Not to mention the information afforded by the
histories of Alexander's Indian campaign and the accounts of the Seleucid
empire, we have in the memoirs of Megasthenes, a Seleucid envoy at the
court of the first Maurya, a picture, unfortunately fragmentary, of the
country, its administrative and social features, which research continues to
verify in all its main details.
histories of Alexander's Indian campaign and the accounts of the Seleucid
empire, we have in the memoirs of Megasthenes, a Seleucid envoy at the
court of the first Maurya, a picture, unfortunately fragmentary, of the
country, its administrative and social features, which research continues to
verify in all its main details.
Cambridge History of India - v1
] Atic Tetradrachm.
c. 140 B. C.
5. R
## p. 418 (#456) ############################################
418
(CH.
KEY TO PLATES 1. 1V
N
6. R. Agathocles. Obv. Draped bust of Agathocles r. , diademed ; border of dots.
Rev. ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΑΓΑΘΟΚΛΕΟΥΣ Ζeus, naked to waist, standing to
front, holding figure of Hekate in r, and leaning with 1. on sceptre ; to 1. ,
[B. M. ) Attic Tetradrachm. c. 150 B. C.
7. R. Pantaleon. Obv. Draped bust of Pantaleon r. , diademed; border of dots.
Rev. BASIAENE HANTAAEONTOE Similar; but Zeus seated 1. [B. M. )
Attic Tetradrachm. c. 150 B. C.
8. R. Antimachus. Obv. Draped bust of Antimachus r. , wearing kausia; border
of dots. Rev. BALIANE OEOYANTIMAXOY Poseidon, naked to waist,
standing to front, leaning with r. on trident and holding palm in 1. ; to r. N
[B. M. ) Attic Tetradrachm. c. 150 B. C.
9. R. Diodotus (struck by Demetrius I ? ). Obv. Head of Diodotus r. , diademed ;
border of dots. Rev. ΔΙΟΔΟΤΟΥ ΣΩΤΗΡΟΣ Zeus thundering 1. ; in
front, eagle 1. , and wreath. (B. M. ] Attic Tetradrachm. c. 190 B. C.
PLATE IV
1. R. Antiochus II (struck by Agathocles). Obv. ANTIOXOY NIKATOPOS
Head of Antiochus II r. , diademed ; border of dots. Rev. BALIAEYONTOS
ATAOOKAEOYL AIKAIOY Zeus thundering 1. ; in front, eagle 1. , and
wreath; behind, (F1. [B. M. ] Attic Tetradrachm. c. 150 B. C.
2. R. Euthydemus I (struck by Agathocles), Obv. EYO YAHMOY OEOY Head
of Euthydemus I r. , diademed; border of dots. Rev. Same inscription.
Heracles seated 1. on rock, grasping in r. his club, end of which rests on
knee ; to r. , [B. M. ) Attic Teradrachm, c. 150 B. C.
3. R. Heliocles and Laodice (struck by Eucratides). Obv. HAIOKAEOYE
KAI AAOAIKH Draped busts jugate r. of Heliocles, with head bare, and
Laodice, wearing diadem; behind, Ø bead-and-reel border. Rev.
ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΜΕΓΑΣ ΕΥΚΡΑΤΙΔΗΣ Draped bust of Eucratides Γ. ,
diademed and wearing helmet decorated with horn and ear of bull; bead-
and-reel border. [B. M. ] Attic Tetradrachm. c. 165 B. C.
4. Eucratides. Obv. Draped bust of Eucratides r. , diademed ; bead-and-reel
border. Rev. BALIAEQE EYKPATIAYO The Dioskouroi, wearing pilei
and carrying palms, prancing on horseback r. , with spears at rest : in front,
R. [B. M. ] Attic Tetradrachm. c. 165 B. C.
5. Eucratides. Obv. Draped bust of Eucratide3 r. diademed; wearing helmet
adorned with horn and ear of bull; bead-and-reel border. Rev. BALIAENE
METAAOY EYKPATIAOY Similar type, bahind, $, [B. M. ] Attic
Tetradrachm.
c. 165 B. C.
6. Eucratides. Obv, Bust of Eucratides 1. , diademed ond helmeted, showing
bare back and shoulders; spear in r. , bead-and-reel border. Rev. Similar;
but no monogram behind, and in front, B. [B. M. ) Attic Tetradrachm.
c. 165 B. C.
m
## p. 419 (#457) ############################################
XVII)
KEY TO PLATES I-IV
419
7.
8.
Plato, Obv. Draped bust of Plato r. , helmeted ; boad-and-reel border. Rev.
ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΕΠΙΦΑΝΟΥΣ ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ Ηelios, radiate, in quadriga
galloping r. ; to r. , above, M ; in ex. MI. [B. M. ] Attic Tetradrachm, c.
;
165 B. C.
Heliocles, Obv. Drapnd bust of Heliocles r, diademed; bead-and-reel border
Rev. BALIAEE HAIOKAEOYE AIKAIOY Zeus. draped, standing
three-quarter face towards 1. holding thunderbolt, and leaning on sceptre :
to 1. (B. M. ) Attic Tetradrachm c. 140 B. C.
Eucratldes II (? ) Obv. Draped bust of Eucralides r. diademed bead-and reel
border Rev. BALIAEE EYKPATIAOY Appolo standing 1. , looking
along arrow and leaning on strung bow; to l. , M. (B. M. ] Auic Teitradrachm,
c. 140 B. C.
9.
