593
The quantity of the final vowel
(I) in vidmci, räsvä, smä; (II) in bhavä, bhavata;
and (III) in yena, in the Rigveda.
A reply to Professor H. Oldenberg.
By E. V. Arnold.
In his "Vedische Untersuchungen 15" (ZDMG. 60, pp. 115—164)
Professor H. Oldenberg deals with the question of the quantity
of variant final vowels in the Rigveda. In so doing he closely
follows the discussion on "Quantitative Restoration" in Ch. VI of my
Vedic Metre, pp. 108—148: and perhaps I may fairly describe
his article as a review of my chapter on this subject. It is a
pleasure to me to find that the materials I have collected appear
to him distinctly useful, and that, although he rarely accepts my
conclusions, yet his own are generally much nearer to them than
any that have previously been maintained. Indeed it causes me
some surprise that in his article he should attack in such vigorous
language results from which he seems to differ so little. The
explanation I think is to be found in the fact that we look upon
these questions from essentially different points of view: so that
arguments which produce conviction to my mind are of compara¬
tively slight weight with him, and others on which he places
reliance seem to me not quite pertinent to the matter. Professor
Oldenberg is interested in problems of quantity largely because of
their bearing on the history of the Sanskrit language: I have been
solely concerned with them because they are a part of the technique
of the Vedic poets. But however this may be, it appears to me
that some not unimportant questions of Vedic criticism are at issue,
and for this reason I ask a short space in order to bring, if
possible, into clear light the nature of the differences between
Professor Oldenberg and myself by selecting for discussion a few
of the more important issues.
In attempting this I am glad to be able to lay aside for the
moment the somewhat alarming statistical apparatus which I have
594 Arnold, The quantity of the final vowel, etc.
used in Vedic Metre. That apparatus I believe to be necessary
for the precise statement of the evidence which the Rigveda affords :
but happily it is not in this case a cause of divergence of opinion.
Professor Oldenberg is prepared to accept for the moment the
division between the "Rigveda proper" and the "popular Rigveda"
as laid down in my book; he does not appear to question my
analysis of the various positions of the verse as favouring long
and short quantity respectively ; and (except in one or two details,
in which I have to thank him for correcting oversights) he has
found my lists coirect and complete. We are thus able very
quickly to approach the principal issues. I propose to deal in
this reply only with the forms giveu or illustrated in the title
of this article; that is, first with the 1 pl. perfect in -mä (-rria),
the root-aorist impv. in -svä (-sva), and the particle ,smä (smd);
secondly with the 2 sing. impv. in -ä (-a) and the 2 pl. in -tä
(■td) ; and then shortly with the group of words of which yStia
(ySnä) is the most important, and which contain what I have termed
"protracted" vowels. These forms are selected because their occur¬
rences are the most numerous , and therefore they best illustrate
the principles of evidence which it is desired to discuss. Further,
I propose to deal with the "Rigveda proper" alone , and to ask
the reader to understand all general statements to be made subject
to such qualifications in detail as are to be found in my Vedic
Metre.
1. vidmä, räsvä, smä.
I may shortly state the position taken up by me in Vedic
Metre with regard to the first group as follows:
The perfect ending in -mä, the root-aorist imperative ending
in -sua, and the particle smä, are regularly so used by the
Vedic poets that the final syllable falls in a position in which
a long syllable is preferred, or in one in which the quantity is
indiö'erent: in this respect the use of the syllables in question
corresponds very closely to the general use of those syllables
which are unquestionably long : these syllables were therefore,
according to the feeling of the Vedic poets, long syllables.
Prof. Oldenberg appears to be in substantial agreement with
me as to the facts: nor does he accuse me of any novelty in the
reasoning. "Naturally", he says, "this procedure has long ago been
used on a small scale: for instance, by myself to shew that the
Rsis themselves assigned different prosodie values to avatä and
avatu, dhävata and dhävati" (p. 116 Note 1). Not only so, but
further "in questions of Sandhi the metre enables us without further
question to decide with absolute certainty as to the treatment of
the combinations -ah a-, -o a. -e a in individual cases" (p. 142).
And so. quite consistently, in the particular cases of each of the
E. V. Arnold, The quantity of the final vowel, etc. 595
variant quantities Professor Oldenberg begins by admitting the
strength of the metrical argument in the direction in which I have
applied it; and generally he agrees with me "that hundreds of
syllables which appear in the Samhitä text as short were not really
short to the Vedic poets themselves" (p. 140).
