While we are roaming about in a world of conjectures and imaginary pictures basing each on a single word or expression accidentally used or met with, it is preposterous to take up the examination of the date of the composition of the Kuṟaḷ. What is gratifying to note is that there is not such hopeless bewilderment in regard to this particular topic. There are three theories that now hold the field. One is that he was a late writer and his date could not have been earlier than the sixth century A.D (History of the Tamils see.p.588). The other is that he flourished sometime in the first century A.D (See G.S. Duraisamy, Tamil Literature, p.89). The third is that he must have lived in the first or second century B.C. As we shall see subsequently the cumulative weight of evidence is in favour of the last date. The following facts lead on to this assumption: 1. The Ceylon traditions assign his contemporaneity with Elela or Alara of Ceylon who flourished from 144 to 101 B.C. 2. The extant Tiruvaḷḷuvamālai, literally the garland of Tiruvaḷḷurvar is an anthology of panegyric verses sung by every one of the poets who constituted the Saṅgam during Vaḷḷuvar's time, thus pointing to the universal appreciation of his great work. Most of these poets flourished in the early centuries of the Christian era. 3. If the books dealing with Aṟam and Poruḷ or politics are indebted to Sanskrit Dharma Śāstras and Artha Śāstras as the didactic nature of the poem warrants, and as Parimēlaḻakar would have it, then, the Poruḷ portion which finds multifarious correspondence with the prescriptions of the Kauṭalya's Artha Śāstra, must be one or two centuries after the Artha Śāstra which is generally accepted as a composition of the fourth century B.C. 4. The correspondence to ideas found in the later Sanskrit literature such as Pañcatantra, Hitopadeśa, Yājñavalkya, Kāmandakiya and Bhartṛhari is due to the fact that these works simple incorporated the floating nīti verses and hence could not necessarily be a source of information to Vaḷḷuvar's work. The source may be common to all. 5. Māmūlanār, an accredited Saṅgam poet, from the fact of his referring to the flooding of the Ganges on the city of Pataliputra, and his non mentioning of the fire which consumed it later on, must have lived at the commencement of the Christian era or even before. His reference to the Kuṟaḷ is valuable as it shows beyond doubt that Vaḷḷuvar lived before him or at least was his contemporary (Tiruvaḷḷuvamālai, st. 8). See for Māmūlanār's date author's Mauryan Polity). 6. The poem has again won the appreciation and approval of Cīttalai Cāttanār, the author of the Maṇimēkalai (Thiruvaḷḷuvamālai st. 10) We know that this Cāttanār was a friend of Ilaṅko-Adigal, the illustrious author of the Cilappadikāram. Both were contemporaries of king Ceṅguṭṭuvan Cēra who is said to have flourished in the second century after Christ. That the Kural must be very much earlier than the author of the Maṇimēkalai. (பெய்யன பெய்யும்பெருமழை என்றவப் பொய்யில் புலவன் பொருளுரை தேறாய், Kādai 22.II.60-61) can be gathered from an unquestionable reference to Vaḷḷuvar. From the circumstance in which this reference occurs, we can claim a far greater antiquity for Vaḷḷuvar than is generally accorded. The lines are put into the mouth of the deity at the Bhūtasatukkam, who is reported to have referred it to a Brāhmaṇa lady Marudi, on whom the son of the king of the land Kakandan cast eyes of love desirous of sexual union. Kakandan, according to the story, is a king and contemporary of the mythical hero Parasurāma, the slayer of the Kṣatriya monarchs. It is interesting to note that the Kuṟaḷ is quoted as an authority in narrating the incident of such old times, as the days of Parasurāma. 7. It may be noted in passing that this poet was called Vaḷḷuvar poyyil pulavaṉ literally the true poet. Cāttanār's appreciation is further confirmed by the poem of his contemporary Maruttuan Damodarnar. 8. The Cilappadikāram which cannot be later than the end of the second century A.D. (முற்பகர்செய்தான் பிறன் கேடு தன்கேடு பிற்பகர் காண்குறூ உம் பெற்றி காண் — C.f. Kādai. 21.II.3-4. பிறர்க் கின்னா முற்பகற்செய்யிற் றமக்கின்னா பிற்பகற் றாமே வரும். (Kuṟaḷ.319)) quotes with approval from the extant Tirukkuṟaḷ. To quote a work as authority it must have been popular for some time and there is thus an irrefutable testimony to point out that it was a composition much older than the Cilappadikāram. 9. The literary data and the peculiar veṇpā metre which it employs in the sutra style of Sanskrit literature of that period afford further proof of the ancient character of the work.
