{"collection":"Hinduism","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/browse/hin/sbe32/sbe3211.htm","path":"hin/sbe32/sbe3211.htm","source_url":"https://sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe32/sbe3211.htm","text":"Vedic Hymns, Part I (SBE32), by Max M\u00fcller, [1891]\nIf we declare ourselves free from all authority, either grammatical or metrical, we may either sacrifice all grammar to metre, or all metre to grammar. We may introduce the strictest rules of metre, determining the length or shortness of every syllable, and then ignore all rules of grammar and quantity, treat short syllables as long, or long ones as short, and thus secure the triumph of metre. Or, we may allow great latitude in Vedic metres, particularly in certain p\u00e2das, and thus retain all the rules of grammar which determine the quantity of syllables. It may be said even that the result would really be the same in either case, and that the policy of 'thorough' might perhaps prove most useful in the end. It may be so hereafter, but in the present state of Vedic scholarship it seems more expedient to be guided by native tradition, and to study the compromise which the ancient students of the Veda have tried to effect between grammar on one side and metre on the other.\nNow it has generally been supposed that the Pr\u00e2tis\u00e2khya teaches that there must be a long syllable in the eighth or tenth place of Traishtubha and G\u00e2gata, and in the sixth place of \u00c2nushtubha p\u00e2das. This is not the case. The Pr\u00e2tis\u00e2khya, no doubt, says, that a short final vowel, but not any short syllable, occupying the eighth or tenth place in a Traishtubha and G\u00e2gata p\u00e2da, or the sixth place in a G\u00e2yatra p\u00e2da, is lengthened, but it never says that it must be lengthened; on the contrary, it gives a number of cases where it is not so lengthened. But, what is even more important, the Pr\u00e2tis\u00e2khya 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 G\u00e2yatra, or for the eighth and ninth, or tenth and eleventh syllables of Traishtubha and G\u00e2gata p\u00e2das. They distinctly admit that the seventh and the\nninth and the eleventh syllables in such p\u00e2das 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 Pr\u00e2tis\u00e2khya, the general scheme for the G\u00e2yatra would be, not only\n| | | | | | | | | | | | | 6 | | 7 | | \n| + | | + | | + | | + | | \\| | | + | | \u0304 | | \u0306 | , | \nbut also\n| | | | | | | | | | | | | 6 | | 7 | | \n| + | | + | | + | | + | | \\| | | + | | \u0306 | | \u0304 | ; | \nand for the Traishtubha and G\u00e2gata, not only\n| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 8 | | | | 9 | | | | | | | | | \n| + | | + | | + | | + | | \\| | | + | | + | | + | | \u0304 | | \\| | | \u0306 | | + | | + | | ( + ), | | | \n| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 8 | | | | 9 | | | | | | | | | \n| + | | + | | + | | + | | \\| | | + | | + | | + | | \u0306 | | \\| | | \u0304 | | + | | + | | ( + ), | | | \nAnd again, for the same p\u00e2das, not only\n| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 10 | | 11 | | | | | \n| + | | + | | + | | + | | \\| | | + | | + | | + | | + | | \\| | | + | | \u0304 | | \u0306 | | ( + ), | | | \n| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 10 | | 11 | | | | | \n| + | | + | | + | | + | | \\| | | + | | + | | + | | + | | \\| | | + | | \u0306 | | \u0304 | | ( + ), | | | \nBefore appealing, however, to the Pr\u00e2tis\u00e2khya for the establishment of such a rule as that the sixth syllable of \u00c2nushtubha and the eighth or tenth syllable of Traishtubha and G\u00e2gata p\u00e2das must be lengthened, provided a short syllable follows, it is indispensable that we should have a clear appreciation of the real character of the Pr\u00e2tis\u00e2khya. 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 Pr\u00e2tis\u00e2khya never teaches that certain final vowels must be lengthened. The object of the Pr\u00e2tis\u00e2khya, as I pointed out on a former occasion, is 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 Pr\u00e2tis\u00e2khya, the character of general rules. Let us now, after these preliminary remarks, return to the S\u00fbtras 523 to 535, which we discussed before. The Pr\u00e2tis\u00e2khya simply says that certain syllables which are short in the\n[paragraph continues] Pada, if occupying a certain place in a verse, are lengthened in the Samhit\u00e2, 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 Pr\u00e2tis\u00e2khya. 