42 
JOURNAL, R.A.S. (CEYLON). [VoL. XXlI. 
The translation of the verse quoted from the Perakumbd Sirita 
(p. 7) is not accurate. It should read: " A royal personage — a 
future Buddha — was born to the Queen Sunetra Maha Devi — the 
golden vine that entwined the celestial tree, the lord Jaya Maha 
Lena, grandson of King Parakrama Bahu, who was the son of 
King Savulu Vijaya Bahu " 
Lastly, I cannot support the attempt to make Alakesvara a 
foreign usurper. It is contended that Girivansa, to which he 
belonged, was a Dravidian family in India. But according to the 
Nikdya Sa')^grahawa (p. 24) the full name of this family was 
Amaragirivasa. Amaragiri is another name for Devanagala (in 
the Kegalla District). The original settlement of the Alakesvara 
family was apparently Devanagala ; and though the original 
founder may have come from India, the family had long been in 
the Island, and the great Alakesvara ought not to be regarded as 
a Dravidian usurper. 
D. B. Jayatilaka. 
APPENDIX G. 
First, with regard to the death of Alakesvara. I do not think 
that that great statesman was murdered at all ; least of all by 
Visidagama, the chief hierarch of the Buddhist church. The 
commanding personality of Alakesvara had been absent from the 
field of Ceylon politics for many years before Parakrama Bahu VT. 
came to the tlirone. The presumption, therefore, is that he had 
been long dead at that time, and that the story of his usurpation 
and of his tragic death which followed in consequence is all a 
picturesque fable invented in later times. 
Secondly, I do not think that King Parakrama Bahu VI. was 
the son of Sri Vira Vijaya Bahu VI. , although that has always been 
the accepted opinion, and is so still. The authority quoted from 
Perakumbd Sirita — far from supporting the accepted opinion — 
seems to go far to destroy it. It says that King Parakrama Bahu 
was the son of Jaya Maha Lena (Secretary for War), a nobleman 
of the Lemeni branch of the royal race. Now, Jaya Maha Lena 
and Sri Vira Vijaya Bahu are clearly not identical. For the one 
was merely a royal scion, while the other was a king ; and the one 
belonged to the Lemeni branch of the royal stock, while the other 
belonged to the " Mehenawara Vansa," the branch sprung from 
the priestess. I think, therefore, that the paternity of Parakrama 
Bahu VI. , as given by the writer, accoFding to the received opinion , 
must be considerably revised. 
W. F. GtrNAWAll£)ANA. 
