Jean-Luc Chevillard

The "colourful" retrospective horizon of Vīracōḻiyam-143 at the advent of the Daṇ ḍ in doctrine in Tamil Nadu (DRAFT 4j

14,592 words) *

A Tamil proof of the existence of Daṇḍin

The first (Tamil) proof of the existence of Daṇḍin, or rather Taṇṭi, viewed through Tamil sources, is the kārikai7 found at the beginning of the Alaṅkārap paṭalam (AP), the fifth section of the Vīracōḻiyam (=VC), an innovative and very dense Tamil "treatise". That kārikai reads, in metrical form:

(1a) {urai-y-uṭa l-āka} A {v-uyir-poru ḷ-āka} B {v-uraitta-vaṇṇa // nirai-niṟa m-ā} C {naṭai y-ē-cela v-ā} D {niṉṟa} E {ceyyuṭkaḷ-ān // tarai-mali māṉiṭar} F {tam-m-alaṅ kāraṅkaḷ} G {taṇṭi-coṉṉa // karai-mali nūliṉ paṭi-y-ē} H {y-uraippaṉ} I {kaṉaṅ-kuḻaiyē!} J Due to metrical constraints, the syntax of this verse looks complex until we perceive the set of five elementary identifications within five pairs of topics or entities. Those five identifications are, according to the VC commentator, constitutive of an instance of the figure called uruvakam (i.e. skt. rūpaka), and they are marked by several forms of the copula (which appears twice as āka, twice as ā and once as ām). See the following chart, which must be read vertically, column by column (with an inversion in column 2), with a preliminary English translation of the key terms, except for vaṇṇam which is better left untranslated at this stage: see sections 2 and 3 section 7 section 3 section 4 all sections Chart 1: Key terms in VC143 (and sections where they are further discussed) (1b) "{O Lady with heavy jewelled earrings (kaṉaṅkuḻai)!} J , {I shall expound (uraippaṉ)} I {in the very manner (paṭiy-ē) of the treatise (nūl), [which is] [a life-saving] shore (karai) [for an] abundant (mali) [number of people]8 [and] which Daṇḍin9 uttered (coṉṉa)} H [that TOPIC which is] the equivalent10 of the ornaments (alaṅkāram) } F for {poems (ceyyuṭkaḷ), when they are [identified with] the human beings (māṉiṭar) who are abundant (mali) on Earth (tarai) } F . [In the identification, they stand (in parallel manner)] , E {Speech (urai) being the body [uṭal]} A , {[of which] the uyir (life/soul) is the topic/value (poruḷ)} B , { the colours [niṟam] are the ((previously explained)) series [nirai] of vaṇṇam} C , { [and] the going [celavu] is indeed the style [naṭai] (litt. gait)}."

A B (inverted) C D E, F G H, I
Chart 2, which follows, tries to clarify the manner in which each of these technical terms will be further discussed inside the AP, for which this kārikai acts as a small table of contents:

Verses Content Additional reference VC143 (first verse in AP) alaṅkāram, applied to ceyyuḷ, is metaphorically explained on the basis of urai, poruḷ, naṭai and vaṇṇam.11 See (1a) and (1b)

VC144-VC147

Which urai & poruḷ12 are acceptable limbs or souls (for ceyyuḷ)? Which are unacceptable? (metaphor continued) VC148-VC151 the 10 āvi See chart 5, in section 3 VC152-VC177 the 35 alaṅkāram13 See chart 7, in section 4 VC178 broad classification14 of ceyyuḷ genres VC179 yamaka, etc.

In the TA, the col-l-aṇi (śabdālaṅkāra) section is much more developped VC180 (beginning)

Other topics (Tantra Yukti) VC180 (cont.), VC181-183 Other types of literature Chart 2: Summary of the Alaṅkārap paṭalam (AP)

2. From a three-part grammar to a five-part grammar

As already indicated, the VC is an integral part of the corpus of Tamil śāstric texts and it is only by placing it within its wider Tamil context that we can hope to understand the role it played and the expectations that it fulfilled. That status was also the reason it was preserved by some sections of the larger group of Tamil poets, and thus the reason for us to be in a position to try to read it today. The most salient points usually noted are the fact that the VC is partly a "translation" (from Sanskrit) -a point which will be discussed in sections 3, 4 and 5, where I shall examine strategies (α, β and γ) for "translation"15 -and that it is associated with the transition from a grammatical tradition based on three components to a model where there are five specialized components, whose names (inside the VC) can be seen in chart 3 below:

Sections 16 Chart 3: Content of Puttamittiraṉār's Vīracōḻiyam (VC) with additional information on Peruntēvaṉār's commentary

We can see at once that the VC itself is a very short text. For instance, the length of its 5th section, the AP, which is our main concern here, is 41 kārikai-s: this is the equivalent in length of 82 śloka-s 18 and makes it six times shorter than the DK. We also should note that this short text has been transmitted as part of a commentary which is, at times, quite bulky, and which contains, on the one hand, many literary illustrations and, on the other hand, many grammatical citations (referred to in chart 3 as nūṟpās) from earlier Tamil treatises. The AP, for instance, contains 124 such nūṟpās.

At this stage, before continuing our examination of the AP and of its role inside the VC, it seems important to name explicitly (and to place in a chronological sequence) some textual components belonging to Tamil śāstric knowledge which Puttamittiraṉār and Peruntēvaṉār had in common with their (Tamil) audience. Observe Chart 4,, in which the top rows are more recent than the bottom rows, and in which Daṇḍin (the Kāvyādarśa author) sits somewhere (slightly artificially) between the seventh and the eighth centuries.

Centuries

Curriculum Grammar (ilakkaṇam) 13 th c.

Naṉṉūl

Navanītap pāṭṭiyal 12 th c.

Tamiḻ Taṇṭi

126 verses totalling 326 lines

Veṇpāp pāṭṭiyal

Vīracōḻiyam commentary (Peruntēvaṉār)

11 th c.

Vīracōḻiyam (Puttamittiraṉār)

(elementary initiation to Sanskrit śāstra-s in 183 verses)

10 th c. Yāpparuṅkala- virutti (YV) Yāpparuṅkalam (YA)
Paṉṉiru Pāṭṭiyal Piṅkalam 9 th c. Having set out the wider context, we can now return to an examination of the ramifications of the kārikai (VC143) given above. That kārikai (and the key terms which it contains) can be characterized as an allusive "table of contents" (TOC) for the AP, which at the same time connects it with the four previous sections. The term poruḷ (see chart 1) "value, meaning, topic, [poetical] matters," is, for instance ,the master term for (and the title of ) the third section of the VC, the Poruḷ-atikāram, where the first kārikai (VC86) makes twin claims to two dimensions:

Aṇiyiyal (lost) Tivākaram

 the traditional realm of poetological topics, where Puttamittiraṉār expounds a four-fold scheme for poruḷ (akam, puṟam, akap-puṟam, puṟap-puṟam) which goes beyond the traditional two-fold scheme of the T-that is, the opposition between akam "inside" (love poetry) and puṟam "outside" (other types of poetry). 20  the philosophical realm of pramāṇa ("means of knowledge") theory, partly adapted to Tamil when VC86 states that discussing poruḷ also involves understanding aḷappāṉ ("measurer"), aḷavai ("measure") and piramēyam (Sanskrit prameya).

However, traveling back and forth between the sections of the VC can be fraught with terminological difficulties. Thus while the use of poruḷ seems "commensurable" in VC86 and VC143, the same cannot be said of urai, which seems to be used meta-linguistically in VC89 for referring to the 27 topics 21 which are part of [poetological] "explanation/commentary", whereas urai seems to refer (as a normal linguistic item) in VC143 to the materiality of "speech" (see 1b), identified as a body (uṭal) of which the poruḷ "topic" will be the "soul/life".

