^{page 754 note 1} The Representative Saint of strophe 1;—see ahmāi also recurring at times throughout indefinitely(?);—see also Sraosha, “the Obediently Loyal” in strophe 12. Vohu manaṇhā is instr. with an inherent nominative. The usage was induced on account of the neuter gender of V.m. So at times with ashā,—“he with V.m.,” and “he with 'ashā’”. These insbrumentals are not taken grammatically for nom. s., as has been at times asserted.

This approach of some signal Saint to inquire of Zarathushtra a more definite statement of his principles was certainly a marked event well worthy of especial inspiration from God's Good Mind, Vohu Manah—but I hardly think that any personal vision of Vohu Manah in his Archangelic form was especially intended. Such an idea seems to me to impair rather than to enhance the grandeur of the Gathic idea. It was the devout and Benevolent Intention with which the official came to Z. rather than the personal Archangelic being. Vohūmanah, like Asha and Khshathra, occurs throughout in the Gāthās in its highest sense as the divine human attribute. Here it expresses “goodwill”.

^{page 755 note 2} Dost thou belong to us, or to a Beñdva (?).

^{page 755 note 3} For this interpretation, followed by all, by some unwittingly, we are again indebted to the Pahl. trlr. Otherwise “the day's enlightening illustrations”.

^{page 755 note 4} Dī a as aor. conj. might be represented by a *dikṣā (-āni) aor. conj.; —see adikṣi, adikṣat, etc. One esteemed writer seems to take it as a 2nd sg. “wilt Thou” to dhā?—apparently in view of dhiṣe, dhiṣvā, etc. (Wh.). It can hardly be here to a dī = Ind. dhī.

^{page 755 note 5} Tanu i, obviously a loc. Is the sibilant, however, in place? Could we form a tanau(v)i (-vi);—cf. sūnávi, loc. masc. (Wh.). One is strongly tempted to read a loc. pi. tanu u, but …

^{page 755 note 6} For the very possible and interesting idea that he answers “I am Zarnthushtra” we are wholly indebted to the Pahl, Pers., and Ner.,—and I accede—with the others. I formerly preferred: “I, Z. answered.” Have we not here the original motive to that beginning of the Hom Yasht where H(a)oma appears to the later Zarathushtra, then long since endowed with mythical attributes?

^{page 756 note 1} Possibly isōyā = an īs{a)vā = “mighty”. In any case the ō is irrational unless from an original “v”. The best way to explain the accidental -ō- is to read it as “v”, in a possible īsvā to an īavan nom. sg. masc. = “powerful”. The old Pahl.-Av. ō and v had in the transitional period the same sign;—and “y” = is constantly miswritten for = v; this from carelessness. Also irrational repetition of letters—such as here would ensue from this correction—continually takes place, and they should at once be discounted and co-ordinated. I must request those who may do me the honour to read these arguments to understand that they are based upon searches which do not exclude a knowledge of the Pahlavi alphabet, which is a beginner's necessity, vital to Avesta-philology, yet till lately still so curiously neglected by some esteemed advanced writers.

^{page 757 note 2} Rad(e)nō, with the idea of gladdening;—cf. rabhodā- (of Indra) 463, 5, … so the Pahl. hints.

^{page 757 note 3} Būštīš. Another “that I may reap the future things of Thy Kingdom” (so tradition hints);—better “that he might be devoted to preparations for it”.

^{page 757 note 4} “The Kingdom,” that is to say, “the government,” was a chief theme throughout in an especially solemn crisis of its tumultuous early existence. Ahura must be supreme or nothing. Recall vas -khshayās of strophe 1, and “may thy good kings bear rule”, Y. 48, 5, etc.

^{page 757 note 5} Dayāi. See dāyamāna- for a stem dāya-, also adhāyata (Wh.). Dayāi might indeed have been meant for a passive, but see dāyāt in strophe 1.

^{page 757 note 6} Ufyā—cf. … Indrāyā'rkam ahihatya ūvuḥ, RV. 1, 61, 8;—recall Y. 28, 3, … yē vāo ashā ufyānī … Z. was laboriously occupied in composing these Gāthās which with their very many lost companions have been of such moment to the world.

^{page 757 note 7} See Sraoshō in 12, and see ahmai in strophe 1 and note 1 to strophe 7.

