Dear Indologists,

I have noticed some ōṭuvārs sing the first verse of the Cuntarar Tēvāram by splitting the word perumāṉē by splitting it into peru and māṉē, which does not sound right semantically. Other ōtuvārs keep the word perumāṉē whole. When I mentioned it to a musicologist, he offered the following versions of the verse.

Tiruppaṉantāl Edition

pittāpiṟai cūṭīperu māṉēaru ḷāḷā

ettālmaṟa vātēniṉaik kiṉṟēṉmaṉat tuṉṉai

vaittāypeṇṇait teṉpālveṇṇai nallūr aruṭṭuṟaiyuḷ

attāuṉak kāḷāyiṉi allēṉeṉal āmē

Saiva Siddhanta Edition

pittāpiṟai cūṭīperu māṉēyaru ḷāḷā

ettāṉmaṟa vātēniṉaik kiṉṟēṉmaṉat tuṉṉai

vaittāypeṇṇait teṉpālveṇṇai nallūraruṭ ṭuṟaiyuḷ

attāvuṉak kāḷāyiṉi allēṉeṉa lāmē

Prof. E. Angayarkkanni, in her discussion of the first line of the same verse, considers the line to be of 4 cīrs made up of one īracaiccīr followed by three mūvacaiccīr (cuntarar tēvārap pāṭalkaḷil icai, p. 104), which gives rise to pittā piṟaicūṭī perumāṉē aruḷāḷā. Although she does not discuss other lines of the verse, we can see the third line of the verse would not fit the pattern of the first line.

Is there a ‘correct’ way of splitting the cīrs? Even if such a way exists what would have been the relationship between that and the actual manner of singing by Cuntarar or his followers?

Unfortunately, the Pondicherry T. V. Gopal Iyer edition of the Tēvāram does not give the cīr-based version. Does anyone know if TVG has discussed the prosody of this verse in any of his other publications?

Thank you in advance.

Regards,

Palaniappan