The language of Hariaudh's Priyapravas: notes toward an archaeology of Modern Standard Hindi

by Valerie Ritter
Citation
Title:
The language of Hariaudh's Priyapravas: notes toward an archaeology of Modern Standard Hindi
Author:
Valerie Ritter
Year: 
2004
Publication: 
Journal of the American Oriental Society
Volume: 
124
Issue: 
3
Start Page: 
417
End Page: 
438
Publisher: 
Language: 
English
URL: 
Select license: 
Select License
DOI: 
PMID: 
ISSN: 
Abstract:

 
Priyapravas [The Absence (1) of the Beloved] of 1914 by Pandit Ayodhyasimh Upadhyay "Hariaudh" (1865-1947) (2) is acclaimed as one of the most virtuosic original poetic works in Hindi (3) from the Dvivedi era (4) of Hindi literature, the period from roughly 1900 to the ascent of Chayavad poetry in the 1920s. (5) Priyapravas remains known and admired among the Hindi-medium educated today. Its famous narrative revision of the Krishna story--in which Radha is not the lover of Krishna in a physical sense, but rather devotes herself to social service--represents to some contemporary critics a defunct progressivism, and an objectionably functionalist interpretation of bhakti (devotion). Its subject matter has been held up as an example of the Dvivedi era's didacticism and uncomfortable modernizing of traditional poetic topics. The neo-conservatism of Priyapravas was also epitomized for many by its use of Sanskrit meters at a time when free verse began to dominate elite poetry. The work is widely considered representative of the Dvivedi era as one of the linguistic standardization and Sanskritization. It is considered a model of suddh (pure) Hindi: many would submit, along with R. S. McGregor, that "the contribution of Priyapravas to the development of modern Hindi poetry ... lies, first and last, in demonstrating the successful use of Sanskritized Khari Boli in a work of major scope...." (6) Published during the flourishing of the "Hindi movement," it contains virtually no non-Sanskritic lexical items, providing a showpiece for the amnesiac agenda of the Hindi movement in its effort to create a Hindi literature that excluded "Urdu." (7) This essay will address the linguistic aspects of Priyapravas, both in the words of the author in his "Introduction" and in the work's various editions, of 1914, 1921, and the vulgate of 1941, through which some complex aspects of the process of standardization of Hindi are apparent. An "archaeology" of the layered evolution of this text will provide a window onto the linguistic terrain of early modern poetic Hindi. (8)
 
Hindi authors of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, such as the well-known Maithilisaran Gupta and Gupta's mentor Mahavir Prasad Dvivedi, the editor after whom the "Dvivedi era" was named, sought to define a "Hindi" in contradistinction to both the "Hindustani" of common speech and the Persian-inflected "Urdu" of poetry and administration. Among them was "Hariaudh," (9) tax officer of Azamgarh district, United Provinces, who in Priyapravas wrote some 1700 verses in a Hindi he designated as "Khari Boli" (current speech), (10) the term still often used today to designate "standard" Hindi within the variants of its widespread use as a lingua franca. The late nineteenth century saw new experiments in Hindi prose and poetry and new venues for their dissemination. In the early twentieth century there was an explosion of Hindi periodicals, including many literary journals publishing in a variety of genres and registers--ranging from Braj Bhasa poetry in its traditional meters, to extremely Sanskritized translations of Bengali novels, to prose and poetry in the Nagari script in the mixed "Hindustani" register and Urdu meters, to highly Sanskritic poetry in Sanskrit meters. "Nature description" in poetry (seemingly a corollary of "realism" in prose) was in vogue, as were pro-national and historical themes in both poetry and prose. All of these were present in the content of Priyapravas. Texts in Hindi were an "emerging market," in demand by growing numbers of vernacular-medium schools. Hariaudh's Priyapravas became part of the emerging modern Hindi canon in the 1920s, and owing chiefly to this fame, Hariaudh later joined the Hindi department faculty at Banaras Hindi University, at the personal invitation of Hindi reformer and nationalist Madan Mohan Malaviya.
 
 
For Hariaudh, Khari Boli represented a distinct contrast from Braj Bhasa, still in use in poetry, a Hindi "dialect" of cosmopolitan literary stature with premodern linguistic features preserved in its canon and contemporaneous production, and also strongly associated with religious devotion to Krishna. Braj Bhasa itself had a long tradition of borrowing lexicon and features of form from Sanskrit, and Priyapravas might be seen as merely repeating this phenomenon. However, motivations for Sanskritization differed substantially in the context of the "Hindi movement," and furthermore, Priyapravas displayed a consonance with Sanskrit that surpassed that of most Sanskrit-inspired Braj Bhasa texts. For instance, the work maintains the highly determined kavya meters of Sanskrit throughout, and in several sections is recognizable as Hindi only by virtue of a few postpositions and copula verbs.
 
Priyapravas, as a cultural commodity widely disseminated by Hindi-movement supporters and Indian government monies, can be identified as a literary and linguistic object that expresses "a sensitive gauge of sentiments of belonging" (11) to a Hindu polity. The language of Priyapravas provides an artifact of a little-studied moment of linguistic engineering in a North Indian polity, as the definition of "Hindi" was carved out of more complicated realities. Expressing a demotic (though biased) linguistic ideal, and articulating its identity as against the supposedly decadent worldliness of both Urdu and courtly Braj Bhasa, this "Hindi" evoked equally a former Sanskritic cosmopolitanism (albeit filtered through nineteenth-century colonial thought), and a possible future Sanskritic linguistic cosmopolitanism (a linking lexicon between Indian languages), meant to be on a par with any literature of the world. The Hindi cosmopolitanism was thus envisioned as a "vernacularity" embedded in the judiciously revived remains of a premodern and largely Sanskrit literary culture, and a vernacular medium explicitly not-English, not-Urdu, and not-Bengali, which would speak for all of India on the international stage. The complex designs of Hindi supporters of this historical moment, linguistically and literarily, are reflected in the complexity of Priyapravas.
 
Hariaudh states initially, in the introduction to Priyapravas, that he offers this text with a feeling of devotion, and he self-denigratingly compares his work to those of the Braj Bhasa courtly poets, bhakti poets, the Sufi allegorical romance, and the recently discovered heroic epic Prithviraj Raso, but goes on to implore the reader: "[T]he right to serve (seva karna) the mother tongue belongs to everybody.... [The great poets of Hindi] have performed their adoration in a tearful, ecstatic state of bhakti. Am I not able to do puja to her [the mother language] with one very ordinary flower?" (12) In deference to the premodern literary giants, Hariaudh may have considered his offering only "ordinary" (sadharan), but perhaps he meant this term to characterize the language of his text, not only the text itself. The phrase "ordinary flower" could suggest the notion of Khari Boli Hindi as a language of the "authentic" and "ordinary" North Indian citizen. Ironically, the text's language displays an extraordinary nature, a quality that became even more pointed as the text evolved through its various editions from 1914 to 1941. Priyapravas, while being one of the first very long poems in an allegedly demotic modern Hindi, remains the epitome of a Sanskritized Hindi that few actually speak. Its status as kind of linguistic exemplar of the Hindi movement and Hariaudh's status in the canon as a "suddh Hindi" author are implied by the words of Congress president Rajendra Prasad, who in 1935 wrote that "one who wants to learn Sanskrit through Hindi should read the works of Hariaudh." (13)
 
THE VARIANTS: MULTIPLE PURPOSES
 
An examination of four editions of Priyapravas, which span almost thirty years, shows that Braj Bhasa and other grammatical elements now considered "non-standard" were gradually excised from the text, presumably to fulfill Hariaudh's vision of modern Hindi. There are five known edition of Priyapravas, one of which was a serial publication in a periodical of 1913. The book editions considered here include the first (1914), the second (1921), a fourth (or possibly third (14)) undated version, and the last "revised and corrected" edition (1941). The latter constitutes the vulgate, having been reprinted in stable form since 1941. The four book publications of the text are referenced as follows: (15)
 
A: KVP, (16) 1914 (17)
 
B: KVP, 1921
 
C: KVP[?], 1931 [?]
 
D: HSK, (18) 1941
 
Through an analysis of the variants between the editions, it is possible to discern some linguistic matters that troubled Hariaudh. Some cogent trends in the variants will be discussed below, and their possible significance in terms of the codification (19) of Modern Standard Hindi (MSH) will then be addressed.
 
STATEMENTS ON LITERARY LANGUAGE IN THE INTRODUCTION OF PRIYAPRAVAS
 
Since Hariaudh's view of modern Hindi was in many ways inseparable from his views on poetic aesthetics, before examining his revisions in linguistic terms, we must first take heed of Hariaudh's own statements about literary language, as presented in his introduction to Priyapravas, an introduction that remained virtually unchanged through the various editions. The introduction does not expound the innovations of the work entirely as they are remembered in literary history and apparent to us now. In its fifty-three pages Hariaudh gives not only the conventional prefatory apologies, (20) but also a preemptive defense of his particular use of meter, language, and subject matter. Throughout his discussion of these various topics, several interrelated concepts remain fundamental to his understanding of poetry: the well-known rasa ('essence' or 'mood'), komalata and kantata ('softness' and 'loveliness') as measures of verbal beauty, and samskar ('inborn faculty', 'instinct', or 'propensity', or 'impress of experience'). (21) Additionally, he introduces the standard of suvidha ('convenience', 'ease') and the poetic ideal of upakar ('benefit').
 
