Chapter XIV: Part 14

Diodôros gives the length of the serpents at sixteen cubits, or about twenty-four feet. Ailianos also gives this as their length. He says (xvii. 2): “Kleitarchos states that about India a serpent sixteen cubits long is produced, but mentions there is another kind which differs in appearance from the rest. They are many sizes shorter, and display to the eye a variety of colours, as if they were painted with pigments. Stripes extend from the head to the tail, and are of various colours, some tinted like bronze, some like silver, some like gold, while others are crimson. The same writer notices that their bite proves very quickly fatal.” Arrian in his _Indika_ (c. 15) states on the authority of Nearchos that there are serpents in India spotted and nimble in their movements, and that one was caught which measured about sixteen cubits, though the Indians alleged that the largest snakes were much larger. Nearchos adds that Alexander summoned to his camp all the Indians most expert in the healing art, and that these succeeded in curing snake-bites, to find a remedy for which quite baffled the skill of all the Greek physicians. Strabo relates (XV. i. 28), that Abisaros, as the ambassadors he sent to Alexander reported, kept two serpents, one of 80 cubits, and the other, according to Onesikritos, of 140 cubits in length; but Strabo no more believed in this land-serpent than we do in the sea-serpent, for he adds that Onesikritos might as well be called the master-fabulist as the master-pilot of Alexander. He afterwards says that Aristoboulos saw a snake nine cubits and a span long, and that he himself while in Egypt had seen another of the same length which had been brought from India. Megasthenes wrote that serpents in India grow to such a size that they swallow deer and oxen whole. He referred no doubt to the python. The python of the Sunderbuns about the mouths of the Ganges are known to swallow deer whole. The Elzevir editor of Curtius cites statements about the size of Indian serpents which leave the extravagant estimate of Onesikritos far behind. Thus Maximus Tyrius (_Dissert._ 38) says: “Taxiles showed Alexander various wonders, and among these was a very large animal sacred to Bacchus, to which the Indians every day immolated victims. This animal was a serpent (_draco_), of such a size that it equalled five acres of land.”

NOTE A_A_.—INDIAN PEACOCKS

The peacock (_mayûra_) abounds in India especially in the forests at the foot of the Himalayas. Ailianos has several notices of it in his work on animals. In Book v. 21, after he has described its habits, and the pride it takes in displaying its gorgeous plumage, he states that it was brought into Greece from the barbarians. Being for a long time rare, it was exhibited at the beginning of each month to the men and women of Athens who were lovers of the beautiful. The charge for admission to the spectacle was a considerable source of gain. The price of a pair (cock and hen) was a thousand drachmas (or about £40 of our money). Alexander the Macedonian, on seeing these birds in India, was so struck with admiration of their beauty that he denounced the severest penalties against any one who should kill them. In Book xvi. 2 he notes that the Indian peacocks are the largest to be anywhere found. In xiii. 18 he says: “In the palace where the greatest of all the Indian kings resides, besides many things else which excite admiration, eclipsing the splendour alike of Memnonian Sousa and all the boasted magnificence of Ekbatana, there are reared in the Royal Park tame peacocks and tame pheasants.... Within that park are shady groves, grassy meads planted with trees, and bowers woven by the craft of skilful woodmen. So genial withal is the climate, that the trees are ever green, and never show signs of age, nor even shed their leaves. Some are native to the soil, while others which are brought with great care from foreign parts, contribute to enhance the beauty of the landscape. Not the olive, however, which is neither indigenous to India, nor thrives if brought into it. The park is therefore frequented by wild birds as well as by the tame. They seek its groves from choice, and there build their nests and rear their young. Parrots too are bred there, which, flitting to and fro, keep hovering around the king. Notwithstanding they are so numerous, no Indian will eat them, for they regard them as sacred, while the Brahmans esteem them above all other birds, and with good reason, since the parrot alone with a clear utterance repeats the words of human speech.” In xi. 33 he tells a story about a peacock of extraordinary size and beauty, which had been sent from India as a present to the King of Egypt, who thereupon dedicated the bird to Jupiter, the guardian god of his capital city. His work has several other passages which refer to the peacock; but as these have no bearing upon India we do not cite them. The bird was introduced into Greece long before Alexander’s time, for Dêmos, the friend of Perikles, reared peacocks at Athens, which many people came from Lacedaemon and Thessaly to see, as we learn from Athenaios, ix. 12. It is said that peacocks were first introduced into Greece from Samos.

