Ancient India as described by Megasthenês and Arrian

Front matter

AS DESCRIBED BY

BEING

A TRANSLATION OF THE FRAGMENTS OF THE INDIKA OF MEGASTHENES COLLECTED BY DR. SCHWANBECK, AND OF THE FIRST PART OF THE INDIKA OF ARRIAN,

Introduction

THE FRAGMENTS OF THE INDIKA OF MEGASTHENÊS.

Introduction.

The ancient Greeks, till even a comparatively late period in their history, possessed little, if any, real knowledge of India. It is indeed scarcely so much as mentioned by name in their greatest poets, whether epic, lyric, or dramatic. They must, however, have known of its existence as early as the heroic times, for we find from Homer that they used even then articles of Indian merchandize, which went among them by names of Indian origin, such as kassiteros, tin, and elephas, ivory. But their conception of it, as we gather from the same source, was vague in the extreme. They imagined it to be an Eastern Ethiopia which stretched away to the uttermost verge of the world, and which, like the Ethiopia of the West, was inhabited by a race of men whose visages were scorched black by the fierce rays of the sun. Much lies in a name, and the error made by the Greeks in thus calling India Ethiop led them into the further error of considering as pertinent to both these countries narrations, whether of fact or fiction, which concerned but one of them exclusively. This explains why we find in Greek literature mention of peculiar or fabulous races, both of men and other animals, which existed apparently in duplicate, being represented sometimes as located in India, and sometimes in Ethiopia or the countries thereto adjacent. We can hardly wonder, when we consider the distant and sequestered situation of India, that the first conceptions which the Greeks had of it should have been of this nebulous character, but it seems some what remarkable that they should have learned hardly anything of importance regarding it from the expeditions which were successively undertaken against it by the Egyptians under Sesostris, the Assyrians under Semiramis, and the Persians first under Kyros and afterwards under Dareios the son of Hystaspês. Perhaps, as Dr. Robertson has observed, they disdained, through pride of their own superior enlightenment, to pay attention to the transactions of people whom they considered as barbarians, especially in countries far remote from their own. But, in whatever way the fact may be accounted for, India continued to be to the Greeks little better than a land of mystery and fable till the times of the Persian wars, when for the first time they became distinctly aware of its existence. The first historian who speaks clearly of it is of Miletos ( 549-486), and fuller accounts are preserved in Herodotos and in the remains of Ktêsias, who, having lived for some years in Persia as private physician to king Artaxerxes Mnêmôn, collected materials during his stay for a treatise on India, the first work on the subject written in the Greek language. His descriptions were, unfortunately, vitiated by a large intermixture of fable, and it was left to the followers of Alexander to give to the Western world for the first time fairly accurate accounts of the country and its inhabitants. The great conqueror, it is well known, carried scientific men with him to chronicle his achievements, and describe the countries to which he might carry his arms, and some of his officers were also men of literary culture, who could wield the pen as well as the sword. Hence the expedition produced quite a crop of narratives and memoirs relating to India, such as those of , , , , , , and others. These works are all lost, but their substance is to be found condensed in Strabo, Pliny, and Arrian. Subsequent to these writers were some others, who made considerable additions to the stock of information regarding India, among whom may be mentioned , who resided for a long time in , whither he was sent on an embassy by Seleukos to , the successor of ; , the admiral of Seleukos, who is called by Strabo the least mendacious of all writers concerning India; , admiral of the fleet of Ptolemaios Philadelphos; and Megasthenês, who being sent by Seleukos Nikator on an embassy to Sandrakottos (Chandragupta), the king of the Prasii, whose capital was Palibothra (Pâṭaliputra, now Pâṭnâ), wrote a work on India of such ackuowledged worth that it formed the principal source whence succeeding writers drew their accounts of the country. This work, which appears to have been entitled to τὰ ’Ἰνδικά, no longer exists, but it has been so often abridged and quoted by the ancient writers that we have a fair knowledge of its contents and their order of arrangement. Dr. Schwanbeck, with great industry and learning, has collected all the fragments that have been anywhere preserved, and has prefixed to the collection a Latin Introduction, wherein, after showing what knowledge the Greeks had acquired of India before Megasthenês, he enters into an examination of those passages in ancient works from which we derive all the little we know of Megasthenês and his Indian mission. He then reviews his work on India, giving a summary of its contents, and, having estimated its value and authority, concludes with a notice of those authors who wrote on India after his time. I have translated in the latter part of the sequel a few instructive passages from this Introduction, one particularly which successfully vindicates Megasthenês from the charge of mendacity so frequently preferred against him. Meanwhile the following extracts, translated from C. Müller's Preface to his edition of the Indika, will place before the reader all the information that can be gleaned regarding Megasthenes and his embassy from a careful scrutiny and comparison of all the ancient texts which relate thereto.

