(5) PERSIAN MONOPHYSITES
How Greek Science Passed to the Arabs 
Ya'qub Burde'ana never worked in Persia,
but about 559 he consecrated Ahudemmeh as
bishop of Tagrit in the highlands of Adiabene,
a district which had steadily resisted Barsauma
and the Nestorians and became the focus of
Persian Monophysitism. Ahudemmeh proved himself
a vigorous missioner who did much to spread
Monophysite doctrine. He even made converts
of some members of the royal family and baptized
one of the sons of King Khusraw I, giving
him the name of George. But for this he was
cast into prison and there executed in 575.
After Ahudemmeh's execution the Monophysites
had no bishop in Persia until 579 when one
was appointed in the person of Qamisho' who
is described as "doctor of the new church
built for the edification of the orthodox
near the royal palace": these are the
words of Bar Hebraeus (Chron. Eccl., ii,
101) who, as a Monophysite himself, uses
the term "orthodox" to denote members
of his own communion. It is interesting to
know that the Monophysites had built a new
church close by the royal palace.
In Adiabene, where Monophysite teaching had
its readiest welcome, the chief centre of
Monophysite activity was the monastery of
Mar Mattai, probably in the place now known
as Holwan on Jebel Maqlub, about four hours
journey from Mosul, in the area between the
Tigris and the Greater Zab. From the time
of Ahudemmeh the Monophysite metropolitan,
though titular bishop of Tagrit, resided
in this monastery, secure in his mountain
retreat, until about 628 when Athanasius
surnamed "the Camel Driver"
(Monophysite Patriarch of Antioch), summoned
the Persian bishops of his communion to Syria
to discuss measures to be taken to promote
the spread of Monophysitism in the areas
where the majozity of Christians had drifted
into Nestorianism. Five bishops attended,
amongst them Christopher, the metropolitan
of Tagrit, 6 and he, on returning from Syria,
removed his residence from the monastery
of Mar Mattai to the city of Tagrit itself
But the honor ary title of metropolitan was
preserved for a bishop resident at Mar Mattai,
though it was a mere compliment, all real
authority being in the hands of the Bishop
of Tagrit, now resident in his titular see.
In 640 Marutha, a member of the monastery
of Mar Mattai, was raised to the bishopric
of Tagrit, and he and his successors asumed
the title of Mafrian "which thenceforward
was used to denote the supreme head of the
Monophysite Church in Persia and Asia generally.
By this time the Monophysites had spread
well to the east, and the Patriarch Athanasius
was asked to consecrate bishops for those
remoter parts, but this he refused to do,
preferring that the eastern Monophysites
should organize themselves under the Mafrian
as an independent body, so Marutha created
the see of Herat in Khurasan, and other oriental
sees were added later (Bar Hebraeus, Chron.
Eccl., II, 121).
The great centres of Monophysite scholarship
were the monasteries of Mar Mattai Tur 'Abdin
on the upper Euphrates which claimed to be
the oldest monastery in Mesopotamia, and
Kenneszin (Qcn-neshre), near Edessa. Several
metropolitans were alumni of this last, Athanasius
I (d. 630-1), Athanasius II, of Balad (d.
685), and others.
The strong Monophysite element in Egypt attracted
a number of Syrian Monophysite monks and
scholars to Alexandria to study, amongst
them Paulos of Tella and Thomas of Harqel
in the early years of the seventh century.
H. Evelyn White (Monasteries of the Wadi'n
Natrun, ii, 319 sqq.) shows that there was
a colony of Syrian monks in Scetis already
ID 576, and probably their monastery there,
from which many valuable Syxiac manuscripts
have been obtained, was founded, or purchased
from the Copts, about 7io by a certain Marutha
ibn Habbib. In the sixth to seventh centuries
the Patriarch of Alexandria was living in
the Wadi n-NatrUD.
This close contact with Egypt and especially
with Alexandria promoted the spread of Alexandrian
teaching amongst the Syrian and Persian Monophysites.
In this connection two leading characters
are of particular importance.
John Philoponug of Alexandria (circ. 568),
was for some time a Monophysite, then turned
to the doctrine known as Tritheism, which
had been taught first by John Ascusnaghes
and for some time was the acknowledged leader
of the sect which followed that teaching.
Before he became a Tritheist he had written
a treatise called Diaitetes or Arbiter at
the request of Severus of Antioch, from which
a citation made by St. John of Damascus survives,
but the whole work is extant in a Syriac
translation, obviously well received in the
Monophysite community (cf. Brit. Mus. Add.
12171). He also composed a commentary on
Porphyry's Isagoge, and this was generally
adopted amongst the Monophvsites as a recognized
textbook. In 568 he published a criticism
on a cathetical discourse by John, Patriarch
of Constantinople, but the exact date of
his death is not known.
With this contact with Alexandria must be
associated also the introduction into Syria
of the medical Pandects or Syntagma of the
Alexandrian Monophysite physician Aaron,
a compilation which circulated in a Syriac
translation amongst Monophysites and Nestorians
and became a favourite manual of medicine.
As such it exercised a good deal of influence
on the medical teaching at Jundi-Shapur and
finally on the earlier Arab physicians. This
we conclude from the fact that the later
Syriac and older Arab medical writers quote
freely from it.
The Arab conquest of 632 did not check the
religious or intellectual life of either
the Nestorian or Monophysite community. The
Arabs exacted tribute, but so had the Persian
and Roman governments. The tribute-paying
communities were left free to follow their
own laws, religion, and customs, and to lead
their own cultural life. Intercourse between
Egypt, Persia, and Syria was easier than
before, and this favoured intellectual culture
which looked to Alexandria for guidance,
though as Alexandria became immersed in commercial
interests that guidance had to be sought
in other cities which became its cultural
heirs.
The most distinguished Syriac scholar of
this later period was Severus Sebokht (d.
666-7), Bishop of Kennesrin. He wrote letters
on theological subjects to Basil of Cyprus
and Sergius, abbot of Skiggar, as well as
two discourses on St. Gregory Nazianzen.
On Aristotelian logic he composed a treatise
on the syllogisms in the Analytics of Aristotle,
a commentary on the Hermeneutics which was
based on the commentary of Paul the Persian,
a letter to Aitilaha of Mosul on certain
terms used in the Hermeneutics (Brit. Mus.
Add. 17156), and a letter to the periodeutes
Yaunan on the logic of Aristotle (Camb. Univ.
Lib. Add. 2812). In addition to these works
on logic he also wrote on astronomical subjects
(Brit. Mus. Add. 14538), and composed a treatise
on the astronomical instrument known as the
astrolabe, which has been edited and published
by F. Nau (Paris, 1899). In all this he showed
himself the product of Alexandrian science
and illustrated the widening scientific interests
of the period. It seems that he took steps
towards introducing the Indian numerals,
but this was not carried on by any immediate
successor. His work represents the highest
level reached by any Syriac scientist and
this, it will be noted, was associated with
Kennesrin.
The Monophysites were diligent and successful
in missionary work, travelling the deserts
under the protection of the Arab tribe of
the B. Ghassan. Adiabene and Beth 'Arbaye
round about Tur 'Abdin already were Monophysite
territory, and so Armenia and the country
about Mount Izla a little north of Nisibis.
Another Monophysite centre was the town of
Shissar. In that town was a physician named
Gabriel who was a devoted Monophysite. He
was appointed chief physician,-O Khusraw
II and at court conformed to Nestorianism
A, hich was the officially recognized form
of Christianity, but reverted to Monophysitism
when he saw that there was no risk of incurring
royal disfavoiir by doing so. He and Queen
Shirin, who was his patient, did all in their
power to help the Monophysites and hinder
the Nestorians. It is not altogether edifying
to see these rival Christian bodies engaged
in intrigue at a non-Christian court. Gabriel's
activities were so far successful that he
was able to prevent the appointment of a
new Catholicus for the Nestorians when the
see of Seleucia fell vacant, and so for some
time the Nestorians were without an official
head.
Under Justinian the Empress Theodora sent
down Monophysite missionaries to Axum in
Ethiopia and so secured the Ethiopians for
the Monophysite Church. Ethiopia is said
to have- been evangelized by St. Matthew
the Apostle, but the Christian religion did
not penetrate inland where were many barbarous
races using different languages until the
days of Constantine, when Frumentius, a Christian
youth wrecked on the shores of the Red Sea,
began teaching some of those people the Christian
faith and was afterwards consecrated Bishop
of Axum by St. Athanasius. Such is the account
given by Socrates (H. E., i, ig), who obtained
his information from Rufinus (H. E., i, 9),
who died in 420, so clearly there was an
Ethiopian Church well established in the
early fifth century.
In the days of Justinian Axum and its king
occupied an important place in Byzantine
politics. The emperor, sorely pressed by
foes on his European and Asiatic frontiers,
was no longer able to spare a fleet to police
the Red Sea, and in 522 made a compact with
the king of Axum, who undertook that duty
as an ally of the Byzantine government. Before
long the king of Axum began trying to extend
his control over the coast of South Arabia,
for which he had a reasonable pretext. Control
of both shores was necessary for putting
down piracy, the people on both shores were
akin, and formerly both had been under one
ruler.
The Ethiopians successfully established themselves
on the Tihama, the low lying coast country,
but failed in an attempt to take Mecca. How
long their occupation of the Tihama lasted
is not known, but the attempt on Mecca is
supposed to have been made about the time
of Muhmmad's birth, which may have taken
place in A. D. 570 or thereabouts. The attempt
on Mecca failed, but the Ethiopians were
good warriors and many of the princes of
South Arabia purchased Ethiopian slaves as
suitable recruits for a body-guard. This
example was followed at Mecca. The Mecfan
merchants seem to have been an unwarlike
people, relying much on mercenaries for the
defence of their city and on occasion armed
their Ethiopian slaves as a defence force)
but did not trust them very much as in time
of peace those slaves were harshly treated
and many ran away. A number of such fugitive
slaves escaped when Muhammad was in Medina
and rallied round him there, for he had already
shown his sympathy for them. In his time
there were many such slaves in Mecca, and
many Ethiopian craftsmen, a proportion of
whom probably were ex-slaves, all men of
humble rank and mostly Christians and of
the Monophysite commuruon. It was commonly
said that it was from these that the Prophet
learned the bible stories which figure so
prominently in the Qur'an. Opponents said
that "he is taught by others" (Qur.
44, I 2) that "a certain one teaches
him.... but the tongue of him whom they suggest
is foreign, whilst this is pure Arabic"
(Qur. 16,
105): it was stated that this foreign mentor
was one of those who came hither by violence
or fraud (Qur. 25, 5), which clearly hints
that he was an Ethiopian. But these humble
Christians of Mecca were an unorganized community,
they had no church and no bishop (cf. H.
Lammens, "Les chretiens la Mecque a
la veille de I'Hegire," in L'Arabie
occidentale avant I'Higire (Beyrouth, 1920,
pp. 47-9). Such an origin would explain the
looseness and inaccuracy of the bible stories
as they appear in the Qur'an.
The city of Najran in Arabia, not far distant
from Mecca, also was Christian and Monophysite
(cf. H. Lammens, "'La Mecque A la veille
de I'Hegire," Beyrouth, I924, pp.
256-7, 289-90). It is not possible to identify
a Monophysite centre for the transmission
of Greek culture to the Arabs with the same
assurance as the Nestorian medium at Jundi-Shapur
can be identified, but this contact must
not be ignored. The Monophysite centres of
learning, it is true, were monasteries, not
academies like Jundi-Shapur, and so not so
intimately in touch with the Arabs as the
Nestorian school, but there was in contact,
as appears from the fact that the mysticism
of the pseudo-Dionysius and Hierotheus was
brought to bear on the formation of Muslim
philosophy. But a great deal of pro-Greek
influence came to Baghdad through Marw and,
bearing in mind how Marutha extended the
Monophysite episcopate to those eastern parts,
it seems probable that a Monophysite element
played its part through Marw, even though
there was also a Nestorian bishop there.
CHAPTER VII INDIAN INFLUENCE-THE SEA ROUTE
(1) THE SEA ROUTE TO INDIA
GREEK influence came to the Arabs not only
directly through Syria and Egypt, but also
indirectly from the east by way of India
and thence through Persia. In this rather
more involved line of transmission three
distinct phases may be noted.
