11. Achisté may mean ‘who has declared himself’ or ‘who is declared’, 3'¢ sg. pret. mid. of chéd(f) with augment or prepositional preix a =a (original Pahl. initial » = @ or d; the word stood in the Pahl.). Some might colour: ‘Who, O M. is true to Sp. Z.? who is seriously (ashd@) his disciple? Where is devoted Obedience? And who has distinguished himself — in honesty (V. M.) as true toward the revelation’? D. has valman 2, (a) va min (8), pavan rddih, (b, gl.) min min (?) aigh for va pavan (c). Of course we might read: ‘Who is Z.’s friendly man?’ The trlr. read vdo; (see the MSS.) = Lekiim, so in c; he shows no ignorance of vd, so Ner.; in Y; 31, 9.Nem renders vd = vd, and the Pahl. trlr. does not render Lekim. Ner. has his eye rather on the Gathd here. He may have read javid for désté (see the char.) = ‘apart from men’, “separated among them’; cp. antare in the sense of ‘division’, yet also = ‘among’. One might suspect nirmalatayd — to = ‘with clearness’; but see the Pahl. Bundah-m.° occurs in other MSS.
12. The differences of opinion as to this verse are very great. I refer Vaé(é)pyé to vip gunated, plus the suffix ya in the sense of the Persian — gholémbérah, paederast. Others as = relictus ab omnibus. Peretd I refer to peretdo of the next v., as a loc. sing. of °fw in the sense of ‘strait’, time of trial’, orig. sense ‘bridge’, cp. the Chinvad(#), or possibly, ep.’ Y. 48, 2 meng peretha(°d). A very interesting opinion has long circulated privately
that pereto-zemd = ‘exiled from the land’, in itself a very possible render- ing, but see the next verse. I take wriraost as = ruraodt (so) = ‘grew up’. Others regard the root as rudh runadh® = ‘was barred out’, ‘hindered’; —
‘when he was hindered from abiding in it? (asté as gen. inf. from ah). I take asté as simply equalling ‘body’, ‘when grown was bis body in it, the scene of temptation’. Véed is taken by some as the Ved. vdj@ in the sense © of the ‘two horses’. Zédishenii as connected with jeh = ‘to snap the lips’; aodereschd as = ‘of water’, gen. of aodare (cp. adhar as possibly = ‘rain- water’, cp. nar, neres). ‘Although his two horses snapping after
‘water, turn in here, toward this place from which he was shut out’. I think
that the dual charataschd may more probably refer to the two names, if not to the two parties, Vaé(épyé and Kevind. ‘When they two approach him (dramatic present for past) with the impure strength of venereal passion’. Zédisheni (cp. vizdistam, Pahl. pdktéim). 1 cp. ddhar in the sense of ‘bosom’ (reference to the organ involved in the crime of paederasty). It will be seen that I prefer to proceed with the exercise of the faculty of judgment, rather to construct renderings which have only the merit of differing from predecessors. These latter are however always valuable as alternative conjectures to keep the inventive faculty in play. D. om. first 4, (a), has aighash, afam, (2), gl. M.1 has atsh yat? ; D. has min dén (?) man, (c). Shnayinéd Kik is better, so D. Aluni is erroneously taken as the verbal form. Urtraost, like wriddyatd, Y. 44, 20 (which see) is rendered by rdnak®, but in what sense? Does it mean ‘incite my development’, ‘further my growth’ in the body? Or does the Persian (see a) give the correct clue? Perhaps ‘in the cold which is accustomed sin’ (c) would be better; cold of itself in the later Zoroastrianism is the work of the Evil One. The trlr. read sarat’ (2) which suggested ‘cold’ (see a). The letters 0, d in Pahl. might also spell vad = ‘bad’, hence possibly ‘sin’, or else the meaning suggested ‘sin’; or aoderes may have recalled aota as = ‘cold’, But charatas might be
rendered by vddinéd, and zéisheni more naturally suggests ‘sin’, but see
the order. The Parsi-pers. trlr. took pereto in the sense of ‘street’. Read gundh, and perhaps dyinah, J.° inserts jananti in a, gl; J. reads °kdle na mitratdm (2) pra’. Ner. transliterated shndsinéd, pl. jdnanti as seeing two subjects, curiously both omitted. . Jd¢#i° may point to the meaning of aoderescha.
13. Td may = téw (rather than ¢dn?) referring to the two K. and K. of vy. 12, or it may simply = eo = ‘therefore’, ténd, and dregvatd may be pl. acc.: ‘Therefore the (daé(é)na of the righteous crushes (mard, myid) the wicked’; but the gen. eresdus rather suggests a genitive dreguvato. Others would render; ‘the person of the righteous destroys the person of the wicked’. Others again; ‘the soul of the wicked destroys the existence (?) of the righteous’; but haithtm (for haithyam = satyam) is an adverb. Then the Pahl. may after all be right: ‘the soul of the righteous relates (mar + d) these things truly’. Nasvéo would more naturally mean ‘reaching’, Dut if it refers to the subject of the preceding verb, the sense must be evil ‘reaching to harm’, It is however not impossible that the last line was intended to express the action of the soul (2), or religion, of the just. Such skippings are not unknown in the Avesta, cp. Y. 43, 3, where the last line
does not appear to refer to the one immediately preceding. Read as altern:
‘Then the soul of the righteous crushes that of the wicked truly, whose — soul makes reproaches openly on the C. Bridge, the soul of the righteous by his deeds and his words reaching the paths of Asha (beyond the Bridge)’, — D. reads jéh in a, has zak ¢ valman in 6, M.! om. nafshman in c, D. has pavan Ahar°. The dual of the Pahl., with the gloss, recalls the sins alluded to in v. 12. Mar va jéh may be altern. trl. for mared°, mar rendering the 1% syllable, and duit? being misread, The real trl. of mared? is hdshmir®, And ribins might be read; see the Pers.; ‘that soul of whom’. J.3 has *yor, J.3 seems diner (so read). J.* shows signs of Jihvaydm; J* has jihvdm. Correcting to °vdydm or °vayd, we might read: ‘the path of right® is destroyed by their tongue - .’, Ner. prob. read Pahl. géf#; see the Pahl. of the Pers. (the Pers. being itself obscure); see bhuvana®. Lekhyakam « - gananam (so) reflect hoshntir®; bumbdaim is onomatopoetic. Perhaps I must abandon jeh in the Parsi-pers. Git (?) = gétt (so sometimes) is probably written, but see Y. 53, 6. Ruwdn as more Parsi, otherwise rawdn (ravan). Khriishéd is probably a clerical blunder, or it may be meant for a Parsi 3ra sg.
