^{page 825 note 2} I do not hesitate to emend the strange form χvūst (sic anavasit (?)), which I do not understand; a very slight change would make it anāhit, and this is exactly what the Parsi-Pers. translator renders χāliṣ.

^{page 825 note 3} Meaning that it is a supernatural river flowing in the heavens, and the supposed universal source of the rain, dew, etc.

^{page 825 note 4} Have we here an etymological hint, pūr = ‘ full ’ to pereθū ?

^{page 825 note 5} Whether the letter which approaches č (in B. and E.) was really meant for č in tač is doubtful; but the meaning is well adapted, and it would be worth while to emend the sign to this form by a slight change to Avesta .

^{page 825 note 6} I will no longer delay the remark that ‘ Water,’ considered to be the sacred principle in the Universe next after Fire, receives sacrifice as a Creature of Ahura's alone; see ‘Mazda-made.’ Surely nations devoted to cleanliness will readily acknowledge that it was an element well worthy to have been regarded as a sacred sub-divinity. See note on 61. This entire chapter is in harmony with Y. LI, 7, with which the chapter closes in the MSS.

^{page 825 note 7} The Demon of Putrefaction and Typhoid is especially opposed by Her as also by the Fire.

^{page 826 note 1} She belongs to God par excellence and to His religion.

^{page 826 note 2} Jān; it looks as if the trlr. read āyu for āδū; in an original Avesta-Pahlavi writing the signs might be the same. Yān = ‘ a boon ’ seems nearer āδū; but the Pers. MS. has Jān.

^{page 826 note 3} This anšūtā is evidently an error, as the constant ašaonīm refers with poetical iteration to the Ardvī Sūra Anāhīta.

^{page 826 note 4} This word wealth ‘ aẹtō’ is in the original here; the above occurrences of χvāstak are anticipative. A well-watered country thrives.

^{page 826 note 5} B. has a late erroneous martūm here.

^{page 826 note 6} C., the Parsi-Pers., has in the trl. ‘ veh dūstān.’

^{page 826 note 7} Was this idea of ‘singleness’ suggested by vī-(d(a) ẹvām) elsewhere?, ‘ separate from ’ ? Or is it here inserted by anticipation from 19 and 20 ?

^{page 827 note 1} Hardly ‘twins.’

^{page 827 note 2} Does frārūń render raθvīm(-yām), or is it a strengthening gloss to dātīhā?

^{page 827 note 3} Perhaps ‘ tasteful ’; lit. ‘ pleasant ’; but basīm may be meant to correspond to raθvīm(-yãm).

^{page 827 note 4} This should rather refer to her roar.

^{page 827 note 5} Possibly meaning ‘ as any of those rivers,’ or that ‘ Ardvīsūr represents them all.’

^{page 827 note 6} Notice the authorship of Aūharmazd in the gl.; the composer constructs the Hymn in His name. Does Aharmazd therefore sacrifice to her as he does elsewhere to Miθra ? If so, this proves that the word ‘ I sacrifice ‘’ does not imply idolatry.

^{page 827 note 7} Or, again, meaning that, ‘ whereas all other rivers are dependent upon Ardvīsūr for their water supply, the Arvand (?) was not so made by me, i.e. Aūharmazd, (is not so made by me thus (dependently) in connection with (levatā) the waters of the Ardvīsūr, nor the Ardvīsūr (in connection with it. They were alone of all waters independent of each other)).’

^{page 828 note 1} The highest peak of Hara, mother of mountains.

^{page 828 note 2} Or ‘she stirs all the gulfs or shores’; but see the original; sing, for pl. Is common in the Persian; see the grammars.

^{page 828 note 3} Possibly ‘with separated effect’: ‘she exerts her force on every side.’

^{page 828 note 4} fraž‘garaiti seems to be rendered as if it meant ‘ plunging in a single volume.’

^{page 828 note 5} A. has: ‘ man' bayen žag raγ ī(?)raγ apχahih (apχāīh (?)) var’ (so); the sign which looks like ‘ ī ’ is a mistake for var.