Hariaudh continually uses the phrase "komal aur kant" to describe the qualities of good, sarasa poetry. These two adjectives are employed repeatedly, and repetitively (twenty-seven instances, in fact), to describe a certain generic sense of 'loveliness'. These terms overlap somewhat and are often cited with the commonly attributed quality of madhuryya [sic] 'sweetness'. (22) More important for our purposes, he uses these terms to characterize beautiful language in general, and the result of his assessment of various North Indian languages in these terms is to place Sanskrit in the privileged position. (23) Hariaudh's points regarding Hindi and the conditions required for komal and kant poetry can be summarized as follows: (a) Hindi manifests in a natural form ("prakrt-rup") (Introduction, 7) and inasmuch is similar to Prakrit, in terms of the positive qualities of accessibility and "softness and loveliness"; (b) but Prakrit consisted of corruptions of Sanskrit, which corruptions made Prakrit "harsh" and "difficult"; (c) Urdu is "foreign" and "harsh" or "cacophonous"; (24) (d) Sanskrit is at the core of Khari Boli Hindi and is the key to its success at the national level, due to Sanskrit's presence in Indian languages throughout the subcontinent (Introduction, 7); (e) The samskar of contemporary society is to use Khari Boli in poetry, doing which creates suvidha ('convenience') (25) and could also provide more upakar ('benefit').
 
In the section entitled "Rasa in Poetry" Hariaudh compares Sanskrit, Prakrit, early Hindi, Urdu, Braj, and Khari Boli in a detailed analysis aimed toward the educated audience of rasiks (connoisseurs of rasa, aesthetic experience). The primary terms of comparison and the standards by which he measures these languages are the familiar "softness and loveliness," and often "sweetness." Let us examine his treatment of Urdu, before turning to the more delicate problem of Sanskrit versus Prakrit.
 
Hariaudh uses his self-defined linguistic criteria to dismiss the influence of Urdu and its Perso-Arabic lexicon on the linguistic terrain of North India, in a blatantly prejudicial fashion. Though he cites early Urdu poets with a measure of approval, he objects to the more Persianized Urdu of later poets, (26) claiming Perso-Arabic phonology to be less beautiful than that of Sanskritic languages and suggesting that Muslims continue to prefer it only because such is their samskar. At one point he even compares Urdu to an ugly child only its parents can find beautiful.
 
When he turns to Sanskrit and Prakrit, Hariaudh disputes traditional conceptions of "soft language." Prakrit, the language of women in Sanskrit drama, has often been considered a feminine counterpart to the more masculine Sanskrit, a view exemplified in the Prakrit verse he cites from Rajasekhara's Karpuramanjari:
 
          The rough [verses] are bound in Sanskrit, bound in Prakrit          are the tender [verses]. Like the difference between man and          woman, so the difference between them. (27) 
But Hariaudh submits that Prakrit actually sounds harsher than Sanskrit, and that it is not quite right to call Sanskrit "the man" (as in Rajasekhara's formulation above), since Sanskrit actually more fully meets the standard of "softness" that, in his view, defines vernacular poetry.
 
This view is further developed in his discussion of suvidha ('convenience'), a principle he uses to conclude that tatsama Sanskrit words were in fact the most "convenient" and thereby "useful." His use of the term begins with his discussion of Prakrit. Though the term "convenience" can be taken to characterize the principle underlying Prakritization itself, the processes of phonological assimilation and simplification by which the Prakrit vernaculars derived from Sanskrit, Hariaudh also argues that this process had been taken too far. In fact, he claims that the result is that Prakrit is more difficult to pronounce compared to Sanskrit, so that Sanskrit is superior for soft and lovely verse. The best verse is that "in which there is ease [suvidha] of pronunciation and which is easy to hear. It will be soft and lovely inasmuch as conjunct letters and the t-varga are lacking, and as much as they are present, it will be harsh.... You will find [these] more in Prakrit verses ..." (Introduction, 9). Thus Hariaudh used this concept of suvidha idiosyncratically in a double sense, applicable both to Prakrit, as the principle explaining its "vernacularity," and to Sanskrit, which ironically already exhibited the quality of phonological suvidha. Hariaudh's schema seems almost Darwinian, implying that Sanskritized Hindi is actually the most "fit" language, being commonly accessible as a vernacular, yet improved by its corrections of the more "convenient," and "purer" Sanskrit. However, although this concern with suvidha can be seen as simply a matter of modern linguistic policy, in a utilitarian/governmental frame, it can also be linked to a more basic valuation of orality, already fundamental to South Asian literatures and theologies: "The mouth and the ear are the servants of the heart" (Introduction, 18). The contradictory use of this term (i.e., "convenience" as a condition sometimes achieved with Prakritization, sometimes with Sanskritization) seems to derive from a fundamental conflict of language standardization: whether to standardize the language of the people or create a standardized language for the people, to reify present standards or resurrect old ones, to document the given or create an ideal. Hariaudh's vision of modern poetic Hindi thus suggests an interpretation of demotic speech that also allows for heavy classical borrowing, with a rationalization for the "usefulness" of the classical based on an epistemology of poetic language both nineteenth-century-modernist and precolonial in nature. Such were Hariaudh's intellectual gymnastics on which he premised his Sanskritization project in Priyapravas.
 
Basic Precepts of Hariaudh's Linguistic Strategy
 
Let us now turn to how these principles took form in Priyapravas. As an integral part of the history of communalism, the rhetorical/poetical claim to Hindu identity has been a key element of the definitional process of Hindi literature. (28) Hariaudh believed in the cause of Sanskritized Hindi (albeit somewhat ambivalently later on), and he was, like many Hindi authors of his era, extremely self-conscious about the etymological provenance of the words he employed. Hariaudh was keenly aware of words' relations to Classical Sanskrit, that is, whether they were of Sanskritic, Persian, Arabic, or English stock, and whether they were tatsama (borrowed verbatim from Sanskrit or showing the same form as the Sanskrit) or tadbhava (derived from Sanskrit by regular processes of linguistic change). This concern was already manifest in his theth ('authentic') Hindi compositions, which eschewed both tatsama Sanskrit and Persian lexicon. (29) The introduction and text of Priyapravas also reflect this self-consciousness.
 
 
A survey of the lexicon of all editions of Priyapravas indicates that from the beginning Hariaudh was extremely successful in executing a "Hindi" text, lacking virtually all "foreign" words of Persian, Arabic, or English provenance in its 1569 quatrain verses. Notably, Hariaudh retained the conjunctive ki from Persian. One Persian word was included in the first edition and then edited out in the last edition for a Sanskritic alternative. (30) Overall, at least four Persian words remain in Priyapravas, and the commentaries on two of these demonstrate the reputation of this work as being entirely suddh Hindi. (31) In 5.48.2, juda ('separated'), according to Visvambhar Manav, "sounds very strange coming from the mouth of Yasoda" (119). Another juda appears again in Yasoda's voice (7.34.3), a third at 11.52.3, in the narrator's voice. These latter two occurrences go without remark from the commentators, but, significantly, these words are glossed in the commentaries with prthak ('separated'), a suddh Hindi term much less common than the well-known juda. Later, in 16.86.4, the common word gula ('flower, rose') is found in a comparison to Krishna's beautiful ankles. Manav writes: "It is impossible to say why Hariaudh used the Farsi word gul for the meaning of flower" (424). Such words are so seldom found in Priyapravas, and its reputation is so strongly based upon suddh Hindi, that these Persian words are incongruous with what Priyapravas signifies to its audience.
 
While Urdu was truly anathema to the purpose of Priyapravas, Braj Bhasa posed a subtler problem for Hariaudh. He did not oppose Braj Bhasa; in fact, he lamented its decline in many of his essays. In the introduction to Priyapravas he promotes it as a more natural choice in poetry than Urdu, despite the fact that Braj had become almost a foreign language for the younger generation (21). Braj Bhasa held a "special connection" (svatva, an 'identity' or 'proprietary right') with Hindi:
 
 
    
        
    
    
    
    
    It is the opinion of many litterateurs these days that Khari Boli
 
 
    
        
    
                                    
    
    
    poetry has become so developed (unnat) that it has reached the stage     at which using a Braja Bhasa word [is considered to] make [the     Hindi] non-standard (apratistit). But I do not agree with this idea.     Braj Bhasa is not some separate language; moreover, more than Urdu,     its words have a special connection (svatva) with Hindi. Therefore     there is no reason why Urdu words should keep on being used in Hindi     without hesitation, but Hindi's door be shut to Braj Bhasa's useful     and handsome vocabulary. My opinion is that, to the extent that Braj     Bhasa words are found useful and handsome, keeping the color of     Khari Boli, there should be no hesitation in taking them. When     [even] Urdu doesn't lack Braj Bhasa words completely, then how can     Hindi sever its connection with Braj? (42-43) 
 
However, while Braj was "natural" for Hindi, and certainly natural for the Krishna subject matter of Priyapravas, Hariaudh seemed increasingly to feel it necessary to resist Braj and differentiate his Hindi from it. An assessment of the various editions of Priyapravas divulges an archaeology of the creation of a Sanskritized Hindi through the extraction of certain Braj lexical items and other curious failed experiments in Khari Boli. These are addressed in detail below.
 
Having the daunting multiple purposes of writing in Khari Boli without "Urdu," and in a style reinjected with Sanskrit and only conditionally accepting of Braj, Hariaudh's lexical decisions were not easy. He had the practical problems of choosing Sanskrit tatsamas that were not klist ('overly difficult', 'harsh'), and tadbhava words that could be acceptable (i.e., not 'harsh'-sounding because of retroflex phonemes, etc., and not evocative of village speech), favoring certain tadbhavas as acceptably Khari Boli over certain other tadbhavas found often in Braj Bhasa. Indeed, Hariaudh targeted specific Braj Bhasa lexical items present in his first two editions of Priyapravas for excision in later editions. The purge is more or less complete by the last edition of 1941. (32)
 
The language of the first two editions published by the Khadgavilas Press superficially resembles Braj Bhasa, although significantly only in orthography and (with ex-post-facto definitions) lexically. This was hardly surprising, considering the lingering poetic currency of Braj and the fact that Braj Bhasa was Hariaudh's original poetic medium. The present-day conception of a Sanskrit-identified "Khari Boli Hindi" was then only taking shape through modernist rejections of the Braj poetic tradition and adoption of the linguistic practices of the emerging style of Hindi prose. Priyapravas provides a fascinating case study of the transition from Braj Bhasa poetry to Khari Boli, as it is fairly certain that Hariaudh himself made all the revisions, the most dramatic changes appearing twenty-seven years after initial publication, in the 1941 edition published by the Hindi Sahitya Kutir of Banaras. (33) That said, this lengthy text does retain some "Braj" lexicon, by MSH standards. The shift between editions is therefore one of degrees, yet still very striking.
 
