Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Colas c34: Chapter XXVI. Literature under the Cōḷas

The Cōḷas c34

Language
English

Contents

Chapter XXVI. Literature under the Cōḷas

c34.2

In literature, as in most other spheres, the age of the imperial Cōḷas constitutes the most creative epoch of South Indian History. After the brilliant achievement of the Śaṅgam age, in which the princes of the Cōḷa lineage took a good part as patrons of poets and sometimes as authors, literature and arts pass under the protection of the Pallavas and the Pāṇḍyas for a period of four or five centuries. During this period, Tamil and Sanskrit literatures were extensively cultivated; there was also some writing in Pāli undertaken principally by the Buddhist divines of the period. The *Dēvāram* and the *Tiruvāśagam*, and the bulk of the ‘Four Thousand Sacred Hymns’ of the Tamil Vaiṣṇava Canon belong undoubtedly to this period, as also the *Pāṇḍikkōvai*, *Śūḷāmaṇi*, the *Nandikkalambakam* and the *Bhārataveṇbā* of Perundēvanār. In the domain of Sanskrit, the illustrious names of Kumārila and Śaṅkara belong to the same age.

c34.3

With the rise of the Cōḷa power, there ensues a broadening of the channels of literature and a more copious flow of literary effort, the expression of a fresh energy released by the realisation, for the first time, of an imperial state in South India. The direct connection between the growth of the Cōḷa empire, a new political fact, and the birth of the new literature, becomes clear if we compare the highly ornate and poetic *praśastis* of the Cōḷa inscriptions with the meagre and arid prose of the inscriptions of an earlier time. The difference is more noticeable in Tamil, the language of the people, than in Sanskrit, the language of learning. All the *praśastis* of the Cōḷa kings from the time of Rājarāja I, with few exceptions, may be classed among the best specimens of the literature of the age; the stately diction, the easy flow of the verse, and the animated narration of historical incidents mark them out as a class by themselves in the literature of Tamil. Besides the imperial *praśastis*, there are other instances of literature in inscriptions. The examples that suggest themselves most readily are the Cidambaram and Tiruvadi inscriptions which recount the career and achievements of Naralōkavīra, an official who served Kulōttunga I and Vikramacōḷa with great distinction; and the *praśastis* of the Kāḍavas in the inscriptions found at Atti, Vāyalūr (Vailūr) and Vṛddhāchalam. In these compositions the various metres are handled with great skill; the somewhat complex laws of Tamil prosody are observed with an easy grace which saves the author from the use of obscure words or the adoption of forced constructions; and as narrative poetry, these inscriptions share some of the best qualities of the imperial *praśastis*. There is not the slightest doubt therefore that these poems were the compositions of court-poets of a high order, and that the steady demand for their services furnished a great impetus to the cultivation of secular literature in this period.

c34.4.1

The names of some works have been preserved casually in the inscriptions; these works are altogether unknown otherwise; they were once considered worthy of public recognition, but having no access to the works themselves, we are not in a position to decide if the recognition was a homage to their literary excellence or was the result of other causes, local or personal. However that may be, the names of these works and the occasions for their being mentioned in inscriptions give us some idea of the extent of popular interest in literary productions and of the types of literature that commanded popularity. Rājarāja I, perhaps the greatest emperor of the line, was the subject of two works, a drama and a *Kāvya*. They are the *Rājarājēśvara-nāṭakam* and the *Rājarāja-vijayam*;¹ the former was to be enacted in the great Tanjore temple during festivals and the latter was to be read in the temple at Tiruppūndurutti, and endowments were created to provide for both. It is not certain if these works were in Tamil or Sanskrit; it seems probable that the *nāṭakam* was not a drama based on Rājarāja's life, but rather a dramatic representation of the construction of the great temple itself, if it was not merely an attempt to popularise some Śaiva legends. The *Rājarāja-vijayam* might have been a quasi-historical poem treating of Rājarāja's reign.

c34.4.2

In any case, both the works must have contained several allusions, if not accurate descriptions, of some of the most striking episodes in Rājarāja's life, and the loss of these works is indeed much to be regretted. Kulōttunga I was the subject of another work, *Kulōttunga-Cōḷa-caritai*, by Tirunārāyaṇa-bhaṭṭa, also called Kavi-kumuda-candra, a pandit from Mānakulāśaniccēri in Tribhuvani, and the poet was given as reward (*sarkāram*) land of the extent of half a *nilam* and two *mā*-s by the *sabhā* of the village, the land being always assessable only at the rate prevailing for the twelfth grade. The award was made by the *sabhā* in accordance with an order from the king requiring them to adjudge the *kāvya* and reward the author suitably.² Two inscriptions from Cuddalore, South Arcot, dated 1111 and 1119, record gifts of tax-free land in recognition of a *sthalapurāṇa* and a *nāṭaka* (based on local legends) composed by a certain Kamalālaya Bhaṭṭa;

c34.4.3

the works were called *Kannivana-purāṇam* and *Pūm-puliyūr-nāḍagam*, names which seem to imply that they were Tamil works of a popular character.³ In endowing a lamp at Tiruvālangāḍu, North Arcot, in 1210 the donor, Aṟanilaiviśākhan Trailōkyamallan Vatsarājan of Arumbākkam, describes himself as a person who rendered the Bhārata in elegant Tamil and discovered the path of Śiva.⁴ In 1146 a certain Marudattūr-uḍaiyān states that he gave to the temple at Nāngupaṭṭi some land which he had received from Vedavanamuḍaiyān of Paiyyūr whom he had celebrated in verse.⁵ Two other instances occur in inscriptions which, though doubtless of the Cōḷa period, cannot be more precisely dated as the names of the kings in whose reigns the records were engraved are not given. When the king was witnessing a dance by Pūngōyil-nāyakat-talaikkōli in one of the pavilions in the temple at Tiruvārūr, he was pleased to order the gift of some *iṟaiyili* land in the *brahmadēya* village Vāyāṟṟūr to Pūngōyil Nambi who had celebrated a feudatory of the king (*nammakkaḷ*), Vīraśoḷa Aṇukkar, in a poem called *Vīraṇukkavijayam*;⁶ evidently the Nambi and the *talaikkōli* were ministering in the same shrine. Lastly, the officers of the treasury of the temple of Tiruvallam gave away 100 *kulis* from the temple lands to Varadayap-pulavar of Kuṟaṭṭi who had composed the *Vallai-andādi*, a poem in praise of the local deity.