(i) To passage to India of Greek scientific
teaching by the sea route leading from Alexandria
to north-west India and the fuller development
of that knowledge by Indian students, the
results transmitted to the Arabs in the early
days of the 'Abbasid khalifate in the later
half of the eighth century. This was especially
associated with the city of Ujjain, the Indian
depot of the sea route from the Red Sea.
A sea route also reached south-western India,
but there were no scientific results there.
(ii) The existence in Central Asia of a focus
of Greek influence in Bactria, Sogdiana,
and Ferghana, surviving from the days of
Alexander's invasion which, though politically
wrecked by the barbarian invasions shortly
before the Christian era, retained a Greek
tradition and was able to spread a certain
measure of Hellenism into India and the Far
East. This was an area in which the Persian
wars planted many captives, especially about
the city of Marw, and f rom that city came
a pro-Hellenic influence which contributed
materially to the introduction of Greek science
into Baghdad.
(iii) The influence of Buddhism which, although
declining in India in the centuries immediately
preceding the coming of Islam, had certainly
prepared the ground for intercourse with
the western world, and was directly responsible
for the pro. minence of the Barmakid family,
the leading patrons of Hellenism.
At an early date there was intercourse between
India and the great empires of what is now
called the Near East. The first traces of
this occurs in inscriptions of the Hittite
kings of Cappadocia in the fourteenth to
fifteenth centuries B. C. Those kings bore
Aryan names and worshipped Aryan deities,
and apparently were akin to the Hindus of
the Punjab. Blocks of Indian teak were used
in the temple of the Moon at Ur and in Nebuchadnezzar's
palace, both of the sixth century B. C.,
and apes, Indian elephants, and Bactrian
camels figure on the obelisk of Shalmanesar
III (860 B. C.). These may have been brought
by land or carried by sea. The Rig Veda makes
allusions to voyages by sea, and many such
allusions occur in Buddhist literature, both
of rather later date but bearing testimony
to an old tradition. Sea trade no doubt came
from a port near the mouth of the Indus and
passed to the Persian Gulf, coasting along
Gedrosia. The Persian Gulf was cleared of
pirates by Sennacherib in 694 B. C., and
it may be assumed that the presence of pirates
implies a sea trade which increased after
the pirates disappeared. In the later seventh
century it is said that the trade of the
Persian Gulf was in the hands of the Phoenicians,
who had settled in the marsh lands of the
Tigris-Euphrates (Shatt el-Arab) after their
earlier homes had been destroyed by earthquake
(Justin,
18, 3, 2). Strabo refers to Phoenician temples
on the Bahrein Islands near the mouth of
the Persian Gulf (Strabo, 16, 3, 3-5), and
remains of such temples have been found and
explored.
The sea route connecting the western world
with India had been known to the Greeks long
before the Christian era, perhaps before
the days of Skylax, the friend and neighbour
of Herodotus, certainly before the time of
Nearchus and Alexander, as Nearchus was able
to get a guide from Gedrosia who knew the
coast as far as the Gulf of Ormuz (Arrian,
Indica, 27, 1), beyond which the Arabs had
a monopoly. The course was to send goods
by land to Seleucia on the Euphrates or to
Zeugma, and down the river, but the route
to the Euphrates from Antioch involved a
troublesome and often dangerous crossing
of the desert, thence by river to Chai-ax
(Mohammarah) at the mouth of the Euphrates,
thence by the Persian Gulf and along the
southern coast of Gedrosia to Patala (Haiderabad
in Sind) on the lower Indus.
The Persian Gulf later was avoided because
of the anarchy in Syria when the Seleucids
lost control, and the hostility of the Parthians,
through whose country Indian goods brought
to the Persian Gulf would have to be carried.
This gave an opportunity to Arab traders.
Indian merchandise could be landed at one
of their ports, Aden, etc., on the coast
of Yemen, or passed to the Egyptian merchants
who traded in the Red Sea. In the days of
Agatharchides (circ. 116 B. C.) Egypt obtained
Indian goods from Arab merchants at Aden
or Muza, but the Egyptians had only vague
notions of the way those goods were brought
from India to Arabia (cf. Periplus, 26).
Agatharchides himself evidently had no direct
knowledge of the route between India and
Arabia: there was no direct trade with India.
It was quite the exception that Eudoxus twice
made the whole journey by sea from Egypt
to India.
Merchandise landed in Yemen was carried by
land through the Hijaz to Petra. The Ptolemies
tried to divert this and get Indian merchandise
through the Red Sea to an Egyptian port,
but they made no effort to intervene in the
voyage between India and Arabia. To develop
the Red Sea route Ariston was sent to explore
its shores, and as a result ports were made
along the Red Sea coast. Ptolemy Philadelphus
(285-246 B. C.) tried to bring trade to the
canal of Sesostris connecting the Gulf of
Suez with the Nile and founded the port of
Arsinoe (Suez) at its outlet to the sea,
but this had to be abandoned owing to the
difficult navigation of the Heropoolite Gulf
(Strabo, 16, 4, 6), which caused merchants
to prefer Leuke Kome or Aelana, both communicating
with Petra and not with the Nile valley.
Then he founded Berenice, which communicated
with Coptos on the Nile by overland route
258 miles long. In 247 he founded Myos Hormos,
i8o miles north of Berenice, with safer harbour
and a shorter journey to Coptos. But the
Red Sea also had its difficulties as it was
infested with pirates until Ptolemy Euergetes
(246-221 B. C.) stationed a fleet there to
put down piracy (Diod.,2, 43, 4).
When merchandise was landed at Yemen it was
brought up by land through the Hijaz to Dedan
(al-'Ula), the road at one time perhaps passing
through Yathrib (Medina). But in the sixth
to seventh century A. D. it avoided Yathrib
and on it was formed the station of Mecca,
possibly after the decline of Petra, which
followed Trajan's incorporation of Nabataea
in the Roman Empire. The Prophet Muhammad
was invited to Yathrib to act as leader of
the Arabs settled there and enable them either
to plunder the caravans passing up from Mecca,
or perhaps divert the caravan route to Yathrib.
In his days the route certainly did not pass
through Yathrib. This route through the Hijaz
was the famous "incense route by which
the incense of South Arabia was carried.
The incense, chiefly myrrh, frankincense,
cassia, and spikenard, really was the produce
of Arabia, and had been purchased from the
Arabs by the Egyptians, Babylonians, Jews,
and others. No doubt this was a lucrative
trade, but it hardly suffices to account
for the exaggerated estimate of the wealth
of Arabia given by Greek and Latin writers.
In speaking of that wealth those writers
apparently reckoned all the merchandise procured
from Yemen, though in fact a great deal of
this was the produce of India, some of it
from Somaliland, the South Arabian ports
being merely depots of transit where this
produce changed hands. As the western world,
at least until well into the first century
A. D., received the bulk of it from Arabia,
it was commonly reckoned as Arabian. Akin
to this was the fact that India and Arabia
were long confused, so that we cannot be
sure in legends of apostolic missions whether
the apostles concerned were supposed to have
gone to India or to Arabia. It was a very
old confusion, based on the idea that tropical
africa extended beyond the southern seas
and connected with India. Thus Aeschylus
(Supplices, 286) groups India with Ethiopia,
and probably Homer (Odyss., 1, 23) referring
to "eastern Ethiopians" means Indians
and so implies the same. Older ideas pictured
a continent spreading across from Africa
to India, with Arabia as a kind of half-way
house on the northern shore of the lake-like
water to the south of Bab el-Mandel, and
it was not until the second century B. C.
that exploration showed this idea to be erroneous,
and several centuries more had to pass before
popular opinion admitted its error.
The course between India and South Arabia,
the route already used by Nearchus and by
the Arabs and Indians, was known to exist,
but the Greeks knew no details about it beyond
the reports made by Nearchus and Skylax:
probably detailed information was deliberately
kept secret by the Arabs who wished to retain
their monopoly of the trade, who invented
travellers' tales about monsters and perils
to discourage competition. After reaching
South Arabia goods might be carried overland
by the Arabs to Aila or Gaza, or up into
Syria, thus avoiding the Red Sea passage.
The Red Sea itself presented the problem
of piracy, a difficulty with which the Ptolemies
were unable to deal permanently. That sea
swarmed with pirates and the coasts were
peopled with savages, though these were to
some extent restrained towards the south
by the kings of the Homerites (Himyarites)
and Sabaeans. Merchant vessels had to carry
a company of archers to repel Arab pirates
(Pliny, H. N., 6, 101), who were greatly
dreaded because they used poisoned arrows
(ibid., 176).
This route does not seem to have been developed
by the Romans before the end of the reign
of Gaius (A. D. 40-41), then the custom arose
of following the Arabian coast on the outward
journey only as far as Cape Syagrus (Ras
Fartek), then venturing on the open sea across
the Indian Ocean to Patala. After that date
men who wished to go south of the Indus took
a "shorter and safer "course from
Cape Syagrus directly across the Indian Ocean
to Sigerus, the Melizagara of the Periplus
Maris Erithrei, which probably was either
jaigash or Rajapur. The Romans had by this
time found that they could avail themselves
of the monsoons, blowing west to east for
six months, then six months in the contrary
direction, so that a vessel could drift to
India in the season, and drift back six months
later. This meant that a ship crossing from
the mouth of the Red Sea would reach Malabar
or some part of India farther south, and
the evidence of Roman coins found in India
shows that many must have done so. About
A. D. o it began to be the practice for those
desiring to go across to Malabar after leaving
Arabia Eudaimon (Aden) or Cane (Hisn Ghorab)
"by throwing the ship's head off the
wind with a constant pull on the rudder and
a shift of the yard (thus sailing in an arc)
go across to Malabar marts in forty days"
(E. H. Warmington, The Commerce Between the
Roman Empire and India, 1928, p. 46). The
return voyage was made by tracing a southern
curve between Malabar and Cane or the coast
of Arabia.
The progressive stages of this sea route
are described by Pliny (Nat. Hist., 8, 100
sqq.) in a passage which has been carefully
analysed by Warmington (op. cit., 45-7).
From the account given by Pliny it appears
that the shorter route was made available
by the direction of the monsoons, the south,.
vest monsoon enabling a ship to make rapid
voyage to India in the summer, and an equally
rapid return if it left Malabar "at
the beginning of the Egyptian month Tybis,
our December, or at latest during the first
six days of the Egyptian month Mechir, which
fall within the Ides of January according
to our reckoning: thus they arrange to return
home within the year" (Pliny, N. H.,
8, 104,
8). In this account Pliny shows a great advance
of knowledge since the time of Strabo. The
citation of the Egyptian months emphasizes
-the fact that the Indian trade with the
Roman Empire was operated from Egypt.
The Periplus ascribes the discovery of the
use of the southwest monsoon for the shortening
of the journey to Hippalus, a pilot or merchant,
and states that all these routes which left
the coast and crossed the ocean were suggested
and planned by him. He is not mentioned by
Pliny, but the name Hippalus is given to
the south-west monsoon. The Periplus is a
careful and accurate book of sailing directions,
but in this part must be regarded with reserve.
Did the unknown author relate a popular legend
based on the name given to the wind? In the
Itinerarium Augusti and in Ptolemy Hippalus
is used as the name of a sea. If he were
a real person, it is strange that his exploits
were so little known to succeeding generations.
No doubt the "discovery" implies
the judicious use of information gathered
from mariners and so giving an idea of the
lie of the Indian coast. Nearchus knew that
he had to wait for the north-east monsoon
to make the voyage from India homewards several
centuries before the supposed Hippalus (cf.
Arrian,
-Indica, 21,1). Warmington points out that
Hippalus only "observed the placing
of the ports, and the shape of the sea, and
appears to me only to have realized in theory
the southern extension of India and the possibiliy
of using for crossing to various points a
wind which only his successors durst fully
to use in practice by successive stages"
(Warmington, op. cit., 46-7). Pliny, writing
after A. D. 51, says that only after the
final development of the discovery did a
regular use of this southwest monsoon take
place "every year", and that only
of late had reliable information about the
whole voyage from Egypt to Muziris and Nelcynda
been made available (Pliny, N. H., 101, cf
Warmington, op. cit., 47). The use of the
monsoons to shorten the duration of the passage
to and from India was only made known to
the Romans in the days of Claudius, and so
Pliny speaks of its having taken place in
his own time (Pliny, N. H., 8, 101, 86).
