Beschi’s reading destroys the metre. Another example of this kind of difference in reading is:-

Kur̠aḷ number 880 in Beshci’s reads as “alla” for “allar”, so also for “in̠n̠ā” he reads “in̠n̠a” (No.881). Again for “eñcātu” (No.690) - unfailing - he reads “añcātu” - unfearing.

There is an instance when Beschi’s text is correct but his translation is erroneous. In “Kur̠aḷ” 919 he renders “tōḷ” (shoulder) - as “tōḷ” skin.

Dr. Pope declares that Beschi was wrong in the translation of the couplet number 913.¹³

We must here remember that even Beschi’s translation was in manuscript form. Several manuscript copies of his work must have existed. The Kur̠aḷ manuscript that Beschi read perhaps contained the “reading” he copied. This may account for Beschi’s reading being different, or evidently those who copied from his manuscript committed the mistakes. With all this in view, we are not in a position to ascribe to Beschi these errors.

The “Kur̠aḷ” 913 mentioned above, which Dr. Pope says is “quite wrong” is merely a matter of opinion.

Pope says “To Beschi they” (the Couplets of Kur̠aḷ) “were exponents of the Christian Theology and without doubt Christian influences most affected him.”¹⁴

We have to give Beschi his due credit despite all this. That a foreign missionary cum scholar should spare so much of his valuable time to learn and digest something entirely foreign is really remarkable.

Ellis’ long and close acquaintance with Cuvāmināta Piḷḷai¹⁵ enabled him to make a penetrating study of the Kur̠aḷ and to compare this Tamil masterpiece with other compositions embodying

13. P.T.S.K. P. 304.

14. Ibid. P. 189.

15. E.T.C.; P. 51.