600 and Ter cheliyan was a title of Arikesari Parankusan (A. D. 735). Thus it will be seen that the traditional account, which must have originated sometime after the second half of the eighth century, not only gives conflicting details about the three academies, but also throws serious doubts as to their relative ages and their very existence.
Again, the illustrative kovai or garland of verses, quoted in the so-called Nakkirar's commentary on Iraiyanar's Agapporul, frequently refers to the same Pandya king Arikesari Parankusan (Ter-cheliyan) and his military achievements. The commentator, or at any rate the author who committed it to writing, unconsciously betrays himself as Nilakantanar, the tenth in succession from Nakkirar the supposititious writer of the commentary. Allowing twenty years for each generation of studentship, we arrive at A. D. 750—160 or 590 as the age of Nakkirar or of the composition of Agapporul by Iraiyanar. But even this period seems to be too modern for Nakkirar, because the language and subject matter of Tirumurugarruppadai show that he could not have lived later than the fourth century A. D. In this connection it must be observed that none of the members of any of these academies, (excepting a certain writer by the name of Nakkirar) refers to his academy or Sangam. Thus we see that the above account of the academies is a clear fabrication, like all other pauranic tales, out of the names of some Pandya kings, poets and
