First Words, Last Words: New Theories

for Reading Old Texts in

Sixteenth-Century India Yigal Bronner
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/first-words-last-words-new-theories-for-reading-old-te
xts-in-sixteenth-century-india-yigal-bronner/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

My First 100 Ocean Words (My First STEAM Words) Chris

Ferrie [Ferrie

https://ebookmass.com/product/my-first-100-ocean-words-my-first-
steam-words-chris-ferrie-ferrie/

Words Their Way for PreK-K (Words Their Way Series) –

Ebook PDF Version

https://ebookmass.com/product/words-their-way-for-prek-k-words-
their-way-series-ebook-pdf-version/

Words of Her Own: Women Authors in Nineteenth-Century

Bengal Maroona Murmu

https://ebookmass.com/product/words-of-her-own-women-authors-in-
nineteenth-century-bengal-maroona-murmu/

Defending God in Sixteenth-Century India: The ■aiva

Oeuvre of Appaya D■k■ita Jonathan Duquette

https://ebookmass.com/product/defending-god-in-sixteenth-century-
india-the-saiva-oeuvre-of-appaya-dik%e1%b9%a3ita-jonathan-
duquette/
No Words Maryam Master

https://ebookmass.com/product/no-words-maryam-master/

Words Their Way: Word Study for Phonics, Vocabulary,

and Spelling Instruction (Words Their Way Series) 6th
Edition – Ebook PDF Version

https://ebookmass.com/product/words-their-way-word-study-for-
phonics-vocabulary-and-spelling-instruction-words-their-way-
series-6th-edition-ebook-pdf-version/

These Are the Words Nikita Gill

https://ebookmass.com/product/these-are-the-words-nikita-gill/

The Structure of Complex Words Empson

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-structure-of-complex-words-
empson/

Birds in the Ancient World: Winged Words Jeremy Mynott

https://ebookmass.com/product/birds-in-the-ancient-world-winged-
words-jeremy-mynott/
i

First Words, Last Words

ii

RELIGION IN TRANSLATION
Series Editor
John Nemec, University of Virginia
A Publication Series of
The American Academy of Religion
and
Oxford University Press

THE STUDY OF STOLEN LOVE THE PRISON NARRATIVES OF

Translated by David C. Buck and K. Paramasivam
THE DAOIST MONASTIC MANUAL
A Translation of the Fengdao Kejie
Livia Kohn
SACRED AND PROFANE BEAUTY
The Holy in Art
Gerardus van der Leeuw
Preface by Mircea Eliade
Translated by David E. Green
With a New Introduction and Bibliography by
Diane Apostolos-​Cappadona
THE HISTORY OF THE BUDDHA’S
RELIC SHRINE
A Translation of the Sinhala Thūpavamsa
Stephen C. Berkwitz
DAMASCIUS’ PROBLEMS & SOLUTIONS
CONCERNING FIRST PRINCIPLES
Translated and with Introduction and Notes by Sara
Ahbel-​Rappe
THE SECRET GARLAND
Āṇṭāḷ's Tiruppāvai and Nācciyār Tirumoḻi
Translated and with Introduction and Commentary
by Archana Venkatesan
PRELUDE TO THE MODERNIST CRISIS
The “Firmin” Articles of Alfred Loisy
Edited and with an Introduction by C. J. T. Talar
Translated by Christine Thirlway
DEBATING THE DASAM GRANTH
Robin Rinehart
THE FADING LIGHT OF ADVAITA Ācārya
Three Hagiographies
Rebecca J. Manring
THE UBIQUITOUS ŚIVA
Somānanda’s Śivadṛṣṭi and His Tantric Interlocutors
John Nemec
PLACE AND DIALECTIC
Two Essays by Nishida Kitarō
Translated by John W. M. Krummel and
Shigenori Nagatomo
JEANNE GUYON
Ronney Mourad and Dianne Guenin-​Lelle
DISORIENTING DHARMA
Ethics and the Aesthetics of Suffering in the
Mahābhārata
Emily T. Hudson
THE TRANSMISSION OF SIN
Augustine and the Pre-​Augustinian Sources
Pier Franco Beatrice
Translated by Adam Kamesar
FROM MOTHER TO SON
The Selected Letters of Marie de l’Incarnation to
Claude Martin
Translated and with Introduction and Notes by
Mary Dunn
DRINKING FROM LOVE’S CUP
Surrender and Sacrifice in the Vārs of Bhai
Gurdas Bhalla
Selections and Translations with Introduction and
Commentary by Rahuldeep Singh Gill
THE AMERICAS’ FIRST THEOLOGIES
Early Sources of Post-​Contact Indigenous Religion
Edited and Translated by Garry Sparks, with Frauke
Sachse and Sergio Romero
GODS, HEROES, AND ANCESTORS
An Interreligious Encounter in Eighteenth-​Century
Vietnam
Anh Q. Tran
POETRY AS PRAYER IN THE SANSKRIT
HYMNS OF KASHMIR
Hamsa Stainton
THE UBIQUITOUS ŚIVA, VOLUME II
Somānanda’s Śivadṛṣṭi and His Tantric
Interlocutors
John Nemec
FIRST WORDS, LAST WORDS
New Theories for Reading Old Texts in Sixteenth-​
Century India
Yigal Bronner and Lawrence McCrea
iii

First Words,
Last Words
New Theories for Reading Old
Texts in Sixteenth-​Century India
z
YIGAL BRONNER AND
LAWRENCE McCREA

1
iv

1
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers
the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education
by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University
Press in the UK and certain other countries.

Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press

198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America.

© Oxford University Press 2021

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in

a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the
prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted
by law, by license, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reproduction
rights organization. Inquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the
above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the
address above.

You must not circulate this work in any other form

and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer.

