Pahl. Omit avd (so DJ.), avoiding the improbable meaning ‘to You’. ‘As Yours’ is not at all too stiff for these cramped and fettered texts. In 6 ‘to those’ = aé(é)ibyéd is preferable to ‘those’ as I formerly rendered. So in c, valmanshdn = ‘to those’; see also the gloss. Valmanshén is oblique (in case) by position; and in these translations such pronouns, when trans- lating datives or ablatives, should be considered as elastic as ash, am etc. The trlr. could not possibly be ignorant of the case; see tdi, taé(é)chid(t) = valmanshdnich (Y. 32, 11), aé@)ibyd = pavan valmanshdn in Y. 28, 10, and Y. 30, 8, and = avd valmanshdn in Y. 29, 10, and 32, 12, and = min val- manshdn in Y. 34, 8; see aé(é)sham = min valmanshdn (Y. 34, 1), and the loc. yaé(é)sht = dén zak (sg. for pl.) in Y. 33, 5. The position of a Pahl. word often determines its case.
Zarazdédo (see avi zak libbemman in Y. 31, 12) seems here freely referred to zaresh = ‘to draw (?)’, the word chosen having been determined, as often, by the outward shape of the words catching the eye. I prefer; ‘pro- claim blessings for the Druja’, transitive for the intransitive ‘appear’. Ner.’s pl. of majesty (?) Mahdjidnibhyah is noticeable. The translations, harmless glosses and freedom aside, have formed the basis for all later ones,
2. Spiegel and Justi, following the Pahl., render wrv@né(é) as an infin., and ‘for believing’ may be correct. Others also elsewhere accept a root
urd (urvdidydi). As dat. of urvan., the form is unusually full; ep. wrumé(é). An infin. might well be cognate to the noun urvan as possibly meaning ‘the mysterious speaker’; cp. rutajia = ‘knower of the (mysterious) humming’, ‘augur’. The idea of the soul also might well have been connected with that of internal humming, sounds in the ears, etc.
Advdo, stem advah, (or advd, stem adva) = ‘undoubted truths’. Cf. Y. 29, 5’: ep. Ind. ddvayat, ddvayas = ‘true’, and dvayé = ‘falseness’. (Otherwise nom. sg. of adhvan = ‘way’ (?)). The allusion is to the wredtd agust@ inv. 1. <Aibi.deresté (cp. atbi.derestd Y. 50, 5) is a nom. pl. neut. in agreement with advdo. As a loc. sg. aibé.deresta was a keen suggestion of Roth’s. But a loc. of an abstract, or a quasi abstract, is not so well in place as qualifying the existence (ast?) of an object. An adverbal locative would be far more in place qualifying a verb expressed, and, in fact, any other verb understood except ‘to be’. Changing the text to atbi.deresté, and reading advd, the language would seem less modern, but even then the ‘better way seen for the soul’ is rather suspiciously deep, although it may well be possible.
Vatydo may well be a nom. pl. neut, = vdsyansi (as mando = méndisi in agreement advdo); otherwise it is nom. sg. in agreement with advd = ‘way’(?), or, once more, nom. sg. masc. in agreement with azém understood (to dyéz), ‘as the more effective, I will come’.
Spiegel, De Harlez, Jackson, and others, take ratém in the concrete (as a person); I should prefer Roth’s Bestimmung. The word refers to the subject in the verse, ‘the law’.
Asaydo = ‘of the two parties’; see rdndibyd in y. 3, or ‘of the two fates’. The holy ritual and moral truth refers to the evil as well as to the good.
