________________
JUNE, 1906.]
THE DIPAVAMSA AND THE MAHAVAMSA.
157
V. 98 ff. we can infer that it was the Presbyters of the second Council who foresaw the fature fall of Buddhist learning and the restoration of the faith by Moggaliputta. Again, in the Dipavansa we find introduced quite abraptly (XII. 64): "The Thera, standing on the summit of the mountain, said to the carriage-driver, 'No, a carriage is not allowed : the Holy One has forbidden it.'” This only becomes intelligible when we add from the Mahāvamsa, XIV. 42, that in the meantime night has passed and that in the morning the king sends his charioteer to the Missaka mountain to conduct thence Mahinda and his friends into the town. Many verses in the Dipavamsa are unintelligible without a commentary.
2. - The Mahāvamsa in comparison with the Dipavamsa.
The Mahāvamsa and the Dipavamsa agree not only in matter, but also in arrangement.
This agreement is so close as to preclude any theory of a purely accidental P. 14.
4. congruity. Two alternatives remain : - (1) that the Mahāvamsa (which is andoubtedly later than the Dipavamsa) has taken matter and arrangement from the Dipavamsa ; or (2) that both have drawn from the same source. The latter assumption is, as we shall see, the correct one.
Only in two cases is there difference of order in the events treated, the Mahavamsa following a tradition neglected in the earlier poem. Quite a number of verses are verbally identical; others, though not identical, closely resemble each other. It is quite likely that the author of the Mahāvamsa knew and copied the author of the Dipavamsa, but it is more probable that for both authors many verses had, as it were, the official impress of tradition. Compare the words in which Asoka communicates to Devānampiyatissa his attachment to
Buddhism (D. XII. 5 = M. XI. 34): "I have taken my refuge in the Buddha, P. 16, the Dhamma and the Sangha; I have avowed myself a lay pupil of the doctrine of the Sakyaputta," and also the words in which Mahinda announces his mission to the king (D. XII. 51 = M. XIV. 8): “ We are monks, O great king, pa pils of the King of Truth. Out of compassion towards thee have we repaired hither from Jambudipa."
In spite of these points of agreement, there is a wide gulf between the Dīpavaṁsa and the Mahāvarga. The composition of the former is clumsy and inartistic. The latter is a work of art, a kavya according to the conception of Indian poetry. This difference is seen at the outset by & comparison of the somewhat turgid and boastfal tone of the Dipuvames with the more moderate tone of the Mahāvarsa, the author of which, however, claims for his work freedom from the faults which characterised the older compositions.
The MSS. of the Mahāvamga give at XXXVII. 50 the words Mahāvamso nitthito. The Commentary, too, stope at this point. It corresponds further with the second last
verse of the Dīpavamsa, XXII. 75. These arguments alone are sufficient to P. 19.
prove that the old work actually closed with these words, and that the succeeding chapters are the work of a later hand. In the later chapters occurs a series of words not found in the older Mahāvama. Again, at XXXVII. 93 there is made mention of the Dāthādbātavamsa, in which the history of the tooth-relic is told. If this be the poem of that name now extant, as I think probable, and not ite Singhalese prototype, the second half of the 37th chapter must have been written after the year 1219. Another instance of agreement is found in the fact that the continuation of the Mahāvamsa begins with the elosing words of the Dipavansa.
Apart from formal differences in the poems, we find important differences in the subjectmatter. While the outlines are essentially the same, the Mabávamsa amplifies old material and introduces new.
