ART. XIX.—The Authorship of the Piyadasi Inscriptions. by VINCENT A

481

ART. XIX.—The Authorship of the Piyadasi Inscriptions. By VINCENT A. SMITH, M.R.A.S., late of the Indian Civil Service. THE numerous inscriptions on rocks and stone pillars which purport to have been issued by command of a sovereign named Priyadarsin or Piyadasi, and a few which omit the sovereign's name while using the title specially affected by King Piyadasi, obviously form a distinct class among Indian epigraphical records and belong approximately to one period. The exceptional value and the extreme interest of these inscriptions have always, since their first discovery, been recognized by all students of Indian history and antiquities, and for nearly seventy years the Piyadasi class of inscriptions has been studied and discussed by eminent scholars. Before these invaluable records can be fully and confidently utilized for the elucidation of the dark places of Indian history, two preliminary problems must be definitely solved. These problems are, firstly, Were all the Piyadasi inscriptions issued by one sovereign, or by two or more sovereigns ? and secondly, Who was Piyadasi, and what is his place in history? Having recently undertaken to write a book on the subject of Asoka, I was compelled to deal with both these problems, and to satisfy myself as to the true solution of both. Although this investigation was undertaken as a preliminary study for my book, and primarily for my own satisfaction, competent authority has assured me that it may be of interest to other people, and I therefore venture to lay it before this Society. General consent identifies Piyadasi with the Emperor Asoka Maurya in the third century B.C., and ascribes most, if not all, of the Piyadasi class of inscriptions to

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. INSEAD, on 21 May 2018 at 10:07:45, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0035869X00028707 482 AUTHORSHIP OF THE PIYADASI INSCRIPTIONS.

a single sovereign. But the consent, though general, is not absolutely unanimous. Doubts have been frequently expressed, and various writers, including some distinguished scholars, have doubted both the unity of the authorship of the inscriptions and the identity of Piyadasi with Asoka. A pamphlet by Babu P. C. Mukherjl, which was reviewed in our Journal last year by Professor Rhys Davids, and thus introduced to the consideration of scholars, proposed startling theories in opposition to the views commonly accepted, and the arguments adduced by the author of that pamphlet are sufficiently plausible to raise doubts in the minds of readers who have not specially studied the subject. The present time, therefore, seems opportune for the examination of the two problems above stated. When I undertook the investigation I approached it with an absolutely open and impartial mind, and I thought it advisable to see first of all if the inscriptions themselves could solve the question of unity of authorship, irrespective of the question of the identity of Piyadasi and Asoka Maurya. I shall therefore first discuss the question of unity of authorship on the assumption that we do not know who Piyadasi was or where he lived. The known inscriptions of the Piyadasi class, nearly all of which purport to have been issued by the authority of Piyadasi, may be conveniently arranged in eight groups, namely:—

I.—The Fourteen Rock Edicts, of which recensions have been discovered at seven localities, namely:— 1. Shahbazgarhi (Kapurdigiri), in the Yusufzai territory, north-east of Peshawar in the Panjab ; 2. Mansera in the Hazara District, Panjab; 3. Kalsi, in the Dehra Dun District of the North-Western Provinces; 4. Dhauli, in the Katak District of Orissa ; 5. Jaugada, in the Ganjam District of the Madras Presidency;

6. Girnar, near Jiinagarh in Kathiawar, Bombay Presi- dency ; and 7. Sopara, in the Thana District, north of Bombay. II.—The Two Kalinga (also known as the Detached, or Separate) Rock Edicts, at— 1. Dhauli, two edicts, and 2. Jaugada, two edicts. III.—The Two Minor Rock Edicts, at— 1. Bairat, in the Alwar State, Rajputana; 2. Rupnath, in the Jabalpur District, Central Provinces; 3. Sahasram, in the Shahabad District, Bengal; and 4. Siddapura, in the Maisur (Mysore) State, three copies. The Siddapura copies contain two edicts, namely, a variant of the edict found in different forms at Bairat, Rupnath, and Sahasram, and a second edict peculiar to Siddapura.

