Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 7 views

    01 theSmileOfMurugan

    Uploaded by

    arunnad_ar1994
    Wonderful research group

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    01 theSmileOfMurugan

    Uploaded by

    arunnad_ar1994
    7 views392 pages
    Wonderful research group

    Original Title

    01.theSmileOfMurugan

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Wonderful research group

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    7 views392 pages

    01 theSmileOfMurugan

    Uploaded by

    arunnad_ar1994
    Wonderful research group

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 392
    n riding @ pe Fiom the collections of the RuyAsmuuseun it Leulen, Holland Obj no 140. THE SMILE OF MURUGAN ON TAMIL LITERATURE OF SOUTH INDIA BY KAMIL ZVELEBIL With 3 plates and a folding map LEIDEN E J. BRILL 1973 This book was printed with financial support of the Netherlands Cuganraation for the Advancement of Pure Research (Z WO) TSBN 90 04 03591 5 Copyright 1973 by E J Brill, Lerden, Netherlands All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or translated in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, microfiche or any other rteans without written permscsion from the publisher PRINTED IN THP NETHTRLANDS M CAMARPPS DEDICATION ‘The great drums beat As Asia watiiors marched Then burning rage cut asunder Corpses scattered Scorched with a spatk From your radiant smile O leader of men With leaf-edged spear Lover of Valli the gypsy O lord who resides on Tiruttant hills! (Arunakirt, Taruppukal 5 71) Transl S Kokilam Somehow o1 other, Murugan, the youthful god of victorious war, ts ubiqmitous m Tanul wuting and culture, he is present im the al poems of Tamul as well as in the splendid “Lay of ed and sea-blue and golden songs of eathest classi the Anklet”, in the ruby Atunakit as well as im the very recent prayers to Murugan by A K Ramanujan His wars are, of course, not only victorious, but just. He destroys evil, decay, death Has smile 1s the light of life and eternal youth “His face shoots forth myriad rays of light, removing darkness from the world” (Tirumurukarruppatar 91-92) CONTENTS. Acknowledgments N Preface a NI List of Abbreviations xa Note on Transhteration and Pronunciation xv I Introductory I IL Distinctive Features of Tamil Literature 9 IL] Problems of Dating, Relative and Absolute Chrono- logy 2 re Cankam Legend The Texts 13 Analysing Classical Poetry 05 The Theory of “Interior Landscape” 85 Themes, Motives, Formulae Late Classical Poetiy Tolkdppryam The Book of Lofty Wisdom The Lay of the Anklet Saiva Bhakti—Two Approaches The Imperial Poet The Citar An Enigma Arunakim, the Great Magician he Prose of the Commentators 2y7 XVII Ongms of Modern Tamil Prose The Historical and the Theorctical Problem 204 XVIII Tamil Renaissance 2) XIX The Prose of Today 288 XX The “New Poetry” 33 Conclusion . jae select Annotated Bibhography 330 Index 347 \CKNOWLEDGMENTS Lf “even a hiltle hook has large debts”, what should I say about a large book? Iam indeed very grateful to the many colleagues, students and fiends at the Universities of Clucago, Rochester, Letden and London, who discussed with me many pomts of the book, who suggested changes m the English of the text, m short, who made this book possible—to J A B van Burtenen, Milton Singer, Don Nelson, FB J Kuper and particularly to J R Marr In a very special way Tam indebted to AK Ramanujan, whose views amd whose penetrating understanding and mterpietation of Tamul culture were most nspimg to me T also thank him for his ston to use his translations Lam giateful to Mrs Kokilam Subbiah tor the English translation of some Tamul poems, and for her thought-provoking comments on the form and content of the text Finally, I acknowledge with profound thanks and deep respect the debt I owe to my Tamul gmiu, Mahavidvan M V_ Venugopala Pillar Leiden, Spring 1971 KZ PREFACE The Dravidians, and mm particular the Tamuls, have contributed a great deal to the cultural richesse of the would Pallava and Chole temple architecture, Chola bronze sculpture, the dance-form known as Bharatanatyam, the so-called Carnatic system of music But probably the most significant contribution 1s that of Tamil literature, which still remains to be “discovered” and enjoyed by the non- Tamihans and adopted as an essential and remarkable part of universal heritage If it 1s true that hberal education should “hbera- te” by demonstrating the cultural values and norms foreign to us, by revealing the relativity of our own values, then the “discovery” and enjoyment of Tamil literature, and even its teaching (as a critical part of the teaching of Indian hteratures) should find sts place m the systems of Western training and mstruction in the humanities However, frankly speaking, I do not think that anybody 1 capable, at the present state of affairs, of brmging out a sufficiently formahzed, detailed and exhaustive synthesis of Tamil hterature comparable to such magmficent works as, say, Jan Rypka’s Persian Literature or Maurice Winternitz’s History of Indian Literature Much, much more detailed, analytic work must be performed and many monographs on various aspects, trends, hterary works, writers and even entire periods have yet to be written and published before a synthetic and detailed treatment of Tamil literature can be attempted Where are still quite enormous blank spaces on the map of our knowledge of the subject , fundamental knowledge 1s lacking, eg, with regard to the extremely interesting and even thrilling poetry of the ciflar, who can say that he has mastered im a critical way the vast sphere of the Tamil purdnas, or the much neglected Mushm contribution to Tamil writing? Not only that we must, at the same time, learn to enter sympathetically and with professional precision another culture, remote 1 space and time, we must learn to understand the function of literature in India, to appreciate and enjoy it m terms of cultural norms and hterary taste which 1s not only different from our approach but often m direct contrast to 1t- And, last but not least, we must try to formulate the results of our sn PRELACE Vailysis in a manner which will bo macesmgly more formalized ave exphat and less mtutive aad mfomal since, then, as 1 believe, no accurate and systematic synthesis of the Subject 15 as yet possible, 11s obviously mevitable {hat a chore i made, a selection of topics and themes, which will necessarily be piased owing to one’s own abilties and inabtlities and one’s own personal preferences and dishkes But apart from subjective motivations, there musi be, and T believe theie are, objective crteria of evaluation indicating which interary works are characteristic, typical, truly representative of 1 national writing My selection of works, authors and topics Was lurdamentally based on such cuterta, T made a choice (at must be hankly admitted that this selection was made under the shadow of despan caused by a true embarras dit chowx) which ys reflected m the iwenty chapters where J have dealt with what I consider to be the most charactensttc, pivotal and topical works and trends of Tamil litevatue 1 can hear the mdignant, offended and even enraged cnitics. why the Sarvite and not the Vaishnavite poets? No discus- sion of the bnilhant Civakacintamani? Why has nothing been sad about ourgieatest modern poct Bharati? Ete etc I do not apologize T t1y to eaplam mm the pertment chapters One of the reasons for this selective approach ss that I believe in strict professionalism $I do not like to pretend and to speak about matters which I do know only as an enthusiastic dilettante, and, unfortunately, dilettantism, however much rt mght have been motivated by passionate enthust- asm, 1s one of the maladies which have affected studies n Tamil hterature to a dangerous extent The annotated bibhography, appended to this volume, though far from complete and very selective, may to some extent fill the gaps The present volume 1s therefore emphatically not even an approxi- mation to a complete historical treatment of Tamil hterature It 1s a fragmentary collection of essays on Tamul hterature, mtended to arouse interest and to provoke discussion Aink alk Abult anonym, BSOdS Cunpan col comm PLIA DED DEDS tn USL WIL ATLL TA red ad Ka, Kalit Kur KZ LTa lw Ma Matai patih Manav Maturarh Meyp Alidlaup Nacemak Nalyas Nay Netunal Ota Pat Paty Perumpin Pht Porsenar Portl LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS Ainkneiniiz Laney iigir Thaliinaryival anonymous Bulletm of the School of Onental and Atuean Studies, London Crupandreuppatar Collatharamn ot Toth commentary Dravidian Boriowngs from Indo-Aryan (1962) by T Burrow and MB Emenean, Drandian Ltymotogical Dictionary (syot) by Buriow and MB Emeneau Diasudian Ltymologieal Dichonary —Supplement (1068) «dition, edited Lpipajia Indica Leduttatikivam ot Talk foot-note - Mostory of South India (1935) by KA Nilakanta Sasi. as History of Taint Literate (1905) bs ‘TP Meenakshisnn- daran Mistory of Tamil Language and Liiciatuse (1956) by 5 \.oyapar Pillar Thaiyands Akapporat bide ne xem Kannada, Kenarese Kaldtohie Karguntokar Ivana Zvclebil Titenary Laon Joan-wend Malay alam Matai patuhatitm. Manacadharmasasira Muahuahhaticr Meyppattryal Madlaippatty Nacunarkkimyar Natyasasira Navyonae Netimalvdtar Old Tan Patrham Patiriuppattr Der umpandiinppatar Prakit Porwnaradipuppatar Pow itlatihdiam of Tok xIVv prob Pur PVM Ram s kt ss st Ta Tatakarp Tivuk TL To Tolk Tolk Cot Tolk Elutt Tolk Porul trans, Uvam vl LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS probably Puram, Purandwivu Puapporulven pamalar Ramayana sittra Sanskrit sithas stanza Tamil Tatakarppatalam Dirukkural Tamal Lexicon, Unversity of Madias, 1036 Toda Tolkappryam Tolkappryam, Collatikaram Tolkappiyam, Eluttatikaram Tolkappiyam, Porulatkavam translator, translated by, translation Uvamaryryal alternative reading NOTE ON TRANSLITERATION AND