Introduction

The study of Sanskrit texts constituting and representing the high culture was the main focus of the discipline of Indology from its very beginnings. The shift toward regional cultures and compositions originating from local folk traditions was made much later1 and it was not until relatively recently that works popular only in oral transmission (orature) drew scholars’ attention2 . This change of scholarly focus to works created by regional culture with its oral tradition within local borders determines a new perception and understanding of what Indian high culture really is. A new question can thus be raised: to what extent does what we understand to be the high culture represent the form created by scholars-specialists of Indology who tried to reconstruct Indian culture by analysing 1 Among the first scholars to conduct a local study on a particular region of India were James Tod, the author of a monumental work on Rājasthān, published in 1829 and 1832. The work includes Rājasthānī legends and stories collected in various regions of Rājasthān, transmitted only orally; Temple who in 1884 published legends and romances popular in Pañjāb; and Elwin Verrier, who collected folk songs from the eastern part of the region where the Hindī language was spoken, i.e. Chattīsgaṛh (1946). See J. Tod, Annals and Antiquities of Rajas’than or the Central and Western Rajpoot States of India, vol. I and II, Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd., London 1997 (1st published 1829 and 1932); R.C. Temple, The Legends of the Panjāb, vol. I and II, Department of Languages, Punjab, Patiala 1963; E. Verrier, Folk-songs of Chattisgarh, Oxford University Press, Oxford 1946. 2 Among the first Indian pioneers, the authors of monographic works on folk literature of particular regions in Northern India India are Satyendra, Braj-lok-sāhitya kā adhyayan, Sāhitya Ratn Bhaṇḍār, Āgrā 1949; Satyavrat Sinhā, Bhojpurī lokgāthā, Hindustānī Ekeḍemī, Ilāhābād 1957; Śaṅkar Lāl Yādav, Hariyānā pradeś kā loksāhitya, Hindustānī Ekeḍemī, Ilāhābād 1960; Mohanlāl Bābulkar, Gaṛhvālī lok-sāhitya kā vivecanātmak adhyayan, Hindī Sāhitya Sammelan, Prayāg 1964; Satyā Gupt, Khaṛībolī kā lok-sāhitya, Hindustānī Ekeḍemī, Ilāhābād 1965; K{ṣṇadev Upādhyāy, Bhojpurī lok-gīt, Hindī Sāhitya Sammelan, Prayāg 1966; Bagavatīprasād Śukla, Baghelī bhāṣā aur sāhitya, Sāhitya Bhavan Prā. Limiṭeḍ, Ilāhābād 1971. It should also be noted that in 1942 folk songs of Rājasthān were published. See Sūryakaraṇ Pārīk, Rājasthānī lok-gīt, Prayāg 1942.

13 Introduction

Sanskrit texts alone, and to what extent is the so-called high culture a result of mutual, multicultural interference of regional or popular traditions along with the contribution of local languages? The narrative tradition of the Ḍholā–Mārū story, which begun in the folk culture of Rājasthān, i.e. in North-Western India, the region with very distinctive cultural features, is a good example of a different pattern of artistic inspiration: the influence of a regional (low) culture on high culture.

Map 1. The Ḍholā–Mārū story in India (grey colour). The story is also transmitted orally in Sindh and Pañjāb in Pākistān

The aim of this book is to present the narrative tradition of the Ḍholā–Mārū story which is popular in almost the entire region of North India and in the

