the shape of sh, as it does in fshébis from pas = pag; consider also Sansk. kdca = kasha from akag = kash(?)). (In this connection I beg to express my doubts as to the propriety of referring pagu to a pa¢ = ‘to bind’ (2) the process was the reverse; pag + u may have meant the ‘browser’, ‘the grazing cow’, the original form of the word being our fsé; and from the fact that it had a ‘tether’ came the notion of ‘to bind’. Pa¢(?) meant ‘to tether (the cow)’; and I strongly suspect a connection between Vedic psd and pac (?) mediated as above. The idea that primitive speech developed from verbal roots is, it is to be hoped, now past. Fsé is then the grazing cow (as is Sshu)). fatu may well be the original of ritu. We may take it as concrete, or abstract; see the other abstracts; but cp. the ratw of Y.29, 2, 6 who was to nurture and tend the sacred Cow, the agricultural chief of Y. 29,1 (see Y. 51, 4). In the abstract it was the law representing the regulator; so in Wicoleos 43.6,
The earlier Pahl. trlr. grievously errs as to dreshvd, probably having had @ reshvd before him in his MSS., or at least certainly so dividing, he renders reshvd, naturally enough, as if it were from a stem in °van. Am bdzaz, in the gloss, may indeed be alternative trl. for ar(e)shva (ar), and it is very possible that a later ancient scholar, in working over the texts which lay before him, should have felt necessitated to work-in the alter- native translation, so as to make a readable whole. Am bédzdi, if gloss, ex- presses the Parsi doctrine that, purification was needed in connection with bloody wounds. Min zak would then be properly gloss with ddzd2; the original Pahl. trlr. may have read: ‘Up Ahura, from the inflictor of wounds deliver me’ (lé = méi); and then alternatively: ‘Up, Ahura, purify me’ (ar in the sense ‘perfect me’); see its form as 24 se. imper. (24 cl.). Also bitndak- minishné may well have been meant as a yoc., some scholars also holding that Ar(a)maitt, which it literally renders, may be in that form. Otherwise Ar(a)maité is taken as a comitative rather than as a pure instr.: ‘Give me energy together with a perfect mind, that is, give me energy and a perfect mind (acc.)’. From what text, or error, did his vohtiman griftér arise? The reading vanhu (vohu) yazavé ddd (sic) might have been considered as equal- ling: ‘May I establish’, or ‘take’ (notwithstanding an active form) ‘the benefit from the venerated being’. The trir. could not credit hazed in a good sense, hence his avd stahamak and gloss. There may be some question as to whether Ner.’s codhaya simply renders bézd7 repeated in the gloss, or whether he read a form of ruch; cudh might well render forms of ruch. Ner. seems to have partly detected the error of the Pahl. trl., for he puts pidakardt in the gloss. Haug’s text of Ner. is chiefly helpful in that it proves, as usual, that his MS. was independent.
13. Vouru-chashéné(é) may perhaps = ‘that I may see at my will’ (Darm.). If vourw = uru (so the later Av.), it occurs in the Gathas only here Ved. jéshi, joshi, as to their outward form, are not to be exactly comp. with doisht = *de¢ + st, a gunated imperatively used pres. of dis = ‘show’; use as jéshi joshi (2). (Yotst from consonantal root gunated supplies the analogon). Abifra; cp. astabifrem = asta-abifrem, Vd. 13, 44 = ‘not. double’, ‘un- doubtful’ = ‘distinct characteristic’; cp. ddvayantam, ddvayum (dva), so bi = dvi; °frem (pra) = ‘full’; cp. (spridhas) jarani-prds. Ashi§ = (more properly) ‘sacred rewards’ here, otherwise, ‘the holy rituals’, and originally purae-indoles. Daé(é)ndo may possibly = ‘souls’ here, but see fradakhstd in Y. 31,17 in the sense of ‘revealer’. Fra in fradakhshayé seems genuine and emphatic iteration, and is not interpolated like similar prefixes elsewhere.
