injured (that is, impeded and overthrown)’, cp. Y. 32, 13. There are else-
where passive forms in #2 instead of ¢é; cp. also Vedic ranydthas ((?) active
- term.), RV. 1, 112,18. As to the last two lines, see S. B. KE. XXXI,
p. 149, note 5. We have from an able writer the very easy solution: ‘A man of small means is at the service of the righteous, but even one of large means is hostile (?) to the wicked’. But aké is thus referred to a member of the orthodox community in the good sense of ‘hostile to the wicked’ which is very difficult, as ak@ was an emphatic adjective singularly confined in its application to evil beings, and it is altogether impossible in this good sense with the energetic Akdd(t) - - Mananhé in the next strophe. ‘A man of little means only (recall kamndnd Y. 46, 2) is at the service of the righteous (this expresses the worldliness of the wicked, whose punish- ment is threatened from the mainyu), but when it is (or, he is) a man of means (ésvdchid(#)), yea, of much means (paraos) the wicked is at the service (kathé(é) necessarily understood) of the wicked’. That is, the cause is suffer- ing from the feebleness of its supporters (cp. Y.46, 1) while the destructive combination has its wicked men of wealth to help them. In the next verse the consolation is extended. Ashaoné(é) K.® (cp. maghéne) is far more critical than the conventional ashduwné of most MSS. which I have so reluc- tantly followed elsewhere. Had I not been hampered by former printing,
I should reject this ashduné(é) everywhere. But du probably arose from the accented syllable. Pahl. ‘Because of that’ = ‘influenced by’. Aharmék col- lective sg., asis Shédd. Ishould like to get rid of va (with the Pers.), but I Should have separated (not omitted) Sp.’s first stroke. Adharmaed in 6. Should be oblique by pos., and gadré is strictly gloss. Read without gloss in the light of the Gathda, ‘from the bountiful A.’s spirit’. The dat. ashaoné(é) (or according to convention ashduné(é) (?)) should determine 7 ahartibo (or with omitted 7; see D.J.) in the gen. of position with gabré = nd. Read without gloss: ‘For the sake of a little one is a supplicant for the righteous’; see the certain freedom of d. Isvéchid(t) is mistaken for a form of is = ‘to wish’. Zadar = aké does indicate the sense ‘hostile’, Zanishn avs 2dddr = akem akdi shows ‘injurer’ to be the sense, as a variant for ‘wicked’; see also zanishn = aké in Y. 32, 12. Paraos is misread patdzs (?), possibly owing to MSS., but see Ner. Read chigitin shand ina; read pdkyitayd* ’sti -- Abhildshukaccha ’sti. Read ‘though’ in a. As to prakyitaya-which I had emended with Sp. from pdékritasya which Prof. v. Spiegel saw in P. and C, I naturally recoiled from the forms in the MSS. J.? seems pédttatayd (?). Paktataya (?) might mean (cp. pdka) ‘though his honesty’ (?), J.4 is reported to read ydtritayd (?), recall ydta = ‘course’, ‘with his energy’(?). But see khodstdr. Ner.’s gloss affords the clue. That glossist, whether Ner. himself, or not, shows by his rakshati that he saw dé somewhere. It was in the barbaric *pdkritayd = ‘through his effecting of protection’ (sic), and so we must read, or at least some form with pd. Ner. never read khvdstér in this place, see it correctly — rendered in abhildshukagché ’sti in d. Possibly he saw the idea of ‘pro- | tection’ in k@ = kan. Whether I have been wrong in following Spiegel’s correction atyartham for an anyartham (sic), or not, it well suits prachura- taram, Madénadén, traditional translit.; read perhaps nihdd.
5. As to caesura, see a and c. Notice that chdcé does not need an — infin. to complete its sense. It does not mean here ‘promise’, but ‘adjust for’, ‘assign to’, ‘attribute’, ‘bestow’, cp. RV. VIII, 7, 2, 14 yimam gubhrd dchidhvam, sense ‘found out ’, ‘decided upon’ ‘for yourselves’ however, not for ‘others’, The rendering paulum should be interpreted by ‘far’; see the free metrical. The abl. is for gen., or else render ‘from *, that is, ‘influenced by’ (the evil Mind). Pahl. The gloss in @ refers to v. 4, cp. rddth réshénd. Chéis was read chdis(t). In Ner. dadhate — yakhsenund = ‘possess’ not ‘give’, error (?) occasioned by varshanté and the sense of abhipsitena, Ner. having taken bakhshénd receptively; I took the mid. as meant for act.m poss. correctly, but it is evident from my note that my former printing ‘bestow’ was an oversight. Is Jwid, better?; read vinas, Ner. J.4, J.*,
read °krishtatamatdm, samthitén, and J.* (as reported) clears away the a priv. of P. and. by 4, read dnivdsdt, Read my former text asyd ’gatatuam. 6. AS to caesura, see a. Correct the antiquated Asavyd° in the long since printed word. As to réndibyd (om. period) see p. 470, and read alternatively ‘through the two arayi’. Reading vtddctée(é), I formerly preferred taking spentd mainyus as understood from the previous line. I now prefer vidduti, as in S. B. E. XXXI, p. 150. We may understand the meaning to be special, but I hardly think the final védait, as the judgment, is intended; see on Y. 31, 19. Vanhdwis a loc. adverbial; cp. Sansk. sthéne = ‘suitably’, unless indeed in viddité(é) (so reading) ¢, as in kainyd (erroneously written kainé) represents y@ (directly, and not by false writing), and this yd (like yd in the dat. dual term. dyd) may equal yam. We should then have vanhau vidditya (= °ydm) = ‘in the good distribution’. I hardly like an accus. pl. paowrdi§ (so) in the sense for she causes men (cp. piri) who come to her to believe’. With paowrws as fem(?) nom. sg., cp. RV. III, 62,2 aydm u vdm purutdmo raytydi chhagvattamdm dvase johavite. 1 would however prefer pouwras = older paourdns, ‘many she causes to believe’, so in 8. B. E. XXXI. Véurdite(é) = vavardité intens. with caus. meaning.
