^{page 657 note 2} Rāī is rather a clumsy rendering for the ā of āmrūvẹ. C., the Parsi-Pers., MS. om. rāī. Nēr. has the dative.

^{page 657 note 3} Hardly in the full sense of ‘ invoke.’ Nēr. has, however, bravīmi with the accusative = ‘ I address.’ See Nēr.'s svāmine mahājñānine.

^{page 657 note 4} The Parsi-Pers. translator has ‘rad’ here. He has ṣāḥib for -pat. Nēr.'s ‘ collection of fifteen men and women’ as an explanation of the Vīs (the Pers. here merely renders Vīs), of ‘ thirty men and women’ as that of the Zantu, and of ‘ fifty men and women’ as that of the Daḥyu, are entirely artificial and incorrect. Grāma is also an inadequate word for Daḥyu. The Parsi-Pers. has only Vīs here for Vīs, shahr for Zantu, and pādšāh = ‘ king’ for daḥyūpat (so B.).

^{page 657 note 5} Why the ‘ Dēn’ in general should be especially called ‘ the Chief of women,’ so the orig. also, is not clear; perhaps that part of the Dēn which refers to the following names in the feminine is meant, or the mere feminine form of the word D(a)ẹna.

^{page 658 note 1} The Parsi-Pers. has ‘-yasnān’; waa this accidental ? so the orig. and E. (K⁵).

^{page 658 note 2} Pārendī (so the Pers.) seems to refer the A.V. in the original, which is important aa showing the advanced concept in the concrete. Nēr. has arçiçavaṅgha lakšmīm … pārinda-nāmnī nik‘ātarakšakā = ‘ guardian of treasures.’

^{page 658 note 3} The Pers. has aē for aēγ.

^{page 658 note 4} Nēr. fails to see the general force of the position of dōpatīštan; see the original, the Parsi-Pers. has no ‘ one.’

^{page 658 note 5} Nēr. adds çudd‘āṭṭadayām, ‘merciful,’ as the Chief of human females.

^{page 658 note 6} C., the Parsi-Pers., has ‘dār,’ reading yansegun for dahešn'.

^{page 658 note 7} Nēr. has also -mitra (-tro) again for the dōst' of the original; the ‘fire Vāzišt’ of the original is omitted by the translators.

^{page 658 note 8} ‘His body’ should refer to the person of the faithful disciple, though by syntax rather to Ahura.

^{page 658 note 9} Nēr. has bahukleçaharšatamaṁ kāryakartṛtamaṁča nareb‘yaḥ (sic) puṇ-yātmab‘yaḥ sasyaṁ sphītayatām kuṭuṁbinām guruṁ bravīmi, ‘ the one who cheers the most much trouble.’ C., the Pers., has: ‘ ū bisyār ranz* rasīdantar (so),’ taking ‘ranj’ too literally, and the most efficient one for the doers of duty (so more flatly, but meaning ‘agriculture’). Or did he consider ‘more efficient than other doers of duty’ ? ‘ The Chief of the fatteners,’ ‘ ripeners, or growers’ of agricultural produce, the agriculturists.

^{page 658 note 10} The Pers. has kār varzīdārtar az mardān (so) (ĭ) ašōān vāstryōšān rad gūyam.

^{page 659 note 1} Read šustōtartūm (better ‘ šust'tartūm’), ‘ the most having the shot (arrow)’; reading a hvastemã (so) for hastemã. As to a possible vindītartūm (so) = ‘ most found,’ as ‘ seated’ on the bow-string,’ it will hardly do, had = sad seeming to have been seen in hastemã, which is possible; so C., the Parsi-Pers., may have valā min nišast vadārtūm = ‘ the one most turning from the occupied (‘ seated on’ string)’ again to ‘ had’ (or was -šust) meant for this nišast ? If he has ‘ nišust,’ he would then translate nišust guzāštar (?sic). Nēr. has lag‘u-hastatamaṁ …. çastreṇa, ‘the one most light-handed with his weapon’ (‘ arrow’ not indicated). C., the Parsi-Pers., has merely ‘ tīr ’ for tīr.

