Atharva-Veda Samhita/Book VI/Hymn 50
50. Against petty destroyers of grain.
[Atharvan (abhayakāmaḥ).—āçvinam. 1. virāḍ jagatī; 2, 3. pathyāpan̄kti.]
Only the second verse is found in Pāipp., in book xix.; and no occurrence of any part of the hymn has been noted elsewhere. Its intent is obvious. In Kāuç. (51. 17) the hymn is applied in a rite for ridding the fields of danger from mice and other pests; one goes about the field scratching lead with iron (? the comm. reads ayaḥsīsaṁ gharṣan); and it is reckoned (note to 16. 8) to the abhaya gaṇa.
Translated: Ludwig, p. 499; Florenz, 312 or 64; Griffith, i. 272; Bloomfield, 142, 485.
1. Smite, O Açvins, the borer, the samān̄ká, the rat; split their head; crush in their ribs; lest they eat the barley, shut up their mouth; then make fearlessness for the grain.
All the mss. accent áçvinā, as if the word began the second pāda instead of ending the first, and SPP. follows them; our text emends to açv-. In b, SPP. reads, with most of the mss., chintám, which is better, being prescribed by Prāt. ii. 20. The comm. reads at the beginning of c yuvāṁ ned adāt. Tarda perhaps denotes a special kind of ākhu or rat. The comm. regards saman̄ka as adj. to ākhum and = samañcanam bilaṁ sampraviçya gacchantam.
2. Hey, borer! hey, locust! hey, grinder, upakvasa! as a priest (brahman) an unfinished oblation, not eating this barley, go up away, doing no harm.
Ppp's version is quite corrupt: tarda heṁ patan̄ga heṁ jabhyā upakvasaḥ anadanta idaṁ dhānya hiṅsanto ’podita. The comm. reads apakvasas in b (explaining it by adagdhāḥ santaḥ), and brahma (instead of brahmā) in c, and anudantas at beginning of d. The first two pādas are deficient by a syllable each. ⌊I think Roth intended hi twice, not heṁ.⌋
3. O lord of borers, lord of vághā's! with arid jaws do ye (pl.) listen to me: what devourers (vyadvará) there are of the forest, and whatever devourers ye are, all them do we grind up.
In vyadvarā́s, some of our mss. blunder the dv into ddh or dhv, even ddhv; but most of them, with all SPP's authorities save one, have vyadvarā́s, which is accordingly, doubtless with reason, admitted by SPP. into his text as the true reading, and our vyadhv- is to be corrected accordingly. ⌊For vy-advará, vy-ádvarī, see note to iii. 28. 2. But at HGS. ii. 16. 5 we have vyadhvara with maçaka; cf. note to ii. 31. 4.⌋ Some mss. appear to read vaṭyāpate in a, but SPP. gives vaghā- as supported by all his authorities, and the comm. also has it, giving it a fictitious etymology from ava-han; he explains it by patan̄gādi. Pāda b is redundant, unless we contract -bhā́ ”çṛṇota.