or Brâhmanâbâd, which was ninety miles distant by water from Marija
Dand, the point where he supposes Alexander rejoined his fleet after
the capture of Sindimana. Brâhmanâbâd was situated on the old channel
of the Indus forty-seven miles to the north-east of Haidarâbâd or
Nirankot, the Patala of ancient times. Shortly after the Mohammedan
conquest it was supplanted by Mansûra, which either occupied its site
or lay very near it, as, according to Ibn Haukal, the place was called
in the Sindh language Bâmiwân. It was destroyed by an earthquake
sometime before the beginning of the eleventh century. Its ruins were
discovered at Bambhra-ka-thûl by Mr. Bellasis, whose excavations have
shown conclusively the truth of the popular tradition which ascribed its
downfall to an earthquake. Cunningham further thinks that Brâhmanâbâd
was the _Harmatelia_ of Diodôros—the place where Ptolemy was wounded by
the poisoned arrow. Harmatelia (he says) is only a softer pronunciation
of _Brâhma-thala_ or Brahmana-sthala, just as Hermes, the phallic god
of the Greeks, is the same as Brahmâ, the original phallic god of the
Indians. He thinks that the king whom Justin (xii. 10) calls _Ambiger_
was no other than Mousikanos, whose dominions extended as far south as
the Delta, _Ambiger_ being his family name and Mousikanos his dynastic
title (_Geog._ pp. 267-269). Saint-Martin, on the other hand, recognises
Harmatelia in a place variously designated by Arab writers _Armael_,
_Armaïl_, _Armâbil_, and _Armatel_, but of which the position is unknown
(_Étude_, pp. 167, 168). In his ancient map of India Colonel Yule, who
takes the same view as Saint-Martin, identifies Harmatelia with Bela.
NOTE U.—PATALA
The situation of Patala has been a fertile theme of controversy. Arrian
seems, no doubt, to give here a clear indication of its position in
saying that it stood near where the Indus bifurcates; but as this point
has from time to time shifted, the controversy has turned mainly on the
question where this point is to be fixed. The river bifurcates at present
at Mottâri, which lies twelve miles above Haidarâbâd, and it has been
known to bifurcate a little above, and also a little below Thatha, at
Bauna also, and at Trikul. As a matter of fact, these bifurcations no
longer exist, except perhaps for a part of the year when the river is in
flood and recurs to some of its old channels. It is not then surprising
that various identifications have been proposed for Patala. It was placed
at Brâhmanâbâd by M’Murdo, Wilson, and Lassen; at Thatha by Rennell,
Vincent, Ritter, and the two brothers, James and Sir Alexander Burnes;
and at Haidarâbâd, the Nirankot of Arab writers, by Droysen, Benfey,
Burton, Saint-Martin, Cunningham, and Bunbury. The arguments in favour
of Haidarâbâd seem to be quite conclusive. They will be found stated
at length in Saint-Martin’s _Étude_ (pp. 168-191), and Cunningham’s
_Geography_ (pp. 279-287). One of the most cogent is that the dimensions
of the Delta, as given by the Greek writers, are only justified if
the apex of the Delta is taken to have been in Alexander’s time at or
near Haidarâbâd. If the apex had then been as high up as Brâhmanâbâd,
or as far down as Thatha, the size of the Delta would be as grossly
exaggerated in the one case as it would be underrated in the other. The
same conclusion is indicated in the information supplied to the late Dr.
Wilson of Bombay by the Brahmans of Sehwân, that, according to their
local legends, as recorded in their Sanskrit books, Thatha was _Déval_,
and Haidarâbâd _Néran_, and more anciently _Patolpuri_. _Patala_ was
thought at one time to have been a transcription of the Sanskrit Pâtâla,
_the nether world_, into which the sun descends at the end of his day’s
journey, and hence THE WEST; but a better etymology is the Sanskrit
_potala_, “a station for ships,” from _pôta_, “a vessel.” The name of
the Indian Delta was Patalênê. Haidarâbâd stands on a long flat-topped
hill, and Patala, if this was its site, must have occupied a commanding
position, the advantages of which, alike for strategy and commerce,
Alexander would perceive at a glance. The main stream of the Indus now
flows to the west of this position. In the second chapter of his _Indika_
Arrian repeats the statement that the Indus enters the ocean by two
mouths. Aristoboulos estimated the interval between them at 1000 stadia,
but Nearchos at 1800. The interval from the west to the east arm measures
at present 125 British miles. The sea-front of the Egyptian Delta with
which the Greeks compared that of the Indus Delta is not less than 160
miles. The Prince of Patala was called _Moeris_.
