From ascetics to bigots: on the use of Greek sources to prove the existence of the caste system in Ancient India

Ðàçìåùåíî íà http://www.allbest.ru/

Ðàçìåùåíî íà http://www.allbest.ru/

From ascetics to bigots: on the use of Greek sources to prove the existence of the caste system in ancient India

Dunkin Jalki, PhD (Cultural Studies) Independent Researcher Bengaluru

Ancient Greek writers wrote for several centuries about “Indian philosophers”, also referred to as Gymnosophists and Brachmanes. Scholars studying India today argue that these thinkers were Brahmins and other Indian ascetics. They further assert that Greek writings on India and the descriptions they provide of these philosophers and their social contexts bear witness to the existence of the caste system, its properties, and its functioning. However, an examination of the Greek texts, even in their 19^th-century translations, would call this reading into question. The ancient scholars do not talk about the caste system familiar in mainstream sociology today. If so, how and when did the view that the Greeks discussed the Indian caste system emerge? For an answer, we need to go back to how European writings depicted the Brahmins over a millennium. This history is filled with many intriguing developments. Until around the 16^th century, the contemporary Brahmins were seen as the descendants of the ancient Gymnosophists. Soon, however, under the influence of the anti-clerical views of the Christian Reformation, Europeans began to differentiate between the ancient and contemporary Brahmins. They lauded the former for their austere lives and condemned the latter as immoral bigots. As the story of the degeneration of Hinduism and Indian civilisation emerged in the 17^th century, scholars began looking for the roots of this degeneration in India's ancient past.

However, in the absence of a unified and dominant narrative of the caste system as we understand it today, no link between the Greek descriptions of India and the Indian “caste system” was posited at this time. As the story of the caste system crystallised in the 18^th and 19^th centuries and Buddhism was discovered, scholars began to press the ancient Greeks into the service of providing witness to the existence of the caste system.

Keywords: Ancient Greeks; Brachmanes; Brahmins; Caste System; Gymnosophists; Hinduism; India

³ä àñêåò³â äî ôàíàòèê³â: ïðî âèêîðèñòàííÿ ãðåöüêèõ äæåðåë äëÿ äîêàçó ³ñíóâàííÿ êàñòîâî¿ ñèñòåìè â Äàâí³é ²í䳿

Ä. Äæàëê³

Äàâíüîãðåöüê³ ïèñüìåííèêè ïðîòÿãîì ê³ëüêîõ ñòîë³òü ïèñàëè ïðî “³íä³éñüêèõ ô³ëîñîô³â”, ÿêèõ íàçèâàëè òàêîæ ã³ìíîñîô³ñòàìè (óèðóîîîô³îòà³ “ãîë³ ìóäðåö³”) òà áðàãìàíàìè. Â÷åí³, ùî ñüîãîäí³ âèâ÷àþòü ²íä³þ, ñòâåðäæóþòü, ùî ò³ ìèñëèòåë³ áóëè áðàãìàíàìè òà ³íøèìè ³íä³éñüêèìè àñêåòàìè. Âîíè òàêîæ êàæóòü, ùî ïðèñâÿ÷åí³ ²í䳿 ãðåöüê³ ïðàö³ é îïèñè öèõ ô³ëîñîô³â òà ïîâ'ÿçàíîãî ç íèìè ñîö³àëüíîãî êîíòåêñòó ñâ³ä÷àòü ïðî ³ñíóâàííÿ êàñòîâî¿ ñèñòåìè, ïðî ¿¿ õàðàêòåðèñòèêè òà ôóíêö³îíóâàííÿ. Îäíàê ïðè âèâ÷åíí³ ãðåöüêèõ òåêñò³â, õî÷ áè é ó ïåðåêëàä³ XIX ñò., âèíèêàþòü ñóìí³âè ùîäî öüîãî òâåðäæåííÿ. Äàâí³ â÷åí³ íå êàçàëè ïðî êàñòîâó ñèñòåìó, çíàéîìó ñüîãîäí³øí³é ìåéíñòð³ìí³é ñîö³îëî㳿. ßêùî òàê, òî ÿê ³ êîëè ç'ÿâèëàñÿ äóìêà ïðî òå, ùî ãðåêè îáãîâîðþâàëè ³íä³éñüêó êàñòîâó ñèñòåìó? Ùîá ä³ñòàòè â³äïîâ³äü, íàì ïîòð³áíî çâåðíóòèñÿ äî òîãî, ÿê ïðîòÿãîì òèñÿ÷îë³òòÿ áðàãìàíè çìàëüîâóâàëèñÿ â ºâðîïåéñüêèõ ïðàöÿõ.

