Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The Cosmopolitan Vernacular - Pollock, S.
The Cosmopolitan Vernacular - Pollock, S.
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Association for Asian Studies is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The
Journal of Asian Studies.
http://www.jstor.org
The CosmopolitanVernacular
SHELDON
POLLOCK
THROUGHOUT
SOUTHERN ASIA AT DIFFERENT TIMES startingaround1000,butin
mostplacesby 1500, writersturnedto theuse oflocal languagesforliterary
expression
in preference
to thetranslocallanguagethathad dominatedliterary
expressionforthe
at thelevelofculturethesingle
previousthousandyears.This developmentconstitutes
mostsignificant
transformation
in theregionbetweenthecreationofonecosmopolitan
orderat the beginningof the firstmillenniumand anotherand fardifferent
onethroughcolonialismand globalization-at the end of the second.
The vernacularization
of southernAsia is not onlythe most importantcultural
changein the late medievalworld-or perhapswe should say, in the earlymodern
worldthatit helps to inaugurate-but also the least studied.We have no coherent
accountof the matterforany region,let alone a connectedhistoryforsouthernAsia
or forthe largerEurasiaworldwherea developmentverysimilarin culturalform(if
not in social or politicalcontent)appearsto have occurred.We have no well-argued
theoreticalunderstandingof many of the basic problemsat issue. And, what is
in
especiallydisabling,we lack any reliableaccountof the politicaltransformations
southernAsia to whichtheseculturalchangesare undoubtedlyif obscurelyrelated,
or a theoryofpowerand culturebeforemodernity
thatwould allow us to makesense
of thisrelation.
What I aim to do in the space availablehereis tryto sketchout, first,a fewof
the larger conceptual issues that impinge on an analysis of cosmopolitanand
vernacularin literaryculture,and the narrowerquestions that pertain to their
historicization.The very idea of vernacularization
depends upon understanding
somethingof theworldagainstwhichit definesitself,and thisI providewitha brief
and ideationalcharacter
accountofthehistoricalformation
ofwhatI call theSanskrit
I look at theriseand spreadofSanskritinscriptions,
which
cosmopolis.Fortheformer
serveas a synecdochefora rangeof literary-cultural
(and political-cultural)
practices;
forthe latter,I consideras paradigmaticthe space of culturalcirculationas this
structures
to an
the literaryand literary-critical
imagination.All this is preparatory
analysisof one case of the formationof vernacularliteraryculture,that of early
and IndicStudiesat
SheldonPollockis theGeorgeV. Bobrinskoy
Professor
ofSanskrit
theUniversity
ofChicago.
I wishto thankT. V. Venkatachala
Sastry
(Mysore),
myguidein Old Kannada.Benedict
criticism
whenan earlier
Anderson
(Ithaca)offered
helpful
version
ofthepaperwaspresented
at the1995 meeting
oftheAssociation
forAsianStudies.Thanksalsoto Chicagocolleagues
CarolBreckenridge,
andStevenCollinsfortheirsugDipeshChakrabarty,
ArjunAppadurai,
in
and Homi Bhabha,to whoseongoingworkon the "vernacular
gestions,
cosmopolitan"
thepresent
ofa precolonial
postcolonialism
papermaybe viewedas something
complement.
TheJournal
ofAsianStudies
57, no. 1 (February
1998):6-37.
? 1998 bytheAssociation
forAsianStudies,Inc.
6
THE COSMOPOLITAN
VERNACULAR
HypothesizingVernacularization
The possibilityof conceptualizingand historicizing
the cosmopolitan/vernacular
transformation
requiresa workinghypothesiswith a numberof componentsthat,
althoughtheymay appearto attemptto settlethroughdefinitionwhat can onlybe
determinedempirically,
can all be demonstrated
These concerncultural
historically.
choice,therelativity
of"vernacular,"
theliterary,
thehistoricalsignificance
ofwriting,
the meaningof beginnings,and the sociotextualcommunity.I addressthesebriefly
in order.
Cultural Choice
A language-for-literature
is chosenfromamongalternatives,
notnaturallygiven.
Human linguisticdiversitymay be a fatality,in BenedictAnderson'smelancholy
but thereis nothingfated,unselfconscious,
or haphazardabout literaryformulation,
languagediversity;it is willed. Vernacularliterarylanguagesthusdo not "emerge"
like buds or butterflies,
theyare made. Not manyscholarsacknowledgethis factor
do muchwithit. One ofthefewwas Bakhtin,who saw moreclearlythananyonethat
"the activelyliterarylinguisticconsciousnessat all timesand everywhere
(thatis, in
all epochsof literaturehistorically
available to us) comes upon 'languages'and not
language.Consciousnessfindsitselfinevitablyfacingthe necessityof havingtochoose
a language"(1981, 295). Yet so faras I can see whatneitherBakhtinnoranyoneelse
has spelledout in detailedhistoricaltermsforspecificlanguagesin theeveryday
sense
(by "language"Bakhtinusuallymeantsocioideologicalregisters)is what is at stake
in this choice,what else in the social and political world is being chosenwhen a
language-for-literature
is chosen.Forit is one thingto recognizethatliterary-language
diversityis willed, and anotherthing altogetherto specifythe historicalreasons
thiswill.
informing
"Vernacular"/"'Cosmopolitan"
To definevernacularoveragainstcosmopolitanappearsto submergea numberof
relativities.
Althoughnot all cosmopolitanlanguagesmayinitiallybe vernacularshere the historyof Sanskritwhen Sanskritliterature(kdvya)is inventedat the
beginningof the commonera differssharplyfromthat of, say, Latin in the third
B.C. whenLatinliterature
is abruptlyinvented-manyvernaculars
themselves
century
do becomecosmopolitanfortheirregionalworlds.This is trueforBraj, whichwas
rendered rootlessly cosmopolitan by the elimination-conscious elimination,
accordingto some scholars-of local dialectaldifference
in the fifteenth
to sixteenth
SHELDON
POLLOCK
centuries.'Kannada,too,thoughoftenthoughtofas a regionalliterary
code,has long
been transregional
forwritersin yetsmallerzonessuchas Tulu Nadu or theKonkan.