Library of Congress Cataloging-​in-​Publication Data

Names: Bronner, Yigal, author. | McCrea, Lawrence, author.
Title: First words, last words : new theories for reading old texts in sixteenth-century
India / Yigal Bronner and Lawrence McCrea.
Description: New York : Oxford University Press, 2021. |
Series: Aar religion in translation |
Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2021016412 (print) | LCCN 2021016413 (ebook) |
ISBN 9780197583470 (hb) | ISBN 9780197583494 (epub) | ISBN 9780197583500
Subjects: LCSH: Sacred books—History and criticism. | Vedas—Hermeneutics—History. |
Religions. | Philosophy. | Hermeneutics. | Methodology. |
Sanskrit literature—History and criticism—History.
Classification: LCC BL71.B 76 2021 (print) | LCC BL71 (ebook) |
DDC 208/.2—dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021016412
LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021016413

DOI: 10.1093/​oso/​9780197583470.001.0001

1 3 5 7 9 8 6 4 2
Printed by Integrated Books International, United States of America
v

In memory of Allison Busch, 1969–​2019

A scholar, friend, and fellow traveler
vi
vi

Contents

Acknowledgments  ix
Abbreviations  xi

1. Newness in Scholastic Traditions: Sequence and Scripture  1

2. The Origins of the Debate  31

3. The New Math: Vyāsatīrtha’s Rewriting of Mīmāṃsā’s Case Law  49

4. The New Hermeneutics: Appayya’s Reinvention of

Cognitive Theory  82

5. The New Attitude: Vijayīndra’s Calling the Game  119

6. Behind the Veil of the Old: New Directions in the Study of

Scholastic Innovation  144

Bibliography  171
Index  181
vi
ix

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the following friends and colleagues who

have read and commented on earlier drafts of this book or sections thereof
and made excellent suggestions, particularly with regard to the comparative
sections: Amit Gvaryahu, Hillel Mali and Naphtali Meshel (both of whom
welcomed us to their amazing chavruta), Yakir Paz, Guy Stroumsa, and Joseph
Witztum (who introduced us to the intricate and fascinating world of naskh).
Maya Rosen helped standardize the references to Jewish texts.
We presented the first versions of what ended up being ­chapters 3 and 4
at a panel at the 43rd Annual Conference on South Asia held at Madison,
Wisconsin, in October 2014. We are grateful to the other participants of the
panel—​Elaine Fisher and Ajay Rao—​and to those in the audience for their
helpful comments. Yigal Bronner presented some of the main findings of the
book to the European Research Council-​sponsored group, the New Ecology
of Expressive Modes in Early-​Modern South India, in June 2019, and we are
grateful to David Shulman and the members of the group for their comments.
We are indebted to both of our anonymous reviewers for their valuable
input. We are also deeply in debt to the series editor, John Nemec, for his faith
and support and his many useful suggestions and corrections.
Our work on this book took inspiration from our participation in the
Sanskrit Knowledge System on the Eve of Colonialism project, organized and
led by our mentor and guru, Sheldon Pollock. An ongoing source of inspira-
tion and conversation has been the Age of Vedānta project, co-​organized by
Ajay Rao and Lawrence McCrea, and we wish to thank all the participants—​
Manasicha Akepiyapornchai, Michael Allen, Arun Brahmabhatt, Patrick
Cummins, Elaine Fisher, Elisa Freschi, Anna Golovkova, Christopher
Minkowski, Parimal Patil, Jonathan Peterson, Ajay Rao, Valerie Stoker, Gary
Tubb, and Anand Venkatkrishnan—​for their insight and support.
Yigal Bronner’s work on this book was supported by a generous grant
from the Israel Science Foundation, grant number 1485/​12.
x
xi

Abbreviations

B Babylonian Talmud
BS Brahmasūtra
M Mishnah: Six Orders
MBSBh Madhva, Brahmasūtrabhāṣya
MD Mīmāṃsādarśana
MS Jaimini, Mīmāṃsāsūtra
MSBh Śabara, Mīmāṃsāsūtrabhāṣya
ŚBSBh Śaṅkara, Brahmasūtrabhāṣya
xi
1

Newness in Scholastic Traditions

Sequence and Scripture

1.1 The History of Newness in the Study of

Traditional India
How does innovation come about within a strongly traditionalist intellec-
tual culture such as that of premodern India? The answer many have given
to this question is that it simply does not. For a long time, cultural historians
drew a sharp distinction between rare contexts that fostered large-​scale inno-
vation and most others that remained mired in a traditionalist reverence to
the past. Whereas medieval Europe was believed to have eventually broken
away from its uncritical devotion to old paradigms, the stereotypical view
of medieval India, whatever we take that term to denote, was that it was in-
capable of any meaningful innovation. The idea of India as a pristine “child
civilization” was prevalent among German Romanticists such as Novalis,
Schlegel, and Schelling. Hegel, who was critical of the Romantic approach
to India nonetheless viewed the East as “the childhood of history,” and Asia
as the beginning of history and Europe as its end.1 This means, notes Gino
Signoracci, that “India, like Asia generally, despite still being a geographical
place, the home of many human beings, and a living land, is not fully pre-
sent. It is in the past; its culture may persist but that is all it does: persist—​
static, unchanging, lifeless.”2 While the intellectual achievements of Indian

1. G. W. F. Hegel, The Philosophy of History, trans. J. Sibree (New York: Dover, 1956), p. 105.
2. Gino Signoracci, “Hegel on Indian Philosophy: Spinozism, Romanticism, Eurocentrism,”
PhD dissertation, University of New Mexico, 2017, p. 108. As Said and others have shown, this
infantilization of India as part of the “depraved” and “childlike” East was a key justification
for its colonization. Edward W. Said, Orientalism (New York: Pantheon Books, 1978), p. 40.