Here , so far as my treatment in Vedic Metre is concerned,
the matter practically ends. The whole system of Vedic verse is
built up upon the differentiation of short and long vowels, which
is carried out on a rigid system which may very well have differed
greatly from the natural pronunciation of the words, and which
leaves no room for the "doubtful" quantities so familiar in Latin
verse. If the vowels in question are not short, and if every
requirement of the metre is satisfied by the hypothesis that they
are long, that hypothesis recommends itself to us with an urgency
which approaches that of mathematical demonstration : and, in my
opinion , the statistical evidence given for the hypothesis does
essentially amount to a mathematical demonstration. I felt therefore
bound to follow this conclusion in my book, and, where necessary,
to correct the quantities accordingly.
Prof. Oldenberg, however, not only does not see his way to
accept the conclusions which seem to follow so simply from premises
tbat he accepts, but he opposes them with considerable warmth.
To follow the evidence of metre exclusively is to him a "violent
procedure" (pp. 119, 134); if I do so, I go on "a way of my own"
(p. 116), and I am "in danger of misleading the reader as to the
facts, unless he is on his watch" (p. 116). Again and again it is
suggested that the Samhitä text and the history of language are
persistently ignored. This criticism seems very strange in the
mouth of Prof. Oldenberg, who has been so long foremost in the
endeavour to construct a corrected , or , as he now terms it , an
"ideal" text, by removing not merely the more obvious blunders
of the Sainhitä, but also errors with which more conservative critics
have hesitated to interfere. I am quite unable to understand
Prof. Oldenberg's strong reluctance to correct the text in the matter
of the variant quantities: but I have endeavoured, to the best of
my power, to gather from his article what kind of evidence he
thinks may be opposed to that already given. I think I may
fairly summarize his contentions as follows :
(I) 'The history of the Indo-Germanic languages in general, and
of the Indian languages in particular, is opposed to the assignment
of long value to the vowels in question'.
Shortly, I understand this to mean that writers on comparative
linguistics assign short value to the primitive vowels which are
represented by the Vedic -mä, -svä ; that the Rigveda itself shows
a short vowel in both endings in thematic tenses; and that the
Pada-pät.ha and the Sanskrit grammarians give short value to all
the vowels in question.
596 V. Arnold, The quantity of the final vowel, eto.
The theories of comparative linguistics are so largely based
upon the assumed validity of the Pada-pätha text of the Rigveda
that their value as critical evidence for the validity of that text
ought not to be over-rated. Besides this, the whole argument
goes too far. Even Professor Oldenberg does not appear to contend
that the vowels in question are short in the Rigveda. If then he
conceives that they have suffered an historical change, what diffi¬
culty is there in supposing that at one period of the language they
were regarded as long vowels by the poets? It is not necessary
to assume, and I do not assume, that the vowels in question were
long either in a primitive Indo-European language, or in the ordinary
spoken Sanskrit of the Vedic period: but that such a value was
possible for the poets it seems to me hard to deny in the face
of the usage of the Zend Gäthäs , where , as is well known , all
final vowels become long.
Similarly with regard to the evidence of Sanskrit. That the
vowels in question have not at all times the same value is undis¬
puted : and the simplest explanation is that they are reckoned long
at one period, and short at another.
(II) 'The metrical use of the endings in question is influenced
by the metrical shape or grammatical use ofthe words as a whole'.
Here Professor Oldenberg appears to me to enter upon a most
dangerous line of argument. "The evidence of the metre", he
urges in a similar case (p. 125) "is less cogent if examined in
detail than in Arnold's summary statement". He endeavours accor¬
dingly to diminish the force of the general argument by breaking
it up into a number of detailed arguments, and shewing that in
some of these the statistical evidence is rather less cogent than in
others (p. 137). This appears to me much as if a general, whose
army as a whole had been severely defeated, were to direct attention
to the fortune, of his several regiments, and to endeavour to shew
that he had not been beaten because one or two had suffered less
severely than the rest. The great variety of metrical shapes
represented by words containing the endings in question does not
afford much encouragement to proceed on these lines : nevertheless
let us examine the arguments more precisely.
(a) 'The aorist imperatives (pp. 132—136) are all of the type - -.