c34.4.4

These examples of forgotten poems mentioned in the inscriptions, and nowhere else, attest the existence of a fairly widespread literary activity of a popular character. When we add to this, the list of poems and other works fragments of which are preserved in the older commentaries and glosses, we may safely conclude that much excellent work has been lost beyond recovery. This is true to some extent of the ancient literature of any country; but with regard to South India, the impression is hard to resist that this loss has been very considerable and that, with some remarkable exceptions, the survivals have been the result more of caprice and accident than of deliberate choice or of an active literary criticism.

c34.5

About the close of Pāṇḍya-Pallava period must be placed the important Tamil version of the *Bṛhat-kathā*, *Perungadai* or *Udayaṇan Kadai* by the poet who is known by the name Kongu-vēḷir, the *vēḷ* (chieftain) of Kongu. Very little is known of his life; a verse in a recent work *Kongu-maṇḍalaśatakam* states that he was a native of Mangai, which has been identified with Vijayamangalam in the Erode taluq of the Coimbatore district. Aḍiyārkku-nallār, the celebrated annotator of the *Śilappadikāram*, has said that *Udayaṇan Kadai* was based on a study of several works of the age of the second Śangam; from this the conclusion has been drawn that this work may date from the third century a.d. or earlier.⁷ This is, however, by no means certain; all that we can say is that in the days of Aḍiyārkku-nallār in the twelfth century a.d., this belief was current about *Udayaṇan Kadai*.⁸ On the other hand, it is the opinion of Svāminātha Aiyar, the great scholar to whom we owe a masterly edition of all that has survived of this work,⁹ that it was indebted to the Sanskrit version known to have been made by the Gaṅga ruler Durvinīta in the sixth century a.d. The story of Udayana is very well known and need not be detailed here; of the adventures of his son, Naravāhana, the most original part of Guṇāḍhya's work, the *Perungadai* in its extant parts knows little. These comprise a hundred sections of varying length, the shortest being about fifty lines and the longest a little over two hundred. The metre is *ahaval*, a very flexible type, analogous to blank verse in English, and most suited for narrative poetry. The style of the author is very chaste and direct, and the poem rightly takes a high rank among the literary classics of the Tamil world.

c34.6

The *Śīvaka-Śindāmaṇi* of the Jain poet Tiruttakkadēva is counted as the greatest among the *mahā-kāvyas* of Tamil literature. As it is seen to follow the *Kṣattracūḍāmaṇi* of Vādībhasimha, itself based on the *Uttarapurāṇa* of Guṇabhadra composed in A.D. 898,¹⁰ there can be little doubt that the *Śindāmaṇi* was composed some-time in the tenth century.¹¹ Naccinārkkiniyar states that the author was born of the race of the Cōḷas.¹² A later tradition cherished by Tamil Jains adds that after a full course of study in Tamil and Sanskrit, he turned an ascetic at a rela-tively early age and went to Madura to live there for some time in the company of the great poets of the Tamil Śaṅgam. While admitting the distinction earned by Jain writers in the line of religious and holy literature, these poets challenged their capacity in general, and that of Tiruttakkadēvar in par-ticular, to contribute to the literature of Love. The ascetic poet took up the challenge, and having satisfied his *guru* that he would not lose his spiritual balance if he was permitted to produce an erotic poem, he composed the big poem on the life of Jīvakan, the subject prescribed by his master. The result pleased the *guru*; but it did not give the quietus to the critics of the Śaṅgam, who, unable to deny the merits of the poem, now raised a suspicion against the character of its author, saying that one who had no experience of sex-life could not have produced it; Tiruttakkadēvar then demon-strated the purity of his devotion to the ascetic ideal by means of an ordeal. We may not accept these tales as history, especially because there is nothing in the poem of Tiruttak-kadēvar that cannot be explained on the simple supposition that the Jain poet wanted to set forth in Tamil one of the most romantic and edifying cycles of tales preserved in the Purāṇas of the Jainas.

c34.7

The life story of Jīvaka is that of an ideal hero, equally distinguished in the arts of war and peace, the perfect saint no less than the charming lover. After a stormy youth mark-ed by many adventures, Jīvaka finds himself in the prime of life the monarch of a splendid kingdom; for some years there-after he lives a life of pleasure in the company of the eight splendid queens whom he had espoused at different times earlier in life; in fact, the *Śindāmaṇi* is also called *Maṇa-nūl*, the Book of Marriages, on account of each of Jīvaka's adventures culminating in a happy marriage. Jīvaka is shaken from his complacency by an incident, trivial in itself, but full of deep significance to him. He sees in a moment's flash the hollowness of human life and the wisdom of seeking release from its bonds. He installs his son on the throne and seeks the peace of the forest, and attains salvation in the end.

c34.8

In its present form the poem contains 3,145 stanzas, of four lines each. It is said that the author actually composed only 2,700 stanzas, the remaining 445 being later additions by his *guru*, with whose permission he wrote the poem, and by another hand.¹³ The annotator has marked out two verses as those of the *guru*, but there is no means of identifying the additions of the other writer mentioned above, if there were such additions. The art of Tiruttakkadēvar is marked by all the qualities of great poetry and has, as is well-known, furnished the model for even the genius of Kamban. We shall see that it also inspired, though indirectly, the composition of the *Periya-Purāṇam*.

c34.9

It seems probable that two other *mahākāvyas*, the *Vaḷaiyāpati* and the *Kuṇḍalakēśi*, known so far only by fragments cited in other works, were both composed more or less about the same time as the *Śindāmaṇi*. The *Kuṇḍalakēśi*, it may be noted, is one of the few known Buddhist Tamil works besides the *Maṇimēkalai*.

