page 85 note * The text from which this translation is made was published as edited with all the MSS. collated in the Zeitschrift of the German Oriental Society, Band, lviii, p. 428, 1904.Google Scholar

^{page 85 note 1} Nēr. račitena, as if ‘laid in order,’ using the same word for the Pahl. or , and for the Pahl. sāxt.

^{page 85 note 2} Nēr. does not notice the genitive form of Ahurahya; his dative plurals express the rāī.

^{page 85 note 3} The Parsi-Pers. has ‘nūrmand,’ as we may notice in passing, so adding another item of evidence against the meaning ‘rich’ for the original, which adjective would indeed not so naturally be applied to the Supreme Being.

^{page 85 note 4} It seems as if one priest or assistant lifted up the objects while the reciter pronounced the text.

^{page 85 note 5} Notice that the Pahl. trlr. first saw a dative in i in yẹšti, here not warranted.

^{page 86 note 1} Ašaya not rendered ‘for a reward’?

^{page 86 note 2} Nēr. has sadāčāratayā račitam āste.

^{page 86 note 3} Nēr. recoils from the meaning ‘meat’ here, doubtless on account of the strong prejudice in India against the consumption of cow's flesh. He renders as a proper name with jīvamanānïm, glossing ‘dugd'am’ ⃜ The Parsi-Pers. has gōsfend i jivām.

^{page 86 note 4} Nēr. has hīnavānāmānam; C., the Parsi-Pers., has anār. Nēr. adds a curious formation uruarāmam.

^{page 86 note 5} Rāī in the gloss expresses the datives of the original. Nēr. has the genitive for dative (?) apām uttamānām⃜

^{page 86 note 6} Rāī again in the gloss; Nēr. again gen.

^{page 86 note 7} Nēr. has the form raupīyām for asimīń and the gl. g‘aṇṭām= ‘bell,’ as the mortar was also used for a bell. The fine dual forms of the original are neither reproduced by the Pahl. nor by Nēr.

^{page 86 note 8} The Parsi-Pers. has nuḳrah.

^{page 87 note 1} The Parsi-Pers. has ahān.

^{page 87 note 2} Nēr. has vānaspatyām (?) here.

^{page 87 note 3} Nēr. has gurvanujñayā for pavan fravāmešnīh.

^{page 87 note 4} He, Nēr. has aδyayanaṁča for hōšmūrešnīh and āčaraṇaṁča for varžešnīh.

^{page 87 note 5} Nēr.: gāt'ānām ča uktiṁ (omitting dahešń and dehāk) saṁprāptām puṇyāt-manyā, puṇyagurvyā gurvanujñayā. So the Parsi-Pers. omits the superfluous dahesń. Does not the redundant presence of this dahesń here distinctly show that it is auxiliary elsewhere ? It is, however, simply gloss. Nēr. om. both it and dehāk; so the Pers.; but see A. (DJ., J. 2), Sp., and M.

^{page 87 note 6} Nēr.'s ‘te agne’ is more tasteful and correct as free; but see the original. We may read the Ī before lak, or read ātaxš, as if gen. in apposition. A. (DJ.) and Nēr. omit Ī.

^{page 87 note 7} Nēr. has yaṁ tub'yaṁ samāračitam āste' in the gloss.

^{page 87 note 8} The Parsi-Pers. omits mań.

^{page 87 note 9} So for čθra; Nēr. puṇyāt prakaṭāḥ.

^{page 87 note 10} Nēr. ‘agneh.’

^{page 87 note 11} Nēr. has tat yat saṅd'yāyāḥ (so) antaḥ saṅd'yāyāḥ Çakyate gantuṁ prab'ā-venā'sya (so); ‘for the propitiation of (the particular) time within the time when it is possible (or ‘permissible’) especially to approach the sacrifice.' For āsnām Nēr. has literally the gen. ahnām.

^{page 88 note 1} One would suppose that ‘min’ was meant here: ‘so far as from ašahya raθvō (meaning ‘raθvō’ —so ends Y. III, 21, in the Srōš Drōn to) āyẹsẹ yẹštī raθvō berežatō yō, ašahya-raθwo,' Y. III, 60. Nēr. has yat'ā çrošadrūṇena yāvat.

^{page 88 note 2} Nēr. çudd‘imataḥ, çrīmataḥ.

^{page 88 note 3} Nēr. ins. the gloss maitrīpatiḥ; and has ānandaḥ nirh'ayatvam āsvādaçča (so) for the genitives.

^{page 88 note 4} Nēr. glosses: ‘sa iajdaḥ ye (yena) manušyāḥ k'ādyasya svādaṁ jānanti' (yena is to be read for ye).

^{page 88 note 5} Nēr. tejāsvī vegavadaçvaḥ.

^{page 88 note 6} Possibly in return for an offering of horses; see Y. XLVI, 8. Nēr. omits ll glosses.

