A History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, so far as it illustrates the Primitive Religion of the Brahmans c8.s3.90

c8.s3.90

These accounts of the classical writers contain a number of distinct statements which could leave very little doubt as to the king to whom they referred. Indian historians, it is true, are generally so vague and so much given to exaggeration, that their kings are all very much alike, either all black or all bright. But nevertheless, if there ever was such a king as the king of the Prasii, an usurper, residing at Pâtaliputra, called Sandrocyptus or Sandracottus, it is hardly possible that he should not be recognized in the historical traditions of India. There is in the lists of the kings of India the name of Chandragupta, and the resemblance of this name with the name of Sandracottus or Sandrocyptus was first, I believe, pointed out by Sir William Jones.¹ Wilford, Professor Wilson, and Professor Lassen have afterwards added further evidence in confirmation of Sir W. Jones's conjecture; and although other scholars, and particularly M. Troyer, in his edition of the Râjataranginî, have raised objections, we shall see that the evidence in favour of the identity of Chandragupta and Sandrocyptus is such as to admit of no reasonable doubt. It is objected that the Greeks called the king of the powerful empire beyond the Indus, Xandrames, or Aggramen. Now the last name is evidently a mere misspelling for Xandrames, and this Xandrames is not the same as Sandracottus. Xandrames, if we understand the Greek accounts rightly, is the predecessor of Chandragupta or rather the last king of the empire conquered by Sandracottus. If, however, it should be maintained, that these two names were intended for one and the same king, the explanation would still be very easy. For Chandragupta (the protected of the moon), is also called Chandra¹, the Moon; and Chandramas, in Sanskrit, is a synonyme of Chandra. Xandrames, however, was no doubt intended as different from Chandragupta. Xandrames must have been king of the Prasii before Sandracottus, and during the time of Alexander's wars. If this Xandrames is the same as the last Nanda, the agreement between the Greek account of his mean extraction, and the Hindu account of Nanda being a Śûdra, would be very striking. It is not, however, quite clear whether the same person is meant in the Greek and Hindu accounts. At the time of Alexander's invasion Sandracottus was very young, and being obliged to fly before Alexander, whom he had offended, it is said that he collected bands of robbers, and with their help succeeded in establishing the freedom of India. Plutarch says distinctly that Sandracottus reigned soon after, that is soon after Xandrames, and we know from Justin, that it was Sandracottus, and not Xandrames, who waged wars with the captains of Alexander. Another objection against the identification of Chandragupta and Sandracottus was the site of their respective capitals. The capital of Chandragupta, Pâṭaliputra, was no doubt the same as the Palibothra of Sandracottus, the modern Patna. But exception was taken on the ground that Patna is not situated near the confluence of the Ganges and the Sone or Erannoboas, where the ancient Palibothra stood. This, however, has been explained by a change in the bed of the river Sone, which is established on the best geographical evidence.