yé(e)hy@ should be gen. by position, or at least in an oblique case; see Ner.’s yena, Adharmazd should equal the voc. A. M., and that notwith-
standing a certain awkwardness which such a rendering involves in the treatment of yemalelinéd (2 is to be applied to /@ aitd, ‘that also, OA, which is not, and that which is’. A scholarly friend modifies a former reading hi- varth = ‘good judgment’ by hanvaérth comparing hanv(w)ar = ‘smooth’, ‘even’, and hanbar = ‘fair’, ‘good’. The Parsi-persian seems avd rishan (?) (is it Rashn) = rast. M‘ seems avd arsh; cp. arshikht = erezhukhdhdi. As more ordinary Pahl., read 4: ‘and which is mine throagh what is his, and that which is - - - also’, and in c: ‘Even A. declares - - -’. Ner.’s achchhedah probably rests on éreshis (sic), an @ priv.; cp. évidvdo. (Achchhedah (so I think J3.) yt}
6. Ahmdi and Mazddi belong obviously together. Spiegel and De Harlez have rendered vahistem in the sense of a ‘reward’, Jackson regard- ing the word as understood. To reduce the verse to the expression of a ‘reward for the man who declares the truth’, and ‘the promise of the king- dom of Mazda’, as that ‘reward’, seems to take the passage wholly out of its connection, Yé méi vidvdo vaochad(t) has obvious reference to tad(é) mot vichidydt vaochad of the previous vy. uttered not by the worshipper, but by the Divine Being. This v. 6 means that what Ahura had uttered, or may utter, as His mathra, in answer to v. 5, was to him a vahista; see Y. 45, 3; ad(f) fravakhshyd + ++ paourvim [dat(é)nam (?)|--im + » - mathrem (apposition); see v.6 here, Y. 45,4 Ad(f) fravakhshyd - -- vahistem (poss.to math- rem(?)), v.5 yyad(t) (hyad(t)) méi mraod(£) spentotemd --- maretaé(é)ibyd vahistem, certainly of inspired revelation, y6: méd ahmdi sraoshem dan. The vahistem was only indirectly a reward as of course; but its sense is peculiar = summum. The vanhéus vahyd = summum bonum (free) was applied to, or included, the ‘reward’, but vahiStem represents a larger, and supreme, con- ception;; cp. Y. 28, 8; Y. 43, 2, 41- (Weipa bee Asics Ne AD ile Y. 51, 22. Line ¢ is intended as encouragement in the struggle. No reader needs to be warned against Haug’s dicere-potest for vakhshat. The general indications of the Pahl. and Ner. have been followed by all. Valman , as being in the former part of the sentence, should be read as having gen. force; see its orig. As the trlr. has translated ahmdi avd valman in Y. 43, 2; Y. 44, 19; Y. 45, 10 etc., it is impossible to attribute ignorance to him here. He either intended valman = ‘his’ = ‘to him’, or his text is corrupt, or he is intentionally free. So of Adharmazd beyond all question; it renders Mazddi, as being itself gen. by position = ‘belonging to A.’; see Mazddi = 7 A., Y. 28, 5, pavan zak 7 A, Y. 31, 1; val. ++. A., Y. 33, 14, avd zak 7 A., Y. 53, 2. As to the gloss in 6, see Haug’s © essays, Ed. West., 34, p. 350 note: ‘In fifty-seven years Sdshans (and his — companions) prepare all the dead; all men arise, both (those) who are —
righteous, and (those) who are wicked’. In Ner. vikdgayati = vakhshéd: ‘so elsewhere vakhsh = kde. 7. In line @ a yd = yéna = ut might relieve difficulty, reading: ‘He who these things conceived, as the first One, in order that, like the -heavens (?), they might be clothed in light’; or a ché, omitted on account of the metre, might be supplied: ‘He conceived these things, and, as a propitious sign, the heavens were clothed (pret. for once) with light, or stars’. Cp. Y. 30, 1. y@ raochébis daresatéd urvdzd, where, in connection with references to the chants and sacrifices, the stars (?) were invoked to appear as propitious. It will not do to force the construction. Té = téna = ut seems forced; see its position: ‘He who first willed that the spaces of heaven should clothe themsclyes in light’ is hardly expressed in the language. The