Studies in Cola History and Administration c6.31.3

c6.31.3

The real solution is that offered by Paṇḍit Svāminātha Aiyar himself;¶ we should understand the word ‘tunjiya’ in the colophon not in the sense ‘died,’ but in the not less usual meaning ‘slept’ or ‘swooned.’ The note in the Nāvalar-caritai which says that the song was despatched to Poygaiyār seems hardly trustworthy; because the poet should, even without such a reminder to him, have known of his king’s fate. The other discrepancies * between the notes in the Caritai and the colophon of Puṟam 74 are too inconsiderable to affect the authenticity of the latter. Again, two objections are urged by Mr. Srinivasa Aiyangar against the colophon to Puṟam 47. It says that by this song Kōvūr Kiḻār saved a fellow poet from being put to death as a spy by Neḍuṅgiḷḷi who died at Kāriyāṟu. First “there is nothing in the poem remotely suggesting a spy;” secondly, “Kōvūr Kiḻār was a favourite of the enemies of Neḍuṅgiḷḷi i.e., Nalaṅgiḷḷi and Kiḷḷi Vaḷavaṉ, and therefore not likely to have any influence with Neḍuṅgiḷḷi.” Neither of these objections is sound. The first objection is easily met. The translation of the poem given by Mr. Srinivasa Aiyangar himself clearly suggests the idea of espionage, or at any rate, of some means of injuring persons. It is this: “The life of these seekers of patronage is free from the blame of harming others.” This in fact is the main argument of the piece and the original is very vigorous: