X-Sender: ganapathi s@...
X-Apparently-To: agathiyar@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8 0 1 3); 24 Jan 2002 19:24:52 -0000
Received: (qmail 2245 invoked from network); 24 Jan 2002 19:24:30 -0000
Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m4.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 24 Jan 2002 19:24:30 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mailweb26.rediffmail.com) (203.199.83.30) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 24 Jan 2002 19:24:28 -0000
Received: (qmail 2869 invoked by uid 510); 24 Jan 2002 19:26:01 -0000
Date: 24 Jan 2002 19:26:01 -0000
Message-ID: <20020124192601.2868.qmail@...>
Received: from unknown (12.235.67.33) by rediffmail.com via HTTP; 24 Jan 2002 19:26:01 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: agathiyar@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [agathiyar] Earliest Reference to muttamiz or "threefold tamiz"
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
From: "Ganapathi S"
Reply-To: "Ganapathi S"
X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=83645613
X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 15171
சந்திரா,
அவ்வையால் எழுதப்பட்ட"பாலும் தெளிதேனும்" சங்கத்தமிழ் மூன்று என்று சொல்கிறது. மொழிநடை பார்க்கையிலே அது காலத்தால் மிகவும் பிற்பட்டதாக யிருக்கவேண்டுமென்பது தெரிகிறது.
மேலும் எழுதுங்கள்.
அன்புடன்
மதுரபாரதி
On Fri, 25 Jan 2002 Periannan Chandrasekaran wrote :
> Earliest Available Reference to muttamiz or "threefold
> tamiz"
>
> Zvelebil in his treatise "Companion Studies to the
> History of Tamil Literature"
> (1992, E.J.Brill, Leiden, Handbuch Der Orientalisk,
> ISBN 90-04-09365-6) says on
> page 140 in the interesting section dealing
> philologically and metaphysically
> with the deeper significance of the concept of muttamiz
> or triple tamiz:
> "How old is the concept of 'threefold Tamil'?
> ஸif it was an ancient concept, we have no trace of its
> left. Neither
> pre-Pallava texts nor any ancient inscriptions refer to
> muttamiz. It seems that
> chronologically the earliest reference to the "three
> fold Tamil" is to be found
> in muttoLLAyiram, a fragmentary text mostly in veNpA
> quatrains, which it is
> extremely difficult to date: the end of the sixth
> century was suggested as well
> as the tenth centuryஸ."
>
> But we do find that the cangkam texts paripATal indeed
> has a reference to
> muttamiz. It occurs in the fragmentary lines obtained
> from commentaries. It has
> not been identified with a particular song in the
> anthology which originally
> had 70 songs but only 22 of which have survived in full
> and we have others
> available only in fragments gleaned from commentaries
> of other books. These
> lines, not having the original song number to be
> associated with, are
> categorized under the heading "paripATal tiraTTu". The
> relevant line referring
> to muttamiz was obtained from the commentary to
> tirukkuRaL by parimElazakar.
> Not incidentally, he is also the author of the sole
> commentary on paripATal
> available.
>
> The lines are from the Cologne Digital Tamil Thesaurus :
>
> Qpariti4x01 \BT teri mAN tamiz mummai ten2n2am
> poruppan2 \et
> Qpariti4x02 \BT pari mA niraiyin2 parantan2Ru vaiyai \et
>
> Let us focus on the first line that has the triple
> tamil reference:
>
> teri = choice; mAN = glorious; mummai = triad;
> ten2n2am = southern;
> Poruppan2 < poruppu = the ruler of the Potiyil hills
> i.e., pANTIyan2.
>
> [translation mine; there are no commentaries available
> for this]
> "The ruler of the southern mountain (Potiyil)
> associated with the choice and
> glorious tamil triadஸ"
>
> Note the phrase "tamiz mummai" or "the Tamil triad"
> associated with the Potiyil
> hills ruled by PanTiyan2s.
>
> Looks like Zvelebil has missed this critical reference
> to muttamiz in his
> discussion on muttamiz' historicity.
> Another important point is that this triple tamiz is
> associated the Potiyil
> hills which is invariably connected with sage Akattiyar
> (Agastya) who is said
> to have resided there and composed Akattiyam, a
> treatise dealing with muttamiz.
>
> As Zvelebil himself in the same section and elsewhere
> in the same book and his
> earlier work "Tamil Literature" (1975, E.J. Brill, page
> 60) , asserts that a
> treatise like Akattiyam, composed by a semi-mythical
> figure Akattiyar (Agastya)
> must have been extant in hoary antiquity.
> This paripATal line further strengthens his assertion.
>
> Regards
> P.Chandrasekaran.
