^{page 687 note 2} Spiegel critically notices that a later meaning of angārdan, cf. hankartēnīan, is ‘opinari,’ angārah ‘narratio,’ so that we should here have synonyms. May not such a later meaning, ‘ invite,’ have been derived from documents like the present? As to this place, I agree with Nēr. and the Parsi-Pers. MS., which do not render ‘ invite.’ The idea is ‘ I make known’ (give notice), as the invitation, i.e. ‘ I invite,’ at the beginning, while I complete, i.e. ‘celebrate,’ meaning ‘ I am going on regularly,’ as much as to say ‘ I now make the formal sacrifice.’

^{page 688 note 1} These expressions may have been induced by the fact that a very brilliant star, Jupiter (?), was also termed ‘ Aūharmazd.’

^{page 688 note 2} Notice that this is a gloss, yet see hūpertūm below.

^{page 688 note 3} The allusion to bodily attributes must not be misunderstood. ‘ Whose body is Arša (Aša)’ is intended to modify the foregoing terms. ‘ Whose body is the Mãnthra’ is applied to Mithra, and to Sraoša as well as to Vištāšpā. Compare analogous biblical expressions, ‘One body with Christ,’ etc.

^{page 688 note 4} There can be little doubt that it is Ahura who is meant as ‘the Great One,’ or as ‘the great One of the Yazats’; this was to explain avartūm. Notice the inclusion of Aūharmazd within the class of the Yazats, which should, however, be regarded as quite natural. But we must also notice that Arša (Aša) is in this important place spoken of in connection with Ahura to the momentary exclusion of Vohumanah, otherwise in later estimates generally considered to be the ‘first.’

^{page 688 note 5} If vouru means ‘desire,’ then epenthesis is present, and we have va(u)ru = vōuru from ‘ var.’ Nēr. saw the root ‘ var.’ He adds the idea of spontaneity svečč‘ānandī.

^{page 688 note 6} In the passive, but transposed by Nēr.

^{page 688 note 7} Nēr. -bimbam = (globular?) figure. Was ‘tan’ suggested by the syllable ‘ta’ of tataša, the nasal as so often to be supplied ?

^{page 688 note 8} So perhaps better than ‘Bountiful.’

^{page 689 note 1} These notes of Nēr. indicate an advanced deterioration from the Gāθic sense. Yet the real meaning of the Six was not altogether lost upon him (N.); see below at 22, where Sraoša (not, however, one of the Amešas (properly Ameršas)) is defined. Nēr.'s treatment of Sraoša shows that he had not lost the appreciation of the interior significance of the other terms.

^{page 689 note 2} The Herd and the Fire are here introduced as being the most important objects within the possession of man.

^{page 689 note 3} Tan' is a curious error, as I hold, for ; is followed by Nēr. and the Parsi-Pers. MS.

^{page 689 note 4} The Fire seems here for the moment to be carelessly included within the class of the Amešas (properly ‘Ameršas’), possibly on account of the foregoing item expressed by Nēr. which identifies the Fire with Arša (Aša?), an idea familiar to all his contemporaries. Nēr. may have here meant ‘most approaching from the immortal chiefs,’ so, most naturally; but see his original, the Pahlavi.

^{page 689 note 5} Nēr. carries the dual forms throughout. ‘The two signs (are there), for in this (place) they have come, the coal and the light of the world beyond and of that here’; referring to the fuel burning in ashes upon the altar.

^{page 689 note 6} The Holy ‘Times’ of the appointed daily sacrifice naturally come in here.

^{page 689 note 7} From sunrise till 10 o'clock. Nēr. prātaḥ saṅd‘yāyām. He adds ‘therefore (do I invite him), because only by his help (by means of this time appointment), this time of their time, is it possible to approach.’

^{page 689 note 8} Nēr. ‘who increases the herds of cattle.’

