^{page 452 note 2} The one supreme difficulty as to the exegesis of the Yasna meets us here at once. It is the ever present question as to which of possible senses we are to apply to our leading terms. ls Sraoša the ‘Hearing of Ahura,’ ‘His listening to the prayers of His Faithful,’ or the ‘ Hearing of the disciple’? and if the latter, is this hearing of the disciple a mere acquisition from without (having no moral element), a fortunate Hearing of the revealed Word of God as expressed in the Liturgy, which brings a blessing in its train, but as it were mechanically ? Or is it rather ‘ acquiescence,’ an ‘obedient hearing,’ having a moral element? All three ideas are doubtless present at different passages. In Y. 28, 5, ‘ Obedient hearing ’ on the part of the disciple is evidently held in view, as inhering in the word Sraošem. If a hearing on the part of Ahura is there at all borne in mind, it is a hearing on his part acquired for the saint by his own previous obedient acquiescence. The term ‘ aguštā’. in Y. XXXI cannot be critically explained as other than ‘ unheeded,’ so possessing an adverse moral element, rather than merely ‘unheard.’ Here, however, Sraosa (Srōš) evidently means ‘ a hearing on the part of Ahura to the intoned sacrifice.’ If ‘the listening of the Congregation ’ is also borne in mind, it was an added, of course, though a closely correlated, idea. This Introduction was intended most certainly to arouse attention on the part of the Congregation, as well as upon the part of Ahura. A question, however, occurs just at the last as to whether Niyōkšešn may not after all be here meant to express a ‘ resounding of the Liturgy when celebrated’; cf. the meaning of Pahl. srũtan.

^{page 452 note 3} I do not hesitate alternatively to attribute the imperative sense of the original astū, and of Nēr.'s form, to aīt'; here, just as we are obliged to follow the same course with regard to γehvūnih (see below). And with regard to pētākēnih, Y. IX, 94, etc.; see it obviously so explained in the gloss.

^{page 452 note 1} Such forms as the New Persian giriftār in the sense of ‘ captured’ might suggest a question here. In either case the translation is an error, the termination-ištahya being regarded as immediately a form of iš = ‘ to wish.’

^{page 452 note 2} Inexperienced searchers would at once suggest ‘ mentally ’ as the first most natural meaning of ‘ mēnešnīg’: ‘ as at first, mentally (that is to say, ‘ with my thoughts all fresh and intent’), as I have thus stood within this sacrificial (precinct), so also at the last [(so again ‘mentally’ and in this fresh frame of mind, as at first) I would perform it to the end.’ ‘ (A person) here (attending) is (i.e. ‘ he should be’) therefore this ‘ (that is to say, ‘ this is a pattern for the State of mind of an attendant upon the Holy sacrifice’)].

A more probable secondary or alternative attempt would be to take the word ‘ mẽnešnīg’ as meaning ‘ figuratively’: ‘ As at the first I have stood “ figuratively” within this Sacrifice …,’ an expression conveying the idea that these sentences should be weighed lay those who read or hear them upon some informal occasion, and not alone in the assembly of the Congregation.

^{page 453 note 1} Aīt', as throughout, is indicative for imperative.

^{page 453 note 2} This proves that niyōkšešn here was, at this occurrence at least, a hearing on the part of Ahura ; and not (in the sense of this text) ‘ attention on the part of the Congregation,’ as opposed to this idea of the hearing of Ahura.

^{page 453 note 3} Notice that there is no mēnešnīg = ‘ mentally’ (?) in this text of B. (D., Pt. 4).

^{page 453 note 4} Nēr. has karomi.

^{page 453 note 5} Possibly the Abān and Fravardīn Yašts were recited in this connection ; they are certainly recalled.

^{page 453 note 6} See note 1, p. 452.

^{page 453 note 7} Subsection 3 is only reported in B. (D., Pt. 4), in C, and in Nēr.

^{page 454 note 1} Nēr. adds the fuller interior abstract meaning as in section 1. He inserts manasā, ‘ mentally,’ ‘ with interior attention and intention.’

^{page 454 note 2} Was this nēvakīh in a sense suggested by astū, which is of course otherwise fully rendered ?

^{page 454 note 3} These terms ‘ male and female’ are not properly gloss, for they refer to the genders of the words vōhunãm- and vaṇuhyaosčā. ‘ The males ‘ alludes to the non-feminine names of some of them, Aša, Vohumanah, and Kšθara, while ‘ the females ‘ alludes to feminine words, Āramaiti, Haurvatāt, and Ameretatāt.

^{page 454 note 4} One of the constant puzzles of exegesis here and in other similar places is to know in which sense to take such terms as tarsākasīh = aši. Was ‘ reverential veneration,’ which is the literal meaning of ‘tarsākasīh,’ really meant, or was ‘ its consequence ‘ in the ‘ reward’ the thought held uppermost ? We must not forget that Aši Vaṇguhi seems to be persistently used in the sense of ‘reward,’ or even of ‘ wealth,’ in parts of the Avesta texts (see also the gloss here).

