One of the most significant works devoted to the study of the "Indica" of Megasphenes, the main source of information about India that came to the ancient world, belongs to the Italian historian Andrea Zambrini. Her research "Gli Indika di Megasthene" was published in two main and two additional articles with a total volume of about 200 pages (1).Unfortunately, so far there is no critical review of these publications by indologists, and references to them are given only when it is necessary to indicate a modern study of Megasthene's work (2). In any case, a critical analysis of their main provisions has not yet been proposed, and their conclusions are not very well known. This article attempts to fill in this historiographical gap and present its own point of view on the problems raised.

A. Zambrini, following O. Stein, considers it necessary to consider "Indica"as a product of ancient Greek ethnographic thought. She drew attention to the fact that the political, historical and literary contexts that significantly influenced the composition of this work were usually not taken into account in its analysis (3). As a literary and historical context, she sees Plato's writings: "The State", "Laws" and "Politics"."Politics" by Aristotle, the writings of Xenophon, Isocrates, and the political one - those problems of the Seleucid state that could concern Megasthenes in the first place (4). In this formulation of the question, the correspondence of the "Indica" data to historical reality and its reconstruction based on Megasthenes ' work should be removed from the agenda; in any case, this problem is for Zambrini It has a secondary character in relation to the trends that influenced Megasphenes, since he himself, according to the historian, was not a professional writer, but a diplomat [5]. Unlike B. Breler and O. Stein [6], Zambrini

* The work was carried out within the framework of the RGNF project "Ancient India in Indika". Megasphena " (N 98-01-00031).

1. Zambrini A. Gli Indika di Megasthene / / ASNP. 1982. Ser. 3. 12. 1 (hereinafter-GIM). P. 71-149; eadem. Idealizzazione di una terra: etnografia e propaganda negli Indika di Megasthene // Forme di contatto e process; di transformazione nelle societa antiche. Atti del convegno di Cortona (24-30 maggio 1981). Pisa-Roma, 1983 (hereinafter-Idealizzazione). P. 1105-1118; eadem. Gli Indika di Megasthene II / / ASNP. 1985. 3. 15. 3 (hereinafter-GIM II). P. 781-853; eadem. A proposito degli Indika di Arriano / / ASNP. 1987. Ser. 3. 17. 1 (hereinafter-A proposito). pp. 139-154.

2. Romanis F. de. Rome and the Notia of India: Relations between Rome and Southern India from 30 B.C. to the Flavian Period // Crossings. Early Mediterranean Contacts with India // Ed. F. de Romanis, A. Tchernia. New Delhi, 1996. P. 145. Not. 125.

3. GIM. P. 72; GIM II. P. 853. Earlier, Chattopadhyay A. Megasthenes and Arrian on the Morality of Indian Women tried to put the question in this way // JOIB. 1973. 22. 3. P. 344-350). However, the conclusions of the Indian historian are completely implausible. In the message that every Indian woman is ready to give herself for a gift in the form of an elephant to the person who made this gift (A/r. Ind. 17.3), he sees, on the one hand, a retelling of information about royal courtesans (according to the same Megasphene, the elephant was exclusively a royal animal), and on the other-a product the influence of Greek reality, where women did not have the slightest degree of freedom: the Greek groom could not even see the face of his bride before the wedding, in India, women "enjoyed complete freedom in social movements" (!), young couples were free to meet before marriage and indulge in love. So the unenviable position of ancient Greek women influenced Megasthenes when describing the availability of Indian women.

4. GIM. Р. 80, 85; Idealizzazione. P. 1105-1106.

5. GIM. P. 85; GIM II. Р. 797; Idealizzazione. P. 1106-1107.

6. Stein 0. Megasthenes // RE. Bd 15. 1931. Hibd 29. S. 325-326; Breloer B. Megasthenes iiber die indische Gesellschaft//ZDMG. 1934. Bd 13. Ht. 2. S. 31.

page 88

He believes that Megasthenes ' Indica was not intended to describe the true state of affairs in India, but was intended to serve the propaganda purposes of the Seleucids, for which the Indian society had to be presented in an idealized form (7). The prehistory of India itself should have been written under the influence of the fact of the formation of the Seleucid monarchy, which experienced similar problems with the empire Mauryev is concerned with the organization of state institutions and "the development of a new geographical and historical reality" (8). These are the main points of Zambrini's first article, and all the others are aimed at substantiating them.

In assessing the development of Early Seleucid chorography, Zambrini largely relies on the provisions expressed in the works of O. Murray (9). According to Murray, Megasphene's " Indica "was a direct response to Hecateus of Abder's" Egyptica", which was intended to carry out a certain propaganda campaign in early Ptolemaic Egypt. Seleucus, having visited Egypt, should have been struck by the scale of this campaign and initiated his own. And in almost everything Megasthenes, like Berosus later, followed the model drawn up by Hecateus: in terms of ideas, composition, choice of narrative plots, and, in particular, in describing an ideal society with a rigid fixed structure, divided into classes, headed by an autocrator king. Although Zambrini's support for the provisions of O. Murray was not unconditional [10], the author did not present any arguments illustrating the correctness or inaccuracy of the English scientist, which revealed one of the main shortcomings of her research - declarativeness.

The question of the possibility of mutual influence of the works of Megasthenes, Hecataeus of Abder and Berosus - the three most prominent representatives of Early Hellenistic chorography - requires special attention. To be able to say this, it must be shown that the Indica of Megasthenes was written after the Egyptica, that there are definite coincidences in the structure of Egyptian and Indian society based on these works, and that these possible borrowings were historically and literarily necessary. This display is not in Zambrini's works. If Megasthenes, as she believes, was not a "professional writer", then it is hardly appropriate to bring to the fore the idealization of Indian society based on the Greek literary tradition as a recipe for solving the problems of contemporary Hellenistic society. With the same certainty, we can say that Herodotus and Xenophon were not writers, but respectively - a traveler and a military man. From a diplomat, you can expect a dry diplomatic report rather than a well-constructed literary work. In fact, it seems that the influence of Hecatheus ' work on Megasthenes is rather difficult to trace: Egypt, according to Hecatheus, is the source of civilization, India, according to Megasthenes, is its recipient; the Indian king in the image of Megasthenes cannot be called not only an autocrator, but even just a strict ruler. The thesis about the dependence of Megasphene on Hecateus, at least in the form in which it is presented in the works of Zambrini, cannot be considered proven.

