Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1It consists of two lines, the first embracing three or four feet of five syllables each, having the ictus on the first and the fourth syllables, and resembling the last line of a Sapphic verse. The second line is simply ® Professor Kuhn (vol. iii, p. 450) is inclined to admit the same metre as varying in certain hymns with ordinary Traishfubha pAdas, but the evidence he brings forward is hardly sufficient. Even if we object to the endings v-—v- and --.u-, V, 33,4, may be a Gagata, with vyfha of dasa, the remark quoted from the Pratisikhya being of no consequence on such points; and the same remedy would apply to V, 41, 5, with vydha of eshe. In VI, 47, 31, vyfha of asvaparzaik; in I, 33, 9, vydha of indra and rodasf ; in II, 24, 5, vydha of m&dbhiA would produce the same effect ; while in I, 121, 8, we must either admit the Traishfubha vttta -— J — or scan dhukshan. In III, 58, 6, I should admit vydha for nard; in IV, 26, 6, for mandram; in I, 100, 8, for gyotiA, always supposing that we consider the ending — - v — incompatible with a Trishfubh verse. PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. xcix a Trishtubh. It is what we should call an asynartete strophe, and the contrast of the rhythm in the first and second lines is very effective. I am not certain whether Professor Bollensen, who has touched on this metre in an article just published (Zeitschrift der D. M. G., vol. xxii, p- 572), shares this opinion. He has clearly seen that the division of the lines, as given in the MSS. of the Samhita text, is wrong; but he seems inclined to admit the same rhythm throughout, and to treat the strophe as consisting of four lines of five syllables each, and one of six syllables, which last line is to submit to the prevailing rhythm of the preceding lines, If we differ, however, as to the internal architecture of this strophe, we agree in condemning the interpretation proposed by the Pr4tisakhya ; and I should, in connection with this, like to call attention to two important facts: first, that the Samhita text, in not changing, © for instance, the final t of martat, betrays itself as clearly later than the elaboration of the ancient theory of metres, later than the invention of such a metre as the Padapankti; and secondly, that the accentuation, too, of the Samhita is thus proved to be posterior to the establishment of these fanciful metrical divisions, and hence cannot throughout claim so irrefragable an authority as certainly belongs to it in many cases. I give the Samhita text: 1. Agne tam adyalasvam na stomaikikratum na bhadram, hridisprisam ridhy4md ta ohaid. 2, Adhd hy agneikrator bhadrasyaidakshasya sddhoé, rathir ritasya brzhato babhitha, &c.
2I give the Samhita text: 1. Agne tam adyalasvam na stomaikikratum na bhadram, hridisprisam ridhy4md ta ohaid. 2, Adhd hy agneikrator bhadrasyaidakshasya sddhoé, rathir ritasya brzhato babhitha, &c. Now it is perfectly true that, as a general rule, the syllables composing the vritta or turn of the different metres, and described by the Pratisakhya as heavy or light, are in reality long or short. The question, however, is this, have we a right, or are we obliged, in cases where that syllable is not either long or short, as it ought to be, so to alter the text, or so to change the rules of pronunciation, that the penultimate may again be what we wish it to be? If we begin with the Gayatra pada, we have not to read g2 c VEDIC HYMNS. long before we find that it would be hopeless to try to crush the Gayatri verses of the Vedic Rzshis on this Procrustean bed. Even Professor Kuhn very soon perceived that this was impossible. He had to admit that in the Gayatri the two first pAdas, at all events, were free from this rule, and though he tried to retain it for the third or final pada, he was obliged after a time to give it up even there. Again, it is perfectly true, that in the third pada of the Gayatri, and in the second and fourth pAadas of the Anush¢ubh strophe, greater care is taken by the poets to secure a short syllable for the penultimate, but here, too, exceptions cannot be entirely removed. We have only to take such a single hymn as I, 27, and we shall see that it would be impossible to reduce it to the uniform standard of Gayatri padas, all ending in a dijambus. Gfyatra Padas. But what confirms me even more in my view that such strict uniformity must not be looked for in the ancient Conjectural hymns of the Rishis, is the fact that in many emendations. cases it would be so very easy to replace the irregular by a regular dipodia. Supposing that the original poets had restricted themselves to the dijambus, who could have put in the place of that regular dijambus an irregular dipodia? Certainly not the authors of the Pratisakhya, for their ears had clearly discovered the general rhythm of the ancient metres; nor their predecessors, for they had in many instances preserved the tradition of syllables lengthened in accordance with the requirements of the metre. I do not mean to insist too strongly on this argument, or to represent those who handed down the tradition of the Veda as endowed with anything like apaurusheyatva. Strange accidents have happened in the text of the Veda, but they have generally happened when the sense of the hymns had ceased to be understood ; and if anything helped to preserve the Veda from greater accidents, it was due, I believe, to the very fact that the metre continued to be understood, and that oral tradition, however much it might fail in other respects, had at all events to satisfy the ears of the hearers. I should PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. cl
