Ceylon. He was a fortunate king:" p. 83. "This was in the year of our Buddho 236, in the eighteenth year of the reign of the king Darmasoka, and of the first year of the reign of Petissa the second, on the fifteenth day of the month of poson:" and similarly in every instance in which that sovereign is named, he is called "Petissa the second." Now, the monarch here spoken of, is the most celebrated rája in the history of Ceylon; the ally of Asóko, the emperor of India, and the founder of buddhism in this island. His individual name was "Tisso." From his merits (according to the buddhistical creed) in a former existence, as well as in this world, he acquired the appellation of "Dewánanpiyatisso;" literally, "of-the-déwos-the-delight-tisso." This title in the Singhalese histories is contracted into "Dewenipaitissa ;" and in the vernacular language, "deweni" also signifies "second." These "official translators," ignorant of the derivation of this appellation, and of these historical facts, and unmindful of the circumstance of no mention having previously been made of "Pelissa the first" in the work they were translating, at once designate this sovereign "Pelissa the second"!!

In explaining the second unintentional perversion of the text above referred to, I shall have to notice the mischievous effects which result from appending notes of explanation, when the text is not thoroughly understood.

Page 1. "In former times, our gracious Buddhu, who has overcome the five deadly sins, having seen Buddhu Deepankare,* did express his wish to attain the state of Budhu, to save living beings, as twenty four subsequent Budhus † had done; from whom also, he having obtained their assent, and having done charities of various descriptions, became sanctified and omniscient: he is the Budhu, the most high lord Guádma, who redeemed the living beings from all their miseries."

The rendering of this passage, as a specimen of the translators' style, compared with the rest of the translation, is rather above than below par. The only intrinsic errors imputable to it, if no notes had been appended, would have consisted,-first, in the statement that there were "twenty four" instead of "twenty three Buddhus" subsequent to Deepankara; and, secondly, in adopting the peculiar spelling, "Guádma," for the name of the present Buddho, in the translation of a Ceylonese work, in which he is invariably designated "Goutama." But two fatal notes are given on this passage, which cruelly expose the true character, or origin, of these blunders: viz.,

"In the Budhist doctrine (according to the first note) there are to be five Budhus in the present kalpe: Maha'dewa'nan, Goutama, Deepankara-these have already existed and are in niewana ;-Gua'dma, the fourth, is the Budhu of the present system, which has lasted 2372 years in 1830; the Budhu verousa or era, according to the greatest number of coincident dates, having commenced about the year 540 B. C."

+ “The Loutoros Budhus (according to the second note) are inferior persons, being usually the companions of the Budhu, for their zeal and fidelity exalted to the divine privileges."

The former of these notes makes "Deepankara” the immediate predecessor of "Guádma" all “subsequent Buddhos," therefore, must become equally subsequent to him,—and yet the term is applied in the translation to those predecessors of " Guádma," by whom his advent was predicted!

In this instance also, as in the case of "Petissa the second," the error lies in the rendering of the word, which has been translated into "subsequent."

There are two classes of Buddhos, styled, respectively, in Páli, "Lókuttaro" and "Pachchéko." The former term, derived from "Lókassa-uttaro contracted into "Lókuttaro," signifies "the supreme of the universe." The latter from "Pati-ékan," by permutation of letters contracted into "Pachchéko" and "Pachché," signifies "severed from unity (with supreme buddhohood) ;" and is a term applied to an

