.

ances which followed, Tsau-lú was killed. Kyan-tsít-tha then defeated the rebel, and took the throne in the year 426 of the existing Burmese era. He is also called Hti-hlaing-sheng.

On the accession of Kyan-tsit-tha to the throne, a not very intelligible story is told of an intention to marry his daughter to the son of the king of Pa-teik-ka-rá, a name here given to some part of Bengal. The marriage was eventually disallowed, it is stated, by the advice of the nobles, "lest the country should become kulá or foreign." Notwithstanding this the princess is represented as with child by the kulá prince, though doubt is afterwards thrown upon this fact, and she gave birth to a son, who afterwards succeeded to the throne, under the name of A-lúng-tsi-thú. But the kulá prince committed suicide, and the princess was married to Tsau-gwon, the son of king Tsau-lú, So highly did Kyan-tsit-tha regard his grandson that, while he was yet a child, he underwent the ceremony of bi-the-ka, or consecration as a king, and received the name of Thi-ri-dze-ya-thú-ra. Kyantsít-thá either enlarged or completed, the Shwe-zi-gún pagoda built by his father.

Once there came to Pu-gán eight Ra-hán-das from the Gan-da-máda-na mountain. They presented a model of the Nan-da-mú-la cave which is in that mountain. And the king determined to build one like it. This was done, and it was called the Nan-da-Phrá. The king also built many pagodas at various places near the city. He died after a reign of twenty-eight years.

His grandson now ascended the throne. Though he received a name at the time of consecration from his grandfather, yet the title of Alúng-tsí-thú, referring to the great drum of the palace having at his birth sounded without the agency of man, has been retained for him in history. Soon after the commencement of his reign, he built the Shwe-kú temple now to be seen at Pu-gán. This king travelled throughout the whole extent of his dominions. He went into Arakan and the adjoining country of Bengal, where he visited the stone images set up by his great grandfather A-nau-ra-htá. It is said also that he visited Ceylon. He regulated the weights and measures throughout the kingdom. During the reign of Kyan-tsit-tha, the heir to the king of Arakan had been expelled from his kingdom by a rebel. He came and resided at Pu-gán and there a son was born to him named Let-ga

meng-nan. Alúng-tsí-thú yielded to his entreaties and gave him an army, said to consist of one hundred thousand Pyús, and one hundred thousand Talaings. After one repulse the army was successful. The usurper who occupied the throne of Arakan, Meng Ba-di, was slain, and Let-ya-meng-nan was restored to the throne of his ancestors.* This

In the history of Arakan this event is stated to have occurred in the year 465. The present Mahá Rá-dzá-Weng appears to consider the year 480 as the correct time. A Burmese stone inscription which was discovered at Buddha Gaya and of which a facsimile is given in the 20th volume of the Asiatic Researches, confirms the fact related in the Arakanese and Burmese histories, of the restoration of Let-yá-meng-nan (called Pyú-ta thein-meng) to his coun try by the king of Pu-gán. But there is a strange uncertainty as to the dates recorded in the inscription. General Cunningham has some remarks on this question in his Archæological survey report, dated 3rd June, 1862. I have not seen the facsimile taken by General Cunningham, my present remarks therefore apply to that published in the 20th volume of the Researches. The two dates in lines 11 and 12 of the inscription, have been read by Prinsep and Cunningham as 667 and 668. Colonel Burney, who first translated the inscription, agreed with the Burmese literati in reading them 467 and 468. The latter no doubt were induced to do so, lest their national history should be impugned. Regarding the second date, there can, I think, be no doubt. It must be read as 660, not as 668. It will be found that a 4, a 6, an 8, and also a cipher, fortunately occur elsewhere in the inscription. In the second line is a 4 rudely engraved, but the same in form as the modern figure. The Burmese literati, who gave the copy of the inscription in the modern character, have omitted the figure, and given the number four in writing. A 6 occurs in the eleventh line of the original, meaning the sixth day of the week. In the translation this has been rendered Friday. The figure 4 in the second line is utterly unlike either of the figures in the second date, which I read as 660. The two first figures are very like the undoubted 6 in the eleventh line. The last figure is similar to the undoubted cipher in the eleventh line, being the record of the 10th day of the month. So much for the second date. In the first date there has apparently been some error on the part of the engraver. The first figure in that date is really a 4 reversed. It has not the least resemblance to a 6. The second figure is a rude 6, with an adjunct, large and clumsy, instead of the small stroke added to the 6, which stands for Friday, so that it almost looks like an additional figure between the 6 and 7. The last figure is undoubtedly 7. I therefore read this date as 467. The first figure as it stands is not a 4. Turn the paper upside down and it is 4. The engraver only could account for this vagary. The question now is, how can the dates 467 and 660, thus placed together in the inscription, be reconciled with the object for which the inscription was written? The Burmese language, especially as it was written five or six hundred years ago, is very elliptical, and it is frequently necessary to guess at the meaning attempted to be conveyed. In the translation of the inscription in the Researches, the idea is conveyed that the temple of Buddha Gayá was rebuilt in 467 or say 667, and that the religious ceremonies, apparently of consecration, followed in the next year. Certainly at first sight the inscription appears to mean this. But it is not necessarily so. And if the second date is 660 and not 668, it cannot be so. I take the inscription then to jump over long periods of time. It first recounts how the temple had been built by Asoka. It was destroyed and repaired more than once at long intervals of time. Then came the latest work of the kind, and it was rebuilt under the immediate assistance of the king of Arakan, Pyá-ta-thein-meng, called also Let-yá-meng-nán. This rebuilding occurred in the year, Burmese era, 467. This quite corresponds with the date of Let-yá-meng-nán being restored to his

