Some scholars were formerly inclined to render: ‘Of those two spirits, the evil one chose to do (?) the worst action, but the holiest spirit, the right - - -, and those who gladly (?) rejoice M. with their upright actions’.
The Pahl., strictly in the light of the Gatha, might even be read: ‘Of these two spirits by him was loved (or chosen) by him, who was wicked, whose was the worse action’, or, not impossibly, ‘the worse acting one’. Varzishnd might be taken, as West with Haug took debriinishno in Y. 28,6, that is, as = the pres. part. = ‘performing’, verezyd being regarded as nom. sg. masc. Totally aside from its original, we might have: "+ + loved, or loves, (déshé¢) him (?) who is the worse in his action [Ahar- mana, him (?) whose desire - - -’], (quite erroneous). Then & (without gloss) might be; ‘when also by him the hard stone was covered’; (dsmdnich being, strictly, gloss). Otherwise; ‘the hard stone-covered [sky] was made by him’.
Fraored(t) does not seem translated by the Pahl. here; Ner.’s apdpath however renders its idea, showing the probability that he had a different text. Apdpaih is hardly gloss, or alternative translation, in addition to his prakataiccha; see his rendering in Y. 53, 2, where he seems to render the idea of fraored(t) as drddhandm. Dropping the glosses, the whole strophe in the Pahl. comes out much closer to its original. If however the lines are not brought together, ¢ would be naturally rendered; ‘He who propitiates Atharmazd, [his desire also is that of A.) ete?
6. It is safest to regard v#S(k)ydtd as ‘the same word which meets us inv. 3. It cannot be an imperative here, and would be difficult as such anywhere,
a A eas , Te aa
Debaomad* I now regard, with Spiegel, De Harlez, and Bartholomae, as the noun in man, and I would no longer (as in S. B. E. XXXI) offer an alternative in the sense of the verbal form, with Haug, Justi, Hiibschmann, and Bartholomae (as formerly). I however strongly adhere to the view that the word is in the nom. rather than in the acc., and, as the subject of jasad(f), also in apposition with achistem mand. (A to 7s, or read ddeb°.)
Verendtd. I can only explain the long 4, if the word is a pl., by the supposition that it stands for @m in a conj. term. dntd (nd conjugation). But the word may be a 34 sg. conj. mid. for passive, also with secondary term. AchiStem mané are, like (4) debaomd, nom. sg., and stand in apposition : ‘Deceit came upon those consulting ones, even the Worst Mind, that he might be chosen’. If verendtd be a pl., I would still hold achistem mané to be a nom. rather than acc.; ‘Deception came upon those consulting, even the Worst Mind, that they might choose him’. (With another verenata is 3ra pl. pret.)
Some able writers almost uniformly avoid the recognition of the pos- sibility of a nom. in the Gathds at the end, or after part, of the line, or sentence, accepting for the Gatha the dull sentence-formation of the Behistun Inscriptions. I hold exactly the reverse. Not only are nominatives possible at the end of sentences, but that is the natural place for them (see remarks
elsewhere). Haug rendered banayen praedicabant, to bhan = ‘to speak’. The Pahl. gave the true indication, well followed by Spiegel, Geldner, and others. Others prefer a shade of meaning more directly expressed by the Sansk. van. Haug’s text, ahd, with its translation vitas-duas, is not desir- able. The Pahl. gave the proper indication, followed by most. Ner.’s gloss is however influential in the rendering, ‘die Menschen wm’s Leben im jenseits eu bringen’.
Maretané seems an irreg. gen., but otherwise its place is that of a nom., a form which however does not here afford the proper sense.
Some would render: ‘Then were the Daé(é)vas not approved of by them both, because Satan approached those who went about with deceit, to whom (Satan) they had turned, and they united themselves in strife, to rob men of the life beyond’.
Here vis(k)yat@ as it stands, or more probably with its form emended, is taken as a middle in a passive sense.
Aside from its original read the Pahl. a: ‘and every one whom they deceived [they who are Demons have (?) deceived them - - -|’; (or the gloss may be intended as alternative translation, so, probably: ‘and those who are deceived by them [or those who are Demons are deceived]’). Also line 0:
‘Some have approached to ask them’.
