{"collection":"Hinduism","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/browse/hin/sbe32/sbe3210.htm","path":"hin/sbe32/sbe3210.htm","source_url":"https://sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe32/sbe3210.htm","text":"Vedic Hymns, Part I (SBE32), by Max M\u00fcller, [1891]\nThe most powerful instrument that has hitherto been applied to the emendation of Vedic texts, is the metre. Metrical criticism.Metre means measure, and uniform measure, and hence its importance for critical purposes, as second only to that of grammar. If our knowledge of the metrical system of the Vedic poets rests on a sound basis, any deviations from the general rule are rightly objected to; and if by a slight alteration they can be removed, and the metre be restored, we naturally feel inclined to adopt such emendations. Two safeguards, however, are needed in this kind of conjectural criticism. We ought to be quite certain that the anomaly is impossible, and we ought to be able to explain to a certain extent\nhow the deviation from the original correct text could have occurred. As this subject has of late years received considerable attention, and as emendations of the Vedic texts, supported by metrical arguments, have been carried on on a very large scale, it becomes absolutely necessary to reexamine the grounds on which these emendations are supposed to rest. There are, in fact, but few hymns in which some verses or some words have not been challenged for metrical reasons, and I feel 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.\nEven if the theory of the ancient metres had not been so carefully worked out by the authors of the Pr\u00e2tis\u00e2khyas and the Anukraman\u00ees, 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.\nIt 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 Samhit\u00e2 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 poetical licences only; and, on the other, that a greater 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\nbe 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, was omitted. It would be a mistake to suppose that the authors of the Pr\u00e2tis\u00e2khyas 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 P\u00e2li verses of Buddha, or even in modern English poetry, the authors of the Pr\u00e2tis\u00e2khya 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, and that in order to satisfy the demands of the metre, certain changes of pronunciation were indispensable. They knew all this, but they did not change the text. And this shows that the text, as they 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 Samhit\u00e2 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 Pr\u00e2tis\u00e2khya. 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.\nFirst, then, the authors of the Pr\u00e2tis\u00e2khya distinctly admit\nthat, in order to uphold the rules they have themselves laid down, certain syllables are to be pronounced as two syllables. Vy\u00fbha.We read in S\u00fbtra 527: 'In a deficient p\u00e2da 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 Samhit\u00e2, 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:\nThis 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 Pr\u00e2tis\u00e2khya. 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 S\u00fbtra, 523.\nThe same applies to X, 103, 13, where we read:\n[paragraph continues] This is a verse of seven syllables, in which the fifth syllable is lengthened, without any authority. Let us protract pret\u00e2 by bringing it back to its original component elements pra it\u00e2, and we get a verse of eight syllables, the sixth syllable now falls under the general observation, and is lengthened in the Samhit\u00e2 accordingly.