1. That ratus is the proper reading, as equalling the personal subject, I regard as being beyond a doubt. As observed 8. B. E. XXXI, p. 72, I follow the Pahl. here with great reluctance. My alternative translation there sees in yé&e)hydchd - - - mithahyd (a partitive gen. governed by hémydsaité(é), and ydchd héi @ erezvad, the needed antithesis; but the antithesis is also recognized in my accepted rendering here. In my rendering above I escape taking mthahyd as a (most suspicious) nom. pl. neutr., but I must accept a change of structure for yachd hédi @ erezvd. I would modify my alternative rendering now. Ydchd héi @ erezvd may be adverbially used, as so often, (cp. the constant usage in Greek); ‘and according to what things seem. to him just (in the other). But it may well be, on the other hand, that S(k)yaothand (syaothnd) is understood, with a transfer of subject in line c from line 4: ‘The deeds of whose fraud (the frauds of the one) he will reach (he administers justice to), and what ere (or seem) to him the right-
So
eous deeds of the other’. Ydsaité(¢) to yam + hem (governing the gen. mithahyd, or acc. s(k)yaothnd understood) = ‘come up with’, ‘overtake’. Otherwise yat + ham = ‘strive in rivalry together’; ‘whose good and evil deeds are balanced’, ‘strive together’, so in §. B. E. XXXI, of the Hamistakan. Otherwise hém(e)mydsaité(é) = ‘are mixed’, to mis, mais, so, some scholars. But the doctrine of the Hamistakan is anything but Gathic, as is also the distinction between good and evil Zoroastrians. This latter belongs entirely to the later Avesta; in the Gadthds we have the struggle for existence as against the Da6(6)va-worshipping foe. I therefore prefer my original explanation, and regard my later one in S. B. E. XXXI, 72, as the doubtful alternative. Mithahyd is a most suspicious neut. pl. in view of yé(¢)hyd. Haug here equals the acknowledged, or supposed oddity of ‘tradition’ by his perficienti for vareshaité(é), and his totam-rem colenti for hem ’m (sic) jdsaité(é).
The Pahl. renders @§ as ‘by the observation of’, or better ‘in con- sideration of these things’; a merely amplified instr. (so elsewhere). Aside from the Gatha read: (4) ‘In the case of a lord, his actions are to be done righteously ; [with a Dastur] who is wicked, one prays that he may become righteous, [and with a righteous Dastur, one desires him to become even more righteous], etc’.
2. Notice the adverbial loc. vanhdu used exactly as in Y. 47, 6. See also the adverbial loc. in vanhdu sravaht in Y. 30, 10. Astim = tandm = ‘person’ or ‘people’; with some, astim = dstiyem = “stand-by, help’; @ + std (= sthd); so, possibly, but cp. Y. 46, 12. where simply ‘person’ is the better meaning; to dsthi(?) = ‘bone’. I see no reason for abandoning the far more natural rendering of zaoshé(é) ‘in the friendship, love’ for the colder, if more theological, ‘in Thy will’. It is not very probable that Ahura should be besought (v.10) to grant all the hujéti, ‘blessings of life’, ‘in, or according to His will’, or to ‘please Himself’. Zaoshé(é) means I think there ‘in His good will’, ‘friendship’, or ‘love’ to the believer beyond any doubt. And here it similarly refers, with change of subject, to the love of the believer for his God. See the loc. in both places. Vérdi might more properly express the will of Ahura; but I think a more commonplace con- ception probable. Rddeiti, to Ind. rddh. Haug, well following the hints of Ner. in general in his verbatim trl., is unfortunate in departing from him in non-enistentiam for astém, and in propugnaculo for vdrdt.
Oe Vaeleta seems to be a nom. masc. in @ (comp. ahi). The absence of the s is to be remarked as having no analogy in the Sk. @ nouns. It is of course not impossibly a soc. instr, Verezényd = ‘working-class’ may be well compared, as to form, with vrijania. Vidas, part. pres. from second
Ww Feces aes ae, r Pe 4
vid = ‘inventive’, ‘clever in acquisition’; cp. vidatgdvao, Some seem to prefer the meaning ‘devoted’, to vidh (?), or vi-dayas to — (?) (possibly dé). Védstré(é) = ‘in the field’, ‘in the sacred service of Vohu Manah as representing the holy commonwealth’. Haug, while for the most part well following the hints of Ner. as to the root ideas present, is yet I think mis- taken in domesticorum-duorum vel servorum-duorum clientium-duorum for batth vd atvd (sic) verezényd airyamnd. He well abandons Ner. in his hint as to vahistd.