IV.—The Bhabra Edict, at Bhabra, near Bairat in Alwar State, Rajputana. V.—The Three Cave Dedications, in three caves at the Barabar hill, near Gaya, Bengal. VI.—The Two Tarai Memorial Inscriptions, on pillars at— 1. Nigall Sagar, near Nigliva in the Nepalese Tarai, north of the BastI District, in the North- Western Provinces ; 2. Rummindel {alias Padaria), in the Nepalese Tarai, north of Dulha in the Basti District, and about thirteen miles south-east of the Nigall Sagar pillar. VII.—The Seven Pillar Edicts, on six pillars, namely:— 1. Delhi-Topra {alias Delhi-Sivalik, or Firoz Shah's Lat, or Delhi I), at ruined city of Flrozabad, near Delhi, removed from Topra, near Ambala (Umballa). The important Seventh Edict is found on this pillar only;x

1 The older writers erroneously divided this edict into two, Nos. VII and VIII.

2. Delbi-Mirath (-Meerut, alias Delhi II), on the ridge at Delhi, removed from Mirath ; 3. Allahabad, in the Fort; 4. Lauriya-Araraj {alias Radhia), near a village named Lauriya, and a temple of Araraj - Mahadeo in the Muzaffarpur District, Bengal; 5. Lauriya-Nandangarh(-Navandgarh, alias Mathia), near another village named Lauriya and the great mound of Nandangarh, in the Champaran District, Bengal; 6. Rampurwa, near the village of that name in the north- eastern corner of the Champaran District.

VIII.—The Supplementary Pillar Edicts, on pillars, at— 1. Allahabad, where two short edicts, the Queen's and the Kausambi, have been added to Pillar Edicts, Nos. I to VI; and at 2. Sanci, partly identical with the Kausambi Edict at Allahabad.

The total number of separate documents extant may be reckoned as 34, namely: 14 Rock Edicts, 2 Kalinga Edicts (the Jaugada pair differs very little from the Dhauli pair), 2 Minor Rock Edicts (the recensions of No. 1 being Tariants), 1 Bhabra Edict, forming a class by itself, 3 Cave Dedications, 2 Tarai Memorial Inscriptions, 7 Pillar Edicts, and 3 Supplementary Pillar Edicts. Important variations occur in the different recensions of the Fourteen Rock Edicts and the Minor Rock Edicts. The variations in the six recensions of Pillar Edicts I-VI are unimportant. Edict No. VII, the most important of the Pillar series, being found on the Delhi-Topra pillar only, has no variants. Individual phrases and turns of expression are so often repeated in the Piyadasi inscriptions that the hasty reader is apt to suppose that all the documents are much the same, but in reality each of the Fourteen Rock Edicts and each of the Seven Pillar Edicts has a perfectly distinct subject- matter. For example, the subject of the First Pillar Edict

is ' the principles of government,' that of the second, ' the royal example,' and that of the third, ' self-examination.' The Fourteen Rock Edicts are dated in the thirteenth and fourteenth years of the reign of Devanampiya Piyadasi Raja, His Sacred Majesty King Piyadasi, counting from his solemn coronation {abhiseka), and in their completed form were published in the later of those two years. Each of the fourteen edicts opens with the full royal title as given above, but in the body of the documents the abbreviated form Devanampiya, His Sacred Majesty, is sometimes used by itself. A momentary digression concerning the title Devdnampii/a may, perhaps, be pardoned. King Piyadasi in most of his inscriptions uses it as his official style, and it is also used in the three brief inscriptions in the Nagarjuni caves of King Dasaratha, who, according to the Puranas, was a grandson of Asoka Maurya. In Ceylon it was used by Tissa (Tishya), the contemporary, according to the chronicles, of Asoka Maurya, and by at least one later sovereign. So far as I am aware, these are the only known examples of the use of the compound as a royal title, but the beginning of the Eighth Rock Edict shows that it was also used by several of the predecessors of Piyadasi. The subject of that edict is ' Pious Tours,' and Piyadasi observes, in the Kalsl text, that " in times past 'Their Sacred Majesties' {devanampiya) used to go out on so-called pleasure-tours," but that he has changed all that. In the Girnar, Dhauli, and Jaugada recensions the word rdjdno, 'kings,' is substituted for the plural devdnampiya, which latter must, therefore, be necessarily interpreted in this passage as an equivalent of rdjdno. When M. Senart's book, " Les Inscriptions de Piyadasi," was published in 1881 the only available text reading devanampiya was that of Kalsl. The Mansera text had not then been discovered, and the copy of the Shahbazgarhi text was unintelligible. The perfect facsimiles now available, and published by Buhler, prove that Kalsl, Mansera, and Shahbazgarhi agree in giving the title devdnampiya, and that M. Senart's conjecture that the plural form devdnampiya in