c34.10

The *Kallāḍam* is a poem of Kallāḍanār, the work and the author alike taking the name of a place,¹⁴ possibly the birth-place of the poet. He must have been different from the Śaṅgam poet of the same name, five of whose songs figure in the *Puṟanānūṟu*,¹⁵ and others in the *Ahanānūṟu* and *Kuṟundogai*. There is a tradition that the author of the *Kallāḍam* chose one hundred verses from the *Tiruccirṟambalak-kōvai* as the basis for his work, and this may well have been so. The work is written in a peculiar style, the result of the author's forced attempt to revive the poetic forms and diction of the Śaṅgam age. The whole poem is thus a curious instance of extreme pedantry. It comprises a hundred pieces, each purporting to depict a particular mood of love (*Ahattuṟai*). The formalised schematic and rather soulless treatment of love in the *Kōvai* type appears, to a modern mind, enough in itself to spoil the chances of real literature; our author has imposed further shackles on himself by tying himself up to a selection of verses from the *Tirukkōvai* and by his deliberate effort to write in an idiom unnatural in his age; and there is no evidence to suggest that the author meant it to be a mere burlesque or parody; in fact it is too serious for that, and the story is that the excellence of the *Tirukkōvai* was demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Śaṅgam only by this effort of Kallāḍanār. The decay of taste and the failure to reach a proper standard of literary criticism and maintain it, is best seen in the admiration in which this stilted composition has been held by generations of scholars and poets in recent times.¹⁶

c34.11

Kallāḍanār was fully acquainted with the cycle of Śaiva legends centring round Madura, and refers to the miracles wrought by Śiva on account of Māṇikkavāśagar, Darumi, Iḍaikkāḍar and others. It is probable that the *Tirukkaṇṇappadēvar Tirumaram* included in the eleventh section of the Śaiva canon was also his work. There is no definite evidence on the age of the *Kallāḍam*; it may be as early as the tenth century, or it may be much later. It is a safe assumption that in any case it belongs to the age of the Imperial Cōḷas.

c34.12

The *Kalingattupparaṇi* composed by the poet laureate Jayangoṇḍār towards the close of the reign of Kulōttunga I is the earliest and best of the *paraṇis* accessible to us. It is a splendid little masterpiece. The line between history and fictitious convention is very clearly seen throughout the poem; and the poet's mastery of a choice diction, and the sustained harmony between the metres employed and the incidents portrayed, are unique in the whole range of Tamil literature. The *paraṇi* is the war poem *par excellence* and depicts not only the pomp and circumstance of war, but all the gruesome details of the field. It may be noted in passing that the Kalinga war of Kulōttunga seems to have been the theme of several literary efforts; to judge from the stray verses on the subject preserved by the commentaries on the *Vīraśōḻiyam* and the *Daṇḍiyalaṅgāram*, a good part of the results of these efforts has been lost irretrievably. The survival of the *Kalingattup-* *paraṇi* in its entirety is perhaps due to its supreme merit; for there are several instances in the history of Indian literatures of one good book killing many inferior ones. Jayangoṇḍār had many imitators but no rival among the poets of later times.

c34.13

Kūttan or Oṭṭakkūttan came of the class of Śengundar who seem to have pursued the occupations of fighting in the army as privates and captains, and of weaving.¹⁷ Born in a poor family in Malari, an obscure village in the Cōḷa country,¹⁸ he sought service under Śaṅkaran, the chieftain of Puduvai and father of Śaḍaiyan, the patron of the more celebrated Kamban. A certain Gāṅgēyan soon discovered that Kūttan was destined for a higher purpose than household service under Śaṅkaran, and Kūttan expressed his gratitude by composing the *Nālāyirakkōvai* on his patron Gāṅgēya. Another patron of Kūttan was a certain Sōman of Puvanai, i.e. Tribhuvani near Pondicherry. When his fame rose, Kūttan was entertained in their court by three successive Cōḷa monarchs beginning with Vikramacōḷa; on each of them he composed an *ulā*, besides a *paraṇi* celebrating Vikramacōḷa's Kalinga war, and a *piḷḷaittamil* on Kulōttunga II. The last poem is easily the best among the known compositions of the poet on account of its copious diction, its melodious verse, and fine imagery. The stories of the circumstances leading to Kūttan's composition of the *Īṭṭi-yeḻupadu*, *Eḻuppeḻupadu* and the *Takkayāgapparaṇi* belong more to anthropology than history. When the poet's fame stood at its highest, the *śengundar* wanted Kūttan to celebrate the glories of their community, and when the poet sought to excuse himself saying that he could not be expected to employ his talents in praising his own community, the irate *śengundar* made up their minds to do away with the man who was so utterly devoid of caste-consciousness. The poet escaped with his life by a trick played by his friends on the foolish *śengundar*, but then he agreed to praise the *Īṭṭi* (spear), the chief weapon of the *śengundar* in war, if they would make an offering of 1008 heads severed from the shoulders of as many first-born *śengundar* youths for the goddess to inspire Kūttan to his enterprise. After some argument this was agreed to, and Kūttan sang the *Īṭṭiyeḻupadu*, seventy verses in praise of the spear, and the *Eḻuppeḻupadu*, seventy verses calculated to bring back to life the 1008 youths whose lives had been sacrificed. Of the second poem only some fragments are left and these are by no means entitled to a high place as Tamil poetry. The *Īṭṭiyeḻupadu*, also poor poetry, contains a number of local allusions to apparently historical incidents in which *śengundar* soldiers and chieftains played a part; but there is no means yet of explaining these allusions, and the annotators, unwilling to confess ignorance, fabricate legends. Kūttan is said to have become Oṭṭakkūttan after he got the severed heads of the *śengundar* youths to attach themselves (*oṭṭa*) again to their respective bodies. A more plausible, if less romantic, story accounts for the name by saying that, at the request of the Cōḷa king, the poet attached (*oṭṭa*) a *kaṇṇi* of the *ulā* to another verse composed by him on the spot. The *Takkayāgapparaṇi*, obviously an imitation of the *Kalingattup-paraṇi*, in its metres and diction, handles a Purāṇic theme with considerable force and power, and must rank high as literature, though well below its model. Other poems attributed to Kūttan are the *Sarasvatiyandādi* (said to be the very first of his compositions) in praise of Sarasvati, the goddess of learning, by whose grace he became a poet; and the *Arumbait-toḷḷāyiram*. The village of Kūttanūr on the banks of the Ariśil river in the Tanjore district keeps alive the memory of the poet and the patronage of his talents by the Cōḷa rulers who gave him the village as a fief. A Sarasvati temple in it, and a pedestal inscribed in Tamil characters of the 12th century and recording that Kavipperumāl alias Ōvāda-kūttar, the grandson of the *Kavic-cakravarti* of Malari, set up an image of Sarasvati,¹⁹ now lost, show that the stories which connect Kūttan with Sarasvati in a special manner are not altogether unfounded.²⁰

c34.14

A greater poet than Oṭṭakūttan was Kamban, the celebrated author of the *Rāmāyaṇam*. This poem is the greatest epic in Tamil literature, and though the author states that he follows in the wake of Vālmīki, still his work is no mere translation nor even an adaptation of the Sanskrit original. In the treatment of the incidents in the story, and in the portrayal of the chief characters in it, Kamban makes many wide departures and handles the subject matter with a mastery and originality and a depth of poetic experience seldom equalled in Tamil literature.

