The Mauryan Polity c5.s3.8

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