the king he assumed the
monarchy; and in the places which had denied him an asylum during his
marauding career, he impiously destroyed the wiharas.[1] After a reign
of twelve years he was poisoned by his queen Anula, and regenerated in
the Lokantariko hell."[2]

[Footnote 1: _Mahawanso_, ch. xxxiii.; _Rajarali_, p. 224; TURNOUR'S
_Epitome_, p. 19; _Rajaratnacari_, ch. i. p. 43, 44.]

[Footnote 2: _Mahawanso_, ch. xxxiv. p. 209.]

[Sidenote: B.C. 47.]

[Sidenote: B.C. 41.]

His son, King Kuda Tissa, was also poisoned by his mother, in order to
clear her own way to the throne. The Singhalese annals thus exhibit the
unusual incident of a queen enrolled amongst the monarchs of the _great
dynasty_--a precedent which was followed in after times; Queen Siwalli
having reigned in the succeeding century, A.D. 37, Queen Lila-wati, in
A.D. 1197, and Queen Kalyana-wati in A.D. 1202. From the excessive
vileness of her character, the first of these Singhalese women who
attained to the honours of sovereignty is denounced in the _Mahawanso_
as "the infamous Anula." In the enormity of her crimes and debauchery
she was the Messalina of Ceylon;--she raised to the throne a porter of
the palace with whom she cohabited, descending herself to the
subordinate rank of Queen Consort, and poisoned him to promote a
carpenter in his stead. A carrier of firewood, a Brahman, and numerous
other paramours followed in rapid succession, and shared a similar fate,
till the kingdom was at last relieved from the opprobrium by a son of
Prince Tissa, who put the murderess to death, and restored the royal
line in his own person. His successors for more than two centuries were
a race of pious _faineants_, undistinguished by any qualities, and
remembered only by their fanatical subserviency to the priesthood.

[Sidenote: A.D. 209.]

Buddhism, relieved from the fury of impiety, was next imperilled by the
danger of schism. Even before the funeral obsequies of Buddha, schism
had displayed itself in Maghadha, and two centuries had not elapsed from
his death till it had manifested itself on no less than seventeen
occasions, and in each instance it was with difficulty checked by
councils in which the priesthood settled the faith in relation to the
points which gave rise to dispute; but not before the actual occurrence
of secessions from the orthodox church.[1] The earliest differences were
on questions of discipline amongst the colleges and fraternities at
Ana