c34.15

Like the other great poets who have enriched the literatures of the different languages of India and the East by their works on the Rāma story, Kamban imports into his narration the colour of his own time and place. Thus his description of Kōsala is an idealised account of the features of the Cōḷa country, and when he wants to emphasise the glory of moon-light, he brings it home to his readers by saying that it spread everywhere like the fame of his patron Śaḍaiyan of Veṇṇai.²¹ Rāma himself was as much master of the Tamil idiom as of the Sanskrit.²² Sometimes Kamban is influenced by the some-what rigid canon of Tamil poetics, as when he enters on an elaborate analysis of the emotions of Rāma and Sītā after a chance meeting which takes place immediately on Rāma's entry into Mithilā. Elsewhere, as in the description of Sītā's behaviour when Hanumān handed over Rāma's ring to her, Kamban eleborates a brief hint of Sītā's emotions thrown out by Vālmīki who says that she rejoiced as if she had rejoined her husband. He compresses Vālmīki's account at other points, as in Daśaratha's *aśvamēdha*.

c34.16

From amidst a mass of legend centring round the name of the great poet, some facts seem to stand out prominently. His father was Āditya a resident of Mūvalūr (Tanjore dt., Mayavaram tq.) in Tiruvaḷundūr-nāḍu, and he seems to have been an *uvaccan* by caste.²³ Early in life, he attracted the attention of Śaḍaiyappavaḷḷal *alias* Śararāman, the Trigarta chieftain of Puduvai; the Trigarta is mentioned in the *Vik-ramaśōḻan-ulā*²⁴ and in some undated inscriptions from Mūva-lūr and Tirukkōḍikāval in which he is also described as Cēdirāya of the Gaṅgā race.²⁵ Kamban was also patronised by the contemporary Cōḷa king and was granted by him a fief called Kambanāḍu and the title *Kavic-cakravarti*. He undertook the composition of the *Rāmāyaṇa*, or rather *Rāmā-vatāra* as he seems to have called it, out of an unbounded love for the theme, and he carried the story only up to the return of Rāma to Ayōdhyā and his coronation as king, the *uttara kāṇḍam* being reputed to be the work either of Oṭṭak-kūttan or a lesser celebrity by name Vāṇidāsan or Vāṇiyan Tādan.

c34.17

Perhaps less worthy of credence are some other details of a personal nature. He fell in love with a dancing girl Valli whom he met in the Śaiva *maṭha* presided over by Caturā- nāna Paṇḍita at Tiruvoṟṟiyūr, and verses are preserved in the *Tamil-nāvalar-caritai* which purport to record Kamban's great love and admiration of Valli and his dissatisfaction with another claimant to his affections. The story goes that Kamban commanded the regard of all the ruling sovereigns of his time, including the Pāṇḍya and the Kākatīya Rudra, and that the Cōḷa ruler, jealous of his fame and anxious to get rid of his over-mighty subject, plotted his murder and executed it in person; there is no means yet of deciding if this puerile account of the poet's end has any foundation.²⁶

c34.18

The date of Kamban has been much disputed, but there seems to be now little room left to doubt that he was a junior contemporary of Oṭṭakkūttan and of Śēkkiḻār or followed close upon them. The palaeography of the inscriptions of Ṣaḍaiyan mentioned above, and Kamban's description of the Cōḷa country as belonging to *Tyāgamāvinōdan*, a title which recalls the surname of Kulōttunga III,²⁷ are fairly conclusive on the point. The distinct echoes of the *Śīvaka-Śindāmaṇi* in Kamban's great work constitute, in the light of the date assigned to the former poem, another circumstance confirming the date thus suggested for Kamban.

c34.19

Besides the *Rāmāyaṇam*, Kamban is said to have been the author of the *Ēreḻupadu*, and *Śaḍagōparandādi*, as also of a *Mummaṇik-kōvai* (not now extant) which gave rise to an attack on Kamban's verse by Vāṇiyan Tādan. The *Ēreḻupadu* together with the *Tirukkai vaḷakkam* is a eulogium on agriculture and the cultivator class, the Veḷḷāḷas. When the poem was being published in an assembly, Cēdirāyan, the son of Śaḍaiyan, was bitten by a poisonous snake and died; he was restored to life by a couple of *veṇbās* composed by the poet for the purpose. The *andādi* had to be composed by Kamban to please the god of Śrīraṅgam before whom approval was sought by the poet for his *Rāmāyaṇam* and who made it a condition that Kamban should praise his beloved devotee Śaṭhakōpa in a centum of verses. In view of the tendency, common in Indian literature, of fathering minor works of unknown origin upon celebrated authors, and in view of the mediocre and commonplace character of these two works, we have to receive with great suspicion the popular legends on their authorship and the occasions for their composition.