My general impression, while reading the VC, is that it is not a grammar for Tamil literature, as is sometimes said, but that it is a normalizing 22 introduction (composed in Tamil) to some currents inside mainstream/dominant (or fashionable?) Indian thought (as reflected in Sanskrit technical literature current at that time (including the DK). It accomplishes this aim through three possible means of action when trying to express a concept which has been discussed in Sanskrit śāstra:  (α) find a Tamil equivalent to the Sanskrit technical term (possibly skewing the original meaning of the Tamil term)  (β) if there is an ancient loanword 23 (from Prakrit or from Sanskrit), use that term  (γ) if no suitable term is found, use a Sanskrit term, adapted to Tamil phonology It is however to be noted that, because of the extreme brevity of the VC, the whole process would result in totally cryptic lists if the VC text were not accompanied by Peruntēvaṉār's commentary. In practice, the Alaṅkārap Paṭalam of the VC frequently appears as simply a Table of Contents, partly translated into Tamil (and often reordered), for Daṇḍin's Kāvyādarśa (DK), where the bare lists of technical terms occasionally contain a few inserted words of explanation (or some inserted translation). As for illustrative verses, none are found in the AP 24 (unlike in DK); they are provided only by the commentator. Specifically, regarding the three strategies mentioned above, we have two occasions for examining them inside the AP:

 the first one is with the list of ten terms used in the AP for rendering the guṇa-s of Daṇḍin, which are prominent in the discussion of the two styles/paths associated with the Vaidarbhas and the Gauḍas (although Puttamittiraṉār has his own way of dealing with them, as we shall see)  the second one is with the list of 35 alaṅkāra-s (examined in section 7). 20 Between those two schemes, we have the 3-fold scheme of Aviṉāyaṉār (akam, puṟam, akap-puṟam), whose grammar is lost but which we know thanks to YV, who mentions it, while discussing the 4-fold scheme (iṉi, oru cārār, 'akattiṇai, puṟattiṇai, akappuṟattiṇai eṉa mūṉṟāy aṭaṅkum,' eṉpa. āmāṟu avinayattuṭ kāṇka, YV1998, p. 608). 21 Among those 27 urai-s (explicitly enumerated in VC90 and VC91), the first one, caṭṭakam "[metrical] frame" is understood by commentators as encompassing Yāppu "meter" and the ninth one, moḻi-vakai "categories of words", is certainly a bridge with the second section of the VC, namely col "word". 22 For instance, in the second section of the VC, Puttamittiraṉār introduces the list of six kāraka-s used in Sanskrit grammars, although Tamil grammarians were in fact happy to have their own list of eight kāraka-s, which they called toḻiṉmutanilai (see T596: viṉaiyē, ceyvatu, ...), as can be seen from the fact that in the thirteenth century, the Naṉṉūl retained (in N320: "ceypavaṉ, karuvi, ...") the core of the T list. 23 An ancient loanword is a term such as ētu (hetu), already found in the Tolkāppiyam or in intermediate texts. 24 An exception to my statement is the presence of the many vocatives, addressed to ladies (makaṭūu muṉṉilai) in 67 of the 183 kārikai-s (cf. TVG [2005, pp. 724-726]). See the example "O Lady with heavy jewelled earrings (kaṉaṅkuḻai)! in (1b).

In Chart 5 I compare the use of strategies (α, β and γ) by Puttamittiraṉār and by the Tamil Taṇṭi when handling the guṇa-s of Daṇḍin, which the former calls āvi-s [a Sanskrit doublet of uyir "soul, life"], while the latter uses kuṇaṉ25 for guṇa). The numbering refers to the position of the items in each of the three authors' lists (since they differ). The striking fact is that Puttamittiraṉār judged that only three terms out of ten could be explained to his audience in Tamil and decided to use the Tamilized form of seven Sanskrit terms, which does not look like a completely successful translation. In the TA, the proportion is inverted. chart 5: Two ways of applying three strategies (α, β and γ) for explaining the guṇa-s of Daṇḍin to a Tamil (learned) audience.

Strategies

At this stage, before moving on to the discussion of the term alaṅkāram, we must remark that although the concept of "path/style" is evoked in VC143 by the presence of the word naṭai "gait, style"--which is said to be to a poem (ceyyuḷ) what celavu (going) is to a human being--and although the vitarppar and kauṭar are dutifully mentioned by Puttamittiraṉār in VC148 and VC151, he does not use the term kuṇam (unlike Tamiḻ Taṇṭi) 32 for referring to the guṇas experienced field-knower (kṣetra-jña). See also the characterization "pulaṉ tokuttōṉ" in the ciṟappup pāyiram of the T. And the use of pulaṅkoḷal (= aṟital)in Maṇimēkalai XXVII-13. 27 Puttamittiraṉār says in fact ceṟiv-ār-cilīṭṭam "cilīṭṭam, which is full of tightness/density" 28 camaṉ ceytu cīr tūkkum kōlpōl amaintu orupāl kōṭāmai cāṉṟōrkku aṇi (Kuṟaḷ 118). 29 The terms are of course found in the Madras Tamil Lexicon but an examination of the CreA dictionary for contemporary Tamil shows that those three terms never found their way into mainstream Tamil with the meaning intended in the DK, although other meanings are found such as "tomb" for camāti, "generosity" for utāra-kuṇam and "magnet" for kāntam. 30 However, VC151 contains a Tamil explanation to kānti, when it says: āṉā v-aḻakiṉaik kānti y-eṉkiṉṟatu ("Kānti means "unceasing beauty"). 31 The difference depend on the manner of classifying camanilai. My perception is that β is closer to α as to γ. 32 The form kuṇaṉ alternates with the more frequent form kuṇam inside the TA.

of Daṇḍin, but refers to the ten items of Chart 5, which he first enumerates in VC 148, as āvikaḷ (plural of āvi "life, soul") and justifies himself in VC149 by invoking Daṇḍin for the second time. 33 4. The Tamil prehistory of alaṅkāram and the 28 alaṅkāram-s of the Tivākaram After this brief exploration of the ramifications pertaining to the terms in columns A, B, D and E, of chart 1, which is as already said a tabular presentation of VC143, first verse and Table-of-Content (TOC) of the AP (alaṅkārap paṭalam), we shall now examine the term in column G, namely the all-important alaṅkāraṅkaḷ, plural form of alaṅkāram "ornament", which is the main element of the TOC and gives its name to the AP. That item is, as detailed in Chart 2, expanded slightly later inside the AP by means of a long sequence of 25 kārikais, starting with VC152 and ending with VC176. At the beginning of this long sequence, the first 4 kārikai-s (VC152-VC155) enumerate the 35 VC names of alaṅkāram-s. After that, most of the alaṅkāram-s are the object of more detailed explanations, which take up 21 kārikai-s (VC156-VC176). My main ambition in this article being to give an account, through an examination of the Tamil sources, of the place of the DK inside the development of Tamil technical literature, and of its impact on that development, I shall not immediately deal with the 35 VC names of alaṅkārams. These will be provided later, in chart 8, inside section 7, along with their equivalent terms in the TA. I shall nevertheless remark, by anticipation, that among those 35 names, 21 (i.e. 60%) are translations, while the remaining 14 (40%) are simply adaptations to Tamil phonology of the Sanskrit names seen in the DK. This can be contrasted with the fact that the proportion of Sanskrit terms increases to more than 50% in the later TA, a change which is the reverse of the one seen in Chart 5.

What we shall do now, is to examine an earlier layer, which allows us to see the dynamics which goes from the VC to the TA within the context of a larger time interval. This will be accomplished by an examination of occurrences of the word alaṅkāram which predate the VC 34 . It should indeed be brought to the attention of the readers of this article that the word alaṅkāram itself was already familiar to the Tamil audience before which the VC was recited for the first time, when Puttamittiraṉār had finished composing his very dense, all-encompassing treatise. The listeners had already heard the term when studying texts such as the Yāpparuṅkalam 35 (=YA), a tenth-century metrical treatise, and the two Nikaṇṭu-s or "thesauri" 36 called Tivākaram (Ti) and Piṅkalam (Pi), probably composed in the ninth and the tenth centuries. 37 These three texts chronologically precede the VC, and contain references to the general category of alaṅkāram, for instance in connection with the definition of matura kavi "sweet poem/poet", 38 for which we have the following sūtra, identically found in the Ti and in the Pi: 39 (2a) poruḷiṉ poliv-um, colliṉ celvam-um, // toṭai-y-um, toṭaikkaṇ vikaṟpam-um tutaintu, //uruvakam mutal-ām alaṅkāram uṭkoṇṭu // ōcaipoli v-uṭaittāy, uytt-uṇarvōr uḷaṅkaṭku // mā-kaṭal amiḻtam-pōl pāṭutal matura-kavi (2b) "A sweet poem (poet) is obtained in a singing (pāṭutal) which, being dense in grand topics, richness of words, rhyming/alliteration, variety of rhyming/alliteration, including the ornamental figures (alaṅkāram), which start with 33 The commentator emphasizes, while commenting VC149, that there is no contradiction in this respect between Daṇḍin and Puttamittiraṉār, because it is thanks to the 10 āvi "soul/life" (starting with cilīṭṭām) that the poruḷ "topic/matter" can be a perfect uyir "soul/life" for its uṭal "body" (which must of course also be perfect). The perfection (and the possible imperfections) of the "limbs" (uṟuppu) of the "body" is discussed by Puttamittiraṉār himself in the two kārikai-s VC144 and VC145. The following two kārikai-s (VC146 & VC 147) discuss the "eminent soul" (ciṟappuyir) and the āviyiṉ kuṟṟam "faults of the soul". 34 This also means examining the (possible) earlier occurrences of some of the nouns and expressions which are the 35 names in alaṅkāram-s in the VC and the TA. 35 See example (5) below. 36 For an overview of the domain, see Chevillard[2019] inside Cambridge World History of Lexicography (BIB).

