Textual Criticism of 'Cilappathikaram'

Textual Criticism is a critical study directed towards determining the true reading of a text. It is a basic literary enterprise. Its aim is to establish as closely as possible what an author wrote, by assaying and correcting the sources of error and confusion in the various printings of a work. Fredson Bowers lists the four basic functions of textual criticism. They are (1) to analyse the characteristics of an extant manuscript, (2) to recover the original text of the old manuscript. (3) to study the transmission of a printed text and (4) to present an authentic, established and edited text to the public.

Textual criticism is quite essential to understand a literal y work. Without a reliable text, no critic has anything definite to evaluate, judge and criticize. Editing an ancient Tamil text has its own peculiar problems. Tamil texts were written on palm-leaves even as late as 19th century. The most difficult problem in deciphering the text is caused by the omission of dots, as the dot may pierce the palm-leaf. Hence it is difficult to distinguish between a consonant and a syllabic letter. Another problem is the nature of Tamil Orthography. It is difficult to distinguish between shorter and longer vowels like "a1 s ar.cl V s. The confusion was cleared in the 1 8th century by the reforms of the script introduced by the Italian Jesuit priest, Joseph Constantinus Beschi. The reform "did not1 percolate to the masses till the introduction of printing. Under these circumstances the correct reading of a text can be arrived at through a knowledge of the matter on hand and through subtle intuition.

Even after the introduction of printing, most texts did not see the light of day till the 19th century. Till 1835 printing presses were owned by Christian missionaries. In 1835 Charles Metcalfe's Act became law, lifting the ban on printing and opening the gates of the free press. Even before lifting of the ban, Arumuga Navalar successfully published Thirukkural' and Thirumurugarrupadai'. Rev. Miron Winslow in his preface to his famous Tamil Dictionary wryly comments in 1862; 'Many natives, who write poetry readily, cannot write a page of correct prose.'

It was in this milieu that U.V.Swaminatha Iyer had to edit the classical texts and to write commentaries in prose so that the significance of the texts could be comprehended by scholars and laymen alike. In 1887, he published 'Chinthamani' and opened the floodgates of Tamil Renaissance. "Cilappathikaram" followed suit in 1892. When he published "Cilappathikaram1, the epic was known to quite a few. Many wondered if it was "Cirappathikaram". Such was the prevailing darkness enveloping Tamil literature in which he operated. He learnt Tamil under the old "gurukulam1 system. His teacher Minakshisundaram Pillai was just a prolific versifier. Pillai's contacts with the mutts of the day helped him acquire manuscripts. When Swaminatha Iyer went on a quest for manuscripts, many did not understand the worth of manuscripts. His pathetic struggle to acquire manuscripts is pictured in his autobiography. In an age where transport was a luxury, he went round searching for manuscripts. It was the age of hurricane lamps not electricity. He had to study the manuscripts with their oddities under these tiring circumstances. His errors are surprisingly minimal despite these difficulties.

He had no grounding in the western discipline of textual criticism. With his ingenuity he evolved his own techniques. Instead of the card system, he adopted a box system. This helped him in indexing. His editions invariably contained indexes.

Index was conspicuously absent in all the editions of 'Cilappathikaram' that followed his. The solitary exception is the edition of S.Rajam in 1957. In his second edition, S.Rajam too omitted the index for reasons best known to him. It is a matter of regret that despite the proliferation of Universities no serious attempt has been made to have a refreshing relook at the classics edited by Swaminatha Iyer with the help of palm- leaf manuscripts and with the knowledge of new historical facts and epigraphical and numismatic discoveries. A textual criticism of "Cilappathikaram1 is attempted here to evaluate Swaminatha Iyer's text and to offer guidelines for the future. For, a definite edition of 'Cilappathikaram' is long overdue.

A typically Indian problem is the confusion planted by interpolators. Such an interpolation in Tamil/is named as 'Velli patam' or the text of Velli who added
his own lines with gusto little realising the havoc caused to the original Tamil text. The perfect interpolator is one Sornam Pillai who forged an entire text, named it Innilai' and passed it off as one of the 18 ethical works of the Classical Age. Even the shrewd freedom - fighter V.O.Chidambaram Pillai was the victim of this literary forgery. He set about editing the forged text in high seriousness with exhaustive commentaries.

Interpolation often occurs where emotions are involved. Caste is a reality of Indian life and evokes emotions. No wonder,"Azharpadukathai', the scene of Kannagi setting fire to the city of Madurai contains more than 59 lines of interpolation. The poet describes the 'bhutas' or the patron saints of the four major castes, Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaisyas and farmers leaving the city on fire. Interpolators were quick to seize the opportunity and added the lines. Swaminatha Iyer put the lines within brackets. Most manuscripts have omitted the lines enabling Swaminatha Iyer to fix the correct text.