But theserelativities
look less worrisomefromwithinthesubjectiveuniversesofthe
agents involved. Vernacularintellectualsdefine a literaryculture in conscious
oppositionto somethinglarger;theychoose to writein a language that does not
travel-and thattheyknowdoes not travel-as easilyas the well-traveled
language
of the cosmopolitanorder.The new geoculturalspace theyimagine,whichI discuss
in whatfollows,fullytestifies
to this.That this"local" in turntypicallycomesto be
as dominantand dominatingforsmallerculturalspacesis a further
constructed
step
in the cosmopolitan-vernacular
transformation
and unthinkablewithoutit.
The Literary
However much contemporary
thoughtwants to ignore,resist,blur, or trash
definitions
of "literature,"the historicalsocietiesstudiedheremade an unequivocal
distinction,
practicallyand oftenby explicittheorization,
betweena realmoftextual
and anotherthatis somethingelse-call it expressive,
productionthatis documentary
interpretative,
"workly"(dcasWerkhafte,
Heidegger 1960), literary,or whatever.
and
Contemporary
scholarshipis certainlyrightto questiontheselocal distinctions,
to look fortheexpressive
orworklyin thedocumentary
and constative,
and thereverse
(LaCapra 1983, 23-71). But that is a second-orderenterpriseand subsequentto
gaininghistorical-anthropological
knowledgeofwhatpoetsin middle-period
southern
Asia thoughttheyweredoing and whenand why.The distinctionbetweenrestricted
and elaboratedcodes,betweenthedocumentary
and the literary,
was oftenproduced
and reproducedpreciselyby meansof languagechoice,as the historyof inscriptions
clearlyshows. Facts of social or culturalpower seem to have impingedupon this
choice, suggesting that restrictionand elaborationare potentialitiespermitted
developmentin theone case and deniedit in theother.When thisdenialis challenged
in the vernacularization
process,moreover,the challengetypicallytakesthe formof
domesticatingthe literaryapparatus (themes, genres, metrics,lexicon) of the
thatset the rulesof the literary
superposedculturalformation
game.
Writing
The literaryin southernAsia comes increasinglyin the middle period to be
but fromthe oral,and to be evermore
distinguishednot just fromthe documentary
intimatelylinked to writing,with respectto the authorityconferredby it, the
textualityassociatedwith it, and the historyproducedthroughit. The authorization
It is typicallyrelated
to writeis not,like the abilityto speak,a naturalentitlement.
to social and politicalprivileges,which markliteraturein the restrictedsense as a
differentmode of cultural productionand communicationfrom so-called oral
in SouthAsia retainsmanytext-immanent
literature.2
Grantedthatliterateliterature
'Such processeshave been noticedonlyby linguists,who discussthe matterin reference
to "koines"and typicallyignoremostofwhatinterestsculturaltheory.Cf.,e. g., Segal 1993.
For Braj, cf.Snell 1991, 30-32, and, moregenerally,Masica 1991, 54.
2Accordingto well-knownlegends,Tukaram,like Eknanthbeforehim, was forcedby
outragedbrahmansto "throwhis poems into the river."When he defendshis use ofMarathi,
he is thus clearlydefendingthe rightto write,not just to compose(cf. Pollock 1995, 12122).
THE COSMOPOLITAN
VERNACULAR
10
SHELDON
POLLOCK
Historicizingthe SanskritCosmopolis
As momentousas the vernaculartransformation
at the beginningof the second
millenniumwas the creation,aroundthe beginningof the first,of the cosmopolitan
werefundamental
orderto whichit was theresponse.4
Two new,relateddevelopments
to this order:the use of Sanskritin inscriptionsand the inventionof "literature."
Sanskritinscriptions,
typicallyissuedfromroyalcourts,arecrucialbothas expressions
of the political,and forthe wider trendstheyrevealin literary-language
use and
normsof literariness,
whichthe historyof Sanskritliteratureconfirms.
For its first400 years,inscriptionalculturein South Asia is almostexclusively
non-Sanskrit(the languages used were instead the Middle-Indic dialects called
at thebeginningofthecommonera
Prakrit),but thissituationchangeddramatically
when we firstbegin to findexpressivetexts eulogizing royalelites composed in
a formthat
or copper-plates,
Sanskritand inscribedon rock-faces,
pillars,monuments,
will later receivethe genre nameprasati(praise-poem).The most famousof these
texts,producedforor by the Indo-Scythian(Saka) overlordRudradaman(ca. A.D.
150), has been knownto scholarsformore than a century,and nothinghas been
discoveredsince to alterthe impressionthatit marksa profoundcultural-historical
break.Never beforehad Sanskritspokenas it does in Rudradaman'stext,out in the
to a historicalking,and in aestheticized
open,in writtenform,in reference
language.
And yetalmostimmediately
and forthenextthousandyears,it is thevoice
thereafter,
ofSanskritpoetrythatwould be heardin politiesfromthemountainsofPeshawarto
Prambanamon theplains of centralJava.
