The Colas c34.46

c34.46

Some of the great commentators must have no doubt flourished in the centuries of Cōḷa rule, but it is difficult to point to definite data bearing on the age of these writers. On the other hand no systematic effort has yet been made to settle the chronological relations among these authors. Iḷampūraṇar, often mentioned as *aḍigaḷ* because he was an ascetic, was no doubt among the earliest of them; he cites the *Divākaram*, and his commentary on the *Tolkāppiyam* is a model of terse and critical elucidation of a difficult text. Sēnāvaraiyar, Pērāśiriyar and Naccinārkkiniyar followed him, and they often cite his views if not always by his name. Except his name and the fact that he composed a commentary on the *Solladigāram* of *Tolkāppiyam*, we know nothing of Sēnāvaraiyar at present; even the name is doubtful, for Sēnāvaraiyar is said to have been the name of a caste, by Mayilai-nāthar, in his commentary on the *Nannūl*. The commentary of Pērāśiriyar is again accessible only for parts of the *Poruḷadigāram*, the work once believed to be his having turned out to be by another hand, Deyvaccilaiyār. Pērāśiriyar also wrote a gloss on the *Tiruccirrambalakkōvaiyār*. He is referred to in terms of very high regard by the commentator of the *Yāpparungalam*; the attempt⁶⁶ to identify him, on that account, with Iṟaiyanār, the mysterious author of the *Kaḷaviyal*, is rather misplaced. Aḍiyārkkunallār who cites the poets of this period, like Jayangoṇḍār and Kūttan, rather freely in his commentary on the *Śilappadikāram*, and Parimēlaḷagar who is criticised by Naccinārkkiniyar⁶⁷ may also have belonged to our period. Parimēlaḷagar wrote excellent commentaries on the *Tirukkuṟaḷ* and *Paripāḍal*.