Similarly stanzas in "Venba1 form are appended to the 'Kathais' in the first two cantos like the \enbas' after the text of each of Ihc Ten Songs or Taththupattu'. Swaminatha Iyer considers some of them as interpolations as they are not uniformly found in all the manuscripts. But some choose to admire them for their literary merit. Late K.A.P.Viswanathan even extols them and considers Elango as the master of 'Venba' form. 'Pathigam', the prefatory chapter, is found in most of the manuscripts, though some consider it an interpolation.

Swaminatha Iyer scrupulously adopted certain norms of textual criticism. He adhered to the manuscripts available. When there are textual variations, he chose the correct one by analysing them with the help of other manuscripts and the commentaries of Adiyarkunallar and Arumpathavuraiasiriyar. He never introduced any words of his own in the text by sheer guesswork. Such an addition is really an interpolation. Hence he avoided this at all costs. Unfortunately, Adiyarknnallar's commentary is now available for only 18 "Kathais" of a total of 30. His commentary on the climactic 9th chapter "Kanal Vari1 is missing. Hence at first Swaminatha Iyer was a little confused over even the structural arrangement of the stanzas. To add to his woes the palm leaf manuscripts contain variant readings. His confusion is revealed in his first edition in 1892. Later he came across three paper manuscripts which helped him overcome the confusion. Probably with their help 'Kanalvari1 attained structural unity and textual fixity in his second edition in 1920 only.

For instance his first edition contained the words 'Chon mada VannanY. Only in the second edition he corrected it as the beautiful line "Cheral mada vannam' . Obviously he was confused by the peculiarity of the writing of the day which could not distinguish between "cho" and 'chera' . Both were written in the same form. Only the editor's ingenuity could datect the correct reading.

Commentary is a unique literary system in Tamil. Some grammarians add their own commentaries to their own texts to ensure the correctness of the texts • Commentary and interpretation have their own role to play in Tamil textual criticism and particularly in 'Cilappathikararri.

Swaminatha Iyer painstakingly examined the manuscripts and found 1276 variant readings. Unfortunately he has not given the full complement of textual variations in the manuscripts. In "Arangerru Kathai', he has given just 31 variant readings. But in one of the manuscripts he himself has consulted, the manuscript of Mylai Annasami Upadhyayar now available in the library named after him, there are 70 variant readings which he has not recorded. This is just an illustration only.

A definite edition with all possible readings is quite necessary to set right this anomaly.

No doubt some readings are frivolous and can be omitted without harming the text. But others are really useful to have a clear understanding of Tamil culture.
Tamil music is a difficult field of study where even a minor variation can suggest
reliable clues. For instance, 'Vedhirpadu kilamai' in line 87 of the 'Kathai' can be substituted by 'Verpadu kilamai', a variant reading of Mylai Annasamy manuscript according to Vibulananthar who made a deep study of 'Yazh' in his 'Yazh Nool' (p.325)

Some readings though erroneous, have linguistic value as clues to linguistic archaeology. Most manuscripts contain the word 'Kelvi' (zh) instead of 'Kelvi'.

The word contains special 'l' (zh) the 15th consonant instead of the correct letter 1, the sixteenth consonant. Swaminatha Iyer correctly chose 'Kelvi' with the 16th consonant. But "Kelvi1 with the fifteenth consonant seems to have been sanctioned by common usage in the 18th century Tamil prose. The famous diarists of the age, Anandarangappillai and Viranaiker (edited by O.M. Gopalakrishnan in 2004 and 1992) used only 'Kelvi' (zh), and not 'Kelvi'. The usage of 'Kelvi' (zh) in the manuscripts of 'Cilapathikaram' is quite common. The scribes adopted the usage of the time only. They are not to blame. A study of the usage may be of use to linguists.

Even Homer nods. Adiyarkunallar too has adopted both wrong readings and interpretations in some places. He preferred "Katignai" to "Kadigai" in the poet's description of Kaunti Adigal's paraphernalia. 'Katignai' is a begging bowl. 'Kadigai' ia a pike-staff, In India it is a common sight to see ascetics of all religious persuasions carrying pike-staff. From personal observations during my stay in a Jain monastry in Gandhinagar and from personal discussions with Jaina ascetics and professors, I have found that 'Kadigai1 is the correct reading. The ascetics who are bound by the tenets of their religion to walk distances carry the staff measuring upto their nose in order to gauge the depth of the streams they have to cross. Besides it is ridiculous to picture Kaunti carrying a begging bowl on her hands throughout her journey. It is customary for the ascetics to collect food from a single house only. Hence the use of the phrase by "Orilpichai1 by "Orilpichayar', the author of Kurunthokai 277. The ascetics collect the food in a bowl and put the bowl in a two-tiered hoop on the shoulders, one for the liquid diet and another for the solid food. Besides, 'Katigai' suits the adjective 'Thorn aru' meaning 'without causing grief or pain'. The staff wielded by the ascetics believing in 'ahimsa' will not injure any living organism.

