^{page 52 note 2} So, in great error. ‘Desire’ was seen in ver; cf. vereθrem.

^{page 53 note 3} There is some question as to whether actual ‘agricultural profit’ was not meant; but in course of time this harvest Hymn lost some of its healthful point.

^{page 54 note 1} So, better in the concrete, of the actually attending congregations. Can it mean that here the congregations are to carry on the celebration ‘of themselves’ ?

^{page 54 note 2} That Aši means ‘justice in the light of acquisition,’ as ‘reward,’ or as result’ in the original at times, is quite sure, and the moral idea was even sometimes quite lost in the idea of the ‘result’ as reward. It even seems at times to mean ‘property’ or ‘wealth.’

^{page 54 note 3} Notice that ār(a)maiti is not here ‘ the earth,’ as we might more naturally expect in this Harvest Manθra.

^{page 54 note 4} This Manθra's original looked toward the harvest as its objective. A later glossist brings in the interior virtues.

^{page 55 note 1} The imperative in -ātū must have heen seen; from this the ‘ barā’ = ‘ shall’ rather than ‘ will’ (save us).

^{page 55 note 2} Is there no trace of the meaning ‘ invitation’ here; see the verbal form in the original rendered by yehabūnam.

^{page 55 note 3} ‘ Barā’ must be used in this sense here; the oblique case was seen, and recognised as dative.

^{page 55 note 4} Barā in this sense.

^{page 55 note 5} In order to acquire the interior meaning here we should do our best to grasp both original and Pahlavi in the concrete. ‘ Praise’ seems to be the theme of the introduction, but it would be a great dereliction as to duty if we rendered the word in that flat manner only. ‘ Praise’ of course means here attendance upon (or ‘ attention to’) the Celebration of the Holy Sacrifice, as a good Churchman might say. Worship was regarded in the most concrete sense of personal action with interior sincerity, but solemnly celebrated in fullest ritual. The interest held in view was no improper one, when we at the same time describe it as a ‘ rational Priestcraft.’ If the Priesthood could not sustain the services of the Sacrifice, of course the national Faith would dissolve.

^{page 56 note 1} See the original.

^{page 56 note 2} This looks as if Ahura were meant; but see below.

^{page 56 note 3} B. (D., Pt. 4) reads Artavavahišt, as a mere gloss to Aharāyīh, which would leave -ṅhačā unrendered; ‘ increased the profit’ looks clumsy enough; but see Profit as the theme throughout; va hūtvaχšt, ‘ beneficently produced,’ is also awkward. One might think of ‘ hamtvaχšt.’ If we read va sūtvaχšt the question arises, ‘ What does it translate?’ I can only suggest, as often, that -ṅhačā must have once stood in an Avesta-Pahlavi character, which being so indefinite as to ‘ n ’and ‘ v,’ the word may have looked like vaχšt as ‘ h ’ was expressed by the same signs as kh, χ. Or haě = ‘ to accompany in a friendly manner,’ might have been tentatively rendered ‘ prosper,’ ‘ increase.’

^{page 56 note 4} Hardly ‘ he produced the other Yazats.’

^{page 56 note 5} A curious mistake which occurs elsewhere, -vairī, the feminine possessive suffix, was seen as a form of var = ‘ to choose,’ ‘ to desire.’ Have we here another double translation ? Whence comes ‘ other’ ? Was -apara also seen in -avairya- owing to the original early character ? Or did hā(čā) suggest hā(n) ?

^{page 56 note 6} Aōj- was, as elsewhere (?), suggested by the external form of -aōsčā; č would be rendered by the same sign as ‘ j, ’ but what suggested hamāk ?

^{page 57 note 1} The leading Yeoman Chief representative of the agricultural interest was always held in view. Cf. Y. XXIX, 2; Gāθas, pp. 22, 412.

^{page 57 note 2} B. (D., Pt. 4) has daχšak = ‘ sign’ possibly in view of āškārak, but erroneous for dehāk = dehak; see the original.

^{page 57 note 3} See the Amešaspends below. This havēt which I put in the 2nd pl. with kartār for kartārān with kartārīh: ‘ Yours is the production … ’; hardly ‘ Ye are the production … ’; see the Amešas below, is in any way a mistake. Was the 2nd person, though in the plural, suggested by the -ahī of -mahī, so mistaken for a 2nd singular, as elsewhere ?

