"On the death of the tenth Maurya king, his place was assumed by his commander-in-chief, Pushamitra, of the Sanga nation or family."

It is thus shown that, according to the hindu authorities, Chandragupta, the Sandracottus, who was contemporary with Alexander and Seleucus Nicator, to whose court at Palibothra Megasthenes was deputed, is placed on the throne about B. c. 1502; which is at once an anachronism of upwards of eleven centuries.

Sir W. Jones sums up his treatise by commenting on this fictitious chronology of the hindus, with the view to reconciling it, by rational reasoning, founded on the best attainable data, with the dates which that reasoning would suggest, as the probably correct periods of the several epochs named by him.

The whole of that paper, but more particularly as it treats of the "fourth age," bears a deeply interesting relation to the question of the authenticity of the buddhistical chronology; and it exhibits, in a remarkable degree, the unconscious approaches to truth, as regards the history of the Buddhos, made by rational reasoning, though constantly opposed by the prejudices and perversions of hindu authorities, and his hindu pundit, in the course of the examination in which Sir W. Jones was engaged. Wilford next brought the chronology of the hindus under consideration, by his "Genealogical Table, extracted from the Vishnu purána, the Bhagavat, and other puránas, without the least alteration.” He however borrows from hindu annals, nothing but the names of the kings.

"When the puránas, (he says) speak of the kings of ancient times, they are equally extravagant. According to them, king Yudhishthir reigned seven and twenty thousand years; king Nanda, of whom I shall speak more fully hereafter, is said to have possessed in his treasury above 1,584,000,000 pounds sterling, in gold coin alone: the value of the silver and copper coin, and jewels, exceeded all calculation; and his army consisted of 100,000,000 men. These accounts, geographical, chronological, and historical, as absurd, and inconsistent with reason, must be rejected. This monstrous system seems to derive its origin from the ancient period of 12,000 natural years, which was admitted by the Persians, the Etrusians, and, I believe, also by the Celtic tribes; for we read of a learned nation in Spain, which boasted of having written histories of above six thousand years.

"The hindus still make use of a period of 12,000 divine years, after which a periodical renovation of the world takes place. It is difficult to fix the time when the hindus, forsaking the paths of historical truth, launched into the mazes of extravagance and fable. Megasthenes, who had repeatedly visited the court of Chandragupta, and of course had an opportunity of conversing with the best informed persons in India, is silent as to this monstrous system of the hindus. On the contrary, it appears, from what he says, that in his time they did not carry back their antiquities much beyond six thousand years, as we read in some MSS. He adds also, according to Clemens of Alexandria, that the hindus and the Jews were the only people who had a true idea of the creation of the world, and the beginning of things. There was then obvious affinity between the chronological system of the Jews and the hindus. We are well acquainted with the pretensions of the Egyptians and Chaldeans to antiquity: this they never attempted to conceal. It is natural to suppose, that the hindus were equally vain: they are so now; and there is hardly a hindu who is not persuaded of, and who will not reason upon, the supposed antiquity of his nation. Megasthenes, who was acquainted with the antiquities of the Egyptians, Chaldeans, and Jews, whilst in India made inquiries into the history of the hindus, and their antiquity, and it is natural to suppose that they would boast of it as well as the Egyptians or Chaldeans, and as much then as they do now. Surely they did not invent fables to conceal them from the multitude, for whom, on the contrary, these fables were framed.”

Thus rejecting the whole scheme of hindu chronology, and adopting the date of the age of Alexander for the period at which Chandragupta reigned in India, Wilford, as regards chronology, simply tabularizes his list of kings, according to the average term of human life; and thereby approximates the hindu to the European chronology. "The puránas," he adds, "are certainly a modern compilation from valuable materials, which I am afraid no longer exist;" but from several hindu dramas (which have been

* A. R. vol. v. p. 241.

recently translated and published by professor Wilson,) he deduces particulars connected with the personal history of Chandragupta, and supplies also some valuable geographical illustrations,--to both which I shall hereafter have occasion to advert. Wilford recurs to these subjects in greater detail, and with more close reference to buddhistical historical data, in his several essays on the Gangetic provinces, the kings of Magadha, the eras of Vicramaditya and Salivahana, and in his account of the jains or buddhists. Want of space prevents my making more than one extract. I shall only notice, therefore, as regards chronology, that Wilford in this instance* also bases his calculations on the European date assignable to the reign of Chandragupta; and that in doing so, it will be seen, by the following admission, that he disturbs the epoch of the Káliyuga by upwards of seventeen centuries.

"The beginning of the Cáli-yuga, considered as an astronomical period, is fixed and unvariable; 3044 years before Vicramaditya, or 3100 B. C.-But the beginning of the same, considered either as a civil, or historical period, is by no means agreed upon.

