The Mauryan Polity c5.s3: Sec. iii. Evidence of Classical Writers
The Mauryan Polity c5.s3
- Language
- English
Contents
- c5.s3.t1 Date of the visit — 20 parts
Sec. iii. Evidence of Classical Writers
c5.s3.1
So much has been written both on points of similarity and points of dissimilarity between Megasthenes' Fragments and the *Kauṭalīya Arthaśāstra*. Every scholar who has had to deal with the Mauryan period or with the *Arthaśāstra* has not failed to refer to the fragments of Megasthenes. A notable endeavour in this direction is by Otto Stein who has examined the whole question in his book *Megasthenes und Kauṭalya* and has essayed not with much success to establish the thesis that Kauṭalya the author of the *Arthaśāstra* could not have been a contemporary of Megasthenes. In the introduction Stein writes: "The aim of this work is as far as possible to give all the corresponding items between the two and compare them in details. It is however difficult to find out an objective view-point for the order of the passages which have been compared, because we are concerned with works of different nature. In the one we have a collection of geographical and ethnographical fragments. In the other we have a text-book about administration including home and foreign policy. Besides one cannot include topographical, mythological, and even pseudo-historical statements. A comparison in the order of fragments would lead an an external view-point which is unpractical for our present purpose.”¹
c5.s3.2
¹ “Zweck der vorliegenden Arbeit ist es, eine in einzelnan durchgeführte Vergleichung möglichst aller vergleichbaren Punkte zu geben. Schwer ist es, einen objektiven Gesichtspunkt für die Anardnung der verglichenen Stellen zu finden, da es sich doch um in ihrer Natur verschiedene Werke—hier eine geographisch-ethnigraphische Fragmentsammlung, dort ein Lehrbuch über Verwaltung, innere und äusere Politik—handelt. Ferner musten geographische, mythologische, (pseudo-) historische Nachrichten auser Betracht bleiben; eine Vergleichung der Fragmente ihrer Reihenfolge nach-wäre ein äuselicher, zudem für die Darstellung unpraktischer Gesichtspunkt gewesen.” Megasthenes und Kauṭalya, p. 16.
c5.s3.3
The remarks of Otto Stein in the above passage demonstrate how on a feeble foundation a theory is being built by him. No theory can stand by mere comparison or contrast of two sets of documents, one foreign and the other indigenous, which treat, in Stein's own words, of different subject-matter. The following reasons could be adduced in favour of the theory that Megasthenes' Fragments could not be taken seriously as a source of evidence for reconstructing the history of Mauryan India.
c5.s3.4
First, about the personality of the Greek writer, Megasthenes, ancient literary records offer only scanty information. It has not been conclusively shown which his native home was and in what dialect he left his accounts. It is obvious that he was a Greek. Anything more than this is a supposition with no evidence to support.¹
c5.s3.5
¹ *Megasthenes und Kauṭalya*, p. 1. Cp. B. Breloer, *Kauṭaliya Studien* (1927), I, p. 48.
c5.s3.6
Secondly, we are not in possession of all the documents which Megasthenes is said to have left concerning India.² It is generally believed that Megasthenes' *Indika* consisted of four books. But what we have to-day is a fragment culled out from his books of *Indika* here and there by other interested writers. It is highly regrettable that not even one full book of the *Indika* is available. And what is available, though fragmentary, is not even the original document but quotations made by his contemporaries and successors from such original documents. How far the quotations are faithful to the original is of course a matter of opinion. Granting them to be faithful only such statements as particularly interest the writer would have been quoted leaving out of account the context or the chain of circumstances under which they were made by the author. It is, therefore, difficult to attach full significance to these fragments.
c5.s3.7
² Breloer op. cit., p. 47.
c5.s3.8
Thirdly, the value of the statements expressed therein is not quite appreciable.³ We cannot take every one of the statements at its face value and implicitly believe it to be a true picture of the times. Regarding the veracity of Megasthenes and the value of his writings, Schwanbeck, who has done signal service for the cause of Indian history by collecting together the Fragments of the *Indika* of Megasthenes in one volume, writes: "The ancient writers, whenever they judge of those who have written on Indian matters, are without doubt wont to reckon Megasthenes among those writers who are given to lying and least worthy of credit and to rank him almost on a par with Ktesias."¹ It has been already said that the *Indika* was largely used by subsequent writers. Among them figure Strabo, Arrian, Diodorus, and Plinius. How these writers handled the *Indika* is given to us by the same authority Schwanbeck. It is said that both Strabo and Arrian did not take the very original but abridged the descriptions given by Megasthenes and presented them in an agreeable and pleasant style. Consequently the writers omitted "whatever would be out of place in an entertaining narrative". Such particulars which have been left unmentioned or partially mentioned would have enriched our knowledge of India in the 4th century B.C. Diodorus, on the other hand, did not attempt in the style in which Strabo wanted it. The object of Diodorus seems to have been to use the *Indika* for imparting instruction to others. Diodorus then had an express view and with this view he made extracts from the *Indika* at random. The result was that he had to omit not only fiction but also fact. Again Strabo and others narrate to us practically the same things and no fresh material is made available. This evidently shows that the major and perhaps the more valuable portion of the *Indika* has been lost beyond any probability of recovery.²
c5.s3.9
³ See *Vedic Index*, Vol. II, p. 214; N. N. Law, *Studies in Ind. History and Culture*, p. 230 ff.
