^{page 313 note 2} The hāvani-ratu from 6 to 10 a.m.

^{page 313 note 3} See note 5.

^{page 313 note 4} Lit. ‘in his cleaning.’ I cannot accede to this homely rendering just here, with Nēryosangh and Haug; I regard the original word as meaning ‘consecrating’; see SBE. xxxi, p. 231, ‘served and sanctified,’ two words to express my idea.

^{page 313 note 5} Notice the close proximity of the two identical forms gās, with yet totally different meanings, one from gāθe and the other from gātu.

^{page 313 note 6} Lit. ‘in his making heard the Gāθas.’

^{page 313 note 7} ‘Which is three-said.’

^{page 313 note 8} We should have naturally rendered: ‘the III ašem vōhu's which have the fravarānẹ before them’; but see Nēr.'s yat phraūarāne prāk. In our present texts some ašem vōhu's occur before the fravarānẹ, and not the fravarānẹ before them. The fravarānẹ is especially mentioned because it would be naturally associated with any special mention of the ašem vōhu. We remember that it was with the ahuna vairya that Zaraθuštra (= Zarathushtra) repelled the demons after his temptation, so the ašem vōhu, thrice repeated, followed by the fravarānẹ, Yasna XII (XIII), an especial confession of faith, would equal one ahuna vairya. Aside from the reasons given, I should render as indicated above in my alternative.

^{page 314 note 1} So I render havat here, ‘the meaning is.’

^{page 314 note 2} Lit. ‘in the first Yašt.’

^{page 314 note 3} So Nēr., and I think so better than ‘he asked the desired thing,’ or ‘what he wanted.’

^{page 314 note 4} Lit. ‘holding-Miθra-as-good-is-Z.’ ‘Miθra-good-is-Z.,’ so I prefer. Otherwise ‘the good one of Miθra is Z.’ The words are a citation from some unknown piece. Nēryosangh reproduces what must be another portion of it, ‘Mit'rō* zayāt zarat'ustrem,’ ‘let Miθra bring forth Z.,’ the idea being that Z. was (figuratively speaking) a progeny of Miθra, and was therefore the more adapted to the present sacred conference or interview.

^{page 314 note 5} Or ‘in accordance with this which was known,’ viz. that a time was when he had been with the ‘greater immortals.’

^{page 314 note 6} That is to say, having memorised the text from which the citation was made, he was inspired by it to question Hōm.

^{page 314 note 7} Possibly, not probably: ‘Some say that the meaning is, he had said “Aūharmazd”’ (that is, that the author of the piece cited had especially mentioned ‘Aūharmazd’).

^{page 315 note 1} The translator errs as elsewhere, see Y. XIX, in regard to xvanvatō, which he seems to have understood as hū+aṅhu- (sic); from this his nēvak, Nēr. sundara-.

^{page 315 note 2} Referring to the familiar myth also alluded to in the Gāθas, Y. 32, 8. The Gāθas never originally make myth; but they naturally allude to this longestablished tale. They express thought in poetical dialogue, however; see Y. 29.

^{page 315 note 3} Notice how positive the sense ‘death-afar’ becomes as against the meaning ‘far-lighting’ from a similar word, and as some might hold from Y. 32, 14.

^{page 315 note 4} ‘A commentator.’

^{page 315 note 5} I restore bavīhūn as of course; see Nēr.'s samīhasva, the original Zend, and then the -hūm of the others. The Parsi-Pers. does not help.

^{page 315 note 6} I cannot regard axariě as expressing exactly the adjective. I would also modify my rendering of the original in this sense; read rather ‘in order that the later Saošyañts may praise.’

^{page 315 note 7} ‘May’ is necessary to make the sense. Nēr. has only kurvanti.

^{page 315 note 8} This seems the most probable rendering.

^{page 316 note 1} We must, of course, render mań being in an oblique case; this on account of the havih= ‘thou art (or ‘wert’) made.’ Nēr. has, however, more correctly, ‘kas tvām…saṁskṛtavān.’

^{page 316 note 2} Nēr. is more definitive than the l'ahlavi or than the original text with his ěakṛshe.

^{page 316 note 3} Nēr. correctly refers valā. to Hōm.

^{page 316 note 4} Notice this certain case for the restoration of the nasal not expressed in the Pahlavi.

^{page 316 note 5} Nēr., ěakre.

