Commentaries in Tamil literary tradition

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Tirukkural

Commentaries to literary works remain one of the most important and telling aspects of the

Tirukkural
, with the latter remaining the most reviewed work in the Tamil literature.

Nacchinarkkiniyar, Parimelalhagar, Kalladar, and Adiyarkku Nallar
remain the most celebrated commentators in the history of Tamil literature, all of whose works are praised on par with the original works to which they wrote exegeses.

Background

Main article: Bhashya

Tamil is one of the most ancient and classical languages with a rich literary tradition in the world.

Ancient India is known for its unique oral tradition wherein knowledge was chiefly passed on as word of mouth from parents to their children and from preceptors to their students from one generation to the next.[2] The gradual buildup of this oral transfer of ideas through several generations resulted in an extensive corpus of knowledge, which eventually had to be written down on manuscripts.[2] This process generated a vast scholarship in every domain of life in the Indian subcontinent, and both Sanskrit and Tamil, along with other languages, saw an exponential growth in their literature over the millennia.[3] Commentaries to Sanskrit texts, known as Bhashya, started appearing during the first millennia BCE.[4] Unlike Western tradition, where only critics abound, Indian literature is rife with commentators who both analyze the works and write exegesis on them.[3] Tamil literary tradition is no exception to this pan-Indian phenomenon, with commentary writing having developed as a distinct domain in the scholarly world over the millennia.[3] V. Suba Manikkanar cites the ancientness of the language as a reason for such development.[3]

The developing, patronizing, and guarding of the

Nayakar's regin, minor dynastic kings and aristocratic chieftains furthered the Tamil language and literature. During the colonial era under the British rule, missionaries of both Indian and foreign religions and the Tamil groups established by the opulent section of the society contributed to the growth of the language. Post-Independence, the language continues to grow by various political parties and enthusiasts among the public.[5] The commentators of the medieval era are considered instrumental in preserving the ancient works for the posterity.[5] This is widely acknowledged by scholars, including U. V. Swaminatha Iyer, Pandithamani M. Kathiresan Chettiyar, S. Venkatarama Chettiyar, and M. Arunachalam, among others.[6]

History

Mimamsa school of Hinduism, dated to have been likely composed between 100 BCE and 200 CE, but no later than the 5th century.[7] An example of Buddhist literature Bhashya is Vasubandhu's Abhidharmakośa-Bhāṣya.[8]

Commentaries to Tamil literary works, known as urai, did not exist during

Nakkiranar till Nilakandanar. It was written down in manuscripts only in the 8th century CE.[2]

Commentaries had a humble beginning in the history of Tamil literature.

Tiruvaimoli was 6,000 lines in length, which later expanded to 9,000, then to 24,000, and finally to 36,000 lines.[12]

The vilakka urai commentaries are considered the best of all the commentaries and have stood the test of time, chiefly owing to their emulating the best of their arumpadha urai and kurippurai predecessors.

Nannul such as those by Mayilai Nathar and Shankara Namacchivayar.[12] Despite several earlier commentaries to Sivagnana Bodham, the Sivagnana Padiyam which appeared much later is considered the best.[12]

When the first commentaries began to appear in the Tamil literary world, they appeared more in the prevalent spoken dialect. More often than not, they resembled the conversations between a preceptor and a disciple. This is because the commentators who wrote the earliest commentaries were scholars who taught students on those subjects. Examples of such commentaries include the early commentaries to Iraiyanar Agapporul, Senavaraiyar's commentary to Part II of the Tolkappiyam, Perasiriyar's commentary to Tirukkovaiyar, Kaalingar's commentary to the Tirukkural.[14] Commentaries to the works of the Alvars chiefly appeared in a mixture of Tamil and Sanskrit, known as Manipravalam.[15]

The Bhakti literature, which proliferated during the Bhakti era that began around the eighth century CE,

Shaivite works, nevertheless, did not appear until the 19th century. It was only in the 20th century that scholars felt the need for literary commentaries to the Shivite literature.[17]

In the words of Mohan and Sokkalingam, the commentators are considered responsible for initiation the process of "return to classicism."[18] According to S. Vaiyapuri Pillai, they are also responsible for the revival of interest among the general public in the study of olden literature and linguistics, especially when the original dialect of the language was no more in general usage.[19] Chief among them were Ilampooranar, Senavaraiyar, Paerasiriyar, Nacchinarkkiniyar, Parimelalhagar, and Adiyarkku Nallar, who lived between the 11th and the 14th centuries CE.[20] Scholars consider this period as "the golden age of Tamil prosaic literature".[20]

In the Tamil literary tradition, it is conventional to regard the commentators on par with the author of the original work.[21] In line with the Tamil traditional practice of naming a work eponymous with the author, the exegeses written by the commentators, too, were named after the commentators. Thus the exegetical works of Ilampooranar, Senavaraiyar, Paerasiriyar, and Nacchinarkkiniyar came to be known, respectively, as Ilampooranam, Senavaraiyam, Paerasiriyam, and Nacchinarkkiniyam.[22] Their works were hugely popular among the common public that people even went on to name their children after these commentators.[22]

According to V. Suba Manikkam, efforts in literary development appeared in three forms, viz. exegeses to ancient works, supportive grammar works, and short literatures.[23] Examples of the first form, exegeses to ancient works, include the ten Medieval commentaries of the Tirukkural and the commentaries to the Tolkappiyam. Supportive grammar works included Iraiyanar Agapporul, Nambi Agapporul, Purapporul Venbamaalai, Nannool, Yapparunkalam, Yapparunkala Kaarigai, Dhandiyalankaram, and so forth.[23] Short literatures include Pillai Tamil, Thoodhu, Ula, Barani, Anthadhi, Kovai, Kalambagam, Kuravanji, Pallhu, Madal, Maalai, Sadhakam, Venba, Thogai, and so forth.[24]

Literary criticism in Tamil tradition is said to have flourished between the 11th and 14th centuries CE.[25]

Types of commentaries

Commentaries in verse

In Indian literary tradition, exegeses are also written in verse form to the original work in verse, which remained a widespread practice since the ancient times.

Nannul and Gurugyanasambandar's Gyanavarana Vilakkam, which is an exegesis to the Sivagyana Siddar's philosophy, are all examples of commentaries in verse form.[27]

The practice of writing exegeses in verse form continued well into the 20th century.

Mutthollayiram verses.[27]

Self-written commentaries

Self-written commentaries are commentaries that are written by the author himself/herself. According to the 17th-century work Prayoga Vivegam, the practice of writing self-written commentaries in the Indian Subcontinent began in Sanskrit literature.[30] The first self-written commentary in the Tamil literature was the one written by Iyyanaridhanar for his work Purapporul Venbamaalai.[30] This was followed by several others, including the following:[30]

  • The exegesis of the 12th-century author for his work Thandiyalankaaram
  • Meikkanda Thevar's exegesis to the 12 axioms of his work Sivagyana Bodham
  • The late-13th-century author Naarkavirajanambi's exegesis to his grammar work Akapporul Vilakkam
  • The 17th-century author Subramaniya Dikshitar's exegesis to his grammar work Prayoga Vivegam
  • Vaidhyanatha Desikar's exegesis to his grammar work Ilakkana Vilakkam
  • Swaminatha Desikar's exegesis to his grammar work Ilakkana Kotthu
  • Constanzo Beschi's exegesis to his work Thonnul Vilakkam

This trend, too, continued well into the 20th century, with authors such as

Jagavira Pandiyanar, and Bharathidasan writing their own exegesis to their respective works of Paari Kaadhai, Kumaresa Venba, and Pudhiya Aatthicchudi.[30]

Dialogic commentaries

The process of writing prosaic commentaries to the

Kanda Puranam, began to appear in Tamil, and these came to be known as vasanam or dialogic commentaries.[31] Soon, dialogic commentaries to the Sangam works, such as the Eight Anthologies and Ten Idylls series of texts, began to appear.[31]

Compiled commentaries

Twentieth century witnessed the practice of comparative study and compilation of exegeses from different periods.