^{page 757 note 8} Vīvīduy = (-dv ),—evidently meaning “to thoroughly obtain”, or if “to know thoroughly” vid- + vi is the literal meaning, then the idea of acquisition through such exhaustive knowledge should be prominent. Cf. also the intensive stem vevid- to both the first vid- and the second. How could Z. be asked “what he wished to decide for”? He might be formally asked of which party he was—Ahura's or the foe's, the Deva's, but the Fire, Agni, was as sacred to the one side as to the other. He would not so naturally ask “to know” the Fire,—see strophe 4;—so I now prefer.

^{page 758 note 1} How justly sensitive the fire-priests were as to the quality of the wood offered was quaintly and wittily illustrated more than a thousand years later than this Gāthā in the Book of the Arda-ī-Vīrāf, where the Saint in vision sees a whole lake of water, and when he questions his guide as to what it was, he is answered: “This is the water which has exuded from the green wood offered by your fellow-worshippers.”

^{page 758 note 2} Recall the later Av. expression “the Fire, Ahura Mazda's son”. Asha was later the angel of the Ritual and of the Fire because its sacrifice was the chief “sacramental” act of Religion. And who that is at all instructed in the history of evolution cannot feel that in Fire, Heat, “the Mode of perpetual motion,” we have one half of the secret of the Universe. What is the substance matter of all things without it? Little wonder that the Fire was recognized as being what it really is, the supreme element.

^{page 758 note 3} “So long as I possess the means to maintain Thy sacrifices, so will I think.” Notice the forms of īś again throughout;—see also the question of strophe 7.

^{page 758 note 4} Dāiš to dī = “to see, to show”, to Sansk. dī = “to illuminate” causatively understood;—recall also dhī, dhyā. Otherwise better to dis = diś = “to show”;—see dīšā in 7, as aor. with loss of the sign of 2nd sg. Recall bhais, to bhī, aprās for aprās(s) to prā, ayās for ayakṣ(s), 2nd sg. to the ayaj- stem, śaśāa for śaśās(-s) to śās-, viveṣh to viṣ- for viveṣ(-s) (sic), etc.;—and with loss of the sign of the 3rd personal sg. recall *ajaiḥ to ji, naiṣ to ni, caiṣ to ci.

^{page 759 note 5} Arem to the ara of ār(a)maitī;—utsāham artha-(-o-)-udyojinam. Notice the recurrence of Ār(a)maiti in this Gāthā,—I render with an *ara as in aram.

^{page 759 note 6} Ēhmā = *āsma in a conjunctive sense, or = asāma. Otherwise why not an instr.? In the Av., ēhmā may equal a lost Ind. asmā = asmābhiḥ;—see the Pahl. lanā and the Ved. asme loc. or dat. (Wh.): “Ask us what are Thy questions (to be) asked concerning (?) us.” Not impossibly “inspire(?) our question”;—see Y. 44, which Gāthā for ever remained the most exalted series of interrogations known to the Zoroastrian Religion;—see them so often referred to. Or, “Ask us what questions are to be asked by us concerning(?) Thee,” so not impossibly.

^{page 759 note 7} Hacimanō. One esteemed writer seems to suppose that Ahura is here referred to as “going hand in hand” with Ār(a)maiti. And so far as the Veda is concerned, it is true enough that Indra is leagued (sac-), as if in fellowship with Vishnu. Visnunā sacānah, RV. 6, 20, 2, yet Ahura might not be altogether so fully leagued with Ār(a)maiti as she is, but one of His attributes or even only His Archangel. But Indra does not go on hand-in-hand with him who pours no sacrifice … nā' 'sunvatā sacate … RV. 5, 34, 5, which implies that “he does accompany (sac-) the human sacrificer”. That such a God as Pushan should be besought “to go on together with the worshipper” sacavāhai, 6, 55, 1 (496, 1) seems natural enough. Also the worshipper is mentioned at times as the chief agent—… sacemahi tava, dasma, praketaiḥ … RV. 10, 7, 1, … “may we be in harmony with Thy thoughts, O wonder-worker …”;—see also Ṛdūdareṇa sakhyā saceya yo mā na riṣyed, dhary-aśva, pītaḥ, RV. 8, 4S, 10 (688, 10). Forms of Av. hac = Ind. sac occur some eleven times in the Gāthās;—see strophe 12 just here where Sraosha “accompanies” Ashi as equals, and also Y. 46, 16, where Ār(a)maiti is accompanied hacait by Asha, and 45, 2, where the Souls of the two opposed chief deities are not agreed (hacaiñtī), and 48, 4, where the active will is in harmony with the religious profession,—at 48, 12 the Saoshyants may follow (hacåñt ) the satisfaction of Ahura,—in 33, 9 the souls of the two chiefs are joined together (hachåñt ),—in 44, 10 the D(a) na is to further the settlements going on in harmony (hacimnā) with Asha. In the Gāthās hac- (hach-) seems to express more predominantly a fellowship between equals. I hardly feel that hacimanō here refers to the supreme Deity;—see its position also after the 1st personal zaozaomī.

