^{page 761 note 1} Hardly here in the text meaning simply ‘beforehand.’

^{page 761 note 2} In the gloss, however, the idea of temporal priority seems present. The Persian MS. with B. gives us ‘pēš aē dēn′ lak mat′ havīh,” which is far better than ‘pēš adīn′ lak matā.’ Zaraθuštra ‘came before the Dēn’ as being its author. He was also at the ‘summit of humanity,’ as being a sort of ‘second Adam.’ See also (4), where sacrifice is offered him next after that to Ahura. See his Frava(r)ši, the object of sacrifice at 5, and mentioned before the Ameša Spenta. He is semi-deified, almost ‘a Lord from Heaven.’

^{page 761 note 3} The Persian MS. and B. insert frāš, ‘the forth-recital,’ with the idea of an uninterrupted delivery of it.

^{page 761 note 4} Hankartīgīh is the noun-form of hankārayāmi in Y. I, and can hardly mean ‘a summing-up’ in the ordinary restricted sense; it was ‘the summing-up’ in the act of ‘celebration.’ The Persian MS. has tamām.

^{page 761 note 5} This was indeed a worthy answer, for it implied everything.

^{page 762 note 1} The Penates.

^{page 762 note 2} Or 'the most ascendant.

^{page 762 note 3} ‘More closely than the other Yažats’; hardly ‘most closely approaching us from them,’ though the word is min.

^{page 762 note 4} See note 5.

^{page 762 note 5} Again min.

^{page 762 note 6} Rasešnīh.

^{page 762 note 7} ‘To all the body,’ a somewhat curious expression. One cannot say that the Zoroastrians of the time of this later edited commentary would have objected to a ‘body’ for Ahura any more than the early Israelites objected to the corporeal manifestations of Yahveh. They simply could only think of the ‘eavens’ as His ‘clothing.’ Or, are the Ame(r)šaspentas here dimly alluded to as ‘His body’ ? See Y. 1, 2, hukereptema-.

^{page 762 note 8} Lit. ‘to all even.’

^{page 762 note 9} Or ‘holy.’

^{page 762 note 10} The ō of vīdōyūm is conspicuously false for the Av. -Pahl. sign for ‘v’ of the transitional period.

^{page 763 note 1} Or ‘holy.’

^{page 763 note 2} The public statutes.

^{page 763 note 3} Yazešnīh.

^{page 763 note 4} The Persian has mašhūr (sic), as if celebration or ‘announcement’ in a public service were held in view.

^{page 763 note 5} ‘The forth-going,’ frāitimča.

^{page 763 note 6} ‘Its meeting flow,’ paitītimča.

^{page 763 note 7} Here we have a jar again persistently recognised in the sense of ‘take,’ jaretīmča; so the Persian MS. giriftan; even Spiegel's form might be deciphered avar-gīrešnih, and not avar sarešnih. Should we accede here to ‘tradition’ ?

^{page 763 note 8} See mē'im and the acc. of the original.

^{page 763 note 9} ‘Cutters-on’ (sic); here we have the gen. of the original.

^{page 764 note 1} As regards the form aivi-kar(e)ta (A. kereta (?)), I now abandon my former adhesion to the hint of migīrīt: see below, preferring my alternative in the note. See S.B.E. xxxi at the place. Notice that the word (or ‘words’) are the ‘cutting sword.’

^{page 764 note 2} The Persian text and that of B. alone here afford us a correct text throughout, the Pers. confirming B. (D., Pt. 4).

A. (DJ., J², Oxford C¹) has in 31, man′ havend mē'im nigīrītār (ī) dūšmat; in 32, man′ havend mē'im nigīrītār (ī) dūšhū-ūxt′ (sic, dūšāūxt′ ?); in 33, man′ havend mē'im karēnītār (a blot occurs as if a ni had been first written) (ī) dūšhūvaršt′ (? dūšā-); in 34, man′ havend mē'im nigīrītārtūm (ī) harvisp′ dūšmat (?); in 35, man′ havend mē'im nigīrēnītār (notice the ni, as if the first intention had been to write nigīr-, while this A. has again nikarend (or va karend) in 38) (ī) harvisp seems inserted in the MS.) dūšhūūxt′ (? dūšā-); in 36, man′ havend mē'im karēnitārtūm (ī) harvisp′ dūšhūvaršt′ (? dūšā-).

The text of B. is everywhere karēn-, never nigīr-, except correctly as = hupairīštem at end of 37 (erroneously so placed in the MSS.; it should form the beginning of 38).

So the text of C, the Persian MS., as indicated by its translation; it has forms of burīdan throughout. E. (Sp.) has mē'im nigīrītar in 31, avar nigīrītar in 32, avar nīgīrītar in 33; (here D., the Munich copy of this K⁵, Sp.'s original, does not follow Sp. in this 33; it has avar karēnītār, while in 34 Sp. himself has avar karēnītartūm). So Sp. continues with avar karēnītārtūm in 35, and mē'im karēnītārtūm in 36, with karēnd in 38. The curious error of nigīr- evidently arose from the presence of the correct nigīrīt′ in 37 (or in the beginning of 38) = hupairīštem.

For hāvayẹiti A., D., E. have only the hāvan, for which B. has barā hanxetūnt so freely; C. also translates bih nihad, apparently to represent hāvayẹiti. B., C. add a sōzēt in the form of a gloss, after aēy and kū.

The text of B. here is va xūp nigīrītak (?so, or nigīrīt′ va(?))) mē'im karēnīt′ (C. burīdah) pavan ādāzešn′ aēy ātaxš barā hanxetūnt aēy sōzēt′. The Persian translation has va xūb nīgīrīdah avar burad pah ā … īšn (?); kū ātaš bih nihad, kū bih sūzad.

^{page 764 note *} ī is here supplied.

^{page 764 note †} Probably meaning ādazišn; see B. and the original.