AUDIENCE: Hi, I have a
question to Professor Thibaut.
So my question is--
I want to know a little bit
about the historiography
of the texts that
you are talking
about-- the corpus of the texts.
You say that there is no
anthology or edited or collated
version of all the Arabic texts
which were written in Bengali.
So where were
these text procured
from the archiving of it?
But there is still
a tradition, which
was going on in the later
part, when these were procured
and need an archiving too.
THIBAUT D'HUBERT: So the
manuscripts that we have now
or the ones that
I used so far are
kept at the Bangla Academy
in the Dhaka University.
And they were collected as--
so of course, there
is the collection
of Abdul Karim Sahityavisarad
from Chittagong,
who, on his own, collected
this very large collection
of Bengali texts--
mostly Bengali
Muslim literature,
but not only-- and started
as an editor of texts that
are not Bengali Muslim texts.
And this collection
is the one that
really triggered the study
of [INAUDIBLE] literature.
And it's the best known and
best described collection.
We have descriptive catalog.
It's very nicely preserved at
the Dhaka University Library.
And that's the easiest to use.
The other big collection is the
collection of the [INAUDIBLE]..
And so when collecting
manuscripts,
he also collected--
because he really collected
everything he could get.
And he was very interested
in those manuscripts
in Arabic script.
He was absolutely not--
he didn't consider
that it was anecdotal
and used less, et cetera.
And the way he described
those manuscripts
is very interesting.
He speculates about
why, even him,
who is someone from the
first 1/2 of the 20th century
and who witnessed the living
tradition around those texts--
even he didn't know why--
why people started
writing manuscripts
in the Arabic script.
And he was really
speculating about it.
He didn't write a lot
about those things.
It's interesting to see that
he could read them very well.
There are very few
scholars who actually used
those manuscripts, as I said.
So we don't have edition.
But even to use them for
critical [INAUDIBLE]---- like,
collecting, collating
their content.
There is one--
[INAUDIBLE] who edited [ARABIC].
He discusses some of those
manuscripts [INAUDIBLE]..
And the ones at the
Bangla Academy--
so they are part of an
institutional effort
to collect manuscripts
from the Pakistani period
and then after, on through after
the independence of Bangladesh.
And they were connected.
But again, there wasn't
a work collected as part
of a more general effort.
And there was never
any specific--
for instance, we
see at Nagari today
where there is a specific
effort to collect those texts.
These manuscripts--
they just happened
to be collected with others.
And that's why it's really
difficult or [INAUDIBLE]
to locate them in the
catalogs, because they're not
in one place.
You have to go through
all the things.
And sometimes, they
indicate-- oh, [INAUDIBLE]..
And so we still have to
do this work of compiling
a specific list of those texts.
And then there are
still several of
those manuscripts in private
hands today Chittagong.
One of the collectors for
the Bangla Academy was not
[INAUDIBLE] but
was [INAUDIBLE]----
and his son [INAUDIBLE] in
the region of Chittagong--
still has a large collection.
And I didn't go there myself.
But I was told that there
were fantastic manuscripts
in Arabic script.
One thing that should
be done though--
because, here, I just
mentioned those texts written
in Arabic scripts in
[INAUDIBLE] Bangla--
it would be very
interesting to collect
Arabic texts from Chittagong.
And this, also--
I don't think there is
any collection, even
of Quranic texts, for instance.
What is the history of
the Quran in Bengal?
That's still something that
needs to be looked at closely
[INAUDIBLE].
It would be very
interesting to compare, even
just the calligraphy
and the [INAUDIBLE]..
AUDIENCE: Thank you.
TYLER WILLIAMS: We have
a question up there.
AUDIENCE: My question is for
Professor Tyler Williams.
I was thinking about--
like, yesterday, we started out
conversing on the materiality
of these manuscripts and
all the [INAUDIBLE]----
everything like we
talked about here.
So you started by
saying the different--
Chandra, [INAUDIBLE],,
and all of this.
So I was thinking, what is
their lesson when [INAUDIBLE]----
like-- who is winning what?
Like, who possessed [INAUDIBLE]?
Who possessed [INAUDIBLE]?
Who possessed other
kinds of things
and other kinds of
material objects?
And how does that translate
into the dominant performance?
So for example, you
talked about how
the author who's composing
the manuscript-- to him,
it's something that
people will listen to.
It's not necessarily to
be read by the masses
or the large general
part of people.
So how does that
transformation happen?--
from the domain of
the literary domain--
from material object to a
performance and performance
subject.
TYLER WILLIAMS: [INAUDIBLE]--
AUDIENCE: Another question--
so the other question is--
so the geographical extent
where this text was circulated--
so could you please tell us
about where in North India?--
or what was the extent of
these kinds of literature--
like, [INAUDIBLE]
literature in Persian Script
TYLER WILLIAMS: Yeah, thanks
for the thoughtful question.
I'll give you two very,
very short answers.
Because it's possible to
speak at length about these,
because their histories
are complicated.
But as for the first--
and again, I think that
the folks who put together
the "Tellings and Texts" volume
really hit the nail on the head
and put this quite
eloquently-- is--
there's no writing
without performance.
That's always presupposed.
But also-- sorry.
There is no writing
without performance.
That's not actually
completely true.
There are documentary
forms here.
I don't want to make up--
in fact, I'm already
regretting that statement.
I'd say that there's always--
this written literature always--
literature of the
[INAUDIBLE] et cetera--
we take it for granted that it
has a existence in performance.
That's the moment at
which it's shared.
That's the moments in which
it's learned, et cetera.
But it's clear that writing is
always part of this process.
And at this point,
in my work, for me,
making any type of
clear distinction
between the written and the
oral doesn't make any sense.
Theoretically, it does
no work-- for one.
As Thibaut was saying
earlier, silent reading
was not part of
this world really,
at least not the
world in which I work.
Silent reading was not the case.
And well-- OK.
The short way to
answer your question
is that the composers of the
Sufi romances were aware.
They were aware of
the significance
of writing the vernacular.
They were aware of the
significance of its existence
prior to that
moment or primarily
as a language of song.
And so, in the Candayan, Maulana
Da'ud writes [SPEAKING HINDI]..
He first starts by
saying, [SPEAKING HINDI]..
Writing and writing in
Turkish, I sang in Hinduki.
You have to be
careful about thinking
about-- what kind of
distinction is he making there?
He's talking, of course, not
about the Turkish language,
per se.
But he's talking
about a script, which
is associated with Turkish
at the time-- which,
by the way, in the Tughlaq
period, when he was composing,
was still an important
language in North India.
But anyways, the script is
being used for Turkish, Persian,
Arabic.
That's the realm of the written,
in which he's composing this.
But he's also acknowledging that
this language in which people
sing and these sung
folk ballads from which
he took his material
from the Candayan--
that language is what he is
calling Hinduki, which again
is a language of place.
It's the language of the
local-- of the region.
And so all of the
other poets, as well,
have something to say
about that distinction.
And it changes over time.
And if you really
want to know about it,
you can read the second of my
book, because I talk about--
shameless plug-- how
this changes over time.
And there is also an association
between the vernacular
and prosody.
This is another important part.
Anyways-- so that's
one aspect of it.
So it's always there.
In other words, the
short answer is,
these two aspects-- the
written and the oral--
are always there.
The second question
about the local--
so these-- uh-oh--
I'm sorry-- and feel free
to jump in at any point.
In terms of place, these
are being primarily composed
in the Gangetic Plain, in what
we now associate with Eastern
UP or UP in general.
But the people
who composed them,
especially in the later
17th and 18th century,
were from all over.
Surdas, who composed the
[NON-ENGLISH] is from Punjab,
and he says so.
And he says, I
use this language,
because this is the language
of these [NON-ENGLISH]..
And these [NON-ENGLISH]----
that particular copy,
the copy of the
[NON-ENGLISH] at the museum,
copied in 1698 is being copied
for a general in the Deccan,
which tells you how far
these stories circulated.
And again, Thibaut has written
about this in "The Shade
of the Golden Palace."
Alaol, in Arakan, is translating
these stories centuries
later and in a
place quite removed
geographically and somewhat
linguistically from there
as well.
So they enjoyed
incredibly wide dispersal.
And again, this is the
problem of reconstructing
literary cultures
in this period--
language does not
correspond to place
in the way we are
used to thinking of.
Sorry-- that was a long answer.
THIBAUT D'HUBERT: I
have a further question
on the [INAUDIBLE].
Don't you think that
Turki-- in Turki--
is not another version of
the [INAUDIBLE],, rather than
a dire preference to
the linguistic domain?
Because I see the
Turki as more derived
from the Indic practice
of designing-- designating
the [INAUDIBLE], rather.
Which is a very broad
ethnic association,
rather than the-- let's say--
the linguistic domain of Turki,
as such.
