Le Commentaire de Cenavaraiyar sur le Collatikaram du Tolkappiyam: Sur la metalangue grammaticale des maitres commentateurs iamouls medievaux, vol. 1.

• Author: STEEVER, SANFORD
• Position: Review

Le Commentaire de Cenavaraiyar sur le Collatikaram du Tolkappiyam: Sur la metalangue grammaticale des maitres commentateurs iamouls medievaux, vol. 1. By JEAN-LUC CHEVILLARD. Publications du Department d'Indologie, 84.1. Pondicherry: INSTITUT FRANCAIS DE PONDICHERY; ECOLE FRANCAISE D'EXTREME-ORIENT, 1996. Pp. 637.

Chevillard inaugurates his study of Tamil traditional grammar with a translation of the second book of the oldest Tamil grammar Tolkappiyam "On ancient composition" (c. 200 B.C.E.-400 C.E.), the Collatikaram "On words." Collatikaram treats parts of speech, morphology, reference and some aspects of syntax; in short, what is needed to generate well-formed words of Old Tamil. Chevillard's is, however, far more than a simple translation: it differs from all other modern attempts to translate this work by taking as the basic object of translation and analysis, not just the "raw" text (mulam, "le texte source"), but the text together with its medieval commentary (urai). This work is intended as part of a larger project, an encyclopedia of Tamil grammar.

After a certain amount of soul-searching over the several extant commentaries (pp. 22-24), Chevillard finally settles on the Cenavaraiyam (c. 1200-1300 C.E.) composed by the medieval scholar Cenavaraiyar (Cena). The choice is a sound one: although there is an earlier commentary by Ilampuranar (c. 1000-1100 cE.), Cena's is more profound, more thought-provoking and more comprehensive. Further, Chevillard demonstrates that Cena is able to engage both Tolkappiyar (le maitre) and Ilampuranar (le commentateur) in his own commentary, giving it greater resonance.

Chevillard sets himself no simple task. Despite the existence of authoritative editions of the text (we do not yet have truly critical editions in the Western sense), six commentaries, and a renewed scholarly interest in this tradition, the text and its commentaries are understood but fragmentarily. The commentatorial tradition points to at least two disruptions in the historical transmission of the text. We have no extant ancient commentaries of the language; some argue that none was necessary because the text would have been transparent to speakers of Old Tamil. However, roughly one millennium lapsed before the first commentary now extant was composed, and it was written to explicate a text then barely understood. Even toward the end of the medieval period, the text and its commentaries ceased to be widely studied. In the last half of...