^{page 828 note 6} The apχahīh (apχāīh) must mean here outlets which prevail in times of flood and dry up in the summer season, or half dry up, so leaving ‘ lakes.’ Hardly ‘ affected by tidal influences.’

^{page 829 note 1} This is to relieve the appearance of exaggeration; ‘ from all sides’ of them would seem to mean ‘ all around the sides ’; there does not seem to he any reference to the sides of the Sea just here.

^{page 829 note 2} She is the ‘ Mother of Waters.’

^{page 829 note 3} The Persian translates ‘ tars ’ ‘ with terror,’ meaning as above.

^{page 829 note 4} B. ins. (?) min apχānān to relieve the effects of the iteration; or else min apχānān is gloss and min apχāhān (so); text (apχāān (?)).

B. has zag li aēvak min χānān min apχabān (-xāān?)) amat av' ham yedrūnyēn, aēγ …

A. has zagic ī li aēvak min apχahān (apχāān) amat av' ham yedrūnāñd, aēγ aēvatūm (aēvaktūm) …

C. also om. a second term. It has zag li aēvak min āvān amat …

E. (Sp.) has apχahān (apχāān) amat, no further insertion.

^{page 829 note 5} ‘ Most singly’; so, to carry out in the gloss the idea of ‘ uniqueness ’ in the texts.

^{page 830 note 1} I read zātān; so, much better than dātān. So C., the Parsi-Pers., zādahgān (?) trl. for the text jādān = zādān.

That the sign which resembled ‘d,’ ‘ī,’ etc., is one which at times expresses ‘z’ is clear from yazadān which word we discovered that the sign for ‘d,’ etc., may represent ‘y,’ the meaning yazata deciding the matter.

^{page 830 note 2} C., the Pers., has hastān = hastān here, but see above, where it has jādan, translated zādahgān.

^{page 830 note 3} Kāryadā (?), so possibly = ‘ hand work ’; C., the Pers., reads Karjadman = karyadā (translating ‘ šukm ’ = ‘ recompense ’ (?)); hardly kārgadā, ‘ (?) glory of work (or of ‘ agriculture ’); hardly read karzamān = ‘ Heaven’ … ‘ destined to Heaven.’

Hardly ‘ not yet fallen to the stomach (womb ?)’; see the Pers. trl. šikam (?) = ‘ belly’ (karzadā(?), karzadman (?)), etc.

^{page 830 note 4} The singular for the plural jaseñtu.

^{page 830 note 5} So we should render man' valāšān'; but it may well be that it was the Fravašis who carried on the waters; and not the vice versa. The masculine yōi of the original refers irregularly to the Saints.

^{page 830 note 6} See note 5.

^{page 830 note 7} Here we have the form in -āñd followed by yegavīmūnēt, as if it were a miswriting for -nūnt y. the past participle, as elsewhere we have something like it—āñd-ẽt. But here I separate.

^{page 830 note 8} The allusion is evidently to some supposed signal sacred act of gathering the water to be used for the zaoθra, ‘ holy water.’ Its original typical occurrence was mythically supposed to have taken place at the Heavenly River, Ardvīsūr. (It should be gathered from up-stream where it is purest. Possibly some reference may have been intended to the mode of gathering, the vessels being filled by the rush of the current without further manual exertion.)

^{page 831 note 1} Or possibly ‘ taken back ’ (?) from the client or ‘ worshipper ’(?), or other officiating Priest.

^{page 831 note 2} That is to say, if the zaoθra is contemptuously avoided, it loses its efficacy, id fit only for a male during some ceremonial contamination, or for a female during her periods of separation.

The difficulties lie, as always, in the extreme meagreness of the diction.

^{page 831 note 3} Of the original we should more naturally say ‘ his kinsmen.’

^{page 832 note 1} God, of course, is everywhere worshipped through the waters.

^{page 832 note 2} There is no doubt that the person who last wrote the word meant it as a negative, see C., the Pers., so that we had better make such sense of it as we can: ‘ through whom we are not smiters,’ i.e. ‘ through whom we are helpless.’ Or, should we recall the Persian forms in -tār, which have the force of the past participle; cf. giriftār = ‘seized,’ ‘a slave,’ so reaching ārēšītār as = ‘badly wounded’? Hardly. We might emend to ‘effective vanquishers,’ ‘ārēšītār,’ but how does this idea apply ?

