I now prefer) face to face (dkdo as loc. adv.) in the Abode of Song’, or again, ‘in the attained-to (loc. of adj.) Abode of song’, or dkdéo may qualify the offerers, see 8. B. E. XXXI, p. 172. One writer boldly renders; — ‘that the prayer might stand on its path to the heavenly spaces (dkdo)’, with aredréng as gen. pl. (?). This sounds Vedic, but I would still take ashé as concrete. Akdo, if acc. pl. mase., = dkds = dkans, cp. ameshdo— = °dns; otherwise loc. sg. adv. of dku, cp. loc. dké = ‘near? (root ach); poss. loc. with demdné(é). Aredréig, more naturally = ‘things heard’, ep. vahmeng demdné(é) gard niddmda, Y. 45, 8, yet aredréng is generally con- crete. Sraoshdné, as 1% sg. conj. s aor. = ‘may I hear’, or possibly infin. in Sdéné (?) for imper. in that frequent use; ‘may I be destined to hear’. An- other, ‘that the prayer ‘may be heard’’. Pahl. Var. D. ghal (6), valman 7, astinéd (hardly attyéinéd) for yekavimininéd (c), ash (so also M.1) before srdyem (So for stdyém, Sp.) valman for ghal, and vddinamam (sic), (d). Students who are capable of objecting that the trlr. renders a pres. part. by a 1% sg. indic, are careless, especially when a 1* se. renders a 1st sg. in a foregoing word. Once more pavan aitd dahishnith = hadé; here da- hishnih = ‘dispensation’. See atts p. 413; read ‘in the dispensation of continuous existence’. Notice Jevatman which brings A. and V. into the instr. Srdyém = ‘make heard’ may correct us; or does srdyém here = ‘hear’? Ner. does not see sadd@ in hada, nor does he distinctly recognize the element of time as elsewhere. Prakataté = A, (Pahl.), expresses the element of ‘light-giving’ referring to the ‘Fire’ associated with Ashavahisht. Kéaryam was the difficult reading, not kdrya. The idea of astinéd = ‘Cause to Stand* = ‘cause to attain’ seems intended to be expressed in samprdpatteh (so I read with C.; J.4, J.* seem so likewise, but J.?, P. have samttapatteh (sic) hardly miswritten for *krap° (an element of dolourousness)). (Samprda) patteh (= ‘course’, ‘foot-traveller’) (not *prapteh = ‘attainment’) is in harmony with forms of char used by Ner. to render forms of st@ elsewhere, Read as altern.; ‘this is the path of him that approaches on foot’, or ‘of him that stands inclining towards’.
5. Read dviS(k)yd, also final ¢@ We have hardly ‘O Mazda and Asha, ye Gods’ with the pl. verb. The dual in such a case would infallibly occur; cp. RV. in very numerous instances. I should say that abi - deresta
was far more naturally taken as an instr. here (with avis(k)yd avanhd zastd- ist@) than as a loc. from °¢’. If an instr. of the part. here, it may be the part. in Y. 31, 2, which see. Pahl. A 1* pers. of héman is intelligently understood with d@réi. Vaordzatha was read vavarazathd, or varvarazatha, the first syllable having recalled a form of durdan, see yezrtinishnih (so) used to express the emphasis of the redup., not any portion of what now appears as vaordeathd being actually mistaken, although vav = } } might also = var”. Or can we claim mdnsar-yesrdnishnth (so) as a babuvrihi = ‘the one having the bearing of the Mathra’, ‘the prophet’? No MS. gives us tarsakdsth, but we may so read, getting rid of tarsdahih (D., M.t and DJ. have tarsakdish (sic). D., M1 have héi-ravakh-minéed ; read: ‘when Ye are joyfully-minded, (and so ‘propitious’) toward him who bas the bearing-on of Your Mathra’. D. has vddéindnd, (M.1 vddininishnik (sic)) (6); D. om. 1a (c), and last five words in d. Nikéztd (same char. as °2éd) would be nearer the Gatha. Pavan taband is a frequent and correct rendering for zastd. ‘Beatitude given to us’ is not very far from ‘he may place us in beatitude’. Read khvahishnih. Ner., as in Y. 32, 16, read ¢# with M., D., Pers., in the sense of hamé or hamdék = sarve (so sarva in the Mainyéd t Kh.), but amar seems also altern. read and rendered yat, b, and gl. Vaichhayet might point to a recognition of var, or vraz. Is avistdvani here an irreg. bahuvribi: ‘what the Avista-declarer desires?’ But see v. 6, also Y. 30, 1; 31, 1. Arogyatam (so) points to khvdrth = bathré(é) in the sense of ‘welfare’, ‘ease’. Samihe points to khvahishnih which takes isté in the corresponding sense. *var = bar.