\nThe same rules are repeated in a later portion of the Pr\u00e2tis\u00e2khya. Here rules had been given as to the number of syllables of which certain metres consist, and it is added (S\u00fbtras 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.\nThe rules in both places are given in almost identically\nthe 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.\nThese rules therefore show clearly that the authors of the Pr\u00e2tis\u00e2khya, though they would have shrunk from altering one single letter of the authorised Samhit\u00e2, recognised 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 Pr\u00e2tis\u00e2khya does not allow, or, at least, does not distinctly sanction. The commentator indeed tries to show that by the wording of the S\u00fbtras 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 Pr\u00e2tis\u00e2khya. It ought to have been given, for it is only by observing such a rule that in I, 61, 12, g\u014dr n\u0103 pa\u0305\u0306rv\u0306\u0103\u0306 v\u012d r\u0103d\u00e2\u0304 t\u012dr\u0101sk\u00e2\u0306, we get a verse of eleven syllables, and thus secure for d\u00e2 in rad\u00e2 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 (S\u00fbtra 974), i. e. semivowels that were originally vowels. The independent (sv\u00e2bh\u00e2vika) semivowels, as e. g. the v in parva, are not included; and to suppose that in S\u00fbtra 527 these semivowels were indicated by varna is impossible, particularly if we compare the similar wording of S\u00fbtra 974 a.\nWe look in vain, too, in the Pr\u00e2tis\u00e2khya 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 Pr\u00e2tis\u00e2khya, for unless its author observed it, he could not have obtained in the verses quoted by the Pr\u00e2tis\u00e2khya the number of syllables which he ascribes to them. According to S\u00fbtra 937, the verse, RV. X, 134, 1, is a Mah\u00e2pa\u1e45kti, and consists of six p\u00e2das, of eight syllables each. In order to obtain that number, we must read:\nWe may therefore say that, without allowing any actual change in the received text of the Samhit\u00e2, the Pr\u00e2tis\u00e2khya 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, recognised 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.\nSecondly, I believe it can be proved that, if not the authors of the Pr\u00e2tis\u00e2khya, those at least who constituted Shortening of long vowels.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 Pr\u00e2tis\u00e2khya 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 S\u00fbtra 523 that the eighth syllable of hendecasyllabics and dodecasyllabics, if short, is lengthened, provided a short syllable\nfollows, they remark that for this purpose nah or no is treated as a short syllable:\nX, 59, 4. dy\u016d-bh\u012bh h\u012dt\u0101h g\u0103r\u012dm\u00e2\u0304 s\u016d n\u0103\u0302h \u0101st\u016b, (Samh. s\u00fb no astu.)\nAgain, 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:\nVII, 48, 4. n\u016d d\u0113v\u00e2\u0304s\u0101h v\u0103r\u012dv\u0101h k\u0101rt\u0103n\u0103 n\u0101h, (Samh. k\u0101rt\u0103n\u00e2\u0304 n\u014f, bh\u00fbta no, &c.)\nWith regard to e being shortened before a short a where, according to rule, the a should be elided, we actually find that the Samhit\u00e2 gives a instead of e in RV. VIII, 72, 5. v\u00e9ti st\u00f3tave amby\u00e3m, Samh. v\u00e9ti st\u00f3tava amby\u00e3m. (Pr\u00e2tis. 177, 5.)\nI 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 P\u00e2li and Pr\u00e2krit every final o and e can be treated as either long or short a. Starting from 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 Samhit\u00e2 text:\nI, 84, 17.