Chapter II: Literary Position

[29] The history of the Vaṁsa literature is fairly old in India. The word vaṁsa or vaṁśa itself was taken to mean tanti (lineage), which is just another word for anvaya. All the three words carry with them the idea of paramparā or lineal succession. Among the Brāhmaṇas, we have one bearing the title of Vaṁśa-Brāhmaṇa, which contains the lineal succession of the Brahman teachers of old. Such vaṁśas are appended to some of the chapters of the Bhad Āraṇyaka Brāhmaṇa Upaniṣad.

So far as the Pali Canon is concerned, the Buddhavaṁsa is the only work which bears the vaṁsa title. Here, too, we have just a lineage of the greatest known teachers of mankind. The Buddhavaṁsa, which offers a traditional history of twenty-four Buddhas, including Gotama the historical Buddha, was supplemented later by the Anāgatavaṁsa, an ex-canonical work dealing with the legendary life of Metteyya the Future Buddha. Within the Pali Canon, the Buddhavaṁsa which is throughout a metrical composition of the chronicle type was preceded by a Buddhāpadāna (Buddhāvadāna) in the Mahāpadāna Suttanta. The Buddhavaṁsa itself has the Apadāna as companion work in verse. The Buddhavaṁsa, Apadāna and Cariyā Piṭaka are the three companion works which are to be counted among the latest additions to the Khuddaka Nikāya.

As between the Vaṁsa and the Apadāna which have narratives in common, we can do no more than drawing a broad distinction, premising that the main interest of the former lies in setting forth the lineage or succession, while the latter is primarily concerned with the edification of the tradition of meritorious and memorable deeds.

Corresponding to the lives of the Buddhas and those of the Theras in the Buddhavaṁsa and the Apadāna respectively, we have in the Jaina Kalpa Sūtra the lives of the Jinas or Tīrthaṅkaras and those of the disciples of Mahāvīra.

Both the Vaṁsa Brāhmaṇa and the Vaṁśas in the Bhad Āraṇyaka Upaniṣad are in prose. Whether prose had preceded verse or verse prose is still a disputed question. The alternation of prose and verse or of verse and prose is a phenomenon, which recurs even in the history of the Vaṁsa literature of Ceylon. [30]

The earlier Indian prototypes of the Vaṁsa literature, mentioned above, are deficient in so far as they are wanting in the rājavaṁsa or rājaparamparā, while the Vaṁsa literature is mostly built on two paramparās, viz. rāja meaning the succession of kings and thera meaning the succession of elders.

The rājavaṁsas or rājānvayas were developing in India side by side with the ācariyavaṁsa or ācariyaparamparās. The origin of the former must be traced in the ancient Itihāsas or royal anecdotes, particularly in the pre-Pāṇinian Mahābhārata. The rājavaṁsas or dynastic lists came to form a distinctive feature as much of the Pauranic recast of the Mahābhārata as of the Purāṇas themselves. The traditions and lineages of kings in both prose and verse, are met with in the Nikāyas including the Canonical Jātakas. Out of these earlier prototypes emerged the Vaṁsas of Ceylon as a distinct and remarkable type of historical or semi-historical literature.

 

1. Dīpavaṁsa

By the consensus of opinion this is the oldest known chronicle of Ceylon written in Pali. This text has been edited and translated by Oldenberg. This is, on the whole, a metrical composition with two prose passages, one of which is based upon a canonical text such as the Vinaya account of the Second Buddhist Council, Dīpavaṁsa, IV, bet. Verses 46 and 47:
Tena kho pana samayena vassasatamhi parinibbute Bhagavati
Vesālika Vajjiputtakā bhikkhū Vesāliyaṁ dasa vatthūni dipenti, etc.
Cf. Vinaya Piṭaka, II, p. 294. and the other is modelled evidently on the Jātaka Nidāna-kathā. Dīpavaṁsa, XII, bet. verses 29 and 30:
Mārisa tvam pi Bhagavatā subyākato: anāgatamaddhāne Mahindo bhikkhu dīpam pasādayissati… Here the reminder, Kālo Mahāvīra dīpaṁ pasādetuṁ, cannot but remind the reader of the stanza: Kālo nu kho… Whether these are later interpolations or remnants of the prose texts which were versified afterwards is still a disputed question. From the inclusion of the two prose passages within the present metrical form of the chronicle, no definite conclusion can be drawn either as to its original form or as to its literary position.

