Parimelalhagar

A page from the Parimelalhagar's commentary on the 39th chapter of the Tirukkural

Parimelalhagar was born in Kancheepuram in the erstwhile Tondai state in a Vaishnavite Brahmin family and is believed to have lived during the late 13th century CE.[4] He belonged to the lineage of priests of Sri Ulagalandha Perumal temple in his home town.[5] He is also known by various names as Vanthuvarai Perumal, Parimelalhagiyaar, Parimelalhagiyan, and Parimelalhagaraiyan.[6] Sivagyana Munivar mentions him as Parimelalhagiyaar in his work.[6]

Parimel's time has been deduced by referring to various historical accounts.[7] In his venpa verse named “Valluvar seer”, Umapathi Shivachariyar, a poet from the late 13th century, mentions Parimel.[7] In the introductory section of his commentary to Book III of the Kural, Parimel mentions King Bhoja (reigned c. 1010–1055 CE) from the Paramara dynasty and his work Shringara-Prakasha, which has been dated to early 11th century.[7][8] Also scholars assert that Senavarayar preceeds Parimel in time.[7] Thus, Parimel is believed to have been born in early 13th century.[7]

There are accounts of Parimel's living in both the cities of Kancheepuram and Madurai.[6] Verse 41 of the Thondaimandala Sadhagam says that "Parimelalhagar of Kancheepuram served as beacon to the Kural."[6] Additionally, an inscription on a plaque dating back to 1271 CE, which was erected in the 22nd year of the rule of the Telugu Chola King Vijayakanda Gopalan, mentions a land transaction done by Parimelalhagiya Dhadhan.[6] According to M. Raghava Iyengar, this Parimelalhagiya Dhadhan was none other than Parimel.[6] These serve as evidences to the claim that Parimel lived in Kancheepuram. Verses 1547 and 1548 of the Perunthirattu indicate that he was a political figure in the town of Okkur near Madurai in the Pandya Kingdom.[6][9] The word usage that he employed in his Kural commentary (as in couplet 650) appears to be the colloquial version of the language spoken in Tirunelveli district even today.[6] Incidentally, there are also several tombs indicating the name "Parimelalhagar" found across the district.[6] These indicate that he must have lived in the Pandya Kingdom, chiefly Madurai.[6]

Right from his young age, Parimel was well versed in Sanskrit language's Tharka, Vyakarna, Sankya, and Vedanta and Tamil language's Tolkappiyam and other classic literary works.[5] Despite being a Vaishnavite, Parimel had a great knowledge of the Saivite literature.[10] He had a good understanding of Agama, Siddhanta and Vedanta, which are considered vital to unravel the riches of the Tirukkural, which helped him do justice to his commentary.[11][12] When Parimel chose to write a literary criticism, he analysed in depth the works of the previous nine commentators who lived before his time and eliminated the flaws found in those earlier commentaries.[5] When he completed his writing and perfected the work, he decided to stage it in the court of the Pandya ruler.[5] Legend has it that the King wanted Parimel to stage his work seated on a bronze horse mounted in his court.[5] When Parimel did so, the bronze horse moved, serving as an evidence to his scholarly stature.[5] Thus he came to be known as Parimelalhagar (meaning "the handsome equestrian").[5] The name is sometime indicated as "Parimelalhagiyar" and "Parimelalhagaraiyyan". His commentary on the Kural came to be called as "Parimelalhagiyar Virutthi".[5] He is believed to have written the commentary around 1271–1272 CE as indicated in an inscription at the Varadharaja Perumal Temple at Kanchipuram.[13] This is indicated in the work Sasana Tamil Kavi Saritham by Raghava Iyengar.[5] Parimel has also written a commentary on Paripaadal, one of the work of the Eight Anthologies (Ettuthogai).[5] However, the Parimelalhagar commentary on the Tirumurukāṟṟuppaṭai is believed to have been written by a different poet of his namesake.[5]

There are several evidences indicating that Parimelalhagar belonged to the Vaishnavite sect.[6][9] His explanations to Kural couplets 610 and 1103, his reference to the Nalayira Divya Prabandham in various instances, his employment of verses from the Tiruvai Molhi in couplets 349 and 370, and his citing Nammalvar's verses in chapter 39 in the second book all indicate that he was a Vaishnavite.[6][9] While a staunch devotee of Vishnu, Parimel practiced religious tolerance and treated other religions of his time with equal respect.[8]

Parimelalhagar’s commentary is considered by scholars as the best of all ancient commentaries on the Kural text and is esteemed on par with the Kural text itself for its literary quality.[14] Its literary quality is so rich that one has to depend on highly learned intellectuals to completely understand the commentary.[15] Parimel embellishes his commentary by employing similes (e.g., kurals 100, 144, 343, 360. 422, 425, 448, 571, 693, 741, 797, 900)[16] and adding literary accounts where necessary (e.g., kural 63).[17] He quotes from earlier commentators (e.g., kurals 17, 18, 207, 210, 290, 305, 580, 593, 599, 612, 615, 910, 925, 1028),[18] points out varied inferences, and debunks any incorrect inferences.[14] He also provides Tamil translations of Sanskrit terms.[14] At several instances, he extols the best explanations for a particular couplet given by earlier commentators.[14] He also includes in his commentaries literary accounts from both Tamil and Sanskrit literatures.[14] In several places, he points out the Tamil traditions that are in line with the moral of the couplets.[14] He also includes several historical accounts across his commentary (e.g., couplets 100, 144, 514, 547, 771, 773, 785, 899, 900, 935).[18] All these made his commentary coming to known as “Viruddhi Urai” (expandable commentary).[14]