First Words, Last Words. Yigal Bronner and Lawrence McCrea, Oxford University Press. © Oxford University Press 2021.
DOI: 10.1093/​oso/​9780197583470.003.0001
2

2 Fir st Words, L ast Words

philosophy were acknowledged, and while they provided deep inspiration for
many eighteenth-​and nineteenth-​century European thinkers, emphasis was
laid almost entirely on the earliest sources within each knowledge system as
the only locus of real value. Almost the entire later tradition was written off as
mere mechanical exegesis, working over earlier insights in obsessive detail and
descending further and further into minutiae.3 To put it bluntly, innovation
in traditional India was dead on arrival.
Take, for example, the modern study of Indian poetic theory. Here the
contribution of a few writers, most prominently the late first-​millennium
Kashmiri thinkers Ānandavardhana and Abhinavagupta and their theory of
literary suggestion (dhvani), are presented as the one great moment of cre-
ativity, all later writers being dismissed as mere scholiasts. See, for instance,
the entirely typical sweeping dismissal from the pen of S. K. De, one of the
leading twentieth-​century scholars of this discipline:

With regard to matters of general theory and the main problems,

the decadent Post-​dhvani writers as a rule thought that there was
nothing new to set forth; they consequently fell back on matters
of detail which helped satisfy their growing speculative passion
for fine distinctions and their scholastic bent for controversy. . . .
They repeat more or less the same stock manner and phraseology,
and differ from each other only in matters of no great theoretical
importance.4

3. For a noteworthy and highly influential example, see Erich Frauwallner’s survey “The Periods
of Indian Philosophy,” in History of Indian Philosophy, trans. V. M. Bedekar (Delhi: Motilal
Banarsidass, 1973), vol. 1, pp. 3–​18. Frauwallner traces the origin of Indian philosophy from
the late Vedic period, out of which emerged the early Brahmanical and Buddhist systems. But
he sees these early systems of knowledge falling into decline in the mid-​first millennium: “The
old systems, as if their life-​force had been exhausted, begin to decay since the middle of the
first millennium after Christ and vanish mostly from the picture” (p. 10). The decline of these
early systems into stagnation is for him succeeded by a “new revolution” marked by the rise of
the Shiva-​and Vishnu-​oriented religious systems. But these, too, he sees as falling into stagna-
tion by the sixteenth century: “A new revolution does not arise anymore. . . . There is a pause
and almost a standstill. . . . Only in the last decades a new development begins to usher it-
self. Under the influence of the European culture, which since the establishment of English
rule, has operated on India more and more strongly, Indian circles have got acquainted with
European philosophy and have begun to appropriate it and discuss it” (p. 14). So innovation
from within has become impossible, and it is only the external stimulus of European thought
that can open up a path forward.
4. S. K. De, History of Sanskrit Poetics (Calcutta: Firma K. L. Mukhopadhyay, 1960), vol. 2,
p. 216.
3

Newness in Scholastic Traditions 3

The bulk of the history of this tradition, almost a thousand years of constant
intellectual activity, is thereby dismissed as lacking any value, and the study of
this tradition is viewed as “tedious” and “useless.”5
A similar view is often expressed with regard to Sanskrit literature itself, the
object of Sanskrit poetics. Here the key moment is typically identified with
the fourth-​or fifth-​century ad poet and playwright Kālidāsa. Consider the
titles of the pivotal chapters of A. B. Keith’s Classical Sanskrit Literature: “The
Predecessors of Kālidāsa,” “Kālidāsa,” and “Post-​Kālidāsan Epic.”6 As Keith
and others made clear, what led up to Kālidāsa was primitive in nature, and
what followed this brief moment of creativity was immediately and increas-
ingly decadent. Again, De, this time writing with S. N. Dasgupta, provides
the clearest version of this pervasive view:

As a term of popular criticism, the epithet “decadent” would at

first sight appear too vague and facile to be applied to a literature
which extends over several centuries and comprises abundance
and variety of talent and effort; but when we consider the strange
combination of elaborate pains and insufficient accomplishment,
of interminable prolixity and endless dreariness . . . the appropri-
ateness of the description will be obvious. . . . There was no ability
to rise to a new form of art, no turning point, nor any return to
the earlier manner of the great poets. The entire literature was im-
itative and reproductive. . . . What was once living and organic
becomes mechanical and fossilised. All this means not progress,
but decided decline, or at least stagnation, in which the shallow
streams of poetic fancy move sluggishly within the confines of
conventional matter and manner.7

This widespread view is not limited to the related fields of poetry and poetics.
Indeed, the decline of both is explicitly presented as mirroring a similar pro-
cess in Indian philosophy. As Dasgupta and De go on to argue, “the volubility
of bad poets is a parallel to the prolixity of scholastic pedants.”8

5. Ibid.
6. Berriedale Keith, A History of Sanskrit Literature (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1920).
7. S. N. Dasgupta, and S. K. De, History of Sanskrit Literature: Classical Period (Calcutta: Calcutta
University Press, 1947), vol. 1, p. 304.
8. Ibid., p. 312.
4

4 Fir st Words, L ast Words

For much of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, assessments of

Indian philosophy typically presented its history as a moment of early cre-
ativity and inspiration followed by a process of long degeneration. Take, for
example, Paul Deussen’s casual dismissal of the entire tradition of Indian sys-
tematic thought:

The only systems of metaphysical importance are the Sāṅkhyam

and the Vedānta; but even these are not to be considered as original
creations of the philosophical mind, for the common basis of both and
with them of Buddhism and Jainism is to be found in the Upanishads;
and it is the ideas of the Upanishads which by a kind of degeneration
have developed into Buddhism on one side and the Sāṅkhya system
on the other. Contrary to both, the later Vedānta of Bādarāyaṇa and
Śaṅkara goes back to the Upanishads and founds on them that great
system of the Vedānta which we have to consider as the ripest fruit of
Indian wisdom.9

For Deussen, the Upanishads, works composed in the first millennium bc,
represent the pinnacle and, indeed, the sole moment of genuine philosophical
creativity in India. He dismisses almost everything later as “a long process of
degeneration.”10 Virtually all later philosophical traditions are brushed aside
as misrepresentations of little or no philosophical value. The only system for
which Deussen shows any respect, Nondualist Vedānta, is valued precisely
because it merely replicates what was originally achieved. In short, whatever
departs from the Upanishads is a corruption of their original insight, and
whatever remains faithful to them is essentially repetitive.
As we detail below, things have changed since the interventions of Deussen,
De, and Dasgupta. But it should be noted that the basic presuppositions that
they and their colleagues have laid down continued to guide scholarship in
the field for many decades. Scholars have tended to focus on the earlier, non-​
commentarial contributions in each discipline, and, when they approached
the later exegetical treatises, they typically viewed them as interpretive aids
for understanding the root texts rather than as serious intellectual works in
their own right. Moreover, the lingering assumption, even if seldom stated

