________________
OCTOBER, 1924 ]
KOTTAYAM PLATE OF VIRA-RAGHAVA CHAKRAVARTI
227
itine, avarre, ivarre? Is it kalutai, kutirai ? Is it not kalula, kutira ? Is it utaival, itai. yan? Is it not utaval, itayan? Is it ninnai, ennai? Is it not ninne, enne? Is it anamkan, keutumam, mukam, chantiran as the Tamilians would have it? Is it not anamgan, kusumam, mukham, chandran? In short, in poetry we do not find the slightest Tamil forms." (Lilatilakam translated into Malayalam by Arrur Krishna Pisharaţi, p. 11.) While speaking about oertain songs, Lilatilakam says: "In almost all these songs we see Tamilised Malayalam, on account of its intercourse with Tamil. That is why we see, asanta, vifanta instead of alanna, vilanna." (Ibid., p. 17.) From this we learn that during the latter part of the fourteenth century Malayalam poetry was free from Tamil forms. The use of nn for nt and a for ai, eto., which we have discussed in connection with the copper plate in question were the standard forms of expression during the time of the Lalatilakam, i.e., the latter part of the fourteenth century. "The high caste people," the Lilatilakam goes on, "pronounce upava. sam, sarasan, diksha, daivam, samku, puja just as in Sanskrit.” (Ibid., p. 70.) But we should bear in mind that in Vatteluttu there are no characters to write these words correctly. Therefore in pure Vatteluttu inscriptions we see these words in a Tamil form. That does not go to prove that that was the accepted pronunciation in those days. Let me transliterate here certain pieces of Malayalam prose quoted by the Lalatilakam. “Viriñña keavilappú pola yum mariñña kayal pôlayum talarnna mantan pôlayum kúrna ul pôlayum 86 hkunna lôchamam." "Udydnattil chutalata pólayum chútalatayil pamtottu pôlayum pamtottil vangincharttu pôlayum vantincharttil mâragili pôlayum ivvulsavattilall varajatyesha." (Ibid., p. 701) These are just like the modern Malayalam and the Lilatilakam during the last half of the fourteenth century quoted these passages from some Malayalam book. We, therefore, may safely infer that the portions quoted above were the Malayalam of the thirteenth century.
(2) Lot me now quote an inscription of the thirteenth century.
Tiruvallam inscription of Ko. 4 A.D. 1237. Suasti and Kollam 412 amantai tta (nu) viyalam makara ndyíru nyiru irduati inndjai tiruvallattu srimuka mantapattil irunnu cheyitta cheyi kafuolaik laranamamitu.
Matattu chakki Tiurintiso tiruvallattu. Tinkafamdvdtial torum chellumáru kalpichcha chelavu tiruskannappamum matavan tiruvatiklum tiruvamirtimari, .............. nama. sledram.................. ..........m um porkkampari venichapam ulpata ari........ yum arduikkunnampiklou..........ne... tinkal uvdvin-tôrum chellumdru kalpichchari. (Trav. Arch. Series, Vol. I, p. 297.).
Tiruvallam, four miles south of Trivandrum, is a place where even now Malayalam mixed with Tamil is spoken, and the above is a sample of the thirteenth century language of Tiruvallam. There is very little Tamil in it. There must be a world of difference between the thirteenth century language of Tiruvallam and Cranganore. Compare the specimens of the Malayalam prose quoted above from the Lilatila kam and the Tiruvallam inscription, both of the thirteenth oentury, with the language of our copper plate and there is no gainsaying the fact that there is a great deal of difference between the language in them and in Vira Raghava's plate. When we consider this difference, bearing in mind that one of the specimens is from a place where even now a mixture of Tamil and Malayalam is the language, we cannot help concluding that the copper plate is many Oenturies prior to the thirteenth.
(3) Now let us turn to some of the particular forms found in the document under discussion. This document uses the word ulla twice (Itayil Ullata, Chantirátittiya.kalulla). In the Parkara Iravi plates also we find w!!a not olla. In the Tiruvalla temple plates of the
30 Mafattu chakki Tiruvanfi is the name of a person. 31 Timkaļamdoda is tinkaļamdudes. 31 Tivarumirtinnari is the reading which is evidently viruvamirtinpari.