[611] Strabo, p. 687, 711. Plin, "H. N." 6, 23. If Strabo observes that wine is never brought to maturity in this district (_i.e._ North Cabulistan) the observation only holds good for the more elevated valleys.

[612] Arrian, "Anab." 5, 1; Curt. 8, 10; Plut. "Alex." c. 58; Diod. 3, 62, 64. Here Diodorus also mentions the names of the Indian kings whom Dionysus has conquered, Myrrha.n.u.s and Desiades, while in 2, 38 he has stated that the Indians before Dionysus had no kings at all.

[613] "Il." 2, 508; 6, 133. Homeric hymn in Diod. 1, 15; 4, 2. Cf.

Strabo, p. 405; Herod. 5, 7; Diod. 3, 63, 64; Herod. 2, 146; 3, 97, and Steph. Byz. [Greek: Nysa]. Euripides is the first to speak of Dionysus'

march to Persia and Bactria. Strabo, p. 687.

[614] La.s.sen, as already remarked, opposes Nishada and Parapanishada as the upper and lower mountain range. Nearly in the same region, but apparently in the range between Cashmere and the kingdom of Paurava (_supra_, p. 391), _i.e._ to the east of the Indus, legend speaks of the Utsavasanketa, who, as their name implies, pa.s.sed their lives in feasting and conviviality (_utsava_, festival; _sanketa_, meeting).

La.s.sen, 2, 135; Wilson, Vishnu-Purana, p. 167 ff.; and the places in the Mahabharata, in La.s.sen, _loc. cit._ Modern travellers maintain that some tribes in the Hindu Kush are very partial to the wine which is produced abundantly in the mountains, and lead a life of joviality. Ritter, "Asien," Th. 4. Bd. 1, 450, 451.

[615] Strabo, p. 689. Arrian, "Ind." 5, 9.

[616] Strabo, p. 688, 699, 710.

[617] Muir, "Sanskrit Texts," 4, 195. "Vishnu-Purana," ed. Wilson, p.

591.

[618] _Infra_, chap. viii.

[619] La.s.sen, _loc. cit._ 2, 110.

[620] Ctesias, "Ind. ecl." 8.

[621] Strabo, p. 709. Arrian, "Ind." 17, 4.

[622] Strabo, p. 709.

[623] Megasthenes in Athen. p. 153, ed. Schweigh.

[624] Arrian, "Ind." 16, 1-5.

[625] Strabo, p. 688, 699, 709, 710, 712. Arrian, "Ind." 7, 9.

[626] Arrian, _loc. cit._ 17, 1, 2.

[627] Burnouf, "Introd." p. 238.

[628] "Ramayana," ed. Schlegel, 1, 6.

[629] "Ramayana," ed. Schlegel, 2, 47.

[630] Burnouf, "Introd." p. 240.

[631] It is clear that this statement cannot refer to the inhabitants of Takshacila, for Aristobulus rather ascribes to them the custom of the Iranians, who exposed corpses for vultures to eat them. Aristobulus in Strabo, p. 714.

[632] Strabo, p. 709. Arrian, "Ind." 10. Manu, 3, 232.

[633] Ctes. "Ind. ecl." 4. Ritter, "Erdkunde," 3, 2, 1187. Humboldt, "Kosmos," 2, 417.

[634] Ctesias, _loc. cit._ "ecl." 19-21. Aelian, "Hist. Anim." 4, 46.

[635] Ctesias, _loc. cit._ "ecl." 28. La.s.sen, _loc. cit._ 2, 560.

[636] Strabo. p. 717. Arrian, "Ind." 16, 6; _supra_, p. 404.

[637] Arrian, "Ind." 16, 11. Strabo, p. 717. Aelian, "Hist. Anim." 3, 16.

[638] Strabo, p. 709.

[639] Strabo, p. 714, 708. Arrian, "Ind." 7, 9. Curtius, 8, 14, _supra_, p. 89.

