[INDOLOGY] Date of the Tolkappiyam

Tue May 8 21:20:53 UTC 2018

Based on the work I have done, the date of 9th century for the Classical Tamil texts is too late. 

At the Archaeology of Bhakti II: Royal Bhakti, Local Bhakti workshop-cum-conference, I presented two papers. One was entitled, “On the War Instruments Mentioned in Periya Tirumoḻi 2.9.9,” in which I dated the poem by Tirumaṅkai Āḻvār to 8th cerntury based on historical, epigraphical and philological considerations. The core problem was that  almost everyone had assumed that only one instrument was being mentionedin the verse. Actually, there were two instruments, a conch and a drum. Kaṭuvāy was not describing the nature of the drum. It represented the name of the conch used in battle. The conch was most probably so named because blowing the conch produced a sound similar to the roar of a tiger.  The Kēndūr grant was simply rendering into Sanskrit the Tamil name Kaṭuvāy. The presentation was well received and I was asked to submit it for the proceedings. However, I had also presented a paper on the Tamil Pāṇar as portrayed in hagiographic texts and inscriptions in which I pointed out that what the hagiographic texts had presented as the untouchability of the Pāṇar was fiction and was diametrically opposite to what the inscriptions and other historical data were showing. During the Q&A period after the talk, one Dr. Vijayavenugopal of EFEO went on a rant for so long that  the session moderator had to close the session and I did not have any time to respond to him! It showed how even persons working in institutions like EFEO treated hagiographies as history. As a result, since one could only submit one paper as part of the proceedings, I submitted the paper on the Tamil Pāṇar, which woud change the opinion that has been held by Tamil scholars for more than 800 years. If I had submitted the paper on Periya Tirumoḻi 2.9.9, it would not have impacted the date of Classical Tamil texts since almost nobody other than Dr. Tieken subscribes to the 9th century date for those texts. So I have not published the paper on Periya Tirumoḻi 2.9.9 anywhere yet.

To cut the long story short, if the Periya Tirumoḻi is dated in the 8th century, the 9th century date for the Classical Tamil texts is impossible.