^{page 659 note 2} So, failing to see the instruction of the original, or regarding it as a ‘sociative,’ which may be an improvement on my former version; see S.B.E. xxxi, p. 251.

^{page 659 note 3} Read my text ‘mahīstān’ here ; (a hasty false emendation was made).

^{page 659 note 4} The original looks more like ‘ the pupils of them’; but ‘ the teachers’ is also possible here; so the Parsi-Pers. Pahl. text, čāšīdārtūm (sic). Nēr. has parijñāpkatamaṁča.

^{page 659 note 5} Notice Nēr.'s ablative after the superlative in the sense ‘ than them’; or is it ‘of them’; see ‘min.’

^{page 659 note 6} The ‘ min’ is not correct for the accusative of the original.

^{page 659 note 7} Nēr. misses the causative form of the original and of the Parsi-Pers. He has gurauča saṁtišṭ‘āmi. The Parsi-Pers. also has its peculiar ‘ ēstam.’

^{page 659 note 8} The original has the plural throughout; but Nēr. gives us the singular, beginning with jñānitamam, as qualifying gurum understood ; yet see the original plurals, and in fact we have no signs of the plural in the Pahl. after sūtēmandān = ‘beneficent,’ ‘ bringing advantage,’ so I hardly venture to render the plural.

^{page 659 note 9} So curiously for āmruvẹ, but Nēr. bravīmi.

^{page 659 note 10} Nēr. saw a form of ‘ man’—to think in amãn (sic); hence his mahāmanasaṁ, which also contains a second rendering of the maz-, no uncommon occurrence; no trace of it in the Parsi-Pers.

^{page 660 note 1} So the Parsi-Pers. Nēr. has āčāryāṇāmča (= ‘teacher’) for magōpatān.

^{page 660 note 2} Nēr. adds gloss referring to his mahāmanasaṁ above; sa mahāmanā … yo dīnau višaye kasyā'pi sāhāyyaṁ nā'pe'kšate. ‘ He is the magnanimous one who, the Dēn being his sphere (of action and of duty), does not regard the friendship of anyone.’ Did he really mean ‘ having no respect of persons’ ?

^{page 660 note 3} Barā somewhat clumsily renders pairi; Nēr. has, as usual, prakṛšṭam.

^{page 660 note 4} Nēr. nijača. See Y. XXXIII, 14; S.B.E. xxxi, p. 252; Gāθas, pp. 130, 497.

^{page 660 note 5} The Parsi-Pers. has simply nēkī, or nēk (so); the rest was omitted by accident, as he has elsewhere zāyišni.

^{page 660 note 6} The Parsi-Pers. follows it, as does Nēr.

^{page 660 note 7} Nēr. has samuččarāmi for yemalelūnam.

^{page 660 note 8} This translation is one of the worst conceivable, entirely missing the rare dual form of the original, which is itself one of the finest expressions of its kind in the Avesta. Yet, with this failure, it affords us the root ideas present. Nēr. follows it without suspicion, as does C., the Parsi-Pers. For the original see S.B.E. xxxi, p. 252: ‘ thus the two spirits thought; thus they spoke; and thus they did.’

^{page 660 note 9} Notice that the translator sees Aūharmazd as the ‘ One occupied in word, thought, and deed’ here, whereas in 12 he missed the dual sense which includes Aūharmazd as the thinker, speaker, and doer; such fluctuations are common.

^{page 661 note 1} Nēr. om. this gloss after šapīr, which the Parsi-Pers. has, omitting however, kār.

^{page 661 note 2} Aīš, so rendered as if from a form of i, aẹ—‘ to go’; so elsewhere frequently; Nēr. follows, and C. (the Parsi-Pers.).

^{page 661 note 3} Vazlūnam looks as if it were here used as ‘ come’ in antithesis to yātūnešn ; cf. the use of sātūm = ‘ raftan’ in the same sense in Y. XLII; and Nēr. adds dīnyā gataḥ san …. ‘having arrived with’ (or ‘through,’ meaning ‘at’) the Din; Pers. om. it.

