The Classical Accounts of India c22.s2: II. The Indika of Megasthenes

The Classical Accounts of India c22.s2

Language: English

c22.s2.t1 Passages from the Indika of Megasthenes collected by McCrindle — 3 parts
c22.s2.t2 Doubtful Fragments — 27 parts

II. The Indika of Megasthenes

c22.s2.1

The *Indika* of Megasthenes has not been included in the texts printed in this volume. The reason is obvious. The text of the *Indika* has not yet come to light, and what now passes current under that name is really a collection of passages supposed to be quoted from this book by later writers All these passages (excluding accounts of the fabulous men and animals and some other topics which throw no light on the history and culture of India) will be found under these later authors. For the sake of convenience the name of Megasthenes, wherever mentioned in these passages, has been printed in thick types, so that readers may have no difficulty in locating the passages quoted from, or based on, the authority of the *Indika* of Megasthenes.

c22.s2.2

The German scholar Dr. Schwanbeck rendered a great service by bringing together all the passages of the lost treatise which have survived in quotations by later classical writers. The English translation of Dr. Schwanbeck's collected fragments of *Indika* by J. W. McCrindle has made this book familiar to all students of ancient Indian history. For nearly a century they have made full use of this first-hand account of India written by an eyewitness at the beginning of the Maurya period, i.e., towards the end of the fourth century B.C.

c22.s2.3

Dr. Schwanbeck, and following him McCrindle, have arranged these passages, called by them Fragments, in serial numbers. The Table at the end of this Appendix gives a list of these Fragments together with the corresponding pages in this book where they occur. This will enable the readers to find out easily any Fragment of the *Indika* of Megasthenes included in McCrindle's translation, which is frequently referred to as a source book of considerable importance. In view of this it is necessary to consider the question whether all these Fragments did really form a part of the long-lost *Indika* of Megasthenes.

c22.s2.4

When the study of Indology was at its infancy, one could not be expected to be very critical of the few sources of first-rate importance then available to him. Schwanbeck's reconstruction of Megasthenes' *Indika* was therefore accepted without criticism, and this mental attitude, by sheer inertia, has persisted among the students of ancient Indian history even today.⁴

c22.s2.5

But the progress of Indological studies has rendered it necessary to subject many of the old accepted notions to a searching criticism, and among these should be included the genuineness of the *Indika* of Megasthenes, as reconstructed by Schwanbeck, and rendered familiar by McCrindle's translation into English.

c22.s2.6

The passages which Dr. Schwanbeck has accepted as "Fragments" of the *Indika* may be divided into four classes :

c22.s2.7

I. The passages in the works of later writers which are explicitly attributed to Megasthenes.

c22.s2.8

II. Passages closely resembling those under I, though not specifically attributed to Megasthenes.

c22.s2.9

III. Passages preceding or following those under I or II.

c22.s2.10

IV. Long passages including, incidentally, those under I, or II-III.

c22.s2.11

The figure in the last column of the Table at the end of this Appendix shows the class to which the corresponding Fragment belongs.

c22.s2.12

Now there can be no doubt that the passages of categories I and II formed part of the Indika of Megasthenes. But the same cannot be said of the other passages belonging to categories III and IV.

c22.s2.13

Fragments of category IV must naturally be viewed with great suspicion. For, in the first place, we have no reasonable grounds to believe that they were derived from the *Indika* of Megasthenes. Secondly, in some cases at least, we have ample evidence to prove that they could not possibly be derived from that work.

c22.s2.14

A typical instance of the second type of category IV is furnished by the very first Fragment, from the History of Diodorus (II. 35-42), which Schwanbeck has labelled as "An Epitome of Megasthenes." Now, it is a notable fact that in this long extract, extending over 14 printed pages, the name of Megasthenes is conspicuous by its absence.