Parsi scholars should be on their guard against Haug’s si his non Gflanti-dicta (2) in-viis-duabus (? for advdo) pugnatum est (for aibi.derestd) vestris (for vadydo). But tum ad vos - - jbo for dyéc makes amends for much, also guum legem (so, far better) vivus scit Sapiens harum-duarum partium (admirable); but note qua ex perpuitate (? for ashat hachd) vivimus,
Pahl. AGS, as a particle, = pavan niktrishnd = ‘according to obser- vation’, or ‘thus’, Uredné(é) an infin, rendered freely as a pres. = ‘be- lieves’. Others, in accepting elsewhere a root urvd (?) = ‘to believe’, in- advertently follow this indication of the Pahl. Advéo = (freely) pavan aghmanikih; asaydo erroneously , as if from as plus a form of z, it probably stood divided in some earlier MS. (see ds ashutéd also treated as if divided in Y. 48, 1, there however properly). Haché = min--- avékth is intelligently
free. (If it is necessary to prove that the trlr. knew that hachd meant min, see Y. 47, 1). As ordinary Pahl. read: ‘He who does not believe merely because he observes remains in what is to him no doubtfulness’. Otherwise my translation was, as often, too severely unfavourable to the exactness of the Pahl. as a translation of the Gath: ‘When (so min often = amat; see Ner.’s yat = Gathic yé(¢)e¢) according to observation (= ‘as one observes’), one does not believe (= ‘it is not for believing’; cp. the use of the infin. for imper.) what is to one in no doubtfulness (= advéo possibly advaydo), etc’. Ner. according to J.3, J+. has vidanti, and not vindanti. From some defect in the MSS. used he read j(7)vdmahi, or ztvam, wrongly. His yachaydmah is no simple blunder; see the next verse where he renders J(@vantd by jivatah, 3. Chéis is 24 sg. aor. of chish = chdis(§). We might be inclined to take it conjunctively, but it seems a strengthening of ddo.
Ranéibya = ‘from the two ard’, kindling sticks, so Haug accepted by Roth, keen, interesting, and perhaps true, the Pahl. might also accord, ‘the contending ones’, being the ‘violently rubbed’ sticks; but it is curious that the ardyé should not have more prominently survived. See asaydo just preceding, and rdnédibyé, not the dual, in Y. 43, 12, for the meaning ‘for the two contending sides’. As to the suggestion that rdndibyd = ‘the two helping Rana’ (cited and adopted by Dr. Jackson in his interesting book on Yasna XXXI) that rendering would relieve us of the necessity to accede to the idea of a ‘satisfaction’ even in the shape of an adverse decision accorded to the wicked. But it is contrary to usage for the names of two personalities, coupled historically together in one idea by a dual form, to vary, like those which are proposed, now ‘the Fire and the Spirit’, and now, in the Gathdis themselves, again, the Fire, and the ayah khshusta; cp. the Agvins. After generations one of the pair might have possibly become superseded, but not within a few years, or contemporaneously. Here however we have three helpers, the spirit, the Fire, and the Rita. See moreover, what is constantly overlooked in our eager conjectures, and that is the form of the sentence, rdndibyd separated from mainyt dthrachd, and brought near, as a dative would be, to khshniitem. When keen men, who have long and vehemently maintained Haug’s view, at last reverse their opinion, it would seem as if the demand for the exhaustive examination of all materials had become imperative. /
Students should be on their guard against Haug’s cujus for chdis, and protegas for vdurayd.
Pahl. We might render; ‘what the Fire gave etc.’; but see the Gatha and afat. Yd in c, not translated, might be supplied by mén, but a fully rounded trl. is not to be expected.
4. Zevim, more critically zevyam [(as haithim = haithyam (or °yem) = satydm)| = (with the Pahl. trir.) hdvyam (the letter 7 is a reproduction of the Pahl. » = y with inherent a). Others render ‘strong’ (?). It is a nom. sg. neut. with Ashem, zevydonhd being understood with Ahurdonhdé (cp. Y. 30, 9). Although Spiegel does not decide for nom. duals, yet his keen suggestion that ashichd dr(a)maitt might be in that form (followed by Bartholomae and others) deserves great consideration, but is hardly tenable. Cp. ashi as the daughter of Armaiti in Yt. 17, 16, but the later usage of the Yashts should not be too confidently cited here. See Y. 28, 7 where she is appealed to, or associated with an appeal, in immediate connection with the giving of an ashi. In Y. 33, 13. she is called on to show what equals ashi’s; in Y. 43, 1 she is besought to give ashi’s; see Y. 43, 16; in Y. 45, 4 she is the daughter of Ahura (?); in Y. 46,16 she accompanies Asha as here, so Y. 48, 11. -Ar(a)maiti occurs about forty times in the Gathds, and never with Ashi, as a distinct person. The vanuhim:-ashim of Y. 51, 21, on account of the superior sanctity of the Gathas, gave rise to the per- sonality of asht in the later Avesta. Ashicha Armaiti (like Mazdaosché Ahurdonhé) belong together; they are sociative instrumental, equalling ‘together with the blessed Ar(a)maiti’ (see Y. 43, 10; Y. 47, 1); so also ‘together with the good mind’. Ashi, if a substantive, is used in an adjective sense, i. e. in apposition. It is hardly necessary to guard any reader against Haug’s effunde as = ashichd, to hich = sich = ‘pour out’. Ishaséd remains difficult as to its form; cp. ishasem, and ishaséid(t); cp. also hishasad(t) = (ishasad(t) (?)). S = chehh apparently takes the place of the consonant in is = ‘to wish’ = ichchh®, but here this s = chchh seems added to the root plus a. Tepesco (etc.) has been cited to throw light on the matter; as to the meaning, see the Pahl. followed by most. Haug’s praebe = ‘ishasd’ is not judicious. .
