________________
264
BUDDHIST INDIA
soldier, for instance, cannot become a husbandman, or an artisan a philosopher.”
Here again Megasthenes is inaccurate. There were customs of endogamy and exogamy, and of a man following his father's trade; but not those that he specifies. He has got his classes all wrong. There were mar.y others he does not mention; and those he does did not form real groups, either according to the marriage customs of India, or according to the habits of the people as to occupation. The true account of the matter has been given above at page 55. It is precisely in the details of such a subject that a foreigner, especially if he could not speak the language, is likely to have gone astray. With the official life, on the other hand, he would probably be better acquainted. And this is what Megasthenes says on that point:
“Of the great officers of state some have charge of the market, others of the city, others of the soldiers. Some superintend the rivers (canals ?],-measuring the land as is done in Egypt, - and inspect the sluices by which water is let out from the main canals into their branches, so that every one may have an equal supply of it.
“The same persons have charge also of the huntsmen [surely only the royal huntsmen), and are entrusted with the power of rewarding or punishing them according to their deserts.
“They collect the taxes, and superintend the occupations connected with land (that is, no doubt, look after the royal dues arising out of them], as those of woodcutters, carpenters, blacksmiths, and miners. They con
Diodorus Siculus, iii. 63.
Shree Sudharmaswami Gyanbhandar-Umara, Surat
www.umaragyanbhandar.com
