1. Origin And Development Of Sanskrit Metrics Arati Mitra Asiatic Society

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT

OF

SANSKRIT METRICS

ARATI MITRA

THE ASIATIC SOCIETY

1, Park Street,

Calcatta-16

Monograph Series No. : 28

Published by :

Dr. Ashin Das Gupta

Administrator

The Asiatic Society

1, Park Street,

Calcutta-700 016

The Asiatic Society, Calcutta.

First Published : Calcutta, 1989.

Price : Rs. 90.00

Printed by :

Smt. Sabita Devi

at M/s. Alphabet

2/1, Dr. Aksay Pal Road,

Calcutta-700 034.

F O R E W O R D

Before embarking on the subject matter proper, I feel it absolutely necessary and at the same time obligatory on my part to express my respect and gratitude to those scholars and my well-wishers without whose advice and encouragement at every step it would not have been possible for me to bring my humble venture into light. This, I think, is imperative on me as they are inseparably connected with this thesis. With deep reverence, I first acknowledge my debts to Dr. Gourinath Sastri under whose supervision this work has been done and submitted. In this connection respectful acknowledgement is due also to Dr. Kalikumar Dutta Sastri, who not only initiated me in this most interesting but least cultivated subject but helped me with his active guidance which adds qualitative nicety to my work. He was also kind enough to devote his valuable time and energy to go through the entire work and to express expert's comments on doubtful and vexing questions as and when required. With both of them I feel a strong bond of indebtedness.

I would like to avail myself of this opportunity to tender my feelings of gratitude for Late Prof. Siva Prasad Bhattacharya and Prof. Chintaharan Chakrabarty for the inspiration and cooperation rendered to me.

Any formal acknowledgement deems inadequate for the sincere and constant assistance in every respect offered by my friends whose hearty wishes surround me all through and which I always feel with affection and gratitude.

I express my deep gratitude to the Publication Department of the Asiatic Society and to Dr. Ashin Dasgupta, the scholar administrator.

Arati Mitra

INTRODUCTION

The need for a comprehensive study on Sanskrit Metrics has been felt for long and the need was aptly emphasised by an eminent Sanskrit Scholar who before a scholarly gathering expressed deep regret for the fact that ‘metrics is the least understood and most shirked subject in the classical Sanskrit”.

Science of Metrics is as old as the Vedas. From the remotest past to the present day a great bulk of the literature in India has been enshrined in the metrical lore. In spite of this Indians are very slow in recognising the importance of furnishing a comprehensive history of the Sanskrit metrics.

The subject under treatment, it is hardly exaggerating, has not been sufficiently grappled with before. The Western endeavours with their extra Indian inclinations confined themselves mostly to the Vedic metres.

Arnold in his “Vedic metre” has done an yeoman’s service in preparing a history of rhythmical development of the metres found in the Ṛgvedic collection, which is almost indispensable for every student who intends to inscribe a comprehensive history of the Sanskrit metrics.

A fair amount of spade work in form of stray articles as well as in the form of scholarly dissertations have been done by Oldenberg, Jacobi and others.

In course of preparing the edition on Piṅgala Chandaḥ Sūtra Weber in his “Indische Studien” (Vol. VIII) makes an attempt to sketch a history of the Vedic metre on its theoretical side.

Jacobi devoted his whole energy on Indological studies. His special interest on metrics induced him to make an attempt to erect the steps between the Vedic and the Sanskrit metrics and to show thereby how the latter owes its origin to the former.

( v )

Edgerton tried to utilize his intimate acquaintance with Buddhist Sanskrit literature for speculation of the peculiar specimens appearing in this literature of the transition period.

Stenzler's posthumous work based on the analysis of the metrical specimens found in the extant classical Sanskrit literature is no less important, in which the reader would have a picture of the prosodical practices of the Great poets.

The labour of H.D Velankar, who, besides bringing out different manuals on Pkt and Apabhramśa metres to light prepares critical editions of the important Texts, is significant in drawing the sympathetic attention of the world of scholars to this much maligned and neglected branch of Sanskrit literature.

In this magnificent work Jayadaman, Velankar along with the editions of four Texts on Sanskrit metrics, tried to give a meagre idea about the development of the Sanskrit metrics from the Veda down to the Classical.

The remark of Colebrooke in his scholarly dissertation on Pkt and Skt metres that "the prosody of Sanskrit will be found to be richer than that of any other known languages ......" is not an inapt appraisement.

Need for a comprehensive study on metrics has been felt long by Prof. S. Bhattacharyya who in 'Jottings on Metrics' made a noble attempt to present a general picture of the methodology, plan and procedure of the extant works on Sanskrit metrics, side by side with the prosodical practices of the poets through the ages.

Stray articles and papers are not scanty in number which have contributed something to the study of the metrics.

Needless to say, in this dissertation, these have been properly thrashed out, utilized and have been referred to in due places.

But in judging the magnitude of the works accomplished in other branches of the literature it should be borne in

( vi )

mind that the works are much fewer in this subject than

in any other analogous field.

Therefore the aim of the present writer is to comprise

in a single whole the entire materials available, both

published and unpublished and to sketch a connected history

of Sanskrit prosody under the title head—“Origin and

Development of the Sanskrit Metrics”, with special refe-

rence to the Prākrit metrics in order to show how the latter

has helped the former.

“History is defined as the presentation in chronological

order, of successive developments in the means and

relations of production”. The stages of development are to

be pushed to the point, when the limited scope of something

is enlarged ; where the rigidity happens to be slackened and

the inflation as well as intrusion of foreign elements have to

be assimilated unconciously and incorporated intentionally.

This humble venture of mine is set to task of complying

with this particular view. In doing so all sorts of precau-

tionary measure have been adopted against being led astray

from the “Terrafirma” of solid facts by an ardent

desire for theorising. Because it cannot be denied that the

metrical science is positive. It is also indicative in the

sense that it can indicate or show how to do through

manual and what has been done in practice.

The abiding value of the metrics as a Vedāṅga, on which

the holy scripture rests, has been attested by the persistence

by the Veda itself. This is not strange to see that the earliest

literature, including what has guided our religious

inclination has been enshrined in metrical lore. As it has

been integrated with the religion, the study of the metrics

meant a binding element that had to be strictly adhered

to. “Yo vā .aviditārṣeyacchandodaivatatabrāmhaṇena man-

treṇa yājoyati vā’ adhyāpayati vā sthāṇum varcchati gartam

vā prapādyate pra vā mīyate. Pāpīyān sa bhavati…..”

A short but lucid dissertation may be deemed necessary

( vii )

for the representation of the term "chanda" to designate a

half theoretical and half practical discipline in its evolutionary course.

Yāska laid down different types of etymological interpretation of the term "chanda" - "Chandāṃsi Chādanāt"

Nir. VII. 12. - having a root "Chad" - "Chada ācchādane"

ācchādayati stotraiḥ. "Rv. VI. 75. 18. Marmāṇi te

Varmaṇa Chādayāmi" - Śat. Br. has laid down that as it

protects it is chanda - VIII. 5, 1, 1, Yadasmā ācchayams-

tasmācchandāṃsi". Chāndogyopaniṣad gives similar interpretation while it says that the Gods, in order to get rid

of death, enter into the three Vedas and cover themselves

with the metre - 1.42. Devā Vai mṛtyorbhivyatoḥ Trayīṃ

Vidyāṃ prāviśan te chandobhiḥcchādanadyadebhrī cchāda-

yastasmācchandāṃsi" - i. e., Chadi Samvarane ( III. N. 14 )

Curādi or "chadī ācchādane" - that which gives protection

is nothing but the protective decree.

In Daīvata Brāhmaṇa too we find the use of it in the same

sense (III. 19) Chandāṃsi Chādayati iti and Sāyaṇa explains

it "Chando Samvarane Chādayati Varṇān iti tathā ca Nairu-

ktam chandāṃsi chādanāt". Vināyaka too explains the

term, used in Śat. Bra. 11.5. the protection of the text

is preserved through the metre as "Pāśve yathā gṛhasthaṃ

chādayanti dīnatva chādanāt, tathā chandāṃsi varṇānāṃ

ca chādayanti samghātā bahirbhāvanivāranāt".

A better interpretation, given by Vidhusekhar Bhatta-

carya (JGJRI, Vol. I.P.11. 1944, Feb P. I45) is that it is in

the metre the imperishable quality of the syllables has been

recognised, fixed or covered.

In the early Ṛgveda it also denotes "the Stotra" (Rv.VI.

II. 3) "Vipromadhu chandobhavanti" - Cf. Sāyaṇa yajue

madhumanmadakaram chandah stotram bhavanti - that is

why Yāska includes it in Arcati Karmanāḥ ( N. III. 14 ).

Suggestively enough, the same sense can be applied to

what is adorable - in Ṛgvedic Passage too we find the word

( viii )

is used to connote almost the same meaning - VIII.7.36.

"Agni hi yāni purvaschando na suro arciṣā". Agni, who

is the foremost of the Devas, is adorable like the Sun God.

In another case, we find the use of the word "Kavicchad"

in Ṛv. III.12. 15. "causing pleasure", where the root verb

of "chanda" is chand which signifies the sense, "pleasing"

-Śat. Br. VIII.5.2.1. Tānyasmā acchandayamas tāni yad

asmā acchandayams Tasmāccchandāṃsi - they pleased him

and inasmuch as they did so, they are called metres

( chandas ) ( Chad, Chand Chadi, Chadi - Chadane, Prīṇane,

Praśaṃsāyām, Arcāyām Nighaṇṭuh III. XIV ).

In a very late hymn of the Ṛgveda, the word is mentioned

in the plural ( chandāṃsi ). Besides the ṚC, Sāman and

Yajus it seems to retain its meaning not improbably with

reference to the magical subject matter of the Atharvaveda.

From denoting a hymn, it comes to mean metre in a very

late verse of the Ṛgveda - 'Kurīram chandah' - X 85.8;

Gāyatrādīni chandāṃsi.....Gradually, the word denotes

one kind of Vedic text as we find in the Sāmveda - cf.

"Sāmagānāṃṛkpāṭhayā dvau granthau vidyete, 'Chandah'

'uttarā' ceti tatra chando nāmake granathe nānāvidhānām

sāmnānām yonibhūtā evarcaḥ paṭhitā".

Then comes the entire Vedic literature which has been

designated as "chanda" - "Svarasaṃskarayocchandasi niy-

āmah" ( V.S.Prati.I.14 ) "chandovat Sūtrāṇibhavanti"

( Mahābhāṣya 1.4. 8 ) etc.

According to Weber, ( I.S.VIII.P.4) chandas can be

derived from chand not from chad. Goldstücker too retains

the word chanda in the sense of "desire" - which marks the

last stage of its development - ( Mānava Kalpasūtra -71 ).

From the psychological and practical points of view,

these versions seem to be acceptable, for in hoary past i.e.,

in the Ṛv. it is used almost in the same sense. This meaning

to please is not only consistent with the two legends mentio-

oned before but psychologically also, the pleasant aspects

( ix )

of the chandas-metre would be universally recognised.

The whole concept of the metres as appeared in the Veda is

the fruit of a constructive and rich imagination.

It can be conceded, that “chanda” as a metre, as metric,

as a technical discipline must have an origin in this rich

imagination and the first evidence of this discipline can be

definitely traced, though in a crude form in the verses of

the Ṛgveda itself.

The study of the evolution of the Sanskrit metrics needs,

as an imperative, a comparative study with the Pkt metrics.

But the account of the works on the vernacular metres are

taken into consideration only when they bear the relation

with the Skt metres. The detailed and separate treatment

of this subject has always been avoided.

The subject under treatment has been set in the follow-

ing chapters comprising the following :

1. Survey of the development of the techniques as

appeared in the manuals on the metrical science and

the preparation of the chronology of the authors of

those manuals under review on the basis of the

internal development.

2. The positive approach of this metrical science from

the use of the metres in the extant literature.

3. The influence of the metrics of the other Indian lan-

guages which has been termed under the common

name “Prakrit” on “Sanskrit” and vice versa.

Prosody as a science is firstly traceable in a definite but

crude form in the occassional utterances of the seers.

It is in this stage, the ground of the history has been prepared.

This has been designated as the stage of revelation.

Detailed reference of metres and the technical terms

pertaining to metrics appearing in the Brahmanical litera-

ture speak of the developed form of this science in the

subsequent ages. The process of crystallization has been

followed through the ancillary works like Prātiśākhyas,

( x )

Nīdāna Sūtra and Sāṁkhyāyaṇa Śrauta Sūtras. It is in this stage that they have had their treatment and recognition as the Scientific principles. This stage has been termed the formative stage.

In the above mentioned works we get a sectional treatment of metrics whose principal aim is to deal with the six Vedāṅgas. These are the latest offshoots of the earlier scientific literature and preceding the classical school of metrics. At last in the work of the Vedāṅga Chanda of Piṅgala we come upon a comprehensive treatment of the Vedic metrics in general. From this the real history rolls on.

In order to achieve a definite and fruitful result the vast period of the history has been marked by several well defined phases—(1) Piṅgala and his immediate successors (2) Vrttaratnākara to Prākrit Paiṅgalam (3) Prākrit Paiṅgalam to Modern writers.

First phase covers more than ten centries and includes some of the great names in the history of this discipline like those of Bharata, Jayadeva, Jānāśraya and other Prākrit versifiers who too paid their homage to this orthodox school.

With Vṛttaratnākara on the one hand and the works of Jaina writers on the others, begins the second period of history of comparatively brief but illuminating stage of extraordinary creative genius. It is in this stage, in response to the use of the practice it incorporates some of the proceeding of the Vernacular manual, thus allowing the slow integration with the non classic elements.

Most of the works have been set down in the line of Vṛttaratnākara and in this age we find some of the works of prominent writers like Hemacandra etc.

The result of the integration has been described with distinction in the manuals of the stage immediately following this period. The appearance of the Prākrit Paiṅgalam ushers in a new era in the history of Sanskrit metrics.

( xi )

It is in the first half of the first chapter, the history of

the metrics has been set forth through divergent systems

and theories. Bearing of the chronological result of these

works on our enquiry in general, has been based on the

tentative rough division of different periods of history

noticing the dominating influence of the standard works

comprised in them. Depending on these divisions the

subsequent subchapter proceeds to set down the relative

chronology of the authors.

More stress has been laid on essential of doctrines and

the minor details have been omitted. Greater emphasis has

been put on the earlier writers who cover the creative

periods of the discipline against the later writers who

show in the main excessive dependance on their prede-

cessors. Only standard authors have been selected with

due regard to their historical importance.

Endeavours have been made to determine with exactness

the date and the locality or personality of the authors by

both internal and external evidences but as in other bran-

ches of Sanskrit literature so also in the field of metrics

nothing could be determined with any degree of certainty.

In chapter II we have taken into consideration the vast

domain of the Vedic literature as it represents the earliest

available phase of Indian metrical lore. The “Vedic Lite-

rature” under review comprises the Rgvedas, the Atharva-

vedas, the metrical portion of the Yajurveda and the Brāh-

maṇas and scientific literature enshrined in metrical form

subsequently leading up to Epics and classical literature.

The complete survey of the metrical use in the Vedas

exhibits both the “external feature” and the “internal

character” of the metres. It is the former which forms the

core of the Vedic manuals on metrics. The present disco-

urse is able to show how the relevant applied metres bear

points of coincidence with the extant theories. The very

features of these “verse structures”, “pada forms”, “hymn

( xii )

compositions" are the types that have left their casts on the corresponding metrical features of the Sanskrit and Prākrit verse forms. These have also been included in the purview of our discussion.

Due attention has been paid to note the "internal character" or the metrical features by which the Vedic metres are proved to be postulated as the forerunner of the classical metres. The study of this internal rhythm has enabled us to have a fruitful result of greater historical importance, because, in the classical metres, it is the internal rhythm with which they are solely concerned.

The period succeeding the Vedic one was characterized by the many sided literary activities. We are not concerned with the subject matter of these literature, but as they are represented by various languages and are enshrined in the metrical compositions, their metrical specimens have been properly investigated.

The literary products of this period may be categorised under four heads ; Brahmanical, Epic, Jaina and Buddhist according to the rise of the different religious sects, i. e., the Brāhmaṇas, the Buddhists and the Jainas each with rich and distinctive literature of its own.

I. Direct flow of Brahmanical cult through the last remnants of the Vedic literature has been included in the part provided for the Vedic literature.

II. Secular literature in the form of Epic presents a distinct phase in which more practical forms of Skt metrical specimens were employed which was more rigid and mechanical than those of the last remnants of the Vedic literature like Bṛhaddevatā and Upa-niṣadas.

Endeavours also have been made to sieve out a considerable portion of the Buddhist and Jaina Texts preserved in Pāli and in Ārṣa Pkt. The distinctive character-

( xiii )

istics of these metrical specimens are that in their early

phase, they are the prototype of the Vedic Anuṣṭubh and

gradually they begin to change their colour to shape their

forms with mātrā units. In these scriptures, we find the

mātrā metres in very crude forms which gradually had their

shapes being systematized by the Sanskrit prosodical princi-

ples.

Side by side, we can by no means do away with the

epigraphical literature on the one hand and the Buddhist

Sanskrit literature on the other. The latter has provided

us for a considerable quantity of compositions in the

language of which the elements of the Purāṇic, the Prākrit

and the Pāli are acute and glaringly exposed These com-

positions yield a peculiar type of metrical specimens being

hybridized with the Sanskrit syllabic metres and Prākrit

mātrā metres.

Among the vast multitudes of the epigraphical literature

we have for our purpose taken into consideration only a

limited few, enshrined in Prākrit and Sanskrit languages.

The earliest of them have been preserved in Pkt language

and yielded the mātrā metres, sometimes in the forms of Pro-

Aryā, thus coinciding with our assumption that the mātrā

to metrical forms have their origin in non-Sanskrit language.

Canarese inscriptions of the South are also taken for

scansion. The compositions of these inscriptions had pro-

fusely employed distinct types of syllabic metres which have

been mainly appropriated by the Southern Prosodists like

Jayakīrti, Hemacandra, Nāgavarmaṇ who generally con-

centrated their endeavours in the South.

In the field of the mātrā metres, their contribution is

more significant in producing Ṣaṭpadī, etc. The musical

elements of Canarese mātrā metres lured the corresponding

Sanskrit poets so much that they could not abstain them-

selves from employing these metres. The subsequent

( xiv )

manuals, like those of Jayakīrti and Nāgavarmā, incorporate

them.

The last chapter is prepared to show the last phase of

the development of the history of the Skt metrics where

the Pkt metres has a prominent role to play. In fact, the

account of the history of the classical Skt. metre will be

incomplete if the influence of Sanskrit metres on other

Indian languages and the reverberation of the other Indian

languages on the corresponding Skt metrical compositions

are left out of our discussion.

It has been shown, that the classical Sanskrit metres

exerted influences on the Pāli and Prākrit literature during

the early and middle ages respectively. On theoretical side,

the Pkt. metres also owed their allegiance to the authority

of the Sanskrit metrics. Gradually, the Pkt metrics when

came into prominence, took hold of the whole regime. The

early Prākrit writers maintained the quantitative value of

syllable very rigidly in the case of the Akṣaravṛttas, where-

as in the late century, Sanskrit poets like Caturbhūja intro-

duced rhymed feet in his Kāvya Haricaritam. As a result

of such an attitude, metres have become more and more

widely extended in their scope.

Finally it can be said that the attempt made here is-

intended to be historical rather than expository.

The bibliographies and the references can not be claimed

to be exhaustive. But it would not perhaps be an exaggera-

tion to say that a careful use has been made of the available

works of the previous scholars as far as practicable. No

stone has been left unturned with a view to making our

conclusions based on sound footings.

With this prelude I place this thesis before the academic

world and I hope it will speak to them for itself.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

FOREWORD ... iii

INTRODUCTION ... iv

CHAPTER—I

SKT METRICS : ITS DIFFERENT STAGES OF EVOLUTION

SECTION—I : SYSTEMS OF SKT. METRICS 1

SECTION—II : CHRONOLOGY OF THE AUTHORS 110

CHAPTER—II

METRICAL SPECIMENS FOUND IN EXTANT LITERATURE

SECTION— I : VEDIC LITERATURE 152

SECTION— II : PALI WORKS 200

SECTION—III : JAINA LITERATURE 209

SECTION—IV : EPIGRAPHICAL LITERATURE 214

SECTION— V : BUDDHIST SANSKRIT LITERATURE 221

SECTION—VI : EPIC LITERATURE 232

SECTION—VII : CLASSICAL LITERATURE 248

( xvi )

CHAPTER- III

SANSKRIT AND PRAKRIT METRICS :

THEIR INTERRELATION

SECTION - I : INFLUENCE OF SANSKRIT

METRES ON PRAKRIT METRES

AND ITS DIFFERENT OFFSHOOTS

282

SECTION - II : INFLUENCE OF PRAKRIT

METRES ON SANSKRIT METRES

316

CONCLUSION

329

BIBLIOGRAPHY

330

INDEX

353

CHAPTER I

SANSKRIT METRICS : ITS DIFFERENT

STAGES OF EVOLUTION

1. SYSTEMS OF SANSKRIT METRICS

It is well known that Sanskrit metrics has emerged in the

form of a branch of learning auxiliary to Vedic study, as

the bulk of the recorded literature of the Veda is in the

verse form. This has almost become inevitable as bearing

on the Vedic practice being integrated with religion. The

study of metrics has been so emphasized that it has been

described as the support or the lower limb on which the

body of the Veda rests.1 That is why it has been felt

that it is to be scrupulously studied and understood at par

with the study of the main Veda.

The origin of this science is to be sought as mystical as

that of the Veda itself. Like the vast multitudes of the

Vedic literature it happened to be looked upon almost as

"revealed" or "Apaurusaya". It perhaps would not be an

exaggeration if the very age when the first knowledge of

metrics came into existence with metrical composition, is

called the age of "revelation" of the metrical science.

Chandah as a Śāstra, in other words, prosody as a discipline

is as old as the Ṛgveda itself. Besides, in the other Saṃhitās,

1. Ṛgvedopatghātah --Eteṣāṃ Vedārthopakāriṇāṃ sannāṃ granthānāṃ

Vedāngatvaṃ śikṣāyaṃ evamuditara

Chandah pādau tu vedasya

hastau kalpo'tha paṭhyate

Jyotiṣāmayanam cakṣur

niruktaṃ śrotramucyate.

2 ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

in the Brāhmaṇas, in the earlier Upaniṣads we meet numerous terms and passages relating to prosodical science, in which we find for the first time the real basis for the system of the metrics. The scientific speculation uttered through the liturgical performances in the age of Brāhmaṇa have been sorted out subjectwise in the age of Prātiśākhya, where the subjects dealt with have been given place in a single text.

The first evidence of the definite but somewhat crude activity in this direction can be found in well developed forms in these types of works, the sprout of which are already in the liturgical passages of the Brāhmaṇas. So the period in which this course of development can be noticed is to be described as the formative stage of the prosodical science.

Historic stages of the prosody begins with the Vedāṅga age when the single test or codex has been devoted for one specialised subject. This is found in the work of Vedāṅga chandaḥ sūtra, where however we found a comprehensive treatment of the Vedic and Skt. prosody. This is the only work which has been presented by tradition as serving the dual purpose ; representing the whole Vedāṅga chandaḥ as well as the earliest work on Skt. metrics. In the age following it, a number of works based on this sūtra work which are imbibed in the spirit and followed the manner of this very standard work came to be introduced.

For a long time we find no departure from this old school excepting a little modifications in the shape of slight elaborations of soma of the sūtras ; or by effecting some modifications of expressions here and there ; or by introducing certain forms of exposition. This sort of affairs persisted for a period extending over more than ten or eleven centuries and this can be said a fruitful creative stage which came to an end with the appearance of Vṛttaratnākara.

With the Vṛttaratnākara on the one hand and the works of Jaina writers on the other, begins the next period of

ŚYSTEMS OF SANSKRIT METRICS

3

the history of Skt. metrics which is a comparatively brief one yet it deserves to be noted as a stage of creative genius.

In this stage no consideration has been paid to the Vedic works but there develops a tendency of absorbing non-classic

elements in the fold of Skt. metrics.

Most of the works belonging to this period follow the tract of Vṛttaratnākara sometimes in the same stereotyped

manner and phraseology differing from each other only on the issues of minor importance. This stage at the same time

can be regarded as a stage of integrated principles where we find the slow departure from the dogmatic formalism of

scholastic discipline, which sank to the level of conventionalism and stagnancy. Besides, it has been characterised by

the appearance of a number of works like commentaries engaged in explaining and expanding the contents of the

standard work.

The result of the integration can be discerned with a distinct mark in the period following it. Appearance of

Prakrit Piṅgalam in the horizon of this period is to usher in a new era. Along with some independent works embodied after

the fashion of Pkt. Piṅgalam with the various plentiful but inferior manuals in which new experiments were tried, new

vein of thoughts were opened, a new order of writers were created, we have the third epoch of great fertility during

which all the older ideas being crucially criticised are transmuted into things better suited to the needs of the

new era.

Consequently, we have to meet with purely classical, proto-classical, non-classical works replenishing the necessary

deficiencies regarding classical issues, new ideas conforming to none of the authorities.

This is the brief resume of the following chapter chiefly devoted to the establishing the course of development of the

prosodical techniques dealt with in different manuals and the fruitful activity of the pioneer authors who predominantly

4

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

range over three long periods of history of Skt. metrics

in the post-Vedāṅga age.

i) The Age of the Revelation :

Prosody as a discipline is as old as the Veda. One of the

Rgvedic passages in course of giving us a somewhat fanciful

account of the divine origin of the three Vedas mentioned

the name of the supposed discipline.1

Gāyatrī and Triṣṭubh are mentioned by their very names

in many verses of the Rgveda not only in the archaic

portions2 but also in other places where the said metres

are eulogised as they have captured the heart of the

people.3

Three metres have used in the respective three savanas.4

Excellence of these three types have also been described in

the Atharvaveda.

Seven metres have been recognized in many verses of the

Rgveda5 and it has also been stated that they are measured

by the syllables.

1. Rv. X.90.9. Taṣmādyajñāt Sarvahutah Ṛcah Sāmanī Yajñire chan-

dāṁsi Yajñire tasmādyajustasmādājāyata

Sāyaṇa Comm : Tasmādyajñāccahandāṁsi Gāyatrāyadini Yajñire.

2. Traiṣṭubhena bādhata dyām. RV. V. 29.6.

Imāmo Gāyatravartanim suṣṭutim. RV. VIII.38.6

3. Ubhe Vācāvādati sāmagā iva Gāyatraṃ Traiṣṭubhaṃ cānurajati

RV.II.4.31.

4. RV.I.164.23 ; Ath. Veda 18.1.17 VVRI edition.

5. Akṣareṇa mimite saptavānih RV.I.164.24. catvāri śṛṅgā trayo asya

pādāḥ dve śīrṣe sapta hastāso asya. cf. Sāyaṇa : Sapta hastāsaḥ

sapta chandāṁsi hastā anuṣṭānāsya mukhāsādhanam RV.IV.58.3.

Yajñānāṁ Saptamātaro Vedhāṁśāsata. RV. IX.102.4.

Abhivāni ṛṣiṇāṁ saptanūṣata. RV.IX.103.3

Saptagrāmyāḥ paśavaḥ saptāranyāḥ, saptacchandāṁsi. T.S.

II.4.6.2.

SYSTEMS OF SANSKRIT METRICS

5

Seven metres with their respective designations and presiding deities have been referred to in their seriality in two consecutive verses in the tenth Maṇḍala.1 Same verses have been repeated in the Atharvaveda, only with the difference that the 5th place has been allotted to the Paṅkti while the same place was given to Virāṭ in the Ṛgveda.2 Paṅkti has been described as the metre of five syllables ( T. S. I, 7. 11. 2 )

Pushā pañcākṣareṇa paṅktim udājayat. cf. T. Br. Pañcākṣara Paṅktih ( II. 7. 10. 2 ).

Taittirīya Saṃhitā knew Virāj as containing thirty syllables i.e. two syllables less than that of Anuṣṭubh.3

In T. S. in addition, however, it has been laid down that Virāt has ten syllables, Virāṭa is food.4 In Kāṭh S. XX we got the expression “asau vai svarād, iyam virāṭ”. Besides the five metres, Gāyatrī, Triṣṭubh, Jagatī, Anuṣṭubh and the Paṅkti.5 T, S. knew the name of the other metres such as Padapaṅkti, the Akṣarapaṅkti, the Vistāra Paṅkti metres.6 Aticchandas has been described in T. S. as the highest of the

1. RV.X.130.4-5, III.3.3a. T.S. : Vasavastvā pravahantu gāyatreṇa chandāgneh priyaṃ pātha upehi. Rudrāstva pravahantu traiṣṭu-bhena chandasendrasya priyaṃ pātha upehi cf. T.S.VI.1.1.4.

2. Ath. Veda.XIX.21.1. Gāyatryuṣṇiganuṣṭubha brhati paṅkti triṣ-ṭubh jagatī cf. RV.X.130. 4-5.

Agneh gāyatry abhavat sayugvoṣṇihayā savitā sambabhūva Anuṣṭubhā soma ukthairmahasvānvrhaspate Brhati Vācamavat. Virānmitravaruṇayo......

3. T.S.II.5.10.3 : Trimśadakṣarā Virādannam.

4. T.S.III.3.3.5. : Daśa sampadyante daśākṣarā virādannam virādvirā-jyevannadye pratitiṣṭhati

VS.IX.33 ; T.S.I.7.11.2. ; Kāth. S.14.4. Varuṇo daśākṣareṇa virājam Udājayat.

5. Sādayamyapāṃ tvā pathesi, sādayāmi. Gāyatrīcchandastriṣṭupcc-hando Jagatīccchandonuṣṭupcchandah Paṅkticchandah. T.S.IV.3.1.d ; Pushāpañcaksarena paṅktim udājayat T.S.I. 7.11.2.

6, Pādapaṅktiśchando' Kṣarapaṅktiśchando Vistārapaṅkticchandah,

6

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

metres ( VI. 1. 9. 3 ). But has been referred to in Vājasaneyī

Samhitā (vs. XXIV. 12. 13). In another place, Kakubh, a new

one, appeared with Bṛhatī, Śato Bṛhatī, Uṣṇiha and Virāja.1

In the Brick sacrifice, bricks are addressed as metres and

that the Riṣis are acquainted with various types of metres

can be ascertained from the designation given to these bricks

conceived of as metres.2

Respective Deities of the metres are also addressed.3 In

T. S. Śakkvari is no more eight syllabic seven padas metres

but is one which consists of one Gāyatrī and one Triṣṭubh4.

Isosyllabic nature of the Vedic verse is also referred to in the

Ṛgvedic stanza, The very designations of the stanzas accord-

ing to the number of the constituent parts, i. e. Feet, appear-

ed not only in later Vedas but also in the Ṛgveda. In T. S.

however, in addition to Dvipadā, Tripadā and Caṭuṣpadā,

we5 get references of Saptapadā being the very mark of

Śakkvari.6 Here the pāda is used in the sense of the consti-

tuent parts rather than the fourth part of the verse.

In the Atharvaveda, and V. S. there are references of RC

1. T.S.3.1.6, 2, 3.

2. T.S. IV. 3.7. Also in VS.XIV.18.

Mā chandah, Pramāchandah, Pratimāchando, Uṣṇihā chando, Tris-

ṭupchando, Jagatī chandah etc.

3. Vālo devatā Sūryo devatā Candramā devatā Vāsavo devatā Rudra

devatā Āditya devatā Viśvedevā devatā.

cf. Sāyaṇa : atra mā pramāpratimā śrovi savdāyaśchandoviśeṣāḥ

kecid vede prasiddhāḥ kecillokesvapi prasiddhāḥ. He iṣṭake tvam

Mānāmacchandorūpāpi.

4. T.S.II 6.2.6 ; Śat. Br. IX.3.1.17.16.

5. Vākena Vākam Dvipadā caṭuṣpadākṣareṇa imite sapta vāṇiḥ. cf.

Sāyaṇa : Pāda dvayo vaddha virāṭādicchandonivaddha mantrarū-

peṇa, caṭuṣpadā pada caṭuṣṭayopetananuṣṭuvedi mantrarūpeṇeti.

6. T.S.III.2.9.3-4. Tripadā gāyatrī gāyatraṃ prātaḥ savanaṃ caṭuṣpadā

triṣṭubh......Saptapadā Śakvarī Śakkvara.

T.S.V.2.11.a.....Dvipadā ya caṭuṣpadā tripadā ya ca ṣaṭpadā sacc-

handa ya ca vicchandassūcībhissimyaṃyantu tvā. VS.XXIII.234.

and the half ṚC.1 In T.S. there lies clear enumeration of the

number of the syllables allotted for each pāda in each metre.2

Elucidation of the terms used in the mantras are clearly

made in another place where we find the term Vāsavah

indicating the number eight, Rudra the number eleven and

the Āditya the twelve.3

Total number of the syllables of the chandas has also been

described fully.4

The class of the metres without their pāda division, which

appeared in later sūtra works and Prātiśākhyas got their

treatment in T. S. The Daivichandah is5 the smallest or

the junior-most. Asura chandah is the largest or the senior-

most. By the performance of the Ṣoḍośinī sacrifice, the

largest one is ousted by the smaller one. In another place

it has been referred to that Indra won both the metres of the

God and the Manuṣyā of which syllables 1 and 3 belong to

the former, 4 and 8 to the latter.6 This Manuṣya chandah

is perhaps the another name for Prajāpati which contains

8 syllables.

1. Ath.V.IX.10.19. ṛcah pādam mātrāyā kalpayanto ardharcena

caklipur viśvam ejat. VS. 19.25 ardharicair ukthānām rūpam pādair

āpnoti nividah.

2. T.S.I.1.9. Vasavastvā parigṛhṇātu gāyatreṇa cchandasā Rudrastvā

parigṛhṇātu traiṣṭubhena cchandasā Ādityastvā parigṛhṇātu jāga-

tenacchandasā. V.S.VIII.23.

3. T.S.6.5.2.3. Vāsavastā aṣṭakṣarā Gāyatrī, Ekādaśā Rudrā, Ekādaśak-

ṣarā Triṣṭubh, Dvādaśādityā, Dvādaśākṣarā Jagatī, Prajāpatira-

nuṣṭubh.

4. T.S.II.5.10.3 caturvimśadakṣarā Gāyatrī......Triṃśadakṣarā Virā

dannam, Dvātrimśadakṣarānuṣṭubh cchandasām pratiṣṭhā......

Ṣaṭtrimśadakṣarā Brhatī Bārhatāḥ. Catuścatvārimśadakṣarā Triṣ-

ṭubh......T.S.II.5.10.4......aṣṭacatvārimśadakṣarā Jagatī.

5. T.S.VI.6.11.5 ; Kaniyāṃsi Vai deveṣu chandāmsyās au jyāyāṃsya

asuresu. Te devāḥ kaniyasā chandasā jyāyas chando’bhivasaṃ-

santo.

6. T.S.V.4.8.5-6 Devacchandasām vā ekā tiśraścā manuṣyachandasām

catasraścāṣṭau ca.

8

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

ii) Formative Stage :

The formative stage of history of the science of prosody begins with the age of the Brāhmaṇas and of the Āraṇyakas where along with the explanation of the sacrificial rituals we find discussions on matters of metrics in more elaborate form. Innumerable are the references. Verily T. Saṃhitā proclaims - "RC verses are limited, the Sāmanas are limited and the Yajur are limited but of the Brāhmaṇa there is no end".1

Ait. Br. knew the seven metres in which Virāṭ is absent and Paṅkti is installed.2 'Paṅkti vai parama virāṭ" - thus has been laid down by P. Br.3 Śat. Br. too specially eulogized the three metres.4 Ait. Br. too accepts these three metres as to be the Principal one.5 In Brāhmaṇas and Āraṇyakas Virāṭ has assumed another new form having thirty three syllables.6

Thus the metre Virāṭ appears not in a single form as in the Ṛgveda. It is Virāṭ while it contains ten syllables, it is Uṣṇig and Gāyatrī as it has three padas ; while it contains eleven syllables it is like Triṣṭubh, but it becomes Anuṣṭubh while it has thirty three syllables ( one more than Anuṣṭubh ).7 But in most places Virāṭ has been described as ten

1. T.S.VII.3.2. Parimitāḥ vā Rcah Parimitāni sāmāni Parimitāni yajusyathaitasya vānto nāsti yad Brahman Tatpragrṇato ācakṣīta sa pratigara.

2. Ait. Br. VIII 6.

3. Pañca. Br. XXIV.10.2.1.

4. Śat. Br. 12.2.2.21.

5. Ait. Br. I.11.3. P.75. B.I. ed. 1895. Etānīvāvasarvāṇi chandāṃṣi Gāyatraṃ Traiṣṭubhaṃ jāgatamanvanyānyetāni hi jajñe pratāmā-miva kriyanta etaiharvā asya chandobhiryajātāḥ sarvaiscchandob-bhiriṣṭhaṃ bhavati ya eva veda.

6. Ait. Br. I.1.6. ed. B.I. 1895. P. 53.

7. Ait. Ār. I.6. P. 53. ed. Satyavrata Sāmasramī. "Atho pañca viryam vā etacchando yadvirāṭ yastri-pada tenoṣṇihā Gāyatrā, yadasyā ekādaśākṣarāṇi padāni tena Triṣṭubh yadtrāyas-trimśadakṣarā tenānuṣṭubh.

syllabic.1 In Śat. Bra.2 it can be found as the 8th metre-

i.e. a class by itself outside the seven metres. That which con-

tains thirty syllables is Virāṭ and that which has thirty four

syllables is Svarāṭ.3 Pañca. Br.4 described all the four Virājas

number one is 10. sy. 2nd is 20 sy, 3rd is 30 sy, and the

largest is the 40 syllabic. In Sat. Br. not only the seven

metres with their respective number of syllables increased by

four has been enumerated but the respective groups, Ekapadā,

Dvipadā with 10 syllables and 20 syllables respectively,

have been referred to.5 Verily speaking Ekapadā contains

ten syllables mostly, Paṅkti is pañcapadā.6 Svarāṭ has thirty

four syllables—two more than Anuṣṭubh.

No metre would be deprived of one or two syllables from

the total number of syllables scheduled for them. Deficiency

in no case can be accepted.7 So with the help of the pro-

cess of Sampad the deficiency of the number should be pat-

ched up. Śāṅk. Brāhmaṇa for the first time utilizes this.

Gradually, we become acquainted with the term “Virāj”

a modified term of Virāṭ, which for technical use is applied

1. Catvāra tuyāgāḥ ṣaḍ Ṛcah sā virāṭ dasínītadvirāji yajñam dasínyām ;

Daśakṣara virāṭ vairajam . Ait.Br. XII.10 8, Śat. Br. IX. 4.3.6.ed

Weber. Daśabhavanti daśākṣarā virādvīrāḍgnirdasadiśo.

2. Śat. Br. X.1.2.9. Atha hotā sapta chandāṃsi śaṃsati caturuttarān-

yekarcāni Virāḍṣṭamāni.

3. Śat.Br.X.5.4.8. Yāni Triṃśad sā trimśadakṣarā virādatha yāni

trayastriṃśadakṣarātha yāni catuṣtriṃśat catuṣtriṃśadakṣarā svarā-

datha. Śāṅk. Br. 17.1. Svarādvaitaccchando Yatkimca catuṣtriṃśa-

dakṣaraṃ svarājyamenena.

4. Pañca. Br. 24.10.12.

5. Śat. Br. Tasyai vā etasyai sattrimśadqṣarayai bṛhatyai. Yāni

prathamānyakṣarāṇi sā daśakṣaraikapadātha yāni viṃśatih sā

viṃśatyakṣara dvipadātha.......

6. Most of the Ekapadās are ten syllabic—cf. Vaimadyayḥ saika

daśinimukhato virāṭ ; Pañca. 12.19. Pañcarccabhavati Pañca Padā

Paṅkti.

7. Ait. Br. 1.1.6, Na va ekenākṣareṇa cchandāṃsi viyanti no dvābhyāṃ

yadvīrāṭ.

10

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

for the classes which had excess number of letters i. e., 34

syllables and those which contain deficit number of syllables.

i. e., 30 syllabies. That is why the term “Virāṭ” has been

explained by Yāska — Virājanād, Virādhanād Vā Viprāpanād

Vā2 ... Virājanād sampūrnaksarā, Virādhanād unāksarā, Viprā-

panāddhikaksarā, If there arises any anomaly in the preser-

vation of the exact number of syllables, the process "Sampad"

should be applied, the term has been used in the sense“crea-

ting exactness”. That is why Sāyana explains the very term

used in the Ait. Br.3 In the sense of “avoiding any anomalies

arising”. Pañcavimśa Brāhmana is acquainted with the term

Bhūrija.4 In sutra works these terminologies assumed the form

of technical terms. In Śan. Śr. Sūtra and Nidāna Sūtra instead

of Virāṭ and Svarāṭ, there are the terms Nicṛd and Bhūrij.5

The term “Sampada” receives an elaborate exposition in the

Nidānasūtra and other later works. In the RK. Pr. we have

a detailed explanation of the “four principles” that are to be

applied for the restoration of the exact number in such

1. Śānk. Br.11.5. Saikonā Virāṭ dviranūktayā sampadi Virāṭ triran-

uktayaika virājamatyeti.

2. Devatā Adhyāyah : VII.3.9. In Ṛk Prā. as a developed metrical

terminology always refer to a kind of antasthāchandah which has

two syllables less.

3. Ait. Ār. too used the terms in the same sense V.2.5. Trayastrca

Gāyatrayah Sampadoṣṇiha ; Saptasapta Gāyatrayah Satṣṇiho

bhavanti. Tadāhuryathā Vāva stotrameva Śāstram. Ait. Br.II.55.

P. 451. Gāyatriṣu Sāmagā stuvata anuṣṭubham Hotājyam Samśati

Kathamasya Gāyatryo anuṣaṣtā bhavantīti—“Sampadeti Vruyāt...

cf. Sāyana—Anuṣṭupsu Gāyatrīve Sampādite sati tayā “sampadā”

Vaiyyadhikaraṇyaparīhārādanukulasaṃsanam bhavatīti parihāram

Vruyāt. Sampādanaprakāram darśayati—P. 455. Ibid. Idem.

4. Pañca. Br. XII. 13.22. Atho. vā eta ekapadā tryausara Vishoschando

Bhūrijah Śakvaryyah.

5. Śān. Śr.Sū. VII 27—Ekena dvyābhyām ityānūke nicṛdatirikto Bhūrik.

Nidānasūtram—Ed. Kailāsnāth Bhāṭnagar. 1939. Atha nicṛd

Bhūrij-athayā ekenakṣarenonāstā nicṛt, atha yā ekā jāyasyāstā

Bhūrijastānyetāni sarvāṇi tretā......

SYSTEMS OF SANSKRIT METRICS

11

cases.1 In more condensed form the process has been preserved by Vedānga chandaḥ "Iyādinā purāṇaḥ"2 Ṛkprātiśākhya Ṛganukramaṇī and Vedānga chandaḥ—embrace all the terminologies discussed above. Vīrāṭ and Svarāṭ have been used for those metres which are deficient and in excess by two syllables respectively and Nicṛd and Bhūrīrj when by one syllable.3 It is in the Śān. Śr. Sū we first meet with these terminologies, which culminate all the four terms under the two.4

The second group of metre beginning from Atijagatī is "Aticchandas" group—it is that which is higher than first group or principal metres. Śat. Br. knew that all the principal metres belonged to this Aticchandas class.5 Ait. Br. pointed out the metre of the Sūkta RV. 87.1-66 as Atijāgata7 which belongs to Aticchandas group. In some interesting passage

1. Nidānasūtra VII.2 ; Ṛkprātiśākhya XVII. 14 ; Vyūhdekākṣaribhāvan Padesuneṣu Sampadi Kṣaipravarṇāṁśca samyogauvyveyāt sadṛśaikh svaraih. Ṛganukramaṇi. 136. Macdonell. ed. Pādapūranārthamṭukṣaipraṣaṃyogai-kakṣaribhavavyuhet.

2. P. Ch. Sūtram II.3.

3. Ūnādhikensikena nicṛdbhūrijau—Ṛganukramaṇī Nicṛdunādhikā Bhūrik 0=17.1 Rk Prātiśākhyam. Nicṛnnipurvasya cṛteḥ iti nicṛt. Ni-carta-that, Weber explains as 'eingeschnitten' or (I.S.VIII.P.81), that has been cutdown. Ni-cṛt-cartati that means to insert. Bhavanād bhurij ucyate i.e. beladen ; to be loaded.

4. Ekene dvyābhyām ityanuke nicṛd atirikte bhūrik—Sā. Śr. Sūtra VII. 27.

5. Śat.Br.3 3.2.11 Aticchandasā mimite esā vai sarvānicchandāṁsi Yadaticchandastathohasyaisa sarvaireva cchandobhirmitaḥ bhavati tasmādaticchandāsā mimite cf. Sāyaṇa—Aticchandasetī astirati-śakvari vāsyacchandaḥ ato' ticchandastvam. Etasmin pari parity-genā dhaṣṭānāṁ cchandasāmuttpatteḥ sarvaccchandastvam.

6. RV.V.87. 1-6 Evayā mārutam.

7. Ait. Br. V. 4.4. B. I. Vol. III. P. 374. Tam nyūṁkaytyannaṁ vai nyuṅkonnādyame vāsmimṣtaddadhāti sa jāgata vātijāgato vā sarvaṁ vā idam jāgatam vātijāgatam.

12

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

Aticchandas are described as belly which devoured up all the metres and inasmuch as it does so, it is called “Aticchandas” -then mystically Aticchandas ; for the Gods love to use mystically.1

This class of metre is called Aticchandah, because it is made of the essence of the principal metres beginning with Gāyatrī and it contains more syllables than those of the principal group.2

For the higher seven metres, Brāhmaṇas took scarcely notice except in a very restricted cases – in Śat. Br. VI. 7.25. We meet with the use of the term Vikṛti.3 In other two place i. e. VI. 7.2.9 we saw the terms used. The commentators while explaining the passage referred to the given metre as Kṛti. But it would be counted as 73 syllables against the Vikṛti which consists of 88 syllables and Kṛti which has only 80 syllables.

Besides these Aticchandas, Pañca Vimśa Brāhmaṇa knew of other metres, one of which is Śatobṛhatī named by Piṅgala as Tāṅḍinah.4 Tāṇḍya Brāhmaṇa eulogised it as the powerful metre by which the Gods acquired the world.5 The detail of this metre has been given in the following declaration where it has been described as a metre of 36 syllables. In three pādas the given syllables have been distributed,

1. Śat. Br. VIII.6.2.13. Udaramaticchandaḥ ! Paśavo vai chandaṃsyamnāmapaśava Udarāṃ vāñnamatyudarāṃ hi vā'nnamatți tasmādya dodaramanname prāpnotyatha Tajjagadham yātayāmanūpam bhavati tadyadeśā paśuṃśchandāṃsyatti tasmādatticchanda aticchandā ha vai tāmaticchandā.

2. Ait. Br. IV. 1.2. P. 255. B.I. Vol.II. Chandasāṃ vai yo rasotyakṣaratsoticchandasah mābhyatyakṣarattadaticchandaso'ticchandastyam sarvebhyo vā esā cchandobhyāḥ śaṅnirmitaḥ......

3. Ethaināṃ ato vikṛtyo vikoroti......VI.7.2.5.

4. III.36, P. Ch.Sū, B.I. vide III. 35, Tribhirjāgatairmahā Brhatī.

5. Pañca. Br. XVI. 11.9.—Śatobṛhatya vai Devā imāṅlokān vyāpnu......

having 12 syllables in each.1

Pañca Br. describes the respective syllables of the

Daivī and Āsurī metre and also shows how Prajāpati

came into being between the aforesaid metres, Prajāpati

became Anuṣṭubh, i. e. contains 8 syllables -thus laid down

the same Brāhmaṇa.2 Augmentation of syllable in case of

Daivī and diminution of the same in case of Āsurī has also

been described incidentally. In Nidānasūtra for the first

time develops another new form of Prajāpati which too begins

from the number eight. Pañca Br. yarns out a number of

interesting stories in connection with the respective

number of syllables of the group.

The Gods and the Asuras were in perpetual conflict,

they could not decide the issue. Asura finding no way,

became metre and concealed themselves. The Gods when

came to know this, took the initial of the given mantra and

defeated the Asuras. Most noteworthy fact in this place is

that the given metre contains 15 syllables.3 Respective

syllables of the Prajāpaticchandah also has been hinted in

Pañca. Br. “Kayānaścitra abhuvaditi karatyastena prājā-

patyah kobi .....” “Kayānascitra abhuva” consists of eight

syllables.

The sum total of the three groups4 Daivī, Āsura and

1. Pañca. Br. XVI.11.10.

Ta vā etā Gāyatro Yāṣṭipadā stena Gāyatryastā vā etā Jāgatyā

Yaddvādasakṣarāṇi padāni tena Jagatyastā vā etā Bṛhatyo

yat ṣaṭtrimśadakṣarāstena Bṛhatyah.

2. Ekākṣaraṃ vai Devānāmavamam chandaḥ āsīt saptākṣaram paramam

navākṣarāmasurāṇāmavamam chandaḥ āsīt pañcadaśākṣaram para-

mam devāśca vāsurā......tān Prajāpatīvānuṣṭubhobhutvā.

3. Pañca. Br. VIII.6.6 “Yajña vo agnaye girā ca dakṣase pravayamau

“tanjātavedasampriyammitrannasa msisamiti...the metre... “Yajña...

Pravayam”

4. Ṛk Prātiśākhya -XVI.4 ed. P.N. Sastri. 1927. The classification

of metre without their pada division has been elaborately dealt

by a late century comm. on P. Ch. Sūtra, who categorised it under

14

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

Prājāpatya is to constitute the Āṛṣicchandah. To Nidāna sūtra1 too are known these groups, Prātiśākhyā2 adds another group Brāhmī which is the culmination of Āṛci, Yājuṣī and Sāmnī. But all the manuals are concerned with the Āṛṣī Chandaḥ. Subsequent manuals3 dealt with these topics, follows R̥kprātiśākhya faithfully. As Anukramaṇī is directly concerned with the Āṛṣicchandah it avoids this issue.4

The respective deities that have been enumerated in Śat. Br.5 are somewhat in elaborated forms. Some of them is slightly changed. The same Brāhmaṇa pointed out direct relation of Gāyatrī with Agni6. Viśvedevā which has been mentioned as the deity of Jagatī in the Rgveda and other manuals of the late century is in Śat. Bra. the deity of Anuṣṭubh and is replaced by Āditya.7 Besides, the deities of other metres, such as Dvipadā Vichhandah, Aticchandah have been recorded. Viṣṇu has been described as the deity of Dvipadā against Prātiśākhya8 which however lays down

the prose metre. Because after the treatment of it the ch. III begins with the sūtra “Pāda” Vide Bhāṣyarāja—ASB.III.A.76. Fol. 12b-13A. Atra vaidikaṃ gadya dvidhaṃ nirupapada…Fol. 13a. Saduttara Ṣaṭakṣaraparayantamekaikākṣarābhi Vṛddhyā catuhśatavidham……dvitīyam in dvidhaṃ niraṃśaṃ sāṃśam ceti : Tatrani-ramśam saḍvidham devasuraprajapatīyajusamarcabhedāt Sāṃśam dvidam Ārṣam Brahman ca —Hang’s assumption is that the nomenclature Gāyatrīāsuri, Uṣṇihāsuri, Paṅktīāsuri have got reference to the Avestan Gathas where one can get 15, 14 and 11 syllables (vide I.S.VIII.F.N. 232).

1. Nidāna Sūtra VI. 8-14. Ed. Weber. I.S. VIII. P. 114.

2. Ṛk Prātiśākhya—XVI. 7.

3. P. Ch. Sūtra II.3-16 ed. B.I.

4. cf. Ṛk. Prātiśākhya –XVI.5 Ṛṣicchandāṃsi taiḥ prāyo mantraḥ ślokāścavartate.

5. Śat. Br.X.III.4.1.13.

6. Śat. Br.II.2. 1. 17. Gāyatram agenścchandaḥ VI.2.1.22. Gāyatrognitah……

7. Śat. Br. 10.3.11.

8. Ṛk. Br. XVII 7.

SYSTEMS OF SANSKRIT METRICS

15

Puruṣam, the earliest reference of which can be found in Pañca Br1. Puruṣam is Dvipadā. Bṛhaddevatā too follows this whole-heartedly.2 Indra is the deity of both metres3, Paṅkti and Triṣṭubh. Śat. Br. however speaks otherwise about Paṅkti.4 Piṅgala lays that the deity of Paṅkti is Mitrāvaruṇau, which however has been prescribed for Virāṭ from the age of Ṛgveda, when the conception of Svarāja has not been developed.5 That is why in Bṛhad-devatā6 we find Mitrāvaruṇau as the deities of Virāṭ and Svarāt. Ṛk Prā. and Bṛhaddevatā are in agreement with the enumeration of Śat. Br. for the position of deities of the metres Aticchandah and Bicchandah as being Prajāpati and Vāyu.7

It is in the formative stage the applicātion of the metri-cal units for the definition of the metres and the use of the terminologies for the numbers have been introduced in very crude manner, that has been subtly hinted at in the T.S.8 Ṛk Prā. laid down the rule that unit of eight syllables and ten syllables can be named as Gāyatrī and Virājī and those of eleven and twelve as Triṣṭubh, Jagatī respectively.9 But these

1. Pañca. Br. XIII. 4.2. Diśaḥ pañcapadā dadhāratun Ṣaṭpadā chan-damsi sāpta pāda puruṣa dvipada XIII.12.2. Udanāyata eva kāryaḥ puruṣo vai Dvipadāḥ protiṣṭayai.

2. Bṛhaddevata. VIII. 109—Paurasyo Dvipadā sarvā Brāhmi ekapadā smrtaḥ.

3. Br. Devatā. VIII. 106—Pāṅktayastriṣṭubhaścaiva Vidyādairdryaśca sarvaśaḥ Ṛk. Prā. XVIII. 6……Napaṅkteḥ sāṭuvāsavi.

4. Śat. Br. X.3.4.10. Paṅktiśchando Māruto Devatā.

5. Ṛgveda. X. 130.5.

6. Bṛhaddevatā VIII. 107. Virājaścaiva Mitrāsya svarāja varuṇasya ca.

7. Śat. Br. X.3.4.7.—Atisṭchandacchandaḥ Praiāpati Devatā. Br. Dev. VIII—Yāśvatīccandasāḥ kascit tāḥ prajāpati Devatāḥ vicchanda-saṣṭu vayavyā…… Ṛk. Prā XVII.7—Prājāpatya tvaticchandaḥ vicchandaḥ vāyudevatā.

8. See Infra—footnote (21).

9. Pāḍau Gāyatrau vairājavāṣṭakṣaradaśākṣarau Ekādaśidvādaśināṃ vidyāttraiṣṭubha jāgatau.

16

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

terms have been applied in very restricted cases in Ṛk Prā.1

whereas in Sarvānukramaṇi there are samjñā, therefore these

ought to be applied in a good many cases.2 This has been

more figuratively described by Piṅgala, viz. Gāyatra vasavah,

Jāgatya ādityah, Virājā diśah3 Piṅgala utilised these samjñā in

all the sutras. In addition, we are acquainted with two other

terms Ṛtu and Ṛṣi-indicating the number six and seven,

respectively These two cannot be found in earlier manuals.4

Prāya, Akṣara and Vṛtta-among these constituent

elements of a pāda, vṛtta is the most indispensable factor.

Neither any Brāhmaṇa nor Sān Śr. Sū took notice of it. It

is in Nidānasūtra5 that it has been recognized for the first

time. The penultimate syllable of the eight and twelve

syllabled pāda would contain the eight syllables and those of

10 and 11 syllables have the heavy ones.6 Other pādas are

to be composed of very recast of these pādas mentioned

above.7 Yādavaprakāśa, commentator of P. ch su. explains

it more elaborately-‘Guruvṛttitvāni’ is that by which the

penultimate has the heavy syllable.8

1. Ṛk Prā.XVI.43. Vairājājāgataih pādau......

2. Ṛgnukramaṇi—III.10-14.

Tatra Daśaikadaśā dvādaśākṣarāṇam vairāja Traiṣṭubhajāgata iti

samjñā. Anādeśacakṣarā pādah.

V.4-Traiṣṭubhajāgatacatuskāḥ kakubhnyāṃkuśirā

VI.3-Jāgatavaṣṭakaśca kṛtiḥ......etc.

3. Piṅg. Ch. Sūt.III.4.6.

4. Ādyam catuspādārtubhih—P. Ch.Sū.III 8. Kvacittpadārṣibih--

P.Ch.Sū.III. 9.

5. Athāta vṛttipraśo......

Nidānasūtra 1.19 Etaiḥ khalu chandāṃsi vartante.

6. XVII.21-22 Ṛk Prātiśākhya.

7. XVII. 23. Ibid. Estaiśchandāṃsi Vartante Sarvānyairato’lpasah

Etadvikāra evānye sarve tu prākṛtāḥ samāḥ.

8. Bhāṣya on the sūtra III.6. P. Ch. Sūtra Guruvṛttitvam copottam-

asyakṣarasya gurutvam. Esa eva gurulaghuvinyāso vaidiṣu

chandaḥsu Vṛttivṛttamiti cābhidhīyate athaparam vṛttilakṣaṇam

Ekādaśākṣaradvādaśākṣarā ṣaṣṭham navam cākṣaram laghveva

syāt. Aṣṭāmam daśamañcaiva gurveva syāt. Tathāṣṭakṣarasya

padasya pañcamam saptamam laghveva syāt ṣaṣṭham gurveva syāt.

SYSTEMS OF SANSKRIT METRICS

17

The concepts of vṛtti or vṛtta in its two forms, the

laghuvṛtti and the guruṛtti depend wholly on the shortness

and the length of the vowels. As the “Chandah Purusa”

is1 made of the syllables we should see how the Akṣara

appeared in the consecutive manuals.

In Brāhmaṇas the term Akṣara is indestructible, imperi-

shable because of its syllabic quantity.2 That is why Śat. Br.

lays down that in chandapāda, the number of syllable should

neither be less nor more. Sometimes this word “Akṣaram”3

connotes the term Alphabet. Thus the word “oṃ” has been

described as Tryakṣaram, what contains three alphabets and

nor the syllables. Akṣaram comprises both types of svaras,

Dīrghas and Hrasvas.4 All the Prātiśākhyas knew the

relative weight and volume of these two types. Brāhmaṇas

made only passing reference to them.5 Excepting the

Nidānasūtra all the sūtra works are silent about it. Lāt. Śr.

Śū. however speaks of only Akāram which is heavy.6 T. P.

recognises Ṛ and L as the specimens of Hrasva7 and Piṅgala

1. Chandah puruṣa iti ya.......akṣara samanmaya eve......Taittirīya.

III. 2.3.4.

2. Ait. Br. II.5.5. Nava ekenakṣareṇa chandaṃsi viyanti na dvābhyām.

Śat. Br. VIII 6,2, 3,-kakubham catvāri catvaryakṣryadāyāti. Pañca.

Br. X. 5.9 aṣṭabhiḥ vā akṣarairanuṣṭup......etc.

3. Ait. Br. Keith JAOS. XVI. 1.3.4.

Eṣa vā akṣarameṣā hyebhyah sarvebhyah bhutebhyah kṣarati na

cainamatikṣaranti tasmādakṣaram tasmakṣaramityacakṣata etemeva

santam.

4. Ṛk Prātiśākhyam—I.14.

O ja hrasvāḥ सप्तमāntāḥ svrāṇām Anye dīrghā ubhaye tvaksarāṇi

cf. XVIII. 17. Ibid. Savyanjanah sānusvaram suddovāpisvoro-

kṣaram.

5. Śat. Br. XIII. 2,2,10,11. Laghubhiḥ Sāmabhiḥ Gurubhiḥ Sāmabhiḥ.

These laghu and guru has been used in the sense of heavy syllable

and light syllable.

6. Lāt. Śr.Sū, VII.II. II Akāram tvacaryastam

7. Taitt. Prā. 1. 31, Ṛkāralakārau hrasvau.

2

18

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

adopted this mode of expression.1 Two Hrasvas are equi-

valent to one Dīrgha and a consonant has half the quantity

of a Hrasva.2 And those syllables which end with Vyañ-

janam, those which are Dīrghas and those which are before

the conjunct consonant are to be counted as heavy and the

rest is light.3 Athav. Prāt. echoed this but quite in an

elaborate manner and added that at the end of the pada the

syllable will be heavy.4 Taittirīya restricts the heaviness to

such final syllable as ends with a consonant. Ṛk. Prā. makes

no mention of this case. It has been more clearly put down

by the Vāj. Prā.5 The sūtra “mātrā ca”—thus introduced

Vāj. Prā.6 Ath. Prā. too adopts it. Verily speaking for

the use of correct pronunciation the knowledge of quantity

of the vowel i. e. mātrā is necessary, that is why the Prātiśā-

khyas dealt with them.

We may close our survey by adding a few notes on the

Arithmetical formulas which got their primary references in

the Brāhmaṇas and on the Process of law of permutation,

and combination, discerned in the pāda arrangement of the

Vedic manual makers. Finally in the close of the chapter,

we would show how these Pāda arrangements in the Vedic

metres are in harmony with the designations given to them.

Mathematical calculations made in the Brāhmaṇas got

1. P.Ch. Sūtra –Gr. I.1.9.

2. Dvistāvāndirghah 1.35. Hrasvārdhakālam vyañjanam 1.37 Taitt.Prā.

3. Taitt. Prā. XX.10.14. Yadvyañjanāntam yadu cāpi Dīrgham Sam-

jogapurvam ca .tathānunāsikam etāni sarvāṇi gurūṇi vidyā ca

śeṣanyato'nyāni tato laghuṃ.

4. Hrasvam Laghusamjoye 1// 51 Athav. Prā.

Gurvanyat 1 // 52 Anunāsikam ca 1 // 52

Padānte ca 1 // 54. 54.

5. Amātrasvara Hrasva–1 // 55. Vāj. Prā.

6 1 // 56 cf. Ubhata Bhaṣya. Mātrāca yatra śruate tatra akārakālo

mātrāvarṇaḥ pratyetyavyah. Hrasva mātreti paryāyavetyarthah

Athv. Prā. I. 59–Ekamātro Hrasvah I.61. Dvimātro Dīrghaḥ.

