________________
APRIL, 1877.]
"Strabo (p. 70) says, Generally speaking, the men who have hitherto written on the affairs of India were a set of liars,-Dêimachos holds the first place in the list, Megasthenes comes next; while Onesikritos and Nearchos, 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 wedgeshaped 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,-Megasthenes to S androkottos, Dêimachos to Amitrocha dês 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, Eratosthenes 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.'
THE INDIKA OF MEGASTHENES.
Schwanbeck remarks:-" Strabo, and-not unlike to Strabo-Arrianus, who, however, gave a much less carefully considered account of India, abridged the descriptions of Megasthenês, yet in such a way that they wrote at once in an agreeable style and with strict regard to accuracy. But when Strabo designed not merely to instruct but also to delight his readers, he omitted whatever would be out of place in an entertaining narrative or picturesque description, and avoided above all things aught that would look like a dry list of names. Now though this may not be a fault, still it is not to be denied that those particulars which he has omitted would have very greatly helped our knowledge of Ancient India. Nay, Strabo, in his eagerness to be interesting, has gone so far that the topography of India is almost entirely a blank in his pages.
"Diodorus, however, in applying this principle of composi tion has exceeded all bounds. For as he did not aim at writing learnedly for the instruction of others, but in a light, amusing style, so as to be read with delight by the multitude, he selected for extract such parts as best suited this purpose. He has therefore omitted not only the most accurate narrations of fact, but also the fables which his readers might consider as incredible, and has been best pleased to describe instead that part of Indian life which to the Greeks would appear singular and diverting. Nevertheless his epitome is not without its value; for although we do not learn much that is new from its
117
"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 Megasthenes alone. The fact is they find fault with only two parts of the narrative of Megasthenês,-the one in which he writes of the fabulous races of India, and the other where he gives an account of Herakles 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 Megasthenes. "The Aryan 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 sanction 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
contents, still it has the advantage over all the others of being the most coherent, while at the same time it enables us to attribute with certainty an oecasional passage to Megasthenês, which without its help we could but conjecture proceeded from his pen.
"Since Strabo, Arrianus, and Diodorus have directed their attention to relate nearly the same things, it has resulted that the greatest part of the Indika has been completely lost, and that of many passages, singularly enough, three epitomes are extant, to which occasionally a fourth is added by Plinius.
"At a great distance from these writers, and especially from Diodorus, stands Plinius: whence it happens that he both differs most from that writer, and also best supplements his epitome. Where the narrative of Strabo and Arrianus is at once pleasing and instructive, and Diodorus charms us with a lively sketch, Pliny gives instead, in the baldest language, an ill-digested enumeration of names. With his usual wonderful diligence he has written this part, but more frequently still he writes with too little care and judg ment, a fact of which we have already seen numerous instances. In a careless way, as is usual, he commends authors, so that if you compared his accounts of Taprobane and the kingdom of the Prasii you would think that he had lived at different periods. He frequently commends Megasthenês, but more frequently seems to transcribe him without acknowledgment."-pp. 56-58.
