Jump to content

Ancient India as described by Megasthenês and Arrian/Introduction

Add links
From Wikisource
←
Ancient India as described by Megasthenês and Arrian
by Megasthenes, translated by John Watson McCrindle
Introduction
Frag. I.
→
4623615Ancient India as described by Megasthenês and Arrian — IntroductionJohn Watson McCrindleMegasthenes
​

THE FRAGMENTS OF THE INDIKA OF MEGASTHENÊS.

Introduction.

The ancient Greeks, till even a comparatively late period in their history, possessed little, if any, real knowledge of India. It is indeed scarcely so much as mentioned by name in their greatest poets, whether epic, lyric, or dramatic. They must, however, have known of its existence as early as the heroic times, for we find from Homer that they used even then articles of Indian merchandize, which went among them by names of Indian origin, such as kassiteros, tin, and elephas, ivory.[1] But their conception of it, as we gather from the same source, was vague in the extreme. They imagined it to be an Eastern Ethiopia which stretched away to the uttermost verge of the world, and which, like the Ethiopia of the West, was inhabited by a race of men whose visages were scorched black by the ​fierce rays of the sun.[2] Much lies in a name, and the error made by the Greeks in thus calling India Ethiopia led them into the further error of considering as pertinent to both these countries narrations, whether of fact or fiction, which concerned but one of them exclusively. This explains why we find in Greek literature mention of peculiar or fabulous races, both of men and other animals, which existed apparently in duplicate, being represented sometimes as located in India, and sometimes in Ethiopia or the countries thereto adjacent.[3] We can hardly wonder, when we consider the distant and sequestered situation of India, that the first conceptions which the Greeks had of it should have been of this nebulous character, but it seems ​what remarkable that they should have learned hardly anything of importance regarding it from the expeditions which were successively undertaken against it by the Egyptians under Sesostris, the Assyrians under Semiramis, and the Persians first under Kyros and afterwards under Dareios the son of Hystaspês.[4] Perhaps, as Dr. Robertson has observed, they disdained, through pride of their own superior enlightenment, to pay attention to the transactions of people whom they considered as barbarians, especially in countries far remote from their own. But, in whatever way the fact may be accounted for, India continued to be to the Greeks little better than a land of mystery and fable till the times of the Persian wars, when for the first time they became distinctly aware of its existence. The first historian who speaks clearly of it is Hekataios of Miletos (B.C. 549-486),[5] ​and fuller accounts are preserved in Herodotos[6] and in the remains of Ktêsias, who, having lived for some years in Persia as private physician to king Artaxerxes Mnêmôn, collected materials during his stay for a treatise on India, the first work on the subject written in the Greek language.[7] His descriptions were, unfortunately, vitiated by a large intermixture of fable, and it was left to the followers of Alexander to give to the Western world for the first time fairly accurate accounts of the country and its inhabitants. The great conqueror, it is well known, carried scientific men with him to chronicle his achievements, and describe the countries to which he might carry his arms, and some of his officers were also men of literary culture, who could wield the pen as well as ​the sword. Hence the expedition produced quite a crop of narratives and memoirs relating to India, such as those of Baeto, Diognetos, Nearchos, Onesikritos, Aristoboulos, Kallisthenês, and others. These works are all lost, but their substance is to be found condensed in Strabo, Pliny, and Arrian. Subsequent to these writers were some others, who made considerable additions to the stock of information regarding India, among whom may be mentioned Dêimachos, who resided for a long time in Palibothra, whither he was sent on an embassy by Seleukos to Allitrochadês, the successor of Sandrakottos; Patroklês, the admiral of Seleukos, who is called by Strabo the least mendacious of all writers concerning India; Timosthenês, admiral of the fleet of Ptolemaios Philadelphos; and Megasthenês, who being sent by Seleukos Nikator on an embassy to Sandrakottos (Chandragupta),[8] the king of the Prasii, whose capital was Palibothra (Pâṭaliputra, now Pâṭnâ), wrote a work on India of such ackuowledged worth that it formed the principal source whence succeeding writers drew their accounts of the country. This work, which appears ​to have been entitled to τὰ ’Ἰνδικά, no longer exists, but it has been so often abridged and quoted by the ancient writers that we have a fair knowledge of its contents and their order of arrangement. Dr. Schwanbeck, with great industry and learning, has collected all the fragments that have been anywhere preserved, and has prefixed to the collection a Latin Introduction, wherein, after showing what knowledge the Greeks had acquired of India before Megasthenês, he enters into an examination of those passages in ancient works from which we derive all the little we know of Megasthenês and his Indian mission. He then reviews his work on India, giving a summary of its contents, and, having estimated its value and authority, concludes with a notice of those authors who wrote on India after his time.[9] I have translated in the latter part of the sequel a few instructive passages from this Introduction, one particularly which successfully vindicates Megasthenês from the charge of mendacity so frequently preferred against him. Meanwhile the following extracts, translated from C. Müller's Preface to his edition of the Indika, will place before the reader all the information that can be gleaned regarding Megasthenes and his embassy from a careful scrutiny and comparison of all the ancient texts which relate thereto.

