4 The Caṅkam Legend. The Texts

In the following chapters we shall mostly deal with the anatomy of the earliest Tamil bardic poetry, selected specimen of the two main genres, akam and puṟam, will be analysed, the thought-content and the form of these poems will be described; as well as their language and structure, the themes and cycles, the formulae, the metre and prosody, in short, the thematic and psychological as well as the formal aspects of these compositions. We shall also deal with the theory of poetics evolved by Tamil scholiasts approximately in the middle of the 1st millennium A.D.

First, however, we shall discuss some other questions pertinent to this early literature: above all, the term and the notion of Caṅkam and Caṅkam literature, the legend of the Caṅkam, and the rationale behind this legend. Second, we must give a detailed account of various anthologies out of which we shall select our examples for analysis.

4.1. Caṅkam (pronounce Sangam). We hear this term again and again. Not only that it is current as the attribute of the literature of the earliest period-in most books and papers dealing with Tamil literature one encounters the term Caṅkam poetry or caṅka ilakkiyam on every page—but also it is used as an attribute of other phenomena, like language (caṅkattamiḻ), or even the whole epoch which is called the “Sangam Age”. The term Caṅkam poetry or Caṅkam literature or even Caṅkam Age means that, according to a persistent indigenous tradition, a literary caṅkam or Academy in Maturai shaped and controlled the literary, academic, cultural and linguistic life of ancient Tamilnad.

The legend about a learned body responsible for and critically controlling the literary output of early Tamil poets is rather late: it seems to occur for the first time in a line by Appar who uses the term caṅkam¹ in Tirupputtūr Tāṇṭakam, st. 3, i.e. in the 7th Cent. It has been fully developed in the commentary by Nakkīrar (ca 650-750 A.D.) to Iṟaiyaṉār Akapporuḷ.² It was much later repeated and even more evolved in Perumpaṟṟap Puliyūr Nampi’s Tiruviḷaiyāṭalpurāṇam, 15 (12th Cent. A.D.).

¹ naṉ pattup pulavaṉāyc caṅkam ēṟi / naṟkaṉakak kiḻitarumikku aruḷiṉōṉ kaṇ “Look at Him who was gracious enough to appear in the assembly (caṅkam) as a poet of fine poems and presented the purse of gold to Tarumi”. For further references to Sangam, and to Maturai as the seat of Tamil learning, cf. Tiruvātavūrār: kūṭaliṉ āynta oṇtīntamiḻ; Cēkkiḻār: talaiccaṅka pulavaṉār tammuṉ; Āṇṭāḷ: caṅkattamiḻ mālai muppatum; Auvaiyār: caṅkattamiḻ mūṉṟun tā; Tirumaṅkai Āḻvār: caṅka mukattamil; Kampar: teṉ tamiḻ nāṭṭakal potiyil tirumuṉivaṉ tamiḻc caṅkam cērkiṟpīrēl; Pērāciriyar’s comm. on Tolk. Marapu: mūṉṟu vakaiccaṅkattu nāṉku varuṇat toṭupaṭṭa cānrōrum. Etc. I suspect one may quote from later literature ad nauseam.

² The account by Nakkīrar of the three “academies” runs verbatim as follows (Kaḷaviyal eṉṉum Iṟaiyaṉār Akapporuḷ mūlamum, Nakkīraṉār uraiyum, ed. K. R. Govindaraja Mudaliar and Vidvan M. V. Venugopala Pillai, 1939, pp. 5-7): “talaiccaṅkam, iṭaiccaṅkam, kaṭaiccaṅkam eṉa muvakaip paṭṭa caṅkam irīiyiṉār pāṇṭiyarkaḷ. avaruḷ talaiccaṅkamiruntār akattiyaṉārum, tiripurameritta viricaṭaik kaṭavuḷum, kuṉṟeṟinta muruka vēḷum, murañciyūr muṭināka rāyarum, nitiyiṉ kiḻavaṉum eṉa ittoṭakkattar ainnūṟṟu nāṟpattoṉpatiṉmār eṉpa. avaruḷḷiṭṭu nālāyirattu nāṉūṟṟu nāṟpattoṉpatiṉmār pātiṉār eṉpa. avarkaḷāl pāṭappaṭṭaṉa ettuṇaiyō paripāṭalum, mutunāraiyum, mutukurukum, kaḷariyāviraiyum eṉa ittoṭakkattaṉa. avar nālāyirattu nāṉūṟṟu nāṟpatiṟṟiyāṇṭu caṅkamiruntā eṉpa. avarkaḷaic caṅkam irīiyiṉār kāyciṉa vaḻuti mutalākak katunkōṉ īṟāka eṉpattoṉpatiṉmar eṉpa. avaruḷ kavi araṅkēṟiṉār eḻuvar pāṇṭiyar eṉpa. avar caṅkam iruntu tamiḻārāyntatu kaṭal koḷḷappaṭṭa maturai eṉpa. avarukku nūl akattiyam.

