But even if it could be proved that Mahanama's own pen did not go beyond the 48th verse of the 37th chapter, the historical trustworthiness of the concluding portion of that chapter, containing the account of Buddhaghosa's literary activity, nay, even of the 38th chapter, would be little affected thereby. We know that both the Mahavamsa and the somewhat earlier Dipavamsa were founded on the Sinhalese Atthakathas, the commentaries and chronicles preserved in the Mahavihara at Anuradhapura. We also know that that Vihara was demolished by Mahasena, and deserted by nearly all its inmates for the space of nine years (p. 235), and again for the space of nine months

[1. Introduction, p. ii. The Kulavamsa is mentioned with the Mahavamsa, both as the works of Mahanama, by Professor Forchhammer in his List of Pali MSS.

2. Introduction, p. xci.

3. See Rhys Davids, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1875, p. 196.]

p. xvii (p. 237). We can well understand therefore why the older history, the Dipavamsa, should end with the death of Mahasena (died 302 A.D.), and why in the Mahavamsa too there should have been a break at that date. But we must not forget that, during Mahanama's life, the Mahavihara at Anuradhapura was restored, that some kind of chronicle, called the Dipavamsa, whether it be a general name of any 'chronicle of the island,' or of our Dipavamsa, or, it may be, even of our Mahavamsa, was ordered to be published or promulgated (dipetum) under Dhatusena, the nephew and protege of Mahanama. Therefore, even if we do not insist on the personal authorship of Mahanama, we may certainly maintain that historical entries had been made in the chronicles of Anuradhapura during Dhatusena's reign, and probably under the personal auspices of Mahanama, so that if we find afterwards, in the second half of the 37th chapter of his Mahavamsa, an account of events which had happened between the destruction of the Mahavihara and the reign of Dhatusena, and among them an account of so important an event as the arrival of Buddhaghosa from Magadha and his translation of the Sinhalese Atthakatha into the language of Magadha, we may well suppose that they rest on the authority of native chronicles, written not long after the events, and that therefore, 'under all the circumstances of the case,' the age of Buddhaghosa can be fixed with greater accuracy than most dates in the literary history of India.