NOTE V.—ALEXANDER’S MARCH THROUGH GEDRÔSIA-PURA
“No traveller,” says Bunbury, referring to the interior of Mekran, “has
as yet traversed its length from one end to the other in the direction
followed by Alexander. So far as we can judge, he appears to have kept
along a kind of plain or valley, which is found to run nearly parallel
to the coast between the interior range of the Mushti (or Washati)
hills and the lower ragged hills that bound the immediate neighbourhood
of the sea-coast. This line of route has been followed in very recent
times by Major Ross from Kedj to Bela, and seems to form a natural
line of communication, keeping throughout about the required distance
(60 or 70 miles) from the coast [the distance required for maintaining
communication with the fleet].... This line of march so far as is yet
known does not appear to traverse any such frightful deserts _of sand_
as those described by the historians of Alexander. Nor can the site of
Pura ... be determined with accuracy. It has been generally identified
with Bunpoor (Banpûr), the most important place in Western Beloochistan,
or with Pahra, a village in the same neighbourhood; but the resemblance
of name is in this case of little value—_poor_ signifying merely a
town—while the remoteness of Bunpoor from the sea, and its position
to the north of the central chain of mountains, which Alexander must
therefore have traversed in order to reach it, present considerable
difficulties in the way of this view” (_Hist. of Anc. Geog._ pp.
519-520). Strabo, in his chapter on Ariana, narrates in graphic detail,
like Arrian, the sufferings experienced by the Macedonians in passing
through Gedrôsia. The summer, he says, was purposely chosen for leaving
India, since rains then fall in Gedrôsia, filling the rivers and wells
which fail in winter. Alexander kept at the utmost from the sea not more
than 500 stadia in order to secure the coast for his fleet. The army was
saved by eating dates and the marrow of the palm-tree, but many persons
were suffocated by eating unripe dates.
To account for the surprising length of time (60 days) occupied on this
march, which could not have exceeded 400 English miles, we must suppose
that the troops were obliged to make frequent halts at places where water
was procurable. Strabo says that it was found necessary on account of
the watering-places to make marches of two, four, and even sometimes of
six hundred stadia generally during the night. The land distances, like
the sea distances of Nearchos, seem to have been grossly exaggerated.
The march of Semiramis through this desert and that of Cyrus seem to
be mythical. Alexander’s loss in men during the march must have been
exaggerated by the historians, as he brought the bulk of his army with
him to Pura.
NOTE W.—INDIAN SAGES
According to Megasthenes the Indian sages were divided into two sects,
Brahmans and Sarmans. There was besides a third sect, described as
quarrelsome, fond of wrangling, foolish and boastful. The Brahmans, he
says, were held in higher esteem than the Sarmans because there was more
agreement in their doctrines. Among the Sarmans the Hylobioi (_living in
woods_) were held in most honour, and next to them the physicians, who
are mendicants and also ascetics, like the class above them and the class
below them, which consisted of sorcerers and fortune-tellers. Megasthenes
has related at some length the nature of the opinions and practices of
all these sects, and Duncker considers that in all essential points his
accounts agree with the native authorities, though the view taken may be
here and there too favourable, in some points too advanced, in others not
sufficiently discriminating. “It is true,” he says, “that the Brahmans
and the initiated of the Enlightened (Buddhists), the Śramanas, are
confounded in the order of the sages; this is shown by the statement that
any one could enter into this order.... In the description of the life of
the ascetics and wandering sages, the Brahmans and Bhikshus (mendicants)
are again confounded, and if the Greeks tell us that the severe sages
of the forest were too proud to go to the court at the request of the
king, the statement holds good according to the evidence of the Epos of
the Brahmanic saints, and the Sutras of the great teachers among the
Buddhists. In the examination of the doctrines of the Indian sages,
Megasthenes distinguished the Brahmans and the Buddhists, inasmuch as he
opposes the less-honoured sects to the first, and declares the Brahmans
to be the most important. From his whole account it is clear that at his
date, _i.e._ about the year 300 B.C., the Brahmans had distinctly the
upper hand. But, according to him, the Śramanas took the next place to
the Brahmans among the less-honoured sects. Among the Buddhists Śramana
is the ordinary name for their clergy” (_Hist. of Antiq._ pp. 422-424).