CHAPTER VI.

CHANDRAGUPTA OF MAGADHA.

The life of the Indians had developed without interference from without, following the nature of the country and the impulse of their own dispositions. Neither Cyrus nor Darius had crossed the Indus. The arms of the Macedonians were the first to reach and subjugate the land of the Panjab. The character and manners of another nation, whose skill in war, power, and importance only made themselves felt too plainly, and to whom civilisation and success could not be denied, were not only suddenly brought into immediate proximity to the Indians, but had the most direct influence upon them.

We saw how earnestly Alexander's views were directed to the lasting maintenance of his conquests, even in the distant east. Far-seeing as were his arrangements for this purpose, strong and compact as they appeared to be, they were not able long to resist the national aversion of the Indians to foreign rule, after Alexander's untimely death.

Philippus, whom he had nominated satrap of the Panjab, was attacked and slain by mutinous mercenaries, soon after Alexander's departure from India. These soldiers had been defeated by the Macedonians of Philippus, in whose place Eudemus together, with Mophis the prince of Takshacila was charged with the temporary government of this satrapy.[640] After Alexander's death (June 11, 323 B.C.), Perdiccas, the administrator of the empire, published an edict from Babylon, that "Mophis and Porus," so Diodorus tells us, "should continue to be sovereigns of these lands in the same manner as Alexander had arranged." According to Justin also the satraps already in existence were retained in India; Peithon, whom Alexander had made satrap of the lower Indus, received the command of the colonies founded there.[641] In the division of the satrapies made by Antipater at Triparadeisus in the year 321 B.C., Peithon is said to have received the satrapy of upper India, while the lower region of the Indus and the city of Pattala were allotted to Porus, whose kingdom was thus largely extended. The land of Mophis, in the Vitasta, was also considerably increased. "They could not be overcome without a large army and an eminent general," says Diodorus; "it would not have been easy to remove them," Arrian tells us, "for they had considerable power."[642]

Porus, at any rate, was removed in another manner. Eudemus, whom Alexander had made temporary governor of the satrapy of the Panjab, must have maintained his position; he caused Porus to be murdered, and seized his elephants for himself.[643]

Sandrakottos, an Indian of humble origin, so Justin relates, had offended king Nandrus by his impudence,[644] and the king gave orders for his execution. But his swiftness of foot saved him. Wearied with the exertion he fell asleep; a great lion approached and licked the sweat from him, and when Sandrakottos awoke the lion left him, fawning as he went. This miracle convinced Sandrakottos that he was destined for the throne. He collected a troop of robbers, called on the Indians to join him, and became the author of their liberation. When he prepared for war with the viceroy of Alexander, a wild elephant of monstrous size came up, took him on his back, and bore him on fighting bravely in the war and the battle. But the liberation which Sandrakottos obtained for the Indians was soon changed into slavery; he subjugated to his own power the nation he had set free from the dominion of strangers. At the time when Seleucus was laying the foundation of his future greatness, Sandrakottos was already in possession of India.[645] Plutarch observes that Sandrakottos had seen Alexander in his early years, and afterwards used to say that the latter could have easily subdued the Prasians, _i.e._ the kingdom of Magadha, as the king, owing to his wickedness and low origin, was hated and despised. Not long after Sandrakottos conquered the whole of India with an army of 600,000 men.[646]

According to this, Sandrakottos, while still a youth, must have been in the Panjab and the land of the Indus in the years 326 and 325 B.C. when, as we have seen, Alexander marched through them. He may therefore be regarded as a native of those regions. Soon afterwards he must have entered the service of king Nandrus, who cannot be any other than the Dhanananda of Magadha, already known to us, whom the Greeks call Xandrames, and at a later time he must have escaped from his master to his own home, the land of the Indus. Here he found adherents and summoned his countrymen to their liberation. They followed him; he fought with success against the viceroys, including, no doubt, Mophis of Takshacila, and after expelling them he gained the dominion over the whole land of the Indus. The miracles recorded by Justin point to native tradition; we have seen how readily the warriors of India compared themselves with lions. And when Sandrakottos called out his people against the Greeks, it is the beast of India, the elephant, which takes him on his back and carries him on the way to victory. Chandragupta's martial achievements and successes surpa.s.sed all that had previously taken place in India; it is sufficiently intelligible that the tradition of the Indians should represent his rapid elevation as indicated by marvels, and surround it with such.

