Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1V, 41, I. ritasya va sadasi trasithdm na, not trasithim nah. I must enter the same protest against shortening other long vowels in the following verses which Professor Kuhn proposes to make metrically correct by this remedy: I, 42, 6. hiranyavasimat-tama, not vasimat-tama. Here the short syllable of gazasri-bhiz in V, 60, 8, cannot be quoted as a precedent, for the i in gavasri, walking in companies, was never long, and could therefore not be shortened. Still less can we quote nfari-bhya# as an instance of a long i being shortened, for nari-bhya’ is derived from narif4, not from nari, and occurs with a short i even when the metre requires a long syllable; I, 43, 6. nri-bhyak ndri-bhyad gave. The fact is, that in the Rigveda the forms narishu and n4ri-bhya# never occur, but always nérishu, nari-bhya#; while from vasi we never find any forms with short i, but always vasishu, vasi-bhiz. Nor is there any justification for change in I, 25, 16. gavak na gavy(ti£ anu, the second pAda of a Gayatri. Nor in V, 56, 3. rikshah na vak marutak simi-vin amak. In most of the passages mentioned by Professor Kuhn on p. 122, this peculiarity may be observed, that the eighth syllable is short, or, at all events, may be short, when the ninth is long: VI, 44, 21. vrishne te induk vrishabha. pipaya. I, 73, 1. syona-sih atithié na’ prindnah. VII, 13, 1. bhare havi# na barhishi privdnas. II, 28, 7. enak krinvantam Asura bhrivanti. Before, however, we can settle the question whether in PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. Ixxxix these and other places certain vowels should be pronounced as either long or short, we must settle the more general Metre and question, what authority we have for requir- Grammar. ing a long or a short syllable in certain places _ of the Vedic metres. If we declare ourselves free from all authority, either grammatical or metrical, we may either sacrifice all grammar to metre, or all metre to grammar. We may introduce the strictest rules of metre, determining the length or shortness of every syllable, and then ignore all rules of grammar and quantity, treat short syllables as long, or long ones as short, and thus secure the triumph of metre. Or, we may allow great latitude in Vedic metres, particularly in certain pAdas, and thus retain all the rules of grammar which determine the quantity of syllables. It may be said even that the result would really be the same in either case, and that the policy of ‘thorough’ might perhaps prove most useful in the end. It may be so hereafter, but in the present state of Vedic scholarship it seems more expedient to be guided by native tradition, and to study the compromise which the ancient students of the Veda have tried to effect between grammar on one side and metre on the other.
2It may be so hereafter, but in the present state of Vedic scholarship it seems more expedient to be guided by native tradition, and to study the compromise which the ancient students of the Veda have tried to effect between grammar on one side and metre on the other. Now it has generally been supposed that the Pratiskhya teaches that there must be a long syllable in the eighth or tenth place of Traishtubha and GAgata, and in the sixth place of Anushzubha padas. This is not the case. The Pratisakhya, no doubt, says, that a short final vowel, but not any short syllable, occupying the eighth or tenth place in a Traish¢ubha and Gagata pada, or the sixth place ina Gayatra pada, is lengthened, but it never says that it must be lengthened ; on the contrary, it gives a number of cases where it is not so lengthened. But, what is even more important, the Pratisikhya distinctly adds a proviso which shows that the ancient critics of the Veda did not consider the trochee as the only possible foot for the sixth and seventh syllables of Gayatra, or for the eighth and ninth, or tenth and eleventh syllables of Traishtubha and Gagata padas. They distinctly admit that the seventh and the xc VEDIC HYMNS. ninth and the eleventh syllables in such pAdas may be long, and that in that case the preceding short vowel is not lengthened. We thus get the iambus in the very place which is generally occupied by the trochee. According to the Pratisdkhya, the general scheme for the Gayatra would | be, not only 6 teea] eos, but also 67 ++4+4+[ 44-4; and for the Traishtubha and GAgata, not only 8 +++ 4 [+ t+-lud + (+), but also B 9 +++ ¢]+ + + 4[-+ + (4). And again, for the same p4das, not only oil t++ttl[ +++ 4+[4+-(4), but also IO +++t¢] + ++ 4+] 4+ 4-(4). Before appealing, however, to the Pratisakhya for the establishment of such a rule as that the sixth syllable of Anushtubha and the eighth or tenth syllable of Traishtubha and Gagata padas must be lengthened, provided a short syllable follows, it is indispensable that we should have a clear appreciation of the real character of the Pratisakhya. If we carefully follow the thread which runs through these books, we shall soon perceive that, even with the proviso that a short syllable follows, the Pratisakhya never teaches that certain final vowels must be lengthened. The object of the Pratisakhya, as I pointed out on a former occasion, is to register all the facts which possess a phonetic interest. In doing this, all kinds of plans are adopted in order to bring as large a number of cases as possible under general categories. These categories are purely technical and external, and they never assume, with the authors of the Pratisékhya, the character of general rules. Let us now, after these preliminary remarks, return to the Sdtras 523 to 535, which we discussed before. The Pratisdkhya simply says that certain syllables which are short in the PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. xci
