The Invasion of India by Alexander the Great as described by Arrian, Q. Curtius, Diodoros, Plutarch and Justin: Being Translations of such portions of the Works of these and other Classical Authors as describe Alexander's Campaigns in Afghanistan, the Panjâb, Sindh, Gedrosia and Karmania

by John Watson McCrindle

BIOGRAPHICAL APPENDIX

Abisares is called by Arrian the King of the Indian Mountaineers, and may perhaps be not improperly described as the King of Kâśmîr. His name is derived from that of his kingdom, Abhisâra, which designated the mountainous country to the east of the Indus now known as Hazâra, a name in which some traces of the old seem to survive. After the fall of Mazaga, he sent troops across the Indus to aid the inhabitants in resisting Alexander. He sent embassies, however, to the conqueror both before and after the defeat of Pôros, whom he inclined to succour. Alexander allowed him to retain his kingdom, and when he died appointed his son to succeed him, as we learn from Curtius X. i.

Aggrammes.—See [Xandrames].

Alketas was the brother of Perdikkas, who, after Alexander’s death, assumed the regency of the empire. He was the son of Orontes, a Macedonian of the province of Orestis. He is first mentioned by Arrian as commander of one of the brigades which Alexander, towards the close of his Baktrian campaigns, despatched under Krateros into the country of the Paratakenians, who still held out against him. He is next mentioned in connection with the siege of Mazaga and Ora. When Alexander crossed the Hydaspês to encounter Pôros, Alketas remained behind in the camp with Krateros. After Alexander’s death Alketas supported the cause of his brother, and by his orders put to death Kynanê, the half-sister of Alexander—a cruel act which his own troops resented. When Perdikkas was murdered in Egypt (321 B.C.) Alketas was at the time with Eumenes engaged against Krateros. He afterwards, however, joined his forces to those of Attalos; but being defeated in Pisidia, he slew himself to avoid falling into the hands of Antigonos.

Ambiger, supposed to be a corrupt reading for Ambi-regis.—See under Sambus.

Amyntas, the son of Nikolaös, was appointed satrap of Baktria in succession to Artabazos, who resigned the office on the ground of his advanced age. When Alexander left Baktria to invade India he left Amyntas in the province with a force of 10,000 foot and 3500 horse.

Androkottos.—See [Sandrokottos].

Androsthenes, a native of Thasos, sailed with Nearchos, and was afterwards sent by Alexander to explore the Persian Gulf. He wrote an account of this voyage, and a work describing a coasting voyage to India.

Antigenes, an officer who served both under Philip and Alexander. In 340 B.C. he lost an eye at the siege of Perinthos. He was present in the battle with Pôros, and the divisions of the phalanx which he led on this occasion formed afterwards part of the large body of troops which Krateros led through the country of the Arachotians and Zarangians into Karmania. After the army reached Sousa he was for some time deprived of his command for having advanced some fraudulent claim. After Alexander’s death he obtained the satrapy of Sousiana. In the wars between the generals he sided with Eumenes, whom he aided with the Argyraspids under his command. When Eumenes was defeated in 316 B.C. Antigenes fell into the hands of his enemy, Antigonos, who ordered him to be burned to death.

Antigonos, called the One-eyed, was a Macedonian of Elimiôtis, and one of the generals of Alexander, but did not accompany him into India, as he had been appointed satrap of Phrygia. In the partition of the empire he received Phrygia, Lykia, and Pamphylia, and eventually made himself master of the whole of Asia Minor. He was slain in the battle of Ipsos 301 B.C. He was the father of Dêmêtrios Poliorkêtês, who founded a line of Macedonian kings.

Fig. 21.—Antigonos Gonatas.

Antigonos Gonatas was one of the kings to whom Aśôka sent Buddhist missionaries. He was the son of Dêmêtrios Poliorkêtês, whom he succeeded as king of Macedonia in the year 283 B.C. His reign extended to forty-four years. His brother Antigonos Dôsôn reigned afterwards over Macedonia for nine years, from 229 to 220 B.C., in succession to Dêmêtrios II. the son of Gonatas.

Fig. 22.—Antigonos Dôsôn.

Antiochos II., surnamed Theos, succeeded to the throne of Syria on the death of his father Antiochos I., who was the son of the famous Seleukos Nikator. During many years of his reign he was engaged in intermittent hostilities with Ptolemy Philadelphos the king of Egypt, who wrested from him Phoenicia and Hollow Syria. His power was further weakened by the revolt of Arsakês, who established the Parthian empire (in 250 B.C.), and by the subsequent revolt of Theodotos, who made Baktria an independent kingdom. He was one of the kings of the West to whom Buddhist missionaries were sent by the Indian king Aśôka. His wife Laodikê caused him to be murdered in B.C. 246.

Fig. 23.—Antiochos II.

Antipater.—This officer, who had great experience in war and civil affairs under Philip, was left regent of Macedonia when Alexander set out on his Asiatic expedition. Olympias, jealous of his power, was constantly engaged in intrigues against him, while she annoyed her son by filling her letters to him with complaints against his deputy. After the murder of Perdikkas in Egypt, Antipater succeeded him in the regency of the empire, and this he held till his death in 320 B.C.

Aphrikes, called Eryx by Curtius, was the same whom Arrian designates the brother of Assakênos, the king of Mazaga. He was put to death by his own followers.

Apollonios, a native of Tyana in Kappadokia, was born in the year 4 B.C. He adopted the Pythagorean system of philosophy, and submitted himself to its ascetic discipline. He was credited with the possession of supernatural powers, and parallels have been drawn between his character and supposed miracles and those of Christ. He travelled in the East, and is said to have visited Taxila, the capital of Phraortes, an Indian prince, where he met Iarchas, the chief of the Brahmans, and disputed with Indian gymnosophists. About a hundred years after his death an account of his life was written by Philostratos, which, notwithstanding that much of it is untrustworthy, is of great value for the investigation of Indian antiquity.

Apollophanes was appointed satrap of the Oritians, but was deposed not long afterwards by Alexander for misgovernment.

Ariobarzanes was the satrap of Persis. After the defeat of the Persians near Arbêla, he fled to secure the pass called the Persian Gates, which lay on the route to Persepolis. Alexander having gained the heights above his camp, the Persians took to flight, and Ariobarzanes made his escape with a few horsemen.

Aristoboulos was a native of Kassandreia, a town on the isthmus which connects the peninsula of Pallênê with the mainland. He accompanied Alexander in his Asiatic expedition, and wrote a history of his wars, which was one of the principal sources used by Arrian in the composition of his Anabasis, and by Plutarch in his Life of Alexander. Arrian, in the preface to his great work, thus characterises the two authors whom he mainly followed: “Different authors have differed in their accounts of Alexander’s life.... But I consider the narratives of Ptolemy and Aristoboulos to be more worthy of credit than the rest; Aristoboulos, because he attended Alexander in his expedition; and Ptolemy, not only for that reason, but also because he was afterwards himself a king, and for one in his position to have falsified facts would have been more disgraceful than for a man of humbler rank. Both of them, moreover, compiled their histories after Alexander was dead, when they were neither compelled, nor tempted by hope of reward, to misrepresent facts, and on this account they are the more worthy of credit.” Lucian, nevertheless, accuses Aristoboulos of having invented marvellous stories of Alexander’s prowess in battle; but it is thought that in the anecdote which he relates in this connection he has used by mistake the name of Aristoboulos for that of Onesikritos. See Lucian’s How History should be Written, c. 12. It is said that Aristoboulos began the composition of his history when he was 84 years old, and that he lived to be 90.

Aristonous was, like Alexander, a native of Pella, and was one of the seven or eight chief officers who formed his body-guard, and had at all times access to his presence. According to Curtius he was one of the men who helped to save Alexander’s life when he was assailed and wounded by the Mallians in their chief stronghold. On the death of Alexander he advocated the claims of Perdikkas to the supremacy. After the fall of Olympias, to whose cause he had attached himself, he was put to death by order of her antagonist, Kassander, in the year 316 B.C.

Aristotle was born in 384 B.C. at Stageira, a seaport town near the isthmus which connects the peninsula terminating in Mount Athos with the mainland of Macedonia. When he was studying philosophy in Athens under Plato he received a letter from King Philip announcing the birth of his son Alexander. This letter has been preserved by Aulus Gellius in his Noctes Atticae (ix. 3):—“Philip to Aristotle greeting: know that a son has been born to me. I thank the gods, not so much for his birth, as that it has been his fortune to be born when you are in the prime of life; for I hope that being instructed and educated by you, he will prove himself worthy both of us and of the succession to so great a state.” Thirteen years afterwards Philip summoned the great philosopher to his court, and entrusted him with the education of his son, which was conducted in quiet seclusion at Stageira, at a distance from Pella, the centre of political activity and court intrigue. Here Alexander remained for four years, at the end of which he was called to govern the kingdom during his father’s temporary absence on an expedition against Byzantium. Along with him were educated other noble youths, Kassander, son of Antipater; Marsyas of Pella; Kallisthenes, who was related to Aristotle; Theophrastos, and probably also Nearchos, Ptolemy, and Harpalos. The course of instruction embraced poetry, eloquence, and philosophy, and, no doubt, also politics, though one of the leading aims of Alexander in after life, that of uniting all the nations under his sway into one kingdom without due regard to their individual peculiarities, was opposed to the views of his master. Alexander regarded Aristotle with sentiments of the deepest respect and affection, and rewarded him for his instructions with a munificence which has never been surpassed. Pliny mentions how liberally he supported the philosopher in his researches into natural science, especially in the department of zoology, ordering his vicegerents everywhere to supply him with specimens of all kinds of animals. Unhappily the cordiality between them was interrupted when Kallisthenes began to express disapproval of the change in Alexander’s conduct and policy. Aristotle died at the age of 63, about a year after the death of his pupil.

Arsakês was the ruler of a small mountain kingdom which adjoined that of his brother Abisares, King of Kâśmîr.

