2 4 - L I T E R A R Y C R I T I C I S W I N T A M I L

I t is a commonplace t h a t t h e Western c r i t i c s a r e n o t

unanimous in t h e i r view of t h e n a t u r e and f u n c t i o n of

l i t e r a r y c r i t i c i s m . Though t h i s genre has grown t o awesome

p r o p o r t i o n s i n t h e West, they have n o t been a b l e t o d e f i n e

p r e c i s e l y i t s o b j e c t i v e s . But t h e p l i g h t of t h e c r i t i c s has

n o t hampered i t s p r o g r e s s in any way. On t h e o t h e r hand,

t h i s has i n d i r e c t l y helped c r i t i c i s m ach ieve mushroom

growth and compete wi th t h e o t h e r l i t e r a r y k inds

s u c c e s s f u l l y . Now some s c h o l a r s genu ine ly f e e l t h a t t h e r e

is t h e danger of c r i t i c i s m s t e a l i n g a march over c r e a t i v e

a c t i v i t y i t s e l f and of e x c e s s i v e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n p rov ing

harmful t o a e s t h e t i c d e l i g h t .

Can c r i t i c i s m be cons idered a l i t e r a r y form? Should

it en joy e q u a l s t a t u s wi th p o e t r y , f i c t i o n and drama? I s it

an a r t o r a s c i e n c e ? What i s i t s pr imary aim? Such

q u e s t i o n s have engaged t h e minds of a number of s c h o l a r -

c r i t i c s who, a s i n d i v i d u a l s , members of d i v e r s e g roups and

champions of d i f f e r e n t movements have come o u t w i t h

b a f f l i n g answers . Arnold and E l i o t f e e l t h a t even i f

c r i t i c i s m is e s s e n t i a l , i t is d e f i n i t e l y a shade i n f e r i o r

t o c r e a t i o n . Though many view i t a s an a r t , F rye e m p h a s i z e s

t h e need t o d e v e l o p i t a s a s c i e n c e . E l u c i d a t i o n of works

of a r t , e v a l u a t i o n and r a n k i n g of w r i t e r s , c a t a l o g u i n g

t h e i r m e r i t s and l i m i t a t i o n s , c o r r e c t i o n of t a s t e , g i v i n g

e x p r e s s i o n t o o n e ' s " f e e l i n g f u l r e s p o n s e s " , . s h a r i n g o n e ' s

a e s t h e t i c e x p e r i e n c e w i t h o t h e r s , s t u d y i n g e v e r y work a s a

p r o d u c t of t h e r a c e , moment and m i l i e u t o which i t

b e l o n g e d , e x p l a i n i n g i t a s an e x p r e s s i o n of its a u t h o r ' s

p e r s o n a l i t y , e s t i m a t i n g it on t h e b a s i s of i ts c o n t r i b u t i o n

t o t h e p romot ion of c l a s s war , i d e n t i f y i n g t h e myth t h a t

h a s g e n e r a t e d i t , making a c l o s e a n a l y s i s of t h e t e x t

w i t h o u t r e f e r e n c e t o i ts a u t h o r o r background, examining

i ts s t r u c t u r e and d e c o n s t r u c t i n g i t , e n a b l i n g t h e r e a d e r ' s

c o n s c i o u s n e s s t o become one w i t h t h e w r i t e r ' s c o n s c i o u s n e s s

- t h e s e a r e p o s i t e d a s t h e p r i m a r y f u n c t i o n s o f l i t e r a r y

c r i t i c i s m by numerous w a r r i n g camps, e a c h o f them using a

l anguage of i t s own and r e f u s i n g t o s e e t h e m e r i t s i n t h e

o t h e r a p p r o a c h e s . I f we a r e t o t a k e a l l t h e s e i n t o

c o n s i d e r a t i o n , a n y t h i n g w r i t t e n on a c r e a t i v e work h a s t o

p a s s f o r l i t e r a r y c r i t i c i s m . But a c r i t i c would d o w e l l t o

c h o o s e t h e approach t h a t may y i e l d t h e b e s t r e s u l t s and h e

s h o u l d b e d i s i n t e r e s t e d , o b j e c t i v e and a b s o l u t e l y f r e e f rom

b i a s o f any k i n d .

Tolk~ppiyam, t h e e a r l i e s t e x t a n t g rammat i ca l

t r e a t i s e i n T a m i l , examines i n n i n e s e c t i o n s of

" P o r u j a t i k ~ r e m " t h e s u b j e c t - m a t t e r o f p o e t r y i n g r e a t

d e t a i l . D i v i d i n g p o e t r y i n t o two b road c a t e g o r i e s , Akao

p o e t r y and Puraa p o e t r y , by which he means (i) t h e p o e t r y

of noumenon, t h e p o e t r y of t h e i n n e r i n s p i r a t i o n o f l o v e ,

and ( i i f t h e p o e t r y of t h e phenomenon, t h e l i f e of heroism,

s e l f - s a c r i f i c e and m u n i f i c e n c e and a l s o t h e t r a g e d y of l i f e

from b i r t h t o d e a t h , To lk<pp iya r s p e a k s o f v a r i o u s a s p e c t s

l i k e Tichi, Turai, Nu&lporu!, Uripporu!, Karupporu!,

d e f i n i n g a number of t h e n e s , s i t u a t i o n s , c h a r a c t e r s and

s e t t i n g s which a r e t o b e used i n d i f f e r e n t poems. He a l s o

n e n t i o n s seven l i t e r a r y k i n d s , e i g h t Hejppirtus, t h e n a t u r e

of s i m i l e s and t h e i r t y p e s . The v a l u e of t r a d i t i o n and t h e

n e r d t o u s e wrirt fs u:ttiout v i o l a t i n g t r a d i t i o n a r e a l s o

s t r e s s e d by tiiu I t is c l e a r t h a t he is o n l y g i v i n g a

d e s c r i p t i v e a o c o u r ~ t of the s a l i e n t f e a t u r e s of t h e k ind o f

p o e t r y w r i t t e n b e f o r e h i s t i m e . He m i g h t have a l s o f e l t

t h a t t h i s a c c o u n t n i g h t p r o v i d e t h e f u t u r e g e n e r a t i o n s o f

p o e t s w i t h u s e f u l g u i d e l i n e s . Tolk~ppiyaw can s t a n d

compar i son w i t h A r i s t o t l e ' s Poetics and C o l e r i d g e ' s

Biographia Literaria, and ~ o l k ~ p p i y a r may b e c o n s i d e r e d t h e

f i r s t g r e a t Tami l c r i t i c i n t e r e s t e d i n l e g i s l a t i v e

c r i t i c i s m . Here o n e may r e c a l l N o r t h r o p F r y e ' s s t a t e m e n t

t h a t a g r e a t c r i t i c ' s t a s k is t h a t of a l i t e r a r y

a n t h r o p o l o g l s t tielibing t h e r e a d e r s i d e n t i f y t h e l i t e r a r y

c a t e g o r y t o which a work o f l i t e r a t u r e b e l o n g s .

Can t h e g r e a t commentators who l i v e d i n t h e 1 3 t h and

1 4 t h c e n t u r i e s - I l a m p c r a n a r , C g n x v a r a i y a r , . P g r Z c i r i y a r ,

H a c c i r ; ? i r k k i ~ l y a r , - P a r i n Z l a ~ a k a r , A t i y Z r k k u n a l l Z r and o t h e r s

- be considered c r i t i c s ? Those who deny t h e n t h e

appe1iht :on con tend t h a t t h e s e s c h o l a r s showed i n t e r e s t i n

g r a n n a r and p h i l c s o p h y o n l y , t r i e d t o d e m o n s t r a t e

n e e d l e s s l y t t r a t t h e i r a u t h o r s had n o t l e f t a n y t h i n g u n s a i d ,

a t t r i b u t e d t h e i r owri p e t n o t i o n s t o t h e i r a u t h o r s , f e a r e d

t o f i n d f a u l t w i t h t h e works t h e y commented on, and

c o n c e n t r a t e d on a n c i e n t c l a s s i c s i g n o r i n g a l l con tempora ry

u r i t i n y s . But i n t h e i r c o n m e n t a r i a s we come a c r o s s d e t a i l e d

w o r d - b y - w ~ r d e x p l a n a t l o r i s , v a l u a b l e n o t e s on g r a r n n a t i c a l

and l i n g u i s t i c p o i n t s , p a r a l l e l p a s s a g e s from o t h e r works ,

d i f f e r e n t t e x t u a l v e r s i o n s , r e f u t a t i o n s o f t h e a rgumen t s o f

o t h e r c o n n e n t a t o r s , e x p o c i t i o n s of p a s s a g e s f e a t u r i n g

Iraicei and U!!urai and , above a l l , a n a l y s e s o f t h e - significance of e v e r y word i n t h e t o t a l c o n t e x t of t h e poem

which T o l k z p p i y a r c a l l s Nzkku.

