Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/61851493/The-Anxiety-of-Innovation-Allison-Busch
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 06:17:05+00:00

Document:
In striking contrast to its extensive cultural reach in early modern times. The hierarchies involved are implicit at the most basic lexical level. Riti literary protocols follow a very different logic from the styles of modernity (or bhakti). even hundreds of types of nayikas or alankaras (figures of speech). This is my primary goal here. the riti poets‟ use of a high register of vernacular diction and preoccupation with time-worn themes from Sanskrit have come to be viewed as representative of the decadent and mannerist tendencies of a tired feudal age. who seem especially to value its forms of demotic expressivity. as well as how Brajbhasa poet-intellectuals reflected upon both the constraints and new creative potential of their medium during a moment of intense growth for Hindi writing. which seems to stem partly from a generalized post-Romantic distaste for courtly literature. retrograde. Although more bhakti-oriented sixteenth-century Brajbhasa writers such as Kriparam (fl. later court poets such as Kesavdas (fl. Traditional hierarchies concerning the inferior intellectual status of vernacular writing were doubtless en- . During the seventeenth century more than ever before. This explanatory model. in contrast. offers one starting point for a reevaluation of the history of riti literary culture. To be a vernacular writer was to exhibit both a linguistic and an intellectual failing. Sanskrit poets and literary theorists were compelled to share the prestige and patronage they had so long monopolized. One crucial factor to understand is that practitioners of the Hindi riti style began under the shadow of Sanskrit. 1540) and Nanddas (fl. and reactionary. particularly the processes of cultural and intellectual fortification that were required for the elevation of a vernacular with formerly modest aspirations to an elite status. the movement between classical and vernacular languages was unidirectional. riti literature by virtue of its association with late medieval courtly life has been dismissed as stilted. with a focus on the intellectual and poetic contexts in which courtly styles flourished.5 But if we suspend judgment and try to think outside the narrow constraints of modern literary biases. In contrast to the simplicity and naturalism celebrated as characteristic of premodern Hindi‟s better-known corpus. or which expect of poetry or intellectual practices something other than what premodern Indians expected. What is astonishing. and that direction could only be downward. For Braj writers and connoisseurs alankarasastra was a crucial complex of literary modalities upon which the very existence of poetry and literary criticism depended. bhakti literature. Vernaculars were by definition “corrupted” (apabhrashta) languages. and emergent vernacular writers often faced an uphill battle for symbolic capital. whose works catalogue dozens.6 From the perspective of one firmly rooted in a Sanskrit worldview. is how little of an attempt has been made to identify and understand those protocols and logic. and forging connections to classical traditions was a sine qua non of early vernacular literary and intellectual life. and it is perfectly reasonable that this should be the case.46 Comparative Studies of South Asia. Africa and the Middle East. Modern readers tend to feel bewildered by the hypertaxonomical style of riti authors. 24:2 (2004) tually enabling it to pose a formidable challenge to Sanskrit. completely misconstrues the valence of literary classicism in the riti world. Vernacular Incompetence? Both in South Asia and elsewhere early modern literary cultures typically insisted on a strong distinction between the status of local and prestige languages. complete with subtypes. however. Tracing how this new acceptance of Brajbhasa came about. 1570) already evince some interest in the classical alankarasastra themes that would become the defining feature of riti literature. It is hard to know how one could even begin to compete with a language that claimed not only perfect but divine status. particularly in courtly circles. Dismissive attitudes towards the courtly styles of Hindi literature have long served as an obstacle to serious scholarship on the subject. the unfavorable reactions to riti that predominate in modern Hindi scholarship were not even remotely shared by members of the literary public in early modern times. 1600) and his successors put riti styles and methods on the intellectual-historical map. and their low status may be divined from the fact that they apparently did not even merit their own names: they were usually just called “language” (bhasa).” Sanskrit was also widely venerated as the “language of the gods” (devavani/suravani). denotes (and connotes) the height of dignity: it means “perfectly formed.4 As I shall demonstrate in detail below. and partly from now-outdated theories about India‟s late precolonial decline. I conclude with some remarks on the meaning and value of riti literary systems for Hindi poets and scholars of the late precolonial world. I explore the methodologies that underpinned the developing field of Brajbhasa alankarasastra. which deem courtly literature stilted and insincere. The very word Sanskrit. In examining this subject I consider how Sanskrit intellectuals responded to the growing popularity of the vernacular style. In South Asia. as vernacular writing expanded in scope and met with increasing acceptance. the Hindi riti tradition is today little studied and poorly understood. an otherwise common enough linguistic chain of command was further entrenched by several Sanskrit ideologies that seemingly ruled out any hope for the acceptance of vernacular writing. Whereas bhakti poetry has been embraced by modern scholars. it may be possible to develop an appreciation for riti literary trends from the perspective of their own cultural milieu.
henceforth Campu) of Jayarama Pindye. Kavindra may have expressed shame at using bhasa. 1660). nonetheless. late tenth century). 1631). it was not uncommon for Sanskrit poets to borrow their themes from vernacular languages.9 No less remarkable for what it articulates about new perceptions of vernacular authority is the Sringaramanjari‟s own textual history: the work had originally been composed in Telugu.Busch: The Anxiety of Innovation 47 shrined in theory. we know that such a stance conflicts radically with the actual practices of the poet‟s own day. and Bhanudatta‟s Rasamanjari (Bouquet of Emotion. and this sentiment was echoed by many anxious vernacular-using pandits and poets of the day. the existence of Sanskrit commentaries on and translations of Brajbhasa works from this period suggests a new degree of credibility and acceptance for vernacular writing. Compositions in Braj and other dialects of Hindi were also routinely sponsored by the Maratha courts. c. There is indeed much evidence of profound ambiva- lence towards its literary and scholarly potentialities.11 The name Brajbhasa (language of Braj) may have once marked the language‟s cultural and linguistic ties to the Braj/Mathura area of north India. At first glance. is similarly contradictory in its unease about vernacularity while simultaneously endorsing it. The Sringaramanjari is. Jayarama‟s narrative makes clear that Sanskrit and vernacular poets were simultaneously present at a reallife poetry contest that was sponsored by the court of Sahaji Bhonsle (father of the famous Maratha Sivaji). For instance. In fact. share the designation “principal text” (pramukhagrantha) with such illustrious Sanskrit works as Dhananjaya‟s Dasarupaka (Ten Genres.15 The stated reason for keeping the single desabhasa canto separate from the ten Sanskrit ones further attests to Jayarama‟s perception of linguistic hierarchies. If hardly a much-vaunted fact in Sanskrit circles. one of the most reputed intellectuals of the mid-seventeenth century. hardly the older paradigm of vernacular inferiority. to my knowledge. Although there is evidence that Brajbhasa writing was acquiring an unprecedented degree of circulation and intellectual cachet. Mammata‟s Kavyaprakasa (Light on Literature.16 And yet while Jayarama‟s insistence on keeping the Sanskrit and vernacular domains of expression absolutely separate appears to shore up traditional notions of Sanskrit purity and supremacy.13 The Radha-madhava-vilasa-campu (The Love-Play of Radha and Krishna. there are strong tensions between his professions of vernacular inferiority and the actual strength of his vernacular writerly persona. in which the relational dynamics of Sanskrit and Brajbhasa were being renegotiated – particularly in the disciplines of literature and literary science.12 And yet for all this pandit‟s disclaimers. the poet‟s patron. Heightening the tension surrounding the status of Sanskrit versus other languages is Jayarama‟s own apparent confusion about how to handle the multilinguality of his Campu: he vacillates on several occasions about whether he has actually written a Sanskrit work or a bhasa one.8 Striking testimony to a new sense of the validity of vernacular scholarship is offered by Akbar Shah‟s Sringara-manjari (Bouquet of Passion. although the reverse process was certainly more widespread. probably c. In the opening to the Sringaramanjari two of the earliest Braj ritigranths. he did so to almost an equal extent. for instance. it was not always readily embraced. 1670). and the author boldly proclaims himself to be a master of poetry in twelve languages. and it is only in the last chapter that the other languages appear – all lumped together as though the very structure of the work were designed to cast the vernaculars in the role of dilettantish pretenders. unprecedented in its citing of Brajbhasa authors as sources alongside Sanskrit literary authorities – as though they were newly perceived as intellectual equals. the very contours of Kavindracarya‟s life work appear to illustrate a newer pattern of vernacularclassical parity. Kesavdas‟s Rasikpriya and Sundar‟s Sundarsringar (Beautiful Adornments. Nor was its literary presence at Golconda particularly exceptional. c. but by the second half of the seventeenth century Brajbhasa had clearly moved far beyond its original parameters – both geographically and expressively. who is often hailed as the last great Sanskrit poet-intellectual before the vernacular wave began to erode the oncesolid embankments of classical textual authority. . Jayarama‟s Campu would appear to be a veritable paean to polyglossia: the work is composed in a combination of Sanskrit and eleven regional languages (desabhasa). spoke of his sense of shame (laj) at writing in the vernacular.7 Furthermore. from which it was translated into both Brajbhasa10 and Sanskrit. judging from his extant works. The division of linguistic labor is unequal: the first ten cantos are written exclusively in Sanskrit. Brajbhasa poetry is widely held to have influenced Jagannatha Panditaraja (d. He repeatedly asserts that it would be inappropriate to include vernacular poems in the Sanskrit section of his Campu. mid-eleventh century). Vernacular and Sanskrit poets may have shared the same cultural arena in his lived experience. which was celebrated as the center of Krishna lore.14 But upon closer scrutiny the reader remains confused about the relative status of Sanskrit and bhasa in this text. 1500). That Brajbhasa was now functioning alongside Sanskrit as a major transregional language of letters at a Dakhani court is another telling index of its new cultural status. but he nonetheless wrote in both Braj and Sanskrit and. a Sanskrit alankarasastra text written at the Golconda court. Kavindra‟s fellow Maharashtrian and contemporary. Kavindracarya Sarasvati. actual practice during the riti period reveals a far more complex picture.