Parimel writes commentaries beginning with an introduction to each book and explains the introductory chapters in each of the Kural books. He analyzes and segregates chapters as subdivisions known as iyals. He summarizes the contents of each chapter with an abstract at the beginning of each chapter, and also connects the previous chapter with the current one in a logical manner, justifying his own way of chapter arrangement. He writes a verbatim explanation to each couplet and clarifies the meaning of difficult words. He also indicates that every manuscript of the Kural by earlier commentators had only verbatim explanations and that detailed commentaries were made by those who published those manuscripts. Below his verbatim explanations, he provides lucid explanations in contemporary language, which contain several well-researched notes. He also provides ample example wherever necessary, employing several literary phrases before his time in prose.[17] Being the last of the medieval commentators, Parimel verily had the opportunity to study the commentaries of all those lived before his time. In most places he agrees with Manakkudavar and cites his work amply. In places where he is in disagreement with Manakkudavar and other early commentators, Parimel debunks their ideas with logical explanations.[19] Although the original text of Parimel's commentary appears in a summary form (known as polhippurai) describing the meaning and moral of a given couplet, later scholars split it in order to simplify it, providing word-by-word meaning.[8]

Parimel is known to be a polymath. His expertise spanned across fields such as ethics, linguistics, philosophy, poetry, logic, meta-physics, theology, music, and medicine. His musical knowledge is expressed in his commentary for Kural 573. His knowledge on medicine can be seen in his commentary for Kurals 941, 944, and 950.[17]

Of all the commentaries available of the Kural text, the Parimelalhagar commentary was the first to be published by modern printing technology and remains the widely published commentary.[31] It was first analyzed, annotated and published by Ramanuja Kavirayar and came to print in 1840.[31] This was followed by another commentary by Tirutthanigai Saravanaperumal Aiyar, which was based on Parimel’s original commentary.[31] Murugesa Mudhaliyar published Parimel’s commentary with explanations in 1885.[14] The annotated Parimel’s commentary by Arumuka Navalar, whose work came out in several editions, remains one of the best Parimel’s commentary ever published.[31] As of 2013, Perimelalhagar's commentary appeared in more than 200 editions by as many as 30 publishers.[32]

Parimelalhagar held Valluvar in high regards for upholding virtue incessantly throughout the work of the Kural. In what is known in the scholarly circle as his most famous quote on Valluvar, Parimel praises Valluvar in his commentary to couplet 322 thus: “It is Valluvar’s innate nature to select the best virtues said in all the known works and present them in a manner that is common and acceptable to everyone.”[7]

Many scholars consider Parimelalhagar's commentary to be highly exquisite that only learned intellectuals can completely grasp the subtleties found in his commentary.[5][15][33] This led to several scholars writing more simplified commentaries to Parimel's commentary in order to bring the work to the general audience.[15][33] Some of these "commentaries to the commentary" include Nunporulmaalai by Thirumeni Rathina Kavirayar,[15] the works of Ramanuja Kavirayar,[15] and the explanatory notes by K. Vadivelu Chettiar in 1919[15] and Ki. Kuppusamy Mudaliar in 1924.[10] George L. Hart regards Parimel's treatise on yoga asanas as one of the purest literary works in Tamil.[34] Simon Casie Chetty, in his Tamil Plutarch, mentions Parimel as a Tamil poet who is renowned mainly because of his commentary on the Tirukkural. Though there were nine other commentaries too, Parimel's is regarded as the best of the ten.[35] Parimel remains the most researched, most praised, and most criticized of all the medieval Kural commentators.[36]

According to P. S. Sundaram, Parimel's commentary on the Kural is praised for his in-depth knowledge of both Sanskrit and Tamil, his acumen in detecting the errors of earlier commentators, and the fulness and brevity of his own commentary.[13] In his commentary, Parimel begins each chapter of the Kural by citing a reason for its placement in the sequence.[13] Scholars such as M. P. Srinivasan interprets Parimel's commentary to some of the Kural couplets as being picturesque in nature.[37]

Parimel is criticised by some Dravidianists of the contemporary era for interpreting certain verses of the Kural text in a more Brahmanical way.[38] According to Norman Cutler, Parimel interpreted the text in Brahmanical premises and terms in accordance with the cultural values of the commentator.[39] Critics point out to the flaw in Parimel's way of defining aram (virtue) at the earlier parts of his work[40] and denounce his explanations to couplets 37 and 501, accusing him of imbibing more ideas from the Sanskrit literature.[36]

All these criticisms notwithstanding, Parimel’s work remains an esteemed one to this day. Scholars opine that the content and structural integrity of the Kural literature remained unsullied over the centuries chiefly because of Parimelalhagar’s commentary to the text.[38] According to M. V. Aravindan, the novel perspectives found in Parimel’s work are praiseworthy.[41] M. Arunachalam considers the variations in Parimel’s explanations as insignificant to the overall esteem of his commentary.[41] According to K. Appadurai Pillai, no critiques of Parimel's work ever acted as a chisel that shaped the form of the rock (the "rock" here denoting Parimel's commentary for the Kural literature) but only remained as the waves that strike against the unshakeable bedrock.[36]

Apart from his work on the Kural, Parimelalhagar has also written commentary on the Sangam works of the Paripaadal[42] and Tirumurugattrupadai.[43]

• Tirukkural
• Ten Medieval Commentators
• Manakkudavar
• Pari Perumal
• Kaalingar
• Paridhi
• Umapathi Shivachariyar

• M. Arunachalam (2005). Tamil Ilakkiya Varalaru, Padhinaindhaam Nootraandu [History of Tamil Literature, 15th century].
• D. M. Vellaivaaranam (1983). Tirukkural Uraikotthu. Thiruppananthal Shri Kasimadam Publications.