Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Early History of India, from 600 B.C. to the Muhammadan Conquest, including the Invasion of Alexander the Great c10: Chapter II. The Dynasties before Alexander, 600 B.C. to 326 B.C.

The Early History of India, from 600 B.C. to the Muhammadan Conquest, including the Invasion of Alexander the Great c10

Language
English

Chapter II. The Dynasties before Alexander, 600 B.C. to 326 B.C.

c10.1

THE DYNASTIES BEFORE ALEXANDER

c10.3

THE political history of India begins for an orthodox Hindu more than three thousand years before the Christian era with the famous war waged on the banks of the Jumna, between the sons of Kuru and the sons of Pāndu, as related in the vast epic known as the Mahābhārata.¹ But the modern critic fails to find sober history in bardic tales, and is constrained to travel down the stream of time much farther before he comes to an anchorage of solid fact. In order to be available for the purpose of history, events must be susceptible of arrangement in definite chronological order, and capable of being dated approximately, if not exactly. Facts to which dates cannot be assigned, although they may be invaluable for the purposes of ethnology, philology, and other sciences, are of no use to the historian. Modern research has brought to light innumerable facts of the highest scientific value concerning prehistoric India, but the impossibility of assigning dates to the phenomena discovered excludes them from the domain of the historian, whose vision cannot pass the line which separates the dated from the undated.

c10.4

¹ The epoch of the Kaliyuga, 3102 B. C., is usually identified with the era of Yudhishṭhira, and the date of the Mahābhārata war. But certain astronomers date the war more than six centuries later (Cunningham, *Indian Eras*, pp. 6–13). See Fleet, *J. R. A. S.*, 1911, p. 675 ; and R. Shamasastry, *Gavām Ayana* (Mysore, 1908).

c10.5

That line, in the case of India, may be drawn, at the earliest, through the middle of the seventh century B. C. ; a period of progress, marked by the development of maritime commerce, and probably by the diffusion of a knowledge of the art of writing. Up to about that time the inhabitants of India, even the most intellectual races, seem to have been generally ignorant of the art of writing, and to have been obliged to trust to highly trained memory for the transmission of knowledge.¹

c10.6

¹ J. Kennedy, ‘The Early Commerce of India with Babylon; 700-330 B.C.’ (*J. R. A. S.*, 1898, pp. 241-88); Bühler, ‘Indische Palaeographie (*Grundriss Indo-Ar. Phil. und Alt.*, Strassburg, 1898); transl. as Appendix to *Ind. Ant.*, vol. xxxiii (1904); ‘On the Origin of the Brāhma and Kharoṣṭhī Alphabets’ (two papers, in *Sitzb. Akad. Wiss. Wien*, 1895); Hoernle, ‘An Epigraphical Note on Palm-leaf, Paper, and Birchbark’ (*J. A. S. B.*, vol. lxix, part 1, 1900). I have not seen a Dutch work by Holle, *Oud-en Nieuw-Indische Alphabetten*, Batavia, 1882, cited in *J. R. A. S.*, 1911, p. 370. The art of writing may have been introduced by merchants on the south-western coast as early as the eighth century B. C., or even before that time. The knowledge of the art seems to have gradually spread to the north, where probably it became widely known during the seventh century. But, of course, no data exist for accurate chronology. So much is clear, that writing must have been known long before the appearance of the earliest extant inscriptions in the fourth or fifth century B. C.

c10.7

In those days vast territories were still covered by forest, the home of countless wild beasts and scanty tribes of savage men; while regions of great extent in Northern India had been occupied for untold centuries by more or less civilized communities of the higher races who, from time to time, during the unrecorded past, had pierced the mountain barriers of the north-western frontier. Practically nothing is ascertained concerning the immigration of the possibly equally advanced Dravidian races who entered India, we know not how, where, or whence, spread over the plateau of the Deccan, and extended to the extremity of the Peninsula. Our slender stock of knowledge is limited to the fortunes of the vigorous races, speaking an Aryan tongue, who poured down from the mountains of the Hindū Kush and Pāmīrs, filling the plains of the Panjāb and the upper basin of the Ganges with a sturdy and quick-witted population, unquestionably superior to the aboriginal races of those regions. The settled country between the Himalaya mountains and the Narbadā river was divided into a multitude of independent states, some monarchies and some tribal republics, owning no allegiance to any paramount power, secluded from the outer world, and free to fight among themselves. The most ancient literary traditions, compiled probably in the fourth or fifth century B. C., but looking back to an older time, enumerate sixteen of such states or powers, extending from Gandhāra, on the extreme north-west of the Panjāb, comprising the modern districts of Peshāwar and Rāwalpindi, to Avanti or Mālwā, with its capital Ujjain, which still retains its ancient name unchanged.¹

c10.8

¹ The complete list will be found in Rhys Davids’s *Buddhist India*, p. 23. The first two chapters of that work furnish full references to the Pāli texts which give information about the clans and states in the fifth and sixth centuries. Professor Rhys Davids is inclined to attribute higher antiquity to the Pāli Buddhist scriptures than some other scholars can admit.

c10.9

The works of ancient Indian writers from which our historical data are extracted do not ordinarily profess to be histories, and are mostly religious treatises of various kinds. In such compositions the religious element necessarily takes the foremost place, and the secular affairs of the world occupy a very subordinate position. The particulars of political history incidentally recorded refer in consequence chiefly to the countries most prominent in the development of Indian religion.

c10.10

The systems which we call Jainism and Buddhism had their roots in the forgotten speculations of the prehistoric past; but, as we know them, were founded respectively by Vardhamāna Mahāvīra and Gautama Buddha. Both these philosophers, who were for many years contemporary, were born, lived, and died in or near the kingdom of Magadha, the modern South Bihār. Mahāvīra, the son of a nobleman of Vaisālī, the famous city north of the Ganges, was nearly related to the royal family of Magadha, and died at Pāwā, in the modern district of Patna, within the territory of that kingdom.

