Home »
Poems » T Wignesan »
Ambiguity and Ambivalence In the Thirukkural: Canto 4, K35, a Random Example
Ambiguity and Ambivalence In the Thirukkural: Canto 4, K35, a Random Example
Ambiguity and Ambivalence in the THIRUKKURAL: Canto 4, K35, a random example
alukkaa ravaavekuli yinnaacchon naangku
milukkaa viyanra tharam (unrefined, given in the original state of
the connective/combination particles of "punarcchi" rules)
alukkaaru avaavekuli innaacchol naankum
ilukkaa iyanrathu aram (refined, shorn of the connective particles)
Tis virtue when, his footsteps sliding not through envy, wrath,
Lust, evil speech - these four, man onwards moves in ordered path. (Tr. G.U.POPE)
That conduct is virtue which is free from these four things, viz., malice, desire, anger and bitter speech. (Tr. W.H.Drew & J.Lazarus)
The way of vileness, self-congratulatory aid, ire and foul-mouthing - these four attitudes will cause the alms-giver to slip from the natural path of virtue into ignominy. (Tr. T. Wignesan)
Breakdown of the words and their individual meanings:
alukku = foulness; aaru= way; avaa= desire, lust; vekuli= wrath, anger; innaa= unpleasant; chol= speech, words; naangkum= (the latter) four; [ili= slip down, fall down, become vile;] ilukkam= ignominy; iyanrathu= that which has proceeded naturally; aram= virtue.
Discussion:
I - Both G.U. Pope and Drew & Lazarus translate "alukkaaru" as "envy", and they are not wrong, but I have opted for an etymological separation of its semantic constituents and have come up with: 'the way of vileness', i.e., "alukku" = foulness and "aaru" = way, so that ambiguity emerges (becomes apparent) from both the valid translations. Yet, it must observed that the Pope and the Drew-Lazarus' translations appear to deliberately avoid having to relate their versions specifically to the topic of the decade, i.e., the giving of alms and make/intend their versions (to) conform to the general theme of the section in which the kural occurs; in other words, they rather draw attention to the general theme of VIRTUE at large and not VIRTUE as related to ALMS-GIVING.
II - In my translation, I keep close to the topic (though I give nothing or only a little away by way of nuance) under discussion: Alms-Giving.
III - Evidently, both versions are valid (though one or the other may be prefered by the reader at any given moment depending upon his/her participatory performance), and hence it could be said the KURAL in question is AMBIVALENT, giving it an additional dimension in the reading.
IV -It would serve to note that the indigenous exegetes like Parimelalargal and others opt for the individual topic explication. What this exceptional poet intended in the first place matters, of course, even if one cannot refuse disowning or accepting concepts such as "intentional fallacy" or "total intention", especially in a case where the whole is in the detail and the detail will/must not detract or displace art from the ultimate purposes of living life itself. The artful way of living the art of life is no less a life worth living. Does the one enhance and enrich the other without in any way detracting from the other? (I’m well aware of the tautological expressions in the above argument.)
© T. Wignesan - Paris, 2017
Copyright © T Wignesan | Year Posted 2017
Post Comments
Poetrysoup is an environment of encouragement and growth so only provide specific positive comments that indicate what you appreciate about the poem.
Please
Login
to post a comment