c22.s2.15

Although this passage of Diodorus contains a few extracts of category II, it seems more likely to be a compilation from many sources; at least there is no ground to suppose that he depended solely, or even mainly, upon Megasthenes, far less, intended to give a summary of his work. If such had been the case we could certainly expect a reference to the name or authority of Megasthenes. The English translator of the work of Diodorus was constrained to observe: "It cannot be known whether Diodorus used Megasthenes directly or through a medium; his failure to mention his name a single time is a little surprising, if he used him directly."⁵

c22.s2.16

The theory that Diodorus used Megasthenes through a medium may explain the omission of Megasthenes' name, but certainly reduces, to a very considerable extent, the value of the account as a genuine source of information based on the *Indika* of Megasthenes alone.

c22.s2.17

But even if we assume that Diodorus derived his knowledge of the *Indika* from other books, there are good grounds to believe that he had relied on sources other than the *Indika*. The statement that Alexander advanced as far as the Ganges⁶ may be cited as an instance. It seems almost incredible that such a statement could be made by Megasthenes, belonging to the same generation as Alexander and living in Pataliputra, on the banks of the Ganges, in intimate touch with the king and the people who must have possessed a correct knowledge of the extent of Alexander's advance in India.

c22.s2.18

Nor is it difficult to trace the source from which Diodorus could possibly have derived this information. Strabo informs us that Craterus wrote to his mother that Alexander advanced as far as the Ganges.⁷ It is obviously from this or a similar statement made by others, either independently or on the authority of Craterus, that Diodorus must have derived his information.

c22.s2.19

Several other statements of Diodorus are directly contradictory to those of Megasthenes. For example, Diodorus gives the extent of India from East to West as 28,000 stadia,⁸ whereas according to Megasthenes it was 16,000 stadia.⁹ Surely a difference of 75% in measurement between a book and what is supposed to be its epitome needs an explanation. Again, Diodorus says that the Indus is perhaps the largest of all rivers in the world after the Nile,¹⁰ whereas Arrian quotes Megasthenes to the effect that of the two, the Indus and the Ganges, the Ganges is much the larger.¹¹ In Fragment II of McCrindle there is a statement that the Nile and the Danube taken together are not equal even to the Indus, not to speak of the Ganges.¹² Surely, Fragments I and II cannot both be extracts from the *Indika* of Megasthenes, though, curiously enough, they are treated as such by Schwanbeck and McCrindle.

c22.s2.20

If, therefore, it is practically certain that Diodorus utilised sources other than the *Indika* of Megasthenes, it is obviously impossible to regard his long account of India as "an epitome of Megasthenes." Further, one might naturally doubt whether any passage in the account of Diodorus, save and except those included under category II, mentioned above, may be regarded as based, even indirectly, on the authority of Megasthenes.

c22.s2.21

We may next consider Fragment XXVII which is a specimen of the first type of category IV. The Fragment comprises four paragraphs of Strabo (53-56) which are all treated as a substantial reproduction from the *Indika* of Megasthenes. Now, in this long passage Strabo thrice refers to Megasthenes, specifically by name, as authority for three isolated statements, one each in paras 53, 54, and 56 (cf. pp. 170-71 above), though he deals with various other topics quite unconnected with these statements.

c22.s2.22

It is well known that Strabo utilised many other sources and has specifically referred to some of them. There is thus no reason to suppose that Strabo must necessarily have derived from Megasthenes all the information included in a single para or consecutive paras, which contain any reference to Megasthenes. There is, no doubt, a possibility, that some of the passages, if not all, in these paras, were based on the *Indika* of Megasthenes. But it is surely unsafe to proceed on this assumption; and then it is difficult to find out which of the passages falls in this category.

c22.s2.23

If the whole of Fragment XXVII were taken from the *Indika* of Megasthenes, three isolated references to him would be difficult to explain. Indeed such specific citations of Megasthenes' authority for three separate statements would be redundant and unusual if all the four paras were taken from his *Indika*. On the other hand, it indirectly supports the inference that the long passage included in Fragment XXVII is not based upon, far less quoted from, the *Indika*, except in respect of the three statements for which Megasthenes is specifically cited as the authority.