iṉi, iṭaiccaṅkamiruntār akattiyaṉārum, tolkāppiyaṉārum, iruntaiyūrk karuṅkōḻiyum mōciyum, veḷḷūrkkāppiyaṉum, ciṟu pāṇṭaraṅkaṉum, tiraiyaṉ māṟaṉum, tuvaraikkōṉum, kīrantaiyum eṉa ittoṭakkattār aimpattoṉpatiṉmar eṉpa. avaruḷḷiṭṭu mūvayirattu eḻunūṟṟuvar pāṭinār eṉpa. avarkaḷāl pātappaṭṭaṉa kaliyum, kurukum, veṇṭāḷiyum, viyāḻa mālai akavalum eṉa ittoṭakkattaṉa eṉpa. avarkku nūl akattiyamum, tolkāppiyamum, māpurāṇamum, icai nuṇukkamum, pūta purāṇamumeṉa ivaiyeṉpa. avar mūvāyiratteḻunūṟṟiyāṇṭu caṅkamiruntār eṉpa. avaraic caṅkam irīiyiṉār, veṇṭērcceḻiyaṉ mutalāka muṭatirumāṟaṉ īṟāka aimpattoṉpatiṉmar eṉpa. avaruḷ kaviyaraṅkēṟiṉār aivar pāṇṭiyar eṉpa. avar caṅkamiruntu tamiḻārāyntatu kapāṭa purattenpa. akkālattuppōlum pāṇṭiyanāṭṭaik katal koṇṭatu (v.l. akkālam pōlum). iṉik kaṭaiccaṅkam iruntu tamiḻārāyntār ciṟumētāviyarum, cēntampūtaṉārum (v.l. cēntaṉ pūtaṉārum), aṟivuṭaiyaraṉārum, peruṅkuṉṟūrkkiḻārum (v.l. peruṅkuṭi kiḻār), iḷatirumāṟaṉum, maturaiyāciriyar nallantuvaṉārum, marutaṉiḷanākaṉārum, kaṇakkāyaṉār makaṉār nakkīraṉārumeṉa ittoṭakkattār nāṟpattoṉpatiṉmar eṉpa. avaruḷḷiṭṭu nāṉūṟṟu nāṟpattoṉpatiṉmar pātiṉār eṉpa. avarkaḷāl pātappaṭṭaṉa neṭuntokai nāṉūṟum, kuṟuntokai nāṉūṟum, naṟṟiṇai nāṉūṟum, puṟanāṉūṟum, aiṅkuṟunūṟum, patiṟṟuppattum, nūṟṟaimpatu kaliyum, eḻupatu paripāṭalum, kūttum, variyum, ciṟṟicaiyum, pēricaiyumeṉṟu ittoṭakkattaṉa. avarkku nūl akattiyamum, tolkāppiyamumeṉpa. avar caṅkam iruntu tamiḻārāyntatu āyirattoṇṇūṟṟaimpatiṟṟiyāṇṭu eṉpa. avarkaḷaic caṅkamirīiyiṉār katal koḷḷappaṭṭup pōntirunta mutattirumāṟaṉ mutalāka ukkirap peruvaḻuti īṟaka nāṟpattoṉpatiṉmar eṉpa. avaruḷ kaviyarankēṟinār mūvar pāṇṭiyar eṉpa. avar caṅkamiruntu tamiḻārāyntatu uttara maturai eṉpa”.

For Engl. translation cf. T. G. Aravamuthan,”The Oldest Account of the Tamil Academies”, JORM 1930, 183-201 and 289-317, and K. V. Zvelebil, “The Earliest Account of the Tamil Academies”, IIJ (forthcoming, 1973). From this account it may be seen
1) that by the time Nakkīrar wrote his commentary, the anthologization of the collections (including the rather late Paripāṭal and Kalittokai) must have been already a fait accompli; on the other hand, this account does not mention either the (Eṭṭut)tokai or the (Pattup)pāṭṭu arrangement as such (nor, as a matter of fact, any of the pāṭṭu “lays”);
2) it mentions, for the first time, the Tolkāppiyam as a single grammatical work;
3) the language of this account shows that its author was definitely not identical with any of the older Nakkīrars; there are some rather late forms which indicate that this commentary may be as late as the 8.-9. Century (avarkaḷāl pāṭappaṭṭaṉa, avarkaḷai, kavi, etc.).

Appar seems to be the first (in terms of time) to have used the term caṅkam in the sense we discuss it here. Or, probably, it was Nakkīrar in his commentary. Previous to this, there are a few lines in the old, “Sangam” texts, which might be interpreted as referring to a body of poets and/or scholiasts and critics; however, this conclusion is purely speculative. The lines I have in mind are Maturaikkāñci 761-763: tollāṇai nallāciriyar / puṇarkūṭ ṭuṇṭa pukaḻcāl ciṟappiṉ nilantaru tiruviṉ neṭiyōṉ pōla. In the Pāyiram to Tolk., we read nilantaru tiruvil pāṇṭiyan avaiyattu, where avai, with a rather “long” stretch of imagination (it is of course a loanword < Skt. sabhā-) may be interpreted as caṅkam. Even in the very early texts, though, Maturai is connected specifically with Tamil, cf. Puṟ. 32.5 tentamiḻ naṉṉāṭṭut tītutīr maturai and ib. 58.13 tamiḻ kēḻu kūṭal, Kalitt. nīṇmāṭak kūṭalar pulaṉ nāvil piṟanta col, Ciṟupān. 66-67 tamiḻ nilaipeṟṟa tāṅkaru marapin / makiḻnaṉai maṟukiṉ maturai. The Ciṉṉamaṉūr (1. 29) plate says: makāpāratam tamiḻppaṭuttum maturāpuric caṅkam vaittum.

According to Nakkīrar’s account, there were three “academies” (talaiccaṅkam, iṭaiccaṅkam, kaṭaiccaṅkam). The first Sangam, whose seat was Southern Maturai, now submerged into the sea (kaṭal kollappaṭṭa maturai), lasted 4440 years, and 4449 poets took part in it; the members included gods and sages: Śiva, Muruka, Kubera, and Agastya. Its grammar was Akattiyam (avarkku nūl akattiyam).

The second Sangam, situated in Kapāṭapuram (cf. Vālmīki’s Rāmāyaṇa, Kişk. 42: 13), also submerged in the sea, lasted for 3700 years and included 3700 poets; it had five grammars as norms, among others Akattiyam and Tolkāppiyam.

The third Sangam, situated in today’s Maturai (Uttara or Upper Maturai) lasted for 1850 years under 49 kings beginning with the Lame Tiru Māṟaṉ (Muṭattirumāṟaṉ) and ending with Ukkiraperuvaḻuti; its 449 poets formed a body presided by Nakkīrar. The two normative grammars of this Academy were Akattiyam and Tolkāppiyam.

It is indeed difficult to say whether there is a rationale behind this rather late legend. It is of course not improbable that at the end of the classical epoch, when the early bardic poetry became slowly a matter of a classical past and ceased to be part of a live oral tradition, there existed a body of scholiasts and grammarians who used to decide whether a poem should be acknowledged as part of the classical heritage, written down, preserved and become part of the process of anthologization and codification. However: The earliest, pre-Pallava corpus of Tamil literature itself maintains a complete silence about any such body, though Maturai and Tamil literature are specifically connected (cf. e.g. Puṟ. 58). The earliest Pandya inscriptions do not know anything about any Sangam in Maturai. Though an argumentum ex silentio, it is still pretty damaging, according to my opinion. On the other hand, there are some indications which show that there probably was a rational kernel to the legend; first, some of the names of the kings and poets mentioned in the legend are found in inscriptions and other authentic records (e.g. the poet Peruṅkuṉṟūr Kiḻār). Second, and this is very interesting, according to Nakkīrar, the number of poets of the 3rd Sangam was 449. Now, according to an edition of the early texts known as Caṅka Ilakkiyam (Samājam, 1940), the total number of poets was 473 (+ 88 anonymous); but this number includes 35 poets named after some significant expression in their poems; if we disregard these 35 we get the number 438, and these two numbers, the Samājam total (which must, at the present stage of our knowledge, be taken anyhow as an approximation) and Nakkīrar’s traditional number, come rather near. Or, one may take³ the Samājam total (473) minus the authors of the later portions and poems, the Paripāṭal, Kalittokai, Murukārṛuppaṭai and the invocatory stanzas by Peruntēvaṇār, and arrive at 459, which is still nearer to the traditional 449.

