If the line must be shortened, omitthe chd of saskachd, particularly with the sense ‘discipulos’; ‘and those (or to those) who constitute themselves (daden) disciples, (or secure converts for him) in the words and deeds of the good religion’. Reading daben, cp. MSS. and the Pahl. we have conversions, as in Y. 31, 3, Y. 46, 12, cp. the ‘Friendlies’, the -Fryfna, a converted border tribe. It is far from improbable that the priestly warrior Z. had ‘converted’ many by the sword, and hoped to convert still more, and, as the language stands in the MSS. such an idea would seem to be before us in the present verse, hence my strict rendering. I prefer ukhdhaé ete. as instr., although -the acc. pl. is also very possible. I do not — prefer the acc. at the end of the sentence. If sask@ is a verbal form, then: ‘and. may they who deceived him learn, or fulfil, the words and actions of the good religion’. The reading saskachd is of course shortened from sasakenchd. I have preferred it as the reading of the two oldest MSS. Saskdcha = saSkan or °@n, cannot be in its orig, shape. If it were saskad, we see at once sasakan redup. (sasdk°) and this sask° is offered by several MS. which read saskemchd*. The readings sasen® would afford us perhaps too easy a solution; sa§ can be easily explained as = saksh s aor. stem of sak (sach). Some scholars might think it an impf. for sasy° sachy® (2) as § = S(k)y = chy in Savdi, etc. Read as altern. d, a
those (or to those) who gave contributions, and will learn the words - ~’, :
D. has ahartibé 7+- 4 srabo-+ ghal for avd, M1 mindavam I, D. 7 denman « - va : zand (a). D. has valman for avd, and mdnpat or °tdn (so) (6). M.1 has ha-dhitinéd, D. tag-dilth (c), D. zak valmanich i, d. The glosses destroy the trl. as a
reproduction, but there is only a single word of the orig. trl. which does not give the root meaning; and these, as ever, were our first sources of
S é “a
information as to the Zend language, and its literature. Zm expresses yé :
"
rae
misread as yé, or rendered as a dual neut.; m is gl.; °e¢ determined the outward form of 2¢m lazily written. The trlr. well know that yé(ejet = — hat, see Y. 44, 6, b, etc. Only accidental error is present. Of course the first personal cast throughout is no error at.all, but most intelligent free- dom, as in Y, 43, 16, etc. Ner. freely takes up the first pers. in a, see Y. 43, 16 and elsewhere where Z. speaks in the 3" pers. Perhaps Ner. meant. ddhyatam; but ‘priority’ suits at least the Pahl. trl.’s mistaken. gl. Yavdi suggested ydva, hence dhdnyam, etc. Read dehdd, ki paigh® as better; frébtar as nearer old Parsi than firéb°; vdganad might be intended, but I hesitated from the absence of the vowel sign.* J.* has saskachd@ (important).
2. We should expect seven syllables in ¢, 18 division, Vésta-aspé_ was probably spoken. Some scholars would render; ‘And they give.them- selves trouble to content (khshném) Him, and rather (Him than Sat
for his praise’, Khshnim, like any other action-noun may be sometimes infin, in its use, here hardly so, As is seen elsewhere, I prefer my altern. ‘propitiating worship’ at Y. 48, 12, so read 8. B. KE. XXXI, p. 159. I there decide on a corresponding reading of the Pahl. as against Ner. raored(f) (var + fra (*pravri(t)) = ‘confessing’, and so ‘piously’; others ‘rather’, ‘preferring’. Saos(k)yantd, with some in dat. sense ‘to the 8.’, is gen. with the Din, D. has va kiinishnd, aish 7, (a), has as DJ. but frandmishnidich in 6. M. has va Z. in c, D. has rds rds (d). The trlr. took schaitd directly in the sense of ‘teaching’, ‘establish by teaching’. J. om. asau, J.4 has mind, Haug manasd, J, J4, J, C., have sushtatayd, P. only sush{utayd, I suggested sw + stutyd as = shndyiniddrth, and in view of niydyishnd Srandmishné;, J.* has dehi from a later hand, J.’ seems to have it struck out; J.4 has yat, J.*, yatu, so C., P. (d). Read the misprinted word khdlis,