"In the Vishnu, Bráhmánda, and Váyu puránas, it is declared, that from the beginning of the Cáli-yuga, to Mahananda's accession to the throne, there were exactly 1015 years. This emperor reigned 28 years; his sons 12, in all 40; when Chandragupta ascended the throne, 315 years B. C.—' -The Cáli-yuga, then, began 1370 B. c., or 1314 before Vicramaditya and this is confirmed by an observation of the place of the solstices, made in the time of Parására; and which, according to Mr. Davis, happened 1391 years B. c. or nearly so. Parására, the father of Vyása, died a little before the beginning of the Cáli-yuga. It is remarkable that the first observations of the colures, in the west, were made 1353 years before Christ, about the same time nearly, according to Mr. Bailly."

Bentley, Davis, and others, have also discussed, and attempted to unravel and account for, these absurdities of the hindu chronology. Great as is the ingenuity they have displayed, and successful as those inquiries have been in other respects, they all tend to prove the existence of the above mentioned incongruities, and to shew that they are the result of systematic preversions, had recourse to, since the time of Megasthenes, by the hindus, to work out their religious impostures; and that they in no degree originate in barbarous ignorance, or in the imperfect light which has glimmered on a remote antiquity, or on uncivilized regions involved in a fabulous age.

The strongest evidence I could adduce of the correctness of this inference, will be found in the remarks of professor Wilson, in his introductory observations on the "Rája Taringiní, a history of Cashmir." He thus expresses himself:

"The only Sanscrit composition yet discovered, to which the title of history can with any propriety be applied, is the Ra'ja Taringiní, a history of Cashmir. This work was first introduced to the knowledge of the Mohammedans by the learned minister of Acber, Abulfazl; but the summary which he has given of its contents, was taken, as he informs us, from a Persian translation of the hindu original, prepared by order of Achar. The example set by that liberal monarch, introduced amongst his successors, and the literary men of their reigns, a fashion of remodelling, or re-translating the same work, and continuing the history of the province, to the periods at which they wrote.

The earliest work of this description, after that which was prepared by order of Acber, is one mentioned by Bernier, who states, an abridged translation of the Rája Taringiní into Persian to have been made, by command of Jehangir. He adds, that he was engaged upon rendering this into French, but we have never heard any thing more of his translation. At a subsequent period, mention is made in a later composition, of two similar works, by Mulla Husein, Kári, or the reader, and by Hyder Malec, C‘hadwaria, whilst the work in which this notice occurs, the Wakiat-i-Cashmir, was written in the time of Mohammed Shah; as was another history of the province, entitled, the Nawadir-ul-Akhbar. The fashion seems to have continued to a very recent date, as Ghulam Husein notices the composition of a history of Cashmir having been entrusted to various learned men, by order of Jivana the Sic'h, then governor of the province; and we shall have occasion to specify one history, of as recent a date as the reign of Shah Alem.

* A. R. vol. ix. p. 87.

F

The ill directed and limited inquiries of the first European settlers in India, were not likely to have traced the original of these Mohammedan compositions; and its existence was little adverted to, until the translation of the Ayin Acberi, by the late Mr. Gladwin, was published. The abstract then given, naturally excited curiosity, and stimulated inquiry; but the result was unsatisfactory, and a long period intervened before the original work was discovered. Sir W. Jones was unable to meet with it, although the history of India from the Sanscrit Cashmir authorities, was amongst the tasks his undaunted and indefatigable intellect had planned; and it was not until the year 1805, that Mr. Colebrooke was successful in his search. At that time he procured a copy of the work from the heirs of a brahman, who died in Calcutta; and about the same time, or shortly afterwards, another transcript of the Rája Taringiní was obtained by the late Mr. Speke from Lucknow. To these two copies I have been able to add a third, which was brought for sale in Calcutta ; and I have only to add, that both in that city and at Benares, I have been hitherto unable to meet with any other transcript of this curious work.

The Ra'ja Taringiní has hitherto been regarded as one entire composition: it is however in fact a series of compositions, written by different authors, and at different periods; a circumstance that gives greater value to its contents; as, with the exceptions of the early periods of the history, the several authors may be regarded almost as the chroniclers of their own times. The first of the series is the Raja Taringiní of Calhina pandit, the son of Champaca; who states his having made use of earlier authorities, and gives an interesting enumeration of several which he had employed. The list includes the general works of Suvrata and Narendra; the history of Gonerda and his three successors, by Hela Rája, an ascetic; of Lava, and his successors to Asoca, by Padma Mihira; and of Asoca and the four next princes, by Sri Ch'havillacara. He also cites the authority of Nila Muni, meaning probably the Nila Purána, a purána known only in Cashmir; the whole forming a remarkable proof of the attention bestowed by Cashmirian writers upon the history of their native country: an attention the more extraordinary, from the contrast it affords, to the total want of historical inquiry in any other part of the extensive countries peopled by the hindus. The history of Calhana commences with the fabulous ages, and comes down to the reign of Sangrama Deva, the nephew of Didďá Rúni, in Saca 949, or a. D. 1027, approaching to what appears to have been his own date, Saca 1070, or a. D. 1148.

