| Sangam literature | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Eighteen Greater Texts | ||||
| ||||
| Related topics | ||||
| Eighteen Lesser Texts | ||||
| Bhakti Literature | ||||
Tolkāppiyam, also romanised asTholkaappiyam (Tamil:தொல்காப்பியம்listenⓘ ,lit. "ancient poem"[1]), is the oldest extant Tamilgrammar text and the oldest extant long work ofTamil literature.[2][3] It is the earliest Tamil text mentioning Gods, perhaps linked toTamil deities.There is no firm evidence to assign the authorship of this treatise to any one author. There is a tradition of belief that it was written by a single author who is calledTolkappiyar based on the name of his work.
The surviving manuscripts of theTolkappiyam consists of three books (Tamil:அதிகாரம்,romanized: Atikāram,lit. 'Chapter or Authority'), each with nine chapters (Tamil:இயல்,romanized: Iyal), with a cumulative total of 1,610 (483+463+664)sutras in theTamil:நூற்பா,romanized: nūṛpā,lit. 'verse' meter.[4][note 1] It is a comprehensive text on grammar, and includessutras on orthography, phonology, etymology, morphology, semantics, prosody, sentence structure and the significance of context in language.[4]Mayyon as (Vishnu),Seyyon as (Kanda),Vendhan as (Indra),Varuna as (Varuna) andKotṟavai as (Devi or Bagavathi) are the gods mentioned.[6]
TheTolkappiyam is difficult to date. Some in the Tamil tradition place the text in the historical Pandiya kingdom Second tamil sangam, variously in 1st millennium BCE or earlier.[7] Scholars place the text much later and believe the text evolved and expanded over a period of time. According to Nadarajah Devapoopathy the earliest layer of theTolkappiyam was likely composed between the 2nd and 1st century BCE,[8] and the extant manuscript versions fixed by about the 5th century CE.[9] TheTolkappiyam Ur-text likely relied on some unknown even older literature.[10]
Iravatham Mahadevan dates the Tolkappiyam to no earlier than the 2nd century CE, as it mentions theTamil:புள்ளி,romanized: Puḷḷi,lit. 'Point resp.Virama' being an integral part of Tamil script. Thepuḷḷi (a diacritical mark to distinguish pure consonants from consonants with inherent vowels) only became prevalent in Tamil epigraphs after the 2nd century CE.[11]According to linguist S. Agesthialingam, Tolkappiyam contains many later interpolations, and the language shows many deviations consistent with late old Tamil (similar toCilappatikaram), rather than the early Tamil poems ofEṭṭuttokai andPattuppāṭṭu.[12]
TheTolkappiyam contains aphoristic verses arranged into three books – theஎழுத்ததிகாரம்,Eḻuttatikāram,'Letter resp. Phoneme Chapter', theசொல்லதிகாரம்,Collatikāram,'Sound resp. Word Chapter' and theபொருளதிகாரம்,Poruḷatikāram,'Subject Matter (i.e. prosody, rhetoric, poetics) Chapter'.[13] TheTolkappiyam includes examples to explain its rules, and these examples provide indirect information about the ancient Tamil culture, sociology, and linguistic geography. It is first mentioned by name in Iraiyanar'sAkapporul – a 7th- or 8th-century text – as an authoritative reference, and theTolkappiyam remains the authoritative text on Tamil grammar.[14][15][note 2]
The wordTolkāppiyam is a attribute-based composite word, withtol meaning "ancient, old", andkappiyam meaning "book, text, poem, kavya"; together, the title has been translated as "ancient book",[17] "ancient poem",[18] or "old poem".[19]
According toKamil Zvelebil – a Tamil literature and history scholar, Tamil purists tend to reject this Sanskrit-style etymology and offer "curious" alternatives. One of these breaks it into three "tol-kappu-iyanratu", meaning "ancient protection [of language]".[17] An alternate etymology that has been proposed by a few purists is that the name of the work derives from the author's name Tolkāppiyan, but this is a disputed assumption because neither the author(s) nor centuries in which this masterpiece was composed are known.[17]
The dating of the Tolkappiyam is difficult, much debated, and it remains contested and uncertain.[20][21] Proposals range between 5,320 BCE and the 8th century CE.[21][22]