SYSTEMS OF SANSKRIT METRICS

19

their codification through the formulas. Ait. Brā.1 laid down,

16 Gāyatrī verses are equal to 12 Anuṣṭubhas. Ait.2 Ār.

dilates that the thousand Br̥hatī should be substituted by one

thousand and one hundred twenty five Anuṣṭubh because,

they are equal in their number. In Pañca. Br.3 on the other

hand, we got. that if one Gāyatrī has been added to three

Uṣṇih one should have three Br̥hatīs.

Gāyatrī and Jāgata, Uṣṇik and Triṣṭubh, Paṅktī and

Anuṣṭubh are equal to two Br̥hatīs,4 seven Gāyatrīs are

completed in six Uṣṇih -laid down by Ait. Ār.5 Similarly, it

can be shown that eleven Jāgatis are equal to twelve Triṣṭubh.

This calculation has been recommended in Sūtra literature

and got a formula in Śān. Śr. Sū.6 Śat Br. too show

that 12000 Br̥hatī is equal to 208000 Paṅkti.7

Lastly, it can be shown that the very physical forms of

1. Saptaitā anuṣṭubhaśāstr̥h prathamayā Triuttamayikadaśe bhavanti

virāṭ Yājyā Dvādaśi na vā ekenakṣareṇa chandāṁsi viyanti........

hāsyanuṣṭubhaireva pratipād ya mānasya viyant Gāyatro’ nuśaste

bhavanti.

2. II.3.6. Tadvā idam Br̥hati sahasram sampannam tasyā va etasyo

Br̥hati sahasrasya sampannā syaikādaśanuṣṭubhāṁ śatani bhavanti

pañcaviṁśati scānusṭubh–36 × 1000 = 1125 × 32 = 36000.

3. Pañca Br. IV.4.3. Tisraḥ Uṣṇihaḥ syrekā Gāyatrī tā trisro Bhratyo

bhavanti. 28×3+24 = 108 = 36×3.

4. Pañca Br. VII.4.5.

Gāyatrijagatam dve Br̥hatyā uṣṇik Triṣṭubham ca dve paṅktyanuṣ-

tubham –Ga ÷ ja– 24 + 48 = 72 = 2Br̥hati.

Uṣṇik + Tris– 28 + 44 = 72

Anu + Paṅk– 32 + 40 = 72.

5. Ait. Ara. V. 2. 5. Gāyatrayaḥ Sampadosniha Sapta Gāyatrayaḥ Śat-

voṣṇiha bhavanti 7 × 24 = 6 × 28 = 168.

6. Sampadya padabhāgenābhāryarācaḥ sammitastasya padabhāgena

sampannaḥ cf. Sāyaṇa......Tadyāthā Br̥hatyām Sampadyaitavyā

yam navabhighāyatribhiḥ saḍbr̥hatyo bhavonti tathā navabhiruṣṇi-

gbhiḥ saptabr̥hatya ityevamādi yogyaṁ Sā. Śr. Sū. VII.27 29,

7. Śat. Brā. X.4.2.23.

20

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

some metres be speaks of the significance of the names given

to them.

Gāyatrī can be etymologically defined, Gāyate va stutikarmmaṇah1 by which the Gods are eulogised. Uṇīg2 "utsnāta

bhavanti" that has been overflowed by the excess of the

number of syllables than Gāyatrī. The syllabic arrangement

of the Uṣṇih comprising two eight syllabic pādas preceded

by the 12 syllabic one3—reminds us of the Turban whose

back portion is somewhat uplevelled. That is why Yāska

describes it "upamā nivandhamuṣṇīṣavatīva bhavanti."

Likewise, Anuṣṭubh is the enlarged form of Gāyatrī, because

the "ṣṭubh" has root verb "stamp" which means

"to step".4

Equally, can the metre Kakubh be referred to, the very

figure of which has been represented by its very syllabic

arrangement.5 Kakup is that which possesses a heap on the

back "kakuviti prṣṭhe samunnataḥ pradeśaḥ yacca kubjasyā-

iva bhavanti".6 Brhatī parivahanāt"—Brhatī is the metre

which contains excess syllables than Anuṣṭubh,7 Triṣṭubh

is the "Tīrṇatamā cchandaḥ"—exceeds Gāyatrī and other

metres by the number of uses. It contains three junctures

like thunderbolt. These three thunderbolts can be explai-

ned as the three blocks of rhythm conceived by the modern

scholars.8

1. Nirukta VII.3.6.

2. VII.3.7. Nirukta

3. Uṣṇiggāyatrau Jāgataśca 3. 18 P. Ch. Sūtra. XVI.20.Rk Prā.

4. Anuṣṭubh anuṣṭubhonād Gāyatrīmeva Tripadāṃ satim caturthena

pādenānuṣṭubha iti ca Brāhmaṇam. Here stem verb is "stubh"

from "ṣtambh" which signifies 'to step', not from "stu" which

means "to praise".

5. Rk. XVI. 21=8--12--8. kakup kubjeśca kujateryā ubjaterya.

6. Nirukta—VII.3.8.

7. Brhati Brnhater vrddhikarmaṇo.

8. Triṣṭup stabati iti uttarapadā kā tu tritā syattirṇatamacchandas-

trivṛd vajra……Nirukta. VIII. 3.8.

Pipīlikāmadhyā whose very form is made of the syllabic units, has its middle part always thinner than the two sides.1 The ants have middle portion lowered. That is why Yāska laid down “pipīlikāmadhyetaupamikam”.2 Besides, we can refer to “nyañkuśārini” just beautiful like a small graceful softed antelope. “Nāgi”3 serpent like form having two nine syllabic pada preceded by one six syllabic. Vārāhi a female bearform naturally whose forepart is pointed, The4 very syllabic arrangement of the said metre told such ‘Yavamadhyā” forms a class by itself whose middle part is thick like Barley,5 “Vardhamāna” is the padas with the augmented syllables.6 Tanuśira whose head is lean has pada form.-11 +11 +5.7

In the foregoing pages an attempt has been made to give a connected account of the early speculations on the Vedic metrics that started as early as the Vedic period and on the basis of the facts available to us it has been shown that these early speculations are actually the precursors of what turned up as a result of the efforts of the metricists belonging to the subsequent ages. Incidentally the relation between the Vedic and the classical metrics has also been examined in its proper perspective.

We shall now proceed on to consider the history of development of Skt. prosody which begins with the remarkable

1. Uṣṇih—Pipīlikāmadhyā = 11—6—11 Anuṣṭubh — ,, =12—8—12 Brhati— ,, =13—8—13

2. Nirukta VII.3.9. cf. Sāyaṇa :— Madhyālpakṣarā pāda yā sā pipilikā-madhyeva-bhava-i-pipīlikāsvarūpa.

3. Ping. Ch. Su.III, 12= Dvau Navakau ṣaṭkāśca sā Nāgi.

4. Ibid, III.13 Viparītā vārābi.

5. Ṛk Prā—XVI 48= 8—8—12—8—8 Ibid, XVI. 18= 7—10—7.

6. Ibid, XVI. 16= 6—7—8

7. Ṛk. Prātiśākhya—XVI.25,

22

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

treatise ascribed to Pingala, the only recognised work on

Vedāṇga chandaḥ that also includes in its scope the consider-

ation of the classical metres along with the Vedic ones.

Standardisation of the entire scheme of the Vedic metrics

seems to be finalised in this work by harmonising the diver-

gent trends of earlier speculations in a comprehensive scheme

of integration.

Looking at chronologically it may be said that the period

of development of Skt. metrics, roughly speaking, extends

over two thousand years, that is, from 2nd century B. C. to

1800 A. D.

It is quite natural that the growth did not run in a

smooth line in its process of development through this long

period and for the convenience of our study we shall have

to divide this course of history into several well defined

periods.

This would enable us to settle its relative chronology as

a workable basis for a historical treatment. Broadly spea-

king, there are three clearly discernible stages of this long

standing history of systemisation of Skt. metrics that may be

summed up as follows :–The first stage begins as we have

said before with Pingala and it ends with the Vrttaratnākara

of Kedārabhaṭṭa. This one is followed by a period which

ends with Pkt. Pingala and the last one extends to the period

when Jagannātha Kavirāja came into field with his works

on metrics.

1. –The first stage of the history of Skt. metrics starts

with Pingala and ends with Vrttaratnākara. This period is

characterized as the most creative age in which different

schools with their different trends came into existence and

in consideration of the general outlines of their approach it

appears there were at least three schools. These schools,

submitting to the great authority in the fundamentals, differ

ni minor details.

A bird's eye survey of the methodology and the contents of the extant manuals would show that Piṅgala had a circle of his followers up to the end of the 10th century. These followers had their own way to establish and to propagate the theories but could not escape the influence of the great master.

Obviously the immediate followers are generally of more orthodox type than their successors and tried to imitate the great innovator at every step. Among them can be named Jayaveda, the anonymous compiler of the chapters of Agnipurāṇa dealing with metrics. For a long time, we find no departure from the old school in the acceptance of the terminologies in their fundamentals.

This trend continued for a period extending more than ten centuries and included some of the new schools in the field like those of Bharata and Jānāśrayī.

The first thing that will strike a careful observer is that the chapters II, III and a part of the IVth chapter of Piṅgala's cchanda sūtra deal exclusively with the Vedic metrics having no organic relation with the rest of the work. The chapter of Samjñā has no function in its bearing to the Vedic metrics because, the sutras 1-7 of the chapter III are directly connected with Samjñā Paribhāṣā applicable to the Vedic metrics only. Jayadeva however is complete in the treatment of the Vedic metres within the three chapters.

The Piṅgala ch. sū. seems to have been preserved in two recensions. The first recension is a bigger one containing a few more sūtras that are not traceable in other ones. Yādavaprakāśa the earliest of the extant commentator, generally preserves the faithful readings which have been acknowledged by the subsequent writers and the commentators.

Halāyudha has left out certain sūtras regarding the metres below the Gāyatrī class -which is read as one sūtra by

24

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

Yādavaprakāśa,1 as three sūtras by Bhāṣyarāja2 and as five sūtras by Sadguruśiṣya3—one in ch. VI.16. which Yādavaprakāśa includes as the 1st sūtra of 11 syllabled metres. Whereas Bhāṣyarāja reads as the last sūtra of the 10 syllabled class ;—one more sūtra has been noted by Halāyudha, but not included that is 12 sūtra of ch. VIII*. From Jayadeva onwards all writers even Jānāśrayī who follow Piṅgala recognize this pratyaya. Bhāṣyarāja noted this and accused Halāyudha of not having dealt with it. Certain sūtras—i.e. III 65, III 66 and VIII 14 are acknowledged by all as belong to chandaḥ sūtra. But Halāyudha did not admit this and added eighteen sūtras in ch. VIII, all in a series which did not form part of the original number of sūtras varies in different commentaries. Bhāṣyarāja contains three hundred whereas Yādavaprakāśa and Halāyudha recommended two hundred eighty eight and three hundred nine sūtras respectively.5

Jayadeva and Agnipurāṇa, the immediate followers of Piṅgala, deal with the Vedic metres. The Nāṭyaśāstra and Jānāśrayī left out the Vedic metres from their purview but they took up the Vedic terminologies and made an endeavour to apply them to Laukika metres possibly with a view to tracing the connecting link.

1. Yad.—Uktam Sāti madhyam pratiṣṭhā tu ca. MS.No. 275 (9.1.22).

2. Where Bhāṣyarāja Fol. 50b—Sunā Pratiṣṭhā madhyā Sāti Uktā. Fol. 51a Etāni Sūtrāṇi Vrttikṛtā Vismṛtāni.

3. Etānyapi bhagavatā Piṅgalānāgena sutryante I uktam, Sati I madhyam I Pratiṣṭhā Su.ca.I. Catusatamutkṛtiḥ......Prakṛtyā Ceti —Vedārthadīpikā. P.76.

4. VIII.13. Ekona'dhvā. Bhāṣya—Fol, 119. Idam Sutrampasyat to Vrttikṛto'dhvayoga Sutrakāreṇa noktā ityukti Bhramādvad bheya. N.B.—This sutra in all probability is a later addition. About this we would speak later.

5. Jay.Ch.VIII. 12. Chinnavṛttāṅgulavyāptirad hva yogah prakīrtitah. J K : Ch. VIII. 11. Samkhyānāmādhvayogaścetyuktam pratyaya Ṣaṭkam.

Nāṭyaśāstra recommends however that all the syllabic metres fall into three classes such as divine, human and semidivine1. The first group comprising seven principal metres from Gāyatrī to Jagatī belongs to divine or divyo class. Abhinavagupta thinks that these metres are found generally in the Stotra and Śāstra.

The Atichanda group of metres has been grouped as Divyetara and the third group on the other hand comprises the rest. A passage in NS describing the scope of metrics— i. e. Sampadvirāma2 pādaśca devatā sthānamakṣaram varṇaḥ3 svara vidhiviṭṭtamiti chandogatovidhiḥ —of which the issues of Sampad. Devatā and Sthānam are purely Vedic and NS had nothing to do with them.

But these are mentioned perhaps by the way of the customary observance of the tradition which the “fifth veda” could not possibly escape when it took up the metrics for its consideration. It is noteworthy in this connection that Piṅgala the pioneer of the Skt metricist has left for us a systematic record of that age old tradition and it is obvious NS being belonged to the orthodox period followed the tradition represented by Piṅgala.

The issue of ten sūtras4 or ten varṇas5 in Piṅgala ch.

1. Divyo Divyetaraścaiva Divyamanuṣa eva ca. XIV.113. Gos. 68. Vide. Abhinavagupta—Prathama iti Stotraśāstraṣu saptanameva Chandasām Vahulyena darśanāt. Devastutyādau daivesu vaktaśvayamgana ityarthaḥ Gaṇa iti dvitiya divyahivrttau gaṇa ityarthaḥ. Tena manuṣesu vaktravapam prāyeṇa 1. Tṛtīyastu divyamānuṣesu ca rāmādiṣu narapatiṣu ca.

2. Nāṭya Śāstra XIV. 102.

3. Vide note=“Śvetādaya iti Prātiśākhyadau Chandāṃsi Vividha varṇam kṛta tada upayogāt nolikhitam”—P.246. Gos. 68.

4. Bhāṣyarāja—F.2a. Sri dākṣisarsigarbham kandam piṅgalanalakam II doṣasutrivila-protamaśad—vyakhyāna kaṇṭhaṅkam—etc.

5. Yā Pra. on I. 15. Fol.4 Yaddaśāvarṇam tena daśapadārthan gaṇan Saṅgāḥ Sampadam Devatāḥ Svarāḥ Svarān gotrāṇi-varṇān, gurulaghu.......

26

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

sūtra has been dealt with in different way by various commentators from the standpoint of their bearing to Śāstra in general. Practically in the body of the Śāstra there are more than ten sūtras essential for the understanding of the Śāstra. But there exist also ten varṇas which like ten quarters pervaded the whole world. These ten sūtras or varṇas point at the efficacy of a grounding in the ten categories.

Nāṭyaśāstra also maintained the tradition by nothing this ten fundamental requisites of which we made mention before.

Incidentally, Jānāśrayī which made extensive treatment of these because of their importance in the understanding of the "modus operandi" of metres must be mentioned.

Practically the incidence of the number ten has a particular bearing in the case of Piṅgala's ch. sūtra, an integrated work on Vaidika and Laukika chandas.

These ten requisites are—(a) Gana (metrical units) (b) Samjñā (appellations) (c) Sampad – the process of resolution in case of the Vedic metres which Abhinava tries to show that it is applicable only to Vedic Verse or prototype in Kāvya.1 But Jānāśrayī who left out of consideration the Vedic metrics in its sphere,' places the illustrative Laukika verses in which that process has been applied.2 Of the rest the four are (d) Devata (deity), (e) svara, (f) gotra and (g) varṇa have the direct bearing to the Vedic metres. Bharata includes among these the sthānam—which has not been recognised by Yā. Pr. In NS it comprises two categories — Śarīrasthānam and Dīgāśrayasthānam. This particular sthānam could remind us of the Kalisthānam and Tretāsthā—

1. Sampaditi—Śrutaueva sambhavo na Kāvya iti tātparyam Etanniru-Panam tu upayujyate yatra vedavākyasadṛśā Vākyam niraiyate Yathā Abhijñānaśakuntala……NS.

2. Dvyekairūṇe Virannivṛttau II.1.II.6 Jānāśrayī. Tss. 163. Vide. Note—Vaidikārthoyamaramabhāḥ. Laukikam ca Viśeṣitalakṣaṇameva Vṛttam va jātivā evam bhavati.

nam recognised by Nidānasūtra.1 The last three (h) Gurulaghuvijñānam (differentiation of short and long) (i) Viṣamardhasamasañjāam and (j) Yati including Samjñā2 and Sampad

have connection with both Laukika and Vaidika metres. But the first one is exclusively relevant to Laukika metre and the next four pertain characteristically to the Vedic metres.

The incidence of number ten in Vṛttaratnākara has a bearing in different way. It dilates on the units of the metres i. e. eight Trikas and Long and short—comprising Ten ganas.3

The most noteworthy point that deserves mention is that Piṅgala4 made no direct treatment of “Vṛtti” in its two forms, Laghu Vṛtti, and Guru Vṛtti that determine the very nature of the Vedic metres. Absence of this direct treatment on this vital issue, which has been already recognised

by the early predecessors has been defended by Yādavaprakāśa5, the earliest commentator on the chandaḥ sūtra, who points out that this is due to the fact that Ācārya finds variation of this rule in many of the verses of the Veda.

Practically speaking the very sūtras concerning the pada-samjñā have been placed in such a way that the first two indicates Laghu Vṛtti and the last two the Guru Vṛtti.6 That Piṅgala could not discard this Vṛtti has been evidenced by the Sūtra Devatād itah in 62 III. In case of any compli-

1. Nidāna Su. VI.3-5. VI.3-5 Tānyetāni sarvāṇi tretākalichandāṃsi bhavanti. Tad yat Tretāsthānām tat nicritatha yat Kalisthanam tat Bhūrijas.

2. Sarvānukramani III. 10. ed. Macdonell. 1886. Tatra daśaikādaśadvādaśākṣarāṇām Vairājā Traiṣṭubhajātā iti Samjñāḥ II.

3. Myarastajabhanagair āntāirebhirdaśabherakṣaraiḥ. Samastam vānmayam Vyāptam trailokyamive Viṣṇunā –Vr.Rat. I 6. II

4. Ācāryena tu vṛttilakṣaṇam na Kathitam–Yad. Pr. Fol. 9.

5. Vyabhicāraśyāpi Kvaciddarśanāt—–“Aśvaṃ na tvā varavantam” (RV.I.27/1a) ityādiṣu. Ibid Idem.

6. Ihāpi Sucitamācāryeṇa “Gāyatrya vāsavo, Jagatya āditya”—iti Saṃkhyākramanamanullaṅghya Laghu vṛttyeh Guruvṛttyośca pṛthak Karanāt. Ibid. Idem.

28

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

cation arising out of the confused nature of metre the Devatā and others will be essential factors for the determination of the pāda, Yādavaprakāśa lays down that by the term 'Ādi', it signifies "Vṛtti".1 But Halāyudha points out it has a bearing to the "Svara".2

Piṅgala's chandah sūtra is written in sūtra style. Jānāśrayī school maintains this tradition. Jayadeva introduces it in case of the Vedic metres but for Laukika metres, he innovates a new style in which the very definition itself becomes the illustration of the metre defined i. e. "Lakṣyalakṣmaṇa-samyukta" type of definition. Chandoviciti, adhyāyas of NS and that of Mitrādhara adopted the method of "miśrikṛta" having the definition and illustration in the same breadth. We could not definitely laid down that Jānāśrayī school has been developed even before Jayadeva but it is sure two aforesaid Chandoviciti are composed before 10th cent, because Abhinava.3 comments on the chapter of NS and the archaic feature of codex of the text of the Mitrādhara4 indicates that it can not be dated later than 3rd century A.D.

As there are at least three illustrative verses which this work has in common with the available text of NS, we can presume the NS to be the original source which is the innovator of this system, while Jayadeva and others followed.

It can be said in favour of this assumption that in some of the definitions of the Dhruvā metres (XXXII Ch.) this

1. Yād. pr. on 62 III. Fol. 28.

"Ādi śabdena vṛttapādasaṁsthānām grahaṇam.

2. Hala 61.III.B.I.1920—Saṁdigdhe chandasi devatādeśca nirṇayaḥ Kartavyah ādi grahaṇam Svarādiparigrahaṇārtham.

3. Tatrehadhāye Bharatamunikṛtamiti, Trikairmakārādibhiḥ Kaścit Kaṁcillakṣaṇam svikṛtamiti dvivibhah Pustakapāṭhā dṛśyate ma dbye ca......NS' XV.p.242. vide Ibid footnote—api cāsminnadhyāye Kvacit vṛttatājyaiva lakṣaṇamuktam, Kvaciccanuṣṭu-bhā II.

4. Vide. S.P. Bhattacharya. ASB. Vol. IV.1962.p.192. But the Editor of the ms. dates it in the second half of the 4th cent, A.D.

method has been adopted.1 Vṛttajatisamuccaya of Virahāṇka and Svayambhūcchandah of Svayambhū are the two

works in Pkt2 language, seemed to belong to this period and obviously maintained the tradition by adopting this method.

It is noteworthy that the last named work out of reverence for Skt. metrics treated it first just like the orthodox group—

such as the Piṅgala ch. sū Jayadeva and Agni purāṇam have chosen to deal with the Vedic metres in the fore front of

the text.

In order to make the definition handy and serviceable,

Triads or Trikas, i. e., units of three syllables have been introduced by Piṅgala, who however retained Ga and La of

the Vedic manual representing long and short3 respectively.

In addition to this, fivefour metric ganas have been innovated for the definition of Āryā.

Bharata sticks to the simple though larger method of

definition by specifically mentioning the nature of the syllables which are short or long in the body of the definition and

advocated this system through the Anuṣṭubh Stanzas. But

as Bharata4 knew Trika form, in his chapter dealt with metrics, the nomenclature of these have been defined. And

in his double set of definition5 metres under consideration

have been framed in the definitions where the Trikas have

1. Laghuni guru vā kathita rajani II XXXII. 53. Gos. 145. But this method is not strictly followed.

2. Vṛttajātisamuccaya—E. Velakar Svayambhū—Ed. Valāṅkar.

3. Gf La. P. Ch. Sūtra 1/9 ; Gante Ibid 1/10; Cf. Trait.Pr. 1/31 ; Tait. Prā. 22/1.

4. N. S. XIV. 82 Sarveṣām chandasamevam Trikavṛttam prayojayat.

Jñeya hyāṣṭa Trikastatra……..XIV.85. Gurupurva bhakārah

syāṅmakarasya guru Trayam XIV. 87. Ete cāṣṭu Trika rāmṇā

vijñeya Brahma Sambhava.

5. a) Ādau dvai nidhane caiva guruni yatra vai sadā pāde saptākṣare

jñeya nāmnā Bhramaramālikā XV./14.

b) Pade yadi nivistu samyagaviracitau toau ante yadi gak ārah

sā tu Bhramaramālā II. XV/15.

30

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

been applied. But this double set itself gives rise to the

doubt about the genuineness of the Text. Abhinava seems

to accept both of them as genuine which, in the face of it seems

to be absurd. We, however, for our purpose leave out the

question of the uncertainty of the text of the NS in this

connection.

Jānāśrayī school, on the other hand, shows a system in

which the Trika arrangement has been supplemented by the

four syllabled, five syllabled and even six syllabled units. In

addition to eight Gaṇas of three syllables each, the author

of Jānāśrayī has formulated eighteen units containing 2 to 6

syllables.

Vṛttajātisamuccaya and Svayambhūchandas do not use

Akṣara Gaṇas but Mātrāgaṇas in both types of metres—Jāti

and Vṛttam. But it seems that the idea of innovating

mātrāgaṇas, being based on mātrās have1 been inherited from

Skt tradition in which prescription has been made for four

mātric Gaṇas.

Ratnamañjuṣā on the other hand employed Piṅgala’s

eight Trikas, but through other symbols. The manner of

introducing these Gaṇas seemed to be the same. For an

instance—Piṅgala laid down the sūtra for the Trika "ma"—

Dhī, Srī, Strī—ma three long syllables are to be represented

by "ma", the last consonant of the sūtra. This technique

has been adopted by Jānāśrayī school. But Ratnamañjuṣā

differs from Piṅgala in adoptation of the symbol. For exam-

ple the sūtra—"Māyākā" has been represented either by ā or

by kā which nothing but the Ma Gaṇa. But Jānāśrayī faith-

fully adopted the method devised by Piṅgala. The eighteen2

quantities are represented in the sūtra by the last consonant

occurring in every one of them. In addition, in at least

eleven cases, the initial vowel in Jānāśrayī is used to indicate

1. Lah Samudrā ganaḥ IV. 12. P. Ch. Sūtra.

2. Sūtras 11 I. 11-35. chandoviciti. T. SS. 163.

SYSTEMS OF SANSKRIT METRICS

31

each quantity.1 The last method is the innovation of the

Jānāśrayī.

Pingala did not include group of Dvikas in the chapter

of Samjñā, but he did mention it in the concluding chapter.2

That Pingala favours Dvika can be supported by the fact

that in ch. sūtras the metres have been divided into

three big genera—the Samānikā, the Pramānikā and the

Vitāna. The first two groups have been arranged in Dvikas,

in twos ( S1, 1S )

Pingala speaks of the quantity of syllables3 but does not

give any indication for the use of symbols or marks to indi-

cate the quantities. NS too4 omits this topic. But in Jaya-

deva cchandas5 it is for the first time, the quantity of the

syllables got their shapes. This perhaps the Jaina tradi-

tion that influences the subsequent works on Skt metrics to

diliate on this issue. Harṣata6, the celebrated commentator

of Jayadeva describes Laghu as Śarākāra, as of the forms of

an arrow. Jayakīrti7 marks Guru as Nāgara Vakra and

laghu as the raised finger. Hema candra8 reproduced the

expressions of Jayadeva. This has continued to be the met-

hod of marking in the traditional code. Incidentally we can

refer to manuals on non-SKt metrics—Vṛttajātisamuccaya

of Virahāṅka and Svayambhūcchandah. In the former a

long is represented by a curve with straight lines at either

end and a short letter is represented by a straight line.

1. Sūtras II I. II. 25-25,

2. Dvikau glau. VII. 20.

3. P. Ch. Sū.I9. gr.I. I. 10,Cante.

4. Gurvakam gīti Vijñeyam taiha laghu 1 iti smṛtam XIV.89a.

5. Jayadeva cchandah (I.4) Vānte gvakrah matriko lrjuh.

6. Comm. of Harṣata on I.4. :

Mātrikā iti -Sa laghusamjñā bhavati Sa ca rju L Śārakārah…

7. Jayakīrti chando I.4. Nāgara Rkaravakro guruh I Laughurekama-

trikah Syadrjururdhonguli nibhah II.

8. Hem. Chandonusāsanam—I. 4-5. Hrasvo lrjuh Vante gvakrah.

32

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

Length of the both should be equal to that of the joint of the thumb.1 Svayambhū too noted long letter as Vakra and short as Avakra, Rju and Urdha.2 The fact that Pingala has carried on the traditional Vedic view in the application of some sūtra can be found in the introduction of the sūtra “Gante”3—the light syllable at the end of the pāda became Guru. Halāyudha is perhaps the single person who seems to have sticked to the appropriate interpretation. That is why he opines that there being in the sūtra as anu· vrtti which goes against the prescription to be of compulsory nature4. He protests the noted predecessor Jayadeva who thinks that the rule is optional. But most of the subsequent writers do not subscribe to the view of Halāyudha. NS with its lay out “Tathāntyam ca laghu Kavacit”5, Jānāśrayī in his sūtra “pādān te va”6 Jayadeva7 too advocates the view in favour of the optional use of the long. We should note in this connection Virahānka8 who speaks in favour of Halāyudha and admits the compulsory sanction of the Guru in place of Laghu. Ratnamañjuṣā's9 lay out too adopts this verson, But in the parlance of the Bhāṣyakāra, the anuvrtti of “Api” in previous verse indicates the Vaikalpika Vidhi. Ratnamañjuṣā however does not admit the lengthening of

1. Kunusu Kudilogruggam garuam anguthapavva parimanam Lahusm ca Ujjuam tittinnam daic pamānena Vjs. I. 14.

2. Svayambhū ch. I 116 (urdhavā)—is definition of the Sragdarā Docca Vamkka : muhamgappadhama muha pura uddhra pa Saddharae.

3. P. Ch. Su. I. 10.

4. Halāyudha Comm. on Graśabdopalakṣitāya hṛasvākṣarasya pādante vartamānāsya guruṣamjñātidisṭate.

5. NS' XIV. 90—Gos. 68.

6. Jānāśrayī—I.13. T.S.S. 163.

7. Vānte gvakrah—1.4.J ch.

8. Vṛttajātisamuccaya :—J.B.B- RAS. NS. vol. 5, 1929. Itāriam Jana lahuakharaj vaantimellāsluana I, II. 13a.

9. Anenaivā api Sābdena anya 'pi Vikalpa Kalpya II.

the Laghu in the uneven pada of Āryā. Varāhamihira too lays stress on the optional lengthening of the Guru at the end of the pada only in case where the order of the prastara may not be hampered.

The case for the acceptance of the length of the vowels even when they are short provided they are followed by the conjunct consonant has been strictly taken up by Piṅgala and the orthodox school followed it. The author of Nāṭyaśāstra1, Jayadeva2, Chandovicittikāra3 stood by the side of Piṅgala. Again, Laghu together with Anusvāra, Visarga and Jihvāmuliyopadhmānaiya are to be regarded as Guru. This has also been accepted by the Sanskrit tradition. Vṛtta-jātī Samuccaya too being within the orbit of the orthodox tradition speaks of the rigid rule regarding the length of the Vowel.4

Now we should dilate on "yati" which is a necessary concomitant in metrical composition. This yati is a special feature by which the Laukika metres can be differentiated from the Vaidika ones as some scholar thinks.5 "Yati" is not to be regarded as a regulator or controller according to derivative form "yamyate anayā"—as Karaṇa Vyutpatti but as a technique that has been regulated in specific cases--"yamyate yāsā". The last interpretation is more acceptable because the yati has been applied in restricted cases and not in all cases. And we should not perhaps be in the same side of those who are swayed by the idea, that the non-mention of this very term indicates the complete absence of this practice in the Vedic metres.

In the Vedic manual on metrics we are acquainted with

1. Guru dīrgham plutam caiva Saṃyoga paramevaca….etc. etc. NS. XIV. 90.

2. Saṃjogādiparāṇah—II.1.II.5.I.L.Jay. ch.

3. Saṃyoga Yogavahapara-guruh. II.1.II.12.II Jana.

4. Samjoa padamadi harasarindusavisagga vannanā Vj. I. 13b.

5. Śiva Prasād Bhaṭṭācārya. Our Heritage. Vol. VII.P.5.

34

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

the term "Avasānam" whose function is to restrict the pada termination. "Avasāna" denotes in the Veda as the place1 the stopping etc. Śā. Śr. Sū. points out this haltage in case of the pada recitation being marked by the Panava.2 The Triṣṭubh, Jagatī, Akṣarapaṅkti and Dvipadā would be recited through "pada Avasānam" and this would be done at the end of the 2nd and the 4th.3 In Nidāna sūtra4, in Ṛkprā5, we meet with an elaborate treatment of this technique which in Śā. Sr. Sū. is sporadically treated. "Yati" in Skt metrics, on the other hand, lies in embryonic form in the Vedic metrics being termed as "Avasānam". The Avasānam is the 'terminus ad quom' of the pada, but yati is the dividing factor of it. That is why we find the regulation regarding the pada division.

Old traditional views were divided on the compulsory sanction of this issue. And the most noted among them who did not favour it are Bharata, Kohala, as much as the pioneers Māṇḍavya and Kāśyapa and the other group was led by Piṅgala and others—as has been referred to by Jayakīrti and Svayambhū.6

But most interesting fact is that Bharata favours yati, because, he defines it with other techniques7 and he employs it in the definition8 and illustration. Bharata however restricts its scope only to sense pause—"yatrārthasya samāptịḥ syāt sa virāma iti smṛtaḥ". And all the verses illustrated

1. RV. X. 149.

2. Sa. Śr. Su. VII. 26.3. Dvyābhyām avasāya dvyābhyām avasaikena praṇanti Paṅktinām.

3. Ibid. 26. 4-5. Pacchastriṣṭubha jagatīnāmākṣarapaṅktinām dvipadānām ca. Sa praṇava dvitīyaśca caturthaśca.....

4. Nidāna su. VII. 1-6.

5. RK. Pra.—XVIII. 21-32.

6. Svayambhū 1.144. Jayakīrti I. 13.

7. NS.IV.104a—Yatrarthasya samāpti syatse virama iti smṛtaḥ—GOS. 68.

8. XV.83—Gurunyatijagatyam tu Tribhiscchadaiḥ praharṣini—Ibid.

have been shown with the sense pause.1 And it is curious to

note in no case NS deviates from this principle.

It may be that the NS deals with metrics in connection

with dramatic performance and dramatic compositions only

and in drama the sense is more important than the sound as

the rasa is the sole concern of a drama. It is not unlikely

that the NS did not bother about the metrical pause because

it was not essential part of its deliberations. The sūtra

"yati vicchedah"2 in P. Ch. Sū is installed before the com-

cement of the Ch. VI. which exclusively deals with the

Sarvasama vṛttam. Jayadeva3 told as Virāmaḥ and placed in

the chapter of Samjñā and paribhāṣā. Jānāśrayī4 too followed

Jayadeva.5 The respective positions of the sūtras in these

different manuals, seem to indicate the fact that in P. Ch. Sū,

"Yati" only concerns the Sarvasama Varṇa Vṛttas, whereas

the same in the respective chapters in those of Jayadeva and

Jānāśrayī has been extended to the all sections. Like the

Vedic metres Jayadeva prescribes yati for the padacatur-

dhava5 metres like Āpiḍa, Lavali and Amṛtadhārā. In pla-

cing "yati" for the metre suddhavirāṭsaṃbhaṃ6 at the end

of the 1st pada and the next on the 4th. Jayadeva7 main-

tains the link of the Vedic tradition with the Laukika ones,

Jayakīrti8 and others9 only follow him.

1. NS XIV. 104a. Vide Abhinava - arthasya avāntarasya—Idem.

rupasya samāpti lakṣmamānāsya tu yatiḥ......P. 245. Gos. 68.

2. Vide illustration :-Vaṃśa patrapatitam. Whose definition is :-

ādyaṃ caturtham ṣaṣṭhaṃ ca daśamaṃ Naidānam guru Tadvaṃśa-

patrapatitam daśabhiḥ saptabhi yatiḥ NS XV. 111.

Yatha :-Eṣā gajo' drimśaśatale Kalabhapari vṛtaḥ II.

3. P. Ch. Sū. VI. I.

4. J. Ch.Ch. I. 9. Virāmo yatiriti. Cf. Harṣṭa ; Viratir virāmaḥ

samāptisca Yati samjño bhavati.

5. Jānāśrayī I. 40. Yati pādacchedāḥ.

6. Jayadevacchandah. V. 17a. Sampūhitasalalitayatiryutiratha bha-

vati piḍāḥ. V. 19b. Caraṇa iha salalilayati ratha tṛtīyāḥ.

7. Jayadeva—V. 26. cf. ṚK. Prātiśākhya—XVIII.22.

8. Jayakīrti—IV. 39.

9. Vṛttaratnākara—V. 11.

36

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

The word Gāthā1 occurs in the Ṛgveda several times.

Sāyaṇa generally takes the term as equivalent to "Stuti" or "Stotra" and "Vāc".

Elsewhere a Gāthā is called Purāṇi2 being explained by Sāyaṇa as Pura Kṛtayā Gāthayā.

This is of immense interest to us as it tends to suggest the fact that even before the time of the Ṛgveda, there was a floating mass of anonymous literary compositions known by the appellation of Gāthā.

In Śat. Brā,3 gāthā is used to convey almost the same meaning.

To Yāska4 on the other hand, Gāthā is different from Itihāsa and Ṛk.

In a passage of Ait. Ār.5 Gāthā is described as measured like Ṛk and Kumbā,

Ait. Br.6 clearly distinguishes a Gāthā from a Ṛk and makes the distinction clear by saying that a Ṛk is divine while a Gāthā is human.

Speech in Brāhmaṇas7 is regarded as consisting of both truth and untruth and it is the untrue speech that is current among the Mundane people.

As opposed to this, the divine Vedic verses are regarded as containing truth.

It is apparent that Gāthās being popular compositions came to be regarded as containing untruth.

Ait. Br.8 lays down "Satya saṁhitā

1. RV.I.43.4a. Gāthāpatim. ( Stutipālakam—Sāyaṇa )

RV. VIII. 71.4b. Gāthābhih—(Gatheti Vānnāma mantrarupebhir Vāgbhih—Sāyaṇa)

RV.VIII.32.1b.—Gāthayā—(Vācā—Sāyaṇa)

RV.VIII.98.9—Gāthayā—(Storeṇa—Sāyaṇa)

RV.I.167.6—Gāyadgātham—(Gātavyam Stotrem—Sāyaṇa)

2. RV. IX. 99.4a.

3. Śat. Br. XI.56.8 ; XIV 6 10.6.

4. Nir.IV.6.

5. Ait.Ar.III.6.4.—Ṛggāthā Kumba Tanmitam.

6. Ait.Br.XXXIII.6. cf. puruṣakṛtā eva Gāthā ityanye—Viśvarūpa on Yājñavalkya Smṛti. I-45.

7. Ait.Br.XVI.1—Vāco Vāvo tan Stanau Satyanṛte Vāva te—‘Stanau’ has been explained by Sāyaṇa as “Laukikavaidikasabdarūpaḥ stānah” in RV.I.164.49.

8. Ait. Br. I.6.

vai devāḥ anṛtasaminhitā manuṣyāḥ". Śat. Br.1 too says—

"Satyam eva devā anṛtam manuṣyāḥ".

It is apparent from the given deliberation that Gāthā is a distinct kind of metrical literature, expressive of popular faiths and beliefs. Most probably it is contemporaneous with if not anterior to the Ṛgvedic period and was regarded as sacred as the Ṛgveda verses.2 In the ṚV. X. 71, we find seers speaking of a number of people who cannot perceive the meaning of the Ṛgveda verses ( uta Tvah paśyam na dadarśa vācam uta tvah śṛṇvam na śṛṇoty evām ) and thus referring to only a limited few who could understand the same ( uta tasmai tanvam vivasre. RV. X. 71. 4. c. ).

It is quite obvious that there remains different literature in the Ṛgvedic age creeping up in different strata of the society.

It may be inferred that a steady and continuous addition to the stock of Gāthā literature was taking place, when the verses of even the latest origin incorporated in the body of Gāthā literature.3

Likewise Gāthā has been introduced in Chandaḥ Vedāṅga as a distinct class of metre which has not been incorporated in the Śāstra.

It has been called as Śeṣa, i. e the rest—which are found in practice but not recognised in extant manual. A metre is Gāthā only in its relation to its own Text. It may or may not be Gāthā of other Texts. That is why we get two types of readings “Atrāsiddham Gāthā” and “Atrānuktam Gāthā.” Halāyudha differs from two celebrated commentators Yādavaprakāśa and Bhāskara Rāya in accepting the last reading. His exposition runs thus—“atra śāstre nāmoddéśena yanno—

1. Śat. Br. I.1.1.4.

2. “Gāthā Śabdena Brāhmaṇa Gatā rca ucyante”—Nārāyaṇa on Āś. Śr. Sū. V.6. Gāthā nāma Ṛgviśeṣaḥ on Āś. Gr. Sū. on III.3.1.

3. Gāthā paramparā gatāḥ Ślokah Medatithi on Manusamihitā.

38

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

ktam chandah prayoge ca dṛśyate tad Gātheti mantavyam." But he restricts the scope of the same within the limits of

the Sarvasamvrtta only. Yādavaprakāśa, a contemporary with Halāyudha noted the wider application of Gāthā by

restoring it in the reading "Atrāsiddham". By the expression Siddham he wants to mean what has been accepted by the

Śāstra. By this very term, Yādavaprakāśa wants to differentiate the Śāstric elements from the non-Śāstric ones, just as

the Barly dust ( Saktu ) is purified through a sieve ( Titau--RV. X. 11. 2ab. ). In its wider scope, the term Gāthā denotes not only the Ṛg verses but the Pkt verses found in the

extant literature.

Bhāṣyarāja too breathes the same air so far as this issue is concerned and severally criticizes Halāyudha who made

only the treatment of the samavṛttas. Bhāṣya Rāja's view extends further to a point which has hitherto been observed

by none. His alternative explanation is to include "Gadya" under the section of Gāthā. This type of Gāthā resembles

that type of the Vedic metres which has no pada division. Jaydeva's manual, for the first time has an elaborated

note on Gāthā where under the said term all metres other than four footed ones have been included. The lack of

exposition in Harṣata's commentary on this portion gives rise to the question about the authenticity of this sūtra.

1. Siddham Chandolakṣaṇaṃ yat punarsmin tantre purvaiḥ Sutra-vakṣyamānairva pratyairsiddham. Tad Gāthā samjñām veditavyam.

Trayah khalu chandovarga varṇitah-yaścayamanantarokto vṛtta-vargah-yaśca mātrājāti varga yaśca Ṛgātivarga-Teṣāṃ trayaṇaṃ

Viśeṣojātayo gāthā Samjñayā Saṅgrhyante. Bahutvada parasiddhativacca vividcya noktah.—Bhāṣya Rāja also cf :-“Esvapi chan-

dahsu prastāradayah pratyaḥ Kramante eva.

2. Ibid, Fol.112b. Samādibhedena pañcdhā Vibhaktēṣu vṛttēṣu catvāri nirupitāni. Ekamavaśiṣyate. Evam Vākyāśāstratmake' sminn ekai-

kamṛgyajuṣaṃ ekaikam gadyaṃ ca lakṣitaṃ tatsamudayo' vāśisyate. Tadubhayam saṃkṣepena nirupayitumidaṃ Sūtram.

3. Jayadeva VII. 37. Viśamaksarānādaṃ vā padarasaṃ sam daśadhar-mavat Tantre'sminyadasiddham Gātheti tatpañditairjñeyam.

Jānāśrayī tried its best to explain its scope more lucidly and provided three sūtras for it.1 In its wider scope, Gāthā will include all the Vedic metres, four footed metres found in the usage of Śāstrāntara and the metres other than four footed ones. The last two sections have been designated as Svajātiya and Vijātiya by the anonymous commentator of this text.2

Jayakīrti perhaps has an access to Jānāśrayī and made an attempt to differentiate Vijātiya from the Jātigāthā.3 In Jayakīrti's parlance, however, the Jātigāthā is that which has equal number of syllables in each pada of sixfooted metres and Vijātiya Gāthā is that which has unequal number of metres in the four padas of Anuṣṭubh.

Ratnamañjuṣa uses the epithet “aprasiddha”4 for Gāthā. Like that of Yādavaprakāśa, the exposition of this commentator means to say that “prasiddhā” conveys the same meaning as does the word “Siddham”. In the extant manuals there are three types of regular and codified metres. Under this scope all the metres, i. e. the Vedic, the syllabic and the metric have been included. Outside these all other metres that are current in contemporary literature but not recognised in the standard manuals are to be regarded as “aprasiddhā”, hence as Gāthā.5

1. Gāthā.V.73 ; Sārṣi V. 74.

Padaiścaturbhisṣadbhirvā II. V.75 Jānāśrayī.

2. Sā Gāthā caturbhirvā Saḍbhirvā pādaiḥ Svajātairvā Vijātiyairvā bhavati.

3. Jayakīrti, IV. 30-31.

Ojapada'nuṣṭubho Yeya (9) majagatya vivardhita (8) / Sā vijāti­gāthā Jambu­kakāthā (11) paśyatyad­vadu­cyate // IV. 30. Anuṣṭubh Viṣamākhyānāṃ saḍbhiḥ pā­dairyathoditaiḥ jātigāthā bhav­aty­eva­menam viduḥ.

4. Ratnamañjuṣā – Gāthā'prasiddhā.

5. Vide comm. on Ratnamañjuṣā VII.I. Asmin śāstre ṛtaya siddham jātayo niyatā api chandāṃsi ca iti. Niyatā mātrā aniyatākṣarā

40

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

Kavidarpanam, “the mirror of poets”, a work by an anonymous author is of opinion that only those types of metres which were in vogue in his time but were not recognised in Śāstrāntaras are to be classed in the type known as Gāthā.1

This is to include those which have unequal number of syllables in their padas, which have more or less number of padas, than have been prescribed by the Śāstra and which are the Rūpakam or the Mātrāchandas.2

In contrast to the Vedic pāda, Laukika pāda has been represented as the quarter of the verse. That is why just before the treatment of the Laukika metre, the sūtra “padascartbhāgah” has been in P. Ch. Sū.3 Halāyudha interprets the term to mean the quarter of the verse and by this he excludes the Udgātā and Padacaturdhva class4. But Piṅgala's definition should have to be applied in wider sense.

Pāda is here meant as the one of the parts of the four. That is why the fourth part of the PadacatururdHva metre has been described as Pāda. But the pada in the chapter dealing with the Vedic metre means to be applied to the constituent elements or limbs rather than the quarter part of

jātayaḥ. Yathāhuh āryādyāḥ. Nivatamātrāṇi niyataḳsarāṇi vāni yathā tāni udgātāprbhṛtini. Niyatākṣarāṇi aniyatāmātrāṇi chandāṃsi tāni gāyatripamu khāni ca ; Tasmāt tritayadanyatha yo dṛśyate ślokaiḥ sa gāthā nāma bhavati.

1. Jam visamakkhar caranam unahiyacaranam va ruvayam Tivihe chandammi imammi JayadevaihI na bhaniyam..... V.10.

2. That the author of kavidarpanam intends to use it in sense of Mātrāchandah can be indicated by the use of the same word in the next stanza. o.e. V.11.

"Dviguṇitagururahirlaghu saṃkhyā Rūpaka Kalābhiḥ" vide, com. Rūpakasya yasya Kasyāpi chandasah kalāḥ saṃkhyāyante tatastabhyastasyaiVa rūpakasya guravaḥ patante cedvarṇasaṃkhyā.

3. P.ch.su.IV.10.B.I. Edition.

4. Ibid, idem. Samavṛttaviṣayametat.

SYSTEMS OF SANSKRIT METRICS 41

the verse, as has been allowed in pkt tradition. This is nothing but a well thought extension of the definition of poetry as catuṣpadi to five footed and six footed. Almost in the same sense, Jayadeva’s1 scope of the sūtra “Pada” has been extended. That is why he does not need another sūtra for Laukika metre. Bharata’s definition2 of the pada as quarter of the fourfooted verse indicates the yati at the end of the pada.

Almost in the same sense, the term “Pada” in the sūtra “Triṣu ganeṣu pādaḥ”, has been used.3 Jānāśrayī which deals with only the Laukika metres admits the definition of pada to be the quarter of the verse.4 In this connection it can be shown that in its wider perspective, only fourfooted mātrā metres have been dealt with Jānāśrayī has no eight-footed mātrā metres. What we have got as śīrṣaka etc. are only strophies of two different Pkt metres.5

The order of the subjects treated in Piṅgala is Vaidika-Āryā, Vaitālīya, Vaktra beginning with Samāni, Pramāṇi and Vitānam, Viṣama Varṇa Vṛttas – Ardhasamam and Sarva sam am. The order of NS. is somewhat reverse – Sarvasa-mam—Vaktra—Ardhasamam—Viṣaman and Āryā. This has been faithfully followed by Jayakīrti. Jānāśrayī school on the other hand maintains broadly the order of Piṅgala. Jānāśrayī introduces its subjects with Viṣamavṛttam keeping the treatment of Samāni, Pramāṇi and Vitānam at the beginning. This is followed by Ardhasama, Sarvasama and the Jāti Vṛttas.

1. Pādah III. 2. Jayadeva chandah vide comm.—ayamapyadhikārah āsaptamadhyāya parisamāpteḥ.

2. Pādaśca pādyaterdhātōścaturbhāgah prakīrtitah P.245.XIV.104b. Gos. 68.ed. Vide comm. Abhinava : Caturbhāga iti pādānte chedah kartavyah na tu. “Tāmbuvallīparinaddhāpugāsvelā” iti.

3. P.ch.su.IV.22?

4. Jānāśrayī—I.8. T.SS. 163.

5. Jānāśrayī—V.57. Śīrṣakam Gītikaparā. when Adhikākṣara is added with Gītika it is called Śīrṣaka.

42

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

Ratnamañjuṣā’s mode of distribution of its metres into different sections follows Piṅgala’s way more than that of its school. It begins with Ardhasama metres of both mātrā and varṇa types. This is followed by other mātrā metres. Viṣama type of varṇa vṛttas, Sarvasama vṛttas have been introduced with Samāni, Pramāṇi and Vitānam—the three big genera which means to represent all the vṛtta metres.

Jayadeva is the blind follower of Piṅgala in the distribution of his metres, as well as of Agnipurāṇam. Vṛttajāti-samuccay and Svayambhūchandas follow the steps of Bharata. But in his emphasis on some fundamental principles, Jayadeva differs from Piṅgala: Chandasūtrakāra made a special treatment of the metres Samāni, Pramāṇi and Vitānam as three big genera. Metres consisting of the sequences of long and short would be included under the head Samāni, the short and long under the class Pramāṇi and the Vitānam where any other arrangement is followed. The positions of these sūtras at the commencement of all kinds of varṇa vṛttas obviously means that the divisions are intended for all the three types of varṇavṛttas—the sama, the ardhasama and the viṣama.

But Jayadeva seems to be the first writer to annex the word “Anuṣṭubhi” to the sūtra of samāni.1 By this manipulation Jayadeva has made all the three terms Samānī, Pramāṇi and Vitānam applicable only to the metres of Anuṣṭubh. This has been accepted with appreciation by Hālāyudha who interprets the sūtra by supplying the word “Anuṣṭubh” from the sūtra “Pādasya Anuṣṭubh Vaktram” in the manner of the maxim “Siṃhāvalokita”, or the lions glance.2 Yādavaprakāśa a contemporary with Vṛttikāra laid down the real intention of the chandahsūtrakāra.3 Bhāṣyarāja echoes in the same

1. Glau Samānyanusṭubhiti—Jayadeva ch. V.3.

2. Comm. on. V.6. Pādasyanuṣṭubh Vaktramityatah. (V.9) Sūtrāt Siṃhavalokitanyāyenānuṣṭubhgrahaṇamanuvartate.

3. Yādava Prakāśa. on V.6—Sarveṣu chandaḥsu yugma saṃkhyāḥu—Caturakṣara—Ṣaḍakṣara prabhṛti......atra samānīti samānyam

SYSTEMS OF SANSKRIT METRICS

43

breath but adds further what is not generally accepted. It

points again to gadya.1 Jānāśrayī and Ratnamañjuṣā, in

their sūtra texts follow the manner of Piṅgala. In its em-

phasis on the treatment of these sūtras they stood in the

same ground with Piṅgala.2

The only noticeable difference is that Jānāśrayī and

Piṅgala introduce these threefold divisions at the commen-

cement by the varṇavṛttas, thus meaning thereby that these

authors intend the threefold classification for all kinds of

the varṇa vṛttas—Sama, Ardhasama and Viṣama. vṛttas.

Ratnamañjuṣā on the other hand, places it before the be-

ginning of the samavarna vṛttas. But the vṛttis on the same

mean to extend its application to all varṇa vṛttas.3 Another

distinguishing feature in Jānāśrayī's treatment pointed out

by vṛttikāra of this text is that the Samānām class of metres

extends its scope towards those metres which have the same

type of syllable i. e. either all longs or all shorts throughout

the verses.4

Satyāmapi samjñāyām kvacid Viśeṣa Samjñāpyasti. Tadyathā

uṣṇihi Samāni Vibhutih, Jagatyām Vibhāvari.....on v.8. Ābhyām

Samāni pramaṇībhyāmanyat Sarvam vṛttajātam vitānasamjñam

veditavyam.

1. On V.8. Bhāṣyarāja—Fol. 77a.

Anupurvāṃśe Kecana niyamah purvayoruktantairniyantritam

phikkikakhyam vitānasamjñām—Syat... ...Yena ca yāvanti vṛttagan-

dhini gadyāni testū vitānataivetyarthah.

2. According to illustration given on the sutra II. 3. Jānā. verse (1)

with eight syllables. verse (2) with twelve syllables.

3. On Sutra V.I. Ratnamañjuṣā—Gāyatryādiṣu Utkṛtiparyavasānaṣu

chandahsu pādaśah a padaparisamapteḥ lālī iti nyāso bhavati,

bhavati samānam nāma......Etat jāgatyam chandasi tathā anyesvāpi

chandādiṣu.

4. Athayāmanyor'thah......Bha ityeya Sarvanyaksarāṇi sarvasya

chandasah Pravṛttāni bhavanti cet tad vṛttam samānasamjñam bha-

vati. Tathā ha iti ca pravṛttāni cet. On the sutra 112. under this

Jānāśraya puts two illustrative verses having all longs and all

shorts respectively.

44

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

According to these authors, the word Vitānam is a class name and not the proper name of a particular metre. Halāy-

udha who differs from these host of writers does not consider Vitānam as one of the variety of Anuṣṭubh class.1

But the latter writers like Jayakīrti and Virahāṅka think of the Vitānam as the proper name of a metre belonging to

Anuṣṭubh class.2 Kavidarpaṇam, however, while treats samānī and pramāṇī as the proper names of the Anuṣṭubh

class of metres, considers vitānam as a generic class.3 On Brhatsamhitā4, Utpala defines vitāna as a metre of Paṅkti

class.

From the given deliberation, it can be estimated that the Samānī and the Pramāṇī having Iambic and Trochaic rhythm

inherited from the vedic verse are regarded as the generic classes of those specific rhythm. Vitānam, on the other

hand, having rhythm of the Trika is to be applicable to any kind of metre formed by the Trikas. But with the passage

of time, the conception of these Dvikas has been abolished and it has been merged with the Trika system. That is why

after Piṅgala when the last tinge of the Vaidika metre has faded away, the three big genera have been treated as

Anuṣṭubh class specifically.

The Viṣama Vṛttam in the treatment of Piṅgala includes the Vaktra class which is the best known of the Skt metres.

It is really a class name of the metres of the group Anuṣṭubh as it contains thirtytwo syllables without an uniform restric-

tion.

1. On the sūtra V.8. :- Kimca vitānamanyad iti Bruvan sūtrakāro

vitānasyaneka prakāratham darśyati. Anyathā vitānam Bhaugau

ityeva vidadhyāt.

2. Jayakīrti II.67 and 68 -Bhau ca guru ca vitānam citrapadā kya-ci-

detat. vṛttajātisamuccaya V.11. bha bha ga ga ga.

3. Kavidarpaṇam -IV. 19. Ioya annam viyānam vide Tikā-Ebhyah

prāyguktehyo granthāntaroktebhyas cakaradavakyamanehyo

nyasamavṛttam vitānam.

4 103. 46. Edited by Dvivedi Part II 1897. Sa Sa Sa ga.

SYSTEMS OF SANSKRIT METRICS

45

tion to the use of syllabic quantity throughout the four lines.

The earlier part of the foot is lax and loosely linked from

the view point of the quantity of the syllable, a legacy

handed down to the Laukika metre by the Vaidika metre.

This is Vaktra, because it is the face or visage of the whole

Laukika varṇa metre. Bhavabhūti's encomium on the

manner of descent or the manipulation of Śloka metre is in

no way an inapt appraisement.1

There have been allowed varieties thereof in the forms

Pathyāvaktra, Viparitā Pathyā, Capalā vaktra and Vipulā

vaktra, which are culminating to the formation of śloka form.

In Pingala's śāstra this form is totally absent. In the

Vedic literature, this word has been used in different senses.

Nirukta2 reads it as the synonym of the speech, of the

Anuṣṭubh. In the Ṛgveda, it is a call, or voice of the God3,

sound or noise.4 Later it is used in the sense of strophe5.

In Rāmāyaṇa, it is a verse born out of sorrow6, which has

been echoed by Anandavardhana "Ślokah Śokatvamāgataḥ."7

Jānāśrayī and Ratnamañjuṣā following Pingala's lead, deal

with the vaktra group. But the manner in which, Jānāśrayī

and Ratnamañjuṣā treat, has slight difference from that of

1. Uttararāma caritam. II. t. N.S.ed. P.52. Nutanacchanddasāmaya

tāraḥ.

2. I. II. vide comm. śru śravane (bhu. Pa) in bhi Kapasalyatimaci-

bhyah kan. Kapilakaditvāt latvam Śruyate iti Ślokah. 1.11.P. 75.

B.I.I. Part 1882.

3. RV. I. 190. 3. Asya Śloko diviyate prthivyām.

4. RV. IX. 92. I. mimihi Ślokamasyā.

RV. IX. 12. I. Yadarko Ślokamaghosate divi.

5. Ślokyate padyate rūpeṇa Samhanyate kavibhih Ślokah Nir 1.11.

P. 75 Upaniṣadjah Ślokah Vindyate—Śat. Br. XIV.4.2.18. Tadapyete

Ślokah abhigitah—Ait. Br. 8.22.

6. Pādaiscaturbhil SamjñuktamidamVākyam Samāksaraih Socataktam

mayā Yasmattaṁmacchoka bhavatviti Ram. Gorr. 1.2.20/Reading

in Baroda. In ed. 1.2.17. Padavaddhokṣarasamastantrilayasaman-

vitah Sokartasya pravṛtto me Sloko bhavatu nānyatta.

7. Dhvanyālokah 1.5. K.SS. 135.

46

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

Pingala. In the chapter of the Viṣama Vṛttam, Vaktra group has been placed after Padacatururdhva, the Udgātā group being the first. These three groups are treated in just the opposite order by Pingala, the Vaktra group being the first and the Udgātā group being the last. Neither Jānāśrayī school nor Bharata make special treatment of the metre Śloka. Some speciality can be noticed in the treatment of Bharata. Vaktra class however has been appeared as Ardha-sama and Viṣama type. But in its emphasis on the fundamentals it does not deviate from that of Pingala. From the Ist syllable there should neither be anapaestus nor be tribrachys.1 But there should have a Laghu after the 4th Syllable.2

Brhatsamhitā seems to be posted as first in appropriating the Ślokametre with its traditional definition.3 Svayambhū4 like a faithful follower of the Skt tradition, not only corporate the vaktra class among the Viṣama Vṛttam, but also appropriate Śloka metre with its wellknown definition. But Virahāṅka's5 Śloka metre is the metre of the Anuṣṭubh class, it could have its treatment among the Viṣama vṛttam, if there is a provision for the said class. Jayakīrti too deals with the śloka metre in the manner hinted in the Rāmāyaṇa6 after a full treatment of the Vaktra class in the manner designated by Pingala, i. e. defining the Viṣama Vṛttam.

1. G. OS. 68. NS. XV. 162. Saugau Sraulgau capi dvitiyake Yugme-ardhavisame pade jñeya pathyā tu sa trikaiḥ. vide also the verse. 164.

2. Sagurvantah Sarvalaghustriko nityam hi neṣyate prathamadakṣa-rādyatra caturthāt praglaghuḥ smrtaḥ 175 Ibid. Idem.

3. Pañcamam laghu Sarveṣu Saptamam dvicaturthayoḥ Yadvicchlokā Kṣaram tadvallaghutām yati duhsthitaiḥ 1031157 Vizianagram Skt.Series. Part II. 1896.

4. Svayambhū Ch. III. 16-21. J.B.B.R.A.S.N.S. Vol.XI.1935.

5. Yasya jau saptamam rūpam Samasteṣu ca pañcamam pādeṣu cama-ram saṣṭham Ślokamtam tu vinidiśet. Vjs.V.15. J.B.B.R.A.S. Vol. VIII. 1932.

6. Jayakīrti—IV.14. dvātriṃśadakṣaro granthaḥ sonuṣṭup śloka-ityapi ślokastu gadyate padyam punyaślokairmaniṣibhih.

in the ascending order of the number of letters occurring in

the first lines of their representatives.

Another legacy from the Vedic metres was “Upajāti

metre” which has been treated by the prosodists as a class

rather than a specific metre1. This is the case of mixed

metre, in the sense where one foot uses one pattern, the

other a different pattern. From Pingala down to Jayakīrti,

this is restricted only to 11 syllabled metres. The varieties

in connection with this have been enumerated as 14 ( 24 − 2 )

according as the opening syllable is short or long. Jayadeva2

seems to be the first to hint at the possible varieties and to

the ceasura of this metre, extending its scope to only akin

( Sājatiya ) varṇavṛttas not to promiscuous varṇavṛttas

( vijātīya ).

Unlike Pingala, Jānāśrayī school gives it different desig-

nation, Indramālā, i. e. a series3 of Indra. This school, per-

haps, would have considered the term Upajāti to be applied

to Mātrāvṛttas4. This tradition however has been supported

by Jayakīrti5 also. Virahāṅka calls it by the name of Miśra.6

But it is interesting to note that following Pingala, all

these authors7 are not swayed by the idea to extend the

1. Vide, Halāyudhaḥ :—Samavṛttaprastāve prasangādu pa jātināmupanyāso lāghavārthaḥ. Kecidam sūtram nyāyopalakṣaṇaparam

vyacakṣate comm. on. VI.18.P.170.B.I.

2. Anantarāpāditlakṣmaśobhau pādau bhavetāṃ vividhair vikalpaiḥ

Yāsāminau sravyayatiprapañcau, Smṛtāḥ Smṛtiśairūpajatayastāḥ.

Jayadeva. VI. 18.

3. Ubhayamiśrandramālā IV. 36.—Chandoviciti, Indramālā dvayam

IV. 27.—Ratnamañjuṣā.

4. Vide vṛtti on. Jānāśrayī—V. before the introduction of Āryā metre

“Mātrāśamakajātiḥ Sopajātiruktā. Idanimāryājātiḥ Sopa jatir-

vakṣyate”.

5. Jayakīrti.II.117. Nānāvika pairupajāti reṣā prakalpitayaiḥ Kvaci-

dindramālā.

6. 19. Vṛttajātisamuccaya V. 21.

