Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Pandyan Kingdom from the Earliest Times to the Sixteenth Century c6.s3: The Age of the Sangam

The Pāṇḍyan Kingdom from the Earliest Times to the Sixteenth Century c6.s3

Language
English

The Age of the Sangam

c6.s3.1

The earliest historical kings of the Pāndya country are those mentioned in the early Tamil works that have come down to us in the form of the collections known as the *Sangam* works. It has been sometimes doubted if the *Silappadikāram* and the *Manimēkalai* belong to this group and the whole question of the age and historicity of the Sangam has given rise to controversies which do not seem to be justified on a calm review of the various lines of evidence available. It is unfortunate that the earliest account we have of this matter is enveloped in legends. This account occurs in the introduction to the commentary on the *Iraiyanār Ahapporuḷ* which refers to the three Śangams which lasted altogether 9,990 years and counted 8,598 poets including a few Gods of the Śaivite persuasion as their members and 197 Pāndyan kings as their patrons. The commentary that follows professes to be handed down through generations as Nakkīrar made it, but quotes profusely from Śangam works in their present form and refers to events that cannot by any means be placed earlier than the latter half of the seventh century A.D. Nothing can be made of this account.¹ We have only to dismiss it with the remark that we have here the same tendencies at work which made a number of Buddhas and Jinas out of one historic prototype and spread them over ages and aeons. Some of the names of the Pāndyan kings and the poets mentioned in this account are found in epigraphs and other authentic records; such names are Kadungōn, Ugrapperuvaludi and others; this only shows that some facts have got mixed up with many fictions in this story and no conclusions of value can be based on these references. But the existence of an association of poets, modelled on the Buddhist Sangha, for the promotion of Tamil literature can be easily understood if it is referred to an age when Buddhist influence was rather strong in South India.

c6.s3.2

¹ The late Prof. M. Seshagiri Sastri's little book on *Tamil Literature* (S. V. & Co., Madras, 1904) contains an acute but very elaborate, and occasionally perverse criticism of the legends relating to the Śangam. Mr. P. Sundaram Pillai summarily dismisses this commentary as 'apocryphal' by saying 'It is doubtful whether there existed any prose literature at all in the days of Nakkīrar.' *Madras Christian College Magazine*, vol. ix, p. 128. For quite another view of this commentary see Dr. S. K. Aiyangār, *Beginnings*, pp. 250-6.

c6.s3.3

The Śangam works are generally understood to comprise the two long poems, the Śilappadikāram and the Manimēkalai, and the anthologies of occasional verses and short poems by different poets brought together in the well-known collections.¹ Even a cursory study of the many short poems and others of moderate length like the *Maduraikkāñji* will show two or or three things clearly. *Firstly*, we are dealing with a mass of literature that extends over three or four continuous generations or perhaps more. In the light of this internal evidence we may assign a length, of, say, 150 to 200 years for the period represented in these works. *Secondly*, the political geography of the country includes besides the ‘three monarchies’ of the south, a number of minor principalities ruled over by petty warrior chieftains, vying with one another in the arts of war and peace. *Thirdly*, the references frequently made to ports, ships and merchandise including foreign imports and exports remind us strongly of the notices of South India by the classical geographers and historians of the early years of the Christian era. The common references to ports like Muśiri, Korkai and Toṇḍi, to mention only a few, and articles like pepper, wine and silk cloth are too obvious to be missed. *Lastly*, the style and diction of these works undoubtedly bear close affinities to those of the *Śilappadikāram* and the *Maṇimēkalai* and are much nearer to these in point of time than to the hymns of the *Tiruvāśagam* or the *Tēvāram* and the two sets of works cannot belong to the same age but must be assigned to different periods which may be separated by centuries. This consideration gains in strength from the state of religious life which is reflected in the *Śilappadikāram* on the one hand and the devotional hymns on the other. We have only to recall the enumeration of the temples in Puhār (canto 5), the Veṭṭuvavari (canto 12) and the Āycciyar Kuravai (canto 17) in the *Śilappadikāram*¹ and contrast these with the fervid devotion to Śiva and to Viṣṇu coupled with an equally fervid hatred of the heretic sects of Buddhism and Jainism that mark the sectarian hymns of the *Tēvāram* and the *Tiruvāymoḷi*, and we at once realize that there is no difficulty involved in assuming an interval of some centuries between the two ages; on the other hand such an assumption seems to be forced on us by other considerations like the absence of any reference to the Pallavas in the *Śangam* works. It will now be clear that there is a strong *prima facie* case for accepting the chronological indications of the Gajabāhu synchronism and referring the *Śangam* works to the early centuries of the Christian era. And this arrangement could not be shaken except by arguments of equal cogency which do not conflict with the general probabilites of South Indian history.²

