The Tamils, taken as the type and representatives of the Dravidian race, do not now, owing to early intermixture with the Aryan immigrants, materially differ in physical character from the other curly-haired indigenous population of India. They were at one time, on the ground of the general structure of their language, classed with the Mongoloid (Turanian, Scythian) and even the Australian races, but that classification is rejected by all the leading ethnologists. They form, in fact, with the other members of the group, a separate and distinct family, which is of the dolichocephalic class, and comes near the Indo-European or Aryan type; while there are scattered remnants of a still earlier population of India (Mundas, Kolarians), whose race characteristics, however, do not so essentially differ from those of the Dravidians as to con stitute them a class by themselves. The Tamils proper are smaller and weaker-built than the Europeans, though more graceful in shape. Their physical appearance is described as follows :—a pointed and frequently hooked pyramidal nose, with conspicuous nares, more long than round; a marked sinking in of the orbital line, producing a strongly defined orbital ridge; hair and eyes black; the latter, varying from small to middle-sized, have a peculiar sparkle and a look of calculation: mouth large, lips thick and frequently turgid; lower jaw not heavy, its lateral expansion greater than in the Aryan and less than in the Turanian type, giving to the middle part of the face a marked development and breadth, and to the general contour an obtuse oval shape, somewhat bulging at the sides; forehead well-formed, but receding, inclining to flattish, and seldom high; occiput somewhat projecting; beard considerable, and often strong; colour of skin very dark, frequently approaching to black {Manual of the Administration of the Madras Presidency, Madras, 1885, vol. i., Introd., p. 36; see also Caldwell, Comparative Grammar of the Dravidian Languages, 1875, pp. 558-79). The Tamils have many estimable qualities,—frugality, patience, endurance, politeness,—and they are credited with astounding memories; their worst vices are said to be lying and lasciviousness. Of all the South-Indian tribes they are the least sedentary and the most enterprising. Wherever money is to be earned, there will Tamils be found, either as merchants or in the lower capacity of domestic servants and labourers. The tea and coffee districts of Ceylon are peopled by about 800,000; Tamils serve as coolies in the Mauritius and the West Indies. In Burmah, the Straits, and Siam the so-called Klings are all Tamils (Graul, Reise nach Ostindien, Leipsic, 1855, vol. iv. pp. 113-212).

Language.— The area over ∙which Tamil is spoken extends from a few miles north of the city of Madras to the extreme south of the eastern side of the peninsula, throughout the country below the Ghâts, from Pulicat to Cape Comorin, and from the Ghâts to the Bay of Bengal, including also the southern portion of Travancore on the western side of the Ghâts and the northern part of Ceylon. According to the census of 1881, the number of Tamil-speaking people throughout the province was 12,413,517, inclusive of 21,992 Yerkalas, 3843 Kurumbas, and 287 Irulas, three tribes speaking rude dialects of the language. To these should be added about 160,000 in the French possessions. But, as of all the Dravidian languages the Tamil shows the greatest tendency to spread, its area becomes ever larger, encroaching on that of the contiguous languages. Tamil is a sister of Malayâlma, Telugu, Canarese, Tulu, Kudagu, Toda, Kôta, Gond, Khond (Ku), Urâon, Râjmahâl, Keikâdi, and Brahui, the nine last-named being uncultivated tongues; and, as it is the oldest, richest, and most highly organized of the Dravidian languages, it may be looked upon as typical of the family to which it belongs. The one nearest akin to it is Malayâlma, which originally appears to have been simply a dialect of Tamil, but differs from it now both in pronunciation and in idiom, in the retention of Old-Tamil forms obsolete in the modern language, and in having discarded all personal terminations in the verb, the person being always indicated by the pronoun (F. W. Ellis, Dissertation on the Malayâlma Language, p. 2; Gundert, Malayâlma Dictionary, Introd.; Caldwell, Comparative Gr., Introd., p. 23; Burnell, Specimens of South Indian Dialects, No. 2, p. 13). Also, the proportion of Sanskrit words in Malayâlma is greater, while in Tamil it is less, than in any other Dravidian tongue. This divergence between the two languages cannot be traced farther back than about the 10th century; for, as it appears from the Cochin and Travancore inscriptions, previous to that period both languages were still substantially identical; whereas in the Râmachamtam, the oldest poem in Malayâlma, composed probably in the 13th century, at any rate long before the arrival of the Portuguese and the introduction of the modern character, we see that language already formed. The modern Tamil characters originated “in a Brahmanical adaptation of the old Grantha letters corresponding to the so-called Vatteluttu,” or round-hand, an alphabet once in vogue throughout the whole of the Pândyan kingdom, as well as in the South Malabar and Coimbatore districts, and still sparsely used for drawing up conveyances and other legal instruments (F. W. Ellis, Dissertation, p. 3). It is also used by the Mâppilas in Tellicherry. The origin of the Vatteluttu itself is still a controverted question. The late Dr Burnell, the greatest authority on the subject, has stated his reasons for tracing that character through the Pehlevi to a Semitic source {Elements of South Indian Palaeography, 2d ed., 1878, pp. 47-52, and plates xvii. and xxxii.). In the 8th century the Vatteluttu existed side by side and together with the Grantha, an ancient alphabet still used throughout the Tamil country in writing Sanskrit. During the four or five centuries after the conquest of Madura by the Cholas in the 11 th it was gradually superseded in the Tamil country by the modern Tamil, while in Malabar it continued in general use down to the end of the 17th century. But the earliest works of Tamil literature, such as the Tolkap>piyam and the Rural, were still written in it. The modern Tamil characters, which have but little changed for the last 500 years, differ from all the other modern Dravidian alphabets both in shape and in their phonetic value. Their angular form is said to be due to the widespread practice of writing with the style resting on the end of the left thumb-nail, while the other alphabets are written with the style resting on the left side of the thumb.

