Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
NOTES
1 "... he might have supplied the right type of seeds to the farmers, given assistan
breeding the draft animals and probably also concerned himself with problems conn
fertility on human level" (p. 338). - Wie er letzteres wohl gemacht hat?
2 "Püsan not only showed people the right way or put them in touch with the exp
versed in the topography of different areas but he also helped the people to find out
or correct addresses. Although the notion of addresses might sound anachronistic in
the remote past that is under discussion here, the orderliness and the town-planning e
in the archaeological remains of Harappan civilization goes a long way in showing th
systematic way of thinking of these peoples. Therefore, it is not unlikely that even in
times, there might have been a way of indicating houses by certain marks or num
8).
George Luzerne Hart, The relation between Tamil and Classical Sanskrit Literature (= A History
of Indian Literature, ed. J. Gonda, Vol. X, Fasc. 2). Wiesbaden, Otto Harrassowitz, 1976.
pp. 317-351.
It is a well known fact that the poetic literature of early Tamil is based on its own indigenous
and well developed tradition, which is independent of the literary culture of Northern India,
whether Old or early Middle Indo-Aryan. There are of course references to Aryan religion,
mythology and to the epic tradition, but these are obviously superimposed on a structure which
is essentially native Tamil. On the other hand it is possible to observe a number of themes which
are shared by early Tamil poetry and classical Sanskrit literature, the peculiarity of which is that
they occur earlier in Tamil than they do in Sanskrit literature. As examples of this the author
cites the messenger poem, the motif of separation of lovers during the monsoon and the com
parison of the sound of the wind in a hollow bamboo to the noise of the flute. Since these
themes occur earlier in Tamil than in Sanskrit literature Tamil cannot have borrowed from
Sanskrit. On the other hand there can be no question of Sanskrit borrowing from Tamil since
Sanskrit poets had no knowledge of Tamil literature, and consequently these (and many other)
remarkable similarities between the two literatures present a problem.
The solution to the problem, according to Dr. Hart, is to be found in the lyric poetry in
Mahärästri, which grew up and flourished in the Northern Deccan during the early centuries
of the Christian era in the time of the Sätavähana rulers. Their dominions were mixed in
language and population, the basic Dravidian element being overlaid by Aryan settlement. This
implies a bilingual situation in many areas which made possible the influence of Dravidian oral
literature on Mahärästri poetry. In its turn the lyric poetry in Mahärästri, of which the Sattasaï
is probably only a fragment, had a powerful influence on Sanskrit literature, a fact which is
demonstrated by the place it occupies in the Sanskrit drama.
On the Dravidian side the lyric poetry of early Tamil is no new development. It is based on
a tradition going back to the early megalithic culture of the Dravidians. This, by general agree
ment, was remarkably uniform, and in early Tamil civilisation we have the most southerly
extension of it, in which we find the preservation of its essential features. Among these is the
poetic tradition of Tamil, going back to earlier times, and shared by other Dravidian members
of the megalithic culture. This was an oral tradition, not preserved in writing, except in Tamil,
and it has profoundly affected the nature and development of the poetic literature in MahärästrT.
This provides an admirable solution to the problem of the relationship of Tamil and Sanskrit
literature as stated above, and there is no doubt that, in essentials, it should be accepted.