first » being taken = d (so possibly as a Pahl. letter), and the 2.79 = y (Pahl.) = vidya(a)m, we have a possible correction. I am no longer able to cite DJ. as reading hémnunishnd; the word may be dsa°, or dsdminishnd, so D. and Pers. Probably Acthaos was referred to Aita; cp. hi in sense of ‘favour’, ‘be friendly toward’, hence ‘quiet-minded’, or again it may be a + sahm + m° = ‘the not-terrible-minded’ hardly ‘the thoroughly terrible- minded’, @ + sahm + m°. If DJ. really read hémnunishné, haith° was probably seen. Read khéshm, or Aésh®, and navid (2). Yo ’pramdnam, J.2 J.4, etc., would not make sense with vadati, but vadhati = nasinéd (mistaken for a 3°4 sg.) is indicated; so read with apramdnam; ‘smites beyond measure’. All have sviyam = nafshman. I had rendered manonyam according to manyonyén = manikand = maibyo in v. 8, but (see notes there); manonyam (sic) may be meant for *manenyam (2) (one pen-stroke too much), so = navid (or °th) = vyum. Ner. read haith®, see prakatam. I would now decipher simply @sénz, not ds@mani = dsdminishn (?) for asd°; read dgh sometimes miswritten in the MS. The handwriting is obscure.
8. As to caesura, see lines a and 6. Read my former old-fashioned lettering Thwahydo and is(k)ya, so S(k)yaoth®; I now prefer mainyeus. Read
altern. possessio? (6) Quae [est] Tibi [vel Tui] beatitudinis [vel sacri praemti] Tuae mihi [pro me], A? Per quam [precem] Tui [Tuos| per sanctitatem propitio- accessu offertores-adjuvantes optabo et exorabo--+?. Owing to khshathrahya as = ‘the sacred sovereign power of God’, I had rendered ashéz§ here in its original sense, see line ¢; but the idea of ‘reward’ may be admitted, see S. B. E. XXXI, p.157. Akdo seems loc in Y, 51, 18, poss. also in Y. 50, 4, cp. dké = ‘in the vicinity’. If acc. pl., it = dkdns = dkd’s written akés (sic), and then dkdo. Thwti=thwé=thwaya=° én, acc. pl.m. so, better. His prayer ‘How shall I search for the aredra’ is a repetition of kuthrd Toi aredrd M.?, Y. 34, 7; see Y. 50, 4. I am inclined now to prefer aredra as the ‘helping priestly leaders’, so read ag altern.; see S. B. E. XXXI, p. 157, but ‘the sacrifices which gain access (d@kdo) is also a necessary alternative. Javaréd is one of the multitude of instances of false trans- literation into the clear Zend from the obscure Pahl. J had the inherent vowel ?, this was mistaken by the transcribers for the more common inherent a, cp. javas = jivas Y. 46,5. The form is jw + a+ ra, cp. patard, etc, the supposed root jw = ‘to live’ has no existence. Pahl. D. has also am : bard yemalelan, see Pers. I can now dispense with tarsdahih, so deciphered — for want of better, read ¢arsakdsth (cp. v. 9, d). Strictly tarsdahih (sic for tarsakdsih) should be gen. = ashéi$. ‘Of the generous’ was forced by the gloss; read ‘for’. Yakshenunidérih is certainly very free, or shows another text. Forms of jiv (jtvard) were easily recognized by the trir. Read khvahishn’, and yakshenuniddréh in my old text. Ner. seems to render £ freely as kéna rather than kadar. J.3, J.4, J.* read yat for ye; ‘when do I seek Jor Thy devotees; that is, as mine?’ (?). Manonyén (see v. 7) I had referred to manikéno, see maibyd; but, reading manonyan = *manenydn, man may have been seen in smantkdéno, see the short a in man® (manas + nya (2) — is not probable, ményonydn (J.*) gives no relief). After prasddam J3, J.*, and perhaps J.4, read te = ‘Thy reward’. Tvam induced me to write the monster dakshinayatvam (CO. sic), and certainly tvam is only explicable as in a parenthesis from which I recoiled. But I would now read: Yat dakshina(h) (sic) ayam (so J.3, J.4, J.%, P.) [tvam (see avd Lak)\ prakatah = ‘when this bountiful one [thou] (?) shall be manifest’. °yamtoam (J.4) as a compos. with yam is not impossible. Suvydpdrend with most MSS., but J.6 may have sad°. Pers. mdydn, so, plainly, = ‘mine (?)’, manikéno.
