Sacred Texts Zoroastrianism Index Previous Next
Buy this Book at Amazon.com
The Zend Avesta, Part III (SBE31), L.H. Mills, tr. [1886], at sacred-texts.com
Many verses may here have fallen out, or, on the other hand, the piece having been made up of homogeneous, but not originally connected fragments, has been left with some abrupt transitions. These, however, occasion very little difficulty in exegetical treatment, and are also not displeasing. The formula, 'This I ask Thee, O Ahura! tell me aright' seems to have been suggested by Y. XXXI, 14. We might therefore look upon this piece as composed later than Y. XXXI, but not necessarily in a later generation, or even from another hand. In fact the style is thoroughly homogeneous in certain places with that of pieces which we ascribe without a doubt to Zarathustra, and the signs of struggle point to the earliest period. It is possible that the words in Y. XXXI, and the formula here were of common origin, neither having any extended priority to the other, or the words may be original here, and derived in Y. XXXI.
Whether Zarathustra, or another of the narrow circle of religious leaders, was the composer throughout depends upon the further questions already more than once broached, as to how far a corresponding intellectual cultivation was extended at the period in the community, and as to what is the probability of the existence of more than one man in the small group, endowed with the peculiar qualities everywhere manifested in these hymns (see remarks in the Introduction and elsewhere). It is safest to say that Zarathustra composed most of the matter here before us, and that the supplementary fragments were composed under his dominating, if not immediate, influence.
Verses 1 and 2 seem an introduction, but hardly give added emphasis to the fact that the following questions were expressions of devotion, and only in a few instances appeals for knowledge. Verses 3-5 are certainly questions intended to express veneration while naming particular objects of devout inquiry. Verse 6 stands somewhat apart. Verses 7-11 enter into details touching the moral and religious improvement of the people, 12-14 are polemical, 15 and 16 are prophetical, &c.
1. More closely; the composer beseeches Ahura to speak to him, and in a manner characteristic of Himself as in distinction from the falsifying utterance of the opposing religion, which was so familiarly described as the religion of 'Falsehood.' He is entreated to reveal, as is His wont, 'the holy truth.' And the first question propounded to Him by the composer, as comprehensive of all others, is how he may offer homage, the homage of God Himself or of His bountiful spirit; (see mainyû in verse 2). And he further asks that Ahura may speak to him, showing him by what ceremonial he may conciliate him, and by what helps of grace that spirit, or Ahura Himself, may be inclined to draw near to him in accordance with his frequent prayer.
2. Once more he asks how he may serve that Spirit as the foremost one of Heaven (compare Y. XXXI, 8, and the Parsi vahist) who seeks for this addition of praise to praise, for as the supreme claim to our veneration, He had, as a guardian (Y. XXXI, 13) like Ahura in yet another place, held off destruction from all believing saints and from all repentant men (Y. XXXI, 3), and that although as 'the chief of Heaven,' yet also as a benignant friend.
3. From these introductory petitions, inserted perhaps before many lost verses, he proceeds in another tone, although he may still be said to say what is homogeneous to the foregoing: 'Yea, I ask how I may serve Him, O Mazda! for He is indeed Thyself, and therefore, to show my fervent homage, I ask: Who was, not the first establisher alone, but the first father, of our holy Order as the personified Immortal, and that not by creation, but by generation, as the parent generates the child? Who fixed for stars and sun that "way," the undeviating path through space, long noticed and studied by our fathers, as no random course, or unknown progress save Thee?'