 
In general, Hariaudh's revisions can be characterized as following a dual agenda of lexical Sanskritization and revision towards Khari Boli Hindi syntax. (34) This entailed the replacement of tadbhava words with tatsamas, and the Sanskritization or excision of certain "desi" words, along with those now considered characteristic of Braj or Avadhi. Certain compounds were rearranged in order to comply with rules of Sanskrit compounding (see below). Additionally, Hariaudh would emend towards the syntax of Khari Boli Hindi, though metrical constraints could make this difficult. In a few instances, however, he would break these principles, with reversion to tadbhava lexical items from more Sanskritic ones. The work as a whole has undergone many hundreds, perhaps thousands, of individual revisions. Virtually all verses received some sort of alteration, most of them minor (i.e., one to five words altered, rearranged, or rephrased). Those revisions that were not obviously part of Hariaudh's linguistic agenda were perhaps motivated simply by personal taste, or a desire to reduce repetition, or otherwise augment the virtuosity of the text. Notably, virtually none of these revisions disturbs the metrical patterns of the work. The best known, most anthologized, verses have experienced little or no change from the first edition (e.g., 1.1-3, 4.4-6). This might imply that these were the most "successful" verses from the beginning, and therefore Hariaudh did not want to alter them. They also happen to have a distinctly Sanskritic style that nevertheless rests firmly within a Khari Boli grammatical frame, the very style for which Priyapravas gained its fame.
 
Phonemic and Lexical Variants
 
The most basic and constant variation between the editions is the replacement of the phoneme b with v, in order to produce the tatsama form, as opposed to the more colloquial tadbhava form, of the lexical item in question. Tadbhava "b" rather than the tatsama "v" is a signature trait of dialectal Hindi, and certainly consistent with the phonemic habits of Braj Bhasa poets. Its excision truly changed the original effect of Priyapravas especially in terms of alliteration. Consider the effect of these lines:
 
    1.2.1 (A, B, C):  bipina bica bihangama-vrnda ka    1.2.1 (D):        vipina bica vihangama-vrnda ka 
Clearly, Hariaudh's standard of vernacular phonology in the early editions was selective, as even there he did not form brnda, but rather the tatsama vrnda. Despite the pleasing alliterative effect of the many consecutive b's, Hariaudh replaced these consonants in the last edition according to their Sanskrit form. Not all of these changes occurred only for edition D. A few b's had been replaced in the second edition, perhaps indicating that Hariaudh was aware of but not entirely committed to the Sanskritization of his vocabulary in this manner. This factor significantly altered the "flavor" (one might say, altered the rasa) of the work, and was a basic element in the transformation of this work into a model of Sanskritized Modern Standard Hindi.
 
Similar Sanskritization occurred with other consonants, such as the sibilants s and s, and the changing of ch to ks in many places. In this latter case also Hariaudh had to sacrifice some anuprasa ('alliteration'). Verse 1.25 from the first edition comes in the midst of a long description of the beauty of Krishna:
 
    chalakati mukha thi chabi-punjata
 
    
        
   
  
 
 
 
 
    
    
    
    
   chitikati chiti thi tana ki chata    bagarati bara dipti diganta thi    chitija jyom chanada-kara ki kala 
 
By the last edition D, these words have been made consistent with their tatsama spelling:
 
    chalakati mukha ki chabi-punjata    chitikati ksiti chu tana ki chata    bagarati bara dipti diganta mem (35)    ksitija mem ksanada-kara kanti si (36) 
The last edition lacks the full battery of alliterative ch's of edition A/B (although the revisions do happily create new alliteration of k in the last line). That final edition, however, attempts to remedy this lack with the addition of chu. Clearly, here the urge to Sanskritize clashes with Hariaudh's prior aesthetic purpose of anuprasa. (37)
 
Hariaudh discussed the difference in rasa between the Sanskritized and pre-Sanskritized words, in a statement of his catholicity concerning tatsama and tadbhava alike. Certain words he wrote both in their Braj-like tadbhava forms, and their Sanskritic tatsama forms:
 
    [I]f I, in these verses, would write ksan instead of chan, prayan    instead of payan, then there is so much difference in charm.    Similarly, if in "sacesta hote bhara ve ksaneka the" I write chanek    instead of ksanek, there is considerable change both to its emotional    power [oj] and rasa. Consequently, in this work you will see    different uses, somewhere chan, elsewhere ksan, somewhere bhag,    elsewhere bhagya, somewhere payan, elsewhere prayan, etc. (40) 
At this point in the introduction, the second and last editions proceed to another topic, but the first edition continues with this further explanation:
 
    ... somewhere jyoti somewhere joti, etc. If in this line "ravisuta    kala kula isi samai" I wrote samai as samay then the breaking of the    meter would occur. Therefore, I had no choice but to write samai. In    the end, for this reason, here and there nayan and nain, uday and    udai, samay and samai, pavan and paun, etc., are written. In the    Hindi language this style is accepted and embraced.... Poets of both    the ancient and modern times have done this, because without using    this style, great inconveniences [asuvidhayem] come into the making    of poetry. (47-48) 
Note that Hariaudh justifies his use of the non-tatsama forms with the idea of suvidha 'convenience', a term we have seen invoked elsewhere. (38)
 
Hariaudh's comments seem to anticipate questioning of his method, and indicate the uncertainty and careful attention with which "Hindi" was written at this time. Precisely those elements that are today considered "non-standard" or somewhat archaic are those to which he only acquiesced, unconvinced, or retained (albeit minimally) on the basis of aesthetics, i.e., rasa. By the second edition B, the above-cited paragraph had been removed from the introduction, and almost all of the words he specifically mentioned had been excised from Priyapravas, replaced in such a way that the meter remained undisturbed. Prasad's word index of edition D indicates that there are exactly two instances of chana for ksana (5.19.3, 5.54.4), two instances of bhaga for bhagya (8.33.2, 10.67.3), (39) and absolutely none of payana, joti, samai, udai, and pauna. (40)
 
Hariaudh's position in support of Sanskrit was obviously not new, as he was a member of a generation that was direct heir to founders of the Hindi movement. The suddh Hindi climate in which he wrote is proven by the fact that he feels that not using tatsamas would be a rebellious act. This much is clear from his detailed introductory comments.
 
    ... I would, according to the style of Braj Bhasa, change na, sa,    etc., to na, sa, etc., and make the language of this work especially    soft (komal). I would write ramaniya, sravan, sobha, sakti, etc., as    ramaniya, sravan, sobha, sakti. But from doing this, firstly, the    language of this work would become too different from the language of    contemporary times; secondly, what Sanskrit color there is in it    would not remain, and clumsiness and a lack of beauty would result.    (41) 
Ironically, however, his claimed intention to "tatsama-ize" his Hindi was in fact realized gradually through the editions. While Sanskritization of the original 1914 text began to occur by the second edition B (1921), the revisions for the 1941 edition, D, are dominated by the Sanskritizing of both lexicon and compound structures. This Sanskritization was achieved by the revision of certain words now considered outside of most definitions of MSH, and the alteration of certain Khari Boli oblique-adverbial compounds (e.g., hathom bandhe, a target of grammatical revision also, see below) into Sanskrit-style phrases. 
 
Certain Braj Bhasa lexical items seem to have been systematically purged, mostly between the third and last editions, C (1931?) and D (1941). There is no apparent reason for these particular lexemes to have been targeted over others, although at present day all of them are considered to belong to Braj Bhasa or other non-standard Hindi, rather than MSH; their replacements were not necessarily the result of Sanskritization either. A comparison of editions reveals that certain words were intentionally excised and replaced with synonyms, or entire phrases or lines were revised in order to avoid using them. Words that were completely expunged included the postposition laum, the adjective sigara, and the verb lah-. Other words often removed, yet not entirely absent even in the last edition, include sadma, the suffix -eka, and the verb stems bhakh- and lakh-. Another Braj Bhasa term deleted several times is kiyata.
 
The postposition laum, though pervasive in the first edition, was edited out completely. (41) Its meaning became consistently retranslated into "taka" or "sa" (as in 'likeness') (42) or simply deleted, with the line rewritten completely. (43) Sigara was generally changed to sakala or saba, in arrangement with other words so that the meter would not be broken. In 2.4.2, aided by Sanskrit declensional practice, Hariaudh changes the sigari kriya of the A/B to sakala kriya, preferring the Sanskrit feminine declension of sakala to the Hindi sigari (see also 2.32.4, 6.29.3, and 6.80.1). Sadma was often altered to geha (e.g., in 2.42.3, 3.46.4, 5.45.4, 6.10.4, 6.49.4, 7.9.1, 7.49.4, 14.14.3), but remains at several places in the last edition. (44) The suffix -eka 'each' was altered as well, often by dividing the original words into two semantic units (e.g., janaik < manuja eka from 2.12.1). A few verb forms also disappeared: bhakh- (4.52
 
The very few instances of metrical imperfections stem mostly from excisions of these "rejected" words. In one instance, Hariaudh breaks the first caesura of a line in mandakranta in order to remove laum in 5.78.1:
 
        A/B: Hoti kanom / dhvanita jaba laum /tapa thi ghotakom ki. (45)        D: Tapom ka na/da jaba taka tha kana mem sthana pata. (46) 
These occurrences only testify to the strong necessity the author felt for these revisions; a few slight imperfections of meter were, for Hariaudh, a necessary evil.
 
Grammatical Variants
 
Hariaudh's grammatical revisions seem to have been motivated by two contrasting principles. On the one hand, Sanskritizing tendencies are visible here. On the other, he alters the text towards the most prosaic or explicatory. Both of these traits are characteristic of Dvivedi era literature in general. (47) In favoring explication, Hariaudh's revisions took some of the "poetry" out of the poetry; that is to say, grammatical elements which were meaningful through an understood set of syntactic relations were sometimes removed and replaced with the more discursive use of postpositions, etc. The revisions for edition B, the second, 1921 edition, reveal a consistent urge to explicate otherwise "understood" syntactic relationships. Among the numerous revisions for edition D of 1941, this prosaic trend is carried out further, often with regard to compounds.
 