I should suppose that Ner. meant * vivichati » or * vivijati, by his vwijanti = vijinend = vis(k)ydté, but nasalized terminations with the redup. root sometimes occur irregularly.
7. Ahmdiché, meaning ‘to this one’, or ‘to us’, would indicate the loss of some verse, or verses. Haug rendered: ‘ Und diesem irdischen Leben kam Armaiti mit irdischer Macht, der Wahrheit und dem guten Sinn zu Hilfe ; sie, die Ewige schuf' die Korperwelt, der Geist aber ist bet Dir (anma aéshim toi & anhat) --in der Zeit das Erste bei den Schépfungen’. Spiegel, contemporaneously, (4): ‘Kraft gab dem Kérper A., bestindig. Mége es den deinen so gehen, wie (damals), als du zuerst kamst zum Schaffen’.
Some scholars, reading utayaitis, rendered: ‘And to us (ours) was a kingdom with a pious people (mananhé vohit), and with order (ashd), but A. laid inflexible (utaytitis) sorrows ((?) = dnmd) in the body: That shall fasten on thy limbs as with iron ((?) ayanhd) bonds ((?) ddand@is)’. Another following partly: ‘A. placed lasting endurance (?) (utaywités) in his body and soul (? Gnmd, following Haug), that he might go on before with sword (?) and bands (?)’. Another, boldly defying all etymology (often a most proper procedure) but at the same time disregarding d@nmainé and dnmainé(é), trans- lates Gnmd as ‘the earth’. (Probably Haug’s twice repeated irdisch® gave this idea). Anmd, according to the natural swing of a Gathic, or Vedic pada, has the place of a nom. Cp. the Vedic feminines in man; the root may be am = in = ‘to press on’; cp. akhsh = tksh. As to the very possible dn (= an) + man = ‘soul’, it seems improbable in view of urvan, the fami- liar word for ‘soul’. The two accusatives would also be difficult.
But the Pahl. trir.’s (?) ‘@ + nam’ is by no means so impossible as has been supposed, and, as coming from him, it should possess increased claims to attention rather than supercilious rejection. The nasalization of a before a nasal is too common for decisive objection. The root vowel disappears in jmdn from gam = ‘road’, kshm@ from ksham; cp. also the root mné from man + d, So nm might be the remains of nam; a@+namdéd = ‘the unbend- ing’ = stébd 14 = ‘not confused’. If the form is nom. sg. fem. in agreement with A., which is also qualified by utayéitis, we escape daddd(t) with the two accus.
Nothing seems to me more foreign to the connection than ‘the iron and bonds’, or ‘sword and bonds’. Ayanhd is a 2°4 imperf. (or conj.) mid. of ¢ = ‘to go’, ‘proceed’, or ‘come’. ‘Possessions’ is a far better rendering than ‘bonds’ for dddndis.
De Harlez: ‘Qu’il te soit fait en sorte gue tu abondes des dons de
ces (génies)’. Bartholomae: ‘Von ihnen még’ es dir zu teil werden, dass du —
an besitetiimern allen voranschreitest’. I prefer however ‘creations’, as the whole section deals with the ultimate origin and result of things under the divine initiative and protection. Other sections deal with slaughter by the heroic faithful. Line ¢ merely expresses the hope, or prayer, that the beneficence indicated may continue to the end.
An earlier Pahl. trlr., rendering @nman twice by astéb°, which gives the correct idea, had evidently another MS., or other reasons, before him in the third case. Are we to find fault with a deviation as to one third of the cases, when we ourselves render the same words in closely contiguous occurrences by translations often rash and fanciful, and with absolutely no regard to what the word means in other connections? If the Pahl. texts render a word twice out of three times correctly, we should attribute the apparent failure in the third case to differing MSS. The real trlr. of course never saw the paper on which the trl. and Zend text now stand copied.
It is by no means impossible that tékhishno (sic) in such a document as this Pahl. trl. may have adj. force qualifying Spendarmadé = Ar(aymaitis. Pawan astibih is admirably free for astidd.
As ordinary Pahl., read c: ‘Those who are Thine come to that person thus [that is, they come thus to that person] etc.’. But até stands in M.1 and DJ.’s text, and the Parsi-pers. had yeheviinéd for aétuné (text); so the Gatha; see Ner.’s santé,
In Ner. the ancient MSS. J.3, J.4 have the interesting reading aniarthe which seems to point (a)nyartha; cp. also nirritha = ‘destruction’.