Wrong interpretations lead to a misunderstanding of the text. Kovalan's last meal consisted of 'koli pahal'. 'Pahal' is the jackfruit, the favourite fruit of Kerala. 'Koli' is interpreted by Adiyarkunallar as the tree that yields fruits without flowering. But it is the female receptacle that develops into a fruit. The flower of the jackfruit is known to "Tholkappiar" and his commentator (Ezhuthmu 227, commentary). Similar is the geographical misrepresentation of 'Uttara' (which is really Uttara Kosala) and " Vajra' encircled by the waters of the rivers on three sides and the Himalayas on one side. The commentator has mistaken "Onguneer veli' and Veenguneer veli1 for the sea surrounding the concerned areas. It is a matter of common geographical knowledge that the sea is not found near the Himalayan foothills. While the poet is exact in his botanical and geographical descriptions, both the commentator and the editor Swaminatha Iyer are wrong on facts. Unfortunately this kind of interpretation is followed even by modern editors who ought to know better Similarly Chedi is a real geographical entity of ancient North India and not the land of" Vidyadaras', or heavenly beings as imagined by both the commentator and Swaminatha Iyer. The famous Kalinga king Kharavela belonged to the Chedi dynasty.

These are just misunderstandings of an ancient text. Unfortunately such misunderstandings continue to be adopted even today without questioning, Interpretation is a part of textual criticism especially in the Tamil context, and cannot be ignored in a textual analysis. Interpretative analysis seems to have stopped with Swaminatha Iyer. Analysis of various readings may help to study the transmission of a text from palm-leaf to printed form. During the passage of centuries an ancient text accumulates incremental incrustations. These incremental incrustations caused by the scribes of successive centuries should be carefully
studied to arrive at the correct reading to recover the original text, and to present an authentic version, the two important functions of a textual critic. An example will suffice to bear this out. In 'Kanal vari' there is a famous line "nammai maranthaarai naam marakkamaattomaal" On the basis of the first person plurarnam' Vaiyapuri Pillai justly concluded that the word is of late origin, Instead of a through study of the available manuscripts he came to the hasty conclusion that the epic belongs to a later date. In the very first edition of "Cilappathikaram1 by Subbaraya Chettiar in 1876, and in the manuscript of Mylai Annaswami Upadhayar consulted by Swaminama Iyer himself, only "Yam ' occurs. Unfortunately U.V.Swaminatha Iyer failed to mention this alternative reading in his edition. He has also not taken into consideration the incongruity of the word "emmai1 in the second line and "nammai1 in the fourth line of the same stanza. This led Vaiyapuri Pillai to relegate the text to a later date. Fixing a date of the text should be on a more solid basis than the study of words and expressions which bear the scars and incrustations of centuries gone by.

Historical texts are of use in determining a correct reading. "Mantharam1 is described in 23rd chapter,' 'Katturai Kathai1 1. 84. 'Mantharam' is really "Marantharam1 in the light of Ptolemy's 'Marounda'. Both the words cannot be easily distinguished in ancient orthography. The rhyme scheme in "Akananuru1 376 confirms 'Maranthai' as the correct reading, as 'Maranthai' rhymes with "Kurangu" in the line before. "Maranmai1 from Elango's description and Ptolemy's
description in chapter 87 of his 'Geography' seems to be located near modern
Thiruvananthapuram. Vaiyapuri Pillai also in his edition of Sangam poetry uses the phrase 'nal maranthai nahar'.

There is one particular reading of Swaminatha Iyer which has damaged the character of Kovalan, the hero of the epic. The 16th Kathai speaks of his association with 'Vamba paraththar' or the new debauchees. Adiyarkunallar and Swaminatha Iyer accept this reading. But Arumpathavurai-asiriyar understanding the absurdity of the reading suggests an alternate reading 'Vamba manthar' meaning disinterested people. But three manuscripts contain a sensible reading "Vampa parathar1 newly rich merchants "Parathar1 is used earlier by the poet and other Sangam poets on many occasions to mean 'merchants'. Only in the previous "kathai1 Kovalan's heroic virtues are extolled by Madalan, the Brahmin. To push him down in the estimate of his character by a single phrase that too, on the eve of his cold-blooded murder is against the tenor of the previous "Kathai' and against the tragic atmosphere so assiduously and artistically built up by the poet.

Swaminatha Iyer consulted 18 palm-leaf manuscripts and 3 paper manuscripts. Of these only 4 palm-leaf manuscripts are preserved in the library named after him. Of the four two are in a miserable condition. They could not withstand the havoc of time. These manuscripts also will disappear in the next 25 years. Hence the urgency of the need for a thorough textual criticism, and for a definite edition to preserve the incomparable beauties of the great epic ' Cilappathikaram'.