Accord ing t o T . S . E l i o t , a c r i t i c s h o u l d b e ma in ly

conce rned w i t h e l u c i d a t i o n . Nor th rop F r y e is opposed t o

v a l u e j u d g e m e n t s . C r i t i c s l i k e Horace , Pope and F r y b

b e l i e v e t h a t a c r i t i c s h o u l d c o n c e n t r a t e on works whose

benutie!; he can r r v e n l and shou ld avo id n e g a t i v e c r i t i c i s n .

I f t h e s e c r i t e r i a a r e u sed , t h e Tamil commentators nay b e

c o n s i d e r e d t h e b e s t of l i t e r a r y c r i t i c s . B e s i d e s , i n t h e

commenta r i e s of Nacc in i i rk in iya r and Par imBlaLakar , we cone

a c r o s s a p o e t i c s t y l e which i t s e l f becomes a s o u r c e of

a e s t h e t i c d e l i g h t . Also many a m y s t e r i o u s p a s s a g e r e v e a l s

i ts h idden meaning a t t h e i r magic t o u c h and we g e t f r e s h

i n s i g h t s i n t o numerous d e c e p t i v e l y s i m p l e words and

p h r a s e s . T b e i r commenta r i e s remind u s of t h e s u b t l e

e x p l a n a t o r y n o t e s p rov ided by Johnson t o t h e p l a y s o f

S h a k e s p e a r e e v i d e n c i n g t h e c r i t i c ' s s c h o l a r s h i p ,

p e n e t r a t i n g i n t e l l e c t and r o b u s t common s e n s e .

V a i s h n a v i t e commentators s u c h a s x ? a v a n t ~ r ,

T l r u k i t u t u k k a i p p e r u r ~ < l P i l l a n , ~ a n j y y a r , N a m p i t l a i , A lak iya

Hanav'ii!apperumz! HZyariar and Hanavg;a Hunivar w r o t e t h e i r

c o n n e n t a r i e s on NalZy i ra T i v v i y a Prapan tao i n a maftiprav+a

s t y l e i n t e r l a r d e d w i t h S a n s k r i t words . Though t h e y a r e i n

d a n g e r o f p e r i s h i n g f o r want of b e i n g u n d e r s t o o d , t h o s e who

c a n n a s t e r t h e l anguage used i n t h e s e commenta r i e s c a n

s t i l l d e r i v e some a e s t h e t i c p l e a s u r e , s i n c e t h e y a r e f u l l

o f e x q u i s i t e p a r a l l e l p a s s a g e s f r o n g r e a t works and

d e l i g h t f u l a n e c d o t e s b e a r i n g w i t n e s s t o a c l e a r t h i n k i n g

and a s p a r k l i n g s e n s e o f humour. The V a i s h n a v i t e t r a d i t i o n

c o n s i d e r e d N a u m ~ ~ v ~ r t h e mother of h i s work T i r u v a ' y ~ o j i ,

wh i l e Ramanuja who championed i t , was p r a i s e d a s its

f o s t e r - m o t h e r . F r y e ' s n o t i o n t h a t a c r i t i c p l a y s t h e r o l e

of a mid-wife a f t e r an a u t h o r g i v e s b i r t h t o a work of

l i t e r a t u r e i s r e l e v a n t h e r e . The s e r v i c e of commentators is

p r a i s e w o r t h y b e c a u s e had t h e y f a i l e d t o w r i t e a b o u t t h e

a n c i e n t c l a s s i c s t h e l a t t e r would have d i e d long ago .

Dur ing ?he c ? o s i r f g decade of t h e n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y

a few Tamil s a v a n t s l i k e C.V.T&iEtaram P i t i a i and

~ . ~ . ~ a m i n g t a I y e r g u t i n t o p r i n t t h e c l a s s i c s t h a t had

managed t o s u r v i v e i n palm l e a v e s . Caminhta I y e r ' s

ach ievemen t a s a t e x t u a l c r i t i c is c o n s i d e r a b l e a s even

though he d i d n o t e n j o y t h e advan tage of exposu re t o any

Western e d u c a t i o n , he i n t u i t i v e l y u n d e r s t o o d t h e one rous

t a s k o f an e d i t c r and e d i t e d t h e c l a s s i c s w i t h a r emarkab le

s e n s e of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . Fredson Bowers, an a u t h o r i t y on

t e x t u a l c r i t i c i s m , u n d e r l i n e s t h e need t o d i s c u s s a

l i t e r a r y work or: t h e b a s i s of a sound t e x t and t h e d a n g e r

o f r e l y i n g on c o r r u p t e d i t i o n s . To him, t h e a i n of t e x t u a l

c r i t i c i s n is t h e r e c o v e r y o f t h e i n i t i a l p u r i t y of an

a u t h o r ' s t e x t and t h e p r e s e r v a t i o n o f t h i s p u r i t y d e s p i t e

t h e common c o r r u p t i n g p r o c e s s o f t r a n s n i s s i o n . G i v i n g a

g r a p h i c a c c o u n t of t h e p rob lems of a r r a n g i n g and e d i t i n g

e a r l y t e x t s t h a t e x i s t i n m u l t i p l e n a n u s c r i p t s , he o b s e r v e s

t h a t a d e f i n i t i v e e d i t i o n is d e p e n d e n t f o r i ts s p e c i a l

s t a t u s a s much upon t h e m a t e r i a l i n i ts i n t r o d u c t i o n s and

a p p a r a t c s b e a r i n g upon t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t of t h e t e x t a s it

is f u r t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n of t h e e s t a b l i s h e d t e x t i t s e l f and

t h a t i n h i s i n t r o d u c t i o n s and a p p a r a t u s t h e e d i t o r shou ld

p l a c e a l l h i s t e x t u a l c a r d s on t h e t a b l e f a c e u p . CEminzta

i y e r ' s e d i t i o n s r e v e a l t h a t he a lways d i d h i s work

c o n s c i e n t i o u s i y .

When I y e r p l a y e d t h e r c l e of a commentator , he

c o n s i d e r e d i t h i s p r ime d u t y t o ment ion a s many p a r a l l e l

p a s s a g e s a s p o s s i b l e f rom t h e many t e x t s he was f a m i l i a r

w i t h . But he n e v e r compared them w i t h one a n o t h e r n o r was

he i n t e r e s t e d i n men t ion ing t h e d e f e c t s of any p a s s a g e he

e x p l a i n e d . S i n c e he h e l d a l l t h e s e c l a s s i c s i n h i g h e s t eem,

he c o u l d rlever b r i n g h imse l f t o c a v i l a t them. I n h i s

i n t r o d u c t i o n t o h i s e d i t i o n of XayimFkalai, w i t h

a s t o n i s h i n g modesty , he d e c l a r e s t h a t he nay be pardoned

f o r h a v i n g d a r e d t o w r i t e a commentary on t h e g r e a t e p i c .

I t is wrung t o e x p e c t from him any e v a l u a t i v e c r i t i c i s m .

O f t h o s e who c a n e fo rward t o w r i t e commenta r i e s on

t h e a n c i e n t works a f t e r him, t h e two names wor th m e n t i o n i n g

a r e t h o s e o f CZinacun ta ra~Zr and Avvai C u . T u r a i c ~ m i p p i j ~ a i .

The fo rmer fo l lowed i n t h e f o o t s t e p s of t h e o l d

c o m a e n t a t o r v b o t h w i t h r e g a r d t o methodology and s t y l e ,

whereas t h e l a t t e r though i n f l u e n c e d by them, d i d n o t

h e s i t a t e t o s t r e s s h i s view whenever he d i f f e r e d f r o n them.