king built the temples still to be seen at Pu-gán called Shwe-kú, and Tha-pinyo. He kept up intercourse with a king in the eastern part of Bengal, called in the Burmese history, Pa-teik-ka-rá. He is said to have married a daughter of this king. Alúng-tsi-thú, when he became old, was much troubled by the disobedience of his sons. His oldest son Meng Sheng Tsau retired from the city, and settled near where the city of A-ma-ra-pú-ra was afterwards built. There he formed the lake called Aung-peng-lay. He wished his second son Na-ra-thú to succeed him. The king was now a hundred and one years old, and had reigned seventy-five years. This son, desirous of hastening his death, had him carried from the palace to the Shwe-kú temple, where he was smothered under a heap of cloth.

Na-ra-thú at once took possession of the palace. But his elder brother marched rapidly towards the city. Na-ra-thú cunningly concealed his intentions, and induced the chief, or bishop, of the Buddhist monks, to send a message of peace and welcome to Meng Sheng Tsau. The prince, being unsuspicious, came down the river with one boat and a few attendants. He was met by his brother at the landing

throne. (See History of Arakan, in Journal, Asiatic Society, Vol. XIII. p. 39). The inscription appears mainly concerned in recounting the religious ceremonies and worship offered to the temple on a special occasion. And this event occurred in the year 660. In the latter year, we must conclude that the inscription was written. This supposition appears to me to reconcile the inconsistency of the dates hitherto as read. The second date being undoubtedly 660, the first cannot be 667, as it (the first in the inscription) gives the rebuilding of the temple for that year, and the consecration or other religions ceremony would be subsequent to that. The difficulty is removed if we read the first date as 467 for which it has been shown there are good reasons. If the inscription means that the worship offered in 660 was a sort of consecration of the building, there is certainly no reason apparent why one hundred and ninety-three years were allowed to elapse before this was done. But it may be that there being a special and solomn worship in 660, a record was then made regarding the offerings and the previous repeated building of the temple. The inscription has been written by an Arakanese, and this might have been done by the king of Arakan in 660 (A. D. 1298) more probably than by the king of Pu-gán, as the latter kingdom had at that time fallen into great confnsion in consequence of the Chinese invasion. In the histories of Burma and Arakan, dates have no doubt, in some instances, been tampered with. But there is no reason to suppose that this has been done to the extent of nearly two hundred years. The first time that Burma is mentioned by an European is, I believe, near the close of the 13th century by Marco Polo. The war made by Kublai Khan on Burma is by him stated to have occurred in 1272. This only differs by twelve years from the date given in the Burmese history. On the whole as the first date in the inscription has only the last figures, 67, clearly defined, and the second date is clearly 660, the above attempt at expla nation appears to be the most probable solution of the difficulty.

