1829, p. 31; yet see Benfey, Ersch. u. Grüber. Encycl. v. Indien., p. 67), and quite recently by Schwanbeck, in a work of great learning and value entitled Megasthenis Indica (Bonn, 1846). In the first place, Schwanbeck (p. 13) mentions the passage of Justinus (I. ii. 10) where it is said that no one had entered India but Seniiramis and Alexander; whence it would appear that the expedition of Seleukos was considered so insignificant by Trogus as not even to be on a par with the Indian war of Alexander.[1] Then he says that Arrianus, if he had known of that remote expedition of Seleukos, would doubtless have spoken differently in his Indika (c. 5. 4), where he says that Megasthenes did not travel over much of India, 'but yet more than those who invaded it along with Alexander the son of Philip.' Now in this passage the author could have compared Megasthenes much more suitably and easily with Seleukos.[2] I pass over other proofs of less moment, nor
- ↑ Moreover, Schwanbeck calls attention (p. 14) to the words of Appianus (i. 1), where when he says, somewhat inaccurately, that Sandrakottos was king of the Indians around the Indus (τῶν περὶ τὸν 'ινδὸν 'ινδῶν) he seems to mean that the war was carried on on the boundaries of India. But this is of no importance, for Appianus has τῶν περὶ αὐτὸν 'Ινδῶν, 'of the Indians around it,' as Schwanbeck himself has written it (p. 13).
- ↑ The following passage of the Indian comedy Mudrâ-râkshasa seems to favour the Indian expedition:—"Meanwhile Kusumapura (i.e. Pataliputra, Palimbothra) the city of Chandragupta and the king of the mountain regions, was invested on every side by the Kirâtas, Yavanas, Kambojas, Persians, Baktrians, and the rest." But "that drama" (Schwanbeck, p. 18), "to follow the authority of Wilson, was written in the tenth century after Christ,—certainly ten centuries after Seleukos. When even the Indian historians have no authority in history, what proof can dramas give written