3I should PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. cl have been much less surprised if all irregularities in the metre had been smoothed down by the flux and reflux of oral tradition, a fact which is so apparent in the text of Homer, where the gaps occasioned by the loss of the digamma, were made good by the insertion of unmeaning particles; but I find it difficult to imagine by what class of men, who must have lived between the original poets and the age of the Pratisakhyas, the simple rhythm of the Vedic metres should have been disregarded, and the sense of rhythm, which ancient people possess in a far higher degree than we ourselves, been violated through crude and purposeless alterations. I shall give a few specimens only. What but a regard for real antiquity could have induced people in VIII, 2, 8, to preserve the defective foot of a GAyatri verse, samAne adhi bharman? Any one acquainted with Sanskrit would naturally read samAne adhi bharmazi. But who would have changed bharmazi, if that had been there originally, to bharman? I believe we must scan sam4ne adhi bharman, or samane adhi bharman, the pon tertius being a perfectly legitimate foot at the end of a Gayatri verse. In X, 158, 1, we can understand how an accident happened. The original poet may have said: Saryo no divas p4tu p4tu v4to antarikshdt, agnir nah parthivebhyaz. Here one of the two p4tu was lost. But if in the same hymn we find in the second verse two feet of nine instead of eight syllables each, I should not venture to alter this except in pronunciation, because no reason can be imagined why any one should have put these irregular lines in the place of regular ones. In V, 41, 10, grinite agnir etari na sdshaik, sokishkeso ni rindti van, every modern Pandit would naturally read vandni instead of vana, in order to get the regular Trish¢ubh metre. But this being the case, how can we imagine that even the most ignorant member of an ancient Parishad should wilfully have altered vanani into vand? What surprises one is, that van4 should have been spared, in spite of every temptation to change it into vanani» for I cannot doubt for one moment that van4 is the right reading, only Cli 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.
1It consists of two lines, the first embracing three or four feet of five syllables each, having the ictus on the first and the fourth syllables, and resembling the last line of a Sapphic verse. The second line is simply ® Professor Kuhn (vol. iii, p. 450) is inclined to admit the same metre as varying in certain hymns with ordinary Traishfubha pAdas, but the evidence he brings forward is hardly sufficient. Even if we object to the endings v-—v- and --.u-, V, 33,4, may be a Gagata, with vyfha of dasa, the remark quoted from the Pratisikhya being of no consequence on such points; and the same remedy would apply to V, 41, 5, with vydha of eshe. In VI, 47, 31, vyfha of asvaparzaik; in I, 33, 9, vydha of indra and rodasf ; in II, 24, 5, vydha of m&dbhiA would produce the same effect ; while in I, 121, 8, we must either admit the Traishfubha vttta -— J — or scan dhukshan. In III, 58, 6, I should admit vydha for nard; in IV, 26, 6, for mandram; in I, 100, 8, for gyotiA, always supposing that we consider the ending — - v — incompatible with a Trishfubh verse. PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. xcix a Trishtubh. It is what we should call an asynartete strophe, and the contrast of the rhythm in the first and second lines is very effective. I am not certain whether Professor Bollensen, who has touched on this metre in an article just published (Zeitschrift der D. M. G., vol. xxii, p- 572), shares this opinion. He has clearly seen that the division of the lines, as given in the MSS. of the Samhita text, is wrong; but he seems inclined to admit the same rhythm throughout, and to treat the strophe as consisting of four lines of five syllables each, and one of six syllables, which last line is to submit to the prevailing rhythm of the preceding lines, If we differ, however, as to the internal architecture of this strophe, we agree in condemning the interpretation proposed by the Pr4tisakhya ; and I should, in connection with this, like to call attention to two important facts: first, that the Samhita text, in not changing, © for instance, the final t of martat, betrays itself as clearly later than the elaboration of the ancient theory of metres, later than the invention of such a metre as the Padapankti; and secondly, that the accentuation, too, of the Samhita is thus proved to be posterior to the establishment of these fanciful metrical divisions, and hence cannot throughout claim so irrefragable an authority as certainly belongs to it in many cases. I give the Samhita text: 1. Agne tam adyalasvam na stomaikikratum na bhadram, hridisprisam ridhy4md ta ohaid. 2, Adhd hy agneikrator bhadrasyaidakshasya sddhoé, rathir ritasya brzhato babhitha, &c.
