chap_13_2
chapter13_1.html
chapter13_2.html
chapter14.html
TIRUKKURAL
An Abridgement of Śāstras
R. Nagaswamy
13. G.U. POPE
13.2. A REFUTATION OF POPE
“There is no date whatever which may enable us to fix with precision the period at which our poet flourished. I think between A.D.800 to 1000 is its probable date.
(Reason) The style is not archive far less so than that of the ‘Chivaga Chintamani’. Remembering that its father is not fettered by caste prejudice, that his greatest friend was a sea captain that lived at St. Thome, that was evidently “an ecliptic” that Christian influences were at that time in the neighborhood and that many passages are strikingly Christian in spirit and cannot feel any hesitation in saying that the Christian scriptures were among the sources from which the poet derived his inspiration.” (— Pope)
We have no hesitation in stating this date assigned to Vaḷḷuvar by G.U.Pope is absolutely absurd. The 800 to 900 CE were the period of the Pallavas, under whom Mylapore flourished and in the 10th to 11th, it was the Cōḻas under whom the region was ruled. There are several citations of Kuṟaḷ long before this period and Pope’s dating is far off the mark, and so all he states as background to Kuṟaḷ is not valid.
Lazarus was more objective and beyond citing the age of Ugraperuvaḻuti Pāṇḍya,in whose time it was composed. Lazarus confined himself to the information provided by the tradition and did no attempt to inject his own date as done by Pope. Pope puts it later than Cintamani.
It is therefore evident, Pope’s dating of Kuṟaḷ would itself negate the Christian source of Kuṟaḷ.
Second point, the parentage of Vaḷḷuvar given by these two writers Lazarus and G.U.Pope. Lazarus says ‘All accounts concede that in representing him as an offspring of a Brahman and a Pariah woman. He is said to have been brought up by a Veḷḷāḷa’s wife having found exposed in a Iluppai grove in her neighborhood. We are told that while yet a youth he had acquired such high reputation for learning and authority that Margasagāyaṉ, a wealthy farmer who lived at Kāverippākkam in remuneration of service rendered to him, did not disdain him to bestow the hand of his only daughter named Vasuki; and besides the highest personage in the place felt a pride on the enjoyment of his friendship’. (page 3, Lazarus) (Pope P.X.)
Jñāna Sambandar had a companion, ‘Tiru Nīlakaṇta Yāḻpāṇar’, a Bāna who was considered an outcaste. Sambandar brought him along to Śiva Temples everywhere. Once he was given a place near an altar to stay for the night. Nandan was an outcaste who visited Chidambaram was welcomed by the Dīkṣitars of Chidambaram by calling “aiyyarē varuka”.
This clearly shows that then Hindu society did not prohibit or downgrade the upward or downward movement of the caste. A Brāhmin getting a child through a Pariah woman, and a Veḷḷāḷa knowing well this background bringing up the child, and no bar in the learning and a wealthy farmer giving his only daughter to this youth of brilliance and also giving him a place among the list of his friends were not prohibited by the society. The honor permitted by G.U.Pope about his upbringing, marriage and so on, and that only Christianity redeemed him is an absurd claim.
“It is strange that the place of birth of this poet and his work are without a name. The author himself is commonly is known as Tiruvaḷḷuva Nāyaṉmār (the sacred devotee priest or soothsayer of the Pariah community caste). Tradition says he was a weaver and of those who are referred as a refuse of all castes the pariah tribe their priests, sooth sayers and teachers, prophets are styled Vaḷḷuvar, but he does not write as a priest and it would be impossible to gain from his writings any idea of temple in which he lit the sacred lamp and presented the offerings of his people.” (Pope — preface i and ii)
This is a statement of Pope, first to dissociate Vaḷḷuvar from any Hindu temple. If he was a weaver he could not have been regarded as the refuse of all the castes, the ‘Pariah tribe’. Weavers were called ‘Mudaliyār’ in Tamiḻnāṭu, meaning heads or traders of palace household. The commanders were also called Mudalis. For example, the foremost commander of the Viṣnu temple is Senai 'Mudaliyār'. Similar term of Nāyaṉār also stands for trader. The head of the family is called Nāyaṉār. The Telugu call their father of the family - as Nāyaṉa. A 17th century Tamiḻ text by Veḷḷi-ambala-vāṇa-tambiraṉ refers to Tiruvaḷḷuvar as the head of a Śaiva Sanātanam religious group — who were considered siddhas like Tirumūlar, Śivavākyar and others called santāna kuravar who were highly respected.