\nBut 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\nending the verse with an epitritus tertius instead of the usual dijambus a.\nThirdly, 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 recognised by the authors of the Pr\u00e2tis\u00e2khya (see p. xlviii). Nay, that they wished it to be pronounced even in passages where, in accordance with the requirements of the Pr\u00e2tis\u00e2khya, it had to disappear in the Samhit\u00e2 text, we may conclude from S\u00fbtra 978. It is there stated that no p\u00e2da should ever begin with a word that has no accent. The exceptions to this rule are few, and they are discussed in S\u00fbtras 978-987. But if the initial a were not pronounced in I, 1, 9, s\u00e1h nah pit\u00e2\u00b4-iva s\u00fbn\u00e1ve \u00e1gne su-up\u00e2yan\u00e1h bhava, the second p\u00e2da would begin with \u093dgne, a word which, after the elision of the initial a, would be a word without an accent b.\nFourthly, 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 P\u00e2nini himself.\nP\u00e2nini says, VI, I, 127, that i, u, ri (see RV. Bh. IV, 1, 12) at the end of a pada (but not in a compound a) may remain unchanged, if a different vowel follows, and that, if long, they may be shortened. He ascribes this rule, or, more correctly, the first portion of it only, to S\u00e2kalya, Pr\u00e2tis\u00e2khya 155 seq. b Thus kakr\u00ee atra may become kakr\u012d atra or kakry atra. Madh\u00fb atra may become madh\u016d atra or madhv atra. In VI, 1, 128, P\u00e2nini adds that a, i, u, ri may remain unchanged before ri, and, if long, may be shortened, and this again according to the teaching of S\u00e2kalya, i. e. Pr\u00e2tis\u00e2khya 136 c. Hence brahm\u00e2 rishih becomes brahm\u0103 rishih or brahmarshih; kum\u00e2r\u00ee risyah becomes kum\u00e2r\u012d risyah or kum\u00e2ry risyah. This rule enables us to explain a number of passages in which the Samhit\u00e2 text either changes the final long vowel into a semivowel, or leaves it unchanged, when the vowel is a pragrihya vowel. To the first class belong such passages as I, 163, 12; IV, 38, 10, v\u00e2g\u00ee\u00b4 \u00e1rv\u00e2, Samh. v\u00e2gy\u00e1rv\u00e2; VI, 7, 3, v\u00e2g\u00ee\u00b4 agne, Samh. v\u00e2gy\u00e3gne; VI, 20, 13, pakth\u00ee\u00b4 arka\u00edh, Samh. pakthy\u00e3rka\u00edh; IV, 22, 4, sushm\u00ee\u00b4 \u00e2\u00b4 g\u00f3h, Samh. sushmy\u00e2\u00b4 g\u00f3h. In these passages \u00ee is the termination of a nom. masc. of a stem ending in in. Secondly, IV, 24, 8, p\u00e1tn\u00ee \u00e1kkha, Samh. p\u00e1tny\u00e1kkha; IV, 34, 1, dev\u00ee\u00b4 \u00e1hn\u00e2m, Samh. devy\u00e1hn\u00e2m; V, 75, 4, v\u00e2\u00b4n\u00eeki \u00e2\u00b4-hit\u00e2, Samh. v\u00e2\u00b4n\u00eeky\u00e2\u00b4hit\u00e2; VI, 61, 4, avitr\u00ee\u00b4 avatu, Samh. avitry\u00e3vatu. In these passages the \u00ee is the termination of feminines. In X, 15, 4, \u00fbt\u00ee\u00b4 arv\u00e2\u00b4k, Samh. \u00fbty\u00e3rv\u00e2\u00b4k, the final \u00ee of the instrumental \u00fbt\u00ee ought not to have been changed into a semivowel, for, though not followed by \u00edti, it is to be treated as pragrihya; (Pr\u00e2tis. 163, 5.) It is, however,\nmentioned as an exception in S\u00fbtra 174, 9. The same applies to II, 3, 4, v\u00e9d\u00ee \u00edti asy\u00e2\u00b4m, Samh. v\u00e9dyasy\u00e2\u00b4m. The pragrihya \u00ee ought not to have been changed into a semivowel, but the fact that it had been changed irregularly, was again duly registered in S\u00fbtra 174, 5. These two pragrihya \u00ee therefore, which have