³ Cf. S. Vaiyapuri Pillai, HTLL, 38-39.

⁴ Cf. E. P. Rice, A History of Kararese Literature, 2nd. ed., 1921, pp. 26-27: “Pūjyapāda, also called Devanandi, belongs to the sixth or seventh century … One of his disciples, Vajrānandi, is said to have founded a Tamil saṅgha in Madura”. This does not say much. More important is the account given by Prof. Peterson in Journ. Bombay Branch of RAS, Extra Number to Vol. 17 (1887-1889), p. 74, in A Second Report of Operations in Search of Sanskrit MSS. in the Bombay Circle, April 1883-March 1884: “In a Digambara Darśanasâra, lately obtained from Anhilwâd Pâṭhan, Devasena, who gives his own date as 909, (apparently, from his constant use of that era, Samvat 909 = A.D. 853), tells us that Vajranandi, the pupil of Śri Pûjyapâda, founded the Draviḍa Samgha in Matura of the Deccan in the year 525”after the death of Vikrama”. I give the two passages: (1) siripuṁjja pādasīso dāviḍasaṁghassa kāragovuttho ṇāmeṇa vajjaṇaṁdī pāhuḍavedī mahasattho // paṁcasae chavise vikkamarāyassa maraṇapattassa / dakkhiṇa mahurājādo dāviḍasaṁgho mahāmoho //“.

⁵ Cf. X. S. Thani Nayagam, Ancient Tamil Poetry (xeroxed), 1964, p. 7.

It seems that in 470 A.D., a Drāviḍa Sangha was established in Maturai by a Jain named Vajranandi (the Prakrit term used is daviḍa-sangho). It seems that this Jaina organisation took (among other activities) a great interest in the Tamil language and literature.⁴ It is also true that, among the earliest poets, there occur Jain names (such as Ulōccaṉār, Mātīrttan etc.), that Jaina cosmology and mythology is mentioned in the early corpus (e.g. Puṟ. 175, Akam 59), as well as Jain austerities (Akam 193), that Tolkāppiyaṉār very probably was a Jain, too. The Ciṉṉamaṉūr plates (10th Cent. A.D.) mention a Sangam at Maturai. All this seems to indicate that the cultural prestige of Maturai, the uniformity and fixity of the style and language of the earliest poetry, and the lively interest the Jains and their organisations always took in the Tamil language and culture, provided some basic rational elements for the “Legend of the Sangam”. For the Jain character of the Sangam—and, at the same time, for the purely fictitious number of years traditionally given—there is one more evidence: observe that the number of years given is always a multiple of 37: 37 by 120, 37 by 100, 37 by 50. The typical passion of the Jains for numbers is well-known.⁵

In conclusion one may agree with what K. A. Nilakanta Sastri says in his A History of South India, 3rd. ed., p. 116: “That a college (caṅkam) of Tamil poets flourished for a time under royal patronage in Madura may well be a fact… Some of the names of the kings and poets are found in inscriptions and other authentic records, showing that some facts have got mixed up with much fiction, so that no conclusions of value can be based on it”.

4.2. Caṅkam literature: The term, strictly speaking, should not be used. The Jesudasans are right when they say (A History of Tamil literature, 8); “The title ‘the Sangam Period’ is misleading”. And they admit that it is a name given only for the sake of convenience. Even worse is the term “Augustan” or “Augustus” era of literature (which, if I am not mistaken, was introduced by S. Krishnaswami Iyengar in Tamil Antiquary, No. 5, 1909).

If there is at all an appropriate term for this corpus of conventional literature, it is the term “Classical”. First of all, the so-called Caṅkam poetry is regarded by the Tamils themselves, by the professional historiographers and critics, as well as by intellectual readers, as classical, in the same sense in which we regard some parts of our national literatures as classical. Second, it has been, since probably the 5th-7th Cent. A.D., a finite, “frozen” corpus, a body of texts which had not been expanded since it ceased to be part of a live oral tradition. Since those times, it has become a part of the “classical” heritage as were. Third, it is the expression of a linguistic, prosodic and stylistic perfection; it is a finished, consummate and inimitable literary expression of an entire culture, and of the best in that culture; in this sense, it is truly a “classical” product, a classical literature.

4.3. At this point we shall give at least the most basic data concerning the fifteen texts which form the earliest literary corpus in Tamil. Without the knowledge of this basic information which includes the name of the anthology or poem, the number of stanzas or lines included, the name of the compiler, of the commentator(s), of the editor and a brief characterization of the text, any further discussion is meaningless. Sometimes these facts are by themselves rather revealing. The various anthologies and poems will be described here in chronological order.

Aiṅkuṟunūṟu

Traditionally the third among the anthologies. “(The collection of) five hundred short (poems)”. It owes its name to the fact that it is divided into five groups of 100 short stanzas each, each group being concerned with one of the five basic “physiographic regions” (aintiṇai) in the following order: marutam “riverine”, neytal “littoral”, kuṟiñci “montane”, pālai “arid” and mullai “pastoral”. Each hundred is subdivided into tens or pattu.⁶ The poems have three to six lines each. Stanzas 129 and 130 are not extant. Five poets are credited with the authorship of the work: the centum on marutam was composed by Ōrampōki, on neytal by Ammūvaṇār, on kuṟiñci by Kapilar the Elder, on pālai by Ōtalāntai, on mullai by Pēyaṉ. Peruntēvaṉār composed an invocatory song. The anthology is said to have been made by Pulattuṟai Muṟṟiya Kūṭalūr Kiḻār on the direction of a Cēral king Yāṉaikkaṭ Cēy Māntarañ Cēral Irumpoṟai. The anonymous old commentary on this anthology is not a detailed one, but it is supplemented by a detailed commentary by U. V. Swaminatha Aiyar. A few lines of Aiṅk. appear in Paripāṭal, Cilappatikāram Nālaṭiyār and other later works. There are not many Indo-Aryan loanwords in the text. In Aiṅk. 202 we hear (probably for the first time in Tamil texts) about the kuṭumi “pig-tail” of Brahmin boys (pārppaṇak kuṛumaka … kuṭumit talai). There are 17 allusions to historical incidents in this anthology. The work was first published in 1903 by U. V. Swaminatha Aiyar. There is a good edition in 3 vol. prepared by Auvai S. Turaicami Pillai, publ. by the Annamalai University (1938).

⁶ The arrangement into tens is found also in Patiṟṟuppattu “Ten Tens”, and the traditions of tens continues all through the history of Tamil literature in the Tirukkuṟaḷ, in the bhakti poetry, etc.; it may be of Sanskritic origin, cf. the śataka arrangement. The tens in Aiṅkuṟunūṟu are named after the word or line repeated in each of the ten verses; such poems with recurring lines and phrases show the underlying bardic tradition.

Kuṟuntokai,

“The collection of short (poems)”. Under the original scheme, the collection must have had 400 stanzas, though U. V. Swaminatha Aiyar’s edition has 401 stanzas including the invocatory stanza by Peruntēvaṉār. It includes akam songs by 205 bards. 398 stanzas are indeed kuṟu, “short”, i.e. from 4 to 8 lines. Poems 307 and 391 have 9 lines (and may have been “smuggled into it by careless copyists”, N. Subrahmanian, Pre-Pallavan Tamil Index, p. 6). The compiler was a certain Pūrikkō (a king?) of whom we know nothing else. The colophon is silent about the patron who directed the compilation. Tradition says that Pērāciriyar had written a commentary on all but 20 stanzas of this collection, and that another complete commentary was composed by Nacciṉārkkiṉiyar. Neither is extant now. U. V. Swaminatha Aiyar has published the text in 1937 with a fine and detailed commentary of his own. About 10 phrases occurring in Kuṟuntokai poems appear in later works, like the Tirukkuṟaḷ and Cilappatikāram. There are some interesting Skt. loanwords like amiḻtam (83, 201), yāmam (5), āttirai < yāttirai (293). About 30 poets have Aryan names (Uruttiraṉ, Tēvakulattār etc.). T. S. Arangasami Ayyangar published Kuṟuntokai in 1915 for the first time. Kuṟuntokai contains 27 historical allusions.

Naṟṟiṇai

is mentioned traditionally as the first among the eight collections. The name means “(The collection of poems) on excellent tiņais” or “(The collection) of excellent (poems) on the tiṇais”. The anthology contains 400 songs ranging from 8 to 13 lines. In the extant form, song 234 is missing (a poem quoted as an illustration by the scholiast on Iṟaiyaṉār Akapporuḷ has been included in the 2nd ed. as the missing song 394), and poem 395 is fragmentary. The anthology was made under the patronage of the Pāṇḍya king Paṉṉāṭu tanta Pāṇṭiyaṉ Māraṉ Vaḻuti, but the compiler is anonymous. (The king was also the author of Nar. 97 and 301, and of Kur. 270.) There is a good commentary by P. A. Narayanaswami Aiyar. No ancient commentary is available. The anthology was published in 1914. It contains 59 historical allusions. Quite a number of lines or phrases reappear in Tirukkuṟaḷ. A few lines are found in Puṟam and Akam (e.g. 175), and are later quoted in Cilappatikāram and Maṇimēkalai. The allusion to the legend of a woman who tore off her breast (Kaņṇaki?) occurs in Nar. 312. There are not many Indo-Aryan loanwords in the poems of Naṟṟiṇai.

Patiṟṟuppattu

or “Ten Tens” is a collection of panegyric poems, consisting of ten sections; each ten has been sung by a poet or poetess in praise of a Chera king; each poem is supplemented by an unusually informative colophon, partly in verse and partly in prose. It is therefore a chronicle in verse, devoted exclusively to the Cērals, the ancient rulers of Kerala. Two decades, the first and the tenth, are lost. 39 lines of this work are found in the commentary to Tolk. (4 stanzas) and in Puṟattiṟaṭṭu, a later anthology of war-poetry.

The epilogues or patikams furnish us with details about the author, the hero, his lineage, etc.; they are most probably of later times (possibly added by the compiler), but they seem to have drawn on relatively dependable historical materials. Both the poems and the epilogues provide abundant sources of sociological interest (J. R. Marr, op. cit. 283, 328). Stylistically the poems are similar to the rest of the poetry in akaval (Kailasapathy, op. cit. 29), but a few peculiar regional expressions and usages do occur (M. A. Thiagarajah, The Cēranāṭu during the Caṅkam and the Post-Caṅkam Period, pp. 222 ff.). The II. decade by Kumaṭṭūrk Kaṇṇaṉār, a Brahmin poet, is in praise of Imayavarampaṉ Neṭuñcēral Ātan (the son of Utiyaṉ Cēral and the father of the great Ceṅkuṭṭuvaṉ). This king is said to have beaten the Aryas and the Yavanas, and carved a bow-emblem on the Himalayas.

The III. decade, by a Brahmin poet Pālaik Kautamaṉār, is dedicated to the younger brother of Imayavarampaṉ, king Palyāṉaic Celkeḻu Kuṭṭuvaṉ.

The IV. decade by Kāppiyaṟṟuk Kāppiyaṉār is in praise of Kalaṅkākkaṇṇi Nārmuṭic Cēral, one of the sons of Imayavarampaṉ.

The V. decade, ascribed to the great Paraṇar, sings of the mighty Ceṅkuṭṭuvan, son of Imayavarampaṉ, and contemporary of Gajabāhu I of Ceylon (cca 180 A.D.).

The VI. decade, composed by a poetess called Kākkaipāṭiṉiyār Nacceḷḷaiyār, is dedicated to another son of Imayavarampaṉ, king Aṭukōṭpāṭṭuc Cēralātaṉ.

The II.-VI. decades of the collection are dedicated, as we have just seen, to the Imayavarampaṇ-line of the Cēral kings, and deal with 3 generations of rulers.

The VII. decade composed by the well-known Kapilar is a panegyric on Celvakkaṭunkō Vāḻiyātan who belonged to the second line of the Ceral, the one called Irumpoṟai. The greatest king of this line was probably Peruñcēral Irumpoṟai, the victor of Takaṭūr, praised in the VIII. decade by Aricil Kiḻār.

