Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Great Epic of India: Its Character and Origin c7: Chapter Four. Epic Versification

The Great Epic of India: Its Character and Origin c7

Language
English

Contents

Chapter Four. Epic Versification

c7.2

alaṃkṛtaṃ çubhāiḥ çabdāiḥ samayāir divyamānuṣāiḥ chandovṛttāiç ca vividhāir anvitaṃ viduṣāṃ priyam

c7.3

A Tale adorned with polished phrase
And the wise lore of gods and men,
With verses turned in various ways
Replete, a joy to scholars’ ken.

c7.5

¹ I wish to acknowledge in beginning this chapter on epic metres the great help afforded me by Professor Cappeller of Jena, who put at my disposal a manuscript on the metrical forms in the epic, in which all the metres were located and the triṣṭubhs of the first three books were analyzed seriatim. I need hardly say that this loan has materially lightened the labor of preparing the following sketch, a loan the kindness of which was the more appreciated as it was entirely unsolicited, though most gratefully received.

c7.6

The poetry of the epic is composed in metres, chandas, of three sorts. The first is measured by syllables, the second by moræ, the third by groups of moræ. These rhythms ran the one into the other in the following course. The early free syllabic rhythm tended to assume a form where the syllables were differentiated as light or heavy at fixed places in the verse. Then the fixed syllabic rhythm was lightened by the resolution of specific heavy syllables, the beginning of mora-measurement. The resolution then became general and the number of moræ, not the number of syllables, was reckoned. Finally, the moræ tended to arrange themselves in groups and eventually became fixed in a wellnigh unchangeable form. Part of this development was reached before the epic began, but there were other parts, as will appear, still in process of completion. Neither of the chief metres in the early epic was quite reduced to the later stereotyped norm. The stanza-form, too, of certain metres was still inchoate.

c7.7

The mass of the great epic (about ninety-five per cent) is written in one of the two current forms of free syllabic rhythm; about five per cent in another form of the same class; and only two-tenths of a percent in any other metre. The two predominant rhythms, çloka and triṣṭubh, are in origin the oldest Indic or pre-Indic rhythms, while of the others some are in turn early developments from the first epic rhythms. For convenience of reference, before discussing these rhythms in detail, I give a list of all those used in one or both of the two epics according as they are free syllabic (çloka, triṣṭubh), fixed syllabic (akṣaracchandas),¹ mora-metre (mātrāchandas), and group-rhythms (gaṇacchandas).

c7.8

¹ The fixed syllabic is called also varṇavṛtta, “syllabic verse” (vṛtta = versus).

c7.9

çloka: a stanza of two verses (hemistichs) of sixteen syllables each, restricted to a certain extent as to the place where heavy and light syllables (or long and short vowels) are permitted. Originally the stanza consisted of four verses of eight syllables each and many traces of this division, by independent “quarters,” pādas, survive in the Mahābhārata.

c7.10

triṣṭubh: a stanza of four verses of eleven syllables each, arranged with very little restriction (and consequently of various types) in the Mahābhārata; reduced to one prevailing type in the Rāmāyaṇa. Increased by one heavy syllable in each pāda, this metre is called jagatī, but the two types are interchangeable in the same stanza. Fixed types of this metre are common in verse form, but rare in stanza form² except as given in the next group (of four-verse stanzas).

c7.11

² That is, pure in the form (a) and (b), ◡ — ◡ — — ◡ ◡ — ◡ — ◡ (_); (e) — — — — , — ◡ — — ◡ — ; (f) — — — — , ◡ ◡ — — ◡ — . These are called (a) upendravajrā; (b) vaṅçastha(bila); (e) çālinī; (f) vātormī; or (a) and (b) with the opening — ◡ —, called (c) indravajrā and (d) indravaṅçā, as they have eleven or twelve syllables, respectively. When (a) and (c) or (b) and (d) are mingled, the stanza is called upajāti.

c7.12

| | | with the verse fixed as |
| akṣaracchandas or varṇavṛtta | ⎧ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎨ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎩ | rathoddhatā, a triṣṭubh — ◡ —, ◡◡◡ —, ◡ — ◡ bhujaṁgaprayātā, a jagatī ◡ —, ◡ —, ◡ —, ◡ — drutavilambita, a jagatī ◡◡◡, — ◡◡, — ◡◡, — ◡ — vāiçvadevī, a jagatī —, —, —, ◡ — ◡ rucirā, an atijagatī¹ ◡ ◡ —, ◡◡◡, — ◡ — ◡ praharṣiṇī, an atijagatī —, —, ◡◡◡, — ◡ — ◡ mṛgendramukha, an atijagatī ◡◡◡, —◡◡, — ◡ — ◡ asambādhā, a çakvarī² —, ◡, — ◡ — ◡ — vasantatilakā, a çakvarī — — ◡, ◡◡◡, — ◡◡ — ◡ — mālīnī, an atiçaḳvarī ◡◡◡◡◡◡ —, — ◡ — ◡ — çārdūlavikrīḍita, an atidhṛti —, — ◡, — ◡ —, ◡ — ◡, ◡◡—; — — ◡, — — ◡ |

c7.13

¹ That is, a jagatī with one syllable over, ati, or with thirteen syllables in the pāda. The second atijagatī above is sometimes called praharṣaṇī.

c7.14

² That is, having fourteen syllables in the pāda, fifty-six in the stanza. The atiçaḳvarī and atidhṛti have fifteen and nineteen syllables in the pāda, respectively.

c7.15

| mātrāchandas (ardhasamavṛtta) | ⎧ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎨ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎩ | puspitāgrā and āupacchandasika, stanzas of two verses, each verse having sixteen and eighteen moræ in prior and posterior pāda, respectively, the moræ being arranged in syllables more (puspitāgrā) or less (āupacchandasika) fixed. aparavaktra and vātālīya, the same in catalectic form, each pāda being shortened by two moræ. mātrāsamaka, a stanza of four verses, each verse having sixteen moræ. |

c7.16

| gaṇacchandas | ⎧ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎨ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎩ | (āryā, āryāgīti, upagīti), stanzas of two verses, each verse containing eight groups of moræ, the group of four moræ each, but with the restriction that amphibrachs are prohibited in the odd groups, but may make any even group and must make the sixth group, unless indeed this sixth group be represented (in the second hemistich) by only one mora or four breves; and that the eighth group may be represented by only two moræ. The metre is called āryāgīti when the eighth foot has four moræ; upagīti, when the sixth foot irregularly has but one mora in each hemistich.³ |

c7.17

³ Brown, Prosody, p. 17, points out that this metre is almost that of Horace, Odes, iii, 12: miserar | est neq a- | mori | dare lu- | dum neque | dul- | ci mala | vino, etc.; and sic te | diva po- | tens Cypri | sic fra- | tres Hele- | nae | lucida | sidera, etc., save that the sixth group is here of two moræ.