c22.s2.24

We may now consider Fragment XXXIV which is a typical instance of category III. It comprises paras 50-52 of Strabo, which are followed by the Fragment XXVII just discussed. Of the eleven paras of Strabo which precede these two, seven, namely 39-41 and 46-49, describe the seven castes on the authority of Megasthenes. Paras 42-45 form a digression. These give an account of the wild animals and may be regarded as a supplementary note to para 41 which describes the third caste, shepherds and hunters, whose profession was to deal with animals. At the end of the digression in para 45 Strabo says: "Let me now return to Megasthenes and continue his account from the point where I left it" (p. 267). This account obviously refers to that of the seven castes which Strabo began in para 39 and, after the digression, referred to above, continued in the next four paras 46-49.

c22.s2.25

Now para 49 deals with the seventh caste, the members of which held the chief offices of State. As the next three paras, 50-52, describe the officers, it has been presumed—although the name of Megasthenes does not appear, even once, anywhere in these paras,—that they were taken from his *Indika*. But, as stated above, Strabo's description of the third caste, namely, shepherds and hunters, based on Megasthenes, is similarly followed immediately by a long account of elephants and other animals, which, as Strabo himself says (p. 266), was based on “both Megasthenes and others”. It is, therefore, unsafe to take this supplementary note on the seventh caste also as based on the *Indika* of Megasthenes. It is true that Strabo does not make any similar statement that it was derived from others. But there was no occasion for it. In the case of paras 42-45, they were really a digression, coming between two parts of a statement derived from Megasthenes; but para 49 having concluded that statement, the paras that follow, not being a digression in any way, needed no such comment or explanation. Further, Strabo's statement that in his account of the hunters, i.e. the third caste, he mentioned what both Megasthenes and others have said (p. 266), makes it doubtful whether the details of each caste are wholly derived from Megasthenes. Attention may be drawn in this connection to substantial difference in details given by Strabo and Diodorus of the second, fourth, and sixth castes. These differences are of such a nature that it is difficult to hold that both derived their information from Megasthenes alone.

c22.s2.26

Special interest attaches to this Fragment, for it contains an account of the Municipal and Military Boards of Administration. Very important conclusions have been drawn from this Fragment regarding the state of things in the time of Chandragupta Maurya, and it has figured prominently in the discussion of the genuineness of the text of the *Arthasastra*, attributed to Kautilya. In particular, the absence of any reference to the Municipal and Military Boards in Kautilya's *Arthasastra* has been put forward as a strong argument against accepting that work as belonging to the time of Chandragupta Maurya. In view of such great importance naturally attaching to any statement of Megasthenes, we must be very cautious in attributing to Megasthenes any passage for which his name or authority is not specifically cited.

c22.s2.27

It might be argued that as Megasthenes lived at Pataliputra, the accounts of the eastern parts of Northern India, as given by the classical writers, were most probably based on his *Indika*. But Arrian quite clearly tells us that “a few authors have described the country as far as the river Ganges and the parts near its mouth and the city of Palimbothra.”¹³ Thus there were other sources of information about Palimbothra (Pataliputra) and the neighbouring region than the *Indika* of Megasthenes.

c22.s2.28

Dr. Schwanbeck, consciously or unconsciously, makes the tacit assumption that the *Indika* of Megasthenes gave the most elaborate and reliable account of India, and the subsequent classical writers drew so largely upon it, that one may be excused in regarding their account as based on Megasthenes, unless otherwise stated. McCrindle goes even a step further. Thus although Clemens Alexandrinus refers to Alexander Polyhistor, specifically by name, as his authority for the passage quoted above, on p. 439, McCrindle states in his Introductory remarks that it “appears to be a citation from Megasthenes”.¹⁴ Schwanbeck’s assumption is belied by the fact that the classical writers themselves had no great faith in the veracity of Megasthenes and did not put a very high value on his *Indika*. How far this view was just or not, it is immaterial for our present purpose to decide. But the existence of such a general belief should make us hesitate to refer all that they said, without any specific mention of the source, to the authority of Megasthenes.