c34.20

Pugalēndi is held by a persistent tradition to have been a contemporary of Oṭṭakkūttan; a native of Kaḷandai in the Toṇḍaināḍ, he sought a career in the Pāṇḍyan court; later, he went over to the Cōḷa court when the Cōḷa ruler espoused a Pāṇḍyan princess. There he roused the jealousy of Kūttan, and their intrigues against each other brought discord into the royal household. Finally, the differences between the poets were made up by the king's intercession and they began to live in peace and friendship. This pretty story has no apparent claim to our credence. Again the *Toṇḍaimaṇḍala-śatakam* states that Pugalēndi composed a *Kalambakam*, a eulogium in various metres, on Kōrrandai, the chief of Jiñji (*Śeñjiyar kōn*); if we accept the tradition that Oṭṭakūttan and Pugalēndi were contemporaries, this chief of Jiñji may have been no other than the one mentioned in the *Vikramaśōḻanulā*,²⁸ but this is doubtful, and modern critics place him a century later than Kūttan. Pugalēndi is, however, best known by his *Naḷaveṇbā*, a poem narrating the story of Naḷa in about four hundred stanzas in the *veṇbā* metre. The *veṇbā* is to Tamil what the *anuṣṭhup* is to the Sanskrit language, a simple and flexible medium capable of producing great results in the hands of a great poet. And Pugalēndi's *veṇbās* are indeed of high quality; and the popularity of the theme he handled gained great currency for them. Other works with little or no claim to literary merit have often been fathered on Pugalēndi; the tendency is partly explained by the easy style of the *Naḷaveṇbā* which made Pugalēndi popular; but there is nothing in common between the fine poetry of the *Naḷaveṇbā* and the miserable doggerels attributed to him by an ignorant popular tradition. The age of Pugalēndi cannot be established by any tangible evidence, as his references to Candiran Suvarkki of Muraṇai-nagar in Maḷḷuvanāḍu cannot yet be related to the inscriptions; the echoes of the ideas and even phrases of Kamban in his poem are sufficiently striking to give plausibility to the view that Pugalēndi could not have preceded that great poet.

c34.21

The *Kulōttungan-kōvai* and the *Tañjaivāṇan-kōvai* deserve to be mentioned as among the best known works of secular literature belonging to the late Cōḷa period. The first, as we have seen, is a *Kōvai* on Kumāra Kulōttunga who may be tentatively identified with Kulōttunga III. Little is known of the author, and the poem has no conspicuous merit except that it centres round a great Cōḷa ruler and contains passing allusions to some of his achievements in war. The *kōvai*, like the *ulā*, is a peace poem; it purports to deal with the stages in the development of love between a lover and his love from the moment they are thrown together by accident; in portraying each situation, details relating to the birth and achievements of the hero are worked in by the poet. The *Tañjaivāṇan-kōvai* falls almost outside the period of Cōḷa supremacy. After the *Tiruk-kōvaiyār* of Māṇikkavāśagar, this is the most popular among the poems of this type. The author, Poyyā-moḻi Pulavar, may have been a native of Vañji, as the name Vañji-Poyyāmoḻi indicates. He seems to have lived for some time in Tiruccengāṭṭanguḍi, Tuṟaiyūr and Madura; he is said to have finally betaken himself to Toṇḍai-maṇḍalam, but another tradition affirms that the poet burnt himself to death on the funeral pyre of his patron Śīnakkan of Araiśūr.²⁹ The Vāṇan of Tañjai, the hero of the *Kōvai*, is reputed to have been the minister of the Pāṇḍya king and chieftain of Tañjākkūr in Māṟanāḍu near Madura. He is described in the *Kōvai*³⁰ as ‘the eye of the Pāṇḍya who conquered the *malai-nāḍu*.’ This must be a reference to Māṟavarman Kulaśēkhara I a.d. 1260-1308. This inference gains strength from another fact. The *Kōvai* illustrates systematically the rules of the *Nambi-Ahapporuḷ*, which mentions Kulaśēkhara as the king in whose reign it was composed and published.³¹

c34.22

The *Periya-Purāṇam* of Śēkkiḻār and the *Tiruviḷaiyāḍal Purāṇam* of Perumbarṟap-puliyūr Nambi are two works of high literary quality dealing with Śaiva hagiology and legends, and these may be briefly considered before taking up the purely devotional literature of the age. Of the composition of the *Tiruttoṇḍar Purāṇam* or the *Periya-Purāṇam* we have a graphic account attributed to Umāpati Śivācārya, c. a.d. 1313—the *Śēkkiḻār Nāyanār Purāṇam* narrates the life of Śēkkiḻār, and this work in spite of its being a Purāṇa, is unique for its historical and biographical interest. Umāpati came in the main line of Śaiva tradition and lived in an age when the memory of the great Cōḷa rulers and their achievements was still fresh; he must have had access to much authentic information, and it is to his uncommon historical sense that we owe this life of Śēkkiḻār. Another work also said to be of Umāpati, though necessarily less authentic in its details relating to a much earlier time, is the *Tirumuṟai-kaṇḍa-purāṇam*, on the work of Nambi Āṇḍār Nambi, of which some account has already been given.

c34.23

Śēkkiḻār was born at Kunṟattūr in Kunṟaivaḷanāḍu, a subdivision of Puliyūr-kōṭṭam in Toṇḍaimaṇḍalam. He is also called Śēvai-kāvalar and Gaṅgai-kula-tilaka. He was a Veḷḷāḷa by caste; he sought an official career under the Cōḷa government, rose to a high rank and earned the title *Uttamaśōḻa-Pallavan*. He was devoted to the deity of Tirunāgēśvaram and evinced his devotion by building in his native town of Kunṟattūr a Śiva temple closely modelled on that of Tirunāgēśvaram. His deeply religious nature was roused to protest against the way in which the *Jīvaka-Cintāmaṇi*, the impious work of a heretical Jaina, was being read, admired and enjoyed in the Court of the Cōḷa monarch; he held that to spend time on such a book was to waste the opportunities of this life and to imperil the life hereafter, and exhorted the king to turn instead to the lives of the Śaiva saints sketched by Sundaramūrti in his *Tiruttoṇḍattogai* and elaborated by Nambi Āṇḍār Nambi. The king then commanded Śēkkiḻār to expound the life-stories of the Saints, and being greatly attracted by the theme, he desired Śēkkiḻār to write down the lives *in extenso* in a great poem, and gave him much wealth to enable him to undertake the task. Śēkkiḻār then retired to Cidambaram, and with his mind filled with divine grace—there was a voice commanding him to begin the work with the words *Ulagelām*—he began to compose the *Tiruttoṇḍar-Purāṇam* in the beautiful 1000 pillared *maṇḍapa* within the precincts of the temple. Messengers went to the Cōḷa monarch and reported the progress of the work from time to time until it reached completion with a total of 4253 stanzas. Then the king himself came to Cidambaram; again a voice, accompanied by the tinklings of an anklet, commanded the king to listen with attention to the great work of Śēkkiḻār, and there followed the formal publication of the work when Śēkkiḻār expounded it from day to day for a whole year; the work was universally hailed as a veritable fifth Veda in Tamil and immediately took its place as the twelfth book in the Śaiva canon. The author was honoured with the title *Toṇḍar-śīrparavuvār*, ‘the singer of the glories of saints’, adorned with the crown of knowledge (*ñānamuḍi*) and saluted by everyone present including the Cōḷa monarch. Umāpati's poems must be read in the original for one to realise the gusto with which that author celebrates this epoch-making event in the history of South Indian Śaivism.