The IX. decade is dedicated to Iruñcēral Irumpoṟai, the son of Peruñcēral and the grandson of Celvakkaṭunkō. This decade was composed by a vēḷāḷa poet called Peruṅkuṉṟūr Kiḻār. This king, too, won victorious battles with the Cholas and Pāṇḍya. Hence we see, that decades VII-IX deal with the Irumpoṟai line of the Cerals, and again with 3 generations. Both Cēral lines were connected through marriages.

The whole work has an old, brief commentary, which must be later than the 12th Cent. Patiṟṟuppattu was first printed in 1904, edited by U. V. Swaminatha Aiyar who also supplied a detailed commentary.

According to J. R. Marr (op. cit. 311), a number of data indicates an indebtedness to some common but unknown sources: some of the main themes are mentioned with variations in the decade poems, the epilogues, and the later epics, Cilappatikāram and Maṇimēkalai. Hence it is clear that these main themes were transmitted by (oral) tradition.

Akanāṉūṟu

or “The four hundred (poems) in the akam genre” also called Neṭuntokai or “The Anthology of Long (Poems)” is a collection of 400 stanzas on love plus an invocatory stanza on Śiva by Peruntēvaṉār. The number of verses in a stanza ranges from 13 to 31. The anthology was directed by the Pāṇḍyan king Ukkiraperuvaḻuti, and the name of compiler is Uruttiracaṉmaṉ, the son of Maturai Uppūri Kuṭi Kiḻāṉ. There is an old commentary for the first 90 stanzas; the next 70 stanzas have a commentary by the first editor, V. Rajagopala Iyengar; a modern commentary to the entire collection was prepared by N. M. Venkataswamy Nattar and R. Venkatacalam Pillai. The anthology was first published in 1920. The number of poets is 143 (+ Peruntēvaṉār); 114, 117 and 165 are by anonymous authors. The stanzas are arranged according to a peculiar scheme: the stanzas bearing odd numbers belong to pālai (1, 3, 5, 7, …) which means that half of the entire anthology is dedicated to pālai; poems bearing number 2, 8, 12, 18, 22, 28, etc. belong to the kuriñcittiṇai (80 in all); poems bearing number 4, 14, 24. 34. 44, etc. are mullai (40 in all); poems with number 6, 16, 26, 36, etc. are marutam (total 40), and all stanzas having ten or its multiples (10, 20, 30, etc.) are neytal (total 40). In Naṟṟiṇai and Kuṛuntokai the “landscapes” (tiṇais) of the poems are not indicated and no scheme is adopted with regard to their arrangement; S. Vaiyapuri Pillai sees in this fact an indication that Akanāṉūṟu was collected later than Nar. and Kur. (HTLL, p. 27).

The relatively long poems of this collection allowed scope to refer to heroic episodes; the total number of historical allusions is 288 (Kailasapathy, op. cit., 31). From the historical point of view, it is one of the most valuable collections. Some of the more interesting historical allusions are, e.g. in Ak. 251 and 265 (by Māmūlaṉār), the allusion to the Nandas, and in Ak. 69, 281 and 375 to the Mauryas (Mōriyar). In about five poems there are echoes of purāṇic legends (Kṛṣṇa, Rāma, Paraśurāma etc.). There is quite a number of Indo-Aryan loans (e.g. vatuvai, nīti, cikaram, irāman etc.). In Ak. 148 the Yavanas are mentioned whose ships loaded with gold came to Kerala, casting anchor in the river Cuḷḷi, and returned heavy with pepper.

Puṟanāṉūṟu

or “The four hundred (poems) in the genre puṟam”, traditionally the last of the anthologies, historically probably the most valuable, and perhaps the latest of the collections; a careful study would no doubt show that it contains stanzas of different chronological levels, covering probably more than 2-3 centuries. It was considered by the redactors of the anthologies as the collection of heroic poetry par excellence; it is also simply called puṟam, or purappāṭṭu, the heroic songs. Of the 400 poems, two, 266 and 268, are lost; some poems are fragmentary. There is an invocatory stanza on Śiva by Peruntēvaṉār, so that the anthology as it stands contains 397 pieces. The poets represented number 157; 14 poems are anonymous. An old anonymous commentary is available up to stanza 266. There is a modern popular commentary by Auvai S. Turaicāmi Pillai. The anthology was first published by U. V. Swaminatha Aiyar (the excellent introduction is dated September, 1894). 138 poems of the anthology praise 43 kings belonging to the three great dynasties (27 deal with the achievements of 18 Cēral kings, 74 poems praise 13 Cōḻa rulers, and 37 poems laud 12 Pāṇṭiya kings). 141 poems are in praise of 48 chieftains, nine of them regarded prominent enough to be treated in more than 4 poems each (e.g. Atiyamāṉ Neṭumāṉ Añci, Vēḷ, Pāri, Pēkaṉ, Kāri etc.). Some kings emerge strikingly as heroes of Puṟam poems; e.g. Karikālaṉ the Chola or Kuṭakkō Neṭuñcēralataṉ the Chera; clusters of poems in which certain heroes emerge prominently are centred around certain incidents in the heroes’ lives (Kailasapathy, op. cit. 20). The redactors seem to have tried to group the poems on the basis of the kings or chieftains praised in them, but, at the same time, on the basis of many different themes. 121 poems have defective colophons, and owing to this fact their heroes are unknown. More than 100 poems beginning with 248 and ending with 357 have been classified into 30 themes by the colophon writer(s); the heroes are anonymous; this section of Puṟam may contain a very early strata of Tamil heroic poetry. Thus, e.g., there are poems about widowhood and its hardships (248-56), poems praising the prowess of the warhorse (273, 299, 302-4), elegies (260-1, 264-5, 270, apart from other elegies occurring earlier; all in all, there are 43 elegies in Puṟam, Kailasapathy, op. cit. p. 24); from 358 to the end of the anthology, the poems again refer to kings and chieftains. 141 poems in the anthology belong to straight panegyric poetry called pāṭāṇ. As Kailasapathy rightly says, “modern attempts to read ethical and moral motivations into the words of the bards are particularly strained, if not irrevelant” (p. 81), at least as far as most of the poems are concerned. But there are a few poems with gnomic content, and there are a few lines in this anthology—probably under the influence of Jainism and Buddhism, and yet specifically Tamil in spirit—which may be regarded as showing elements of that pragmatic approach and practical and universal ethics which underlies the Tirukkuṟaḷ. There are also elements of reflexion, and some of the poems are fully reflexive, the central idea being mostly the impermanence of life in this world. These poems seem to be of later origin than the more ancient, straightforward war and panegyric songs.