4. The laws of gravitation then become the theme of his praise still expressed in the form of questions, also the atmospheric phenomena, especially the clouds driven by winds, not like the Maruts beyond the mountains perhaps, but still terrible as winds can be. But he cannot leave even the sublime objects of nature without thinking once more of that spiritual power, the strength of righteous character, which was justly more impressive, although still more familiar, and which he designates, as ever, by the 'Good Mind.' Here this great Immortal is left an immortal thought, and is spoken of as 'created,' not 'born' like Asha (in verse third). 5. Beyond a doubt, recognising the satisfactions of energetic life as well as the solaces of slumber, and as forming by their contrast the necessary
change which builds up happiness, he alludes to the supreme arranger as 'well-skilled,' and asks: Who so wisely relieved the day by night? But, again, he cannot close without reverting to the course of moral duty. 6. Seized with a doubt which again only heightens the fervour of his assurance, he asks whether indeed the facts which he proclaims are really what they seem. Whether piety, although aided by the Good Mind, implanted through Ahura's grace within us, will indeed at last, or soon, assign the purified Realm to the servants of Ahura, who were there among the masses before his eyes (taêibyô), or to Ahura Himself as their sovereign controller (taibyô?). And, as including all rural riches in herself, he asks for whom He had made the kine, not now wailing in her grief (Y. XXIX, 9), but 'delight-affording,' on account of the influence of Piety and Benevolence embodied in the Kingdom, inferring that God had made her for these same (the faithful masses). 7. And going yet further back; he asks who made that paternal and filial Piety itself, together with the Realm which it should leaven? Answering his own inquiries by an inference, he adds: I am pressing Thee with fulness in these questions, O Thou bountiful Spirit (compare mainyus, or mainyû in verse 2), the maker of all (sun, stars, and holy qualities). 8. Turning now to verbal revelations, he asks by what means his soul may prosper in moral goodness, praying that it may indeed thus advance as the expected answer would declare. 9. He prays that he may know how he may still further sanctify that Religion which the King of the Holy Realm (compare angheus vahistahyâ pourvîm), the one like Ahura (see Khshmâvatô and thwâvãs, verse 1) would teach, dwelling in the same abode (in which Ahura is also elsewhere said to dwell) with the holy Order, and the Good Mind (see Y. XLVI, 16).
10. Expressing all in a single word, he asks Ahura to reveal to him the Daêna, the Insight, the substance of that Religion which was 'of all things best,' and which alone could 'advance the settlements' with the holy ritual and moral Order as its ally, which would also render all their moral and. ceremonial actions, and moral principles just by means of the divine Piety, which was their realisation in practice; and he closes with the exclamation that the wishes and desires of his soul, when most embued with wisdom, will seek for God.
11. Following out the influence of Âramaiti (that personified Piety), he asks to know by what practical means she may approach, and be realised as the characteristic of those to whom the holy Insight should be preached, avowing that God knows how prominent
he is in his devotion to the matter, and with what hatred seated 'in his spirit,' he views the opposing Gods. 12. Then casting a searching glance over the masses, and perhaps eyeing their several groups, each headed by its 'chieftainship' (sardenau senghahyâ), he cries, addressing Ahura formally, but the people really (so also elsewhere frequently), and says: 'Who is the righteous believer as regards these my questions asked of God to express my belief in Him, and who is the sceptic? Which man does the Angra Mainyu govern; or which is as evil as that chief himself?' And, recalling the galling fact that some are tolerated who not only do not assist but oppose his efforts, and perhaps having some half-convinced sections in full sight, he cries with bitterness: 'Why is this sinner, that chief who opposes me as Angra Mainyu opposed Ahura (compare paiti-eretê with âat môi paiti-eretê in Vendîdâd I), why is he not believed to be what in very truth he is? Why is he still countenanced?' 13. And then with a fierceness which reminds us of sâzdûm snaithishâ (Y. XXXI, 18), but which is deeper because proposing a less material remedy, he asks: 'Why must we abide the sight of these opposers, representing their Lie-demon as their Goddess? How can I drive her hence to Hell beneath, not to those who hesitate like these, pausing before they condemn the evil party, but to those who are already filled with their disobedience, and who, having no communion at all with us, receive no light, like these, from the reflected glory of the truth, and who have moreover neither sought nor shared like these, the counsels of Thy Good Mind. Yea, how,' he reiterates, 'can I deliver up that Lying Goddess, in the persons of her adherents, to the Holy Order, in the persons of the saints, into their hands, to slay her, not with the snaithis only, but to destroy her as a falsehood by the Mãthras of Thy doctrine, not barely to withstand these wicked corrupters, as we now do, enduring the silence of these masses at their deeds (verse 12), their fear of them, or their connivance with their creeds, but to spread slaughter among them to their total overthrow?'
