. Being formerly confined to C. and P. for texts, I was obliged to read karanah, now J.3,J.4, offer Karapéh. Karanah is however in so far useful that it explains — perhaps the curious kar = ‘deaf’ in the gloss at Y. 48, 10; see also Ner. © here and at Y.51, 14, I should say that some Pahl. MSS. read kar detached; hence the mistake of ‘deaf’. Kar in Karap.° would not have caused this. —
12. Formal caesura after the 4%, yet see 4, d. All divisions are | uncertain. Unwilling to reject a probable suggestion merely because it had _ been already made by another, I had regarded uzjén as a false reading for — (wayjén = (ue)jayen, to a ji (7 having inherent a, and yo = Ny here = ye) jt = ‘to live’ + ud = ‘to arise’; uz = us is gloss. But I now accede to a valuable suggestion which had circulated unpublished for years; wzjéen might be a 3° se. pret. improp. conj. of jan, in the sense of the future, | the ¢ having fallen off; cp. Ved. han + ud, in the sense of ‘emerge’, sub- ject expressed in, or in apposition with, Jradé nom. sg. The reading uzén (see the many MSS.) = wzzén is perhaps better; to zan = jan, 3°4 sg. with loss of t; ep. gan(t) (to gam) and dydan(t) (to yam), etc.: ‘when one, further- ing, the settlements, is born (so, although act.) (?) among, etc.’. The plural #8 refers to naptyaé(é)sha and nafshuchd, see also gaé(é)thdo, as 7§ may be fem., but see the masc. aé(é)ibyd. Frédéd might possibly be gen. sg. fem. with Ar(a)matéi§. Frddé as nom. pl. is more difficult, and impossible with the more probably sg. uwzjén(é), or uzzen(t). I have a strong reluctance to follow the Pahl. trir. in his indication as to the root meaning of aojyaé(é)shit. Is it (with Haug) a doubly irreg. trans. compar. in ya from an w (orig. 7 holding) = ‘exert force’? The power of the F. was emphasized as ‘heaven-sent’ on his, or their, conyersion, but as the word stands it = ‘worthy to be named’, cp. anamni (2), so read by the trir. in Y. 45, 10 for anmain?. Some had rendered privately many years ago: ‘When the laws (Asha (?)) strike through (us + jen(t) = ud + han(t) sg. verb subject in the nt: pl.) among the children and descendants of the T. F. worthy of renown (aojyaé(é)shii, to aoj = ‘to speak’) through the care of a devoted mind which furthers (Jrddé as gen. sg.), etc. + - -’. I cannot however shake off a reluctance to take Asha otherwise than as riténa in this place. Méist to mith, or mit, sense ‘meets’, possibly ‘dwells with’. The Pahl. trir., amidst his many
correct suggestions, insists also on aojyaé(é)sht as a form of ay = ‘to speak’, and he is followed indirectly through Ner. by many others (see above). Ndbdher is better, but see the Pahl. Ner. transliterated what we read as Frydndné in the Pahl., as a form of piérsidand, that is, misled by the
Pahl. gifto, he took Zend 99 for 2, gy in the Pahl. = for p.
13. Caesura after the 4, yet see a and c. Read my former printing Ahuré, concilians [-avit| det |dabit (dabat (?))], promoveat [- ebit (augebat (?))]. Free: ‘Worthy is he himself ‘midst men proclaimed’. As to khshndus see on y. 1. Frasritidydi offers some choice; first we think of grw + pra, in the sense ‘to be heard of’ (mid.), ‘to become known’, ‘distinguished’. Then ‘to be heard’, ‘listened to’ is not impossible, then ‘to hear’ is to be considered, ‘satisfying Z. as worthily listening to the claims of the Cause’, so in v. 14 possibly; ‘who is willing to listen?’ But in Iranian ‘for the hearing’ may be the sense; i. e. ‘to effect the hearing’, ‘to proclaim’, cp. sridand, at the next stage of the Zend, the Pahl., meaning ‘to announce’; see also per- haps the meaning zuerkennen, versprechen as present in Sansk. gru, cp. deruta, and pratisamerutya. The Pahl. trir., or glossist, regarded frasriidydi as in the Sansk. sense ‘to be (well) known’. Spitamajdya J.3 is a great improvement on our former Spitamdvdya (sic); read my former printing sadai ’va; ‘with the gift of being praised forth’, ‘with laudation’.