:
## p. 420 (#458) ############################################
CHAPTER XVIII
CHANDRAGUPTA, THE FOUNDER OF THE
MAURYA EMPIRE
With the Maurya dynasty begins the period of continuous history in
India, a transition due to a concurrence of causes. In the first place, the
invasion of Alexander and some other occasions of contact with the West
furnish chronological limits of relative definiteness, to which certain
archaeological and literary circumstances readily conform. Secondly, the
establishment of a single paramount power in Hindustān, embracing a part
even of the country south of the Vindhya mountains and standing in relation
to the still independent areas, supplies a unity which previously was lacking
and which, in fact, was rarely realised in later ages. The personalities also
of two of the members of the dynasty stand out more clearely than is usual
in India, in the case of one, indeed, with a vividness which would be
remarkable even in the West. The literary material gain is of exceptional
variety and authenticity.
Not to mention the information afforded by the
histories of Alexander's Indian campaign and the accounts of the Seleucid
empire, we have in the memoirs of Megasthenes, a Seleucid envoy at the
court of the first Maurya, a picture, unfortunately fragmentary, of the
country, its administrative and social features, which research continues to
verify in all its main details. Açoka's own rescripts, graven open rocks and
pillars, and documents of unassailable fidelity. The recently recovered
Arthaçāstra ascribed to Kauțilya, otherwise named Chāņakya and Vishnu-
gupta, though in principle it conveys no new conception of an Indian polity,
is in virtue of its date, which clearly falls within or near the Maurya period,
and of the abundant light which in detail it sheds upon the life of the
people, especially upon the arts of peace and war, perhaps the most precious
work in the whole of Sanskrit literature. Finally, a most skilfully cons-
tructed political drama, the Mudrārākshasa of Viçākhadatta, preserves, in
spite of a relatively recent date, some outlines of the events which attended
the foundation of the dynasty.
420
## p. 421 (#459) ############################################
xvm)
THE PRASII
421
The invasion of Alexander found the Punjab, as we have seen? , divid.
ed among a number of relatively inconsiderable tribes, a state of things
which had probably always subsisted. He left it substantially unchanged,
except that he recognised two of the larger states, that of Takshaçilā
(Taxila), which had facilitated his entrance into India, and the rival king.
dom of Porus (Paurava or the king of the Pūrus), whom he had conquered.
The former was maintained in the region between the Indus and the
Hydaspes (Jhelum), while the latter was made to embrace all the more
easterly territory as far as the Hyphasis (Beās). The two kings were
reconciled and united by a matrimonial alliance. Alexander further con-
firmed, under the title of Satrap, Abhisares, ruler of the Himālayan districts
of the Punjab”. The nations occupying the large extent of country about
the confluences of the five rivers were placed under Philippus as satrap,
and Sind under Pithon.
The limit of Alexander's easterly advance was the Beās. The last
kingdom with which he came in contact was that of Phegelas”, adjoining
the river, whether on the right or left bank does not appear,-possibly it
was the country between that river and the Sutlej. The mutiny which
arrested the victorious progress occurred in a region which -- broadly defined
- has in all periods of Indian history been pivotal". The desert of Rāj-
putāna, running up towards the mountains, leaves only a narrow neck
joining the Punjab to the rest of Hindustān. Here to the east was the
country of the Kurus and Pañchālas, the scene of the legendary wars of
the Mahābhārata; here was Thānesar, where arose in the sixth century A. D.
the dynasty of Harsha ; and here are Pānīpat and Delhi. Alexander
would have had, so he was told, to cross a desert of eleven days march, in
order to reach the Ganges, beyond which lay two great peoples, the Prasii
and Gangaridae", whose king Agrammes, or Xandrames, kept in the field
an army of 20,000 cavalry, 200,000 infantry, 2000 chariots, and 3000
(or 4000) elephants. Upon inquiry, Alexander was informed by Phegelas
and Porus6 that the king was a man of worthless character, the son of a
1 Chapter XV, p 309.
2 The mountains of the Abisares, from which flows the river Soanus (Megasthenes
XX)=the Sohan, corresponds to the Abhisāra region, defined by Stein (Rājalaranziņi
trans. I, 180 n. ) as denoting the hills lying between the Jhelum and the Chenāb. But
it may at this time have included more, extending to the Indus, as suggested by the
king's relations with the Assakēnoi (Supra, p. 316).
3 =Bhagala (? ); see Chapter XV, p. 333, 34.
4 Chapter I. p. 20.
5 Onthe various forms of the name Prasij in Greek and Latin writers,-II pàoioi,
ΙΙραίσοι, ΙΙραίσιοι, ΙΙράξιοι, ΙΙραξιακοί. Βρησίου, Pharrasii,-see Schwanbeck's
Megasthenis Indica, p. 12, n. 6, and Lassen, Ind. Alt. II, pp. 210-1, n. 1. The Sanskrit
is Prāchya. As regards the Gangaridae (or Gaggaridae) the view that the name
invented by the Greeks (Lassen, loc. cit. ) seems improbablo.
6 See Q. Curtius, IX, 2, and Diodorus, XCIII ; also by Chandragupta acc. to
Plutarch, Ale rander, LXII.
>
9
was
## p. 422 (#460) ############################################
422
[ch.
CHANDRAGUPTA
barber, and that he had obtained the throne by the murder of his pre-
decessor, whose chief queen he had corrupted.
We learn from Megasthenes (I, 16) and Ptolemy (vit. 1, 82 ; 2, 14)
that the Gangaridae occupied the delta of the Ganges. The name Prasii,
or Prāchyas, 'Easterns', would properly denote the peoples east of the
Middle Country or Central Hindustān, which extends as far as the con-
fluence of the Ganges and Jumna at Allahābād. Either, therefore, the name
'Easterns' was used by Alexander's informants in a more general sense, as
the correlative of Westerns,' or it reflects what in any case is the fact, that
the Pañchālas, Çūrasenas, Kosalas and other peoples of the Middle
Country had fallen under the domination of the power of Magadha (S.