A telling example of the effect of the changes that Hariaudh made is found in 6.63.3. In the first edition naina korom ("by/through the corners of the eyes") expresses the manner in which Krishna might look at his devotees. (48) The plural oblique suffix alone is sufficient to indicate an oblique case, here the instrumental. In the last edition, however, Hariaudh replaced the phrase with saddrsti dvara ("by means of [his] pure gaze"). The effect of this type of revision is twofold: it provides more explication, grammatically speaking, and also elevates the vocabulary to a classical, Sanskritic register. It is grammatically analytical, compared to its earlier counterpart, which used a plural oblique of a noun for an adverbial sense of 'through'. Dvara ('by means of') and drsti ('gaze') likewise signify less obliquely, leaving no connotations of Krishna's mischievousness and/or loving demeanor, as would naina korom. Furthermore, this vision is sat ('good, pure'), a prefix lending a pointedly pious tone, according to standards of late-nineteenth-century elite religiosity. In short, the evocative phrase naina korom has been "translated" into a more literal, and more Sanskritic, register of speech. The grammatical basis for this type of revision is also underscored by the seemingly deliberate dissociation from the cultural idioms of traditional Braj Krishna poetry.
 
Many other revisions suggest that Hariaudh desired to explicate the syntactic function of words more clearly, and that he may have wished to avoid oblique phrases that lacked a postposition, these usually being locative or instrumental. In 1.10.1 the locative oblique phrase gagana ke tala is revised with a postposition in the 1941 edition:
 
 
        A/B/C: gagana ke tala goraja cha gai        "[On] the surface of the sky cow-dust spread."        D: gagana mandala mem raja cha gai        "In the vault of the sky dust spread." 
In 16.84.2 of edition A there is another understood locative signified by an oblique:
 
      maim pati hum rajani-tana ko syama ke ranga duba      "I find the body of the night immersed (in) Syam's color." 
In B/C/D this is changed to the semantically different
 
      maim pati hum rajani-tana mem syama ka ranga chaya  "I find the color of Syam spread in the body of the night." 
Again, in 16.86.4, A contains a plural oblique without a postposition:
 
     gulphom ki si lalita-sukhama hai gulabom lakhati     "A graceful exquisiteness like that of his ankles is visible (in) roses." 
B/C/D give gulom mem dikhati ("is displayed in roses"). (49) One verse later in 16.87.2, the first edition A offers yet another unexplicated plural oblique noun and an oblique locative phrase:
 
    bhavom dube gagana-tala ke anka hai drsti-ati    "[The blueness of his body,] drowned [in] emotion, is visible [in]    the lap of the surface of the sky." 
Editions B and C show the following:
 
     bhavom dube gagana-tala ke anka mem rajati hai     "[The blueness of his body,] drowned [in] emotion, shines in the lap of the sky." 
He thereby resolved ke ank. In D Hariaudh has taken out bhavom dube and replaced it with further description of the sky (nyare nile):
 
      nyare nile gagana-tala ke anka mem rajati hai      "(The blueness of his body) shines in the rare blue lap of the      sky." 
Perhaps these changes were motivated by a desire to open a previously closed, understood system of referents, and perhaps also to avoid the cast of Braj Bhasa poetry, which never exhibited syntactical relations with much consistency. Grammatical explicitness embodied what Khari Boli meant to Hariaudh, as a verbal manifestation of the concept of a linguistic suvidha, in which language functions as an instrument for the public's convenience. However, the supposed suvidha of Khari Boli clearly had more to do with an ideology of language than any true matter of convenience. The populace of polyglot North India, steeped in oral traditions of devotional songs in Avadhi, Braj, and the songs of nirguna poets in so-called "sadhu bhasa," (50) could hardly have been alienated from the less "explicated" poetry of Braj. The explicatory quality of the revisions of language in Hariaudh's work indicates a desire to make the language of poetry more like that of prose, a goal of literary "modernity" for Khari Boli Hindi. As Sanskrit was used by proponents of the Hindi movement to augment the status of Hindi, so also the prose-like use of Khari Boli provided status by granting the work legitimacy as "modern" poetry. Combining these two facets, Priyapravas became a model for the Hindi cause.
 
"Backwards" Compounds
 
A puzzling phenomenon in the first two editions of Priyapravas is the plethora of two-member, often hyphenated compounds, which are clearly "backwards," according to standard Sanskrit rules of compound syntax whereby the head of the compound is the final member. (51) Virtually all of these were systematically "arighted," or completely replaced in B and D, the second and last editions. An excellent example is 9.132.3:
 
    A:      niketana-brajadhipa ("abode/lord of Braj")    B/C/D:  brajadhipa-niketana ("lord of Braj/abode") 
Here Hariaudh initially chose a backwards compound in a situation of complete metrical equality between the elements of the compound, both of which scan as "[TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]," so that there was no possibility of requirement of the mandakranta meter that would impinge on syntax here.
 
A commonly encountered example is the phrase yugala-drga ("pair/eye") which was consistently changed to the Sanskritically "correct" drga-yugala ("eye/pair") in the revisions. As in this example, very many of the reversals are of compound elements consisting only of light (short) syllables, from backward 3/2 syllable compounds to 2/3 compounds, and often in the second "phrase" of the mandakranta line, with its pattern of five short and one long syllable ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]). These changes in order cannot be attributed to metrical necessity, because of the free use of words fitting this 3/2 pattern (though not as compounds, hyphenated or otherwise) in the same metrical space. These particular simple reversals in order are found mostly by the second edition. Other examples of the simple reversals of position of compound members:
 
    5.22.1 and 7.8.4:   A: nrpati braja ("king/Braj")                        B/(C)/D: braja nrpati ("Braj/king") (52)    6.4.1 and 17.1.2:   A: avani-braja ("earth/Braj")
 
    
        
    
    
    
    
              B/(C)/D: braja avani ("Braj/earth")    6.18.2:
 
 
    
        
   
  
 
 
 
 
    
    
    
    
      A: rava-mathana ("sound/churning")                        B/(C)/D: mathana-rava ("churning/sound")    6.64.2:             A: tapana-tana ("burning/body")                        D: tana-tapana ("body/burning") (53)    7.1.1:              A: divasa yaka ("day/one")
 
 
    
        
    
    
    
    
           B/(C)/D: yaka divasa ("one/day")    7.5.3: A: gamana grha ("going/house")                        B/(C)/D: grha gamana ("house/going")    7.8.3:              A: sadana-braja ("house/Braj")
 
 
    
        
    
    
    
    
                       B/(C)/D: braja-sadana ("Braj/house")    7.9.3:
 
 
    
        
    
    
    
    
             A: adhipa braja ("king/Braj")                        B/(C)/D: braja adhipa ("Braj/king")    14.10.3:            A: byathita-bahu ("distressed/much")                        B/(C)/D: bahu vyathita ("much/distressed")
 
 
    
        
    
    
    
    
   14.39.4:            A/B: samana-dukha ("relieving/sorrow")
 
 
    
        
    
    
    
    
                  D: dukha samana ("sorrow/relieving")    14.40.1:
 
 
    
        
    
    
    
    
           A: batem-udho ("words/Uddhav")                        B/(C)/D: udho batem ("Uddhav/words")    14.43.1:            A: vibhava-bhuvi ("abundance/earth")                        B/(C)/D: bhuvi-vibhava ("earth/abundance") 
 
Other reversals involved also the replacement of one member with a semantic equivalent:
 
    2.62.3:  A/B/C: dhara-braja ("earth/Braj")             D: brajangana ("area/Braj")    3.14.2: A/B: nrtya-karal ("dance/dreadful")             D: tandavanrtya ("dance of Shiva/dance") 
Some reversals required the revision of segments of the line, or the entire line:
 
    1.11.1:  A/B: dina-samasta samakula se rahe               ("[they] remained anxious the [day/entire]")             D: sakala vasara akula se rahe
 
    
        
    
    
    
    
         ("[they] remained anxious the entire day")    1.18.3:  A: ura lasi banamala-bicitra thi               ("the [forest-garland/wonderful] was splendorous [on] his               chest")             B/(C)/D: lasa rahi ura mem banamala thi               (his forest-garland was shining on his chest) (54)    2.39.1:  A/B: mukha-samasta rajomaya ho gaya               ("the [face/entire] became dusty")
 
 
    
        
    
    
    
    
  D: bahu rajomaya anana ho gaya               ("the face became very dusty")    4.3.4:   A: basumati-braja saurabhavana thi
 
 
    
        
    
    
    
    
  ("the [earth/Braj] was fragrant")             B/C/D: braja-dhara bahu-saurabhavana thi               ("the [Braj/earth] was very fragrant")
 
 
    
        
    
    
    
    
   5.56.4:  A/B: yuga sauna yahi haim jivanadhara mere
 
 
    
        
    
    
    
    
  ("[these] alone are the [pair/son (i.e., Krishna and
 
 
    
        
    
    
    
    
  Balarama)], the foundation of my life")             D: sauna yugala hi haim jivanadhara mere               ("the [son/pair] alone are the foundation of my life") 
 
These are only a sampling of the many occurrences, which are found in a variety of grammatical circumstances and display a variety of grammatical relations, ranging from the common reversed genitive pairs of nouns, to adverb-adjective compounds.
 
It is not entirely clear either what accounts for Hariaudh's remarkable predilection for those backwards compounds in the first instance, or why he chose to revise them so thoroughly in subsequent editions, though the latter question is easier to answer. His decision to reorder them into bona fide Sanskrit-type compounds was likely motivated by the urge towards Sanskritization that characterizes the lexical changes in the work as a whole. Though the original compounds may possibly be considered viparita samasa ('upside down compounds'), there is no compelling Sanskrit predecessor for these particular compounds. (55) It may be that Hariaudh simply considered syntactic inversion as his prerogative of poetic license, which he later disowned. If this is so, he must have been strangely infatuated with such inversion.
 
