Page images
PDF
EPUB

bound, therefore, at the very beginning of my translation of the Rig-veda, to express my own opinion on this subject, and to give my reasons why in so many cases I allow metrical anomalies to remain which by some of the most learned and ingenious among Vedic scholars would be pronounced intolerable.

Even if the theory of the ancient metres had not been so carefully worked out by the authors of the Prâtisâkhyas and the Anukramanîs, an independent study of the Veda would have enabled us to discover the general rules by which the Vedic poets were guided in the composition of their works. Nor would it have been difficult to show how constantly these general principles are violated by the introduction of phonetic changes which in the later Sanskrit are called the euphonic changes of Sandhi, and according to which final vowels must be joined with initial vowels, and final consonants adapted to initial consonants, until at last each sentence becomes a continuous chain of closely linked syllables. It is far easier, as I remarked before, to discover the original and natural rhythm of the Vedic hymns by reading them in the Pada than in the Sanhitâ text, and after some practice our ear becomes sufficiently schooled to tell us at once how each line ought to be pronounced. We find, on the one hand, that the rules of Sandhi, instead of being generally binding, were treated by the Vedic poets as poetica licences only; and, on the other, that a gre

freedom of pronunciation was allowed even in the body of words than would be tolerated in the later Sanskrit. If a syllable was wanted to complete the metre, a semivowel might be pronounced as a vowel, many a long vowel might be protracted so as to count for two syllables, and short vowels might be inserted between certain consonants, of which no trace exists in the ordinary Sanskrit. If, on the contrary, there were too many syllables, then the rules of Sandhi were observed, or two short syllables contracted by rapid pronunciation into one; nay, in a few cases, a final m or s, it seems, might be omitted. It would be a mistake to suppose that the authors of the Prâtisâkhyas were not aware of this freedom allowed or required in the pronunciation of the Vedic hymns. Though they abstained from introducing into the text changes of pronunciation which even we ourselves would never tolerate, if inserted in the texts of Homer and Plautus, in the Pali verses of Buddha, or even in modern English poetry, the authors of the Prâtisâkhya were clearly aware that in many places one syllable had to be pronounced as two, or two as one. They were clearly aware that certain vowels, generally considered as long, had to be pronounced as short, but they did not change the text. They were clearly aware that in order to sfy the demands of the

metre

toin changes of pronunciation

were indis

[ocr errors]

knew it, but they di

Ows that th

nge

hey

describe it, enjoyed even in their time a high authority, that they did not make it, but that, such as it is, with all its incongruities, it had been made before their time. In many cases, no doubt, certain syllables in the hymns of the Veda had been actually lengthened or shortened in the Sanhitâ text in accordance with the metre in which they are composed. But this was done by the poets themselves, or, at all events, it was not done by the authors of the Prâtisâkhya. They simply register such changes, but they do not enjoin them, and in this we, too, should follow their example. It is, therefore, a point of some importance in the critical restoration and proper pronunciation of Vedic texts, that in the rules which we have to follow in order to satisfy the demands of the metre, we should carefully distinguish between what is sanctioned by ancient authority, and what is the result of our own observations. This I shall now proceed to do.

First, then, the authors of the Prâtisâkhya distinctly admit that, in order to uphold the rules they have themselves laid down, certain syllables are to be pronounced as two syllables. We read in Sûtra 527: 'In a deficient pâda the right number is to be provided for by protraction of semivowels (which were originally vowels), and of contracted vowels (which were originally two independent vowels).' It is only by this process that the short syllable which has been lengthened in the Sanhitâ, viz. the sixth, or the eighth, or the tenth, can be shown

to have occupied and to occupy that place where alone, according to a former rule, a short syllable is liable to be lengthened. Thus we read:

[ocr errors]

i. 161, 11. udvatsvasma akrinotana trinam.

This would seem to be a verse of eleven syllables, in which the ninth syllable na has been lengthened. This, however, is against the system of the Prâtisâkhya. But if we protract the semivowel v in udvatsv, and change it back into u, which it was originally, then we gain one syllable, the whole verse has twelve syllables, na occupies the tenth place, and it now belongs to that class of cases which is included in a former Sûtra, 523.

The same applies to x. 103, 13, where we read:

preta gayata narah.

This is a verse of seven syllables, in which the fifth syllable is lengthened, without any authority. Let us protract pretâ by bringing it back to its original component elements pra itâ, and we get a verse of eight syllables, the sixth syllable now falls under the general observation, and is lengthened in the Sanhitâ accordingly.

The same rules are repeated in a later portion of the Prâtisâkhya. Here rules had been given as to the number of syllables of which certain metres consist, and it is added (Sûtras 972, 973) that where that number is deficient, it should be completed by protracting contracted vowels, and by separating consonantal groups in which semivowels

(originally vowels) occur, by means of their corresponding vowel.

The rules in both places are given in almost identically the same words, and the only difference between the two passages is this, that, according to the former, semivowels are simply changed back into their vowels, while, according to the latter, the semivowel remains, but is separated from the preceding consonant by its corresponding vowel.

These rules therefore show clearly that the authors of the Prâtisâkhya, though they would have shrunk from altering one single letter of the authorised Sanhitâ, recognized the fact that where two vowels had been contracted into one, they might yet be pronounced as two; and where a vowel before another vowel had been changed into a semivowel, it might either be pronounced as a vowel, or as a semivowel preceded by its corresponding vowel. More than these two modifications, however, the Prâtisâkhya does not allow, or, at least, does not distinctly sanction. The commentator indeed tries to show that by the wording of the Sûtras in both places, a third modification is sanctioned, viz. the vocalisation, in the body of a word, of semivowels which do not owe their origin to an original vowel. But in both places this interpretation is purely artificial. Some such rule ought to have been given, but it was not given by the authors of the Prâtisâkhya. It ought to have been given, for it is only by observing such a rule that in i. 61, 12, gor na parva vi rada tiraska, we get

« PreviousContinue »