Bihār), with its capital Pātaliputra, at the junction of the Ganges and the
Son. The beginnings of this suzerainty appear already in the early
Byddhist books? ; and the dynasty ruling in Pātaliputra, which city was
founded by Udāyin, grandson of Buddha's contemporary Ajātaçatru, is
recognised in the Brāhman literature as representative of Indian sovereignty.
Whether it held also the countries stretching west ward to the south of the
great desert, and in particular the famous realm of Mālwā. with its capital
Avanti, or Ujjain, we have no means of knowing: but a negative answer is
probable. This region, as also the continuation to the western coast of
Kāthiāwār and Gujarāt, escaped the purview of Alexander and his his-
torians. Both were well within the horizon of his Indian informants,
since the trade connexion between Bengal and the coast regions of
Çūrpāraka and Surāshtra had been from of old no less familiar than was
the northern route of scholars and traders journeying to Takshaçilā and
Kābul.
In the Agrammes, or Xandrames? , of the Greek writers there has
been no difficulty in recognising the Dhana-Nanda of the Sanskrit books ;
and the very name in the form Nandrus, has been conjecturally restored
to the text of Justin'. It is the name of his dynasty, which according to
the Purāņıs ruled during exactly a century ; Chandramās would be the
equivalent of his Greek appellative. His overthrow, which Alexander was
prevented from attempting, resulted from the conditions which the invasion
left behind. It established the supremacy of the Mauryas under Chandra-
gupta.
The details of this peripetia are matter for inference ; but the antece.
dents of the two chief actors in the drama are sufficiently certain
1 Rhys Davids, Buddhist India (London, 1903), pp. 12 sqq. ; see Chapter VII,
pp. 162 sqq.
: Fick, Die Sociale Gliederung, esp. p. 130 ; Rhys Davids Buddhist India, pp. 8,
28, 203.
3 Agrammes in Q. Curtius, Xandrames in Diodorus,
4 XV, 4 : quippe sua procacitate Alexandrum (read Nandrum) regem, offendisset.
## p. 423 (#461) ############################################
xvin]
THE OVERTHROW OF NANDA
423
a
Chandragupta' is represented as a low-born connexion of the family of
Nanda. His surname Maurya is explained by the Indian authorities as
meaning ‘son of Murā,' who is described as a concubine of the king. A
more flattering account makes the Mauryas an Himālayan offshoot of the
noble sect of the Çākyas, the race of Buddha ; and, apart from this
connexion, the supposition of a tribal name seems probable, since a tribe
of Morieis is mentioned by the Greeks and will perhaps be identical with
the Moriyas of the Pāli books. However that may be, Chandragupta had
incurred the displeasure of Nanda, whom he had served in the office of
senā pati, or Commander-in Chief. He is said to have made an attempt
against his master, instigated by the Brāhman Vishộugupta, Chāņakya, or
Kauțilya, who in his person, and perhaps also as representing a disloyal
priestly movement, had been disrespectfully treated by the king. The case
of Jehu offers a familiar parallel ; but the outcome was otherwise.
Chandragupta fled with his fellow conspirator", who figures in literature
as the Machiavelli of India. In the movement which subsequently led to
the overthrow of Nanda Chāṇakya is represented as the directing mind.
The abortive attempt must have preceded the invasion of Alexander,
whom Chandragupta is said to have met in the Punjabº. At that time
Nanda still reigned. The dating of the subsequent events depends upon
the corrrectness of the account of them contained in the Mudrārākshasa.
According to this authority it was as head of a confederacy, in which
the chief ally was the king of the Himālayan districts in the Punjab, that
Chandragupta invaded the Magadban empire. The play dates from
perhaps the seventh century A. D. ; but we need not question its evidence,
which we are justified by some analogies' in regarding as a genuine theatri-
cal tradition : moreover there exists a Buddhist and Jain story which makes
Chandragupta's second attempt begin with the frontiers. Further, a
conquest of the Punjab by Chandragupta with forces from Eastern
1 The Indian, ard also the Greek, accounts of Chandragupta are quoted and
discussed by Lassen, op. cit. II, pp. 205 sqq. The Greek forms of the name, some of
thom pointing to a Prākrit original, are Eavopókotros, Savdpakottos, Savopakóttas,
'Αυδρόλοττο8, Σαυδρόλυπτο8. The identification with Chandragupta is due to Sir
William Jonos (Asiatic Researches, IV, p. 11).
2 From the commentary to the Pāli Mahāwanso (ed. Turnour, Introduction,
pp. xxxviii. xlii).
3 From Euphorion : seo Lassen. op. cit. II, p. 205, n. 4.
4 Moriyas of Pipphalivana (Dīgha Nikaya, II, p. 167).
5 In the Pāli account mentioned above Chandragupta meets Chāṇakya, who is
reperesented as a native of Takshaçilā, already in company with a Parvata. For the Jain
version, see Prof. Jacobi's edition of Hemachandra's Sthavirāvalicharita, pp. 55 sqq.
6 Plutarch, Alexander, LXII.
? The plots of some of the recently discovered plays of Bhāsa seem to have been
appropriated almost entiro by the later dramatists, e. g. by the author of the
Mſicchakarika.
## p. 424 (#462) ############################################
424
(ch.