Justinus (XV. 4) says of Seleukos Nikator, ​'He carried on many wars in the East after the division of the Makedonian kingdom between himself and the other successors of Alexander, first seizing Babylonia, and then reducing Baktrianê, his power being increased by the first success. Thereafter he passed into India, which had, since Alexander's death, killed its governors, thinking thereby to shake off from its neck the yoke of slavery. Sandrokottos had made it free: but when victory was gained he changed the name of freedom to that of bondage, for he himself oppressed with servitude the very people which he had rescued from foreign dominion. . . Sandrokottos, having thus gained the crown, held India at the time when Seleukos was laying the foundations of his future greatness. Seleukos came to an agreement with him, and, after settling affairs in the Bast, engaged in the war against Antigonos (302 B.C.).'

"Besides Justinus, Appianus (Syr. c. 55) makes mention of the war which Seleukos had with Sandrokottos or Ohandragupta king of the Prasii, or, as they are called in the Indian language, Prâchyas[10]:—'He (Seleu​kos) crossed the Indus and waged war on Sandrokottos, king of the Indians who dwelt about it, until be made friends and entered into relations of marriage with him.' So also Strabo (xv. p. 724):—'Seleukos Nikator gave to Sandrokottos' (sc. a large part of Arianê). Conf. p. 689:—'The Indians afterwards held a large part of Arianê, (which they had received from the Makedonians), 'entering into marriage relations with him, and receiving in return five hundred elephants' (of which Sandrakottos had nine thousand—Plinius, vi. 22-5); and Plutarch, Alex. 62:—'For not long after, Androkottos, being king, presented Seleukos with five hundred elephants, and with six hundred thousand men attacked and subdued all India.' Phylarchos (Fragm. 28) in Athenaaus, p. 18 D., refers to some other wonderful enough presents as being sent to Seleukos by Sandrokottos.

"Diodorus (lib. xx.), in setting forth the affairs of Seleukos, has not said a single word about the Indian war. But it would be strange that that expedition should be mentioned so incidentally by other historians, if it were true, as many recent writers have contended, that Seleukos in this war reached the middle of India as far as the Ganges and the town Palimbothra,—nay, even advanced as far as the mouths of the Ganges, and therefore left Alexander far behind him. This baseless theory has been well refuted by Lassen (De Pentap. Ind. 61), by A. G. Schlegel (Berliner Calender, ​1829, p. 31; yet see Benfey, Ersch. u. Grüber. Encycl. v. Indien., p. 67), and quite recently by Schwanbeck, in a work of great learning and value entitled Megasthenis Indica (Bonn, 1846). In the first place, Schwanbeck (p. 13) mentions the passage of Justinus (I. ii. 10) where it is said that no one had entered India but Seniiramis and Alexander; whence it would appear that the expedition of Seleukos was considered so insignificant by Trogus as not even to be on a par with the Indian war of Alexander.[11] Then he says that Arrianus, if he had known of that remote expedition of Seleukos, would doubtless have spoken differently in his Indika (c. 5. 4), where he says that Megasthenes did not travel over much of India, 'but yet more than those who invaded it along with Alexander the son of Philip.' Now in this passage the author could have compared Megasthenes much more suitably and easily with Seleukos.[12] I pass over other proofs of less moment, nor ​indeed is it expedient to set forth in detail here all the reasons from which it is improbable of itself that the arms of Selenkos ever reached the region of the Ganges. Let us now examine the passage in Plinius which causes many to adopt contrary opinions. Plinius (Hist, Nat. vi. 21), after finding from Diognetos and Baeto the distances of the places from Portæ Caspiæ to the Huphasis, the end of Alexander's march, thus proceeds:—'The other journeys made for Seleukos Nikator are as follows:—One hundred and sixty-eight miles to the Hesidrus, and to the river Jomanes as many (some copies add five miles); from thence to the Ganges one hundred and twelve miles. One hundred and nineteen miles to the Rhodophas (others give three hundred and twenty-five miles for this distance). To the town Kalinipaxa one hundred and sixty-seven. Five hundred (others give two hundred and sixty-five miles), and from thence to the confluence of the Jomanes and Ganges six hundred and twenty-five miles (several add thirteen miles), and to the town Palimbothra four hundred and twenty-five. To the mouth of the Ganges six hundred and thirty-eight' (or seven hundred and thirty-eight, to ​follow Schwanbeck's correction),—that is, six thousand stadia, as Megasthenês puts it.