c34.24

The *Periya-Purāṇam* has influenced the lives and thoughts of the Tamil Śaiva population almost incessantly from the date of its composition. It has certainly thrown into the shade, at least in popular estimation, many an other work of pure literature, not suffused with the didactic and religious purpose that pervades this Purāṇam. And to this day there are thousands of Tamils who accept the legends embalmed in Śēkkiḻār’s melodious verse as literally and historically true. To us the significance of this work lies in the rank it takes among the masterpieces of Tamil literature and in the picture it gives of the heroic age of Tamil Śaivism as it was visualised by one of the most talented and deeply religious seers of the Tamil land. In every way, it is a composition that worthily commemorates the great age of the Imperial Cōḷas and their sustained devotion to Śaivism.

c34.25

Śēkkiḻār himself tells us that his work was composed to please the *sabhā* of the Cōḷa monarch Anapāya who covered the Pērambalam with fine gold,³² and we know that this description fits only Kulōttunga II. It may be noted, however, that the name Śēkkiḻār occurs as that of an official of the revenue department as early as A.D. 1093 in the reign of Kulōttunga I.³³ If this official was of the same family as the great poet, the latter must be taken to have come of a family which had distinguished itself for some generations in the service of the state. Umāpati Śivācārya states that Śēkkiḻār had a younger brother Pālaṟāvāyar, and it seems most probable that it is he that is mentioned in an early inscription of the reign of Kulōttunga II³⁴ under the name Śēkkiḻār Pālaṟāvāyar Kaḷappāḷarāyan of Kunṟattūr. It may be noted in passing that Śēkkiḻār was a family name, a fact which strengthens the identifications proposed here: *Kunṟattūrir-Cēkkiḻār tirumarapu śirandadanṟē* (Umāpati). Another member of the family, *Śēkkiḻān* Ammaiyappan Parāntakadēvan alias Karikālaśōḻa Pallavarāyan, made a gift at Tirukkaḍaiyūr in the Tanjore district in 1182.³⁵

c34.26

The *Tiruviḷaiyāḍal Purāṇam* of Perumbarṟap-puliyūr Nambi is the earliest Tamil version we possess of the legends centring round Madura and describing the sixty-four miraculous sports of Śiva. The author was a Brahmin born at Śelli-nagar, now Panaiyūr, near Kari-valamvanda-nallūr in the Tinnevelly district. He composed his work at the request of the contemporary Pāṇḍya king and was richly rewarded by him for his effort. His spiritual *guru* was a certain Vināyaka who belonged to Māḷigaimaḍam in Cidambaram, and the name of Cidambaram (Perumbarṟapuliyūr) seems to be prefixed to his own name either to indicate the fact that he had his initiation there, or more generally to mark his devotion to Naṭarāja, the presiding deity of the place. It has been pointed out that in A.D. 1227 a member of our author's family, Ānandatāṇḍavanambi or his wife, erected a *gōpura* in Madura. This may be taken to furnish a rough indication of the age of our author also; but the exact chronological relation between him and Ānandatāṇḍavanambi cannot yet be settled.³⁶

c34.27

A much later version of the 'sacred sports' by Parañjōti held the field, and the earlier work of Nambi had almost been lost sight of till it was recovered, like many another classic, by the prince of modern Tamil scholars, Svāminātha Aiyar. Nambi's work differs in many important respects from Parañjōti's, particularly in the names of the Pāṇḍyan kings in whose time particular miracles are believed to have occurred. The fictitious list of successive rulers inheriting the throne for sixty-four generations from father to son, found in the *Hālāsyamāhātmya* and in Parañjōti, is unknown to Nambi, who names in all only less than ten kings. The order in which the sports are narrated also differs; there are besides many other minor differences all of which have been carefully noted by the learned editor of Nambi's *Purāṇam*. Authors who rush to deduce history from legend will do well to note the warning furnished by a study of these two versions.

c34.28

To turn now to the purely religious literature of the age. The Tamil Śaiva canon owes its present arrangement to Nambi Āṇḍār Nambi who may certainly be assigned to the early eleventh century, if not to the close of the tenth. As has been stated already, Umāpati Śivācārya describes in a short work, *Tirumuṛai-kaṇḍa-purāṇam*, the redaction of the Śaiva canon by Nambi Āṇḍār Nambi. He states that Nambi, in the first instance arranged the canon in the form of ten books:

c34.29

the first three comprising 384 *padigams* of Tiru-Ñāna-Sambandar, books four to six made up of 307 *padigams* of Tirunāvukkarasu, 100 *padigams* of Sundara forming the seventh book, the *Tiruvāśagam* of Māṇikkavāśagar being the eighth, and a number of *tiruvisaippās*³⁷ by nine different authors and the *Tirumandiram* of Tirumūlar forming the last two books. We learn that subsequently the king requested Nambi to put together one more book from the *padigams* left over, including the *pāśuram* uttered by Śiva himself and calculated to procure *siddhi*; Nambi accordingly arranged the eleventh book of the Canon. This section, including the compositions of Nambi himself, comprises the works of twelve different authors, two of whom are among the sixty-three saints of Śaivism. The *Periya-Purāṇam* counts as the twelfth book. Clearly the arrangement of the books is not chronological; for to give the most striking instance, Tirumūlar was earlier than Sundaramūrti and is mentioned in the *Tiruttoṇḍattogai*; but the *Tirumandiram* is only the tenth book, whereas Sundaramūrtti's hymns form the seventh.