NOTE B_B_.—INDIAN DOGS

A breed of dogs, large, powerful, and of untamable ferocity, is still found in the parts of India here mentioned.[413] Pliny, speaking of these Indian dogs, ascribes their savage disposition to the cause mentioned by Diodôros, the tiger blood that runs in their veins. The Indians, he says (viii. 40), assert that these dogs are begotten from tigers, for which purpose the bitches when in heat are tied up amid the woods. They think that the whelps of the first and second brood are too ferocious, but they rear those of the third. Ailianos (viii. 1) varies this statement by saying that tigers are the offspring of the first and second connection, but dogs of the third. He then proceeds thus: “Dogs that boast a tiger paternity disdain to hunt deer or to enter into an encounter with a wild boar, but delight to assail the lion as if to show their high pedigree. So the Indians gave Alexander, the son of Philip, a proof of the strength and mettle of these dogs in the manner following: They let go a deer, but the dog never stirred; then a boar, but he still remained impassive. Then they tried a bear, but even this failed to rouse him to action. At last they let go a lion. Then the dog fired with rage, as if he now saw a worthy antagonist, did not hesitate for a moment, but flew to encounter him, gripped him fast, and tried to strangle him. Then the Indian who provided this spectacle for the king, and who knew well the dog’s capacity of endurance, ordered his tail to be cut off. It was accordingly cut off, but the dog took not the least heed. The Indian ordered next one of his legs to be cut off. This was done, but the dog held to his grip as tenaciously as at first, just as if the dismembered limb were not his own, but belonged to some one else. The remaining legs were then cut off in succession, but even all this did not in the least make him relax the vigour of his bite. Last of all, his head was severed from the rest of his body, but even then his teeth were seen hanging on by the part he had first gripped, while the head dangled aloft still clinging to the lion, though the original biter no longer existed. Alexander was very painfully impressed by what he saw, being lost in admiration of the dog, since after giving proof of his mettle he perished in no cowardly fashion, but preferring to die rather than to let his courage give way. The Indian, seeing the king’s vexation, gave him four dogs like the one that was killed. He was much gratified with the gift, and gave in return a suitable equivalent. Joy at the possession of the four dogs soon obliterated from the mind of Philip’s son his sorrow for the other.” The same author writes nearly to the same effect in the nineteenth chapter of his fourth book: “I reckon Indian dogs among wild beasts, for they are of surpassing strength and ferocity, and are the largest of all dogs. This dog despises other animals, but fights with the lion, withstands his attacks, returns his roaring with baying, and gives him bite for bite. In such an encounter the dog may be worsted, but not till he has often severely galled and wounded the lion. The lion is, however, at times worsted by the Indian dog and killed in the chase. If a dog once clutches a lion, he retains his hold so pertinaciously that if one should even cut off his leg with a knife he will not let go, however severe may be the pain he suffers, till death supervening compels him.” Aristotle, in his _History of Animals_ (viii. 28), refers to these Indian dogs and the story of their tigrine descent. Even an earlier mention of them is to be found in Xenophon (_Kyn._ c. 10). We may hence infer that their fame had spread to Greece long before Alexander’s time. Marco Polo mentions a province in China where the people had a large breed of dogs so fierce and bold that two of them together would attack a lion—an animal with which that province abounded (Yule’s ed. ii. pp. 108, 109).

NOTE C_C_.—THE GANGARIDAI

This people occupied the country about the mouths of the Ganges, and may best be described as the inhabitants of Lower Bengal. The likeness of their name to that of the Gandaridai, the people of Gandhâra, whose seats were in the neighbourhood of the Indus and the Kôphên or Kâbul river, has been the source of much confusion and error. Fortunately the notice of them in the _Indika_ of Megasthenes has been preserved both by Pliny and Solinus, from whom we learn that they were a branch of the great race of the Calingae, that their capital was Parthalis (Bardwan?), and that their king had an army of 60,000 foot, 1000 horse, and 700 elephants, which was always ready for action (Pliny, vi. 18; Solin. 52). They are mentioned in Ptolemy’s _Geography_ as a people who dwelt about the mouth of the Ganges and whose capital was Gangê. The name of the _Gangaridai_ has nothing corresponding with it in Sanskrit, nor can it be, as Lassen supposed, a designation first invented by the Greeks, for Phegelas used it in describing to Alexander the races that occupied the regions beyond the Hyphasis. According to Saint-Martin, their name is preserved in that of the Gonghrîs of S. Bihâr, with whom were connected the Gangayîs of North-Western and the Gangrâr of Eastern Bengal. These designations he takes to be but variations of the name which was originally common to them all. Wilford, in his article on the chronology of the Hindus (_Asiat. Res._ v. p. 269), says that “the greatest part of Bengal was known in Sanskrit under the name of Gancaradesa, or ‘country of Gancara,’ from which the Greeks made Gangari-das.” But this view must be rejected on the same ground as Lassen’s. The Gangaridai are mentioned by Virgil, _Georg._ iii. l. 27. As their king, at the time when Megasthenes recorded the strength of the army which he maintained, was subject to Magadha, we may infer that Sandrokottos treated the various potentates who submitted to his arms as Alexander treated Taxilês and Pôros, permitting them to retain as his vassals the power and dignity which they had previously enjoyed.

NOTE D_D_.—THE PRASIOI

The Sanskrit word _Prâchyâs_ (plur. of _Prachya_, “eastern”) denoted the inhabitants of the east country, that is, the country which lay to the east of the river Sarasvatî, now the Sursooty, which flows in a south-western direction from the mountains bounding the north-east part of the province of Delhi till it loses itself in the sands of the great desert. The Magadhas, it would seem, had, before Alexander’s advent to India, extended their power as far as this river, and hence were called Prâchyâs by the people who lived to the west of it. They are called by Strabo, Arrian, and Pliny, _Prasioi_, _Prasii_; by Plutarch, _Praisioi_; by Nikolaös Damask., _Praiisioi_; by Diodôros, _Brêsioi_; by Curtius, _Pharrasii_; by Justin, _Praesides_. Ailianos in general writes _Praisioi_ like Plutarch, but in one passage where he quotes Megasthenes, he transcribes the name with perfect accuracy in the adjective form as _Praxiakê_. General Cunningham does not agree in referring the name to _Prâchya_, as all the other modern writers do, but takes _Prasii_ to be only the Greek form of _Palâsiya_ or _Parâsiya_, a “man of _Palâsa_ or _Parâsa_,” a name of _Magadha_ of which Palibothra was the capital. This derivation, he says, is supported by the spelling of the name given by Curtius, who calls the people _Pharrasii_, an almost exact transcript of Parâsiya (see his _Ancient Geog. of India_, p. 454). His view, we think, is hardly destined to supplant the other. Ptolemy describes in his _Geography_ a small kingdom with seven cities which he locates in the regions of the upper Ganges, and calls Prasiakê. Kanoge is one of these cities, but Palibothra is not in the number, appearing elsewhere as the capital of the Mandalai. One is at a loss to understand what considerations could have led Ptolemy to push the Prasians so far from their proper seats and transfer their capital to another people.

