Page images
PDF
EPUB

bhyah gave. The fact is, that in the Rig-veda the forms nârîshu and nârî-bhyah never occur, but always nârishu, nâri-bhyah; while from vâsî we never find any forms with short i, but always vấsîshu, vấsî-bhih.

Nor is there any justification for change in i. 25, 16. gâvah na gavyûtîh anu, the second pâda of a Gâyatrî. Nor in v. 56, 3. rikshah na vah marutah simî-vẫn amah. In most of the passages mentioned by Professor Kuhn on p. 122, this peculiarity may be observed, that the eighth syllable is short, or, at all events, be short, when the ninth is long:

may

vi. 44, 21. vrishnë te induh vrishabha pîpâya. i. 73, 1. syona-sîh ǎtithih na prînânah.

vii. 13, 1. bhăre hăvih nă barhishi' prînānāh.

[ocr errors]

ii. 28, 7. ēnah krinvantam asura bhrînanti.

Before, however, we can settle the question whether in these and other places certain vowels should be pronounced as either long or short, we must settle the more general question, what authority we have for requiring a long or a short syllable in certain places of the Vedic metres. Now it has generally been supposed that the Prâtisâkhya teaches that there must be a long syllable in the eighth or tenth place of Traishtubha and Gâgata, and in the sixth place of Ânushtubha pâdas. This is not the case. The Prâtisâkhya, no doubt, says, that a short final vowel, but not any short syllable, occupying the eighth or tenth place in a Traishtubha and Gagata pâda, or the sixth

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

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small]

And again, for the same pâdas, not only

+ + + + + + + + + −

[ocr errors]

IO II

(+),

[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

Before appealing, however, to the Prâtisâkhya for the establishment of such a rule as that the sixth syllable of Ânushtubha and the eighth or tenth syllable of Traishtubha and Gâgata 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

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. 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

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

- ++ (+).

+ + + + | + + + u

And again, for the same pâdas, not only

[blocks in formation]

They

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 Gâgata 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

« PreviousContinue »