So then, to be compared to the
[INAUDIBLE] also [INAUDIBLE]
cultural practices [INAUDIBLE]
without necessarily referring
to the linguistic--
TYLER WILLIAMS: Oh, yeah.
Yeah-- in fact, thank you.
That's a better
way of putting it.
I'm fumbling to come up for
the word as to what realm of--
what is the complete valence
of this term, Turkey--
THIBAUT D'HUBERT: Turkey.
TYLER WILLIAMS:
--or Hinduki, right?
Hindugi or Hinduki--
you find both variants
in the manuscripts.
You said, cultural practices.
That's a better word
than I can come up with--
AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE]
those later
uses and see that it's
not an earlier instance
of those same [INAUDIBLE].
TYLER WILLIAMS: Right--
I'm hesitant--
THIBAUT D'HUBERT: Oh!
TYLER WILLIAMS: --to
cast too wide a net
for what these terms mean.
Because there's not a lot--
at least, I've been
reading around it.
And I've been reading about--
trying to read up on
the Tughlaq period
to get a sense of what kind
of valence these terms have.
And I don't have a good sense.
My sense here though
is because he is--
first, he's talking about
his education in Arabic
with his [INAUDIBLE].
And then suddenly, he
shifts from talking about
the [NON-ENGLISH]---- the nine
letters that he learned from
his peer and getting the
[NON-ENGLISH] of them--
the actual understanding
of them to suddenly,
in the next [NON-ENGLISH]----
in the next part
of the [NON-ENGLISH]----
talking about this
[SPEAKING NON-ENGLISH]
which I can only imagine--
to make such a sudden shift
has to be something about--
I compose within this
world of [NON-ENGLISH]..
THIBAUT D'HUBERT: Yes.
TYLER WILLIAMS: But I also
have a foot in this world
that I hear around me--
that is sung around me.
And its this world
that, I think-- again,
the valence in Hinduki
is not linguistic.
It refers to a larger set of
performative practices, which
happened to be in this
regional language.
But the Turki-- again, because
it's Turki, and because--
like you're saying, these terms
have some kind of meaning now
that are broader--
ugh.
Maybe I will regret
using this term.
But the Turki
refers to something
that is more cosmopolitan or
something that reaches out
to other places and regions.
And the Hindugi
refers to something
that is much more here.
CHANDER SHEKHAR: I [INAUDIBLE].
You say, you're Turkish.
And in fact, in 15th century,
in the [INAUDIBLE] period,
especially from [INAUDIBLE]
and [INAUDIBLE],,
they were trying to
come out from the domain
of Persian culture.
And even prior to
[INAUDIBLE],, they
were trying to give
more [INAUDIBLE]
to Turkish influence.
And in all of this
[NON-ENGLISH] and [NON-ENGLISH],,
they were trying to spread more
Turkic rather than Persian.
And this is the reason that
[NON-ENGLISH] and, prior
to him, other people--
they had started to
promote more Turkish ones.
And in India also,
like in Bhopal
or in certain other regions--
even till 18th century,
majority of this Turkish-origin
nobility--
they used to talk in
Turkish in their family.
They were not using Persian
as their common language
in their families, in effect.
Even this 15th century--
this [INAUDIBLE] and
others which were coming--
they were using more of
a secular tone that way.
And even, they were using
words from Turkish rather than
pure Persian or pure Arabic.
So do you find any connection
with this Turki Turki
and Hindui Hindui?
They do not to use
the word Farsi Farsi.
They use of the
word Turki Turki.
What can be the reason?
TYLER WILLIAMS:
Right-- the Turki
is in the few sources I've read
or read about from this period.
Who is the Turk?
The Turk is someone
who is within the ambit
of a sultanate or
sub-sultanate court who
has certain manners and who has
certain tastes of that world.
What is, I think, though--
in this particular dichotomy or
this particular juxtaposition
that's going on, the words
that get me actually are
[NON-ENGLISH].
And if we looked at that--
one way to look
at is to say, OK,
[NON-ENGLISH] here in
the old [NON-ENGLISH] is
an absolutive--
[SPEAKING NON-ENGLISH]----
a perfective.
So having written it or writing
in Turki or something that's
within that world-- or writing
within the ambit of whatever
is the Turkish, I sing
or I sang in Hindugi.
Even if we treat the grammar
more loosely and just say, OK,
I write in one-- we don't
treat that first one
as an absolutive--
I write in one or I wrote in
one and I sang in the other--
we're still getting a
juxtaposition of something
that's about writing--
an inscription.
