xii of a hero is sung in verses numbering from ten to one thousand.” " As the commentary of the sūtra defines the word ennale (aroregs) as numbering from ten to one thousand evidently on an established convention, no en ceyyu! was normally longer than 1000 verses. Viewed in this light the Muitollayiram must have been a poem in 900 verses only and not 2700 verses. Any further doubt in this regard is removed by an explicit statement in the commentary in which Muitollāyiram is mentioned by name as an example of an en ceyyul.” Another poem of the same length was called Arumpai-t-tollayiram (305thanuš Qārāt of TuSrth). As between the two views, one cannot choose with any assurance of being precise. But in the present state of our knowledge it seems wise to accept the criterion furnished by the sūtra referred to already and accept the position that the original poem was in 900 verses. Apart from the need to be fortified by the clear data for postulating any definite theory the Muttollayiram might not have been such a voluminous work. If it had been so, it would have been preserved in the memory of the succession of generations that followed its composition in a much better manner than is its present tot, Many times the present 108 or 109 verses could have been salvaged if the work had been in 2700 verses, To conclude this section, it seems proper to interpret the the title as the 900 verses in praise of the three crowned kings, the ‘Münru’ referring to the Pantiyan, Cölan and Céran and not multiplying nine hundred. 4. The question of authorship: The name of the author is not mentioned either within the body of the work as it is available, or by the commentators who have made use of this work for illustrative purposes. There are, however, two or three hints about the identity of the author. 10. Ilakháza, Vá!akka/n<-Sütra 477 and its commentary. 11, Ibād-commentary, -