37 See the chronology in Chart 4. 38 In Tamil, kavi can be used either for the poem or for the poet. Many will know that "sweet poetry" (sung by sweet poets) is one among four categories of poetry (sung by four types of poets). See Chevillard[2014]: "On four types of poets and four types of scholars: from pulavar to kavi in the changing intellectual landscape of Tamil Nadu". Another category, the cittirak kavi ("extreme poetry / extreme poet") should certainly be mentionned in connection with VC181. See also Ti2336, Pi368 and YA-96 [lines 1-14]. (this last one distinguishes several subgroups: cittirap pā, vicittirap pā and miṟaikkavip pāṭṭu). (YV1998, p.560-561). (An additional reference is VC[2005: p.698]). 39 A slightly modified form is found in YV (see YV_1998, pp. 586-587).

uruvakam ("metaphor"), possesses lofty sonorities, and is like the ambrosia from the great sea to the minds of those who are capable of deducting its meaning (uytt-uṇarvōr)" (Ti_2335 & Pi_367)

This mention in a ninth-century Tamil text of alaṅkāram, along with uruvakam, which is the form adapted to Tamil phonology of the Sanskrit technical term rūpaka "metaphor", third item in the list of ORNAMENTS of Daṇḍin, which was already known to the NŚ (see 3d), might be the earliest we now have in the whole of Tamil literature. It is not isolated, because the same Tivākaram contains in its 2458 th sūtra, which is found inside its 12 th chapter, an explicit list of 28 alaṅkāram-s, in which the same uruvakam is the first item. I must add immediately however that, as we shall see when comparing 3b and 3c, there does not exist an absolute consensus on the manner in which the text of this sūtra must be split. This is why I shall proceed cautiously in my presentation, taking as my starting point the text as it was printed for the first time in 1840, by Tāṇṭavarāyamutaliyār (BIB)., reproduced here inside Figure 1.

As can be seen, the text of the sūtra is preceded by a title, which reads "irupatteṭṭalaṅkārap peyar", i.e. "names of the 28 alaṅkāram-s". That title is followed by an Em-dash. After that comes the text of the sūtra, which consists of 12 metrical lines separated by commas. Each line is printed in scriptio continua, without separation between the metrical feet. Later editions added more separations, as can be seen inside Figure 2, which contains an extract from the 1917 edition, in which it can be seen that each of the 12 lines now contains an ndash as a middle separator. A closer look at the two texts reveals however that a few additional modifications 40 have silently been made to the original 1840 readings, even though the title page of the 1917 edition still mentions the name of Tāṇṭavarāyamutaliyār (d. 1850). Before however attempting a closer examination of the precise splitting of the content of those 12 metrical lines into a list of distinct items, I must first provide some information concerning the final count itself, which appears as irupatteṭṭu "twenty-eight" in the title and as eḻu-nāṅku "seven (times) four" in the twelfth line. The section where the sūtra Ti-2458 is found is the 12 th (and last) chapter of the Tivākaram, its title being Pal-poruṭ kūṭṭatt-oru-peyar tokuti "Collection of the names of groups of entities". That chapter occupies 5 per-cent of the Tivākaram and has 234 sūtra-s, going from Ti-2285 to Ti-2518. It contains elements of information concerning groups (of items) which are traditionally associated with numbers, and which can sometimes be used as substitute for them, as bhūta saṃkhyā-s. 41 To give just a few well-known examples, the 28 alaṅkāram-s are preceded by the "7 iruṭi (Rishis)" in Ti-2397, the "8 types of marriage" in Ti-2431, the "9 gems" in Ti-2438, the "10 avatāram-s of Ari (Viṣṇu)" in Ti-2444, the "11 Uruttirar (i.e. Rudras)" in Ti-2446, ..., the "25 tattuvam-s" in Ti-2457, and are followed by the "33 Tēvar" in Ti-2460.

If we move now to a recent edition which claims to be a critical edition (see bibliography), we can finally see a text (here shown in Figure 3) which has been split by its editors into an explicit 40 Line C has vēṟṟumainilaiyē against vēṟṟumainilaiya; Line E has pāṟpaṭakkiyanta vs. pārppaṭakkiḷanta; Line I has nitaricaṇap pārāṭṭu vs. nitaricaṉam pārāṭṭu; Line J has eytaṟkuriya vs. eytakkūṟiya. 41 See Pfloker, Mathematics in India, 47. list of 28 items, although, as I shall make clear, other modern editors have sometimes made a different choice in the splitting. A transcription of that text is provided below, in (3a), and I shall remark immediately that one difference between that text and the text visible in Figure 1 and in Figure 2 is seen in the wording of the count of 28, which no longer appears as eḻu-nāṅku "seven (times) four" but is now irupatteṭṭu "twenty-eight", although the 1990-1993 editors strangely do not signal the difference in their list of textual variants

(3a) [A] uruvakam (a1), uvamai (a2), vaḻimaṭakku (a3), nilaimaṭakku (a4), // [B] (viricuṭar) viḷakku (b1) eṉa viravi varuvaṉavum, // [C] vēṟṟumai nilaiyē (c1), veḷippaṭu nilaiyē (c2), // [D] vārttai (d1), taṉmai (d2), piṟaporuḷ vaippu (d3) eṉap // [E] pāṟpaṭak kiḷanta pakutiyiṉ varunavum, // [F] ciṟappumoḻi (f1), cilēṭai (f2), maṟuttumoḻi nilaiyē (f3), // [X] nōkkē (x1), uṭṭoṭar tokaimoḻi (x2), mikaimoḻi (x3), // [G] uṭaṉilaik (g1a), kūṭṭam (g1b), uvamāṉa muruvakam (g2), // [H] nuvalā nuvaṟci (h1), talaikkaṭ ṭiyamoḻi (h2), // [I] nitaricaṉam (i1), pārāṭṭu (i2), oruṅkiya nilaiyē (i3), // [J] aiyam (j1), uyarvē (j2), viraviyal (j3), vāḻttu (j4) eṉa // [K] eytak kūṟiya irupatteṭṭu 42 alaṅkāram (Ti-2458)
As the reader can see, I have heavily annotated the transliterated text by  inserting, between square brackets, twelve bold-face capital letters (A, B, C. D. E, F, X, G, H, I, J & K) in order to indicate the beginning of each of the 12 lines  inserting, between brackets, twenty-eight bold-face lower-case letters (accompanied by numbers) after each expression which is the name of an alaṅkāram. The lower case letters and the capitals are iconically related.

I shall now provide a preliminary semi-translation, in order to show how the Tivākaram sūtra Ti-2458 is in fact divided into three sections, in the following manner. It is now time to explain the points of disagreement between the modern editors of that text, by providing a second translation, (3c), which will differ in two places from the preceding one. It is as follows:

items)) [F] f1, f2, f3, [X] x1, x2a, x2b, x3, [G] g1, g2, [H] h1, h2, [I] i1, i2, i3, [J] j1, j2, j3 ((and)) j4" (Santi Sadhana)
As should hopefully be visible at first glance, the two translations differ in two places, namely line X and line G, because, as far as line X is concerned  One group of editors thinks that the expression x2, alias uṭṭoṭar tokaimoḻi contains tokaimoḻi as the name of an alaṅkāram, and uṭṭoṭar as a decorative epithete 42 The editio princeps ( 1840 Before elaborating further on the resemblance between (3d) and the initial section of (3a), ( 3b) and (3c), I must however introduce a special notation which will be convenient in the continuation of this article, because it will ease the notational burden which is inherent in the navigation between the Sanskrit and Tamil technical terminologies.

The principle used in that notation is that (3e) if "N" is a Sanskrit word, P(N) is a notation for the result of a possible adaptation of N to Tamil phonology T(N) denotes a possible translation of N into Tamil.

