Otherwise the weak stem vavanis, perf. part. of van, furnishes the analogon. The two may be related. The long @ reminds one of the per- haps falsely written, but still hardly accidental, long @ in vdurdimardi, vdurayd, and in ashduné(é) (?).etc. It may have its explanation in the absence of an expressed v, as if vdwnus represented vavanus, vdurdimaid? vava- roimaidi, vdurayd, vavarayd, ashduné(é), ashavané(é).
Frashaostrdi. F. was the brother (?) of Jamaspa, and of the family of the Hvégva. The name was pronounced Ferashaostra causa metrt.
The name may mean ‘head, or fleet (?) camels’, fra + ds (= priiich)
+ a+ ustra (or to priksh (?)), Rdonhanhoi is a second sg. conj. s aor. of rd.
So far as its outward appearance is concerned, it might also be a 1st sg. conj. aor. of r@h, ‘that I may give it’.
Cp. the 1st sg. conj. aorists in se from present stems, cited however by Whitney as ‘difficult’, Haug translates praedeo first, ‘and du verlethen magst later, and not as alternatives, but this irregularity should not be censured. He had changed his mind since the first had been printed, and
the types had been distributed, an inconvenience which is inevitable in extended works on such severe subjects.
Some would recoil from an obvious sense -of vanhéuS manaxhd as equalling the future career of the beatified people ending in Heaven. Op. Y. 30, 4. apemem anhus - - - ad(t) ashdwné(é)(?) V. M. I do not think that this gen. can equal the frequent adverbial instr. in the sense ‘from grace’.
In the Pahl. déshand (same signs as déshan?) might be read as being less in disagreement with hazaoshem, which may however, on the other hand, have been understood as ham zaoshem, a 1st sg. conj. There is no reason to suppose that the trlr. mistook the accusative form of Ahurem for the yoc.; and, as he had just translated yds@ by bavihinam (see verse 1), it is not probable that he was ignorant of its form here in line 6, although it is of course possible that some other form was present before him. The gloss, like the others which refer to discipleship, is simply the expression of later didactic, and, perhaps priestly, tendencies. Véwnus is either freely trans- | lated by a form of vid, or else taken literally in the sense of van = ‘to conquer’, and so ‘to obtain’.
The trlr. certainly knew what van meant in its sense of ‘overcome’ (see Y. 31, 4). He renders é¢ as a particle. Réorhanhoi was recognized by the trlr. as to root and form. Dropping the glosses, we might render: ‘Since they have sympathy with the best thing, O thou (omitting 7 with D. J.) best one! with the best Righteousness, let me gain it over, by, or as, prayer, OA., as appertaining to the man Frashéshtar (gen.; insert the 7), and as my acquisition also. Even to those (certainly free, and not erroneous) may’st thou therefore be bountiful unto all time through the Good Mind’. Some such Pahl. trlr. doubtless preceded our present one.
Ner. translates the Pahl. text before him in an interesting manuer, and both together gave us, as usual, our first rendering of the passage for the most part followed by all.
9, The reading aé(¢)shd is more suited to the metre than ishd. Haug remarks, reading vaondid(t) for vdo ndit (which everybody accepts), ‘Der Form nach ist (vaondit) ein regelrechter Ablativ eines Thema’s vaont, worm
unschwer das Wedische vani (!) zu erkennen ist, fiir welches (p. 61) die Be- deutung Gabe, Spende (Gottes an die Menschen) nachgewiesen wurde’.
He would have done better had he accepted the indication of Neryo- sangh, whom he at times so bitterly ridicules, but later so often followed. But, notwithstanding all, his criticism has been valuable.
Some scholars apparently hold that ydndi§ means ‘prayers’ literally. But in all languages such an expression as ‘harass with these blessings’, used in a supplication addressed to the Deity, would imply the words ‘with prayer for’ as understood. It is a pity to split up needlessly the meanings of a word. Haug rendered zaranaé(é)md, incitemus; Ner. and the Pahl. have been followed by all. Dasemé(¢) may equal in ‘the tenfold’ in the sense of ‘completeness’: ‘We have made effort strenuously’. Cp. the Dacagva, the Demi-gods who help the offering to Indra. But dés = ‘to worship’ may also be the root, plus the suffix ma; read dds(e)mé(é) = ‘in the offering’, see the Pahl. This is the more possible as youthimd = * yetima must be read
with its three syllables, and not ydith(e)méd. Two syllables in das(e)mé(é) -
would permit us to accept the ordinary suffix ma. Haug rendered zevis- taydonhé (sic), vocati -bona-praebentes = die Giiter der Anrufung habend.