7. Jayadeva used the expression :—Anantaropāditalakṣmośobhau” Jānā—

48

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

connotation of the term to all metres whether of the same genus or not. Kedārabhatta claimed to have been the earliest writer for the next jone to note this development about which we will speak in subsequent paragraphs.

Pingala conceived of Āryā as consisting of two hemistich which is obvious from the use of word 'Ardha' in the definition.1 Bharata recognizes Pingala's tradition by the admission of the 'Ardha'.2 In the definitions of Jānāśrayī we have the same term.3 Ratnamañjuṣā4 incorporates it in the chapter where the entity of 'Ardha' occurs as a relevant item ( as an Adhikārika Vastu ). Practically speaking, Āryā with gaṇa system comprising two hemistichs is of purely Skt origin. Therefore, it belongs to the orthodox group. Vjs. within the orbit of this group defined Āryā in a manner of Skt tradition.5 From Pingala's definition it is not clear whether the ardhagaṇa (half of the four matric gaṇa) will have only ga or two laghus inform. In order to clear this ambiguity, Jayadeva laid down that there must have a ga in form of ardham.6 By conversion of two ardhas, Pingala prescribes for two varieties - Gīti and Upagīti.

śrayī applied the term "Ubhayam"-See ante Footnote. 246. Ratnamañjuṣā-"dwayam" Ibid. Idem

1. Svar ardhancāryārdham II.IV.II.14.

2. Ardhaṣṭamaganārdha prakṛtita 11208 II.XV Gos. Vide. Abhinava's gloss :-ardho'sṭamo gaṇah Sāntalh. Saptagaṇasca.

3. Saptārdham cāryāyāḥ 1127.II.V. II Jānāśrayī T.S.S. 163.

4. Ratnamañjuṣā II.2.

5. Aṣṭhamam Ṣoḍhaṣam ca kunumanim gaṇdham caturdaśam Gāthāyāḥ stanam divijamca pariśeṣa yodhayāḥ II.IV.II.I. vjs.

6. Dvantantaradigurubhiḥ sodadhilaiḥ saptarohiṇaguruṇā Āryā-rdham ; natrayuji......Jayadeva IV. 16. Vṛttacandrodaya-F. 58a. Svar ardhāṁ cāryārdhamiti sūtreṇa ganārdhasya dirdeśordhacetipādena kryate. Tacca gurorladvayasyacanugamārtham......Bhāṣya-Rāya upholds a peculiar theory that this ardha may be in the form of two shorts. That Halāyudha does not subscribe to his view is obvious from his comment on IV. 42 and his illustrative verses for Āryā varieties. Yādavaprakāśā avoids this issue.

SYSTEMS OF SANSKRIT METRICS

49

These too have been incorporated by Virahāṅka in his manual,1 where he acknowledges the authority of Piṅgala. Varāhamihira in the section designated as Chandovicititvṛtta saṅgraha appropriated Āryā and its variety as consisting of two ardhams.2 From the special object of this particular chapter, being that of illustrating the various forms of metres prevalent in his time or first introduced by him, we may presume that it was probably based on a particular treatise on metrics on which this astronomer can claim authorship. He does not give the definition of the metres, but they are indicated by Utpala, the commentator, who seems to follow the traditional method, as found in Jayadeva.

Divisions of Āryā on the basis of the manner of placing ISI Gaṇa in the 2nd, 4th are the innovation of Piṅgala.3 Bharata,4 Jayadeva5, Varāhamihira,6 Jayakīrti,7 Ratna-mañjuṣā8 and Jānāśrayī9 appropriated to their respective manuals.

It should be no exaggeration to say, that Bharata10 was perhaps the earliest authority to note the pāda division of

1. Gaṇa puvvaddham via jia, suanu puvvapacchimaddhci sa piṅgalen giitti davia savvacchandavittanam II.V.II.13-14 Op. Cit. II.

2. Ravibhauman pūrvārdhe śaśisauran Kathiato'n tyagan raseh. Sadasallakṣmaṇamaryagityupagityoryatha sāṅkhyām 103114911 Āryānāmapī Kurute vinasamantargururvisanma Samsatha Gaṇa iva sasthe dṛṣṭah sa sarvalaghutam gaṇam nayati 11 10311501.

3. IV // 23. P. Ch. Sūtrī ;

4. 20411 X V 11 Gos. 68

5. IV. 9. Jayadeva

6. 103. 49-51.

7. V. 7-9. Jayakīrti

8. II. 11-13. Ratnamanjuṣā

9. V. 36-38. Jānāśrayī

10. Prathamātṛtīyau pādaū dvādaśālamātrav bhavettu Sā vipulānyā khalu gadita pūrvoditalakṣaṇopetā II.X V.II. 212. Abhinava's gloss on this issue :-Ardha dvaye'pi gaṇatraye chedaḥ kartavyaḥ sacaiva pādaḥ ucyate tadāha prathamātṛtīyau pāda dvādaśamā-trāviti.

4

50

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

the Āryā by installing the Yati after three ganas, i. e. twelve mātrās. Chandānuśāsanam of Jayakīrti1 and the Gāthā Lakṣaṇam of Nanditādhyay2 being supposed to be the products of the transitional period made provisions for two types of definitions. They do not deny Pingala’s authority by the admission of the gaṇa system and the ardha feature in their definitions. But at the same time, introduced the moric system in Gāthā.

Kavidarpanam3 places Gāthā (Āryā) under catuṣpadī, though the manner in which it has been defined, speaks of the gaṇa regulated Āryā comprising the two halves. Even in manuals4 of the above mentioned authors, Capalā varieties can be found which seems to be absent in the Pkt tradition.

Pingala followed by Jayadeva treated Vaidikam and Lauki-kam metres. Among Laukika metres, Jati has been forestalled by Pingala5 but has not been distinctly incorporated in theory. Jayadeva6 adopted the same method. It is in the manual of Jānāśrayī7, two fold divisions of Laukika metres appeared with their well-known designations – Jāti and

1. Jayakīrti V. 2-3. Saptacaturmātrāganā Guruṇāryārdha dvaye na cayuji jah saṣṭho nlagano vā laghurapare tigaṇa viṣamam-ghri Pādau prathamātrīyau dyādāśamātrau dvitīyā Āryāyaḥ / Aṣṭadaśamātroṣau caturthakah Pañcadaśamātrāḥ II.

2. Gāthā lakṣaṇam II II Sattasarā Kamalāmtā nahaghanachattā vibhehayā visame/tāha viyaddhe gāhā chattan̥so egomatto ya II Padhamo varahamatto viyo attarasaśu mattasu.

3. Kavidarpanam II.4. Gloss on it :-atha catuṣpadim kulakenāha :-Munitā guruḥ tatra na jo viṣame saṣṭhe madhyakam prathame Dvitīye tu dale laghuḥ saṣṭhe; Sesām Samam Gāthā II.

4. Kavidarpanam–II.7. Gāthālakṣmaṇam –verse 19-20. Gurumajjhā majjhagayā guruṇāṁ dunḥa dunḥa jattham Sā Viyacauttha yajuttā dosuvi addhesu Sa cavalā // 19 //.

5. V II. 1.–Chandaḥ ; IV.8. Atra Laukīkam : V.I. Vṛttam.

6. Jayadeva II. 1.–Chandah ; II.1.–Ārṣam ; IV.I.–Vṛttam.

7. II.1. Vṛttāni ; V. 1.–Jātirekapanekasminchandasi bhavati vṛtta-mekamekasminneva–Jānāśrayī.

SYSTEMS OF SANSKRIT METRICS

51

vṛttam. Jayakīrti1 who had an access to Jānāśrayī lays down in very lucid manner, the two types of Laukika metres grouping them under Jāti and Vṛttam. This Jāti class includes, Mātrāsamakam, Vaitāliyam and Dvipadī Āryā type of Samskṛta, Galitaka type of Prākṛta and Śīrṣaka type of karṇā-taka.2

It is an interesting fact to note here that according to the traditional metrical conception of the Vedic perlance, "Chandas" was an essential limb of the Vedic lore (Vedāṅga) and therefore it was in the fitness of things that the chandas should cover both the forms of composition, prose and verse. Pingala's inclusion of the Yajus3 Mantras under the scope of chandas hinted at the idea that every composition of religious type in the Vedic age follows a manner of rhythm, which is in its very essence one of the aspects of external requisites. But in its treatment with Laukika metre Piṅgala leaves out the prose from the scope of metre. This lost thread seemed to be found out by Bharata4 who recognizes the delectableness of appeal to the ear of the every uttered word and his division of gadya in connection with his treatment of metrics evinces clearly his recognition of the prose forms of composition within the fold of metrics.

Jayakīrti also realised the fact that if long metres like the Daṇḍaka can appeal to the ear, there is no logic in barring out the fluent and elegant prose from the scope of metre. That is why he picks out Bharata's "Cūrṇapadam"5

1. Jayakīrti—1.20., Vṛttam Jātiriti dvedhā padyam tattu catuṣpadī ganavaddhan tathā vṛttam Jātimātrā ganaśritā.

2. Ibid. 1. 21-22., Āryā mātrāsamakam Vaitāliyam Dvipadipiti Caturdhā // 21 // Samskṛtavācāryādyāḥ prākṛtaviṣaye tu galitakādyā vadhūḥ / Karṇāṭake kṣarādyā viṣaye śīrṣakādijātāya uditāḥ // 22 //.

3. Piṅgala Ch. Sūtra—II 6—Yajuṣāṃ Ṣaṭ //

4. Chandohino na śabdo' sti na chandośśabdavarjitam // XIV // 45a anivaddhapaadam; chandaśtathacaniya takṣarām artthapekṣyaksa-rasyutam jñeyam cūrṇapadam vudaiḥ // XIV // 40.

5. XIV. 40. N. S.

52

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

and incorporated it in his manual. Looking at from this standpoint it becomes evident that the only difference that lies between verse and prose composition is that former is regulated by the pāda division while the latter is not.1 This particular topic receives an elaborate treatment in the hands of late century authors of Skt manuals and we shall discuss that topic in subsequent chapter.

Among the Varṇavṛttas, Piṅgala does not define metres having less than six syllables in a line. Jayadeva does the same but Bharata recognises2 the metres from the ukthā class but incorporated from the atyukthā class in its Dhruvā chapter.3 Ratnamañjuṣā,4 unlike Jānāśrayī follows Piṅgala faithfully. Jayakīrti, however sides Jānāśrayī whom he acknowledges in many ways.

In theory, however, a large number of different kinds of metre were possible. The exact number of the possible metres that might be employed, can be known through the process of permutation and combination. This has been called "Vidhi" by Bharata5—"Pratiyante jñāyante arthāḥ ebhiriti pratyaya jñānam. Pratyahdhīnaśapathajñāna viśwāsa heturītyamarah—". The process by which the particulars about metres are known, are called "Pratyayah". Nārā-yaṇabhaṭṭa6 explained it in a much lucid way. Having discussed all the vrttas beginning from sama etc. he introduces that in order to know the full particulars about the

1. Jayakīrti :-Daṇḍakaścandavrstyādyāḥ padāmśamiyamoditāḥ Apā-daniyamāścoktā gaṇadhā gadya Daṇḍakāḥ // I // 23 // Gadyam hṛdyamapādoktisaṃāsapadasaṃcitam/tato'nyaccūrnirityuktā vaca-nam vākyavandhuram I // 26.

2. N.S.—XIV. 46–52. Ekākṣaraṃ bhavedukthamatyuktham......etc.

3. N.S.—XXXII // 48 // Devaṃ Sarvamiśaṃ vande.

4. Ratnamañjuṣā V.4.

5. N.S.—XIV.53.P.236. Chandoṣaṃ tu tathāhyete bhedaḥ prastārayo-gataḥ Asaṃkhyeyaṃ pramāṇāni Vṛttanyahurato Vudhaḥ.

6. Nārāyaṇa's gloss "Sambhāviteṣu vṛtteṣu viśwāsaṣpapara paryāya pratyakhyāpakatvadva.

metres, some of which are found in the practice, we should have a fair knowledge of the six pratyayah. The possible number of metres would be sanctioned through these processes.

These are six in number–prastāranasṭyuddiṣṭha laghavādi krya samkhyā and Adhvojoga.

Prastāra - Prastaranam prastāra bhāve ghan prastaryate iti prastāra.1

Prastaranam2 vitānam i. e. spreading out of the various forms which a metre can assume. Vjs. also includes under this head, spreading out of the figures and the number of short and long letter in these forms. It is a curious phenomenon that can be applied to any branch of śāstra–“Tatra prastāra protyavo nāma Samasta Vṛttasamkhyā śilpaviśeṣajñānam.”

Abhinava too lays down–prastārastatra Samkhyādi Sarvamiti Samśrayaśabdenāha tadganasamvijñānācca : prastāropyucyate.3

Naṣṭam -‘gatam4 naṣṭamiti, Svarupeṇaiva na jñātam” -by this process the unknown structure of a particular permutation of a metre, can be found out, the serial number being given.

Uddiṣṭham - prṣṭham is that which is svarupeṇa jñātam na samkhyayā. The structure of the metre being given, the serial number of the permutation is to be found out.

Laghu/kriyā is on the other hand the process by which one can find out the number of structure with a certain number of laghu or guru i. e. to know how many structure were there with one laghu etc.

The Samkhyā is the method for getting out the total

1. Ramcandra's gloss on P. 109. N.S.P. 1948.

2. NS. Abhinava's gloss. P. 247. G.O.S. 68.

3. Abhinava's gloss on XIV. 53.

4. Ibid. Idem. cf. Ramakavi Bhārati P.109. Prastāramantareṇa punardarśana jñānam.

54

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

number of structures of the permutation (Saṅkhyanapratyayo nāma prastāram vināpi tattacchandasāmetavanti vṛttāniti vṛttasaṁkhyā pari jñānam).

The sixth is the space occupied by the permutations of a metre.1

It would not perhaps be out of place if we incidentally speaks of the fact that the Vedic seers, also applied some sort of process of permutation and combination. But they have no theoretical knowledge of them. Given pada arrangements are enough to show how this process of permutation occurs in the Vedic metres:-

A stanza of two lïnes :-

8.8.—Dvipadā Gāyatrī—IX. 67. 16–18

8.12.—IX.109.22; X. 172.3.

12.8.—Dvipadā Satobṛhatī VIII.29.

12.12.—Dvipadā Gāyatrī VIII.46.13.15.

This is just like prastāra of two syllables like guru and laghu. We have an exactly similar phenomenon in Saṅgītratnākara2, where the same terms are used and the same process has been followed. We need not enter here into the details of the practical demonstration of these but we may briefly indicate the manner in which they are treated.

From the available editions of the Piṅgala Chandasūtra, it can be ascertained that Piṅgala omitted the sixth item "Ādhvayoga".3 Halāyudha was aware of this process but

1. Ādhvāyoga pratyayo nāma Sarveṣām chandosām prastārabhūmipari-mānajñānamiti—R.K. Bharati. P.109.

2. Saṅgītratnākara V. 313–386. Ed. S.S. Śāstrī, 1959. Adyar library Series. 43.

3. Prastāra —VIII ( 20—23 )

Naṣṭam— ,, ( 24—25 )

Uddiṣṭam ,, ( 26—27 )

Saṁkhyānām ( 28—33 )

Laghukriyā 34

ed. by Visvanātha Śāstrī B.I. 1874.

he did not incorporate it in the Text as the Sūtrakāra did not want to introduce.

1

Having realised the importance of this item, Yādavaprakāśa2 and Bhāskararāya3 claimed that this has been dealt with by the sūtrakāra through the introduction of the sūtra "Ekenodhvā". Their views have been placed with appreciation by Prof. S. P. Bhattacarya4 who strengthened it by adducing the cases of Jayadeva, Agnipurāṇa, Virahāṅka, Jayakīrti even of Jānāśrayī who dealt with these six pratyaya in its every details. Velāṅkar5 on the other hand, noted that Piṅgala has treated only four pratyayas. It will be convenient to examine here briefly the sporadic treatment of the first process "prastāra" in connection with the working out of the conceivable number of the Sarvasama, Ardhasama and viṣama vṛttas in Piṅgala's chandaḥ sūtra,6 which has been dealt with before the commencement of the chapter V (Sūtras 3–5). Jayadeva carefully avoids this. Bharata included it under the section of pratyayas. Chandovicitti is more methodical and enumerates briefly the total number of sarvasama, ardhasama and viṣama vṛttam and dealt with them in the section of Saṁkhyā (VI. 25–26). Ratnamañjuṣā appropriates it but Jayakīrti following Chandovicittikāra discusses this in the section of Saṁkhyā (VIII 12). Later works completely omit this topic. The another relevant point in Piṅgala's treatment is that he does not enter into technicalities, nor he gives any designation to them. After Piṅgala who enumerates these pratyayas "en masse", it is Bharata who begins first by

1. Ṣaṣṭhopratyayavo pyardhaparicchittirityeke. So’tyalpatvat puruṣechanuvi dhāyitvenaniyatvacca noktaḥ. Halāyudha on VIII 34. ed. S. Sastri. 1342. V.S.

2. Vide, Jottings on Sanskrit Metrics. Our Heritage IX.P.42.

3. VIII.13. Bhāṣyarāya Fol. 119a. Idem Sūtrapasyato vṛttikṛtodvayogaḥ sūtrakāreṇa noktā ityuktibhūmād avadheyā.

4. Vide Jottings on Sanskrit Metrics. VII.op.cit. P.29.

5. P.272. Age of Imperial Unity. Bhāratīya Vidyā Bhavan.

6. V.3.–5. But details treatment about the prastāra VIII. 20–34.

56

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

naming and defining them. Bharata, however, does not

include the sixth item. Excepting Ratnamañjuṣā all the

works on the metrics in the orthodox group have the fullest

treatment of these six pratyayas, with their significant

designations. In Ratnamañjuṣā there is no acknowledgement

for the sixth pratyaya nor even the designations of the other

five pratyayas have been given.

We would close the survey of this orthodox period adding

a few notes on a work of carnatic prosody, viz. Chandam-

budhi of Nāgavarman. Chief interest of this author is to

provide place for Skt metrics, as he accepts Piṅgala's work

as a guide1 as his own mother tongue is one of the fifty

six bhāṣājātis born out of the three main languages Skt, Pkt

and Apabhraṃśa. In the treatment of the fundamentals

Nāgavarman is more orthodox in spirit than Jayakīrti who

in a separate section makes provision for Bhāṣājātis. He

unlike the latter does not recognise the license in allowing

a light to be metrically heavy before a double consonant

the second part of which is Repha.2 Nāgavarman appropria-

ted many syllabic metres adopted by Bharata and Varāhami-

hira on one side and on the other side he introduced many

new ones which are mainly corporated by the southern

prosodists like Jayakīrti and Hemachandra.3

1. Verse XXII. ed. by Rev. F. Kettel. 1875.

The commencement of the chapter V (Sūtra 3-5). Jayādeva care-

fully avoids this. Bharata included it under the section of Pratyayas.

Chandoviciti is more methodical and enumerates briefly the total

number Sarvasama, ardhasama and viṣama vrttam dealt them in

the section of Saṁkhyā. (VI. 25-26). Ratnamañjuṣā makes a treat-

ment (VIII. 6-9) but Jayakīrti following Chandovicitikāra discusses

them in the section of saṁkhyā (VII.12). Later works completely

omit this topic.

2. Verses 26, 27, Ch. I. Page 8, Kittel. 1875 Cf. Jk.I.5. Saṁyogaparo’pi

jātu varṇaḥ Saithilyallaghutāmupaiti tasmāt bhāṣāviṣye’nyathā

jagadvā nyenodān.

3. Nagavarma–Vijayānanda ;=Bharata, Pravaralita ; Jayānanda—

Hem.II.273.

Nagavarmā – Drutapada=Varāhamihira. 130 20 etc.

SYSTEMS OF SANSKRIT METRICS

57

The peculiar metre created by Bhaṭṭi in his Kāvya1 has been corporated by Nāgavarman in his manual under the designation Haṃsamaṁttā, which has been slipped from the eyes of the Skt prosodists. Like Varāhamihira, Nāgavarman dealt with the metre śloka, being a species of Anuṣṭubh.

From the given deliberation, we have a brief resume of the history of Skt metrics beginning from Piṅgala and extending upto Kedāra. This can be designated as the Orthodox period. During this period we see that the ultimate standardisation of the more or less complete shape of the doctrines of Skt ; prosody has been outlined. The works of the period which follow this, apparently contribute nothing new but summarise and setforth, the result of the earlier speculation. The last tinge of the Vedic metrics is faded away from one side and to the other side has been admitted the non-Skt metrical principle conforming to the need of the age.

The period under review may be designated as the post-orthodox period, about which we will speak subsequently.

Polymath Kṣemendra deserves to be mentioned here for his appearance in the orthodox period as well as his special treatment of the metrics in his text book Suvṛtta Tilakam. This work generally reflects the character of the kavisikṣā, a class of work in Sanskrit, professed to show that they are for the guidance of the aspiring poet. This type of work displays emphasis on one aspect of metrics as a discipline, namely, its practical application which developed side by side with the theoretical consideration of general principles.

Along yati, regulation of Akṣara and mātrā have been the technical determinants in different periods, sonorousness has been proved all along to be their essential feature.

The Indian poeticist’s conception of the Śabdaguna

1. Bhaṭṭi XXII. 35.

53

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

Samādhi1 (expressional adjustment) and uddārta (gravity or sobriety compiled with sublimity) point to the role of the metres in the function of the verse composition through their akṣara arrangement.

The Sonorous effect ( śrāvyatā ) is held to be the joint product of the bilateral efforts of the post and his reader. The poet by his instinct and the reader by his receptive ear impart the quality of sonorousness in appreciation of a metrical composition.3 Deveśvara, the author of the Kavikal-palatā, warns the poet for the proper use of yati which may breach the essentials of harmony and symmetry.

Poetists also diates on the fact that versification is bad if it is undelec-table to the ear even when the rules of versification have been complied with.4 Kṣemendra practically lays stress on this śrāvyatā in the poetical composition only when there are possibility of the formation of a number of metres.

Mechanisation of certain rules of definitions is no teaching at all ; what is Śrāvyatā is marman (the vital part) of the metrics and has to be understood by proper recitation and by the close study of numerous specimens in literature.

At the same time, to depict the rasa it is necessary to observe the rule of propriety. This may have application with reference to verbal concordance in the metres—appropriation of certain metres to the subject matter depicted in the verse.4

1. Kāvyālamkārasūtravṛtti III.1.13. ed. by Nagendra. 1954. Ārohavar-ohakramah Samādhih......Tatrarohapūrvako'varoha yathā–Nirā-nand......etc.

2. Kavikalpalatā I–Evam yathā yathodvegāh Sudhīyam nopajāyate Tathā tathā Madhuratānimitham yatiriṣyate //

3. Hatam Lakṣananusaraṇe 'pyasrāvyamāptāgurubhāvānta Laghu rasamugunañca vṛttam yatāt hatavṛttam, Kāvyaprakāśa VII. P. 334. Ed. Jhalkikar, 1950.

4. Abhinava in his gloss on XIV.105 dilates on the point that one Kātyāyana, who is presumed to be one of the earliest known writers on kaviśikṣā, reflects on this issue ; śarīrāśrayetyādi athoktam Kātyāyanena “vīrāsya bhūjadaṇḍānām varṇane srag-

The first chapter dealing with the general principles of metrics enumerates certain selected group of metres. Then he deals with praise and ensure within his limits as a true critic ; in his hand even the honoured names of poets make no difference. In many cases his illustrations place two sides of a question regarding both merit and defect by different verses even from his own work. Śikharinī in the hands of Bhāravi, obtains a special charm, but sometimes loses its real nature due to want of the compound word, other conditions remaining the same. The division of Śārdulavīkridita line is more agreeable, if the first half is more detached than the 2nd.

On the other side, Kṣemendra places the cases of the poets who have been singled out for their proficiency in the particular metre.

In the concluding section of the chapter II, it deals with an interesting topic how the certain parts of a particular metre can be converted into a new one by the process of adding or altering some syllables.

While thinking on the appropriate use of the metres, Kṣemendra begins the chapter III by dividing literature into Śāstras, Kāvyas, Śastrakāvyas—Śāstra effect in Kāvyas and Kāvya śāstra – Kāvya effect in Śāstras.

In Śāstra for the attainment of lucid presentation Anuṣṭubh is the best, in Kāvyas however different metres will be appropriated so as to be conducive to Rasa, in Śāstra Kāvya long metres are better to be avoided and in the Kāvyaśāstra too the application of metres will be in accordance with the attainment of Rasa.

The work hardly put forward any special claim as a work of great theoretic importance. Its value exists not in substance but in its treatment of practical issue. Finally, it can

dharā Bhavet Nayikavarnaṇe Kāryaṃ vasantatilakādikaṃ. Śār-dulalita prācyes'' mandākrāntā ca dakṣiṇe //.

60

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

be said, what has been treated in this work Suvṛttatilakam, is in keeping with true orthodox spirit which he does not violate even for a time.

We have now practically completed our survey of the orthodox period. But the above account of the orthodox writers must not be supposed to exhaust the invaluable wealth of the scholastic activities of this period. The scholarly works of the commentators, in which they fell back up on minutest details of their universe of discourse for fine distinctions, are no less important in this field. In this field, the names of Halāyudha and Yādavaprakāśa deserves special mention.1

Halāyudha's Mṛtasañjīvanī is an exhaustive gloss, in which every passage of the original is noticed and interpreted in lucid language. Being orthodox in spirit Halāyudha did not transgress the restrictions of the orthodox rules. He deduces illustrations from the current literature, but we would not allow the non-Skt elements that are not vouched by the text concerned, which fact evinces the inherent bias of the author in that Line. Halāyudha's exposition on crucial points like those of "Gante" etc. is nothing but literal commentary which fails to meet the inquisitive queries of the ambitious students. That is why, in most of the cases he was uncritical and hypothetical, and he was adversely criticised for his lack of ingenuity. It is queer that Halāyudha fails to see the true character of the three big genera --Samānī, Pramānī and Vitānam, which he grouped under the Anuṣṭubh class. He has been condemned by his followers for the omission of certain sūtras in the original text. Halāyudha2 has left out certain sūtras in the Vedic portion which has been observed by his immediate follower

1. Halāyudha—near about the last quarter of the 10th century, Yādavaprakāśa—middle of 11th century. For details see Suprā P.163.

2. cf. Bhāṣyarāja F.51a—etāni sūtrāṇi vṛttikṛtā viṣmṛtāni.

Yādavaprakāśa. There are some divergences in the readings

of the sūtras in the texts of the different commentators. In

addition to that, Halāyudha incorporated 18 sūtras (in VIII

2—19; which did not form part of the original sūtra work.

He speaks of the sūtra concerning 6th Pratyaya, but does

not acknowledge it as belonging to the original work.1

The second great annotator is Yādavaprakāśa, who is not

well known as a commentator on metrics, but is more known

for his manysided activities, i. e. for his Vaijayantī etc.

From his unpublished text it can be known that Yādavapra-

kāśa (Ms. No. Adyar. 9. 1. 22. 1—275) is more faithful than

his predecessor.

Worth mention is his commentary on the Vedic portion

which is very informative and lucid. It may be taken as a

safe companion to the study of the Vedic chandas. Piṅgala

has been represented by him as the expositor of the Vedic

chandas and the illustrations adduced by him are very

helpful and are meant for manifold attainments. In order

to avoid the overburdening on the commentary in the Vedic

portion, Yādavaprakāśa does not dilate on the issues which

are not touched by the original writer (nānapekṣitamuc-

yate).2 But on the other hand he extends his recognition to

the views found in the other śāstras with a view to substanti-

ating the authoritativeness of his own. That is why in his

commentary, there is a long list of metres, which obviously

belonged to other śāstras utilized by him not accessible to

us. These on the other hand, may be traced in the works

like Jānāśrayī, where as Halāyudha's computation in com-

parison with it may be minor and limited. In the treatment

of Laukika metres, Yādavaprakāśa has two broad divisions

1. Sasthapratyayopyardhaparicchē thirityēke. So'tyalpatyāt

purusēchānuvidbha yitvenāniyatātvācca noktah—Halā. on VIII. 34.

op. cit.

2. anapekṣitanam sankoco nanāpekṣitamucyate........

Vide, JASB. Vol. IV. 1962. P.189.

62

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

of metres in general, whereas Halāyudha dilates on the three,

i. e. Gaṇa, Mātrā, and Aksara. His treatment of mātrā

metres, is in the line of Pingala dividing it into Ganajātis

and Nirgaṇajātis. In a very admirable way, he threshed out

and discussed the following issues; -role of metres in the

vedic scope; relative analysis of vikarṣa and svarabhakti ;

the process of contraction and expansion as has been envi-

saged by Nidānasūtra ; the laghu vṛtti and guru vṛtti not

noticed by Halāyudha ; process of Adhyāsa culled from the

Vedic literature ; the issue of the generic upajāti variety

and the Gatha.

Lastly, like the Kaviśikṣā poets, Yādavaprakāśa made a

specific contribution to the practical aspect of classical

metres. He laid special emphasis on the derivation of

several metres of various length by applying many devices1

such as the repetition of any number of particular gaṇa;2

the repetition of any number of either of the constituents ;

the taking in, or away, of any number of short syllables,

substituting it by long syllables;3 modification of a parti-

cular scheme with particular parts, other parts remaining

intact, by adding or taking away as in the case of

Mandakrāntā.

Such a work of outstanding merit neither is known to

literary circle nor to the whole group of the later writers on

metrics. But Yādavaprakāśa has been acknowledged and

his views are accepted by Bhāskara Rāya4 with great honour.

1. VI.5. Tathā yadi Sādbhagana guru ca dvau kṛtau Saroruhā......

Yadi sapta vikṛtān mayūrgatiḥ ; yadyastautkṛtaupravīrocitam.

2. VII.12 ; Īdrśaṃ Gāyatryāṃ vṛttamabhijit ; uṣṇihi saralaṃ ; dhṛtau

vimalaṃ ; atīdhṛtau Sukapadam.

3. VI.27. Atra navabhyo yadi khalu saganastato 'jagaṇaḥ dhṛtyāṃ

lalanā. VII.18. aṣṭhyāmeṣā madanalalitā ; tasau ced daśakād

bharakranta.

4. Vr.cand.Ud. (F. 31b): Prāñcāstu dīrghaṃ samyogaparaiḥ tathā

plutam........

Bhāsyarāja—f. 77a—Tenetah praguktanānāṃ Laukikānāṃ Jatiriti

prācāmacāryāṇam Samjñā etc.

SYSTEMS OF SANSKRIT METRICS

63

To form a just estimate of the forces at work in the way of evolution of chandośāstra. Mṛtasañjīvanī of Halāyudha and bhāṣya of Yādavaprakāśa are proved to be indispensable.

The period under review may be designated as the post orthodox period. During this period we see that the ultimate standardisation of a more or less complete shape of doctrines of Skt prosody has been outlined.

The first and foremost writer of this class in the post-orthodox period of Skt metrics is Kedārabhaṭṭa whose Vṛttaratnākara, judging from its popularity and influence must have helped a great deal in finally establishing the theories of prosody in classical Skt.

This work, purely classical in spirit sets forth its doctrines in purely Anuṣṭubh metres ( as has been done in purāṇam and other śāstras ), applied the “lakṣyalakṣaṇa Samyuta” method in defining the individual metres which were introduced by Jayadeva.

Direct treatment of the Vedic metres as well as of non-Skt ones are entirely ignored and we find for the first time a definite scheme of Skt metrics more or less systematically elaborated and authoritatively established.

This work with the merit of fulness not only summed up the previous speculation made by Piṅgala, but in turn is declared to be the earliest orthodox Skt work in which underlying principle of the very vernacular language has been laid down.

This work is aptly called objective, empirical and it is more or less mechanical in discipline.

In Kedāra’s Vṛttaratnākara the classical Skt metrics are formulated not incidentally as in Bharata or in Varāhamihira, not sectionally as in Piṅgala, Jayadeva and Jānāśrayī but in such a well defined outline as would indicate that classical Skt metrics attained the rank of an independent discipline.

The text has been commenced with the acknowledgement of the authority of the Piṅgalācārya.1

1. Piṅgalādibhirācāryairyaduktam laukikam dvidhā/mātrā varṇavibhe-

64

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

As there is nothing to set forth a new in the orthodox line this attempt was to put his discipline with an appreciable nicety of arrangements and in a simple lucid language so as to be accessible even to a child.1 This work consisted of six chapters containing one hundred and thirtysix stanzas.

In most of the works composed in this period, the fashion was to restrict their scopes within the orbit of the six chapters. Garudapurāṇam2 accepts this mode of arrangement of the subject matter within the six chapters but not in the given number of stanzas, while Vuttodaya retains even the exact number of verses within the six pariccedas, but not the chapterwise arrangements of the subjects.3 Polymath Hemchandra4 though appeared in the same period, treats Skt. Pkt and Apabhraṃśā metres in his work Chandonuśāsnam in eight chapters.

In twentyone ślokas Bṛhannāradiyapurāṇam5 dilates on the rules on Skt prosody, which appears to be orthodox in spirit but classical by feature. While enumerating on the rules of the six pratyayas, its adoptation from Vṛttaratnākara is so faithful sometimes, that it can be charged for slavish palagarism, on account of the verbatim reproduction of the stanzas.

Unquestioned dominance of Vṛttaratnākara is clearly discerned in the respective chapters of Nāradiā and Garudapurāṇam.

There is hardly any doubt that the chanda portion dealt in Garudapurāṇam, is chiefly on workable epitome presented by a writer who conforms in essentials to the understandings of the theorist Kedārabhaṭṭa.

dena chandastadiha Kathayate//Ṣadadhyāyanivaddhasya chandasy'osya parisphuṭam pramāṇamiti vijñeyam saṭṭriṃśadbikam śatam. I. 4-5.

1. Vṛttaratnākaram nāma vālānāṃ Sukhasiddhaye……I. 3.

2. Garuḍapurāṇam pūrvārḍha 211—216 Chapters Baṅgavāsī ed.

3. Ed. by Feyer. JASB. LXVI. P.370. 1877. India Office Library's Ms-Mr. Childers presentation contains 138 verses. Burmese MSS also contain 136 verses.

4. Ed. by Velankar. Jayadāman. 1948.

5. Venkateśwar edition. Pūrvakhaṇḍa. 75 Adhyāya.

SYSTEMS OF SANSKRIT METRICS

65

To Vṛttaratnākara, sole credit will be given for recognizing the importance of the ten varṇas1 (in addition to 8 varṇas representing eight Trikas, two others, ga and la representing solitary long and short respectively). But none of its followers took notice of it. This has been reproduced verbatim by Gaṅgādāsa, the author of the Chandomañjarī in the succeeding period and this work we will take up subsequently.

The vowel that has become Guru by standing before a conjunct consonant which stands at the beginning of a line, is sometimes taken as Laghu. This verse has been incorporated in Garuḍapurāṇam2 and Vuttodaya preserves this verbatim however in its own languages. Śaraṇadeva3 who noticed this license enjoyed by the great poets like Magha etc. speaks of this in the form of a sūtra.4 The same has been referred to by Gaṅgādāsa who ascribed that to Piṅgala. Hemacandra exposes it in a very scientific language “ka Pavisarga anusvarvayñjanabhradisamyoge”—without leaving any condition that this has exclusively occurred in non-Skt languages.5 This is the tangible result of the contact existed between Skt and non-Skt metrics. This has been slackening practically the orthodox discipline where the irre-

1. Myarastajabhanagairlāntarebhirdaśabhirākṣaraiḥ / Samastam vāñmayam vyāptam trailokyamivaviṣṇunā / I.1.6.

2. Cf. Verses. Ch.2.11. 4a. Garuḍapurāṇam Ch. I. Verse. 8 Parepada-disomyoge-yo pubbo garuvakkharo Lahu Sa Kvaci vinneyo-tad......

3. Author of Durghaṭavṛttiḥ T.S.S. 6. This work seemed to be composed in the year 1095 saka, i.e. 1172 AD. A little later than vṛttaratnākara.

4. Kathaṃ punaḥ “praptanābhihradamajjanamasu prasthitam niva-sanagranay eti māgah hralasabde parato gurutvacchandobhangāt. Ucyate, ‘Prāptanābhimrada iti pāṭhāṅ sādhuk. Chandacchāstre “prahre Va” iti Sūtreṇa vikalpena gurutvamiti kaścit. Durghaṭa-vṛttiḥ P.23 TSS.6.

5. I. 6. Chandānusāsanam. This sūtra belonging to the chapter of Sanjadhyayah, could be applicable to Skt, Pkt and Apa.

5

66

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

gularities and the violations of the fundamental axioms of

śāstra are condoned but not directly encouraged. Kedāra's

spirit of adjustment would not forego the old sastric leaven.

At the same time, Kedāra understands that like Prayogaśās-

tra, metrics is essentially practical and cannot as such brush

aside the authority of the usage. That is why in the midst of

the diversionary activities, Kedāra extends a just response to

the spirit and manner of non-classic study.1 Direct sanction

is however crystallized in the Chandonuśāsanam of Hema-

candia.

On the crucial problem of the issue2 “Gante”, Kedāra's

observation has got to be read with that of Jayadeva by

adopting the optional application as has been entailed by

sastric “Vyavasthita Vikalpah.”

In its treatment of Gāthā Kedāra placed two sets of defini-

tions. The first type found to appear in the Samjñāvidhāna

adhyāya3 which includes verses composed of three and six

padas within its fold, while the second has been specified

by the term “Anuktam” placed in the concluding verse of

the last chapter. Thus the Gāthās are of three types - one

which have unequal number of padas - i. e. Padairasamamiti;

second, which have different types of ganas in different

padas of the metre ; and the third which have unequal

number of Akṣaras in each pada. To the scope of the last

one, the pādacaturdhavādi may belong The last mentioned

metre is the regular viṣama metre in Pingala chandah sūtra.

Therefore the definition must have the “ativyāpti doṣa”.

In order to avoid this, the second sūtra is codified-i.e.

“Atrānuktam Gāthā.” Gāthās are those which are not codi-

1. Cf. Gloss of sulhana on I.10.J.U.B.N.S. Vol.; 20, 1951. P.80. Pūr-

vacaryādinām Pingalanagaprabhrtinām Kilidāsādinām ca kavīnām

samaya parigṛhitah samyogah kramasamyogah.

2. I.9b Vā pādānte tvasau gvakro jñeyonyo matriko lṛjuḥ II.

3. Śeṣam gāthāstribhiḥ Ṣaḍbhiścaraṇaiścopalakṣitaḥ. I.17.

fied in the given manual. It has been asserted that Gāthās

are those which are not defined here.1

Vuttodaya2 inserts the definition of Gāthā in a manner

like that of Vṛttaratnākara. But the author of the work

reminds his own language i.e. Pāli, in which all the verses

are called Gāthā.3

Garudapurāṇam4 avoids the double entry of the defini

tion of Gāthā and places it aptly only at the close of the

discussions of the Varṇa vṛttas.

Hemacandra's definition of Gāthā in this place, is appro-

priate to his style and possesses an all pervasive scope.5

While leaving the matters of general concern to be ex-

plained in the premier chapter, Kedāra crams four different

groups in the Ch. II namely—Āryā, Vaitālīya, Mātrāsamakam

and Vaktra groups. In this manner of arrangement Kedāra-

bhaṭṭa follows the orthodox line, adopting the system of

Piṅgalācārya whose preference exists in such seriality—Āryā,

Vaitālīya, Vaktra, Pādākulakam and Śikhā etc. Vuttodaya

proves to be more systematic, more scientific than Vṛtta-

ratnākara. Unlike the latter it deals only with the Mātrā-

vṛttas, leaving the Vaktra group only to be appropriated by

the Viṣamayitṭa paricchedah.6 The peculiar treatment

of Vaktra among the Mātrāvṛttas draws the attraction of

a host of commentators and Trvikrama, the earliest of them,

1. Viṣamakṣarāpadam Va padairasamam dasadharmavat yacchando

noktamatra gatheti tatsuribhiḥ proktam. V.12.

2. Padehi chahi tihitu gatheti ca paratthevam I. 14.

Vuttodaya XVIII JDL. 1929.

Nadissaṭettha yam chandam.....etc. V.II. Ibid.

3. Anantaroditam cannā—metam Samanna namato Gāthā micceva

nidditṭhā muniṇdra vacane pāna. I.15. Ibid.

4. 215.9. Purvakhandam—Bangavasi ed. Viṣamakṣara padam va pan-

caṣṭkadiyavakam cchandotra nokta gatheti dasadharmadivatbhavet.

5. Gāthātrānuktam Chandonuśāsanam. VII. 73.

6. Ch. V.

68

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

justifies the name Saṅkīrṇa Vṛttādhyāya1 of Ch. III of

Vṛttaratnākara by showing the inclusion of Vaktra group

into that chapter. Along with Vaitālīya group the treat-

ment of the Vaktra group is justified on the ground that in

the former, as the Gaṇa system has been allowed there par-

tially, so in Vaktra there has been the partial provision for

the varṇa gaṇa.2

But in a peculiar way almost like Jayakīrti, Kedāra deals

with the Ardhaśama and Viṣama vṛttas, which he placed

after Sarvasama Varṇavṛttas.

Hemacandra's approach however strikes a different note

from those of his predecessors who crowd all these subjects

under one Adhyāya, i.e III which he treats after that of the

Sarvasama vṛttas.

The Chapters III, IV and V of Vṛttaratnākara are solely

devoted to varṇavṛttas treated in 109 heads. The number

seems to swell up gradually by the passage of time and each

writer seems to add something to the stock of his predeces-

sor. So we see that Piṅgala's work recognises 80 varṇavṛttas,

Jayadeva 80, Kedāra has 109 and Hemacandra about 300.

Upajāti3, a generic name for Triṣṭubh class devised

by the orthodox prosodists headed by Piṅgala for the metre

resulting from the mixture of Indravajrā and Upendravajrā.

Special treatment of the Jagatī (Tabhasāya – Jabhasāya)

1. Trivikrama's gloss on II 28-30 Yatah Saṅkīrṇavṛttadhyayo'yam

Vaktrāṇi cānuṣṭup Samavṛttādau Saṅkriyanta iti na virodhaḥ II.

2. Ibid, Idem, Yato vaitālīyam pratipādam pādāmadbye niyatatrika-

varṇagaṇa vyaptam, idamapi tathaiveti Sadṛśyādana Yoranantar-

yamevoditamiti sthitam. Cf. Narayanabhatta's gloss on it :-Atha

Vaktrasyaṣṭākṣaratvenanuṣṭubhi Vaktavyasyāpi tadvatsākalasya

niyatagurulaghutvabhavat pathyacapalādisamjinjñākāryā Mātrā

vṛttānmsāṅkāryācca mātrā vṛttaprastāve eve.-Kāśī Skt Grantha-

mālā 55 P. 48.

3. P. Ch. Sutra :-Indravajrā tau jgau || 16 || VI.

Upendravajrā Jtaujdau ga || 17 || VI.

Adyantavupajātayah || 18 || VI.

and Atijagatī in Jayakīrti1 extends its scope while Kedāra generalises it to any kind of admixture of metres irrespective of their classes.2 Trivikrama in his gloss on this issue strikes on the right point what has been intended by Kedāra.3 Vuttodaya unhesitatingly adopts this in verbatim and Hemacandra agrees with this because it can be substantiated by the old usage. Yādavaprakāśa subscribes to this view but Halāyudha restricts the scope of such admixture to the Triṣṭubh class only.

In the true spirit of the orthodox writers, Kedāra treats Āryā which has been described by him as a metre of two hemistiches. But he appropriates the definition of Jayadeva, because, Piṅgala's definition by its ambiguity led to great deal of controversy regarding its interpretation.

So far as the spirit of Āryā is concerned, Kedāra holds strongly the line of tradition enunciated by Piṅgala. In no place, he gives even a slightest reference of the catuṣpadī Āryā, though at the close of the orthodox period we find "full fledged figure" of it in the works of Jayakīrti and Nanditādhya.4 Neither in Vuttodaya, nor in Hemacandra this this is present what to speak of Garuḍapurāṇam.

The purely normative character of the Skt metrics begins to disappear with the ultimate standardisation of more or

1. Jayakīrti. III. 117.— Ibid. Idem. 145.— —do 164.— —do— 148.— Indravajrā Upendravajrā Indravaṁśā Vaṁśastha Rucirā Ruci—Prakīrnakam Smṛti Śruti—Siṁhaplutam.

2. Vṛttaratnākara III.31—Anantarodiritalsmabhajau padau Yadiyavupajayatastah Ittham kilayasvapi miśritāsu smaranti jātisvidameva nama. ll

3. Trivikrama on III. 31.—P.53. JASB Vol.33.91956 Itthamanena prakāreṇa anyasvapyuktadiṣu samutthitasu Vyaktisu yugatikṛtya miśritāsu ṣaṭisvidameveti Upajāātayah iti nam smaranti cintayatītyarthah. III. 20. ed. R. Siddhārtha. JDL.XVIII.

4. See Ante Foot notes on Page 63.

70

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

less complete scheme of the classical metrics outlined in

Vṛttaratnākara. This stage is marked by great scholastic

acumen, if not by remarkable originality but by its all embracing provisions for all “Śāstrāntaras”. This may be called a

stage of progress and adoptability in the one hand and on

the other. this is a stage where very few novel ideas come up

but only the old ones are recapitulated. There may aptly

be called a stage of deterioration or decadence.

The manuals appearing in this age follow the lead of Pkt

Piṅgalam, after the appearance of which there dawned a

new era in the horizon of Skt metrics. In this epoch of

fertility - the general principles being fixed, the manuals

devoted themselves to speculate on the established theories

in their minutest details for fine distinction and to cope with

the new ideas with a spirit of adjustment. Consequently,

varied, plentiful and novel types have been supplemented

in new vein of thought, experiments were made to find a

comprehensive formula to cover the old ideas as well as the

new.

It covers the age of numberless commentaries which,

made on the authoritative work Vṛttaratnākara, are busy

with the work of the annotation, expansion and restriction

of the already established rules.

Side by side, we see that there flourished many popular

text book makers who engaged themselves in the task of

simplifying the science for easy enlightenment.

We would just make a cursory glance to the scholarly

expositions made on the standard work Vṛttaratnākara made

by the commentators who flourished shortly after Kedārabha-ṭṭa. They are Trivikramabhaṭṭa1, Sulhaṇa2 and Soma-candrasūri.3 Trivikrama is the earliest and Sulhaṇa is the

most critical and presents the opinion of Kedāra in its proper

1. Ed. by S. D. Velaṅkar. JASB NS vol. 33 1958.

2. Ed. by Gajendragadkar. JUB NS Vol. 20 ; 22 ; 23. 1951-55.

3. Ed. by Dr. G.H. Godbole. Wilson College, JUB. NS Vol. 27. 1958.

SYSTEMS OF SANSKRIT METRICS

71

perspective and in the light of the traditional information

vouchsafed to him.

On many places Trivikrama's exposition is plain, simple

and literal whereas Sulhana's is critical in every detail and

his opinion is very logical, that it removes away all the

ambiguity of sense.

Trivikrama boasts that his attempts are not to explain

the sūtra in its every detail. He has expounded only those

portions which seem to be difficult and his main purpose is

to supplement Kedāra's information from texts like those of

Jayadeva and others. He would interpret Kedāra's works

so as to contain, wherever possible, also the information

given by others by resorting to maxims like the Simhāvolo-

kita and to avoid the defect of Avyāpti and Ativyāpti.

Sulhaṇa seems to be more appropriate and critical, where

he controverts the pādāдау in 1.10 adopted by Trivikrama1

and Somacandra.2 The reading pādāдау is not appropriate

because the illustrative verse is in Āryā metre, whereas in

Kedāra's parlance, there should not have any pāda division.

If the reading pādāдау is granted, it will contradict Kedāra's

own conception. Therefore, Sulhaṇa's exposition is more

clear and more appropriate when he lays down that a short

letter coming before a conjunct consonant existing at the

beginning of a verse. does not sometimes become long by

position. What is significant in this sūtra is that a short

letter coming before a conjunct consonant sometimes does

not become long by position. This position is created by

the "Krama."3 Therefore, in all cases there should not be

1. Kvaciditi Āryāviṣamapādānte parasamjogapekṣyaiva laghugurut-

vasyedam lakṣaṇanupaghaṭaya. Āryāyame veti niyamadanyajatyam

nāṅgikuryāt; JASB. Vol.33. 1958.

2. Vākyārthah spaṣṭah syādbhāvārthastu Yuktaparāśceti vacanāt yalla-

ghorgurutvam prāptam Tadatra pādādi Somhyoge iti- J.U.B.

Vol 27. 1958.

3. Vighaktyautam padam Tāsya padasyādau vartamāno yo varṇastasya

72

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

optional1 lengthening.

Again. “Krama” may mean what has been granted and adopted by the great poets through the ages.2 That is why Sulhaṇa adversely criticizes Trivikrama who accepts the reading “pādādavīti”8 as the rule regarding the lengthening of the short at the end of the pāda. Sulhaṇa's observation is based on the practical usage which should be applied on the even pādas. Vāmana in his Kāvyālaṃkāra is against the lengthening of laghu in the uneven pādas.4

In the interpretation of Gāthā Trivikrama observes the view of Kedāra from a new angle which is still unprecedented. This signifies that the word “Daśadharmavat” has reference to the ten varṇas -- Mara...etc, on which the whole of the metrical science is based and which composed the syllabic metres. In other words, this comprises all the syllabic metres and among them what are not included in the Śāstra are to be called Gāthā.5

samyogah sa iha śāstre kramasamjñakaḥ jñeha. Tena Kramasam-jñakena purovartinā prāk pādānte vartamānasyā prāpta gurubhāva-syāpi laghutā syāt —Sul. Com. JUB. Vol.XX.P.80.

1. Pādā davīti Kim anyatra mā bhūt grasamyogena yathā......Asamagravilokītena kim te........

2. Nanuka eṣa krama nāma Samyogah ucyate pūrvacaryāṇām Piṅgālanāgaprabhṛtīnām kālidāsādīnām.

3. Kvecitpādādavīti manyante tadasaṃgatam Sūtrodāharanayorgha-ṭanābhāvāt. Tathāhi taruṇam udāharaṇamāryāya pradarśitam Sul.. Com. P.82. Ibid. Idem.

4. Sul. Com. on 1.9. Pādasyaante vartamāno laghurapi vibhāsayā guruḥ syāt. Sa ca kavisamayavyavahārāt dvitīyacaturthayorve-pādayorante veditavyaḥ cf. Yādavaprakāśa VI,8.—Tataśca yadek-varṇayanti gante ityatra pādānte'pi laghorghrusamjñā vidhīyatā iti tadapi pratyuktam —viṣameṣveva tadupapatteḥ.

5. Sul. on V.12. Daśadharmavat. Daśadharmadayo Gaṇaḥ vidyante yasmimstaddasadharma......Vahulam mādhubhirdāśaganaiḥ vyāp-tamityarthah......cf. vṛttaratnākara : —I/16.........daśabhirākṣaraiḥ-Samastam vāṅmayam vyāptam.........II

Trivikrama is more a frank follower like Halāyudha than a critic and two others are eclectic. They may be fairly regarded as belonging to that group of faithful commentator who think it better to interpret literally than to incorporate new ideas in the system they comment upon.

In the manuals belonging to this period, we can notice four streams of ideas. The first group comprising Vānī Bhūṣaṇam1 and Vṛttamauktikam2 in the spirit of the non-classical replenishes the necessities which were deficient.

The second group which includes Chandomañjarī3, Chandokaustava4, Vṛttaratnāvalī5 etc. is the recast of the surviving exponents of the orthodox tradition. Chandopīyuṣa6, on the other hand, represents the textual criticism working out in the independent method of his own. In Chandonuśāsana7 non reorientation of the fundamental principle of versification is found.

But all these divergent streams of thoughts and tendencies gather together in Pkt Piṅgalam under one clear, dominant and finally authoritative doctrine.

Besides these four groups enumerated above are Kaviśikṣādha8 attributed to Kālidāsa are purely classical in spirit but deals with other aspects of metrics as has been made by Suvṛtta tilakam and others. The standard work of this age, is Pkt Piṅgalam9 which is written in Avahaṭṭa language.

1. By Damodar Miśra - Kāvyamālā ed. 1925.

2. MS. NO. ASB. Govt. 5719.

3. Ed. Gurudāsa Vidyānidhi 1939.

4. By Rādhāmodara–457 Gaurāvda.

5. By Cirañjivāśarmā - ed Serampur Saka 1755.

6. MS. NO. 450 of 1892-95 BORI

7. MS. Sanskrit College Chando 34.

8. Ed. 1909.

9. Ed. by Candramohan Ghosh—B. I. 1902.

74

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

It is mainly devoted to the Pkt and the Skt metrics. The work is important and indispensable for the setting up of the chronology of the Skt metrics, because this is the only work in Pkt which after the Vṛttaratnākara moulded the shape of most of the manuals that appeared in the later period.

Pkt tradition prefers quite obviously to deal first with Pkt metres, Virahāṅka, the earliest known work available in Pkt tradition seemed to be the originator of this method. Svayambhū's regard for Skt tradition strikes rather a discordant note in this domain, Pkt Piṅgalam follows the method adopted by Virahāṅka whose most of the layings have been incorporated by him. But unlike Virahāṅka, the former divides the manuals broadly into two sections dealing with Pkt and Skt metres respectively. Not only Vāṇī Bhūṣaṇam, but also Vṛttamauktīkam1 has been set in two parts each separately numbered as an independent unit.

Pkt Piṅgalam in the true spirit of a compiler attempts at rationalising into a systmatic and comprehensive system the already accepted methods of versification elaborated by the previous thinkers like Piṅgala, Hemacandra, Virahāṅka and Svayambhū. The compiler adopted the five mātrāgaṇas2 introduced by Hemacandra, used symbolic names for four mātrāgaṇas of Virahāṅka3 namely 2, 3, 4, 5 introduced new mātrāgaṇas t dh n and recognised eight varṇagaṇas of Piṅgalācārya. But so far as the definitions are concerned Pkt Piṅgalam used all the symbols introduced by the authors

1. I. O. 114 and Adyar 40E 39 describe only the Part—I. Part—I being completed in 52 leaves and Pt. II in 204 each of each has been separately dated.

2. I. 2. Chandonuśāsanam—Dvitricatuṣpañcaṣaṭkalā datacapasa Dvitripañcaṣṭatrayodaśabheda mātrāgaṇaḥ.

3. Vjs. I. 19. Gurusavva kanna ; Guruanta karalam panharam ca gurumajjham

Pkt. P. I. 17 Gurujña kanna guruamta karaalam pohoranni guru-majjha.

SYSTEMS OF SANSKRIT METRICS

75

just mentioned except his own ones3 i.e. t th d dh n. Vāṇī

Bhūṣaṇam2 and Vṛttamauktikam following the track lay

a side the Mātrāgaṇas of Hemacandra but use all the techni-

calities especially those of Pkt Piṅgalam. But unlike Pkt

Piṅgalam, they dispense with the mātrāgaṇas of Hema-

candra.

Poetical licence has been allowed to enjoy in Pkt tradi-

tion. The orthographical character of the syllables in the

metrical lines are not restored rigidly. What is vague and

slightly hinted at first in Skt manual Vṛttaratnākara3 is

carefully set forth in Hemacandra4 but is finally established

in Pkt. Piṅgalam.5

To refer to the most conspicuous instances, we may point

out the rules that ordain that ( 1 ) the short before a con-

junct consonant need not necessarily be always long and the

long, if recited as short should be regarded as short. Even

if a syllable containing two or three mātrās be read rapidly,

it should be regarded as containing one mātrā. ( 2 ) E and O

which are metrically long in Skt tradition, have been con-

sidered as optionally long in Pkt tradition. Vāṇī Bhūṣaṇam6

adopted the 2nd rule of Pkt tradition but did not recognize

the first one which Vṛttamauktikam reproduces in Skt langu-

1. I. 199 Hira metre. nao pabhana tinni chagana amta karahi

Johalam hara thabia jaupu...........etc. chagana—sixmatricgaṇa

Hara—guru I. XI 83—gaṇa vippā sagana dharai pāha pam Bhana

Siṁhaloana Chanda varam.

2. Vāṇī I. 7. taṭhadadhameti gaṇāḥ syuḥ..........Vṛttamauktikam. I. 15.

Fol. 2. b. Rasavāṇedadahanaiḥ pakṣabhyāṁcaiva Sammitamātra

yesamte prastauasthathadhanatyeva Samjñākahprokt cf. definition

of Hira metre I. 119. Vahniṭagaṇāmantyaraṇaṇameva caraṇaśo.

bhitam..........

3. Vṛttaratnākara I. 10.

4. Hemacandra I. 6.

5. PP. I. 5. Ihira Vimdujua Bo Suddha a vanna milia vilahu Raha

Vamjana Samjoe........

6. Vāṇī I. 6. Samjuktapurvo’pi laghuḥ kvacitsyātvarṇastu prahradigato

Vibhāṣā Eo kvacitprākṛtake laghusta ihi tathā Vinduyute.......

76

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

age.1 In the treatment of the subject matter Vāṇī Bhūṣaṇam follows Pkt Piṅgalam closely than Vṛttamauktikam which treats the metres Saveya and Galitakam in its every detail which however the former two, Pkt piṅgalam and Vāṇī Bhūṣaṇam, omitted.

In Pkt tradition Gāthā is a mātrā metre, whereas in Skt it is a gaṇa metre i e. regulated by the caturmātric gaṇas.2 Pkt Piṅgalam3 records both the definitions introduced by these traditions. In Vāṇī Bhūṣaṇam4 too we find that this metre has been treated. In the same manner Vṛttamauktikam separately lays two sets of definitions, by which it seems to afford respective criterion to Skt and Pkt traditions. Thus Gāthā is defined here as Mātrā and Āryā as syllabic one.5 Vāṇī Bhūṣaṇam and Vṛttamauktikam do not make provision for Capalā variety of Āryā6 which seems to be an innovation of the Skt tradition since the Pkt Piṅgalam seems to take no notice of it. Pkt Piṅgalam7 treats Upajāti as a class which is originated from the mixture of the metres containing the same number of syllables. Vāṇī Bhūṣaṇam8 notes only the case of Indravajrā and Upendravajrā. Vṛttamauktikam, however, restores the version of Pkt Piṅgalam by dilating on the point “Samaakkharā” and places the cases

1. Vṛttamauktikam I. 11. Fol. 2a. yadapidīrgham varṇam jihva laghu paṭhati bhavati. So’pi laghūh varṇastvartim paṭhanāt dvitrān ekam vijānita//

2. Vide PP.........( III )

3. Pkt Piṅgalam I. 54. – In terms of mātrā

I. 56. – In terms of Gaṇa

4. Vāṇī Bhūṣaṇam — I. 41, I. 42

5. I. 91. Vṛttamauktikam Fol. 9b. Prathame dvādaśamātrā.....iti gāthā lakṣaṇam Āryā sāmānya lakṣaṇam......Ṣaṣṭhe jo va vipro viṣame na hi joganaśca gurvantah Saptabārāyāḥ Sahāraḥ........

6. Vide PP.........( Chapter – III )

7. Pkt P. II. 118.......Sawam Jaihim Sama akkhara dijjiasu Piṅgala bhana uvajaihi kijjasu //

8. Vāṇī Bhūṣaṇam II. 123 Tadopajātiḥ Kavindrairbheda bhovantīha caturdaśāsyāḥ //

of the Śālinī-vatornī, Indravajrā, Upendravajrā, Vamśastham

Indra-blamśā.1 Lastly, without entering into unnecessary details, we can

show that Vṛttamauktikam and Vāṇī Bhūṣaṇam though seem

to belong to Skt tradition make no discussion about “Gāthā

type” of metres being influenced that are not by Pkt Pinga-

lam. On the contrary, Kavidarpaṇam and Hemacandra

make a short provision for “Gāthā” as they belong to the

post orthodox period. Hemacandra and Kavidarpaṇam

can not abstain from doing it out of the reverence for Skt

tradition.

Vṛttamauktikam deserves to be treated specially here be-

cause of its all embraceable scope. It not only gives places

to Skt and Pkt metres, but incorporates all types of verna-

cular metres current its time, i. e. the 17th century.

Part – I which completed in 52 Folia deals more with non-

Skt metres than with mātrā metres. These are syllabic

matres but have been included in the chapter for mātrā

metres. It is more extensive and exhaustive in its scope.

It is for the first time we are acquainted with Saveyā2 and

Ghanākṣarī3 hitherto unknown in the extant doctrinaries.

By their special feature these metres are more syllabic than

matric and by their nature they are more Prākritic than

Sanskritic, because they received an impetuous treatment in

the hands of the vernacular poets and prosodists.

Part–II completed in 204 Folia, comprises twelve sub-

chapters. It embraces all kinds of specimen of versification

1. Fol II lla. Śālinīvātormyupajātiḥ // anayorekatrapaṅcamākṣara-

gurutvadāpatra ca pañcama laghutvadalpobhedāyojanāt prastāra-

racanayā jāyanta ity upadeśaḥ.

Fol II 13a.—Athanayorūpajatatayāḥ // Upendra Vajrā carane etc.

Fol II 32b.—athayorūpajatatayāḥ // Yadindravamśacāraṇena

Saṃgataḥ pādropi Vamśasthavilāsya jayate……etc.

2. Fol. 4la, I Saptabhākāra Vibhūṣita Piṅgala bhāṣitam……

3. Fol. 43b. II Rasabhūmi………….Ghanākṣaram.

78

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

not recognised by others. Among these most interesting is

the Prakaraṇam dealing with by Virūḍavali.1 This kind of

metre for the first time receives its recognition in the manual

of versification. In the early stages, this has been called to

the requisition for the purpose of panegyrics.2 It receives

its impetuousness in the hand of the Vaiṣṇavas and the verses

are drawn mostly from the works of Rūpagoswāmī.3 It

seems to be exhaustive in treatment and covers a total num-

ber of 62 Folia. In the definition, both the total number of

syllabic instants and Varṇagaṇas are required. Its use can

be found only in the Skt literature.

Pkt Piṅgalam, recognises neither Ardhasama Varṇavṛttas

nor Viṣama Varṇa vṛttas. Vṛttamauktikam makes provision

for all these metres. Not only these, the Vaktra5 class of

metre which we found in the traditional definition of so-

called Śloka metre6 has also been dealt with.

The early work on metrics looked upon as Vedāṅga inclu-

de all the Vedas within its scope which comprises both verse

as well as prose forms of composition.