^{page 661 note 4} Mistaking a 1st plural in -mahī for a 2nd singular in -ahī; so in each verb, as elsewhere; also the indicative for the imperative.

^{page 661 note 5} The grammatical form is either a causative or a denominative, more probably the latter, offering a reason for an expected return benefit for the assiduous sacrifice on the present occasion; see γal yezbeχūnam. In the original, however, the sense is that of ‘praise,’ gifts and confessions of debt offered to Ahura; so Nēr. also, with his mām praṇāminam kuru. C., the Parsi-Pers., is no more decisive, but looks more like the sense of the causative than the Pahl. translation, marā ēdūn niyāyiš i nēkī(i)gētī; marā edūn āvām; kū āvām pah tū bād Hōrmuzd. Does the Pers. translator purposely avoid expressing the blundering 2nd personal of the Pahl. and of Nēr.? Not altogether. Niyāyešnēnih is not here probably a nominal form. His Pahl. text seems meant for nīyāyešīn with no -ēn infixed; but this form in -īn (-ēn) might be meant for a 2nd sing, imperative, and he has āvāmīnī (for -mēnih) in his text, rendered apparently, however, āvām, which certainly looks as if he avoided a 2nd singular.

^{page 662 note 1} Nēr.'s svād‘īnatayā may mean ‘in relationship.’ Aside from this, original ‘ possession’ would be more natural; the Parsi-Pers. has χvēš, u χvēš raftanī.

^{page 662 note 2} Fsēratavō, so rendered; so Nēr., no account of fsē- ; so the Pers.

^{page 662 note 3} Not in the Av. text of Sp.

^{page 662 note 4} Notice that no suggestion of the meaning ‘earth’ is here made for Ār(a)maiti.

^{page 662 note 5} The genitive in the original shows that ‘ The Fravai of the Herd’ was also meant.

^{page 662 note 6} No sign of ‘butter’ here; but see note in S.B.E. xxxi, p. 252.

^{page 662 note 7} So χayā, ‘ body,’ to be read as after aharūv'.

^{page 662 note 8} So for aimča of the original; should this mean in the original ‘ his wealth’; ‘ I sacrifice to the wealth and to the Fravai of Z.S. Nēr., who elsewhere renders Ai with lakšmī, ‘wealth,’ at least when accompanied with vaṅghuhī, has here puṇyam ….

^{page 663 note 1} Vīsāi, Nēr.'s pratikurve must also be so understood, the invitation of Ahura being reciprocated with affectionate acceptance.

^{page 663 note 2} Fravāmešn', better here aa genitive; so elsewhere.

^{page 663 note 3} So Nēr., but was not min lekūm here meant merely to express the genitive; so elsewhere.

^{page 663 note 4} A great blunder, seeing some verb = ‘ to take’ in the root of jaretā = singer. Nēr. follows, as does C., the Parsi-Pers.

^{page 663 note 5} No datives as in Nēr. and as in the original, but the genitive by position was seen.

^{page 663 note 6} So hu + ahū in this sense rather better than ‘good conscience,’ which is somewhat advanced for the document. Nēr. uttamohāya = ‘for our highest (meaning ‘ our good’) reasoning,’ so preserving the dative.

^{page 663 note 7} Notice aharūv'īh for ašavastāiča.

^{page 663 note 8} Frāz is hardly good for ‘ pairi,’ which latter is a mere auxiliary term. Nēr. follows frāz.

^{page 663 note 9} Xayā, and not aīš (?). Nēr. jīvam, so for uštanem, which looks as if it were meant for ustanem, ud-tanem = ‘the stretched-out (skin).’ See Y. XXXIII, 14.

^{page 663 note 10} Nēr. prakṛšṭaṁ viçvāḥ sujīvanīḥ samagraṁ mūlaṁ p‘alam ….

^{page 664 note 1} Notice Nēr.'s prāṇena for ‘pavan zōharak',’ as if he saw(?) a form of zan = ‘ to produce’ in z. ; or did he merely see a zavar = zōr in the sense of ‘ vital strength’ ?