c6.s3.4

¹ Perhaps it is worth stating that not much importance should be attached to the grouping of these anthologies into *Eṭṭuttokai* and *Padineṉkiḻkaṇakku* especially as the second of these groups seems to take in several late and unauthenticated works. See in this connection V. Venkayya on the *Nālaḍiyār* and the Muttaryar in the *A. S. I.*, 1905-6, p. 178 n.

c6.s3.5

¹ The *Maṇimēkalai* is strongly tinged with Buddhism but does not appear to contain anything conflicting with the indications given by the *Śilappadikāram*. This work has been studied in its historical setting in a recent monograph by Dr. S. K. Aiyangār.

c6.s3.6

² I have made the discussion of this vexed question quite general and based it on broad considerations in order to avoid getting lost in minutiæ. Those who wish to pursue the controversy in more detail must go to Dr. S. K. Aiyangār, *Beginnings*, pp. 161-240 and 287 ff and his *Ancient India*; K. G. Sankara, *Q. J. M. S.*, vol. viii, pp. 34-60; K. G. Sesha Aiyar, same, vol. xvi, pp. 143 ff and on the other side L. D. Swamikkannu Pillai, *Indian Ephemeris*, vol. i and Mr. K. V. S. Aiyar, *Ancient Dekhan*, pp. 91 ff. and the references given by these writers. Pandit M. Raghava Aiyangār's arguments for a fifth century are refuted in detail by Mr. K. Srinivasa Pillai (see சேரன் செங்குட்டுவன் of the Pandit and *Sen Tamil*, vol. xv, pp. 3-24). There is little to be said in favour of Mr. T. G. Aravamuthan's effort to explain one unknown by another in his Essay on 'The Kāvēri, Maukharis and the Sangam Age'. It is perhaps not possible with our present knowledge to explain the references to

c6.s3.7

We shall now briefly review some of the considerations which have been held to militate against this view. The late Diwan Bahadur L. D. Swamikkannu Pillai said in his *Indian Ephemeris*, vol. i, ‘Portions of the *Paripādal* anthology which deal with developments of Śaivism and Vaiṣṇavism seem to be more recent than the first century A.D. if we are to follow Dr. Bhandarkar and other eminent authorities’ (p. 105). Again, Kanakasabhai’s work would have to be renamed ‘*The Tamils 1200 Years Ago*’. ‘These somewhat overdrawn pictures of the state of civilization in South India 1800 years ago will have to be revised in the light of our present day knowledge of epigraphy and chronology, and the scenes of the Madura Śangam will have to be transferred from the first century, A.D. to the seventh and the early part of the eighth century A.D., the period which witnessed along with the decay of Buddhism, the rise of the Śaivite and Vaiṣṇavite teachers, Tirugnānasambandar, Śankarācārya, Nammālvār, etc.’ Incidentally this rearrangement will explain the Tamil literary tradition which ascribes the *Jīvakacintāmaṇi* to the same age as other Śangam works (p. 469). Lastly, the Kaṇṇaki legend may be as old as Gajabāhu I in Ceylon, but not older than the seventh or sixth century in South India. The contemporaneity of the kings mentioned in the *Śilappadikāram* is very doubtful as the figures of Karikāla and

c6.s3.8

the fights with the Aryans of the north of Karikāla (*Śila*., canto. 5, 11, 89-110) and of Senguṭṭuva (cantos 26-8); Dr. S. K. Aiyangār (*Augustan Age*) supposes that the southern kings helped the Sātavāhana ruler Gautamīputra Satakarni in repulsing the Sakas—but this assumption does not rest on much solid evidence and does not explain the references in the epics. It is also worth noting that the Peruṅdēvanār of the Śangam is an earlier poet different from the protege of Tellāṟerinda Nandipōta. See Venkayya in *A. R. E.*, 1907, pp. 51-2 and *Naṟṟiṇai* ed. Narayanaswami Aiyar, introduction, p. 54; *contra* K. V. S. Aiyar, *op. cit.*, pp. 94-5; and Dubreuil, *The Pallavas*, p. 80.