3. Read the final gs. yy was very reluctantly written long after it
was disapproved of by me, and solely in order to present a uniformity in usage throughout, as I had adopted it after Westergaard in portions printed very long ago. I regard this scrupulousness now as wholly mistaken in an extended work of this kind, necessarily occupying so long a period in print- ing; improvements should be freely adopted under these circumstances even at the sacrifice of uniformity, due notice being given in the notes. Yageui is fem., ep. Ved yahi. I was inclined to refer paitydstem to yat, “pratiyattam (¢ becoming s before ¢) in the sense of ‘striver’, ‘assister’, so aibhyastd vy. 5 (so reading), *abhiyatta (from yat, cp. yam); but the word may well possibly be referred to ah = as, = ‘to be’ in the sense indicated, Is it pati + dsta = ‘householder’? We have however two superfluous syllables. Is dstem to be read? If so it must be in this sense of ‘householder’, ‘house-lord’; the prep. seems needed for the sense ‘helper’. Huddni = su + dha, ‘well establishing’, and, in this sense ‘wise’, or indeed simply
‘liberal’, ‘beneficent things’. The letter »», instead of ly, was probably occasioned by the false synthesis to huddnvareshvd. It should of course be resolved, and lL should be restored. D, has zakich 7 in a, minat in b,
astishnth, zsh (30 M.‘) in c, hamparstdan, or °parsidé «+ va bandak, om. va after dino (so) in d. Reserving alternatives for this place, I rendered the text with severe impartiality. Omitting ? with DJ. and Ner. we have: ‘And him, O thou. -- ‘daughter born’, ‘one of the daughters’, yazui = = zdkb (not exact). Vohiman is gen. by pos.; pavan-yekaviminishnih may
well be a compos.; patih is altern. trir. rather than mere gl. Read: ‘Ac-
cording to that which is V.’s abiding-by thee [or according to that correct,
or pious, authority which is for thee] according to righteousness, and the wisdom - -’. (Notice well that the Pahl. trlr. again translates the word Mazddosché (a) as an abstract, showing himself the pioneer here also, and the noun mazdé undoubtedly sometimes = medhé). Omitting afash twice as gl., we can escape the marring 3'4 pers, Avé hampiirsishné may well be infin. for imper. Read: ‘then consult thou (thine be the consulting) with thy wisdom with the increase of the perfect mind; that which exists in a beneficently wise manner [the dé] do thou love’, (déshishno infin. for imper. and referring to var). Some accidental cause exists for Ner.’s omission to render Pordchisté. He here gives the first syllable = sampirnam. In vy. 4 he does not name her, calling her merely the saimprdptam (nt.) in a, and again he avoids the name in b, ¢, of v. 4, using his intelligent prépnotu. His Pahl. MS. must have been deficient, or he doubted the proper name. He has Jamdspah. There could be no difficulty in writing the word P. in Sansk. as a proper name. J.* has ajijdtd(?)janat, J4 ajijdtdjanat, C., the same, but P. has ja@¢é crossed out. I must apologize for my former chaotic mis- print. Unfortunately at the last moment I left in the proof-sheet the remains of an emendation to ajanishthdh (see the Pahl.), but I preferred a 3r4 pers. ; see my trl., and read ajanishta; or with ajanishtha(h) ((2)so) translate, ‘thou wast born(?)’. Iam unable to give a very satisfactory explanation of ajijdta°, whether = aijijat@ = ‘born of the genital organ(?)’; cp, aij = ‘slippery’ is a question. Possibly ‘born of the sender (?)’, ‘the disposing head’ anji = aji(?). Pédd, so, as more Parsi than paidd. Read Pahl. bentman.