14. Observe the difficulties as to the caesura in c, hvé must be pro- nounced hwvd, more properly huwéd in English. Read my former printing, - Tis; whom in the council Thou, O Lord, (free). Some scholars suppose Ahura to interpose at kasté(¢), and certainly the voc. A. in d is significant; but I préfer on the whole a human subject, dramatically understood. The piece was composed for delivery at an assemblage, and verses may have fallen out which explain who the represented person was. It is again very difficult to decide as to the precise sense of frasriidydi, but it must of course be the same here and in v. 13. Ydht as a loc. (with ydonhd) is very neat indeed, but that meaning in somewhat forced. What has the loc. to do just here? The word is a nom., as the ancient trlr. long since sug- gested. Minas, minas, or manas, manas (?), which is preferable? Our first thought is for a minaé[t], mit, after the na conj., ¢ before t = s, méinas{t], and final ¢ falling off, ménas results; but a 24 pers. is needed. Can °as result from °at§; ménats, then t becoming s before S (?), minats = minass, then (the final § falling off) = minas = ‘thou mayst (or didst(?) meet’, cp. datsud = dassvd (2?) = dasvd? If this seems difficult, then we must accept a root mi§ = miksh — ‘assemble’, lit. ‘mix’ (2). This after the na con). would be minas{s], with loss of § mina’. As to manas (act. (?)) we might accept an
orig. Iranian term. a§ = Sansk. as, the term. not becoming 6 as usually in Zend. It seems most improbable that orig. as should invariably become 6; some have even seen a. 224 se. in thraostd, Y. 34, 3, whereas the usual Zend term. is sa, nha(d). For meaning (cp. a use of man (mid) in RY. V. 6, 1) ‘whom thou wilt (didst (?)) honour’; so I formerly preferred, marking however with an asterisk of doubt, and giying an altern. in the sense of mi = ‘to edify’ conjugated with a stem mina(?), as a conjecture. I think that kérik should equal ‘warrior’ in spite ofthe gloss(P.). The trlr. did not suppose yeing to mean literally amat. The to him so peculiar s¢é@ threw his whole rendering into disorder. Hamdemané aéj vardinéd proves disorder in the Gathic texts used. Possibly we have a double translation of had@médi, éméi standing in a modified Pahl. character, and suggesting the ema of émavant. Read my former printing avéjak, vardinéd. J.3 has the reading brite, but see yemaleliinih.
15. The last line of this verse has perished, if it ever possessed one, which is on the whole probable; yet see the neat conclusion of the sense, also the exceptional vigour and animation of the diction. Caesura after the 4™, Read my former printing dicam vobis, Spitamae [or -ides]. Sanctitatem. Vobis [ipsis] accipitis, quibus institutis. Daduyé(@) (= dadvé(é)) is 274 pl. formerly regarded as an inf., cp. ddvot, vidvé(é). I would now modify my former rendering of a in the sense of my former alternative vodis; see S. B. E. XXXT, p. 142: ‘to you will I speak’. Others, ‘of you I will declare’; others again; ‘I will name you, O H. and you, ye 8.”. As to c, I would now rather prefer my alternative as in S. B. E. XXXI, and that notwith- standing khshmaibyd, the personal in the sense of the reflexive: ‘By these actions ye = yas (?) take to yourselves (2?) (khshmaibyd) a righteous character’. But yaS-5(k)yaoth(a)ndi§ may be better taken as a compositum ; | yas, stem without. suffix (cp. mdtsakhi, etc.) in composition, and the ex- pressed nom. is not necessary for daduyé(¢) = dadvé. The infin. daduyé(é) = °vé is not however impossible, and an alternative should be offered in | that sense: ‘I will speak to you - - + to establish for you Righteousness, or the Holy constitution, through Your actions’; we thus escape khshmaibyd — as reflexive. Pahl. The form of gobishnoé is indecisive as to the speaker, but vakhshyd and Sravakhshya should settle the point. I had rendered dahishnoé and adahishnd in a severely impartial manner, fearing to favour the literal exactness of the trl, but a meaning nearer to the original is almost necessary; ‘what is the regulation, and against regulation’. Read — my former printing, yours. Vivinaktwm beside vivektwm is noticeable; cp. } the inf. with n, na, nd, but see the acc. form. In J.3 the anusvara is faint, but vivinaktw gives little relief. I should say that vivinaktum was an over-—
sight occasioned by the use of wivinakti in v. 17. We should read a 224 pl. Read yours is the word, in my former printing.