NOTE E_E_.—THE SIBI

The Sanskrit word _Śivi_ denotes a country, the inhabitants of which, _Sivayas_, may be the Sibi of Curtius and Diodôros. The Sibi inhabited a district between the Hydaspês and the Indus, and their capital stood at a distance of about thirty miles from the former river, and, as appears from Diodôros, above its confluence with the Akesinês. As they were clad with the skins of wild beasts and were armed with clubs, they reminded the Greeks of Herakles, who was similarly dressed and armed, and thence arose the legend that the Sibi were the descendants of the followers of that wandering hero. The truth, however, is that the Sibi represent one of the chief aboriginal tribes of the regions of the Indus. The Sanskrit poems and the Pauranik traditions give this great tribe its real name _Śibi_, and represent it as one of the important branches of the race which originally peopled all the north-western region. According to Moorcroft, the inhabitants of the district of Bimber are called Chibs, while Baber in his _Memoirs_ had mentioned a people so named as belonging to the same parts. Arrian does not expressly mention Alexander’s expedition against the Sibi in his _History_, but in his _Indika_ (c. 5) he thus refers to them: “So also when the Greeks came among the _Sibai_, an Indian tribe, and observed that they wore skins, they declared that the _Sibai_ were descended from those who belonged to the expedition of Herakles, and had been left behind; for besides being dressed in skins, the _Sibai_ carry a cudgel and brand on their oxen the representation of a club.” In the ordinary texts of Curtius the _Sibi_ appears as the _Sobii_, and in Justin as the _Silei_. They are mentioned in the _History_ of Orosius (iii. 19), along with a people called Gessonae, who are evidently the people called by Diodôros the _Agalassi_.

NOTE F_F_.—THE AGALASSIANS

Curtius does not give the name of the people whom Alexander proceeded to attack after he had received the submission of the Sibi, but it is supplied by Diodôros, who calls them Agalasseis. Saint-Martin says (_Étude_, p. 115) that they adjoined the eastern side of the Sibi and occupied the country below the junction of the Hydaspês and Akesinês. Though _Agalassi_ is the most commonly received reading of their name, yet there are many variant readings of it, especially in the manuscripts and editions of Justin, where we find _Agesinae_, _Hiacensanae_, _Argesinae_, _Agini_, _Acensoni_, and _Gessonae_. The last form occurs also in the _History_ of Orosius (iii. 19), where the people it designates are mentioned along with the Sibi. The original name to which these may be referred is probably _Arjunâyana_. This name occurs between that of the Mâlava (Malloi) and that of the Yaudheyas on the Pillar at Allahabad, whereon Samudragupta, who reigned towards the end of the 4th century A.D., inscribed the names of the countries and peoples included in his dominions. The Arjunâyana are mentioned also by the Scholiast of Pânini, and in the geographical list which Wilford compiled from the _Varâha Sanhita_. Arrian in his _Indika_ (c. 4) calls the people situated at the junction of the Hydaspês and Akesinês the _Arispai_ (_Ibid._ p. 116, and footnotes).

NOTE G_G_.—TIDES IN INDIAN RIVERS

Several Indian rivers present the tidal phenomenon called the _bore_, the most celebrated being those of the Brahmaputra, the Ganges, the Nerbada, and the Indus. The bore is sometimes many feet in height, and the noise it makes in contending against the descending stream frightful. The bore which rushes up the Hughli has a speed of about seventeen or eighteen miles per hour. A vivid description of the tide or bore of the Nerbada has been given by the author of the _Periplûs_. “India,” he says (c. 45), “has everywhere an abundance of rivers, and her seas ebb and flow with tides of extraordinary strength, which increase both at new and full moon, and for three days after each, but fall off intermediately. About Barygaza (Bharoch) they are more violent than elsewhere; so that all of a sudden you see the depths laid bare and portions of the land turned into sea, and the sea where ships were sailing but just before turned without warning into dry land. The rivers, again, on the access of flood-tide rushing into their channels with the whole body of the sea, are driven upwards against their natural course for a great many miles with a force that is irresistible.” In c. 46, after explaining how dangerous these tides are to ships navigating the Nerbada, he thus proceeds: “But at new moons, especially when they occur in conjunction with a night tide, the flood sets in with such extraordinary violence that on its beginning to advance, even though the sea be calm, its roar is heard by those living near the river’s mouth, sounding like the tumult of battle heard in the distance, and soon after the sea with its hissing waves bursts over the bare shoals.”

NOTE H_H_.—INDIAN PHILOSOPHERS

Arrian has given the account here promised of the Indian sages, whom he calls _Sophists_, in the eleventh chapter of his _Indika_. They formed the highest and most honoured of the seven castes into which, he says, Indian society was divided. His account is, however, very meagre compared with that which Strabo, quoting from the same authority, Megasthenes, has given in the fifteenth book of his _Geography_. We may subjoin a notice of the more important points. The philosophers were of two kinds, the Brachmânes and the Garmanes (Śramanas, i. e. _Buddhist ascetics_). The Brachmans were held in greater repute, as they agreed more exactly in their opinions. They lived in a grove outside the city, lay upon pallets of straw and on skins, abstained from animal food and sexual intercourse. After living thirty-seven years in this manner each individual retired to his own possessions, led a life of greater freedom, and married as many wives as he pleased. They discoursed much upon death, which they held to be for philosophers a birth into a real and happy life. They maintained that nothing which happens to a man is bad or good, opinions being merely dreams. On many points their notions coincided with those of the Greeks. They said, for instance, that the world was created and liable to destruction, that it was of a spheroidal figure, and that its Creator governed it and was diffused through all its parts. They invented fables also, after the manner of Plato, on the immortality of the soul, punishments in Hades, and similar topics. Of the Śramanas the most honourable were the Hylobioi. These, as their name imports, lived in woods, where they subsisted on leaves and wild fruits. They were clothed with garments made of the bark of trees, and abstained from commerce with women and from wine. The kings held communication with them by messengers, and through them worshipped the divinity. Next in honour to the Hylobioi were the physicians, who cured diseases by diet rather than by medicinal remedies, which were chiefly unguents and cataplasms. See XV. i. 58-60.

