For Σαρμᾶναι we also find the form Σαμαναῖοι in other writers; e.g. Clem. Alex. l.c., Bardesanes in Porphyr. de Abstin. iv. 17, Orig. c. Cels. i. 19 (I. p. 342). This divergence is explained by the fact that the Pali word sammana corresponds to the Sanskrit sramana. See Schwanbeck, l.c. p. 17, quoted by Müller p. 437.
It should be borne in mind however, that several eminent Indian scholars believe Megasthenes to have meant not Buddhists but Brahmins by his Σαρμάνας. So for instance Lassen Rhein. Mus. 1833, p. 180 sq., Ind. Alterth. II. p. 700: and Prof. Max Müller (Pref. to Rogers’s Translation of Buddhaghosha’s Parables, London 1870, p. lii) says; ‘That Lassen is right in taking the Σαρμᾶναι, mentioned by Megasthenes, for Brahmanic, not for Buddhist ascetics, might be proved also by their dress. Dresses made of the bark of trees are not Buddhistic.’ If this opinion be correct, the earlier notices of Buddhism in Greek writers entirely disappear, and my position is strengthened. But for the following reasons the other view appears to me more probable: (1) The term sramana is the common term for the Buddhist ascetic, whereas it is very seldom used of the Brahmin.
(2) The Ζάρμανος (another form of sramana), mentioned below p. 156, note [450], appears to have been a Buddhist. This view is taken even by Lassen, Ind. Alterth. III. p. 60.
(3) The distinction of Βραχμᾶνες and Σαρμᾶναι in Megasthenes or the writers following him corresponds to the distinction of Βραχμᾶνες and Σαμαναῖοι in Bardesanes, Origen, and others; and, as Schwanbeck has shown (l.c.), the account of the Σαρμᾶναι in Megasthenes for the most part is a close parallel to the account of the Σαμαναῖοι in Bardesanes (or at least in Porphyry’s report of Bardesanes). It seems more probable therefore that Megasthenes has been guilty of confusion in describing the dress of the Σαρμᾶναι, than that Brahmins are intended by the term.
The Pali form, Σαμαναῖοι, as a designation of the Buddhists, first occurs in Clement of Alexandria or Bardesanes, whichever may be the earlier writer. It is generally ascribed to Alexander Polyhistor, who flourished B.C. 80–60, because his authority is quoted by Cyril of Alexandria (c. Julian. iv. p. 133) in the same context in which the Σαμαναῖοι are mentioned. This inference is drawn by Schwanbeck, Max Müller, Lassen, and others. An examination of Cyril’s language however shows that the statement for which he quotes the authority of Alexander Polyhistor does not extend to the mention of the Samanæi. Indeed all the facts given in this passage of Cyril (including the reference to Polyhistor) are taken from Clement of Alexandria (Strom. i. 15; see the next note), whose account Cyril has abridged. It is possible indeed that Clement himself derived the statement from Polyhistor, but nothing in Clement’s own language points to this.
[446]. The narrative of Bardesanes is given by Porphyry de Abst. iv. 17. The Buddhist ascetics are there called Σαμαναῖοι (see the last note). The work of Bardesanes, recounting his conversations with these Indian ambassadors, is quoted again by Porphyry in a fragment preserved by Stobæus Ecl. iii. 56 (p. 141). In this last passage the embassy is said to have arrived ἐπὶ τῆς βασιλείας τῆς Ἀντωνίνου τοῦ ἐξ Ἐμισῶν, by which, if the words be correct, must be meant Elagabalus (A.D. 218–222), the spurious Antonine (see Hilgenfeld Bardesanes p. 12 sq.). Other ancient authorities however place Bardesanes in the reign of one of the older Antonines; and, as the context is somewhat corrupt, we cannot feel quite certain about the date. Bardesanes gives by far the most accurate account of the Buddhists to be found in any ancient Greek writer; but even here the monstrous stories, which the Indian ambassadors related to him, show how little trustworthy such sources of information were.
[447]. Except possibly Arrian, Ind. viii. 1, who mentions an ancient Indian king, Budyas (Βουδύας) by name; but what he relates of him is quite inconsistent with the history of Buddha, and probably some one else is intended.
[448]. In this passage (Strom. i. 15, p. 359) Clement apparently mentions these same persons three times, supposing that he is describing three different schools of Oriental philosophers. (1) He speaks of Σαμαναῖοι Βάκτρων (comp. Cyrill. Alex. l.c.); (2) He distinguishes two classes of Indian gymnosophists, whom he calls Σαρμᾶναι and Βραχμᾶναι. These are Buddhists and Brahmins respectively (see p. 153, note [445]); (3) He says afterwards εἰσὶ δὲ τῶν Ἰνδῶν οἱ τοῖς Βοῦττα πειθόμενοι παραγγέλμασιν, ὃν δι’ ὑπερβολὴν σεμνότητος εἰς [ὡς?] θεὸν τετιμήκασι. Schwanbeck indeed maintains that Clement here intends to describe the same persons whom he has just mentioned as Σαρμᾶναι; but this is not the natural interpretation of his language, which must mean ‘There are also among the Indians those who obey the precepts of Buddha.’ Probably Schwanbeck is right in identifying the Σαρμᾶναι with the Buddhist ascetics, but Clement appears not to have known this. In fact he has obtained his information from different sources, and so repeated himself without being aware of it. Where he got the first fact it is impossible to say. The second, as we saw, was derived from Megasthenes. The third, relating to Buddha, came, as we may conjecture, either from Pantænus (if indeed Hindostan is really meant by the India of his missionary labours) or from some chance Indian visitor at Alexandria.
In another passage (Strom. iii. 7, p. 539) Clement speaks of certain Indian celibates and ascetics, who are called Σεμνοί. As he distinguishes them from the gymnosophists, and mentions the pyramid as a sacred building with them, the identification with the Buddhists can hardly be doubted. Here therefore Σεμνοί is a Grecized form of Σαμαναῖοι; and this modification of the word would occur naturally to Clement, because σεμνοί, σεμνεῖον, were already used of the ascetic life: e.g. Philo de Vit. Cont. 3 (p. 475 M) ἱερὸν ὃ καλεῖται σεμνεῖον καὶ μοναστήριον ἐν ᾧ μονοῦμενοι τὰ τοῦ σεμνοῦ βίου μυστήρια τελοῦνται.
[449]. Hær. i. 24.