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 Samhit\u00e2, 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 Samhit\u00e2 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 Samhit\u00e2, and where no intelligible reason of their lengthening can be given, at least not by the authors of the Pr\u00e2tis\u00e2khya, the Pr\u00e2tis\u00e2khya adds in S\u00fbtra 523, 'The final vowel of the eighth syllable is lengthened in p\u00e2das of eleven and twelve syllables, provided a syllable follows which is short in the Samhit\u00e2.' As instances the commentator gives (Samhit\u00e2 text):\nI, 32, 4. t\u00e2\u0304d\u00ee\u0305\u00b4tn\u00e2\u0304 s\u00e1\u0304t\u030dr\u016bm n\u00e1\u0306 k\u00ed\u0306l\u0103\u0302 \u030d v\u012dv\u012bts\u0113.\nI, 94, 1. \u00e1\u0304gn\u0113 s\u0101khy\u00e9\u0304 m\u030d\u00e2\u00b4 r\u012dsh\u00e2\u0304m\u0103\u0302 v\u030d\u0103y\u00e1\u0304m t\u00e1\u0306v\u0103.\nThen follows another rule (S\u00fbtra 525) that 'The final vowel of the tenth syllable in p\u00e2das of eleven and twelve syllables is lengthened, provided a syllable follows which is short in the Samhit\u00e2.' As instances the commentator gives:\nIII, 54, 22. \u00e1\u0306h\u00e2\u0304 v\u00ed\u0304sv\u00e2\u0304 \u030d s\u016dm\u00e1\u0306n\u00e2\u0304 d\u00ee\u0304\u030dd\u012dh\u012d\u0302 n\u0101h.\nII, 34, 9. \u00e1\u0306v\u0103 r\u016bdr\u00e2\u0304\u030d \u0103s\u00e1\u0306s\u014d h\u0101n\u030dt\u0103n\u0103\u0302 v\u00e1\u0306dh\u0101h.\nLastly a rule is given (S\u00fbtra 526) that 'The final vowel of the sixth syllable is lengthened in a p\u00e2da of eight syllables, provided a syllable follows which is short\nI, 5, 10. \u00ee\u0305\u00b4s\u00e2\u0304n\u014d y\u0103v\u030d\u0103y\u0103\u0302 v\u0103dh\u00e1\u0304m.\nIf the seventh syllable is long no change takes place:\nIX. 67, 30. \u00e2\u0305\u00b4 p\u0103v\u0101sv\u0101 d\u0113v\u0103 s\u014dm\u0101.\nWhile we ourselves should look upon these rules as\nfounded in the very nature of the metre, which, no doubt, to a certain extent they are, the authors of the Pr\u00e2tis\u00e2khya use them simply as convenient nets for catching as many cases as possible of lengthened syllables actually occurring in the text of the Samhit\u00e2. For this purpose, and in order to avoid giving a number of special rules, they add in this place an observation, very important to us as throwing light on the real pronunciation of the Vedic hymns at the time when our Samhit\u00e2 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 S\u00fbtra 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 S\u00fbtra, 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 Pr\u00e2tis\u00e2khya. In all this we ourselves can easily recognise a principle which guided the compilers of the Samhit\u00e2 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 Pr\u00e2tis\u00e2khyas, who are satisfied with explaining what is, according to the authority of the Samhit\u00e2, and who never attempt to say what ought to be, even against the authority of the Samhit\u00e2. 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.\nA 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 that the next syllable must be short, in order to provoke the lengthening of the preceding syllable, thereby sanctioning, of course, many exceptions; and they then proceed to quote a number of cases where, in spite of all, the short syllable remains short a. In some of these quotations they are no doubt wrong, but in most of them their statement cannot be disputed.\nAs to the eighth syllable being short in hendecasyllabics and dodecasyllabics, they quote such verses as,\nVI, 66, 4. \u0101nt\u0101r (\u00edti) s\u0101nt\u0103h \u0103v\u0101dy\u00e2\u0304n\u012d p\u016dn\u00e2\u0304n\u00e2\u0304h.\nThus we see that in VI, 44. 