2. Of thee that art good what arrow [is] in the wind, this is that of thine; therewith be gracious to us. Let not us, O Agni, thy neighbors, receive harm, reveling with abundance of wealth, with food.
The translation follows the text of the mss. rather than our emendations, as the latter afford no more satisfactory sense than does the former. Several authorities, however, read yā́ta instead of vā́ta (one has vā́ca; one ī́ṣuḥ, two éṣuḥ; ⌊and so on⌋): the pada-mss. divide vā́taḥ: íṣuḥ: sā́. The comm's text has iṣa; but how his explanation is related to the text is hard to see: he agne vāsakasya tava yā ’nugrahabuddhir annapradasya yā cā ’nugrahabuddhis tayā ‘smān sukhaya; that is all.
3. Evening after evening [is] Agni our house-lord; morning after morning [is he] giver of well-willing; be thou giver of good to us of every kind; may we, kindling thee, adorn (puṣ) ourselves.
The third pāda is literally 'of good thing after good thing be thou giver of good.' The pada-mss. divide vasu॰dā́naḥ: edhi instead of vasu°dā́ḥ: naḥ: edhi, as is implied by our text; the meter makes us suspect that the true original reading was vasudā́no na edhi. The fourth pāda is v. 3. 1 b etc. (see under that verse). ⌊Cf. vs. 4.⌋
4. Morning after morning [is] Agni our house-lord; evening after evening [is he] giver of well-willing; be thou giver of good to us of every kind; kindling thee, may we thrive (ṛdh) a hundred winters.
In d the mss. read çatáṁhimās (p. çatám॰himāḥ); the comm. takes it as two words, çataṁ himās, ⌊ignoring the accent⌋. ⌊With pāda d, cf. RV. i. 64. 14 d.⌋ ⌊Cf. vs. 3.⌋
5. May I be one not falling short of food; to the food-eating lord of food, to Agni [as] Rudra be homage.
Here also there is discordance as to the verse-division; the Anukr. ⌊and comm.⌋ further add to vs. 5 what in our edition is 6 a, b, and then make one verse of what remains of the hymn; and SPP. follows them. The translation adheres to our text (which represents all the mss. till that time known to us), especially because its division seems better suited to the sense. At the beginning, all the authorities, and SPP., have ápaçcādagdhā́nnasya, divided by the pada-text into ápaçcā:dagdhá॰annasya (or -gdha॰án-); ⌊but Whitney's W. has daghānt-; his M. has dagdhvānn-; and his P. has dagghvānt- or possibly dagdhvānt-, it is not clear which: at any rate, in P. and M. there is a pada before the ā;⌋ the comm. understands apaçcādagdhā ’nnasya, and solemnly explains it as meaning: annasyā ’paçca[dagdhā] paçcādbhāge ‘dagdhā sthālīpṛṣṭhabhāge dagdhānnarahitaḥ! The correctness of our conjectural emendation to ápaçcādaghvā́ ’nnasya is put beyond question by the occurrence of a corresponding phrase, ápaçcāddaghvā́ ’nnam bhūyāsam, in MS. iii. 9. 4, p. 12017, and also in Āp. vii. 28. 2.* Part of the mss. accent bhūyāsam. In b, all SPP's authorities ⌊save one⌋, and most of ours, give annādāyo ‘nn (variously accented: p. anna॰adáyaḥ), apparently a case of misunderstanding of āyā as yo after the Bengāli method of writing o;† but two of our mss., P.M., have annādā́yā́ ’nn-, which is the reading of our text; the comm. likewise understands -dāya, and SPP. also accepts it in his text.
*⌊The phrase á-paçcād-daghvane náre occurs at RV. vi. 42. 1; TB. iii. 7. 106; Āp. xiv. 29. 2; compare apaçcā-daghvane naraḥ at SV. i. 352, ii. 790. It may be worth noting that the comm. to TB. brings the epithet into connection with food, explaining the phrase as 'a man devoid of brightness (i.e. dull) after his meal, unable to digest what he has