Zambrini believes that the main goal of the author of "Indica" was to describe the ideal state, public and private life on the example of Indian society (11), and Egypt was supposed to serve as a model for implementing this idea of Megasphenes (12). It turns out a rather complicated picture: to describe an ideal Hellenistic society based on the experience of Ptolemaic Egypt, Megasthenes had to go to India and give this description in "Indian clothes". Zambrini, as in

7. GIM. P. 94, 101; GIM II. P. 830, 850.

8. GIM II. Р.784-790, 798, 815.

9. GIM. P. 73, 96-99; Idealizzazione. P. 1115; Murray 0. Herodotus and Hellenistic Culture // CQ. 1972. 22. С. 207-208; idem. Hecateus ofAbdera and Pharaonic Kingship //JEA. 1970. 56. С. 166.

10. GIM. P. 99-101.

11. GIM. P. 810, 813, 816-817; A proposito. P. 143.

12. GIM II. P. 797.

page 89

at one time, O. Stein (13) sought to interpret every utterance of Megasthenes, based precisely on the Greek, but - never - on the Indian subtext (14). In particular, according to Zambrini, the story of unusual "fairy-tale" peoples should serve to create an even more idealized image (15), to strengthen the "admiration" of India (16), and their mention in the "Indica" should not be considered based only on Indian realities (17). This should be seen as a manifestation of the dependence of Megasthenes on the work of Ctesias, which, according to Zambrini, is characterized neither by integrity nor by the presence of a common plan, but was the main source of information for subsequent generations of authors who described India (18). Such subjects as the idealization of the country's history and its climate were also called upon to create this kind of picture (19). According to Zambrini, the" Indica " of Megasthenes cannot but go back to the work of Hecateus of Abder, just because before him Greek literature did not know a complete description of India (instead - only a set of curiosities and wonders) [20]. However, a recent paper states, not without reason, that such a description was already attempted by Ctesias (21).

Zambrini seeks to see the Indica as a mere product of Greek ethnographic thought. So, turning to the long-discussed problem of the seven classes of Indian society represented in the Indica Megasthene (22), it supports the idea of B. Breler that here we can not talk about the class-caste system (23), but in this message we should see only the influence of the ancient Greek ethnographic tradition, which idealized a hierarchical and immobile society (24). This is one of the most typical examples of how deliberately ignoring indology materials in favor of an initially accepted thesis can serve a bad purpose. Surprisingly, in her writings, Zambrini never turned to the materials of the Indian tradition; in general, the lack of attention to the Indological approach reveals the lack of Zambrini's knowledge in this area: for example, when analyzing the question of the seven classes in the Indica Megasphene, she determined that the class-varna system of India consisted of four "varnas" with numerous divisions in the form of "castes", which, of course, does not correspond to modern ideas about this institution (25). For Zambrini, the main authorities in indology, especially in the field of social institutions, are the works of O. Stein and B. Breler, which were quite satisfactory for their time, but still outdated today (26). When considering the reliability of reports about the mythical peoples of the Zambrini, apart from these works, nothing else is available.

13. Stein O. Megasthenes und Kautaliya. Wien, 1921. S. 42, 63, 110-115, 123, 201-205, 285.

14. GIM. P. 121, 139; GIM P. R. 801-802, 807-808, 826.

15. GIM. P. 79; GIM II. P. 835.

16. GIM. P. 94.

17. GIM. P. 80.

18. GIM. 130, 138.

19. GIM. P. 112-115, 121, 138-139.

20. GIM. P. 102-103, 122, 125.

21. Auherger J. L'lnde de Ctesias // Inde. Grece ancienne. Regards croises en anthropologie de 1'espace. Actes du colloque international - Besangon 4-5 Decembre, 1992. Besancon, 1995. P. 39-51. It must be admitted, however, that many of the provisions of this work look dubious. It is worth recalling that in addition to the works of Ctesias and Megasthenes, there are also works by Nearchus, Aristobulus and Ptolemy, which were hardly unsystematic.

22. For more information, see Bukharin M. D. Description of the Indian state in "Indica" Megasphena / / VDI. 1997. N 3. pp. 138-149.

23. Breloer В. Megasthenes uber die indische Gesellschaft // ZDMG. 1934. Bd 13. Ht 2. S. 162; idem. Drei unbekannte Megasthenesfragmente uber die pravrajya // ZDMG. 1939. Bd 93 (18). S. 266.

24. GIM. P. 90; GIM II. P. 802.

25. GIM II. P. 802; Bongard-Levin G. M., Vigasin A. A. Obshchestvo i gosudarstvo drevnoi Indii [Society and the State of ancient India]. VDI. 1981. N 1. P. 42; Vigasin A. A., Samozvantsev A.M. Arthashastra: problemy sotsial'noi struktury i prava. M? 1984. p. 132; Wigasin A. A. Mischkasten im Manava-Dharmaschastra // AoF. 1990. Bd 17. N 1.5. 121-122.

26. GIM II. P. 805,816-817.

page 90

does not use anything written on this topic (27). One can disagree with the provisions of these and later works (28), but all of them are focused on the analysis of the mechanism of reflection of the Indian mythological tradition in ancient mythology, and it is impossible not to take them into account. It remains unclear why these articles did not come to Zambrini's attention. The weakness of the indological base in her works, while constantly following the same pre-selected thesis, is manifested in the following fundamental position: one of the urgent historical tasks of the Seleucids, which determined the point of view of Megasthenes on India, was the need to unite the country and centralize governance. It was this aspect of Mauryan activity that should have attracted Megasthenes ' attention in the first place and influenced the image of India in his presentation (29). Here, Zambrini was captured by long-outdated ideas about the Mauryan Empire as a centralized, bureaucratically powerful state, completely controlled by the supreme power. According to Zambrini, Megasthenes ' ideas about the most characteristic features of Ptolemaic Egypt's state structure (centralized administration, the presence of an autocratic king, immobility and immutability of the social structure) should have prompted him to search for similar institutions in Mauryan India (30). It should be noted that the view of the rigidly centralized system of government of the Mauryan state is a legacy of the historiography of the 30-40s (31).

