Articles on Prosody Home Page

The Metre Of The BÔhaddevatà ⁰¹

by

A. B. Keith, m.r.a.s.

[Clarifying additions and titles by the present editor
have been placed in square brackets]

[p. 1] It is perhaps difficult to exaggerate the importance from the point of view of the literary history of India of the BÔhaddevatà attributed to øaunaka. That this has not hitherto received full recognition is due in part to the fact that it has been held, for example even by Dr. E. Sieg, ⁰² that the BÔhaddevatà is later in date than the Mahàbhàrata. This is, however, certainly not the case, as Professor A. A. Macdonell has shown conclusively in his edition ⁰³ of the former work. About 300 èlokas of the work are devoted to legends, and this must, it seems, be regarded as a conclusive proof that at the date of its composition there existed in Sanskrit an àkhyàna or itihàsa literature. Now the date of the BÔhaddevatà is fixed by Professor Macdonell, ⁰⁴ on grounds which appear to me unassailable, at about 400 B.C., perhaps earlier. It follows, therefore, that a Sanskrit itihàsa literature can be proved to have existed in the fifth century B.C.

[p. 2] This appears to me a most important result in view of the controversy over the date of the epics. Two competing opinions on this point are held at the present time. The one, represented by such scholars as Professor Jacobi, Professor Macdonell, Professor Rapson, ⁰⁵ and Mr. Thomas, ascribes the epics to an early date, say the sixth to the fourth century B.C., and considers that at the time of composition they were written for and were intelligible to a comparatively wide circle of the people; the other, which counts among its supporters in various degrees M. Barth, Professors Bergaigne, Lüders, and Rhys Davids, Dr. Senart, and Dr. Grierson, considers that the epics are comparatively late work, the result of the gradual growth of the influence of the literary language of the Bràhmaõic schools, which still show in many traces evidence of their being translations or adaptations of Pàli or Pràkrit originals. The question is of course intimately connected with the kindred question of the extent to which Sanskrit was ever a spoken language. It is not, I understand, ever now held that Sanskrit - in the sense of the language which was known as a bhàùà to Pàõinã - was a vernacular of all the people in any part of India, but it obviously makes a great difference in the view taken of the nature of Sanskrit whether we are to regard it as a mere priestly language applied in late times to secular purposes, or are to hold that there was a time when a heroic epic was written in a language approximating to that of the Kùatriya class, and one which could be understood without great difficulty by the mass of the people. We cannot believe, I venture to think, that the early audiences to whom the epics were recited were satisfied to listen to what they did not pretend to understand. No doubt, as Dr. Grierson ⁰⁶ says, the Ràmàyana and Mahàbhàrata are nowadays recited to villagers who know nothing of Sanskrit, but that is the result (a) of the sacred character now attaching to the works as the result of centuries of fame, and (b) of [p. 3] the fact that the outlines of the story are familiar through vernacular translations and imitations. Neither of these features could be found in the primitive àkhyànas out of which the epic developed. It is really inconceivable that a man should compose works to appeal to the people - as the epics were beyond question intended to do - in a language unintelligible to them, whereas there is no difficulty in understanding how the epics soon became less and less generally understood, and yet retained their hold on the populace.

Taken in this connection the BÔhaddevatà appears to me to be decisive for the early date of the Sanskrit epic poetry, and against the theory of translation from Pàli or Pràkrit. If there were Sanskrit epic legends in the fifth century B.C., it is unreasonable to look for the composition of the great epics in the first or second century A.D.

Since the BÔhaddevatà has the great merit of being preserved in a text which is in all probability free from serious interpolation or corruption, as is proved by the quotations in the Sarvànukramaõã, I have thought it may be of interest to examine the metres of this early piece of quasi-epic literature. In the present state of the text of the two great epics no useful comparison of metre can be made, but it is not improbable that such a comparison may in course of time be rendered possible when critical text studies of the Mahàbhàrata and Ràmàyaõa have proceeded further and some better criteria of old and new strata of text have come to light.

The following remarks are based entirely on the text as constituted by Professor Macdonell, Ràjendralàla Mitra's edition being quite useless from this as from every other point of view. I use a comma to denote the cæsura, or rather diæresis, whenever it can be determined with fair certainty. It is assumed that for the purpose of the diæresis a prefix like saü in saübhåtaþ counts as a separate word; this could easily be proved if necessary. I have omitted the references to save space, and there are very possibly some errors in the enunciation, but the main results [p. 4] will not be affected by such errors. In any case the numbers would be altered if readings other than those adopted by Professor Macdonell were accepted. Cha has, of course, been regarded as always making position.

