The Mauryan Polity c5.s3.t1.9

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