Studien Zur Indologie Und Iranistik

Author(s): Gert Klingenschmitt, Albrecht Wezler, Michael Witzel
Publisher: Gert Klingenschmitt, Albrecht Wezler, Michael Witzel

Page 5

114
Herman Tieken
to what particular classificatory category. This variance between S and T in the inclusion of a gâthâ in a particular category seems to be due to either a difference in emphasis or choice or in interpretation. For instance, S classified 128, 143 and 396 in the vasanta-vrajyâ, T, on the other hand, in the viraha-paddhati and not in the section corresponding to the vasanta-vrajyâ of S, viz. in a part of the uduvannana "the description of the seasons of the year" found at the end of the 7th cento. The gâthâ-s contain references to the characteristics of the spring-season : 128: mahumâsa- "the spring''; 143 : navacûapallava - "the young sprqut of the mango"; 396 : amvâna dalam "leaf of mangos". Each of these three gâthâ-s, though, taken as a whole, deals with seperation, actual or imminent. Therefore the inclusion of them in the vasanta-vrajyâ does not exclude the inclusion in the viraha-paddhati or vice versa. In this case the differences in classification are due to a difference in emphasis or choice. A case of difference in interpretation is furnished by 49, which S grouped in the grîsma-vrajyâ and T in the adaanâ-paddhati. By association the description of the sun-heat (grîsma) during the midday in the summer brings to mind the hardship of the traveller (pahia or virahi). S classified 49 in the grîsmavrajyâ, the other option within his system being the virahi-vrajyâ. Since the commentary of T on this gâthâ is not preserved, I can only guess what the basis was for him to group it in the adaanâ- paddhati. Possibly T took the gâthâ to contain the words with which an unfaithful woman invited a traveller inside her house. Here the difference in classification between S and T is due to a difference in interpretation, and both interpretations are mutually exclusive.
Because the traditional interpretations are often at variance and lack consistency, it is difficult to assess exactly the content of the gâthâ-s. On the other hand these gâthâ-s must be interpreted within the framework of native explanation. One other such traditional literary theory may be found in Tolkâppiyam, the oldest Tamil grammar extant, which deals very extensively, amongst others, with poetics. Its position vis à vis the Old Tamil literature, and especially the love poems (Akam) may be compared to that of S and T. In the first place, because this Akam-poetry
12. This against A. Weber who denied that there was any system at all in the order
of the sections. With regard to the stana-vrajyâ of S. (op. cit., p. 437 fnt. 2) he exclaimed: "wie der auf einmal hier hereinschneit!" and goes on with "Es liegt eben gar kein System in der Anordnung und Reihenfolge der einzelnen 6 $ vor." Of course I do not know what his expectations were with regard to this order. The fact that some clusters of sections show up in 3 different kosa-s points already to a common tradition with some fixed order, the rationale behind which we do not perceive. This whole point should be elaborated. More kosa-s should be taken into consideration to get an idea of the spread of this tradition and the