365bet娱乐

[Full title: 厂尘腻谤迟补-艢补颈惫颈蝉尘 in context: The Public Theologians of Early Modern South India]

Hindu sectarian communities, crystallizing in the late-medieval or early modern centuries, invoked the legacy of the past while promulgating radically new modes of religious identity. This was the south India in which the 厂尘腻谤迟补-艢补颈惫补 tradition as we know it first began to come into view and began to distinguish itself from contemporary communities of 艢补颈惫补s and 痴补颈峁ａ箛补惫补蝉 alike. Also known today as Tamil Brahminism, the 厂尘腻谤迟补-艢补颈惫补 community of the modern age has recently featured in the work of C. J. Fuller and Haripriya Narasimhan, who investigate the sociality of being Brahmin in twentieth-century Tamil Nadu; and its contemporary religious lifeworld has best been captured by Douglas Renfrew Brooks, particularly its seamless intertwining of 艢补颈惫补 orthodoxy and 艢谤墨惫颈诲测腻 艢腻办迟补 esotericism. The history of its origins, or of how 厂尘腻谤迟补-艢补颈惫补 theologians came to speak for an emerging religious community, is a story that remains to be told. 厂尘腻谤迟补-艢补颈惫颈蝉尘, it turns out, first acquired its distinctive religious culture during the generation of Appayya 顿墨办峁�i迟补鈥檚 grandnephew, a poet-intellectual of no small repute: 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补 顿墨办峁�i迟补, court poet and minister to Tirumalai 狈腻测补办补 of Madurai, devout 艢补颈惫补 and ardent devotee of the goddess 惭墨苍腻办峁Ｄ�, and one of history鈥檚 first 厂尘腻谤迟补-艢补颈惫补 theologians.

狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补 顿墨办峁�i迟补 is best known as one of early modern India鈥檚 most gifted poets, famed for his incisive wit and the graceful simplicity of his verse, which contrasts markedly with the heavily ornamentalist style popular in post-Vijayanagara south India. And yet, despite his considerable gifts as a poet, 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补 left his lasting mark on south Indian society not as a poet but as a theologian. We know that 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补 had established himself at the Madurai court during Tirumalai 狈腻测补办补鈥檚 reign, with terms of employment that may have included both literary and sacerdotal activities.^[1] On the literary side, he composed a number of works of courtly poetry, or 办腻惫测补, ranging from epic poems to hymns of praise venerating his chosen deities, 艢颈惫补 and 惭墨苍腻办峁Ｄ�, the local goddess of Madurai.^[2] He authored fewer works of systematic thought (艣腻蝉迟谤补), which include a commentary (笔谤补办腻艣补) on 碍补颈测补峁璦鈥檚 惭补丑腻产丑腻峁�y补辫谤补诲墨辫补,^[3] as well as two works of theology: the 艢颈惫补tattvarahasya (The secret of the principle of 艢颈惫补), a discursive commentary on the popular 艢补颈惫补 hymn the 艢颈惫腻峁ａ弓辞迟迟补谤补蝉补丑补蝉谤补苍腻尘补蝉迟辞迟谤补 (The thousand and eight names of 艢颈惫补); and the 厂补耻产丑腻驳测补肠补苍诲谤腻迟补辫补 (The moonlight of auspiciousness), a paddhati, or ritual manual of the 艢谤墨惫颈诲测腻 艢腻办迟补 Tantric tradition, in which 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补 was initiated by the 艢补峁卥补谤腻肠腻谤测补 ascetic he names as his guru, a certain G墨rv膩峁噀ndra 厂补谤补蝉惫补迟墨.^[4] Indeed, a number of anecdotes handed down among 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补鈥檚 descendants have preserved memory of his 艢腻办迟补 leanings, including the belief that Appayya 顿墨办峁�i迟补 bequeathed to him his personal copy of the Dev墨m膩h膩tmya.

Perhaps most noteworthy, however, is a legend that circulates freely among 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补鈥檚 descendants, purported to explain the passion that moved him to compose his hymn to the goddess 惭墨苍腻办峁Ｄ�, the 膧苍补苍诲补蝉腻驳补谤补蝉迟补惫补 (Hymn to the ocean of bliss). 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补, rumor has it, was employed to oversee the construction of Tirumalai 狈腻测补办补鈥檚 New Hall, the Putu Ma峁囜弓apam, directly outside the 惭墨苍腻办峁Ｄ�-厂耻苍诲补谤别艣惫补谤补 Temple in the center of Madurai in honor of the city鈥檚 new and revised celebration of the divine couple鈥檚 sacred marriage鈥攁 curious set of circumstances we will have the opportunity explore further in chapter 4. Among the statues commissioned to grace the pillars of the New Hall was a true-to-life figure of Tirumalai 狈腻测补办补鈥檚 chief queen.^[5] When artisans had nearly completed chiseling the final lifelike features of Madurai鈥檚 queen, a stone chanced to fall suddenly upon the statue, leaving a noticeable indentation upon the statue鈥檚 thigh. 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补, out of reverence for the divine plan of 艢颈惫补 and 惭墨苍腻办峁Ｄ�, instructed the artisans not to correct the indentation, with full faith that such an occurrence was not possible save for 艢颈惫补鈥檚 grace, which allowed the queen to be represented as she truly was, down to the last detail. When Tirumalai 狈腻测补办补 learned of 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补鈥檚 decree, he exploded with rage at the thought that 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补 could have possessed intimate knowledge of the queen鈥檚 body, as a birthmark in fact graced the queen鈥檚 upper thigh at precisely the place where the stone fell. As a result, he promptly sent his soldiers to have his minister blinded for the offense. Engrossed in meditation on the goddess at the time, 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补 foresaw his fate and, in a fit of despair, seized two coals from his ritual fire and fearlessly gouged out his own eyes. 惭墨苍腻办峁Ｄ�, pleased with 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补鈥檚 unwavering devotion, immediately restored his sight, and 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补 responded by spontaneously composing the 膧苍补苍诲补蝉腻驳补谤补蝉迟补惫补 in heartfelt gratitude for the goddess鈥檚 grace.

狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补鈥檚 memory, then鈥攖he legacy he left among his nineteenth-and twentieth-century descendants鈥攃entered not on his poetic prowess and famed satirical wit but on his unparalleled devotion for the goddess. But what about his own contemporaries? Was he best known in his immediate circles as poet and grammarian or as public theologian? As a member of the 顿墨办峁�i迟补 family, early modern south India鈥檚 most noteworthy clan of scholars, 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补 was situated directly at the center of textual circulation across the southern half of the subcontinent. Beyond the South, 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补 maintained direct contact with outspoken representatives of the 辫补峁囜笉颈迟 communities of Varanasi,^[6] possibly India鈥檚 most vibrant outpost of intellectual activity during the early modern period. Perhaps it is no surprise, then, that 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补 was in a position to speak more directly than any other 厂尘腻谤迟补-艢补颈惫补 of his generation to the theological disputes that irrupted in south Indian religious discourse during his lifetime and the preceding century.

On one hand, local memory preserved a keen awareness of 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补鈥檚 centrality to the intellectual networks of the period. In works of poetry authored shortly after 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补鈥檚 lifetime, we discover allusions to his influence on subsequent generations appended to transcripts of his students鈥� and grand-students鈥� compositions.

Take, for instance, the following verse recorded in a manuscript of a commentary (惫测腻办丑测腻), written by one Ve峁卥a峁璭艣vara Kavi, on the 笔补迟补帽箩补濒颈肠补谤颈迟谤补 of 搁腻尘补产丑补诲谤补 顿墨办峁�i迟补:

In which [commentary] he, Ve峁卥a峁璭艣vara Kavi, his qualified student, textualized the glory
Of 搁腻尘补产丑补诲谤补 Makhin, whom he describes as the Indra of the earth,
Whom 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补 Makhin instructed to compose the 搁腻尘补产腻峁嘺蝉迟补惫补,
Who, in turn, the sage 艢r墨 Cokkan膩th膩dhvarin made to write the great commentary.^[7]

What is particularly noteworthy about this verse, among numerous others like it that refer directly to 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补 and his contemporaries, is the awareness it preserves of the process of intellectual influence. 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补, as Ve峁卥a峁璭艣vara tells us, was made to compose the 鈥済reat commentary鈥� by one of his instructors in 艣腻蝉迟谤补,^[8] the grammarian 颁辞办办补苍腻迟丑补 Makhin; and 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补 himself in turn exerted a direct influence on the poetry of his own pupil, 搁腻尘补产丑补诲谤补 顿墨办峁�i迟补, who, as we will see, shared many of 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补鈥檚 own religious predilections, an ideal representative of the 厂尘腻谤迟补-艢补颈惫补s of the seventeenth century.^[9] It is by no means difficult, when studying early modern India, to underestimate the immediacy of the intellectual exchange taking place between scholars, comrades and antagonists alike. And yet we have ample evidence to indicate that exchange among scholars of the period had begun to take place with unprecedented rapidity; theologians setting forth provocative works of polemic, for instance, could expect a vituperative reply from an opponent within a mere handful of years. This puts us, as scholars, in a particularly advantageous position to understand just how concretely intellectual dialogue鈥攖heology being no exception鈥攊nfluenced the shape of extratextual society, even in the absence of the types of documentary data historians typically employ. The context, quite often, is visible in the texts themselves.

We do, on the other hand, have access to one particularly fruitful body of material evidence that speaks to the idea of 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补 as an active scholar, as a portion of 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补鈥檚 personal library has in fact been preserved among the collections of the Tanjavur Maharaja 厂别谤蹿辞箩颈鈥檚 Sarasvati Mahal Library. These six manuscripts were certainly owned by 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补 himself, as each bears what may very well be the original signature of the seventeenth-century scholar: the phrase 鈥湵纺�濒补办补峁囜弓丑补d墨k峁�itasya鈥� or 鈥湵纺�濒补办补峁囜弓丑补d墨k峁�itasya 辫谤补办峁泃颈鈥� (the copy of 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补 顿墨办峁�i迟补) inscribed in identical handwriting in Grantha script. On those manuscripts that were evidently handed down to 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补鈥檚 sons, we find that distinct Grantha hands have inscribed 鈥溎�cc膩 顿墨办峁�i迟补sya鈥� or 鈥淕墨rv膩峁噀ndra 顿墨办峁�i迟补sya鈥� on the very same cover folios. By far the most noteworthy of the six, however, are two 顿别惫补苍腻驳补谤墨 paper manuscripts evidently copied by scribes in north India during the seventeenth century, both the products of leading Varanasi intellectuals: select chapters of the 顿颈苍补办补谤补产丑补峁�峁�墨测补, or the 艢膩strad墨pik膩惫测腻办丑测腻, of Dinakara 叠丑补峁�峁�补 and the 艢膩stram膩l膩惫测腻办丑测腻na, a work of 惭墨尘腻峁僺腻, of Ananta 叠丑补峁�峁�补.^[10] On the latter, the 艢膩stram膩l膩惫测腻办丑测腻na, is written the following remarkable memorandum in yet another Grantha hand: 鈥湴�补尘补濒腻办补谤补putr膩nantabha峁�峁璦pre峁�itam ida峁� pustakam.鈥� (This book was sent by Ananta 叠丑补峁�峁�补, son of 碍补尘补濒腻办补谤补 叠丑补峁�峁�补.) In short, we have physical evidence to document the direct intellectual exchange between 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补 and his contemporaries in Varanasi, who appear to have sent him offprints of their 惭墨尘腻峁僺腻 works in progress for review.