9. Paul Deussen, Outlines of Indian Philosophy with an Appendix on the Philosophy of the
Vedānta in Its Relations to Occidental Metaphysics (Berlin: Karl Curtius, 1907), p. 35.
10. Ibid., p. 38.
5

Newness in Scholastic Traditions 5

as in previous generations, was that the great breakthroughs were still lim-
ited to the earlier strata of each tradition. Take, for instance, Jean-​Marie
Verpoorten’s overview of Mīmāṃsā, a key philosophical system that is at the
heart of this book. Verpoorten labels the period from the sixth to seventh
century ad as “the golden age of the Mīmāṃsā” and describes the entire later
history of this tradition, from the eighth century to the present, as “the age
of the subcommentators.”11 In Nondualist Vedānta, another discipline that
this book closely explores and which has been one of the dominant strands
of thought in the second millennium ad, the lingering approach is that later
thinkers, if they were valued at all, were valued for their skill as compilers and
systematizers of the insights of earlier geniuses.12 Additional recent examples
of this approach can be easily supplied for the fields of literature, poetics, and
other philosophical inquiries.
One important exception has been the study of navyanyāya, or “new
logic.” This was a key movement in Indian epistemology and reasoning of
the second millennium ad, which in time came be labeled—​both by its own
proponents and by their colleagues from other disciplines—​with the adjective
“new.” It is perhaps unsurprising, then, that this branch of Indian thought was
recognized as a site of significant innovation, even in a scholarly climate where
novelty was rarely acknowledged. Still, the serious study of navyanyāya begins
only in the second half of the twentieth century, pioneered by Daniel Ingalls
and his student B. K. Matilal. Both of them saw in the daunting formalism of
navyanyāya a counterpart to modern Western logic and sought to investigate
these parallels. Both also viewed the vast literature of the new logicians as
worthy of extensive study in its own right. But even Ingalls often found in the
new writers on logic an excessive deference to the older authorities, one that
blunted the possibilities of innovation within the field. As Ingalls puts it in
the introduction to his important book on the topic: “I do not wish to exag-
gerate the virtues of Navya-​nyāya. Certainly it has its faults. Much, however,
that will seem to the modern logician perverse or foolish in the following
pages, is Navya-​nyāya’s inheritance from the Old School, and is accepted by

11. Jean-​Marie Verpoorten, Mīmāṃsā Literature, in A History of Indian Literature, ed. Jan
Gonda (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrasowitz, 1987), vol. 6, fasc. 5. The relevant sections are found
on pp. 22–​37, 38–​53, respectively.
12. Karl Potter, Presuppositions of Indian Philosophies (New Delhi: Prentice-​Hall of India, 1963),
p. 181. See also S. N. Dasgupta, History of Indian Philosophy (reprinted, Cambridge: Cambridge
Press, 1952), vol. 2, p. 53. Both passages are discussed in Christopher Minkowski, “Advaita
Vedānta in Early Modern History,” South Asian History and Culture 2.2 (2011): 205–​231.
6

6 Fir st Words, L ast Words

only the conservative Navya-​naiyāyikas.”13 In making this observation, of

course, Ingalls draws a distinction between “conservatives” (such as Gaṅgeśa)
and more “radical” logicians (such as Raghunātha).14 Still, he introduces what
is to become an important theme in later studies on early modern Indian in-
tellectual life, namely that, in the absence of a decisive break with the past,
innovation is easily susceptible to being stifled.
In recent decades, this picture has begun to change, and the existence and
specific mechanisms of innovation in medieval and early modern Sanskrit in-
tellectual culture have become a serious focus of scholarly inquiry. Important
studies in areas such Tantra, astronomy, medicine, metaphysics, and theology
have highlighted the ways in which thinkers working in traditional disciplines
knowingly broke with the past and reconstituted their fields during this period.15
And, along with these diverse studies of the specific processes of innovation,
there have also been important advances in the theorization of newness in early
modern Indian thought.
Perhaps the most noteworthy figure in recent discussions of this question
is Sheldon Pollock. Beginning in 2001, Pollock initiated a major international
research project, Sanskrit Knowledge Systems on the Eve of Colonialism, spe-
cifically devoted to the study of early modern Sanskrit disciplines, in which
he saw a new flowering of vitality precisely in the centuries before the col-
onization of India. Pollock’s own seminal statement of his thesis can be
found in his 2001 article “New Intellectuals in Seventeenth-​Century India.”
Pollock puts forward, clearly and convincingly, the thesis that in early modern
South Asia, intellectual life in Sanskrit “witnessed an explosion of scholarly

13. D. H. H. Ingalls, Materials for the Study of Navya-​nyāya Logic, Harvard Oriental Series 40
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1951), p. 2.
14. Ibid., p. 5.
15. Noteworthy examples include Christian Wedemeyer, Making Sense of Tantric
Buddhism: History, Semiology, and Transgression in the Indian Traditions (New York: Columbia
University Press, 2013); John Nemec, “Innovation and Social Change in the Vale of Kashmir,
circa 900–​1250 c.e.,” in Śaivism and the Tantric Traditions: Essays in Honour of Alexis G. J.
S. Sanderson, ed. Dominic Goodall, Shaman Hatley, Harunaga Isaacson, and Srilata Raman,
Gonda Indological Studies, no. 22 (Leiden: Brill, 2020), pp. 283–​320; Christopher Minkowski,
“Astronomers and Their Reasons: Working Paper on Jyotiḥśāstra,” Journal of Indian Philosophy
30.5 (2002): 495–​514; Dominik Wujastyk, “Change and Creativity in Early Modern Indian
Medical Thought,” Journal of Indian Philosophy 33 (2005): 95–​118; Andrew Nicholson, Unifying
Hinduism: Philosophy and Identity in Indian Intellectual History (New York: Columbia
University Press, 2010); and Elaine Fisher, Hindu Pluralism: Religion and the Public Sphere in
Early Modern South India (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2017).
7