Çloka and Triṣṭubh

The Pādas

c7.s1.t1.1

The number of verses in a çloka or triṣṭubh stanza may be decreased or increased by one or two, respectively; but in the great majority of cases, two in a çloka and four in a triṣṭubh constitute a stanza. Sometimes, however, where one or three hemistichs make a stanza, it is merely a matter of editing. Compare, for instance, i, 90, 22; i, 93, 19–21 with 3,682–83; iii, 4, 17 with 234; iii, 111, 14 ff., with 10,040, ff. But, on the other hand, no arrangement can always group the hemistichs into uniform stanzas. Thus in xii, 350, 49 ff., five triṣṭubh hemistichs follow three çloka hemistichs. A stanza of three hemistichs is apt to close a section, as in vii, 54 and 187. In G. vi, 49, 55, there is one hemistich in excess because 53 a-b were added to the original, and this is doubtless the cause of many such cases; though it is also true that a half stanza is often found where there is no reason to suspect a later addition. Six pādas in a triṣṭubh occur occasionally.

c7.s1.t1.2

But in the case of the çloka, the pādas are metrically linked in pairs, while triṣṭubh pādas are metrically independent. The çloka, therefore, is a couplet. Its two halves are metrically disjunct and may be treated as independent wholes. Each hemistich is a complete verse. The two halves of this verse, the quarters, pādas, of the whole stanza, are sometimes knit together into euphonic combination and a syntactical whole. But, relatively speaking, this is seldom the case. The unity consists rather in the fact that one half of the verse is metrically different from the other and cannot be substituted for it, whereas in the triṣṭubh any pāda can be substituted, if the sense permits, for any other.¹ The different fall of the çloka pādas may be seen very well when the words are almost identical:

c7.s1.t1.3

¹ In some forms of the triṣṭubh, however, there is a restriction in the final syllaba anceps of the first and third pādas, not found in the second and fourth pādas. In such cases (discussed hereafter) the triṣṭubh, like the çloka, consists of two parts (hemistichs) and the perfect independence of the pāda is modified. This does not affect the free epic triṣṭubh.

c7.s1.t1.4

amitrāṇām bhayakaro mitrāṇām abhayaṃkaraḥ çalabhā iva kedāram maçakā iva pāvakam nā 'tantrī vidyate vīṇā nā 'cakro vidyate rathaḥ rukmapuṅkhāir ajihmāgrāi rukmapuṅkhāir ajihmagāiḥ (G. vi, 20, 26 and 19, 68) ¹ kiṃ nu me syād idaṃ kṛtvā kiṃ nu me syād akurvataḥ yato dharmas tataḥ Kṛṣṇo yataḥ Kṛṣṇas tato jayaḥ paçyan çṛṇvan spṛçan jighrann açnan gacchan svapan çvasan japate japyate cāi 'va tapate tapyate punaḥ

c7.s1.t1.5

¹ The other verses are found in R. vii, 36, 22 ; 7, 3 ; ii, 39, 29 ; M. iii, 62, 10 ; vi, 23, 28 ; 29, 8 ; xiii, 14, 159.

c7.s1.t1.6

The final syllaba anceps of all pādas indicates, however, that the çloka, like the triṣṭubh, originally permitted the same metrical fall in both pādas, and such we know to have been the case in the older metre from which the çloka derives. The Mahābhārata retains this identical measure here and there, as in

c7.s1.t1.7

tad vāi devā upāsate tasmāt sūryo virājate,

c7.s1.t1.8

but such cases, usually reflecting or imitating the older verse of the Upanishads, as in this example, v, 46, 1, are regularly avoided, even by the substitution of irregular or dialectic forms. Thus in viii, 84, 12, where the same verb is employed,

c7.s1.t1.9

Duryodhanam upāsante parivārya samantataḥ

c7.s1.t1.10

The çloka verse (hemistich) does not often indicate its unity by its form. Generally its prior half, or the pāda (to retain this word for the division of eight syllables), is not united with the posterior pāda. Verses that do unite the two usually give lists of objects, which is the ordinary case in the early epic, though the later epic does not hesitate to make freer use of this unit-verse. But on the whole, though common enough in post-epical writing, this is by no means typical of the epic itself. The great bulk of the poem does indeed furnish a goodly number of examples, but relatively speaking cases like the following are rare:

c7.s1.t1.11

mahāmaṇiśilāpaṭṭabaddhaparyantavedikām, ii, 3, 32 aikyasaṃyoganānātvasamavāyavicāraḍaḥ, ii, 5, 3 vayaṃ hi devagandharvamānuṣyoragarakṣasān, iii, 53, 29 jambvāmralodrhakhadirasālavetrasamākulam, ib. 64, 4 siṃhaśārdūlamātaṃgavarāharkṣamṛgāyutam, ib. 39 badareṅgudakācmaryaplakṣācvatthabibhītakāiḥ, ix, 37, 61 gadāmusalanārācaśaktitomarahastayā, ix, 46, 66 dṛśyate hi dharmarūpeṇa ’dharmam prākṛtaç caran, xii, 261, 6 ajāyata mahārājavaṃçe sa ca mahādyutiḥ, xiii, 10, 35 sa bhavān daṇḍasaṃyogenā ’nena hṛtakilbiṣaḥ, G. iv, 17, 58 bhavadbhir niścayas tattvavijñānakuçalāir mama, G. iv, 32, 5¹

c7.s1.t1.12

¹ R. (Bombay) has cæsura between pādas and avoids both these forms (saṃyogāt in 18, 64, for saṃyogena, etc.).

c7.s1.t1.13

The hemistich of the çloka is also generally independent of the rest of the stanza in sense as well as in metre, but it is not infrequently united with it syntactically, as in vi, 19, 12,

c7.s1.t1.14

na hi so ’sti pumān loke yaḥ saṃkruddhaṃ Vṛkodaram
draṣṭum atyugrakarmāṇaṃ viṣaheta nararṣabham
Not a mortal on earth exists, who deep-incensed Vṛkodara,
Mighty, a chief of awful strength, could a moment behold in war.

c7.s1.t1.15

So samalaṃkṛtam: çatam, in the first chapter of Nala, 11; krodhasya ca vinigrahaḥ: kāryaḥ, xii, 330, 10; asambhāvyaṃ vadhaṃ tasya Vṛtrasya vibudhādhipaḥ: cintayāno jagāmā ’çu, R. vii, 85, 15, etc. Inside the hemistich, the pādas are frequently euphonically independent (hiatus);

c7.s1.t1.16

Prajaṅgho Vāliputrāya abhidudrāva, R. vi, 76, 22. na kiṃcid abhidhātavyā aham, R. vi, 118, 10 mā vināçaṃ gamiṣyāma ² aprasādyā ’diteḥ sutam, R. vii, 35, 63

c7.s1.t1.17

² G. here, 38, 113, has the future imperative, gamiṣyadhvam. Other examples of hiatus may be seen in R. v, 60, 8; vi, 60, 8; vii, 11, 42, etc., besides the ample collection of Böhtlingk for the first four books.

c7.s1.t1.18

Sāumitraṃ sampariṣvajya idaṃ vacanam abravīt, R. vi, 23, 1 nihanyād antaraṃ labdhvā ūlūko vāyasān iva, R. vi, 17, 19 caraṇāny acaraṇyāni āçramāṇi kṛtāni naḥ, R. vii, 6, 5

c7.s1.t1.19

In G. the hiatus is usually avoided, but it is sometimes kept here, as where R. vii, 21, 19 has gorasaṃ gopradātāro annaṃ cāi ’va (adrākṣīt) and G. rectifies the grammar but keeps the hiatus, gopradātṛṇi ca annam.¹ In the last book of the poem, hiatus in G. is more common than in the earlier epic; for example, G. has the hiatus of R. vii, 6, 40, svadhītaṃ dattam iṣṭaṃ ca āiçvaryam paripālitam. On the other hand, within the pāda attempts are sometimes made to avoid hiatus at the expense of form, as in R. vii, 109, 4, brahmam (cf. 88, 20) āvartayan param. Contrast is often the cause of hiatus, both in the pāda, as in apāyaṃ vā upāyaṃ vā, R. iii, 40, 8, and in the hemistich, as in hīnam māṃ manyase kena ahīnaṃ sarvavikramāiḥ, R. vi, 36, 5.² So in the Mahābhārata, satyanāmā bhavā ’çoka, açokaḥ çokanāçanaḥ, iii, 64, 107. The latter epic otherwise presents the same phenomena:

c7.s1.t1.20

¹ R. in the second hemistich has gṛhāṅc ca gṛhadātāraḥ (acc.) svakarmaphalam acnataḥ, aç for bhuj, as in M. iii, 32, 6.