Òóò ìîæíà çíàéòè ÷èìàëî ö³êàâîãî. Ïðèáëèçíî äî XVI ñò. ñó÷àñí³ áðàãìàíè ââàæàëèñÿ íàùàäêàìè ñòàðîäàâí³õ ´³ìíîñîô³ñò³â. Îäíàê ïîò³ì ï³ä âïëèâîì àíòèêëåðèêàëüíèõ ïîãëÿä³â õðèñòèÿíñüêî¿ Ðåôîðìàö³¿ ºâðîïåéö³ ïî÷àëè ðîçð³çíÿòè äàâí³õ ³ ñó÷àñíèõ áðàãìàí³â. Ïåðøèõ âèõâàëÿëè çà ¿õí³é àñêåòèçì, à äðóãèõ çàñóäæóâàëè ÿê àìîðàëüíèõ ôàíàòèê³â. Êîëè â XVII ñò. ç'ÿâèâñÿ íàðàòèâ ïðî âèðîäæåííÿ ³íäó¿çìó é ³íä³éñüêî¿ öèâ³ë³çàö³¿, â÷åí³ ïî÷àëè øóêàòè êîð³ííÿ öüîãî âèðîäæåííÿ â äàâíüîìó ìèíóëîìó ²í䳿. Îäíàê ÷åðåç áðàê óí³ô³êîâàíîãî äîì³íàíòíîãî îïèñó òàêî¿ êàñòîâî¿ ñèñòåìè, ÿêó ìè çíàºìî ñüîãîäí³, íå áóëî ïðîñòåæåíî æîäíîãî çâ'ÿçêó ì³æ ãðåöüêèìè îïèñàìè ²í䳿 òà ³íä³éñüêîþ ñèñòåìîþ êàñò. Êîëè ó XVIII-XIX ñò. âèêðèñòàë³çóâàëîñÿ óÿâëåííÿ ïðî êàñòîâó ñèñòåìó é áóâ â³äêðèòèé áóääèçì, ó÷åí³ ñòàëè ïðèïèñóâàòè ñâ³ä÷åííÿ ïðî ³ñíóâàííÿ êàñòîâî¿ ñèñòåìè äàâí³ì ãðåêàì.

Êëþ÷îâ³ ñëîâà: áðàãìàíè; áðàì³íè; ´³ìíîñîô³ñòè; äàâí³ ãðåêè; ²íä³ÿ; ³íäó¿çì; êàñòîâà ñèñòåìà.

Introduction

In the writings of several important Greek (or more specifically, Hellenistic) writers, beginning from Cleitarchus (4^th century BCE) through Strabo and Pliny (1^st century CE) to Gaius Julius Solinus (3^rd century), there are descriptions of certain “Indian philosophers”, primarily known as gymnosophists and Brachmanes. Among other things, the descriptions reflect their lifestyle and some aspects of the society of the time. Scholars who have written over the past three centuries about the history of the Indian caste system have generally agreed that the “philosophers” whom the Greek writers describe were “obviously ... the Brahmins” [Kulke and Rothermund 1986, 62], along with other groups of Indian sages such as Jains and Buddhists. “Megasthenes's philosophers correspond to the brahmins”, declares Witzel [Witzel 2006, 487]. In other words, the term “philosophers” here refers “to what we would call the religious identities of Vedic Brahmanism and Shramanism” [Thapar 2002, 190-191]. In Greek accounts of these philosophers, social scientists have found compelling evidence for the Indian caste system, elucidating its “salient features” [Frazer 1898, 181], “peculiar features” [Ambedkar 2014, 130], and “essential features” [Arora 1991, 326].

