The Pahl. trlr. saw no second apa as in the reported apayantd, thus showing himself to be the first expurgator of the interpolated prepositions which make such havoc with the metre. He followed an earlier text, not that now written beside him. Had his renderings been more critically studied, many a correct emendation would have been made much earlier. Dropping the glosses in 4, we should have; ‘by whom my wealth, which is desired by a good mind, is borne away, etc.- ++ [] which is longed-for (?) - - - etc’. The gloss spoils everything. Mahyd, untranslated in c, is taken up in the gloss, and the garetd which by itself might be read garzéd, as a 3*4 sg., or 224 pl., is positively fixed as a first sg. in the gloss, which otherwise would show alternative translation as from a later hand. Such instances are of the last importance in forming a critical estimate of the Pahl. trl. Aside from its original we sbould undoubtedly render; ‘it must be had in that way which is pleasing to Vohtiman - - -’, ‘which is spiritually that of Ashavahisht’. Ner.’s satém should be read in the light of hditim rendered aité. Otherwise we should naturally render ‘pleasing object’. His rendering of ¢ improves on the Pahl.
10. I can hardly accept the rendering ‘who makes the righteous wicked’. ‘Who establishes the appointed institutions of the wicked’, or, simply, ‘who offers the gifts of the wicked’ is the obvious meaning; cp. the Vedic ddta in tv@-ddtam; cp. also ddtrd. The Pahl. trlr. distinctly notices the meaning ‘correct institution’, as opposed to ‘incorrect institution’ in Y. 46, 15; we might expect a similar notice here. The ddthéjig dregvaté equal the addthaschd. As to vivdpad(t), seeS. B.E. XXXI, page 62. note 6, p. 67. supplementary note. V is miswritten for y, as so often y for v. We haye the word in Parsi-pahlavi literature, and not merely here in the Pahlavi commentary. It is eiydpad(t) = ‘to deprive of water’, ‘to render desert’, ‘waste’. Carried over, it means ‘to devastate’; it is a denom. without sign.
The Pahl. vtydvdninéd restores to us both text and meaning in vtydpad(t) for the otherwise difficult vivépad(t). It is not certain that pavan péddkth
renders vadaré; as the Persian omits it, it is probably gloss. Adshishn yehabind renders vdizhdad, which, as in so many cases, appears to have stood divided in the MSS. used by the earlier trlr. It probably seemed superfluous to translate vadaré, as its idea was included in adshishnd. It is Surprising that Haug does not criticize more contemptuously what he sup- poses to be Ner.’s text here, and what may perhaps have really been his text, ajdbhih = ‘with goats’ (see below). Had he possessed a knowledge of the Pahl. trl., he would have seen that Ner. probably intended akshdbhih (for akshdbhydm, or akshibhydm), ashe has akshibhyim = ash = ashibya in Y.9,91 (Sp.), and he would not himself have given us the very improbable suggestion that ashibyd = nequitiis; but, on the other hand, we might not have had his valuable remark as to k, ch, = 8, sh (before y). He ought to have examined the source of Ner.’s error, which, whether Ner. read gy = az, and
thought of 2S = goat, or not, would have infallibly led to the recognition
of the Pahl. ash = ‘eyes’. Of course Ner. may have meant after all ‘goats’: see the gloss which speaks of five-year-olds as well as three-year-olds; the former must refer to some animal. The gloss may be from a later hand, but this is not so likely in the case of Ner. Ner. misread vénishnd for gobishné, or for some word equalling vachasd.
