Ner. gives a valuable translation of the Pahlavi, but with his eye on the Gatha. He is more decided than the Pahlavi mo ahyad = asya, main- yeus = adricyasya (or did he show us how to understand pavan minavadikth ?), and in translating Vanhéuws Mananhé literally by uttamasya manasah. He may well have had another text, not that now surviving to us, at these points. His glosses are more fall: but this is a doubtful ndeantea:
The Parsi- persian renders a text which contained Vohéman in line ec, showing the value of its evidence as to readings of the Pahlavi.
2. Dévoi is dative inf. for imperative; root dé, suffix vé(¢), compare vidvé (viduyé(é)). Or it may be possibly from du, comp. Indian divas. The suffix then would be é¢). Some render rapaité ‘adherents’; I add an element of joyfulness; ¢dthré(¢) from ban. I read the interior short ¢ in pairijasdi.
This verse is one of very many to prove that the subjects deeply en- gaging the mind of the composer were closely connected with the fate of souls in the spiritual world now and hereafter, as well as with the fate of our bodies here,
The Pahl. trlr. could not credit the nom. yé; he rendered it as if it were yd; and some moderns have shared his error. He sees the conjunc- tive in jasd¢, and renders the infinitive dd@véi correctly as imperative (com- pare the English usage; ‘ye are to declare’; that is, ‘declare ye’).
He sees the cases throughout with the exception perhaps of vdthré(é), which he yet renders freely as if he had understood a locative; ‘by which one might endow the rejoicers with beatific happiness’.
Pavan vohiimand equals voht mananhd; avo li equals maibyd; 7 ast- hémanddén astvataschd; min ahardyth avakih (which is of importance as a proof of critical freedom) equals ashdd(t) hachd.
These all prove that simple ignorance of the Gathic cases was never the real reason for the apparent verbal errors of these translations.
We are therefore left to the conclusion that these errors are grossly exaggerated by us of to-day, owing to the mistake of subjecting a transla- tion which is largely, but by no means wholly, a verbatim one, to the rules of ordinary Pahlavi grammar; secondly we must attribute them to the im- perfections of the Zend texts from which the translator wrote fettered by
superstitious veneration for every shattered word-fragment; and thirdly, we — must attribute these frequent appearances of error to the general difficul- ties of the subject which still divide scholars.
Ner. renders his yehabiinéd erroneously as a singular (see vdo, but see also daidid(t)); otherwise his rendering is very valuable, the Pahlavi being understood to have been for the most part his original.
The Parsi-persian misread the Pahlavi yémtéinani for ydmtindnd written with the same signs, and hémandni for hémandnd; otherwise it corroborates the Pahlavi text throughout.
3. If °paour? was pronounced very long, or as two syllables, apaour- viyem would disturb the metre; perhaps apaourvyam would be safer. The 7 retains the force of the Pahl » with inherent a. im represents (i)yem, or °vim = °vyam, apaourvim (quasi four (?) syllables) = dpiirvyam (three). The word qualifies Mazdam, or ufyéné as an adverbial neut. = ‘in an unprece- dented manner’, ‘as never before’. Haug rendered non- primum as in strict antithesis to paowrvim, v. 1. The negative of emphasis was first cited by Spiegel from no other than Kossowicz followed by De Harlez, and all who have read apaour®, As to the emphatic force, cp. RV. X, 23, 6 stémath ta Indra Vimada’ ajijanann Aparvyam purutamaih sudanave; RV. VI, 32, 1
dpirvya purutamany --- vachansy dsa’ - - taksham; RY. VIII, 18,1--- sum- nam bhiksheta martyah Adityandm Aptrvyam sdvimani; RV. VIII, 66, 11 Vayaéih gha te apirvyéndra brdhmani- - - bharamasi; so with, Agni, Vayu,
and Ushas. I regard dpirvya as beyond any question a much stronger expression than ndvya, whether applied to a person or a song. Jasatd as 3*? sing. conj. would show the secondary ending in the middle which seldom occurs, as reported, in the conj. in Sanskrit.