^{page 761 note 1} Cf. a sha-khṣathra — “master of his wish,” and so “mighty, effective”, Y. XXVIII, 9.Google Scholar

^{page 761 note 2} See Sraoshō in strophe 12. “The Loyal Heeding One.”

^{page 761 note 3} The other Gāthic chants now lost to us.

Sādrā. So with the Pahl., Pers., and Skb. to śad = “to fall” followed by all(?) or almost all;—cf. Y. 46, 1, 2. It is indeed a sacrilege to dilute the fine sense which seems to be here so literally expressed as above,—yet we had better try some alternatives for the sake of considering “every possibility”. Perhaps “Woes (for the wicked) Thy heart-devoted one announced to me”. This would diminish the suspicious fineness of the sentiment. Then again we might refer sādrā to śad = “to prevail”;—recall *śāśadāna- perf. med. participle. “Forceful blessings, successful issues(?), among (holy) men that heartdevoted one announced to me;—(e) yea, that will I do which ye declared to me to be the best.” But I much prefer as stands above, and we have no right to neglect its valued indications confirmed in so many other places.

^{page 763 note 1} Infin. for imperv.

^{page 763 note 2} “Best,” like other Gāthic expressions, has almost a technical significance of “highly sanctified”, not merely “best” in a secular sense;—recall the somewhat later name “bahesht” for “Heaven”, so, probably, from Y. 30, 4.

^{page 763 note 3} Recall pṛkṣ-= “to fill” … Viśeṣitaḥ(-s) su(v)asti-bhṛte, tai(-d) artham …

^{page 763 note 4} Recall Y. 31, 1. Adya yāvad aśrutāni. Is it a loo. of an aśruṣṭi = “not in my non-heeding”, “not as I do not disobey do thou wish to command me” (?);—hardly so. It rather puts too fine a point upon the diction for the Gāthā.

^{page 763 note 5} Pairyaoghzhā. Desid. imperv. to aog—a degenerate form of vac;— so the Pahl. hints;—see Dict, and Comm.

^{page 763 note 6} Sraoshō. This seems, in this connexion, to prove that Sraosha, as referring to some very prominent loyal chieftain, may be represented by the ahmāi in strophe 1, and by the same form so often occurring throughout, and also by the subject in all the (b) lines which contain the formula hyaṭ m. Vohū. p. Manaṅhā.

^{page 763 note 7} Is māzā possibly to be traced to mad-, or is “man” here involved, or “mahā”? Toward this last the Pahl. hints.

^{page 763 note 8} Rānōibyō. Not here “from the two araṇi”, unless we change the text. Here we have no dual to meet Haug's brilliant suggestion as regards “the two arani's”, “the kindling sticks”, and if not here, then not elsewhere. We might, however, “change the text” without the MSS. and “correct” to rānōibyā, if we feel inclined to be convinced. It seems, however, rather “far-fetched” just here, which is. a pity. The Pahl., Pers., and Skt. nowhere confirm it.

^{page 764 note 1} Vōizhdyāi to vid-. Only such a misform as a *Ved-dhyai would correspond, but -adhyai seems to be invariable. The “a” of the infin. termination has dropped out from the Av. form whether through faulty transcriptions in the course of centuries, or in actual speech;—see 16 with yẹst as possibly equalling a yas(a)te = Ind. yacchate (Av. s = Ind. -cch-). The sense “attain”, “obtain” is indicated. One might think that the meaning is “When he with Vohu Manah came to me to know my wish, and I said to him”—as if putting these omitted words after the vōizhdyāi—“give ye me this gift”;—but dātā, evidently refers pointedly here to Ahura, see vao in d and thvahmī in e, and also the first line. Line b is merely the recurring formula. “Give ye” can only indirectly include either the saintly messenger or the archangel. He had already answered the questions as to his principles and wishes. See strophe 7 and also 9, where the word vīvīdv means “to obtain” rather than “to know”. “You are come to know my wishes—then grant me long life” is hardly the exact form, though it is of course the substance of the idea here.

^{page 765 note 2} Recall Y. 28, 9, yānāiš; is yānem understood here?—so also Justi.