According to Zambrini, the influence of Hecataeus on Megasphenes is also evident in the following: the latter relied on" philosophers "as authoritative informants, which is explained by the"lack of local information". Megasphenes also sought a scientific explanation for the wonders he had seen in India (32). Although Zambrini does not rely on reports from Indian sources, she believes that the data presented convincingly postulate the significant influence of Hecataeus on Megasphenes in describing the ideal state.: Megasthenes presented a harmonious, fixed, homogeneous, self-sufficient society, headed by an Euergetes king, a naturally fortified and isolated country (33). But at the same time, Megasthenes '"Indica" was a "subtle replica" of Hecateus of Abder's "Egyptica", and Megasthenes 'description of the campaign of the Pharaoh Sesostris to India definitely has a" sarcastic " character [34]. In this case, it remains to be assumed that the names of all the other conquerors mentioned by Megasthenes-Semiramis, Nabocodrosor, Thearcon, and Idanphyrs (Strabo. XV. 1. 6; Arr. Ind. 5. 6-8) - are given only to include Sesostris in the sequence

27. Например, Hasten S.J. The Mouthless Indians of Megasthenes // Journal and Proceedings of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. 1912. 13. P. 291-301; Shafer R. Unmasking Ktesias' Dog- Headed People // Historia. 1964. 13. P. 499-503; West ML. Megasthenes on the Asthomoi // The Classical Review. 1964. 14 (78). P. 242.

28. Karttunen К. KuroKcpaXoi and KwapLoXyoL in Classical Ethnography // Arctos. Acta Philologica Fennica. 1984. 18. P. 31- 36; idem. A Miraculous Fountain in India // Ibid. 1985. 19. P. 55-65; idem. The Country of Fabulous Beasts and Naked Philosophers. India in Classical and Mediaeval Literature // Ibid. 1988. 21. P. 43- 52. About the" declassification " of fairy-tale peoples described in the ancient tradition on the basis of the Indian one, Zh. Дюмезиль (Dumezil G. Heracles, ses fils et sa fille // Dumezil G. La courtisane et les seigneurs colores et autres essais. Vingt-cinq esquisses de la mythologie. P., 1983. P. 46-47).

29. GIM. P. 93; GIM II. P. 843; Idealizzazione. P. 1109, 1117.

30. GIM. P. 100.

31. See about it: Breloer. Megasthenes (iber die indische Gesellschaft...; Raychaudhury H. Political History of Ancient India. Calcutta, 1953. P. 348; Scheider U. Die grossen Felsen-Edikte Ashokas. Wiesbaden, 1978. S. 166, 169; Heesterrnan J. Inner Conflict of Tradition. Delhi, 1985. P. 140. For a modern point of view, see Fussman G. Quelques problemes asokeens / / JA. 1974. 162. N 3-4. P. 369-389; this topic is discussed in detail in the following works: Lelyukhin D. N. Gosudarstvo, administratsiya, politika v Arthashastra Kautili / / VDI. 1993. N 2. Pp. 6-7; on. Structure of the Mauryan power according to the edicts of Ashoka / / VDI. 1998. N 2. pp. 115-116, 121-128; Vigasin A. A. On the interpretation of the edicts of Ashoka. Pravlenie i pravidnost ' [Rule and Righteousness] / / EV. 1998. 25. p. 74; on. On the interpretation of the edicts of Ashoka: parisad / / VDI. 1998. N 1. pp. 61-71.

32. GIM. P. 144.

33. GIM. P. 144-145; Idealizzazione. P. 1110-1111.

34. GIM II. P. 791.

page 91

traditional for the Greek ethnography of the conquering lords. But this list is very stable, and it is not possible to single out one of them - or we must admit that this "remark" is directed at the same time against Scythia, Assyria and Babylonia.

In her dissertation, Zambrini proposed a true detective story of the birth of "Indica". Seleucus Nicator, during his stay in Egypt, had to be struck by the new ideology of Ptolemy Soter: the provision of a rigid centralized power, the ideological justification for appealing to the local ethnic component, for which he used the figure of Sesostris. It was important for Seleucus to go through the same geographical regions as Alexander, use his example, and get the same results from this campaign: to achieve the position of a universal ruler, standing above regional separatism. For this purpose, a story was created with the campaign of Dionysus and Hercules to India, whose affairs were to be continued by Alexander, and then by Seleucus (35). However, the foundations of this legend were laid by the same Hecateus, who transformed the campaign of Osiris-Dionysus into the campaign of Alexander, the successor of his cause and the heir of the great pharaohs who were enthroned by Dionysus (36).

But Megasphene didn't have to go to India to do this. He could have written this kind of work anywhere in the Seleucid state. In addition, the story of the expedition of Dionysus and Heracles to India, as used by Zambrini, was written even before Sargasthenus by the historians of Alexander (Arr. Anab. IV. 28. 1-2; V. I. 5-6; Curt. VIII. 10. 11; VIII. 11. 2) and has no direct relation to Megasphene. Zambrini dates Megasthenes ' trip to India to 303-292 BC. e. But at this time Seleucus had to solve much more complex problems: he was fighting with Antigonus One-Eye in the west and had to settle relations with Chandragupta Maurya in the east, so the appearance of "Indica" at this time looks much more logical in connection with the establishment of the State of India. relations with the eastern neighbor, rather than fulfilling the" propaganda anti-Ptolemaic order " of Seleucus Nicator. Furthermore, such work would have required a personal contact based on a deep trust between Seleucus and Megasthenes, which T. S. Brown has shown is unlikely to have been possible (37). The glorification of the civilizing king is part of the Seleucid propaganda policy, according to Zambrini (38). But the image of the Indian king is more likely to correspond to a pampered "bon vivant" than to a strict ruler. Unfortunately, Zambrini did not cite any sources, so it is not possible to determine on what basis she drew her conclusions. According to Zambrini, it is impossible to use Megasthenes ' "Indie" to reconstruct Indian history because of the complete dependence of this work on the ancient Greek literary tradition and the excessive idealization of the region described (39); she believes that Megasthenes is not about "getting inside the culture to understand it", but about "using it to understand it". own goals" (40). But the same goal was pursued by all Greek ethnographers: the very essence of this tradition was to incorporate all other traditions into their own, especially since, according to ethnographers, all people worshipped the same gods, only under different names.

The essence of Megasphene Zambrini's Indica is as follows: it was a kind of ideological message that recreated the image of an ideal autarkic country. The ideals of political, public and private life are presented in the "Indica" in a literary and creative way. Megasphena's attention was primarily drawn to the general-

35. GIM II. p. 791-800; A proposito. P. 152.

36. GIM II. P. 785; A proposito. p. 145-152.

37. Rrown T.S. The Merits and Weaknesses of Megasthenes // The Phoenix. The Journal of the Classical Association of Canada. 1957. 11. P. 13-15.

38. GIM II. P. 784, 790, 791; Idealizzazione. P. 1115, Ar. pp. 145-152.

39. GIM. P. 146; GIM II. P. 815.

40. GIM 11. P. 787.

page 92

Here the author's desire for idealization is most clearly manifested (its culmination is the postulate about the absence of slavery and the primordial simplicity of the Indians [41]), as well as the idea of the state as a deterrent against separatism [42]. Megasthene's "Indica" is a great utopia in the form of a dry diplomatic report, in which real historical and historical events are mixed. It has a literary origin, so it cannot be used for historical reconstructions (43). Personal observations of Megasphenes lose their value, as they serve the purposes of global idealization (44). The process of centralization of the Mauryan state culminated in the rule of Ashoka (45), but the need to fight decentralization, which was also evident earlier, brought to life the total control of the state over all public life, which attracted the attention of Megasphenes in the first place (46). But even where there was no need for him to resort to conscious idealization, according to Zambrini, he was not at all an independent writer: in terms of geography and astronomy, he could only follow the information of Alexander's satellites, giving small details on the length of India (47). Here Zambrini only repeated the provisions of Fr. Stein (48) and partly T. S. Brown (49). It remains to be regretted that Zambrini's work does not support these claims with the materials of the sources and, therefore, looks unfounded. The argument about the strong dependence of the "Indica" of Megasthenes on the" Egyptica " of Hecateus of Abder, especially about a certain order of Seleucus Nicator to create an idealized image of India as opposed to Ptolemaic Egypt, does not look proven.

Criticism of Zambrini's constructions and the development of a more balanced view of the work of Megasthenes require consideration of the possible interdependence of three ancient writers - Hecataeus of Abder, Megasthenes and Berosus. In "Indica" Megasthenes and the "Egyptica" of Hecateus of Abder (50) share the same themes. Among the most notable themes running through Hecataeus ' entire work is the establishment of royal power in Egypt. This story is described in categories that are so close to Indica Megasphenes (up to a literal coincidence), that the question of the dependence of one author on another is really relevant. O. Murray, A. Zambrini and K. Karttunen, who supported them, decided this question in favor of the dependence of Megasphenes on Hecateus of Abder [51]. In these works, however, it is difficult to find convincing arguments to agree with this point of view. Hecataeus ' account of the establishment of royal power in Egypt, when compared with a similar story in India, may provide an answer to the question of the ways of borrowing. But, first of all, it is necessary to recall that long before the appearance of the works in question, it was India that took the place of a "wonderland" in ancient literature, located on the edge of the world and, as it were, fenced off by nature from the rest of the ecumene, a country,

41. GIM II. Р. 831, 834; Idealizzazione. P. 1109.

42. GIM II. P. 826.

43. GIM II. P. 827, 851-852.

44. GIM II. P. 807.

45. Zambrim A. La politica di Asoka // RAL. 1976. Ser. 8. 31. P. 165-192.

46. GIM II. P. 812,818-819.

47. GIM II. P. 827-830, 850.

48. Stein. Megasthenes. S. 284.

49. Brown T.S. Onesicritos. A Study in the Hellenistic Historiography. Los Angeles-Berkeley, 1949. P. 171.

50. A. Zambrini does not express the slightest doubt that the corresponding chapters of the "Historical Library" of Diodorus Siculus are based on the "Egyptica" of Hecateus of Abder. Leaving this question out of the scope of this article, it is worth noting that this position does not look absolutely indisputable either.

51. Murray. Herodotus... P. 207-208; idem. Hecateus... P. 166; GIM. P. 73, 96-99; Idealizzazione. P. 1115; Karttunen K. India and Hellenistic World / Studia Orientalia. 83. Helsinki, 1997. P. 87.

page 93

where everything is not the same as everywhere else, where the size of its territory, plants and animals, and the fertility of its lands exceed everything known in the rest of the world.

Let us consider the data of Hecataeus of Abder preserved in the story of Diodorus of Sicily, the Egyptians. Unlike the Indians, who "recognized" the gods only when they themselves came to them, the Egyptians met them by raising their eyes to the sky, identifying the sun and moon as Osiris and Isis (Diod. I 11. 1). Dionysus among the Egyptians was known, according to the Hellenes, under the name of Osiris (Diod. I 11. 3), both agree that these deities rule the entire world, give growth to all living things, and are the highest point in the family tree of all living beings (Diod. I 11. 5). It turns out that the Egyptians recognized the first god, and then the king of the Indians before them. According to Megasthenes, Dionysus founded "many" cities in India, including Nisu (Agg. Apa. V. 1. 3-2.2, Ind. 7. 5; Diod. II. 38. 5; Strabo. XV. 1. 8; Plin. NH. VI. 23. 9; Solin. 52. 16; Curt. VIII. 10. 7, 11-12). Clearly contradicting this statement, Hecateus writes that Egypt is the only country in the entire inhabited earth where numerous cities were founded by the ancient gods: Zeus, Helios, Hermes, Apollo, Pan, Ilithyia, etc. (Diod. I 12.6). In the story of Hecataeus, you can continue to find exact parallels to Indica Megasthene: The" Egyptian " Dionysus was born at Vis in Happy Arabia, near the border with Egypt (Diod. I. 15.

6); it was near Nisa, as in the case of India, that he discovered grapes, taught people how to grow them, use and store wine, sow wheat and barley. Then Dionysus was going to conquer the whole world with a huge army in order to serve people well: he believed that by bringing humanity out of the state of savagery and giving the beginning of civilization, he would, thanks to the significance of these actions, be able to receive the honors of the immortals (Diod. I 17. 1).

