________________
The Sanskrit interaction in the literary style...
we have divided his opinion into three points : 1. Akattiyam and Tolkāppiyam are the authoritative treatises on which the Cc. is
based, as there were no other works existing before the period of the Cc. 2. The literary form, the Cc. belongs to is Tol (one of the eight literary forms
discussed by Tolkāppiyar), because it satisfies the requirements for the literary
form Tol. 1 3. The Cc. cannot be called a kāppiyam, because there is no tradition of calling a
Toțarnila ic-ceyyu! by the Sanskrit term kāppiyam before the period of the Cc. and the later treatises on poetics (which call a Toțarnilaic-ceyyul as kāppiyam) cannot be authoritative for the Cc.
If we take his first two points, it is clear that he tries to show that in the Cc. Tevar follows the literary theories of Tolkāppiyam, as it is the 'valioul' ( secondary work) of Akattiyam. It cannot be denied that Tēvar was aware of the Tolkāppiyam and its literary traditions. But at the same time one cannot make the restriction that the Tolkāppiyam is the only work on which Tēvar depends either for his poetical ideas or for his style. A perusal of the Cc. obviously shows his familiarity with the Sanskrit literary works which existed before his age. The examples which will be cited later while analysing the influence of the Sanskrit mahākavya form will furnish proof for this contention.
It is more likely that Tëvar had a knowledge of the treatises written on Sanskrit poetics, and of the works on which they are based. Dandin's Kavyādārša, which was very popular in Tamil land and which was adapted later into Tamil as Tapțiyalankāram (12th century A.D.),3 had a considerable influence on the work of Tēvar. Therefore from the structure and the contents of the Co, (which will be discussed below), it can be seen that it shows not only the impact of the Tolkappiyam and its literary traditions but also the strong influence of Sanskrit literary works and the treatises on Sanskrit poetics which existed before it.
Naccinārkkipiyar's third point, that the Cc. cannot be called a kāppiyam because there was no tradition of calling Toțarnilaic-ceyyuļ a kāppiyam before the time of the Cc., seems somewhat forced. As Ațiyārkkunallar, 4 the commentator on the Cilappatikāram has pointed out, the word kāppiyam was used by authors in Tamil before Tēvar's time. To the Manimekalai Cattapär, while describing the sports of king Killivalavan with his wife Cirtti in a flower garden, says that Killivaļavan enjoyed
1 Sapra, p. 86. 2 Vali-nül is a work which agrees for the most part with its original or Mutanül, and deviates
only in places where the author considers it necessary. 3 K. V. Jagannat han, op. cit., p. 50. 4 Ațiyarkkunallar, commentary on Cilappatikāram, Uraippāyiram.
Sc.-12
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
