Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1CXvii to be scanned pdvaka. Cf. IV, 51,2; VI, 5,2; 10,43 51,33 VII, 3,13 93; 9, 1°; 56,12; X, 46, 7°. I must reserve what I have to say about other metres of the Veda for another opportunity, but I cannot leave Omission of this subject without referring once more to a final mands. metrical licence which has been strongly advocated by Professor Kuhn and others, and by the admission of which there is no doubt that many difficulties might be removed, I mean the occasional omission of a final m and s, and the subsequent contraction of the final and initial vowels. The arguments that have been brought forward in support of this are very powerful. There is the general argument that final s and m are liable to be dropt in other Aryan languages, and particularly for metrical purposes. There is the stronger argument that in some cases final s and m in Sanskrit may or may not be omitted, even apart from any metrical stress. In Sanskrit we find that the demonstrative pronoun sas appears most frequently as sa (sa dadati), and if followed by liquid vowels, it may coalesce with them even in later Sanskrit. Thus we see saisha for sa esha, sendraf# for sa indrak sanctioned for metrical purposes even by P4zini, VI, 1, 134. We might refer also to feminines which have s in the nominative singular after bases in 4, but drop it after bases in i. We find in the Samhit4 text, V, 7, 8, svadhitiva, instead of svadhiti4-iva in the Pada text, sanctioned by the Pratisakhya 259; likewise IX, 61, 10, Samhit4, bhfimy 4 dade, instead of Pada, bhimis 4 dade. But before we draw any general conclusions from such instances, we should consider whether they do not admit of a grammatical instead of a metrical explanation. The nominative singular of the demonstrative pronoun was sa before it was sas; by the side of bhiimiZ we have a secondary form bhfimi; and we may conclude from svddhiti-van, I, 88, 2, that the Vedic poets knew of a form svadhiti, by the side of svddhitih. As to the suppression of final m, however, we see it admitted by the best authorities, or we see at least alternate forms with or without m, in tubhya, which occurs CXVili VEDIC HYMNS. frequently instead of tubhyam®, and twice, at least, without apparently any metrical reason’, We find asmdka instead of asm&kam (I, 173, 10), yushmd&ka instead of yushmdkam (VII, 59, 9-10), yagadhva instead of yagadhvam (VIII, 2, 37) sanctioned both by the Samhita and Pada texts °
2frequently instead of tubhyam®, and twice, at least, without apparently any metrical reason’, We find asmdka instead of asm&kam (I, 173, 10), yushmd&ka instead of yushmdkam (VII, 59, 9-10), yagadhva instead of yagadhvam (VIII, 2, 37) sanctioned both by the Samhita and Pada texts ° If then we have such precedents, it may well be asked why we should hesitate to adopt the same expedient, the omission of final m and s, whenever the Vedic metres seem to require it. Professor Bollensen’s remark, that Vedic verses cannot be treated to all the licences of Latin scanning 4, is hardly a sufficient answer; and he himself, though under a slightly different form, would admit as much, if not more, than has been admitted on this point by Professors Kuhn and Roth. Ona priori grounds I should by no means feel opposed to the admission of a possible elision of final s or m, or even n; and my only doubt is whether it is really necessary for the proper scanning of Vedic metres. My own opinion has always been, that if we admit on a larger scale what in single words can hardly be doubted by anybody, viz. the pronunciation of two syllables as one, we need not fall back on the elision of final consonants in order to arrive at a proper scanning of Vedic metres. On this point I shall have to say a few words in conclusion, because I shall frequently avail myself of this licence, for the purpose of righting apparently corrupt verses in the hymns of the Rig-veda ; and I feel bound to explain, once for all, why I avail myself of it in preference to other emendations which have been proposed by scholars such as Professors Benfey, Kuhn, Roth, Bollensen, and others. The merit of having first pointed out some cases where Synizesis. "I, 5495 135, 25 Ill, 42, 8; V, 11, 5; VIL, a2, 7; VII, 51,93 76, 83 82,5; IX, 62, 27; 86, 30; X, 167, 1. > TI, 11, 33 V, 30, 6. © See Bollensen, Orient und Occident, vol. iii, p. 459; Kuhn, Beitrage, vol. iv, p. 199. 4 Orient und Occident, vol. iv, p. 449. PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. cxix two syllables must be treated as one, belongs, I believe, to Professor Bollensen in his article, ‘Zur Herstellung des Veda,’ published in Benfey’s Orient und Occident, vol. ii, p- 461. He proposed, for instance, to write hy4nd instead of hiyand, IX, 13, 6; dhydnd instead of dhiy4nd, VIII, 49, 5; sahyase instead of sdhiyase, I, 71,4; y4no instead of iyand, VIII, 50, 5, &c. The actual alteration of these words seems to me unnecessary; nor should we think of resorting to such violent measures in Greek where, as far as metrical purposes are concerned, two vowels have not unfrequently to be treated as one.