c5.s3.10
¹ *Ancient India as described by Megasthenes and Arrian*, Tr. McCrindle, p. 18.
c5.s3.11
² *Ibid.*, pp. 18 and 19.
c5.s3.12
Among the writers who are indebted to the *Indika* for the knowledge of India, Strabo’s name was mentioned. Let us hear what he has to say about Megasthenes’ writings. Strabo says: “Generally speaking the men who have hitherto written on the affairs of India were a set of liars. Deimachos holds the first place in the list, Megasthenes comes next; while Onesikritos and Nearchos with others of same class, manage to stammer out a few words of truth.”¹ That is then the tribute paid to Megasthenes by one of his own countrymen who lived not very long after Megasthenes.
c5.s3.13
¹ *Ancient India as described by Megasthenes*, Tr. McCrindle, p. 20.
c5.s3.14
Fourthly, there is the fact of the idealising tendency which is deeply marked in every page of his writings. In this strain says Jolly, Megasthenes “was anxious to present the life and manners of the Indians in a very favourable light, much as at a later period Tacitus in his *Germania* held out the Germans of his time as a model to his own countrymen”.² Influenced perhaps by the stoic philosophy of his times, Megasthenes carried too far the tendency of idealising things so much so that his statements are open to question. Continues Jolly: “In some Megasthenes may have arbitrarily assigned the institutions of other countries to India. Thus his seven classes of population may be an imitation of the seven classes of the Egyptian people, according to Herodotus, though the details differ. The milestones may be a Persian institution. The Philosopher Plato in his idealistic work on the state might have furnished or influenced some of the political theories of Megasthenes. The sensational element is represented by winged serpents, one-horned horses and long-lived elephants of Megasthenes as also by his assertions about the enormous size of the continent of India and the gigantic dimensions of the ditch surrounding the capital of Pāṭaliputra.”¹ This view of the learned German scholar, if true, must relegate to the background the Fragments of Indika. If the tendency to idealise things is prominent it would be rather difficult to get at the fact. As regards the sensational element at least one explanation may be offered. It is that Megasthenes confused folklore with historical facts. Even to-day such folk-tales of winged serpents and horned horses are commonplace in India. Megasthenes might have heard of such stories and without inquiring into the truth muddled up facts with fiction. If we again agree that some institutions of other countries have been arbitrarily assigned to India then any institution may be foreign. There will, therefore, be no necessity for us to compare coincidences or otherwise with a native contemporary work in India. For it is building a theory on doubtful issues.
c5.s3.15
² *Punjab Sanskrit Series: Kauṭalīya Arthaśāstra*, Intro., p. 38.
c5.s3.16
¹ Jolly's edition, p. 41.
c5.s3.17
There is again another point which must be seriously considered. Is the information contained in the Indika an outcome of the first-hand knowledge? In other words, did Megasthenes personally visit, study, and note down his own observations? Were his impressions the consequence of a personal and intimate knowledge of men and things which he observed during his sojourn to this ancient land? It is not very difficult to answer these questions. How many times Megasthenes came to India and how long he stayed each time are still matters of dispute among scholars. Though there is a view that he visited India more than once¹ some scholars are of decided opinion that he must have visited the country only once and would not have stayed long enough to get into touch with the whole of the machinery of administration including social, political, and economic organisations of the land. Schwanbeck is of opinion that he visited India only on one occasion and that he did not see more of India than the parts including Kabul and the Punjab leading to Pāṭaliputra through the royal road. Schwanbeck adds that Megasthenes acknowledges that he knew of the lower part of the country traversed by the Ganges only from hearsay and report.² It is reasonable to presume that Megasthenes could not have had a first-hand knowledge of things excepting the administration of the Capital city where he must have stayed for some time as a state guest. The major portion of the *Indika* must have hence been drawn from mere hearsay and report. Even here he was confronted by a serious handicap which was his ignorance of the language or languages of India. Unacquainted with the languages and literature of the India which he visited Megasthenes could not have correctly portrayed the story of his India however reliable may be the source from which he had his report. We can attach importance and value to a work which is the result of vast travel, long stay, and a good acquaintance with the languages of the country. These three are hardly applicable in the case of Megasthenes. His travel seems to have been limited to a straight road leading to the Capital. As an ambassador we cannot expect him to stay for a long time. After he had delivered the message of his chief he should have left the place. Thirdly he was not familiar with the Indian languages. In these circumstances peculiar in themselves Jolly’s remarks can be taken as true: “His (Megasthenes) work, though earlier in date, is far inferior in intrinsic value to the Itineraries of the Chinese Pilgrims and to the great Arabian work of Alberuni on India.”¹
c5.s3.18
¹ Max Müller, *A History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature*, (1859) p. 277.