^{page 455 note 1} Subsections 7 and 8 are almost mere repetitions, as is the formula.

^{page 455 note 2} So Y. LV was ‘ the lesser ’ Yašt of Srōš.

^{page 455 note 3} Further introductory passages here intervene.

^{page 455 note 4} BarōiθrŌ taž'em … frašūsaite, in B. (D., Pt. 4) is a citation from the Pahlavi commentary upon Vendīdād, xviii, 33.

^{page 456 note 1} Possibly referring to an original of the Hōrmuzd's Yašt. Or are these expressions ‘ with a Yašt’ mere auxiliaries to the word rendered ‘ sacrificed’ ?

^{page 456 note 2} Possibly referring to an original of the Haptan Yašt.

^{page 456 note 3} So, better than ‘mat'.’ This may be an allusion to Mihr Yašt, or to its original.

^{page 456 note 4} That is to say, as he now uses this Yašt.

^{page 457 note 1} This refrain recurs at the end of every section ; 11 and 12 may belong to it.

^{page 457 note 2} The terms are used in Y. I of Ahura, and they are taken from there to this refrain. They may, however, have been merely patched in here, as the mention of Aūharmazd is hardly original. The groupings are, of course, at times irrational, and they seem to be so here. "Why should Aūharmazd be thus spoken of in this place ? One would hardly suppose 10 and 11 to belong to the refrain, but they are added throughout.

^{page 457 note 3} This can hardly apply to Ahura here, although Y. I, 5, seems to refer the expression there to Ahura.

^{page 457 note 4} This piece is cited at the ends throughout, and rubrics, etc., are often interspersed. They will not need to be reproduced in the translations.

^{page 458 note 1} This seems quite plain.

^{page 458 note 2} Referring especially to Y. XLIV.

^{page 458 note 3} Doubtless used later in ritual of every description; recall Yt. 22, Kãm Zãm,.. etc.

^{page 459 note 1} ‘ Men and women’ is not gloss, but points to the gender of the Avesta text words.

^{page 459 note 2} C., the Parsi-Pers., corrects the false reading Amešaspendān, which is senseless ; see also Nēr.

^{page 459 note 3} Amāvandā translates amavat.

^{page 459 note 4} The sequence of the false text would more naturally suggest ‘ within the abode of the Amešaspentas’ ; but ‘ constructed’ needs ‘ the abode ’ as its object; see the original. Perhaps a second mān' might be understood: ‘ an abode within the abode of the Amešas.’

^{page 459 note 5} This certainly looks like the addition of an interior idea. Is hvaṅhayẹiti (so) to be explained as hu + ah (aṅh), ‘to shoot well’?

^{page 459 note 6} The expressions are taken from Y. XXXIV, 8. There has been a tendency to apologise for recurrences of transliteration, that is to say, for imitations of the original in the Pahlavi; but the closer the reproductions are, the better for our immediate object, which is here exegesis. As readings we have a possible nīhādešn, ‘ the laying down,’ which has some meaning in Pahlavi, and we might venture to-suggest an irregular nīhādyān (see the original), both of the same cast of meaning. But the first thing to be thought of should be always a welcomed, though only attempted, reproduction of the original, as a nāidyān. I still refer the original word to Indian nād, ‘ to take refuge,’ ‘to be in need of help’: ‘as the strong him who is of the depression-giving’; that is, ‘him of the subjecting.’ See Nēr.'s ad‘o d‘riyate (-yante). Spiegel's reading nīhān = ‘concealed’ is not so manageable.

^{page 460 note 1} ‘Aretīg,’ not ‘χratīg,’ in view of areza. We are even tempted to read the ‘z’ for the ‘t,’ coining an ‘arezīg’; Nēr. shows no sign of ‘χrat.’

^{page 460 note 2} So B. (D., Pt. 4).

^{page 460 note 3} A blunder, seeing (parō …)-dars- as the root present. Cf. Y. IX, 21, and S.B.E. xxxi, p. 301, where I explain the origin of the form as kattarš- … ; cf. Ind. katpayām.

^{page 461 note 1} I can only make a false gloss of ‘pēš,’ and ‘vad,’ which with a preceding ‘aχar’ must mean ‘since,’ or possibly ‘before they had finished making the world.’

^{page 462 note 1} Notice how strong the Doctrinal Dualism still maintains itself to this later date since the Gāθic period.

^{page 462 note 2} Or ‘the Māzanān (so) Demons.’ Nēr. preserves the ‘r,’ ‘majandarān’ (so).

^{page 462 note 3} See the original.

^{page 463 note 1} This should be Haoma; see the Hōm Yašt.

^{page 463 note 2} This should be Sraoša (?).

^{page 463 note 3} ‘Mastīm’ can hardly be rendered by barā yehabūnt. It is elsewhere rendered by farzānakīh.

One might even suppose that the termination ‘imnō’ in ‘paithimnō’ suggested ‘manō.’ I notice that this was also Spiegel's keen suggestion; see his Comm. From it we might seem to have the pavan farzānakīh = ‘with learning’; but see mastīm.

