No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 March 2011
Of the following two inscriptions, the former is edited from a MS. in Dambulla Wihāre, of which I have a transcript in the Roman character by a native copyist; and the latter from a copy made by Nāranwiṭa Unnānse, which I owe to the courtesy of Mr. R. C. Childers. In the Dambulla MS. the inscription is repeated twice, and the readings of the two copies differ pretty frequently, as will be seen from the various readings given below the text.
page 353 note 1 I have never been able to procure this extremely rare book; but the translation is reprinted (under a wrong title) at page 353 of the second volume of Major Forbes's Ceylon. London: Bentley, 1841.
page 354 note 1 It is given below in note 4.
page 354 note 2 This consideration leads me to the supposition that Tumour (Mali. p. ii.) may he wrong in assigning the whole of the Mahāva
sa, from the period at which Mahānāma's work terminated to the end of Dambadeniya Parākrama's reign in A.D. 1300, to one hand. There seems to be a break at the end of the eventful reign of Parākrama the Great; no less than eighteen chapters, some of them of great length, being devoted to the life of that king, whilst the succeeding kings are hurried over till the time of Dambadeniya Parākrama, whose reign occupies seven chapters. Perhaps there has been some confusion between two Dharmakirtis, one the author of Dāṭhāvasa, who lived in Parākrama the Great's time, and the other, the author of one portion of the Mahāvasa, who lived in Dambadeniya Parākrama's time. When the whole text is published, the evidently late style of the latter portion, from which the above extract is made, may throw light on this question.
page 355 note 1 21. The MS. has addhitaṁ. For sanāmena compare line 15 of the inscription below. 22. The MS. has ubbhāya, bāsuraṁ. 23. The form Jambukola throws interesting light on the derivation of Dambulla; but it is more probable that the Pāli word is a translation of the Sinhalese word, than that the Sinhalese word has come through the Pāli. Another Jambukola on the sea-coast is mentioned in the Mahāvasa, pp. 110, 119, vide below, note 18 to the Sāhasa Malla Inscription. 24. The MS. has bhūpatiṁ. 25. The reading of the MS. in this line neither agrees with the metre nor gives any sense.
page 372 note 1 The numbers prefixed to these notes refer to the numbers of the lines in the text.