A better explanation than poetic whim for the form of the original compounds is influence from Urdu, in which compounds follow the same order as those of Hariaudh's "backwards" compounds: the head lexeme begins the compound, and subsequent lexemes are attached with a conjunctive -e-, the izafat. Hariaudh's backwards compounds may thus be viewed as following the Urdu practice, with a suppressed izafat attaching the subsequent members. (56) Hence, the strange "backwards" compounds of Priyapravas may very well have been an expression of Urdu compound forms; their "arighting" in a suddh Hindi framework may have been a self-conscious effort to rid the work of any Urdu association. (57)
 
 
But why would Hariaudh use such a technique in the first place? The sheer number of such "backwards" compounds and their transformation in toto, through reversal or revision, implies that this was a grammatical "habit" of Hariaudh, which he only subsequently deemed inappropriate. Not only was such compounding style perhaps "habitual" to Hariaudh, who was fully fluent in Urdu letters and trained in Persian as much as Sanskrit; one might consider this possible "Urdu-ism" as an attempt to express the flavor of Khari Boli, since Urdu, and its compounds, were indeed fundamental to bolcal Hindi, the Hindi according to "the way speech goes." The use of any identifiably Persian linguistic form was of course anathema to the purpose of Priyapravas, and therefore it is conceivable that Hariaudh did not consider such compounding to be exclusively "Urdu." While true Urdu compounding would have required an izafat -e-, which does not appear anywhere (except perhaps ambiguously in 14.40.1: A: batem-udho < B/(C)/D: udho batem), the marking of the izafat was traditionally optional in the Urdu script; this absence of an orthographic izafat would not preclude its understood presence. However, the restrictions of Sanskrit meter makes this unlikely, as such meters would have been disrupted by an understood izafat. Hence, the 1914 Priyapravas seems to contain "hybrid compounds" with suppressed izafats, a practice that goes unmentioned in Hariaudh's prefatory comments on the text's language. If this compounding practice was an attempt at Khari Boli, it was clearly a half-baked attempt, and it was soon rejected by Hariaudh himself, and by Modern Standard Hindi as it has developed since then. Further investigation into the prevalence of such compounds in literary contexts or otherwise will be necessary to fully understand this phenomenon. (58)
 
PRIYAPRAVAS AS A REPRESENTATIVE AND HARBINGER
 
Influence of Dvivedi?
 
Priyapravas is often considered to epitomize the cultural agendas of Hindi literature in the so-called Dvivedi period. Given this view, one might suspect that Dvivedi (1864-1938) himself urged the sorts of linguistic revisionism found in the work. The very concept of Priyapravas, as a Khari Boli mahakavya in Sanskrit meters, is often attributed to the influence of Dvivedi, who generally encouraged the use of Sanskrit meter and idealized, didactic subject matter. In reality, however, the degree of direct influence remains unclear. Hariaudh must have read the writings of Dvivedi in his famous journal Sarasvati, and knew him personally, but he very rarely figures in Hariaudh's essays. Some maintain that none of Hariaudh's literary ideas were taken from Dvivedi's teachings, but rather that Hariaudh independently wrote in a manner in harmony with many of Dvivedi's ideals. (59) There remains, however, the well-established fact of a general shift in this period towards Sanskritized and theth Khari Boli-style writing, in contrast to Braj- and Urdu-style writing. Hariaudh was already engaged in this, starting with his earlier poetry circa 1900 and his two previous "theth Hindi" novels. (60) The favoring of Sanskrit and Khari Boli to the exclusion of Urdu and Braj, and the utilitarian literary motive evident in the didacticism of Priyapravas and several other of his works, are all hallmarks of the Dvivedi Era. However, in my research so far, I have not found any evidence of a direct influence from Dvivedi in the conception of the work, nor any evidence of a direct influence that would promote these particular revisions. (61) The significance of the revisions of Priyapravas in particular lies in the relative lateness with which the features of these revisions, often thought to be characteristics of the "Dvivedi-yug," developed.
 
It is worth noting that other poetic works edited and published by Dvivedi in Sarasvati were not infrequently Braj-like and sometimes possessed Braj verbal morphology, lexicon, and traditional Braj content. In a manuscript from the files of Sarasvati, now held at the Nagari Pracarini Sabha library in Varanasi, a submission of Hariaudh's was not devoid of Braj-like qualities; however, Dvivedi's editorial pencil marked only issues of hyphenation. This appeared to be the case with other manuscripts in the files. Hence, it seems that even Dvivedi himself was rather tolerant of the use of Braj conventions in poetry, features that would only later be classified as "archaic" by MSH standards. In this respect, it is useful to recall that Braj itself was experiencing a type of standardization at this time; (62) both Hindi and Braj were in the process of mutual differentiation from each other. (63)
 
Documentation for Hariaudh's motives in his revisions remains elusive. It is possible that Priyapravas was truly "in progress," and hence it took several editions to bring the author's intentions to fruition. Alternatively, the work may have gained a momentum in public life that encouraged Hariaudh to strengthen its political potency by following through with his linguistic premises of a suddh Khari Boli mahakavya. It seems probable that Hariaudh felt some influence from the language debates of the late 1930s, in which the Hindustani faction was effectively quashed in the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan. (64) Ironically, the description of his linguistic purpose in the Introduction, which had hardly been revised throughout the editions, suits the poetic text of the last edition much more than the first.
 
The Linguistic Style of Priyapravas
 
The style that emerges from Priyapravas is one that reintegrates certain Sanskritic lexical and grammatical elements with those of Khari Boli Hindi. The fundamental elements of this hybrid language are three: tatsama Sanskrit lexical items and often long compounds, Khari Boli verbal formations with largely tadbhava stems, and Khari Boli postpositions. In these respects, the Hindi of Priyapravas presents a distinct departure from the other prevalent literary languages of the day, namely, Urdu and Braj.
 
 
Grammatically speaking, Hariaudh treats Sanskrit words in differing ways, as he transplants them into the grammatical frame of modern Khari Boli Hindi. Sanskrit nouns, even long Sanskrit compounds, can be declined as a modern Hindi noun would be. However, with adjectives Hariaudh has two methods. Firstly, he uses Sanskrit adjectives that are declined for gender as in Sanskrit (e.g., -a, -ini, etc., for a female subject). Secondly, at other times these Sanskrit adjectives, often past passive participles, are not declined and function as unmarked adjectives. A good example of the mixture of these two methods is found in verse 16.49:
 
          maim hum udho pulakita hui apako aja pa ke          sandesom ko sravana kara ke aura bhi modita hum
 
    
        
    
    
    
    
  mandibhuta, ura-timira (65) ki dhvamsini gyana abha          uddipta ho ucita-gati se ujjvala ho rahi hai. (16.49)          [I (Radha) am thrilled at meeting you today, O Uddhav!          Having heard the words Krishna sent, I am even happier.          The light of knowledge, destroyer of the darkness of the heart,          which has been dim
 
 
    
        
    
    
    
    
         Is [now] alit and shining well.] 
 
Modita, mandibhuta, dhvamsini, uddipta, and ujjvala all retain Sanskrit declensions reflecting the gender of their subjects. Radha and light (abha). Alternatively, pulakita is treated as an unmarked adjective with only the finite verbal form (hui) reflecting Radha's gender. These terms can be found elsewhere in Priyapravas as mudita, mandibhuta, (66) etc., and pulakita (8.13.4), respectively. Hence, this text might be considered a precursor to later Sanskritized Hindi, which now by and large maintains a lexical bank of certain declined participles as conventional nouns, and treats any adjective that does not end in -a (be it a Sanskrit past passive participle or a Perso-Arabic adjective) as indeclinable. This adjectival freedom was not unprecedented in Hindi, as Hariaudh notes himself, with quotes from Sridhar Pathak, Tulsi Das, and others using both declined and unmarked forms of Sanskrit participles (38); furthermore, Hariaudh was not the first author to use participles in this way: the heavy mixing of Sanskrit participles with Khari Boli verbs in poetry reflected an already prevalent style in Hindi prose. But by virtue of its extreme length, Hariaudh's Priyapravas was at that time the most ambitious poetic production of such a linguistic style.
 
In terms of the legacy of the language of Priyapravas, this use of Sanskrit past passive participles with hona as an elevated adjectival vocabulary seems to have been particularly influential among the subsequent generation of so-called Chayavad poets. For instance, in Suryakant Tripathi ("Nirala")'s famous poem "Juhi ki kali" ("The Jasmine Bud") (1922), one finds these traits: "vijana-vana-vallari para / soti thi suhag-bhari--sneha-svapna-magna--/amal-komal-tanu taruni--juhi ki kali. (67) Here Sanskrit compounds are mixed with Hindi postpositions and verbal structures, creating an effect in which the language still remains fundamentally analytical, but supplemented with lexical items that are basically Sanskrit compounds, distinct from common speech. These compounds can be treated as Hindi words, with Hindi oblique markers, etc. Past passive participles, which in Sanskrit would be declined, are here treated as unmarked adjectives (magna). (68)
 
Poetry in Hindi after Hariaudh in many ways became more discursive and explicit in its grammatical structure, which might be linked to the shift of poetic language towards a similarity to prose, in the development of "modern" poetry worldwide. Modern Indian vernaculars took seriously Wordsworth's call in the preface to Lyrical Ballads to write poetry in a language near to men; and combined with the ascendance of print culture, the demotic literary ideal encouraged the realist prose literature of the twentieth century. However, though writers turned away from the formulas of Braj, grammatically and metaphorically, their freedom to write prose-like or at least "free verse" poetry also brought a new obliquity to their poetic aesthetic. Although indisputably "modern" poets like Nirala and Mahadevi embraced the linguistic traits of modern Hindi poetry established by Hariaudh's generation, with its resonant compounds and Khari Boli postpositions and verbal phrases, they also established their very modernity by subverting these standards with sometimes disjointed and grammatically ambiguous use of Khari Boli and Sanskritic lexemes. The linguistic values of modern poetic Hindi that they inherited from Hariaudh's generation were resisted as well as promulgated.
 