FIGURE 2. Reproductions of two manuscripts bearing what appears to be the signature of 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补 顿墨办峁�i迟补, currently held at the Tanjavur Maharaja 厂别谤蹿辞箩颈鈥檚 Sarasvati Mahal Library. First manuscript: Palm-leaf cover of a 峁欢产丑腻峁�y补 manuscript in 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补鈥檚 possession (D 6924). On the left we see in Grantha script the inked inscription 鈥湵纺�濒补办补峁囜弓丑补d墨k峁�itasya 辫谤补办峁泃颈 峁沰bh膩峁�yam,鈥� and below it the uninked 鈥溎乧c膩d墨k峁�itasya,鈥� suggesting that this manuscript was passed down into the possession of 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补鈥檚 eldest son, 膧cc膩n 顿墨办峁�i迟补. The uninked 鈥溎乧c膩,鈥� to the right, may be the handwriting of 膧cc膩n 顿墨办峁�i迟补. Second manuscript: From the 艢膩stram膩l膩惫测腻办丑测腻na sent to 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补 顿墨办峁�i迟补 by its author, Ananta 叠丑补峁�峁�补 (D 6862). 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补鈥檚 name is written in Grantha at the bottom in the same hand as in the first manuscript. In the center, in Grantha script, we read, 鈥渒amal膩karaputr膩nantabha峁�峁璦pre峁�itam ida峁� pustakam,鈥� or 鈥淭his book was sent by 碍补尘补濒腻办补谤补鈥檚 son Ananta 叠丑补峁�峁�补.鈥�

Our evidence, succinctly, provides us with ample opportunity for resituating 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补 in time and space, as a theologian with active networks both in his immediate locale in Madurai and across the Indian subcontinent. Historically speaking, however, our archive presents us with certain challenges in ascertaining the precise terms of 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补鈥檚 courtly employment.^[11] Intriguingly, some scholars, such as A. V. Jeyechandrun, have put forth the bold assertion that 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补 himself was directly involved in the ritual and logistical implementation of affairs in the 惭墨苍腻办峁Ｄ�-厂耻苍诲补谤别艣惫补谤补 Temple, including the 鈥淪acred Games of 艢颈惫补鈥濃�攅ntextualized in his own Sanskrit epic, the 艢颈惫补l墨l膩r峁嘺va (The ocean of the games of 艢颈惫补). Jeyechandrun justifies this hypothesis on the basis of the excerpt from the 厂迟腻峁塱办补谤惫补谤补濒腻峁焨, a Tamil record of the temple鈥檚 priestly families, in which we learn that a certain Ayya 顿墨办峁�i迟补 provided direct counsel to Tirumalai 狈腻测补办补 regarding the establishment of these festivals: 鈥淟ord Tirumalai 狈腻测补办补... established an endowment under the arbitration of Ayya 顿墨办峁�i迟补, instructing that the Sacred Games be conducted in the manner established by the 笔耻谤腻峁嘺蝉.鈥� Unfortunately, a careful reading of this passage in context renders Jeyechandrun鈥檚 conclusion unlikely, as the Ayya 顿墨办峁�i迟补 in question most likely refers to a certain 碍别艣补惫补 顿墨办峁�i迟补, mentioned explicitly in the paragraphs immediately preceding and following this passage, whom Tirumalai 狈腻测补办补 accepted as kulaguru and assigned to the post of 尘补峁环腻诲丑颈辫补迟测补 in the 惭墨苍腻办峁Ｄ�-厂耻苍诲补谤别艣惫补谤补 Temple.^[12] Leaving aside the issue of this particular passage, however, evidence suggests that 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补鈥檚 jurisdiction did extend far enough to include adjudicating sectarian affairs outside of the strictly literary sphere.

For instance, a direct reference to 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补鈥檚 role in moderating public intellectual debate has come down to us through V膩d墨ndra 罢墨谤迟丑补, the disciple of the 惭腻诲丑惫补 preceptor 搁腻驳丑补惫别苍诲谤补 罢墨谤迟丑补,^[13] whose 骋耻谤耻驳耻峁嘺蝉迟补惫补 informs us that 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补 granted an official accolade to 搁腻驳丑补惫别苍诲谤补鈥檚 treatise on 叠丑腻峁�峁�补 惭墨尘腻峁僺腻 by mounting it on an elephant and processing it publicly around the city:

Just as when your treatise on the 叠丑腻峁�峁�补 system was mounted on an elephant
To honor you by the jewel among sacrificers [Makhin] 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补, whose doctrine was his wealth,
Your fame, O 搁腻驳丑补惫别苍诲谤补, jewel among discriminating ascetics, desirous of mounting the eight elephants of the directions, has indeed of its own accord
Sped away suddenly to the end of the directions with unprecedented speed.^[14]

A further record somewhat indirectly lends credence to Jeyechandrun鈥檚 hypothesis, confirming that during the reign of Tirumalai 狈腻测补办补, Vaidika Brahmins were authorized to arbitrate temple disputes on the basis of their scriptural expertise.