Tirumurugattrupadai and the Tolkappiyam.[32] Compiled commentaries to the Tolkappiyam have appeared exclusively for each of the three parts of the work.[32]

Simplified commentaries

Simplified commentaries are commentaries written on age-old commentaries, which are complex by virtue of their ancientness, in order to make them comprehensive to the contemporary public.[33] The process of writing simplified commentaries began in 1949 with M. Varadharajan's exegesis on the Tirukkural titled Tirukkural Thelivurai,[33][34] whose 175th edition was published in 2003.[33] Several similar commentaries started appearing on other ancient works such as the Tolkappiyam and the Athichudi.[33]

See also

Citations

  1. ^ Hart, 2000.
  2. ^ a b c d e Mohan and Sokkalingam, 2011, p. 11.
  3. ^ a b c d Mohan and Sokkalingam, 2011, p. 9.
  4. ^
    ISBN 978-8126023844
    , page 1338
  5. ^ a b Aravindan, 2018, p. 52.
  6. ^ Aravindan, 2018, pp. 53–56.
  7. ISBN 978-8120806924
    , page 9
  8. ISBN 978-8120836105
  9. ^ Mohan and Sokkalingam, 2011, p. 21.
  10. ^ a b Mohan and Sokkalingam, 2011, p. 10.
  11. ^ a b c d e f g h Mohan and Sokkalingam, 2011, p. 13.
  12. ^ a b c d e f g h Mohan and Sokkalingam, 2011, p. 14.
  13. ^ Kovaimani and Nagarajan, 2013, pp. 115–116.
  14. ^ Mohan and Sokkalingam, 2011, p. 12.
  15. ^ Mohan and Sokkalingam, 2011, p. 26.
  16. ^ Schomer and McLeod, 1987, p. 1.
  17. ^ a b c d e f g h i j Mohan and Sokkalingam, 2011, p. 19.
  18. ^ Mohan and Sokkalingam, 2011, p. 22.
  19. ^ Mohan and Sokkalingam, 2011, pp. 22–23.
  20. ^ a b Mohan and Sokkalingam, 2011, p. 23.
  21. ^ Mohan and Sokkalingam, 2011, p. 24.
  22. ^ a b Mohan and Sokkalingam, 2011, p. 25.
  23. ^ a b Mohan and Sokkalingam, 2011, pp. 23–24.
  24. ^ Inam Journal, 10 May 2019.
  25. ^ Mohan and Sokkalingam, 2011, p. 30.
  26. ^ a b c d e Mohan and Sokkalingam, 2011, p. 15.
  27. ^ a b c d e f g Mohan and Sokkalingam, 2011, p. 16.
  28. ^ Nedunchezhiyan, 1991, p. ix.
  29. ^ Iraikuruvanar, 2009, pp. 53–59.
  30. ^ a b c d Mohan and Sokkalingam, 2011, p. 17.
  31. ^ a b c Mohan and Sokkalingam, 2011, p. 18.
  32. ^ a b Mohan and Sokkalingam, 2011, pp. 19–20.
  33. ^ a b c d Mohan and Sokkalingam, 2011, p. 20.
  34. ^ Kovaimani and Nagarajan, 2013, p. 469.

References

Further reading

  • Kamil Veith Zvelebil (1974). A History of Indian Literature: Volume X. Tamil Literature. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. pp. 231–234.
  • T. P. Meenakshisundaram (1965). A History of Tamil Literature. Annamalai Nagar, Tamil Nadu: Annamalai University Publication. pp. 173–177.

External links
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commentaries_in_Tamil_literary_tradition&oldid=1194930429"