The scholars have also identified the key properties that Greek authors write about. Among these is the “endogamous” nature of the caste system, which prevented its members from “chang[ing their] ... occupation or profession” [Cohn 2007, 4] and “restricted the[ir] choice of a spouse” [Srinivas et al. 1959, 131]. However, the system provided “exceptions for Brahmins” from these restrictions [Lubin 2013, 31]. In sum, as a recent scholar puts it categorically, Greek authors tell us that “[i]nter-marriage between the castes was prohibited as was the switching from one's birthright caste into any other” [Vassiliades 2000, 53]. Scholars point to Megasthenes as the primary Greek author who offers such descriptions. He listed “seven castes” and made “unqualified statements” about “the formation of the caste system and its supporting `ideology' ” [Habib 2002, 169]. That is, Megasthenes' work informs that individuals “could enter only occupations within their own caste and were forbidden to marry outside caste lines” in India [Yamazaki 1997, 8].

This essay will demonstrate that contrary to what experts believe, a close reading of Greek texts - even in their 19^th-century translations - reveals that they do not describe the so-called caste system. If true, this claim will raise additional questions. When Greek writers talk about Indian philosophers, their privileges, and their lifestyle, what precisely are they talking about? Answering this question requires two things: expertise in Greek language and culture, which falls outside the scope of this article, and some clearing of the deadwood. This article will undertake the latter task by raising another important question: How and when did the perception that Greek texts discuss the caste system come about?

Situating the Problem

Scholars do not contend that the Greek accounts of India give a precise account of the caste system. They labour hard to uncover the evidence of the caste system in the Greek texts. For instance, consider the following.

“For a society to become a caste-based society there have to be three preconditions: the society must register social disparities; there has to be unequal access of various groups within that society to economic resources; inequalities should be legitimized through a theoretically irreversible hierarchy and the imposition of the hierarchy claim to be based on a super-natural authority. . The first two features would be present in a minimal way in many societies. These would be essential characteristics of a jati and might even occur in a lesser form in some clan organizations. The ideological factor derives from varna and is characteristic of Hindu society” [Thapar 2002, 63-64].

Romila Thapar suggests that “social disparities” and quantitative inequality (i.e., unequal access to economic resources) exist to some extent in many societies, and these characteristics are fundamental to the caste system. Is Thapar then arguing that the caste system is incipiently present in various societies? The argument here is that these two characteristics are necessary but not sufficient to make the caste system work. What distinguishes a caste society is the presence of “a theoretically irreversible hierarchy” enforced in the name of “a super-natural authority”. In other words, when Hinduism doctrinally imposes “social disparities” and irreversible quantitative inequality on its people, it transforms into the so-called caste system. Regardless of whether scholars have conclusively demonstrated the existence of such a social system in India, the pertinent question for us is: Did the Greeks communicate these crucial features of the caste system in their writings?

Thapar expresses some reservations about the Greek sources elsewhere: “[I]t must be remembered that the [Greek] authors were foreign to India, and therefore looked on the country and its customs with alien eyes. ... [Therefore,] it is possible that they may at times have confused the practical and theoretical aspects of a question. A case in point is Megasthenes' description of the seven castes in India” [Thapar 1961, 11]. That is, the Greek writers did not witness the social practice of the caste system but only took what Brahmins were saying about it as true. (Remember that Hindu religious texts were not available in writing yet at that time). However, since they did not see or understand and therefore did not report “a theoretically irreversible hierarchy enforced in the name of a supernatural authority”, they must have only taken into consideration those aspects that would be present in a minimal way in many societies. In other words, to repeat, the Greeks did not observe the caste system and its properties.