c5.s3.19
² Quoted in the Intro., M'Crindle, *Ancient India*, pp. 15-16 (ed. Cal. 1926).
c5.s3.20
¹ Intro., p. 41 to his edition of the *Arthaśāstra*.
Date of the visit
c5.s3.t1.1
Equally important is the fixing of the date of the visit. Megasthenes was the representative of Seleukos at the Court of Sibyrtius, Satrap of Arachosia. He was sent to Pāṭaliputra, Candragupta’s Court, as King’s ambassador. Seleukos Nikator defeated Demetrios, son of Antigonus, in B.C. 312 and got possession of Babylon. He continued to extend his successful march until he reached India in B.C. 305. Perhaps a war broke out which ultimately dwindled into petty skirmishes. Seleukos felt the weight of the strong arm of Candragupta and preferred the path of negotiations to the actual field-operations. By entering into a treaty with Candragupta, Seleukos got a free hand for settling the affairs of the West. In connection with this Megasthenes was sent to the court of Candragupta.
c5.s3.t1.2
Hence Megasthenes must have visited the Indian Capital some time between 302 and 288 B.C. We cannot with any certainty fix exactly the year when he visited Candragupta. There is a version, as has already been pointed out, that Megasthenes' visits to the Indian continent were often and frequent. This view is apparently based on the statement made by Arrian in his *Exped. Alex.* V, (vi), 2. Here he refers—according to Schwanbeck's interpretation of the passage—to frequent interviews with the kings and *not* frequent visits as rendered by other writers.¹ In the same way in his *Indika*² Arrian says: "Megasthenes, so far as appears, did not travel over much of India, though no doubt he saw more of it than those who came with Alexander, the son of Philip, for as he tells us, he resided at the Court of Sandrokottos, the greatest king in India, and also at the Court of Poros, who was still greater than he". This would imply that Megasthenes visited king Poros who was dead in B.C. 317. Lassen regarded this hardly credible and thought 'the mention of Poros a careless addition of a chance transcriber'.³ Schwanbeck would retain the phrase and translate the original "and who was even greater than Poros".⁴ Thus the theory that Megasthenes visited India more than once was due to the misunderstanding of Arrian's statement. Excepting these uncertain passages, there is no other evidence to confirm the theory of frequent visits. On the other hand there is the evidence of Strabo⁵ and of Pliny where mention is made of only one embassy. The passage of Pliny as translated runs thus: "Megasthenes remained for some time with the Indian kings and wrote a history of Indian affairs, that he might hand down to posterity a faithful account of all that he had witnessed.”¹ It is therefore difficult to credit Megasthenes with frequent visits to the Indian Empire. It is reasonable to believe that he saw Candragupta in connection with the treaty and left his impressions of a people whose culture and civilisation evoked enthusiasm and wonderment in his mind.
c5.s3.t1.3
¹ The Italics are mine.
c5.s3.t1.4
² V, p. 220.
c5.s3.t1.5
³ See Intro., p. 14.
c5.s3.t1.6
⁴ Ibid.
c5.s3.t1.7
⁵ XV, p. 702 (Frag. 25); II, p. 70 (Frag. 29).
c5.s3.t1.8
¹ Quoted in Intro., p. 13 (Cal. ed.).
