My very, very dear Allison

Greetings and salutations..!

Im totally overwhelmed, humbled and delighted, my dear, at your spectacular

magnum opus-mllah..! I humbly salute your dedication, erudition and sheer
single-minded effort and most importantly, your unalloyed, palpable love for the
Braj master-poets. Your path-breaking work will inllah undoubtedly be the locus
classicus on Braj studies and literary culture for years to come..! Ill present here
(data maxima venia) a few rambling submissions on certain aspects, apan mati
anusra..!

Youve observed, my dear, that the modern notion of plagiarism carries

assumptions about authorship and individuality that are not generally pertinent
to India during this period (pg. 104). Ill recall to you, my dear, that the notion of
plagiarism, authorship and individuality are in fact discernible as far back as
Babhaas Haracarita:

sati vna ivsakhy jtibhjo ghe-ghe

utpdak na bahava kavaya arabh iva
anyavara-parvtty badhacihanighanai
ankhyt sat madhye kavicauro vibhvyate
(Haracarita 1.5-6)

Ill further recall yo you, my dear, that its precisely this sense of plagiarism,
authorship and individuality that make Rjaekhara Yyvarya (10th century CE),
most maverick of the Sanskrit Kvya-theorists theorize extensively on the topic of
abdaharaa and arthaharaa in his incompletely extant classic, the
Kvyamms. Ill therefore beg to submit data venia, my dear, that the opinion
that Indian cultural theory has yet to develop an adequate framework for
understanding the complex and thoughtful ways that premodern writers engaged
with their models (pg. 270, n.24) might perhaps bear revision. Rjaekhara
(perhaps building on the seminal theorizations of nadavardhana on imitatio in
the final chapter of the Dhvayloka) has a framework of four master-modes of
Semantic Appropriation, viz. pratibibakalpa, lekhaprakhya, tulyadehitulya and
parapurapraveasada arthaharaa, with eight sub-types in each type totaling to
thirty-two modes-a grammatico-semantic paradigm, so to speak, of
calculating the diverse and complex transformational formulae of imitatio,
variatio, dissimulatio and transmutatio whereby successor-poets engage with
the models of their precursor-poets, ranging from the straight plagiarism of the
pratibibakalpa, the mirror-image mode to the dissimulative transformation of
the parapurapraveasada, the entering a new city mode.

Novelty, then was non nove, sed vetera noviter dicta- Not newness, but the
old spoken anew (attributed to St. Vincent of Lrins; died 445 CE). In the
Sanskritic literary weltanschaaung and ethos, novelty comprised treating an old
topos differently in a novel fashion, the type of imitatio that Roger Ascham
(1515-1568) would term similis materiei dissimilis tractatio (literally, dissimilar
treatment of similar material, Rjaekharas lekhaprakhya and
parapurapraveasada modes) and dissimilis materiei similis tractatio (treating
dissimilar material in a similar manner, Rjaekharas tulyadehitulya mode).

Keavadsas (please do excuse the Sanskritized transliteration) appropriative

strategy is extremely complex and recovering (excavating!) the transformational
formula and the precise relation of his Braj hypertexts to their Sanskritic
hypotexts can be at times extremely challenging (Ive used these terms from
Grard Genette, for whom hypertextuality involves any relationship uniting a
text B [which I shall call the hypertext] to an earlier text A [I shall, of course, call
it the hypotext], upon which it is grafted in a manner that is not that of
commentaryIt may yet be of another kind such as text B not speaking of text
A at all but being unable to exist, as such, without A, from which it originates
 2

