The Legend of Butler Kandappar

Foreword

I had intended to post this on Vaikāsi Anusham. 

But today is Ayōthidāsar’s birthday and I saw a tweet by the TN BJP chief claiming "திருக்குறளை இன்றைய அச்சு வடிவத்திற்குக் கொண்டு வருவதற்கு அரும்பணியாற்றியவர்".  

This, in in of itself is a curious claim. Ayōthidāsar did write a commentary to it from his point of view. But that hardly qualifies as the definitive form we see today ( "இன்றைய அச்சு வடிவம்")

I infer what Annamalai is referring to is Ayōthidāsar’s claim to be the descendant of the heroic Butler Kandappan whose intervention ensured we have the text today.

Story

The story of ‘Butler Kandappan saving the TirukkuRaL manuscripts seems to have come from Ayōthidāsar himself,  like many others!


I have not read Ayōthidāsar’s own’s words on the claim but many, including reliable scholars like Stalin Rajangam and Prof.Dharmaraj have made the claims that

• Butler Kandappar was the one who gave the kuRaL manuscript to F.W.Ellis (via Lord Arlington (?))
• And that Butler Kandappar was Ayōthidāsar’s grandfather.

அயோத்திதாச பண்டிதர்



Dramatism


Of course in many Dravidian retellings of the tale, it assumed all sorts of dramatic panache. 

Not sure how much of that owes to the original author himself. Her are some examples:

1. See this article from 2019 that claimed that Kandappar saved a scroll from being burnt with firewood in the kitchen, and Kandappar fortuitously spots it, prevents the calamity:  
2. See this tweet that claims that if not Kandappar we would not have had kuRaL survive at all! :  



Moderate claims



Both Profs. T.Dharmaraj and Stalin Rajangam, more familiar with the primary source, only state that Ayōthidāsar comes from a family of scholars and that his grandfather Kandappar, gave the manuscripts of Kural and Nāladiyār to Arlington, who gave it to F.W.Ellis. 

See:

• Prof. Stalin Rajangam's article 
• Prof. Dharmaraj's interview 



• Here is a youtube video (of a series about Anantarangam Pillai's diaries) where the speaker challenges the typically grossly incorrect and dramatic Senthalai Gowthaman's claim.

However, all these authors/speakers seem to largely take at face-value the claims made by Ayōthidāsar.

I am not sure if these claims are corroborated, by any accounts given by Ellis or Arlington . That would imbue the claim with more rigour.




Alt. History



Nevertheless Kandappar has made it to Ayōthidāsar’s wiki page with a strong claim that, TirukkuraL manuscript itself had been lost for MANY centuries : "பிரதிகள் அழிந்து நூற்றாண்டுகளாக வழக்கில் இல்லாமல் போயிருந்த திருக்குறளைத் தன் குடும்ப சேமிப்பு ஏடுகளில் இருந்து மீட்டு " 


Never mind that Veeramāmunivar had translated it into Latin less a few decades before Ellis.



And that accounts of the 19th century we see from, say, UVeSa’s என் சரித்திரம் don’t show any absence of kuRaL.
 

Unlike the Sangam corpus, TirukkuRaL was probably never lost to be rediscovered.



So the prickly assertion that we pretty much owe the existence of KuRaL itself to the heroic intervention, seems bluster.




Ayōthidāsar’s words

While searching for the actual text of Ayōthidāsar claim I saw this excerpt from Prof.Marudanayagam’s book: ஒரு பூர்வ பௌத்தரின் சாட்சியம்


பேராசிரியர் மருதநாயகம்

“இவற்றுள் இத்திரிக்குறள் மூலத்தையும் நாலடி நானுறையும் ஜார்ஜ் ஆரங்டியன்துரை பட்ளர் கந்தப்பன் என்பவரால் கொண்டுபோய், தமிழ்ச் சங்கத்து அதிபதி மேம்பட்ட எலீஸ் துரையவர்களிடம் ஏட்டுப்பிரதியாகக் கொடுத்து அச்சிட்டு வெளிவந்த போது ஓலைப்பிரதிக்கு மாறுதலாக சாற்றுக் கவிகளில் சில அதிகரித்தும் அறத்துப்பாலில் உள்ள சில செய்யுட்களைப் பொருட்பாலில் சேர்த்தும், இச் செய்யுளில் ஆரியார் என்று வந்த மொழியைப் பூரியாரென்றும் மற்றும் செய்யுட்களை மாற்றியுள்ளதைக் கந்தப்பனவர்கள் சங்கத்திற்கு எழுதிக்கேட்டபோது மறுமொழி கிடைக்காமல் போய் விட்டது என்பது விவேகிகளறிந்த விடயங்களாம். ”
  

These are Ayōthidāsar’s words being quoted.

It strikes me a little curious that he refers to his grandfather so.



I am not sufficiently familiar with Ayōthidāsar’s style to know if he is employing some kind of narrative flourish : i.e. initially presenting Kandappar as some distant person only to end with, ‘oh by the way, this happens to be my grandfather’. 



But taken standalone, it looks odd how he is referring to someone distant (கந்தப்பன் என்பவரால்!)
 

திரிக்குறள்-ஆரியார்

Ayōthidāsar’s used the terms திரிக்குறள் ( and திரிவாசகம் etc.) to buttress his alternate interpretations of the texts as ‘Tamil-Bouddha’ texts .


And in the quoted segment above the kuRaL he is referring to is kuRaL 241, the very first குறள் in அருள் உடைமை அதிகாரம் which is the very first அதிகாரம் in துறவற இயல். 

That is important insofar as it sets the tone for how remainder for the அதிகாரம் will be read.



It goes:

அருட்செல்வம் செல்வத்துள் செல்வம் பொருட்செல்வம் 

பூரியார் கண்ணும் உள



where பூரியார் means கீழ்மக்கள் 



As quoted above, Ayōthidāsar claims that the word ஆரியார் in the original manuscript given by Kandappar was changed to பூரியார் by ‘mischievous interlocutors’ and Kandappar remonstrates in writing, to no avail.


Once again, I wonder if there is paper-trail that scholars have investigated, to buttress this கந்தப்பனவர்கள் சங்கத்திற்கு எழுதிக்கேட்டபோது claim.

Be that as it may, the claim is flimsy

1. Is there anywhere else in the kuRaL the word ஆரியர் mentioned? Let alone as a negative! No.
2. Not just in Ellis’s manuscript, but all others too before and after likely mention பூரியார். kuRaL text did not have a 'single point of failure' manuscript. 
3. And I see, rare as the word is, பூரியர் implying common/low folks finds mention in பரிபாடல் too.

The ChūLāmaNi (nigaNdu) stanza he states to buttress the claim (quoted by Prof.Marudanāyagam in the book in the link above, ) is hardly persuasive.

Inconclusion:



So here are my uncharitable musings:

1. Was the legend of Kandappan a concoction by Ayōthidāsar to set a narrative of ‘pristine’ text that was twisted by the powerful interlocutors? ; a creation to service his claim that ‘ஆரியர் were the கீழோர்’.  
2. Did Ayōthidāsar initially only claim ’once there was Butler….’ and later claim to be descendant also? Or is it a legend that has grown in retelling?


Caveat: I have read precious little of Ayōthidāsar directly. I have only read him as quoted by others (as quoted above)

P.S: This attempt to appropriate Ayōthidāsar is comical, to say the least. Dravidam has been - IMO, rather unfairly - accused of erasing the pioneering contributions of Ayōthidāsar. 

So, Dravidam themselves are making amends and others don't want to be left behind.

We shall hear more and more of the redoubtable Ayōthidāsar, in the years to come.