Keredushd is difficult enough. Some able scholars seem to suppose that we have only to copy any Sansk. word which looks like it, as in the case of ddréng = ddhrin. Take for instance krit = ‘to spin out? (an offering), we might hold keredushd to be krit(d) (the d for ¢ by sandhi, or false writing; cp. wkhdha) + the suffix ws = uS, ‘in weaving invocations’ (cp. ufydni). Or, if urirudhusha is allowed to stand as an irreg. nom. pl. masc. of the perf. part., we might think of a plural from a possible keret-vah (cp. vidvdo); ‘to whom those who come have made their invocations’. Even a sociative instr. might be considered : ‘to whom I will come with the one (?) making in- vocations’.
Or, looking once more for an outwardly similar word, we might query whether keredushé could be an instr. meaning ‘in want’, ‘in my need’; cp. kridht = ‘defective’ for meaning; and, for change of suffix, cp. vani and vanus. At last turning to the hints of the Pahl. writer, we may see a form from kar. (Cp. kritvan for meaning, and, partially, for form). I prefer an adverbial instr., kered + us (uS@) = ‘with zealous’ (uttering) (cp. kriéti, and, for varying suffix, cp. rité, rité, pitt, pitt). Keredushé as a noun of action governs zavéng.
Pahl. Valman, as it may be gen. by position, should be rendered as equivalent to avd valman = ahmdi. The translator evidently had a text reading §(k)yé(é)itt before him (or mistook y for v as often), hence his ‘peace’.
He elsewhere has no difficulty in rendering shu. He it was who origi- nally taught us that shw equals chyu (see Y. 33, 8), (also determining for us the root meanings of almost the entire Zend language).
As ordinary Pahl. we should be obliged to render, as I did formerly; ‘who comes into activity upon invocation, [that is, when they call upon him thus: ‘Do duty and good works, they (he) would do them’). But this does violence to min avo zak (which I think is here intended to mean ‘to whom’),
ee
Po Rene eee ~~
and perhaps also to vddényén. In other words the passage cannot be trans- lated as ordinary, and undistorted, Pahlavi.
Ner. misread the dshtth of the Pahl. for ashddih. He renders min in ¢ by yah, which would be proper if mén were considered as if it were occurring in an ordinary Pahl. document.
4. Haug rendered literally savdré = indicans, as a nom. sg. masc.
adj. of satare (2), mairisto = scientissimus (?), vdverezoi = pro-operato, as dat, of a noun from the simple perfect stem (?), pairi-chithit = eacogitavit (?) (contra (?) devasque hominesque, et quae) pro operaturo = vareshaité, as dat.
of the aor.-fut. participle (?) (1858).
Spiegel, much better, but incompletely (1859): ‘Mazda ist es, der sich am besten der Worte erinnert, die er (2?) gethan hat (?), vorher ehe Daevas und Menschen waren - ’. I say ‘incompletely’, but see Avé in v. 3 with possible reference to shavaité(é).
To explain Haug seems like mockery here, and so, often; but it must not be supposed that satire is my intention. Occasionally his eccentricity and egoism may tempt one to be more full, but, while his statements often need no answer, yet his work was incisive, and has had good results in helping us to understand that the Pahl. and Ner. should never be imitated as to their grammatical forms, which are often intentionally free, often quite erroneous, and often beyond our power to criticize adversely , as they often
follow no longer recoverable texts.
In the very proper, endeavour to reduce the meaning here to the most common- place aspect which it will bear, we might first translate: ‘Mazda is most mindful of the evid laws which have been followed hitherto by Demon worshippers, and of the holy laws followed by holy men, and what laws they shall hereafter fulfil, He is the decider’, that is, ‘nothing shall escape Him’ (mairisté); so to us in His final judgment shall it be, as he shall will’.
