________________
342
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA.
(VOL. XVIII.
of the other title Köyiladhikari which would indicate a subordinate position to Ramar-Tiruvadi, appears to be inconsistent. Rämar-Tiruvadi to whom Kulasēkhara was the Köyiladhikäri (or Agent-in-chief) may be taken to refer to god Rāmēsvara of the Quilon temple, Tiruvadi' being 8 respectful term applied alike to gode, kings, queens and saints. Or again; Rämar-Tiruvadi Köyiladhikärigal may be taken as the proper name of the king and Kulasēkhara as his regal title. If, however, Rämar-Tiruvadi represents & senior king whose Köyiladhikari was Kulasēkhara at that time, then we have to understand that though the latter has styled himself as an independent king in the more northern localities in the 4th and 9th years of his reign, he acknowledged a suzera in in Rāmar-Tiruvadi in the somewhat later Quilon epigraph. Future researches alone can decide this point one way or the other ; but it looks probable that Kulebēkhara of the three records was a Chēra or Cochin king and that Quilon was his southern outpost where in the palace called Papaingāvu' he had encamped on the 9th Chingam of Kollam 278. It may be noted that the Cochin rājas even now style themselves as Köyiladhikarigal in documente pertaining to the landed property of temples, their full title being 'Perumba dappu Gan gādhara Vira-Kerala Tirukkõyiladhikarigal's
The king of this record being assigned to the end of the 11th century A.D., he must be different from Kulasēkhara, the author of the Mukundamāla (a devotional poem considered to be the work of the Vaishṇava royal-saint Kulasēkhara-Āļvār), and the patron of the author of the four yamaka- kāvyas entitled the Yudhishthiravijaya, the Tripuradahana, the Saurika. thodaya and the Nalodaya, and from another Kulasēkhara, the royal author of the two Sanskrit dramas, the Tapatīsamvarana and the Subhadrādhananjaya, and of the undiscovered probe work, the Aécharyamañjari..
The object of the record was to state that the king who was seated in the hall called) Nedi. yatali (at his capital ?) in company with the presidents of the four assemblies and the president of Tirukkun rappolai, issued, after due consultation with his ministers, an order granting the annual income of 40 kalam of paddy and the tax (9) called arandai from the village of Peruneydal for the expenses of feeding certain Brāhmaṇs and for expounding the Mahabharata in that temple. The recipients of the gift were the ür(i.e. the members of the village assembly) and the poduvā! (i.e. officers supervising charitable endowments). This order was conveyed by Răman-Tāyaṇ of Kämakkāpappalli and Nārāyapan-Nārāyanan of Kadambanādu to tho loudipati (headmen or chieftains) of the two villages of Kāpālimangalam and Muttūru, who thereupon met in the temple of Peruneydal and, agreeing to refrain from collecting the arandai in obedience to the royal mandate, had this stipulation engraved on & slab of stone and got it set up in the temple compound.
The record is important in that it gives us, though perhaps imperfectly, a glimpse into the official routine of the 12th century in Kērala where, more than in any other place, temple adminis tration was entirely in the hands of yogams(corporations), which were wielding independent power in matters pertaining to temple politics, and which were presided over by the
king.
1 Tror Arch Series. Vol. III, p. 3
Ibid, Vol. IV, p. 9. This palaoof Papaingåva was in existence at the time of the Vēņādu ruler Srivado Inbhankoda (Kollam 149).
Ooohon State Manual, p. 39, and Malabar Quarterly Review, Vol. VIIT, p. 117. • J.R.4.8., April 1925, pp. 263-75.
w mary of Papers of the All-India Oriental Conferenoe, Third Session, pp. 109-16. Malabar Quarterly Review, VIII, p. 110.