Artabazos was a Persian satrap, who for some years maintained a war of rebellion against Artaxerxes III. In the reign of Darius he distinguished himself by his fidelity to his sovereign. He took part in the battle of Gaugamela, and afterwards accompanied Darius in his flight. Alexander, who approved of his fidelity to his master, rewarded him with the satrapy of Baktria. Ptolemy married one of his daughters and Eumenes another. He resigned his satrapy on account of his great age, and was succeeded by Kleitos.

Artemidoros was a Greek geographer who lived about 100 B.C. His work on geography was abridged by Markianos. Some fragments of the work, which was of high value, and of the abridgment, have been preserved by Strabo and other writers.

Asklêpios (Aesculapius) was the god of the medical art. His descendants were called Asklepiadai, and had their principal seats at Kôs and Knidos. The Asklepiads were not only a fraternity of physicians, but an order of priests, who combined religion with the practice of their art.

Aśôka was the son of Vindusâra and grandson of Chandragupta, called Sandrokottos by the Greeks. He ascended the throne of Magadha in 270 B.C. Having been converted to Buddhism, he established that faith as the state religion of his vast empire, which comprised the greater part of India. He was zealous in promoting the spread of his creed, and even sent missionaries to expound its doctrines to the sovereigns of the West, Antiochos of Syria, Ptolemy of Egypt, Antigonos of Macedonia, Magas of Kyrênê and Alexander of Epiros. His religious zeal, piety, and benevolence inspire all the many edicts he promulgated, which are still to be read cut on rocks, caves, and pillars. The date of his death is uncertain, but is referred to the year 222 B.C. His inscriptions are invaluable for the aid they contribute towards the solution of some of the most important and difficult problems with which the investigators of Indian antiquity have to deal. They throw light on many points of historical, chronological, and linguistic inquiry, as well as on others having reference to the social, political, and religious condition of the Indian people in the days when Buddhism first rose to the ascendant. An account of these inscriptions will be found in Lassen’s Alt. Ind. ii. pp. 215-223.

Assagetes was, Lassen thinks, an Assakênian chief. His name probably transliterates Aśvajit; according to the same authority the word would mean “conquered by the horse.”

Assakanos, the King of Mazaga, the capital of the Assakênians. According to Arrian he was slain during the siege of that stronghold by Alexander, but Curtius leads us to believe that he had died before the conqueror’s advent.

Astes, the chief of Peukelaôtis, submitted to Alexander when he entered India, but afterwards revolted and was slain by the troops under Hêphaistiôn.

Athênaios was the author of the Deipnosophists, i.e. the Banquet of the Learned, or, perhaps, the Contrivers of Feasts. This work is described by a writer in Smith’s Classical Dictionary as a vast collection of anecdotes, extracts from the writings of poets, historians, dramatists, philosophers, orators, and physicians, of facts in natural history, criticisms and discussions on almost every conceivable subject, especially on gastronomy. It contains numerous references to Alexander and the events of his time. Athênaios was a native of Naukratis, in Lower Egypt. He wrote in the earlier part of the third century of our aera.

Athenodôros was the leader of the sedition of the Greek colonists settled in Baktria who were anxious to return to their native country.

Attalos.—Three persons of this name are mentioned in this work:

1. Attalos, one of the generals of King Philip, and uncle of Kleopatra, whom that king married in 337 B.C. At the nuptial festivities, Attalos requested the guests to pray to the gods that a legitimate heir to the throne might be the fruit of the marriage. This naturally gave great offence to Alexander and his mother, Olympias, who both in consequence withdrew from the kingdom. Attalos was in Asia at the time of Philip’s death, and was instigated by Demosthenes to rebel against his successor. Alexander then caused him to be assassinated. It will be seen from what has been stated that the royal house of Macedonia practised polygamy.

2. Attalos, who commanded the Agrianians in the battles of Issos and Gaugamela.

3. Attalos, the son of Andromenes of Stymphalia, a district in Macedonia, or on its borders, was one of Alexander’s chief officers. He was accused, along with his brothers, of complicity with Philôtas in his alleged conspiracy, but was honourably acquitted. In 328 B.C. he was left with other officers to hold Baktria in subjection, while Alexander himself marched against the Sogdians. In the campaign of 327 B.C. against the Assakênians and other tribes north of the Kabul River, Attalos served in the division of the army which Alexander commanded in person. He took part in the great battle in which the Assakênians were defeated, and in the siege of Ora. He fought also in the battle against Pôros. His division formed part of the troops which Krateros led by the route of the Bolan Pass into Karmania. After Alexander’s death he supported Perdikkas, whose sister he had married. After the murder of Perdikkas he joined Alketas, his brother-in-law, but their united forces were defeated by Antigonos in Pisidia. Alketas was seized and imprisoned. His ultimate fate is unknown.

Baitôn, one of the scientific men in Alexander’s army, employed, like Diognêtos, in measuring the distances traversed in its marches, whence he was called Alexander’s bêmatistês. He left a professional work, which, as we learn from Athênaios (x. p. 442) was entitled Stages of Alexander’s Marches.

Balakros.—There were three officers of this name in Alexander’s army. 1. The son of Nikanor, who was a Somatophylax, and was appointed satrap of Kilikia after the battle of Issos. He was slain in Pisidia in Alexander’s lifetime. 2. The son of Amyntas was commander of the allies in succession to Antigonos, and commander, along with Peukestas, of the army which Alexander left in Egypt. 3. A commander of the javelin men who took part in the great battle with the Aspasians.

Barsinê, called also Stateira, was the elder daughter of Darius, and became the wife of Alexander at Sousa, 324 B.C. Within a year of Alexander’s death she was treacherously murdered by Roxana.

Barzaëntes, satrap of the Arachosians and Drangians, was one of the murderers of Darius. To escape Alexander he fled to India, but was given up by the inhabitants to Alexander, who ordered his death.

Bêssos, the satrap of Baktria, commanded the left wing of the Persian army at Arbêla, and was thus directly opposed to Alexander himself in that battle. After the battle he conspired against his unfortunate master, who was also his kinsman, and caused him to be assassinated lest he should fall into Alexander’s hands—a result which would have frustrated his design of mounting the vacant throne. He fled across the Oxus, but was betrayed and delivered up to Alexander, who caused him to be tried before a council at Zariaspa, and after suffering mutilation to be executed.

Chandragupta.—See [Sandrokottos].

Charês, or Cares, a native of Mytilênê in Lesbos, was an officer with Alexander who discharged the functions of court usher. He wrote a book (now lost) of anecdotes about Alexander’s wars and private life, which is frequently quoted by Athênaios. Some fragments have also been preserved by Plutarch, Pliny, and Aulus Gellius.

Cleophis, Queen of Mazaga, surrendered that city to Alexander, by whom she was kindly treated, and to whom she is said to have borne a son who became an Indian king. In Racine’s tragedy, Alexandre le Grand, Cleophis, who figures as one of the dramatis personae, is made the sister of Taxilês.

Dêimachos or Daimachos was ambassador at the court of Allitrochades, the son and successor of Sandrokottos, and wrote a work on India in two books. He is pilloried by Strabo as the most mendacious of all writers about India.

Dêmêtrios was one of the officers who formed Alexander’s bodyguard. He was accused by Philôtas as being one of his accomplices in the conspiracy against the king’s life, and was in consequence deprived of his post, to which Ptolemy was then preferred.

Dêmêtrios, son of Pythonax, was one of the select band of cavalry called the Companions. He took part in the Indian campaigns.

Dêmêtrios Poliorkêtês, the son of Antigonos, became king of Macedonia in 294 B.C.

Fig. 24.—Dêmêtrios Poliorkêtês.

Dioskorides, the famous writer on Materia Medica, was a native of Kilikia, and flourished, so far as can be conjectured, about the beginning of the second century of our aera.

Embisaros.—See [Abisares].

Epiktêtos, the famous philosopher, was a native of Hieropolis in Phrygia, and a freedman of Epaphroditus, the favourite of Nero. Arrian, who was one of his disciples, composed a short manual of his philosophy as taken down from his lectures, and known as the Enchiridion.

Eratosthenes was appointed by Ptolemy Euergetes (grandson of Alexander’s Ptolemy) president of the Alexandrian Library, an office which he held for upwards of forty years. He may be considered as the founder of scientific geography, and in some measure also of systematic chronology. He was born at Kyrênê in 276 B.C., and educated in Athens, where he devoted himself to the study of learning and philosophy. He died in Alexandria in the year 196 B.C. His works, which were numerous and treated of a great variety of subjects, scientific and literary, have perished, with the exception of some fragments cited by other writers.

Erigyios was by birth a Mitylenaian, and was an officer in Alexander’s army. He commanded the cavalry of the allies both in the battle of Arbêla and when Alexander set out from Ekbatana in pursuit of Darius. He was slain fighting with Baktrian fugitives.

Eudêmos.—When Alexander heard in Karmania that Philip, who had been left in India as satrap, had been treacherously murdered by the mercenaries, he sent orders to Taxilês and Eudêmos to administer affairs till a new satrap should be appointed. Sometime after Alexander’s death Eudêmos decoyed Pôros into his power and cut him off. He then left India either because Eumenes requiring his services in contending against Antigonos recalled him, or because he was unable to hold out against the native revolt headed by Sandrokottos. The troops and elephants which he took with him from India were of great service to Eumenes. After the fall of his chief Eudêmos was put to death by Antigonos.

Eumenes was a native of Kardia, a Greek colony situated in the Thracian Chersonese. He was private secretary to King Philip, and then to Alexander, whom he attended throughout his Asiatic expedition. It was one of his duties as royal secretary to keep a diary (Ephêmerides) in which the transactions of each day had to be recorded, and this work is quoted both by Arrian and Plutarch. He showed himself a man of consummate ability in the arts both of war and of politics. His alien origin, however, exposed him to the jealousy of the Macedonian officers. Hêphaistiôn in particular, Alexander’s chief favourite, sought by every means to compass his overthrow. Eumenes, however, by his prudence and tact frustrated all attempts made to undermine his influence with the king who had a just appreciation of his merits. Though his labours were chiefly those of the closet, he was sometimes employed in the field, more especially on occasions of unusual emergency. When Alexander, on returning to Sousa, celebrated his own nuptials and those of his companions with oriental brides, he gave, as Arrian tells us (vi. 4), to Ptolemy, and Eumenes, the royal secretary, the daughters of Artabazos; to the former Artikama, and to the latter Artonis. After the king’s death Eumenes obtained Kappadokia, Paphlagonia, and Pontos, and after some delay was established in the government of these provinces. After the death of Perdikkas, to whom he owed this service, he was requested by Olympias and Polysperchon to undertake the supreme command throughout Asia on behalf of the king. He had in consequence to contend against the faction opposed to the royal family which was headed by Antigonos, and supported by Ptolemy, Peithôn, Seleukos, and Nearchos. After coping successfully for a considerable time against this powerful confederacy, he was delivered up by his own troops to Antigonos, who, notwithstanding the remonstrances of Nearchos, ordered him to be put to death, 316 B.C.