This Tamil document, preserved and translated by William Taylor in this Oriental Historical Manuscripts, records an incident in which 艢补颈惫补 and 痴补颈峁ａ箛补惫补 arbitrators, 鈥�Appa 顿墨办峁�i迟补鈥� and 鈥淎yya 顿墨办峁�i迟补,鈥� respectively, were assigned to present opposing viewpoints regarding the scriptural sanctions for temple iconography:

Having thus arranged the plan, the whole was begun to be carried into execution at once, in the tenth day of Vyasi month of Acheya year, during the increase of the moon. From that time forwards, as the master [Tirumalai 狈腻测补办补] came daily to inspect the work, it was carried on with great care. As they were proceeding first in excavating the Terpa-kulam, they dug up from the middle a Ganapathi, (or image of Ganesa,) and caused the same to be condensed to dwell in a temple built for the purpose. As they were placing the sculptured pillars of the Vasanta-Mandabam, and were about to fix the one which bore the representation of Yega-patha-murti [贰办补辫腻诲补尘奴谤迟颈] (or the one-legged deity), they were opposed by the Vaishnavas. Hence a dispute arose between them and the Saivas, which lasted during six months, and was carried on in the presence of the sovereign. Two arbitrators were appointed, Appa-tidshadar on the part of the Saivas, and Ayya-tidshader-ayyen on the part of the Vaishnavas: these consulted Sanscrit authorities, and made the Sastras agree; after which the pillar of Yega-patha-murti was fixed in place.^[15]

The remainder of this passage provides no further clues as to the identities of either of the state-sanctioned arbitrators, referred to here only by honorifics commonly employed to address Vaidika Brahmins, 鈥淎yya鈥� and 鈥淎ppa.鈥�^[16] Historically grounded anecdotes such as these, however, provide us with invaluable information concerning the roles that court-sponsored Brahmin intellectuals such as 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补 顿墨办峁�i迟补 were appointed to fulfill under the rule of Tirumalai 狈腻测补办补. Much of the secondary literature somewhat uncritically proposes potential titles of employment for 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补鈥攔anging from the English 鈥渃hief minister鈥� or 鈥減rime minister鈥� to the Sanskrit 谤腻箩补驳耻谤耻鈥攚ithout considering that such positions may not have been operative in the seventeenth-century 狈腻测补办补 states or may not have been typically assigned to Brahmin scholar-poets. While some neighboring regimes in the seventeenth-century permitted enterprising Brahmins to rise to high positions in public administration and statecraft,^[17] many of these states had adopted Persianate models of governance that had made minimal inroads to the far south of the subcontinent even by the seventeenth century. Unfortunately, no evidence exists to confirm the appointment of a Brahmin minister under a title such as mantrin in the Madurai 狈腻测补办补 kingdom; the nearest equivalent, the post of 辫谤补诲丑腻苍颈, was typically granted to members of the Mutaliy膩r caste rather than Vaidika Brahmins. Similarly, the strictly sacerdotal functions of a 谤腻箩补驳耻谤耻 seem to have remained in the hands of distinct lineages; the nearest equivalents under the reign of Tirumalai 狈腻测补办补 appear to have been 碍别艣补惫补 顿墨办峁�i迟补, belonging to a Brahmin family traditionally responsible for conducting the ritual affairs of the 惭墨苍腻办峁Ｄ�-厂耻苍诲补谤别艣惫补谤补 Temple, and a 艢补颈惫补 lineage based in Tiruvanaikkal near Srirangam known as the 膧k膩艣av膩s墨s,^[18] whom numerous inscriptions describe as having received direct patronage from Tirumalai 狈腻测补办补, and with whom the 狈腻测补办补 is alleged to have maintained a personal devotional relationship.

Strictly speaking, our textual archive remembers 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补 as engaging with the world outside of the court and 补驳谤补丑腻谤补 through primarily intellectual means. Contemporary references confirm unambiguously that 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补 presided over the city鈥檚 literary society, which sponsored the public performance of Sanskrit dramas at major regional festivals,^[19] and that he was granted the authority to award official recognition to scholarly works he deemed worthy of approval, such as 搁腻驳丑补惫别苍诲谤补 罢墨谤迟丑补鈥檚 work on 叠丑腻峁�峁�补 惭墨尘腻峁僺腻. The precedent of the anonymous Appa 顿墨办峁�i迟补 would suggest that 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补, as with other 厂尘腻谤迟补 Brahmins under royal patronage, may well have exercised his extensive command of the 艢补颈惫补 textual canon in the service of temple arbitration. In fact, citations from his 厂补耻产丑腻驳测补肠补苍诲谤腻迟补辫补 and 艢颈惫补tattvarahasya indicate that 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补 was uncommonly well acquainted with scriptures such as the K膩mika 膧驳补尘补 and K膩ra峁嘺 膧驳补尘补, principal authorities for south Indian Saiddh膩ntika temple ritual, and the V膩tula艣uddhottara 膧驳补尘补, one of the chief sourcebooks for Saiddh膩ntika temple iconography. While 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补 may also have been regularly or occasionally commissioned to perform Vedic sacrifices, and although his intimate knowledge of 艢谤墨惫颈诲测腻 was likely prized by Tirumalai 狈腻测补办补 owing to its centrality in the royal esoteric cult of south Indian kingship at the time,^[20] little evidence survives to confirm these possibilities.