c7.s1.t1.21

² Emphasis also may cause hiatus, as in dharmātmā iti, R. i, 21, 7; na tu vaktum samartho ‘haṃ tvayi ātmagatān guṇān, R. iv, 8, 5; or it may be employed to save the life of a word, as in dakṣiṇārthe ‘tha ṛtvigbhyaḥ, xiii, 93, 25 (the commonest hiatus is this before ṛ, as in sarve ca ṛtavaḥ; kārayasva ṛṣe; anye ṛkṣavataḥ, etc.).

c7.s1.t1.22

yeṣām mūtram upāghrāya api bandhyā prasūyate, iv, 10, 14 upāvartasva tad brahma antarātmani viçrutam, v, 43, 59 viveça Gaṅgāṃ Kāuravya Ulūpī, xvii, 1, 27 devā ’pi mārge muhyanti apadasya padāiṣiṇaḥ, xii, 270, 22 anāhūtaḥ praviçati aprṣṭo bahu bhāṣate, v, 33, 36, etc.

c7.s1.t1.23

There is nothing peculiarly epic in hiatus. It is found in precedent and subsequent poetry. Its occurrence in the Mahābhāṣya, as in çayānā vardhate dūrvā āsīnaṃ vardhate viṣam, IS., xiii, p. 461, may be epic.

c7.s1.t1.24

The cadence of the çloka, like that of all other poetry, depends on the sense, and the cæsura cannot be determined by rule. In most cases there is a cæsura at the end of the pāda, but it is frequently shifted, as in kvā ’rjunaḥ nṛpatiḥ? çīghraṃ samyag ākhyātum arhatha, R. vii, 31, 11. A complete sentence seldom exceeds the limit of a stanza, and when it goes further it may be set down as a mark of lateness. Quite anomalous in epic style are those long sentences, usually relative, which, as in Gītā 2, 42–44 and 6, 20–23 run through twelve or fourteen pādas. Still more awkward are the sentences found in the later epic. Thus in xii, 302, occurs a sentence, not of fourteen pādas as in the Gītā, but of fourteen çlokas (5–17): yet this is surpassed in the same section by a sentence of thirty çlokas, which even then has no finite verb and in reality never comes to an end at all (24–52). Such monstrosities, however, belong only to the pseudo-epic.

c7.s1.t1.25

Like the çloka, the triṣṭubh, in euphony and sense, may be a couplet, the first two and last two pādas making a unit, as in iii, 118, 20 c – d, anyāñc ca Vṛṣṇīn upagamya pūjām: cakre; vii, 2, 33 a – b, na tv evā ’haṃ na gamiṣyāmi teṣām: madhye çūrānām. Euphonic unity is illustrated by the elision in vii, 163, 14 of a in adṛçyanta at the beginning of the pāda after o; by tāñc cāpy: upapaviṣṭān between c – d in i, 191, 19; and by the complete hemistichs:

c7.s1.t1.26

yadā ’çrāuṣam Bhīmasenā ’nuyātenā ’çvatthāmnā paramastram prayuktam, i, 1, 213
sa-Karṇa-Duryodhana-Çālva-Çalya-Drāuṇāyani-Krātha-Sunītha-Vakraḥ, i, 187, 15 (compare in çloka; Bhīṣma-Droṇa-Kṛpa-Drāuṇi-Karṇārjuna-Janārdanān, viii, 20, 3; bahuço Vidura-Droṇa-Kṛpa-Gāṅgeya-Sṛñjayāiḥ, ix, 61, 20)
uddhūtālāṅgūlamahāpatākadhvajottamāṃsākulabhīṣaṇāntam, iv, 54, 27.

c7.s1.t1.27

Ordinarily, however, disjunction and not conjunction of pādas is the rule. Thus between b – c, iii, 132, 5, a + a, and even between a — b and c — d. Here also hiatus appears even in the pāda, as in i, 1, 214 b, svastī ’ty uktvā astram astreṇa çāntam (so must be read); or in i, 74, 30 c, ahaç ca rātriç ca ubhe ca saṃdhye. It may then be expected between pādas, as in

c7.s1.t1.28

yadā ’vamaṃsthāḥ¹ sadr̥çaḥ çreyasaç ca, alpīyasaç ca, i, 88, 3 a — b
vanaspatīn oṣadhīç cā ’viçanti, āpo (= apo) vāyum, i, 90, 11 a — b
santi lokā bahavas te narendra, apy ekāi ’kaḥ, i, 92, 15 a — b

c7.s1.t1.29

¹ The first foot consists of five syllables.

c7.s1.t1.30

So in Yājñaseni: ekāmbarā, ii, 67, 34 a — b; utsahāmi: āyuṣmān, iii, 192, 67 c — d; putri: Ikṣvāku, ib. 70 c — d; tapaç ca: amātsāryam, v, 43, 20 a — b; ācāryeṇa: ātmakr̥tam (text -ṇāt), v, 44, 14 a; apo ’tha adbhyaḥ salilasya madhye, v, 46, 3 a. B. occasionally rejects (betters) the text of C., as in vi, 129 c — d, stands na cā ’pi te madvaçagā maharṣe, ’nugrahaṃ kartum arhā hi me matiḥ, where B. 3, 61, has na cā ’dharmam, etc. So in viii, 4,340, paçcād vadhiṣye tvām api, sampramūḍha, aham, etc., where B., 85, 33, has mūḍham. Both, however, continue with ahaṃ haniṣye ’rjuna ajimadhye, and in the next verse both have prasahya asyāi ’va in c — d.² Other cases are: çatruhantā: uvāca, viii, 85, 30 c — d; mudam ca lebhe r̥ṣabhaḥ Kurūṇām, ix, 17, 18 d; uttāna-āsye na havir juhoti, xii, 246, 27 a; bibheti: açraddheyam, xiv, 9, 27 c — d; Madam nāma asuraṃ viçvarūpam, xiv, 9, 33, c (from the text in B., nāmāsuram, and in C. 251, Madam nāmānam); Tilottamā cā ’py atha Menakā ca: etās, H. 2, 89, 71 a — b. Examples from the Rāmāyaṇa are given by Böhtlingk, or may be seen in the conjunction of mahārathasya: Ikṣvāku, R. vi, 14, 12 a — b; abhyupetya: uvāca, R. vi, 59, 45 c — d. In both metres, to avoid hiatus, irrational particles are often inserted. A good example is: purā kṛtayuge tāta hy āsīd rājā hy Akampanaḥ, vii, 2,029, where B., 52, 26, omits the first hi.

c7.s1.t1.31

² B.’s reading in iii, 112, 15 d, caliteva cā ’sīt for caliteva āsīt, 10,065, may be to avoid hiatus. In ii, 63, 6 d = 2,116, both texts have acintito ’bhimataḥ svabandhunā, where hiatus may be assumed, though not necessarily, as also in iii, 197, 13 b, na (vāi) vāsaṃ pitaro (a)sya kurvata. Ib. 15 a — b, both texts have hiatus, ukṣāṇam paktvā saha odanena asmāt kapotāt prati te nayantu (give you for).