Gorgias, a commander of a division of the phalanx. He marched with Hêphaistiôn and Perdikkas by the Khaiber Pass to the Indus, and fought in the battle against Pôros.

Harpalos was of princely birth, and nephew of King Philip. He was educated along with Alexander, whom he accompanied into Asia in the capacity of superintendent of his treasury. Having betrayed his trust he fled to Greece, but was recalled by Alexander, who overlooked his offence and reinstated him in his office. Alexander, on setting out from Ekbatana to pursue Darius, left Harpalos in that stronghold in charge of the vast treasures which had been transported thither from Sousa and other plundered capitals. Harpalos removed thence to Babylon, where he ruled as satrap while the king was in India. Here his licentiousness and extravagance exceeded all bounds. On hearing that Alexander had returned to Sousa, and was punishing with the utmost severity all officers who had misgoverned in his absence, he set out for the coast, taking with him the vast sum of 5000 talents and a large escort of troops. He crossed over to Attica, but the Athenians would not permit him to land until he had disbanded his followers. When he was admitted into the city he employed his wealth in bribing the orators to gain over the people to his cause in opposition to Alexander. He was, however, obliged to take to flight, and having landed with his treasures in the island of Crete, was there assassinated.

Hêkataios, one of the earliest and most distinguished Greek historians and geographers, was a native of Milêtos, and lived about 520 B.C. He is the first Greek writer who distinctly mentions India. Some fragments of his works have been preserved.

Hêphaistiôn was a native of Pella, and in his childhood appears to have been brought up with Alexander, who was of the same age as he, and not only continued to be his friend through life, but lavished upon him when removed by death the most extravagant honours. In the Egyptian expedition he commanded the fleet, and he distinguished himself in the battle of Arbêla, where he was wounded in the arm. When Philôtas was put to death the command of the horse guards was divided between him and Kleitos. He conducted important operations in Sogdiana and Baktria, and throughout all the subsequent campaigns until the army returned to Sousa. He was not possessed of any striking share of ability, and would certainly not have risen to eminence through his own unaided exertions. At Sousa Alexander gave him to wife Drypatis, one of the daughters of Darius, and the sister of Stateira, whom he himself married. Hêphaistiôn was soon afterwards cut off by fever at Ekbatana.

Herakon, one of Alexander’s officers, was appointed with two others to command the army in Media on the death of Parmenion. During Alexander’s absence in the far east he committed many excesses, for which he was put to death on Alexander’s return from India.

Kalânos was a gymnosophist of Taxila, who left India with Alexander, and burned himself alive on a funeral pile at Sousa. His real name, Plutarch says, was Sphinês; but the Greeks called him Kalânos, because, in saluting those he met, he used the word kale! equivalent to hail! The Sanskrit adjective kalyâna means salutary, lucky, well, etc. If we except Sandrokottos, Taxilês, and Pôros, there is no other Indian with whose history, opinions, and personal characteristics the classical writers have made us so well acquainted as with those of Kalânos. For this reason, as well as because it falls properly within the scope of my undertaking to do so, I shall here present translations of all the passages I can find which relate to him, and to another gymnosophist who was a man of a very different stamp called Mandanes, and sometimes, but improperly, Dandamis. Arrian (VII. i. 5—iii.) thus writes:—i. 5. I commend the Indian sages of whom it is related that certain of them who had been caught by Alexander walking about according to their wont in the open meadow, did nothing else in sight of himself and his army but stamp upon the ground on which they were stepping. When he asked them through interpreters what they meant by so doing, they replied thus: O King Alexander, each man possesses as much of the earth as what we have stepped on; but you, being a man like the rest of us, except that you wickedly disturb the peace of the world, have come so far from home to plague yourself and every one else, and yet ere long when you die you will possess just so much of the earth as will suffice to make a grave to cover your bones. ii. Alexander praised what they had said, but nevertheless continued to act in opposition to their advice.... When he arrived at Taxila and saw the Indian gymnosophists, he conceived a great desire that one of their number should live with him, because he admired their patience in enduring hardships. But the oldest of the philosophers, Dandamis by name, with whom the others lived as disciples, not only refused to go himself, but forbade the others to go. He is said to have replied that he was also a son of Zeus, if Alexander was such,[414] and that he wanted nothing that was Alexander’s; for he was content with what he had, while he saw that the men with Alexander wandered over sea and land for no advantage, and were never coming to an end of their wanderings. He desired, therefore, nothing it was in Alexander’s power to give: nor did he fear being excluded from anything he possessed; for while he lived, India would suffice for him, yielding him her fruits in due season, and when he died he would be delivered from the body an unsuitable companion. Alexander accordingly did not attempt to compel him to go with him, considering him free to please himself. But Megasthenes has stated that Kalânos, one of the philosophers of this place, was persuaded to go since he had no power of self-control, as the philosophers themselves allowed, who upbraided him because he had deserted the happiness among them, and went to serve another master than the deity. iii. I have thus written, because in a History of Alexander it was necessary to speak of Kalânos; for when he was in the country of Persis he fell into delicate health, though he had never before had an illness. Accordingly, as he had no wish to lead the life of an invalid, he informed Alexander that, broken as he was in health, he thought it best to put an end to himself before he had experience of any malady that would oblige him to change his former mode of life. Alexander long and earnestly opposed his request; but when he saw that he was quite inflexible, and that if one mode of death was denied him he would find another, he ordered a funeral pyre to be piled up in accordance with the man’s own directions, and ordered Ptolemy, the son of Lagos, one of the bodyguards, to superintend all the arrangements. Some say that a solemn procession of horses and men advanced before him, some of the men being armed, while others carried all kinds of incense for the pyre. Others again say that they carried gold and silver bowls and royal apparel; also, that a horse was provided for him because he was unable to walk from illness. He was, however, unable to mount the horse, and he was therefore carried on a litter crowned with a garland, after the manner of the Indians, and singing in the Indian tongue. The Indians say that what he sang were hymns to the gods and the praises of his countrymen, and that the horse which he was to have mounted—a Nêsaian steed of the royal stud—he presented to Lysimachos who attended him for instruction in philosophy. On others who attended him he bestowed the bowls and rugs which Alexander, to honour him, had ordered to be cast into the pyre. Then mounting the pile, he lay down upon it in a becoming manner in full view of the whole army. Alexander deemed the spectacle one which he could not with propriety witness, because the man to suffer was his friend; but to those who were present Kalânos caused astonishment in that he did not move any part of his body in the fire. As soon as the men charged with the duty set fire to the pile, the trumpets, Nearchos says, sounded by Alexander’s order, and the whole army raised the war-shout as if advancing to battle. The elephants also swelled the noise with their shrill and warlike cry to do honour to Kalânos.

In a subsequent chapter (xviii.) Arrian records the following story of Kalânos: When he was going to the funeral pyre to die, he embraced all his other companions, but did not wish to draw near to Alexander to give him a parting embrace, saying he would meet him at Babylon and would there embrace him. This remark attracted no notice at the time; but afterwards, when Alexander died in Babylon, it came back to the memory of those who heard it, who then naturally took it to have been a prophecy of his death. Plutarch, in his Life of Alexander, has another notice of Kalânos besides that which the reader will find translated in chapter 65. In chapter 69 he thus writes: “It was here (in Persepolis) that Kalânos, on being for a short time afflicted with colic, desired to have his funeral pile erected. He was conveyed to it on horseback, and after he had prayed and sprinkled himself with a libation, and cut off part of his hair to cast into the fire, he ascended the pile, after taking leave of the Macedonians, and recommending them to devote that day to pleasure and hard drinking with the king, whom, said he, I shall shortly see in Babylon. Upon this he lay down on the pyre and covered himself up with his robes. When the flames approached he did not move, but remained in the same posture as when he lay down until the sacrifice was auspiciously consummated, according to the custom of the sages of his country. Many years afterwards another Indian in the presence of Caesar (Augustus) at Athens did the same thing. His tomb is shown till this day, and is called the Indian’s tomb.—Alexander, on returning from the pyre, invited many of his friends and his generals to supper, where he proposed a drinking-bout, with a crown for the prize. Promachos, who drank most, reached four measures (14 quarts), and won the crown, which was worth a talent, but survived only for three days. The rest of the guests, Charês says, drank to such excess that forty-one of them died, the weather having turned excessively cold immediately after the debauch.” The Indian who burned himself at Athens was called Zarmanochegas, as we learn from Strabo (XV. i. 73), who states, on the authority of Nikolaös of Damascus, that he came to Syria in the train of the ambassadors who were sent to Augustus Caesar by a great Indian king called Pôros. “These ambassadors,” he says, “were accompanied by the person who burnt himself to death at Athens. This is the practice with persons in distress, who seek escape from existing calamities, and with others in prosperous circumstances, as was the case with this man. For as everything hitherto had succeeded with him, he thought it necessary to depart, lest some unexpected calamity should happen to him by continuing to live; with a smile, therefore, naked, anointed, and with the girdle round his waist, he leaped upon the pyre. On his tomb was this inscription: Zarmanochegas, an Indian, a native of Bargosa (Barygaza, Baroch), having immortalised himself according to the custom of his country, here lies.” Lassen takes the name Zarmanochegas to represent the Sanskrit Śramanachârya, teacher of the Śramanas, from which it would appear he was a Buddhist priest. Strabo writes at greater length than our historians about the gymnosophists. In Book XV. i. 61 we have the following notices: “Aristoboulos says that he saw at Taxila two sophists, both Brachmans, of whom the elder had his head shaved, while the younger wore his hair; disciples attended both. They spent their time generally in the market-place. They are honoured as public counsellors, and are free to take away without charge any article exposed for sale which they may choose. He who accosts them pours over them oil of jessamine in such quantities that it runs down from their eyes. They make cakes of honey and sesamum, of which large quantities are always for sale, and their food thus costs them nothing. At Alexander’s table they ate standing, and, to give a sample of their endurance, withdrew to a spot not far off, where the elder, lying down with his back to the ground, endured the sun and the rains which had set in as spring had just begun. The other stood on one leg, holding up with both his hands a bar of wood 3 cubits long; one leg being tired he rested his weight on the other, and did this throughout the day. The younger seemed to have far more self-command; for though he followed the king a short distance, he soon returned to his home. The king sent after him, but the king, he said, should come to him if he wanted anything from him. The other accompanied the king to the end of his life. During his stay he changed his dress and altered his mode of life, saying, when reproached for so doing, that he had completed the forty years of discipline which he had vowed to observe. Alexander gave presents to his children. (63) Onesikritos says that he himself was sent to converse with these sages.... He found at the distance of twenty stadia from the city fifteen men standing in different attitudes, sitting or lying down naked, and continuing in these positions till the evening, when they went back to the city. What was hardest to bear was the heat of the sun, which was so powerful that no one else could bear without pain to walk barefooted on the ground at mid-day. (64) He conversed with Kalânos, one of these sages, who accompanied the king to Persia, and burned himself after the custom of his country on a pile of wood. Onesikritos found him lying upon stones, and drawing near to address him, informed him that he had been sent by the king, who had heard the fame of his wisdom. As the king would require an account of the interview, he was prepared to listen to his discourse if he did not object to converse with him. When Kalânos saw the cloak, head-dress, and shoes of his visitor, he laughed and said: “Formerly there was abundance of corn and barley in the world, as there is now of dust; fountains then flowed with water, milk, honey, wine, and oil, but repletion and luxury made men turn proud and insolent. Zeus, indignant at this, destroyed all, and assigned to man a life of toil. When temperance and other virtues in consequence again appeared, then good things again abounded. But at present the condition of mankind tends to satiety and wantonness, and there is cause to fear lest the existing state of things should disappear.” When he had finished he proposed to Onesikritos, if he wished to hear his discourse, to strip off his clothes, to lie down naked beside him on the same stones, and in that manner to hear what he had to say. While he was uncertain what to do, Mandanes, the oldest and wisest of the sages, reproached Kalânos for his insolence—the very vice which he had been condemning. Mandanes then called Onesikritos to him, and said, I commend the king, because, although he governs so vast an empire, he is yet desirous of acquiring wisdom, for he is the only philosopher in arms that I ever saw.... (65) “The tendency of his discourse,” he said, “was this, that the best philosophy was that which liberated the mind from pleasure and grief; that grief differed from labour, in that the former was pernicious, the latter friendly, to men; for that men exercised their bodies with labour to strengthen the mental powers, whereby they would be able to end dissensions, and give every one good advice, both to the public and to private persons; that he should at present advise Taxilês to receive Alexander as a friend; for by entertaining a person better than himself he might be improved, while by entertaining a worse he might influence that person to be good.” After this Mandanes inquired whether such doctrines were taught among the Greeks. Onesikritos answered that Pythagoras taught a like doctrine, and instructed his disciples to abstain from whatever had life; that Sôkrates and Diogenês, whose discourses he had heard, held the same views. Mandanes replied, that in other respects he thought them to be wise; but that they were mistaken in preferring custom to nature, else they would not be ashamed to go naked as he did, and to live on frugal fare, for, said he, that is the best house that requires least repairs. He states further that they employ themselves much on natural subjects, as forecasting the future, rain, drought, and diseases. On going into the city they disperse themselves in the market-places.... Every wealthy house, even to the women’s apartments, is open to them. When they enter they converse with the inmates and share their meal. Disease of the body they regard as very disgraceful, and he who fears that it will attack him, prepares a pyre and lets the flames consume him. He anoints himself beforehand, and when he has placed himself upon the pile orders it to be lighted, and remains motionless while he is burning. (66) Nearchos gives the following account of the sages: The Brachmans engage in public affairs, and attend the kings as counsellors; the rest are occupied in the study of nature. Kalânos belonged to the latter class. Women study philosophy with them, and all lead an ascetic life.

Athênaios in his Gymnosophists (x. p. 437) quotes, like Plutarch, from Charês, the account of the drinking bout which followed the burning of Kalânos. He says that Alexander proposed the match on account of the bibulous propensities (philoinia) of the Indians. Other references to Kalânos are to be found in Ailianos, V. H. ii. 41 and v. 6; Lucian, De M. Pereg. 25; Cicero, Disp. Tusc. ii. 22, and De Divin. i. 23, 30. In the romance History of Alexander, by the Pseudo-Kallisthenes, six long chapters of Book iii. (11-17) are full of Kalânos, Mandanes, and the Brachmans.

St. Ambrose wrote a work, De Bragmanibus, in which the two gymnosophists are frequently mentioned.

Kallisthenes was a native of Olynthos. He was brought up and educated by Aristotle, to whom he was related, and at whose recommendation he was permitted to accompany Alexander on his Asiatic expedition. He was deficient in tact and prudence, and exasperated the king by the freedom with which he censured him for adopting oriental customs, and especially for requiring Macedonians to perform the ceremony of adoration. When the plot of the pages to assassinate Alexander was discovered, Kallisthenes was charged with being an accessary. According to Charês he was imprisoned for seven months, and died in India; while Ptolemy states that he was tortured and crucified. Besides other works, he wrote an account of Alexander’s expedition, to which Strabo and Plutarch make a few references, but it was a work of little if any value.

Kanishka, a great Turanian conqueror, whose empire extended from Kabul to Agra and Gujrut. He was an ardent Buddhist. The date of his coronation, 78 A.D., marks the beginning of the Śâkâbda aera.

Kleander, one of Alexander’s officers. He was employed to kill Parmenion, to whom he was next in command at Ekbatana. He was himself put to death when he joined Alexander in Karmania, on account of his profligacy and oppression while in Media.

Kleitos was a Macedonian, and brother to Alexander’s nurse. He saved Alexander’s life at the Granîkos. When the companion cavalry was divided into two bodies, the command of one was given to Kleitos and of the other to Hêphaistiôn. In 328 B.C. he was appointed to succeed Artabazos in the satrapy of Baktria, but on the eve of his departure to take up this office he was killed by Alexander in a drunken brawl.

Koinos was the son of Polemokrates, and the son-in-law of Parmenion. He was one of Alexander’s ablest generals, and greatly distinguished himself on various occasions, and especially in the battle with Pôros. When Alexander had reached the Hyphasis and wished to proceed farther and reach the Ganges, Koinos had the courage to remonstrate, and the king was obliged to act on his advice. He died soon after of an illness, and was honoured with a splendid burial.

Kôphaios.—A chief whose dominions lay to the west of the Indus and along the river Kôphên.

Koragos.—A Macedonian bravo called also Horratas.

Kosmas Indikopleustes.—An Egyptian monk who flourished towards the middle of the sixth century of our aera. In early life he was a merchant, and visited for traffic various countries, Aethiopia, Syria, Arabia, Persia, India, and many other places of the East. After he had taken to monastic life he wrote a work called Christian Topography, which is valuable for the geographical and historical information it contains. It has some notices concerning India, especially concerning its Christian communities.

Krateros, a Macedonian of Orestis, was one of Alexander’s most distinguished generals, and next to Hêphaistiôn his greatest favourite. He was in command of infantry on the left wing at Issos, and of cavalry on the same wing at Gaugamela. He rose afterwards to be commander of one of the divisions of the phalanx. On the day of the battle with Pôros he was left with a part of the army in the camp, and did not cross the river till victory had declared for Alexander. He commanded the troops which were sent back from India by way of the Bolan Pass to Karmania. At Sousa he married Amastris, the niece of Darius, after which he led, along with Polysperchon, the discharged veterans back to Europe. In the division of the empire after Alexander’s death Greece and Macedonia and other European provinces fell to the share of Antipater and Krateros, who divorced Amastris and married Phila, Antipater’s daughter. In 321 B.C. Krateros fell in battle against Eumenes, who honoured his old comrade in the Indian wars with a magnificent funeral.

Kyrsilos, a native of Pharsalos, who accompanied Alexander to Asia and wrote an account of his exploits. He is mentioned by Strabo (XI. xiv. 12).

Leonnatos, a native of Pella, was one of Alexander’s most capable and distinguished officers. At the time of Philip’s death he occupied one of the highest positions at court, being one of the select bodyguard called sômatophylakes, but under Alexander he was at first only an officer of the companion cavalry. After the battle of Issos he was sent to inform the wife of Darius of her husband’s safety, and when Arrhybas, one of the bodyguards, died in Egypt, he was promoted to the vacant post. After this his name continually occurs among the names of those who were constantly about the king’s person and stood highest in his confidence. On several occasions he showed the greatest courage, and at the siege of the Mallian stronghold he saved, along with Peukestas, the king’s life. When the army marched back from India he was left to overawe the Oreitai, and to wait in their country till Nearchos should reach it with the fleet. He inflicted a crushing defeat on that people, who had assembled a large army after Alexander had left their borders. For this and other services he was rewarded at Sousa with a golden crown. In the division of the empire he received only the satrapy of the Lesser Phrygia, a share which by no means satisfied his ambition. Kleopatra, Alexander’s sister, then offered him her hand on condition that he should assist her against Antipater, the regent of Macedonia. He consented, but when he passed over into that country he was slain in battle against the Greeks, who had revolted from Antipater, whose dominions he wished to appropriate in their integrity.