It is about this same time that what comes to be called kdvya("[written]
literature")in the emerging scholarlydiscourse of rhetoric(ala ika-rarscastra)
is
whenthegreatgenressuch as mahdkdvya
crystallized,
(courtlyepic) and ndtaka(epic
drama)come into existencealong with the formaltechniques,such as the systemof
figuresof sound and senseand the complexquantitative-syllabic
metrics,thatwere
to defineSanskritliteratureand have such resonancethroughoutAsia. Literaryculturalmemory,as thismaybe discernedin literary
criticismor in thekaviprafsamsds
introduceSanskritliterarytexts,has no reach
(praisesof poets) that conventionally
beyondthesebeginningsin the earlycenturiesof the commonera,and it is difficult
forhistoricalscholarshipto showthatkdvyaas it will henceforth
be practicedis much
earlierthanthis.Sanskritinscriptions
such as Rudradaman'sshouldnot therefore
be
viewed,as theyusuallyare, as the latestdate forthe existenceof literarySanskrit
(kdvya),but as theearliest.And the two together,
kdvyaandpras'ati,
areevidence,not
ofa renaissance(or "resurgence,"
or "revival")ofSanskritcultureafter
"re-assertion,"
a Mauryanhiatus,but of its inaugurationas a new culturalformation.Previousto
thisSanskritcultureappearsto have been restricted
to thedomainofliturgyand the
knowledgesrequiredforits analysis;it can hardlybe said to haveexistedin anything
like the formit was soon to acquire.
4Thisand the followingsectiondrawon the detaileddiscussionin Pollock 1996.
THE COSMOPOLITAN
VERNACULAR
11
12
SHELDON
POLLOCK
THE COSMOPOLITAN
VERNACULAR
13
of antiquity;it is periphery
forcesthat operatein the othertranslocalformations
withoutunity.One maywell wonderwhatthisglobalized
withoutcenter,community
or religiousconditions
culturemeantifnoneof the familiarmaterial,governmental,
by the
of coherencepertainedto it. What culturalwork,forinstance,was performed
textsinscribedand displayedby rulingelites?Sincethey
ubiquitousSanskritliterary
emergedfromthe verycentersof authoritythroughoutthis world,it is naturalto
factorthe political into any explanation,but it seems to be the political with an
obscure,unfamiliarlogic to it.
Even as we trygrasp this logic, the predicamentof theorizingthe premodern
loomsbeforeus. There
fromwithina conceptualapparatusbequeathedby modernity
the social foundationsof
has largelyprevaileda singleparadigmforunderstanding
Sanskrit cosmopolitan culture, namely, legitimation theory and its logic of
reason:Elites in commandof new formsof social powerdeployedthe
instrumental
symbolsand codes of Sanskritsomehow to secure consent.But this
mystifying
but reallyis a mereassumption,
functionalist
explanationis not onlyanachronistic,
naive
and an intellectuallymechanical,culturallyhomogenizing,and theoretically
assumptionat that.6
Ifwe contemplatetheSanskritecumeneat its height,fromthemiddleto thelast
fewcenturiesof the millennium,it appearsto consistof a limitednumberof largestates
scale agrarianpolities (and their smaller-scaleimitators),"military-fiscal"
gatheringtributefromlarge multiethnicpopulations,and definingtheirpolitical
to definein concreteterms,
difficult
Althoughnotoriously
aspirationsas universalist.
"empires"-the nameusuallygivento theworldsof the Guptas,forexample,or the
One
or Angkor-seem to sharecertainsystemicculturalfeatures.
Gurjara-Pratiharas,
a fieldas it
or empire-modelofpremodernity,
mayevenpostulatean empire-system
of empiresand of the deploymentof the empireform-in
wereof the reproduction
of the system
wherethe structure
of modernity,
thislike the systemof nation-states
(Balibarand Wallerstein1991, 91)-with
itselfproducesa numberofculturaleffects
its own distinctiveculturalrepertory.
In thissystemimitationof an imperialformseemsto be successivelyrecreated,
acrossspace,
not onlyin South and SoutheastAsia but elsewhere,both horizontally
call ''peerpolityinteraction,"
perhapsthrougha processsimilarto whatarchaeologists
and verticallyin time throughhistoricalimagination.One could plot such a form,
on both axes, among a range of embodiments:Achaeminid(and Sassanian,and
Ghaznavid), Hellenic (and Byzantine),Roman (and Carolingian,and Ottonian),
Kushan (and Gupta, and perhapsAngkor)(see also Duverger1980, 21). In manyof
thesecases,qualifyingas empire,whetherimperialgovernancewas actuallyexercised
or not,seemsto have requireda languageof cosmopolitancharacterand transethnic
the rulingelites themselves
or arrestingany ethnoidentity
attraction,transcending
mightpossess. It had to be a language capable of makingthe translocalclaimshoweverimaginarythesewere-that definedthepoliticalimaginationof thisworld.
Moreover,it had to be a languagewhosepowerderived,not fromsacralassociations
but fromaestheticcapacities,its abilityto make realitymore real-more complex
history
and morebeautiful-as evincedby its literaryidiom and style,and a literary
In
the
"Roma
renovata"
of
such
linguisticalchemy.
embodyingsuccessfulexemplars
of Carolingianand Ottonian Europe this language was Latin, which, though in
as a crucialcomponentin
was retainedand reinforced
constantneedofrehabilitation,
and culturein Southand Southeast
6Thenotioncontinuesto shapeworkon stateformation
Asia, cf.e.g., Kulke 1993, and contrastPollock 1996, 236ff.
14
SHELDON
POLLOCK
THE COSMOPOLITAN
VERNACULAR
15
16
SHELDON
POLLOCK
THE COSMOPOLITAN
VERNACULAR
17
18
SHELDON
POLLOCK
THE COSMOPOLITAN
VERNACULAR
19
sophisticated
bodyofnormative
and metricsensured
discourseson grammar,rhetoric,
a uniformcharacterthroughoutthe cosmopolitanformation.
The monopolizationof
literaryproductionin transregionalcodes was matched at the level of literary
representation
by theprojectionofa supralocalframeofpolitical-cultural
reference
in
epic and postepicnarrative,
and at the levelof literarytheoryby a doctrineofmodes
of writingwhose regionalityconnotesabove all Sanskrit'stranscendence
of region.