c22.s2.29

This brings us to the question of the veracity of Megasthenes. Schwanbeck very rightly observes : “The ancient writers, whenever they judge of those who have written on Indian matters, are without doubt wont to reckon Megasthenes among those writers who are given to lying and least worthy of credit, and to rank him almost on a par with Ktesias. The foremost among those who disparage him is Eratosthenes, and in open agreement with him are Strabo and Pliny”.¹⁵

c22.s2.30

The relevant passage of Strabo reads as follows : “However, all who have written about India have proved themselves, for the most part, fabricators, but pre-eminently so Deimachus; the next in order is Megasthenes; and then, Onesicritus, and Nearchus, . . . . But specially do Deimachus and Megasthenes deserve to be distrusted”.¹⁶

c22.s2.31

Pliny also says, with reference to Megasthenes and Dionysius, that “it is not worth while to study their accounts with care, so conflicting are they and incredible”.¹⁷ Schwanbeck’s comments on these observations are interesting. He says : “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 Herakles 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 Megasthenes.”¹⁸ The first part of this comment is unwarranted, and is contradicted by the last part.

c22.s2.32

Schwanbeck takes great pains to show that the stories of fabulous races written by Megasthenes were of Indian origin. He then observes :

c22.s2.33

“The relative veracity of Megasthenes, then, cannot be questioned, for he related truthfully both what he actually saw, and what was told him by others.”¹⁹ In support of this Schwanbeck has cited the passage in Arrian’s *Indika* (above, p. 231), in which Megasthenes is referred to as a man of approved character. It is, however, curious that Schwanbeck does not refer to the views of Arrian, quoted above,²⁰ in which he clearly says that no true account of India beyond the Hyphasis is known, since the account of Megasthenes is absolutely unreliable; and he supports this by mentioning the latter’s description of the river Silas. Again, referring to the statement of Megasthenes ‘that the Indian tribes number in all 118,’ Arrian makes the very apposite comment : “I am at a loss to conjecture how he arrived at it, for the greater part of India he did not visit, nor is mutual intercourse maintained between all the tribes.”²¹ Again Arrian says : “Megasthenes avers that the tradition about (gold-digging) ants is strictly true,” and very correctly observes: “Megasthenes writes what he had heard from hearsay.”²² Megasthenes may certainly be excused, as Schwanbeck has argued, for recording “truthfully both what he actually saw, and what was told him by others.” But when Megasthenes does not evidently distinguish between the two, and ‘avers as strictly true’ what he merely ‘heard’ from others, we may certainly be sceptical about the real value of his accounts. Besides, it is obvious from the way in which he has recorded the most unnatural phenomena and incredible tales about men and animals, without any comment, that he did not possess a very high degree of critical judgment such as we find, for example, in the writings of Arrian and Strabo. It is to be seriously considered how far we can place absolute reliance on the statements of such an uncritical man, even if they were based on his own observations. This particularly applies to his description of social manners which would be in any case difficult for a foreigner to comprehend rightly even if he had a higher degree of critical ability than Megasthenes possessed. His description of the seven castes, which are unknown to Indian literature or tradition, may be cited as an example, where, on a few basic facts, he has reared up a scheme which is mostly inaccurate and misleading. On the whole, time has surely come when we must make a re-assessment

c22.s2.34

of the nature and value of the *Indika* of Megasthenes as a source of our knowledge regarding ancient Indian history and culture.

c22.s2.35

In the light of what has been said above, it would appear that the passages bearing upon the history and culture of India that may be confidently referred to the authority of Megasthenes may be listed as follows :

c22.s2.36

1. The geographical features of India quoted by Arrian and Strabo (pp. 216-8, 248), and a short account of Taprobane (p. 345).
2. The fertility of India ‘which produces fruit and grain twice a year’ (p. 252).
3. The description of Pataliputra (pp. 224, 262). 4 The absence of slavery in India (p. 224, 271).
5. The division of the people into seven castes (pp. 224-6, 236-8, 263-8).
6. Theft was of rare occurrence (p. 270).
7. The men of the Caucasus having intercourse with the women in the open (p. 271).
8. Description of Indian supper (p. 455).
9. Description of Indian philosophers (pp. 273-4, 439).
10. The statement that the “Indians neither invade other men, nor do the other men invade the Indians” (pp. 218, 245).
11. The assertion that the women of the Pandaian realm bear children when they are six years of age (p. 455).
12. The Indian tribes number in all 118 (p. 220).
13. The legendary account of the parts played by Dionysus and Heracles in India (pp. 220-22).