14 Introduction eastern part of Pākistān in its border-land with India (see map 1), and on the example of the Ḍholā–Mārū story we shall demonstrate the typical process and characteristic features of the Indian pattern of constructing a narrative . An analysis of oral versions of the story popular in local cultures of different regions, such as: Sindh, Rājasthān, Gujarāt, Pañjāb, Uttar Pradeś, Bihār, Madhya Pradeś and Chattīsgaṛh, reveals a general paradigm of the way an Indian story is constructed. Such an analysis is helpful not only for a better understanding of the Indian narrative tradition in general, but also restores Indian orature (oral literature) to its rightful place in the discipline of indology . The Ḍholā–Mārū story is known and studied mainly in the form of a medieval Rājasthānī poem, but it represents a much richer and more wide-spread narrative tradition, a narrative tradition that has been developing for almost one thousand years. This book presents the result of the study of material gathered not only in Rājasthān, the homeland of the story, but from a wide region of North India and some parts of Central India . A thorough examination of the way the story travelled through India (it reached, for example, the Narmadā Valley in Central India, a place inhabited chiefly by tribes) helps to reveal the typical mechanism for constructing a story in Indian culture, such as a juxtaposition and permanent reshuffling of well-known, popular motifs, threads, episodes and even entire stories. The mixture of old and widely-known elements combined creates a very new quality. On the one hand, we can state that there is the separate narrative tradition of the Ḍholā–Mārū (the story which most probably from its very beginning developed on multiple levels in different genres of folk literature), but, on the other hand, we cannot distinguish this story as unique and drastically different from a rich variety of other Indian stories . This apparent paradox in fact expresses the essence of Indian narrative traditions. To understand it better we must also take under consideration a sense of originality (and reserved rights) different from those of the West (or Europe). Originality in Indian culture does not require a completely new original work to be presented, a work at that point entirely un-composed. It requires rather that a well-known, popular theme be presented in a new way . This is due to a fact of high context of Indian culture which constantly makes reference to pan-Indian symbols, popular motifs and widely- known elements without the need to explain or put them in their original context at every mention . The narrative of Ḍholā and Mārū is a love-story. It has no deeper religious meaning and its main characters are not deified. It is, therefore, easier to interpolate and modify such story which is thus able to obtain superregional status3 . In one

3 S.H. Blackburn, Patterns of Development for Indian Oral Epics, in S.H. Blackburn, Peter J. Claus, Joyce B. Flueckiger, Susan S. Wadley (eds.), Oral Epics in India, University of California Press, Berkeley, Los Angeles, London 1989, p. 31.

15 Introduction version of the Ḍholā–Mārū story popular in the Thar Desert in Rājasthān we find many elements taken from the local culture, and the heroine Mārū is depicted as the most excellent representative of the region . When the story crosses the border of its homeland, however, the local elements disappear from the story. From an analysis of its variants, which are popular outside Rājasthān, it becomes clear that the story gained popularity due to combining it with a more-widely known story from the Mahābhārata, the Nal–Damayantī story . The Ḍholā–Mārū story has been compared with a pan-Indian love-story. This means that a new quality is created, but that it consists of elements well-known from different sources . The court literature of Rājasthān, which includes poems composed about the love of Ḍholā and Mārū, represents the literary tradition of the Ḍholā–Mārū narrative. This tradition is confined to Rājasthān. The oral tradition of the Ḍholā– Mārū story which spread far beyond Rājasthān is, however, much richer. This oral tradition is scarcely studied . It is worthy of note that the text of the Ḍholā–Mārū literary tradition is available only as the poem Ḍholā Mārū rā dūhā (DMrD), which exists in the form of a compilation published in the first half of the 20th century by its first editors. Taking this into account, we may accept, as other scholars also do, the DMrD as a source text . The acceptance of the DMrD as the main source is justifiable because this field of study is much wider than analysis of the text in a classical Indological way . In the field of oral anthropology the existence of a written text does not mean that it is the original version . We accept every version of the story as equally important. We do not know, however, whether such an original version of the Ḍholā–Mārū story ever existed . The poem DMrD is thus just another example of the method used to construct a story according to Indian tradition . Culture can be understood as a constant process in a permanent state of change. It is thus difficult to grasp. It cannot be discerned when something begins and when something ends in the culture because people, the medium of the culture, are constantly changing it . In the same way the average person contains a multitude of narrations . These narrations are usually equiponderant transformations of previous versions. Bearing this in mind, for the purpose of this book, texts recorded on tape, CDs, a popular film about Ḍholā and Mārū, songs recorded commercially and a comic version of the story shall also be accepted as source texts as well as literary elaborations. Whilst analysing of various versions, we tried when possible to indicate pan-Indian motifs incorporated in the story, although this is not an easy task. Whilst we can find some works on early Indian fairy tales and stories from such collections as Pañcatantra, Hitopadeśa or Kathāsaritsāgara, there is still a lot to do in the field of pan-Indian folk tales. This is further complicated by the permanent intermingling of different levels of the culture in the Indian

16 Introduction narrative tradition. It makes it difficult to point out and describe accurately the original context from which a particular story or a fairy tale comes . Many motifs detected in the Ḍholā–Mārū and identified as motifs common to other Indian folk stories are thus absent in studies on motifs of folk literature carried out by, for example, Antti Aarne and Stith Thompson4. Such scholars as Stuart Blackburn and Alan Dundes also note this. They write that “(…) the current tale type and motif indexes are inadequate”5 .