In fact, however, the voyage to India had
become familiar in much earlier times, and
seems to have been first explored and used
by the Indian mariners. Eudoxus had sailed
to India in 118-112 B. C., the route being
shown him by a shipwrecked Indian seaman
found near the entrance to the Red Sea (Strabo,
2, 8, 4). Thus the discovery made in the
first century A. D. Was simply that the navigation
of the Indian Ocean was then first made known
to the Romans. The name Hippalus was given
to the wind, or to the sea, its origin unknown,
and the legend of the first century mariner
was invented to explain the name.
Before the age of Augustus very few Greek
or Roman travellers had ventured beyond the
Bab al-Mindeb into the Indian Ocean, although
a good deal of trade had taken place between
the western world and India. "Discoveries
of coins are regulated by chance, and although
they indicate commerce, do not afford conclusive
evidence of its extent at any given period....
Hardly any authenticated Ptolemaic or Seleucid
coins have turned up in India, and of Roman
Republican coins only a few have been found
in North-West India.... But of emperors down
to Nero very large numbers of gold coins
and silver coins have been found in the Tamil
states, and of these a phenomenally large
number have stamps of Augustus or Tiberius"
(Warmington, op. cit., 39). This at least
indicates a greatly increased intercourse
with India in the time of the early emperors,
To a great extent the rarity of Greek and
Roman trade at an earlier period was due
to the fact that the Homerites or Himyarites,
the Arabs of the south coast of Arabia who
then controlled the trade, as well as the
Axumites, who were Himyaritic colonists settled
on the African side of the Red Sea, desired
to keep the Indian trade a monopoly for themselves
and were unwilling to let any strangers into
their secrets. That the Axumites participated
in this trade is clear from the Buddhist
monument found at Axum.
Some time about 150-140 B. C. the Mongolian
tribes of Yueh-chi or Sakas invaded North-West
India and overran Bactria. Gradually they
settled down and a confederation of Saka
states was formed which became the powerful
kingdom of Kushan which lasted until A. D.
226. Under the third Kushan King Kanishka
(A. D. 120-153) this kingdom was at its best
and trade with the western world was active,
chiefly by the sea route connecting Alexandria
with India, and at the Indian end of this
route, some distance inland, was the great
depot of Ujjain. Kanishka was a convert to
Buddhism and many Buddhist monasteries were
founded in his dominions during his reign.
On his earliest coins the inscriptions were
in Greek script and in the Greek language,
the sun and moon represented in Greek form
as Helios and Selene. But later in his reign,
though the Greek script was continued, the
Old Persian language known as Pahlawi was
used and the deities represented were mixed
Greek, Persian, and Hindu, a few showing
the figure of Buddha. In the Kushan capital
Purushapura (Peshawar) there was a great
tower with relics of Buddha and a large Buddhist
monastery, and these buildings existed until
the eleventh century when they were destroyed
by Mahmud of Ghazna. The fourth Kushan King
Huvishka (153-I85) remained faithful to Buddhism,
but his successor Vasudcva (i85-226) turned
to Hinduism and the worship of Siva. From
his reign down to A. D. 320 Indian history
is almost a blank.
Under the Kushan kings there was a close
and constant intercourse with the Graeco-Roman
world, chiefly by the sea route connecting
with Ujjain. Roman coins came to India to
pay for spices and other Indian luxuries
in quantities which the Emperor Tiberius
deplored (Tacitus, Ann., 2, 33; 3, 53 Dio
Cassius, 57, 15), a complaint endorsed by
the finds of Romans coins in India. The Kushan
kings ere the only Indian princes who themselves
issued a gold coinage at that time, and in
their gold coins copied the Roman model.
Roman gold circulated freely throughout India.
In the third century the Kushan power declined
and was restricted to the Indus valley and
Afghanistan. After the time of Marcus Aurelius
(A. D. 161-180) Roman trade with India decayed
and the use of the sea route almost ceased.
The accession of the Sasanids in Persia in
226 put a new and vigorous Persia in place
of the effete and degenerate Parthia, and
this new power was unfriendly to the Romans.
Diocletian endeavoured to reorganize the
Roman Empire to cope with new dangers which
threatened its existence, but it was not
until 324 that Constantine united it under
firm control, and only then was interest
in eastern trade revived. But times had changed,
and Constantinople became the rival of Alexandria,
though the route from Constantinople via
the River Euphrates and the Persian Gulf
was practicable only when there was peace
between Persia and Rome, which was not always
the case. The sea route between India and
Alexandria depended upon the safety of the
Red Sea which the Romans continued to police
until the days of Justinian.
In India a new dynasty appeared in A. D.
320, the Gupta monarchy founded by a raja
in Magadha named Chandragupta, with capital
at Pataliputra, like the Kushan state before
it this was a kingdom in the north-west.
The second ruler of this dynasty, Samudragupta
(330-380) became paramount over all North-West
India. He had no sympathy with Buddhism,
but took a strictly nationalist attitude
and adhered to Brahminism. Efforts were made
to revive the Sanskrit language, and Buddhist
forms in architecture became obsolete, whilst
there was a great development in the form
and decoration of the Hindu temples. In art,
however, the Greek influence which came through
Gandhara on the north-west frontier, still
lingered, and the coinage, at least, continued
to follow Roman models. The third king of
this dynasty, Chandragupta 11 (380-415),
extended his conquests over all Western India,
subduing the country of the Sakas (Surashtru,
now Kathiawar) and the Saka princes known
as "the Great Satraps". This put
him in possession of Malwa and its capital
Ujjain, the inland depot of the sea-borne
trade with the Red Sea, and the adjacent
ports Baroch (Broach), Sopara Cambay, and
others. In spite of tle revival of the Hindu
religion, the population of the north-west
remained predominantly Buddhist, free from
caste restrictions and without any tabu on
travel.
(2) ALEXANDRIAN SCIENCE IN INDIA
Under the Gupta kings the city of Pataliputra
became the home of scientific studies, especially
of astronomy and mathematics, both of which
show a definitely Greek impress in accordance
with contemporary work in the school of Alexandria.
The astronomer Aryabhata (born 476-499) taught
here and has left a treatise on astronomy
with a section dealing with mathematics.
Varahamihisa (505-587) compiled a work known
as the Pance-Siddhanlika, a compilation of
five standard manuals of astronomy which
he abridged. One of these five treatises
belongs to the prc-scientific age and is
of no scientific value, but the other four
show the influence of Alexandrian scholarship:
two of them bear the non-Indian names of
Romank and Paulisa, the latter giving a table
based on Claudius Ptolemy's table of chords.
These treatises refer to the Yavanas or Greeks
as the great authorities on science. One
of the four treatises is thefifth century
anonymous Surya Siddhanta or "knowledge
by,, the Sun", which became a standard
manual for Indian astronomers. Brahmagupta
(circ. 628) was an astronomer who lived and
worked in Uiiain, where there was an observatory.
He wrote an astronomical manual called the
Brahma Siddhanta in twenty-one chapters,
including special sections on arithmetic
(Ganitad'haya) and indeterminate equations
(Kutakhadyaka). This work became known to
the Arabs during, or a little before, the
reign of Harun ar-Rashid and formed the basis
of the work which circulated as the Sindhind,
a name which represents the Indian Siddhanta.
Under the Sasanid kings of Persia it had
been the custom to take and record astronomical
observations, no doubt in the first place
for astrological purposes, and these records
were regularly published as the Zik-i-shatroayar
or "royal tables ". The preparation
of those tables was not stopped by the Arab
conquest, nor were they greatly changed in
form, the Persian language was still used
and not replaced by Arabic for several centuries,
and even then the dates were given with the
old Persian months not the months of the
Arabic Muslim year. It is known that there
was an observatory at Jundi-Shapur, and no
doubt observations were taken there as well
as in the Persian observatories, but the
whole work was and remained in Persian hands.
Then, apparently, the Arabs wanted to understand
how these observations were taken and recorded
d for that purpose the Sindhind was composed
and circulated an amongst them. It was the
first astronomical manual introduced to the
Arabs, and it included not only astronomical-information,
but also the mathematical material necessary
for its use, mostly dealing with spherical
trigonometry.
There is a legend, but it is a dubious one,
which puts back the translation of the Sindhind
to the reign of al-Mansur, the founder of
Baghdad. This legend relates that the Arabs
conquered Sind (Scind), the area of the lower
Indus, in the days of their expansion after
the fall of the Persian monarchy, which has
a good historical basis. This conquest did
not result in a complete occupation of the
country, but certain Arab chieftains were
settled there as a kind of military garrison
to hold it, and they, very naturally, became
semi-independent. When the 'Abbasid revolution
took place they seized the opportunity to
declare themselves independent and refused
to recognize the new dynasty. But al-Mansur
would not tolerate this and sent an armed
force to chastise them, and after that experience
they determined to make their submission
and sent an embassy to Baghdad to make terms.
With this embassy went an Indian sage named
Kankah, who disclosed to the Arabs the wisdom
of the Indians, which consisted of a summary
of astronomy and the mathematics involved.
But Kankah knew no Arabic or Persian, and
his speech had to be translated into Persian
by an interpreter, and that into Arabic by
a second interpreter, a process which rendered
the final form of his instruction very involved
and obscure. Al-Biruni (d. 1048), the earliest
and best Muslim observer of India and Indian
things, knew this story but did not believe
it and considered it an invention designed
to explain why the translation of the Arabic
Sindhind was so obscure and unsatisfactory.
History knows of no embassy sent from Sind
to al-Mansur. The probability is that the
work was an Arabic translation of a Persian
version of the Siddhanta already in use in
Jundi-Shapur. In any case its contents are
not a collection of notes of the discourse
of any sage, but a translation, or rather
paraphrase, of the standard Indian manual,
the revised Siddhanta of Brahmagupta. There
may be this much truth in the story, that
the Siddhanta passed through two translations
on its way to the Arabs, or possibly three,
from Indian to Persian, possibly thence into
Syriac, finally into Arabic.
The mathematics and astronomy which the Arabs
learned from their Indian teachers through
a Persian medium were of Greek origin, passed
from Alexandria to North-West India. But
it does not seem that the actual Greek authorities
circulated in India, their teaching was assimilated
and restated by Indian scientists, who developed
and made material contributions to the material
which passed through their hands, and rendered
it more flexible by the use of a decimal
notation and a greatly increased use of symbols.
This can be estimated by noting the work
of Aryabhata. It appears from al-Biruni that
there were two scientists bearing this name
(al-Biruni, India, ii, 305, 327). The elder
of these seems to have died about A. D. 500,
the date of the younger one is unknown, nor
can we always distinguish which of the two
is meant. The elder Aryabhata worked at Pataliputra,
not at Uiiain. He produced several works,
the Gitika, which was a collection of astronomical
tables, the Aryashtasata, which includes
a treatise on arithmetic known as the Ganita,
and a treatise on the geometry of the sphere
the necessary basis of astronon-dcal work
known as the Gola. He solved quadratic equations,.
already anticipated by Diophantus who, however,
recognized only one root, even where both
are positive, and had been already suggested
by Heron. He attempted indeterminate linear
equations, already anticipated by Hypsicles,
and gives one of the earliest attempts at
the general solution of such equations by
means of continued fractions. He sums up
an arithmetical series after the pth term
in a way which may be expressed-
S = n(a+((n-1)/2 + p))d
He gives rules for determining the area of
plane figures, but often expresses himself
very imperfectly, as "the area produced
by a trilateral is the product of the perpendicular
which bisects the base and half the base".
He gives the area of the sphere as πr2?(πr2),
which makes π=16/9, perhaps error for Ahmes'
(16/9)2. For the value of he says, "add
four to one hundred, multiply by eight, add
sixty-two thousand the result is the approximate
value of the circumference when the diameter
is twenty thousand." This makes π=62832/20000
or 3.1418.