^{page 832 note 3} Hardly “ of whom we are the deadly wounders, ‘ ārēšītār.’ ”

^{page 833 note 1} īša certainly determined χvāstār; yet see valāšān as if īš = ‘ those ’ was considered, this being the early commentator's notion of an alternative translation.

^{page 833 note 2} I do not see why we cannot render ‘ wishers who (are) destructive ’; but ‘ destruction ’ is more natural.

^{page 833 note 3} I suppose that this gloss ‘ from Hell ’ was natural enough after sēj = iθyẹjāo; but C., the Parsi-Pers., translates ‘ of the evil.’

^{page 833 note 4} vādūštār (A., B.).

^{page 833 note 5} gēhān evidently translates (ī)daδa as if it were a form of dā = d‘ā.

^{page 833 note 6} No valāšān here as above; and there is nothing in the termination of iθyeẹjāo to suggest iš = ‘ to wish ’; the idea was taken from above.

^{page 833 note 7} Perhaps this word ‘ gūff ’ refers to the interpretation just made of ‘ di daδa.’

^{page 833 note 8} ‘ Producers’ again points to dā, and in fact so I formerly rendered in S.B.E. xxxi, yō dī daδa. Or are the adverbials to be preferred with our late venerable pioneer, von Spiegel ?

^{page 833 note 9} I would now emend my rendering in S.B.E. xxxi in this sense, ‘ rejoice ye,’ rather than ‘ rest ye.’

^{page 833 note 10} I would now correct my too severely critical rendering of 1887 here, at least alternatively. I then read these words kuθra in the higher critical sense of a mere indication of a question, but the Pahlavi, I think, on the whole, may be right, and we should render ‘ how.’

^{page 833 note 11} So D. (M.) inserts. C., the Pers., has ‘ Thou, who [art] the Good Water’ (i.e. those of the clean creation); D. only translates yažāitẹ.

^{page 834 note 1} No one would fail to read ‘ hat’ = ‘ if’ at the first glance, hut see hitō = ‘ bound.’

^{page 834 note 2} C., the Pers., has ‘ with evident tongue,’ meaning ‘ with a full audible voice’ as against the low intoning. The latter may have heen, perhaps, much as the Roman Catholic priests undertone the sacrament at times, while the people sing an appropriate hymn.

^{page 834 note 3} This seems to he genuine protest against tradition, unless we change the reading lā to rāī, and translate: ‘ since they would celebrate in accordance with the reserved opinions of the commentary.’

^{page 834 note 4} The official, the ‘ zartūšt’ of the time, speaking for the individual; or the mythical Zartūšt as in all the post-Gāθic Avesta.

^{page 835 note 1} Here we have no slur upon the efficacy of ‘ works,’ not even upon ceremonial duties. Aparg was the name of a commentator.

^{page 835 note 2} Allusion to the frequent formulas of the Vendīdād, which had their origin irrationally from the ‘ tat θvā peresā,’ cf. Y. XLIV, or from some lost Gāθic piece.

^{page 835 note 3} The preposition ‘ av'’ renders aivyō as dative; but how the zaoθra-water could be offered ‘ to’ the waters it is difficult to see. Possibly ‘ to the waters (?) in general’ must be meant, so I have rendered it in S.B.E. xxxi. For the original an ablative might be considered.

^{page 836 note 1} See note at the end of 43.

^{page 837 note 1} ‘ Fivefold’ is probably an old mistake which arose from reading pēñdāiδyāi for mēdãiδyãi in the Gāθas (?) at Y. XLIV, 8.

