Asiatic Quarterly Review (Full Title: The Imperial and Asiatic Quarterly Review, and Oriental and Colonial Record): Volume XIII, No. 26 [‎496r] (116/238)

The Age of Mdnikka Vdfagar. 329
this circumstance, it would favour my view in bringing down
the period of the Sangam later than the time of Jndna
Sambandhar. But I prefer to give no weight to it. There
is no distinct connection of Jndna Sambandhar with the
narrative, and the legend of the Vanni tree may have
existed long before, and quite independently of, the saint,
as suggested by Mr. Tirumalai Kolundu Pillai.*
We now come to a consideration of the period of
Mdnikka Vd^agar. One great difficulty in ascertaining the
relative age of Tamil literary productions is said to be that
from the earliest ages the Tamil language has undergone
scarcely any change. The action of the Academy in
scrutinizing and regulating grammatical accuracy and atten
tion to fixed rules, while it may have checked the develop
ment of the language, preserved it, it is claimed, from
alteration, so that there is not much scope for distinguish
ing the productions of one age from those of another.t
But possibly the explanation of this may be that none of
the existing literature is as ancient as has been assumed.
Another difficulty is the want of history and of historical^
landmarks which characterizes all the literary works of
Southern India. Occasionally the connection of a writer The lowest of the four classes into which East India Company civil servants were divided. A Writer’s duties originally consisted mostly of copying documents and book-keeping.
with some conspicuous public character whose period may
be ascertained from an inscription gives a clue to the date
at which he wrote, but such signposts are rare. In the
case of Manikka Vd9agar there is nothing of the kind to
guide us. His hymns are generally credited with an age
of several centuries, but neither from the language, nor the
style, nor from the allusions can we find any certain indica
tions of their position in literary history relatively to other
Tamil writings of a respectable antiquity now in existence.
* Tirumalai Kolundu, p. 33.
f Tirumalai Kolundu, pp. 80, 81, and Dr. Caldwell’s “ Dravidian
Grammar,” p. 89, edit. i.
I It may be said once for all that the Tiruvilaiyadal Puranam, by
Paranjoti Munivar, cannot pretend to be historical. Its date is 1051 a.d.
See Duff’s “Indian Chronology,” p. 123, and Mr. Tirumalai Kolundu
p. 50, as to this.