c22.s2.37

As regards other passages included in Schwanbeck's (and McCrindle’s) *Indika* of Megasthenes, their authenticity is highly doubtful, and it may be justly questioned whether one should regard them as emanating from Megasthenes. Among these the most important are :

c22.s2.38

¹ Fragment I (the so-called “Epitome of Megasthenes” by Diodorus) except the topics or passages included in the above list (pp. 232 ff).

c22.s2.39

² The major part of Fragment XXVII describing the manners and customs of the Indians (pp. 269-72, paras 53-56), excluding Nos. 4, 6, 7 mentioned above.

c22.s2.40

³ Fragment XXXIV (pp. 268-9, paras 50-52) describing the Municipal and Military Boards of Administration.²³

Passages from the Indika of Megasthenes collected by McCrindle

c22.s2.t1.1

| Number of fragments (McCrindle) | Source | Subjectmatter | Reference to page in this volume | Category |
| I | Diodorus Siculus (II. 35-42) | General | 232-8 | IV |
| IB | -do- (III. 63) | Dionysos | 239 | IV |
| II | Arrian—Anabasis (V. 6 2-11) | Boundaries of India | 26-7 | II, III |
| III | -do- Indica (II. 1. 7) | -do- | 215 | IV |
| IV | Strabo—Geography (I. II) | -do- | 247-8 | II |
| V | -do- (II. 1. 7) | -do- | 283 | I |
| VI | -do- (XV I. 12) | -do- | 248-9 | I |
| VII | -do- (II 1. 4) | -do- | 283 | I |
| VIII } | Arrian—Indica (III. 7 8) | -do- | 216 | I |
| IX | Strabo (II 1. 19) | Setting of the Bear | Omitted | I |
| X | Plny. Hist. Nat (VI 22 6) | -do- | | I |
| XI | Strabo (XV. 1. 20) | Fertility of India | 252-3 | I, IV |
| XII | -do- (XV I. 37) | Wild beasts | 263 | I |
| XIII | Aelian (XVII. 39) | Indian apes | Omitted | IV |
| XIIIB | -do- (XVI. 10) | -do- | ” | I |
| XIV | -do- (XVI. 41) | Winged Scorpions | ” | I |
| XV | Strabo (XV. 1. 56) | Beasts of India | 271-2 | IV |
| XVB | Aelian (XVI 20, 21) | -do- | Omitted | I |
| XVI | Pliny (VIII. 14. 1) | Boa-Constrictor | | I |
| XVII | Aelian (VIII. 7) | Electric Eel | ” | I |
| XVIII | Pliny (VI. 24. 1) | Taprobane | 345 | I |
| XIX | Antigon. Caryst. 647 | Marine Trees | Omitted | I |
| XX | Arrian—Indica (4 2-13) | The Indus and the Ganges | 217 | IV |
| XXB | Pliny (VI. 21. 9-22. 1) | Revers | 341 | I |
| XXI | Arrian—Indica (6 2-3) | River Silas | 219 | I |
| XXII | Boissonade (1. 419) | -do- | Omitted | I |
| XXIII | Strabo (XV. 1-38) | -do- | 263 | I |
| XXIV | Arrian—Indica (5.2) | Indian Rivers | 218 | I |