c6.s3.9

Neḍuñjeliyan are shadowy whereas Śeṅguṭṭuvan is the one bold figure. ‘The fiction of writing a romantic poem under the pen-name Iḷaṅgō-Aḍikaḷ was cleverly conceived’ (459-60, n.).

c6.s3.10

That we read the history of religious faith in South India differently from Mr. Swamikkannu Pillai has been already indicated. It is not possible to see how that distinguished chronologist claims the support of ‘Dr. Bhandarkar and other eminent authorities’ for his view of Śaivism and Vaiṣṇavism in the Paripāḍal as on the one hand he has not given any indications that would enable us to test the statement, and on the other, Dr. Bhandarkar’s work is full of the sense of the difficulties of marking exact chronological limits in the history of religions in India and leaves many points studiedly vague. At any rate the present writer is constrained to confess his inability to see Mr. Pillai’s meaning and rest content with the remark that arguments which resolve themselves into differences of opinion cannot, with profit, be pursued far. He may however quote Bhandarkar and say ‘there is nothing to show that Vaiṣṇavism had not penetrated to the Tamil country earlier i.e., about the first century’ (p. 50). There is indeed a tradition which ascribes the Jīvakacintāmaṇi to a Sangam but this very tradition seems to distinguish this Sangam from the earlier one and refer it to Poyyāmoḷi Pulavar.¹ That in a work of his brother we see more of Śeṅguṭṭuvan than of the two other monarchs who were his contemporaries in the Tamil land is only to be expected and does not need any special explanation; much less does it warrant the theory that Iḷaṅgō-Aḍigaḷ is a fictitious pen-name. Lastly, when Mr. Pillai concedes that the Kaṇṇaki legend may be as old as Gajabāhu I in Ceylon he virtually gives away his case; for the ‘Kaṇṇaki legend’ was distinctly of South Indian, not of Ceylonese, origin.

c6.s3.11

¹ See M. Raghava Aiyangār, on ‘Poyyāmoḷippulavar’ in Śen Tamil, vol. v, pp. 512-13.

c6.s3.12

It now remains to see if our present-day knowledge of chronology and epigraphy throws any new light on the age of the Śaṅgam; or even if it renders the early centuries of the Christian era an improbable period for it. The astronomical data in the text of the Śilappadikāram have been held insufficient by many scholars for the purpose of calculating correctly the date of the events mentioned therein, and Mr. Swamikkannu Pillai’s efforts to eke out the text by doubtful particulars from the commentary cannot be held to be satisfactory,¹ and his result has not been generally accepted. And there is no reason to think that the mention of a week day in a work must mean that it is later than A.D. 400 as has been maintained by those who advocate a late date for the Śilappadikāram and quote Fleet in their support. This has been made sufficiently clear by other writers who suggest a Chaldean origin for the Indian system. A recent writer has remarked² that ‘the Hindu names (of week days) are the exact equivalents of the Roman names which came into use in the West about the beginning of the Christian era’ and we know that there was active intercourse between the Early Empire and South India at the time.

c6.s3.13

¹ See in this particular the appendix to ch. vii in Dr. S. K. Aiyangār’s Beginnings.

c6.s3.14

² G.R. Kaye, Hindu Astronomy (Memoir No. 18 of Arch. Department), p. 36.