Justinus (XV. 4) says of Seleukos Nikator, 'He carried on many wars in the East after the division of the Makedonian kingdom between himself and the other successors of Alexander, first seizing Babylonia, and then reducing Baktrianê, his power being increased by the first success. Thereafter he passed into India, which had, since Alexander's death, killed its governors, thinking thereby to shake off from its neck the yoke of slavery. had made it free: but when victory was gained he changed the name of freedom to that of bondage, for he himself oppressed with servitude the very people which he had rescued from foreign dominion… Sandrokottos, having thus gained the crown, held India at the time when Seleukos was laying the foundations of his future greatness. Seleukos came to an agreement with him, and, after settling affairs in the Bast, engaged in the war against Antigonos (302 B.C.).'

"Besides Justinus, (Syr. c. 55) makes mention of the war which Seleukos had with Sandrokottos or Ohandragupta king of the or, as they are called in the Indian language, :—'He (Seleu- kos) crossed the Indus and waged war on Sandrokottos, king of the Indians who dwelt about it, until be made friends and entered into relations of marriage with him.' So also Strabo (xv. p. 724):—'Seleukos Nikator gave to Sandrokottos' (sc. a large part of Arianê). Conf. p. 689:—'The Indians afterwards held a large part of Arianê, (which they had received from the Makedonians), 'entering into marriage relations with him, and receiving in return five hundred elephants' (of which Sandrakottos had nine thousand—Plinius, vi. 22-5); and Plutarch, Alex. 62:—'For not long after, Androkottos, being king, presented Seleukos with five hundred elephants, and with six hundred thousand men attacked and subdued all India.' Phylarchos (Fragm. 28) in Athenaaus, p. 18 D., refers to some other wonderful enough presents as being sent to Seleukos by Sandrokottos.

" (lib. xx.), in setting forth the affairs of Seleukos, has not said a single word about the Indian war. But it would be strange that that expedition should be mentioned so incidentally by other historians, if it were true, as many recent writers have contended, that Seleukos in this war reached the middle of India as far as the and the town ,—nay, even advanced as far as the mouths of the Ganges, and therefore left Alexander far behind him. This baseless theory has been well refuted by Lassen (De Pentap. Ind. 61), by A. G. Schlegel (Berliner Calender, 1829, p. 31; yet see Benfey, Ersch. u. Grüber. Encycl. v. Indien., p. 67), and quite recently by Schwanbeck, in a work of great learning and value entitled Megasthenis Indica (Bonn, 1846). In the first place, Schwanbeck (p. 13) mentions the passage of Justinus (I. ii. 10) where it is said that no one had entered India but Seniiramis and Alexander; whence it would appear that the expedition of Seleukos was considered so insignificant by Trogus as not even to be on a par with the Indian war of Alexander. Then he says that Arrianus, if he had known of that remote expedition of Seleukos, would doubtless have spoken differently in his Indika (c. 5. 4), where he says that Megasthenes did not travel over much of India, 'but yet more than those who invaded it along with Alexander the son of Philip.' Now in this passage the author could have compared Megasthenes much more suitably and easily with Seleukos. I pass over other proofs of less moment, nor indeed is it expedient to set forth in detail here all the reasons from which it is improbable of itself that the arms of Selenkos ever reached the region of the Ganges. Let us now examine the passage in Plinius which causes many to adopt contrary opinions. Plinius (Hist, Nat. vi. 21), after finding from Diognetos and Baeto the distances of the places from Portæ Caspiæ to the Huphasis, the end of Alexander's march, thus proceeds:—'The other journeys made for Seleukos Nikator are as follows:—One hundred and sixty-eight miles to the Hesidrus, and to the river Jomanes as many (some copies add five miles); from thence to the Ganges one hundred and twelve miles. One hundred and nineteen miles to the Rhodophas (others give three hundred and twenty-five miles for this distance). To the town one hundred and sixty-seven. Five hundred (others give two hundred and sixty-five miles), and from thence to the confluence of the Jomanes and Ganges six hundred and twenty-five miles (several add thirteen miles), and to the town Palimbothra four hundred and twenty-five. To the mouth of the Ganges six hundred and thirty-eight' (or seven hundred and thirty-eight, to

follow Schwanbeck's correction),—that is, six thousand stadia, as Megasthenês puts it.

