^{page 16 note 1} As regards the word speñta, which occurs thronghout, I am now at last convinced that the word “bountiful” is here, as elsewhere, used in the sense of “holy”.—What tended to the augmentation of the Good was sacred with this system. I had hesitated, fearing to suggest more meaning than was justified. I should continually repeat that I hold it to be quite impossible that the composer should use such words as the names of the Attributes, Asha, truth, Vohu Manah, Good Mind, Khshathra, Kingdom, etc., in their first simple meanings alone. Those meanings are indeed of primary and supreme importance;—see my treatment of them everywhere in my writings:—they are pregnant and altogether remarkable as grouped here; —but the hearers or readers must have been thoroughly familiar with the implied ideas which became inseparable from them—Asha as the Archangel of the Law, etc., Vohu Manah as “Good Will” in the faithful citizen, or in the Archangel, etc., Khshathra as the present immediate “national authority” in the Sovereign, etc.

^{page 16 note 2} Here we have again the occurrence of this undefined word ahmāi. Do the Pahl., Pers., and Ner. solve this enigma by reporting ahmāi as the equivalent of Vedic ạsmé, dative or loc. of aham, “to us”? This is well worth considering, though ahmai yahmāi kahmāi cit in Y. 43 is against it;—yet see strophe 3 here. Recall Y. 43, 1, etc., which shows that, as in the case of many other words used in the same way, the composer took it for granted that his hearers had especial means for understanding its allusions and point. The wandering contemporaneous teachers must have explained obscurities, as did the later rhapsodists.

^{page 17 note 3} dãn as improp. conj. aor. 3rd pl., hardly an ace. infin.; not impossibly put for the pres. part.—“may A. with the others give …”;—from this the 3rd plur.

^{page 17 note 4} Eẹā nū. Here we have again this deformity; — see Y. 29, 7. Possibly the letter ẹ, which is exactly the letter ṅ reversed, has been accidentally turned around, so that we may have ēṅā = Ind. ana in the instr. = “breath” for “mouth”, so clearing up the difficulty. Or does it here represent a distorted anu which might express the force of verezyat? No such indication is given at Y. 29, 7. If the pūmman (pūmā) of the Pahl. is its attempted translation here: — see Ner.'s mukhe,- and the Parsi-Persian dahan here, and pūmman (pūmā), mukhena, and dahan at Y. 29, 7,—then we should naturally reconstruct aoṅhā = “with mouth”, which so excellently fits the contents both here and at Y. 29, 7.

^{page 18 note 1} “The two hands of Aramaiti” prove that she represents “Zeal” in agricultural labour. Recall Vendīdād, 5, or 6, “with the right hand and the left,” etc.

^{page 18 note 2} Ōyā. Here we have another of the ever-to-be-expected breakdowns.— Ō was expressed in the transitional Avesta-Pahlavi by the same perpendicular stroke † which also expressed “v” among other things. So that, making proper allowance for the unexpressed inherent short, or other vowels, we should reconstruct the word as avayā or anayā,— the Pahl., Pers., and Ner.'s Sanskrit each report the pronoun.

^{page 18 note 3} An eminent Avesta-Vedist used to regard Asha as at times representing “the Congregation”.

^{page 18 note 4} If we could read Mazdā voc. in d, then we might refer the whole passage to the typical saint; recall Y. 45, 3. See note;—and see my Latin Alternative in Gāthās at the place. Recall “better than the Good”, Y. 43, 2, or 3.—This Vahishtem became later a name for Heaven, and it recalls also Y. 30, 4.

^{page 19 note 5} Ahmāi. Perhaps, not unnaturally, Ner. seems to have felt the presence of something like the Ved. asmé, dat. or loc. pl. of aham;—he has asmabhyam = “to us”. No trace of this in the Pahl. or Pers. N.B.—Ner. at times throughout offers independent suggestions, though his work is a translation of the Pahl. It is not a “mere echo” of the Pahl., though it might well be.

^{page 19 note 6} The chief sign and essence of the difference between Zoroastrian (Zarathushtrian) civilization and the freebooting nomads was agriculture and close cattle-culture.