the Kalsi text is due to a clerical error cannot be maintained. The reading is quite correct, and the verb is in the plural (nikhamisu). It is true that Mansera reads devana priya, but this form also is plural, being used with the verb nikramishu, and distinguished from the singular devana priye used lower down as the epithet of Priyadrasi raja. Devanampiya in the Shahbazgarhi text is similarly plural. The verbal translation of devanampiya as 'beloved of the gods' or ' dear to the gods' is so awkward and displeasing to the ear when frequently repeated, that the rendering by the conventional phrase ' His Majesty,' or ' His Sacred Majesty,' seems to me to be a more faithful representation of the real meaning. Although the various recensions of the Fourteen Edicts differ considerably in alphabet, spelling, and dialect, and to a less extent in substance, nobody has ever suggested any doubt concerning the unity of authorship of all the texts. Undoubtedly they were all published by a single sovereign named Piyadasi (Priyadarsin). The Kalinga Edicts of Dhauli and Jaugada, hitherto known by the rather inappropriate designation of the Detached or Separate Edicts, are so placed on the rock as to be obviously a supplement to the local edition of the Fourteen Edicts, which intentionally omits Edicts XI, XII, and XIII, although it includes the Epilogue, No. XIV. The Borderers' Edict, erroneously called No. II by Prinsep and all subsequent writers, is arranged as a continuation of the Fourteen Edicts, and was probably incised at the same time. The Provincials' Edict, the so-called No. I, in which the king reproaches his officials with remissness in the execution of his orders, is clearly an addition made at a later date. But there is no reason to suppose, nor has anybody ever suggested, that either of the Kalinga Edicts, whether at Dhauli or Jaugada, was issued by a sovereign different from him who issued the Fourteen Eock Edicts. The Kalinga Edicts and the Fourteen Rock Edicts are, therefore, the proclamations of a single sovereign named Piyadasi.

The Minor Rock Edicts omit the sovereign's name, and simply purport to have been issued by the authority of " His Majesty (devanampiya)." Owing to this circumstance and certain difficulties of interpretation, scholars have given their fancy free play, and have conjecturally attributed these documents to Dasaratha, Samprati, or other persons. It is not necessary to examine these conjectures in detail. They are mere guesses, and nobody has ever attempted to prove that the Minor Rock Edicts could not have been issued by Piyadasi. Some of the arguments which have been used to cast doubt on his authorship have become obsolete by the progress of discovery. But the publication from time to time of such arguments renders necessary a demonstration of the real authorship of these documents, which is not on the face of them obvious. The next in order, the Bhabra Edict, addressed to the Buddhist clergy, differs in its contents from the other Piyadasi inscriptions so much that it forms a class by itself. It does not contain any clear indication of date, but purports to be issued by King Piyadasi. The facts that it is, like some of the Minor Rock Edicts, inscribed on a detached boulder, and thai it was found near the Bairat Minor Rock Edict, suggest that it should be referred to approximately the same date. The authorship is not certainly apparent on the face of the document, because it would be possible to maintain, and the suggestion has been made, that more sovereigns than one may have used the name Piyadasi. It is necessary, therefore, to determine the authorship of this edict. The Barabar Cave dedications also purport to have been made by King Piyadasi, and it is necessary to determine whether or not he is the person who issued the Fourteen Rock Edicts and the Kalinga Edicts. In the inscriptions on the two pillars discovered in recent years in the Nepalese Tarai, the royal titles used are exactly the same as those used in the Fourteen Rock Edicts, and I am not aware that any competent scholar has ever doubted that these pillar inscriptions and the Fourteen Rock Edicts

