i. 70, 2. gárbhah ka sthâtẩm gárbhah karáthâm, (read sthâtrẩm, and see Bollensen, Orient und 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. ất ít sákhi-bhyah karátham sám airat. He brought together, for his friends, the flocks. viii. 33, 8. puru-tra karátham dadhe. He bestowed flocks on many people. X. 92, 13. prá nah pûsha 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 ubháyasya yáh vasĩ. 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 gopẩh. 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. A still more extraordinary case of misunderstanding on the part of the original compilers of the Vedic texts, and likewise of the authors of the Prâtisâkhyas, the Niruktas, and other Vedic treatises, has been pointed out by Professor Kuhn. In an article of his, Zur ältesten Geschichte der Indogermanischen Völker' (Indische Studien, vol. i. p. 351), he made the following observation: The Lithuanian laukas, Lett. lauks, Pruss. laukas, all meaning field, agree exactly with the Sk. lokas, world, Lat. locus, Low Germ. (in East-Frisia and Oldenburg) louch, lôch, village. All these words are to be traced back to the Sk. uru, Gr. evpús, broad, wide. The initial u is lost, as in Goth. rûms, O. H. G. rúmi, rúmin (Low Germ. rûme, an open uncultivated field in a forest), and the r changed into 1. In support of this derivation it should be observed that in the Veda loka is frequently preceded by the particle u, which probably was only separated from it by the Diaskeuastæ, and that the meaning is that of open space.' Although this derivation has met with little favour, I confess that I look upon i. 70, 2. gárbhah ka sthâtẩm gárbhah karáthâm, (read sthâtrẩm, and see Bollensen, Orient und 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. ất ít sákhi-bhyah karátham sám airat. X. 92, 13. prá nah pûsha karátham-avatu. Another idiomatic phrase in which sthâtúh occurs is sthâtúh gágatah, and here sthâtúh is really a genitive : iv. 53, 6. gágatah sthâtúh ubháyasya yáh vasĩ. 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 gopah. 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. A still more extraordinary case of misunderstanding on the part of the original compilers of the Vedic texts, and likewise of the authors of the Prâtisâkhyas, the Niruktas, and other Vedic treatises, has been pointed out by Professor Kuhn. In an article of his, 'Zur ältesten Geschichte der Indogermanischen Völker' (Indische Studien, vol. i. p. 351), he made the following observation: The Lithuanian laukas, Lett. lauks, Pruss. laukas, all meaning field, agree exactly with the Sk. lokas, world, Lat. locus, Low Germ. (in East-Frisia and Oldenburg) louch, lôch, village. All these words are to be traced back to the Sk. uru, Gr. evpús, broad, wide. The initial u is lost, as in Goth. rúms, O. H. G. rúmi, rúmin (Low Germ. rûme, an open uncultivated field in a forest), and the r changed into 1. In support of this derivation it should be observed that in the Veda loka is frequently preceded by the particle u, which probably was only separated from it by the Diaskeuastæ, and that the meaning is that of open space.' Although this derivation has met with little favour, I confess that I look upon this remark, excepting only the Latin locus, i. e. stlocus, as one of the most ingenious of this eminent scholar. The fact is that this particle u before loka is one of the most puzzling occurrences in the Veda. Professor Bollensen says that loka never occurs without a preceding u in the first eight Mandalas, and this is perfectly true with the exception of one passage which he has overlooked, viii. 100, 12. dyaúh dehí lokám vágrâya vi-skábhe, Dyu! give room for the lightning to step forth! Professor Bollensen (1. c. p. 603) reads vritrẩya instead of vágrâya, without authority. He is right in objecting to dyaús as a vocative, but dyaúh may be a genitive belonging to vágrâya, in which case we should translate, Make room for the lightning of Dyu to step forth! But what is even more important, is the fact that the occurrence of this unaccented u at the beginning of a pâda is against the very rules, or, at least, runs counter to the very observations which the authors of the Prâtisâkhya have made on the inadmissibility of an unaccented word in such a place, so that they had to insert a special provision exempting the unaccented u from this general observation: anudâttam tu pâdâdau nauvargam vidyate padam,' 'no unaccented word is found at the beginning of a pâda except u!' Although I have frequently insisted on the fact that such statements of the Prâtisâkhya are not to be considered as rules, but simply as more or |