Читать книгу: «The History of Antiquity, Vol. 4 (of 6)», страница 22

Beyond the Vitasta (Hydaspes) was the kingdom of Porus, as the Greeks called the ruler of it. He derived his race, as Plutarch says, from Gegasius, by whom may be meant the Yayati of the Rigveda and the Mahabharata (p. 82). The name Porus has been taken by the Greeks from the dynasty; the Mahabharata speaks of a kingdom of the Pauravas or Pauras, in the neighbourhood of Cashmere.⁵⁴⁹ The territory of Porus extended to the east as far as the Asikni. Spittakes the nephew of Porus ruled over a small region on the west bank of the Vitasta; his cousin reigned in the east between the Asikni and Iravati. In the north the territory of Porus was separated from that of the king of Cashmere by a few small tribes. According to the Greeks the kingdom of Porus was superior to that of Cashmere; three hundred cities are enumerated in it. Porus could bring into the field 200 elephants, 400 chariots of war, 4000 horse, and about 50,000 foot soldiers.

Alexander encamped opposite the army of Porus, who held the left bank of the Vitasta; though far superior in numbers – his army was twice as strong and had been yet further increased by 5000 Indians from Mophis and some smaller princes – Alexander for a long time hesitated to cross the river in the face of Porus. At last he was decided by the information that the king of Cashmere, notwithstanding his embassy, was marching to join Porus, with an army not much weaker than his own, and was only 50 miles distant. Alexander divided his troops, left half opposite the camp of Porus, and with the other half hastened to cross the river higher up in order to defeat Porus before the army of Cashmere arrived. The crossing was accomplished in the neighbourhood of the modern Jalam.⁵⁵⁰ Porus also divided his army; with all his elephants, chariots, and cavalry, and the greater part of his infantry, he marched against Alexander. Two hundred elephants in a long row with intervals of a hundred feet, as Arrian states, formed his first rank; the infantry formed the second rank, the cavalry and chariots were on the wings. After a fluctuating and desperate conflict the Macedonians were victorious. Porus, wounded in the right shoulder, was among the last to retire on his elephant. When his old enemy the prince of Takshaçila called on him to desist from the battle,⁵⁵¹ he answered by raising his javelin. The other retired hastily on his horse. Requested a second time by an Indian, a friend of old days, and afterwards at the command of Alexander, to lay down his weapons, he checked his elephants, quenched his thirst, and then allowed himself to be brought before Alexander, from whom his indomitable bearing and lofty form won respect. To Alexander's question how he wished to be treated, he replied: Like a king. His two sons and his nephew Spittakes had fallen; of his army, according to the Greeks, 12,000 in some accounts and 20,000 in others were slain (end of April or beginning of May, 326 B.C.).⁵⁵²

The defeat of Porus terrified the king of Cashmere. He did not venture to oppose Alexander unaided; at any rate he sought to avert the threatening storm for the moment; he sent his brother with forty elephants and other presents to appease Alexander by these tokens of submission. Alexander required that he should pay homage in person; otherwise he would visit him in his own land. He kept his word. The cousin of Porus, whose territory lay between the upper course of the Asikni and the Iravati – he had rendered no assistance to his kinsman against Alexander – fled out of his land with a part of his army at Alexander's approach,⁵⁵³ and the Glaukas (Glausai, Glaukanikai among the Greeks,) who inhabited thirty-seven considerable towns and many villages on the heights to the north of the kingdom of the conquered Porus, submitted. Beyond the Indus the Açvakas were again in open revolt, and after crossing the Asikni, marching through the land of the fugitive prince, and advancing beyond the Iravati, Alexander found the most stubborn resistance among the Khattias (the Kathaioi of the Greeks),⁵⁵⁴ who dwelt to the south of the Kaikeyas between the Iravati and Vipaça, and like the Glaukas obeyed no king. The Kshudrakas and Malavas, dwelling in the lower land on the Asikni and the Çatadru, had sent assistance to them. Hence the Khattias awaited the attack of the foreigners at their chief city Çakala (Sangala), the modern Amritsir. Near this spacious city, which abutted on a lake and was surrounded by a wall of bricks, they were encamped on a gentle eminence behind a triple row of packed waggons. After a bloody battle they were driven into the city, and Alexander then began the regular investment of the city by throwing up a double trench round it so far as the lake did not prevent him. An attempt on the part of the besieged to break through, of which Alexander received timely information by deserters, was abandoned after a loss of 500 men. The engines were set up, the battering-rams and wooden towers were prepared, when breaches appeared in the wall, which had been already undermined. The army of Alexander made the assault, the ladders were placed, the city taken. At this capture 17,000 Indians are said to have been slain; the remainder of the army and the entire population of the city, amounting together to 70,000 men, were made prisoners. Among the captive soldiers were 500 horsemen; and 300 chariots were taken. The city was levelled to the ground. This siege is said to have cost the Macedonians 100 slain and 12,000 wounded.⁵⁵⁵ As the fate of Çakala did not terrify the remaining cities of the Khattias into submission, Alexander caused the inhabitants of two other cities, who fled at his approach, to be vigorously pursued; some hundreds who failed to escape were overtaken and cut down. The remaining places then submitted without opposition.

