^{page 75 note 2} The error of sātūnd = ‘ to proceed,’ mistaking zavaiti for a form of zu = jū ‘ to hasten, ’ is of unusual interest, for it affords an instance where Nēr. totally differs from what has been supposed to be his sole original; and which was indeed for the most part his text, as he himself states. This error of the Pahlavi was also motived by a rational criticism. ‘ Hastening’ was certainly more natural to a ‘horse’ than ‘invoking.’ Nēr.'s ākroçayanti, kila, çāpaṁ kurvanti is, however, correct. They ‘ curse’ indeed, according to the meaning of the original, as determined by the contexts.

^{page 75 note 3} Or reading aē for III = ‘ 3.’ This is clear to him; that they would perform the Āfrīn [(i.e. the three sacred parties)].

^{page 75 note 4} I would now prefer to read nafrīn in the gloss; as we have here what seems to be an interesting alternative opinion (always a matter of critical importance).

^{page 76 note 1} So, better than reading an ī as the sign of gen. with D. (Pt. 4); see Nēr.'s accus. Here Nēr. adheres to his correct idea ‘ ākroçayati.’ His (Nēr.'s) gṛhītāram must be intelligent freedom. I cannot see how either zōt, or zaotar, could literally mean ‘taker.’ Nēr.'s addition ‘āste’ points his rendering of the gloss correctly; and his ‘yo’ (yaḥ) shows us that he preferred to render tōrā ‘ox’ rather than ‘ cow’; but in the Gāthas ‘ gau’ is feminine, at least predominantly so. Without Nēr.'s yo … āste we could not have known his idea of it just here.

^{page 76 note 2} Or we might take this present in the sense of an imperative, with Nēr.'s more correct b‘ava: ‘Be thou issueless.’

^{page 76 note 3} Nēr. intelligently uses the verbal rather than the prepositional form, duḥkīrtyā upagūhitaḥ; his ‘ b‘ava’ led him to omit the conj. yehvūnāt.

^{page 76 note 4} Notice Nēr.'s varšasi ‘ rainest’ in the rare sense of ‘ give,’ so also elsewhere.

^{page 76 note 5} Perhaps meaning ‘ (to) this one (i.e. to me) even.’ B. (D., Pt. 4) seems arzanīg aēič, avoiding the plural, but Nēr. has anurūpeb‘yah, and C. (the Parsi-Pers. MS.) has also the plural. These frequent ‘improvements’ of B. (Pt. 4) make it often look very like a modern revision which anyone might make.

^{page 76 note 6} Reading mūršv’ as an attempted transliteration. Nēr.'s dusṭodarāya seems the best explanation of the Pahl. and original. I felt inclined to read it (the Pahl.) after mae’deh = ‘ stomach’; but see the original. I fear, however, that I was inclined to rebel too freely against ‘tradition’ in 1883–87, having been inclined to see a trace of ‘macerate,’ ‘growing thin’ in the word; from this perhaps was derived my adjective ‘ niggard.’

^{page 76 note 7} Nēr. continues to correct this well-meant error with his ākroçayati = ‘ curses.’ The Parsi-Pers. tries to break away from ravēt, etc., with rējēd.

^{page 76 note 8} C. (the Parsi-Pers.) has suvār (or ‘suwār’); see also Nēr.'s netāram, both in accordance with bāšārem.

^{page 76 note 9} Or ‘ thou art not.’ I almost think we may take yehvūnīh in an imperative sense again, with Nēr., who had no hesitation with his b‘ava; or did he look at the original ?; without much doubt.

^{page 76 note 10} It is highly probable that Nēr. meant simply ‘fleet’ with, sād‘aka (so elsewhere). He could hardly have been ignorant as to what kārīzār meant. Yet prad‘ānakāryiṇo, literally at least, corresponds to sād‘aka in its more common sense. He meant, however, merely prad‘āna- as ‘ warhorses.’

^{page 77 note 1} Notice that θāx^*tan′, while being the correspondent to niθaxta, is yet apparently not applied to it directly as a translation, while this niθaxta seems to be translated by the less closely corresponding nihādan’, which should mean ‘to place’. rather than ‘to stop’ them, and dāštan’ might mean the same thing. I think, however, that the words have become twisted about in the course of time and of re-copying, θaxtan must really translate niθaxta.

^{page 77 note 2} Beyond a doubt the ‘d’ of jaiδyẹh should be expressed; the Pahl. word is ‘zaidih’ (or ‘zaidih’); but see Nēr.'s departure in ‘upakramasi,’ whereas at Y. IX, 74, he has the more natural yāčayitāraṁ, though there he mistakes the grammatical relation.

^{page 77 note 3} Not impossibly ‘fleetness’ was the dominant idea. Nēr., however, has prāṇena.

^{page 77 note 4} Kār may mean ‘agriculture.’

These glosses, of course, mar the simple rich sense of the original; see further on.

^{page 77 note 6} This is rather an amusing error for karšyāo, which should mean ‘ a circular (racecourse)’; but certainly not as above, which is valuable as a mistake followed by Nēr., and well fitted to warn us against absolute submission to ‘tradition’ without discrimination.