"The ambiguous expression reliqua Seleuco Nicatori peragrata sunt, translated above as 'the other journeys made for Seleukos Nikator,' according to Schwanbeck's opinion, contain a dative 'of advantage,' and therefore can bear no other meaning. The reference is to the journeys of Megasthenês, Dêimachos, and Patroklês, whom Seleukos had sent to explore the more remote regions of Asia. Nor is the statement of Plinius in a passage before this more distinct. ('India,') he says, 'was thrown open not only by the arms of Alexander the Great, and the kings who were his successors, of whom Seleucus and Antiochus even travelled to the Hyrcanian and Caspian seas, Patrocles being commander of their fleet, but all the Greek writers who stayed behind with the Indian kings (for instance, Megasthenes and Dionysius, sent by Philadelphus for that purpose) have given accounts of the military force of each nation.' Schwanbeck thinks that the words circumvectis etiam. . . . . . Seleuco et Antiocho et Patrocle are properly meant to convey nothing but additional confirmation, and also an explanation how India was opened up by the arms of the kings who succeeded Alexander."

"The following statements," continues Müller, "contain all that is related about Megasthenês:—

"'Megasthenês the historian, who lived with Seleukos Nikator',—Clem. Alex. p. 132 Sylb. (Fragm. 42); 'Megasthenês, who lived with Sibyrtios[13] the satrap ​of Arachosia, and who says that he often visited Sandrakottos, king of the Indians,'—Arrian, Exp. Alex. V. vi. 2 (Fragm. 2);—'To Sandrokottos, to whom Megasthenês came on an embassy,'—Strabo, XV. p. 702 (Fragm. 25);—'Megasthenês and Dêimachos were sent on an embassy, the former to Sandrokottos at Palimbothra, the other to Allitrochadês his son; and they left accounts of their sojourn in the country,'—Strabo, ii. p. 70 (Fragm. 29 note); Megasthenês says that he often visited Sandrokottos, the greatest king (mahâraja: v. Bohlen, Alte Indien, I. p. 19) of the Indians, and Pôros, still greater than he:'—Arrian, Ind. c. 5 (Fragm. 24). Add the passage of Plinius, which Solinus (Polyhistor. c. 60) thus renders:—'Megasthenês remained for sotne time with the Indian kings, and wrote a history of Indian affairs, that he might hand down to posterity a faithful account of all that he had witnessed. Dionysius, who was sent by Philadelphus to put the truth to the test by personal inspection, wrote also as much.'

"From these sources, then, we gather that Megasthenês[14] was the representative of Seleukos ​at the court of Sibyrtios, satrap of Arachosia, and that he was sent from thence as the king's ambassador to Sandrokottos at Palimbothra, and that not once, but frequently—whether to convey to him the presents of Seleukos, or for some other cause. According to the statement of Arrianus, Megasthenês also visited king Pôros, who was (Diod. xix. 14) already dead in 317 B.C. (Olymp. CXV. 4). These events should not be referred to the period of Seleukos, but they may very easily be placed in the reign of Alexander, as Bohlen (Alte Indien, vol. I. p. 68) appears to have believed they should, when he says Megasthenês was one of the companions of Alexander. But the structure of the sentences does not admit of this conclusion. For Arrianus says, 'It appears to me that Megasthenês did not see much of India, but yet more than the companions of Alexander, for he says that he visited Sandrokottos, the greatest king of the Indians, and Pôros, even greater than he (καὶ Πώρῳ ἔτι τούτου μέζονι).' We should be disposed to say, then, that he made a journey on some occasion or other to Pôros, if the obscurity of the language did not lead us to suspect it a corrupt reading. Lassen (De Pentap. p. 44) thinks the mention of Pôros a careless addition of a chance transcriber, but I prefer Schwanbeck's opinion, who thinks it should be written καὶ Πώρου ἔτι τούτῳ πέζονι, 'and who was even greater than Poros.' If this correction is admitted, everything fits well.

"The time when he discharged his embassy or embassies, and how long he stayed in India, cannot be determined, but he was probably sent after the treaty had been struck and friendship had ​sprung up between the two kings. If, therefore, we make the reign of Sandrokottos extend to the year 288, Megasthenês would have set out for Palimbothra between 302 and 288. Clinton (F. H. vol. III. p. 482) thinks he came to the Indian king a little before B.C. 302."

While the date of the visit of Megasthenês to India is thus uncertain, there is less doubt as to what were the parts of the country which he saw; and on this point Schwanbeck thus writes (p. 21):—

"Both from what he himself says, and because he has enumerated more accurately than any of the companions of Alexander, or any other Greek, the rivers of Kâbul and the Panjâb, it is clear that he had passed through these countries. Then, again, we know that he reached Pâṭaliputra by travelling along the royal road. But he does not appear to have seen more of India than those parts of it, and he acknowledges himself that he knew the lower part of the country traversed by the Ganges only by hearsay and report. It is commonly supposed that he also spent some time in the Indian camp, and therefore in some part of the country, but where cannot now be known. This opinion, however, is based on a corrupt reading which the editions of Strabo exhibit. For in all the MSS. of Strabo (p. 709) is found this reading:—Γενομένους δ'οὗν 'εν τῷ Σανδροκόττου στρατοπέδῳ φησὶν ὁ Μεγασθένης, τετταράκοντα μυριάδον πλήθους ὶδρυμένου, μηδεμίαν ἡμέραν ἰδεῖν ἀνηνεγμένα κλέμματα πλειόνων ἢ διακοσίων δραχμῶν ἄξια. 'Megasthenês says that those who were in the camp of Sandrokottos saw,' &c. From this translation that given by Guarini and Gregorio alone ​is different. They render thus:—'Megasthenes refert, quum in Sandrocotti castra venisset … vidisse,' 'Megasthenês relates that when he had come into the camp of Sandrokottos, he saw,' &c. From this it appears that the translator had found written γενόμενος. But since that translation is hardly equal in authority even to a single MS., and since the word γενόμενους can be changed more readily into the word γενόμενος than γενόμενος into γενόμενους, there is no reason at all why we should depart from the reading of all the MSS., which Casaubon disturbed by a baseless conjecture, contending that γενόμενος should be substituted,—inasmuch as it is evident from Strabo and Arrianus (V. vi. 2) that Megasthenês had been sent to Sandrokottos,—which is an argument utterly futile. Nevertheless from the time of Casaubon the wrong reading γενόμενος which he promulgated has held its ground."