Regards,
Palaniappan

> On May 7, 2018, at 10:26 AM, George Hart via INDOLOGY <indology at list.indology.info> wrote:
> 
> It was my impression that, like many older Indian works (cf. the Vyāsa Mahābhārata, the Rig Veda, probably the Nāṭyaśāstra), the Tolkāppiyam is a collection of things that may have been composed at different dates. Some parts may be quite early, some later, but I would be pretty surprised if anything in the work is as late as the 9th century. My opinion is that parts of the work may go back to (or mirror/be influenced by) things as early as the 1st century BCE (and conceivably even earlier) while other parts may be as late as the 3rd or even 4th century CE. Burnell's work relating the Tolkāppiyam to the Sanskrit Aindra (On the Aindra School of Sanskrit Grammarians: Their Place in the Sanskrit, available on Google) is important. One might note that Pāṇini describes things that are earlier than the Sanskrit used when he composed his work — I am not a vaiyākaraṇika, but I am sure people on this list can speak to this. The writers of grammars, whether in Sanskrit or Tamil, do not appear out of thin air. George
> 
>> On May 7, 2018, at 5:40 AM, Jan E.M. Houben via INDOLOGY <indology at list.indology.info <mailto:indology at list.indology.info>> wrote:
>> 
>> Dear Paniappan, 
>> As an old student of Prof. Kamil Zvelebil and of his student Dr Saskia Kersenboom I am not convinced that his translation is wrong or outdated. 
>> Moreover, even with his translation you can argue that the imperative is prescriptive for the first time. 
>> In other words, his translation is here only cited as a "strawman" with the WISH to attribute a more ancient date to the Tolkāppiyam.
>> Since, however, the most generally accepted etymogy of  Tolkāppiyam is "old Kāvya" and since Kāvya has a convincing etymology from the Vedic-Old Persian kaví this grammar was apparently composed or at least "named" after Sanskrit Kāvya developed as a literary phenomenon. Which would match the datings proposed by Prof. Tieken in his recently reprinted study on this issue. 
>> Best regards, 
>> Jan Houben
>> 
>> 
>> On 7 May 2018 at 00:52, Sudalaimuthu Palaniappan via INDOLOGY <indology at list.indology.info <mailto:indology at list.indology.info>> wrote:
>> Responding to a query on the date of the Tolkāppiyam, I obtained some pages in the 2nd edition of Early Tamil Epigraphy (ETE) by Iravatham Mahadevan published in 2014. In his first edition Mahadevan had said on p. 231, “It is thus clear that this grammatical work must have been composed after the puḷḷi was invented and had become an integral part of Tamil writing. Judging from the available evidence of the earliest occurrence of the puḷḷi from about the end of the 1st century A.D., Tolkāppiyam was composed most probably not earlier than the Late Tamil-Brāhmī Period (ca. 2nd-4th centuries A.D.)” Unfortunately, Mahadevan had not consulted a crucial article by Rajam Ramamurti of 1982 entitled, "The Relevance of the Term Mey, Oṟṟu, and Puḷḷi To the System of Tamil Morpho-phonemics" in International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics, 11 , no. 1, pp. 167-183. In this article, it is stated:
>>  
>> "From what Rule 106 says, we understand that there existed a convention, either earlier or contemporary, of marking an extra short u with a dot. The tone of Rules 15 and 105 in the Tolkāppiyam suggests that the author of the text made his own rule of marking a vowelless consonant with a dot.
>>  
>> "It is possible that there existed in the pre-Tolkāppiyam period, the convention of marking an extra short u with a dot and the author of Tolkāppiyam extended the convention to the class of vowelless consonants..." 
>> 
>> In other words, it was Tolkāppiyar, the author of the Tolkāppiyam, who invented the convention of marking a pure consonant with a dot. This means that the Tolkāppiyam must precede any epigraphic occurrence of the dot (puḷḷi) and not after as Mahadevan has stated.  
>> The crux of the problem seems to be the interpretation of the rule Tolkāppiyam 15. Mahadevan has used Kamil Zvelebil’s outdated 1972 translation, “The nature of the consonant is to be provided with a dot.” Ramamurti (1982:180)’s more precise translation using the imperative/optative interpretation is, "Let/May it be the nature of mey (consonant) to stay with a puḷḷi (dot).” If the use of dots to indicate pure consonants was already present, he would not have used the imperative/optative construction in the rule.
>> 
>> ETE's 2nd edition’s bibliography includes the afore-mentioned article, Ramamurti (1982). (Both editions’ bibliographies also include V. S. Rajam’s  A Reference Grammar of Classical Tamil Poetry, wherein the imperative/optative use of verbal noun is discussed on p. 820.)  But in the discussion on puḷḷi in ETE's 2nd edition, Mahadevan does not discuss Ramamurti (1982) but essentially presents the same date for Tolkāppiyam as in the first edition. See attachment. Mahadevan has not discussed why he still maintained his earlier conclusion.  Has there been any discussion of this issue by anybody else?
>> 
>> Thanks
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Palaniappan
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> INDOLOGY mailing list
>> INDOLOGY at list.indology.info <mailto:INDOLOGY at list.indology.info>
>> indology-owner at list.indology.info <mailto:indology-owner at list.indology.info> (messages to the list's managing committee)
>> http://listinfo.indology.info <http://listinfo.indology.info/> (where you can change your list options or unsubscribe)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Jan E.M. Houben
>> Directeur d'Études, Professor of South Asian History and Philology
>> Sources et histoire de la tradition sanskrite
>> École Pratique des Hautes Études (EPHE, PSL - Université Paris)
>> Sciences historiques et philologiques 
>> 54, rue Saint-Jacques, CS 20525 – 75005 Paris
>> johannes.houben at ephe.sorbonne.fr <mailto:johannes.houben at ephe.sorbonne.fr>
>> johannes.houben at ephe.psl.eu <mailto:johannes.houben at ephe.psl.eu>
>> https://ephe-sorbonne.academia.edu/JanEMHouben <https://ephe-sorbonne.academia.edu/JanEMHouben>
>> <Outlook-1506959459.jpg>
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> INDOLOGY mailing list
>> INDOLOGY at list.indology.info <mailto:INDOLOGY at list.indology.info>
>> indology-owner at list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing committee)
>> http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or unsubscribe)
> 
> _______________________________________________
> INDOLOGY mailing list
> INDOLOGY at list.indology.info
> indology-owner at list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing committee)
> http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or unsubscribe)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology/attachments/20180508/5e4f9a69/attachment.htm>