But after this reduction of the meaning, it is impossible to deny that the passage is most striking, and may mean much more than what we have rendered. The emphatic Avd and the athd--+ yathd, with the repeated hvd, (see also the hvd adjistd of vy. 3), and the ‘sovereign’ vasad(t) look as if vasad(t) must express somewhat of the force of the sabdré. Have we here a crying back to doctrines which preceded the Dualism? And is God here declared theologically ‘sovereign’?
I cannot believe that this great idea was fully intended here, for in these inestimably valnable records of dualistical speculation , it is hardly possible that Ahura could be absolutely described as ‘sovereign’ over the sabddaré followed by the Daé(é)vas, or their worshippers; but I think that the idea of ‘decree’ is strongly present in sabdré, as well as that of ‘command’,
aa ¥ fe
And to defend this, I hold that the allusion to the Daé(é)vas is. somewhat subordinate. For instance, they were certainly not included in the almost sacred né here applying to the ‘saints’.
The ‘ws’ can never mean ‘all men’ in the Gathds. The emphasis in the verse, or strophe, is first on Mazddo-- mairistd -- hvd-- hvd (see the preceding verse, where He, or His Tashan geus, is also described by a super- lative, aojistd), and then the emphasis is on the sadré fulfilled by the saints with subordinate mention of those fulfilled by the demon-worshippers (and this notwithstanding the prior mention of these latter in the verse). The question in the entire piece, as in Y. 380, has reference to matters of fate, rather than to matters of justice. The Cow bewails her fate; Asha answers Ahura that there is no Ratu who is exempt from sufferings, or able to avert them (advaé(é)sha), and that there are things which are ‘not to be known’; but that Mazda, the Being addressed, is well aware of what he has predestined for his faithful to do, as well as of what Afigra Mainyu has commanded and predestined (?) for his worshippers. Ahura therefore can decide the matter as to the woes endured by his saints. He can success- fully limit them: ‘to us shall it be according as He shall will’. We are in His hands, and, notwithstanding the evil commands and decrees of Afigra Mainyu, to us aip? tai$ anhaité ustd (Y. 80, 11).
As to the etymology of sajdéré@, if that must be decided upon, one would naturally think of sah plus the suffix var for van, as in karshvar (?).
Roth however long since made the important comparison with sasvér = ‘in secret’, (so sasvdrtd). The meaning of the word must, as always, be determined by the context. Here the etymology is difficult.
The passage is one of the most important of the vestiges’ of antiquity ; and to mention such places without a full discussion of their possible mean- ing is to allow the possibility of some of the gravest suggestions ever made to escape notice.
The presence of even hints, or half- meanings, is of great importance. For the vague hint of one writer becomes the defined creed of another ; and a half-meaning expressing a vague surmise of some profound truth may be present in language which, taken as a whole, utters only a common- place. Such passages are not translated, where the vague intimation is utterly lost sight of; and they abound in the Avesta.
The Pahl. trlr. makes an impression here even on those least familiar with his opinions. He is not followed in his renderings of patri-chithid(t), aipi-chithid(¢) without receiving for once an acknowledgment of his initiative.
5. Haug’s yiews here are again painfully rash. I note the fact solely ‘~ put Asiatic inv S on their guard.
ee
Dvaidi is rendered in utrdque, explained as literally meaning ‘in the twofold’, and freely ‘both’. Ferasdbyd equals adjuvantibus (?) explained as vorwarts treibend, erezhijyoi (2?) = rectum-amanti (?), and frajyditis (with more reason) = porro-ewistentia.
One scholar seems to suggest the readings erezhejyo and fshuyanto: ‘May we not be brought out of the hand of the honourable husbandman into the power of the evil’; frajyditéS in the sense of Haug (?).
We might consider the reading ahvd (for dhvd; the word once stood in the Pahl. character, and initial » equals a, or @). ‘We two have been beseeching’. Or ahvd might be considered as the unaugmented pret., and so, as the improper conj.: ‘May we two be praying’.
