The text entitled Śivbhūṣan or Śivrājbhūṇaṇ (henceforth Shivrajbhushan) by Bhūṣaṇ Tripāṭhī (henceforth Bhushan) (1613-1715) which is the basis of the analysis held in the book, is a poem produced within the courtly literary culture of...
moreThe text entitled Śivbhūṣan or Śivrājbhūṇaṇ (henceforth Shivrajbhushan) by Bhūṣaṇ Tripāṭhī (henceforth Bhushan) (1613-1715) which is the basis of the analysis held in the book, is a poem produced within the courtly literary culture of Braj language. The latter is part of the Hindi literary tradition. Shivrajbhushan is an example of the rītigranth (‘treatise on method’) literary genre.
Along with the attempt to define the value of the work and the pragmatic dimension of the literary expression of court literary culture of Braj language, the problem of history in the indigenous intellectual tradition of the Indian subcontinent was taken into account.
The basis for addressing this problem are multiple judgments, especially belonging to the political (19th century) and academic (19th and first half of the 20th century) discourses, on the alleged lack of history in India. As one may suppose, such judgments arise form the lack of clear (native Indian) categories that would be equivalent to the Western notion of history. The cases of acceptance of this type of judgments and changing ways of defence against them constitute in the book the main point of departure: 1) for an attempt to conceptualise the forms of recording the past which would be equivalent and equal to the traditional Western „history”; 2) a characterisation of the specific form of history of which Bhushan's poem is an example.
Bhushan's oeuvre is one of the few—known to the scholarship—examples of works of the courtly literary culture of Braj language composed in the Deccan, far from the geographical range of those languages which are classified today within the literary tradition of Hindi.
The analysis of the poem and the historical context in which it has been produced indicate that Bhushan's work forms an important element within the discourse of power of its time and place. It provides arguments that a significant part of the literary expression was an essential branch, and perhaps even a core, of the discourse of power. However, the uniqueness of this form of history lies in the fact that its medium is a poetic-rhetorical text, as multidimensional as is the whole literary culture within which it has been created. Close reading and analysis of the poem allow to assume that the specific functions of legitimisation of power and recording of the past are strengthened and emphasised with the help of the sophisticated form and the refined convention. The poetry operating on different levels of transtextual references and using multidimensional semantic or figurative messages must have been aimed at reaching various audiences—and in a variety of ways—depending on the competence, specificity of the environment or the sensitivity of the recipient.
If narrative history is a form of appropriation of the past, Bhushan's poem, although it does not reveal the narrative structures, can be perceived as a planned and institutionally sanctioned form of such appropriation. It must be borne in mind that Bhushan created above all the knowledge of history of his times, i.e. the knowledge that was still in statu nascendi. As the one who created poetic images (i.e. functional equivalents of what is narrative in traditional history of the West), he must have aimed at constructing a framework for collective, still unformed memory. What must have been crucial in the process of its shaping, was the practice of repetitive performances, during which the strength of the sound-rhythmic associations and the correspondence between the structures of the form and the convention of the genre had to manifest itself with particular intensity.
Reading the poem in the context of other traditional representations and concepts and the analysis of the significance of various elements of the imaginary world of religion and myth—exploited by the poet—disclose the presence of discourse of power in the content of the work. The poetic images of Shivaji’s fame, his strength or energy, his ability to protect the earth or the subjects, the ability to feed, his wealth, or generosity in the form of the magic potency of giving, are in fact reflections of a number of concepts grounded in various Indian literary traditions. The outline of the royal extravaganza in Bhushan's poem was an important part of the aestheticization of power. It has been used to build an image consistent with the traditional Indian concept of kingship (S. rājadharma). In the historical context of Shivaji’s political ambition, the commission of such poem on the eve of the royal consecration should be viewed as an important part of a large-scale, costly enterprise of legitimisation of his rule in accordance with the orthodox social order (S. varṇāśramadharma).
The work is dominated by the „heroic taste” (vīra rasa), it lacks clear references to the private life of the ruler, which seem to be the effect of deliberate omissions. There is no room for some of the typologies from the Sanskrit kāvya poetry often aplied by other rīti poets. All this indicates a purposeful attempt to adjust the formal aspects of the oeuvre to the circumstances and conditions in which it has been created, or finally to the functions it was supposed to fulfill. In the pre-colonial era, in a world with a well-developed manuscript culture, probably coupled with the practice of public performance, and in which print technology has not yet been widespread, poetry seems to be this form of „writing” which is much more durable and far more communicative than e.g. prose. Under such conditions, the „historian” needed to use or adapt various existing means of literary expression to the planned or entrusted task. Bhushan successfully used—in an extremely skilful way—the available immanent poetics the application of which was probably a conditio sine qua non of gaining the necessary authority. If indeed, as postulated by V. N. Rao, D. Shulman and S. Subrahmanyam (2001), „each community writes history in the mode that is dominant in its own literary practice” the features of Bhushan's work presented in the book should be considered as an argument confirming their thesis. It turns out that not only the style, but also the rītigranth genre of poetry, seemingly rigid or—also seemingly—significantly limiting the range of content that it can transmit, in the hands or mouth of Bhushan, the poet of rīti literary stream, becomes flexible and capacious. A hyperbole, figures of „delight”, figures in which the cause is due to effect, or in which the comparans and the comparandum interchange their functions or characterise each other, or a number of other figural conventions, serve the aesthetic function of the literature. However, thanks to the skilful combination of motifs and other appropriate transtextual references, those figural conventions become means of constructing images that serve highly pragmatical purposes. The analysis of Shivrajbhushan poem, observed ways of adapting the form to non-literary functions, provide a strong argument for the pragmatic character of at least a part of the courtly literary culture of Braj language.
A literary work, particularly if it is an example of high-style poetry, is always a work of art, even if it is to be understood in terms of professional craft. Rītigranth genre served primarily the aesthetic functions. However, it has been significantly adapted to the complex discourse that clearly dominated the content of the work.
The analysis of Bhushan's allows to conclude that poetry created within the courtly literary culture of Braj language can be functional, within its cultural ecology, as both—expositio rerum gestarum and a broader reflection on the past. Not only it exposes, but also explains, directing the recipient to such an assessment of events that could serve the patron's political interests. Neither Bhushan can be called a historiographer, nor his poetic work of art can be named history-writing in the most common traditional sense that arises from Western intellectual traditions. But this literary culture did not arise out of those traditions in which both categories—historian and historiography existed. The literary culture under consideration had its own forms of recording the past. Their recognition can be regarded as an important contribution to the political, social and cultural reconstruction of the regional history of the Indian subcontinent.