Nevertheless, Thapar seems to miss the significance of her own insight and insists that even though “the later rigidity of the caste system was not prevalent in all its forms in Mauryan times” (322-180 BCE), “the process of [its] crystallization had [already] begun”, and as it “is evident from Megasthenes' account of Indian society”, the “theoretical aspect of the caste system had been fully accepted” [Thapar 1961, 56]. (Just to note a different view here, Bronkhorst has recently asserted the opposite of it. Citing a work by Karttunen [Karttunen 1997], he notes that the Megasthenian sevenfold division of Indian society does not align with the fourfold varna division because, at the time, this “theoretical division of society had not yet been accepted” [Bronkhorst 2007, 361]).

What should one look for in Megasthenes's accounts, then? Should one look for the distinguishing properties of the caste system? That would not be sufficient. His accounts should also show us that while Brahmins had fully accepted the theoretical aspect of the caste system, society at large had begun to adopt some of those aspects since the system was still in its early stages of crystallisation. Scholars have never even come close to establishing this. What do they argue for, then? As we shall see soon, Thapar's explanations are typical of the last three centuries of scholarly work on this subject. They raise questions over the validity of Greek descriptions of Indian society but also maintain that these writings provide some evidence for the presence of the caste system in India. As scholars begin to locate the elusive “evidence” in Greek writings for the caste system, the argument becomes immensely complicated and unreasonable. Therefore, this article proposes to tackle such a complicated argument from three angles: a critical examination of Greek texts to challenge their interpretations, a historical overview of how these interpretations have evolved over time, and an analysis of some of the interpretations. various axes commonly associated with the caste system, such as purity or social status ranking, we will discover that the same group occupies distinct positions within the hierarchy. Consider a few examples from McCrindle's 1877 collection of excerpts attributed to Megasthenes. While philosophers are “in point of dignity preeminent over all”, “the Councillors and Assessors ... [are] the most respected”, and on account of their “high character and wisdom”, they get “the highest posts of government” [McCrindle 1877, 40, 43, 55].

While the Husbandmen are regarded as a class that is “sacred and inviolable” and are “exempted from fighting and other public services” [McCrindle 1877, 33, 41], an Artisan is “not only exempted from paying taxes, but even receives maintenance from the royal exchequer”. If someone “causes an artizan to lose his hand or his eye, he is put to death”, and the philosophers can be punished for giving “false information thrice” [McCrindle 1877, 42-43, 71, 83-85]. The most one can say from these excerpts, then, is that each member of the seven groups enjoys their own power, privileges, and prestige in different domains.

Even though placing someone at the beginning of a list need not be indicative of their position in the order, we can note the following: while the philosophers are described as “first in rank” in Diodorus Siculus (c. 90 - c. 30 BCE) and Strabo's (63 BCE - 24 CE) excerpts from Megasthenes, in Pliny (23-79 CE) and Solinus (fl. 200), they are the fifth in the order [McCrindle 1877, 40, 83, 155, 136].

Occupation and Marriage Restrictions

There is, however, one privilege of the philosophers which seems to support the notion that Greek writers did describe a hierarchical structure within Indian society. Judging from J.W. McCrindle's translations of Megasthenes into 19^th-century English, which anachronistically give him words like “caste”, one could be inclined to believe that those ancient Indian philosophers did enjoy a special privilege bestowed upon them. “No one is allowed to marry out of his own caste or to exchange one profession or trade for another, or to follow more than one business. An exception is made in favour of the philosopher, who for his virtue is allowed this privilege” [McCrindle 1877, 85-86]. In the words of Arrian (86 - c. 160 CE),

“the custom of the country prohibits intermarriage between the castes: for instance, the husbandman cannot take a wife from the artizan caste, nor the artizan a wife from the husbandman caste. Custom also prohibits any one from exercising two trades, or from changing from one caste to another. One cannot, for instance, become a husbandman if he is a herdsman, or become a herdsman if he is an artizan. It is permitted that the sophist only be from any caste for the life of the sophist is not an easy one, but the hardest of all” [McCrindle 1877, 212-13].