And I wouldn't feel confident
about that if I didn't see
somewhat different
pronouncements
in [NON-ENGLISH].
Because [INAUDIBLE],, for
example, says [NON-ENGLISH]..
He says, I write in Bakha.
Whereas here, it's clearly
saying, [SPEAKING NON-ENGLISH]..
So there is some juxtaposition
that's going on there.
There is a difference.
But as you can tell, I'm
not confident about what
the full meaning of that
term Turk or Turki--
what is the Turki there?
CHANDER SHEKHAR:
[INAUDIBLE] in some cases,
agreed to [INAUDIBLE]
themselves from the [INAUDIBLE]..
And many such sources--
later on the
[INAUDIBLE] literature--
they were calling them the
Turks, not the [INAUDIBLE]..
And they were having
this kind of a pride
to be a Turk, not
from any [INAUDIBLE]..
So they feel that the Turkish
was more modernized, more
having a capability of
expression in varied forms.
In fact, Persian glosses
less than the Turkish one.
One word of Persian will have
12 to 14 totally different
meanings.
While in Turkish, for one word,
there will be many synonyms.
So they used to say that
Turkish is better than Persian,
in fact.
And they were maybe
writing in Persian.
But somewhere, they feel that
Turkish is better than Persian.
TYLER WILLIAMS: I feel like I
should be writing all of this--
CHANDER SHEKHAR: Yeah--
TYLER WILLIAMS: --down.
CHANDER SHEKHAR: [INAUDIBLE].
But still, he is giving
preference to Turkish trend.
He is himself in [INAUDIBLE],,
the capital of the [INAUDIBLE]
and the [INAUDIBLE].
But he is giving
[INAUDIBLE] to [INAUDIBLE]..
So somehow, these writers,
even writing in Persian,
were bringing more Turkish
[INAUDIBLE] in [INAUDIBLE]..
TYLER WILLIAMS: Mm-hm.
CHANDER SHEKHAR: And some people
feel, indeed, it is usual.
And you can even
find the [INAUDIBLE]..
You'll find the Turki
when you read them.
TYLER WILLIAMS: Yeah,
I've read a little bit
about the [INAUDIBLE]
of some Turkish forms
that-- in the Tughlaq period,
that stem from the Mamluk
period and continue on.
And it continues to be--
in fact-- yeah-- this
is something-- again,
I'm looking over at Thibaut.
I don't know much about this.
One does not want to overstate
the Persianate character
of the early sultans, right?
THIBAUT D'HUBERT: [INAUDIBLE].
It's a hunch, but
it's interesting.
I think we should really
dissociate the question of--
oh, he said this.
Because the history of
the linguistic interaction
and presence of
[INAUDIBLE] et cetera,
with the use of a term like
[INAUDIBLE],, et cetera,
in [INAUDIBLE],, very early
on is used as a very broad
[INAUDIBLE] something to
designate this other--
the other.
And that's the other of his
[INAUDIBLE]---- the other.
And I think, it's
being internalized.
And so rather than referring
to the reality of the place
of the [INAUDIBLE]
society of his time by a--
more than less to the language
that [INAUDIBLE] is not
even really on the radar here.
He is referring to this old
Indic use of [INAUDIBLE]
as the other--
TYLER WILLIAMS: Huh.
THIBAUT D'HUBERT: --as
the other Islamic.
And that's why I was
suggesting this parallel
between [INAUDIBLE]
and [INAUDIBLE]..
And I tend to think that
it has more [INAUDIBLE]..
When he says, [INAUDIBLE]
there is no doubt [INAUDIBLE]----
because [INAUDIBLE].
TYLER WILLIAMS: Yeah-- and
something that I have to-- no,
this is very helpful,
especially because I've
gotten to think about the
immediate context in which he
is writing.
He's writing, of
course, in [INAUDIBLE],,
at this court which is for the
less successful son of a very
successful minister
of [INAUDIBLE]..
And when he says Turki,
for the ears of this
recently very recently
coronated minister--
wazir-- what does
that mean there?
I think, your hunch sounds--
THIBAUT D'HUBERT: Because it's
part of this Indic [INAUDIBLE]..
TYLER WILLIAMS: Mm-hm.
THIBAUT D'HUBERT: The
project of the [INAUDIBLE]
is to say something
Indic, in this regard.
And so they're, I
think, purposely
using those ways to
look at the other
from within the [INAUDIBLE].