c6.s3.15

We now come to the epigraphical evidence on the matter. The facts are—

c6.s3.16

(1) The Veḷvikkuḍi grant mentions Palyāga Mudukuḍumi Peruvaḷudi as the original donor of Veḷvikkuḍi;

c6.s3.17

(2) This gift was enjoyed by the donee and his descendants for long (nīḍu bhukti) before the Kaḷabhra Interregnum at the end of which came the Pāṇḍya restoration under Kaḍungōn;

c6.s3.18

(3) Kaḍungōn's grandson is called Silai-ttaḍakkai Kkolai-kkaḷiṟṟu Ceḷiyan Vānavan Śengōr-Cēndan;

c6.s3.19

(4) The larger Śinnamanūr plates begin the genealogy with Arikēsari Parāṅkuśa, evidently the king mentioned next to Śēndan in the Vēḷvikkuḍi grant, and refer to the battle of Talaiyālaṅānam, the translation of the Bhāratam and the establishment of the Śangam as among the achievements of the early Pāṇḍyas whose names are not given.

c6.s3.20

In some discussions the following assumptions have been quietly made, though there is nothing in the epigraphs themselves to support any of them¹ and some of them are even opposed to indications in the records—(a) Muḍukuḍumi ruled immediately before the Kaḷabhra interregnum; (b) the name of Kaḍungōn's grandson is Śeḷiyan; (c) this Śeḷiyan must be the same as the famous Talaiyālaṅānattu Neḍunjeḷiyan of Śangam fame especially because the Śinnamanūr plates which begin the genealogy immediately after this Śeḷiyan refer to Talaiyālaṅānam as among the past glories of the Pāṇḍyas. But Muḍukuḍumi could not have reigned immediately before the Kaḷabhra occupation, for if he did so, a man speaking centuries afterwards could not say that his gift was enjoyed for long before the foreign inroad. And the name of Kaḍungōn's grandson is not Śeḷiyan, which is only a common name for the Pāṇḍyas, and occurs here in the midst of an ornate introduction to the king’s real name, Śēndan which seems to be confirmed by the genealogy of the smaller Śinnamanūr plates which begins with Jayantavarman. Moreover it must be explained why, if this Śēliyan Śēndan as he is called by the epigraphists was the victor of Talaiyālangānam, a battle so famous in literature as to lend a prefix to the name of its hero, that historic fight is not mentioned in the Vēḷvikkuḍi grant which gives a long account of the achievements of the kings it names. It thus seems clear that the mention of Muḍukuḍumi and Talaiyālangānam in these epigraphs confirms in some measure the particulars we gather from Śangam literature, and that it throws no new light on the age of the Śangam. If anything, the reference to the long interval between Muḍukuḍumi and the Kaḷabhra occupation, and the reckoning of the Śangam and the translation of the Bhāratam together with Talaiyālangānam among the legendary achievements which constituted the heirloom of the family, may lead an unbiassed student to the conclusion that these belong to an age altogether removed in the past from the kings whose history is recorded in these epigraphs.

c6.s3.21

¹ See T. A. Gopinatha Rao in *Sen Tamil*, vol. vi, pp. 440 ff and K.V.S. Aiyar in *Ancient Dekhan*, p. 111 and the *I. A.*, vol. xl, pp. 224 ff. Unless I am much mistaken, Mr. Aiyar begs the question at p. 226, para 2 of *I. A.*, vol. xl, and simply assumes what he has really got to prove, viz. that the victor of Nelvēli was son of the victor of Talaiyālaṅānam. See also Krishna Sastri in *E. I.*, vol. xvii, p. 297, contra Venkayya in *The Tamilian Antiquary*, No. 3, pp. vi and vii.

c6.s3.22

We are therefore bound to assume,¹ until much stronger proof to the contrary is forthcoming than has been put forward so far, that the Śangam age lies in the early centuries of the Christian era and we shall do so in the following chapter which attempts a reconstruction of the age in so far as it relates to the Pāndyan kingdom.

c6.s3.23

¹ This conclusion has been accepted by distinguished writers like V. A. Smith, *Early History*, pp. 471-2 and n. 4 at p. 457 ; and Sir Charles Elliot, *Hinduism and Buddhism*, vol. ii, p. 214 : ‘Most Tamil scholars are agreed in referring the oldest Tamil literature to the first three centuries of our era and I see nothing improbable in this.’ Hultzsch’s objections to this date, *S.I.I.*, vol. ii, p. 378, are too general and impressionistic to need separate discussion.

Linked texts (6)