A Review of the Studies on the Ḍholā–Mārū

The Ḍholā–Mārū story has been analysed chiefly in the form of the medieval poem known under the title Ḍholā Mārū rā dūhā6 (The Couplets about Ḍholā and Mārū), which is described as the jewel of Rājasthānī literature. In most instances works on the Ḍholā–Mārū concern the poem DMrD and are based solely on this composition. The poem was published for the first time in 19347 . It is, in fact, a compilation of 674 dohās prepared on the basis of seventeen manuscripts, each containing an incomplete poem about Ḍholā and Mārū, the work of three Rājasthānī scholars: Rāmsiṁh, Narottamdās Svāmī and Sūryakaraṇ Pārīk. Although their book is not a critical edition, all available publications of

4 Stith Thompson, Motif-Index of Folk Literature, vol. 6, Indiana University Press, Bloomington 1955–1958; Antti Aarne, S. Thompson, The Types of the Folktale, Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, Helsinki 1961; see also Hans-Jörg Uther, The Types of International Folktales. A Classification and Bibliography Based on the System of Antti Aarne and Stith Thompson, vol. 3, Academia Scientiarum Fennica, Helsinki 2004. It is worth of quoting Vladimir Propp here “Although Aarne did not intend to create a strictly scientific classification: his index is a useful guidebook but even as such it is of the utmost importance. (...) It, however, suggests a wrong idea. An accurate division into types is often a fiction”; V. Propp, Morfologia bajki, Książka i Wiedza, Warszawa 1976, p. 45 (This quotation comes from the publication of the book by Propp in Polish. Since the English edition of this work is unavailable, the above-cited was translated from Polish into English by A. Szyszko). 5 A.K. Ramanujan, A Flowering Tree, S. Blackburn, A. Dundes (ed.), University of California Press, Berkeley, Los Angeles 1997, p. xi. 6 Dohā (H. dohā, Rāj. dūho) – a rhymed couplet most popular in medieval Hindī poetry. Along with songs (gīt) dohā is also the most popular metre used in Rājasthānī literature. It consists of four quarters (pada). There are 24 mātrās per line with a caesura after the thirteenth mātrā . The rhymes are usually as follows: ab cb; Danuta Stasik, The Infinite Story. The Past and Present of the Rāmāyaṇas in Hindi, Manohar, New Delhi 2009, p. 69; Manohar Prabhakar, A Critical Study of Rajasthani Literature, Panchsheel Prakashan, Jaipur 1976, p. 101. Dūhā is a plural from the word dūho in Rājasthānī. Due to the fact of a great popularity of dohās in literature this term can be translated more generally as ‘couplets’. 7 Rāmsiṁh, Narottamdās Svāmī, Sūryakaraṇ Pārīk, Ḍholā Mārū rā dūhā. Rājasthānī kā ek suprasiddh prācīn lokgīt, Nāgarīpracāriṇī Sabhā, Kāśī 1934.

17 Introduction the DMrD are based on this first edition8, in which the translation of medieval dohās is also given in modern standard Hindī. The poem DMrD is so far considered to be the first Rājasthānī work not composed in Ḍiṅgaḷ9, i.e. in the main literary language of Rājasthān which developed mostly in the courts of Rājpūt, making it the language of high culture in Rājasthān. Due to this the poem is the object of academic interest as an example of a work composed in the vernacular of medieval Rājasthān. A deeper linguistic analysis would contribute toward a better understanding of the process of the development of the New Indo-Aryan languages of North India, particularly of Hindī. In 1965 Śambhusiṁh Manohar10 published a new edition of the DMrD with new translation of dohās. In some instances he interpreted the meaning of certain verses in a different way from the first edition of the poem. The book also contains comparative material including quotations from other medieval Rājasthānī compositions. Only 306 couplets of the poem, however, have been analysed. Although Manohar intended to examine the rest of the text, the work has never been finished11 . In the same year K{ṣṇabihārī Sahal published the M.A. thesis (written in 1963) on the poem DMrD12. The book is a literary study of the poem which is analysed as a composition that depicts love in separation (virah-kāvya). It thus presents the various means of artistic expressions employed to describe the pain of suffering because of separation, love and the reunion of lovers. Sahal also follows the trend, initiated by the first editors of the DMrD, to examine the poem with regard to the elements of Rājasthānī culture present and its connection with folk culture of the region. The next monographs, Mahāvīr Prasād Śarmā’s from 196713 and the doctoral dissertation of Bhagavatī Lāl Śarmā from 197014, are also mainly focused on the theme of love in separation and on the fact that the poem has its background in the folklore of Rājasthān. Mahāvīrsiṁh Gahlot wrote

