whole, I think it best to assign b. b. 325 for the accession of Chandragupta, 301 for that of Bindusâra, and 273 for that of Asoka, whose coronation followed in 269.
Several eminent scholars have held and defended the opinion that the figures 256 at the end of Minor Rock Edict I must be interpreted as a date expressing the number of years elapsed since the death of Buddha, and in the first edition of this work that opinion was treated as probable. But further examination of the problem has convinced me that M. Senart and Mr. F. W. Thomas are right in rejecting the date theory, according to which, if the death of Buddha be assumed to have taken place in 487, the edict would be dated in b.c. 231, at the close of Asoka’s life. I now accept the view that the edict in question is the earliest of the whole collection, and dates from cir. b. b. 257. This divergence of opinion as to the interpretation of that document seriously affects the treatment of the life history of Asoka [1]. As already observed, I reject the theory that he abdicated, and am of opinion that the connected theory of his conversion late in life is opposed to the clear testimony of the inscriptions.
- ↑ Bühler maintained the date theory to the last (Ind. Ant., xxii. 302), and has been followed by Dr. Fleet in several articles in the J. R. A. S., of which the latest is in the volume for 1913, p. 655. For date of death of Buddha see E. Hist. India, 3rd ed., pp. 46, 47. If b. c. 487 be correct, the Ceylonese date 218 a. b. for the consecration of Asoka also will be right (487-218 = 269). But I now incline to 544 or 543 b.c.
p. 41, corrects the copyist's error which makes the Mahâvaṁsa assign thirty-four years to the reign.