c10.11

Gautama Buddha, although born farther north, in the Sākya territory at the foot of the Nepāl hills,² underwent his most memorable spiritual experiences at Bōdh Gayā in Magadha, and spent many years of his ministry within the limits of that state. The Buddhist and Jain books, therefore, tell us much about the Vrijjian confederacy, of which Vaisālī was the capital,¹ and about Magadha, with its subordinate kingdom of Anga (Bhāgalpur).

c10.12

² The Śākya territory, to the north of the modern Basti and Gorakhpur Districts, was a dependency of Kosala. ‘The Blessed One also is of Kosala’ (Rockhill, *Life of the Buddha*, p. 114). See also *Jātaka* No. 465 (Cambridge transl., iv, 92).

c10.13

¹ Basāṛ or Basāṛh (N. lat. 25° 59′, E. long. 85° 8′), and the neighbouring village of Bakhirā, in the District of Muzaffarpur, situated about 27 miles a little west of north from Patna, undoubtedly represent the ancient Vaisālī (V. A. Smith, 'Vaisālī,' *J. R. A. S.*, 1902, pp. 267-88). See Bloch's 'Excavations at Basāṛh', *Archaeol. S. Annual Rep.*, 1903-4, pp. 81-122.

c10.14

The neighbouring realm of Kosala, the modern kingdom of Oudh, was closely connected with Magadha by many ties; and its capital Srāvastī (Savatthi), situated on the upper course of the Rāptī near the foot of the hills, was the reputed scene of many of Buddha's most striking discourses.²

c10.15

² It is difficult to resist the new evidence in favour of the identification of Śrāvastī with the ruins at Sahēṭh-mahēṭh in Northern Oudh, on the boundary of the Goṇḍa and Bahraich Districts, which is summarized in *J. R. A. S.*, 1909, pp. 1066-8; but the fact remains that the site does not agree with the itineraries of Fa-hien and Hiuen Tsang, who indicate a site higher up the course of the Rāptī in Nepāl, as formerly advocated by me in *J. R. A. S.*, 1898, pp. 502-31, with map, and ibid., 1900, pp. 1-24. I cannot bring myself to accept the supposed error in *both* pilgrims' accounts without some explanation. The statement that four villages known to have been near Śrāvastī can be identified with four villages in the immediate neighbourhood of Sahēṭh-Mahēṭh needs to be supported in detail.

c10.16

In the sixth century b. c. Kosala appears to have occupied the rank afterwards attained by Magadha, and to have enjoyed precedence as the premier state of Upper India. It is therefore mentioned as often as the rival power. At the beginning of the historical period, the smaller kingdom of Kāsī, or Benares, apparently had lost its independence, and had been annexed by Kosala, with which its fortunes were indissolubly bound up. The lesser state owes its fame in the ancient books not only to its connexion with its powerful neighbour, but also to its being one of the most sacred spots in Buddhist church history, the scene of Buddha's earliest public preaching, where he first 'turned the wheel of the Law'.

c10.17

The reputation for special sanctity enjoyed by both Benares and Gayā in Magadha among orthodox Brahmanical Hindus adds little to the detailed information available, which is mainly derived from the writings of Jains and Buddhists, who were esteemed as heretics by the worshippers of the old gods. But the Brahmanical Purāṇas, compiled centuries later in honour of the orthodox deities,¹ happily include lists of the Buddhist and other kings of Magadha, which had become, before the time of their compilation, the recognized centre both religious and political of India; and so it happens that the Jain, Buddhist, and Brahmanical books combined tell us much about the history of Magadha, Anga, Kosala, Kāsī, and Vaisāli, while they leave us in the dark concerning the fortunes of most other parts of India.

c10.18

¹ The oldest dynastic lists of the Purāṇas, those of the *Matsya*, probably date from the third century after Christ in their present form, and the *Vāyu* lists from the first half of the fourth century.

c10.19

In the Purānic lists the earliest dynasty which can claim historical reality is that known as the Saiśunāga, from the name of its founder Sisunāga, or Śisunāka.²

c10.20

² *Śiśunāka* is the usual reading in the *Matsya* and *Vāyu Purāṇas* (Pargiter, *J. R. A. S.*, 1915, p. 146).

c10.21

He was, apparently, the king, or Rāja, of a petty state, corresponding roughly with the present Patna and Gayā Districts; his capital being Rājagriha (Rājgīr), among the hills near Gayā. Nothing is known about his history, except the statement that he placed his son in Benares, and himself took up his abode at Girivraja near Rājagriha. The second, third, and fourth kings, likewise, are mere names.

c10.22

The first monarch about whom anything substantial is known is Bimbisāra, or Srēnika, the fifth of his line. He is credited with the building of New Rājagriha, the outer town to the north of the ring of hills encircling the ancient fort; and with the annexation of Anga, the small kingdom to the east, corresponding with the modern district of Bhāgalpur, and probably including Monghyr (Mungir).³ The annexation of Anga was the first step taken by the kingdom of Magadha in its advance to greatness and the position of supremacy which it attained in the following century ; so that Bimbisāra may be regarded as the real founder of the Magadhan imperial power. He strengthened his position by matrimonial alliances with the more powerful of the neighbouring states, taking one consort from the royal family of Kosala, and another from the influential Lichchhavi clan at Vaisālī.¹ The latter lady was the mother of Ajātasatru, also called Kūnika, or Kūniya, the son who was selected as heir-apparent and crown prince. If our authorities may be believed, the reign of Bimbisāra lasted for twenty-eight years ; and it is said that, towards its close, he resigned the royal power into the hands of his favourite son, and retired into private life.