We can fix with tolerable exactness the date at which Sandrakottos destroyed the satrapies established in the land of the Indus by Alexander. In the year 317 B.C. Eudemus is in Susiana, in the camp of Eumenes, who at that time was fighting against Antigonus for the integrity of the kingdom. The three or four thousand Macedonians, with 120 elephants, which Eudemus brings to Eumenes, appear to be the remains of the Macedonian power on the eastern bank of the Indus. Peithon, Agenor's son (p. 407), we find in the year 316 B.C. as the satrap of Antigonus in Babylon.[647] Hence the power of the Greeks in the Panjab must have come to an end in the year 317 B.C. Eudemus could not have removed Porus before the year 320 B.C., for, as has been observed, Porus is mentioned in 321 as the reigning prince. Hence we may a.s.sume that in the period between 325 and 320 B.C. Sandrakottos was in the service of the king of Magadha, Dhanananda-Nandrus, that in or immediately after the year 320 he fled to the Indus, and there, possibly availing himself of the murder of Porus, summoned the Indians to fight against the Greeks, and became the sovereign of them and of Mophis by the year 317 B.C.

When master of the land of the Indus, Sandrakottos turned with the forces he had gained against the kingdom of Magadha. The weakness of the rule of Dhanananda was no doubt well known to him from personal experience; here also he was victorious. With a very large army he then proceeded to carry his conquests beyond the borders of Magadha. Justin tells us that he was in possession of the whole of India when Seleucus laid the foundations of his power. Seleucus, formerly in the troop of the 'companions' of Alexander, the son of Antiochus, founded his power when he gained Babylon, fighting with Ptolemy against Antigonus in 312 B.C., which city Peithon was unable to retain, and afterwards, in the same year, conquered the satraps of Iran. Hence in the year 315 B.C.

Sandrakottos must have conquered Magadha and ascended the throne of Palibothra, since as early as 312 he could undertake further conquests, and by that time, according to Justin, had brought the whole of India, _i.e._ the entire land of the Ganges, under his dominion.

According to the accounts of the Buddhists, Chandragupta (Sandrakottos) sprang from the house of the Mauryas. At the time when Viradhaka, the king of the Kocalas, destroyed Kapilavastu, the home of the Enlightened (p. 363), a branch of the royal race of the cakyas had fled to the Himalayas, and there founded a small kingdom in a mountain valley. The valley was named after the numerous peac.o.c.ks (_mayura_) found in it; and the family who migrated there took the name of Maurya from the land.

When Chandragupta's father reigned in this valley, powerful enemies invaded it; the father was killed, the mother escaped to Palibothra with her unborn child. When she had brought forth a boy there, she exposed him in the neighbourhood of a solitary fold. A bull, called Chandra (moon) from a white spot in his forehead, protected the child till the herdman found it, and gave it the name of Chandragupta, _i.e._ protected by the moon. The herdman reared the boy, but when no longer a child he handed him over to a hunter. While with the latter he played with the boys of the village, and held a court of justice like a king; the accused were brought forward, and one lost a hand, another a foot.