context shows that ‘glorious’ spiritual privileges and pos- sessions were at least included within the idea of athré. That word refers back to ¢@; td refers back to ¢é@chid(¢) in v. 5, and alludes likewise to mathrem, and to khshathrem just preceding (; see vakhshad(t) in one verse, and ukhshyd in the other). (As Ahura is clothed with stars (Yt. 13, 3 Yim Mazddo vasté(e) vunhanem stehr.paé(é)sanhem mainyu.tastem (notice “mainyu and manta), so he clothes the Immortals in beautiful forms, }Yt. 13; 81; see also Y. 12, 1. Vathra does not mean, directly and exclusively ‘the i osical heavens’, although Roth’s fine suggestion is most valuable. Its root is indeed sues see S. B. E. XXXI. p. 18; but see Y. 28, 2; Y. 43, 2; BY. 50, 5. Vathra was here far more morally than physically ‘heaven’; i. e. ‘it was a state, or scene, into which the beatified were introduced. Véthrem was a thing ‘given’ or ‘taken’ in Y. 43, 2; and to render the ‘physical heaven’ as a ‘thing given’ would hardly do. ‘He who conceived of them (and, in accordance with his conception, they were as glorious (heavenly) truths, (as the mathra, khshathra, the combined blessings of the sacred polity) clothed in (the) light (of manifestation)) + - -’.
As to réithw(v)en (hardly an infin.), one would expect the middle, but the meaning is literally ‘flowed’, or ‘may flow’. The chid(f) of niirémchid(t) is better taken in a generalizing sense.
Amid valuable suggestions, Haug is rather wild with his multitudinem
“for roithwen, and suo-igne for gdthrad (bathrda),
; Pahl. Yasté rendered by a participle is less startling than many a “modern error. Mavtéd was not mistaken for a noun, although rendered by padmdné; see Y. 43. throughout. Freedom, and not radical error, like-— wise accounts for récthwen as gitmikhtd, and édthra as khvdrth (notice in passing that khvdrih, elsewhere = ‘peace and comfort’, here means ‘bril-
liancy’ beyond any doubt). Observe the order of words in b as not corre- sponding with that in the Gatha. A scholarly friend was inclined to regard ham khiddt as meaning ‘lord of both’, and he therefore preferred that reading to hamdé which DJ. reports. My former rendering of line ¢ was too unfavourable.
Ner., as usual, renders the Pahl. as his chief text, and more as ordin- ary language.
GZ 8. The Pahl. trlr. affords an indication of value for Y. 53,3, but erro- —
nous here. Haug, als den Hohen (in der Natur), but Spiegel selected the proper root yaz. We have yé(e)etm and yazim, to °ydjya, or ydjyu. Both need explanation, but yé(e)etm needs less; 7 represents Pahl. 9, which may equal y with inherent a (e). Yé(e)eyam, or °yem, is the word; yeetm should never be written. For yezyum, we must supply the frequently missing pen-strokes, as in jydite, which shows a loss of one stroke and the
perversion of others, for jéwdite, and jam for jivam, ((?) *oy = Gay »,
or », has here a = va, read ¢s)y9y,). There is really little choice otherwise
between yezyem (°yam) and yazyum. De Harlez presents the graphic sug- —
gestion that a word meaning uterus may be before us; ‘the womb of the creation’. It would be much to be desired, if such pregnant conceptions
abounded in the Gathas. (*— = ») (?) im jam (so better) is miswritten for 2.)
Stéi [(hardly an infin. here: ‘I think thee ‘to be’ (?) first’, which ©
seems as awkward as ‘I wish it to come’ in Y. 43, 1)] = (with Roth) ‘for — the land, or people’. The meaning sth@ in RV. is vague, but see dsta, and — sti, for meaning, and poss. partial analogy; root std, or ak = as (for stayé(?)).
Haithim (sic for haithyam (or °em)) = satydm hardly = ‘eternal’, — desirable as such an equivalent would be; ‘real’ is also suspicious from its —
depth; ‘truly good’ would be better, the ‘real’, and the ‘good’ approaching each other in Zoroastrian ideas; cp. Y. 43, 3; see also the Sansk. meaning ‘good’, ‘beneficial’.