And yet, other mentions of 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补 during his own lifetime aimed to articulate not his intellectual standing but his spiritual authority, representing him as no less than an incarnation of 艢颈惫补 himself. For instance, 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补鈥檚 younger brother, 础迟颈谤腻迟谤补 Yajvan, whom we will have occasion to meet again shortly, offers an homage to his brother鈥檚 public influence in Madurai that is less an homage to his intellectual talents than a veritable deification, as 鈥渢he beloved of 顿腻办峁Ｄ乱补峁嚹� manifest before our eyes鈥� (s膩k峁Ｄ乨 d膩k峁Ｄ亂a峁嚹玽allabha岣�). It is no wonder that, within the tradition, 厂尘腻谤迟补-艢补颈惫补 theologians such as Appayya 顿墨办峁�i迟补 and 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补 顿墨办峁�i迟补 are recognized in the work of Appayya鈥檚 descendant 艢颈惫腻苍补苍诲补 in his Lives of Indian Saints as living divinities and honored in their villages of residents with 蝉补尘腻诲丑颈 shrines鈥攖ypically the burial places of liberated saints. Such memory is echoed by many of 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补鈥檚 latter-day descendants as well, who remember the pioneering theological duo of Appayya and 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补 as incarnations of 艢颈惫补 and the goddess, respectively.^[21]

When visiting the ancestral 补驳谤补丑腻谤补 of 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补鈥檚 family, Palamadai, which was said to have been granted to him by Tirumalai 狈腻测补办补 himself, a member of 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补鈥檚 family, P. Subrahmanyam, stated the following:

We are descendants of the great sage 叠丑补谤补诲惫腻箩补. In his dynasty was born Appayya 顿墨办峁�i迟补, who is called the Kalpataru of Learning. He was one of the greatest men who lived in the seventeenth-century [sic], so more than three hundred years ago. And he is claimed by great people as an 补峁兣浤乿补迟腻谤补 [partial incarnation] of Lord 艢颈惫补 himself. And then 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补 顿墨办峁�i迟补 was his brother鈥檚 grandson鈥攂rother鈥檚 son鈥檚 son. And he is also one of the greatest people who lived later in the seventeenth century. And he鈥檚 acclaimed to be an 补峁兣浤乿补迟腻谤补 of 笔补谤腻艣补办迟颈. So we have descended from these great people.^[22]

While we need not make any affirmations of 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补鈥檚 divine origin, history bears out the memory of his descendants that 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补 was intimately involved in laying the groundwork of an emerging religious community, and that he became one of the first to embody a distinctively 厂尘腻谤迟补-艢补颈惫补 religious identity. As a result, I narrate the social and conceptual origins of the 厂尘腻谤迟补-艢补颈惫补 community largely through the perspective of 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补 and his close acquaintances, who wrote from the focal point of an emerging sectarian community. Although 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补 is remembered primarily in the Western academy as a secular poet, modern-day 厂尘腻谤迟补s in Tamil Nadu remember an altogether different 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补, one whose primary contribution to Sanskrit textual history was as a 艢补颈惫补 theologian. To cite a final example, when I first discussed my research with the scholars at the Kuppuswami Sastri Research Institute in Chennai, I had scarcely mentioned 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补 顿墨办峁�i迟补鈥檚 name when I was met with a resounding chorus of the refrain from one of 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补鈥檚 艢补颈惫补 hymns, the 艢颈惫辞迟办补谤峁�a尘补帽箩补谤墨 (Bouquet of the supremacy of 艢颈惫补): 鈥淗e, the Lord, is my God鈥擨 remember no other even by name.鈥�^[23] 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补, as they informed me, was no less than Sanskrit literary history鈥檚 most iconic and eloquent 艢补颈惫补 devotee.

Footnotes and references:

[back to top]

[1]:

See chapter 4 for a further discussion of 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补鈥檚 ostensive job title and duties at the court of Tirumalai 狈腻测补办补.

[2]:

Known works of 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补 顿墨办峁�i迟补 include three mah膩办腻惫测补 s (艢颈惫补l墨l膩r峁嘺va, 骋补峁単腻惫补迟补谤补峁嘺, 惭耻办耻苍诲补惫颈濒腻蝉补), a number of laghu办腻惫测补 s and stotra s (碍补濒颈惫补岣峚尘产补苍补, 厂补产丑腻谤补帽箩补苍补, 础苍测腻辫补诲别艣补艣补迟补办补, 膧苍补苍诲补蝉腻驳补谤补蝉迟补惫补, 痴补颈谤腻驳测补艣补迟补办补, 艢腻苍迟颈惫颈濒腻蝉补, 骋耻谤耻迟补迟迟惫补尘腻濒颈办腻), a drama titled the 狈补濒补肠补谤颈迟谤补苍腻峁璦办补, and one 肠补尘辫奴 (狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补vijaya肠补尘辫奴).

[3]:

The 惭补丑腻产丑腻峁�y补辫谤补诲墨辫补prak膩艣a is not published, and I have not been able to access a usable manuscript of the work. Two manuscript copies are recorded as being held in the Government Oriental Manuscripts Library in Chennai: a Telugu-script palm leaf manuscript and a 顿别惫补苍腻驳补谤墨 paper transcript. The transcript is currently 鈥渕issing,鈥� and the palm leaf manuscript is so badly damaged as to be virtually unusable. Another manuscript is said to be located at the Sarasvati Bhavan Library in Varanasi, which I have not been able to consult.

[4]:

See chapter 2 for further discussion of the 厂补耻产丑腻驳测补肠补苍诲谤腻迟补辫补 and G墨rv膩峁噀ndra 厂补谤补蝉惫补迟墨, and chapter 3 for the 艢颈惫补tattvarahasya.

[5]:

This series of ten 狈腻测补办补 portrait sculptures, culminating with that of Tirumalai 狈腻测补办补 as the most recent of the sequence, have been documented in detail in Branfoot (2001, 2007, 2011). Previous generations of scholarship made use of these portrait sculptures strictly as an aid to documenting the chronology of 狈腻测补办补 political history.

