Ner. seems to have seen no dén in the first gloss, and he intelligently adds a tud@m. He also restores the grammatical relation of sevistdi, ren- dering his original the Pahlavi by /dbAabhildshatah. Otherwise his ren- dering of his original is close.
6. Ashdddo is especially in place as describing a person, and also particulary idiomatic, when so understood, as a nom. sg. in agreement with t#, or a voc. in agreement with Mazda.
Ashdddo, so reading, would seem to equal rit@ni plus dé@s, or riténa (?) plus dé@s. It means ‘giving gifts (see dé@idz) in accordance with the Righteous
Order’. We might more naturally expect a compositum to read ashaddo; perhaps we have two words here. ,
Others have preferred regarding ddo as an acc. pl. = ‘gifts’, Haug, vert dationes, One writer thinks it a sg. neut. in agreement, or apposition, with daregdyi.
Some able scholars have rendered daregdyt as ‘eternal’, while they regard ameretatdd(t) as equalling ‘long life’. This seems rather perverse. The original idea of ameretatdd(t) may well have been extreme length of life, but the entire eschatology of the Avesta shows without any doubt at all ‘that death-absence’ in the ‘world of mind’, and ‘at last’, was also insep- arably connected with the idea.
Ereshvdis ukhdhaiS might equal ‘according to thy true promises’, but see mathra srevaé(é)md in the next verse. The theme of the entire piece seems to be the gift of inspired words; see ddthéng and sravdo in vy. 10. The Pahl. trlr. struggles severely in the glosses; dropping them, the sense comes out nearer to the Gatha.
(6) Through the true word do Thou give it (see at, and, as authority, if any be needed, for carrying down the force of a word from line a, see khaditinam in the last verse carrying down the force of daresdn? from a to 6), give it from him who is strong, as a joy;(c) and ours also are these gifts jee pees
The termination of aojénhvad(t) either caused its rendering to be thrown into the ablative, owing to its outward shape, or caused it to be actually mistaken for an ablative (not so however elsewhere; see zastavad(f) Y.29, 9, astvad(t) Y. 43, 16, agjénhvad(t) Y. 43, 16, spenvad(t) Y. 51, 21, benvad(f) Y. 53, 4.) The curious error, or careless freedom, occurs here and in Y. 3134: Possibly some textual defect misled a previous trlr.
Taurvayama, or some word which replaced it, probably appeared to the translator as a present middle participle, and a similar mistake occurs more than once.
Translated as ordinary Pahlavi free and flowing in style (which however is totally contrary to the treatment demanded for these documents forced as they are by a general attempt to follow the literal order of the Gatha) the rendering would be, as I formerly produced it: ‘Grant me, O Ashava- hisht, --- the coming of Vohiman into the bodies of persons etc. - - (b) He has shown thee, O Adharmazd, to Zartisht - - -. This is of course erroneous as an exegesis of the Gatha, although it is far from erroneous when considered aside the GAthd, out of which however the translation originally grew.
Yet even this contains the ever-recurring and invaluable hints.
Ner. departs from the original, influenced by hémanam. He renders the Pahl. as if it were an ordinary document. originally composed, and this is his usual custom.
7. One would say that, if language could indicate a meaning, ddid? ti Armaité(?) Vistdspdi ishem (or aé(é)shem) maibydchéd meant ‘grant (our) wish, that is, our prayer, OA., to V. and to me’. ,
And yet, merely because és stands in the Sansk. dictionary as ‘power’, Haug rendered Vermédgen, and alternatively Kraft, followed by others, and probably himself influenced by a desire to depart from the hint of Ner., which of course was a reproduction of that of the Pahl.
Men did not need ‘power’ to ‘hear the Mathras’; and this, even if ishem were the critical reading; but aé(é)shem, which unquestionably took longer to utter than ¢shem, is here the indicated reading (see the metre), and ésha, even in the Vedic, means ‘seeking’, and ‘desire’, as does also sometimes the 2nd ish. If there is any one word which we could expect to occur at every point in the Gathas, it is the word ‘prayer’, ‘desire’.
