1. The lively woman, household maiden, night, of god Savitar, of Bhaga, all-expanded, of easy invocation, of assembled fortune (? -çrī́), hath filled heaven-and-earth with greatness.
In a, the pada-mss. read dámūnā; SPP. emends to -náḥ. In c, all the mss., with the comm. and SPP., read açvakṣabhā́ (p. açva॰kṣabhā́), which, as being unintelligible, our edition emends at a venture to viçvávyacās, and the translation follows the latter, for lack of anything better. The comm. gives two explanations: açu (= āçu) + akṣa + bhā (= abhibhavati or tiraskaroti), meaning çīghrapravṛtticakṣurādinirodhikā; or, alternatively, by analogy with vs. 4 c, açvakṣā (= açvān kṣāyati or kṣapayati) bhā
(= dīptiḥ) yasyāḥ sā: both as absurd as possible. Ppp. reads açvakṣarā. Many of the mss. read sámbhṛtaḥçrīr, and the pada-mss. divide falsely sám॰bhṛtaçrīḥ instead of sámbhṛta॰çrīḥ; SPP. follows them. Ppp. reads saṁbhṛtaḥçīr ā.
2. The profound one hath surmounted all things; the most mighty one hath ascended to the loftiest sky; the eager night spreads toward me like a friend with excellent svadhā́s.
The translation follows our text of the verse, which, however, is full of emendations, and by no means satisfactory. Nearly every ms. reads at the beginning ávi (one áviṁ, and one authority ⌊SPP's reciter V., with impossible accent⌋ ábhi), while Ppp. has abhi, which is also, except for the accent, an easier emendation for ávi. The comm. has ati. Nearly all authorities, again, have for verb in aáruhat (the accent is perfectly defensible as an antithetical one, and might well have been left in our text); but the reciter V. gives (ábhi) árhat, thus agreeing in part with the (ati) arhat of the text of the comm.; ⌊and one of W's mss. has ásahat⌋. The explanation of the comm. reads atyarhati, which he glosses by atikramya vyāpya vartate, which is wholly without authority, since even the Dhātūpaṭha gives only pūjāyām as the sense of arh. Ppp. has aruhat. SPP. goes half way with the comm., adopting áti...aruhat (unnecessarily abandoning the "ancient accent" of the verb). All authorities have víçvāni (but Ppp. only viçvā ar-); and all ⌊save Ppp. again⌋ have gambhīró, p. -ráḥ, ⌊but one of W's pada-mss. gives -rā, p.m.⌋, although the comm., again.st his own text (according to SPP.), explains gambhīrā. Here perhaps Ppp. brings help, reading gabhīro ’d varṣ-; this is better than our -rā́ = rā́: ā́. ⌊The gabhīrā́ of the Berlin ed. seems to be a misprint for gambhīrā́, if we judge by the Collation Book and the Index Verborum: but it may be intended as an emendation, as it certainly is a metrical improvement.⌋ SPP. reads gambhīró vá-, although gambhīrás is simply unusable, and the change to -rā́ as easy as possible. Nearly all, including Ppp., read várṣiṣṭham, ⌊save three of SPP's authorities and one of W's, which have -ṣiṣṭam⌋. Then follows in nearly all aruhántas, p. aruhántaḥ; but -háta is found in one, -hánta in two, and arháti is given by a reciter, with the comm.; the comm. has arhati, and explains it precisely as he did his ati...arhati above; SPP. emends to aruhanta; our ⌊ā́...⌋ dyā́m aruhat is very bold, but the case was a desperate one. Ppp. reads aruhad açraviṣṭhā, and this, with emendation to áçramiṣṭhā (cf. RV. iv. 4. 12), makes acceptable sense. One of SPP's mss. has çramiṣṭhā́, but doubtless only by accident; all the other authorities, including the comm., have ⌊apart from some unimportant details⌋ çraviṣṭhā́, which SPP. emends to çráviṣṭhāḥ. There was probably no sufficient reason for our changing çrav- to çav- in our text. The fairly acceptable and least altered version of the line would be this: abhí víçvāny áruhad gambhīró ’d várṣiṣṭham aruhad áçramiṣṭhā. The third pāda is in equally bad condition. All the authorities ⌊with unimportant variants⌋, including