Lysimachos was one of Alexander’s great generals and one of his select bodyguards. He was born at Pella—the son of a Thessalian serf who by his flatteries had won the good graces of King Philip. Great personal strength and undaunted courage seem to have been the qualities by which Lysimachos gained his splendid position, for he was seldom entrusted by Alexander with any separate command of importance. He was present in the battle with Pôros, and was wounded at the siege of Sangala. In the division of the empire he obtained Thrace for his share, but his dominions after the battle of Issos, in which along with Seleukos, Ptolemy, and Kassander, he defeated Antigonos and his son Dêmêtrios, embraced for a time all Alexander’s European possessions, in addition to Asia Minor. His third wife was Arsinoë, the daughter of Ptolemy, King of Egypt. In 281 B.C. he was defeated and slain by his old comrade in arms, Seleukos. He was then eighty years of age.

Megasthenês, the ambassador sent by Seleukos Nikator to the court of Sandrokottos, and author of a work on India of the highest value. Though this work is lost, numerous fragments have been preserved by Strabo, Arrian, Pliny, and many other writers.

Mela, Pomponius, the first Roman author known to have composed a formal work on geography. It is supposed that he flourished under the Emperor Claudius.

Meleager was by birth a Macedonian, and served with distinction in Alexander’s Asiatic campaigns, where he commanded one of the divisions of the phalanx. He was present in the great battles of the Granîkos, Issos, Gaugamela, and the Hydaspês. He was never entrusted, however, with any special or important command. He was a man of an insolent and factious disposition, and showed himself to be such in the discussions which arose between the generals after Alexander’s death concerning the arrangements which should be made for the government of the empire. He led for a time the opposition against Perdikkas, but was afterwards for a short time associated with him in the regency. Two such colleagues could not long act in harmony. Perdikkas, who was an adept in the arts of dissimulation, lulled Meleager into fancied security, devised a cunning scheme for his overthrow, and having succeeded in this ordered him to be put to death.

Memnôn, the Rhodian, was the brother of Mentor, who stood high in the favour of Darius, and brother-in-law of Artabazos, the satrap of Lower Phrygia. On the death of his brother, Memnôn, who possessed great military skill and experience, succeeded to his authority, which extended over the coast of Asia Minor. He was the most formidable opponent Alexander encountered in Western Asia. Fortunately for him, Memnôn died in 333 B.C., when preparing to sail for Greece, where the Spartans were ready to join him and rise against the Macedonians.

Môphis.—See Taxilês.

Mousikanos was the ruler of a rich and fertile kingdom which lay along the banks of the Indus, in Upper Sindh. He submitted to Alexander without resistance, and was allowed to retain his sovereignty. The Brahmans, however, prevailed on him to revolt during Alexander’s absence. He was captured by Peithôn and crucified by Alexander’s orders.

Mullinus is called by Curtius the king’s secretary. Eumenes is probably meant. The name is not met with except in one passage in Curtius.

Nearchos.—Among all the great men associated with Alexander no one has left a reputation more noble and unsullied than that of Nearchos. The long and difficult voyage in unknown seas which he successfully accomplished ranks as one of the greatest achievements in the annals of navigation. He was free from the mad ambition to rule which gave rise to the deadly feuds between Alexander’s other great generals, and stained the records of their lives with so many dark crimes. He was a native of Crete, but settled at Amphipolis, a Macedonian city near the Thracian border. He held a high position at the court of King Philip, where he attached himself to the party of the young prince, and was banished along with Ptolemy, Harpalos, and others, who had involved themselves in his intrigues. Alexander, on mounting the throne, recalled his former partisans, and did not neglect their interests. Nearchos accompanied him into Asia, where he was appointed governor of Lykia and other provinces south of the Tauros. This post he continued to hold for five years. He rejoined Alexander before he left Baktria to invade India, and in India he was appointed commander of the fleet which was built on the Hydaspês. He conducted it down that river and the Akesinês and the Indus to Patala (now Haidarâbâd), a naval station at the apex of the Indus Delta. He arrived at that place about the time when the south-west monsoon usually sets in. Alexander, on returning to Patala from the excursions he made to the ocean, removed the fleet to Killouta, an island in the western branch of the Indus, which possessed a commodious haven. He then set out on his return to Persia, leaving the fleet with Nearchos, who had relieved Alexander’s mind of a load of anxiety by voluntarily proffering his services to conduct the expedition by sea to the head of the Persian Gulf. When we consider, as Bunbury remarks, the total ignorance of the Greeks at this time concerning the Indian seas, and the imperfect character of their navigation, it is impossible not to admire the noble confidence with which Nearchos ventured to promise that he would bring the ships in safety to the shores of Persia, “if the sea were navigable and the thing feasible for mortal man.” Nearchos wished to defer his departure till the monsoon had quite subsided, but as he was in danger of being attacked by the natives, who were no longer overawed by Alexander’s presence, he set sail on the 21st of September, 325 B.C. He was forced, however, by the violence of the weather, when he had reached the mouth of the Indus, to take refuge in a sheltered bay at a station which he called Alexander’s Haven, and which is now known as Karâchi, the great emporium of the trade of the Indus. After a detention here for twenty-four days, he resumed his voyage on the 23rd of October. Coasting the shore of the Arabies for 80 miles, he reached the mouth of the river Arabis (now the Purali), which divides the Arabies from the Oreitai. The coast of the latter people, which was 100 miles in extent, was navigated in eighteen days. At one of the landing-places the ships were supplied by Leonnatos with stores of corn, which lasted ten days. The navigation of the Mekrân coast which succeeded occupied twenty days, and the distance traversed was 480 miles English, though Nearchos in his journal has set it down at 10,000 stadia or 1250 miles. The expedition in this part of the voyage suffered great distress for want of provisions. The coast was barren, and its savage inhabitants, the Ichthyophagi,[415] had little else to subsist on than fish, which some of them ate raw.[416] The Karmanian coast, which succeeded, was not so distressingly barren, but was even, in certain favoured localities, extremely fertile and beautiful. Its length was 296 miles, and the time taken in its navigation was nineteen days, some of which, however, were spent at the mouth of the river Anamis (now the Mînâb), whence Nearchos made a journey into the interior to apprise Alexander of the safety of his fleet. The coasts of Persis and Sousis were navigated in thirty-one days. Nearchos had intended to sail up the Tigris, but having passed its mouth unawares, continued sailing westward till he reached Diridôtis (Terêdon), an emporium in Babylonia on the Pallocopas branch of the Euphrates. He thence retraced his course to the Tigris, and ascended its stream till he reached a lake through which at that time it flowed and which received the river Pasitigris, the Ulaï of Scripture, and now the Karun. The fleet proceeded up this river till it met the army near a bridge on the highway from Persis to Sousa. It anchored at the bridge on the 24th of February, 324 B.C., so that the whole voyage was performed in 146 days. Nearchos received appropriate rewards for the splendid service he had so successfully performed. Alexander was sending him away on another great maritime expedition when the illness which carried off the great conqueror broke up the enterprise. In the discussions which followed regarding the succession to the throne, Nearchos unsuccessfully advocated the claims of Heraklês, the son of Alexander by Barsinê, who was the daughter of Artabazos and the widow of Memnôn the Rhodian. He acquiesced, however, in the arrangements made by the other generals, and was content with receiving his former government, even though he was to hold it subject to the authority of Antigonos. He accompanied his superior when he marched against Eumenes, and interceded for the life of the latter when he fell into the hands of his enemies. Nothing is known of his history after the year 314 B.C., when he was selected by Antigonos to assist his son Dêmêtrios with his counsels when left for the first time in command of an army.

Nikanor, the son of Parmenion, was commander of the hypaspists or footguards in the Asiatic expedition. He was present in the three great battles against the troops of Darius, and died of disease before the charge of conspiracy was preferred against his brother Philôtas.

Olympias, the mother of Alexander, was a passionate, ambitious, and intriguing woman. She was put to death by order of Kassander, the son of the regent Antipater, in 316 B.C., thus surviving her son seven years.

Omphis.—See [Taxilês].

Onesikritos was a Greek historical writer who accompanied Alexander on his Asiatic expedition. He professed the philosophy of Diogenes the Cynic, and on this account was sent by Alexander to converse with the gymnosophists of Taxila. He was the pilot of Alexander’s ship and of the fleet in sailing down the Indus, and afterwards during the voyage to the head of the Persian Gulf. The history written by Onesikritos, which embraced the whole life of Alexander, fell into discredit owing to the manner in which he intermingled fact with fiction. His work was, however, too much undervalued. He was the first author who mentions the island of Taprobanê (Ceylon). In his later years he attached himself to the fortunes of Lysimachos of Thrace.

Orosius was a Spanish ecclesiastic of the fifth century, who wrote a history of the world from the creation down to the year A.D. 417.

Oxyartes, a Baktrian, the father of Alexander’s queen Roxana, was one of the chiefs who accompanied Bessos on his retreat across the Oxus into Sogdiana. Alexander, after marrying his daughter, appointed him satrap of the land of the Paropamisidai, and his successors allowed him to retain that government. It is not known how long he lived, but it is supposed that he was dead when Seleukos undertook his Indian expedition, as his dominions were among those which were surrendered to Sandrokottos.

Oxykanos, called Portikanos by Strabo and Diodôros, ruled a territory which adjoined that of Mousikanos, but its exact position or boundaries cannot be ascertained.

Panini, the celebrated Indian grammarian, was a native of Salâtura, in Gandhâra. His date is generally referred to the fourth century B.C., but this is still a matter of controversy.

Parmênion was the most experienced and most trusted general who accompanied Alexander into Asia. He commanded the left wing of the Macedonian army in the three great battles against Darius. He was left in command in Media, and so did not accompany the expedition into India. His assassination has left an indelible stain on Alexander’s character.

Patroklês was a general who held under Seleukos and Antiochos an important government over some eastern provinces of the Syrian empire. He collected much valuable information regarding the little-known parts which adjoined his province. His work, embodying this information, is frequently quoted by Strabo.

Pausanias was the author of an Itinerary of Greece, full of valuable topographical and antiquarian information. He wrote in the age of the Antonines.

Peithôn.—Three officers of this name accompanied Alexander into Asia—first, Peithôn, the son of Sôsiklês, who was wounded and taken prisoner by the Skythians under Spitamenes, and is not subsequently mentioned; second, Peithôn, the son of Krateuas, who, like Ptolemy, was a native of Eördaia, and a member of the select bodyguard; third, Peithôn, the son of Agênôr, who, like the preceding, rendered distinguished services in the Indian campaigns. The historians have recorded nothing of their previous achievements, and when they come to mention those performed in India, do not always make it clear to which of the two they mean to ascribe them.