 
The Hindi movement, through linguistic Sanskritization (and nationalist classicizing projects generally), purported to reintroduce the best of Indian heritage, and yet more critically, to have utility for the political present and future. Linguistic Sanskritization has clearly been a successful endeavor to a certain extent (one only needs to read a train schedule for proof of this), and the lens through which Hindi literary history is commonly viewed reflects the success of this "purification" project. What is often overlooked is that Hariaudh himself largely disavowed the style of Hindi in Priyapravas by 1920, and began writing in a more bolcal style, sometimes in Urdu meters, and also sometimes in Braj Bhasa. (69) While Hariaudh revised Priyapravas into a text more and more resembling Sanskrit between 1914 and 1941, he simultaneously produced these other works, in other registers and genres. Aside from a few short poems, these works are not often recalled in the canonical memory. Priyapravas, on the other hand, had become a widely distributed icon, even as it was work in progress, throughout the first half of the twentieth century.
 
This examination of the variant editions of Priyapravas suggests that the standardization of Hindi into the Modern Standard Hindi of the present happened more slowly than often assumed. If the evolution of this text is not an aberration, but merely one of many texts that were continuously linguistically altered, then we must reassess our assumptions concerning the development of Modern Standard Hindi. The "Dvivedi Era" certainly articulated the arguments for Sanskritization and standardization in prose, but many of the grammatical and stylistic traits in Priyapravas that epitomize suddh Hindi were not in print until 1941, suggesting a more varied linguistic landscape for the early decades of twentieth-century Hindi poetry, and the consolidation of a new Sanskritic style during the Chayavad Era. It is possible that Hariaudh's revisions of Priyapravas into a classic Dvivedi Era text were done under the influence of the linguistic habits of the subsequent Chayavad generation. Perhaps more significantly, we might reconsider the poetic plight of a Dvivedi era poet such as Hariaudh, who felt compelled to write in what he considered a "demotic" yet Sanskritized Hindi (or perhaps demotic via Sanskritization) that paradoxically excluded his familiar lexicon, and who felt forced to abandon what might be called his "covert Urdu" compounds. The conventional narrative of Hindi literature might then be modified to include these fuller realities, which indicate the complex poignancy of the Dvivedi era poet, searching for a self-consciously modern poetic language. These decades hold a complex and layered history of the development of modern Hindi, in which the text Priyapravas continued to both evolve and reify as canon, while the rest of Hindi literature continued onward, influenced by, yet separate from, Hariaudh's pious experiment.
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY
 
Avasthi, Mohan. Adhunik Hindi-kavya-silpa, 1900-1940. Allahabad: Hindi Parisad Prakasan, 1962.
 
Bryant, Kenneth E. Poems to the Child-God: Structures and Strategies in the Poetry of Surdas. Berkeley and Los Angeles: Univ. of California Press, 1978.
 
Dalmia, Vasudha. The Nationalization of Hindu Traditions: Bharatendu Hariscandra and Nineteenth-Century Banaras. Delhi: Oxford Univ. Press, 1997.
 
Das, Syamsundar, et al., eds. Hindi sabd sagar. Varanasi: Nagari Pracarini Sabha, 1986.
 
Gautam, Laksmandatt. Priyapravas ki tika: kavi Hariaudh racit Priya Pravas ki sarvangpurn tika. Delhi: Asok Prakasan, n.d.
 
Gerow, Edwin. Indian Poetics. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1977.
 
Government of India, Ministry of Education. A Basic Grammar of Modern Hindi. Delhi: The Ministry, 1958.
 
______. Basic Hindi Vocabulary: 2000 Words. Delhi: The Ministry, 1958.
 
Hariaudh. "Hariaudh" [Ayodhyasimh Upadhyay].
 
______. Adhakhila phul. Patna: Khadgavilas Press, n.d. [1906?].
 
______. Bolcal. 1927. Varanasi: Hindi-Sahitya-Kutir, n.d.
 
______. Cokhe caupade arthat Hariaudh-hajara. Patna: Khadgavilas Press, 1924
 
______. Cubte caupade athava des dasa. 1924. Rpt. Hindi-Sahitya-Kutir, 1951.
 
______. Padya prasun. Laheriyasaray [Patna]: Hindi-Pustak-Bhandar, 1925.
 
______. Priyapravas: Kari Boli ka sarvasresth mahakavya. 1914 (revised 1941). Rpt. Varanasi: Hindi Sahitya Kutir, 1996. [Various editions addressed in text.]
 
 
______. Theth Hindi Ka thath. Patna: Khadgvilas Press, 1899.
 
King, Christopher R. One Language, Two Scripts: The Hindi Movement in Nineteenth Century North India. Bombay: Oxford Univ. Press, 1994.
 
Lewis, Geoffrey. The Turkish Language Reform: A Catastrophic Success. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1999.
 
Manav, Visvambhar. Priya-Pravas ki tika. Allahabad: Lokbharati Prakasan, 1968.
 
Masica, Colin P. Indo-Aryan Languages. Cambridge Language Surveys. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1991.
 
McGregor, Ronald Stuart. "Ayodhyasimh Upadhyay (1865-1947) and His Priya-pravas." In Classics of Modern South Asian Literature, ed. Rupert Snell and I. M. P. Raeside. Pp. 103-17. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1998.
 
______. Hindi Literature of the Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries. A History of Indian Literature, vol. 7, fasc. 2. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1974.
 
______, ed. The Oxford Hindi-English Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1993.
 
"Nirala" [Suryakant Tripathi]. Nirala racnavali. Vol. 1: Poems 1920-1938, ed. Nandkisor Naval. New Delhi: Rajkamal Prakasan, 1983.
 
Orsini, Francesca. The Hindi Public Sphere, 1920-1940: Language and Literature in the Age of Nationalism. New Delhi: Oxford Univ. Press, 2002.
 
Pandey, Sudhakar, ed. Hindi sahitya ka brhat itihas. Vol. 9 Dvivedi kal (sam. 1950-75 vi.). Varanasi: Nagari Pracarini Sabha, 1977.
 
Petievich, Carla. "Making Manly Poetry: The Construction of Urdu's 'Golden Age'." In Rethinking Early Modern India, ed. Richard B. Barnett. Pp. 231-56. Delhi: Manohar, 2002.
 
Pollock, Sheldon. "Cosmopolitan and Vernacular in History." Public Culture 32 (2000): 591-626.
 
Prasad, Visvanath, ed. Priya Pravas ki sabdanukramanika. Agra: Central Education Directorate [Central Hindi Directorate], Agra Univ., n.d. [1977?].
 
Pritchett, Frances. Nets of Awareness: Urdu Poetry and Its Critics. Berkeley and Los Angeles: Univ. of California Press, 1994.
 
Ritter, Valerie. "Useful Absences and the Nature of the Modern: Ayodhyasimh Upadhyay 'Hariaudh' (1865-1947), His Priyapravas (1914), and Hindi Poetry." Ph.D. diss., Univ. of Washington, 2001.
 
Rubin, David, tr. The Return of Sarasvati: Four Hindi Poets. Delhi: Oxford Univ. Press, 1998.
 
Saida, Visvanath Lal, and K. L. Gupta, eds. Hariaudh sati smarak granth. Azamgarh: Hariaudh Sodh Samsthan, 1966.
 
Sarma, Mukunddev. Hariaudh: jivan aur krititva. Varanasi: Nandkisor and Brothers, 1960.
 
Schomer, Karine. Mahadevi Varma and the Chhayavad Age of Modern Hindi Poetry. Berkeley and Los Angeles: Univ. of California Press, 1983.
 
Sengupta, Sagaree. "The Indian Subject: The Voices of a Colonial Poet, Bharatendu Hariscandra (1850-1885)." Unpublished book manuscript based on author's dissertation (Univ. of Pennsylvania, 1992), 1994.
 
Shapiro, Michael C. A Primer of Modern Standard Hindi. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1989.
 
Simh, Dhirendranath. Adhunik Hindi ke vikas mem Khadgvilas Press ki bhumika. Patna: Bihar-Rastrabhasa-Parisad, 1986.
 
Snell, Rupert. The Hindi Classical Tradition: A Braj Bhasa Reader. New Delhi: Heritage Publishers, 1992.
 
Varma, Urmila. Influence of English Poetry on Modern Hindi Poetry (1900-1940). Allahabad: Lokbharti Prakashan, 1980.
 
VALERIE RITTER
 
UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
 
I would like to thank the many people who have commented on this paper. Michael Shapiro. Heidi Pauwels, Robert Hueckstedt, Clinton Seely, Sheldon Pollock. Rupert Snell, Stephanie Jamison, and an anonymous reader. I thank Sagaree Sengupta and Geoffrey Heeren for their support during this project.
 
1. I.e., residence away from home; pravas connotes also "exile" and, more broadly, the condition of a forced separation.
 
2. For more complete details about Hariaudh's biography, see my dissertation, "Useful Absences and the Nature of the Modern," chapter 1.
 
3. It is difficult to define the term "Hindi," and space does not permit a rehearsal of this term's convoluted history, treated in more elaborate detail elsewhere. In the late nineteenth century, ideologies of language arose in which "Hindi" was associated with the classical and ritual language of Sanskrit, the Devanagari script, as well as the variety of religious practices known as "Hinduism," in contradistinction to "Urdu," which was associated with Persian. Arabic, a modified Persian script, and Islam. As Colin P. Masica describes succinctly in his Indo-Aryan Languages (p. 27), "Hindi" and "Urdu" are "based on the same linguistically-defined subdialect [i.e., Dehlavi, a.k.a: Khari Boli]. At the colloquial level, in terms of grammar and core vocabulary, they are virtually identical.... At formal and literary levels, however, vocabulary [differs] ... to the point where the two languages/styles become mutually unintelligible."
 