^{page 690 note 1} Nēr. understood yā manušyešu moibadešu (so) mad‘ye satkāryiṇī (so), uttamapatišu, as if it were Vīs (Vīsyā) alone who was thus effectively active amidst the good rulers the moibads. The gloss ought to have referred to the priest in regard to the Asnya, as sanctifying the times of sacrifices. Nēr., however, has his ‘yā’ at the other places; see 11, 14, etc.

^{page 690 note 2} Why Miθra was here introduced, apparently interrupting the course of the Yasna, was possibly on account of the Hāvan, beginning at Sunrise, Miθra in other religions often representing the Sun and the Light.

^{page 690 note 3} Nēr. nivāsitāraṇyam (so), ‘the one of the settled pastures,’ apparently only at variance with the Pahlavi.

^{page 690 note 4} Recall Ezekiel's beast ‘full of eyes before and behind,’ etc.

^{page 690 note 5} Nēr.'s gloss is greatly reduced from this.

^{page 690 note 6} Nēr. understood ‘joy’ as ‘repose from fear,’ ānandaṁ nirb‘ayatvam.

^{page 690 note 7} Rāmešn χvārūm may have been mentioned just here on account of the morning meal which represented the others.

^{page 690 note 8} Nēr. rapīt‘vinanāmnīṁ mad‘yāhnaḥ saṅd‘yāṁ, the Rapiθvina. It was from midday to twilight.

^{page 691 note 1} The Ratu is here most appropriately mentioned, as the ritual depended strictly upon the sacred fixed times of the day, Nēr.'s yā would again seem to refer to his last-mentioned chieftainship (so), ‘she who was active in the midst of men who were religious chiefs or teachers, the gurus.’

^{page 691 note 2} The Fire is introduced in consequence of the especial mention of the Ratu; and Arša vahišta was guardian. Nēr. ‘punyaṁ (ritualistic merit) utkršṭataram agnimča hormijdasya.’

^{page 691 note 3} Nēr. aparāhnaḥ saṅd‘yām. It was from the beginning of twilight till the stars appear.

^{page 691 note 4} Or simply of the ‘herbad’; so the Parsi-Pers. MS.; or it might be safer to render ‘the interior master’; the person in charge of public instruction. Nēr.'s b‘alāpana (sic) I regard as purely Parsi, and in no sense Sanskrit. It refers to the reading girpat so (K⁵ Spiegel), and means ‘the heights—protecting’ (chiefs).

^{page 691 note 5} So by error for berezatō = lofty; Nēr. follows.

^{page 691 note 6} Nēr. jalamayaḥ apparently = rovešn (so) ī apān. He continues : ‘kila, mūlast‘ānaṁ nirmalāṅgam etasmāt nāb‘iḥ svayaṁ apām evaṁ.’ But rūšan' is closer.

^{page 691 note 7} Nēr. refers to ‘fine horses,’ the idea being associated with nafeδrō apãm, (Apm nápāt) as the lightning—possibly ‘of the swift horses,’ so, not in the Ṛk.

^{page 691 note 8} That is, the aivisrūθrema aibigayā. Nēr. pūrvārdd‘arātrasaṅd‘yāṁ. … the first half of the night. It was from the appearance of the stars till midnight.

^{page 691 note 9} Aibigayā may be explained as ‘conducive to life.’

^{page 692 note 1} See Nēr., who, however, as usual, connects his satkāryiṇī with the last-named godlet by means of a yā, manušyešu moibadešu, etc. This Mobed of the Mobeds was evidently the Zaraθuštrotema, the person holding office as the Head of the Community, whichever community might be meant. The reason why he is mentioned is obvious. Let it be noticed that these culminating influences, Frādatvīra and Frādat-vīspãṁ-hujyāiti, appear toward the close of the day; see also below.

^{page 692 note 2} Or, perhaps better, ‘the Fravašis of the men who grow the corn (ārd aē fravart).’ So reading this gloss and so understanding it, we should refer it to an alternative rendering above, as, for instance, ‘the fravašis of women and that of the man with flocks [the corn furthering fravaši of men].’ ‘Singular for plural’ should never trouble us in these difficult texts, which were continually worked over by successive generations of well-meaning teachers. Moreover, Persian usage is peculiar in this respect.