belong to the one reign. I am not quite certain to whom Mr. Mukherjl ascribes the Tarai inscriptions. Class VII, the Seven Pillar Edicts, and Class VIII, the Supplementary Pillar Edicts, may be considered together. The latter are to all appearances supplementary to the main series. The unity of authorship of the fourteen Rock Edicts and of the Pillar Edicts is usually admitted, but Mr. Mukherjl has ventured to publish the daring hypothesis that the Pillar Edicts are the work of Asoka Maurya, and that the Rock Edicts are the work of his grandson Samprati. It is well, therefore, to regard the whole question of the authorship of all the Piyadasi inscriptions as being open. Analysis of the royal style or titles used, in the eight groups of inscriptions supplies valuable evidence for the decision of the question of authorship. Four formulas are used— I. The fullest formula, Devanampiya Piyadasi Raja, is used in Class I, the Fourteen Rock Edicts, Class VI, the Memorial Inscriptions of the Tarai Pillars, and Class VII, the Seven Pillar Edicts. But in the Kalsl text of Rock Edict I the title raja is omitted, and in all the texts of the thirteenth Rock Edict the abbreviated style devanampiya is used in the body of the document. II. The title devanampii/a by itself is used in Class II, the Kalinga Edicts, Class III, the Minor Rock Edicts, and Class VIIT, the Supplementary Pillar Edicts. III. The formula Piyadasi Raja is used in the Bhabra Edict only, Class IV. IV. The practically identical formula Raja Piyadasi is used in the dedications of the Bariibar caves, Class V.

Prima facie, the use of the one full formula in the Fourteen Rock Edicts, the Seven Pillar Edicts, and the Tarai Memorial Inscriptions is very strong evidence of the unity of authorship. All the inscriptions under consideration, to whatever class they belong, are on the face

of them approximately contemporaneous, and it is in the highest degree improbable that two Rajas named Piyadasi and using the title devdnampiya, should have set up cognate inscriptions on stone within a period of, say, fifty years. Unless distinct proof can be given to the contrary—and no such proof can be given—the royal style alone is sufficient to prove the unity of authorship of the Fourteen Rock Edicts, the Seven Pillar Edicts, and the Tarai Inscriptions. But the Kalinga Edicts are, as we have seen, nothing but an appendix to the Kalinga edition of the Fourteen Edicts, and inasmuch as the Kalinga Edicts are issued simply by command of ' His Majesty' {devdnampiya), who is not named, they teach us that Piyadasi was in the habit of issuing proclamations in this style. The same lesson is taught by the Supplementary Pillar Edicts, which use the same formula and are a mere supplement to the Seven Pillar Edicts. But the same style is used in the Minor Rock Edicts, which, therefore, on the evidence of the royal style alone, should be considered as the work of Piyadasi until proof to the contrary is given, and such proof cannot be given. It has been established that the sovereign named Piyadasi used indifferently in six classes of his inscriptions either the full formula Devdnampiya Piyadasi Raja or the abbreviated formula Devdnampiya standing alone. The remaining two classes of inscriptions, namely, the Cave Dedications and the Bhabra Edict, are published in the name of Raja Piyadasi, or Piyadasi Raja, which two expressions may be regarded as identical. Primd facie, until the existence of a second Piyadasi of nearly the same date as the first is proved, these inscriptions also must be referred to the author of the Fourteen Rock Edicts and of the Seven Pillar Edicts. Nobody has ever discovered a second Piyadasi, and the only mention of the name Piyadasi in literature outside the edicts (namely, in the Dlpavamsa) assigns the name to one king only. The result is that the evidence of the royal style alone proves, in the absence of decisive evidence to the contrary,

that all the eight classes of inscriptions under consideration belong to a single reign, and were issued by the authority of one sovereign, Raja Piyadasi. In legal language, the evidence of the royal titles alone throws the burden of proof on the party denying unity of authorship. In their external characteristics, as distinguished from their contents, all the eight groups of inscriptions have much in common. Stone is the sole material on which the records are incised. Except the Shahbazgarhi and Mansera versions of the Fourteen Rock Edicts, which are recorded in the Indian form of the Aramaic alphabet afterwards known as KharosthI, all the inscriptions are incised in an ancient form of the Brahml character, from which all the modern alphabets of India, Ceylon, Burma, and Siatn have been derived. Notwithstanding minor variations, the Brahml alphabet used in all the classes of the inscriptions clearly belongs to a single period of no long duration. With regard to the orthography and language of the inscriptions the same remark holds good. All are composed in a Prakrt of one stage of linguistic development. The great majority of the inscriptions were written in the Magadhi dialect familiar to the officials of Pataliputra, the capital of the empire. The inscriptions at the remote positions, Girnar and Shahbazgarhi (with Mansera), which were doubtless promulgated respectively under the immediate orders of the Viceroys stationed at TJjjain and Taxila,1 exhibit variations of spelling and dialect which are plainly local. The Rupnath and Siddapura Minor Rock Edicts present variations inter- mediate between the eastern and western versions of the Fourteen Rock Edicts, and these minor edicts also were probably issued from a provincial secretariat; but there is no ground for alleging that the orthography and language