c34.30

Among the authors of the ninth Book of the Canon, Gaṇḍarāditya may be definitely identified with the son of Parāntaka I.³⁸ The attempt to identify Śēndanār with Tirumāḷigaittēvar on the strength of an inscription of the reign of Rājarāja I from Tiruvīḷimiḷalai³⁹ can hardly be considered satisfactory; the inscription cited does not seem to furnish conclusive proof of the identity, and it seems unlikely that tradition could in this instance have erred so far as to make two authors out of one; for we should not forget that the arrangement of the Canon seems to have reached its present form before the age of Umāpati. Karuvūr-dēvar who has hymns on three Cōḷa temples, the Ādityēśvara at Kaḷandai, the Rājarājēśvara at Tanjore, and the Gaṅgaikoṇḍacōḷēśvara at Gaṅgaikoṇḍa-cōḷapuram, was as his name indicates a native of Karuvūr, and the legends centring round his name have found a place in the *Karuvūr Purāṇam*.⁴⁰ He may be assigned to the first half of the eleventh century A.D. It is possible that Nambi Kāḍa Nambi who has sung two hymns, one each on Tiruvārūr and Kōyil (Cidambaram) was identical with the Ātrēya Nambi Kāḍa Nambi, an *arcaka* mentioned in an inscription dated A.D. 1050 from Tiruvaiyāṟu.⁴¹

c34.31

Among doctrinal works, the *Śiva-Ñāna-Bōdam* of Meykaṇḍār, written in the first half of the thirteenth century A.D.,⁴² is the first attempt at a systematic statement of the tenets of Tamil Śaivism. This is a short treatise of a dozen aphorisms (*sūtras*) which seem to have been translated from a Sanskrit original;⁴³ the author has added *vārttikas* of his own which explain and illustrate the argument of each of the *sūtras* and fix their meanings. The name *Śivā-Ñāna-Bōdam* is explained thus. '*Śivam* is one; *Ñānam* is the knowledge of its true nature; *Bōdam* is the realisation of such knowledge.'⁴⁴ The scheme of the twelve *sūtras* is simple. The first three *sūtras* assert the existence of the three entities God (*pati*), bondage (*pāśa*) and soul (*paśu*); the three next define and explain their nature and interrelation; the next triad deals with the means (*sādhana*) of release, and the last part is devoted to the nature of release. The key position held by the work of Meykaṇḍār in the literature of Tamil Śaivism is brought out by a verse which says: 'The Veda is the cow; its milk is the true Āgama; the Tamil sung by the Four is the ghee extracted from it; and the virtue of the Tamil work of Meykaṇḍān of the celebrated (city of) Veṇṇai is the fine taste of the ghee.'⁴⁵

c34.32

The *Bōdam* was preceded by two short works which may be said to stand almost in the relation of text and commentary.⁴⁶ These are the *Tiruvundiyār* and *Tirukkalirṟuppaḍiyār* by two authors, teacher and disciple according to tradition, and both known by the name or rather title Uyya-vanda-dēvar. They are both works meant to present in an easy style the main aspects of Śaiva doctrine and practice.

c34.33

After the *Śiva-Ñāna-Bōdam*, the next work of importance on doctrine is the *Śiva-Ñāna-Śittiyār* of Aruṇandi, reputed in tradition to have been first the *guru* of Meykaṇḍār's father and then the disciple of Meykaṇḍār himself. Though written in verse, it is a comprehensive statement of the true doctrine (*supakkam, svapakṣa*) introduced by a critical discussion of rival systems (*para-pakkam*) of which no fewer than fourteen, including four schools of Buddhism and two of Jainism, are passed under review. This great work, which is, in fact, the classic treatise on Tamil Śaivism, for the work of Meykaṇḍār is too cryptic and fails to explain the position of Śaivism *vis-á-vis* other systems, has been the subject of many commentaries and is to this day the most widely read manual of Śaivism among the Tamils. The *Irupā-virupahdu* by the same writer owes its name to the alternate use of two metres in its twenty verses which expound the doctrine in the form of a dialogue between teacher and pupil. This work is said to have been composed by Aruṇandi to enshrine the memory of his beloved teacher in each of its verses ; and so it does.

c34.34

Another catechism, much the simplest of all manuals on Śaivism, is the *Uṇmai-viḷakkam* by Manavāśagan-gaḍandār of Tiruvadi (South Arcot) who claims that his work makes not the slightest departure from the essence of the Āgamas. Umāpati Śivācārya, who lived at the close of the thirteenth and the early years of the fourteenth century,⁴⁷ was the author of eight works on the doctrine which complete the tale of the Śaiva Siddhānta Śāstras in Tamil.

c34.35

They are the following :

c34.36

1. *Śivappirakāśam*, an ambitious treatise, only less important than the *Śiva-Ñāna-Śittiyār*. One hundred verses.
2. *Tiru-varuṭ-payan* composed on the model of the celebrated *Tirukkuraḷ* and comprising ten divisions of ten *kuraḷs* each.
3. *Vinā-veṇbā*, a short catechism of thirteen *veṇbās*.
4. *Pōṟṟippahroḍai*, a short work of 100 lines.
5. *Koḍikkavi*, a very short exposition in four verses.
6. *Neñjuviḍu tūtu* adopting the *sandēśa* form which had already found imitators in Tamil.
7. *Uṇmai neṟi-viḷakkam* devoted to the path of realisation and dealing with 'the ten *kāryas*.'⁴⁸
8. *Saṅkarpa-nirākaraṇam* devoted, like the '*para-pakṣa*' of the *Śittiyār*, to a critique of other creeds. Unlike the earlier work, this is much exercised with the minute differences within the very fold of Śaivism.

c34.37

It is curious that few works of religious literature seem to have been composed by the Vaiṣṇavas of the Tamil country in this period. It has been pointed out already that the arrangement of the Vaiṣṇava canon proceeded side by side with that of the Śaiva canon in the tenth and early eleventh centuries. There is also ample evidence to show that a succession of great Vaiṣṇava *ācāryas* composed numerous devotional poems and philosophical works in the Sanskrit language in this period; Yāmunācārya, Yādavaprakāśa and Rāmānuja himself are only the leading examples of a large group of authors justly celebrated for their learning and devotion and for their literary achievements. Strangely enough, however, Vaiṣṇavism which started as a popular movement of religious reform and revival, appears to have developed in the Cōḷa period a sort of a high-brow attitude and scorned the use of the popular idiom; in fact, the writers of this school developed in course of time a quaint style more Sanskritic than Tamil in its make-up which is seen at its best in the great commentaries of Periya-vāccān Piḷḷai and Nambiḷḷai. Among the works composed in this style of writing, one of the earliest is the short commentary, the *Ārāyirappaḍi*, on Nammāḻvār's *Tiruvāymoḻi*, by Kurugaippirān Piḷḷān, a relative and disciple of Rāmānuja.

