________________
NOVEMBER, 1926]
personal views. The account ends with an admirable chronological table of the whole dynasty from c. 326 to 185 B.C. There is also an excellent map of Asoka's great dominions.
BOOK-NOTICE.
The Andhras go back much further than 28 B.C. Indeed they are found as a Dravidian nation on the banks of the Godavari and Krishna (Kistna) Rivers as far back as the days of Chandragupta 300 B.C. Their kings, the Satavahanas, became powerful in the Deccan right across India c. 240 B.C. and their history is still very confused. In fact it has only been pieced together from various fragmentary sources. However, they ruled a varying but considerable part of India till about 225 A.D., and their rule and ambitions brought them into collision with not only the Kanvas but also with various foreigners in the heart of India. E.g., the Kshaharâta Viceroy (Satraps, Kshatrapas) and the Mahakshatrapas of Rajputana and part of the Bombay Presidency. Certain of the kings of the time were undoubtedly powerful rulers, and some were known to the western world of the Andhras such kings were Gautamiputra, c. 100 A.D., and Pulumayi, c. 125; of the Kshaharata Satraps, Nahapana, c. 40 A.D., and of the Mahakshatrapas, Chashtans, c. 80 A.D., and
Rudradaman, c. 130. The whole of the main facts ascertained so far are admirably tabulated in this book as "the late Andhra Kings and connected Dynasties." The Andhra Dynasty went down in anarchy after the Indian fashion c. 225 A.D.
We are next introduced to more difficult history, on which Dr. Vincent Smith gives us a short chapter full of the most interesting information. First we have the Sunga Dynasty as the successors of part of the once great Maurya possessions, and of the raids of Kharavela of Kalinga (165-161 B.C.). After this there is the last attempt of the Hellenic kings, in the person of Menander (Milinda) from Kabul and the Panjab, to attack an Indian monarch in 153 B.C. In the days of the first Sunga king, Pushyamitra, the Vedic rite of horse-sacrifice (advamedha) was revived, and it was under him that Brahmanism began to reassert itself and throw off the yoke of Jainism and Buddhism. The dynasty lasted about a hundred years and gave way c. 73 B.C. in dishonour to the Kanvas, who were Brahmans and lasted about half a century, when they were destroyed by an Andhra king c. 28 B.O. India had now ceased to have a great kingdom within it in the sense of an Empire, and Dr. Vincent Smith therefore goes into the stories first of the Andhras and then of the North-Indian Indo-Greeks and Kushân
History now becomes as confused as the fights of
minor principalities can make it, but as regards India Euthydemos and his son Demetrios, as well as Eukratides of the Bactrian line or lines, conquered the country round the Indus and were followed by several Indo-Greek rulers. So great was the confusion of the time that in Appendix K. Dr. Vincent Dynasties till the rise of the next great Empire, order, because the "geographical and chronological Smith very wisely gives their names in alphabetical
that of the Guptas c. 300 A.D.
position is so uncertain," though he does try to place them in Appendix L. Out of this list there. stands a great name, Menander; probably of the family of Eukratides. The whole situation takes us down to B.C. 150.
So far we have been dealing with what may be called India proper, and we find the story of the Indo-Greek, Indo-Parthian and Kushan Dynasties even still more confused. On the death of Asoka his North-Indian Empire fell a natural prey to the
217
Hellenist Princes of Bactria, and Parthia. Seleukos Nikator had an unworthy grandson Antiochos Theos c. 261-245 B.O., and in his time Diodotos of Bactria and Arsakes of Parthia successfully separated themselves from the great Empire created by Seleukos. At this point I feel constrained to make a small criticism. The book says, p. 234 that Antiochos was
66
miscalled even in his life-time Theos or 'the god' and strange to say was worshipped as such." There is to my mind, however, nothing strange in the fact, for, as I read history, the great Alexander, while in Persia, deliberately had himself proclaimed "a god" on the advice of his Greek philosophic advisers, as the religious as well as the political head of the people, and more princes than Antiochos followed the idea. It is the very ancient idea of the "divinity of kings" followed in various degrees all over the world from Western Europe to China.
Meanwhile a great revolution was taking place in Central Asia. About 170 n.c. the Yüechi Tribes, driven out of North-Western China, collided with the Saka tribes of the Jaxartes or Syr Daria c. 160, which in their turn burst upon the Græco-Bactrians and Parthians c. 140, so that the former disappeared. The Central Asian hordes remained in Seistan and the Panjab, penetrating even as far as Mathurâ and Kathiawad at varying dates up to 390 A.D. The Parthians, however, developed their power and spread over into India, where they founded Satrapies, i.e., viceroyalties or subordinate kingdoms. History therefore is almost hopelessly confused, but Dr. Vincent Smith most wonderfully clears the ground by assuming two main lines of Indo-Parthian princes:one in Arachosis or Seistan and the other in Taxila of the Panjab. Dr. Vincent Smith also shows that at times the viceroys, e.g., Azes, were transferred from Seistan to Taxila. By the date of Christ these Indian viceroys had become kings. We are now brought to the well-known story of Gondophares and St. Thomas, Gondophares being assumed to have been king of both Taxila and Seistan between c. 20 and 48 A.D. Into the story Dr. Vincent Smith goes fairly and fully, and comes to the conclusion that as regards Gondophares the story should not be ac cepted. There I leave it, as judging by personal
3