4. w was another antiquated character which I had erroneously allowed to stand in order to avoid a breach of uniformity, and from the lack of a type; read now pw = 6, and w_ = A, also the final ys. I erroneously
felt myself committed to w= % or hv by having printed early parts of this work before the distinction had been noticed by scholars. Westergaard used yw , Spiegel for hv or h. This verse is a graphic response,
of the bride to the pious injunctions of v. 3. Tam is obviously the poetical repetition of tém in the previous verse, and on no account to be violated without authority from MSS. Yd is yéna in the sense of ‘since’, or ‘when is ‘when he shall obtain me from my father’; that is, ‘as I become his wife’. Some would refer véddd(t) to Ved. vidh = ‘to serve’ (used of the Gods), as if for the sake of variety. I still prefer the more obvious meaning. Vé is superfluous, but may mean ‘ your offered bridegroom’. All the datives, — in accordance with poetic diction and Iranian usage, refer to ¢énvad(f)
hanhus (ast@ understood). Béd(#) is the Vedic dé¢ = ‘verily’; or dzed(t) may be a miswriting for davad(t), in which case we need no asté under- stood. I have acceded to the reading ashéuné in S. B. E. XXXI, p. 192, but I now prefer as above: ‘to the righteous one, the master’ to the right- eous ones, the vdstryaé(é)ibyo (poetic repetition). Then in antithesis, and in allusion to the injunctions in v. 3, mé (read mdz) béd(£)(?) us; ‘to me de the understanding which you enjoin upon me (see the preceding verse). Hanhus = strth, For etymology cp. perhaps Ved. sasé = ‘grass’, ‘food’. This with changed suffix would be *sast = hanhu (?). One writer regards the word as a reduplication of the root han = san (cp. Ved. sdti). For us I compare ushi (Pahlavi hishth). The Pahlavi read meébéet us. Otherwise one might think, of a perfect, ‘bédus’, to bandh ‘for me binding (?) the
solemn convenant, may Ahura bestow the blessing’. Or we might regard
the various readings for mé which suggest mé@jig, connecting it with daddd(f) as mén.daddd(t): ‘May Ahura, confirming this (d¢dws), give attention to the good soul for ever’. At this difficult place all suggestions are welcome. Mé may represent méc, or mém may represent mam, or méan, ménd (gen.). Others put the strophe in the mouth of the bride- eroom changing tém to tam without MSS., and omitting the two °n?’s render: ‘I will love her with ardour (speredd) who will serve my father, and her husband, and the servants, and the connection - -’ (The good lady would have been well occupied). D. has afash valmanich 7, nésmanth (80); M.! seems zannih possibly for zanth = ‘cohabitation’ in 6, D. mozd va, va mazdinidar (?), or wa mazdayasnidar (2), or namazdinidar (?) and hiishih twice in c, and dénd (dind) 7 in d, gl. I have as usual been too adverse to the Pahl. Hiéaspir7k = ‘well-subjected’ is far from certain, Sipurdan = ‘to trust’ might suggest ‘well-trusting’, or an active ‘well-subjecting’ would be nearer the Gatha. We should hardly venture to compare sabda- rah = catamitus, paedicator as figuratively used in such a connection as this; ‘the violently ardent affection’(?). The 1** conj. is not rendered. Paithyaé(é)ché without being mistaken for fedhrd, = abidarih or abidar, was yet reproduced by ab#, the ideas of ‘master’ and ‘father’ not having been considered far apart. Venvad(?) was read as from the reflexive pron., many others being baffled. Hanhus well = sirth; masiniddér or mazdyas- niddr (2) or mazdintdar points to mé@ béd(t) suggesting mébad (a purely-parsi word!); see also Ner.’s gurukdryam (the 1* pers. pron. was not seen’). J.* om. tvam, (a) has susvddu (so), (c) om. sarveshdm, (d). Cobhanam = haspirik. Ner. seems to have seen hd + siparth = ‘perfection’, hence his peripdrnam, and he read dahishné for déshishnd. Aba rdi is not rendered, being pro-
, bably discarded as an error. Prdpnotu may correspond mechanically in its
place to the word Périchisté, if line c begins after pdlayati, but it is itself So proper and sensible that it cannot be intended as a translation of
Péruchisté. It shows however the curious reluctance on the part of Ner. to reproduce the name. De/ is corrected from dehad; istdd, or éstdd.