The relic-dome which these rails surround, and the railings themselves, are thought by General Cunningham to date from the latter part of the third century B.C., not more than twenty years after Asoka's later edicts. It is possible, but is not the opinion. I believe, of the learned, that the carvings are later than the dome.

But if these carvings are of the date assigned, the Buddhism of the books, whatever be said of the books themselves, must have been in full force. Beside these which I have mentioned, there are other scenes in the same series, representing events not contained in our Pitakas, but belonging to the later embellishment of them, such as the descent of Gotama as a white elephant into his mother's body, and his journey to the Tusita heaven to preach to her. From these we should infer that the Buddhism, not of the edicts, but of the Pitakas, had been long established.

And there is another piece of evidence,-to my mind the most interesting, as it is certainly the most irrefragable, of all,-which establishes completely the claim of these Ceylon chroniclers, who tell us that their Buddhism was in full force in Asoka's day and was promoted by him, to be true witnesses about that period. We have already seen that, in the main points of their statement about Asoka-his conversion, his zeal, his missionary efforts-the Ceylon chroniclers are right. The minuteness of their knowledge of what Asoka did, in strictly Buddhist matters, is also indisputably proved. The king, says the chronicle,

It

sent out missionaries not to Ceylon only, but to many countries. Amongst them, he sent the elder, Majjhima, to the district of Himavanta.' Who would not have supposed that this was a detail for which the chronicler might have drawn on his imagination? But in the inmost recesses of the great relic-dome at Sanchi, a stone box was found by General Cunningham, on which was inscribed in Asoka' letters: '(relics) of Majjhima, teacher of the Himavat.' is the nature of a relic-dome or dagaba' to be built solid over the relics which it encloses; not to be left open for them to be put in afterwards. If this is an unbroken rule, as I believe it is, the Mahavansa preserves the record of a minute fact, which was monumentally recorded at the date of the dagaba; i.e. according to General Cunningham, about 200 B.C., close about the very time when Majjhima, according to the Mahavansa, must have died. In short, we have contemporary evidence of the fact which the Mahavansa records.

In view of these things it seems impossible to doubt that the Sinhalese monks, from whose archives the Mahavansa was compiled, had preserved a true tradition about the character which belonged, in Asoka's days, to that stock of Buddhism which was brought over, in his days, to them.

It remains strange that the edicts of the father differ so widely from the text-books of the son, but there is hardly better ground for setting aside the one than for disputing the other.

At this point the writer may be forgiven for pausing and inviting his reader to reflect with him on the unique position occupied, in the history of human thought, by the imperial moralist. His was an

enthusiasm such as was never reached by any Antonines. In him Buddhism inspired perhaps the greatest effort, in scale at any rate, on behalf of good, that was ever made by man, outside of Christianity. The rules and the books are insignificant in his presence.

Two hundred years at least had elapsed since the death of the founder, to whom the organisation of moral effort was attributed. A vast change had passed, since his day, over the face-the political aspect at least-of India. The touch of a strange new civilisation-the civilisation of their distant Aryan brethren of Europe-had been felt by the Aryans of the Ganges. Aided by the Greek invader, a single monarchy had asserted itself, and claimed all India for its own, and had so far succeeded as to give vividness to a new conception-that of a universal monarch. A great man had arisen, representative of that dynasty, who had assimilated much of the new civilisation and felt its stimulating influence. In his person the idea of the world-monarch was embodied. He was a man of vast ambitions and vast designs. And on this man, Piyadasi Asoka, at first a despot as careless as others of the means he used, the teaching of the ascetic community laid its spell. He became much more than its patron: he was

its apostle. As his reign went on he was more and more imbued with its spirit; the desire to serve it and extend it moulded his magnificent enterprise. He was not merely the Constantine of Buddhism; he was an Alexander with Buddhism for his Hellas; an unselfish Napoleon, with 'mettam' in the place of 'gloire.' The world was his that he might protect all lives in it; might teach loving-kindness throughout it; might establish in every part of it the Community of the disciples of the Buddha.

Compared with the solid reality of Asoka, the records which are preserved of the Buddha himself are but a shadowy tradition. And as the great King's history becomes better known, men will be tempted to speculate whether Buddhism owes more to Gotama than to Moggali; to ask how far what is definite in the history of Bimbisára's days is a reflection thrown back on the mist of the past from the greater epoch of Asoka.

1 The leader of the Community in Asoka's time.

CHAPTER XXI

CRITICAL HISTORY OF THE CANONICAL LITERATURE

HAT the contents of the Pitakas are not all of the

TH

is a different point-that they are not all of one date, will probably be admitted by every student, and, indeed, by every intelligent Buddhist. But it may be worth while to state clearly the proofs on which such a conclusion rests. The statement will probably show that the extent to which a variety of date must be admitted is very large indeed.

1. To take first what results from a general perusal of the canonical books. The Commentaries themselves admit, with regard to certain specified portions, that they were later additions; for instance, the Commentary on the Théragátha is quoted by Professor Morris as saying that parts of that book were first uttered at the Council of Patna.1 The Dipavansa has been generally understood as saying that the Kathavatthu of the Abhidhamma Pitaka was first uttered by the Moggaliputta at the same council; and although Pro

2

1 Professor Morris on Theragáthá, P.T.S., p. xi.

2 Dip. vii. 55. The Subha S, was uttered by Ananda after the decease of the Buddha. See Dig. Nik. p. 204; Samanta Pásád. p. 286.