Arrian, in the opening chapters of the seventh book of his _Anabasis_, gives an account of Alexander’s dealings with the Gymnosophists of Taxila which agrees in substance with that given by Strabo (XV. i. 61-65) based on the authority both of Aristoboulos and Onesikritos, the latter of whom was sent by Alexander to converse with the gymnosophists. For the details see Biog. Appendix, _s.v._ Kalânos.

NOTE I_I_.—SUTTEE (Diod. Note 12).

But Diodôros, in a subsequent part of his history (xix. 33), relates that the law had been enacted because of the great prevalence of the practice of wives poisoning their husbands. In c. 34 he states that the two widows of Kêteus, an Indian general who fell in the great battle in Gabienê between Eumenes and Antigonos, contended for the honour of being burned on the funeral pile of their husband, and that the younger was selected for the distinction, because the elder, being at the time with child, was precluded by law from immolating herself. Strabo says (XV. i. 62) that Aristoboulos and other writers make mention of Indian wives burning themselves voluntarily with their husbands.

From this it would appear that this cruel practice, known as _Suttee_ (Sansk. _satî_, “a devoted wife”), which was suppressed by the humanity of the Indian Government in the days of Lord Bentinck, was one of high antiquity, but Mr. R. C. Dutt, in his able and learned work on _Civilisation in Ancient India_, assigns a much later date to its origin. He says (vol. iii. 199) that the barbarous rite was introduced centuries after Manu, whose _Institutes_, he thinks, were compiled within a century or two before or after the Christian aera. In a subsequent passage (p. 332) he states that Suttee was originally a Scythian custom, and was probably introduced into India by the Scythian invaders who poured into India in the Buddhist age (from 242 B.C. to 500 A.D.), and formed ruling Hindu races later on. There can be no doubt that Suttee was a Scythian practice. Their kings were entombed with sacrifices both of beasts and of human beings of both sexes, as we see from what Herodôtos relates in the seventy-first chapter of his fourth book. Still the statement of Diodôros shows that several centuries before the Skythian invasions of India took place Suttee was an established institution among a race of the purest Aryan descent such as were the Kathaians—a people whose name shows they were Kshatriyas. The Hindus themselves believe that the custom was of the very highest antiquity, and that a text of the _Rig-veda_ sanctioned its observance. It has been discovered, however, that the text in question has been falsified and mistranslated, and that in point of fact no mention is found of the custom in Sanskrit literature till the Pauranik period, the beginning of which Mr. Dutt assigns to the sixth century of our aera.

NOTE K_K_.—ANCIENT INDIAN COINS

The following remarks on the ancient coinage of India are extracted from two papers contributed by Mr. W. Theobald to the _Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal_, Nos. III. and IV. of 1890, under the title _Notes on some of the Symbols found on the Punch-marked Coins of Hindustan_:—“The punch-marked coins,” he says, “though presenting neither kings’ names, dates, nor inscriptions of any sort, are nevertheless very interesting not only from their being the earliest money coined in India, and of a purely indigenous character, but from their being stamped with a number of symbols, some of which we can with the utmost confidence declare to have originated in distant lands and in the remotest antiquity. The punch used to produce these coins differed from the ordinary dies which subsequently came into use in that they covered only one of the many symbols usually seen on their pieces. Some of these coins were round and others of a rectangular form. The great bulk of these coins is silver (but some copper, and others gold). Some coins are formed of a copper blank thickly covered with silver before receiving the impression of the punches, and this contemporary sophistication of the currency is found to occur subsequently in various Indian coinages, in the Graeco-Bactrian of the Panjâb, the Hindu kings of Cabul, etc.” Mr. Theobald thinks we may regard these pieces as a portion of those very coins (or identical in all respects) which the Brahman Chânakya, the adviser of Chandragupta, with the view of raising resources, converted, by recoining each _Kahapana_ into eight, and amassed eighty kotis of _Kahapanas_ (or Kârshâpanas). Mr. Theobald holds that the square coins, both silver and copper, struck by the Greeks for their Indian possessions belong to no Greek national type whatever, but are obviously a novelty adopted in imitation of an indigenous currency already firmly established in the country. He adduces by way of proof the testimony of Curtius, where he states that Taxiles offered Alexander eighty talents of coined silver (_signati argenti_). What other, he asks, except these punch-marked coins could these pieces of coined silver have been? The name, he then adds, by which these coins are spoken of in the Buddhist _Sutras_ about 200 B.C. was “purana” = _old_, whence General Cunningham argues that the word _old_, as applied to the indigenous _Karsha_, was used to distinguish it from the new and more recent issues of the Greeks. Mr. Vincent A. Smith writes to the same effect. He considers the artistic coins to be of Greek origin, but holds that the idea of coining money, and the simple mechanical processes for rude coins, were not borrowed from the Greeks. It is, he thinks, impossible to prove that any given piece is older than Alexander, though some primitive coins may be older. The oldest Indian coins to which a date can be assigned are, in his opinion, those issued by Sôphytes, the contemporary of Alexander. The general adoption of Greek, or Graeko-Roman types of coinage, he assigns to the first century as a result of the Indo-Skythian invasions. Roman coins, it is well known, are found in all parts of India. In Indian writings the Roman _dênârius_ appears in the form _dînâra_, and the Greek _drachmê_ (which was about equivalent in value to the _denarius_) in the form _dramma_. The subject of the Indo-Greek coinage is discussed in A. v. Sallet’s _Die Nachfolger Alexanders_.

NOTE L_L_.—AN AŚÔKA INSCRIPTION

_Transliteration._— ...... yu Ichha shavabhu .... shayama
shamachaliyaṁ madava ti. Iyaṁ vu mu ...

