Does the Poruḷiyal even exist?

Abstract

This talk examines the hypothetical existence of the Poruḷiyal – possibly a treatise on Tamil love poetry. Knowledge of the Poruḷiyal is based entirely on quotations in two texts: the commentary to the Tamiḻneṟi Viḷakkam (9th CE?) and the Kaḷaviyaṟ Kārikai (14th CE). What we know as the Poruḷiyal is a set of 69 poems quoted in the Kaḷaviyaṟ Kārikai which are attributed to the Poruḷiyal. 62 of those are also found in the commentary to the Tamiḻneṟi Viḷakkam, where no mention is made of a treatise called the Poruḷiyal. These poems are not transmitted anywhere else in the extant Tamil corpus, with one or two exceptions. Thus we have a text whose evidence comes from mutually dependent references: a set of poems quoted and attributed in the Kaḷaviyaṟ Kārikai, for which our only other source of knowledge is their parallels in the Tamiḻneṟi Viḷakkam, for which, in turn our only other source knowledge is the Kaḷaviyaṟ Kārikai.

What can we infer about the relationships between these texts, and how might that inform our understanding of their transmission? How should we conceptualize these incomplete or lost texts and the poetic corpus they convey? Is intertextual editing effective, and how can we approach editing sections of texts that lack direct evidence? With the help of some illustrative examples, this paper will address these practical and philosophical challenges an editor may face when working on interdependent texts with no independent transmission.