8 For example, such publications as Charlotte Vaudeville, Les Duhā de Ḍhola-Mārū. Une Ancienne Ballade du Rājasthān avec introduction, traducion et notes, Institut Français D’Indologie, Pondichéry 1962(a); R.A. Williams, The Ḍholā-Mārū rā Dūhā and the Rise of the Hindi Literary Tradition, University of Chicago, Chicago 1976 (unpublished doctoral dissertation); for more bibliography see footnotes below (10–23). 9 For more information on Ḍiṅgaḷ see chapter 1.2.2, footnote 54, p. 53. 10 Ś. Manohar, Ḍholā Mārū rā dūhā . Ālocnā evaṁ viśay vyākhyā sahit, Dī Sṭūḍeṇṭs Buk Kampanī, Jaypur, Jodhpur, Gvāliyar 1965. 11 Personal communication with Ś. Manohar (Jaypur, 18.11.2005). 12 K. Sahal, Ḍholā Mārū rā dūhā. Ek vivecan, Ātmārām eṇḍ Sans, Jaypur 1965. 13 M.P. Śarmā, Ḍholā Mārū rā dūhā: ek vivecan. Vivecan evaṁ vyākhyā, Garg Buk Kampanī, Jaypur, Ajmer 1967. 14 B.L. Śarmā, Ḍholā-Mārū rā dūhā mẽ kāvya-sauṣṭhav, saṁsk{ti evaṁ itihās, Arcanā Prakāśan, Ajmer 1970.

18 Introduction a book on the DMrD published in 198615, in which he states that the text of the poem still requires a great many comments, and drew up a compendium of the Ḍholā–Mārū for students of Rājasthānī literature. He also stresses the difficulty of the problematic language of the poem, stating even sadly that there are no more volunteers for further study of the text16 . Gahlot also shows inconsistencies that appeared in the text as a result of the first editors’ compilation. It is worth noting that in 1972 at the University of Jodhpur Gahlot’s student, Śyāmā Devī Gauṛ17, wrote a master’s thesis under his direction (unpublished), on the textual difficulties of the poem DMrD. In 1986 another monograph was published by Gordhansiṁh Śekhāvat18 . It presents an analysis of the poem in terms of love- -poetry and as a composition that originated in folk culture. In 1988 Śāntā Bhānāvat wrote a comprehensive linguistic study of the DMrD with a grammatical analysis of the poem’s language19. In Manohar Śarmā’s 1998 publication20, apart from a brief introduction, only the text of the poem is given with its translation into Hindī, but without analysis. The poem DMrD enjoyed its greatest popularity and interest from Rājasthānī scholars in the 1960s and 1970s . It was at this time that most of the articles on the DMrD were published in literary journals in Rājasthān, mainly in “Maru– Bhāratī”21 and “Vardā”22 . Some mentions of the poem occasionally also appeared

