Talk:Sangam literature/Archive 1

Archive 1

List of Sangam Literature

Thanks Senthilkumar for adding the more complete list of the literature. However I have removed the mixed cases which are really difficult to read for a non-tamil speaker and added the actual tamil names to them.

Venu62 19:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I want to create a sub category under Tamil Literature called as sangam tamil literature to collect all Sangam related articles. Any objections ?RaveenS 12:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a very good idea. Would there be any interest in starting a Wikiproject on Sangam literature? There're really a lot of things that could be covered - Classical Tamil language, detailed individual articles on each tinai, briefer writeups on the important turais, expanding the articles on each of the anthologies, Classical Tamil prosody (acai, cir, talai, ati, totai, etc. in the classical period and today, aciriyappa, venpa, kalippa and vancippa), the most important poets... the list could go on. -- Arvind 13:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

That would be great. I could contribute towards articles on prosody given that I've done some work (alternate url) in this area. We could get some info from ta:பகுப்பு:யாப்பிலக்கணம் too. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 11:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Great! Actually, should we widen it to include "classical Tamil", which would also include the kizhkanakku and the epics? -- Arvind 14:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Super exciting. Count me in. Kingsley2.com 16:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, we could have them too though I personally have little knowledge on those subjects. Looks like we can get to somewhere as we have more hands now. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 09:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical Tamil now exists. Please feel free to fill in the various sections... -- Arvind 22:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Damodaram Pillai

Damodaram Pillai was an earlier pioneer to whom U.V. Swaminatha Iyer owes a debt of gratitude. U.V.S Iyer had written a dirge when Damodaram Pillai died and it is the following song in Tamil, written in Venpaa meter.

தொல்காப் பியமுதலாந் தொன்னூல் களைப்பதிப்பித்(து)
ஒல்காப் புகழ்மேவி யுய்ந்தபண்பின் - அல்காத்
தாமோதரச் செல்வன் சட்டகநீத் திட்டதுன்பை
யாமோ தரமியம்ப வே

In his autobiography called 'En Caritham' (என் சரிதம்)U.V.S Iyer does narrate how Damodaram helped him variously. There were also a few other notable scholars other than these two such as Arumuga Navalar and others. --Aadal 21:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Other additions

I've made a few modifications to the write up, including the dates and descriptions. Post 200-300 CE is known as post-Sangam period during wich time such works as Cilappathikaram etc. were written, and after that the Shaivaite Nayanmar's period starts around 500 CE with Karaikkal Ammaiyaar and 700 CE with Appar.--Aadal 21:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Aimperum Kaappiyangal

The five epics, AFAIK, are not part of Sangam literature. Are they?

They are not. We can remove them from the infobox. I have been working on the Tamil literature page. May be we can create an infobox there. - Parthi 09:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Or should we turn the Sangam Literature Infobox into a Tamil Literature Infobox? Kingsley2.com 16:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Do some reading before tagging

I would like to recommed User:Sarvagnya to borrow some books from the local library and do some reading before tagging articles. - Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 05:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I would rather you save your advice for yourself and do some reading yourself. Commentators of the 10th century(and thereabouts) did NOT classify or 'brand' this body of work as Sangam literature. They collected, collated, consolidated etc., and divided them into mElkaNakku and keeLkaNakku. They didnt classify these works under Sangam literature. In other words, all that the early commentators who consolidated all these bits and pieces of poetry by several poets did, was to classify these works under mElkaNakku and keeLkaNakku.

They didnt say, [(melkaNakku+keeLkaNakku) = Sangam corpus of literature or Sangam literature], ie., there was no classification called 'Sangam literature'.

This above equation was arrived at only in the 20th century, where along with mElk., and keeLk., few other works like Tolk., were also brought under this classification.

