A History of Sanskrit Literature c31.s3.6

c31.s3.6

Efforts have naturally been made to find at least striking resemblances between the account given in the *Arthaçāstra* and the fragments of Megasthenes. The effort is a complete failure;¹ coincidences there are many in number, but on matters which hold good of India generally in the period before and after Christ. The vital resemblances of important detail are absolutely lacking, even when we put aside all those statements of the Greek author which rest doubtless on misunderstandings or are obscurely reported. The *Arthaçāstra* knows nothing of the wooden fortification of Pāṭaliputra but provides for stone work; it ignores the boards of town officials without any head of each, but engaged in co-operation which Megasthenes specifies; it knows nothing of the commander-in-chief of the fleet, and a regular navy such as Candragupta must have used, but which was probably of minor account in many states. The care of strangers, escorting them to the border, seeing after their effects if deceased, are unknown to the *Arthaçāstra*, which does not provide for the registration of births and deaths, while the work of Megasthenes' board in selling old and new manufactured articles contrasts strikingly with the highly developed commercial and industrial conditions envisaged by the *Arthaçāstra*. Megasthenes' statement as to the king's ownership of the land is supported by other Indian evidence; it is not the view of the *Arthaçāstra*; Megasthenes describes a knowledge of minerals far less advanced than that of the *Arthaçāstra* which knows much of alchemy; the taxes of Megasthenes are simple as compared with the numerous imposts of the text, and, while Megasthenes ignores writing, the *Arthaçāstra* is full of rules on registration, the preparation of royal documents, and recognizes passports.²