The tradition and some Indian scholars favor an early date for its composition, before the common era, and state that it is the work of one person associated with sage Agastya. Other Indian scholars, and non-Indian scholars such as Kamil Zvelebil, prefer to date it not as a single entity but in parts or layers.[23] The Tolkappiyam manuscript versions that have survived into the modern age were fixed by about the 5th century CE, according to Zvelebil.[20][23][24] Scholars reject traditional datings based on three sangams and the myth of great floods because there is no verifiable evidence in its favor, and the available evidence based on linguistics, epigraphy,Sangam literature and other Indian texts suggest a much later date.[25] The disagreements now center around divergent dates between the 3rd centuryBCE and 8th century CE.[20][25][26]
The datings proposed by contemporary scholars is based on a combination of evidence such as:
There is no firm evidence to assign the authorship of this treatise to any one author.Tholkapiyam, some traditionally believe, was written by a single author named Tolkappiyar, a disciple of Vedic sageAgastya mentioned in theRigveda (1500–1200 BCE). According to the traditional legend, the original grammar was called Agathiam written down by sage Agastya, but it went missing after a great deluge. His student Tolkappiyar was asked to compile Tamil grammar, which isTolkappiyam.[43][44] In Tamil historical sources such as the 14th-century influential commentary onTolkappiyam byNaccinarkkiniyar, the author is stated to be Tiranatumakkini (alternate name for Tolkappiyan), the son of a Brahminrishi named Camatakkini.[45] The earliest mention of Agastya-related Akattiyam legends are found in texts approximately dated to the 8th or 9th century.[46] According to Hartmut Scharfe, the author of this text was likely a Jain.[47]
According to Kamil Zvelebil, the earliestsutras of theTolkappiyam were composed by author(s) who lived before the "majority of extant"Sangam literature, who clearly knewPāṇini and followedPatanjali works on Sanskrit grammar because some verses of Tolkappiyam – such asT-Col 419 andT-Elutt 83 – seem to be borrowed and exact translation of verses of Patanjali'sMahābhāṣya and ideas credited to more ancient Panini. Further, the author(s) lived after Patanjali, because various sections ofTolkappiyam show the same ideas for grammatically structuring a language and it uses borrowed Indo-European words found in Panini and Patanjali works to explain its ideas.[28] According to Hartmut Scharfe and other scholars, the phonetic and phonemic sections of theTolkappiyam shows considerable influence of VedicPratishakhyas, while its rules for nominal compounds follow those in Patanjali'sMahābhāṣya, though there is also evidence of innovations. The author(s) had access and expertise of the ancient Sanskrit works on grammar and language.[48][49]
According to Zvelebil, another Tamil tradition believes that the earliest layer by its author(s) – Tolkappiyan – may have been a Jaina scholar, who knewaintiram (pre-Paninian grammatical system) and lived in south Kerala, but "we do not know of any definite data concerning the original author or authors". This traditional belief, according toVaiyapuri Pillai, is supported by a few Jaina Prakrit words such aspatimaiyon found in theTolkappiyam.[50]
TheTolkappiyam deals withஇலக்கணம்,Ilakkaṇam,'grammar' in three books (Atikāram), each with nine chapters (Iyal) of different sizes. The text has a cumulative total of 1,610 (Eḻuttatikāram 483 + Collatikāram 463 + Poruḷatikāram 664)sutras in theNūṛpā meter, though some versions of its surviving manuscripts have a few less.[4][5] Thesutra format provides a distilled summary of the rules, one that is not easy to read or understand; commentaries are necessary for the proper interpretation and understanding ofTolkappiyam.[51]
எழுத்து,Eḻuttu means "sound, letter, phoneme", and this book of theTolkappiyam covers the sounds of theTamil language, how they are produced (phonology).[52] It includesபுணர்ச்சி,Puṇarcci,'joining, copulation' which is combination of sounds, orthography, graphemic and phonetics with sounds as they are produced and listened to.[52] The phonemic inventory it includes consists of 5 long vowels, 5 short vowels, and 17 consonants. The articulatory descriptions inTolkappiyam are incomplete, indicative of a proto-language. It does not, for example, distinguish between retroflex and non-retroflex consonants, states Thomas Lehmann.[51] The phonetic and phonemic sections of the first book show the influence of Vedic Pratisakhyas, states Hartmut Scharfe, but with some differences. For example, unlike the Pratisakhyas and the later Tamil, the first book ofTolkappiyam does not treat /ṭ/ and /ṇ/ as retroflex.[53]