1. bhasa had begun to impinge upon the traditional dominance of Sanskrit. and it contains dozens of vernacular poems of breathtaking vibrancy in a range of different dialects (including Brajbhasa and other variants of premodern Hindi). and he was famous throughout the land.” like Kavindra‟s “laj. who were in a far weaker cultural position. if not more. He came from a lineage of Sanskrit pandits who had served the courts of Orcha and nearby Gwalior. for at least five of the ten Sanskrit cantos are almost lifeless hyperliterary tableaus: conventional descriptions of Radha and Krishna (nakhasikha). He wrote The Moonlight of Ramcandra in the vernacular [bhasa]. In addition to the Rasikpriya. for instance. the seasons (shadritu-varnanam).19 Thus. appears to Kesavdas in a dream. and a deferential attitude towards classical authority.7–21).48 Comparative Studies of South Asia. 2. Kasinatha Misra. but it also has the effect of tapping into Sanskrit textual authority and rescripting it to shore up the claims of vernacular writing. Africa and the Middle East. by general scholarly consensus the first riti poet. (vv. Valmiki. For instance. Profoundly aware of the literary frontier he was crossing. pressing for Hindi writers. the poet Kesavdas.17 Whereas relegating the vernacular compositions to a final appendix-like chapter (pranta) may suggest that Jayarama intended readers to view them as inferior to the weightier themes inspired by his Sanskrit muse.” and was endowed with every virtue. they were bound to be equally. Kesavdas‟s personal profile – no less than his intellectual and literary one – points toward the major cultural shift that the early riti tradition represents. He held the title “king among pandits. who had boundless wisdom – like Lord Ganesa. Kesavdas made an indelible mark on literary history when he steered the once homely language of Hindi into new expressive domains by producing several foundational poetics treatises in the ritigranth style. respectively. the Chandamala (Garland of Metrics. ultimately the actual execution of the work belies such a proposition. This Campu serves as a metaphor for one of the most important phenomena of seventeenth-century courtly life: despite the earlier doctrines that denied its expressive validity. For if seeking blessings from a hallowed Sanskrit predecessor appears to suggest humility. Kesavdas made a significant break with family tradition. had authored an astrological treatise in Sanskrit. and renditions of other tired motifs like the lovers‟ “waterplay” (jalakrida) or their flower-strewn bed (pushpasayya). as well as the first formal work on Braj metrics. Krishnadatta had a son named Kasinatha. 24:2 (2004) but Jayarama somehow could not allow them to do so in his textual world. Handbook for Poets. 1612) he also imparted a new vernacular shape to Sanskrit genres like the courtly epic (mahakavya) and panegyric (prasasti). In a scene well-suited to Kesavdas‟s own poetry of vernacular beginnings. the Sighrabodha (Quick Understanding). other indications in Kesavdas‟s oeuvre prompt us to be wary of taking this “slow-witted” poetic persona completely at face value. several stylistic features of Kesavdas‟s scholarly works invite us to view his professed diffidence as a mere literary convention. appears to signal a feeling of apprehension about vernacularity. he stated in a now famous verse: In his family even the servants Did not use the vernacular. initially reads as a reprise of the self-deprecating sentiments from the Kavipriya verse. 1. by turning his attention exclusively to vernacular compositions. Valmiki‟s presence at the very outset of Kesavdas‟s story evokes a complicated metatextual resonance about literary beginnings. The status of vernacular writing was certainly a central concern for Kesavdas. The eleventh canto of Jayaramaa‟s Campu is almost as long as all the Sanskrit cantos put together. in . (Kavipriya. With highly elaborate literary compositions such as Ramcandracandrika (Moonlight of Ramcandra. 1602). He had an exemplary character. v. but the overall effect of this passage suggests that he is toying with his readers. Kasinatha studied all the Sanskrit scholarly texts. Kesavdas starts out in a humble enough manner: There was a Sanadhya Brahman by name of Krishnadatta Misra. and synthesized many different theories. The opening to his Ramcandracandrika. venerated as the first poet of Sanskrit literature (adikavi). His father. perhaps one ironically intended to bring precisely his cleverness into sharper focus. But aside from the obvious fact that the slow-witted do not know they are and do not declare it.17) The self-description “mandamati. If concerns about vernacular legitimacy loomed large in the consciousness of Sanskrit writers and occasionally engendered uncomfortable emotions. 1554–92). 1601). If the epic Ramcandracandrika is ambiguous in its stance towards the status of Brajbhasa writing.4–5) Complicating Kesavdas‟s tone of ostensible vernacular humility here is his paradoxical appropriation of Sanskrit literary prestige in a series of subsequent verses. 1601) and Jahangirjascandrika (Moonlight of the Fame of Jahangir. and inspires the fledgling Brajbhasa author to write his own version of the Ramayana (vv. its opposite is also in evidence: the usurping of Sanskrit cultural space by the suggestion that a bhasa Ramayana can take its place. To Kasinatha was born a slow-witted son. But the slow-witted [mandamati] Kesavdas Became a bhasa poet. The vocation of his elder brother Balabhadra was to recite the Sanskrit Puranas for the Orcha king Madhukar Shah (r. Kesavdas wrote the Kavipriya.” or Jayarama‟s peculiar procedure for handling non-Sanskrit poetry in his Campu.18 If anything it is the vernacular poetry that shows real originality in the work.