Devânaṁ Piyeshâ ye dhaṁmavijaye she cha punâ ladhe Devânaṁ Pi
... cha

shaveshu cha ateshu a shashu pi yojanashateshu ata Atiyoge nâma
Yona lâjâ palaṁ châ tenâ

Aṁtiyogenâ chatâli 4 lajâne Tulamaye nâma Aṁtekine nâma Makâ nâ
ma Alikyashudale nâma, nichaṁ Choḍa-Paṁḍiyâ avam Taṁbapaṁniyâ
hevameva hevamevâ

Hidâlâjâ. Viśa-Vaji-Yona-Kaṁbijeshu Nâbhake Nabhapaṁtishu
Boja-Pitinikyeshu

Adha-Puladeshu shavatâ Devânaṁ Piyashâ dhaṁṁamânushathi
anuvataṁti.

_Translation._—The following is considered of the highest
importance by the God-beloved, namely Conquest by law; this
Conquest, however, is made by the God-beloved as well here (_in
his own kingdom_) as among all his neighbours, even as far as
six hundred yojanas (_leagues_), where the King of the Yonas
(_Greeks_), Antiyoka by name, dwells; and beyond this Antiyoka
where the four kings, Turamaya by name, Aṁtikina by name,
Maka by name, Alikasudara by name (dwell farther away) in the
south, where the Chodas and Paindas (_Pandyas_) (dwell), as
far as Tambapanini (_Ceylon_) (where) the Hida king (dwells).
Among the Viśas, the Vajris (_Vrijis_), the Yonas (_Greeks_),
the Kamboyas (_Kâbulîs_), in Nâbhaka of the Nâbhitis, among
the Bhojas, the Pitinikas, the Andhras and the Puladas
(_Pulindas_), the teaching of the law of the God-beloved is
universally followed.

This remarkable edict is found inscribed at four different places: Shahbâzgarhi in Yusufzai, Mânsahra in Hazâra of the Panjâb, Kâlsi above Dehra Dûn, and Girnâr in Kathiawâr. In the first two places the character employed is the Karoshtri, that is, the Baktrian Pali, and in the other two the Indian Pali. It is the Kâlsi inscription which is copied in the illustration. By the God-beloved (Piyeshâ or Piyadasi) is meant Aśôka himself. The Grecian kings named in the inscription have already been identified (p. 52), with the exception of Alikyashudale, who is taken to be Alexander, King of Epeiros. _v._ Senart’s _Les Inscriptions de Piyadasi_ and _Epigraphia Indica_, vol. ii.

BIOGRAPHICAL APPENDIX

ABISARES is called by Arrian the King of the Indian Mountaineers, and may perhaps be not improperly described as the King of Kâśmîr. His name is derived from that of his kingdom, _Abhisâra_, which designated the mountainous country to the east of the Indus now known as _Hazâra_, a name in which some traces of the old seem to survive. After the fall of Mazaga, he sent troops across the Indus to aid the inhabitants in resisting Alexander. He sent embassies, however, to the conqueror both before and after the defeat of Pôros, whom he inclined to succour. Alexander allowed him to retain his kingdom, and when he died appointed his son to succeed him, as we learn from Curtius X. i.

AGGRAMMES.—_See_ Xandrames.

ALKETAS was the brother of Perdikkas, who, after Alexander’s death, assumed the regency of the empire. He was the son of Orontes, a Macedonian of the province of Orestis. He is first mentioned by Arrian as commander of one of the brigades which Alexander, towards the close of his Baktrian campaigns, despatched under Krateros into the country of the Paratakenians, who still held out against him. He is next mentioned in connection with the siege of Mazaga and Ora. When Alexander crossed the Hydaspês to encounter Pôros, Alketas remained behind in the camp with Krateros. After Alexander’s death Alketas supported the cause of his brother, and by his orders put to death Kynanê, the half-sister of Alexander—a cruel act which his own troops resented. When Perdikkas was murdered in Egypt (321 B.C.) Alketas was at the time with Eumenes engaged against Krateros. He afterwards, however, joined his forces to those of Attalos; but being defeated in Pisidia, he slew himself to avoid falling into the hands of Antigonos.

AMBIGER, supposed to be a corrupt reading for Ambi-regis.—_See_ under Sambus.

AMYNTAS, the son of Nikolaös, was appointed satrap of Baktria in succession to Artabazos, who resigned the office on the ground of his advanced age. When Alexander left Baktria to invade India he left Amyntas in the province with a force of 10,000 foot and 3500 horse.

ANDROKOTTOS.—_See_ Sandrokottos.

ANDROSTHENES, a native of Thasos, sailed with Nearchos, and was afterwards sent by Alexander to explore the Persian Gulf. He wrote an account of this voyage, and a work describing a coasting voyage to India.

ANTIGENES, an officer who served both under Philip and Alexander. In 340 B.C. he lost an eye at the siege of Perinthos. He was present in the battle with Pôros, and the divisions of the phalanx which he led on this occasion formed afterwards part of the large body of troops which Krateros led through the country of the Arachotians and Zarangians into Karmania. After the army reached Sousa he was for some time deprived of his command for having advanced some fraudulent claim. After Alexander’s death he obtained the satrapy of Sousiana. In the wars between the generals he sided with Eumenes, whom he aided with the Argyraspids under his command. When Eumenes was defeated in 316 B.C. Antigenes fell into the hands of his enemy, Antigonos, who ordered him to be burned to death.

ANTIGONOS, called the One-eyed, was a Macedonian of Elimiôtis, and one of the generals of Alexander, but did not accompany him into India, as he had been appointed satrap of Phrygia. In the partition of the empire he received Phrygia, Lykia, and Pamphylia, and eventually made himself master of the whole of Asia Minor. He was slain in the battle of Ipsos 301 B.C. He was the father of Dêmêtrios Poliorkêtês, who founded a line of Macedonian kings.

ANTIGONOS GONATAS was one of the kings to whom Aśôka sent Buddhist missionaries. He was the son of Dêmêtrios Poliorkêtês, whom he succeeded as king of Macedonia in the year 283 B.C. His reign extended to forty-four years. His brother Antigonos Dôsôn reigned afterwards over Macedonia for nine years, from 229 to 220 B.C., in succession to Dêmêtrios II. the son of Gonatas.