PRONUNCIATION The transcription used for Tamil words m this book 1s a strict transhteration, a system adopted by the Madras University Tamul Lexicon The only exception are names of modern and contemporary Tamil writers where I follow mostly ther own anghewed spelling The followmg Roman let ers are used for the Tamil characters Vowels Shout Long a a 1 i u a c é ° 6 aa Consonants Lips Teeth Ridge behind Hard — Soft upper teeth palate palate Stops Pp t t c k Nasals m n u n ai n Liquids 1 1 1 1 1 Semivowels v y The Tamil long vowels are simply long vowels, unhke their Enghsh diphthongized counteiparts Final -a1 1s pronounced approximately like -ey Tamil has two series of consonants unfamiliar to English speakers the dentals t, n and the retroflexes t, n, 1, ] The dentals are pronoun- ced with the tongue at the tecth, the retroflexes are produced by curling the tongue back towards the roof of the mouth (cf American pronunciation of girl, sir) In the middle of Tamil words, long consonants occur In trans- Iteration, they are mdicated by double letters (cf Nakkirar, pattu\ English has long consonants between words, cf Mac Kinley, four roads, hot tea MI NOTE ON TRANSLITERATION AND PRONUNCIATION ‘The Tamil ris flapped or trilled as in some European languages luke Spanish, Ttalan o1 Cazcch The 115 somewhat like the American vanety of r, rand r are not distinguished by most modern Tamil speakers, but long rr 1s pronounced like tr m Enghsh rap or tt in hot fea, nr 1s pronounced ndr as im laundry p, t,t, ¢, kare pronounced differently according to their positions initially, p, t, and k are pronounced as voiceless stops, t does not occur, and c 1s imtially pronounced as s or sh Between vowels, p, t, t ate voiced into b, d, and d and pronounced as lax voiced stops, k and care pronounced as gh or h and 5 or sh After nasals, all stops are voiced into b, 4, d,1,g Instances akam 1s pronounced usually aham, cankam 1s pronoun- ced sangami, kapiay 1s pronounced kabilar, kurrntokat as kurundo- hey, narra? as natriney or nattmey, folképpryam as tolhaapivam CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTORY Let me right at the beginning posit a problem. are we at all entitled to speak about Dravidian hteratures (or even about South Indian Iiteratures) as an entity separate from other hteratures of India? In other words 1s there a complex set of features which aie characteristic for the hteratures written in Dravidian languages and shared only by them and not by other Indian literatures ? The criteria, setting apart “Dravidian” literatures from the other literatures of India, are either hnguistic or geopolitical “Dravidian bteratures” means nothimg more and nothing less than just hiterftures written i the formal style of the Dravidian languages, “South Indian hteratures’” means, by defimtton, hteratures which originated and flourished in South India (including Sanskrit hterary works, produced in the South) The answer to this question whether there aie some specific unique features shared exclusively and contrastively by the hte1a- tures written in Dravidian languages is negative There are no such features—apart from the mcidental (for our purposes and from ow point of view) fact that they are writterl in Dravidian languages Tt 3s impossible to point out specific literary features of works com- posed, eg, m classical Telugu, and designate them as Dravidian [t 4s equally impossible to select any particular feature which we coule. term Dravidian as such and would apply to all Dravidian literatures alike and only to them Conclusion there are no “Dravidian” literatures per se It as, however, an entirely different matter if we consider carefully just one of the great hteratures of the South the Tamul hterature There, and only there, we are able to point out a whole complex sec of features—so to say a bundle of chagnostic isoglosses—separating this Dravidian hterature not only from other Indian hteratures but from other Dravidian literatures as well It 1s of course only the earhest period of the Tamil hterature which shows these unique features But the early Tamil poetry was rather umque not only by virtue of the fact that some of its features were so unlike everything else in India, but by virtue of its hterary excellence, those 26,350 > INTRODUC LORY nes of poetry promote Tamil to the rank of one of the great classtcal languages of the world—though the world at large only yust about begins to realise 1t All other Dravidian lteratwes—with the exception of Tamil— beg by adoptmg a model—mn subject-matter, themes, forms, m prosody, poetics, metaphors etc —only the language 3s different , n spite of the attempts of some Indian scholars to prove that there were—that there must have been—imdigenous, “Dravidian”, pre-Aiyan tradhtions, literary traditions, im the great languages of the South, 1t 1s eatremely hard to find traces of these traditions, and. such attempts are more speculative than strictly scientific It 1s of course quite natural that