Vistdspdi. V. was the reigning monarch, and the name probably means ‘horse - owner’.
While expressing great respect for those who follow a contrary prac- tice, I yet think that we are hardly warranted in varying the translation - of Vohu Manah at every verse. VanhéuwS Mananhé can hardly mean ‘the pious congregation’. directly and simply in verse 1, and then after that Vohtii Mananhé cannot*well mean ‘of devoted mind’ directly and simply in verse 2, and then ‘graciously’ in verse 6, and Vanhéw§ Mananhé ‘the pious man’ directly and simply in verse 7, and then Manasché Vahistem a proper name in verse 9, etc.
The ever-recurring Vohu Manah shows the marvellous subjectivity of the early Zoroastrian Religion. It was the benevolent mind in God and his holy, or ‘clean’, creatures, chiefly in the saintly human individual. And this was reclaimed from being idealism only by the personification of the idea which was at first poetical (see such passages as verse 5). As being poetical, this personification proves a depth and majesty of conception which surpasses anything of equal antiquity. Gradually however this poetical per- sonification sank into a dogmatic one, perhaps at times even in the Gathas. The Good Mind was therefore a large idea, including beside the benevolence of God, the kindliness of the faithful, and then the faithful himself; see Y. 49, 10, and Vend. 19, 20.
In the Gathds the word rings; and in rendering them as poetical com- positions we should never omit it, while giving its particular application. It
is Thy Good Mind (of Ahura), owr Good Mind (of the faithful worshippers),
Thy Good Mind in thy Folk (of the congregation), so of Asha, and the other four. They are the holy attributes of God, and His saints, sometimes half mystically conceived.
To translate this poetical matter absolutely as if it were prose, ‘a good disposition’, ‘the pious man’, ‘the congregation’, etc., leaving the central conception unexpressed, appears to me to be a mistake.
I would cheerfully present an alternative translation for khshaydché as an imperative meaning ‘and provide thou’, wnd verfiige (a rendering which is very old, and had long circulated, having its source from high authority, but which was subsequently published by an able writer wi- thout the smallest intimation that it was not original with himself). I must however protest that the two imperatives, the last provided with a chd, do not look so idiomatic; and are not elsewhere claimed for the Gathds (see each imper. before with its separate dependent).
A nominal form in the voc. with its ché@, as in apposition with Mazdd, is far more probable, and so the ancient scholars taught (see padakhshah).
I support my rendering by khshayé Y. 32,5, and Yt. 13, 18 hd donhddti zazustem6 khshayd kaschid({) mashyénim; cp. for form the Ind. kshaya. Mathrad may be equivalent to mathréfg, as it is in Y. 43, 14, and as @ elsewhere sometimes represents the acc. masc. pl. term. In these cases however the @ has been miswritten for the nasalized long vowel.
Otherwise mathrdo here, and in Y. 43, 14, would be the better reading,
as a neut. pl. acc.; see the MSS. Others have preferred to regard the word
as a Nom. sg. masc. of madthran.
Srevim (sic) has been read as a first sg. aor. (comparing akramim, and agrabhim = ‘I may hear’); then again as a neut. of an adj., or as a subst. = srevyam = announcement (see Spiegel and -Geldner).
Srevaé(é)md, as an opt. of the a aorist (cp. gaknoti, gakéma), can only mean ‘may hear’.
It is however not impossible that the letter to may here (as elsewhere) equal the Pahl. sg) which may spell y@ in sre(d)vaydméd. Recall 7 in géurvdin
(sic) as having the force of the Pahl. » which may represent y with in-
herent a. The Pahl. trlr. so read, and ‘to proclaim’ is more in harmony.
with the context than ‘to hear’. See the previous verse with its aggressive tone, and also jré mé--- vaochanhé(é) in y. 11. Sre(d)vayéma improp. conj. But the first rendering should be ‘that we may hear’. A first pl. is obviously demanded by the context. Rdddo, so reading with the majority of MSS., either qualifies vayem
(not vaé(é¢)m) understood, as a nom, pl. or else it agrees with mathrd (°do) as an acc. pl. m. orn. As a first explanation, we might compare the Indian root rddh. As to its possibility as an acc. pl. masc., we may compare ameshdo, which imperfectly represents that form (see Yt. 10, 139), that is, supposing that we accept a stem rdda. As ameshdo = ameshds = ameshans = ameshéng, so rdddo might equal * rddds = * rddans = réddéig.