Alexander had not merely restored Porus to his throne after the battle on the Vitasta, but had even increased his power; he assigned to him the territory of the Glaukas, and of his fugitive cousin, together with the recently-conquered land of the Khattias, so that Porus, according to the Greeks, now reigned over seven nations, and more than two thousand considerable towns beside many villages.⁵⁵⁶ The northern neighbours of the Khattias were the Kaikeyas, whose prince – the Açvapati of the time (p. 387), but the Greeks call him Sopeithes – welcomed Alexander, and thus as well as by presents gave evidence of his submission. The Greeks extol the good laws of this nation, and their vigorous dogs, a cross breed between tigers and dogs, as some thought. The Ramayana mentions among the Kaikeyas, "the dogs bred in the palace, gifted with the strength of the tiger, and of huge body." Alexander received 150 of these animals as a present from Açvapati.⁵⁵⁷

From the land of the Kaikeyas the Macedonians reached the eastern stream of the Panjab, which the Greeks call Hyphasis (it is the Vipaça of the Indians), above the confluence with the Çatadru. When Alexander had received here a further embassy from the king of Cashmere, which was accompanied by a fresh present of 50 elephants, and the homage of the prince of Uraça, whose territory lay to the west of Cashmere on the Himalayas,⁵⁵⁸ he returned in the autumn of the year 326 B.C. to the Vitasta (Hydaspes); from hence he descended, sending part of his army on board ship down the river, and taking the remainder along the banks, in order to come to and along the Asikni, and from this to the Indus. Before he reached the Asikni his army, on the right bank of the lower Vitasta, came upon the nation of the Çibis; east of these, on the confluence of the Vitasta and the Asikni, were the Kshudrakas (the Greeks call them Oxydrakes), and still further to the east between the Asikni and the Iravati the Agalassians, while beyond the Iravati as far as the Çatadru were the Malavas, who like the Kshudrakas had already sent help to the Khattias against Alexander. The Çibis, a pastoral people, who carried the skins of animals and used clubs as weapons, were overcome with little resistance, or submitted without a struggle.⁵⁵⁹ the Agalassians, who had put in the field some thousands of infantry and 3000 horse, were severely defeated by Alexander, and their cities conquered. The Kshudrakas and Malavas forgetting their ancient hostility had now combined against the foe, and together could bring into the field 80,000 foot soldiers, 10,000 cavalry, and 7000 chariots of war.⁵⁶⁰ But the leaders whom the Kshudrakas put at the head of their forces were not true to the Malavas; they retired into their cities. These, unexpectedly attacked by Alexander, were taken one after the other; one of them is mentioned expressly as a Brahman city.⁵⁶¹ The largest city was found to be deserted; but on the banks of the Iravati 50,000 Malavas, it is said, had collected. They were put to flight, and sought protection in a neighbouring fortified place on the western bank of the Iravati. Alexander followed them. The attack on the city began. The Indians retired into the citadel from the walls of the city; this also Alexander at once attacked, and with his own hands seized on a scaling-ladder and ascended; Peukestes the shield-bearer of the king, Abreas and Leonnatus follow him; he gains the parapet and stands on the gangway when the ladder breaks. As in that position he was too prominent a mark, owing to the splendour of his armour, for the shots of the Indians, especially from the two nearest towers, he leaps from the gangway down into the citadel. The Indians press upon him; he beats down some of the assailants. Peukestes, Abreas and Leonnatus follow his example, and fight at his side, when an arrow pierces Alexander's mail and penetrates his breast. The king falls; Abreas falls also, struck in the face. With extreme effort Peukestes covers Alexander with the shield of Athene of Ilium, Leonnatus assisting on the other side, till at length the Macedonians force their way in, and put to death every living creature in the citadel, men, women, and children.⁵⁶² Then envoys came from the Malavas and promised the submission of the whole people. They were followed by the overseers of the cities and cantons of the Kshudrakas, accompanied by 150 chiefs of note, who pledged absolute obedience. Alexander required 1000 nobles as hostages. They were sent with 500 yoked and manned chariots of war, which the Kshudrakas added. The chariots Alexander retained in his army, the hostages he sent back.