The Tamil alphabet is sufficiently well adapted for the expression of the twelve vowels of the language (a, A, i, î, u,Û, e, ê, ο, 6, ei, au), —the occasional sounds of ö and ü, both short and long, being covered by the signs for e, ê, i, Î ; but it is utterly inadequate for the proper expression of the consonants, inasmuch as the one character k has to do duty also for kh, g, gh, and similarly each of the other surd consonants eh, t, t, p represents also the remaining three letters of its respective class. The letter k has, besides, occasionally the sound of h, and eh that of s. Each of the five consonants k, eh, t, t, p has its own nasal. In addition to the four semivowels, the Tamil possesses a cerebral r and l, and has, in common with the Malayâlma, retained a liquid l, once peculiar to all the Dravidian languages, the sound of which is so difficult to fix graphically, and varies so much in different districts, that it has been rendered in a dozen different ways (Λ∕αnuαZ o∕ the Administration of the Madras Presidency, vol. ii. p. 20 sq.). Fr. Müller is probably correct in approximating it to that of the Bohemian r. There is, lastly, a peculiar n, differing in function but not in pronunciation from the dental n. The three sibilants and h of Sanskrit have no place in the Tamil alphabet; but ch often does duty as a sibilant in writing foreign words, and the four corresponding letters as well as J and. ksh of the Grantha alphabet are now frequently called to aid. It is obvious that many of the Sanskrit words imported into Tamil at various periods (Caldwell, loc. cit., Introd., pp. 86 sq. ) have, in consequence of the incongruity of the Sanskrit and Tamil notation of their respective phonetic systems, assumed disguises under which the original is scarcely recognizable: examples are ulagu (loka), uruνam (râpa), arukken (arka), arputam (adbhutam), naichadtiram (nakshatram), irudi (rishi), tick am (dirgha), arasen (râjan). Besides the Sanskrit ingredients, which appear but sparsely in the old poetry, Tamil has borrowed from Hindustani, Arabic, and Persian a large number of revenue, political, and judicial terms, and more recently a good many English words have crept in, such as tiratti, treaty, patlar, butler, Akt, act, kulôb, club, kavarnar, governor, pinnalk6(lu, penal code, slkku, sick, mejastirattu, magistrate. But, as compared with its literary sister languages, it has preserved its Dravidian character singularly free from foreign influence. Of Tamil words which have found a permanent home in English may be mentioned curry {kari), mulligatawny (wιι7αgu, pepper, and tannir, cool water), cheroot {suruttu), pariah {pareiyan).

