________________
190
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
[AUGUST, 1912.
ei Trefftrai yra a u and in that case it is evident that he has misinterpreted them, probably because he bad not before him the context. The passage runs as follows:
। इति वस्तुस्थितिस्तावद्वारे त्रेधा भवेदसौ । [ असौ नादः]
EN FETTO AU are sfare il विगुणः पूर्वपूर्वस्मादयं स्यादुत्तरोत्तरः।
a retratura erezi faza: 11 (Samgita-darpana 1, 49-50) It simply means that in the case of the body-viņa' the pitch rises as you go higher and higher (thus it is low in the chest, middle in the thront, and bigh in the head),35 whereas it is just the reverse in the case of a wooden riņa, that is to say the pitch rises as you go lower and lower on the instrument. The reader will at once see that this has no connection whatsoever with the supposed sliding of the srutia.
Again, when the author proceeds to defend Capt. Willard, Sir W. Jones, and other eminent writers' by saying that they adopted the modern disposition of the Srutis', he is not adhering to facts; for a reference to the writings of Sir W. Jones will show that he was writing on the authority of Sanskrit treatises, none of which speak of the so-called modern disposition of the Śrutis.'
Lastly, it is curious to note that even when the Rajá has made the discovery of the correct arrangement of the arutis in the classical scale and published it in his Musical Scales of the Hindus, he gives in the Sapplement to the same work a drawing, said to be executed for him by a European friend, which, though labelled The Primitive Sanskrit Sharja-gráma,' is nothing more or less than Sir W. Jones' original misinterpretation of that scale,30
In all this confusion of assumptions and assertions without authority or evidence, it is a relief to find one writer take a correct view of the nature of the śrutis. Mr. R. H. M. Bos anquet34 reveals a wonderful clearness of vision when he writes : Are the brutis all equal in value? The native writers say nothing about this, but the European ones for the most part suggest that they are not. For instance, an English reviewer recently wrote, “ A áruti is a quarter tone or a third of a tone according to its position in the scale." This appears to be a misapprehension arising from the modern idea that each interval of a tone in the scale is necessarily the same. But the language in which the different forms of the scale is [? are] described distinctly indicates that a note rises or falls when it gains or loses a Srati; consequently we may infer that the Srntis are intended to be equal in general sort of way, probably without any very great precision.' But 50 great was the influence of the writings of Sir W. Jones (probably because he was a Sanskrit scholar) and Raja S. M. Tagore (probably because he was a Hindu writer) that one need not be surprised at the following criticism on his paper by Capt. Day, who happens to be neither :. This calculation of Mr. Bosanquet's was male on the assumption that all the arutis were equal. That such could not have been in reality the case, or that the employment of the system of twentytwo never entered practically into Indian music, would seem to be from all evidence almost certain.
*. Of course, this is the Hindu belief, according to which low-pitohed notes proceed from the chest, those of middle pitoh from the throat, and those of high pitob from the head,
* On the Musical Modes of the Hindu (Works Vol. IV, p. 188 ; reprinted in Hindu Mwie from Various Authors, 2nd edn. p. 141.)
On the Hindu Division of the Octave, etc. Jan. 1877 (Proceedings of the Royal Society of London), quoted on Tagore's Hindi Music from Various Authors 2nd, edition.
The perfoot truth of this inference will be evident in the sequel, where it will be established on the authority of Sanskrit treatises.
