was worn by dancers. He writes that this work does not rise to the “dignity of an epic”, which I feel, will not be accepted by all Tamil scholars. He nevertheless writes.........it is full of Kaṇṇaki is admirable.

“Cūḷāmaṇi” was edited by Sri C. W. Damodaram Pillai. In Pope’s opinion the Cūḷāmaṇi “has failed to gain popularity among the Tamil People,” The Kuṟaḷ and the Nālatiār are often echoed in this work. In this “there are no passages of special force and beauty” declares Pope.¹⁸¹

There is another review about the “Kuṟiñcipāṭṭu” but the authorship of this review is doubtful.¹⁸²

One of the twin epics, “Maṇimēkalai” was translated by Dr. Pope in several articles contributed to ‘Siddanta Dipika’ volumes 11 and 12. Sri J. M. Nallaswamy Pillai collected and edited them in a book form in 1911. Pope writes that Maṇimēkalai was little known to outsiders and that it was a very interesting work “full of various information regarding Buddhism in South India.”¹⁸³

PUṞAM

“Puṟanāṉūṟu” was edited and published as the 5th large work by Dr. U. V. Swaminatha Iyer. This appeared during Pope’s time and hence he was able to make a good study of it. Beschi has referred to this work but one wonders whether the whole work was available to him for perusal.

“Tamil scholarship was a direct road to poverty”¹⁸⁴ wrote Dr. Pope. This statement shows beyond all doubt, the miserable plight of the Tamil scholars of his day.

Of Puṟanāṉūṟu, Pope says, “The glimpses of ancient manners, thought and conditions of life, afforded by these poems are exceedingly interesting. .....The ancient bards...display...very great

181. Ibid. Dec. 1897

182. Ibid.

183. Pope, Maṇimēkalai, 1911, P. 1

184. P.L.T. Vol.II, No. March 1899, Pp. 227-229