through a process I shall provisionally call transformation, and which it

consequently evokes more or less perceptibly without necessarily speaking of it
or citing it, my ellipse). Ill consider the relation of the Rasikapriy as a Braj
hypertext to a major Sanskrit hypotext, Rudraas gratilaka. Keava
(unsurprisingly..!) inaugurates the Rasikapriy with a mangalcaraa to
navarasamaya Ka, in an imitatio of Rudraas mangalcaraa to
sarvarasraya iva (which youve duly noted, page 270, n.21). The Semantic
Appropriation here as per Rjaekharas palimpsestual grid might perhaps be
the tulyadehitulya viayaparivarta artharaa mode, in which an idea expressed
by an earlier poet (here the navarass of Sanskrit dramaturgical theory) with
reference to one object of description (here iva) is connected by a later poet to
another object of description (here Ka). The tulyadehitulya mode, which
Rjaekhara appropriates from nadavardhana, is the corporeal equivalence
mode, much like the family resemblance between two persons. The
transformational formula of this particular type is when despite superficial
difference, underlying unity is apprehended. This mode seems itself to have a
Latin hypotext, viz. Seneca, Epistulae Morales ad Lucilium, 84.8: Etiam si cuius
in te comparebit similitudo quem admiratio tibi altius fixerit, similem esse te volo
quomodo filium, non quomodo imaginem: imago res mortua est- Even if there
appears in you a likeness to him whos left a deep impression upon you, due to
your admiration of him, Id rather that this resemblance be like that of a child to
his father, and not like a picture to the original; for a pictures dead and lifeless.
The resemblance of a picture to the original seems to be the hypotext for
nadavardhana and Rjaekharas lekhprakhya copy-sketch mode, which
nadavardhana censures, but Rjaekhara praises). Though Rjaekhara
appropriates the tulyadehitulya mode from nada, this appropriation itself, in
a delightfully self-referential way, seems to be in the mode of
parapurapraveasada tadvirodhini artharaa, where the later poet indites
material opposed to that of an earlier poet, in that nada theorizes
tulyadehitulya in the sense of corporeal resemblance between two superficially
similar bodies which have different souls, whereas Rjaekhara conceives it as
the resemblance between two similar souls which have different-looking bodies.

Im afraid Ive digressed awfully, my dear-apologies..! Heres Keavas definition

of the four sub-types of the mugdh:
navalabadh navajoban navalanag nm
lajj liye surati karai lajjprya su bm
(Rasikapriy 3.17)

Keavas Sanskrit hypotext here seems to be gratilaka 1.48, which in

Rjaekharas schema would be the sub-type termed pratibibakalpa
naanepathyam artharaa, in which the import of an earlier poem in one
language is expressed by means of translation into another language-the term
naanepathyam signifies that like an actor donning a new costume, the only
change here is the linguistic apparel:
mugdh navavadhstatra navayauvana bhit
navnagarahasy ca lajjpryaratiryath
(gratilaka 1.48)
Keava then illustrates the sub-type navalanag with an exemplum:

kabitta
cacala na hjai ntha, acala na aico(khenco) hth
sovain neka srikh suka tau suvyau j.
md karau dpa-duti cada-mukha dekhiyat,
daurikai duri n dvr tyaun dikhyau j.
mgaja-marl-bl bhire bidri dehun,
bhyau tumhe kesav su moh mana bhyau j.
chhal ke nivsa aise bacan-bils suni,
cauguno (sauguno) suratihn tain syma sukha pyau j.
(exemplum to Rasikapriy 3.22)
 3

His kabitta exemplum too seems to be an expanded translation of gratilaka

1.51 (which, however Rudraa uses as an exemplum of the lajjpryarati mugdh)
in the lekhaprakhya vieokti artharaa mode:

atha mugdhy lajjpryaratyudharaam

virama ntha vimuca mamcala

amaya dpamima samay sakh
iti navodhavadhvacas yuv
mudamagdadhik suratdapi
(gratilaka 1.51)

The lekhaprakhya vieokti artharaa mode involves a later poet describing in

detail what has been mentioned in general by the earlier poet. 3.22.2 also
recalls Govardhana (12th century CE), rysaptaati no. 285 (where, however, the
nyiks a pragalbh) and hence, theres a contaminatio here of the motifemes of
the lajjpry mugdh, the suratapradpa and the ukoktivd:

dvre gurava koe ukasakeiurghesakhya

klsah kamasya priya prasda praytama
(rysaptaati 285)
I cant help submitting that Keavas exemplum for the navalanag mugdh
(supra) seems inaccurate, fitting the definition of the lajjprya more than the
navalanag. Keava also intensifies the rhetorical device praharan used in
gratilaka 1.51 (Appaya Dkita classifies praharan into three types; the
second type is when the attainment is more than what is
expected,vchitdadhikrthasya sasiddhasca praharanam, Kuvalaynada
130).

Youve mentioned at pg. 105, my dear, that Keavas discussion of kvyadoas in

the Kavipriy is to lay out several entirely new categories of doas by
analogizing flawed poetry to various forms of physical impairment and also that
this discussion is completely new (pg. 106). Ill submit, my dear, that Keavas
analogy ingeniously utilizes the ancient notion in Sanskrit poetics of the
kvyaarra (and its corollary the kvytm) and combines it with the humoral
doa theory of yurved, in the mode termed as tulyadehitulya ratnaml
artharaa, where the ideas of an earlier poet are interlaced or interwoven with
new ones.