^{page 664 note 2} ‘ I desire.’

^{page 664 note 3} Notice the gloss mēnavad (so), added since Nēr. wrote his text, which does not show it. It was inserted to differentiate the concluding sentence.

^{page 664 note 4} Nēr., naturally led away by the positions, puts their names in the genitive.

^{page 664 note 5} Nēr. may have understood: ‘from (i.e. ‘on account of’) the Chieftainship’ more immediately than ‘ at the time,’ but ‘ the time’ was the moment of the especial sacrifice to each as the ‘ritual Chief.’

^{page 664 note 6} The nominative case was naturally missed by Nēr., but the adjective force of -θriš was seen. This nominative of the original recalls the strikingly repeated ‘ I who’ of Y. XXVIII and elsewhere. We must, of course, render all the forms of the Pahl. as nominative, in accordance with the original, where it may be at all possible, even if we hold that the last redactor of the Pahl. texts did not understand them thus, as did not also Nēr. For Nēr. 7–10 here see Y. 1, 65–68, incl.

^{page 664 note 7} Nēr. has the very doubtful and spiritless: kila mad‘ye pāpakarmiṇām bravīmi. I repeat the above translation from J.R.A.S., Oct., 1904, as being treated more fully and alternatively varied.

^{page 664 note 8} Notice the reiteration of abjurations. Was this occasioned by the over-shadowing presence of the Deva-worship in Bombay and elsewhere in India? I should say ‘ hardly’; it is an echo from the Gāthic places.

^{page 665 note 1} Nēr. has hāūananāmnyāḥ prātaḥsaṅd‘yāyāḥ puṇyātmakāyāḥ puṇyagurvyāḥ ārād‘anāya namaskāraṇāya mānanāya prakāçanāya ; see Y. 1. 66, using the genitive intelligently for the datives of the original, so correctly recognising the form of the Pahl. as being genitive by position; cf. pavan yazešn' va nīyāyešn' va snāyēnītārīh va frāz afrīgānīh. Aside from the original and Nēr. we should, of course, render: ‘ I proclaim Hāvan, S. and V.’

^{page 665 note 2} So upon 9 he continues in the genitive, amplifying sāūaṅghanāmnyāçča yā samaṁ hāūanasaṅd‘yayā samakāryiṇī yā ča yūt‘āni gavāṁ pravard‘ayati vīsi-nāmnyāçča puṇyātmakāyāḥ puṇyagurvyāḥ yā manušyešu moibadešu mad‘ye satkāryiṇī ā. na. mā. prā…. Sāūaṅgha—is Sāvaṅghi, ‘ who is co-operative with Hāvani, and who increases the herds of cattle … vīsi … who is co-operative in the midst of priestly men’ (or meaning ‘ men (and) priests, mōbeds’).

^{page 665 note 3} Nēr. is closer to the original with his gurūṇām saṅd‘yānāṁča dinānāṁča māsānāṁča gahaṁbārāṇāṁča saṁvat sarāṇāṁča ā. na. mā. prā.

^{page 665 note 4} Notice that mrūit is rendered by the Pahl.'s imperative; did the translator regard mrūit as an infinitive for imperative ? Nēr. has brūhi.

^{page 666 note 1} Notice avāyat in an active sense. This text appears in B. (D., Pt. 4).

^{page 666 note 2} So also Nēr., çikišayāča; the original, however, indicates ‘ with teaching’ sastiča.

^{page 666 note 3} The Pers. has a čīš for čīz (so elsewhere), for a translation of the Pahl. mindavam. Nēr. renders šapīr with uttama-, meaning merely ‘ good,’ and nēvak' with sundara-, hardly meaning by it the usual Sanskrit definition ‘ handsome,’ but merely another word for ‘ good.’ I should not here prefer ‘ for a benefit.’

^{page 666 note 4} I still render the original ‘together with th beautiful ones in name,’ (meaning merely ‘ also the beautiful by name’).