In his astronomical tables he includes a
brief table of sines and rules for finding
them. In all this there are traces of Greek
teaching, and that appears also in his terminology,
as jamitra=διάμε“ρος, kendra=κέυ“ρου, and
drama=δραφμή. His work goes farther than
that of the Greeks because, like other Indian
scientists, he makes a freer use of algebraic
expressions, which were rather tentatively
introduced by diophantus, and employs the
far more convenient Hindu numerals.
Brahmagupta (circ. 628) worked in the Ujain
observatory. He was the author of the Brahma-Siddhanta
"Brahma's revised Siddhanta", which
was the basis of the Arabic Sindhind. This
work contains chapters on arithmetic and
a treatment of indeterminate equations. In
the arithmetic he deals with integers, fractions,
progression, barter, rule of three, simple
interest, mensuration of plane figures, volumes,
and "shadow reckoning" or use of
the sun dial. His rules for areas are often
defective: thus for an equilateral triangle
with side 12 he gives 5x13= 65; for a triangle
with sides 13, 14, 15 he gives 7x½x (13+15)
which is 96. His formula for the area of
a quadrilateral with sides a, b, c, d, is
v((s-a)(s-b)(s-c)(s-d)), where s = ½(a+b+c+d),
but this is true only for cyclic quadrilaterals.
His rule is expressed thus, "Half the
sum of the sides set down four times and
severally diminished by the sides, being
multiplied together, the square root of the
product is the exact area." He takes
π as 3 for practical purposes, or v10 as
its exact value. He deals with quadratic
equations of the type x2+px-q=0, taking x=v(p2-49-p)/2
which gives one root correctly. More important
is his application of algebra to astronomy
in the Kutakhdyaka, the first instance of
such an application being made. He considers
simultaneous equations of the first degree,
calling their unknowns "colours".
Considering the solution of ax-by=c, he gives
x = ± cq - bt, and y = ±cp-at. This had been
already considered by Aryabhata, who, however,
did not solve it, now Brahmagupta gives a
solution. These formulae assume that t =
zero or any integer and that p/9 is the penultimate
convergent of 9/6. For the right-angled triangle
he gives two sets of values, 2mn, m2-n2,
m2-n, and vm, ½(m/11-n), ½(m/11+n), in which
he probably draws from Greek sources. For
such treatment it is obvious that Indian
mathematics of the period when there was
a regular sea route in use between Alexandria
and Ujain were based on Alexandrian Greek
teaching.
As Arab astronomy began with a continuation
of the work in progress in the Persian observatories,
which work was rendered possible only by
the use of Indian mathematics, it seems fairly
certain that the Arabs must have used this
Greek science which came throu h an Indian
medium, and was transmitted from the Indian
scientists by Persian astronomers and mathematicians,
although the Persian books which supplied
the Arabs with this knowledge are no longer
available. It is said that when tlie Arabs
found themselves unable to understand the
Almajest Ja'far ibn Yahya the Barmakid at
once knew the required remedy to be a knowledge
of the text of Euclid and Claudius Ptolemy,
material at that time not yet accessible
in Arabic. If this statement can be treated
as reliable it suggests that he, a Persian
of Persian education, was familiar with the
needed material, though a Persian version,
or for that matter an Indian one, of those
two authorities is unknown. It is not necessary
to prove that translations of the Greek scientists
were actually made in Hindu or Persian, it
is sufficiently clear that their teaching
was known and used.
CHAPTER VIII INDIAN INFLUENCE II-THE LAND
ROUTE
(1) BACTRIA
INDIA could be reached by land as well as
by sea. It is known that there was trade
with India in Assyrian times, but it is not
clear whether this was by land or sea. Direct
evidence of intercourse between India and
Western Asia begins in the Persian period
after Cyrus broke through the hostile tribes
which had hitherto barred the way. Darius,
the son of Hystaspes (521-485 B. C.), penetrated
into North-West India and annexed the Indus
delta which thereafter was claimed as a Persian
starapy, as appears from the inscriptions
of Persepolis and Naksh-i-Rustam. It was
this Darius who in 5I2-510 sent the Greek
pilot Skylax, of Karyanda, in Karia, the
neighbour and probably the friend of Herodotus,
to explore the practicability of a short
sea route between the Persian Gulf and-the
mouth of the Indus, which seems to imply
familiarity with the Indus country. As soon
as he knew that there was such a route available
he sent a fleet into the Indian Ocean.
Alexander's invasion of India, which was
chiefly intended to secure the easternmost
province of Persia after the Persians had
been conquered, took place in 327-325 B.
C. Before crossing the mountain frontier
of India he formed a military base which
afterwards became the city of Alasanda or
Alexandria Under the Caucasus, its site probably
some 30 miles north of Kabul, one of the
many Alexandrias which he founded. The term
"Caucasus "was applied by the Greeks
to what is now known as the Hindu Kush. Alexander
died in 323, and at his death his kingdom,
for which he left no heir, was fought over
by his generals and in 312 was divided between
them. In this division the Asiatic province
fell to Seleucus Nicator, who founded the
city of Antioch in Syria and made it his
capital, relegating the extensive provinces
east of Syria to the Indus to a subordinate
position. He was more concerned with the
rivalries between the Greek rulers along
the Mediterranean coast than the affairs
of the Asiatic hinterland, and left Babylon
ancb all that had been the kingdom of Persia
to deputies. Seleucus was succeeded by his
son Antiochus Soter (280-262 B. C.), and
he by his son Antiochus Theos
(261-246), all three involved in wars with
the Ptolemies of Egypt and so leaving Persia
very much to its own devices. Taking advantage
of this the Parthian tribes of East Persia
(Khurasan) drifted away from Seleucid rule
and formed an independent kingdom of Parthia
about 250 B. C. This new Parthian state included
a large part of the old kingdom of Persia,
but by no means all that had been ruled by
the ancient Achaemenid kings. About 210 B.
C. the Seleucid king Antiochus III "the
Great" formally recognized the third
Parthian king Artabanes as an independent
monarch.
These Parthian kings were not of the Persian
royal family of the Achaemenids, but Scythians
from Maeotis, though later a legend was circulated
to the effect that their founder Arsaces
had been born in Bactria. As derived from
the semi-barbarous tribes of East Persia
the Parthians were despised by the Persians
proper and regarded as inferior species:
they were the only tribe of their locality
not mentioned in the sacred books of the
Persians, and seem to have preserved some
of the nomadic habits of the tribe from which
they were descended. They made their winter
capital at Babylon or Ctesiphon, this latter
a camp city on the Tigris, avoiding the nearby
Greek colony of Seleucia which was left more
or less independent under its own Greek constitution
and using the Greek language and religion.
The summer capital was Ecbatana
(Hamadan) or Rhagus. There was also a palace
at Hecatompylos in the middle of Parthia,
a city which had been enlarged and partly
rebuilt by Seleucus. The sixth Arsacid Mithridates
I (d. 138-130 B. C.) greatly enlarged the
Parthian kingdom, and after extending its
boundaries from the Tigris to the Indus assumed
the title of "King of Kings", which
had been used by the Achaemenid monarchs,
and was represented on his coins as carrying
a bow like those old kings, and adopted the
pearl studded tiara which they had worn.
The Achaemenids had been regarded as of semi-divine
descent and as possessing a divine spirit
emanating from the god Ahura Mazda, and so
called themselves "sons of god"
and this title was now assumed by the Parthian
kings as. Zag Alohin in the inscriptions
on their domestic coins, or θεοπά“ηρ on their
Greek coins. The Parthian kings were incorporated
in the ranks of the Great Ones" (Μεγισ“ανες)
or higher nobles of the kingdom and in the
fraternity of the Magi or Persian priesthood,
all as had been under the ancient Achaemenids,
and they and the higher Parthian officials
tried to assimilate themselves as much as
possible to the Persians, copying their dress
and manners and often adopting Persian names.
Alexander had left a number of colonies scattered
over what had been his empire, and these
lasted and became sources of Greek cultural
influence. But quite apart from these colonies
Alexander had left a prestige and cultural
influence whose effect endured for many centuries,
so that the Asiatics of the Near East looked
with respect on all that was Greek. Greek
was not the official language in Parthia
as it was in Egypt, but Greek was very commonly
used on Parthian coins, though under the
later kings it was so debased as hardly to
be intelligible. The oldest coin, which is
one of Vologasus I in the time of the Roman
Emperor Claudius, gives the full title of
the king in Greek, contenting itself with
the king's name abbreviated to VOL in the
native Old Persian or Pahlawi. From about
188 B. C. onwards the royal title includes
the term φιλέλλην. To some extent the Parthian
state had a Helienizing character, though
this Hellenism became more and more orientalized.
National feeling was not developed in its
full form, as the ruling dynasty was generally
regarded as racially inferior, tolerated
in office only because it had been successful
in liberating the country from an alien yoke,
and supported because it had proved its capacity
to secure peace and independence effectually:
when it experienced defeat at the hands of
a foreign power it lost its hold and people
looked for a legitimist king of the original
stock descended from the demi-gods.
After the revolt of Arsaces, which led to
the foundation of Parthia, the lands of Bactria,
Sogdiana, and, Fergana drifted out of the
control of the Seleucids and a Greek kingdom
was formed in Bactria on the Indian border,
though maintaining intercourse with the Greek
world. This state lasted until about 128
B. C., its population apparently often recruited
by fresh Greek colonists. The city of Antioch
Margiana or Marw in Sogdiana was at the end
of an important and well travelled route
from Syria and Northern Mesopotamia, and
connected with Bactra, the capital of Bactria,
and with Alasanda or Alexandria "under
the Caucasus" on the threshold of India.
Through all its history it remained definitely
Greek, and was a centre of Greek influence
until it fell before barbarian invaders.
As independent !Bactria was in revolt against
the Seleucid monarchs of Syria, and their
rivals, the Ptolemies of Egypt, maintained
an agent at the Bactrian court. These central
Asian states were intimately involved in
the intrigues of the Eastern Mediterranean.
Bactria did not so much revolt as drift away
from Seleucid control because the Seleucids
neglected it. About 248 Theodotus, the satrap
of Bactria, made himself independent: Justin
(41, 4) says that he ordered himself to be
called king, but evidence of this does not
appear on his coinage. Certainly his son
Diodotus or Theodotus II did so, and made
alliance with Parthia against his suzerain
at Antioch, a reversal of the policy of his
father, which was unpopular. He was slain
by Euthydemus, the husband of the daughter
of the widowed queen of Theodotus I, and
when the Seleucid Antiochus III blamed him
for slaying Diodotus he defended himself
by saying that he was no rebel but had killed
the son of a rebel (Polybius, 11) 34, 2),
which shows that contemporary opinion held
that Theodotus had revolted against his overlord.
In 208 Antiochus III "the Great"
tried to recover Bactria for the Seleucid
kingdom, but after two years fruitless siege
of Bactra Euthydemus threatened to call in
the Sakas (Scythians) and pointed out the
disaster Which would follow the advent of
these barbarians. Antiochus desisted from
his attempt and formally recognized the king
of Bactria's independence. In 190 Antiochus
himself suffered a severe defeat at the hands
of the Roman Scipio Asiaticus and for some
time the threat of Seleucid conquest was
averted. In the following year Euthydemus
himself died.
The next Bactrian monarch Demetrius had ambitions
of extending his kingdom in the Indian direction,
invaded India by the Hindu Kush, and in 175
occupied Pataliputra. This was but the first
stage of his advance. He then planned a great
invasion of the Punjab, dividing his forces
into three armies, all of which were to operate
in concert. He himself in command of the
first army occupied Gandhara and Taxila.
This Gandhara was known as "the second
Hellas" because so thoroughly Greek
and the Greek art which flourished there
was destined to spread eastwards and influence
the Far East. At the same time it was a "holy
land" of the Buddhists, a sanctity acquired
by the presence of three out of the four
great Buddhist stupas there. Buddha had never
visited the country, it had no associations
with his life or ministry, its holy character
depended entirely on the presence of these
monuments which enshrined important relics
of Buddha or of his garments. The second
army was entrusted to Menander, and this
forthwith seized Pataliputra the capital
of Sagala (Sialkot), the chief town of the
Madras, who also were Buddhists. The third
army was led by Demetrius' brother Apollodotus,
who proceeded to Barygaza, which may mean
Ujjain. By these operations Demetrius held
all North-West India. But the Seleucids did
not abandon their hope of recovering Bactria,
and in 168 Antiochus IV sent an expedition
led by his general, Eucratides, against Demetrius.
