script authority is alleged for readings which vary from the received, or because there is reason to believe them to be quoted from books of Scripture now lost, or rejected as apocryphal, or to have been handed down by tradition alone. Furthermore, this essay speaks of two different views held by Muslims, in respect to corruption of Scripture, some supposing a "willful perversion of words," and others only a misinterpretation of texts accepted on both sides, or, at the most, "clerical mistakes in the manuscripts;" and this latter view is said to be that of the truly learned doctors. The other essay, by Syed Ahmed, introduces a new phase of our subject; and it is this which forms the main point of view of Syed Ameer Ali's "Critical Examination."

We might, therefore, now appropriately turn to the consideration of Islâm and Christianity in some aspects of their influence upon one another and upon society, as historically manifested. But a few hints only on this topic must suffice, mainly by way of emphasizing suggestions already thrown out. While we would not for a moment think of bringing Islâm into comparison with Christianity, as a rival system, in respect to moral and intellectual influence, yet it is not to be doubted that the Christian world has been too little mindful of what was purifying and elevating in primitive Islâm. In a time of decline of Christian life, and amid the heats of angry theological controversies of Christians with each other, Islâm did unquestionably awaken a fresh moral enthusiasm in the world, and bring in a revival of healthy activity of spirit; though it must also be said, for truth's sake, that the philosophers of Islâm, to whom the world is indebted for the preservation and amplification of the science of the Greeks, were rather free-thinkers than Muslims in their religious faith. Deep metaphysical questions, interesting to all reasoning minds, first engaged the attention of studious Muslims, who were anxious to hold on to their faith consistently with the requirements of reason-for example, respecting the relations of free will to divine sovereignty; and as one reads of the differences which divided the schools of the mosques on this subject, in the time of the Abbâsides, one is constantly reminded of correspondences among Christian theologians. It is a very general error, by the way, to speak of fatalism as having

been taught by Muhammad, for the Kurân is as distinct in its assertion of human freedom and responsibility as is the Bible, although it no more explains their consistency with divine predestination than do our own Scriptures. Properly viewed, the fatalism of Islâm seems to have been a revolt of orthodoxy from the tendency of philosophers to attribute every. thing to second causes. It is due to Islâm to remark, also, that the great principle of toleration, which has had so hard a conflict with prejudice, even in the innermost sphere of Christian life, where the voice of the great Master of charity should have been most distinctly heard, and has been so little exalted in places of authority, was first instituted, as a social rule, after the days of the founding of Christianity, by the Arab Prophet, who said "Let there be no forcing in religion," and, "If the Lord had pleased, all who are on the earth would have believed together; and wilt thou force men to be believers?" Nor were these idle words: the temple of the fireworshipper, the Christian church, and the Jewish synagogue could stand side by side with the mosque, from the earliest times of Muslim conquest; a not onerous tribute was all that was required as the price of perfect freedom of religious opinion and worship; and the now reigning sovereign of Persia could with truth say, as he did, having regard to recognized principle, that "complete toleration exists throughout his dominions." We bring up this point purposely, in view of the recent atrocities of the Turks in Bulgaria, because it illustrates what we have insisted upon in another connection, that Islâm may be most successfully opposed by confronting it with its primitive principles. This is, in fact, the burthen of our article, and so we end it.

ARTICLE IX.-MÜLLER'S RIG-VEDA AND COMMEN

TARY.

Rig- Veda Sanhita, the Sacred Hymns of the Brahmans; together with the Commentary of Sayanacharya. Edited by Dr. MAX MÜLLER. Six volumes, quarto. London: 1849–74.

The Hymns of the Rig- Veda in the Samhita and in the Pada Texts. Reprinted from the Editio Princeps. By F. MAx Müller, M.A., etc. Two volumes, octavo. London: 1876.