1 The Viceroys at Taxila and TJjjain are expressly mentioned in the so-called First Detached Edict at Dhauli and Jaugada. The Second Detached Edict mentions a prince stationed at Tosali. The Siddapura Edicts were issued by command of another prince stationed at Suvarnagiri. Unfortunately the sites of Tosali and Suvarnagiri are not known. The towns "were in the southern provinces. The so-called Second Detached Edict is prior to the so-called First.

of any one group of inscriptions belongs to an appreciably earlier or later period than those of the other groups. With regard to the language and orthography, the remark may be repeated that the burden of proof lies on the party maintaining diversity of authorship. Proof has been adduced that all the forms of the royal title used in the inscriptions are essentially one and must refer to a single sovereign. The inference of unity of authorship is supported by the occurrence of the peculiar formula at the opening of the Edicts—" Thus saith His Majesty "—which is used alike in the Fourteen Rock Edicts, the Seven Pillar Edicts, and the Minor Rock Edicts. This formula, which was apparently imitated from the practice of the Persian monarch Darius, son of Hystaspes, is in India peculiar to the Piyadasi inscriptions. If the Devanampiya of the Minor Rock Edicts were distinct from the Devanampiya Piyadasi Raja of the Fourteen Rock Edicts, Seven Pillar Edicts, and Tarai Pillar Edicts, it is unlikely that this mode of address would have been used by the author of the Minor Rock Edicts. An examination of the substantive contents of the Edicts fully confirms the conclusions deduced from the material, alphabet, orthography, and language of the documents, and from the formulas of royal title and address to the subjects used therein. Although no dates other than those expressed in regnal years, counted from the king's solemn coronation (abhiseka), are inserted in the inscriptions, the dates in regnal years are no less than ten in number, and, when arranged in a series, combine in a chronological unity which clearly belongs to a single reign. They may be arranged as follows:—

YEAK. EVENT. AUTHORITY 9th. Conquest of Kalinga. (13th Rock E.) Initial conversion to Buddhism. (13th Rock E.)

1,1th. More complete conversion to Buddhism and (Minor Rock E.) institution of religious tours. Dispatch of missionaries.

YEAR. EVENT. AUTHORITY. 13th. Inscriptions engraved for first time. (No. 6 of Seven Pillar E.) Composition of No. 4 Rock Edict. (No. 4 Rock E.) Organization of anusamyana assemblies. (No. 3 Rock E.) Dedication at Barabar of Caves Nos. 1 and 2. (Cave inscriptions.) 14th. Creation of office of Dliarmamahmnatra. (No. 5 Rock E.) Publication of complete series of Fourteen (No. 14 Rock E.) Rock Edicts, and of the so-called Second Kalinga Rock Edict.1 15th. Restoration for the second time of the stiipa (Nigliva Pillar.) of Konakamana.

18th. Publication of Minor Rock Edicts.- (Sahasram ; , 9tli year +• more than 2h + more than 6.)

20th. Dedication at Barabar of No. 3 Cave. (Cave inscription.) 21st. Pious tour by the king, who visited the (Nigliva and Rummindei, Lumbini garden and the stiipa of Kona- or Padaria, Pillars.) kamana, erecting a pillar commemorative of the visit at each place.

27th. Composition of Edicts Nos. I-VI of the (No. 6 Pillar E.) Seven Pillar Edicts.

28th. Publication of the complete series of the (No. 7 of Pillar E.) Seven Pillar Edicts.