9. Read Saos(k)yas in my former printing. J.3, J* have yé(e)nhé(é) chahyad = ‘over whatsoever’. I had once set chahy@ in types as beginning another question, but I concluded against it, and am still of this opinion. One might say that yé(¢)hyd was governed by khshayathd (in view of chahyé)
= ‘over that thing which is - - -’. Otherwise it is syntactically connected with dithis . - = ‘whose is’. It may refer to chahyd: ‘If ye have power over any one from whom’, etc. As? is understood. Yé(e)hyd to Mazddé, or ashé is not objectionable, cp. Y. 32, 16, also as to dithis dvaé(é)thd. Ucham, to the root of dkas, uch, uchyati. Vafus, see on Y. 29, 5. Ashis, better as ‘beatitude’, ‘sacred reward’, ‘attainment of holy ambition’, never as merely secular ‘good fortune’ in the Gathdas. The superfluous dahishn is again harmless; see atmat = kadé. Chigdmchdi may more closely equal chahyé. Aithi§ dvaé(é)tha may find here its only correct explanation, so vafus, see p. 423. Uchdim seems referred to dkas in the sense of ‘amenity’, see 2¢vishnith. D. has tarsakdsth in d; we may correct the tentative tars- dahih after this. Read wishtpishno, vishiftan. One lexicographer has Zzad, and zzaddén as pl. of it, citing yaeddn (or yazaddn) as a separate word; others treat yazddn as pl. of tzad. (Chodzké writes etzid). Persian usage often varies according to time and place, like that of all other languages. Read pddishah, har kas, dgh, ziyam (so better).
10. I would correct my former printing by dahyunam, and read final 9. Mdan(a)réis (sic; see the metre), man + ri. This suffix indeed
occurs with « in Ved., or in words which show a preceding w. It is also possible that two suffixes are present, a and 77, the line being a twelve- syllabled one. Ajén; is it possibly a sg. from jan = han, cp. (uz) jen, Y. 46, 12? Irreg. sg. for pl. should be avoided where poss. (J@ = hd) + @ has been suggested in the sense ‘leave off’. I think that orig. 7 holds here, or that an Aryan orig. 2 has fallen away, while an orig. 7 has held contrary to the rule. 4j = Sk. a7 = ‘drive away’, see the Pahl. We might suspect in (w)ripayée)intt a causative of ruh ropayant:; ‘by which the K. have aroused (their hosts)’. This is to be considered; but wrupi, as the name of a hunting dog, points to the predatory idea, ropayanti (rup) may be the analogon. The Pahl. trlr. had ma . naréis before him, or was at a loss for an etymology, and so divided purposely as mé naré. The form of visenté(é), as need hardly be said, was not mistaken for that of padirishn which renders it; ‘conciliating approach’ was expressed. D. has atmat, so the Pers. in 6, and magth in a form, which (without diacritical dots (often misplaced)) might be read madih = madahya = ‘intoxication’. ‘Unalloyed wickedness’ has a parallel in the Shikand Giimanik Vijér. Kar va kor refer to kar in karap®. Uripayé(e)int? seems to have been seen as uru = ‘wide’, ‘afar’, and a form of pd@ = ‘to protect’ = ‘they protect only afar’ (sic) = ‘they expel protectors’. But see on Y. 44, 20. The word may be trans- lated, first as rdninénd freely, and then also inaccurately, but alternatively
panakth, as merely noting a possible root idea. D. has °@d, written with the sign of a long @; no types are available to show this interesting varia- tion. Pratikarapatd in ordinary Sansk. would naturally convey the idea of
‘opposition’ here absent; form abstract nom. fem. = ‘helping (party)’, or adj. in ata (cp. dargatd, etc.) nom. pl. Can it be meant for a formation from karna? It probably is an imitation of padérishn = ‘a friendly coming to’.
Haug’s bhavati in 6 would be simpler, avoiding a question as to a pl. in nikrishtatard, see however a. Read [yat nihantérah santi]. Kimchit hani- kartérah (so J.3, J) adarcakéh santi is gloss, rdninénd is not rendered. Yazadén was not recognized, perhaps nihén was read, render as altern., ‘workers of injury in the matter’, kimchit = mindavam. Agh is written in the MS. for dgh sometimes, but it is better corrected. That khwahan, (so, plainly) was meant to express ‘pouring out as through a funnel’ is hardly probable. Jisinénd might be meant for jishinénd, sense ‘boil’, ‘agitate’; it is the trad. translit. for jund®. D. has gandk in e.
