Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1Arapdpe 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. or suppression of vowels carried out on the largest scale®, we find in Sanskrit, too, such double forms as prsthvi or prithivi, adhi and dhi, api and pi, ava and va. The occurrence of such forms which have nothing to do with metrical considerations, but are perfectly legitimate from a grammatical point of view, would encourage a tendency to treat two syllables—and particularly two short syllables—as one, whenever an occasion arose. There are, besides, in the Vedic Sanskrit a number of forms where, as we saw, a long syllable has to be pronounced as two. In some of these cases this pronunciation is legitimate, i.e. it preserves an original dissyllabic form which in course of time had become monosyllabic. In other cases the same process takes place through a mistaken sense of analogy, where we cannot prove that an original dissyllabic form had any existence even in a prehistoric state of language. The occurrence of a number of such alternate forms would naturally leave a general impression in the minds of poets that two short syllables and one long syllable were under certain circumstances interchangeable. So considerable a number of words in which a long syllable has to be pronounced as two syllables has been collected by Professors Kuhn, Bollensen, and others, that no doubt can remain on this subject. Vedic poets, being allowed to change a semivowel into a vowel, were free to say nasatya and nisaty4, VIII, 5, 323 prithivyds and prithivyah; pitro# and pitroh, I, 31, 4. They could separate compound words, and pronounce ghritannah or ghrita-annaf, VII, 3,1. They could insert a kind of shewa or svarabhakti in words like simne or samne, VIII, 6, 47; dh4mne or dhimne, VIII, 92, 25; ardvzak and ardvanah, IX, 63, 5. They might vary between pdnti and pdnti, I, 41, 2; ydthana and ydthana, I, 39, 3; nidhdtok and nidhatof, I, 41, 9; tredhd and tredh@, I, 34, 8; devas and devah (besides devasak), I, 23, 24; rodasi and rodast, I, 33, 9; 59,43 64,9; and rodasyo, I, 33,5; 59,23 117, 103 " See the important chapters on ‘ Kiirzung der Vokale’ and ‘ Tilgung der Vokale’ in Corssen’s ‘ Aussprache des Lateinischen;’ and more especially his remarks on the so-called irrational vowels in Plautus, ibid. vol. ii, p. 70. PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. cxxi
2vol. ii, p. 70. PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. cxxi VI, 24, 3; VII, 6, 2; X, 74, 1% Need we wonder then if we find that, on the other hand, they allowed themselves to pronounce prithivi as prithivi, I, 191, 6; VII, 34, 73 99, 33 dhrishnava as dhrishnava, V, 52, 14; suvdna as suvdna? There is no reason why we should change the spelling of suvana into svana. The metre itself tells us at once where suvana is to be pronounced as two or as three syllables. Nor is it possible to believe that those who first handed down and afterwards wrote down the text of the Vedic hymns, should have been ignorant of that freedom of pronunciation. Why, there is not one single passage in the whole of the ninth Mamdala, where, as far as I know, suvana should not be pronounced as dissyllabic, i.e. as suvina; and to suppose that the scholars of India did not know how that superfluous syllable should be removed, is really taking too low an estimate of men like Vy4A or Saunaka. But if we once admit that in these cases two syllables separated by a single consonant were pronounced as one and were metrically counted as one, we can hardly resist the evidence in favour of a similar pronunciation in a large number of other words, and we shall find that by the admission of this rapid pronunciation, or of what in Plautus we should call irrational vowels, many verses assume at once their regular form without the necessity of admitting the suppression of final s, m, n, or the introduction of other prosodial licences. To my mind the most convincing passages are those where, as in the Atyash/i and similar hymns, a poet repeats the same phrase twice, altering only one or two words, but without endeavouring to avoid an excess of syllables which, to our mind, unless we resort to synizesis, would completely destroy the uniformity of the metre. Thus we read: ee ee I, 133, 6. apGrushaghno : pratita sira satvabhiz, trisaptai# sdra satvabhif. * Professor Bollensen in some of these passages proposes to read rodasios. In I, 96, 4, no change is necessary if we read visim. Zeitschrift der D. M. G., vol. xxii, p. 587. CXXii VEDIC HYMNS. Here no«pra must be pronounced with one ictus only, in order to get a complete agreement between the two iambic diameters. I, 134, 5. ugrd ishazanta bhurvami,