CHANDRAGUPTA
Hindustān has little inherent plausibility : lefore the British power the
movement had been consistently in the opposite direction.
A precise date for the overthrow of Nanda seems with our present
evidence impossible. It can hardly have been effected without the co-
.
operation of the kingdom of Porus. We have then two alternatives. Either
Porus participated in the invasion and is the Parvataka, the ally of Chandra-
gupta, in the drama? , in which case the year 321 B. C. would be not unlikely,
at the death of Porus seems to have followed that of Alexander by no long
interval. Or his successor, whether a member of his family or Chandra-
gupta himself, was a participator : and then we have no means of dating,
unless we allow the indications of the drama to persuade us that Eudamus,
the assassinator of Porus, who in 323 succeeded Philippus as Alexander's
representative and who retired from India in about 317, was also a partner
in the exploita. As regards the incidents of the campaign, we have no
trustworthy information. Nanda was defeated and killed, and his capital
occupied.
Here begins the action of the drama. According to this authority,
Chāņakya, the instigator of Chandragupta, contrives the death of Parvataka,
the chief ally, and then of his brother Vairodhaka, which causes the son
of the former, Malayaketu, along with the remaining allies to withdraw
their troops to a distance. They are joined by Rākshasa, the faithful minister
of the Nandas and by others from the capital, in some cases with the
connivance of Chāņakya. What follows is a complicated intrigue. In the
.
end Malayaketu becomes suspicious of his allies, whom he puts to
death, and also of Rākshasa. The latter has no longer any option but to
accept the offers of Chandragupta, who allows Malayaketu to retire in
peace to his own dominions.
At this point the Indian tradition takes leave of Chandragupta and
his mentor. The latter, his vow of vengeance accomplished, returns to his
Brāhman hermitage. For Chandragupta the ensuing years must have been
strenuous. The great military progress of Seleucus, whereby he sought to
consolidate the eastern part of his dominions, brought him to the Indus
about the year 305. He found Chandragupta, now master of all Hindustān,
awaiting him with an immense army. For Seleucus the task proved too
great : he crossed the Indus, but either no battle ensued, or an indecisive
one. Seleucus was content to secure a safe retirement and a gift of 500
elephants by the surrender of all the Greek dominions as far as the Kābul
1 In that case the death of Porus must have been due to Chandragupta, and not
to Eudamus. An identification of Parvata with a king of Nepāl is indicated by Jacobi,
op. cit. p. 58; n 1.
2 On this question see the acute observations of Lassen, op. cit. II, pp. 213-17.
The names of the allied kings in the drama need not be seriously considered, since
Sanskrit literature is rich in varieties of nomenclature, which hardly ever fail, even in
closely related versions of a single story.
## p. 425 (#463) ############################################
XVIII
EXTENT OF HIS DOMINIONS
425
valley. Upon these terms a matrimonial alliance was arranged? .
This the year 305 saw the empire of the successful adventurer of
Pāțaliputra safely established behind the Hindu Kush on the north and the
Afghān highlands rising above Herāt on the west. At what period it came
to include also the wes'ern provinces of Sind, Kāthiāwār, and Gujarāt,
which, as well as Mālwā, we find in the possession of his grandson, we are
not informed. But probably these also were acquired by the founder of
the dynasty.
Chandragupta maintained his friendly relations with the Greeks.
Seleucus received gifts from him ; and his envoy Megasthenes resided for
some considerable time, and perhaps on more than one occasion, at the
court of Pataliputra? He was a friend of Sibyrtius, who in 324 was
appointed by Alexander to the Satrapy of Gedrosia and Arachosia and in
316 was again appointed by Antigonus. The date, or dates, of his mission
must naturally be later than the campaign of Seleucus (c. 305) and earlier
than the death of Chandragupta (c. 297) ; but the time is otherwise unde-
termined. It is to Megasthenes that the classical peoples were indebted for
nearly all the precise information which they have transmitted concerning
the Indian peoples.
According to Justin (xv, 4) the rule of Chandragupta was oppressive;
but the judgment is not supported by details or by Indian evidence. The
consensus of Sanskrit writings on policy discountenances excessive leniency,
and insists upon the retributory function of the ruler, who in maintaining
order and protecting weakness should not shrink from severity ; while in
time of need he is entitled to call upon his people to bear 'like strong bulls'
a considerable burden of taxation? . The duration of the reign is stated
by the Purāņas, in agreement with the Buddhist books, at twenty-four
years. It would be uncritical, however, to regard these testimonies as from
the beginning independent, or to attach any special credence to the exact,
figure. Moreover, the initial date is uncertain, the Jains presenting a
date equivalent to 313 (312) B. C. , while the Buddhists of Ceylon give 321,
and the Brāhman writings withhold any reference to a fixed era. It would
1 See Chapter XVII, p. 387 That Seleucus made no great headway against
Chandragupta is proved at length by Schwanbeck, op. cit. pp. 11-19, where the
authorities are discussed. The surrender of the Kabul valley is also indicated by Strabo,
XV, I, 10 and 2, 9 : see also Lassen, De Pentapotamiu Indica (Bonn, 1827), p. 42.
2 Arrian, V,6. 1: Μεγαοθ'ευη8, δε ξυυηυμευ Σιβυρτιωτω Σατράπη της’ Αρακωσίας
πολλάλει δε λεγει αφιλεσθαι παρα Σαυδράkoττου του Ιυδων βασιλεα, «Megasthenese,
who lived indeed with Sibyrtius, the Satrap of Arachosia, but several times, us
he
states, arrived at the presence of Sandracottus, the king of the Indians. The view of
Schwanbeck (p. 33) and Lassen (ed. 1, p. 209, n. 3 ; but rejected in ed. 2, p. 219, n. 1),
who think this statement consistent with several interviews in the course of a single
mission, soems untenable : açıkécou could hardly bear that sense.
