Page:Atharva-Veda samhita.djvu/301

131 4. Pierced with consuming pain (çúc), dry-mouthed, do thou come creeping to me, gentle, with fury allayed, entirely [mine], pleasant-spoken, submissive.

5. I goad thee hither with a goad (ā́janī), away from mother, likewise from father, that thou mayest be in my power (krátu), mayest come unto my intent.

6. Do ye, O Mitra-and-Varuṇa, cast out the intents from her heart; then, making her powerless, make her [to be] in my own control.

A prose hymn, found also in Pāipp. iii. (except vs. 2, perhaps accidentally omitted, and vs. 6). A similar invocation occurs further in TS. v. 5. 10$3-5$, not so closely related that the readings need to be compared in detail. Hymns 26 and 27 are called in Kāuç. digyukte 'connected with the quarters,' and are used (14. 25), with vi. 13, in a battle-rite, for victory over a hostile army; and also (50. 13), with vi. 1 etc., in a ceremony for good-fortune (and the comm. regards them as signified by yuktayos in 50. 17, in a charm against serpents, scorpions, etc.; but this is probably a mistake ⌊?⌋); yet again, the comm. adds them in a ceremony (51. 3-5) of tribute to the quarters.

⌊"Serpent-incantation" (Schlangenzauber) is the title given to this hymn and the next by Weber. Roth (in his notes) rejects Weber's view; but Griffith accepts it. I think the two hymns are snake charms for the following reasons. They are employed by Kāuç. (50. 17) in connection with vi. 56 and xii. i. 46, which latter are clearly directed against snakes etc. See also Keçava on Kāuç. 50. 17, 18, 19, Bloomfield, p. 354 f. Keçava shows, I think, that the comm. is not mistaken about yuktayos. Weber, in his valuable notes, observes, p. 292, that the schol. to TS. v. 5. 10 reckons that passage as belonging to a sarpāhuti. It is likely that the bali-haraṇa (of Kāuç. 51. 3, 4), with which this hymn is employed (see Keçava), is a sarpabali.—This hymn and the next are reckoned to the rāudragaṇa (note to Kāuç. 50.13); cf. Anukr. Weber's note, p. 297, that these hymns are not used by Kāuç., should be deleted. Whitney in his note to vi. 56 duly reports the connection of iii. 26 and 27 with that snake charm. That he does not do so here and at xii. 1. 46 is, I think, an oversight.⌋

⌊With all this accords Ppp's colophon, rakṣāmantram. The hymn is virtually a paritta—cf. Jātaka, ii. p. 34$16$. What seems to be a very old snake paritta is found in Cullavagga, v. 6, and Jātaka, ii. p. 145, no. 203, and in the Bower Manuscript, ed. Hoernle,