Ancient India as described by Megasthenês and Arrian/Cap. X.

←

Ancient India as described by Megasthenês and Arrian
by Arrian, translated by John Watson McCrindle

Cap. X.

→

4775754Ancient India as described by Megasthenês and Arrian — Cap. X.John Watson McCrindleArrian

X. It is further said that the Indians do not rear monuments to the dead, but consider the virtues which men have displayed in life, and the songs in which their praises are celebrated, sufficient to preserve their memory after death. But of their cities it is said that the number is so great that it cannot be stated with precision, but that such cities as are situated on the banks of rivers or on the sea-coast are built of wood, for were they built of brick they would not last long—so destructive are the rains, and also the rivers when they overflow their banks and inundate the plains; those cities, however, which stand on commanding situations and lofty eminences are built of brick and mud. The greatest city in India is that which is called Palimbothra, in the dominions of the Prasians,^[1] where the streams of the Erannoboas and the Ganges unite,—the Ganges being the greatest of all rivers, and the Erannoboas being perhaps the third largest of Indian rivers, though greater than the greatest rivers elsewhere; but it is smaller than the Ganges where it falls into it. Megasthenês says further of this city that the inhabited part of it stretched on either side to an extreme length of eighty stadia, and that its breadth was fifteen stadia, and that a ditch encompassed it all round, which was six plethra in breadth and thirty cubits in depths and that the wall was crowned with five hundred and seventy towers and had four-and-sixty gates.^[2] The same writer tells us further this remarkable fact about India, that all the Indians are free, and not one of them is a slave. The Lakedaimonians and the Indians here so far agree. The Lakedaimonians, however, hold the Helots as slaves, and these Helots do servile labour; but the Indians do not even use aliens as slaves, and much less a countryman of their own.