6. Raithim = °yam. once stood here as Pahl. » = y with inherent a, so in all similar caSes, cp. rdthyam, cp. also rathemé, Y. 44, 17; 53, 6. Mahy4, literally ‘of mine’, the gen. of the possess. md (cp. the possess. tvitbis in the RV.) is here used for ‘of me’, ‘mine’, as the dat. mavaité(é), lit. = ‘to mine’, equals ‘to me’. As to the historical questions’ arising out of the words «++ mahyd rdzeng --- sahid(t), see especially S. B. E. XXXI, pp. 167, 168, 169. Pahl. Notice the intelligent freedom in ‘when they utter’ for ‘he who utters’; ignorance is here impossible. See Z. as the speaker in the gloss; see also the 1* pers. in v.5 and 7. See ddtd referred to Mazda in yehabiindi, which however shows a 9nd pl, preferred. ds points to an etymology for raithtm, and astishnith to an infin. (?) in std, ‘His is the teaching’ is a frequent and not improper mode of rendering ‘he teaches’. The forms in ishn often express the force of the pres. part. in these trls. Read astisnth, or hastishnth. Var. D. has yedrinaid, or ded® (a), shapirdano, (2), om. Ui (d), has vdddindnd (gl.). Ner. Reading yas te with J.%, render, ‘I who to Thee am offering’, but see a@gh. Ner. may have had vddéindn? before
him for °ndid. Perhaps ‘I am affording praise and friendship to the holy bestower of protection’ would be better in 6. Bhavémi inclined me to render hémanam = ‘am’; otherwise it might mean simply ‘I’, Prakrishta- hddasya seems meant for an imitation of Sarhikhtih (Pars, Sardghté (?), so poss.), it is the Pahl. tentatively transcribed. Arddhandin may refer to avistdv®, but see yazishno. Read a, ‘Since he establishes the regulation’ (karote). Cishyam might stand with a fem. noun understood, but see gikshd, Y. 32, 6, cikshdm, Y. 34, 7 = dmékhtishn (sic). J. has yas te (a), JA yat ste, JA Jarathugtrasya (b), J.* gishyandin (d). Burand, as more orig. Parsi, bur being undoubtedly the orig. of bar as crude form; see the altern. bur in Arda V. Gl.; otherwise of course darand. Sitadan seems here written, and sitadan in v.5. Fardhéti, or Saréti may be best; the actual letters cannot be deciphered apart from the Pabl., for the difficulty in deciphering may be estimated when another scholar made the words out frdhdtant — bisydr bast- ddén, ‘knowing very much’. Read yedrind in my former printing.
7. Read zevistyeng, *tayeng having crept in to fill out the metre, also final «9. Ags neither Sp. nor Westg. gave the reading of our J.2 (now an Oxford MS.), nor the many others with aw°, I was forced to accept an
urvathé formerly; see urvatho, v. 6. But I conjectured also the correct text, aurvaté after the Pahl.; see my altern.; see also S. B. E. XXXI, pp. 173, 4. Comes was of course pl. of °mis. Yaojé, 15 se., or poss, Qua sg. imper. to Mazdé, the pl., as in d, often following a sg. in the same strophe, or Asha may be voc., thus suggesting a pl. in d; we should however expect the dual. An instr. Ash@ is here especially well in place. The powerful chiefs were enlisted through the inspiration of the Holy Order, and as passionately devoted to its maintenance (Ashem deredydi, Y. 43, 1). Zevist(a)yeng; ep.
