ζή level of excellence and could easily be fitted in. However, in this edition those verses have been excluded pending establishment of their veracity. 2. The probable period of its composition : The problem of fixing the probable date of the work gets more complicated than it would have been had it been a mere lack of mention of the epoch as in most other works by the following factors : (i) While it purports to be a high class panegyric combinning Akam and Puram elements in its artistry it just leaves the student with the need to guess who the appropriate recipients of the praises could have been. . (ii) The authorship is also any body's guess. There is no doubt that the work must have been produced by a master-mind fit to be ranked with any of the authors of the Akanānūru and Puranāmūru. It may also be classified with ample justification that it is the best application of many Akam and Puram motifs evolved by the Tamil grammarians of the classical age, particularly Tolkāppianär. (iii) If the Päyiram (Preface) of the work had been saved, it would perhaps have thrown at least indirect light. (iv) The invocatory part of the work too helps very little, because only one verse has been saved and like the first stanza of Tirukkural it poses difficult question even as to the true religion of the author, though tentatively the belief has been hazarded that he must have been a follower of Saivism. This belief is the basis of the separate section on the religion of Mutollayiram. However, the style and the composition of the work leave very little doubt as to its being a product of the pre-Pallavan period. The Venpä metre of the classical age is patent, and can be easily distinguished from the more sophisticated Venpä of later times, partaking not infrequently of the character of light folk