Otherwise atéarthe (sic) might equal ‘in an extraordinary degree’; but see the Pahl. and the Gatha.
8. Véividaité(é). The mid. seems especially called for. As so often in the Rik, and in the Gathds (which, while heterogeneous as to contents, are greatly similar in form), each line here completes an idea. I see no necessity for dragging in an infin. (sas¢é(¢), as infin. of sad) in c. There is also no reason at all why sasté(é) (or sast2) should not be the finite form; we are simply in doubt as to its subject, which might be the pers. pron. understood referring to Vohit-Mananhd, or sasté(¢) might be taken as a pass.: ‘The Kingdom is gained, and is proclaimed to these’.
Nothing seems to me clumsier than Haug’s loc. in-vituperatione, or an instr.; see Y. 46, 12 aé(é)ibyd refedhrdi Mazdédo sasti (or °t? (¢)) Ahuré. One scholar has rendered: ‘ihnen befiehlt Ahura (n. s.m) (read Ahuré?) + + ~’. I see no necessity for referring sasté (°t?) to sad, cp. sazdydi. Because sah is of very frequent occurrence is so much the more in its favour. The interpretation’of the GAthds should not depend upon a wayward preference
for the less usual root. If however sad is possibly present, ‘helps’ would be a good meaning. -
Pahl. Here the frequent separate translation of the syllable dd is scarcely to be regretted. Line 4 is evidently free; see the varying Sansk. The trlr., while failing to recognize vid here in voividaité(é), elsewhere, as usual, gave us our first information as to its presence. :
As ordinary Pahl., read 6: ‘Who is for Thy sovereignty - - -’, ce: ‘Through their teaching of Atharmazd ... etc.’; but see the Gatha and Ner.
9. Frashim. We may accept Justi’s etymology resting, as it does so often correctly, on the Pahl.; cp. frag = priiich, (pra + ach, arch) = ‘forwards facing’. Frastm is better than °em, or °em, as im = yam, the
letter » having been original Pahlavi » which possesses inherent a when
equalling y. But the Zend letter which corresponds to Sk. ch before y is 5 (sh), or (Sk), as Haug first noticed; cp. ash(sk)y0 = achyé (cp. achista), and s(k)yaothna = chyautnd. Otherwise ch would properly remain Zend ch (as in achista). The word is really frasyem, or Srasyam; cp. prachyam = * praichyam (see also Bartholomae Z. D. M. G. 38, s. 131).
Are Mazddosché Ahurdonhé to be referred to the sphere of humanity (?); cp. ahurem in that sense in Y. 29,2. If we had merely ahurdonhd, ‘lords’ might be admissible. But the two words together are rather formidable in that sense. Haug rendered Sapientesque vivi (efficiunt (2)) promoventia (2) auxilia (?) veraque; Hiibschmann as pl. voc. of majesty, for the singular
‘O Ahura Mazda’; Barth.: ‘O Mazdah and ye Gods’! (See Haug’s suggestion
of dual formation in Y. 28, 2); Geldner, ‘O Mazda and Asha, ye spirits!’; I (in 8. B. E. XXXI) ‘as the Ahuras of M. even’.
As to syntax, I should take Ahurdonhd as in agreement with a 2n¢ pl. of ah = ‘to be’ understood with darand etc. (see below). Or M. A. might be nominatives absolute: ‘May we be promoters, M. A. bringing us aid with Asha, - . .’,
Améyastré has been correctly referred to mit (mith) first by the hint of the confused Pahl., hanjamanikth (cp. for analogy perhaps hamidhpa- tots, Yt. 13, 105); secondly by Spiegel who mentions mit, mith = ‘bind’, followed by others. I do not regard the word as being in its original form, which may have been dmestrd, or dméistra — * dmettra; see the metre. Others preter referring it to Sk. mid = ‘to attach one’s self to’; cp. medin = ‘com- panion’. Améyastrd = 4 (or interject.) + myastré (mid having been originally myad). Hamisté, and hamaé(é)star containing mit(d(?)), are not harmoni- ous with the meaning ‘friendly help’, which latter rather reminds one of