I n t h e e x p l a n a t o r y n o t e s he w r o t e f o r h i s e d i t i o n s of

P u < a n Z ~ ~ u , Na_r_rinai.. A i n k u r u n Z ~ u and P a t i ~ r u p p a t tu, Avvai

Cu.Turaic??aippi j !a i used d e t a i l s g a t h e r e d . f r o n s t o n e

i n s c r i p t i o n s and i d e a s l e a r n t from g r e a t Western works on

p h i l o s o p h y , s c i e n c e and l i t e r a r y c r i t i c i s m . Also he showed

i n t e r e s t i n t h e l i v e s of t h e p o e t s and k i n g s on whom t h e

poems were w r i t t e n and i n t h e s o c i o l o g i c a l f a c t o r s t h a t

were r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e b i r t h of t h e s e poems.

Once t h e a n c i e n t c l a s s i c s were r e v i v e d and saw t h e

l i g h t of t h e d a y , t h e T a n i l s c h o l a r s t u r n e d t h e i r a t t e n t i o n

t o l i t e r a r y h i s t o r i o g r a p h y and ch rono logy . K . S . ~ ? n i v h c a

P i l l a i ' s Tami l V a r a l F ~ u , P g r h c i r i y a r Cuntaralu P i l t a i ' s . . - "Sane H i l e s t o n e s i n t h e H i s t o r y o f Tamil L i t e r a t u r e " ,

Pu rana l inkam P i l l a i ' s Tamil L i t e r a t u r e , H a r a i m a l a i A f i k a i ' s

Xg!ikka V s a k a r Vara lZrun KHlavZrZycciyum, Na.Hu.Venkat.8.-

c a n i N a t t a r ' s VGI i r Vara l%u , Ka.Cuppiramaniya P i i t a i ' s

T a o i i I l a k k i y a V a ~ a l g ~ u , ~ a r i t i n ~ l k a l a i & r ' s Tsn i_ loo l i

V a r a l z z u . Ra . Raghava I y e n g a r 's T a m i ~ n o ~ i Varalg=u,

Hu.Raghava I y e n g a r ' s C'zi-an Cenku;$uvan-, and V z l i r V a r a l G u ,

K . N . ~ i v a r C c a P i i j a i ' s Pu~an@u_rr_in Pal f toai and C h r o n o l o g y

o f t.+e A n c i e n t T a o i l s , Ha. ~ c a m S ? i k k a m , s ~ ~ l a v Z r a y c c i , and

a h o s t of o t h e r s a t t e m p t e d t o f i x t h e d a t e s of t h e o l d

w r i t i n g s . Competing w i t h them, many h i s t o r i a n s a l s o

v e n t u r e d t o d e t e r m i n e t h e a g e s of t h e a n c i e n t b a r d s and

k i n g s . S . K r i s h n a s a m i I y e n g a r ' s Beginnings of South Indian

History, P . T . S r i n i v a s a I y e n g a r ' s History of the Tamils,

K . A . H i l a k a n t a S a s t r i ' s The Cholas, The Pandyan Kingdolo, and

o t h e r s a r e u o r t h m e n t i o n i n g . I f t h e r e s u l t s were n o t

commensurate w i t h t h e work done by t h e s e s c h o l a r s , t h e

r e a s o n s a r e m a n i f o l d : Adequate e x t e r n a l and i n t e r n a l

e v i d e n c e s f o r f i x i n g t h e d a t e s a r e n o t a v a i l a b l e ; t h e

ltmerida a b o u t t t i t Tamil p o e t s g i v i n g m i s l e a d i n g d e t a i l s a r e

l e g i o n ; i n t h e p a s t , i n t e r p o l a t i o n was a common p r a c t i c e

and a t t h i s d i s t a n c e of t i m e i t h a s become e x t r e m e l y

d i f f i c u l t t o d i s t i n g u i s h t h e g e n u i n e from t h e f a l s e ; t h e r e

was n u r e t h a n one p o e t w i t h t h e same name and more t h a n one

k i n g i n h e r i t e d t h e s a n e t i t l e s a d d i n g t o t h e c o n f u s i o n o f

t h e p r e s e n t h i s t o r i a n s ; t h e l i n g u i s t i c a n a l y s i s of t h e

T a n i l works h a s n o t been done on a l a r g e s c a l e and t h e

n a t u r e of t h e Tami l l anguage a t d i f f e r e n t a g e s h a s n o t been

s t u d i e d p r o p e r l y ; and , above a l l , t h o s e who u n d e r t o o k t o do

r e s e a r c h i n t h i s a r e a were n o t t o t a l l y f r e e f rom p r e j u d i c e s

o f d i v e r s e t y p e s . Consequen t ly , though books and a r t i c l e s

c o n t i n u e t o be w r i t t e n on ~olkappiyam, Tirukkuja;,

~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ k ~ ~ ~ u ~ ~ a ; e i , ~ilappatikrram, Ma?imzkalai, TiruvZ-

cakam and ~aebariilo~ya!?an, no unanimous c o n c l u s i o n s h a v e

b e e n a r r i v e d a t r e g a r d i n g t h e i r d a t e s o f c o m p o s i t i o n .

During t h i s p e r i o d , t h e Tamil s c h o l a r s had t o

f r i t t e r away t h e i r e n e r g i e s i n ano ther way a l s o . With t h e

a v a i l a b l e works a s ev idence , they s t a r t e d w r i t i n g about t h e

a n c i e n t Tamil s o c i e t y and i ts c u l t u r e and came t c widely

d i v e r g e n t c o n c l u s i o n s , thanks t o t h e i r own r e l i g i o u s ,

cousuna l anc! c a s t e p r e j u d i c e s . Scmasundara B h a r a t i and

Pu lavar Kuianda i , f o r example, i n t h e i r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of

T o l k ~ p p i y a r ' s "Poru la t ikFram" emphasise t h e p u r i t y of T a n i l

c u i t u r e , whereas Uu.Raghava Iyengar i n h i s Poru;at ikrra - A r a y c r i conc ludes t h a t t h e g l o r y of t h e a n c i e n t Tamils is

t h a t they al lowed themselves t o be in f luenced by t h e

c u l t u r e and w r i t i n g s of t h e North I n d i a n s . H a ~ a i m a l a i

A r i k a l , in a l l h i s works, swears by t h e p u r i t y and

i n d i v i d u a l i t y of t h e c u l t u r e and r e l i g i o n of t h e Tamils.

Pa.Ve.Ha?ikka Nzyttkkar i n h i s Kanban P u h k u n V a l m i k i

Y~yeaiyuo and Tani+ajai V i iakkam makes much of t h e

d i f f e r e n c e between Aryan and Dravidian c u l t u r e s . T a n i l

l i t e r a r y c r i t i c i s m was v i t i a t e d by t h e undue importance

g i v e n t o q u e s t i o n s l i k e t h e r e l a t i v e g r e a t n e s s of t h e s e two

c u l t u r e s and t h e a n c i e n t n e s s of S a n s k r i t and Tamil works.

But i t c a n ' t be s a i d t h a t t h e s e w r i t e r s ignored

l i t e r a r y c r i t i c i s m comple te ly . There is e v i d e n c e of

c r i t i c a l s e n s i b i l i t y and a e s t h e t i c awareness i n s u c h works

as Ce IvakTsavarZya Hudaliar ' s T i r u v a ; ; u v a r and Kampancfar ,

V.0 .Citampara~Kr's T i r u k k u ~ a l U r a i and T ~ l k ~ ~ ~ i ~ a U r a i ,

R. Raghava Iyengar 's K u z u n t o k a i V i iakkam, Somasundara

Bharati's Tacara ta f l Kuraiyum K a i k g y i N i ~ a i y u m , Ma~aimalai - -

Atikai's Hul la ipp<f ;u A r a y c c i , pa;: i 2 a p p a a i A r a y c c i ,

Na .Hu .V&katacXmi NzttZr,s K a p i l a r and ~ a k k y r a r , and

Ka.Subramania Fillai's T i r u v r c a k a u r a i . They occasionally . . revea: their interest in the structure of the work they

anaiyse and in t h e need to see it as an organic whole. They

do not ice; obliged to accept the verdicts that had been

passed from generation to generation. V.O.Citamparam

Piijai, for example, made bold to argue that the four

chapters of T i r u k k u j a i were n o t written by Tiruvaffuvar.