c34.38

There is, however, one poem which deserves mention if only because it is one of the few exceptions to the general rule followed by the Vaiṣṇava authors of the age. It is the *Rāmānuja-nūṟṟandādi*, a century of verses in the *kalittuṟai* metre in praise of Rāmānuja by his disciple Tiruvarangattu Amudanār. This poem in a simple devotional style is held in great esteem and is even called *prapannagāyatrī* as it is often repeated as a daily prayer. The central idea of the poem is that without the grace of the *guru* there is no way to salvation. The author avows that he has no faith in *tapas*,⁴⁹ and pronounces a sweeping condemnation on every creed other than Rāmānuja's.⁵⁰ Rāmānuja's deep and abiding *bhakti*, *śorāda kādal peruñjuḻi*,⁵¹ and his profound attachment to the *Rāmāyaṇa*⁵² are specially stressed in the poem. It is not improbable that our author is identical with the Tiruvarangattamudanār of Mūṅgiṟkuḍi mentioned in an inscription from Tirukkōyilūr of the third year of Kulōttunga II.⁵³

c34.39

Grammar, rhetoric and lexicography have always claimed the attention of authors since the beginning of written literature, and striking contributions were made in these departments in the Cōḷa period. The *Yāpparuṅgalam* and *Yāpparuṅgalakkārigai* of Amitasāgara, a Jaina ascetic, were composed some time towards the close of the tenth century. The correct form of the author’s name is Amitasāgara (the boundless ocean—*aḷapparungaḍal*) and not Amṛtasāgara as it is sometimes written by mistake. The author calls himself a disciple of Guṇasāgara, quotes the *Cūḷāmaṇi* and is quoted by Perundēvanar, the annotator of the *Vīrasōḻiyam*. The text and commentary of the *Vīrasōḻiyam* both date from the reign of Vīrarājēndra. The age of the *Cūḷāmaṇi* is not beyond dispute; it has been ascribed to the latter half of the ninth century,⁵⁴ but it might well have been some centuries earlier. The *Kārigai* of Amitasāgara soon attained great celebrity and the place where the work was composed came to be known as Kārigai-Kuḷattūr, as may be seen from two inscriptions of the reign of Kulōttunga I, from Niḍūr.⁵⁵ These inscriptions state that an ancestor of Kaṇḍan Mādhavan of Kuḷattūr induced Amitasāgara to come and live in the Śiṟu-Kuṉṟanāḍu of the Jayangoṇḍaśōḻa-maṇḍalam; if this name was current in Amitasāgara’s time, the composition of these two works on *Yāppu* must have been later than the last years of Rājarāja I who assumed the title Jayangoṇḍa-śōḻa towards the close of his reign.

c34.40

The *Yāpparuṅgalam* is a treatise on prosody of which the *Kārigai* is an abridgement. It is unique in its range and it offers an exhaustive treatment of the variety of metres in Tamil; it is even more valuable for the fine commentary to which it has given rise. A large number of literary specimens otherwise unknown have been preserved in this commentary. The same observation holds good of the commentary on the *Kārigai* by Guṇasāgara, who is believed to have been a disciple of Amitasāgara, the pupil taking the name of his *guru’s guru*.

c34.41

The *Vīraśōḻiyam* of Buddhamitra, and its commentary by Perundēvanār, a pupil of the author, next claim our attention. The Cōḷa monarch Vīrarājēndra is mentioned by name as a great Tamil scholar;⁵⁶ this fact and the name of the work leave no doubt that it was composed in Vīrarājēndra's reign. The commentary cites the *tiru manni vaḷara* introduction of Rājēndra I⁵⁷ and mentions the battles of Koppam⁵⁸ and Kūḍalśangamam.⁵⁹ Buddhamitra is called 'the ruler of Ponpaṟṟi', in the *pāyiram* or preface to his work; Ponpaṟṟi may be the same as Ponpetti in the Tanjore district,⁶⁰ and the title of Buddhamitra may imply that he got an assignment on the revenues of Ponpetti from the Cōḷa ruler. The *Vīraśōḻiyam* is written in *kalittuṟai* metre and planned on the basis of a synthesis between the Tamil and Sanskrit systems of grammar and rhetoric and comprises the usual five sections: *Sandhi* (*eḻuttu*), *Śol*, *Poruḷ*, *Yāppu* and *Alaṅkāra* (*aṇi*). The author's preference for Sanskrit titles is seen in the names of the first and last sections, while the names and order of the sections show even more clearly his partiality for the Sanskrit system. The work is full of interest for a student of the history of grammatical theory in Tamil.

c34.42

The *Daṇḍiyalaṅgāram* is the only work devoted entirely to a discussion of *alaṅkāra*, or *aṇi* as it is called in Tamil. The name of the work is justified by its closely following the model of Daṇḍi's *Kāvyādarśa*, being in fact a more or less close rendering of it in Tamil. The name of the author and the details of his life and age have disappeared altogether. There is a verse of unknown age which states that the author was the son of Ambikāpati, and was himself called Daṇḍi, that he attained eminence in Sanskrit and Tamil learning, expounding *alaṅkāra* on the lines laid down by Sanskrit rhetoricians. The great poet Kamban is reputed to have had a son Ambikāpati by name, and it is sometimes held that our author was the grandson of Kamban. One of the earliest references to the *Daṇḍiyalaṅgāram* is that by Aḍiyārkkunallār, in his celebrated commentary on the *Śilappadikāram*. The work was also apparently called *Aṇiyiyal*,⁶¹ *Aṇiyilakkaṇam* and *Aṇiyadigāram*. It is composed in *sūtra* style and, like the *Kāvyādarśa*, it treats of the nature of poetry and *kāvya*, and of figures of speech under two generic heads—*arthālaṅkāra* (*poruḷaṇi*) and *śabdālaṅkāra* (*śollaṇi*). The author of the *Prayōgavivēkam*, writing some time in the eighteenth century, says that the author of the *Daṇḍiyalaṅgāram* annotated the *sūtras* and illustrated them himself. This seems probable, and it is interesting to note that some of the illustrative stanzas are in praise of Anapāya Cōḷa.⁶²

First 44 of 101 passages. Read on

Linked texts (83)