^{page 692 note 3} Nēr. properly omits this last.

^{page 693 note 1} Nēr. apararātrasaṅd‘yām, from midnight to dawn, or till the stars disappear.

^{page 693 note 2} Nēr. inserts a gloss, ‘active among men, who are administrators of the laws of towns.’

^{page 693 note 3} Nēr. Namānanāmnīṁča, who is active in the midst of men concerned with indoor occupations. Notice that in the glosses, at 8, 11, 14, and 17, in mentioning these functions Nēr. always uses yā, referring to the last-named Chief, so missing the point of his original.

^{page 693 note 4} That is to say, ‘Obedience and Justice,’ well cited at the close of a righteous day.

^{page 693 note 5} Nēr.'s b‘aktiçīlaṁ shows that he did not regard Aši and tarsāgāsīh as merely equalling ‘property’ here in this place.

^{page 693 note 6} So again Nēr. recalls the original meaning of Sraoša as ādeçapatim, the (Spirit) Chief of Obedience, too often lost in the later meaningless personification.

^{page 693 note 7} I was inclined to venture upon a vaharesn = baharešn = ‘sharing’ for the otherwise difficult vārešn = ‘protection’ to ‘var’; but I think on the whole that the long ā in a vārešn must be a mere irregularity, and that we have indeed a varešn = ‘protection’ to ‘var.’ Should we take Nēr.'s pušṭi- in the sense of ‘care,’ ‘pflege,’ and so ‘protection’?; this would seem to be straining a point, yet recall that Nēr. was a Parsi and familiar with the Persian ‘puštī’ … Does his b‘ūsaṁb‘uti = ‘landed estate,’ lit. ‘the thriving of the place’? Notice that Nēr. by no means renders gēhān' as ‘worlds.’ Obedience and Justice fitly end the good characteristics of the Day-Chiefs; but was Sraoša here mentioned because he also guards at night?

^{page 694 note 1} The apparently unfolding moon-disc was divided into sections of fifths. Nēr. adds ‘the good’ possibly because all things that ‘increase’ were considered ‘good.’

^{page 694 note 2} I hold ‘the night scattering’ to be an attribute of the full moon, and not a separate phase. What has become of the last two fifths?; were they disliked here because of their ‘decreasing’?

^{page 694 note 3} The six festivals commemorating the stages of the Creation.

^{page 694 note 4} That is, the maiδyōzaremaya. Nēr. ‘the creation-time of the sky.’ It continued from the 11th to the 15th of Ardibahišt (April).

^{page 694 note 5} That is, Maiδyōšema. Nēr. ‘the creation-time of waters.’ It fell upon the 11th–15th of Tir (June).

^{page 694 note 6} That is, Paitišhahya-, ‘the creation-time of the earth.’ It fell upon the 26th–30th of Shaharevar (August).

^{page 694 note 7} That is to say, Ayāθrema. It commemorates the creation of plants, and is observed from the 26th–30th of Mihr (September). Nēr. ‘the creation-time of trees, the season which reverts upon the past summer-time, and the seed-deposit time of animals. That is, the deposit of the seed of horses and herds takes place in the middle of it.’

^{page 694 note 8} That is, Maiδyāirya; it was celebrated on the 16th–20th of Bahram (January). Nēr. ‘the creation-time of cattle.’

^{page 694 note 9} That is, Hamaspatmaẹδaya celebrated on the five intercalary days at the end of Spendarmad, February, the last of the Parsi months.

^{page 694 note 10} Nēr. has ‘the creation-time of men of the ten tribes (sic) and of all creatures’ (above the cattle). These commemorative seasons, according to their number at least, bear an analogy with the account in Genesis i, and a Semitic influence has been here traced. We should like indeed to concede it, as the debt to Iran is, on the other hand, so vast. It must, however, be noticed that the resemblance is not close, and there is nothing said about ‘six days’ nor even about ‘seven.’

