| Collections and Selections | 141 |
In this respect we have to remember Beschi also. In his works he has mentioned the books that were available during his time and on each he has given a precise opinion.13 This happened to take the form of an analysis, he did not dissect them for historical values. John Murdoch gives for each book in his catalogue, a short synopsis, the author’s name, its price, year of printing, number of pages and publisher’s name. His notes are a source of unending value to any scholar keen on constructing the history of literature. He has also tried to assign dates for certain authors. For instance Murdoch says that Appar’s period is the tenth century A.D.14 This date however has been changed by later research. He has also mentioned native attempt to catalogue similarly. This was by one S. Kasi Chetty of Ceylon. He dates only a few and even these are erroneous. The dates assigned to the early authors, Murdoch feels, should be considered only as a rough estimate.15 But neither is Murdoch correct in all his dates nor Modern researches have changed them (dates).16 Murdoch dealing with the books “Uṭal kūṟu vaṇṇam” reputed to be written Aruṇakirinātar fixes its date as the 16th century A.D. He says it is a short poem, describing stages of human life and may be likened to similar descriptions of Shakespeare.17 Murdoch quotes Caldwell who fixes the period of mūturai as didactic poem as modern. In this work there is a mention of the Turkey bird - vāṉkōḻi. This is not a native Indian bird but an American one and until the advent of this bird in India (by some means) the natives were not aware of it. On this basis he concluded that the work is “Modern.”18 That for purposes of
13. Beschi. “Sentamil”............ 14. M.C.C.P.B. Introduction, P. LXXXIII 15. Ibid. P. LXXXII 16. Srinivasa Pillai, K. S. “Tamil varalāṟu”, 1949, Pp. 69-84 17. M.C.C.P.B. Pp. 166-167 18 Ibid. P. 162 |