The next work is the Rajavali of Jona Rája, of which, I regret to state, I have not yet been able to meet with a copy. It probably begins where Calhana stops, and it closes about the time of Zein-ul-Ab-ad-din, or the year of the Hijra 815, as we know from the next of the series.

The Sri Jaina Ra'ja Taringiní is the work of Sri Vara Pandita, the pupil of Jona Rája, whose work it professes to continue, so as to form with it, and the history of Calhána, a complete record of the kingdom of Cashmir. It begins with Zein-ul-Abad-din, whose name the unprepared reader would scarcely recognize, in its Nágari transfiguration of Sri Jaina Ollábbha Dina, and closses with the accession of Fatteh Shah, in the year of the Hijra 882, or A. D. 1477. The name which the author has chosen to give his work of Jaina Taringiní, has led to a very mistaken notion of its character; it has been included amongst the productions of jain literature, whilst in truth the author is an orthodox worshipper of Siva, and evidently intends the epithet he has adopted as complimentary to the memory of Zien-ul-Ab-ad-din, a prince who was a great friend to his hindu subjects, and a liberal patron of hindu letters, and literary men.

The fourth work, which completes the aggregate current under the name of Rája Taringiní, was written in the time of Acber, expressly to continue to the latest date, the productions of the author's predecessors, and to bring the history down to the time at which Cashmir became a province of Acher's empire. It begins accordingly where Sri Vara ended, or with Fatteth Sha, and closes with Nazek Shah; the historian apparently, and judiciously, avoiding to notice the fate of the kingdom during Hamayun's retreat into Persia. The work is called the Rajavali Pataca, and is the production of Punja or Prajuga Bhatta.

Of the works thus described, the manuscript of Mr. Speke, containing the compositions of Calhana and Sri Vara, came into my possession at the sale of that gentleman's effects. Of Mr. Colebrooke's manuscript, containing also the work of Punja Bhatta, I was permitted by that gentleman, with the liberality I have had on former occasions to acknowledge, to have a transcript made; and the third manuscript, containing the same three works, I have already stated I procured by accidental purchase. Neither of the three comprises the work of Jona Raja; and but one of them, the transcript of Mr. Colebrooke's manuscript, has the third tarong or section of Calhina's history. The three manuscripts are all very inaccurate; so far so, indeed, that a close translation of them, if desirable, would be impracticable. The leading points, however, may be depended upon, agreeing not only in the different copies, but with the circumstances narrated in the compendium of Abulfazl, and in the Mohammedan or Persian histories which I have been able to procure."

For the purposes of the comparative view I shall presently draw, I wish to notice pointedly here, that the earliest portion of this history comes down to a. D. 1027; that the author of it flourished about A. D. 1148; and that "the three manuscripts are all very inaccurate; so far so, indeed, that a close translation of them, if desirable, would be impracticable."

In reviewing his sketch of the Cashmirian history, the professor observes, in reference to its chronology :

"The chronology of the Rája Taringiní is not without its interest. The dates are regular, and for a long time both probable and consistent, and as they may enable us to determine the dates of persons and events, in other parts of India, as well as in Cashmir, a short review of them may not be wholly unprofitable.

The more recent the period, the more likely it is that its chronology will be correct; and it will be therefore advisable to commence with the most modern, and recede gradually to the most remote dates. The table prefixed was necessarily constructed on a different principle, and depends upon the date of Gonerda the third, which, as I have previously explained, is established according to the chronology of the text. Gonerda the third lived, according to Calhana pandit, 2330 years before the year Saca 1070, or a. D. 1148, and consequently his accession is placed B. c. 1182: the periods of each reign are then regularly deduced till the close of the history, which is thus placed in the year of Christ 1025, or about 120 years before the author's own time. That the reign of the last sovereign did terminate about the period assigned, we may naturally infer, not only from its proximity to what we may conclude was the date at which the work was written, but from the absence of any mention of Mahmud's invasions, and the introduction of a Prithivi Pa'la, who is very possibly the same with the Pitteruge Pal of Lahore, mentioned in the Mohammedan histories."

In applying the proposed test of "receding gradually to the most remote dates," the anachronism at the period of the reign of Gonerda the third is not less than 796 years: the date arrived at by this recession being B. c. 388, while the text gives B. c. 1182: and various collateral evidences are adduced by the professor to shew that the adjusted is the probably correct one*. This anachronism of course progressively increases with the recession. At the colonization of Cashmir, it amounts to 1048 years. The respective dates being, text B. c. 3714, and adjusted epoch в. c. 2666.

