Studies in Cola History and Administration c7.121

c7.121

It is enough to observe that as he accepts the view that Karikāla and Senguṭṭuvan were close in point of time, † the testimony of the *Silappadikāram* carries with him the weight of an almost contemporary document. In fact the evaluation of the story of the northern campaign of Karikāla which is given for the first time by the *Silappadikāram* will depend on the nature of our answers to three questions: How long after Karikāla did Senguṭṭuvan rule? Is the *Silappadikāram* to be accepted as genuine, i. e., as the work of Senguṭṭuvan's brother who renounced the world and became a monk? Lastly, what is the nature of the work? Is it such that all statements made in it can be accepted as literally true? We have already indicated our view that Senguṭṭuvan came at least half a century after Karikāla, * if not later. Therefore even if we accept the Śilappadikāram as a genuine work of Iḷaṅgō Aḍigaḷ, and there is no reason why we should not, its evidence on the reign of Karikāla would not be entitled to the same weight as its statements on the reign of Śeṅguṭṭuvan. Short as the period may be, many legends can grow up in two generations. Then if we turn to the nature of the work, we shall find much reason to treat the statements in it with the utmost caution. It is admittedly a romance which teems with legends and supernatural incidents. And legends relating to the Cōḷa dynasty have reached in this work a stage somewhat more advanced than what we find in the ‘eight anthologies’ (*eṭṭu-ttokai*) of the Śaṅgam. Thus for instance only the story of Śibi protecting the dove, offering his own flesh to a vulture, is known to the earlier poems; the Śilappadikāram adds that of Manu executing his son on the chariot wheel. † Moreover, there is a deep political or cultural scheme underlying the structure of the poem. The saintly author makes no secret of the fact that he uses his story as a setting for offering a full and impartial account of the culture and the glory of the three great monarchies of the South. We cannot fail to notice that each of these monarchies is credited with some success or other against the northern Aryan kings. For these reasons it seems to me that unless we have some evidence from early Tamil literature independent of the Śilappadikāram on the northern campaign of Karikāla, it would be wise not to treat this part of the story as history. ‡ And no such evidence is forthcoming.