The doubts felt by several scholars on the subject of the unity of the authorship of the inscriptions were largely based on doubts concerning the religion of the sovereign who issued them. Although the teaching of the two principal series of inscriptions, the Fourteen Eock Edicts and the Seven Pillar Edicts, is apparently more Buddhist than anything else, there is little that is distinctively Buddhist in the documents, and it has been found possible to argue that their author was not a Buddhist. But even the Fourteen Rock Edicts themselves contain evidence of their Buddhist origin. The elephant carved ia relief on the rock over the Dhauli text; the figure of an elephant engraved on the Kalsl rock, and labelled gajatame, " the

1 The exact date of the so-called 1'irst Detached (Kalinga) Edict cannot be fixed, but it is later than the so-called Second. 2 The Clergy Edict of Bhabra probably belongs to the same period of the reigu.

most excellent elephant"; and the legend below the Girnar text, va sveto hasti sarvalokasukhdharo nama, " the white elephant giving happiness to all worlds," which evidently referred to an engraving now lost, are all clearly symbols of Gautama Buddha, whose mother, according to a well-known legend, dreamed on the night of his con- ception that a white elephant entered her side. Sundry words and turns of phrase also are clearly Buddhist, but I need not stop to consider minute verbal criticism. The memorial inscriptions on the Tarai pillars, which, as I have shown, are certainly the work of the author of the Fourteen Rock Edicts, prove that Piyadasi was an ardent Buddhist in the fifteenth year of his reign, when he enlarged the stupa of Konakamana Buddha, and in the twenty-first year of his reign, when he personally did reverence to the birthplace of Gautama Buddha and to the stupa of Kona- kamana. With these proofs of the Buddhism of Piyadasi available no hesitation need now be felt in identifying the Piyadasi of the Fourteen Rock Edicts with the author of the Bhabra Edict. The notion that the author of any of the Piyadasi inscriptions was a Jain is now obsolete and untenable. The fact that the Cave Inscriptions record donations made by King Piyadasi to the Yaisnava Ajivikas is no objection against the king's Buddhism. The edicts contain numerous declarations of the monarch's complete tolerance of all Indian sects, and of his readiness, in modern language, to adopt the policy of concurrent endowment. The absence from the principal edicts of any overt declaration of faith in Buddhism is adequately explained by the observation of Professor Kern that such a declaration would have been out of place in proclamations addressed to the people at large without distinction of sect, and devoted to the enforcement of practical duties of morality and piety on persons of all shades of opinion. The edicts themselves contain statements which are intelligible only on the assumption that all the documents J.K.A.S. 1901. 33 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. INSEAD, on 21 May 2018 at 10:07:45, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0035869X00028707 494 AUTHORSHIP OF THE PIYADASI INSCRIPTIONS.

proceed from one source. The promulgation of Piyadasi's ' sermons in stones' began, as we have seen, in the thirteenth year of the reign. The Fourteenth Rock Edict, which closes the Rock series as published in a collective form in the fourteenth regnal year, contains the following remarkable expressions:— "These religious edicts have been written by order of King Priyadarsin, beloved of the gods, under a form whether abridged or expanded. For not everything is suitable in every place. For my empire is large, and much has been written, and I shall write still more. Certain sentences have been repeated over and over again because of the sweetness of their import."1 The Sahasram and Rilpnath recensions of the first Minor Rock Edict and the concluding section of the Seven Pillar Edicts prescribe that the king's command must be incised wherever either stone tablets or stone pillars are found, so that it may endure for a long time. All these statements are intelligible only on the assumption that the Fourteen Rock Edicts, the Seven Pillar Edicts, and the various recensions of the Minor Rock Edicts were all issued by the command of one and the same sovereign. These three classes of edicts are found over the vast space extending- from Maisur (Mysore) on the south to the Himalaya on the north, and from the Bay of Bengal on the east to the Arabian Sea on the west. The empire was truly large, as King Piyadasi observes. The promise that, as much had been already written, more would yet be written, was abundantly fulfilled by the publication of the Seven Pillar Edicts, the Minor Rock Edicts, and the Tarai Pillar and Barabar Cave inscriptions. Good reason

1 Biihler, from Shfihbazgarhi versions in Eplgraplna Iiidica, vol. ii, p. 472. edit i

TOI. i, p. 322.