These contests against the free Indians had occupied the autumn and winter. Not till the second month in the year 325 B.C.⁵⁶³ did Alexander set out from his camp at the mouth of the Iravati to the Asikni, and sail up the latter to the Indus. The tribes on the Panjab and the Indus, the Abastanes, the Vasatyas, who lived according to Brahmanic laws (the Greeks call them the Ossadians⁵⁶⁴), and the Kshatris were easily reduced or submitted without a struggle. Arrived in the valley of the lower Indus the Macedonians again came upon principalities. There the nearest inhabitants on both sides of the river were the Çudras, whom the Greeks call the Sodroi or Sogdoi, governed by a king; then on the western shore followed the kingdom of Sambus, who at first submitted, and then at the instigation of the Brahmans seized his weapons, but soon fled over the Indus with 30 elephants. His metropolis, Sindimana, opened its gates; the other cities had to be taken by storm. In one of these Brahmans were captured, and those of them who had advised the king to revolt were executed. The whole land was laid waste; above 80,000 men are said to have been slain, and the rest sold as slaves.⁵⁶⁵ Opposite the principality of Sambus, on the eastern bank, dwelt the Mushikas, whose king the Greeks call Musikanos, after his people; he abandoned every thought of resistance, as the Macedonians appeared on his borders earlier than he expected. When he had submitted, he also, on the instigation of the Brahmans, attempted to liberate himself by arms. He was defeated and crucified along with his Brahmans. To the south of the Mushikas lay the Prasthas,⁵⁶⁶ on the eastern bank. The city, into which the prince had retired, was taken on the third day; the walls of the citadel soon collapsed, the prince fell in battle, the city was sacked. At the point where the Indus divides into two great arms on its course towards the sea, lay the great city of Potala, i. e. ship-station, the Pattala of the Greeks.⁵⁶⁷ At Alexander's approach the prince of this region fled, the city was abandoned by the inhabitants, the surrounding country by the husbandmen.

It was Alexander's intention to maintain his conquests in India. On the Vitasta he had built Bucephala and Nicæa, on the Asikni a third fortress of the name of Alexandria, on the confluence of the Panjab and the Indus a fourth of the same name. Pattala was transformed into a well-fortified harbour; he ordered a citadel to be erected there, a harbour and docks. As satrap of the district of the Panjab he appointed Philippus; as satrap of the region on the lower course of the Indus Peithon, the son of Agenor. Garrisons were placed in the most important cities. Alexander moreover counted on the fidelity and the interest of the princes, Mophis and Porus, whose territories he had enlarged. When he had navigated the two mighty arms of the Indus, and examined their outlets, he set out towards the end of August, 325 B.C.⁵⁶⁸, with the greater part of his army, 80,000 men strong, to march through Gedrosia to Persia. In September Nearchus left the Indus with the fleet, carrying the rest of the army, in order to explore the unknown sea and return to the Persian Gulf.

CHAPTER V.
POLITICAL AND SOCIAL LIFE OF THE INDIANS IN THE
FOURTH CENTURY B.C

The Arians on the Indus and in the Panjab had remained more true to the old tendencies of life than their tribesmen who had turned towards the east. In the variety of the forms of their political life and their stimulating influence on each other, in healthy simple feeling, in warlike energy and martial spirit they were in advance of the land of the Ganges. Great as was the number of the tribes and states which filled the region of the Indus, and thickly as the land was populated, wide and many-sided as was the civilisation, in the development of religious and intellectual life, in industrial and mercantile activity, in civilisation of external life, in comfort and wealth, the land of the Ganges was undoubtedly in advance of the Indus.

