^{page 103 note 1} For moreñdat read mere-, or …? The old Avesta-Pahlavi signs for ō and r are sometimes the same; the ō in mōreñdat is débris left embedded in the word after the r had been properly expressed by the fuller Av. sign .

^{page 103 note 2} Some form to Ind. īś would be more correct, but which to select? recall aiśya- nt. = “power”. Does not, however, Avesta īšti, to īs = “to be master of”, point to a possible similar Sanskrit form not yet found, rather than to iṣṭí- to Skt. iṣ- = “to wish” or to íṣṭi- to yaj- ?

^{page 104 note 1} Notice once more that the opposing party had a regular system of “collection” as well as vrata and a khshathra; a dud(a)na, etc.

^{page 104 note 2} Is it to the 2nd vah = “to dwell”; recall vāṣṭu-.

^{page 104 note 3} vīvāpat = vyāpat as denom. without sign, “parched” (so the Pahl., Pass., and Skt. hint), v miswritten for y, as so often; “may parch” with drought, destroying the means of irrigation, improper conj. or preterit; see Gāthas, Comm.; cf. the many Pahlavi-Parsi words to vyāp = “render waterless”; how do we account for their existence without some corresponding Av. form? Otherwise to vap- = “to shear off”(?); so others, following authority. Desolators might be said to “shear off the land”. See the Gāthās throughout with the Dictionary, vol. iii.

^{page 104 note 4} asṛjat, sṛjāt.

^{page 104 note 5} vōizhdaṭ, pret. or improper conj., to vij- extended with (-d), “start his mace,” possibly “shake it”, or “swing it”. Not to vind-, vid-, here.

^{page 104 note 6} Some writers go to extremes in taking almost all instr. pl. as adverbial commonplaces; so instr. sing, are, indeed, often to be taken adverbially; of course such instr. pl. are sometimes to be so taken; but hardly here mazibiš as = “greatly”. I prefer “counselling with the prominent chiefs”.

^{page 105 note 1} Asu- in the sense of Av. aṅhu-; see the word ahura applied to “man”, “the lord”, in Y. XXIX.

^{page 105 note 2} apayẹitī—with some, a clumsily inserted dat. inf. noun, so following authority—to yam; see yati; possibly apayẹitī might be an instr. f. = “with a seizure” of wealth; see an ind. instr. f. in ī (Wh.); see yañtā at 9. Perhaps consider also āp-.

^{page 105 note 3} The difficulty of rāreyãn, to riš- is of course that the sense “receiving wounds” from the best mind of the “Saint” places the “victory” of the saint in too close a connexion with the foregoing “robbing of the householders”; better, the intens. causatively used if necessary, but riṣ- has also at times transitive sense = “to harm”, “who cause the saints (pl.) to fail from the Best Mind,” meaning “from the corporate animus” of the congregation; see this sense of ris- = “to fail” in the Ind. Recall also where aša undoubtedly means “the humanly incorporate asha”, “the congregation”; so also Roth, often. Other possibilities; is it to ric = “leave” (?); see riricyāt, opt. perf. (Wh.)? Hardly. Some writers used to suggest sras-, sraṅs-, with loss of s; recall spaś and paś-, “who cause the saints to fall away from Vohu Manah” rather far-fetched in its form, correct in idea.

^{page 106 note 1} Rṅhayan, to Ind. rās- (?). Cf. also Indian rah = “to desert”; so, irregularly comparing rah- with Ind. rah-, final h; see the orig. j holding in aj- beside az-, etc. Some writers used, I believe, here again to suggest sraṅs- as equalling raṅs-; see spaś = paś. But I prefer rah- = “desert” as the altern, arahayan = “caused” or conj. “will cause” “men to desert from the best deed”; but why not after all simply rās- ( = rāoṅh-), exact correspondence, in the sense of “rendering” recreant, “giving away men” (by their teaching) from “the best course of action”. The Pahl., Pers., and Skt. suggest ri = “to wound”. But ri- is more rational with rāreyãn.

^{page 106 note 2} urvakṣ- = vrakṣ-, as urvāza- = vrāza-, and as urvāta- = vrāta-, etc., in the sense of “friendly”, hardly to ukṣ-, vakṣ-. Whether we can assert that the actual idea of “treachery” is here present, now seems to me to be doubtful, as it suggests too fine a point, while “a cry of joy” is hardly expressed by the terms. “His party's shout,” “friendly to his side” is best; this would correspond to his evil vrata, his evil “Authority”, etc. We had, of course, better keep these “good” or “favouring” ideas as much as possible away from the d(a)ẹva-worshipping party; it is, however, not possible to deny that the D(a)va party had a system of ideas much resembling in form those of the party which they so bitterly opposed; and they were doubtless sincerely attached to those principles.