At the approach of the Seleucid army Demetrius
ordered Menander to abandon Pataliputra and
himself oined issue with Eucratides on the
west of the Hindu Kush and in this encounter
the Bactrian' were defeated and Demetrius
slain, Eucratides forthwith took Gandhara
and prepared for the invasion of India, but
waited for Antiochus, who planned himself
to be the leader of the expedition which
he hoped would be as glorious as that of
his great predecessor Alexander. Before the
invasion took place, however, Antiochus died
at Gabae in i63 (Polybius, 31, 9, 11). This
unexpected event left Eucratides to rule
conquered Bactria, but that was only for
a brief period; the Pai-thian King Mitliridates
intervened and secured Western Bactria for
himself, and not long afterwards (in 159-8)
Eucratides died. But the third invader Menander
was still left and he probably ruled Sagala
until 145. Most of his subjects were Buddhists
who favoured the Greeks, whom they regarded
as friends and saviours from the Hindus who
persecuted Buddhism. Menander is described
as being very well inclined towards the Buddhists,
but there is no proof that he actually embraced
their religion. In the Melindapanha there
is a legend that he did so, and there is
a Buddhist dialogue in which one of the interlocutors
is "Melinda", supposed to represent
Menander. By this time, however, Buddhism
was no longer expanding in Central Asia,
its future lay rather in the Far East.
Greek Bactzia came to an end between 141
and 128, an end brought about by the migration
of the Saka (Scythian) tribes of the Yueh-chi
who came from Northern China. They were,
of course, Mongolian tribes, for that is
the implication of the term Saka or Scythian.
in China their pastures had been taken from
them by another Mongol tribe, the Hiung-nu,
and so they migrated, some going south where
they founded a kingdom in China, others to
the west where they fell upon the tribe of
Wu-sun, killed their king, and occupied their
lands. But before long they were overtaken
by their old enemies the Hiung-nu, called
in by the defeated Wu-sun and were forced
to continue their march westwards. They next
attacked the Sai-wong tribes who fled south,
but about 160 B. C. they were themselves
attacked by the Wu-sun, led by the son of
their murdered king, and went farther west.
Then for a while they pass out of sight until
about 128 when they crossed the jaxartes,
then the Oxus, and occupied the provinces
of Bactria and Sogdiana, where they founded
a group of Saka states. Meanwhile the dispossessed
Sai-wong had seized the Greek province of
Ferghana and started another Saka principality
there. The coming of these semi-barbarous.
tribes completely submerged the political
and social life of the Central Asian Greek
kingdoms, at least for the time being. It
did not interfere with the Buddhist religion,
for most of the invading tribes turned Buddhist.
The Yueh-chi had come from China, and the
Chinese government had followed their subsequent
vicissitudes and in 128 the Chinese General
Chang-kien overtook them in Bactria and made
an alliance between them and China, and for
some time afterwards the Chinese endeavoured
to exercise some measure of control over
them, but about
48-35 they ceased to take any interest in
them.
Gradually the nomad tribes settled down and
shortly after 25 B. C. Kujala, chief of the
Kushan tribe, one of the group composing
the Yueh-chi horde, formed a Saka state in
Bactria and North-West India, a combination
of five older states, and this lasted for
two centuries. By that time Bactria or Balkh
had become a holy land of Buddhism and this
sanctity was developed under the Kushan kings
until Buddhist pilgrims came from many parts
to visit the numerous topes or relic shrines
which abounded there.
For some time Kushan Bactria is of interest
chiefly as a factor in the evolution of organized
Buddhism. Then it became a rising power in
North-West India under King Kadphises I.
Already King-hien and other Chinese scholars
had visited Bactria when in A. D. 64 copies
of Buddhist books wer e sent to the Chinese
Emperor Ming-ti, with the result that in
the following year Buddhism was added to
the religions officially recognized in China.
Under Kadphises II (A. D. 85-123) commercial
intercourse with the Roman Empire, chiefly
by sea rather than the land route through
Marw, was greatly developed, as is noted
elsewhere (above).
The third Kushan king, Kanishka (A. D. 123-153),
was a convert to Buddhism. Conditions had
so far changed that Kushan had checked Chinese
expansion and many Chinese hostages, including
Han, the son of the Chinese Emperor, were
taken to Balkh. For them Kanishka built a
monastery in Kapisa, and in the cold season
they were transferred to a place called Chinapati,
whose site is unknown. Under this king the
coinage still followed a Greek model and
shows a degenerate form of Greek inscription.
At the Kushan court there were sculptors,
trained chiefly in the school of the frontier
province of Gandhara, who followed Hellenistic
models. By this time Buddha was deified and
worshipped, and statues representing him
began to appear and take their place in Buddhist
temples in place of the older allusive symbols.
The earliest images were produced in Gandhara
and so were designed on Greek lines, reproductions
of Greek images of Apollo. Gandhara art shows
Greek inspiration and carried Greek influence
through the great part of the Buddhist corn
munity, so that even in China and Japan figures
of Buddha show a Greek character, especially
in the drapery. True to Greek standards this
type of Buddha was simply a handsome man.
But there were some Buddhists who were dissatisfied
with this Greek type of their deity and wanted
a more mystical and spiritualized figure,
not a purely human form, however perfect,
and so in Mathura on the great high road
between Alexandria "under the Caucasus
"and Pataliputra another type was devised,
at first a clumsy modification of the Gandhara
figure, but finally developed as a saintly
and spiritualized character which, however,
still betrayed its Greek origin.
(2) THE ROAD THROUGH MARW
Our main interest here is with the overland
route between the Roman Empire and the Far
East. That route led from the Syrian border
to Marw, a city founded by Antiochus I
(280-240 B. C.) as a Greek colony with surrounding
agricultural settlements, all predominantly
Greek, both city and rural area frequently
recruited by fresh Greek colonists. Under
the Parthian kings this became a mart where
Roman and Chinese trade met. At the time
of the Arab conquest and for long afterwards
this was a scene of great prosperity, producing
silk and fine cotton when those materials
were still rare and costly in the Roman Empire.
Before that conquest the western quarter
or rabad had much increased in population,
and in early Arab times the main business
part of the city had removed to this quarter.
To Marw the la Persian King Yazdegird III
fled on his defeat and there he was overtaken
by the Arabs in 651 and killed at a mill
in the village of Raziq close by. The Christian
(Nestorian) bishop took the deceased monarch's
body to Pa-i-Baban and buried it there (Tabari,
Ann., i, 2881), an incident suggesting that
the Nestorians formed an important element
in the city. There was a great Nestorian
monastery at Masergasan north of the quarter
known later as Sultan-Qal'a, adjoining Rabad
(Tabari, Ann., ii, 1925). Marw seems to have
been an outpost of Hellenism, with a considerable
proportion of Christians, both Nestorians
and Monophysites, in its population, no doubt
largely swelled by the many captives taken
by Khusraw II from the Romans and sent far
east for safe custody.
Marw, Bactria, and Sogdiana were all centres
of Hellenism. The Saka conquest of Bactria
checked, but did not destroy this Hellenic
element. Meanwhile the western end of the
route also had its vicissitudes. There the
chief barrier between the Greek and oriental
world was Parthia which was encroaching upon
the Seleucid dominions and about
150 B. C. absorbed Mesopotamia. But Parthian
advance was checked. Not long after the invasion
of Mesopotamia came the Saka penetration
of the eastern provinces. On the other hand
the Seleucid monarchy ceased to be a serious
obstacle when in 129 B. C. Antiochus Sidetes
was defeated and slain by the Parthians,
though they were not able to follow up this
victory effectively because the Sakas were
already menacing their eastern frontier.
This defeat left Syria too weak to defend
herself from foes gathering round and only
waiting for an opportunity to seize her territory.
Already Arab tribes were encroaching on the
eastern parts of Syria and a native dynasty
at Edessa had declared its independence in
I32, whilst the whole country was subject
to incursions of Arab tribes who before long
began preying oil Parthia as well. Thus Mesopotamia
became a neutral territory covered by minor
native states over which neither the Seleucid
king at Antioch nor the King of Parthia could
exercise control.
A more formidable foe appeared in 79 B. C.
in Tigranes King of Armenia, a land of hardy
highlanders which had resisted Greek penetration.
Tigranes easily conquered Syria, but at that
time the Romans were expanding round the
Mediterranean, and before long Pompey defeated
the Armenians, took Syria out of their hands
and made it a Roman province, with the exception
of Commagene in the north-east, which was
left as a vassal state under native princes.
Pompey so far stabilized existing conditions
as to recognize the Euphrates as a natural
boundary between Parthia and the Roman Empire,
though this did not prevent the Romans accepting
Osrohene, with its capital Edessa, as a client
state, although it was on the Parthian side
of the river.
There was a chain of Arab states extending
from the Armenian border to North Arabia,
the most important of which was Palmyra.
Augustus, who respected Pompey's recognition
of the Euphrates as the frontier between
Persia and the Roman Empire, seems to have
regarded these Arab settlements as a kind
of "buffer states" tending to protect
the eastern frontier of the Empire from Parthia.
From the time of Trajan onwards the history
of Western Asia centred in the prolonged
duel between Rome and Parthia, or Persia,
which was only Parthia reorganized under
a new dynasty, and this duel had successes
varying from time to time between the two
combatants. The hinterland of Syria was never
thoroughly Hellenized, the church councils
there were conducted in Greek, but the bishops
from Mesopotamia had to use the services
of interpreters (Schwartz, Acta Concil. Oetum.,
II, i, 184, 193), and the clergy of Edessa
sent a petition to the Council of Chalcedon
in which more than a third of the signatures
were in Syriac (ibid-, 35).
The Sasanid revolution of A. D. 226 placed
a new Persian dynasty on the throne which
had been that of Parthia. This revolution,
like most such movements in oriental lands,
had a religious bearing. It not only set
on the throne a legitimist claimant who was
accepted as descended from the demi-gods
of ancient times, but it led to a drastic
reformation of the religion founded by Zoroaster.
The first Sasanid monarch Ardashir began
his reign with a general council of Mazdean
clergy which resolved the many sectarian
difficulties between the various sections
into which the Persian community was divided,
and standardized the worship and scriptural
canon. In history Mazdeanism appears generally
as a tolerant creed, save in dealing with
dissenters from itself, such as Mani and
Mazdek, but it seems to have passed through
a period of active propaganda, of which there
are no details, in the course of which the
religion of Zoroaster spread over the eastern
provinces of the kingdom, so that at the
coming of Islam Bactria, Sogdiana, and Ferghana
were largely, but by no means entirely, Mazdean,
with a strong Buddhist minority which proved
rather a problem to the Muslim conquerors.
Thus the Barmaks, heirs of the hereditary
Buddhist abbots of Nawa Bahar, possessors
of great wealth chiefly derived from the
offerings of generations of Buddhist pilgrims,
are represented as being fire-worshippers
until their conversion to Islam.
The Barmakids were especially associated
with the city of Marw, whither they had removed
from Bactria, and they were pnme movers in
the 'Abbasid revolution. That revolution
led to the dominance of Persian influence
and to at least a partial Persianization
of the Arab state, the Muslim religion, and
Arabic literature. It was a ew from Marw,
Mashallah ibn Athari (d. 813-820), who was
one of the astrologers called in at the foundation
of Baghdad and the author of works on astronomy
and mathematics which show Greek influence.
It was another Jew of Marw Sahl ibn Rabban
at-Tabari (c. 8oo) who came to Baghdad and
made the first Arabic translation of Euclid's
Elements.