3 Mbh. XII, 87, 33, and ch.
c. 140 B. C.
5. R
## p. 418 (#456) ############################################
418
(CH.
KEY TO PLATES 1. 1V
N
6. R. Agathocles. Obv. Draped bust of Agathocles r. , diademed ; border of dots.
Rev. ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΑΓΑΘΟΚΛΕΟΥΣ Ζeus, naked to waist, standing to
front, holding figure of Hekate in r, and leaning with 1. on sceptre ; to 1. ,
[B. M. ) Attic Tetradrachm. c. 150 B. C.
7. R. Pantaleon. Obv. Draped bust of Pantaleon r. , diademed; border of dots.
Rev. BASIAENE HANTAAEONTOE Similar; but Zeus seated 1. [B. M. )
Attic Tetradrachm. c. 150 B. C.
8. R. Antimachus. Obv. Draped bust of Antimachus r. , wearing kausia; border
of dots. Rev. BALIANE OEOYANTIMAXOY Poseidon, naked to waist,
standing to front, leaning with r. on trident and holding palm in 1. ; to r. N
[B. M. ) Attic Tetradrachm. c. 150 B. C.
9. R. Diodotus (struck by Demetrius I ? ). Obv. Head of Diodotus r. , diademed ;
border of dots. Rev. ΔΙΟΔΟΤΟΥ ΣΩΤΗΡΟΣ Zeus thundering 1. ; in
front, eagle 1. , and wreath. (B. M. ] Attic Tetradrachm. c. 190 B. C.
PLATE IV
1. R. Antiochus II (struck by Agathocles). Obv. ANTIOXOY NIKATOPOS
Head of Antiochus II r. , diademed ; border of dots. Rev. BALIAEYONTOS
ATAOOKAEOYL AIKAIOY Zeus thundering 1. ; in front, eagle 1. , and
wreath; behind, (F1. [B. M. ] Attic Tetradrachm. c. 150 B. C.
2. R. Euthydemus I (struck by Agathocles), Obv. EYO YAHMOY OEOY Head
of Euthydemus I r. , diademed; border of dots. Rev. Same inscription.
Heracles seated 1. on rock, grasping in r. his club, end of which rests on
knee ; to r. , [B. M. ) Attic Teradrachm, c. 150 B. C.
3. R. Heliocles and Laodice (struck by Eucratides). Obv. HAIOKAEOYE
KAI AAOAIKH Draped busts jugate r. of Heliocles, with head bare, and
Laodice, wearing diadem; behind, Ø bead-and-reel border. Rev.
ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΜΕΓΑΣ ΕΥΚΡΑΤΙΔΗΣ Draped bust of Eucratides Γ. ,
diademed and wearing helmet decorated with horn and ear of bull; bead-
and-reel border. [B. M. ] Attic Tetradrachm. c. 165 B. C.
4. Eucratides. Obv. Draped bust of Eucratides r. , diademed ; bead-and-reel
border. Rev. BALIAEQE EYKPATIAYO The Dioskouroi, wearing pilei
and carrying palms, prancing on horseback r. , with spears at rest : in front,
R. [B. M. ] Attic Tetradrachm. c. 165 B. C.
5. Eucratides. Obv. Draped bust of Eucratide3 r. diademed; wearing helmet
adorned with horn and ear of bull; bead-and-reel border. Rev. BALIAENE
METAAOY EYKPATIAOY Similar type, bahind, $, [B. M. ] Attic
Tetradrachm.
c. 165 B. C.
6. Eucratides. Obv, Bust of Eucratides 1. , diademed ond helmeted, showing
bare back and shoulders; spear in r. , bead-and-reel border. Rev. Similar;
but no monogram behind, and in front, B. [B. M. ) Attic Tetradrachm.
c. 165 B. C.
m
## p. 419 (#457) ############################################
XVII)
KEY TO PLATES I-IV
419
7.
8.
Plato, Obv. Draped bust of Plato r. , helmeted ; boad-and-reel border. Rev.
ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΕΠΙΦΑΝΟΥΣ ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ Ηelios, radiate, in quadriga
galloping r. ; to r. , above, M ; in ex. MI. [B. M. ] Attic Tetradrachm, c.
;
165 B. C.
Heliocles, Obv. Drapnd bust of Heliocles r, diademed; bead-and-reel border
Rev. BALIAEE HAIOKAEOYE AIKAIOY Zeus. draped, standing
three-quarter face towards 1. holding thunderbolt, and leaning on sceptre :
to 1. (B. M. ) Attic Tetradrachm c. 140 B. C.
Eucratldes II (? ) Obv. Draped bust of Eucralides r. diademed bead-and reel
border Rev. BALIAEE EYKPATIAOY Appolo standing 1. , looking
along arrow and leaning on strung bow; to l. , M. (B. M. ] Auic Teitradrachm,
c. 140 B. C.
9.
:
## p. 420 (#458) ############################################
CHAPTER XVIII
CHANDRAGUPTA, THE FOUNDER OF THE
MAURYA EMPIRE
With the Maurya dynasty begins the period of continuous history in
India, a transition due to a concurrence of causes. In the first place, the
invasion of Alexander and some other occasions of contact with the West
furnish chronological limits of relative definiteness, to which certain
archaeological and literary circumstances readily conform. Secondly, the
establishment of a single paramount power in Hindustān, embracing a part
even of the country south of the Vindhya mountains and standing in relation
to the still independent areas, supplies a unity which previously was lacking
and which, in fact, was rarely realised in later ages. The personalities also
of two of the members of the dynasty stand out more clearely than is usual
in India, in the case of one, indeed, with a vividness which would be
remarkable even in the West. The literary material gain is of exceptional
variety and authenticity.
