^{page 55 note 2} Nēr. yasya.

^{page 55 note 3} Cf. Y. XXVIII, 4.

^{page 56 note 1} Mistaking ‘ jar,’ ‘ to sing,’ for a ‘ gar’ (?), ‘ to take’; see note 2.

^{page 56 note 2} But see Nēr.'s karomi.

^{page 56 note 3} Cf. Y. XXX, 2, narēm, narem.

^{page 56 note 4} An unfortunate error ; it should be ‘ of existing things.’

^{page 57 note 1} Or ‘ his action is thus.’

^{page 58 note 1} So according to the original; but the translators may naturally have thought of their temporal Sovereign, in which case the priest speaks of Ahura, as represented by the Ruler in authority at the moment. It should not be forgotten that the question of ‘ authority’ then, as now, was one of living interest. The discussion of the ‘ Sovereignty ’ even after the Parsis came to Bombay was no ‘ mouthing’ of platitudes. Readings are excessively indefinite ; great care is needed.

^{page 58 note 2} Or ‘ I would effect maintenance for him.’

^{page 58 note 3} The passage seems to be an earnest effort to strengthen the theocratic element in the national patriotism, with the corresponding improvement in the position of the priestly caste. In view of the original we should regard 14 as expressing a venerating recognition of the theocratic principle (the principle that Aūharmazd was ‘King’). This merged the civic authority in the Head of the State, who is supposed to be of the priestly caste.

^{page 60 note 1} Or ‘ of existing best men’ (?), so preserving the gen. pl.

^{page 60 note 2} The desid. not here ; in Nēr.

^{page 60 note 3} See Nēr.'s rendering of ‘ min’ as genitive.

^{page 60 note 4} The original, however, has the accusative.

^{page 60 note 5} So with the subsequent vēš in view; see also the original manayā vahyahyā (not -ẹhyā); here literally, however, merely meaning ‘ with thought of the good.’

^{page 60 note 6} But the original has θvãm.

^{page 60 note 7} This error of vēš = ‘ more’ was due first to the comparative form of the original vahyahyā, and secondly to the terminations -tārem-; see the original. Otherwise read: ‘ and Thee’ (hardly ‘ from Thee’) then do I present as the acceptation, firm establishment, and manifestation of those, the other (Amešas) …,’ etc.

^{page 60 note 8} Astešnīh = -āstā- (!).

^{page 61 note 1} Kād'īm' or ‘kādmun’ is once translated -muk‘ān even by Nēr.; see Y. XLI, 6. I cannot accept fully the meaning ‘ desire’ unmodified.

^{page 61 note 2} Recall the Fire Berezi-Savah ; so, later.

^{page 61 note 3} Recall the Fire Spēništa, later ‘ in the world.’

^{page 62 note 1} Recall the Fire Urvāzišta ; so, later.

^{page 62 note 2} Or ‘ does it (the Fire) come on.’

^{page 62 note 3} An error as to vōi. The Avesta may represent Pahlavi d; hence v-d was seen, suggesting some form of ‘vid’ = ‘ to know.’ Have we possibly here the origin of the idea of the ordeal by Fire arising from a mistake of a letter ? As the Fire was ‘ intelligent’ it could indicate guilt or innocence.

^{page 62 note 4} A Behrām Fire (lit. the Fire of Victory, i.e. in commemoration of it). It is that in places of worship.

^{page 62 note 5} The Spēništa was ‘ the Fire applied in the world.’

^{page 62 note 6} The Fire in the clouds.

^{page 62 note 7} Was the Fire Berezi-Savah here meant ? That was the Fire before Ahura Mazda; so, later on.

^{page 63 note 1} The curious item was probably occasioned by the fact that fire is an universal purifier.

^{page 63 note 2} Notice what is important, viz., that the terms Vohu-manah and Aša are here taken in their original unapplied, or rational, sense. There is no trace of the secondary or later meanings ‘ good man’ for the one, nor of ‘ the congregation,’ not even of ‘ the Law’ for Aša, least of all is any connection expressed just here between Aša and the Fire, except to express the animus of its worshipper.

^{page 63 note 3} It is difficult to decide whether the first trl. meant ‘ to (i.e. ‘ toward’) me do thou acknowledge indebtedness,’ or ‘ upon me do thou establish debt.’

^{page 63 note 4} I have always experienced the greatest reluctance in treating these forms of ‘ vid’ in any sense other than that of ‘ invite.’ This gl., however, was purposely constructed to avoid that interpretation.

