d fall to pieces. We are not emulous of the prophet's
honours: but still, let this stand as a prophecy."

Inscriptions Discovered by General A. Cunningham

We have carefully examined the new inscription discovered by General A.
Cunningham on the strength of which the date assigned to Buddha's death
by Buddhist writers has been declared to be incorrect; and we are of
opinion that the said inscription confirms the truth of the Buddhist
traditions instead of proving them to be erroneous. The above-mentioned
archeologist writes as follows regarding the inscription under
consideration in the first volume of his reports:--"The most interesting
inscription (at Gaya) is a long and perfect one dated in the era of the
Nirvana or death of Buddha. I read the date as follows:--Bhagavati
Parinirvritte Samvat 1819 Karttike badi I Budhi--that is, 'in the year
1819 of the Emancipation of Bhagavata on Wednesday, the first day of the
waning moon of Kartik.' If the era here used is the same as that of the
Buddhists of Ceylon and Burmah, which began in 543 B.C., the date of
this inscription will be 1819--543 = A.D. 1276. The style of the
letters is in keeping with this date, but is quite incompatible with
that derivable from the Chinese date of the era. The Chinese place the
death of Buddha upwards of 1000 years before Christ, so that according
to them the date of this inscription would be about A.D. 800, a period
much too early for the style of character used in the inscription. But
as the day of the week is here fortunately added, the date can be
verified by calculation. According to my calculation, the date of the
inscription corresponds with Wednesday, the 17th of September, AD. 1342.
This would place the Nirvana of Buddha in 477 B.C., which is the very
year that was first proposed by myself as the most probable date of that
event. This corrected date has since been adopted by Professor Max
Muller."

The reasons assigned by some Orientalists for considering this so-called
"corrected date" as the real date of Buddha's death have already been
noticed and criticized in the preceding paper; and now we have only to
consider whether the inscription in question disproves the old date.

Major-General Cunningham evidently seems to take it for granted, as far
as his present calculation is concerned, that the number of days in a
year is counted in the Magadha country and by Buddhist writers in
general on the same basis on which