^{page 57 note 4} Was this mēnavadīh suggested by the terminations -ratū of nišaṅharatū, etc.

^{page 57 note 5} The Cattle-breeder with the Agriculturalist held a position analogous to the great grain or cotton Leaders of other lands and of other days. Cattle-culture was the all-in-all of the national resources, and Political Economy was of the most rudimental type, but for that very reason it was all the more vital to the national existence, enabling it to maintain itself upon its original basis as a law-abiding community. Aside from agriculture ‘ freebooting ’ was the usual resource, and freebooting was Ašma. Cf. Y. XXIX, 1.

^{page 57 note 6} Meaning ‘sharing with the poor.’

^{page 58 note 1} From the raids of Ašma; see the Gāθas.

^{page 58 note 2} Males with the neuter names Aša, Vohuman, and Kh.; females with the names in the feminine, Āramaiti, Haurvatāt, and Ameretatāt.

^{page 58 note 3} The ‘Intelligent, the knowing One,’ as applied to Aūharmazd, meant, of course, the ‘superlatively intelligent One’; the grammatical form mistaken. ‘ None other than You ’ is a Gāθic expression.

^{page 58 note 4} It would be a pity to abandon altogether the idea of ‘ fearing consideration ’ for tarsakās in B., which word, however, tarsakās, elsewhere renders aši where it, ‘ aši,’ occurs almost fully in the sense of ‘ wealth’ as a reward. C., the Pers., often renders bandagī

^{page 58 note 5} So with the better texts, A., B.; see the original; but Sp. has spendarmad.

^{page 58 note 6} Was this suggested by the outward shape of haurva- ?

^{page 58 note 7} The grammatical form is not reproduced.

^{page 59 note 1} The grammatical form is not reproduced.

^{page 59 note 2} The erroneous -ānd (?) should of course be read -ānī; see the original; elsewhere in glosses this is justified; but I believe that the correct -ānī is seldom, or never (?), written, not even in the Pers. With the impossible -ānd, ‘ let them see what are the characteristics of Ahura ’; or ‘ let them look upon me who am Ahura ’; but see the original. ī is understood; see the original.

^{page 59 note 3} So, ‘ with which,’ as recognising the influence of ‘ hãm,’ or possibly the instrumental of raočēbīš was expressed.

^{page 59 note 4} We must not forget that the sacred Fire upon the Parsi Altars was, and perhaps is still by some, supposed to have come down from Ahura in Heaven, and most appropriately represents the most searching form of purity. As the Manθra was doubtless chanted in presence of the Fire, these frequent choruses to it are natural.

^{page 59 note 5} Hardly here ‘water and fuel,’ as the first does not agree ‘with fire.’

^{page 59 note 6} Hãn of the original is absorbed (so to speak) in hamāk.

^{page 59 note 7} Those parts of the Yasna which are of the nature of Yasts; so I conjecture. The interpolation seems awkward; it was probably meant to stir up the chanters and the Priests in the course of the celebration.

^{page 60 note 1} Referring to the brilliant flame. Recall Heraclitus. The first three words of (22) are not translated.

^{page 60 note 2} The Stars are elsewhere His body. A curious expression this plural ‘ bodies’; it has reference to the plural ‘ stars ’ here understood.

^{page 60 note 3} I cannot shake off my recognition of ‘ invitation ’ as part of the idea here and elsewhere present; and this in spite of the glosses which persistently render merely ‘ proclaim.’

^{page 60 note 4} That portion of the Yasts which is introduced into the Yasna Service; so I conjecture.

^{page 60 note 5} This last translation (of 24) needs technical corroboration on the part of those familiar with the details of the sacrifice.

^{page 61 note 1} For the text of Y. LVIII, 1 (Sp.), see Y. XVII, 56–69, and for the text of 2 Y. XXVI, 1–33 (Sp.). For my text of Y. XVII see J.A.O.S., July, 1905; for my Y. XXVI see a possible future contribution.

