place in a Gâyatra pâda, is lengthened, but it never says that it must be lengthened; on the contrary, it gives itself a number of cases where it is not so lengthened. But, what is even more important, the Prâtisâkhya 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 Gâyatra, or for the eighth and ninth, or tenth and eleventh syllables of Traishtubha and Gâgata pâdas. They distinctly admit that the seventh and the ninth and the eleventh syllables in such pâdas 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 Prâtisâkhya, the general scheme for the Gâyatra would be, not only

+ + + + | + + + + ¦ +u (+).

Before appealing, however, to the Prâtisâkhya for the establishment of such a rule as that the sixth syllable of Anushtubha and the eighth or tenth syllable of Traishtubha and Gagata pâdas must be lengthened, provided a short syllable follows, it is indispensable that we should have a clear appreciation of the real character of the Prâtisâkhya. 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 Prâtisâkhya never teaches that certain final vowels must be lengthened. The object of the Prâtisâkhya is, as I pointed out on a former occasion, 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 Prâtisâkhya, the character of general rules. Let us now, after these preliminary remarks, return to the Sûtras 523 to 535, which we discussed before. The Prâtisâkhya simply says that certain syllables which are short in the Pada, if occupying a certain place in a verse, are lengthened in the Sanhitâ, 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 Prâtisâkhya. 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 Sanhitâ, 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 Sanhitâ 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 Sanhitâ, and where no intelligible reason of their lengthening can be given, at least not by the authors of the Prâtisâkhya, the Prâtisâkhya adds in Sûtra 523, The final vowel of the eighth syllable is lengthened in pâdas of eleven and twelve syllables, provided a syllable follows which is short in the Sanhitâ.' As instances the commentator gives (Sanhitâ text):

i. 32, 4. tâdĭtnā sátrum ná kila vivitse.

i. 94, 1. ágne sakhyé mã rishāma vayám táva.

Then follows another rule (Sûtra 525) that 'The final vowel of the tenth syllable in pâdas of eleven and twelve syllables is lengthened, provided a syllable follows which is short in the Sanhitâ.' instances the commentator gives:

iii. 54, 22. ǎhā vísvâ 'sumánā dīdihi nah.

ii. 34, 9. ǎvă rudra asáso hantana vădhah.

As

Lastly, a rule is given (Sutra 526) that The final vowel of the sixth syllable is lengthened in a pâda

of eight syllables, provided a syllable follows which is short:'

i. 5, 10. Isano yavaya vadhám.

If the seventh syllable is long no change takes place:

ix. 67, 30. a pǎvasva deva soma.

to us

While we ourselves should look upon these rules. as founded in the nature of the metre, which, no doubt, to a certain extent they are, the authors of the Prâtisâkhya use them simply as convenient nets for catching as many cases as possible of lengthened syllables actually occurring in the text of the Sanhitâ. For this purpose, and in order to avoid giving a number of special rules, they add in this place an observation, very important as throwing light on the real pronunciation of the Vedic hymns at the time when our Sanhitâ 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 Sûtra 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 Sûtra, 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 Prâtisâkhya. In all this we ourselves can easily

recognize a principle which guided the compilers of the Sanhitâ 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 Prâtisâkhyas, who are satisfied with explaining what is, according to the authority of the Sanhitâ, and who never attempt to say what ought to be, even against the authority of the Sanhitâ. 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.

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