ANTIOCHOS II., surnamed Theos, succeeded to the throne of Syria on the death of his father Antiochos I., who was the son of the famous Seleukos Nikator. During many years of his reign he was engaged in intermittent hostilities with Ptolemy Philadelphos the king of Egypt, who wrested from him Phoenicia and Hollow Syria. His power was further weakened by the revolt of Arsakês, who established the Parthian empire (in 250 B.C.), and by the subsequent revolt of Theodotos, who made Baktria an independent kingdom. He was one of the kings of the West to whom Buddhist missionaries were sent by the Indian king Aśôka. His wife Laodikê caused him to be murdered in B.C. 246.

ANTIPATER.—This officer, who had great experience in war and civil affairs under Philip, was left regent of Macedonia when Alexander set out on his Asiatic expedition. Olympias, jealous of his power, was constantly engaged in intrigues against him, while she annoyed her son by filling her letters to him with complaints against his deputy. After the murder of Perdikkas in Egypt, Antipater succeeded him in the regency of the empire, and this he held till his death in 320 B.C.

APHRIKES, called Eryx by Curtius, was the same whom Arrian designates the _brother of Assakênos_, the king of Mazaga. He was put to death by his own followers.

APOLLONIOS, a native of Tyana in Kappadokia, was born in the year 4 B.C. He adopted the Pythagorean system of philosophy, and submitted himself to its ascetic discipline. He was credited with the possession of supernatural powers, and parallels have been drawn between his character and supposed miracles and those of Christ. He travelled in the East, and is said to have visited Taxila, the capital of Phraortes, an Indian prince, where he met Iarchas, the chief of the Brahmans, and disputed with Indian gymnosophists. About a hundred years after his death an account of his life was written by Philostratos, which, notwithstanding that much of it is untrustworthy, is of great value for the investigation of Indian antiquity.

APOLLOPHANES was appointed satrap of the Oritians, but was deposed not long afterwards by Alexander for misgovernment.

ARIOBARZANES was the satrap of Persis. After the defeat of the Persians near Arbêla, he fled to secure the pass called the Persian Gates, which lay on the route to Persepolis. Alexander having gained the heights above his camp, the Persians took to flight, and Ariobarzanes made his escape with a few horsemen.

ARISTOBOULOS was a native of Kassandreia, a town on the isthmus which connects the peninsula of Pallênê with the mainland. He accompanied Alexander in his Asiatic expedition, and wrote a history of his wars, which was one of the principal sources used by Arrian in the composition of his _Anabasis_, and by Plutarch in his _Life of Alexander_. Arrian, in the preface to his great work, thus characterises the two authors whom he mainly followed: “Different authors have differed in their accounts of Alexander’s life.... But I consider the narratives of Ptolemy and Aristoboulos to be more worthy of credit than the rest; Aristoboulos, because he attended Alexander in his expedition; and Ptolemy, not only for that reason, but also because he was afterwards himself a king, and for one in his position to have falsified facts would have been more disgraceful than for a man of humbler rank. Both of them, moreover, compiled their histories after Alexander was dead, when they were neither compelled, nor tempted by hope of reward, to misrepresent facts, and on this account they are the more worthy of credit.” Lucian, nevertheless, accuses Aristoboulos of having invented marvellous stories of Alexander’s prowess in battle; but it is thought that in the anecdote which he relates in this connection he has used by mistake the name of Aristoboulos for that of Onesikritos. _See_ Lucian’s _How History should be Written_, c. 12. It is said that Aristoboulos began the composition of his history when he was 84 years old, and that he lived to be 90.

ARISTONOUS was, like Alexander, a native of Pella, and was one of the seven or eight chief officers who formed his body-guard, and had at all times access to his presence. According to Curtius he was one of the men who helped to save Alexander’s life when he was assailed and wounded by the Mallians in their chief stronghold. On the death of Alexander he advocated the claims of Perdikkas to the supremacy. After the fall of Olympias, to whose cause he had attached himself, he was put to death by order of her antagonist, Kassander, in the year 316 B.C.

ARISTOTLE was born in 384 B.C. at Stageira, a seaport town near the isthmus which connects the peninsula terminating in Mount Athos with the mainland of Macedonia. When he was studying philosophy in Athens under Plato he received a letter from King Philip announcing the birth of his son Alexander. This letter has been preserved by Aulus Gellius in his _Noctes Atticae_ (ix. 3):—“Philip to Aristotle greeting: know that a son has been born to me. I thank the gods, not so much for his birth, as that it has been his fortune to be born when you are in the prime of life; for I hope that being instructed and educated by you, he will prove himself worthy both of us and of the succession to so great a state.” Thirteen years afterwards Philip summoned the great philosopher to his court, and entrusted him with the education of his son, which was conducted in quiet seclusion at Stageira, at a distance from Pella, the centre of political activity and court intrigue. Here Alexander remained for four years, at the end of which he was called to govern the kingdom during his father’s temporary absence on an expedition against Byzantium. Along with him were educated other noble youths, Kassander, son of Antipater; Marsyas of Pella; Kallisthenes, who was related to Aristotle; Theophrastos, and probably also Nearchos, Ptolemy, and Harpalos. The course of instruction embraced poetry, eloquence, and philosophy, and, no doubt, also politics, though one of the leading aims of Alexander in after life, that of uniting all the nations under his sway into one kingdom without due regard to their individual peculiarities, was opposed to the views of his master. Alexander regarded Aristotle with sentiments of the deepest respect and affection, and rewarded him for his instructions with a munificence which has never been surpassed. Pliny mentions how liberally he supported the philosopher in his researches into natural science, especially in the department of zoology, ordering his vicegerents everywhere to supply him with specimens of all kinds of animals. Unhappily the cordiality between them was interrupted when Kallisthenes began to express disapproval of the change in Alexander’s conduct and policy. Aristotle died at the age of 63, about a year after the death of his pupil.

ARSAKÊS was the ruler of a small mountain kingdom which adjoined that of his brother Abisares, King of Kâśmîr.

ARTABAZOS was a Persian satrap, who for some years maintained a war of rebellion against Artaxerxes III. In the reign of Darius he distinguished himself by his fidelity to his sovereign. He took part in the battle of Gaugamela, and afterwards accompanied Darius in his flight. Alexander, who approved of his fidelity to his master, rewarded him with the satrapy of Baktria. Ptolemy married one of his daughters and Eumenes another. He resigned his satrapy on account of his great age, and was succeeded by Kleitos.

ARTEMIDOROS was a Greek geographer who lived about 100 B.C. His work on geography was abridged by Markianos. Some fragments of the work, which was of high value, and of the abridgment, have been preserved by Strabo and other writers.

ASKLÊPIOS (AESCULAPIUS) was the god of the medical art. His descendants were called Asklepiadai, and had their principal seats at Kôs and Knidos. The Asklepiads were not only a fraternity of physicians, but an order of priests, who combined religion with the practice of their art.

AŚÔKA was the son of Vindusâra and grandson of Chandragupta, called Sandrokottos by the Greeks. He ascended the throne of Magadha in 270 B.C. Having been converted to Buddhism, he established that faith as the state religion of his vast empire, which comprised the greater part of India. He was zealous in promoting the spread of his creed, and even sent missionaries to expound its doctrines to the sovereigns of the West, Antiochos of Syria, Ptolemy of Egypt, Antigonos of Macedonia, Magas of Kyrênê and Alexander of Epiros. His religious zeal, piety, and benevolence inspire all the many edicts he promulgated, which are still to be read cut on rocks, caves, and pillars. The date of his death is uncertain, but is referred to the year 222 B.C. His inscriptions are invaluable for the aid they contribute towards the solution of some of the most important and difficult problems with which the investigators of Indian antiquity have to deal. They throw light on many points of historical, chronological, and linguistic inquiry, as well as on others having reference to the social, political, and religious condition of the Indian people in the days when Buddhism first rose to the ascendant. An account of these inscriptions will be found in Lassen’s _Alt. Ind._ ii. pp. 215-223.

ASSAGETES was, Lassen thinks, an Assakênian chief. His name probably transliterates _Aśvajit_; according to the same authority the word would mean “conquered by the horse.”

ASSAKANOS, the King of Mazaga, the capital of the Assakênians. According to Arrian he was slain during the siege of that stronghold by Alexander, but Curtius leads us to believe that he had died before the conqueror’s advent.

ASTES, the chief of Peukelaôtis, submitted to Alexander when he entered India, but afterwards revolted and was slain by the troops under Hêphaistiôn.

ATHÊNAIOS was the author of the _Deipnosophists_, _i.e._ the _Banquet of the Learned_, or, perhaps, the _Contrivers of Feasts_. This work is described by a writer in Smith’s _Classical Dictionary_ as a vast collection of anecdotes, extracts from the writings of poets, historians, dramatists, philosophers, orators, and physicians, of facts in natural history, criticisms and discussions on almost every conceivable subject, especially on gastronomy. It contains numerous references to Alexander and the events of his time. Athênaios was a native of Naukratis, in Lower Egypt. He wrote in the earlier part of the third century of our aera.

ATHENODÔROS was the leader of the sedition of the Greek colonists settled in Baktria who were anxious to return to their native country.

ATTALOS.—Three persons of this name are mentioned in this work:

1. _Attalos_, one of the generals of King Philip, and uncle of Kleopatra, whom that king married in 337 B.C. At the nuptial festivities, Attalos requested the guests to pray to the gods that a legitimate heir to the throne might be the fruit of the marriage. This naturally gave great offence to Alexander and his mother, Olympias, who both in consequence withdrew from the kingdom. Attalos was in Asia at the time of Philip’s death, and was instigated by Demosthenes to rebel against his successor. Alexander then caused him to be assassinated. It will be seen from what has been stated that the royal house of Macedonia practised polygamy.

2. _Attalos_, who commanded the Agrianians in the battles of Issos and Gaugamela.

3. _Attalos_, the son of Andromenes of Stymphalia, a district in Macedonia, or on its borders, was one of Alexander’s chief officers. He was accused, along with his brothers, of complicity with Philôtas in his alleged conspiracy, but was honourably acquitted. In 328 B.C. he was left with other officers to hold Baktria in subjection, while Alexander himself marched against the Sogdians. In the campaign of 327 B.C. against the Assakênians and other tribes north of the Kabul River, Attalos served in the division of the army which Alexander commanded in person. He took part in the great battle in which the Assakênians were defeated, and in the siege of Ora. He fought also in the battle against Pôros. His division formed part of the troops which Krateros led by the route of the Bolan Pass into Karmania. After Alexander’s death he supported Perdikkas, whose sister he had married. After the murder of Perdikkas he joined Alketas, his brother-in-law, but their united forces were defeated by Antigonos in Pisidia. Alketas was seized and imprisoned. His ultimate fate is unknown.

BAITÔN, one of the scientific men in Alexander’s army, employed, like Diognêtos, in measuring the distances traversed in its marches, whence he was called Alexander’s _bêmatistês_. He left a professional work, which, as we learn from Athênaios (x. p. 442) was entitled _Stages of Alexander’s Marches_.

BALAKROS.—There were three officers of this name in Alexander’s army. 1. The son of Nikanor, who was a Somatophylax, and was appointed satrap of Kilikia after the battle of Issos. He was slain in Pisidia in Alexander’s lifetime. 2. The son of Amyntas was commander of the allies in succession to Antigonos, and commander, along with Peukestas, of the army which Alexander left in Egypt. 3. A commander of the javelin men who took part in the great battle with the Aspasians.