Aghzhaonvamnem presents a difficulty to all. All however agree as to the sense, following the indication of the Pahlavi translation. Perhaps v is here miswritten for y, and we have a denominative form from *ghzhaoni (compare Ved. kshon?), *akshonyaménam = ‘the non-flowing’, root *kshu.
The formation of a denom. from a negative may seem unusual here, but compare the frequent Vedic occurrences.
For an instance of a denominative from the noun in short 7 comp. patyate from pdti. I should say that aghzhaonyamnem was thoroughly possible.
Some simply change the text to aghzhanvamnem, in which case we have only to compare kshan, kshanoti.
The Pahlavi translation is thrown out of gear by an error which, from its indirect consequences, is more interesting than many a truth.
The trlr. mistakes the word ufydné for nafshman which is written in Pahlavi with characters somewhat similar ; 949)" — ufydni and yoy — nafsh-
man. So also in Y. 48, 8 ufyda(chd) = nafsh(man), and Y. 26, 1 ufyé(e)mi = nafshmanindm (so DJ.’s M8.). The trir. thought u/ydni difficult, and shows by reading it asa denom. of napesh, that the Pahl. trls. in J.2, K.5,M.1, etc. are inheritances from more ancient ones by no means following the Gath4-texts at present standing beside them. Here the Gathd-text stood largely in the Pahl. character, a fact of the first importance.
With this error aside, his rendering has value. His fratém may render paourvim, as well as apaourvim which it would be a pity to lose; he gives the proper indication to the meaning of aghzaonvamnem, and, as above in- timated, he suggests the very idiomatic rendering of varedait? as a present fem. part. in agreement with Ar(a)maiti§, zaveng as an acc. of goal. Moreover he adds, what it is all-important to notice, and that is, an alternative trans- lation. It is in this instance an alternative rendering for jasatd. Elimina- ting the error of nafshman, we might read, without the glosses: - - - you, O Asha and the Good Mind (omit 7; see the variations), and Atharmazd also the first, whose authority over them is with an unweakened acquisition [that is, strong], and her also, Spendarmad, the giver of increase. She comes to me with joy on my invoking (adverbial use) (?) [or alternatively, (which alternative rendering seems never to have been recognized), ‘when I shall call upon you, come ye on toward me with joy’].
Ner. read 7 (so DJ.’s MS.), and therefore applies fratim to Vohiman (hence his gloss, differing from the Pahlavi however).
His rendering for anzzdr, which translates aghzhaonvamnem freely, is difficult. I had thought of a double negative, ananayalabdya = ‘with acquisition not irregular, or sinful’, (odd forms are familiar in Ner.), but analya® = ‘undisturbed’ (so J.3 J.4.) may suffice; ananya® = ‘not otherwise’ is not well adapted. Some would read J.3 °lubdhya (sic), as if vandishnih had been seen as rendering van = ‘to conquer’, ‘to desire’, but / is clearly written, not 7w. Haug’s MS. had (?) amalya® = ‘not to be soiled’.
Ner.’s gloss is, however, freely correct. He renders Spendarmad accu- rately in ¢ as genitive, for such it is if the gloss is not omitted, and he pro- bably did not omit it. His rendering of his original, the Pahlavi, is valuable.
4. Can urvdnem men - » dadé(é) = ‘direct the attention of (?) the soul (= self) (to monition (gairé(¢), to gir, gur)’, or ‘to awaking’ (to gar)? Men. - dadé(é) = animum advertere, governs the thing animadverted upon. As to an exception, notice the close contiguity of urvdnem and mén, and the distance from dadé(é). The earlier Pahl. trir, read mdngairé(¢); @, in
mén, is merely the nasal vowel, and often an inexact writing. It may well equal dn, @n(s), as in the acc. pl. mase. ‘Devoting (turning) mind and soul to Heaven’ is very apt; but cp. gard demdné(é Y. 51, 15, and garé nméné(e) Yt. 10, 32. Then gatrim might equal Mount (Alborj), acc. of goal = ‘to Heaven’. This has met with some approval. Finally méi as = mam (ea = nasalized long @) may be adverbially used (or a false writing) for ménéd =‘my’; so the Pahl. elsewhere, but not here.