[6]:

See for instance Pollock (2001, 2005) and O鈥橦anlon (2010, 2011).

[7]:

测补峁� bh膩峁２獠贯箖 mahad adhyaj墨gapad 峁涐梗i岣� 艣r墨cokkan膩th膩dhvar墨 yo r膩masya ca n墨laka峁囜弓hamakhin膩 b膩峁嘺stava峁� 办腻谤颈迟补岣� | vy膩ca峁ａ弓e kila r膩mabhadramakhinas tasy膩pta艣i峁�ya岣� 办峁泃墨 bhaum墨ndra峁� sa hi ve峁卥a峁璭艣varakavi岣� yasy膩峁� 苍颈产补诲诲丑补峁� 测补艣补岣� || Tanjavur Maharaja 厂别谤蹿辞箩颈鈥檚 Sarasvati Mahal Library, Ms. No. 3827, Ve峁卥a峁璭艣vara Kavi, 笔补迟补帽箩补濒颈肠补谤颈迟谤补惫测腻办丑测腻, v. 4.

[8]:

sa sv膩m墨 mama daivata峁� taditaro n膩mn膩pi n膩mn膩yate |

[9]:

As is made evident by the title of 搁腻尘补产丑补诲谤补鈥檚 hymn, the 搁腻尘补产腻峁嘺蝉迟补惫补, and indeed by his very name, 搁腻尘补产丑补诲谤补 顿墨办峁�i迟补 held a particular fondness for 搁腻尘补, his 颈峁ａ弓补诲别惫补迟腻鈥攁n affiliation not uncommon among south Indian 艢补颈惫补s, as, incidentally, was true of 罢测腻驳补谤腻箩补 as well. His choice of personal deity in no way precluded him from participating in 厂尘腻谤迟补-艢补颈惫补 religious circles, which, as we will see in the next chapter, consisted centrally of cultivating a devotional relationship with the 艢补峁卥补谤腻肠腻谤测补 preceptors of the northern Tamil country.

[10]:

These are Tanjavur Maharaja 厂别谤蹿辞箩颈鈥檚 Sarasvati Mahal Library, Ms. No. 6924 (chapter 9 of the 顿颈苍补办补谤补产丑补峁�峁�墨测补) and No. 6862 (chapter 1 of the 艢膩stram膩l膩惫测腻办丑测腻na), respectively.

[11]:

Aside from the Tamil chronicles, the 罢补濒补惫补谤补濒腻峁焨 and 厂迟腻峁塱办补谤惫补谤补濒腻峁焨, and the versified records of temple renovations (罢颈谤耻辫辫补峁噄惫颈惫补谤补尘 and 罢颈谤耻辫辫补峁噄尘腻濒补颈), our earliest 鈥渟urviving鈥� historical records of Madurai affairs, a collection of Marathi documents originally maintained in the Mackenzie Collection, have been indefinitely misplaced by the Government Oriental Manuscripts Library in Chennai. At the time of my visit in January of 2012, the staff was unable to locate these documents, all contained in a single bound volume.

[12]:

鈥湷С倌遽箟i办补谤惫补谤补濒腻峁焨,鈥� pg. 268: ulaku峁璦ya perum膩岣� ma峁�膩tipattiyattukku ma峁�峁璾m ma峁塱tarka岣� illaiy e峁夅篃u colla atai nammu峁璦iya kuruv膩kiya k膿cavat墨峁璫ata ayyaravarka岣穟kkup pa峁囜箛uvikki峁無m e峁夅篃u kartt膩kka岣� muttuv墨rappan膩yakkar ayya峁塧varka岣� tiruv膩kkuppirantatu.

[13]:

搁腻驳丑补惫别苍诲谤补 罢墨谤迟丑补 (ca. 1595鈥�1671) served as pontiff of the 艢r墨 Vijayendra 惭补峁环补 in Kumbakonam from 1624 to 1671, according to the attestation of his nephew N膩r膩ya峁嚹乧膩rya in his hagiographical account, the 搁腻驳丑补惫别苍诲谤补 Vijaya. For further details on his life and works, see B. N. K. Sharma (2000, 479鈥�490).

[14]:

V膩d墨ndra 罢墨谤迟丑补, 骋耻谤耻驳耻峁嘺蝉迟补惫补, v. 34: [tantra]艣r墨n墨laka峁囜弓h膩bhidhamakhima峁噄n膩 bha峁�峁璦tantr膩nubandhe granthe [y]腻惫补迟 迟惫补诲墨测别 办补谤颈峁噄 gu峁嘺vid膩ropite 鈥榖hyarha峁嚹亂a | 办墨谤迟颈蝉 te r膩ghavendra vratisumatima峁噀 苍奴苍补尘 any奴naveg膩d di峁卬膩g膩n 膩ruruk峁�u岣� svayam api sahas膩dh膩vad a峁ａ弓au digant膩t || Some dispute exists regarding the proper reading of the first two syllables, which are often reported as 鈥�尘补苍迟谤墨,鈥� suggesting that 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补 held the official title of mantrin under Tirumalai 狈腻测补办补. Filliozat (1967) accepts this reading. Furthermore, the commentator on the 骋耻谤耻驳耻峁嘺蝉迟补惫补 of V膩d墨ndra 罢墨谤迟丑补 preserves the reading 鈥渢antra艣r墨.鈥� Note also that titles such as 顿墨办峁�i迟补 and Makhin, which appear in the present verse, were used interchangeably by 厂尘腻谤迟补 Brahmins in the Tamil region during this period.