The earlier trlr. read yazdm (not yazyum) here, as he did yé(é)zv@ in Y. 53, 3, rendering 2ékth, as = Ved. yaht = ‘son’, so also in Y. 53, 3.
_ And it was just this error of his in translation which threw his treatment out of gear, leading him to force the meaning, and change (so to speak) © his text. Observe his correct suggestions in 0, and the certainty of freedom,
as against error, iu c. Ner. follows his pavan 2akih in yonttayd. 9. We should at first sight render thwéc = thwé(é) = tvé loc., but
it is nom. sg. fem.; cp. 6¢ = 56, n. s. m., daé(é)ch@ (apparently = 060 4+
chad) fem.; so here thwé = thwéd nom. sg. masc., and thwéi for thwé(é) fem: Thwéi cannot be n. s. f. in that shape; it would be loc., or even irreg. dat.
i.
fi
Rt
¥
te
¢
i.
a
%
*
But é7 here represents Yor 0; these, while generally expressing (¢)(é), do not by any means always express them; 9; to were originally Pahlavi
Signs, modified ayy (Ho to express length), and originally represented (as gy) either yd, or dy, or a7, beside other sounds. Understood as this latter, they express what we call é(¢,¢), the so-called Zend letter; but the signs yx, a9,
represent also obviously yd@ here and elsewhere; thwdi = bash = qousd (y905) = 05 , the & having inherent a, as often in Pahl., 105%
= thwayd n. s. fem. = ‘thine’; so 5aé(@)chd = baydchd; cp. svaya(m); see above, p. 436 fig., and on Y. 46, 11.
Is tash@ nom. for voc. (with Roth)? Taken as such the line reads most naturally, and voc., as some hold of Ash@ in Y. 29, 3 possibly stands sometimes for nom. Also is not @ an interjection (cp. N. P. @), ‘O creator’ its force explaining the apparent nom. May not @ in ¢ashé@ also = an, as often; @--- tashé = @ tashan? Otherwise @ goes with as, thwé(é) not being a loc. Spiegel (followed by De Harlez, Bartholomae and others) regarded the form of the word as expressing its syntactical force, the Pahl. trlr. having placed the idea originally before him. This is of course the first impression made by the line. ‘Thine was the creator - - - the spiri- tual wisdom, or wisdom of the spirit’. But why should Ahura require a second creator for the most sacred object jn nature next to the saintly Tranian citizen? He himself is positively said (Y. 51, 7) to create the Cow. ye gam tashd? Common sense should furnish the answer. As Ahura is elsewhere said to act through this mainyu, (so possibly in Y. 51, 7; see also v. 3;.¥. 43, 6; Y. 44, 2 (?);.Y. 45, 6; Y. 47, 1, 5, 6 (?)), so here His khratu mainyéus, or mainyus is rhetorically and poetically mentioned as the direct agent, the tashan, instead of the indirect instrument. Or else the Géus tashan, like the Spenista Mainyu, may be vaguely personified, like the concept ‘Holy Spirit’ in parts of the Semitic Scriptures, as a Being who is in a sense a part of the Deity, but whom he may yet be said to possess as an attribute. The passage emphasizes the fact that Ahura alone with His spiritual wisdom was the source of the existence of the ‘clean’ creation as represented by the ‘mother Cow’, who also subordinately repre- sents the ‘holy people’. Haug renders c: ‘kommt sie von dem Landmanne her zu dem, der noch nicht Landmann war, und geht an ihm vorber’, supposing the subject to be the Erdgéttin, therefore Armaiti. Both he and Spiegel
understand Armaiti in ahyd@i. De Harlez starts the inquiry whether ahydi
can refer to the earth on which the paths were made. This is quite interesting. Roth however, as I think correctly, understands the Cow, but emending to vdstriydi, and reading aité(é) ditéé as an infin. As it is natural for a sentence generally (far from always) to begin a line, @ + 7té(é) is a 3rd so. of ¢ = ‘to go’. Some prefer ‘to leave the husbandman’, but the abl. may well be here that of the cause, and vdstry@ may be read with some MSS. The ‘paths’, as elsewhere, are the ‘ways of life’, the pastures of the cattle, and the village roads; cp. Y. 33, 5 pathd yaé(é)shi M. A. shaé(é)tt (shayat?) (figurative application).