CHAPTER IX BUDDHISM AS A POSSIBLE MEDIUM
(1) RISE OF BUDDHISM
THE Hindu religion based on the cults of
the Aryan invaders of India but incorporating
elements from the primitive religions surviving
amongst the conquered aborigines, was fully
developed long before Alexander's invasion,
and had evolved a rigorous caste system which
divided its adherents into sharply defined
and exclusive groups, raising barriers against
intercourse with the outside world. But about
the fifth to sixth centuries B. C. there
were several religious movements, especially
in North-West India, which tended to break
away from Hindu ritualism all showing a certain
mystic tendency with an ascetic element and
a great regard for the sanctity of human
and animal life. One such movement produced
the ain religion which never spread beyond
the borders of India, another was the religion
of Buddha, in its earlier period a minor
ascetic sect, but afterwards growing and
spreading until it became one of the great
world religions. Both these reli ions had
their roots in the already existing Sankhya
system of philosophy commenced by Kapila.
The Jain religion was founded by Mahavira,
who preached in the kingdom of Magadha (South
Bihar) in North-West India probably about
507 B. C. Gautama Buddha gathered a monastic
order around him in the deer park at Sarnath,
near Benares and died about 480 B. C., but
his teaching spread in the South East Gangetic
area, Kosala (Oudh), and Magadha. Thus both
these religions were connected with Magadha.
The whole country of Magadha was regarded
as unfit for the sacrificial fire, so that
no Hindu sacrifice could be offered there,
and it was not a place in which Brahmans
of noble and pure descent could live. This
absence of Brahmans encouraged greater freedom
of thought and favoureed the rise of new
religious views, in some measure critical
of accepted doctrine (Nalinaksha Dutt, Early
Monastic Buddhism, i, Calcutta, 1941, 140).
Neither of these two religions tried to overturn
the existing Hindu caste system, indeed jains
continued to employ Brahinans as domestic
chaplains, but in both the laity obtained
a more prominent place and caste divisions
gradually lost a great deal of their significance.
In the fourth century Magadha was, it is
said, ruled by kings of the Nanda dynasty
though that dynasty of seven monarchs is
often regarded as legendary, Indian political
history beginning only at the appearance
of the Maurya dynasty about 323 B. C., three
or four years after Alexander's invasion,
but it is perhaps rash to ignore entirely
the legends of earlier kings. The last Nanda
king is said to have been of low caste and
heretical in religion, an enemy to the two
higher castes of Brahmans or priests and
Kshatriyas or warriors, but himself rich
and powerful. There is no proof that he was
a Jain or a Buddhist.
About 323-2, in the disorder resulting from
Alexander's invasion, Chandragupta, of the
Maurya dynasty, revolted and deposed the
Nanda kings and founded an independent state.
He was a man of military ability and defeated
Seleucus Nicator in 305-4 who attempted to
enforce his authority over the eastern provinces
of Persia after recovering Babylon in 312
After his defeat he made a treaty with Chandragupta,
recognizing him as King of Magadha (in 303),
and in 301 placed a Greek agent Megasthenes
at the Magadha court. Megasthenes wrote a
book descriptive of India and Indian customs,
which is known to us only in citations made
by Clement of Alexandria and Strabo.
The next king of Magadha was Bindusara (297-272
B. C.), at whose court Megasthenes was replaced
by Daimachos, who corresponded with Antiochus
Soter. Both these two Maurya kings were regarded
by the Hindus as upstarts and unclean, not
being of priestly or warrior caste.
The third king of this dynasty, Asoka, was
converted to Buddhism, which attached no
importance to caste, and gave an enthusiastic
support to his adopted religion. He summoned
a third general Buddhist council to be held
in the Asokarama in Pataliputra, a village
which had been visited by Buddha at one time,
and at this council eighteen sectarian differences
were debated and settled and what was of
greater moment, it was decreed that Buddhism
should embark on missionary enterprise and
carry forward the "Law of Piety "to
all the nations of the world. In accordance
with this missionaries were sent out to the
south and west, but not to the east. No reference
to this council occurs in the Sanskrit authorities,
whilst the third council mentioned in the
Sanskrit books is described as having been
held in Kashmir under Kanishka, this council
being ignored in the Pali records which describe
the council of Asoka. By these missionary
efforts the island of Ceylon was converted
to Buddhism of the primitive type, such as
is known as Hinyana, and there are surviving
records of that mission and its work. The
Ceylon chronicles also refer to missionary
work in the west. They state that a person
named Maharakshitra led a body of missionaries
to Yavana, the land of the Ionians or Greeks,
but give no details of their work. At that
time the Seleucid Empire extended to the
Hindu Kush and politically of course all
up to that boundary was reckoned as Greek.
It was not until the later years of Asoka
that the Parthians threw off the Seleucid
yoke, and it was later still when Bactria
withdrew from Greek control and made itself
independent by gradual stages. Probably missionary
work amongst the Greeks simply meant amongst
the people of Bactria and Sogdiana, which
were under Greek rule and which afterwards
appear as strongholds of the Buddhist religion.
(2) DID BUDDHISM SPREAD WEST?
Asoka endeavoured to spread Buddhism by a
series of edicts in which he set forth the
"Law of Piety". In the publication
of these edicts he followed the precedent
of the Achaemenid kings of Persia, who had
carved decrees on the rocks at Bahistan and
elsewhere. Some thirty-four edicts of Asoka
are known to survive, fourteen on the rock
face, seven on pillars, others in less prominent
places. They are widely scattered from Afghanistan
to Mysore. They were written either in the
Prakrit language or in the vernacular of
the locality: one is in three vernaculars,
the Magadha dialect one of them. Though Prakrit
is a later development from Sanskrit, 7 these
are the earliest Indian documents, for the
Sanskrit Vedas were transmitted orally and
not committed to writing until long after
the time of Asoka. The edicts are in the
script known as Karoshti, a modification
of the ancient Aramaic writing which had
been introduced into the Punjab by the Persians
in the fifth and fourth centuries B. C. The
use of this means of instructing the people
obviously implied that there were those who
could read what was written, and this strongly
suggests that Viharas or Buddhist monasteries
were planted out near where the inscriptions
were placed so that monks could read and
enlarge upon the teaching they contained.
It can hardly be supposed that a literary
education, even of the most elementary sort,
had spread amongst the tribes of Central
Asia.
In the Bhabra edict an address to the monastic
order generally, we read of the "conquest
by the Law of Piety... won by his Sacred
Majesty inhis own dominions and in all the
neighbouring realms as far as 6, ooo leagues
where the Greek king named Antiyaka (Antiochus
II) dwells, and north of that Antiyaka, where
dwell the four kings severally named Turamay
(Ptolemy), Antigonus (Gonatus), Maga (Magas
of Cyrene), and Alexander (of Epirus?), and
in the south the (realms of the) Cholas and
Pandyas, with Ceylon also: and here, too,
in the king's dominions, amongst the Yonas
(Greeks) and Kambojas and Ptinkas, amongst
the Andhras and the Pulindas, everywhere
men follow his Sacred Majesty's instruction
in the Law of Piety". On the face of
it this seems to claim missionary enterprise
throughout the Greek world, not necessarily
that the princes were converted, but that
generally they received Asoka's mission graciously
(Senart in J. A. (1885), 290 sqq.). Magas
of Cyrene and Alexander of Epirus died about
258 B. c., so probably were not alive at
the date of this decree.
Besides these inscriptions Asoka left cave
temples and rock carvings. There are also
early coins and tokens representing sacred
objects of the Buddhist religion, the elephant
of which Buddha's mother dreamed before his
birth, the tree under which his enlightenment
took place, the wheel which represents his
teaching, and the burial mound which marked
the place where he died. How far Buddhism
really spread into the Greek world is problematical.
A Buddhist gravestone found at Alexandria
and a monument definitely Buddhist in its
symbols found at Axum are the Main traces,
but both these places were trading ports
closely connected with the Indian trade,
and it would have been likely enough that
an Indian merchant or traveller may have
died in either place. The Ceylon chronicles
describe Asoka as having converted a large
number of Yonas or Greeks, and as having
sent a Yona named Dhammarakkita as a missionary
to Aparanta on the coast of Gujerat. No doubt
Yona simply means an Asiatic who lived under
Greek rule.
According to the Puranas the Maurya dynasty
of Magadha came to an end in i84, when the
last king was murdered by a fanatical Brahman
named Sunga Pushyamitra, who seized the throne
and began to persecute the Buddhists. The
result of this was that Buddhists favoured
the Greek invaders whenever the Seleucids
sent forces to recover the territory which
once had been theirs in India.
The Ceylon Buddhist chronicle, known as the
Mahavarnsa, probably of the fourth century
A. D., contains versions of some early Indian
traditions, and speaks of a thero or Buddhist
abbot of Yona (Yavana) who gathered round
him 30,000 ascetes in the neighbourhood of
Alasanda, the capital of the Yona country
(Mahavamsa, trs. Turnour,, p.
171). It would be absurd to suppose that
Alasanda denotes Alexandria in Egypt and
that there were 30,000 Buddhist monks there.
The Mahavamsa pictures this assembly of ascetes
as taking place at the foundation of the
Maha thupo or "great tope" of Rusawelli
by King Dutthagamini in 157 B. C., and gives
details which are of a fictitious character,
of stones which moved into place by themselves,
of work done by demons (dewoi), which cannot
be regarded as historical. The thero or abbot
was the same Dhammarakkito who is described
as being the Greek Buddhist sent to preach
in Gujerat. There are several Alexandrias,
some in Bactria, Sogdiana, and Gandara, all
lands under Greek rule until about I30 B.
C., and so -naturally classed by Indian writers
as Yavana "the land of the Greeks The
Alexandria intended in the Mahavamsa may
have been Alexandria "under the Caucasus
the "Queen of the Mountains "of
the Alexander romance. It was in Opiane,
and Alexander founded it on his way northward
by the road from Seistan to Kabul as he went
towards the Hindu Kush "in radicibus
montis" (Curtius, vii, 3, 23). Tarn
shows good reason for believing that this
Alexandria and Kapisa formed a double city,
such as was not uncommon in Asia, and the
Greek half, Alexandria proper, was on the
west bank of the River Panjshir-Ghorband.
Its exact site is not known as the locality
has not yet been excavated. This was an area
in which Buddhism spread in the age of Asoka
and it long remained predominantly Buddhist.
There are great Buddhist sculptures at Bamyan
close by.
The chief argument against Buddhist activity
in the Greek world is the very defective
knowledge displayed of anything that can
be recognized as Buddhist in extant remains
of Greek and Roman writers save in those
few who, like Megasthenes,, had visited India
or had met Indian envoys who came to western
lands. Megasthenes was the Seleucid agent
at the court of Magadha from 301 to 297 B.
C., but his work on India is known only in
citations by Strabo and Clement of Alexandria.
Strabo mentions Indian priests known as Σαρμάνας,
which probably represents the Buddhist Sramanas
(Strabo, xv, 1, 59). Clement of Alexandria
refers to the Σαρμαναίοι Βάκ“ρων undoubtedly
Buddhist priests or ascetes of the Bactrians,
and to two classes of gymnosophists known
as Σαρμάναι and Βραφμαναι (Clemens Alexandrinus,
Stromat., i, 15). In this he is citing Megasthenes.
The latter term doubtless means Brahmans,
whilst the former seems to represent Buddhist
Sramanas. From some unknown authority he
quotes that "there are some of the Indians
who trusting in the precepts of Buddha (Βομ““α)
because of his exceeding holiness regard
him as (εις for ως) a god" (ibid.).
But he misses the identification of these
worshippers of Buddha with the Σαρμαναίοι
or Σαρμαναι already mentioned. Elsewhere
he speaks of certain Indian ascetes known
as "holy men"
(Σεμνοι), who are not to be classed with
gymnosophists and have sacred buildings in
the form of pyramids (ibid., 3, 7), and these
no doubt Were Buddhists. Megasthenes' remark
that there are Indians who honour Buddha
as a god is interesting as showing that in
his days Buddhism was already passing out
of its primitive stage in which Buddha was
simply a religious teacher and was entering
the later development in which he was deified.
The, deification of Buddha is usually ascribed
to the spread of the principle of brakti
or personal devotion to a deity, a principle
evolved in the Bragavata religion which penetrated
Buddhism about 100 B. C. and led to the representation
of Buddha in human form, the early images
strongly influenced by Greek art, especially
in the details of their drapery.
An account of Buddhism was given by the Syrian
writer Bar Daisan, who obtained his information
from Indian envoys passing through Syria
on their way to Elagabalus or some other
Antonine emperor. He does not refer to Buddhists
by name, but speaks of Σαρμαναίοι : this
is cited by Porphyry (De abstin., iv, 17)
and by Stobaeus (Eccles., iii, 56, 141).