As an application of that notation, I shall now state that:

(3f) a1 (i.e. uruvakam) can be referred to as P(rūpaka) (3g) a2 (i.e. uvamai) can be referred to as P(upamā)

(3h)
The second component of a3 (i.e. vaḻi-maṭakku) and of a4 (i.e. nilai-maṭakku), which is maṭakku, can be referred to as T(yamaka) (3i) b1 (viḷakku) can be referred to as T(dīpaka).

Although the statements in 3f and 3g can be considered as self-evident, some explanation must be given for 3h and for 3i. The latter statement (3i) is probably the easier for a reader to accept, thanks to the fact that both terms44 correspond to English "lamp". As for the former statement (3h), I shall only say here that both yamaka (as explained in NŚ XVII.61-85, which describes the ornament and its subtypes) and maṭakku (as present for instance in YA-76) 45 involve a repetition of some phonic sequence. And the fact that NŚ knows ten types of yamaka makes it easy not to be surprised by the fact that the Tamil list of figures has divided its Tamil correspondent into two types. As for the terminological choice, if one ask why the specifying prefixes chosen are vaḻi and nilai, in vaḻimaṭakku (a3) and in nilaimaṭakku (a4), the answer can be given by pointing to similar usages inside TE and TC. 46 I am therefore tempted to conclude that the first group in 3b and 3c is a slightly expanded enumeration of the four alaṅkāram-s known to the NŚ, where the yamaka has been given two slots. This is, after all, not so surprising.

If we now compare the content of that same enumeration of five terms, namely {a1, a2, a3, a4, b1} with the content of the VC and of the DK, as presented in Chart 2 (Section 1), we can say that  the items contained inside the subset {a1, a2, b1} possess a corresponding element in the list of 35 alaṅkāram described in the VC in the section VC152-VC177  the items in {a3, a4} have their corresponding element in the yamaka section in VC179 Making use of the functional notation presented in (3e) and making it more compact by referring to the 35 canonical alaṅkāram-s in the DK, by means of a set of abbreviations such {D1, D2, ..., D35} 47 , we can now write: a1 = P(D3); a2 = P(D2); b1 = T(D4)

What happened when moving from the Tivākaram to the Piṅkalam

Although our progress in elucidating the precise meaning of the Tivākaram quotation given in 3a (and in Figures 1 to 3) has been so far rather slow and limited, we must now examine data from another source, namely the Piṅkalam, because it throws light on the circumstances under which knowledge which exists at some point can become obscured, or skewed, by the vicissitudes of transmission. As in the case of Tivākaram, I shall start by providing, in image form (see Figure 4), the text of a verse, namely Pi1370, containing the word alaṅkāram, as it can be seen in the first edition of of the Piṅkalam, which came out in 1890.

After that, I shall provide, in (4), a transcription of the first twelve lines of that (long) 36-line stanza which explains in detail how a patron (puravalaṉ) should fulfil his duty (kaṭaṉ) and honor a professional poet on the occasion of the initial performance (araṅkēṟṟam) of a eulogy made to order, which is, in a manner of speaking, a piece of advertisement singing the eminent qualities of that patron who pays for it a poet competent on many counts, including the mastery of the twenty-eight alaṅkāram-s. 46 In the description of sandhi phenomenon, involving two terms A and B, which join into AB, the first, initial, term A is called nilai-moḻi. As for vaḻi, it is used several time for specifying a term which follows another (cf "uyarpiṉ-vaḻittu" in TC91c) 47 full list of sanskrit names for the 35 alaṅkāram-s in the DK is: (D1) jāti, (D2) upamā, (D3) rūpaka, (D4) dīpaka, (D5) āvṛtti, (D6) ākṣepa, (D7) arthantaranyāsa, (D8) vyatireka, (D9) vibhāvana, (D10) samāsokti, (D11) atiśayavokti, (D12) utprekṣa, (D13) hetu, (D14) sūkṣma, (D15) leśa, (D16) yathāsaṃkhya, (D17) Preya, (D18) Rasavat, (D19) ūrjasvi, (D20) paryāyoktam, (D21) samāhitam, (D22) udāttam, (D23) apahnuti, (D24) śliṣṭam, (D25) viśeṣokti, (D26) tulyayogitā, (DA27) savirodha, (D28) apastutapraśaṃsā, (D29) vyājastuti, (D30) nidarśana, (D31) sahokti, (D32) parivṛtti, (D33) āśiḥ, (D34) saṃkīrṇam, (D35) bhāvika. The reader who tries to make a detailed comparison of the Piṅkalam text which is provided in (4a) with the Tivākaram text which was reproduced in (3a) can see that the number of common points between the two texts far exceeds the number of differences, although that is partly masked by the fact that (4a) is a metrical text, whereas (3a) is a sandhisplit text. 49 My global perception is that (4a) results from an act of creative rewriting of (3a), in which one sees that:

(4a) [A] uruvaka (a1) muvamai (a2) vaḻinilai (a3bis) maṭakkē (a4bis) // [B] viricuṭar viḷakk-(b1) eṉa viravi varunavum // [C] vēṟṟumai nilaiyē (c1) veḷippaṭu nilaiyē (c2) // [X] nōkkē (x1) yuṭkō (x2aa) ṭokaimoḻi (x2b) mikaimoḻi (x3) // [D] vārttai (d1) taṉmai (d2) piṟarkōḷ vaipp- (d3bis) eṉap // [E] pāṟpaṭak kiṭanta pakutiyiṉ varunavuñ // [F] ciṟappumoḻi (f1) cilēṭai (f2) maṟuttumoḻi nilaiyē (f3) // [G] vuṭaṉilaik
 An independent statement of existence ("there exists 28 alaṅkāram-s, which are [...]") has become an instrumental clause, which is part of the certification of the professional qualities of the Tamil poet ("[...] by means of the 28 alaṅkāram-s, which are [...]"  The position of the line X, which came after lines ABCDEF and before lines GHIJK inside (3a) has been modified

because it now comes after lines ABC and before lines DEFGHIJK. The consequence is that the alaṅkāram-s from line X which were enumerated as falling inside the THIRD group, are now enumerated as falling under the SECOND group. Another consequence is that the respective sizes of the three sub-groups are altered.50  Additionally, the content of several lines is partly different. The lines concerned are o line A, in which both a3 and a4 have been modified, becoming a3bis and a4bis o line D, in which d3 has been modified, becoming d3bis o line X, in which we have a splitting into four elements (x1, x2aa, x2b & x3) resembling what was seen in (3c), namely { x1, x2a, x2b & x3}, except for the item "uṭkōḷ" (x2aa), which has been substituted to the item "uṭṭoṭar" (x2a) o line G, in which we have the same division into two elements, g1 and g2, as that which was seen in (3c), as distinct from (3b)

Before commenting further, we can now produce a semi-translation, one the model of those given in the previous section. It reads thus: At this stage, I must provide additional information, although space will prevent me from making full use of it. I have indicated that the twelfth chapter of the Tivākaram had been printed for the first time in 184051 and that the first edition of the Piṅkalam came out in 1890. There is however an important difference between those two editions concerning the manner in which they guide us in the reading the text of the sūtras. Whereas the 1840 edition of the Tivākaram contains only the source text, in unsplit metrical form, the 1890 edition of the Piṅkalam uses a facing pages format, where the source text (printed on the left page) is accompanied by a commentary (printed on the right page), which frequently replaces the sūtra items by modified formulations (see Chart 7). Even though the source text is provided in metrical form, we therefore always know how the editor splits it and what he thinks it means.

As a consequence of those observations, we must consider the possibility that the interpretation given to the Tivākaram sūtra Ti-2458 by the Santi Sadhana editors, with respect to the splitting of lines X and G, which was explained in (3c) is in fact influenced by the commentary of the Piṅkalam, and that the semi-translation given in (3b) is probably closer to the original intention of the compilers of the Tivākaram. There is of course an alternate possibility, which is that the commentary to the Piṅkalam has preserved the original splitting for lines X and G. Given the fact that we still have more texts to examine, it better to let those questions rest now.