place, and escorted to the palace with honour. At once he was consecrated king, but that night was poisoned. Na-ra-thú then became king without opposition. He pursued a course of crime and cruelty. He put to death many of his father's favourites. The whole of the people, in the palace, the city, and the country, were alarmed and distressed. He commenced building a magnificent temple called Dha-ma-yan-gyí; but it was with difficulty that workmen could be procured, for all fled from fear, and the work proceeded slowly. This king, with his own hand, killed the daughter of the king of Pateik-ka-rá (Bengal) who had remained after the death of his father. This led to an extraordinary event. Her father, on hearing of the murder of his daughter, disguised eight brave men as Brahmans, who were sworn to execute their master's revenge. They arrived at Pu-gán, and were introduced into the palace under pretence of blessing the king. There they killed him with a sword. After which they killed each other or committed suicide, so that all eight died. This king is, on account of the manner of his death, called " Ku-lá-kyá-meng," that is "the king killed or dethroned by foreigners." It is stated that at the time of his death, the temple Dha-ma-yán-gyí was unfinished. He was succeeded by his son Meng-ri-na-ra-thein-kha. He appointed his younger brother to the office of Ein-she-meng or "lord of the eastern house," a title equivalent to that of crown-prince. This is the first time the title is mentioned in the history. After some time, the king, under pretence of a war having broken out on the northern frontier, despatched his brother to that quarter in command of an army. He then took possession of his brother's wife. The crown-prince found that there was no war, and when he discovered the wrong that had been done him, he returned to the city and put his brother to death. He then succeeded to the throne under the title of Na-ra-badi-tsí-thú.

He is represented as a good king. He visited all parts of his kingdom. He built, at Pu-gán, the temples called Gau-dau-pal-leng and Tsú-la-ma-ní; and one, a Tha-ma-htí not far from the city, called Dham-ma-rá-dzi-ka. This king had constant communication with Ceylon. Four Raháns from Ceylon settled at Pu-gán and introduced. some new philosophical doctrines. The king is highly praised for his piety and attention to the affairs of his country. He died after a

reign of thirty-seven years, and was succeeded by his son Dze-ya-theinkha, in the year 1204, A. D.

Dze-ya-thein-kha had a quiet reign. He was chiefly occupied with religious buildings. He finished the Gau-dau-pal-leng temple commenced by his father, and built the Bau-di temple with some others, which are now less known.

His son Kya-tswá called also Dham-ma-rá-dzá was pre-eminent in learning. He gave his whole time to the study of religion and philosophy, and left the affairs of the kingdom to his son U-za-ná. As a work of merit, he formed a lake by damming up a mountainstream, where all kinds of water-fowl enjoyed themselves, and which also watered rice-lands. He was learned and pious, but the religious zeal, and the art which, during two hundred years had existed, and through which the noble temples still to be seen at Pu-gán, had been built, now had passed away. This king only commenced a pagoda, not now to be traced, which he did not live to complete. from an accidental wound after a reign of sixteen years.

He died

His son U-za-ná succeeded. This king had been accustomed as a young prince to hunt wild elephants in the forests of Pegu. He went there again to follow this sport, and was killed by a wild elephant, having reigned five years.

This king left two sons, Thí-ha-thú and Meng-khwé-khyé. The former had been appointed heir to the throne, but a powerful noble formed a conspiracy, and he was set aside. The younger son Meng. khwe-khye then succeeded with the title of Na-ra-thí-ha-pa-te. There was a rebellion in the province of Mut-ta-má (Martaban) headed by the Governor Nga-Shwe-lay; but it was suppressed. This king lived in greater luxury than any of his predecessors. He commenced building a pagoda called Men-ga-lá dze-dí. But there was a prophecy which said "The pagoda is finished and the country ruined.” The king therefore paused and for six years did nothing to the pagoda. But he afterwards thought this fear of consequences inconsistent with piety, and discreditable to his fame as a king, he therefore finished the pagoda in the year 636 or A. D. 1274. In the relic chamber were deposited golden images of the disciples of Gau-da-ma; golden models of the holy places; golden images of the fifty-one kings of Pu-gán, and images of the king, his wives and children, and of the nobles of the country. Holy relics were also deposited.