And whether AgapporuL talks about the three Sangams and their kings and dynasties or not is besides the point. The author of the AgapporuL was just making a mention of legends and mythology that prevailed in his days. He never claimed that all those accounts were historic facts nor did he have a super-class called Sangam literature of which mElk., and keeLk., were subsets. Sarvagnya 10:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

What books have you read which support your statement above. I don't see any citations from you. - Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 20:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I dont need to give citations for writing on the talk page. You are the one who has written something on the article page. You should give the citations. What you have given now, does NOT establish that the commentators of the 10-11th centuries classified this corpus of lit., as "Sangam literature". Sarvagnya 20:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

And even the Sangam legends were part of the colophons etc., and not part of the poetry themselves that formed part of the mElkaNakku and keeLkaNakku. The poetry themselves didnt talk about any academy or gathering of poets etc.,. Sarvagnya 20:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

If you read the article and the citations carefully, instead of trying to abuse me personally, you would see that the article never claimes that the original poets called their poems as part of the Sangam literature. Only the later anthologists of the 7th - 10th century CE classified them as such. The various anthologies of Agananuru, purananuru, etc are ancient, belonging to the earlier date. I can give you any number of citations for this. The existing citation shows that the Sangam legend was prevelant in the 7th century CE. There are a number of commentaries of these early works which were written around the 10th century CE. What I am asking you to prove that your claim above that these anthologies were named as Sangam literature' in the 20th century. Anyone can question anything and offer ridicuous counter suggestions. It doesn't take a lot of intelligence to do it. But to offer believable counter arguments, they need to be supported by valid references. If you don't do that then there is no option but to classify your activities as malicious interference. - Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 22:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Stop saying that I abused you personally or that I have any malicious intentions. I have said nothing about you, only about what article says. I have never said that the Agananuru, Purananuru etc., belong to the 10th CE or 20th CE. But the original authors of Agananuru, Purananuru etc., didnt anthologise their works under Melkanakku, Keelkanakku etc.,. That was done in the AgapporuL much later. And even in the AgapporuL, the classification was only under MelkaNakku and keeLkaNakku, not under Sangam literature. The commentator/s of the 10th century who anthologised and classified the works did not classify them as "Sangam" literature. They merely classified it as MelkaNakku, KeeLkaNakku. Sarvagnya 23:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The word "tamizh" itself in Tamil was used to mean both Tamil language and literature, so the phrase "changaththamizh" which they use in Chola period literature refers to the literature as well. There is a phrase "changatthamizh moondum thaa" used by Auvaiyar in Nalvazhi, where the use of "moondum" (all three) clearly means that the phrase "changatthamizh" also included the literature. -- Ponnampalam 08:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

That is besides the point. Today and in this article, it has been said that,

Agatt.,+Tolk.,+(Ettutt.,+Pattupp.,)+Keelk., = Sangam literature.some people and some sources include the 5 novels also in this equation. But since the article leaves those out, i am leaving those out too

This is the equation that the readers of WP have been provided with.

Did Auvaiyar or Andal or even the author of Agapporul or Nakkeerar, subscribe to the above equation? The fact that they used the word Changa in their works, doesnt mean Andal or Auvaiyar referred to the Agatt., Tolk., Melk., or Keelk.,. Nor does it mean that they referred to the legends that was described in the Agapporul. Do you have any proof to say that when Auvaiyar sang about Changa she was referring to Sangam legends or Sangam literature as we know them today and as this article portrays??

If Auvaiyar used the word Changa in her works, it just means that she used the word Changa in her works. How did you equate her Changa with your Sangam literature?? Sarvagnya 16:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

And it is precisely for reasons like the above that Kamil Zvelebil(who Mr.Parthi is so fond of quoting) categorically says that the usage of the term Sangam literature is a misnomer and Classical literature should be used instead. Sarvagnya 16:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Nevertheless, I'd like someone to give me a reference before the 20th century, which shows that even people of those ages considered, (A+T+(E+P)+K)=Sangam lit.,. If you cant, please reword the article to reflect it. Do not mislead readers into thinking that this classification has existed since the start of time or that Auvaiyar/Andal's definition of Changa was the same as our definition of the Sangam or Sangam lit.,. Sarvagnya 16:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I think I have not understood your question. Nakkiranar's commentary on Iraiyanar Ahapporul names a number of works as having been composed in the Sangams. All eight works of edduthohai are named here. Patthupaddu and Kizhkanakku are named as being written in the Sangam in other commentaries. The idea that these works were composed in the Sangam is not new. Is that what you are asking? -- Ponnampalam 11:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Religious and secular

