________________
88
Study of the Civakacintamani
wbich was much employed in the Cankam poems. Because of the structure of the metre Aciriyappā, the words used have a dignified simplicity and picturesqueness which does not interfere with the rapid course of the narration. Further, the require. ments expected of the later epics, such as the treatment of the fourfold ends of life, viz. Dharma, Artha, Kāma and Moksa, are not strictly met in these books.
This situation underwent considerable changes at the time when the Cc. was composed. This is the third stage in the development of the Toțarnilaic-ceyyul, and the distinguishing feature of this stage is the preponderance of Sanskrit elements. In the Cc., Tēvar has made a definite attempt to compose an epic styled after the Sanskrit mahākāvyas. Tamil epics which were written after the Cc. followed the pattern set by it. It is with this in mind that the later critics in Tamil who enunciated the definition of a Perunkappiyam ( mahākāvya ) did so by translating or adapting the definition given in the Tantiyalankāram. The definition of the peruńkāppiyam set forth in this treatise is applicable to works like the Cc. and all subsequent perunkappiyams. But to evaluate the earlier works like the Cilappatikāram and the Manimēkalai in accordance with the tenets of such treatises is certainly inappropriate. Thus for example, Ațiyārkkunallar, who wrote a commentary on the Cilappatikāram, has suggested in his commentary that the Cilappatikāram and the Manimëkalai should both be taken together as forming a single peruńkāppiyam, 1 because neither of them deals with all the four ends of life and the structure and story of the Manimekalai make it seem to be the continuation of the Cilappatikāram. These two epics, even without considering them together, have their own merits as epics which follow Tami literary traditions.
The main characteristic of the Cc. is the influence exerted by the Sanskrit literary form, the mahākāvya. It may be said that Naccinārkinkiyar, who is the author of a commentary on this epic, has failed to a certain extent to point out this aspect of the Cc. At the beginning of his commentary he expresses the folllowing opinion about the literary form under which the Cc should be classified. For clear understanding
1 Ațiyarkkunallar, commentary on the Cilappatikāram,"Uraiccirappuppayiram". 2 The following are the passages in which Nacciņārkkiniyar expreresses the ideas mentioned above :
"It toțarnilaic-ceyyu! Tevar ceykinra kālttirkku nül akattyamum Tolkāppiyamum atalanum, 'muntu-nül kantu muraippatav enni' (Tol. Cirappu) enrātanal, Akatt iyattin valinül Tolkappiyam atalāņum, pirar kuriy nūlkaļ nirampiya ilakkanattana anmaiyánum, an nulir kūriya ilakkanamē itarkk ilakkanam enr unarka.
Avv ilakkaņatiis ceyyul iyalinkaņņē āciriyar pā nānkenrum, avrrai aram, poru), inpattās kuruka venrum kurip pippu ammai mutaliya toțarnilaic-ceyyuçkku ilakkaņam enru kusukinruli, "iļumen moliyan vijumiyatu nuvaliņum" (Tol., cey., 238 ) enpatanal, mellenra collan aram, porul, in pam, vit ennum vilamiya porul payappap palayaiyat oru katai mer koccakattās kūirn, atu tõl ensu kūpinamaiyin, ic ceyyul anganam kuriya tolām en unarka.
.. muntu nūlkațir kāppiyam ennu í vatamoliyāl toțarnilaic-ceyyakkup peyar inmaiyum itarkkup pinpu kuriya nūlkaļ itarkku vitiy aạmaiyam unarka." Nacciņārkkiniyar, commentary on the Co., v. 1.
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
