Indian Antiquary Vol 41

Author(s): Richard Carnac Temple, Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarkar
Publisher: Swati Publications

Page 192

188
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
[AUGUST, 1912.
first to go back to the most ancient of Sanskrit treatises on music, was actually misled by them This was very unfortunate, as he thereby missed the opportunity of correcting the prevalent error. and actually thought Bharats to be wrong in certain places, where he was quite correct.29 Thus finding the order of brutis given in the Bh. different from that given by Sir W. Jones, he thought that the discrepancy was probably due to the exigency of the metre 20 The first person to detect the error was Raja S. M. Tagore, who had himself previously given currency to it in his own writings.30 But, unfortunately, instead of acknowledging it as such, be tries to defend it and in doing so falls into fresh errors.1 Thus he says: “In the arrangement of the Srulis, modern usage is diainetrically opposite to the classical one; the latter placing them before the Notes to which they respectively belong, while the former fix their position after the Notes. Sapposing a cypher to represent : Sruti, the classioal arrangement would be like this:
0000 000 00 00 00 0000 000 00
sa ri g a ma pi dha ni The modern arrangement is as follows:
0000000000000000000000
89 riga ma pa dha * It is difficult to determine when or by whom the alteration in the arrangement was effected, The arrangement of the frets on the Vin í and other stringed instruments accords with the modern acceptation of the principle. It will be seen from a look at these instruments, that, in them Gin lhára and Nish ida, each of which has two Srutis, and is called in European music a semitone, bave, between themselves and the succeeding notes, half the space that is allotted to those having four Srutis ; and following the same method, Rishabha and Dhairata, hare, with reference to the next succeeling Notes, each a fourth less than that of Shad, Madhyana, ani Panchame (each of which has four Srutis). According to a rule laid down in the classicai trcatisss, the disposition of the notes is reversed in the case of Diravi (literally, wooden, i. e.. stringed) instruments, and out of this reversed arrangement, perhaps, the modern theory about the arrangement of the position of the Sritis has bcn cvolved." Thea in a footnote he adds :- Capt. Willard, Sir W. Jones, and other eminent writers, who had carefully studied the principles of Indian Music and were practically acquainted with it, adopted the modern disposition of the Srutis."
Now in this passage the only statements which are correct are (1) that the classical arrangement of the srulis in the skilja-grant is as given there, and not as was given by former writers und by the Ruja himself in his previous works and (2) that in the classical arrangement the semitones were between ri and ga, and between dha ani ni,s! and that in the modern arrangement they are batween ga and ms, and betwen ni an 18. All else is wrong. He had no right to assert that the error eous scheme was the modern acceptation of the principle,' without quoting his authority for it. Then he adds that the modern arrangement of the frets on the vind and other stringel instruments Accords with it, for, he says, that if the space between the frets sa and ri, ma and po and pa and dha be taken as four units, that between the frets ri and ga, and dha and ni is three, and that between ga and ma, and ni and sa two. I need hardly remark that all this is quite
23 J. Grosset-Contrib. a l'Étule de la Musique Hindoue, p. 84, notes 27 and 28. 29 Opus cit. p. 85, note 34. 80 Hindu Music 1874 ; Six Principal Ragas, 2nd edition, 1877. 51 Musical Scales of the Hindu, 1884, pp. 93-94.
31 The reader should note caref ally that I say that the semitones were between riand ga, and dha and ni, and not between the second and third notes, and the sixth and seventh notes, respeotively, because, as will be pointe ! out bereafter, the olasioal sa wag not the first of the goale in the same sonse as the present day sa is.