Arguing on the authority of the Mahāvaṁsa Ṭīkā which is the literary product of a much later age, Oldenberg inclines to the view that ‘the author of the Dīpavaṁsa borrowed not only the materials of his own work, but also the mode of expression and even whole lines, word for word, from that Aṭṭhakathā’ (Sinhalese Aṭṭhakathā Mahāvaṁsa). Ibid., p. 6. The same [31] line of argument has been followed by Geiger, Malalasekera, and others who have seriously discussed the chronological and literary position of the Dīpavaṁsa in its present form. Apparently this is a very convincing argument, but on a closer examination it would seem that it moves in a vicious circle.

The Sinhalese Aṭṭhakathā Mahāvaṁsa is mentioned in the Mahāvaṁsa Ṭīkā as the basis of the Mahāvaṁsa proper written by the Thera Mahānāma, a contemporary of Dhātusena and his son and successor, while in fact the Mahāvaṁsa was chiefly an improvement on the Dīpavaṁsa and its narrative was based upon a somewhat different traditional authority in places where it has differed from the Dīpavaṁsa. For this traditional authority Oldenberg has rightly drawn our attention to the Aṭṭhakathā version of the historical narrative of Mahinda’s mission to Ceylon as found in the general introduction to the Vinaya commentary. But he is still guided or misguided by the author of the Mahāvaṁsa Ṭīkā when he observes: ‘A considerable number of verses ascribed to the Porāṇā, i.e. taken from the ancient Sinhalese Aṭṭhakathā and quoted by Buddhaghosa or in the Mahāvaṁsa Ṭīkā, present the same close resemblance and almost identity with passages of the Dīpavaṁsa.’ Dīpavaṁsa (Oldenberg), Introduction, p. 5.

The fact is different. To Buddhaghosa, the celebrated Pali commentator, the Dīpavaṁsa was well known as a Pali chronicle. If the traditional verses quoted in the Samantapāsādikā in the name of the Porāṇā or ancient teachers be found to be identical with those in the Dīpavaṁsa, we are not to suppose that the prose account in the Vinaya Aṭṭhakathā with the verse-quotations inserted in it had formed the Sinhalese basis of the Dīpavaṁsa itself. The conclusion as to that would have been sound if it were the fact that the Samantapāsādikā account tallied entirely with the historical narrative of the Dīpavaṁsa. As already pointed out in the preceding chapter, the prose narrative in the Samantapāsādikā followed a somewhat different tradition in spite of the verse­quotations from the Dīpavaṁsa. Certain traditions recorded by the first-named Buddhaghosa are in accord with those in the Dīpavaṁsa; but these are missed in the narrative of the Samantapāsādikā and in the Mahāvaṁsa itself. Notably the prediction about the noble part to be played by Prince Piyadāsa (i.e. Piyadassana) on his becoming consecrated as king Asoka. Sumaṅgala-vilāsinī, II, p. 613.

When we say this, we do not mean to create the impression that the Dīpavaṁsa as a metrical composition had not for its [32] basis any earlier legendary accounts in prose then available either in Pali or in Sinhalese. All that we mean to say is that the answer to the question regarding the literary position of the Dīpavaṁsa does not lie in the Aṭṭhakathā Mahāvaṁsa as made out from the Samantapāsādikā and the Mahāvaṁsa Ṭīkā, [but that] it lies elsewhere.