Haraimalai - A;ikal contended that Nac~i~arkkiniyar's - interpretaticn of H u l l a i p p Z i f u is not acceptable and that

even NapptitanZr has cumuiitted a few blunders in his poem.

He could also point out the grandeur of some of the similes

employed in ~ a ; t i ? a p p z l a i and Mu1laippZ;;u and their

exquisite descriptions of life and nature.

The Tamil critics were saved from getting lost in

the study of chronology by their exposure to Western

literary oriticism which taught them the value of the use

of critical norms and approaches and the futility of

lavishing indiscriminate praise on every work written in

T a m i l . The p o s l t i v e i n t r o d u c t i o n t o 'des tern l i t e r a r y

c r i t i c i s m began w i t h V .V.S . Ayyar and S . V a i y a p u r i p p i l 1 a i .

In h i s Kambaramayana - A S t u d y , V.V.S.Ayyar

comparing Kanit~an w i t h Homer, V i r g i l , Mi l ton and Va lmik i ,

t r i e d t o e s t h b i i s h t h a t he was t h e b e s t of t h e e p i c

w r i t e r s . He hdduces s e v e r a l i n s t a n c e s i n f a v o u r of h i s

c o n r c n t l o r ~ . Ttie g r e a t n e s s of Kamban's Rama, t h e

ind iv l r jua ! i t y of t i i s Ravana, M a ? t E t a r i , I n t r a j i t , and

Kump&kar?a ar!d t i l e e p i s o d e s l i k e t h e e n c o u n t e r between

Kumpakar?a and ~ i b f s h a n a and t h e k i l l i n g of ~ r a p y l i , n o t

fourid 111 t h e u r i g i r t a l , s p e a k s volumes of Kamban's a r t i s t r y .

I n t e r e s t e d i n con tempora ry l i t e r a t u r e , V.V.S.Ayyar wro te a

p e r c e p t i v e c r i t i c a l i n t r o d u c t i o n t o t h e second e d i t i o n of

B h a r a t i ' s Ka??ac P a f ~ u .

T.K . C i t a s p a r h n x t a K u t a l i y g r i n h i s Kampan Ycr? ,

Hut to! !&iraro , ArputacTiraa, and Kampac Tarun RgnZyyanam

employs a c r i t i c a l method a k i n t o t h e one p r a c t i s e d by

i n ~ r e s s i o f ; i s t i c c r i t i c s l i k e H a z l i t t and Wal t e r P a t e r . T h i s

a p p r o a c h c o n s i s t s i n g i v i n g a d i r e c t e x p r e s s i o n t o t h e

c r i t i c ' s f e e l i n g f u i r e s p o n s e s t o t h e works of a r t he h a s

e n j o y e d w i t h o u t b o t h e r i n g t o r a t i o n a l i z e them. Not c a r i n g

t o u s e any c r i t i c a l norms o r methodology he gave a p l e a s i n g

a c c o u n t o f h i s a d v e n t u r e s i n t h e r e a l m s of m a s t e r p i e c e s he

c o u l d i d e n t i f y . H i s d e t r a c t o r s p o i n t o u t t h a t he could

appreciate only those poems that could be set to music,

that he did riot have a sense of Tamil literature, and that

through his articles he created the impression that only

short poems are great. Though these charges are valid, it

has to be conceded that he did succeed as a propagandist of

~ a ~ a p a r ' s i m ~ y a ~ r r m . The sway of this kind of impressionistic

crit ioism may be seen in P .Sri lcbrya's Kampac i t rao , and

Bhiira t i y u m T z g u r u a , S .Makarzcac's Kamban and T i r u v a ; i u v a r ,

A.Kutt.u<: tva i i ' r ; Actkavtif iam and BhZskaratto?$aimZ~'s ~ F t z - k a l y Z ~ a m u n , P ~ t u k ~ p p a ; ~ ~ p i c ~ k a m u o . But it is not proper to

cuopiete iy ignore then, branding them as impressionistic

critics. For they never consciously identified themselves

wlth this type of criticism. The common readers of their

time could benefit by their writings inasmuch as they were

impressed with the excellence of a few classics in Tanil.

In the history of literary criticism, S.Vaiyapuri

Pillai is a controversial figure, but it would be unfair to

ignore him or to underestimate his contribution. He brings

to bear on his writings a scientific bent of mind and a

rich historical sense. In most of his works, he is

concerned with fixing the dates of the ancient Tanil

classics as well as with textual criticism. Since he was

familiar with more than one literature, he knew the value

of comparative literature. In S v i y a Rzlanr, we come across

an a n a l y s i s of t h e n a t u r e o f t h e e p i c and t h e e p i c

t r a d i t i o n ; Ilakki~a-Utayam is a r a p i d s u r v e y of some

a n c i e n t l i t e r a t u r e s ; Tamifccu;arma?ika! d i s c u s s e s t h e works

of numerous p o e t s r a n g i n g from T o l k ~ p p i y a r t o T6sikaviza ' -

yakam P i i l a i ; Ilakkiyacointa~aika; examines g e n e r a l . . l i t e r a r y p rob lems l i k e t h e n a t u r e and u s e of l i t e r a t u r e ,

t h e r e l a t i o n between l i t e r a t u r e and s o c i e t y and p o e t i c

d i c t i o n ; TamiLarpanpg;u c o n t a i n s e s s a y s on ~ k a n z i ~ k u ,

puran@Qu and Kamban's c h a r a c t e r s ; i n Ilakkiya ~ F p a n ,

t h e r e a r e e s s a y s on Kuruntokai and Hutto!!Zyiram.

The s o c i o l o g i c a l app roach r e c e i v e s prominence i n

V a i y a p u r i P i 1 l a i . s w r i t i n g s . He h imse l f d e c l a r e s h i s f a i t h

i n t h i s app roach when he c l a i m s t h a t l i t e r a r y works w i l l

r e v e a l t h e n a t u r e o f a s o c i e t y t h a t g i v e s b i r t h t o them.

H i s a d a i r e r s p r a i s e h i s b a l a n c e d o u t l o o k , c o u r a g e , r a z o r -

s h a r p i n t e l l e c t , i n t e r e s t i n t h e s t r u c t u r e and t e x t u r e of a

work of a r t and h i s wide r ange . But h i s a d v e r s a r i e s f e e l

t h a t many of h i s c o n c l u s i o n s a r e wrong, t h a t he p o s t - d a t e d

t h e T a n i l c l a s s i c s , t h a t he a s s i g n e d some g e n u i n e T a n i l

words t o S a n s k r i t , and t h a t he c l a imed u n r e a s o n a b l y t h a t

many o f t h e Tami l i d e a s were borrowed f rom S a n s k r i t works .

I t is t r u e t h a t some of h i s v i ews a r e u n a c c e p t a b l e and a

f e u c o n c l u s i o n s b a s e l e s s . But i t may n o t b e f a i r t o

a t t r i b u t e m o t i v e s t o a s c h o l a r who was i n t e r e s t e d i n a

dispabslur~atr; ~ ~ u r s u l t of knowledge. However, one rarely

finds first-rate critical analyses of poems in the writings

of Yaiyapuri Pillai, whose main concerns were chronology,

linguistics and textual criticism.

Very much like him, critics sudh as CCni

Citalriparafi'iir, Po.Tirukiitacuntaram, Hayilai ~hivZnkaiac?imi

and A.V.Subramaniya Aiyar were also interested in

sociological criticism. Po.~iruk~<acuntaram's ~ i i $ c ~ l i

C a p a t a n , and C l l a p p a t i k i i r a m , A.V.Subrananiya Aiyar's T a m i l

x r F y c - i y i n V a j a r c c i arid K a l v i y i l P e r i y a v a r Kanpar , nayilai

~ 7 n i ~GnkatacZmi ' s Ki~ i s tavarnurn Tarnilurn, Cananamurn TaniLum

and Paut:arnum Tamiium deserve to be mentioned here.

