posed for the improvement of the earth and its productions; or for the benefit of the State. It may also be inferred that some of the measures of Raja Priyadarsi, such as the introduction of medical establishments, and establishment of popular instruction, may have been debated at these Assemblies. But the monkish compilers of the third and fourth centuries of the Christian era appear to have belonged to a lazy and degenerate community; and are thus open to the charge of having falsified the chronicles for the purpose of concealing the practical philanthropy which prevailed in the reign of Asoka, and of representing their order as the special favourites of the pious and illustrious Raja.

III. CHRONICLES OF MAGADHA, B.C. 543 TO 288.

Apart from these so-called Synods, the Buddhist chronicles, from the death of Buddha in B.C. 543, to the accession of Asoka in B.C. 325, might be dismissed as a monkish jumble of myths and names. In the so-called annals there are only five Rajas of Magadha, who appear as representatives of particular dynasties; and they are the only sovereigns who appear to have the slightest claim to be regarded as historical personages. Their names are as follows:—

1. Ajata-satru the parricide, who was reigning when Buddha died, and also when the first Synod was held.

2. Saisu-naga the serpent-worshipper, and father of that Kal Asoka, who was reigning when the second Synod was held.

3. Nanda the freebooter.

4. Chandra-gupta the cowherd.

5. Asoka, or Priyadarsi.

Ajata-satru is chiefly famous for having murdered his father. Three Rajas are said to have reigned after him, but nothing is recorded respecting them beyond the years of their

reigns, and the bare statement that each in turn murdered his father. Thus a dynasty was created or invented known as the parricide dynasty. In Buddhist chronicles it occupies a period of half a century; in reality it is nothing more than the reign of Ajata-satru repeated over and over again. The four next sovereigns, who are supposed, more or less, to represent dynasties, may be really resolved into one man. In the case of the three first the legitimacy is said to be doubtful. The mother of each of the three is represented as of dubious origin, or low caste. Probably the mother of Asoka would have been degraded in the same way, only that it was deemed expedient to exalt him as a Buddhist hero.19 Each of the four Rajas is said to have acquired the throne by force. The Buddhist chronicle gives the years of their respective reigns, and also the years of the reigns of certain intermediate Rajas; but otherwise the so-called annals of all these dynasties are as bare of real events as the annals of the parricides.20

The Greek accounts of Aggrammes and Sandrokottos furnish the only clue to the real history. According to the Greek story already related, Aggrammes was reigning at Patali-putra when Alexander invaded the Punjab. He is said

19 There is something wrong about Asoka. In the commentaries translated by Mr Turnour (see Introduction to the Mahawanso) Asoka is said to have been on bad terms with his father, Vindusura, who was afraid of being murdered by him. This idea would bring Asoka in somewhat close association with Ajata-satru.

20 In the commentaries on the Buddhist chronicles, which are translated in Mr Turnour's Introduction to the Mahawanso, and also in Bishop Bigandet's legend of the life of Gótama Buddha, there are a number of tedious myths relating to some of these Rajas, which defy every attempt at interpretation, and yet seem to refer to real revolutions in Hindustan. The infant Saisunaga is said to have been born of a Vaisali princess, who had been carried away captive to the city of Rajagriha, and appointed to the post of chief courtesan. The babe was exposed outside the city, and preserved by a great snake or Nága; and then grew up and became Raja of Magadha. Another adventurer named Nanda joined some free-booters, and became Raja of Magadha. Lastly, Chandragupta is said to have been born of a Vaisali princess, and exposed in a cow-pen, where the infant was protected by a bull, and brought up by a cowherd, and ultimately became Raja of Magadha. To complicate the matter, similar details are introduced into the life of Krishna. This god, or hero, is said to have been brought up as the son of a cowherd named Nanda. Like Saisunaga, the infant Krishna was protected by the great Snake. See ante.

to have been an illegitimate usurper. He was born of the queen, but his father was not the reigning Raja, but a barber who was a paramour of the queen. The reigning Raja was put to death by the barber, and Aggrammes obtained the throne. This story in its main outline corresponds with that of Ajatasatru. According to the Buddhist chronicles, Ajata-satru had been instigated by the shaven priest Devadatta to murder his father Vimbasara, Raja of Magadha, and ascend the throne. Thus Ajata-satru is resolved into Aggrammes; and the amorous barber into the shaven priest Devadatta. A padding of two centuries is then inserted between Ajata-satru and Asoka. Its object is unknown, but it is evident that a jumble of names of mythical Rajas and stories of mythical Synods has been engrafted in the chronicle. Thus Sandrokottos appears in Greek story as having made his appearance in the Punjab as a contemporary of Alexander and AggramHe is said to have had an interview with Alexander, but ultimately made his escape. Subsequently he re-appears in the Punjab and expels the Greeks, and becomes Raja of Magadha. He is the ally of the Græco-Bactrian kings, and husband of the daughter of Seleukos Nikator. Thus the story of Sandrokottos also agrees in the main with that of Asoka. According to the Buddhist chronicle, Asoka was appointed when very young to be governor or viceroy of Ujain in the remote territory of Malwa. Whilst here he was ordered to subdue a revolt which had broken out in the Punjab; in other words, he expelled the Greeks from Taxila. He ultimately obtained possession of the Magadha kingdom, but his further proceedings have been perverted into religious myths. Curiously enough the Buddhist chronicle states that in his old age he lost his queen, and then raised her attendant, a vain and malicious creature, to the dignity of queen consort. Whether this incident refers to the marriage

mes.

22

21 The mythical character of these two centuries is further proved by the story of Kasyapa, and his preservation of the relics of Gótama Buddha for a period of two centuries in a brazen vihára. Kasyapa prophesied that after two centuries a R ja would reign named Asoka, who would discover the relics. It is evident from the edicts that Asoka was not at all likely to venerate relics.-Bigandet.

22 Mahawanso, ch. xx., page 122.

of Sandrokottos to a Greek wife can only be matter of conjecture; but if it was Asoka who married the Greek lady, the event would in all probability be recorded much after the fashion in which it appears in the Buddhist chronicle.

These details are practically devoid of all value. It does not really affect the history of India whether they are true or whether they are false. Indeed they might be cast aside as worthless, did they not prove, once and for all, that Buddhist and Brahmanical traditions, whether related in Sanskrit Puránas or Páli chronicles, are alike unauthentic and unreliable. The salient points in the Buddhist chronicles have now been tested by the impartial and contemporary authority of Greek writers, and by what appear to be contemporary inscriptions; and the result renders it impossible to doubt that the chronicles have been falsified by the unknown compilers beyond all hope of redemption. The Brahmans have only completed what the Buddhists began, and it may be safely asserted that for all historical purposes the Sanskrit Puránas are more wild and extravagant than even the Páli chronicles. Thus Buddhists and Bráhmans have done their best to blot out the remains of the past for the sole and selfish purpose of aggrandizing themselves; and by so doing they have justly earned the reputation of being more unscrupulous in the perversion of the annals of their empire, than any other body of literati which have been represented in historical times.