(A propos of varying Zend texts attested by the Pahl. trls. in this and other chapters, I repeat once more that the Pahl. trls. which appear in our MSS. are very improbably the untouched work of any original Pahlavi commentator. They were unquestionably modified at every rearrangement, and finally transcribed by a copyist who often blundered, and paid little regard to the correspondence, or want of correspondence, between Gatha text and Pahl. trl.)
In Ner. I supply ‘we are’ from the ‘I am’ of his gloss, as his glosses are, unlike many of those of the Pahlavi, probably contemporaneous with his text.
2. Sdremné, according to Haug’s one-sided investigation, was simply
from sar = Sk. eri = ‘to lean’, ‘to seek shelter’, a sense akin to the Iranian, but by no means dominating it. According to the latest comparative philology, sar would be more original than ¢gr7. The verb sar = ‘to head’,
‘protect’, ‘rule’ came from the noun sar which is degenerated in g¢iras. Can the Deity be said to ‘lean toward’ vohu manah, while khshathréd(t) hachéd is taken merely to modify ‘answered’?: ‘He answered from His King- dom’. How much better to yield to the evidence of a comparative philo- logy which takes in the Persian and Pahlavi, and not to a comparative philo-
eo ae
logy built up on a total disregard of the Iranian languages. I think there- fore that we had better follow the ancient scholar in his admirably free pavan sardérih. Otherwise saré in Y. 81, 21 has a meaning radically opposed to sdéremné. Ahura ‘rules’ from His kingdom’, He does not ‘answer from His kingdom’. This verse moreover confirms my recognition of the antithesis in v. 1. Verse 1 is a graphic contest between two supplicants petitioning, not from the same Deity, but from opposed Deities. The evil party, whose ¢aé(é)tu, as in Y. 46, 1, works for them, prays, and naturally enough the answer of the Devils (Daé(é)vas) is not reported in the holy hymn. They are already spurned in line c, y. 1. Ahura now utters his sharply pointed: ‘We have chosen your Ready Mind; according to your prayer; Ours shall she be’. And v. 3 is an indirect answer of Ahura to the petition of the Daé(é)vas contained in the ydsad(t) of v. 1. Afigra Mainyu is not reported as answering, but Ahura answers, and the entire chapter expresses what he has to say. Haug, for the most part, well follows the general indications of Ner., properly disregarding his syntax.
The Pahl. trlr., rendering many forms literally, proceeds on the whole freely. Omitting va with DJ. A.- - + hamkhék nadik kardd may be ren- dered: ‘A. made a good friend’. I had rendered: ‘ And A., the good, he made his good friend’. Lekim rdi should of course equal vé; I doubtfully add ‘on your account’. I should think that wiceshate in Ner. (cp. geshant.
Whitney’s Verbs, also vigesha = ‘distinction’) ought to mean ‘He makes a —
distinction’; see the text to which it is gloss, But I have later thought of ‘he distinguishes himself by his teachership’ explaining the preceding sa- harevardt = ‘sovereignty’. According to the later Parsi Spenta Ar(a)- mati = Spendarmad was a name for the earth; see Y. 47, 3,
3. Haug, in his Latin rendering, well followed the general indications of Ner., except as to s(k)yaomam, for which he reads saomam = Somam = Rauschtrank (der eurer Liige und eurer Téuschung Rauschtrank fiir hoch- heilig hdlt). As to this last he has been followed by none, S(k)yaomam = *man, loc. sg. with aip?, closely related to S(k)yaothna, to &(k)yu = chyu. De Harlez and Geldner give the sense of ‘action’, the first taking aip? in the sense of dpi = ainsi que, the last taking it as gerecnine S(k)yaomam, As to daibitand some writers, laudably seeking novelty, divide dasbitd = ‘a deceiver’ and n@ = ‘a man’; but ydi§ requires explanation. Ydai§ may equal yéna = ‘wherefore’, but not where a probable neut. pl. immediately precedes. See Y. 28, 2 dyaptd - - - ydi& rapantéd . - ., this ee v. 6, yais - - - tds (hardly both particles), vy. 7. hadroya ya +++ YBiS e+e yaé(é)sham, Y.46,15 tdi 5(k)yaothandis - - - yds, Y. 51, 20 ubhdhé yais - Also nd looks a little unusual in the Gathas as an enclitic to a out
OOS 9 ig ~ pia lt ae
although it is frequently so used with pronouns; see mdnd vy. 10, kasnd Y. 44, 3, (mend Y.50, 1 is gen.) At first sight it seems to explain the Latin °nam in quidna(m) (?); but is not that suffix on the contrary explained by it? As to haptaithé(é), the earth was divided into seven quarters, or con- tinents;. cp. the seven Indian dvipas. The two ideas had of course a com- mon origin. If either could be called older, the Iranian conception is the more original, as the Indian Aryans were emigrants from the regions in- habited by the Iranians.