^{page 316 note 6} This calls up the question as to whether we should follow more obvious Vedic analogies and render the Zend xšaēta ‘the king’; cf. the Vedic Yamá rājā (-jan). But as to the Pahlavi -šēt, it would seem to be the same word as the original xšaēta at the Pahlavi stage of the language. Nēr. is, indeed, valuable authority. He reproduces the entire name as Yamaçeda, but adds the gloss dīptimān = ‘the brilliant.’ If the expression xšaēta were Gāthic we should say that Yima xšaēta was a mere variant for the Yamá rājan (-jā) of the sister book, both arising from a common original. But some might hesitate at such a conclusion when studying the Hōm Yašt, the Vendīdād, etc., and suppose that ‘brilliant’ was the original sense; see, however, the unmistakable signs of identity of origin between this Haoma hymn and its sisters, the Indian Sóma Hymns. The Parsi-Persian does not decide, giving us Jamshēt in both text and translation.

^{page 316 note 7} Hvar(e) dar(e)sō and svaṛdṛç are one more proof of the close relation of this Yašt to the Sóma Hymns of the R.V. Svar-dŕç, I should say, could hardly be restricted to the meaning ‘alive’ in a literal sense, and so ‘sun-seeing.’ ‘The (only) one living’ was not meant, as Yima (unlike Yamá) was not ‘the first of men’ in the Avesta, and so was not even ‘the only one living.’ Svardŕç, as applied to Mitrá, Váruṇa, Agní, Índra, Ṛbús, and ‘all the gods’ can hardly mean merely ‘alive’ in the literal sense of the word. It must mean ‘alive’ in the figurative sense, i.e. as ‘alive,’ ‘with eyes open’ ‘seeing the sun.’ 'Vēñg-dar(e)-sī is used in Y. 43, 16, of ‘the Kingdom,’ or ‘the land,’ and not at all of any literally ‘living being.’ It must there mean ‘blest by the sun.’ With the words ‘most glorious’ in the immediate context I am the more inclined to bring the meaning of 'var(e)-dar(e)sō (IX, 14) to that of the 'vēñg-dar(e)sī of Y. 43, 16, that is to say; to regard it as meaning ‘blest of the Sun,’ ‘on whom the beneficent Sun shines.’ Nēr. has sūryanirīkšaṇatamaḥ; the Parsi-Pers. merely translates xūršēt-nigirešntar (sic). Avesta explains Veda here.

^{page 317 note 1} Lit. ‘having most good eyes.’ Nēr. has suločanatamaḥ. The Parsi-Pers. translation nēk čašmtar = ‘the best-eyed,’ probably meant ‘the most handsome’ rather than ‘the one possessing the most penetrating sight.’

^{page 317 note 2} Some would render the word in the gloss ‘most virtuous,’ following Nēr.'s satkāryatamaḥ. Xveškārtūm, lit. = ‘most spontaneously active.’ Satkāra, which recalls Nēr.'s peculiar form, has, however, secondary meanings, and refers at times to ‘hospitality.’ The Parsi-Pers. merely repeats the text in its translation.

^{page 317 note 3} I now prefer aētūn to Nēr.'s asti = ‘aīt.’

^{page 317 note 4} I would now read the axōšk suggested in my edition; see this Journal of July, 1900. The Parsi-Pers. translator understood bī-marg, but in view of the original text and of Nēr.'s açošiṇi we should not hesitate.

^{page 317 note 5} Possibly ‘what ought not to become dry’; but Nēr. understood, ‘yat ab'ipsate tan na çuškaṁ,’ omitting the first la = na, which, however, is not essential.

^{page 317 note 6} Tho Parsi-Pers. has bī-kāhešn = ‘without diminishing.’

^{page 318 note 1} Referring to the ‘envy’ mentioned. This ‘being held back from sin’ seems suspiciously refined as a religious idea for the original period, the date of the Hōm Yaˇst. One is strongly tempted to read ‘destruction’ outright, referring to the etymology of vi-nās. But a translation is not an original, and vinās generally means ‘sin,’ and was so understood by Nēr. When proceeding as translators of an original text, of course, we must render in a strictly realistic sense, but we are now seeking to reproduce the ideas of a later translator who seldom recoiled from the recognition of moral ideas too advanced for the original period.

^{page 317 note 2} One might be tempted to read havend, ‘they are,’ for havat (so), ‘they are splendid’; but havat as = ‘(the meaning) is’ is here characteristic.

^{page 317 note 3} One is extremely reluctant to concede our modern sense here ‘in the praise of the son’ to pavan stāyešn i pūsar, though ‘praise’ in this modern sense immediately follows. Yet we must not allow ourselves to be carried hastily away by such adaptations. I think that ‘pavan stāyešn’ means ‘fit for worship’ in the Yasna (though so young). Nēr. has a pūjāvinayakaušit for būrzak. That should mean literally ‘the - two - educated - to - worship’; this without including the stāyešn, which is separately rendered by stutyā, so that in view of the context it ought to mean ‘august,’ ‘worshipful,’ ‘having - people -accustomed - to - pay - homage,’ ‘having - people - with - homage - education’ (sic), A bahuvrīhi. But we must not forget that we are dealing with a peculiar Sanskrit, and ‘they two-being-educated-to-worship’ may be Nēr.'s meaning, while stutyā might be a second reproduction of stāyešn.