c10.23

³ Jacobi, *Introd.*, vol. xxii, *S. B. E.* Rājgīr is situated in N. lat. 25° 2′, E. long. 85° 26′, about NE. from Gayā, and SSE. from Patna. The very ancient town within the circle of hills is believed to have been founded by the mythical king, Jarāsandha, and was also known as Kuśāgārapura. Rājgīr has numerous modern Jain shrines, and is much frequented by Jain pilgrims, who rank it with Parasnāth and Pawapari (*Mod. Rev.* Jan. 1916, p. 18). The most trustworthy account of the extensive site is that by Dr. J. H. Marshall in *Ann. Rep. A. S. India*, 1905–6, which gives references to earlier publications, and is accompanied by a good map. But the researches at this most interesting spot amount only to a preliminary reconnaissance. Thorough exploration would require the work of several seasons. The secrets of the most ancient sites in India still remain hidden, with few exceptions.

c10.24

¹ The Lichchhavis occupy a prominent place in the Buddhist ecclesiastical legends. The Jains spell the name as *Lechchhaki* (Prākrit, *Lechchhaī*) (Jacobi, *S. B. E.*, xxii, 266). For the Tibetan affinities of the Lichchhavis see *Ind. Ant.*, 1903, p. 233.

c10.25

Orthodox Buddhist tradition affirms that Ajātasatru, weary of awaiting the slow process of nature, murdered his father by starvation, at the instigation of Devadatta, Buddha's cousin, who figures in the legends as a malignant plotter and wicked schismatic.² It is probable, however, that the story is the product of *odium theologicum*, or sectarian rancour, which has done so much to falsify the history of ancient India. Devadatta certainly refused to accept the teaching of Gautama, and, preferring that of 'the former Buddhas', became the founder and head of a rival sect, which still survived in the seventh century after Christ.³

c10.26

² Rhys Davids, *Buddhist India*, p. 14 ; Rockhill, *Life of the Buddha*, pp. 90, 94, from Tibetan sources.

c10.27

³ These heretics were seen by Fa-hien at Śrāvastī in or about A. D. 405. 'There are also companies of the followers of Devadatta still existing. They regularly make offerings to the three previous Buddhas, but not to Śākyamuni [*scil.* Gautama] Buddha' (*Travels*, ch. xxii, in Legge's version. All the versions agree as to the fact). In the seventh century Hiuen Tsang found three monasteries of Devadatta's sect in Karṇasuvarṇa, Bengal (Beal, *Records*, ii, 201 ; *Life*, p. 131). Detailed legends concerning Devadatta will be found in Rockhill's *Life of the Buddha* (see Index), and the disciplinary rules of his order on p. 87 of that work. The fact that Asoka twice repaired the *stūpa* of Kanakamuni, one of 'the previous Buddhas', proves that reverence for those saints was not incompatible with devotion to the teaching of their successor, Gautama (*Niglīva Pillar inscription*, in *Asoka, the Buddhist Emperor of India*, 3rd ed., p. 224). Very little is known about the teaching of ‘the previous Buddhas’. Three of them seem to have been real persons, namely Krakuchanda, Kanakamuni, and Kāśyapa.

c10.28

Schism has always been esteemed by the orthodox a deadly sin, and in all ages the unsuccessful heretic has been branded as a villain by the winning sect. Such, probably, is the origin of the numerous tales concerning the villanies of Devadatta, including the supposed incitement of his princely patron to commit the crime of parricide.

c10.29

There seems to be no doubt that both Vardhamāna Mahāvīra, the founder of the system known as Jainism, and Gautama, the last Buddha, the founder of Buddhism as known to later ages, were preaching in Magadha during the reign of Bimbisāra, although it is difficult to reconcile traditional dates.

c10.30

The Jain saint, who was a near relative of Bimbisāra's queen, the mother of Ajātasatru, possibly passed away towards the close of Ajātasatru's reign, while the death of Gautama Buddha occurred in the earlier years of the same reign. There is reason to believe that the latter event took place in or about the year 543 B. C.¹

c10.31

¹ For the uncertain chronology, see Appendix C at the end of this chapter.

c10.32

Gautama Buddha was certainly an old man when Ajātasatru, or Kūnika, as the Jains call him, came to the throne about 554 B. C.; and he had at least one interview with that king.²

c10.33

² Reference may be made here to the view put forward by K. P. Jayaswal that the Parkham statue of Mathurā represents Ajātasatru or Kunika (*J. B. O. Res. Soc.* v, pp. 550–51). Brindavan C. Battacharya had previously drawn attention to the identity of character of this statue and the two ‘Saiśunāka statues’, now in the Indian Museum, which K. P. Jayaswal identifies as those of Udaya and Nandivardhana (*J. B. O. Res. Soc.* v, pp. 402–6). K. P. Jayaswal holds that Ajātasatru died *c.* 518 B. C., and that the statue must date back to *c.* 515 B. C. The theory, if established, revolutionizes the history of Indian art and proves that the art of sculpture in stone was well matured two centuries before Asoka. V. A. Smith expressed the view that the statues in question are pre-Mauryan and executed not later than 400 B. C. (*J. B. O. Res. Soc.* v, pp. 512–13). See also ibid. vi, pp. 173 ff.

c10.34

One of the most ancient Buddhist documents narrates in detail the story of a visit paid to Buddha by Ajātasatru, who is alleged to have expressed remorse for his supposed crime, and to have professed his faith in Buddha, who accepted his confession of sin. The concluding passage of the tale may be quoted as an illustration of an ancient Buddhist view of the relations between Church and State.

c10.35

‘And when he had thus spoken, Ajātasatru the king said to the Blessed One: “Most excellent, Lord, most excellent! Just as if a man were to set up that which has been thrown down, or were to reveal that which is hidden away, or were to point out the right road to him who has gone astray, or were to bring a lamp into the darkness so that those who have eyes could see external forms—just even so, Lord, has the truth been made known to me, in many a figure, by the Blessed One. And now I betake myself, Lord, to the Blessed One as my refuge, to the Truth, and to the Order. May the Blessed One accept me as a disciple, as one who, from this day forth, as long as life endures, has taken his refuge in them. Sin has overcome me, Lord, weak and foolish and wrong that I am, in that for the sake of sovranty, I put to death my father, that righteous man, that righteous king! May the Blessed One accept it of me, Lord, that I do so acknowledge it as a sin, to the end that in future I may restrain myself.”