I formerly read d@zdr-minishntar, comparing Pers. dzér, crude form of dzdrdan sometimes used as a noun. I would now follow the Persi-persian MS. (cp. avartani, or awartani). S(k)yaomam probably stood divided as s(k)yao. mam in some MSS. before the original, or earlier, translator (which MS. may of course have differed widely from that now written beside the Pahl. text in the surviving MSS.), hence the mdén of the Pahl. trlr. It is correctly referred to chyu by sdtininéd. The gloss, unless rejected, forces us to consider sdtininéd and asrdyishnih yehabinéd as 3° sing. Min akharih might be meant to express, ‘he is causing us to come from behind (to escape?) that deceit; see the gloss. Daibiténd = frifishno; asridum, to sr@; the rarely used augment appeared incredible, hence the a privative. Gavamanastaragcha J.8 (J.4 garv®), also partly supported by the gapamanas (sic) of P., does not need the suggested apamdnastaragcha. *Garvamanas = ‘proud of mind’, has point, but no translation is so well suited as a possible meaning of *gavamanas is in such an irregular document as Ner.’s trl.; cp. P. W. 374 gu.
4. Yustd (so reading) explains the Pahl. dydzishnd (so possibly), and this latter might indicate the proper rendering: ,‘ Wherefore ye, ‘‘aroused’’ (yuz, yastd) are preparing - -’. Although the correction of the Pahl. trir. in frdz minishn vardinéd = man mathd, (for mé(é)mathd) = ‘ye are turning, or perverting, the mind’ (mathdé adj. nom. pl. masc.) gives us a rich con- erete in no degree so rash and hazardous as many modern suggestions, I would now, on the whole, put it in the second place. Vakhshente(é) (s aor.) or vakhshyenté(é) (fut.), formerly rendered ‘flourish’ by some, is now refer- red to vach by Spiegel and Geldner in accordance with the Pahl. Vakh- shenté(é) as mid. may have passive sense, = ‘are said to be’, so Spiegel and Geldner (see also vakhshyanté(é)), but this is by no means necessary, as the speaking was ultimately for the speakers themselves, and ‘are said to be’ is flat in the connection; by whom ‘were they said to be’?; surely only by the party of the composer; better to read vakhshenti J.*, if necessary to the meaning ‘who utter’; cp. the duSsasti$ who taught, the mthahvachah who raised his ‘voice’; see also the next verse: ‘Ye deceive vachanha ‘with
yoice’, and in fact the entire Gath4s which treat of rival agitators, striving
to propagate their themes. I was formerly inclined to regard daé(é)vd.2usta as an acc. pl. neut., but the Pahl. trir. must not be followed closely as to forms. An acc, nt. pl. is grammatically quite as probable as a masc., if not more so, but it is better always to prefer a masc., where possible, to a neuter, as more concrete and personal. Haug here, except as to frdmi- mathd, follows the radical meanings suggested by Ner.
Min = yad(t) = Ner.’s yat. = amat here. Ayijishn (if not dyieishn) is an accidental, rather than an ordinary, error. (Yas is properly rendered in the previous verse.) The original, or earlier, trlr. had probably a disordered text, not the one now written beside the trl. Perhaps also he should be deciphered dydzishn, as the same letter may reproduce 7, or 2: ‘Ye who are of that agitation’; but Ner. read dyijishn — dvitaydt. The é(é), or é, of mé(é)h° (méh) wasregarded as nASBIgeA SS @ ese RNG Te RODY Sous the en
je The trlr. saw men = man; mathd was referred to math, Ner. following,
affording a valuable suggestion (see above). Sized is descended, or taken, with little alteration from the Zend. As ordinary Pahl. render: ‘the making a man worse [is the religion of the man only evil in his intelligence];’ or ‘the offering of the worse man is’. In Ner. stdayati (? stdati) to sad = ‘to pass away’. Perhaps séddéyati was meant.
5, Some might prefer s(k)yaothanem as governed by frachinas(t) (two acc.), but I think an adv. ‘acc. looks less clumsy and more idiomatic. Khshayo, taurvayd, verezyd, and savayd are hardly infin, Khshayé is a nom. Sg., as its place at the end of the sentence would suggest. It is parallel with, but not in direct apposition with, akaschd mainyus, which are also in their correct position as undoubted nominatives at the end of the sentence. The word khshayo means ‘a ruler’, as in Y. 28, 7, Mazda khshaydcha.
Mim should equal amat = hyad(t), Ner.’s yat. For thorough scholars the Pahl. is invaluable even when in grammatical disorder, but read as alternative, and nearer the syntax of the Gatha: ‘Since you the worse thought 7s teaching - -’ (understood by anticipation from c, frdz chashéd being understood as ‘he teaches ’). Ner. mistook friféd for a verb in the third pers. ?
6. Endkhsté from its increased form would seem a 2"4 pl. act. s aor. rather than a 374 se. mid. See also the incipient 2"¢ plurals of verses 3, 4, 5. Paouru-aé(é)ndo would then be ace. pl. neut. ‘Ye have reached your multitudinous injuries’ (by such means as are reported)’. But paowru-aé(é)ndo in itself is more probable as a nom. sg. masc. Bahuvrihi compositum. And Just at this strophe may begin the allusions to individuals; see the 3rd
singulars in v. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. Yas srdvayé(e)ité(é) must also have a per- sonal subject (see below), and some verses may well have fallen out. Not- withstanding then its increased form, we may take éndkhStd as a sg. mid. Is it a desiderative? (Haug). Certainly not, without a change of text; cp. imakhsati etc. See however the desiderative ideain thePahl.Poss. to naksh (athem.). The more concrete sense of the Pahl. as from nas = ‘to destroy’, is