^{page 88 note 7} The hurricane seems indicated here; recall also the Maruts.

^{page 88 note 8} Nēr.'s vinašṭam, to vi + naš, is difficult to explain, as corresponding to turvēnītārtūm, which is likewise difficult for tarad'āta; for this hardly means more than ‘placed beyond.’ Was ‘tara-’ before the trlr. in the shape of ‘tarō-’ as often, and did this stand in a quasi-Pahlavi-Av. character as tarv = ‘to overcome,’ (ō and v having the same sign in Pahlavi) and so the vinašṭam'? Nēr. takes the vāē of the Pahl. text in both cases in the sense of ‘bird’; his pakšinā (read-ṇah) must be so understood in this somewhat ridiculous sense. How can we avoid the following rendering for Nēr. ?— ‘The destruction of the bird active on high (living or ‘soaring in the atmosphere’) is effected; of all the creation the birds (?) are just the property of the Creator of the good creation,' meaning that they do not belong to the creation of Angra Mainyu. We are, of course, neither obliged nor permitted to render the Pahl. vāē in this sense of ‘bird,’ unless indeed we so translate the original. Nēr. has vātam at Y. I, 45; Y. XVII, 33; and vātāḥ at Y. XLIII (Sp.), 4. The Parsi-Pers. has no sign of the meaning ‘birds’ either here or at Y. I, 45.

^{page 89 note 1} The Čisti. Notice the prayer for religious light as heing ‘God-given.’ The point cannot be said to be absorbed away into a mere technical allusion to the Dēn, as so often analogously in the case of other expressions. D(a)ẹnāyāo has an additional adjective; but this should make little difference in our impression received.

^{page 89 note 2} Nēr. does not report the genitives, so losing the point of the original. He has çudd'ā nirvāṇajñāninī ⃜ diniḥ, nominatives.

^{page 89 note 3} Verežaṅhahya (not -ṅhahẹ) was divided vere(ž) = to ‘var’ = ‘to choose’ (sic), (and from this the kāmak), and aṇha-to aṇhu (ahu) = ‘Lord ’ (sic). The Parsi-Pers. follows the Pahl. Nēr. follows with an inversion svāmikā;mām and neglecting the genitives. He glosses: ‘kila, kāmaṁ yat manasā saha svāminā tulyaṁ karoti'; ‘his mental desire he brings into harmony with the Lord’; see my explanation slightly varied elsewhere.

^{page 89 note 4} Vī-d(a)ēẹva-dātā = ‘Vendīdād.’

^{page 89 note 5} Its traditional life (as canonical). Nēr. dīrg'ām uparipṛavrttiṁ, [çikšām adṛçyarūpiṇīm]. Nēr. continues in the accusative, his samīhe ijisnau being understood. The Parsi-Per. trl. dīr avar raftanī.

^{page 89 note 6} Ākāsīh is better for vaẹδīm (sic (?) = -yam), and the important words žaraždātōiš and uṣšidareθrem (are they interpolations from 31 ?) are not rendered by the Pahl. Nēr.'s suprabudd'āṁ mānt'rīṁ vāṇīm should refer to ākāsīh, etc. The Parsi-Pers. here follows the Pahl.

^{page 89 note 7} Nēr.'s putrasya should be voc.; see the original.

^{page 89 note 8} Here Nēr. has putra.

^{page 89 note 9} Nēr. om. this pointed gloss., but has an extremely long interpolation referring to the Sīrōz. The Pers. omits both.

^{page 90 note 1} Here Nēr. has the accusative girim followed by nominatives with sa āste (so) understood (?).

^{page 90 note 2} Nēr. has a proper name transcribing hoç(š)adāstāraḥ.

^{page 90 note 3} The idea of ‘comfort’ is here excluded by hōš-; see also above. Ner. has puṇyaçub'aḥ, and renders hoç- (hoš-)yaç čaitanyaṁ manušyānām st'āne dad'āti rakšatiča ’which puts the (human) intelligence in place and preserves it.’ This recalls uṣši-dareθrem in 29, which is not apparently rendered by Pahl. or Nēr. I cannot accede to the translations here. The name is ‘Bearer of the Dawn,’ i.e. ‘the Sun rising over the mountain.’

^{page 89 note 4} Nēr. samagrān iajdānām (so).

^{page 89 note 5} Nēr. changes the form of the syntax with puṇyena dadāmi … what does the … reciter … ‘give’?

^{page 89 note 6} Nēr. navānvayanikaṭānām (so), ‘the relation of the first nine degrees.’

^{page 89 note 7} Nēr. adds the interesting gl. ‘kila, nāma anayā dīnyā uktam āste,’ showing that ‘spoken name’ meant especial mention in a text, if not a special Yašt, here the Fravardīn.