^{page 666 note 5} I prefer the idea of ‘blessing’ for the original; Nēr., however, ab‘īpsayā. C., the Parsi-Pers., has χvāhiš.

^{page 666 note 6} Nēr. has curiously the plural ‘ ye.’

^{page 667 note 1} Nēr. has no rendering for the second li; and has ‘ in the most excellent ijisni (Yasna) ’ ; so perhaps better than ‘ in my great Yasna.’ See Gāθas, Y. LI, 22, for a slightly differing version.

^{page 667 note 2} ‘ Min’ hardly renders the loc. of the original; yet see Nēr.'s locative. Nēr.'s vettur svāminaḥ is astray as to case. Nēr. differs considerably here from his rendering at Y. LI, 22.

^{page 667 note 3} Nēr. did not have γal yehabūnam in his Pahl. text. It was probably a characteristic addition made since his time.

^{page 667 note 4} As ordinary Pahlavi we should render: ‘ The advantageous means of one who is a king according to (our) choice is to be furthered’; but see the original. Nēr. has pārt‘ivatvam here in the gloss. Nēr. has uttamām svāmikāminīm vib‘ūtim upari varšāmi (sic; what Av. text?) [kilā’ham pārt‘ivatvaṁ tasmai dadāmi yasmāt mamača çub‘am]. See Gāθas for the rest, pp. 340, 341, 594, 595.

^{page 667 note 5} For Y. XVI, 8, see Y. LV (LVI) in the Srōš Yašt, July number of this Journal, 1905. Texts Z.D.M.G., — 1905 (?). For XVII, J.A.O.S., July, 1905.

^{page 667 note 6} The critical reader should understand, as a matter of course, that these Pahlavi texts of translations and commentaries have been worked over times without number from the primitive epoch. An absolute break in the chain of tradition may have taken place ; but as the texts have survived, their comments also for the most part must have survived with them, although in a constantly varied and imperfect condition. They generally alternate with the texts.

^{page 668 note 1} At first sight we should say that Nēr. meant by his puṇyam an ‘interior righteousness ’ alone ; but ‘ puṇyavān asmi’ used to mean almost ‘ I am in luck,’ ‘having in store an accumulation of ceremonial merit.’ It is generally better to go beyond the abstract idea in rendering Aa. The ‘ moral idea’ was included, and ceremonial merit was not excluded. The Archangel was also often held in view, but not here.

^{page 668 note 2} So according to the original and Nēr. Otherwise the more natural rendering of the words would be ‘the benefit of Aa is the best.’ The rest of the text occurs as the Comment progresses.

^{page 668 note 3} C., the Parsi-Pers., renders ‘ az ū ’ curiously for pataš—original Av. ahmāi. Nēr., however, has tasmai, as we should expect. But Aa must here represent the human recipient.

^{page 668 note 4} This interesting idea of spontaneity and individualism in religious action arises, as I hold, from a misconception of the original, as to which see S.B.E. xxxi at the place. I hardly think that the idea of ‘ self’ is directly indicated in the Avesta text of the Aem Vohu. Nēr. has, however, svīye svayaṁ; the Parsi-Pers. χvēš.

^{page 668 note 5} The idea of ‘ progress ’ (so also the Parsi-Pers. raftanī) arises, as elsewhere, from a misconception occasioned by the form of the term , which may have been read by the earlier translators in its semi-Pahlavi Av. value as aītem, suggesting a form of i, aẹ, = ‘ to go,’ so in other places. Nēr. follows it with -pravṛttau (so).

^{page 669 note 1} Nēr. takes ṭkaẹ̄ṣ̌em, which means ‘the doctrinal sentence under discussion,’ as personal. Nēr. mistakes or deliberately refuses to follow this -īh of angartīgīh : evaṁ nyāyena samkšipto b‘ūtah, kila saṁpūrṇo b‘ūtaḥ. The Parsi-Pers. read datōbarīhā, trl. dātarīhā. Dādar often occurs as a trl. for dātōbar. The Parsi-Pers. simply renders ‘ pur’ for angartīgīh.

