APPEND. precisely that composed of two sheets of cotton cloth, which

III.

Favourable opinion entertained by the

Greeks of the Indian

character.

is still worn by the people of Bengal, and by strict Bramins every where. Earrings and ornamented slippers were also used, according to the fashion of the present day. Their clothes were generally white cotton, though often of a variety of bright colours and flowered patterns (chintz). They wore gold and jewels, and were very expensive in their dresses, though frugal in most other things.* Pearls and precious stones were in common use among them. The great had umbrellas carried over them, as now.

They dyed their beards, as they now do, with henna and indigo; and mistakes in the mixture or time of application seem then, as now, to have occasionally made their beards green, blue, and purple. At present, no colours are ever purposely produced but black and sometimes red. They dined separately, according to their present unsociable practice, each man cooking his own dinner apart when he required it. They drank little fermented liquor, and what they did use was made from rice (arrack).

The appearance of the Indians is well described, and (what is surprising, considering the limited knowledge of the Macedonians) the distinction between the inhabitants of the north and south is always adverted to. The southern Indians are said to be black, and not unlike Ethiopians, except for the absence of flat noses and curly hair; the northern ones are fairer, and like Egyptians †, blance which must strike every traveller from India on seeing the pictures in the tombs on the Nile.

a resem

The Indians are described as swarthy, but very tall, handsome, light, and active. ‡ Their bravery is always

* Strabo, lib. xv. pp. 481. 488.

† Arrian, Indica, cap. vi.; Strabo, lib. xv. p. 475., ed. 1587.

Arrian, Indica, cap. xvii.

III.

spoken of as characteristic; their superiority in war to APPEND. other Asiatics is repeatedly asserted, and appears in more ways than one.* They are said to be sober, moderate, peaceable; good soldiers; good farmers+; remarkable for simplicity and integrity; so reasonable as never to have recourse to a law-suit; and so honest as neither to require locks to their doors nor writings to bind their agreements.‡ Above all, it is said that no Indian was ever known to tell an untruth.§

We know, from the ancient writings of the Hindús themselves, that the alleged proofs of their confidence in each other are erroneous. The account of their veracity may safely be regarded as equally incorrect; but the statement is still of great importance, since it shows what were the qualities of the Indians that made most impression on the Macedonians, and proves that their character must, since then, have undergone a total change. Strangers are now struck with the litigiousness and falsehood of the natives; and, when they are incorrect in their accounts, it is always by exaggerating those defects.

APPENDIX IV.

ON THE GREEK KINGDOM OF BACTRIA.

IV.

APPEND. THE great kingdom of Bactria, as formerly known to us, had so little influence on India, that it would scarcely have deserved mention in the history of that country.

Accounts of the

ancients.

B. C. 312.

Late discoveries have shown a more permanent connection between it and India, and may throw light on relations as yet little understood. But these discoveries still require the examination of antiquarians; and a slight sketch of the results hitherto ascertained will be sufficient in this place.

When Alexander retired from India, he left a detachment from his army in Bactria.

After the first contest for the partition of his empire, that province fell to the lot of Seleucus, king of Syria. He marched in person to reduce the local governors into obedience, and afterwards went on to India, and made his treaty with Sandracottus.* Bactria remained subject to his descendants, until their own civil wars and the impending revolt of the Parthians induced the governor of the B. c. 250. province to assert his independence. Theodotus was the first king. He was succeeded by his son of the same name, who was deposed by Euthydemus, a native of Magnesia, in Asia Minor. By this time, the Seleucidæ had consolidated their power; and Antiochus the Great came with a large army to restore order in the eastern part of his dominions. He defeated Euthydemus, but admitted him to terms; and

IV.

confirmed him in possession of the throne he had usurped. APPEND. It does not seem probable that Euthydemus carried his arms to the south of the eastern Caucasus; but his son, Demetrius, obtained possession of Arachosia and a large portion of Persia. He also made conquests in India, and was in possession, not only of Lower Sind, but of the coast of India further to the east. He seems, however, to have been excluded from Bactria, of which Eucratidas remained master. After the death of Euthydemus, Demetrius made an unsuccessful attempt to dispossess this rival; and, in the end, lost all his Indian conquests, which were seized by Eucratidas. In his time the Bactrian power was at its height.

In the midst of his greatness he was assassinated by his own son, Eucratidas II.; and, during the reign of this prince, some of his western dominions were seized on by the Parthians, and Bactria itself by the Scythians*; and nothing remained in his possession but the country on the south of the eastern Caucasus. The period of the reigns of Menander and Apollodotus, and the relation in which they stood to the Eucratidæ, cannot be made out from the ancients. Menander made conquests in the north-west of India, and carried the Greek arms further in that direction than any other monarch of the nation. The position of his conquests is shown in a passage of Strabo, that likewise contains all we know of the extent of the Bactrian kingdom. According to an ancient author there quoted, the Bactrians possessed the most conspicuous part of Ariana, and conquered more nations in India than even Alexander. In this last achievement, the principal actor was Menander, who crossed the Hypanis towards the east, and went on as far as the Isamus. Between him and Demetrius, the son

* About 130 B. C. (Clinton's Fasti); 125 в.c. (De Guignes).

IV.

APPEND. of Euthydemus (continues the same author), the Bactrians occupied not only Pattalene, but that part of the other coast which is called the kingdom of Tessariostus and the kingdom of Sigertes. The Hypanis mentioned in the beginning of the passage referred to is admitted to mean the Hyphasis; but the Isamus is thought by some to be the Jamna river, by others the Hémalaya mountains (sometimes called Imaus), and by others, again, a small river called Isa, which runs into the Ganges on the western side. Whichever is correct, the territory to the east of the Panjáb must have been a narrow strip. No mention is made of acquisitions towards the south; and if any had been made in that direction as far as Delhi, or even Hastinapúr, they would not have entirely escaped the notice even of Hindú authors. The south-western conquests extended to the Delta of the Indus (Pattalene being the country about Tatta); but whether the kingdom of Sigertes, on the other coast, was Cach or the peninsula of Guzerát, we have no means of conjecturing. The author of the "Periplus" says that coins of Menander and Apollodotus were met with in his time at Baróch, which, in the state of circulation of those days, makes it probable that some of their territories were not very distant. On the west, "the most conspicuous part of Ariana" would certainly be Khorásán; but they had probably lost some portion of that province before their Indian conquests attained the utmost limit.*

The above is the information we derive from ancient authors. It has been confirmed and greatly augmented by recent discoveries from coins. These increase the number of Greek kings from the eight above mentioned to eighteen;

*The information to be found in ancient authors is collected in Bayer's Bactria. There is a clear, concise sketch of Bactrian history from the same sources in Clinton's Fasti Hellenici, vol. iii. p. 315., note x.