The Buddhavaṁsa offers us the Pali canonical model for the metrical form of the Dīpavaṁsa. Both the works are composed in an Anuṣṭubh metre and in a simple narrative style the variation in metre is seldom noticed. Anything approaching real poetry in the Buddhavaṁsa is to be noticed in its introductory verses and Sumedha-kathā, and anything approaching real poetry in the Dīpavaṁsa lies in its introductory verses and a few verses which are composed in a different metre in its first two chapters.

Also:

Here, in the stanzas cited above, is a conscious effort made towards producing the effect of kāvya poetry. Their composer had before him the canonical model in some of the Psalms of the Early Buddhist Brothers and Sisters in the Thera-Therī-gāthā. These, as they stand in the first two chapters of the Dīpavaṁsa, serve to relieve the monotony and dulness of the purely historical narrative of the chronicle. Had such stanzas been introduced also in the remaining chapters, the chronicle might have assumed the form of a kāvya.

As regards some of the remaining chapters, the compiler has sought to break the monotony of the metrical narration of historical events by introducing certain statements in prose. So far as the narrations in the colourless Anuṣṭubh metre are concerned, they were modelled evidently on the traditional sayings in verse then current in the community indefinitely in the name of the Porāṇas or Ancient Teachers.

With Geiger the Dīpavaṁsa represents the first unaided struggle to create an epic out of already existing material. Geiger, The Dīpavaṁsa and Mahāvaṁsa, p. 2. He is inclined also to think that the Dīpavaṁsa closely resembles in form the ancient Ākhyāna poetry of India, the characteristic feature of which lies in this: that the entire story is not yet established in a form, but only certain parts are metrically fixed and thereby are secured from further departure from the tradition. This chronicle was evidently the production of an age when with the decline of oral tradition, the same stories came to show many variants, together with many examples of identity of language. Ibid., p. 11.

The question still remains – can the Dīpavaṁsa in its present form be judged at all as an epic? To be an epic, it must have a narrative interweaving several episodes into a unity, showing the dramatic junctures and conveying a central idea or moral; its theme, too, must be lofty and of heroic character, and above all, there must be a hero whose exploits it must narrate in an effective manner.

So far as the narrative of the Dīpavaṁsa is concerned, the historical motive predominates over the poetical. The heroes, too, are not one but many. Its main theme is Laṅkā-vijaya, the conquest of Lanka, both culturally and politically, first, by the Buddha, secondly, by prince Vijaya, and thirdly, by the Thera Mahinda. King Devānaṁpiya Tissa and Duṭṭhagāmaṇi were the two great national heroes of Ceylon who served to consolidate the territory conquered for the [34] religion of Sākyamuni. Viewed in this light, the narrative of the Dīpavaṁsa is a combination of as many as five epics. The Mahāvaṁsa closes each of its chapters with the pathetic reflection setting forth the evanescent character of the kingly career and dynastic rule and emphasizing the value of the meritorious deeds that only endure. Cf. Barua, Ceylon Lectures, p. 280. This kind of reflection constituting the central idea or moral of the Mahāvaṁsa is met with once at the end of the Mahārājavaṁsa section of the Dīpavaṁsa forming the epic kernel, and next at the end of the concluding chapter:

It will be seen that the moral at the end of the Mahārājavaṁsa section is not an original composition but a stanza taken over from the Mahāparinibbāna Suttanta, Chapter VI, and that at the end of Chapter XXII, too, it is just an adaptation to the traditional moral met with in the Jātakas.

The main drawbacks of the earlier Pali chronicle as regards its mode of narration of events lie, as pointed out by the author of the Mahāvaṁsa, in the fact that it is in some places too diffusive and in some places too concise, and what is more, it abounds in repetitions.

Judged from the point of view of poetry, its main defect, as suggested in the opening verses of the Mahāvaṁsa, consists in its failure to kindle faith and to call up emotion in right places (pasādajanake ṭhāne tathā saṁvegakārake).

These points of criticism should, however, be considered, first of all, with reference to the earlier form of the Dīpavaṁsa in which its principle themes were Buddha’s visits to Ceylon, the conquest of the island by Prince Vijaya, the origin of the Buddhist sects and schools of thought, and the establishment of the Buddhist Orders by Mahinda and Saṅghamittā.

So far as this earlier form of the chronicle is concerned, its author openly claims that his performance is capable of awakening emotional interest, pleasing and delighting the [35] heart of the reader, and what is more, the narrative of his epic is replete with various forms and modes:

That there is lack of symmetry here and there is undeniable. The events are not narrated in one and the same strain. The result produced is, on the whole, a piece of mosaic. But therein exactly lies its rugged beauty and grandeur. The repetitions complained of are there, but that is more apparent than real. Let us take, for instance, the account of the First Buddhist Council which occurs twice in the Dīpavaṁsa, first in Chapter IV and, again, in Chapter V. On looking more closely into the matter, however, we find that in the first instance the author is to offer us a description of the council concerned as an isolated incident, considered per se, and in the second context it is presented as an integral part of the whole of the historical narrative. The same as to the description of the Second Buddhist Council. The so-called repetitions are not unjustified.

The narration of events from the reign of the immediate successor of Devānaṁpiya Tissa to that of Mahāsena is dominated by purely historical motive. The strain of continuous narration is nowhere sought to be relieved. The thread of the narrative is loose and the accounts in places are too concise to produce a lasting effect. It is not unlikely that the four or five concluding chapters were later additions.

 

2. Aṭṭhakathā Mahāvaṁsa

The Sinhalese original of this work being irrevocably lost, its literary position depends on its Pali versions in the commentaries attributed to Buddhaghosa, notably, the Sumaṅgalavilāsinī, the Atthasālinī, the Kathāvatthu-aṭṭhakathā and the Samantapāsādikā. The historical matters are mostly to be found in the general introduction and rarely in the body of the commentaries. The accounts are in prose interspersed with traditional verses cited either from the Dīpavaṁsa or current in the name of the ancient teachers (Porāṇā). Strangely enough, the verses traceable in the Dīpavaṁsa are attributed to the Porāṇas in the Mahāvaṁsa Ṭīkā, while the verse-quotations from the Porāṇas which are met with in the Pali canonical commentaries stand altogether on a different footing, and so far as their style of composition is concerned, they represent a stage of literary development anterior to that of the Dīpavaṁsa.

The general introduction to the Kathāvatthu-aṭṭhakathā goes to show that the statement in prose is based upon the metrical account cited in extenso from the Dīpavaṁsa. The [36] description of the First Buddhist Council given by Buddhaghosa in the general introduction to his Sumaṅgalavilāsinī is based partly on the Vinaya account in the Cullavagga, Chapter XI, and partly on a later tradition. Here the prose style of Buddhaghosa is laboured, heavy and pedantic. The case is somewhat different when we read the general introduction to the Vinaya Aṭṭhakathā where the author writes with comparative ease and his mode of presentation of the subject is characterized by lucidity and spontaneity. Here the prose style is well suited to a purely historical narrative the Legends of Asoka, as narrated in the Divyāvadāna, show a conscious effort for producing a poetical effect.

 

3. Mahāvaṁsa

This work certainly stands as a masterpiece produced by the poetically gifted Thera Mahānāma in the Vaṁsa literature of Ceylon. It is undoubtedly the more finished product of the literary and poetical art employed in the earlier works of the same type, particularly in the Dīpavaṁsa. It is not unreasonably judged as the national epic of Ceylon with Duṭṭhagāmaṇi as its chief hero.