Rhyme

c7.s1.t2.1

Connection of pādas by rhyme is not uncommon. It is less noticeable in çlokas than in triṣṭubhs on account of the alternate trochaic and iambic cadence employed in the former, and some, for example, may think that in iii, 65, 65–66,

c7.s1.t2.2

vasasva mayi kalyāṇī
prītir me paramā tvayi . . .
ihāi 'va vasatī bhadre
bhartāraṃ upalapsyase

c7.s1.t2.3

the rhymes of the nameless queen are practically unfelt,¹ but this is scarcely possible when alternate rhymes occur, as in R. ii, 88, 7:

c7.s1.t2.4

¹ Compare, however, the affected initial assonance (with the same difference) in R. iv, 33, 62:

c7.s1.t2.5

prāsādavaravaryesu
çitavatsu sugandhiṣu
uṣitvā Merukalpeṣu
kṛtakāñcanabhittiṣu

c7.s1.t2.6

In çl. 13 of the same section, three successive pādas end in -am; in 14, two end in -ā; and in 23–25 seven end in -ām, or -ām, with some inserted besides:

c7.s1.t2.7

bāhuvīyābhirakṣitām
çūnyasamvaraṇāraksām
ayantritahayadvipām
anāvṛtapuradvārām
rājadhānīm arakṣitām
aprahrṣtabalām nyūnām
viṣamasthām anāvṛtām

c7.s1.t2.8

So in triṣṭubhs, rhymes are both irregular and regular, as in R. iv, 24, 13,

c7.s1.t2.9

Tārayā cā 'py anujñātas
tvarayā vā 'pi coditaḥ

c7.s1.t2.10

acintanīyam parivarjanīyam anīpsanīyam svanavekṣaṇīyam

c7.s1.t2.11

and in R. vi, 73, 55, where three pādas end in -dhāni, -bhāni, -kāni, respectively; the same (in -tāni, -jāni, -nāni) appearing also in a puṣpitāgrā stanza, R. v, 20, 36. In R. iv, 28, 41, we find:

c7.s1.t2.12

pramattasamnāditabarhiṇāni
saçakragopākulaçadvalāni
caranti nīpārjunavāsitāni
gajāḥ suramyāṇi vanāntarāṇi
navāmbudhārāhatakeçarāṇi
dhruvam pariṣvajya saroruhāṇi
kadambapuṣpāṇi sakeçarāṇi
navāni hṛṣṭā bhramarāḥ pibanti

c7.s1.t2.13

In the following passage the effect of rhyme is given by simple repetition of the whole word, R. iv, 28, 25 (not in G.):

c7.s1.t2.14

nidrā çaṇāiḥ keçavam abhyupāiti
drutaṁ nadī sāgaram abhyupāiti
hṛṣṭā balākā ghanam abhyupāiti
kāntā sakāmā priyam abhyupāiti

c7.s1.t2.15

words put into the mouth of love-sick Rāma (kāmapradhānaḥ, as he is called) by some late poetaster, who, not content with the last stanza, adds to it (27):

c7.s1.t2.16

vahanti varṣanti nadanti bhānti
dhyāyanti nṛtyanti samāçvasanti

c7.s1.t2.17

Compare also in the same section, weak rhymes in -tānām, -vānām, -kānām, -rāṇām (at the end of the pāda in 31). This reaches its height in the ridiculous (late) section R. v, 5, where the same word is repeated at the end of each pāda till even 6 is a relief, where occurs the alternation: -paṅko, -paṅkaḥ, -lāṅko, -çāṅkaḥ. But elsewhere in R., e. g., ii, 16, 47, three pādas of a triṣṭubh end in -am, the other in -aṁ(d); and in the preceding stanza three pādas end in -āiḥ-, though jagatī pādas are here interchanged with triṣṭubh.

c7.s1.t2.18

Foot may rhyme with foot or with alternate foot in the śloka, just as pāda rhymes with pāda, that is, either with a modification of the precedent syllable, thus, x, 15, 34,

c7.s1.t2.19

evaṃ kuru
na cā 'nyā tu

c7.s1.t2.20

or even with alternate rhyme, as in R. v, 59, 24,

c7.s1.t2.21

pativratā
ca sucroṇī
avaṣṭabdhā
ca Jānakī

c7.s1.t2.22

but the same sound may also be repeated without any such precedent difference, as in x, 15, 14,

c7.s1.t2.23

adharmaç ca
kṛto 'nena

c7.s1.t2.24

Such light fundamental rhymes cannot be said to be produced without design. They are, in fact, the vulgar rhyme of the common proverb, such as is conspicuous in all popular sayings. Compare for instance the following Marathi proverbs:

c7.s1.t2.25

(a) icchi parā
yei gharā
(b) jyātse kuḍe
tyātse puḍhe
(c) svarga lokī
vaitaraṇī
(d) zase zhāḍa
tase phala¹

c7.s1.t2.26

¹ (a) what is wished for another will come to one's own house; (b) evil is in front of an evil man (honi soit qui mal y pense); (c) in heaven the river Vaitaraṇī (the river of death precedes the joy of heaven); (d) as is the tree, so the fruit. Manwaring, Marathi Proverbs. The earlier anuṣṭubh shows the rhyme better on account of the iambus in the prior pāda, e. g., RV. v, 86, 5:

Alliteration

c7.s1.t3.1

Alliteration, according to the native rhetorician Daṇḍin, is affected rather by the Gauḍas than by the Vidarbhas, the

c7.s1.t3.2

arhantā cit puro dadhe
aṇçeva devāv arvate.

c7.s1.t3.3

latter preferring cognate sounds to mere repetition. The reference is rather to classical affectations than to epic style, where alliteration is a common trick, but is not so overdone as it is in the works of later poets. A great deal of it is probably unconscious, or at least required and almost unavoidable. Still, the later epic writers certainly affect the anuprāsa which Daṇḍin says is not liked by the Vidarbhas. Thus in vii, 118, 16,

c7.s1.t3.4

mudā sametaḥ parayā mahātmā
rarāja rājan surarājakalpaḥ

c7.s1.t3.5

and in viii, 94, 54,

c7.s1.t3.6

nihatya Karṇaṃ ripum āhave 'rjunaḥ
rarāja rājan parameṇa varcasā
yathā purā vṛtravadhe çatakratuḥ

c7.s1.t3.7

So in ix, 35, 24,

c7.s1.t3.8

deçe deçe, tu deyāni dānāni vividhāni ca

c7.s1.t3.9

and in iii, 63 21,

c7.s1.t3.10

jagrāhā 'jagaro grāhaḥ

c7.s1.t3.11

or iii, 64, 118,

c7.s1.t3.12

kā 'si kasyā 'si kalyāṇi, kim vā, etc.

c7.s1.t3.13

Cf. iv, 14, 12,

c7.s1.t3.14

kā tvaṃ kasyā 'si kalyāṇi, kuto vā, etc.

c7.s1.t3.15

or iii, 64, 99,

c7.s1.t3.16

phalapuṣpopaçobhitāḥ

c7.s1.t3.17

The taste for jingling is clearly seen in such examples from both epics as the following:

c7.s1.t3.18

Tāro bravīt tatas tatra, G. v, 1, 49
çayānāṃ çayane çubhe, R. v, 10, 50
pralinamīnamakaram, vii, 146, 3
Kuruçreṣṭha Kuruṣetre kuruṣva mahatīṃ kriyām,
ix, 37, 57.

c7.s1.t3.19

Alliteration is sometimes built on a foundation of older phrase, such as bhīmo bhīmaparākramaḥ, Rāmo ramayatāṃ varaḥ. Thus in R. vii, 42, 22–23,

c7.s1.t3.20

mano ‘bhirāmā rāmās tā
Rāmo ramayatām varaḥ
ramayāmāsa dharmātmā

c7.s1.t3.21

A good deal of this is due to the later revisors. Thus R. v, 56, 51 (also a pun in sa līlaṃ), not in G.,

c7.s1.t3.22

sa līlaṅghayiṣur bhīmaṃ salilaṃ lavaṇārṇavam
kallolāsphālavelāntam utpapāta nabho hariḥ

c7.s1.t3.23

As it is quite impossible to tell what proportion of such verses reverts to the original epic, it must suffice to show that epic poetry as we have it, while not attaining to the perfected abominations of classical works, nevertheless employs alliteration to portray situations. Thus the rāudrarasa in R. vi, 65, 41,

c7.s1.t3.24

rāudraḥ ҫakaṭacakrākṣo mahāparvatasannibhaḥ

c7.s1.t3.25

where the “harsh thunder-sound” is well given by ҫakaṭacakrākṣo. Admirable, too, is the phonetic imitation of motion, stumbling, falling, and dying in Mbh. vii, 146, 86:

c7.s1.t3.26

babhramuҫ caskhaluḥ petuḥ, sedur mamluҫ ca, Bhārata

c7.s1.t3.27

The rhapsode’s clay is moulded variously, but it is the same stuff, the last example being a studied improvement, to suit the situation, of viii, 19, 2:

c7.s1.t3.28

vicelur babhramur neҫuḥ petur mamluҫ ca, Bhārata

c7.s1.t3.29

repeated in 21, 16, with varied reading, but leaving (tresuḥ) petur mamluҫ ca (sāinikāḥ), and varied in 19, 15 with the fatal māriṣa of the later poets (here in place of Bhārata).¹ The examples given above show both the Northern and the Southern style used in both epics.