Not to mention the information afforded by the
histories of Alexander's Indian campaign and the accounts of the Seleucid
empire, we have in the memoirs of Megasthenes, a Seleucid envoy at the
court of the first Maurya, a picture, unfortunately fragmentary, of the
country, its administrative and social features, which research continues to
verify in all its main details. Açoka's own rescripts, graven open rocks and
pillars, and documents of unassailable fidelity. The recently recovered
Arthaçāstra ascribed to Kauțilya, otherwise named Chāņakya and Vishnu-
gupta, though in principle it conveys no new conception of an Indian polity,
is in virtue of its date, which clearly falls within or near the Maurya period,
and of the abundant light which in detail it sheds upon the life of the
people, especially upon the arts of peace and war, perhaps the most precious
work in the whole of Sanskrit literature. Finally, a most skilfully cons-
tructed political drama, the Mudrārākshasa of Viçākhadatta, preserves, in
spite of a relatively recent date, some outlines of the events which attended
the foundation of the dynasty.
420
## p. 421 (#459) ############################################
xvm)
THE PRASII
421
The invasion of Alexander found the Punjab, as we have seen? , divid.
ed among a number of relatively inconsiderable tribes, a state of things
which had probably always subsisted. He left it substantially unchanged,
except that he recognised two of the larger states, that of Takshaçilā
(Taxila), which had facilitated his entrance into India, and the rival king.
dom of Porus (Paurava or the king of the Pūrus), whom he had conquered.
The former was maintained in the region between the Indus and the
Hydaspes (Jhelum), while the latter was made to embrace all the more
easterly territory as far as the Hyphasis (Beās). The two kings were
reconciled and united by a matrimonial alliance. Alexander further con-
firmed, under the title of Satrap, Abhisares, ruler of the Himālayan districts
of the Punjab”. The nations occupying the large extent of country about
the confluences of the five rivers were placed under Philippus as satrap,
and Sind under Pithon.
The limit of Alexander's easterly advance was the Beās. The last
kingdom with which he came in contact was that of Phegelas”, adjoining
the river, whether on the right or left bank does not appear,-possibly it
was the country between that river and the Sutlej. The mutiny which
arrested the victorious progress occurred in a region which -- broadly defined
- has in all periods of Indian history been pivotal". The desert of Rāj-
putāna, running up towards the mountains, leaves only a narrow neck
joining the Punjab to the rest of Hindustān. Here to the east was the
country of the Kurus and Pañchālas, the scene of the legendary wars of
the Mahābhārata; here was Thānesar, where arose in the sixth century A. D.
the dynasty of Harsha ; and here are Pānīpat and Delhi. Alexander
would have had, so he was told, to cross a desert of eleven days march, in
order to reach the Ganges, beyond which lay two great peoples, the Prasii
and Gangaridae", whose king Agrammes, or Xandrames, kept in the field
an army of 20,000 cavalry, 200,000 infantry, 2000 chariots, and 3000
(or 4000) elephants. Upon inquiry, Alexander was informed by Phegelas
and Porus6 that the king was a man of worthless character, the son of a
1 Chapter XV, p 309.
2 The mountains of the Abisares, from which flows the river Soanus (Megasthenes
XX)=the Sohan, corresponds to the Abhisāra region, defined by Stein (Rājalaranziņi
trans. I, 180 n. ) as denoting the hills lying between the Jhelum and the Chenāb. But
it may at this time have included more, extending to the Indus, as suggested by the
king's relations with the Assakēnoi (Supra, p. 316).
3 =Bhagala (? ); see Chapter XV, p. 333, 34.
4 Chapter I. p. 20.
5 Onthe various forms of the name Prasij in Greek and Latin writers,-II pàoioi,
ΙΙραίσοι, ΙΙραίσιοι, ΙΙράξιοι, ΙΙραξιακοί. Βρησίου, Pharrasii,-see Schwanbeck's
Megasthenis Indica, p. 12, n. 6, and Lassen, Ind. Alt. II, pp. 210-1, n. 1. The Sanskrit
is Prāchya. As regards the Gangaridae (or Gaggaridae) the view that the name
invented by the Greeks (Lassen, loc. cit. ) seems improbablo.
6 See Q. Curtius, IX, 2, and Diodorus, XCIII ; also by Chandragupta acc. to
Plutarch, Ale rander, LXII.
>
9
was
## p. 422 (#460) ############################################
422
[ch.
CHANDRAGUPTA
barber, and that he had obtained the throne by the murder of his pre-
decessor, whose chief queen he had corrupted.
We learn from Megasthenes (I, 16) and Ptolemy (vit. 1, 82 ; 2, 14)
that the Gangaridae occupied the delta of the Ganges. The name Prasii,
or Prāchyas, 'Easterns', would properly denote the peoples east of the
Middle Country or Central Hindustān, which extends as far as the con-
fluence of the Ganges and Jumna at Allahābād. Either, therefore, the name
'Easterns' was used by Alexander's informants in a more general sense, as
the correlative of Westerns,' or it reflects what in any case is the fact, that
the Pañchālas, Çūrasenas, Kosalas and other peoples of the Middle
Country had fallen under the domination of the power of Magadha (S.
