tion on religion.» This convocation, the third, according to theMahavanso (the second according to the Northern Buddhists), took place in the seventeenth year of Acjoka's reign, i. e. 263—17 = 246 B. C. Now the same Mahavanso tells us (p. 28), that the theros who held the second convocation ordered Siggavo to initiateTisso Moggaliputto, who as yet had to be born. As this second convocation is said to have been held 100 years after Buddha's death, or in the tenth year of king Kalagoka (ib. p. 15, 19), and as Buddha's death is said to have occurred 543 B. C., it follows that Siggavo received the order 443 B. C., at which time he must have been at least tvventy years old; he was eighteen when he was converted to Buddhismby Sonako (ib. p. 30); so he cannot have been born later than 443 + 20 = 463
B. C. This same Siggavo initiates Tisso Moggaliputto when the latter was 20 years of age (p. 31). Tisso, being 72 years in 246 B. C., was born 319 B.
C., and was twenty years of age 298 B. C. Consequently Siggavo, being born 463 B. C., initiates Tisso 299 B. C., when he himself was a man of 165 years. Professor Max Muller has shown in his own lucid way 1 «that 477 B. C. is far more likely» the conventional date of Buddha's death than 443 B. C. But even if we take this date, we shall find that Siggavo must have been flourishing at the age of 98 years! This is by no means the only example in the Mahavanso to show that its authority is not a whit higher than that of the Brahmans and Northern Buddhists, and it seems to me that Max Müller has convincingly shown, how hypothetical or conventional the date of the Nirvana is. I must confess, however, that in my opinion the Chinese chronology is some degrees more probable; at least the relative positions are right in Hiuen-Thsang, viz. that Kaniska reigned about 300 years after Agoka, for 263 B. C. + 300 leads to 37 A. D., and it is proved that Kaniska's reign must have extended till after 33 A. D. at least; secondly, Buddha's death is placed 1000 years before about 635, which again gives for the Nirvana about 363 B. C. I see no reason, why Hiuen-Thsang shoulcl be correct for 900 years, and err at 1000. But even if Hiuen-T hsang might be supposed to err in the date he assigns to Buddha, he is demonstratively right in the relative dates assigned by him to Agoka and Kaniska, and as the nearer we come to his own times the greater the probability is for his being correct, it is allowed to assert that this testimony about Vikramaditya, combined with the testimony of the astronomers and of Kalhana-Pandita greatly enhances the value of the Hindu authorities.
One might reasonably have expected, that some sources vvould have been quoted, so reliable as to put at naught the combined authority of Ut-
1 History of ancient Sanskrit Literature, p. 263—263, and p. 299.