Pahl. Aside from the Gatha render as of course: ‘He who desires - by him és desired that which is in the abode - - -’, etc. (as ordinary Pahl.). Marenchiniddr may be taken as sg. for pl. in accordance with hémand and tapahinénd. Gébdk first explained ditim to us. I had rendered ‘talkative’, but ‘spokesman’ is much better. Péshpdi may be taken as sg. for pl.; or, if ash is read, as equalling ‘chieftainship’. Valmanshén in c would naturally be read as nom., but see the Gatha. I offer however the alternative ‘those are keeping him (or it (?)), (or (again) them) - -’. In Ner. the emphasis in bard is reproduced by vigeshena. Pratiskhalanti = ‘impede’. J. has the better reading dyi® (sic); see dydtatvam (sic) explaining rdyiniddr in y. 1; notice gébdk there rendering détdonhé, Ner. stétd, or stétd (sic), J.*.
14. Some might suggest, ‘let his G. subject - - -’; but the G. was evidently on the same side with the Kavi. For that reason, and taking Kdvayas (chid((t)), with most scholars, as a nom. sg., I was forced to suppose that the schemes of the Kavi and the Gréhma brought on their own ruin. This is suspicious, as expressing too much meaning; but recall the reproach- es of the sinner’s own conscience, Y. 46, 11, and, as still more in point, the penal destruction induced by their own actions, Y. 31, 20. I would now prefer Kd@vayas as an acc. pl. KhratuS, a somewhat sacred word (cp. hvé Jydteus sérighandis khratim in this same hymn (v. 9)), would be far better referred to the righteous and orthodox party than to G. (cp. khratavé
Y. 46, 3): ‘Let our policy (that which protects the Cow (line c)) cast down the Kavis’.
More in detail, I regard it as very erroneous to turn the sense in favour of the infidel, referring ahyé@ to the holy prophet. Ahyd is charac- teristic. It is the repeated ahydchd of v. 1, the paouru-aé(é)ndo of v. 6, the Avé of v. 9, 10. ‘His és the Gréhma’ is exactly parallel to ‘his (are (?) the) Daé(évas’, v. 1, and it is greatly to be deplored that the constant omission of the expression of the forms of the verb which translates ‘to be’ in Iranian poetry (where those forms are to be understood) should be so much overlooked; for where forms of ai = ‘to be’ are understood, much becomes plain that was otherwise obscure; and it is also to be deplored that the antithesis should be so utterly missed qs it is in many translations, Notwithstanding my change of opinion as to hdithwoi, I do not repudiate my former text with any vehemence. The enclitic Adi might possibly stand with the preposition in the Avesta, and thwéz is some seven times repeated in the MSS.: ‘His is Gréhma, even his, but for Thee,---’. Reading hdithwéi, we might render ‘in the fettering’ (Haug) loc. sg. nt., cp. 18* si = ‘to bind’, or better, cp. a 274 si (?), ‘in the hurling down’.. Or Aéi#67, infin. in 62, ¢é, ‘for casting down’, (or ‘for binding’), that is, ‘to be cast down’, ad sub- jiciendum. The masth of the Pahl. trilr. seems to point to a reading ahuth- wot = ‘in this domination’, or ‘lordship’; recall anhéuschd above, and anhuthw(v)em in Yt. 8, 1. This suggestion is quite possible, and a similar one has been made without reference to the Pahl.; but we are bound to respect the MSS. in our first renderings. I would therefore modify S. B. E. XXXI, 64, putting ‘to be cast down’, or ‘bound’, in the first place, with the other suggestion ‘even to him’ doubtfully in the second place. As to emasculating ni Kdvayaschid(t) khratus [°as (?)] dadad(t) so far as to render: ‘The G. has fixed his attention’ on oppressing, etc., see the expressions in the next verse where v? takes the place of né@; and, for n? with dé = dh@ in a hostile sense, cp. Y. 44, 14 kathé Ashdi Drujem dyam zastay6, nt; Y. 48, 7 nt Aé(é)shmo dydtam - - -’, Even in the sense of ‘deposit’, in ¢ad(t)chd, Maedé, thwahmi adam nipdonhé&é), Y. 49, 10, we may have a different. and stronger ex- pression than merely ‘directing, placing’; cp. Ved. dhéd + ni. Also Kdvayaschid(t) is pl. both here, and in Y. 46, 11 khshathrais jajen Karapané Kadvayasché. It is not ‘to direct his attention’, but to have attention directed to him, and that in a most positive manner. As to varechdo, cp. S. B. E. XXXI, 65. Then the mechanical resemblance (Haug) between fraidivd and pradivas = ‘long since’ is, in my opinion, entirely to be rejected. (There is no indication that the evils discussed were long past.) The word is one of those forms of div = ‘to deceive’ for which we have no certain analogon