inferior being or saint who is never coexistent with a supreme Buddho, as he is only manifested during an "abuddhótpádo," or the period intervening between the nibbána of one, and the advent of the succeeding supreme Buddho; and attains nibbána without rising to supreme buddhohood. These terms in Singhalese are respectively written "Louturá" and "Pasé." But "passé" (with a double s.) in the vernacular language, also signifies "subsequent." No native Buddhist, however uneducated, would have committed the error of asserting, that there were twenty four Buddhos exclusive of Dipankaro; as the prediction of Goutama's advent is a part of a religious formula in constant use, which specifies either "the twenty four Buddhos and the Pasé Buddhos," or "the twenty four Buddhos, commencing with Dipankaro, and the Pasé Buddhos," as having been the sanctified characters who vouchsafed to him the "wiwerana" or sacred assurance. By some jumble, however, the word "pasé" has been translated into "subsequent," and made to agree with the "twenty four supreme Buddhos," instead of being rendered as the appellation of an inferior Buddho. Hence the rendering of the passage "did express his wish to attain the state of Budhu, to save living beings, as twenty four subsequent Budhus had done." The revisers of this translation appear to have been aware that there was some confusion or obscurity in this passage, and therefore appended the second note of explanation. In that note, however, an explanation is given, conveying, unfortunately, a meaning precisely the reverse of the correct one. The “Louturá Budhus" are stated to be "inferior persons, usually the companions of the Budhu;" whereas the word literally signifies "supreme of the universe;" and on the other hand, the appellation "Pasé Buddho" signifies, as specifically, the reverse of co-existence or companionship.

The first note, quoted above, is, if possible, still more calculated than the translation itself, to prejudice the authenticity of the buddhistical scriptures in Ceylon, when compared with the sacred records of other buddhistical countries.

In the translation, the present Buddho is called "Guádma." As the English writers on subjects connected with buddhism in the various parts of Asia rarely spell the name similarly, it would have been reasonable to infer that "Guádma" was here intended for the Ceylonese appellations (Páli) "Gótamo," (Singhalese) "Goutama." "Goutama." The revisers, however, of the translation, in this instance also, think it necessary to offer a note of explanation. The object of their note appears to be to give the names of the four Buddhos of this (Páli) "kappo," (Singhalese) "kalpa," who have already attained buddhohood. They specify them to be Mahadewánan, Goutama, Deepankara, and Guádma: in which enumeration, with their usual ill luck, they are wrong in every single instance. "Mahadewánan” is not the individual name of any one of the twenty four Buddhos. It is an epithet applying equally to all of them, and literally means "the chief of the déwos." The first Buddho of this kappo was "Kakusandho." The second was not "Goutama," (for when speaking of the twenty four Buddhos there is no other Goutama than the Buddho of the present period) but "Konágamano." The third is not "Deepankara," for he is the first of the twenty four Buddhos, but "Kassapo." The fourth, or present Buddho, is not "Guadma,” but, in Páli, Gótamo; and, in Singhalese, Goutama. As this name, however, had been already appropriated in this work for the second Buddho of this kappo, the publishers have, I presume, adopted the spelling "Guádma" to distinguish the one from the other.

It will scarcely be believed that all this confusion arises from the endeavour to illustrate a work, which, in the clearest manner possible, in its fifteenth chapter, gives a connected history of these four Buddhos; nor can the publishers altogether throw the blame of these mistakes on their coadjutors, the "two ablest priests of Buddha,” and the "official translators;" for even in their translated abridgment of the fifteenth chapter (p. 92) the names of these four Buddhos are specified.

In another respect, however, either the said priests, or the translators, must be held responsible for a still more important error, which has led Mr. Upham, in his Introduction (p. xxii.) to notice, and comment on, the discrepancies of the buddhistical records of Ceylon, as compared with those of Nepal. He observes," of these personages (the Buddhos mentioned in the Nepal records) only the four last are mentioned in the pages of Singhalese histories. References are indeed occasionally made to an anterior Budhu, but as no names or particulars are given, we are chiefly indebted for our knowledge of these preceding Budhos, viz., Wipasya, Sikhi, and Wisabhu, to the Nepalese and Chinese histories."

It is indeed unfortunate for the native literature of Ceylon, that it should be so misrepresented in an introduction to a work, which in the original contains in the first page, the name of every one of the twenty four Buddhos, stated in the order of their advent; to which work there is a valuable commentary, either giving the history of every one of these Buddhos, or referring to the authorities in which a detailed account of them may be found. Nor can the "two ablest priests of Buddha,” and the other parties employed by Sir A. Johnston in collecting these records, plead ignorance of the existence of that valuable commentary (Mahawansa-Tíká), for I observe in the list of Páli and Singhalese books,― vol. iii. p. 170,-two copies of that work are mentioned; one in the temple at Mulgirigalla, from which my copy was taken; and the other in the temple at Bentotte.