4. The "Dvivedi era" of circa 1890-1920 (see n. 5 for dating) is named after Mahavirprasad Dvivedi, the influential editor of the first Hindi literary journal, Sarasvati, from 1903 to 1920, and the person credited with the standardization of modern Hindi prose, as well as its Sanskritization, coupled with didactic literary purpose. The preceding period, the "Hariscandra era," is named after its most famous author, Bharatendu Hariscandra, Banarsi dramatist and Hindi supporter, who dominated the field of literature in modern Hindi during his lifetime, from 1850 to 1885. The "Chayavad" era, circa 1920, is generally considered the first "authentically" modern literary period, by which time Hindi exhibited a standardized verbal structure and formal register, and its authors manipulated language against this standardized linguistic backdrop.
 
5. This era is reckoned differently by different sources. The Nagari Pracarini Sabha, for instance, dates the Dvivedi era retroactively to the founding of their own Sabha in 1893, while Dvivedi himself did not become editor of the Sarasvati journal until 1903.
 
6. McGregor. "Ayodhyasimh Upadhyay," 105.
 
7. By "Urdu" I mean generally the identical grammar and core vocabulary characteristic of both Hindi and Urdu, distinguished by a dominantly Persian and Arabic lexicon and written in a modified Persian script, a language which was used in late Mughal administration and poetic genres such as the ghazal. Language reform, and specifically the ideological project of language "purification," is of course a phenomenon seen elsewhere. The similar standardization-and engineering of Turkish, for instance, is examined in Lewis' The Turkish Language Reform.
 
 
8. This is not to say that ideology--social or linguistic--has eclipsed the poetic traits of this text. On the contrary, the bulk of my work has addressed the aesthetic aspects of Priyapravas (see Ritter). I will here concentrate on the linguistic aspects of Hariaudh's Priyapravas.
 
9. The nom de plume "Hariaudh" (i.e., "Hari" "Audh") is a "backwards" compound, of sorts, of his given name, Ayodhyasimh. "Hari" he took as a synonym for "Simh" (and also as a reference to his literary mentor, Sumerasimh Sahabajade "Sumer Hari," who had done the same). "Audh" (i.e., "Avadh") is a contraction of Ayodhya.
 
10. Literally, "standing speech," This term has been used in a wide variety of ways, but all definitions and usages point to an idea of a generally demotic, interregionally functional speech, accessible to the "folk." Masica notes that the subdialectical base of Hindi and Urdu, the sixteenth-century Dehlavi dialect, was often called Khari Boli (creating confusion with another designation of it as a dialect north of Delhi). In this sense, it overlaps some-what with the term "Hindustani," although "Hindustani" sometimes signified what we would now call "Urdu." The term "Khari Boli Hindi" sometimes indicates this sense of common or shared language, with Sanskritized elements. See Masica 27-28 and Christopher R. King's glossary definitions of Khari Boli, Hindi, and Hindustani (One Language, Two Scripts, 197-99).
 
11. To use S. Pollock's phrase in "Cosmopolitan and Vernacular in History," 594.
 
12. All references are to the vulgate of 1941, unless otherwise noted. Variants will be noted. "Hariaudh," Priyapravas (1996 reprint), Introduction, p. 1.
 
13. Reprinted in Saida and Gupta, Appendix 5.
 
14. I have not been able to locate conclusively this third edition, cited in Simh, 288, as published by Khadgavilas Press in 1931. I have seen two copies of Priyapravas that both appear to be post-second edition and pre-last edition, although neither has publication information. They were both publications of Khadgavilas Press.
 
15. I have seen a handwritten version from which the first edition of the text was typeset, as well as what appears to be another printing of the published text, mentioned in n. 14, but have not been able to analyze either of these fully.
 
16. Khadgavilas Press, Bankipur (Patna), Bihar.
 
17. Priyapravas was initially published serially by KVP, in its entirety, in Srihariscandrakala, issues 1-7 of 1913. There seems to be little or no variation between this edition and the first edition.
 
18. Hindi Sahitya Kutir, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh.
 
19. I use this term with reservation. Standards of "schoolbook," kitabi Hindi have been codified in publications since the nineteenth century, and yet it is a matter of common knowledge that Hindi, in its oral and written forms, has not been standardized to the extent displayed by English or French, for instance.
 
 
20. At least, such apologies were conventional in the nineteenth century. See Sengupta, "The Indian Subject," chap. 2, on the entreaties of Hariscandra's introductions.
 
21. This term has many other definitions, of course. See Monier-Williams' Sanskrit-English dictionary. McGregor's Hindi-English dictionary, and Syamsundar Das' Hindi sabd sagar for its use in Sanskrit and Hindi.
 
22. The idea of the "sweetness" of poetic language was already present in Sanskrit poetics. Dandin (seventh century), for instance, wrote of the madhurya guna ("the quality of sweetness"). See Gerow, Indian Poetics, 232.
 
23. See also the section of Hariaudh's Introduction to Bolcal entitled "Komal kant padavali ki vyapakta ki sima" ("the extent of the pervasiveness of soft and lovely verse"), 44-56.
 
24. In the Introduction to Priyapravas, and in many other of his literary critical essays, the Urdu-Muslim equivalence is present. However, Hariaudh's views on the division between Hindi and Urdu, both linguistically and culturally, were complex and evolved over many years.
 
25. Suvidha commonly denotes an 'amenity' or 'service', as in the "public conveniences" provided by municipal government, or the services and amenities provided by an institution. Suvidha as a more concrete "amenity" is found in Hariaudh's Padya prasun [Flowers of verse] (1925), 79, in an anti-British poem, seemingly referring to the destruction or perhaps irrelevance of the "amenities" of India. It is unclear to what degree Hariaudh saw a homologous relation between the suvidha he used as a term of literary criticism and the more concrete term he used in this publication approximately a decade later.
 
26. This Persianization was criticized even by nineteenth-century Urdu poets, as an element that prevented Urdu from achieving "natural poetry." See Pritchett, Nets of Awareness, 141.
 
27. Hariaudh, Introduction to Priyapravas, 8. The Karpuramanjari has been translated into Hindi by Hariscandra in 1877 (McGregor, Hindi Literature, 77). An analysis of Hariscandra's comments, if any, on this passage would be worthy of study.
 
28. See esp. Dalmia, The Nationalization of Hindu Traditions.
 
29. The novels Theth Hindi ka thath (1899) and Adhakhila phul (1906?) were written in a Hindi that used tadbhava rather than tatsama words as much as possible, successfully excluding all Persian or Sanskrit vocabulary. The result was an artificial insularity of language that was never taken up as a medium of prose literature. These books were written in response to a request from Sir George Grierson for a Hindi story without loan-words from Sanskrit or Persian.
 
30. 14.105.4: jadu-bhari-murali (sic.) of first two editions edited out for vamsi maha-madhura.
 
31. Two commentaries are available at present: Laksmandatt Gautam, Priyapravas ki tika: kavi Hariaudh racit Priya Pravas ki sarvangpurn tika and Visvambhar 'Manav', Priya-Pravas ki tika. They serve as students' aids in reading Priyapravas, as they gloss difficult words and provide verse-by-verse prose translations into MSH.
 
32. Insofar as it is possible to detect his intention to revise content, rather than language, I have found only very minor content changes, which may be interpreted as veering away from the erotic. This type of revision is not particularly striking, as the character of the work was substantially non-erotic in the first place. Only one verse appears to have been added between the first and second editions, to no great effect (13.89). Occasionally a revision seems to suggest a desexualization of the personae and contexts of the Radha-Krishna story. In 1.27.3 kamini is edited out for vanita in the last edition. See also 1.4.1 and 1.6.2, in which keli is taken out from edition B onwards. Kamini is taken out of 14.3.3 for mandali. However, kamini-and keli had been, revised into the text as well: see 6.50.3 and 14.21.3. In 15.1.3 a gopi is cavom-vale-anupama in A/B, but abha-vale-anupama in D. Certain revisions do seem to involve a clarification of Hariaudh's intended image of Krishna. In 14.21.3 Krishna is sarbada-sreya-kami in A, in B, -cahi, and in D he is praniyom ke hitaisi. This latter revision functions to remove any possible sexual connotation, indeed any vivid effect at all, and furthermore adds a Sanskrit word that had been currently revived in public discourse to describe those promoting social welfare, the political independence of India, and Hindi. (Additionally, the ke adds an element of Khari Boli.) Still, as much as this poem has a reputation for prudery, and as much as certain "sexualizable lexemes" may have been reduced in the last edition, the work has some notable components of riti poetic conventions that have persisted in all edition. The clearest difference between the first two and the last editions remains in language and its evocations.
 
33. Dayaram Gupta, former publisher of the Hindi Sahitya Kutir, informed me that Hariaudh himself submitted a hand-revised copy of the previous KVP publication, and Mr. Gupta has kindly shown me this hand-marked publication, which appears to be in Hariaudh's own handwriting, specimens of which I have seen in other documents. The corrected text dates from approximately 1940. The KVP text is lacking publication information, but it strongly resembles the previous KVP publications (although with different illustrations), and textually is very similar to the second edition of 1921. I am grateful to Mr. Gupta for showing me this fascinating document, which I hope will find an archival home.
 
34. What follows is not an exhaustive study of the linguistic traits of the various editions of Priyapravas. Rather, the observations recorded here are those made in the process of reading through the text, and with the aid of a word index of the last edition, D, completed by Visvanath Prasad. My limited access to Edition C has meant that its evidence is only available sporadically in the examples given here.
 
35. Surprisingly, the last edition retains bara here rather than vara; this is the only use of bara in the entire last edition (Prasad, 153).
 
36. Manav comments on the use of Braj Bhasa words in this verse, namely the verbs chalak-, chitak- [=chitik-?], and bagar-. Additionally, this verse was altered semantically in the second edition, including the addition of a laum (discussed below), which was subsequently edited out.
 
37. The apparent phonemic changes discussed here could of course be a distinction of orthography only, with pronunciation of such phonemes taking either form. Rupert Snell (private communication) has explained to me the historically chimerical nature of the distinction between the graphemes b and v, and the obvious possibility that ks could be pronounced as ch. However, inasmuch as anuprasa is orthographic, and inasmuch as this poem was (re)written as a text, orthographic tatsamas clearly trumped any other poetic motive in the revisions for the 1941 edition.
 
