1838.] 



Report on the Mackenzie Manuscripts, 



9 



The last, it is here said, had no offspring, and therefore adopted 

 Viavanatha ixayak who ruled by permission of the Rayer. His race 

 is then given, in the usual order, down to Bangaru Tirumali nayak ; 

 but without any other details than simply a list of names. 



Remarks. — The manuscript was considerably injured by insects, and 

 I therefore had it restored upon paper. 



The ancient Pandiya history having become a subject of some use- 

 ful discussion, adapted to sift out the truth, is a circumstance, which 

 perhaps invests the above brief document with more consequence than 

 otherwise would belong to it. In the Des. Cat. vol. 1. p. 196. art. 

 vii. the entry occurs " Pandiya-rajakal, a paper, b palm-leaves." The 

 MS. above abstracted is the palm-leaf copy. This was translated by 

 me a considerable time since, and not then having had such acquaint- 

 ance with the Des. Catalogue as I have since obtained, I could not tell 

 how to reconcile the discordancy that was discovered, and waited till 

 I should meet with the other copy. This I have lately done. It is the 

 document adverted to, next in order to this one ; and is quite another 

 work, differing in title, in size, and in contents. How the two could 

 have been classed together, as two copies of the same work, I do not 

 presume to determine. Suffice it to state, that the abstract given in the 

 Des. Cat. is entirely deduced from the large paper manuscript, and 

 that the contents of the preceding palm-leaf MS. are silently passed 

 by. 



It may be noted that in neither of these two documents is there any 

 mention of a Marava conquest, and ascendancy over the Pandiya 

 kingdom. The document (or more than one, if there be more) having 

 such mention, will be discussed in due order. 



Allowing for some preceding kings, the list given of those in the 

 yi^^tt offers a point of observation. Professor Wilson in an ap- 

 pendix to his sketch of Pandiyan History, published in the Journal of 

 the Royal Asiatic Society, in the midst of a condescending notice of 

 my 1st vol. of Or. Hist. MSS. seemed fully disposed to reject altogether 

 the evidence of the Supplementary Manuscript" contained in that 

 volume ; because, as he stated, it differed in the names of Pandiyan 

 kings, from all other manuscripts j and this statement being accompa- 

 nied with an imposing list of authorities attached to the sketch, might 

 seem to render it conclusive. Here, however, is at least one other 

 manuscript, which contains the same evidence as the Supplementary 

 Manuscript. Allowing (as both MSS. do) for some preceding king?, 

 and beginning with Soma-Sundara, the list of names is the same in both 

 documents; with a variation only as to the twenlie lb, herein named 