Some would read @ éshé(é), an infin. with the following gen. ‘to wish for righteousness’. This seems rather forced, while ‘in the desire for Sanctity’ sounds somewhat advanced and modern. The last is however the natural result of the syntax.
The Pahl trlr. recoils as before from the recognition of [azém] ye = ‘Iwho’. Pavan avékih as = hathré =‘with accompaniment’ rather than ‘with aid’. He also renders ‘sé as if from 7s = to Wish, as to which he is only sometimes right, although of course he gives his ancient evidence as to the outward forms in earlier texts. Otherwise his rendering is quite rich, giving us the valuable hints of Garédméno, and amikhtam (sic), in which last suggestion he has been followed by all, except indeed Haug, who, at the time of his able attempt, was actually, or practically, unacquainted with the Pahlavi.
We may notice the embarrassment caused the trlr. by the supposed necessity to attempt to follow the Gathic word for word, which appears in his rendering of the gen. Mazddo Ahurahyé, inserting pavan zak t A. His translation of hathr@ is especially intelligent, giving a change of form and two words. His concrete translation of §(k)yaothanandm is noticeable though free.
Ner. from some unknown reason renders mén as fem. by yd ete. He is also otherwise somewhat free, but affords a valuable rendering of the Pahl.
5. Gdtim may well mean ‘throne’ here (with the Pahlavi), as it gen- erally means ‘throne’, or the like, in the later Avesta, but Vedic analogies induced Haug to render ‘way’, and I formerly followed, being still at pre- sent unable to shake off my preference for a rendering peculiar to the Gathic here. The word Khrafstré, which may be masc. (one does not wil- lingly accede to a neuter), certainly indicates something to be opposed ; and the expression of opposition might seem to us present in vdurdi- maidi as equalling ‘hold off’. But we naturally do not like to place an expres- sion of that kind in immediate connection with what precedes in another tone, especially when var can also be rendered ‘choose’, ‘confess’, and even — ‘teach’, the intensive having causative meaning.
I therefore, although regarding mazistem as a suspicious adverb both formerly, when rendering ‘hold off, and now, incline at last to follow the Pahlavi partly: ‘By that mathra we most convert the Khrafstra-polluted
a ee
men with tongue’. Or better: ‘We cause the polluted ones to believe on the greatest (one)’. As to Sraoshem, one able scholar renders, ‘of the one most helpful toward the obedient one’. All the abstracts cover concretes, but as Ashd is subjective here, so is Sraoshem (spoken Seraoshem; see the metre).
The Pahlavi translator, affording the richest indications throughout, is evidently free, and not erroneous, in rendering Sraoshem by pavan Srosh (is he not literal?); and this is proved by the fact that he repeats the word ‘knowing’, bringing it down as it were from line a. His correct free- dom is likewise indicated by his accurate rendering of the causative force which may inhere in vduréimaid?. With regard to his exaggerated freedom in rendering the form of and mdthrd, it should be said that, in view of its original, the Pahlavi might be translated as follows, especially if the often- omitted izafat is supplied: ‘To this mathra the most, to it belongs (geni- tives by position, especially ash) the giving by tongue of the conversion of him whose intellect is confused’. As to curiosities, the terminations of se- vistdt and vdurdimaidé are separately rendered. They were possibly and even probably severed from their stems, or stood otherwise divided in the MS. used by the earlier trlr.; see similar errors in our now surviving MSS. They stood as sev. iStdi and vdurdimai. di. This accounts for the mischievous khvdstdr, and the superfluous yehabiénishnd, which possibly crept into the text from some remote predecessor’s note, and might even be brack- eted with propriety here. The lengthy paraphrased translation for khrafstra indulges seemingly in etymology, dividing kra = ‘mind’, from the root of krdtu, and stré from star = ‘to prostrate’. This is of course literally er- roneous, yet it renders the idea. Khvdstdér would be strictly referred to Ahura, if it were not for its sense ‘supplicator’, which makes it inapplicable to Ahura.
Omitting it for the sake of estimating the degree in which the Pahl. trl. approaches the Gatha, we may read line 4: ‘And the throne, or place, of Attharmazd, the bountiful (@ séd.), even Srésh; that is, that place is known through Srésh (Obedience)’.