^{page 669 note 2} Nēr., however, çob‘anam asti tat puṇyaṁ, çob‘anah saḥ (so) ….

^{page 669 note 3} This blunder of ‘ progress rōvešnīh’ is like that above, caused by a false Pahlavi reading of the signs in the termination. A form of i, ae = ‘to go,’ Avesta, was again seen as elsewhere. Nēr. again follows with pravṛttim (so). The Parsi-Pers. has burad for ravešn. See Nēr.'s genitive; otherwise the erroneous plural which Nēr. follows is unmanageable.

^{page 669 note 4} See also the first word, rōvešnīh, as oblique by position; and with the gl. omitted we might render: ‘ (through their) blessed career one has indicated the Saints of every description.’

^{page 669 note 5} Nēr.'s cast is more personal, but in view of the original not so exact; his nāst‘itim (so) must not be regarded as meaning ‘ manly ’ in our approved sense; he explains it at once with satkāryatām yāṁ yujyate kartum; yet his thought, āsvādayann āste [kila, … kurvann āste], is a noble one. It is hardly fair, however, to suppose that he really means ‘ teaching by example’: ‘ he is effecting the edification of the Saints’ is the idea. It is never safe to recognise too keen a practical sense in any ancient writer; yet see his satkāryatām, which must mean something a good deal like ‘ honest character.’

^{page 670 note 1} Pataš (padaš) is here translated by the Pers. padaš, elsewhere above az ū.

^{page 670 note 2} It is obvious that we must adhere to a sense as close as possible to the original, where Aa is the recipient; yet the glosses plainly show that the translators felt the difficulty. Nēr. breaks through it at once, and differs much; yet we must again be on our guard against seeing too thoroughly deep ideas in his puṇyapračārayitā utkṛšṭataraṁ puṇyam āsvādayann āste. It simply means ‘ that the righteous one teaches.’

^{page 670 note 3} For yaθa.

^{page 670 note 4} Nēr. Yaḥ (so, not being aware that man’ič could equal ‘ yaθa’) ākārayitre muktātmane satyam āsvādayati; kila, nyāyaṁ satyaṁ kurute.

^{page 671 note 1} Persian ḥukm.

^{page 671 note 2} See Nēr.'s st‘a.

^{page 671 note 3} The Parsi-Pers. has fāyandahmand here; but sūdmand elsewhere.

^{page 671 note 4} Dātōbarīh, better dāt’barīh. Nēr.'s mad‘yesṭ‘am looks like ‘mediator’ ‘in the middle standing.’ Nēr. is again personal with yaḥ …. triṇyāyī b‘ūtaḥ.

^{page 671 note 5} The Pers. omits ‘ si ’ ; ḥukm andar būd.

^{page 671 note 6} So unnecessarily, Nēr. following the original with kasmai. Or does the rāī merely express the dative? Rāī would be rather ‘ strong’ for it.

^{page 672 note 1} Nēr. akāmarājānam, or ‘ without wanton desire’; but this, while good (?) for the original, would be flat for the Pahl. The Parsi-Pers. follows.

^{page 672 note 2} See for the Pahlavi text as edited with all the MSS. collated, Z.D.M.G., Heft ii for 1904.

^{page 672 note 3} So for vahyō, which I render more in the moral sense.

^{page 672 note 4} Mē‘im seems to have been rendered aside from yẹsnẹ, which is rendered by pavan yazešn’. Nēr. has uttame loc. absolute with vettari.

^{page 672 note 5} Whence the King of the Avesta Comm. text as compared with the Yẹńhyā?

^{page 673 note 1} In the gloss, the moral idea becomes more prominent.

^{page 673 note 2} Did he mistake yāoṅhãm for a form of yuj (sic!)?

^{page 673 note 3} I think that the Amešas are not in place here; ‘ males and females’ are intelligently taken from tãsča, tāosča, but erroneously referred to the Amešas.

^{page 674 note 1} Nēr. has ‘Yaḥ (yo)’; ya itra, Mahājñānin (i.e. voc. ?).

