The Bhikṣuṇī Maṇimēkhalai

48 - How Far Historical in Character?
was already indicated, the poets do this either because they took up a
subject which is of a historical character, and the incidents connected
with the subject have reference to these places, or because whatever
be the character of the subject, they bring in these places with a design
to say [14] something regarding them and their rulers by way of
compliment. As a matter of fact, the two possible motives seem to be
combined in the actual works, if the passages of the prologues already
referred to are to be relied on at all as indicating correctly the scope
of the poem.
The two works Śilappadhikāram and Maṇimēkhalai were composed
with a view to their constituting a single epic, though forming two
works. Apart from the prologue, so much is indicated in the
concluding passage of the Śilappadhikāram itself. We have no reason
to hold the view that the prologues were composed so late in point of
time that they cease to be an authority on the work itself. A prologue
to a poem in Tamil could be composed by one of the following:– the
author’s teacher, the author’s fellow disciple, the author’s pupil, or his
commentator. It is the last one that could be far removed in point of
time. All the other three would be, at least can be regarded, as
contemporaries.
The question therefore for us is whether we have any valid reason for
regarding the prologue to the Maṇimēkhalai, or the Śilappadhikāram
for that matter, was composed by the commentator. Maṇimēkhalai
does not appear to have had a commentatory except our venerable
Mahāmahopādhyaya Pandit Swāminātha Aiyar’s; and surely he did
not compose its prologue. In regard to the Śilappadhikāram, we have
two commentators, and neither of the commentators seems to have
composed the prologue in question. Even granting for the sake of