The first lecture of Day 2 was titled “A Chronological Study of Muthuswami Dikshitar’s Compositions in Publications Other Than Sangita Sampradaya Pradarshini” by Dr. Rajashri Ramakrishna. I had only glanced at a shortened version of the title that read simply, “A Chronological Study of Muthuswami Dikshitar,” and assumed that the lecture would trace Dikshitar’s compositions in chronological order.
Everyone knows the story of Dikshitar visiting Tiruttani, where Lord Murugan is said to have placed a piece of sugar candy in his mouth, inspiring him to compose the brilliant “Sri Nathadi Guruguho Jayati Jayati” as his first song. Many also know that he passed away listening to his students sing “Meenakshi Memudam Dehi” on one Deepavali day. I have often wondered what the last composition of Dikshitar might have been, but I have never come across a reliable source that answers this question. I have asked a few friends who are professional Karnatik musicians, but I have not received a definitive response. I was hoping that this lecture would address that lingering curiosity of mine. Unfortunately, I had misunderstood the scope of the lecture, and the question remains unanswered.
What the lecture actually explored was how Dikshitar’s compositions have been documented over time. For this presentation, Dr. Rajashri researched thirty-three different books, dating from as early as 1859 to as late as 1992. This, by itself, is a phenomenal scholarly effort. It also speaks volumes about the imposing presence Dikshitar continues to have in the Karnatik music world.
Dikshitar lived between 1775 and 1835. The earliest book discussed in the lecture was published in 1859, merely twenty-four years after his demise. The most recent one appeared in 1992, a full one hundred and fifty-seven years later. The fact that his compositions have continued to be studied, documented, and discussed across such a long span of time is testimony enough to his enduring greatness.
Dr. Rajashri did a splendid job retracing the evolution of how Dikshitar’s kritis were documented, and the journey was fascinating. The discussion on how sangathis came to be added to “Vatapi Ganapatim,” along with the associated narrative, was particularly engaging. It left me wondering about the original form of the composition as Dikshitar might have conceived it, and how far we may have moved from that vision in its present-day renditions.
Towards the end of the lecture, there was a reference to Kallidaikuruchi Mahadeva Bhagavathar, which gave me a sense of personal pride, as Kallidaikuruchi is the place where I grew up. The kalapramanam in which he had envisaged “Sri Nathadi” was intriguing, and I would dearly love to hear a performance based on that interpretation.
The second lecture of the day was titled “Recreating the Musical Library of Muthuswami Dikshitar” by Dr. K. Srilatha. In an earlier lecture in this series, Dr. Naresh Keerthi had spoken about the influence of earlier compositions on Dikshitar. I had mentioned then how this portrayal revealed Dikshitar as a curious, hardworking, and deeply knowledgeable individual. Dr. Srilatha’s lecture expanded on this idea and presented concrete examples of works that might have influenced him.
It was particularly interesting to hear Dr. Srilatha draw parallels between the compositional structures of Dikshitar’s works and those of earlier periods. Her explanation of his use of alternating slow and fast passages, as well as his engagement with groups of ragas such as the Gaula group, was illuminating. What stood out clearly was that while Dikshitar actively sought inspiration from earlier traditions, he transformed those elements into something distinctly his own. Dr. Srilatha concluded by saying that Dikshitar revived and modernized older motifs and embodied innovation, curiosity, and eclecticism. I found this to be an exceptionally apt description of his genius.
During the post-lecture interaction, T. M. Krishna made an insightful observation about the Trinity, who lived in the same period and had access to a similar corpus of material and resources, yet made strikingly different artistic choices. This point fascinated me. Tyagaraja chose to compose primarily in Telugu, while Sanskrit was Dikshitar’s preferred medium. Tyagaraja adopted the more common pallavi, anupallavi, and multiple charanams structure, whereas Dikshitar deliberately moved away from this format. Tyagaraja poured out his emotions, while Dikshitar remained more restrained, often focusing on factual details about temples. That they could draw from the same sources and yet create such distinct bodies of work is truly mind-boggling.
I found both lectures on Day 2 to be eye-opening, and they have certainly deepened my curiosity. I now look forward eagerly to the lectures on Day 3.
0 comments:
Post a Comment