________________
232
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
[JULY, 1891.
that the real name is Priyadarsin. This name, which does not appear in any known list of kings, naturally much embarrassed Prinsep. Since, however, Tarnouri shewed that Asoka, the grandson of Chandragupta, received sometimes, and specially in the Dípavarisa, the name of Piyadassi or Piyadassana, I do not believe that the identification proposed by him has ever been seriously doubted,11 The publication of the complete text of the Sinbalese chronicle has only given his proof a higher degree of certainty.12 Although all the reasons which he advances are not equally cogent, 13 still the conclusions of Lassend on this point remain in general impregnable.
Dr. Bühler has attempted to give him a precise date, by shewing that there existed a perfect agreement between the chronology of the Sinhalese books, and that of the inscriptions. These suggestions are founded upon an interpretation of the Edict of Sahasarâm-Rupnath, which, as has been seen, I consider inadmissible. Ingenious as they are, they fail in their foundations. Everything rests upon the translation of the text in question, to which I will not revert here: but I must add that, on the one hand, the interpretation of the 13th Edict which has become possible since the article of Dr. Bühler was written, and, on the other hand, the more exact interpretation of the 8th, oppose insurmountable difficulties to his attempts at chronological adjustment.
The only date which we are permitted to take as a starting point, the only really authentic date for the conversion of the king, is that which the king's own inscriptions give, that is to say, at the earliest, the ninth year of his coronation and not the fourth as given for the conversion of Asoka by the chronicles. This correction would place the Edict of Sahasarâm, if we accept as exact the date of 218 for the coronation of the king, at the earliest in the year 260, and not 256, of the nirvana.16 We must, therefore, at the very first give up this exact agreement between the traditional dates and the so-called monumental dates which Dr. Bühler has sought to deduce. I would add here, in opposition to the interpretation proposed by that eminent scholar for the first phrase of the edict, one last observation, which I should have fully developed in my commentary on the passage. Intent on establishing from a chronological point of view harmony between the sense which he draws from the inscriptions and the traditions given in the Sinhalese books, he has not considered the profound contradictions which he creates in other respects, not only between this ediet and the traditions concerning Asôka, but between the edict and our other inscriptions, which he nevertheless, like us, refers to the same anthor. How is he to reconcile the inscription which would shew the king remaining more than two and thirty years and a half without displaying his zeal,' and the chronicle which attributes to him, from his seventh year (see below), all the manifestations of the most indefatigable religions activity? What agreement can there be between such an inscription, and all those edicts according to which the most characteristic of his religious institutions, the anusarnyána, the dharmamahámátras, &c., belong invariably to a long anterior epoch of his reign, – to his thirteenth or his fourteenth year? Was he neither active nor a zealot, when he insisted with so much energy on the necessity of effort and of the most persevering zeal (VI, in fine; x, in fine, &c.) P; when he himself proclaimed his efforts (parákrama, parákránta, &c.) as incessant (Girnar, VI, 11 ; X, 3, &c.)?
10 J. A. S. B. 1837, pp. 790 and ff., 1054 and ff.
11 The paper of Latham (On the date and personality of Priyadarsi, J. R. A. 8., Vol. XVII. pp. 273 and ff.) and his whimsical attempt to identify Priyadarlin and Phrahate, deserve notice only as a curiosity.
12 Cf. Dipavamsa, ed. Oldenberg, VI. I, 14, &c.
13 It is not, for example, in any way oertain that the Ediot of Bhabra is necessarily addressed to the third commcil held, according to tradition, in the reign of Asoka. Cf, subter. On the other hand, certain new proofs can be added : for instance, that the tradition of numerous edicts of religion,' dharimaup., is indissolubly connected with the name of Abóka. See the Asoka-avadana in Burnouf, Introduction, p. 871, &c.
14. Ind. Alterth. Vol. II, p. 233.
18 Dr. Bühler, however, clearly recognized that, in the absence of specific statements, the years of Asoka are, in the Sinbalese chronicles, calculated from his coronation. Instances like Dipavamsa, VII. 31, not to cite othera leave the point in no doubt.