Bihār), with its capital Pātaliputra, at the junction of the Ganges and the
Son. The beginnings of this suzerainty appear already in the early
Byddhist books? ; and the dynasty ruling in Pātaliputra, which city was
founded by Udāyin, grandson of Buddha's contemporary Ajātaçatru, is
recognised in the Brāhman literature as representative of Indian sovereignty.
Whether it held also the countries stretching west ward to the south of the
great desert, and in particular the famous realm of Mālwā. with its capital
Avanti, or Ujjain, we have no means of knowing: but a negative answer is
probable. This region, as also the continuation to the western coast of
Kāthiāwār and Gujarāt, escaped the purview of Alexander and his his-
torians. Both were well within the horizon of his Indian informants,
since the trade connexion between Bengal and the coast regions of
Çūrpāraka and Surāshtra had been from of old no less familiar than was
the northern route of scholars and traders journeying to Takshaçilā and
Kābul.
In the Agrammes, or Xandrames? , of the Greek writers there has
been no difficulty in recognising the Dhana-Nanda of the Sanskrit books ;
and the very name in the form Nandrus, has been conjecturally restored
to the text of Justin'. It is the name of his dynasty, which according to
the Purāņıs ruled during exactly a century ; Chandramās would be the
equivalent of his Greek appellative. His overthrow, which Alexander was
prevented from attempting, resulted from the conditions which the invasion
left behind. It established the supremacy of the Mauryas under Chandra-
gupta.
The details of this peripetia are matter for inference ; but the antece.
dents of the two chief actors in the drama are sufficiently certain
1 Rhys Davids, Buddhist India (London, 1903), pp. 12 sqq. ; see Chapter VII,
pp. 162 sqq.
: Fick, Die Sociale Gliederung, esp. p. 130 ; Rhys Davids Buddhist India, pp. 8,
28, 203.
3 Agrammes in Q. Curtius, Xandrames in Diodorus,
4 XV, 4 : quippe sua procacitate Alexandrum (read Nandrum) regem, offendisset.
## p. 423 (#461) ############################################
xvin]
THE OVERTHROW OF NANDA
423
a
Chandragupta' is represented as a low-born connexion of the family of
Nanda. His surname Maurya is explained by the Indian authorities as
meaning ‘son of Murā,' who is described as a concubine of the king. A
more flattering account makes the Mauryas an Himālayan offshoot of the
noble sect of the Çākyas, the race of Buddha ; and, apart from this
connexion, the supposition of a tribal name seems probable, since a tribe
of Morieis is mentioned by the Greeks and will perhaps be identical with
the Moriyas of the Pāli books. However that may be, Chandragupta had
incurred the displeasure of Nanda, whom he had served in the office of
senā pati, or Commander-in Chief. He is said to have made an attempt
against his master, instigated by the Brāhman Vishộugupta, Chāņakya, or
Kauțilya, who in his person, and perhaps also as representing a disloyal
priestly movement, had been disrespectfully treated by the king. The case
of Jehu offers a familiar parallel ; but the outcome was otherwise.
Chandragupta fled with his fellow conspirator", who figures in literature
as the Machiavelli of India. In the movement which subsequently led to
the overthrow of Nanda Chāṇakya is represented as the directing mind.
The abortive attempt must have preceded the invasion of Alexander,
whom Chandragupta is said to have met in the Punjabº. At that time
Nanda still reigned. The dating of the subsequent events depends upon
the corrrectness of the account of them contained in the Mudrārākshasa.
According to this authority it was as head of a confederacy, in which
the chief ally was the king of the Himālayan districts in the Punjab, that
Chandragupta invaded the Magadban empire. The play dates from
perhaps the seventh century A. D. ; but we need not question its evidence,
which we are justified by some analogies' in regarding as a genuine theatri-
cal tradition : moreover there exists a Buddhist and Jain story which makes
Chandragupta's second attempt begin with the frontiers. Further, a
conquest of the Punjab by Chandragupta with forces from Eastern
1 The Indian, ard also the Greek, accounts of Chandragupta are quoted and
discussed by Lassen, op. cit. II, pp. 205 sqq. The Greek forms of the name, some of
thom pointing to a Prākrit original, are Eavopókotros, Savdpakottos, Savopakóttas,
'Αυδρόλοττο8, Σαυδρόλυπτο8. The identification with Chandragupta is due to Sir
William Jonos (Asiatic Researches, IV, p. 11).
2 From the commentary to the Pāli Mahāwanso (ed. Turnour, Introduction,
pp. xxxviii. xlii).
3 From Euphorion : seo Lassen. op. cit. II, p. 205, n. 4.
4 Moriyas of Pipphalivana (Dīgha Nikaya, II, p. 167).
5 In the Pāli account mentioned above Chandragupta meets Chāṇakya, who is
reperesented as a native of Takshaçilā, already in company with a Parvata. For the Jain
version, see Prof. Jacobi's edition of Hemachandra's Sthavirāvalicharita, pp. 55 sqq.
6 Plutarch, Alexander, LXII.
? The plots of some of the recently discovered plays of Bhāsa seem to have been
appropriated almost entiro by the later dramatists, e. g. by the author of the
Mſicchakarika.
## p. 424 (#462) ############################################
424
(ch.
CHANDRAGUPTA
Hindustān has little inherent plausibility : lefore the British power the
movement had been consistently in the opposite direction.