In the works of later metricists as well as poeticists, re-

appear the same idea as if they have been swayed by the

1. Fol. 138.

2. Vide-Śrī Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava abhidhān III khaṇḍa. P. 1752. Ed. Hari-

das Das. 471. Caitanyābda. Also see-Prof. S. P. Bhattacarya's dis-

course on Virūda, in A. S. B. Nov. 1955.

3. Fol. II.149a. Samagra iti nāmāntaram:-tathoddhāḥtamapi

Śrīrūpasvāmibhiḥ śrī Govindovirudavalyaṁ Yathā :-Pratiṣṭhakha-

ṇḍana-Svabhaktamaṇḍana prayuktacandava....... etc.

4. Fol. II. 138b. —Kalikābhiṣṭukalita Virūdāvalikamatā Savarṇakalika

Proktā Virūdādhyā manoharā Tatra ca advādāśāṅkākālā kāryā

catuṣṣaṣṭhī kalāvadhī.

5. Fol. II. 124a. —Atha vaktraṁ // kadacidardhasamakam Vaktraṁca

viṣamaṁ bhavet / dvayostrayorūpattesu vṛttam. tadā...mi //

6. Athaca :- Pañcamam laghusarvatra

Saptamam dvicaturthayoḥ

guruṣaṣṭhaṁtu pādānāṁ

Śesasvaniyamo mataḥ //.

notion that if Daṇḍaka1 can have an appeal to the ear,

there is no logic in excluding the elegant prose from the

scope of chandas. Chandomañjarī is the earliest known

extant manual to note down this theory and Vṛttamauktī-

kam2 following it reserves a fair position for the treatment

of prose composition and adduces instances from Mālati-

mādhava3 and others.

Vāgvallabha, a comprehensive work on Skt and Pkt

metrics, is to be placed after the above mentioned works on

which the influence of Pkt Piṅgalam is obvious. Like

Vṛttamauktikam it does not lay aside, in its Varṇa Vṛtta-

prakaraṇam, Ardhasama vṛtta, Viṣama Vṛtta and Gadya

Prakaraṇam. In its all embracable scope a distinctive place

has been alloted to Capalā variety of Āryā, which Vāṇī

Bhūṣaṇam and Vṛttamauktikam do not treat at all. But it

is interesting to note that Vāgvallabha makes a fair treatment

of Vaitāliya Prakaraṇam which Pkt Piṅgalam and Vāṇī

Bhūṣaṇam omitted totally. But unlike these three, Duḥkha-

vañjana Kavi in Vāgvallabha admits the scope of “Gāthā”

that hints at the metres not included in the manuals

concerned.

Mention may be made here of a similar type of work

entitled Vṛttacandrikā in which the influence of Pkt Piṅ-

galam is clearly discernible. Within a very short span con-

taining only 23 pages Vṛttacandrikā distributes its subject

matter into three chapters. The first chapter commencing

with Āryā metre, deals with nearly all kinds of Pkt metres

1. Bhāṣyarāja 112b. Mātrāchanda daṇḍakesvāpyamisur antarbhūta

Prāsatālairviśiṣṭha iti.

cf. Vr. Cant. Fol. 240a—Mātrāchandodaṇḍakesvāpyami…Prāsa-

tāle Viśisthataḥ. Tritaladi lakṣaṇāni ca kaustubhe

2. Fol. II. 133b. Vāñmayam dvīhadam proktam padyam gadyamiti

kramāt…

3. Yathā vā mālatimādhave Gato’mavalokitalalitakautukaḥ kāmade-

vāyatanamityādi yathā va kābambaryām—pātalatalavāśiṣu dānave-

śvesvityādi // Ibid. Idem.

80

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

like Soratha, Dohā, Madhubhāra, Kola, Cauvālā etc. Exclu-

ding Vaitālīya group. The second and third chapters mainly

deal with Varṇa metres including in its restricted scope of

metre Ghanākṣarī and Saveyā class of metres. Later on it

has some dissertation on general topics to which has been

added the definition of Gāthā "Gāthoktā caranaih ṣadbhista-

thaiva caranaistribhih." The discussion however is closed

after a slight touch on Gadya.

A small unpublished work1 of Sāraṅgdhara Agnihotrīṃ

consisting of nine and half folia belonging to 1700 AD also

deserves mention here. From the brief exposition at the

beginning it appeared that the work is purely orthodox in

spirit. But in the treatment of the subject matter it follows

Pkt. Piṅgalam After defining Āryā in a manner followed

by Pkt tradition, it devotes a few stanzas for Mātravṛttas

like Dohā, Catuṣpadī etc. This was followed by Sarvasama

and Ardhasama Varṇa-vṛttas.

Another unpublished work, named Vṛttodarpanam2 of

the last century can be referred to here. The work has been

modelled after the fashion of Pkt. Piṅgalam. It enumera-

tes briefly the rules as have been prescribed by the Pkt

tradition. It gives no recognition of the mātrāgaṇas and

the host of the Pkt metres that have been dealt with in

this work are defined in terms of mātrās.

It first deals with Mātravṛttas which begins with Āryā

and its variety and closes with Marahaṭṭavṛttas. The second

prakāśa dilates only those Varṇa vṛttas which are treated by

Pkt Piṅgalam. They appeared with the same designations

as has been adopted by that standard work. The work

closes with a fair discussion on prastāra including both Mātrā

and Varṇa prastāra prakaraṇam.

1. ASB, MS. No. I. G. 8. By name chandomālā.

"Codex" numbered as G.5915 contains only I section where as the

complete work has been noticed by R. R. L. Mitra in Vol. VI.

The number of which is 2028. P. 54.

SYSTEMS OF SANSKRIT METRICS

81

Vṛttamauktikam only discusses elaborately the Mātrā Prastāra, shortening the case of Varṇa Prastāra in a few lines. The work concerned, like Pkt Piṅgalam extends a full-fledged discussion on Prastāra of both types of metres.1 In fact, the only difference is that the former shifted the topic at the end of the work following the Skt tradition, where as the latter inserts it between the Saṃjñā Prakaraṇam and Mātrā Prakaraṇam.

We could place here another work on metrics, with the same designation by some Kavindra, son of Rāmānanda. The work appeared with chapterwise description in the notices made by R. Lall Mitra.2

The arrangement of subject matters exhibits the fact that the work is modelled after the manner of Vṛttamauktikam. Unlike the preceding work consulted before, it discusses about Pratyayas just after finishing the Saṃjñā Prakaraṇam. Unlike Vṛttamauktikam, we came across the Vipulā variety. Vaitālīya Prakaraṇam is preceded by a detailed discussion on Mātrāvṛttas as has been executed by Pkt Piṅgalam and others. Along with Sarvasama Varṇavṛtta Prakaraṇam, Ardhasama and Viṣamavṛttam have also been dealt with. The work closes with a fair treatment on Gadya and Virūdāvalī being followed by a short note on blemishes arising in connection with verse composition.

The group of writers who claimed to be the surviving exponents of the orthodox period headed by Chandomañjarī-

1. Prastāra mūlakaraṇam / Prastāraprakāra kīrtanam tatra mātrā Prastāraḥ / varṇa prastāraḥ / yarṇoddiṣṭakathanam / mātrānaṣṭham / varṇanaṣṭham / mātrāmerukathanam / varṇamerukathanam / mātrāpatākā / varṇapatākā / mātrāmarkaṭī / varṇamarkaṭī /

This chart is prepared according to notice made by R. R. Lall Mitra VI. P. 55

2. Codex No. 2038. Notices of R. Lall Mitra. Vol. VI with Folia 40. Extant in 1200 ślokas. This descriptive catalogue P: 68—69 is utilized in order to show the fact.

6

82

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

kāra may conveniently be mentioned here. Gaṅgādāsā's

Chandomañjari constitutes a compact manual on Skt

metrics in six chapters. There seems hardly to have any

ingenuous treatment. The work mainly based on Vṛttara-

tnākara not only paraphrased standard definitions, but re-

produced sometimes the whole of the stanza verbatim1. In

the same hackneyed manner, sometimes in same phraseology

Gaṅgādāsa formulated the definition of Upajāti and of Āryā

metres.

The unavoidable influence of the Pkt tradition is inevita-

ble on the group which comprises Gaṅgādāsa and others.

With a spirit of electicism, it pays due acknowledgement

through the implicit sanction of the optional rule regarding

the lengthening of the short before conjunct consonant2.

While utilizing the illustrative verse of Vṛttaratnākara for

the case of optionally lengthening of the short at the end of

the pāda, Gaṅgādāsa unconsciously shows his compliance with

the Pkt tradition.3 Because the verse concerned is in

Āryā metre and pāda division is accepted in the Pkt tradi-

tion. And the most curious fact is that Gaṅgādāsa being

Āryā after the frame of two hemistiches.4

But Gaṅgādāsa does not distribute his material in a

1. Myarastajabhragairlāntairrabhirdāśabhirakṣaraiḥ Samastham vāñ-

mayam vyāptam trailokyamiva viṣṇunnā Vr II I§II 6.

cf. vṛtta. I. 8. - Chando I. 10.

-do- I. 18-20a - I 26–28 etc.

2. “Pra hre vā” iti punah Piṅgala munervikalpavidhāyakam sūtram.......

atra hra śabde pare gurorloghutvam, Tivraprayatnoccāraṇenatra

loghutvamiti Kaṇṭhābharaṇam.

3. Atra pādāntago laghuguru bhavedvā / Yathā Alpavyyayena Sundarī,

grāmyajano miṣṭhamāśnāti II i. II 13.

4. Sundarīti grāmyaśabda pare vikalpena laghutvam. V. Chando I.

Lakṣaitat saptaganā, Gopetābhavatinehaviṣamejah / Ṣaṣṭho yaśca

nalaghu vā prathameardhe niyatāmāryāyāh. This verse is also

copied from Vṛttaratnākara II. I.

fashion after Kedāra, who follows Vedāñgachandokāra basically. Instead of dealing Mātrāvṛtta after Saṁjñā Prakaraṇam, Gaṅgādāsa introduces the chapter of Sarvasama vṛttam. In this case, his manner is in keeping with what has been planned in the respective works of Jayakīrti and Hemacandra whose distribution of subject matter is done in the following sequence—Sarvasamam, Ardhaasamam, Viṣamam, and Mātrāvṛttas. But unlike the host of these authors of the Skt tradition, Gaṅgādāsa leaves no scope for “Gāthā” or “Śeṣa” type of metres. Vaktra class has been allotted a special place in his chapter on Viṣama vṛttam.1 The work closes with the chapter dealing with Gadya Prakaraṇam but the discussion about Ṣatpratyayas is not touched upon possibly because, to this author it is nothing but a mere curiosity.2

Incidentally, we come across a work entitled Chandoma-khānta3 by one Puṛuṣottamabhaṭṭa supposed to be the master of Gaṅgādāsa.4 The work can distinctly be referred to here, because in it the Gītivṛtta has first received a vague but implicit sanction in manual on metrics. Many of his songs bear close resemblance to those of Jayadeva and they are laudatory verses addressed to Śiva and Pārvatī.5

Chandoratnākara6, and elementary treatise on the Skt metrics in four chapters is a work belonging to this group. The work in 17 Folia is fashioned in its own way. Along with Āryā it deals with Dohā or Dohārikā for which our

1. IV. 255–258 Chandomañjarī

2. Vyavahārocitam prāya mayā chandotra kīrtitam /prastārādi punarno-ktam kevalam kautakam hi Tat // VI. 5. Ibid.

3. Vide Varendra Research Society Monograph No. 5 PP. 23

4. Svetamāndāvyamukhyāstu necchanti munaye yatim ityā ha bhaṭṭa Svagranthe Gururme puṛuṣottamam // I. 20. Chando.

5. Sahacarīdarśaya tamatula mattam / Svapnasamāgama mohitacittam Avirata mukulita locanamālam / Dīpaśikhā lasadikṣaṇabhāram //.

6. Ms. No. ASB. G. 3518. the ms. coined with date śaka 1622.

84

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

Chandomañjarikāra also makes some provision. Likewise some classes of Apabhraṁśa metres are found in this work such as Anindā, Mātrāmohinī, Cārusenī, Bhadrā and Raṭṭā with rhymed pādas. Obviously they are expected to be used in current literature.1

The author must have before him the work of puruṣottamabhaṭṭa, because it does not miss the Gītikā metre2. In its restricted scope the author tries to convince that Upajāti3 metre is not to be regarded as the species of Triṣṭubh class, but to be treated as an independent generic group. That is why Upajāti has been dealt with separately. In a few lines the Ṣaṭpratyayas are discussed and the topic of Gādya has just been touched. Lastly, it can be said that work is being modelled in many parts after Chandomañjarī with considerable plagiarism of passage in extenso.4

Like the late century works, Chandokaustava embraces all kinds of metrics coming on the way, but as a remnant of the orthodox group, it imbibes the spirit of Vṛttaratnākara and Chandomañjarī. It distributes its materials in 9 chapters or Prabhās. In the first Prabhā Samjñānivandhanam, it admits the regulation regarding the optional lengthening of the short before pra and bra and at the same time adds definition of Gāthā.6 Like Vṛttaratnākara, it also has an additional feature

1. Fol. 11b. Athāpabhraṁśāduyeṣām prayogadṛśyante teṣām lakṣaṇāni nigadante.

2. Pādānta yamakrāntā śravyāyādi padāvaliḥ sā gītiḥ kathyate hi.......

3. Fol. 11a.—just after the treatment of the varṇavṛttas, alongwith vaitālīya class. Having adduced instances from the literature of Mahākavis—the author argues—“Ityadau chandabhaṅga syāt........... aparopajāyatayastu mahākavi prayogādādaraṇīyāḥ.........—Anantarodi-rtalakṣmabhājau.

4. Ch. m. 1. 4. Padyam..........Eh. R. Fol. 4b. Padyam..........in the definition of līlākhelā, tūnakam—Ch. m. II. 135 and 137 respectively.

Fol. 8. chando kat.—Ekanyunanvidyunmālā pādam cet līlākhelā, tūnakasamānikapāđadvayam vināntime. //

5. Śeṣam Gāthā Stribhiḥ Ṣaḍbhiścaranaihrūpalakṣitaḥ. Chandokau=

of Gāthā which comprises those metres that are not dealt with in the work concerned, and it puts it as if quoting from the Vṛttaratnākara ad verbum.1

Vṛttaratnāvalī of Cirañjīvaśarmā2 in the form of a panegyric addressed to his patron Yaśavanta Singha, dilates on the metrics current in the 18th century. In its restricted scope this work embraces some of the Pkt metres such as Sāveyā, Kavittha and Durlalitaka, in which the lyrical ballads of Tulsīdāsa and other works in Hindi have been composed.

This fondness of vernacular metres not only allures him to compose his own Skt composition Kāvyavilāsa in some of the metres just mentioned3 but makes him to appropriate the poetical licence, regular in the Pkt tradition.4 Besides, perhaps this author is a solitary figure to refer to his absorption of the “verse libre” designated by him as “Kavitvakāmāma” in the Skt manual.

Vṛttaratnāvalī5 of Venkateśa is written in 66 verses to show the use of the current Varṇavṛttas. Vṛttavārtikam is an attempt of Rāmapāṇivāda to dispose of the only varṇa metres as to be found in the 19th century.

Among the Varṇavṛttas only a few are selected as they are not commonly used. Vṛhatī and Aṣṭhi class of metre are not taken into consideration because they are not selected by the poets.6 Āryā has been defined without

stava. I. 30. 457 Gaurāvda. Anusvāro visargo ca dīrgho yuktapā-rasatbā varṇogururnato hre pro pādānte cāpi vā laghuh // I. 19.

1. Prabhā IV. 13. Viṣamakṣarapadam vā padairisamam daśadharmāvat yacchando noktamatra Gātheti tat sūribhiḥ proktam.

2. Serampur. Śakābda 1755.

3. Kāvyavilāsa. S. B. T. 1925. P. 30.

4. Kvacit Savindu Kvacidardhavindurokāra yukto'pi laghuh kvacit syāt. Ucāryamastarītaprayatnat dvitrasvarṇa kvacidekābhājam.

5. Ed. H. G. Narahari 1952.

6. Bṛhatyām nā prayogārham vṛttam paṅktyām tu kathyate // Tss. 131.

86

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

its Gana system.1 In its limited sphere the author reserves thirteen kārikās for the treatment of the five Prastāra vidhi excluding the Adhvayogah.

Chandāmṛtalatā2 of Amṛtānanda consists of 41 Folia comprising 400 slokas. The author was known to scholars more as a redactor of Aśvaghoṣa's Buddhacarita than as a prosodist. But this unpublished work is conveniently grouped here because of its being directly modelled after Chandomañjarī.

Amṛtānanda recognises the authority of Piṅgala at every step paying homage to the Ācārya but appropriates his material from Gaṅgādāsa without acknowledging him. He copied the definitions from the above mentioned text ad verbum. This is sometimes so extensive that he can be charged with slavish imitation or plagiarism. This copying is not sporadic but systematic and is found practically throughout the work.

Some of the verses are bodily reproduced and some are tactfully placed by the insertion of the worshipping diety of the author.3

The verbal borrowings are so numerous that it makes this work an interesting study. In its very form and manner it seems to be a replica of the Chandomañjarī. It is classical and orthodox in spirit and no consideration has been paid to the Vedic and Pkt metre. In spite of this its treatment is improving upon some of the deficiencies of the Chandomañjarī. It does not admit the Pkt metres yet it defines the Āryā in the manner typical of the Pkt tradition.

1. Mātrāvṛttāni kathyante ganānām niyamam vinā lakṣitopi Sa bhuyiṣṭham prayogeṣu na dṛśyate. 60 // Ibid.

2. ASB. B. 36.

3. Devam praṇamya śākyendra jayalakṣmīṁ samudbhavah Srī Rāmānanda tanayo’mṛtānando tanodimaṁ Ch. Amṛtalatā—Fol. I. Devam praṇamya Gopālaṁ vaidya Gopālodāsajah Santoṣā tanaya-scchanda Gaṅgādasastanotyadah // Chm. I C. S. S. XIV.

SYSTEMS OF SANSKRIT METRICS

87

Along with other long metres Chandā’mṛtalatā insists on the yati in Vasantatilakam and others which are not prescribed by the host of the writers. Among the known writers who support this are the anonymous authors of Śrutabodha and the compilers of Kṛṣṇakavī, both belong to this group. But only difference in them is that Śrutabodha1 and Chandā’mṛtalatā.2 prefer the yati division at 8-6 where as the last one3 fixes upon 7-7. Unlike Chandomañjarī it excludes from its scope the Vaitālīya group but makes provision for the “Śeṣa” metre.

We would close our survey of the works of the orthodox group by mentioning two works Mandāramarandacampū by Kṛṣṇakavī4 and Śrutabodha ascribed to Kālidāsa5 which are mainly Kaviśikṣā type meant for aspiring poet in the devices of the craft. In the section designated as Vṛttavindu, only the definitions of the syllabic metres are appropriated without maintaining their seriality. Only peculiarity that is discernible in this work is to maintain yati in almost all the metres. The most notable are the cases of the Upendravajrā and Indravajrā where yati is prescribed after the 5th which has been detected by our modern scholar.6 In Śeṣavindu or the chapter dealt with the remaining topics, it enumerates briefly the rules and the regulations regarding the metrical principles and in its manner the impression of Vṛttaratnākara is discernible.7 It speaks also of Gāthā.8

1. Aṣṭabhirinduvadane ; Viratiśca ṣadbhiḥ kānte ; vasantatilakam kilatam vadanti // verse. 34.

2. Gogaścamañgalā guhaśpakṛto viramaḥ Fol. 19.

3. na vā pade’pi viratiḥ sapta saptakṣaraihmatā // Mandara marando campū I. 14, Kāvyamālā ed. 52.

4. Ed. Kāvyamālā ed. 52.

5. Ed. 1909. Published along with Chandomañjarī.

6. Indravajra tata jaga go harāśyaṛtubhiryatiḥ I. 17. Vide Arnold’s Vedic metres.

7. Caraṇadimavarnaśya samyagah kramasamjñakaḥ tasyā prakṣitavarnaśca vā guruḥ // Śeṣa vindu. P. 161.

8. Proktamyetāni viṣamavṛttāni prasputam vinā anyanyasama vṛttāni gāthā prāhurmaniṣiṇaḥ. Vṛttavinduh. || P. 23.

88

SYSTEMS OF SANSKRIT METRICS

Śrutabodha on the other hand, is a short compendium of Skt manual where only the general principles are dealt with in an easy but compatible manner.

In this brief exposition, it makes an attempt to lay the devise by which the common parts of the metres can be detected easily, which is the vital part of the metres.

In Chandomañjarī1 too we find this method applied. In a very easy and elegant language he has given us an inkling into this manner.

We are not sure who, among expositors of the Śāstra first casts light upon this device.

Sufficient for our purpose to note that it is in the commentary of Yādavaprakāśa2, this principle came into light.

Among the later writers, Kṣemendra3 in his Survṛttatilakam has dealt with it at length.

Among the Kaviśikṣā poets, Amarchandra4 and Devesvara5, furnished an elaborate hint on the construction of different metres.

Most common and adoptable method is the application of “pitch forking process”—which has been hinted at not only by the metricists but by the poeticists of the late century.

The obvious cases of the shifting of the long syllable at the end by addition of a short one in the penultimate portion of the Upendravajrā group and Vamśastha pair are well known to merit special mention.6

1. Samānikāpadadvayam vinantimam tūnakam // II. 137. Ch. m. mandākrāntā nayugalajaṭhara kīrtitā citralekhā, II. 177. Ibid.

2. See Infra, pp. 78

3. See Infra. Kṣemendra flourished in the 3rd quarter of the 11th century. Ibid. Idem. P.130.

4. Second quarter or the middle of the 13th Century. History of Skt poetics, S. K. De // P. 259. 1960.

5. At the middle of the 13th Century. Ibid, Ibem. P. 260.

6. Suvṛttatilakam—II. 44. Upendravajraṃ Vamśastham Paryantaikākṣarādhikam.

Amaracandra—Indravajrōpendravajrayorantaguroḥ Prāgadhikala-ghunēndra vamśa vāmśasthe—Kāvyakalpalatā. Pratāana. I. p. II. Kasi. ed. 1942.

SYSTEMS OF SANSKRIT METRICS

Even the commentators of the standard works have not failed to trace these tendencies of metricists. Mānikyacandra in his commentary on Kāvyaprakāśa adduces instances how from Siddhichandha Pramitākṣarā can be created by dropping two syllables from the fore part of the pāda and seven syllable from the hind and Drutavilambita by deducing two from the last part and the seven from the first.1 Likewise, Śrutavodha2 lays down that Campakamālā would be converted to Maṇimadhyam if the last syllable of it is dropped. Hariśi3 would get its form Mandākrāntā, if the last part of the latter which is demarcated by yati, has been dropped.

The works both published and unpublished just discussed, are indeed noteworthy for their elaborate treatment of Skt and non-Skt metrics. They have merits of their own, but they are, in reality, nothing more than elementary text books, excellent resumes of which methodically sanction the speculations of the predecessors embodying different traditions.

The standard works among these are followed by a host of commentators, who dialate on the explanation of the passages, which practically add nothing new but paraphrase the already existing matters by lucid expositions embedded in file language.

This age witnessed also a host of easy manuals. These works used to repeat only conventional topics in the same

1. Ullāsa IX. PP. 334–35 Mysor ed.

Svam varṇacyutam yathā-Nṛpā ditijāmaraprabhunatāṅghriyugo / jaladadyutirbibhuḥ //. Atra śrīpārsvavarnaṇe Siddhicchandasi pratipādāmādya kṣaradvayasyāntyakṣarasaptakasya ca cyutau pramitākṣaravṛttena tasyāiva varṇanām //.

2. Campakamālā yatra bbavedantyavihīna premanidhe/chandati dakṣā ye kavayastanmanimadhyam te vruvate. Śrutabodha. 14.

3. Verse. 15. Ibid.

90

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

stock of phraseology even without annotating the crucial issues already existed in the preceding works. The work to be introduced presently depends upon no system but appears to have been written for enlightenment of the theory of metrics.

Jagannātha's Chandopīyusa is such a work still unpublished. This work in form is indeed one of the most exhaustive and noteworthy presentations of the later time1. It displays a very subtle and independent treatment or at least an attempt at a rethinking of the old problems. The author shows himself conversant with the old theories which he represents in his work and which he endeavours to harmonise with new currents of thought.

The work distributes its subject matter in four chapters. It is in the form of sūtras with a vṛtti thereon of the author's own.

The first chapter is an introductory one. Here the author enumerates in eighty sūtras different sorts of mnemonics and techniques to be applied in the work. He seems to introduce a novel device, here where in addition to eight syllabic mnemonics2 some other terms also have been enumerated which are author's own creation, viz. "gha" represents two shorts, "kṣaḥ" two longs;3 kah and khaḥ make provisions for doublets consisting of short long and long short respectively. Duplication of any terminology has been represented by the vowel u4 and the termination of the middle position has been marked out by consonant "n".5 For

1. The only codex which is found in the collection of BORI with ms. No. 450 of 1892—95 BORI is utilized here.

2. Fol. 6a—Sarvādyamadhyanteyugesu ma bha ja..........etc. cf. Fol. 20b. Kṣādaiḥ pratyāpiḍaḥ......................

3. Fol. 6b—Uparodviṇḥ—Uparo yasyadityuparo mūrsurityādigane dvirāvṛtto, vodhyo madvayam savdaymityādi.

4. Fol. 6b laugḥaḥ gau kṣaṣḥ

5. ṇāntomadhyavṛt. Fol. 6a. madhye vartate iti madhyavṛt.

SYSTEMS OF SANSKRIT METRICS

91

the pause or cease, two different terms such as "tha"1 has been prescribed for syllabic metres and "bha" for the mātrā metres.

Four mātrā Gaṇas,ta, ca, da and na have been prescribed one each for the Gaṇas of six mātrās, five mātrās, four mātrās, and two mātrās respectively. In addition to it, Gaṇa of four mātrās for Āryā and its variety has been designated as "ha".2

In defining the syllabic metres, the author follows a method entirely different from the traditional mode of expression. In order to restore its brevity it adopts the shortest possible means. This method is totally different from the traditional one. The author very intelligently points out the common parts of the different metres in terms of their mnemonic constituents and defines a number of metres in such a way that the interrelation of those metres concerned becomes obvious at once with the very acquaintance with definitions themselves.3 The importance of this has been already comprehended by Amaracandra who aptly termed it as marmajña.4

For example, the definition of "jaloddhatagati" metre "jasajasa" which can form the first part of the "prthvī" metre whose definition runs thus "yake prthvī......". This definition implies the sense jasajasayaka will be the form of prithvī.

The definition of Chandah covers in its scope both vṛtta and Jāti by its logical and adoptable appropriateness.5

In the treatment of the last syllable in a feet as being optionally long our author extends full support that is why

1. Jihvesthaviśramo bha. Fol. 6b.

2. Saṭṭuḥ Pañca Ca Catvāro ḍah Fol. 6a Lāhaḥ

3. Fol. 32–dvirjasorjaloddhatagtiḥ ṣaṣṭho tha...........yake pri-thvyāṣṭamitha vṛtti—Dvirjasoyake pare prthvīvṛttamaṣṭamitha.

4. Vide, Kāvyakalpalatā pra 1, p.11, kasi. ed. 1942.

5. Fol. 1b. Mātrākṣarasaṃkhyāyā niyatā vākcchandah.

92

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

he cannot justify the argument laid down by Halāyudha who raged against it.1

In a manner quite opposite to the ancient authorities, Jagannātha’s definition of the “quarter of a verse” has excluded the Upajāti and padacatururdhavādi class in consideration of their special features.2

He can not cope with the sanction of Nārāyanabhatta whose section for the Upajāti was restricted only to the class of two or more akin vrittas.3

In a manner quite different from his orthodox predecessors, the author wants to include Dandaka among Mātrāvritta. Jayakirti seems to hint at this point and he includes it in the chapter VI along with the Mātrāvrittas.4

In the 2nd chapter Satpratyayas have treated in extenso Third chapter begins with the Upajāti and Padacatururdha class being followed by Dandaka and Mātra metres. Mātra chanda is introduced with “Marutcchandah” consisting of six ganas of four mātrās followed by “Kirtịh” of seven four matric. ganasgīti, seven and a half-upagītiḥ having one laghu in place of one gana—when this laghu is in the first half this is udgītiḥ and when placed in the last half this is Āryā.5

This is followed by the discussion on the Vaitālīya-prācyavitti Mātrāsamaka group. Each discussion is appended with a “Samgrahaślokas” which is the sectional synopsis on the topics just treated. Besides, we came in contact with a number of Pkt metres (Fol. 30b) such as Sukhapītā, Harigīti,

1. Etena Vikalpayam duṣayan Bhattaḥalāyudhaḥ parāstaḥ Fol. 5a.

2. dvayorangghrī miśrane upajātiḥ. Dvayośchandayor miśrane upajātiś-chando gāyatryādivat samānyāsāmjñeyām—Fol. 18b.

3. Samānakṣarasambhyāpayo dvayoreva ca miśrane upajāti riti Nārāyanoktam tu nādeyam anugrāhaka pramānābhāvāt tadvirodhā-proyogavirodhācetidik. Fol. 19a.

4. cf. Jayakirti. VI. 37. Māgadhikā gunajā tirdvipa dit trayā mutsava dvitayam apicarama / Pañcalayottaravidhyopi candavṛsthyā didandakā Ganadhoktāḥ.

5. Fol. 22b. Saddā Marut...........Saptasamudrakīritịh.. ......Ardhegī-tịh laupagītiḥ pūrva udgītiḥ–parā Āryā.

Dvipatham, Saurāṣṭhra1, Unnāla and Mahotsava, Fourth chapter proceeds to discuss Vṛttachandas2. It then takes up the Ardhasama and Viṣamavṛttas which closes with the 'gādya'. Inclusion of the last mentioned topic is justified because it has been appertained by Piṅgala as gāthā, by an extended use of the term.3

It does not pay a lurking regard for the old writers and does not bring back blindly or any of the old ideas for appropriation to his manual. Chandopiyūṣa displays a reactionary tendency in its language, its subtle reasoning and its unsparing criticism of the earlier writers. To substantiate this, we can adduce only few cases out of the many.

'Hrasvam Laghu'—it has been sanctioned by the great grammarian Pāṇini. He accepts it and at the same time he cannot deny the time honoured usage in the composition—that is why he laid down Prahrādeh Prākkvacit.4 Jagannātha did not hesitate in picking up the irregular use of the great poet grammarian Bhaṭṭi5 who used 'naganā' or three laghus in the first four syllable violating the rule 'Naprathama tsnau'.

Even the irregular use of Dohā cannot escape6 from his keen observation.

The author of Chandopīyuṣa displays a subtle and independent treatment or at least an attempt at a recapitulation of the old problems. He is conversant with the prosodical

1. Fol. 24a. ḍanādrakeraye bhakṣe vaitālīyamaupacchandasikmāpātalakā.

2. Fol. 3. Vṛttam...............Akṣareṣu vṛttam mātrāsu jātim vyavasthapyethuktaschandasām samjñā.

3. Aniyamābhāvāt gādyam—Atrānuktam gāthā gāthyeti Piṅgala sūtrepi gāthā śabdena gādyamevāvivakṣitam. Fol. 44b.

4. Fol. 3b.

5. Pravibhayāṃcakārāsāviti Bhaṭṭikāvye prathama Naganā prayogādasvarāsa eva. Fol. 40a.

6. Fol. 44. Bhāṣākavi Cakravarty Viharīkṛte dvipathe dvitiye'nghrau ṣaṇmātrakā syābhāvāt.

94 ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

theories of the predecessors, which he does not set aside,

but endeavours to harmonize them with new currents of

thoughts. In his general treatment he makes an attempt to

cover almost all the trends of thoughts traversed by his

predecessors.

In short it can be said that Chandopīyūṣa deserves to be

mentioned with high esteem because of its novelty of treat-

ment, albeit the obscurities due to its brevity of exposition

necessitating lucid commentaries instead of a simple vrtti.

To most of the writers who followed the foot steps of

Pkt Pingalam. Vrttaratnākara and Gañgādāsa, there was

hardly any original work. The details of the new system

having already been gradually accepted there was apparently

no occasion for any creative work. There are very few in

number like the author of Chandopīyūṣa and the versatile

scholar Bhāskara Rāyā1, who possess the genius of making

an entirely new departure.

Gañgādhara's Chandonuśāsanam is the only work among

the three (1) Chandonuśāsanam, (2) Chandosāraḥ and (3)

Chandahpāṭha2 available till now, working but the already

accumulated stock of ideas in the light of a new scheme.

Novelty of its treatment lies not in critical elaboration, but

in novel arrangement of the metres. Technical terms and

figurative symbols in the code of nomenclature regulating

the cardinal principle of the science are indicative to line

traversed by the Pkt tradition. Varṇavrttas have to lose its

own identity because of their existence to the mātrā basis.

This work comes from the pen of a versatile scholar of

the 19th century whose manysided scholarship enriched the

Skt literature in all ways. The codex consisting of 42 folia,

distributes its subject matters in six chapters. In the first

1. Two voluminous works :-

Bhāṣyarāja—MS. ASB. III A 77 ; Vrttacandrodaya III C 94.

2. I. Skt college. chandah 34. 2. Skt. coll. chandah 37. 3. An incom-

plete work, containing 2 Folia, but appeared to be or commentary

on Pingala ch. Sūtra.

chapter it, instead of treating the Varṇagaṇas and Mātrāgaṇas differently, places them under the same category. Thus "Ma" having three gurus8 is to be read among the group of the six mātrās rather than among Varṇagaṇas, though he mentions the Mātrāgaṇas adopted by his predecessor. After making a fair treatment of Devatā, Mitra and Amitra of the Gaṇas in the chapters II and III respectively, it enumerates the metres in general. In the treatment of the syllabic metres Gaṅgādhara adopted a new principle in which the syllabic metres are arranged in accordance with the number of syllabic instants in a pada3. Fol. 31a. "Atha miśrakamā-dhyāyaḥ vyākhyamo varṇamātrayāḥ yatra vaiṣamyamuddiṣ-tham pādeṣu varṇa mātrayoḥ".

In the following chapter the subjects have been arranged in the mixed principles such as "varṇasāmye kalāvaiṣamya" equal in syllables but not in mātrās - in which category fall the Anuṣṭubh and the Upajāti. "Mātrayā varṇena Ardha-samam" - that comprises the metre Vegavatī, Puṣpitāgrā ; Pādanirdeśena kalayārddhasamaṃ varṇato viṣamapadāprakar-aṇam"-equal number of mātrās in each alternative half but not equal number of syllables-this includes, Vaitālīya ; Aupacchandasika etc. "Padaniṭṭdeśena kalāvarṇavaiṣamyam"-in this group besides some known Pkt metres there are "Viggātha" Siṃhinī etc. The last one is "Kalāsāmye varṇa-vaiṣamyam" which contain equal number of mātrās but not equal number of syllables to which group can be included the metre "Hākali" as a solitary instance.8

1. Fol. 3a. Triguruh ṣaṭkalojñeyo makarastrikṣaramekaḥ madhyalaghu pañcakalalaḥ trivarṇaṣṭureva ucyate.

2. Fol. 8a. Pāde pāde samavarṇa yatra cāpi kalā samāḥ Athanāmāni uktavṛttasyāt..........Fol. 8b; Ekovarṇaḥ ādyavargāḥ mātrā dvan-dhāḥ Ekoḷāraḥ..........Fol. 10b ;. Vṛttānuṣṭup varṇaiṣṭā syād-yovargo'stau Dvimātrā ādyo sthauḥāravarṇaśca vidyunmālā nāmnā sā khyāta.

3. Fol. 39. Prathamau Tu caturdaśau kalāvekādaśaukṣaraghaṭitau śeṣau daśo'kṣaraghaṭitau hākalirūpaḥ kavi gaditam.

96

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

The concluding chapter designated as "Samamātriyamadhyāya" dwells on purely Pkt metres beginning from 11 mātrās in each pada to 32 mātrās. This comprises nearly all metres beginning from eleven matric Dīpaka, twelve matric Madhubhāraḥ etc. including even Daṇḍakalā† which consists of two or three hundred kalās.

This work in brief extends an outline of a new system which attempts to take into consideration all the metres in view and to build a synthetic theory of metres that hitherto does not exist, blotting out the distinction lies between varṇachanda and mātrāchanda.

With works discussed before, we can temporarily close our survey. Practically speaking, the details regarding all kinds of metrical systems having already been well established, there are apparently no room for any creative work. The commentators who crowded this period busied themselves in interpreting the already established rules, in adding here and there some minor points of details not clearly made out by the predecessors.

This period, obviously like the preceding ones, witnesses numberless commentaries written on standard works like Vṛttaratnākara, Pkt Piṅgalam, Chandomañjarī and even on Śrutubodha. Most of them however remained in manuscripts swelling up the collection of the different mss. centres.

For these with whom we come in direct contact either in printed or in manuscript form we would propose to prepare some digestive notes concentrating only on vital points on which they make deliberations. Besides, we would not lay aside the minor commentaries also written on the standard texts. of course, we would cast only some cursory glances on them without going into details for they do not call for any such treatment.

1. Fol. 40b. Laghugururniyamābhāvāt dvitriśaṣṭakalāvargo daṇḍakalāḥ Tadyādi sarvavaraṇalaghu bhavati Piṅgalanā gabhanatyeva.

In the major commentaries, two distinctive characteristics are discernible. One, a made easy type of works belonging to a group of faithful commentators who are more anxious to interpret than to incorporate new ideas in the system they commented upon. The second type is a kind of critical elaboration, which dwelt upon each and every side of the works minutely. But they sometimes suffer from an inordinate bias for the orthodox traditions and from occasional obstinate haphazard generalizations as well. In their treatment we find the scholastic delight in indulging in fastidious refinements. But at the same time there is a sincere effort to unify the various currents of thoughts and principles established in different traditions by synthesising them with the central principle of Vedāṅga chanda.

Most outstanding of the first type are the commentaries of Nārāyaṇabhaṭṭa, of Rāmacandrakavibhāratī and others whowrote on Vṛttaratnākara and of the second type there are Abhinavavṛttaratnākara on Vṛttaratnākara and Bhāṣya Rāja on Piṅgala chandasūtra. Both of them are from the versatile scholar Bhāskara Rāya.

Some of the commentators have been credited to play double role as commentator and as a full-fledged author. This sometimes resulted in presenting two separate works or a unified one. Abhinavavṛttaratnākara ascribed to Bhāskara Rāya may be a commentary on Vṛttaratnākara or a critical elaboration on metrics in general.

Among the commentators of Vṛttaratnākara, chronologically the first place may be assigned to Rāmacandrakavibhāratī1. He is known to be the author of another work on metrics named Vṛttamālā which incidentally gives an account by the celebrated monk Mahānetraprasāda,2

Most of the excerpts are from Piṅgala, Jayadeva, Chandomañjarīkāra and Śrutabodhakāra.

1. Vṛttaratnākara Pañcikā—ed. Nirṇayasāgara press—1948.

2. Printed in Colombo by M. P. Ekanāyaka, Bharati press.

98

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

Rāmacandra is a simple and sedate writer, so simple that

he is bent on offering the reader a mere literary paraphrase

on some vital issues, which deserves scrutiny in treatment.

But his lucid, practical exposition helps in many ways to

make the subject of six pratyayas easily comprehensible.

Among the commentators the most familiar is Nārāyaṇa-

bhaṭṭa and his commentary “Māṇimayī” is widely circulated

in printed form.

But this commentary is not an ideal one. Like the prece-

ding ones, it suffers from inordinate bias for the orthodox

tradition. In the observation of crucial points, specially on

the issue of accepting the reading “pādāдау” because,

Śrutabodha has shown the pāda arrangement.

The intention of Kedāra is to restore the reading “Pādā-

dау” because, in this Āryā verse the short is intended at the

end of the 3rd pāda, longs at the end of the 2nd and 4th

pāda respectively. But the case of the lengthening is due to

contact of the conjunct consonant existed at the beginning

of the 4th pāda to which it maintains a “krama”, i.e. a

seriality.

But sometimes in practice too the lengthening of the short

is obtained before ‘hra’ and ‘pra’ but the occurrence of this

is due to other reason.

Lastly he summarises his opinion in a self-composed āryā

1. Comm. on I. 11. Padyasya caturthoṃśaḥ pādah, tasyādiḥ pādādiḥ.

Iha śāstre pādāдау varṇasya akṣarajāteḥ Samyogaḥ kramasamjñito

bhavatītyadhyāhāryam..............

2. Ed. Kasi Samskrta Granthamālā 55. 1948.

3. Comm. I. 10 “Yasyāḥ pāde prathtame (Śru........4) ityādi cabhiyuk-

taruktam, pathyābhipriyāyam vā, tatra ipādāvyavastāyā vakṣyāmā-

ṇatvāt--P.11. Ibid. Idem. Cf. Āryāmudāharanta āryāsu pādavyā-

vasthābhāvam vadento vṛttikṛtaḥ parākṛtāḥ.

4. Comm. I. 10. Pādānta gurostu laghutā samyogaparasyaivetyanenai-

vocyate. Akramaparaysa tu pādānta gurorlaghutā neṣṭhaiva. —

Ibid, Idem.

SYSTEMS OF SANSKRIT METRICS

99

stanza,1

In order to restore the reading “pādādau” he has to say

much. But in the long run his exposition on this particular

issue proves that our commentator fails to understand the

underlying intention of Kedārabhaṭṭa. Similarly, in connec-

tion with his exposition of the generic role of Upajāti, Nārā-

yaṇabhaṭṭa seems to be bent on an interpretation which

proved to be derogatory to the doctrine of Kedāra.

Kedāra extends the scope of Upajāti even to the metres

belonging to Vijātīya class, but Nārāyaṇa in his gloss does

not support this. In his opinion, extension should be restric-

ted only to “Sajātīya” class of metres. Therefore, the hybrid

type of metres composed of uneven number of syllables, the

metres having pause at uneven places and any type of mātrā

metres can not be termed as Upajāti.2

Nārāyaṇabhaṭṭa's argument is justified and conclusive in

so far as the inclusion of the Vaktra class among the Mātrā-

vṛttas in Vṛttaratnākara is concerned. He elucidates the

fact that there lie some affinities between Mātrā metres and

Vaktra metres.

In both these classes there is no fixed combination of

guru and laghu, although the Vaktra class has been assorted

among the eight syllabic metres and in both of them there

are some common designations namely, pathyā, vipulā and

capalā.3

1. Atra Sodāharamo māmakah Saṃgrahaślokah :—

Yuktaparatvanimittaka prāntagurorevasyate laghutā / pādāntas-

thalaghoriba gurutā veṣṭhasya jānihi//Comm. 1.10.P.12. Ibid. Idem.

2. Anyāsvapi jagatyādijatisviṁtham sāmānyasaṁkhyā akṣaratva Samān-

ayaṭikatva prakāreṇa miśritavidhamevopajātināmā vṛddhā smaranti.

Itthamityanena viṣamavarṇa Samkhyānām viṣamayatikānām ca

jātinām ca miśrane upajātirnāmā nāstiti sūcitam.......Sarvasāmupa-

jātināmuktaya disācatur’asa bheda bhavanti.

Viṣamardhasamarūpatve’pyupajātīnām Samavṛtteṣūnyāsah sama-

vṛttaghaṭitatayā prāsaṅgikaḥ. Comm. on III 31 P. 82.

3. Comm. on II.21. Atha vaktrasyaṣṭākṣaratvenānuṣṭubhi vaktavyas-

yāpi tadvatsakalasyaniyatagurulaghutvābhāvātpathyā capalādi

100 ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

With due acknowledgement, though Nārāyaṇabhaṭṭa has profusely used the exposition of Vṛttikāra, he sometimes referred to Yādavaprakāśa without referring to its source.

In connection with the inclusion of the metres consisting of syllables less than six in number, this commentary has pointed out that they have been approved in Piṅgala's text as in the Śāstrakāra's text according to the maxim jñāpaka which is evident from his last chapter on pratyaya.

In the section on Gāthā, he has incorporated a number of excerpts along with the definitions of the Pkt and the Apabhraṃśa metres.

In short, Nārāyaṇabhaṭṭa's commentary which is more expository than critical has kept this exposition apart from the vexed question of acceptance and non-acceptance.

Cintāmaṇi Daivajña is known to the metricist more for his work Prastāra Cintāmaṇi than for Sudhā, his commentary on Vṛttaratnākara. Both these works are still unpublished. The date of the commentary can be ascertained from the precolophon verse in which it has been stated—Nandavāna-śara bhūmitaśaka—i.e. 1559 śaka —1637 A.D.

No peculiarity can be noticed in this commentary; it is a plain and literal exposition made for easy comprehension.

Cintāmaṇi like Trivikrama and Halāyudha, has been illusioned about the Pkt tradition where the Aryā has been accepted as Mātrā metre distributed among the four pādas.

Samjñā kāryā. Mātrāvṛttānāma sāṅkryacca mātrā vṛtta prastāre eva lakṣaṇamāha.

1. Under 1.9. Taduktāṃ dīrghaṃ samyogaparaṃ. Yādavaprakāśa introduction verse. 4……ed. H. Sinha Ray, 1977.

2. Na ca supratiṣṭhāntānāṃ pañcānāṃ jātīnāṃ sūtrānuktatvānnir mūlateti Saṅkyam “dvikau glau” iti prastāra kathane “pare pūrṇam” iti meruprastārakathane ca Sutrakāreṇāpi darśita……Pp. 66. Nārāyaṇa's gloss. ibid.

3. MS.ASB.G.5809 ; Prastāracintāmaṇi—MS.10.1103. part II. Vol. III prosody.

101

SYSTEMS OF SANSKRIT METRICS

That is why he unhesitatingly accepts the reading pādā dau.1

Incidentally, something may be said about the Prastāra-Cintāmani which though still unpublished is widely circulated among the scholarly world.2

This text consisting of three chapters with an exposition on it in prose, deliberates on the science of prosody mathematically developed in the circulation of all its possible combinations. This work provides a special chapter designated as Khandaprastāra elucidating the subject of rhythm.

Another popular commentary on the Vṛttaratnākara which has found its entry nearly in all the catalogues of the mss is the Setu by Haribhāskara still in mss form.3

Setukāra subscribes himself to the view of his predecessor who adopted the reading "pādādi" because, the verse in illustration is in Āryā metre and in the metre Āryā pāda arrangement is not intended.4

Sulhaṇa has been severely criticized by Setukāra, for his misinterpretation of the Sūtra "vitānam anyad" restricted to the applied in specific case like Nārācakan.5

Nārāyaṇa has been severely criticized by Setukāra on the issue of the Upajāti, in the scope of which the former tried to restrict the metres with equal number of syllables. It must be broad enough to embrace all kinds of hybrid type

1. Idamasyodāharaṇam......Tarunaṁ sarṣapam......athāryātiritiyapā-dānta sundarityatragreti samyogasya paratvāt trayodaśamātratā mā bhuditi laghutā niyamayate. Fol. 5a. Ibid. Idem.

2. Vṛtta. Cand. ud. Fol. 245b. Prastāracintāmaṇi kāradibhistosy......

3. The work is coined with the date of the composition left in the colophon verse -Akṣivahṇīhayabhūmite varṣe (Fol.21)—1732—57—1675. ASB. G. 10338.

4. Āryāyāḥ pāda vyavasthā na labhyate ataeya pādādiviḥa varṇasyeti pāṭhaḥ kvacit pustakeṣu labhyate yuktaścāyam......Fol.4.N.L. T.H. 159.

5. Yattu Sulhaṇena jyātsnā.... ityadi padyātrayamudāhṛtam tadasaṁ-gataṁ nārācakam taralagaviti tasya lakṣitvāt. Fol. 9b. Ibid.

102

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

of metres whether consisting of the same genus or not.1

Sulhana had shown in his commentary that Mañjarī and

Kalikā are synonymous. But Setukāra points out that accor-

ding to Amara "Vallari Mañjari" are synonymous and femi-

nine whereas Kalikākorakarnak are masculine. Therefore

Sulhana is wrong in doing so.2

Setukāra's interpretation of the verse "Samastam vāñma-

yam vyāptam trailokyamiva viṣṇunā" is not truely in keep-

ing with the orthodox spirit.3

In order to sanction these metres that are not dealt with

in the manuals; but are found to be used in the literature,

Bhāskara Rāya tries to show that the scope of Kedāra's

definition of Gāthā being on the line of Vedāñga chandakāra,

is credited to be extended to all kinds of metres found in use

but not in the given manual.4

We should here endeavour to make passing reference to

a number of unpublished made easy type commentaries.

Vṛttaratnākaradar a or the mirror of5 Vṛttaratnākara is

one of the orthodox type which follows the foot steps of

Halāyudha.

1. Fol. 10a.—Eteta samākṣara jāti miśraṇa evopajāitvam iti dvayoreva

jātyo miśraṇa upajāititvamiti ca vyacakṣaṇānām prācām granthān

anādaraṇīyāḥ.

2. Sulhana's Comm. on. V.3.—Mañjarīti vaktavye chandobhaṅgabhayāt

kāliketyuktam ekarthatvānna doṣaḥ. Fol. 10a. Setu. Asyamañ-

jarīti nāmeti Sūtrakāraḥ Yatu kālikamañjuryaḥ paryāya tvamiti

Sulhanastadpramādikam.

3. Fol. 2a. Samastamiti saṃskrta prākṛtyādyatmakamityarthaḥ.

4. Atranuktam chandasolakṣaṇamāhā viṣameti ... ...vastu tastuyac-

chanda ityālyeva 'gathā lakṣaṇam viṣamotvaitvaikam vṛntaityādi

vadatu........yaduktam Sūtrakāreṇa atrānuktam gātheti......

Atrasamachandasamāyuktādi jātisamuktānām kavi prayogeṣu

drśyamānāmiti tan tu paraudhrimatsaranitya dināmeke gāthātv-

amahuh.-Setu....

5. ASB. G. 5841. Incomplete. I. O. Codex is coined with the date

1740 - 1684 A. D.

SYSTEMS OF SANSKRIT METRICS

103

Vṛttaratnākara Bhāvārtha Dīpikā1 is an ideal commentary, to whom the real intention of Kedāra has been clearly discerned. He parts with his predecessors while he accepts the reading “pādādau” because Piṅgala has promulgated “Svarārdhamāryārdham”.2

Any kind of mātrāsamaka group being arranged in four Gaṇas of four matric group would be termed as pādākulakam being padded with rime.3

Bhadravirāṭ is nothing but Aupacchandasika but in the latter there is the provision for the arrangement of the group of six mātrās where the latter lacks it.4 To enrich our available store of knowledge we can say that this commentator has also been credited to have composed an independent work Vṛttapradīpa. We are here to dilate only those portions on which our commentators spared pains to bring the intended meaning to light.

We would close our discussion by placing here a short commentary consisting of 14 Folia, entitled Sugama vṛtti5, by one Jain Samayasundara. Because of its lucidity of style and simple expression the commentator has been designated so. The Vṛtti has been dated as 1694 samvat.6

1. ASB. G. 5858 with no date mark. BORI MS has been coined with the date 1711 śaka. 489-1899 BORI.

2. Fol. 8b.-ASB. G. 5858

Atrā Ṣaṣṭhasthāne ekākṣaramātrasyāivabhidhāsyamānātvat atrār-dhamātrāmevadhīkṛtyalakṣaṇābhidhānāt Paiṅgalīya sūtrāt cāryāyām pādavyavasthā nāstiti gamyata iti Samkṣepah.

3. Vide Fol. 15a……Mātrāsamakānām pañcānāmapi madhyeyaih kaiścidapi caturbhiḥ pādaịh racitam jagatsu pāda kulakamiti prathitam khyātiṃ tatracante yamakamityāmnyāyah.

4. Fol. 32b. - Bhadravirāṭ nāma……idam. Yadyāpaupachandasi-kannātiricyate tathāpi mātrāṣaṭkena gananīyamaḥ - iha tu gananī-yama ityupādhibhedādbhedaḥ.

5. ASB. G. 10304.

6. Samvati Vidhimukhanidhirasaśaṣi (1684) Samkhye Colophon verse. 3, Ibid.

104

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

The next commentator of our concern is Bhāskara Rāyā,

whose importance lies in his learned expositions of the Skt

metrics, in his well known commentaries on the text of

Piṅgala chandaḥ sūtra1 and on the Vṛttaratnākara.2

His

erudition, reputation as a versatile scholar and profound

scholarship no doubt added weight to his masterly creations

and contributed a great deal to the preparation of the survey

of the general trend of the Skt metrics.

He is a polymath writer and is credited to be the author

of more than fifty works four of which are on metrics.3

Of

these again two are known to be commentaries on Vṛttarat-

nākara only, and one is on Vedāṅgachanda.

Among them two are recorded to be the commentaries

on Vṛttaratnākara.4 Truely speaking, Vṛttacandrodaya

or Abhinava Vṛttaratnākara, a voluminous work is to be

called as a critical elaboration on the metrics rather than a

commentary.

Mṛtasañjīvanī is perhaps Bhāskara’s early venture to

write a commentary on the standard work like Vṛttaratnā-

1. ASB. III. A. 76.

2. ASB. III. C. 94.

3. Vṛttacandrodaya, Bhāṣyarāja, the chandakaustubha, and the

Mṛtasañjīvanī. First two are preserved in Asiatic Society of Bengal

and last one belongs to the collection of Adyarlibrary (VI.No. 774)

MS. No. 10. B. 7. .....

S.P. Bhattacharyya noted that kaustubha is different from his own

work Chandaḥ kaustubha. Vādakūtuhala, another work on metrics

contains one section dealt with metrics.

4. List of the mss of the College of Fort William 1825. (a) ASB.

No. 653. (2). Vṛttaratnākara Ṭīkā - vṛttaratnākara pustakam patra

saṁkhyā 460 Grantha Saṁkbyā 17527 (III. C. 94)

( b ) beginning ;- Vṛttaratnākara Vyākhyā bhūyasya ṣanti yadyapi

tathāpi Mṛtajivinyāḥ kalām narhanti Sodasīm.

Colophon :-Bharatupakhyābhāṣkararāja praṇītayam vṛttaratnākara

Vyākhyāyām mṛtasañjīvinyākhyām pratyabhidhānodhyāya Saṣṭhaḥ

Ityādi chandaḥ kaustubha vādakutuhalayaṁ Vistara - Vr. Can.

U. Fol. 10a.

kara, when he has not owned sufficient aptitude on the Chandaḥ Sāstra.

The work is completed in 72 folia and Abhinava Vṛtta-ratnākara is the production of his mature pen. It has been composed in 30 years after the composition of the Mṛtasañ-jīvanī. It may aptly be called a critical elaboration of whole Chandaḥ Sāstra rather than a commentary. The introductory chapter which comprises 103 Folia, deals with metrics in general.

While Bhāṣyarāya concentrates on a definite work dealt with by Kedāra, he brings into review the whole of the works on metrics that he traversed. His acquaintance with this śāstra enables him to make a hair splitting judgement on many crucial issues.

Bhāskara Kāya is to be called last important writer and annotator. Albeit he was otheodox in spirit, like a practical politician he had to concede to a good number of lapses and violations.1 For his inordinate bias for the Vedic affiliation of the Skt metrics, he would seek even the origin of Mātrāvṛtta in the Veda.2

He was intelligent and vastly read scholar. He exploited his acquaintance with old literature including the Vedas. What he did, in these two commentaries on the accredited Classics is that he dealt with in old Sastric manner. But in

1. Vr. Ch.U.F.476. Vaiyākaraṇānāmiva Chandasīyānāmapī sāvdīkatvā-viśeṣeṇa prayoga śaraṇata.

F. 75b. ( Ibid ) Evamanyepi mahākaviprayogā vahudarśībhirbimr-sya yathānubhavam samarthanīyāḥ. Bhāsya Rāja F. 103a-b “Supti provodha parivarjānāmeva varjyamiti Vasantatilakapādasya melana darśanādyathaprayogemeva niyamānām yuktam Fol. 103b…..iti śārdulavikrīditāsya vyadhutaibhuta…….tyādi Sragdharāpāda-trayamelanam hanumataḥ sarīyacchate.

2. Vr. Can. U. Fol. 106b.

drśyateca mātrāchandāṃsi gopathabrāhmaṇe pañcama prapāṭhako………………ukthyādini pādakulakabhāsāni vṛttāni.

106

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

no case, he could brush aside the practical side of application,

the authority of usage.

Bhāskara has regards for respectable antiquity, specifi-

cally for his predecessor Yādavaprakāśa whom he always

referred to as "prāñcyah". On the other side, he was

profusely used Halāyudha's Vṛtti and never hesitates to jot

down the flaws and to lay down the necessary remedies.

1

He is to be aptly called an "elaborator and finished

debator" and he proved himself to be antagonist to the

most of the writers including even minor ones who do not

deserve such a scrutiny in treatment.2 An intellec-

tual gaint as he was, he did not feel any sense void of dig-

nity to seek support from Chandomañjarikāra for the case

of Vaktra class in order to justify Garaḍapurāṇam who

insert Vaktra in Prakīrṇādhyāya.3

He has amassed a vast amount of materials from all bran-

ches in order to note the lapses from the standpoint of the

dicta of the metrics.

Vṛttacandrodaya written in metrical exposition indicates

extensive learning and constitutes a compact manual of

metrics in sixteen chapters or Tarañgas.4 It has begun

1. Fol. 31b. Ibid - Prāñcistvatraiva plutamelaneva navadhā vibhāga-

mānah. Bhāṣya Rāja F. 45a-45b-Caramaśūtradvayam na kartavyam

iti vṛttikṛtām pramādaḥ.

2. Vr. Can. Uḍ Fol. 199b -kaumudīkāra - sudhākāra a kālidāsādi -

kāvyapradīpa Fol. 174a - Aṭaeva vānībhuṣaṇakārādīnām.

3. Fol. Vr. Can. Uḍ 312b. Samārdhaviṣama bhedena. Vaktrasya Traivi-

dhyam. Garaḍapurāṇepiṣamādhyādanyatra prakīrṇakadhyāya

tatkathanam saṃgacchate.

4. The sixteen chapters of Bhāskara Raya's Vṛttacandrodaya deal

exclusively with the poetic figures in the following order and

divisions.

( i ) dealt with upto Fol.104a Laukika chandaḥ ( ii ) metres

upto Fol. 141a in general ( iii ) Mātrāchandas ( iv ) Mātrāchandas

having their alternative pādas similar. ( v ) Mātrachandas

having their alternative pādas dissimilar ( vi ) irregular or gāthā

with an intention of exposing the manual of Kedārabhaṭṭa. But the author could not abstain himself from displaying his scholarship in erudite work of which are preserved the last two chapters for the Vedic metres.

Bhāskarara's manner has in many ways been proved to be ingenious quite unlike other medieval authors. We would enumerate some in the subsequent.

While dilating on the special features of three big genera Samānī, Pramānī and Vitānam, to which all the metres can be included, Bhāṣyarāja very earefully upholds the picture of the subject arrangement of Piṅgala in his Chandaḥ sūtra.

All the sections, containing Vaidika, Mātrika and Vāṇika metres are introduced first without pāda then the jurisdiction of the pāda begins. Thus one can see that Daivī, Gāyatrī etc. are without pāda and after the introduction of the sū tra pāda the metres of Gāyatrī class came into being. Similarly, Āryā metre has no pāda system. In the case of the syllabic metre we can see, three big genera Samānī, Pramānī and Vitānam have no pāda restriction and the jurisdiction of pāda commences with the Anuṣṭubh metre pādasyaṇuṣṭubh vaktram.1

In a manner quite unprecedented in his line Bhāskara

in Mātrā metres (vii) Gadya or metre without feet (viii) Chapters dealing with pratyayas relating to metres based on mātrās( ix ) Syllabic metres ( x ) Syllabic metres with their alternative feet similar ( xi ) the same with their feet dissimilar ( xii ) Irregular or gāthā in syllabic metres (xiii) derivative metres (xiv) Pratyayas relating to metres based on syllables ( xv ) and ( xvi ) deals with vedic metres.

1. Vr. C. Ud. Fol. 272b. Prathama Vaidikachandaḥ Supādyavasthar- ahitāni daivī gāyatrādini tat paścāt pāda iti adhikṛtyā padavyavas- thā...chandāṃsi varṇitāni......Āryām pādyavasthā rahitamāadau pratipādyata tat paścāt eva kathitāniti tasmadukta samāni pramāṇi- sthāniyanama rahitam gadyayati vitāna.

108

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

would refer to Dandaka to be found in the Vedic Texts.1

In a very restricted way we have talked about these

expositions still awaited to be published. Bhāskara is the

last great exponent of the orthodox school and the great

annotator of the century. His name cannot be associated

with the establishment of any particular system as has been

done in the case of Pingala or Vṛttaratnākara although he

shows great fertility and acuteness in his treatment of

metrics which have been implicitly followed by later writers

like Jagannātha and others.

Here is given to Indian scholars a rich material for subtle

distinction and endless elaborations with hair splitting care,

befitting scholastic minds.

No works in the Skt metrics other than these volumi-

nous commentaries have brought into light the tentative

efforts of the earlier thinkers. By their thoroughness and

masterly exposition these would eclipse all the fame of the

predecessors and would dominate, as it is expected, the tho-

ughts of the generation of the theorists.

The existing commentaries on Pkt Paiṅgalam are mostly

late and gloss-type words and are therefore hardly acceptable

to a critical student of history. Of the commentators who

wrote on Pkt Paiṅgalam, of course in Sanskrit, only a few

have been selected here with due regard to their historical

importance.

Ravikaramisra deserved to be mentioned as the earliest

commentator. His work is not an ideal one. This is not

a running commentary, neither is it an exposition but in the

true sense of the term, it can be called either a perpetual

gloss or an explanatory note.2 It is accompanied by a full

1. Atrotkṛti paryantānāmityuktāya dandakesvāpi vaidikatve'

syeṣṭhatvādatharvaṇa vaidika-chandas citavatha kṣarānyucyanta

ityupakramya caturakṣarāntyādi catuḥsata-kṣarotkṛtir ityantamuk-

ta “atah parami daṇḍakā bhavantītyesām lakṣāṇāmit-yupasamhāreṇa

daṇḍakānāmapi vaidikānṭhapātā uktah.—Vr. Can. Ud. F.106a.