the accompanying example verses – the actual literary practice – almost invariably consists of original poetry. „kesava‟ kabi-siramaura. Indifferent to worldly things. to imply that he is anything but lacking in competence as a vernacular scholar. the chap (poetic signature). the sole consideration seems to be whether the text under scrutiny is a bhakti or riti work. How can we reconcile both claims? The paradoxical nature of vernacular newness is perhaps nowhere more apparent than in chapter 3 of Kesavdas‟s Kavipriya. however. and doubtless some lakshans of Brajbhasa ritigranths are indeed simply paraphrases of Sanskrit models. And yet there is a curious contradiction in their practice. many early Brajbhasa scholars also insist that they have not departed from existing Sanskrit traditions. When the heart remains still. basai eka hi thaura. he begins by . perhaps taking Kesavdas too much at his word. where the homely dialects of (supposedly) everyday speech fought for and were accorded representation in the field of the literary. “kesava. modern critics have not emphasized the new.26 Rather. best of poets. After preliminary chapters on his court. but it would be a serious mistake to interpret it too literally as a reflection of true vernacular incompetence. Indifferent to worldly things. the author embarks upon his treatment of vernacular literary theory in earnest with the classical subject of doshas.23 When it comes to riti poets‟ use of the vernacular. his king.” which is indicated by quotation marks in the fourth quarter) as a mere statement of the poet: Kesavdas says. have failed to read him or later riti writers with the care they deserve.25 In cases where the theoretical apparatus is largely derived from Sanskrit the ritigranth genre would be more accurately characterized as a poetry anthology rather than a scholarly work.22 In a bhakti context vernacularization is hailed as “liberation” from the classical language. But no matter what the intellectual aspirations of a riti author. For all their apparent radicalism in eschewing the time-honored language of courtly intellectual life. and their strong reliance on Sanskrit models and method. this point seems to have been lost on many scholars who. and himself. a claim that warrants more careful exploration. seventh century) – otherwise a major Sanskrit source book for the Kavipriya). The best poets define that as The sentiment of quiescence. The near-universal assessment of modern Hindi criticism is that the field of Braj alankarasastra lacks the scholarly merits of its Sanskrit counterpart. In composing this constellation of introductory literary principles Kesavdas does not strictly follow Dandin‟s Kavyadarsa (Mirror of Literature. This surreptitious form of self-praise in fact turns out to be a common feature of Kesavdas‟s lakshan verses (and those of many other riti authors as well). and the structural dynamics of the doha (couplet) meter. creative aspects of the transformation. It is often possible to identify one or more classical sources for the definition portion of any given riti text. and not just a poetical. Another possible translation semantically incorporates the poetic signature: When the heart remains still. In some cases it is true that riti authors do not exhibit much interest in developing bold new theories.37) There are two possible translations of this verse. The way the doha is structured in the original Braj. Typical is his definition of the “sentiment of quiescence” (santarasa) from the Rasikpriya: Saba te hoya udasa-mana. with “kesava” juxtaposed to “best of poets” (kabi-siramaura) and the grouping conveniently filling out a discrete verse quarter of eleven metrical counts.21 The Paradox of Vernacular Newness Unfortunately. (v. 14. and the trumpeting of their vernacular works as new theorizations. defines that as The sentiment of quiescence. Kesavdas.24 The inadequacy of these assumptions becomes obvious if we look closely at the theoretical works of riti authors and try to make sense of their methodologies. An analysis of the processes at work in early vernacular alankarasastra texts will elucidate the more subtle features of Brajbhasa literary science – with particular reference to how riti authors posited new knowledge formulations. however. Many riti authors. riti writers are frequently dismissed a priori by reason of the very linguistic medium they employed: the choice to use Braj instead of Sanskrit apparently suffices in itself to prove that riti scholars are men of diminished intellectual powers and that their works are paltry imitations of more authoritative classical studies.20 The persona of the slow-witted vernacular poet may have constituted a placating gesture towards Sanskrit literary authority (albeit deployed in the very act of transgressing that authority). Tahi so samarasa kahata. the first of which construes the chap (a variant of the poet‟s name. Consider first the illogicality of Hindi literary criticism‟s two widely divergent constructions of what it meant to make the transition from Sanskrit to vernacular authorship: forgoing any attempt at a coherent account of linguistic and cultural processes. did show considerable interest in alankarasastra as a theoretical.Busch: The Anxiety of Innovation 49 many of the definition verses in his ritigranths Kesavdas ingeniously capitalizes on two special features of Hindi composition. enterprise. Here the definition verses merely supply a framework upon which the writer can erect his larger poetic edifice. When compared with their Sanskrit-using forebears. strongly encourages the second interpretation. literary flaws that mar the aesthetic beauty of poetry.
Since a developed tradition of alankarasastra did not yet exist for Braj. Here the example verse is presented in the form of a parody. but they should be compared to the red bimba fruit – not to pale yellow butter. Like lightning or a roaming deer – She moves slowly like an elephant. 3.29 We will almost certainly fail to see alternative forms of newness if we adhere too closely to the paradigm of how change looks from the viewpoint of Western modernity. The moon face of her lover beams in delight. the corpus of Brajbhasa ritigranths does contain much that is unmistakably new. but as someone engaged in a new theorization (vicara) of vernacular literature (bhasa kavita). the Kavikulkalptaru (WishFulfilling Tree for the Brotherhood of Poets. The very fact that one can apparently develop such a theory only upon consulting Sanskrit precepts reveals a core dependency on the classical language. But clearly the question of what it meant to write new literary theory in Brajbhasa was complicated. Yet this innovation ultimately proves to be very measured. Her eyes dart quickly like monkeys. the poet is questioning the authority of Sanskrit. that desirable woman. Cintamani Tripathi. which serves as a humorous warning about the potential aesthetic disaster that lies in wait for an inexperienced poet striking out on his own: Seeing her soft lotus-like breasts in bloom. Sanskrit]. which at first makes the work appear refreshingly new.28 If his lexical choices have the significance I think they do. At first glance the Rasikpriya appears to be a very close adaptation of the Sringaratilaka (Ornament of Passion) by the Sanskrit rhetorician Rudrabhatta (ninth century?). c. and engaged in writing one of the first treatises on Brajbhasa poetics. This ambivalence between innovation and adherence to tradition is not peculiar to Kesavdas. it is difficult to see how the inviolable poetic path (pantha) to which he refers could be anything other than a Sanskrit one. First of all. an entirely new category. On the other. have carefully considered the precepts of books written in the language of the gods [i. it would continue to reverberate among later Brajbhasa scholar-poets. fish (mina) or wagtails (khanjana) are preferable images because they are consecrated by tradition as metaphors for speedily moving objects. Cintamani viewed himself not so much as a translator of his Sanskrit source texts. perhaps we need to begin by asking what arenas of innovation were even open to riti writers for creating new theorizations of the classical themes of alankarasastra. Kesavdas follows virtually the same order of treatment of the subject mat- . when it is a question of the movement of eyes. Her lower lip is sweet like butter. not monkey-eyed! Furthermore. In line three Kesavdas‟s imaginary clumsy poet gets the part about women‟s eyes darting quickly right. The statement “according to my intellectual ability” (budha anusara) further suggests that the poet is providing his own perspective. Lower lips are indeed soft and sweet. The images in the next line are a precarious combination because according to poetic convention (kavisamaya) the moon causes certain lotuses to wither. The corners red like Sindur powder. forging a new vernacular style. There she stands. not soft like blooming lotuses. The first flaw that Kesavdas defines for his readers is the “flaw of blindness” (andhadosha). and this is in my view one major failing of modern approaches to the intellectual life of the riti period..8) The mixed metaphors and infelicities in this verse are innumerable.50 Comparative Studies of South Asia. According to My Own Understanding Despite the frequently overpowering demand for compliance with Sanskrit literary norms. As one of the cornerstone works of the Hindi riti tradition. For Kesavdas the foundational premise of ver- nacular poetics seemingly automatically constrains its newness. 1670): I. in which case finely calibrated interpretive tools are needed to identify it. In line five the hapless poet has bungled things again. but the most egregious errors concern the poet‟s flagrant disregard for tradition. and I am expounding a theory of vernacular literature … I describe the system of vernacular literature according to my intellectual ability. To pinpoint the exact nature of this newness can seem an elusive prospect. Kesavdas‟s Rasikpriya is a particularly useful exemplar of the styles of newness that manifest themselves in early vernacular scholarship. Newness – particularly its premodern manifestations – can exist in a range of subtle forms. Given the longstanding primacy of Sanskrit as the medium of intellectual expression. Seeking metaphors for her beauty Kesavdas despairs. Cintamani.e. The message any would-be poet takes away from this opening passage of the Kavipriya is that vernacular composition must be rooted in classical imagery. a woman‟s breasts should be firm like lotus buds. one of the major riti intellectuals to emerge after Kesavdas. Africa and the Middle East. he tells his readers that they should under no circumstances contravene literary tradition. (v. In Sanskrit poetry beautiful women are doe-eyed (mrigakshi). he makes a serious blunder in choosing the animal. but when it comes to the standard of comparison (upamana). but one intended precisely to proscribe poems that violate tradition!27 On the one hand. expresses a similarly contradictory logic about the nature of vernacular newness in the opening to his magnum opus. As is the standard procedure in a ritigranth. Kesavdas reinforces his definition of the andhadosha with an example verse that develops his point. 24:2 (2004) adducing several unprecedented categories of literary flaws.