^{page 318 note 4} ‘The King (?),’ or ‘the brilliant’

^{page 318 note 5} Notice the admirable freedom of this rendering for the original, ‘so long as Yima might rule.’

^{page 318 note 6} Again we have freely the passive form. I would now break away from the indication ‘sanctity’ for tarsakāsīh, ‘ašiš,’ and render the original simply ‘what reward’ in this place?

^{page 319 note 1} Nēryosangh bears evidence against our applying the more usual later meaning to ‘afzār’ here. He seems to have had the original sūrayāo here in his eye; see his veçmaçastraḥ.

^{page 319 note 2} So, rather than ‘inherited substance’; see Nēr.'s anvayāt = ‘descendance,’ ‘family,’ ‘race.’

^{page 319 note 3} I do not think that the laxvār is used in the sense of ‘away.’ ‘What Dahāk had taken “away” with violence he, Ferīdūn, took.’ The Parsi bāzavazh is not so often used in the sense of ‘away.’

^{page 319 note 4} The Parsi-Pers. has avarmānd. An alternative version of the Pahlavi might be: ‘And the possessions of this one (i.e. of Dahāk) which were not disclosed (i.e. which were hid in his folds), those he got into his power.’

^{page 319 note 5} Nēryosangh's uddad're should, of course, be taken in the sense of dāšt, either as ‘he seized,’ or as ‘he took (P) into his possession.’

^{page 319 note 6} This is my conjecture; Nēr. has -praṇid'im.

^{page 320 note 1} Of course, merely according to the letter of the grammar we should read: ‘more powerful than the Drūj of the world,’ but see Nēr., and read Drūj as a collective for a plural.

^{page 320 note 2} I am not at present in a position to place these simple words, which, of course, are but the beginning of a text which would be pertinent.

^{page 320 note 3} Or reading zakāī with Nēr.; see his apare, ‘another story is this.’

^{page 320 note 4} Reading li-denā, or again reading ‘var-āōmand,’ or ‘varūn-āōmand’ = ‘and there was a desired thing’ (see Nēr.'s vāñčako). ‘Every injury which it was possible to him to do against the creatures of Aūharmazd, that he did thoroughly, but there was (another one) desirable (thing) which it was possible for him to do, but which he did not do.’ The Parsi-Pers. MS. omits the word, or words, altogether.

^{page 320 note 5} Or Thrīt= ‘the Third.’

^{page 320 note 6} So, perhaps, better than the ‘Sāāmas.’ Possibly Semites are alluded to. The Parsi-Pers. has Samān translated Sām.

^{page 320 note 7} As to this error see note 26 of the texts.

^{page 320 note 8} So Nēr. A (DJ.) (reading ‘Xavītūnast bavīhūnastan’), otherwise ‘that he wished to understand the welfare of…’

^{page 321 note 1} It would hardly be possible to render literally: ‘me (=li) (as) the third of men in the corporeal world did he prepare (me),’ for ‘am’ is elsewhere havam = (old) ‘hōmanam.’

^{page 321 note 2} Literally ‘since’ or ‘for.’

^{page 321 note 3} Notice that the dual form of the original is recognized, though it would be obvious enough.

^{page 321 note 4} ‘A law which was straightforward.’

^{page 321 note 5} The rendering of gēsvar of course depends upon our view of the original. I am inclined to refer it to the ‘woolly’ head of a Negritic race. Spiegel, confirmed by Justi, regarded the word as referring to the ‘lance.’ This may, indeed, have been sufficient as a distinction, for the most noted Iranian weapon was ‘the bow.’ But recall the Vedic kapardínam, which, however, hardly refers to a Negritie origin. We have noticed that the hair and beards of the figures upon the Persian as on the Babylonian monuments are dressed in curls. The Parsi-Pers. has only a repetition of gēsvarī in text and in translation after min = æz, and for gēs after mamun (= mā) it has gadōs (?) = gūrz = ‘golden mace.’

^{page 321 note 6} So now preferring.

^{page 321 note 7} Cf. Yašt, 19, 40.

^{page 322 note 1} The idea seems to be that the poison which flowed from the jaws of the Dragon lay horse-high upon his back, and this made it so deep that it came up to his head, causing the layer of poison to be as high as it was long, and soon becoming congealed and ‘dry’ (see below), it did not flow off.

