716 Examination of the Pali Buddhistical Annals. [Sbft, 



Ceylon in the 236th year after Sakya, being the first of the reign of 

 Dewa'nanpiyatisso, and the I8th of that of Asoko, B. C. 307. 



All these dates, specific as well as relative, excepting the computed 

 one of the accession of Asoko, (which alone admits of correction on 

 the plea of a clerical error, to the extent of ten years, in the reign of 

 Chandagutto) adapt themselves with so much precision to the 

 several epochs they are designed to indicate, that I conceive it would 

 amount to a positive infatuation for any advocate of the cause of Bud- 

 dhistical literature, to venture to disturb their adjustment on any of 

 the various pleas, of mistranslation, mistranscription, or misapprehen- 

 sion of the writer's meaning ,- on which it is but too often the prac- 

 tice to attempt to correct chronological data contained in Indian 

 historical records of remote antiquity. 



It appears to me to be impossible for any unbiassed examiner of 

 these records, to follow up the links of this well connected chain of 

 chronological evidence, and arrive at the specific date, assigned to the 

 inauguration of Asoko, of A. B. 218, occurring at the close of the 

 4th year after that monarch's accession, without acknowledging that 

 that date is designedly a cardinal point in the history, in which it holds 

 so conspicuous a place. 



The date of the accession of Asoko, four years antecedent to his 

 inauguration, being thus distinctly fixed to be A. B. 214 or B. C. 329 

 on Buddhistical evidence, if that evidence is to be sustained, the 

 invasion of Alexander must, as the necessary consequence, be con- 

 sidered to have taken place in the early part of the reign of Asoko, 

 and not during the commotions which preceded the usurpation of the 

 Indian empire, by his grandfather Sandracottus ; and the embassy 

 of Megasthenes and the treaty of Seleucus must also necessarily 

 fall to a more subsequent period of the reign of Asoko, instead of their 

 occurring during the rule of Sandracottus. 



Averse as I equally am, either to suggest or to adopt theoretical 

 and hypothetical views connected with oriental research, I must, in 

 candour, admit myself to be persuaded of the correctness of the con- 

 clusions which identifies Sandracottus with Chandagutto; and by 

 my adherence to that persuasion, I am necessarily compelled to 

 acknowledge that there is a discrepance of about 68 years between the 

 western and the Buddhistical chronologies, at the particular point at 

 which this identity takes place. 



It is not, however, my intention, nor am I qualified, to analyze the 

 two chains of data, and to balance the weight of the evidence each 

 affords, for the purpose of deciding which of the two preponderates, 

 and indeed once for all, I cannot be too explicit in avowing that the 