"The ambiguous expression reliqua Seleuco Nicatori peragrata sunt, translated above as the other journeys made for Seleukos Nikator,' according to Schwanbeck's opinion, contain a dative 'of advantage,' and therefore can bear no other meaning. The reference is to the journeys of Megasthenês, Dêimachos, and Patroklês, whom Seleukos had sent to explore the more remote regions of Asia. Nor is the statement of Plinius in a passage before this more distinct. (India,') he says, 'was thrown open not only by the arms of Alexander the Great, and the kings who were his successors, of whom Seleucus and Antiochus even travelled to the Hyrcanian and Caspian seas, Patrocles being commander of their fleet, but all the Greek writers who stayed behind with the Indian kings (for instance, Megasthenes and Dionysius, sent by Philadelphus for that purpose) have given accounts of the military force of each nation.' Schwanbeck thinks that the words circumvectis etiam… Seleuco et Antiocho et Patrocle are properly meant to convey nothing but additional confirmation, and also an explanation how India was opened up by the arms of the kings who succeeded Alexander."

"The following statements," continues Müller, "contain all that is related about

Megasthenês the historian, who lived with Seleukos Nikator',—Clem. Alex. p. 132 Sylb. (Fragm. 42); 'Megasthenês, who lived with Sibyrtios the satrap of Arachosia, and who says that he often visited Sandrakottos, king of the Indians,'—Arrian, Exp. Alex. V. vi. 2 (Fragm. 2);—'To Sandrokottos, to whom Megasthenês came on an embassy,'—Strabo, XV. p. 702 (Fragm. 25);—'Megasthenês and Dêimachos were sent on an embassy, the former to Sandrokottos at Palimbothra, the other to his son; and they left accounts of their sojourn in the country,'—Strabo, ii. p. 70 (Fragm. 29 note); Megasthenês says that he often visited Sandrokottos, the greatest king (mahâraja: v. Bohlen, Alte Indien, I. p. 19) of the Indians, and Pôros, still greater than he:'—Arrian, Ind. c. 5 (Fragm. 24). Add the passage of Plinius, which Solinus (Polyhistor. c. 60) thus renders:—Megasthenês remained for sotne 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. Dionysius, who was sent by Philadelphus to put the truth to the test by personal inspection, wrote also as much.'

"From these sources, then, we gather that Megasthenês was the representative of Seleukos

at the court of Sibyrtios, satrap of Arachosia, and that he was sent from thence as the king's ambassador to at Palimbothra, and that not once, but frequently—whether to convey to him the presents of Seleukos, or for some other cause. According to the statement of Arrianus, Megasthenês also visited king Pôros, who was (Diod. xix. 14) already dead in 317 (Olymp. CXV. 4). These events should not be referred to the period of Seleukos, but they may very easily be placed in the reign of Alexander, as Bohlen (Alte Indien, vol. I. p. 68) appears to have believed they should, when he says Megasthenês was one of the companions of Alexander. But the structure of the sentences does not admit of this conclusion. For Arrianus says, 'It appears to me that Megasthenês did not see much of India, but yet more than the companions of Alexander, for he says that he visited Sandrokottos, the greatest king of the Indians, and Pôros, even greater than he (καὶ Πώρῳ ἔτι τούτου μέζονι).' We should be disposed to say, then, that he made a journey on some occasion or other to Pôros, if the obscurity of the language did not lead us to suspect it a corrupt reading. Lassen (De Pentap. p. 44) thinks the mention of Pôros a careless addition of a chance transcriber, but I prefer Schwanbeck's opinion, who thinks it should be written καὶ Πώρου ἔτι τούτῳ πέζονι, and who was even greater than Poros. If this correction is admitted, everything fits well.