These are among the keycomponentsof literaryculturethatwill be engagedin the
vernacularization
process.
ProducingtheVernacular
Few local literaryculturesof premodernity
anywhereshow quite the same selfconsciousnessand permitus to followtheirdevelopmentwiththe same precisionas
we can achievein the case of Kannada,a languagefoundin what is now the Indian
stateofKarnataka.I wantbriefly
to sketchthehistoryofKannadain theinscriptional
record,beforegoing on to consider in more detail the intense and long-term
negotiationbetweencosmopolitanand vernacularin Kannada literary
production.
The statusof Kannada in the domain of the publiclydisplayedinscribedtexts
a textbookcase of the tendenciesdescribedabove. The earliestknowndynasty
offers
Karnataka-the locus of what was to become the prestigeliterary
of northwestern
dialect-the Kadambas (fourthcenturyon), neverused Kannada forpublic records.
The Gafigas,the oldestattesteddynastyin southwestern
Karnataka(fourthto ninth
did
not
use
Kannada
for
the
centuries),
documentary
portionof copper-plategrants
Avinita
in
sixth
until the time of
the
century.We are able to followthe literaryculturalpolitics of Karnatakakingdomsmore closely,however,with the Badami
What we findamong
Calukyas,and especiallywiththeirsuccessors,the Rastrakuitas.
the latter,whenwe look at the matterstatistically,
is a slow but stunningdeclinein
the productionof Sanskritpublic poetrycommencingin the earlyninthcentury.
When thedynastyfirstbeginsissuinginscriptions
startingaroundA.D. 750, Sanskrit
is used in morethan80 percentof the extantrecords;by its end 200 yearslater,less
than5 percentare in Sanskrit(Gopal 1994, 429-65).
Besidestheclearevidenceofshifting
all theearlyinscriptions
languagepreference,
in Kannada among the Badami Calukyas and Rastrakuitasremain resolutely
in Kannada fromwithin
The firstexpressiveor "workly"inscriptions
documentary.
the royalcourtcome to be producedonlyabout the timeof the reignof KrishnaIII
(939, EI 19, 289), or nearlyhalfa millenniumafterinscribedKannada firstappears
(Halmidi ca. 450).
It is notmanygenerations
beforeKrishnaIII thatevidencefortextualizedliterary
productionin thelanguageis firstavailable,duringthe reignof the Rastrakuita
king
In
a
terms
of
this
was
NrpatunigaAmoghavarsa(ca. 814-80).
literaryculture,
and
in
a
remarkableperiod
place manyrespects, site of what appearsto be literary
acrosslanguages.It was then,forexample,thatJainasturndecisively
experimentation
to Sanskritfortheproductionoftheirgreatpoetichistories(as in theAdipurdna
[A.D.
8371 of Jinasena II, the spiritual preceptor of Nrpatuniga, or Asaga's
Vardhamdnapurdna
[8531, the first independent biography of MahavTra),and
undertooktheirfirstgrammaticalanalysisof Sanskritin perhapsfivecenturiesin the
20
SHELDON
POLLOCK
THE COSMOPOLITAN
VERNACULAR
21
22
SHELDON
POLLOCK
9); "literatureof the Way" is the supremeuse of language,in all its formaland
aestheticcomplexity:
The manwhounderstands
languagecan communicate
withothers,
disclosing
his
thoughts
as he intended.
Wiserthanhe is themanwho can communicate
large
inbrief
meaning
compass,
andwiserstillthemanwhoknowshowtomakehiswords
unitewithmeter.Morelearnedthanall is themanwhocanproduceworksofthe
greatWay(mahddhvakrtigal).
(KRM 1.15-16)
This is a perfectly
intelligibleusage. What has beenfoundpuzzlingis theKRM's
next move of adopting the notion of the regional Ways-whereby Sanskrit
demonstratedits pervasionof all literaryspace-for a differentiation
of Kannada
poetryitself.
It is impossible
oftheWayandreacha conclusion
fully
tocomprehend
theprocedures
aboutthemultiplicity
oftheiroptions.Havingconsidered
therulesonwordsofthe
I willsaya littlewithrespect
ingeneral
toKannadaso thatthematter
earlier
sastras,
in
andthusareinfinite
maybe clear. . . Poetsarisein a worldwithoutbeginning
theirindividualized
areofinfinite
number,
expressions
kinds,andso theWayexists
in infinite
the
variety... But to the best of my abilityI will discussbriefly
writers
distinction-their
differences
whoconsidered
perceived
bytheold [Sanskritj
inthe
andthesouthern,
thematter-between
thetwoexcellent
Ways,thenorthern
it. .. Ofthesetwothesouthern
I understand
manner
Wayhastenvarieties,
according
tothe[tenlanguagefeatures,
differentiated
gunasj. . .The northern
Wayhasvarieties
oftheinverse
ofthesefeatures.
bythepresence
(KRM2.46,49-51, 54-55)
This is followedby exhaustiveinventoryand illustrationof all the language
qualities taken over fromthe Sanskrittradition,which the author concludes is
to Kannadapoetics:"Whateverthewordsemployedin a poem theywill
foundational
enhancethevirtuesofKannadaifmade subjectto thedifferent
usagesassociatedwith
the Ways describedabove" (2.101). The KRM, in short,appearsto have completely
of
graftedthe discoursethat makes Sanskritcosmopolitan-the universalrepertory
styles-onto the local worldof Kannada.