3Let us now, after these preliminary remarks, return to the Sdtras 523 to 535, which we discussed before. The Pratisdkhya simply says that certain syllables which are short in the PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. xci Pada, if occupying a certain place in a verse, are lengthened in the Samhita, provided a short syllable follows. This looks, no doubt, like a general rule which should be carried out under all circumstances. But this idea never entered the minds of the authors of the Pratisikhya. They only give this rule as the most convenient way of registering the lengthening of certain syllables which have actually been lengthened in the text of the Sashita, while they remain short in the Pada; and after having done this, they proceed to give a number of verses where the same rule might be supposed to apply, but where in the text of the Samhita the short syllable has not been lengthened. After having given a long string of words which are short in the Pada and long in the Samhita, and where no intelligible reason ° of their lengthening can be given, at least not by the authors of the Pratisakhya, the Pratisakhya adds in Sdtra 523, ‘The final vowel of the eighth syllable is lengthened in padas of eleven and twelve syllables, provided a syllable follows which is short in the Samhita.’ As instances the commentator gives (Samhita text): I, 32, 4. tdditnd sdtrum nd Kila vivitse. - - - - t vo7 bbe v I, 94,1. A4gne sakhyé m4 rishdma vaydm tava. Then follows another rule (Sdtra 525) that ‘The final vowel of the tenth syllable in padas of eleven and twelve syllables is lengthened, provided a syllable follows which is short in the Samhita.’ As instances the commentator gives: - i] A III, 54, 22. hd visvd sumand didihi nad. II, 34, 9. ava rudrd asiso hantana vidhas. Lastly, a rule is given (Sdtra 526) that ‘The final vowel of the sixth syllable is lengthened in a pada of eight syllables, provided a syllable follows which is short :’ - I, 5,10. tsdno yavaya vadhdm, If the seventh syllable is long no change takes place: IX, 67, 30. 4 pavasva deva soma. While we ourselves should look upon these rules as xcii VEDIC HYMNS.
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1V, 41, I. ritasya va sadasi trasithdm na, not trasithim nah. I must enter the same protest against shortening other long vowels in the following verses which Professor Kuhn proposes to make metrically correct by this remedy: I, 42, 6. hiranyavasimat-tama, not vasimat-tama. Here the short syllable of gazasri-bhiz in V, 60, 8, cannot be quoted as a precedent, for the i in gavasri, walking in companies, was never long, and could therefore not be shortened. Still less can we quote nfari-bhya# as an instance of a long i being shortened, for nari-bhya’ is derived from narif4, not from nari, and occurs with a short i even when the metre requires a long syllable; I, 43, 6. nri-bhyak ndri-bhyad gave. The fact is, that in the Rigveda the forms narishu and n4ri-bhya# never occur, but always nérishu, nari-bhya#; while from vasi we never find any forms with short i, but always vasishu, vasi-bhiz. Nor is there any justification for change in I, 25, 16. gavak na gavy(ti£ anu, the second pAda of a Gayatri. Nor in V, 56, 3. rikshah na vak marutak simi-vin amak. In most of the passages mentioned by Professor Kuhn on p. 122, this peculiarity may be observed, that the eighth syllable is short, or, at all events, may be short, when the ninth is long: VI, 44, 21. vrishne te induk vrishabha. pipaya. I, 73, 1. syona-sih atithié na’ prindnah. VII, 13, 1. bhare havi# na barhishi privdnas. II, 28, 7. enak krinvantam Asura bhrivanti. Before, however, we can settle the question whether in PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. Ixxxix these and other places certain vowels should be pronounced as either long or short, we must settle the more general Metre and question, what authority we have for requir- Grammar. ing a long or a short syllable in certain places _ of the Vedic metres. If we declare ourselves free from all authority, either grammatical or metrical, we may either sacrifice all grammar to metre, or all metre to grammar. We may introduce the strictest rules of metre, determining the length or shortness of every syllable, and then ignore all rules of grammar and quantity, treat short syllables as long, or long ones as short, and thus secure the triumph of metre. Or, we may allow great latitude in Vedic metres, particularly in certain pAdas, and thus retain all the rules of grammar which determine the quantity of syllables. It may be said even that the result would really be the same in either case, and that the policy of ‘thorough’ might perhaps prove most useful in the end. It may be so hereafter, but in the present state of Vedic scholarship it seems more expedient to be guided by native tradition, and to study the compromise which the ancient students of the Veda have tried to effect between grammar on one side and metre on the other.