3In I, 96, 4, no change is necessary if we read visim. Zeitschrift der D. M. G., vol. xxii, p. 587. CXXii VEDIC HYMNS. Here no«pra must be pronounced with one ictus only, in order to get a complete agreement between the two iambic diameters. I, 134, 5. ugrd ishazanta bhurvami, apdm ishanta bhurvami. As ishanta never occurs again, I suspect that the original reading was ishavzanta in both lines, and that in the second line ishavanta, pronounced rapidly, was mistaken for ishanta. Is not bhurvdmi a locative, corresponding to the datives in vane which are so frequently used in the sense of infinitives ? See note to I, 6, 8, page 47 seq. In I, 138, 3, we must read: — ahe/amdna urusamsa sari bhava, vage-vage sari bhava. In I, 129, 11, adhd hi tvd ganitd giganad vaso, rakshohaam tvA giganad vaso, we might try to remove the difficulty by omitting vaso at the end of the refrain, but this would be against the general character of these hymns. We want the last word vaso, if possible, at the end of both lines. But, if so, we must admit two cases of synizesis, or, if this seems too clumsy, we must omit tvd. I shall now proceed to give a number of other examples in which the same consonantal synizesis seems necessary in order to make the rhythm of the verses perceptible to our ears as it was to the ears of the ancient Azshis. The preposition anu takes synizesis in I, 127, 1. ghritasya vibhr4shéim anu vashd sofishd. Cf. X, 14, 1. The preposition abhi: I, 91, 23. rdyo bhdgam sahas4vann abhi yudhya. Here Professor Kuhn changes sahasdvan into sahasva/, which, no doubt, is a very simple and very plausible emendation. But in altering the text of the Veda many things have to be considered, and in our case it might be objected that sahasva/ never occurs again as an epithet of Soma. PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. CXXili As an invocation sahasva4 refers to no deity but Agni, and even in its other cases it is applied to Agni and Indra only. However, I do not by any means maintain that sahasva/ could not be applied to Soma, for nearly the same arguments could be used against sahas4van, if conjecturally put in the place of sahasva#; I only wish to point out how everything ought to be tried first, before we resort in the Veda to conjectural emendations. Therefore, if in our passage there should be any objection to admitting the synizesis in abhi, I should much rather propose synizesis of sahas4van, than change it into sahasvak. There is synizesis in maha, e.g. I, 133, 6. avar maha indra dAdrzhi srudhi nak. Although this verse is quoted by the Pratisékhya, Sdtra 522, as one in which the lengthened syllable dhi of srudhi does not occupy the tenth place, and which therefore required special mention, the original poet evidently thought otherwise, and lengthened the syllable, being a syllable liable to be lengthened, because it really occupied the tenth place, and therefore received a peculiar stress.
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.
1Arapdpe 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. or suppression of vowels carried out on the largest scale®, we find in Sanskrit, too, such double forms as prsthvi or prithivi, adhi and dhi, api and pi, ava and va. The occurrence of such forms which have nothing to do with metrical considerations, but are perfectly legitimate from a grammatical point of view, would encourage a tendency to treat two syllables—and particularly two short syllables—as one, whenever an occasion arose. There are, besides, in the Vedic Sanskrit a number of forms where, as we saw, a long syllable has to be pronounced as two. In some of these cases this pronunciation is legitimate, i.e. it preserves an original dissyllabic form which in course of time had become monosyllabic. In other cases the same process takes place through a mistaken sense of analogy, where we cannot prove that an original dissyllabic form had any existence even in a prehistoric state of language. The occurrence of a number of such alternate forms would naturally leave a general impression in the minds of poets that two short syllables and one long syllable were under certain circumstances interchangeable. So considerable a number of words in which a long syllable has to be pronounced as two syllables has been collected by Professors Kuhn, Bollensen, and others, that no doubt can remain on this subject. Vedic poets, being allowed to change a semivowel into a vowel, were free to say nasatya and nisaty4, VIII, 5, 323 prithivyds and prithivyah; pitro# and pitroh, I, 31, 4. They could separate compound words, and pronounce ghritannah or ghrita-annaf, VII, 3,1. They could insert a kind of shewa or svarabhakti in words like simne or samne, VIII, 6, 47; dh4mne or dhimne, VIII, 92, 25; ardvzak and ardvanah, IX, 63, 5. They might vary between pdnti and pdnti, I, 41, 2; ydthana and ydthana, I, 39, 3; nidhdtok and nidhatof, I, 41, 9; tredhd and tredh@, I, 34, 8; devas and devah (besides devasak), I, 23, 24; rodasi and rodast, I, 33, 9; 59,43 64,9; and rodasyo, I, 33,5; 59,23 117, 103 " See the important chapters on ‘ Kiirzung der Vokale’ and ‘ Tilgung der Vokale’ in Corssen’s ‘ Aussprache des Lateinischen;’ and more especially his remarks on the so-called irrational vowels in Plautus, ibid. vol. ii, p. 70. PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. cxxi