15. He then presses on the coming collision, and prays to know to which of the hosts (compare ãsayau, Y. XXXI, 2) that claim the urvâtâ, Ahura will give the prize. 16. And who, he further asks, shall be the champion who shall lead the victors, the verethremgan (compare sargâ, Y. XXIX, 3) who will thus take up the snaithis and the Mãthra (verse 14), and so at once contend for 'both the worlds.' And he wishes him rot alone pointed out, but approached, as Zarathustra was approached (Y. XLIII), by an obedient will, and moved to his holy work by the inspiring Good
[paragraph continues] Mind of Ahura, be that champion Ratu whosoever the Lord might wish. Salvation in the shape of success in his great attempt should be his portion (Y. XLIII, 1). 17. Half intimating that he himself may be the coming man, he begs to know when he can have that conference in which, as in the desired hemparsti and darsti of Y. XXXIII, 6, he may communicate more closely with Ahura, and through the revelation which might be vouchsafed, may become a protecting leader to secure the ever-named 'abiding two,' 'Weal' and 'Immortality,' which were the 'better than the good,' the 'vahista' of the saints.
18. A preliminary wish arising, he asks that he may receive the honorary gift of mated mares and a camel, as material for sacrifice before a battle (?), the highest interests of the people even, their lasting Welfare, demanding that he should receive this help. 19. For the monarch, or leading chief, who may withhold this justly deserved and needed help, or honour, he declares by the terms of his following question, that some instant judgment will be forthcoming, for the threats of the future condemnation seem for the moment only trite.
20. As a peroration, he appeals to the reason of the wavering groups, among the masses who still delay to call evil evil (verse 12), and he asks whether the Daêvas, as represented by their adherents, had ever been good rulers, when they had the power. Were not robbery and violence then the law with them as now? And did not the Kine, as representing the sacred herds and people, lift up her wailing voice?
(The piece from verse 12 seems to constitute a religious war-song. These verses seem not to have been originally connected with the calm and thankful contemplations in verses 1-10, but later united with them. Verses 12-20 stand in the closest connection with Y. XLVI, which has, however, preserved more of the elements of sorrow and discouragement which influenced the leader and his followers at times. See also XLIII, 11.)
Translation.
1. This I ask Thee, O Ahura! tell me aright; when praise is to be offered, how (shall I complete) the praise of the One like You 1, O Mazda? Let
the One like Thee declare it earnestly to the friend who is such as I, thus through Thy Righteousness (within us) to offer friendly help 1 to us, so that the One like Thee 2 may draw near 3 us through Thy Good Mind (within the soul).
2. This I ask Thee, O Ahura! tell me aright, how, in pleasing Him, may we serve the supreme one of (Heaven) the better world 4; yea, how to serve that chief who may grant us those (blessings of His grace, and) who will seek for (grateful requitals at our hands); for He, bountiful (as He is) through the Righteous Order, (will hold off) ruin 5 from (us) all, guardian (as He is) for both the worlds, O Spirit 6 Mazda! and a friend.
3. This I ask Thee, O Ahura! tell me aright: Who by generation 1 was the first father of the Righteous Order (within the world)? Who gave the (recurring) sun and stars 2 their (undeviating) way? Who established that whereby the moon waxes, and whereby she wanes 3, save Thee 4? These things, O Great Creator! would I know 5, and others likewise still.
4. This I ask Thee, O Ahura! tell me aright, who from beneath hath sustained the earth and the clouds 6 above that they do not fall? Who made the waters and the plants? Who to the wind has yoked on the storm-clouds, the swift and fleetest two 7? Who, O Great Creator! is the inspirer of the good thoughts (within our souls)?
5. This I ask Thee, O Ahura! tell me aright; who, as a skilful artisan, hath made the lights and the darkness 1? Who, as thus skilful, hath made sleep and the zest (of waking hours)? Who (spread) the Auroras, the noontides and midnight, monitors to discerning (man), duty's true (guides) 2?
6. This I ask Thee, O Ahura! tell me aright these things which I shall speak forth, if they are truly thus. Doth the Piety (which we cherish) in reality increase 3 the sacred orderliness within our actions? To these Thy true saints hath she given the Realm through the Good Mind. For whom hast Thou made the Mother-kine, the producer of joy 4?
7. This I ask Thee, O Ahura! tell me aright; who fashioned Âramaiti (our piety) the beloved, together with Thy Sovereign Power? Who, through his guiding wisdom 5, hath made the son revering the father? (Who made him beloved 6?) With (questions
such as) these, so abundant 1, O Mazda! I press Thee, O bountiful Spirit, (Thou) maker of all!