which serves. If Sanskrit alankarasastra constituted the main wellspring of intellectual heritage for Kesavdas. the order in which he . who people Rudrabhatta‟s poems are generic.Busch: The Anxiety of Innovation 51 ter as his source.30 As though to hold up a signboard marking out his vernacular innovations. the love of Radha and Krishna is posited as the main substratum: Passion [sringara] arises from the love of Radha and Krishna. but whereas Rudrabhatta gives the reason that such poems lack beauty (asaundaryat). Looking no further than these obvious similarities. 6.41). At first glance Cintamani‟s ideas – like those of Kesavdas – may appear mostly to mimic a Sanskrit source (in this case Mammata‟s Kavyaprakasa). and he also proposes new categories of his own. too. A good example of how the Rasikpriya expands upon the Sringaratilaka’s classificatory scheme is the treatment of lovers‟ meeting places (milana-sthana) in chapter 5. 5. and he could not possibly describe the death of someone immortal and indestructible. but as often as not he veers off on his own detours. to differentiate the work markedly from its Sanskrit source text. The Sringaratilaka may well be Kesavdas‟s guide through the principles of alankarasastra. the samanya nayika. The reality is much more interesting. Perhaps the most obvious point of departure is that the nayakas and nayikas. for Kesavdas the crucial point is that his poems are about god.39–40). Among all of Kesavdas‟s works the Rasikpriya in particular is steeped in a bhakti worldview. one would erroneously conclude. Rudrabhatta lists the possible occasions for lovers‟ rendezvous only in a single verse. The sentiment of passion (sringara rasa). Kesavdas. the Rasikpriya is both new and not new in complex ways. or emotion in literature. For instance. There are certainly many demonstrable lexical borrowings. He gives a complete example of nearly every occasion for the meeting of lovers mentioned in passing in the Sringaratilaka.From the force of their emotion arises my theory [bicara] about the physical gestures [havas] of love. Kesavdas closes this particular chapter with a statement that was to become the refrain of riti poet-intellectuals: “I have composed this passage according to my own understanding” (kahe apni mati anusara. as so many modern Hindi critics have concluded in the case of riti writers across the board. (v. v. the “public woman” or courtesan: “And as for the third type of nayika.57). why should I describe her here? The best poets have said that one should not ruin good poetry by including tasteless [birasa] subjects. the heroes and heroines. but objects of veneration to him: the deities Krishna and Radha. neither Kesavdas nor Rudrabhatta endorses literary representations of lovers who pine so much for their beloved as to reach the point of death (marana-avastha).32 Or when it comes to the three broad types of nayika. in the writer‟s own estimation. given the power of the vernacular‟s rival. given priority of place by all literary theorists both Sanskrit and Braj. perhaps it was obligatory. not furnishing even one example. although in this case (if we are to take him at his word) the poet‟s otherwise bold assertion of independence from the Sanskrit source material is tempered by a qualm about whether he is being too audacious. the primary nayika of the Rasikpriya.34 When it comes to his treatment of the various affective responses and physical gestures (bhavas/havas) that interact to contribute to the full complement of sringara rasa. whereas the main actors in Kesavdas‟s verses are not just any handsome man or woman. May master poets forgive his audacity” (v. too. and significant lexical borrowings in the definition verses show his reliance on Rudra-bhatta to be beyond doubt. earlier Hindi poetry of the bhakti style also contributed in significant ways to the shaping of his scholarly profile.31 Kesavdas‟s reverential stance towards Krishna and Radha underpins numerous points of theoretical divergence. Kesavdas‟s new formulations of his subject matter are nothing if not absolutely deliberate. that Kesavdas simply plagiarized from his Sanskrit predecessor. develops the kernel of Rudrabhatta‟s idea into a major theme of an entirely new chapter on the various aspects of falling in love. seizing this opportunity for creative ramification. The intellectual processes and attitudes that we are observing here were by no means limited to Kesavdas‟s writings. Kesavdas again foregrounds his new approach. However else he may think of his relationship to tradition. is in Kesavdas‟s formulation further defined as being the specific purview of Krishna.33 The omission of the samanya nayika – a popular literary character in Sanskrit poetry – makes perfect sense in terms of the specificities of Kesavdas‟s more bhakti-oriented textual universe: how could Radha. Kesavdas entirely omits one of the categories in his Sanskrit source. 6. 5. as evident from the way he concludes the discussion: “Kesavdas has described the various gestures of Radha and her lover according to his understanding of them. Here I have described all the nayikas according to my own understanding of them” (vv. Whether the request for forgiveness is wholly ingenuous or not. ever be cast in the questionable role of the courtesan? A devotional orientation towards Krishna and Radha also colors Kesavdas‟s treatment of the theory of rasa.15) In this case. One such detour is to invent variations on his predecessor‟s organizing categories. he was often intending to create new knowledge. particularly in places where the original Sanskrit text provides only a cursory treatment of the subject. Cintamani‟s detailed treatment of the classical subject of phonological principles (gunas) in his opening to Kavikulkalptaru is another good example of the technique of postulating vernacular difference without departing radically from the rubric of Sanskrit sastra.
1. a mechanical reiteration of one of the most basic tenets of Sanskrit literary thinking: Literature is defined as expression replete with sentiment. Cintamani states: Language that does not follow the usage of good poets is known as „raw. had both aesthetic and theological associations with the love of Radha and Krishna.6. madhurya-guna. (v. He proclaims. he also puts forward a radically new conception of one of the primary categories. For instance. or did it have a more limited scope than Sanskrit? Perhaps Cintamani‟s historical positioning at a later stage in the development of riti intellectual life than Kesavdas afforded him a clearer perspective on this question. to my knowledge. and writing original poetry to illustrate the categories omitted by Mammata. “There are certain categories of gunas that were theorized by the ancients. No Sanskrit theorist. First of all. 1. too. the quality of sweetness.4-5) In the unassuming manner seemingly characteristic of the Braj intellectual.38 In what we can now recognize as a larger trend among riti intellectuals. Cintamani does not allow his revised treatment of the Sanskrit guna systems to go unremarked. I understood them. after dozens (perhaps hundreds)40 of ritigranths had been written in Brajbhasa. As late as 1746. Therefore. 4. it seems possible to relate the subtle theoretical shift to a specifically bhakti context because in its less technical sense madhurya. (vv. 1. is still compelled to say: I studied the Sanskrit texts Candraloka and Kavyaprakasa. May they correct that which is not. A composition in meter is called “verse.41 . closer scrutiny reveals a new orientation to the subject matter.52 Comparative Studies of South Asia. that is. It is Sanskrit that comprises the two categories of poetry and prose. Bhikharidas. Perhaps this appropriation of the classical language‟s terminology is intended to convey Cintamani‟s sense that Brajbhasa – with a growing body of alankarasastra to support it – was now just as capable of refined expression as Sanskrit. as the vernacular embodiment of alankarasastra not only took hold but eventually supplanted that of Sanskrit. In formulating his new category of the “flaw of rawness” (kacidosha). At first glance his bifurcation of literature into the categories of “prose” and “poetry” in the opening lines of the Kavikulkalptaru seems almost banal. and Radha-Krishna motifs had constituted the primary heritage of Braj literature until the riti period.36 but the last quarter of the doha unexpectedly proclaims that madhurya is the very essence (tattva) of poetry. yet tellingly. As Brajbhasa began to encroach on some of the cultural space that Sanskrit had always occupied.” and “prose” is without meter. Africa and the Middle East. Brajbhasa partook of greater geographic specificity. And made their ideas beautiful in the vernacular. Another significant conceptualization of Brajbhasa‟s relationship to Sanskrit is found in Cintamani‟s treatment of doshas. the special purview of vernacular writing is considered “versified” (chandanibaddha) literary discourse. More significantly. 4.39 Of interest here is Cintamani‟s recognition that whereas Sanskrit is not a language that could be localized. From other sources. In isolating madhurya as a special poetic property Cintamani subtly.9). although prose is not entirely beyond the scope of bhasa. The wise will understand that which is felicitous.37 As is frequently the case with Kesavdas‟s reformulations. as is the framework for understanding them. most riti writers continued to express deference to their classical predecessors.14) Cintamani‟s definition of madhurya certainly resembles Mammata‟s exposition in most respects. I have mixed my own opinions With classical precepts – May poets forgive any faults.35 Nonetheless. 24:2 (2004) treats the various gunas is also identical to that of Mammata. one of the greatest vernacular rhetoricians. the phonological mode of sweetness: In the case of love–in-union a pleasurable experience melts the heart. In Sanskrit. the question of how the relationship between these two languages would be renegotiated naturally arose. I adopted the path of poets. Of even greater moment is Cintamani‟s unprecedented idea that the term “language of the gods” (suravani) may be used to designate Brajbhasa.30). unpolished language. literature is twofold: prose and poetry. And yet if the confidence levels of Brajbhasa intellectuals increased over time. Hearing a vernacular verse composition. singles out any one guna as superior to the others – certainly not to declare it poetry‟s essential feature. offers a new assessment of vernacular literature. Cintamani is actually saying something of great significance. he elaborates considerably on competing systems. I still feel anxiety about that which I have created myself [rahai svakalpita sanka]. and I am writing about all of them here – according to my own understanding” (v. was Brajbhasa an appropriate linguistic medium for all subjects. … But even though I may express my own opinions. good poets derive pleasure.‟ [The language of] the area around Mathura and Gwalior is considered fully ripe. laying out the basic tenets. Cintamani does not merely repeat verbatim Mammata‟s viewpoint on the subject of gunas. This is called madhurya – the very essence of poetry. … And some even say the [language of the] Mathura/Gwalior region is the „language of the gods‟ (vv. and voiced anxieties about their own abilities to contribute new theorizations.