The article has a footnote which says "The only reference to any religious entity occurs in paripatal." I think what you actually mean is that "the only religious poems amongst the shorter poems occurs in paripadal." There are other references to a religious entity in Edduthokai, such as to Rama in Purananuru and Neduntokai and to Yama (Koottan) in Purananuru. In the longer poems (Paththu Paaddu) Thirumurukan Aattuppaadai is religious, and there are references to gods in Kurunjipaaddu. The statement in the main article that most of the songs are secular is correct, but the footnote I think should be corrected. -- Ponnampalam 08:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Pandyas

Kumari Kandam/Lemuria is a scientifically disproven hoax. The earliest historically proven existence of Pandyas goes back only to the 3rd Century BC(Ashoka's edict). So if there was a Pandya before that, there is no telling that the two Pandyas were the same. There is no historic proof to make such a claim. Nor will there ever be, since the very kingdom that these Ice age Pandyas were ruling is mythical. And mythical lands are incapable of yielding any epigraphic or archeological evidence. Sarvagnya 06:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Bringing these back from the section below as it concerns the article
Apropos Pandyas of history != Pandyas of mythology, you're walking a thin grey line by pointing out that it was the legends of 10th CE that made such a claim. Some esoteric legends making fictitious claims about history doesnt mean you have to choose words in ways to suggest that the historically proven Pandyas were indeed the Pandyas of Sangam. It is tantamount to misleading readers who know nothing about the subject. Sarvagnya 16:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Other discussions

When you give citations, try to provide publication information and page numbers so that the information can be cross checkced. See WP:CITE for guidelines. - Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 09:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

From WP:CITE that you are so fond of citing ---> "Page numbers are not required when a citation accompanies a general description of a book or article, or when a book or article, as a whole, is being used to exemplify a particular point of view.". Sarvagnya 09:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Apropos Pandyas of history != Pandyas of mythology, you're walking a thin grey line by pointing out that it was the legends of 10th CE that made such a claim. Some esoteric legends making fictitious claims about history doesnt mean you have to choose words in ways to suggest that the historically proven Pandyas were indeed the Pandyas of Sangam. It is tantamount to misleading readers who know nothing about the subject. And of course, while this might be forgiveable in this article it certainly is not in the Pandya article. May I take this opportunity to ask you to run and fix things there before I make my presence felt there too. Sarvagnya 09:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

You can make your presence anywhere. I don't edit articles in WP at the behest of others. I also don't go around keep whinghing in the talk pages and picking fights with other editors and get blocked numerous times because of such behaviour. I make useful contribtions. You are welcome to 'make your presence' anywhere. If you write crap or delete facts, they will the reverted. - Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 09:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Venu62, watch your tone and attack the claims not the person.-- ॐ Kris ( talk | contribs) 09:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

My tone is perfectly civil, unlike your friend asking me to 'run along' and do something, I haven't said anything personal about him. - Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 09:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Sarvagnya and Srkris, please watch out lest you may be warned by someone for wikistalking. And Parthi, please avoid reciprocating suggestive remarks (this is not related to your comments here). These are not clear violations but are nevertheless unhelpful. Don't feed useless discussions. By the way, I've requested for mediation. When a mediator contacts you people, please cooperate with them in arriving at a mutually acceptable version. It's not arbitration, so no punitive action or such, just helping you come to a consensus. Approach that in that spirit. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 10:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Sundar, thanks for your concern. Please see [[1]] and [[2]] to see who is stalking whom.-- ॐ Kris ( talk | contribs) 17:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Ramanujan comment on Sangam literary value is extremely relevant

The user Sarvagnya has deleted my quote of Ramanujan's assessment of Sangam literature with no convinving cause. I have put it back. Sarvagnya please desist. This seems really unreasonable.

perichandra1 00:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)