^{page 765 note 3} Dar(e)gahyā. Who can be certain that this dar(e)g- is in its original form? The vowel “a” may have become.distorted from -ī during the long transitional period when all the short vowels at least were regarded as inherent in the consonants, as is the case with our present surviving Pahlavi as printed from our MSS.,—and as a matter of course some of the long vowels also became compromised. Or do some worthy writers actually doubt that all the Avesta once stood in most of its MSS. in the Pahlavi characters? If they accede to that universally accepted opinion, why do they not make an effort to thoroughly master the circumstances? Dar(e)g- is really dirg-, or dīrg-, now equalling our surviving Sanskrit dīrgh-. Otherwise one thinks of drāgh, which is closely related.

^{page 765 note 4} Yāuš to Ind. yu = “continuance”, here equal “life “, “life here as well as hereafter”;—yuti = “union with” is distantly connected.

^{page 765 note 5} Dārstait . Here I prefer to correct the reported text, or rather to follow that of Spiegel omitting the “t”—dārṣait . The MSS.,—with the one exception as cited by him, Spiegel,—and also as confirmed by the Pahl. trlr., Pers., and Ner., read the “t” as above, dārštait , suggesting an it . dharšta—ite “would dare to go”;—dārš(i)tā might be regarded as the verbal noun. dharṣati( -ī-) ityai, iyadhyai … Could it be “which none can now see”, or “see to enter”, to dṛš;— see darśati, aor.?;—and see the Pahl. nikēzishn, Pers. dīdan, not, however, so exactly followed by Ner., who seems to suggest “not by (his own) expertness”—“toward which no one has gone forth through (his own) expert enterprise, or ‘sagacity’.”

^{page 765 note 6} Stōiš to Ind. sti in sti-pā = “house-guard”;—recall also sthāpati = “governor of a district”. This stōiš contravenes the probability, though not the possibility, of a stōi elsewhere as infin. to ah= “to be”.

^{page 765 note 7} Why not again an Ind. *tvasmin after tasmin and tuābhiḥ to equal Av. thvahmi(-n).

^{page 766 note 1} Cf. Y. 46, 2, … hyaṭ fryō fryāi …

^{page 766 note 2} Raf(e)nō;—see the Pahl. for a heightened tone in the idea.

^{page 767 note 3} Have we here the Indian root pṛc- = “to fill” in frākh nenem?;— see pṛkṣ- f. = “satisfaction”. Better, however, to jñã-, so with the hint of the Pahlavi followed by (nearly) all.

^{page 767 note 4} Sar(e)dan .… the chieftainships … the s(a)oshyants who so often pray in the Gāthic Hymns. Recall “śardha-nīti-” of Indra, 627, 21, for a “favourable” meaning, and see the “favourable” meaning in the next line. It is not probable that sar(e)dan has an “evil” meaning—“the defiers of Thy doctrine”—here, with line a before it, and followed by line e after it;—this, though īratū in Y. 53, 8, does seem to mean “attack”, there is an “evil” sense. “Arouse” might there answer. Yet consider an alternative in the sense just mentioned, “I stand forth further to attack the defiers(?) of this doctrinal system.”

^{page 767 note 5} Recall the later laborious bands of travelling rhapsodists who continually proclaimed the new creeds in the Gāthās throughout the hamlets.

^{page 767 note 6} U yā. One is tempted to form an uṣi to mate the Airanian in the sense of “intelligence”, but where is the derivative of vas- = “to shine” used in such a sense?

^{page 768 note 1} Or “let not a (heroic) man be subservient to the faithless men (paoru(n)š)”. So others prefer,—not so the Pahl., Skt., and Pers.;— see also nā. P(a)ouruš, or pouruš, as = pūrū(n)s would bring two words equalling “man”, “men” close together, which contravenes probability.

^{page 768 note 2} Ahura's speništō mainyū … (?). Some esteemed writers, with the venerated name of Spiegel at their head, would venture upon the rendering “Z. chooses every most holy spirit”. This would be very well if it were not for the cā in the cišcā “and everyone …” And Spēništō also leads us at once to think of the “mainyūm” as the Spēništō Mainyu-, yet again the yas tẹ cišcā (so reading) prevents our full rendering in that sense “the spirit who is ‘everyone’ most holy (?)”,—I therefore, differing from all others, apply the word spēništō to the human subject only from what might be called “attraction” and render—“Z. chooses the (Spēništem) Mainyūm spirit, and (so does) everyone who is (likewise) spēništō.” The spēništō cannot apply directly to mainyūm on account of the “ca”;—(2) while to regard mainyūm with yas-cišca as meaning the “spirit” in its personal sense as expressing the ennobled character of the faithful disciple, as we seem to be forced to do in the case of Y. 33, 9, would have the same objections which obtain here. It is rather too refined and deep, if it can be avoided;—and we must for ever be on our guard against a fool's paradise, seeing too fine and abstract a meaning which was not in the mind of the composer. For the reading yẹs- in yẹst as = yas- see the next note.

