Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Age of the Nandas and Mauryas c11: Chapter IV. Chandragupta and Bindusara

Age of the Nandas and Mauryas c11

Language
English

Contents

Chapter IV. Chandragupta and Bindusara

c11.2

In a previous chapter we traced the expansion and consolidation of the Magadhan empire under the Nandas. The New Monarchy was exposed to a two-fold danger. On the one hand there were symptoms of popular disaffection with the regime which did not augur well for the future. Besides this there appeared on the north-western horizon the spectre of foreign dominion. Alexander, it is true, had to retire from the Beas but his "successors" inherited his ambition and some of his plans. The lament was no doubt heard that the pursuit of Alexander's policy and retention of his conquests required "royal troops under the command of some distinguished general"¹. Neither of these conditions could be fulfilled for some time after Alexander's death. The Macedonian Regents² from 323 to 317 B.C. had to be content with a sort of condominium on the Indian borderland. It did not, however, take long to consolidate the *Yavana* forces in Western Asia under a new leader so that Indians had once more to prepare themselves for their fiery onset.

c11.3

¹ McCrindle, *Ancient India as described in Classical Literature*, pp. 201–2.

c11.4

² It is an interesting question whether Macedon, the home of Alexander and many of his "successors", was known to Indians. The *Adina-punyāvadāna* (No. 52) of the *Avadāna-kalpalatā* of Kshemendra refers to a city styled Madhuka in the published Sanskrit text. The name is however given as Māshūdana in the Bengali version by Mr. S. C. Das. The second name, if authentic, may be reminiscent of Macedon.

c11.5

Many of the prominent figures that strutted on the Indian stage in the twenties of the fourth century B.C.—Agrammes, Āmbhi, Porus, to name only a few—did not show any proper realisation of the problems that faced their country, or the destiny that awaited her. To preserve and augment the nascent empire of Magadha, to deal effectively with the foreign menace, to "unify the innumerable fragments of distracted India" and bring the ideal of the *Chakravartain* into the realm of practical politics, to inspire Indians with a zeal for mighty endeavour in various fields of activity and bring her politically and socially into close touch with the outer world—all this required a man of heoric proportions. Such a man did not take long in coming. If Plutarch and Justin are to be believed there appeared before Alexander in the Punjab (326—25 B.C.) a ‘stripling’¹ of humble birth about whom tradition records signs and portents significant of an august destiny². He conceived the grand design of reversing the condition of things that must have filled the mass of his countrymen with despair. For nearly a quarter of a century he did bestride the Indian world like a colossus. For generations the country had to follow in the lines laid down for her by Chandragupta.

c11.6

¹ *Plutarch's Lives* (Loeb), Vol. VII, Life of Alexander, Chap. 62; p. 403; McCrindle, *Invasion of Alexander*, p. 311 for Plutarch; p. 327 for Justin.

c11.7

² Cf. *bāla eva hi lokena sambhāvītamahodayaḥ*; in *Mudrārākshasa* (ed. by Haridās Siddhāntabāgis-Bhaṭṭāchārya), p. 452; *Parishishṭa Parvan* (ed. by Jacobi, 2nd Ed.), VIII. 243; also Justin McCrindle *Invasion*, p. 327.

c11.8

The success of the new Indian leader has been immortalised by a grateful posterity. Fragments of the cycle of legends of which he is the hero survive even in the works of Latin historians. In our own country we have lauds, tales, plays, even philosophical dissertations in Sanskrit, Pali, and Prākrit in which writers eulogise the hero in whose arms the earth harassed by barbarians found a refuge, who nearly succeeded in bringing about the unification of “Jambudvipa”. Unfortunately very little is recorded about the life and career of this remarkable man, which bears the stamp of unassailable authenticity. One searches in vain for his very name in the inscriptions of his grandson. The Mahābhāshya of Patañjali has interesting references to *Chandraguptasabhā*³ and to Amitraghāta⁴, possibly the son of Chandragupta, but records nothing about the deeds of the earliest of the Mauryas. Much that is known about him belongs to the domain of folklore. A *Chandraguptakathā*—the nucleus of *Chāṇakya-Chandragupta-kathā* of mediaeval times—must have come into existence before the beginning of the Christian era, as is apparent from the marvellous episodes that have found her way into the narrative of Justin who abridged the Latin history of Pompeius Trogus, a contemporary of Augustus. Fragments of the story have also been preserved by the Buddhists in the *Milinda-Pañho* and the *Theragāthā Commentary*¹ and by the Jains in certain mediaeval epigraphs of Mysore besides other documents. Curiously enough Chandragupta is ignored in the *Aśokāvadāna* though we have notice of his son Bindusāra. The Tamilian reference to "Vamba Moriyār" may also have been connected with the Chandragupta saga. Fuller details are given in Hemachandra's *Pariśiṣṭaparvan*, the *Mahāvaṃśa Ṭīkā*, Burmese legends² and the Kashmiri an versions of the *Brihat-Kathā*. There is a dramatic rendering of one form of the legend by Viśākhadatta. The central theme of the story is hinted at in the *Caṇḍakausika*³. Certain additional details are found in the commentary on the *Viṣṇu Purāṇa* and that of Dhuṇḍirāja on the *Mudrārākshasa* of Viśākhadatta.

c11.9

³ I. 1.9.

c11.10

⁴ III. 2. 2.

c11.11

¹ Malalasekera, *Dictionary of Pali Proper Names*, I, 846.

c11.12

² Bigandet, *The Life or Legend of Gaudama* II, 12 ff.

c11.13

³ Quoted in the *Kāvyamīmāṃsā* (3rd ed.), p. XIII.

c11.14

To narrate the true story of Chandragupta one cannot rely entirely on the *Kathā* but has to piece together scraps of information obtainable from inscriptions, classical sources, genealogical lists preserved in Indian and Cylonese chronicles and certain incidental notices.