[15]:

Taylor, ed. and trans., Oriental Historical Manuscripts, 1835, 149鈥�150. intappirak膩ram n膿mukam pa峁囜箛i峁塧 u峁璦峁壞� a峁璦cey varu峁�am vayy膩ci m膩cam鈥攑奴rvapa峁璫ammukk奴峁焌ttampa峁囜箛i峁壞乺ka岣�. Atu mutal v膿laiya岣穉 atic膩kkirataiy膩yp pi峁焌putittam vantu ka峁噋p膩rppati峁壞乴膿 atic膩kki峁焌taiy膩y na峁璦ntutu. M奴峁囜箛ut膩ka teppakku岣穉m ve峁�峁璾ku峁焌p艒tu na峁璾vil膿 utt膩峁焌峁嘺m膩y oruke峁嘺pati utaiyam膩峁壞乺 avaraik k艒vilil ye岣穟ntaru岣穉ppa峁囜箛i vicc膩rka岣� vacanta ma峁囜弓apam t奴峁� n膩峁�峁璾ku峁焌p艒tu y膿kap膩tam奴峁焧ti v膩峁噄cciyirukku峁焌 tu峁嘺i na峁璦ppa峁�膩te峁塧峁焨 c墨maiyil u岣丰阜a vayi峁�i峁嘺v膩岣穟kku caiyav膩岣穟kkum v膩kkuv膩tam膩y 膩kum膩camvaraikkum vivac膩ram y膿vi峁塧 cuv膩mi mu峁夅箟ilaikki na峁璦ntutu app膩la caivacitt膩nti app膩t墨峁璫at膩 vayi峁ａ箛ar ayy膩t墨峁璫at膩yya峁塧varka岣� a峁塭kam ki峁焌nta峁卥a岣穚 p膩ttu.

[16]:

The issue of honorifics has also led to some confusion in the genealogy of the 顿墨办峁�i迟补s and other South Indian Brahmin intellectual families. Most genealogical studies refer to a number of individuals within a family simply as 鈥淎ppa,鈥� 鈥淎ppayya,鈥� or 鈥溎�cc膩n鈥� (Skt. 膧肠腻谤测补), leading to some confusion regarding the numerous 鈥�Appayya 顿墨办峁�i迟补s鈥� and 鈥溎�cc膩n 顿墨办峁�i迟补s鈥� in 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补鈥檚 immediate family. Josi (1977), for instance, proposes, based on family history, that Appayya 顿墨办峁�i迟补鈥檚 given name was 痴颈苍腻测补办补 Subrahmaniya. The Ayya 顿墨办峁�i迟补 referred to in this passage, being a 痴补颈峁ａ箛补惫补, is evidently distinct from the one referred to in the 厂迟腻峁塱办补谤惫补谤补濒腻峁焨 regarding the 罢颈谤耻惫颈岣穉颈测腻峁璦濒 festivals. Beyond this, we have little basis for conjecturing the identity of these two individuals. Some, such as Mahalinga Sastri, have hypothesized that Appa 顿墨办峁�i迟补 here ought to be identical to the famous Appayya 顿墨办峁�i迟补, but this proposal results in insoluble chronological difficulties.

[17]:

Consider, for instance, the Brahmin ministers Madanna and Akkanna of the seventeenth-century Golkonda sultanate in the Deccan, who nearly succeeded in overthrowing the state and personally seizing power. See Kruijtzer (2002) for further discussion. Concerning the spread of Persianate administrative practices prevalent in Golkonda at the time, Kruijtzer notes that the typical bilingual Persian 蹿补谤尘腻苍 s issued by the brothers were unattested in the far South until eighteenth-century Maratha rule in Tanjavur. During the seventeenth century, neither Mughal nobility nor Maratha Brahmins were visibly present in the 狈腻测补办补 kingdoms, nor do we find mention of a class of individuals analogous to the 碍腻测补蝉迟丑补蝉 of North India.

[18]:

Three copper-plate grants survive today testifying to a sustained relationship between the Madurai 狈腻测补办补 dynasty and a certain lineage of Brahmins of the 碍补耻峁囜笉颈苍测补 Gotra who maintained control of a monastery dedicated to the transgressive 艢腻办迟补 goddess 贰办补惫墨谤腻 that was associated with the 闯补尘产耻办别艣惫补谤补 temple in Tiruvanaikka near Srirangam. Preceptors of this lineage appear to have referred to themselves as the 艢谤墨办补峁囜弓丑补 膧k膩艣av膩s墨s. For instance, copper plate 25 of 1937鈥�1938, dated to 艢补办补 1584, records the following memory of the lineage鈥檚 long-standing association with the Madurai 狈腻测补办补s: r膩yar膩jamah膩ma[n]tr墨艣i峁�yo n膩gappan膩yaka岣� | tasy膩jani sutas so 鈥槻獠贯箖 vi艣van膩th膩khyan膩yaka岣� || svasev膩niratasy膩sya 艣i峁�yasya 惫颈苍墨迟补 tasya 尘耻诲腻苍惫颈迟补岣� | 艣r墨ka峁囜弓h膩k膩艣aso tatp膩峁囜笉yar膩j测补峁� dadau kila || labdhv膩 辫补帽肠腻办峁�a谤补峁� tasm膩t 艣r墨ka峁囜弓h膩k膩艣av膩sina岣� | pa帽cagr膩m膩n dadau tasya vi艣van膩th膩khyan膩yaka岣� || (Transcribed in July 2011 from the estampage currently held at the Archaeological Survey of India in Mysore.) The remainder of the grant, dating from Tirumalai 狈腻测补办补鈥檚 reign, goes on to detail in Telugu the villages granted to the 艢谤墨办补峁囜弓丑补 膧k膩艣av膩si 惭补丑腻诲别惫补 D墨k峁�itulu, which enabled the lineage to maintain a presence at a number of prominent 艢补颈惫补 sites in the Tamil country, such as 闯补尘产耻办别艣惫补谤补, M膩t峁沚h奴te艣vara, 搁腻尘别艣惫补谤补, and 颁辞办办补苍腻迟丑补puram. In this section, Tirumalai 狈腻测补办补 is made to acknowledge his continuing family preceptorial relationship with the lineage: 鈥渕膩 惫补峁兣沘峁� gurusv膩mi 膩yina 艣r墨ka峁囜弓h膩k膩艣av膩si 惫腻谤颈 santati kaundinyagotra峁� katy膩yina 蝉奴迟谤补峁� 测补箩耻艣腻办丑腻 蝉腻驳苍颈 caturmah膩vratav膩japeyay膩j墨 mah膩devadik峁�itula v膩raina m膩 gurusv膩mi 惫腻谤颈ki m膩 va峁兣沘karta n膩gaman膩yadu 惫腻谤颈 santati tirumalan膩ya岣島 v膩ru.鈥�

No such monastery exists today; the institution in question may have been replaced by the 艢补峁卥补谤补 尘补峁环补 now affiliated with the temple. Numerous stone inscriptions in the 闯补尘产耻办别艣惫补谤补 temple attest (all recorded 1937鈥�1938) to the sizable influence of the 膧k膩艣av膩s墨s over the 闯补尘产耻办别艣惫补谤补 temple, particularly two preceptors known as 惭补丑腻诲别惫补 顿墨办峁�i迟补 and 厂补诲腻艣颈惫补 顿墨办峁�i迟补. Some even provide intriguing hints of their doctrinal position, such as repeated reference to the 鈥渢hree names of 艢颈惫补鈥�: 艢颈惫补, 艢补尘产丑耻, and 惭补丑腻诲别惫补. For instance: 艣ivan膩matra测补峁� 艣iva艣ambhu mah膩deva... kirttan膩d [sic] eva gacchati | 艣ivan膩matra测补峁� yas tu 蝉补办峁泃 辫补峁环补迟颈 尘腻苍补惫补岣� | mah膩p膩tak膩n膩峁� p膩ttai岣� mucyate n膩tra 蝉补峁兣沘测补岣� ||... a峁ａ弓膩k峁�arasvar奴patv膩t nn膩matrayam ud膩h峁泃a峁� || 艣补颈惫补峁� nn膩matra测补峁� loke jayati sma 蝉补苍腻迟补苍补峁� | sad膩艣ivamakhindre峁嘺 guru峁嚹� sa峁僷rak膩艣ita峁億| (ARE 61 of 1937鈥�1938).

[19]:

In one of his publicly performed dramas, 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补鈥檚 younger brother 础迟颈谤腻迟谤补 Yajvan refers to his elder brother as master of the local literary society: 鈥�苍补峁���: ki峁冡箛u khu ehi峁僼uhm膩峁嘺 e膩risa kouha峁僱膩k膩ra峁嘺m (ki峁� nu khalv id膩n墨峁� yu峁�m膩kam et膩d峁浥沘kaut奴halak膩ra峁嘺m). 蝉奴迟谤补诲丑腻谤补岣�: abhigatasabh膩n膩yakal膩bha岣�. 苍补峁���: ko 峁噓 khu eso 墨diso (ko nu khalv e峁�a 墨d峁浥沘岣�.) 蝉奴迟谤补诲丑腻谤补岣�: a测补峁� kila bharadv膩jakulap膩r膩v膩rap膩rij膩tasakalakal膩s膩mr膩jyasi峁僪膩san膩dhipatis tatrabhavata岣� 艣r墨mato n膩r膩ya峁嚹乨hvari峁嘺s tapa岣�parip膩ka岣� 办补谤迟腻 k膩vy膩n膩峁� vy膩办补谤迟腻 tantr膩峁嚹乵 膩hart膩 krat奴n膩峁� vy膩hat膩 n峁沺asabhe峁�u digantaravi艣r膩ntak墨rtir ap膩ramahim膩 m膩nav膩k峁泃i岣� s膩k峁Ｄ乨 eva d膩k峁Ｄ亂a峁嚹玽allabha岣� 艣r墨ka峁囜弓hamatasarvasvaved墨 艣r墨n墨laka峁囜弓h膩dhvar墨.鈥�

[20]:

Our clearest source of information on this issue concerns the feudatory relationship between the Madurai 狈腻测补办补s and the emergent Setupati kingdom of Ramnad. Howes (1999) documents that this relationship was established on ritual as well as political grounds through the 艢腻办迟补 worship of R膩jar膩je艣var墨, a statue of whom is said to have been given to the Setupati family by Tirumalai 狈腻测补办补. Soon after, the 狈补惫补谤腻迟谤颈 festival was initiated at Ramnad (as recorded in a copper-plate grant dating to 1659). A mural painting from the palace at Ramnad, preserved in the collection of the 脡cole fran莽aise d鈥橢xtr锚me-Orient in Pondicherry, depicts R膩jar膩je艣var墨 bestowing the royal scepter upon the Setupati king, a ritual element integral to the royal celebration of 狈补惫补谤腻迟谤颈 across South India.

[21]:

See also Bronner (2015) for the memory of Appayya鈥檚 identity as an incarnation of 艢颈惫补, which seems to have begun to circulate soon after his death.

[22]:

Quoted from a recording made at 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补鈥檚 腻谤腻诲丑补苍腻 in Palamadai, January 2011.

[23]:

sa sv膩m墨 mama daivata峁� taditaro n膩mn膩pi n膩mn膩yate |