Page:Tamil studies.djvu/239

212 I do not claim any logical exactitude for the above division. But it is the best I could think of, and it represents the different stages in the growth of Tamil literature clearly and succinctly. No doubt one period overlaps the other, and it would be impossible to draw a hard-and-fast line between any two periods.

Tamil literature of course did not begin only with the founding of Academies as indicated in the table. This was preceded by what may be called the pre-academic period. But to attempt any account of it will be a groping in the dark, as all literary evidence we now possess relates either to the academic or to the post-academic period. Some Tamil scholars still believe that Agastya invented the Tamil alphabet. This is certainly erroneous. The use of pure Tamil words like எழுத்து and சுவடி by Agastya proves unmistakably the existence of the Tamil alphabet and the use of books among the Tamils long before his days. And even the compilation of the first grammar for this language by this Aryan sage, after the Sanskrit model, is an argument in favour of the pre-existence of literature among the Tamils of antiquity. That literature always precedes grammar is a stern philological fact recognized by Agastya and later grammarians. எள்ளினின் றெண்ணை யெடுப்பதுபோல இலக்கியத்தினின் றெடுபடு மிலக்கணம்.—Agat. இலக்கியங் கண்டதற் கிலக்கணமியம்பல்.—Nan.