In Colonel Tod's superb publication, "The Annals of Rajasthan," the whole of the above data are reconsidered in reference to the hindu texts; but some trifling alterations only are made in those early dynasties. From poetical legends, the successful decyphering of inscriptions, and the discovery of a new era, (the Balábhi) a very large mass of historical information has, with incredible industry, been arranged into the narrative form of history; the chronology of which has been corrected and adjusted, as far as practicable, according to the occasional dates developed in that historical information.

At the end of these remarks will be found reprinted, portions of professor Wilson's prefaces to his translations of the historical dramas-the MUDRA RAKSHASA, and the RETNAVALI; to both which I shall have to refer, in commenting on the chapters of the Mahawanso, which embrace the periods during which the events represented on these hindu plays occurred.

I believe, I have now adverted to the principal published notices of hindu literature, in reference to continuous hindu history. And if I were called upon to answer the question, suggested by myself; upon the evidence adduced, I should say, in reply to the first part of that proposition-That there does not now exist an authentic, connected, and chronologically correct hindu history; and that the absence of that history proceeds, not from original deficiency of historical data, nor their destruction by the ravages of war, but the systematic perversion of those data, adopted to work out the monstrous scheme upon which the hindu faith is based.

* I have ventured to suggest in an article in the Journal of the Asiatic Society for September 1836, that this anachronism amounts to about 1177 instead of 796 years.

In regard to the second part of the proposition, the answer can only be made inferentially and hypothetically. Judging from what has already been effected, by the collateral evidence of the history of other countries, and the decyphering of inscriptions and coins, I am sanguine enough to believe that such a number of authentic dates will in time be verified, as will leave intervals of but comparatively short duration in the ancient Indian dynasties between any two of those authentic dates; thereby rescuing hindu history in some degree from the prejudice under which it has been brought by the superstitions of the native priesthood.

One of the most important services rendered to the cause of oriental research of late years, is, perhaps, "the restoration and decyphering of the Allahabad inscription, No. 2," achieved by Doctor Mill, and published in the Asiatic Journal of June, 1834.

In reference to this historical inscription, the learned Principal observes, "Were there any regular chronological history of this part of Northern India, we could hardly fail in the circumstances of this inscription, even if it were without names, to determine the person and the age to which it belongs. We have here a prince who restores the fallen fortunes of a royal race that had been dispossessed and degraded by the kings of a hostile family-who removes this misfortune from himself and his kindred by means of an able guardian or minister, who contrives to raise armies in his cause; succeeding at last in spite of vigorous warlike opposition, including that of some haughty independent princesses, whose daughters, when vanquished, become the wives of the conqueror-who pushes his conquests on the east to Assam, as well as to Nepal and the more western countries-and performs many other magnificent and liberal exploits, constructing roads and bridges, encouraging commerce, &c. &c.—in all which, allowing fully for oriental flattery and extravagance, we could scarcely expect to find more than one sovereign, to whom the whole would apply. But the inscription gives us the names also of the prince and his immediate progenitors: and in accordance with the above mentioned account, while we find his dethroned ancestors, his grandfather and great grandfather, designated only by the honorific epithet Mahá-rája, which would characterize their royal descent and rights-the king himself (SAMUDRAGUPTA) and his father are distinguished by the title of Máha-rájá-Adhi-rája, which indicates actual sovereignty. And the last mentioned circumstance might lead some to conjecture, that the restoration of royalty in the house began with the father, named CHANDRAGUPTA, whose exploits might be supposed to be related in the first part of the inscription, to add lustre to those of the son.

"Undoubtedly we should be strongly inclined, if it were possible, to identify the king thus named— (though the name is far from being an uncommon one) with a celebrated prince so called, the only one in whom the Puranic and the Greek histories meet, the CHANDRAGUPTA or SANDRACOPTUS, to whom SELEUCUS NICATOR sent the able ambassador, from whom STRABO, ARRIAN, and others derived the principal part of their information respecting India. This would fix the inscription to an age which its character (disused as it has been in India for much more than a thousand years), might seem to make sufficiently probable, viz. the third century before the christian era. And a critic, who chose to maintain this identity, might find abundance of plausible arguments in the inscription: he might imagine he read there the restoration of the asserted genuine line of NANDA in the person of CHANDRAGUPTA, and the destruction of the nine usurpers of his throne: and in what the inscription, line 16, tells of the guardian GIRI-KALKA'RAKA-SVAMI, he might trace the exploits of CHANDRAGUPTA's wily brahman counsellor CHA'NAKYA, so graphically described in the historical play called the Mudra-Ráxasa, in levying troops for his master, and counterplotting all the schemes of his adversaries