The form is used at the beginning of the verse 37 times, being
followed in 22 instances by short vowels, in 15 by long'. [If the
-a were short or even partly short, we might confidently reckon
on it being followed chiefly by long syllables]. *It is also used
in the positions G 4, T 8, before the Tristubh caesura, and at the
end of the päda, all these being positions in which a long vowel
is favoured or at least permitted. It is not used in positions in
which a short vowel is favoured, and only once is the final vowel
long by position'. [Whereas all short vowels are frequently adapted
E. V. Arnold, The quantity of the fined vowel, etc. 597
to convenient metrical positions by being followed by consonant-
groups]. 'It is not found in the positions in which a short syllable
is required', [although grammatically it is admirably adapted for
all these positions (G 5, G 7, T 9 and J 11)]. 'It is chiefly found
in the beginning of the verse', although other imperatives are more
usual at the end. [It is however also quite common at the end,
especially in such forms as varnsua: so that metrical convenience
alone can account for its comparative frequency also at the beginning].
'Finally, a certain room must be allowed for chance, which can
here only have worked against positions requiring a short vowel'.
[We must therefore suppose that the poets, without believing the
vowel to be long, happened always so to use it as if it were long.
The "evidence for a short vowel" is partly a priori, partly that
of tradition (p. 133): metrical evidence there is none].
{b) 'The perfect imperatives (pp. 137, 138) are of five types.
Those of the type - - can hardly be used in positions in which
a short vowel is required'. [They can however be used exactly
as words like varuna, tdmasi are used: as will be seen by the
discussion of bhavata below, if the final vowel were short we
should find it frequently followed by consonant-groups, and not
uncommonly in the position G 5]. 'The same may be said of the
types - ..---H". [A similar reply]. 'The fourth type includes
jagrbhmä, änaämä: the occurrences are too few to be of importance'.
[But once more the evidence, so far as it goes, is in favour of
long quantity.] 'Finally we bave the common word vidmä, which
is generally found at the beginning of the verse'. [Not however
for stilistic reasons, which incline this verb, like every other, towards
the end of the verse]. 'The evidence', broken up into these five
sections, 'does not seem so very formidable' [yet it still points
all in the same direction], 'and there is no absolute demonstration
that the vowel is not of middle quantity with little inclination to
be treated as short' [and with every inclination to be treated as long].
(c) 'The particle smä (p. 138) only appears in passages which
require or admit long quantity. But this need mean no more than
that the quantity is middle, with a strong predilection for positions
in which length is required, and an aversion for those in which
shortness is desirable'. [This kindle of "middle" position seems to anticipate the impartiality of the "hanging judge"]. 'But- the word chiefly occurs in the first part ofthe verse, being an enclitic';
[and we have numerous enclitics e. g. ca, ha, which accommodate
themselves quite well to the conditions of Vedic verse without
ever being mistaken for long syllables].
On the whole it seems to me that the metrical evidence for
the long value stands out only the more clearly for the analysis
to which Professor Oldenberg subjects it: and I think it is hard
to read the second note on p. 138 without concluding that in the
end he despairs at least of his attack on the long vowel in smä.
598 ^- -Arnold, The quantity of the final vowel, etc.
(III.) 'The authority of the Samhita, as a "genuine text"
deserves to be i-espected'.
In no point does Professor Oldenberg's treatment show greater
advance upon that of many of his predecessors than in the preference
which he gives to the Samhita over the Pada pätha text. All the
more difficult does it seem to be for him consistently to oppose
even the correction of the Samhitä text, where the evidence is
sufficient. "We may depend upon the tradition" he writes "in its
broad lines, but in no case are we entitled to insist upon its
details" (p. 154). Similarly I have written "in spite of numerous
errors in detail, the Samhitä text on the whole gives a true picture
of the quantities of the variant final vowels" (Vedic Metre, p. 139).
And we find accordingly that the Sarnhitä as a rule assigns long
quantity to all the vowels now in question. Perfect forms like
cakrmä have the long vowel, not only where the metre requires
it, but in many other cases. Thus in the position T* 7 the long
vowel is usual: before a consonant group it is found in I 101 9b.
The short vowel is however found before the caesura and at the
end of the verse. The particle smä, has usually the long vowel,
even in the positions T 3, D 3, and before the caesura: but not in
the positions T 2 Ü 2 -. In the case of - svä the short vowel
is found more commonly: not only before the caesura and at the
end of the verse, but also in the positions T 2 D 2 -, and G 4.
From these facts Professor Oldenberg draws the conclusion that a
general rule may be established that -a is found where the metre
requires long quantity, -a where short quantity is admissible (p. 133).