HARDLY another literary enterprise of the present century has become more widely known than M. Müller's publication of the Rig-Veda and its native commentary. Both in itself and in virtue of what it has led to, it has pressed itself in extraordinary degree upon men's attention. When it was begun, more than a quarter of a century ago, its author was an obscure young German student; when it is finished, he is one of the most noted men of the age. The records of literary history might perhaps be searched in vain for an example of more brilliant success. The native German has become a man of mark in English society, and an acknowledged master of English composition. He has thrown open to the English people more than one department of scholarly investigation until then unheeded by them, and they have come to regard him as wellnigh the creator of comparative mythology and the science of religions, of comparative philology and the science of language. Work after work has proceeded from his facile and fascinating pen; whole series of striking articles, of which he has gathered the choicest into a succession of popular and widely circulated volumes. It has seemed as if the great Veda-work, which originally brought him to England, was the matter which least pressed him and engaged his attention. But this too is at last completed, and stands before the world, in six heavy quartos. And we have lately seen its author, while looking back with satisfaction upon what he calls "the work of my life," and pointing to it with pride as in itself the sufficient result of a life's labor, yet at the same time seeking to be relieved of the

onerous duties of his Oxford professorship of comparative philology, that he may retire to the continent, and devote himself henceforth to the advancement of Sanskrit learning. There seems to be a little inconsistency here; perhaps a nearer view of the history of the enterprise will do something toward clearing it up.

At the time when Müller undertook his task, the Vedic literature, in all its numerous branches, was coming rapidly forward to the knowledge of scholars and of the world. The times were ripe for its treatment; all students of the Sanskrit and of India had come fully to see that here, and here alone, was the true and solid foundation of their study. Müller was one of many who were throwing themselves heartily into the work of making the Vedic texts accessible. In 1848, Benfey put forth the text of the Sâma-Veda, with translation and glossary, and with an abundance of auxiliary matter and learned discussion. In 1849, Weber began his edition of the White Yajur Veda, with its native comment, and accompanied also by its Brâhmana, or canonical exposition: he finished the Veda itself in 1852, the Brahmana in 1855. Aufrecht was meantime taking hold of the Atharva-Veda; but circumstances compelled his withdrawal, and this text was brought forth, by combined German and American labor, in 1855-56. For want of sufficient manuscript material in Europe, the Black Yajur Veda was taken up considerably later: its text with native comment has been slowly appearing in the Bibliotheca Indica, at Calcutta, since 1855, and is still hardly more than half finished; but Weber has recently (1871-72) given us the whole text, in the Indische Studien.

All these undertakings, however, interesting and important as they were, were only secondary in point of interest and importance to the publication of the Rig-Veda; this was the oldest and grandest historical collection of the records of the Indian past; the others stood toward it in a position either of direct subordination or at least of inferiority. For bringing it out there was an abundance of manuscript material in the European libraries. Rosen had printed in 1838 the first ashtaka of the text, an eighth part of the whole, with Latin version; but his lamented death cut short his work. Two or

three of the leading scholars of Germany were, after 1845, maturing a plan for its issue; and Roer began at Calcutta, at about the same time, an edition of the text with commentary. Both these enterprises were abandoned in favor of the one inaugurated by Müller at London, under, as it seemed, peculiarly favorable auspices.

Müller's devotion to his task began about 1845, under the instruction and inspiration of Burnouf at Paris. Before the end of 1846 he had advanced so far, having already spent some time in England, using its manuscript treasures, that he had elaborated his plans, and found for the work a German publisher (Samter, at Königsberg). The joint prospectus of editor and publisher bears date of September and October, 1846, and promises two or three quarto parts a year, of about 160 pages each, at four thalers a part. What caused the failure of this enterprise has never, to our knowledge, transpired in public; Müller appears to make not a syllable of reference to it in any of his works, though the name of so courageous and enterprising a bookseller ought not to be forgotten. Nor do we hear anything of an arrangement concluded about the same time with a famous and powerful literary institution on the continent, which also received Müller's application and consented to become the patron of his work. All such plans, it should scem, were swept away and replaced by that formed, through the influence and aid of Bunsen and Wilson, with the East India Company, and continued by the Government of India after the dissolution of the Company. These were the natural and most acceptable patrons of the undertaking; and they have performed their part with an openhandedness which does them high honor. Neither to the work itself nor to its editor was their liberality stinted; the six volumes have been produced in a style which has left nothing to be desired, and distributed most generously to scholars who had any measure of just claim to receive them; and Müller received by the first arrangement an honorarium of about twenty-five hundred dollars (£500) a volume, with an additional douceur, at the end, of ten thousand (£2,000) more, for his services as editor.

The spirit in which Müller began his work, as set forth in the Samter prospectus referred to above, was worthy of all