8. This I ask Thee, O Ahura! tell me aright, that I may ponder 2 these which are Thy revelations, O Mazda! and the words which were asked (of Thee) by Thy Good Mind (within us), and that whereby we may attain 3, through Thine Order, to this life's perfection. Yea, how may my soul with joyfulness 4 increase in goodness? Let it thus 5 be 6.
9. This I ask Thee, O Ahura! tell me aright, how to myself shall I hallow 7 the Faith of Thy people,
which the beneficent kingdom's lord hath taught me, even the admonitions which He called Thine equal, hath taught me through His lofty (and most righteous Sovereignty and) Power, as He dwells in like abode 1 with Thine Order and Thy Good Mind?
10. This I ask Thee, O Ahura! tell me aright that holy Faith which is of all things best, and which, going on hand in hand with Thy people, shall further my lands in Asha, Thine order, and, through the words of Âramaiti (our piety), shall render actions just. The prayers of mine understanding will seek 2 for Thee, O Ahura!
11. This I ask Thee, O Ahura! tell me aright; how to these your (worshippers) may (that Piety once again and evermore) approach, to them to whom O Lord, Thy Faith is uttered? Yea, I beseech of Thee to tell me this, I who am known to Thee as Thy foremost 3 of (servants); all other (Gods, with their
polluted worshippers), I look upon with (my) spirit's 1 hate 2.
12. This I ask Thee, O Ahura! tell me aright; who is the righteous one in that regard in which 3 I ask Thee my question? And who is evil? For which is the wicked? Or which is himself the (foremost) wicked one? And the vile man who stands against me (in this gain of) Thy blessing, wherefore 4 is he not held and believed to be the sinner that he is?
13. This I ask Thee, O Ahura! tell me aright, how shall I banish this Demon-of-the-Lie from us hence to those beneath who are filled 5 with rebellion? The friends of Righteousness (as it lives in Thy saints) gain no light (from their teachings), nor have they loved the questions which Thy Good Mind (asks in the soul 6)!
14. This I ask Thee, O Ahura! tell me aright; how shall I deliver that Demon-of-the-Lie into the two hands of Thine Order 1 (as he lives in our hosts) to cast her down to death through Thy Mãthras of doctrine, and to send mighty destruction 2 among her evil believers, to keep those deceitful and harsh oppressors from reaching their (fell) aims 3?
15. This I ask Thee, O Ahura! tell me aright. If through Thy Righteousness (within our souls) Thou hast the power over this for my 4 protection, when the two hosts shall meet in hate (as they strive) for those vows which Thou dost desire to maintain, how, O Mazda! and to which of both wilt Thou give 5 the day 6?
16. This I ask Thee, O Ahura! tell me aright,
who smites with victory 1 in the protection (of all) who exist, and for the sake of, and by means of Thy doctrine? Yea, clearly reveal a lord having power 2 (to save us) for both lives. Then let (our) Obedience 3 with Thy Good Mind draw near to that (leader), O Mazda! yea, to him to whomsoever 4 Thou (shalt) wish that he should come.
17. This I ask Thee, O Ahura! tell me aright; how, O Mazda! shall I proceed to that (great) conference 5 with You, to that consummation of Your own, when my spoken wish 6 shall be (effected) unto me, (the desire) to be in the chieftainship 7 (and supported) by (the hope of) Weal and Immortality (those saving powers of Thy grace), and by that (holy) Mãthra (Thy word of thought) which fully guides our way through Righteousness (within).
18. (And, having gained Thine audience and Thine Order's sacred chieftainship), then I ask of Thee, O Ahura! and tell me aright, how shall I acquire that Thy Righteous Order's prize, ten (costly) mares male-mated, and with them the camel 1 (those signs of honour and blessing for Thy chief. I ask Thee for these gifts for sacrifice). For it was told me for the sake of our Welfare (in our salvation), and of our Immortality, in what manner Thou 2 shalt give 3 to these (Thy conquering hosts) both of these Thy (gifts 4 of grace).
19. This I ask Thee, O Ahura! tell me aright; (in the case of the recreant, of him) who does not give this (honoured) gift to him who hath earned it; yea, who does not give it to this (veracious tiller of the earth, to him who in no respect shows favour to the Demon-of-the-Lie, even to the) correct speaker 5 (of Thy sacrificial word), what shall be his sentence at
the first (now at this time, and because of this false dealing? I ask it), knowing well his doom at last 1
20. (And how as to our deluded foes?) Have Daêva-(worshippers) e’er reigned as worthy kings? (This verily I ask of Thee, the Daêva-worshippers) who fight 2 for these (who act amiss? Have they well reigned) by whom the Karpan and the Usig(k) gave the (sacred) Kine to Rapine 3, whence, too, the Kavian in persistent strength 4 has flourished? (And these have also never given us tribal wealth nor blessings), nor for the Kine have they brought waters to the fields for the sake of the Righteous Order (in our hosts), to further on their growth (and welfare)!