Y. 28, 92° The meaning ‘well- incited’, ‘fleet’ may be allowed here as
differing by a shade from ‘willing’, ‘with willing zeal’, etc.; see aurvato. Jyaitis, to Jyd, cp. Y. 29, 5, sense carried over. Or read jaydis (?) instr.,
‘through the incitement’; ep, aguahayair -- ndmobhih, RY. IX, 96, 2; praty
ardhir yajninadm agvahayo rdthandm rishih sd y6 mdnurhito viprasya ydva- yatsakhdh, RV. X, 26, 5. PerethiS, a characteristic Iranian conception, meaning ‘the straits of life ending in the Chinvat passage’, ‘the Bridge to the other world’, an idea already well marked in the Gathas; it is pl. of distinction. Others take the word as qualifying awrvatd in the sense of ‘stout’, etc. I prefer of course my former altern. and the rendering in 8. B. E,, putting my first trl. in the second place. The Pahl. trir. gives text and meaning in arvand 5 yamtinishnd = jyditis, “a coming to’ = ‘a gaining’. Vadarg — perethis, chir = ugréeng. Vakhdéndar (see the Pahl.
trl. in vy. 8 d) shows correct freedom, or else a differing reading; ‘may I be a receiver of your aid’ shows a sufficiently vigorous grasp of the sense of ‘be ye for my aid’. I now prefer dydjem; notice ydiS azdthd not rendered, showing freedom. Var. D. dddistdnd, déshak M1 D.; D. om. first va gl., D. 7 avd 2 in both b, and gl.; D. va chir - - aé (so M.1) ¢, gl., D. giriftdr, zakam 7 (d), ¢ lekim gl. Ashavahishto is again rendered, as often, parisphutam by Ner., probable allusion to the ‘fire’ with which A. was associated; see on v. 8. One might consider Haug’s na gaknomi (d, gl.) as giving the better sense, but see the Pahl. and the leading MSS., ¢aknoti, P. °amti (3°4 pl). All but J.3 have nava(so); see 7 Lekidm; n and ¢ could be easily confused in MSS. J.3, sdhayatda (2), so P. (d, gl.). Hastind (2), or hasténd for hastend (2), or hastand (°ind occurs as a Pazand term.).
8. Read aredrahydchd. Lzhaydo, to ida, or to th, thd the idea of ‘worship’ is of course present; see S. B. E. XXXI, p. 174. Aredrahydcha is quite possible, and perhaps better, as concrete, ‘helpful and devoted worshipper’, see S. B. BE. XXXI. ‘Virtue’ of course bears an active sense here, see the altern. for the Pahl. word ‘efficiency’, possibly including also ‘insight’, cp. the New Pers. No one should object to the 1%* pers. srdyém (followed by the 1% sg. in 4), reproducing the participle. The glossist, if not the orig. trlr., mistakes, I think, the ‘metrical feet’. Aside from the gloss, read } as continuing @, no new sentence. Minishnik, as in Y. 28, 1, is an intelligent expression, shutting out a religion of gestures. Line ¢ shows freedom, the gen. being better rendered by adj. and verb. In d rabishnth has clear reference to ydmtdinam in 6, yet the termination of hunaretatd (etdtd), looking like some forms of ¢ = ‘to go’, may have sug- gested it! Hdnarih is rendered etymologically on account of the connection, otherwise read ‘skill’, D. has pd? in a, om. pavan, has yadmanth for the dastth of Sp. and M1. M.1 and DJ. have méanishnik (2) (6); D. transposes like the Pers. in c; D. ins. rai, (d). While the Pahl. trlr. or glossist renders paddis doubtfully, Ner. seems to plunge headlong into blunder with his ‘two feet’, but J.1’s pddya(d)bhydm shows a slight modification. Sp. is bold and perhaps correct in taking vikhydto’ smi actively; see the Pahl. If he is correct, what care Ner. requires! Haug mistakes, I think, in render- ing avistdvdnim ‘the Avesta and Jend’. Jand renders the Zand (Zend) elsewhere. Zéhar, rendered balam, was misread (as few indeed would per- ceive) for zavdr (properly zavar). Nivdsanam points to DJ.’s mdnishnik (sic for minishnik); parisphutam, for Ashavahisht associated with the fire, might perhaps be rendered ‘brilliantly’ here. Also note that vahisht would be ex-
pressed by $449), 80 also vakhsh(t); and vahisht = ‘heaven’ suggests ‘light’,
while vakhsh is often rendered by Ner. as kég. Does this similarity of vakhsht and vahisht explain this kég? Read guyan.