526 Buddhist Chronology . [Sept. 



of Professor Wilson's Table with Sir W. Jones's Essay, it will, I 

 think, be admitted that Kalhana Pundit did not depart materially 

 from the fictitious scheme of Hindu chronology contained in the 

 Puninas, until after the reign of Gonerda III. ; and that it was 

 subsequent to that date, that he attempted to correct progressively 

 the Hindu anachronism. According to the Puninas, Chandragupta 

 succeeded to the Magadha empire about B. C. 1502. Admitting 

 (for reasons hereafter explained), that Asoka of Cashmir is identical 

 with Asoka of Magadha, the grandson of Chandragupta, we shall 

 then have a series of nine (three of Magadha and six of Cashmir) 

 princes to fill up the term of 320 years intervening between Chandra- 

 gupta B. C. 1502, and Gonerda III. B. C. 1182, giving a some- 

 what high average, certainly, of 35 years and seven months, but still 

 not greatly out of proportion with the term actually assigned in Bud- 

 dhistical history to the reigns of the three Magadha kings, (viz.) ; — 



Chandragupta, 34 



Bindusara, 28 



Aso'ka, 37 



99 -j- 3 — 33 years for the average 



At all events, it must be conceded that a series of only nine reigns, 

 comprised within so limited a term as 320 years, can by no admissible 

 process of adjustment be extended to 703 by the addition thereto of 

 383 years short deducted at the age of Gonerda III. Such an 

 addition would make it necessary either to throw back the reign of 

 Chandragupta to (B. C. 1182 + 703=) B. C. 1885, which would 

 disturb the whole scheme of Hindu chronology, or to bring the reign 

 of Gonerda III. (B. C. 1502—703) to B. C. 799, which Kalha'na 

 had not done. 



It appears to be requisite, therefore, that the adjustment made in 

 the date of the reign of Gonerda III. should be nearer 1177 than 

 794 years ; and, indeed, I conceive I am justified in asserting, that 

 this position admits of almost arithmetical verification, from the ine- 

 qualities of the avei-ages produced in the reigns of the three subse- 

 quent " dynasties" in the Chronological Table of the Raja Tarangini. 



It will be seen in that Table, that Professor Wilson does not escape 

 from his chronological embarrassments till the close of his " third 

 dynasty ;" as the averages assigned to two of those dynasties are, by 

 his own acknowledgment, inadmissible. According to his corrected 

 chronology he has 