14. Possibly, ‘not faithful to the precepts’. Some might render: ‘Not obedient to the establishments or to the institutions are the K., far (2) (arém?, cp. dré) from field labour, injuring (séidé to sad as in sddra@) the herd without any occasion (2) (@rdis 4, i. e. readily) in spite of their actions 4 and their vows; yea this vow (yé séenhd = ‘which vow’) will bring them at 4 last into Satan’s house’. I take arzm as in the sense of ara (cp. Ar(a)maiti = ard°). Ardi§ 4 1 take in a kindred sense as equalling ‘in the matter of — complete well-being for the kine injuring, or not inculeating (favouring) (the nééd carried down from line a): , Senhé as loc. of °u. We might suspect 75 sevhd; ‘who shall present these (irrational) praises at last in Hell’;
cp. the reverse in Y. 45, 8. Read senhdischa, and final - -D. has them
insertion in 4, gl. with yekavimiind; M.* has *minéd in b, gl.; D. va man calm? inc, Kar = ‘husbandry’ here as the ‘duty’. . Through some ac- cident ardis, often correctly recognized, is rendered as possessing @ priv., or is the force of Zé felt from a? In Y. 38, 5 séid° is rendered by a word kindred to dmékhténd (sic). But note apadinan kiishishnth as an altern. i pointing to a poss. connection with the root sddrd, © might be read aside from its orig. and with gloss; ‘which teachings are delivering them [their — own souls] to the - -’. J4 has cikhdpayanti (sic), and cishydpayanti, J.* has -— cikhy® in the first instance; J.3 has gikhyd in the second instance, all in b; ‘4 J3, J* have gikhyd? in ce; J.4 hag gishya°. Nirvane curiously corresponds | to apadmdn, but see it — afdim, apémem in c, We might render c; ‘be- cause (but see the Pahl.) they are teaching thus, the household (2) of the
D. in their end deliver [their own soul(s)] to the castigation’; but °san- natdm (acc. of goal) should be read. Burand as more orig. Parsi; other- wise arand. Hstéd written under dmiz® was intended to follow dmdkhd. Read perhaps dkhar, I supposed the very imperfect letters in c to be an attempted imitation of demand; but such is their wretched condition that I now think lad-khdnah may have been meant!
15. Or we might colour: ‘What reward Z. promised beforehand, Mazda, will meet (will fulfil, vouch for) in Garodman. That I promise myself (chivish?) from V. M. and your real (Ashdchd) helps’. I hardly think however that this excellent meaning lies directly in the words. Chivishi poss. to a chév, 18 sg. mid. ish aor; ‘I will take’, or ‘I will speak, declare these things’. But I think chevish? must at least have originated from a use of chdish = chésh, as a strengthened chish; the 6 once introduced, was changed into the cognate v; chéist may have been the cause of the con- fusion; form 37? sg. pass. aor. like ageshi. Whether a 1* sg. zsh aor. of chi is the real form = chédisht = chéshi = chayishi (2) like agayish?, is doubtful. Read final to D. has min mozd in a, °dnd pésh in b, zak lektiim in e.
16. Some might render magahyd khshathréd: ‘owing to the force of his devotion’, I would never render kishathréd without attaching its meaning more or less directly to the sense in which it is most prominently used. A commonplace ‘by force of’ is hardly poss. in the Gatha. <Athd né sazdydi
’ usta, according to some scholars is: ‘thus will it be to us pleasing that he
should command us’. Us#d (orig. loc. of °t7), is, I think, exclamatory, quasi indeclinable, and used here as the subject to ast¢ understood. The infin. is predicative. D. has khitddyth, javidich, in a; M.\ zésh in 6, (but may not zakash (so M.t) be the true reading ?). D. has ? with DJ. in 4, and mindavam 2 in }, el.; D., as DJ. in c. Read as altern. without gl.: ‘V. is successfully deserving (gaining) through the sovereignty of the Magianship - - + it is that which is (at mén) wise (= chistém) according to A.’s estimate (= ‘as he conceived by, or with, A.’), He the bountiful Ahura, (¢ in aéténdt is gl.) - ’. Avarmand, cp. Y. 32, 13 poss. = ‘the haughty’. Levatman pd = paddis, Y. 50, 8 (see also Visp. 16, 2, Sp.) shows that the trlr. did not err here from ignorance; he distrusted an obvious trl., and fell back upon patois = padih (Y. 45, 11). J.4 has Kai, J.* Kai Vir, JP Kai. Nirvane shows again the interesting mistransliteration; fare° was read farj° sug- gesting farjdm; c freely conveys the general idea.
17. Some might be inclined to consider, hardly to adopt, the desiderative of dha, didhish® as an emendation for daé(¢)ddist; cp. the adject. nominal