9. Read my antiquated translit. in my former printing mahydo, hyem, and as preferred altern. for my former trl. deatitudinés ut praemii sacri. Ashéis. Here again, as every where in the Gathas, we must adhere to the meaning ‘sacred’ ‘blessing’, ‘benefit’, and to this as verging upon the sense of ‘reward’. But here, as the context shows, the idea must be stretched as far as possible toward purae-indolis, the lit. meaning. The worshipper declares that he will approach the Deity with his Yasnas, and the cere- monial and morally righteous deeds ineuleated and inspired by the€Good Mind, and then, when he has become possessed of the sacred blessing of holy character, the consequence will follow; he will become the recipient of the wise man’s (or the good offerer’s) reward. It is illogical and sense- less to render: ‘When I get my property, I will be its recipient’. It is | rather bold to render hudéndu§ (hu + dé = dha = ‘the well-disposer’, or — ‘offerer’) as governed directly by gereedd hyém; ‘then I shall eagerly attain — to the beneficent reward’. If it were not for the meaning ‘beneficent’ (so), — ‘seizer of’ with the gen. would be admirable. Ishayas would fit the metre better, which is important, but cp. the Ved. stem of 1st ish, ishya, and ishyan, the sense need not interfere, as the two sh’s are related. Gereedd, to gridh = ‘approach eagerly with desire’, Whether the influence of the important Y. 29,1 induced a use of gar(e)z (garh) for exclamatory prayer when no adverse circumstances were prominent in the connection, is a question, cp. Y. 51, 17. The Pahl. trlr. is free as to the case of tdvs; he was not ignorant of the instr. No one should object to ‘{ come toward Your sacrifice with praise’ for ‘I will come praising to you with sacrifices’, Yadé = pavan dahishno well = “in that dispensation or time’, see amat = ‘when’, and yet dahishno was used simply because of the syllable dd (as often in similar cases, a correct use caused by an outward form!). For tarsdahth correct tarsakdsth (so) without MSS.; see Ner.’s lakshméin which shows a sense of acquisition recognized in ashdés. Himanam pédakhshah should be con- sidered a good rendering; see mahydo absorbed with freedom in homanam. HudandusS as gen, ig managed fairly. D. has 7? in a, tarsakdish (sic), or tarsagahih (?), °agah® (so) for °akds° (so), vddiinamam (? sic}, pddakhshah and °shahih (c). Arédhinam may be meant, as adj., yet see the Pahl. An illustration of Haug’s seemingly absolute want of acquaintance with the Pahl. trl. at the date of his Gathds is curiously given in his remark on ] sammukham and paidd (so); the word renders padiraké. Can Ner, mean — suddninam as if to ad dna, cp. 34 da = ‘cut’, or a 7m (?) dé = ‘to purify’?; or was he imitating huddndus, cp. dan@? J. fails to write anusvara in~
stutim as often elsewhere, J.* has lakshmim. which is also only added by a ‘later hand. 10. With a laudable desire to recognize as fully as possible every- thing which the composer of the Gathas has written in a feeling for nature, some would render vareshd ‘woods’, and change the text of 5 skyaothand to diskatd (= mountains) without the authority of MSS. I fear however that the word S(k)yaothand interprets the foregoing varesha aS a 18 s aor. conj. of var(e)z in the sense ‘What I shall do aé first, and what later as supplementing (= besides) these things (pairt dis). Ashd preceding Mazda, renders a conjunction of the two in Ahurd (= ‘Ye Gods *) very improbable; in fact the voc. Ashd@ is suspicious, perhaps adv. instr. is better. The hésh of the Pahl. trir. here (for wkshd) corrects his vakhshintddr at Y. 46, 3. Pairt is rendered by pésh = ‘before’, in the sense ‘in view OF OF Om account of’. D. pésho, or péshan (?) (°dn (?)); see Pers. Valmanshdn proves that the trir. distinguished between ai§ as a particle, and ds as a pronoun (see Y. 31,2). The loc. chashmam = °man was first seen and explained by the Pahl. trlr.; see also Ner. Rdshan + éd (for ait) is best. Sp.’s text (K.