Similar verses are found in VS. (ii. 30), (ÇÇS. (iv. 4. 2), AÇS. (ii. 6. 2), MB. (ii. 3. 4), and Āp. (three varying versions at i. 8. 7). Āp. has in its first version for a, b apa yantv asurāḥ pitṛrūpā ye rūpāṇi pratimucyā ”caranti, a close analogue to our first half-verse; the rest ⌊including of Āp. only the second version⌋ have, without variant, yé rūpā́ṇi pratimuñcámānā ásurāḥ sántaḥ svadháyā cáranti, which is not quite so near. ⌊The third version in Āp. is ye jñātīnām pratirūpāḥ pitṝn māyayā ’surāḥ praviṣṭāḥ.⌋ In c all the texts ⌊including the three versions in Āp.⌋ agree with ours. For d, all the texts ⌊including the first two versions in Āp.⌋ have agníṣ ṭā́ṅ lokā́t prá ṇudāty (AÇS. -dātv, MB. -datv) asmā́t; ⌊while the third version in Āp. reads agne tān asmāt praṇudasva lokāt⌋. The comm. to VS. explains parāpúras as sthūladehān and nipúras as sūkṣmadehān, which is, of course, the purest nonsense; that to MB. divides parā puro ni puro ye bharanti, and connects the prepositions with the verb, rendering the first puras by "our enemies' houses" and the second by "our kindred's houses"—quite as bad. Our comm., finally, explains parāpúras (through parā pṛṇanti) as piṇḍadātāraḥ putrāḥ, and nipúras (through nipṛṇanti ⌊cf. his remark about ni-pṛ reported at the end of note to vs. 30⌋) as pāutrāḥ—if possible, worse than either of the others. All we can see clearly is that the native exegetes are quite as much in the dark as we with regard to the value of these obscure words. Except O.R., all our mss. have the false accent dasyávas in a; of SPP's, only two do so. Of the mss. in our hands at the time of printing of the text, only I. accented jñātimukhās at all (two of SPP's also leave it accentless), and we accordingly emended to jñātímukhās, according to the usual rule for such a compound; but I.O.Op.R.K., with the majority of SPP's authorities, read jñātimukhā́s, which SPP. has therefore properly adopted in his edition. By Kāuç. (87. 30) the verse is prescribed to be repeated while a lighted brand is carried three times about and then flung away.
29. Let there enter together (sam-viç) here our own Fathers, doing what is pleasant, lengthening [our] life-time; may we be able to reach them with oblation, living long for numerous autumns.
The translation implies in a the pada-reading svā́ḥ: naḥ, which SPP. gives by emendation, all the pada-mss. save Bp. (which has svā́: naḥ) having svā́naḥ; again, it implies in b pra॰tirántaḥ, while all read pra॰tiránte ⌊or -ate⌋; here also SPP. emends to -ntaḥ. The comm. reads -nte, and glosses it by pravardhayantu! ⌊A similar uncertainty (as between the Vulgate and Ppp.) concerning the understanding of the combination pratiranta āyuḥ was noted by me under xiv. 2. 36.⌋ The verse is used, according to Kāuç. (83. 29), next after the use of 1. 52, in arranging the bones for burial; and it is repeated, like the latter, in the piṇḍapitṛyajña (87. 28); sam-viç, as here applied, perhaps has its secondary sense of 'turn in, lie down.' The comm. reads dakṣamāṇās in c, explaining it by vardhamānās. The Anukr. does not notice the redundant syllable in c ⌊or perhaps assumes a deficiency in d to balance it. The word nakṣ- demands an accusative: so that both meter and syntax combine to cast suspicion on tebhyas⌋.
30. What milch-cow I set down (ni-pṛ) for thee, and what rice-dish for thee in milk (kṣīrá)—with that mayest thou be the supporter of the person (jána) who is there (átra) without a living.
That is, 'without the means of sustaining life.' Our Bp.E. read ajīvanas, unaccented; the normal accent would be ajīvanás. The comm. remarks that ni-pṛ is used distinctively of a gift for the Fathers (pitrye dāne vartate).