^{page 769 note 3} Yẹsṭ . = yast . Not impossibly(?) to yam, yaccha-(-ate), in a nonthematic form peculiar to the Airanian;—otherwise to yaḥ(-s-) and te. This letter ẹ here affords an emphatic instance of the application of my discovery—so often stated in the Gāthās—to the effect that the letter ,—generally well representing ẹ-, is often a Pahlavi survival, a, lengthened = + written together, and here as elsewhere = “ya-”, so that our apparent yẹst may, nay must, be yast = a yacch(a)te to yam-. This = ya when it equals “ẹ” is lengthened to to distinguish it from = sh. Those familiar with the Pahlavi alphabet should find no difficulty here, for letter-signs in their original Pahlavi force have, as a matter of course, lingered in the interior and at the ends of Avesta words in the more fully written Avesta alphabet restored from the Pahlavi, into which it had temporarily and for the most part degenerated. How a yasate = Ind. yacchate could have lost its conjugational sign “a”, and become a yast , is shown by many similar irregularities;—few languages are without them. Yẹst = yast = “prays”—“and everyone (ciš-ca) most holy prays, with him.”

^{page 769 note 4} Recall the name of the Saoshyant Astvat-ereta, referring to the great Saoshyant of the Resurrection. Ereta, literally = ṛta = asha, will be clothed with the risen bodies of the saints. Here we have its origin.

^{page 770 note 1} Dāidīt. I have always been suspicious of this opt. termination -īt in this form, daidīt, and in the others. I think the ī is old Av.-Pahl. for “y” with inherent vowel,—as so often. Here the abnormally long “ā” is inherent. Such anomalously involved lengthenings, or repetitious of letters, were inevitable during a period of debris when the alphabet was passing from the Avesta-Pahlavi to the newly restored and remarkable Avesta alphabet. The word is daidyāt;—cf. for a somewhat approximating Ind. opt. (śrad)dhyāma (Wh.). In speaking of the “wonderfully restored” Avesta alphabet—restored from its to us well-nigh “inscrutable” Pahlavi characters—I beg my readers not to fail to remember that the Avesta must have been vocally read in all its literal completeness even from its Pahlavi MSS., proving a high state of knowledge of the language;—but I now think that some few MSS. must always have been in existence written in our at present so wonderfully complete Avesta alphabet as it appears in our oldest MSS. and in the two or three sets of types which we now use. Otherwise the “restoration” of that Avesta alphabet from the difficult Pahlavi forms into which it had lapsed would have been something approaching the incredible.

At least let us not fail to note the deeply significant and momentous fact that all through those Parthian centuries, say for two centuries b.c.. and two a. d., while the vernacular language had fully degenerated into. Pahlavi from the original Avesta forms,—yet even then the Avesta Lore in its original characters most vigorously survived in the priestly schools and among the leading religious circles, much, at least, as Sanskrit survived in India five hundred years ago, or as Latin survived in our middle age. This unfolds rich historical facts.—The then vastly extended Zoroastrian religion was alive even in its interior linguistic significance. And it was exercising that vital influence upon Judaism which had begun with the conquest of Babylon by Cyrus, making Judæa a Persian province;—it was also having its effect upon Greek thought, for this must have begun with Herakleitos (-clitus) through his contact with the Persian dualism at Ephesus. The Gnostic philosophy sprang from it—as we must not forget—with its acute influence upon speculative Christian thought—and upon all modern philosophy. The Gnosis was—so to speak of it—a re-incarnation of Avesta, more so than of the Alexandrian philosophy, the entire development having originated in Palestine from Jewish - Avestic beginnings.

For forthcoming, or just recent, extensions of these studies see Sanskrit Research of 10, 1916Google Scholar, and January, 1917, the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1917, the Journal of the American Oriental Society for 1917. The author asks the sympathy of his fellow-labourers in his very severe and necessary work on account of his advanced age (80) and his suffering condition. He has still five such hymns to publish in this form out of the seventeen. The whole mass has been long in manuscript in an approximately completed state as an essential part of the system of exegesis. Sandhi has been here, as elsewhere, redundantly applied, but kept apart; unusual fulness of expression has been purposely used, but the accents have been removed to avoid mechanical oversights. The errata may be inserted in a future article.