c7.s1.t3.30

¹ One of the signs that the completed Mahābhārata is posterior to the Rāmāyaṇa. Compare A. J. Phil., vol. xix, p. 142. It is a Buddhistic term, māriso, foreign to the Rāmāyaṇa but current in the Mahābhārata and later Sanskrit works. The word, be it noted, is as old as one pleases, but its stereotyped employment in the Bhārata puts that whole work from a synthetic point of view on a par with other non-Buddhistic literature using it.

c7.s1.t3.31

That Vālmīki was copied by his successors goes without saying. The pseudo-Rāmāyaṇa shows, e. g., vii, 32, 64:

c7.s1.t3.32

sa tu bāhusahasreṇa balād gṛhya daçānanam
babandha balavān rājā Balim Nārāyaṇo yathā,

c7.s1.t3.33

and this atrocity in G. v, 32, 45 (not in B.):

c7.s1.t3.34

suvarṇasya suvarṇasya suvarṇasya ca bhāvini
Rāmeṇa prahitaṃ devi suvarṇasyā ’ṅurīyakam,¹

c7.s1.t3.35

¹ Compare G. iv, 42, 12 = 44, 12 (aṅguliyam, sic, in the latter), where the ring is “ engraved with the mark of Rāma’s name ” (as arrows are marked in M.). So R. v, 36, 2, (aṅguliyakam) Rāmanāmāṅkitam.

c7.s1.t3.36

where the poetaster alliterates the whole word in an attempt at pathetic repetition. Though this is not in B., yet the latter countenances iii, 39, 18, where “ words beginning with R ” frighten Rāma’s victim:

c7.s1.t3.37

ra-kārādīni nāmāni Rāmatrastasya Rāvaṇa
ratnāni ca rathāç cāi ’va vitrāsaṃ janayanti me.

Similes and Metaphors. Pathetic Repetition

c7.s1.t4.1

On epic similes and metaphors an interesting essay remains to be written. As these subjects lie quite apart from a study of the verse itself, I shall at present make only one or two observations touching on the significance of these figures. First of all, the presence in the epic of rūpakas, metaphors, of this or that form, no more implies acquaintance with a studied ars poetica than do such phenomena in other early epic poetry. The pseudo-epic has a disquisition on rhetoric, as it has on every other subject, but rhetoric is older than Rhetoric, and I cannot see that illustrations of later norms found in the epic prove acquaintance with those norms.

c7.s1.t4.2

In the rewritten Gītā, unquestionably one of the older poems in the epic, though not necessarily an old part of the epic, we find that the current dīpo nivāstathaḥ simile is introduced as a “traditional simile,” upamā smṛtā, 6, 19. Such stock similes belong to neither epic, but to the epic store in general, as may be seen by consulting the long list of identical similes in identical phraseology common to both epics. But the epics lack the more complicated figures of classic form, just as they lack the later complicated yamakas. What they have in abundance is (a) the simile; (b) the simple metaphor; (c) the double metaphor. They have also a most atrocious mixture of metaphor and simile, as in R. vi, 41, 45, te tu vānaraçārdūlāḥ çārdūlā iva daṅṣṭriṇaḥ, “those ape-tigers like fanged tigers.” The simile is sufficiently illustrated in Appendix A. I note only that it may be doubled, Rāhur yathā candram iva, “he, like Rāhu, him, as if the moon” (overcame). Illustrations of the double metaphor are found, for example, in xiii, 107, 33, sarasvatīṁ gopayānaḥ, keeping silence (“herding fluency”); xiv, 90, 95, svargārgalaṁ lobhabījam, “heaven’s bar has greed as its seed!”

c7.s1.t4.3

For my present purpose it is necessary only to point out that the later part of the epic exceeds the earlier epic in involved metaphor. Nothing, for example, in the early epic is quite equal to xiii, 107, 26, where after mentioning billions, sāgara, in 21, the poet adds:

c7.s1.t4.4

āvartanāni catvāri tadā padmānī dvādaça
çarāgniparimāṇaṁ ca tatrā ’sāu vasate sukham,

c7.s1.t4.5

which means that one remains in bliss fifty-one padmas of years, sixteen plus the aggregate of the (five) arrows (of Love) into the (seven)¹ flames = 35 (+16).² But parallels almost as extravagant (including the gopay simile above) have been noticed by Professor Lanman in the interesting essay referred to in the last note. Not so striking, though in style more rhetorical than is found in the love-passages of the early epic, is the metaphor of iv, 14, 25:

c7.s1.t4.6

¹ PW., s. çarāgni, says three fires. But compare yad agne te çivaṁ rūpaṁ ye ca te sapta hetayaḥ, i, 232, 10, and saptārcis, passim: and Muṇḍ. Up. ii, 1, 8. Besides, the result is 35 and one multiple is 5, so the other must be 7 (flames).

c7.s1.t4.7

² These high numbers, while not confined to the pseudo-epic (Ind. Streifen, i, p. 97 ff.), receive fresh additions there in names of numbers before unknown. Compare xiii, 107, 63, for example, where occur the çaṅku and patākā: tathā çaṅkupaṭāke dve yugāntaṁ kalpam eva ca, ayutāyutaṁ tathā padmaṁ samudraṁ ca tathā vaset. On similes, cf. Lanman, JAOS. xx, p. 16.

c7.s1.t4.8

ātmapradānavarṣeṇa saṁgamāmbhodhareṇa ca
çamayasva varārohe jvalantaṁ manmathānalam,

c7.s1.t4.9

“O graceful maid, quench the mind-shaker’s (Love’s) glowing fire with the rain of self-surrender and the water of union.”

c7.s1.t4.10

Another rhetorical trick, which appears not to have been noticed in the epic, is the occurrence of distinct attempts at “pathetic repetition.” A comical example is given above. I have noted cases but rarely, and only from late parts of the great epic, but I cannot say they are not found elsewhere.¹ The first is from viii, 75, 6–7 a:

c7.s1.t4.11

¹ Without the attempted pathos, mere repetition is an ancient trait exhibited as early as the Rig Veda, as pointed out, e. g., by Weber, Vedische Beiträge, 1900, p. 7, on RV. ii, 11. Repetition of the same words in succeeding stanzas is perhaps best illustrated by R. ii. 28, where duḥkham ato vanam is the pathetic refrain.

c7.s1.t4.12

rathaṃ sasūtaṃ sahāyaṃ ca kaṃcit
kaccid rathī mṛtyuvaśaṃ nināya
nināya cā 'py ekagajena kaccid
rathān bahūn mṛtyuvaśe tathā 'cvān
rathān sasūtān sahāyān gajāṃc ca
sarvān arīn mṛtyuvaśaṃ caraughāiḥ

c7.s1.t4.13

Another is found, H. 3, 118, 9 = 15,776:

c7.s1.t4.14

adrākṣam adrākṣam ² ahaṃ sunirvṛtaḥ
piban pibaṃs tasya vapuḥ punaḥ punaḥ,
(B. has purātanam)

c7.s1.t4.15

² Compare RV. i, 25, 18, dárçam . . . dárçam.

c7.s1.t4.16

and in the next stanza:

c7.s1.t4.17

saṃsmṛtya saṃsmṛtya tam eva nirvṛtaḥ.

c7.s1.t4.18

This differs from simple repetition, such as that of jānāmi in R. iv, 33, 53 ff., but only in the effect aimed at. Perhaps the yadā 'çrāuṣam passage may be included.

