9. I may observe here that Mr. Turnour, the translator of the Páli Annals of Ceylon, appears to have felt the full force and meaning of Dharma, which he always gives in its Páli form of Dhammo. Had he translated it simply as "religion," the true sense of many passages would have been utterly lost. But he was living in a Buddhist country, and in daily intercourse with Buddhist monks, and he therefore knew and appreciated the peculiar significance of the term; which stamps the follower of Dharma as an undoubted Buddhist, or observer of the "Religious Law" of Buddha.

10. Professor Wilson's second objection is the omission of any mention of Buddha himself, by any of his well-known appellations. But this is met by the frequent and emphatic use of Dharma, the name of the second person of the orthodox Buddhist Triad. Bhagaván is also twice mentioned in the 13th Tablet of the Kapurdigiri inscription; but this title, although very commonly used by the Buddhists, is only an epithet for the Supreme Being, and might therefore have been used by the Brahmans of those days as well as by the Buddhists. The common Brahmanical term, however, is Bhagavat, and I believe that the use of Bhagaván is almost peculiar to the Buddhists. But though the omission of Buddha's own name in these inscriptions cannot, perhaps, be now explained, yet the Buddhistical faith of Priyardarsi is placed beyond all doubt by his mention of Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha, the three

members of the orthodox Buddhist Triad, in the short rock inscription found at Bhabra, near Jaypur.*

11. Professor Wilson's third objection is the asserted identification of Asoka with Priyadarsi, which rests upon a passage in the Dipawanso, "a work of doubtful character and of comparatively modern date." Regarding the authenticity of the Dipawanso, I hold an opinion entirely different to Professor Wilson's. His doubts of its genuineness were, I presume, based on the statement of Mahánámo, which Mr. Turnour has brought prominently forward, that "the Páli Pittakattaya and its atthakatha (or Commentaries), had been orally perpetuated" previous to B. C. 88-76. If this statement were true, it is clear that all events recorded previous to that date could only be regarded as so many traditions. It is quite possible that the monks may have made a mystery of their learning to increase the reverence of the people, by asserting that all the doctrines which they taught had been handed down orally; and this assertion might have gradually grown into a belief which in Mahánámo's time nobody disputed. But it is much more likely that the assertion is a mere error of the text; for it is most fully contradicted by another statement of Mahánámo, which has every appearance of truth to recommend it to our implicit belief. According to • Jour. As. Soc. Bengal, ix. 618. + Mahawanso, c. 33, p. 207. Mahawanso, c. 37, p. 251.

this statement, the Singhalese Atthakatha were composed by Mahendra (the son of Asoka), who had previously consulted the discourses of Buddha, and the dissertations and arguments of Sáriputra and others. But, in addition to this counter statement, we have the testimony of Buddhaghoso,* who translated the Singhalese Atthakatha into Páli, between A. D. 410-432. He states distinctly, that for his own work he had availed himself of the Atthakatha, which had been in the first instance authenticated by the five hundred Arahanta at the First Synod, and subsequently at the succeeding synods; and which were afterwards brought to Sihala (or Ceylon) by the holy Mahendra, and "translated into the Sihala language for the benefit of the people."

12. This account is older by some seventy years than that of Mahánámo, the author of the Mahawanso; and as Buddhaghoso was a Magadha Brahman, he must have known that the Buddhist scriptures had been compiled by the disciples of Buddha, immediately after the meeting of the First Synod. A Páli version of the Atthakatha, or Commentaries, is mentioned as having been studied by Tisso Mogaliputra, while he was a Sámanera, in the early part of the third century before our era.†

13. There is, besides, the most convincing internal evidence in the Maháwánso of the correctness of the

• Turnour's Páli Annals, in Prinsep's Journal, vi. 510.

+ Buddhaghoso, quoted by Turnour in Prinsep's Journal, vi. 731.

above statement of Buddhaghoso, in the fact, that no mention whatever is made of Indian affairs after the advent of Mahendra. This proves, in my opinion, that all the knowledge of Indian history which the Singhalese possessed had been derived from Mahendra: a conclusion which is supported by the direct testimony of Buddhagoso.

14. The fourth objection, urged by Professor Wilson against the identity of Asoka and Priyadarsi, is the non-occurrence of the name of Asoka or Dharmasoka in any of the inscriptions. The same objection might be offered to the identity of Prince Salim and Jahangir, and of Prince Kurram and Shah-Jehán. In fact, it is a common practice in the East for a prince to assume a new name upon his accession to the throne; and such we know was the custom in Asoka's own family. His grandfather had three names,-1st, a birth name, which is not given, but which was perhaps Vrishala; 2nd, a local name, Palibrothes, or lord of Pátaliputra; and 3rd, a royal name, Chandra Gupta, which he assumed on his accession to the throne.* Asoka's brother, named Vitásoka, was also called Tishya; his son Kunála had a second name, Dharma- Varddhana ;† and his daughter, Sanghamitra, was also named Sumitra. At that period it was therefore the common custom, for a prince at least, to have two

• Megasthenes in Strabo, xv.
+ Burnouf's Buddhisme Indien.
Mahawanso, p. 121.

names; and if Asoka, as the Dipawanso explicitly states, bore also the title of Priyadarsi, it is evident that the inscriptions which gave him this title would omit all mention of his original name of Asoka. In the edicts promulgated by himself, he is mentioned by the name which he had assumed; but in the annals written by others he is called by that name which he had always borne, and by which he was best known to the people. An almost similar case is that of the Roman Emperor Elagabalus, or Bassianus, who assumed the name of Antoninus, by which he is always mentioned on coins and inscriptions; while the historians and annalists invariably call him Elagabalus.

15. But the statement of the Dipawanso is most happily confirmed by the Bhabra edict, from which we learn that Priyadarsi, the worshipper of Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha, was the Raja of Magadha at the period of the Third Synod.* Now we know, from the Buddhist annals, that this synod took place in the reign of Asoka Maurya, the Buddhist King of Magadha. The statement is further confirmed by a fact mentioned by the Chinese pilgrim Fa-Hian;

• Jour. As. Soc. Bengal, ix. 618. The opening words are Piyadasi-rája Magadha-sangham abhiváde-mánam cha," or "Raja Priyadarsi, saluting the Synod of Magadha, declareth." This most valuable document should be translated critically; for the version already published renders the above passage as follows: -"Piadasa Raja, unto the multitude assembled in Magadha saluting him, speaks (thus).