That's exactly what happened. After settling his affairs in Egypt, Dionysus entrusted the supreme power to Isis, and gave her Hermes as his adviser, since of all his friends he esteemed him as the wisest (Diod. I. 17.1-3). Interestingly, the "most exuberant" fakhsobbato was left behind in India?) his comrade (Agg. Ind. 8. 1), so this remark should not speak in favor of India. Further, Dionysus passed through Ethiopia, where he taught people agriculture, founded several important cities (Diod. I 18. 6). After reaching Ethiopia and passing through Arabia, he went as far as India, right up to the borders of the inhabited world (Diod. I 19. 6). There Dionysus also founded many significant cities, and named one one of them is Nisoi, wanting to leave memories of the city where he grew up. Dionysus planted a laurel tree there - this is the only place where it grows (Diod. I. 19. 7). He also left many other signs of his presence in this region, which made the Indians think that this god was of Indian origin (Diod. I. 19. 8). In this phrase, the primacy of Egypt in ancient times the royal authority founded by Dionysus has already been expressed quite openly. It is natural that Hecateus, although referring to certain mythographers (Diod. I. 11.3), used the same name as Megasthenes. And the story of how Dionysus became king because of his good deeds is repeated in almost every detail. But it was not Megasthenes who was dependent on Hecatheus, but on the contrary: Hecatheus 'story is a polemic with the story of Dionysus' sojourn in India, and in the form in which it became known through Megasthenes. Further, Hecateus, in the retelling of Diodorus (I. 27. 5), reports the existence of a stele on the tomb of Dionysus, which says that he went through the whole world, including India, and there is no place in the entire inhabited world that he did not visit. The fact that his grave is located in Nisa in Happy Arabia clearly indicates a disagreement in this fundamental issue with the data of the historians Alexander and Megasthenes. Then he visited the other peoples of Asia and went to Europe (Diod. I. 20. 1), and this is quite consistent with the reports of his return from India to the west (Agg. Apa. V. 1.5; Polyaen. Strateg. I. 1. 3). He went around the whole earth and ennobled the life of the human race by introducing the use of fruits that are easy to cultivate. Then, having passed from the world of men to the world of the gods, he received from Isis and Hermes sacrifices and all other honors. They also established religious ceremonies and numerous secret rituals for him (Diod. I. 20. b). The Egyptians say that it is good-

page 94

As a result of these events, Egyptian colonies spread throughout the world, such as Babylonia (Diod. I. 28. 1); this information is clearly contrasted with reports about India that the Indians did not send their expeditions outside their own country (Diod. II. 36.3; Strabo. XV. 1. 6; Hag. Ind. 5. 6-8; 9. 12). Thus, Hecateus raises themes that could not have appeared in his work otherwise than borrowed from the works of the historians Alexander and Megasthenes 'Indica: Dionysus' campaign to India, his return to the West, disputing the location of Nysa, the birthplace of Dionysus, attributing details of the civilizing activities of the" Indian "Dionysus (a theme developed specifically by the author). Megasthenes) to Dionysus of Egypt.

"Quantitative" data on the antiquity of royal power in Egypt also suggest that, if there was a controversy, it was Hecateus and Megasthenes who led it, but not vice versa. Egyptian mythographers count 10,000 or 23,000 years from the reign of Dionysus to the arrival of Alexander in Egypt (Diod. I. 23. 1: from Helios to Alexander -23,000), i.e. significantly more than the 6042 years from Dionysus to Alexander counted in India (Agg. Ind. 9. 9); ancient Egyptian gods ruled in the deepest antiquity for 1200 years, and their heirs-at least 300. Royal power in Egypt is transferred to those who have rendered the most numerous and great services to the people (Diod. I. 43. 6) - this is the view of the local priests (which is exactly the same as what is known from the story of Megasthenes about India), some also say that for the first 18,000 years gods and heroes ruled over Egypt (as in India, according to Megasphene). Then Egypt was ruled by humans for 5,000 years until Ptolemy, the " New Dionysus "(Diod. I. 44. 1), so that together it turns out much more than the entire period of royal power in India. If Megasthenes had wanted to set something against Hecataeus, he could have attributed more years, and it is so obvious that the controversy was conducted in the opposite direction in favor of the mentioned Ptolemy-the "New Dionysus" (52).

As for the deeds of Hercules, Hecateus also contradicts the tradition about India, according to which Hercules was born there, and in India he performed many of his feats. According to Hecataeus, Hercules was born in Egypt (Diod. I. 24. 1), and the fact that he cleansed the earth of monsters (a theme raised by Megasthenes) is an Egyptian tradition preserved by the Greeks (Diod. I. 24.5). This is a complete rewriting of the stable ethnographic tradition about India in favor of Egypt. The fact that Hecateus took the themes of his writings from the material about India, but completely changed their focus, is also evident from the description of Egyptian society and the Nile. Thus, when describing the structure of Egyptian society, Hecateus reports the division of the Egyptians into three classes, " r-brtr (a word similar to that used by Megasthenes), but when describing the second class, which, like Megasthenes, is assigned to farmers, he points out that landowners must have weapons to defend the city (Diod. I. 28. 4-5), and this completely contradicts the information of Megasthenes, according to which farmers in India are completely free from military service (Diod. I. 36. 6-7; Strabo. XV. 1. 40; Arr. Ind. 11. 10). Like the first class in Megasthenes, the upper level of the social structure in Egypt is assigned to the most" noble " class - the Eupatrids, who, like the philosophers of Megasthenes, are bestowed with the greatest honor (Diod. I. 28. 4). All the classes of Indian society mentioned by Megasthenes, except for the administrative sixth and seventh, are listed by Hecateus, and also The hereditary character of professional states is emphasized (Diod. I. 74. 9), and in full accordance with the teachings of Plato and Aristotle, an explanation is given for this: each class of Egyptian society is characterized as knowing its business in the best possible way (Diod. I. 74. 2-7). Hecateus emphasizes that in Egypt, it is not possible for one artisan to do several things at once, a fact he contrasts with democratic cities and cities.

52. Some works prove that Megasphenes ' data on these issues absolutely exactly coincide with the material of the Indian tradition. Benfey Th. Bemerkung zu einer Mitteilung des Megasthenes in Bezug aufindische Geschichte // ZKM. 1844. Bd V. S. 218-231; Mankand D.R. Puranic Chronology. Anand, 1951. P. 67. This kind of research on the "Egyptica" of Hecataeus of Abder was not carried out.

page 95

"to other countries". In Egypt, if a craftsman interferes in politics or practices several occupations, he is severely punished (Diod. I 74. 7). This account repeats almost verbatim Arrian's account of Megasthenes (Agg. Ind. 12. 8-9).

The greatness of the Nile is one of the oldest and most stable subjects of the description of Egypt in ancient Greek ethnography (for example, Herod. II. 15-35). However, in the context presented above, Hecateus 'description of the Nile can also be seen as a desire to change in favor of Egypt the stereotype of India's perception as a wonderland that has developed since the time of Herodotus and was reinforced under the influence of historians Alexander and Megasthenes' Indica. All that they said about the Indus and Ganges, Hecateus attributes to Egypt: the extraordinary fertility, the size of the river, the animals that inhabit it, the number of fish, the importance of the Nile to the surrounding population. The passage dedicated to the Nile itself obviously occupied a significant place in the Egyptica. In Diodorus, several pages (1.32. 1-40. 10) are entirely devoted to the great river, mostly describing its differences from other rivers, especially in size (I. 32. 2, 5; 37. 2), and with respect to fertility (I. 37. 8). The Nile is the largest river and the only one whose waters flow calmly and evenly (hence, the Indus and Ganges are not such "solid" rivers). A description of the Nile Delta (I. 33. 4-34. 2), its size, the number of islands in it may well be "contrasted" with the description of Patala-the Indus Delta in the writings of historians of the campaign of Alexander the Great. The size of the Nile animals and the number of fish that live in the Nile should also have reinforced the" right " impression (I. 35. 2, 8; 36. 1). The Nile is quite different from all other rivers (I. 36. 7-8): it begins to flood Egypt when the water in all other rivers, starting with the "summer tropic", it is on the wane. The geographical justification of Egypt's primacy over India is supplemented by a description of Egypt's general position as a country naturally fortified and isolated from the outside world, i.e., by the features that were previously applied to India: Egypt is a country perfectly located, naturally fortified on all sides (I. 30. 1-4); it is protected on three sides by land (I. 30. 1-4). 31. 1) and exceeds the population of all other countries (I. 31. 5).

The legendary subjugation of India to Egypt is described in the story of the" ideal " Egyptian King Sesoosis (I). 53. 1 - 58.5) (53). Most of his actions are openly "anti-Indian" in nature. First, he sent a fleet that conquered the islands in the Erythraean Sea as far as India, and then he and his army conquered all of Asia by land (via Seleucid Syria) (I. 55. 2). He captured not only the territories" later " conquered by Alexander the Great and received by Seleucus, but also those that Alexander never lost. He failed to conquer (the Prasiyas), crossed the Ganges, and crossed all India to the ocean (I. 55. 3-4). Undoubtedly, this is written "in defiance" of the historians of Alexander and Megasthenes, and, of course, after him. Alexander hardly had any idea about the Ganges (54), which was "actually" open to the Greek world.

53. On the myth as a whole, see Gunderson L. L. Alexander's Letter to Aristotle about India / Beitrage zur klassischen Philologie. 110. Meisenheim am Glan. 1980. S. 22-23; Lloyd A.V. Nationalist Propaganda in Hellenistic Egypt / / Historia. 1982. 31. P. 33-55, especially p. 37-40. For the mythical conquerors of India in general, see also Borzsdkl. Semiramis in Zentralasien // AAASH. 1986. 24. S. 51-62.

54. Tarn W. W. Alexander and Ganges // JHS. 1923. 43. P. 97- 100; idem. The Greeks in Bactria and India. Cambr., 1938. P. 154; Meyer E. Alexander und der Ganges // Klio. 1927. 21. S. 188; Kienast D. Alexander und der Ganges // Historia. 1965. Bd 14. Ht 2. S. 185-188; Woodcock G. The Greeks in India. L., 1968. P. 30; Robinson T.R. Alexander and the Ganges. The Text of Diodorus XVIII. 6. 2 // AHB. 1993. 7. P. 84-99. Bosworth A. Aristotle, India and the Alexander Historians // Athens. Aden. Arikamedu. Essays on the Interrelations between India, Arabia and Eastern Mediterranean / Ed. M.-F. Boussac, J.-F. Salles. New Delhi, 1995. P. 27-44; idem. The Historical Settings of Megasthenes' "Indika" // Classical Philology. 1996. 91. 2. P. 120. D. V. Panchenko's attempt to revive the idea of J. P. Blavatsky looks completely unsuccessful. Myres J. L. An Attempt to Reconstruct the Maps Used by Herodotus / / Geographical Journal. 1896. 8. P. 605-629, especially p. 623; cf. Panchenko D. Scylax' Circumnavigation of India and Its Interpretation in Early Greek Geography, Ethnography and Cosmography, I // Hyperboreus. 1998. 4. Fasc. 2. P. 211-243. This plot is somewhat out of the way of