I am unable to agree with this conclusion. If any such rule
could be established, it would hold good for all the variant vowels:
whereas it is obvious that the vowels now in question have the
long quantity in the Samhitä much more frequently than the others.
Secondly the rules of metre which influence the text are not the
same as those which guided the poets. Thus the text on the whole
inclines to give short quantity in the positions T 2 -, T* 4, T* 7,
whereas the poets in all these positions have a decided preference
for the long vowel (Vedic Metre pp. 188, 194). The practice of
the text can, as it seems to me, only be explained by the combination
of three factors (a) a correct tradition, according to which the
vowels now in question were long in all positions; (6) an imperfect
metrical theory, which recognised preference for a long vowel in
the positions T 2 T 8 and T 10, but not in the positions T 2 -,
T* 4 and T' 7; (c) a current pronunciation, which tended towards
the shortening of the vowels in those positions in which the metrical
advantage of a long vowel was no longer appreciated. The presence
of these conflicting motives entirely accounts not only for the
different treatment of various vowels, but also for the want of
complete uniformity in the treatment of each. We must agree
with Professor Oldenberg that this state of the text has nothing
E. V. Arnold, The quantity of the final vowel, etc. 599
artificial about it and bears the aspect of a real tradition (p. 134):
only it would seem safe to add that this tradition does not go
back to the time of the Rsis themselves. This is not to ignore
the value of the Samhita text: we are on the contrary grateful
to it for preserving us from the entirely erroneous view of the
Pada-pätha. But if in these cases we incline to restore the long
vowel throughout, it is because it is very difficult to believe that
the writers, using the vowels as long in the majority of instances,
nevertheless used them every now and then as short or of '"middle
quantity" whilst continuing to place them in the positions in which
long vowels are regularly placed. If the vowels in any way differed
from ordinary long vowels, the difference seems to have left no
trace on the composition of the hymns, and consequently to have
no bearing upon the history of Vedic metre.
2. bhavä, bhavatä.
These endings present the most important metrical problem of the
series, since together they occur almost 2000 times in the Rigveda.
With them may be included the ending in -tha. All three are
treated precisely in the same way in the Rigveda. It is, I think,
a matter of agreement between Professor Oldenberg and myself
that these vowels occupy a position intermediate between long and
short vowels (Vedic Metre, p. 113; V. U. p. 127). We agree
further that the Sarnhitä text is sufficiently correct in marking
the vowel as long in the positions T 2 D 2 T 8, T 10 and
G 6, and as short in those positions in which a short vowel is
metrically required. In positions in which the metre is indifferent
Professor Oldenberg considers the vowels to be metrically of
"middle quantity", whilst I regard them as practically long: the
difference between us has no metrical importance. Thus we reach
at last the positions as to which we differ, namely T 2 -, D 2 -,
T* 4, and T* 7. In all these positions I consider that there is a
considerable presumption in favour of long quantity; Professor
Oldenberg suggests that we have long quantity where the Satnhitä
text gives it, and middle quantity where the Samhita gives the
short vowel, as is almost always the case.
The arguments are substantially the same as for the vowels
in the preceding group, except that the much larger number of
instances gives increased importance to the metrical evidence.
My argument in Vedic Metre is as follows :
The vowels iu question are in the Rigveda used much more
nearly as long than as short vowels : the positions in question
decidedly favour tbe long r^wel : it is therefore the safer as¬
sumption, for the purposes of metrical investigation, that the
vowels and the positions have in these cases their more usual
treatment (Vedic Metre, p. 138).
600 E. V. Arnold, The quantity of the final vowel, etc.
This guarded statement seems to have been left out of sight
by Professor Oldenberg when he says that, being accustomed
to statistical exactitude, I expect from the text a complete con¬
sistency (p. 141). On the contrary, it is statistical exactitude which
makes it possible to define the probable limits of divergence. But
the issue may he stated without any use of figures. Take the
verse which stands in the text
ydm deväso 'vatha väjasäiau X 35 14a.
We are agreed in the first instance to restore avatha, because the
poets prefer a verse to contain eleven syllables rather than ten.
Is then avathä or avatha (avatha) the more probable reading, when
we take into account (1) that certain instances of avathä are far
more common thau those of avatha; (II) that a long syllable is
at least three times as common in this position as a short syllable
(Vedic Metre, p. 188); and (III) that the influence of the later
pronuciation has unfavourably affected the Samhita text ( VS p. 127)?