c10.36

‘“Verily, O king, it was sin that overcame you in acting thus. But inasmuch as you look upon it as sin, and confess it according to what is right, we accept your confession as to that.

c10.37

‘“For that, O king, is custom in the discipline of the noble ones, that whosoever looks upon his fault as a fault, and rightfully confesses it, shall attain to self-restraint in future.”

c10.38

‘When he has thus spoken, Ajātasatru the king said to the Blessed One, “Now, Lord, we would fain go. We are busy, and there is much to do.”

c10.39

‘“Do, O king, whatever seemeth to thee fit.”

c10.40

‘Then Ajātasatru the king, pleased and delighted with the words of the Blessed One, arose from his seat, and bowed to the Blessed One, and keeping him on the right hand as he passed him, departed thence.

c10.41

‘Now the Blessed One, not long after Ajātasatru the king had gone, addressed the brethren, and said: “This king, brethren, was deeply affected, he was touched in heart. If, brethren, the king had not put his father to death, that righteous man, and righteous king, then would the clear and spotless eye for the truth have arisen in him, even as he sat here.”

c10.42

‘Thus spake the Blessed One. The brethren were pleased and delighted at his words.’¹

c10.43

¹ Translated from the *Sāmaññaphala Sūtra*, by Prof. Rhys Davids in *Dialogues of the Buddha*, 1899, p. 94. I have used the ordinary spelling Ajātaśatru instead of Agātasattu, as in the *Dialogues*. Throughout this work the Sanskrit forms are generally employed for the sake of uniformity. The Tibetan version of the *Sūtra* is translated by Rockhill (*Life*, p. 95, foll.). The visit is depicted in a bas-relief from the *stūpa* of Barhut (Bharhut, Bharaut), executed probably about 200 B. C. (Cunningham, *Stūpa of Bharhut*, pl. xvi; Rhys Davids, *Buddhist India*, p. 14, fig. 2).

c10.44

It is difficult to sympathize with the pleasure and delight of the brethren. The stern and fearless reprobation of a deed of exceptional atrocity which we should expect from a great moral teacher is wholly wanting in Buddha’s words, and is poorly compensated for by the politeness of a courtier. But, as stated above, it is difficult to accept the story of the parricide as historically true; and our doubts are not lessened when the Ceylonese chronicler asks us to believe that Ajātasatru was followed in due course by four other parricide kings, of whom the last was dethroned by his minister, with the approval of a justly indignant people. The fact that the history of Parthia presents a nearly exact parallel in the succession of three parricide monarchs is of little value in establishing the credibility of the Buddhist tradition.² Probably Ajātasatru, like many later Indian sovereigns, did not confine his royal favour to any one sect, but at different times patronized the followers of the ‘former Buddhas’ led by Devadatta, the adherents of Gautama’s reformed Buddhism, and the Jains. Later when in consequence of Asoka’s patronage Buddhism became pre-eminent in northern India, leanings towards Jainism became criminal in the eyes of ecclesiastical chroniclers, who were ready to blacken the memory of persons deemed heretical with unfounded accusations of the gravest character.

c10.45

² *Mahāvaṁśa*, ch. iv. The Parthian kings were Orodes, Phraates IV, and Phraates V (Von Gutschmid, *Geschichte Irans*, p. 116). Local Jain tradition in South Bihār ignores the accusation of parricide, and credits Kūnika or Ajātaśatru with having ‘ruled the country for eighty years according to the laws of his father’, who is represented as having been a devout Jain, responsible for many buildings at Bhāgalpur and elsewhere (*Ind. Ant.*, xxxi (1902), p. 71). S. V. Venkatesvara Aiyar, consequently, disbelieves the parricide story (‘*The Ancient History of Magadha*’, *Ind. Ant.*, 1916, p. 12). He compares Ajātaśatru with Harsha and Akbar, because he is related to have patronized various forms of religion (Ibid., p. 13).

c10.46

One of the chief events of Ajātasatru's reign was a war with the aged king of Kosala, whose sister was the queen of Bimbisāra. Fortune in the contest inclined, now to one side, and now to another; and on one occasion, it is said, Ajātasatru was carried away as a prisoner in chains to his opponent's capital. Ultimately peace was concluded, and a princess of Kosala was given in marriage to the king of Magadha. The facts of the struggle are obscure, being wrapped up in legendary matter from which it is impossible to disentangle them; but the probability is that Ajātasatru won for Magadha a decided preponderance over its neighbour of Kosala. It is certain that the latter kingdom is not again mentioned as an independent power, and that in the fourth century B. C. it formed an integral part of the Magadhan empire.

c10.47

The ambition of Ajātasatru, not satisfied with the humiliation of Kosala, next induced him to undertake the conquest of the country to the north of the Ganges, now known as Tirhūt, in which the Lichchhavi clan, famous in Buddhist legend, and probably of Tibetan origin, then occupied a prominent position. The invasion was successful; the Lichchhavi capital, Vaisālī, was occupied, and Ajātasatru became master of his maternal grandfather's territory.¹ It may be presumed that the invader carried his victorious arms to their natural limit, the foot of the mountains, and that from this time the whole region between the Ganges and the Himalaya became subject, more or less directly, to the suzerainty of Magadha.

c10.48

¹ According to the Jains, the mother of Ajātaśatru was Chellanā, daughter of Chetaka, Rāja of Vaisālī (Jacobi, *Introd.*, *S. B. E.*, vol. xxii). According to the Tibetan *Dulva*, she was named Vāsavī, and was the niece of Gopāla (Rockhill, *Life of the Buddha*, p. 63).