After Alexander's army trod the soil of the Panjab, the eastern district also became better known to the Greeks. Megasthenes tells us that India was inhabited by 118 nations; the cities were so numerous that it was impossible to know and enumerate them.⁵⁶⁹ Beyond the desert which extends from the Vipaça and Çatadru to the lands of the east, – the breadth is put by the Greeks at twelve days' journey – on the navigable Yamuna (Yomanes) dwelt the Çurasenas, whose cities were Mathura and Krishnapura;⁵⁷⁰ further to the east were the Panchalas. At the head of this tribe, as we have seen, the Pandus once deposed the Kurus, the dominant family of the Bharatas, and took their place. Hence the name Panchalas was used instead of the name Bharatas for the tribes governed by the Pandus, first from Hastinapura and then from Kauçambi, as we assumed from native accounts (p. 96).⁵⁷¹ It has been remarked above (p. 366) that the dynasty of the Pandus came to an end about the middle of the fifth century, and the Çurasenas and Panchalas became subject to the kings of Magadha. In the south-west, on the hill and mountain territory, which gradually rises to the spurs of the Vindhyas, lay the Mavellas, according to the account of the Greeks, whose prince possessed five hundred elephants;⁵⁷² on the gulf of Cambay reigned kings, who resided in the city of Automela, which must have been a considerable place of trade. Lastly, in the peninsula of Surashtra (Guzerat) was a kingdom where the ruling family according to the Greeks bore the name of Pandus, and who therefore were connected by their lineage with Pandu, the father of Yudhishthira and Arjuna. The Pandus of Surashtra are said to have reigned over 300 cities and to have possessed 500 elephants of war.⁵⁷³ If a branch of the house of Pandu, which ruled over the Panchalas and Bharatas, had founded the second Mathura on the south side of the Deccan, it was colonists from Surashtra who made Ceylon subject to the Brahmanic law (p. 369, 370). We have already stated what was known to Alexander and his companions of the inhabitants of the Ganges, the kingdom of the Gangarides, the Prasians (Prachyas), i. e. the men of the east, as they call themselves, obviously after the name common in the land of the Indus. The ample resources and powerful army which were ascribed in the land of the Indus to the ruler of this kingdom, the well-known Magadha, may have contributed in no small measure to the fact that Alexander's campaign came to an end on the Vipaça. In any case the accounts which the Greeks received in the land of the Indus about Magadha, confirm the predominant position which our inferences from native authorities compel us to ascribe to this kingdom after the time of king Kalaçoka, in the land of the Ganges. However exaggerated the statement of the Greeks about the power of the king of the Prasians may be, they give us the further proof that the consequence and power of Magadha under the Nandas in the first half of the fourth century B.C. had rather increased than diminished; they show us, finally, that even the usurper who overthrew the Nandas, and the Dhanapala who sat on the throne of Magadha at the time when Alexander marched through the Indus – the Greeks call him Xandrames – maintained the ruling position of Magadha on the Ganges.

Of the nations which lay to the west of the Gangarides, i. e. to the east of Magadha, the Greeks can mention few. First come the Kalingas who dwelt on "the other sea," below the mouths of the Ganges. The kings of this nation were masters of 60,000 foot soldiers and 700 elephants. Next to them dwelt the Andhras in numerous villages and thirty cities with walls and towers; these were followed by the most southern realm in India, the land of Pandæa⁵⁷⁴– the kingdom of the southern Mathura, the southern Pandus (p. 369) is meant – and the great island of Taprobane, which lay off the southern shore of India. The mention of the Kalingas and Andhras shows that the Arian colonisation must have made considerable advances in the course of the fourth century in the region between Orissa (p. 368) and the southern Mathura.