^{page 674 note 2} C., the Parsi-Pers., has zyādah, with which he renders frāz above.

^{page 674 note 3} Nēr. yaḥ (?) kuṭumbināṁ jīvitasya ākāṅkšī. C., the Parsi-Pers., does not translate zāyešn. Notice the correct etymology of zāyešnī χvāhešn (together with its egregious error as a translation for jījišãm).

^{page 674 note 4} While bastān seems to render haδbīš, yet it (haδbīš) seems to be again rendered with anšūtāān, quite a common circumstance with the translators; in fact, this was their idea of an alternative.

^{page 675 note 1} Nēr. has sād‘u; see vahyō as neuter.

^{page 675 note 2} The fem. of ašaoninām is carefully indicated by this gloss. Nēr. did not see the fem.; see muktātmanām; and he omits the gloss.

^{page 675 note 3} As might be expected, Nēr. is here abstract with his ‘ saṁpūrṇamanasā prāktanānām.’

^{page 675 note 4} Perhaps I was too objective in S.B.E. xxxi, at the place; but it was tempting to write ‘ with Ār(a)maiti at their head.’ Why is Ār(a)maiti mentioned in the original of the Comment? Was it in view of the following verse, and possibly because she begins the group of the feminine names of the Amešaspends, the first three being neuter and the last three feminine. Here we should have a glance toward ašaoninām or vagdān.

^{page 675 note 5} Nēr., as ever, ‘ yaḥ,’ missing only the formal point of the syntax. Auštōfrīt’ (or Aūšta’frīt (? N.B.)) seems to have been a sacred term expressing a prayer, supplicating a blessing ; cf. uštā ahmāi + frīt’. It has technical meaning for Nēr. Was it another name for the Ašem Vohū ?

^{page 675 note 6} Nēr., as ever, personal triṇyāyī b‘ūtaḥ; kila nyāyešu trišu mad‘ye b‘ūtaḥ. His yo (yaḥ) must refer to Zaraθuštra as representing the typical worshipper; see yo datte svāmine …. Vāk, which otherwise might be the subject, is feminine. The threefold distinction has reference to the subject of the Yeṅhyā conceived as divided into three points for discussion; see the three lines; though we may ourselves divide it variously.

^{page 675 note 7} Nēr. this time has an oblique case: kasyo 'pari ijisniḥ? Ans. amarāṇām gurutarāṇām upari ijisniḥ (upari = pavan = paiti here).

^{page 676 note 1} Nēr. seems anxious to notice the formally inflected uštā; so he uses the dative, sundarāya, ‘ for a beneficial (hardly ‘ for a handsome’) result’: Hormijda spoke ‘ to him to whom there is a benefit for everyone.’ As to this fine sense reported by the translators, I fear it cannot he defended; see Gāθas at the place, texts, trls., and comm.

^{page 676 note 2} C., the Parsi-Pers., has kudām.

^{page 676 note 3} So Nēr., ‘ a kingdom with his own wish,’ Svečč‘ayā rājyaṁ mahājñānī dadāti svāmī [kila samīhitena nijena (this last explaining Nēr.'s svečč‘ayā,)] ….

^{page 676 note 4} As elsewhere the termination of uštatātem must have been read as = Pahl… = aī ‥, so misleading the translator, who saw a form of i, a = ‘ to go ’ in it, hence his rōvešnīh (sic). Nēr. follows with his vṛttiṁča.

^{page 676 note 5} Nēr. rather tamely inserts ‘ the reward.’

^{page 677 note 1} So Nēr. satāṁča atītānāṁča b‘avišyānāmča. The Parsi-Pers. gives us a valuable item, confirming the sense of yehvūnd; he has χvāhad būd. Notice this expression of the future.

^{page 677 note 2} The accuracy of the translation is destroyed, as elsewhere where vahišt occurs, by the curious misapprehension of ‘vahišt.’ The Parsi-Pers. translator does not translate vaχsēnītār here, as if he felt its incongruity; elsewhere he renders it by the same word which occurs in the other language.