c11.15

The epigraphic records of Aśoka and Daśaratha, while of value as a source of information regarding spiritual ideals, state of religion, internal organisation and social life in the early Maurya epoch, do not mention specific events that may be referred with precision to the reign of either Chandragupta or his son Bindusāra. Far different in character is the Junagadh Rock inscription of Rudradāman which not only specifically names the first Maurya but affords an interesting glimpse of the extent of his conquests and methods of administration. For fuller notices of Chandragupta's career we have, however, to turn to Greek and Latin writers of the Hellenistic period and the early centuries of Imperial Rome. Among classical sources an important place should be given to notices of friendly intercourse between the first two Mauryas and their Syrian contemporaries for which we are indebted to Athenaeus who quotes from Phylarchus and Hegesander⁴. There was an exchange of embassies as well as correspondence between the Indian and certain Hellenistic courts. The names of three of the Hellenic envoys have survived, namely, Megasthenes, Daimachus and Dionysius. As is well known the *Indika* of Magasthenes constitutes in some respects the most valuable source of information regarding Chandragupta and his times. But the fragments that survive in the books of Diodorus, Strabo, Arrian, Pliny and others throw more light on internal government and manners and customs of the people than on the political transactions of the age. For the events that followed the death of Alexander and led up to the rise and expansion of the Maurya empire reliance has to be placed mainly on the XVIII and XIX Books of the *Universal History* (*Bibliotheke*) of Diodorus Siculus, the *Life of Alexander* by Plutarch, Justin's Epitome of the *Historia Philippicae* of Pompeius Trogus (Book XV), the *Syriake* of Appian (Book XI. 9.55) and certain passages from the *Geography* of Strabo and the *Natural History* of Pliny. The Purāṇic and Ceylonese chronicles have nothing to say regarding Chandragupta's relation with the Hellenic powers. But they notice the dynastic change in Magadha and give information regarding the king's lineage not known from classical sources. The Chroniclers whose extant works cannot be dated earlier than the Gupta Age could not escape from the influence of the *Cāṇakya-Chandragupta-Kathā* which must have reached a highly developed form in their days. In their accounts the figure of Kauṭilya, unknown to earlier texts, makes its appearance as that of the leading actor in the drama of events that leads to the supersession of the Nandas by Chandragupta. This is in striking contrast with the facts recorded by Justin, following Trogus, according to which Chandragupta plays the leading role in the dynastic revolution among Indians and Kauṭilya is not even alluded to.

c11.16

⁴ McCrindle, *Invasion*, pp. 405, 409 n.

c11.17

Among the sources of the Maurya period mention is often made of the *Kauṭiliya-Arthaśāstra*. The copious information obtainable from this work relates more to ideals and methods of administration, social life etc., than to external political facts; it is also a matter of controversy how far the famous treatise can be regarded as a genuine product of the Maurya Age.

c11.18

Before we proceed to sketch the life and career of Chandragupta on the basis of the sources indicated above, it may not be out of place to say a few words about the vexed question of chronology.

c11.19

Attempts have been made to determine the chronology of the Mauryas in general, and Chandragupta in particular, with the help of Jain and Buddhist tradition. Hemachandra informs us in the *Pariśiṣṭaparvan*¹ that the accession of Chandragupta took place 155 years after the liberation of Mahāvīra. This statement is confirmed by Bhadreśvara in his *Kahāvali*.² Merutuṅga, however, in his *Vichāraśreṇi*³ refers to other sources which place the event 60 years later in 215 A.V. Apart from the lack of unanimity among these Jain writers, the date of Mahāvīra's liberation is itself a matter of controversy, and it is not safe to build a chronological edifice on such foundations. The memorial verses quoted by Merutuṅga give other details which put the interval between the accession of Chandragupta and the end of Śaka rule and the foundation of Vikrama era at 255 years⁴ This would place the accession of the first Maurya in 313 B. C.—a result that closely approximates the epoch of the Seleucidan era, and has, therefore, found favour with some scholars. It should, however, be noted that the Jain writers are apparently referring to Chandragupta's rule in Avanti, and not Magadha or the Punjab, and that part of the chronolological tradition embodied in the memorial verses is contradicted by Bhadreśvara and Hemachandra. Moreover, the date 313 B.C. for Chandragupta does not accord with Buddhist tradition which puts his accession 162 years after the *Parinirvāṇa* of the Śākya Sage, that is, 382 B.C., if we accept the Ceylonese epoch (544 B.C.) of the Great Decease, and 324 B.C., if we prefer the Cantonese tradition (486 B.C.) for the passing away of the Enlightened One. The earlier date is no doubt opposed to classical evidence, but the date 324 B.C. is not irreconcilable with the testimony of Greek and Latin writers. The figures given by Buddhist chroniclers are, however, as much open to comment as the data of Bhadreśvara, Hemachandra and Merutuṅga. We have, therefore, to turn to the clues furnished by classical accounts supplemented by the testimony of Aśokan inscriptions.

c11.20

¹ Ed. Jacobi p. xx ; Text, VIII. 339.

c11.21

² *Ibid.* p. xx.

c11.22

³ *Ibid.* p. xx.

c11.23

⁴ Ind. Ant. 1914 pp. 118 f. Jacobi, *Kalpasūtra of Bhadrabāhu*, Leipzig, 1879, p. 7 :

c11.24

The classical writers refer to several famous episodes in the career of Chandragupta with hints as to their chronological sequence. He met Alexander while yet a ‘stripling’ and not yet ‘called to royalty’ (326—25 B.C.)¹ and mounted the throne of India ‘not long afterwards’² by instigating the Indians to overthrow the existing government, or according to another interpretation, soliciting the Indians to support his new sovereignty³; thereafter⁴ he prepared to attack Alexander's prefects ; the latter were put to death and the yoke of servitude was shaken off from the neck of India ‘after Alexander's death’ (i.e., after 323 B.C.).⁵ Chandragupta was reigning over India when Seleucus was laying the foundation of his future greatness.⁶ (The famous Macedonian general acquired the satrapy of Babylon for the first time in 321 B.C., regained control of the city and founded an era in 312 B.C., and assumed the title of king in 306-5 B.C.). After subduing the Bactrians he passed over into India, concluded a treaty with Chandragupta and then returned home to prosecute the war with Antigonus (before 301 B.C.).⁷ Appian, who also refers to the war which Seleucus waged with Chandragupta, besides other events, mentions the understanding with the Indian king about the marriage relationship and adds that "some of the exploits were performed before the death of Antigonus and some afterwards"¹ i.e., after 301 B.C. That these operations cannot have reference merely to dealings with Chandragupta but include also events outside this country, that find mention earlier in Appian's narrative, e.g. the war with Syrian clans, is clear from other sources, such as the narrative of Justin who dates the treaty between the Syrian and Indian monarchs before the clash of arms of Seleucus with Antigonus. In fact Appian here sums up the career of Seleucus as a Nicator.