"The time when he discharged his embassy or embassies, and how long he stayed in India, cannot be determined, but he was probably sent after the treaty had been struck and friendship had sprung up between the two kings. If, therefore, we make the reign of Sandrokottos extend to the year 288, Megasthenês would have set out for Palimbothra between 302 and 288. Clinton (F. H. vol. III. p. 482) thinks he came to the Indian king a little before 302."

While the date of the visit of Megasthenês to India is thus uncertain, there is less doubt as to what were the parts of the country which he saw; and on this point Schwanbeck thus writes (p. 21):—

"Both from what he himself says, and because he has enumerated more accurately than any of the companions of Alexander, or any other Greek, the rivers of Kâbul and the Panjâb, it is clear that he had passed through these countries. Then, again, we know that he reached Pâṭaliputra by travelling along the royal road. But he does not appear to have seen more of India than those parts of it, and he acknowledges himself that he knew the lower part of the country traversed by the Ganges only by hearsay and report. It is commonly supposed that he also spent some time in the Indian camp, and therefore in some part of the country, but where cannot now be known. This opinion, however, is based on a corrupt reading which the editions of Strabo exhibit. For in all the MSS. of Strabo (p. 709) is found this reading:—Γενομένους δ'οὗν 'εν τῷ Σανδροκόττου στρατοπέδῳ φησὶν ὁ Μεγασθένης, τετταράκοντα μυριάδον πλήθους ὶδρυμένου, μηδεμίαν ἡμέραν ἰδεῖν ἀνηνεγμένα κλέμματα πλειόνων ἢ διακοσίων δραχμῶν ἄξια. 'Megasthenês says that those who were in the camp of Sandrokottos saw,' &c. From this translation that given by Guarini and Gregorio alone is different. They render thus:—'Megasthenes refert, quum in Sandrocotti castra venisset … vidisse,' 'Megasthenês relates that when he had come into the camp of Sandrokottos, he saw,' &c. From this it appears that the translator had found written γενόμενος. But since that translation is hardly equal in authority even to a single MS., and since the word γενόμενους can be changed more readily into the word γενόμενος than γενόμενος into γενόμενους, there is no reason at all why we should depart from the reading of all the MSS., which Casaubon disturbed by a baseless conjecture, contending that γενόμενος should be substituted,—inasmuch as it is evident from Strabo and Arrianus (V. vi. 2) that Megasthenês had been sent to Sandrokottos,—which is an argument utterly futile. Nevertheless from the time of Casaubon the wrong reading γενόμενος which he promulgated has held its ground."

That Megasthenês paid more than one visit to India Schwanbeck is not at all inclined to believe. On this point he says (p. 23)—

"That Megasthenês frequently visited India recent writers, all with one consent, following Robertson, are wont to maintain; nevertheless this opinion is far from being certain. For what Arrianus has said in his Exped. Alex. V. vi. 2,—Πολλάκις δὲ λέγει (Μεγασθένης) ἀφικέσθαι παρὰ Σανδράκοττον τὸν Ἰνδῶν βασιλέα, does not solve the question, for he might have meant by the words that Megasthenês during his embassy had frequent interviews with Chandragupta. Nor, if we look to the context, does any other explanation seem admissible; and in fact no other writer besides has mentioned his making frequent visits, although occasion for making such mention was by no means wanting, and in the Indika itself of Megasthenês not the slightest indication of his having made numerous visits is to be found. But perhaps some may say that to this view is opposed the accurate knowledge which he possessed on all Indian matters; but this may equally well be accounted for by believing that he made a protracted stay at Pâṭaliputra as by supposing that he frequently visited India. Robertson's conjecture appears, therefore, uncertain, not to say hardly credible."

Regarding the veracity of Megasthenês, and his value as a writer, Schwanbeck writes (p. 59) to this effect:—

"The ancient writers, whenever they judge of those who have written on Indian matters, are without doubt wont to reckon Megasthenês among those writers who are given to lying and least worthy of credit, and to rank him almost on a par with Ktêsias. Arrianus alone has judged better of him, and delivers his opinion of him in these words:—'Regarding the Indians I shall set down in a special work all that is most credible for narration in the accounts penned by those who accompanied Alexander on his expedition, and by Nearchus, who navigated the great sea which washes the shores of India, and also by Megasthenês and Eratosthenês, who are both approved men (δοκίμω ἄνδρε):' Arr. Exped. Alex. V. v.