c10.49

The victor erected a fortress at the village of Pātali on the northern bank of the Sōn near its confluence with the Ganges to curb his Lichchhavi opponents. The foundations of a city nestling under the shelter of the fortress were laid by his grandson Udaya. The city so founded, including settlements of various ages, not precisely on one site, was known variously as Kusumapura, Pushpapura, or Pātaliputra, and rapidly developed in size and magnificence; until, under the Maurya dynasty, it became the capital, not only of Magadha, but of India.¹

c10.50

¹ The names Kusumapura and Pushpapura are synonymous, both meaning 'Flower-town'; *pāṭali* means 'trumpet-flower', *Bignonia suaveolens*. The story of the fortress is told in the Buddhist 'Book of the Great Decease' (*Mahāparinibbāna Sutta*), of which the Tibetan version is summarized by Rockhill, op. cit., p. 127. The building of the city by Udaya is attested by the Vāyu Purāṇa. Asoka made Pāṭaliputra the permanent capital (Hiuen Tsang, in Beal, *Records*, ii. 85), but it was already the royal residence in the time of his grandfather, Chandragupta, when Megasthenes visited it. The sites of the capitals occupied by different kings probably were not quite identical.

c10.51

Buddha, as has been mentioned above, died in the reign of Ajātasatru, in the eighth year of the reign, according to the *Mahāvaṁśa*, which cannot be relied on for details.² Shortly before his death, Kapilavastu, his ancestral home, was captured by Virūdhaka, king of Kosala, who is alleged to have perpetrated a ferocious massacre of the Sākya clan to which Buddha belonged. The story is so thickly encrusted with miraculous legend that the details of the event cannot be ascertained, but the coating of miracle was probably deposited upon a basis of fact, and we may believe that the Sākyas suffered much at the hands of Virūdhaka.³

c10.52

² The Tibetan books allege that Buddha died five years after the accession of Ajātaśatru, who reigned for thirty-two years (Rockhill, *Life of the Buddha*, pp. 91, 233). All such details are unreliable, whether in the books of Ceylon or of other countries.

c10.53

³ The story is in all the books about Buddhism. Rhys Davids (*Buddhist India*, p. 11) gives references to the Pāli authorities. For the site and remains of Kapilavastu, see Mukherji and V. A. Smith, *Antiquities in the Tarāi, Nepāl* (Calcutta, 1901, being vol. xxvi, part 1, of *Archaeol. Survey Rep., Imp. Series*), and Hastings's *Encycl. of Religion and Ethics*, s. v.

c10.54

When Ajātasatru died (*cir.* 527 B. C.), he was succeeded, according to the Purāṇas, by a son named Darsaka, who was in turn succeeded by his son Udaya.⁴ The Buddhist books erroneously omit the intermediate name, and represent Udaya as the son and immediate successor of Ajātasatru. The reality of the existence of Darsaka, as king of Magadha, with his capital at Rājagriha, is established by the discovery of a play named *Svapnavāsavadatta*, attributed to Bhāsa, perhaps in the third century after Christ, which represents Darsaka as the contemporary of Udayana, king of Vatsa, and Mahāsena (*alias* Pradyota), king of Avanti, or Ujjain.¹

c10.55

⁴ The name Udaya has variant forms, Udayana, Udayāśva, &c., in the Purāṇas. The Buddhists call him Udayi Bhadda (Udayibhadraka), and represent him as the son of Ajātaśatru, whose grandson he was, according to the Purāṇas (*Mahāvaṁśa*, ch. iv; *Dulva*, in Rockhill, *Life of the Buddha*, p. 91; Rhys Davids, *Dialogues* (1899), p. 68). The building of the city of Pātaliputra, or rather of 'Kusumapura, on the south bank of the Ganges, in his fourth year', by Udaya is asserted by the Vāyu Purāna. This statement indicates that Kusumapura, the oldest settlement, was on the bank of the Ganges, at an appreciable distance from the later capital, Pātaliputra, on the Sōn.

c10.56

¹ The daughter of Mahāsena was queen of king Udayana, whose realm of Vatsa probably was identical with Kauśāmbī. Padmāvatī was sister of king Darśaka, and Pradyota, king of Avanti, or Mahāsena, is represented as seeking her hand for his own son (Jacobi, transl. of *Vāsavadattā* in *Intern. Monatschr. für Wissenschaft*, March, 1913). The discovery goes a long way to support the authority of the Purāṇic lists as against the muddled account of the *Mahāvaṁśa*, to which Professor Geiger does 'not hesitate to give the preference wholly and unreservedly'. The learned Professor proceeds to say: 'Again, in the Purāṇas yet another king, called Darśaka, &c., is inserted between Ajātaśatru and Udāyin. That is certainly an error. The Pāli canon indubitably asserts that Udāyibhadda was the son of Ajātaśatru and probably also his successor.' (transl. *Mahāvaṁśa*, 1912, pp. xliv, xlv). Many 'indubitable assertions', unfortunately, are not true. As to the authenticity of the plays, including *Svapnavāsavadatta*, attributed to Bhāsa, see Max Landenau's *Bhāsa Studien* (Harrassowitz, Leipzig, 1918, 51 pp.), and paper by Bhattanātha Svamin of Kumbakonam in *Ind. Ant.*, Dec. 1916, pp. 189–95.

c10.57

The reign of Udaya may be assumed to have begun about 503 B.C. The tradition that he built Pātaliputra, or more accurately, the adjoining town of Kusumapura, is all that is known about him.

c10.58

If the chronology adopted in this chapter be even approximately correct, Ajātasatru's son, Darsaka, and his grandson, Udaya, must be regarded as the contemporaries of Darius, the son of Hystaspes, autocrat of the Persian Empire from 521 to 485 B.C. Darius, who was a very capable ruler, employed his officers in the exploration of a great part of Asia by means of various expeditions.

c10.59

One of these expeditions was dispatched at some date later than 516 B.C. to prove the feasibility of a passage by sea from the mouth of the Indus to Persia. The commander, Skylax of Karyanda in Karia, managed somehow to equip a squadron on the waters of the Panjāb rivers in the Gandhāra country, to make his way down to the ocean, and ultimately, in the thirteenth month, to reach the Red Sea. The particulars of his adventurous voyage have been lost, but we know that the information collected was of such value that, by utilizing it, Darius was enabled to annex the Indus valley, and to send his fleets into the Indian Ocean. The archers from India formed a valuable element in the army of Xerxes, and shared the defeat of Mardonius at Plataea (479 B. C.).