Newness in Scholastic Traditions 7

production unprecedented for its quality and quantity.”16 This explosion, he

shows, embodied a newly emergent historical consciousness, marked by an
increasing tendency to periodize the development within each knowledge
system and organizing knowledge in terms of “new” and “old” (and various
shades thereof ) theoretical positions. Moreover, novelty in modes of writing
and genre as well as radical innovation in discursive and argumentative
methodologies, as Pollock shows, ruled the day.
Yet despite these genuine and widespread innovations, very often explic-
itly recognized as such, Pollock finds that the impact of these methodo-
logical innovations was still blunted by the persistent adherence to earlier
sources and their questions: “Radically at odds, however, with the genuine
innovations signalled by historicist exposition, discursive style and mode
of argument is the traditionalism of the problematics themselves. The uni-
verse of thought, it seems, did not expand in a way at all commensurate
with the expansion of the instruments and styles of thought.”17 Pollock does
concede that there may be “elusive” newness going on underneath the sur-
face but obscured by the “mind-​numbing complexity” of the major works
of this period.18 Still, he finds the dominant tone of this period to be one
of “epistemic continuity”: “The new historicity and the awareness it seems
to imply of the possibility of new truths are clearly in evidence, but remain
securely anchored in a very old practice of thought, on an invariant set of
questions.”19 Pollock’s explicit counterexample is the radical break with
tradition in seventeenth-​and eighteenth-​century European philosophical
thought. As he notes, “Among Sanskrit intellectuals we see nothing compa-
rable to the moment in seventeenth-​century England when scholars of nat-
ural philosophy decided to look at nature itself rather than read Aristotle
and Galen. . . . Nor did anyone seek, as Descartes did, to ‘begin anew, from
first principles.’”20 In short, while Pollock recognizes innovation in early
modern knowledge systems in India better and in a clearer way than anyone
before him, he still finds in this period “a serious tension in a newness that

16. Sheldon Pollock, “New Intellectuals in Seventeenth-​Century India,” Indian Economic and
Social History Review 38.1 (2001): 5.
17. Ibid., p. 12.
18. Ibid., p. 13.
19. Ibid., p. 14.
20. Ibid., p. 23.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
VIII.

Pienempiä lauluja.

5.

Morse faurog.

Pastos paivva Kiufwresist' javrra Orre Iavvra

Ios kaosa kirrakeid korngatzim
Ia tiedadzim man oinæmam jaufre Orre javvra
Ma tangast lomest lie sun lie
Kaika taidæ mooraid dzim soopadzim
Mak tæben saddesist oddasist
Ia poaka taidæousid dzim karsadzim
Makqvvodde roamaid poorid ronaid
Kuliked palvvaid timsuttatim
Mak kulkivvoasta Jaufræ Orre Jaiifræ;
Ios mun tæckas dzim kirdadzim sææst vvorodzasææst
Æ muste læ sææ dsiodgæ sææ maina taockao kirdadzim
Æka læ Julgæ songiaga Julgæ, ækælæ siædza
 Fauron sietza, maan koimalusad
Dzim norbadzim.
Kalle ju læck kucka madzie vvordamadzie
Morredabboit dadd paivvidad, linnasabboid
Dadd salmi dadd liegæ sabboid vvaimodadd
Ius kuckas sick patæridziek
Tannagtied sarga dzien insadzim
Mi os matta læda sabbo korrasabbo
Nu ly paddæ soona paddæ, ia salvvam route salvvam
Kæk dziabræisiste karrasistæ.
Ia kæsæ myna, tæm aivvitæm punie poaka
Tæmæ jardækitæmæ Parne miela
Pisegga miela noara iorda kockes jordæ
Ios taidæ poakaid læm kuldædæm
Luidæm radda vværa radda
Ouita lie miela oudas vvaldaman
Nute tiedam poreponne oudastan man kauneman.

Tämä runoelma on painettu Joan. Schefferein Lapponiaan,

Frankfurtissa 1673, sivulla 283. Oikokirjoitus on peräti virheellinen,
jonka vuoksi monta sanaa ei saata laisinkaan ymmärtää, vallankin
kun, kuten näkyy, suusanaisesti esiteltäissä useimpia tavuita on
kerrottava. Tähän liitän siitä Utsjoen murteella käännöksen, jonka
olen tehnyt enimmäkseen Aslak Laitin avulla. Schefferin ylimalkaan
oikeaa latinalaista käännöstä rasittaa kuitenkin muutama virhe;
vertaa tähän jotenkin tarkkaa käsitystä Herderin kirjassa: "Stimmen
der völker in liedern," Upsalassa 1815, sivulla 107, yleiseen tuttu
Kleist'in mukailemasta.

Nuo kolme tässä mainittua sorsa-lajia ovat: čoađki, telkkä,

čuädńag metsä-hanhi ja čiksa, gen. čiuvssa vaalea- siipi-sorsa.
5 b).

Moárssi fauru.

Paittus päivvi kieurrat (karrasit) jaurrai, orri jaurrai,

Jụös kilossa kierragī kōrnušim,
Ja tieđāšim raon oainam jäurri,
Man taṅas loamist lǟ, son lǟ (laǯǯa).
Kaik (puok) tait muorait čuoppašim,
Mak tappi säddik ođđasist
Ja pụök tait oussīt kārsašim,
Mak kuodde roamaid pōrid ronaid,
Kuliked palvvaid —
Mak kulkī vuösta jäurri, Orri jäurri.
Juös mon tokkū kirtāšim vuoračas soajain (soajaisist, iness.),
Ī must läk soadja, čoađkī soadja, tokkū kirtāšim,
Ī(ge) läk juölggi, čuādńag juölggi, īge läk čiuvssa,
Faurus čiuvssa (nom. čiksa), maina — nuorbašim.
Källi jo läk kukka vuördamaš (vuördam),
Morratabbuit päividad, lidnisabbuid,
Tat čalbmi lǟ liäggas, čāppa vaimudad (vaibmut).
Juös kukkas — pātarivčik,
Tannaken (? almaken) farga jūvsašim,
Mī matta lät karrasabbu (-subbu).
Nu lä pātta, suodiia pātta ja ruövdi —
Kǟk — karrasiste?
Ja keässa mīn, oivīteme,
Podnja puok jurdakīteme.
Pardnī miella piägga miella.
Nuora jurta kukkis jurta.
Juös tait puokkait läm kuldalam,
Luöitam rađi, vǟrri rađi
Outa (Utsjoki; okta) lē miella audas valdaman,
Nu tē tieđam puöribun oudastam mon kaunam.