Cadence in Çloka and Triṣṭubh

c7.s1.t5.1

The gibberish of xii, 10,399 (v. l. in 285, 125),

c7.s1.t5.2

hāyi hāyi huvā hoyi huvā hoyi tathā 'sakṛt

c7.s1.t5.3

is interesting as showing the epic’s recognition of this form of interjectional piety (gāyanti tvāṃ suraçreṣṭha sāmagā brahmavādinaḥ);³ but I introduce it here as illustrating the common occurrence of the repetition of the final foot of the prior at the beginning of the posterior pāda. This extreme example duplicates even the syllables, but in the pathyā form of the çloka the duplication of the whole foot, while not reproducing the syllables, may extend backward as well as forward, thus giving three identical feet, as in R. vii, 28, 6,

c7.s1.t5.4

³ Compare the stobha ib. 105: hūṅ hūṅ hūṅkārapārāya, etc.

c7.s1.t5.5

na bhetavyam na gantavyam nivartadhvam raṇe
surāḥ

c7.s1.t5.6

Such a verse, however, is often modified as in iii, 168, 80:

c7.s1.t5.7

nibodhata mahābhāgāḥ Çivaṁ cā ’çāsta me ’naghāḥ,

c7.s1.t5.8

or, if the first two are maintained, by making the third foot ◡ ◡ ◡ or — — — —. The different possibilities concern us here only as they affect the cadence, for the monotony of the pāda is varied quite as much by the rhetorical cadence as by the foot. Even the stereotyped diiambic close of the posterior pāda is constantly broken by a choice of words which, far from lending themselves to iambic rhythm, impede it. So instead of the posterior ◡ — — ◡, ◡ — ◡ — the pāda must often be read as ◡ —, — ◡ ◡ —, ◡ —; while in the prior pāda ◡ ◡ — ◡, ◡ — — ◡ is frequently to be read as ◡ ◡, — ◡ ◡ —, — ◡. Pronounced cretics and dactyls often claim recognition, as at R. vi, 17, 12,

c7.s1.t5.9

Rāvaṇo, nāma, durvṛtto, rākṣaso, rākṣaseçvaraḥ,¹

c7.s1.t5.10

¹ A stock phrase, the parallel to Rāvaṇo lokarāvaṇaḥ, R. vi, 20, 21, etc.

c7.s1.t5.11

or ib. 17, 67, vidyate tasya saṁgrahaḥ; ib. 18, 7, iti ho ’vāca Kākutstho vākyaṁ, satyaparākramaḥ. Hence even in the more rigid posterior pāda the çloka presents great variety. The effect, for example, of the diiambic ending is quite lost in the following typical examples:

c7.s1.t5.12

balād ādāya, vīryavān
nava, pañca ca, sapta ca
sandhiṁ Rāmeṇa, Rāvaṇa

c7.s1.t5.13

To read such pādas mechanically, as if they had a pause before the diiamb (as Occidental scholars almost always read them), is vicious. The śloka, more than any other metre, must be read by sense rather than by scheme. The latter method is bad enough in all metres, but peculiarly so in the short śloka, where, unless the stress jibes with the words, the result is a peculiarly painful tum-tum, which in no way gives the rhythm; for in reality the śloka is a metre of great subtlety and force, in which neither iambic nor trochaic cadence has ever held sway, but both interchange with pleasing variety even in pathyās,¹ often uniting in a dactylic or choriambic measure, as in iii, 56, 24,

c7.s1.t5.14

¹ Still greater variety is given by the melodious vipulās, of which I shall speak below. But seven-eighths of epic verse are in pathyā form, that is, half the syllables in the verse are unalterably fixed as ◡ — — ◡ and ◡ — ◡ ◡, so that it is of interest to see how with this self-imposed restriction the Hindu poet still manages to make verses so melodious, energetic, and varied, when read properly.

c7.s1.t5.15

kim abravīc ca naḥ sarvān,
vada, bhūmipate, 'nagha

c7.s1.t5.16

or R. vi, 65, 11,

c7.s1.t5.17

gaccha çatruvadhāya tvaṁ,
Kumbhakarṇajayāya ca

c7.s1.t5.18

or ib. 59, 47,

c7.s1.t5.19

tam abravīn mahātejā
Rāmaḥ, satyaparākramaḥ,
gaccha, yatnaparaç cā 'pi
bhava, Lakṣmaṇa, saṃyuge

c7.s1.t5.20

With the same freedom at the outset, the triṣṭubh, instead of embracing all forms, as it might have done, continued on a more and more restricted path. It kept the iambic cadence much more closely than did the śloka and contracted its middle to an almost unvarying shape. It thus grew more and more monotonous, and not having even the advantage of hemistich-unity it became a mere collocation of hendekasyllabic verses, each pāda having the same unvarying quantity:

c7.s1.t5.21

◡ — ◡ — ◡ ◡ — ◡ — ◡

c7.s1.t5.22

(called upajāti), as in Horace’s

c7.s1.t5.23

trahuntque siccas machinae carinas.¹

c7.s1.t5.24

¹ Brown’s Sanskrit Prosody, p. 9. On the other hand the jagatī corresponds in outer form to the iambic trimeter with twelve syllables. I treat the jagatī throughout as a triṣṭubh with one syllable added (the final syllaba anceps of the former becoming fixed as brevis), ◡ ◡ ◡; not assuming this as a genetic fact but as a convenience, the same body appearing in both and the pādas being interchangeable except in the akṣaracchandas.

c7.s1.t5.25

The only way to save from dead uniformity a rhythm so stereotyped was to shift the cæsura frequently.² In the Rāmāyaṇa, where upajātis are the rule (the Mahābhārata triṣṭubh did not reach the same level of monotony), there is often a constant play from fourth to fifth or a remoter syllable, as the place of rest. With the usual pause at the fifth, the dactylic middle foot is converted into an anapæstic iambic slide, as in the following examples from R. iv, 43, 62; 44, 16; v, 32, 10, the last two examples showing also the lighter cæsura not of sense-pause but of breathing:

c7.s1.t5.26

² On the derivation of types fixed in respect of the initial syllable (the upendra and indravajrā being derived from the upajāti and not vice versa), see below, the section on the Stanza.

c7.s1.t5.27

(a) tataḥ kṛtārthāḥ sahitaḥ sabāndhavā mayā 'rcitāḥ sarvaguṇair manoramāiḥ cariṣyatho 'rvīm praticāntaçātravaḥ sahapriyā bhūtadharāḥ plavaṃgamāḥ

c7.s1.t5.28

(b) sa tat prakarṣan hariṇām mahad balaṃ babhūva vīraḥ pavanātmajaḥ kapiḥ gatāmbude vyomni viçuddhamanḍalaḥ çaçī 'va nakṣatragaṇopaçobhitāḥ

c7.s1.t5.29

(c) svapno hi nā 'yaṃ na hi me 'sti nidrā

c7.s1.t5.30

çoḳena duḥkhena ca
piḍitāyāḥ
sukhaṁ hi me
nā 'sti yato vihīnā
tene 'ndupūrṇapratimānanena

c7.s1.t5.31

But this tendency ran to extremes also, and as the syllabic arrangement became fixed, so the cæsura became stereotyped, till stanzas showed an almost unvarying cæsura of the painful type of R. v, 47, 30,

c7.s1.t5.32

iti pravegaṁ tu
parasya tarkayan
svakarmayogaṁ ca
vidhāya vīryavān
cakāra vegaṁ tu
mahābalas tadā
matim ca cakre 'sya
vadhe tadānīm

c7.s1.t5.33

or of R. vi, 126, 55,

c7.s1.t5.34

tataḥ sa vākyāir
madhurāir Hanūmato
niçamya hṛṣṭo
Bharataḥ kṛtañjaliḥ
uvāca vāṇīm
manasaḥ praharṣiṇīm
cirasya pūrṇaḥ
khalu me manorathaḥ

c7.s1.t5.35

Even if Vālmīki did not write these stanzas, which may be doubted, a greater poet than he is guilty of the same sleepy iteration of cadences, as may be seen in Raghuvaṁça iii, 30; v, 18; vii, 19 (cæsura after the fifth in all pādas); vii, 16 (after the fourth in all pādas).

Tags

c7.s1.t6.1

Alternation of triṣṭubh and jagatī pādas in the same stanza helped somewhat to mitigate the weary effect of this metre; but it gradually yielded before the çloka or passed into other forms. One of its decadent uses was to furnish new tags for the end of chapters of çlokas. This was an old use, but it is extended in the later epic. The different texts show no uniformity in the insertion of these tag-triṣṭubhs, one text having several, where another has one or none, just as in the case of other tag-metres, for example, a puṣpitāgrā, G. iii, 39, 42; two rucirās between G. iii, 56 and 57, but none in R. Plainly a late insertion, for instance, is the imitation-stanza which serves as a tag to G. iii, 43, 42 (not in R.),

c7.s1.t6.2

kālasya kālaç ca bhavet sa Rāmaḥ
saṃkṣipya lokāñ ca sṛjed athā 'nyān,

c7.s1.t6.3

Manu, ix, 315; Mbh. ix, 36, 40,

c7.s1.t6.4

sa hi kruddhaḥ sṛjed anyān devān api mahātapāḥ

c7.s1.t6.5

xiii, 152, 16,

c7.s1.t6.6

adāivaṃ dāivataṃ kuryur, dāivataṃ cā 'py adāivatam
lokān anyān sṛjeyus te

c7.s1.t6.7

Such tags may, in fact, be made of adjacent çlokas. An instance is given below where a rucirā has thus been created. As regards triṣṭubhs, G. iii, 62 ends with a tag made out of a çloka omitted in this text but kept in the other, na çarma labhate bhīruḥ and na vindate tatra tu çarma Māithilī. A good example is found in R. vii, 75, 18 ff., where a triṣṭubh tag is added in almost the same words with those wherewith the following chapter begins, showing that with the division into two chapters a tag was simply manufactured out of the next stanza; as is still more clearly indicated by the fact that 76, 2 answers the question of 75, 18, vāiçyas tṛtīyo varṇo vā çūdro vā ('si)? çūdrayonyām prajāto 'smi. Evidently only one verse intervened, the çloka: tasya tad vacanaṃ çrutvā avākçirāḥ . . . uvāca ha.¹

c7.s1.t6.8

¹ The same thing occurs in R. iv, 50, where the chapter closes with the çloka: papraccha Hanumāns tatra kā 'si tvaṃ kasya vā bilam. Then follows the tag: tato Hanūmān girisamnikāçaḥ kṛtāñjalis tām abhivādya vṛddhām, papraccha kā tvaṃ bhavanam bilaṃ ca ratnāni ce 'māni vadasva kasya, simply repeating the last çloka in triṣṭubh form. G. very properly drops the çloka; but it is clear that originally the çloka closed the question.

c7.s1.t6.9

The tag-function of the triṣṭubh is also known in the Mahābhārata, notably in the one triṣṭubh found in the Nala, iii, 76, 53, which has been regarded as spurious on account of its isolation. But the following sections, after the Nala episode, show just the same conditions, the end of chapters 83 and 100. So, too, at the end of ix, 24 and 28. Hariv. 2, 66, and 69 end with one jagatī each; 2, 68, with three.

c7.s1.t6.10

The present text of the Rāmāyaṇa shows many cases of triṣṭubhs and jagatīs interpolated into the middle of a ҫloka section. Some of these at least are clearly the finale of former chapters. Thus R. vi, 69, 15 looks like an inserted jagatī, but its function is to close the chapter in G. 48, 13. So R. vi, 69, 88–96 appear as a group of interpolated triṣṭubhs; but in G. the same group is a tag to chapter 49. Probably the break in R. vi, 69, 44, G. 49, 31, is the original finis of a chapter. Occasionally, when one edition breaks a chapter, only the new division is found to have triṣṭubh or jagatī, as an accepted sign of conclusion, as in R. iii, 11, after 70; G. 16, 41.

c7.s1.t6.11

A special function of the later triṣṭubh is to produce pathetic effect.¹ In this guise it wins new life and makes whole chapters, as in R. v, 28, where the burden of the chapter is expressed by hā Rāma hā Lakṣmaṇa hā Sumitre, etc.; or in R. iv, 24 (not in G.), a lament, the dolorous style of which may be illustrated by the reminiscent verses, 13–14:

c7.s1.t6.12

¹ This begins in the Mahābhārata as an extension of the tag-function. Compare the illustrations given in A. J. Phil., vol. xix, p. 18 ff. A good example of the sentimental effect, intensification of horrors, etc., deputed to the triṣṭubh by predilection, is found in R., v, 54, 30 ff. The action is in ҫlokas. The moral effect is given by the following triṣṭubhs.

c7.s1.t6.13

prāpto 'smi pāpmānam idaṁ vayasya
bhrātur vadhāt Tvāṣṭravadhād ive 'ndraḥ
pāpmānam Indrasya mahī jalaṁ ca
vṛkṣāc ca kāmaṁ jagṛhuḥ striyaç ca, etc.

c7.s1.t6.14

Closely allied is the employment of the triṣṭubh to describe not mental conditions but operations of nature. The Vedic pra vātā vānti patayanti vidyutaḥ, RV., v, 83, 4, appears in R. iv, 28, 45 as varṣapravegā vipulāḥ patanti pra vānti vātāḥ samudīrṇavegāḥ, in a long section wholly descriptive. Another example is found in R. iv, 30, 28–57.

c7.s1.t6.15

Çlokas and triṣṭubhs are not often commingled, save in a few late passages of the great epic, i, 232, 10 ff.; Hariv. 3, 82, 3 ff.; and in R. v, 41; G. 37 (chiefly upendras), throughout a section. In R. a few long passages occur in the sixth book, 59–61, 67, but apart from these books the exchange of the two metres is avoided.¹ In the Sanatsujātīya, v, 46, there is, indeed, a regular çloka refrain besides other çlokas intermingled with triṣṭubhs, but this is because the author is reducing Upanishad stanzas, and at the same time adding some of his own. The practice belongs to those scriptures, and is not generally kept up in the epic, though occasionally a çloka or two appears among triṣṭubhs, as in ii, 64, 9–10. In xii, 350, 49 ff., two triṣṭubhs (the second having three hemistichs) are inserted between çlokas (after a çloka of three verses).

c7.s1.t6.16

¹ G. ii, 110, 3 ff. is not in R., and appears to be an interpolation. The parallels to G. v, 89 are also lacking in R. Verse 7 in G. vi, 34, is prakṣipta (the passage is not in R., but compare R. iv, 33, 53).

