‘and the assenting word will be to you in the end as joy’. I cannot dis- connect vayd from vayit.bered(u)byd (see the remarks on v. 6). That ex- pression might perhaps refer to the evil Vayu (recall the two natures of Vayu).* If Vayu is ‘evil’ in v. 6, he must be so here. The voc. form suits the connection well. It must’ be intended for an. expression of triumph. Or, if we are forced to take mtzhdem in an evil sense, and magem also as representing the false SaoS(k)yafit (one of the line), we must then consider Vayé as an exclamation uttered in misery. D. has valman néshman pavan zak 7 magih (a), amash (so M.1), azitkd (sic M.t as K.5) pavan bin 7 (0), atgh hamdi, vazlinéd, aydmtinishnd (so M.1) (c), aétindch ash, d. The trir. regards the mizhdem as = supplicium. Sdtanéd is peculiar for zaredisté, see the idea of motion in réibdk dahishné = zarazddo in Y. 31, 1. ‘Un- alloyed’ is verified by the Shikand Gimanik V. in the sense indicated. There is no question that Az@ (or Az#k, see D.) is applied to the venereal proclivity rather than to cupidity by the ancient Pahl. scholar here. The demons may be alluded to as ‘entering the body’ of the female. The gl. to 6 is natural; but a (!) + ydmténishnd might be relieved by dydm°; init. # = @ or a, ‘from there is the arrival of the spirit of the wicked’; but see Ner. Déshishn is spelt with the same letters as dishahi, and I had set it in this place fortified in my opinion by Ner.’s mitratvam, but see the Parsi- pers. Ner. also mistransliterated adshishn with hi-dahishn (same letters). My ‘DJ. and P. ins.’ refers to ash afterward struck out from the text which was in type. The gloss sth@nam makes the trl. still more awkward. Ner. takes the view that the gl. in a refers to the virtuous female. Sarve points to hamd?, so, erroneously deciphered from ¢» of amat., poss. from the amash, or hamash of DJ. and M.1; see hamd? in Pahl. gl. Notice Ner.’s treat- ment of avéjaké saritarih Ner. read .att = dste mitrat® (semi-colon before aste). As to the improbable mitratvam sukha® see above. Zandn as Parsi pl., but the MS. is indistinct. Jéd seems more Persian, jeh as more Parsi. Read @ i = varman ? (c). Akhir is used by some for the noun, others pro- nounce @khar. *IfVaya be present(?), he is the only later God in the Gatha.
8. Andis points to hukhshathrais. Dafshnyd to dab. Zahydchd (so transcribe) was referred many years ago to jas; jén(e)ram, of two syllables is apparently fem.; kArin(e)ram likewise of two syllables. The ché may be regarded as superfluous. The Demoness of the evil mentioned in v. 6 is probably referred to as inspiring, or associated with the enemy, or we may have false writing. At all events a gap of lost verses is to be ac-
cepted. In what sense is the delivering (daddti) of the female (?) smiter J
mentioned? Doubtless dereed = ‘in bonds’ gives the answer. Rdmam we
should naturally render ‘rest from them’ to the homes, and - -’, so poss.; see S. B. E. XXXI, p. 193, but the same verb governs ‘the foe’ and this ‘peace’; and the Pahl. trlr., both here and in Y. 49, 1, insists on ‘enforced inactivity’, ‘pause’, ‘check in his invading career’ as the meaning. This may well be the truth. ‘Let him deliver the bloody assailant in chains, and let him grant his (her) helplessness (his (her) fettering) to the farms and the hamlets’. It is also not. at all impossible that rémam is altogether a diff. word from réma = ‘rest’, and possibly a false writing was induced by the term. of khriineramcha, ramchd, and the word is remem or rdmem (cp. remé of Y. 29, 1 and rdmem of Y.49, 4) ‘bloody smiter and envious (?) assailant’. Ai§ need not be taken merely as a particle. It may be a poetical repetition; see ands. Or it may mean ‘in this matter’, ‘by occasion of these things’. Dvafshé, if in its original form, is difficult of explanation. The hint of the Pahl. trlr. coincides with the context both here and in Y. 44,14. ‘Deceivers’ is a good rendering. Seeking other explanations, we may have a compos.; recall Ved. dhu inasense ‘agitate’, ‘scatter’ + a/fS (as in afSchithra, etc.). Nothing is more consonant with the usage of language than the carrying-over of such