Lazarus, one year earlier to Pope, recorded that Vaḷḷuvar was born of a mixed caste of a Brāhmaṇa male and a Pariah woman, Pope’s account is self contradictory.
The very fact he was brought up by a farmer and he was foremost in learning and that Margasagāyam, a rich farmer gave his only daughter in marriage to Vaḷḷuvar and he was a friend of the rich friends of the farmer’s society of his time who did not treat him as outcaste and in any manner derogatory to his position, is definite that Pope was driving a wedge between Vaḷḷuvar and the Hindu community to convert him to Christianity.
It is also necessary to record the Vedic tradition has a popular hymn called Śatarudrīya which is recited to this day by all the Brāhmaṇas. It lists more than 120 different professions among men in the society some of whom we may call the out-caste. It would show that the caste system is essentially profession oriented. The hymn is a set of salutations to all these professionals among which we may be mention two, one says salutations to the player of battle drum, Namo dundubhaya; the other one prahita is salutations to the drummer (prahitāyaca namaḥ) dundubhyāya ca is the sooth sayer. prahita is the most welcome announcer of news and regulations in villages by beating the drum. India is a land of villages and in rural areas the announcer played a crucial role in spreading news of the country among the people. So, he was called pracuta, an announcer Paraiaḥ to say. The modern word Paraiah is spoken form of ancient word Prahita. The Vedas say, I salute the Paraiḥ who is announcer for the village people. In the great temple of Tanjore, built by Rājarāja Cōḻa, the main announcer of festivals beginning with flag hoisting was pariaḥ. In temple festivals, the first worship is to a Paraiḥ as the player of drum bheri tāḍana. The word Paṟai is also connected with the word bheri — para. It is not correct to say that Paraiḥ was degrading. There is an episode connected with the temple of Pērūr near Coimbatore. Lord Śiva is called “Nāda Paṟaiaḥ”. Here, Śiva is himself called Paraiaḥ. So, Pope’s description of the caste of Vaḷḷuvar is not based any historical analysis but mainly with the motive to inject his similar aim of isolating the section of Hindus to propagate his conversion to his sectarian Christian faith; it is evident from his following writing.
“It is strange that the name by which the greatest poet of South India is known as indicating an origin, most degrading and contemptuous in the eyes of multitude of whom he has been for ten centuries the ‘ordeal’.”
This statement of Pope is a mischievous propaganda. He has said earlier that Vaḷḷuvar was a weaver by caste. A weaver’s profession was never a degrading profession. If he was a Paraiḥ ‘he was a friend of all’ which was not a degrading profession. He also has said earlier ‘traditions says he was a weaver’. If this is the only source available to him what he has said about Paraiḥ is absolutely rubbish. This is taken as history that he was a son of a Brāhmaṇa and woman of Paraiaḥ caste, was not a prohibited event, according to the Dharma Śāstra. The very fact that he was brought up by a farmer, also who gave his daughter in marriage to him extolled his system of Pattini in her, shows Hindu system has not degraded him but has adored him as God incarnate, Nāyanṉār. The Hindus did not wait for Christian Pope to raise his status. All that is achieved by Pope’s writing is hatred or enemity between one section and other. We have seen that the work of Rev. Lazarus published one year before Pope’s work is dignified and respectful. Pope’s writing deserves nothing but contempt.
“The last indeed has become the first. A wild and utterly incredible tradition assigns him a Brāhmin father and a no-caste mother and represents the Poetess Avvai (an old woman) (her name too is unknown) as his sister and several other poets of whom some fragments remains were his brothers” (p. ii). All that was certainly known is that he was a paraiaḥ and weaver, lived at St. Thome, or Mylapore now a suburb of Madras and had an intimate friend probably a patron, called Elala-Singan, who was the captain of a small vessel.
Please follow this story of Pope. Pope dwells with Mylapore and venomously brings the St. Thome which he introduces to bring in the Christian source of Tirukkuṟaḷ.