That Megasthenês paid more than one visit to India Schwanbeck is not at all inclined to believe. On this point he says (p. 23)—

"That Megasthenês frequently visited India recent writers, all with one consent, following Robertson, are wont to maintain; nevertheless this opinion is far from being certain. For what Arrianus has said in his Exped. Alex. V. vi. 2,—Πολλάκις δὲ λέγει (Μεγασθένης) ἀφικέσθαι παρὰ Σανδράκοττον τὸν Ἰνδῶν βασιλέα, does not solve the question, for he might have meant by the words that Megasthenês during his embassy had frequent interviews with Chandragupta. Nor, if we look to the context, does any other explanation seem admissible; and in fact no other writer besides has mentioned his making frequent ​visits, although occasion for making such mention was by no means wanting, and in the Indika itself of Megasthenês not the slightest indication of his having made numerous visits is to be found. But perhaps some may say that to this view is opposed the accurate knowledge which he possessed on all Indian matters; but this may equally well be accounted for by believing that he made a protracted stay at Pâṭaliputra as by supposing that he frequently visited India. Robertson's conjecture appears, therefore, uncertain, not to say hardly credible."

Regarding the veracity of Megasthenês, and his value as a writer, Schwanbeck writes (p. 59) to this effect:—

"The ancient writers, whenever they judge of those who have written on Indian matters, are without doubt wont to reckon Megasthenês among those writers who are given to lying and least worthy of credit, and to rank him almost on a par with Ktêsias. Arrianus alone has judged better of him, and delivers his opinion of him in these words:—'Regarding the Indians I shall set down in a special work all that is most credible for narration in the accounts penned by those who accompanied Alexander on his expedition, and by Nearchus, who navigated the great sea which washes the shores of India, and also by Megasthenês and Eratosthenês, who are both approved men (δοκίμω ἄνδρε):' Arr. Exped. Alex. V. v.

"The foremost amongst those who disparage him is Eratosthenês, and in open agreement with him are Strabo and Pliny. Others, among whom is Diodorus, by omitting certain particulars re​lated by Megasthenês, sufficiently show that they discredit that part of his narrative.[15]

​"Strabo (p. 70) says, 'Generally speaking, the men who have hitherto written or the affairs of India were a set of liars,—Dêimachos holds the first place in the list, Megasthenês comes next; while Onesikritos and Nearchos, with others of the same class, manage to stammer out a few words (of truth). Of this we became the more convinced whilst writing the history of Alexander. No faith whatever can be placed in Dêimachos and Megasthenês. They coined the fables concerning men with ears large enough to sleep in, men without any mouths, without noses, with only one eye, with spider legs, and with fingers bent backward. They renewed Homer's fables concerning the battles of the cranes and pygmies, and asserted the latter to be three spans high. They told of ants digging for gold, and Pans with wedge-shaped heads, of serpents swallowing down oxen and stags, horns and all,—meantime, as Eratosthenês has observed, accusing each other of falsehood. Both of these men were sent as ambassadors to Palimbothra,—Megasthenês to Sandrokottos, Dêimachos to Amitrochadês his son,—and such are the notes of their residence abroad, which, I know not why, they thought fit to leave.

"When he adds, 'Patroklês certainly does not resemble them, nor do any other of the authorities ​consulted by Eratosthenês contain such absurdities,' we may well wonder, seeing that, of all the writers on India, Eratosthenês has chiefly followed Megasthenês. Plinius (Hist. Nat. VI. xxi. 3) says: 'India was opened up to our knowledge … even by other Greek writers, who, having resided with Indian kings,—as for instance Megasthenês and Dionysius,—made known the strength of the races which peopled the country. It is not, however, worth while to study their accounts with care, so conflicting are they, and incredible.'

"These same writers, however, seeing they have copied into their own pages a great part of his Indika, cannot by any means have so entirely distrusted his veracity as one might easily infer they did from these judgments. And what of this, that Eratosthenês himself, who did not quote him sparingly, says in Strabo (p. 689) that "he sets down the breadth of India from the register of the Stathmi, which were received as authentic,'—a passage which can have reference to Megasthenês alone. The fact is they find fault with only two parts of the narrative of Megasthenes,—the one in which he writes of the fabulous races of India, and the other where he gives an account of Heraklês and the Indian Dionysus; although it so happens that on other matters also they regarded the account given by others as true, rather than that of Megasthenês.