I advocate for this
idea that the author--
when I say that we should
not take the description
of a religious aspect,
ritual aspect--
that's sort of [INAUDIBLE] and
seems Indic in the [INAUDIBLE]
as ethnography.
It's not ethnography.
It's exoticization.
They're describing
something slightly exotic.
And they are playing with
this description of themselves
through the lens of
some kind of otherness.
So I'm almost questioning
the idea really put forward
by [INAUDIBLE] that it's a
way to bring the Islamicate
in the [INAUDIBLE].
There is a slight
instrumentalization
of this [INAUDIBLE] in this
game of presenting oneself
through the eyes of another.
And this Turki-- so
that's how I think this
is working in the [INAUDIBLE].
PRACHI DESHPANDE: Can
I just [INAUDIBLE]??
So this is-- what will you
say to that and [INAUDIBLE]
in the [INAUDIBLE] so what is
not the [INAUDIBLE] Persian,
or Sanskrit [INAUDIBLE].
Yesterday, I was telling
that, in some documents,
we have Hindi and
Persian that [INAUDIBLE]..
They don't really care
about the [INAUDIBLE]..
But they care about
[INAUDIBLE] just as
[INAUDIBLE] for your
little [INAUDIBLE]..
Would you say
[INAUDIBLE] that that
is what becomes the [INAUDIBLE]
in the English system
is there-- would you
actually [INAUDIBLE]??
Yes--
[WHISPERING]
So is there a kind
of correspondence
between these terms in
the videshi vernacular?--
in the sense that you cannot
pin down either to a particular
language.
But depending on the context,
it is indicative of the local
or [NON-ENGLISH] in
whatever the region may be.
But it is, in a sense,
also a negation.
It is that which
is not Sanskrit,
that which is not Persian,
that which is not English.
We have ample colonial
documents that also say--
and then, just in
the vernacular.
It doesn't tell you what
vernacular-- what language.
Tell us [INAUDIBLE]
what you [INAUDIBLE]..
TYLER WILLIAMS:
There's no [INAUDIBLE]..
AUDIENCE: Except I have to
just push the topic [INAUDIBLE]
and say, [INAUDIBLE].
We also, in these [INAUDIBLE]
Turk and Brahmins.
THIBAUT D'HUBERT:
Yeah, it's the same--
AUDIENCE: And for
me, [INAUDIBLE]
they say Turk,
[INAUDIBLE],, and Brahmin.
It is amazing for me.
And one question-- just
for knowledge from that
knowledgeable person--
Goykani was used in
Mughal period sometime.
Can you clear me?
[NON-ENGLISH] is--
CHANDER SHEKHAR: [INAUDIBLE]--
AUDIENCE: --most
probably Turkish.
Please--
CHANDER SHEKHAR: [INAUDIBLE] all
these rulers-- only for ruling,
OK?
They were from the Goykan tribe.
And in fact, in Central Asia,
they call [INAUDIBLE] Goykani.
They don't like them to
call Mughal [INAUDIBLE]..
THIBAUT D'HUBERT: Yes,
because [INAUDIBLE]..
CHANDER SHEKHAR:
Yeah, it is also.
[INTERPOSING VOICES]
Yeah.
AUDIENCE: I need some
explanation from you--
CHANDER SHEKHAR: Yeah--
AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE].
CHANDER SHEKHAR: I'm saying
this Goykani, which was a tribe.
And these Indian
Mughal emperors--
whom we call great mughals--
they were all from the
Chagatai larger group
from the minor Goykani tribe.
And there are various
dialects of this Turkic one.
It is not Turkish, very frankly.
The Turkic one has many--
this all-- Kazaki,
Uzbeki, Turkmeni--
the current language of these
is basically all Turkish.
And now, they may not be
writing in the same script.
But when they speak, if we
just clinch the Russian word
with the other words,
basically, they
use the same old [INAUDIBLE].
And Goykani [INAUDIBLE]
the same part.
Goykani is not a Persian.
AUDIENCE: Is there
any [INAUDIBLE]??
CHANDER SHEKHAR:
I couldn't get it.
AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE]--
CHANDER SHEKHAR: Yeah.
AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE] was
used in the [INAUDIBLE]..
I have--
CHANDER SHEKHAR: Can you
give me some example?--
what kind of a
calendar you are--
that calendar which you using,
either tried to [INAUDIBLE]
the other one.
Then [INAUDIBLE] made some
improvements in that calendar.