Diodorus Siculus, a Greek historian of the mid-first century BCE, also describes the seven-fold division of Indian society and notes that “no one is allowed to marry a person of another caste or to follow another calling or trade, as, for instance, that one who is a soldier should become a farmer, or an artisan should become a philosopher” (§ 2.41.5)2. He does not, however, mention the privilege of the philosophers to circumvent these restrictions. A few decades later, Strabo criticises all previous writers on India as fabricators, including Megasthenes, and yet explicitly quotes him in his Geography and observes that a philosopher is free to change his occupation, pursue multiple occupations, or wed outside of their caste [Strabo 1930, 83].

Although it may initially appear reasonable to interpret caste-endogamy, fixed occupation, and exceptions for Brahmins from these claims, such an interpretation overlooks an intriguing observation made by these Greek writers. The exceptions granted to philosophers are not based on their group identity but on the manner they live. While Megas- thenes notes that the philosopher “for his virtue is allowed this privilege”, according to Arrian, it is because “the life of the sophist is not an easy one, but the hardest of all” [McCrindle 1877, 86, 213]. Similarly, Strabo attributes privilege to the “virtue” of philosophers [Strabo 1930, 83].

Virtue and Related Issues

Even though we cannot digress here into a discussion of “virtue”, arete in Greek, which earns philosophers their privilege, there is something important here that needs to be pointed out. As an anonymous reviewer of this article pointed out, the idea of virtue has an “axially ontological root, which cannot be taken as a sociological concept that it never was”. The Greek writers we spoke about so far attribute the privilege of the philosophers to their “virtue”. However, are scholars making a category mistake when they associate this privilege with the caste system? For instance, Stoneman points out that “Megasthenes did identify the two key aspects of the [caste] system: hereditary occupation and endogamy” [Stoneman 2019, 217]. That is a decision best left to philosophers and scholars of ancient Greek philosophy. The contention here is simple: whatever “virtue” is, if scholars want to use it or any of its components as proof to argue that Brahmins enjoyed caste-based privileges, then they must account for some of the following issues.

The privilege of the philosophers that Greeks talk about is attributed to a specific way of living and not identity. Irrespective of what nuances and interpretations one can claim for the idea of arete, this notion is fundamentally about how one lives. When Strabo, for example, refers to philosophers in general, throughout his multi-volume work Geography, he “remarks on their behaviour, rather than on their ideas” [Parmar 2015, 142]. It should not be contentious, then, to claim that a philosopher is distinguished from others because she or he excels in something. If the privilege of a philosopher can thus be seen as related to his excellence in some aspects of life, privileges enjoyed by Indian philosophers need not look like a gift of the caste system.

A caste scholar may now argue that the excellence attributed to philosophers - in this case, Brahmins - is not acquired but inherited. However, Greek writers do not leave this issue open for interpretation. Consider how classical writers depict the lives of Indian and other philosophers. According to Megasthenes, the high status of philosophers is attributed to their possession of certain characteristics: “in point of dignity”, they are “preeminent over all”, as they are “neither the masters nor the servants of others”. A philosopher, whether man or woman, “despises pleasure and pain, as well as life and death” and “undergo[es] much discipline as a preparation for death” [McCrindle 1877, 40, 100]. Pliny refers to Indian philosophers as “persons devoted to wisdom, a group highly esteemed by them”. Apuleius, a writer from the 2^nd century CE, highlights the “Bracmani” for their resilience in enduring physical hardships [both cited in: Parker 2008, 276]³. Strabo introduces his work thus: “The science of Geography, ... as much as any other science, [is] a concern of the philosopher.. [And a philosopher, is] the man who busies himself with the investigation of the art of life, that is of happiness”, or in Greek, eudemonia [Strabo 1917, 3-5].

