Atharva-Veda Samhita/Book VII/Hymn 54 (56, 57. 1)
54 (56, 57. 1). Extolling verse and chant.
[vs. 1. Brahman.—ṛksāmadevatyam. ānuṣṭubham.—vs. 2, and 55. 1. Bhṛgu.—dvyṛcam. āindram. ānuṣṭubham.]
Notwithstanding the close relationship of the two verses reckoned in our edition as constituting this hymn, and their discordance with the following verse (our 55), the Anukr. and some of the mss. (and hence the comm. and SPP's text) take our vs. 1 as a whole hymn, and our vs. 2 and hymn 55 as together one hymn; and this is probably to be accepted as the true traditional division.* Pāipp. has our two verses in xx., but in different places. Kāuç. (42. 9-10), in a rite for the gaining of wealth by teachers (adhyāpakānām arthārjanavighnaçamanārtham, comm., p. 402, end), gives as pratīka simply ṛcaṁ sāma, which would imply either or both verses; Dārila explains dvābhyām 'with two,' which might mean either hymns or verses. The comm. ⌊p. 41011⌋ appears to regard vs. 2 (57. 1) as intended in rule 9, and both vs. 1 and vs. 2 (56 and 57) in rule 10. *⌊The decad-division comes between vss. 1 and 2: cf. p. 389.⌋
Translated: Muir, iii2. 4; Henry, 21, 81; Griffith, 1. 352.
1. To verse (ṛ́c), to chant (sā́man) we sacrifice, by (both) which men perform rites (kárman); these bear rule at the seat (sádas); they hand (yam) the offering to the gods.
The verse is SV. i. 369, which, however, reads yacāmahe in a, kṛṇváte in b, ví té for eté in c, and vakṣataḥ in d; GGS. iii. 2. 48, giving the pratīka, has yajāmahe. Ppp. also has kṛṇvate and vi te, but yachatām at the end. The comm. explains sadasi by etannāmake maṇḍape.
2 (57. 1). When (yád) I have asked verse ⌊and⌋ chant ⌊respectively⌋ for oblation ⌊and⌋ force, ⌊and⌋ sacrificial formula (yájus) for strength, let not therefore this Veda, asked, injure me, O lord of might (çácī-).
The construction of the six bare accusatives in the first line is made in accordance with the comm., and appears perhaps the most probable, though not beyond question. ⌊In c, Ppp. has bhūtir⌋ but whether for eṣa or for tasmāt is not clear from R's note.⌋