Finally, I must mention here another possible splitting of the text which enumerates the elements of the list of alaṅkāram-s, in which the count of the elements of the first subgroup goes down from 5 to 4. Such a splitting would be based on a rejection of the commentator's interpretation of the string a3bis string which is found in (4a), namely vaḻinilai. According to that interpretation, the sequence "vaḻinilai (a3bis) maṭakkē (a4bis)" would become "vaḻinilai maṭakkē (a4ter)" and would simply be a factoring out of the term maṭakku, performed on a base text which would be the "vaḻimaṭakku (a3), nilaimaṭakku (a4)", as seen in (3a). That fragment then could be translated as (4c) "vaḻinilai maṭakkē (a4ter)

"maṭakku, which has the two types called vaḻi-(maṭakku) 'follower yamaka' and nilai-(maṭakku) 'standing yamaka' " [Reinterpretation of a fragment of 4a, cf supra]

A practical consequence, in that case, is that, since we are constrained by the total of 28, which is explicitly specified in the text of 4a and which obtains as a result of the addition (28 = 5 + 9 + 14), one of the items in the second or in the third group would have to be duplicated. We could for instance have: More speculations are of course possible,but we must now return to the examination of more textual data.

Investigating the YA and the YV, in search of the lost Aṇiyiyal

We shall now examine another text, which belongs to a different line of transmission, namely the tenth-century Yāpparuṅkalam (YA), a metrical treatise. In order to do that, we shall also examine the Yāpparuṅkalavirutti (YV), an ancient commentary on the YA, which is very important for all historians of the Tamil śāstric tradition, notably because if contains quotations from many Tamil scholarly texts which are now lost. 52 Starting with the YA, I shall first reproduce in (5) a set of two lines, which are the 15 th and the 16 th lines, extracted from a sequence of 29 lines in all, inside YA-96, the last sūtra in the Yāpparuṅkalam. In that extract from a sūtra which is a long enumeration of many topics, we see the following words concerning three distinct topics, signalled here by brackets (tagged A, B and C): Turning now our attention to YV, which is the very detailed 53 commentary on YA, we can see inside Figure 7 that when the time comes for an explanation of the topic which is delimited by the A {} braces inside citation (2), YV first of all cites the relevant passage (i.e. line 15 and the first half of line 16) and then immediately after that develops this Beginning-End elliptical reference to a list into an explicit enumeration of 27 items, which does indeed start with uruvakam but in which, surprisingly, viraviyal is in fact the penultimate item and not the last one, as was announced by the YA (see 5). The role of being the last item in the list falls, from the point of the YV on the item vāḻttu, a fact which is also at odd with the wording of the YA. 54 Additionally, we are told by the YV, after the enumeration of 27 items, that more information can be found inside a treatise called Aṇi-y-iyal (which is unfortunately lost). The list (in prose), which obtains from ( 5) after insertion of many items between the first item (uruvakam) and the last item (viraviyal) and after addition of vāḻttu, will now be provided in (6a), and its pattern, which is ABC XDF G * H * ZIJ, will be indicated by methods which emulate those used in (3a) and (4a), although in the case of (6a) the capital letter do not indicate the beginning of metrical lines, because the content of the citation is in prose, except for the small citation from YA with which it begins: I imagine that at this stage the reader must be bewildered by this "avalanche" of symbols. It now time for me to try to summarize the (incomplete) information which has been gleaned by painstakingly trying to track contradictions and by extracting tokens of disagreements from a textual corpus where appearance of unanimity is probably usually preferred, in an academic community which frequently values the beauty of compromise. The following chart will hopefully contain all the symbols which have been used inside 3a, 3b, 3c, 4a, 4b, 4d, 6a and 6b.

(6a) "uruvaka m-āti viraviya l-īṟā // varum-alaṅ kāramum" eṉpatu [A] uruvakam-um (YV1 = a1), uvamai-y-um (YV2 = a2), vaḻimoḻi- y-um (YV3 = a3ter [NEW = T(D5)]), (YV4 = a4bis [MERGER of a3 & a4]) maṭakk-um, [B] tīpakam-um (YV5 = b1bis), [C] vēṟṟumai nilai-y-um (YV6 = c1), veḷippaṭai nilai-y-um (YV7 = c2*), [X] nōkk-um (YV8 = x1), uṭkōḷ-um 55 (YV9 = x2aa [NEW]), tokai moḻi-y- um (YV10 = x2b), mikai moḻi-y-um (YV11 = x3), [D] vārttai-y-um (YV12 = d1), taṉmai-y-um (YV13 = d2), piṟa poruḷ vaipp-um (YV14 = d3[Ti]), [F] ciṟappu moḻi-y-um (YV15 = f1), cilēṭai-y-um (YV16 = f2), maṟuttumoḻinilai-y-um (YV17 = f3), [G * ]
53 Its prolixity can be illustrated by the fact that in the 1998 edition of YA, the commentary concerning the 14 lines which precede the 2 lines cited in (2b) occupies 24 pages. 54 That discrepancy, which must be due to the influence of Tivākaram (or of Piṅkalam), is confusing, and the reader might suspect a misprint, because vāḻttu is already present in YV96 as an independent element, signalled inside my citation (2a) by the B {} B braces, and followed on the same line 16 by item vacai, indicated in (2a) by the C {} C braces. Both vāḻttu and vacai are indeed the objects of two separate sets of explanations.

55 MTL takes it to be an independant alaṅkāram in the basis of Pi.1370 (even though this contradicts our splitting in (3) and (4). MTL is followed by TIPA (Vol. 12, p. 78) referring to it as "L". 56 See also the same text (with footnotes) on p.550 in the 1973 edition. 57 This was translated as «the ornaments, [whose list contains] uruvakam as beginning (āti) and viraviyal as end (īṟu)» in (5). As can be seen, there is lot of variation, but an interesting fact is that we find Sanskrit words, indicated by an S in column 12 of Chart 6, only on seven of the 45 lines of that chart, namely lines 1 (uruvakam), 2 (uvamai), 10 (tīpakam), 18 (vārttai), 23 (cilēṭai), 33 (uvamāṉam-uruvakam) & 37 (nitaricaṉam). If we take the position that those 45 lines are simply the fluctuation surrounding a core list of 28 items, the 7 Sanskrit items can be seen as 25% of the total, although that percentage could go down to 21% if we chose the more frequent Tamil variant viḷakku (line 9) over the variant tīpakam (line 10). This certainly distinguishes the vocabulary of the Aṇiyiyal, if such is the name of a possible common source for our three lists, from the vocabulary of the VC (which has 40% of Sanskrit terms) and of the TA (which has 50%), at which we shall have a closer look in the coming section. Before continuing the discussion however, we must collect the additional information, which is contained in the 1890 Editio Princeps of the Piṅkalam (and repeated in the following editions), and whose existence was signalled by anticipation by the presence of a "+" sign in the 10 th column of chart 6. That additional information is now provided below in Chart 7. We are now facing a small ocean of names, in the form of two charts, Chart 6 and Chart 7. The first one, which is the central one, is an exposition of the textual variants, numbering 45, which have been found when exploring four texts, the Ti, the Pi, the YA and the YV, and the explicit enumerations which three of these texts contain, namely  Ti, in which we have examined a list of 28 terms/expressions, with uncertain splitting: see (3a), (3b) and (3c)  Pi, with its list of 28 terms or expressions, with a clearer splitting: see (4a) and (4b)

 YV (27 terms or expressions, clearly marked by the enumerative particle -um, attached to each item.

To these three explicit lists must be added two additional features:

 a name, Aṇiyiyal, which is mentionned along with the list of 27 elements: see (6a) and (6b)  a virtual list, mentionned in (5), defined by its first element (uruvakam) and its last element (viraviyal), which may therefore have even been slightly shorter, going from YV1 to YV26.

The task which we are facing now, because we are nearing the time limit for what can reasonably covered in one leg of an exploration, is to clearly state what are the possible next steps 59 and what is their order of magnitude. An obvious answer is that it would be very desirable to know what was the exact intended meaning of the terms contained in our lists, and that semi-translations, such as the ones given in 3b, 4b and 6b, cannot be considered as satisfactory. However, as will be clear to anyone who has studied such treatises, simply giving an English equivalent to a Tamil term is not enough, because one really understand the inner workings of a specific alaṅkāram,only when one has seen examples. We unfortunately do not have examples for the Aṇiyiyal because it is lost, and because the Nikaṇṭu-s which incorporated elements from its content inside their encyclopedic coverage did not provide us with examples either. To these problems of unclear meanings, must also be added problems of doubtful forms, and this was our reason for enumerating variants inside Chart 6. We must however be ready for two more questions: As a concrete example of question Q1, Chart 6 contains on line 12 and 13 two items which are veḷippaṭu nilai (c2, found in Ti and in Pi) and veḷippaṭai nilai (c2b, found in YV). However, the consensus among scholars seems to be that both mean the same and that they are the original Tamil equivalent of Daṇḍin's vibhāvana (DA9), for which both Puttamittiraṉār and Tamiḻ Tāṇṭi have preferred to keep (mutatis mutandis) the "original" Sanskrit designation, because they call it vipāvaṉai (see chart 8, in section 7, and see VC166).

 (Q1) if
As a concrete example of question Q2, we have seen that inside list A, the fourth item, has two variants: nilaimaṭakku (a4a) and maṭakku (a4b). The latter is found in the Piṅkalam, and its editors seem to think (see line with initial number 7 in chart 7) that in that case maṭakku means maṭaṅkutaṉaviṟciyaṇi, which is apparently (according to TVG, TIPA, vol.13, p.133) the equivalent of Sanskrit vakrōkti. Nevertheless, the more ordinary use of maṭakku in Tamil is to be the equivalent of Sanskrit yamaka. It is easy to be perplexed, while exploring such a complex environment.

As an additional example of the extreme difficulty frequently inherent in the task of determining the original intended meaning of even a single term, when the original context has disappeared, I shall take the term vārttai, found on line 18 of chart 6, which should probably be considered as an ancient borrowing because, although it does not occur in the Tolkāppiyam, it is found 6 times in the Cilappatikāram. According to chart 7, the editors/commentators think that ita intended meaning is coṟpiṉvarunilai-y-aṇi, 60 and that explanation has found its way into the Madras Tamil Lexicon. Given the fact that the 5 th alaṅkāram in the DK, namely āvṛtti, is called mīṭci by the VC and piṉvarunilai by the TA, this might mean that the term vārttai the term originally used before mīṭci and piṉvarunilai.

However, it must also be noted that, inside the commentary to VC159, among a complementary list 61 to the variant forms of uvamai "simile", we find a double trace of the term vārttai, one of them being the technical term iṭa-59 These future steps could be continued by me, alone or in collaboration with others. I would like to use this occasion for stating that I am grateful to Victor D'Avella for a number of stimulating exchanges which took place either during his seminar, at Hamburg University, during which some passages from the TA were read, or during my seminar, during which some passages from the YA and the YV were read. He recently suggested to me, that it would be profitable to compare what we have of the lost Aṇiyiyal with the content of Bhāmaha's Kāvyālaṅkāra, a remark of which have taken good note. 60 See also Col piṉ varu nilai aṇi (TIPA, Vol.12, p.307).

61 See VC2005, p.591.

vārttai 62 and the other one being the technical term kāla-vārttai, 63 each of them being provided with a poetical illustration. To this must be added that Peruntēvaṉār introduces the group of supernumerary elements as the opinion of a group of people whom he refers to as "orucārār", probably implying that they belong to another school. And he even quotes a technical verse (nūṟpā 204, in TVG's numeration) 64 belonging to the teaching of that school. And given the fact that there is some overlap between the list of supplemental technical terms (contain vārttai) quoted in that circumstance and the list which we have been preparing here, of which the constituents are in Chart 6, that shows that there was a desire to maintain a continuity with already existing practices such as might have existed with the Aṇiyiyal, while introducing a new standard, namely the DK. I shall come back to that aspect in the conclusion.

7. How the 35 alaṅkāram-s are implemented in the VC and the TA I shall now provide the reader with a chart similar to chart 5, where the names of the 35 alaṅkāram found in the VC and the TA will be "ventilated" into categories, on the basis of strategies (α, β and γ). The result is as follows: It is of course difficult to compare things which are not of the same size. Nevertheless, I believe that it is justified to compare proportions. In the previous section we saw (Chart 7) that 77% of the vocabulary contained in the lists 62 See TIPA, vol.12, p.51. 63 See TIPA, vol.12, p.219 64 That nūṟpā is on p. 591 inside TVG's VC2005. See also my statistics inside Chart 3 (section 2) on the total number of such verses inside Peruntēvaṉār's commentary. 65 Cf. TIPA, Vol. 13, p.74: parimāṟṟa aṇi --> parivaruttaṉam, parivaruttaṉai, māṟṟunilai aṇi, māṟāṭṭu aṇi, ... (kuṟaḷ 1183), VC175, derived from the lost Aṇiyiyal was Tamil. We see in this chart that in the AP, the percentage of Tamil vocabulary is 60%, and that it goes down to 48% in the text composed by the Tamil Taṇṭi. Paradoxically, the movement is the inverse of the movement seen in Chart 5, where the percentages of Tamil vocabulary for the guṇas were respectively 30% (in the AP) and 70% (in the text composed by the Tamil Taṇṭi). I shall come back to those figures in the concluding section, but it is now time to examine the topic of vaṇṇam, left untranslated until now, but which was one of the key terms constitutive of the rūpaka in VC143, which is where this essay began.

Why did Puttamittiraṉār mention vaṇṇam?

As previously indicated (see Chart 2 above), vaṇṇam is the topic of VC142, the last kārikai of the YP (Yāppup paṭalam), the fourth section of the VC, devoted to metrics. That kārikai VC142 is, however, a typical example of the cryptic terseness of Puttamittiraṉār, who is certainly not himself a practitioner of arthavyakti, 66 because VC142 a totally borrowed and reordered list. This list would be incomprehensible without Peruntevaṉār, who does not bring any original contribution, but contents himself with borrowing, in the guise of a commentary, the slightly simplified text of the 20 sūtras from the Tolkāppiyam -totally surrendering to the most famous Tamil traditional source. More precisely, kārikai VC142 reads:

(7a) mellicai yēnta loḻukuruṭ ṭeṇṇoru vēmuṭuku // valliyal pāvakap pāṭṭu nalivakaip pōṭiyaiyu // colliya cittiran tāvu puṟappāṭ ṭaḷapeṭaiyum // vallicai tūṅkal neṭuñcīr kuṟuñcī rivaivaṇṇamē. (VC142 [metrical text]) I must first split this text in order to extract for the reader the twenty technical terms which are hidden in it, in the following manner, including additionally the twenty integers which go from 1 to 20, in an apparently random order: vaṇṇam75 "vaṇṇams of sixteen kalai-s". This agrees with the characterization found in the tenth-century Paṉṉirupāṭṭiyal, where the oliyantāti (item 267) is characterized as follows:

(10a) tatta miṉatti loppumuṟai piṟaḻātu // nālaṭi yīreṇ kalaiyoru muppatu // kōliya toliyan tāti yākum "an oli-y-antāti is that in which is made into a circle (kōliyatu) a group of thirty (oru muppatu) [stanzas having each] four lines (nālaṭi) of twice-eight kalai (īr-eṇ kalai) where there is no deviation (piṟaḻātu) [between the corresponding kalai-s in the various lines] in the comparable order in their own [phonetic] The high value attached to the performance of composing poems which follow all the difficult phonetic constraints defining vaṇṇam and the continued prestige of the Tolkāppiyam within the "beautiful Tamil-speaking world" probably explain the echoes of the vaṇṇam terminology which we find in in later Tamil Alaṅkāraśāstra literature-specifically, with reference to the three neṟi-s "paths/styles" (i.e. vaitaruppam/Vaidarbhī, kauṭam/Gauḍī, pāñcālam/Pāñcālī), in terms of guṇas.77 Tamil scholars, making use of that terminology, have provided technical Tamil explanations for the tastes attributed to the poets belonging to the three neṟi-s.

We find for instance, in the commentary to Māraṉalaṅkāram [MA] the following statements concerning respectively the illustrative verses 88, 89 and 90. These verses are reputed to illustrate the difference in taste between vaitaruppam, kauṭam and pāñcālam when it comes to the guṇa called ceṟivu by Taṇṭi-14 and by the MA, and which was called cilīṭṭam by VC148 (cf. TVG, p. 538), adapting the term from Daṇḍin's śliṣṭaṃ.