The earlier Pahl. trlr. had some form of vakhsh before him, or, more probably, misread the Pahl. letters in which vahdstd stood in his ancient MS., far older than that now written beside him (the letter » might equal kh, or h,). Vukhshinishnd is however itself no evil rendering for vahistd. There is no reason at all why pavan khvéshih, pavan vdrinih and pavan ayarmdnih (notice the regularity) should not be regarded as intentionally free for the nom. which the trlr. could not mistake, see similar usage elsewhere; the relation, labourer, and loyal friend act ‘with relationship’, ‘laboriousness’, and ‘loyalty’. All the pavan’s might be rendered ‘as’. Vichdyaritd (C.) as = ‘establisher’, ‘completer’, seems to render varzidar well enough. All the MSS. report forms of char.
4, The abl. thwad(f) is obviously the abl. of aversion in conjunction with the verbal postfix apd, and casting light on a possible adverbial abl. of aversion in Y. 32, 12. Nazdist#m would seem most naturally rendered as their ‘most familiar fault’, but, if it is at all possible, we should avoid any such a reference to the Druj., I will suggest a comparison with Y. 50, 3. Yam nazdistam gaé(é)\tham dregvao bakhshait?, and propose ‘the Lie-demon who approaches nearest to the saint for harm’. Then nadenté would have to be taken as acc. pl. (which is however doubtful). Still the composer may not be recognizing the faults in his people, but may be praying that offences against them may not occur: ‘I deprecate stubborn disobedience
_ from Thee, and I deprecate contempt from my relationship, and the near- ness of Satan from my district; and I deprecate the complainers from my airyaman, and bad care from my cow; let not these evils befall Thee, nor my relationship, nor my district - - -’, etc. But, on the other hand, the composer may mean this verse as in antithesis to the last, and referring not to a baé(é)tu, etc., as vahista to an ashduné(é), but to the evil oaé(é)tu, verezena, and airyaman. Airyamanascha nadenté look like two genitives, and the ae positive ablatives are thwad(t) and vastrad(t). ‘I who am deprecating disobedience - - toward Thee, the evil prince’s contempt (see
Y. 45, 11), the Lie that most easily beguiles the villager, and the captious
Lo
peer (all offences to be deprecated as from the Deity thwad(t), as sing against Him)*; then comes the offence against the sacred cattle. The gram- matical relations favour this view, tarémaitim and drujem as subjective in the baé(é)tu, verezéna and airyaman, and asrustim and mantim as objective, things to be deprecated from the Deity and the Herd. Haug, well following the hints of Ner., proceeds correctly enough till he reaches the last words, when he renders a+campo pessimam cogitationem = von der Erde Flur die verderblichste Gesinnung (2). *InS.B E. XXXII preferred tar2°, etc, thus, as subjective.
Pahl. It is far from certain that the trir. failed to see min = ye (1) who; see bard yazishnd hémanam = yaedi apd. Ménich after the noun in dar is naturally rendered ‘with whom’, but ‘what also’ is far from impossible. “Mantdm, although not from ma, is well rendered by padméné.
For Ner.’s adhamatapraméané read perhaps adhamapraméndah.
5. Avanhdné(¢) dat. inf. in dné (cp. dhiirvane (?)) from a denom. avanh: cp. savanhaiti§, aé(e)nanhaitt. Another prefers a dat. inf. from av in sénai. Others seem inclined to regard ava as a verbal prefix plus °xhdné = séne = ‘to remain’; ‘I call---to remain’. Another modifies this by ‘at the end of the journey’, avasiine. Apdnd, mid. part. A (4) with the accus. seems to have the force ‘of the Latin in with the acc. as in saecula saeculorum, whereas one would more naturally connect @ in line ¢ with asha@d(t), leaving ereed§ pathé, as governed directly by the force of apané understood. Otherwise we should have the causal abl., and @.. . patho as a Khshathrem. ‘Tn the paths, and continuing on in them’, as ‘in the kingdom from the sacred regulating authority of the Good Mind’. Save as to yaste(é) and apdné, Haug follows the indications of Ney. as to the root-ideas present. As to the first, he improves upon Ner., but his diripientis for apané is not judicious.
