1. By south India is meant that portion of the Indian peninsula which was the territorial base of the Vijayanagara Empire (c. 1350-1550), and which would todayencompass the modern states of Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu as for the region now covered by the state of Kerala, not enough is known, from our point of view, of the temples in this ecologically and politically distinct region to be certain that our framework might be relevant there as well. After considerable reflection, we have decided not to give any overall definition of the kind, or type, or scale of ’temple’ that we believe is comprehensible within the framework we propose. We are confident, however, on the basis of the literature cited throughout this essay, that our model is not relevant only to large Brahminical temple complexes, but seems also to fit ’village’ temples, goddess temples, lineage temples and the like. At the very marginthe uncertain cases would be, for example, family shrines and ancestor shrinesthe uncertain cases would be, for example, family shrines and ancestor shrine where only portions of our model might apply. This question of the rangeof temples to which this model might apply, is, of course, par excellence, a matterfor empirical investigation, and any arbitrary definition of the kind of temple towhich this scheme applies would, at the present time, be premature and artificial.
2. Since the primary purpose of this essay is not bibliographic, we shall make noattempt to cover the vast number of monographs that have appeared on south Indiantemples, like the following striking studies for instance: V.N. HariRao, A history ofTrichinopoly and Srirangam, Ph. D. thesis, University of Madras, 1948; Pillay (1953);Burton Stein, The Tirupati temple, Ph.D. thesis, University of Chicago, 1958;Sundaram (1969); Viraraghavacharya (1953-54).
3. Carol Appadurai Breckenridge conducted fieldwork at the Sri Minak&scedilwi-Sundaresvarar Temple, Madurai (Tamil Nadu) between September 1973 and September 1974:see her forthcoming Ph.D. dissertation on the Sri Minakshi-Sundaresvarar Temple (University of Wisconsin). Arjun Appadurai conducted fieldwork at the Sri Parthas& Temple, Madras City, from September 1973 to September 1974: see hisPh.D. dissertation, Worship and conflict in south India: the case of the Sri Parthasarthi; temple 1800-1973, University of Chicago, 1976. Both authors alsoconducted archival research at the Tamil Nadu Archives (Madras City), the IndianOffice Library (London) and the Record Room of the Madras High Court.
4. Komiaclr; is a Tamil word meaning palace, sanctuary, temple. Madras University TamilLexicon (hereafter MUTL), Diocesan Press, Vepery, 1925 38, p. 1190. It comes from the word koplusmeaning king, father, potter, great man. Ibid. p. 1169. Koplusil whichmeans place has come to mean the place of the great one. George L. Hart has arguedthat during the Sangam period in south India (c. 300 B.C.-300 A.D.) the word ko; designated the king, and koyil, the king’s house. Only subsequently did it come tomean temple. The reverse process was true in north India where deva (god) came tomean king. (Related cultural and literary elements in ancient Tamil and Indo-Aryan,George L. Hart, Ph.D. thesis, Harvard University, 1970, p. 7.).
5. Hose rites which collectively form the &urapmaaacmrc; list vary from author to author,and from temple to temple. The list may be increased or reduced according to howinclusive or exclusive the term pujā is intended to be. Some lists include up to twentyonerites; others double up related activities such as incense and light in order toinclude music and dance within the sixteen rites. Variations on the abovelist are found in: Apte (1924:1385); Kane (1930-62, II: 729); Monier-Williams (1891:413-15); Stevenson (1920: 29, 52); Pathar (1974: 234, 289, 290); Akoracivacariyar Sri Parartta Nittiya Pujaviti, Devakottai, 1930, p. 117 quoted from the Karanam Purvam 375, cited in Diehl (1956: 90, fn. 1); Gonda, (1970: 186, fn. 196).
6. His term is derived from the Sanskrit word which means literally ’limit’ or ’boundary’, and in various north India languages, as well as common parlance in the south, has acquired the more general meaning of ’propriety’, ’respect’, ’deference’, ’honor’. However, in the context of south Indian temples, the term &mtaamaraciiry; has acquired a more specific and generic meaning, whereby it denotes a whole series of objects, actions and transactions, linking the deity with its servants, worshippers and protectors, whose substance, order and context, provides a public code for the demarcation of status. In his study of the Pramalai Kallar, Dumont (1957: 318) has noted the link between the concept of mutalmai (primacy) and the distribution of honours in temples. The importance of honour has also been noted by Hanchett (1975: 27-59).
7.This festival is the second half of a 20-day celebration that falls in two segments on either side of Vaikuntha , the holiest day of the Sri Vaishnav calendar.
8.The customarily prescribed share of the temple-staff in the leavings of the deity.
9.Sinn swamiKayaker v. The Minaksi Sundaresvarar Devastanam, Original Suit 69 of 1923, District Munsif Court, Madura.
10. An Adhikara-parapattiyam is the temple-servant who, among other things, supervise the torch and vehicle bearers in the processional, oversees the displayof lightsto the deity, and distributes betel-leaf in mantapams.
11. The peskar is a revenue-agent who represents the temple-trustees, and who supervises the day-to-day ritual process in the temple.
12.Technically the Indian Trusts Act of 1882, etc. did not apply to Hindu or Muslim religious endowments. But, in the absence of a clear exposition of problems encounters by the Judges in Sanskrit texts, English precedents, where they could be found were used as guidelines for decisions.
13.Given the complexities of the various pieces of land reform legislation over the last century (i.e., Estate Abolition Act, 1908, etc.), the exact nature of control overthe lands and villages as shared by the donor, the tenants and the temple today remains unclear. In some cases, endowed lands which have been resumed by the state have been compensated with a cash allowance
administered by the H.R. and C.E. Department whose role is discussed in the section on protection and service. In general, however, regardless of such changes, donors retain significant control over endowments, and specified resources continue to be budgeted as endowment-related.
14.CittiraiPeruvilaPallirikaiArulmikuMinaksiSundaresvaraDevastanam Madurai,1974A similar list of donors for the AvaniMulam, MaciSkanda-Sashti festivals of the Sri SubrahmaniaDevasthanamTiruchendur is given in Pillai (1948: 54).
15.The following cases are the empirical basis for this assertion. At the High Court of Judicature at Madras are the following cases involving the Sri Parthasarthi Swami Temple: C.S. 1 of 1932; C.S. 527 of 1932; C.S. 241 of 1933; C.S. 314 of 1935: C.S. 306 of 1946; and C.S. 107 of 1947. Examples of court cases from the Sri MinakshiSundaresvararTemple at Madurai come from: The Madura District MunsifCourt.