^{page 61 note 2} The word ‘ own,’ as elsewhere in similar places, is here intended to be really indefinite. It refers to the ‘ soul ’ of the party in whose interest the sacrifice was being celebrated; here, I think, the idea is associated with the Zaotar likewise.

^{page 62 note 1} One might think that the following was rather the meaning: The Ratu is to say (the following) from the beginning (from the foot) in place of the F.; but ‘ bun’ is used for ‘ beginning.’ Upon these technical rubrics referring to particulars in the movements of the Priests in the sacrifice, of course, only the Local Priests have full information.

^{page 62 note 2} Y. XLIII, 2. Organic embodiment of ideas; not mere external citation.

^{page 62 note 3} So for A., sraẹšta-, which we should more naturally render ‘ the beautiful,’ referring to the Fire which Aša later represented.

^{page 63 note 1} For the text of 1 see Y. XLIII, 3, Gāθas, pp. 158, 511; šatẹ = ketrūnēt suggested ‘ Home.’

^{page 63 note 2} Dab = ‘ to deceive,’ not being seen; the letter z was read as y; not so in Y. LIII, 1.

^{page 63 note 3} Mutual approaches of the worshipper and the object of his devotions.

^{page 64 note 1} So with the more natural reading mānpatān mānpatīh. With magōpatān magōpatih we have a less pointed sense.

^{page 64 note 2} I would now correct my translation in S.B.E. xxxi, in this sense for asištō, asištem, etc., waste, absence, not ‘ swiftest.’

^{page 64 note 3} The frāztum patih may have suggested the High-priestly Residence as the scene of this blessing. It was a Holy Office in the Official Home.

^{page 65 note 1} These words do not strictly correspond to hačīmnāo, the first syllable of which, hač-, is, as elsewhere, rendered by levatã = ‘ with.’ Could a form of ‘ man’ = ‘ to think’ have been, seen in -mnāo, so suggesting ‘ thoughtful regulation ’ and so ‘ correctness ’ with vohu manah also in mind ?

^{page 65 note 2} While we should, of course, endeavour to understand these expressions in the sense most egoistic to the Householder, it is clearly impossible to exclude the finer sense.

^{page 65 note 3} This is a valuable passage to prove the depth of the moral idea in the later Avesta. Here ār(a)maiti, with tarō-maiti, cannot possibly mean the ‘ earth ’; nor can the ‘ truthful speech ’ refer only to ‘ exactness in reciting the ritual,’ nor can Aša mean simply the ‘ ritual law,’ nor can sraoša mean anything less than a moral obedience.

^{page 66 note 1} It is not impossible that we have here another case of double translation, γal vebedūnãnd or -yēn might be meant to render paitišãn, though dātōbar (dāt’bar) renders paiti- with curious error. This, as often, was the translator's mode of giving an alternative translation.

^{page 66 note 2} Male Yazats having names not in the feminine. Female Yazats having names in the feminine.

^{page 66 note 3} This is the most natural rendering of the words, but it is a little suspiciously intelligent; the glosses may possibly mean ‘ in special reference to these male (Yazats),’ and so of the females.

^{page 66 note 4} ‘ May I myself be a …’ Or ‘ may we be ourselves bearers.’ The ‘ long ’ reward recalls Y. XXX, 11, the word nafšā rendering the χvā of χvābairyāt refers rather to the ‘ self’ as ‘ bringing’ than to the person's ‘ own’ reward.

^{page 66 note 3} So, perhaps better than ‘ legitimate ’ as I held formerly.

^{page 67 note 1} Here follows from Yasna VIII, 5–7 (or 10–16, to be treated later).

^{page 67 note 2} So following B. (2), Pt. 4; vahišto is not otherwise expressed.

^{page 67 note 3} Was the 1st personal form used in yehemtūnam from a curious mistake as to the terminal ‘ ām ’ of jaseñtām ? The 1st personal is in 20.

^{page 67 note 4} Reading -ānī see the original and the Pers.

^{page 67 note 5} Recall kat θvā dar(e)sāni, Y. XXVIII, 5.

^{page 67 note 6} Ham(= hamem) +; av-, not amān (same characters = ‘ ours ’); not ‘ ours (be) Thou in companionship.’