Peithôn, the son of Krateuas, after Alexander’s death proposed that Perdikkas and Leonnatos should be appointed joint regents of the empire, and for this service was rewarded with the satrapy of Media. After the assassination of Perdikkas he was himself, through the influence of Ptolemy, raised to the regency in conjunction with Arrhidaios, but was soon compelled to resign and retire to his Median government. He assisted Antigonos to overthrow Eumenes; but Antigonos, having subsequently suspected him of entertaining treasonable designs, brought him to trial before a council, and ordered him to be put to death in 316 B.C.

Peithôn, the son of Agênôr, took an active part in the wars against the Malloi and Mousikanos while holding the command of one of the divisions of the footguards. He was appointed satrap of Sindh from the great confluence downward to the sea-coast, and was left behind in his province when Alexander took his departure from India. After the death of Alexander he was confirmed in his government, but, it would appear, was ousted from it by Pôros. After the fall of Eumenes he received from Antigonos, whose side he had favoured, the satrapy of Babylon. While serving with Dêmêtrios, the son of Antigonos, he was slain in the battle of Gaza, in which the young prince rashly and against his advice engaged Ptolemy. This battle was fought in 312 B.C.

Perdikkas—one of Alexander’s greatest generals—was a native of the Macedonian province of Orestis, and descended, according to Curtius, from a royal house. Under Philip he held one of the highest offices at court, being a sômatophylax, and under Alexander he held the same position along with the command of a division of the phalanx, but afterwards of a division of the companion cavalry. He distinguished himself at the siege of Thebes, where he was severely wounded, and in the three great battles against the armies of Darius. In the Persian, Sogdian, and Indian campaigns he was frequently entrusted with separate commands of great importance, and at Sousa was rewarded for his services with a crown of gold and with the hand of the daughter of the Median satrap. He was present with Alexander during his fatal illness; and it is said that the king when expiring took off the royal signet-ring from his finger and gave it to him, as if to indicate him as his successor. In the deliberations which followed to settle the succession, Perdikkas took a prominent part, and, with the consent of most of the other generals, was appointed to act as regent of the empire on behalf of Roxana’s yet unborn child, which, it was hoped, might prove to be a son. His selfish ambition, however, and acts of cruelty soon created violent discontent, and a combination was formed against him by Antigonos, whom he attempted to bring to trial for misgovernment, but who effected his escape to Macedonia, and persuaded Antipater, Krateros, and Ptolemy to take up arms on his behalf. He was slain by his own troops in Egypt, whither he had proceeded in the hope of being able to crush Ptolemy before taking measures against the other confederates. Perdikkas was crafty, cruel, and arrogant, without magnanimity, and, indeed, without any virtue except personal courage and capacity as a general.

Peukestas, a native of Mieza in Macedonia, was one of Alexander’s great officers, and had the honour of carrying before him in battle the sacred shield taken down from the temple of Athêna at Ilion. He is first mentioned as one of the officers appointed to command a trireme on the Hydaspês. He had a chief share in saving Alexander’s life in the citadel of the Mallian capital, and for this service was rewarded by being appointed a sômatophylax and afterwards satrap of Persia. After being presented at Sousa with a golden crown, he proceeded to take possession of his government, when he adopted the Persian dress and Persian customs, thus pleasing his subjects as well as Alexander himself. He was in attendance on the king during his last illness, but does not appear to have taken any leading part in the discussions held after his death regarding the succession. He was, however, permitted to retain his government. He took an active part in the war conducted by Eumenes against Antigonos. He was vain and fond of display, and his treachery towards Eumenes, whom he helped to betray into the hands of his enemies, has left a dark stain on his character.

Phegelas, or, as he is called by Diodôros, Phêgeus, was chief of a territory which lay between the Hydraôtes and the Hyphasis. With regard to the name, M. Sylvain Lévi gives preference to the form Phegelas, and states his reason thus: “The e answers to the a of Sanskrit, the g to the g or to the j. Phegeus does not border on a known form; Phegelas, on the contrary, answers directly to the Sanskrit Bhagala—the name of a royal race of Kshatriyas which the Gana-pâtha classes under the rubric Bâhu, etc., with the name even of Taxilês, Âmbhi.” (Journal Asiatique for 1890, p. 239.)

Philippos, the son of Machatas, was one of Alexander’s officers. In 327 B.C. he was appointed satrap of India. After Alexander left India he was assassinated in a conspiracy formed against him by the mercenaries under his command.

Phrataphernes was, under Darius, governor of Parthia and Hyrkania. He accompanied that sovereign in his flight from Arbêla, but after his death submitted to Alexander, who reinstated him in his satrapy. He joined Alexander in India after Pôros had been defeated, but seems to have soon afterwards returned to his satrapy, whence he sent supplies to the Macedonian army when pursuing its distressing march through Gedrôsia. The successors of Alexander allowed him to retain his satrapy.

Polyainos, a Macedonian, who flourished about the middle of the second century of our aera, and was the author of a work on the stratagems of war, which is still extant.

Polykleitos was a native of Larissa, who wrote a history of Alexander. Most of the extracts preserved from this work refer to the geography of the countries which Alexander conquered.

Polysperchon, or Polyperchon, was one of the oldest officers of a high rank in Alexander’s service. After the battle of Issos he was promoted to the command of a division of the phalanx in succession to Ptolemy, the son of Seleukos, who fell in that battle. In Baktria he offended Alexander by casting ridicule on the ceremony of prostration, and was thus for a time in disgrace. He was present at the passage of the Hydaspês, and also in the descent of the Indus, and was then sent with Krateros to conduct the veterans from India to Karmania by way of the Bolan Pass. He was not in Babylon at the time of Alexander’s death, and hence was passed over in the allotment of the provinces made after that event. When war, however, broke out between Antipater and Perdikkas, the former committed to his hands the chief command in Macedonia and Greece during his absence in Asia. The veteran general showed himself worthy of the trust reposed in him, and received the reward of his services at Antipater’s death, who appointed him, in preference to his own son, Kassander, to be his successor in the regency. After many vicissitudes of fortune, and disgracing his name by his treachery towards Phôkiôn, and his causing Heraklês, the son of Alexander, whose cause he had espoused, to be murdered, he disappears from history after the year 303 B.C.

Pôros was the most powerful king in the Panjâb at the time of Alexander’s invasion. He was then at enmity with Omphis, the king of Taxila, but in alliance with Abisarês, the king of Kâśmîr. After his defeat and submission to the conqueror, he was confirmed in his kingdom, the limits of which were afterwards considerably extended. All that is known of his history will be found in the translations, if read along with the notice below, of Sandrokottos, except that after Alexander’s death he made himself master of Sindh, from which he ousted Peithôn. The name of Pôros, which is formed from Paura or Paurava, with the Greek termination os added, shows that he belonged to a family of the Lunar race. Bohlen, however, takes the name to be a corruption of the Sanskrit Paurusha, which means “heroic.”

Portikanos.—See [Oxykanos].

Ptolemy, called the son of Lagos, is supposed to have been in reality the son of Philip, as his mother Arsinoê was the concubine of that king, and was pregnant when married to Lagos. Of all Alexander’s generals Ptolemy was the one who approached him nearest in a capacity both for war and government, while he did not fall short of him in magnanimity of disposition. He was banished from Macedonia by Philip, who discovered that he was promoting with others a marriage between Alexander and the daughter of Pixodaros, the king of Karia. He rendered important services in the war against Darius; and when Dêmêtrios, a member of the select bodyguard, was arrested on suspicion of being concerned in the conspiracy of Philôtas, Ptolemy was promoted to fill his place. It was he who obtained information of the plot of Hermolaos, and by revealing it was probably the means of saving the king’s life. In the battle with the Aspasians, Ptolemy slew their leader with his own hand, and in the campaigns in India he was on several occasions entrusted with separate commands of great importance. The story of Alexander’s dream, which led to the discovery of a plant by which Ptolemy was cured of a dangerous wound inflicted by a poisoned arrow, must be apocryphal, since Arrian, who had Ptolemy’s own memoirs of the expedition constantly before him, is silent on the subject. At Sousa he received in marriage a daughter of Artabazos. After Alexander’s death he obtained Egypt as his share of the empire, and raised that country to a high pitch of prosperity. He reigned for no less than forty years. The dynasty which he founded, after subsisting for nearly two hundred years, ended with the death of Kleopatra.

Fig. 25.—Ptolemy III.

Ptolemy III. ascended the throne of Egypt in 247 B.C. in succession to his father Ptolemy Philadelphos. In the early part of his reign he overran Syria, and having thence turned his arms eastward, advanced as far as Babylon and Sousa, and received the submission of all the upper provinces of Asia as far as the borders of Baktria and India. On returning to his kingdom he carried back with him the statues of the Egyptian deities which Kambyses had removed to the East, and restored them to their proper temples, an act which won for him the gratitude of the Egyptians and the title by which he is generally known, Euergetês, i.e. Benefactor. Like his father he distinguished himself by his munificent patronage of literature and science. He was one of the kings to whom Buddhist missionaries were sent by the Indian king Aśôka. He died in the year 222 B.C.

Ptolemy Physkon, king of Egypt, succeeded his brother Ptolemy VI., surnamed Philomêter.

Rôxana, the daughter of the Baktrian chief Oxyartes, was considered by the Macedonians the most beautiful woman in Asia, next to the wife of Darius. Alexander, who found her charms irresistible, made her his wife, and she bore him a posthumous son, called Alexander Aigos, who was admitted to a share of the sovereignty under the regency of Perdikkas. Before his birth she had enticed Alexander’s other widow, Barsinê or Stateira, to Babylon, and caused her to be murdered. She subsequently fell, with her son, into the power of Kassander, who placed them both in Amphipolis, where in 311 B.C. they were both murdered by their keeper, Glaukias.