A large number of teachers working in colleges and

universities have torte forward to discuss the works they

teach in classrooms, heavily leaning on the great

commentators of the past. These academic critics are

naturally well-grounded in Tamil literature, b u t do not

care to use any well-formulated theory or set of norms in

their criticisn. Because of their passionate love for Tanil

literature, they extol all the works indiscriminately and

shy away from critical denunciations. Mu.KatirZca2

Ca;fiyiir, RK.Pi.CStuppi??ai A.CitamparazZta ~ettiyzr,

Cs.Ta;!ap=ni ~ G i k a r , Ho.A.Turaiarankangr, A.Ca.~n%a-

campantan, Mu. ~aratarzca~, ~ e ? ; a i v ~ r a . ~ r , Va.Cupa .tiZ?ikkam,

Na.Cuppu RettiyZr, Tamiia??al and many more belong to this

group.

RI.Pi.Cetuppillai, who has authored more than

twenty-five prose works, including Cilappatikzra NFl Nayam,

Tiruva;!uvar !irl Nayam, Tamil! Inpam, Villum glum and VaIi VaJsli Va!iuvar, which will be of use to college

students, sniploys a pleasing style full of rhymes and

alliterations. Hu.KatirFcan Ceftiyiir has to his credit a

detailed curmenrary on the first part of, Tiruvzcakam and

narjy essays on ancient works. Endowed with a knowledge of

Sanskrit, he can indulge in worthy comparative studies like

the one comparing Sakuntala's letter in Kalidasa's

Sakuntalan with HHtavi's letter in Cilappatika'lalo. Author

of more than a hundred works, Taf;apEpi TGikar shows his

predilection for Kur-a;, Kampah and Saivite writings.

T.P.Heenakshisundaran deserves the credit for

considerably raising the standard of literary criticism in

Tamil. A devoted student of history, religion and

philosophy, and a polyglot, he wrote numerous books and

articles on a vast variety of subjects. Being absolutely

free from literary and extra-literary prejudices and

possessing a sound knowledge of Western literary criticisn,

he could bring out the merits of a great work as an organic

whole. A History of Tamil Literat~re~written by him in

E n g l i s h ) d e m o n s t r a t e s t h e g r a n d e u r of Tamil l i t e r a t u r e

w i t h o u t r e s o r t i n g t o h y p e r b o l e . I l a h k c ' s a r c h i t e c t o n i c

s k i l l and t h e power of h i s p o e t r y r e c e i v e Heenakshi-

s u n d a r a n ' s major a t t e n t i o n i n gal V a r i , e a s i l y one of t h e

b e s t c r i t i c a l works i n T a n i l . The P h i l o s o p h y . o f V a l l u v a r , a

lorig e s s a y i n E n g l i s h , e s t a b l i s h e s t h e u n i v e r s a l n a t u r e of

V a l l u v a r ' s o u t l o o k . I n V&; juvar K a ~ t a Nhtum K&anum, . . c o n p a r i n g R u r a l w i t h K a u t i l y a ' s A r t h a s a s t r a and

V a t s a y a y a n a s ' s X a n a s u t r s , he i n d i c a t e s how V a l l u v a r d o e s . . n o t s i a v i s h l y i m i t a t e t h e n o r t h e r n w r i t e r s , b u t by v a r y i n g

emphases on c e r t a i n a s p e c t s of t h e p a n - I n d i a n concep t of

P u r u s a r t e h a s g i v e n u s a new v i e u of l i f e . T ranscend ing

s e c t a r i a n b i a s , T .P .K . t o u c h e s on t h e g r e a t n e s s o f

V a i s h n a v i t e l i t e r a t u r e i n K u l a c z k a r a r and S a i v i t e

i i t c r a t u r i : r r i A;~pumu,ti. C r i t i c a l works s u c h as

~ E t a k a k k a p ~ i y a i i k a h ~ - ~ ~ k & ~ u r n ~ u v a i y u n ' k a ! , P i j a n t a t u

. 5 p p a f i y F J Tamijnanam, T a m i g z N ina i t t upp iZr , T T a I F n t i l Y - T i r u p p Z v a i TiruvempopBvai, Pat~ile P u r a t c i , P a t t u p p Z t t u Ayvu ,

c o n t a i n e s s a y s on d i v e r s e t o p i c s r a n g i n g f r o n Cankan

c l a s s i c s t o t h e s t r e a m - o f - c o n s c i o u s n e s s n o v e l and

e x h i b i t i n g a r a r e f u s i o n of t r a d i t i o n a l s c h o l a r s h i p and

c r i t i c a l s e n s i b i l i t y sha rpened by an a c q u a i n t a n c e w i t h

Western c r i t i c s .

I t is a p i t y t h a t h i s works d i d n o t r e c e i v e t h e

a t t e n t i o n d u e t o ttieui. One l e g i t i m a t e compla in t a g a i n s t h i s

w r i t i n g s can be t h a t he s u g g e s t s a number of r e s e a r c h a r e a s

w i t h o u t c a r i n g t u s u b s t a n t i a t e many of them. H i s p r o s e

s t y l e is a n o t h e r s t u m b l i n g b l o c k , a s it is n o t a lways l u c i d

and a t t l m s s b l z a r r e . Fo l lowing i n t h e f o o t s t e p s o f T.P.H.,

some u t h e r s c h o l a r s and c r i t i c s have f o r g e d ahead i n t h e

d o n a i n of Ccmyara t ive L i t e r a t u r e . V .Sach i thanan tan i n two

of h i s E n g l i s h books , The Impact o f W e s t e r n Thought on

G h a r a t i and Whitman and E h a r a t i and numerous e s s a y s i n

English and Tan l i l , a d h e r i n g t o t h e p r i n c i p l e s e n u n c i a t e d by

t h e b e s t of Western c o m p a r a t i s t s , s u b j e c t e d some T a n i l

w r i t e r s and t h e i r E n g l i s h c o u n t e r p a r t s t o exemplary

p a r a l l e l and i n f l u e n c e s t u d i e s and t h e u ~ a t o l o g i c a l a n a l y s e s .

I n t u u uf h i s major a n a l o g i c a l s t u d i e s , S Ramakrishnan

compares Kamtan u i t h S h a k e s p e a r e and M i l t o n . K .Che l l appan ' s

S h a k e s p e a r e and I l a n g o a s T r a g e d i a n s : A Cornpara t i v e S t u d y ,

and E h a r a t : , The V i s i o n a r y Humanist w r i t t e n i n E n g l i s h , and

E;keljka KFpir;om C a k t i i n Tamil c o n t a i n a few i l l u m i n a t i n g

c o n p a r h t i v e s t u d i e s i n a f o r c e f u l s t y l e . John Samue l ' s ra

S h e l l ~ y u m BhZ t i yum: Oru P u t i y a P r r v a i a n a l y s e s t h e common X

f e a t u r e s uf t h e poems t h a t appea red i n t h e f i r s t h a l f of

t h e t w e n t i e t h c e n t u r y i n Tamil and t h e E n g l i s h l y r i c s . Such

u r i t i i l i y s a s t h e s e a r e a p o s i t i v e s i g n o f t h e f a c t t h a t

Compara t ive L i t e r a t u r e is t a k i n g r o o t s i n T a m i l , t hough .

u n f o r t u n a t e l y , it has n o t y e t come o f a g e h e r e

~ u . v a r a t a r a c a ~ ; i r ' ~ achievement a s a p ropagandis t of

T a n i l is noteworthy. Re jec t ing t h e ' a r t f o r a r t ' s s a k e '

t h e o r y and s u p p o r t i n g t h e d i d a c t i c purpose of l i t e r a t u r e ,

he wrote on t h e books he l i k e d , h i g h l i g h t i n g . t h e i r m e r i t s

i n a s t y l e a t once charming and l u c i d . Almost a l l h i s works

a r e u f 1nme::tie use t o c o l l e g e s t u d e n t s and t h e average

r e a d e r s , a s they a r e ex t remely n o n - c o n t r o v e r s i a l i n n a t u r e

and never d a r e t o i n t e r p r e t or e v a l u a t e a work of a r t i n an

ur~ort!rudox manner. His I Iakk i ya t t i _ ra : , I l akk i yamarapu and

I l a k k i y a XrEycc i a r e concerned wi th l i t e r a r y c r i t i c i s m .

