Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1tsdno 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. founded in the very nature of the metre, which, no doubt, to a certain extent they are, the authors of the Pratisikhya use them simply as convenient nets for catching as many cases as possible of lengthened syllables actually occurring in the text of the Samhita. For this purpose, and in order to avoid giving a number of special rules, they add in this place an observation, very important to us as throwing light on the real pronunciation of the Vedic hymns at the time when our Samhita text was finally settled, but with them again a mere expedient for enlarging the preceding rules, and thus catching more cases of lengthening at one haul. They say in Stra 527, that in order to get the right number of syllables in such verses, we must pronounce sometimes one syllable as two. Thus only can the lengthened syllable be got into one of the places required by the preceding Sftra, viz. the sixth, the eighth, or the tenth place, and thus only can a large number of lengthened syllables be comprehended under the same general rule of the Pratisakhya. In all this we ourselves can easily recognise a principle which guided the compilers of the Samhita text, or the very authors of the hymns, in lengthening syllables which in the Pada text are short, and which were liable to be lengthened because they occupied certain places on which the stress of the metre would naturally fall. We also see quite clearly that these compilers, or those whose pronunciation they tried to perpetuate, must have pronounced certain syllables as two syllables, and we naturally consider that we have a right to try the same expedient in other cases where to us, though not to them, the metre seems deficient, and where it could be rendered perfect by pronouncing one syllable as two. Such thoughts, however, never entered the minds of the authors of the Pratisikhyas, who are satisfied with explaining what is, according to the authority of the Samhita, and who never attempt to say what ought to be, even against the authority of the Samhita. While in some cases they have ears to hear and to appreciate the natural flow of the poetical language of the Rishis, they seem at other times as deaf as the adder to the voice of the charmer. PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION, Xcili
2While in some cases they have ears to hear and to appreciate the natural flow of the poetical language of the Rishis, they seem at other times as deaf as the adder to the voice of the charmer. PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION, Xcili A general rule, therefore, in our sense of the word, that the eighth syllable in hendecasyllabics and dodecasyllabics, the tenth syllable in hendecasyllabics and dodecasyllabics, and the sixth syllable in octosyllabics should be lengthened, rests in no sense on the authority of ancient grammarians. Even as a mere observation, they restrict it by the condition that the next syllable must be short, in order to provoke the lengthening of the preceding syllable, thereby sanctioning, of course, many exceptions; and they then proceed to quote a number of cases where, in spite of all, the short syllable remains short*. In some of these quotations they are no doubt wrong, but in most of them their statement cannot be disputed. As to the eighth syllable being short in hendecasyllabics and dodecasyllabics, they quote such verses as, VI, 66, 4. antar ({ti) santak avadyAni pundndd. Thus we see that in VI, 44, 9, varshiyak vayak krinuhi sakibhif, hi remains short; while in VI, 25, 3, gahi vrishnyAni krinuht pardkaf, it 1s lengthened in the Samhita, the only difference being that in the second passage the accent is on hi. As to the tenth syllable being short in a dodecasyllabic, they quote II, 27, 14. adite mitra varuma uta mrda. As to the tenth syllable being short in a hendecasyllabic, they quote II, 20, 1. vayam te vayak indra viddhi su nad. As to the sixth syllable being short in an octosyllabic, they quote VIII, 23, 26. mahak visvan abhi satak. A large number of similar exceptions are collected from * ‘Wo die achtsilbigen Reihen mit herbeigezogen sind, ist es in der Regel bei solchen Liedern geschehen, die im Ganzen von der regelmissigen Form weniger abweichen, und fiir solche Fille, wo auch das Prdtisdkhya die Langung der sechsten Silbe in achtsilbigen Reihen vorschreibt, namlich wo die siebente von Natur kurz ist. Die achtsilbigen Reihen bediirfen einer erneuten Durchforschung, da es mehrfach schwer fallt, den Samhitatext mit der Vorschrift der Pratisikhya in Ubereinstimmung zu bringen.’ Kuhn, Beitrage, vol. iii, p. 450; and still more strongly, p. 458. XCciv VEDIC HYMNS. 528, 3 to 534, 94, and this does not include any cases where the ninth, the eleventh, or the seventh syllable is long, instead of being short, while it does include cases where the eighth syllable is long, though the ninth is not short, or, at least, is not short according to the views of the collectors of these passages. See Sitra 522, 6.