Morsiamen kauneus.

Paista, päivä, kiikkahasti Orrijärven yli!

Kuusten latvoihin mä kiipuaisin.
Jos vain Orrijärven näkisin ja hänen
Käyskelevän pitkin kanervikkoa.
Kaikki oksat poijes otteleisin.
Kaikki nuoret vasta vesovaiset,
Kaikki vanhat pois mä leikkeleisin.
Joissa puhkee vihertävät urvut.
Kulkua mä pilven (seuroaisin),
Kohti Orrijärveä mi kiitää.
Varislinnun siivet jos vain oisi.
Puuttuu siivet, sorsan siivet, sinne lentääkseni,
Jalat myöskin, hanhen jalat, ihanaiset,
Joilla hiljaan luokses asteleisin.
Viikon kyllä olet vartoellut.
Päivää monta, ihaninta päivääs,
Silmäs ovat arnmaat, sydämmesi hellä.
Vaikka kauaks mua pakeneisit.
Sinut nopsaan sentään saavuttaisin.
Vahvemmatpa mitkä olla voisi
Kuni viritetyt jänteet, rautakahleet.
Jotka kiinteästi (yhteen liittää)?
Niinpä päitämmekin kietoo (lempi).
Yhteen liittää kaikki aatoksemme.
Pojan mieli vain on tuulen mieli,
Mont' on nuorukaisen ajatusta.
Niitä kaikkia jos kuulteleisin,
Eksyisinpä polultani poies.
Päätöksen mä tein, kun sitä seuraan.
Tiedän parhain tiellä pysyväni.

6.

Kulnasatz.

Kulnasatz niraosam æugaos joao audas jordec skaode

Nurte vvaota vvaolges skaode
Abeide kockit laidi ede
Fauruoghaoidhe sadiede
Ælluo momiaiat kuckan kaigevvarri.
Patzao buaorest kællueiaur tuuni
Maode paoti millasan
Kaiga vvaonaide vvaiedin
Aogo niraome buaorebæst
Nute aotzaon sargabæst
Taide sun monia lii aigaomass
Saraogaoin vvaolgatamass
Ios iuao sarga aoinasim
Kiuresam katzesim
Kulnaasatz nirasam
Katze aoinakaos tun su salm.
 Schefferin Lapponia, sivu 282, missä myöskin on seuraava
latinalainen käännös; vrt. Herderin "Stimmen der völker," s. 109.
Tämä on Franzen'in tekemän tunnetun laulun: "Spring min snälla
ren" alkuperä.

Kulnasatz, rangifer meus parvus, properandum nobis iterque porro

faciendum, loca uliginosa vasta sunt, et cantiones nos deficiunt. Ne
tamen tædiosus mihi palus kaige es, tibi palus kailvva dico vale.
Multæ cogitationes animum meum subeunt, dum per paludem kaige
vehor. Rangifer meus simus agiles levesque, sic citius absolvemus
laborem, eoque veniemus, quo destinamus, ubi videbo amicam
meam ambulantem. Kulnasatz rangifer meus prospice ac vide, utrum
non cernas eam se lavantem.

Porolle.

Kulnasatz, poroseni, kiiruhtakaamme,

Joutukaamme, rientäkäämme!
Soita sulia edessä,
Tulee loppu laulujenkin.

Siintää armas Kaiga-järvi,

Jää hyvästi, Kaiga-järvi,
Sykäyttävi sydäntä
Kaiga-järvi kaunokainen.

Riennä riemulla, poroni,

Juokse, kiidä joutuisasti,
Jotta pääsemme perille,
Tuolla työmme taukoavi.
 Siellä kulkee kultaseni,
Asuvi mun armahani, —
Katso, poro, tarkastele,
Näetkö kylpevän kultani.

7.

Påtso-jouikem.

Altan miesche rontja

Viälka kiechten kulman sierken,
Kraukjen mottjem riide puoiltum
Tschautesta beijessä vuaren tschorrai nille.

Utsjoen murteella tämä olisi:

Poccu-juoigam.

Aldu miesi poacu

Vuälgā kuövti kolma suärki,
Rāppu motti sajist lādńa mǟcist.
Ko pajas pǟssam lǟ, livvu son värri čokka ala.

Poro laulu.

Voahi, vasa, poro

Vaeltaa kahtaa kolmee tietä,
 Mylvii moness' korviss' ja koivistoss',
Noustua ylös, paneiksen (moata) vuaran harjun peällä.

Tämän laulun lauloi Gottlund'ille nuori lappalainen Anders Olaus,

Ovikin tunturilta, Heden kirkkokunnasta Herjedal'in lääniä, joka
isäntänsä ja hänen tyttärensä kanssa kävi Tukholmassa. Laulu on
painettu Gottlund'in Otavassa II, siv. 220. Aslak Laitin avulla olen
tähän pannut käännöksen Utsjoen lapin murteella; suomennos on
Otavasta otettu.

8.

Jöijuhtahta uhtje maanai piijeln.

Korko graddnam, korko graddnam!

Påtheh, påtheh — keseh, keseh
Manav jaurai,
Vuobtalabtjijn'!
Vanah, vanah.

Utsjoen murteella:

Kotka skipparam, kotka skipparam!

Poađi, poađi — keäsi, keäsi
Māna jaurai
Vuoktaläučīn!
Vana, vana.

Laulu pienillen lapsillen.

 Kusiainen kulta, kusiainen kulta,
Tule, tule — vie, vie Lasta (lapsi) järveen
Hiuks-ohjaksellaan!
Viänä, viänä!

Tämän ja jälkimmäisen laulun on Gottlund saanut Petr.