“I may be pardoned for dwelling on my recollections of this interesting spot (Mylapore) since in 1840 my missionary life began there and while villages around the enthusiasm of the great Tamiḻ Poet was kindled, which has been an important factor, in life. Pope gives an interesting account of Mylapore. He calls it the ‘Town of Peacock’ indicating a place of groves and gardens around old temples (quite a number of these temples like, Kapālīśvara, Vaḷḷīśvara, Kēśavap-Perumāḷ, Mādhavap-Perumaḷ, Virūpākṣa and others are still under worship). He also refers to the big tank with belt of coconut, palm and repine trees with leaf covered native houses, in any one of which the poet might have lived”.
“The seashore is close yet where Elala singam's (p. ii) descendent (much degraded after) dwelt there yet. The poet could hear the boons of the surf waves and pondered over doubt often calls her the shore of gruesome waves”.
“A higher interest is imparted to the spot and the neighborhood to Christians, by the tradition (so long and highly discredited) but now generally acknowledged to be authentic. St.Thomas preached and here met his death by the spear. The poet often speaks about and buried in Mylapore is known to us better known as San Thome, in this neighborhood commonly existed from earliest times. Here are five Armenian and Portuguese churches and a Christian inscription of the 5th century. Here, Paurtenanus preached Alexanderian’s thoughts and we are quite warranted in imagining that Thiruvaḷḷuvar, the thoughtful poet to which the leading of the Jains was as familiar to every sect of Hindu sect”.
Having injected his venomous wedge between Vaḷḷuvar’s caste and admittedly utter imagination and fictitious account of Vaḷḷuvar listening to Christian sermon-according to his own account, Pope continues his myth of Vaḷḷuvar being a Christain.
Having questioned the parentage of Vaḷḷuvar as given by the tradition, he refers to a tradition which he swears as history about the myth of St. Thomas preaching here.
Pope cites orgermans artecate work - ‘Kirothe Thomas- Thomas Christians’. He does not give any publication particulars. This may be seen with statement that this account was purely discredited and rejected before his time. Thus, Pope’s account where he brings in St. Thomas is not history but his imaginary invention.
As against this we may cite the writing of Rev. Lazarus, who wrote about one year earlier and makes no mention of Christianity in the neighbourhood, St.Thomas birth, preaching and death through spear and so on. Lazarus asserts that beyond the native traditional account as told, no information is available about the life of Vaḷḷuvar as told in the following lines.
“Having given the traditional account nothing further is known of Vaḷḷuvar which can be relied upon”.
Lazaurus account gives no account similar to Pope’s account. Pope is aware of Lazarus and as such no historian worth the name can consider Pope’s writing as history.
There is no evidence of where this information was found originally, or of those who discarded and highly discredited it and now have acknowledged “it authentic”.
These are the main points which Pope imports from his fertile imagination. This is the centre of St. Thomas myth. (Pope is aware of Lazarus writing but brushes aside Lazarus’s work, not seen by him. Obviously, Lazarus account must have posed him a serious challenge to his bluff and so simply brush aside as not seen).
We may see how Pope proceeds “We are quite warranted in imagining Tiruvaḷḷuvar the thoughtful poet, the eclectic to which of the Jains was as familiar as that of every Hindu sect, who was not himself hindered by any caste prejudices with familiar intercourse of with foreigners, whose one thought was to gather knowledge from every source, whose friend the sea captain would bring of every stranger arrival coming from Ceylon perhaps in his own thoṇy we may fairly say picture him, pacing along the sea shore with the Christian teachers and imbibing Christian ideas tinged with the peculiarities of the Alexandrian school and day by day working them into his own wonderful Kuṟaḷ”.
According to his own admission all these are his imagination and not history (p.iii) Pope is a clever interpolator of his myth as history. Any historian would throw this claim into gutter.
“Whatever may be thought of these characteristic traditions, it is the singular glory of the poet to have drawn this picture of the perfect householder; and it speaks loudly in favour of the Tamiḻ race that these couplets are enshrined in the hearts of the whole people. Dynastic changes, Muhammadan raids, and irruptions of alien races, through a dozen centuries have changed many things in the south;
'Old times are changed, old manners gone,
and strangers fill the Pandyan throne'
But the Tamiḻ race preserves many of its old virtues, and has the promise of a noble future. Their English friends, in teaching them all that the West has to impart, will find little to unteach in the moral lessons of the Kuṟaḷ rightly understood. Sir A.Grant says: ‘Humility, charity and forgiveness of injuries, being Christain qualities are not described by Aristotle’. Now these three are everywhere forcibly inculcated by the Tamiḻ moralist. These are the themes of his finest verses. So far, then, we may call this Tamiḻ Poet Christian; and to understand him, to free him from mistaken glosses, to teach his works, to correct their teaching where it is misleading, and to supplement it where it is defective, would seem to be the duty of all who are friends of the race that glories in the possession of this poetical masterpiece. Sir A. Grant Moral Philosophy’, says truly; It is obvious that such a code as this precisely what I claim for the Tamil-speaking people, and on the same ground. We shall not do all the good we might do among them till we more unreservedly recognize this.