^{page 68 note 1} Aša and Vohū Manah are elsewhere and more than once spoken of as ‘ lodged’ in the body.

^{page 68 note 2} ‘ Kāstārs ’ is less rational, or Kaχadārs (so reading) is nearer Kaḥereδas.

^{page 69 note 1} As the sign for ‘ s ’ may be read ‘ y ’ +; ‘ d ’ when more loosely written, I should say that we ought to write Kāyada = Kayaδa of the original; or at least Kāyastār, as ‘ d ’ sometimes goes over to the sibilant.

^{page 69 note 2} Zanda here must mean the use of spurious commentaries perverting the sense of original texts to purposes of evil magic or sorcery.

^{page 69 note 3} Of those who fatally or seriously injure the Orthodox.

^{page 70 note 1} See Y. XLIV, 13, 14. Gāθas 203, 205, 532.

^{page 70 note 2} This is, of course, erroneous as a translation. The original word is hīm, mistaken here for a Pahlavi χīm which shows in passing how often Avesta characters were read as Pahlavi, and vice versâ.

^{page 70 note 3} ‘ Through the Praise of A.’ is not improper as an explanation of the present participle, if this was seen.

^{page 70 note 4} Aēγ represents yōi either by mistake or with freedom.

^{page 70 note 5} Yōi heñti = ye santi is characteristic in Vedic, and does not elsewhere necessarily refer to the elements of worship. ‘ Yōi heñti ’ does, however, here refer to the Sacrifice, etc., as indicated in the gloss.

^{page 71 note 1} To be said standing. Or ‘ to the end from the beginning ’; as ‘ sar ’ = head is used for ‘ end,’ so ragelā = ‘ foot ’ may (?) be used for the beginning; but bun' is almost universally used for ‘ beginning.’ I repeat my remark that upon these rubrics I do not possess that experience of ritual details which should make my opinions ultimate; and in fact such usages must have changed with time.

^{page 71 note 2} Hū = ‘ good,’ ‘ effective.’

^{page 71 note 3} An ‘ uštā ’ or ‘ benefit-offering.’

^{page 71 note 4} ‘ Friendship’ for vañta-beretīm, ‘ securing friendships.’

^{page 72 note 1} As distinguished from ‘ milk,’ sometimes named by the same name.

^{page 72 note 2} C., the Pers., had sitār-i-nīmšab, ‘ the star of midnight.’ Possible (?) reference to some extra midnight offering coinciding with the luminous appearance of some star at a midnight; possibly ‘ pasīn ’ = ‘ late ’ was read; from this ‘ the star of (late) midnight.’ Other Pers. and Sansk. ‘ laying on fuel.’

^{page 72 note 3} The Pers. does not translate.

^{page 72 note 4} Be pious, i.e. ‘ religious chieftain-guard,’ one fitted for the official liturgy of sacrifice.

^{page 72 note 5} Be ‘ on thy growth ’; ‘ let there be more fire used.’

^{page 72 note 6} As we should ‘ till millennium,’ or ‘ till Paradise.’

^{page 73 note 1} Possibly ‘ deliverance.’

^{page 73 note 2} So for mastim.

^{page 73 note 3} A well-known Zoroastrian distinction between the knowledge which comes instinctively and that which is acquired from without, and yet, notwithstanding this, the higher instinctive wisdom of conscience is here conceived as being imparted by priestly instruction.

^{page 74 note 1} So for ‘ ham-mart-azūkih.’ The cause of this egregious blunder was that ‘ var ’ was read as ‘ nar ’ = ‘ mart.’ Var probably stood in a quasi-original Av. Pahl. character, in which ‘ var ’ and ‘ nar ’ would be spelt with the same signs. Then a later hand added as alternative var as azūkih = ‘ var ’ = ‘ to desire.’

^{page 74 note 2} The hervandī of C., the Pers., seems to be a variant of the ērvandīh to aurvant. χvēš arvandīh would be ‘ spontaneous alertness.’

^{page 74 note 3} C., the Pers., has only šahr.

^{page 75 note 1} A man with a name to conjure with.

^{page 75 note 2} Hardly ‘ gaining much booty,’ the ‘ r ’ is to be read as if a' in a hū-āp', not ‘ hū-āpar ’; the Pers. has curiously ‘ as having handsome eyebrows ’; ‘ par ’ suggesting ‘ bru,’ same signs. Hū-āp' = ‘ well reached.’

^{page 75 note 3} So the Pers. In the original we should rather defer to vīr = ‘ man ’; see the following text, not gloss. The Pers. has hamrōstar (sic) = ham sūrat, χādar = bar dāšt kunandah, min tangī = az duzaχ. The above section is one of the most difficult in the Pahlavi Avesta.

^{page 75 note 4} The -sastī does not seem to be translated—unless a ‘ rod-sastāk’ is to be read for the ‘ rōd-satāk ’ of B. (D., Pt. 4). C, the Pers., trl. mulk = rōstak.

^{page 75 note 5} Havēt (so), not āmūχt, is to be read; so the Parsi-Pers. An āmūχt might indicate a glance toward sah (saṅh).

^{page 75 note 6} Erroneously seeing ‘ sāz ’ in afrasāońghāo.

^{page 75 note 7} Between the meanings ‘ comfort ’ and ‘ glory ’ there might be some mediation, if we understand extreme ‘ comfort ’ as ‘ beatification.’

^{page 75 note 8} Zazē buv.

^{page 76 note 1} See Y. XXXII; the ‘ good renown ’ there mentioned seems to be referred to Heaven.

^{page 76 note 2} The ‘ long preparation of the soul,’ so S.B.E. xxxi, seems to me now to be suspiciously intelligent; perhaps the idea is a long hāvanī-service referring to the first sacrifice of the day at sunrise, when the H(a)oma-mortar (hāvana) was first used. The ‘ long hāvanī ’ would be the continuous religious service looked forward to in Heaven, and to the vision (so it seems dōisarih); but C., the Parsi-Pers., seems to read ‘ vindsari ’ (sic(?)), ‘ the overmastership and the gaining of headship,’ and it translates with what seems meant for nazūl = ‘ hospitality,’ ‘ alighting,’ ‘ the hospitality beyond (or ‘ at ’) the Činvat Bridge.’

^{page 76 note 3} Gen. by position for dative.

^{page 76 note 4} E. has a 2nd sing. B. has yedrūnyēn, as 2nd sing, imper.; but we are obliged to follow A.'s burad with the original.

^{page 76 note 5} Why was the evening meal called dahm = ‘ pious,’ or merely ‘ good ’; so the Pers. nēk ? Possibly because it was the substantial meal of the day, and so entailed more ceremonies.

^{page 76 note 6} Sūr would more naturally mean ‘ feast ’ than χurad = ‘ eats ’; so C., the Pers. But in the original it seems from antithesis with the ‘ evening ’ to mean the ‘ morning meal.’ Possibly the spit ‘ sūiri ’ on which meat was roasted gave the name.

^{page 76 note 7} Or does ‘ name-by-name’ refer to the several objects upon which the Fire speaks ?

^{page 77 note 1} So tās seems to have suggested the form rōvešnīh. A. has ‘ a full-bearing,’ ‘ pūr-baresnīh.’ It seems as if the idea of ‘ motion’ was recognised in -tās = tāts; so elsewhere; ‘ tač’ was hardly seen. It looks as if the long ā were read in its Pahlavi value as āī, suggesting a form from i, aẹ = ‘ to go.’

^{page 78 note 1} So D. hačāt; C. hātād (?sic) translates kāmah = ‘desire,’ a mistake.

^{page 78 note 2} The Pers. trl. has dil = ‘ heart.’

^{page 78 note 3} Notice the 2nd sing. indic. used as so often as imperv., and then just after in its usual sense.

^{page 78 note 4} Or ‘ that is ’ (expressed as often by aē = ‘ this ’) ‘ live according to the (sacred) custom.’ But is not this a mere grammatical note? This (zīvih, in form a 2nd sing. indicative, is) a fashion for zīv', the literal 2nd sing. imperv.

^{page 78 note 5} ‘ Sought out’; iš = ‘ to wish for ’ seen.

^{page 78 note 6} As if yaoždātãm were seen as the (?) pl. of the participle.