c22.s2.t1.2

| XXV | Strabo (XV. 1. 35-36) | Pataliputra | 262 | I |
| XXVI | Arrian—Indica (10) | Manners of Indians | 223-4 | I |
| XXVII | Strabo (XV. 1 53-6) | -do- | 269-72 | IV |
| XXVIIB | Aelian (V. L. IV 1) | -do- | 421 | |
| XXVIIC | Nicolaus Damascenus (44) | -do- | 455 | |
| XXVIID | Nicol. Damasc (44) | Artisan | 455 | |
| XXVIII | Athenaeus (IV p 153) | Indian Supper | 455 | I |
| XXIX | Strabo (XV. 1 57) | Fabulous Tribes | 272-3 | I |
| XXX | Pliny (VIII. 11. 14-22) | Fabulous Races | Omitted | I |
| XXXB | Solinus (52. 26-30) | -do- | ,, | I |
| XXXI | Plutarch | -do- | 224 | I |
| XXXII | Arrian—Indica (XI 1) | Indian castes | 263-8 | I |
| XXXIII | Strabo (XV. 1. 39-41. 46-9) | -do- | 268-9 | III |
| XXXIV | Strabo (XV 1 50-52) | Administration of Public Affairs | 420-1 | IV |
| XXXV | Aelian (XIII 10) | Horses and Elephants | 264-5 | IV |
| XXXVI | Strabo (XV. 1 41-3) | Elephants | 226-7 | IV |
| XXXVII | Arrian—Indica (13-14) | -do- | 414 | IV |
| XXXVIIB | Aelian (XII. 44) | -do- | Omitted | IV |
| XXXVIII | Aelian (XIII 7) | -do- | 266 | I |
| XXXIX | Strabo (XV. 1. 44) | Gold-digging Ants | 229 | I |
| XL | Arrian—Indica (XV. 5-7) | -do- | 433 | II |
| XL.B | Dion Chrysostom (Or 35) | -do- | 273-5 | I |
| XLI | Strabo (XV I 58-60) | Philosophers | 439 | I |
| .XLII / XLIIC | Clemens Alexandrinus and others | The Jews | | |
| XLIII | -do- | Philosophers | 440 | |
| XLIV | Strabo (XV. 1 68) | Kalanos and Mandanis | 279-80 | I, III |
| XLV | Arrian—Anabasis (VII. 11 3-9) | -do- | 442 | IV |
| XLVI | Strabo (XV. 1. 6-8) | Miscellaneous | 245-7 | I, III |
| XLVII | Arrian—Indica (V. 4-12) | Rivers | 218 | I |
| .XLVIII / XLVIII / B-D / XLIX | Josephus and others | Nabuchodrosor | Omitted | I |

c22.s2.t1.3

| Number of fragments (McCrindle) | Source | Subjectmatter | Reference to page in this volume | Category |
| L | Arrian—Indica (7-9) | Miscellaneous | 220-3 | I |
| LB | Pliny (IX. 55) | Pearls | Omitted | II |
| LI | Phlegon (Mirab. 33) | Pandaian Women | 455 | I |
| LC | Pliny (VI-XXI), Solinus (52. 5) | Ancient History | 340. 457 | |

Doubtful Fragments

c22.s2.t2.1

| Number of fragments (McCrindle) | Source | Subjectmatter | Reference to page in this volume | Category |
| LII | Aelian (XII. 8) | Elephants | 413-4 | |
| LIII | -do- (III. 46) | White Elephant | 413 | |
| LIV | Pseudo-Origen, (2-4) | Brahmanas | 443-4 | |
| LV | Pallad (8, 20) | Kalanos and Mandanis | 444-6 | |
| LVB | Ambrosius (62. 68) | -do- | 446-7 | |
| LVI | Pliny (VI. 21. 8-23. 11) | Indian Races | 341-5 | |
| LVIB | Solin, (52. 6-17) | -do- | 457-8 | |
| LVII | Polyaenus (I. 1. 1-3) | Dionysos | 456 | |
| LVIII | -do- (I. 3. 4) | Hercules and Pandaea | 456-7 | |
| LIX | Aelian (XVI. 2-22) | Beasts of India | 419-20 | |

Cites (6)

Ἰνδική — Λούκιος Φλάουιος Ἀρριανός, Ancient Greek
Naturalis historia — C. Plinius Secundus, Latin
Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra — Kauṭilya, Sanskrit
Indus Civilisation
Πλούταρχος — Πλούταρχος, Ancient Greek
Pāṭaliputra

The Classical Accounts of India c22.s2: II. The Indika of Megasthenes

Contents

II. The Indika of Megasthenes

Passages from the Indika of Megasthenes collected by McCrindle

Doubtful Fragments

Cites (6)