In the embassy sent by a king of Pandya to
Augustus somewhere about A. D. 13, there
was an Indian fanatic who burned himself
alive in Athens, an event which made a great
stir. The incident is described by Nicolaus
of Damascus, who met the embassy at Antioch
and his account is quoted by Strabo (xvi,
1, 73, 270) and by Dio Cassius
(liv, 9). This fanatic's tomb was still to
be seen in the days of Plutarch and bore
the inscription--
ΖΑΡΜΑΝΟΧΗΓΑΣ . ΙΝΔΟΣ . ΑΠΟ . ΒΑΡΓΟΣΗΣ.
The first word possibly represents Sramanokarja
or "teacher of ascetes", which
denotes one of the superior class of Buddhist
clergy. Probably the name ΒΑΡΓΟΣΗΣ means
Barygaza on the Indian coast.
This rather scanty and scattered information
represents what could be learned from Indian
embassies comng to the Roman Empire or from
travellers' reports. It gives no indication
of anything which would have been gained
from Buddhist propaganda in the Graeco-Roman
world and this, in conjunction with the silence
of the Ceylon chronicles, seems conclusive.
The belief that there must have been effective
Buddhist missions as far as Egypt rests on
the assumption that the Christian ascetic
life which arose in Egypt necessarily had
a Buddhist origin, but this is not proved:
Egyptian monasticism had an independent origin
which can be satisfactorily traced. The later
philosophical schools of Alexandria were
fond of referring to Indian ascetes, but
do not show any real familiarity with them.
There remains the possibility that the teaching
of the Gnostic sects which arose in Mesopotamia
give signs of Buddhist influence. That seems
likely, but here again there is as yet no
definite proof.
(3) BUDDHIST BACTRIA
About A. D. 45 the Romans obtained greater
familiarity with the phenomenon of the monsoons
and as a result there was a quickening of
the intercourse between the western world
and the coast of India, and especially with
North-West India, where at the time was the
well ordered and prosperous state of Kushan.
This made the Kushan ports marts for trade
with the Roman Empire and through them great
wealth passed into the Indian world. India
also benefited culturally from this intercourse
with the west, as appears from the impress.
of Greek thought on Indian philosophy. The
rules of the syllogism in logic, as given
by Carake-samhita (circ. A. D. 78) and Aksopada
(circ. A. D.
150) are entirely drawn from Aristotle (cf
M. M. Satis Chandra Vidyabhusana in JRAS.
(1918), 469).
Kushan was a wealthy and prosperous state
when its third king, Kanishka, ascended the
throne in A. D. 123. A great warrior he had
conquered Kashmir and set up his capital
at Purushapura (Peshawar). He was a convert
to the Buddhist religion and used every opportunity
to spread its teaching through his kingdom,
which spread over a great part of North-West
India. Under Kushan rule Balkh or Bactria
came to be known as "the little Ra agriha
", second in sanctity only to the area
where Buddha had actually lived and taught.
Buddha had never lived in Balkh, but the
country possessed an exceptional number of
lopes or shrines cotaining some portions
of his body or fragments of his clothing.
Many of those shrines owed their erection
to King Asoka, and in their design show plain
traces of Greek art. At Kanishka's court
were many sculptors who had been trained
in the frontier state of Gandhara, where
Greek models still dominated local art, and
that Gandhara-Greek art spread through Chinese
Turkestan, then into China, and ultimately
to Japan, carrying with it a form of sculpture
and decoration which clearly shows its Greek
origin (cf. A. Foucher, Beginnings of Buddhist
Art, trans. F. W. Thomas, 1917).
It is said that Kanishka, in his enthusiasm
for Buddhism, carried off the Buddhist saint
Asvaghosa to his capital. This holy man was
a convert from Hinduism and joined the Buddhist
sect, or rather school, of the Sarvastivada,
whose teaching was mainly based on the doctrine
of saving grace by faith. Under Kanishka
the Buddhists held another general council
which resulted in the composition or revision
of the authorized commentaries on the three
sacred Pitakas. From the Sarvastivada sect
arose the Mahyana doctrine which gradually
replaced the older Buddhist doctrine called
Hinyana, Buddhism like other religions passing
through a series of developments. The Buddhist
aim was the path of deliverance from this
world of illusion. The vehicle or yana in
the older teaching was asceticism by which
man might with difficulty approach the Buddha:
this the reformers called hinyana "the
lesser vehicle" their own teaching was
that by faith a man can enter into union
with Buddha, and this they called Mahayana
"the greater vehicle".
Although the revival of the Hindu religion
gradually led to the extinction of Buddhism
in India, that religion long remained a means
of promoting international intercourse, being
free from the caste restrictions of Brahmanism.
Balkh had become Buddhist under its Kushan
rulers and was visited by foreign pilgrims,
especially from China and Ceylon. About 405-410
the Chinese Buddhist Fa-hien travelled to
Northern India in search of authentic texts
of the Buddhist monastic books and has left
us an account of his travels. He says that
between the Indus and jumna there was a series
of Buddhist monasteries and thousands of
monks. This was under the Gupta King Chandragupta
II. Fa-hien states that the people of Khotan
were all Buddhists, mostly of the Mahayana
school. In Pataliputra there were two monasteries,
one of the Hinyana school, the other of the
Mahayana.
After Fa-hien there was fairly regular intercourse
between China and Northern India and Balkh,
Chinese pilgrims visiting lands so rich in
relics of Buddha. This did not continue quite
until the Muslim penetration of Persia, for
before that event it seems that there was
a revival of the Mazdean religion in Persia,
and some at least of the Buddhist monasteries
in Balkh were transferred from the Buddhists
to the followers of Zoroaster.
After the sixth century, during which the
Gupta dynasty was involved in obscurity,
the centre of interest shifts to Thanesar,
north of Delhi, where a raja named Harsha
(6o6-646-7), after a series of wars lasting
thirty-five years, produced a strong and
well-ordered state. Educated by Brahmans
and by Buddhist monks this monarch, at first
a disciple of the Hinyana, then of the Mahayana
school, evolved an eclectic type of Buddhism
which he propagated with great ardour. At
that time Buddhism was losing its hold on
the Gangetic plain which was its original
home, but it was still powerful in India
though the religion of a minority. Harsha's
capital was Kanauj. Chinese pilgrims still
came to Magadha and Balkh, amongst them Hiuen-Tsang,
who sought authentic copies of the Buddhist
scriptures and boasts of having taken home
to China 150 relics of Buddha's body or clothing.
He has left a description of hisjoumeys and
of the lands through which he passed, his
interest mainly centred in matters connected
with the Buddhist religion. Balkh he calls
Po-ho, there he was well received by the
governor, who told him that the land "is
called the little Rajagriha, its sacred relics
are exceedingly numerous" (St. Julien,
Hist. de la Vieΰ, 64) On the west of the
capital city was the great convent of Nawbahar
(Skr. nava pihara, "new monastery").
The hereditary abbot of this monastery bore
the title of Barmak, and from these Barmaks
was descended the Barmakid family which became
so prominent under the early 'Abbasids. In
Muslim times it was supposed that the monastery
of Nawbahar had been Mazdean, but Ibn al-Faqih
(edit. De Goeje, 322) describes its great
temple as devoted to idols and frequented
by pilgrims from India, Kabul, and China.
If it had been a Mazdean temple there would
have been no idols nor would there have been
pilgrims from lands where fire-worship was
unknown: in any case the accounts left by
Chinese visitors put its Buddhist character
beyond dispute. No doubt it was converted
into a fire temple during the Mazdean revival
which preceded the Muslim conquest. Tradition
associated Khurasan with the tise of the
religion of Zoroaster in Achaemenid times,
and it is quite possible that Mazdeanism
was inclined to treat Bactria and Sogdiana
as sacred from that association.
Another distinguished Chinese traveller was
I-tsing, who made his pilgrimage. during
A. D. 671-695, and for about eleven years
(675-685) was an inmate of the Nalanda monastery.
As Buddhism lost its hold on India it took
more and more an international character
and assumed importance as supplying the motive
for steady intercourse between the Far East
and Central Asia, connecting China with Magadha
and Balkh in religious interests and so ultimately
with the Hellenic world. In tracing the part
played by Buddhism no attention has been
paid to Tibet, although Buddhism is said
to have been introduced there by King Srong-Ban
Gampo, the founder of Llhasa, in 629-650,
for Tibetan Buddhism really traces from monks
of Magadha who conducted missionary work
in Tibet as late as the eleventh century.
In connection with the strongly marked Buddhist
element in Eastern Persia reference should
be made to Bamiyan, the chief city of East
Ghur, south of Balkh, where was an important
Buddhist centre. In the thirteenth century
Yaqut described two great images of Buddha
there in a large chamber excavated in the
mountain side, images known as Sushk Bud
"the red Buddha" and Khing Bud
"the grey Buddha", which still
existed in his days. They are mentioned also
by Qazwinu. Bamiyan was destroyed by Changiz
Khan.
It seems fairly certain that Buddhism promoted
intercourse between the Graeco-Roman world,
especially Alexandria, and the parts of India
comprised in the Gupta Empire, more particularly
at Pataliputra, where Indian scholarship
shows distinct traces of Greek influence.
(4) IBRAHIM IBN ADHAM
There is a curious addendum to the history
of Buddhist influence on Islam in the life
of the saint Abu Ishaq Ibrahim ibn Adham,
who died between 776 and 783. This saint
was a noted ascete, a type not very common
in primitive Islam. He perished in the course
of a naval expedition against Constantinople,
which may be taken as an historical fact.
Less convincing, however, are the details
of his earlier life. It is related that he
was a prince of Balkh (Bactria) who was converted
to the service of God whilst engaged in hunting
and forthwith abandoned all worldly honours
and material possessions in response to the
Divine Call. But careful examination of his
biography shows that it is a Muslim version
of the life of Gautama Buddha, and it seems
reasonable to suppose that this came into
Muslim hands through Marw, where there was
a strong Buddhist tradition. Possibly the
story was introduced into Muslim circles
during the earlier 'Abbasid period.
CHAPTER X THE KHALIFATE OF DAMASCUS
(1) CONQUEST OF SYRIA
A MAP of the physical features of Western
Asia and North-East Africa shows two important
river valleys, one of the Tigris an. d Euphrates,
the other of the Nile, and between them high
ground, broken rather abruptly by the Red
Sea. These conditions are due to geological
changes with which we are not at present
directly concerned: we start from a point
when the two great river valleys already
existed, with a good deal of barren highland
between. Those two valleys were the homes
of two primitive civilizations, which was
the earlier is still not decided. In both
cases the rivers concerned overflowed and
flooded the surrounding country regularly
every year, and the particular river-valley
culture which grew up there was based on
the artificial control of these regular inundations,
draining the swamps and directing the water
so as to fertilize the fields. It is commonly
assumed that in primitive society land was
held in common, each member of the tribe
entitled to his share, but not to permanent
ownership of any particular piece. Whether
this is universally true is disputed, probably
it does apply so long as tribes are nomadic.
But in the river-valley culture of Mesopotamia
and Egypt the productivity of each field
depended a great deal on human labour, irrigating
and draining the land, so that private ownership
developed at a fairly early date and population
became stationary. The people of the barren
highlands between the river valleys remained
nomads, not recognizing the rights of private
property and in all respects at a much more
primitive stage of social evolution than
the settled inhabitants of the valleys. The
life of those nomads was hard and bare, it
generally was, and still is, on the border
of starvation; there always was a temptation
for those nomads to raid the fertile and
productive settlements, and when their numbers
became too great to be able to make a living
out of the meagre resources of the desert
highlands, they tended to overflow into the
valleys. Thus all through ancient history
the kingdoms of Assyria, Babylonia, and Egypt
found their nomadic neighbours a perpetual
nuisance, and it was always necessary to
provide for the protection of the frontiers,
those frontiers being the precise level at
which it ceased to be practicable to raise
the water from the rivers to irrigate and
fertilize the land. Whenever military power
so far decreased as to make the guardianship
of the frontiers insufficient to protect
the settled country from Arab raiders, then
Arabs came down to raid the country, then
to settle in the rich and productive territory
and reap the benefits of a cultivation at
others' expense, usually subjugating and
sometimes enslaving the unwarlike population
already settled there.