NOTE X.—THE INDIAN MONTH
Curtius apparently means that the Indians mark time, not by taking a
month to be the period from full moon to next full moon, but from new
moon to full moon. “The year of the Indians (says Duncker) was divided
into 12 months of 30 days; the month was divided into two halves of 15
days each, and the day into 30 hours (_muhurta_). In order to bring
this year of 360 days into harmony with the natural time, the Brahmans
established a quinquennial cycle of 1860 lunar days. Three years had
12 months of 30 lunar days; the third and fifth year of the cycle had
13 months of the same number of days. The Brahmans do not seem to have
perceived that by this arrangement the cycle contained almost four
days in excess of the astronomical time, and indeed they were not very
skilful astronomers” (_v._ his _History of Antiquity_, iv. 283, 284).
According to Weber this system of calculating time was borrowed from the
Babylonians, but Max Müller and learned Hindus hold it to be indigenous.
The Indian name for the half of a lunar month is _paksha_. The half from
new moon to full moon was called at first _pûrva_ (fore), and afterwards
_śukla_ (bright); the other half was called _apara_ (posterior), and
afterwards _krishna_ (dark). Le Clerc concludes his criticism of this
passage thus: “Matthaeus Raderus endeavours to explain Curtius as if
he designed to demonstrate that one month began and was understood to
commence a little after the change to the full moon, and the next, from
the time when she began to decrease to the next change. This, indeed,
ought to be his meaning; but it is strangely expressed, when he tells us
that the moon begins to show herself horned on the sixteenth day, when
’tis evident she does not appear so till about seven days after full
moon. But before Raderus, Thomas Lydiat had tried to solve the matter
otherways. However, Scaliger, in his _Prolegomena_ to his _Canones
Isagogicae_, p. 11, has plainly showed that Lydiat neither understood
Curtius nor Curtius the author which he copied from. The ancient Persians
counted 15 days to each of their months, and 24 of these months to the
solar year, before the introduction of Mohammedism, as John Chardin
evidently demonstrates in his _Itinerarium Persicum_, tome xi. p. 14,
quarto” (_v._ Rooke’s _Arrian_, p. 12).
NOTE Y.—BATTLE WITH PÔROS
Mr. Heitland has the following note on this passage: “Arrian (v. 16, sec.
2) tells us that Alexander was making a flanking movement (παρήλαυνεν)
with the bulk of his cavalry to attack the enemy’s left wing. He then
goes on (sec. 3): _Against the right wing he sent Koinos at the head
of his own regiment of horse and that of Dêmêtrios, and ordered him,
when the barbarians on seeing what a dense mass of cavalry was opposed
to them, should be riding along to encounter it, to hang close upon
their rear_,[411] a hard passage, it is true, but one which need not be
unintelligible to any one who bears in mind that Alexander’s movement
was a flanking one, and reads with care the description of his attack in
c. 16, sec. 4, and c. 17, sec. 1, 2. The situation is this: Alexander
was not himself in position on the right wing, but put Coenus there
with some of the cavalry, while he himself with the main body made the
flanking movement. This he did with speed, so as to take the Indian horse
in flank, before they had time to change their front and meet him. They
tried to execute this movement, but had not time; and while they were in
the confusion thus brought about, Coenus fell upon what had been their
front, but was now their disordered flank. Whether the Indian horse from
their right wing was brought over to succour that on their left or not,
does not affect the probable position of Coenus. The one difficulty in
the way of this explanation is the presence, according to Arrian, 15,
sec. 7, of the war-chariots in front of the Indian horse. But it seems
easier to suppose that Coenus was able to elude these clumsy adversaries
than that Alexander expected him to see from the Macedonian left the
right moment for his own charge, and then wheel round the rear of the
whole Indian army and execute his orders opportunely. Diodorus, xvii. 88,
says: _The Macedonian cavalry began the action, and destroyed nearly all
the chariots of the Indians_.[412] If this refers, as I think it does,
to the beginning of the main battle, the chief objection is removed”
(_Alexander in India_, pp. 122, 123). This explanation is different from
that offered by Moberly, as the reader will see by referring to my note
on Arrian, p. 104, _n._ 2.