ae ee
“ye eat! Pree ae igen;
in the Ved.; cp. perhaps a second div.(P.W.). The meaning has been elsewhere maintained by the Pahl. trlr.; cp. divamnem. Fra = Ved. pra = ‘very’, as in prakalpya, also pragardha. I regard it as a great mistake to take the sentences as strung together throughout the verses (strophes), contrary to all poetical usage. Hyad(t) visentd etc. falls in subordinately, and to explain the foregoing, and is causal, showing the object for which nt Kdvay- aschid(t) khratus dadad(f). Avd = ‘aid, aiding’ (infin.). As to c, see 8. B. E. XXXI, 65. The deceit (fraidivd) is the false statement in line c. Is jatdydi (so) better to jan (han)? The nasal holds in infin. hdntave beside hatd, gantave beside gata (see gémadhyat), ydéntave beside yatd, etc. For ungunated jidydi, cp. chidydi, sdiajdi, and Ved. vrijddyai, etc. Haug directly inverts the sense of ¢: ,,Der Erde schrieb man die Sieg zw-+ +“. The Pahl. trlr. gives the only tolerable general sense, followed by all, Spiegel well leading the way. Valman gen. by position = ahyd@ (not so Ner.). Strictly and without gloss. read a: ‘His it 7s (om. mun) in accordance with the G. (or the greatness of the G.) - -’. Avarin ddndkéné seem to be an amplified rendering for the dual. In the difficulties of the place the trlr. thought that hichd refer- red to ‘the evil and the wise (the good)’. I should read alternatively in this sense with the Gatha more strictly held in view. I had rendered padirénd rigidly in its more usual sense, but in this trl. it should be translated ‘go to meet’, see visentd. Saochayad(t) was read vaochayad(t), or more pro- bably sdchayad(t), hence gift, vakti. The trls. are here naturally far from literal. But to those who use them properly they are full of suggestion. Var(e)chdo is determined to potentia rather than to Juminosa. This sheds light on a not unimportant Vedic word as to which scholars are not yet quite decided, some regarding ‘light’ as the idea present, others ‘power’.
15. If the reading néndsd@ can be regarded as naturally equalling nandsd, we should have the interesting sg. perf, agreeing with a nom. pl. neut. yd. I think however that a first person is rather indicated, as well as a present, or future, event. See the throng of first personals in the chapter. The K. had not yet ‘gone under’, far from it. It is a pity to modify the translations of the Avesta merely in order to show one more interesting likeness to a perf. form. Néndsé@ is 1% sg. conj. redup. aorist. of nas in the causative sense (cp. Vedic rirddhd 1% (?)sg. imper. for form; force intensive; cp. for meaning Y. 44, 13 katha Drujem nis ahmad(t) @ ndshama. Ya Karapotdoschd Kevitdosché is a distinct Iranian usage (see the middle Persian, Pahlavi or Pazand, language everywhere): ‘I will drive hence what are the K. and K’. The K. K. might be abstract nom. pl. fem. in ¢@ for concretes (cp. the English ¢y, in ‘commonalty’), or they are nom. sg. feminines; °¢doschd = °tdsché for °tdts + chd, (cp. astentdoschd = astentas
+ ché = astentdts + chd), so, better. See further as to lines 5 and ¢ S. B. E. XXXI, p. 65, 66. But demdné(é) is positively decisive against the comparison of maé(¢)tha as to meaning with the Sansk. mithu, mithy?. From the areté in Y. 33, 9, and bairydonté(é) here, we see that demdné(é) is a mere ‘change off’ for maé(é)thd. The spirits of the chiefs are to be borne to heaven, so here. See Y. 34, 6.