"The Âryan Indians were from the remotest period surrounded on all sides by indigenous tribes in a state of barbarism, from whom they differed both in mind and disposition. They were most acutely sensible of this difference, and gave it a very pointed expression. For as barbarians, even by the sanc​tion of the gods themselves, are excluded from the Indian commonwealth, so they seem to have been currently regarded by the Indians as of a nature and disposition lower than their own, and bestial rather than human. A difference existing between minds is not easily perceived, but the Indians were quick to discern how unlike the barbarous tribes were to themselves in bodily figure; and the divergence they exaggerated, making bad worse, and so framed to themselves a mental picture of these tribes beyond measure hideous. When reports in circulation regarding them had given fixity to this conception, the poets seized on it as a basis for further exaggeration, and embellished it with fables. Other races, and these even Indian, since they had originated in an intermixture of tribes, or since they did not sufficiently follow Indian manners, and especially the system of caste, so roused the common hatred of the Indians that they were reckoned in the same category with the barbarians, and represented as equally hideous of aspect. Accordingly in the epic poems we see all Brahmanical India surrounded by races not at all real, but so imaginary that sometimes it cannot be discovered how the fable originated.

"Forms still more wonderful you will find by bestowing a look at the gods of the Indians and their retinue, among whom particularly the attendants of Kuvêra and Kârtikêya are described in such a manner (conf. Mahâbh. ix. 2558 et seq), that hardly anything which it is possible for the human imagination to invent seems omitted. These, however, the Indians now sufficiently dis​tinguish from the fabulous races, since they neither believe that they live within the borders of India, nor have any intercourse with the human race. These, therefore, the Greeks could not confound with the races of India.

"These races, however, might be more readily confounded with other creatures of the Indian imagination, who held a sort of intermediate place between demons and men, and whose number was legion. For the Râkshasas and other Piśâchas are said to have the same characteristics as the fabulous races, and the only difference between them is that, while a single (evil) attribute only is ascribed to each race, many or all of these are assigned to the Râkshasas and the Piśâchas. Altogether so slight is the distinction between the two that any strict lines of demarcation can hardly be drawn between them. For the Râkshasas, though described as very terrible beings, are nevertheless believed to be human, and both to live on the earth and take part in Indian battles, so that an ordinary Indian could hardly define how the nature of a Râkshasa differs from that of a man. There is scarcely any one thing found to characterize the Râkshasas which is not attributed to some race or other. Therefore, although the Greeks might have heard of these by report,—which cannot be proved for certain,—they could scarcely, by reason of that, have erred in describing the manners of the races according to the Indian conception.

"That reports about these tribes should have reached Greece is not to be wondered at. For fables invented with some glow of poetic fervour have ​a remarkable facility in gaining a wide currency, which is all the greater in proportion to the boldness displayed in their invention. Those fables also in which the Indians have represented the lower animals as talking to each other have been diffused through almost every country in the world, in a way we cannot understand. Other fables found their way to the Greeks before even the name of India was known to them. In this class some fables even in Homer must be reckoned,—a matter which, before the Vedas were better known, admitted only of probable conjecture, but could not be established by unquestionable proofs. We perceive, moreover, that the further the epic poems of the Greeks depart from their original simplicity the more, for that very reason, do those fables creep into them; while a very liberal use of them is made by the poets of a later age. It would be a great mistake to suppose that those fables only in which India is mentioned proceeded from India; for a fable in becoming current carries along with it the name of the locality in which the scene of it is laid. An example will make this clear. The Indians supposed that towards the north, beyond the Himalaya, dwelt the Uttarakuri, a people who enjoyed a long and happy life, to whom disease and care were unknown, and who revelled in every delight in a land all paradise. This fable made its way to the West, carrying with it the name of the locality to which it related, and so it came to pass that from the time of Hesiod the Greeks supposed that towards the north lived the Hyperboreans, whose very name was fashioned after some ​likeness to the Indian name. The reason why the Indians placed the seat of this happy people towards the north is manifest; but there was not the slightest reason which can be discovered why the Greeks should have done so. Nay, the locality assigned to the Hyperboreans is not only out of harmony, but in direct conflict, with that conception of the world which the Greeks entertained.

"The first knowledge of the mythical geography of the Indians dates from this period, when the Greeks were the unconscious recipients of Indian fables. Fresh knowledge was imparted by Skylax, who first gave a description of India; and all writers from the time of Skylax, with not a single exception, mention those fabulous races, but in such a way that they are wont to speak of them as Æthiopians; by doing which they have incurred obloquy and the suspicion of dishonesty, especially Ktêsias. This writer, however, is not at all untruthful when he says, in the conclusion of his Indika (33), that 'he omits many of these stories, and others still more marvellous, that he may not appear, to such as have not seen these, to be telling what is incredible;' for he could have described many other fabulous races, as for example men with the heads of tigers (vyâghramuchâs), others with the necks of snakes (vyalagrîvâs), others having horses' heads (turangavadanâs, aśvamuchâs), others with feet like dogs (śvâpadâs), others with four feet (chatushpadâs), others with three eyes (trinêtrâs), and others with six hundred.

"Nor were the companions of Alexander able to disregard these fables,—in fact, scarcely any of ​them doubted their truth. For, generally speaking, they were communicated to them by the Brâhmaṇs, whose learning and wisdom they held in the utmost veneration. Why, then, should we be surprised that Megasthenês also, following examples so high and numerous, should have handled those fables? His account of them is to be found in Strabo 711; Pliny, Hist. Nat vii. 2. 14–22; Solinus 52." (Sch. p. 64.)

Schwanbeck then examines the fables related by Megasthenês, and having shown that they were of Indian origin, thus proceeds (p. 74):—

"The relative veracity of Megasthenês, then, cannot be questioned, for he related truthfully both what he actually saw, and what was told him by others. If we therefore seek to know what reliance is to be placed on any particular narrative, this other point must be considered, how far his informants were worthy of credit. But here no ground for suspicion exists; for on those matters which did not come under his own observation he had his information from those Brâhmaṇs who were the rulers of the state, to whom he again and again appeals as his authorities. Accordingly he was able not only to describe how the kingdom of the Prasii was governed, but also to give an estimate of the power of other nations and the strength of their armies. Hence we cannot wonder that Indian ideas are to be found in the books of Megasthenês mixed up with accounts of what he personally observed and with Greek ideas.

"Therefore to him, as to the companions of Alexander, it cannot be objected that he told too ​much. That he did not tell too little to give an adequate account of Indian affairs to Greek readers we know. For he has described the country, its soil, climate, animals, and plants, its government and religion, the manners of its people and their arts,—in short, the whole of Indian life from the king to the remotest tribe; and he has scanned every object with a mind sound and unprejudiced, without overlooking even trifling and minute circumstances. If we see any part omitted, a little only said about the religion and gods of the Indians, and nothing at all about their literature, we should reflect that we are not reading his veritable book, but only an epitome and some particular fragments that have survived the wreck of time." (p. 75.)

"Of the slight mistakes into which he fell, some are of that kind into which even the most careful observer may be betrayed, as for instance his incorrectly stating that the Vipâśa pours its waters into the Irâvati. Others had their origin in his misapprehension of the meaning of Indian words; to which head must be referred his assertion that among the Indians laws were not written, but everything decided by memory. Besides he alleges that on those Brâhmaṇs who had thrice erred in making up the calendar silence for the rest of their lives was enjoined as a punishment. This passage, which has not yet been cleared up, I would explain by supposing that he had heard the Indian word mâunin, a name which is applied both to a taciturn person and to any ascetic. Finally, some errors had their source in this, that he looked at Indian matters from a Greek's point ​of view, from which it resulted that he did not correctly enumerate the castes, and gave a mistaken account of the Indian gods and other matters.

"Notwithstanding, the work of Megasthenês—in so far as it is a part of Greek literature and of Greek and Roman learning—is, as it were, the culmination of the knowledge which the ancients ever acquired of India: for although the geographical science of the Greeks attained afterwards a perfect form, nevertheless the knowledge of India derived from the books of Megasthenês has only approached perfect accuracy the more closely those who have written after him on India have followed his Indika. And it is not only on account of his own merit that Megasthenês is a writer of great importance, but also on this other ground, that while other writers have borrowed a great part of what they relate from him, he exercised a powerful influence on the whole sphere of Latin and Greek scientific knowledge.

"Besides this authority which the Indika of Megasthenês holds in Greek literature, his remains have another value, since they hold not the last place among the sources whence we derive our knowledge of Indian antiquity. For as there now exists a knowledge of our own of ancient India, still on some points he increases the knowledge which we have acquired from other sources, even though his narrative not seldom requires to be supplemented and corrected. Notwithstanding, it must be conceded that the new information we have learned from him is neither extremely great in amount nor weight. What is of greater importance than all that is new in what he has told us, is—that ​he has recalled a picture of the condition of India at a definite period,—a service of all the greater value, because Indian literature, always self-consistent, is wont to leave us in the greatest doubt if we seek to know what happened at any particular time." (pp. 76, 77.)

It is yet an unsettled question whether the Indika was written in the Attic or the Ionic dialect.[16]

  1. ↑ Kassiteros represents the Sanskṛit kastîra, 'tin,' a metal found in abundance in the islands, on the coast of India; and elephas is undoubtedly connected with ibha, the Sanskṛit name for the domestic elephant—its initial syllable being perhaps the Arabic article.
  2. ↑ See Homer, Od. I. 23-24, where we read

    Αἰθίοπες, τοὶ διχθὰ δεδαίαται, ἔσχατοι ἀνδρῶν,
    οἱ μὲν δυσομένου Ὑπερίονος, οἱ δ' ἀνιόντος.

    (The Ethiopians, who are divided into two, and live at the world's end—one part of them towards the setting sun, the other towards the rising.) Herodotos in several passages mentions the Eastern Ethiopians, but distinguishes them from the Indians (see particularly bk. vii. 70). Ktêsias, however, who wrote somewhat later than Herodotos, frequently calls the Indians by the name of Ethiopians, and the final discrimination between the two races was not made till the Makedonian invasion gave the Western world more correct views of India. Alexander himself, as we learn from Strabo, on first reaching the Indus mistook it for the Nile.
  3. ↑ Instances in point are the Skiapodes, Kynamolgoi, Pygmaiôi, Psylloi, Himantopodes, Sternophthalmoi, Makrobioi, and the Makrokephaloi, the Martikhora, and the Krokotta.
  4. ↑ Herodotos mentions that Dareios, before invading India, sent Skylax the Karyandian on a voyage of discovery down the Indus, and that Skylax accordingly, setting out from Kaspatyras and the Paktyikan district, reached the mouth of that river, whence he sailed through the Indian Ocean to the Red Sea, performing the whole voyage in thirty months. A little work still extant, which briefly describes certain countries in Europe, Asia, and Africa, bears the name of this Skylax, but from internal evidence it has been inferred that it could not have been written before the reign of Philip of Makedonia, the father of Alexander the Great.
  5. ↑ The following names pertaining to India occur in Hekataios:—the Indus; the Opiai, a race on the banks of the Indus; the Kalatiai, an Indian race; Kaspapyros, a Gandaric city; Argantê, a city of India; the Skiapodes, and probably the Pygmies.
  6. ↑ Herodotos mentions the river (Indus), the Paktyikan district, the Gandarioi, the Kalantiai or Kalatiai, and the Padaioi. Both Hekataios and Herodotos agree in stating that there were sandy deserts in India.
  7. ↑ "The few particulars appropriate to India, and consistent with truth, obtained by Ctêsias, are almost confined to something resembling a description of the cochineal plant, the fly, and the beautiful tint obtained from it, with a genuine picture of the monkey and the parrot; the two animals he had doubtless seen in Persia, and flowered cottons emblazoned with the glowing colours of the modern chintz were probably as much coveted by the fair Persians in the harams of Susa and Ecbatana as they still are by the ladies of our own country; .... but we are not bound to admit his fable of the Martichors, his pygmies, his men with the heads of dogs, and feet reversed, his griffins, and his four-footed birds as big as wolves.” - Vincent.
  8. ↑ The discovery that the Sandrakottos of the Greeks was identical with the Chandragupta who figures in the Sanskṛit annals and the Sanskṛit drama was one of great moment, as it was the means of connecting Greek with Sanskṛit literature, and of thereby supplying for the first time a date to early Indian history, which had not a single chronological landmark of its own. Diodôros distorts the name in Xandrames, and this again is distored by Curtius into Agrammes.
  9. ↑ He enumerates Eratosthenês, Hipparclios, Polemo, Mnaseos, Apollodôros, Agatharchidds, Alexander Polyhistor, Strabo, Marînos of Tyre, and Ptolemy among the Greeks, and P. Terentius Varro of Atax, M. Vipsanius Agrippa, Pomponius Mela, Seneca, Pliny, and Solinus among the Romans.
  10. ↑ The adjective πραξιακός in Ælianus On the Nature of Animals, xvii. 39 (Megasthen. Fragm. 13. init.) bears a very close resemblance to the Indian word Prâchyas (that is 'dwellers in the East'). The substantive would be Πράξιοι, and Schwanbeck (Megasthenis Indica, p. 82) thinks that this reading should probably be restored in Stephanus of Byzantium, where the MSS. exhibit Πράσιοι, a form intermediate between Πράξιλος and Πρᾶς. But they are called Πράσιοι by Strabo, Arrianus, and Plinius; Πραίσιοι in Plutarch (Alex. chap. 62), and frequently in Ælianus; Πραΰσιοι by Nicolaüs of Damascus, and in the Florilegium of Stobæus, 37, 38; Βρείσιοι and Βραίσιοι are the MS. readings in Diodorus, xvii. 93; Pharrasii in Curtius, IX. ii. 3; Præsidæ in Justinus, XII. viii. 9. See note on Fragm. 13.
  11. ↑ Moreover, Schwanbeck calls attention (p. 14) to the words of Appianus (i. 1), where when he says, somewhat inaccurately, that Sandrakottos was king of the Indians around the Indus (τῶν περὶ τὸν 'ινδὸν 'ινδῶν) he seems to mean that the war was carried on on the boundaries of India. But this is of no importance, for Appianus has τῶν περὶ αὐτὸν 'Ινδῶν, 'of the Indians around it,' as Schwanbeck himself has written it (p. 13).
  12. ↑ The following passage of the Indian comedy Mudrâ-râkshasa seems to favour the Indian expedition:—"Meanwhile Kusumapura (i.e. Pataliputra, Palimbothra) the city of Chandragupta and the king of the mountain regions, was invested on every side by the Kirâtas, Yavanas, Kambojas, Persians, Baktrians, and the rest." But "that drama" (Schwanbeck, p. 18), "to follow the authority of Wilson, was written in the tenth century after Christ,—certainly ten centuries after Seleukos. When even the Indian historians have no authority in history, what proof can dramas give written after many centuries? Yavanas, which was also in later times the Indian name for the Greeks, was very anciently the name given to a certain nation which the Indians say dwelt on the north-western boundaries of India and the same nation (Manu, x. 44) is also numbered with the Kambojas, the Śakas, the Paradas, the Pallavas, and the Kiratas as being corrupted among the Kshatriyas. (Conf. Lassen, Zeitschrift für d. Kunde des Morgenlandes, III. p. 245.) These Yavanas are to be understood in this passage also, where they are mentioned along with those tribes with which they are usually classed.
  13. ↑ Sibyrtios, according to Diodorus (XVIII. iii. 3), had gained the satrapy of Arachosia in the third year of the 114th Olympiad (B.C. 323), and was firmly established in his satrapy by Antipater (Arrianns, De Success. Alex. §86, ed. Didot). He joined Enmenês in 316 (Diod. xix. 14. 6), but being called to account by him he songht safety in flight (ibid. XIX. xxiii. 4). After the defeat of Eomenês, Antigonos delivered to him the most troublesome of the Argyraspides (ibid. C. xlviii. 3). He must have afterwards joined Seleukos.
  14. ↑ Bohlen (Alte Indien, I. p. 68) says that Megasthenês was a Persian. No one gives this account of him but Annius Viterbiensis, that forger, whom Bohlen appears to have followed. But it is evidently a Greek name. Strabo (v. p. 243; comp. Velleius Paterculus, i. 4) mentions a Megasthenês of Chalkis, who is said to have founded Cumæ in Italy along with Hippoklês of Kumê.
  15. ↑ Regarding the manner in which Strabo, Arrianus, Diodorus, and Plinius used the Indika of Megasthenês, Schwanbeck remarks:—"Strabo, and—not unlike to Strabo—Arrianus, who, however, gave a much less carefully considered account of India, abridged the descriptions of Megasthenês, yet in such a way that they wrote at once in an agreeable style and with strict regard to accuracy. But when Strabo designed not merely to instruct but also to delight his readers, he omitted whatever would be out of place in an entertaining narrative or picturesque description, and avoided above all things aught that would look like a dry list of names. Now though this may not be a fault, still it is not to be denied that those particulars which he has omitted would have very greatly helped our knowledge of Ancient India. Nay, Strabo, in his eagerness to be interesting, has gone so far that the topography of India is almost entirely a blank in his pages.

    "Diodorus, however, in applying this principle of composition has exceeded all bounds. For as he did not aim at writing learnedly for the instruction of others, but in a light, amusing style, so as to be read with delight by the multitude, he selected for extract such parts as best suited this purpose. He has therefore omitted not only the most accurate narrations of fact, but also the fables which his readers might consider as incredible, and has been best pleased to describe instead that part of Indian life which to the Greeks would appear singular and diverting. … Nevertheless his epitome is not without its value; for although we do not learn much that is new from its contents, still it has the advantage over all the others of being the most coherent, while at the same time it enables us to attribute with certainty an occasional passage to Megasthenês, which without its help we could but conjecture proceeded from his pen.

    "Since Strabo, Arrianus, and Diodorus have directed their attention to relate nearly the same things, it has resulted that the greatest part of the Indika has been completely lost, and that of many passages, singularly enough, three epitomes are extant, to which occasionally a fourth is added by Plinius.

    "At a great distance from these writers, and especially from Diodorus, stands Plinius: whence it happens that he both differs most from that writer, and also best supplements his epitome. Where the narrative of Strabo and Arrianus is at once pleasing and instructive, and Diodorus charms us with a lively sketch, Pliny gives instead, in the baldest language, an ill-digested enumeration of names. With his usual wonderful diligence he has written this part, but more frequently still he writes with too little care and judgment,—a fact of which we have already seen numerous instances. In a careless way, as is usual, he commends authors, so that if you compared his accounts of Taprobane and the kingdom of the Prasii you would think that he had lived at different periods. He frequently commends Megasthenês, but more frequently seems to transcribe him without acknowledgment."—pp. 56–58.

  16. ↑ The following authorities are quoted by Schwanbeck (pp. 23, 24) to show that the Indika of Megasthenês was divided into four books:—Athen. IV. p. 153—where the 2nd book is mentioned; Clem. Alex. Strom. I. p. 132 Sylb., where the 3rd book is mentioned; Joseph, contra Apion, I. 20, and Antiq. Jud. X. xi. 1, where the 4th book is mentioned—cf. G. Syncell. tom. I. p. 419, Bonn. The assignment of the fragments to their respective books was a matter of some difficulty, as the order of their connection varies in different authors.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Ancient_India_as_described_by_Megasthenês_and_Arrian/Introduction&oldid=14597988"