15 M. Gahlot, Ḍholā Mārū rā dūhā . Arth, śabdakoś va pīṭhikā sahit, Rājasthānī Granthāgār, Jodhpur 1986 . 16 Ibid., p. 9. 17 Ś.D. Gauṛ, Ḍholā Mārū rā dūhā kī pāṭh samasyā; in ibid. 18 G. Śekhāvat, Ḍholā-Mārū rā dūhā (vyākhyā aur vivecan), Dī Sṭūḍenṭs Buk Kampanī, Jaypur 1986 . 19 Ś. Bhānāvat, Ḍholā Mārū rā dūhā kā arth: vaijñānik adhyayan, Anupam Prakāśan, Jaypur 1988 . 20 M. Śarmā, Ḍholā-Mārū rā dūhā, Ujās Granthmāḷā, Bīkāner 1998. 21 Cf. K. Sahal, Ḍholā Mārū rā dūhā kī kathānak rūṛhiya, “Maru-Bhāratī” (April 1964), part 1, pp. 104–105; B.L. Śarmā, Ḍholā–Mārū rā dūhā mẽ rūṛhiya, “Maru-Bhāratī” (April 1967), part 1, pp. 124–135; Kanhaiyālāl Sahal, Ḍholā Mārū rā dūhā kī bhāṣā, “Maru-Bhāratī” (July 1967), part 2, p. 76; Ś. Manohar, Ḍholā Mārū rā dūhā ke kuch śabdārthõ par punarvicār, “Maru-Bhāratī” (January 1968), pp. 7–10; Śabd-carcā, “Maru-Bhāratī” (July 1968), pp. 71–72; Ḍholā Mārū kā racayitā ‘kallol’ ek nirmūl kalpnā, “Maru-Bhāratī” (January 1969), pp. 33–38; Rājasthānī ke kuch viśiṣṭārthak śabd-vyuttpati evaṁ arth-vicār, “Maru-Bhāratī” (July 1969), part 1, pp. 33–40; Śabd-carcā, “Maru-Bhāratī” (January 1970), part 4, p. 93; Śabd-carcā, “Maru-Bhāratī” (April 1973), part 1, p. 105; Kālīcaraṇ Bahal, Bhārtīy premākhyān paramparā aur Ḍholā-Mārū rā dūhā, “Maru-Bhāratī” (July 1974), part 2, pp. 6–19. 22 Cf. M. Śarmā, Panā Mārū mukh sū bol, “Vardā” (October–December 1954), part 4, pp. 31–34; KÙja aur Marvaṇ, “Vardā” (January 1959), part 3, pp. 2–12; Gordhan Śarmā, Ḍholā-Mārū rā dūhā mẽ loktattv, “Vardā” (January 1961), part 1, pp. 43–47; Harivallabh Cunīlāl Bhāyāṇī, Ḍholā Mārū rā dūhā ke katipay sthalõ kī arthacarcā tathā śabd-carcā, “Vardā” (July 1962), part 3, pp. 54–59; op. cit., (October 1962), part 4, pp. 42–47; op. cit., (July 1963), part 3, pp . 71–73 .

19 Introduction in the Rājasthānī magazine “Paramparā”23. Similarly to the published monographs the articles mainly show two predominant perspectives, a presentation of the DMrD as a work representative of poetry describing love in separation, and an examination of the folk motifs of the poem. Charlotte Vaudeville was one of the first foreign scholars to initiate study of the Ḍholā–Mārū outside India. Her book, published in French in 196224, contains the first translation of the poem into a European language . Vaudeville seems to be the only academic who has treated the subject more broadly, trying to embed the poem DMrD in the context of the society of North India in the Middle Ages, not just in the culture of Rājasthān. Her theories and assumptions are unique and, although criticized by Indian researchers, she adds important new elements to the discussion of the poem DMrD and its origins25 . Richard Allan Williams in his doctoral dissertation (unpublished), submitted at the University of Chicago in 197626, presented a structural analysis of the text of the DMrD. He demonstrates that the poem is a work typical of the poetry of the New Indo-Aryan period and asserts that a closer examination of the DMrD may throw more light on the beginning and rise of Hindī literary tradition. The monograph also comprises the poem’s translation into English. Despite the fact that basic information on the poem DMrD and a brief mention of it can be found almost in every work on the history of Hindī literature27 and in separate monographs on the literature of Rājasthān28, the study of the Ḍholā–Mārū ceased regrettably today. It is also worth mentioning that the first information on the DMrD in Polish language appeared in 1992 in an outline of the history of