2It may be so hereafter, but in the present state of Vedic scholarship it seems more expedient to be guided by native tradition, and to study the compromise which the ancient students of the Veda have tried to effect between grammar on one side and metre on the other. Now it has generally been supposed that the Pratiskhya teaches that there must be a long syllable in the eighth or tenth place of Traishtubha and GAgata, and in the sixth place of Anushzubha padas. This is not the case. The Pratisakhya, no doubt, says, that a short final vowel, but not any short syllable, occupying the eighth or tenth place in a Traish¢ubha and Gagata pada, or the sixth place ina Gayatra pada, is lengthened, but it never says that it must be lengthened ; on the contrary, it gives a number of cases where it is not so lengthened. But, what is even more important, the Pratisikhya distinctly adds a proviso which shows that the ancient critics of the Veda did not consider the trochee as the only possible foot for the sixth and seventh syllables of Gayatra, or for the eighth and ninth, or tenth and eleventh syllables of Traishtubha and Gagata padas. They distinctly admit that the seventh and the xc VEDIC HYMNS. ninth and the eleventh syllables in such pAdas may be long, and that in that case the preceding short vowel is not lengthened. We thus get the iambus in the very place which is generally occupied by the trochee. According to the Pratisdkhya, the general scheme for the Gayatra would | be, not only 6 teea] eos, but also 67 ++4+4+[ 44-4; and for the Traishtubha and GAgata, not only 8 +++ 4 [+ t+-lud + (+), but also B 9 +++ ¢]+ + + 4[-+ + (4). And again, for the same p4das, not only oil t++ttl[ +++ 4+[4+-(4), but also IO +++t¢] + ++ 4+] 4+ 4-(4). Before appealing, however, to the Pratisakhya for the establishment of such a rule as that the sixth syllable of Anushtubha and the eighth or tenth syllable of Traishtubha and Gagata padas must be lengthened, provided a short syllable follows, it is indispensable that we should have a clear appreciation of the real character of the Pratisakhya. If we carefully follow the thread which runs through these books, we shall soon perceive that, even with the proviso that a short syllable follows, the Pratisakhya never teaches that certain final vowels must be lengthened. The object of the Pratisakhya, as I pointed out on a former occasion, is to register all the facts which possess a phonetic interest. In doing this, all kinds of plans are adopted in order to bring as large a number of cases as possible under general categories. These categories are purely technical and external, and they never assume, with the authors of the Pratisékhya, the character of general rules. Let us now, after these preliminary remarks, return to the Sdtras 523 to 535, which we discussed before. The Pratisdkhya simply says that certain syllables which are short in the PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. xci
3Let us now, after these preliminary remarks, return to the Sdtras 523 to 535, which we discussed before. The Pratisdkhya simply says that certain syllables which are short in the PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. xci Pada, if occupying a certain place in a verse, are lengthened in the Samhita, provided a short syllable follows. This looks, no doubt, like a general rule which should be carried out under all circumstances. But this idea never entered the minds of the authors of the Pratisikhya. They only give this rule as the most convenient way of registering the lengthening of certain syllables which have actually been lengthened in the text of the Sashita, while they remain short in the Pada; and after having done this, they proceed to give a number of verses where the same rule might be supposed to apply, but where in the text of the Samhita the short syllable has not been lengthened. After having given a long string of words which are short in the Pada and long in the Samhita, and where no intelligible reason ° of their lengthening can be given, at least not by the authors of the Pratisakhya, the Pratisakhya adds in Sdtra 523, ‘The final vowel of the eighth syllable is lengthened in padas of eleven and twelve syllables, provided a syllable follows which is short in the Samhita.’ As instances the commentator gives (Samhita text): I, 32, 4. tdditnd sdtrum nd Kila vivitse. - - - - t vo7 bbe v I, 94,1. A4gne sakhyé m4 rishdma vaydm tava. Then follows another rule (Sdtra 525) that ‘The final vowel of the tenth syllable in padas of eleven and twelve syllables is lengthened, provided a syllable follows which is short in the Samhita.’ As instances the commentator gives: - i] A III, 54, 22. hd visvd sumand didihi nad. II, 34, 9. ava rudrd asiso hantana vidhas. Lastly, a rule is given (Sdtra 526) that ‘The final vowel of the sixth syllable is lengthened in a pada of eight syllables, provided a syllable follows which is short :’ - I, 5,10. tsdno yavaya vadhdm, If the seventh syllable is long no change takes place: IX, 67, 30. 4 pavasva deva soma. While we ourselves should look upon these rules as xcii VEDIC HYMNS.
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
No commentary for this page.