These lives are described as arduous, as Arrian states, “not an easy one, but the hardest of all”. The hardships mentioned encompass various aspects, ranging from physical hardships such as frugal living and minimal clothing to a life of rigour and discipline. For instance, “[t]hey predict about such matters as the seasons of the year, and any calamity which may befall the state”. However, “if any one fails thrice to predict truly, he [is] . obliged to be silent for the” rest of his/her life [McCrindle 1877, 209].

Even if we grant that philosophers lived a life of hardship and excelled in something, a caste scholar may still ask how it could serve as a prerequisite for marrying outside one's group, a privilege attributed to philosophers. A closer inspection of the Greek texts that discuss this issue can shed more light on it. Consider the way this issue is formulated. While Arrian, referring to Megasthenes, writes that it is forbidden to marry outside one's group or switch groups, he also asserts that “it is permitted that the sophist [i.e., philosophers] only be from any caste” [McCrindle 1877, 213].

By implication, then, a person from any group can become a philosopher, and a philosopher can marry anyone. Changing vocation and marrying outside one's community, thus, depend on the ability to become a philosopher. Put differently, those who excel in something acquire the privilege of changing occupations. Note here that for these Greek writers, “philosophers” or virtuous people included both men and women [e.g.: McCrindle 1877, 100]. Nearchus mentions how gymnosophists' wives engage in philosophy [Strabo 1930, 115]. Strabo adds that “women associate with them [Pramnae] but do not have intercourse with them” [Strabo 1930, 125]. This suggests that even a woman could change professions and marry outside of her group if she had the requisite virtues. Note that one can also interpret this to say that when (at least some of) the philosophers, whether women or men, married, they married only outside of their community of philosophers.

What can we surmise from the discussion so far? (1) If it was permitted that philosophers could come from any of the seven groups and can also marry outside of their group, it implies that all capable people of any group, men or women, could overcome marriage and occupation restrictions. (2) If philosophers could marry someone from any group, it further indicates that people from any group could marry a philosopher too, and thus outside of their group. Therefore, if “philosophers” are considered a separate group (a separate caste), one's inclusion in this caste group can be based either on virtues or marriage alliances. (3) It is also possible to argue that philosophers could not have a stable group or social identity (i.e., “Brahmin identity”) and the corresponding status or ranking, if they were free to move between groups. (4) The supposed “exceptions” for philosophers, thus, arise from a misinterpretation of what Megasthenes and others say about the process and criteria for becoming a philosopher or this entire discussion of the “privilege of philosophers” as caste privilege is based on a category mistake.

European Writings: 13^th to 18^th Centuries

Throughout the late Middle Ages, Europe's primary informational sources about India were the millennia-old Greek and Christian literature. When Europe borrowed from Greek literature, it also borrowed it along with the early Christian attitudes towards Indian philosophers. As a result, when Europe spoke about gymnosophists, there were two different elements in it: the pagan admiration for the philosophers and the Christian critique of them. (See Hahn [Hahn 1978] for an overview of early Christian criticisms of Indian philosophers. See also: [Gelders 2009]). The colonial form of these criticisms did not emerge for more than three centuries.

Marko Polo (c. 1254-1324), the famous Italian explorer, is probably the first one to talk about Bragmanos, whom he calls (in the words of its first English translator, John Frampton, in 1579) “the truest men in the world”, as they do not lie “for all the world”, nor “honour the Idols” [Penzer 1937, 111]. His views about these Bragmanos are a mix of both the old pagan appreciation and the later Christian criticism, notes a recent scholar [Juncu 2016, 55-56]. Such largely positive views about Brahmins were prominent in this period. For instance, speaking about the Brahmins, the reputed poet of the Italian Renaissance, Francesco Petrarca (1304-1374), could declare, “I like their contempt for this world [. . .] I like their solitude, I like their freedom”, wonder “If there once were many of them, what stops there being one left today?”, as well as criticise them for their unchristian ideas, their “heresy” (cited and translated by: [Juncu 2016, 81-83]).

