Page:Tamil studies.djvu/230

Rh ascend, in studying the history of the language only to the ninth or tenth century A. D.' And in a third place he assigns the eighth century A. D. as the age of Tolkapyam with the following remark:-‘Whatever antiquity may be attributed to the Tolkapyam it must have been preceded by many centuries of literary culture. It lays down rules for different kinds of poetical compositions, which must have been deduced from examples furnished by the best authors whose works were then in existence. A rule is simply an observed custom'. Don't we observe in these statements apparent contradictions ? Whatever may be the date of the Tolkapyam, did he endeavour to learn the names of the best authors who had furnished examples for that grammar? The truth seems to be that, when his great work was published nearly half-a-century ago, some of the earliest Tamil classics like the Silappadikaram, Manimekalai, Pattuppattu, Purananuru and several others were unknown even to many Tamil pandits of those days. Moreover, his division of Tamil literature into cycles and his determination of the dates of certain important Tamil works were based upon some doubtiul inscriptions of a Rajendra Chola or a Sundara Pandya Deva and upon a misconception that the Alvars were the disciples of the great Vaishnava reformer, Sri Ramanuja Charya. But within the last thirty years epigraphy has progressed so far and has brought to light so many important facts, literary, social, and historical, as to necessitate a complete