Hadé was curiously divided here, (as other words were similarly divi- ded), into ha + dd, Aité, which partly renders it, might be taken as attih equalling ‘existence’ (cp. also the Sanskrit aséi in a similar sense). The trlr, may have taken add in the sense of ‘ever’: ‘Whose existence-time did ye appoint’; (see other discussions).
Read as ordinary Pahlavi, we should have beyond a doubt; ‘who is
thy herd-master [] (b) to whom this authority is given---?and who is the one who gives them pasture etc. - - -?; so I formerly rendered.
3. As to Ash@, we should be almost tempted to emend to Ashem. Otherwise I should regard the word as meaning ‘with his sacred truth’, a solemn ‘truly’. Iam reluctant to accede to a voc. for a nom. As to the commonplace ‘really’, as the mere adverb of emphasis, I regard it as very improbable, and as quite impossible when applied to the non-action of an inferior being.
The sacred word is most emphatic, and solemn, and could not be applied in a trivial sense. Sarej@ Haug rendered (with néid(£)) (vera) non relinquens. Roth with Unterkunft (1871), both to srij. But the indication of the Pahl., as containing the idea of sar, gives, T think, the directly needed sense. I prefer sar(e) + jan = smiting back (the dvaée(é)shah and aé(¢)sh(e)ma) with authority, a determinative compositum with the sense of the instr. in the first member. Of course the bare stem sar(e) is better in place in such a compositum than any other form.
I cannot accede to the interesting rendering of advaé(é)shéd by nullum- odium~-habens (Haug), qui ne leur nuise en rien (De Harlez), wolwollender (Bartholomae). :
There is no question here of the good will of the Ratu who was so vehemently desired, but of his power. Could he be a ruler exempt himself from the daibishvatd dvaé(é)shdo (Y. 28, 6), and also able to hold those cala- mities afar (advaé(é)sha) from the threatened people? This was the inquiry.*
That the Ratu, the divinely appointed rescuer, would be just and benevolent was a matter of course, what the wailing Cow desired to know was whether he would be an ae(é)sha-khshathra, or, on the contrary, an asiéira (verse 9), one unable ‘to strike back the fury of the invaders’. The entire question is as to the origin of sorrows, leading directly to the theo- sophic Y. 30. The Cow wishes to know why she was created. Her Maker dramatically turns to Asha, who is obliged to confess that there is no ratu advae(é)sha, whereupon she, the Cow, weeps again (y. 9).
Line 6 requires special attention; and, as in many other cases, I would now modify the conclusions arrived at in 8. B. E. XXXI. It is universal custom with scholars engaged on such difficult subjects to claim the liberty to recall, or vary, opinions which are somewhat old, most writers in fact changing their views from six months to six months. Line 3} is only in so far certain as to its meaning that it distinctly states that an answer to the question contained in verse 2 is not to be had. At the first glance avaé(é)shim seems to contain within its idea the following yd, that is the natural result of the syntax (see also Haug, who however renders viduyé
Pie See ee er eS eee : eae
by gnarus-sum): ‘Of those questions those are not for knowing which -- -’ But scholars avoid the abstracts where possible, and prefer ‘of these people’, that is ‘by those people’, and this, notwithstanding the following y@, Then we stumble on another prejudice; some writers are solicitous to show on every occasion that they are aware that y@ may equal yéna. Hence we must have yd entirely severed from avaé(é)sham: ‘Of, or by, those people, is that (or 7#) not to be known how ---’. Or, more glibly: ‘The people cannot know’. This is very agreeable and pleasing as a solution so far, and it may be best to accept it ‘in default of better’; but, as we have often the meaning ‘things’ expressed by the pl. neut. nom. or acc., we ought to recognize its possibility here.