Læstadius'elta, joka oli kuullut Lappalaisten Arjeplogin ja Lykselin
Lapissa niitä laulavan. Kaikissa minä olen noudattanut Gottlundin
kirjoitustapaa. Otava II, 223.

9.

Bijern-jöijuhtahta.

Puoltajam, puoltajani,
Tjoddscheleh, tjoddscheleh (čuöǯǯeli)!
Lasta lä stuores koh Snjeratscha pelje.

Karhun laulu.

Vuoren ukko, vuoren ukko,

Nouse ylös, nouse ylös!
Lehti on suuri kuin
Hiiröisen korva.

Otava II, 224.

Nämä kuusi seuraavaa laulua ja kompaa olen pannut paperille

tarkkaan Fjellnerin sanelun mukaan ja niistä kolme ensimmäistä
enemmän kuin viisikymmentä vuotta vanhan käsikirjoituksen avulla.
Kieli on virheellistä eikä Fjellner itsekään aina voinut selittää
himmeitä lausetapoja; siksi ei toipuen kappale ole kylläksi selvä. Että
ne sentään ovat kansallisia vanhoja muistoja, nähtävästi Norjan
murteelle sepitettyjä, näkyy muun muassa siitä, ett'ei Fjellner voinut
kääntää ensimmäisessä kappaleessa tavattavia sanoja: kuöktem
aučam galka vāӡačit; hän nimittäin tunsi ainoastaan yhden sanan
aučo acies, vaan ei norjalais-lappalaista avča, Utsjoen äuǯ laakso,
joka vallan hyvin sopii seuraaviin riveihin. Minä liitän kuitenkin
kappaleet tähän, ehkä jossain muualla tavataan selvempiä toisintoja.

10.

Lúondus vúole'.

Uijā, jaijā, jaijā,

Tän mu šūgen gālimen (? gālim)
Bīra vúomem vārem
Sohka juölgakī koika.
Kuöktem aučam galke vāӡačit,
Kuoktem cācem galka kāli',
Ēčen guit mu šūga dudńe cuöpcat,
Datne neita uššat,
Mon läm dat aine Marien pardne.
Röute rauǯen sōlim galka juöhti,
Kosse galk neite tatne tām čiddetit.

Kosijan luku.
 Ah!
Kauas mieleni mateli
Vaarain taaksi, vuomain taaksi,
Luoksi ventovierahien,
Sukka-jalkojen jalojen.
Kaksi laaksoa täytyy vaeltaa,
Kaksi vettä täytyy kaalata,
Vaan kuitenkin, tyttö kulta,
Usko, impeni ihana,
Sinuhun sydämmykseni
Ihastui iki-ajaksi,

(Muist.)

1. tahi kuökten aučan cāce tavallisesti čāce

2. Oikeastaan: sukilla peitettyjen jalkojen, sentähden vierasta,

koskei Lapin tytöillä ole mitään sukkia.

Maariaisen aino poika

Sun on sulhosi omasi
Lävistäiskö keihon kärki
Rintoas rauta terävä,
Silloin oikein oivaltaisit
Sydämmeni kivut suuret,
Mielituskani tukalat.

11.

Šūge kuötteja.
 Mājem mun (mon) šūge nuppem (läm) kuöttetem
Neiti olkē-virtī nalne,
Ēčen neite tān mu šūgem oissu tuóstai (tuostut)
Tūle ja tūle jerkelījen, (Oder jorgolījam)
Šūgama postelem postīte.
Taite jīčene čuoču (?) ālit
Šärtta-tuorgite (oder tuorgait).
Ihke dille datne neite
Kikńel čalmen čuoratatte (čúorutasta),
Ēčen dillegen mu oššalušše copcīte.

Kaipauksen kantaja.

Pitkät matkat kaipausta

Vierasta ma kanniskelin
Tyttösien hartioille (s.o. rakastin loitolta muita tyttöjä),
Oma impiseni vainen
Minun lempeni käsittää.
Silloin tällöin, toisiltansa,
Kääntyi lempeni takaisin.
Hänpä oman karjaseni
Vesakoita kaipailevi.
Vaikka tyttö ken tahansa
Itkusilmin harmentuisi,
Sen sentään muistan aina.

(Muist.)
 1. Fjellner selittää ihke — suoni, ehkä, vaikka; ruots. lap.
kirjakielen ihke, ikke, ikkenes, quisquis, quicunque äännetään
pohjoisissa murteissa ihkenes.

12.

Vārin.

Gobbiče biäggạ galga dudńen

Daine lūdies beäggin šadde?
Dihte orjela souđeđe biäggạ,
Vuój dai duötteri nuörtte biäggạ?

Vuorilla.

Kumpiko tuuli, kultaseni,

Mielellesi mieluisampi,
Suloisampi, suotuisampi?
Suviko suojainen, sumuinen,
Vaiko tuuli tuntureilta,
Vilpas pohjoinen vireä?

Tämän lyhykäisen laulun pani Fjellner nuoruudessaan paperille;

se on pehmoisempaa Herjedal'in murretta.

13.
 Vibe čūgaides rossut.

Voi, voi dai mänai ūdoldahkit!

Jūbe laǯa (läǯǯa) ruöhkeran nōruc krahkam,
Kouda sprahkam korru juolgai.
Bāje hōbus pōtet,
Ačen skānjasit dodne röude kieldagin,
Monna väike gahpu' ńalmin beäni.

Emäkarhu herättää lapsiansa.

Ylös, lapseni aimoset!

Hankea ja suksi hiihti,
Lyly lunta lykkäeli.
Kiireesti hän (metsämies) tulkoon tänne,
Äännähdelköön rautajänne,
Mulla kidan vaskihampaat!

Tämän laulun sai Fjellner Klummalta, eräältä lappalaiselta, 5 tai 6

peninkulmaa pohjaisemmasta Sorselea.

14.

Cuöihkan vúöle.

Nulčūdejē nuigūb dihčī:

Meitē tōn kiesien pöttom parkā? —
 — Jụoigam mon. Meitē tōn jēš? —
Gahpadam mon.

Sääsken laulu.