Kalhaṇa’s Rājataraṅgiṇī and the anonymous Mūlakalpa are two later Sanskrit chronicles in verse which are without the epic touch of the Mahāvaṁsa. Firdausi’s Shāhnāmāh, which occupies a high place in the world of epics, is a similar chronicle of the ancient kings of Iran. Just as Firdausi’s masterpiece was in one sense the completed form of the chronicle left unfinished by Dāqiqi, so in another sense Mahānāma’s masterpiece may be regarded as the developed form of the Dīpavaṁsa as regards its four or five concluding chapters.

Malalasekera says, ‘Mahānāma was no genius, he was too much hide-bound by tradition, and his work cannot rank as a literary performance of the first order.’ Pali Literature of Ceylon, p. 141. But it is contended that it may not be an epic of as high literary merit as Vālmīki’s Rāmāyaṇa, Sauti’s Mahābhārata or Firdausi’s Shāhnāmāh. It is an epic throughout with a keen sense of history, the simplicity of diction, the purity of style and the sobriety of judgement. Its central idea or moral looms large at the end of each chapter. The national mind, self-consciousness and character have found a permanent expression in it. Ceylon Lectures, p. 100.

In claiming the superiority of artistic workmanship in his treatment of one and the same theme, the author of the Mahāvaṁsa was compelled to point out the drawbacks in the earlier chronicle. Repetitions, diffuseness and unmethodical representation are the three main faults in the earlier work [37] which he consciously sought to avoid in his own composition and presentation.

While commenting on this literary position of Mahānāma’s work, Geiger rightly observes: ‘The Mahāvaṁsa compared with the Dīpavaṁsa has every claim to be regarded as a work of art. The story proceeds in it in a logical manner, without inconvenient breaks or repetitions. It runs parallel with the Dīpavaṁsa at times in such a way that whole episodes in both epics are evidently two different versifications of the same material. But the Mahāvaṁsa amplifies and supplements the Dīpavaṁsa, or else represents the subject in a more concise manner the greater ability is shown in the handling of speech and metre in the Mahāvaṁsa in contrast to the Dīpavaṁsa... Also the niceties of diction, especially the play upon words, is more evident in the Mahāvaṁsa than in the Dīpavaṁsa. To sum up, we notice everywhere in the Mahāvaṁsa the hand of a poet, working deliberately, lingering over his material, and endeavouring to clothe it in suitable form.’ Dīpavaṁsa and Mahāvaṁsa, p. 17.

Notwithstanding this fact, looking more closely into the matter, one cannot help saying that the whole foundation of the great national epic of Ceylon was laid in the earlier chronicle. The Dīpavaṁsa adopted, as we saw, its own literary and poetical devices. It had different heroes in the successive stages of its narrative, while the Mahāvaṁsa came to shift its emphasis and lay it on Duṭṭhagāmaṇi. The diction of the Mahāvaṁsa was modelled evidently on the concluding chapters of the Dīpavaṁsa.

The Mahāvaṁsa would have been a poem written in high strain and its effect would have been monotonous and tiresome but for the fact its author broke the monotony and relieved the tension by his indulgence in reflective poetry at the end of each chapter, and wisdom in effecting a change in metre.

 

4. Extended Mahāvaṁsa

The extended Mahāvaṁsa is nothing but a later enlarged version or recension of the poem of Mahānāma. This text has been edited by G. P. Malalasekera in the Aluvihāra series, Vol. III, and published by the Royal Asiatic Society (Ceylon Branch), 1937. Curiously enough, the work is represented in the colophon as one consisting of thirty-five bhāṇavāras or chapters, while the work in its present form contains thirty-seven chapters.

Moggallāna introduces himself as the author of this work. But apart from the fact that for additional matter the author was indebted to the Buddhavaṁsa, Līnattha and Thūpavaṁsa, the literary position of the work is the same as that of Mahānāma’s epic upon which it was based. The reflective stanzas at the end of the chapters are identical in both the versions.

 

5. Cūḷavaṁsa

If the extended Mahāvaṁsa is an enlarged version of the Mahāvaṁsa written by Mahānāma, the Cūḷavaṁsa certainly represents a later continuation of the same. In other words, the Cūḷavaṁsa is just a supplement to the Mahāvaṁsa. Though it grew up into its present form through two or three stages, the poet of each stage was careful to maintain the diction and style of Mahānāma.

