B.C. 305?
of them disptited his authority, and he continued his progress till he reached the country of the Prasii, over whom
Sandracottus had usurped the sovereignty,
after he had murdered their lawful king.
Sandracottis and Chandragupta.
This usurper, whose identity with
Chandragupta, who tigures in the traditions and also in a drama of the Hindoos,
has been established, was of low origin, and, according to Justin,<r1> the chief
classical authority for all that is known of him, owed his rise to a pretended zeal
for liberty. His countrymen, believing him, placed power in his hands, and
the first use he made of it was to enslave them.
Unprincipled though Sandracottus had proved himself to be by the mode in which he attained the throne, he soon showed by his talents that he was not unworthy of reigning, and, by force, fear, or persuasion, had extended his dominions on every side, till he was able to bring into the field an army estimated by hundreds of thousands. Such was the enemy with whom Seleucus was about to come into collision. We cannot wonder that the prospect made him pause, and that, more especially on learning how much his presence was required s^n'iracot-
tii3 and
in the West, where new wars were raging, he was glad to propo.se terms of Seieucus. accommodation. Sandracottus, aware of his advantage, made the most of it ; and all that Seleucus obtained was 500 elephants, in return for which he ceded all his Indian territories on both sides of the Indus. As a means of cementinfj the treaty, Sandracottus married the daughter of Seleucus. The capital of the king- dom of the Px-asii, called by classical writers Palibothra, and by the Hindoos Pataliputra, and believed to have stood on or near the site of the modern Patna, formed a quadrangle of vast extent, inclosed by wooden walls loop-holed for arrows.^
The alliance between Seleucus and Sandracottus was not disturbed; and Meacasthenes, who loner lived at Palibothra as ambassador from the former, wrote a work which, notwithstanding its excessive leaning to the marvellous, was the great source from which ancient classical writers derived most of what they knew concerning the interior of India. The period of Indian history subsequent to the reign of Seleucus is very imperfectly known. Recently an unexpected light has been thrown upon it by the discovery of large quantities of coins, which show that the western portion of the country continued subject to the Greek kings, who had the seat of their government in Bactria Con.siderable Cioek Kiiig« progress, also, has been made in deciphering and interpreting certain monumental iascriptions which are written in an imknown alphabet, and, like the Egyptian liierogly|-)hics, seemed as if they had been designed not so much to inform as to Lpuzzle posterity. The key having at length been found, some valuable infor- mation has already been obtained, and more may be expected; but as yet the amount is too scanty to justify any attempt at detail. All that need be said lere is, that after several of the Seleucid.B, among whom Antiochus the Great is lost conspicuous, and several Kings of Bactria. which fii-st became independent
' Justiu, IliMoriie I'lulippica; b. xv. c. -1. '•' Strabo, .v. 1, 35.
Vol. I. 5