↑ The Prasioi.—In the notes which the reader will find at pp. 9 and 57, the accepted explanation of the name Prasioi, by which the Greeks designated the people of Magadha, has been stated. General Cunningham explains it differently:—"Strabo and Pliny," he says, "agree with Arrian in calling the people of Palibothra by the name of Prasii, which modern writers have unanimously referred to the Sanskrit Prâchya, or 'eastern.' But it seems to me that Prasii is only the Greek form of Palâsa or Parâsa, which is an actual and well-known name of Magadha, of which Palibothra was the capital. It obtained this name from the Palâsa, or Butea frondosa, which still grows as luxuriantly in the province as in the time of Hiwen Thsâng. The common form of the name is Parâs, or when quickly pronounced Prâs, which I take to be the true original of the Greek Prasii. This derivation is supported by the spelling of the name given by Curtius, who calls the people Pharrasii, which is an almost exact transcript of the Indian name Parâsiya. The Praxiakos of lian is only the derivative from Palâsaka."
↑ The more usual and the more accurate form of the name is Palibothra, a transcription of Pâliputra, the spoken form of Pâṭaliputra, the name of tlie ancient capital of Magadha, and a name still occasionally applied to the city of Pâṭnâ, which is its modem representative. The word, whict means the son of the trumpet-flower (Bignonia suaveolens), appears in several different forms. A provincial form, Pâṭaliputrika, is common in the popular tales. The form in the Panchatantra is Pâṭaliputra, which Wilson (Introd. to the Dasa Kamara Charitra) considered to be the true original name of the city of which Pâṭaliputra was a mere corruption,—sanctioned, however, by common usage. In a Sanskṛit treatise of geography of a somewhat recent date, called the Kshetra Samasa, the form of the name is Pâlibhâtta, which is a near approach to Palibotra. The Ceylon chroniclers invariably wrote the name as Pâtiliputto, and in the inscription of Aśôka at Girnâr it is vmtten Pâṭaliputta. The earliest name of the place, according to the Râmâyaṇa, was Kauśambi, as having been founded by Kuśa, the father of the famous sage Viśvamitra. It was also called, espeoiallv by the poete, Pashpapura or Kusumapura, which has the same meaning—'the city of flowers.' This city, though the least ancient of all the greater capitals in Gangetic India, was destined to become the most famous of them all. The Vayu Purâna attributes its foundation to Udaya (called also Udayaśva), who mounted the throne of Magadha in the year 519 B.C., or 24 years after the Nirvâṇa (Vishṇu Purâṇa, p. 467, n. 15; Lassen, Ind. Alt. II. p. 63). Pâṭaliputra did not, however, according to the Cingalese chronicles, become the residence of the kings of Magadha till the reign of Kâlâśôka, who ascended the throne 453 B.C. Under Chandragupta (the Sandrakottos of the Greeks), who founded the Buddhistic dynasty of the Mauriyas, the kingdom was extended from the mouths of the Ganges to the regions beyond the Indus, and became in fact the paramount power in India. Nor was Pâṭaliputra—to judge from the account of its size and splendour given here by Arrian, and in Frag. XXV. by Strabo, who both copied it from Megasthenês—unworthy to be the capital of so great an empire. Its happy position at the confluence of the Sôn and Ganges, and opposite the junction of the Gandak with their united stream, naturally made it a great centre of commerce, which would no doubt greatly increase its wealth and prosperity. Aśôka, who was third in succession from Chandragupta, and who made Buddhism the state religion, in his inscription on the rock at Dhâuli in Katak, gives it the title of Metropolis of the Religion, i.e. of Buddhism. The wooden wall by which, as Megasthenês tells us, it was surrounded, was still standing seven centuries later than his time, for it was seen about the beginning of the 5th century after Christ by the Chinese traveller Fa-Hian, who thus writes of Pâliputra, which he calls Pa-lian-fu:—"The city was the capital of king A-you (Aśôka). The palaces of the king which are in the city have walls of which the stones have been collected by the genii. The carvings and the sculptures which ornament the windows are such as this age conld not make; they still actually exist." These 'palaces of the king' are mentioned by Diodôros in his epitome of Megasthenês, as will be seen by a reference to p. 39. It was in the interval which separates the journey of Fa-Hian from that of his compatriot Hiwen Thsâng—that is, between the year 400 and the year 632 after Christ—that the fall of Pâṭaliputra was accomplished, for where the splendid metropolis had once stood Hiwen Thsâng found nothing but ruins, and a village containing about two or three hundred houses. The cause of its downfall and decay is unknown. The ruins seen by the Chinese traveller are no longer visible, but lie buried deep below the foundations of modern Pâṭnâ. An excavation quite recently made in that city for the construction of a public tank placed this fact beyond question; for, when the workmen had dug down to a depth of 12 or 15 feet below the surface of the ground, some remains were discovered of what must have been the wooden wall spoken of by Megasthenês. I have received from a friend who iuspected the excavation the following particulars of this interesting and remarkable discovery:—"During the cold season 1876, whilst digging a tank in Sheikh Mithia Ghari, a part of Pâṭnâ almost equally distant from the chauk (market-place) and the railway station, the excavators, at a depth of some 12 or 15 feet below the swampy surface, discovered the remains of a long brick wall running from N.W. to S.E. How far this wall extended beyond the limits of the excavation—probably more than a hundred yards—it is impossible to say. Not far from the wall, and almost parallel to it, was found a line of palisades; the strong timber of which it was composed inclined slightly towards the wall. In one place there appeared to have been some sort of outlet, for two wooden pillars rising to a height of some 8 or 9 feet above what had evidently been the ancient level of the place, and between which no trace of palisades could be discovered, had all the appearance of door or gate posts. A number of wells and sinks were also found, their mouths being in each case indicated by heaps of fragments of broken mud vessels. From the best-preserved specimens of these, it appeared that their shape must have differed from that of those now in use. One of the wells having been cleared out, it was found to yield capital drinking water, and among the rubbish taken out of it were discovered several iron spear-heads, a fragment of a large vessel, &c." The fact thus established—that old Palibothra, and its wall with it, are deep underground—takes away all probability from the supposition of Kavenshaw that the large mounds near Pâṭnâ (called Panch-Pahâri, or 'five hills'), consisting of débris and bricks, may be the remains of towers or bastions of the ancient city. The identity of Pâṭaliputra with Pâṭnâ was a question not settled without much previous controversy. D'Anville, as has been already stated, misled by the assertion of Pliny that the Jomanes (Janmâ) flows through the Palibothri into the Ganges, referred its site to the position of Allahâbâd, where these two rivers unite. Rennel, again, thought it might be identical with Kanauj, though he afterwards abandoned this opinion; while Wilford placed it on the left bank of the Ganges at some distance to the north of Râjmahâl, and Francklin at Bhâgalpûr. The main objection to the claims of Pâṭnâ—its not being situated at the confluence of any river with the Ganges—was satisfactorily disposed of when in the course of research it was brought to light that the Sôn was not only identical with the Erranoboas, but that up to the year 1379, when it formed a new channel for itself, it had joined the Ganges in the neighbourhood of Pâṭnâ. I may conclude this notice by quoting from Strabo a description of a procession such as Megasthenês (from whose work Strabo very probably drew his information) must have seen parading the streets of Palibothra:—"In processions at their festivals many elephants are in the train, adorned with gold and silver, numerous carriages drawn by four horses and by several pairs of oxen; then follows a body of attendants in full dress, (bearing) vessels of gold, large basins and goblets an orguia in breadth, tables, chairs of state, drinking-cups, and lavers of Indian copper, most of which were set with precious stones, as emeralds, beryls, and Indian carbuncles; garments embroidered and interwoven with gold; wild beasts, as buffaloes, panthers, tame lions; and a multitude of birds of variegated plumage and of fine song."—Bohn's Transl. of Strabo, III. p. 117.