c5.s3.t1.9
If then Megasthenes visited India between the years 302 and 298 B.C.,² he must have noticed the administration of the land in its fully developed state. It was more than two decades since Candragupta ascended the Magadha throne and consolidated his newly acquired empire. And so, his visit should have been during the closing years of the reign of that remarkable emperor. We could be really and fully indebted to Megasthenes if he had taken pains to give us a fuller account like Fa-Hien and Yuan Chwang of later days. The administrative edifice had been erected and it was almost nearing completion. A trustworthy and true representation of that edifice would have been invaluable. But as it is, the whole account is vitiated by discrepancies of a glaring character and this has considerably reduced its intrinsic worth as a source of information for an important period of Hindu India. The evidence of Megasthenes could not be looked upon as something positive and conclusive. The same view has to be pronounced more or less on the evidence of other Greek writers who have written on India. Some of the classical writers who come under this category are Justin, Arrian, Diodorus Siculus, Strabo, Quintus Curtius and Ktesias. Justin narrates legends as historical facts when he says: "Having offended Alexander by his impertinent language he was ordered to be put to death and escaped only by flight. Fatigued with his journey he lay down to rest, when a lion of large size came and licked off the sweat that poured from him with his tongue, and retired without doing him any harm. The prodigy inspired him with ambitious hopes and collecting bands of robbers he roused the Indians to rebellion. When he prepared for war against the captains of Alexander, a wild elephant of enormous size approached him and received him on his back as if he had been tamed."¹ This admixture of history with fable in the account of Justin detracts the value of his documents as a source for reliable history. In regard to Arrian's account, again the same uncertainty prevails. It must be said to his credit that he himself confesses that most of his statements are not original but based on other reports. He says: "Now if anyone wishes to state a reason to account for the number and magnitude of the Indian rivers let him state it. As for myself I have written on this point, as on others, from hearsay."² Though no further proof is required to show that the material contained in his *Indika* is secondhand, still it may be remarked that the *Indika* of Arrian can admit of a three-fold division—the general description of India, the voyage of Nearchos and a description of the southern parts of the world. Of these the first part is based on the accounts of Megasthenes and Eratosthenes and the second on the account left by Nearchos himself. The next set of Greek writers are Diodorus Siculus and Quintus Curtius. Lack of space forbids us to examine their records in detail. How their accounts are inconsistent and conflicting can be seen from their statements regarding Xandrames. The quotations speak for themselves. Diodorus says of him, "that the king was but of mean and obscure extraction, accounted to be a barber's son; that the queen, however, had fallen in love with the barber, had murdered her husband, and that the kingdom had thus devolved upon Xandrames."¹
c5.s3.t1.10
² See Smith, Early History of India, p. 126.
c5.s3.t1.11
¹ Justini Hist. Philipp. Lib., XV, ch. iv, quoted in Müller's History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature.
c5.s3.t1.12
² *Indika*, p. 200 (Cal. ed.).
c5.s3.t1.13
¹ XVII, 93
c5.s3.t1.14
According to Curtius² "the father of Xandrames had murdered the king, and under pretence of acting as guardian to his sons, got them into his power and put them to death; that after their extermination he begot the son who was then king, and who, more worthy of his father's condition than his own, was odious and contemptible to his subjects."³ Strabo like Arrian based his writings on those of Megasthenes, and his account is generally regarded as much less careful than others. Schwanbeck remarks: "Nay, Strabo in his eagerness to be interesting, has gone so far that the topography of India is almost entirely a blank in his pages."⁴ Suffice it to say that Ktesias is also liable to make inaccurate statements. In regard to the value of the records of these classical writers the estimate of Pliny seems to approach nearer the truth. He says⁵: "India was opened up to our knowledge . . . . even by other Greek writers, who, having resided with Indian kings—as for instance Megasthenes and Dionysius—
c5.s3.t1.15
² IX, 2.
c5.s3.t1.16
³ Quoted in Müller's *History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature*, p. 277.
c5.s3.t1.17
⁴ Intro., pp. 17-18n (Cal. ed.).
c5.s3.t1.18
⁵ *His. Nat.*, VI, XXI, 3, quoted in Intro.; p. 20 (Cal. ed.).
c5.s3.t1.19
made known the strength of the races which peopled the country. It is not, however, worth while to study their accounts with care, so conflicting are they, and incredible.” On this account these records are not to be discarded as entirely valueless and thus relegated to oblivion. They are useful as supplementing the knowledge which we gather from other sources of evidence, literary and otherwise. Some unintelligible details and facts presented meagrely in contemporary literature would be made intelligible if the writings could in any way help us. The classical writings are, therefore, useful in that they are supplementary. Such being the case any endeavour to find coincidences and differentiations with an accredited work of the period is bound to prove futile. Still we are compelled to do this¹ because scholars have attempted it rightly or wrongly and have drawn conclusions mostly of an untenable character.
c5.s3.t1.20
¹ See Appendix.
Linked texts (5)
- Ἀλεξάνδρου ἀνάβασις — Λούκιος Φλάουιος Ἀρριανός, Ancient Greek
- Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra — Kauṭilya, Sanskrit
- Historiae Alexandri Magni — Q. Curtius Rufus, Latin
- Ἰνδική — Λούκιος Φλάουιος Ἀρριανός, Ancient Greek
- Naturalis historia — C. Plinius Secundus, Latin