________________
AUGUST, 1914.]
THE DATE OF MAHAVIRA
171
and Muņda, who reigned together 8 years according to the Mahavamsa, are totally omitted by the Dipavamsa, and from V, 78 it seems absolutely necessary to conclude, that Dipavamsa makes Nagadása the immediate successor of Udayu; as for Nagadisa, he reigned at least 21 years, 80 as is seen from XI, 10. Susugaga reigned ten years, 81 and was succeeded by Kálisoka ; but I am not aware of any statement in the Dipavamsa concerning the length of his reign. Kálisoka must have been confounded with his father Susunaga in V, 99, when it is said that:
Susunagass' accayena honti te dasa bhataro
Sabbe bâvisati vaseam rajjam kåresu vamsato II for clearly by this are indicated the ten sons of Kalásoka, reigning 22 years according to the Mahavamsa. The Nandas are totally lacking, Candragupta reigned 24 years, and Bindusara is only mentioned, in V, 101 ; VI, 15, as the father of Aboka without any further notice of the length of his reign$2.
As for Asoka himself, he reigned 37 years (V, 101), was anointed 218 years after Buddha, and converted three years after his coronation, etc.: all well-known statements. But, beside the clearly corrupt verse VI, 24:
paripurnavisavassamhi Piyadassibhisi ricayum
pasandam pariganhanto tīri vassam alikkami II where the 20 years refer to an unknown event, there is another manifestly confused statement regarding the time of Asoka. For in V, 102, it is said, that Tissa died in Asoka's 26th year, but in VII, 32, in his 8th year. I am not able to make out how these contradicting statements may have originated.
In XI, 1 ff., we find the kings of Ceylon, who were in old times as remarkable for their long reigns as afterwards for the speed with which they succeeded each other. V. XI, 8 ff. states that Vijaya began his reign in the 8th year of Ajáta atru,83 and died after having been king 38 years in Udaya's 14th year. After an interregnum of about one year Payduvasa was anointed in Udaya's 16th year, and died after a reign of 30 in the 21st year of Nagad sa. After him Abhaya became king, and reigned for 20 years, and after him there was an interregnum of 17 years, during which Pakugdaka or Pandukábhaya lived as a robber' (coro asi, XI, 2); having put seven of his maternal uncles to death (XI, 3), and having been anointed at Anuradhapura he reigned 70 years, and died in the fourteenth year of Candragupta, leaving the crown to his son Mutasîva, who reigned 60 years, and died 17 years after the coronation of Asokast. These accounts would place Candragupta in about 315/314 B. C., and the corunation of Asoka in 257 B. C., but both dates are too late. Now, it is nearly impossible, that Pakundaka who was 37, when he was crowned, should have reigned 70 years, and have had a son reigning after him for 60 years.$5 But where the error lies is not easily ascertained. However, the miscalculation is rather small, and after all the Ceylonese Chronicles do not form an obstacle to retaining the adjusted date, 477 B. C.
If we now sum up the results of this short investigation, we have found that Asoka's coronation must have taken place between the years 272-270 B.C., and his real accession to the
Bu If Nagadása was really the successor of Udaya, he must have reigned 40 years; for Kalasoka had reigned 10 years and 15 days at the centenary of the Nirvåpa.
81 Dipav. V, 97. 89 But this may be calculated from XI, 12-13 (v. below), and seems to have been about 29 years.
8 He came to Ceylon in the last year of Buddha, Dipav., IX, 40, on the very night of Buddhas' death, according to Mahdv. VII, 1 ff.
B4 From this statement the date of Bindueira can be calculated; he seems to have reigned 29 years.
85 It is, however, remerkable that more than one classical author speaks about the high age reached by the inhabitants of Taprobane: Of., 6.9., Pliny, VI, 22 (24)