Pahl. Baré = vf = ‘apart’; as ordinary Pahl. ‘they will be’. Madam = aibi should apply to valmanshdn; otherwise, as ordinary Pahl., it should simply qualify yehabanéd; ‘and so it 7s when one gives to them’. In c Valman av6 might support the better rendering; ‘Those two are bearing that one to Thee’. Ner.’s anirékshaniyé is an alternative for andgamanatvat, dis is rendered pavan nikirishnd = sunirikshanataya Y. 28, 11, in Y. 31, 2 nirik- shanena, in Y. 33, 1 sunirikshya, in Y. 53, 8 by dgamanena = pavan ydtin- ishno, that is to say, he renders at times as a particle meaning ‘according to these things’, ‘as one observes’, and at times as a particle containing the idea of a prep. of approach (not necessarily thinking of ¢ = ‘to go’ at all); 1. , he renders alternatively. Andi$ = andgantd = anaydténishnth radi in Y. 28, 9, n@ ’gachchhanti = la ydtind in Y. 53, 6, and andgantad = min ana- yatdnishno in Y. 53, 8, while here we have anirikshaniyd and andgamatvdt, alternatives. '
16. Haug correctly follows the etymology suggested by the Pahl. trir. as reported by Ner. for ushuruyé. Accepting the reading syaschit, he could only render adjacens, or similarly. Cujus me ad rem-omnino for yéhyd ma dithischit is hardly judicious. Spiegel, as to this last, boldly follows tradition (sic). I however can only venture to put its suggestions in the second place. Haug’s Adewndos faciam has had no followers as a translation for ishyéng anhayd. See S.B.E. XXXI, p. 66. Ushuruyé(é) is, I now think, a miswriting for ushi + wruvé(é) (ep. the frequent miswriting of y for v else- where, ushé being a dat. (cp. Ind. uti), and urwve(é) = urdve, or urvé(é) (ep. gegve); by synthesis with three syllables, (yé) ushyurvé, the meaning being ‘for wide enlightenment, that is, teaching’, We should not indeed hesitate to overlook etymology where it is imperative to do so, but the father of Zend etymology, the Pahl. trir., should not be too hastily abandoned here. (It is to be hoped that even the most inactive student is aware that the one characteristic which all must praise in the Pahl. trir. is a never ceasing and, in the overwhelming number of instances, correct effort to indicate the etymology, his real, or supposed, errors lying in grammatical connection). ‘With enlarged intelligence’ is especially applicable in Y. 84, 7, with vaé(¢)d° in one line, and nac(é)chim tém anyem ytshmad(t) vae(éjdéd in another. Reading schyaschid(t), it is especially in place here. Adthis,
eae Cee Pee re re Wee ee eat eet
see 8. B. E. XXXI, p. 67. Dvaé(é)tha, poss. to bi = ‘to fear’, = ‘terrors’, d being not organic, vaé(é)tha = baé(é)thd; ep. non-organic f in #(d)bad(é)sh°.
For the shattered zednd@ here and in Y. 47, 2 (cp. also zedonhd Y. 28, 11, and ged vd in Y. 29, 7) we may say that except here, the context every- where speaks for the restoration of donhd, or énd, and here also it is rather favourable than the contrary. We have ‘with words from the mouth - ‘declare from the mouth’, ‘and delivering doctrinal statements from the mouth (?)’, and here ‘missives (¢s(k)yeig = *eshydni (2), as vispeig may equal vigvdni, in Y. 28, 1, from the mouth’; see the entire context with its denun- ciations. No causative of ah = as occurs in Zend, or Vedic; this is however no argument at all against the possibility of such a formation here.
The Pahl. ham, rendered ‘equally’, in accordance with the glossaries, may, I think, mean ‘all’ in these translations. See Ner.’s sarvam, otherwise Ner. saw hamak in the MS. before him. The trlr. evidently read schy- aschid(t). ‘By the sovereignty of A.’ fairly rendered: ‘A. as ruling well’. Kiné avi (so D.) = ‘vengeance for’. The idea of 7§(k)yzng is tentatively rendered by khvdstdr. The idea of anhayd, as a form of ah, so understood, and therefore as expressing ‘existence’ seems to account for arjdnikih. ‘Non- existence’ was the synonym of demerit with the Parsis of a thousand years ago. Amat, corresponding to yo, seems to show that the Pahl. MS. used by Ner. read mén for amat, as our present MSS. frequently do.
Y. XXXII.
See for summary and further remarks S. B. E. XXXI, pp. 68 — 79. Changes in opinion arrived at since its composition are not invariably noted here.