really to be pronounced short, were irregularly changed in the Samhit\u00e2 into the semivowel; and as this semivowel, like all semivowels, may take vyav\u00e2ya, the same object was attained as if it had been written by a short vowel. With regard to pragrihya \u00fb, no such indication is given by the Samhit\u00e2 text; but in such passages as I, 46, 13, sambh\u00fb \u00edti sam-bh\u00fb \u00e2\u00b4 gatam, Samh. sambh\u00fb \u00e2\u00b4 gatam; V, 43, 4, b\u00e2h\u00fb\u00b4 \u00edti \u00e1drim, Samh. b\u00e2h\u00fb\u00b4 \u00e1drim, the pragrihya \u00fb of the dual can be used as short, like the \u00fb of madh\u00fb atra, given as an example by the commentators of P\u00e2nini.\nTo Professor Kuhn, I believe, belongs the merit of having extended this rule to final \u00e2. That the \u00e2 of the dual may become short, was mentioned in the Pr\u00e2tis\u00e2khya, S\u00fbtra 309, though in none of the passages there mentioned is there any metrical necessity for this shortening (see p. lii). This being the case, it is impossible to deny that where this \u00e2 is followed by a vowel, and where Sandhi between the two vowels is impossible, the final \u00e2 may be treated as short. Whether it must be so treated, depends on the view which we take of the Vedic metres, and will have to be discussed hereafter.\nI agree with Professor Kuhn when he scans:\nVI, 63, 1. kv\u0306\u0103 ty\u00e2\u0304 v\u0101lg\u00fb\u0304 p\u016dr\u016d-h\u00fb\u0304t\u00e2\u0306 \u0101dy\u0101, (Samh. puru-h\u00fbt\u00e2dya); and not kv\u0306\u0101 ty\u0306\u00e2\u0304 v\u0101lg\u00fb\u0304 p\u016dr\u016dh\u00fb\u0304t\u00e2\u0304dy\u0101, although we might quote other verses as ending with an epitritus primus.\nIV, 3, 13. m\u00e2\u0304 v\u0113s\u0101sy\u0103 pr\u0103-m\u012dn\u0103t\u0101h m\u00e2\u0306 \u00e2\u0304p\u0113h, (Samh. m\u00e2peh,) although the dispondeus is possible.\nI, 77, 1. k\u0103th\u00e2\u0304 d\u00e2\u0304s\u0113m\u0103 \u0101gn\u0103y\u0113 k\u00e2\u0306 \u0101smai, (Samh. k\u00e2smai.)\nVI, 24, 5. \u0101ry\u0101h v\u0103s\u0101sy\u0103 p\u0103r\u012d-\u0113t\u00e2\u0306 \u0101st\u012b.\nEven in a compound like tv\u00e2-\u00fbta, I should shorten the first vowel, e. g.\nX, 148, 1. tm\u0103n\u00e2\u0304 t\u0103n\u00e2\u0304 s\u0103n\u016dy\u00e2\u0304m\u0103 tv\u00e2\u0306-\u00fb\u0304t\u00e2\u0304h,\nalthough the passage is not mentioned by the Pr\u00e2tis\u00e2khya\namong those where a short final vowel in the eighth place is not lengthened when a short syllable follows a.\nBut when we come to the second p\u00e2da of a G\u00e2yatr\u00ee, and find there a long \u00e2, and that long \u00e2 not followed by a vowel, I cannot agree with Professor Kuhn, that the long \u00e2, even under such circumstances, ought to be shortened. We may scan:\nV, 5, 7. v\u00e2\u0304t\u0101sy\u0103 p\u0101tm\u0103n \u00ee\u0304l\u012dt\u00e2\u0304 d\u0101ivy\u00e2\u0304 h\u014dt\u00e2\u0304r\u00e2\u0304 m\u0103n\u016dsh\u0101h.\nThe same choriambic ending occurs even in the last p\u00e2da of a G\u00e2yatr\u00ee, and is perfectly free from objection at the end of the other p\u00e2das.\nSo, again, we may admit the shortening of au to o in s\u00e2no avye and s\u00e2no avyaye, as quoted in the Pr\u00e2tis\u00e2khya, 174 and 177, but this would not justify the shortening of au to av in Anushtubh verses, such as\nV, 86, 5.\nwhile, with regard to the Trishtubh and Gagat\u00ee verses, our views on these metres must naturally depend on the difficulties we meet with in carrying them out systematically.\nThere is no reason for shortening \u00e2 in\nV, 5, 10. d\u0113v\u00e2\u0304n\u00e2\u0304m g\u016bhy\u00e2\u0304 n\u00e2\u0304m\u00e2\u0304n\u012b.\nIt is the second p\u00e2da of a G\u00e2yatr\u00ee here; and we shall see that, even in the third p\u00e2da, four long syllables occur again and again.\nFor the same reason I cannot follow Dr. Kuhn in a number of other passages where, for the sake of the metre, he proposes to change a long \u00e2 into a short one. Such passages are in the Pada text:\nVI, 46, 11. d\u012bdy\u0103v\u0101h t\u012bgm\u0103-m\u00fb\u0304rdh\u00e2\u0304n\u0101h, not m\u00fb\u0304rdh\u00e2\u0306n\u0101h.\nI, 15, 6. r\u012dt\u016dn\u00e2\u0304 y\u0101g\u00f1\u0103m \u00e2\u0304s\u00e2\u0304th\u0113, not \u00e2\u0304s\u00e2\u0306th\u0113.\nV, 66, 2. s\u0101my\u0103k \u0103s\u016bry\u0103m \u00e2\u0304s\u00e2\u0304t\u0113, not \u00e2\u0304s\u00e2\u0306t\u0113.\nV, 67, 1. v\u0101rsh\u012bshth\u0101m ksh\u0101tr\u0103m \u00e2\u0304s\u00e2\u0304th\u0113, not \u00e2\u0304s\u00e2\u0306th\u0113. See Beitr\u00e4ge, vol. iii, p. 122.\nI, 46, 6. t\u00e2\u0304m \u0101sm\u0113 r\u00e2\u0304s\u00e2\u0304th\u00e2\u0304m \u012dsh\u0101m, not r\u00e2\u0304s\u00e2\u0306th\u00e2\u0304m \u012dsh\u0101m.\nIV, 32, 23. b\u0103bhr\u00fb\u0304 y\u00e2\u0304m\u0113sh\u016d s\u014dbh\u0113t\u0113, not s\u014dbh\u0115t\u0113.\nIV, 45, 3. \u016dt\u0103 pr\u012dy\u0101m m\u0103dh\u016dn\u0113 y\u016b\u00f1g\u00e2\u0304th\u00e2\u0304m r\u0103th\u0101m, not y\u016b\u00f1g\u00e2\u0306th\u00e2\u0304m r\u0103th\u0101m.\nV. 74, 3. k\u0103m \u0101kkh\u0103 y\u016b\u00f1g\u00e2\u0304th\u0113 r\u0103th\u0101m, not y\u016b\u00f1g\u00e2\u0306th\u0113 r\u0103th\u0101m.\nIV, 55, 1. dy\u00e2\u0304v\u00e2\u0304bh\u00fb\u0304m\u00ee\u0304 (\u00edti) \u0103d\u012dt\u0113 tr\u00e2\u0304s\u00ee\u0304th\u00e2\u0304m n\u0101h, not tr\u00e2\u0304s\u00ee\u0306th\u00e2\u0304m n\u0101h.\nV, 41, 1. r\u012dt\u0101sy\u0103 v\u00e2\u0304 s\u0103d\u0103s\u012d tr\u00e2\u0304s\u00ee\u0304th\u00e2\u0304m n\u0101h, not tr\u00e2\u0304s\u00ee\u0306th\u00e2\u0304m n\u0101h.\nI must enter the same protest against shortening other long vowels in the following verses which Professor Kuhn proposes to make metrically correct by this remedy:\nI, 42, 6. h\u012dr\u0101ny\u0103v\u00e2\u0304s\u00ee\u0304m\u0101t-t\u0103m\u0101, not v\u00e2\u0304s\u00ee\u0306m\u0101t-t\u0203m\u0101.\nHere the short syllable of ganasr\u012d-bhih in V, 60, 8, cannot be quoted as a precedent, for the i in ganasri, walking in companies, was never long, and could therefore not be shortened. Still less can we quote n\u00e2ri-bhyah as an instance of a long \u00ee being shortened, for n\u00e2ri-bhyah is derived from n\u00e2rih, not from n\u00e2r\u00ee, and occurs with a short i even when the metre requires a long syllable; I, 43, 6. nri\u0305-bhy\u0101h n\u00e2\u0304r\u012d\u0304-bhy\u0306\u0101h g\u0103v\u0113. The fact is, that in the Rig-veda the forms n\u00e2rishu and n\u00e2r\u00ee-bhyah never occur, but always n\u00e2rishu, n\u00e2ri-bhyah; while from v\u00e2s\u00ee we never find any forms with short i, but always v\u00e2\u00b4s\u00eeshu, v\u00e2\u00b4s\u00ee-bhih.\nNor is there any justification for change in I, 25, 16. g\u00e2\u0304v\u0101h n\u0103 g\u0101vy\u00fb\u0304t\u00ee\u0304h \u0103n\u016b, the second p\u00e2da of a G\u00e2yatr\u00ee. Nor in V, 56, 3. ri\u0305ksh\u0101h n\u0103 v\u0101h m\u0103r\u016dt\u0101h s\u012dm\u00ee\u0304-v\u00e2\u0304n \u0103m\u0101h. 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, may be short, when the ninth is long:\nVI, 44, 21. vri\u0305shn\u0113 t\u0113 \u012bnd\u016bh vr\u012dsh\u0103bh\u0103 \u030d p\u00ee\u0304p\u00e2\u0304y\u0101.\nI, 73, 1. sy\u0306\u014dn\u0103-s\u00ee\u0304h \u0103t\u012dth\u012bh n\u0103 \u030d pr\u00ee\u0304n\u00e2\u0304n\u0101h.\nVII, 13, 1. bh\u0103r\u0113 h\u0103v\u012bh n\u0103 b\u0103rh\u012dsh\u012d \u030d ipr\u00ee\u0304n\u00e2\u0304n\u0101h.\nII, 28, 7. \u0113n\u0101h kri\u0305nv\u0101nt\u0103m \u0103s\u016dr\u0103 \u030d bhr\u00ee\u0304n\u0101nt\u012b.\nBefore, however, we can settle the question whether in\nthese and other places certain vowels should be pronounced as either long or short, we must settle the more general Metre and Grammar.question, what authority we have for requiring a long or a short syllable in certain places of the Vedic metres.\nlxxxi:a It will be seen from my edition of the Pr\u00e2tis\u00e2khya, particularly from the extracts from Uvata, given after S\u00fbtra 974, that the idea of making two syllables out of goh, never entered Uvata's mind. M. Regnier was right, Professor Kuhn (Beitr\u00e4ge, vol. iv, p. 187) was wrong. Uvata, no doubt, wishes to show that original (sv\u00e2bh\u00e2vika) semivowels are liable to vy\u00fbha, or at least p. lxxxii to vyav\u00e2ya; but though this is true in fact, Uvata does not succeed in his attempt to prove that the rules of the Pr\u00e2tis\u00e2khya sanction it.\nlxxxiii:a See Lassen, Inst. Lingu\u00e6 Pracritic\u00e6, pp. 145, 147, 151; Cowell, Vararuki, Introduction, p. xvii. Ked\u00e2rabhatta says: P\u00e2ninir bhagav\u00e2n pr\u00e2kritalakshanam api vakti samskrit\u00e2d anyat, d\u00eergh\u00e2ksharam ka kutrakid ek\u00e2m m\u00e2tr\u00e2m upait\u00eeti. Secundum d\u2019Alwisium commentator docet sermonem esse de litteris Sanscriticis e et o. Cf. Pischel, De Grammaticis prakriticis, 1874.\nlxxxiv:a See Professor Weber's pertinent remarks in Kuhn's Beitr\u00e4ge, 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 Samhit\u00e2 text:\nI, 88, 2. r\u016bkm\u014d n\u0103 k\u012btr\u0306\u0101h sv\u0306\u0103dh\u012dt\u00ee\u0304v\u00e2\u0304n.\nI, 141, 8. r\u0103th\u014d n\u0103 \u0233\u00e2\u0306t\u0103h s\u012bkv\u0306\u0103bh\u012bh kr\u012dt\u014d.\nI, 174, 3. s\u012bmh\u014d n\u0103 d\u0103m\u0115 \u0103p\u0306\u00e2\u0304ms\u012d v\u0101st\u014dh.\nVI, 24, 3. \u0101ksh\u014d n\u0103 k\u0101kry\u0306\u014dh s\u0306\u00fb\u0304r\u0103 br\u012dh\u0101n\nX, 3, 1. \u012dn\u014d r\u0306\u00e2\u0304g\u0101nn \u0103r\u0103t\u012bh s\u0103m\u012bddh\u014d.\nThis leaves but one of Professor Kuhn's examples (Beitr\u00e4ge, vol. iv, p. 192) unexplained: I, 191, 1. ka\u1e45kato na ka\u1e45kato, where iva for na would remove the difficulty.\nlxxxiv:b This subject, the shortness of e and o in the Veda, has been admirably treated by Mr. Maurice Bloomfield, 'Final as before Sonants,' Baltimore, 1882. Reprinted from the American Journal of Philology, vol. iii, No. 1.\nlxxxv:a 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 dh\u00e1nvarnasah, which is divided into dh\u00e1nva-arnasah, may be dh\u00e1nu-arnasah (RV. V, 45, 2). Dh\u00e1narkam, divided into dh\u00e1na-arkam, may have been dh\u00e1na-rikam (RV. X, 46, 5). Sat\u00e1rkasam (RV. VII, too, 3) may be taken as sat\u00e1-rikasam instead of sat\u00e1-arkasam.\nlxxxv:b In the Pr\u00e2tis\u00e2khya the rule which allows vowel before vowel to remain unchanged, is restricted to special passages, and in some of them the two vowels are savarna; cf. S\u00fbtra 163.\nlxxxv:c Cf. V\u00e2gasan. Pr\u00e2tis\u00e2khya, IV, 48; Indische Studien, vol. ix, 309; vol. x, 406.\nlxxxvii:a I see that Professor Kuhn, vol. iv, p. 186, has anticipated this observation in eshtau, to be read \u00e2\u0306-\u012bshta\u016b.","title":"Vedic Hymns, Part I (SBE32): Preface to the First Edition: Part 7","type":"page"}