^{page 19 note 7} See also elsewhere the frequent idea of “consultation”. Cf. Y. 33,6, — and recall Vendīdad where Ār(a)maiti almost completely equals “the earth”,—“the bride whom the true tiller husbands.”

^{page 20 note 1} Recall -kāti. I think that kātaye, ārādhayitum, is here to be understood to make the passage critically intelligible.

^{page 20 note 2} Ako can hardly apply directly to the partisan upon the same side as the one referred to in line (c). In this latter case we should have “A man of small means is at the service of the Saint, while even a man of abundant means is ‘hostile’ to the faithless”. What is the sense of that ?—It seems to mean that “the cause of the Religion was so appealing that even those who had little means were devoted to it, while those even of ample means were hostile or lukewarm toward the opposition”, —but why should these latter be at all regarded as if they could possibly tolerate the thought of the faithless party as objects of sympathy and approval. Why mention that they were “hostile to the faithless”? Of course they were hostile to the faithless if akō refers to the Zoroastrian;—there seems to be an absence of force in such a view. Or is it an appeal to aristocratic distinctions ? The poor are devoted to our cause and even the rich also are against our enemies;—what business would such an idea have here? Both the humble and the exalted would be naturally upon the side of the “faithful”. Why should not “the exalted” be all the more hostile to the wicked, and on the side of “the faithful”, on account of their abundant means and of their position ? It is difficult to see the force of the distinction with akō understood as expressing the mental attitude of a true believer. But aka- seems to me to be so firmly fixed as an expression referring to the hostile party;—see acitem manah, etc., that I think it would hardly be used to characterize the hostility of a Saint toward the faithless;— that is to say, I do not think that aka- could be nsed as, for instance, mainyēuš … dva shaṅhā is used in Y. 44, 11, where dv(a) shaṅha = “with hate” applies to the Mazda-worshipper, “with my spirit's hate.”

^{page 21 note 3} Cōiš. For cōiš(-š);—cf. acais to ci, and nais to nī, with loss of the sign of the 2nd singular. The root-idea seems to be “furnish with”, —lit. “to heap together upon one with (benefits)”;—but I feel here also a sense of discrimination to be present in the word. I explain the vowels ōi in chōiš as equalling a + i as the equivalent of . The word is cš for caiš = Ind. caiṣ.

^{page 21 note 4} cīcā, a nom. pl. neut. to a ci-.

^{page 21 note 5} Notice the difficulty in rendering j(a)oshāt as merely equalling “will” here,—and if not here, then where elsewhere. “Benevolent will” is plainly indicated;—it provides the “happy portion” which the evil cannot share.

^{page 21 note 6} This Evil Mind was the contradictory opposite of Vohu Manah.

^{page 22 note 1} Āthrā. I fully agree with Grassmann in the matter of atharī; see also an Ind. athar as the basis of athar-van. Whether the root-idea of the word is “the devouring” ought to be a question.

^{page 22 note 2} Vīdaite. Cf. vidātha. Possibly in its sense of “assembly”. Or again, possibly as a 3rd sg. = “he—the Spirit—distributes”, but I no longer prefer this last at present.

^{page 22 note 3} Always possibly, but not probably araṇibhyām (-ṇībhyām).

^{page 22 note 4} Formed to baṅh-, as manaḥ to man-, etc., etc.

^{page 22 note 5} Ponrū(n)š possibly to Ind. puru- = “man”, otherwise = “many”.

^{page 23 note 6} See isheñtō, Y. 30, 1; and ishathā, Y. 45, 1. See Y. 31, 1. The usage seems to be characteristic, expressing the enthusiastic zeal with which the tribes assembled at some especially sacred festival. I cite the first iṣ- plus anu to make sure of covering the composer's idea—but the second iṣ, “to wish for,” is very suitable. Did the Avesta language distinguish so clearly between the two?—they were, of course, of identical origin.

^{page 23 note 7} Vaurāite = vavarāite (intens.); — it must have causative force. I imitate as above. Notice the emphatic presence of Armaiti in this XLVII;—It was agriculture which saved the tribes from barbarism then,—and we see the same Armaiti in the same character, as the one saving force to-day.—Food is now the prime necessity.