BARSINÊ, called also Stateira, was the elder daughter of Darius, and became the wife of Alexander at Sousa, 324 B.C. Within a year of Alexander’s death she was treacherously murdered by Roxana.

BARZAËNTES, satrap of the Arachosians and Drangians, was one of the murderers of Darius. To escape Alexander he fled to India, but was given up by the inhabitants to Alexander, who ordered his death.

BÊSSOS, the satrap of Baktria, commanded the left wing of the Persian army at Arbêla, and was thus directly opposed to Alexander himself in that battle. After the battle he conspired against his unfortunate master, who was also his kinsman, and caused him to be assassinated lest he should fall into Alexander’s hands—a result which would have frustrated his design of mounting the vacant throne. He fled across the Oxus, but was betrayed and delivered up to Alexander, who caused him to be tried before a council at Zariaspa, and after suffering mutilation to be executed.

CHANDRAGUPTA.—_See_ Sandrokottos.

CHARÊS, or Cares, a native of Mytilênê in Lesbos, was an officer with Alexander who discharged the functions of court usher. He wrote a book (now lost) of anecdotes about Alexander’s wars and private life, which is frequently quoted by Athênaios. Some fragments have also been preserved by Plutarch, Pliny, and Aulus Gellius.

CLEOPHIS, Queen of Mazaga, surrendered that city to Alexander, by whom she was kindly treated, and to whom she is said to have borne a son who became an Indian king. In Racine’s tragedy, _Alexandre le Grand_, Cleophis, who figures as one of the _dramatis personae_, is made the sister of Taxilês.

DÊIMACHOS or DAIMACHOS was ambassador at the court of Allitrochades, the son and successor of Sandrokottos, and wrote a work on India in two books. He is pilloried by Strabo as the most mendacious of all writers about India.

DÊMÊTRIOS was one of the officers who formed Alexander’s bodyguard. He was accused by Philôtas as being one of his accomplices in the conspiracy against the king’s life, and was in consequence deprived of his post, to which Ptolemy was then preferred.

DÊMÊTRIOS, son of Pythonax, was one of the select band of cavalry called the _Companions_. He took part in the Indian campaigns.

DÊMÊTRIOS POLIORKÊTÊS, the son of Antigonos, became king of Macedonia in 294 B.C.

DIOSKORIDES, the famous writer on _Materia Medica_, was a native of Kilikia, and flourished, so far as can be conjectured, about the beginning of the second century of our aera.

EMBISAROS.—_See_ Abisares.

EPIKTÊTOS, the famous philosopher, was a native of Hieropolis in Phrygia, and a freedman of Epaphroditus, the favourite of Nero. Arrian, who was one of his disciples, composed a short manual of his philosophy as taken down from his lectures, and known as the _Enchiridion_.

ERATOSTHENES was appointed by Ptolemy Euergetes (grandson of Alexander’s Ptolemy) president of the Alexandrian Library, an office which he held for upwards of forty years. He may be considered as the founder of scientific geography, and in some measure also of systematic chronology. He was born at Kyrênê in 276 B.C., and educated in Athens, where he devoted himself to the study of learning and philosophy. He died in Alexandria in the year 196 B.C. His works, which were numerous and treated of a great variety of subjects, scientific and literary, have perished, with the exception of some fragments cited by other writers.

ERIGYIOS was by birth a Mitylenaian, and was an officer in Alexander’s army. He commanded the cavalry of the allies both in the battle of Arbêla and when Alexander set out from Ekbatana in pursuit of Darius. He was slain fighting with Baktrian fugitives.

EUDÊMOS.—When Alexander heard in Karmania that Philip, who had been left in India as satrap, had been treacherously murdered by the mercenaries, he sent orders to Taxilês and Eudêmos to administer affairs till a new satrap should be appointed. Sometime after Alexander’s death Eudêmos decoyed Pôros into his power and cut him off. He then left India either because Eumenes requiring his services in contending against Antigonos recalled him, or because he was unable to hold out against the native revolt headed by Sandrokottos. The troops and elephants which he took with him from India were of great service to Eumenes. After the fall of his chief Eudêmos was put to death by Antigonos.

EUMENES was a native of Kardia, a Greek colony situated in the Thracian Chersonese. He was private secretary to King Philip, and then to Alexander, whom he attended throughout his Asiatic expedition. It was one of his duties as royal secretary to keep a diary (_Ephêmerides_) in which the transactions of each day had to be recorded, and this work is quoted both by Arrian and Plutarch. He showed himself a man of consummate ability in the arts both of war and of politics. His alien origin, however, exposed him to the jealousy of the Macedonian officers. Hêphaistiôn in particular, Alexander’s chief favourite, sought by every means to compass his overthrow. Eumenes, however, by his prudence and tact frustrated all attempts made to undermine his influence with the king who had a just appreciation of his merits. Though his labours were chiefly those of the closet, he was sometimes employed in the field, more especially on occasions of unusual emergency. When Alexander, on returning to Sousa, celebrated his own nuptials and those of his companions with oriental brides, he gave, as Arrian tells us (vi. 4), to Ptolemy, and Eumenes, the royal secretary, the daughters of Artabazos; to the former Artikama, and to the latter Artonis. After the king’s death Eumenes obtained Kappadokia, Paphlagonia, and Pontos, and after some delay was established in the government of these provinces. After the death of Perdikkas, to whom he owed this service, he was requested by Olympias and Polysperchon to undertake the supreme command throughout Asia on behalf of the king. He had in consequence to contend against the faction opposed to the royal family which was headed by Antigonos, and supported by Ptolemy, Peithôn, Seleukos, and Nearchos. After coping successfully for a considerable time against this powerful confederacy, he was delivered up by his own troops to Antigonos, who, notwithstanding the remonstrances of Nearchos, ordered him to be put to death, 316 B.C.

GORGIAS, a commander of a division of the phalanx. He marched with Hêphaistiôn and Perdikkas by the Khaiber Pass to the Indus, and fought in the battle against Pôros.