^{page 695 note 1} Nēr. samvatsarān puṇyagurūn.

^{page 695 note 2} Who, or what, were these xxxiii? Some hold that they were utensils used in the sacrifice; so the Parsi-Pers. MS.; see the mention of Arša vahišta as ‘the Fire.’ But it would be a pity not to recognise here a round number for the mass of sub-divinities (the Gods of the entire Year): compare the same number xxxiii to which the Indian Gods were brought up; see the passage cited by Haug, Aitareya Brāhmaṇa, iii, 22, p. 67 of his edition; Atharvaveda, x, 7, 13, 22, 27.

^{page 695 note 3} Though we might welcome another instance where the word ‘Ahura’ is rendered ‘Lord’ without reference to the Supreme good Deity, yet here we have a mistake. Ahuraẹibya miθraẹibya are ‘to Ahura and Miθra; cf. Mitrāváruṇā.’ Two stars may, however, possibly have been here understood, though Miθra was hardly a star in the Avesta proper. He was elsewhere, however, much associated with the Sun, and doubtless re-enters here from some such reason.

^{page 695 note 4} Nēr. adds ‘created by Mazda,’ seeming to note that Spenta Mainyu was a personified attribute of Ahura. It seems, in the opinion of the traditionalists, to have been, like the Demiurge of Socrates, a creative emanation from Ahura.

^{page 695 note 5} Tištrya, commonly held to be Sirius. Nēr. adds the vṛšṭinakšatraṁ. The rain-star. Tīr was the name of June.

^{page 696 note 1} The Moon, influencing the seed of cattle, seems to have some displaced reference to cattle menses.

^{page 696 note 2} Recall Ṛ.V. 1, 115, 1, čáksur Mitrásya, Váruṇasya, Agnés.

^{page 696 note 3} Nēr. has grāmāṇām, as above; would he emend Yazatān' to matāān? He probably simply omits yazatān.

^{page 696 note 4} The frequent recurrence of Miθra may be somewhat due to the powerful Miθra-cult which prevailed so widely in the East, as in the West, at the time of the early redactions of these Pahlavi texts. As the Divinity representing contracts, he was naturally associated with political rule.

^{page 696 note 5} See note upon (1).

^{page 696 note 6} Or the actual day of sacrifice. As Nēr. shows, this Aūharmazd, the name of the first day of the month which he omits, merely stands for the particular day on which the sacrifice is offered, in cases where it did not take place on the day.

^{page 696 note 7} The word Fravašinãm, for ‘Fravardīn,’ the name of the first month, is here to be replaced by the name of the month in which the particular Yasna is celebrated, unless that month happens to be Fravardīn. Nēr. omits the word again.

^{page 696 note 8} This stands for a curtailment; the Parsi-Pers. renders ‘nām-bih-nām.’

^{page 696 note 9} Nēr. does not mention the Zoaθra water, but speaks of that antar vanaspateḥ within the tree (i.e. the sap of plants). Was he thinking of the Barsom as holding holy water?

^{page 697 note 1} As opposed to those made by Aṅgra Mainyu.

^{page 697 note 2} That is, with an especial mention.

^{page 697 note 3} Cf. ‘the Bible.’

^{page 697 note 4} A curious error, var = ‘to choose,’ having been seen in verez- and aṅhu in -aṅha-; Nēr. follows it; for the correct rendering see S.B.E. xxxi, p. 199.

^{page 697 note 5} The translation is uselessly expanded owing to the error noted.

^{page 697 note 6} Nēr. omits the words ‘both the two (as) one.’

^{page 697 note 7} Ušidarena was the mountainous region from which the Iranian kings were supposed to have derived their origin.

^{page 697 note 8} I see little warrant for Nēr.'s opinion that hūš- here means ‘Understanding.’ The Parsi-Pers. MS. adds no such idea. Nēr. amplifies ‘the glory which by study with the āčārya (i.e. Mobeds), by zealous effort and study, it is possible to make one's own.’ I should say, however, that the ideas in the gloss show that his impression was the general one among the traditionalists of his time.