[1] The Prasioi.—In the notes which the reader will find at pp. 9 and 57, the accepted explanation of the name Prasioi, by which the Greeks designated the people of Magadha, has been stated. General Cunningham explains it differently:—"Strabo and Pliny," he says, "agree with Arrian in calling the people of Palibothra by the name of Prasii, which modern writers have unanimously referred to the Sanskrit Prâchya, or 'eastern.' But it seems to me that Prasii is only the Greek form of Palâsa or Parâsa, which is an actual and well-known name of Magadha, of which Palibothra was the capital. It obtained this name from the Palâsa, or Butea frondosa, which still grows as luxuriantly in the province as in the time of Hiwen Thsâng. The common form of the name is Parâs, or when quickly pronounced Prâs, which I take to be the true original of the Greek Prasii. This derivation is supported by the spelling of the name given by Curtius, who calls the people Pharrasii, which is an almost exact transcript of the Indian name Parâsiya. The Praxiakos of lian is only the derivative from Palâsaka."

[p224-2] The more usual and the more accurate form of the name is Palibothra, a transcription of Pâliputra, the spoken form of Pâṭaliputra, the name of tlie ancient capital of Magadha, and a name still occasionally applied to the city of Pâṭnâ, which is its modem representative. The word, whict means the son of the trumpet-flower (Bignonia suaveolens), appears in several different forms. A provincial form, Pâṭaliputrika, is common in the popular tales. The form in the Panchatantra is Pâṭaliputra, which Wilson (Introd. to the Dasa Kamara Charitra) considered to be the true original name of the city of which Pâṭaliputra was a mere corruption,—sanctioned, however, by common usage. In a Sanskṛit treatise of geography of a somewhat recent date, called the Kshetra Samasa, the form of the name is Pâlibhâtta, which is a near approach to Palibotra. The Ceylon chroniclers invariably wrote the name as Pâtiliputto, and in the inscription of Aśôka at Girnâr it is vmtten Pâṭaliputta. The earliest name of the place, according to the Râmâyaṇa, was Kauśambi, as having been founded by Kuśa, the father of the famous sage Viśvamitra. It was also called, espeoiallv by the poete, Pashpapura or Kusumapura, which has the same meaning—'the city of flowers.' This city, though the least ancient of all the greater capitals in Gangetic India, was destined to become the most famous of them all. The Vayu Purâna attributes its foundation to Udaya (called also Udayaśva), who mounted the throne of Magadha in the year 519 B.C., or 24 years after the Nirvâṇa (Vishṇu Purâṇa, p. 467, n. 15; Lassen, Ind. Alt. II. p. 63). Pâṭaliputra did not, however, according to the Cingalese chronicles, become the residence of the kings of Magadha till the reign of Kâlâśôka, who ascended the throne 453 B.C. Under Chandragupta (the Sandrakottos of the Greeks), who founded the Buddhistic dynasty of the Mauriyas, the kingdom was extended from the mouths of the Ganges to the regions beyond the Indus, and became in fact the paramount power in India. Nor was Pâṭaliputra—to judge from the account of its size and splendour given here by Arrian, and in Frag. XXV. by Strabo, who both copied it from Megasthenês—unworthy to be the capital of so great an empire. Its happy position at the confluence of the Sôn and Ganges, and opposite the junction of the Gandak with their united stream, naturally made it a great centre of commerce, which would no doubt greatly increase its wealth and prosperity. Aśôka, who was third in succession from Chandragupta, and who made Buddhism the state religion, in his inscription on the rock at Dhâuli in Katak, gives it the title of Metropolis of the Religion, i.e. of Buddhism. The wooden wall by which, as Megasthenês tells us, it was surrounded, was still standing seven centuries later than his time, for it was seen about the beginning of the 5th century after Christ by the Chinese traveller Fa-Hian, who thus writes of Pâliputra, which he calls Pa-lian-fu:—"The city was the capital of king A-you (Aśôka). The palaces of the king which are in the city have walls of which the stones have been collected by the genii. The carvings and the sculptures which ornament the windows are such as this age conld not make; they still actually exist." These 'palaces of the king' are mentioned by Diodôros in his epitome of Megasthenês, as will be seen by a