3See Sitra 522, 6. Besides the cases mentioned by the PratisAkhya itself, where a short syllable, though occupying a place which would seem to require lengthening, remains short, there are many others which the Pratisakhya does not mention, because, from its point of view, there was no necessity for doing so. The Pratisdkhya has been blamed® for omitting such cases as I, 93, 6, urum yag#aya akrathir u lokam; or I, 96, 1, deva agnim dharayan dravizodam. But though occupying the eighth place, and though followed by a short syllable, these syllables could never fall under the general observation of the Pratisakhya, because that general observation refers to final vowels only, but not to short syllables in general. Similar cases arg I, 107, 1%; 122, 93 130, 10; 152,63; 154,13; 158, 5%; 163, 2; 167, 10"; 171, 4; 173,6; 179, 1%; 182, 8; 186, 6, &c. If, therefore, we say that, happen what may, these metrical rules must be observed, and the text of the Veda altered in order to satisfy the requirements of these rules, we ought to know at all events that we do this on our own responsibility, and that we cannot shield ourselves behind the authority of Saunaka or Katyayana. Now it is well known that Professor Kuhn? has laid down the rule that the Traish¢ubha p4das must end in a bacchius or amphibrachys v—-™, and the G4gata pddas in a dijambus or pzon secundus u—w¥. With regard to Anushéubha pddas, he requires the dijambus or pzon secundus v—v™ at the end of a whole verse only, allowing greater freedom in the formation of the preceding pddas. In a later article, * ‘Dazu kommt, dass der uns vorliegende Samhitatext viclfaltig gar nicht mit Saunaka’s allgemeiner Regel iibereinstimmt, indem die Verlaingerung kurzer Sil ben nicht unter den Bedingungen eingetreten ist, die er vorschreibt.’ Kuhn, Beitrage, vol. iii, p. 459. > Beitrage zur. Vergleichenden Sprachforschung, vol. iii, p. 118. PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. XCV however, the final pada, too, in Anush/ubha metre is allowed greater freedom, and the rule, as above given, is strictly maintained with regard to the Traishfubha and Gagata pAdas only. This subject is so important, and affects so large a number of passages in the Veda, that it requires the The four prine Most careful examination. The Vedic metres, cipal Padas’ though at first sight very perplexing, are very simple, if reduced to their primary elements. The authors of the Pratisikhyas have elaborated a most complicated system. Counting the syllables in the most mechanical manner, they have assigned nearly a hundred names to every variety which they discovered in the hymns of the Rig-veda*. But they also observed that the constituent elements of all these metres were really but four, (Sitras 988, 989): ° 1. The Gdyatra pada, of eight syllables, ending in U-. 2. The Vairaga pAda, of ten syllables, ending in ——-. 3. The Traishtubha p4da, of eleven syllables, ending in --. 4. The GAgata pada, of twelve syllables, ending in v-.
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.
1tsdno 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. founded in the very nature of the metre, which, no doubt, to a certain extent they are, the authors of the Pratisikhya use them simply as convenient nets for catching as many cases as possible of lengthened syllables actually occurring in the text of the Samhita. For this purpose, and in order to avoid giving a number of special rules, they add in this place an observation, very important to us as throwing light on the real pronunciation of the Vedic hymns at the time when our Samhita text was finally settled, but with them again a mere expedient for enlarging the preceding rules, and thus catching more cases of lengthening at one haul. They say in Stra 527, that in order to get the right number of syllables in such verses, we must pronounce sometimes one syllable as two. Thus only can the lengthened syllable be got into one of the places required by the preceding Sftra, viz. the sixth, the eighth, or the tenth place, and thus only can a large number of lengthened syllables be comprehended under the same general rule of the Pratisakhya. In all this we ourselves can easily recognise a principle which guided the compilers of the Samhita text, or the very authors of the hymns, in lengthening syllables which in the Pada text are short, and which were liable to be lengthened because they occupied certain places on which the stress of the metre would naturally fall. We also see quite clearly that these compilers, or those whose pronunciation they tried to perpetuate, must have pronounced certain syllables as two syllables, and we naturally consider that we have a right to try the same expedient in other cases where to us, though not to them, the metre seems deficient, and where it could be rendered perfect by pronouncing one syllable as two. Such thoughts, however, never entered the minds of the authors of the Pratisikhyas, who are satisfied with explaining what is, according to the authority of the Samhita, and who never attempt to say what ought to be, even against the authority of the Samhita. While in some cases they have ears to hear and to appreciate the natural flow of the poetical language of the Rishis, they seem at other times as deaf as the adder to the voice of the charmer. PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION, Xcili
