« PreviousContinue »
i.e., of Jarasandha. For example, the Vācaspatya, s. v. aty says in so many words that in this passage मागचं पुरम् =जरासन्ध पुरम् .
Jarāsandha's city was Girivraja (MBh. II, xiv, 73). This, as stated in the passage quoted by Mr. Jackson, was Old Rājagriha, and was surrounded by five hills. Therefore, it was not, as he rightly points out, visible from the Görathagiri, or from any other hill in the neighbourhood. The commentators are certainly right in saying that the Magadha pura was Jarāsandba's city, Girivraja, as would be plain if Mr. Jackson's quotation had been carried further on. As printed on page 161, it stops at the third verse of chapter xxi. Taking the same southern text, the 16th to 18th verses run :
एवमुक्त्वा ततः सर्वे भातरो विपुलौजसः ।। १६ ।।
॥ 16, 17. With these words all the mighty brethren, Vārsnēya and the two Pandavas, set out (pratasthuh) for the Māgadha pura, 18, and reached (āsēduh) Girivraja filled with happy and well-fed citizens, crowded with men of all four castes, abounding in festivals, and impregnable.
I do not think that in this passage pratasthuh and a sēduh can have any meanings other than those that I have assigned to them, and, therefore, the Māgadha pura is the same as Girivraja.
We are thus reduced to one of two conclusions. Either the Görathagiri was not one of the Barābar bills, or else the writer of the passage in the Mahābhārata, not being acquainted with the local geography, has made a mistake.
As already stated, I think that it cannot be doubted that Mr. Jackson's identification of the Görathagiri is correct, and We are therefore driven to the second alternative. Perhaps the writer confused Giriyraja with New Rājagriha which on a clear day would, so far as I remember, have been visible from the Barābar hills, or perhaps he was merely giving a poetical Pisgahview of the Promised Land of Girivraja, without troubling his head whether the details were possible or not.
1.-The Zoroastrian Period of Indian History.
By D. B. Spooner, B.A., Ph.D., in the Journal of the Royal
Asiatic Society (London), for January and July 1915.
DR. SPOONER in his paper on "The Zoroastrian Period of Indian History” essays to prove that Chandragupta was a Parsi : that the Mauryas were Zoroastrians (page 413) ; that they came originally from Persepolis and were perhaps of Achæmenian descent (page 410). This is the main thesis of his paper. But there are some subsidiary theses of no less importance, e.g., that the Buddha was also a Parsi hy race and by religion (page 415), that the Nandas were Persians (page 418), and that the Mauryan Chancellor Chanakya was a Magian or a Parsi priest (pages 419-120).
I would here discuss the evidence as to the alleged Parsi origin of the Emperor Chandragupta and of the Nandas and Chanakya, the latter two beiny closely associated with the history of the former. The question of the ethnic origin of the Buddha, which by itself is a large subject, may be put off for the present, as it does not affect the problem of the Mauryas one way or the other.
It is now more than fifteen months that I had the privilege of discussing the question of Chindragupta's nationality with Dr. Spooner personally. Although when he disclosed to me bis Persian theory I told him that the trend of the whole of historical evidence seemed to be against him, I kept my mind open to conversion if convincing proof were forthcoming ; and I watched the progress of his theory with sympathy. I su "gested
to Dr. Spooner that it would be worth his while to search, if possible, for an Avestic explanation of the word Maurya; and later on I pointed out the philological equation Maurva (Zend) = Alaurya to which Dr. Spooner refers at pages 407, 409.
Since the publication of his paper Dr. Spooner has kindly asked me to state my conclusion as to his theory. A careful examination of the data set forth was necessary and some time had to be allowed to get over the effect of the eloquence and rhetoric of the learned writer. It would have given me much satisfaction, if I could agree with Dr. Spooner in his conclusions. But a critical analysis of the data put forward by my friend compels me to say that his theory on the basis of the present evidence has to be rejected.
