1877.] C. J. Lyall— Translations from the Hamaseh and the Aghdni. 461 
with, their children.’ Or you may read rudidna as before, and min bcddi ild ba l di, giving 
both the ba‘ds the affixed pronoun ; the sense would then be ‘ They were in my loins, 
and when I begot them they entered (were turned) into my heart, which burns by 
reason of them through excess of affection.’ Another reading is jumi l na min bed din ild 
ba' , di [the sense of which would be the same as the first explanation given by et-Tebrizi]. 
Abu Hilal says: £ rudidna min bed din ild ba‘di is a sentence which hides but little 
meaning : perhaps he intended to say that they were born from different mothers, and 
were thrust from one to the other : but he did not express himself plainly.’ ” 
So far et-Tebrizi; it appears to me that the difficulty (which consists in the use of 
the past, rudidna, for the future which the poet contemplates for his daughters, and 
which has led the commentators to try to explain that verb as referring to something 
already past) may be solved by supposing that the speaker puts his anticipation in the 
form of an event already come to pass. Such a construction is the common one for 
optatives, ( jezdhu-lldh , &c.,) and is so used in places where there can be no question of 
the theological explanation which refers it to the foreknowledge of G-od, to whom 
future is as past; see e. g ., Hamaseh, p. 67.— 
9* (j * o 9 " 9o «• 9 o'' P ' o' 9 
" > *♦ «* * „ r 
Then, again, there are many instances in which what is spoken of as a past event 
is explained as a future one, e. g ., in Ham., p. 172.— 
* * O ^ 9 S r o 7 ^ 
S s ♦* / ^ > 
where the commentary (perhaps needlessly) understands that the poet, in his fore¬ 
knowledge of what awaits him, speaks of it as already come to pass. So also in Ham., 
p. 252, Jahdar son of Dubey‘ah says— 
Ijj 9 Q s ~ ‘ s <J O ' O * 
♦♦ /- ♦» / ^ ^ 
plainly referring to a bereavement and widowing which are to be after his death in the 
fio-ht before engaging in which he utters the verses. These instances seem amply to 
justify us in understanding the words in their natural sense—“ pushed (or thrust) from 
one to another without help or kindness” ; nothing could be more far-fetched than all 
the explanations given by et-Tebrizi. 
