^{page 205 note 1} Recall the quite frequent occurrence of yā in the sense of “approaching with request or prayers”.

^{page 205 note 2} Read for Avesta ahyā some form of interjection corresponding to he, haye; see strophe 3, with the voc. d(a) vā. We are well-nigh forced to take d(a) vā as voc. in order to avoid attributing the “hva tuš, airyāmnā, and verezēnem” to the “enemy”, as these terms are so closely associated with the Holy Cause. Otherwise asya devapūjakāḥ (-ā-) yāsan(-sān); see strophe 1, XXXI, where the heretic is spoken of as having perverted rratas. The flow of the language would be decisive. “Let his hva tu (prince of the blood) pray”; his V. and his A.; his “are the Devas”; so in S.B.E. xxxi, but on the whole I now prefer as above; see the voc. in strophe 3.

^{page 205 note 3} Could we form a **masmi(n) after tasmin, etc., to meet Av. mahmī(n), where nasalization is, as elsewhere (see the Inscriptions), left unexpressed?

^{page 205 note 4} urvāzmā = a **vrājmā (?). urvāz- is doubtless closely related to urvāzā, which might encourage us to form a vrājman (-mā); see urvatha = vratia. One writer has compared brahman.

^{page 205 note 5} Might we write **tvasyāḥ (or tvāyāḥ(?)), recalling tuābhiḥ(-s) again?

^{page 206 note 1} Pahl. sardārih. Has Av. saremnō anything to do with Indian śiraḥ? The Pahl. sar may be Semitic.

^{page 206 note 2} Notice this interesting personification of asha, while yet used as an adverb. Is this the sole similar occurrence?

^{page 206 note 3} For varemaid see varati (aor. ?).

^{page 206 note 4} Av. maš; see Pahl. kabed. Or, with some, yaḥ (-yo) martyaḥ, but see maz(i)yō in Y. XXXI, 17Google Scholar, if that may have any effect. See maṣya in 4.

^{page 206 note 5} Dabhīti- would resemble daibitānā more closely, but it is personal.

^{page 206 note 6} A closer imitation would be *aśrudhvam [sic], but the middle of this aor. seldom or never occurs in the Ind. …, (c) “advanced, in active progress, your stratagems are …” (*parimati is formed).

^{page 206 note 7} Av. frā-mīmatha; see mimetha, 3rd sg., to mith- (Wh.); or is it mamatha, methidhve, to math-, so figuratively (?), “ye have agitated”; see methire; recall also mamire to mā- (Wh.), “ye have managed that … For ye have guilefully devised, (with agitation managed), that whereby men, doing the worst deeds …”

^{page 207 note 1} So to vac for Av. vakhṣyeñt (?). Is it vakṣiṣyanti= “will grow in strength”, *to ukṣ-? Hardly. One is not so fond of a future here either to vac- or to ukṣ-, but not only do three MSS. report a fut., but others show a -y without a following vowel, reiriinding us of the Pahlavī usage of leaving an inherent vowel unexpressed. Reading vakhšeñt , we should see an aorist without augment, which might have the force of a conj.-future. Wh. reports no sigmatic aor. to vac. Perhaps we might form one on the model of vavakṣat(-d) to ukṣ-. The Pahl., Pers., and Skt. hint toward vac- = “to speak”; “are called” seems not to be so effective a rendering; see “proclamation”, “renown”, “propagation” throughout; mere prevalent “hearsay and opinion” are not so naturally indicated in this cramped Gāthic diction, with its strong pragmatic bias.

^{page 207 note 2} For sīzhdyamnā recall also a sidh = “repel”, extended (?), as so often, with -d (whether, however, with a -d, -dh before it, seems to me to be doubtful); two (sonant) dentals in Indian, would be somewhat accordant with Av. -zhd.

^{page 207 note 3} Notice the other ablatives after verbs meaning “estranged”, “lost”, etc.

^{page 207 note 4} “Therefore ye would beguile mankind of happiness and long life.”

^{page 207 note 5} No etym. connexion with akā.

^{page 207 note 6} Idiomatic.

^{page 207 note 7} … Since the Evil Spirit has ordered or beguiled you … It is necessary to supply a form to correspond with either debn(a)otā of line a or fracinas(-t) of line c.

^{page 208 note 1} Shall we take khshayö as nom. sg. masc. with no exact Indian correspondent in that precise sense and form? Sometimes -ō is the transmitted form of the present participle nom. sg. masc.; recalling -yas- for -yãs- = -yants. The Pahl., Pers., and Skt. hint toward khshi- = “to rule”; recall khshayā-cā in Y. XXVIII, 7Google Scholar, which I formerly took as a voc.; so now another, I now, however, preferring a 2nd sg. impv. act. in that place. I render b “since even the Evil Spirit also (as ruler (khshayō), has (deceived) you” (or altern, “has rallied you” (fracinas(t)). If we take khshayō as an acc. sg. neut.—so some, with no exact Ind. equivalent in -yaḥ(-s) neut. (it is hardly a gen. infin.)—we should then have “who assigns ‘destruction’ to his d(a)va-worshipping adherent”, the subject of the verb being again Akascā Mainyuš. Otherwise we have “by which word their ruler (khshayō (to -ya-, or to -yãnt-)) rallies his evil servant, the chief dregvant”.