45 Depreciatory terms like mannerist or its Hindi equivalent. and this dual process of simultaneously reprising and reconfiguring the dominant tradition may need to be seen as far more than an act of deference. social justice. Clouding our vision further is a colonial-period legacy of ridiculing traditional Indian epistemological methods. Thus. a culturally generous approach to Indian literary styles was hardly likely to be forthcoming. and long. That is easy enough to do. to be wary of simply rejecting the traditional categories out of hand.Busch: The Anxiety of Innovation 53 A century and a half after Kesavdas had shown scholars of systematic literary thought that such systematicity was not only necessary but possible in the vernacular.44 Although In- dian rasa theory has attracted the attention of some modern intellectuals. And since the late nineteenth century a nationalist preoccupation with newer themes of reform. Those who had a penchant for poetry came And met with glad hearts. They decided to create a new book. Having established new categories And expressive modes [rasa]. Far more challenging. repetition. . the very execution of the project apparently remained a source of anxiety. combined with the assimilation of modern Western genres like the novel. such as how riti methodologies served as an axis for the functioning of courtly literary communities. All the well-known poets met. Implicit in such a construction was the criticism that only unintelligent or intellectually depleted people could possibly confine their analysis to the minutiae of type and subtype rather than larger issues of “substance. and political independence. the poets met and shared their ideas. for the most part canonical Indian systems have never been taken seriously in academic writing. however. and why they mattered so much. The Ritigranth in Practice A useful point of departure for better understanding the function of literary systems in India‟s premodern cultural circles is a passage from the unpublished Sarasasara (Essence of the Aesthetically Endowed) of Ray Sivdas. Surely there are more intelligent (not to mention historically sound and culturally sensitive) ways to understand this massive commitment to cultivating a form of knowledge on the part of serious intellectuals than to dismiss the ritigranth as the decadent failure of a moribund literary culture.and eighteenthcentury sources that will bring greater complexity into the picture. The simultaneous advocacy of both vernacular newness and conformity to Sanskrit tradition may – far from being the puzzle it first seemed when we were confronted with Kesavdas‟s theories about blindness to tradition from the Kavipriya – actually be emblematic of a more complex power play on the part of Brajbhasa literary culture.43 Even early Western scholars who did avow the merits of Indian literature frequently complained that it was stilted and overly elaborate. when our own conceptual instruments are attuned to far less subtle gradations of newness. following rigid literary systems was thought to stifle creative spirit. It was also a self-promoting self-affiliation with the dignity and power of a literary culture of the past that proclaimed Brajbhasa‟s intellectual and aesthetic merits in the contemporary world. as modern students of this premodern literature. presented as based on reasoned argument – analytical and discriminating. is to try to understand what these categories meant to the people who used them. in contrast. taxonomical lists that appeared to befuddle rather than clarify matters through their sheer amplitude. Brahmanical intellectual practices were regularly dismissed by colonial administrators as being focused on memory. Although nowadays the principal riti literary systems such as nayikabheda and manifold classifications of alankaras are dismissed as half-baked and silly – tired relics from a feudal courtly culture – I believe it is incumbent on us. In the final section of this article I invite readers to step away from modern prejudices about riti to consider evidence from a range of seventeenth. impeding access to the more “natural” forms of expression favored by Europeans since the heyday of Romanticism. has contributed to an almost total repudiation of earlier poetic modes. As has been insightfully discussed by Bernard Cohn. ritibaddh (“bound by convention”) foreclose rather than enable discussion of the creativity and power of traditional poetics theory. Or was it simply anxiety? Mixing older Sanskrit ideas with newer vernacular ones – innovation through renovation – was obviously the modus operandi of riti intellectuals.” British patterns of knowing were. Colonized Epistemological and Literary Spaces Perhaps it is not easy to understand the significance of what may seem like mere microrefinements of preexisting theories. but other dimensions also need to be considered. and what the actual uses of the popular ritigranth genre were. We have already come some way towards understanding the riti phenomenon as a set of vernacular intellectual practices. which portrays with great liveliness a gathering of Brajbhasa poets that took place in Agra in 1737: In Agra there was once A meeting of the poets‟ community [kavi-samaja].42 Such (mis)characterizations of Indian epistemology and unfavorable comparisons with Western modes of scholarship were but one arm of a larger body of colonial discourse that tended to characterize the cultural terrain of late-medieval India as exhausted and therefore in need of the restorative influence of British rule. If Indian knowledge practices in general were thus dismissed.
All who were present listed The possible categories with pleasure: According to the extent of their intellect They set out the extensive range of categories. This corroborates much of what we have already observed in the works of Kesavdas and Cintamani: new knowledge was fashioned within the confines of the existing literary system by assessing the continuing viability of older bhedas. and what was the role of the ritigranth in enabling it? In addition to being works of alankarasastra filled with beautiful poetry. With deference to literary systems [riti]. speaks of his literary community more directly in the colophon to his Rasraj (The Principal Rasa): I have composed this new work. A detailed awareness of the plethora of literary types and subtypes formed the substratum of core knowledge that allowed a group of intellectuals to be in dialogue with one another. creating and nurturing a particular way of literary being.47 A final point to consider is what the Sarasasara suggests about the functioning of the Brajbhasa literary community. The riti poets constituted a large preprint network of poet-intellectuals who traveled to various courts throughout India. c. One fundamental dimension of the ritigranth genre was its role in underwriting the courtly culture of per- . In the case of the Agra conference the fashioning of the ritigranth was a collective enterprise. later became possible through the technology of print culture. Each of these will be considered briefly in turn. quite literally. and in literary criticism. But how did this literary public function. skilled in the vernacular. First. or “imagined.” communities. There are several points to note. Second.50 It would be difficult to find bolder statements of the riti poets‟ sense of their works as conduits for ideas that were destined to circulate in a larger literary public. have been well documented in modern scholarship. and take pleasure from it. albeit strong. May the community of master poets understand my work. as in King Jaswant Singh‟s Bhasabhushan (Ornament to the Vernacular. But the actual physical co-presence of scholars was not necessary for the constitution of a larger intellectual community. and to participate in a network of meanings that were intelligible to all. if undertheorized. Africa and the Middle East. for the ritigranth seems to have enabled a strong sense of literary brotherhood (kavikul) from within the confines of a manuscript culture. in pedagogy. In the case of the Agra conference recorded with such enthusiasm in the Sarasasara. for it constitutes one of the fundamental. and the primary way of indicating their shared participation in this community was to write a ritigranth. 1660). here defined as a type of person (tahi nara ke heta…) who could be considered both a vernacular intellectual (jo pandita. The community and national formations that. and occasionally proposing new ones. and an approximate contemporary of Jaswant Singh. for the delectation of connoisseurs. riti texts clearly played a major role in the most critical domains of cultural and intellectual practice: in the performance and interpretation of poetry. belying the British historiographical proposition that the late precolonial period (particularly the eighteenth century) constituted a waning cultural climate.54 Comparative Studies of South Asia. But wise authorities were present In keeping with whose opinions This new book was composed. but in most cases individual poets contributed their “own understanding” to the larger literary and intellectual community in a single-author work. which he closes by stating: Looking at the Sanskrit texts. Matiram Tripathi. probably the brother of the poet Cintamani.49 The very existence (and future popularity) of this work was a factor of the audience that existed to appreciate it. This point merits further investigation. as evident from frequent references to their intended audience in the colophons of their works. I have given shape to their ideas in the vernacular… I have written this innovative work for the kind of person who is scholarly. Beginning in the modern period – according to the now-classic image – two readers of the same newspaper. dimensions of riti literary culture. bhasa-nipuna) and a master of poetry (kavita bishai pravina): the exact profile of the riti courtly intellectual. And each poet brought “his own understanding” into play.48 But clearly the stimulus of print culture. could find themselves participating in a shared cultural space across great distances without ever physically meeting. it has been argued. allowing us a glimpse of how the classical literary systems were. living in separate parts of a country. In some cases the literary community is implied. is not a prerequisite for the development of such notional. understanding the intricacies of specific categories in the literary system was clearly a primary intellectual pursuit. 24:2 (2004) Each according to his ability. Clearly the riti authors themselves were aware of participating in a larger cultural world. a group of Brajbhasa intellectuals was present at the same assembly. reconfiguring them as necessary. and clever with the literary arts. but no less valid for being so. or classificatory distinctions. With the idea that other poets Would correct any shortcomings. a focal point around which scholars converged.46 This vignette of a premodern literary conference affords access to an intellectual vista replete with concerns certainly very different from our own. Rasraj. the passage is infused with a sense of the dynamism of the riti literary environment. The poets were of differing opinions.
