parallel ventures of the Nāyanmärs and the Alvārs, the religious revival was at once a Renaissance of devotion and what is more, a Renaissance of Tamil poetry which led to the establishment of a great popular tradition of Tamil verse. A breif general comparative survey of the two traditions of the Tirumurais and the Nālāyiram may be attempted here. Even the legends regarding the canonical arrangements of these hymns are similar in the two cases. As the students of history of Tamil literature are aware of these legends, it is not necessary to recount them here except to point out the salient similarities in them. In the history of Saivite hymnology the idea of collecting all the hymns on hearing the stray hymns occurs first to the Côla emperor and not to Nampiyāzfar nampi, the saint, belonging to Thirunaraiyur near Chidambaram; whereas in the Vaisnavite hymnology the idea occurs to Nathamuni, the saint, who is a priest in the Visnu temple at Kā tțu-mannār Kõil, near Chidambaram. In the former case the task might have been comparatively easy with the royal influence. In the latter, it must have been a herculean task as it had to be undertaken with the individual effort of a poor Brahmin. Anyhow it may be noted that the collection and redaction of Tirumurais was not complete, but it is fortunately complete in the case of the Nālāyiram. In all other respects, the transmission of the Tirumurais and the Nā lāyiram is similar. it may be remarked here that the sacred literature of the Saivites in Tamil poetry is nearly thrice in volume than that of Vaisnavites, the hymns of Campantar alone being nearly as voluminous as all the works of the twelve Alvars put together. This may prove in a way the greater popularity of Saivism than Vaisnavism among the Tamil people of South India. Another feature of striking contrast in both the canons is, that, while the poems of Nathamuni, the redactor of Visnavite canon, who, perhaps, had no Tamil works to his credit, had not found a 37.2