Porunarāṟṟuppaṭai

or “The guide for war-bards” (traditionally the 2nd of the Lays —very incorrectly called “idylls”!—) is probably the earliest among the poems collected later into Pattuppāṭṭu anthology.

The genre āṟṟuppaṭai or “guide” is very productive: it is a poem in which bards are directed by their fellow professionals to famous heroes who are patrons of art. The genre is found in the heroic Anthologies altogether 18 pieces in Puṟam and Patiṟṟuppattu. Five of the “Ten Songs” belong to the genre.

The Porunarāṟṟuppaṭai sends a war-bard (porunar) to the famous Chola king Karikāl. The poem consists of 248 lines in the akaval metre (and a few vañci lines) and was sung by Muṭattāmakkaṇṇiyār. The poet gives biographical facts about the king (especially his great victory at the battle of Veṇṇi), and describes his prowess, conquests, his benign rule; the general wealth and fertility of his Chola country is dealt with, and there is a charming description of the beauties of the river Kāviri. There is also a delightful description of the viṟali, the danseuse, whose charms are treated in minute detail: she has, e.g., varuntunāy nāvin peruntaku cīṟaṭi “small feet of great beauty similar to the tongue of a panting hound”, she has “young fair breasts set so close that a nib could not part them” (īrkku iṭai pōkā ēr iḷa vaṉa mulai) and “her navel is like a water ripple”, while “her venus’ mound seems to be the seat of bees” (nīrp peyar cuḻiyiṉ niṟainta koppūḷ … vantu iruppu aṉṉa pal kāḻ alkul). Finally, there is a very realistic description of a poor minstrel, whose clothes swarm with lice and mites, are soaked with sweat and much patched-up (79-80 īrum pēṇum iruntu iṟaikūṭi / vēroṭu naṉaintu …). The inhabitants of Cōḻanāṭu are pictured as gay folk who likes to eat meat and drink liquor. First published in 1889.

Perumpāṇāṟṟuppaṭai

or “The guide for bards with the large lute” is another of this “guidance” poems; attributed to Uruttiraṅkaņṇaṉār, who also sang the Paṭṭiṉappalai, it has 500 lines in the akaval metre in praise of the chieftain Toṇṭaimāṉ Iḷantiraiyaṉ, the ruler of Kāñci. The perumpaṇar are a class of minstrels (pāṇar) who obviously accompanied their singing or reciting of the songs by playing the pēriyāḻ or large lute. One special feature of this lay is the detailed description of the five physiographical regions (tiṇai) and a mythical account about the origin of the Toṇṭaimāṉ dynasty. The city of Kāñci is eulogized thus: “Among the great cities in this wide-placed earth, girt by the sea that smells of fish, and canopied by the sky, this is the greatest. It is an old city of ancient might and fame, abounding in festivals in which many worship” (Kailasapathy’s translation, op. cit., p. 44). In the lines 316-317, the Yavaṉar are mentioned. The poem describes also the life of the uḻavar-peasants, and there is much material that is of sociological interest. Published in 1889.

Paṭṭiṉappālai

The name is a compound of pattiṉam “maritime town” + pālai “a flower (Mimusops kauki); desert tract, one of the love divisions”. It is a poem by Uruttiraṅkaṇṇaṉār about the proposed separation of a lady from her lover who wants to go to Kāvirippaṭṭiṉam, the capital of the Cholas. It has 301 lines, some of them in the akaval, some in vañci metre, in praise of the great Chola king Karikāl. First there is a lengthy account of the city, then 5 lines dedicated to the love element proper, and the rest of the lines deal with the exploits of Karikāl the Great. The poem gives a vivid portrait of the life in the great harbour, about the big ships and the merchandise they bring, about the paratavar, fishermen, and the kuṟumpar and their feasts—e.g. the cock-fights and ram-fights, dancing and wine-drinking, but also about Buddhist and Jaina monasteries as well as about the worship of Murukaṉ. It describes Karikāl’s struggles to regain his rightful throne, his invasion of enemy lands, the slaves he captured, his activities during peace-times, and his patronage to bards and other artists.

As a lay glorifying a celebrated ancient Chola king, this poem was very popular with the court panegyrists of the later Chola empire (850-1200 A.D.). It is mentioned in inscriptions and literary works of the 11th and 12th Cent. Some of these works say that Karikāl gave 1,600.000 gold pieces (poṉ) to the bard for his song—indeed a royal royalty! The name of the song was also Vañci neṭum pāṭṭu, “The Long Song in the vañci metre”. Indeed there are 153 lines in vañci and 138 lines in akaval metre. According to J. R. Marr (op. cit. 435) the vañci lines were introduced to effect a change of rhythm that would please the listeners. The short staccato vañci lines with their swinging movement were apparently more suited for cataloguing things besides serving as a deliberate contrast to the akaval lines (Kailasapathy, op. cit. 39). Published in 1889.

Kuriñcippāṭṭu,

meaning liter. “The song of the mountains”, narrates the story of premarital love among the people living in the hilly regions. It is the love-poem par excellence, ascribed to the great Kapilar (also called Peruñkuriñci, “The large mountain song”). The story preserved in the colophon accompanying the commentary says that it was composed for the instruction of an Aryan king, called Pirakattaṉ, cf. Skt. bṛhat “great”. This story and the fact that the poem contains a catalogue of 99 flowers typical for the kuṟiñci region, appear to substantiate the suggestion that the poem was composed as a “model”.⁷ This is roughly the content of the lay: A chieftain of the hill-tribe falls in love at first sight with a fair maiden. The love is reciprocated. The girl’s foster-sister helps the lovers to meet and enjoy their love. But the parents find the change in their daughter strange and suspicious. In the belief that she is ill they invite magicians and exorcists, but the cleverness of the foster-sister overcomes all obstacles, and, finally, when the parents are told that the young man saved their daughter twice—once from the danger of drowning and another time from a rogue-elephant—they give their consent. The poem has 261 lines in the akaval metre. There has been some doubt about Kapilar’s authorship (cf. Sivaraja Pillai, Chronology of Early Tamils, 202, who has called the poem a near-forgery committed upon a famous bard, cf. also J. R. Marr, op. cit. 357). Published in 1889.

⁷ Cf. S. Vithiananthan, The Pattuppāṭṭu—a historical, social and linguistic study, PhD thesis, Univ. of London, 1950, p. 20. The catalogues were a rather typical feature in ancient Tamil poetry. We do find catalogues of different items (e.g. the seven great donors), and perhaps the longest catalogue is this one in the Kuṟiñcippāṭṭu. In the midst of the description of a girl and her foster-sister the song bursts into a methodical enumeration of the flowers characteristic for the hilly region (ll. 61-95). The presence of this catalogue has, as Kailasapathy says (op. cit. p. 131), discomforted many modern critics. Chelliah who translated the “Ten Songs” says: this list seems an intrusion, and somewhat detracts from the high poetic level of the poem” (p. 195). But this attitude was rightly criticised by X. S. Thani Nayagam (Nature in Ancient Tamil Poetry, 1953), and we may fully agree with Kailasapathy according to whom the presence of the catalogue need cause no surprise (p. 131). Bardic training included information pertinent to flora and fauna, among other types of information. And our poem was very probably meant to be an exercise in singing the kuṟiñci theme, a model poem, illustrating a type, an informative poem on the kuṟiñci situation (M. Varadarajan, The Treatment of Nature … p. 62). It should also be noted that the catalogue itself has a high phonaesthetic quality, cf. oṇ ceṅ kāntaḷ āmpal aṉiccam / taṇkayak kuvaḷai kuṟiñci veṭci … (26).

Malaipaṭukaṭām.

The title is somewhat obscure; according to some authors, it means “the secretion oozing from the mountain”; according to others, it means “the sound of kaṭām which appears in the mountains”.⁸ The title is taken from a line (348) of the poem itself (and must have been considered poetically very striking; this tendency to pick up “catch-words” or attractive phrases from the poems and give them as titles of poems, or names of authors, if the proper name of the author was lost, is well attested from a number of Anthology poems). The lay has yet another name, Kūttarāṟṟuppaṭai, i.e. “The guide of actors”. The patron celebrated in the lay is Naṉṉaṉ (almost unknown from other sources), and the name of the poet Peruṅkuṉṟūr Peruṅkaucikaṉār. The poem has 583 lines. Various aspects of the life of different communities in the hero’s land are described, and the poem contains exquisite pictures of nature. Published in 1889.

⁸ Cf. P. Kannappa Mudaliyar, Tamiḻ nūl varalāṟu, 1962, p. 109. The line runs malaipaṭukaṭām matirattu iyampa. Probably it is a comparison of an elephant to a mountain; the oozing stands for the sounds emanating from the mountainous region.

Neṭunalvāṭai

means literally “The Good Long North Wind”, implying by metonymy the Cold Season, which is the background of this narrative, ascribed to the famous Nakkīrar, and composed in the akaval, totalling 188 lines. The lay is a unique blend of love and heroic elements, and the pains of separation are its predominant features. It is artistically rather complex and subtle, so that it is often regarded, and probably rightly so, as the best or one of the best of the lays of the bardic corpus.

In respect of language, diction, imagery and subject-matter it is of course—only naturally so—in no way different from the rest of the lays; but, in addition, it has some features that set it apart from the rest: it begins with the beautiful description of nature during the rainy season: “The earth is cold … From chilly boughs hang coloured drops of rain … When sharp winds blow to chill the very hills …” One then travels across the country to the city, to the king’s capital, Maturai. One sees details of the luxury life in the city, and enters the palace, the royal bedchamber, where, surrounded by her maids, the languishing queen lies plunged into grief … “with the tip / Of her rosy finger now and then she spills / The shining tear-drops that in heavy lids / collected, roll down fast”. Her thoughts are far away—and suddenly one is taken to the king’s winter-camp (? at Talaiyālaṅkāṉam), where her lord (? Neṭuñceḻiyaṉ), “at war with numberless foes”, is fully absorbed in his stern duties. In one of the most vivid scenes in the entire bardic poetry one sees the king inspecting at night the camp with wounded warriors. The climax of the poem is a prayer to the Goddess of Victory, Koṟṟavai. As Kailasapathy says (42), “the poem is indeed a tour de force, exhibiting the bard at his best.” Published in 1884.

Maturaikkāñci

is the longest of the lays, containing 782 lines in the akaval metre interspersed with a great number of vañci lines, ascribed to the bard Māṅkuṭi Marutaṉār who was probably the chief court poet of Neṭuñceḻiyaṉ (whose fame the poem celebrates), and also the author of a number of stanzas in Puṟanāṉūṟu. A kāñci is a later genre of “Sangam” poetry; it can be translated as a “hint” or “gentle hint”, a kind of “moral epistle” (M. S. Purnalingam Pillai) based on the philosophy of the instability and perishability of world and life. The poet was probably well versed in this particular genre (cf. his poems in Puṟam anthology). The title can be translated as “The good counsel (given to the king at the city) of Maturai” (according to an old commentator). The poem indeed contains some didactic matter, as do other stanzas composed by Māṅkuṭi Marutaṉār or Māṅkuṭi Kiḻār. There is a graphic description of city life: the description begins with the morning market-place and makes a full circle of twenty-four hours (including some description of Buddhist monasteries and Jain shrines, of the various riches brought back by the king’s warriors from raiding expeditions, a vivid portraiture of thieves etc.). The author was an exceptionally keen observer of men and manners: he has captured successfully the sights and sounds of Maturai in the morning, in the afternoon, during dusk, mignight and dawn. There is absolutely no love element in the poem. The first portion is dedicated to the valour and victories of the greatest hero of the Pāṇḍyas, Neṭuñceḻiyaṉ. The poem ends with a “good council” to the king to be happy throughout the allotted portion of his life.⁹ There are relatively many Aryan loanwords. Maturaik. looks like a later “lay”; Neṭuñceḻiyaṉ might have been ruling in Maturai around 215 A.D. And, indeed, this lay might be dated well in the beginning of the 3rd Century. Published in 1889.

⁹ makiḻntu iṉitu uṟaimati peruma / varaintu nī peṟṟa nāḷ ūḻiyaiyē.