2. Ed. Bholānāth Vyās Pkt. Text series. vol. IV. 1959.

109

index at the end of each part.

The commentary of one Kṛṣṇa whose exposition has been designated as Kṛṣṇīya vivaraṇam also keeps reserve for such treatment.1

Lakṣmīnāthabhaṭṭa2, the father of the celebrated author of Vṛttamauktikaṃ, wrote a voluminous commentary on Pkt Paiṅgalam. It follows the footsteps of Chandomañ-jarī, and utilises the work Vāṇībhūṣaṇam.

Lakṣmīnātha omits attaching an index in his commentary. But he makes provision for an index at the close of the last chapter of Vṛttamauktikaṃ completed by him3 after the death of Candraśekhara who completed only 1st chapter without any index.4 Incidentally can be named the Piṅgalaprakāsaṭikā5 of Vāṃśīdhara who wrote his exposition in Sanskrit.

We have non-practically closed our survey of the principal writers of the post medieval period, who deserves mention and treatment. The commentators and the text book writers continued to multiply the serial number of the catalogue of the mss of different centres. Only a glance at their names and works given in the preceding deliberation will show the extent to which their activity was carried, where the demarcation between Skt and Pkt is nearly in a position to be blotted out.

1. Ed. Candromohan Ghosh 1902.

2. Ed. Bholānāth Vyās, 1959.

3. Fol. 203. a–b.

4. Vṛttamauktikaṃ. Fol. 52b. Vānamunitarkacandraiganite 'vde......

Śrī Candra Sekhara Viracite....................Śrīlakṣmīnāthabhaṭṭatmajakavi...........

5. Ed. Bholānāth Vyās. II.

110

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

II. CHRONOLOGY OF THE AUTHORS

Widest possible divergence of opinions exist as to the actual date of Pingala. Indian tradition glorifies him as the reputed author of the Vedānga chanda sūtra. He has been assigned to the mythic age and his very personality has been identified with the fabulous being represented by the mythologists in the shape of the legendary serpent, Śeṣa Nāga.

While the sole known basis for assigning a terminus aquo lost in the numerous mythological stories, the terminus ad quem is almost certainly the age when Śavarswāmin wrote Mīmāṃsā sūtra.1 Due to the wide conflicting views, the date of composition of this manual has been oscillating between the 5th cent BC. and the 4th cent AD.

That he was the oldest amongst the extant writers on metrics is generally admitted. A comparison of the different printed editions as well as the works with different commentaries would go to show that they do not agree about the number of the sūtras in the texts.2

1. Śavara bhāṣya 1. 1. 5. Yathā makāreṇāpi Pingalasyā Sarvagurustrikah pratiyate Pingalakrtimānumānyamānāsya vā Ānandāśrama Samskrta granthāvalī 97. 1929.

2. Yādavaprakāśa has 288 sūtras, Cal. Skt. MS. has 297. Halāyudha has 308. Bhāskara raja has 300. Halāyudha omitted IV. 8...........Uktam Sati.......etc.

Halāyudha Yādavaprakāśa Bhāṣya Rāja Sadgurusisya

Nil IV.8; Uktam Sati 1. Sumapratiṣṭhā 1. Uktam Madhyam Pratiṣṭhā 2. Madhyā Su Ca. Imanyunyam 3. Sātiukta Pañcachandāṃsi 2. Sāti VI.16; 1st sutra 3. Madhyam of 11 syllabled— 4. Pratiṣṭhā Ekarūpamasau ja gaugah 5. Sauca

Vāhinī VI. 43 Nil VIII.13 Ekona 'dvā Vilāsinī VI.27 — Yādavaprakāśa Fol.119a VIII 2–19 Nil Fol.108

CHRONOLOGY OF THE AUTHORS

111

Earliest limit has been afforded by M. M. Ghosh1 and Weber2 who believed that the Vedic portion demands to be placed in a remoter period of antiquity than the portion dealing with the classical one and can be dated back to 500 B. C. i. e. ,in an age simultaneously at the close of the sūtra period and at the commencement of the Astronomical and Algebrical speculations. The lower limit has been fixed up by Dr. D. C. Sarkar to the 4th cent AD3 who is of the opinion that the work in its present form cannot be much earlier than the Gupta period because of the reference of the use of Ṛtu as “Saṃketa Saṃkhyā” expressing the number six. This particular term in sense of the six has not been stereotyped before the Gupta era and this very expression is absent in the Vedic literature.

Mm H. P. Sastri4 believed in the story of the Aśo-kāvadāna according to which one Piṅgala has been appointed as the teacher of Aśoka and his brother. In another dissertation,5 Piṅgala has been incidentally placed after Pāṇini but before Patañjali.

Jacobi had beliefs in this identification. Piṅgala’s work like Aṣṭādhyāyī of Pāṇini is old and has been looked upon as the prototype from its very inception for its planning and its execution.6

Colebrooke7 made a bold attempt to identify Piṅgala with Mahābhāṣyakāra Patañjali, because, the former has-

1. Indian culture Vol. VII. 1931 P. 731.

2. Indische studien Vol. VIII. P. 178.

3. I. C. , Vol. VI. P. 110.

4. Preface CIV Des. Cat. of Skt mss Vol. VI.

5. JBORS VI.P. 24, 1920 ; Bihar through the ages, 1958, P. 241 by R. R. Diwakar. Cf. Kāvyamīmāṃsā. 10th Adhyāya PP. 55.1934.

Atropavarṣāviba Pāṇini Piṅgalaviha Vyāḍi Vararucipatañjali iha Parikṣitah khyātimūpa.............

6. Indian Linguistics, P. 415. 1933.

7. Misc. Essay. II. P. 53. 1837.

112 ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

been aptly described Piṅgala nāga or Śeṣanāga. Rāmabhadra in Patañjalīcarita described Patañjali as incarnation of Śeṣa and Mahābhāṣya has deen referred to as Phanī-bhā-ṣya.1

Sadguruśiṣya the celebrated Vedic scholar in his Vedārtha Dīpikā has taken Piṅgala to be the younger brother of Pāṇini.2 Macdonell placed this Vedāṅgachandahśāstrakāra in the pre-Christian era3 i. e., in the 2nd cent B. C. Sukumar Ranjan Das4 thinks alike and contends that Piṅgala, the author of Chandah Sūtra lived in 2nd cent BC, in whose work the earliest reference of zero can be found.

Śiva Prasād Bhaṭṭācarya laid stress on the double authorship of this work and believed in the existence of Piṅgala in the early centuries of the post-Christian era as the ornate metres dealt with in the classical portion could not have been found in the Epics.5 Maxmüller in the history of the Skt literature shows the improbability of the acceptance of the view that Patañjali and Piṅgala are the same.6 These opinions require proper scrutiny with a view to finding out some reliable data for the establishment of the date of Piṅgala.

The definite terminus is to be obtained from the references in the Śabarabhāṣya belonging to the 3rd Cent AD.7 This is a positive evidence that nullifies the arguments of

1. Phanibhāṣita bhāsyavdaih śabda kaustava Uddhṛtah. Cf. Kiṇdabhaṭṭa vaiākaraṇa Bhuṣaṇa, Kārikā I. A stone image of patanjali can be referred to in which he was engraved as the serpant god.

2. Tathā Ca sūtryate Bhagavatā pāṇinyanujena “kvacinnavakaṣatvara iti — (VII. 9) P. 75 Macdonell ed.

3. History of Skt literature. P. 431. 3rd ed. 1909.

4. I.H.Q. Vol. III. P. 375.

5. Our heritage Vol. VII. 1959. P. 2.

6. History of Skt literature 1859. P. 244.

7. Dr. S. Dasgupta accepts the opinion of Dr. Gangānāth jhā who fixes the date in 57 B.C. History of Philosopy Vol. 1. 1951. P. 370. Jadunath Sinha contends that Śavara flourished in 300 AD. History of Indian Philosophy Vol.I.P.763. 1956.

CHRONOLOGY OF THE AUTHORS

113

Dr. Sarkar simply based on probability. Further, it can be demonstrated that the opinion that the reference of six seasons did not exist in the age of the Veda proved to be baseless. There are innumerable passages in the Atharvaveda where the names of six seasons have been expressly noted. These passages can be unhesitatingly placed before 500 BC.1

It has been sometimes held that the classical metres dealt with in Vedāṅga Ch. Sūtra are in their most developed forms than those found in the Epics. Therefore the argument that the latter must be placed in the post-Christian era, proves to be unacceptable, if one recalls in this connection the age when Mahābhāṣyakāra has flourished and quoted numerous passages drawn from the works of his predecessors exhibiting classical ornate metres. Besides, Epic literature as a heroic poem should select Anuṣṭubhas as the only metre for the description of the heroic achievements which seems to be the only suitable metre as has been asserted by Aristotle, that Iambic and Trochaic have been chosen for the heroic poems for its special quality of movements and force.2

It has been further asserted by Keith3 that the corroboration of the evidence of Patañjali can be obtained from the Chandaḥsūtra of Piṅgala.

These evidences lead us to the conclusion that the Chandahsūtra of Piṅgala flourished sometime before the Christian era and not in the post-Christian era as held out by some scholars.

The evidence of the existence of the advanced kāvya

1. R.K. Veda.III.56.2 ; VII.87.5 there has been the references of the six seasons in indirect manner. Ath.Veda.XV.4.1 ; 4.2. ; 4.3. ; 4.4. VI.552.

2. = Grismo Hemantah Śiśiro Vasanthah Śaradvarṣāḥ site no dadhata.

3. Still more unnatural would it appear, if one were to write an Epic in a medley of metres as Charmon did ( art of poetry P.82 )

4. History of Skt Literature P.48.

8

114

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

literature exhibiting classical ornate metres can be substantiated by the references of the metrical passages occurring in

the Mahābhāṣya.

The medieval mythological story pertaining to Piṅgala seems to retain some ancient facts in its own way.1 Those

classical metres are prior to the age of the author of Mahābhāṣya, i. e. 2nd cent B. C. But that does not prove

any definite chronological sequence with reference to Pāṇini.

There is a long gap between Pāṇini and the Mahābhāṣya.

Piṅgala may safely be placed before the age of Patañjali.

Now, if the Śeṣa nāga is identified with both Piṅgala and Patañjali, then they may be regarded as contemporary.

Rājaśekhara gives some hints at the fact that the author of Chandoviciti is to be placed after Pāṇini but before

Patañjali2 separated by Vyādi.

Our assertion however would not go against the verdict of the Śāstrakāras just mentioned, if we just make passing

reference of a evidence for consideration. Among the metrical passages, there exists one-line, “Varatanu Sampravadanti

kukkuṭaḥ” - exhibiting a metre appropriated by Jayakīrti,

Vṛttaratnākara and others but not by Piṅgala. If Piṅgala

comes after Patañjali this verse would not escape the notice

of the Śāstrakāra who in that case must have codified it,

because, the Chandaḥ śāstra is a prayogaśāstra.

These deliberations will go in favour of the assumption

that the text of Piṅgala existed in its present form at least

in the 2nd cent B. C. if not earlier.

Bharata's work is encyclopedic in the scope but its pri-

mary theme is the drama, consequently in its application of

metres, it concerns always with drama.

As to the relative date of Bharata, whose apocryphal

1. See Infra P. 11.

See Infra F. 7.

CHRONOLOGY OF THE AUTHORS

115

work devoted two chapters on Skt metrics and one for

Dhruvā metres, scholars are not of unanimous opinion.

The text has been subjected to considerable rehandlings

in later times, because Abhinava Gupta1 himself asserts that

he was aware of the two recensions2. M. M. Ghosh3 lays

down that the NS’ is the earliest available treatise on the

classical Skt and is older than the section dealing with

that of Piṅgala’s Ch. Sūtra. Because, in Piṅgala the treatment

of Classical Skt metres is much more elaborate than in NS’

and Piṅgala’s terminologies have been left out of conside-

ration. On the evidence of the Skt metrics only, NS’ may

be roughly placed between 200 AD and 400 AD.4 In case

of the Dhruvā songs5 also, M. Ghosh laid down tentatively

the same date. Mm. H.P. Śāstrī, restricted the date of NS’

to the far away past to 200 BC.6

Dieter Schlingloff in his introduction to Chandoviciti

asserts that the chapters dealing with metrics in the NS’

are older than the work of Piṅgala.7 The manner and

methods discerned in this work Chandoviciti show that

this work is dependable more on NS’ than on Piṅgala,

Besides, there are some verses which are drawn from NS’.8

And the work in mss is no later than 4th cent AD on

Paleographic ground.9 Then we can have one limit of the

chapters of NS’ dealing with metrics, by the date of Chan-

doviciti, which is not later than 4th cent AD.

1. Abhinava Gupta flourished in 11th cent. AD (1015.AD) P.112.

S.K. De History of Skt poetics. 1960.

2. Dvidho pāṭho drśyate — Ch. XV. P. 253, Gos. 68.

3. J.D.L. P.30. XXV. 1934.

4. Ibid Idem P. 36.

5. Ibid Idem P. 38.

6. JRASB Vol. V.NS.P.351 ; also Vol. VI.PP.309. 1909.

7. P. 17 ed. by Dieter Schingloff — 1958.

8. Raktamadhu Padmā............. found in NS.XV.21.

9. Nach Lüders Ansetzung dieser Handschriften etwa in die zweite

Hälfte des 4 nach christlichen Jahrhunderts datieren.

P 4............. Ibid Ibem.

116 ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

Another limit can be furnished by the date of Pingala.

The fact that Pingala is later than Bharata could not be carried out on the following ground :-

(1) Taking the substance of the work, the text history of NS' shows that even in the chapters dealing with Skt metrics, different systems exhibiting two recensions can be found. One recension introduces the terminology of Pingala1 while the other recension uses the terms laghu and guru in defining the scheme of metres.

Further differences of the style of treatment is due to the fact, that the respective chapters in NS' and Pingala's Ch. Sutra follow two different traditions, in the treatment of metres they belong to two different schools. NS' 's tradition has been followed by the Pkt school of Metrics who appropriates generally those metres that are found in NS' but are absent in Pingala.2 Lastly, it can be said that the contention that the respective chapters of NS' are older than Pingala Ch. Sutra is proved to be totally base less. Because in one recension, Bharata used Pingala's mnemonics.3 In the same portion, the term used by Pingala for the mnemonic is found to be used. While going to define the metre Dandaka, NS' inscribes the term

1. Verses — 83 to 87 of XIV. XV.20–21. 20th Verse is described in terms of guru and laghu and 21st in terms of Trikas.

2. Skt tradition

led by Pingala - arrangement of 1. Sarvasama, Ardhasama and the chapters — Visama, Ardha — Visama. (Led by Bharata) followed by Hemcandra, Jayakirti.

2. Bharata speaks of Vaitaliya but does not incorporate. Pkt Paingalam does the same.

Most of the metres are appropriated by Hem, Jayakirti, Pkt P. etc. Such as Śreni (NS' XXXII.297) Candanaprakrti..... ( Hem.II.349) Tvaritagati (NS' XXXII.237) with same designation (Hem.II.219) so on.

3. Pingala Ch. Sutra 1. 3.

CHRONOLOGY OF THE AUTHORS

117

"Kāguhā"1 instead of the "ra". Winternitz too thinks that

Piṅgala-Chandaḥ Sūtra is older than NS'.2

From the date given above we are in a position to infer

that the substance of Bharata's work is probably much

younger than that of Piṅgala, but much older than that of

the Chandoviciti, the recently discovered work of Turfan

collection.

Therefore, taking the substance of the work, apart from

the vexing question of different recension, the portions of

Nāṭyaśāstra which deal with Skt metrics and the Dhruvā

metres, have been conjectured to have been compiled

between 2nd cent. BC and 3rd cent. AD. This is sought to

be supported by M. M. Ghosh who placed the chapter

dealing with Dhruvāsongs in 200 BC3, on the examination

of its language.

As a matter of Chronology next to NS' can be placed the

text of the Chandoviciti which has been recovered from its

fragmentary condition and belongs to the Turfan collection

of Late Prof. Lüders.

This work has been edited by Dieter Schlingloff.4 Of

the 32 folia preserved there is hardly one which is com-

pletely obtainable. The script of the ms will give us one

Terminus of date of its composition. With regard to the

other Terminus, we have to go through the contents of the

text from the available Folia. In the manner of the exe-

cution of the plan and procedure, Chandoviciti follows

the footsteps of Bharata more than that of Piṅgala. A few of

the illustrative verses found in Chandoviciti have been

1. Daṇḍakam namavijueyamutkrteradhikakṣaram. Meghamalādikam

tatsyannau cadau ka guhātrīkā II.XV.143.

2. Winternitz. Vol. III.P.29. Jünger als Piṅgala's Chando sūtradas

XV Kapital des Bharatiaya Nāṭyāśāstra, das liber Metrik handelt

and zahlreiche Beispiel fur die einzelveen versmae gilt.

3. Pkt verses of Bh.NS' — I.H qu. Vol. VIII.1932. No. 4.

4. Herausgegeben in Auftrage der Akademie von Ernst Waldschmidt.

118 ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

utilized by Jānāśrayī1 and Halāyudha. We have shown already, there are some common verses in NS' and in this work.

So on the examination of the contents of the text and of NS' we can presume that the work Chandoviciti, has been composed in a time between 2nd cent. AD and 4th cent. AD.

Purāṇic tradition through the ages has exerted its influence on the scientific principles of the varied type of Skt literature. School of opinion represented in metrics by the respective chapters dealt with prosody of Agnipurāṇa, Vishṇudharmottarapurāṇa. Garuḍapurāṇa and Nāradīyapurāṇa in many respects exhibits orthodox system. Date of the two aprocryphal work Vishnudharmottara and Agni-

purāṇa like other Mahāpurāṇas are uncertain.

Vishnudharmottara is counted as an Upapurāṇa. But both these are puranic works of encyclopedic character. They in course of their rapid treatment of multivarius subjects devote a few chapters to the topic of metrics. Vishnudharmottara has only a few verses to dwell on metrics.2 And the brief contents that it possesses exhibits that this portion of this Upapurāṇa belongs to Orthodox period of history of metrics.3 Agnipurāṇa devotes eight chapters

(328—335) on metrics in a fashion after Piṅgala and designates them as “chandaḥsārah.” Agnipurāṇa has been cited by none of the known authors on metrics except some late versatile scholars like Bhāskara Rāya and Gaṅgādhara Kavi-rāja. Pañcasāyaka the work on erotics of Jyotirīśvara sanctions the authority of the Agnipurāṇa as the author of metrics. Jyotirīśvara seems to flourish in 14th cent. Halā-yudha in the 10th century picks out some portions without

1. Asmasrumuktā — Ch. VI. P.41 ; Jānāśrayī V.16 ; Hal — IV.42. Kṣīyamaṅagradasana — P.45 ; on V.32 ; with some deviation.

2. 111.Ch. 308(1–20 verses).

3. Bangabāsī ed. Vangabeda 1314.

CHRONOLOGY OF THE AUTHORS 119

referring to Agnipurāṇa while commenting on the Sūtra 1.10

and he lays down — “Vāpānteguru iti gurutvaṃ satya-

muktam”.1 In another place, Halāyudha perhaps remembers

Agnipurāṇa while he refers of the sixth pratyaya.2

This evidence would perhaps fix one limit of the date

of these portions of Agnipurāṇa. The second passage of the

initial verse such as--Sarvādimadhyāntaglau mnau bhyau

jrau stau trikau ganaḥ has probably been copied from Jaya-

deva.3 Again, the sixth pratyaya which has not been dealt

with by Pingala and Bharata in their respective works, has

been appropriated by the Author of Agnipurāṇa perhaps

from the work of Jayadeva.4 Therefore it is not improper

to place these portions of Agnipurāṇa after Jayadeva what-

ever may be the date of purāṇa as a whole, which is a kind

of ambitious cyclopedia. We may assume from what has

been deliberated in the chapters of Agnipurāṇa dealing

with metrics must have been composed in a time between

Jayadeva and Halāyudha, i. e. 600 AD and 1000 AD.

Varāhamihira’s work on Astronomy Bṛhatsaṃhitā pro-

vides the chapter 103 for the speculation on Skt metres.

The date of this work has been more or less fixed with

certain exactitude, in the 6th cent. AD.5

Jayadeva’s Chandonuśāsanam is the standard work which

has been referred to by a host of the metricists of the 10th

cent. AD. But Jayadeva referred to none. So we have one

terminus for the date of this renowned prosodist.

1. 328 // 2 va pādaguru..............

2. Ṣaṣṭhapratyayo'pyardha paricchittirityeke. So’tyalpatvātpuru-

ṣecchānuvidhāyitvenaniyatatvacca noktah P. 238. ed. B.I. 1874.

3. Agnipurāṇa 327. 1–2. Jayadeva — 1 — 1.

4. Agnipurāṇam — 335—8 ; Jayadeva 8.12.

5. Basu, Sacred book of the Hindus. 1912. P.111 427 Saka era.507 AD.

Iyer, Bṛhatsaṃhitā, introduction v. 1884. “505AD is considered

by some to be the date of Varāhamihir’s birth and AD 587 to be

the date of his death.

120

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

Jayadeva is referred to by Halāyudha as Śvetapatāh in his commentary 'Mṛtasañjīvanī, on the Sūtra I. 10. "Vānte guru iti proktam jaistu Śvetapatādibhih......"; on 5–8.1 Abhinavagupta of the 11th cent2 in his gloss on NS' quoted Jayadeva.3

Svayambhū perhaps before 1000 cent, AD, mentioned him as a prosodist who along with Piṅgala adopted the yati in Skt metres.4 Jayakīrti in 1000 cent. AD too remembered him along with Piṅgala and others.5 Bhaṭṭotpāla in his commentary on the Chandoviciti portion of Bṛhatsaṃhitā consulted Jayadeva's work without referring to the name, and quoted the definitions from Jayadeva's work. Dr. Kane has convincingly proved that the date of the Bhaṭṭotpāla cannot be later than 850 AD.6

The only commentator on Jayadeva's work is Harṣaṭa the son of Bhaṭṭamukula.7 This Mukula, according to Velāṅkar8, may be identified with Mukulabhaṭṭa, the author of Abhidhṛittimāṭṭikā assigned to 925 AD.

Jayadeva is later than Mitradhara the author of Chando-viciti because, in the available MS. folia, Jayadeva has not been quoted. But he is earlier than Bhaṭṭotpāla of the 9th cent. AD. So it is not unlikely that Jayadeva flourished sometime between 5th cent. AD and 9th cent. AD.9

1. Jayadeva I.4.; 5.5. Anyadato hi Vitānam. Halāyudha — Anya-dato hi Vitānam Śvetapatena yaduktam.

2. History of Skt poetics.p.112. by Dr. S.K. De.

3. Sarveṣām Vṛttānāmityadavart....... sama sena Jayadevo 'bhydhat Sarvādi...... etc. (A.1–2) 244.XIV. Gos. 68.

4. JBBRAS.

5. Jayakīrti—Śrī pādapujya Jayadevavudādi kānām // VIII.19.ed. Vel-ankar. 1958, P.70.

6. IBBRAS, NS Vol.XXXIII 1958, P.147.

7. Bhaṭṭomukulakātamajaharṣataviracitāyām jayadevachandovivṛtāvas-tamo'dhyāyah......on VIII.12. Jayadevachandah.

8. P.35 Jayadaman.

9. Vide, Jayadaman. P.33.

CHRONOLOGY OF THE AUTHORS

121

Janāśrayī's Chandoviciti1 deserves to be mentioned in this orthodox period, because, in the work of Jayakīrti Jānāśrayī has been referred to with respect.2 Not only that, Jayakīrti adopted the designation and the definition of the Upajāti metre.3 The lower limit of this work can be fixed by the date of Jayakīrti who is no later than 1192 Sam. which is the date of ms utilized by Velāṇkar.4

Now we are to determine the superior date of the work. On examining the illustrative verses which have been collected from the well-known poets, dramatists and the other sources, Mr. P.N. Pillai5 and M.R. Kavi6 concluded that the work may be assigned to Circa 600 AD. Both of them are unanimous on the point that the Sūtra was written by the king Janāśraya Mādhavavarman I and the Vrtti by the poet Guṇaswāmin, the court poet of the same king.

Among others, i.e., Velāṇkar,7 Rāmaswamī Śāstrī8 and Sivaprasad Bhattacharyya9 the last one is the only person to negate the views of all that Janāśraya should be identified with king Mādhavavarman I of Viṣṇukundin dynasty and should be placed accordingly in the 6th cent. AD.

But whether the work can be dated as early as 600 AD has to be examined in the light of many citations (slipped from the works of these two editors after taking many of them under consideration). The learned scholar picked up

1. Ed. K.IV Pillai T.SS.163.1949.

Bd. M. R. Kavi - Venkateśwar oriental series No.21.1950.

2. VIII.19. Jayakīrti-“Māndavya Piṅgalajanāśraya”.

3. Jayakīrtiḥ II.117. nānāvikalpairupajātireṣā prakalpitāyaiḥ kvacidindra mālā. Ardhen Miśrah Ṣaṭbhedaḥ.......Indramālāvibhāgena Sarvāstastu caturdaśā......Vide vrtti chandoviciti on IV 35

4. JBBRAS. Vol.XXI. 1945. P.I.

5. Introduction P. VIII - TSS.163. 1949.

6. Introduction. P.I. Venkateśwaraprācyagrandhamālā 20.1950.

7. Sārdhaśatābdi special volume. J. O. A. S. B.

8. Journal of Madras Oriental Research Institute Vol.XVII. Part III.

9. Journal of Oriental Institute of ms University - Vol.X. No. 4.1961.

122

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

some of the illustrative verses. The 13 syllabled illustrative

verse in Vṛtti on the Sūtra IV.66 breathes the air of the

spirit of Kappabinabyudaya dealing with Avadāna literature.

This verse must have been composed by some Buddhist monk

of the 9th or 10th cent. who tried to imitate Śivaswāmin

of the 9th cent. Another verse on IV. 45 illustrating the

metre Śyeni, exhibits the story of Padatāḍite.1 This verse can

in no way belong to a date earlier than the 10th cent. AD.

Again, the date of the Vṛttikāra can be judged in the

light of the use of illustrating verses and can be fixed accor-

dingly not before 10th cent. AD. and of the Sūtrakāra not

before 8th cent. AD.

Therefore the reference of the Sūtrakāra in Jayakīrti

which will help to build one terminus, would not be militated

by this view postulated by this great scholar.

We are now in a position to determine the approximate

dates of the two works on metrics written by two poets of

Kannada, Nāgavarmā's Chandombudhi2 and Jayakīrti's3

Chandonuśāsanam.

Both these authors belong to same age. Among these two,

one written in Sanskrit spares a chapter for Kannāḍa metres

and the other written in Kannarese makes a fair provision

for elaborated treatment of Kannarese metres. But some

chapters at the outset are reserved for Skt metrics.

Nāgavarmā traces his descent from a Brāhmaṇa family

residing in the city of Veṅgi. He was evidently a Jaina but

would seem to have written under certain Śaiva influence.

His composition, so far as they are known to us are the

following :- 1) Kāvyalokana (2) Kāṇataka Bhāṣābhū-

ṣaṇam 3) Vastu Kośa 4) Kādambarī.

1. Gamyatām Yatheṣṭhameṣa Teñjali / Stvām cikitsitum ku to

manorathān // Tasya te grnatoṣaya mayā / Padatāḍitāsya

dautyamāgatam. // IV. 45. chandoviciti. T.S.S. 163.

2. Ed. by Rev. F. Kittel. 1875.

3. Ed. by H.D. Velankar.1949.

CHRONOLOGY OF THE AUTHORS

123

Lewis Rice in his preface to Kāvyālokana placed Nāga-

varmā in the early part of the 11th century as he has been

quoted by a Kānārese Grammarian of 1115 AD. Mr. C.P.

Brown’s Telugu grammar of 1857 laid down that Telugu

prosody comprises uniform metres (Nāgavarmā’s Akṣarachan-

das) and changing metres (Nāgavarmā’s Karnaṭa and metra

Kaṇḍa metre) employed by Naṇnayyaḥaṭṭa in his Cintāmaṇi

which was written in about 1130 AD. Nāgavarmā for his

kośa utilized Halāyudha Śāśvata, Amarakoṣa and others. It

is worthy of notice that he does not name Hemacandra who

died in 1172 AD. The terms Nāki, Nākiga, have been used

by Nāgavarmā. Hemacandra used them in Abhidhāna

Cintāmaṇi in the same of deity but Halāyudha omitted them.

Lewis Rice in the preface to Kārṇāṭaka Bhāṣābhūṣaṇam lays

down that the author lived in between 1070 AD and 1120

AD.1 Jaina kavi Salva,2 who was supposed to be living in

the late 13th cent. mentioned him in his Rasaratnākara.

In his dictionary Vastukoṣa Nāgavarmā puts Rudra and

his synonym before Viṣṇu in the same manner as has been

done by Halāyudha. Our author may be contemporary of

Halāyudha3 or a bit later than him. Prof. Dīkṣit placed

Nāgavarmā of Veṅgi in about 990 AD half a century later

than Pampa I.4

In order to strengthen the view of this scholar we can

show that Kannāḍa Ṣaṭpadi elaborately dealt with by Nāga-

varmā’s Chandombudhi has been utilized by Jayadeva, the

famous poet of Gīta Govinda. The aṣṭapadī of Jayadeva

are nothing but the Ṣaṭpadī of Nāgavarmā.5 The date of

Jayadeva has been approximately fixed in 12th century. So

1. Burnell’s Vamśa Brāhmaṇa. P VI, VII.

2. Kārṇāṭaka Bhāṣa Bhūṣaṇa — Lewis Rice 1884. Preface XX.

3. He was court poet of Munja who reigned last quarter of the 10th

Century.

4. (i) Indian History Congress. 1953. P. 152.

(ii) K.G. Kundangar - J.U.B. Vol.VI.1937. Para III. P.50.

5. Sara Ṣaṭpadī

124

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

we can safely assert that Nāgavarmā flourished in the 10th century.

The date of Jayakīrti, the author of Chandonuśāsanam has been approximately settled at the 11th cent. AD by Velāṅkar.1

Jayakīrti mentioned a host of poets and Śāstrakāra's whom he followed. He was later than Nāgavarmā, whom he implicitly mentioned in the VII.10.2 The metricist Cūḍāmaṇi whom he referred to at VII.15 is sure to have flourished in about 1000 AD.3

Jayakīrti remembered Asaga on VII.7 and Svayambhū-devaśa on III.22 and if the last mentioned one be identified with the author of Svayambhūchandah the upper limit of the date of Jayakīrti may be fixed at 1000 AD. But in Svayam-bhūchandah we do not find such as Ardhasamameter as has been ascribed by Jayakīrti to Svayambhūdeveśa.

We have seen before, Jayakīrti mentioned Janāśraya and Jayadeva whose dates have been fixed at the 8th and 9th cent. respectively.

The upper limit being fixed more or less with the date of Nāgavarmā, who flourished in 990 AD and the lower limit being ascertained with the date of the composition of ms in 1190 AD, there is no reason to deny the established opinion of Velāṅkar, who placed Jayakīrti on 11th cent. AD.

The date of the polymath writer Kṣemendra has been settled on more convincing grounds. He is known by his other works by which he enriched the Skt literature. Kṣemen-dra left indication of his date in the work Suvṛttatilakam4

1. Ed. Velankara. Jayadam. 1949.

2. Gurvādīvanāganablhāg Vicitra Syāt Purvam Karṇāṭa chandomat. Nāgavarmā has on ch. V.276 Chandombudhi ed. by Kittel.1875.

3. Prof. D.L. Narasimhachar of Mysore, thinking that both Nāga-varma and Cūḍāmaṇi are the preceding authors of Jayakīrti. F.n. IBBRAS Vol. XXI.1945.P.9.

4. Kāvyamālā gucchaka. 2.1886.

and Samayamātṛka. In the concluding verses1 of the former work, he stated that he wrote it in the reign of the king Ananta of Kashmir. In the colophon of the second work we are told that the work was completed during the reign of the same king in 1050 AD. Daśāvatāra is composed in the year 1066 under the patronage of the son of the same king. Bühler2 is right therefore in fixing the period of Kṣemendra's literary activity in the 2nd and the 3rd part of the 11th century.

Ratnamañjuṣā,3 a work on Skt metrics is written by an unknown Jain author. The work, notwithstanding some peculiarities of its own, follows in many respects, the manner of execution of plan and the spirit of Piṅgalachandahsūtra It adopts the designation from the Chandoviciti of Janāśraya. It does not acknowledge any of its predecessors.

Most of the illustrations seem to have been composed by the commentator. Only two of them can be traced, one the commentator. Only two of them can be traced, one (II.4) quoted from Śakuntalā (1.33) and the other (VI.27) from Bhāsa's Pratijñāyaugandharāyaṇa (II.3).

On examining the contents of the work, Ratnamañjuṣā we can say only that the work has been composed in the orthodox period before the work of Kedāra, in which we can see the sanctioning of certain rules pertaining to the optional lengthening of the short before conjunct consonant absent in the former. One limit of the work can be guessed

1. Kṣemendrenaṅayi vipadām harturāścaryakartu/rbhūbḥrdbharturbhuvanajayino'ntarājasyarājye III // 40. Suvṛttatilakam, Kāvyamālā II. 1932.

2. Kāshmir Report. P. 46.

3. (a) Saṃyoge nāpi ma I. 11. Ratnamañjuṣā cf. ghrādiparaḥ......I.II. Piṅgala ch. su.

(b) Sanction of hybrid metre, restricted only to the metres containing equal number of syllables in each pada.

(c) Treatment of Samānam, Pramāṇam and Vitānam—as of three big genera. V.1.2.3.

Ratnamañjuṣā—Ed. Velankar. Bhāratīya Jñāna Piṭha, 5. 1944.

126 ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

from the use of the term Indramālā1 instead of Upajāti.

Janāśraya is the earliest writer to designate it. Therefore

our author must be later than Janāśraya.

As regards the treatment of different metres, it can be

seen that Hemacandra alone appropriates some of them,

which none of the host of metricists give places to. Thus

the higher limit of this work can be settled by the date of

Janāśraya and the lower limit by the work of Hemacandra.

Unless and until we get any fresh evidence, we can assign

the work to the orthodox period, i.e., before 12th cent. AD.

This work is surely later than Janāśraya to whose school it

belongs.2 Therefore the work can be dated on 10th cent

AD approximately.

We have to reserve for discussion some of the works

dealing with Pkt and Apabhraṃśa metres but which make

provision for the Skt metres. In their treatment of these

Skt metres they seem to fall in the line of the Skt tradi-

Among them Virahāṅka's3 is the earliest as we can

ascertain from the data available to us.

As regards the life and date of the author we have

nothing excepting the date of the ms i.e., 1192 Sam̆ stated

in the work. This fixes the lower limit of the commentator

who personally handled it.

Velāṅkar4 thinks that there must be a wide gap between

the commentator and the author of the text and the differ-

ence might be 200 to 300 years. Thus the author can proba-

bly be placed in the 9th or 10th cent. AD or even earlier.

Svayambhūchandas5 of Svayambhū has been regarded

as a standard work on Skt, Pkt and Apabhraṃśa metres.

The author of this work has been remembered by most of

his followers.

1. V. 27. R.M.

2. Vide Velankar. JBBRAS. Sārdha Śatābdī special volume.

3. Ed. Velankar. JBBRAS. 1932. Vol. 8.

4. P.3. JBBRAS. 1929. Vol. NS. 5.

5. Ed. Velankar–JBBRAS. 1935, Vol. 11.

Svayambhū referred to by Jayakīrti is, however, a different author as we have seen before. The upper limit of this work can be ascertained from the date of Jayadeva whom he remembered along with the school of metricians who recognized yati.1

Out of the 58 authors quoted by Svayambhū we can trace very few. Among them, Śrīharṣa and Mayūra who flourished in the 7th cent. AD.2 are much known to us.

The lower limit of this work can be fixed by the date of Hemacandra who referred to Svayambhū in this Svopajñā Vṛtti.3 The developed state of the Apabhraṃśa literature is clearly discussed in the illustrative works. On considering these points we can place Svayambhū on the 10th cent. AD.

Gāthā Lakṣaṇam or Nanditāḍhya4 is a small treatise on prosody solely devoted to the gāthā class of metres. The date of this author cannot be fixed with any certainty. But the following facts may be taken for consideration.

The very name of the author indicates that he was belonged to a very ancient society of Jaina yatis. The author himself declared that he being a Jaina Yati would only explain sacred metres for sacred Āgamas. Again the author declares with contempt that he will not use such Apabhraṃśa forms such as Jiha5 Kiha etc. And these expressions are upalakṣaṇam of the Apabhraṃśa language in general. This contemptuous statement about the aforesaid language indicates clearly that the author wrote this work in an early date when this popular language had no literary recognition.

The lower limit of this work can be fixed with more

1. 1.144. Jaadapimgala sakkaammi doccia jaim Samicchanti / Maṅdawwa bhāhakāsavasevaḷa (yava) pamuhā na icchanti.

2. 1.144a and 1.144b.

3. Rambheti Svayambhūḥ II 323. Hem./Rambhā. I.102. Svayambhū ch.

4. Ed. by Velankar BORI poona vol. XIV. Parts I-II.

5. Verse. 31b. Tahā nandiyattabhania jiha kiha tiha paie naṭṭhi.

128

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

certainty than the higher limit of it. Ratnaśekhara1 of

the 15th century has quoted some verses verbatim from this

work without acknowledging the author. Some of the verses

can be traced in Hemcandra's Chandonuśāsanam.2

Candrakīrti, the commentator of Chandokoṣa does not

mention the name either of the author or of the work.

Candrakīrti belongs to 17th century of the Samvat era.

Hemacandra too flourished in the 12th century and Nanditā-

dhya must have born much earlier.

Velāṅkar3 is right in assigning Nanditādhya to an age

when Apabhraṁśa like other Pkt and vernaculars was

regarded as unfit to be exposed by the learned scholars. It

is probably at this time say in the 8th or 9th century AD

that the Gāthā Lakṣaṇam is composed.

Our account of the authors of this period would be

incomplete, if we take no notice of the celebrated commen-

tator who flourished in this period. They are the celebrated

authors like Halāyudha and Yādavaprakāśa. Date of Halā-

yudha has been fixed with somewhat certainty. Most of

the illustrative verses in the commentary Mṛṭasañjīvanī are

panegyrics4 addressed to the king Muñja. Under sūtra

IV. 20 we find the name Vākpatirāja5 when Lassen6 assig-

ned to the same period of Muñja. But F. E. Hall identified

Muñja with Vākpatirāja.7 Another name Vālabhēśvara

1. V. 3. Chandokośa - V. 56 Gāthālakṣaṇam.

2. N.S.P. 1912. P. 27b, line 15. 40–42 gāthālakṣaṇam.

3. BORI. Vol. XIV. P. 16.

4. Under IV. 19. B.I. edition. Jayatibhuvañaikavīraḥ śirāyudha

–tulita–vipula–valavibhavāḥ / Anavaratavittā–vitaranānirgitā

–campāḍhipo Muñjaḥ // Muñja appeared to be the 7th ruler of

paramāra dynasty of Mālava, came to the throne in 97.AD. For

details see History of Skt poetics by Dr. S.K. De. P. 121 with

footnotes.

5. IV. 20: Sa jayati Vākpatirājāḥ, sakalārthimanorathaika kalpataruḥ.

6. III. 841. Lassen.

7. Vide P. 114. F.N. JASE. 1862—“Vākpatirāja I knew to have been

identified with Muñja who defeated yuvarāja…..Vākpati lived in

the 10th. cent.

has been coined in v. 2. But we cannot identify him. From

the deliberation given above, we can infer that Halāyudha

wrote the commentary while he was the court poet of the

King Muñja of Paramāra dynasty in the 10th cent AD.

Yādavaprakāśa is more well known for his many sided

contributions in Skt literature than as a commentator. His

most widely circulated work is Vaijayantī1, a popular

lexicon in South India of mediaeval period as the numerous

references thereto by the commentators on Kāvyas go to

show. His Yatidharmasamuccaya is a digest in eleven

sections dealt with the code of conduct of the yatis.

The first one is available in printed form and the2 second

is known in MSS. Besides, he was known to have written

a number of works on Upaniṣadic philosophy. Rāmānuja3

refuted the views of Yādavaprakāśa enshrined in the above

mentioned works.

Rāmānuja belongs to the 11th century AD (1017–1137)4

and Yādavaprakāśa his teacher in his early life must have

lived between the 4th quarter of the 10th and the middle

of 11th century.

According to Dr. Keith Kedārabhaṭṭa's Vṛttaratnākara

which deals with 136 secular metres, was written before

15th cent AD and Mallinātha used this work.5 The earliest

commentator Trvikrama was earlier than Sulhaṇa and

1. edited G. Oppert—Madras 1893.

2. MSS. D 2949, D. 2950, D. 2951……of Madras Oriental Govt. MSS

Library.

3. Vedārthasaṁgraha—in P. 2 in the Comm. (Yādavaprakāśamate

Sarvamapi cetanamera……cidbrahmanorap……) in P. 99—Atha

Yādavaprakāśamataṁ nirāsyati trtīya’pitikrama Sam 1898.

4. P. 100—History of Philosophy Vol. III—S. N. Das Gupta 1961.

1017 AD Rāmānuja was:born. P. 104. He died in AD. 1137 after

enjoying an extraordinary long life of one hundred and twenty

years.

5. History of Skt literature. P. 417. 1928.

130

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

Somacandra who wrote their commentaries on 11901 and 12752 AD respectively. According to Velankar, Trivik-rama wrote his commentary on Vṛttaratnākara some time in first half of the 12th century.3 A MS. of Vṛttaratnākara dated Sam. 1192 and written on Palm leaves is deposited at Jesālmīr.4 The lower limit of Vṛttaratnākara thus is fixed by the date of MSS—the early part of the 12th century.

We are now in a position to determine the higher limit. Weber, in his “Indichestudien” has dwelt on the fact that Vṛttaratnākara is surely later than Halāyudha as the verse V of the 1st chapter is a direct attack against the view of Halāyudha who divides metres into three sections – Ganac-chanda, Mātrācchanda and Akṣaracchanda.5

Sivaprasād Bhaṭṭācārya6 has shown how the familiarity of Kedāra with Yādavaprakāśa has been discerned in former’s verses I.6, I.9, I.10d. These verses read like direct echoes of Yādavaprakāśa's introductory verses.7 In good many

1. Ed. by Gajendragadkar. J.U.B.NS. Vol. XX. 96.P.

2. J.U.B. XXVII. Sept. 1958. Pt. II. Ed. by G. H. Goḷe.

3. JASB. Vol. XXXIII. P. 26.

4. P. 30 Dalal's Descriptive catalogue, Gos.

5. VIII. P. 206.

6. J.A.S. Bengal 1962. Vol. 4. P. 194.

7. The same verses—Ma ya ra sa ta ja bha na la ga......etc. are found in all the printed editions of P. Ch. Sūtra with Halāyudha's Commentary, thereby indicating these verses belonged to Halāyudha's Vṛtti. Indische Studien VIII ; NSP. Kāvyamālā 91. 1938 ; Haridas Sanskrit Granthamālā 1947; ed. by Sītānāth Sāstrī. 1342 Vañgābda. Only Bibliotheca Indica series did not contain these six verses (ed. Viśwanāth Śāstrī 1871). In the concluding page, of this edition there has been an annexe, where in the estimated enumeration of the sūtras of the Texts concerned, these verses are included. They are of course converted into 12 Sūtras. (cf. Ma Ya dvādaśa). In some MSS Weber had noticed this type of adaptation

on P. 210. I.S.VIII “(In R. Wird Jeder der sechs vers des 1 als der zwei sutra am schlusse der Werkchens denselben deren zwölf zu geteilt finden.)”

CHRONOLOGY OF THE AUTHORS

131

cases Vṛttaratnākara follows Yādavaprakāśa.1 That the former used the latter has been hinted at by Nārāyaṇabhaṭṭa under Vṛttaratnākara I. 9. (Taduktariṇ dīrgham Somyogaparam) .....etc. The upper limit of Vṛttaratnākara can be fixed by the date of Yādavaprakāśa2 we can place Vṛttaratnā-kara in 11th cent. AD.

The respective chapters of the Agnipurāṇam and Viṣ-ṇudharmottarapurāṇam have been condensed in the metrical paraphrase of the Sūtra text of P. Ch. Sutra. Text contents of the respective chapters dealt with metrics in Garuḍa purāṇam3 and Brhadnāradīyapurāṇam4 are grown out in a

In some Mss, these verses are found along with the original text where there is no commentary, indicating as if it belongs to original text. The MSS in ASB Coll. (III.F294) contained both the verses at the beginning and the total count of the number of sutras where 6 verses=12 sutras are taken into consideration. One Skt college collection MSS (chanda No. 6) reads the verses at the beginning of the text, though it does not count them among sutras which are numbered in MSS. Prof. Bhaṭṭācārya has dwelt on the fact that these parts in no way can be regarded as belong.

ing to original part, because of the first expression (Jayati Piṅ-galanāga) on which no commentary was written. And it also may be fact no Sūtrakāra of renowned faith can do never such self praise. It may not be improbable that these verses are belonged to Yādavaprakāśa's Comm. In a MSS(Madras or MSS Lib. D. 901) thereof both these verses are found but editor thinks they are taken from Y.P's commentary. But Halāyudha and Yādavaprakāśa lived in South and the former was more famous as commentator than the later. It is not totally improbable to transfer these verses under Halāyudha's comm. from that of Yādavaprakāśa.

1. Pādairmilitaiḥ pādākulakam

Y.P. IV 48 : (Ebhiḥ Mātrāsamakādinām

Y.P. VII 19 : Najabhā jau dvau lagau ca Narkuṭakam

Vr. III. 92 : Narkuṭakam

2. See Infra. P. 164.

3. Pūrvakhaṇḍam Garuḍa purāṇam—Sam 1314. Vaṅgabāsī. ed. Chapters 211-216.

4. Venkaṭeś wara ed. Pūrvakhaṇḍa—75 Adhyāya.

132

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

manner adopted by Kedāra. Garuḍa Purāṇam not only

arranged the subject matter after the model of Vṛttaratnā-

kara ; sometime it copied down the ślokas from the works

of the latter.1

Bṛhannāradīyapurāṇam in twenty ślokas dilates on the

few rules on prosody which appears to be orthodox in

spirit2 but not in feature. While enumerating on the rules

of six pratyayas its adaptation from Vṛttaratnākara is so

faithful sometimes that it can be charged with for his slavish

plagiarism.3

On examining the contents of the respective chapters of

these purāṇas, on which the unquestioned dominance of

Vṛttaratnākara is clearly discerned we are to note unhesita-

tingly that they have been composed after the appearance

of the medieval standard work Vṛttaratnākara.

Vuttodaya4 the only extant work in Pali language

deals with the Ch. Skt. This work does not, strictly speaking,

enjoy reputation as authoritative but deserves notices beca-

use it is directly modelled after the text Vṛttaratnākara with

considerable plagiarism5 of the theoretical consideration of

general prosodical principles.

In one hundred and thirtysix verses6 this work like

1. Yadā nāpi kramasamyoge laghutāpi kvacid guroḥ........

2. Bṛhannāradīyapurāṇam......Samyogaśca Visargaścanusvāro laghutah

pūrvah Laghordīrghatvamākhyayati.dīrgho go lo laghurmataḥ.

3. Cf. Vr. VI. 6–8a—Bṛhannāradīyapurāṇam—186–20.

4. Ed. G.E. Fyer ASB. XLVI. Pt I. 1877. p.369.

Ed. R. Siddhartha. J.D.L. Vol. XVIII, 1929.

5. Para pādādisamyoge yo pūrvoc guru vakāro laghu sa kvacit vionyyo

Tadudāharaṇam yathā—cf. Vr. Rat. Pādādi...........

6. Cf. Vṛ. Rat. Ṣaḍadhyayanivaddhasya chandso'Syaparisphuṭam pra-

mānamiti vijñeyam Ṣaṭtrimśadadhikam Ṣaṭam—India, off. Librarys

MS—Mr. Childer's presentation contains 139 verses. Burmese MSS

also contains 136 verses. Mr. Minayeff's two MSS published in 1869

by Indian Academy of Sciences of St. Petersberg have same number

of verses.

CHRONOLOGY OF THE AUTHORS

133

Vṛttaratnākara distributes its subject matter among the six paricchedas.

In its treatment of Upajāti metre Vuttodaya adopts Kedāra's version in a manner as if it has been reproduced in Pali language.8 The date of Saṅgharakkhitas, the author of Vuttodaya, therefore, can approximately be settled from the internal evidence supplied by the work itself. It can be shown from the given extracts that the author not only followed closely Kedāra in its treatment of fundamentals and general arrangement but copied some of the definition ad verbatum. Therefore it is not improbable that the Buddhist monk has the text of Vṛttaratnākara before him when he composed this Pali work. This will supply us one terminus to his date.

The other terminus is given by the date of the earliest commentator Nava Vimala Buddhi who wrote Vuttodaya Tikā in Pagan during the reign of Burmese king Kyatswa in Circa 1212 AD.

In the same period in the same spot we have been supplied with a number of commentaries such as Chandosarattha and a gloss on it by Saddhamma nana, Chappaccaya and Vccanthajatika by Vepulla.1

Accepting the date of Kedāra as the 11th cent. and allowing one century to elapse between the author and the commentators we can roughly fix the 12th century as the approximate date of this Pali work.

The earliest commentator of the Vṛttaratnākara is Trivikrama Surī who wrote the Vṛttaratnākara Tātparya Tikā, Trivikrama himself declared that he hailed from the family

2. Anantorodirita lakkhana pāda vimissa upajātiyo ta evam kil' annasu vimissitasu.

3 References have been supplied my G. E. Eyer, P. 370 JASB. Vol. XLVI. Another comm. entitled kavisāra with a vṛtti on it has been supposed to be composed during the reign of the pegu Monarch, Dharmarājādhirāja Circa 1385–1421.

134

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

of Angirasa1 who has been settled at Vṛddha Vālabhi of Gauḍa family. This very term reminds us one of the Bālabalabhi in Gauḍa in connection with Bhāvadeva Bhaṭṭa of the 11th cent. AD who has been known as Bālavalabhi-bhujan̄ga.

Lower limit of his date can be approximated by the date of the MS. of the author's Uddyota on the Kātantra. It is dated at Saṃ, 1221.2 The higher limit can be fixed by the date of the Rājaśekhara whose Chandaśekhara has been referred to by Trivikrama in many places.3 The date of the former has been settled on the 1st quarter of the 11th cent. AD.4 Therefore Trivikrama might have lived in the 12th century.

Sulhaṇa left his date mark on his own composed illustrations. While illustrating Urddharṣiṇi metre, Sulhaṇa gives the date of his self-composed verse Saṃ 1246.5 In another verse we have the reference of king Vindhya Varman, the successor of Ajayavarman at about 1160 AD.6 Therefore Sulhaṇa must have flourished in the last quarter of the 12th cent. AD.

The polymath Jaina writer Hemacandra directed his many-sided activities to the field of the metrics. His only

1. Ed. Velaṅkar JBBRAS Vol. XXXIII Gauḍeṣu Vṛddhavālabhisthiramaramurthi Brāhmanvayorka iva kasye na suprasiddhā. The same has been repeated in the colophon verse of Sarvadeva pratisthāpaddhati, a smrti work of the same author, the ms. of which has been preserved in the collection of the library of the Asiatic Society (ASB.G.5507).

2. Vide, Ref. P. 26. Ibid Idem.

3. II.2.1. II.12.3 III.108. 1.12. etc.

4. JBBRAS. Vol.XXII. P.1.1946.

5. Saṃvatsara rasapayonldhisūrya samkbye Śrīvikramannarapate racitamyeyam. III. 35. ex.78. P. 70. JUB. Vol.XXII.NS. on 1953.

6. ………Adhy. II.17. ex.19. ed. Ranabhūmisu Bhimavikramo Vindh-yavarmanrpatirjayatyasau. J.U.B. Vol.XX.

CHRONOLOGY OF THE AUTHORS

135

available work in this field is chandonuśāsanam1 which dealt with Skt, Pkt, and Apa. metres and which is accompanied by a Vṛtti of his own, i.e., Svopajña Tīkā. Another work Chandasacūdāmaṇi is existed by the name only.

About this versatile scholar we have more authentic materials than we have with regard to the most of the writers. The biographical and other details are to be found together in Bühler's erudite but reliable work on this author.2 Hemchandra is famous in the history of his sect because of his endeavour to induce Jayasiṃha Siddharāja one of the most powerful king of the Gujarat (AD. 1094–1143) in favour of the Jains and to convert Kumārapāla into Jain.

Born in 1089 AD. He became a Jaina novice and was ordained as Sūri in 1110 AD. After the conversion of Kumārapāla and enjoying the royal patronage (1125. AD) he lived in Anhilvad patan for a great part of his life. It is due to his devoted energy, Jain literature got its impetuous upliftment in the 12th and the 13th cent. in Gujarat. Such a prolific writer ended his busy career in 1173 AD at the ripe age of 80.

To determine the date of Pkt Paiṅgalam is not so much difficult now a days. This work is one of the most important documents of Mediaeval Indian literature not only for the languages used in it, but also for the references of the historical facts and figures enshrined in the illustrative verses.

About this work and its time, we are pretty certain that we are with regard to other writers on metrics. That is why this work has been treated differently by the eminent scholars,3 who tried to lay down the approximate date of

1. ed. Velaṅkar. 1948. NS. P.77.

2. Uber das lebeu des Jaina MO nches Hemcandra, Wien 1889 AD cf. Jacobi in Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics VI.591.

3. (a) Mr. C.M. Ghosh–Intro. P.VII. (b) Jacobi Bhavisattakahā ( German ed. ) P.5 (c) Sanatkumaracharaitam ( German ed. ) P. XXVI.

136 ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

the compilation of the work from different angles. Examining the data collected from the illustrative verses and in consideration with the language from the philological point of view, they are decided more or less on one point that the compilation has taken place in the period between the 14th and the 15th century or between the 15th and 16th century.

Of these scholars, Dr. Ghosal1 and Dr. B.N. Vyas2 devoted their full-fledged energy and examined minutely this work from every corner of its possible issues and they agree among themselves in determining the upper limit of the compiler by the date of Hammir who is mentioned in the verse No. I.147.3 Dr. Ghosal contends that if that historical figure is Hammira of Ranthambara, the date will be after 1301 AD when the said king died.4 But if this figure is the same with the king of Mewar the date will be comparatively few years later, i.e., 1301–64. Thus the upper limit of the king being fixed, we are to examine the lower limit.

Dr. Ghosal makes this limit to be determined by the

(c) Schübring—ZDMG 75.1921.S. 97.

(d) L.P. Tessitori—Notes. An Old Western Rājasthānī Indian Antiquary 1914–16.

(e) B. C. Majumdar—History of the Bengali language. P.249 (2nd ed. 1927 ).

(f) Gune—Bhavisattakahā P.69. Gos.1923.

(g) Dr. Chatterjee—ODBL Vol.1. P. 113. Hindi and Indo Aryan —P.106.

(h) D.C. Ganguli. I.H. Qu. Vol. XI. P. 565.

(i) Mm. H.P. Śāstrī : Preliminary Report on mss of Bardic Chronicles. P.18.

(j) Dr. S.N. Ghosal—The date of the Pkt Paiṅgalam. I.H. Q. March 1949. P.57.

1. Dr. Ghosal's thesis on Pkt Paiṅgalam submitted for D.Phil. Degree of the University of Calcutta—unpublished.

2. Pkt.Text series IV. 1962.

3. Dhollā maria dhilli maham mucchia mecchasarīra/pura janjallā maṃtivara calia vīra Hammīra // ......I.147.

Vide S.N. Ghosāl I.H. Qu. XXV.P.54.

CHRONOLOGY OF THE AUTHORS

137

date of Lakṣmīdhara Bhatta, the commentator of Pkt. Paingalam whose date has been coined in his work, as Sam, 1657.1 On the basis of these data for the higher and lower limit, Dr. Ghosal fixed the date of the work approximately between 1400 AD and 1500 AD, which however would not militate the views of Dr. Chatterjee and others.

Dr. Vyas, on the other hand, fixed the upper limit a bit earlier, than the date of Vāṇī Bhūṣaṇam of Damodaramiśra, whom Lakṣmīdharabhaṭṭa quoted many a time in his commentary. Date of Vāṇī Bhūṣaṇam can be ascertained by the date of king Kirtisiṃha referred to in an eulogy addressed to the king.2

This Vāṇī Bhūṣaṇam, again mentions one Ravikara3 who is supposed to be the commentator on Pkt Paingalam and was born in the same family of Damodara. If there is a gap of 25 years between Ravikara and Damodara, the date will be fixed at the 14th century.

Now these opinions may be reconsidered afresh. Because like Vāṇi Bhuṣaṇam, Chandokoṣa of Ratnaśekhara follows Pkt Paingalam in the appropriation of the Pkt, and the Apa. metres only. H.D. Velaṇkar4 in his discussion on the metres of Chandokoṣa and Pkt Paingalam, has laid down the date of birth of Ratnaśekhara. He was born in Sam 1372,5 and his other two works, Śiśupālacarita and Guṇasthāna Kramāroha were composed in Sam 1428 and 1447 respectively.

1. Colophon verse of the work of Lakṣmīdharabhaṭṭa—Abde Bhāskaravājipāṇḍava rasakṣmā ( 1657—1600 AD )

2. Kīrtisiṃha nrpa jīva yāvadamṛtadyuti taranī I. 82. Vāṇī Bhūṣaṇ. Kāvyamālā 53, 1925.

3. Dīrghaghoṣakuladeva dīrghikā Pañkajam Ravikara Vyarājata Irṣyayeva duhituh payonidheryatra vāsamakarotsaraswatī. II. 126. Ibid. Idem.

4. J. U. B. 1933. Nov. P.34.

5. cf. M.D. Desai's “Jaina Gurjāra Kavio” II.P. 759.

138

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

Velañkar asserted that both these works may be assigned to the 14th cent AD. And if the date of birth of Ratnaśekhara is 1378 Saṁ=1315 AD, there is every probability for the author to compose his work in the last part of the 14th century, a few years before the completion of the work of Pkt Paiṅgalam. Therefore we find no bar in inferring that the Pkt Paiṅgalam has been compiled during the first half of the 14th century.

Vānībhūṣaṇam the work on Skt and Pkt metrics was written in Skt language by Damodara miśra who was born in Dīrghaghoṣa kula. That he lived during the reign of the King Kīrti siṅgha (1360-1400, AD) has been said before. His date tentatively has been fixed in the last half of the 14th century.

Incidentally, reference may be made of the author of Chandomakhānta of which nothing pertaining to the author is left. Gaṅgādāsa, the Chandomañjarīkāra mentioned one Puruṣottama Bhaṭṭa, the author of Chandogovinda.1 But Chandomakhānta2 is another work of Puruṣottama Bhaṭṭa.

One of the Murshidabad editions of Chandomañjarī contains a magnificent eulogium of Puruṣottama. Chandomakhānta contains Gīti metres which bear close semblance to those of Jayadeva3 and they are the laudatory verses addressed to Śiva and Pārvatī. As for the date of the work we can assign a period between Jayadeva and Gaṅgādāsa. It is interesting to note here that while Gaṅgādāsa mentioned Jayadeva, Puruṣottama did not.

The next prosodist of our concern is Gaṅgādāsa whose Chandomañjarī has had wide popularity in the whole of East India and his undisputed authority has been recognised

1. I. 20. ed. Gurudāsa Vidyānidhi. 1939.

2. Varendra Research Society Monograph No. 5 by Dinesh Chandra Ācārya Śāstri.

3. Sahacarīdarśaya tamatula mattani Svapnasamāgama mohitacittam.

Avirata mukulita locana malam Dīpaśikhālasadṛkṣaṇābharam.

by all. Gaṅgādasa came of a well known Vaidya family. His father was Gopāla Dāsa to whom is ascribed the voluminous work Cikitsāmṛta. After the death of Gopāla Dāsa, Kṛṣṇadāsa and Gaṅgādasa born of Santoṣa together completed the incomplete work of his father.1 P. K. Gode, however fixed the date of this celebrated author within Circa 1300—1500 AD.2 The results of our investigations, however, do not agree with Gode's conclusions.

The upper limit of the work can be determined by the date of the Pkt Paiṅgalam from which work it appropriates a number of metres.3 He is surely later than Jayadeva from whom he has quoted4 a verse. The lower limit can be ascertained by the date of Lakṣmīdhara Bhaṭṭa who has quoted Chandomañjarī in good many places.5 Gaṅgādasa again is cited in Kalāpadīpikā of Puṇḍarīkākṣa Vidyāsāgara under Bhaṭṭi VIII. 131. Puṇḍarīkākṣa flourished in the 15th cent. AD6 when Gaṅgādāsawas an author of established reputation.

With a view to corroborating our conclusion about the date of Gaṅgādasa, we may also refer to a work on Kaviśikṣā ascribed to Gaṅgādasa where a verse from Dhūrtasamāgama was used for illustrative purpose. This verse quoted can be traced in the drama of Kaviśekhara Jyoṭirīśvarācārya. Accor-

1. Vide I. H. Qu. XXIV. P. 319.

2. I. H. XV. P. 521.

3. Rūpāmālī II. 29 ) Chandomañjarī

Kamala II. 30 ) Gurudās Vidyānidhi, 1939. Pkt Paingalam II.82.88.

4. Jayadeva XII. 28. quoted in Ch. mañjarī.I.22.

5. Śrenyudirta rajau ralau guruh –iti chandomañjaryām ganabhedena nāmāntaramuktam Under II. III. P. 449. ed. B. N. Vyas. 1959.

6. (a) Sāhitya Pariṣad Patrikā Vol. 47, P. 157.

(b) S. P. Bhattacarya in his introduction to ed. ŚrIdhara's Comm. P.XXX is inclined to take Puṇḍarīkākṣa Vidyāsāgar as a commentator of Kāvyaprakāśa. And assigned him to the early decades of the 15th. century.

140

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

ding to the verse V. 3 of that drama it is found that the

dramatist was patronised by Muhammad Tughlak.1 His

time falls, therefore, in the 2nd quarter of the 14th cent. AD.

So the earliest date that can be assigned to Gaṅgādasa is 14th

cent. AD. This can be substantiated by the date of the

Rāmcandrakavi Bhāratī who quoted from Chandomañjarī

without acknowledging it.2 This commentator flourished

in the 15th century. Therefore, Gaṅgādasa must have flour-

ished before 15th cent AD.