Modern Kannada scholarshave foundthis entireinquiry(of which thereis a
medievaltexton Kannadapoetics,theKdvydvalokanam
reprisein thesecondimportant
of Nagarvarmaca. 1040, at the courtofJayasimhaII of the KalyaniCalukyasto be
not onlyirrelevant
to actual Kannada poetry,but incoherent.No advancewhatever
has been made overR. Narasimhachar's
impatientdismissalof the whole question:
"Northern"and "southern"in Kannada poeticsrefermerelyto the "schoolsor styles
in Sanskrit,"we are told, forthereis no evidencethatanythingcomparableexisted
in Kannada (1934, 121-22). Such a judgmentofcourseexplainsnothingofwhatthe
KRM intendsbyusingthediscourseon theWay foritsanalysisofKannadaliterature,
yet theredoes seem to be everyreasonto interpretit as alien and even meaningless
to a local literaryculture.Designed to reaffirm
the real transregionality
of Sanskrit
literaturepreciselyby identifying
quasi-regionalvarietiesthe madrgas
appear to be
if not ludicrouslypasted onto a real regionalworldof Kannada. The
incongruously
categorycapturesnothingwhateverin the local characterof the literatureand fits
onlyto the degreethisliteraturemimicsSanskrit.
The KRM is a textemergingfromthe verycenterof one of the mostpowerful
political formationsin middle-period India (cf. Inden 1990, 228ff.), and this fact, if
THE COSMOPOLITAN
VERNACULAR
23
no generalprincipleofhermeneutic
charity,
shouldinviteus to ponderseriouslywhat
a vernacular-language
it meansbyusingthetalkofcosmopolitanSanskritto represent
poetics. Metadiscursivelyone might argue that, faced with exclusion fromthe
transregionality
ofSanskritand refusingto be caughtin thebracketsofthelocal,the
KRM seeksto remapthecosmopolitanWay ontothelocal worldofKarnataka.There
must therefore
be a northernand a southernstyleof Kannada poetryitself-the
a regional
KannadaNadu mustbe shownto embracea northand a south,to constitute
world-whetheror not such a divisioncorresponds
to any reallyexistingpoetries.16
If Kannada is to participatein the worldof the literary(kdvya),a worlddefinedby
Sanskrit,it mustshowits characteristic
features.In a word,the local mustevinceits
translocalcapacities.
An accountof thissortmaycapturesomethingof the cultural-political
impulse
at workin theKRM, and otherevidenceI look at below seemsto corroborate
it. But
there is anotherand more significant,if somewhatmore complicated,rationale
it. We beginto graspthiswhenwe considerhow theKRM differs
from
underpinning
and supplementsits Sanskritmodels. First,it renamesthe Ways as "north"and
"south"(the categoriesgauda and vaidarbhabeingofcourseimpossibleforKannada),
and therebymoderatesthe narrowlyspatial implicationsof the taxonomy.17More
importantis the distinction-whichfromthe vantagepoint of standardSanskrit
poeticsseemsodd enoughto constitutea categoryerror-that the KRM introduces
in distinguishing
theWays accordingto thetwomaindivisionsofSanskritrhetorical
and svabhdvokti):
practice,indirectand direct("natural")expression(vakrokti
cameintoprominence,
andwiththemtwodifferent
forms
of
TwoWaysaccordingly
Directexpression
is an
the indirect(vakra)and the direct(svabhdva).
expression,
ofthesouthern
ofmanyvarieties,
invariable
characteristic
Way.Indirect
expression,
is foundin thecelebrated
northern
Way.
(2.52-53)
For the Sanskrittradition,as we have seen, the Ways are differentiated
by the
at the level of
presenceor "inversion"or absenceof certainlanguagefeatures(gugnas)
phonology,syntax,and lexicon. Yet here anotherdichotomyis introducedthat,
though largelyunspoken in that tradition,finallyhelps make the whole thing
intelligible:Southernpoetryis devoid of tropes and thus makes prominentthe
languageof literaryexpressionitself,whereasnorthern
poetryreliesmoreon figures
of speech(the "manyvarieties"referred
to above). Althoughthereappearsto be a
faintawarenessofthisfundamental
distinctionearlierthantheKRM, we findit clearly
it should be noted,reflectsno dialect divisionbetweennorthand
16The differentiation,
south in Old Kannada. Ganga poets in the south and Calukya poets in the northused a
homogenizedliteraryidiom, producingand reproducedby the philologicalworkdiscussed
below. (The Kannada Nighantu,s.v. uttaramdrga,
therefore
is mistakento gloss "uttarakannada.")
'7"North"and "south" are used preferentially
by Dandin's tenth-century
commentator,
(so, occasionally,by Dandin himself,KA 1.60, 80, 83). Ratna composedhis
Ratnas'rTjnina
commentary
somewherein the Rastrakutaworld,his patronbeing one Sarvabhyunnatar-asnamed ?rTmattunfganaradhipa.
And it appearsthat the two otherextantcomtraktutatilaka
mentatorson Dandin workedin the Karnatakaregion(if the one, Vadijafighalais the VadighafighalaBhatta mentionedin a tenth-century
Gafiga grant [Annual Reportof theMysore
Archaeological
Dept.,19211 as niravadyasdhityavidycvydkhydnanipuna
(1. 168); and iftheotheris
theTarunavacaspatiwho workedat thetwelfth-century
Hoysala court).Evidentlyit was a text
thatspoke to southernintellectualswithspecial forcefulness.
24
SHELDON
POLLOCK
THE COSMOPOLITAN
VERNACULAR
25
Philologization
and theProductionof
Difference
The KRM has othercultural-political
aims, whichvariouslynuancethe project
of creatinga cosmopolitanidiom while at the same time identifyingKannada
difference.
Kannada could not achieve its new rank unless it possessed both the
epistemologicalstatusof Sanskritand the dignityof its philologicalapparatus(i.e.,
laksanagranthas
or rule-setting
texts).The KRM achievesthe formerby the veryfact
of engagingin a discourseon Kannada at all, and the latterby the explicitanalysis
ofliterary-language
normswithwhichthegreaterpartoftheworkis concerned.The
textitselfis moreovera performance
of its argument,forit constitutesKannada as a
languageof sciencein theact ofestablishingKannada as a languageof literature
(by
in
contrast,theEloquentiacan onlymake its scholarlyargumentforthevolgare
illustre
Latin).