I have been also inclined to refer zevistydonhd to zu = hu = ‘to invoke’, and to explain it as meaning ‘easy to be invoked’; but the root may well be zw = jd. Also a suffix dshté with irregularly extended termi- nation awkwardly and exceptionally transferred, to the a declension, would here show unusual irregularity. I now accept the root indicated by the Pahl. trlr. He refers the word to the extended (?) 7a, that is, to gush (?). Zu + ishtya seems the form. Zush = Jush has been strongly objected to on ac- count of the infixed 7 (ew + 7 + sh). We need not however be so deeply scandalized by this. 3
Words like the Indian yesh, beside yas, apparently modify a as if by an 7, and the important letter y seems to be infixed in the Indian chyu = Zend shu, or, quite as probably, the Zend shu has lost its y (so Haug). If we could accept the infix, zevish + tya would explain the difficulty. Ifwe prefer zu + ishti, we must regard the suffix for ishtayas (?), reading zevistaydonhé (= zevistayd) as a monster transferred to the a declension. Suf. taya is numerical.
Better to accept two suffixes 7§ + tya. Levistydonhd = * javishtydsas (sic) (four syllables, but donhd might be read as three). One writer holds to a superl. in 7stya (?). ;
We might consider it as governing savduham = (with change of accent) ‘prospering, furthering’: ‘Ye are promotive toward them who pro- mote your sovereign power’.
But the ché@ distinctly draws the whole line together. In line 8 we have vayem (not vaé(é)m) understood, and vé expressed. In line ¢ the second person is emphasized: ‘We are strenuous’(4)- +--+, and (ché) ‘ye are propitious, helpful, toward the aé(é@)shé-khshathrw (ec); (cp. Y. 29, 9). (Yoithima expresses the fact that the worshippers: aspired to possess the character of aé(é)shé - khshathra’s)..
The meaning of aé(2)shd(a)-khshathremcha, or even of tshd(a)-khsha-
-thremcha, is put before our faces by the expressions vasé-khshayas, vasé-
khshathré, the meaning of which is not the same as that of aé(é)shd(a)- khshathrem, but closely allied to it. And yet some writers, following Haug, and animated by a desire to differ from the indications of the ancient translators, prefer two words of closely kindred meaning, ésh and kshatrd ‘strength’ and ‘power’, with great loss of point and sense.
The Pahl. trlr. probably erred as to andz$, seeing in it a particle, or an adverb which he referred to 7 = ‘to go’. He proceeds however to give us our first idea as to what follows, even explaining yénd§ as ‘things prayed for’. He correctly carries down the force of zaranaé(é)ma, but seemingly fails to recognize a perfect in yoithemd (sic). He renders its idea by a substantive; and this freedom, or error, may well be excused, as yoithemd (sic) would, aside from its context here, suggest a stem ydith(e)man. There are several instances in the Indian where a stem with a seems to become a stem with e. The trlr. is rather strong with his déshakd. Read, as the rendering of ordinary Pahl., (c): ‘Ye are loving (and not troubled as a foe), and, as to the kingly desire, beneficent’.
Ner.’s punyopachiti needs correction, but his wparydy? seems justifiable. The Parsi-persian errs in kunand, having read vdgiinand, = vadinand for vddiinyén, or vadindnd. (It may be well to repeat here that the Pahl. texts cited in the Persian version are all in the traditional transliteration; but jén = gdn is a mistransliteration of ydn). Khwéhad is an erroneous form in c; otherwise the Pers. corroborates my rendering of the Pahlavi.
