246 journal, r.a.s. (ceylon). [Vol. II., Part II. 



to compare together all the poetical works of the Sinhalese 

 will find that they are all (with the exception of a few in 

 blank verse) written in the same poetical style now used 

 amongst the literary Sinhalese, and that there is no real 

 difference approaching to anything like a dialect between 

 any two of them. Indeed, I fail to perceive any difference of 

 dialect between Totagamuiva, the father of poetry after " the 

 destruction" to which allusion has already been made, and 

 the celebrated Miripenne of the present day. It is how- 

 ever possible that several words which occur in the old 

 poetical works are no longer in use. This, I apprehend, is 

 not a sufficient reason to justify the conclusion that the so- 

 called old dialect was not the Sinhalese ; for, otherwise, we 

 may with equal reason say that Milton and Shakespeare 

 ware not English poets. 



But I trust the question may be satisfactorily disposed of 

 by an inquiry into what the poets themselves called the 

 language or dialect which they wrote. For if (as it is 

 supposed) there be a difference between Elu and Sinhalese, 

 and, moreover, if the first is an obsolete dialect succeeded by 

 the second, the old writers alone could have designated that 

 which they wrote the Elu. Far from this being the case, 

 some of the old writers have called the language in which 

 they sang the Sinhalese ; and some of the modern have 

 designated it the Elu. And very often the same writer has 

 given both the appellations. A reference to books will 

 clearly show that — of which, however, I have no doubt— the 

 Sinhalese and Elu are synonymous terms, and have always 

 been used as such, notwithstanding any slight changes that 

 may have taken place from time to time in the construction 

 of sentences, or in the formation of words, or the elision of 

 letters in the language of the Sinhalese. 



Having but few books to which I can at once have 



