2. He learnt the five Nikayas, and the seven sections (of the Abhidhamma); the two Vibhangas of the Vinaya, the Parivara and the Khandhaka. See Dipavamsa VII, 42.]

p. xxv religion of the island, The Tipitaka and the Atthakatha, such as they had been collected or settled at the Third Council in 242 B.C., were brought to Ceylon by Mahinda, who promulgated them orally, the Tipitaka in Pali, the Atthakatha in Sinhalese, together with an additional Atthakatha of his own. It does not follow that Mahinda knew the whole of that enormous literature by heart, for, as he was supported by a number of priests, they may well have divided the different sections among them, following the example of Ananda and Upali at the First Council. The same applies to their disciples also. But the fact of their transmitting the sacred literature by oral tradition[1] was evidently quite familiar to the author of the Mahavamsa. For when he comes to describe the reign of Vattagamani (88-76 B.C.) he simply says: 'The profoundly wise priests had heretofore orally perpetuated the Pali Pitakattaya and its Atthakatha (commentaries). At this period these priests, foreseeing the perdition of the people (from the perversions of the true doctrines), assembled; and in order that the religion might endure for ages, wrote the same in books.' No valid objection has yet been advanced to our accepting Buddhaghosa's Atthakathas as a translation and new redaction of the Atthakathas which were reduced to writing under Vattagamani[2], and these again as a translation of the old Atthakathas brought to Ceylon by Mahinda[3]. There is prima facie evidence in favour of the truth of historical events vouched for by such works as the Dipavamsa and the Mahavamsa so far back at least as Mahinda, because we know that historical events were recorded in the monasteries of Ceylon long before Mahanama's time. Beyond Mahinda we move in legendary history, and must be ready to surrender every name and every date as soon as rebutting evidence has been produced, but not till then.

I cannot, therefore, see any reason why we should not treat the verses of the Dhammapada, if not as the utterances of Buddha, at least as what were believed by the

[1. On the importance of oral tradition in the history of Sanskrit literature see the writer's Ancient Sanskrit Literature, 1859, pp. 497-524.

2. Mahavamsa, p. 207; Dipavamsa XX, 20.

3. Mahavamsa, p. 251.]

p. xxvi members of the Council under Asoka, in 242 B.C., to have been the utterances of the founder of their religion; nor can I see that Professor Minayeff has shaken the date of Buddhaghosa and the general credibility of the Ceylonese tradition, that he was the translator and editor of commentaries which had existed in the island for many centuries; whether from the time of Vattagamani or from the time of Mahinda.

DATE OF THE BUDDHIST CANON.