Sirkka sääskeltä kysyvi:

"Mitä työtä teet suvella?" —
"Laulelenpa lystikseni.
Vaan mi työnä, toimenasi,
Liekin, sirkkunen, sinulla?" —
Hyppelenpä, harppailenpa,
Lasken laulusi mukahan.

Nämä säkeet sai Fjellner Herjedalista, samallaisia sopivine

nuottinensa tavataan myöskin Karesuannossa ja yli koko Lapin. —
Sääskellä on monta nimeä: ruotsalaisessa kirjakielessa čuoik,
äännetään enimmäkseen čụöihka tahi čúojak, etelämpänä nuigu tahi
ńulčča.

15.

Orrivin vúöle.

Vaiba gaihka neita viesulīen,

Ja vaiba gaihka pardne jabmaličen!

Oravan laulu.
 Soisin neitojen suloisten,
Aina impyisten elävän.
Pojat poijes saisi mennä
Manalan ikimajoille.
(Syystä että he ampuvat oravia).

16.

Kumppi.

Utsjoelta, A. Laiti ilmoitti.

Kumppi tē jō, kumppi ī i!

Ovtsi vụömi ǟtsi säipi
Skalkku tē jo, tē jo ā ā!

Susi.

Hukka, hukka
Yhdeksän metsän kautta, häntä reisien välissä,
Juoksee, hoi, hoi.

Seuraavat viisi laulua antoi minulle suosiollisesti herra

kauppaneuvos J.H. Grönlund Tukholmassa; hän oli kirjoittanut ne
neljänkyminenenvuoden lopulla nuoren lappalaistytön sanelun
mukaan. Hänen oikokirjoituksensa, joka on samallinen kuin
ruotsalainen kirjakieli, on tässä säilytetty. Lukuisat sananlainaukset
ruotsinkielestä ovat huomattavat.
17.

Surgo-vvuolle.

Surjatjab mon tab jellekes aldon gåsjab

Tjuodtjote talle, kuldebt peljen tan tjåsko kåten sis.

Ih mo juolkin test ådtjo varret puorrin puorrist

Jah viklatit tab tjuossis (smareib) påtsoit.

Kokte kalka tel te monno muorritit,

jutte ebtesti vele åtdjo tab etjen aldo tiste puttjet?
Ja kalka tan kukke seibe-aldon melken naln jelet etjen peiveh?

Nåh! jus le nimte muonetam, te ådtjob nan ai tuddet,

Juhko ebtest veleh vejet varretit tan jellekes aldon mingesne.

Valitusvirsi.

Wilhelminan Lapista.

Ikävöiden itken porolehmiäni tuntureilla,

Turhaan korvani kuultelee heitä tässä kolkossa kodassa.

Ei ole enää suotu mulle juoskennella

Kukkuista ylös, toista kukkuista alas,
Eikä nähdä valkopilkkuisia poroparviani.

Kuinka täällä viihtyisin, kuin menestyisin,

Kun en enää poro-laumaani saa lypsää,
Täytyy huiskuhäntäisien lehmäin maidot juoda?

Ah, jos niin on luotu, täytyy tyytyäni,

Olla hyppimättä vaaroillani, vuorillani, poro-parven kanssa.

18.

Samin jelem.

Mon samen vaivan ja vandertekes ålmah

Tan ädnam vaives kaidnoi nal,

Jukko kalkam vandertit kaik ädnamen pir,

Ja nau kalka mo aike låptet.

Lappalaisen elämä.

Ma lappalainen vaivainen, ma vaeltaja mies,

Tämän maan tukalaisella tiellä.
Mun vaellella täytyy, mun täytyy kulkea
Halki maailman, näin aikani kuluu.

19.

Wedde-Karin wuolle.
 Surgosn' le mo vaimo, ja lenlak le mo vaimo
Jukko erit valdain, mo jasketis vuoreb.
Albmai mon vainotab, kusne monno kalkin kaudnotet,
Ikka värald mo kaudnasje, surgokes ja vaivems.

Neitab mon valjib, mab man kerast udneb,

Sodn mo vaimob adna, man kukkeb leb mon.
Man kukke le varre pakkas, ja häggasne le,
Tie mo vaimo
puolla, surgosne mangemus aiken.

Läddats laulot avosne so para-peleb;

Vall' kåsse luode erit valda so lakkamusen vänab,
Tie so vaimo puolla, surgosne ja vaivesne.

Akt kareb keresvuotest, tievas mon tunji vaddai

Ikka aike ja värald tab leikem le
Tat kalkah aremust kaik ädnamen mete, dauk mangemus
nåres to kätai sis.

Falskes vänah leh mådde, kutteh leh monnon vänakvuoten jallo

Tah lijen tall monnon pajelen vidnam
Ja nau monnon keresvuoten låptam.

Laulu Wedde-kari'sta.

(Rukkais-laulu).

Murheinen on sydämmeni, raskas on mun sydämmeni,

Rakkaani kun multa temmattihin.
 Taivaasen nyt toivon, jossa tavattaisiin taasen,
Vaikka maailmassa olen murheinen ja kurja.

Neidon valitsin, mä häntä lemmin,

Sydäntäni hän valtaa koko elinaikani.
Niin kauan kuin lämmin vereni ja elämäni kestää,
Sydäntäni polttaa murhe viime hetkeen saakka.

Iloisena lintu puolisoaan ylistää,

Vaan kun luoti hänen ystävänsä syöstää,
Silloin murhe, kaiho sydäntänsä polttaa.

Maljan täynnä lempeä mä sulle annoin,

Mutta maailma ja aika kaatoivat sen tyhjäksi.
Nyt se vuotaa pitkin maata ympäri,
Viimein kai se joutuu käsiisi.

Mont' on petollista ystävätä, he

Murtumahan saivat ystävyytemme.
Meidän kummankin he voittivat,
Saivat lemmen meiltä sorretuksi.

(Muist.)

Ruotsin niinkuin saksankin kielessä käytetään lausepartta: antaa

jollekin kori (= antaa jollekin rukkaset), joka lauseparsi myöskin on
joutunut lapin kieleen; wedde kare on juurista tehty kori.

20.

Biren wuolle.