Vedic Hymns, Part I (SBE32), by Max Müller, [1891], at sacred-texts.com

If 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 pâdas, 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.

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 Gâgata 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 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

p. xc

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

but also

and for the Traishtubha and Gâgata, not only

but also

And again, for the same pâdas, not only

but also

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, 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 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

p. xci

[paragraph continues] Pada, if occupying a certain place in a verse, are lengthened in the Samhitâ, 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 certain syllables which have actually been lengthened in the text of the Samhitâ, 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 Samhitâ 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 Samhitâ, and where no intelligible reason of their lengthening can be given, at least not by the authors of the Prâtisâkhya, the Prâtisâkhya adds in Sûtra 523, 'The final vowel of the eighth syllable is lengthened in pâdas of eleven and twelve syllables, provided a syllable follows which is short in the Samhitâ.' As instances the commentator gives (Samhitâ text):

I, 32, 4. tâ̄dî̅´tnâ̄ sá̄t̍rūm ná̆ kí̆lă̂ ̍ vĭvītsē.

I, 94, 1. á̄gnē sākhyé̄ m̍â´ rĭshâ̄mă̂ v̍ăyá̄m tá̆vă.

Then follows another rule (Sûtra 525) that 'The final vowel of the tenth syllable in pâdas of eleven and twelve syllables is lengthened, provided a syllable follows which is short in the Samhitâ.' As instances the commentator gives:

III, 54, 22. á̆hâ̄ ví̄svâ̄ ̍ sŭmá̆nâ̄ dî̄̍dĭhĭ̂ nāh.

II, 34, 9. á̆vă rūdrâ̄̍ ăsá̆sō hān̍tănă̂ vá̆dhāh.

Lastly a rule is given (Sûtra 526) that 'The final vowel of the sixth syllable is lengthened in a pâda of eight syllables, provided a syllable follows which is short

I, 5, 10. î̅´sâ̄nō yăv̍ăyă̂ vădhá̄m.

If the seventh syllable is long no change takes place:

IX. 67, 30. â̅´ păvāsvā dēvă sōmā.

While we ourselves should look upon these rules as

p. xcii

founded in the very nature of the metre, which, no doubt, to a certain extent they are, the authors of the Prâtisâkhya use them simply as convenient nets for catching as many cases as possible of lengthened syllables actually occurring in the text of the Samhitâ. 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 Samhitâ 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 Sûtra 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 Sûtra, 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 Prâtisâkhya. In all this we ourselves can easily recognise a principle which guided the compilers of the Samhitâ 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 Prâtisâkhyas, who are satisfied with explaining what is, according to the authority of the Samhitâ, and who never attempt to say what ought to be, even against the authority of the Samhitâ. 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.

p. xciii

A 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.

As to the eighth syllable being short in hendecasyllabics and dodecasyllabics, they quote such verses as,

VI, 66, 4. āntār (íti) sāntăh ăvādyâ̄nĭ pŭnâ̄nâ̄h.

Thus we see that in VI, 44. 9, vārshî̄yāh văyāh krĭnŭhĭ săkî̄bhīh, hi remains short; while in VI, 25, 3, găhĭ vri̅shnyâ̄nĭ krĭnŭhî̄ părâ̄kāh, it is lengthened in the Samhitâ, the only difference being that in the second passage the accent is on hí.

As to the tenth syllable being short in a dodecabyllabic, they quote

II, 27, 14. ădĭtē mītră vărŭnă ŭtă mrĭlā.

As to the tenth syllable being short in a hendecasyllabic, they quote

II, 20, 1. v̆ayām tē văyăh īndră vīddhĭ sŭ nāh.

As to the sixth syllable being short in an octosyllabic, they quote

VIII, 23, 26. măhāh vīsvâ̄n ăbhĭ sătāh.

A large number of similar exceptions are collected from

p. xciv

[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 Sûtra 522, 6.

Besides the cases mentioned by the Prâtisâkhya itself, where a short syllable, though occupying a place which would seem to require lengthening, remains short, there are many others which the Prâtisâkhya does not mention, because, from its point of view, there was no necessity for doing so. The Prâtisâkhya has been blamed a for omitting such cases as I, 93, 6, urum yagñâya kakrathŭr u lokam; or I, 96, 1, devâ agnim dhârayan drăvinodâm. But though occupying the eighth place, and though followed by a short syllable, these syllables could never fall under the general observation of the Prâtisâkhya, because that general observation refers to final vowels only, but not to short syllables in general. Similar cases are I, 107, 1^a; 122, 9; 130, 10; 152, 6; 154, 1; 158, 5^a; 163, 2; 167, 10^a; 171, 4; 173, 6; 179, 1^a; 182, 8^a; 186, 6, &c.

If, 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 Kâtyâyana. Now it is well known that Professor Kuhn b has laid down the rule that the Traishtubha pâdas must end in a bacchius or amphibrachys  ̆  ̄  ̄̆, and the Gâgata pâdas in a dijambus or pæon secundus  ̆  ̄  ̆  ̄̆. With regard to Ânushtubha pâdas, he requires the dijambus or pæon secundus  ̆  ̄  ̆  ̄̆ at the end of a whole verse only, allowing greater freedom in the formation of the preceding pâdas. In a later article,

p. xcv

however, the final pâda, too, in Ânushtubha metre is allowed greater freedom, and the rule, as above given, is strictly maintained with regard to the Traishtubha and Gâgata pâdas only.

Footnotes

xciii:a 'Wo die achtsilbigen Reihen mit herbeigezogen sind, ist es in der Regel bei solchen Liedern geschehen, die im Ganzen von der regelmässigen Form weniger abweichen, und für solche Fälle, wo auch das Prâtisâkhya die Längung der sechsten Silbe in achtsilbigen Reihen vorschreibt, nämlich wo die siebente von Natur kurz ist. Die achtsilbigen Reihen bedürfen einer erneuten Durchforschung, da es mehrfach schwer fällt, den Samhitâtext mit der Vorschrift der Prâtisâkhya in Übereinstimmung zu bringen.' Kuhn, Beiträge, vol. iii, p. 450: and still more strongly, p. 458.

xciv:a 'Dazu kommt, dass der uns vorliegende Samhitâtext vielfältig gar nicht mit Saunaka's allgemeiner Regel übereinstimmt, indem die Verlängerung kurzer Silben nicht unter den Bedingungen eingetreten ist, die er vorschreibt.' Kuhn, Beiträge, vol. iii, p. 459.

xciv:b Beiträge zur Vergleichenden Sprachforschung, vol. iii, p. 118.