1 1 s ~ k Z A r i k s i , F v a c c e y t i , N a t a v i , i i u l l a i t t i ~ a i ,

K o ~ k u t F r r v ~ ~ k k a i , I l a k k i y a k k T t c i k a ! , Ku_ra! ~ H t t u m ~ F t a l a r ,

Ku jur ! toka i cce l vaar , Kuzun toka i V i r u n t u , Mapal vT~u, N a f a i

Y a c j i , , l i a ~ ~ i i ; a i c c e l v a m , N e t u n t c k a i c c e l vam, P u l a v a r ~ a n n T r . . ar.d T a m i l Nr,Ycam a r e o f absorb ing i n t e r e s t t o t h o s e who

would l i k e t o r e l i v e t h e i r exper ience of g r e a t works i n

T a n i l wit t iout g e t t i n g bogged down by complex c r i t i c a l

i s s u e s . VZ.Cupa.Hhnikkam, i n a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t y l e of h i s

own, g i v e s h i s views on TolkZppiyam, ~ k a n a n ~ ~ u , T i r u k k e a t

and ~ i l ~ p ~ a t i k F r a i o , and i n uorks l i k e TamiAkkb ta l , VaI!uvati

and g p p i y a l NZkku, prorrounces a t t i n e s s t a r t l i n g v e r d i c t s

on t e x t s and w r i t e r s .

I t is saddening t o n o t e t h a t many of t h e academic

c r i t i c s , i n s p i t e of t h e i r sound knowledge and l o v e f o r

l i t e r a t u r e , r e p e a t adnauseam what has a l r e a d y been s t a t e d

e f f r c t i v e l y by t h e a n c i e n t commentators and o t h e r s . Pron

them we g e t : , e i t h e r f r e s h i n s i g h t s no r r e v a l u a t i o n s l e a d i n g

t o p o s i t i v e hnd he!pfui d i s c u s s i o n s of v i t a l l i t e r a r y

p r o t l e m s

(IF t .huse who r a i s e d t h e banne r of r e v o l t a g a i n s t t h e

ar:h*len:~g-. r r i t l c s , m e g roup a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e c e l e b r a t e d

j i > u r r i a : H a ; , i k k l j j i 1s t h e most n o t e w o r t h y . P u t u m a i p p i t t a n ,

Ka Ha&. L;ui,ranaii i a n i , C L .Cu . C h e l l t l ~ p B , Na.Chidambara Subra-

n u ~ : i u r : , KIA P a . Ra jagopa lan , P . K . S u n d a r a r a j a n , and V a i f i k -

kant .an , t hough y r i m a r i l y c r e a t i v e w r i t e r s , were i n t e r e s t e d .. - i n l i t e r a r y c r i t i c i s m , e s p e c i a l l y i n d e b a t e s on t h e S h o r t

S t o r y a i d t h e New P o e t r y . They c lamoured f c r p u t t i n g an end

t o ttrr r r , t ! ius :as t~c p r a i s e of t h e a n c i e n t s and f o r t u r n i n g

o u r Pocus on t h e u ~ o d e r n s . But t h e y cou ld n o t h i d e t h e i r

d e f e c t i v e knowledge o f t h e p a s t and b e t r a y e d t h e i r l a c k of

h i s t o r i c a l s e n s e i n t h e i r c r i t i c i s m . Though Ka.Naa.

Subr sman iaa expe r imen ted w i t h v a r i o u s l i t e r a r y fo rms

i n r l u d i n g s h o r t s t o r y , n o v e l , e s s a y , t r a n s l a t i o n , and

c r i t i c i s m , he may be remembered n o r e a s a c r i t i c t h a n a s a

c r e a t i v e a r t i s t by p o s t e r i t y . I n h i s Kuta l Aintu Tamil

Ngwalka f , pat i t t i r ~ k k i ~ T i - k a ! ~ ? , Intiya I l a k k i y a m , C i ~ a n t a

Pattu Intiya N g v a l k a l , I l a k k i y a V i c z r a a and other works , he

scrutinizes various writers such as Putumaipittan,

Vaiyapurippillai, V.V.S.Aiyar, A.K.Chettiyar, Kalki,

Vaa.Raa, Rajaji, Bharatidasan, Akilan, Anuttama,

Suddhananata Bharati, and Ku.Alagiri Sami, and fearlessly

passes his judgments. He seems to derive immense pleasure

from attacking classics and popular writers. It is strange

that he was not able to appreciate Cahkam poems, TFvaran,

a 4 ~ i r u v ~ c c a k a o . Though he is unreliable in hie evaluation of

poets, his analyses of short stories and novels are

masterly. An ardent admirer of Coleridge, Goethe, Sainte-

Beuve, Henry James, and Ezra Pound, he believed in the 'art

for art's sake' cult and considered criticism an art. He

never favoured the use of any set criteria in literary

criticism. Tanil Gramnar, the language of the Pandits .

formal study of literature, and journalistic writings were

his constant targets of attack, whereas individualism and

aesthetics received his unqualified praise. Though didactic

works were his abhorrence, he started aoknowledging the

literary merits of Tirukkula! during hie last days.

The Uarxist group consists of K.Kailasapathy, Ha.

Vanamamalai, C.Ragunathan, S.Ramakrishnan, K.Kuttaiya,

Ti.Ka.Sivasankaran, R.S.Kannan, I.Kurugaiyan, Ka.Siva-

thambi, TamiLavan, and others. These oritios subsoribe to

tenin's view on Harxism and examine Tanil literary works in

t h e l i g h t of t h e i r c o n v i c t i o n s . K a i l a s a p a t h y , t h e b e s t of

t h e g r o u p , p r o v i d e s ample e v i d e n c e of h i s l i t e r a r y

s c h o l a r s h i p , c r i t i c a l acumen, l o v e of Marxism, and

knowledge o f Western c r i t i c s and s o c i o l o g i s t s i n h i s TamiL

N&al Ilakkiyaa, Tamil Heroic Poetry, Oppiyal Ilakkiym,

A f iyum Huf iyum, Kavi tai Nayam, Ilakkiyamun Ti~anZyvum,

BhZrati NGIkalun Pctapzta &ayociyun, Iru HakEkavikaJ,

P a ~ r a i t tamiLpr Y c v u m Val - ipgtum, Can~kaviyalum Ilakkiyamua, Ti<aniiyvuppiracca~aika;l, Nav&a Ilakkiyattiz Atippataika!,

and Ilakkiyaccintanaikai. Drawing on t h e w r i t i n g s o f I a n

Wat t , K e t t l e , Caudwel l and W a l t e r A l l e n , Tamil N h l

Ilakkiyam d i s c u s s e s t h e r i s e of t h e Tami l n o v e l and t h e

a p p r o a c h is m a i n l y s o c i o l o g i c a l . I n h i s Tamil Heroic

Poetry, h e c o n t e n d s t h a t Puran?ip.h=u, v e r y much l i k e Homer's

e p i c s , had i ts b i r t h i n o r a l p o e t r y . Fo r t h i s work, he

acknowledges h i s i n d e b t e d n e s s t o t h e work done by tli lman

P a r r y and H.H.Chadwick on t h e Greek h e r o i c p o e t r y . The re

a r e p e r c e p t i v e e s s a y s comparing Greek and Tamil t h o u g h t s

and t h e Tami l Siddhas and t h e C h i n e s e T a o i s t s i n h i 5

Oppiyal Ilakkiyam. Ariyum Hufiyum c o n t a i n s a r e m a r k a b l e

e s s a y on t h e A k a l i k a i theme t r a c i n g it from ParipZfal t o

con tempora ry u r i t i n g s .

