Rejoinder

With reference to the article "Tamil Tribute to Dikshitar," by T.M. Krishna

With reference to “Tamil Tribute to Dikshitar,” musician T.M. Krishna writes:

First, it is important to note that in the same year (1936) Vedantha Bhagavathar and A. Ananthakrishna Iyer published Guruguha Ganamrutha Varshini dedicated to the Navavarana kritis of Muthuswami Dikshitar, notated in Tamil and meanings given in English. Of course Dikshita Kirtanai Prakasikai was the first large collection of Muthuswami Dikshitar kritis post Sangita Sampradaya Pradarshini (SSP) by Subbarama Dikshitar.

“More important, unlike Subbarama Dikshitar, he also indicated speeds of singing using special symbols for the four tempos ranging from slow to fast…” says the author.

Subbarama Dikshitar also has used lines above the notation to indicate the speed of singing within each kriya of the tala between 1{+s}{+t} speed 2{+n}{+d} speed and 3rd speeds. This is absolutely clear in the

SSP . The special symbols used by Nataraja Sundaram Pillai are for the same purpose. It tells us how many swaras can be sung within each kriya of the tala in various speeds. Therefore this assertion by the author is erroneous. What is missing in both publications is the mention of the speed at which the composition has to be rendered as a whole. This in fact is found in Chinnasami Mudaliar’s “Oriental Music in European notation.”

“While following the gamaka symbols of the former…” former referring to Subbarama Dikshitar. It is important to note that Nataraja Sundaram Pillai has only used two varieties namely Jaru and kampitham other than putting in anuswarams . We do not find any other detailed gamakas as denoted by Subbarama Dikshitar. Also the method of using a larger and darker font for the higher variety in a swara and smaller font to denote lower variety in this publication has some issues (this is used for all the arohana and avarohanas ).

For example while giving the

rishabha in

arohana and

avarohana of

Nattai we find that a darker and larger font is given which is the same as the one given to

chatursruti rishabha in

Kedaragowla there by creating a confusion. Similar problem exists in the

Varali and Thodi gandhara and the smaller font. In many ways this publication’s use of gamaka symbols is incomplete.

The author says, “It is wrong to contend that all Dikshitar kritis outside of “Pradarshini” are spurious.” Consider this perspective: Among the 50 compositions published in Prakasikai 32 years after SSP only one kriti –“Maha Ganapathim” in Thodi - is not found in SSP, which contains 229 Dikshitar kritis. Considering that Nataraja Sundaram Pillai was to publish another three books of 50 compositions (a total of 200 Dikshitar kritis) and only one is a non-SSP kriti in the first book, it is possible that only a handful or more compositions may have been those not notated in the SSP. This still puts the authenticity of the current number of kritis attributed to Muthuswami Dikshitar of about 400-plus, in a very large cloud of doubt.

T.M.Krishna