The chhapo that does not settle authorship
A private collection in Vadodara holds a paper manuscript, samvat 1838 (1782 CE), containing twelve devotional padas. Three carry the signature line (chhapo) 'Narasaiyo', the conventional signature of Narsinh Mehta (15th century). Pada 7, however, includes the line 'Akho kare ardas, Narasaiyo bolya' and refers to a patron in 'Jhalavad' who paid a levy at 'Sarkhej'. Pada 9 addresses 'Mogal' authorities and uses the verb form 'kahyũ' rather than the older 'kahyau'. Two padas show the signature 'Narsang', a variant otherwise unattested in your corpus. A dealer cites the colophon and the signature to price the manuscript as an authentic Narsinh Mehta codex. Your department has been asked for an attribution note. You have no other manuscript of these padas, but you do have a dated 17th-century anthology that contains Pada 7 without the Akho line and with a different opening line.
1. Which single piece of internal evidence most decisively undercuts the Narsinh Mehta attribution, and which is weakest? Rank at least four pieces of evidence and justify the ranking.
Read the worked answer
Ranking, strongest to weakest:
- The Akho allusion (decisive). Akho lived in the 17th century; a line naming him as a contemporary speaker sets a terminus post quem later than Narsinh. Internal allusion is decisive because it cannot be explained by scribal transmission - a copyist modernises spellings, but does not usually invent a named later poet.
- The 17th-century anthology lacking the Akho line. This shows the line is an accretion, not an original verse. It corroborates the anachronism externally.
- The 'Mogal' address. Mughal administrative presence in Gujarat postdates the 15th century, so this is anachronistic - but 'Mogal' can appear in earlier prophetic or generalising verse, so it is suggestive rather than conclusive.
- The verb form 'kahyũ'. A late Middle Gujarati feature; strong for dating the copy, weak for dating the composition, because scribes modernise morphology silently.
- The chhapo and the colophon (weakest). The chhapo is a conventional marker that any devotional poet or later reciter may adopt; it is a claim, not evidence. The colophon dates the paper, not the poem.
The methodological point: internal allusion beats linguistic form, and linguistic form beats paratext.
2. Draft an attribution note of three to four sentences that states what can and cannot be concluded, with appropriate scholarly hedging.
Read the worked answer
Model note: 'The manuscript is dated samvat 1838 (1782 CE) by colophon and is therefore an 18th-century copy. Pada 7 cannot be by Narsinh Mehta as it stands: the line naming Akho presupposes a 17th-century context, and the earlier anthology attests the pada without that line, so the line is best treated as a later interpolation. Pada 9 is probably also post-medieval on the combined evidence of the 'Mogal' reference and the late verb form, though neither feature is by itself conclusive. The remaining padas are consistent with the Narsinh tradition but cannot be attributed to the poet on the evidence of signature alone; the chhapo should be reported as a traditional marker, not as proof of authorship.'
Note what the draft avoids: it does not say the manuscript is 'fake' (it is a genuine 1782 object), does not treat 'Narsang' as a separate poet without evidence, and separates the date of the copy from the date of the text.