c10.60

The conquered provinces were formed into a separate satrapy, the twentieth, which was considered the richest and most populous province of the empire. It paid the enormous tribute of 360 Euboic talents of gold-dust, or 185 hundredweights, worth fully a million sterling, and constituting about one-third of the total bullion revenue of the Asiatic provinces. Although the exact limits of the Indian satrapy cannot be determined, we know that it was distinct from Arīa (Herāt), Arachosia (Kandahār), and Gandaria (North-western Panjāb). It must have comprised, therefore, the course of the Indus from Kālabāgh to the sea, including the whole of Sind, and perhaps included a considerable portion of the Panjāb east of the Indus. But when Alexander invaded the country, nearly two centuries later, the Indus was the boundary between the Persian empire and India, and both the Panjāb and Sind were governed by numerous native princes.¹ In ancient times the courses of the rivers were quite different from what they now are, and vast tracts in Sind and the Panjāb, now desolate, were then rich and prosperous.¹ This fact largely explains the surprising value of the tribute paid by the twentieth satrapy.

c10.61

¹ Voyage of Skylax (*Herod.* iv, 44). The *Periplus*, attributed to Skylax though really written between 338 and 335 B. C., does not treat of India (Müller, *Geogr. Graeci Minores*, vol. i, pp. xliv, 156–9). The city of Kaspatyros in the Paktyan land (Πακτυϊκὴ γῆ), from which Skylax began his voyage, is called Kaspapyros, a city of the Gandhariars, by Hekataios. The site cannot be identified, and it is impossible to say which form of the name is correct. Gandhāra was the modern Peshāwar District and some adjacent territory. Kaspatyros, or Kaspapyros, has nothing to do with Kashmīr, as many writers have supposed (Stein, *Rājataraṅgiṇī*, trans. ii. 353). For satrapies see *Herod.* iii, 88–106, especially 94. The Euboic talent weighed 57·6 lb. avoirdupois; 360 talents = 20,736 lb., which, assuming silver to be worth five shillings (quarter of a sovereign) an ounce, or £4 per lb., and the ratio of silver to gold to be as 13 to 1, would be worth £1,078,272. If the Euboic talent be taken as equivalent to 78, not 70, *minae*, the figures given by Herodotus will tally. 360 gold talents = 4,680 talents of silver; the total bullion revenue for the Asiatic provinces (including a small part of Libya in Africa) was 14,560 silver talents (Cunningham, *Coins of Ancient India*, pp. 12, 14, 26, 30). India is not included in the list of provinces in the Behistun inscription of 516 B. C., but is included in the lists in the Persepolis and Naksh-i-Rustam inscriptions. The last-named record, inscribed on the sepulchre of Darius, is the fullest (Rawlinson, *Herodotus*, vol. ii, p. 403, note; iv, 177, 207). For the Indian contingent in Xerxes’ army, clad in cotton garments, and armed with cane bows and iron-tipped cane arrows, see Herod. vii. 65. The fact that the Indian troops used iron in 480 B. C. is worth noting. *See* Prof. P. Neogi, *Iron in Ancient India*, Calcutta, 1914.

c10.62

¹ Raverty, ‘The Mihrān of Sind and its Tributaries’ (*J. A. S. B.*, 1892, part 1, esp. pp. 301, 311, 340, 361, 375, 377, 435, 489).

c10.63

According to the Purāṇic lists Udaya’s successors were Nandivardhana and Mahānandin, both of whom are shadowy figures, mere *nominis umbrae*.² The long reigns attributed to them, of forty (or forty-two) and forty-three years respectively, total eighty-three or eighty-five years, are not likely to be correct. The names of both kings, *Nandivardhana* and *Mahānandin*, seem to justify the inference that they were Nandas; and Mahānandin, the last of the dynasty, is said to have had by a Sūdra, or low-caste, woman a son named Mahāpadma Nanda, who usurped the throne, and so established the Nanda family or dynasty. This event may be dated in or about 413 B. C.

c10.64

² In the case of Nandivardhana this statement must be qualified if K. P. Jayaswal’s identification of the two ‘Saiśunāka statues’ in the Indian Museum as those of Udaya and Nandivardhana is correct (*J. B. O. Res. Soc.* v. (1919), pp. 88–106). R. D. Banerji accepts the identification as correct (ibid. v, pp. 210–15). Jayaswal dates Udaya’s reign, 483–467 B. C., and Nandivardhana’s reign, 449–409 B. C. His article deserves careful study.

c10.65

At this point all our authorities become unintelligible and incredible. According to the Purāṇas the last two kings of the Saiśunāga dynasty were followed by the ‘Nine Nandas’, namely king Mahāpadma (eighty-eight years) and his eight sons (twelve years), of whom the first was named Sukalpa, with variants.¹ These two generations are thus supposed to have reigned for a century. It is clear that the history has somehow been falsified and that the chronology cannot be correct. The Jains, doing still greater violence to reason, extend the duration of the dynasty to 155 years, while the Buddhist Mahāvaṁsa, Dīpavaṁsa, and Asokāvadāna deepen the confusion by hopelessly muddled and contradictory stories not worth repeating. Some powerful motive, possibly *odium theologicum*, as in other cases, must have existed for the distortion of the history of the so-called 'Nine Nandas' in all forms of the tradition.²

c10.66

¹ Some MSS. of the Purāṇas state the length of Mahāpadma's reign as twenty-eight years only, but apparently all assert that the dynasty lasted for a hundred years.

c10.67

² See note to p. 44, *infra*.