The construction *“avéshidm néd *vid(v)é yéna is difficult when * avé- sham néd *vid(v)é ydni stands beside it, as another reading. This brings us to shavaité(é), Reading the language just as its stands, the first and obvious idea, which it seems intended to convey, is ‘what things approach, influence, or moye’; nom. neut. with sg. verb (as usual), But here again those who exclude all sense but that of the commonplace, will hear nothing of ‘things’, ‘influences’, as being regarded as ‘exerting influence’. In face of all syntax and grammar, it must be always ‘persons’, and indeed ‘the people’ who do anything. According to this, ‘the stars in their courses could not have fought against Sisera’.
Next comes the difficult ddréig, to explain which very able scholars simply read the Sansk. ddhrdin = ‘the lower ones’, and this, with ereshudonho = ‘the righteous’, makes up the good sentence ‘how the upright treat the lower ones’. (I think ‘upright’ however decidedly an inferior rendering here, even when accepting the general view which is presented. Ereshvaonhé would be far better when taken in antithesis to ddréng if rendered ‘lower ones’; how the ‘lofty’ (Amshaspands, rishvd’sas) treat the lower (mortals)’; the idea of ‘uprightness’, or ‘justice’, is not at all expressed in the connec- tion; the question is as to ‘power’; see above).
But the first difficulty as to this rendering lies in shavaité(¢). I am especially pleased with the recognition of a nom. ereshvdonhd at the end of the sentence, however enforced that recognition may be, (for certain able writers seem to sever the syntax of the Avesta from that of the Rig- Veda as regards the simple fact that the nom. falls naturally to the end of the sentence); but what of the verb?
Is shavaite(é) sg. for pl (cp. jégerezad(t) (2) and other instances), or is the proper reading Svaité(¢), after the ad class, and a third pl.? We natu- rally hesitate to accept this latter suggestion, but the word actually stands in some MSS.
If we cannot accept yd = ydni as subject, shavaité(2) is apparently sg. for pl., or Svaité(é) (?) is to be read, with Bartholomae, as 34 pl. mid.; that is,.unless /vd understood is the subject.
We have then ‘how the lofty treat the lowly’. But the difficulty remains as to * avéshdm néd* vid(v)é ydni (or yéna). To return now to those words in connection with what follows, our difficulty is not only the for- bidden (?) abstract ‘influences’ (neut. nom.) as ‘exerting influence’, but the nom. form of ereshvdonhd, whereas we need the acc. We should be obliged to render: ‘Of those things (partitive gen.) are not to be known those which move the lofty ddréig’. Possibly ereshvdonhd, which is difficult for the metre, should be read ereshvéig. Some emendation seems needed. Then shavaité(é) may point to hvd; see also the hvd in v. 4 with its vichird. ‘Of those things (or by those people) are not to be known how He moves the lofty ddrég--- (so shall it be to us as He shall will)’.
Finally, to reconsider ddréig, I have a strong distrust of the copied Sansk. word @dhréin. The ‘lower ones’ is not a Gathic expression. God’s sacred people would not be naturally described thus. One might suspect a shortened ddaréig, and consider the Indian ddardn = ‘cares’, ‘solicitous attentions’, (rajid kritddaram); ‘how the lofty ones carry out their cares (for men)’. Moreover ‘treat’ seems no easy meaning for shavaité(é) governing the acc. Shw = chyu means (secondarily) to ‘exert moving influence’; ‘how they impel, advance, the ddréig’ would be closer, even if ddréng means ‘people’. After all the difficulties, would it not be well to glance at the original translation, shattered though it be?
The hint of the Pahl. trir. has at least one signal advantage; it is cer- tainly concrete. The ‘fires’ or ‘lights’ (cp. raochebis, and perhaps sdchd ¥. 30, 1, 2) are at least physical objects, and, according to some expositors, all the more likely to be mentioned, ‘how the lofty ones move the stars (of destiny)’, or ‘what things move the lofty (ereshveéng) fires (stars)’, or ‘how He moves them’. If ddréig means ‘fires’ or ‘lights’ (see the Pahl. roshané, Persian rishan), it is of course not in its original form. In the first place the dental is made sonant, as, perhaps, in dhrahyd for thrayd in raf(e)- dhrahyd etc.; or cp. a possible Parsi word ddér cited by Justi. Confusion may also have arisen from the fact that the word once stood in the indefinite Pahl. character in which the same sign sometimes renders ¢ and d; and secondly the termination is nasalized by an inversion of the usual process; ataras [°6] = ddaras = ddras may have become ddras = ddréig; cp. mitaras(cha), which seems also to show a transfer to the a declension.