Śrutabodha, a short but apocryphal work of 40 stanzas,

has been traditionally ascribed to Kālidāsa but some of the

mss fathers it to Vararuci,3 where the date of the ascri-

bing is stated as Sam 1763 = 1638 AD. It has been known

in MSS. since the 16th cent. Śrutabodha is not known to

Chandomañjarī the popular manual in the 14th century. In

the 16th century Śrutabodha was a popular figure even

in the far south. Nārāyaṇabhaṭṭa, quoted from it acknowl-

ging its very identity under Comm.I.II Yasya pāda ... etc.

( Śru. 4 ).4

Rāmacandra Kavi Bhāratī extracted verse from Śruta-

bodha while commenting on the Sūtra I. 4.5 Therefore

Śrutabodha is sure to flourish during the interval between

Gaṅgādasa and Rāmcandrakavi Bhāratī in Circa 1350–

1400 AD.

Vṛttaratnāvalī, a short metrical exposition, written by

one Veṅkateśa, son of Avadānaraswatī. In some MSS

the work is ascribed to Kālidāsa which may be supposed to

be the non de plume of the author.

1. S. N. Sinha's, History of Tirhut 1922. P. 68.

2. Under I. 7. Mastriguru trilaghusca nakāra

Under I.47, Pañcamam laghu Sarvatra..........

3. ASB. Govt. 8358–1763 miticaitra pratipāda likhitam Raghunāthena

Svapāṭhanārtham.

4. Kasi. Skt. Series. 55.P.11.1948.

5. Śru I.3. ekamātrā bhaved hrasva.

One Avadānasaraswatī is the author of the Vedānta Śataślokī. Sūryapaṇḍita, the famous commentator of Vijaga-

ṇita also wrote a commentary on the Vedāntaśataślokī - in Śaka 1460 - 1538 AD. when he was thirtyone years. The

same should also be the period, when the literary activity of Veṅkateśa is in full swing.

Praśnottararatnamālā is another work of Veṅkateśa (Govt. Or. MSS. Lib. Des. Cat. D. 13173) in which we have

completed genealogy of the author's maternal family. In that work we are told about his father whose grandfather-

in-law, at the request of Sāyaṇa composed Ayurveda Sudhā- nidhi. If this Sāyaṇa is identical with Sāyaṇācārya, the

commentator of the Veda who flourished in the middle of the 14th century and is the contemporar of the author's

great grandfather, our author might have lived in the 1st quarter of the 15th century.

Candraśekharabhaṭṭa, the son of Lakṣmīnāthabhaṭṭa, tells us expressedly the time of composition of his voluminous

work Vṛttamauktikam1. The work has been set in two parts dealing with mātrāchandas and others each separately

paged and dated. The second part is posthumus and has been completed by the author's father Lakṣmīnāthabhaṭṭa2

who dedicated it to his son a year later in 1676 Saṁvat. Besides this work, he wrote a commentary on Pkt Paiṅgalam

entitled Piṅgala Bhāvodyota3 in 1673 AD which created

1. Govt. ASB. 5719.

2. Vide Folio 203 -Rasamunirasacandrairbhabito (1676) Vaikrame'

..........yāte divaṁ sutanāye vinayopapanne Śrīcandraśekharakavau kila tatpravandhaḥ Vicchedamāpa bhuvi tadvacaśaiva sārdham

Pūrṇikṛtasyā sa hi Jīvanabhetaveśya. Śrīvṛttamauktikamidam Lakṣmīnāthena puritaṁ yatnāt Jīyadacandrārkam jīvatujivalo-

kasya.

3. Govt. ASB. 5528. Harākṣimuniśāstrendumite..........1673 Sam. MM.H.P. Śāstrī described it as a commentary on Vedāṅga Chando

Sūtra as it was written in Skt language, consequently has been placed among the Vedāṅgas in Des. Cat. Vol.II.P.1202.

142

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

much fuss among the scholars as to the nature of the text on which it comments. A commentary on Chandomañjarī entitled Chandomañjarī Jivanam1 is his another work.

A little bit earlier is Vṛttamuktāvalī, a work modelled after Vṛttaratnākara. This work has been utilized by Weber in his scholarly dissertation on Piṅgala Ch. Sūtra. This is dated as Saṁvat 1631-1575 AD.

Vṛttadarpanam of Bhīṣma Miśra has been composed after Vāṇī Bhūṣaṇam in the model of which its contents have been arranged. But unlike the later it defines the mātrā metre in terms of total number of mātrā. In many places it quotes from its model work.2

Chandoratnākara, an elementary treatise on Skt metrics consists of 4 chapters. It has been ascribed to an author Vasudeva Sarvabhauma Bhattacarya. The work extends to folia 17 appropriates Gīti metres. The work has been dated as Śaka 1622.3

Rāmapāṇivāda, the author of Vṛttavārtikam4 as appeared in the introductory chapter of Uṣā-Nirudh ed. by C. K. Raja, was a great scholar and poet and was favourite in the court of the Malavar king. He lived under the patronage of the king Malandavarma of Trivandrum – Saṁ 1763=18th century.5

Rādhādāmodara, the author of Chandahkaustubha will survive by the name of his worthy desciple and commentator BaladeVavidyābhūṣaṇa, whose name was associated

1. 10.1289. MS. Des. Cat. Part II.1889. ASB. Govt. 8358—1763 miti caitra Pratipāda likhitam raghunāthena svapāṭhanārtham. P.11. Kāśī. Skt Series.55.1948. Śru. 1.3. “Ekamātra bhaved hrasva”.

2. Fol.2a. ASB.G. 5925. Prād ihrādi e o him ca Vāṇī bhūṣaṇake yathā.

3. ASB. 3528. Aksivāhurasaglāvi śake Viṣṇupādavdayam vyalekhi pustakam natva Sarvabhaumena Dhimatā.

4. Ed. Sāmbhasiva Sastri. TSS.131.1939. The editor of the “Raghavia” “T.S.S. 146” placed Rāmapanivada 939 ME—1763 AD.

5. Introduction page XXI. Uṣāniruddha.1943.

with Gauḍia Vaiṣṇava movement. He flourished in the

18th century, which can be known from the date mark left

in a commentary on Rūpagoswāmin's work – Ṣaḍsityuttaro-

ṣoḍaśasatigaṇite śake tu ṭikāyāḥ niṣpattiḥ.....) Śak. 1686

or 1764 AD.

A pun in the first verse of his Sahitya Kaumudi refers

(according to his own Tippana) to Gajapati Pratāparudra of

Utkala or Orissa. In the concluding verse of the same text

Baladeva was declared as a pupil of Rādhādāmodara Dāsa

and Gopāladāsa alias Rasikānanda.1

Rādhādāmodara in the introductory verse of the Chan-

dahkaustūbha prayed for the grace of Murārī.

Baladeva identified Murārī with the father of Chandahkaustubhakāra1

while explaining the word “Gajapati” in the next line

1.2b. Baladeva contends that he is no other than Gajapati

Pratāparudra, the king of Utkala.2

Date of Vidyābhūṣaṇa being settled with exactitude,

Dāmodara can safely be assigned to the 18th cent, when

Baladeva flourished. Chandahpīyūṣa is another late work

presumably of Eastern India of which only the codex is

found in the collection of BORI.3

This work is ascribed to one Jagannātha from whose

own account we come to know that our author was born

of Subhadrā and Rāma, the son of Vidyādhara. His wife

was Gopālī and the preceptor was Buddhimat who was well-

1. “Arcita Nayanānando Rādhādāmodara Guru jiyāt” - This verse is

found in the introductory verse of his commentary on Chando-

kaustuva – Page I Chandokanstave 457 Gaurabda.

2. Atra Murārī scaitanyasceti dvyarthau pratipadyete Tatradya

granthakartuh paramaguruh Śrīrasikānandaparākhyāḥ on 1. 2a,

Ibid, Idem.

3. Gajapatih pratāparudra utkalādhiah................P.2. Ibid. Idem.

4. Aufrcent notices the only ms. that has been recorded in the 5th

report of Peterson. (P.194) and this is the said ms. that has been

utilised here.

144

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

known figure in Nīlaloḥitapura.1

The date of the author of this work can be approximately

settled from the one limit that is from the date of copying

i.e. 1849. Coined in the post colophone line2 and the

terminus ad quem can be furnished by the latest figure Setu-

kāra Haribhāskara whose famous commentary on Vṛttarat-

nākara has been utilised not less than four times.3 Bhāskara

Setu has been dated 1676 AD.4 Considering these limits it

may be presumed that the work has been written in the last

half of the 18th century.

Duḥkhabhañjana Kavi a poet of 19th century as has

been asserted by Kṛṣṇamācārya, is the author of Candra-

śekharacaritam.5 But his only extant work of Vāgvallabha

is a treatise on metrics, The commentary of this work has

been written by his son Devīprasāda6, who left the date

mark of its composition in the commentary. “Vānāṣṭana-

vabhuvarṣe” i.e., 1985 Samvat 1910 AD. Accepting this

only source for the date of this work, it can be presumed

that the work might have been composed in the last part of

the 19th century.

The author of the work Chandomṛtalatā7 is a Napalese

Buddhist who is sometimes referred to as AmṛtaBhikṣu.8

Amṛtānanda has been described as the author of a Buddhist

1. Fol. 46b.

2. Fol. 47.

3. Fol. 5, 32, 93, 43.

4. MS. ASB. Govt. 10338–1732 Samvat. Aksuvahnihayabhūmitavarṣe

yadvantasamaye.............

5. History of Skt literature–P. 380. 1937.

6. Vāgvallabha–k.s.s. 100. P.315. Sriduḥkhabhañjanakavīndratanu-

januh Srīdevīprasād...........

7. ASB. B8. It misses the notice of Aufrecht who however mentioned

two others one of which exists Cambridge another in Paris.

C.C.I. 192. 1962.

8. Hodgson–Asiatic Researches XVI. P.429.

CHRONOLOGY OF THE AUTHORS

145

hymn1 and a translator of the two portions of Divyāvadāna

in Napalese language. One of the mss. of the last mentioned

work in Bendall’s Catalogue has been coined with the date

mark as NS. 963, i.e., 1843.2

This Amṛtānanda, as Mm. H.P. Sastri, (NS. 14. 963,

i.e., 1843) presents before us, is Brian Hodgson’s Pandit

who prepared two copies of Buddhacarita which Cowell

has utilized for his edition. Hodgson’s ms. is written in

Newari script and has been marked with the date 950 NS

—i.e., 1830 AD and contains a complete verse, in which

the copyist confessed that he wrote additional three sargas

of Buddha Caritam.3

In the same codex twenty four lines4 are written in

Vernacular language in praise of Rajendra Vikrama, the

king of Nepal and his son Surendra Vikrama who

ascended the throne of Nepal in 1816.5

From the facts adduced above, we can place our author

as a copyist in the 1st half of the 19th century whose very

profession has been detected clearly in the work Chando-

mṛtalatā.

Vṛttaratnāvalī has been composed by Cirañjīva, a pro-

lific writer of Bengal whose works, the Vidvanmodataraṅgiṇī,

the Mādhavacampū and the Kāvyavilāsa had been enjoying

a wide reputation in the literary circle.

Our author was an inhabitant of West Bengal. His

1. ASB. MS. B.36—Iti Nepālīdevatākalyāṇapañcaviṁśatika Amṛtā-

nanda Viracita Samāptam—Fol. 14a. Ibid. MS. B.16—The first part

of which has been translated by Wilson in Asiatic Researches, XVI.

P.458.

2. JASB. 1909. P.4.

3. Śūnyavānāṁkayuge Varṣe māṅge’ site varṣe Amṛtānandena likhitam

Buddhakāvyam Sudurlabham Sarvatranviśya nolabdhā Catuḥsargam

Canirmmitam Caturdaśam pañcadaśam Ṣoḍaśam Saptadaśamstathā.

4. Anecdote Oxenesia, Preface VI. London. 1893.

5. History of Nepal. Dr. Wright. p. 284.

10

146

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

Vṛttaratnāvalī is a short exposition of Sanskrit metrics. It transpires that his real name was Rāmadeva but he was well-known by his pet name Cirañjīva which was given to him out of affection by his uncle.1

This Cirañjīva was the son of Rāghavendra Śatāvadhāna Bhaṭṭācārya, who was a student of Bhavananda Siddhānta-vāgīśa.

This celebrated prosodist enjoyed the patronage of Yaśovanta, the noble chief, variously referred to in the illustrative verses2 as Gauḍa king, who has been regarded to be a native of Bengal, the Nawab Dewan of Dacca.

Yaśovanta was the Nawab Dewan in 1733 AD. In his Kāvyavilāsa, Cirañjīva refers to3 another king Jayasiṃha who reigned perhaps in 1714 AD. Therefore our prosodist must have flourished in the first half of the 18th century.

We would close our survey by introducing Gaṅgādhara Kavirāja whose versatile scholarship enriched the field of Skt metrics by no less than three works. Born in Jessore in 1205 B.S. (1720)4, Gaṅgādhara showed his uncommon skill and aptitude in adopting every kind of scientific literature.

As a Physician his special propensity for diagnosis and treatment became almost legendary.

His special studies on Agnipurāṇa urged him to write three commentaries on Alañkāra (Prācyaprabhā), Chandas (Chandah sārah)5 and on Āyurvedīya chapters of this encyclopedic work.

Of the 40 works composed by him, nearly 4 have been dealt with metrics.

1. Most of the mss. retained the name Ramadeva. vide, I.O. catalogue. Vol. III. PP.343. Vidvanmodotarāṅgiṇī—Tātograjamamatīvātsalya-tvācciram cirajīvataya juhara.

2. Kodaṇḍadhvanīkhaṇḍitarīpratanasarvvatīgarvaypraho gauḍa Śrīya-savantasiṃha mitaramakarnyakarṇaya—Vṛtta Ratnāvalī—70.

3. Sahityaparisaḍ Patrika—37—1337. p.34. Mm. Haraprasad Sastri.

4. Nagendra Nath Basu, Visvakosa V. PP. 156. Bangabda. 1301.

5. Vilāsinī by Gaṅgādhara Kavirāja—Behrampur. Saidabad, 1287 (1879 AD).

CHRONOLOGY OF THE AUTHORS 147

Gaṅgādhara denied the authorship of Dvyaipāyana Vyāsa to Śrī Bhāgavad Gītā and wrote a voluminous work on this. Most of his works have been dedicated to Lord Śiva. But two of his works Govardhana Vardhana and Rādhākṛṣṇa Vardhana are sufficient to speak in favour of the fact that he was not the Śivaite.

His commentary on Carakasamhitā entitled Jalpakalpataru is a voluminous work comprising 600 thousand ślokas.1

His Bahuvivāharāhitya and Vidhāvivāha is the works which give recognition of his liberal attitude as a social reformed. Bengal lost one of her lumiere in 1292 B.S. ( 1885 AD ).

We have now practically closed our survey of the Principal prosodists deserving mention. Now we shall endeavour to concentrate on some prominent commentators who came in the way. But hardly any of these works except those of Bhāṣyarāja with an account of which shall close our survey, deserves the merit for any special mention.

Vṛttaratnākara pañcikā is a lucid exposition on the Vṛttaratnākara by Rāmacandrakavi Bhāratī. He was born in Vīrabatiikā village and he went to Ceylon. Being converted to a Buddhist he domiciled there for the rest of his life. He has been assigned to the reign of Parākramabāhu I in the Buddhist era of 1744 AD2, by some eminent scholars.

But a more precise dating is possible. Because, the colophon verse of the printed edition is marked with the date of Buddhist era 1999. AD.3 The latter is more reliable as from the illustrative verses we are acquainted with the

1. Sam. 1936—1880 AD. Behrampur.

2. Chintāharan Chakravarty. IA.1930.00.27. History of Bengali literature, Dacca University, PP.687. Dr. Suresh Ch.Banerjee-Saṅskrita Sāhitye Vāṅgalār Dān. 1369 Vaṅgābda. PP.46.

3. Śrīmat Saugatavatsare navanidhidvārendu Samkshye tithau........... ..........p.119. N.S.P. 1948.

148 ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

name Rāhula who was a well-known figure for his

literary products during the reign of Parākrama­vāhu VI

(1412-1468).1

Archeological commission in Ceylon also confirms the

same2 date.

Considering the authenticity of the archeological report

and examining the references found in the commentary, we

can unhesitatingly contend that Ramacandra flourished

during the reign of the king Parā­kramavāhu mentioned

above.

The Celebrated Nārāyaṇabhaṭṭa left his own account in

his colophon verse. He was the son of Rāmeśvarabhaṭṭa

and his geneology is carried further upto Govinda, Añgade­

vabhaṭṭa and Bhaṭṭa Nāgapāśa. While he was residing in

Kāśī he wrote this commentary.3

Prof. S. P. Mukherjee4, described him to be a southerner

and to be well acquainted with the work of Yādavaprakāśa.

The date of the composition is coined as “Vikram aśake

Dvikhaṣaḍbhū.....Sanmite.....”1602. The particular ex­

pression Vikramaśake creates much confusion among the

scholars. That is why, they differ among themselves in the

interpretation. Velankar accepts the reading in terms

of Śaka and that is why date is fixed by him on 1602+78

=1680 A.D. But the printed edition of the text5 and the

descriptive note of the mss6, accept the reading in Samvat

1. B.C. Law Volume II 1946, pp.15.

2. MD Raghavan assigns Rahula to the reign of Parākrama­bāhu VI.

India in Ceylonese history, society and culture.

3. Nārā­yaṇena Sudhiyā Kāśyām nivasatā mayā Vṛttaratnākare

Tikā..........2.

4. Jayadaman. P. 50.

5. Edited by Sri Kedaranatha Sarma : Kāśī Saṅskṛita Granthamālā

7. Adyar Libr. MS. 8. 70 Des. Cat. of Adyar Library Vol. VI.1947.

“Veda describes the work to be composed in 1602” India Office

Library. Cat. 1094 also accepts the same date. P.303. Eggling,

which will fix the date to 1602-57 = 1545 A.D.

This seems to be an accepted version which needs no denial. The date of the Cintāmanidivajña, who wrote commentary entitled “Sudhā” on Vṛttaratnākara is not difficult to determine as the author left its mark in the pre-colophon verse— Nandavānaśara bhūmitaśake—1559 saka =1637 AD. Cintāmaṇi was the son of the well-known astronomer Govinda who was the resident of Vārāṇasī and he himself wrote a work Prastāracintāmaṇi.3

“Bhāskaraseṭu” or simply “seṭu” is another commentary on Vṛttaratnākara by Haribhāskara.The work is widely circulated and its popularity can be estimated by its entry in almost every catalogue of mss. collections.

The author was the son of Śrīmadyājī Bhaṭṭa, grandson of Hari Bhaṭṭa and great grandson of Purusoṭama Bhaṭṭa. While residing in Vārāṇasī the author wrote this commentary.1 Date of this commentary can be fixed according to the author's own declaration placed in the colophon verse, Saṁ. 1732 = AD. 1676.2

In 18th century, Dīvākara Bhaṭṭa the son of Mahādeva Bhaṭṭa wrote the commentary on Vṛttaratnākara entitled “Vṛttaratnākarādarśa”. The codex of ASB Library is incomplete. But from the ms. (I.O. 1555b—Part II 1889) we have the date mark as 1740 AD.3

Part II. 1889. (ASB.G.3109) Haraprasad Sastri. Des. Cal. VI. P. 365.

1. CC. P. I. P. 359. Prastāracintāmaṇi — Text and Comm. by Daivajña Cintāmaṇi composed in 1630. I.O.ms. No. 929. Part II. 1839.

2. Setustattanayena Śaivanagare Sadvṛttaratnākare netum Bhāskarasamāna Viracitah param Vudhanam ganam. Velankar, (P.49, Jayadaman —) described this commentator to be residents of Tryambakeśvara in the Nasik district.

3. Akṣivahnīhayabhūmite varṣe 1732 Yadvasantasamyb........

4. Pūrṇavdhisaptaikanite pravarṣe ṣaṭkartike māsi................ colophon verse.V.

150

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

We would close our account of chronology of the commentaries with a dissertation on the date of Bhāskara Rāya.

This versatile scholar unlike his predecessors, do not offer any trouble about his date. In most of his works, with which we are directly concerned, he left the date of the composition.1

Aufrecht mentions that Gambhīrarāja resided in Benaras in 1629 AD and also described him as the author of 28 works. He is versed in Vedic and secular literature.

The Bhāskara Rāya tells us that he is the son of Gambhīrarājadīkṣita. He was the disciple of Nṛsiṃha and Śiva Datta Śukla and was well-known figure in2 the field of Tantric literature. Numerous outstanding works on Tantra topics, are available in print. His Madhurāmala Kāvya has been edited by Devasthali in the Oriental thought series, Nāsik, No. 2.

Bhāsya Rāja’s versatility can be estimated by the number of works composed by him. He has commented on six Upaniṣads such as Kāṭhaka, Kena, Jabāla, Tripurā, Mahopaniṣad and Muṇḍakopaniṣad. On metrics he is credited with more than four works.

From his own version we come to know that at the age of 17 he wrote “Kaustubha”,3 Mṛtasañjīvanī4 when he

1. C.C. I. P. 411.

2. i) A commentary entitled Setubandha on the work Nityaṣoḍaśikarnava section of Vāmākeśvarī Tantra—Ananda Asrama Skt Series, Poona.

ii) Saubhāgya Bhāskara on Salitasahasranāma section of the Brah-maṇḍapurāṇa—N.S.P. 4th ed. 1935.

iii) Varivasyarahasya—ed. by Subraḥmaṇya Śāstrī in the Adyar Library Series. Madras 1916, 1948.

3. Vr. Cand. Ud. MS. ASB. III C. 94. Fol. 490b. Sārḍha Saptadaśe gate vayasime ṣaṭkaustubho Viṁśe’de mṛtajīvanī Viracita prā-cīnaratnākara I paścād Vādakutuḥalādikṛtastrantare...........Pañcaṣaṭsu samasvayam viracitaḥ Śrīvṛttacandrodayah.

4. ......Adyar Library coll. contains this comm. 10. B. 7. MS.

was 20 ; then he wrote Vadakutuhala and at the age of 50

Vṛttacandrodaya1 was composed. This last mentioned work

is coined with the date mark “Dviśaranaśaka”, i. e., 1652

Sāka = 1730 AD. His Bhāṣyarāja, commentary on Piṅgala-

chandaḥ Sūtra was written in — “Guṇa nidhimuni bhūmi-

tavikramaśake varṣe” = 1793 Sam = 1737 AD. i. e., 7 years

after the previous work.2 From the facts adduced above,

it can be said that the literary activity of this polymath

writer was concentrated in the first half of the 18th century.

(VI. No. 774) entitled Mṛtasañjīvanī ascribed to Bhāṣyarāja

Beginning—Vṛttaratnākaravyākhyā bhuyahśanti yadyāpi

Tathāpi mrtajīvinyāḥ kalām narhanti Śoḍaśīm, which is des-

cribed to be composed in Site Sahasya janite munipakṣartubhu-

mite ( 1627 Saka) Sake’ude pārthive pūrṇa tena tuṣyatu.

1. Aufrecht (P.I.P. 670) noticed one Abhinavavṛttaratnākara Tippani

by Bhāskara with a comm. on it by Śrīnivāsa, who is the author

of Alamkāra Kaustubha, Kāvyadarpana and Chandoviciti.

2. MSS. No. III. A. 76. Fol. 132a.

CHAPTER-II

METRICAL SPECIMENS

FOUND IN EXTANT LITERATURE

I. VEDIC LITERATURE

For the history of chronological development of Skt. metre a clear and intensive study of the metrical specimens employed in the extant Indian literature is necessary. We therefore engage our attention for finding out metrical peculiarities inherent in them. With a view to having a clear conception of those sustained peculiarities we have to enter into the domain of Vedic literature which represents the earliest available phases of Indian metrical composition.

The term ‘Vedic literature’ in its versified form, denotes in wider senses what comprises the Rgveda, the Atharva-veda, the matrical portion of the Yujurveda, Bhāhmaṇas excluding their prose portions, scientific literature preserved in its metrical forms and the Upaniṣads, subsequently leading up to the Epics and classical literature. The ensuing note which will give a vivid picture of the actual representation of the Vedic metres would ultimately serve double purpose : finally it would show now the relevant applied metres bear points of coincidence with the extant theories relating to metrical principles and at the same time would be regarded as the forerunner of classical metres so far as rhythm is concerned and that would enable us to spin perfectly the chronological yarn of the Skt-prosodical texture.

Of the three sections of Vargas of the Vedic metres only the first two taking in fourteen classes beginning from Gāyatrī and ending with Atidhrti1 have been used in the Rgvedic collections. Again of the fourteen classes of metres

1. Sarvā dāśatayisveta uttarāstu subheṣaje XVI 55. R̥k Prātiśākhya, ed. P.N. Sastri. 1927.

circulated in the Ṛgvedic scriptures, seven are selected to

be principal one which served as the basis for creating new

as well as mixed metres1. These phenomena are seen working

largely in the process of development in the field of classi-

cal metres.2 These are derivative and mixed metres.

Besides the two Vargas mentioned above there have been

used, three classes of metres two of which have been designa-

ted according to their constituent parts i.e., number of feet

that they contain3 and the third one consists of mixed or

hybrid metres.

Theoretically, the smallest class of metres used in the

extant Ṛgvedic verses seemed to be Gāyatrī containing

twentyfour syllables in a stanza.4

Metres, smaller than Gāyatrī can scarcely be traced in

the Ṛgveda, say, of course Ekapadā and Dvipadā types.

Incidentally, we can mention here that all the illustrations

rertaining to classes of metres smaller than Gāyatrī can be

found to be employed in the other Vedas. That is why we

find them totally absent Ṛganukramaṇī which preserved

the Ṛgvedic tradition. But Ṛkprātiśākya speaks of the

classes smaller than Gāyatrī without placing any correspond-

ing illustration.5

1. Ādye tu Saptavarge Padaviśeṣāt Samjñā Viśeṣaḥ

III // 7 // Ṛganukramaṇī ed Macdonell.

2. Upajāti=Indravajrā—Upendravajrā Ardhasama—Puṣpitāgrā, Piṅga

ch. Sūtra V. 41.—Na Na Ra Ya Na Ja Ja Raga.

The first one known as Kāmadattā—Bh. XVI. 50.

H. II. 187.

Jk. II. 141.

And the second one as Mrgendra Mukha—VR.III, 70, 5. etc.

3. Ekapadā, Dvipadā—These two forms class by themselves.

4. Caturviṁśatyakṣarādini Caturuttarāṇi III. 3. Ṛganukramaṇī, Ibid.

and the number of stanzas of Gāyatrī employed in the collection

is 2450. Chandānukramaṇī, Macdonell, PP. 54-55. Verse I.

5. Mā pramāpratimopamāsamā ca caturkṣarāt Caturuttarmudyanti

paccacchandāmsix tani hi Harṣikā Sarṣikā marṣikā......XVII // 11

// Ṛk. Pr.

154

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

The illustrations given by Sadguruśiṣya are mainly drawn from the Yajuṣ and Sāmas1, whereas in the Atharvanas we can trace these five classes in their forms.2

The verse cited for the Supratiṣṭhā class by Sadguru-ṣiṣya in his Vedārthadīpikā is not originally a verse complete in itself but a diminutive form of Gāyatrī as has been described by Sāyanācārya on the basis of Rganukramaṇī.3

There are in the Rgveda six Ekapadās and one hundred and twentyseven Dvipadās in all.4 ‘Nūnam atha’ has been posited by Sadguruśiṣya as a verse for an Uktam class because of the fact that Aitareya Āraṇyaka describes it as Ekapadā.5 Mādhavācārya while commenting on the same, used the

1. i) Uktam—Nunamatha. RV. VII. 46.11.

ii) Atyuktam—Agnirjyotirjyotiragniriti. Vāj. Saṁ. III.9. Sām: Sam. I.I.8.I.

iii) Madhyam—Agniyotih Sūryojyotih Prajāyotiriti—Vedārtha dīpikā PP. 76.

iv) Pratiṣṭhā—Agna Yipatnivanṭsajurdevena tvastḥara Samam Piva. Vāj. Saṁ. VII.10.

v) Supratiṣṭhā—Purutamaṁ puruṇāṁ stotrṇāṁ vivaci vājebhirvā-jayatām. Rv. VI. 45. 29.

2. Prdā kavah — XX. 129. 9. Athv. Saṁ. Eta aśva aplavante XX, 129, I.Ibid. Sakhayate Gomidya Gogatiriti — XX.129. 13. Athar-veda. Saṁ. 1988. R. Ch. Sarma. Śatamaśva hiraṇyayaḥ Śatam Rathā hiraṇyayaḥ XX.131.5. Ihettha Prāgapagudagadharag Vatsa purasanta āsate XX.134.2.

3. Rv. VI. 45, 29. purutamam......etc. Taken as example of Supratiṣṭhā cf. Sāyana : Purutamnityesati nrcit. cf. Anukramaṇī—Purutamamatinrcit Chandah, PP. 22.

4. ‘Ekapadāstu Satproktah’ -Anuvākānukramaṇī, Ibid, P. 55. Verse 8. Rv. IV,17, 15 ; Rv. V, 41, 20 ; Rv. V, 43, 17 ; RV. VI, 63, 11 ; Rv. 10, 20, 1 ; As for ‘Dvipadās’ in the verses of Chandoṣaṁkhyā, the reading is ‘Daśasaptah’, which does not tally with the actual figure 127. Perhaps in any way, the middle digit is dropped, before this index has been made prepared.

Yāska except solitary verse in the Vimada finds no Ekapadā type throughout the ten maṇḍalas. cf. Prātiśākhya XVII 25.

5. Nūnamatheyekapadā......5.2.5. 1-2, Ait. Ar. P. 449. Bid. Ind. 1876.

VEDIC LITERATURE

155

phrase ‘Kacid’1 as if the verse may not exist in that very

form. In fact, what Ait. Ār. describes, is not a whole

stanza but only a constituent part of a mantra2 bearing

the metre ‘Kakupanyakusirā’, the definition of which runs

as ‘Tristubh Jagatī Catuska’.3 Needless to say, the afore-

said Ekapadā has not been alluded to six Ekapadās enume-

rated by Anukramanī. The smallest class of metres recog-

nised in classical Skt is however Uktā containing four

syllables and the largest one is that which exceeds even one

hundred four syllables.

In its extensive use in the Ṛgvedic composition, Triṣ-

tubh stanzas4 outnumbers Gāyatrī. That is why, the very

norm has been designated as Triṣtubh, as it is ‘Tirṇatamam’

‘stutataṁ’—because of the fact ‘Gāyatryādibhyah Vahutvāt’

—as has been remarked by Durgācārya5 while commenting

on the phrase ‘Tirṇatamam’ laid down by Yāska.

Jagatī however follows Gāyatrī.6 Next to them stands

Anuṣtubh in respect of frequency.7 About the number of

1. Com. Mādhavācārya ; ‘Nūnamatha’ iti Akṣaracatuṣṭayātmikā

Kacidrk, Ekapadā—P. 452. Ibid.

2. Rv. VIII. 46, 15.

3. Ṛganukramaṇī V. 4.

4. Triṣṭubh—4253. cf. Pañcaśat triṣṭubhaḥ proktastisraścaiva tato-

dhikāḥ Sahasrāṇyeva catvāri Vijn̄eyam tu Ṣaḍvayam //4// Chan-

donuvākanukramaṇī.

5. Nirukta : VII.12. P. 585. Venkateśvar: ed. Sam. 1982. Triṣṭubh

Stobhati ityuttarapadā Ka tu tritā syāt Tirṇatamaścchandāḥ......

etc. Com. Ka tu trita syāt ? atha punah purvapade seyam trita

tritvam śruyate. Tri iti etat Kimarthamiti ? Tirṇatmam. Stutam

idam cchandah.

6. Jagatī—1344, Catvārimśat tathāṣṭau ca tathā cāpi Ṣatatrayam

Jagatīnamiyam Samkhyā Sahasram prakīrtitam //5// Chandah

Saṃkhyā. The total number of Jagatī given in this verse does

not tally with actual number, the sum total of Jagatī verses

appeared in each Maṇḍala. Therefore, the actual figure is 1344

which differs from the given verse.

7. Anuṣṭubh—856. 2. The verse in Chandosaṁkhyā enumerates 855

i.e., Anuṣṭubham̉ Ṣaṭanyaṣṭaṁ Pañcaśatpañcasaṁyutam.

156 ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

other classes it is seen thus :

Uṣṇik appears—344 times : Bṛhatī—180 times ; Paṅktiḥ 248 times1 ; Atijagatī—16 times ; Śakvarī—20 times ; Atiśakvarī—10 times ; Aṣṭhi—6 times ; Atyaṣṭhi—83 times ; Dhṛti—2 times and Atidhṛtiḥ has only one occurrence.2

The smallest metre extent in the Ṛgvedic collection is the Dvipadā Gāyatrī3 containing sixteen syllables. This metre has not been alluded to in the Ṛgveda Prātiśākhya according to which the smallest mantra in the Ṛgvedic collection is one which contains nineteen syllables.4 Both of these however belong to Gāyatrī class.

The metres of the Ṛgveda can be grouped into Sama, Ardhasama and Viṣama types.

Samaṣ is the one of which the constituent parts of the stanza are of equal length. This type includes :-

a) Tripadā Gāyatrī5, having eight syllables in each of the three parts, Dvipadā Gāyatrī6 and Virāṭ Gāyatrī.7

b) Among Uṣṇik group only one specimen of the pure

1. The same case with the figure of Paṅktiḥ ; The verse of Chando samkhyā runs thus :—Śatāni trīṇi Paṅktinām dvādaśabhya dhikāni tu // 3.

2. Cf. verse, 6, 7, here too verses differs from the actual use. The authenticity on this very text is doubted, because of the omission of the comm. of Sadguruṣiṣya.

3. Ṛv. IX. 67, 16-18.

4. Ṛv. VIII, 103, 10. Ṛk. Prātiśākhya, XVII. 31.

5. 8—8—8 : Ṛv. 1. 1.1. and others.

6. 7—7—7 : Ṛv. 1. 19. 4. also has been designated as Gāyatrī pādanicrid.

7. Dvipadā Gāyatrī a) 12—12—also called Dvipadā Jagatī Ṛv. VIII, 46. 13.

b) 8—8—no manual on Vedic metre has made provision for it ; yet it can be found in Ṛv. IX 67, 16-18. cf. Sāyaṇa : Pavasya Soma Manadayannityadyastriṣro Dvipadā Gāya-tryaḥ.

Uṣṇik form1 with four seven-syllabic feet.

c) Among Anuṣṭubh class, Anuṣṭubh2, Virāj3 and Tripaḍā4 Triṣṭubh. The last mentioned metre has been counted by Kātyāyana5 as belonging to the Anuṣṭubh group, possibly because it consists of thirty-three syllables in all, but Piṅgala placed it in the Gāyatrī class perhaps on the basis of its three padas.6

d) In Bṛhatī class pure Bṛhatī7 and Urdhabṛhatī.8

e) In Paṅktiḥ class, Pada Paṅktiḥ9, Akṣara Paṅktiḥ.10 Virāja Paṅktiḥ11 and Pathyā Paṅktiḥ12 consisting of five eight-syllabic padas.

f) In Triṣṭubh the normal form consisting of four equal padas of eleven syllables.

g) Jagatī13 however makes provision for two Sarvasama types one being normal, other is of Mahāpaṅktiḥ14 type consisting of six eight syllabic padas.

h) The Atijagatī can be found in the stanzas consisting of fiftytwo syllables distributed equally among the four padas.15

1. 7–7–7–7=Rv. VIII. 69. 2.

2. 8–8–8–8=Rv. 1, 10, 1; Rv. 1. 11. 1.

3. 10–10–10=Rv. VII. 22. 4.

4. 11–11–11=Rv. I. 120. 9.

5. Daśakastrayo Virāṭ Ekādaśakavā 6 // 7.8. p.3. Sarvānukramaṇī Ed. Macdonell.

6. Piṅgala Ch. Sūtra. 17 // 3, Bib. Ind.

7. 9–9–9–9 Rv. I. 187. 11.

8. 12–12–12 Rv. IX. 110. 4.

9. 5–5–5–5–5 Rv. IV. 10, 6.

10. 5–5–5–5 Rv. I. 65. I. But Sāyaṇa explains it as Viṁśatika Dvipadā Virāj.

11. 10–10–10–10 Rv. III. 96.4.

12. 8–8–8–8–8–8 RV. I. 81. 1.

13. 12–12–12–12. Rv. IX. 68. 1.

14. 8–8–8–8–8–8–8. Rv. VIII, 37.2 ; VIII.41.1.

15. 13–13–13–13. Rv. VIII, 97. 13.

158

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

i) Śakvarī is the class among the long metres which has fiftysix syllables in seven eight-syllabic pādas.1

Ardhasama metres as its name signifies is of that kind which is divisible into two equal halves. This again has been formed in two different forms; one in which the alternative pādas of the stanza concerned are identical in length, i.e., the metrical scheme of which is abab while the other is that where the first is equal to the fourth and second equates the third, i.e., the musical scheme is abba. Of these two types last mentioned one is not so frequent and popular in the Vedic literature as the former which has been transmitted to classicals.

a) Śatabṛhatī2 and its reversed form Viparītā3 and a particular acatalectic form of Triṣṭubh4 are the three forms that can be included among the first group. Jacobi5 endeavours to prove in his learned paper that this metre is the basis of corresponding metres belonging to the Vaitālīya class which are widely circulated in Pāli as well as Skt literature.

b) Second group confirms three types and they are Viṣṭāra Bṛhatī6, Samsthārapañkti7 and Viṣṭāra Pañkti.8

The Viṣamas are those whose constituents are of unequal Length. Most of the metres in the Veda are of Viṣama type. There are considerable number of Viṣamapadā

1. 8—8—8—8—8—8—8—8. Rv. X. 133. 1.

2. 12—8—12—8 — Rv. I. 84. 2.

3, 8—12—8—12 — Rv. VIII. 46, 12.

4. 12—11—12—11 — Rv. I. 164. 14.

cf. Classical type —Bha Bha Bha Bha and Bha Bha Bha Ga. Ga. Āmlaki or Cukṣa—Jk. 3. 20.

5. ZDMG. 38.

6. 8—10—10—8 Rv. I, 120. 7.

7. 12—8—8—12. Rv X. 172, 2.

8. 8—12—12—8. Rv. X. 140, 1.

metres which exceeds forty. We only, place here very few of them. They are for example, ‘Gāyatrī Bhūrik’1 containing 8+10+7; Kakubhnyañkuśirā having 11+12+4 pādas.2

by the very designation Bṛhatī Viṣama padā3, we can easily infer that the Vedic prosodists were aware of the division of metres according to the length of constituent parts.

From the discussion made above it is clear that the Vedic poets were fully conscious of creating varieties of metres by employing feet of various length. Bhoja Rāja, the celebrated author of Śṛṅgāraprakāśa hinted at the same fact while dilating on the Pravandhas.4

Number of pādas in the metrical stanzas extant in the Vedas are the characteristic marks of some metres which sometimes point to the chronological sequence of the use of them. Ekapadā and Dvipadā are the metres which, so designated according to their constituent parts, form separate classes by themselves.5 Besides, we have stanzas of three pādas as in Gāyatrī6 ; Puroṣṇik7 and Kakubh8 ; of four

1. Gāyatrī Bhurik= Rv. I. 120.2.

2. Kakubhnyañkuśirā= Rv. VIII. 46. 15.

3. 9—8—11 =Rv. VIII. 46. 20.

4. Vidhi niṣedhavagathetumāhāvākyam prabandhaḥ. Tatridhā padyam, gadyaṃ ca miśram. Chandas tu Tridhā—Akṣaracchandomātrācchandoganacchandaśceti, Tasyāpi pratyaṃ Tridhā Samardhasamaviṣamabhedāt. Tatrakṣaracchanda samaṃ......ardhasamaṃ yathā Viṣamaṃ tathā. Purvokto udāharantrayamapi Vaidika Viṣayamiva...Ṣṛṅgāraprakāśa Vol. I. III. Prakāśa. ed. by Joyser. 1955. The verses placed for illustration can be traced fn Rv. 103.1 ; Rv. X. 85.19 and Rv. 1. 170.1, respectively. cf. “Tatratrividhyampi mahākāvye tibhāsa Śrutyādiṣuca dṛśyate” in Ibid. Idem.

5. See Infra. Ch. I. Sec. I. Footnote 4.

6. Rv. I. 1. 1.

7. Rv. VI. 48. 13 ; Rv. VIII. 30. 2.

8. Rv. V. 53. 15.

160

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

pādas as in Anuṣṭubh1 and Triṣṭubh ; of five pādas as in

Paṅktiḥ2 ; of six pādas as in Aṣṭārapaṅktiḥ3 and in Atyaṣṭhi4

of seven padas as in Dhṛti5 ; of eight pādas as in Atidhṛti6

which is the longest metre actually employed in the Ṛgveda

containing seventysix syllables.

Gāyatrī stanzā with four pādas comes later chronologi-

cally and is practically absent in the Ṛgveda. The verse

placed for illustration in Ṛkprātiśākhya is purely unvedic7

Even Halāyudha fails to provide any corresponding illus-

tration from the Ṛgveda.8 Nidāna Sūtra illustrates a verse

from secular literature.9 On the contrary, this type of

Gāyatrī can be found in the subsequent vedas.10

Classical Skt, recommends for their syllabic metres only

four padas.11 Prākṛt metres however make provision for

1. Throughout Vedas.

2. Rv I. 29, 80, 82, (1-5)......etc.

3. Rv. X. 21, 24 1-3......etc.

4. Rv. IV. 1.

5. Rv. IV // 1 // 3 ; 1 // 133 // 6. These are the only two Dhṛtis in

Ṛgvedic collection. cf. Anuvākanukramaṇī—Dhṛtidvayam Viniṛ-

ddiṣṭamekatidṛhtirevaca P. 54 ed. Macdonell.

6. Rv. I 127. 6. cf. Verse. 30 of the 17th paṭala of Ṛkprātiśākhyā.

7. Max Muller, Ṛk Prātiśākhya—CCCIV.

8. cf. Bhāṣya Rāja. Fol. 28a,......Agram Vai Chandasaṃ Gāyatritī

Śruteḥ......Taccatuṣpādcatṣaḍkṣarāpādenaiva Syāt. Tādrśī ca

Rksarva Vedẹṣu Kvacideva āmnāyate na Sarvatra. Yathā

Atharvane......yādbhi Vadatidikṣamupaiti yat......Patañjali Sau-

nakabhyāmapi Śvāvalamvita Śākhāyāmlabhat Khilaśākhiye

Udāhrte.

9. Nidāna Sūtra 2 // 2—Pāñcāla Udaharanti. Peṭīyalakaṃ te Peṭā

piṭakaṃ te tatrayikuvadhas tajjagdhū parihi. cf. Weber, I. S.

VIII, P. 91—Das angeführte Beispiel eine in dar tat höchst inter-

essante Angābe ist wohldem Volks—dialekte der Pāñcāla entlehnt ?

10. cf. Yajusarvānukramaṇī, Benaras Sanskrit Series, 44. ch. I, P. 77.

Ādade bhṛḥ Comm. Ādade nayasityasyabhidevate Ṣaḍkṣara Yaju

Gāyatrī.

11. Pādaścaturbhāgah 10 IV. Pingala ch. Sūtra, Bibl. Ind.

VEDIC LITERATURE

161

the metres containing two padas1, four padas2, five padas3,

six padas4 and eight padas5.

Number of syllables in a Pāda has been reckoned to be

a metrical unit in the Rgvedic metre. Though the normally

recognised pādas in the RgVedic manual are those which

consist of eight syllables, ten syllables, eleven syllables and

twelve syllables. There have been used in the Rgveda the

four syllabic pādas,6 five syllabic7, six syllabic8, seven

syllabic9, nine syllabic10, thirteen syllabic11, fourteen

syllabic12 and sixteen syllabic.13 Prātiśākhya however, re-

commends two more, i.e., fifteen and eighteen.14

Last type of metre that the hybrid or mixed type can

be found in the Rgveda which exists in group form.

The groups consist either of three stanzas in a simple metres

like Gāyatrī15, etc. or of the combination of two stanzas

1. Gītīḥ—30 30—KD, II 9 ; PP. I. 68.

2. Ghattā—12—12—12—12. SB. VIII. 26.

3. Mātrā—16—12—16—12—16 — SB. IV.14.9,

4. Saṭpadajāti—7—7—10—7—7—10... SB. V. 3, 4.

5. Śridhavala—KD. II. 34.

6. RV. VIII. 46. 15. — nūnam atha.

7. RV. IV. 10. 1. — — Agne tam ādya.

8. RV. IV. 10. 1. — — Ridhyama ta ohaih.

9. RV. VIII.69. 2.—nadam va odatīnām.

10. RV. 1. 187. II.— tam tva vayam pito vākobhih.

11. RV. VIII. 97. 13.—Tam indram gohavīmi maghavanam urgam.

12. RV. I. 133. 6.—Apuruṣaghno apratīta Surā satvabhih.

13. RV. II. 22. 1. — Trikadrukeṣu maniṣho Yavāśiram tuviṣṇihmah.

There are eleven sixteen syllabic verses, all in 'Trikadrukiya Sūkta

II, 22, where all these sixteen can be found — four in first, three

in second, three in third and one in fourth.

14. The illustrations recorded can be traced in Vāj. Sam. IV. 25. 15.

syllabic pada can also be found in Sāmaveda Samhitā, 15, 2, 3, 8

and in Athv. VII. 14.

15. VII. 96. 4—6. is the unit of three Gāyatrī ;— Anuṣṭubh Gāyatau

cānuṣṭubhonuṣṭubhmukhāstṛca ityukte : 11 6 Rganukramanī. V.

28. 4—6; 82. 1—3; VIII. 3. 21—23; 9. 19—21; 63, 1—3; 7—9 etc.

162 ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

composed of different mixed metres. The last mentioned feature has been traditionally designated as Pragāthās.1 Strophes of five or seven verses, have been recognised by Arnold who traced them in somewhat later periods ; the origin of Strophes consisting of seven stanzas has been associated with the conduct of sacrifice of Saptahotārah.2 Groups of ten, fifteen and twenty also can be found in the Rgvedic collection.3 But most of the larger units however indicate a single Strophe building up the particular part in the same hymn.4 Except the solitary case of Anuṣṭubh, Pragāthās in the eyes of the Skt authority are of doublet type.5 Whereas Arnold thinks all the lyric or Pragāthā metres belong to triplet variety. Bārhata Pragāthā of Mandala VII, 96 consists of two stanzas (1-2). But as the said hymn contains six stanzas of which three is the triplet of Gāyatrī metre, in Arnold's enumeration, the remaining three is sure to form a triplet.6 The etymological meaning of the very word ‘Pragāthā’ would speak in support of the use of doublet rather than triplet. The term ‘Pragāthā’ in its technical sense means that kind of mantra which consists of two Ṛcas and in its application

1. Pragāthyate Sammelłyate chandasā chanda iti — Pragāthāh Vedārthadipikā. P. 74.

2. VII.2. 1–7; 17; IX.5. 1–7.

3. 251 V. Arnold, Vedic metre. This suggests strophes of five stanzas each. I. 32,33,51,52.121, 122 ;……………

4. VII. 2. has the unit of seven stanzas composed in Gāyatrī but remaining four verses of the hymn are in Anuṣṭubh.

5. Bṛhatiṣatobṛhatyau Bārhataḥ kakup cet pūrva kākubhaḥ Bārhata pragāthā — 11 2–3 Ṛganukramaṇī……RV. 1.84. 19–20.

6. Vide, Arnold Vedic metre 264 (1) "Kakubh—Śatobṛhatī and Bṛhatiṣatobṛhatī strophes are found comdined with some third stanza making a triplet"—VII. 96. 1–3 (Bṛhatī ; Śato ; prastārapaṅktịh). cf. :- The same hymn enumerated by the Sarvānukramaṇī Bṛhadu pra gāthah prastāra paṅktịhparastrisro Gāyatryah Sārasvate P. 27. Ṛganukramaṇī.

is treated as three through repeated utterance of it.1

The Strophic metres are generally made of the pādas

of eight, eleven and twelve syllables, of which Pragāthās

which have eleven syllables, are very rare.2 And some of

the Pragāthās of this class are sometimes formed of the final verse of the hymn concerned and the initial verse of

the next one.3 Tendency of grouping of verses composed

of stanzas in different metres in a single unit can also be

clearly noticed in Prākṛta metres Strophes in Pkt are

composed of stanzas of varying number ranging from two

to five in different metres.4

In classical Skt, the groups consisting of stanzas varying

from two to five are found to be used for the maintenance

of the sense unit totally ignoring the metrical unit.5 Pkt

Pragāthās on the other hand, like the Vedic prototypes

contain both senses of syntactical and metrical arrange-

ments. Besides, it can be noticed in the Vedic Pragāthās,

the Gāyatrī pāda and Jāgatapāda have same prominent

part to play and at the same time Bṛhatī and Kakubh

1. Śabara Bhāṣya 9. 2. 24—Ya’ Sau pūrva Bṛhatī uttarā ca paṅktih

tayoh ‘pragāthanena tṛcam karmakṛtvā kakubhavuttarākāram

Gaṇam Kartavyam.

9. 2. 27. Prakarṣam praśabdo dyotayati. Prakarṣeṇa yatra Gaṇam

Sa Pragāthan. Kaśca Prakarṣaḥ Yatra Kiñcit punargāyati.

2. Traiṣṭubha consisting of Triṣṭubh and Jagatī—Rv. I. 51,

15—52.1 Jagata Rv. I. 51, 13—14.

3. Traiṣṭubh= Rv. 1. 53—11 to 54—1. Neither Anukramaṇī nor

Rv. 1 51—15 to 52—1. Sāyaṇa note down these

metres.

4. Sopānaka=Aśvākrānta III, 110—Gāthā II.4 Vjs.IV. 77—78.

Dripadikhaṇḍā=Khaṇḍa + Khaṇḍa +Gīti. H. IV.77 ; KD.II.36 ;

R.V.I. Tāla Gātha—Adhikākṣarā Nirvāpītā and Gīti=IV.80 Vjs.

Talavaṅta=All the four mentioned above and Gāthā=IV.80.Vjs.

5. Chandovaddhapadam padyam Tenaikena ca Muktakam dvyābhy-

āmtu Yugmakam Mandānitakam Tribhiriṣyate Kalāpakam

catur bhiśca pañcabhiḥ kulakam Matam. S.D. VI. 288.Ed. with

Tikā of R. C. Tarkavāgiś 1334. B. S.

164 ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

made up of the said pādas are to be reckoned as more or less an important constituent. So Dohā and Gāthā play an important role in the formation of Strophe in Pkt metres.1

But Bṛhatī and its allied metres such as Śatobṛhatī, Kakubh, Puroṣṇik, outside the Strophic arrangement can scarcely be found.2

The Bardic quality of versification is noticeable in grouping of versified stanzas with a view to synchronizing them with their musical element. This is the reason that makes the bardic qualities traceable in Pkt where the balled forms of poetry are more or less retained. The manuals of classical Skt do not retain these Pragāthā features obviously.

Incidentally it can be shown, that the absence of Pragāthā chapter in the Vedic portion of the Piṅgala Chandah Sūtra can be accounted to the fact that the classical literature makes experiment no counter specimen of it.

Śatobṛhatī of Piṅgala is the variety of Bṛhatī consisting of three pādas whereas Śatopaṅktih though contains the verse structure of Śatobṛhatī of Pragāthā yet it lacks the very Strophic feature.3

One of the interesting features that can be incidentally

1. See infra. F.N. 92.

2. Bārhata Pragāthā—Bṛhatī—Śatobṛhatī=8—8—12—8— RV. 1.84, 19–20. 12–8–12–8.

N.B.—Etymologically, the term ‘Strophe’ means a ‘turning’, from one foot to another or from one side of a chorus to other and it may point to song of a chorous during one turn.

3. Tribhih Jāgataymahābṛhatī—III.35.P.Ch. Sūtra.B.I. Edition Śatobṛhatī tāndinah — III.36.Ibid.

cf. Aruṇah Jaggatau Śatobṛhatī — VIII.4. Saryāṇukramaṇī Ed. Macdonell. P. 4.

RK. Prātiśākhya—39 XVI. Example Rv.I. 84. 20. But the same pada arrangement in the Paṅktih class can be found in Śatah panktih P. Ch. Sūtra. III. 38. Pūrvaucedyujau Śatah paṅktih.

shown in this connection that some of the hymns in the

Rgvedic collection are found to be engraved with the name

of the versifier who composed them. This type of verse

generally contain in the stanzas of identical metrical structure.1

This peculiar technique has also been practised by the

classical Mahākavis but more commonly by the Vernacular

poets.2

Refrains3, one of the devise of the versification has

been used in all parts of the Rgveda and also in the hymns

mentioned above.4

This artifice is generally practised in melodramatic Skt

kāvyas and in many other stotra type kāvyas.5

The Rgvedic hymns generally contain verses enshrined

in different metres. But instances are not rare where a

single metre predominates except the concluding one which

1. Rv. VIII. 19-22. The author's name is Sobhari distinctive metre is

Kākubh—Śatobr̥hatī.

Rv. VIII.23-26. The distinctive metre is Uṣṇih "Vyasva" is the

name of the author.

2. In each canto of Naiṣadham, the name of the author has been

stiched:- Śrīharṣam kavirājārājilmukutalamkāra hīraḥ Sūtam N.S.P.

1952. ninth ed. also in Gītgovinda:-Srī jayadevabhanitamidāmad-

bhutakeśavaketirahasyam Gīto Govindam. 1.47.

Harakrishna Mukhopadhyay, 1362. B.S.

3. A Phrase or verse which recurs at the end of each of the separate

stanzas or of poetic composition. W Dictionary, P.1208.

4. Rv. I 105. 1-18 —Vittám me asya Rodasī

Rv. I 106. 1-12 —Ratháṃ na durgādasavah Sudānavo visvasmānno

ambaso nispipartana......etc.

5. Gīta Govinda - canto I. stanzas 5-15—jai Jagadiṣa hare

a) " 17-23—Jai Jai Deva Hare.

Ibid, Idem. And the verse 25 declares the name of the composer.

b) Narmadaṣṭaka stotram - Refrain - tradiyapada pankajam

namāmi Deva Narmadā Yamunaṣṭakam - Dhunotu me manomalam

Kalindī nandinī Sadā Carpatapañjarika stotram—Prāpte Sanni-

hite marane nahi nahi rakṣati dukṛṇ karane......Śankarācārya

Granthamālā vasumati Sāhitya mandir. 1329. B.S.

166

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

bears a character different from the rest 1. This very characteristics has been transmitted to classical kāvyas2 though Epics.3

The discussion made above, mainly deals with metres employed in the Ṛgvedic collections. In it the metres have been represented in their very verse forms, in their different stanza forms, i.e., number of verses in a stanza peculiar to certain metres; in their group forms in which the stanzas are all Strophically or otherwise have been grouped and finally some characteristic features like Refrains of hymns etc. in which they are all collected. Needless to say, these features are the elements of the external structure of versification with which the Vedic manual on prosody is mainly concerned. On the whole, in their system little attention has been paid to 'metrical features' which is known as 'internal rhythm'. We shall now proceed to consider this internal rhythm which is less rigidly defined and at the same time has almost been ignored by the Vedic metricians belonging to early period.4 What they discovered in the penultimate syilable, is the characteristic mark that differentiate one metre from the other.5

1. Ṛv. I. 158 - Triṣṭubh, the concluding metre Anuṣṭubh

Ṛv. I. 136 : Atyaṣṭi

Triṣṭubh

Ṛv. I. 161 - Jagatī

Triṣṭubh

2. Raghuvaṃśam canto I Anuṣṭubh but concluding Praharṣiṇī

" II Upajāti

" Mālinī

cf. Ekavṛttamayaiḥ padyairavasaneanyavṛttakāgilaḥ 286//VI.

Nānā Vṛttamayākvapi Svargah kaścana dṛśyate Ibid //VI.S.D. opcit

3. More common in Rāmāyaṇa than in Mahābhārata, (BORI) ed.

Araṇyakāṇḍam (c.s.s.)

Ādi Parvan

I Anuṣṭubh..........Vaṃsasthaṃ

I. Anuṣṭubh...in Vasantati-lakāṃ and Prabarṣiṇī.

II " " "

XXI. Anuṣṭubh.....Rucirā.

4. Ṛg. Sarvānukramaṇī totally omits this topic.

5. Varṣiṣṭhānisthayoreṣāṃ laghupottamamakṣaraṃ Gurvetarayorḳṣu Tadvṛttam prāhuśchandasām//XVII 22.Ṛk Prā.

VEDIC LITERATURE

167

But as the study of internal rhythm yeilds results of greater historical importance than the external ones, we shall have to consider it carefully, while we are going to build up the structure of the history of the Skt metrics pursuing its development chronologically as far as practicable.

The oriental scholars1 made an endeavour to find out the internal rhythm in the whole of the verse, while the traditional system recognised it only in the penultimate of the four principal metres which form the metrical units known as Pāda.

However, the actual result is that the findings of the oriental scholars happens to coincide almost with that of the traditional scholars having only difference that while the former treat them wholly, the latter treat them partially.

These oriental scholars, on the other hand, are in favour of implicit assumption that the pattern of the Vedic verses is cast on mainly in the quardrisyllabic mould, which has further been developed in the whole verse in the classical period.

By way of illustration we may refer to Gāyatrī pāda or the verses of eight syllables which are to be fallen into dimetre group and those of eleven and twelve syllables would be included into trimetre groups. Verses of ten syllables which are the constituent parts of the Dvipadā, Virāj and Virāṭsthāna verses are to be reckoned as containing trimetre rhythm.2

Pādas or lines are the units in the Vedic metres. But the smallest unit is the number of syllables in a line, which is of primary concern like those of Indo Aryan and this seems to

1. Arnold–Vedic metre and its historical development. 1905. Randle–BSOAS XX. The patterns of Triṣṭubh. H. Oldenberg–Die Hymen des Rgveda–Prolgmena 1888. Gonda–Syntax and verse structure of the Vedas. II.1958.

2. Cf. Virāṭrūpā virāṭsthānaśca Triṣṭubh eva ityuddeśaḥ III // 9 // Sarvānukramaṇī.

168

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

be the first stage.1

In some of these forms the rhythm of some portion of

the latter half became definite. This phenomenon is clearly

discernible in each of the four typed verses, i. e., Jagatī—

12 syllabled verse, Triṣṭubh—eleven syllabled verse, Virāṭ—

ten syllabled verse and Gāyatrī—eight syllabled verse. This

obviously seems to be the second stage of development. In

the case of the eight syllabled verse, the rhythm of the single

verse seems to be no longer indispensable and the rhythm of

the second verse is accounted to be important to form the

rhythm of a consistent whole.

For the verses of ten, eleven and twelve syllables, the

rhythm of the single line is sufficient to sound the whole,

but for the verse of eight syllable attention must be paid

to two subsequent lines of uneven and even; and evidently

this may be recommended as the last stage.

According to Winternitz, so far as rhythm is concerned

only the last four or five syllables are fixed, while Arnold

finds the movement of rhythmical development within the

group of four syllables. Accordingly, the eleven, the twelve

and ten syllabled pādas have been alluded to Trimetre group

and the pādas of eight syllables to dimetre group.1

1. cf. The remark of Arnold, Vedic metre, P. 226 “the presumed pre-

Vedic forms of dimetre approximate to some extent to the non-

quantitative verse of the Avesta, in as much as almost every possible

rhythm is occasionally found”.

Yadakṣara parimāṇaṁ tacchandaḥ I // 6. Sarvānukramaṇī.

The metres in Gāthā is extremely elementary in character when the

lines of the stanza concerned solely depends on the numbering of

syllables in particular verses accompanied by a caesura.

Gāthās are composed in measured syllables. The Vedic metre is

one of the quantity, while the Gothic metre is accent.

—Avesta, ed. Kangra. Introduction XVIII. ff. 1962.

1. Respective rhythm of the 8 and 12 syllables are

0000 U-UU ; 00000 00-U--UU

0000 000-U-UU

0000 000-U-UŪ

As for the dimetre verses, the rhythm varies according to the form of the stanza. Iambic rhythm is more common in fourfooted stanza whereas Trochaic rhythm in three footed ones.

These two original rhythm in dimetre verse laid the foundation stone of the Samānī and the Pramānī groups of classical rhythm. That is why Pīngala had selected these two types as the very specimens to be dealt with primarily and to be counted among the Anuṣṭubh group but not in the group of eight syllabled class of metre treated by him under the caption - Aṣṭākṣarapādābhedoktiḥ.

Verses of eight syllables or dimetre verses can be divided into two parts each consisting of four syllables—the first of which would better be called as opening as has been named by Arnold as it opens the rhythm, the second part as cadence as it is the close of the musical phrase or the

and of five and eleven syllables are

0—U—U and 00000 00—U—U

0000 000—U—U

Winternitz. H. I. L. 1959.P.13. Book I. Part I. (Translation).

1. Trochaic = —U—U RV. 1.120.6c. Śrutam Gāyatraṃ takavānasyāṃ ciddhi rīrebhasvīnaṃ vām akṣi Śubhaspatīdān.

Iambic =U—U—RV.I.I. 31. Hṛdisṛgastusantamah.

U—U—U—

Rv. V.9.3. Sa smākrnotiketunā naktam cihura asate

2. Gliti Samā nī V//6. P. Ch. Sūtra with these two stūras

Lgiti Pramā nī V//7. ,, ,,

Sūtras of the Vrttacchandas has been introduced.

Arnold thinks, that the basis of the trochaic rhythm can be Sought in the triṣṭubh rhythm whose penultimate is long— Vedic metre. P.152.

3. Arnold. Vedic metre P. 36.

4. Cadence, means ‘falls’—according to latin word ‘cadre’. In music is the name given to the approach to a phrase ending or, sometimes to be called "close".

Encyclopedia Britanica - Vol. IV. P. 562.

170

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

measured movement.