in all these great languages oral hteratu- re preceded written hterature, and there 1» an ammense wealth of folk literature m all Dravidian hterary as well as non-hterary languages But m Telugu, Kannada, and Malayalam, the begmnings of wnitten literatures are beyond any dispute s0 mtimately connected with the Sansknt models that the fnst hterary output m these languages 1s, stnictly speaking, wate and derived, the inst literary works in these languages bemg no doubt adaptations and/or straight translations of Sanskrit models The process of Sanskritiza- tion, with allats impheations, must have begun im these communities before any attempt was made among the Telugu, Kannada and Malayalam peoples to produce wnitten hterature, and probably even before great oral literature was composed ! About Kannada, Telugu and Malayalam hteratures we may say with K A Nilakanta Sastri (HST, 3rd ed p 340) “All these literatures owed a great deal to Sanskrit, the magic wand of whose touch alone raised each of the Dravidhan languages (but here I would most defimtely add with 1 Incidentally, a Community which has totally escaped the type of du- fusion that had been adentiied by the term “Sanskuitization” (4 the wiitmgs of MN Sumas and Milton Singer for the mtroduction and ela~ boration of this tam), at least m South India, has yet to be found As MB Emenean pointed out, onc can enumetate a number of important (rarts ven im Such isolated groups as the Todas and Kotas of the Nilgmns, when may be called Sanskartic (even the Toda word foie “god” 15 ultimately dered fiom Sanskint, Ge DELA 210 Skt dara-“divme — Pkt _devoa~ > Ka dewa, deven “demon” whence probably To tow, cf “Toda Verbal Art and Sansknuzation”, Journal of the Ortent Institute, Baroda, XVI, 3-4, March-June 1965) What 15 impoatant for our problem 3s that, according to Emcnean’s opmuon, these Sanskitie tarts in the Nilguis are very old, they can hardly be considered as a recent acquuement 3 the exception of Tamil, K Z ) from the level of a patois to that of a has wnitten so far on the lustory of hhterary idiom’ Whoeve: Kannada, Telugu, and Malayalam hteratmes take refuge ma formulation which 18 characteristic for speculative conclusions, ct “the beginnings of Kannada hterature are not clearly traceable, but a considerable volume of prose and poetry must have come into existence hetore the date of Nrpatunga’s Kaverdjamdrga (850 A D ), the earhest extant work on rhetoric m Kannada”, or “beyond doubt there must have exusted much unwritten hterature (in Telugu) of popular character etc The facts are different The begmnmgs of Kannada hterature were almost totally inspned by Jaunsm The fist extant work of narrative hterature 1s Sivakotr’s Vadddrddhane (cca goo AD) on the lives of the Jaina saints The fundamental wotk on thetouc m Kannada, and the first theoretical treatise of Kannada culture, 15 based on Dandin’s Kavyddarsa—that 15 Nipatunga’s Kavirdjamarga Pampa, the first great poet of Kannada hterature—and one who 15 traditionally Considered the most emment among Kannada classical poets—s, again, mdcbted entirely to Sanskrit and Prakut sources in his two compouttions, m lus version of the Mahdbhdrata story, and m his Adipurdna, dealmg with the hfe of the first Jama thankara The begmnmgs of Kannada literature are, thus, anchored fumly in traditions which were origmally alien to non-Aryan South India Quite the same 1s true of Telugu hterature Telugu hterature as we know it begms with Nannaya’s translation of the Makdbhdrata (x1th Cent) The vocabulary of Nannaya 15 completely dommated by Sanskrit. And again the first theoretical work in Telugu culture, fiagments of which have recently been discovered, Jandsrayachan- das, an carly work on prosody, 15 itself written 1m a language which 15 mote Sanskrit than Telugu, 1t contains traces of metres peculiar to Telugu and unknown to Sanskrit, and only this fact indicates that there had probably existed some compositions previous to the overwhelmmg impact of Sanskritwation In Malavalam, too, the begmnings of hteiature are essentially and intrinsically connected with high Sanskrit literature the Unnunil: Sandésam, an anonym- ous poem of the 14th Century, 1s based on the models of sandesa or dita poems (the best known tepresentative of which 1s Kalidasa’s Meghadiila), sty very language 1s a true mampravdlam which 1s defined, m the earhest Malayalam grammar (the Lildilakam of the 15th Cent ), as dhdsdsamskriayogam, 1e the umon of bhdsd (the indigenous language, Malayalam) and Sanskrit 4 INTRODUCTORY An entirely different situation prevails in Tamil literature ‘The earliest literature in Tamil 1s a model unto 1tself—t 15 absolutely unique in the sense that, im subject-matter, thought-content, language and form, 1t 1s entirely and fully mdigenous, that 15, Tamil, or, if we want (though I dishke this term when talking about Iiterature), Diavidian And not only that it 1s only the Tamil culture that has produced-—uniquely so m India—an independent, indigenous