c11.25

¹ Plutarch, Op. cit Ch. LXII. (Loeb Classical Library), translated by Perrin ; Justin, Inv. Alex., p. 327.

c11.26

² Plutarch; op. cit. LXII, p 401.

c11.27

³ Just in, Inv. Alex., p. 328; Watson's translation of Justin, p. 142.

c11.28

⁴ Justin uses the words "having thus won the throne" once again after mentioning the fight with the prefects. This has led scholars including Tarn (Greeks in Bactria and India, p. 47 n2) to surmise that the acquisition of his kingdom by Chandragupta followed the war with Alexander's satraps, the last of whom, Pithon did not leave India till 316 B. C. But the words "having thus won the throne" are not to be construed merely with the preceding sentence describing incidents in connection with the war with the prefects. They refer also to the events that preceded the clash of arms with the Macedonian commanders, and in fact, sum up the whole episode relating to the rise of Chandragupta. For a similar summing up of the exploits of Seleucus, see Appian, Syrian Affairs, XI 9.55 referred to above. In the detailed account given by Justin we are expressly told that Chandragupta was stimulated to aspire to royalty by an incident that happend immediately after his flight from Alexander's camp in 326/25 B.C. The use of the term deinde (thereafter) after "new sovereignty" suggests that the Macedonia War came sometime after the change of government among Indians. In the Mudrārākshasa too the total destruction of Mlechchha chieftains and troops follows the dynastic revolution in Magadha (Indian Culture, II.. p. 561 f.)

c11.29

⁵ Justin. Inv, Alex., 327.

c11.30

⁶ ibid., 328.

c11.31

⁷ ibid.. 328.

c11.32

¹ Roman History, Vol. II., Book XI. 9-55, p. 204. (Loeb Classical Lib. translation by White.

c11.33

How long Chandragupta lived after the war with Seleucus cannot be precisely determined from Greek sources. His grandson Aśoka is known to have been a contemporary of Magas of Cyrene who died not later than 259—58 B. C. according to the evidence of Porphyry, which seems to be confirmed by the testimony of Callimachus, a contemporary poet, of Polybius (X. 22) and of coins.² The acceptance of this date implies that the XIII Rock Edict of Aśoka cannot be dated later than 259—58 B.C. as it speaks of Magas as alive. As rescripts of morality began to be written when Aśoka was anointed twelve years, his coronation could not have taken place after 270—69 B.C. The death of Chandragupta and the reign of his son Bindusāra must, according to the evidence we have cited, fall between the Seleucidan war and 270—69 B.C. Tradition assigns a period of 24 years to the reign of the first Maurya, 25, 27 or 28 years to Bindusāra, and 4 to the interval between the accession and the coronation of Aśoka. If we accept the mean figure 27 for Bindusāra, a period of 55 years must have intervened between the accession of Chandragupta and the coronation of his grandson. The former event took place according to this calculation not later than 270—69+55=325—24 B.C. An early date for the rise of Chandragupta is suggested by the fact that at the time of the partition of Triparadeisos (321 B.C.) Antipater had to give the kingdoms that lay along the Indus and the Hydaspes (Jhelum) to Indian Rājās "for it was impossible to remove these kings without royal troops under the command of some distinguished general.¹” The inadequacy of “royal troops” and the absence of “distinguished general” are inexplicable unless the more important among the prefects of Alexander had already been put to death or expelled. That achievement is ascribed by the Latin historians solely to Chandragupta who, and not Ambhi or the Paurava, “was the leader who achieved their (i.e., Indians’) freedom”². It is true that the great liberator is not mentioned in connection with the partitions of Babylon and Triparadeisos. But we have similar reticence in regard to Eudemos who had been directed along with Taxiles to assume the administration of the province governed by Philippus as early as 324 B.C.³ He survived Porus, and clung to some part of India till about 317 B.C.

c11.34

² Tarn, Antigonos Gonatas, pp. 449 ff.

c11.35

¹ Dio. XVIII. 39; McCrindle Ancient India in Classical Lit. p. 211-12.

c11.36

² Inv. Alex. p. 327.

c11.37

³ Inv. Alex., p. 177 Smith, Aśoka, (3rd ed.) p. 12.

c11.38

Greek and Latin writers frequently corrupt the name of Chandragupta. It was Sir William Jones who solved the puzzle and found in the appellations used by the classical historians and geographers variant forms of the name of the first Maurya as known from Indian sources. Writers of our own country, too, sometimes use epithets which require a few words of comment. As is well known the name of Chandragupta does not find a place in the epigraphs of his descendants. It, however, is distinctly referred to in the Junāgaḍh Rock Inscription of Rudradāman I. It is also known to Patañjali and a host of Indian bards and chroniclers, playwrights, poets and even philosophers. Among classical writers the nearest approximation to the correct name (Sandrokoptos) is made by Phylarchus, who is quoted by Athenaeus⁴. Strabo, Arrian and Justin have Sandrocottus. Appian and Plutarch corrupt it into Androcottus. In the Mudrārākshasa we have the cognomens Chanda-Siri (Chandraśrī), Piadaṁsaṇa (Priyadarśana) and Vṛishala⁵. Chandraśrī is of course the shortened form of the name Chandragupta with the addition of the honorific Śrī⁶. The attribution to Chandragupta of the appellation Piadamsana, if based on correct tradition, is of great interest as it is generally known as an epithet of his famous grandson, Aśoka, and his common designation in inscriptions. As a title of royalty it finds mention in the *Viṣṇudharmottara* as quoted in the *Rājadharmakaustubha* of Anantadeva¹. But its use does not appear to have been so common in early times as that of Devānāmpiya. Vṛishala is taken by some to hint at Chandragupta's extraction from the Śūdra line of the Nandas. But the cognomen is used in the epic and law books also of Kshatriyas and others who deviated from orthodoxy. An ingenious suggestion has been made in recent times that the expression really stands for *basileus*², the Greek word for king. There is, however, no suggestion in Indian literature that Vṛishala is a royal epithet. The word has a social and no political significance, and is often applied to non-royal personages, particularly wandering teachers and ascetics like the Buddha³.