And most of these are
from the [INAUDIBLE]..
AUDIENCE: Yes.
CHANDER SHEKHAR: Which was later
adopted during Indian mughals--
even [INAUDIBLE],, which was
compiled by [INAUDIBLE]..
AUDIENCE: Was it [INAUDIBLE]?
CHANDER SHEKHAR: Hm?
AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE]
was different.
CHANDER SHEKHAR:
Basically the same.
AUDIENCE: Basically the--
CHANDER SHEKHAR:
But in the same way
that I yesterday mentioned
about Tipu Sultan--
AUDIENCE: Yes.
CHANDER SHEKHAR: [INAUDIBLE]--
AUDIENCE: He adapted
a solar system.
CHANDER SHEKHAR:
Yeah, he started it
from the birth of Prophet--
AUDIENCE: Yeah.
CHANDER SHEKHAR: --rather
than from the migration from
the city, from [INAUDIBLE]--
AUDIENCE: Oh, OK.
CHANDER SHEKHAR: Yeah.
AUDIENCE: Oh.
UNIDENTIFIED
SPEAKER: [INAUDIBLE]..
THIBAUT D'HUBERT: Just to
begin answering quickly--
or continue the reflection.
I have no answer.
I think you're perfectly right.
If what you're suggesting
is that those terms,
the vernacular, Desi--
what was the third one?
There was-- I'm sorry?
PRACHI DESHPANDE: Hindavi.
CHANDER SHEKHAR: In Hindavi--
so yeah.
Hindavi has really
an equivalent of--
or as part of the
same paradigm--
I'm wondering a
little bit about that.
But between Desi
and vernacular--
so that's the thing.
Are they equivalent?
I don't think they really.
Or at least, if you
understand vernacular
in the context of
those literatures,
then we need to
add something to it
if we want to get closer
to what Desi meant.
Because and [INAUDIBLE]----
but my book--
in chapter 7 or 6, I suggest--
going back to what I was
saying about the idea
about [INAUDIBLE]
as looking at things
from a distance-- looking
at the regional culture
from a distance.
If we look at the use of
Desi-- and [INAUDIBLE]
is very important
in this respect.
This passage that you quoted--
I comment on it that at length.
I mean-- not really
at length, but--
I think-- Yeah.
Basically, Desi, to me, is not
in the domain of literature.
Again, we cannot
apply to all things.
But in the domain of literature,
it cannot be the pure
vernacular.
It is not the pure domestic.
It is not equivalent with
[INAUDIBLE],, in that sense.
It requires a
displacement again.
To me, Desi aesthetic is an
anesthetic of near foreignness.
It's a bit counter-intuitive,
because we would say, yeah.
But no, Desi is what I know.
It's what's at home, et cetera.
But when you see how it has
been discussed, going back
to even Hemichandra and
the Desinamamala and what
also Pollock said about him--
the Desi is not easy.
It's never easy.
And it's interesting.
And here, it goes back to the
detail of the reading of this
particular passage
of the [NON-ENGLISH]..
He is not equating the language
that he uses [INAUDIBLE] with
Desi, as such--
with the Desila.
He says, I use an [INAUDIBLE]
that mixes various registers.
And that's what
makes it interesting.
And my understanding is,
because everyone understood this
statement where he says,
[SPEAKING NON-ENGLISH]----
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:
[SPEAKING NON-ENGLISH]..
THIBAUT D'HUBERT:
--et cetera, as--
oh, yes.
It's great, because the Desi--
everyone likes it.
Hey, hey, hey-- it's
Vidyapati talking.
He's not talking to
everyone and anyone.
And before this, he says,
[SPEAKING NON-ENGLISH]----
et cetera.
In the Kali age, there are
poisons everywhere, et cetera.
His point is, to some extent,
to make a point for distinction,
so that when he says, the Desila
is understood by everyone,
it's not such a very good thing.
Poetry should not
be too accessible.
There is the sense of--
it has to be crafted.
Then it is you are speaking
to [INAUDIBLE],, et cetera.
And so this idea of distance--
of looking at things from--
and we see that the actual
life of this Desi poetry
immediately crosses the
boundaries of the local.
And they become supra-regional
literary idioms immediately.
And they are valued
because of that.
And you see that
those literatures
are cultivated
not only were they
originate but also in
their neighboring regions.
And so this idea of shift--
UNIDENTIFIED
SPEAKER: [INAUDIBLE]..
AUDIENCE: Well,
once again, I have--
THIBAUT D'HUBERT: Yeah?