^{page 697 note 9} We might be tempted to render ‘delectable mountains,’ but the following expressions point rather to glory as illustrated by a mountain bathed in the sun.

^{page 698 note 1} ‘Unseized’ for ‘unconsumed’ may possibly look back upon the ultimate sense of hvar, as something ‘seized,’ ‘twisted,’ and so ‘masticated.’ The Parsi-Pers. MSS. read the sign as ‘herbad’ by a curious mistake. The activity of the Priests is here associated with the Royal Glory to emphasise still more the claims of the sacerdotal caste.

^{page 698 note 2} Nēr. understood lakšmīm, evidently in the sense of ‘wealth.’ Enlarging upon it and its ‘goodness,’ he has uttamatā-. “The ‘good’ of it is this, that it effects the protection and friendly succour of the property of all the good who hold their property through the possession of Hormijda and with profit for the good. From these He (H.) holds the adversaries afar,” so intending to remove all trace of sordidness from the idea of ‘Property’ as a religious personification.

^{page 698 note 3} Erroneously for rasãstāt, which has little to do with either ‘way’ or ‘standing.’ Res seems here to have recalled a ras = rās.

^{page 698 note 4} χadītūnesn i3 not probable. Perhaps having in mind Y. 49, 4, ‘whereby the prayerful may stand upon the path.’

^{page 699 note 1} The ‘Curse’ is not seen by the Pahl. Trl. Nēr.'s çāpam ity art‘aḥ is properly gloss. This ‘Curse’ probably refers to Uγrahya, which he may not really render. Nēr. has, “The Blessing ‘Afrīn’ of the good is twofold, one with the thought and one with speech, and the blessing with speech is very powerful, and the curse with thought is also very powerful. The Blessing of the good soars over all the terrestrial world, three times in all the nights, for a guard; and the property which they gain by honesty, of that the Blessing of the good is the guardian.”

^{page 699 note 2} I retain the ī's in the text to express the genitives of the original; but we must not forget that some accusatives understood are to be supplied there; see even āfritōiš.

^{page 699 note 3} The ‘dahm’ which I felt constrained to print was not impossibly meant for a dā(ā)m = dāmōiš.

^{page 699 note 4} I would now read ‘mēnešn.’

^{page 699 note 5} ‘Fixed stars,’ or the Sun as self-determined.

^{page 699 note 6} Nēr. would seem even to have understood ‘to make himself’ ātmānam ātmanā çakyate kartum. But this might mean less.

^{page 700 note 1} Nēr. explains even to the first nine degrees of kinsmanship.

^{page 700 note 2} Hardly an usefrit. Was an ‘uštā ahmāi yahmāi,’ i.e. uštafrīt (sic) intended? or, finally, was it intended to cite a phrase beginning ‘and ye are stalwart’?

^{page 700 note 3} We might suspect that ‘each several divinity’ was intended, or rather, ‘any one of the divinities’; but the word ‘officially,’ ‘dastōbarīhā,’ ‘in the capacity Dastūr,’ points rather to the worshipper. Nēr. omits the gloss.

^{page 701 note 1} Notice that Nēr., as usual, transposes the passive forms yadi tvām babād‘e, etc.

^{page 701 note 2} Substantially correct, but literally a blunder; the outward form of (u)rūraoδa; see S.B.E. xxxi, p. 202, suggested rānak- as a denominative form rāna, or it suggested ranj; Nēr. pratyask‘alayam, ‘I stumble against.’ These words are, of course, less awkward where avā (u)rūraoδa is correctly understood as ‘I have stinted this sacrifice and praise.’

^{page 701 note 3} This deprecation is intended as an exhortation to the worshippers to be just in their support of the sacrifice in accordance with their means.

^{page 701 note 4} Nēr. ‘I declare it among the evil sinners’; reading ‘andarg ī,’ one might so render the Pahl.

^{page 701 note 5} Literally, ‘the Vendīdād,’ vī-d(a)ẹva-dāta.