With great deliberation, in view of Ner. and the Pers. I formerly read atvid; see however p. 467, and read dérikht = ‘impure’. Astavar should be read, see my former trl., Ner., and Pers. Read my former text nikirénd, hém-
-nun{in|énd, omit [@ndm] in my former printing. Read buzurg (°k in MS.), n2g°(?).
Yasna XLVIII.
For introduction and summary see S. B. E. XXXI, pp. 151 to 159, Changes in opinion arrived at since its publication are not always noticed here.
1. A(d@)dds instr. pl. of °dé transferred to the a declension perhaps better — ‘instrumentalities’ (to @ + dhd) than donis. Asashutd is, I think, a false writing for as(t) dshutd or shutd (see the metre); cp. S(kyavdi (J.?) (old writing shavdi), root s(k)yu = chyu, subject neut. pl. I now prefer ‘have been advanced’ for as(¢) @shutd. Others would alter to dsas(u)td redup. as = ag, omitting u, or to dsashnutd; better drop the superfluous prep. a(@), which could easily have’ been added. Daévdischd mashydis (mas(k)ydis) I think may apply to fraokhta (pronounced by Daé(é)vas, for it is too decided to render, ‘that the things proclaimed as deceits’ if they were advantageous, ‘were brought to pass (as(¢) dshutd) by means of Daé(é)vas (demons), and by men’); ‘with reference to Daé(é)vas and (evil) men’ is per- haps the meaning, instr. in quasi dat. sense (see Pahl. and Ner.). Pavan
Po Loa S.C
zak dahishné explained by pavan tani (tand) ¢ pasind is of importance as positively proving that the frequent superfluous trl. of the syllable dé did . not mean the senseless ‘giving’ in every case; see also p. 416. I ventured
to read °dak for characters which from the length of the last one, would
more naturally spell géndar. I did this as following the Pers. andark or
andarg (so far as °k), but West preferred Andar = Indra, and D.’s MS.
(later acquired) has precisely that reading. ‘Stinking’ would be very
natural as an epithet here, but as we have a text Andar, read accordingly, © at least alternatively. I rigidly rendered amarg - ribishnih, even adding K.*s 7, but I must add that the word may be oblique by pos., and there- fore vaguely expressive of a loc. for dén a°, this looseness being permitted because the loc. stood full in view on the paper used by the last copyist. In Ner. J.* read ddtau(?), so, better; fdlayati, J.* (and later on the margin, — J.4), is not to be preferred, although it is interesting ; badhakarah might be simpler, so J.3 seems, (I should say J.3 hardly read badhyakarah (J.*), it is however not impossible.) Dinih J.3, P. is simpler than Déneh, C. Read No ’chyate in former printing, also ¢ékshayanti for the misprinted ¢ikshyanti ; read ‘in the world’, ‘in the creation’. Ner. regards chiefly, if not only, — the Pahl. here. Andark in the Pers. is for andarg; Ormuzd sometimes, and sometimes Hérmuezd; the first is really better, but perhaps less used.
2. Read dhereitis, for the older °retis Méng (éig = the nasal vowel as en, G, and also sometimes 2, cp. ameshe = °an(s) spenté (°dns)). It may equal mam adverbially used for mend. Then, mé might = smé@ = ‘verily ’, enclitic. Méig might be possess. acc. pl. masc., cp. tod, tuibis possess., ‘before he (?) comes to aid my struggles’. Or méf (so) may be as in méendadydat; meng.perethd, neut.(?); ‘before what are my mental battles come’. The Pahl. trlr. possibly read a loc. of peretu = ‘on the Bridge’; that is, the ‘Chin- j vad(t) Bridge’, the last strait of life, representing also the severe crises of life which precede it; ‘before those (trials) which are on the bridge of my life approach me’. His indication may be correct. The other meaning ~ ‘expiation’ for perethd is not so good, see verhad(t). Akereiti§ — dskerettis, to kar = shar, as pag = spag. Possibly read yemaleliinand for °dni more — with Gatha, yet see Ner. Pavan damik vadarg expresses a familiar idea originating in the Gathas, ‘the bridge of earth’ = ‘crisis *, So ‘bridge of winter’ and ‘the bridge of Judgment’. (d) Read ‘the final body appertains to this’. _D. has pavan with DJ. and Pers., and vahisht va d°. Sarve of the MSS. is curious enough, see Pahl. and Gatha. I read purve as a loc. — awkwardly = pésh min, so Sp. With sarve, read, ‘all (2) men are coming. on the interval (enclosure, or strait i, e. bridge) on the earth’. J.3 is
strangely deficient in reading svarakasyacha (sic), so J.*, while J.4 is- not reported as varying from P. J.4 must be more than a ‘copy’ of J.3. All read antah (amtah) (so). Read ‘the evident (not ‘pure’) place’ in d. Both Nev. and the Pers. transliterated the Pahl. syllable sy of wy as veh; see uttama®, but, as so often, the word was twice rendered by the additional vadanti, which shows that Ner. saw vdéng; the Pahl. text preserved by the Pers. text may well have existed at the time of Ner. But what I now restore as vehad (so better than °an) has the actual letters v, h, d, expressed in Pahl. by 2) which also spell vég; and this, like sag for sang (see on Y. 30, 5), may be written for vdng. This is one explanation for Ner.’s vadanti.