The characteristic features of the dimetre verse are—the

more or less free opening, indifferent initial1 and final and

more fixed cadence. These very fours of the Vedic

dimetre reminds us of the appropriation of the regulations

for the verse structure of Anuṣṭubh in the manual of the

Skt prosody “Ya caturthāt”2 —implies comparative free

movement of the first four syllables; “Na prathamātsnau” 3

—points out the indiffereni initial “Pathyā yugo ja”4

—marks the indifferent final of the eight syllabled pāda.

Opening and re-opening :-

The three of the more frequent opening forms are U

— —, designated by Arnold5 as Normal, the lambic U—U—

and the Syncopated U U — —. The normal form as its name

signifies, exists in the one third of the whole of the dimetre

verses belonging almost to all periods.

Iambic openings predominates in early Anuṣṭubh6 but in

the late period it is rarely found especially in Epic Anuṣṭubh7.

1. cf. Meillet—, ‘les origins I.E. des vers grec’ —“la

liberate de linitale etait une tradition de la 'chanson

populaire. Le grec avait donc conserve la tradition de

la liberte quantitative au debut du verse. P.40.

2. P. Ch. Sūtra V. // 13 //

3. P. Ch. Sūtra V. // 10 //

4. P. Ch. Sūtra V. // 14 //

5. Arnold had made an exhaustive study on the rhythmical arrange-

ment of the Verses, which is based on the examination of the

every individual case, that he had made minutely and scientifi-

cally. The critical study that is to be introduced with this

paragraph, has utilized Arnold’s account.

6. Arnold, Vedic metre, P.91.

Rv. V. 105a. Tava tye agne arcayah—Kanyahymn

Rv. X.85. 38a. Tubhyamagre Paryavahan………

7. Early Anuṣṭubh in connection with Paṅktiḥ and Mahāpaṅktiḥ.

Rv. I. 84. 6. Nakiṣṭhadrathītaro Rv. I.84 2a.

hari yadindra yacchase / Indramiddharivahato prat

VEDIC LITERATURE 171

Steady decrease in the use of the Iambic form in the reopening is noticeable in the Anuṣṭubh verses of the popular Rgveda.1 As that phenomenon is more or less fixed in the late Anuṣṭubhs, consequently in the subsequent literatures, we find the appropriation of Piṅgala's regulation on the restricted use of the cretic (— U —) in the opening of the even pādas after the first syllable. Piṅgala noticed this fact when he ordained——"Dvitīyacaturthayoraśca".2

Syncopated openings which is rare in early Anuṣṭubh has been found in abundance in later periods, especially in Gāyatrī stanza,3 the verse form of which, according to Western scholars,4 has surely appeared late than Anuṣṭubh. On the contrary, our Vedic works always admit the priority of Gāyatrī5 to Anuṣṭubh, which according to them comple-

nakiṣṭhvānumanāmanā idṛṣṭhaśavasam. na kih su aśva ānaśe //

1. It is found only in 18, 10 and 2 per cent in the hymns of Anuṣṭubhs mixed with paṅkti and Mahāpaṅkti in fragments attacted to older hymns and in longer hymns, respectively.

2. P. Ch. Sūtra V // 11 //

3. Gāyatrī - I. 23, 16-8 ; 93, 9-11, 97, III. 28, 52, 1-4; VIII. 33, 16-18, 102, 19-22; etc.

4. Arnold, Vedic metre, P.171. Late appearance of the Gāyatrī form of stanza is due to the following grounds :

a. Form of stanza : Three footed stanzas of Gāyatrī appears to be reduction of the four footed, which seems to be verse structure of IndoEuropean being based on duality.

b. The increased use of syncopation in the opening of the Gāyatrī verses and the regularity of Trochaic Cadence.

5. a. Brahmā vai Gāyatrī vāgṇuṣṭubh brahmaṇaiva tadvācam Samdadhāti. 1.1.1. Ait. Ār.

b) 'Paścājjam iva vā etacchando yad Anuṣṭup. Kāṭh. Sam.23.9.

c) 'Anuṣṭuvanuṣṭubhonāḍgāyatrīmeva Tripadām Satim Caturthena pādenānustobhiti—Nir. VII. 14.

d) Anuṣṭubh born out of Gāyatrī —says Ait. Br. 4.4. 6. 'Sā Gāyatrī garbhamdhatta Sā anuṣṭupamasṛjata.

e) Anuṣṭhuvstobhanāt 3 1/ 7 Daivata Brāhmaṇam. cf. Sāyaṇa - Stobhati Vrddhyarthah Gāyatritah tatsamā kṣarah Pādavṛddheh.

172

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

ments the deficiency of the pāda by the fourth one which

the former lacks. In the late period syncopated opening in

the even verses occurs more than three times in comparison

with the earlier use. It appears most commonly in some

fragments of Epic Anuṣṭubhs2 while the Epic rhythm, i. e.,

U — — U predominates in longer hymns of Anuṣṭubh

metres.3 These forms are at the root what gradually deve-

loped in the Anuṣṭubhs found in the Epics.

The consecutive shorts in the second and the third is very

rare in the Vedic verse, hence called irregular.4 Piṅgala

has noticed this fact too. That is why it has been codified -

"Na prathamāt Snau"5. As for cadence, only one form

predominates i. e., Iambic form U U — U — except in Tro-

chaic Gāyatrī and in the uneven pādas of Epic Anuṣṭubh.

Following characteristics of the dimetre verse can be

noted below :-

1. Trochaic rhythm—is more common in Trochaic

Gāyatrī but rare in the semi cadence of the Epic

Anuṣṭubh.

2. Iambic Cadence—common form of both cadence

3. Vide, Arnold Vedic metre, P. 151.

4. Rv. 1. 23, 20, 22-24 ; 50, 10 - 13…..etc.

5. Found exclusively in the X maṇḍala ; 72. 90, 97, 133, etc.

6. There are three corresponding forms with short fourth syllable

U -U, U U-U and U - UU.

Most rare are U UU U and U UUU of which the first one is

irregular in Gāyatrī and Epic Anuṣṭubh group and the second

one is throughout the Ṛgveda.

cf. Une succession du trois brèves avail linconvenient de rompre

le rythme, par absence d'un temps fort. On observe donc en

vedique et tendance nett a eviter cette succession choquante.

Le latin offre Une tendance sembable…………ne compter UUU

que per exception et seulement a des places non caracteristiques.

Les orgines Indo Europeans des Metres Grecs. Meillet, PP.23.

Rv. V.9.1 Sakhāyah Samvah Samyañca Miṣam stomam Cāgnaye

Varsistāya Kṣitina bhūrjo napte sahasvete.

and the semi cadence in the early Anuṣtubh and

in other dimetres of the archaic period. But it is

fairly common in the cadence of Trochaic Gāyatrī.

In later period, Iambic cadence became fixed in the

even pādas,1 leaving the places to the forms U — —

and — — U.

3. Next to Iambic form, most common in the cadence

in order of frequency are U — U and — — U2. In

the late Rgvedic age these semi pathyā forms i. e.,

occupied the semi cadence and in the post Rgvedic

age, it shifted to the cadence and the classical compo-

sition shows a varied type of forms, the most common

of which are the pathyā, Vipulā, U—U U and some-

times only Iambic form, U—, the short seventh.

Finally it can be shown that Iambic cadence in both

pādas is partly retained in the rhythm of the classical

literature. That is why the Vedic Sage Saitava recog-

nised the Seventh short of the both pāda, while, Piṅgala

makes provision for it in that of the even one.3

The Iambic Cadence in the even pādas and the synco-

pated in that of the odd pādas can be marked as the very

basis of the classical rhythm.

The beginning of this new rhythmical tendency is to be

sought in the metres of Paṅktih4 and Mahāpañktih. It

1. Semi pathyā-Pathyā rhythm U — U in semi Cadence, whose

rhythm of the cadence is U—U i.e., Iambic, hence the form

placed above—can be termed as semi Pathyā form.

2. RV. X. 136. 7. Vāyur asmā Upāmanthat pinaṣṭi sma Kunanamā

Keśi Viṣasya patreṇa Yad Rudreṇa pibatsāha.

3. Vipulā Yuglaḥ Saptamaḥ; V/l 17 P. ch.Sū. This is emerged from

the Iambic rhythm, i. e., U—U—Sarvataḥ Saitavasya : V.// 18//

P. ch. Sū.

4. Rv. I. 84. I. Ittha hi Soma inmade/Brahmaṇā Cakāra Vardhanam

Saviṣṭha Vagrinnojosā / Prthivyah nihśaśa ahim /

arcannanu Svarājyam //

The 5th shows no Iambic rhythm and differs

from the previous ones.

174 ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

is in these metres, the differentiation of odd and even pādas was first attempted. In archaic period these metres seemed to have been hardly known. Therefore they will be counted as the bridge to fill up the gap between the earlier and the later parts of the Rgveda.

Finally, it can be added, that the very syllabic arrangement and the rhythm of the Anuṣṭubh verse alone point at the fact that the Vedic versifiers had a definite idea of what is known as Sarvasama and Ardhasama vṛtta we already discussed.1

There are 24000 trimetre verses being two-thirds of the contents of the entire Ṛgveda. This group comprises, Virāja, Triṣṭubh and Jāgata pādas.

This type of verse is cast on quadrisyllabic mould and Triṣṭubh being taken as standard norm, the eleven syllables have been set by Oldenberg2 in order of four, three and four supported by Arnold3 and of four, four and three by Randle and4 others. Like dimetre verse, the first and the last being respectively designated as opening and Cadence, the middle has been termed as brake as it breaks the flow of the rhythm.

In addition to them, Caesura has been conceived of by Arnold which act as a brake on the rhythm of the opening and on the break.

Etymologically the term ‘Triṣṭubh’ itself signifies three

1. See infra, Ref.—23, 24, ………, 42, 49…………etc. Ch. II.Sec.I. So far as number of syllables are concerned, it is Sarvasama, so far as rhythm is concerned it is Ardhasama because of the distribution of the rhythm in too alternatives.

2. Hermann Oldenberg, Die Hymnen des Ṛgveda I. Metrishe and Textgeschichtliche prolegomena 1888. PP. 58.

3. Arnold, Vedic metre, 1905, PP. 42—45.

4. H.N. Randle, the patterns of Triṣṭubh—BSOAS XX.1957. P.450. Max Müller, Vedic Hymns. Sacred Book of the East XXXII.PT.1. Introduction PP.CXI.

VEDIC LITERATURE

175

fixed metrical rhythm probably in the close of the feet.1

As a shortest specimen of trimetre verse, with Virāja pāda, we may introduce first, the decasyllabic type of verses which contain less syllable than the scheduled number. In trimetre group according to their respective rhythm, there exist two types of decasyllables, to one of which alluded the Virāṭsthāna2 verse which with slight modification predominantly are found in Gautamī3 verse and the other to which belong the hymns of Pentad4 and Bhārgavī verses.

All the types except the Bhārgavi verse, contain mostly the trimetre rhythm of Triṣṭubh and Bhārgavī hymn5 sticks to that of Jagatī.

But it should be borne in mind, that occasionally, they are found in reversed type of rhythm, i. e., Bhārgavī in Triṣṭubh and the remaining three in Jagatī.

Virāṭsthāna and Pentad verses are chiefly found with Triṣṭubh hymns and sometimes believed to be alluded to the class of Triṣṭubh. This assumption runs counter to the analysis of the fact enshrined in the manual6 as well as in

1. According to some “Ṣṭubh” in the compound Anuṣṭubh, triṣṭubh means, “stopping, pausing”. “The metre requiring regular stoppage or pauses”—M. W. P. 1259. cf. Max Muller P. XCVI

“I look upon triṣṭubh as meaning originally Tripudium and I explain its name three steps by the last three syllables V–V which form the characteristic feature of that metre.

cf. Weber, I. S. VIII. P. 51. Wortlich wohl die mit drei ṣṭubh, absatzen versehene, etwa, weil bei der Lange ihrer pada am Ende eines Jeden derselben ein Absatz der Stimme notig ist, wo bei den der letzte Absatz am schlusse des verses nicht mit in Rechnung Kam, nur die drei innerhalb des verses befindilichen dgl gerechnet worden.

2. RV. II.

3. RV. I. 61.

4. RV. I. 66.

5. RV. X.77, 78.

6. See Infra. Ref. 108. Ch. II. Sec.I

176

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

practical application.1

Without going into its every minute details, we can show that the decasyllabic verses bear all the characteristics that can distinguish them as belonging to more or less archaic period.2 According to extant theories it can be found that Virāja as a class of tensyllabic metre is practically extinct in comparatively late period, while it has had wide recommendation in Saṃhitās and Brāhmaṇas.3 Needless to say that Virāja as an independent metre has no function even in the Atharvaveda; even pure Paṅkti having five syllabic pāda is also absent as not being found in Vṛhadanukramaṇī.

Besides, there are catalectic Jagatī,4 extended Triṣṭubh,5

1. The origin of the pentad through splitting up the triṣṭubh verse can be established by the use of three pentads and a triṣṭubh appear in ṚV. IV. 10. agne tam adyā / aśvam na stomaḥ Kratum na bhadram //

hṛdisprśam ṛdhiāmā ta ohaiḥ,All of the verses except the 21st of the hymn ṚV. II. 14 are in Virāṭsthāna metre. And the 21st is in Triṣṭubh. c. f. Sāyaṇa Bhāṣya :-- "Virāṭsthāna triṣṭubh". The definition of it— "Virājau navaka traiṣṭubhaṃśca".

2. ṚV. 10. 130. 4, 5. In the 10th maṇḍala of the Ṛgveda among the seven metres, Virāja has been inserted and consequently as a metre. But in later period, it lost its significance as a metre and paṅktiḥ took the place of it. This can be easily discerned in the Atharvaveda, Ait. Ār. where the very verse has been going to be explained, Paṅktiḥ has been installed in place of Virāj.

Ṛv. 10. 130. 4, 5, Virāṭmitravaruṇyorbhī.............Aitareya :-Vṛhatya mitrāvaruṇaupaṅkti triṣṭubhā

In place of Virāṭ .Atharvaveda—19. 21. 1.

Gāyatrysuṇi gauṣṭubhṛhatīpaṅkti stutrisṭubh.

Virāṭsthāna = rest at the 5th place, a long sixth with an indifferent 7th.

Gautamī = Short–7th and rest at 5th.

Pentad = long 7 and 9th, rest at 7th.

Bhārgava = rest at 5th and 6th but with Jagatī Cadence.

3. c.f. Arnold Vedic metre P. 53, and 225.

4. Jagatī with loss of final syllable. Rv. 150. 1. C.

5. RV.I. 53. 10a.

hyper syllabics.1 and hybrid verses.2

Caesura is the most essential feature in all the trimetre

verses and in Arnold’s findings there are only three verses

in the whole of the Ṛgveda which lacks Caesura of any

kind.3

Generally, the position of Caesura is either late4 or

early,5 i.e., after 4th or 5th syllable.

Besides these, there is weak Caesura making hit after the

3rd syllable and sometimes dividing two words.6 Both these

are characteristics of archaic period and their occurrences

are very limited.

Lastly, we may refer to secondary Caesura which takes

place after the 8th syllable and supposed to be grown out

with the combination of four syllabic pāda with the dimetre

verses.7

In the case of early Caesura, most common setting is long

third with short fifth8 and in that of late is short third with

1. 13 syllabic Triṣṭubh RV. VIII. 46. 14a.

RV. X. 114. 4a.

2. Ṛv. I. 35. 4.

3. Tuam sahasrāṇi śatā daśa prati ṚV.II 1. 8d. Sumnam iyakṣautas

tuvato ṇṛṇ. ṚV. II.20. 1d. Indra svadiṣṭhaya gīrā sacivāḥ ṚV.

III. 53. 2d.

4. Namo mahadbhyoḥ namo arbhakebhyoḥ ṚV. I. 27. 13a

Namo Yuvabhyoḥ namo āsīnebhyoḥ ṚV. I. 27.13b.

5. Kasmai devā āvahanāsu homā ṚV. I. 84. 18a.

Komamate vitihotraḥ Sudevaḥ ṚV. I. 84. 18b.

6. Caesura after 3rd syllable :-

ā citra citraiam bharā rayimnaḥ. ṚV. VII. 20. 7d..........

dividing two component words of a compound asma indrā/ Varuṇa

viśvavārām, ṚV. VII. 84. 4a. This feature has been noticed in

Nidāna Sūtra which enjoins —“Tatra madhya eva pādasya na

'vasyed—Midāna Sūtra. II/7/14.

In later period, it has been described as ‘Duṣṭoyati” that must

be avoided.

7. ṚV. I. 154. Tāvām Vāstuni usmasi//gamadhyai.

8. Tā te viśvā Paribhūrastu Yajñām. ṚV. I. 91. 196.

178

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

long fifth.1 Accordingly we have two types of openings U —

U ˘ with early Caesura and U — U — — with late ones.

Perhaps these two groups gave rise to two major groups —

Śālinī — Vātormī and Indravajrā.

So it can be seen from the given features that the rhythm

fluctuates generally with the quality of the third and the

fifth. The favour has been shown in almost every maṇḍala

to the second group, i. e., short third and long fifth with late

Caesura and this is leading towards an almost rigid scheme

which may be represented as U — U — — UU — U — —.

The designation has been given by the classical manual,

after the name of God, which has been accidentally stitched

up in a stanza embracing mostly the same rhythm.2

And it can be assumed unhesitatingly that after this, the

classical prosodists have been encouraged to apply the

method in their definition, i.e., to stitch the name of metre

in the definition.

Among them the long third generally corresponds to

the indifferent fifth3; and the short fifth with it is generally

the occurrence of the comparatively archaic group.

Historically, 5th short is more normal than the long

5th in earlier maṇḍalas. In RV. IV. 2, there are fifty cases

of short and thirty of long in eighty pādas and RV, VII, 2

yeilds the same results. But in the later period, the figure

of the short fifth has been decreased considerably and in

pre-classic and classic-age the long fifth predominates.4

Fourth syllable is long in 75% before the early Caesura

and before a late one it comprises 90% cases. The Indra-

1. Ko agnimīde habisā ghrtena. RV.I. 84. 18a.

2. Indrā Yuvam Varunā didyum asmin/ojistham vajram/Yo no durevo Vṛkatir dabhitih/tasmin mimātham abhi bhutih ojah/RV. IV. 41. 4.

3. Śālinī-Vātormī group of which Vātormī with short fifth is more archaic.

4. Vide, Oldenberg, Alte Indische Akhayayana, ZDMG. XXXVI.

vajrā group predominates through the ages.

Irregular is the form which has consecutive short syllables in the 2nd and 3rd places. And the form UUU embracing double irregularity makes its appearance very restricted.1

Rhythm of the brake is partly affected by Caesura and the Rgvedic verses place two normal forms UU – and – UU comprising two major groups as has been shown before. These rhythm found in the Rgveda have been exerting its influence on the classical rhythm so much so that this type of rhythm are seen abundantly in classical metres2 also. Subnormal form after an early Caesura – U –3 is much more common than the normal form – UU and seems to rank as regular in the cretic and popular period. This group happens to be as much infrequent being one seventh of the normal namely Vātormī group i.e., UU – but subsequently this subnormal group namely the Śālinī group i.e., – U – came to be very frequent and consequently normalised.

1. RV. III. 29. 14c. na ni misati surano dive–dive. Like those of dimetre verse. Almost in all classical languages, the use of consecutive shorts are avoided in the composition. In Greek we see that it embraces all kinds of artificiality to get rid of the form UUU cf. F. de saussre’a montre’ (dans en article des Melanges Grand) alors que le Grec a recours a toute sorte d’artifice pour eviter UUU. Le latin offre une tandance semblable (V. Juret–Phonetique Latin–P. 270) Op. Cit. Ref. 130.Ch.II. Sec. I.

2. Vātormī=——UU—U——P. Ch. Sūtra VI. 21. Dodhaka=—UU —UU—UU——P.Ch. Sūtra VI. 19. Classical manual makes provision for the pause after 4th in case of Vātormī and in case of Dodhakam. Halāyudha noted down the same after 4th.

Indrāvajrā =U — U——UU—U—— Kuḍmaladantī =—UU——UU UU—— Yation Indriya Rasa= 5–6 =

P. Ch. Sūtra VII. 2 ; Id. VI. 42.

3. ——–U —–U — –, Śālini c. f. Yati after the 4th P.Ch Sūtra VI. 20. Samudra Rṣayaḥ.

180 ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

Next to them are UUU1 and —UU2 the subnormal forms before early Caesura and U UU after a late Caesura. Occasional forms U—U, U —U, — —U are more archaic except the second which appears frequently in strophic period.

Taking each case separately it can be found long 7th after an early Caesura appears more than usual3 and short 7th after a late Caesura made occurrences about one third as frequent in every period. Short 6th like the long 4th is the common figure. Consequently we have two major groups according to the position of the relative quantity of the syllables. Under the first we can have early Caesura with long third, short fifth and long seventh and under the second — short third, long fifth and short seventh. Indifferent initial occurs for the second group and more or less is fixed the long initial in the first group. In other words, we find Trochaic preference for the first and Iambic preference for the second.

This is the last group that predominates through the ages.

And from these two emerged the third major group which embraces the long third from the first, long fifth from the second and long seventh again from the first together with its division through the early Caesura. This is the Śālinī group. First one is Vātormī, second one is Indravajrā and in each cases short sixth and the long forth are the common.

1. Corresponding form in classical UUUU UUU U — — —Vrntā. VI. 25. P. Ch. Sūtra. c. f. Halāyudha—Caturbhisaptabhiścayatih — — — UUU — — UUU — = Bhramaravilasita P. Ch. Sūtra VI.21. Cf. Halāyudha—Caturbhiḥ Saptabhiśca Yatih.

2. Forms normal and Subnormal. U — — and — U —

3. — UU normal and U UU and occasional forms U —U, — —U .

VEDIC LITERATURE

181

Cadence1 has been provided with more fixed rhythm,

therefore it is not subject to elasticity. Inspite of its rigidity

in form, the short eighth is not uncommon in the Vāmadeva

and in the normal period and this forms a separate category

by itself in the Vaśistha hymn.2 The short 10th is not very

common and is about as half as common as short eighth.

Long ninth is fairly common in Pentad hymns.3 All

these irregularities in the Cadence tend to indicate the

archaism of the verses.

Sāma Gānas took their origin from the Ṛcas which are

termed as Yoni of the former. Only a very few verses in

the whole collections of the Sāma may be called really

Sāman's own verses.

Most of the verses found in the Sāma Veda are composed

in Gāyatrī and in Pragāthās which are formed of the Gāyatrī

and Jāgata pādas, containing both of them short syllables

in the penultimate. The metres used in it posses the musi-

cal quality because the very terms Gāyatrī and Pragāthā are

tormed of the word Gai - to sing.4

In the index of the metres of the Sāmaveda prepared in

1. In Greek we find a fixed rhythm in the Cadence like Vedic Triṣṭubh

and Jagatī.

Sappique = — U — — U — UU — U — U

Alcaïque = U — U — U — UU — U — U U Op. Cit. pp.41.

2. See Infra. Ref.141. Ch.II.Sec. I.

RV. VII. 61. 2b. Vipro Manmani dirghaśrud ujarti.

3. In one seventh verses of the following hymns the ninth is long

—RV.I.65–70; RV.VII. 34, 1–21; 56, 1–11 and IX.109. The

given verses contain pentad rhythms, consequently have the rhythm

which contain the 9th long being the penultimate of the ten syllabic

verse.

4. Winternitz:—Vol. I, part I, p. 143, fn.4. 1959.

Sāyaṇa Bhāṣya:—Sāmavede Sahasram Gītyupāyah, āhah kā ime

Gītyupāya nāma—Ucyate, Gītināma Kriyā hyabhyantara Prayat-

najñya Svarā Viśeṣānām abhivyañjika sāmāsavdabhi...... Sa niyatā

pramāṇa Ṛci·Gīyate.

182

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

Upanidānam Sūtram,1 the largest recorded metres are of Atyaṣṭi types containing sixty eight syllables.2 The very pāda arrangement of Atyaṣṭi remind us of the form of Śatobṛhatī which are mainly found in strophic and lyric hymns.3

In the Sāma Veda the mantras have been extracted from the Ṛgveda and have been set into music.4 The Yajurveda on the other hand, though has been traditionally believed as containing only prose formulae, consists of both verses and the prose formulae. And it has been found in Taittirīya and Vājasaneyī Saṁhitā there are good many portions, leaving aside those that have been borrowed from the Ṛgveda, which may have claimed to be metrical composition.

The celebrated commentators of Piṅgala Ch. Sūtra, like Yādavaprakāsa and Bhāskarācārya have endeavoured to include certain Mantras of the Yajus as case of the metres.5 Anukramaṇī of Śukla Yajurveda6 while preparing the index of metres has shown the features of the metres, some

1. Upanidānam sūtram. S.B.T. 37. 1931.

2. Pūrbācika 5.2.3.5; 5.2.3.7; 5.2.3.2. ...... Sāma Veda, B.I. Ed. Vol. I. 1874.

3. Arnold, Vedic metre, P. 247. He thinks it as the enlarged form of the Śatobṛhatī three.

4. Jaimini Sūtram—II. 35. Teṣām Ṛg Yatrārthavasena Pādavyāvastā II. I. 36. Gītiṣu Sāmak hyā II. I. 37. Śeṣe yajuh Śabdah.

5. Vṛttacandrodaya—Fol. 40la. Tasmādyajumantrānāmapī Prātisvikam niyatākṣaratvādsty eva chandaḥ. Bhaṣyarāja—Fol. 11b. Tena Vāṅmayamantrācandovāptịḥ Sampa-nnah. Ateva yajuṣāmSarveṣām chando nāstītyuktịḥ Saḍadhikaśatā-kṣarāt Pareṣāmeva Yajuṣām tannāstīti ityādiśca Pralāpa eva akṣarāṇām. Fol. 12a. Yattu Katīyam Sūtram Yajuṣāmnīyatakṣara-tvād ekeṣām chando na Vidyata iti tat Karmakāle Rgmantranāmiva yājumantrāṇām chandaullekhasyavasykatvam eke ityetadarthakam.

6. Śuklayajurveda Anukramaṇī Sūtram, Benarasa Shkt. Series. No.49, 1894.

of common and the rest of rare types.

In the Yajus we have the references of the four footed Gāyatrī1 as well as third group of metre beginning from Krti. Uvata referred to these as to be traced in the Subheṣaja or in the Atharvaṇas. Actually, however we cannot find all the seven longest metres of the Krti group in the Atharvaṇas. The longest two cannot be traced there. In the Yajurveda on the other hand, we have all the seven metres of the Krti group2 and even that of which there is no consideration in the traditional Vedic manual.3

The metres longer than those which contain 104 syllables have been recognised as Daṇḍaka in the classical manual. As a matter of fact, so far as the number of syllables are concerned Daṇḍaka have been originated from these largest metres but as regards rhythm, they are mātrā metres as we shall see subsequently.

In its physical feature as well as internal rhythm, verses of the Atharvaveda are taken to be as posterior to that of the R̥gveda.4

So far as external form is concerned the Atharvaveda made provision for enlarged as well as advanced treatment of metres than that in the R̥gveda. The metres shorter than Gāyatrī class can be traced in the Atharvaveda,5 though the

1. Ādade nāyasītyasyabhridevatā Ṣaḍakṣarā Yaju Gāyatrī.

2. Viśvajiti saubhara indraḥ krtiḥ Go / āyusarvākali mitrāvaruṇam Prakṛtiḥ / Daśarātre ācāryo Viśvadevāḥ ākṛtiḥ / Daśarātrike Prṣṭye Ṣaḍahe bhallayo diśo vikṛtiḥ / Chandomeṣu Saulvāyana ime loka Samkṛtiḥ / Daśame 'hani Parāśaraḥ Samvatsaro ' bhikṛtiḥ Mahāvrate Śailinīḥ Prajāpatirut krtiḥ / Śuklayajurveda Anu. Ch. IV, pp. 317–318.

3. Hotayakṣadagni tatra catustrimśa śatamakṣarāṇi Śānti tena chandoṅsti etavadakṣarasya chandasyā bhavat. Ch. II. P. 234. Ibid. Idem.

4. Vide, Arnold, Vedic metre. 10.

5. Uktā—Prdākavaḥ XX || 129. 9. Atharvaveda. Atyuktā – Eta aśva apravante XX || 129. 1–3. Ibid.

184 ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

Bṛhadanukramaṇī describes that the class of chandas begins from the Gāyatrī.1

It would not be out of place here to refer to Uvaṭa who made mention of the metres of the Kṛti class in course of placing illustrative verses which he could find only Subheṣaja which is synonimous with the word Atharvaṇa, which is only the alias of the Atharvaveda.2

The available verses of the Atharvaveda include all the metres belonging to the Kṛti group3 save the last two long metres Abhikṛti and Utkṛti.

So far as rhythm is concerned, Bloomfield5 is perhaps the only scholar in this line to advocate the theory of the parallel development of the Ṛgvedic and the Ātharvaṇic verses though they differ in theme, namely, while the former contain adoration to a given deity the latter consists of the charms directed to the attainment of some specific sub-

Madhyā-Sakhāyate Gomadya Gogātī iti XX // 129 // 13.

Pratiṣṭhā — Sa taṃ Rathyaḥ hiraṇyayaḥ XX // 129 // 5.

Supratiṣṭhā — Hettha Pragapagudagadharage vatsa puruṣṇata āsate XX.// 134 // 2. op. cit.

1. c.f. Ṛganukramaṇī — Gāyatrī......etc.

Bṛhadanukramaṇī — Gāyatryuṣṇiganuṣṭubhṛhatīpañktistri-ṣṭubh jagatyatijāgatisakvaryāstyāṣṭīḍhṛtīkṛti — kṛtiprakṛtyākṛtivikṛtisamkṛti abhikṛtyut kṛtyeka viṁśati chandāṁsiti.

2. Gopatha Brāhmaṇa — 3/4 ......Bhūyiṣṭhaṃ Brahmā Yad Bhṛgāṅ-girasāḥ Ye' ṅgirasāḥ sa rasāḥ ye' tharvanstad bheṣajam. Yad bheṣajam tad amṛta yad amṛtanu tad Brahma.

3. XIII. 3.1. Ya ime dvāṛprthivī — aṣṭāpadākṛtiḥ

IX. 5.36. Yo va abhibhuvam... Ākṛtiḥ — P.—70.

IX. 5. 32–35 — Yo vai kurvantam.....Prakṛtiḥ — Pp. 68—70.

XIII. 3.23.—Tvamagne kratubhiḥ...Vikṛtiḥ — P.208.

XIII. 3.24. — Ya ātmadā......Kṛtiḥ — P.209.

XIII. 3.25. ......Ekapadā... ...Vikṛtiḥ — P. 210.

XIX. 9.14. Prthivī Śānti......Samkṛtiḥ......

Atharvaveda — Ram Chandra Sarma. 1887.

4. Atharvaveda — P.46. ( Referred in XVII. P.318.by Arnold )

ject. Moreover, the Ātharvanic Anuṣṭubh permits not only

the Ṛgvedic and the Epic norms of the late centuries, but

also many other different forms counterpart to the non-

quantitative Avestan forms. These different types of

Anuṣṭubh forms comprising both hieratic and Epic, indicate

the archaicness of the Ātharvanic verses than those of the

Ṛgveda.

But some inaccuracy has been proved to exist in his

scholarly pursuit and it has been found by Arnold and others

that Epic ending U - U in the old verses is a later develop-

ment, rare in the archaic Ṛgveda, much common in the

Atharvaveda and has been fully established in the Epic.

This can be shown in case of Trimetre groups in the

Atharvedic verses, where the Trimetre rhythm shows more

lateness, than those of the Ṛgveda proper and lyric period.2

Moreover, verses of eleven and twelve syllables are some-

times found inextricably confused in the same stanza. These

cannot be called as contaminated but to be termed as irregu-

lar and defective.2 For Bloomfield it is difficult to determine

whether the passage is to be condensed in prose or doggered

metres.3

So far as rhythm is concerned, there are Trimetre verses

externally contaminated, chief characteristic of which is the

existence of Triṣṭubh and Gāyatrī verses in the same stanza.

1. While making a comparative chart with the twelve syllabic

verses of lyric, Ṛgveda proper and Atharvaveda we can see the

following : a. U — U (U) U U U U U U

b. U — U (—) UU U — U — U U

c. U — U — U U U — U — U — lyrics show

occasionally shortening before the Caesura represents to be more

free and B differs from the previous one in greater rigidity and

C is marked by the increasing favour for the long 5th which is sure

the mark for lateness.

2. Vide, Whitney, Atharvaveda. I. Introduction CXXUI.

3. Mr. Jourdan thinks it is either prose degenerated from verse or the

prose elevating into prose. Arnold recommends more the former

than the latter. JAOS. Vol.XXII.P. 318.

186 ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

These are found mainly in the later Atharvaveda and later literature down to the Epic.

However, this can be seen that the Atharvaveda permits varieties of norms but about their chronological sequences nothing definite can be said at present.

In the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa, there are considerable number of gāthās apart from the Rgvedic citations. In the narrative of Sunahśepa (VII), there are twenty-nine ślokas and their metrical forms are very interesting as they contain both archaic and classical forms.

Out of the fifty eight and a half verses there are only fifteen cases of pathyā ending U – – U in the odd pādas, – – – U : twelve times, UUU U : four times, – UU U : six times, the form ending in – U – U occurs six times, – – U – : three times, and eight times occurs the form U – – – U – U U. Last three forms are wholly alien to classical versifications.

It can be found di – iambic ending is 15·5% whereas the forbidden forms comprise nearly 28%,1 popularly known as "Bad Vipulās".

But in the account of the consecration of kings,2 the increasing number of the percentage of the pathyā form is remarkable.

It occurs fifteen times out of twenty-four against fifteen out of fifty-eight in the Sunahśepa legend.

But of the remaining nine forms, eight are not in classical Skt.

Finally it can be said, that the rhythm of the Anuṣṭubh clearly shows that they are posterior to that of Rgveda but anterior to that of the metrical composition of the Kaṭha, Kena and Īśa as has been exhibited by Oldenberg.3

There are four Triṣṭubh stanzas in the Yajñagāthās. Of these sixteen Triṣṭubh lines two are irregular so far as sylla-

1. In the account of Morton's statistics, we have the following figure :- 16/10, 7, 4, 6, 2, 4, 9. The popularity of Bad Vipulās – These are D, I maj and I min. This tendency is clearly discerned in Aitareya Brāhmaṇa— Indo Ir. Journal. IV. Pp. 27.

2. Ait. Br. VII. — 21–23.

3. c.f. Oldenberg, Alteindische Ākhyāyana, ZDMG. XXXVII,66.

VEDIC LITERATURE

187

ble is concerned : the first having thirteen syllables and the

second having ten both with trochaic ending. The lines are

not uniform in rhythm, even any two lines of any stanza

do not have identical pādas. Three pādas in one case are

the same in the last seven syllables.

Oldenberg had shown in his statistical findings the rhyth-

mical development of brake and by this he tried to establish

the fact that the Triṣtubh in the metrical portions of the

Brāhmaṇas such as Aitareya, Ṣatapatha and Kaṭha Upaniṣad

are older than those of Pāli texts,² but younger than those

of the Ṛgvedas.

Besides them, there are four other types of stanzas. One

of them has 12–12–10–13 syllables. Most of them are

irregular in rhythm. These verses are decidedly older than

those of Bṛhaddevatā and Ṛgvidhāna. In the Kauśītakī

Brāhmaṇa on the other hand, we met with a couple of

ślokas, which are of archaic types than the śloka forms of

Aitareya Brāhmaṇa.

In the last phases of the Vedic age, we find Gṛhyasūtras

which contain same metrical portions meant for recitations.

In these verses, fortunately we find certain forms—a bridge

that makes up the gap between the Vedic and the Buddhistic

verseforms on the one hand, the epic verseform on the other.

Most of the verses are enshrined in Anuṣṭubh stanzas.

By the study of the metrical forms of Anuṣṭubhs, we can

have a clear idea about the development of internal rhythm,

that come to be introduced subsequently in the Epic and

Post Epic Skt. literature. Perhaps Anuṣṭubh is the only

metre that gives abundant scope of studies of its develop-

ment through different phases in ancient literatures belong-

ing to different periods of history.

Archaic Vedic Anuṣṭubhs ² maintain Iambic cadence in

1. Vide. chart, Pp.61. Ibid, Idem.

2. Of the 17 verses of Sūkta X, 85 the sixteen are in Anuṣṭubh and

verse 14 itself is in Anuṣṭubh of the sixteen pādas of each hemistich there 32 cases in odd

188 ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

both the pādas. But in later parts of the Vedas, we find

in the Anuṣṭubh verses not only the departs from the old

usage in the odd pādas but there appears a direct contrary

course - the adoption of the antispast (U - - U). Compa-

rison of the Gṛhya songs appeared in the RV. X. 85 with

the rites preserved in Anuṣṭubh in Sānkhyāyana Gṛhyasūtra

1 ; 19 ; 5 ; 6 gives us the fact that the latter is later than

the latest Vedic poetry and coincides rather with the transi-

tion period and lies between the late Vedic and the later

Buddhistic and the Epic form.

It will not be out of the place here to quote some refer-

ences bearing the rhythm of the transition period appeared

in other Gṛhya songs.1

The śloka pāda for the later period, U - - U2 which

-- U U = 8 I maj

U - U U = 5 D

UU - U = 3 I min

U - - U = 4 Pathyā

-- - U = 5 M

UUU U = 3 U

-UU U = 3 X

• U - U = 1 Trochee

32

Against 7 Anuṣṭubh stanza in Sāṅkhyāyana Gṛhya sūtra. There

are cases 14 odds. -- U U = I I Maj

U - U - = 2 D

U - - U = 4 Pathyā

-- - U = I M

UUU U = 1

-UU U = 2 X

• U - U = 3I

14

1. Ās. Gṛ. Sūt, 1. 15.2

Medham te devalḥ savitā

medhamte Aśvinām devau

2. Cadence of the odd pādas.

Again

Agnae samidham aharshaṁ

tayatvasu Agne Vardhasva

in Nalapākhyāna of the Mahābhārata covers approximately

5/6 of all the cases, appears in Ś. Sū. covering about three

quarters of the whole book, having twice the ending U -UU-

which is the normal form in the Rgveda.1

If we compare metrical forms allegedly belonging to

Dharmasūtra in different citations with the verse forms

found in Grhya sūtras, we will be convinced of the fact

that from the standpoint of metrical compositions, the

Grhyasūtras appear to be posterior to the former. Apart

from these, the Apastamba Dharma Sūtra contains several

isolated verses, most of which retained classical rhythm.2

Some of these are defective in metre having nine syllable

in one Anuṣṭubh pāda.3 Besides these, there are some verses

in Triṣṭubh metres with the Vedic rhythm along with one

in the classical rhythm.4 Metrical rhythm seemed to be found

in some prose passages and sūtras quoted in the Grhya and

Dharma sūtras.5 But pure classical rhythm is clearly discerned

in the metrical aphorisms of Gautama Dharma Sūtras.6

In Mānava Grhyasūtra, some prose passages appear to

contain metrical rhythm like Vrttagandhī metre. This very

1. Śa. Śr. Sū. Prahutahpriti karmana uktvā mantram spriśedapah.

2. 1. 4. 14. 25. Āp. Dh. Sū. Daśavarṣaśca brāhmaṇas śatavarṣaśca

kṣatriyah pitāputrau sma tauviddhi taustu Brāhmaṇa pitā.

3. Āpa. Dh. Sū. I. 9. 27. 10 ; II. 9. 23. 4-5, II. 2. 4. 14.

4. I. 9. 27. 1. Ibid. Idem. Yadeka rātrennakaroti pāpam krṣṇam Varnam

Brāhmaṇasseyamānaḥ Caturthakalā Udakāmavāyi triśruvarśeyiṣ-

tadpahanti pāpam. (Mysore Edition)

The third and the fourth verse retain 5th as short which is the

characteristic feature of the Vedic verse. II. 7. 17. 8 ; 1. 11.

33. Āśv. Gr. Sūtra—I. 6. 8......Hatvā bhittua ca śirshāni/rudatim

rudadbhyo haret.

Gobl. Gr. Sūtra. 1. 2. 21-27. presents three hemistiches which

confirm the pattern of the śloka metre.

6. Goutama Dh. Sūtras Ānanda Āśrama Series.....9.41. ubhe mūtra

puriṣe diva Kuryyādudangmukhaḥ. 23.27. Akrorśanṛtahimssāsu

rirātram paramaṃ tapah. Both of them exbibit classical rhythm.

190

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

portion being originated from the Brāhmaṇa portion of the

Maitrāyaṇī Saṁhitā, exhibits śloka rhythm.1

It becomes therefore obvious, that the frequent use of

the classical rhythm in sūtra literature represents the period

of transition in the process of the full-fledged development

of regular Epic rhythm.

Atharvaveda pariśiṣṭha2 is the next text of our concern.

Like other Vedic works there lies the uncertainty in fixation

of the date of this work due to the heterogenous character of

the subject that the text contains. General considerations

are adequate to refer them to the time at the end of the

Vedic period proper when the Vedic tradition was becoming

more and more faint and the verses were transformed into

the form of classical.

Verses of the pariśiṣṭha (XXXVII) bear the character of

both the sub-Vedic and the Vedic forms. On the other

hand in (XXIV) twenty and half verses go on with the

regularity and the verses 2.5–3.2 and 5.1-6.4 are written

in regular Upajātis and Vasantatilakam.

In pariśiṣṭha XLIX the proportion of the irregularity

somewhat less in number. In the pariśiṣṭha Grahayuddha,

LI the occurrence of Vaṁsastha and other ornate metres

and the number of irregular verses in LII on the decreasing

line prove the relative lateness of the age. In the chapter

LII again on the grahas of 164 half verses only eighteen are

irregular. The verse in LV. 6.4 conforms to the regular

Āryā pattern.3

In the period, preceding the Atharvaveda pariśiṣṭha,

the Bṛhaddevatā can be placed. Because, in Bṛhaddevatā

irregular verses run with the irregular ślokas loosely called

Anuṣṭubhs, whereas in the Atharvaveda pariśiṣṭhas regu-

larity in verses is more frequent. Of all the remnants of the

1. ZDMG XXXVI Uber Das Mānava Gṛhyasūtra, Pp. 474.

2. Atharvaveda pariśiṣṭhas—ed. Bolling and Nāgālein. 1909.

3. Ibid. Pp. 372.

VEDIC LITERATURE

191

Vedic literature the Bṛhaddevatā has the great merit of being preserved in its authenticated form as it has been checked by the quotations made in the Sarvānukramaṇi.

As for the Anuṣṭubhs of Bṛhaddevatā it can be said that the forms exhibit later characteristics than that of the Ahuṣṭubhs of the popular Ṛgveda.1 Some portions i.e., 380 halves allow more archaic forms than as allowed in classical age.

The śloka specimens of Bṛhaddevatā represent a genuine stage of the historical development of śloka if one compares them with fifty-eight halves in the Epic narrative in Aitareya Brāhmaṇa.2

In the treatment of Triṣṭubhs, one will find that out of 42 verses there occurs only one3 whose all the pādas are alike in metre.

The verse 130 of ch. VIII is of six pādas with 11 syllables in each, of which again the 1st and the 6th are Indravajrā and the 4th and the 5th are Upendravajrā.

Of the twenty four Jagatīs twelve have the Jagatī ending U–U U whereas ten have in–U–U and two in UU– and – + U – respectively showing archaic norms not followed in the classical literature.4

We will close our survey of the

1. The figures of the different vipulās in Bṛhaddevatā in odd pādas.

1723 = Pathyā U — —

163 = M (Molossus) — — —

58 = X — UU — = 5th figure less is T vipulā frequent.

35 = (Pacan) UUU—

44 = Trcchee — U — U Occurrence of it marks the advent

9 = I min UU — U of the classical age.

4 = I maj — — U

13 = D U—U—

2. See Infra. Page 237. Ch. II. Sec. I.

3. IV. 2. metre Indravajrā.

4. Details about the metrical specimens onward show that the metres were still in experimental stage : Verses with Upendravajrā and Indravajrā = I 44, 45 ; VI. 1.

Indravajrā and Śālinī = III. 154

Śālinī and irregular pādas = 155, Ibid.

Upendravajrā. Indravajrā and irregular = IV. 95.

192

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

Brahmanical literature after sparing a few lines on the metrical specimens of the Anuvākānukramaṇī, Rgvidhāna and Rg Prātiśākhya—all of which are metrical compositions and appear in an age posterior to Bṛhaddevatā. There are forty-six stanzas and a verse in Anuvākānukramaṇī, of which fifteen verses in the introductory portions are of somewhat regular type.1 Of the remaining 31 stanzas 17 were in Triṣṭubh rhythm and 14 in Anuṣṭubh.

The earliest run of the classical ślokas can be found in2 the Rgprātiśākhya. The order of the popularity of the forms of Bad Vipulās are Di-iambic, I maj. and I min. This seriality is the marked characteristic of the Ṛgveda verses. The relative pattern of the Anuṣṭubhs are 31.6. 32. 25. 7. 16. 10. 14. 33.

In rough estimation, the metrical specimens appeared in the composition of the Rgvidhāna show more affinity with those of Bṛhaddevatā as both of them belong to Śaunaka by tradition. These exhibit clear traces of the Vedic forms similar to those as has been noted by the editor of Bṛhaddevatā.3 Archaicness in rhythm can be noticed in the following verses 1. 1. 1 ; 5. 6 ; 1. 2. 1. ; 3, 42. 6–7. In most of the stanzas there are blend of the rhythm of Indravajrā and Śālinī group.4

That Anuṣṭubhs in Rgvidhānaṃ are essentially of a later type than those of Gṛhyasūtra, can be estimated by the fact that the posterior pāda of each hemistich ends with

The second, third pādas of V. 8 and V. 46 (U——U--U -U)

The second and third pāda VIII, 127 U—U—-U— U etc.

1. Regularity of the metrical rhythm presupposes the fact that the text had undergone some revision.

2. The order is — Pathyā, M. Vipulā, X, T. I. Maj, I min' D.

3. a. Macdonell. Part I. Pp. XXVIII.

b. On the language of the composition of the Rgvidhāna—Dr. M.S. Bhat, J. U. Bombay, Vol. XXXIII. Pt. II. Pp. 68.

4. Meyer's edition 1878.

"U-UU" whereas the closing part of the prior pāda represents the feature "U--U" in 1237 cases out of possible figure 1472 with a few exceptions. The remainings show a much greater variety of forms than is possible in classical one.

The U-U-U which is absent in classical age, appears in 13 cases in Rgvidhānam but in Grhyasūtras they are almost regular. Out of the eight stanzas four are Triṣṭubh with Jagatī final U-U—. There is also 12 syllabled Triṣṭubh with Triṣṭubh final. Besides, along with some hyper-syllabic Anuṣṭubhs consisting of nine or ten syllables, there are two Vasantatilakam1 and two Indravajrās.2

Though the Upaniṣads form a part of the Brāhmaṇas, they grow in seclusion being detached from the influence of the other liturgical works discussed before.

These Upaniṣads, a mixture of half poetical, half philosophical fancies and dialogues, dilate more on the speculative side being clothed in the language of poetry. Their earnest longing for the true knowledge leading to disregard for all pleasures find poetical expression in the metrical passages where we find fervent lyrical appeal. These are discerned more in the Upaniṣads of the transition period the language of which is more akin to classics.3

The Upaniṣads on internal evidences chronologically can be set into three groups. The oldest group comprises Bṛhadāraṇyaka, Chāndogya, Taittirīya, Aitareya and Kauśītakī exhibiting Brāhmanical prosaic style. Transition period is headed by Kena which is the earliest of the metrical Upaniṣads such as Kāṭhaka, Iṣa, Śvetāśvetara, Muṇḍaka. The style exhibited in this group is much attractive from the literary

1. III. 224, 225. Ibid.

2. III. 229, 230. Ibid.

3. Vide—Vedic age. Bhāratīya Vidyā Bhavan, Vol. I. P. 478. "The language of the Upaniṣads is more akin to the classical than to the Vedic Sanskrit".

194

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

point of view and it acquires a peculiar charm for their liveliness; enthusiasm rises often to the level of eloquence approaching more or less to the classical type. The last group belongs to the later age.

Following characteristics can be noticed in the metrical passages of the Upanisads exhibiting poetical style.

1. Best achievements of the old dispensation.1

2. Representation of the transition to the new.

3. Absence of such a developed form where the four times repeated rhythm of the Trisṭubhs had been cared for.

4. Rhythms are in many places in accordance with the theme and the sentiments of the passage.

5. Metres sometimes change with the change of the topics.

6. The phenomenon of equivalence, a devise applied in the formation of new classical metres out of the main metres.

7. Gradual ascendency of Śālinī over Vātormī. The former, which was only half as numerous as the latter in the Rgveda, is in the Upaniṣads five times as much. This is surely a mark of the advanced stage of Upaniṣadic poetry in comparison with the Rgvedic verses.

As the form of transition period we have twelve syllabled2

1. Old dispensation — 6th long.

Śv. I 6d. Juṣṭaṣṭanāmr̥tatvameti

II. 11a. nihoradhū mārkanātani ta ni lānām.

Muṇḍaka. III. 4a. Prāṇi hyeṣa yaḥ sarvabhūtaiḥ vibhāti

I. 5c. Taunayanteyāḥ suryasya rasmayaḥ //

Kaṭha II 2c śreyo hi dhīro’’bhi preyase vrṇīte //

Kaṭha II. 8a. Na narenāvarena prokta eṣa //

c.f. Ṛv. X. 15. 10c. Āgne yāhi sahasram̥ devavandaiḥ.

I. 9c. Namaste’stu Brāhmaṇ svasti me’stu.

c. f. Ṛv. vii. 64. 5b. Somāḥ śukreṇa vāyava ayāmi

vii. 1.8b. Vasiṣṭha śukra didivaḥ pavāka

vii. 42.1c. Pradhenava udapruto navanta

vii, 28. 3d. Atūtujimcit tutujir asiṣṇat.

2. Kaṭha II. 16 Te ubhe nānārtha puruṣam Sinītā

II. 13.d. Vivṛtaṃ sadma naciketasaṃ manye

Triṣtubh, ascendency of the Śālinī over the Vātormī,1

greater freedom in the disposition of the Caesura noticeable

as it passes from the Kaṭha to Śveta. In general, all the

verse specimens, except two complete stanzas and some

complete lines bearing the identical rhythm2 and the classical

rhythm respectively, bear the rhythm of the transition

period.

Poetic mood is more expressive in onomatopoeic

passages in which the prosodical schemes have major part to

play. The solemnity of the theme is more apparent in

the use of Śālinī and is sometimes elevated to a point where

the Vaiśvadevī is the only figure. Most interesting to note

in this connection, in both these metres the heavy syllables

predominate.

Onomatopoeic trends where the sounds echo the senses

more, are clearly discerned in the Kāṭhaka passages 1.23,

where the sound echoes not only the senses but also the

rhythm. The solemnity of the Death’s speech are more

apparent with slow ascendency of Śālinī over Vātormī and

advancing towards the Vaiśvadevī rhythm.

The first two and the final chapters of the Śvetāśvetara,

contain prosodical specimens with varied and modulated

rhythm concordant to the requirements of the moment.

The famous Yoga passage of Śve. II. 8—15 is no less

notable for its metrical perfection where the different types

of rhythms slow down from pāda to pāda until it ends in

the slow full volumed Śālinī of the last pāda.

So is Naciketa’s violent exclamation in answer—in the

Vaiśvadevī opening—(26) “Svobhāvā’mrtyasya yadanto-

1. Śv. II. 18–15. with Śālinī close.

Kaṭha I. 24. Etattulyam yadi manyase varam vṛṇisva vittam

cirajīvikam mahābhūman naciketastvamedhi /

Kāmānām tvāmkāma bhājam karomi Śālinī //

2. One Vamśastha in Kaṭh III. 15 and in Śveta II. 10.

196

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

kaitat". One will feel the firmness of mind in the dialogue

"Jīviṣyāmo yāvadiśiṣyasi tvam varastu me varaṇīyaḥ sa eva"—which Mr. Ayer, describes as "a magnificent model

of the dramatic verse conversation of the stately order".1

Change of the metre is another effective devise to indi-

cate sometimes the change of topics. In Death's speech

there has been presented a picture of wonderful change of

metre from Triṣṭubh to Anuṣṭubh. "Om" at the end of

Triṣṭubh series, suddenly declares "Brahma" in Anuṣṭubh,2

then continue a series of Triṣṭubh stanzas; the climax is

reached and the emotion is broken in the hybrid form of

the Anuṣṭubh and Jagatī.3

The phenomenon of equivalence, whereby two shorts

are treated as one long is to be applied in all the early post

Vedic literature of which we will make a fair discussion.

This principle is applied in both Anuṣṭubh and Triṣṭubh.4

1. Upaniṣadic poetry—4th Oriental Conference, 1928.

P. G. Ayer. P. 29

In this connection one should borne in mind the appropriate words

with their syllabic arrangement, or Sabdaguna samādhi and Udārtā

have been conceived by the Indian poeticists as constituting a

graded procession of short and long vowels, pointing out to the

role of metres in striving maximum effect on the ear to create

artistic beauty.

cf. Bh. NS'. Gos. 68. verse XVI. 114—115. 117—119.

2. II. 16. 17. Kaṭha.

Etatvye vākṣaram Brahma

Etatvyevākṣaram param.

3. Uttiṣṭhata Jāgrata prāpya varān nivodhata

Kṣurasya dhārā niśitaduratyayā Durgam pāṭhasṭat

Kavayah vadanti.

4. Tato bhūya iva te tamah = Īśa. 12c.

U — — UU U — U —

Nādam yadidamupāsate = Kena I. 4d.

— — UU UU — U —

Kena I, 13a. — Iha cedavedīdatha styamasti

UU — U — — U U — U — U = Upajāti. In its present

form it is Mahendravajrā.

VEDIC LITERATURE

197

As for Moric metres they are almost non existant in the Upaniṣads. There is neither Āryā nor any Vaitālīya, nor any of Mātrāsamakam type. But some of the modern scholars find in some Upaniṣadic verses the rhythm of Āryā and try to put them into the form of that metre. They declare them to be the arch type of the said metre but their forced applications are obviously failure in its aim. Sometime some scholars2 make capital of same verses to theorise their speculation. But the verses they put for example belong to the Upaniṣad which seems to be composed in the 4th cent AD.

The Anuṣṭubhs of the Upaniṣads can be categorised into two groups – archaic exhibiting more Vedic character and less archaic appear to be classical.3

Muṇḍaka — III 8d. parātparam puruṣampaiti divyam.

U – U –UU U U – U – – = Upajāti.

Śveta I 6c. = Prthagātmānām preritāram ca mātrā Śālinī

UU – – – U – U – –

I. 7d. = Līnā brahmāṇi tatparā yonimuktah

• • UU – U – U – –

1. Īśa V. 17. Vāyura Nilamamṛ tamathe dambha

Smāntam sā rṬam O Last half gaṇa is lacking.

Kaṭha. I. 3. 14. Uttiṣṭhata Jāgrata Prāpya Varān nivodhata

Śveta. II. 17. Yo devagrau Yo’psu. Vide. A. Mukherjee.

J. O. I. Baroda IV. No. 4.

2. Mediaeval Indian orthodox commentators are even biased to trace Āryā from Veda.

Vide Yādavaprakāśa — IV. 12. Bhāṣya. Punarāryādaya idānīm

prakriyante Tāsu ca kacid vede’pi drśyate. Tathā cātharvanikah

ślokamāryājatyāsāmananti :-

Ghṛtamiva payasi nigūḍham

Bhūte bhūte ca vasati vijñānam //

Satatam manyayitavyam

manasā manthānabhūtena // (Br. Bind. Up. 20)

Bhāskara follows this closely.

3. Rāmāyaṇam claimed to be the earliest Kāvya as far as śloka metre is concerned. It is the earliest Kāvya which lowers down the Vipula figure, expels out especially the D Vipula. Obviously,

198 ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

1. Archaic -AB, Śunaḥśepha episode-

P M X π T I min I maj D

16 10 7 4 6 2 4 9

(Last three are called Bad Vipulās)

2. Br. Up. Chs. 1–5–6= 7. 7. 3. 3. 1. 1. 0. 1. 9.

Br. 3 9— = 4. 3. 0. 1. 1, 1. 1. 2. 2.

Kaṭh. U I = 2. 1. 1. 1. – ?......

Kaṭh. U II–IV = 21. 5. 4. 0. 0. 2. 0. 2.

Kaṭh. III =purely classical 26. 1. . 0. 0. 0. 0. 0

Kaṭh. V – VI=27. 2. 3. 1. 0. 0. 0. 3.

Praś. =7. 3. 2. 0. 0. 0. 4.

Praśna contains proportionately high Diiambus figure. On the contrary next group shows favour to Bad Vipulās and leans towards the Pathyā and the others. This group comprises the following Upaniṣads :-

Maṇḍu U-14. 1. 1. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0.

Maitr. –IV–V =11. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0:

Maitr. VI – =61. 2. 2. 2. 4. 0. 1. 0.

Maitr. VII =12. 0. 0. 2. 0. 0. 0. 0.

and Paiṅgala =41. 0. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0.

In the premier group and in the first two of the later group, the order of the popularity D, I maj., I min. This agrees with the Rgveda and the Rk Prātiśākhya1 whereas the 2nd group of Upaniṣads would contain less number of D. Vipulas.

1. Pathyā Molossus (M), Choriambus (X), Paeon (II), Trochee (T) Ionicus a minore (I min), Ionicus a majore (I maj), Diiambus (D). Among them — Last three figures I min, I maj and D are the bad Vipulas and consequently archaic. Maṇḍukya Upaniṣad probably also belongs to the later period Śankara, who quotes the 12 Upaniṣads enumerated as sacred and authoritative texts in his commentary on the Brahmasūtras, mentions neither Maitrāyaṇīya nor Maṇḍukya Upaniṣad (Winternitz, Vol. I. Part I. P. 208). Maitrāyaṇīya Upaniṣad is in language and style nearer to Cl. Skt. Lit. than to the Veda and decidedly post-Buddhist. Ibid. Idem. P.230.

Kaṭha mentions the order D, I min.; I maj, which occurs also in Bṛhaddevatā'1 Both these are the marks of the Vedic influence.

The Anuṣṭubhs of the Īśa is more akin to the archaic śloka in that it contains a number of Diiambic. It sometimes shows continuous Iambic rhythm.2 Sometimes the pattern agrees closely with that of Br. Ār. Up (Kaṇva) 3. 9. 28 = (Mādhyandina. 3. 9. 38 ff). Though the Triṣṭubhs show archaicness in preservation of the Caesura after 4th and 5th having3 short syllables at the 6th and 7th, there are not less than 7 verses out of 15 exactly coforming to the classical pattern of an Upajāti. Finally, we can close our discussion by mentioning the cases of refrains which sometimes decorate the body of the poetry as well as heighten the lyrical mood.4

D. I maj — I min.

9. 4. 2. = Ār. B- Śunaḥśepha
10. 1. 0. = Br. Ū. I – V – VI.
11. 2. 1. = Br. U. 3. 9.
12. 2. 0. = Kena.

c. f. 33. 14. 10 = Ṛk. Prātiśākhya.

In Vedic Anuṣṭubhs however the order of popularity is D which is normal, II, I maj, X, P. I min, M, T.

Kaṭha II – IV =2. 0. 2.

Kaṭha V–VI =3. 0. 0. Total = 5. 0. 2.

Kaṭha III =0. 0. 0.

1. Bṛhaddevatā = 13. 4. 9.

Jijiviṣec chatam samān ; astina karma lipyate nare.

2. 2b. U – U – U —; 2d – UU – U – U – U —

3. K.43. 11–13, =M. 4.3. 12–14; In several cases there are no Caesura – K. 11a = M. 12a ; K. 13a = M. 14a ; K. 13d. =M. 14d. U–U— UU – U –—. K 11a =M. 12a; K. 11d — M. 12d, — — — — K. 12a = M. 13a ; K. 12b = M. 13b ; K. 13a = M. 14a ; K. 13b = M. 14b ; K. 13c = M. 14c.

4. Kena I. 5–9. Tadeva Brahma tvam Viddhi nedam yadidamupāsate.

Ait. U. 1. 3. 3–9. Haivānam.

Kaṭha 2. 1. 12–13; 2. 2. 1. 4. 8. Etadyaitat, 2,2,9 and 105

Agniryathaiko bhuvanampravisṭho

Rūpam Rūpam Pratirūpo Vabhūva

Ekastathā Sarvabhūtantarātma

Rūpam Rūpam Pratirūpo Vabhūva.

200

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

II. PĀLI WORKS

Canonical as well as non-canonical literature of the Buddhist have been enshrined in Pāli language, which according to Bhandarkar approaches more to Skt than any other vernacular language.1 The vast literature of the Buddhist represent three distinct stages :- In the early stage most of the canonical literature have been preserved in prose interspersed with the verses. The number of verses in earlier ‘Piṭaka’ is very scanty and it increases in the successive ones. The compilation of this earliest ‘Piṭaka, began according to tradition, immediately after the death of Buddha.2

A very few stanzas which are found in the Vinaya Piṭaka, the earliest of all, are composed in syllabic metre. Available stanzas are enshrined in Triṣṭubh rhythm of Upajāti type and of the Vedic type. In the first case, there are verses where the process of substitution of a long for two shorts appear to be in vogue.3

The longest metre that we find in the solitary verse is Jagatī with the free archaic Vedic rhythm.4 Anuṣṭubh patterns however bear more tendency of leaning on the Epic śloka than to those of the Vedic Anuṣṭubhs. But instances are not rare where there are iambic rhythm in odd pādas which are alien to the Epics.5 Simon’s scholarly dissertation on Pāli śloka had shown

1. JBRAS, XVI. P. 275.

2. Winternitz — History of Indian literature. P. 4. Geiger — Pāli literature and language. P. 9.

3. Yadāhave patu bhavanti dhammā...................................................... Suriyova ābhasayāṁ antalikkhaṁ, Vinaya Piṭakam ; Oldenberg. Vol. I, 1879.

4. Vol. III. P. 100. Suttavibhāga. Vinaya Piṭakam. Ibid. 1880.

5. Gāthā Saṅgānikā, P. 211. Vol. V. Ibid. Idem. 1883.

that the rhythm of the Pali Anuṣṭubh1 in the Jātakas which is supposed to be later than that of the Piṭakas, retains Epic rhythm in their odd pāda, but in respect of the stability of the syllabic occurrence, resembles more closely to the Vedic rhythm than to the Epic one. The analytical table of the metrical patterns of the stanzas of the Ekanipāta, Catukkanipāta and Chakkanipāta had shown that more or less they conform to the classical regularity. The number of stanzas other than Anuṣṭubh are very scanty in Vinaya but increase very largely in these nipātas.