reference to p. 39. It was in the interval which separates the journey of Fa-Hian from that of his compatriot Hiwen Thsâng—that is, between the year 400 and the year 632 after Christ—that the fall of Pâṭaliputra was accomplished, for where the splendid metropolis had once stood Hiwen Thsâng found nothing but ruins, and a village containing about two or three hundred houses. The cause of its downfall and decay is unknown. The ruins seen by the Chinese traveller are no longer visible, but lie buried deep below the foundations of modern Pâṭnâ. An excavation quite recently made in that city for the construction of a public tank placed this fact beyond question; for, when the workmen had dug down to a depth of 12 or 15 feet below the surface of the ground, some remains were discovered of what must have been the wooden wall spoken of by Megasthenês. I have received from a friend who iuspected the excavation the following particulars of this interesting and remarkable discovery:—"During the cold season 1876, whilst digging a tank in Sheikh Mithia Ghari, a part of Pâṭnâ almost equally distant from the chauk (market-place) and the railway station, the excavators, at a depth of some 12 or 15 feet below the swampy surface, discovered the remains of a long brick wall running from N.W. to S.E. How far this wall extended beyond the limits of the excavation—probably more than a hundred yards—it is impossible to say. Not far from the wall, and almost parallel to it, was found a line of palisades; the strong timber of which it was composed inclined slightly towards the wall. In one place there appeared to have been some sort of outlet, for two wooden pillars rising to a height of some 8 or 9 feet above what had evidently been the ancient level of the place, and between which no trace of palisades could be discovered, had all the appearance of door or gate posts. A number of wells and sinks were also found, their mouths being in each case indicated by heaps of fragments of broken mud vessels. From the best-preserved specimens of these, it appeared that their shape must have differed from that of those now in use. One of the wells having been cleared out, it was found to yield capital drinking water, and among the rubbish taken out of it were discovered several iron spear-heads, a fragment of a large vessel, &c." The fact thus established—that old Palibothra, and its wall with it, are deep underground—takes away all probability from the supposition of Kavenshaw that the large mounds near Pâṭnâ (called Panch-Pahâri, or 'five hills'), consisting of débris and bricks, may be the remains of towers or bastions of the ancient city. The identity of Pâṭaliputra with Pâṭnâ was a question not settled without much previous controversy. D'Anville, as has been already stated, misled by the assertion of Pliny that the Jomanes (Janmâ) flows through the Palibothri into the Ganges, referred its site to the position of Allahâbâd, where these two rivers unite. Rennel, again, thought it might be identical with Kanauj, though he afterwards abandoned this opinion; while Wilford placed it on the left bank of the Ganges at some distance to the north of Râjmahâl, and Francklin at Bhâgalpûr. The main objection to the claims of Pâṭnâ—its not being situated at the confluence of any river with the Ganges—was satisfactorily disposed of when in the course of research it was brought to light that the Sôn was not only identical with the Erranoboas, but that up to the year 1379, when it formed a new channel for itself, it had joined the Ganges in the neighbourhood of Pâṭnâ. I may conclude this notice by quoting from Strabo a description of a procession such as Megasthenês (from whose work Strabo very probably drew his information) must have seen parading the streets of Palibothra:—"In processions at their festivals many elephants are in the train, adorned with gold and silver, numerous carriages drawn by four horses and by several pairs of oxen; then follows a body of attendants in full dress, (bearing) vessels of gold, large basins and goblets an orguia in breadth, tables, chairs of state, drinking-cups, and lavers of Indian copper, most of which were set with precious stones, as emeralds, beryls, and Indian carbuncles; garments embroidered and interwoven with gold; wild beasts, as buffaloes, panthers, tame lions; and a multitude of birds of variegated plumage and of fine song."—Bohn's Transl. of Strabo, III. p. 117.

[1]

[2]