"The foremost amongst those who disparage him is Eratosthenês, and in open agreement with him are Strabo and Pliny. Others, among whom is Diodorus, by omitting certain particulars re- lated by Megasthenês, sufficiently show that they discredit that part of his narrative.

"Strabo (p. 70) says, 'Generally speaking, the men who have hitherto written or the affairs of India were a set of liars,— holds the first place in the list, comes next; while and with others of the same class, manage to stammer out a few words (of truth). Of this we became the more convinced whilst writing the history of Alexander. No faith whatever can be placed in Dêimachos and Megasthenês. They coined the fables concerning men with ears large enough to sleep in, men without any mouths, without noses, with only one eye, with spider legs, and with fingers bent backward. They renewed Homer's fables concerning the battles of the cranes and pygmies, and asserted the latter to be three spans high. They told of ants digging for gold, and Pans with wedge-shaped heads, of serpents swallowing down oxen and stags, horns and all,—meantime, as Eratosthenês has observed, accusing each other of falsehood. Both of these men were sent as ambassadors to Palimbothra,—Megasthenês to Dêimachos to his son,—and such are the notes of their residence abroad, which, I know not why, they thought fit to leave.

"When he adds, 'Patroklês certainly does not resemble them, nor do any other of the authorities consulted by Eratosthenês contain such absurdities,' we may well wonder, seeing that, of all the writers on India, Eratosthenês has chiefly followed Megasthenês. Plinius (Hist. Nat. VI. xxi. 3) says: 'India was opened up to our knowledge … even by other Greek writers, who, having resided with Indian kings,—as for instance Megasthenês and Dionysius,—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.'

"These same writers, however, seeing they have copied into their own pages a great part of his Indika, cannot by any means have so entirely distrusted his veracity as one might easily infer they did from these judgments. And what of this, that Eratosthenês himself, who did not quote him sparingly, says in Strabo (p. 689) that "he sets down the breadth of India from the register of the Stathmi, which were received as authentic,'—a passage which can have reference to Megasthenês alone. The fact is they find fault with only two parts of the narrative of Megasthenes,—the one in which he writes of the fabulous races of India, and the other where he gives an account of Heraklês and the Indian Dionysus; although it so happens that on other matters also they regarded the account given by others as true, rather than that of Megasthenês.

"The Âryan Indians were from the remotest period surrounded on all sides by indigenous tribes in a state of barbarism, from whom they differed both in mind and disposition. They were most acutely sensible of this difference, and gave it a very pointed expression. For as barbarians, even by the sanc- tion of the gods themselves, are excluded from the Indian commonwealth, so they seem to have been currently regarded by the Indians as of a nature and disposition lower than their own, and bestial rather than human. A difference existing between minds is not easily perceived, but the Indians were quick to discern how unlike the barbarous tribes were to themselves in bodily figure; and the divergence they exaggerated, making bad worse, and so framed to themselves a mental picture of these tribes beyond measure hideous. When reports in circulation regarding them had given fixity to this conception, the poets seized on it as a basis for further exaggeration, and embellished it with fables. Other races, and these even Indian, since they had originated in an intermixture of tribes, or since they did not sufficiently follow Indian manners, and especially the system of caste, so roused the common hatred of the Indians that they were reckoned in the same category with the barbarians, and represented as equally hideous of aspect. Accordingly in the epic poems we see all Brahmanical India surrounded by races not at all real, but so imaginary that sometimes it cannot be discovered how the fable originated.

"Forms still more wonderful you will find by bestowing a look at the gods of the Indians and their retinue, among whom particularly the attendants of Kuvêra and Kârtikêya are described in such a manner (conf. Mahâbh. ix. 2558 et seq), that hardly anything which it is possible for the human imagination to invent seems omitted. These, however, the Indians now sufficiently dis- tinguish from the fabulous races, since they neither believe that they live within the borders of India, nor have any intercourse with the human race. These, therefore, the Greeks could not confound with the races of India.