a sense as ‘disperse the water (of irrigation)’ or ‘with desolation flood the land with rivers by destroying their confines’, cp. the Parsi word vidvan, P. biydban, applied even in the sense ‘misled’, *seduced’, originally meaning ‘desert’, ‘waterless’, so dva/shé might = ‘desolators’; even a literal sense might well apply, (cp. vivdpad(t) Y. 32, 11 = viydpad(t), and vid- potemem = viydp°). Consider the root of dvds, + fsha for fshd as for psd (cp. fshu for psw) ‘attackers of the flocks’(?). With vigorous changes of text (aneshd for andis 4, naraim for jéneram) some might propose: ‘Power- less shall be the malefactors, and the deceivers, and to be deprived of every advantage (lit. starved out). Let them all cry aloud. Through good rulers of men - - let one give quiet to land and to people. Let the deceiver run into the bands of death: -’(?). M.1 has vddinyén (a), D va zanishn, om. va before khras° (b), has m for d in ha-khiiddi, avo for val, va mar 7, om. va before résh, has va pavan, manishnd, va vis ydtind (c) M.'va min, D. va fréft, 7 shikuftam rds, 7 mahisté, M.1 margth, D, om. (d). Any one who would find fault with this Pahl. trlr., rich as it is in valuable hints, would manifest a fatal lack of judgment. Where error is most mixed with truth, there the truth may be most precious. Andis, as ever, erroneously as a neg. ad- verbial expression. Zanishn is free. Jéh va mar go together as well explaining the ‘sinners’; they may have suggested themselves on account of the outward form of jénerdm; but we can hardly accept this explanation here, as they occur in Y. 51, 13, which see. At all events they freely describe jén(e)ram as applying to the evil. Govikhrinih va a = khriine-
ramchd; arméshtih and akdrth = ramamcha; dig erroneously (?) as prep. or adv. of motion, etc. Adfténd (aside from the mistaken gl.) might = pat in the sense of ‘fall upon’, ‘rush’; see ¢ratd; Shikift as = derezé is free, the enchaining being ‘terrible’, or it is erroneous; possibly dar(e)sh = ‘daring’ was seen. I don’t know that it would be fair to read J.3’s samaran(n)dm (so) (a) as a corruption from samarana® = ‘battle ’, and so nearer the idea of ‘hostile shrieking’; the variation may be accidental, According to samérach® (J.*) he read khriis® as= ards (same char.) = aé(éjurus, see Y. 50, 10; ‘sound’ was hardly indicated. Jéh (in the Pahl. char.) may have suggested the first syllable of dakhshak, else whence chihnam, or did Jjeh = ‘harlot’ suggest some corporeal fluid expressed by a word meaning ‘sign’? cp. dakhshta = ‘menstruation’, and ‘sign’ (so, better). Mar was mistaken for mar — ‘cal- culation’, ‘record’. Chhedakartari renders guikhriinih and résh, etc. Prabhaté shows that vésh was read for vis; ghorandhakdram is free, but exaggerated for shikiift. Firéb°, or firib, is probably older than farib°; khréshidar as more orig.; otherwise with some khurdsh°, and kharésh° ; wandh (sic).
9. Read as altern.: ‘With false believers the tormentor makes Thy helpers rejected’. Some scholars, following a very old suggestion, render vaé(é)shd simply ‘hell’ properly comparing Vd. 8, 35; I prefer a concrete. An agent is present. Our first impression is to read dvaé(é)shd for vaé(é)shé (with the Pahl. trlr.), and our last opinion does not differ much from that. . Compare the addition of a dental in douj, dbish. If a dental may be added at one stage of the language, a dental may fall off at another; see also the word in the daughter language, bésh. Otherwise Ved. bhish(@) (= ‘with terror’) might throw light on the matter; ‘the terrible one’. Reading vishd, we might possibly understand ‘ poison’, with allusion to the poison brought to the wicked by the spirits of the lost on their entrance into Hell, and transferred to the figurative and concrete sense of ‘evil-minded’ (ep. the vishavant dragon, Y. 9, 11, also the ‘poison-casting’, azhdis vishovaée(é)- pahé(é), Y. 9, 80). Some scholars, reading rdsté (emended) as a form equi- valent to the Vedic rish + ni = ‘to stick full’, ‘to fill’, would render: a ‘Hell is full of unbelievers’. Others: ‘To the unbelieving belongs (Sk. rddh) ; hell’. 7éi as a nom. pl. is a great mistake. Narepis is taken by one scholar as ‘men -expelling’, to ‘those who expelled Z.’. I prefer ‘hero- Supporting’, ‘adherents to the cause’, nar + pi (= ‘to nourish’). Rij7s, so I prefer with some of the oldest MS., and with the Pahl. trlr. I can only refer it to Ved. rich = ‘to abandon’, as = ‘rejected’, ‘exiled’, cp. the hostile combination who were adverse to Z., Y. 46, 1. Rédst? (to réd); I translate ‘renders’; cp. Ved. rddh in the sense of ‘bring to a state’, in the Rik generally however in the ‘good’ sense, but here rdsti must express some
> ow
‘evil’ result. Others.suggest raj#s, n. pl. in the sense ‘men of Ragha’, comparing rajéid(t). ‘The men of Ragha who expel their heroes narepis (2) are peshdtanuvd, damned’ (?) (so one scholar). There is little probability however that Z. was ever expelled from Ragha,. if indeed he was (as Y. 19, 18 seems to indicate) a native of the place. The later documents are never to be trusted on historical points. Aé(é)shasd shows the curiously extended form. We should expect aé(é)shd = ésha. But, as in zshdsa, we have both the sh of zsh (esh), and the s = chchh, of ichchha, see on Y.31, 4. I render ‘through the wish’, that is, ‘the evil prayers of the opposed creed which strives to conquer the holy order’. Dé is a mere help which is sometimes still used in pronouncing, or writing, j, as in the word, Djdmdspa; jid(t)- aretd (instr.) equals aretd-jid(f)4 = ‘virtue-conquering’, ‘truth- slaying’,
‘opposed to the holy order of the Zarathustrian creed’. Peshdtan(u)vd (gen.)
is the Peshotan, the reprobate, either the ‘excluded person’, or the ‘ Bridge- person’, one who cannot pass the Chinvad(t)(or °vaiit); so, distinctly in the Pahl, ‘a person without; i. e. not passing over’ the Bridge’. Others prefer a nom. pl.: ‘Those forgetful of duty (n. pl.) are excluded, or damned’. I have translated as ever, as directly as possible, and with no desire to repudiate the most probable renderings simply because they have been suggested before by the Pahl. trlr. Some have coloured: ‘Hell is full of unbelievers - - those forgetful of duty are excommunicated. Is it the righteous Lord who deprives them of life and freedom?’ D. has vd béshishn, M.t va véshishnd, M.' vddinyén, D, and M.1 réshinénd (a), D. 2to bef. yek° (0), D., wigh padakhshalth, min valman, spells daregish va dsdno diff. (d). Hémnuninidér may be denom. = ‘believers’ (?). Mdstt is freely recognized in drdstér by the Pahl. trlr. Rijistnénd (? réjinénd) points to riji5 in an etymological sense. Aé(¢)shasd to bavihtin® = ‘wish’; jéd(t) freely = zado. Dastébarth helps out bindakih = aretd, from dastébar above. Peshdtan(u)vd one of the most familiar ideas to the Parsis of all ages is rendered by ‘persons without the Bridge’, i. e. those who cannot pass the Chinvad(?). Jydtéus was probably included with hémithydd(t), and freely rendered by makhitinéd (jydtu itself had been easily recognized; see Y.31, 15; Y. 32, 12, etc.). Hémithydad(t) was again and further expressed by haméstdrinéd. Whence come kininédo (Ner. dveshasya) for itoischa? Yatdis (9 as Pahl. y with inherent «) would not help much; yati hardly accounts for kin®. Pos- sibly it is pure gloss, kdmak being regarded as expressing vasé - itdischd. Asano seems free for vahyd. I suppose duhkritena (so) must be intelligently free: of what is it the imitation? Vaé(¢)shd = piddm; samdrachand(h) = drastér (this time) = raj?§ (so); labdh®? = narepis (with °rep® (so) = rap = labdh!); tandvaragundha = ‘the tandpihar = ‘sin’ + ha(d), Pers. sign of pl.
Theirs is the evil’ should refer to the sinners, cp. teshém tandvar®. For the last time let me say that censure expressed upon these ancient native translations on account of the shattered condition of their syntax is uncalled- for, and may be now said to be abandoned by all scholars who understand them. Sometimes no syntax is attempted in them, and often they follow texts which have long since disappeared; but, as indicating the root-ideas present, they have taught us the beginnings of Zend Philology, and there- fore should be studied in all their bearings for additional light.
Improvements, alternatives and corrections.