^{page 322 note 2} Kifr would be ‘pitch’ literally, or possibly some form once existed in the text nearer kaf.

^{page 322 note 3} This ‘dryness’ would make the camping on the Dragon's back possible.

^{page 322 note 4} Those who refer xvīsatča (so now) to svid = ‘to sweat,’ at this place, might claim that this Pahlavi word was to be so rendered; and this in spite of the explanatory gloss, which might possibly be erroneous as from a later hand. But the huge reptile would naturally rise to ‘hiss.’ I still think that ‘hissing’ is better than ‘sweating’ here; and so in the Vendīdād. Demons would not ‘sweat (at least not) with mental misery’; the idea is too advanced for the place.

^{page 322 note 5} That he stood erect full-length on his hinder feet would have been formidable indeed. Moreover, the accident being confined to the kettle alone would hardly have described the event. If he was merely a serpent without feet, then the ‘standing’ was merely a ‘rearing upon the coil,’ but see ‘the two feet.’ Nēr. has: ‘dvipādo bab'uva.’

^{page 322 note 6} We might think for a moment of xayā rātēnītak = ‘ejecting the meat’ (?); so reading Spiegel's text Also of a xayā-rātēnītak (sic), ‘shooting out the meat.’ ‘The body (the flesh) polluted’; also kihr tačentak (so) = ‘filth-flowing’ (so dividing K⁵ (Spiegel's) text), would not be adapted to eatables. I can only read the Parsi-Pers. as āš-rīzēndah (so), where the āš is evidently meant for xayā; the translation āš (n.p.) ‘meat’ corresponds. Sp.'s Nēr. has malavatīḥ apaḥ = ‘dirty waters,’ which is inappropriate to cooking. Better to compare, as I did before, ašardan = ‘to bake.’

^{page 322 note 7} Nēr. has ćaitanyaṁ; as we should say, ‘his wits.’

^{page 323 note 1} Lit. ‘when’ or ‘since.’

^{page 323 note 2} So, better.

^{page 323 note 3} Reading amānō, ‘some say to us “demon-free” again.’ ‘To us’ sounds too particular; yet see a similar ‘am’ at Y. IX, 35. Otherwise: ‘some (texts) say “demon-free” for him again (is) this abode.’ Nē. has no gloss here.

^{page 323 note 4} We might even write Dāītya, if we leave off the non-organic ‘k,’ reading the sign for ‘ī’ as ‘ya,’ cf. Vend., 19, 5, Sp.

^{page 323 note 5} So the MS. B. (D., Pt. 4) comes to our rescue with vāj li? Or was this separation accidental? Otherwise we have what seems a -nāver, which might have once been a-naver, the end of the word [ahu-]-naver. This seems well adapted. Other suggested solutions might be nādī-var (see K⁵, Sp.'s form) = ‘voice-bearing’; ‘thou first didst render it,’ ‘provided with a celebrant,’ ‘a voice-bearer.’; Nāf li = ‘my relation,’ ‘kindred’ would be hardly in point. The Parsi-Pers. has nāvar ( = -navar), which leads us to suppose that D.'s letters vāj li? should really be brought together, as nāvar. The Parsi-Pers. translates with the same form as if regarding the word as a proper name; recall [ahu-]-naver.

^{page 324 note 1} Nēr. has literally ‘invisible body’; but this is, I think also here, merely his expression for ‘spiritual.’

^{page 324 note 2} The words benafšman barā šikast would most naturally mean ‘self-destroyed outright.’ The idea might, however, be that his entire being (soul and body) was destroyed, he being as ‘visible,’ much exposed.

^{page 324 note 3} Nēr., probably misled by the shape of the Pahl. word in his MSS., has the Parsi word hañjamanāni explained as samūhāni.

^{page 324 note 4} That is to say, they can now do mischief; but their sphere of evil influence is greatly limited. They can only act through beasts not endowed with human intellect. I render Nēryosangh thus:—“Concealing them in the earth (meaning driving them to hide in the earth), thou didst so treat all the devas, O Jarat'ustra. All who before this were able to make (for themselves) an invisible (or ‘spiritual’) body, those had their body shattered; those who were not able to do (so), were of themselves indeed shattered. The effect of this shattering of their bodies was that from this they were not able to do mischief through the fact that they possessed the bodies of demons. On the other hand, they made their reunions * in the bodily forms of beasts and of men (lit. ‘through the corporeality of cattle and of men’).”

^{page 324 note *} An error for kevanič.

^{page 324 note 5} Or ‘created more victorious.’