| dbp:text
|
- The Sanskrit literature was, after this [translation by Ezhuthachan] no longer a secret, and there was perhaps no part of South India where it was more studied by people of many castes during the eighteenth century. (en)
- I would not at all rule out a level of critique of the prevailing religious order of [Kerala] society, though only implicit and certainly not overtly pitched in caste or class terms, in Eluttacchan's sectarian teachings. It is quite possible, for instance, for Eluttacchan to have been defending the religious potency of his literary form against those who might be deaf to its message, without thereby singling out Brahmanical Sanskritic and priestly religious forms for attack. (en)
- But it is worth listening when the later tradition assigns a primal role to Eluttacchan. It tells us something about the
place of this multiform narrative, the Ramayana, in constituting the core of a literary tradition; about the enduring historical importance of the moment when a subaltern social formation achieved the literacy that in the South Asian world conditioned the culturally significant type of textuality we may call literature; and about literature as requiring, in the eyes of many readers and listeners, a particular linguistic register, in this case, the highly Sanskritized. (en)
|
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