11. Chid(¢) means ‘to perceive’, as well as ‘to call attention to’, which is properly a causative meaning. It means here ‘who have counselled’ (the Pahl. is excessively free; Haug, apparentes- sunt (?)). The tendency to take such a word as mazibés, an instr. sociative in the pl. as a mere forceless adverbial equalling ‘emphatically’, I regard as exaggerated. The cause Seems to be a feeling that dregvatd must be an ace. pl. (possibly because we have some gen. singulars with the original Aryan até), but surely, if berezatd and amavaté are genitives, so may dregvaté be. Dregvaté is also obviously the hod of v. 10, the duscasté§ of vy. 9, and the dregvantem of v. 5 and of v. 14, and the dregvaté of v. 16. Mazibss means ‘with the chiefs’, and is in antithesis to anhzuscha for anhvdsché which, notwithstanding ~ the unusual form of anhvascha (cp. dhenvds), I still hold to be the better reading as both gen. (see, for the meaning v. 9) with apayé(e)it?. The most unfortunate neglect of the close of sentences seems to me illustrated -in the rendering of some able men here. At times indeed whole strophes belong together in syntax, and even more than one strophe, but in the large preponderance of cases the Sense is closed with the line, or in a few words passing the end of the line; cp. Homeric usage, etc. As striking examples of short sentences, see v. 10, 9, 8, 6. Especially is the accusative object not pushed far away from the beginning, dragging out the sentence
heavily. See verse 10 with the object in achistem vaé(2)nanhé(¢) , and with gam after it, but in quasi apposition; see sravdo, astim. I would therefore not drag the 374 sg. apayé(e)it? (agreeing with dregvdo understood) into service as an infin. (although not an accus.) from yam; ‘who have taught the wicked to --- to take away ---’(2). Can a(d)payé(e)it? be a denom. from dp = ‘to reach’, and so ‘to take’? It would indeed be a great satisfaction if we could refer apayé(e)it? to yam, as a dat. infin. *apayatt; cp. ydti and the datives in 7, but this was probably not very seriously suggested. It seems also most clumsy to attempt to explain the word as a formation ‘from the preposition (or verbal prefix apa); and one cannot resist a suspicion of it when explained as a causative of ¢ = ‘to go’; that is, ‘to cause the possession of wealth to leave the householder’. As to the sing. form, it simply refers back to a dregvdo understood as the nom. sg. of dregvaté. Or, if we wish to abandon anheuschd for anhvischd anhvascha (Haug and _ Geldner), they might still be explained as accus.; see apd md (acc. (?)) in v. 9; ‘he takes from the house-mistresses and the masters the possession of wealth’. Rdres(k)yan I would explain as a redup. form of rash with degeneration of a to e (cp. yaé(é)shé = Sk. yaksh, as a partial analagon, proving however too much), or as possessing an irreg. redup. syllable ré@ . for ri and = rires(k)yam as an optative perf. with intens. force, whereas we ‘should expect riris(k)yan (rish). Vahistdd(t) - - - mananhd may be the abl. of cause ‘on account ofhis best mind they would assail him’; or rdres(k)yan having the receptive sense of rish: ‘from the best mind of the holy may they receive injury’. Some might see a pass. notwithstanding the apparently active form of the term.: ‘Who are severely chastized by the better animus of the holy’; or, finally ‘who would utterly turn aside (sense carried over) the holy from the best mind’. As to this last, which, had we the proper verb, would seem the simplest from the syntax, it may be said, that, exegetically it is not so probable that the wicked either here, or in the next verse, should be said to cause ‘the saints’ to apostatize. (To make this sense more easy rdres(k)yan has been read as from sras, srans by some.) Pahl. More aside from the Gatha read; ‘- - this which is mine []--
they say that living existence is thus --- (b) The house-master and mistress speak thus: ‘We are chiefs of householders - - (c) and they wound him who is best and righteous - -. Did the Pahl. trir. really mean his kdshinénd (?) for chi = ‘to lay out in order’ and so ‘to discriminate’. The original trir. may have seen chikdya (di = @, yxy = (aya) with the term. teres separated, as so often, in the text before the real author of the trl., which was probably not exactly that which now stands written before his own text. Or else he renders chikditeres as a whole by kdshinénd (?), and ante tarth as