Chanakya, a Brahman of Takshacila, observed the conduct of the boy, and concluded that he was destined for great achievements. He bought Chandragupta from the herdman, discovered that he was a Maurya, and determined to make him the instrument of his revenge on king Dhanananda who had done him a great injury. In the hall of the king's palace Chanakya had once taken the seat set apart for the chief Brahman, but the king had driven him out of it. When Chandragupta had grown up, Chanakya placed him at the head of an armed troop, which he had formed by the help of money h.o.a.rded for the purpose, and raised a rebellion in Magadha. Chandragupta was defeated, and compelled to fly with Chanakya into the wilderness. Not discouraged by this failure the rebels struck out another plan. Chandragupta began a new attack from the borders, conquered one city after another, and at last Palibothra. Dhanananda was slain; and Chandragupta ascended the throne of Magadha.[648]

Besides the greatness of Chandragupta, the Buddhists had a special reason for glorifying the descent and origin of the founder of a dynasty which afterwards did so much to advance their creed. From this point of view it was very natural for the followers of Buddha to bring a ruler, whose grandson adopted Buddha's doctrines, into direct relation with the founder of their faith, to represent him as springing from the same family to which Buddha had belonged. Chandragupta's family was called the Mauryas; the Buddhists transformed the cakyas into Mauryas. We shall be on much more certain ground if we adhere to Justin's statement that Chandragupta was sprung from a humble family until then unknown. The marvels with which the Buddhists surrounded his youth are easily explained from the effort to bring into prominence the lofty vocation of the founder of the dominion of the Mauryas. His mother escapes destruction. A bull protects the infant, guards the days of the child who is to be mightier than any ruler of India before him. In the game of the boys, Chandragupta shows the vocation for which he is intended.

Though the Buddhist tradition puts the birth of the future king of Palibothra in that city, it allows us nevertheless to discover that Chandragupta belongs to the land of the Indus by making him the slave and instrument of a man of the Indus, Chanakya of Takshacila. And as Justin represents Chandragupta as injuring the king of Magadha, and escaping death only by the most rapid flight, so does the tradition of the Buddhists represent him as having excited a rebellion in Magadha, the utter failure of which compels him to take refuge in flight.

In all that is essential to the story there is scarcely any contradiction between the narration of Justin and the Buddhists. We may grant to the latter that Sandrakottos, relying too much on the weakness of the throne of Magadha, raised a rebellion there, which failed of success. He flies for refuge into the land of the Indus. Successful there, and finally master of the whole, he is encouraged by his great triumphs to attack Magadha from the borders, _i.e._ from the land of the Indus, and now he captures one city after the other, until at length he takes Palibothra. This means that when he had become lord of the land of the Indus by the conquest of the Greeks and their va.s.sals, he accomplishes, with the help of the forces of this region, what he had failed to carry out with his adherents in Magadha. We may certainly believe the tradition of the Buddhists that Dhanananda was slain at or after the capture of Palibothra.[649]

