Page:Tamil studies.djvu/350

Rh been celebrated by Kaliyan, he has omitted this important shrine. Taking into account all these facts we are inclined to believe that Srivilliputtur or the 'new village of Villi' should have come into existence only after A. D. 750, and that our Vishnu Chittan or Periyalvar should have flourished between A. D. 840 and 915 ; that is, he might have been a younger contemporary of Kulasekhara Perumal. It is worthy of note that this Alvar who is said to have carried the prize (கிழி) in a religious contest held at Madura, has not celebrated Kudal Alagar of that city, though it has been referred to in one of the hymns of Tirumangai Alvar. We know that Madura has always been a stronghold of Sivaism, and it is quite possible that this Vaishnava temple was closed temporarily by the bigotted Saivites of that city.

On the authority of certain expressions like பரமவைஷ்ணவன்றானாகி &c. which occur in the Madras Museum plates of Jatila Varman, the Editor of 'Sen Tamil' is inclined to put the date of Vishnu Chittan before A.D. 770, making him a contemporary of Jatila Varman or Parantaka I of the Yanamalai inscriptions. If this was so our Alvar should have been as well a contemporary of Tirumangai Mannan and a predecessor of Kulasekara and Nammalvar. But this was not the case for the reasons that are given in the sections dealing with the above saints.

One of the Vaishnava saints was a lady named Kodai. She is also called Andal, and believed to have been the daughter of Periyalvar, பெரியாழ்வார்