The full notice of the errata of pp. 1—153 will be given later together with those of pp. 154— 393 not yet fully in type; p. 398, read gairim, and dmikhtan; p. 399, read mathra for mathra; -p. 404, read = srayéni; p. 407, read ydith®, viparyayi; p. 408, read asidak and vdizhdim; p. 409, iS, and yemaleltni, 4th line from bottom; p. 411, stenaccha; p. 415, avésham; p. 422, jiv for jiv; p. 425, yal tashidar, not kardar; p. 427, vindid and vindéd; p. 430 34 line from the bottom read ‘change of application’ for ‘change of accent’; p. 435 dlokayitacha; p. 441, A not A; p. 444, read 1s pl. 13 line from bottom; p. 450, middle, read vahyaio; p. 452, read tarsagai, not for tarsa-
kasi; p. 454, read achchhedah only; p. 457 read ‘oS (not &) having in-
herent a’; p. 459, dayé(e)ité(é); p. 460, read afrtikhtan, and pronunciation ; after hamptirséd6 insert (so reading). I attempted an extreme economy in words; p. 473, read min akharih (? or akharash), also asridim; p. 474, read ‘(k)yaothnem’, and ‘at the end of the line’ (not sentence); p. 478, — read 4th from top raspatak* (as in Y. 44, 2); also insert ‘if we read °kritam’ after ‘Ner. seems’, 9* line from top. There is little choice between vichithrdi and °thdi, it was after printing page 478 that I finally selected °thdi, and °thahya as in the texts; p. 479, read viyavaninid; p. 482, read ‘since’; p. 487, read ‘hamik’; p.489 middle, read vicharayita for vichdy°, a shock- ing misprint such as I had hoped that a friend who saw the proof-sheet would notice and report to me; p. 490, read ‘pacchatye’ with later acquired MSS., omit the rest; p. 492, vij is hardly to be considered with fra- voizhdim; the perfect is intensive; p. 493, ha-kurunem, read ha-kurenem ; p. 494, omit comma after blessing; p. 499, read °tayai for *taya, 5 line from bottom; p. 505, I meant of course that Ner. saw the exaggeration of demun*(?) = demand which seems to occur(?); p. 510, I now by all means prefer tarsagdi, so in v. 5; p. 512, tarsagdih for tarsagai, but this is more doubt- ful, perhaps it is tarsagAi ash; notice that it is something given by a su- perior to a receiver, and therefore not ‘reverence’ in the usual sense; p. 534, last line read hevt?; p. 539, nydkhshishnd; but either has authority; p. 544, vrijanydn(s); p. 584, read uttamamanasah 6™ line from the bottom; p. 589, I now prefer to transliterate tarsagaih, or tarsagahih, to tarsakaish, 10% line from the top (Dec. 1890).
*1 Some of these misprints have been later corrected.
Page 10, read Sanctitatis; p. 11, Ardibahisht; p. 12, radh°; p. 13, Zarath° for Zarth®, or ‘°namanase = to the perfect. m.’, but I now prefer saiipurnamanase , voc., ‘O perfect-minded’; p. 21, yushmat; p. 23, Wik; p. 29, édin; p. 37, line 9t ‘abundant’ for ‘excellent’; p. 47, agh; p. 52, ‘ordeal’ for ‘service’, gazishné as in the Parsi-persian for yaz®, ‘in case that in the ordeal the biting may not be for me’; p. 74, avam; p. 80, ahtimbis; p. 96, as altern. read ‘Bos (masc. (?)) parte’ (frustatim, per par- tes); p. 12k, “let them’; p. 345, gundh (Parsi-p); p. 353, giyad; p. 359, gunah; p. 361, or ‘barand’, Amakht-éstéd + mi-amiizad; p. 375, dehad, ‘vagtind’ or ‘vagtinad’, or ‘fartbtar’; p. 376, bentman; p. 377, khalig, or Janishthah’, k@’im-mand ; p. 379, paripurnam; p. 383, or ‘vagtinad * (sic), or ‘dabinad’* (sic); p. 385, hamishah, pasbani; p. 386, nazdtki, or ‘barand’; p. 387, or ‘dabinad’* (sic); p. 388, zahydcha; p. 389, ‘jih’ or ‘jeh’; p. 391, or ‘khu- rushidar*’, or ‘faribandah’ or ‘firj° ’, or ‘farib’ (faréb). Pages 355 —393 have been printed many years, hence the more frequent alternatives and improve- ments suggested. As stated provisionally on page XXV in 1892, I have used the proper v instead of w = v in the entire Gatha Ustavaiti for the reasons there given and while warning readers as to the peculiar w = » in the rest of the book. I have elsewhere also purposely varied from S.B.E. XXXI (1887), and even from the Commentary (1890) here and there as opinions have advanced. The student should of course prefer the later opinion where two vary from each other. It would have been beneath the dignity of this most difficult subject had I refrained from improvements up to the last deterred by a regard for a petty uniformity as to every minute detail, an error into which I fell in my earlier edition. It is mechanically impossible to print such a work in a distant country without a lapse of time during which opinions change. I would repeat again what I formerly intimated, which is that I have studiously avoided the foolish if fashionable custom of stating emphatically views which I do not believe to be true; up to the last I give the less probable suggestions in the notes, or in the frequent alternatives. Finally I would remind my readers that my dictionary of the Gathas has long been in manuscript, and that I hope now to furnish it, only delaying to complete a Sanskrit rendering as a preliminary study. My dictionary will be curtailed, and if time is given, will cover the entire Avesta texts. (Feb. 1894),