NOTE Z.—INDIAN SERPENTS
Diodôros gives the length of the serpents at sixteen cubits, or about
twenty-four feet. Ailianos also gives this as their length. He says
(xvii. 2): “Kleitarchos states that about India a serpent sixteen cubits
long is produced, but mentions there is another kind which differs in
appearance from the rest. They are many sizes shorter, and display to the
eye a variety of colours, as if they were painted with pigments. Stripes
extend from the head to the tail, and are of various colours, some tinted
like bronze, some like silver, some like gold, while others are crimson.
The same writer notices that their bite proves very quickly fatal.”
Arrian in his _Indika_ (c. 15) states on the authority of Nearchos that
there are serpents in India spotted and nimble in their movements, and
that one was caught which measured about sixteen cubits, though the
Indians alleged that the largest snakes were much larger. Nearchos adds
that Alexander summoned to his camp all the Indians most expert in the
healing art, and that these succeeded in curing snake-bites, to find a
remedy for which quite baffled the skill of all the Greek physicians.
Strabo relates (XV. i. 28), that Abisaros, as the ambassadors he sent
to Alexander reported, kept two serpents, one of 80 cubits, and the
other, according to Onesikritos, of 140 cubits in length; but Strabo no
more believed in this land-serpent than we do in the sea-serpent, for
he adds that Onesikritos might as well be called the master-fabulist
as the master-pilot of Alexander. He afterwards says that Aristoboulos
saw a snake nine cubits and a span long, and that he himself while in
Egypt had seen another of the same length which had been brought from
India. Megasthenes wrote that serpents in India grow to such a size that
they swallow deer and oxen whole. He referred no doubt to the python.
The python of the Sunderbuns about the mouths of the Ganges are known
to swallow deer whole. The Elzevir editor of Curtius cites statements
about the size of Indian serpents which leave the extravagant estimate
of Onesikritos far behind. Thus Maximus Tyrius (_Dissert._ 38) says:
“Taxiles showed Alexander various wonders, and among these was a very
large animal sacred to Bacchus, to which the Indians every day immolated
victims. This animal was a serpent (_draco_), of such a size that it
equalled five acres of land.”
NOTE A_A_.—INDIAN PEACOCKS
The peacock (_mayûra_) abounds in India especially in the forests at the
foot of the Himalayas. Ailianos has several notices of it in his work
on animals. In Book v. 21, after he has described its habits, and the
pride it takes in displaying its gorgeous plumage, he states that it was
brought into Greece from the barbarians. Being for a long time rare, it
was exhibited at the beginning of each month to the men and women of
Athens who were lovers of the beautiful. The charge for admission to
the spectacle was a considerable source of gain. The price of a pair
(cock and hen) was a thousand drachmas (or about £40 of our money).
Alexander the Macedonian, on seeing these birds in India, was so struck
with admiration of their beauty that he denounced the severest penalties
against any one who should kill them. In Book xvi. 2 he notes that the
Indian peacocks are the largest to be anywhere found. In xiii. 18 he
says: “In the palace where the greatest of all the Indian kings resides,
besides many things else which excite admiration, eclipsing the splendour
alike of Memnonian Sousa and all the boasted magnificence of Ekbatana,
there are reared in the Royal Park tame peacocks and tame pheasants....
Within that park are shady groves, grassy meads planted with trees, and
bowers woven by the craft of skilful woodmen. So genial withal is the
climate, that the trees are ever green, and never show signs of age,
nor even shed their leaves. Some are native to the soil, while others
which are brought with great care from foreign parts, contribute to
enhance the beauty of the landscape. Not the olive, however, which is
neither indigenous to India, nor thrives if brought into it. The park is
therefore frequented by wild birds as well as by the tame. They seek its
groves from choice, and there build their nests and rear their young.
Parrots too are bred there, which, flitting to and fro, keep hovering
around the king. Notwithstanding they are so numerous, no Indian will
eat them, for they regard them as sacred, while the Brahmans esteem
them above all other birds, and with good reason, since the parrot
alone with a clear utterance repeats the words of human speech.” In xi.
33 he tells a story about a peacock of extraordinary size and beauty,
which had been sent from India as a present to the King of Egypt, who
thereupon dedicated the bird to Jupiter, the guardian god of his capital
city. His work has several other passages which refer to the peacock;
but as these have no bearing upon India we do not cite them. The bird
was introduced into Greece long before Alexander’s time, for Dêmos, the
friend of Perikles, reared peacocks at Athens, which many people came
from Lacedaemon and Thessaly to see, as we learn from Athenaios, ix. 12.
It is said that peacocks were first introduced into Greece from Samos.
NOTE B_B_.—INDIAN DOGS
A breed of dogs, large, powerful, and of untamable ferocity, is still
found in the parts of India here mentioned.[413] Pliny, speaking of these
Indian dogs, ascribes their savage disposition to the cause mentioned by
Diodôros, the tiger blood that runs in their veins. The Indians, he says
(viii. 40), assert that these dogs are begotten from tigers, for which
purpose the bitches when in heat are tied up amid the woods. They think
that the whelps of the first and second brood are too ferocious, but they
rear those of the third. Ailianos (viii. 1) varies this statement by
saying that tigers are the offspring of the first and second connection,
but dogs of the third. He then proceeds thus: “Dogs that boast a tiger
paternity disdain to hunt deer or to enter into an encounter with a wild
boar, but delight to assail the lion as if to show their high pedigree.
So the Indians gave Alexander, the son of Philip, a proof of the strength
and mettle of these dogs in the manner following: They let go a deer,
but the dog never stirred; then a boar, but he still remained impassive.
Then they tried a bear, but even this failed to rouse him to action. At
last they let go a lion. Then the dog fired with rage, as if he now saw a
worthy antagonist, did not hesitate for a moment, but flew to encounter
him, gripped him fast, and tried to strangle him. Then the Indian who
provided this spectacle for the king, and who knew well the dog’s
capacity of endurance, ordered his tail to be cut off. It was accordingly
cut off, but the dog took not the least heed. The Indian ordered next
one of his legs to be cut off. This was done, but the dog held to his
grip as tenaciously as at first, just as if the dismembered limb were
not his own, but belonged to some one else. The remaining legs were then
cut off in succession, but even all this did not in the least make him
relax the vigour of his bite. Last of all, his head was severed from the
rest of his body, but even then his teeth were seen hanging on by the
part he had first gripped, while the head dangled aloft still clinging
to the lion, though the original biter no longer existed. Alexander was
very painfully impressed by what he saw, being lost in admiration of the
dog, since after giving proof of his mettle he perished in no cowardly
fashion, but preferring to die rather than to let his courage give way.
The Indian, seeing the king’s vexation, gave him four dogs like the
one that was killed. He was much gratified with the gift, and gave in
return a suitable equivalent. Joy at the possession of the four dogs soon
obliterated from the mind of Philip’s son his sorrow for the other.” The
same author writes nearly to the same effect in the nineteenth chapter of
his fourth book: “I reckon Indian dogs among wild beasts, for they are
of surpassing strength and ferocity, and are the largest of all dogs.
This dog despises other animals, but fights with the lion, withstands his
attacks, returns his roaring with baying, and gives him bite for bite.
In such an encounter the dog may be worsted, but not till he has often
severely galled and wounded the lion. The lion is, however, at times
worsted by the Indian dog and killed in the chase. If a dog once clutches
a lion, he retains his hold so pertinaciously that if one should even
cut off his leg with a knife he will not let go, however severe may be
the pain he suffers, till death supervening compels him.” Aristotle, in
his _History of Animals_ (viii. 28), refers to these Indian dogs and the
story of their tigrine descent. Even an earlier mention of them is to
be found in Xenophon (_Kyn._ c. 10). We may hence infer that their fame
had spread to Greece long before Alexander’s time. Marco Polo mentions a
province in China where the people had a large breed of dogs so fierce
and bold that two of them together would attack a lion—an animal with
which that province abounded (Yule’s ed. ii. pp. 108, 109).
NOTE C_C_.—THE GANGARIDAI