exists for believing that many inscriptions of Piyadasi remain to be discovered. The remark that tbe edicts would be found to occur in various recensions, abbreviated, of medium length, or expanded, is admirably illustrated by the set of the Minor Rock Edicts. The abbreviated recension is found at Bairat, the medium forms at Rupnatb. and Sahasram, and the expanded form at Siddiipura, in triplicate. This last recension adds an entire edict defining the ancient standard of virtuous conduct, which practically reproduces in substance, though not in style, several passages in the Fourteen Rock Edicts, and supplies yet another proof that the Minor Rock Edicts proceed from the same source as the two main series. The repetition of phrases and sentiments, which King Piyadasi so naively mentions as a characteristic of his compositions, is apparent in almost every paragraph of the two principal sets of edicts, and, as I have just observed, is also found in the Minor Rock Edicts. The testimony of the Sixth Pillar Edict is absolutely conclusive as to the unity of authorship of the Fourteen Rock Edicts and the Pillar Edicts. Rock Edict No. IV "professes to have been composed in the thirteenth year of the reign. The Sixth Pillar Edict, dating from the twenty-seventh year, expressly mentions the fact that the king had in his thirteenth year ordered religious edicts to be written to promote the welfare and happiness of his people and the growth of the principles of religion. The Seventh Pillar Edict, found on the Delhi-Topra pillar only, is a summary of the measures taken and recommended by Piyadasi for the promulgation and progress of the Dhamma, or Law of Piety, and refers to the subject-matter of almost all the Rock Edicts. The subject-matter of all the inscriptions, except the brief dedications, is one and the same, the proclamation and enforcement of that system of morals, or Law of Piety, which had commended itself to the'king's conscience. All the royal institutions and commands are directed to one sole end, the establishment of the kingdom of righteousness, as

he conceived righteousness. In a word, all the edicts are sermons. Biihler has rightly observed that we possess many hundreds of inscriptions issued by many Indian kings, but among them not one sermon, save only those of King Piyadasi. No other Indian monarch has tried by means of official proclamations to convert his subjects to a particular creed, and to maintain them in the practice of virtue and morality.1 It is very difficult to believe that two or more nearly contemporary kings using the same names or titles adopted this extraordinary and unprecedented practice. Not only are all the edicts, long or short, devoted to the promulgation, inculcation, and propagation of a particular form of moral doctrine, but all agree in teaching that doctrine in the same rugged and awkward, yet vivid, style, in language quaintly clumsy, in sentences dislocated bjr abrupt breaks or unexpected questions, and disfigured by wearisome repetitions. The awkwardness of expression, the individuality of style, and the passionate earnestness of exhortation leave no doubt on my mind that these unique sermons are in the main the personal composition of a single author, the Emperor Piyadasi himself. Can any secretary be imagined bold enough to express his sovereign's remorse in the language of the Thirteenth Rock Edict ? I cannot refrain from transcribing this remarkable passage, which seems to me to carry across the ages the sore cry of a wounded spirit. " King Priyadarsin,2 beloved of the gods, being anointed eight years, conquered the country of Kalinga. One hundred and fifty thousand souls were carried away thence, one hundred thousand were slain, and many times as many died. Afterwards, now that Kalinga has been conquered, are found with the Beloved of the gods, a zealous protection of the Sacred Law, a zealous love for the Sacred Law, a zealous teaching of the Sacred Law.3

1 Indian Antiquary, vol. V ii, p. 144. A partial parallel is supplied by the ' Sacred Edicts ' issued by the second emperor of the present dynasty in China. 2 The Shahbazgarhi recension favours Sanskritized forms. 3 I prefer to render dhamina by the phrase ' Law of Piety,' rather than by ' Sacred Law,' as Biihler, or by 'religion,' as M. Senart does.

" That is the repentance of the Beloved of the gods on account of his conquest of Kalinga; for when an unconquered country is being conquered, there happens both a slaying and a dying and a carrying off of the people. That appears very painful and regrettable to the Beloved of the gods."1 Many passages from edicts of different classes might be cited which strike the personal note with almost equal distinctness. The unity of authorship of the edicts is shown by the internal evidence of the documents themselves to be true in the strictest possible sense. The edicts were not only issued by authority and command of King Piyadasi, they were either drafted by his pen or dictated by his lips. The only exception is the second edict at Siddiipura, which professes to give a brief abstract of the Law of Piety. This differs obviously in style from similar abstracts in several of the edicts in the two principal series, and seems to be the composition of the Viceroy of the Dakhin or of one of his officials. To sum up, all the inscriptions which purport to have been issued by Raja Piyadasi, Piyadasi Raja, or Devanampiya are fully, and in my judgment conclusively, proved to have been issued by, and under the personal direction of, a single Buddhist emperor of India, whose full titles were expressed by the formula Devanampiya Piyadasi Raja, ' His Saored Majesty King Piyadasi.' The unity of authorship is evidenced by the uniformity of the material vehicle of the inscriptions; by their alphabets, orthography, and phonetic development, which all belong to one period ; by the peculiarities of the royal title and mode of address to the

