are already acquainted with the Rhetoric of Europe to which nothing new is added by the tamil authors”. But he has dealt with this subject in Tamil in his Toṉ̱ṉūl viḷakkam. What he considers as Cōllaṇi cannot be considered as such so far as our conception of aṇi is concerned. Perhaps his conception of ani is elastic.

Beschi in Toṉ̱ṉūl viḷakkam follows Taṇṭi chiefly while writing on rhetoric, but he however, has certain new ideas to contribute. What Naṉ̱ṉūl gives as Poruḷkōḷ, Beschi treats as figures of speech. Eccam was considered by the former in the chapter on ‘word’ but Beschi describes them as figures of speech and attaches to them meanings different from those in Naṉ̱ṉūl except for the oḷiyicai.

Nearly fifteen among the sixty figures of speech which he enumerates are introductions by Beschi³³⁸. He also mentions that figures of speech are present in prose and proceeds to single out the differences between prose and poetry³³⁹. It really adds to the stock of our knowledge of rhetoric.

9. MATTER

Tolkāppiam does not confine itself to the grammatical aspects of Tamil literature. It mirrors subjective and objective elements in poetry. It deals with eight emotions; figures of speech, prosody, poetic tradition come under his province. Later on, prosody has come to occupy a distinct place in the field of the language. Treatment of emotions and figures of speech has been brought under rhetoric. Subjective poetry treats of clandestine love which ripens into unalloyed chaste of life of the wedded pair. It too has become subject matter for a separate study. Objective poetry too shares the same fate. Subjective and objective aspects of poetry have begun to run in the viens of Tamils and have become the marrow and fibre of the Caṅkam Classics.

338. N. S. Pp. 411-19

339. B. A. T. V. Cū. 305 to 313