literary theory of a very Ingh standard, mcluding metrics and prosody, poetics and rhetoric ‘There 15 yet another important difference betwecn Tamil and other Dravidian literary languages the metalanguage of Tamil has always been Tamil, never Sanskut As AK Ramanujan savs (111 Language and Modernization, p 3t) “In most Indian languages, the techmcal gobbledygook 15 Sanskit, in Tamul, the gobbledygook ay ultra-Tamil” 1 There 1s an obvious historical explanation of the fact the earhest vigorous bloom of Tamul culture began betore the Sanskritization of the South could have had any strong impact on Tamil society It is now an admitted fact by scholars in listoncal Dravidian linguists that the Proto-South Dravidian Imguistic unity dis- integrated sometime between the 8th-oth Cent BC, and it seems that Tamil began to be cultivated as a literary language sometime about the 4th or 3rd Cent BC Durmg this pentod, the development began of pre-hterary Tamil (a stage of the development im the history of the language which may be rather precisely characterised by important and chagnostic phonological changes) into the next stage, Old Tanul, the first recorded stage of any Dravidian language The final stages of the Tamil-Kannada split, and the begmnings of ancient ‘Lami literature, were accompanted by conscious efforts of grammatian: and « body of bardic poets to set up a kind of norm, 2 This may oc allmstrated by compartons of gammati al or philosophical tems In Tdugn, og Un gender categories of “higher” and “lower ' Classes ae tamelmunat viata (— Sanskut}, m Pann, the couesponding tems ate nvai-ti tdi and aonar (at nuda), whch as pure Lam) Must Indian Jangitages use tor “veavel aad “eonsonamt ' the Sanshiit terms scare anc evanjant an bani the vans ayy (Ta “bieath”) and mev (Ta body") Rave always neem acd furth the cxecption ur a tather “pro-Sanskut”” “Myaronesta’ Buddhist gammar Direcdevan which mboduccd Sans- Jarrtizcd gam itn al tennmology atte Tamal, but che usage has not spread at all) Even such philosophical terms as “mounmg? “torn, “soul”, havnt etc, have always boon preiaably expressed mm “parc Lami ch esp poral DED 3711, wit DLL 566 wy DED 454, vener or a] DED 4473. 2258 INTRODUCTORY 5 a hiterary standard, which was called ceyyu/—or the refined, poetic language—or alternatively centanul—the elegant, pohshed, hgh Tamil ‘The final outcome of these events—the creation of a htcrature of very high standard and of a nich and refined linguistic medwwin— found expression in the excellent descriptive grammar Tolkappryan, one of the most brilhant achievements of human intellect in India Charts 1 and 2 grve the data for the first extant hterary works and epigraphic monuments of the four South Indian languages, and a land of graph which shows a sharply 1ismg curve mdicating the tremendous time-gap between the beginmmgs of Tamil written literature on the one hand, and the other Dravidian literatures on the other hand These data are self-explanatory and need no commentary The influence which the various South Indian literatures exercised on one another was, at certain periods, not inconsiderable thus, eg, acettam very early school of Malayalam poetry was obviously’ strongly mfluenced by Tamil, or, to quote another example, Kampan’s Tamil Rémdyana seems to have had an mfluence on some other South Indian Ramdayanas On the other hand, this mutual interaction has never been decisive or even very mportant Apait fiom the earhest penod of the development of Malayalam literature, South Indian hteratures seem to have developed more or less independently of each other There was one very good and simple reason for this the one language which was almost equally spread over the South Indian terntory as the language of highest learmng and culture was Sanskrit The mtellectual exchange very probably took place through the medium of Sansknt and the Prakrits, Sanskrit literate composed m the South was of a very high quahty and of a considerable volume A fact which tends to be overlooked so many outstanding Sanskrit authors were Southerners—Tamil, Kanarese or Kerala Brahmins, who in many cases could not help but let themselves be enriched and influenced by indigeneous traditions, conventions ete A typical case 15 that of the great Ramadnuja, the founder of the Visistadvaita system Though an exact and final proof of a duect connection between the Tamil Vaisnava Alvars and $11 Ramanuja as yet to be submitted, there 1s more than ample external evidence to show that the traditions and the emotional and intellectual bach ground of Sri Ramanuya were identical with the environments which produced the great Tamil Vaisnava Alvars Ramanuja was a Tar) 6 INTRODUCTORY Brahmin born at Sriperumpiitiir near Madras in ror8, and had his carly philosophical training at Katicipuram, but built up his Stirankam, and travelled philosophy of qualified monsm m § throughout India to propagate his ideas The important fact ts that R.imannya followed, in the evolvement