In his commentary on Patiṟṟuppattu 43.19-20, Auvai Turaicāmi Piḷḷai highlights the tradition of Tamil kings’ patronage of poets and bards like the Pāṇar continuing even in the 12th century CE in the following words.
 
"பாணர் முதலாயினார்க்கு வழங்கும் வழக்குப்  பிற்காலத்தும்  அரசர்பால் காணப்படுகிறது. பன்னிரண்டாம் நூற்றாண்டிலிருந்த   மூன்றாங்   குலோத்துங்க   சோழன்,  “பெரும் புலவரும் அருங் கவிஞரும் நாப்புறு நல்லிசைப் பாணரும் கோடியரும் குயிலுவரும்   நாடு   நாடு  சென்று  இரவலராய்  இடும்பை  நீங்கிப் புரவலராய்ப்  புகழ்  படைப்பக்”  (S.  I. I. Vol. V. No. 645) கொடை வழங்கிய செய்தி கல்வெட்டுக்களால் தெரிகிறது."
 
Piḷḷai has rendered the relevant portion of the inscriptional text as “perum pulavarum aruṅ kaviñarum nāppuṟu nallicaip pāṇarum kōṭiyarum kuyiluvarum nāṭu nāṭu cenṟu iravalarāy iṭumpai nīṅkip puravalarāyp pukaḻ paṭaippa…”.  This passage occurs as part of the eulogy of Kulōttuṅkaṉ II (not Kulōttuṅkaṉ III as Piḷḷai has stated). The actual inscriptional text is shown in the attachment as perum pulavaru maruṅ kaviñaru nāppuṟu nallicaip pāṇarum koṭiyarum kuyilavaru nāṭunāṭucenṟiravalarā yiṭumpai niṅkip puravalarāyp pukaḻ paṭaippa…
 
One can see that Piḷḷai has split the sandhi as iravalarā yiṭumpai > iravalarāy + iṭumpai, which suggests that under the king's rule poets and bards went from place to place as supplicants and got rid of their suffering, which does not really add to the glory of the king. In order to make sense that fits the spirit of eulogy of the inscription, it seems that the sandhi is better split as in ‘iravalarāya iṭumpai’ much like the case of sandhis we discussed in the Kuṟuntokai 106 thread. The revision will mean that the poets and bards were relieved of the suffering of going from place to place by the king's munificence and they became patrons of others!
 
(By the way, nāppuṟu seems to be a misreading of narappuṟu.)
 
I appreciate any comments.
 
Thanks in advance
 
Regards,
Palaniappan