No doubt many couplets in this remarkable work say more to us than they did to those for whom they were written. Many of these epigrammatic masterpieces have a profound significance, of which their author himself was hardly conscious. Their resemblance to the gnomic poetry of Greece is remarkable as to their subjects their sentiments, and the state of society when they were uttered.
Something must be said regarding the Third Book on ‘Love’.
Of this Mr.Drew said that 'it could not be translated into any European Language without exposing the translator to infamy.' But this is only true in regard to certain of the commentaries upon it, which are simply detestable. I am persuaded that it is perfectly pure in its tendency and in the intention of its wise and high-souled composer. Its title is Kāmattupal the division which treats of Kāma' and this means Lust or Love."
Every temple festival begins with ‘beating the drum’ called ‘Bheri tāḍana’ in which the drummer is given new clothes, garland with flowers and is first as ‘divine announcer’ and asked to inaugurate and announce the festival. He plays thus the lead role. Śaiva saints like Appar (a high caste farmer) declares that even the Pulaya who skins the dead cow is God; we worship if he is a devotee of Śiva. If Christianity gives a place to Pulayas equal status, only they become Christians. One can reach equality only if he gets converted. Even here there were differences. In the 18th-19th century, when the white men converted locals- blacks into Christianity in the churches to the whites did not treat the black Christians on par with them in churches and kept them separately. This led in course of times rebellion in churches and after lot of conflict they were allowed equality at Pondicherry. It is documented in Ananda Rangan Piḷḷai dairies, as an eye witness account - this was because of racial and superiority they were treated like in their soil. Pope could not have been unaware all this happenings at Pondicherry and when he wrote disparagingly about - the Hindus as evil and glorified Christianity he was not honest to his mission. Its such a racial outlook could create outcaste, within a span of one hundred years in Pondichery one can imagine divisions among different classes of people that have lived here for thousands of years. Thus, Pope’s description of the Hindu society was through his jaundiced eyes than reality.
I shall show in the sequence that Vaḷḷuvar believed fully in Varnāśrama dharma - castes. Pope has openly displayed his prejudice because of white men’s superiority but also paid missionary activity. The statement of Pope about Varnāśrama as “He does not write as a priest and it would be impossible from his writings any idea of the temple in which he lit the sacred lamp and presented the offerings of his people. It is strange by which the greatest poet of South India is known, should be one indicating and origin, most degrading and condemned in the eyes of the vast multitude of whom he has been for ten centuries the oracle is totally distorted.”
It is an attempt by Pope to divide Vaḷḷuvar and the Hindus, as against the way in which Vaḷḷuvar’s work is cited in other literary text through the centuries for the past 2000 years, especially before the colonial rule, would show that the Hindu society did not treat Vaḷḷuvar as mischievously described by Pope.
Pope says Vaḷḷuvar was despised by the Hindu society. Please see the poem 361 of Puranāṉūru, where in a patron king is making gift. He gifts to learned Brāhmaṇa and performing Vedic sacrifice. The Poem list a number of people he gifted, the soldiers who fought for the country with motherly affection and other men and women singing his praise, presented gift those who saluted him and to the Pādini (virali) dancer and her companion (pāṇan) golden lotus flower. He did not differentiate Brāhmaṇas from Pāṇan and Pādini. Pāṇa were considered as outcaste. This poem belongs to the same age of Vaḷḷuvar. One should not forget that Vaḷḷuvar belonged to this age and the claim of Pope is imaginary and not substantiated by any fact.
Finally, Elela Singa belongs to the 1st Century BCE and if Vaḷḷuvar belonged to 800 to 900 CE, as held by Pope, how Vaḷḷuvar could have learnt, Christianity from Elala Singa. That is the finest joke of Pope.