Sambus was the satrap of a mountainous country adjoining the kingdom of Mousikanos, with whom he was at feud. His capital, called Sindimana, has been identified with Sehwân, a city on the Indus, for which see [Note S]. Sambus fled on Alexander’s approach, not to evade submission, but because he learned that his enemy, Mousikanos, had been received into the conqueror’s favour.

Sandrokottos (Chandragupta).—Sandrokottos, with the exception perhaps of his grandson, Aśôka, was the greatest ruler ancient India produced. Though of humble origin, he overthrew the Macedonian power in the Panjâb, conquered the kingdom of Magadha, and founded a wide empire such as no Indian king had before possessed. He is also memorable on another account. Those learned men who about a century ago took up the study of Sanskrit, established his identity with the Chandragupta who is mentioned in the Buddhist Chronicle of Ceylon as the founder of the Mauryan dynasty of Magadha, and by fixing the date of his accession to the throne of that kingdom, supplied the chronology of ancient India with its first properly-ascertained aera, and thus brought it into line with the chronology of general history.

Besides the notices of this great sovereign in the writings we have translated, the following occur elsewhere in the classics:—Appian (Syriakê, c. 55), speaking of Seleukos, says: “And having crossed the Indus, he warred with Androkottos, the king of the Indians, who dwelt about that river, until he entered into an alliance and a marriage affinity with him.” Strabo (II. i. 9) says: “Both of these men were sent to Palimbothra, Megasthenes to Sandrokottos, and Dêimachos to Allitrochades, his son,” and in XV. i. 36 repeats the statement as concerns Megasthenes. In XV. i. 53 we read: “Megasthenes, who was in the camp of Sandrokottos, which consisted of 400,000 men, did not witness on any day thefts reported which exceeded the sum of 200 drachmai, and this among a people who have no written laws, who are ignorant even of writing, and regulate everything by memory.” Lastly, in XV. i. 57 we read: “Similar to this is the account of the Enotokoitai, of the wild men, and of other monsters. The wild men could not be brought to Sandrokottos, for they died by abstaining from food.” Arrian in his Indika (c. 5) says: “But even Megasthenes, as far as appears, did not travel over much of India, though no doubt he saw more of it than those who came with Alexander, the son of Philip, for, as he says, he had interviews with Sandrokottos, the greatest king of the Indians, and with Pôros, who was still greater than he.”[417] Lastly, Athênaios mentions him in his Deipnosophists (c. 18 d): “Phylarchos says that among the presents which Sandrokoptos, the king of the Indians, sent to Seleukos were certain powerful aphrodisiacs.” It will be observed that Athênaios transcribes the name of the Indian king more correctly than any of the other authors.

These detached notices, combined with those which appear in the translations, we may now gather together into a connected and consistent narrative. Sandrokottos was of obscure birth, and, from the remark of Plutarch that in his early years he had seen Alexander, we may infer that he was a native of the Panjâb. It was at one time thought that he had in some way offended the conqueror, and that to escape the effects of his displeasure, he had fled for protection to the court of Magadha. But this belief must now be given up, as it was based on a corrupt passage in Justin, which, by the restoration of the correct reading, shows that it was not Alexander whom he had offended, but Nandrus or Xandrames, the Magadha king. We do not know what induced Sandrokottos to leave his home and take service under the latter monarch, but we incline to attribute it to a sentiment of patriotism forbidding him to seek office or advancement under a power which had crushed the liberties of his country. What the nature of his offence against Nandrus was does not appear, but he so dreaded his resentment that he quitted his dominions and returned home to the Panjâb. He found it, although Alexander had now been six years dead, still under Greek vassalage, and ruled as formerly in civil matters by Omphis of Taxila and the great Pôros, while the military administration had passed into the hands of Eudêmos. Soon after his arrival, however, the order of things was violently disturbed. Eudêmos having decoyed Pôros into his power, treacherously murdered him,[418] but had no sooner done so than he was recalled to the west to succour Eumenes in his war against Antigonos. As he took with him 3000 foot, 500 horse, and 125 elephants, he denuded the province of the main strength of the force by which it was held in subjection, and his departure was fatal to Greek power. The Indians, who longed for freedom, and were no doubt greatly incensed by the murder of Pôros, rose in revolt. Sandrokottos, who headed this movement, having collected a band of insurgents, overthrew the existing government, expelled the remainder of the Greek garrison, and finally installed himself in the sovereignty of the Panjâb and of all the lower valley of the Indus. The insurgents, whom he led to victory, are called by Justin robbers; but we must not thence infer that he was a bandit leader, who, by taking advantage of an opportune crisis, rose to power by the help of desperadoes whose crimes had banished them from society. His adherents were, in point of fact, chiefly the Arattâ of the Panjâb, who were always called robbers, and are denounced as such in the Mahâbhârata. The Kathaians, who so stoutly resisted Alexander at Sangala, were included under this designation, which means Kingless, and implies that they lived under republican institutions. The stories told by the same author of the lion which licked the sweat from Sandrokottos when asleep, and of the elephant which volunteered to carry him into battle, and thus gave presages of his future greatness, reflect the true spirit of oriental romance, and were no doubt derived from native traditions which somehow found their way to the west. They remind one of Joseph’s dreams, in which he saw the sheaves and then the heavenly bodies falling down in obeisance before him.

Sandrokottos while in Magadha had seen that the king was held in such odium and contempt by his subjects that, as Plutarch tells us, he used often afterwards to speak of the ease with which Alexander might have possessed himself of the whole country. He accordingly had no sooner settled the affairs of the Panjâb than he prepared to invade the dominions of his former master. The success which he anticipated followed his arms. He overthrew with ease the unpopular despot, and having received the submission of Magadha, extended his conquests far beyond its eastern limits. He was thus able to combine into one great empire the regions both of the Indus and the Ganges. He established the seat of government at Palibothra, the capital of Magadha, a great city advantageously situated at the confluence of the Erannoboas or Sôn with the Ganges, and on the site now occupied by Pâtnâ, beneath which, at a depth of from 12 to 15 feet, its ruins lie entombed.

While Sandrokottos was thus, with a genius like that of Akbar, welding the states of India into unity, the successors of Alexander were too much engrossed with their internecine wars to concern themselves with his doings; but when they had for a time composed their differences, Seleukos Nikator, the king of Syria, advanced eastward to recover the Indian conquests of Alexander. The date of this expedition cannot be fixed with precision, but it was probably made in the year 305 B.C., or about ten years after Sandrokottos had ascended the throne of Palibothra. The records of it are unfortunately lost. It seems that he was allowed to cross the Indus without opposition, but it is not known how far he advanced into the country. We do not even know whether the hostile armies came into actual conflict, but we may conjecture that the sight of the vast and formidable host brought into the field by his antagonist, who was an experienced commander of the stamp of Pôros, led him to think discretion would be the better part of valour, and to prefer entering into negotiations rather than to risk the chance of defeat. At all events he concluded a treaty by which he not only resigned his claims to the Greek conquests beyond the Indus, but ceded to the Indian king considerable districts extending westward from that river to the southern slopes of the Hindu-Kush. The compact was cemented by a matrimonial alliance, the Syrian king giving his daughter in marriage to Sandrokottos. Friendly relations seem to have subsisted ever afterwards between the two sovereigns.

Seleukos sent as his ambassador to the Indian court his friend and companion Megasthenes. This was a fortunate choice, for while there Megasthenes, who was an acute observer and of an inquisitive turn of mind, composed a work on India, in which he gave a faithful account of what fell under his own observation, as well as of what facts he could gather from trustworthy reports. That work, now lost, was the source whence Strabo and other classical authors derived most of their information regarding India. In such of the fragments thus preserved as relate to Sandrokottos, we find an admirable picture of his system of government, of his personal habits, and of the regulations of his court. He did not live to old age, but died in 291 B.C., before he had reached his fifty-fifth year.

When we turn to the Buddhist accounts of Chandragupta we find them tally so closely in all main points with the Greek accounts of Sandrokottos that no doubt can be left that the two names which are so nearly similar denote but one and the same person. As he was the founder of the dynasty to which the pious Aśôka, the Constantine of the Buddhist faith, belonged, the Buddhist writers assign to him an honourable pedigree which connected him even with the royal house whence Buddha himself sprang. His father, they tell us, reigned over a small kingdom situated in a valley among the Himalayas, and called Maurya, from the great number of its peacocks (Mayûra). He was killed in resisting an invasion of his enemies, but his queen escaped to Pataliputra, where she gave birth to a son whom she exposed in the neighbourhood of a cattle shed. The child, like Oedipûs, was found by a shepherd, who called him Chandragupta (Moon protected), and charged himself with his maintenance. There resided at that time in Pataliputra a Brahman who had come from the great city of Taxila in the Panjâb, and whose name was Chânakya. To him King Dhanananda had given an insult which could be expiated by nothing short of his destruction. While the Brahman was casting about for means whereby he could clear his score with the offender, Chandragupta, now a boy, fell under his cognisance. Having discovered that he was of royal descent, and foreseen from his conduct among his companions that in after life he would be capable of great achievements, he bought him from the shepherd and gave him a training adapted to make him a fit instrument for the execution of his designs. When Chandragupta had grown up, his master put under his command a body of troops kept secretly in his pay, and attempted a rebellion, which proved abortive. Chandragupta fled to the desert, but having ere long collected a fresh force he invaded Magadha from the border, that is, from the side of the Panjâb. He captured city after city till the capital itself fell into his hands. The king was slain, and Chandragupta ascended the vacant throne.

Another form of the native tradition assigns his paternity to Dhanananda (the last of the eight Nanda kings, who ruled in succession over Magadha), though not by his queen, but by a woman of low caste—a sudra called Mura. The Brahmans made this base-born scion of the royal house the instrument of their rebellious designs, and with the help of a northern prince, to whom they offered an accession of territory, raised him to the throne while he was yet a youth, and put Nanda and his eight sons to death. They did not make good their promise to their ally, but rid themselves of him by assassination. His son Malayaketu marched with a large army, in which were Yavanas (Greeks), to revenge his death, but returned without success to his country. It has been supposed that this expedition may have been the same as that of Seleukos.

The Nanda dynasty which was supplanted by the Mauryan in 315 B.C. had succeeded to that of Sisunâga in 370 B.C. Its last member, whom the Greeks call Xandrames and Curtius Agrammes, is variously named in native writings Dhanananda, Nanda Mahâpadma, and Hiranyagupta. Xandramas (of which Agrammes seems to be a distorted form) transliterates the Sanskrit Chandramas, which means Moon-god. A Hindu play—the Mudrâ Râkshasa—produced early in the Mahommedan period refers to the revolution by which Chânakya raised Chandragupta to power, but is of no historical value. Chandragupta was succeeded by his son Vindusâra, who is called by Strabo Allitrochades, and by Athênaios (xiv. 67),[419] Amitrochates, a form which transliterates the Sanskrit Amitraghâta, a title by which he was frequently designated, and which means enemy-slayer. He was succeeded by his son Aśôka in 270 B.C.

Seleukos Nikator, one of Alexander’s great generals who made himself king of Syria, was the son of Antiochos, an officer of high rank in the service of King Philip. Seleukos was distinguished for his great personal strength and courage, and when he accompanied Alexander into Asia held a command in the companion cavalry. He crossed the Hydaspês with Alexander himself, and took an important part in the great battle which followed. At Sousa he was rewarded for his eminent services with the hand of Apama, an Asiatic princess, the daughter of Spitamenes. In the dissensions which broke out after Alexander’s death among his generals, Seleukos sided with Perdikkas and the cavalry against Meleager and the infantry, and was in consequence made Chiliarch of the companions, one of the highest offices, and one which Perdikkas himself had previously held. He accompanied Perdikkas into Egypt, but he there put himself at the head of the mutineers by whom his patron was assassinated. At the second partition of the provinces made at Triparadeisos 321 B.C. he obtained the Babylonian satrapy, and established himself in Babylon. He assisted Antigonos in the war against Eumenes, but afterwards contended against him in alliance with Ptolemy. During an interval when hostilities were suspended between himself and his rivals, Seleukos undertook an expedition into India to regain the conquests of Alexander over which Sandrokottos had established his authority. We do not know how far he advanced into India, but he probably again crossed the Hydaspês, which he had crossed twenty years before along with the great conqueror himself. The result of the expedition was a treaty by which Seleukos ceded to Sandrokottos his Indian provinces and the regions west of the Indus as far as the range of Paropanisos, in exchange for 500 elephants, and a marriage alliance by which the daughter of Seleukos became the bride of the Indian king. Immediately either before or after this expedition, Seleukos in 306 B.C., following the examples of Antigonos and Ptolemy, formally assumed the regal title and diadem. In the battle of Ipsos 301 B.C., where Seleukos, in league with Ptolemy, Lysimachos, and Kassander, fought against Antigonos, the cavalry and elephants which the Syrian king brought into the field were mainly instrumental in securing the victory. The empire of Seleukos then became the most extensive of those which had been formed out of Alexander’s conquests, extending from Phoenicia to Baktria and Sogdiana. After being engaged in other wars, Seleukos crossed the Hellespont with an army with a view to seize the crown of Macedonia, but was assassinated at Lysimachia by Ptolemy Keraunos in the beginning of the year 280 B.C. in the thirty-second year of his reign.

Sisikottos was an Indian who had deserted his countrymen and taken service under Bessos. After the conquest of Baktria he took service under Alexander, who, no doubt, obtained from him much valuable information regarding India and its affairs. After the capture of the rock Aornos, Sisikottos was left in command of the garrison which Alexander established there. He afterwards sent messengers to inform Alexander that the Assakênians had revolted from him.

Sitalkes was a leader of Thracian light-armed troops in Alexander’s service. He was left under Parmenion in Media, and on Alexander’s return from India was put to death for misgovernment.

Solinus was the author of a compendium of geography extracted mostly from the Natural History of Pliny. He lived about the middle of the third century A.D.

Sôpheites or Sôpeithês was, according to Curtius and Diodôros, king of a territory situated to the west of the Hyphasis. According to Arrian his dominions (or those of a king of the same name) lay along the banks of the Hydaspês, and, as we learn from Strabo, embraced the salt range of mountains called Oromenus by Pliny. With regard to the name, Lassen took it to represent the Sanskrit Aśvapati, “lord of horses.” M. Sylvain Lévi, however, thinks this a fanciful identification of the two names, erring against Greek and against Sanskrit. He then says: “A drachma of Indian silver coined towards the end of the fourth century B.C. in imitation of Greek money bears the inscription ΣΩΦΥΤΟΥ. The form Sophytes is, then, the only one to be considered. The laws of transcription established by numerous examples give the equivalents: ω = ô or aw, φ = bh. Sophytes then leads back to Sobûtha or Saubh. The Gana-pâtha knows precisely a country of the name of Saubhûta. Pânini (IV. ii. 67 sqq.) shows by examples how local names are formed.... The name of Sâmkala, etc., is formed in this way. M. Bhandarkar has already recognised in the city of Sâmkala the famous fortress of Sangala, ... but the Indian savant has not overcome the old prejudice which, regardless of the laws of transcription, identifies Sangala with Śâkala, capital of the Madras (Lassen, Ind. Alt. i. 801).... The identification firmly fixed of Sophytes and Saubhûta dissipates henceforward all doubts. Among the names classed in the Gana-pâtha under the rubric Sâmkala, etc., is found Subhûta, which gives, in virtue of the rule stated, Saubhûta as the name of a locality. Everything concurs in proving the correctness of our identification.”

Sphinês.—See [Kalânos].

Spitakes is supposed to be the same as the Pittakos mentioned by Polyainos. He was slain fighting on the side of Pôros in the battle of the Hydaspês. His territories lay near that river.

Spitamenes, the most formidable and persistent of all the chiefs who opposed Alexander in the regions of the Oxus and Jaxartes.

Stasanôr, a distinguished officer in Alexander’s army, was a native of Soloi in Cyprus. For services rendered during the Baktrian campaign he was appointed satrap of Areia and afterwards of Drangiana. In the first partition of the provinces after Alexander’s death he was confirmed in his satrapy; but in the partition made at Triparadeisos he received the more important government of Baktria and Sogdiana. He ruled his subjects with justice and moderation. He is not heard of in history after 316 B.C.

Stateira or Barsinê, the daughter of Darius and wife of Alexander, was murdered after his death by Roxana with the consent of the regent Perdikkas.

Stephanos of Byzantium was the author of a geographical lexicon, in which the names of some Indian towns occur. His date is uncertain, but may be referred to the sixth or seventh century of our aera.

Strabo, the great geographer, was a native of Amasea in Pontos. He lived in the reign of Augustus, and during the first five years at least of Tiberius.

Sibyrtios was appointed by Alexander on returning from India satrap of Karmania, and afterwards of Arachosia and Gedrosia in succession to Thoas. He was confirmed in his government in accordance with the first and the second partition of the provinces. He incurred the displeasure of Eumenes, and thereby secured the patronage of Antigonos. Megasthenes was his friend, and at one time resided with him.

Taurôn was an officer in Alexander’s army, who distinguished himself in the battle with Pôros.

Taxilês, whose personal name was Omphis, ruled a fertile territory between the Indus and Hydaspês, which had for its capital the great and flourishing city of Taxila. He was at feud with his neighbour, King Pôros, and this probably determined him to send an embassy to Alexander while he was yet in Baktria, in the hopes of forming an alliance with him which would enable him to crush his powerful rival. He waited on Alexander before he had crossed the Indus, and when he reached Taxila entertained him and his army with the most liberal hospitality. After the defeat and submission of Pôros, Alexander effected a reconciliation between the two princes. Taxilês gave all the assistance in his power to help forward the construction and equipment of the fleet by which Alexander intended to convey a portion of his troops down the Hydaspês and the Indus to the ocean. For this service he was rewarded with an accession of territory. After the death of Alexander he was allowed to retain his power, which had been increased after the murder of the satrap Philip. Subsequently to the year 321 B.C. Eudêmos seems to have exercised supreme authority in his province. We know nothing regarding Taxilês after that date. M. Sylvain Lévi shows that the personal name of Taxilês is incorrectly given by Diodôros as Mophis instead of Omphis, which is the form in Curtius. He gives the reason thus: “The study of the words transcribed from the Indian languages into Greek proves that the ο corresponds to an â or to an o in Sanskrit, while the φ is the regular transcription of bh. Mophis gives therefore a Sanskrit Mobhi or Mâbhi; neither the one nor the other is met with in the texts; they are both strangers to the language as well as to the history of India. But Âmbhi presents itself in the Gana-pâtha, a genuine appendix to the Grammar of Pânini.” He then shows that Âmbhi has been obtained from Ambhas in accordance with an established rule, and thus proceeds: “A double conclusion unfolds itself—1st, The dynasty which was reigning at Takśaśilâ at the time of the Greek invasion was a family of Kshatriya descended from Ambhas, and designated by the patronymic Âmbhi; 2nd, The dynasty Âmbhi has disappeared with the Greek rule soon after the death of Alexander. The revolt of India has swept away without doubt these allies of the stranger. Before the end of the fourth century B.C., Chandragupta, founder of the Mauryan dynasty and king of the Prasyas, joined to his dominions the kingdoms of the basin of the Indus. Takśaśilâ became the residence of a Mauryan governor. The part played by the Âmbhi does not appear to have been considerable enough to preserve their memory long; the mention of them in the Gana-pâtha is the only known testimony to their existence. The Gana-pâtha, and, at the same time, the Grammar of Pânini, which is inseparable from it, are then very probably contemporary with the Macedonian invasion.” He adds as a footnote, “The mention of the Yavanas (Greeks) and of the Yavanâni (Greek writing) excludes the hypothesis of priority” (See Journal Asiatique for 1890, pp. 234-236).

Terioltes, called also Tyriaspes, was appointed satrap of the Paropamisadai, but was deposed, or, according to Curtius, put to death for misgovernment. His satrapy Alexander then gave to his father-in-law Oxyartes.

Tlepolemos was appointed satrap of Karmania by Alexander on his return from India.

Tyriaspes.—See [Terioltes].

Vindusâra, the son of Sandrokottos.—See [Sandrokottos].

Xandrames, king of Magadha.—See [Sandrokottos].