Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T18:47:50.919Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Introduction to the Language of the Historical Documents from Rājasthān

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

J. D. Smith
J. D. Smith
Affiliation:
School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It has been generally accepted for some time that among the most valuable sources for the history of Rājasthān, especially the Rājasthān of the fourteenth to the eighteenth centuries A.D., are the indigenous chronicles (vātas and khyātas), whose existence was well-known even to Tod, but which fell once again into obscurity for the hundred years following the publication of Annals and Antiquities of Rajast'han in 1829–32. It is therefore a matter of no small pleasure that, during the past decade or so, many of these texts have at last been finding their way into print. Our thanks in this matter are particularly due to the Rajasthan Oriental Research Institute centred in Jodhpur and to the Sadu} Rajasthani Research Institute of Blkaner, who have led the field in the publication of Rajasthani works of both historical and literary interest. This activity on the part of the publishers will certainly add impetus to research on mediaeval Rajasthan, and for this reason, as well as the obvious philological interest of a language as fully-attested and yet linguistically isolated as that of the Rajasthani prose chronicles, it has seemed worth while to prepare these grammatical notes.

Type
Articles
Information
Modern Asian Studies , Volume 9 , Issue 4 , July 1975 , pp. 433 - 464
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1975

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 His ‘Annals of Jessulmer’, for example, are based directly on a ‘Bhatti’ (Bhātī) chronicle, presumably in fact MS 138 in the Catalogue of the Tod Collection of Indian Manuscripts in the Possession of the Royal Asiatic Society (JRAS, June 1940, p. 159).Google Scholar

2 Collated and edited by Narottamdās, Svāmī (Jaipur, 1956).Google Scholar

3 Ed. Rāmkarn, Āsopā (Vārānasī, 1941).Google Scholar

4 Ed. Sītārām, Lālas (Jodhpur, 1961–1962–1963).Google Scholar

5 Jodhpur, 1899.Google Scholar

6 I.e. the Old Rājasthāni of such texts as Dholā Mārū rā Dūhā, Acaladāsa Khīcī rī Vacanikā, and the Vīsaladevrāsa: Dimgala differs from OR chiefly in its extensive use of a peculiar vocabulary which seems to be found in no other NIA language, and in its readiness to absorb newer grammatical and lexical forms and incorporate them side by side with the older stock; a grammar of Dimgala would consist less of a set of forms than of a set of possibilities. The Vamśabhāskara, however, is a tour de force written in a variety of languages.Google Scholar

7 Blumhardt / Master; Catalogue of the Gujarati and Rajasthani Manuscripts in the India Office Library, Gujarātī Catalogue no. 118.Google Scholar

8 Published in the Veli Krisana Rukamanī rī, ed. Rām, Simh and Sūryakaran, Pārīk (Ilāhābād, 1931).Google Scholar

9 Ed. Rāvat, Sārasvat, Bikāner, , 1960. For an appraisal of its value as an historical document,Google Scholar see Dasharatha, Sharma, Lectures on Rajput History and Culture (Delhi, 1970), pp. 125–141.Google Scholar

10 It is noteworthy that the historical notes kept by Bākīdāsa Āsiyo (i.e. ‘Bākīdāsa rī Khyāta’: see n. 2 above), court poet to Māna Simha of Mārwār and a contemporary of Tod, were written in MiM, whilst the Vīravinoda of Kavirājā Śyāmaldās, intended for publication in 1886 but suppressed for many years, is in a Standard Hindi heavily influenced by Urdū and containing numerous English words.Google Scholar

11 See Specimen 2; examples of severe grammatical ‘interference’ from local dialects may also be found in the letters published in Kuch Aitihāsik Rukke-Parvāne, Paramparā 24 (Jodhpur, 1967),Google Scholar and Gupta, K. S. / Mathur, L. P.; Selections from Banera Archives [1758–1770]: Civil War in Mewar (Udaipur, 1967).Google Scholar

12 Nāsaketari, Kathā, an Old-Rājasthānī Tale, edited with Notes, a Grammar, and a Glossary, by Charlotte Krause (Leipzig, 1925).Google Scholar The text is published again with a translation into English in Asia Major, Vol. I (Leipzig, 1924), pp. 347–427.Google Scholar

13 Ibid., pp. 4–9.

14 Ibid., pp. 57–81.

15 See Linguistic Survey of India, Vol. IX, Part ii, but also two important articles by Allen, W. S.; ‘Some Phonological Characteristics of Rājasthāni’, BSOAS, Vol. XX, 1957,Google Scholar and ‘Notes on the Rājasthānī Verb’’, IL, Vol. XXI, 1960.Google Scholar

16 Mātāprasād, Gupta / Agarcand, Nāhtā; Bīsala Deva Rāsa (Prayāg, 1960, 2nd ed.); my own work on a restoration of the text of this poem is currently in progress.Google Scholar

17 It seems reasonable to ascribe these changes in preferred forms in large measure to changing political circumstances. The revolt against OG as a medium for verse coincides closely in time with the establishment of a strong Rāthor kingdom in Mārwār in the mid-fifteenth century, centred on Jodhpur (founded 1459); it is therefore hardly surprising if OR contains many Jodhpuri elements. Later, however, Bikāner was to become, under Moghul patronage, a major centre of culture; evidently the form of language spoken there became the basis for the accepted standard by the late sixteenth century.

18 Mūhatā Nainasīrī Khyāta, ed. Badrīprasād, Sākariyā (Jodhpur, 1960–1962–1964–1967). Whilst not critical or even semi-critical, this edition appears to be very reliable. A translation of the Chronicle into HindīGoogle Scholar by Rāmnārāyan, Dūgar, entitled Muhanota Nainasi kī Khyāta, was published in Vārāiasī in 1925–1934.Google Scholar The text of Nainasī's other work, Māravāra rā Paraganā rī Vigata, has also now been published, ed. Nārāyansimh, Bhāti (Jodhpur, 1968–1969); I have not consulted it for the purpose of this study, since, being a kind of Domesday Book, it contains comparatively little connected prose, and also since the editorial standard appears to be less high than that of the Khyāta.Google Scholar

19 A synopsis of this vāta is given in Tessitori's article on Pābū, JASB 1916, pp. 106–14.Google Scholar See also JASB 1919, pp. 17–67 for his views on the chronicle literature.