°) seems nearest to réshinéd (sic). M.1, D. have rédined (so) = ‘causes to grow’ ; cp. vakhsh rendering ukhsh° also rendered here as ‘light’, ards, see dakhshak. Arejad(t) may well have been read arédad(t) (ardh); one MS. gives a hint in areedad(f). Or D. might seem 1s6 (sic) + éd, in D., separated, for réshan + aité. M.1 has also atghshan. Pavan may = ‘as’, or ‘by’. Ards has been unnecessarily transliterated khris = ‘a cock’. Ner. had no such conception. For tarsdahth written in default of better for what seems tarsakdish (2), or °agahé(?), I would now correct to oLasth from other places, gl. aside, case
oblique. Ner.’s yasya may be alternative for yat. Hosh (hash)is rendered as in,
a figurative sense by chaitanyam. Samérachandm = ‘order’ in the sense of ‘embellishment’, or °rechandm (J.3, J.4) = ‘purification’ (?). All have manushyandm. Ner. must not be considered in his turn ignorant of all Pahl. grammar from his freedom in d. Read péshtnagan for the misprinted de- cipherment of the confused writing; read khriéis perhaps, but ‘cock’ was certainly not meant; cp. khraozh®, also old Pahl.-paz. gl. khrdéshd (so), khrishéd might better be khré°. I meant hishhan (?) + ya'ni, etc.
41. As to caesura see b. Aojdi might = ‘I will name myself’, better mid.-pass., as so often. Perhaps we should read isdchd (act), so J.?, J.%, so also J.*, but it is corrected to °sd7. VarStam is either gen. pl. shortened on account of the metre (cp. deviim for devindm, etc.), or it is a 37¢ sg. mid. imper. (so, long privately taught) with neut. pl. subject, or with ddta understood as subject. ‘Let these truly righteous acts of praise be accom- plished’, or, ‘let the Creator of the world accomplish for Himself what
may be most prospering for the cause through grace’. Pahl, M. gives us ao
|) Seg
the needed aétind = ad(#), D. yakhsenunam, M.1 darém (a), D. yehabinéd in d, see DJ. The trir. had aojé before him, or read aojdi as a verbal form from the root of aojé, and this is a solution well worth considering; see tavdchd isdichad. ‘As your praiser I will have power in the future, and I have been your praiser so far as I can and may’. The trlr. was not ignorant of a root aoj = ‘to say’; see Y. 43, 8 where aoji = hémanam-- gift. He may well also have recognized the form as well as the root of staotd; ‘Your praising is strength to me’ may be free for ‘I as Your praiser will have strength’. See also the roundabout perf. in the gloss, showing unquestioned freedom in att}. Isai (or zsé), as ever, to ish = ichchh probably erroneously, but always possibly correctly; here the trlr. may have recoiled from tautology; see tavd. Dédtd he took as imper. 224 p],; aredad(t) was probably divided are.dad(#) in his MSS., and probably (not certainly) regarded as a puzzling neut. But, on the contrary, these seeming errors may be each and all mere freedom, or inherited views which he feared to change. Varstam was seen as gen. pl, and rendered in the concrete. He notices the superl. frashdtemem. Ner. has his eye on adj6 ait, and blundering, or correcting us; J.4 has dste: JA, J* have bhavami for karomi. J8 om. yat inb; J.8 antah sampirna (2) uttamasya manasah. In d, gl. 1 followed OC. as nearer the Pahl., but still yehabiinéd may be imper. J.3 has svdémin prasddam prasidapiritam (so) dehi pravdhena, J.° bhavdmi; P. has svdmina (?) and as J.3. J is reported as svdmin yat krimah(?) yah prasddah piritain (SO) prasd- dam dadydt yat pravahena J.(?) bhavémi bhavet ayam prabhdvahe (80) gighram bhavami. J.* corresponds with J.4 from svdmin on save as to puritam (sic), dadyat (sic), also pravdéhe for prabdvahe (so). C. follows J.4 till bhavet, then yam pravdhe gighram bhavémi. Tat (d) is a mistaken word, I think, I misreading Sp.’s handwriting; omit it, Parsi-pers.; deham and dehad as more orig.; otherwise read dih®, deh® also in other MSS.; so badlah in other MSS.