1 Biihler's translation of the Shahbazgajlri recension. M. Senart translates the Kalsi recension as follows:—" Dans la neuvieme annee de son sacre, le roi Piyadasi cher aux Devas a fait la conquete du territoire immense de Kalinga. Des centaines de milliers de creatures y ont ete enlevees, cent mille y ont ete frappees, bien des fois le mcme nombre y sont mortes. Alors le roi cher aux Devas s'est aussitot depuis 1'acquisition de Kalinga tourne vers la religion, il a concu le zele de la religion, il s'est applique a la diffusion de la religion—si grand est le regret qu'a ressenti le roi cher aux Devas de ce qui est passe dans la conquete du Kalinga. En effet, en conquerant le territoire qui ne m'etait pas sounds, les meurtres, les morts, les enlevements d'hommes qui s'y sont produits, tout cela a ete vivement et douloureusement ressenti par moi, le roi cher aux Devas." (" Les Inscriptions de Piyadasi," vol. i, p. 308; vol. ii, p. 69.)

subjects; by their singular and characteristic style; by their variety of recension, for the reason stated by their author; by their frequent repetitions of phrase and senti- ment, for which also a reason is given by their author; by their subject-matter, which is not that of any other Indian inscriptions ; and by their geographical distribution over a vast empire, such as their author claimed to possess. As Biihlcr long ago observed, with special reference to the Minor Rock Edicts, when we have so many points of agree- ment between the various sets of inscriptions, the obvious inference is that all proceed from the same author. The only way to bar this conclusion would be to show that the facts on which it is based are susceptible of some other explanation. This proof has never been given, and the long chain of circumstantial evidence which connects all the classes of the inscriptions with Piyadasi, the author of the Fourteen Rock Edicts, has never yet been opposed by any intelligible theory based on facts. Mr. Mukherji's theories rest on an uncritical acceptance of miscellaneous traditions of most uncertain authority, unchecked by adequate knowledge of the contents of the edicts, and result in the absurd conclusion that the Fourteen Rock Edicts and the Seven Pillar Edicts must be ascribed to different authors. Mr. Mukherji's guess that Sampadi may have been the Piyadasi who issued the Fourteen Rock Edicts is nothing but a guess. That it is a bad guess is sufficiently proved by' the following remarks of Biihler:—" Mr. Rhys Davids does not discuss Professor Pischel's conjecture which makes Sampadi the author of the [Minor Rock] edicts. I shall follow him in this respect, and merely remark that Sampadi is, according to the Buddhists and the Jainas, the grandson of Asoka, and that the first author of certain date who gives the history of his conversion to Jainism by Suhasti and of his benefactions is Hemachandra, the contemporary of Kumarapala (1173 A.D.). Hemachandra's account is purely legendary and unhistorical. The tradition that Sampadi was a protector of the Jainas is, however, old. Sampadi may be merely another name for Dasaratha, who appears in his

stead in the Brahmanical rdjavalis, or he may be a distinct person. But the information regarding him is too vague to afford a basis for any historical speculations." l The truth is that all Indian and Ceylonese tradition concerning events of remote antiquity is untrustworthy and cannot safely be used as a basis for the reconstruction of history. No traditional date for the ancient period alluded to (which in Ceylon tradition may be reckoned as extending up to B.C. 160) is, in my judgment, of the slightest inde- pendent value, and attempts to reconcile scientific inferences from ascertained facts with traditional dates, whether those of the death of the Buddha, the accession of Asoka, or of any other event, are, in my humble opinion, waste of time. Tradition has its value even for the historian of India, but the chronological skeleton of history must be reconstructed independently of, and often in defiance of, tradition, which may then be cautiously used to fill in details with a greater or less degree of probability. I propose to examine in a subsequent article the evidence for the identity of Piyadasi with Aiioka Maurya, and the connected questions concerning the reality of the existence of Ealasoka, and the historical value of the legends of the Three Councils.

1 Indian Antiqiuirii "vol. \u, p. 143. note.