where there is room only for the sparsest of narrative details. It cannot be emphasized too strongly that the riti works that come down to scholars today as inert. In the case of this particular poem we need above all to ascertain the characters. in courts it was the focal point of competitions such as samasyapurti. the poet-scholar Surati Misra (fl. and some ritigranth texts.Busch: The Anxiety of Innovation 55 formed poetry. to generate meaning: Why do you drive me crazy with all your lies? You can‟t hide the truth. But the metadiscourse of riti poetics allows us easily to fill in the rest of the story. in later periods. Court pandits – Sanskrit and.51 Poets would then be evaluated on the quality of the poem that they spontaneously completed (purti). According to the conventions of riti literature red eyes in a man are a clue that he has been up all night making love to someone else. we are simply told that upon seeing somebody‟s red eyes a woman gets angry. arcane entities had a more eclectic. it was danced. the addressee and the subject of the conversation are never directly revealed – is readily comprehensible to its audience? As far as the minimal narrative content of the poem goes.55 Reading and learning the principles of alankarasastra alone did not transform one into a scholar of this subject. Success in this kind of competition clearly required a solid background in the various domains of alankarasastra encompassed by scholarly writings in the ritigranth style.52 How is it that a short poem such as this – where the speaker. in which the patron or pandit overseeing the event would propose a point of departure (samasya) for the creation of a set of poems. Your eyes.57 He also frequently raises points (and contributes yet more defini- . and may well be suggestive of larger trends in the genre. court pandits also served as mentors to kings. This samasya might be the last word or phrase or line of a poem.53 How did an aspiring poet or poetry connoisseur learn these systems – the price of entrance into the learned courtly circles of early modern India? By studying a ritigranth. is because the complex of literary systems provides the context in which to interpret his poetry. “multimedia” literary life during their heyday. Consider the complex literary infrastructure that must be in place for even a short Brajbhasa muktak. a brief outline of the main concerns of one of Kesavdas‟s commentators. But clearly one of the most pressing sets of questions that engaged this commentator concerns the canonical literary systems. or because during the heat of passion things got a little messy and betel juice (the proper location of which is the mouth) got into his eyes. like the following one by Bihari (fl. Brajbhasa commentaries on ritigranth texts provide further clues as to how literary systems functioned in premodernity. Braj – were instrumental in the education of young princes and children of the nobility. such as identifying the predominant alankara of a given verse. often with the help of a teacher or pandit. An extensive treatment of Braj commentarial style is of necessity beyond the scope of the present study (not the least reason is that scarcely any such commentaries have been published). as well as textual precedents from Sanskrit.56 Creating a new treatise on alankaras or nayika-bheda demonstrated that a pandit was fit to carry out various tasks: performing in a courtly assembly. Numerous issues are of interest to Surati Misra in his analysis of Kesavdas‟s verses: the poet‟s lexical and grammatical choices. A reader familiar with the basics of nayikabheda will readily surmise that Bihari has depicted an encounter between an angry female character (khandita nayika) and an unfaithful lover (satha nayaka). What of the audiences who read or listened to poetry being declaimed? In order to achieve the necessary interpretive skills. Many ritigranths were written explicitly at the request of royal patrons. The charm of this verse style is that the reader or listener (rasika) steps into the middle of a story. domain of riti cultural practice. The full story is never told in the poem itself. the relationship of Rasikpriya themes to those of other Brajbhasa writers. if still largely neglected. and kings commissioned copies of the most authoritative works produced at other courts for their personal libraries. and composing further poetic or scholarly works. the muktak is not part of a larger narrative structure. they too had to be versed in the riti system.54 In addition to teaching younger students. nonetheless. however. for whom literary connoisseurship was de rigueur and original literary composition strongly encouraged. As its name suggests. Bihari‟s dohas have frequently been celebrated for their quality of being “a small pot that contains the ocean” (gagar me sagar). 1740). educating others. Tell the tale of last night‟s pleasures. dripping with redness. c. such as commentaries – an important. affords a window on some of the formal interpretive protocols for Brajbhasa literary criticism. In a mirroring of the “riti” qualities of the source text. or perhaps a poetic theme such as a particular type of nayika. His eyes may be red either from lack of sleep. seem to have served as companions to teaching. especially in the case of a short couplet. like the Kavipriya. this pandit often augments his alankara analysis by citing a Brajbhasa lakshan of the rhetorical figure in question. 1650). Perhaps yet another way to account for the proliferation of the ritigranth genre was that in some cases the writing of such texts itself was part of the learning process (perhaps like a PhD in Hindi literature in modern times?). Brajbhasa poetry was not just read in private: it was sung. The reason this riti poet can say so much in so few words. This was particularly crucial when you consider that the most popular Brajbhasa verse form in courtly settings was the muktak (“independent”) poem.
or his analytical distinction between a woman who longs for an absent lover (virahini). The assessment of the Brajbhasa ritigranth as largely derivative of Sanskrit sources. The newness that we see in riti texts is not earth shaking – at least not by contemporary measurements. and the ritigranth was a primary tool for enabling these social and communicative processes.and eighteenth-century writers of the riti style prompts us to reconsider current constructions of the intellectual life of late precolonial India. the embedding of Sanskrit theory into the emerging Brajbhasa literary genres should be understood as far more than a mere imitative gesture. In seeking to understand the logic and function of Brajbhasa literary science we not only deepen our awareness of the epistemological domains of precolonial Indian life. which. Because I am dealing exclusively with early modern texts in this article. at which point Modern Standard Hindi (Khari Boli) began to achieve cultural dominance. far from being pointless interpretive modes. or is it a conversation between Krishna and her friend (sakhi)? What are the criteria for establishing the identity of the nayika? The very taxonomical specificities that are so decried by modern critics are crucial determinants of meaning for Surati Misra. But alongside the uncertainties we hear an unmistakable voice of strength: an excitement about new literary and intellectual possibilities evident in the oft-repeated phrase of the riti poet-scholar. we also enrich the field of Hindi studies by encouraging scholarly analysis of literary realms beyond the confines of the bhakti field. bemusement. Failure to examine in sufficient depth the modalities of courtly writers has led to many unfortunate and inaccurate representations of riti literary culture. The ritigranth genre should also be appreciated for its role in enabling the production and interpretation of courtly poetry. and the pining of a woman stricken by love‟s first infatuation (purvanuraga). others he disputes. Sanskrit traditions were a respected foundation upon which to draw and improve. The trend in Hindi scholarship is to give courtly literature a wide berth. I use the terms Hindi and Brajbhasa synonymously. The writing of ritigranths also had a largely overlooked symbolic value insofar as it betokened membership in a widespread community of Brajbhasa poets and intellectuals. 1900. is inaccurate. Some he is in agreement with. the critical questions for this prominent early modern intellectual are grounded in the traditional categories of literary analysis. Conclusion Exploring in some detail the thought world and cultural practices of seventeenth. and it has remained in wide circulation ever since. Intelligibility and literary success in courtly venues depended on poets and audiences being conversant with literary systems. The profusion of the ritigranth genre in particular has stimulated confusion. 24:2 (2004) tions) that pertain to the nayikabheda system. directing attention towards the more spiritually oriented writings of bhakti poets. indeed. Ramcandra .59 In either case. it engendered a range of anxieties about transgressing age-old language hierarchies. NOTES I am grateful to colleagues from the University of Chicago. the Triangle South Asia Consortium (particularly Pika Ghosh and Shantanu Phukan). and those who attended the May 2004 Sanskrit poetry conference at Hebrew University in Jerusalem.58 Kesavdas‟s refinements of earlier Sanskrit categorizations are yet another topic of great importance to Surati Misra. “I have composed this passage according to my own understanding. by attempting to comprehend the logic and functioning of a fledgling branch of vernacular knowledge as it began to put forward increasingly strong claims to a separate existence from Sanskrit. but rarely much analysis. 2The term ritikal was coined by Ramcandra Sukla in 1929. It was also an appropriation of Sanskrit discursive space by an increasingly powerful vernacular intellectual community. Riti authors have frequently been criticized for their narrow focus on the minute details of the various bhedas of classical literary science. 1Brajbhasa was the primary dialect of written Hindi prior to c. were a matter for careful investigation and vigorous debate. indispensable compositional approach. for feedback on earlier drafts of this article. And in the end it was Hindi – not Sanskrit – that became the ascendant language for poetic and intellectual expression in the modern period. Nonetheless. But it is a newness we should take seriously. and therefore intellectually insignificant. Carving out a new domain of vernacular writing from a Sanskrit mold was not a process undertaken lightly. or downright scorn amongst modern Hindi scholars. The knowledge system of vernacular alankarasastra constituted a literary consensus that was continually being renegotiated by riti authors through their participation in assemblies and their contributions to scholarship. Africa and the Middle East. and forging a new arena of vernacular literary culture did not require wholly reinventing the wheel. Many riti works of alankarasastra exhibit a complex weaving together of classical ideas with fascinating innovations upon them.56 Comparative Studies of South Asia. Although in the modern literary landscape (still imbued with Romanticism‟s legacy) this deep concern with precise categorization is generally viewed as both artistically and intellectually stilted. as evident from his expatiating on issues such as the difference between a woman who makes bold amorous overtures to a man (svayamduta) or one who is merely being clever (vagvidagdha). during the riti period it constituted a vibrant and.” The major differences frequently lie at the level of detail rather than at the level of overarching theory. Does a given verse feature the nayika‟s words to Krishna.
