Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Mauryan Polity c5.s3.t1: Date of the visit

The Mauryan Polity c5.s3.t1

Language
English

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 (4)