criticism ends. Considering the startling antiquity which we can claim for every letter and accent of our MSS., so far as they are authenticated by the Prâtisâkhya, to say nothing of the passages of many hymns which are quoted verbatim in the Brâhmanas, the Kalpa-sûtras, the Nirukta, the Brihaddevatâ, and the Anukramanîs, I should deem it reckless to alter one single letter or one single accent in an edition of the hymns of the Rig-veda. As the text has been handed down to us, so it should remain; and whatever alterations and corrections we, the critical Mlekkhas of the nineteenth century, have to propose, should be kept distinct from that time-hallowed inheritance. Unlikely as it may sound, it is true nevertheless that we, the scholars of the nineteenth century, are able to point out mistakes in the text of the Rig-veda which escaped the attention of the most learned among the native scholars of the sixth century b.c. No doubt, these scholars, even if they had perceived such mistakes, would hardly have ventured to correct the text of their sacred writings. The authors of the Prâtisâkhya had before their eyes or ears a text ready made, of which they registered every peculiarity, nay, in which they would note and preserve every single irregularity, even though it stood alone amidst hundreds of analogous cases. With us the case is different. Where we see a rule observed in 99 cases, we feel strongly tempted and sometimes justified in altering the 100th case in accordance with what we consider to be a general rule. Yet even then I feel convinced we ought not to do more than place our conjectural readings below the textus receptus of the Veda,—a text so ancient and venerable that no scholar of any historical tact or critical taste would venture to foist into it a conjectural reading, however plausible, nay, however undeniable.

Sthâtúh karátham.There can be no clearer case of corruption in the traditional text of the Rig-veda than, for instance, in I, 70, 4, where the Pada text reads:

várdhân yám pûrvî´h kshapáh ví-rûpâh sthâtúh ka rátham ritá-pravîtam.

All scholars who have touched on this verse, Professors Benfey, Bollensen, Roth, and others, have pointed out that

instead of ka rátham, the original poet must have said karátham. The phrase sthâtúh karátham, what stands and moves, occurs several times. It is evidently an ancient phrase, and hence we can account for the preservation in it of the old termination of the nom. sing. of neuters in ri, which here, as in the Greek μάρ-τυρ or μάρ-τυς, masc., appears as ur or us, while in the ordinary Sanskrit we find ri only. This nom. sing. neut. in us, explains also the common genitives and ablatives, pituh, mâtuh, &c., which stand for pitur-s, mâtur-s. This phrase sthâtúh karátham occurs:

I, 58, 5. sthâtúh karátham bhayate patatrínah.

What stands and what moves is afraid of Agni.

I, 68, 1. sthâtúh karátham aktû´n ví ûrnot.