Vouru- in the Pahl. is rendered perhaps freely by kamak, chashané(é) by chdashishn referred by West to chaksh = ‘to tell’ in the Sansk. (also in the Veda), more ‘to see’ in both. In the Pahl. chdéstand seems to mean for the most part, if not exclusively ‘to teach’; ‘in a teaching according to desire’; i. e. perhaps freely = ‘in a wide teaching’ (‘wide’ to the. root in vouru(kasha) etc. Pavan patikih = abifrd, as if abifrd meant the ‘stead- fast characteristic’, ‘the not-twofold’, or ‘not-doubtful thing’. Line c is very close. Dropping the glosses, read: ‘Grant me, since joy is to be. taught, or seen, with desire, that which is thoroughly yours with power, (b) yea that which is in Your Kingdom of Atharmazd which is venerating recognition (or reward)' on account of a good mind-.-’. Ner.’s constructions are here more Pahlavi than Sanskrit; Spiegel well suggested caktyd for caktéd in Ner.; see the Pahl.
14. Abyd ratdbyd zaothrdbyd seems sufficient warrant for taking ratdém as an acc. fem. sg.
The datives, Mazddi, and ashdi, are perhaps preferable to the vocatives. Ydchd repeats the Iranian usage; ‘and what are the obedience, and prince- ly power, in the sacred commonwealth’; neuters, or attracted accusatives, -from rdétam and ustanem. The Pahl. trlr. is admirably free, and did not mistake the 1% for the 3" pers. Pavan rddih is free, or lit. Val-.-- Atharmazd shows a dat., not a voc. in the MS. used.
XXXIV,
See for summary and further remarks S. B. E. XXXI.. pp. 80—92.
Changes in opinion arrived at since its publication are not always noted here,
x, Déonhad as a 1% seg. conj. aor. seems unmanageable without recon-
struction of the context. There is no reason whatever for denying that @
may equal a in ahmd (cp. yem = yam, akém = akam, etc.) as an instr. to
eel ape po
ahmai, while at the same time we assert that that 2 equals @ in dhmé = dsma = ‘we were’, ‘we may be’. In all human probability had chmé = ‘we may be’ been first suggested, those who have advocated it would now prefer the instr., as a keen discovery. There does not happen to be any Ved. asmé@ surviving to correspond with the asmé dat. or loc., but zhmd, as equalling ‘we may be’, is especially undesirable on account of the apparent necessity which it entails to take dasté(e) as an infin. See S. B. E. p. 83. Paourutemdi§ refers back to paourvatdtem; it is sociative. In Y. 33, 14 the prophet offers his initiative as a chieftain, as he does his life; and here he offers them in company with the chiefs of his party. Dasté(é) is a 374 ge, pres. mid. (for passive) with a nom. pl. neut. understood, which belongs to the partitive gen. aé(e)sham ‘of these’; that is, ‘of the equivalents to these gifts datd by us are given’. With zhma.. . dasté(é) = ‘we are to be granted’, consider: ‘those whom I can help through deeds, words, and the sacrifice (of my goods?) - - + with ever-repeating gift by all of these we Shall be given favours’ (?).
The Pahl. trlr., recognizing hm@ as an instr. of the first personal, found difficulty in accounting for déonhd as in the second person in line 3. He seems to have regarded it as a first Sg. subj. aor., which of course it may be, aside from its context. He was the more easily led astray, as his MSS. seem to have read tarbyo for taé(é)ibyo, throwing his rendering into the 1st and 2=4 pers. Read c possibly ; ‘and of these to thee we are giving as the more favoured’. (Péshtar sg. for pl. as often.) ‘We give’ is critically free for ‘by us are given’, or ‘we are to give’. Ner. renders the Pahl. intelligently. Spiegel well restores wdakdndm for udakdm in Ner.
2. MainyéuS vanhéus here recall the mainyim of the two pious chiefs (cp. Y. 33, 9; Y. 43, 16), but mainyeus is taken here more in the concrete, and as nearly paralleled with the spentahydcha neres. Some writers prefer taking s(k)yaothané as a nom. pl.; ‘all the deeds - - - are offered’; but as other things beside deeds had just been mentioned as offered, I think it better to take S(k)yaoth(a)n@, as an instr. Sg. Patri.gaé(é)thé(é), a com- positum agreeing with vahméé) the short 7 of part showing connection; cp. parikshit, pdrigrdmika. Tt means that worship was celebrated in a hearty manner, and as the expression of national feeling. One scholar has well considered the possibility of vahmée(é) as = vahmyd, not surmising however
that the might actually be read yd@, if such a text were necessary. Looking to the Ved. vdhni for an analogon to vahmé(é), we should expect vazmé(é) but the Aryan h of the original word has held, the sibilant element having perished. We might also consider vai (vanh) as in vivenhatd
ta ct a
(Y. 53, 5), or the 7 (?) vas = ‘to aim’; cp. ishiidy? as = ‘the aiming of confessing prayers’. Stéta@m = ‘of hymns’, or ‘of praisers’. Aside from
the gloss, ménavadich might be regarded as gen. Afam is properly gloss. Having noticed the correct reproductions of the Pahl., we may notice his apparent mishap at gaé(é)thé(¢) = bard ydmtinam; but a 1st pres. may render a loc. + ahmi understood. Did the trir. have gaé(é)thé(é) before him? It is greatly to be doubted. He renders forms of gaeé)tha by those of gehano elsewhere; see the next strophe, also Y. 31, 1; 43, 6; 43, 7, etc. He is quite right in supposing a 1** pers. implied Pere see e@hmd, and ddma@ in verses 1 and 3. Eliminating this real, or supposed, error, he comes out fairly close to his original,
3. Some take gaé(¢)thdo vispdo as nom. in apposition with ‘we’ under- stood as the subject of démd@, while d@ defines khshathréi, but 4 occurs constantly as a postposition; cp. Y. 28, 11 with instr.; 29, 5 with dat. ; 29, 9 (?) with acc. (?); 30, 7 with gen., or dat.; 31, 13 gen.;\ 31, 21 gen.; 32, 8 gen.; 33, 1 dat.(?); 33, 6 abl. gen.; here; 34, 10 loc,; 34, 11, instr’. 43, 3 acc. yéng ad; 44, 1 dat., or acc.; 44, 11 téng a; 44,12 khatarem a; 45, 9 abl.; 46, 2 dat. (?); 46, 8 tanvem a; 46, 10, dat.; 48, 11 keng a; 51, 4 gen.; 51, 14 gen.; 53, 1 dat.; 53, 2 dat.; 53, 6 instr., while ag prep. with acc., see 33, 5. I therefore prefer gaé(é)thdo --- 4. On the other hand, a nom. is not impossible, and @ with a loc. (this same khshathréz) is used at least once, cp. Y. 49, 8; once more, on the contrary, khshathréi occurs *some four times without @ ition as prep., or postposition, and once
with it as postposition (Y. 34, 10). Vedic eee favours @ with the loc. only as a postposition. Consider the rendering; ‘we all the inhabitants (?) in the kingdom’. Thraostd is a 374 so. mid. een fem. pl. as with neutr., or, if we recoil from this, it is safer as a 2™4 pl, ‘which ye have perrecuea It cannot be a 274 sg. (with Haug and others). But I can hardly take dréi
- vispdis = ‘with exclusion (Ved. dré) of all others (is there help with thee for the righteous)’. Ardéi is the same word which is found in Ar(a)- maiti; ep. ara in Ved. ardmati. Ara is a very special Gathic expression. As to its general sense there can be little doubt. It is hardly desirable to take huddonhé as a gen. sg.; it is a nom. pl. ‘we, the well, or wisely, doing’ (224 da = dhd).
Notice the general correctness of the Pahl. Ner.’s svddhinatayd (sic) was probably intended for °tdydm, or °tayd. Yd seems to refer naturally to samriddhim which represents géhdén6 rather as wealth than as population. Ner. varies in rendering géhdnd; see Y. 31, 1 Jagatyal Y. 48, 6, 7 bhiwi- bhitteh; Y. 50, 3 prithivyah.
4, Reading the a of aststem short, fae rendered potentem = ‘not