To grasp clearly the picture which the contemporaries of Alexander received of the life and pursuits of the Indians in its essential lines, in order to compare it with the native traditions and to supplement them, is of great importance owing to the peculiar nature of the latter. The splendour of the Indian princes is described by the Greeks in glowing colours. Gold and silver, elephants, herds of cattle and flocks of sheep were possessed by them in abundance. Their robes were adorned with gold and purple, even the soles of their shoes glittered with precious stones.⁵⁷⁵ In their ears they carried precious stones of peculiar size and brilliance; the upper and lower arm no less than the neck were surrounded by pearls, and a golden staff was the symbol of their rank.⁵⁷⁶ Every one showed them the greatest reverence; men not only prostrated themselves before them but even prayed to them.⁵⁷⁷ Nevertheless conspiracies against them were common. For this reason the kings were waited upon by women only, who had been purchased from their parents. These had to prepare the food, bring the wine, and accompany them to the bed-chamber, which for the sake of security was frequently changed. In the daytime the kings of the Indians did not venture to sleep.⁵⁷⁸ Even when hunting the king was accompanied by his wives, who were in turn surrounded by his bodyguards. Any one who ventured to advance as far as the women lost his life. If the king hunted in a park, he shot from a framework, on which stood also two or three women, equipped for hunting; if in the open, he was still followed by the women, partly in chariots, partly like the king himself on elephants. In the same way women accompanied the Indian kings to war.⁵⁷⁹ Except for hunting and war the kings only left the palace to offer sacrifice. Then they appeared in a beautifully-flowered robe.⁵⁸⁰ Drum-beaters and bell-players preceded them; then came elephants adorned with gold and silver, four-yoked chariots, and others yoked with pairs of oxen. The soldiers marched out in the best armour; gold utensils, great kettles and dishes quite a fathom in diameter – tables, seats, and water-basins of Indian copper, set with precious stones, emeralds, beryls, and carbuncles, and gay robes adorned with gold were carried in procession. After these wild animals were brought out – buffaloes, panthers, and bound lions and tigers.⁵⁸¹ On waggons of four wheels stood trees with large leaves, on which were various kinds of tame birds, some distinguished by their gorgeous plumage, others by their fine voices.⁵⁸²

The splendour of the princes, the hundreds of "lotus-eyed" women who surrounded and waited on them, no less than their anxious cares for their own safety are well-known to us from the native authorities; and the change in the succession, which we have so frequently met with, proves that these precautions were not superfluous.⁵⁸³ The sutras describe how the kings at festivals march out on elephants to the sound of all kinds of instruments, amid the scent of perfumes and clouds of frankincense, accompanied by their ministers and multitudes of people. An inscription of Açoka of Magadha ordains processions of elephants and festal chariots, "announced by trumpets;"⁵⁸⁴ and the Epos goes to great length in the description of the processions of the princes for the consecration of the king (p. 225), and on other occasions of a similar kind.

According to the Greeks the kings of the Indians gave great attention to justice; they occupied themselves with it almost the whole day. The other judges were also conscientious, and the guilty were severely punished.⁵⁸⁵ We remember how urgently the book of the law impressed on the princes the duty of dispensing justice, the protection of persons and property, the awarding of punishment (p. 203). The Indians were, the Greeks assure us, honest in trade, and had few lawsuits. Personal assaults were forbidden; no one might offer or receive them; and so the Indians were accustomed to bring charges merely for wounding and murder. Theft was rare, though little was locked up in the houses. Any one who mutilated another was mutilated in the same manner and lost a hand in addition; but any one who deprived an artisan of a hand or an eye must be put to death. False witness was punished with loss of the hand or foot; the worst criminals were punished at the king's order by flaying.⁵⁸⁶

The Indian nation was divided, we are told, into seven tribes. The first was formed by the sages; in numbers it was the weakest, but in importance and honour the most considerable. The second by the magistrates, who "distinguished themselves by wisdom and justice." Out of this order the kings, no less than the free nations of India, took their supreme council; from them the kings also selected the overseers of the cantons, the judges and leaders in war. The third was the order of spies, whose business it was to find out everything that took place in the cities and in the country; the kings maintained them for their own safety, and the spies were assisted by the public women, both those in the cities and those who in time of war went out in the camps. The fourth order, that of the warriors, was numerous. It enjoyed great liberty, and was the most prosperous, inasmuch as it had no other duty but to practise the use of arms. The warriors were paid out of the treasury of the king, and so liberally that they could even support others on their pay. The armour, horses and elephants which they required they received from the king, together with the necessary servants, so that others forged their weapons for them, tended and led their horses, adorned and drove their chariots and guided their elephants. In time of war the soldiers fought; in time of peace they lived in idleness and enjoyment, in pleasure and festivity. Those also who practised arts and handicraft, or carried on trade, formed in India a separate order (the fifth). Of these some made what the husbandmen required, others were makers of armour and builders of ships. Most of them were subject to taxes and had to give service beside; only the artisans who manufactured implements of war, and the carpenters who built ships were free not only from service and taxes but even received maintenance from the king, for whom alone they were permitted to work.⁵⁸⁷ The most numerous order by far was that of the husbandmen (the sixth). These never went to war, nor possessed weapons, nor were employed in other public services; they even withdrew from dealings with the cities. The Indian peasant lived undisturbed with his wife and children on his farm, occupied only with the tillage of the field. Even the outbreak of a war did not disturb his employment; under the protection of the kings he carried on his labours quietly.⁵⁸⁸ Some accounts of the Greeks go so far as to assure us that the farms were sacred and inviolable; that even the soldiers of the enemy were not permitted to lay them waste, to burn trees and houses and lay hand on the people, so that the peasants fearlessly followed the plough amid the arrangements of battle and warfare, got in their harvest, and gathered the fruits of the field.⁵⁸⁹ The seventh and last class of the Indians consisted of the hunters and herdmen. The herdmen led a wandering life in the mountain regions and lived on their cattle, from which they had to pay tribute to the king; the hunters were bound to cleanse the land of wild animals, and protect the crops of the husbandmen against them.⁵⁹⁰ These seven orders of the Indians might not contract marriage with each other, nor was it permitted to pass from one order into another, or to carry on the occupation of two orders at once. Only those who belonged to the first order could carry on the occupation of any other, just as any one in any order could enter the order of the sages.