When Bartholomew Anglicus wrote on India in his well-known Latin encyclopaedia De Proprietatibus Rerum, in the middle of the 13^th century, he made use of many Greek writers, including Strabo and Pliny [Anglicus 1582, chap. 73]. And at some point, much in the spirit of the ancient writers, he presents the seven-fold division of Indian society and Brahmins as those who give themselves “principally to Religions, and to learning of wit and of wisedome”. Similarly, while Leon Battista Alberti (1404-1472), another important Italian Renaissance scholar, wrote about gymnosophists much in the same positive vein [Juncu 2016, 87-90], Theodor Zwinger [Zwinger 1586, 386], a mid-16^th century Swiss humanist scholar, emphasised their austere and ascetic lifestyle.

However, before the end of Renaissance humanism around the 16^th century, two things emerged clearly. (a) Once mostly theological, criticism of Indian philosophers evolved into a societal critique and personal slander, at the same time becoming excessively vituperative. Three important scholars who came from three different parts of Europe set the tone and provided content for this new model of criticism: Ludovico di Vartema (c. 14701517), an Italian adventurer; Duarte Barbosa (c. 1480-1521), a Portuguese writer and officer; and Saint Francis Xavier (1506-52), a Spanish Catholic missionary⁴. (b) Scholars began to assert that despite a historical connection between the contemporary Brahmins and ancient Indian philosophers, they significantly differ from one another. For instance, Dictionarium Historicum, first published in 1553, contrasts between the Brachmanaer that Strabo and Pliny spoke about and “Bramines in India today” [Estienne 1609]. Interestingly, the Brahmins in Varthema [Varthema 1863, 141-142], Barbosa [Barbosa 1518, 115-116], and Xavier [Coleridge 1881, 157-159] were not antiquated philosophers, but rather contemporary priests, malicious and oppressive, who worshipped the devil.

Writing a century later, in 1613, Roberto de Nobili, an Italian priest who worked in South India, synthesised various perspectives of the time, including references to Megas- thenes, Strabo, and others, stating that Indian philosophers

“live frugally, taking their meals seated on skins and hides. They abstain from flesh meat and sexual intercourse, fully intent on serious discussions. Nearcus too mentions the brahmins when treating of the Sophists. He says that there are those among the brahmins who attach themselves to kings as their counselors, while others engage in contemplation and in considerations about the things of nature. Clitarus too speaks about brahmins, describing them as shrewd men with a partiality for controversy. He mentions that they go in for physiology and astronomy. ... Hence I do not know on what authority or ground anyone may get it into his head to suppose that the brahmins constitute a class of superstitious priests. Even our own Western writers cry out against such a notion. Whoever holds a notion so glaringly false as to contend that brahmins are a priestly caste will more surely prove his own ignorance of history than prove brahmins to be in any way connected with a priestly office” [de Nobili 2000, 142-143].

The views of de Nobili, the Jesuit priest, that the Brahmins were thinkers and that their customs were civil rather than religious clashed with the other European stance that was gaining traction, which saw them as a class of superstitious priests. By the mid-19^th century, the latter perspective became the prevailing truth about India, leading to a common assumption that the classical Greek descriptions of India provided evidence of the existence of the caste system in ancient India.

