________________
JULY, 1912.]
ANCIENT HINDU MUSIC
157
CONTRIBUTION TO THE STUDY OF ANCIENT HINDU MUSIC.
BY RAO SAHIB PRABHAKAR R. EHANDARKAR, B.A., LM. & S.; INDORE. TIE subject of ancient Hinda music does not seem to have received that attention from Indian1 ists which it deserves. More than a century ago Sir William Jones, Francis Fowke, J. D. Paterson, etc., made attempts to elucidate Hindu music. Bat those were days of pioneering work, when very little was known of Sanskrit literature to European scholars, and the Siddhanta-Kaumul! was considered to be the title of the grammatical work of Pinini and Kallinátha passed for a rislu. Since that time no attempt has been made to interpret Sanskrit treatises on music. Thus, Raja S, M. Tagore, who has done so much to attract attention to Hindu music, and has compiled a small Sanskrit book on the subject, almost invariably follows the authors just mentioned ; and Captain Day, who has rendered such a great service to the present day Karnatik system of music, has simply contented himself by quoting from the writings of the Raja and the previous writers, when treating of the theory and old practice of Hindu music. The only exception is that of Monsieur J. Grosset, who has not only gone back to original Sanskrit authors, but has been the first, as far as my knowledge goes, to study the most ancient of them, viz., Bharata. Unfortunately besides the various disadvantages under which a foreign scholar, living ontside of India, naturally labours in a work of this sort, Monsieur Grosset manifests too much faith in the writings of Raja S. M. Tagore. The necessary result of this has been the propagation of errors originally made by the pioneers namel above. This one finds them in Carl Eagel's writings, Ambros' Geschichte der
Music and Helmholtz's Sensations of Tone, to mention only the most important works. It is hoped that the following essay will help to correct these errors,
There are other serious defects also in the writings of Sir W. Jones and his contemporaries. Thus, the authors have no first-hand knowledge of some of the Sanskrit works on music they mention. For instance, Sir W. Jones attributes various things to Bharata, which do not occur in that author's work. Indeed, Samgita-N Ardyana and Somanatha's Räga-vibodha seem to be the only trvatises of which he has a direct knowledge, and even then he has not discovered the date of the conosition of the latter, though it is given at the end of that book, and simply remarks that "it seems a very ancient composition." This tendency of referring everything Hinda to the hoary past is a characteristic fault of writers of this period, and is, of course, quite excusable, considering the limitel knowledge of Indian matters at the time. It is regrettable, however, to find it in later writers, as for example, when Râjâ S. M. Tagore, a century later, refors Hindu musical notation to an age anterior to the commencement of the authentic history," and produces in support of his statement nothing older than the facsimile of an air from Somanatha's work (A.D. 1609) which had originally appeared with Sir W. Jones' paper.
In the following essay, pains have been taken to indicate the probable period of a particular stage of Hindu musia under discussion, which, it is hoped, will incidentally show the unsafeness of the common argument of " the well-known hatred of change of the Hindus," 80 often called into requisition when definite knowledge fails.
I have taken the following Sanskrit treatises on music to serve as sign-posts in the development of that art :
1. Bharatiya-ndiya-sdstra, circa 4th century A. D. Abbrev. Bh. (Kavyamala edition).
2. Sarngadova's Samgila-ratndkara, written some time between A.D. 1210-1247. Abbrev, S. R. (Anandashrama edition).
3. Somanatha's Raga-vibodha, A. D. 1609. Abbrev. R. V. (ed. Gharpare).
4. Ahobala's Sangita-pdrijdta, circu the latter half of the 17th century. Abbrev, S. P. Poona edition, unless Calcutta edition be specially mentioned).