Such a raiding and settlement took place
towards the end of the seventh century A.
D., when the raiding Arabs were united in
a religious fraternity based on the religion
taught by the Prophet Muhammad. It does not
seem that Muhammad himself had any project
of foreign conquest, but such conquest followed
because the people of the area invaded were
exhausted by prolonged warfare, distracted
by internal divisions, and disaffected by
harsh government, though some of that harshness
was the inevitable result of war conditions.
The success of their expeditions seems to
have surprised the Arabs and encouraged them
to undertake the permanent occupation of
the countries they had conquered. They had
not the least desire to cultivate the soil
or settle down to agricultural work, their
idea was to establish a military occupation
and live on the fruits of the toil of the
native inhabitants. In this they were, no
doubt, influenced by the precedent of the
Arabs stationed along the Persian and Roman
frontiers. On both those frontiers it had
been found impossible to dislodge the Arab
tribes and both countries tried the same
solution, permitting the tribesmen to settle
there and paying them a subsidy on condition
that they guarded the frontier against any
other Arabs who tried to invade the Persian
or Roman territories. The Arabs already settled
and paid were greatly envied by the hungry
nomads of the desert, their existence seemed
an ideal one, and when they conquered the
eastern provinces of the Roman Empire and
the kingdom of Persia they counted on living
a similar kind of life, occupied in hunting
and occasional warfare and supported by the
tribute paid them by the conquered population.
Nor were the conquered people unwilling to
toil and pay tribute, as they were to be
disarmed and freed from the hated military
service which was the task they most disliked.
It is a debated point whether Muhammad intended
his religion to be a universal one, or for
the Arabs alone. Qur'an 34, 27, says, "We
have sent thee to mankind at large, to announce
and threaten." But the context shows
that this refers to the Prophet warning men
of the approaching end of the world and is
itself one of the signs that the end is near,
and is thus interpreted by tradition (Bukhari,
Sahih, i, 93, d. 1: Muslim, Sahih, i, 53,
55). It is necessary for all Arabs to believe
in Muhammad if they are to escape hell
(Muslim, i, 54), but it is not stated to
be necessary for non-Arabs to believe, though
those who join gods to God, that is to say,
are polytheists, are doomed to hell in any
case. As regards the non-Arab world, the
Qur'an seems to contemplate conquest rather
than conversion (Qur., ix, 19-23). One passage
in the Qur'an says, "and one day We
will summon up in every people a witness
against them from themselves and We will
bring thee (Muhammad) up as a witness against
them: for to thee We have sent down the book
which makes all things clear, a guidance
and a mercy, and glad tidings to those who
reconcile themselves with God" (Qur.,
18, 91). In another place the Qur'an says,
"thus We have made you a central people
that ye may be witnesses in regard to mankind,
and that the Apostle (Muhammad) may be a
witness in regard to you" (Qur., 2,
137). But these passages fall far short of
a definite missionary command to go forth
and preach Islam to all the nations of the
earth.
In the later years of his ministry Muhammad
preached his religion to all the Arabs and
endeavoured to unite the tribes in one confederacy.
"Fight until there is no more civil
discord and no worship save that of God"
(Qur., 2, 189): "fight against those
who oppose you, but do not attack first"
(Qur., 2, 186), "kill and expel them"
(Qur., 2, 187): "when the sacred month
is over slay the polytheists, but spare the
pagan Arabs who are in league with you"
(Qur., 9, 1-4), but these commands were preparatory
to the reduction and unification of Arabia.
They find their best explanation in Muhammad's
own conduct, for he strove hard to draw all
the Arabs into his fold, though tolerating
those who were "people of the book",
i. e. Christians or Jews. His attitude was
endorsed by the policy of the early khalifs,
men who had been his intimate companions
and trained by him, men who knew his outlook
as no others could, and they for some time
insisted on all converts to the religion
of Islam also becoming members of an Arab
tribe. Much weight must be attached to the
expressed reluctance of the older Muslims
to spread wider into the outside world lest
the multitude of strangers brought in as
converts might outnumber the native Arabs,
by their influence changing the character
of their religion and mode of life, apprehensions
which subsequent events showed were justified.
The traditional and legendary biography of
Muhammad attributed to Ibn Ishaq and known
to us in an edition expurgated by Ibn Hisham
represents him as sending letters to foreign
monarchs, the King of Persia, the Roman Emperor,
and others, inviting them to become Muslims,
but that biography was composed in its earliest
form about a century after Muhammad and contains
a great deal which cannot be regarded as
historical.
There can be no question that Muhammad intended
to include all the Arabs in the brotherhood
of Islam. Those Arabs were the inhabitants
of Arabia, not quite the artificial Arabia
marked on the atlas, but all the desert highlands
of Western Asia, spreading up into a tongue
in Syria. In that northern area, between
the two great monarchies of ParthiaPersia
and Rome were the two groups of border tribes
subsidized by the monarchies and to some
extent settled and civilized. Muhammad was
very anxious to draw these border tribes
into his fraternity. The Arabs along the
Persian frontier had some grievances against
Persia and joined the Muslims, but threw
off their allegiance as soon as Muhammad
was dead. In order to gain the Arabs of the
Syrian (Roman) frontier Muhammad sent an
envoy to invite them to embrace Islam, but
that envoy was killed at Bosra, a crime against
the Arab tradition of the sacred character
of an ambassador. So an army was sent under
Zayd to avenge this. But the border Arabs
being in Roman employ obtained the help of
Roman legionaries and defeated the Arabs.
For some time no further action could be
taken as the Arabs were busily engaged elsewhere,
but in
632 an army was assembled and preparations
were made to invade Syria. But Muhammad died
whilst the expedition was waiting to set
out. Then Abu Bakr was appointed khalif or
"successor" and ordered the army
to set out. After forty days it returned
laden with booty, so there was no difficulty
in raising new forces. In 634 these forces
invaded Syria, where they met small resistance
and that only from an ill-trained local militia.
No one as yet supposed that the Arabs were
venturing on more than an ordinary raid,
nor do the Arabs themselves seem to have
thought that they had undertaken more than
that.
Certainly these Arabs were not fanatics who
tried to force their religion on the conquered:
they preferred them to remain toilers as
before and themselves to live on the produce
Of their labour. Such was the system laid
down in the "Constitution of 'Umar",
an apocryphal production of later date, but
indicating in general outline what was the
earlier Arab policy. The picture sometimes
given of a host of fanatical Arabs rushing
for I ward with a sword in one hand, a Qur'an
in the other, and forcing people to turn
Muslims or be killed is very far from fact.
The cynical Arab is not inclined to be a
fanatic. There have been plenty of fanatical
Muslims, but they were not Arabs but converts
of other races who were converted to Islam
at a later date. The Arabs did not force
the people they conquered to embrace their
religion, they left the conquered population
to follow their own religion, laws, customs,
and use their own languages. They were to
be tribute producing and the Arab ideal was
to live at case on the product of their labour.
In Syria, which was of primary importance
because in 66i the khalif with his court
and government settled in Damascus where
they remained for more than eighty years,
the Arabs found themselves rulers of an area
which had been a Roman province subject to
the fully developed Roman law and with a
highly organized administration. This they
took over as it was. Any Roman officials
who wished to remain under Roman rule were
given every facility to remove to some part
which still remained Roman. Many did so remove,
but many others were content to live under
Arab rule, and of these numbers rose to high
office and dignity in the Muslim state. For
the first twenty years or more the records
continued to be kept in Greek, and the civil
service was almost exclusively Christian.
There already were a number of Arab tribes
settled along the border, they had been subsidized
by the Byzantine government as defenders
of the frontier, and these were Christians.
As old established settlers they had become
wealthy andconsidered themselves socially
superior to the Muslim invaders, poor hungry
nomads of the desert, and had no hesitation
in asserting themselves, the Muslim Arabs
admitting their claims to aristocratic status.
Some of the ruling dynasty married women
of these Christian tribes, and that was rather
resented by the Muslims. Under the khalif
'Abd al-Malik (685-705) there was a good
deal of jealousy because the Christians had
a monopoly of all the posts in the civil
administration, and the khalif tried to employ
Arabs in their place. But the change was
not successful, the Arabs did not understand
the details of business and the Christian
officials had to be restored. This is easy
to understand because the oriental practice
is, not to draw up accounts so that an outside
auditor can understand and check them, but
to keep them in such a way that nobody but
the established officials can possibly understand
them: it is done deliberately so that the
established officials may keep the business
in their own hands and secure a permanent
monopoly. The most that 'Abd al-Malik could
do was to get the records kept in Arabic
instead of Greek, and to use Arabic on the
coinage. Bishop Arculf of Gaul made a tour
of the Holy Land about 700 and speaks with
much appreciation of the hospitable way he
was received by the Muslim rulers, the freedom
with which he was allowed to travel about,
and the generally friendly attitude of the
Arabs and their rulers. Until the days of
the Crusades Syria and Egypt were practically
Christian lands under the rule of the Muslim
Arabs, their rule mainly confined to the
collection of taxes, and that they did very
thoroughly.
In the earlier period of the 'Umayyad khalifate
at Damascus there was even a fashionable
tendency to deride Islamic ways and customs.
This is well illustrated by the poetry of
Abu Malik Ghiyath ibn Salt ibn Tariqa al-Akhtal,
who was born at Hira about 640 and died about
710. He belonged to the Taghlib clan of the
jusham ibn Bakr tribe and lived and died
a Monophysite Christian. His poems refer
to St. Sergius, the Holy Cross, to monks,
and he uses Christian oaths, though there
are very few direct references to Christianity
in his Diwan. He refused to change his religion
(Diwan, p. 154), and derided those whom he
described as becoming Muslims by pressure
of hunger rather than by conviction (ibid.,
315). He composed poems in honour. of Yazid,
the son of the khalif Mu'awiya, his brother
'Abdallah, and others of the royal family.
He was formally recognized as poet laureate
by 'Abd al-Malik, whom he celebrated as well
as his relations and derided their enemies,
a real courtier. In his poems there appears
evidence of the survival of ancient pagan
Arab usages in the days of the 'Umayyads,
and some striking instances of the tolerant
attitude of that dynasty. Many of his verses
contain biting sarcasms on -Islam, and such
passages have prevented many Muslims from
full appreciation of his poetic merits, but
in his day he and his rival jarir were the
leading poets of the Arabs. He particularly
expresses his contempt for all those who
abandoned their ancestral religion, Christian
or pagan, to conform with that of the reigning
monarch. The most admired passage in his
works is his panegyric of the 'Umayyads (Diwan,
98-112). In spite of his contemptuous attitude
towards Islam this poet was patronized by
the khalif 'Abd al-Malik, though not greatly
favoured by his successor Walid I. He probably
died before the end of Walid's reign, though
Ibn 'Abd Rabbihi prolongs his life to the
reign of 'Umar II. Probably his death should
be dated about 710.
A loose tone about religion prevailed at
the 'Umayyad court, which did not find favour
with the stricter Muslims, and was one of
the causes of the anti-'Umayyad feeling which
grew in intensity until it led to the downfall
of the dynasty. The old tribal rivalries
of pre-Muslim days still influenced the Arabs,
and there was a deep-rooted antagonism between
the worldly tone of Damascus, and the cities
of Mecca and Medina, and the more orthodox
attitude of those who regarded themselves
as Muslims in the first place, and Arabs
only in a secondary place. The only exception
to this in the 'Umayyad khalifs was Walid
I (705-715), who was a really religious man
and put the interests of Islam before political
or racial considerations. At the other extreme
Yazid I. (680-683) is still cursed by the
orthodox as an enemy of religion. It was
an army sent by him which engaged in the
battle of Kerbela (10th October, 680), and
was responsible for the tragic death of al-Husayn,
the surviving son of 'Ali the Prophet's son-in-law.
And it was an army sent by him which besieged
the holy city of Mecca and (accidentally)
burned the sanctuary of the Ka'ba (November,
683).
|
Evans Experientialism 