c11.39

⁴ Strabo says that Sandrokottus adopted the surname Palibothros (Pāṭaliputra ?), Megasthenes and Arrian, p. 66.

c11.40

⁵ Haridas Siddhantaba gis edition, pp. 42, 374.

c11.41

⁶ The usual practice is to put the honorific before the name. For a contrary usage, cf. Aśokaśrī in Pariśiṣṭaparvan, Khāravelaśrī, Veda or Skandaśrī, Skandaśrī, Śaktiśrī, Balaśrī in inscriptions, and Yajñaśrī in the Purāṇas etc.

c11.42

¹ Kamal Krishna smritirtha's ed. p. 43

c11.43

² I.H.Q., XIII (1937), p.651.

c11.44

³ *Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra* (Text), p. 199 R. K. Mookerjee, *Hindu Civilisation*, p. 264.

c11.45

Regarding the ancestry of Chandragupta Indian writers have not preserved any unanimous tradition. There is no doubt agreement in regard to the name of the the family to which he belonged, which is invariably given as Maurya. But the origin and derivation of the word present a problem which requires elucidation. The Brāhmanical commentators like Dhuṇḍirāja and the annotator of the *Viṣṇu Purāṇa* derived the expression from Murā, supposed to be the wife of a Nanda king, and grandmother or mother of the first Maurya. There is, however, no warrant for this view in early texts. The Purāṇas make no mention of Murā and do not refer to any dynastic connection between the Nandas, who were of Śūdra extraction, and the Mauryas. No doubt they say that after the extermination of all Kshatriyas by Mahāpadma Nanda, kings will be of Śūdra origin. This cannot however be taken to imply that all the post-Mahāpadman kings were Śūdras as some of them, e.g., the Kāṇvas, are distinctly styled *dvija*. In some Purāṇic texts the reading is *Śūdra-prāyāstu adhārmikāḥ*¹. *Śūdra*-like and irreligious are not an inapposite description of several members of the Maurya family who showed predilection for Jainism and Buddhism. One text, the *Mārkaṇḍeya Purāṇa*, goes so far as to brand the Mauryas as *asuras*². *Suradvish*, it may be remembered, is used by the *Bhāgavata Purāṇa* in reference to people beguiled by the Buddha³. The earliest authorities to claim a Nanda origin for the first Maurya are the *Mudrārākshasa* and the mediaeval versions of the *Brihat-kathā*. It is, however, to be noted that the Greek accounts do not suggest any blood relationship between Chandragupta and Agrammes, the Nanda contemporary of Alexander. The former is mentioned by Justin as "born in humble life⁴." The reference, to our mind, points to the fact that Chandragupta was not born in the purple and was not a scion of the royal line which he overthrew. It is significant that Plutarch includes "Androkottos" among the persons who, according to several historians, disclosed to Alexander the meanness of the origin of the contemporary ruler of the Prasii, apparently the last Nanda king. It does not seem probable that people who sneered at the "barber" line of Magadha could themselves claim no higher status in society.

c11.46

¹ Pargiter, *Dynasties of the Kali Age*, p. 25.

c11.47

² 88. 5.

c11.48

³ I. 3. 24.

c11.49

⁴ *Inv. Alex.* p. 327.

c11.50

Buddhist writers do not regard Maurya as a metronymic. They invariably represent it as the name of a clan⁵ the members of which ranked as Kshatriyas since the days of the Buddha. Even Kshemendra who speaks of Chandragupta as *pūrvanan-dasuta* in his version of the *Brihat-kathā*, distinctly mentions Aśoka as born in the Solar Race in the *Avadānakalpalatā*⁶. The latter view accords with the testimony of several mediaeval inscriptions⁷. The antiquity of Moriya or Maurya as a clan name is clear from the *Mahāparinibbāṇa Sutta* which represents the people in question as Kshatriyas and rulers of the little republic of Pipphalivana, probably lying between Rummindei in the Nepalese Tarai and Kasia in the Gorakhpur District¹. Some recent writers seek to connect the first Maurya with Gandhāra and its neighbourhood on the basis of evidence which does not bear scrutiny². The suggested identification of Chandragupta with Sisikottos is not borne out by Greek evidence. The treatment of the two eminent men by Alexander is different, and there is nothing to show that Sisikottos was a mere stripling when he met the Macedonian king for the first time. Equally implausible is the attempt to connect Śakuni, whom the Kāshmir Chronicle represents as the great-grand-father of Aśoka, with Śakuni of Gandhāra, famed in the *Mahābhārata*³. Śakuni is by no means an exclusive designation of Gandhārian princes as it occurs in the Purāṇic list of Videhan kings⁴. In *Mudrārākshasa*, Act V, the Gandhāras are actually found arrayed against Chandragupta.

c11.51

⁵ For traditional Buddhist accounts of the origin of the name, see Malalasekera, *D.P.P.N.*, II. 673.

c11.52

⁶ Story No. 59, v. 2. 'Saurya' Kula may be regarded by some as a mistake for Maurya Kula, (ii. p. 209). but the supposition loses its force when later on in the same story we find Saurya and Maurya together in the passage—*Sphita Saurya-Maurya-Mahātamlavanapañchānana Śrimad-Al-kadevah*.

c11.53

⁷ *Ep. Ind.*, II, p 222

c11.54

¹ P. H. A. I., 4th ed., pp. 160, 217. The names Morieis, Meroes and Moeres are known to classical writers (C.H.I. I. p. 470 ; McCrindle *Inv. Alex.* pp. 108, 256). But their connection, if any, with Sandrocottus is not clear. If Morieis is a tribal name it may well stand for Moriya or Maurya. Mauryaputra of *Mudrārākshasa* (II, 6, p. 99) may simply mean, 'belonging to the Maurya clan'. Cf. Śākyaputra, Nātaputta. It is by no means an exclusive designation of Chandragupta. The *Kalpasutra* of Bhadrabāhu ed. by Jacobi (p. 28) refers to a Mauryaputra Kāśyapa as one of the eleven gaṇadharas. Cf. also *Abhidhānachintāmaṇi* I. 32.