The epic character of the work is sought to be maintained by means of the reflective stanzas with which each chapter is concluded. In going to convey the moral in the concluding stanza of Chapter 100, the later poet appears to have exceeded the limits of reflective poetry by his naive indulgence in an admonition:

 

6. Vaṁsatthappakāsinī Edited for the Government of Ceylon by G.P. Malalasekera in two volumes and published by the P.T.S., London (1935).

This is the later convenient name applied to the Pali commentary on the Mahāvaṁsa alias Padyapadoruvaṁsa written by the Thera Mahānāma II and known by the name of Padyapadoruvaṁsa-vaṇṇanā and Vaṁsatthappakāsinī. In the author’s own description the work was not a mere translation from any earlier Sinhalese Aṭṭhakathā; it was rather a digest (atthasāraṁ) of earlier works carefully prepared in the diction of the Pali Canon (tantinayānurūpena).

The main earlier works utilized by him consisted of (1) the text of the Mahāvaṁsa in its two recensions, (2) the Aṭṭhakathā Mahāvaṁsa, (3) two Sinhalese commentaries on the Mahāvaṁsa, viz. those belonging to the Mahāvihāra and Abhayagiri fraternities; (4) the Samantapāsādikā, (5) the Dīpavaṁsa Aṭṭhakathā, (6) the Jātaka Nidānakathā, (7) the Sahassavatthu-aṭṭhakathā, (8) the Mahābodhivaṁsa-aṭṭhakathā, (9) the Gaṇṭhipadatthavaṇṇanā, and (10) the Sīhalanamakkāra-vaṇṇanā.

The prose style of the commentary is simple and lucid; it is hardly involved or ornate. There are only two or three [39] ornamental passages, as pointed out by Malalasekera, who particularly draws our attention to the description of the Mahāmeghavana (72, 11ff.) and the passage on the scenic beauties of Ceylon (321, 3ff.). Vaṁsatthappakāsinī, Introd., p. cvii. It appears that the graphic description of Ceylon is modelled on the Milinda description of the Yona city of Sāgala and partly also on Buddhadatta’s description of the port of Kāveripaṭṭana:

The following two stanzas composed by the author distinctly betray the influence of later artificial kāvya poetry:

 

7. Mahābodhivaṁsa

The Mahābodhivaṁsa This text has been edited by S. Arthur Strong for the P.T.S. (1891). has been written with freedom and prolixity common to Buddhist writers the author of this work has borrowed largely from the sources as well as from the Mahāvaṁsa text. There is enough evidence to show that the author has made use of other materials as well as the chapters relating to the three Councils and the rehearsal of the Law are similar not only to the Buddhist account in the introduction to the Sumaṅgalavilāsinī but also to that in the Saddhammasaṅgaha. As regards the description of Mahinda’s adventures after his arrival in Laṅkā, the Mahābodhivaṁsa and the Samantapāsādikā are in agreement.

The Pali text of the Mahābodhivaṁsa is a translation of a Sinhalese original. It tells us nothing about its author. According to the Sāsanavaṁsadīpa, Upatissa was its author.

The Gandhavaṁsa points out that the Mahābodhivaṁsa was written independently by its author. The style is easy and the language is lucid. [40]

 

8. Thūpavaṁsa

In the introductory verses the author tells us that the work having at first been compiled in Sinhalese language was not accessible to all. Even the earlier Māgadhī (i.e. Pali) version prepared for the benefit of all was full of defective arrangement and language and it left out many things that ought to have been narrated. In order to remove these defects in the earlier Māgadhī version the author undertook to do the work again.

Though the earlier Pali text is no longer extant, it is not difficult to estimate the nature of the linguistic improvement effected by Vācissara by comparing his version of the Thūpavaṁsa with parallel passages as found in the Samantapāsādikā or the Sumaṅgalavilāsinī.