Of the three, the metres of Ekanipāta reflects more archaic character than the remaining two. Out of 88 stanzas of the Ekanipāta2 36 are pure Anuṣṭubhs, 16 Epic Anuṣṭubhs3 and 36 irregular Epic Anuṣṭubhs.4

Of others, there are 7 Mahāpaṅkti, 15 Triṣṭubh and 3 Jagatī Among the Jagatī rhythm we have traces of the Triṣ-

1. ZDMG. 44. P. 95.

average form of Pāli Śloka = —U o—, U — o o o — —, U —Uo o o —, U

" " Vedic Śloka = o — o—, U — UO o — o—, U —UO

" " Epic Śloka = o o o o o, U — — o o o o o, — UO o U

Es liegt hier die prüfung der Behauptung nicht fern, dass die Vedische Anuṣṭubh strophe den Pāliśloken näher stande, als die epischen śloken.

2. Vide, Metres in Jātaka — D.P. Guha. Indian Culture. XIII.No.

3. Marked preference for Pathyā U —U being 70/0. The other common are —UU — (X), UUU — (π) which are rare in Epic Anuṣṭubhs.

4. U — U conforms 75%. Bad Vipulās UU — — and — — UU are totally absent.

5. Epic nature found in one part. This type of specimen is very frequent in Anuṣṭubhs of Vinaya Piṭakam.

202

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

ṭubh rhythm of IIS ISS IIS ISS born of the Indravajrā speci-

men.1 There is hardly any stanza of identical pāda in

Triṣṭubh of this earliest nipātas.

Catukkanipāta verses have general uniformity with those

of early Nipātas but rhythms appeared to be more varied

instead of being rigid.2

Of the 200 stanzas we have 61 pure Anuṣṭubhs, 7 Mahā-

pañktis (consisting each six dimetre verses). 25 pure Epic

anuṣṭubhs and 63 irregular Epic anuṣṭubh.

Of the 34 Triṣṭubh stanzas, the characteristic form is

the curious blending of Upajāti and Śālinī–Vātormī with

only Upajāti ending3, whereas Epic Triṣṭubh makes provi-

sion for both groups4 in which 7th is more free than that

of Catukkanipāta. And only 12 occasions provide for the

long 7th syllable exhibiting Śālinī-Vātormī rhythm in the

cadence. And in eight of these we have Upajāti opening

and Śālinī5 ending. In this respect it bears more resem-

blance to Bhārata Triṣṭubh than to those of the Rāmāyaṇa,

where the Upendravajrā and Indravajrā are the exclusive

forms of Triṣṭubh against the variegated pādas of Bhārata.6

In two Jagatīs7 we got two hypermetric verses with the

1. Vide infra — In Vinaya Piṭakam this specimen is found in Triṣ-

ṭubha stanza, but here in Jagatī stanza.

2. D.K. Guha. JRASB. XIII. 1947. P. 62.

3. U — U — U UU — U — U

4. Ū — U — U UU U — U — U

5. U — U — — U — — U — U ; 3rd, 5th and 7th regulate the Triṣ-

ṭubh pattern. When 3rd and 7th are short and 5th is long we get

Upajāti, but when 3rd and 7th are long and 5th is long we get

Śālinī. But when other positions remaining same, we have 5th

short, we have Vātormī, and Vātormī is comparatively rare and

archaic.

6. Vide, Hopkins. Great Epic of India. P.296. 1901.

7. These are in Vamśastha rhythm. Two shorts combinedly in the

first i.e., 2nd and 3rd ; in the 2nd i.e., 4th and 5th are changed

into long syllables we would get Vamśastha rhythm.

rhythm UUUU--UU-U-UU and U-UUU-UU-U -UU.

We may make a passing reference of the metres of Chakkanipāta of which 15 stanzas of abhisambuddhagāthā are of late origin. Consequently, 126 stanzas only belong to the original part. There is no Triṣṭubh stanza.

In all varieties, the familiar cadence in the uneven pādas are U--, U--U, the occurrence of which in pure Anuṣṭubh is 50%, in the Epic Anuṣṭubh 50% and in irregular Epic 76%.

The only Gāthā which does not fall to general category belongs to (6) Gāthā of Jātaka No. 380. The peculiar characteristic is that it has got nine syllables in each of the first two feet and eight syllables in each of the last two. Such a peculiar type can be met in the Catukkanipāta in 320 (ii). These remind us of the specimens found in 1. 187.11¹ of the Ṛgveda. It may be said incidentally that this Nipāta is much later than the previous one which contains 8 verses of the Vedic² type.

To the middle stage, can be assigned the anthologies, known as Therā and Therī Gāthās which are supposed to be uttered by the therās and therīs surrounding Buddha during his life time. The antiquity of these verses can be estimated from the version of Dhammapāla who attributed some of them to Vitaśoka and Tissokumāra, the brother of Aśoka. It has been further adduced that these anthologies must have received their final shape at the third Buddhist council.³

The verses are enshrined in both syllabic and moric metres. The Āryā metres appearing here can be regarded

1. Vide Arnold, Vedic metre, type 32, P. 246.

2. 317 (i, ii, iii) and 324 (iii) are lyric ; 301 (i) is semi lyric and (iv) is peculiar combination of trimetre feet; 309 (i) is Paṅktī and 302 (ii) as described above.

3. B. C. Law, H. P. L. Vol. I. P. 40.

204 ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

as arch type of the Āryā. In these too the Amphibrachys occurred in the odd pāda.1 In some of them the gaṇa system has not been followed.2 The instances of the regular Āryās also are not rare. These are no doubt of late origin.3 But noteworthy is the fact that the Āryās employed here are of Vipulā type, which without any doubt represent archaic as well as non-classical form.4

As for the syllabic metres, we see those like regulated Upajāti5 which in earlier Piṭakas were absent, like the pāda having Mahendravajrā6 rhythm along with other Upajāti types, like regular Vaitālīya, which can be met in budding form in Jātaka and other archaic Pali works.7

Besides, there are the use of classical ornate metres, like Rucirā,8 Rathoddhatā,8 Mātrāsamaka,10 Āryā Gīti11 and

1. V. 85 ; V.103 ; V. 180 ; V.234 ; V.373.

I I S I I S I S I I S I I S I S I

V. 19 Udakam hi nayanti nettikā

Usukārā namayanti tejanam

I I S S I I S I I S I S I

Therāgāthā. ed. Oldenberg. 1883. ISI in 3rd and 7th.

2. V. 102. P. 15. Ibid. Idem.

3. V. 509. Therīgāthā. P. 173.

4. cf. Jacobi, ZDMG. 40 P. 338. Fur die That­sache, dass in der classichen Literatur in Cl. Dramen der Amphibrachys in 4 Gana seltener wird Können wir Jetzet eine genügende Erklärung geben. Es wird namlich in der classiechen literatur in gleichen Verheltniss ench die Vipulā immer seltener.

5. V. 12.

6. V. 1239. P.113. Therā and Therī Gāthā.

7. cf. Jacobi S.B.E. XXII. P- XLI—Pāli verses represent an older stage in the development of the Vaitālīya’ than those in the Suttakritanga, ‘Regular VaitālIya’,-V. 41. Therā Gāthā P.7. Vide remark of D.K. Guha, BORI. Vol.40. P.301.

8. Therā Gāthā. V. 109.

9. V. 259. Ibid.

10. V. 252. Therī Gāthā.

11. Therā Gāthā, V. 3.

PALİ WORKS

205

Jagatī1 with Vamśastha rhythm – our statistics accord with the opinion of Keith2 who thinks that in the period of Patañjali the compilation of the anthology have been completed. From the data given above, the fact becomes almost self-evident.

As for Anuṣṭubhs, it can be said, that the specimens collected from the verses of Therā and Therī Gāthā show more affinities to Epic ślokas than to the Vedic ones. Out of 2662 pādas, 2004 exhibit pathyā ending and the pattern – – U – U – – exhibits largest number of occurrence (177) whereas the Di-iambics – – U – U – U – appears only four times. The rhythm of the even pāda bears fixed pattern U – U U, inherited from the Vedic Anuṣṭubh. Exceptional cases account for only 29, which may be due to variant reading and other3 reasons.

Suttanipāta, another compiled type of work contain both archaic and modern verses. Anuṣṭubhs bear the average Pāli specimens. Most of the verses are syllabic, of which many contain Upajāti rhythm. The peculiar Mahendra-vajrā like other Pkt verses, also appears many times.4 Of the moric metres, there are Vaitālīyas5 and Aupacchandasikās6 but the Āryā verses are totally absent. It is interesting to note here that Keith does not find any Āryā rhythm in Pāli and on the basis of this he comes to the conclusion that as the Jain Pkt verses have the Āryā rhythm, they are posterior to their Pāli counterparts.

Like the works mentioned before, Dhammapadam and

1. V. 69. Ibid.

2. H. S. L. Keith. P.199.

3. The figures are by Simon, ZDMG. 44.

4. Guhatthakasuttam. V.774. P.152 ; Kalahavivādhasuttam.

V.862. P.168 ; Sāriputtasuttam. V.965. P.187.

5. Kokaliya suttam. P.127.

6. Daniyasuttam. P. 5; Cundasuttam. P.17.

Suttanipāta by Anderson and Smith, 1948.

206

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

Itivuttakam are compiled type of works and present the specimens of both archaic and modern types culled together. The Vaitālīyas of Dhammapadam are arch type.1 Unlike those of Suttanipāta they are lame, sometimes not properly arranged.

Triṣṭubh verses generally contain Epic rhythm. Of the 149 Triṣṭubh pādas, the 5th is long in 131 cases and is short in 18 cases and for the 7th syllable which is regularly short in Epic are long in 21 pādas2 whereas out of 448 cases of the Vedic pādas one can meet with 273 cases of the short and 178 of the long 5th.

As for the Anuṣṭubhs, Dhammapadam exhibits a close affinity in the preservation of the Vipulā patterns with Pāli works of somewhat same age. Most frequently used pattern of the 2nd foot of the odd verse is U U — U which comprises 80% of the total verses. In the opening, the most prohibited forms are Tribach (UUU) and Anapaest (UU —). The former occurs only thirteen times in this work against 73 occurrence of the Therā and Therī Gāthā. Besides, in even pādas we meet four times tribach and four cases of Anapaest.

Itivuttaka3, a collection of Buddha's discourses has been taken here for metrical analysis. The syllabic metres used here, comprise Anuṣṭubh, Triṣṭubh and Jagatī. As for Anuṣṭubh most frequent specimen is U U — U in the odd pāda which forms about 80% of the total verses.

The Bad Vipulās, i.e., UU — U, U — U U, — — U U are almost non-existent. The former is sporadically found in the Mahābhārata but is rare in the Rāmāyaṇa. It occurs only 2% of the verses in the work concerned. Di-iambus which has regular occurrence in the Ṛgveda and ancillary Vedic

1. Cf. Verse. 24, 324, 328, etc. Fausboll edition, 1885.

2. ZDMG. 37. Oldenberg. P.59. A1te Indische Ākhyāyana Ṛgveda verses :- IV. 2; IV.5; IV.16; V.1; VII.3; VII.18; X.121, 1–9.

3. Ed. Windisch. P.T.S. 1890.

literature, has very limited occurrence in Pāli works, With reference to next specimen, it confers one and half per cent of the average occurrence. And most popular Vipulā is the form - - -U to which Buddhist Skt works show a more unbalanced preponderance than the classical Skt works. In Therā and Therī Gāthā and Jātakas1 frequency of the occurrence of this pattern deserved notice. The 'opening' portions deserve special consideration here because of the fact that greater freedom has been exercised in them in comparison to that of the 2nd feet. Though there are sixteen variations, yet for the anticlassic norms UUUU, U UU-

Jātakas there are only 47.2 The most common first group of the first feet in all these four works are -U -, - - -U, - - - and second group are U-U, UU--, U---, but for our work the first group predominates.

As for the Triṣṭubh and Jagatī there occur3 practically no Śālinī and Vātormī group, i. e., no long third syllable. Only two have short fifth, i.e., the break of the Vātormī and three have a long seventh at the ending of the same group. And the norms of the Triṣṭubh and Jagatī are U-U -- UU-U-U and U-U--UU-U-U respectively.

In Jagatī we met with two times the Vaiśvadevī opening 4 Besides, there are metrical passages not taken into consideration here since their authenticity is to be questioned.

1. Figures of Anuṣṭubh :-- 2004/195, 145, 107, 26, 76, 13, 56. Therā and Therī Gāthā 1812/183, 131, 110, 57, 79, 12, 64, Jātakas. Vide Simon. ZDMG. 44.

2. See for the same. Vide Itivuttaka. Ibid. Idem.

3. Solitary example of the long third in Triṣṭubh can be found in 34 (P) = ātāpī ottappī ca appa matto=It contains vaiśvadevī opening, P.28 — Ma Ma Ya Ya.

4. Teṣāṁ so attho paramo visujjhati. P.98.

208

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

Some prototype of the Ardhasama metre can be found sporadically.2

Late century Pali works have no separate entity from those of classical Skt works. They used regular classical metres. Telakaṭāha2 gāthā composed by an anonymous poet, was written in classical Vasantatilakam metre. In Dāṭuvaṃsa,3 varied types of metres have been used for continued description and like classical Skt Kāvyas metre is changed at the close of canto where generally long metres have been preferred. Mandākrāntā has been chosen for the 2nd chapter, Śikharinī for the 3rd, Prthvī for the 4th and Sragdharā for the 5th. In the 4th one the metre Kāmadattā4 predominates. Pajjamadhu5 is an elaborate poem of 104 stanzas ascribed to venerable Buddhapiya of the 1100 A.D. It was composed in ornate Vasantatilakam metre. The author had time to time displayed a wonderful trick of applying short, rendering it into Upajāti type of Śakkvarī class and helped somewhat to mitigate the weary effect of continuous use of the same metre.

1. Tasmā have Jāgariyaṃ bhajetha ātāpi bhikku nipakā jhānalābhī / Samyojanaṃ jātijarāya chatvā idheva sambodhim anuttaraṃ phuseti // 10. P.42.

2. Journal of the Pali Text Society—1884.

3. Ibid —1884.

4. Bh. XVI. 50 ; Hem. II. 187 ; Jk. II. 141 ; Na Na Ra Ya.

5. Pali Text Society — ed. by Edmund R. Gooneratno. 1887.

JAINA LITERATURE

209

III. JAINA LITERATURE

Sacred books of the Jainas are written in Jaina Pkt, which however bear more affinities to Pāli than Pkt of the later ages. These books are old and avowedly older than the Skt literature as well as the literature of the Northern Buddhist. And chronologically, the position of these sacred works will be in a period between the Pāli and the oldest work of Buddhist Sanskrit.

Earliest recorded literature of the Jainas are the twelve Angas of which the Ācarañgasūtra1 and the Suttakitanga2 are written in verse and may be reckoned among the most ancient parts. Metres employed in these works are Triṣtubhs, Ślokas among the syllabic metres and Āryā and Vaitālīya among the moric metres.

In Suttakitanga, besides Triṣtubh3 we have verses enshrined in Vaitālīya4 in which the trick of Rhyme (Yamaka) along with the rane of metres makes it more lyrical and appealing. Weber thinks the chapter to be the origin of this metre, because the name of the said metre has been stitched there whereas Jacobi sought its origin in the hand of Māgadhikā or Vaitālika, whose profession was to recount the ancient tales.

1. Ed. Walter Schubring — 1910

2. Suttakitanga-SBE XXII 1884

3. These Triṣtubhs are younger than that of Buddhist Sacred Texts but archaic than those of Lalitavistara.

Suttakitanga—5 — 6 : Etham pajane Uvaiyamana ārambhamāna Vinayam— blending of Śālinī and Upajāti rhythm.

4. Compared with the common Vaitālīya of the Skt literature, a small number of which occur already in Lalitavistara. Vaitālīya of Sutta-kitanga must be considered to be the representation of the earlier form of the metre. cf. Jacobi, S.B.E. XXII. Part.I. P. XLI

Veyālīya, Vetālīya is one of the portion of the 1st Śrataskandhas of the 2nd aṅgam of Suttakitanga. The verses of the very chapter are composed in ślokas, Vaitālīyas and Triṣṭubhs but not in Āryā. Vide Weber, Indian Antiquary, XVII. P. 345.

14

210

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

In the Uttarājainya Sutta, there is a fine blending of syllabic and moric metres. The cause of the peculiar mixture can be realized easily when the length of the said metres as well as the later portions of the each of the specimens are taken into considerations where the patterns are identical.1 But in Vaitālīya chapters2 such specimens are totally absent. Admixture of the pure Triṣṭubh Jagatī in the first and the last stanza of the Ch. 15 of the sutta and in the last third of the Ch. 10 of Daśav, leads to assume that they are later intruders and accretions to the Aupacchandaśika stanzas.3

But there is also verse where the rule of substitution of one long for two shorts has enabled to maintain the rhythm of the scattered Mahendravajrā.4

There is neither prose nor any Āryā pāda. But both the Suttakiṭaṅga and the Ācāraṅga Sutta contain the Āryā stanzas of Archaic type in a sense not conforming to the classical findings.5 Younger Āryās however can be found in the later Siddhāntas and the Lalitavistara. In archaic Āryā ISI gaṇa is more frequent in the odd gaṇas than the younger ones which is strictly prohibited in classical manual.6 Another

1. Daśavealiyasutta. Ch.10.VV 18, 19, I.Ir. Jr. Vol.VI. Part II, P. 127. 1962.

18 ab Indravajrā 19 Ac - Upendravajrā

ad. Aupacchandaśika D - Aup.

2. Utta. 10 and Suyagada 1. 2.

3. Schüb̈ring also thinks that 10.16 b - Daśa - the metre Indravajrā comes from the another content. Ibid. I. Ir. Jr.

4. Daśav. 10.14–Abhibhūya Kena parisahaim.

5. Jacobi. S.B.E. XXII. P. XLII–Jacobi thinks these are parents of the common Āryā.

6. Ācaraṅga sutta–ed. Walter Schüb̈ring -1910 Sattha parinna–P. 3. Ihaṃca Khalubho anāgarāṇām udayam jIva viyāhiya Sattham c'ettha anuvii pasa puḍho pareiyam.

Anthology :-Uskāmiva joimālinīm Subhuyamgāmiva puskilatam Vivudho jo dama Vattinim, Mui so suhio bhavissai

point that deserves mention is that these Āryās are all Vi-

pulā type, i.e., containing Caesura exceeding three ganas.

Fifty three verses of the chapter, designated as Itthipariṇṇa,

which belongs to Suyakkhanda, one of the four texts of the

Siddhāntas exhibit the Āryā pattern of Vipulā type.

Alsdorf1 designates it as old Āryā because, Āryā usually

contain Caesure after three ganas. Besides, there are verses

enshrined in Gīti type i.e., containing no short in the sixth

of the 2nd hemistich. In short, the general characteristics

of the Jaina Canon are :-ISI in 2nd gaṇa, SS in the third

and the fourth gaṇa with a short in the beginning, with

these patterns, sometimes, one will find SS in the first

constituting śloka form. Like the Pāli verse, in the verses

of Ārṣa Pkt the 5th gaṇa generally contains the ISl. But

later Jaina works avoid these irregularities and exhibit

the tendency conforming to the classical tradition. But

majority of the metres are syllabic by nature.2

Weber3 has drawn our attention to the fact that the

oldest metrical portions of the texts are composed in

ślokas and not in Gāthās in which we find different

kinds of metres. Mūla sūtras are preserved in ślokas where-

1. Itthīparinṇā—I. Ir.Jr. Vol. II. 1958. P. 252.

"We actually have fourth gaṇa divided by Caesura"—cf. Jacobi—

Zur Kentnis der Āryā. ZDMG. 40, P. 338.

Je māyaraṁ Ca/Vippajahāi puvva—Samjogam

"ege Sahie Carissāmi/āraya—mehuṇo vivittesi"//

2. a) Eto haṣanti ca rudanti ca arthahatoḥ

Viśvāsayamtica payam na ca viśvasamti

Striyāḥ Kṛtartārthāḥ puruṣaṁ nirarthakam.

b) Avasyaka Niyuthi :-

Saṁyoga siddhii plalam Vayaṁti

Amdho ya pamgu pavane samicca

na hu egavakkena vaho payai

Te Sampautta nagaram pavisthā

In the third line one long is substituted by two shorts.

3. Vide Weber, IA. XVII.

212 ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

as Nijutti and Cūrṇī retained developed metres. The literature consulted above are the sacred works of the Jainas, but in the following paragraph we will make a fine note on the metrical specimens appeared in the classical Jaina literature. The earliest extant work in Pkt was Paumacariya1 of Vimalasūri which was supposed to be composed in the early period of Christian era. The principal metres in this Kāvya are Gāthā and its varieties. Among the syllabic metres along with Indravajrā, we met not only Śārdūlakrīḍitam but a giant Daṇḍaka with eighty four syllables in a pāda.2 Most noteworthy fact is that, side by side there are Apabhraṃśa metres like Galitaka and Śarabha with rime at every pāda.4 Incidentally, can be referred to here and other Pkt text designated as Paumacariya ascribed to one Svayambhū3 who employed only Apabhraṃśa metres.

In Puṣpadanta's Jasaahacariu5 we find only restricted number of Apabhraṃśa metre like Paddhati and Kādavakas along with a number of Varṇavṛttas like Vitāna, Paṅktika, Bhujan்gaprayāta, Citrā, Sragviṇī and Vibhābarī. These Varṇavṛttas are internally rimed and are eligible to be sung.

In periods following the above mentioned poets, Jaina monks assiduously cultivated Skt, Pkt and Apabhraṃśa languages. With the advancement of the Apabhraṃśa and Pkt metrics, we will find that as a general trend, the proportionate use of Skt syllabic metres decreased in comparision with the use of non- Skt metres. Out of regard for the Skt metres, the Jaina monks even in late century used varied type of syllabic metres.

1. Ed. Jacobi 1962. Pkt. Text Series 6.

2. LIII. 79. Vimalasuri employed a variety of Skt syllabic metres in his Pkt Kāvyas for the closing verse of the various cantos.

3. XXVIII 47. Galitaka with rimed pada. LXV 60, 47. Galitaka with rime in alternate pada. XXVIII Śarabha……….Ibid. Idem.

4. Paumacariya-Bhāratīya Jñānapīṭha, Kāśī, Ed. D. K. Jain. 1957.

5. Ed. P.L. Vaidya 1931. 10th Century A.D.

metres.1 Dharmānidhāna in the 14th century was written mainly in Śārdūlavikrīḍita metre. Ratnaśekhara in the 15th century composed a hymn in 24 Mālinī verses and the 25th one is in Śārdūlavikrīḍita. In Karkaṇḍa cario (circa 1065 A.D.),2 apart from the Pajjhatikās and the Pādāku lakas, mainly used for continued narration, syllabic metres are employed for the closing verse.

The same tendency may be noticed in the Bhavisatta-kahā3. Of the Varṇavṛttas employed in this Kāvya, most extensively used Bhujanga-Prayāta in one verse of which, the name of the verse has been included.4 Besides, Saṅkhanārī,5 Sragvinī6 and Cāmara7 there are verses where the process of substitution of one long for two shorts has been applied.8

In comparatively recent period, the stotrakāvya of the Jainas are written mainly in syllabic metres and sometimes contain such a specimen as can not be found in the early Skt manuals but has been appropriated by Hemacandra in his manual.9

1. Purātana Pravandha Samgraha :--Sindhiajina granthamālā 1936. Kulacandra Pravandha ; Pādaliptasūri Pravandha -Sometimes they used Āryās not conforming to Gaṇa system : Amvam tamyacchie apupiksayam puksadām Tapam tī Navasā likam Jiyam navahūi Kudda ena me dinnam—Pādaliptasūri Pravandha. P. 92.

2. VIII. 4. Karkaṇdo Cario—ed. Hiralal Jain. 1934. I. 7-8=Samānikā ; IV. 16=Saṅkhanārī.

3. Bhavisattakahā :--Varṇavṛttas :--Vitāna I. 10 ; the Paṅktikā I. 13 ; Sragvinī III. 3 ; Vībhāvarī III. 16.

4. XII. 3.28, Bhujañgo Vuhāranchano nāma chando/Ciraṁ namdao gihvaro dāna imdo.

5. XIV. 8 ;

6. IV. 13 ;

7. IV. 6 ;

8. IV. 13.

9. Pralhādasya Tenayā Vinayanvitā imah/Sā Cāhīni nanu suvarṇanika Sarasvatī. Mṛdanga. H. II. 261. P. 84. Jaina Pustaka Praśasti Saṁgraha I. 1943. Bhāratīya Vidyā Bhavan.

214 ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

IV. EPIGRAPHICAL LITERATURE

In the chronological history of Skt metrics where we are solely concerned with the metrical compositions, we can by no means do away with the Epigraphical literature which also contains a considerable quantity of compositions. It will not be an exaggeration to say that it is indispensable for the study of Skt metrics, because from these records we can have some reliable data which definitely point to some particular date or dates. Needless to say that no other source is so helpful to the study of the chronology in the whole range of Skt literature.

According to the languages used in the inscriptions they belong mainly to three periods. In the order inscriptions, the language is as a rule, non-Skt, i. e., either Pāli or Pkt. Of course, occasionally Skt can be found as in the case of Māthurā inscriptions. In the next period, both Skt and Pkt are used simultaneously but the latter disappears gradually. Lastly, in the South, Canarese captures the seat and in the North and abroad, the inscriptions are entirely in Skt. Generally speaking, inscriptions found in the South are in Skt and in Canarese, both in Canarese character.

But among the vast multitudes of epigraphical literature, we have for our purpose selected only a few ones and needless to point out here that the earliest ones of them are not in Skt but in Pkt. Such a type are those which are found in Pipwārā vase and Rāmgarh hill inscriptions. It had not yet been decided which of the two inscriptions is the earliest. Relying on Fleet and Thomas's version1 we however, may take the Pipwārā vase inscription to be the earliest. Both the authors find in this composition an Āryā form

1. JRAS. 1906. P. 711.

EPIGRAPHICAL LITERATURE

215

which violates the prescribed rule.1 Incidentally, we may

refer to another verse, engraved on satellite vase collected in

Peśwār Museum. Thomas found in it a hemistich containing

rhymed ganas of five mātrās with concluding spondee.2 Fleet

tried to restore it in the well-known Upagīti metre,3 Rām-

garh hill cave inscriptions4 provided two metrical records

found in the Sitābeñgā cave and in the Jogimārā cave.

M. L' abbe5 Boyer took the former as the demiśloka

whereas Block6 tried to adjust it in Āryā frame but not

with success. In fact it can be framed into Gītikā type of

Canarese prosody.7 The well-known verse8 in Jogimārā

cave inscription can be scanned as Mātrāsamaka Tripadī

type. But as no such type is known to any extant manual,

Venkatasubiah9 tried to scan it as Tripadī type and found

the same rhythm in the verses of Piparā vase and Peśwār

vase inscription.

Thomas found again some metrical scheme in the follow-

1. Ibid, 1906. Sukīti bhātīnām Sobhaginikānām Sapūdātānām Jayāmsa

lilāni dhānābuddhassabhagavate sakiyānām.

2. Ibid, P. 453. Sihilena Sīharā khitenaca bhātare tākhasi lāe Ayāmihu

voprati thāvito sarvabū dhānapū yāe.

3. Vide, P. 714. JRAS. 1906.

4. Archaeological survey of India, Annual Report 1903-04.

5. Sitabeñgā cave inscription. Adipayamti hadayam Sa (dhā) vā

garaka (m) vayo eti tayam.

Dule vasamtiyā hi sāvānubhūte kudasatatam evam alanga (ta).

Journal Asiatique, Xieme Series. III. P. 481.

6. Adipayamti hadayam sabhāvā garu Kavayo enātayam Dule vasam

tiyā hāsāvanubhūte kudasphatam evam alam.

Arch. Survey of India, Annual Report. 1903-04. P. 125.

7. Chandombudhi—Kittel's edition 1875.

Chap. V. Sutra 287. P. 113. And the scheme is VBBVVB;

RBVBVBV.

8. Sutanukā nāme devadāsikkhī tam kāmayittha Bālānaśeye Deva-

dinne nāme lupadakkhe.

9. Vide J.O.R. Madras, 1935. Vol.IX. P. 186.

Tripadī—Sūtra 274. Kittel's ed. P. 94.

216

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

ing composition of the Rock edict inscription,1 viz., Girnār

6th Rock edicts.

This is a verse of Mātrāsamaka type which contains six-

teen mātrās in each pāda with some irregularities.2 In the

early centuries of prechristian era elegant metre like Bhujang-

avijṛmbhita can be found in the Brāhmī inscription of

Śodāsa which has been assigned in the early christian era.3

Hence from all the available records in metrical forms begin-

ning from the earliest time, we see that Skt classical metres

have established themselves in their stereotyped form of

course with some solitary exceptions. To put it in a

nutshell, it can safely be said that whether in India or

aboard, all the epigraphic records in Skt verse form are com-

posed of syllabic classical metres and exceptions are very

few and far between.

Vocānh inscription4 of Campā has been credited to be

written in elegant ornate metres like Vasantatilakam and

Śārdūlavikrīḍitam. The inscription has been dated 2nd or

3rd A. D. on grounds of Paleography.

1. Girnar Vorson. 6th Rock edicts ; Select Inscription. 2nd Ed.

P. 25. Vide J.R.A.S. 1903. P.832.

2. Obviously as it has been read by Thomas.

3. E. I. XXIV. P. 199. Lüders—“The metre Bhujanga Vijṛmbhita is

found in Kumārlatā's Kalpanāmaṇḍatikā, but our inscription is

200 years earlier than that work and if here a most artificial metre

such as Bhujangavijṛmbhita is used for a Skt. stanza, it is

proved that Skt. Kāvya - poetry was fully developed in 1s

century B.C.

Vide Select Inscription. 2nd. ed. P. 1223 ( circa 10-25AD

Lines 3-4.)

Ya (S)= to (shā) Yaḥ Śailam Śrīmadgrhamatulam Udadhasama

dhārā Archādeśām śailām pamcha jvalata iva parama Vapuṣā.

4. Select Inscription No. 78. P. 503. 2nd ed.

Dr. Sircar thinks it to be belonged to 4th century A.D. Late

Date of the inscription has been supported by Smile Gaspardone

in Journal Asiatique CCXL. 1953. Pp. 477-85.

EPIGRAPHICAL LITERATURE

217

Inscribed verses in far away Kamboja1 show that even outside India, Vasantatilakam and Sārdulavikrīḍitam are the most favourite of all metres. The four rock inscriptions in Batviā, exhibited their efficiency in handling classical Skt metre like Sragdharā.2 It is interesting to mention here that the Āryā verses found in the inscriptions of the far East seldom retained the gaṇa system like classical Skt.3

In the records inscribed in the reign of the Gupta Emperor during the years 350 to 550 A.D. we get only the Skt syllabic metres like Sragdharā, Sārdulavikrīḍitam, Vasantatilakam and Āryā which in this period does not conform to the classical stand. Kanakara stone inscription produced a solitary verse in Sārdulavikrīḍita.4 But Harisena preferred more the long metre usually consisting of no less than 17 syllables.5 Vatsabhaṭṭi’s praśasti6 of the 5th century A.D. contains forty-four verses all of which are in Skt syllabic metres. What is notable is the frequent use of the weak pauses which occur in ten Vasantatilakam, two Upendravajrās and one Āryā.

The half verse inscribed on the coin of Kacha7 exhibits fine regular Āryā pattern whereas Āryā verses found in

1. Asiatic Society Monograph Series Vol. VIII. ed. Dr. R.C. Majumdar, 1935.

2. The Jambu Rock Inscription–JASB. Vol. I. 1959, P. 140.

3. a) Maunggun Gold Plate Inscription No. 2. Select Inscription, 2nd ed P. 494.

b) Devnīmori Stone Casket Inscription of the time of Rudrasena I (205 A.D.) Āryā verses. 2–6, P. 519. Ibid. Idem.

4. Select Inscription, Ibid. No. 73. P. 186. Lines 4–6.

5. Select Inscription No. 2. P. 263.

Sragdharā–verses–3, 5, 8 ;

Sārdulavikrīḍita–verses 4 and 7

Mandākrāntā–verse–6.

Pṛthvī–verse–9.

6. Select Inscription No. 24. P. 299. Ibid.

7. P. 276. Ibid. Idem.

218

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

the copper plate at the time of Buddha Gupta followed no

gaṇa system.1 Besides these, the metrical compositions found

in inscriptions show either Śārdūlavikrīḍita or Śloka metre

or Sragdharā.2

Southern India has cultivated more assiduously the moric

metres of melicilous types, in their own way, than the other

regions which are more inclined to the stereotype form of

Skt syllabic metres. Talguṇḍā inscriptions of the Kadambas

in the middle of the 5th century A.D. can be taken as an

instance to be cited here for its rimeless series of moric met-

res (1 - 24) along with syllabic or orthodox Skt metres. As

they are not amenable to usual way of scansion, Kielhorn

described them to be the “unbekan nten.”3 These metres are

of Southern Canarese type being based on Miśra gaṇas.

These have been appropriated by Nāgavarmā of the 10th

century A.D. The metres found in them are Gītikās.4 Most

curious fact that deserves mention here, is that the same

inscription contains a long metre like Daṇḍaka containing

1. a) Śate peñcaṣaṣṭhyādhike varṣāṇāṃ Bhūpatau ca Buddhagupte/

Āṣāḍamāsa śukla dvādaśyāṃ suraguraraddhivase//

First line contains—30 mātrās

and the second—27 mātrās. Udgīti type.

b) EI. Vol. XXXIV. PT. IV: Oct. 1961. P. 163.

Tasy=apy=abhavat=putrah sakalakalādhinaḥ Vigrahaḥ Samyah

Śaśalāñchana iva voddaḥ kalikālakalañka nirmuktah.

c) Harāhā Stone Inscription of Īśāna Varman Select Inscription.

2nd ed. P. 385. v. 3.

Suta-Śatam lebhe nṛpo śvapatirvāivasvatādjadgunoditam tatpra-

sūtā durita - vṛtti - rūdho sukharāḥ kṣitīsāḥ kṣatārayah.

2. No. 14, No. 15—P. 283. Ibid. Idem.

No. 26. P. 316. Ibid. Idem.

3. Rice—Ep. Carnatica VII. P. 200.

Ep. I. VIII. 27. P. 31 ; Bühler. Ind. Ant. XXV. P. 246.

Kielhorn--Ein unbekanntes indisches Metrum—P. 148. Nachri-

chten von der Koniglichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu

Gothingen—Philodogisch Historische Klasse, 1899.

4. Verse. 312 ; P. 114. ed. Kittel.

thirty syllables in a pāda.1 In Ajanta cave inscription of Harisena2 dated 6th century A.D. on the Paleographical ground among a large number of stanzas in Skt syllabic metres it is found to have contained some verses (6–9) composed in the moric metre of Gītikā type. The Taṭṭukolī inscription3 belonging to a period about 7th century A.D. also provides us a metrical composition, of course in Canarese language. The lines of this inscription may be scanned as Tripadī type of Miśra gaṇa. The given inscription is sufficient to show that Gītikā type of moric metres have been more frequent in Canarese and Skt during the 7th centuries and more assiduously cultivated in the south than anywhere else.

In the early centuries, Canarese metres like Gītikā etc. are frequently used in the Skt inscriptions of the Southern India. But in late centuries in Canarese Inscriptions of the same region, long Skt metres like Mattebhavikrīdita, Mahāsragdharā4. Siddhi appear frequently. Most noteworthy point to be mentioned here is that among the metres stated above, the first two have been dealt with by the Southern prosodists like Jayakīrti, Hemacandra and Nāgavarmā, whereas Siddhi was first employed by Māgha, also a Southern poet, under the designation of Dhṛtāśri5.

Nāgamaṅgala Taluk5 of the 12th century contained all these metres mentioned above in their Canarese verses. Devanagare Taluk6 of the same century produced most

1. Verse. 33. Daṇḍaka with two pādas. Ep Car. VII. P. 200.

2. No. 63. Select Inscription. P. 449. Vide. Dr. Sarcir, Ibid, Idem —Box headed variety of Brāhmī of the southern class of the 6th century A.D.6

3. IA. X. P. 61. Ins. No. LXXXIV.

4. Mahāsragdharāi=H. II. 354 ; Jk. II. 245, Nagavarman Verse 210.

5. Epigraphia Carnatica—IV. ed. By Rice. P. 228.

6. Ep. Car. Vol. XI. 1903. P. 39.

220

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

interesting inscriptions where both Skt and Canarese verses are inscribed side by side. The said inscription commences with the Skt verse containing moric metre with thirteen mātrās in each pāda. The metre has been appropriated by Kavidarpanam only.1 The verse following it is in Vasantatilakam metre. Next one is Āryā with four pāda. Amidst them there are verses in Canarese language with syllabic metres.2 Some of them retain a new rhythm not found elsewhere except in the manual of the Southern prosodist Nāgavarmā who designates it as utpalamale.3 We need not awell the list by reproduction of an unending series of inscriptional metrical records, because most of them contain the syllabic metres of orthodox type comprising Sarvasama and Ardhasama syllabic metres.4 We may close our survey by referring to Peholi Prasasti5 during the reign of Mahendra-pāla of the 9th century, which contains a verse of Gāyatrī class in which all the components are long.6

1. Uddohaka—Kd. II. 17. ABORI. 1935. P. 80.

2. Node nolambavadiyola (ga) ggada savira Nādinol karam/Nādeyūm olpuvetteševa betturu lakṣmige janmabhūmikon //

3. Sūtra 191. P. 57. Chandombudhi, Nāgavarmā ; ed. Kittel.

4. V.16. Ardhasama Mālabhārinī Junāgarh Rock Inscription of Skandagupta, P. 311, Select Inscription. 2nd ed.

5. E. I. I. P. 247.

6. Verse no. 25. Atrājaiḥ kṣānāthaiḥ śreyortham dehasyā/Saṃsāram drṣṭoccaiḥ kartavyā sā buddhịḥ // Metre—Sāvitrī—JK. II. 43 ; Vr. III. 9. 2 ; Hem II. 33. P. 41.

BUDDHIST SANSKRIT LITERATURE 221

V. BUDDHIST SANSKRIT LITERATURE

During the period extending from the 1st century B.C. to 4th century A,D., we come across a particular type of Buddhist literature written in a language which is other than Pāli and Pkt. In genera these works can be termed as Buddhist Sanskrit works, which can be categorised into three groups according to the metres and languages used in them. Leaving aside the issue of language we would dialate on the metrical principle applied in these works, which would help us in forming these groups. As evidence, limitation of scansion is obvious ; it must be supported by other factors, but one should not deny that it can give support to others.

(1) The language used, in premier group, is Buddhist hybrid Sanskrit. The metrical portion of it is generally used to be written in gāthā dialects or in mixed Skt. Edgerton thinks many of its features have been inherited from the proto-canonical Pkt.1 Language represents certain peculiarities which may be described as middle Indian and Prakritic in broad sense.2 These peculiarities are exhibited fully in the verse portions, where Burnouf, found a barbarous Skt in which the forms of the ages of Skt, Pāli and Pkt appeared to be confounded. The peculiar verse models and stanzas of these works are such that in the languages of Lefmann3 - "The language of this Gāthā or the verse forms which comprise more than half of the Lalitavistara is such a type, that is between folk type and artificial collection or well ordered expression, between Pkt and Skt fluctuating to and fro".

This language peculiarities are clearly discerned in the premier group, where Prakritic and Pāli influences are acute and glaring ly exposed in the compositions. So far as metrical specimens are concerned, we find in Anuṣṭubhs appear ance of Bad Vipulā and predominance of M Vipulā. The

1. P. 39 ; Kuppuswāmi commemoration volume.

2. BSOS. VIII. P. 502.

3. Vide Introduction, Lefmann, XVIII. 1908.

222

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

verses other than the Anuṣtubhs are apparently of quantitative type and are to be scanned by the strictest rule of the Skt scansions of course with some minor restrictions viz., where two shorts may be substituted for one long and vice versa, metricausa.1 This substitution is much more common in the initials than in the 4th or 5th and more or less in other parts also. This principle is applied mostly to Triṣṭubh and Jagatī, excepting some classes found in the compositions of Lalitavistara2 and Rāṣṭrapālaparipṛccha.3 To this group can be included the works —Lalitavistara, Saddharmapuṇdarīkasūtraṁ,4 Samādhīrāja5 Sūtra, Gaṇdavyūhosūtra,6 Ratnaguṇa7 samuccaya and Rāṣṭrapālaparipr̥ccha. The second group is more ambitious and less hybrid Skt in the sense that they retain some of the affinities of the first group such as metrical specimens of Anuṣṭubh, showing preference for Bad Vipulās etc., but lacking some chracteristics in verse froms where the manifold liberties have been allowed with the language to attain the metrical result.

The third group on the other hand, is purely classical so far as metrical specimens are concerned. Only remarkable feature that can be counted in this case, is the unbalanced dominance of the First Vipulā which goes side by side with M Vipulā in other classical works.8

1. Edgerton, Vol. LXVI. JAOS. 32. It should be borne in mind that this principle has been applied in all old Texts in canonical works of Buddha and Jain.

2. Lalitavistara. P. 126. R.L. Mitra's edition. 1877. 13th long of a Śārdūlavikrīḍita has been splitted into two shorts.

3. Rāṣṭrapālaparipṛccha—Bh. Skt. T. Series XVII. 1961.

4. Bh. Skt. T. Series VI. 1960.

5. Bh. Skt. T. Series II. 1961.

6. Bh. Skt. T. Series V. 1960.

7. Ed. in Indo. Ir. Jr. Vol. V. P. I.

8. Kumārsambhava—274P 14/M, 9, 14/First. Raghuvaṁśa —1017 / 30/M, 18, 31/First. Whereas in Aśvaghoṣa—Saundarānanda—669P 10/M, 8, 81/1st.

223

BUDDHIST SANSKRIT LITERATURE

In the second group can be included Nāgārjuna's Madhyamakārikās, Laṅkāvatārasūtras etc.1 In the third group on the other hand, we have the works of Buddhists like Aśvaghoṣa, Mātrceta and Āryasūra which bear almost classical patterns so far as philological and prosodical acumen are concerned, containing however here and there some expressions or usages which are foreign to the classical Skt literature.

So far as the Anuṣtubhs are concerned, the following specimens found in Buddhist hybrid Skt works, i e., in First two groups, deserve special mention, for they show some affinity with the Anuṣtubh in Pāli and Pkt works.

Bad Vipulās, i.e., I min, I maj, and D reappear in these works as they continue in Pāli2. The reappearance of them at such a late period is due perhaps to the close connection of the Buddhists with Pāli works. In contradiction to this the third group or classical type of Buddhist Skt works appear to have discarded these Bad Vipulās.

Again, M Vipulā which predominates in Pāli3 seems to

Buddhacarita —535P 7, 8, 50

Mātrceta —254 6, 9, 33.

1. For these two works, the scholar has utilized the figures of the metrical specimens of Morton Smith—(I. Ir. Jr. Vol. V. P. 28).

2. (First group) Saddharmapuṇḍarīka sūtram —1.0.0.

Suvarṇaprabhāsottama sūtram —17.4.8. etc.

Samādhirājasūtram —1.0.1.

(Second group) Nāgārjuna Mādhyamikakārikās —5.1.7.

Laṅkāvatāra Sagāthakam —7.5.1. etc.

(Pali works) Therīgāthā ... 76.13.56.

Jātaka ... 79.12.46.

Dīpavaṁśa ... 15.1.9.

Mahā vaṁśa ... 14.5.4.

3. Therīgāthā — 2004 195. 145. 107. 26......

Jātaka — 583 53. 34. 20. 11.

Dīpavaṁśa — 451. 51. 9. 9. 10. 11. 1.

Saddharma Pundarīka Sūtra — 1812 183. 131 110. 57

Samādhirājasūtra — 146, 20. 1. 1. 10. 2.

224

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

be the most common in the works of these two groups, but

their uses become proportionately less in classical type of

Buddhist Skt works. This can be taken as due to the Pāli

influence.

The important feature appeared in the verses of Buddh.

H. Skt i.e. the substitution of two shorts for a long by

which this literature, differed from those of classical Skt,

seems to have inherited from the protocanonical Pkt.1 More-

over, this very feature points to the moric equivalence of

Pkt metre.

Moderate preference for the First Vipulā in classical

type of Buddh. H. Skt works, which is a prominent figure

during the period between 1st century B. C. and 1st century

A. D. cad be accounted for the Pkt influence. Morton

Smith2 is of opinion that the consecutive shorts are due

to some factors such as disappearance of the intervocalic

consonants and the simplification of the clusters. It has been

further argued that the existence of the number of 1st

Vipulā is due to the Gītā which showed marked preference

for that Vipulā and which enjoyed unrivalled popularity

during that period.

Fourth Vipulā3 or Diiambus appears frequently in some

works. This can be taken as the cases of archaicness or

Purāṇic licence. This is again sometimes due "to the adopt-

ation of Gāthā freedom conspicuous in all popular and

therefore loose composition."4

1. cf. Edgerton, the Prakrit underlying Buddhistic Hybrid Skt.

BSOS. VIII. P. 505.

2. Indo Iranian Journal, V. P. 31.

3. Nāgārjuna's M. K.—53, Saddharma P.S.—11.

Suvarṇa Pravottoma—41, etc.

cf. Manu—3422

264, 151, 1491, 119.

Prātiśākhya—316 32, 25, 7, 16

Brhaddevatā—1723 163, 58, 35, 44.

4. Vide. Hopkins, Great Epics of India—P. 242. 1920.

Other metrical specimens appearing in these works require separate treatment on account of their peculiarities of language in which they are written.

In the premier group, it is found, that the authors followed principles different from those that were applied in Anuṣṭubh.

The substitution of a long for two shorts (of which we have stated before) has been applied in Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtram on initial in 67 cases, on the 4th in 10 cases and on the 5th in 4 cases.1

Most of the ballads of these works seemed to be composed extempore, as they bristled with colloquial and vernacular forms of speech.

Yet one will be amazed at the tact and the ability of the poet rhapsodists who are perfectly familiar with the most intricate principles of Skt prosody and composed with ease and elegance the syllabic metre of octosyllabic group to complicated Śārdūlavikrīḍita.

Side by side Āryā, Vaitālīya and even Dohaka or Dohā are pointing out the spontaneous development of different traditions and this is due to the fact that the language of these Gāthās is not “lebendige volksprache”,2 nor mixed language, but contains the feature of a mixture of Skt and Pkt in order to be applied in various methods of versification.

Six thousand metrical stanzas of Lalitavistara present three classes of metres—syllabic, moric and Āryā with a number of their varieties.

Besides Anuṣṭubhs there occur syllabic metres from Triṣṭubh class to Daṇḍaka class, Verses of S. P.3 exhibit only Anuṣṭubh, Triṣṭubh and Jagatī

1. Ch III 3.4a—on fourth—Ahosmi parivanchittu pāpacittayah.

3.25a—on fifth—Acintiye aparimitasmikālpe.

2. Sie ist nicht lebendige volksprache, noch auch gebildete schrift-sprache, da sie eine einheitlichen character entrat sondern vielmehr so weil als möglich beides Skt order Pkt.

Zu mal eine Misch-bildung wie gemacht um für mannigfaltige versifikation verwendber Zu sein ——. Lalitavistara—Lefmann II. P. XVIII. Introduction.

3. S.P. = Saddharmapuṇḍarīka sūtram.

L.V. = Lalitavistara.

15

226

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

varieties. In Triṣṭubh or Jagatī, mostly we have stanzas with

its hybrid form, i.e., Indravajrā group with Mahendravā-

jrā. Jagatī represents, on the other hand, Vaṃśastha type

hybridized with a new rhythm. In orthodox manuals, both

the new rhythms are absent but they have been given places

in manuals of Jaina prosodists like Jayakīrti and Hema-

candra.1 The latter chooses Mahendravajrā for the continued

narration of the 12th canto of Dvyaśraya2 Kāvyam. In some

of the proto-canonical works also this type of hybrid verses

is found to exist.3 In Lalitavistara this type of Triṣṭubh can

be found abundantly but in Samādhirājasūtram,4 Gandovyū-

hasūtram5 and in Avadānaśatakam,6 it is used sporadically.

In every Buddh. H. Skt works these specimens are present

exhibiting the curious phenomenon i.e., substituting a long

for two shorts and vice versa metri causa. Due to the

application of this new method, the number of new speci-

mens emerged by the resolution of two shorts into a long

in the rhythm of Pramitakṣarā ( UU-U-UUU -UU- ).

We have the new rhythm –U-UU U-U U– which

has been aptly appropriated by Hemacandra7 with designa-

tion Utthāpanī, i.e., which has risen. This8 has been found

in a complete stanza after being hybridized with Pramitak-

ṣarā in series of verses. Musical element of it can be guessed

from the inclusion of this metre in the Dhruvā chapter of

Bharata.9

1. Jayakīrti—II. 158. Maṇikuṇdalam.

Hemcandra—II. 217. Sudantam.

2. Bombay Skt.Series. 60. 1885. Bombay Skt Pkt Series 76.

3. See Infra – Mani sattam, Mahāvagga – Pāli publication board.

4. P.4.

5. Bh. Skt: Text Series. II. XVII. 127. P. 121.

6. Bh. Skt. Text Series. V. XLIII. 24. P. 317.

7. Bh. Skt. T.S. XIX. I. Varga. 3.4. P.3.

8. Hem. II. 148.

9. Gaṇdovyūhasūtram, XXXVIII, ab Pramitakṣarā; ed utthāpani. In

this chapter most of the verses contain this rhythm. P. 229.

9. Bharata Nāṭyaśāstra – XXXII. 148. Viśloka.

BUDDHIST SANSKRIT LITERATURE

227

As in classical literature we get hybrid form of stanza with Vamśastha group and Indravajrā group, so in Bh. H. Skt texts we meet with hybrid verses either with Mahendra-vajrā or with Manikunḍala.1

Third type that we have is the Upajāti of Śakvarī and Atiśakvarī. This mostly appears in the patterns of Vasantatilakam and Ṛṣabham.2 With more known Mālinī we have the combination of a new rhythm which has been appropria-ted by Jayakīrti.3 Finally, we can refer to the hybrid verses of Atidṛti and Utkṛti, containing Śārdūlavikrīḍita and Mattekhavikrīḍita, the latter being the favourite to the South Indians as can be evidenced by their occasional appearance in the Carnatic Inscription4 and inclusion of the same in the Carnatic manual.5

In this connection we must recall in mind, the place of origin of the Mahāyāna School of Buddhism, under whose influence the Buddhist Skt literature deveīoped to a greater or lesser degree.6 It became an accredited fact that though in some Hīnayāna text like Mahāvastu we find mixed Skt, yet most of the extant texts written in hybrid Skt have been origi-nated in the Southern India. Mahāyāna school made its first appearance in Andhra where the Mahāsaṅgikās had their

2. Samādhirājasūtra — 38. Manikunḍala with Upendravajrā Mādhyamikavṛtti, Bibl. Buddhica IV. ed. De la Valle Pussin 1912.

P. 514. Tathāryāstikakṣya sūtre —

Yadiko ci dharmān bhavet svabhāvāḥ

Tatraiva gaccheya jinah sa śrāvakaḥ

kūṭastha dharman siya na nivṛto

na nisprapañica bhavi ja tu paṇḍitaḥ.

3. Rāṣṭrapālapariprccha; Bh. S.T. Series XVII. 1961. Verse 63, P.127.

Ratnagunaosamuccaya Gāthā contains 301 Vasantatilakam stanza with this new rhythm. ed. in Indo. Ir. Journal. Vol. V. I PP.

4. II 169. Jayakīrti.

5. Epigraphica Carnatica Vol. IV. P. 228 ; 237 etc.

6. Chandombudhi — ed Kittel. 1875, verse 214.

7. Winternitz, H.S.I.( Tran ) Vol.II. P. I. P. 227. Ibid. P. 230.

228

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

centre and already in Kaniṣka’s time it got recognition and

was spread all over North India.1 Besides, we have another

peculiar type of hybrid metre, in which Dodhakam has been

hybridized with a new rhythm UU -, UU -,UU --. This

type of Upajāti metre has been extensively used in Gaṇdo-

vyūha sūtram2 in which we find a prayer3 in sixty-two

melodious Dodhaka stanzas. This Dodhaka is the favourite

metre of the Mahāyāna Buddhists.4 Second class of Varṇa

Vṛtta employed in Lalitavistara, is of Tālawṛtta type.5 The

first type of this class afforded by this work is that which

consists of any number of Iambic6 and Trochaic7 rhythm.

Another type found in the stanzas consists of IIS gaṇas

of any number.8 Still another kind consisting of five SII

gaṇas with a final long can be found in many places. Some-

times they are united in hybrid form with Toṭaka rhythm

being intermittently rimed.9

In these Gāthās strict principle of the law of versifi-

cation has not been fully maintained. This tendency perhaps

tends to show that they owe their origin to Pāli language.10

In these innumerable Gāthās one can find out various

types of metrical patterns not appropriated by the extant

1. Vide age of Imperial unity. Vol II. P. 387. ed. 1951.

2. Gaṇdovyūha Sūtram, 43 — 4, 6, 7, 8 P. 314.

3. Bhadrācārya Parinidhāna Gāthā — Gaṇdovyūhasūtram. Pp.428,436,

1–62.

4. Watanabe, Diss, Strassburg, P. 24. 1912.

5. Vide P. 198. Lalitavistara. R.L. Mitra’s ed. Metre with 8 pairs

of short and long letter. This is pure Kannada metre known as

Mahotsava.

6. Vide. Page 236. — Lalitavistara, Ed. R.R. Lall Mitra.

7. Op. Cit. Footnote 41.

8. Vide P.204. Ibid. Idem. Yadanārigaṇastunavenuravai......etc.

9. P. 407. Ibid. Gītikavādita nṛtyasuśiṭikā

Rātikaranajāti surūpinikā

Yādinecchasi kāmasu lālaṣikā.

10. Vide. Edgerton — JAOS. 66. 65.

BUDDHIST SANSKRIT LITERATURE

229

manuals. Thus we have beautiful Mātrāsamakam with fixed

syllabic1 form, stanzas with new pattern Masajabhagaga2

which appeared in the verses of Rāṣṭrapālaparipṛccha and

in a hybrid stanza of the aforesaid metre with a new rhythm

IISṢII SIS ISI ISS.3 The last mentioned rhythm has

been born out of the aforesaid rhythm by substituting the

first long by two shorts. In ch. 15th and 16th of the Lalita-

vistara, we find an extensively used rhythm ta ta na4 ra ga.

Among the much known Sarvasama Vṛttas found in Lalita-

vistara, are the Rathoddhatā5 along with other forms of

Triṣṭubh group and Daṇḍaka types.6 Ardhasamavṛttas like

Puṣpitāgrā,7 Vegavatī, are also found sporadically.

As for Āryā verses, there are stanzas with regular gaṇa

system, like classical ones and there are such ones whose two

1. P. 188. Śilante Śubhavimalakhandam purvānte Varasatatambhāsī

Śilenātisadrśumaharṣe mocchi jagi viridha kilisaih.

2. Pp. 410–412 — Lalitavistara.

3. Rāṣṭrapālaparipṛccha P.156. Verse no.333. B.S. Text Series. 17.1960.

Rūpam darśayate manoram mam jagadārthe

Pratibhāsodaka candrasamnibham yathā mayā

Sarvāsveva ca dikṣu dṛśyate jina kāya

no ca rūpa pramāṇu dṛśyate sugatānām.

4. Lalitavistara. Pp. 283–286.

Mātrāhicchando pratibhani Bodhisattvah

tuṣṭa bhavitvā api mama jñāti samjñāh

Śāstra Rasajña tvayi sad bhaviṣyanti

prameṇa mahyam tvayi no vivartisyante.

5. 15th Adhyāya of Lalitavistara. P. 263.

48th chapter of Gandovyūhasūtra — verses — 56–178.

21st chapter of Samādhirājasūtra.

6. Pp. 147–48 — ab Daṇḍaka type CD arṇa type.

7. Vegavatī — Lalitavistara Lefmann's ed. P.287 3–4. (Sa Sa Sa

ga — bha bha ga ga).

Trṇu dehimi swastika śighram adya mamārthu trṇāvaih

Sumahāntaḥ // Savalam namucim nihanitvā / Bodhimanutāra

śānti sprśiṣye // Puṣpitāgrā—Tāśca sahitapuṣpamālya hastā /

upagami vesma nṛpasyajātakāṅkṣā / puṣpa tathā vilepanām grhitvā/

Daśanakha anjalibhirnama syamānāḥ // P.49 Ibid. Idem.

230

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

hemistiches contain total count of syllabic instances1 in their respective parts and such types which admit amphibrachic in odd2 pādas. Finally, we may close our survey by mentioning the occurrence of Vaitālīya and Aupacchandasika metres, very favourite to Jainas and Buddhists. Incidentally, we may refer to the pure mātrā metres like Dohā,3 Rolā,4 Mālā5 and Abhīra6 found in Lefmann's edition, which R.L. Mitra's edition have in quite different version. In the treatment of long syllabic metres the remaining groups are just like our classical ones. We need not prepare a statistical list of the metres employed by them. We will sketch out here only those lines showing peculiar characteristic marks in the verses employed in these texts.

Divyāvadāna is a complied type of work containing the material from the old text holding in its limited scope different traditions. Thus we meet here the non-classical Āryā,7 hybrid type of Vaitālīya8 on one side and regular classical syllabic metres from Upajāti to Śārdūlavikrīḍita on the

1. Vide Lalitavistara. P. 481. R.L. Mitra's ed.

2. Vide Lalitavistara. P. 18D. Ibid.

3. Ref. in Lefmann. P. 210. Nrpasimha Śaradindupūrṇa /Kumudaśaśān-kamudita // In R.L. Mitra's ed. These are in prose from p.256. ed. p.362.

4. Rolā ( P.I.91 ) having 24 mātrās in each pāda of quadrapad stanzas in Lefmann's ed. Pp.167—70. But in R.L. Mitra's edition it consists of twenty two mātrās, vide. Pp.163—164.

5. Lefmann. P.253 ( 14—16 ) ( P.I.164) consisting of 45 — 27 mātrās. But in Lefmann's ed it contains ( 20 — 25 ) mātrās. In R.L. Mitra's ed. it is almost like prose. P.318.

6. Lefmann ( Pp.323–5 ) describes it as mātrā metre but really it is a fixed syllabic metre in R.L. Mitra's ed. P.409.

7. Divyāvadāna, Ed. Cowel and Neil. 1886. I. Ch. Pp. 9, 10, 12 in which the 1st gaṇa is ISI.

8. XXVI. ch. P. 365. — ABC contains the pattern of the 1st pāda of Aupacchandasikam and D contains the 2nd pāda of Aupacch-andasikam.

other. Here also we have the Buddh. H. Skt metres1 and

peculiar type of Upajāti2 of Rucirā with another type of

verse which like others differs from Rucirā type only in

initial which is long in the latter.

Aśvaghoṣa in his two works Buddhacarita and Saundarā-

nanda kāvyam showed a special skill in handling the rare

metres in a remote age. This celebrated Buddhist among the

widely used classical metres, employed some new ones not

usually appearing in classical literature.

Most remarkable is the Viṣama Vṛtta Udgātā used for

continued narration in Saundarānanda,3 Śarabhalalita4 and

Vardhamāna5 with the scheme of augmenting the number

of syllables. Among the long metres Aśvaghoṣa favoured,

Śārdūlavikrīḍita,6 Suvadanā7 and Śragdharā8 appeared in

Saundarānanda kāvyam and dramas.9 Śragdharā is very

favourite metre of Buddhists especially of those who wrote

their works in Skt language.

It is evident from the preceding deliberation that Bh.

H. Skt texts retained varied type of metrical specimens

enshrined in the composition of different languages. As the

languages of these texts are closely related to Ardhamāgadhī

and Apabhraṃśa, the writers allowed themselves with the

1. XXVI. Ch. P. 381. Ibid. In case of Vaiśva Devī.

XVI. Ch. P. 266. In case of Triṣṭubh, Mahendravajrā.

V. Ch. P. 72. The same.

XI. Ch. P. 138. The same.

2. P. 269. Ch. XVIII. In the case of Rucirā in the same stanza we

have jabhasajaga and tabhasajaga.

3. Saundarāandakāvyam Johnston ed. III. 1–41. S.

Canto XII. 43 ; XIII. 56. Ibid. Idem.

4. Canto XII. 43 ; XIII. 56. Ibid. Idem.

5. II. 64. 65, Ibid. Idem.

6. Saundarānanda Kāvyam. XVIII. 62, 63, Ibid.

7. Canto XI. 62 — Ibid. Idem.

8. Canto XVIII 664 — Ibid. Idem.

9. Vide, Buddhistisches Stotros, Dieter Schlingloff. 1955.

232 ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT METRICS

manifold liberties in order to attain the metrical results. In this it can be expected that they conform to the tradition of the Pkt dialect from which they started. As they belong to the transition period, special features of their metrical peculiarities speak of their special inclination on Skt tradition, consequently to the syllabic metres. That is why except very few which can be found in Lalitavistara, the vast multitudes of the verses have Skt type of syllabic arrangement coupled with occasional substitution of two shorts for a long

VI. EPIC LITERATURE*

The period succeeding the sūtras was characterised by many sided literary activities throughout India. The literary products of this period may be categorised, according to their contents, under three main heads, viz, religious, philosophical and secular. The rise of different religious sects, i.e, Brāhmaṇas, Buddhists and Jainas each with rich and distinctive literature of its own, is the marked feature of the literary activities of this time. Philosophical dogmas of the Upaniṣads cultivated in their own way under secluded atmosphere by the hieratic class is another phase of literature of this period. Direct flow of Brahmanic cult with the last remnants of the Vedic literature is also no less insificant. Side by side a secular literature in the form of Epic presented a distinct phase in which literary development though a free and less polished but more practical form of Skt was employed for shaping a literature not hieratic but no less aristocratic. In strictest sense, it cannot be called popular

• Abbreviations used in this section :-( Mahābbārata MB., Rāmāyaṇa Rāmā. )