Nevertheless, if by avatha Professor Oldenberg now meant "a
vowel of middle quantity inclining towards long quantity", the
difference between us would be very slight. Unfortunately, as I
think. Professor Oldenberg suggests throughout his article a de¬
preciation of the evidence for the prevailing long quantity of these
endings, without (so far as I can see) committing himself to any
precise opinion on the subject. Thus the argument from comparative
linguistic science might appear to apply with special force to these
endings: and yet how little it concerns us, if we are prepared to
admit that the endings are long in the Zend Gäthäs, and of "middle
quantity inclining to long" in the Bigveda? Of what use the
elaborate analysis of the metrical evidence, unless it be to show
that the force of circumstances, and not the intention of the poet,
inclines the endings to the positions in which a long vowel is
desirable ? Why the eloquent defence of the text, unless to suggest
that after all the text is fairly correct, because the vowels in
question are middle quantities inclining to short? Such at any
rate seems to be the implication with regard to the ending in -tä
(-ta) : "the distribution in question is sufflciently explained, without
the necessity of a serious disturbance of the text: although we
must here also take into account the conception of middle quantity
appearing in the text as short", (p. 136)
Without wishing to exaggerate the difference of opinion, I
feel it is necessary to emphasize the fact that the metrical evidence
points clearly to the prevalence of the long vowel, and is therefore
inconsistent with the Samhitä text, which indicates the prevalence
of the short vowel. And since special analyses are asked for, I
take the type apparently least favourable to my case, namely that
in which the variant vowel is preceded by two short syllables, as
in janaya, bhavata-. The ocurrences (after deducting those in
E. V. Arnold, The quantity of the final vowel, etc. ßQl
which a vowel follows) number just 100, and nearly all are of
the ending in -ta.
Professor Oldenberg's argument is that "for words of this type
positions which require the short vowel are scarce: therefore we
need feel no surprise if the endings are absent in such positions".
My reply is: the Vedic poet has also to deal with words of the type
dvasa and with others of the type varuna: we shall determine
his view of the variant vowel by comparing his treatment of it
with that of the vowels which in such words are undoubtedly short
or long.
Words of the types in question are found only in a few
positions, so that a very simple table shows their use. The figures
for the type avasä are percentages on a total of 600 examples,
and those for varuna on a total of 300 examples, for of these
latter more are hardly to be found.
Position of tlie final syllable Type
dvasä
Type.
bhavata
Type varuna
First part of the verse
T 8 (occasionally also TIO and G 6)
3 47
6 34
3 3
T» 7
Final
40 9
42 4
47 8
Before consonant-groups
G 5 (occasionally G 7 and T 9)
1 0
8 6
28 11
It is evident that we may disregard all the occurrences in
the first half of the verse and at the end, for such occurrences
together amount only to about one tenth of the whole number in each
case. It is also clear that Professor Oldenberg has rightly stated
that there is a difficulty in finding suitable positions in the verse
for the type vartma: for only in one-ninth of the instances is the
final vowel found in a position in which a short vowel is required.
But the treatment of this type is a very instructive example of
the art of the Vedic poet. He meets a real difficulty by placing
a word which begins with a consonant-gi'oup immediately after
the troublesome syllable in more than one one-quarter of its
occurrences: for the rest, he allows it to fall freely into the position T" 7, though a long syllable is desirable there, whilst excluding
it from the position T 8, in which a long syllable is positively
required. Thus, in spite of the pressure of the metre, the dilference
between the metrical value of dvasä and varuna is clearly shewn
in their use.
Now let us compare the use of the type bhavata. In the
position T 8 dvasä occurs 47 times, bhavatä 34, varuna 3 times.
4 3
602 V. Arnold, The quantity of the final vowel, etc.
In the position T* 7 the numbers are almost equal. Before con¬
sonant-groups and in the position G 5 dvasä occurs once, bhavata
14 times, and varuna 39 times.
I admit freely that these results are not very decisive. It
is clear that the reading bhavata after an early caesura presents
no serious difficulty. Still the evidence, so far as it goes, indicates
distinctly that bhavatä more nearly than bhavata represented the
average value of the word to the poet. Now there is no reason
to doubt that a similar examination applied separately to eacb of
the types bhava, karsä, dhävata, sotä, and so forth will point in
just the same direction; and in fact the figures given by Professor
Oldenberg (pp. 121, 122) do point, though with slightly varying
force, in this direction. The cumulative weight of the evidence
so analyzed is, if anything, stronger than that of the summarized
evidence given in Vedic Metre, p. 122.
