Studies in Cola History and Administration c6.36

c6.36

The second objection stated above also overlooks the argument of the poet, that poets of his kind moved freely from one prince to another not taking account of their political relations, and that it would be wrong to suspect a poet who visited him simply because he had last left the court of a political rival. Further, by saying that Kōvūr Kiḷār was the favourite of the enemies of Neḍuṅgiḷḷi viz., Naḷaṅgiḷḷi and Kiḷḷivaḷavaṉ, Mr. Aiyangar identifies Neḍuṅgiḷḷi who died at Kāriyāru with Neḍuṅgiḷḷi who was besieged at Uraiyūr by Naḷaṅgiḷḷi. If this identification is correct, as most probably it is, then it would transpire that Kōvūr Kiḷār was as much friends with Neḍuṅgiḷḷi as with his foes; for *Puram* Nos. 44 and 45 are by Kōvūr Kiḷār and on Neḍuṅgiḷḷi. In fact this poet's successful efforts in the promotion of peace and mutual good will among the pugnacious princelings of his time come in for special notice and appreciation by Dr. G. U. Pope.* Lastly, about *Puram* 173 Mr. Srinivasa Aiyangar remarks: "It is impossible to regard this ode but as the song of a hungry bard in search of a patron; yet it is attributed to a royal personage by the editor of the *Puram*." This objection seems at first sight to be indeed well-taken. But Paṇṇaṉ is mentioned together with Kiḷḷivaḷavaṉ by Kōvūr Kiḷār in *Puram* 70, and consequently there is no intrinsic difficulty in accepting that Kiḷḷivaḷavaṉ who died at Kuḷamurram and Paṇṇaṉ were contemporaries and that the king might conceivably have composed a song on his friend Paṇṇaṉ. Though the subject-matter of *Puram* 173 seems hardly suited to such a composition, its explanation may be that the poem is conceived as the utterance of a bard, as suggested in all the alternative interpretations given in its commentary.† Let us grant, however, that a real incongruity may have arisen by a wrong poem or colophon having been substituted for the right one at this point. And a close scrutiny may reveal some other instances of a similar character. But it is grossly to exaggerate the issue to say, as Mr. Srinivasa Aiyangar does, that " many more such colophons can easily be found in the anthology" (italics mine). We can hardly expect that in the course of long centuries the anthologies have been transmitted to us without errors in details having crept in. But, for this reason, to cast a doubt on the accuracy of whole groups of poems and their colophons and to reject them wholesale is to apply standards of criticism which would render all historical writing impossible. As is only to be expected in such a case, the practice of writers is often better than would result from a rigid application of the principles enunciated by them, and Mr. Srinivasa Aiyangar himself has made far more use of the Puram Four Hundred than would be proper if he held fast to the criticisms urged by him against the credibility of the poems and the traditions relating to them as found in the colophons. In the next study on Karikāla will be found instances of colophons fully borne out by the texts of poems in different anthologies, sufficient proof that the colophons embody genuine history.