Youve then mentioned at pg. 106, my dear, that the first poetic flaw that Keava
discusses in the Kavipriy, the andhadoa is an entirely original Keshavadasian
category and that contravening tradition is a new flaw. Ill submit, data
maxima venia, my dear, that theres very little in the Sanskrit thought-world or
the subsidiary worlds connected thereo which can be truly characterized as being
entirely original or new-in this specific instance, Keavas Sanskrit hypotext isnt
Dains Kvydara, but Mammaas Kvyapraka. Ill recall to you, my dear,
that the flaw of contravening consensual poetic tradition or kavisamayas is
mentioned eo nomine for the first time by Mammaa in the chapter on
kvyadoas in the Kvyapraka as the ninth arthadoa called prasiddhiviruddha,
which Ill translate as contravening poetic convention. He illustrates this doa
inter alia with a (utterly pedestrian) verse which ends iha hi vihito raktoka
kaypi hatay caraanalinaysodacanvkurakacuka and comments in
the vitti that atra pdghtenokasya pupodgama kaviu prasiddh na
punarakurodgama. Mammaa too, however, doesnt invent this doa, he
appropriates it from the older theoreticians in the mode of
parapurapraveasada tadvirodhini artharaa. Mammaas hypotext seems to
be Bhmahas doas called deavirodhi (Kvylakra 4.29), klavirodhi
(Kvylakra 4.31, 32), nyyavirodhi, kalvirodhi (Kvylakra 4.33,35) and
lokavirodhi (Kvylakra 4.37, 38). Bhmaha proscribes poetic descriptions that
transgress real geography, seasons, the three pururthas and verses that are
Ultra-Hyperbolical. Mammaa, contra Bhmahas lokavirodhidoa cattily observes
 4

that lokaviruddhamapi kaviprasiddherna dua..! Ive always liked to think that

this paradigm shift, so to speak, is due to Rjaekharas extensive theorization
in the Kvyamms on the topic of kavisamaya and his dictum that
vastuvttirtatram kavisamayah pramam..! Keavas andhadoa may
therefore be categorized as pratibibakalpa naanepathyam artharaa and his
splendid, parodic exemplum at Kavipriy 3.8 might be characterized as
lekhaprakhya vieokti artharaa.

Youve observed, my dear, on Citmanis theorization of mdhurya gua that

No Sanskrit theorist had ever singled out any one gua as superior to the others-
certainly not to declare it poetrys essential feature (pg. 118)-Ill recall to you,
my dear, the discussion as early as the Dhvanyloka on the superiority of one or
the other rasa-nada holds gra to be superior, since in gra there is
maximum mdhurya, Citmani might be said to have indulged in
parapurapraveasada pratikacukam arthaharaa where the same matter is
presented which appears different due to a different mode of expression. I cant
help but observe, my dear, that youve repeatedly used phraseology allusive of
arthaharaa-vernacular newness (pg. 104), new take on the subject matter
(pg. 117) minor adjustments within the older paradigms (pg. 119), newness
was interwoven into older systems(pg. 128), both creative and derivative (pg.
128), subtly reworked the astras (pg. 128), innovation through renovation
(pg. 128)..!

As regards the tradition of alluding to Rdh-Ka as the divine Nyik and

Nyaka and the rhetorical tradition of inscribing the Nyikbheda semiotic on the
divine pair, Ill recall to you, my dear, the Maithil kavi kokil, Vidypati hkura
(14th century CE), whose Maithil Padvali is the perhaps the first vernacular
courtly rtigratha; these are incredibly, hauntingly beautiful poems where the
entire gamut of the poetics of Nyikbheda is unforgettably etched out (the state
of Maithil Studies, alas, my dear, is even more desolate and devastated than
Braj; its in fact utterly non-existent!)

Ive no words to sufficiently praise the section Why so Much Ado about
Typology? (pg.83-87) my dear-mllah..! Ill recall to you, my dear, that the
astraic locus classicus on this aspect is the Abhinavabhrat, at the end of
Abhinavas long commentary on the Rasastra (Nyastra 6.31c: tatra
vibhvnubhvavyabhicrisayogadasanipatti), one of the earliest classical
formulations on a theory of reader-response. Abhinava theorizes on the relative
prominence of the Vibhvas, Anubhvas and Vyabhicrbhvas in a poetic text
and after discussing exempla in which a particular element is prominent, he
remarks:

eva dvaya prdhnye cdhryam. kitu samaprdhnya eva

rassvdasyotkara. tacca prabandha eva bhavati. vastutastu daarpaka
eva. yadha vmana:- sadarbheu daarpaka reya.
tadvicitracitrapaavadvieaskalyt. (Kvylakra Stri 1.3.30-31)
iti tadparasacarvaay tu prabandhe
bhveapravttyaucitydikalpant. tadupajvanena mukatake. tath ca
tatra sahaday prvparaucitam parikalpya dgatra
vaktsminnavasare itydi bahutara phabandharpa vidadhate. tena
ye kvybhysaprktanapuydihetubald iti (bhi) sahdayste
parimitavibhvdyunmlanepi parisphua eva skatkrakalpa kvyrtha
sphurati.ata eva te kvyameva prtivyutpattikdanapekitanyamapi.
temapi tu nya nipatit sphurit airamyaiti nyyena sutar
nirmalkaraam. ardaynm ca tadeva nairmalydhyi. yatra pati (prati)
t gtavdyagaikdayo na vyasanityai paryavasyati nyopalakat.
(Abhinavabhrat on Nyastra 6.31c)

Mammaa undoubtedly draws (appropriates!) on this passage in the

Kvyapraka:
 5

vaktuboddhavyakkn vkyavcyyasannidhe|
prastvadeaklder vaiiyt pratibhjum|
yorthasynyrthadhhetur vypro vyaktireva s
(Kvyapraka 3:21-22)

Youve mentioned, my dear that Jahangir speaks of Tansen and Hindi poetry in
the same breath once again underscores the deep links between music and
poetry traditions in the Mughal Environment. There is some intriguing evidence
that the same people considered poets by the Hindi tradition are treated as
musicians in Persian texts. Jagannatha Panditaraja, regarded as a major poet and
literary theoretician by the Sanskrit community, is called kalvant (musician) in
Persian court chronicles. When Abu al-Fazl listed Hindi singers, but not Hindi
poets, in his in-i akbar, was he classifying a diverse array of literary and artistic
professionals in accordance with a cultural logic very different from our own
today? (pg. 143). Here, my dear, Ill beg to submit that Jaganntha, in addition to
being a Kvya theorist and literary critic and poet par excellence, is also believed
to have been an accomplished musician. While theorizing on tarasa in the
Rasagagdhara, he approvingly relies on ragadevas thirteenth century
musicological treatise Sagtaratnkara and also quotes it extensively while
theorizing on Hsyarasa. This aspect has been highlighted more by the Persian
historiographers and musicologists-. The Pdhnmah refers to Jaganntha as a
Kalwant and also mentions that on 22nd Rab-al Thn (AH 1044) Jaganntha
presented 12 musical compositions (tanf) to h Jahn, who had him weighed
against silver and presented him with 4,500 Rupees. The tenth chapter of
Faqrullhs Rislah-e Rg Darpan (dar bayn-e goyadah-h wa sazidah-h kih
dar zamn-e m bdad wa hastad) contains short biographical descriptions of
famous contemporary vocalists and instrumentalists, where Jaganntha is also
mentioned:

Jagannth-kabiry khib, bad az miy T Sen misl-e muannif

naudah, az dn begnah bd; dhurpaday dar Na Basatah bah miy T
Sen uwdah bd, miy khailay pasad namdah, guftad: agar umra
waf kard, dar tanf bastan bad az man st. qarb baad sl umr rasd
kih dawr-e nl sipahar basar mad
(Faqrullh, Rg Darpan, Bb-e Dahum)

Steingass (pg. 305) glosses tanf inter alia as literary or musical composition.
In classical Iranian music, the term tanf is loosely applied to any kind of vocal
ballad and the overall design of the classical tasnif resembles that of pidarmad
and reng. Rhythmically, the tanf is flexible and can be based on duple, triple or
quadruple metres, the tempo can be slow to moderate and very seldom fast. Ill
recall to you, my dear, that vk is mtu (i.e., Shitya) and geyam is dhtu (i.e.,
Sagita) and one who composes both shitya and sagita is a vggeyakra:

vgmturucyate geyam dhturityabhidhyate

vcam geyam ca kurute ya sa vggeyakraka
(ragadeva, Sagtaratnkara)
ragadeva then lists the lakaas of a vggeyakra:

abdnusanajnamabhidnapravat
chandaprabhedaveditvamalakreu kaualam

rasabhvaparijnam deasthitiu ctur

aseabhvijnam kalatreu kaualam

tauryatritayacturyam hdyarralit
layatlakaljnam vivekonekakkuu

prabhtapratibhodbhedabhaktvam subhagageyat
dergevabhijtvam vkpauvam sabhjaya
 6

roadveaparityga srdratvamucitajt
anuchchioktinirbandha ntnadhtuvinirmiti

paracittaparijnam prabadheu pragalbhat

drutagtavinirmam padtaravidagdhat

tristhnagamakapraudhirvividhlptinaipuam
avadhnam guairebhirvaro vggeyakraka
(ragadeva, Sagtaratnkara, Prakrakdhyya 3.3-9)

The average composer (madhyama; vastuka kavi) is adept at creating the

musical text but mediocre as regards the literary merit of his verbal text; the bad
composer (adhama, varaka kavi) is a good at composing the verbal text but
poor at composing the melismatic text; the unworthy composer (kuttikra) is one
who composes the verbal text, but sets it to melodies composed by others
(Sagtaratnkara 3.10-12b). Faqrullh in the Rislah-e Rg Darpan, Bb-e
Dahum theorizes on the vggeyakra, which in its Persian tadbhava avatar is
rendered bkkrah. Goyadah, bkkrah and Kalwat are therefore equivalent
and hence, Ill submit that classifying Jaganntha as a Kalwat wouldnt
therefore be a category mismatch (pg. 277, n. 55) and Ab-al Fal, my dear,
does indeed classify a diverse array of literary and artistic professionals in
accordance with a cultural logic very different from our own today.

Youve mentioned that the Safrag-e Satsa is a commentary; Ill submit, my dear,
that its actually a Persian translation of 640 couplets from the Bihr Satsa.

Perhaps my dear, youd like to mention that Faqrullh delineates nyaka-nyik

bheda in the fifth chapter of the Rg Darpan (bb-e pajum, dar dnistan-e Sz-
h wa Nyak wa Nykah-h wa sakh), and Im certain that his knowledge of
nyikbheda was mediated either by Braj informants or perhaps by some Braj
rtigrantha-Ill submit, my dear, that for the Mughals, Braj was the signigying
relation uniting a signifier (Sanskrit) with a signified (Persian)..! Similar, though
far more spectacular is the case of the assn al-Hid, Mr al-Sayyid Ghulm
Al zd Bilgrm, who in his Ghizln-al Hid deals with Nyikbheda
translating nyikbheda as asrr-al nisw, mistranslating bheda as secret
rather than classification or typology:

bayn-e nis n kih aq tl ahnid r ilmay ilhm kard kih nma bah
zabn-e hid nykbhed ast wa man-e asrr-al nisw

He further mentions:

wa ahl-e hid dar zabn-e khwud awhar r nyak wa zan r nykah goyad
wa az ittifqt-e ajbah n kih man-e n bah zabn-e arab ham a ast
kih nka bil fata dar arab jima r goyad wa ar-e frs kih dar
nykbhed wardah m awad dar n h taghayyur-e mumilah arr yan
maqawlah-e siq kih b amrad ast ghay az zabn-e nyak nisbat bah
nykah far byad kard wa c gh-o amir-e tazkr-o tns dar frs
yakay ast n far rst m yad

Perhaps youd also like to mention, my dear, that nyikbheda was a major
Mughal multi-media genre, theorized in Braj rtigranths, painted in miniatures,
indited in poems, sung in dhrupads and danced in kathak.

Youve mentioned Rams bhaktiparak barvais as well as his barvai nyikbheda

(pg. 140), these, my dear, are in Awadhi, not Braj.

There are a few inadvertent typographical errors-on page 134 (localiz); on page
281 (n.121), there should perhaps be an izfat between aqsm and ulm and
between anv and fann; on page 250, the entry for karu/karua theres a
superfluous after sentiment.
 7

Youve glossed paraky as the wife of another; Ill recall to you, my dear, that
a paraky neednt always be married; theres also the paraky kayak
(Daarpaka 2.32, gratilaka 1.87 [termed Anyady], Kvylakra 12.30,
Sarasvatkahbharaa 5.111, Vagbhalakra 5.14, Alakraekhara 20.4,
Rasamajar 31)

Ive submitted these rambling, raving submissions to you, my dear in the very
sure belief that youd have done the very same for me-Ive blabbered on quite a
bit-Ill leave you now with this lovely bayt:

yak sukhan nst kih khmo az bihtar nst

nst ilmey kih farmo az bihtar nst
(Urf rz, quoted by Faqrullh, khatimah to the Rislah-e Rgdarpan)