10. I can no longer see the propriety in printing ashdad(£)chd, an obvious corruption which crept into some MSS. from an earlier deficiency in the number of the syllables. We have here an interpolation which disturbs the metre; how did it occur? The text may have stood originally as as- had(t). Some Jater reciters pronounced ashdéad(f), others preferring to emend by ché. The original composer must have sometimes varied by additions of syllables, while, on the other hand, a redundancy of syllables was avoided by reducing the word, when necessary, as in the case of vairydo for vairyaydo (see similar Vedic usage elsewhere cited); later °datcha was imitated,
oS
At the first glance we should be inclined to render ddthéng ‘creatures’: ‘What creatures Thou knowest as just, the creatures of the Good Mind, to these with the gains of blessing, O Ahura, fill the desire’ (see Spiegel and Bartholomae). But ‘creatures’ is here a platitude. In the previous verse the allusion is pointedly to ‘us’; so in verse 11.
See also Y.46, 15, where ddathéig --- addthaisché are used in the sense of ‘lawful’ and ‘unlawful’; and then observe sravdo in line c, which evidently continues the sense; the verb also, vééstd, is better applied to ‘laws’, ‘reve- lations’ than to ‘creatures’, The whole connection refers to revelations; see, beside sravdo, mathrad srevaé(é)md rdddéo v.71; they are also reierred to in v. 8 and v. 9, and in fré m@ sisha in v. 11, while v. 6 has its explicit ereshvdis ti ukhdhdis, which is itself preceded by and mdathrad in v. 5. It is therefore better to take aé(é)ébyé as the abl. of original causality, and dpandis as the instr. of the immediate means. rethwéeig = erethvdn (the letter yf = English v) may be related to rittvdni = frdrénd; so datherng may = * dathani.
As to aséind, I can now report the Pahlavi as favouring my rendering. I have heard through Dr. West of an improvement. Asddak should be referred to stidah = ‘remiss’, ‘obsolete’; ast#dak = ‘not remiss’: ‘If thus one obtains food and clothing by (or as) that which is not remiss, by (or as) that recital’. But the ancient glossist understood ‘useless’, an important case to prove that the gloss is of greatly inferior importance. Var(e)thya has been ably compared with svdrtha (= ‘well reaching the aim’) by Roth.
The suggestion of the Pahl. trir. is perhaps more probable sar(e) + thya = Ind. tya (?) = ‘having reference to food’.
Vaintya, van with the same suffix tya, means ‘having reference to possessions’, ‘inspired revelations which lead to food and riches’. Or it might mean ‘having reference to supplications’; see vdédunus; Bartholomae fiehentliche; ‘Ich weisz ya, dass bei euch schallende (barethya*), flehentliche gebete nicht erfolglos sind’. But more is expressed than ‘bet euch’. *See Haug onY.31, 20.
The Pahl. trlr. everywhere fails to recognize vdéstd in its proper form. He seems to have been quite aware that it might equal vettd, but he doubted it as the equivalent of véttha.
As to its radieal meaning, he of course gives us our first clue. He seems to render vazitya by ‘clothing’, but this idea may be part of his rendering of darethyd(?). With the exception of vatitya however, he gave us our first idea of the sense of every word, having been thrown out of gear by his misconception of the grammatical form of vdistd; (he seems to have had no difficulty with vdiedim in Y. 33, 8; yehabiéinéd is there a second
plural; see Jektim in lines 6 and c). Line 6 here is to be noticed as free but correct.
Ner. renders our improved view of asédak well by analaso, and other- wise translates the Pahl. usefully, although seldom with absolute exactness, at least not according to the readings of our present texts.
His ekahelayd is strong as a translation for amat aétind, and his parichinohi (for parichinuht) can only be defended as Vedic Sanskrit. Was he accustomed to read the Veda? Ner. seems to have had a different text before him at c; he does not notice the lekim of the Pahl. nor the vé khshmaibyd. The Persian trlr. carelessly reads homandnd = hastand, and often elsewhere follows DJ.’s MS. in reading d for 7.
11. Haug rendered nipdonhé(é) protegendum (est), adding: ‘An eine erste Person sing., wie Nerios. annimmt, ist nicht 2w denken; sie wire hier und 49, 10 véllig widersinnig’.