^{page 838 note 1} Was not this whole discussion caused by the form pōuruš, which suggested the Indian pūrús n.s.m. = ‘ man.’ Otherwise, where does this idea of martūm, anšūtā come from ? It seems clear that our alternative opinion that pōuruš = India pūrús was a rediscovery, and would have been known a half-century earlier if the Pahlavi commentary could have been read. The kabed, which renders pōuruš as = ‘ many,’ is properly the first idea of the trlr. on the subject, with the anšūtā = ‘ men ’ as the alternative; and the early scholars knew of no other way of putting in an alternative than simply to add the alternative word with no proper explanation that an alternative was intended.

^{page 838 note 2} The offspring.

^{page 838 note 3} This is a very sound gloss, for the allusion to mere ‘ desire for misfortune’ seemed naturally tame to the translator.

^{page 838 note 4} So for apayatēẹ = -taye = not their ‘ overtaking.’

^{page 838 note 5} Or ‘ well establishing.’

^{page 839 note 1} ‘ Males and females’ express as usual the gender of the names or nouns. The males allude to the non-feminine names, the females to those in the feminine gender, āramaiti, etc.; see elsewhere. The terms zakar = ‘ male’ and vagdān = ‘ female’ are properly not gloss, but simply fix the genders of the vague adjectives.

^{page 839 note 2} One might suggest an aīt'īh (?) in the sense of existence (i.e. ‘proof of?) existence ’; ‘ that goodness is … (proof of ?) existence as regards them.’

^{page 839 note 3} The matter here in mind is deprecation.

^{page 839 note 4} I read the ‘ lã ’; but am strongly inclined to emend to rāī: ‘ whereby a person is befriended on account of his being in a good position.’ The lā would be awkwardly placed; though as to that, we should not be too particular here, as the texts are disarranged by an attempt to follow the order of the original.

^{page 840 note 1} Possibly having the etymology in view.

^{page 840 note 2} These distinctions between abstract terms remind one of the feeble Aristotelianism which lingered in Persia possibly as the effects of the visit of Simplicius.

^{page 840 note 3} Notice the ever-present attempt to maintain a deep moral and religious tone on the part of the glossist, and so throughout the entire Pahlavi Yasna.

^{page 840 note 4} χšaθrya.

^{page 840 note 5} The Lightning.

^{page 841 note 1} The word mošuča seems to be translated only in C., the Parsi-Pers., and with tīž; perhaps it was omitted in the other MSS. because the sense of ‘ swift’ was also seen in āsuyä-, and rendered by the mere indication of the root su + the frequent closing consonant -k, as in vohu-k, etc. With the sensible, but somewhat erroneous, text of C., the Parsi-Pers., we might have: ‘a King who may be a desirer for our immediate (swift (tīz)) advantage sūd(sūt),’ so representing the -su- in āsuyā, erroneously of course. With the text of B. (D., Pt. 4) one might possibly (?) have: ‘grant me a sovereign who is supplicant (lit. ‘wisher,’ so for isanō) from Heaven (?sag, the stony Heaven).’ With all the texts in view except that of C., the Parsi-Pers., which commits itself to sūt (sūd) = ‘ advantage, profit’ as the idea lurking in āsuyā (?), it is better, as already said, to regard the peculiar form suk (?) as merely an indication of the root idea in the word; that is, as merely su + k.

^{page 841 note 2} Or quite possibly, as in the Ātaχš chapter, ‘ an offspring quick from the couch.’ Regard this as an alternative.

^{page 841 note 3} (So A.) abavīhūnast’; but with the texts bavīhūnast’, so B. (D., Pt. 4), we should have: ‘ and according to what is prayed and to what is hardly (so for barā as in the negative sense) prayed for.’ Or, again, ‘according to what is prayed for, and still more emphatically (so barā in this sense) prayed for’; unless vača is included in bavīhūnast’, I do not see where it is rendered.

^{page 842 note 1} Searching critics will have inquired throughout “why in this somewhat fervid section, not to say in this Yašt, all the appeals are made to the sacred objects of nature, with no direct mention of Ahura?” We see now the reason. All are addressed as the creations of Ahura in this verse from the Gāthas which sums up the chapter; nay, as we understand it, the entire chapter, being founded upon Yasna LI, 7, etc., is only an expansion of it; the nature-worship involved is entirely absorbed in the Mazda-worship; and so everywhere in Avesta.