modification of almost every one of his statements concerning the dates of Tamil authors. The learned Bishop has devoted several pages of his invaluable grammar to a vain discussion of the age of Sundara or Kun Pandya of Trignanasambandar’s time, wrongly identifying him with the Sunder Bendi of the Muhammadan historians, in order to bring the authors of the Devara hymnos down to the 13th century A. D. His statement that ‘the poetical compositions of seven of the twelve Alvars or Vaishnava devotees, followers of Ramanuja, which are included in the Nalayiraprabandam are still more numerous than those of Manikkavachakar, Trignanasambandar and other Saiva devotees,' might be a clear proof of his total ignorance of the magnitude of any of these sacred hymns. And it might be said with greater confidence that he had not seen or even heard of several works in the Tamil language. I do not propose to enter into any detailed examination of his views, as they have already been sufficiently criticised by the late Mr. Sundaram Pillai of Trivandrain.
Classification of Sir W. Hunter and others :--The most prominent among the later writers on Tamil literature is Sir W. W. Hunter. He writes thus: 'The Saivite and Vaishnavite revival of the Brahman apostles in Southern India from the 8th century onwards stirred up a counter movement on the part of the Jains. The Dravidian Buddhists and Jains created a cycle of Tamil literature anti-Brah-