111:1 Some who seldom cite the Pahlavi follow it here; nîyâyisno zak mûn aêtûno nîyâyisno î Lekûm [dînô]. Otherwise one might p. 112 read nemê with B.V.S. (variation) in Y. LVIII, 3, and render, 'how shall I bow myself in your worship?'
112:1 The Pahl. hamkardâr is likewise followed. The alteration to hâkôrenâ is very interesting, but, I think, hardly necessary.
112:2 Observe the great difficulty in referring Khshmâvatô to a human subject. Here we have 'the homage of the One like You (of Yours(?)' some would say); in Y. XXXIII, 8 we have Yasnem Mazdâ (Ahurâ) Khshmâvatô; in Y. XXXIV, 2 Khshmâvatô vahmê; in Y. XLIX, 6 Tãm daênãm yâ Khshmâvatô Ahurâ. Khshmâvatô is sometimes merely a way of saying 'of Thyself,' as mavaitê = to me.
112:3 Observe also the emphasis on his 'drawing near'; otherwise 'let Your one declare it to my friend' (?).
112:4 See Roth, Y. XXXI, 8. See, however, also de Harlez's suggestion, perhaps after the hint of the Pahlavi: 'qu’elle a été l’origine?' Here we have another instance where an entire verse seems to allude to Ahura in the third person with an address to Him thrown in, or at the close. In connection with angheus vahistahyâ Ahura must be the pourvya, as in Y. XXXI, 8, where Roth renders vornehmster. The guardian is also Ahura (see Y. XXXI, 13).
112:5 I cannot fully accept the hint of the Pahlavi here as others do who seldom heed it. I do not think that 'sin' is so much indicated as 'destruction.'
112:6 Mainyû is suspiciously expressive as a vocative; perhaps 'by spiritual power' would be safer.
113:1 'As a generator (?).'
113:2 Bartholomae follows the Pahlavi here as rendered by Ner. putting hveng and starem (-ãm) in the genitive, which is in itself far better than to regard dât as governing two accusatives. One would, however, rather expect hveng starãm adhvânem dât.
113:3 All follow the Pahlavi here, which renders with allowable freedom. Nerefsaitî (= Pahl. nerefsêd; Ner. nimîlati; Persian kâhad) might possibly be explained as a nasalised form of an Aryan correspondent to arbha, as nas = as.
113:4 Possibly from thine influence (?).
113:5 The infinitive vîduyê (= vîdvê) lies here in an unusual place, at the end of the sentence. It is because the word has no stress upon it. The emphasis rests on the objects which he desires to know about; the entire connection deals with 'knowing'; it has no prominence.
113:6 This rendering is not supported by the Pahlavi, which seems to report a rendering from some text with an a privative, and a form of dar. The 'unsupported' object might mean the 'air-space.' See the suggestion of Bartholomae 'the earth and the air-space,' comparing the later Sanskrit.
113:7 Or 'for velocity,' adverbially. Velocity, however, in the abstract as the object yoked-on, is rather too finely drawn. I should prefer p. 114 the fleet ones, the lightnings. My rendering follows the indication of another, as a dual, but not as to full exegesis. One naturally supposes the yoking together of the winds and dark clouds to be meant.
114:1 Recall svàr yád ásmann adhipâ´ u ándho.—Rv. VII, 88, 2.
114:2 Ner.: 'Who gave us the lights with his keen discrimination? And who the darkness? Who, in his keen discrimination, gave (us our) sleep and waking; [that is, our diligence and activity?] Who is he who gave us the time of husaina, and the time of rapithvana [ ], and the method and calculation of him who discerns by means of the just rule [ ]?'
114:3 So also the Pahlavi indicates by 'stavar.'
114:4 So I prefer; but the indication of the Pahlavi deserves an alternative 'giver of bounty'; skar = kar.
'Geus azyau' was later a common expression for a mature animal, but possibly vulgarised from its older special use here.