The laws of euphony (avoiding of hiatus, softening of initial consonants, contact of final with initial consonants) are far more complicated in Tamil than in Sanskrit. But, while they were rigidly adhered to in the old poetical language (Sen-Tamil), there is a growing tendency to neglect them in the language of the present day (Kodun-Tamil). It is true the Tamil rules totally differ from the prevailing Sanskrit; still the probability is in favour of a Sanskrit influence, inasmuch as they appear to follow Sanskrit models. Thus, irul nîkkinân becomes irunîkkinAn; pon pâttiram, porpâttiram; vüttil kanclên, νiittir kanclên; vAlsirumei, vAtsirumei; palan land An, ρalanranddn. Nouns are divided into high-caste or personal and low-caste or impersonal,—the former comprising words for rational beings, the latter all the rest. Only in high-caste nouns a distinction between masculine and feminine is observed in the singular; both haVe a common plural, which is indicated by change of a final n (feminine l) into r ; but the neuter plural termination kal (gal) may be superadded in every case. Certain nouns change their base termination before receiving the case affixes, the latter being the same both for singular and plural. They are for the acc. ei, instr, dl, social 6clu (oclu, udari), dat. ku, loc. il (idattil, in), abl. ilirundu (ininru), gen. udeiya (adu). There is, besides, a general oblique affix in, which is not only frequently used for the genitive, but may be inserted before any of the above affixes, to some of which the emphatic particle ê may also be superadded. In the old poetry there is a still greater variety of affixes, while there is an option of dispensing with all. Adjectives, when attributive, precede the noun and are unchangeable; when predicative they follow it and receive verbal affixes. The pronouns of the 1st person are sing, ndn (ydn), inflexional base en, plural ndm (ydm), infl. nam, including, ndngal, infl. engal, excluding the person addressed; of the 2d person ni, infl. un (nin, nun), plural nir (nîyir, nîvir), nîngal, infl. urn, ungal (num). To each of those forms, inclusive also of the reflexive pronouns tân, tdm, tângal, a place is assigned in the scale of honorific pronouns. As in the demonstrative pronouns the forms beginning with i indicate nearness, those with a distance, and (in the old poetry) those with u what is between the two, so the same forms beginning with e (or yd, as in ydr, dr, who?) express the interrogative. The verb consists of three elements—the root (generally reducible to one syllable), the tense characteristic, and the personal affix. There are three original moods, the indicative, imperative, and infinitive (the 2d singular imperative is generally identical with the root), as -well as three original tenses, the present, past, and future. The personal affixes are—sing. (1) -en; (2) -dy, honorific -ir; (3) masc. -dn, fem. -dl, honor, -dr, neuter -adu ; plural (1) -6m (-dm, -êm) ; (2) -irkal ; (3) masc. fem. -<2rfcα√, neut. -ana. These affixes serve for all verbs and for each of the three tenses, except that, in the future, -adu and -ana are replaced by -um (kkum). It is only in the formation of the tenses that verbs differ, intransitive verbs generally indicating the present by -kir∙ (-kinr-), the past by -d-, -nd-, or -in-, and the future by -v- (-b-), and transitive verbs by the corresponding infixes, -kkir- (-kkinr-), -it-∖(-nd-), and -pp-; but there are numerous exceptions and seemingly anomalous formations. Other tenses and moods are expressed with the aid of special affixes or auxiliary verbs. Causal verbs are formed by various infixes (-ppi-, -vi-, -ttu-), and the passive by the auxiliary pa<lu, to fall, or by un, to eat, with a noun. The following four peculiarities are characteristic of Tamil :—first, the tenseless negative form of the verb, expressed by the infix a, which is elided before dissimilar vow els; second, the predicative employment of two negative particles illei and alla, the one denying the existence or presence, the other denying the quality or essence; third, the use of two sets of participles,—one, called adjective or relative participle, which supplies the place of a relative clause, the language possessing no relative pronouns, and an ordinary adverbial participle or gerund; and, fourth, the practice of giving adjectives a verbal form by means of personal affixes, which form may again be treated as a noun by attaching to it the declensional terminations, thus: pcriya, great; periyôm, we are great; periyômukku, to us who are great. The old poetry abounds in verbal forms now obsolete. Adjectives, adverbs, and abstract nouns are derived from verbs by certain affixes. All post-positions were originally either nouns or verbal forms. Oratio indirecta is unknown in Tamil, as it is in all the othei’ Indian languages, the gerund enru> being used, like iii in Sanskrit, to indicate quotation. The structure of sentences is an exact counterpart of the structure of words, inasmuch as that which qualifies always precedes that which is qualified. Thus the attributive precedes the substantive, the substantive precedes the preposition, the adverb precedes the verb, the secondary clause the primary one, and the verb closes the sentence. The sentence, “Having called the woman who had killed the child, he asked why she had committed such infanticide,” runs in Tamil as follows :— Kulandeiyei kkonrupottavalei afeippittu ni ên ippadi

The child her who had killed having caused to be called, “Thou why thus ppatta sisu-v-atti seydây ênru kêttân.

made child-murder didst?” having said he asked.

