but vahista) makes it possible that asrustém should be meant in an objective sense; that is, he deprecated disobedience toward himself as God’s prophet, and as representing Him. It was a negative Sraosha. If we wish to bring our rendering down to the closest detail, we might regard ndo aztar(e) as meaning ‘between us two’, the magavan and Z., the nemadaitis referring to the humble loyalty of Z., and the chithrdo rdtayd to the munificence of the magavan. But such detail, interesting as it is, is hardly expressed in the language. Haug follows, as often, the hints of Ner. as to root ideas present, and as usual for the most part corrects his syntactical errors; but his text is erroneous in daresataché, and his trl., in modi = rdtayo.
To bring the Pahl. nearer to the Gathad ydtéinishnd might be taken as an infin for imper. (see v. 6), were it not for the disturbing gloss. ‘ Be ye in coming to that which is me’ (sic; recall the Pahl. usage). It is hard to say whether pavan piimman + - - navak is an intelligent free ex- pression for 6aé(é)thydchd, or whether dnd = ‘ with the mouth’ (see remarks on p. 425) was seen in the incipient letters sy4 = oa, or, in Pahl., possibly dnd. The syllable dim probably stood, as so often, separated in the MS. used by the trlr. from whose text our present Pahl. trl. was transcribed, hence his unfortunate, and perhaps superstitious, translation of a separated syllable. I had rendered (in the face of Ner.’s second persons) yemalelinédo as a 3°4 so, from a determined purpose to avoid favouring the trlr. The first gloss necessitates a bad rendering of a, so with Ner., but he avenges himself by rendering nikézishn as an infin. for imper., notwithstanding dareshad(t). Of course Ner.’s gloss, being most probably contemporaneous with his text, forces us to render dgamane, ‘in my coming’. I preferred dtmaprakatéh = ‘manifest to yourself’, as ‘in the soul’ does not occur in the Pahl. Notice Ner.’s improvement on the Pahl. in line e.
8. Fraviizdim = *fraveddhvam (Haug provenite (?)). Aretha is obviously the collective of which yasnem, staomyd, vachdo etc. are the par- ticulars. I am strongly tempted to regard dété as a nom. pl. neutr., reading Ameretdoschéd and Haurvatds as nominatives: ‘Your gifts are Immortality and Weal, the eternal two, Your possession’. Utayiit? is thus better accounted for. Otherwise: ‘Give Ye the eternal two, Your offered-possession of Immor- tality (°¢asch@) and Weal (haurvataté)’. Draoné is a nom., or acc. of draonah, and may be compared with drdvinas, but many might prefer connecting the word with the soma-bowls, dréndni, taken to express the offering. It is better exegesis to derive words from familiar objects where possible, and I would present an emphatic alternative in the sense of ‘sacred objects’, or ‘offering’, figuratively used; cp. ‘the mathra of fatness’; ‘ Your sacred gifts i.e. Weal and Immortality’; see the Pahl. Are A. and H.voe.?: ‘Give ye, O A, and H.’(?).
ee eee ee ee er em, he ee f
The Pahl. trlr., seeing the proper root and form also of fravédizdim, reports as his first translation a dat. infin. in s(k)yavdi, understanding: ‘ Give ye forth for my instruction, or proclamation, those things which are for the approaching me (?) by V.M.. And this last he rendered by ‘let Vohuman approach me’. But an alternative translation may well be present in the gloss; see its first pers. Vd seems to have been rendered, or read, as odo in 6. Staomyd is freely rendered, or was read, stdumi 4, sandhi having been seen. Or it seems to show that the Gatha word stood before the trlr. here in the indefinite Pahl. character. The GAtha texts now written before the Pahl. trl. were not those seen by the original trlr. In Ner., fearing to favour the subject, some might render prakrishtanivedanayd at once too literally, and too far from nivedaydmi. Prakrishta® means simply ‘forth’, and with °nivedanayd [-nend| equals simply ‘announcement’.
9. As we desire torender mainyéim as objectively as possible, I suggest that the sperta mainyu may be here alluded to; but the most timid scholar will not venture to deny that the efficiency of the mainyu, as inspiring the two chieftains, is of course, as in every occurrence of similar concretes, included. The poetical personification of the animus (to a great extent the theme throughout) of the two chiefs (probably Jamaspa and Vistaspa (Y. 49, 9)) is to be borne to Heaven. Sar(e)dyaydo = lit. ‘of the two chieftains’ (or abstract for concrete) ‘of the two chieftainships (?)’; cp. Ved. gardha, sardhya, a formation with the suffix ya from sard = gardh (gridh). Vathra mad(é)tha are acc. pl. neutrs. (acc. of goal); mayd is adverbial instr. Baretit has a subject in a lost, or past, verse; see perhaps a magavd; or it is merely impersonal with a quasi allusion to Ameretatdd(t) and Haurvatad(t), see vy. 8, ‘let them bear’, equalling bairydonté(é); see Y. 32, 15. To those who insist on comparing méthu, a device will not be wanting to make that impossible meaning fit here; but I do not think that this opinion will be permanently established. Vathra mae(é)thd are evidently ‘the shining, or heavenly, abodes’. Ari, a loc. sg. nt., for meaning cp. dra(maiti), ‘in readiness, completeness’; see the Pahl. The union of souls in the future state recalls the sublime Yt. 7, 10, where the Bountiful Immortals are described as being ‘of one thought, and word, and deed’. What they were ‘on high’ their adherents were also on earth, and in Heaven. Notice the undoubted depth and refinement of the conceptions. Haug, failing to follow the hints of Ner. as to saredyaydo, édthrd, maya, baretd, and hd-kurunem, rendered respectively per-totum-annum-efficacium suo-igne + - + origine- +>, indole - - -, praeparatio - + - (?).
Dropping the gloss of the Pahl., and bringing line a into syntactical connection with 2, read, as nearer the Gatha: ‘Thus as Thine, (or to Thee)
Who art A. Jet them bear (sic from line 4) the spirit of the giving of (2 under- stood) the chieftainship (which appertains to (sic) = of)the increasing of right- eousness (gen. by position); to the abode of glory with wise judgment let them bear even a good mind, which is the perfect cooperation of those when their souls are in harmony’. I would notice once more the fact that the sign of the instr. may have been, as often, carelessly omitted from Vohtiman.
Notice Ner.’s curious freedom; avikritamanast for dedrindnd Vohiman, bareti: mananhda.
10. Stéi (= *sthé) would more naturally be regarded as a dat, from std than a loc., and, as a dat., its use would only vary slightly. But it may be referred to a radical stem in a(a) in the loc.; compare Lanman’s Noun-inflection in the Veda, p. 449. dd¢a-gve, sam-sthé, also khé. No example of the masc. locative in é from a radical @ stem occurs in the Veda. One scholar has read véspdos toc = ‘all thy - -’. Ustd loc. adverbial = ‘in the blessing, of salvation’ rather than ‘according to Thy will’. It is perhaps better to render it with tanim asa compositum; cp. ustd-ahurem*(?) in Y. 29, 1. Others take the word as = ‘ joyful’. Haug avoids his usual rashness here, following the hints of Ner. as to roots, and reducing vague freedom to order. *Ustd loses inflectional force cp, aay
The Pahl. trlr. is certainly free as to pawan harvispo. I suppose ‘that they are for this duty’ is an alternative translation conveying the idea of ‘holy life’ as against that of ‘mere prosperity’ in hi-ztvishnih. As to stdz, I should say that the trlr. saw an infin., and rendered freely in the conj. for imper.; see Ner.’s samtishthantu, recognizing the fact that an infin. may express an imper. He did not at all Suppose stéz to be a 34 pl. conj.; see Y. 31, 8 where he renders by a 3°4 se. pres., so at Y. 45, 10; 49, 2. In Y. 46, 16 he renders as an infin., hastishn. In 50, 2 he omits in the text, in the gloss perhaps rendering ‘in time’; that is, as infin. ‘in being’, in Y. 50, 6 again as an infin. ‘hastéshnih ’. We might almost hope that these syntactically more correct renderings show freedom, or at least exceptional and accidental error in our present passage. Notice the similarity of the line a@ as to the structure of the first words here with that inv.11. The trir. did not seriously intend to render dbakhshdhvd literally as a 374 pl. He was aware that °ivd = °sva, as the Qna sg. mid. imper. term. (see for instance, dahvd = yehabinéd pl. for sg. Y. 50, 2); see its gloss frdz vakhsh which is literally a 24 gg. imper. He may be said even to make the distinction between ‘being’ and ‘becoming’, hent? and bavaiitt. Ukhshyd@ is recognized as a 224 so. imper. Vakhshindi is certainly a 24 so, and I think that we have a conj. It should be remarked however that imperatives in ¢
sometimes give the trirs. trouble. It is difficult to say whether Ner. meant ‘the blessings of life’ by sujtvanayah, or disciples.
