Page:History of India Vol 2.djvu/65

Rh and Mahanandin, according to the Puranic lists, are still more shadowy, mere nominis umbræ. Mahanandin, the last of the dynasty, is said to have had by a Sudra, or low-caste, woman a son named Mahapadma Nanda, who usurped the throne, and so established the Nanda family or dynasty. This event may be dated in or about 361

At this point all our authorities become unintelligible and incredible. The Puranas treat the Nanda dynasty as consisting of two generations only, Mahapadma and his eight sons, of whom one was named Sumalya. These two generations are supposed to have reigned for a century, which cannot possibly be true. The Jains, doing still greater violence to reason, extend the duration of the dynasty to 155 years, while the Buddhist Mahavamsa, Dipavamsa, and Asokavadana deepen the confusion by hopelessly muddled and contradictory stories not worth repeating. Some powerful motive must have existed for the distortion of the history of the so-called "Nine Nandas" in all forms of the tradition, but it is not easy to make even a plausible guess at the nature of that motive.

The Greek and Roman historians, who derived their information either from Megasthenes or the companions of Alexander, and thus rank as contemporary witnesses reported at second hand, throw a little light on the real history. When Alexander was stopped in his advance at the Hyphasis in 326, he was informed by a native chieftain named Bhagala or Bhagela, whose statements were confirmed by Poros, that the King of the