In ancient times the tribes of the Aryas had migrated from the Panjab into the valley of the Ganges; advancing by degrees they had colonised it as far as the mouth of the river. These colonists had now been conquered from their ancient home. For the first time the land of the Indus stood under one prince, for the first time the Indus and the Ganges were united into one state. After Sandrakottos had summoned the nations of the west against the Greeks, he conquered the nations of the east with their a.s.sistance. It was an empire such as no Indian king had possessed before, extending from the Indus to the mouth of the Ganges, over the whole of Aryavarta from the Himalayas to the Vindhyas. In the south-west it reached beyond the kingdom of the western Pandus to the peninsula of Guzerat, beyond the city of Automela (p. 409), and the kingdom of Ujjayini; in the south-east it went beyond Orissa to the borders of the Kalingas (p. 410). In regard to the management of this wide empire founded by Chandragupta, Megasthenes tells us that the king was surrounded by supreme counsellors, treasurers, and overseers of the army. Besides these there were numerous officers. The management of the army was carried on in divisions, which cannot surprise us after the statements of the Greeks about the strength of the army which Chandragupta maintained; Megasthenes puts it at 400,000, and Plutarch at 600,000.[650] One division attended to the elephants, another to the horses, which like the former were kept in the royal stables; the third to the chariots of war. The fourth was charged with the arming of the infantry and the care of the armoury; at the end of each campaign the soldiers had to return their weapons. The fifth division undertook the supervision of the army, the baggage, the drummers, the cymbal-bearers, the oxen for drawing the provision-waggons;[651] and the sixth was charged with the care of the fleet. Manu's law has mentioned to us six branches of the army, beside the four divisions of the battle array; elephants, hors.e.m.e.n, chariots of war, and foot soldiers, the baggage as the fifth, and the officers as the sixth member (p. 220). The land was divided into districts, which were governed by head officers and their subordinates; we remember that the book of the law advised the kings to divide their states into smaller and larger districts of ten, twenty, a hundred, or a thousand places (p. 214). Besides the officers of the districts, the judges and tax-gatherers, there were, according to Megasthenes, overseers of the mines, the woodcutters, and the tillers of the land. Other officers had the care of the rivers and the roads. These caused the highways to be made or improved, measured them, and at each ten stades, _i.e._ at each yodhana (1-1/4 mile) set up a pillar to show the distances and the direction. The great road from the Indus to Palibothra was measured by the chain; in length it was ten thousand stades, _i.e._ 1250 miles, a statement which will not be far wrong if this road left the Indus near the height of Takshacila, as we may a.s.sume that it did.[652] The book of the priests is acquainted with royal highways, and forbids their defilement; as we have seen, trade was vigorous in the land of the Ganges as early as the sixth century B.C.; the sutras of the Buddhists, no less than the Epos, often mention good roads extending for long distances.[653] The magistrates who had care of the rivers had to provide that the ca.n.a.ls and conduits were in good order, so that every one might have the water necessary for irrigation.

The cities in turn had other officers, who superintended the handicrafts, fixed the measures, and collected the taxes in them. Of these officers there were thirty in every city, and they were divided into six distinct colleges of five members each. The first superintended the handicraftsmen, the second the aliens, who were carefully watched, but supported even in cases of sickness, buried when dead, and their property conveyed to their heirs. The third college kept the list of taxes and the register of births and deaths, in order that the taxes might be properly raised. The fourth managed the inns, and trade, in order that correct measures might be used, and fruits sold by stamped weights. The same tradesman could not sell different wares without paying a double tax. The fifth college superintended the products of the handicraftsmen and their sale, and marked the old and new goods; the sixth collected the tenth on all buying and selling.[654] According to the book of the priests the king was to fix the measures and weights, and have them examined every six months; the same is to be done with the value of the precious metals. It ordains penalties for those who use false weights, conceal deficiencies in their wares, or sell what is adulterated. The market price for necessaries is to be settled and published every five or at any rate every fourteen days. After a computation of the cost of production and transport, and consultation with those who are skilled in the matter, the king is to fix the price of their wares for merchants, for purchase and sale; trade in certain things he can reserve for himself and declare to belong to the king, just as in some pa.s.sages of the book of the law mining is reserved for the king, and in others he receives the half of all produce from mines of gold, silver, and precious stones. The king can take a twentieth of the profit of the merchant for a tax. In order to facilitate navigation in the great rivers certain rates were fixed, which differed according to the distance and the time of the year. The waggon filled with merchandise had to pay for the use of the roads according to the value of the goods; an empty waggon paid only the small sum of a pana, a porter half a pana, an animal a quarter, a man without any burden an eighth, etc. Any one who undertook to deliver wares in a definite time at a definite place, and failed to do so, was not to receive the freight. The price of transport by sea could not be fixed by law; when differences arose the decisions of men who were acquainted with navigation were to be valid. The book of the law requires from the merchants a knowledge of the measures and weights, of the price of precious stones, pearls, corals, iron, stuffs, perfumes, and spices.

They must know how the goods are to be kept, and what wages to pay the servants. Lastly, they must have a knowledge of various languages.[655]

Megasthenes' account of the management of the cities shows that these precepts were carried out to a considerable extent; that trade was under superintendence, and taxed with a tenth instead of a twentieth, and that a strict supervision was maintained over the market.