The Gatha(a) vohukhshathra(a).
Yasna LI.
For introduction, altern. trl., etc., see 8. B. E., pp. 176—187.
1, Read final J.* has vidush°, &(k)yaothn®. With some khshathrem = ‘field’, (2), better kshétra = shdithra. As to the reading védishemndiS — (see the MSS.), poss. to an aor. of dig, with monstrous transition; ‘actions that are being well discriminated’ (it agrees with §(k)yaoth(a)ndi§ without doubt); or it is a formation from the aor. of dhd ‘actions that produce it’, or ‘arrange it’, Reading °dush®, consider divas as pointing to a root
_ du in the positive sense, ‘actions which inspire it with zeal’, etc. Then con- sider v¢dus as the stem, see vidushé(é) in v.8. If to dush = ‘afflict’, then antare-charaiti is in analogy with antare mruyé(é) (also with the instr.) = ‘interdict’, ‘goes between, as holding off on each side’, so, ‘opposes’. Some prefer the dat. °emndi, but see s(k)yaoth(a)nds. Probability almost inclines to dush in the ‘good’ sense, but then aitare ch. = ‘enters’, or ‘ pervades’ (?). Some might take varshdné(é) as dat. infin., with ahm? or mahé understood = ‘I will do’, ‘let us do’, better as aor. conj. mid. Some would emend a:
‘He afforded (abcbar) as the best lot wished-for by us (¢8tem) - -’. D. ins. 7, khiddt in a, om. avo, and va in a gl., om. va in b, om. 7’s, has yeheviind inc. Mas K.> (Sp.); the usual liturgical notes follow. Read avdyad. The Pahl. is intentionally free with avim. Vidushemndis seems referred to a du, = ‘to favour’, extended by ‘sh’. The root ideas are indicated, bahar = bdgem, afzind = tzha, kevanich = nichid(t); even vddinyén points” to char in one of its meanings. The glosses break up the otherwise easily established connection. Haug’s kdmine, although against the other MSS., should be read at least as an alternative. I had proposed an altern. masc. in uttamasvamikdmin® as feeling the influence of upari; see the gloss. (I do not of course see a masc. in wibhitim in agreement with °kdminam, but upart may possible govern it.) Notice varsh (vrish) in the rare sense of ‘bestowing’. Kuru = varzishn as infin. for imper. Baharah as more original; otherwise bahrah; burishn as older; otherwise barishn; see altern. crude form dur in Gl. to Arda Viraf. Read géyad for the misprint.
2. Td seems sometimes dual nt. in the Gathas = ¢é, referring to
_ khshathrem and bdgem; but with bdgem, masc. td = téu would be natural.
Otherwise td = téna = eo. Yé(e)cha is either 1% sg. indic. or conj., cp.
yacha(m) (2); or read yaé(é)ché with many MSS., acc. dual neut. We might
think of Ashayaé(é)ch@ = ‘and to Ashi’ for Ashd yéchd (yaéchd). Déis is 2nd so. opt. from aor. stem of dé transferred to the a conjug.; otherwise doishé as 274 se, gunated sa aor. imper. of dis = ‘show me’. Some might suggest: ‘To You primarily, O M. A., and for Ashi, may we arrange (dézs- dméi (?)) the district (khshathrem (?)) in our possession (¢stéis); may we through grace partake of (vahmdiddid? as corruption from vanghdmaidi (?), or some similar form, to aor. of van, vans) your support’. D. ins. @ with DJ. (@)
has vddimamam curiously again (4), also ésht 7, om. va before first std (c);
M.1 as Sp. (K.°). No yée)chéd = ydché in the Pahl.; see also Y. 30, 1.
Was déis rendered in the 34 pers. as if an aor. of dis? Ddidi, which might
be regarded as = déc§, as a 224 se. = yehabiindi in Y. 28, 7, here freely
z= Pd. Isht stands in Zend characters in all MSS. Ner.’s prithivydm should hardly be within the brackets; the more correct samprnamanasé
was his seco,d thought. Varchhitam (?) is for zsht transcribed only by the Pahl. lr. vam (so also J.*) points to Lekim.
3. Read final » Géushéd is adverbially used ‘to You let them