ASIATIC SOCIETIES.

“ (The King) having considered (the fact) that the Vihāra at Rājamahā Kelaniya was a holy spot where Buddha had vouchsafed to sit, to partake of food and preach his doctrines, inquired what works of merit by way of repairs there were to be executed there; and having ascertained that the Chaitya and all other edifices were in ruins, gave much (money for) expenses from the royal palace, and assigned the task of accomplishing the work to the chief officer of the royal revenue, and the minister Parākkrama Båhu Vijayakköná, who caused the execution of the plastering of the Chai tya, and other necessary repairs and works; built a parapet wall of granite sixty cubits (in length) on the north, constructed a flight of steps with a Sandakadapahana (a semicircular stone serving as a stepping-stone) on the east; tho roughly rebuilt the Samādhi image-house, the Napilimageya and the eastern gate of the same monastery and its flight of stone-steps, the minor Trivanka house, the Telkatarageya, the latrine common to the priesthood, and the east gate; repaired breaches and injuries, &c., of the Pas mahālpaya, Selapilimageya, Siwurudageya, &c., and repaired various other breaches, and other works in the Wihāra. And after having accom plished this work thoroughly, (the King) thinking it desirable that His Majesty's royal name should be perpetuated in this Vihāra, conferred on the chief priest of the monastery the title of Sri Rájaratna Piriwan Tera, and ordained that all

who occupied the lands of the temple, those who served in the elephant stables, the horse stables, the kitchen, bath-rooms, and persons employed in various other occupations, the Tamil and the Siñhalese, and those who paid rent and who owned land, should give (to the Temple) two pélas of paddy (measured) by a laha which contains 4 nelis for every amuna of sowing extent, and money payment at the rate of one panama for every ten cocoanut trees, and thus accomplished this meritorious work, so that it may last while the sun and moon exist.

“In obedience to the command delivered by His Majesty, sitting on the throne at the royal palace of Jayawardhan Kotte, in the midst of the Mudali varu (nobles), that a writing on stone should be made in order that kings and ministers in future ages might acquire merit by preserving and im proving this work, I, Sanhas Teruvarahan Perumal, have written and granted this writing on stone. “The boundaries to Rājamahā Kelaniya are— Wattala, Malsantota, Kudá Mābóla, Galwalutota, Gongitota, Godarabgala Galpotta, the stone pillar at Gonaséna, including the Uruboruwa Liyedda, the canal Rammudu Ela, the Kessaket àgala, the Watagala, Esalapaluwa, the inside (?) of Pasuru

231

tota, the (?) of Dewiyāmulla, the boundary stone, and the great river.” The king alluded to is Dharma Parākkrama Båhu, the 152nd sovereign in Mr. Turnour's list of the kings of Ceylon, in whose reign “ the Por tuguese first landed in Ceylon, and were permitted to trade.”

Both the Mahāvailso and Rájaratnākara entirely omit his reign, making his brother and immediate successor, Vijaya Båhu, supply his place; while the Rájúvali (which Mr. Turnour seems to have followed in compiling his epitome) gives a graphic and interesting account of his reign. The Rájavali, however, bears internal evidence of its being a contemporaneous record, while it is well known that the Rájaratnākara is com paratively a recent work, and that this portion of the Mahāvañso too, was compiled so recently as 1758, “by Tibbotuwäwe Terunnänse, by the command of Kirtišri, partly from the works brought during his reign by the Siamese priests (which

had been procured by their predecessors during their former religious missions to this island), and partly from the native histories which had es

caped the general destruction of literary records in the reign of Rāja Siñha I.” In the Dondra inscription No. I., published by Mr. Rhys Davids in the Journal for 1870-71 (conf. Ind. Ant. vol. I. p. 59) it is stated that king Vijaya

Båhu ascended the throne in the year Šaka 1432 (A. D. 1510), thus supporting, or rather seeming to support, the version given in the Mahdvaňso and Ríjaratnākara, and contradicting the Rájavali,

which is supported by the Kelaniya inscription. On the discrepancy between the date given by Turnour and that recorded in the Dondra inscrip tion, Mr. Davids had remarked—“ that in the year

1432 of Šaka, which is 1510 of our era, the reigning Chakrawarti or Overlord (as given in Turnour's list) was not Sanga Bo Wijaya Båhu, who came to the throne in 1527, but his brother Dharma Parāk krama Båhu.”

It would however now seem that

the discrepancy is not only between Turnour's date and that recorded in the Dondra inscription, but also between one series of writers and another,

and between one “contemporaneous record” and another:—

Mr. De Zoysa then expresses his belief that the assumption of the sovereignty by Dharma Parāk krama Bâhu was disputed by his brother Vijaya Båhu, and that, at least for a time, one part of the nation (probably those in the south) acknow

ledged the latter as sovereign, while the rest adhered to his brother; and this view seems to

derive support from the following fact mentioned by Mr. Turnour in his Epitome:– “His (Dharma Parākkrama Bâhu's) reign was