I n CamGkaviyalum Ilakkiyaaua, he a r g u e s t h a t

s o o i o l o g i s t s f rom Comte t o Ueber c o n f i n e t h e m s e l v e s t o an

a n a l y s i s of t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n and d i v i s i o n of s o c i e t y

wi thout g i v i n g importance t o i ts economic problems, whereas

Harxian c r i t i c i s m of s o c i e t y a p p l i e s t h e methods of t h e

n a t u r a l s c i e n c e s t o t h e s tudy of s o c i a l p rob lens . He,

t h e r e f o r e , b e l i e v e s t h a t only t h o s e w r i t e r s who subscr ibe

t o Harxian d i a l e c t i c s and d e a l with t h e c l a s s war which

would a t t e m p t t o change t h e very s t r u o t u r e of s o c i e t y a r e

worth t a k i n g s e r i o u s l y . Various c r i t i c a l p r i n c i p l e s and

t r e n d s i n contemporary Tamil c r i t i c i s m a r e sub jec ted t o a

minute s c r u t i n y i n Ilakkiyamun ~ i ~ a n ~ y v u m , where he

d e c l a r e s t h a t l i t e r a t u r e , l i k e any o t h e r human achievement,

is a l s o a p roduc t of s o c i o l o g i c a l f a c t o r s and t h a t it is

f u t i l e t o c la im t h a t a uork of a r t t r a n s c e n d s t ime and

space and is autonomous.

S i n c e t h e r e is an u n c r i t i c a l accep tance of Marxist

c r i t i c i s m on t h e p a r t of Kai lasapa thy , we come c r o s s a l l

t h e m e r i t s and l i m i t a t i o n s of Marxist c r i t i o i s m i n h i s

w r i t i n g s . He s e t an example by bas ing h i s c r i t i c i s m on a

well-formulated theory when t h e common run of c r i t i o s

al lowed themselves t o be guided by t h e i r own whims and

f a n c i e s . H i s p e n e t r a t i n g i n t e l l e c t , e x t r a o r d i n a r y sweep,

h i s t o r i c a l s e n s e and mastery of soc io logy add t o t h e

s u t h o r i t y of h i s o r i t i o r l p e r s p e o t i v b s , B u t h i s adoration

of Harxism d i d a f f e c t h i s judgments a d v e r s e l y . Tha t

l i t e r a t u r e is a p r o d u c t of soc io -economic f a c t o r s i s n o t

t h e c o m p l e t e t r u t h . An a u t h o r ' s p r i v a t e l i f e , h i s

e x p e r i e r r c e s and ~ ~ ~ c h o l o g i o a l p r o p e n s i t i e s do p l a y a

c o n s i d e r a b l e r o l e i n t h e k ind o f w r i t i n g s he p r o d u c e s . I f

t h e w r i t e r s who a r e conce rned w i t h t h e p romot ion of c l a s s

war a l o n e ; '~ouid r e c e i v e i m p o r t a n c e , we w i l l have t o

i ~ n ( l e r u s t i n ~ a t e t h e c o n t r i b u t i o n of a number of o u r g r e a t

n o v e l i s t s and p o e t s . The l i m i t a t i o n s of t h e H a r x i s t

a p p r o a c h become e v i d e n t when K a i l a s a p a t h y and Na.Vanama-

n a l a i r i d i c u l e t h e a t t e m p t s of t h e New p o e t s l i k e Raja-

g o p a l s n and P i t c h a m u r t h y on t h e g round t h a t t h e i r p o e t r y i s

p e s s i m i s t i c and may n o t c o n t r i b u t e t o t h e w e l f a r e of

h u m a n i t y . Even t h e c e n t r a l t h e s i s of Tamil Heroic P o e t r y i s

n o t v a r y sound b e c a u s e i t is v e r y d i f f i c u l t t o b e l i e v e

t i > r , t t i G w i.'irr.~iiJQG,i p i i - c r r ; , many of which a r u wiiil-wrriu@hl: 4

t i t , r t?: r b v e u l i r i g s t y l i s t i c s o p h i s t i c a t i o n of a r a r e k i n d ,

b e l o n g t o t h e o r a l t r a d i t i o n . I n t h e c r i t i c a l w r i t i n g s of

K a i l a r a p a t h y and h i s M a r x i s t companions , s o c i o l o g i o a l and

h i s t o r i c a l p. : o c c u p a t i o n s overshadow a e s t h e t i c c o n c e r n s .

R a g u n a t h a n ' s I l a k k i y a Vimaricanam, CamutZya

I I a k k i y a m , Bhiiratiyum S h e l l i y u n , Bhi irat i KaLlamum Karut tum,

Poturnsippi t t a f ! Varalli_ru and 11a;kZ yay? and t h e w r i t i n g s of

o t h e r H a r x i s t c r i t i c s nay b e l e s s s c h o l a r l y and l e s s

c r i t i c a l t h a n K a i l a s a p a t h y ' s , b u t t h e i r s is a l s o a

s u b s t a n t i a l c o n t r i b u t i o n t o Tamil l i t e r a r y c r i t i c i s m , t h e i r

f a v o u r i t e w r i t e r s b e i n g Kamban and B h a r a t i .

P o l i t i c a l l e a d e r s s u c h a s P .J ivanandam,

C .N .Annadura i , M.P.Sivagnanam, and M.Karunanidhi have

a u t h o r e d a number of books and a r t i c l e s . on Tami l

l i t e r a t u r e , t h e i r v i ews and v e r d i c t s hav ing been

u n d e r s t a n d a b l y c o l o u r e d by t h e i r p o l i t i c a l i d e o l o g i e s . I t

is wel l -known t h a t t h e i r w r i t i n g s have c r e a t e d a welcome

a w a r e n e s s o f t h e g r e a t n e s s of Tami l and a l a s t i n g i n t e r e s t

i n literary d e b a t e s i n T a n i l n a d u .

A s u r v e y o f t h i s k ind i n d i c a t e s t h a t t hough d e s c r i p -

t i v e c r i t i c i s m was dominant a t t h e i n i t i a l s t a g e s , s o c i o l o -

g i c a l and M a r x i s t a p p r o a c h e s s t a r t e d t o g a i n momentum i n

t h e f i f t i e s , s i x t i e s and s e v e n t i e s . U n f o r t u n a t e l y , t h e

c l o s e a n a l y s i s of t h e t e x t g i v e n a h e a d s t a r t by o u r a n c i e n t

commanta to r s h a s n o t been f u r t h e r r e v i t a l i z e d and r e f i n e d

i n t h e l i g h t o f t h e New C r i t i c a l aohievement i n t h e West.

Ye seem t o h a v e f a i l e d t o t a k e advan tage of t h e s t r o n g

f o u n d a t i o n l a i d by N a ~ c i G r k k i ~ i y a r , ~ Z r E c i r i y a r and

~ $ i y & k k u n a l l i i r . I n t h e s e v e n t i e s and e i g h t i e s , many Tami l

c r i t i o s have come fo rward t o employ a r c h e t y p a l , l i n g u i s t i c ,

n e o - H a r x i s t , s t r u c t u r a l i s t , and d e c o n s t r u c t i o n i s t

r p p r o a o h e s , t hough t h e i r mas t e ry o f t h e e e d i s c i p l i n e s is

d u b i o u s and t h e impact o f t h e i r w r i t i n g s h a s n o t y e t b e e n

f e l t . C o n s i d e r i n g t h e b u l k and q u a l i t y of c r e a t i v e w r i t i n g s

i n T a n i l , b o t h a n c i e n t and modern, we canno t s a y t h a t t h e

c r i t i c a l o u t p u t is commensurate w i t h them. Our c r i t i c s seem

t o have c a r e d n o r e f o r Ku_runtokai, AKanGiizu, Pu_ranh~ijfu,

C i l a p p a t i k & a ~ , Tirukkuza;, TiruvFcakaa, , TiruvPymo~i ,

B h a r a t i ' s p o e t r y and con tempora ry f i c t i o n t h a n f o r o t h e r s .

Wany of t h e c r i t i c a l w r i t i n g s a r e a d u l a t o r y i n n a t u r e and a

r e h a s h o f what h a s a l r e a d y been s a i d w i t h o u t p r o p e r acknow-

l edgemen t . E s s a y s c o n t a i n i n g g e n u i n e i n s i g h t s , new

p e r s p e c t i v e s , r e a l r e v a l u a t i o n s , s u b t l e d i s c u s s i o n s , and

d e e p s t u d i e s make t h e i r a p p e a r a n c e once i n a b l u e moon.

