name Sâmmada, because the majority of the MSS. were in favour of that spelling. In the edition of the Asvalâyana-sûtras, which has since been published by Râma Nârâyana Vidyaranya, the name is spelt Sâmada. My own opinion is that Sâmmada is the right spelling, but that does not prove that Sâyana thought so; and unless I deviated from the principles which I had adopted for a critical restoration of Sâyana's text, I could not but write Sâmada in our passage. B 1. and B 4. omit sâmada, but both give samadâkhyasya; Ca. gives likewise samadâkhyasya, and A. semadâkhyasya. This, I believe, was meant by the writer for sammadâkhyasya, for in the passage from the Anukramanî both A. and Ca. give sâmmado. I then consulted the commentary of Shadgurusishya, and there again the same MS. gave twice sâmmada, once sâmada, which is explained by samadakhyamahâmînarâgaputrah. A better MS. of Shadgurusishya, MS. Wilson 379, gives the readings sâmmado, sâmmada, and sammadâkhyasya. The other commentary gives distinctly sâmanda.

It will be seen from these remarks that many things have to be considered before one can form an independent judgment as to the exact view adopted by Sayana in places where he differs from other authorities, or as to the exact words in which he clothed his meaning. Such cases occur again and again. Thus in ix. 86, I find that Professor Aufrecht ascribes the first ten verses to the Akrishtas, whereas Sâyana calls them Akrishtas,

VOL. I.

It is perfectly true that the best MSS. of the Anukramanikâ have Akrishta, it is equally true that the name of these Akrishtas is spelt with a short a in the Harivamsa, 11,533, but an editor of Sâyana's work is not to alter the occasional mistakes of that learned commentator, and he certainly called these poets Âkrishtas.

Verses 21-30 of the same hymn are ascribed by Professor Aufrecht to the Prisniyah. Here, again, several MSS. support that reading; and in Shadgurusishya's commentary, the correction of prisniyah into prisnayah is made by a later hand. But Sâyana clearly took prisnayah for a nominative plural of prisni, and in this case he certainly was right. The Dictionary of Boehtlingk and Roth quotes the Mahâbhârata, vii. 8728, in support of the peculiar reading of prisniyah, but the published text gives prisnayah. Professor Benfey, in his list of poets (Ind. Stud. vol. iii. p. 223), gives prisniyoga as one word, not prisniyogâ, as stated in the Dictionary of Boehtlingk and Roth, but this is evidently meant for two words, viz. prisnayo 'gâh. However, whether prisniyah or prisnayah be the real name of these poets, an editor of Sâyana is bound to give that reading of the name which Sâyana believed to be the right one, i. e. prisnayah.

Again, in the same hymn, Professor Aufrecht ascribes verses 31-40 to the Atris. He evidently read tritîye 'trayah. But Sâyana read tritîye trayah, and ascribes verses 31-40 to the three com

panies together of the Rishis mentioned before. On this point the MSS. admit of no doubt, for we read: katurthasya ka dasarkasya âkrishtâ mâshâ ityâdidvinâmânas trayo ganâ drashtârah. I do not say that the other explanation is wrong; I only say that, whether right or wrong, Sâyana certainly read trayah, not atrayah, and that an editor has no more right to correct the text, supported by the best MSS., in the first and second, than in the third of these passages, all taken from one and the same hymn.

But though I insist so strongly on a strict observance of the rules of diplomatic criticism with regard to the text of the Rig-veda, nay, even of Sâyana, I insist equally strongly on the right of independent criticism, which ought to begin where diplomatic 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 the hymns which are quoted verbatim in the Brahmanas, 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 never

theless 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 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.

There can be no clearer case of corruption in the traditional text of the Rig-veda than if in i. 70, 4, the Pada text reads:

várdhân yám pûrvih kshapáh ví-rûpâh sthâtúh ka rátham ritá-pravitam.

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 μάρτυρ οι μάρτυς, 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 aktűn ví ûrnot.

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

i. 72, 6. pasűn ka sthâtrîn karátham ka pâhi. Protect the cattle, and what stands and moves! Here it has been proposed to read sthâtúh instead of sthâtrin, and I confess that this emendation is very plausible. One does not see how pasú, 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 yathagoshtham, eka upasamâyanti.