Critical Studies in the Mahabharata (V. S. Sukthankar Memorial Edition, Vol. I) c7.s3.67

c7.s3.67

Here again we notice WINTERNITZ's prejudice against hiatus; to which I had drawn attention in the discussion on 1. 57. 20, above. But here my case is stronger still. As far as the Vedic tradition is concerned, *e* (like *o*) remained unchanged before *a* which was generally elided in the written text, but, according to the evidence of metre, must almost invariably in the Ṛgveda and generally in the Yajurveda and Atharvaveda, be pronounced whether written or not. According to the statistics prepared by Vedic scholars, it must be pronounced in the Ṛgveda in 99 per cent of the cases, in the Atharvaveda and the metrical portion of the Yajurveda, in about 80 per cent of its occurrences. This shows that in the older stages of the language, at any rate, any Sandhi between final *e* (or *o*) and initial *a* was rare. The rule becomes more and more rigid as we advance, until with classical authors, ignorance or violation of the rule came to be regarded as a capital blunder. Now the Mbh., whatever its age be, stands unquestionably midway between the Vedic and the classical epoch, and therefore partakes naturally of the linguistic characteristics of both. In the Vedic literature, where the scribes or editors did not dare to add even a single syllable to the received text, the later antipathy towards hiatus shows itself in the efforts to coalesce, in the written text, the adjoining vowels, according to rules of (Sanskrit) grammar, leaving a correct but unmetrical and unreadable line. The subterfuge is however so obvious that no one hesitates to dissolve the Sandhi automatically and restore the hiatus. Much reluctance is felt, on the other hand, by scholars [109] in admitting that the epic text likewise contained originally many instances of hiatus, though of course they are not as frequent as in the Veda. The reluctance is due to two causes. Firstly the Mbh. text looks on the surface so like a classical text that scholars, who have so far studied the text mainly from printed editions, insist on applying rules of classical grammar to the text. The second reason is that the ancient redactors who had not the same compunction about making small alterations in the epic text (as is evident from our critical apparatus) as they had in the case of the Vedic texts, have not resorted to coalescence in order to remove the hiatus, but have boldly added little expletives like *ca*, *tu*, *hi* for saving their precious rules of grammar, a procedure which, as it leaves the line metrically intact, makes the detection of their nefarious interference difficult, if not impossible. Now though the Mbh. looks on the surface like a classical text, there are many peculiarities of Sandhi and grammar—even in the printed editions and the Vulgate—which distinguish it from a classical text. Coalescence unknown to classical usage is seen in *amale 'tmānam* (1. 68. 64), *te 'jñayā* (1. 70. 41), *manyate 'tmānam* (1. 198. 19). We have hiatus in a compound in *Nārāyaṇaurogataḥ* (1. 16. 35); *Pragṛhya* Sandhi in *samupete 'dbhute 'naghe* (fem. du. 1. 14. 5), *jajñate 'stravi śāradau* (1. 57. 88) etc. Double crasis in *pannagābhavan* (1. 21. 6), *Vasumanābravīt* (1. 87, 18), *jāyateti* (1. 11. 13). Hiatus between pādas, caused by the change of *as* to *o* (1. 76. 35) : *jagāma svapuram hṛṣṭo anujñāto mahātmanā*. Frequently we come across Prakritic Absolutives like *gṛhya* (1. 2. 93 ; 9. 19 ; 39. 23, 30 ; 119. 16 ; 123. 12, 16, 50 ; 124. 20 etc.), *toṣya* (1. 1. 109), *cintya* (1. 9. 2), *uṣya* (1. 71. 58), etc. etc.; and the converse (*tvā* for *ya* in *sam-pūjayitvā* (1. 54. 15), *ānayitvā* (1. 66. 12), *ni-ṣṭanitvā* (1. 85. 18), *anu-śiṣṭvānugatvā* ca (1. 133. 24), *prāpayitvā* (1. 189. 25) etc., some of which may however, be explained as absolutives of verbs with separable prepositions. Such a separable preposition we have in 1. 65. 34 :