T a n i l l i t e r a r y c r i t i c i s m w i l l have t o t a k e i t a e l f s e r i o u s l y

f o r t h e r e s t o f t h e world t o t a k e i t s o .

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anavara t av ingykan P i l , l a i , S . " N a c h i n z r k i n i y a r : A Study" , Siddhsnt; Dip ika . 1 f . 2 (1800), 39-46; 5. 68-71; 5 . 115- 18.

A r a v i n t a n , Mu.Vai. U r a i y g c i r i y a r k a ; . Rev. e d . (Chidanbaram, 1883).

Arunukam, K . " I l a k k i y a t T ixanZyv i l T a n i l I l a k k a n a t t i ~ paliku", Proceedings of the F i r s t L lnterna' t ional Conference Seminar of Tamil S t u d i e s . Vol. 11. (Kuala Lunpur, lS68).

B a l a . Pu tukkavitai- Oru Putupp~rvai (Sivagangai , 1981)

Balasubramanian, C. " I l a k k i y a t Tiraniiyvu NBlkal", Enpattonril Tamil. e d . Ca. Ve. ~uEramanian and Na. ~ i t i k a c 6 a l a m (Had&, 1983):

Balu , H . Tamil Vimarici_na Ilakkiyam Oru Uu_ncurai ( N a g e r k c i l )

Che l lappa . C i .Su . Tamiehil Ilakkiya VimariciP_nam (Madras, 1974) .

Che l lappan , K. " C r i t i c i s m : A S t r u c t u r a l i s t P e r s p e c t i v e " , Proceedings of the Thirteenth A11 India Conference of Dravidian Linguistics, ad. K.Rangan, Thanjavur , 1888.

Ganesan, pu . C i . Ka. Na. Suvum Kailasapathiyum (Bangalore, 1988) .

Gnanacanpantan, A.S. Ilakkiyakkalai, 8 t h ed . (Wadras, 1 9 8 1 ) .

Gnananur th i , Ta.E. Ilakkiyat Tir-anayviyal, 2nd ed . (Madras, 1986) .

Gnanacampantan, A.S. Ilakkiyakkalai, 8 t h . ed . (Madras, 1981) .

I l a n t i r a i y a n , S a l a i , Pututtamii Xu_nn_ofika{ (Madras, 1880) .

K a i l a s a p a t h i , Ka. Ilakkiyamuo ~ i ~ a n ~ y v u m , 3rd ed. (Madras, 1881) .

K a i l a s a p a t h i , Ka. Oppiyal Ilakkiyam, 3rd ed. (Madras: 1881) .

Kalaparamesvaran, Ka. "Tamil I l a k k i y a V a r a l a r r u t T u r a i y i z T6rranum Anukunuraikal in Va;arcciyun --- Matip$lt$uk ~uXTppuka\" , ~rocsedings of the Fifth International Conference Seminar of Tamil Studies. Vol. 111. ad. M.Arunachalan (Wadras, 1881).

Kssavan. K O . Ilakkiya Vimaricagam Oru ~LrkcTyap Pzrvai (S ivaganga i , 1884).

Kesavan, KO. Iyakkiyamum Ilakkiyapp~kkuka!uo (Madras, 1982).

Kesavan, K O . Hzrkciyat ~i:an%vuc Cikkalka! (Hadurai , 1888).

Kothandaraman, Pa . Ilnkkiyamum Ti_ranzyvum (Chidambaram, 1978) .

Hakaram, ed . E_lut,fuvatu Eppafi-2 (Hadras, 1979) .

Hanavalan, A . A . Hutual Planes: Essays in Comparative Literature - Tamil and English (Hadras, 1877).

Uanka i , T . "The S o c i a l S c i e n t i s t of Tamilnadu", Journal of Tamil Studies. 18 (December, lg8O). 83-87.

a K a r a i n a l a i , C i . I . IIakkiyat Ti~anyvu: 8r Arimukan (Hadras,

1 9 7 9 ) . T -

Harudanayagan, P. " T . P . ~ T n Z t c i c u n t a r a n a s a Cornparatist", Journal of the Institute of Asian fiudies. VI. 1 (1888), 59-67.

Heenakshisundaram, K . "The C r i t i c a l Approach of t h e Commentators", Journal of Tamil Studies, 1 (September, 1972). 71-7.

Hinaksh i sundaran , T .P . "The Tamil L i t e r a r y Theory of t h e B h a k t i Per iod" , Journal of the Hadurai University, December 1970.

Kurukan, V . "Comparative L i t e r a t u r e " , Enpattonril Tamil e d , Ca. Ve. Subramanian and Na. ~ a t i t r a c h a l x ; ( H a d r a ~ ; 1983) .

Hukman, H . A . ~~rkciyamum Ilakkiyat Tiraniiyvum (S ivaganga i , 1 8 8 7 ) .

P a r t h a s a r a t h i . J . "Research Hsthodolopy i n Tamil : The C o n t r i b u t i o n of H. I rakava Aiyankar". Tamilayvu-12 (1081) 11-34.

Pichamuthu . Ha. " T a n i l I l a k k i y a t TiranFyvu ~ Z l k a j " , Intiya Tamil Ilakkiyamun, <d. Na.Sanjiv1 (Hadras,

Pichamuthu, Na. Tifanryvum Tamil- Ilakkiyak ~~<kaika!ua (Hadras , 1986).

PurnaLingam P i l l a i , H.S. "Pavananti : C r i t i c and Teacher" , Sfddhsnt~ Dipika. XII .2 ( l g l i ) , 85-9; a l s o p u b l i s h e d i n T m i l Antiquary. 11.1 (1913). 27-33.

Racu, Ta. Putiya ~ g k k i l Pafaippilakkiyam (Chidanbaram, 1985) .

Ragunathan. Ilakkiya Vimaricacam. 4 t h ed . (Kadurai , 1880).

Rana l ingan , Ma. Ti_ranCyvu Neri (Madras, 1988). - S a c h i t h a n a n t h a n , Vai . Oppilakkiyam: Cr AAfmukam (Hadras,

1985) .

Samuel, G . John. Ilakkiyat ~iranryvu, P a r t I (Kadras, 1976).

S a n j i v i , Na. IIakkiya Iyal. 2nd ed . (Madras, 1977).

S i n g a r a v e l u , S . " P r o g r e s s i n Tamilclogy", Tamil Culture, XI. 1. (1964) . 96-113.

S i v a t t a n b i , Ka. "Tami l I l a k k i y a V i n a r i Q a p m " , Pulamai. 13-2 ( 19B7), 1-34. -

Subranan iya I y e r , A . V . Tamil Arrycciyin Varalalfu (Kadras, 1 9 5 9 ) .

Subramaniyan, Ka.Naa. Viaaricanakkalai (Madras, 1964).

S u n d a r a n u r t h i , I . " U r a i y x c i r i y a r Kanta TiranXyvu Nefi", Annals of Oriental Research. X X X I . '( 19827, 1-16.

T a n i l a n n a l . Oppilakkiya A-imukam. 4 t h ed . (Kadurai , 1979).

T a n i l a n n a l . Urai ViIakku (Madurai, 1985) .

Thaninayakam, Xavie r S. " A Percep t ion i n Tamil L i t e r a r y S t u d i e s " , Tamil Culture. XX.2&3 (1968) . 181-92.

Thaninayakam, Xavier S . "TWO Decades of Tamil S t u d i e s " , Journal of Tamil Studies. 1.1. (1988) 1 . 1 8 .

Tirugnanasanbandan, P. " L i t e r a r y C r i t i c i s m " , Proceedings of the Thirteenth A11 India Conference of Dravidian Linguistics, a d . K. Rangan (Thanfavur, 1986) .

V a i y a p u r i p p i l l a i , S . Tamilccu!ar Ma~lnl;rika? (Kadras, 1949)

V a i y & p u r i p p i l f a i , S. "Reoent Progroas i n Research S t u d i o s " , Tanail Culture. 1.1. (1952) ' 18-28.

Varataracan, Mu. I l a k k i y a t Tiran (Wadras, 1878)

Virappan , Pa. and KO. Kirutt inamurthi . T a m i l & ~ y c c i y i ~ Varalaru (Madras, 1 9 7 7 ) .