Page images
PDF
EPUB

à verse of eleven syllables, and thus secure for dâ in radâ the eighth place, where alone the short a could be lengthened. Yet we look in vain for a rule sanctioning the change of semivowels into vowels, except where the semivowels can rightly be called kshaipra-varna (Sûtra 974), i. e. semivowels that were originally vowels. The independent (svâbhâvika) semivowels, as e. g. the v in parva, are not included; and to suppose that in Sûtra 527 these semivowels were indicated by varna is impossible, particularly if we compare the similar wording of Sutra 973*.

We look in vain, too, in the Prâtisâkhya for another rule according to which long vowels, even if they do not owe their origin to the coalescence of two vowels, are liable to be protracted. However, this rule, too, though never distinctly sanctioned, is observed in the Prâtisâkhya, for unless its author observed it, he could not have obtained in the verses quoted by the Prâtisâkhya the number of syllables which he ascribes to them. According to Sutra 937, the verse, Rv. x. 134, 1, is a Mahâpańkti, and consists of six

* It will be seen from my edition of the Prâtisâkhya, particularly from the extracts from Uvata, given after Sûtra 973, that the idea of making two syllables out of goh, never entered Uvata's mind. M. Regnier was right, Professor Kuhn (Beiträge, vol. iv. p. 187) was wrong. Uvata, no doubt, wishes to show that original (svâbhâvika) semivowels are liable to vyûha, or at least to vyavâya; but though this is true in fact, Uvata does not succeed in his attempt to prove that the rules of the Prâtisâkhya sanction it.

[blocks in formation]

pâdas, of eight syllables each. In order to obtain that number, we must read:

samragam karshanînâm.

We may therefore say that, without allowing any actual change in the received text of the Sanhitâ, the Prâtisâkhya distinctly allows a lengthened pronunciation of certain syllables, which in the Pada text form two syllables; and we may add that, by implication, it allows the same even in cases where the Pada text also gives but one instead of two syllables. Having this authority in our favour, I do not think that we use too much liberty if we extend this modified pronunciation, recognized in so many cases by the ancient scholars of India themselves, to other cases where it seems to us required as well, in order to satisfy the metrical rules of the Veda.

Secondly, I believe it can be proved that, if not the authors of the Prâtisâkhya, those at least who constituted the Vedic text which was current in the ancient schools and which we now have before us, were fully aware that certain long vowels and diphthongs could be used as short. The authors of the Prâtisâkhya remark that certain changes which can take place before a short syllable only, take place likewise before the word no, although the vowel of this 'no' is by them supposed to be long. After having stated in Sûtra 523 that the eighth syllable of hendecasyllabics and dodecasyllabics, if short, is lengthened, provided a short syllable follows, they

remark that for this purpose nah or no is treated as a short syllable:

x. 59, 4. dyŭ-bhih hitah garima su nah astu, (Sanh. sũ no astu.)

Again, in stating that the tenth syllable of hendecasyllabics and dodecasyllabics, if short, is lengthened, provided a short syllable follows, the same exception is understood to be made in favour of nah or no, as a short syllable:

vii. 48, 4. nŭ devāsah varivah kartana nãh, (Sanh. kartana no, bhûta nah, &c.)

With regard to e being shortened before a short a, where, according to rule, the a should be elided, we actually find that the Sanhitâ gives a instead of e in Rv. viii. 72, 5. véti stótave ambyam, Sanh. véti stótava ambyam. (Prâtis. 177, 5.)

I do not ascribe very much weight to the authority which we may derive from these observations with regard to our own treatment of the diphthongs e and o as either long or short in the Veda, yet in answer to those who are incredulous as to the fact that the vowels e and o could ever be short in Sanskrit, an appeal to the authority of those who constituted our text, and in constituting it clearly treated o as a short vowel, may not be without weight. We may also appeal to the fact that in Pâli and Prakrit every final o and e can be treated as either long or short *. Starting from

* See Lassen, Inst. Linguæ Pracritice, pp. 145, 147, 151; Cowell, Vararuki, Introduction, p. xvii.

this we may certainly extend this observation, as it has been extended by Professor Kuhn, but we must not extend it too far. It is quite clear that in the same verse e and o can be used both as long and short. I give the Sanhitâ text:

i. 84, 17. ka Ishate tugyate ko bibhaya

ko mamsate santam indram ko anti,
kas tokâyǎ kǎ ĭbhāyota rẫye

adhi bravat tanve ko ganaya.

But although there can be no doubt that e and o, when final, or at the end of the first member of a compound, may be treated in the Veda as anceps, there is no evidence, I believe, to show that the same licence applies to a medial or initial e or o. In iv. 45, 5, we must scan

usrah garante prati vastoh asvinā,

ending the verse with an epitritus tertius instead of the usual dijambus *.

* See Professor Weber's pertinent remarks in Kuhn's Beiträge, vol. iii. p. 394. I do not think that in the verses adduced by Professor Kuhn, in which final o is considered by him as an iambus or trochee, this scanning is inevitable. Thus we may scan the Sanhitâ text:

i. 88, 2. rukmo na kitrah svadhitīvan.

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors]

x. 3, 1. ino râgann aratih samiddho.

This leaves but one of Professor Kuhn's examples (Beiträge, vol. iv. p. 192) unexplained: i. 191, 1. kańkato na kankato, where iva for na would remove the difficulty.

Thirdly, the fact that the initial short a, if following upon a word ending in o or e, is frequently not to be elided, is clearly recognized by the authors of the Prâtisâkhya (see p. xxxv). Nay, that they wished it to be pronounced even in passages where, in accordance with the requirements of the Prâtisâkhya, it had to disappear in the Sanhitâ text, we may conclude from Sûtra 978. It is there stated that no pâda should ever begin with a word that has no accent. The exceptions to this rule are few, and they are discussed in Sûtras 978-987. But if the initial a were not pronounced in i. 1, 9, sáh nah pita-iva sûnáve ágne su-upâyanáh bhava, the second pâda would begin with 'gne, a word which, after the elision of the initial a, would be a word without an

accent.

Fourthly, the fact that other long vowels, besides e and o, may under certain circumstances be used as short in the Veda, is not merely a modern theory, but rests on no less an authority than Pânini.

Pânini says, vi. 1, 127, that i, u, ri (see Rv. Bh. iv. 1, 12) at the end of a pada (but not in a compound*)

* There are certain compounds in which, according to Professor Kuhn, two vowels have been contracted into one short vowel. This is certainly the opinion of Hindu grammarians, also of the compiler of the Pada text. But most of them would admit of another explanation. Thus dhánvarnasah, which is divided into dhánva-arnasah, may be dhánu-arnasah (Rv. v. 45, 2). Dhánarkam, divided into dhána-arkam, may have been dhána-rikam (Rv. x. 46, 5). Satárkasam (Rv. vii. 100, 3) may be taken as satárikasam instead of satá-arkasam.

« PreviousContinue »