2vol. ii, p. 70. PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. cxxi VI, 24, 3; VII, 6, 2; X, 74, 1% Need we wonder then if we find that, on the other hand, they allowed themselves to pronounce prithivi as prithivi, I, 191, 6; VII, 34, 73 99, 33 dhrishnava as dhrishnava, V, 52, 14; suvdna as suvdna? There is no reason why we should change the spelling of suvana into svana. The metre itself tells us at once where suvana is to be pronounced as two or as three syllables. Nor is it possible to believe that those who first handed down and afterwards wrote down the text of the Vedic hymns, should have been ignorant of that freedom of pronunciation. Why, there is not one single passage in the whole of the ninth Mamdala, where, as far as I know, suvana should not be pronounced as dissyllabic, i.e. as suvina; and to suppose that the scholars of India did not know how that superfluous syllable should be removed, is really taking too low an estimate of men like Vy4A or Saunaka. But if we once admit that in these cases two syllables separated by a single consonant were pronounced as one and were metrically counted as one, we can hardly resist the evidence in favour of a similar pronunciation in a large number of other words, and we shall find that by the admission of this rapid pronunciation, or of what in Plautus we should call irrational vowels, many verses assume at once their regular form without the necessity of admitting the suppression of final s, m, n, or the introduction of other prosodial licences. To my mind the most convincing passages are those where, as in the Atyash/i and similar hymns, a poet repeats the same phrase twice, altering only one or two words, but without endeavouring to avoid an excess of syllables which, to our mind, unless we resort to synizesis, would completely destroy the uniformity of the metre. Thus we read: ee ee I, 133, 6. apGrushaghno : pratita sira satvabhiz, trisaptai# sdra satvabhif. * Professor Bollensen in some of these passages proposes to read rodasios. In I, 96, 4, no change is necessary if we read visim. Zeitschrift der D. M. G., vol. xxii, p. 587. CXXii VEDIC HYMNS. Here no«pra must be pronounced with one ictus only, in order to get a complete agreement between the two iambic diameters. I, 134, 5. ugrd ishazanta bhurvami,
3In I, 96, 4, no change is necessary if we read visim. Zeitschrift der D. M. G., vol. xxii, p. 587. CXXii VEDIC HYMNS. Here no«pra must be pronounced with one ictus only, in order to get a complete agreement between the two iambic diameters. I, 134, 5. ugrd ishazanta bhurvami, apdm ishanta bhurvami. As ishanta never occurs again, I suspect that the original reading was ishavzanta in both lines, and that in the second line ishavanta, pronounced rapidly, was mistaken for ishanta. Is not bhurvdmi a locative, corresponding to the datives in vane which are so frequently used in the sense of infinitives ? See note to I, 6, 8, page 47 seq. In I, 138, 3, we must read: — ahe/amdna urusamsa sari bhava, vage-vage sari bhava. In I, 129, 11, adhd hi tvd ganitd giganad vaso, rakshohaam tvA giganad vaso, we might try to remove the difficulty by omitting vaso at the end of the refrain, but this would be against the general character of these hymns. We want the last word vaso, if possible, at the end of both lines. But, if so, we must admit two cases of synizesis, or, if this seems too clumsy, we must omit tvd. I shall now proceed to give a number of other examples in which the same consonantal synizesis seems necessary in order to make the rhythm of the verses perceptible to our ears as it was to the ears of the ancient Azshis. The preposition anu takes synizesis in I, 127, 1. ghritasya vibhr4shéim anu vashd sofishd. Cf. X, 14, 1. The preposition abhi: I, 91, 23. rdyo bhdgam sahas4vann abhi yudhya. Here Professor Kuhn changes sahasdvan into sahasva/, which, no doubt, is a very simple and very plausible emendation. But in altering the text of the Veda many things have to be considered, and in our case it might be objected that sahasva/ never occurs again as an epithet of Soma. PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. CXXili As an invocation sahasva4 refers to no deity but Agni, and even in its other cases it is applied to Agni and Indra only. However, I do not by any means maintain that sahasva/ could not be applied to Soma, for nearly the same arguments could be used against sahas4van, if conjecturally put in the place of sahasva#; I only wish to point out how everything ought to be tried first, before we resort in the Veda to conjectural emendations. Therefore, if in our passage there should be any objection to admitting the synizesis in abhi, I should much rather propose synizesis of sahas4van, than change it into sahasvak. There is synizesis in maha, e.g. I, 133, 6. avar maha indra dAdrzhi srudhi nak. Although this verse is quoted by the Pratisékhya, Sdtra 522, as one in which the lengthened syllable dhi of srudhi does not occupy the tenth place, and which therefore required special mention, the original poet evidently thought otherwise, and lengthened the syllable, being a syllable liable to be lengthened, because it really occupied the tenth place, and therefore received a peculiar stress.
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.