A History of Indian Literature v2.c19.s3.t2.66

v2.c19.s3.t2.66

Indeed, cases are not rare in which the prose represents an independent Sutta, and the verses which follow it are only distantly connected with the prose, sometimes only by word consonances. Moreover, there are a few pieces in which the prose and the verse portions are entirely unconnected or even contradict each other. In all these cases we are probably dealing with later additions. Expressing an idea first in prose and then garbing it in verse, or commencing the presentation of a doctrine in prose and then continuing it in verse, seems to be an old form of Buddhist composition. Then when texts having this form were collected in the Itivuttaka, even prose texts and verses which were taken from elsewhere, were combined on the same pattern and inserted into the collection, possibly already by the first compiler, but perhaps not till later. It is a fact that in the Chinese translation of the Itivuttaka by Hsüan-Tsang many of the last pieces of our collection are missing,¹ and that a few of these last pieces are to be found in the Aṅguttaranikāya. It is very probable that they were taken thence. Furthermore, when we consider that a number of verses, combined with different prose pieces, appear twice, it may be regarded as indubitable that even in this very small collection earlier and later matters are combined. The additions include a few passages in which the prose only looks like a kind of commentary on the verse. In the old and authentic pieces,² however, the prose does not lag behind the verse either in value or in antiquity. In the later additions, too, it may happen that an old piece of prose has been combined with later verses.