3The actual alteration of these words seems to me unnecessary; nor should we think of resorting to such violent measures in Greek where, as far as metrical purposes are concerned, two vowels have not unfrequently to be treated as one. That iva counts in many passages as one syllable is admitted by everybody. The only point on which I differ is that I do not see why iva, when monosyllabic, should be changed to va, instead of being pronounced quickly, or, to adopt the terminology of Greek grammarians, by synizesis *. Synizesis is well explained by Greek scholars as a quick pronunciation of two vowels so that neither should be lost, and as different thereby from synalcephe, which means the contraction of two vowels into one. This synizesis is by no means restricted to iva and a few other words, but seems to me a very frequent expedient resorted to by the ancient Rishis. Originally it may have arisen from the fact that language allows in many cases alternate forms of one or two syllables, As in Greek we have double forms like dAeyewds and dAyewds, yakaxropdyos, and yAaxtopayos, mernvds and mryvds, tuxwés and tuxvds°, and as in Latin we have the shortening ® Synizesis in Greek applies only to the quick pronunciation of two vowels, if in immediate contact ; and not, if separated by consonants. Samprasdraza might seem a more appropriate term, but though the grammatical process designated in Sanskrit by Samprasarama offers some analogies, it could only by a new definition be applied to the metrical process here intended. > A. B. p. 835, 30. éort 88 éy Tois Kowois pérpos eal 4} Kadoupévn ouverpdrnois 4 wal cuvifnors Adyera. “Oray yap parndvray trddAndos yéynrar } spopopd, rére yiveras 4 ouvi(nors els play cvdAaBhy. Arapdpe Be cuvadraipijs: h pay ydp ypappdrow tori wrowh, f 88 xpdvow wal 4 pty cwvaragh, ds Adye- Tat, gaivera, 4 3% ob. Mehlhorn, Griechische Grammatik, § 101. Thus in NeorrdAcyos we have synizesis, in NovwrdAeyos syneresis. ¢ Cf. Meblhorn, Griechische Grammatik, § 57. Cxx 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.
1CXvii to be scanned pdvaka. Cf. IV, 51,2; VI, 5,2; 10,43 51,33 VII, 3,13 93; 9, 1°; 56,12; X, 46, 7°. I must reserve what I have to say about other metres of the Veda for another opportunity, but I cannot leave Omission of this subject without referring once more to a final mands. metrical licence which has been strongly advocated by Professor Kuhn and others, and by the admission of which there is no doubt that many difficulties might be removed, I mean the occasional omission of a final m and s, and the subsequent contraction of the final and initial vowels. The arguments that have been brought forward in support of this are very powerful. There is the general argument that final s and m are liable to be dropt in other Aryan languages, and particularly for metrical purposes. There is the stronger argument that in some cases final s and m in Sanskrit may or may not be omitted, even apart from any metrical stress. In Sanskrit we find that the demonstrative pronoun sas appears most frequently as sa (sa dadati), and if followed by liquid vowels, it may coalesce with them even in later Sanskrit. Thus we see saisha for sa esha, sendraf# for sa indrak sanctioned for metrical purposes even by P4zini, VI, 1, 134. We might refer also to feminines which have s in the nominative singular after bases in 4, but drop it after bases in i. We find in the Samhit4 text, V, 7, 8, svadhitiva, instead of svadhiti4-iva in the Pada text, sanctioned by the Pratisakhya 259; likewise IX, 61, 10, Samhit4, bhfimy 4 dade, instead of Pada, bhimis 4 dade. But before we draw any general conclusions from such instances, we should consider whether they do not admit of a grammatical instead of a metrical explanation. The nominative singular of the demonstrative pronoun was sa before it was sas; by the side of bhiimiZ we have a secondary form bhfimi; and we may conclude from svddhiti-van, I, 88, 2, that the Vedic poets knew of a form svadhiti, by the side of svddhitih. As to the suppression of final m, however, we see it admitted by the best authorities, or we see at least alternate forms with or without m, in tubhya, which occurs CXVili VEDIC HYMNS. frequently instead of tubhyam®, and twice, at least, without apparently any metrical reason’, We find asmdka instead of asm&kam (I, 173, 10), yushmd&ka instead of yushmdkam (VII, 59, 9-10), yagadhva instead of yagadhvam (VIII, 2, 37) sanctioned both by the Samhita and Pada texts °