^{page 106 note 3} Varatā, cf. the aor. varanta (Wh. ), would be metrically better as var(a)tā = med. for pass.; cf. avṛta. Notice once more the pl. noun with a verb in the sg. Or could this form varata be really vara(n)ta, with lost nasal, as so often; or could we not read the sg. Grēhmō at once; with karpā to karpan-, to meet the sg. verb.

^{page 107 note 1} Karpā to -pan, one of the many instances in which words of “good” meaning in the Ind. became inverted in their Av. meaning; cf. kalpa, kalpaka; notice the sacred Indian associations of the name.

^{page 107 note 2} Grēhmō. Should we render as if to Ind. garh- (?), or to grabh- (?), or to gras- (?).

^{page 107 note 3} Hiasaṭ. I long since suggested a possible restoration of the letter h, Av.-Pahl. , to its original Avesta-Pahlavi value of a; the word may be aišasaṭ (?), not hiš-; yet h is kindred to s.

^{page 107 note 4} Is mar(e)khtārō conceivably an irregular gen. sg.; see the verb, and should we read yasnā ? Or should we expect the dual ? Grēhma and the *Karpan's; see strophe 12; or, are more than two referred to, the Grēhma, the Karpan's and Aka Mainyu ? I had ventured to form a marktarah in view of mṛkta- to mṛc-; see vac-, vaktṛ-.

^{page 107 note 5} jīgerezat would seem to correspond to a desid. of garh-, or to gṛdh-.

^{page 107 note 6} I hardly think that kam is sufficiently rendered merely by “passionately”, so adverbially; “enviously” would be better, “bewail in desire”; if this last be the idea present, it proves once more how closely the future religion of Persia hung in the balance. “Never shall the infidel share the good lore,” Y. XXXI, 10.Google Scholar

^{page 108 note 1} See strophes 12 and 13.

^{page 108 note 2} If we read ā hōi thvōi or tōi, we might render ā *se ( = asmai) plus thvōi = **tve(?) = te = “his is G. indeed”; (but) for thee … Preferring ā hōitōi, I render sete = *setave = “to bind”, “to be bound” (He is—infin. for imperv.—) “to be bound” = “let him be impeded”. We should not neglect the cæsura, nor the line's ends. Even the subordinate reach of the meaning may at times remain unaffected by either of them, but the only reason of their existence in the metrical pause was almost always a slight separation in the flow of the thought.

^{page 108 note 3} Nī with separated verb, here dadaṭ = “down … may it cast”. I object to the usual commonplaces when they are supposed to occur in the cramped diction of the Gāthas. “Directed attention” is hardly the force even with nī so taken. “Directed his devices, his policy,” so, more objectively, would be better; but nī, when detached from the verb, occurs twice elsewhere in the “adverse” sense of “down”, not as when attached to the verb, as in Y. XXVIII, 11, nipānh, nor as in nidātem in Y. XLIX, 3Google Scholar, where, in this last, the resulting sense is “established”, but, as in Y. XLVIII, 7, nī (a)mō dyatām, and in Y. XLIV, 14Google Scholar, nī hīm merãzhdyāi … See also the Vedic occurrences of ni + dhā in this sense; see R.V. 1, 171, 1 … nī hlo dhattá …; R.V. 10, 37, 12, tásmin tád éno vasavo ni dhetana …, not so exactly applicable; Sat. Br. 13, 8, 1, 4 (PW) ni no ghaṃ dhīyātai, etc. (PW) … āyuddhāni Ait. Br. 7, 19 PW). “His G. is to be fettered; let (conj.) our khratu put down the K.” With this rendering we do not switch off the meaning to a separate thought, “Be he in chains–let our plan cast down the K.”