11. For merezhddid we may choose the meaning ‘pardon’, or ‘purify’. ‘Pardon’ is the more objective, and therefore the more probable. Surely it ought not to be necessary to cite this verse to prove that the ‘Immortals’ were poetically, and perhaps dogmatically, personified in the Gdthds; see — however, beside other passages, Y. 28, 3, 5, 7; .Y. 29, 2, 11; Y. 34, 5, 6; Y. 48, 5; Y. 50, 5; Y. 51, 2, where others beside Ahura are addressed. As to ddd@i, some have been inclined to recognize a root ad = ‘to pray’, noticing azdé as a possible participle. Id might possibly be compared with an ad (as in with an an, in Gnmd etc.); cp. also akhsh = tksh. One scholar preferred: ‘Be merciful to me in every care’ (reading ddyé@ instr. of ddi = ddht). But the second dd, dhd is the obvious root, the form being a dative by transfer to the a declension. There appear to be no forms of the dat. neut. from @ roots in the Rig Veda; but cp. the infin. graddhé. ‘For every service rendered’ is the sense , including prayer, offering, and activity in the holy cause. See the idea more closely defined in the next verse with reference to zavé(ddd).
The Pahl., proceeding with much correctness throughout, falls into dis- order by taking pact? as = pait? = ‘chieftain’ (instr. or dat.; comp. 777). ‘For the deed, or gift, = dddi’ may have been thought to be equivalent to a dat. inf. for imper.: ‘Be ye for the giving of everything to me’, rendered by; ‘give me whatever (sovereignty) there is’ (?). With Ner. spendarmad means ‘the earth’. He errs in ¢rinomi, having read am nydkhshid6, which may be a 1** sg. pret., and rendering the pret. freely as pres. Kshamaydmi following out his error in ¢rinomi equals ‘I assume the attitude of patience’, or ‘I ask indulgence’ (dmérzidé li (2) read for dmérzédé li). Mattah of the gloss, which is however omitted by Haug’s MS., would forbid of course the rendering ‘I pardon’, even if that were otherwise possible.
12. Haug is judicious here. His véva Armaiti also raises an interesting question; does ahurd refer to Armaité? It is possible, but on the whole hardly probable. Zavé.ddé@d. = hava + ddhd, as an instr. of the noun in radical ¢. Fse-ratim; fsé-occurs in three MSS. in Y. 39, 5, and @ some- times is written for @, as in yéig. fse = fs? = psd. But it may not be necessary to select the less frequent readings. If the @ can vanish alto- gether, as in wend -psnydya, vigvd-psnyasya, there is no difficulty about its becoming @ under exceptional circumstances, and it may appear even as e before vr, as it ends a syllable; fseratu = “*psd-ritu = *psa-ritu = *psartu. So fse or fsé = fshu, as psd = psu (see psdras and psuras). (S gets into