He lighted up what stands and what moves during every night.

I, 72, 6. pasû´n ka sthâtrî´n karátham ka pâhi.

Protect the cattle, and what stands and moves!

Here it has been proposed to read sthâtúh instead of sthâtrî´n, and I confess that this emendation is very plausible. One does not see how pasû, cattle, could be called immobilia or fixtures, unless the poet wished to make a distinction between cattle that are kept fastened in stables, and cattle that are allowed to roam about freely in the homestead. This distinction is alluded to, for instance, in the Satapatha-brâhmana, XI, 8, 3, 2. saurya evaisha pasuh syâd iti, tasmâd etasminn astamite pasavo badhyante; badhnanty ekân yathâgoshtham, eka upasamâyanti.

I, 70, 2. gárbhah ka sthâtâ´m gárbhah karáthâm, (read sthâtrâ´m, and see Bollensen, Orient and Occident, vol. ii, p. 462.)

He who is within all that stands and all that moves.

The word karátha, if it occurs by itself, means flock, movable property:

III, 31, 15. â´t ít sâkhi-bhyah karátham sám airat.

He brought together, for his friends, the flocks.

VIII, 33, 8. puru-trâ´ karátham dadhe.

He bestowed flocks on many people.

X, 92, 13. prá nah pûshâ´ karátham—avatu.

May Pûshan protect our flock!

Another idiomatic phrase in which sthâtúh occurs is sthâtúh gágatah, and here sthâtúh is really a genitive:

IV, 53, 6. gágatah sthâtúh k ubháyasya yáh vasî´.

He who is lord of both, of what is movable and what is immovable.

VI, 50, 7. vísvasya sthâtúh gágatah gánitrîh.

They who created all that stands and moves.

VII, 60, 2. vísvasya sthâtúh gágatah ka gopâ´h.

The guardians of all that stands and moves. Cf. X, 63, 8.

I, 159, 3. sthâtúh ka satyám gágatah ka dhármani putrásya pâthah padám ádvayâvinah.

Truly while you uphold all that stands and moves, you protect the home of the guileless son. Cf. II, 31, 5.

But although I have no doubt that in I, 70, 4, the original poet said sthâtúh karátham, I should be loath to suppress the evidence of the mistake and alter the Pada text from ka rátham to karátham. The very mistake is instructive, as showing us the kind of misapprehension to which the collectors of the Vedic text were liable, and enabling us to judge how far the limits of conjectural criticism may safely be extended.