^{page 63 note 5} It looked as if a special fire was recognised as the ‘ Lord's Body.’

^{page 64 note 1} Can rūvān, here in antithesis to kerp' = ‘ body,’ be taken merely in the sense of ‘self’?; see Nēr.'s ātmā. Hardly. Then should we take it as the ‘soul of Ahura,’ ‘Thy Soul’? Not impossibly, as he has both a ‘body’ here and a Fravaši elsewhere. ‘ My soul’ is the first suggestion; see the gl. of the Parsi-Pers. and Nēr. in 16.

Nēr. has ayam ātmā tasmin tejasi yat uččānām uččam.

^{page 64 note 2} As the supreme manifestation of fire.

^{page 65 note 1} N.B. Ahura = ‘ king ’ ; mazdā = pavan dānākīh and mahājñānatayā.

^{page 65 note 2} Not in Sp.

^{page 66 note 1} Or may not our reading vēh-dōīsar be erroneous for vēh-gōsar ? This would express ‘ cattle-chieftainship’ (head-herdsman) very well; Pahl. letters express gō or dō.

^{page 66 note 2} Compare similar imagery everywhere in ancient theologies; compare even the Immaculate Conception.

^{page 66 note 3} Yaoštayō referred to a yuz, yaoz.

^{page 67 note 1} The word pašñai Avesta characters is not reported by B. (Pt. 4). It seems to be for a paršnai, and to be related to a parš ; cf. Ind. pṛš. ‘ to sprinkle’ (?). B. (Pt. 4) has mez'īhā (?) = ‘ clouds ’ ; cf. the Pers. MS. trl. ‘ cloud.’

^{page 67 note 2} Nēr. differs totally here; he has ‘ also those named through the coloured waters ‥ in bodies’ and those named ‘ good luck’ and those named ‘ good birth,’ i.e. ‘ through which the good and easy birth takes place.’

^{page 68 note 1} This is of course superfluous ; see the original; it is a misapplied citation.

^{page 68 note 2} A corporeal secretion.

^{page 68 note 3} Hū-dehakīh, so B. (Pt. 4) may be read; so also E. (K⁵(Sp.)), followed by Nēr. with sudānatānām-, but they would be erroneous and rather flat. We might think of a restoration from the elements of χvay-akīh (so), cf. χvay = ‘sweat.’ Or in view of the apparent rendering ‘ars’ = ‘ tears,’ we might see a ‘ hū + ašk’ = ‘ much weeping.’ The first form would then be meant as a mere citation of the Avesta text, with ‘ ars ’ as the translation. Was ‘ ars’ suggested by -raosča ?

^{page 68 note 4} It would be hardly fair to the Pahl. trlr. to suppose that he meant hūsnāyešnīh (so) in the sense of Nēr.'s susanmānatā- ; i.e. hardly fair in view of the undoubted meaning of the original.

^{page 68 note 5} Writing hastily, one might render ‘ greatness’ for ‘ butter,’ masīh for mišgā, Nēr. g‘ṛtam. Such oversights should be avoided.

^{page 68 note 6} Not impossibly: ‘ may one reverence (or ‘ proclaim’) me, on account of those (gifts of offering when I offer in the use of those names)’ ; ‘ name’ suggested by -ã(n)ma-.

^{page 68 note 7} A curious error again, which Nēr. avoids. The translator, as before, seems to fail to see the first pl. in the forms in -mahī here from some accidental cause.

^{page 69 note 1} See note 7, p. 68.

^{page 69 note 2} A valuable error, putting us upon our guard. The Parsi-Pers. MS. is especially rich in these tentative suggestions. They are, of course, at times merely well-meant guesses, often, however, ‘ sagacious ’ ; but where they are most erroneous there they are of value to warn us in other cases, not being mere dull imitations.

^{page 69 note 3} Āvānītar looks more like an allusion to ā + zi than anything else.

^{page 69 note 4} Vahišt- elsewhere = vaχš-.

^{page 69 note 5} A pertinent and racy guess, and possibly correct.

^{page 70 note 1} I still hold tōi to be a pl., not as in the trl. to be equal to lak.

^{page 70 note 2} I feel myself more inclined to follow these hints of the Pahl. trls. at present than I did in 1887. C, the Parsi-Pers. MS., adds the idea of ‘ foot-soldiers ’ for the first word. Nēr. has paṅktičāriṇām and açvačāriṇām.

^{page 70 note 3} Vaonare as vohu- + nar- (!), read Pahl. ‘ h.’

^{page 70 note 4} Whose names are not in the feminine.

