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
1973This 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 NETHTRLANDSM
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 KZPREFACE
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 oursn 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 discussionAink
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 TokxIVv
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 readingNOTE 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 teaMI 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 tolhaapivamCHAPTER 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 acquuement3
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 Sanskrit4 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. 2258INTRODUCTORY 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,INTRODUCTORY
(aus #1)
(tatiour)
wnsepuns,
nent)
(quay ti £1)
urwr ny jo
mum novuenyy
pmmyesayy
cy S20 v9
suorduosut
anyoyy
(vey,
nuvurs jo
soquid
we \e770M)
quweag 6
Jooso
suondusut
wep eRe
(qte9 11)
vy (a yoss
-pypyy 943 JO 9) bS wae
woryyysuuny -vip nowy
seivuuey sraungediy
“Qsoy) (aso)
quay 0 ay yw
- Loyyun Z-gayyut
sSumnmiaq = Ly £9. SBurmuttiag Cy oSt ve
aanyeiayy, Suagdugsur = amgriayy suoRdrast
usps epruuey
1 LYVHO
ay
ywag 7-9 ad
1 v9 'sax8opoyt
ee HeDytED 9 POUT
-o8 ayy WA ya0d
orpaeg yo vey
ysapiva ayy 7 Og
(nro OL
o02-0$z waa nzaq
oot vo 'suoyrjod — pazdepe pur {yun
spyULoyE[snuA ME ayy OU 9 -
Men 314010.)
oS? eo paonpe nut
pur mpcoyimmiy nuqerg | 9 782-22 |
Suonaasysiyosy— UeyOSY) 9 7D
up arian tid
“A BYIOL UI PO
1 € ‘suondriosut
(,qmued.,,)
LANA, BL noywIg UE SPs,
omnyrrayy,
que,
suondirosutwe
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 SanskritivationCHAPIER 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 Indian0 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 eteIr
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 of12 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” (