________________
118
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
[May, 1896.
conundrums, sufficient to amaze and humble the proudest of Tamil Pandits ! For, has he read Eliviruttam or Nariviruttam 726 He may know Kundalakési, but does he know Kundalakésiviruttam? Kaliviruttam, as a metre, he may be familiar with, but has he read Kaviviruttam as a book ? Kändigai, as a mode of exposition, he may know, but what is Kándi ? He may condemn manipraválam, as a mongrel sort of poetic diction, and may even be aware that it is referred to in the commentary in question (for here we actually come upon something that has a basis in fact), but has he had the rare fortune of meeting with it as the title of a Tamil work? But he must feel considerable relief when he comes to Tirumanni-valaru : for, he must know that that is but the initial phrase of a particular stanza in the book under reference, and cannot be itself the title of a treatise. But to be serious, it is a pure waste of time to examine the list. The errors in it are too many and too transparent to mislead any one with the least pretence to Tamil scholarship. In this fanciful list, no doubt, some real namos do occur ; but even these shew only what hazy ideas the author had of their bearing. For instance, "Sangai-authors," if it has any meaning at all, must mean the poets of the Madara college. It might be too bad to sappose that Dr. Burnell could mistake the Augastan age of Tamil literature itself for a particular book; but how else are we to avoid the charge of cross division, which enumeraten, as of co-ordinate importance, the class and some individuals of that class? Further, is there any justification for saying that even these real authors and works are cited in the commentary ? The most patient study does not reveal a word of reference to most of them. On the other hand, there is evidence in the book itself to shew that some of them did not exist to be cited. For instance, Buddhamitra alludes to the Sanskrit grammarian Dandin in a way that could leave but one impression
- vis. that the Tamil Taņdi was yet to be born. With the exception of the Kura!, Náladiyar, and a few other works, the bulk of the illustrations are the commentator's own composition, as the new principles of this Sanskritizing Grammar could not find apt support in the old Tamil literature.
Turning now to the conclusion drawn, does it look probable that such an extensive literature, as must be assumed to have existed from the list given, started into existence in the course of but three centuries of those backward times ? Even supposing there existed no works but those cited in the commentary (which is really difficult to believe), and omitting also the older Saiva" works, which are allowed to have existed, though not cited by Buddhamitra, Dr. Burnell's list would give us ten important works for a century, that is, one standard work, worthy of being cited in a grammar, for every ten years; and yet, the Tamilas were all but recently indifferent to letters ! But the truth is, Dr. Burbell is simply indulging his fancy, and piling up conjecture upon conjecture, to construct his cloudland. Hien Tsiang says not a word about the Tamilas. He simply notes what somebody told him of the people of Mo-lo-kiu-cha. But to the anxious ears of Dr. Burnell, Mo-lo-kia-cbA sounds like Malakůta, and to his no less anxious eyes, the innocent word Manukula in the old Tanjore inscription, though written in characters of two to three inches in height," appears as Malakata ; and forth with, he harries to apply what is said of the people of Mo-lo-kit-cha, not merely to the village of Manukulachůlâmaņi-chaturvedimaigalam, nor even to the delta of the Kávéri where that village is supposed to have been situated, but to the whole Tamil race itself! Untrustworthy As such sweeping assertions about whole nations generally are, the hearsay report of the Chinese pilgrim would appear to be extremely so, when taken along with another choice bit of news, his worthy but unnamed informant seems to have favoured him with The capital of Mo-lo-kiu-cha, Hiuen Tsiang was told, was three thousand li from Kářicht; and General Cunningham, wishing to discover the place, finds himself quite at sea, having to go far out into the ocean beyond Cape Comorin to cover the distance given ! Yet with Dr. Barnell, the bearsay evidence of Hiuen Tsiang about the literary tastes of the people of that
[Nariviruttam actually occurs as the name of Jitakachintamani, Introduction, p. 2.-V. Venkayya.]
Tamil work in Pandit v. Såminadaiyar's edition of the