The precociouslyearly philologizationwe find in the KRM will continue
foranotherfourcenturies.Dictionariesarefoundfromtheend ofthe
uninterruptedly
tenthcentury.A numberof these,like the first,that of the poet Ranna (ca. 990,
and glossingas theyoftendo simple
fragmentarily
preserved)are Kannada-Sanskrit,
KannadawordswithSanskritequivalentsareaimedless at enhancingcommunication
thanachievinglanguageparity(cf.Nagaraj 1996, 223ff.).Fromthe same periodwe
find the firstin a long series of sophisticatedanalysisof Kannada metrics,the
Chandombudhi
or "Sea of Meters" of Nagavarman I. Along with an elaborate
domesticationof the complexquantitative-syllabic
metricof Sanskrit,thisprovides
an accountoftheten "native"meters,karntdtavisayabhdsdjdti,
"indigenous[meters]of
the languageof the Kannada world" (5. 1). The grammaticaltraditionbeginswith
the Karndtakabhdsdbhisana
or "Ornamentof the Kannada Language,"composedin
Sanskrits&trasby NagavarmamII (at the Kalyani courtin northeastern
Karnataka
around1040), and culminatesin one of themostimportantgrammarsofprecolonial
India, the ?abdamanidarpanaof Kesiraja (at the Hoysala court, 1260). This
extraordinary
work,whichlike theKRM remainsvirtuallyunreadoutsideofKannadawould have to occupya centralplace in anyseriousaccountof
languagescholarship,
theprocessesofvernacular
and standardization
beforemodernity.
languageunification
takesnoteof semanticfiguresof speechand grandiloquence"(ad 1. 50). Accordingly,
he sees
the different
Ways as "inborn,""native," "specific"(tajja, sahaja, nija) to the poets of the
particularregionsjust like theirregionallanguage(on 1.40, p. 28).
22Comparethe intertextual
linkagesthatshow the fifteenth-century
Telugu poet Potana
to be reappropriating
and localizingin his campi7
Bhdgavatamu
a Sanskritcourtlypurdna,the
tenth-century
Bhdgavatam,
which itselfappropriated(as Potana was probablyunaware)the
songsof the Tamil Alvars(seventh-ninth
centuries).Cf. Shulman1993.
26
SHELDON
POLLOCK
Sufficeit to say herethatin the ?MD, too, fromthe firstverseto the last, Kannada
is theorizedwithina Sanskritculturalepisteme;it is constructedas an
difference
object of study fromthe perspectiveof a Sanskritthat definedwhat language,
especiallyliterarylanguage,is supposedto be.23
oflife,seems
Everyfeatureoftheliterary
in Kannada,foritsfirsthalf-millennium
to be markedby thekindsofnegotiationsofdifference
and calculationsofvernacularcosmopolitanpredominancethatwe findin theKRM. This textdefinesvirtuallythe
whole rangeof literarythemesthatwill be meditatedoverforthe nextfouror five
centuries,everythingfromthe large questions of genre (KRM 1.33ff.)and the
ifprematurely,
construction,
ofa canonofKannadaproseand versepoetryjuxtaposed
ofcompounds
to and complementing
thatofSanskrit(KRM 1.28-32), to thestructure
and the microanalysis
of whichSanskritand Kannada mayand maynot be joined in
arenotjusttheoretical,
either.They
compound(e.g.,KRM 1.51ff.).Such negotiations
informthe literaryproceduresof the poets themselvesover a whole rangeof texts
whose very titles-beginning with the earliest, the Karndta Kumdrasambhava
(attributedto Asaga, A.D. 853)-bespeak the localizationof the Sanskritglobal,and
is aboutis theverypossibility
suggestthata big partofwhatearlyKannadaliterature
of makingliteraturein Kannada.
VernacularPoliticalSpace
workextantin Kannada,
No textmakesall thismoreexplicitthanthefirst
literary
Pampa's Vikramarjunavijaya
(VAV, ca. 950). Pampa was the courtpoet of Arikesari
II, a Calukyaoverlordin whatis now westernAndhra(Vemulavada)who held actual
rule.The Vikramdrjunavijaya,
conceivedofas
powerin the last decadesof Rastrakiuta
was solicitedby
the first"complete"vernacularversionof the SanskritMahdbhdrata,
the courtlyliteratiand paid forby the king himself:"The learnedfeltthatno great
Bhdrata-an unprecedented
poet in thepast had properly[re-]composedtheComplete
thing-without damagingthe bodyof the tale and retainingits magnitude... and
that this was somethingonly Pampa could do. And so theygatheredtogetherand
undertaketo composethis work . . . Arikesarihimself
besought[me]; I [therefore]
sent a messengerand gave [me] much wealth to have his fameestablishedin the
world,and in this fashionhad [me] composea historicalnarrative[itihdsakathal."24
The negotiationof culturaldifference
mentionedabove is undoubtedlyone of the
"A workof
and is signaledat its verycommencement:
work'smain preoccupations,
.
if
it
entersinto the poetry
literaturebecomesbeautifulif its imaginationis new . .
of Place (desiyolpuguvudu),and havingdone so, penetratesintothepoetryoftheWay
(mdrgadol
ta/vudu)"(VAV 1.8). But Pampa has additionalpurposesin mind,which
come into clear reliefonlyonce we recallsomethingabout the model he soughtto
overcome.