page 96

Megasphenes (Hieronymus and Clitarchus, according to E. Meyer and D. Kinast, through some merchants from Punjab or the upper Ganges (55)). India was clearly to be subjugated to Egypt, for Sesoosis ordered an annual gift to be collected from all the peoples he had conquered during the nine years of his campaign, and he also returned to Egypt in triumph with many captives and a huge tribute (Diod. I. 55. 10). The propaganda" anti-Indian"," anti-Alexander "and" anti-Gasphene " orientation of this story is obvious here. If Megasthenes had written after Hecataeus of Abder, he would not have been able to emphasize so clearly that India was not conquered by anyone who marched on it before Alexander the Great (Strabo. XV. 1. 6; Agg. Ind. 5. 6-8; 9. 12). The characteristics given to Sesoosis by Hecataeus also leave no doubt about this: he surpassed all those who ever gained power in military exploits, greatness, the number of monuments erected and works carried out in Egypt (Diod. I. 57. 3). This image of the ideal king is further developed by Hecateus: the bearer of supreme power in Egypt is the very embodiment of the law, and this, in his opinion, is not at all typical for the rulers of other peoples who do what they like, without giving anyone an account (here you can also see an open reproach to Indian kings, a description of a carefree daily routine which was given by Megasphenes-Strabo. XV. 1. 55). All the activities of the Egyptian kings are controlled by law - not only the administration of the country, but also the daily routine and way of life (Diod. I. 70. 1). The king can not condemn anyone at his whim, but only according to the law (Diod. I. 71. 1). The Egyptians claim that it was they who developed writing (according to Strabo, the Indians did not know the art of writing-XV. 1. 53), astronomy, basic geometry and other sciences, and it was there that the best laws were established (Diod. I 69. 5). Proof of this is that Egypt was ruled for almost 4,700 years by kings, most of whom came from Egypt (unlike India, where royal power was established from outside), and that it is the most prosperous country in the entire ecumene. Such a situation could not have developed in a country that was not governed by customs, laws and everything that contributes to the prosperity of culture in every possible way (Diod. I. 69. 6). And the antiquity of this state of affairs should have been confirmed by the visits of Orpheus, Homer, Pythagoras, Solon, who came to study with the Egyptians, including according to the best laws (Diod. I. 69. 4). After all,

Nevertheless, it should be noted that all his arguments, except for the fact that the" Indian river "flows to the east (this allegedly does not fit into the history of ancient cartography), look like" suspicions " that are not even based on common sense. If we follow this logic, we can point out that the Ganges also flows into the Bay of Bengal in a southerly direction. Especially strange are the attempts to interpret Herodotus ' data on navigation based on the reports of Arrian and Pliny the Elder (p. 225), when the level of development of transport, especially sea transport, was fundamentally different, and to identify Kskptattiro? with Pataliputra, not Kasyapapura (p. 231). For research on "Indica" More important is Panchenko's suggestion that Megasphenes was the one who identified the river Skilak traveled with the Ganges. This hypothesis is based on the fact that Megasthenes compared the Ganges to the Meander, "the native river of Skilak" and that "it is difficult to assume that this comparison was introduced by Megasthenes himself" (Panchenko. Op. cit. p. 222-223), i.e. he must have taken it from the work of Skilak. What is this difficulty, it remains unclear, and why Asia Minor could not be the birthplace of Megasthenes himself, and the Meander-a well-known river? For more information, see Witkowski S. De patria Megasthenis / / Eos. 1898/1899. S. 22-24; Reuss F. Megasthenes / / Rheinisches Museum. 1906. 61. S. 304-305; Berard P. Fouilles d'Ai-Khanoum. V. IV. Les monnaies hors tresors. Questions d'histoire Greco-Bactrienne / MDAFA. 1985. V. 28. P. 132.

It is also worth noting that, despite the categorical nature of the wording, the provisions of Zh. do not look proven either. Daytona, who believed that India and the Middle East in the first half of the first millennium BC. e. existed exceptionally strong maritime ties, supported by the Phoenicians, and that the Ganges basin could not be terra incognita for the Persians. He goes so far as to make improbable claims, such as the" Iron Age export " of the Phoenicians to India ca. 600 BC (Dayton .1. Herodotus, Phoenicia, the Persian Golf and India in the First Millenium B.C. // Arable Orientate, Mesopotamie et Iran Meridionale. De 1'age du fer au debut de la periode islamique. P., 1984. 37. P. 372).

55. Meyer. Alexander... S. 187-188; Kienast. Op. cit. S. 185.

page 97

the Egyptians ' judicial system allows them to make the most just decision (Diod. I. 75-76), and the law is equal for everyone (Diod. I. 76. 3). The fact that India is the country where customs most contribute to prosperity is known from Megasthenes (Diod. P. 36. 4), Hecataeus is fully aware of this. changes this stereotype.

A whole series of plots related to Megasthenes is presented in Hecataeus "in favor" of Egypt. According to Megasthenes, there are many cities in India (Alexander's historians counted 5,000 of them), each of them no less than Kos (Plin. NH. 6. 59); he also reported that the Pandas people had 300 settlements (Plin. NH. VI. 76; 7. 29), and a total of 118 nationalities lived in India (Agg. Ind. 7. 1; Plin. NH. VI. 60). According to Hecateus, in ancient Egypt there were 18,000 important villages and towns (Diod. I. 31. 7), and under Ptolemy Lagus - 30,000 (Diod. I. 31. 7), i.e.,in terms of the number of settlements, Hecateus 'Egypt is significantly ahead of Megasthenes' India, and it is unlikely that this could have happened, if Megasthenes wrote after and under the influence of Hecataeus. In Egypt, according to the latter, trees bear fruit throughout the year (Diod. I. 34. 8), and this could be contrasted with the description of two annual harvests in India according to Megasphenes (Diod. P. 35. 3; Strabo. XV. 1. 13; XV. 1. 20).

If we look at Berosus ' work from the same angle, we will see that in Babylonica (56) the tendencies outlined by Hecataeus are further strengthened, but this time in favor of Babylon. This work, written in three books, is dedicated to Antiochus I Soter (Tat. Oratio ad Graec. 37), who ruled in 280 - 261 BC, the son of Seleucus Nicator and the "third" heir of Alexander. Berosus was born between 350 and 340 BC and was a contemporary of events that took place during the reign and immediately after the death of Alexander the Great (57). The time of Babylonica's compilation falls on 293/292-261/260 AD, most likely in the first half of the reign of Antiochus Soter: 293-280 BC (58). At that time, Berosus would have been 50-60 years old. In any case, there is every reason to assume that the "Babylonica" of Berosus was used by Klitarchus (59). Thus, his work was written, at the latest, 10-15 years after the "Indica" of Megasphenes, and the assumption about the possibility of the influence of Megasphenes 'work on Berosus' work is not without reason.