9, v\u0101rsh\u00ee\u0304y\u0101h v\u0103y\u0101h kr\u012dn\u016dh\u012d s\u0103k\u00ee\u0304bh\u012bh, hi remains short; while in VI, 25, 3, g\u0103h\u012d vri\u0305shny\u00e2\u0304n\u012d kr\u012dn\u016dh\u00ee\u0304 p\u0103r\u00e2\u0304k\u0101h, it is lengthened in the Samhit\u00e2, the only difference being that in the second passage the accent is on h\u00ed.\nAs to the tenth syllable being short in a dodecabyllabic, they quote\nII, 27, 14. \u0103d\u012dt\u0113 m\u012btr\u0103 v\u0103r\u016dn\u0103 \u016dt\u0103 mr\u012dl\u0101.\nAs to the tenth syllable being short in a hendecasyllabic, they quote\nII, 20, 1. v\u0306ay\u0101m t\u0113 v\u0103y\u0103h \u012bndr\u0103 v\u012bddh\u012d s\u016d n\u0101h.\nAs to the sixth syllable being short in an octosyllabic, they quote\nVIII, 23, 26. m\u0103h\u0101h v\u012bsv\u00e2\u0304n \u0103bh\u012d s\u0103t\u0101h.\nA large number of similar exceptions are collected from\n[paragraph continues] 528, 3 to 534, 94, and this does not include any cases where the ninth, the eleventh, or the seventh syllable is long, instead of being short, while it does include cases where the eighth syllable is long, though the ninth is not short, or, at least, is not short according to the views of the collectors of these passages. See S\u00fbtra 522, 6.\nBesides the cases mentioned by the Pr\u00e2tis\u00e2khya itself, where a short syllable, though occupying a place which would seem to require lengthening, remains short, there are many others which the Pr\u00e2tis\u00e2khya does not mention, because, from its point of view, there was no necessity for doing so. The Pr\u00e2tis\u00e2khya has been blamed a for omitting such cases as I, 93, 6, urum yag\u00f1\u00e2ya kakrath\u016dr u lokam; or I, 96, 1, dev\u00e2 agnim dh\u00e2rayan dr\u0103vinod\u00e2m. But though occupying the eighth place, and though followed by a short syllable, these syllables could never fall under the general observation of the Pr\u00e2tis\u00e2khya, because that general observation refers to final vowels only, but not to short syllables in general. Similar cases are I, 107, 1a; 122, 9; 130, 10; 152, 6; 154, 1; 158, 5a; 163, 2; 167, 10a; 171, 4; 173, 6; 179, 1a; 182, 8a; 186, 6, &c.\nIf, therefore, we say that, happen what may, these metrical rules must be observed, and the text of the Veda altered in order to satisfy the requirements of these rules, we ought to know at all events that we do this on our own responsibility, and that we cannot shield ourselves behind the authority of Saunaka or K\u00e2ty\u00e2yana. Now it is well known that Professor Kuhn b has laid down the rule that the Traishtubha p\u00e2das must end in a bacchius or amphibrachys \u0306 \u0304 \u0304\u0306, and the G\u00e2gata p\u00e2das in a dijambus or p\u00e6on secundus \u0306 \u0304 \u0306 \u0304\u0306. With regard to \u00c2nushtubha p\u00e2das, he requires the dijambus or p\u00e6on secundus \u0306 \u0304 \u0306 \u0304\u0306 at the end of a whole verse only, allowing greater freedom in the formation of the preceding p\u00e2das. In a later article,\nhowever, the final p\u00e2da, too, in \u00c2nushtubha metre is allowed greater freedom, and the rule, as above given, is strictly maintained with regard to the Traishtubha and G\u00e2gata p\u00e2das only.\nxciii:a 'Wo die achtsilbigen Reihen mit herbeigezogen sind, ist es in der Regel bei solchen Liedern geschehen, die im Ganzen von der regelm\u00e4ssigen Form weniger abweichen, und f\u00fcr solche F\u00e4lle, wo auch das Pr\u00e2tis\u00e2khya die L\u00e4ngung der sechsten Silbe in achtsilbigen Reihen vorschreibt, n\u00e4mlich wo die siebente von Natur kurz ist. Die achtsilbigen Reihen bed\u00fcrfen einer erneuten Durchforschung, da es mehrfach schwer f\u00e4llt, den Samhit\u00e2text mit der Vorschrift der Pr\u00e2tis\u00e2khya in \u00dcbereinstimmung zu bringen.' Kuhn, Beitr\u00e4ge, vol. iii, p. 450: and still more strongly, p. 458.\nxciv:a 'Dazu kommt, dass der uns vorliegende Samhit\u00e2text vielf\u00e4ltig gar nicht mit Saunaka's allgemeiner Regel \u00fcbereinstimmt, indem die Verl\u00e4ngerung kurzer Silben nicht unter den Bedingungen eingetreten ist, die er vorschreibt.' Kuhn, Beitr\u00e4ge, vol. iii, p. 459.\nxciv:b Beitr\u00e4ge zur Vergleichenden Sprachforschung, vol. iii, p. 118.","title":"Vedic Hymns, Part I (SBE32): Preface to the First Edition: Part 8","type":"page"}