c11.55

² Gandhāra Origin of the Maurya Dynasty and Indentification o Chandragupta with Sasigupta, by H. C. Seth. In *Indian Culture*, X. pp. 32n, 34, it is said that "Chandragupta was a man of the Uttarāpatha" and that "Hwen Thsang narrates a legend (Beal, *Buddhist Records*, I., p. 126 Sic.,) which connects the Śākya-Mauryas with the country of Udyāna". The passage on which the last statement is based is not quoted. The pilgrim's story (Beal, I. 128) simply mentions Udyāna as a place of refuge of a Śākya fugitive. The evidence hardly suffices to represent either the Śākyas or Chandragupta as "men of the Uttarāpatha." Is it suggested that *Mayūra-rāja* (king of peacocks) on p. 126 is to be taken to refer to Chandragupta ?

c11.56

³ Seth, *op. cit.*, p. 15.

c11.57

⁴ *Vāyu Purāṇa*, 89, 29.

c11.58

History does not record when the founder of the Maurya dynasty was born. As he was a mere stripling when he saw Alexander in 326—25 B.C. his birth could not have taken place before the middle of the fourth century B.C. Certain writers, as has already been noted above, record traditions that he was of royal extraction. The *Brihatkathā* and the *Mudrārākshasa* connect him with the Imperial Nanda dynasty of Magadha, and Buddhist commentators with the ruling family of Moriyanagara, perhaps identical with Pipphalivana of early Pāli texts, members of which had to take shelter in Pupphapura (Pāṭaliputra) when the last monarch of the line had been put to death by a certain powerful Rājā. The queen consort of Moriyanagara, we are told, gave birth to Chandragupta, and the child is said to have been reared by a herdsman and a hunter¹. A variant form of the story is given by the Burmese². The foundation of the Maurya city (Moriyanagara) is there attributed to princes of Vaiśālī that had escaped from the massacre of Adzatathat (Ajātaśatru). According to Jain tradition recorded in the *Pariśiṣṭaparvan*³, however, Chandragupta was born of the daughter of a peacock-tamer (Mayūraposhaka) who lived in an obscure village. The sources of Trogus and Justin knew Chandragupta as a *novus homo*, a man "born in humble life". This does not accord with the tradition regarding his imperial pedigree, though it may well be reconciled with the story that his family, though sprung from a ruling *Kshatriya* clan, had fallen on evil days. Justin's reference to the hero's encounter with "a lion of enormous size" and "a wild elephant" of monstrous shape further shows that the *Chandraguptakathā* known to the Latin historians of the early century of the Christian era, might not have been altogether ignorant of Chandragupta's traditional association with hunters and tamers of the wild denizens of the forest. Little that is historical can, it has to be conceded, be extracted from these legends.

c11.59

¹ *Mahawanso* (Turnour) I. p. xl.

c11.60

² Bigandet, *Life or Legend of Gaudama*, II. p. 126.

c11.61

³ (Text) VIII. 291; cf the Buddhist tradition connecting the name Moriya with *mora* (peacock), Malalasakara, *Dictionary of Pali Proper Names* II. 673.

c11.62

It should, however, be noted that all our authorities agree that the Mauryas hailed from Eastern India, the land of the Prasii. Young Chandragupta's detestation of the Prasian contemporary of Alexander, to which Plutarch bears witness, is in conformity with the tradition that the poor plight in which the Maurya family found itself in the twenties of the fourth century B.C. was due, in large measure, to the agressive policy of neighbouring rulers, particularly the imperialists of Magadha.

c11.63

Chandragupta's first emergence from obscurity into the full view of history occurs in 326-25 B.C. when he met Alexander. The fact is recorded by two of the classical writers, viz., Justin, who draw upon the history of Trogus, and Plutarch. The young Maurya might have acquainted the Macedonian invader with conditions in Eastern India. "Alexander", he is reported to have said in later times, "narrowly missed making himself master of the country, since its king was hated and despised by his subjects for the weakness of his disposition and the meanness of his origin."¹ Details of the original speech and the manner in which it was delivered are not recorded. But we are told by Justin that its tone gave offence to the Macedonian king who gave orders to kill the Indian lad. The latter sought safety by a speedy flight². Curiously enough some modern editors emend the text of Justin and propose to read *Nandrum* in place of *Alexandrum*. The name Nanda, however, is not known from any other classical source, and Plutarch, who also refers to the meeting between Alexander and "Androcottos", makes separate mention of the king or kings of the Prasii. Classical writers record other instances of Alexander's impatience with boldness of language. The cases of Cleitus and Callisthenes may be recalled in this connection³.

c11.64

¹ Plutarch, (Loeb.) p. 403; McCrindle, *Inv. Alex.*, p. 311; cf. also Curtius and Diodorus in *Inv. Alex.* pp. 222, 282.

c11.65

² *Inv. Alex.*, p. 327.

c11.66

³ Cf. Grote, *History of Greece*, (E.L.S.), XII., pp. 140ff, 147ff.

c11.67

The narrative of Justin leaves the impression that after his departure from Alexander's camp Chandragupta retired to a forest tract, drew together a body of armed men and 'solicited the Indians to overthrow the existing government.' and support a new sovereignty⁴. Modern translators of Justin's text characterise the warriors who gathered round the Maurya as a band of robbers. But the original expression used by the Latin historian has the sense of mercenary soldier, hunter, as well as robber. The former senses are in consonance with Indian tradition. According to the story told in the *Parishishtaparvan* troops were levied for Chandragupta with wealth procured by metallurgy or mineralogy (*Dhātuvāda*) for the purpose of uprooting Nanda¹. The purpose of the levy stated in the Jainta text is important. In the light of this evidence ‘the overthrow of the existing government’ alluded to by Justin, can well be taken to refer to the subversion of the rule of the Nandas. As a matter of fact Justin in the earlier part of his narrative apparently draws a distinction between this event and the war with the prefects of Alexander, preparations for which were made thereafter (*deinde*). According to a subsequent passage, however, the winning of the throne and reigning over India seem to follow and result from the fight with the Macedonian commanders. The problem is not free from difficulties and our views have been stated in connection with the chronology of Chandragupta.

c11.68

⁴ Justin, *Inv. Alex.*, p. 328 : Watson's translation, p. 142. "The new sovereignty" of Justin reminds us of the words *Maurye nave rājani* of the *Mudrā-rākshasa*, Act. IV., p. 278.

c11.69

¹ Jacobi's edition, 2nd. ed., p. lxxiv : Text. VIII. 253-54.