Whilst therefore I am quite ready to emphasize the statement
in Vedic Metre that the restoration (say) of bhavatä in all passages
in which it follows an early caesura goes somewhat beyond the
evidence, it seems to me clear also that this restoration more nearly
approaches the general intention of the poets than Samhitä reading
bhavata, so easily explained by the influence of a pronunciation
current at the time of this recension : for, in spite of the emphasis with which Professor Oldenberg uses the expression "genuine text", he
also allows that a period of free oral tradition intervened between
the age of the Rsis and the epoch when the text we possess was
first sharply defined by rule or writing.
3. yina.
I am glad to pass on to a point upon which Professor Oldenberg
and I are very closely agreed. Words of the type yina are defined
in Vedic Metre as "short vowels capable of protraction" (p. 119);
Professor Oldenberg explains them as 'words which bave in the
final syllable middle quantity, with greater inclination towards the
short value'. Between these views there is, in their bearing on
the metre, no substantial difference : perhaps a more exact description than either would be obtained by calling the vowels "three-quarters short". As the Satnhitä text inclines, as before, to the short value, it requires very little correction.
But although I can quite readily accept Professor Oldenberg's
statement of the fact, I still demur to his explanation that the
poets admitted "a complete scale" of vowel quantities, corresponding to the "gradations of the natural quantity" (p. 141). Were such
a gradation in existence, we might expect to find traces of it in
the whole vowel systera, and not merely in the final vowels. The
peculiar value of these vowels can, in my opinion, represent nothing
but an historical disturbance. In the case of yina I do not pretend
JS. V. Arnold, The quantity of the final vowel, etc. 603
to determine the original quantity of the vowel: but so far as the
evidence of the Rigveda goes, we seem to have a passing tendency
to the lengthening of a short vowel, which may nevertheless be
just the same in kind as the tendency which in the Zend Gäthäs
has caused the complete disappearance of short final vowels. The
effect of such a tendency when it strikes a particular vowel is
very easily shewn by the comparative statistics for ydsya and
ySna. The latter word is withdrawn very largely from use in all
those positions in which a short vowel is strongly preferred by the
metre, but it is seldom introduced to those in which a long vowel
is positively required. Its use tends to be restricted to those
positions in which the quantity is more or less indifferent, and in
which therefore the poet is not obliged to commit himself to a
definite opinion. We are able to say from the evidence that his
mind inclined rather to the view that the vowel was short: but
if the poet had been directly asked the question, I do not think
he would have replied that the vowel was "three-quarters short",
but rather that it was a hard question to answer.
And here we are brought to the question, discussed by Professor
Oldenberg in the note on p. 141, of the extent to which we may
expect consistency in the text of the Rigveda. This question appears
to me of considerable interest as affecting the technique of Vedic
verse , and the feeling for quantity in the mind of the poets.
Taking the Rigveda proper as a whole, nothing can be more striking
than the way in which the bards have reduced the pronunciation
of ordinary speech, which necessarily contains every gradation from
the shortest to the longest of syllables, to an almost absolutely
rigid system in which long and short syllables constitute two
sharply contrasted classes. To this rigid system the variant
final vowels present the only important exception. If the text of
the Samhita is corrected, whether according to Professor Oldenberg's
views or mine , the extent of that exception is greatly reduced.
But in my view the variation is essentially historic in character:
according to Professor Oldenberg it is essentially casual. I believe
that poets at one time and place felt a particular vowel to be
long, then again hesitated, and at another time or place held it
to be short. Professor Oldenberg believes that the poets not only
changed their view for the convenience of the metre , but also
even within the same stanza from sheer instability of judgment.