Raddéo would in that case equal *rdddns as stavas equals * stavans, for stavants, etc.
The nasalization is not expressed. Then again we might consider the reading rddd@, and regard the word as a form not only borrowed from the neuter, but actually a neut. itself in apposition, but not in agreement, with mithré; so also reading rdddo as an acc. neut.; it might equal rédhdnsi, as sravdo equals ¢rdvdnsi.
But preferring the explanation of rdddo as a nom. pl., I should first render, ‘that we, as helpful (that is, as efficient heralds), may hear your -Mathras (in order to proclaim them)’. (Nom. forms in the masc. are espe- cially idiomatic at the end of the sentence). Or else I would render, ‘that we may hear (or proclaim (?)) Your beneficent Mathras’, (preferring rddéo in this latter explanation as an acc. masc.). One writer, reading srevim draddd, would render the word as a first sg. conj.: ‘That I may carry out as a prophet (mathrd, nom. of mathran) your announcement’, srevim =
_ srevyam; see above.
This interesting but hardly adequate explanation had long circulated; its age is however not improbably in its favour.
Nothing can be more trivial than to reject the most probable rendering because it is old. To what would this bring us? As years go by every solution would be abandoned!
The Pahl. trlr. takes dyaptd as an instr., otherwise pavan equals ‘as’, or may apply to Vohtiman. Min Vishtdsp seems to show that Vishtdspdd(t) was read, or else it should be rendered ‘by Vishtisp’ as expressing a wish harboured by him. ‘Of Vishtasp’ was written by me formerly from an exaggerated reluctance to favour the correctness of the Pahl. as a trans- lation. The reading s¢@ caused the error of stdyiddr beyond a doubt, the trlr. fearing to correct, in this instance, what he saw before him in his sacred text. Without gloss: ‘Grant me, O ruler A., a praiser- - -’.
I had of course rendered pédakhshah as an accus. owing to the gloss Vishtdsp; without that gloss it should certainly be considered as being in the same case with its original, as it may well be a voc. dé is to be read with D. J. for I. With rdddo the trir. is free, seeming to divide ré (cp. Sk. r@, ré) + ddo = dhds. Avoiding all favour toward the Pahl., I had read
Z a
srayénd; srayént (same signs) is better; see srevaé(¢)md. Dropping the glosses, which certainly never suggested themselves to the earlier. trirs., and bringing the lines together, we. have: ‘Grant me, O Ashavahisht, that sacred recompense (?) which is as, or through, the gracious help of the Good Mind; and do thou; O Spendarmad, grant me that which is wished-for by Vishtasp, and what are our wishes also’. Considerable importance attaches to Ner.’s bhaktin. It seems to prove that he understood tarsakdsth (sic) to mean ‘venerating recognition’ as involving a ‘reward’, a ‘portion’ given; see the P. W. Or did he take the word more decidedly in the sense of ‘devo- tion’, ‘religious worship’, which would, on the other hand, tend to show that Ner. saw only the idea of ‘holiness’ in ashtm, and not that of ‘rewarded holiness’, ‘blessedness’, ‘recompense’? See other occurrences.
I think that his ddhyataya = dvddih = dyaptéd shows that the idea of ‘portion’ was prominent. It is to be noticed that Ner. renders dvddih in Y. 53, 1. by ddyatdm. He seems to have transliterated azddth instead of avddith there.
Ner. errs in departing from the treatment of Spendarmad by the Pahl. trlr. He does not read srayént, nor yemaleldndni, nor does he accept vddinyén as an imper., in which last particular he may well be right.
Otherwise his rendering of the Pahl. trlr. is important, although, as. always, not exactly corresponding to our present Pahl. text. The Parsi- persian corroborates D. J.’s aé for 1.
8. The uw in vdunus may be epenthetic, compare vani.