There are many points treated in the paper which do not stand the chance of obtaining a considerate hearing at the hands of specialists (e.g., the discussion about the Atharva-Veda being Persian in origin; the attempt at a new explanation of the grammatical note of Patanjali · Mauryair biranyārthibhir arcbāh prakalpitāh'; the discourse about the Vedic Prāchyas and the Charanavyuha) ; but they may be overlooked as not affecting the main theory. Let us take the arguments which closely bear on the Mauryas. There is, for instance, the argument more than once emphasized—that Chandragupta “washed his royal hair according to the Persian calendar". A ceremonial of sacramental nature, absolutely alien, will, no doubt, suggest more than a mere borrowing. But on reference to the original authority I find nothing whatsoever about “the Persian calendar". The original passage is in Strabo, XV, 69, and runs as follows:“The following particulars also are stated by the bistorians.
The Indians worship Zeus Ombrios (Indra), the river Ganges, and the indigenous deities of the country, When the King washes his hair they celebrate a great festival, and send him great presents, each person seeking to out-rival bis neighbour in displaying bis wealth” (M'Crindle).
There is nothing here about Chandragupta particularly, nor is the statement attributed to Magasthenes, nor is there the slightest mention of the Persian or any other calendar. The ceremony refers to the well-known Vedic ritual of the royal abhishechanīyam and to the customary presents brought on the occasion by the subjects.
M'Crindle in translating the passages gives in a foot-note (Ancient India, page 75) a passage from Herodotus ( IX, 110 ) which says that Xerxes on his birthday prepared a feast when "only the king washes his head with soap and makes presents to the Persians.” It is to be noticed that the Persian King 'made presents' to his tribe while the Hindu King' received presents' from his subjects; moreover, the Persian King alone was allowed soap and he washed his head on his birthday. No such predications are to be had about the Indian King in the passage of Strabo. To mix Herodotus with Strabo is a mistake; one account relates to Persia and the other to India; to pick up a piece from the former and to mix it up with a portion of the latter would be to give a piece of history that would not be faithful to fact. Then to attribute that history to Megasthenes is worse than anscientific. And on the basis of that history * ito generalize about Chandragupta that "he organizes his court along purely Persian lines and pays regard to Persian ceremonial down to the washing of his royal hair” (p. 417) and that “Megasthenes will bear us testimony that th: Indian court was almost wholly Persian in his day” (p. 71) is rather reckless.
I pass over such assertions as “ His very masons are import. ed Persians for whom the monarch has such marked regard that he ordains a special set of penalties for all who injure them.” No serious attempt at proving them has been made. The discussion on "numismatic evidences" is likewise fruitless. “ It is conceded, that the punch-marked coins are the oldest coinage in India. The Mauryas must have used them, as they cannot have been without coinage." Upon this hypothesis
Vincent Smith, Early History of India, 1908, page 122, approvod and followed by Dr. Spooner.
another is built and three pages further we are asked to accept that the variety bearing the representations “peacocks (mayura) standing on Mount Maru ” are 'Mauryan coins',
Mauryan coins', “the more particularly since we know them to be contemporary with the dynasty”; a matter which needs proving, as without it we would be merely begging the question.
For the statement that “Persepolis was the ancestral home" of Chandragupta two arguments have been advanced. One is philological and the other is, “the statements of the Greek historians and the otherwise extraordinary fact that Chandragupta's palaces seem copies of the Persepolitan” (p. 409). No such statement is found in the Greek historians. I have searched in vain in every possible place for the statement describing Chandragupta's palaces “ as copies of the Persepolitan”* The only passage Learing on the subject ( Aelianos, XIII, 18) says : “Iu the Indian royal palace where the greatest of all the kings of the country resides, besides much else which is calculated to excite admiration, and with which neither Memnomian Susa with all its costly splendour, nor Ekbatana with all its magnificence can vie (for, methinks, only the well-known vanity of the Persians could prompt such a comparison ), there are other wonders besides” (M'Crindle). There is no mention of Persepolis, and no mention of any copy whatsoever. If Aelian's authority is Megasthenes (as it has been believed, M’Crindle, page 112; V. Smith, 119-20), the passage is a positive authority to hold that the theory of Persian inspiration for Chandragupta's palaces cannot be entertained. Aelian, certainly, and Megasthenes, probably, would have ridiculed a Persian had the latter suggested that they seemed to be copies of the Persepolitan or any other Persian palaces.
The philological argument is based on the equation Vourva = illaurya. Philologically there is no flaw in the equation. But there is not the slightest evidence that in the 4th century B. C. Persepolis was called Mourva. Darius, in his inscription, calls it Persis, and so do the writers of the time of Alexander. It is
* Dr. Spooner does not give any reference,