114:5 Root nî (?).
114:6 I thus add as the Pahlavi translator indicates such an element in uzemem.
115:1 Frakhshnî = in abundance (Pahl. kabed; Ner. prakuram; Persian MS. bisyar). The thought refers back to anyâkâ vîduyê [-vê].
115:2 Haug sagaciously renders as if mendâidyâi were a miswriting for pendâidyâi, which is in itself very possible, as an 'm'
looks much like an inverted
in MSS. So the Pahlavi records the irregularity also, from which Haug derived his idea. But Haug explains the word as an allusion to the five prayer-hours of the day. I doubt very greatly whether the five prayer-hours existed at the date of the composition of this passage. Such regulations grew up much later. The Pahlavi translator indicates elsewhere an accusative (meng = mãm) with an infinitive 'that I should give forth,' which is in itself far from impossible. He was aware (!) that meng could also equal man; see Y. LIII, 5.
115:3 Vaêdyâi is infinitively used for vôizdyâi.
115:4 I do think that it is necessary on the whole to postulate two similar words here (although Geldner's suggestion is most keen and interesting). Urvâkhsanguha and urvâkhsukhti do not favour a comparison with vrag here. The Pahlavi is indifferent: Kîgûn denman î li rûbânŏ zak î sapîr hû-ravâkh-manîh? So Ner. uttamânandah. Barth. beglückend.
115:5 Kâ-tâ = kéna-téna.
115:6 Or, 'let those things happen to me;' gam means 'come' more frequently than 'go,' here. Lit. 'let it thus advance.'
115:7 Kîgûn denman î li dînô yôs-dâsar î avêgak yôs-dâsaryôm? Ner.: Katham idam aham yat* dînim pavitratarâm pavitrayâmi; [kila, dînim katham pravartamânâm karomi]? As Zarathustra is p. 116 represented as sanctifying the Fire (in Y. IX, 1), so here he would doubly sanctify the Faith itself. He would 'hallow its name' and meaning.
116:1 Pavanas-hamdemûnîh-ketrûnêd [pavan hamkhadûkîh].
116:2 I cannot regard the caesura in this verse as possessing ordinary importance, the mahvyau (mahyau) kistôis is especially dependent on the following words. The Pahlavi translator hints at an important solution, which is, that a pause should be made before usen; 'the wish of mine understanding wishes, and I wish (am wishing); Khûrsand hômanam = I am content.' If we can accept a break (a possibility far too little recognised), the usen as representing a nom. sing. would refer back to the meaning in mahvyau (mahyau). But reading îstîs (as irregular for îstayô on account of the metre) we might regard usen as a third pl. Or shall we take it as a quasi-third singular, usen being usãm (en = the nasal vowel; comp. ûkãm as a third sing. imper. after Barth)? Let 'the wish (îstis) of my enlightened understanding wish for Thee.'
116:3 Compare 'aêshãm tôi, Ahura! ehmâ pourutemâis dastê.' p. 117 Auserkoren is a fine but a bold rendering. Election is, however, included in all divine prescience.
117:1 I have no doubt whatever, but that mainyeus and dvaêshanghâ belong together.
117:2 The Pahlavi translation is as follows: 'That which I ask of Thee, tell me aright, O Aûharmazd! when shall the perfect mind come to those persons [that is, when does the mind of my disciples become perfect]? When shall it come to those who declare this Thy Religion, O Aûharmazd? Grant to me before these the proclamation of the truth. Against every other spirit which is malevolent I keep my guard.'
117:3 Yâis adverbially, or possibly, 'with whom I question.'
117:4 Kyanghat is, I think, simply the equivalent for kî (?) anghat = quî fit, how does it happen that? 'Stands' free for 'comes.'
117:5 The Pahlavi on the contrary takes perenaunghô in the sense of combating, pavan anyôkhshîdâ´rîh patkârênd = '(who) are opposing you through disobedience.' It is far from certain that he does not indicate some improvement in text, or rendering.
117:6 Or, 'the counsels of holy men.'
118:1 Ashâi with Geldner.
118:2 The Pahlavi anticipates us in the correct general sense here. It has nas,hônisnŏ. The Persian MS. renders the Pahlavi, hamâvandî nîst dehand î darwand.
118:3 Anâshê seems regarded as an infinitive by the Pahlavi translator, anayâtûnisno. 'For the destruction of those deceivers' is an obvious alternative to the rendering above (â nashê?).
118:4 Geldner and Roth render mat = Sanskrit mad; otherwise 'with complete protection.' Or is mat ablative for genitive: If thou rulest over me to afford me protection? The Pahlavi affords no indication.
118:5 The Pahlavi translator erred widely in his attempt to render the word anaokanghâ. As it is certain that his MSS. differed from ours often, they probably did so here. The verse alludes beyond a question to some expected battle in a religious war, and perhaps in a religious civil war. It is the most positive allusion to the 'strife of the two parties' (V. XXXI, 2) which has come down to us. It was a struggle concerning the religious vows, or doctrines; avâis urvâtâis yâ tû Mazdâ dîdereghzô.
118:6 The Pahlavi renders vananãm by 'good thing,' explaining 'the sovereign power.'
119:1 Verethrem-gâ thwâ, following the Pahlavi with Westergaard, Geldner, and Bartholomae.
119:2 Compare Y. XXIX, 2 and Y. XXVIII, 3; or it may mean 'promise to establish' (Barth.). Kizdî, however, hardly seems to need an infinitive with it; it may mean 'appoint.' Compare dámsu (patnî) for a better sense than 'house-lord,' also for deng patôis.
119:3 This casts additional light on the 'one that should come' in Y. XLIII, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15.
119:4 This recalls ahmâi yahmâi ustâ kahmâikît.
119:5 The comparison with gar has long circulated among Zendists. Many adopt it. It agrees admirably with the Pahlavi as to sense: Aîmat, Aûharmazd! damânŏ kardârîh î Lekûm, when is Your appointment of the time?
119:6 The Pahlavi va mûnik zak i li gôbisno hômand khvâstar.
119:7 Va sardâr yehevûnisnîh madam Haurvadad va Amerôdâd; Ner. Svâmino bhavishyanti upari Avirdâde Amirdâde; comp. also Y. XLIX, 8 fraêstaunghô aunghâmâ. Professor Jolly compares bûzdyâi with φύεσθαι (Inf. s. 194). The long since circulated comparison with bhug seems to me hardly so probable. It may, however, deserve an alternative: 'to enjoy Weal and Immortality'; but accusatives p. 120 do not fall so naturally to the end of the sentence in Gâthic or Vedic, without preceding related or qualifying words.
120:1 Those suspected of no partisanship for the Pahlavi translation follow it here as against Haug, who translated the words ustremkâ by et amplius! It means a camel; so the Pahlavi translator rendered many centuries ago before Europeans even knew what the Indian úshtra meant, which simple analogy Neryosangh first drew. Horses were material for sacrifice among the Persians according to Herodotus. The reasons for the prayer are not fully expressed.
120:2 So better than as a first person aorist subjunctive, if taêibyô is to be read. The Pahlavi, however, read taibyô, which is not lightly to be passed over.
120:3 The rendering 'take' has long circulated. I do not, however, prefer it here.
120:4 Weal and Immortality, but hî might refer to the two objects, 'the mares' and the 'camel.'
120:5 The ideal Zarathustrian; comp. Y. XXXI, 15; XLIX, 9.
121:1 So also the Pahlavi followed by all. Kadâr valman pavan zak vinâsisnŏ aîtŏ fratûm; [aîgas pavan-vinâskârîh pâdafrâs fratûm maman]? Âkâs hômanam zak mûn valman aîtŏ afdûm [mamanas darvandîh]? Ner. (with regard to him) who does not give the reward which has come for the one fitted for, or deserving of, it [to Garathustra's equal], (the reward) which the truthful man; [that is, the good man] is giving to him, what is the first thing which happens through this sin of his? [that is, what is his first chastisement in consequence of this fault?] (For) I am aware of what his punishment shall be in the end [ ].
121:2 The Pahlavi translator either had a text with some form of pâ, or was otherwise misled. He renders mûn netrûnd, but gives the word the adverse sense of 'hindering' in the gloss. Ner., however, has pratiskhalanti which points to peshyêintî, and also tends to show that other MSS. of the Pahlavi (and among them the one used by Ner.) read differently from our three, K5, D. J., and the Persian transliteration. Kãm = Ved. kám with dat.
121:3 See Y. XXIX, 1.
121:4 Professor Wilhelm 'vigour' (De Infin. p. 14).