This conception of the Indian castes is idealized in some points, and in others falls into errors, of which the causes are easily detected and pardonable. The happy, careless, and free life of the Kshatriyas is obviously exaggerated for all the states in which they had not maintained the position of a landed warlike nobility, as they did in the free nations,⁵⁹¹ unless indeed among the monarchies a king sat on the throne who especially favoured the Kshatriyas, and was in a position to treat handsomely the soldiers in service, or registered for service. It has already been mentioned that all Kshatriyas did not serve (p. 244); and it would not occur to any prince to pay men who were not in service. Still less do the idyllic descriptions of the honoured and inviolable life of the husbandmen agree with the taxes and exactions and miserable position of the villagers, to which we find such frequent references in the native authorities. It is true that the Brahmanic law laid emphasis on settled life, and gave the preference to agriculture over trade and handicraft (p. 244), but of such a respect for husbandry as the Greeks describe we often find the opposite. These and similar traits in the Greek accounts owe in part their origin to the exaggerated picture of this distant land, which the fame of Indian marvels, of the wisdom and justice of the Indian nation, had produced among the Greeks. Yet we must not overlook the fact that agriculture was carried on with industry and care, that these accounts are essentially based on the impression which Megasthenes received of the condition of India circumstances in the period soon after Alexander, when a great prince on the throne of Magadha maintained peace and order in his wide dominions with a powerful hand. Even the sutras of the Buddhists dwell on the flourishing condition of agriculture at this period.

If the Greeks give seven orders instead of four, if they speak of the magistrates, spies, handicraftsmen, and finally of the hunters and herdmen, as separate tribes beside the priests, warriors, and husbandmen, the error is founded in the fact that they had a tendency to find the distinction of castes everywhere. Beside the chief castes were the castes of mixed origin, and it has been observed above how strong was the tendency of persons engaged in similar occupations to form into separate bodies within the castes. It was natural for an observant foreigner to think that the retired life of the sages was separated from the busy occupation of the magistrates by a sharper line, and to make the special calling of the magistrates into a caste, though on the other hand it did not escape the Greeks that the sages also were counsellors of the kings. Manu's law had wisely prescribed that kings should diligently avail themselves of the help of spies, whom they must select out of all the orders; these spies were more especially to watch the courtesans,⁵⁹² and the Ramayana extols the ministers of king Daçaratha of Ayodhya for their skill in giving information of everything that went on in the land.⁵⁹³ If the Greeks could regard these spies as a special caste, many persons must have been employed by the system of secret police in the fourth century B.C. in India. That the unity of the caste, which comprised agriculturists, merchants, and handicraftsmen, and on the other hand the distinction between the Vaiçyas and the Çudras, was overlooked, is easily to be explained, for even Manu's law permitted the Çudras to be handicraftsmen, and the Brahmans and Kshatriyas to descend to the occupation of the other castes (p. 243), a permission which, in the case of the Brahmans, did not escape the Greeks. That the handicraftsmen and others had to perform tax-labour for the king, is an arrangement fixed by the book of the law (p. 212). Lastly, the Greeks apparently included among the hunters and the herdmen the impure and despised castes; the book of the law had also fixed what castes, i. e. what tribes of the pre-Arian or Arian population, were to occupy themselves with hunting and the capture of wild animals.⁵⁹⁴