ed. ed. Raghavan (Hyderabad: Hyderabad Archaeological Department. 1956). A Poem at the Right Moment (Delhi: Oxford University Press. 1954).” ch. Hindi Sahitya ka Itihas (1929. K. whereas the last canto alone comprises thirty-three. 13. v. Vijaypal Singh (Delhi. aside from a few translations and a couple of stray articles. Kesavdas‟s theorization of the premabhisarika nayika (lovelorn woman who ventures out to meet her lover) is actually discussed in the Sanskrit text. (Allahabad: Hindustani Academy. 243.” in Halbfass Commemoration Volume. The linguistic proclivities of Balabhadra Misra are ambiguous. 233. 1989). 37. If Sanskrit recitation was his occupation (Kavipriya. is an important study of Hindi‟s popularity at a wide range of early modern Dakhani courts. S. 14Jayarama Pindye. Hindi Sahitya ka Brihat Itihas. For further remarks on some of the vernacular poems in this text. Samartha‟s Prabodhini. no scholarship on riti literature has been published outside of India. but two mid-seventeenth-century Kavindracarya festschrift volumes. Whereas hundreds of articles and books have been written about bhakti authors. In the end. Misra. McGregor for his suggestions on . Owing to the compositional necessity of filling in either eleven-count or thirteen-count verse quadrants. Bhushan aur unka Sahitya (Kanpur: Sahitya Ratnalaya. ed. 17In his description of the poetry contest in canto 6.” in Kesavdas. tends to frame riti literary practices in a narrative of courtly decadence and medieval decline. too [at the poetry contest]. ed. Kavindrakalpalata. Radhamadhavavilasacampu. see Rajmal Bora. “The Death of Sanskrit. introduction to Jasvantsimhagranthavali (Varanasi: Nagari Pracarini Sabha. 6For a discussion of some of the complex ideas concerning innate limitations on vernacular expression from a Sanskrit point of reference. Radhakrishna Prakasan. Krishna Divakar. or “Pleasure of Aesthetics”). “Tikaen aur Tikakar. but this intellectual rebuff has nothing to do with the fact of its vernacularity. see Velcheru Narayana Rao and David Shulman. see Sheldon Pollock. 15Such vacillations between terming his Campu a Sanskrit work and a dvadasabhasakavya are especially evident on pages 244–6. One influential account in this vein is Nagendra. 2nd ed. 1. 1974). in Kesavgranthavali. was a Sanskrit work. ed. and “established poets” (kavi-dhira). Rajvade (1922. 34.” Comparative Studies in Society and History 43:2 (2001): 404–12. analysis of classicism as reflecting a decline from the simplicity of bhakti and a simultaneous fall from the intellectual grace of Sanskrit is the treatment of Kesavdas in Kailash Bhushan Jindal. Visvanath Prasad Misra. King Jaswant Singh‟s Anandvilas was translated into Sanskrit in 1664.” such as “king among poets” (kavi-bhupa/kavi-raja). 35.Busch: The Anxiety of Innovation 57 Sukla. 1987). vv. quoted in Krishna Divakar.” Campu. 2005). 18The first ten cantos occupy forty-three printed pages. 1958). for its part. 1966). V. because he wrote both a sikhnakh (“head-to-toe” description) and a short work in Hindi on Rasa theory (Rasvilas. he certainly did not eschew vernacular composition. 1972). ed. See Akbar Shah. P. (New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal. Sringaramanjari. A History of Hindi Literature. Bhonsla Rajdarbar ke Hindi Kavi (Varanasi: Nagari Pracarini Sabha. or at least parallelism. The little-known Balabhadra Misra works were first published in Sudhakar Pandey. See Sringaramanjari. ed. Campu. the Kavindracandrodaya (in Sanskrit) and the Kavindracandrika (in Braj). 19Chapter 2 of the Kavipriya details Kesavdas‟s family history. “The Languages of Science in Early Modern India. 5The anti-riti biases of modern scholars are as evident from publishing tendencies as from explicit arguments. 4For a welcome attempt to counter modern biases against courtly literature in the case of Persian. see Julie Scott Meisami. 1970). 237. For some remarks on interchanges between Sanskrit and the regional languages of South India. Indian scholarship. 20Many Brajbhasa definitions of Sanskrit poetics terminology devote at least one-quarter of the doha to invoking poetic authorities with variations on the phrase “best of poets. introduction to Kavindracandrika (Pune: Maharashtra Rashtrabhasha Sabha. 1992). 2. 11On the importance of Hindi literature at Sivaji‟s court. 1969). “The Poetry of Praise: The Qasida and Its Uses. 9Although Sundar is only mentioned. Jinavijaya Muni (Jaipur: Rajasthan Oriental Research Institute. Ritibaddh Kavya. 1993). 7. See V. I will describe them in a subsequent chapter. repr. 6 (Varanasi: Nagari Pracarini Sabha. ed. the same year it first appeared in Brajbhasa.. 3 vols. 13Vernacular-Sanskrit parity.1–3. the simultaneous presence of vernacular and Sanskrit poets appears to have created a compositional dilemma for Jayarama. A particularly unhelpful. but since it is inappropriate to write about them in the context of Sanskrit compositions. 1951). see Sumit Guha.1500–1800” in this volume. 233. 32–3. v.. Pune: Varda Books. 1987). see Sheldon Pollock.16). vol. 1994). 230. 2. The dating of the two versions is discussed in Visvanath Prasad Misra. Balabhadrakrit Rasvilas evam Sikhnakh (Varanasi: Nagari Pracarini Sabha. causing him to invent the idea that the vernacular poets performed at a separate poetry contest. 2 in Medieval Persian Court Poetry (Princeton: Princeton University Press. which he records later in the work: “Then the vernacular poets put forward themes for composition. 8The very first commentary on Kesavdas‟s Rasikpriya. “Transitions and Translations: Regional Power and Vernacular Identity in the Dakhan c. V. is no less evident in the surprising existence of not one. 10The Braj translation of Akbar Shah‟s Sanskrit version of the original Telugu Sringaramanjari was by Cintamani Tripathi (more on whom below). There were compositions on those themes. 187. “wise people” (sayane loi/sujana). 3Kesavdas. 227. repr. But the elder Misra brother somehow never attained the fame of his more prolific younger brother. 12On Kavindra‟s sense of shame see Kavindracarya Sarasvati. Preisendanz (Vienna: Akademie der Wissenschaften. Rasikpriya. if regrettably typical. Kesavdas‟s proposed new category is not endorsed. the poet‟s own name is frequently conjoined with these expressions of praise. 7For recent work on Jagannatha. Varanasi: Nagari Pracarini Sabha. Bhagirath Misra (Lucknow: Lucknow University Press. All translations from Brajbhasa and Sanskrit are my own. 16Jayarama. each eager to participate. 21I am indebted to R. K. ed. All Kesavdas citations refer to this edition. which honored Kavindra for his role in persuading Shah Jahan to rescind the discriminatory poll tax on Hindus. 1999). 142–8.
a thirteenthcentury poet‟s manual by Amaracandra Yati. Kavyaprakasa (1936. 50Matiram Tripathi.” Journal of Vaishnava Studies 3:1 (1994): 153–70. 32Compare the arguments in Sringaratilaka. and the Alankarasekhara of Kesava Misra.” and several other literary tendencies that he considered indicators of a “defect of the Indian mind. 34See the opening chapter to the Rasikpriya. See Heidi Pauwels. reprint. 41Excerpted from Kavyanirnay. 42See Bernard S. 26The other two are the Kavyakalpalatavritti. Rasraj. “Bhakti versus Riti? The Satsai of Biharilal. CA: Mazda. 1982). 24An example of this theoretical approach is Sukla. Aligarh: Granthayan. and National Identity in Nirala‟s „Jago phir ek Bar. v. v. 22The very distinction posited by Hindi critics between bhakti and riti texts rarely withstands close scrutiny.28. An excellent discussion of this issue is Rupert Snell. Speaking. 48Benedict Anderson. 21–2. Kapildev Pandey (Varanasi: Pracya Prakasan. ed.‟ hari nayaka hai sringara.” “taint of artificiality. decried its “obscurity of style. 1968). when this sweetness began to be seen as a flaw rather than a virtue. in Bhikaridasgranthavali.5–7. 43Macaulay‟s infamous characterization of the “native literature of India” is too well known to need quoting. 31In fact. tinake bhinna bicara / sabako „kesavadasa. Krishna and Radha are the nayaka and nayika of virtually every poem in the work. one poetic challenge for pandits in Sahaji Bhonsle‟s assembly concerned the elucidation of the difference between nayikas both “conscious” and “unconscious” of the arrival of puberty (jnatayauvana and ajnatayauvana) accord- . Visvanath Prasad Misra. in Matiramgranthavali.1. “Poetry as Biography and the Modern Fighanis: Problems of Defining the Poetic Voice. 207.‟” Journal of the American Oriental Society 121:3 (2001): 455–9. 30Compare Rasikpriya. revolutions in traditional cultures tended to hide the facts of their being revolts. should serve these modern aims. 1. 38The word madhurya remained closely tied to Brajbhasa right into the modern period.1. in Jasvantsimhagranthavali. not Braj. and the “public woman” (samanyavanita). 27The andhadosha is defined as “birodhi pantha ko. with those of Rasikpriya. How could a language that was dripping in sweetness be a suitable vehicle for expressing the more serious concerns of the nation? Increasingly it was felt that only the poetically clumsy but workaday Khari Boli. 35. 49Jaswant Singh. vv. 1995). Also note the centrality of bhakti to Kesavdas‟s Rasikpriya. discussed below. Cintamani follows Mammata closely in endorsing the threefold set of gunas.” The other new categories set out here are the literary flaws of being “deaf. 51For instance. vol. 9–10. "Writing. 1968). 1964). B. 1998). Keith. “Diptych in Verse: Gender Hybridity. 25This is actually in notable contrast to most works of Sanskrit alankarasastra.12–28. ed. vv. 47Note in particular the phrases “each according to his ability”(jatha jog) and “according to the extent of their intellect” (apni mati paramana so) from the Sarasasara passage. 152. 51ff. 32ff. in which literary principles were illustrated by excerpting existing Sanskrit poems from famous classics. repr. 24ff. Compare Kavikulkalptaru. Lucknow: Naval Kishore Press. Africa and the Middle East.” 35The comparable passages on the subject of gunas are from Kavikulkalptaru. 421. 2 in Welcoming Fighani (Costa Mesa. repr. except when an undesirable trait is being exemplified. 2nd ed.58 Comparative Studies of South Asia. 209. 23A typical formulation is Jindal. Hindi Sahitya ka Itihas. written in Delhi in the generation preceding Kesavdas. 1996). Imagined Communities. naked and dead. 29Kaviraj has usefully distinguished between modern and premodern modes of cultural change: “Modern rebellions announce themselves even before they are wholly successful. vv. Dagmar Hellmann-Rajanayagam and Dietmar Rothermund (Stuttgart: Steiner. New York: Haskell.3. History of Hindi Literature.54. 46This quotation from Ray Sivdas‟s unpublished Sarasasara is excerpted in Chotelal Gupta. 44A. vv. 33The three classical types of nayika are “one‟s own” (svakiya).” Sudipta Kaviraj. See Muzaffar Alam and Sanjay Subrahmanyam. vv. 2 (Varanasi: Nagari Pracarini Sabha.” in this volume. vv. 2. 1.” See Kavipriya. 37On this particular innovation of Cintamani‟s see Vidyadhar Misra. 421ff.16: “navahu rasa ke bhava bahu. ed. 2. v. Broadly speaking. Pischel and trans. with Rudrabhatta‟s original discussion in Sringaratilaka. ed. 45A welcome exception is Rakesa Gupta. 64. 1992). 1. Delhi: Parimal Publications. meaning both “hero” and “leading rasa. who apparently esteemed Sanskrit literature enough to write an entire book on the subject. R. Cintamani: Kavi aur Acarya (Allahabad: Vidya Sahitya Sansthan. see Paul Losensky. Visvanath Prasad Misra (Varanasi: Nagari Pracarini Sabha. 427. Studies in NayakaNayika-Bheda (1967. Kavikulkalptaru (lithograph. Language Consciousness. (London: Verso.und Sudostasien.38. lame. and not the tenfold set espoused by early Sanskrit theorists such as Vamana. Bhasabhushan. Keith. 3. Krishna-bihari Misra and Brajkisor Misra (Varanasi: Nagari Pracarini Sabha. and Mammata. v.” The word nayaka creates a slight punning effect. “The Making of a Munshi.” For a useful caution against overly literal interpretations of poetic voice in Mughal-period texts from a different sociocultural milieu. 28Cintamani Tripathi. 129–33. B. 40The full extent of the riti tradition is yet to be fully understood since so many primary works remain unpublished. 1957). Colonialism and Its Forms of Knowledge (Princeton: Princeton University Press. Being: Language and the Historical Formation of Identities in India. 1972). A History of Sanskrit Literature (1900. “the wife of another” (parakiya). particularly v.” ch. 39The language of both the Mathura and Gwalior regions was also praised by the contemporary Mughal munshi Nik Rai.6ff. v. 1875).” in Nationalstaat und Sprachkonflikt in Sud. ed. 1985). 24:2 (2004) how to interpret Kesavdas‟s poetic stance of “slowwittedness.” A. 1991). Surati Misra aur unka Kavya (Allahabad: Smriti Prakasan. 161. Cohn. with Kavyaprakasa. 1. 1990).6.14. 8. 36Much of the Braj terminology reprises the Sanskrit original and Cintamani even coins a Braj verb (dravavai = melts) to capture the sense of Mammata‟s druti (melting).
” for instance. 57The lakshans are not attributed. 59For plus and minus points. 1992). Sudhakar Pandey (Varanasi: Nagari Pracarini Sabha. v. Varanasi: Sanjay Book Center. 179. Joravarprakas. in Raslingranthavali. respectively. 210. Joravarprakas. Bihari (1950. v. 58Surati Misra. Yogendrapratap Singh (Allahabad: Sahitya Sammelan. Such poets are known as “based on system” (ritisiddh) in Hindi criticism. ed. Angdarpan.1: “Kesav wrote the Kavipriya so that boys and girls would understand the subtle ways of poetry. . 233. 53Bihari was one of the rare riti poets who did not write a ritigranth. repr. See Visvanath Prasad Misra. Campu. 1998). 1987). 56The Mughal soldier Ghulam Nabi “Raslin. 11. taught himself Brajbhasa poetics through writing a ritigranth. 54That Kesavdas intended his handbook on basic principles of composition and literary topoi to be used in an educational context is stated unambiguously in Kavipriya. 3. 44–5.Busch: The Anxiety of Innovation 59 ing to Bhanudatta‟s classical description of them. 157. May scholars look leniently upon any mistakes. But the interpretation of his work is often dependent on the system. Raslin. Sudhakar Pandey (Varanasi: Nagari Pracarini Sabha. which suggests that they may be the author‟s original compositions – a prospect that seems the likelier for the fact that Surati Misra is himself known to have composed several (mostly still unpublished) ritigranths.” 55Alankarasastra works comprise a major portion of vernacular holdings in most north Indian royal manuscript collections. concerning Kesavdas‟s new theorizations about bhavas see Misra. ed. v. 139. 52Biharisatsai. Jayarama. ed. 160. 1999).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.