^{page 77 note 6} A. (DJ. (J²)) alone has this interesting gloss. It is not in Nēr., nor in the Parsi-Pers.

^{page 77 note 7} Nēr. corrects this again.

^{page 77 note 8} Nēr. follows the original Avesta, but yehvūnīh may have been meant in this sense (b‘ava).

^{page 78 note 1} I think that the ‘ ū ’ of pūrtak corresponds to Avesta ‘ ere ’ = Indian ‘ ṛ ’ as in ‘pūrnā’ to ‘perenāyu.’ See pūrnākān′ in Y. 8, 9, and ‘ere’ (= ‘ṛ’) is closely related to -eš-, as ‘pūrt-’ = is to ‘peret-,’ and ‘-ak’ is the familiar addition as in vohū-k for ‘vohū.’

^{page 78 note 2} The origin of the use of this word ‘ hamīšak’ here, I should say, was the ‘ us’ of the original; or it might indeed have been chosen from its likeness to some fragment of the word haomāi, looking like hamāī, which, however, is, itself, properly translated by ‘av′ Hōm.’

^{page 78 note 3} I think that Spiegel's ‘sūr’ is a good suggestion.

^{page 78 note 4} For aērvārak I compare ‘ilvar’ = ‘jawbone.’ But Justi may offer the better suggestion with ‘left ear,’ though I do not see any analogon for it in the other languages. The Parsi-Pers. MS. translates har-dū-gōš ‘both ears.’ Perhaps this approaches the ‘jawbone’ at the upper extremity of which the ears are situated.

^{page 78 note 5} The ‘left eye’ was evidently prized for some mystical reason. I have heard that a commencement with the eye when the remains of the dead are exposed to the vultures is reverently regarded as auspicious at the Towers of Silence near Bombay. Such feelings should be respected.

^{page 78 note 6} D. has hūl-ā = ‘up.’ This might add emphasis to the sentence, but it would leave us with no negative in the needed place, while ‘al lā.’ only leaves us with a redundancy; but see Nēr.'s ni nā. So the MSS. emended by Spiegel to na na, which might, however, express an affirmative. Or should we prefer ni nā with ni in the sense (born) ‘within’; yet see the original nōīt. The Parsi-Pers. MS. translates only the lā. B. (D., Pt. 4) may have meant aē lā = aēγ lā. But what do A. (DJ.) and D. (K⁵ (Sp.)) mean by alā (so); al lā must be meant.

^{page 79 note 1} Dahakāča is utterly mistaken on all sides. K⁵ (Sp.) and M. have daxšak, and they probably understood what Nēr. did, namely, čihnaṁ = ‘seed.’ Notice in passing Nēr.'s Parsi gloss māghaṁ. Did he think of the ‘seed’ as ‘māgha’- (-maga-)-seed? B. (D., Pt. 4) and C. (the Parsi-Pers. MS.) are equally astray with dahišn-, for while that, with -kāhēnītar, gives an admirable general sense, of course no form of dā = ‘d‘hā,’ ‘to establish’ is present in dahakā- ; the syllable -kā- was also thought to represent a sense of ‘belittlement’: cf. Ind. kāas in kāpat‘a = ‘an evil path,’ etc. (I think that kā = ‘kēna’ in these Indian cases.) The Parsi-Pers. seems to translate his kāhīnīdār as kāstar? Is this a clerical blunder; or should we compare a kāštar = ‘disappointer,’ or a kāštan in the sense of ‘render hopeless,’ ‘diminish’ (see Nēr.'s ninditāraḥ).

^{page 79 note 2} We are practically forced to follow the Parsi-Pers. with mūrtak = ‘tabah,’ especially in view of the gloss. Previous Pahlavi translators may have doubtless merely intended to transcribe the word; but with these we have nothing to do.

^{page 79 note 3} B. (D., Pt. 4) has pūrsarēdak’. B. (D., Pt. 4) alone inserts ‘var(ē)tak′,’ which would seem to be an adjective to a var(e)ta in the sense of ‘transgression,’ ‘the erring way’; but we need an emendation after vartak. The use of the word evidently arose from the syllable ‘var’ in varšnāča.

^{page 79 note 4} A. (DJ.), B. (D., Pt. 4), and C. (the Parsi-Pers.) give us the excellent ‘mindavam’ for K⁵ (Sp.)'s mā'š (formerly written mamman aš).

^{page 79 note 5} Notice that ‘cattle’ were killed at the time of the writing of the gloss.

^{page 79 note 6} Nēr. alone gives us relief from the senseless second ‘zag’ of all the others. His dṛḍ‘atamaḥ here shows that he read ta(n)gīk as at Y. IX, 47, or ‘tangīktūm’; see also his dṛḍ‘atamaṁ at Y. 56, 6, 2. We must read ta(n)gīk, or tangīktūm, beyond a doubt; yet only Nēr. can be shown for it.

