No. 55.-1904.] 
PROCEEDINGS. 
309 
who was deported to China was Vira Alakeswara, the nephew of 
Alakeswara the Viceroy. With regard to the tragic end of Alakeswara 
the Viceroy, so graphically described by the author, he could not credit 
either the treachery ascribed to that character, or the part played in his 
downfall by the priest Widagama. He could not believe that so noble 
a soul, who had so long possessed and wielded its real power, would have 
risked the undoing of his work by snatching at the bauble of royalty ; 
nor could he believe that the spiritual head of the Buddhist Church, 
who would not permit the life of a fly to be taken if he could help it, 
would have compassed the death of so great a man and helped in the 
execution of the plot. 
7. Mudaliyar A. M. Gunasekara said the Paper did not contain 
conclusive evidence in support of the alleged disappointment of Ala- 
keswara in becoming king. This was the most important point in the 
Paper for discussion and settlement. The Mahdwansa^ Rdjaratnd- 
hara, and Daladd Pujdvaliya supported the view that he had become 
king. The Rdjaratndkara clearly stated that he had ascended the 
throne under the name of Bhuvaneka Bahu.'"' The evidence in these 
books was important. In conclusion he thanked Mr. Perera for his 
Paper and for having thereby prepared the way for others to make 
further research. 
8. Mr. E. W. Perera said : In the translation I have adopted of 
the passage in the Mahdwansa (chapter XCI., vv. 1-4) I have 
taken the word so in v. 3 gfe signifying " distinguished" or " illustrious," 
qualifying Alagakonara, and not in the sense of " who " or 
that " referring to a word previously mentioned, i.e., Bhuvaneka hujo. 
Irrespective of the Mahdimnsa, contemporary authority is unanimous 
on the point that Alakeswara was not identical with Bhuvaneka Bahu 
V. (vide Appendix C). Alakeswara belonged to the Giriwansa, while 
Bhuvaneka Bahu V. was a scion of the Suriyawansa. In regard to 
the suggestion that there might have been more than one Alakeswara, 
I may point out there were two others, Vira Alakeswara, afterwards 
Wijaya Bahu VI. (vide Appendix), and Kumara Alakeswara, the 
nephew and son respectively of the great minister. However, I think 
it is clearly indicated in the references to him that the Prabhuraja of 
the latter days of Wikkrama Bahu III., the Chief Minister, and 
Prabhuraja of Bhuvaneka Bahu V. (vide Appendix C), the conqueror 
of Tamils and Chinese and the aspiring dictator, were the same indi- 
vidual. Doubt has been cast as to the participation of Widagama 
Maha Sami in the assassination of Alakeswara, on the ground that the 
story merely rests on tradition, and that it is unlikely that a Buddhist 
High Priest would lend himself to the commission of murder. The 
JRdjdvaliya narrative (p. 68) distinctly mentions the complicity of 
Widagama Maha Sami in the assassination, and it is only religious 
bigotry that has made the chroniclers gloss over the event. 
9. The Hon. Mr. S. C. Obeyesekere proposed a vote of thanks to 
Mr. Perera for the excellent Paper he had read. It was both interesting 
and instructive. His reference to the Chinese conquest of Ceylon 
ought to stimulate inquiry into a period of our history which is not as 
* De Couto states that Alakeswara became king and reigned twelve years. 
The old paraphrase to Attanagalaioansa contains conflicting evidence, for 
in one place Alakeswara is referred to as minister of Bhuwanaika Bahu 
and in a subsequent place as King of Ceylon. 