^{page 208 note 2} Av. ēnākhštā = “He has striven to attain his ends”. Whether to naś = “to destroy”, *aninaśiṣata (?) = “He endeavours to destroy”.

^{page 208 note 3} Yaiḥ = yāiš in a later Ind. may well = “as”, but see the related tāiš here; better avoid such renderings in the Gātha. It freely equals “whereby”.

^{page 208 note 4} Av. hātā … marān is voc. sg. to a marāni. Santi [sic] as acc. pl. neut.; see hāta-mareniš, probably cited from this place in Yt. i, 8, as a name of God; see Gāthas, , Comm. p. 475 (1892–1894).Google Scholar Perhaps the idea of “reciting them from memory” through His prophets, should be made more pointed; “O Thou ever remembering the recited ritual and lore, as already revealed.” Vōistā must mean “recognized”.

^{page 209 note 1} vaḥ**(?) (-s). I preferred vē = vaḥ in the Gāthas, so others, as = pro vobis, but it seems to be redundant.

^{page 209 note 2} The Pahl., Pers., and Skt. writers see vid here; see Gāthas; notice the long i (to vind- (?)); others have seen vidh- (?); but recall ā-dām at Y. XLIX, 10, etc. Notice the state of origination; the “cause” was steadily, but slowly, gaining ground. See Gāthas, , Comm. p. 414Google Scholar, and S.B.E. xxxi, afc the place.

^{page 209 note 3} Note the constant struggle to found and maintain the grand, though simple, doctrinal system.

^{page 209 note 4} Another … “of the crimes”; better the personal as more objective. Among these wretched beings (their leader) knows nothing, i.e. knows not at all …

^{page 209 note 5} Altern. Some might prefer: “Not (even) n(a) cit (?), a clever person —(but see the antithetical v(a) dištō)—is able to say (aojōi, to vac, raktave) how many living he cuts with his bright steel …,” etc.; but see yāiš srāvī and v(a) dištō as arguing a relation to being “heard” and “declared”, as against being “cut”; see also yāiš srāvay it in the previous strophe. “Being heard of as renowned” is quite a Gāthic idea. I do not think that the force of the following expression yāiš srāvī is confined to “as is said”; all these forms of sru- =śru- = “to hear “have a closer meaning in the Gātha; see Y. XXVIII, 7; XXIX, 8; XXX, 3; XXXII, 6; XLIX, 6. In most places the subordinate sense “as one hears” is impossible, and a waste of sounds in the sparse Gāthic diction.

^{page 210 note 1} ājōi—so the Pahl., Pers., and Skt. hint—to Av. jan = han; see, for form only, jā(**je) to ind. jan = “to be born”. Another to ūh = “to move”, “bring forth” (crime); rather far-fetched.

^{page 210 note 2} Perhaps it would be better to take hadrōyā more personally, as referring to the “men” (-caḥ) of the enemy; but then we should have to read yōi for yā in b. Another to sidhra with the sense “desirous”—“going straight to the goal.”

^{page 210 note 3} Av. jōyā = jayā = “inclining to victory”, or, if the sense “living” be preferred, then we should emend the jōyā to jīvā; the ō rather points to its kindred v; v and o in the orig. Av.—Pahl. alphabet are represented by the same stroke; = y is constantly miswritten for = v in MSS.; vowels became disarranged in the early Avesta-Pahlavi, most of the short vowels being inherent in the consonants, while in the Ind. we have only (?) short a inherent. (b) “… that those things which are heard of as victory-bringing are compacted for smiting … of whose destruction Thou art most cognizant.”

^{page 210 note 4} So, preferring, as ever, the objective personality to the abstract. Some others take (a)naṅhām here again in the abstract as = “sin”, “guilty of these sins”; but see the previous strophe where “wretches” seem to be more in keeping; see p(a)ouru-(a) nā in strophe 6.

^{page 210 note 5} Of these wretches Y. was famed to be …

^{page 210 note 6} vívasvant = “descendant of Vivásvant”, the same word with changed accent. Or vaivasvata of Yama and Manu, possibly consider also a **Vaivasvateyaḥ(-a); recall paitṛṣvaseyaḥ.

^{page 210 note 7} Again, I prefer “was heard of”, in the sense of “famed” … to “was said to be”.

^{page 210 note 8} Should we write cukṣṇoṣan?; but see cucyūṣa-, jujuṣisa-, dudūṣa-.

^{page 210 note 9} For a desid. from a caus. see the cited forms in Wh.

^{page 210 note 10} Notice the sacredness of the cow, far off from India, and at the remote Gāthic date.