AUDIENCE: Because that would
be not only [INAUDIBLE]
about temptation.
He said this [NON-ENGLISH].
THIBAUT D'HUBERT: Yeah.
AUDIENCE: He readily
[INAUDIBLE]----
maybe only on number 2, he said
also [SPEAKING NON-ENGLISH]..
What does it mean?
[INAUDIBLE] is specially all
put up with these questions.
It is written.
He also ordered this
very nicely [INAUDIBLE]..
[SPEAKING NON-ENGLISH].
Is it then [INAUDIBLE] and
Desi are inter-weaving to it?
Is it-- it is just
pushing to [INAUDIBLE]..
CHANDER SHEKHAR: Can
we take questions
from our young scholars.
TYLER WILLIAMS: Yeah, I
think that's a good idea.
THIBAUT D'HUBERT: Yes.
CHANDER SHEKHAR: Yeah.
AUDIENCE: I had a question
for Professor Thibaut.
I was thinking-- in
the Islamic polity,
usually there's a
lot of borrowing
of light in the concept in the
formation of divine kingship.
So I was thinking, whether
it be a link or [INAUDIBLE]
philosophy-- so there's
a lot of contribution
of the idea of
light in near or far
in the creation
of the kingship--
the statehood in general.
So I was thinking, if
[INAUDIBLE] is a text,
does it go beyond the
religious pretext?
Or-- and it contributes as a
political artifact as well?
Like-- does it
shape the kingship
at both the regional
and the central level?
Because the circulation
is widespread.
THIBAUT D'HUBERT: Yeah,
the brief answer is,
actually, I think it's
the other way around.
They are instrumentalizing
the example and the story
of [INAUDIBLE] to show that it
is a spiritually powerful text.
I don't see a political
use of the text, as such,
and an interface with other
images of political propaganda
or simply of articulation
of political discourse
with spirituality here.
I think, it would be more
the other way around.
They are using those images of
political figures from the past
to say-- oh, see how
powerful this text is.
But I don't think there
is otherwise really--
or--
AUDIENCE: Is there no instance
of adoption of the text
as a matter of practice in the
courtly cultures in the lens
also-- like--
THIBAUT D'HUBERT: Mm-- I
haven't found the references
to the [INAUDIBLE] in
courtly contexts so far.
And I'm not saying it's
not possible to find them.
Because also, it's
very porous-- all this.
And--
AUDIENCE: Yeah, it's--
THIBAUT D'HUBERT: --the
[NON-ENGLISH],, of course,
was a part that.
But he's not directly
referring to [INAUDIBLE]..
There are some textual points
of convergence-- that's all.
AUDIENCE: Mm-- thank you.
[WHISPERING]
AUDIENCE: Regarding
[INAUDIBLE],, Professor Thibaut--
I found interesting things like
reference to prophets, like--
and Quranic prophets, like
Moses, Jesus, and David,
where different regions--
like, for example, David was--
the word of God was
disseminated in the form
of the boring Greek language.
And then Moses, therefore, in
[INAUDIBLE] and therefore--
so is he narrating a
different form of a Quran?
Because, as opposed to
the traditional Uthmanic
Quran, which is--
because all these
three prophets come
from the children of Israel.
And second thing-- you also
mentioned about certain Yogi
class.
And so I'm interested to know--
is there any reference of
Yogic postures in [INAUDIBLE]??
THIBAUT D'HUBERT: So [INAUDIBLE]
the second question first--
specific reference
to Yogic culture--
no, it's not
[INAUDIBLE],, like you
would have in the other texts,
like [INAUDIBLE],, et cetera,
where there is a clear
description of Yogic practices.
Here, you have references
to the principles of yogas
through bio-cosmology
and references
to the nadis and
things like that.
But it's not very
detailed in that respect.
The other question about--
I don't know.
If what you were
suggesting is that--
if he's aware of
other [INAUDIBLE]----
AUDIENCE: Because of the thing
that because they are not
Arabic.
And [INAUDIBLE] Quran is
written in Arabic also.
And clearly, it
is written that--
I gave this book to
the children of Israel.
THIBAUT D'HUBERT: Yeah.
AUDIENCE: Therefore, Moses--
therefore, he was a prophet.
And similarly, David and
Jesus were Jewish prophets.
But here, therefore,
it is written in Greek
and [INAUDIBLE]--
THIBAUT D'HUBERT: In
different languages.