 
38. This scheme also rejects the possible Braj scansion of samai as trisyllabic (Snell, p.c.).
 
39. Notably, these are both in the speech of women: a young woman of Braj, and Yasoda, respectively. This may account for his statement on the change in "emotional power" (oj) and rasa through the consistent use of tatsamas cited above.
 
40. Examples of pauna revised to vayu: A vs. B/(C)/D: 6.29.4, 6.35.3, 14.110.1.
 
41. Although in one instance it was added to edition B, it was then removed by edition D (1.25.4).
 
42. This is -sa defined as '-like, similar to', rather than in its uses as a particle augmenting deixis (i.e., as in kaun-sa) or indicating an approximated degree of the quality of an adjective (i.e., as in accha-sa, bahut-sa), or its idiomatic usages (i.e., as in itna-sa) (Shapiro, Primer, 200). According to McGregor (Dictionary), laum is a Braj postposition equivalent to MSH lag. The Hindi sabd sagar gives laum as 'up to' or 'equal to', with citations from Sur and Bihari. This term is also found in Raslin; see Snell, Hindi Classical Tradition, 174, v. 12.
 
43. Revised to taka: 5.49.2, 5.78.1-3, 5.80.4, 7.11.3, 7.49.4. Revised to sa: 1.25.4, 6.71.2 (although my second edition is occluded here), 6.76.4, 7.21.3, 12.32.1, 14.9.4, 14.18.3, 14.22.3, 16.38.4. This does not include instances of laum edited out completely without any direct retranslation. Some such instances: 14.14.3 (< bhi), 2.53.1 (abalaum < bahudha), 2.62.3 (abalaum < hi), 3.42.1 (abalaum yaha ... < pada-pankaja), 16.44.2. All of these changes occurred between B and D; I have not been able to compare these particular verses with edition C. Of the few occurrences that do correlate with my spotty data from edition C, C retained the laums: revised to taka: 16.125.2, to sa: 16.126.2, and no retranslation: 6.43.4 (< vam).
 
44. Dr. Heidi Pauwels (p.c.) has noted that geha also occurs in Braj. It is not terribly common in MSH, either. This may indicate that Hariaudh simply preferred certain Braj terms over others.
 
45. "As long as the sound of the horses hooves' resounded [in] [their] ears...."
 
46. "As long as the sound of the hooves found a place in [their] ears...." The double meaning of tapa as both 'hoof' and 'sound of a hoof' makes the word operative in both versions.
 
47. Sanskritization was a goal of Dvivedi himself, and was pursued by other Dvivedi era poets such as Sridhar Pathak and Maithilisaran Gupta. The prose-like qualities of this poetry can be seen as the result of the rejection of Braj as the favored poetic language, and an anxiety to merge the registers of prose and poetry, as in the West. On the results of this, see David Rubin's "Introduction" to The Return of Sarasvati; Pandey, 344; and Schomer, Mahadevi Varma, 68ff. Schomer wrote: "The overall weakness of Dvivedi period poetry was that there was no poetic diction recognizably different from that of prose" (69).
 
48. I am uncertain as to whether this appears in B or C, since my copy of B is unfortunately missing these particular verses, due to an apparent printing error, and C is now unavailable to me.
 
49. This seems to be an intransitive or reflexive use of this verb, which is classified as transitive in McGregor's Dictionary.
 
50. Itself mixed with elements of the sixteenth-century Dehlavi Khari Boli (Masica, 54).
 
51. There are of course a few attested exceptions.
 
52. (C) indicates that it is likely that the text has remained stable between editions B and D, when I have not been able to consult C.
 
53. Edition B is occluded here and I was not able to consult C.
 
54. Note that this revision also adds grammatical explication with mem; ura formerly had no expressed case.
 
55. Viparita samasas are few, and tend to be isolated conventionalized forms (e.g., dantajata). It is difficult to locate more than a few attested examples.
 
56. Mohan Avasthi has commented in passing on this phenomenon in Priyapravas and its likely Urdu source in his 1962 work, Adhunik Hindi-kavya-silpa, 1900-1940 [The Construction of Modern Hindi Poetry, 1900-1940], 325), seemingly unaware that he was commenting on an earlier unrevised edition:
 
      isalie rasana-janamandali      sarasa bhava samutsukata pagi      [for this reason the (voice [rasana])-(group of people
 
    
        
    
    
    
    
   [janamandali])      arose with the full eagerness of an ardent (sarasa) feeling"]      (A/B/C 1.46.1-2) 
 
   Rasana ["voice" or "tongue"] coming before janamandali ["group of   people"] is in the manner of jubane mahafil ["the voice" or "tongue"/   "assembly"; which would be translated as "the voice of the assembly"].   In Priyapravas such uses were made more than necessary. 
The last edition of Priyapravas contained an edited version of this phrase so as to form isa liye rasana-jana-vrnd ki ["for this reason the voice of the group of people"], thus eliminating this possibility of Urdu compound order with the addition of the genitive postposition ki. Avasthi does not mention any other instance of this phenomenon occurring in the works of any other author.
 
Of course, it might be possible to interpret this original backwards compound of rasana-janamandali as not properly a compound, but rather two words, the second a syntactically regular compound modifying the first, and both connected with a "modern" use of the hyphen, simply to indicate that they are semantically related. However, the systematic reversal of this type of backwards-hyphenated compound (or pseudo-compound) again raises the question: what exactly was objectionable, if backwardness could be rationalized?
 
 
57. A full investigation of this matter would entail locating the extent to which these are calques from attested Urdu compounds (e.g., zaban-e-mahafil above). This is beyond the scope of this preliminary investigation, and furthermore, it is likely impossible to prove that calquing per se is the basis for these backward compounds, since izafat compounding can be used with relative freedom. The absence of attestation of an izafat compound does not preclude its plausibility as a compound.
 
58. I myself have found a smattering of "backward compounds" in Braj Bhasa, contemporary, and later poetic texts. A sustained examination of this practice in Devanagari-script contexts is needed. In Old Hindi contexts especially, this practice would also need to be differentiated from practices of end rhyme and parataxis (in the vein of K. E. Bryant's study, Poems to the Child-God: Structures and Strategies in the Poetry of Surdas). R. Snell has reminded me of an everyday example, canonized in the McGregor Hindi-English dictionary, malik-makan. There are surely others, although not constituting a large and linguistically recognized category of MSH grammar as it stands.
 
59. Mukunddev Sarma, Hariaudh: jivan aur krtitva, 132. He cites Udaybhanusimh, Mahavir Prasad Dvivedi aur unka yug.
 
60. Sarma points out that Hariaudh had published "pure Hindi" works before Dvivedi began editing Sarasvati and maintains that Hariaudh remained separate in his literary projects. "Hariaudh had a practice of solitude. He was conducting his own personal experiments. [However,] the credit for giving the Hindi movement popular form goes to Mahavir Prasad Dvivedi alone" (129ff.).
 
61. My scope included the published works of Hariaudh, biographical and secondary works on Hariaudh, and a brief look at some of Hariaudh's manuscript submissions to Sarasvati when Dvivedi was editor.
 
62. Braj Bhasa poet Jagannath Das "Ratnakar" (1866-1932) is known for writing in a more consistent, standardized form of Braj. Colonial-era grammars likely also contributed to this differentiation.63. Certainly by 1958, when the Government of India published its Hindi grammar and list of basic Hindi vocabulary (A Basic Grammar of Modern Hindi; Basic Hindi Vocabulary: 2000 Words). These might be fruitfully compared with earlier grammars produced for Hindi-medium audiences; there is no mention in the Basic Grammar of any other grammars used as sources.
 
64. Hariaudh was extremely likely to have been present at the 1939 meeting in Banaras, where P. D. Tandon and Rajendra Prasad (later endorser of Priyapravas, see above) supported Hindi in an embattled series of debates on Hindustani versus Hindi. Francesca Orsini, The Hindi Public Sphere, 363, n. 138, cites Devidatt Sukla, Sampadak ke pacchis vars, Allahabad, 1956.
 
65. A: timira-ura; B/C/D: ura-timira.
 
66. These two are found in thirteen and seven different verses, respectively, according to Prasad, 185 and 169. There are also five occurrences of mudita (185).
 
67. "Nirala," Nirala Racnavali, Vol. 1, 31 (pub. 1922, composed ca. 1918 [Rubin, 77]): "On a creeper vine in a deserted wood / full of auspicious womanhood [i.e., nubility]; drowned in dreams of affection, slept / a young woman, of pure soft body--a jasmine bud."
 
68. Urmila Varma, in Influence of English Poetry on Modern Hindi Poetry (1900-1940), 132ff., has pointed out the similarity of Chayavad participial adjectives in compounds to the compounds found in John Keats' poetry, which suggests that English may have inspired the particular participial usages found in Chayavad poetry.
 
69. His later Cokhe caupade (Genuine Quatrains), and Cubte caupade (Pointed Quatrains), and Bolcal (The Way of Speech) of the 1920s are notable in this respect. The Caupade volumes, now relatively obscure, were both written in modified Urdu meter, with the purpose of representing the speech and the aphoristic sayings of Hindustani, in response to criticism of literary Hindi as unidiomatic. In these works, Hariaudh substantially turned his back on the register of Hindi in Priyapravas, and in Bolcal he expresses some alienation from various factions of the Hindi movement (i.e., critics of his use of un-Sanskritized, "lifeless" words in the Caupade volumes), arguing that "simple" poetry, in common language, is "useful." The Introduction of Bolcal itself, however, is quite Sanskritized, even as it quotes extensively from Urdu sources. In this exposition he is not opposed entirely to Sanskritized Hindi, as he still maintains it is the only linking language of the subcontinent, but he considers it one particular type among three others, Ucc Hindi (high Hindi), of which Priyapravas is an example (26-27). He published three more works in Braj Bhasa.
 
COPYRIGHT 2004 American Oriental Society

Comments
  • Recommend Us