an alternative note pointing to the separated °tereS, which in all human probability appeared in some early text. (He not only knew what chit meant, but, by recognizing it in chinasté, he introduced us to the entire subject of the variation in the modes of conjugations in the two sister tongues.) It is curious that he read yé(e)t? and not apayé(e)it?, which last is however quite necessary, both for sense and metre. Hankhetéind bard explained in the later (gloss) in the sense of ‘established’ may possibly mean in the text ‘uprooted’, dard might have here the force of pard (not its original); cp. the orig. Sem. sense of the verb. Over-translation occurs in the rendering of the syllable r@ in réres(k)yan by radih. It probably stood separated in the early codex used. Aside from his original, I would render Ner. a: ‘They are committing base sins hugely - - -, and commit sin with precedence’; but see the Pahl. gloss. 12. Yd hardly = yéna = ‘wherefore’, or quia, atthe beginning of the strophe; it equals yéna (with sravanhd), or yoni. But ‘what thingsmen (mareténé as nom.) would deliver (sic) apart from the best deed’ might refer to the wrvdkhs-ukhti treacherously spoken; see the emphatic aé(é)ibyé sharply pointing to maretdnéd, poss. as the object of blame. Then rdh, if present, might equal ‘take’, ‘render away’. Reading (s)rdonhayen, some follow the long cince circulated suggestion of sras, srans, = (s)ras (see above, v. 11) = ‘cause men to fall’ (?), srah = (s)rah. We might read rash (with the Pahl., and alternatively) as = ‘hinder’ (‘harm’, or ‘cripple trom’ (sic)). Ishanim, gen. pl. of isha, cp. (gav)ishds, etc.; it is not desirable to suppose an irregular shortened form.
Haug, while ably recognizing the possibility of a nom. in maretand, falls into error by neglecting some of the keen suggestions of Ner., which are now practically followed by all. Hdictum-dicendo is bad for urvdkh& ukhti. We can forgive his oversight wr = ud = ‘out’; urv equals vr, and it is merely an ancient editor’s (sic) error. But he misses altogether the fine rendering of the Pahl. trlr. and Ner. for ashdd(t) varaté = ‘chosen above’, ‘chosen rather than’, he, Haug, rendering contra -verum se- circum- dedit. He, however, with Spiegel, ably recognizes ishanim, both of course following the hint of Ner. and the Pahl. as to the root idea.
Pahl. Mian should be rendered according to yd, and that, notwith- standing the ye of Ner. The trlr. read (?) rdshayen, see réres(k)yan v.11. Some would render his Grehmak(h) as a ‘bribe’, see Ner., and the Parsi-persian, but in the more original Pahl. from which our last texts were taken it may well be a proper name. With the glosses dropped, the Pahl. is closer to the Gatha. In Ner. jivanimattdm, a clumsy abstract, might seem meant for a gen. pl., but see the GAtha, Pahl. and Per. Ichchhatém however im- proves on the Pahl.
13. Khshathra instr., or acc. pl. nt., see khshathrem in v. 12, In view of varaté one is tempted to correct hishasad(t) to dishasad(t) (sic); ay = Pahl. » = a; cp. jigerezad(t) kamé(é). A desid. of sad = ‘desired to seat himself (in the abode)’ long circulated, and was finally published, but Atshasad(f) is transitive. One is strongly tempted toread *marekhtaré gen. in apposition with mananhd. A nom. pl. requires hent? understood. Yaé(é)chd, as acc. dual, might refer to the khshathrem, and the Gdus. As nom pl., it would refer to the marekhtdrd with irreg. sg. verb, or read jigerezen. Notice the undoubted sentiment present, a mournful and hopeless wish for what the faithful possessed of prestige; this savours of civil war. Reading marekhtaré, we should have: ‘Which things (his hoped-for resources) the G. desired, or will desire (?) as acquired by his power in the abode of the Worst Mind, the destroyer of the world, which two things (the Power, and the emble- matic Herds, or possibly the authority, with the armed power) the G. was lamenting in his baffled desire, (and he was also lamenting with envious desire) the office of Thy prophet -- -’. Haug’s departures from the indi- cations of Ner., form, as usual, the measure of his more striking error; he renders hishasat = tradidit (?), jigerezat = contumelid-affecit (?), daresét = ab-impetu (2); but his incisive pioneer suggestions abound.