of his philosophy, Yamuna- cirva (b 917) who was the grandson of Ranganathamum (824-924), he first of the great Acaryas of Varsnavism who followed directly the Tamil Alvars, Rangandthamun: actually became the fimal redactor of the Vaisnava Tamil canon, and the grandson and direct spmtual inheritor of this man, Yamunacarya, who also went under his Tamil name Alavantar, became the guru of Ramanuja ‘Thus, a direct and uninterrupted line leads back from Ramanuya to the greatest of Alvars and one of the greatest Tamil poets, Nam- malvar, who was the guru of Ranganathamum Without gomg into details, 1t 1s proper at least to mention by name the most important Sanskrit poets, commentators, philos- ophers and Sanskrit literary works, intimately connected with the South Itss well-known that, under the patronage of early Viyavana- gara kings, notably Bukka I, a large body of scholars headed by Sayana undertook and completed the enormous task of producing a commentary upon the Samhutas of all the four Vedas, and many of the Brahmanas and Aranyakas Tt 1s not always stressed, however, that the Bhdvagafapurdna was composed somewhere mn South India about the begmning of the 1oth Cent, and that it summed up the outlooks and behefs of typical South Indian bhaktr, it 1s a fact that the Bhdgavatapurdna combines a simple emotional bhakt: to Krsna with the advaita of Sankara ma manner that (to quote K A Nilakanta Sastn) “has heen considered possible only in the Tamil country of that period” Among the most interesting dramatic compositions commg from the Tamul South are the two unique farces (prahasanas), Mattavildsa and Bhagavadayjuka, written by that mmensely attractive figme im South Indian history, the “curious-minded” Mahendravaiman the First of Kaiici In the domain of Vedanta, all the three major schools had their origin in the South Sankara (born m 788 at Kaladi im North Travancore) was a Kerala Brahmin One may go on enumerating hundreds of Sanskrit works im the field of belles-lettres, rhetoric, gianunar, lexicography, commentatorial literature, philosophy etc, all of them written m the South This we will not do, naturally, ‘Yamil inscriptions Early Tamil Brant (“Damuli”") imseriptions, 3 -I Cent BC (Asokan [272-232 BC / Brahmt introduced ca 250 BC mtothe Tain country and adapted between 250-200 BC to Tamul) hterature inscriptions 1 the “Urtext” ca 450 AD. ofthe Tolkap- pryam,re the two fist sections Ehuttatikavam and Collatikiiam munus later mter- polations, ca 100 BC 2 the earhest strata of bardic poetry m the so- called Cankam: an- thologtes, ca 1 Cent BC -2 Cent AD CHART © Kannada hterature beginnings in the 6 -7 Cent AD (lost) Nrpatunga’s Kavu aja- mai ga (ca 850A D} Telugu inseriptrons hiterature 633AD begmmnings inthe 7 - o Cent (lost), Nannaya’s translation ofthe Maha- bhavata (1 Cent) Malay alan, inscriptions close of 9 Cent (Xdttay am plates of Sthanu Rav) Chokur inscriptions ca 925 AD hterature Ramacarttan of Ciraman (13-14 Cent CUnnunilt Sandesam (anonym ) (14 Cent) IOLINGONLNI N we INTRODUCTORY it 18 important, however, to appreciate the fact that Sanskrit literary works are an integral and intrinsic part of the hterary heritage of the South and that Sanskrit was the language of learning and higher culture throughout South India, though, of course, to a different degree im different parts of the South, and im different penods CHART 2 ‘Tamil Kannada Tengu Malayalam AD 1400 AD AD_1000_ AD_ Soo AD Goo Sanskaitiz, First impacts of Sanskritivation CHAPIER TWO DISTINCTIVE FEATURES OF TAMIL LITERATURE One may observe, through the entire development of Tamil literature and, for t! matter, Tami culture m general, a kind of inner tension which may be traced to two sources one 1s the truly dialectic relationship between the general and the specific, another the confhet between tradition and modernity The problem of the relation of specific and general m Tamul hterature and culture 1 a very central, very basic problem which has its important aspects in all spheres of hfe and which penetrates or at least touches a great number of other questions (such as the biculturalism of some strata of the Tamil community, the language-loyalty, language policy ete ) By “general” I mean the generally, the untversally Indian, by “specific” I mean the specifically, distinctively Tamil There 1s much talk today about the Indian lnguistic area, after Emeneau apphed the theory of a Sprachbund to India and so-to-say discovered India, in 1956, as a “‘Jinguistie area”, as an atea in which genetically different languages show similar or even identical features, we should probably develop, along analogical nes of thinking, an Indian areal Literaturwassenschaft, with the same precision, with the same attention to detail, with the same ngom that Emeneau develops m his hypothesis of Indian bngwstic area There 1s no doubt that there are some “emic"’ features, typical for the pan-Indian Literaturbund + Hardly anybody can deny that there 1 Featnes which are