11. As to caesural division, see ¢ and d. Read final . Dreg- vodebis khrirdi§, a quasi soc. instr., has its approximate parallel in the English, ‘when shall we be done with these cruel sinners’? The instr. used as abl. must of course be understood as an emphatic alternative: ‘Who shall give us rest from these bloodthirsty infidels’? See also hukh- shathrais + - - ramamchd di§ daddta Y. 53, 8. If the instr. is used for the dat., the sense is ‘cessation (rest in this sense) to them’. Pahl. See dahishns = °dé once more harmless, and not disturbing the full rendering of kadé by atmat. Kér should = ‘agricultural labour’, cp. vdstryd and
vastravaitt. D. might have guikhrinth, except that yw stands for p- I strongly
suspect résh to render the detached syllable °rdi§, while arméshtth (so D. with the Pers.) and akérth = rémam = ‘(enforced) rest’. Read as altern.: “who imposes lameness, or impotence, upon the wound of the cruelty of the wicked’ (om. va). Ashavahishtd = prakatam;: Sp.’s emendation karye looks interesting. J.3 seems kéryakartré or °karttd; °kartra ‘materials used in magic’ is not in harmony. The ¢ must, as often, be erroneously doubled. The sense ‘priest’ (kartd) would not be so well adapted here as ‘agri- culturalist’ which is however not an ordinary Sansk. meaning; so read as altern.
12, As to caesura see 5 which is awkward. Read dahyunim for the
antiquated spelling, also saos(k)°, S(k)yaoth®, and final , in the small —
print aéshemem for aéshem, and actionibus [suzs per] in my former printing. — Some would apply khshniim to the distant sénhahyd, but khshnim
Mazdéo, Y. 53, 2 relieves us from such a risk. My decipherment shnds- inidérih was an instance of what, I hope, I may without immodesty call my former excessive caution in rendering the Pahl. as being far from the Gatha. I considered Ner. and the Pers., and perhaps they are right; but shndyin- iddrth is a simpler transliteration, and in Y.49, 12 ¢ DJ. reads shndyinidarih as an equivalent variation for stdyiddrih (see also Ner. there). Read here shniyinidarih = ‘worship’, ‘propitiating reverence’, so read shnd@yinénd; ‘that is, men render reverent worship with piety’. Forms of hach are else- where expressed by the corresponding prep. There is intelligent freedom, and no error, in levatman = hachdonté(é). D. has haméstdr = ‘ opposer(s)’ (so better). DJ.’s avd is perhaps better. Anydyinah must be error for nydyinah. Kopanam (Haug) would afford an object for dadantah, but see the cases of 7 Khéshmé (Aéshmé) and Aé(é)shmahyd. Ristakéz is of course better than the prevailing pronunciation, rast®. The letters which I rendered khushndst = for hii + shndst look most like khésh-mahdll. If it were not for shndishn = ‘honour’ in the gl., I should have little doubt as to khushnds?; yet the gl. may be purposely altern. See Ner. who renders shndsiniddrih, while shndy° stands in the Pahl. of the Pers. For khu = hi, cp. khusribt.
Yasna XLIX.
For introduction and summary see S. B. E., pp. 159—162, and for verse 12, p. 170. Chan@es in opinion since arrived at should be noticed. 1. Formal caesura after the 4, final 9, and S(k)y for sky and sy,
also Sapiens as altern. for Magni-donator throughout; stress of voice on the seventh. Béjidvd. Agreeing with others, I was inclined to regard this word as meaning the entire connection of the. opposers, comparing bdndhu, and this may well be the truth; cp. for change of form pacdvd = ‘be- longing to Peddz’. But, as usual on continued reflection, the significance of the hints of the ancient trlr. overpower other suggestions. Bddh, or bandh(?), seems to express ‘oppression from disease’ in the Avesta, and au embittered nickname for a detested and feared neighbour was not unnatural. ‘The polluted one’, ‘diseased’ with one of the foul diseases common to middle Asia, may be the idea lying in the name, DuS.erethr#S, an unusual masc. = °erethrins, unexpressed nasalization (as often). Influenced by the context I preferred referring chikhshnush® (reading °nushd) to Béidvd, but other- wise the syntax enforces a 1* sg. conj. Adé instr. of root d@ = dd, or dha. For ddé in a reversed direction, cp. Y. 33, 12. Arapd, if objected to as possessing the « priv. might be explained as drapd (Pahl. initial » = @
or a, and the word first stood in Pahl.), or read rapd 2"4 sg. imper.; ‘help