^{page 463 note 4} So, if the original, where the cases change to the accus., is to guide us, ‘ ruling over’ should be understood; otherwise, of course, ‘ (Srōš), the Ruler [endowed with] learning which is all-adorned,’ etc.

^{page 464 note 1} Perhaps literally ‘from side and side of it’; B. om. ‘ of it.’

^{page 464 note 2} Have we -āñd (B. (D., Pt. 4)) = -ūnd as past participial term?

^{page 464 note 3} Haozãθvača.

^{page 464 note 4} Note to point the meaning as here referring to Srōš and not to the Amešas.

^{page 464 note 5} So sātūntan, again, is better rendered by ‘come’ than by ‘ go’; so of ‘čar.’

^{page 464 note 6} Mistake or freedom of plural for singular; the original refers to Srōš.

^{page 464 note 7} Not impossibly correct, ‘ var ’ taking on a causative sense, in accordance with analogies.

^{page 464 note 8} A naive item, but hardly to be relieved by the reading: ‘Sraoša has held forth the Dēn as Destoor.’ Miθra is not in the original.

^{page 465 note 1} All are in the nominative in the original; see also Nēr.

^{page 465 note 2} The ‘indictment’ and the ‘defence’ in the full legal sense could hardly have been meant.

^{page 465 note 3} Notice aē = aēγ apparently in the sense of the interjection; literally ‘this Srōš’ or ‘thus Srōš’ = ‘O Srōš.’

^{page 465 note 4} Note that it took ‘ fifty-seven ’ years to raise the dead, as it took ‘ fifty’ years to beget the first living human beings, who were ‘ seven ’. pairs in number, from the two first Māšya and Māšyōī, the Iranian Adam and Eve. These numbers ‘ fifty’ and ‘ seven ’ may well have suggested the later figures for the duration of the process of resurrection.

^{page 465 note 5} Not, of course, meaning immediately ‘ the death of the wicked’ in any modern sense, though these ideas are themselves at once suggested. Hardly ‘from wicked death.’

^{page 465 note 6} χrūrem is not translated; does the apparent -yā or -īh of the reading lailyā, or lālīh contain the remnant of an old translation?

^{page 465 note 7} ‘ Wise concerning evil’ is too advanced an idea; ‘ stupid ’ is rather the thought.

^{page 465 note 8} Have we here a rendering for draomēbyō? If so, ‘maintain’ shows the error.

^{page 466 note 1} Why did Nēr. render aruša ātmā? Could the form of the original in the Pahlavi signs have suggested χūd, or Nēr.'s continuator?

^{page 466 note 2} Seeing ‘sayak’ (sic) in ‘asaya.’

^{page 466 note 3} Dividing the original manyava-asanhō (sic); Nēr. follows, as does C. (the Parsi-Pers.). The original is ‘mainyava-saṅhō’ = ‘Spirit’ or ‘Mind’-speech; they (the steeds) understood mentally the words of direction; see S.B.E. xxxi at the place.

^{page 466 note 4} Consider zarχayā (B. (D., Pt. 4)) = gold-bodied (?), or zarāšūft = ‘gold-scattered-over’ (?), or zar-dakyā-saz(ī)t (?) = ‘gold-adequately-prepared’ (?), etc.

^{page 466 note 5} Probably meaning hū-tan, so irrationally in view of hu + ast = hvast-.

^{page 466 note 6} Or ‘with his party’; notice Nēr.'s narāṇām.

^{page 466 note 7} ‘Bāt’; I refer to Av. bāt, Indian bat, but it occurs to me to ask whether ‘the East’ may not have been meant by baχtar. ‘From the East they start.’ Baχt = ‘ fate’ gives no sense.

The reading min bāt aχaraš, ‘truly from after him,’ possibly means ‘steadily from after him.’ This is all awkward as to form; but so is the first reading of B. (D., Pt. 4), here baχtarīh, as he has no ‘min,’ whereas the second aχarih is needed in 5. ‘Min baχtarīh’ here would have nothing to correspond to it in the original, and it would be gloss.

^{page 467 note 1} See note 7 on previous page.

^{page 467 note 2} The ‘a priv.’ was hardly seen in agēurvayẹite (-yatẹ). It was the ‘ni’ in niγne.

^{page 468 note 1} Possibly not gloss.

^{page 468 note 2} Error, of course; the translator's conjecture.

^{page 468 note 3} So if ham (m)art arzūk is tenable. This looks as if -var- (-vrait-) of the Avesta had stood in the Pahl. character, and was read ‘-nar,’ suggesting ‘man,’ while -raiti- suggested ‘rat,’ and ‘-vatō’ pointed to ‘van’ in the sense of ‘desire.’ ‘Var-’ so read may also have contributed to this idea of ‘desire,’ even if it had been already read ‘-nar-’ and rendered as ‘nar,’ ‘mart.’ This, of course, took place only in the case of successive expositors.

^{page 469 note 1} Aside from the original one naturally renders: ‘I sacrifice to him who is Srōš and to him who is Arštāt, the Yazat.’

^{page 469 note 2} Rāī looks more like ‘for the sake of’ here.