That inconsistencies of the former type are quite possible is shewn
by the -ä, -tä endings: e. g. in I 57 3 b (bharä) by the side of
4 d (harya) in positions guaranteed by the metre. It was therefore
perhaps too much to say (Vedic Metre, p. 138) that it is impossible
to ascribe to the author the divergence between yenä prthivyäm
II 17 6 c and yena jdnäh II 24 10 d, even though the metrical
conditions in these two cases are identical. At the same time I
find it hard to conceive that even if an author had committed
604 ^- ^- Arnold, The quantity of the final vowel, etc.
such an inconsequence, it would have been faithfully retained by
tradition. "Everywhere in the Rigveda", says Professor Oldenberg,
"we observe inconsistencies", and he refers to an unimportant Sandhi
usage of the text for which I do not think he really intends to
hold the Rsis responsible. More truly I think we might say that
the Sandhi usages of the poets indicate to us how smoothly and
systematically even great historical changes of pronunciation were
adopted by the bards. A certain vacillation must always accompany
a changing standard: but the whole science of Vedic verse warns
us not unnecessarily to postulate inconsistency.
To conclude : the parallel between Sandhi and final vowels is
complete. We do not postulate an intermediate stage between
hiatus and combination , and it is unnecessary to postulate vowels
of "middle quantity". We cannot in each individual case precisely
determine the intention of the composer, but there is no serious
difficulty in determining his general practice. No one , I think,
can read Professor Oldenberg's article without feeling that his
belief is that my treatment of the text is so one-sided and wilful that
it destroys the validity of my conclusions. I hope to have shewn
that the conclusions that might be drawn from the text itself do
not on the whole so greatly diflFer from my own , even in this
detail of the variant vowels: the difference at any rate has no
perceptible effect upon the general theory of the development of
the metre. Further, that where I have corrected the text correction
is usually needed, even according to Professor Oldenberg : and that
the more precisely he defines his views on particular endings, the
more closely they approximate to mine. I am far from making
so unreasonable a claim as that I have in every instance rightly
interpreted the design of the Vedic poet: but I hope I may have
given the reader some assurance that statistical investigation has
a substantial value in literary criticism, and is an important means
for bringing us nearer to the goal at which we aim, a true insight
into the methods and the meaning of our literary ancestors. Here
at least I have Professor Oldenberg in principle on my side.
605
Kalenderfragen im althebräischen Schrifttum.
Von Ed. König.
Trotz des emsigen Fleißes, mit dem die auf Tag, Monat
und Jahr bezüglichen Stellen der alttestamentlichen Texte schon
so oft erörtert worden sind, sind doch noch mehrere Funkte übrig
geblieben , die einer schärferen Beleuchtung bedürfen. Das was
Ed. Reuß in seiner Geschichte der heiligen Schriften A. T.s^ (1890)
§ 17 von der „noch nicht endgiltig gelösten Frage, wann das Jahr
bei den Israeliten begonnen habe" gesagt hat, muß nach meinen Be¬
obachtungen betreffs der Äußerungen, die sich inbezug auf Kalender¬
fragen auch in neueren und neuesten Arbeiten des alttestament¬
lichen Gebietes finden, auch noch auf andere kalendarische Größen
ausgedebnt werden. Aber nicht bloß deshalb , sondem auch weil
das von den babylonisch-assyrischen Studien her dem althebräischen
Schrifttum zuströmende Licht in den letzten Jahren besonders
intensiv geworden ist , muß ich es für zeitgemäß halten , einige
Untersuchungen über Tag, Monat und Jahr im A. T. , die ich in
einer 1882 über „Die Chronologie der Geschichte Israels* gehaltenen
Vorlesung begonnen habe, zu einem Abschluß zu bringen und der
Öffentlichkeit zu übergeben.
1. Indem ich einleitungsweise bemerke, daß ich die Bezeich¬
nung „bürgerlicher Tag' den neuerdings dafür auch gebrauchten
Ausdrücken „Kalendertag' (Holzinger im Kurzen Handkommentar)
oder „Volltag' (Winckler in KAT.*^ 1903) wegen ihrer größeren
Gebräuchlichkeit vorziehe, gehe ich an eine Untersuchung des Zeit¬
punktes, mit dem nach dem althebräischen Schrifttum der bürger¬
liche Tag beginnt. Beim Tage aber mit der Untersuchung
einzusetzen, ist deswegen natürlich, weil der Tag als die am häufigsten
sich wiederholende Größe am frühesten in das Bewußtsein der
Menschen eingetreten sein dürfte.
Welche Mittel nun stehen uns zu Gebote , um zu bestimmen,
bei welchem Zeitpunkt von den Hebräern der 24 stündige Tag be¬
gonnen wurde?
Ein solches Mittel darf man nicht schon darin sehen, daß der
natürliche und der bürgerliche Tag auch bei den Hebräern mit dem
Zeitschrift der D. M. G. Bd. LX. 39
; ■> «