c11.70

If the “overthrow of the existing government” does not refer to the fall of the Nandas, but only to the destruction of the Macedonian domination in the Indus valley, we shall have to assume that the classical writers, who recounted the story of the rise of Chandragupta, knew nothing regarding the fate of Agrammes, about whom they speak so much, and were ignorant of the dynastic revolution that gave Chandragupta the throne of Pāṭaliputra and the crown of Prasii. It is not very probable that the *Chandragupta Kathā* on which they must have drawn for some of their thrilling episodes, had no reference to the tragic end of Alexander’s Magadhan contemporary who was “detested and held cheap by his subjects.”

c11.71

Be that as it may, for details of the momentous events that led to the supersession of the Nandas by the Mauryas we must turn to Indian chroniclers and story-tellers. No contemporary account has survived. The traditional story is told differently by different writers. In some cases only fragments have survived. One of the earliest of these, which lies embedded in the *Milinda Pañho*,² preserves its heroic character as a tale of war between the contending forces of the Nandas and the Mauryas. The lustre of Chandragupta is, as in the narrative of Justin, yet undimmed by that of an all powerful chancellor. His opponent Bhaddasāla is a brave soldier, a general of the Nandas, not an astute minister. The accounts of the Purānic genealogists, the chroniclers of Ceylon and the *Nitisāra* of Kāmandaka are still marked by comparative simplicity. They relate how the Nandas were uprooted and the "earth passed to the Mauryas¹". But the credit for the achievement, for "anointing the glorious youth Chandragupta as king" over the earth (or Jambudvipa) is given to a minister, the *Brāhmaṇa* Kauṭilya, Chāṇakya or Viṣṇugupta. The treatise on statecraft ascribed to the latter goes so far as to omit in this connection all explicit reference to Chandragupta².

c11.72

² S.B.E. XXXVI., p. 147. It is interesting to note that the Ceylonese commentator turns Nanda into "Nandagutta of Brāhmaṇa caste" (*Ibid* n. 3).

c11.73

¹ The reference to the Araṭṭas, equated with the "band of robbers" of Justin, that some recent writers find in the Purānic texts is due to a misreading (Pargiter, *DKA*, p. 26 n 35.).

c11.74

² *Arthaśāstra*, Bk. XV., concluding verse.

c11.75

We have further embellishment in the *Mudrārākshasa* which competent critics are inclined to assign to the ninth century A.D³. Kauṭilya is now definitely the leading actor in the drama. The Nanda king who falls a victim to his wrath is named Sarvārthasiddhi, and the family is referred to as of noble birth (*abhijana*⁴). Mlechchha chieftains, Parvata, Parvataka, Parvateśvara or Śaileśvara, his brother Vairodhaka, son Malayaketu and Meghāksha or Meghanāda, king of the Persians, take part in the dynastic quarrel along with hordes of Śakas, Yavanas, Kirātas, Kambojas, Bālhikas, Khasas, Hūṇas and others. The barbarians appear at first as allies of Chandragupta. But when promises made to them are evaded, and Parvata and his brother fall victims to Chāṇakya's cunning, Malayaketu turns against the Mauryas and joins the Nanda minister Rākshasa. The storm that threatened to burst upon Chandragupta was averted by jealousies and quarrels among his enemies. The *Mlechchha* forces dispersed and the discomfiture of Malayaketu as well as Rākshasa was complete. In the play the battle of intrigue proves more efficacious than the arbitrament of the sword. None of the Mlechchha chieftains have names which can be regarded as standing for genuine Greek or Persian originals and the appearance of the Hūṇas in connection with the Magadhan conflict of the fourth century B.C. exposes the true character of several incidents narrated in the play. The identification of Parvataka with Porus, proposed by some writers,¹ has little to support it. Parvataka and his family are clearly branded as *Mlechchha* in the play, and their forces as *Mlechchha-bala*; on the other hand the Purus or Pauravas could claim an illustrious Vedic and epic ancestry. The territory over which Parvataka ruled is described by Jain writers as *Himavatkūṭa*,² while Porus ruled at first the country between the Jhelum and the Chenab to which were added territories stretching as far as the Hyphasis or Beas and the Indus. In the *Mudrārākshasa* one Sindhusena or Susheṇa appears as the prince of the Indus region. Lastly, Parvataka is slain by a poison maiden (*Vishakanyā*) as a result of Kauṭilya's intrigue, while Porus is killed by Eudamus, according to one reading of the text of Diodorus, and by Alexander himself according to Pseudo-Callisthenes.³

c11.76

³ Keith, *Sanskrit Drama*, p. 204.

c11.77

⁴ *Mudrārākshasa* p. 386.

c11.78

¹ C.H.I., I., 471 : "Identification of Parvataka and Porus," H. C. Seth.

c11.79

² *Parishishṭaparvan* (Op. cit., VIII. 297-98 (p. 222). Jacobi has the following note on Parvataka : "In the list of the kings of Nepal, according to the Bauddha Pārvatīya Vaṃśāvalī (*Ind. Ant.*, Vol. XIII, p. 412) the 11th king of the 3rd dynasty, that of the Kirātas, is Parba, apparently our Parvata; for, in the reign of the 7th king, Jitedāsti, is placed Buddha's visit to Nepal, and in that of the 14th, Sthunka, Aśoka visited the country." (*Ibid.* p. lxxv, n.)

c11.80

³ Smith, *Aśoka*, (3rd ed.), p. 12 n; McCrindle, *Ancient India in Classical Literature*, p. 178.

c11.81

The Kashmirian redactors of the *Brihatkathā* show their independence of the tradition followed by the play by introducing a Yogananda, a Nanda produced by magic, that is, by the entry of an adept in that art into the body of the genuine (*pūrva*) Nanda. They also attribute to Śakaṭāla, the minister of the real Nanda, the destruction of the son of the supposititious king, and the bestowal of the royal dignity upon Chandragupta, child of the genuine monarch. Cāṇakya, according to this version, is simply a protege and an instrument of Śakaṭāla.⁴ The real Nanda king is now definitely described as a Śūdra.

c11.82

⁴ Text, Nirnaya Sagara Press, *Kathāpīthalambakaḥ Tarangas* IV and V; Penzer's edition of Tawney's translation, Vol. I., p. 40-57.