The Pahl. trlr. again plainly shows that his curious translation of the termination °dd is semi-alternative, or additional. Amat fully translates yadd, and pavan zak dahishnd should be bracketed. The earlier trir., reading zevem, rendered as an improper conj. (Or have we hémandnd (same signs) = anhen, the first person having been seen only by the later glossist? In this case zevim would have been taken by the first trlr. adverbially). Tarsakdi (sic) for tarsékdst must mean ‘venerating recognition of merit (ashi)’; see mozd in the gloss. Notice the curious error, occurring more than once, caused by the resemblance of the term. vad(f) to an abl. See however zastavad(t) Y. 29, 9, émavad(t) Y. 33, 12, astvad(f) Y. 43, 16, aojénhvad(t) Y. 43, 16, spénvad(t) Y. 51, 21, sénvad(t) Y. 53, 4, as to which no such error is apparent.
"sw
5. It is to be noticed that the correct rendering of méichd daidydi, which Haug indicates here, and for which he deserves, and has received, great credit, was, according to his own showing, put into his mouth by Neryosangh’s rendering at Y. 53, 5. Haug of course makes no allusion to the Pahl., but the rendering belongs entirely to the Pahl. trlr. In that place (not in the other occurrences of mé/i), and from that Pahlavi trans- lation, this highly praised rendering of Haug’s originated. If the entire Pahl. .and Sansk. translation of Y. 53, 5 contained not a single correct hint but this, it would still be invaluable. We read volumes of Pahlavi literature, and hundreds of Vedic Hymns with the avowed purpose of getting light on a very few Gathic expressions, surely then it is worth our labour to master these Pahl. translations however difficult. Haug says of viduyé: Viduyé kann keine Infinitivform seyn, wie ich friiher annahm, sondern ist nur eine erste Person medii, wie klar aus 29, 3 hervorgeht’. In this remark Haug has been followed, I believe, by no one. Md seems a possessive (cp. Ved. tod, also thwd, thwamd?), or an adv. instr. (cp. tod inst.), or an adv. ace. Cp. yé(e)hya ma aithtSchid(t) dvaé(é)tha beside ka tém ahyd maé(é)nis anhad(t). (Jackson keenly suggests the force in ereshi§ as governing md). Ereshis. 1 formerly compared rishi; ‘of which my prophet speaks’, but, on reflection, as ever, I turn to the hint of the Pahl.; cp. ereshva (suffix only diff.) ereshis is to ereshva, as ashi to ashavan (approximately); it means ‘my standing’, ‘character as upright’.
Haug only mistook the case, reading ereshes = rectitudinis. But for the moi, of line a, mé might well equal smd.
Does néid(t) anhad(t) etc. refer to futurity, or to ‘what is allowed’? In view of v. 14, we should say the first, so Spiegel, De Harlez, Jackson, and others, but the connection here suggests ‘what’ is allowed’; ‘that I should ponder whence is my uprightness, my justification, and those things which may not be permitted’ (in accordance with this inquiry). I formerly however preferred the other view. Haug: ‘was nicht war, noch sein wird (das Unrichtige, Falsche)’; but Roth; ‘was nicht sein soll oder was sein soll’. It must be confessed that the conjunctives only feebly express obligation here.
Pahl. Vichidyai = vijardé, freely but well. Véduyé(é) is rendered by an expression which may well have infin. force; daidydi, as an infin. for imper. which, in other combinations, it may well be. But méichd is repro- duced by avd li (?), not so in Y. 53, 5, where it equals minishno. (Men might indeed well represent mam, as é@t frequently represents the nasal - yowel. Here however mea = man = mentem is called for.) Min =