No explanation is entirely satisfactory, but, if the text is to stand, I suppose that: ‘By (?) these it is not to be known how (?) the lofty ones .
carry out their purposes’ (?) is about as little wide of the meaning of the composer as any rendering.
Next to that I would place: ‘of these things those are not to be known which move the lofty fires’ (this, on account of the appearance of avaé(¢)sham .-- yd). But if y@ = yéna, and ereshvéig is read, then I would render: ‘Of those things those are not to be known by which He executes His pur- poses; He is the greatest of beings to whom I will come (without seeking an answer to the perplexing questions) with the utterance of invocations’.
Aojisto (cp. mazistem Y. 28, 5, and madristd) describes Ahura; see the next verse. There can be no objection to including the Deity among the hata in view of aojistd; ‘beings’ are not necessarily ‘creatures’. Even if a separate Géus tashan is meant, he must at all events be regarded as being, like the Spénista Mainyu (see above), a representative of Ahura. The fact that aojista is applied in the later Avesta to Vayu, Mithra, and to the glorified Zarathustra, should not militate against its application to the Deity, or to Spénista Mainyu, here in the Gathds. To refer the word ‘strongest’ to the wailing Cow, or ‘her soul’, seems a mistake; one writer would render ‘great- est of beast’ (?).
But if he (or she) was so ‘powerful’, he would not bellow in his woes as
here. (It is ‘the Cow’, fem., which is elsewhere so prominent in the Gathas). Zaveng at first glance would seem to express the acc, of goal, the things
~ come to (see Spiegel and Bartholomae); but this would force us to separate hdtéim hd aojisto from hed vichird Ahurd, and from tashd géus, to which it may well refer as practically equivalent to Mazda, and this notwith- standing the oblique diction in the third person. See the 27¢ person in v.5 following the 3din v. 4. It is to be noted that yahmdi eaveng is no natural way to express ‘to whose calls’.
Yahmdi, with a verb, ‘to come’, in the immediate connection, can never be dat. for gen.: ‘To whom as ‘to his calls’, would be the proper rendering. Whether Asha can be said ‘to come’ (jim) ‘with the production of invocations’ might be a question, but hardly with those who identify Asha with the ‘holy congregation’ at every step. The matters in hand are so momentous that Asha might well be represented as making appeals in the matter to Ahura (He being referred to obliquely in the third person). He is imme- diately declared to be the saédré mairistd, and this seems to contain a certain echo of zavéjig, although not at all in apposition with it.
Otherwise jimd must be a nom. pl. of the verbal adj., or noun; cp. mashd: ‘to whom the coming ones have made (??) invocations’, or ‘to whom they are (or all are) coming’. I do not think that the difficulty is suf-
ficiently great to force us to suppose a new speaker.
If it were, the Géus tashan might be considered as rejoining to Asha’s report that the questions could not be answered; but, while this relieves the difficulty as to zavéng jimd, it creates a difficulty as to aajistd. Asha’s coming to the calls of an aojista is equally difficult. And Asha, as expressed in ashd@, is far more probable than a wholly unexpressed subject.
If hdtam hvo aojisté can be separated from the mazristé -+- hvd vichird Ahuré, atha né anhad(t) yathd hvd vasad(t), then of course Asha is the Immortal who comes to the aojista’s calls, but what would be the aojisté? Gavoi is generally recognized as fem. in the Gathas (see above), its masc. use not being probable.
The masc. urvan of the Cow would not be likely to be wnderstood im- mediately .in connection with the word gavéi expressed in the fem.