^{page 70 note 5} Reading ‘ zagāī.’

^{page 70 note 6} The dwelling together in the bond of piety.

^{page 71 note 1} The only explanation I can offer for this benafšā is that it is an anticipation of the xvēšīh in 13.

^{page 71 note 2} One might suspect this γal aīšān to refer to āiš, but see pavan yātūnešn' and elsewhere.

^{page 71 note 3} Or ‘in my going’ (?).

^{page 71 note 4} One would like to render: ‘ So dost Thou make me praise ; so do Thou bring me into debt; 0 Aūharmazd, that is to say, upon me may there be a debt as toward Thee ’; but see the context.

^{page 71 note 5} So present for imperative.

^{page 71 note 6} Is it ‘ ownership ’?; at all events it mistakes the exact meaning of the original, which I now hold to mean ‘ Autocrat’ rather than ‘ Royal Kinsmen.’

^{page 72 note 1} Mistaking āhū and adāhū.

^{page 72 note 2} Notice mazdãm so rendered. Otherwise elsewhere.

^{page 72 note 3} Or is it ‘ they would attribute greatness’ or ‘ they would do and say’ ?; but see 2.

^{page 72 note 4} Mistaking χra for a form from ‘ kar’ = ‘ be wise’; cf. χratu; and mistaking -paitī for a form from pā = ‘ to protect.’

^{page 73 note 1} The word may always be for āyābānī or ‘āyābānd,’ ‘ I (or ‘they’) may attain,’ but see the original and Nēr. The latter saw the meaning ‘arise,’ but retains the 3rd personal, as χēzānd. Of course, this does not explain the original, but it recognises the likeness of the termination -yūš (?) (B., Pt. 4) to a 3rd plural. At the last moment it occurs to me to ask whether we have not really in the Pahlavi here an attempt to imitate the original. Is not our form after all ‘ aidyuzānd’ ? Or was yadā = amat seen in aidy(a) (ayada) and ‘ud’ in -ūš? What renders vāst- ?

^{page 74 note 1} The 1st pers. missed.

^{page 74 note 2} Mistaking garō for a form from a ‘ gar’ = ‘ to seize.’

^{page 74 note 3} This zag seems to show that the idea of ‘ announcing’ was seen by the trlr., hardly that of ‘ invitation’; but see Nēr.

^{page 74 note 4} See the original and even Nēr., who, however, has the 2nd sg. imper. in the verb.

^{page 74 note 5} Or with the other texts, ‘ 0 Thou most completely (or ‘ beneficently ’) wise of beings.’ Notice that Ahura is here included within the category of ‘beings,’ which casts light on Y. XXIX, 3, Hātãm hvō aojištō.

^{page 75 note 1} I cannot accede to the meaning ‘ desire’ nor to the transcription kãdmun.

^{page 75 note 2} This expression evidently originated from Y. XXX, 4. I should say that we ought to concede more meaning to it than simply ‘ death.’ Tan' = -teñ- (!).

^{page 75 note 3} So with B. (Pt. 4), otherwise ‘ 0 Thou most completely wise ‥ ’ Hū-should equal ‘ completely’ rather than ‘ beneficently.’

^{page 75 note 4} Nēr. sād‘anaya, probably preserving the correct root.

^{page 75 note 5} Seeing a form of (aẹ) = ‘ to go’ in -āyū.

^{page 75 note 6} B. (Pt. 4), ‘ life ’ ; but here see uštā. A form from ‘ gam’ was seen in the termination ‘ -gem.’

^{page 76 note 1} Seeing ā gam in aog(e)madačā (?).

^{page 77 note 1} A. and B. om., and ‘ to the Yazat Miθra.’

^{page 77 note 2} Possibly ‘ fattening.’

^{page 77 note 3} Or ponds as reservoirs.

^{page 77 note 4} Notice that Vah'man is described literally as ‘ good thought.’ So, and not as in Y. 49, 10, where we should understand the concrete ‘ good man.’ It would be straining a point to render the Pahl.'s ‘ good thinking’ as ‘ man’ here.

^{page 77 note 5} Interesting later trash (?) or the same revived from earlier days. It has its value ; see the later lore.

^{page 77 note 6} A tribute to distillation.

^{page 78 note 1} ‘ The coming back.’

^{page 78 note 2} ‘ Sātūnānd’ must mean ‘ coming’ here and not ‘ going’; so perhaps also at Y. XLIII, 14, ‘ sātūnān’; yet see the Parsi-Pers. there ‘raftan,’ Gāθas, pp. 177, 520.