23 Cf. Nārāyaṇsiṁh Bhāṭī, Ḍholā Mārū rā dūhā kā prakāśan; Ḍholā Mārū rā dūhā kī bhāṣā tathā racnākāl, “Paramparā”, no. 66–67, 1930, pp. 28–29; Marvaṇ, “Paramparā”, part 53–54, 1980, pp. 56–59. 24 Ch. Vaudeville, 1962(a), op. cit.; see also Leaves from the Desert: The Dhola-Maru-ra-Duha – An Ancient Ballad of Rajasthan, in Ch. Vaudeville, Myths, Saints and Legends in Medieval India, Oxford University Press, Delhi, Bombay, Madras, Calcutta 1996, pp. 273–334. 25 Cf. Ch. Vaudeville, Ḍholā-Mārū – An Interpretation, “Journal of the Oriental Institute”, 11 June 1962(b), pp. 316–321. 26 R.A. Williams, op. cit. See above, footnote 8. 27 Cf. Rājbalī Pāṇḍey, Hindī sāhitya kā b{hat itihās, Nāgarīpracāriṇī Sabhā, Kāśī 1957, vol. I, p. 278 and vol. V, p. 515; Rāmcandra Śukla, Hindī sāhitya kā itihās, Nāgarīpracāriṇī Sabhā, Kāśī 1961, p. 222; Hazārīprasād Dvivedī, Hindī sāhitya kā ādikāl, Bihār-rāṣṭrabhāṣā-pariṣad, Paṭnā 1980, p. 101; R.S. McGregor, Hindi Literature From Its Beginnings to the Nineteenth Century, Otto Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden 1984, pp. 13–14; Dhīrendra Varmā (ed.), Hindī sāhitya koś, vol. 1, Jñānmaṇḍal Limiṭeḍ, Vārāṇasī 1985, p. 32; Nagendra, Hindī sāhitya kā itihās, Mayūr Peparbaiks, Dillī 2000, p. 76. 28 Hiralal Maheshwari, History of Rajasthani Literature, Sahitya Akademi, New Delhi 1980, p. 154, 157, 159, 162, 165, 166, 168; Puruṣottamlāl Menāriyā, Rājasthānī sāhityakā itihās, Yūnik Ṭreḍars, Jaypur 1996, p. 20, 31–33.

20 Introduction

Hindī literature written by Tatiana Rutkowska and Danuta Stasik29. It should be noted, however, that no publication concerning the Ḍholā–Mārū comprises an inter- textual analysis or a comparative study of texts from different levels of culture . One more monograph is noteworthy: the book by Susan Wadley, who in 2004 published the results of her almost thirty years of fieldwork, the research of the epic cycle Ḍholā30 functioning only in oral transmission in the Braj region, which is a part of present state of Uttar Pradeś on the border with Rājasthān. Although the Ḍholā–Mārū story forms a part of the cycle, which is very complex and elaborate, it is not Wadley’s central object of interest. She limits her research to the narrative tradition of the epic cycle Ḍholā that spread to the region of Braj, so no connection with Rājasthānī poem DMrD is discussed . Based on the Ḍholā cycle she analyses among the other things the technique of performance and its pattern in contemporary popular/mass culture31 .

* * *

The present book comprises three major divisions. The first part presents the literary (written) tradition of the Ḍholā–Mārū story, which is limited to the region of Rājasthān. Reflections on a probable genesis of the story were formulated in the chapters of this part, along with the history of the DMrD and an attempt to embed the poem among literary genres according to Indian classification. A formulaic analysis of the poem DMrD and of contemporary oral versions of the Ḍholā–Mārū story current in Rājasthān is presented in the second division. The choice of the formulaic method was made due to the fact that there was no profound, systematic study of the concept of Albert B. Lord’s formulae applied to Indian material32. It is a useful (and additional) tool for a better understanding of