Mullaippāṭṭu,

sung by Nappūtaṉār, is the shortest and one of the most beautiful of the lays. It contains 103 lines in the akaval, out of which only 33 deal specifically with the love theme: of wifely patience and self-control shown by a heroine while her warrior-husband (anonymous) is away on some military campaign. The remaining lines describe the expedition of the hero: the temporary camp in the forest, the hero’s chamber, specially constructed by the Yavanas who are fierce-eyed (61) and clad in toga-like garments; mention is made of milēccar, (Skt. mleccha-), employed as the king’s body-guards, not knowing Tamil and speaking only with gestures (65-66). Interesting is also the mention made of unlearned youngsters (or servants)¹⁰ who are the mahouts of king’s elephants and who utter Northern words (or speak Northern speech).

¹⁰ vatamoḻi payiṟṟi kallā iḷaiñar (35-36); the phrase kallā iḷaiñar occurs also in Porunar. 100 (for attendants or servants of the king), and kallā iḷaiyar occurs in Ciṟupāṇ. 33.

Unlike the other poem on separation between lovers, Neṭunalvāṭai, this lay ends in a note of hope: the triumphant hero is returning swiftly home. Published in 1889.

Ciṟupaṇāṟṟuppaṭai,

“A guide of the minstrel playing the small lute”, has been sometimes acclaimed as the best of the “guidance” poems, though it is the shortest of them: it has 296 lines in the akaval metre. The chief honoured in this poem is Nalliyakkōṭaṉ of the Ōy tribe (cf. Puṟ. 176). The poet’s name is Naṟṟattaṇār. It is a typical “guide” poem, possessing all essential features of this genre. All the conventional scenery is described, as well as the valour and especially the munificence of the hero. The fact that the Seven Great Donors “are mentioned in a catalogue lends colour to the argument that the poem contains later material” (Kailasapathy, 45). It indeed seems to be the last composed in the series of the Pattuppāṭṭu (HTLL by S. Vaiyapuri, 33 and CET by Pillai, p. 202: imitation of the Perumpāṇ.). “The fact that not only the seven minor chieftains, but also the Three Kings and some of their cities are mentioned in a retrospective manner and with remarkable objectivity strongly suggests a later date for the lay” (Kailasapathy, 46). Tamil and Maturai are associated in a special way, and, as Kailasapathy points out, in this lay the connexions between Tamil and the Pāṇṭiya capital which became later legendary, may be seen in its evolution (p. 46, cf. tamiḻ nilaippeṟṟa maturai 66). Rather powerful is the poet’s description of his poverty: the starved bitch laying in the ruined kitchen near a cold hearth with her blind and helpless pups, refusing to suckle them; the wife of the bard cooks without salt (as she cannot afford it) some herbs which she gathered from refuge heaps… Lines 14 to 40 contain one of the most detailed and meticulous descriptions —but also rather charming—of a woman’s body found in classical Tamil literature; this in a kind of antāti arrangement (the offset of a line repeated as the onset of the next line) including the simile known to us from Porunar.: the small feet similar to the tongues of panting dogs (16-17). Published in 1889.

Such phrases and formulae, recurring again and again (cf. the construction kallā iḷaiyar or iḷaiñar, recurring e.g. in Porunar. 100, Mullaip. 35-36 and Ciṟupāṇ. 33) show how intimate and close was the connection between the various poems of the corpus, and how stereotyped and conventional is the language of this bardic poetry. We may indeed say that the 15 poems and collections of poems just described constitute one single corpus—in many ways unique in the literature of the world—stylized to such an extent that it is almost impossible to distinguish what belongs properly to each author.

Table 4.1: Caṅkam Literature Anthologies - Names, Authors, Age, Number of Poems

(a) The Three “Academies”

Name	No. of years	No. of poets	Seat	Grammar
Talaiccaṅkam	4440	4449	Southern Maturai	Akattiyam
Iṭaiccaṅkam	3700	3700	Kapāṭapuram	Akattiyam, Tolkāppiyam +3
Kaṭaiccaṅkam	1850	449	Upper Maturai	Akattiyam, Tolkāppiyam

(b) The Anthologies (tokai)

Name	Number of poems	Length of poems	Authors	Commentaries
Aiṅkuṟunūṟu	500	3-6 lines	Ōrampōki Ammūvaṉār Kapilar Ōtalāntai Pēyaṉ	Old anonymous Modern by U.V. Swaminatha Aiyar
Kuṟuntokai	400 + 1	4-8 lines	205 poets	U. V. Swaminatha Aiyar
Naṟṟiṇai	400 + 1	8-13 lines	174 poets	P. A. Narayanacami
Patiṟṟuppattu	Out of 10 decades, 8 decades available; + patikams		Kumaṭṭūrk Kaṇṇaṉār (2) Pālaik Kautamaṉār (3) Kāppiyaṟṟuk Kāppiyaṉār (4) Paraṇar (5) Kākkaipāṭiṉiyār Naccellaiyār (6) Kapilar (7) Aricil Kiḻār (8) Peruṅkuṉṟūr Kiḻār (9)	Old anonymous Modern by U. V. Swaminatha Aiyar
Akanāṉūṟu	400 + 1	13-31 lines	143 poets V. Rajagopala Iyengar next 70 M. N. Venkataswamy Nattar and R. Venkatachalam Pillai	Old anonymous to 1-90
Puṟanāṉūṟu	400 (266 and 268 lost)	varies	157 poets	Old anonymous up to 266 Auvai S. Turaicāmi Pillai

Name	Author	Hero	No. of lines	Metre
Porunarāṟṟuppaṭai	Muṭattāmakkaṇṇiyār	Karikāl	248	akaval (+ vañci)
Perumpāṇāṟṟuppaṭai	Uruttiraṉ Karṇṇaṉār	Tontaiman Ilantiraiyaṉ	500	akaval
Paṭṭiṉappalai	Uruttiraṉ Karṇṇaṉār	Karikāl	301	vañci (153) and akaval (138)
Kuṟiñcippāṭṭu	Kapilar	anonymous	261	akaval
Malaipaṭukaṭām	Peruṅkuṉṟūr Peruṅkaucikaṉār	Naṉṉaṉ	583	akaval
Neṭunalvāṭai	Nakkīrar	Neṭuñceḻiyaṉ	188	akaval
Maturaikkāñci	Māṅkuṭi Marutaṉār	Neṭuñceḻiyaṉ	782	vañci (+ akaval)
Mullaippāṭṭu	Nappūtaṉār	anonymous	103	akaval
Ciṟupāṇāṟṟuppaṭai	Naṟṟattaṉār	Nalliyakkōṭaṉ	296	akaval