X-Sender: naga ganesan@...
X-Apparently-To: agathiyar@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8 0 1 3); 24 Jan 2002 20:35:45 -0000
Received: (qmail 14375 invoked from network); 24 Jan 2002 20:35:45 -0000
Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m10.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 24 Jan 2002 20:35:45 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO n21.groups.yahoo.com) (216.115.96.71) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 24 Jan 2002 20:35:45 -0000
Received: from [216.115.97.88] by n21.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 24 Jan 2002 20:24:03 -0000
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 20:35:41 -0000
To: agathiyar@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Earliest Reference to muttamiz or "threefold tamiz"
Message-ID:
In-Reply-To: <20020124190500.17027.qmail@...>
User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Length: 3824
X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster
From: "naga ganesan"
X-Originating-IP: 12.13.248.12
X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=9040551
X-Yahoo-Profile: naga ganesan
X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 15173
All the 3 concepts of muttamiz (nATakam, iyal, icai(=pATal)) appear
in the sUtra from tolkAppiyam:
Qtolp056x56=
\BT *nATaka* vazakkin2um ulak*iyal* vazakkin2um/
*pATal* cAn2Ra pulan2eRi vazakkam/
kaliyE paripATTu Ayiru pAvin2um/
uriyatu Akum en2man2Ar pulavar. \et
---------------------
The foll. pattuppaaTTu lines show
that dance (nATakam) and music (isai
produced by "iyam" instruments) go
together.
QpaTTi113 \BT pATal Orttu um nATakam nayantu um \et
Qperu055 \BT nATakam makaLir ATu kaLattu eTutta \et
Qperu056 \BT vici vIgku in2 iyam kaTuppa kayiRu piNittu \et
Is the skt. word nATaka from IE or IIr?
Or, is it to do with tamil "naTantu kATTutal" (naTam).
What about skt. nRtta?
Regards,
N. Ganesan
--- In agathiyar@y..., 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.
>