(11a) Itu vaitaruppac ceṟivu. eṉṉa? melliṉamākiya eḻuttuc ceṟiya melliṉa vaṇṇam uṟṟu avveḻuttāṉ ākiya coṟkaḷ ceṟiyac ceṟittamaiyiṉ eṉka. (MA p. 104) «This (illustrates) "tightness" à la mode Vaidarbha. And if one asks why. Say that it is because, (nasal) phones of a softnature are densely present, vaṇṇam of soft-genre is being felt and the words which are made on the basis of those phones are therefore densely present.» (11b) ivvāṟu melliṉa vaṇṇattāṉ melleḻuttuc ceṟintu varutal virumpātu valliṉa vaṇṇattāṉ valleḻuttuc ceṟinta collōṭum vaṟkeṉat toṭuppatē vēṇṭuvar kauṭar (MA p. 105) «being unappreciative of the dense presence of soft (nasal) sounds which would result from (the use of) soft vaṇṇam, the Gauḍa-s require the stringing in a harsh manner of words made of tightly-packed arsh consonants, by the use of the vaṇṇam of harsh genre.» (11c) itu pāṉcālac ceṟivu. eṉṉai? iṭaiyiṉamākiya eḻuttu mikavum ceṟiya iyaipuvaṇṇam uṟṟu avveḻuttāṉāya col ceṟiya vantamaiyāṉ eṉak koḷka. (MA p. 106). « This is "tightness" à la mode Pāñcāla. (If one asks) "why?", (answer): This is because, the intermediate phones 78 being densely present, and the "agreeing vaṇṇam" being therefore felt, the words formed by means of those phones are densely present.» By doing this, Tamil scholars were reconnecting with the first encounter between the Daṇḍin school and the world of Tamil literature after a possible theoretical interruption in the importance attributed to vaṇṇam. I am here referring to the fact that the more "orthodox" Taṇṭiyalaṅkāram (TA), which is not a global five-fold treatise (dealing with pañca vatikāram), but is concerned only with a single branch (i.e. Aṇi), does not make use at all of the word vaṇṇam, probably because the original Daṇḍin does not contain a Sanskrit term of which vaṇṇam would be the Tamil translation.

A few conclusions

We are now reaching the end of this fragment of an exploration of the Tamil śāstric literature, in which the starting point was a kārikai from the Vīracōḻiyam. The main conclusion for me is that much remains to be done if one wants to really understand what took place in the evolution of that literature, but that we shall probably never be in a position to totally reconstruct some of the episodes.

Nevertheless, it seems that the early model for alaṅkāram in Tamil was not Daṇḍin; otherwise we would not have such a unanimity for lists containing twenty-eight elements. One suspects that Puttamittiraṉār tried to normalize what he must have perceived as "chaos" but that, at the same time, his commentator, Peruntēvaṉār, incorporated a lot of the early material in embedded nūṟpā-s. However, it is not such an easy task to understand and to translate the 124 nūṟpā-s which are embedded in the commentary, along with those of the illustrative verses which are associated with them.

After that, the task of the TA must have been to really stick to the orthodox pan-indian interpretation of the DK, and this must be the reason why the percentage of Tamil names for the 35 alaṅkāra-s went diminishing and became smaller than 50% (see end of section 7).

However, the TA school probably never became very influential with the traditional scholars, such as Nacciṉārkkiṉiyar who were the guardians of the older texts, such as the Tolkāppiyam and the Eṭṭut tokai. He does not seem to make use of the TA terminology. He must not have been favourably impressed by those "young Turks," who could not understand that everything useful was already there in the Tolkāppiyam. However, a term such as vārttai, which belongs to the terminology of the Aṇiyiyal, is found in his Tolkāppiyam commentary. 79 All those explicit arthālaṅkāra (poruḷ-aṇi) figures must have seemed clumsy to traditional scholars who were used to deal with everything in terms such as kuṟippu, 80 muṉṉam, 81 or icaiyeccam. Who then needs vakrôkti, even if it is called maṭaṅkal*^naviṟci (or maṭakku)], or indirect uvamai (cuṭṭik kūṟā-v-uvamai), or understood as iṟaicci or aṅkatam (plus vacai/vāḻttu, ceviyaṟivuṟūu, etc.). They may have thought that it is enough to concentrate on form, 78 Semi-vowels and liquids: y, r, l, v, ḻ and ḷ. 79 Vārttai occurs in Nacciṉārkkiṉiyar's commentary on TP40n. See Ganesh Iyer p.100 and see TIPA,vol. 7,p.124,entry 416. 80 See the Kuṟaḷ chapter: kuṟippaṟital; also the expression kūṟāmaṟ kuṟittataṉ-mēṟ cellum kaṭuṅ-kūḷi in line 3 of the Kaṭavuḷ Vāḻttu of Kalittokai). 81 muṉṉattiṉ uṇarum kiḷaviyum uḷavē ..

(

  leaving out Nāṭakat tamiḻ and Icait tamiḻ)

  chronology and map of the Tamil scholarly tradition 3. What does it mean for the Alaṅkārap Paṭalam (AP) to be an (attempted) translation of the KD? (to be a partial translation from Skt into Tamil)19

Figure 1 :

 1 Figure 1: Extract from the 1840 edition of Tivākaram

(

  3b) "[K] The twenty-eight alaṅkāram-s obtain by enumerating (28 = 5 + 5 + 18): ((FIRST GROUP: 5 items)) [B2] those occurring in variable forms (viravi varuvaṉa) ((namely)) [A] a1, a2, a3, a4, [B1] ((and)) b1 of expansive flame ((SECOND GROUP: 5 items)) [E] those occurring in those subdivisions which are amenable (pāṟpaṭak kiḷanta pakutiyiṉ varuna) (to the previous ones) ((namely)) [C] c1, c2, [D] d1, d2 and d3 ((and THIRD GROUP: 18 items)) [F] f1, f2, f3, [X] x1, x2, x3, [G] g1a, g1b, g2, [H] h1, h2, [I] i1, i2, i3, [J] j1, j2, j3 ((and)) j4" (1990-1993 critical edition [University of Madras])

(

  3c) "[K] The twenty-eight alaṅkāram-s obtain by enumerating (28 = 5 + 5 + 18): ((FIRST GROUP: 5 items)) [B2] those occurring in variable forms ((namely)) [A] a1, a2, a3, a4, [B1] ((and)) b1 of expansive flame ((SECOND GROUP: 5 items)) [E] those occurring in those subdivisions which are amenable (to the previous ones) ((namely)) [C] c1, c2, [D] d1, d2 and d3 ((and THIRD GROUP: 18

Figure 4 :

 4 Figure4:Piṅkalam [1890, p. 167, bottom]

Figure 5 :

 5 Figure 5: Piṅkama [1890, p. 168, top]

(

  4b) "[K] ... by means of the twenty-eight alaṅkāram-s, which obtain by enumerating (28 = 5 + 9 + 14): ((FIRST GROUP: 5 items)) [B2] those occurring in variable forms ((namely)) [A] a2, a3bis, a4bis, [B1] ((and)) b1 of expansive flame ((SECOND GROUP: 9 items)) [E] those occurring in those subdivisions which are amenable (to the previous ones) ((namely)) [C] c1, c2, [X] x1, x2aa, x2b, x3, [D] d1, d2 and d3 ((and THIRD GROUP: 14 items)) [F] f1, f2, f3, [G] g1, g2, [H] h1, h2, [I] i1, i2, i3, [J] j1, j2, j3 ((and)) j4"

(

  4d) "[K] ... by means of the twenty-eight alaṅkāram-s, which obtain by enumerating (28 = 4 + 9 + 15): ((FIRST GROUP: 4 items)) [B2] those occurring in variable forms ((namely)) [A] a2, a4ter, [B1] ((and)) b1 of expansive flame ((SECOND GROUP: 9 items)) [E] those occurring in those subdivisions which are amenable (to the previous ones) ((namely)) [C] c1, c2, [X] x1, x2aa, x2b, x3, [D] d1, d2 and d3 ((and THIRD GROUP: 15 items)) [F] f1, f2, f3, [G] g1a, g1b, g2, [H] h1, h2, [I] i1, i2, i3, [J] j1, j2, j3 ((and)) j4" reinterpretation of (4a) ]

  Figure 7: p. 511 (bottom) in Editio Princeps of YV(vol. 2, 1917)

  uṭaṉilaik kūṭṭam-um (YV18 = g1) {g2 vanishes}, [H * ] nuvalā nuvaṟci-y-um (YV19 = h1) {h2 vanishes}, [Z] uyar-moḻi-y-um (YV20 = z1 [NEW]), [I] nitaricaṉam-um (YV21 = i1), māṟāṭṭ-um (YV22 = i2bis [REPLACES i2 by changing m to p and changing ṟ to r] is NOW T(D27)), oruṅkiyal moḻi-y-um (YV23 = i3*), [J] aiyam-um (YV24 = j1), uyarv-um (YV25 = j2), viraviyal-um (YV26 = j3), vāḻtt-um (YV27 = j4) eṉṟōtappaṭṭa alaṅkāraṅkaḷum eṉṟavāṟu. avai aṇiyiyaluṭ kaṇṭu koḷka. (YV_1998, p. 585) 56(6b) [sūtra fragment] which reads "uruvaka m-āti viraviya l-īṟā // varum-alaṅ kāramum" 57 refers to the (27) ornaments whose list is recited (ōtappaṭṭa) as "a1 a2 a3ter a4bis b1bis c1 c2* x1 x2aa x2b x3 d1 d2 d3 f1 f2 f3 g1 h1 z1 i1 i2bis i3* j1 j2 j3 j4". You can examine them in the Aṇiyiyal»