As my briefremarksabove tried to suggest,one of the things the Sanskrit
is about is the productionor organizationof space and of a political
Mahdbhdrata
("the uniquenessof
23Thelast verse in fact framesnine points of Kannada difference
Kannada," aridu ... kannadan)over against Sanskrit,in termsof phonology,sandhi,compounding,prosody,etc. (?abdamanidarpanza
342).
24VAV 1.11; 14.51. In fact,Peruntevanar's
Tamil adaptation,the Pdrat(fragmentary?)
venpa,is about a centuryearlier(at the courtof NandivarmanIII Pallava, r. ca. 830-52).
THE COSMOPOLITAN
VERNACULAR
27
oftheCalukyafamily,
whenGovindaraja
Forehead
Ornament
[IV
KingVijayaditya,
againthevassals
ragedagainsthim;... whoattackedand conquered
Rastrakuttal
on theorderofthesupreme
whocamein battalions
Emperor
Gojjega[Govindarajal
... and restoredimperialpower[sakalasdmrdjya-J
to King Baddega [ = Amoghavarsa
in him...
1111-whohadcometo himtrusting
(VAV 9.51 +)
28
SHELDON
POLLOCK
Explaining Vernacularization
Similarprocessesto what we have foundin the creationof a Kannada literary
culturemay be observedall over the Sanskritecumenefromthe beginningof the
secondmillennium,fromAssam,Andhra,and Orissato SriLankaandJava,and from
the
Kerala, Maharashtra,and Gujarat to Tibet. Vernacularwriterstransformed
take
inscriptionalrecord,so that the expressionof political will would henceforth
in Tamil underthe imperial
place in thevernacular;thishappensmostspectacularly
Co1as,but can also be seen,nascently,in Marathi,Oriya,Telugu. Theyappropriated
a Sanskritaestheticand a rangeof its literarymodels into theirlanguagesforboth
politicaland imaginativeexpression;Dandin, forexample,is reworkedin Sinhalain
the tenthcentury,Tamil in the twelfth,Tibetan in the thirteenth.
They developed
narrative
the
new notionsofgeoculturalframeworks
fortheirliterary
representations,
same as those in which theirtextswould circulate.It was typicallyby way of a
that we findin
localizationof the Sanskritepics-often with the double-narrative
achievedin a primalmomentof
Pampa-that all thesegoals were simultaneously
ofthe
Witnessin thisconnectionsuchJavanesetextstheRdmdyana
vernacularization.
tenthcentury(representative
of a genrewheredouble-narrative
is fundamental,
cf.
THE COSMOPOLITAN
VERNACULAR
29
30
SHELDON
POLLOCK
THE COSMOPOLITAN
VERNACULAR
31
32
SHELDON
POLLOCK
self-understanding
and solidarity. And the specific character of this newly
vernacularizing
literature,as a cosmopolitanvernacular,suggeststhat it aimed to
and to recreatetheconditions
usurpthepositionofthesuperposedliterary
formation
of imperialcultureat the level of the region.
The troublewith thisapproach,I earliersuggested,is thatit restsupon a set of
beliefsabout the relationof cultureand power (whetheras instrumentalreason,
legitimation,
or ideology)thathavebeenformedin theage ofcapitalin orderto make
sense of it (cf. Lefort1986, 181-236; Scott 1990, 70-107). These encouragea
conceptualstylethattypicallyreduceslanguageto powerand precludeseven asking
in thepast. It is no easymatter,to state
whatmaybe different
about theirinteraction
the difficulty
moregenerally,to theorizea premodernworldwithoutdeployingthe
theoreticalpresuppositions-theonly ones we have-forged by modernity;to read
the precolonialfroma locationin the postcolonial,to displace let alone replacethe
notionof the nation formand the theoryof cultureit generates.It thus remains
unclearto me what warrantssuch presuppositionsin understandinga differentpotentiallyradicallydifferent-worldof the nonmodernnon-West.As I suggested
earlierto be the case in the Sanskritcosmopolis,one might instead theorizethe
presenceofsome altogetherdifferent
culturallogic,wheretheaesthetic,forexample,
was centrallyin play, or some peculiarnew self-fashioning
throughthe vernacular
distinctionof personsand places. Only moreempiricalwork,however,informedby
a stubbornconceptualautonomy,is going to be able to testsuch hypotheses.28
and culturallysensitiveaccountof the relationshipof
Developinga historically
vernacularpoetryand polity beforewesternmodernityis, however,only part of a
biggercomplexofquestions,whichin lieu ofa prematurehistoricalconclusionabout
the cosmopolitanvernacularas such I want to tryto characterize,
with respectboth
to its historicaland theoreticalchallenges.
This largercomplexis the problematicof premodernglobalization.What used
to be called "Indianization"is one ofthevarietyofhistorically
important
waysin the
past (othercrudebut still necessarycategoriesincludeHellenization,Romanization,
Sinicization)of being translocal,of participatingin social and culturalnetworksin
addition to materialnetworksthat transcendedthe immediatecommunity,and
againstwhicha wide rangeof vernacularculturesdefinedthemselves.Now, despite
the justifiablefascinationof the academywith the new globalization,the historical
studyof the culturaland social dynamicsof premodernglobalizationprocesseswithoutwhichthenewnessofthepresentcase can onlybe imaginedand notknownhas yetto begin in earnestforanypartof theworld.Considerfora momentonlythe
scholarshipon the Romanizationof the westernempire, a process of no little
of "Westerncivilization."In
consequence,I think,in the creationand construction
1990 a leadinghistorianof the Roman empirecould say,"Thereseemsto havebeen
no scholarlyattentionpaid to anythingbut the symptoms"of Romanization;"Even
in so richlyinformeda workas . . . thereare onlytwo or threelines devotedto the
motivesforculturalchange;and I recallnothingmorethanthatin all my reading"
(MacMullen 1990, 60).