சொல்,Col meaning "word", and the second book deals with "etymology, morphology, semantics and syntax", states Zvelebil.[52] Thesutras cover compounds, some semantic and lexical issues. It also mentions the twelve dialectical regions of Tamil speaking people, which suggests the author(s) had a keen sense of observation and inclusiveness for Old Tamil's linguistic geography.[52] According to Peter Scharf, thesutras here are inspired by the work on Sanskrit grammar by Panini, but it uses Tamil terminology and adds technical innovations.[49] Verb forms and the classification of nominal compounds in the second book show the influence of Patanjali'sMahabhasya.[53]
பொருள்,Poruḷ "Porul" meaning "subject matter", and this book deals with theயாப்பு,Yāppu,'Prosody' andஅணி,Aṇi,'Rhetoric' of Old Tamil.[54] It is here, that the book covers the two genres found in classical Tamil literature:அகம்,Akam,'love, erotics, interior world' andபுறம்,Puṟam,'war, society, exterior world'. Theakam is subdivided intoகளவு,Kaḻavu,'Premarital Love' andகற்பு,Kaṟpu,'Marital Love or Chastity'.[54] It also deals with dramaturgy, simile, prosody and tradition. According to Zvelebil, this arrangement suggests that the entireTolkappiyam was likely a guide for bardic poets, where the first two books led to this third on how to compose their songs.[54] The third book's linking of literature (ilakkiyam) to the grammatical rules of the first and the second book (ilakkanam) created a symbiotic relationship between the two.[51] The literary theory ofTolkappiyam, according to Peter Scharf, borrows from Sanskrit literary theory texts.[49]
Epigraphical studies, such as those by Mahadevan, show that ancientTamil-Brahmi inscriptions found in South India and dated to between 3rd century BCE and 4th century CE had three different grammatical form. Only one of them is assumed in theTolkappiyam.[51] The language of theSangam literature is same as the one described inTolkappiyam, except in some minor respects.[49]
TheTolkappiyam is a collection of aphoristic verses in theநூற்பா,nūṛpā meter.[4] It is ambiguous without a commentary.[51] Tamil scholars have written commentaries on it, over the centuries:
| Author[49] | Date[49] | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Ilampuranar | 10th to 12th century | Full: all verses[55] |
| Cenavaraiyar | 13th or 14th century | Partial: 2nd book[55] |
| Peraciriyar | 13th century | Partial: 1st and 2nd book[55] |
| Naccinarkkiniyar | 14th century | Partial: 1st, 2nd and part 3rd book[55] |
| Tayvaccilaiyar | 16th century | Partial: 2nd book[55] |
| Kallatanar | 15th to 17th century[49][55] | Partial: 2nd book[55] |
The commentary by Ilampuranar dated to the 11th or 12th century CE is the most comprehensive and probably the best, states Zvelebil.[56] The commentary by Senavaraiyar deals only with the second bookSollathikaram.[55] The commentary by Perasiriyar, which is heavily indebted to theNannūl, frequently quotes from theDandiyalankaram andYapparunkalam, the former being a standard medieval rhetorica and the latter being a detailed treatise on Tamil prosody. Naccinarkiniyar's commentary, being a scholar of both Tamil and Sanskrit, quotes from Parimelalakar's works.[55]
Alexander Dubyanskiy, veteran Tamil scholar fromMoscow State University stated, "I am sure that Tolkappiyam is a work which demanded not only vast knowledge and a lot of thinking but a considerable creative skill from its composer." Dubyanskiy also said that the authority of the text was undeniable: "It is a literary and cultural monument of great importance."[57]
These agreements may probably advance the lower limit of the date for Tol[kappiyam], but do not mean more recently than the 5th Cent. A.D., as suggested by some critics such as S. Vaiyapuri Pillai [...]
{{cite journal}}:Cite journal requires|journal= (help)