2frequently instead of tubhyam®, and twice, at least, without apparently any metrical reason’, We find asmdka instead of asm&kam (I, 173, 10), yushmd&ka instead of yushmdkam (VII, 59, 9-10), yagadhva instead of yagadhvam (VIII, 2, 37) sanctioned both by the Samhita and Pada texts ° If then we have such precedents, it may well be asked why we should hesitate to adopt the same expedient, the omission of final m and s, whenever the Vedic metres seem to require it. Professor Bollensen’s remark, that Vedic verses cannot be treated to all the licences of Latin scanning 4, is hardly a sufficient answer; and he himself, though under a slightly different form, would admit as much, if not more, than has been admitted on this point by Professors Kuhn and Roth. Ona priori grounds I should by no means feel opposed to the admission of a possible elision of final s or m, or even n; and my only doubt is whether it is really necessary for the proper scanning of Vedic metres. My own opinion has always been, that if we admit on a larger scale what in single words can hardly be doubted by anybody, viz. the pronunciation of two syllables as one, we need not fall back on the elision of final consonants in order to arrive at a proper scanning of Vedic metres. On this point I shall have to say a few words in conclusion, because I shall frequently avail myself of this licence, for the purpose of righting apparently corrupt verses in the hymns of the Rig-veda ; and I feel bound to explain, once for all, why I avail myself of it in preference to other emendations which have been proposed by scholars such as Professors Benfey, Kuhn, Roth, Bollensen, and others. The merit of having first pointed out some cases where Synizesis. "I, 5495 135, 25 Ill, 42, 8; V, 11, 5; VIL, a2, 7; VII, 51,93 76, 83 82,5; IX, 62, 27; 86, 30; X, 167, 1. > TI, 11, 33 V, 30, 6. © See Bollensen, Orient und Occident, vol. iii, p. 459; Kuhn, Beitrage, vol. iv, p. 199. 4 Orient und Occident, vol. iv, p. 449. PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. cxix two syllables must be treated as one, belongs, I believe, to Professor Bollensen in his article, ‘Zur Herstellung des Veda,’ published in Benfey’s Orient und Occident, vol. ii, p- 461. He proposed, for instance, to write hy4nd instead of hiyand, IX, 13, 6; dhydnd instead of dhiy4nd, VIII, 49, 5; sahyase instead of sdhiyase, I, 71,4; y4no instead of iyand, VIII, 50, 5, &c. The actual alteration of these words seems to me unnecessary; nor should we think of resorting to such violent measures in Greek where, as far as metrical purposes are concerned, two vowels have not unfrequently to be treated as one.
3The actual alteration of these words seems to me unnecessary; nor should we think of resorting to such violent measures in Greek where, as far as metrical purposes are concerned, two vowels have not unfrequently to be treated as one. That iva counts in many passages as one syllable is admitted by everybody. The only point on which I differ is that I do not see why iva, when monosyllabic, should be changed to va, instead of being pronounced quickly, or, to adopt the terminology of Greek grammarians, by synizesis *. Synizesis is well explained by Greek scholars as a quick pronunciation of two vowels so that neither should be lost, and as different thereby from synalcephe, which means the contraction of two vowels into one. This synizesis is by no means restricted to iva and a few other words, but seems to me a very frequent expedient resorted to by the ancient Rishis. Originally it may have arisen from the fact that language allows in many cases alternate forms of one or two syllables, As in Greek we have double forms like dAeyewds and dAyewds, yakaxropdyos, and yAaxtopayos, mernvds and mryvds, tuxwés and tuxvds°, and as in Latin we have the shortening ® Synizesis in Greek applies only to the quick pronunciation of two vowels, if in immediate contact ; and not, if separated by consonants. Samprasdraza might seem a more appropriate term, but though the grammatical process designated in Sanskrit by Samprasarama offers some analogies, it could only by a new definition be applied to the metrical process here intended. > A. B. p. 835, 30. éort 88 éy Tois Kowois pérpos eal 4} Kadoupévn ouverpdrnois 4 wal cuvifnors Adyera. “Oray yap parndvray trddAndos yéynrar } spopopd, rére yiveras 4 ouvi(nors els play cvdAaBhy. Arapdpe Be cuvadraipijs: h pay ydp ypappdrow tori wrowh, f 88 xpdvow wal 4 pty cwvaragh, ds Adye- Tat, gaivera, 4 3% ob. Mehlhorn, Griechische Grammatik, § 101. Thus in NeorrdAcyos we have synizesis, in NovwrdAeyos syneresis. ¢ Cf. Meblhorn, Griechische Grammatik, § 57. Cxx 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.