Much as the similarity of the structure of the Tamil and its sister languages to that of the Ugro-Tartar class may have proved suggestive of the assumption of a family affinity between the two classes, such an affinity, if it exist, must be held to be at least very distant, inasmuch as the assumption receives but the faintest shade of support from an intercomparison of the radical and least variable portion of the respective languages.

Literature.— The early existence, in southern India, of peoples, localities, animals, and products the names of which, as mentioned in the Old Testament and in Greek and Roman writers, have been identified with corresponding Dravidian terms goes far to prove the high antiquity, if not of the Tamil language, at least of some form of Dravidian speech (Caldwell, loc. cit., Introd., pp. 81- 106; Madras District Manual, i., Introd., p. 134 sq.). But practically the earliest extant records of the Tamil language do not ascend higher than the middle of the 8th century of the Christian era, the grant in possession of the Israelites at Cochin being assigned by the late Dr Burnell to about 750 a.d., a period when Malayâlma did not exist yet as a separate language. There is every probability that about the same time a number of Tamil works sprung up, which are mentioned by a writer in the 11th century as representing the old literature (Burnell, loc. cit., p. 127, note). The earlier of these may have been Saiva books; the more prominent of the others were decidedly Jaina. Though traces of a north Indian influence are palpable in all of them that have come down to us (see, e.g., F. W. Ellis’s notes to the Rural), we can at the same time perceive, as we must certainly appreciate, the desire of the authors to oppose the influence of Brahmanical writings, and create a literature that should rival Sanskrit books and appeal to the sentiments of the people at large. But the refinement of the poetical language, as adapted to the genius of Tamil, has been carried to greater excess than in Sanskrit; and this artificial character of the so-called High-Tamil is evident from a comparison with the old inscriptions, which are a reflex of the language of the people, and clearly show that Tamil has not undergone any essential change these 800 years (Burnell, loc. cit., p. 142). The rules of High-Tamil appear to have been fixed at a very early date. The Tolkdppiyam, the oldest extant Tamil grammar, is assigned by Dr Burnell (On the Aindra School of Sanskrit Grammarians, pp. 8, 55) to the 8th century (best edition by C. Y. Tâmodaram Pillei, Madras, 1885). The Vîrasoliyam, another grammar, is of the 11th century. Both have been superseded by the Nannul, of the 15th century, which has exercised the skill of numerous commentators, and continues to be the leading native authority (English editions in Pope’s Third Tamil Grammar, and an abridgment by Lazarus, 1884). The period of the prevalence of the Jainas in the Panclya kingdom, from the 9th or 10th to the 13th century, is justly termed the Augustan age of Tamil literature. To its earlier days is assigned the Ndladiyar, an ethical poem on the three objects of existence, which is supposed to have preceded the Rural of Tiruvalluvan, the finest poetical production in the whole range of Tamil composition. Tradition, in keeping with the spirit of antagonism to Brahmanical influence, says that its author was a pariah priest. It consists of 1330 stanzas on virtue, wealth, and pleasure. It has often been edited, translated, and commented upon; see the introduction to the excellent edition, just published, by the Rev. Dr Pope, in which also a comprehensive account of the peculiarities of High-Tamil will be found. To the Avvei, or Matron, a reputed sister of Tiruvalluvan, but probably of a later date, two shorter moral poems, called Λttisddi and Ronreiveyndan, are ascribed, which are still read in all Tamil schools. Chintdmani, an epic of upwards of 3000 stanzas, which celebrates the exploits of a King Jιvakan, also belongs to that early Jain period, and so does the Divαkaram, the oldest dictionary of classical Tamil. The former is one of the finest poems in the language; but no more than the first and part of the third of its thirteen books have been edited and translated. Kamban’s Rdmayanam (about 1100 A.D.) is the only other Tamil epic -which comes up to the Chintdmani in poetical beauty. The most brilliant of the poetical productions which appeared in the period of the Saiva revival (13th and 14th centuries) are two collections of hymns addressed to Siva, the one called Tiruvasakam, by Mânikka-Vâsakan, and a later and larger one called Tîvdram, by Sambandhan and two other devotees, Sundaran and Appan. Both these collections have been printed, the former in one, the latter in five volumes. They are rivalled both in religious fervour and in poetical merit by a contemporaneous collection of Vaishnava hymns, the Nâlâyira-prabandham (also printed at Madras). The third section of it, called Tiruvâyrnolj, or “Words of...