c11.83

Fresh accretions to the tale are met with in the *Parishishṭaparvan*, the *Mahāvaṃśa Ṭīkā*, and the legend of the Burmese Buddha.¹ We have different versions of the story of the initial failure of Chāṇakya and Chandragupta in their attack on the Nanda dominions, and their ultimate success due to experience gathered on the spot. According to the Buddhist version the last of the Nandas is put to death. But in the narrative of Hemachandra he is permitted to leave his kindgom.² There is lack of agreement in regard to another important matter. The *Mahāvaṃśa Ṭīkā* definitely assigns Chāṇakya to the city of Taxila.³ On the other hand, Hemachandra seems to suggest in the *Abhidhānachintāmaṇi*⁴ "that Kauṭilya, son of Chaṇaka was a Dramila" i.e. an inhabitant of South India. But as the lexical verse indentifies him with Vātsyāyana, Mallanāga, Pakshilasvāmin as well as Viṣṇugupta, little importance attaches to its testimony. Curiously enough the *Pariśiṣṭaparvan*⁵ mentions Golla-viṣaya as the home-land of the famous minister. The identity of the place is not known.

c11.84

¹ *Pariśiṣṭaparvan* Canto VIII; *Mahāvaṃśa* (Turnour) pp. xlff. Bigandet, *op. cit.* II., 126 ff.

c11.85

² *Pariśiṣṭaparvan*, VIII 315 f., p. lxxvi.

c11.86

³ *Mahāvaṃśa* (Turnour) p. xxxixf.

c11.87

⁴ III. 517.

c11.88

⁵ VIII. 194.

c11.89

The overthrow of the Nandas rid the Magadhan empire of a dynasty that, in spite of its great services, had failed either to secure the good will of the subjects, or to show any intelligent grasp of the policy to be pursued towards the invaders in the North-West. The new regime had to justify itself by efficient administration, by promotion of the welfare of the people, and securing their protection against the *Yavana* menace. Regarding some of the methods adopted by Chandragupta opinions may differ. According to Justin "he oppressed with servitude the very people whom he had emancipated from foreign thraldom"⁶ We do not know how far the remark applies to the Magadhan provinces. The judgment is of too sweeping a character to be supported by all other available evidence. We shall not enter here into the details of the Mauryan polity which will be dealt with in a later chapter. The emancipation of the Indians from foreign thraldom, to which the Latin historian refers, was in itself no mean achievement. We now turn to this famous episode in the career of Chandragupta.

c11.90

⁶ McGrindle, *Invasion*, p. 327.

c11.91

The liberation of the land of the five rivers and the border country from the Macedonians was a long process. It required two wars to expel the prefects of Alexander and hurl back the battalions of one of the most ambitious and capable of his successors. The great Macedonian king and conqueror wanted to incorporate the territories he had conquered in India permanently into his empire. He made elaborate arrangements or their defence and administration. Garrisons were posted in several places, colonies planted, cities fortified at important stategic points and dock-yards constructed. Satraps recruited from Indians as well as Macedonians and allied peoples from the West were appointed to assume the administration of some of the conquered provinces. Certain areas were, however, left under the control of Indian Rājās.¹

c11.92

¹ See ch. III above.

c11.93

Alexander died in 323 B.C. His successors, who met to partition the Macedonian empire at Babylon on the day after his death, and again at Triparadisus in Syria towards the end of 321 B. C., had no desire to withdraw altogether from the Indian provinces. They could not however be blind to certain new developments. The Macedonians were torn by internal dissensions and their ranks were getting thinner in India. Antipater, regent of Macedonia from 321 to 318 B.C., managed to retain control over the satrapy of India which "bordered on the Paropanisadae" which he gave to Pithon in 321 B.C. "Of the adjacent kingdoms he gave that which lay along the Indus to Porus, and that along the Hydaspes (Jhelum) to Taxiles (Ambhi), for it was impossible to remove these kings without royal troops under the command of some distinguished general."² Smith seems to think that the names of the Rājās have been interchanged.³ This is not improbable. But it is well to remember that the city of Taxila did not lie far from the Hydaspes, and Porus might have been given charge of a part of the Indus valley over which Eudamus, the Thracian, exercised sway as one of the joint successors of Philippus.

c11.94

² McCrindle, India as described in Classical Literature, pp. 201-2.

c11.95

³ Asoka, (3rd ed.), p. 12n.

c11.96

Eudamus was probably disfavoured as a partisan of Eumenes, a rival of Antipater.¹ It is significant that according to a reading of a passage of Diodorus, Eudamus is said to have seized a number of elephants after the death of Alexander, having treacherously slain Porus.² The hostility to Porus is explicable if the Indian Rājā had been granted favours by the Regent in Macedon at the expense of the Thracian commander. Eudamus had however soon to leave India to help Eumenes in his fight against Antipater. The event is usually dated in or about 317 B.C. and must in any case have preceded the execution of Eumenes in 316 B. C. Pithon, who favoured the side of Antigonus,³ another great general who claimed a share of Alexander's inheritance, left India about the same time in 316 B.C.⁴ and was slain in the battle of Gaza four years later.⁵

c11.97

¹ McCrindle, *Invasion* p. 389.

c11.98

² Smith, *Aśoka*, (3rd ed.), p. 12n.

c11.99

³ McCrindle *Invasion*, p. 400.

c11.100

⁴ Tarn *Greeks in Bactria and India*, p. 47 n 2.

c11.101

⁵ McCrindle *Invasion*, p. 400.