[Anuùñubh / øloka]

The anuùñubh in the BÔhaddevatà is essentially of a later form than the anuùñubh, even in the latest portions, of the »gveda. This is shown especially by the fact that the second pàda of each half-verse ends always ⁰⁷ in ÛÜÛÅ.

[Pathyà]

In the first pada the second half is ÛÜÜÅ in 2,002 cases out of a possible 2,382 [84%]. ⁰⁸ On the other hand, the remaining 380 half-verses show a much greater variety of form than is allowed in the kàvya èloka, and it seems fair to regard the èloka here as exhibiting a transition stage to the èloka of the later literature.

[Mavipulà]

Of the variant forms five half-lines have nine syllables in the first pàda, which begins with ÛÛ save in one case (IV, 102a). In 182 cases the first pàda ends in ÜÜÜÅ. Two forms only of the first four syllables occur frequently, viz., ÜÜÛÜÜ,ÜÜÅ in 86 cases, and ÛÜÛÜÜ,ÜÜÅ in 73 cases. In VIII, 79a occurs ÛÜÛÜÜÜ,ÜÅ, but the reading may be incorrect for yathà ca gharmaþ saübhåtaþ. The other instances are distributed as follows:Þ

[Bhavipulà]

[p. 5]

In 68 cases is found ÜÛÛÅ as the end of the first pàda. As before only two forms occur frequently, viz., ÜÜÛÜÜ,ÛÛÅ in 16 cases + 3 with caesura after the fourth syllable [ÜÜÛÜ,ÜÛÛÅ], and ÛÜÛÜÜ,ÛÛÅ in 34 cases + 1 with caesura after the fourth syllable [ÛÜÛÜ,ÜÛÛÅ].

There are ten other forms, as follows:Þ

[Ravipulà]

In 52 cases the first pàda ends in ÜÛÜÅ. There are seven forms, of which four are fairly common:Þ

[Navipulà]

In 43 cases the first pàda ends in ÛÛÛÅ. There are seven forms distributed as follows:Þ

[p. 6]

[Javipulà or Anuùñupvipulà]

In 15 cases the first pàda ends in ÛÜÛÅ. These cases are of special interest, as the later form avoids carefully the iambic ending. There are six forms:Þ

[Savipulà]

In 12 cases the first pàda ends in ÛÛÜÅ. There are eight forms, but all the occurrences are sporodic:Þ

[Tavipulà]

[p. 7]

There remain three cases of endings in ÜÜÛÅ, viz.:Þ

This large variety of forms appears consistent with and to support the date assigned on other grounds to the work by Professor Macdonell. It was most probably written at a time when the èloka had not yet received its final form, and when the verses which are irregular according to the later metre were still felt to be correct. It may, of course, be argued that some of the forms are the result of the introduction of quotations from the »gveda, but, even allowing this to be the case in some instances, the explanation cannot be applied in the majority of cases, and it would doubtless have been easy for the author to put them in another form, had they seemed to him unmetrical.

Consistent also with the antiquity of the verse is the fact of the separation of the pàdas. Hiatus is quite freely allowed between pàdas in the same half-verse. There are, according to my reckoning, about 112 cases of such hiatus. It is true that hiatus occurs also elsewhere, but these cases can nearly all be reduced to (1) Vedic quotations, e.g., te astu, I, 54a; ko adya, I, 57a; or (2) a or à + Ô, or i + Ô, or u + Ô Þ all special cases. ⁰⁹ Other exceptions are extremely rare (e.g. I, 111a). Between pàdas, however, all sorts of hiatus occur freely.

On the other hand, there are not lacking signs that the connection of the pàdas was becoming closer than in the period of the Saühitàs. The instances are of three kinds.

(1) The break at the end of the first pàda occurs in the middle of a compound, or after a prefix to a verb, e.g., pràtaþ | savanam, I, 115a, or abhi | dãyate, I, 30a. There [p. 8] are seven other instances (II, 98a, lO3a; III, 86b; IV, 82b; V, 58c, 175b; VI, 88b). (2) There is elision at the end of the first pàda; the elision is almost always of i becoming y; of which there are eleven instances (II, 127b, where the verse should probably be divided after the 'py; III, 69b, 135a; IV, 144b; V, 81b; VI, 63b, 68b; VII, 83a, 105b; VIII, 14b, 94b). There are three instances of the elision of initial a (I, 54b; IV, 139a; VI, 156a); and one instance of u becoming v (II, 115b). (3) Finally, in six cases the verse runs on irregularly: they are III, 83a, àïgirasasyàsan; 134b, varuõasyàryamõaþ. 9a, naktànakti; II, 141a, hãttham; IV, 116b, aïgànyanaóuhaþ. VIII, 57a, tvantyànyàþ.