Figure 8 :

 8 Figure 8: p. 512 (top) in Editio Princeps of YV(vol. 2, 1917)

  Another group of editors (whose work is summarized in the Santi Sadhana trust 2000 Concordance[BIB]) thinks that the expression uṭṭoṭar tokaimoḻi must be split into two subexpressions, namely uṭṭoṭar (2a) and tokaimoḻi (2b), each of them being the name of a specific alaṅkāram Symmetrically, as far as line G is concerned  One group of editors thinks that the expressions uṭaṉilai (g1a) and kūṭṭam (g1b) x2, are the names of two distinct alaṅkāram  The Santi Sadhana group of editors thinks that those two expressions form a single name, for an alaṅkāram (g1) called uṭaṉilaik kūṭṭamThese remarks having been made, it is now time to try to make some progress in the task of explaining the content of Ti-2458, elaborating on the first section of what was given in (3b) and (3c), which corresponds to the content of lines A and B. Although that first section enumerates five items, for which the abbreviated designations (and names) are a1 (uruvakam), a2 (uvamai), a3 (vaḻimaṭakku), a4 (nilaimaṭakku) and b (viḷakku)43 , it has an unmistakable resemblance with an enumeration of four items which is found inside NŚ XVII.43, namely(3d) Four figures of speech available in drama are: Simile (upamā), Metaphor (rūpaka), Condensed Expression (dīpaka, lit. lamp) and Yamaka. [NŚ XVII.43, English translation: Ghosh[2007] (reprint), p.308] (BIB)

)(BIB) has "eḻunāṉk-alaṅkāram" [seven (times) four] instead of irupatteṭṭu [twenty-eight].



  two forms are does it mean that what they signify is different?  (Q2) if two forms are identical, does it mean that what they signify is the same?

  type (tatta miṉatti loppumuṟai).(Paṉṉiru Pāṭṭiyal, item 267, 1951, p. 40) (BIB) Although the word vaṇṇam does not appear here, this description seems to fit what is nowadays known among Tamil poets as vaṇṇap pāṭṭu, of which the most well-known example nowadays is probably the Tiruppukaḻ. Additionally, a sūtra shortly afterwards explains that:(10b) vaṇṇaka meṉpa toliyeṉap paṭumē "that which is called vaṇṇakam can be called oli."(Paṉṉiru Pāṭṭiyal, item 269, 1951, p. 40) 76 9. Popularity of explanations of guṇas based on vaṇṇam in later Tamil alaṅkāra śāstra literature

The expression Cen Tamiḻ seems to correspond exactly to the expression saṃskṛtā bhāṣā, with saṃskṛtā replaced by cem "perfect" and bhāṣā replaced by Tamiḻ.

Paṉampāraṉār, "Special Preface" (ciṟappup pāyiram) to the Tolkāppiyam (T)--the most ancient component of the Tamil scholarly corpus.

My hypothetical question can nowadays almost sound realistic if we observe that the number of bilingual scholars, equally at ease in Sanskrit and in Classical Tamil, is not very high in Tamil Nadu and that a sincere Tamil student, who cannot receive help from his Tamil professors as far as Sanskrit sources are concerned, is not in a situation very different from the perspective considered in the first sentence of this essay.

In the T, vaṇṇam is the 26 th limb of poetry, and comes in 20 varieties. See section

All Tamil treatises are versified. The stanzas (referred to as kārikai-s) seen in the VC have four metrical lines of five feet each, and frequently contain a vocative addressed to a Lady. Additionally, in a given stanza, all the lines contain the same number of akṣara-s, which can be either 16 or 17, depending on the nature of the first syllable. This means that the length of one kārikai in the VC is almost exactly the length of two thirty-two syllable śloka elements in the KD.

Literally: "the treatise which abounds as a shore", i.e., salvation (if I understand correctly).

Daṇḍin is not the only external source to be explicitly named in the VC. We also have a reference to Avinayaṉār in VC85 and to Akattiyar in VC76 (not to mention the reference to Avalōkitaṉ [and Akattiyaṉ] in the prefatory section).

In order to understand that verse, as per the intention of its author, one should probably pretend not to know before reading it that the word alaṅkāram can be applied to something other than ornaments used by human beings. The metaphor becomes thus a "métaphore vive", and the verse fulfills its function. which consists in giving a new figurative meaning to the word alaṅkāram.

Vaṇṇam has been explained in the previous chapter (Yāppu), in VC142.

Poruḷ has already been discussed in the third large section of the VC, called Poruḷatikāram. In that discussion, 27 parameters (called urai), starting with caṭṭakam (which encompasses the metrical structure) have been examined.

In the TA, this would be the poruḷ-aṇi (arthālaṅkāra) section.

Other classifications are found in VC112 (in the Yāppu section).

The inverted commas indicate that strategy γ does not completely qualify as "translation". See chart 5, chart 7 and chart 8.

If we except the second section (col-l-atikāram), which contains 6 paṭalam ("chapter"), all the other sections can be called either "book" (atikāram) or "chapter" (paṭalam) because they contain a single chapter.

The numbering for the illustrative verses and for the grammatical nūṟpā-s is the one given by TVG in his 2005 edition of the VC. There are also unnumbered quotations.

For a justification, see the information given in footnote 7.

This echoes some of the questions which I have discussed, with respect to tantra yukti-s, in[START_REF] Chevillard | The Metagrammatical Vocabulary inside the Lists of 32 Tantrayukti-s and its Adaptation to Tamil: Towards a Sanskrit-Tamil Dictionary[END_REF], concerning what it means in practice to adapt a technical vocabulary from Sanskrit into Tamil, although Puttamittiraṉār's main concern may have been to go towards standardization. (EDITED)

The Tamil Taṇṭi says, nevertheless, (in verse 14) that those kuṇaṉ are like uyir "life" to the path called Vaitaruppam. TVG frequently refers to them (in the TIPA) as kuṇa-v-aṇi "qualitative ornaments" or as potu-v-aṇi "general ornaments".

LINK with Codifying beauty. However, there is also the question of the relationship between pulaṉ and pulavar. A pulavar is an

The term viḷakku is in fact preceded and reinforced by a decorative epithet which has an initial rhyme relationship with it, in viri cuṭar viḷakku.

Of course, the fact that the same metaphore has been used in both cases does not tell us what the figure is, but it is not within the scope of this article to explain what the figures consist of. That would require a full book.

This is the characterisation of āciriyat tuṟai. It involves a repetion of the middle line (naṭu-v-aṭi maṭakku).

This is based on the 1968 edition ofPiṅkalam (p.201).

The reason for the difference is that (4a) transcribes Figure4and Figure5, whereas (3a) trancribes Figure3.

See the difference between the decompositions "(28 = 5 + 9 + 14) in 4b, and "(28 = 5 + 5 + 18)" in 3b and 3c.

The first edition of the Tivākaram is dated 1839, but it contained only the first 10 chapters. A more complete edition came only the following year.

In the case of the 10 items for which I have put a hyphen, the commentator has simply added the word aṇi at the end. For instance, uruvakam is explained as uruvaka-v-aṇi and uvamai is explained as uvamai-y-aṇi.

See p.32 in Vaccaṇantimālai eṉṉum veṇpāp pāṭṭiyalum varaiyaṟutta pāṭṭiyalum, (3 rd ed.), 1951, kaḻakam, Chennai. The commentator glosses vaṇṇam by palcantavakuppu.

For additional details concerning the frequent lack of distinction betweem vaṇṇam and vaṇṇakam, see the introduction to Vaṇṇat tiraṭṭu Ti. Vē.Kōpālayyar (Tañcai Carasvati Mahāl veḷiyīṭu 123, 1969).(BIB)

See the remarks in TVG_1973, Ilakkaṇa Viḷakkam, Aṇiyiyal, p.64. See also: TVG_MA_2005:623 (kauṭa iṉṉicai, kauṭa utāram, etc.), TVG_MA_2005:627 (pāñcāla iṉṉicai, pāñcāla utāram, etc.), TVG_MA_2005:630-631 (vaitaruppa iṉṉicai, vaitaruppa utāram, etc.