This translation, which abounds in errors of the description above noticed, is stated to have been made "under the superintendence of the late native chief of the cinnamon department, (Rájapaxa, maha modliar), who was himself the best Páli and Singhalese scholar in the country." I was personally acquainted with this individual, who was universally and deservedly respected, both in his official and private character. He possessed extensive information, and equally extensive influence, among his own caste at least, if not among his countrymen generally; and as of late years, the intercourse with the budhistical church in the Burmese empire had been chiefly kept up by missions from the priesthood of his (the chalia) caste in Ceylon, the late chief justice could not, perhaps, have applied to any individual more competent to collect the native, as well as Burmese, Páli annals; or more capable of procuring the best qualified translators of that language into Singhalese, from among the Páli scholars resident in the maritime districts of the island, than Rajapaxa was. This was, however, the full extent to which this chief could have efficiently assisted Sir A. Johnston, in his praiseworthy undertaking; for the maha modliar was not himself either a Páli, or an English scholar. That is to say, he had no better acquaintance with the Páli, than a modern European would, without studying it, have of any ancient dead language, from which his own might be derived. As to his acquaintance with the English language, though he imperfectly comprehended any ordinary question which might be put to him, he certainly could not speak, much less write, in reply, the shortest connected sentence in English.* He must, therefore, (unless he has practised a most unpardonable deception on Sir A. Johnston) be at once released from all responsibility, as to the correctness, both of the Páli version translated into Singhalese, and of the Singhalese version into English.

In 1822, five years after Sir A. Johnston left Ceylon, and before I had acquired a knowledge of the colloquial Singhalese, as Magistrate of Colombo, I had to examine Rájapaxa, maha modliar, as a witness in my court. On that occasion, I was obliged to employ an interpreter (the present permanent assessor, Mr. Dias, modliar) not only to convey his Singhalese answers in English to me, but to interpret my English questions in Singhalese to him, as he was totally incapable of following me in English. With Europeans he generally conversed in the local Portuguese.

There is some similar misapprehension in pronouncing the late Rev. Mr. Fox, by whom the English translation is stated to have been revised in England, to be "the best European Páli and Singhalese scholar at present in Europe." I had not the pleasure of being personally acquainted with this gentleman, who left the colony, I believe, soon after I arrived in it. I have always heard him spoken of with respect, in reference to his zeal in his avocation, and his attainments as an European classical scholar. I am, however, credibly informed, that this gentleman also had no knowledge of the Páli language.

A letter from Mr. Fox is inserted in the Introduction, p. xi., of which I extract the three first

sentences.

"Having very carefully compared the translations of the three Singhalese books submitted to me with the originals, I can safely pronounce them to be correct translations, giving, with great fidelity the sense of the original copies.

"A more judicious selection, in my judgment, could not have been made from the numerous buddhist works extant, esteemed of authority among the professors of buddhism, to give a fair view of the civil and mythological history of buddhism, and countries professing buddhism.

"The Mahavansi is esteemed as of the highest authority, and is undoubtedly very ancient. The copy from which the translation is made is one of the temple copies, from which many things found in common copies are excluded, as not being found in the ancient Páli copies of the work. Every temple I have visited is furnished with a copy of this work, and is usually placed next the Játakas or incarnations of Buddha."

This extract serves to acquit him most fully of laying claim to any knowledge of the Páli language; as he only speaks of having "carefully compared the translations of the three Singhalese books submitted to him with the originals." But what shall I say of the prejudice he has raised against, and the injustice he has done to, the native literature of Ceylon, when he pronounces the wretched jargon into which a mutilated abridgment of the Mahawanso is translated "to be correct translations, giving with great fidelity the sense of the original copies;" and then proceeds to declare, (in refererence to that mutilated abridgment and its accompaniments)," a more judicious selection, in my judgment, could not have been made from the numerous buddhist works extant," !!