The Pahl. trlr. errs, as elsewhere, in regarding yasté(é) as a verbal form. He read (?) apd né in b. Avdyand may express possibility, but here ‘they are necessitated ’, or ‘they shall’ seems the best rendering. Dropping the glosses, the trl. of ’ and c is very close. Ner., recognizing ¢é(é) in yasté(@) as the personal pronoun, still does not abandon his master, the Pahl. trlr. with regard to yas. He seems to take the Pahl. infin. yamtinishno (for it may be regarded as an infin.) in the frequent Vedic sense of the imperative. By pagchitye, or °ve, he meant pacchidttare.
6. Avé mananhé is a varying expression for the ‘good mind’, and was used on account of, and in allusion to, the mention of V. M. as possessing the khshathra in verse 5, but still more, on account of the extended dis- cussion of the mental attitude described all along from yerse 1, and especi- ally in verse 4, where it is most emphatic, Its result and incidence js ta
tor izya(°d2); cp. gad(t) toc vas(e)m? in Y. 43, 1. Some would seem inclined to take vahistdd(t) in the later sense reported by the Pahl. trlr.; I think this will hardly do for the older Gath’. We might also desire to point lines d and ¢ to mean that information was sought as to what particular fields to work; ‘those (fields) will I seek according to Thy direction’. But this is hardly expressed here. Haug, departing from the hints of Ner. as to the root ideas present in kaya and izyd@, curiously renders those words by in- essentia and venerabor.
The Pahl. does not necessarily mistake the case of mainyeéus, as Ner. might lead us to suppose. Ménavadén may well be taken as a gen. by position under the circumstances, and in view of the Gatha; ‘that one who seeks from the Vahisht of the spirits’. Otherwise, as of course, if the Pahl. is read aside from its original, he seems also to fail to see a first person in kaya; ‘he who desires the spirits from heaven’; but in ¢ he recognizes the first person, showing that he in all probability i not miss it altogether in a. Atyydrinédé shows that avd was mistaken for an imper. = ‘help thou’. Ner. seems to show that the idea of ‘better than another man’ may lurk in gabré 7 shapir gabra; strictly atyydrinédo should be understood here. Gabrdé should not equal ‘a man’s (labour) ’; ‘a man who is a good man’ is gloss, *
7%. Vaithydché (sic) would seem to free us from the awkward a(é) in
oaée(é)thyachd. It is simpler to have to deal only with hoa + tya; but
vae(é)tu remains to be accounted for; and saé(é)t° is gunated sit. We may be reluctant to recognize so Sbstraet a rendering as md Cee vahistd bae(e)thydchd’ = ‘to these my best interests, or possessions’, but see the immediately reeeetiic’ ta tod, very possibly a neut. pl., referring back to an equally undoubted’ neut. pl., y@, which has reference to what I hold to be also an undoubted neut., vohi vdstryd (Y. 29, 1). Then see the abstracts in v. 4 asrustim, akemchéd mano, tarémaitim, akem in v. 2 with the pl. neut. in v.1; while, if we look at what follows, we come immediately upon arethrad td yd with the strangely significant mainyiim + + - hdkurenem inv. 9. If any neutr. plurals are possible, and no one fails to recognize them often, and, if abstracts are possible, and no one doubts but that the Avesta, as indeed the Veda, often deals in them, I think we can find no reason for twisting the texts, or the syntax, here. Dareshad(t) must refer back to ahmdd(t) vahistad(t) mainyéus, or to some subject in a lost verse. No MS. gives us Mazddo. Yd = yéna = ‘how’. Magaonéd (maghénas) is to be understood as in S. B. E. XXXI, p. 75, note 2. The composer wishes the Holy Immortals to come to the offering, and behold his success in rallying the monarch with his chiefs. In passing, we may notice that sruye(é) (sruvé) = ‘I am heard, obeyed’ (the words were no longer aguéta,