A precise date for the overthrow of Nanda seems with our present
evidence impossible. It can hardly have been effected without the co-
.
operation of the kingdom of Porus. We have then two alternatives. Either
Porus participated in the invasion and is the Parvataka, the ally of Chandra-
gupta, in the drama? , in which case the year 321 B. C. would be not unlikely,
at the death of Porus seems to have followed that of Alexander by no long
interval. Or his successor, whether a member of his family or Chandra-
gupta himself, was a participator : and then we have no means of dating,
unless we allow the indications of the drama to persuade us that Eudamus,
the assassinator of Porus, who in 323 succeeded Philippus as Alexander's
representative and who retired from India in about 317, was also a partner
in the exploita. As regards the incidents of the campaign, we have no
trustworthy information. Nanda was defeated and killed, and his capital
occupied.
Here begins the action of the drama. According to this authority,
Chāņakya, the instigator of Chandragupta, contrives the death of Parvataka,
the chief ally, and then of his brother Vairodhaka, which causes the son
of the former, Malayaketu, along with the remaining allies to withdraw
their troops to a distance. They are joined by Rākshasa, the faithful minister
of the Nandas and by others from the capital, in some cases with the
connivance of Chāņakya. What follows is a complicated intrigue. In the
.
end Malayaketu becomes suspicious of his allies, whom he puts to
death, and also of Rākshasa. The latter has no longer any option but to
accept the offers of Chandragupta, who allows Malayaketu to retire in
peace to his own dominions.
At this point the Indian tradition takes leave of Chandragupta and
his mentor. The latter, his vow of vengeance accomplished, returns to his
Brāhman hermitage. For Chandragupta the ensuing years must have been
strenuous. The great military progress of Seleucus, whereby he sought to
consolidate the eastern part of his dominions, brought him to the Indus
about the year 305. He found Chandragupta, now master of all Hindustān,
awaiting him with an immense army. For Seleucus the task proved too
great : he crossed the Indus, but either no battle ensued, or an indecisive
one. Seleucus was content to secure a safe retirement and a gift of 500
elephants by the surrender of all the Greek dominions as far as the Kābul
1 In that case the death of Porus must have been due to Chandragupta, and not
to Eudamus. An identification of Parvata with a king of Nepāl is indicated by Jacobi,
op. cit. p. 58; n 1.
2 On this question see the acute observations of Lassen, op. cit. II, pp. 213-17.
The names of the allied kings in the drama need not be seriously considered, since
Sanskrit literature is rich in varieties of nomenclature, which hardly ever fail, even in
closely related versions of a single story.
## p. 425 (#463) ############################################
XVIII
EXTENT OF HIS DOMINIONS
425
valley. Upon these terms a matrimonial alliance was arranged? .
This the year 305 saw the empire of the successful adventurer of
Pāțaliputra safely established behind the Hindu Kush on the north and the
Afghān highlands rising above Herāt on the west. At what period it came
to include also the wes'ern provinces of Sind, Kāthiāwār, and Gujarāt,
which, as well as Mālwā, we find in the possession of his grandson, we are
not informed. But probably these also were acquired by the founder of
the dynasty.
Chandragupta maintained his friendly relations with the Greeks.
Seleucus received gifts from him ; and his envoy Megasthenes resided for
some considerable time, and perhaps on more than one occasion, at the
court of Pataliputra? He was a friend of Sibyrtius, who in 324 was
appointed by Alexander to the Satrapy of Gedrosia and Arachosia and in
316 was again appointed by Antigonus. The date, or dates, of his mission
must naturally be later than the campaign of Seleucus (c. 305) and earlier
than the death of Chandragupta (c. 297) ; but the time is otherwise unde-
termined. It is to Megasthenes that the classical peoples were indebted for
nearly all the precise information which they have transmitted concerning
the Indian peoples.
According to Justin (xv, 4) the rule of Chandragupta was oppressive;
but the judgment is not supported by details or by Indian evidence. The
consensus of Sanskrit writings on policy discountenances excessive leniency,
and insists upon the retributory function of the ruler, who in maintaining
order and protecting weakness should not shrink from severity ; while in
time of need he is entitled to call upon his people to bear 'like strong bulls'
a considerable burden of taxation? . The duration of the reign is stated
by the Purāņas, in agreement with the Buddhist books, at twenty-four
years. It would be uncritical, however, to regard these testimonies as from
the beginning independent, or to attach any special credence to the exact,
figure. Moreover, the initial date is uncertain, the Jains presenting a
date equivalent to 313 (312) B. C. , while the Buddhists of Ceylon give 321,
and the Brāhman writings withhold any reference to a fixed era. It would
1 See Chapter XVII, p. 387 That Seleucus made no great headway against
Chandragupta is proved at length by Schwanbeck, op. cit. pp. 11-19, where the
authorities are discussed. The surrender of the Kabul valley is also indicated by Strabo,
XV, I, 10 and 2, 9 : see also Lassen, De Pentapotamiu Indica (Bonn, 1827), p. 42.
2 Arrian, V,6. 1: Μεγαοθ'ευη8, δε ξυυηυμευ Σιβυρτιωτω Σατράπη της’ Αρακωσίας
πολλάλει δε λεγει αφιλεσθαι παρα Σαυδράkoττου του Ιυδων βασιλεα, «Megasthenese,
who lived indeed with Sibyrtius, the Satrap of Arachosia, but several times, us
he
states, arrived at the presence of Sandracottus, the king of the Indians. The view of
Schwanbeck (p. 33) and Lassen (ed. 1, p. 209, n. 3 ; but rejected in ed. 2, p. 219, n. 1),
who think this statement consistent with several interviews in the course of a single
mission, soems untenable : açıkécou could hardly bear that sense.
3 Mbh. XII, 87, 33, and ch.