Mr. Fox labors also under some unaccountable delusion, when he speaks of "abridged temple copies," and calls the Mahawanso a "sacred work," found in almost all the temples. It is, on the contrary, purely and strictly, an historical work, seldom consulted by the priesthood, and consequently rarely found in the temples; and I have never yet met with, or heard of, any abridged copy of the work. In direct opposition to this statement, as to its being an "abridged copy," Mr. Upham, to whom the publication of these translations was intrusted, and who was the author of "The HISTORY OF BUDDHISM," makes the following note at p. 7 of that work:

"According to the information prefixed in a manuscript note, by the translator, Raja-pakse, a well known intelligent native of Ceylon, the Mahawansi is one of the most esteemed of all the sacred books of his countrymen, and has the character of being among the oldest of their writings, being throughout composed in Palee, the sacred buddhist language. This work has been so carefully preserved, that but slight differences are observable between the most ancient and most modern copies. It does not appear at what period it was composed, but it has been in existence from the period that the books of Ceylon were originally written, and it contains the doctrine, the race, and lineage of Budha,' and is, in fact, the religion and history of buddhism."

I need hardly suggest, after what has been already stated, that Rajapaxa, as an intelligent native of Ceylon, never could have been the real author of this note, in any language, asserting that the Mahawanso "is one of the most esteemed of all the sacred books of his countrymen ;" nor could he, without

D

recording a self-evident absurdity, have represented an history extending to the middle of the last century. and containing in it the specification of the reign in which several portions of it were composed, to have "been in existence from the periods that the books of Ceylon were originally written."

In his preface to the same work, Mr. Upham distinctly "disclaims all pretension to the philological knowledge and local information, requisite to render discussion useful, and illustration pertinent." The spirit of candour in which this admission is made, would entitle Mr. Upham to be considered exclusively in the light of a publisher, irresponsible for any material defect the work he edites may contain. A fatality, however, appears to attach to the proceedings of every individual connected with the publication of these Ceylonese works, from which Mr. Upham himself is not exempt, if the introduction, and the notes appended, to the translation of "The SACRED AND HISTORICAL BOOKS" are to be attributed to him.

Thus, p. 83, the translator states that "Mahindo was accompanied with his nephew Sumenow, a samanere priest, seven years old, the son of his sister Sangamittrah;" and p. 97, “The first queen Anulah, and 500 other queens, having obtained the state of Sakertahgamy, and also 500 pleasure women, put on yellow robes; that is, became priestesses." But when this publisher touches upon the same subjec s in the following passage, p. 100, “in these days, the queen Anulah, together with 1000 women, were created priestesses by Sangamittrah, and obtained the state of rahat;" he thinks it necessary to enlighten his readers with a note: and forgetting altogether that he has to deal with "matron queens and pleasure women," he gravely remarks, that "priestesses, although not now existing among the buddhists, were at this period of such sanctity, that an offender when led forth to be put to death, who was so fortunate as to meet one of these sacred virgins, was entitled, at her command, to a pardon; and this privilege was subsequently copied, and adopted among the Romans, in the case of the vestal virgins." Mr. Upham has no more valid authority for saying that these "matrons and pleasure women" were considered either to assume the character of “sacred virgins" by their ordination, or to have been held in greater veneration than the rahat priests, than that the privilege of demanding the pardon of offenders, "was subsequently copied, and adopted among the Romans." Again, p. 222, in a note, he states correctly enough, that the "upasampadá were the priests of the superior quality." But at p. 300, where the ceremony of upasampadá (which simply signifies ordination) is mentioned, he forgets the former, and the correct rendering, and adds a note in these words: "this was the burning the various priests' bodies, and forming them into dawtoos, which had been preserved for that purpose." These instances of the same facts and circumstances being correctly stated in one, and incorrectly in another part, of both these publications, are by no means of infrequent occurrence; which only tend to aggravate the neglect or carelessness of the parties employed in conducting this publication. Where such inaccuracies could be committed in the "SACRED AND HISTORICAL BOOKS," when an occasional note only is attempted, it may readily be imagined what the result must be, when Mr. Upham is employed to write "The HISTORY AND DOCTRINE OF BUDDHISM from Sir A. Johnston's collection of manuscripts."

Imperfect as the information connected with buddhism possessed by Europeans at present is, it would not have been reasonable to have expected any connected and correct account of the metaphysical and doctrinal portions of that creed; and until the "pitakattaya," or the three pitakas, which contain the buddhistical scriptures, and the ancient commentaries on them, are either consulted in the original, or correctly translated, there must necessarily prevail great diversity of opinions on these abstruse and