^{page 79 note 7} B. (D., Pt. 4) has drōn. K⁵ (Sp.) sūr (or dīvar?). Nēr. has hūmotsavaḥ. Notice that Nēr. gives us help even where his text is most in confusion. Texts of Pahlavi, Sanskrit, or Persian are often of most value to us (when critically used) where they are most impossible as consecutive sentences. A single form may throw light upon obscurities.

^{page 80 note 1} We might even render aēγ as ‘ah!’ here.

^{page 80 note 2} B. (D., Pt. 4) again approaches mere transliteration, as so often, and so looks suspiciously modern. His srīšvātak′ (see the original θrišv) loses what of gloss lurks in -bazak'; which Nēr. reproduces as -b‘āga in trib‘āga-. The Parsi-Pers., as often, agrees with B. (D., Pt. 4).

See also at Vendīdād II, where the second third division of the earth is mentioned. According to our text here F. was conquered at the fabulous date of the second enlargement of the earth, after Yima had reigned 300 years.

^{page 80 note 3} We should restore the lost nasal, as in the Achæmenian Inscriptions.

^{page 80 note 4} For xva(n)jīt the Parsi-Pers. seems at a loss for a text; but once more in the midst of the worst chaos we have our only glimpse of light. The translation ḥiṣṣār ‘enclosure’ alone helps us out. Nēr. does not render the passage, and we miss him greatly.

^{page 80 note 5} A. (DJ.), B. (D., Pt. 4), M., and the Parsi-Pers. have ‘min’ for K⁵ (Sp.)'s ‘man’; but not at the first words of 22, which are af man' pīrāmūn.

^{page 80 note 6} A. (DJ.) saves us from the senseless aēγ-am of the others, with his aēγ-aš.

^{page 80 note 7} I render ‘af’ ‘so’ here; the Parsi-Pers., as so often, renders ‘azaš.’ Not so Nēr., who has naturally ‘taṁ ab‘āšata.’

^{page 80 note 8} So B. (D., Pt. 4) and the Parsi-Pers.; see also Nēr.'s kurute.

^{page 80 note 9} For ‘le-gūn’ see Nēr.'s dviguṇaṁ.

^{page 80 note 10} A. (DJ.) ins. ī before the second lanā.

^{page 81 note 1} B. (D., Pt. 4) has -nēt; so C. (the Parsi - Pers. MS.). A. (DJ.) has yehvūnt for yehvūntan′.

^{page 81 note 2} The terms in the original allude to Y. 28, 9, but the translation ‘has come’ for ‘(yōi vē) yaẹθma’ I hold to be erroneous; see Gāthas, pp. 15 and 406; see also the new edition of the Verbatims and Free Metricals.

^{page 81 note 3} A. (DJ.) should read zāyak (?), hardly zādak; but the signs would be redundant for either. K⁵ (Sp.) and M. have zāk. But, as elsewhere, this ‘holy born’ is, as I hold, not critically correct. Ašavāzō is only critically rendered by ‘bearer of the ritual.’ Ašava + za is improbable (but not impossible), as ṛtāvan seldom, or never, enters into a compositum; whereas, vah = ‘vaz’ occurs; cf. dak‘šiṇa-váh, sušṭ‘uváh, havya-váh, hotra-váh. Where the idea of sanctity is expressed in a compositum, the form used is ṛtá-, not rtvan; (the transfer to an -a declension is not unusual). Nēr., however, follows his original. See also Y. XI, 26, where ašavastāi seems to divide ašava + sta. (Otherwise we must accept the ašavasta; see the superl. of ašavañt, ašavastema. If related to this superlative, it is a curious idiomatic formation, perhaps never really used in speech.)

^{page 81 note 4} Possibly the word mān rendered ‘us’ should be understood as mān = ‘(to this) abode,’ something like xši = ‘to dwell’ having been seen in the -xšai of θvaxšāi.

Nēr. has no trace of either. Notice that Nēr.'s text is here much better than that of the Pahl. translator.

^{page 81 note 5} Hu-axū’īh could only render havaṅhāi, which, I think, suggests the correct division of the word into hu + ahu; cf. hvaṅhvīm, Y. 53, 1; see Gāthas at the place, 372.

^{page 81 note 6} I have read vīndīgarīh (?). B. (D., Pt. 4) has vāndakarīh (?). But we must consider a possible vīnīk(-arīh) referring to the ‘nostrils’ as expressing ‘passion,’ and pointing to maδāi. The Parsi-Pers. omits the form. Nēr.'s vidyāyāi must, as usual, refer to maδāi in the sense of a mādišn.

Of course the translation errs as to the immediate grammatical forms. In S.B.E. I freely passed over the question of havaṅhāi. I should have expressed it as ‘to the one giving-the-good-world-life’ (so, reading hvaṅhāi); ‘to haoma, to the energetic, to the inspirer, to the one standing-in-the-holy-ritual.’

^{page 82 note 1} Nēr. has ročišmān. where we should expect ‘-mantam.’

^{page 82 note 2} I think that ‘af’ has often the force of ‘so’ as well as that of ‘also.’

^{page 82 note 3} See Nēr.'s ‘prājnā-’; so my MSS., making a slight correction only.