________________
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
[AUGUST, 1912.
(2) Secondly, it is wrong to infer that the Hindus had the enharmonic genus of the Greeks or anything similar to it, because they unanimously reckon twenty-two śrutis in their octave. In the Preliminary Remarks above, the European scale is given in cents, twelve hundred being reckoned in the octave; but it would be absurd to argue therefrom that the Europeans have a genus in which the notes ascend by single cents.
(3) Thirdly, (a) thinking that the scheme of the scale as given by Sanskrit authors was
sa ri ga
ma pa
dha
ni 80
186
48 4 á 3 j
23
4 8 3 & 26 which is an error, as will be shown presently, and (b) finding the prevailing Hindu scale and the modern European major scale indistinguishable,20 and (c) noticing three sorts of intervals in the classical Hindu scale, 21 and (d) observing them (owing to his erroneous scheme of the scale) to occupy, as regards their comparative magnitudes, the same places as the major tone, the minor tone, and the semitone in the European scale, except in one instance (viz., the interval between the fifth and the sixth), Sir W. Jones naturally succumbed to the temptation of looking upon the two scales as quite identical, and made the assertions that the four-, three-, and two-śrutis intervals were respectively the major tone, the minor tone and the semitone. But the three-śrutis interval was a stumbling block. As this interval was identified with a tone, a śruti had to be considered as a third of a tone; at the same time, the four-srutis interval being looked upon as a major tone, a śruti had also to be supposed to be equivalent to a quarter of a tone. If the value of a śruti, however, be admitted to be thus uncertain, of what use could such a variable standard be? If an inch be sometimes a twelfth of the foot and sometimes only a sixteenth, how could it ever be of use as a measuring unit? Sir W. Jones seems to have thought that he had effectually got out of the dilemma by saying they do not pretend that those minute intervals are mathematically equal, but consider them as equal in practice." He seems to be unconscious of the fact that we cannot possibly consider a quarter-tone and a third of a tone as equal in practice, and choose either indifferently as the equivalent of a áruti in the classical Hindu scale and yet make the scale coincide with the European. Thus, if we suppose a śruti to be a quarter of a major tone, i.e., 51 cents (see above), the value of the three-, and two-śrutis intervals will respectively be 153 and 102 cents, that is, even though the two-śrutis interval may be allowed to pass as practically equal to the diatonic semitone of 112 cents, the three-śrutis interval cannot be taken as equal to the minor tone of 182 cents. On the other hand, if we take a śruti as a third of a minor tone, i.e., 61 cents, the four- and two-śrutis intervals will respectively be 244 and 122 cents; and here again even though we considered the two-śrutis interval as practically equal to the diatonic semitone of 112 cents, the same cannot be said of the four-srutis interval and the major tone of 204 cents.22 But the amount of error becomes still more pronounced, when we remember (as will be pointed out later on) that the old Sanskrit musicians were much more concerned about their just23 fourths and fifths than about their seconds, and when accordingly we find their value on the hypothesis of Sir W. Jones.
20 I have allowed the two scales to be practically the same, but when anybody wishes to establish the identity in detail, as for instance with regard to major and, minor tonos, he must produce stronger experimental evidence than Sir W. Jones has done.
21 Hereafter I shall use the name classical Hindu scale' to mean the (Shadja) scale given in Sanskrit treatises. The term ancient or old scale' is not suitable, for even in modern Sanskrit books it continued to be takon as the standard, though there is reason to believe that it was not the prevailing scale, which in its turn could, of course, be expressed in terms of the standard. I know of Sanskrit books on music composed in the last few years in which the classical Hindu scale is taken as the standard, though it is no longer the standard in practice.
13 As will be seen hereafter, the fact is that a śruti must be looked upon as practically invariable, like all other standards, with the result that the classical Hindu scale cannot be the same as the European one, even allowing that Sir W. Jones' scheme of the former as given above is correct.
2 All the fourths and fifths of the classical scale are not just, only those with the intervals of nine and thirteen irutis respectively being allowed to be so (vide seq.).