common to the entne Indian sub-continent but unique only for it, not confined to any particular region or bound by any particular linguistic unit or social commumty Examples of such features (seen, naturally, in a somewhat "collapsed form) are, eg, high degree ot conceptnalization and categorizmg suience agaist low degice of fact- gathermg and hvpotheses-testing, the conception of time as cucular rather than hnear, ete ete In the field ot hterature, 1ts function and appreciation such features ate, to quote a few mstances higher regard tor oral than Jor written Uansmasion, emphasis on audience appreuiation, the concept of “mond” (rasa im Sanskut, meyppdtec m Tari) and rts uver-all importance — though the Tamil meyppatie 1s not identical, but an important “alloforn’ of the over-all category of “mood”, hterature ay rhetoue to move others .0 intensify the feelings of the raszka, composttion 1s prescribed, there 1 thee fore high degree of conventionahzation, characters analyzed 1ather by types than by mdividual heroes, high degree of anonymity, typical Indian 0 DISTINCTIVE FEATURES OF TAMIL LITERATUR 3s a common Indianness in the literatures of India just as thee are some common and distinctive features of Indian civilization and enlture (thongh I have my doubts whether anybody has as yet successfully produced a classified list and a really deep and pene- rating discussion of these features) These common features are of couse results of a converging evolution, or, one should probably say’, and this seems to me to be tather important, of a synthesis not yet fully achieved—, actually far from achieved The common Indianness, the “umty im diversity”, should be regarded not as something static and fished, but as a dynamic process, as a truly cualectical process, not asa sum, but as a movement which alters in the historical evolution, a kind of striving after synthesis of opposi- tions and conflicts which are frequently rather antagonistic One of the basic—af not the basic—components of this dynamic process full of tensions and antagonisms 1s the striving after a Diavichan-Aryan synthesis Tamil hterature reflects this struggle, fom its very beginnings in the text of the 7 olk@ppryam until today’s writings of such men as Annadurat, Kannadasan or other apostles of the Dravidian movement on the one hand, and, on the other hand, in the writings of the synthesis-onented, “Sanskutized”’ Brahmin writers As mentioned above, 1f 18 very probable that the first bloom of ‘famil culture and hterature took place before that type of diffusion which had been termed “Sanskritization”’ could have had any massi- ve effect and any structurally deep impact upon the indigenous, pre-Arvan culture of the South» This does not, however, mean that even the earliest strata of classical Tamil culture are without anv traces of “Sanskntszation” In fact, diffusion of at least some of the “Sanskritie” traits must have taken place as early as in the Proto- Tamnl or pre-Tamil stage, simce, as Emeneau pomted out, these traits are very ancient in Toda culture, possessed by the Todas probably when they first appeared in the Nulgiis As Emeneau says, Sanskritic culture has, ndeed, been all-pervasive in India The very earhest monument of Tamil literary langnage and Tamil cultwe as such, the Tolkappryam, supposed to have been composed by Agastya’s pupil Tolkdppryar, 1s to a great extent the product of an Aryan-Dravidian synthesis, and even m ats Urtext, in us earhest layers, 1¢ shows beyond doubt the author's well-digested conception of authorship, ongmality and imitation, a particular conception of plot(s) ete ete Ir DISTINCTIVE FEATURES OF PAMIL LITERATU knowledge of such Sanskrit authors as Panim and Pataiyal The earhest traces of another style of Tamil—a style probably rather near to the colloquial speech of those days—preserved m the most ancient inscriptions in Tamil m the Brahmi seript—are mfluenced to a considerable extent by the Prakuit of the Jains and the Pah of the Buddhists” Hence rt 1s cleat that Tamul hterature did not develop m a cultural vacuum, and that the evolution of the Tamil culture was not achieved either mm isolation, or by simple cultural mutation The very begmings of Tamil hterature mansfest clear traces of Aryan influence—yust as the very beginnings of the Indo-Aryan hterature, the Rgvedic hymns, show traces of Dravidian influence This, too, 1s today an undisputed fact On the other hand, there are some sharply contrasting features which are typical for Tamil classical culture alone, for the Tamil cultural and htetary tradition as opposed to the non-Tamil tradition and m this respect, the Tamil cultural tradition 1 independent, not derived, not imitative, 1t 18 pre-Sanskritic, and fiom this pomt of view Tamil alone stands apart when compared with all other major Janguagcs and hteratures of India Ft a8 possible to express this fact buefly but precisely by saying that there exist m India only two great specifie and independent classical