2I give the Samhita text: 1. Agne tam adyalasvam na stomaikikratum na bhadram, hridisprisam ridhy4md ta ohaid. 2, Adhd hy agneikrator bhadrasyaidakshasya sddhoé, rathir ritasya brzhato babhitha, &c. Now it is perfectly true that, as a general rule, the syllables composing the vritta or turn of the different metres, and described by the Pratisakhya as heavy or light, are in reality long or short. The question, however, is this, have we a right, or are we obliged, in cases where that syllable is not either long or short, as it ought to be, so to alter the text, or so to change the rules of pronunciation, that the penultimate may again be what we wish it to be? If we begin with the Gayatra pada, we have not to read g2 c VEDIC HYMNS. long before we find that it would be hopeless to try to crush the Gayatri verses of the Vedic Rzshis on this Procrustean bed. Even Professor Kuhn very soon perceived that this was impossible. He had to admit that in the Gayatri the two first pAdas, at all events, were free from this rule, and though he tried to retain it for the third or final pada, he was obliged after a time to give it up even there. Again, it is perfectly true, that in the third pada of the Gayatri, and in the second and fourth pAadas of the Anush¢ubh strophe, greater care is taken by the poets to secure a short syllable for the penultimate, but here, too, exceptions cannot be entirely removed. We have only to take such a single hymn as I, 27, and we shall see that it would be impossible to reduce it to the uniform standard of Gayatri padas, all ending in a dijambus. Gfyatra Padas. But what confirms me even more in my view that such strict uniformity must not be looked for in the ancient Conjectural hymns of the Rishis, is the fact that in many emendations. cases it would be so very easy to replace the irregular by a regular dipodia. Supposing that the original poets had restricted themselves to the dijambus, who could have put in the place of that regular dijambus an irregular dipodia? Certainly not the authors of the Pratisakhya, for their ears had clearly discovered the general rhythm of the ancient metres; nor their predecessors, for they had in many instances preserved the tradition of syllables lengthened in accordance with the requirements of the metre. I do not mean to insist too strongly on this argument, or to represent those who handed down the tradition of the Veda as endowed with anything like apaurusheyatva. Strange accidents have happened in the text of the Veda, but they have generally happened when the sense of the hymns had ceased to be understood ; and if anything helped to preserve the Veda from greater accidents, it was due, I believe, to the very fact that the metre continued to be understood, and that oral tradition, however much it might fail in other respects, had at all events to satisfy the ears of the hearers. I should PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. cl
3I should PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. cl have been much less surprised if all irregularities in the metre had been smoothed down by the flux and reflux of oral tradition, a fact which is so apparent in the text of Homer, where the gaps occasioned by the loss of the digamma, were made good by the insertion of unmeaning particles; but I find it difficult to imagine by what class of men, who must have lived between the original poets and the age of the Pratisakhyas, the simple rhythm of the Vedic metres should have been disregarded, and the sense of rhythm, which ancient people possess in a far higher degree than we ourselves, been violated through crude and purposeless alterations. I shall give a few specimens only. What but a regard for real antiquity could have induced people in VIII, 2, 8, to preserve the defective foot of a GAyatri verse, samAne adhi bharman? Any one acquainted with Sanskrit would naturally read samAne adhi bharmazi. But who would have changed bharmazi, if that had been there originally, to bharman? I believe we must scan sam4ne adhi bharman, or samane adhi bharman, the pon tertius being a perfectly legitimate foot at the end of a Gayatri verse. In X, 158, 1, we can understand how an accident happened. The original poet may have said: Saryo no divas p4tu p4tu v4to antarikshdt, agnir nah parthivebhyaz. Here one of the two p4tu was lost. But if in the same hymn we find in the second verse two feet of nine instead of eight syllables each, I should not venture to alter this except in pronunciation, because no reason can be imagined why any one should have put these irregular lines in the place of regular ones. In V, 41, 10, grinite agnir etari na sdshaik, sokishkeso ni rindti van, every modern Pandit would naturally read vandni instead of vana, in order to get the regular Trish¢ubh metre. But this being the case, how can we imagine that even the most ignorant member of an ancient Parishad should wilfully have altered vanani into vand? What surprises one is, that van4 should have been spared, in spite of every temptation to change it into vanani» for I cannot doubt for one moment that van4 is the right reading, only Cli 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.