________________
JUNE, 1906.]
THE DIPAVAMSA AND THE MARAVAMSA.
161
the "old Mahavamsa of the Sibalatthakathā” or the “Mahavamsa of the Sihalatthakatha coinposed by the ancients in the Singhalese language."
It appears that at the Mahāvibāra in Anuradhapura an old commentary to the canonical
writings was preserved, which was designated "Atthakatha." A part of this formed F. 19. the "ancient Mahāvansa," on which the work of Mahānāma rests. Materially, the new work agrees with the old, but is more poetically and evenly set forth.
We have now to consider the nature and compass of the literature which the author of our Mahāvamsa had before him, more especially of the Sihalatthakatha-Mahāvamsa and what position the latter occupied in that literature. The Mahāvaṁsa speaks (Proem, I. 2) of a Mahāvamsa of the ancients, porānehi kato p'eso (scil. mahāvannso). Clearly this refers to the work which formed the basis, known also to the Commentary by the same name. It is farther briefly referred to as Porānā, "the Ancients," which name is mentioned seven times in the
Commentary. Each time occur the words tendhu porānā and one or more Pali P. 50.
W verses follow. Frequent mention of the Porāņā is found in Buddhaghosa's Commentaries, also with Pāli verses annexed. The authority, then, on which the Mahävarsa drew, was interspersed with Päli verses, but was at the same time not merely a collection. The Sumangala-Vilasini cites three Pāli. verses, but also a series of prose passages which emphatically bear the stamp of notes from a commentary. The Porāņā was then a regular Athakathā, in Singbalese prose with Pāli verses, a form still seen in modern Singhalese works. From many passages in the Commentary it is clear that Porāņā and Ațbakathā refer to the same work, and that Sihalatthakathā is only a more exact designation for the authority known more briefly as Atthakathā.
Apart from the two commentaries of Buddhaghosa, nine other works are cited in the
- Commentary, the most important of which are the Uttaravihāratthakathā and the 51-36. Uttaravibāra-Mahavamsa. The whole shews that a rich literature was at the disposal of the author; for at that time there still existed the vast collection preserved in the different monasteries in the shape of commentaries on the canonical writings. A secondary literature, too, had already begun, in which isolated subjects, such as the story of the Bodhi tree, the Topes, and so on, found a place. This literature the Commentary has nsed at all events for subsidiary incidents, the chief of these being drawn from the Sihalatthakathi of the Mahāvihára.
6. - The Contents of the sources.
The Mahavamsa follows closely, on the whole, the Atthakathā: tne Commentary amplifies P. 57.
and supplements from it: hence a combination of the two will give a nearer view of the nature and compass of the basis of the Mahavamsa.
The passages we know to be cited from the Athakathā may be divided into six classes,
vis.
I. - Early History, comprising the legends of the earlier Buddhas, though these may be taken only indirectly from the Atthakathā through the medium of the Jätaka-Nidānakathā. The text of the Commentary and of the Jātaka-Nidānakathā is simply a rendering of the old Singhalese original. Specially interesting is the narrative of the three visits of Buddha to Ceylon. These visits formed an important subject for both the Dipavamsa and Mahāvaṁsa, and both copy closely their original. The points of agreement between the Commentary and the Dipavamsa are also numerous and significant, and shew, too, how detailed the Atthakathā must