Some coincidences between the "Babylonica" of Berosus and the "Indica" of Megasthenes are noteworthy. As in India, represented in the work of the Ambassador of Seleucus Nika-tor, the first people in Babylon lived like animals ("ytakto)? ysgtter ta blrSa"); they received all the basic skills of civilized life from Oann, a certain first ancestor who combined the features of a fish and a man. He taught them the art of writing (and his first "composition" was a description of the state structure) and calculations, the construction of cities and temples (Dionysus in the image of Megasthenes was known as the founder of the first Indian cities and religious cults); gave laws (were introduced in India again by Dionysus) and divided the land (here an analogy with by the deeds of the Indian Hercules, who distributed the land among his sons), gave seeds, fruits and everything necessary for everyday life (F 8. 25-37; F 12-compare with the innovations in India of Dionysus). Description of the acts of Oannes at the beginning of the history of Babylon by P. Schnabel, despite the fact that the analogs themselves-

56. There are other possible variants of its name: "Chaldean histories" (Xaxsai'KAL 1otor1a1, XaX8agkt) loropCd) - so it is called by Josephus (F. 54), "The oldest historiography" (t\ t-p? arhspbtato? loTopioYpcKpi. a) is what Justin, Tatian, and Clement of Alexandria call it (F. 65). References to the text of Beross ' Babylonika are given in the publication: Schnahel P. Beross und die babylonisch-hellenistische. Literatur. Lpz-B., 1923. S. 249-275. See also Burstain S. M. The Babyloniaca of Berossos. Malibu, 1978 and a recent study of the ancient Greek tradition of Egypt and Mesopotamia with a translation of extant sources, in particular Berosus ' Babylonica: Verbrugghe G. P., Wickersham J. M. Berossos and Manetho Introduced and Translated: Native Traditions in Ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt. Michigan Univ. Press, 1996.

57. Schnabel. Op. cit. S. 6.

58. Ibid. S, 9-10.

59 Ibid. S. 43-65.

page 98

According to the local tradition, this story is called "absolut sterile Phantasie" (60). The closest parallel to this story can be anything other than the "Indica" of Megasthenes-that part of it that tells about the laying of the foundations of Indian civilization by Dionysus.

The dynastic history of Babylon, which begins with this character, is given, as in the Indica Megasthene, before Alexander the Great (F. 29b. 35). The first Babylonian king Alor reigned, according to Berosus, for 3,600 years (F. 19. 19-20; F. Zoah. 26-30) - much longer than the Indian kings in the work of Megasthenes, which should also indicate that in Babylon the first kings were "more archaic". Yes, and the entire duration of Babylonian history - 10 kings before the flood, who ruled together 120 Sarov (432,000 years) (61) for 3600 years each, 86 kings after the flood, who ruled together 33,091 or 34,090 years, and historical dynasties (62), who ruled, according to Beros, 36,000 years (according to in modern chronology, from 2232/1 to 732/1 BC) (63) - compared with 6042 years of Indian history before Alexander the Great-should have impressed the reader. P1alizso processing of the local legend "in the Greek way" with a clear propaganda bias. This is all the more symptomatic since Berosus was well acquainted with the writings of Ctesias of Cnidus and polemicized with them in Babylonica (64). There would have been nothing particularly remarkable in all this if the Babylonica had not been presented to Antiochus Soter, the son of Seleucus Nicator, to whom the Indica of Megasthenes was dedicated, and if the subject of the terms of the first legendary and quite historical kings had not been raised in each of the works under consideration (despite the fact that the figures given in the first part of their authors to justify the prestige and "antiquity" of India, Egypt and Babylon, are constantly increasing). So Beros didn't just use the Babylonian "dvaypGKpal tger1 tu ovpavov ka1 baHastot)? ka1 proggousala? " and "dva'ypkkpal ttbr'1. pao-LXeyv ka1 tyg kat 'avrov tgrabso". They were clearly motivated by "propaganda" motives dictated by the current political situation.

It is obvious that after the appearance of the "Egyptica" of Hecataeus of Abder, on the one hand, and the loss of the real power of the Seleucids over the eastern possessions, on the other, India ceased to be the only contender for the role of "the most ancient" and "ideally" organized country. The Hellenistic rulers who ascended the throne had to look for new mythological characters to justify their prestige, which depended on the distant past. Each of them sought to assert its "historical primacy", to emphasize the foundations that raised the prestige of the patronized region above the historical heritage of both its neighbors-competitors and predecessors. In this context, "Babylonica" is quite a natural phenomenon among such works as" Indica "by Megasthenes and" Egyptica " by Hecateus of Abder, especially since all three authors were practically contemporaries and all of them served the rulers of different rival Hellenistic dynasties.

60. Ibid. S. 27.

61. For the chronological system used by Berosus, see E. Meueg. Das chronologische System des Berossos // Klio. 1903. 3. S. 131-134.

62. For an analysis of data on historical dynasties in Berossos ' work, see Lehmann C. F. Die Dynastien der babylonischen Konigliste und des Berossos / / Klio. 1903. 3. S. 135-163.

63. It is also necessary to take into account the 1,680,000 years that elapsed in Babylonian history from the creation of the world to the reign of the first "antediluvian" kings. If we add the 12,000 years" allotted " by history after Alexander's death, then the entire Babylonian history occupies 2,160,000 years in Babylonica (Schnahel. Op. cit. S. 176, 188, 194).

64. Ibid. S. 41.

page 99

EARLY HELLENISTIC HOROGRAPHERS: MEGASTHENES, HEKATAIOS OF ABDERA AND BEROSSOS

M.D. Bukharin

This article is the first to present a critical analysis of the thesis by A. Zambrini "Gli Indika di Megasthene". One of its basic statements is the dependence of Megasthenes' "Indika" on rhe ideas and structure of "Aegyptica" of Hekataios of Abdera. The "Indika" must have appeared as one of the steps of anti-Ptolemaic propaganda of Seleucos I Nicator. Similarity of the problems faced by Maurian India and Seleucid State and the influence of Hekataios were the most important factors of the idealizing tendencies in the "Indika". In fact, Zambrini's thesis is based upon an outdated Indological foundation and from this point of view does not stand criticism. The comparison of the preserved fragments of Megasthenes' and Hekataios works makes it clear that if there was any influence at all, it was Hekataios' who wrote his "Aegyptica" under the influence of Megasthenes: all the features of India which formed its image as that of a miraculous country were emphasized and sharply strengthened in Hekataios' work. The existence of state propaganda in early Hellenistic states on the basis of the descriptions of ideal countries, their history, people and nature is evident from the fact that all these features were sharpened even more in the "Babylonica" of Berossos.

Permanent link to this publication: