4. To various divinities.
[Atharvān̄giras.—caturṛcam. āgneyam ⌊2. mantroktadevatyā⌋. trāiṣṭubham: 1. 5-p. virāḍ atijagatī; 2. jagatī.]
The second, third, and fourth verses are found in Pāipp. xix.
Translated: Griffith, ii. 261.
1. What oblation (ā́huti) Atharvan sacrificed first, with what one Jātavedas made an offering, that same do I first call loudly for thee; gratified with that, let Agni carry the offering: hail to Agni.
This version represents neither of the edited texts, nor the mss., nor the comm., but is a pure make-shift. SPP. reads in a-b átharvā yā́ jātā́ yā́ h-, and at beginning of d tā́bhi ṣṭuptó v- (p. tā́bhiḥ: stuptáḥ; so all the pada-mss. ⌊but Op. and L. have sruptáh⌋; what stuptáḥ ⌊or sruptáḥ, for that matter⌋ should be supposed to be is a complete mystery). The comm. reads in a-b atharvā yā jātāya havyām, and in d tābhi stutaḥ; he explains that Atharvan means the paramātman, who at the beginning of creation made an oblation to please the gods whom he had created; pāda b signifies this: "what (yā being used instead of yām) oblation, given by Atharvan, Jātavedas made worthy to be offered for his progeny ⌊the progeny of Atharvan in the rôle of paramātman?⌋: that is, for the crowd of gods made manifest by him." Our āyejé in a is indefensible, but the translation implies ejé (ā-ījé) or something equivalent; in d it implies táyā tṛptó v-; all the mss. have -pto, except one of ours s.m., which favors the comm. Johavīmi possibly comes from root hu (so BR.) instead of hū. We ought to have in a ā́kūtim, as in the following verses, but it is not easy to reconstruct the verse so as to match that emendation.
2. Heavenly fortunate design (ā́kūti) do I put forward (puro-dhā); let the mother of intent (cittá) be easy of invocation for us; to what expectation I go, be it entirely mine; may I find it entered into [my] mind.
Half the mss. accent in b cíttasya; in c and d, all have emi and ⌊nearly all⌋ vídeyam, which SPP. accordingly admits into his text; our émi and vidéyam are necessary emendations: in such a condition of text as is offered in this book, it is useless to be governed by the tradition when it is certainly and palpably wrong. The verse is found also in TB. (in ii. 5. 32), which reads in a mánasas for subhágām, in b ⌊yajñásya for cittásya and⌋ me for nas, and for c, d yád icchā́mi mánasā sákāmo vidéyam enad dhṛ́daye níviṣṭam. Ppp. reads devyām in a, and me ‘stu in b ⌊? or c?⌋. The first pāda is the only jagatī element in the verse.
3. With design to us, O Brihaspati, with design come thou unto us; then assign to us of fortune (bhága); then be easy of invocation for us.
The comm. has in c dehi. The definition of the verse as an anuṣṭubh has apparently dropped out of the Anukr. Ppp. reads in d subhagas.
4. Let Brihaspati acknowledge my design, the son of An̄giras this [my] speech; of whom the gods, the deities, came into being, let that desire (kā́ma), well-conducting, go after us.
Kā́mas in d is shown both by meter and by sense to be intrusive; also the omission of vā́cam in b would improve the verse in both respects, making it easier to understand ān̄girasás as simply epithet of Bṛhaspati. The mss. differ in their accent of sambabhūvus; ⌊of SPP's authorities, about seven accent sám-, and four accent -vúḥ⌋. All read in d supráṇītās, which SPP. accepts in his text. Ppp. gives tasya devā devatā saṁbabhūva çiçupraṇīha, which is too corrupt to give any help. Ppp. also combines in a mā ”kūtiṁ. The comm. has abhy etu in d. The omission of metrical definition by the Anukr. seems due to a lacuna. ⌊If the suspicions resting on vācam and kāmas are justified, the vs. would scan smoothly as 8 + 11: 11 + 11.⌋