"These races, however, might be more readily confounded with other creatures of the Indian imagination, who held a sort of intermediate place between demons and men, and whose number was legion. For the and other are said to have the same characteristics as the fabulous races, and the only difference between them is that, while a single (evil) attribute only is ascribed to each race, many or all of these are assigned to the Râkshasas and the Piśâchas. Altogether so slight is the distinction between the two that any strict lines of demarcation can hardly be drawn between them. For the Râkshasas, though described as very terrible beings, are nevertheless believed to be human, and both to live on the earth and take part in Indian battles, so that an ordinary Indian could hardly define how the nature of a Râkshasa differs from that of a man. There is scarcely any one thing found to characterize the Râkshasas which is not attributed to some race or other. Therefore, although the Greeks might have heard of these by report,—which cannot be proved for certain,—they could scarcely, by reason of that, have erred in describing the manners of the races according to the Indian conception.

"That reports about these tribes should have reached Greece is not to be wondered at. For fables invented with some glow of poetic fervour have a remarkable facility in gaining a wide currency, which is all the greater in proportion to the boldness displayed in their invention. Those fables also in which the Indians have represented the lower animals as talking to each other have been diffused through almost every country in the world, in a way we cannot understand. Other fables found their way to the Greeks before even the name of India was known to them. In this class some fables even in Homer must be reckoned,—a matter which, before the Vedas were better known, admitted only of probable conjecture, but could not be established by unquestionable proofs. We perceive, moreover, that the further the epic poems of the Greeks depart from their original simplicity the more, for that very reason, do those fables creep into them; while a very liberal use of them is made by the poets of a later age. It would be a great mistake to suppose that those fables only in which India is mentioned proceeded from India; for a fable in becoming current carries along with it the name of the locality in which the scene of it is laid. An example will make this clear. The Indians supposed that towards the north, beyond the Himalaya, dwelt the a people who enjoyed a long and happy life, to whom disease and care were unknown, and who revelled in every delight in a land all paradise. This fable made its way to the West, carrying with it the name of the locality to which it related, and so it came to pass that from the time of Hesiod the Greeks supposed that towards the north lived the whose very name was fashioned after some likeness to the Indian name. The reason why the Indians placed the seat of this happy people towards the north is manifest; but there was not the slightest reason which can be discovered why the Greeks should have done so. Nay, the locality assigned to the Hyperboreans is not only out of harmony, but in direct conflict, with that conception of the world which the Greeks entertained.

"The first knowledge of the mythical geography of the Indians dates from this period, when the Greeks were the unconscious recipients of Indian fables. Fresh knowledge was imparted by who first gave a description of India; and all writers from the time of Skylax, with not a single exception, mention those fabulous races, but in such a way that they are wont to speak of them as æthiopians; by doing which they have incurred obloquy and the suspicion of dishonesty, especially This writer, however, is not at all untruthful when he says, in the conclusion of his Indika (33), that 'he omits many of these stories, and others still more marvellous, that he may not appear, to such as have not seen these, to be telling what is incredible;' for he could have described many other fabulous races, as for example men with the heads of tigers (vyâghramuchâs), others with the necks of snakes (vyalagrîvâs), others having horses' heads (turangavadanâs, aśvamuchâs), others with feet like dogs (śvâpadâs), others with four feet (chatushpadâs), others with three eyes (trinêtrâs), and others with six hundred.

"Nor were the companions of Alexander able to disregard these fables,—in fact, scarcely any of them doubted their truth. For, generally speaking, they were communicated to them by the Brâhmaṇs, whose learning and wisdom they held in the utmost veneration. Why, then, should we be surprised that Megasthenês also, following examples so high and numerous, should have handled those fables? His account of them is to be found in Strabo 711; Pliny, Hist. Nat vii. 2. 14–22; Solinus 52." (Sch. p. 64.)

Schwanbeck then examines the fables related by Megasthenês, and having shown that they were of Indian origin, thus proceeds (p. 74):—

"The relative veracity of Megasthenês, then, cannot be questioned, for he related truthfully both what he actually saw, and what was told him by others. If we therefore seek to know what reliance is to be placed on any particular narrative, this other point must be considered, how far his informants were worthy of credit. But here no ground for suspicion exists; for on those matters which did not come under his own observation he had his information from those Brâhmaṇs who were the rulers of the state, to whom he again and again appeals as his authorities. Accordingly he was able not only to describe how the kingdom of the was governed, but also to give an estimate of the power of other nations and the strength of their armies. Hence we cannot wonder that Indian ideas are to be found in the books of Megasthenês mixed up with accounts of what he personally observed and with Greek ideas.