On the rareoccasionswhentheglobal and local are analyzedas waysofbeing in
interaction,both are typicallythought of as pregiven,sharplydefinedcultural
theformer
as theexogenous,greattradition,thelatteras theindigenous,
formations,
28 Theorizing
vernacularpolitycomparatively
in SouthAsia and Europe,and thecurrently
dominantaccountsof vernacularization
and nationalismin Europe (Gellner,Anderson),are
further
addressedin Pollock 1998.
THE COSMOPOLITAN
VERNACULAR
33
34
SHELDON
POLLOCK
List of References
Kannada Texts:
KarndtakaKavirdjamdrgam.
1973. Edited by A. VenkataRao and H. SeshaAiyangar.
2d ed. Kannada Series.Madras:UniversityofMadras(Kannada Series).(KRM)
Kavirdjamdrgam.
1983. Edited by K. Krishnamoorthy.
Bangalore:IBH; ed. M. V.
Seetha Ramiah. Bangalore:KarnatakaSangha, 1968, reprint1994; ed. M. V.
SeethaRamiah,Mysore:D.V.K. Murthy,1975, reviseded.
Kdvydvalokanam.
1967. Edited by R. Narasimhachar.3d ed. Mysore:Universityof
Mysore.
Pampa Bhdratam emba Vikramdrjunavijayam.
[19263 1990. Edited by
Venkatanaranappa.Mysore: Universityof Mysore Press. Reprint Bangalore:
Directorateof Kannada and Culture.(VAV)
?abdamanidarpana
ofKedirdja.1994. Edited by T. V. VenkatachalaSastry.Bangalore:
Directorateof Kannada and Culture.
SanskritTexts:
AdipurdnaofJinasena.1993. Edited by PannalalJain.4th ed. New Delhi: Bharatiya
Jnanapith.
El. Epigraphia
Indica
GaddavahoofVakpatiraja.Edited by N. G. Suru.Ahmedabad:PrakritText Society.
Kdvyd/a0kdra
of Bhamaha.. 1981. Edited by Batuk Nath Sarma and Baldeva
Upadhyaya.2d. ed. Varansi:ChaukhambhaSanskritSansthan.
t=Kdvyddars'al. 1957. Edited byAnantalalThakurand UpendraJha.
Kdvyalaksanam
Darbhanga:MithilaInstitute.(KA)
KdvyalAka-ra
of Rudrata. 1928. Edited by Pt. Durgaprasadand Wasudev Laksman
ShastriPanshikar.Bombay:NirnayaSagar Press.
and VrttiofVamana. 1908. EditedbyRatnaGopal Bhatta.Benares:
Kdvyda1Akdrasitra
Vidya Vilas Press.
of Rajas'ekhara.1934. Edited by C. D. Dalal et al. 3d ed. Baroda:
Kdvyamimdrmsd
OrientalInstitute.
of Hemacandra. 1964. Edited by Rasiklal C. Parikh and V. M.
Kdvydnusasanam
Kulkarni.2d ed. Bombay:Sri MahaviraJainaVidyalaya.
?dkadtyanavydkaranam
1971. EditedbySambhunatha
svopajndmoghavrttisamalankrtam.
Tripathi.Delhi: BharatiyaJnanapithaPrakasana.
Varanasi:
Sarasvat7kanthdbharandlankdra.
1979. Edited by BiswanathBhattacharya.
VaranasiHindu University.
THE COSMOPOLITAN
VERNACULAR
35
London:Verso.
BOURDIEU,
PIERRE.
UniversityPress.
36
SHELDON
POLLOCK
Ithaca,N.Y.: CornellUniversityPress.
Thompson.Cambridge:MIT Press.
desroyaumes
concentriques.
Paris: Editionsde l'1Ecoledes hautesetudesen sciences
sociales.
MAIR, VICTOR H., and Tsu-LIN MEI. 1991. "The SanskritOrigins of Recent Style
Prosody."HarvardJournal
ofAsiaticStudies51(2): 375-470.
MASICA,COLIN. 1991. TheIndo-Aryan
Languages.
Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity
Press.
MACMULLEN, RAMSAY. 1990. Changesin theRoman Empire:Essays in theOrdinary.
Princeton,N.J.: PrincetonUniversityPress.
totheNineteenth
McGREGOR, R. S. 1984. HindiLiterature
fromitsBeginnings
Century.
ModernAsianStudies24(1):1-30.
Sector
SAHLINS, MARSHALL. 1988. "Cosmologiesof Capitalism:The Trans-Pacific
of the World System."Proceedings
74: 1-51.
oftheBritishAcademy
Literature.
Vol. 5, fasc.2. A Historyof
SCHARFE, HARTMUT. 1977. Grammatical
IndianLiterature.
Wiesbaden:Harrassowitz.
HiddenTranscripts.
and theArtsofResistance:
New
SCOTT, JAMES.1990. Domination
Haven, Conn.: Yale UniversityPress.
SEGAL,JEFFREY,ed. 1993. InternationalJournal
oftheSociology
ofLanguage.Vol. 99.
Special numberon koines.
SHACKLE, CHRISTOPHER. 1993. "Early Vernacular Poetry in the Indus Valley: Its
" In PurancaPerennis:
and Transformation
in
Telugu Mahdbhdgavatamu.
Reciprocity
HinduandJainTexts,editedbyWendyDoniger.Albany:StateUniversity
ofNew
York Press.
THE COSMOPOLITAN
VERNACULAR
37
A Braj BhdsdReader.London:
SNELL, RUPERT. 1991. TheHindi ClassicalTradition:
Universityof LondonSchoolofOrientaland AfricanStudies.
(Madras),SilverJubileeVolume: 292-317.
Oriental
Research
History
ofSoutheast
Asia. Vol. 1: From
TARLING, NICHOLAS, ed. 1992. TheCambridge
EarlyTimestoc. 1800. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.