The only interesting point to be noticed in the whole work is the setting out of legendary materials having their bearings upon the history of the Thūpas. The Thūpavaṁsa undoubtedly is one of the products of the decadent period of Pali literature in Ceylon. It is lacking in originality and the atmosphere of life it creates is dull and monotonous. It is a specimen of the stereotyped and highly conventionalized prose of scholastic writings.

 

9. Dāṭhāvaṁsa

The Dāṭhāvaṁsa is a quasi-religious historical record written with the intention of edifying (pasādasaṁvegakara) or rousing (somebody’s) religious emotions. [41] It bears many marks of the fairy tale. It is remarkable because it shows us Pali as a medium of epic poetry. In it the character of classical Pali is well retained, although the Sanskrit education of its author has left its stamp on its style. We find the old vocabulary enriched by adapted Sanskrit words; single expressions are turned into long compounds E.g., IV, 46. after the fashion of the Sanskrit kāvya literature. Such words as antarāla, avadāta, āmoda, nikhila, nūtana, dhavala, occur in large numbers. Some metaphorical expressions are also found there.

It is an excellent piece of poetry. Its vocabulary is rich. In the first chapter the verses are written in Jagatī metre, sixty stanzas in Vaṁśastha, and the last two in Sragdharā. The second chapter is composed of verses in Anuṣṭubh, Pathyavaktra and Mandākrāntā. The third chapter has verses composed of Triṣṭubh, Upajāti, Indravajrā, Upendravajrā and Śikhariṇī. The fourth chapter contains verses in Atiśarkarī and Śārdūlavikrīḍita. The last chapter employs Śarkari, Vasantatilakā and Sragdharā metres.

 

10. Saddhammasaṅgaha

The Saddhammasaṅgaha This text has been edited by N. Sadddhānanda for J.P.T.S, 1890, and translated into English by B. C. Law entitled ‘A Manual of Buddhist Historical Traditions’, published by the University of Calcutta (1941). is written in an elegant and simple language. It belongs to the class of manuals and as such it is a mixture of prose and poetry. In most cases the prose portion serves only as an explanation of the subject matter in verse. This work contains many discourses common to the Mahābodhivaṁsa, the Gandhavaṁsa, the Sāsanavaṁsa and the like. The author has borrowed very largely from the actual texts of the Dīpavaṁsa, the Mahāvaṁsa, the Aṭṭhakathā and other well-known Pali works which are simply referred to as Porāṇā or ancient authorities.

The author refers to many works among which some may be noted here: Sāratthadīpanī or the Atthavaṇṇanā of the Samantapāsādikā, the Vinaya Commentary; the Atthavaṇṇanā of the Sumaṅgalavilāsinī, the Dīgha Nikāya Commentary; the Atthavaṇṇanā of the Papañca-sūdanī, the Majjhima Nikāya Commentary; the Atthavaṇṇanā of the Sāratthappakāsinī, the Saṁyutta Nikāya Commentary; the Atthavaṇṇanā of the Manorathapūraṇī, the Aṅguttara Nikāya Commentary, and the Atthavaṇṇanā of the Atthasālinī, the Dhammasaṅgaṇi Commentary.

 

11. Later Sinhalese Chronicles

They are either translations or prose amplifications of the Pali books. They cannot be taken to represent the older Sinhalese works presupposed [42] by the Pali compilations. The prose style of the Sinhalese Dhātuvaṁsa was determined entirely by its Pali original, the Nalāṭa Dhātuvaṁsa. Occasional differences in style, as noticed in the Rājāvalī, are evidently due to the fact that ‘the author has taken many passages word for word from older sources’. Those who are better acquainted with the Sinhalese language and literature are competent to judge their style of composition. These later Sinhalese chronicles appear to us as literary productions of a dull and decadent age. [43]