prevalent among native scholars. Even, if on very rare occasions such a thing did happen the dates or eras were not mentioned. When references were given, natives were satisfied by quoting the lines and left the author and his work unmentioned. To trace the history of literature on the basis of undated works is a Herculean task, and we are well aware of the odds against them. Another difficult task was the unending quest for required manuscripts (ōlai) which were indispensable to construct a history of literature. Despite these odds, we notice how undauntedly they proceeded.

Caldwell earlier had done work on these lines. He constructed a history of literature (Tamil) and tried to assign dates for the various literary works. These dates however, were later found to be erroneous. In the third and subsequent edition of his comparative Grammar of Dravidian this chapter is omitted. Caldwell decided that Tiruvaḷḷuvar was a Jain and hence cannot be assigned a date earlier than the 10th century (A.D.).⁹ He also believed that the Nālaṭiār preceded the Kuṟaḷ.¹⁰ Subsequent European scholars accepted Caldwell’s conclusions despite later research proving otherwise.¹¹

Obviously, if this research had been done during the great grammarian’s time, he would have realised and changed his views. He has the streak of a great research scholar in him, since he willingly changes certain of his opinions (in grammar) in the second edition of his stupendous work when he realised that they were wrong.

The late Dr. R. P. Sethu Pillai, though a great admirer of Caldwell and his works, wants his (Caldwell’s) theory on the History of Literature to be omitted. He has to be judged on the basis of his other works. The fault lay not in Caldwell but in his era-when books and works were difficult to obtain.¹²

9. C.C., C.D.L., II Edition, Introduction, Pp. 130-131

10. Ibid.

12. Sethu Pillai, R. P., “Caldwell Aiyar”, 1944, Pp. 52-53