2While in some cases they have ears to hear and to appreciate the natural flow of the poetical language of the Rishis, they seem at other times as deaf as the adder to the voice of the charmer. PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION, Xcili A general rule, therefore, in our sense of the word, that the eighth syllable in hendecasyllabics and dodecasyllabics, the tenth syllable in hendecasyllabics and dodecasyllabics, and the sixth syllable in octosyllabics should be lengthened, rests in no sense on the authority of ancient grammarians. Even as a mere observation, they restrict it by the condition that the next syllable must be short, in order to provoke the lengthening of the preceding syllable, thereby sanctioning, of course, many exceptions; and they then proceed to quote a number of cases where, in spite of all, the short syllable remains short*. In some of these quotations they are no doubt wrong, but in most of them their statement cannot be disputed. As to the eighth syllable being short in hendecasyllabics and dodecasyllabics, they quote such verses as, VI, 66, 4. antar ({ti) santak avadyAni pundndd. Thus we see that in VI, 44, 9, varshiyak vayak krinuhi sakibhif, hi remains short; while in VI, 25, 3, gahi vrishnyAni krinuht pardkaf, it 1s lengthened in the Samhita, the only difference being that in the second passage the accent is on hi. As to the tenth syllable being short in a dodecasyllabic, they quote II, 27, 14. adite mitra varuma uta mrda. As to the tenth syllable being short in a hendecasyllabic, they quote II, 20, 1. vayam te vayak indra viddhi su nad. As to the sixth syllable being short in an octosyllabic, they quote VIII, 23, 26. mahak visvan abhi satak. A large number of similar exceptions are collected from * ‘Wo die achtsilbigen Reihen mit herbeigezogen sind, ist es in der Regel bei solchen Liedern geschehen, die im Ganzen von der regelmissigen Form weniger abweichen, und fiir solche Fille, wo auch das Prdtisdkhya die Langung der sechsten Silbe in achtsilbigen Reihen vorschreibt, namlich wo die siebente von Natur kurz ist. Die achtsilbigen Reihen bediirfen einer erneuten Durchforschung, da es mehrfach schwer fallt, den Samhitatext mit der Vorschrift der Pratisikhya in Ubereinstimmung zu bringen.’ Kuhn, Beitrage, vol. iii, p. 450; and still more strongly, p. 458. XCciv VEDIC HYMNS. 528, 3 to 534, 94, and this does not include any cases where the ninth, the eleventh, or the seventh syllable is long, instead of being short, while it does include cases where the eighth syllable is long, though the ninth is not short, or, at least, is not short according to the views of the collectors of these passages. See Sitra 522, 6.
3See Sitra 522, 6. Besides the cases mentioned by the PratisAkhya itself, where a short syllable, though occupying a place which would seem to require lengthening, remains short, there are many others which the Pratisakhya does not mention, because, from its point of view, there was no necessity for doing so. The Pratisdkhya has been blamed® for omitting such cases as I, 93, 6, urum yag#aya akrathir u lokam; or I, 96, 1, deva agnim dharayan dravizodam. But though occupying the eighth place, and though followed by a short syllable, these syllables could never fall under the general observation of the Pratisakhya, because that general observation refers to final vowels only, but not to short syllables in general. Similar cases arg I, 107, 1%; 122, 93 130, 10; 152,63; 154,13; 158, 5%; 163, 2; 167, 10"; 171, 4; 173,6; 179, 1%; 182, 8; 186, 6, &c. If, therefore, we say that, happen what may, these metrical rules must be observed, and the text of the Veda altered in order to satisfy the requirements of these rules, we ought to know at all events that we do this on our own responsibility, and that we cannot shield ourselves behind the authority of Saunaka or Katyayana. Now it is well known that Professor Kuhn? has laid down the rule that the Traish¢ubha p4das must end in a bacchius or amphibrachys v—-™, and the G4gata pddas in a dijambus or pzon secundus u—w¥. With regard to Anushéubha pddas, he requires the dijambus or pzon secundus v—v™ at the end of a whole verse only, allowing greater freedom in the formation of the preceding pddas. In a later article, * ‘Dazu kommt, dass der uns vorliegende Samhitatext viclfaltig gar nicht mit Saunaka’s allgemeiner Regel iibereinstimmt, indem die Verlaingerung kurzer Sil ben nicht unter den Bedingungen eingetreten ist, die er vorschreibt.’ Kuhn, Beitrage, vol. iii, p. 459. > Beitrage zur. Vergleichenden Sprachforschung, vol. iii, p. 118. PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. XCV however, the final pada, too, in Anush/ubha metre is allowed greater freedom, and the rule, as above given, is strictly maintained with regard to the Traishfubha and Gagata pAdas only. This subject is so important, and affects so large a number of passages in the Veda, that it requires the The four prine Most careful examination. The Vedic metres, cipal Padas’ though at first sight very perplexing, are very simple, if reduced to their primary elements. The authors of the Pratisikhyas have elaborated a most complicated system. Counting the syllables in the most mechanical manner, they have assigned nearly a hundred names to every variety which they discovered in the hymns of the Rig-veda*. But they also observed that the constituent elements of all these metres were really but four, (Sitras 988, 989): ° 1. The Gdyatra pada, of eight syllables, ending in U-. 2. The Vairaga pAda, of ten syllables, ending in ——-. 3. The Traishtubha p4da, of eleven syllables, ending in --. 4. The GAgata pada, of twelve syllables, ending in v-.
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.