________________
116
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
transcriber, but I prefer Schwanbeck's opinion, who.thinks it should be written καὶ Πώρου ἔτι τούτῳ pétom, and who was even greater than Póros.' If this correction is admitted, everything fits well.
[APRIL, 1877.
and Arrianus (V. vi. 2) that Megasthenes had been sent to Sandrokottos,-which is an argument utterly futile. Nevertheless from the time of Casaubon the wrong reading yeróuevos 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. Ale. V. vi. 2,Πολλάκις δὲ λέγει (Μεγασ θένης) ἀφικέσθαι παρὰ Σανδράκοττον τὸν Ἰνδῶν βασιλέα, does not solve the question, for he right 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 Pâtaliputra 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 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 Saudrokottos 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 B.C. 302."
While the date of the visit of Megasthenes 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 Kabul and the Panjab, it is clear that he had passed through these countries. Then, again, we know that he reached Pâțaliputra 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 ̓ οὖν εν τῷ Σανδροκόττου στρατοπέδῳ φησὶν ὁ Μεγασθένης, τετταράκοντα μυριάδων πλήθους ἱδρυμένου, 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 yevóuevos. But since that translation is hardly equal in authority even to a single MS., and since the word yevouévous can be changed more readily into the word γενόμενος than γενόμεvos into yevouévous, 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 yeróuevos should be substituted,-inasmuch as it is evident from Strabo
Regarding the manner in which Strabo, Arrianus,
"The ancient writers, whenever they judge of those who have written on Indian matters, are without doubt wont to reckon Megasthenes 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 (doxíμe avope): 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 related by Megasthenes, sufficiently show that they discredit that part of his narrative.T Diodorus, and Plinius used the Indika of Megasthenes,