and histornally attested cultues—the Sansknitie culture and the Tamil cultme Historically speaking, from the pomt of development of Indian <, Tamil literature possesses at Teast literature as a single compl two unique featwes First, as has just been pomted out, it 15 the only Indian hterature which 1s, at least mits begmmings and im its first and most vigorous bloom, almost entirely independent of Arvan and. specifically unl hterary Sanskrit fluences This pumary independence of 1 tradition has been, meidentally, the source of many confhets Second. though hemg sometimes qualified as a neo-Inchan hitera- ture, Tamul hteratme 15 the only Indian Literature which 15 both al and modern,* while it shares antiqmty with much of ical, im the best sense of the word, clas Sansknit hterature and 1s as cla ase g the ancient Greek poetry, 1t continues to be vigorously hving modern writmg of out days This fact was eapressed m a very happy formulation by A K Ramanujan im his excellent book The Interior Landscape (1967) ‘Tamil, one of the two classical languages of 12 DISTIN TIVE FEATURES OF TAMIL LITERATURE Indha, 1s the only language of contemporary India which 1s recog- mizably contmuous with a classical past” This fact—the relation between tradition and modernity—has, too, Jeen the source of constant tension contemporary Tamil literature has to carry the splendid but massive burden of an uninterrupted tradition and classical heritage, and sometimes the burden seems indeed too heavy to bear The followmg are then the diagnostic, characteristic features of lassical Tamil literature with regard to its subject-matter and thought-content First of all, Tamil 15 probably the one anuent language of India that bears the reflection of the life of an entire people, that is, 1ts heroes are idealized types derived from what w might even call ‘common folk’’y Classical (1 € the so-called Cankam) Tamil literature is not the literature of the barons, neither 15 it the hteratme of a monastic order, nor the hterature of an élrte, of a nagarika, it 1s thus not the hterature of a particular socral class One major type of Tamil classical poems reflects the hfe of ordmary though 1dealzed men and women, not the life of a sacerdotal or rulng nohhty, of a priestly class, of nuns, monks, or of any élite group or groups of society The whole gamut of basic human experience 1s contained in what has been best m Tannl writing, In this sense, it 1s very different from all strata of Sanskritic hteratuie—from the Vedic literature which 1s the literature of a sacerdotal class, from the great epics which are the literature of the iuhng barons, from the classical hterature which 1s par excellence the Iterature of the “man about town’, of the ndgarika, 1.15 also different flom the Buddhist and Jaina texts, since these are mostly the literate of monastic orders, of monks and nuns However, this does not mean that 1t 1s, nits fmshed form, as we have ot, “popular” hiterature or ‘‘folk”’ literature Classical Tamul literature 1s literature about and of people but not a Volkshteratur It 1 typically a Kanstdichtung The poets, of both sexes, had no priestly function to perform There are more than twenty women minstrels, responsible for about 140 poems of the earhest strata of Tamil poetry The true diagnostic feature of these poets 1 the fact that they weie a professional, vocational group, held generally in high esteem ‘They belonged, by birth, to all classes of society, quite a number of them were born as tr princes and chieftams, a great number were of peasant or merchant origin, however, the list of ancient poets includes potters, blac! DISTINCTIVE FEATURES OF TAMIL LITERATURE 3 smiths and carpenters—by birth, that 1s Some of the names are revealing eg Namp: Kuttuvan, Kur 243, belonged to the ruhng dynasty of the Céral kings, Maturat Eluttdlan, Ku probably a scribe at the royal court of Maéurar, Uraiyair Mutukoy- up, Kur 221,15 the ‘old headman of Uraryir’, but Kihmankalan- kilar, Kur 152, was a peasant by caste, while eg Mamiilan responsible for a number of poems, was a Brahmin scholar These early poets, recruited from many different communitus, received bardic traming—there were probably different schools and traditions of this trainmg—and became professionals, the wandering minstrels and bards travelled about m groups, often rather poor, frequently, however, very influential, and sometimes 1ather atfluent When a poet m Pur 208 7-8 says “Tam not singing for money” and “I am not a poet who barters his art”, it amphes the existence of “mercenary” singers Some of the poems speak even of the duty, of the obligation (kafay, ht “debt’’) towards the minstrels which the ruling monarchs and chieftains have to perform (Pui 201 14, 203 11) ) The learnmg of the minstrels was oral, acquired by mutation and practice, the basis of then knowledge was purely auditory Cf the he poets) primary meanmy 3, Was term hélvr “learning” (specifically of “hearmg, sound” (

    You might also like