[Triùtubh]

The examples of hiatus taken together with these signs of the tendency to regard the pàdas as united seem to be conclusive evidence of the transitional character of the verse. The same view follows from the treatment of the triùñubh. There are some 42 verses in this metre in the BÔhaddevatà, and the details given below seem conclusively to show that the metre was still in an experimental stage. No one after the later metres had definitely formed themselves would have composed these curious forms, which, however find a natural explanation as transitional forms from the free triùñubh of the Saühitàs, where the last four syllables are alone of importance, to the later verses, where all syllables are determined.

Only one verse occurs where all the pàdas are alike in metre, the indravajrà, IV, 2. Verses with mixed pàdas of indravajrà and upendravajrà occur in I, 44 (u. + i. + u. + i.), 45 (u. + u. + i. + i.); IV, 1 (u. + u. + i. + i.). In III, 154, the first, second, and fourth padas are indravajrà, the third is èàlinã. ¹⁰ In 155 the first two pàdas are èàlinã, the third and the fourth irregular. In IV, 95, the first and third pàdas are upendravajrà and the second indravajrà, the fourth is irregular. In 96 the last two pàdas are indravajrà, the first two are irregular. The second and third pàdas of V, 8, are identical (ÛÜÜÜÜÛÜÜÛÜÅ), and so in V, 46, and VIII, 127 (ÛÜÛÜ,ÜÛÜÜÛÜÅ), the first and fourth being irregular. In [p. 9] V, 113, the first two pàdas are upendravajrà, the last two ÛÜÛÜ,ÜÛÜÜÛÜÅ. In VIII, 101, the first two are indravajrà, the last irregular. In 125 the second and fourth are ÛÜÜÜ,ÛÛÜÜÛÜÅ, the others irregular. In IV, 99, the second and third are èàlinã, the rest irregular. In all, 15 verses have two or more pàdas alike.

On the other hand, there are no less than 7 verses with four pàdas of 11 syllables all dissimilar (III, 156; IV, 5, 6, 7; V, 114; VIII, 128, 129); and 19 verses contain pàdas of differing numbers of syllables. In five cases only is there any correspondence of pàdas: in IV, 10, the verse consists of 12 + 11 + 11 + 11, the last two being ÜÜÜÜÜÛÛÜÛÜÅ; in IV, 4, of 11 + 11 + 12 + 11, the second and fourth being ÜÜÜÛÛÛÜÜÛÜÅ; in V, 7, of 11 + 12 + 11 + 12, the second and fourth being ÛÜÜÜÛÛÜÜÛÜÛÅ; IV, 3, consists of an indravajrà + upendravajrà + indravajrà + 12; and V, 11, consists of two èàlinã pàdas + 12 + 11. The other verses show different variations of pàdas of 10, 11, and 12 syllables as follows:

There remains VIII, 130, which has 6 padas of 11 syllables, the fourth and fifth being upendravajrà, and the first and sixth indravajrà.

[p. 10]

[Jagatã]

Of the 24 jagatã padas only 12 have the characteristic jagatã ending of ÜÛÜÛÅ; 10 end in ÜÛÜÅ; ¹¹ 2 in ÛÛÜÜ and ÜÜÛÜ respectively. On the other hand, of the triùñubh pàdas 2 end with the jagatã ending ÛÜÛÅ, ¹² and 1 with ÛÛÜÜ. In four cases hiatus is permitted between the pàdas of the half-verses, while in one case tu becomes tv.

[Comparison with Aitareya Bràhmaõa]

Confirmation of the view here taken that the metre of the BÔhaddevatà represents a genuine stage of the historical development of the èloka may be derived from an examination of the 58 half-verses in the epic narrative in adhyàya 33 of the Aitareya Bràhmaõa, which must date about 200 or 300 years before the BÔhaddevatà. In 14 cases the first pàda ends in ÛÜÜÅ; in 13 in ÜÜÜÅ; making 27 cases with the long syllable in the sixth and seventh places, the characteristic of the classic èloka. Of the rest there are 8 cases of ÛÜÛÜ [javipulà]; 6 of ÜÛÜÅ [ravipulà]; 5 of ÛÛÛÅ [navipulà]; 5 of ÜÛÛÅ [bhavipulà]; 4 of ÜÜÛÅ [tavipulà]; and 3 of ÛÛÜÅ [savipulà]. In three cases the second pàda has not an iambic ending. The verse is undoubtedly of an older type than that of the BÔhaddevatà but the line on which it will develop is clearly one which will naturally lead to the later metre, while its own history can be traced in the different strata of the »gveda.