AUDIENCE: --Syriani--
THIBAUT D'HUBERT: Yeah-- but
again the awareness that those
reveal--
it's funny, because
you see what language
is associated with which text.
Because it makes sense.
It can be all the ways,
in one way or another--
that the Torah is associated
with Hebrew, that--
so the psalms with Greek--
it's a bit strange, I must say.
And then the gospel
with Syriac--
indeed, we have-- but
I think, here, he's
just reflecting an awareness
of this linguistic diversity
of the previous revealed
texts, even after you
have different accounts.
TYLER WILLIAMS: I think we have
time for one more question.
And we have one more question,
back there in the back.
AUDIENCE: So I have a small
codicological question.
In cases of illustrated
manuscripts,
especially the ones in
18th and 19th century,
there are often
manuscripts where
the illustrations
are added later
and to a textual manuscript.
So in that process,
is the text--
at times, the texts
are re-touched,
in terms of adding decorations
to the margins and all.
Are there examples
where the texts
have been compromised
to sort of amp up
the value of the manuscript
by adding illustrations
and decorations to
the manuscripts?
TYLER WILLIAMS: I
had one [INAUDIBLE]..
OK-- I'll just give
you one example.
But it's a modern one.
And that is this manuscript
in the CSMBS in Mumbai.
The manuscript is 17th century--
1698.
The--
AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE]?
Is it [INAUDIBLE]?
TYLER WILLIAMS:
It is [INAUDIBLE]..
The illustrations--
we found this out,
looking at the manuscript
a few months ago--
were pasted in later,
right over the text,
by someone who probably
didn't know what the text was.
So they didn't even
know where to break it.
And it was probably--
well, [INAUDIBLE]
suggested this,
based on the way
the book market--
the art market-- they were--
yes-- trying to increase
the value of the manuscript
before they sold it to a
dealer who would then sell it
as a [INAUDIBLE] to the museum.
So--
AUDIENCE: Yeah,
because I have also
found some manuscripts
which are similar.
TYLER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
AUDIENCE: When--
TYLER WILLIAMS: [INAUDIBLE]?
AUDIENCE: Yeah.
TYLER WILLIAMS: OK-- I would
like to ask you about that,
because we also have
at least 18th century--
AUDIENCE: Yeah-- 18th--
TYLER WILLIAMS: --cases
of this as well,
where people were later owners--
would do things that-- to
me, they seem destructive--
destructive to the manuscript.
But they were--
AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE]
manuscript-- yeah.
TYLER WILLIAMS: --clearly
seem to enhance the art.
CHANDER SHEKHAR: There is
this [INAUDIBLE] in a museum
in which [INAUDIBLE]
and new things--
illustration-- has been edited.
There are many such cases
where the possessor has got
[INAUDIBLE].
Even apart from
that, they will add--
as the writer of the book even.
Recently, I [INAUDIBLE]
from British Library.
It is written in
1813 and written
that it is the property and
the writing by [INAUDIBLE]..
Well, [INAUDIBLE]
know that [INAUDIBLE]..
But he writes it as
[SPEAKING NON-ENGLISH]..
So this has been a kind
of possessiveness--
extra possessiveness when
they edit also this one.
Or like-- there is a [INAUDIBLE]
copy in [INAUDIBLE] Museum.
[INAUDIBLE] State
archives-- it is from 1780s.
And it's interesting that there
is a picture of [INAUDIBLE]
in that--
[INAUDIBLE],, riding
on a elephant,
moving in Lahar Market--
in [INAUDIBLE] copy from 1780s.
And it is copied by [INAUDIBLE].
But [INAUDIBLE].
When you sing in [INAUDIBLE],,
another [INAUDIBLE]..
[LAUGHTER]
TYLER WILLIAMS: OK--
so with that, I think,
I want to thank the
presenters again and thank you
for the thoughtful questions.
And an end with two quick
announcements-- one--
if I could again ask the
presenters to stop by the table
before you leave.
I don't think there
are many of us here,
so that shouldn't
be difficult. We
need to have a quick meeting.
And for all the rest of us,
we're going to be meeting again
tomorrow at 9:30.
If you could come just
a little bit early,
we'll give you
your certificates,
those of you who need them.
And let's see.
And I think that's about it.
So tomorrow, we're
going to have, again,
the pairing of
Persian and Bengali,
which is a strong combination,
as we've seen today.
And yeah-- have a good night.
Thank you again.
We'll see you in the morning.
Oh--
[APPLAUSE]