c11.102

The leading part in the destruction or expulsion of Alexander's commanders in India is, as already stated, assigned by Justin to Chandragupta. The earlier attempt of Samaxus, the Assakenians, the Brāhmaṇas of the Lower Indus valley, and Musicanus (Mousikanos) had ended in failure. The process of liberation is likely to have begun before the Partition of Triparadisus when the lament is already heard about the growing power of the Indian Rājās and the absence or at least inadequacy of royal "troops under the command of some distinguished general." "It seems however that the country" "emancipated from foreign thraldom" did not stretch at first beyond the Hydaspes (Jhelum) in the north-west. The Macedonian Regent claimed to dispose of territories extending eastwards as far as that river in 321 B.C. But soon the Magadhan frontier reached the Indus. According to a fragment quoted by Pliny, possibly from Megasthenes, "the Indus skirts the frontiers of the Prasii"⁶ that is, the Magadhan empire, doubtless during some part of the reign of Chandragupta as his predecessors did not control any part of the Punjab, and his successors seem to have exercised sway over the province as far as the north-western mountains. The Indians whose territory "bordered on the Paropanisadae" (in the Kabul valley) are known to have been under Pithon till c. 316 B.C. The district to which Eudamus clung, after the partition of Triparadisus which ignored him, may also have lain, like that of his predecessor Philippus, partly at any rate, beyond the Indus. These commanders had been partisans of Antigonus and Eumenes respectively. The execution of Eumenes in 316—15 B.C.¹ and the exhaustion of Antigonus in the war of 315 to 312—11 B.C.² left the way clear for Seleucus who returned to Babylon in 312—11 B.C., and soon made himself master of "the whole region from Phrygia to the Indus".³ Appian, to whom we are indebted for the information conveyed by the last few words, seems clearly to suggest that the Indus formed the boundary between the dominions of Seleucus and Chandragupta before the two kings came to blows. The former is said to have "crossed the Indus and waged war with Androcottus, king of the Indians, who dwelt on the banks of that stream."

c11.103

⁶ McCrindle, *Ancient India as described by Megasthenes and Arrian* p. 143.

c11.104

¹ Inv. Alex. p. 385, Companion to Greek Studies p. 110.

c11.105

² Companion, p. 110.

c11.106

³ Appian, Roman History, Vol. II. (Loeb Library)—Syr. XI. 9-55.

c11.107

It is a matter for surprise that the classical writers who have so much to say regarding the Indian campaigns of Alexander should preserve reticence in regard to the details of the famous struggle to which Appian refers. Even the date of the war and its total duration are not known for certain. Appian informs us that the fight went on "until they (i.e., the Syrian and Indian Kings) came to an understanding with each other and contracted a marriage relationship (kedos)." He adds that some of the exploits of Seleucus were performed "before the death of Antigonus (at Ipsus, 301 B.C.) and some afterwards."⁴ The "understanding" or treaty with Chandragupta and "settlement of affairs in the East" are definitely dated by Justin before Seleucus' return home to prosecute the war with Antigonus.⁵ Pliny refers to the opening up of India with its numberless nations and cities by the arms of Alexander, Seleucus and Antiochus, but gives no details that might have thrown light on the war with Chandragupta.¹

c11.108

⁴ Appian, Ibid.

c11.109

⁵ Inv. Alex., 328.

c11.110

¹ McCrindle, *Ancient India as described in Classical Literature*, p. 107. The journeys made from the Beas for Seleucus Nicator, to which Pliny bears witness, may, as pointed out by Macdonald, refer not to reconnaissances made during a campaign, but to information gathered subsequently by Greek envoys accredited to the Court of Pāṭaliputra (*Megasthenes and Arrian*, 1926, 129 ff., Camb. Hist. Ind. I. 430.).

c11.111

While the war itself received scant attention at the hands of the historians, the "understanding" seems to have attracted greater notice. Plutarch tells us that Chandragupta "made a present to Seleucus of five hundred elephants."² Fuller information is given by Strabo who says :

c11.112

² Plutarch, *op. cit.* Ch. LXII.

c11.113

"Along the Indus are the Paropamisadae, above whom lies the Paropamisus mountain ; then, towards the south, the Arachoti ; then next, towards the south, the Gedroseni, with the other tribes that occupy the seaboard ; and the Indus lies, latitudinally, alongside all these places ; and of these places, in part, some that lie along the Indus are held by Indians, although they formerly belonged to the Persians. Alexander took these away from the Arians and established settlements³ of his own, but Seleucus Nicator gave them to Sandrocottus, upon terms of intermarriage (epigamia) and of receiving in exchange five hundred elephants."⁴

c11.114

³ Governments or provinces according to Tarn (*Greeks in Bactria and India*, p. 100.

c11.115

⁴ *Geography* (Loeb. Library) translated by H. L. Jones, (XV. 2. 9), P. 143.

c11.116

In another passage we are informed that "the Indus River was the boundary between India and Ariana, which latter was situated next to India on the west and was in the possession of the Persians at that time (i.e., at the time of Alexander's invasion) ; for later the Indians also held much of Ariana, having received it from the Macedonians."⁵

c11.117

⁵ Ibid. p. 15 (XV. i. 10).

c11.118

Diplomatic relations were also established between the contracting powers, for Strabo refers to the sending of Megasthenes to the court of Chandragupta at Pāṭaliputra.

c11.119

The details of the "understanding" to which Strabo bears witness leave no room for doubt that Seleucus could not make much headway. Even royal Macedonian troops under a distinguished commander failed to dislodge the king of the Prasii from the Punjab. On the contrary, the invader had to give up some of the Macedonian possessions on the Indus "receiving in exchange the comparatively small recompense of five hundred elephants." In regard to the extent of the territory surrendered by Seleucus and the nature of the marriage compact of which, according to Strabo, the cession was in part the consequence, there has been considerable difference of opinion. Smith believed, on the strength of a passage of Pliny, that the countries ceded included the four satrapies of Gedrosia, Arachosia, Aria, and the Paropamisadae.¹ Pliny however simply says that "numerous authors include in India the four satrapies" in question.² He may have been referring to conditions not in the days of Seleucus and Chandragupta, but in some later epoch, e.g., that of the monarchs of the Scytho-Parthian dynasties who reigned previous to A.D. 77.³ The words used by Strabo "and of these places, in part, some that lie along the Indus are held by Indians" do not convey the idea of a complete abandonment of the Satrapies in question including even Aria. Tarn is inclined to think that only those parts of the three satrapies of Paropamisadae, Arachosia and Gedrosia which lay along the Indus were ceded by Seleucus. In Gedrosia the district ceded was, in his opinion, that between the Median Hydaspes (identified with the Purali) and the Indus. Of the satrapy called Paropamisadae Chandragupta got, according to this view, only Gandhāra between the Kunar river and the Indus. The boundary in Arachosia is not precisely defined but it is suggested that what Chandragupta got lay east of a line starting from the Kunar river to somewhere near Quetta and then going to the sea by Kalat and the Purali river.⁴ The contention of Tarn cannot however be accepted in its entirety.

First 118 of 592 passages. Read on

Linked texts (51)