Then again avd (so reading) might equal (a)svds. These suggestions initiated by Roth are, as usual, brillant, if at the same time a little suspi- cious. Ahvd, or ahvd = dsva, or svds, are, to a certain degree, superfluous, if taken with frénemné@ as an auxiliary. A verb is certainly needed beside frinemnd, but, in instances too frequent for citation, the verb, if it be a form of ah = ‘to be’, is understood.
The Pahl. trlr. is not responsible for my former exclusive, and now alternative, rendering for aivdo = ‘in, or for, the two worlds’. It was of course Haug’s, and was well grounded upon ahvdo in Yous, 2. (Seekers 7)
Mazdam might possibly equal medhdm here, as in Y. 40. 1 where a play upon words may be intended; ‘asking for wisdom’; but here in the GAthis and with forms of Mazda(°dh) occurring in nearly every verse, it is of course improbable. Azydo = ‘the productive’, the mother (Cow).
The etymology is obscure. The Pahl. does not discuss, but transcribes. Ner. refers to aj = ‘to drive’, followed by Spiegel (see below). Haug to jy@ with the a priv., the indelebilis (?) ‘The indestructible’ is hardly a neat expression for the ‘original’, or ‘mother’.
Justi to ah%, whose indication is followed by Bartholomae; see the P. W. ali = ‘cow. We might say that this finds its best explanation in the Zend azi? What has the the sacred ‘Cow’ to do with the demon ahit? The Zend word ought to be cited in the Sansk. dictionaries. Others might suppose ji, jinv = ‘to make alive’ present, plus the prefix; cp. the 4% Sansk. jy@ = ‘the earth’, and ‘mother’; azi = aji = ‘the mother’, initial »» in Pahl. representing @, or @, aeydo = dzydo(?). Dvaidé has been most sagaciously rendered by Roth as a first dual (°vaid? = °vahi, as omaidht = °mahi) dvaid? = duvaidi (which is very possible), as from the root du: ‘We two pressed Mazda with questions’. This certainly looks smoother than when dvaid? is regarded as a noun, and the suggestion is of great value; but du is used in the Avesta elsewhere exclusively of evil beings.
The rendering zak? pavan giimdnik points to an adverbial instr. dvd + di
= ‘in double-sight’, ‘in doubt’ (cp. Indian dadht (?) = ‘having evil view’, and - ddhi = ‘longing’, also dvaydé = ‘the state of being double-tongued’),
See the entire connection dealing, as it does, with questions; see v. 2 answered in v. 3; see also the doubt in v. 3 noid(t) viduyé(é) (vidvé).
The verb, in this case, would be the frinemnd carried down, as often. Erezh(e)jyot is not difficult of explanation. It is, according to the in- dication of the Pahl. trlr. followed, I believe, by nearly all but Haug, to be brought into its original shape as erezh(eyjivé, or erezh(e)jivé. Nothing is commoner than for the constituent parts of the letters y 99 and v (Eng-
lish w) >» to become confused in the venerable MSS., and also for some one or other of the pen-strokes to fall out; sbyyse became shave in the
course of frequent transcriptions (cp. jydtdm for jivittum). I would recall — the fact already mentioned, that, in K.4, one of the most important MSS., no distinction is made even between the signs representing such differing letters as long @ and lone 4%. Erezhjivé(é), or Erezhjivé(e) = riju + *770e, is a dat. sg. masc. noun from the root jw, or jiv.
It has three syllables ere = ri, and e before the j is superfluous. Frajyditis to jy@ = ‘to overwhelm’, the Aryan j again not changing to 2, so indicated by the Pahl. trlr., followed by almost all, except Haug, whose suggestion is interesting, but rather too advanced, and alien from the tone of the Gathas: ‘Sowie die das Rechte Liebenden, und die Vermégenden, vom Weiterleben unter den Liignern befreit werden’ (2). One writer cites the Pahl. as rendering vdo by avd valman.