c10.68

The Greek and Roman historians, who derived their information from either Megasthenes or the companions of Alexander, and thus rank as contemporary witnesses reported at second-hand, throw a little light on the real history. When Alexander was stopped in his advance at the Hyphasis in 326 B. C., he was informed by a native chieftain named Bhagala or Bhagēla, whose statements were confirmed by Pōros, that the king of the Gangaridae and Prasii nations on the banks of the Ganges was named, as nearly as the Greeks could catch the unfamiliar sounds, Xandrames or Agrammes. This monarch was said to command a force of 20,000 horse, 200,000 foot, 2,000 chariots, and 3,000 or 4,000 elephants. Inasmuch as the capital of the Prasii nation undoubtedly was Pātaliputra, the reports made to Alexander can have referred only to the king of Magadha, who must have been one of the Nandas mentioned in native tradition.³ The reigning king was alleged to be extremely unpopular, owing to his wickedness and base origin. He was, it is said, the son of a barber, who, having become the paramour of the queen of the last legitimate sovereign, contrived the king's death, and, under pretence of acting as guardian to his sons, got them into his power, and exterminated the royal family. After their extermination he begat the son who was reigning at the time of Alexander's campaign, and who, 'more worthy of his father's condition than his own, was odious and contemptible to his subjects.'¹

c10.69

³ Curtius, Bk. ix, ch. 2; Diodorus, Bk. xvii, ch. 93. The interpretation of the name Phegelas in the text of Curtius as Bhagala is due to Sylvain Lévi (*Journal As.*, 1890, p. 239). The name Bhagēlū is still often heard in Northern India. The names of the Gangaridae and Prasii are corrupted in some texts (McCrindle, *Alexander*, notes C *c* and D *d*).

c10.70

¹ Agrammes (Curtius, Bk. ix, ch. 2), Xandrames (Diodorus, Bk. xvii, ch. 93). All the Hindu and Greek versions of the story are collected in H. H. Wilson's Preface to the *Mudrā-Rākshasa* (*Theatre of the Hindus*, ii, pp. 129-50). The tales in the *Vṛihat-Kathā* and *Mackenzie MSS.* are mere folk-lore.

c10.71

This story confirms the statements of the Purāṇas that the Nanda dynasty was of ambiguous origin and comprised only two generations. The oldest Purāṇa brands the first Nanda, Mahāpadma, as a prince, 'urged on by prospective fortune', whose reign marked the end of the Kshatriya, or high born, kings, and the beginning of the rule of those of low degree, ranking as Sūdras. The Mahāvaṁsa, when it dubs the last Nanda by the name of Dhana or 'Riches', seems to hint at an imputation of avariciousness against the first Nanda; and the Chinese pilgrim Hiuen Tsang also refers to the Nanda Rāja as the reputed possessor of great wealth.²

c10.72

² The five *stūpas* near Pāṭaliputra ascribed to Asoka were attributed by another tradition to Nanda Rāja, and supposed to be his treasuries (Beal, ii. 94). In the *Mudrā-Rākshasa*, Act I, Chāṇakya speaks with contempt of the 'avaricious soul' of Nanda.

c10.73

By putting all the hints together we may conclude with tolerable certainty that the Nanda family really was of base origin, that it acquired power by the assassination of the legitimate king, and retained possession of the throne for two generations only. The great military power of the usurpers, as attested by Greek testimony, was the result of the conquests effected by Bimbisāra and Ajātasatru, and presumably continued by their successors; but the limits of the Nanda dominions cannot be defined, nor can the dates of the dynasty be determined with accuracy. It is quite certain that the two generations did not last for a hundred and fifty-five, and improbable that they lasted for a hundred, years; but it is impossible to determine their actual duration.³

c10.74

³ The longest recorded duration for two generations of kings is found in the history of Orissa. Inscriptions establish that Choṛagaṅga reigned from 998 to 1069 Saka, equivalent approximately to A. D. 1076–1147, and that he was succeeded by four sons, who reigned until A. D. 1198. Those figures give about 122 years for five reigns and two generations (M. M. Chakravarti, 'Chronology of the Eastern Ganga Kings of Orissa', *J. A. S. B.*, part I, vol. lxxii, 1903).

c10.75

The period of ninety-one years has been assumed as fitting into a definite chronological scheme.

c10.76

However mysterious the Nine Nandas may be—if, indeed, they really were nine¹—there is no doubt that the last of them was deposed and slain by Chandragupta Maurya, who seems to have been an illegitimate scion of the family.²

c10.77

¹ K. P. Jayaswal interprets *nava-Nandāh* as meaning the 'new', not the 'nine Nandas'. See *J. B. O. Res. Soc.* iv. 91–5. On this supposition they must be distinguished from Kshemendra's *Pūrvanandāh*, the 'early' Nandas, namely Nanda(or Nandi)vardhana and Mahānanda (or -nandin). Harit Krishna Deb (ibid.) gives good reasons for believing that Chandragupta Maurya was a kinsman of the respectable early Nandas and not a Sūdra or low-caste man, like the later Nandas of ill-repute.

c10.78

² Nanda Rāja is mentioned twice in the mutilated Prākrit inscription at Udayagiri of the Jain king of Kalinga, named Siri Khāravēla Mahāmegha-vāhana. The text of the inscription has been settled as far as possible in 1917 by R. D. Banerji and K. P. Jayaswal (*J. B. O. Res. Soc.*, vol. iii, Dec. 1917, pp. 425–507). The inscription is a record of the royal doings in peace and war for thirteen years of the reign of king Khāravela of Kalinga or Orissa, who belonged to the Cheta dynasty and was a zealous Jain. He carried his arms far westwards, even to Berar, defying the might of Sātakarṇi, the third Āndhra king. The inscription is dated in the year 165 or 164 of the era of 'Rājā Muriya', *scil.* Chandragupta, which began about 322 B. C. and so is equivalent to about 157 or 158 B. C. It refers to a Nanda king, probably Nandivardhana, having made a canal about 300 years before the fifth year of Khāravela (165 B. C.), and therefore in about 465 B. C. (See, however, R. C. Majumdar's Notes on the Khāravela inscription in *Ind. Ant.*, 1918, p. 223 and 1919, pp. 187–191. He dissents from the interpretation of this date. The subject requires to be still further discussed, and for the present I accept the reading of Messrs. Banerji and Jayaswal.)