Common Forms of Çloka and Triṣṭubh

c7.s1.t7.1

From a mechanical point of view, the prior pāda of the çloka and the triṣṭubh are identical, except for the fact that to the eight syllables of the çloka pāda the triṣṭubh appends a scolius or amphibrach. The natural division of the eight syllables in each case is into groups of four or five, followed respectively by four or three. For convenience the group of four, which is found oftenest, is usually called a foot, and to have a name I shall so designate it. Now in epic (Mahābhārata) poetry, every foot of the çloka pāda is found in the triṣṭubh, and, vice versa (as will be seen from the following table), every prior foot and every last foot of the triṣṭubh’s eight syllables is also a corresponding çloka foot:

c7.s1.t7.2

| PRIOR FOOT OF ÇLOKA AND TRIṢṬUBH. | LAST FOOT OF ÇLOKA AND TRIṢṬUBH. |
| 1, ◡ — ◡ — | 1, ◡ — — — |
| 2, ◡ ◡ — — | 2, ◡ ◡ ◡ — |
| 3, ◡ ◡ ◡ — | 3, — ◡ ◡ — |
| 4, ◡ — ◡ ◡ | 4, — — — — |
| 5, ◡ ◡ — ◡ | 5, — ◡ — — |
| 6, ◡ — — ◡ | 6, ◡ ◡ — — |
| 7, ◡ ◡ ◡ — | 7, — — ◡ — |
| 8, ◡ ◡ ◡ ◡ | 8, ◡ — ◡ — |

c7.s1.t7.3

But, curious as is this purely mechanical identity, it is subject to three limitations, which prevent the effect one might think would be caused by it. First, the triṣṭubh’s eighth syllable is long, while in the çloka, since the pāda ends here, the same syllable is anceps. Second, the scolius of the triṣṭubh is usually closely united with the second foot, while in the case of upajātis and some other triṣṭubhs the cæsura occurs in a majority of cases after the fifth syllable, so that the feet are not in reality what they are in the measured division given above; but the pāda appears, for example, as ◡ — ◡ — —, ◡ ◡ — ◡ —, whereas in the çloka the usual cæsura is after the fourth, and only in certain cases falls after the fifth syllable. But the third difference, that of the general effect given by the çloka cadence and that of the corresponding syllables in the triṣṭubh, is produced by the interrelation of the first and second foot. Here there is a wide divergence, and it is the preference for one combination over another that makes the greatest difference between the form of the çloka as a whole and the triṣṭubh as a whole. Although it is true, as has been remarked by Professor Jacobi, that the essential difference in metres lies not in the opening but in the close of the pāda, yet in this case the interrelation just referred to is almost as important. Thus, to take a striking example, while ◡ — — — is a second foot both in çloka and triṣṭubh, in the former it is pathyā, “regular,” in all combinations, the commonest of all, while in triṣṭubh it is a rarity in any combination. So ◡ ◡ — — occurs after four or five forms of the first foot in çloka, yet is never a favorite, in triṣṭubhs after six forms, and is here everywhere common.

c7.s1.t7.4

It is, however, interesting to see in how many cases a permissible form of both metres is used, so that one cannot tell which metre one is reading till the pāda is nearly complete. Ordinarily the general rhythm determines the anticipation and the expected metre is duly met; but not infrequently is the justified anticipation deceived, and the metre, still keeping on the lines of the preceding form, suddenly changes. A penultimate verse, for example, in R. ii, 38, 14, begins mayā vihīnāṃ varada prapannam, but we no sooner learn that this is a çloka verse, not a triṣṭubh tag (as we might expect from its form and position), than in 15 we read imāṃ mahendropamajātagardhinīm, the real tag of the section.

c7.s1.t7.5

The form just cited is the usual one in which the çloka coincides with the body of the triṣṭubh. Sometimes, as in set phrases, the same words are used; thus in G. ii, 18, 33, and 55,

c7.s1.t7.6

prasādaye tvāṃ çirasā kariṣye vacanam pituḥ
prasādaye tvāṃ çirasā yatavrate (triṣṭubh)

c7.s1.t7.7

or in R. vi, 106, 4 and 59, 36,

c7.s1.t7.8

tam āpatantaṃ sahasā svanavantaṃ mahādhvajam
tam āpatantaṃ sahasā samīkṣya (triṣṭubh)

c7.s1.t7.9

With the prevalent upajāti cæsura and almost after a system of upajātis (one çloka intervening), appears in R. vi, 69, 130, sa vāyusūnuḥ kupitaç cikṣepa çikharaṃ gireḥ, a perfect upendravajrā pāda in a çloka verse. Such alien pādas are not very common in the midst of a çloka system,¹ but are common in close conjunction with triṣṭubhs, as if the poet either wished to trick or could not himself get the last metre out of his ear. Another instance like the one above is found in R. v, 54, 48 ff., where only a çloka hemistich intervenes between a triṣṭubh system and the triṣṭubh-like cadence of the çloka: vyarājatā 'ditya ivā 'rcimālī; Laṅkāṃ samastāṃ sampīḍya lāṅgūlāgnim mahākapiḥ, nirvāpayām āsa tadā samudre (haripuṅgavaḥ). Cases where a whole çloka is interposed are not at all rare. In R. vi, 67, 99–101, 99 ends in a triṣṭubh, 100 is a ҫloka pathyā, 101 begins sa Kumbhakarṇasya ҫarān ҫarīre (sapta, vīryavān). Less striking is the case where only one pāda of a ҫloka of choriambic form (second vipulā) corresponds to the triṣṭubh it follows, for here the former’s cadence is not kept up. Such a pāda needs no intervening pathyā, but may follow directly on the triṣṭubh, as in R. vi, 67, 21–22,

c7.s1.t7.10

¹ But compare R. v, 2, 31, anena rūpeṇa mayā na çakyā rakṣasām purī; R. vi, 43, 17, çarīrasaṃghāṭavahāḥ prasusruḥ çoṇitāpagāḥ; Nala, 3, 1, tebhyaḥ pratijñāya Nalaḥ kariṣya iti, Bhārata; and ib. 12, but no more cases till 6, 8.

c7.s1.t7.11

pradudruvuḥ saṃyati Kumbhakarṇāt
tatas tu Nīlo balavān (paryavasthāpayan balam)

c7.s1.t7.12

When an unimportant word or a superfluous adornment, an unnecessary adverb or epithet, is added, it arouses a suspicion that some of the ҫlokas may be reduced from an older form. Thus vidyunmālī appears to stop a jagatī in R. vi, 43, 41 a,

c7.s1.t7.13

ҫilāprahārā ’bhihato (vidyunmālī) niҫācaraḥ

c7.s1.t7.14

So in R. vi, 69, 138 a,

c7.s1.t7.15

khaḍgaprahārā ’bhihato Hanūmān (mārutātmajaḥ)

c7.s1.t7.16

So, too, in the verse cited above, haripuṅgavaḥ fills out the verse where mahākapiḥ precedes, a sufficient subject. In G. iv, 60, 2, nivedayāmāsa tadā maharṣim (samhatāñjaliḥ); in the other example above, sapta, vīryavān ; and in the following example both terminals (even the accusative) are unnecessary, R. vi, 71, 37,

c7.s1.t7.17

tato ’tikāyo balavān praviҫya (harivāhinīm)
visphārayāmāsa dhanur nanāda ca (punaḥ punaḥ)

c7.s1.t7.18

And very likely, since an inspection of epic phraseology shows that there were many stereotyped turns of expression, there were phrases used first in the triṣṭubh which were preserved in a crystallized form in the general ҫloka solution in which the epic was immersed. But to say, except in the case of such stereotyped phrases, whether this happened in any one instance, would be at best rather an idle expression of opinion.¹

c7.s1.t7.19

¹ In sādhu sādhv iti (te) neduҫ (ca) dṛṣṭvā ҫatrum (or rakṣaḥ) parājitam, R. vi, 44, 31, G. 19, 37, a stock phrase in either form, an old triṣṭubh, ◡ — — —, might be preserved, but a varied reading is more likely.

c7.s1.t7.20

Certain verbal forms lend themselves best to one cadence and it is not surprising, for instance, that one turn should go to make both çloka and triṣṭubh (R. v, 47, 10; vi, 106, 14), or that the exact form here is elsewhere, G. vi, 89, 25 (R. has hayān), used as part of another triṣṭubh, so that we find:

c7.s1.t7.21

pracodayāmāsa rathaṃ sa sārathiḥ
pracodayāmāsa rathaṃ surasārathir uttamaḥ
pracodayāmāsa çitāiḥ çarais tribhiḥ
pracodayāmāsa çitāiḥ çarāir hemavibhūṣitāiḥ

c7.s1.t7.22

On this point I have only to add that a complete jagatī pāda, as well as a triṣṭubh pāda, may thus appear in a çloka, as in the example above and in R. v, 57, 15 b,

First 200 of 1,147 passages. Read on

Linked texts (22)