Age of the Nandas and Mauryas c11.15

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.