c10.79

Sir G. Grierson informs me that the Nandas were reputed to be bitter enemies of the Brahmans, and that their reign was therefore excluded from chronological computation by the poet Chand in the twelfth century, who used the *Ananda* ('without Nanda') form of the Vikrama era, less by ninety or ninety-one than the ordinary reckoning. The word 'nanda' seems to be used as equivalent to 'nine' (100–9 = 91). It is very probable that the Nandas were Jains and therefore hateful to the Brahmans, who would naturally regard them as unholy persons unworthy of inclusion in orthodox Hindu annals. It is unquestionable that the Nanda king dethroned by Chandragupta was a heretic in Hindu eyes, for the concluding verse of Kantilya's *Arthasāstra* (transl. by Shāma Sastri) states that 'this *Sāstra* has been made by him who from intolerance (of misrule) quickly rescued the scriptures and the science of weapons and the earth which had passed to the Nanda king'. (The text is quoted by R. K. Mukerji in Introd., p. xiii, to N. N. Law, *Studies in Ancient Hindu Polity*.) The supposition that the last Nanda was either a Jain or a Buddhist is strengthened by the fact that one form of the local tradition attributed to him the erection of the Pānch Pahārī at Patna, a group of ancient *stūpas* which might be either Jain or Buddhist.

c10.80

There is no difficulty in believing the tradition that the revolution involved the extermination of all related to the fallen monarch, for revolutions in the East are not effected without much shedding of blood. Nor is there any reason to discredit the statements that the usurper was attacked by a confederacy of the northern powers, including Kashmīr, and that the attack failed owing to the Machiavellian intrigues of Chandragupta's Brahman adviser, who is variously named Chānakya, Kautilya, or Vishnugupta. But it would not be safe to rely on the details given in our only authority, a play written centuries after the events referred to; nor would there be any use in recounting the wondrous tales, mostly belonging to the world's common stock of folk-lore, which have been recorded in various books, and relate the miracles attendant upon the birth and youth of Chandragupta, the first strictly historical universal monarch of India.¹

c10.81

¹ The *Mudrā-Rākshasa* play gives a very interesting and detailed account of the revolution. Scholars used to believe that the play dated from the seventh century (Rapson, *J.R.A.S.*, 1900, p. 535). Jacobi, observing that some MSS. substitute the name of Avantivarman for that of Chandragupta, held that it was performed before Avantivarman of Kashmīr on Dec. 2, 860 (*Vienna Or. J.*, vol. ii (1888), p. 212). But Hillebrandt, Speyer, and Tawney affirm it to be much older, and certainly anterior to the earliest recension of the *Panchatantra* and to Bhartrihari who died in A. D. 651. It is suggested that the play may have been composed in the time of Chandragupta II, about A. D. 400. I agree with Prof. Hillebrandt that the author 'scheint auf sehr genauen Nachrichten zu fussen und sehr weit an die ursprüngliche Tradition des Hofes heranzureichen;' that is to say, that the plot is based on accurate information and ancient court tradition (reprint from *86. Jahresber. d. Schlesischen Gesellsch. für vaterl. Cultur*, July, 1908, p. 29). Prof. Tawney's remarks are in *J.R.A.S.*, 1908, p. 910. Konow is inclined to agree with Speyer and assigns the play to the fourth century (*Ind. Ant.*, 1914, p. 68). See also 'The Date of the Mudra-Rakshasa', *Ind. Ant.*, Oct. 1913, pp. 265-7.

c10.82

His accession to the throne of Magadha may be dated between 325 and 320 B. C., perhaps in 322 B. C. The dominions of the Magadha crown were then extensive, certainly including the territories of the nations called Prasii and Gangaridae by the Greeks, and probably comprising at least the kingdoms of Kosala, Tirhūt or North Bihār, and Benares, as well as Anga and Magadha proper or South Bihār. Two or three years before the revolution at Pātaliputra, Alexander had swept like a hurricane through the Panjāb and Sind, and it is said that Chandragupta, then a youth, had met the mighty Macedonian.¹ Whether that anecdote be true or not, and I see no reason to doubt its truth, it is certain that the troubles consequent upon the departure of Alexander gave young Chandragupta his opportunity. He assumed the command of the native revolt against the foreigner, and destroyed most of the Macedonian garrisons. The language of our authorities seems to imply that the destruction of the Nanda royal family preceded the attack on the foreign settlements in the basin of the Indus. The revolution was not completed in a moment, it being clear that the various stages occupied at least a year. When all opposition had been crushed by force or circumvented by guile, Chandragupta, in the vigour of his early manhood, stood forth as the unquestioned master of Northern India.² But before the story of the deeds of Chandragupta Maurya and the descendants who succeeded him on the throne of Magadha can be told, we must pause to unfold the wondrous tale of the Indian adventure of 'Philip's warlike son'.

c10.83

¹ Plutarch, *Life of Alexander*, ch. lxii. The words of Plutarch are:—'Androkottos himself, who was then but a youth, saw Alexander himself, and afterwards used to declare that Alexander could easily have taken possession of the whole country, since the king was hated and despised by his subjects for the wickedness of his disposition and the meanness of his origin' (McCrindle's transl.).

c10.84

² 'Siquidem occupato regno, populum quem ab externa dominatione vindicaverat, ipse [*scil.* Sandracottus] servitio premebat . . . Molienti deinde bellum adversus praefectos Alexandri . . . Sic acquisito regno, Sandracottus ea tempestate, qua Seleucus futurae magnitudinis fundamenta iaciebat, Indiam possidebat' (Justin, xv. 4). The language does not state the order of events quite clearly, but the word *deinde* seems to imply that the palace revolution at Pātaliputra preceded the attack on Alexander's governors. In *Mudrā-Rākshasa*, Act iv, Malayaketu, the hill chieftain, observes:—

Linked texts (25)