62 



JOURNAL, R.A.S. (CEYLON). [VOL. XIII. 



treatment. On the former of these two points I expect to 

 convince you easily that the subject had in it, in an eminent 

 degree, the " makings "of an epic ; and I think also, as to 

 treatment, that the writer was not unconscious of the oppor- 

 tunity which his subject gave him, but saw its greatness,, 

 grasped it to some extent as a whole, and was elevated to 

 something of the standpoint of a poet by the impression 

 which it made upon his imagination. The vivid conception 

 which he had formed of the person and career of his hero 

 gives to his work both unity and poetic interest. 



Of that magnificent figure and those splendid exploits the 

 author was, I think, an eye-witness. Three considerations 

 lead me to conclude that he was a contemporary: first, and 

 chiefly, the fulness of detail in the whole narrative of Para- 

 krama's life. Secondly, that, in contrast with this, his death 

 is not recorded. It is only said that he reigned thirty-three 

 years ; and between this reference and the main record of his 

 life there is a break in the continuity of the work, chapter 78 

 being in the main a repetition of what has been already 

 stated in chapter 73, and both 78 and 79 being rather retros- 

 pective summaries than contemporary narrative. At that 

 point, — between chapter 77 and chapter 78 — as I conjecture, a 

 later writer took up the pen after Parakrama's death. A third 

 reason for thinking that our author was a contemporary is, 

 that the closing lines of chapter 77 are written in the present 

 tense — a thing which I have not noticed in the conclusion 

 of any other chapter. 



If this is the case, our author stood too near his subject 

 for an epic poet's purpose. Its details were too close to him : 

 he could not see his hero's life a whole. And the conse- 

 quences of this disadvantage are evident in his work. It is 

 too often an accumulation of details, and wanting in breadth 

 of treatment. But although the author either could not, 

 because a contemporary (as I think), or did not, from want 

 of grasp, allow details to be sufficiently merged in broad 

 effect, I still think he did to a great extent grasp Parakrama's 

 career as a whole. If he had been asked to state in what 