^{page 109 note 1} Kavayas-ciṭ, so reading, looks of course at first sight like a nom. pl. m., the singular verb is somewhat familiar with the pl. noun, though mostly with the nom. pl. nt.; cf. Greek usage (have Greek fem. pls. been also found with the sg. verb?); and with the corrected khratuš (to khratūn(š) we might first think of the K. as the subjects: “His G. is for the binding,” “be he in chains”); “Down the K. have cast (our) plans …”; but we have Ved. precedent for an irregular acc. pl. m.; see paśvaḥ for pasavaḥ acc. pl. m., and as we must emend somewhere, I take this kavayas-ciṭ as acc. pl. m., or emend to -yās- = yān(s). Generally, though not always preferring the improper conj. for the pret. indic., so here, in dadat, I would render “let our khratu cast down the Kavis ….” Kavayās- [sic] might be of the a decl. = -ān(s)-; see Ind. kavya-.

^{page 109 note 2} khratu = “(sacred) plan” or “its sagacity”; the word is nearly sacrosanct, like cisti-; see its occurrences. It is seldom or never used independently of the “evil” party. In Y. XLV, 2, the khratavō are only indirectly attributed to Angra Mainyu on account of their conjoined mention as characteristics of Ahura in the same sentence. Otherwise Satan, A.M. is gifted with the reverse of khratu-.

^{page 109 note 3} var(e)cā(-c), sense of “power” rather than of “light”; if dual, irregularly placed in the midst of plurals; see what seem to be similar occurrences elsewhere.

^{page 109 note 4} hī- as dual?; see other duals in close proximity to plurals; is this a Gāthic peculiarity?; see the sing, verbs with plural subjects, especially with neut. pl. subjects; cf. again the same Greek usage. Or may we not conjecture the disappearance of a nasal in these apparent 3rd pers. sing.? Nothing is more natural than the disappearance of nasals. In fact, we may doubt whether the disappearance of the n in the reduplicated 3rd pl. of Sanskrit was really original. Greek fem. pl. with sing, verbs (?) have also, I think (?); see above, been discovered.

^{page 109 note 5} Fradivā. Others prefer to pradivaḥ = “long since”, so, following authority. In accepting a root div-, dīv- = “to deceive”, I reserve my view of the vowel, though Ind. div, dīv, of course at first suggests itself. Owing to the apparent chaos of confusion in the early Av. -Pahl. alphabet, with all, or many, of the short vowels inherent in the consonants, a vowel a may well have been confused with an i, ī; see the supposed root ju = “to live”; it is simply jiv, jīv, u in old Av.-Pahl. = v; it might here have the inherent vowel i; u has the same sign as v in the Ind.

^{page 110 note 1} Gaus might be nom. sg. maso, in spite of Y. XXIX, or else gen. sg. f. with unusual formation; recall gaoś.

Yē. If yē refers to Gāuš as mase. (?) this last must include the idea of the entire sacred cattle-interest with its chief who would be paramount in his sacrosanct office; see mãthrānā … yē of 13 (c): “since the Kine's Chief was said to be destined to be conquered.” But perhaps the Grēhmō of line a is referred to—“Since the G. was falsely said to be (fit) for the conquering of the Kine's (Chief), the Chief who will yet kindle ….” Finally, “since our priestly prophet was falsely said to be set for the conquering of the Kine ….” “To conquer for the Cow “we need not consider. Of course we have here a distinct reference to the highest act of worship—the lighting of the sacred altar fire—it would imply a grave oversight to confuse this striking allusion here with some secondary figurative meaning.

^{page 110 note 2} dūraošem. Vedic duroṣa- as = “hard to destroy” clearly shows -uṣ- or -oṣ- as used in the sense of “destruction”; and dūra + ush- can be formed in the sense of “having” or “holding death afar”. Otherwise as = “far lighting” (so, altern, or better) the u-, o-, would retain its more original meaning. Recall dūre-bhā.

^{page 111 note 1} Or amībhiḥ(-r)ā, (kila amībhiḥ(-s) saha sambandhanena). Notice the vigorous use of the more original ava which had become so restricted in the Ind. This may be used here in a more pointedly instrumental sense than that which I adopt as my first suggestion, “by means of those”; but the sense of “after” is here at once suggested by aipī tāiš in Y. XXX, 11.Google Scholar

^{page 111 note 2} Nīnāsā doubtless a caus. aor. with conj. termination. Cf. rīradhā, 1st sg. (Wh.).

^{page 111 note 3} More strictly imāṃ yā K. (asat(-d)), imām(-n) ca yā K. asat.

^{page 111 note 4} That kh ayamnēñg vasō is here applied in a “good” sense is the more probable from Y. XLIII, 1.Google Scholar