29 T. Rutkowska, D. Stasik, Zarys historii literatury hindi, Wydawnictwo UW, Warszawa 1992, p . 32 . 30 S.S. Wadley, Raja Nal and the Goddess. The North Indian Epic Dhola in Performance, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, Indianapolis 2004. 31 S.S. Wadley, Choosing a Path: Performance Strategies in a North Indian Epics; and Ḍholā, in Blackburn et. al., op. cit., pp. 75–101 and 219–223; Popular Culture and the North Indian Oral Epic Dhola, “Indian Folklore Research Journal”, vol. I, no. 1, December 2001, pp. 13–25; Raja Nal and the Rajputs: Seeking Status in the Oral Epic Dhola, in Varsha Joshi (ed.), Culture, Communities and Change, Rawat Publications, Jaipur, New Delhi 2002, pp. 104–133. 32 For the formulaic analysis on Indian material see Yaroslav V. Vasil’kov, Mahabharata i ustnaja epiczeskaja poezija, Narody Azji i Afriki 4, Moskva 1971, pp. 95–106; Pavel A. Grintser, Drevneindijski epos, genezis i tipologija, Nauka, Moskva 1974; Lauri Honko, Textualising the Siri Epic, “Folklore Fellows’ Communication”, no. 264, Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, Helsinki 1998, pp. 1–695; John Brockington, Formulæ in the Rāmāyaṇa – an Index of Orality? and Issues Involved in the Shift from Oral to Written Transmission of the Epics:

21 Introduction the process of creating a narrative in the Indian culture and the nature of bardic diction in India in general . We also had an opportunity to revise the universality of Lord’s definition. Finally, the formulaic analysis also provided a pretext for presenting the richness and variety of the language in which the Ḍholā–Mārū narrative tradition is transmitted . The third part of the book presents the review of the Ḍholā–Mārū oral variants spread outside Rājasthān. A summary of each story is given in the appendix at the end of the book. Although most of these stories are available nowadays in written form, we should bear in mind that they were composed as an oral performance. The existence of a written literary work, such as the poem DMrD, is attested only in the literature of Rājasthān. Stories discussed in the third section represent material collected outside the region of the Hindī language33 . Instead of a linguistic or formulaic analysis, various research methods are therefore applied. For example, we make use of the structural analysis when examining a particular variant of the story . Deconstructing the narrative and thus isolating its specific elements is useful in an attempt to reveal the mechanisms of the development of the story . It also helps to determine the reason for introducing new characters to the story, and is helpful in demonstrating the journey of the story over the course of time through various regions of North India . An attempt to detect the smallest, fundamental units of the text is also made (invariants that report a certain fact/event, according to the Claude Lévi-Strauss’ terminology) in order to distinguish it from functionally redundant elements in the story . A full arrangement of invariants into groups that have a similar meaning forms the core of the story (the mytheme) which remains unchanged and irreducible in every version because it is the fundamental structure34. In this book we shall seek to establish which elements of the Ḍholā–Mārū story show a tendency to its further development, and which always remain unchanged. According to Lévi-Strauss, every story should be analysed in its entirety, including the whole set of versions. Because

a Workshop Report, in Mary Brockington, Peter Schreiner (ed.), Composing a Tradition: Concepts, Techniques and Relationships. Proceedings of the First Dubrovnik International Conference on the Sanskrit Epics and Purāṇas, Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd., Zagreb 1999, pp. 121–129 and 131–139; John D. Smith, Winged Words Revisited: Diction and Meaning in Indian Epic, “Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies”, 1999, pp. 267–305. 33 The following states of North India constitute the region of the Hindī language (Hindī bhāṣī kṣetr), i.e. where Hindī is spoken as the first language (in the same states Hindī is established as the official language): Himācal Pradeś, Uttarākhaṇḍ, Hariyāṇā, Rājasthān, Uttar Pradeś, Madhya Pradeś, Chattīsgaṛh, Bihār, Jharkhaṇḍ and in the national capital territory of Delhi . 34 For more information see Claude Lévy-Strauss, The Structural Study of Myth, “Journal of American Folklore”, vol. 68, no. 270, 1955, pp. 428–444.

22 Introduction we deal with orature there is no the only one authentic version of the story . Its other variants are not merely copies of the original, or transformed stories, but rather they are all manifestations of the same language . All versions are equally important35. Our research, however, is not based on the structural analysis sensu stricto in a form proposed by. In the case of the Ḍholā–Mārū narrative tradition the story is much more complex than a simple myth which could be analysed as suggested by Lévi-Strauss. Quite long parts of the text, plot-motifs and other independent stories which are additional to the narrative are thus selected . It was also useful in our attempt to determine the fundamental elements of the story . A table with common motifs for versions from a particular region is given at the end of each chapter .

35 Ibid. See also C. Lévy-Strauss, Structural Anthropology, Basic Books, New York 1963.

23