An answer to the question that de Nobili had asked - “on what authority or ground anyone may suppose that the Brahmins constitute a class of superstitious priests” - was in the making throughout this period. Thomas Herbert, an English traveller and a historian, for instance, wrote about these priests, who “in old times ... were nam'd Gymno- sophF. He begins with a flattering account of their life, citing Greek writings, especially the story of “Calanus the Bramyn”, who purportedly accompanied Alexander on his journey back home. And then he asks: “But, how they . forgot these and broacht new opinions, more fantastick and rediculous”? [Herbert 1638, 39-40]. According to Edward Terry, an English priest who wrote about the Mogul kings, the difference between those whom “the ancient stories call Brachmanes” and the contemporary “illiterare Priests . called Bramins” was that the former were “learned men”, whereas the contemporary “Bramins are a very silly, sottish, and an ignorant sort of people, who are so inconstant in their principles, as that they scarce know, what the particulars are which they hold, and maintain as truths” [Terry 1655, 345-346]. And as Alexander Ross, another English priest of the time, wrote, in ancient times, amidst all idolatry and superstition, “the Brachmans among them worshipped no Images nor any living creature, were very temperate in their dyet, and gave themselves to contemplation of divine things”. However, speaking about the Malabar of his day, Ross uses a story that Varthema had popularised over two centuries ago: “Bramanes, or Priests (the successors of the old Brachmannes) are in such es- teeme here, that the King will not converse with his new married Wife, till one of the chief Bramanes hath had the first nights lodging with her” [Ross 1655; for another similar example, see Burnet's essay in: Blount 1693, 77-87].

On what grounds did these writers establish degeneration in Brahmins and the Indian religion? European authors investigated the “absurd philosophy” and “abominable practises” of the Brahmins to address this subject. These developments - the European experience of India as home to “absurd philosophy” and “abominable practises” which serve as the foundation for their abhorrent criticism of Indian culture - are now well documented [see: Balagangadhara 1994]. Consider, for instance, how Herbert answered this question. He explained how Brahmins grew “impious and unthankfull” to their god Ruddery through their sins and ignorance, and Ruddery punished them as a result. It is significant for us to recognise the part that the Greeks eventually played in this tale of degeneration. Some claim that the Greeks gave Indians the concept of metempsychosis [Herbert 1638, 47, 43] and probably even idolatry. Indians once “worshipped their own gods, till Bacchus and Alexander subdued them, and then the Grecian deities were honoured amongst them”. And now the Malabarians hold “not onely the immortality of Soules, both of beasts and men, and transanimation, but also a divinity in Elephants, Kine, and other beasts”, as Ross noted [Ross 1655, 81, 85].

According to Theophilus Gale, an English priest and a scholar, “Pyrrho the Head of the Scepticks is said to have conversation with the Gymnosophists in Indiae”, as did “Apollonius Tyanaeus, that great Pagan Antichrist” [Gale 1672, 79]. He did not speculate on the outcomes of these encounters but pointed out that, among other things, Brachmanes believed in “Transmigration of Souls into Beasts, especially into Oxen” Besides the Greek roots of the ideas of Brachmanes, their “Body of Learning” also resembles not Christian European philosophy but “the natural Theology of the Ancients”, wrote Thomas Burnet soon [Blount 1693, 79].

During this period, there was no unified and dominant narrative of the caste system as we understand it today. Consequently, the Greek descriptions of India and the Indian “caste system” were not yet directly linked. Writers of the time did not associate the Greek descriptions of the seven-fold division of Indian society or marriage-related restrictions with the caste system. For example, see de Nobili's “Report Concerning Certain Customs of the Indian Nation”, written as early as 1613 [De Nobili 2000, 142-143; see also: Chambers 1728; Sale et al. 1748, 76; Maurice 1794]. Instead, they primarily focused on appreciating the ancient Brahmins [as in: Gale 1672, 78, 79; Sale et al. 1748, 76, 77; Lempriere 1788] or criticising the modern ones, sometimes with a brief criticism of the ancients.

This is how Thomas Burnet and William Wotton, writing in the 1690s, approached the topic. Even though “the Brachman Philosophers have in all Times been famous ... [for giving] themselves up continually to Contemplation”, both modern and ancient Brachmans are “too much addicted to Mythological Learning”, which is “impure, and liable to many Corruptions” [Burnet 1736, 20, 23]. According to Wotton, the Brach- mans and Bramines were also accused of placing “the highest degrees of Sanctity and Prudence in half-starving themselves, and depriving themselves of the lawful Convenien- cies of Life”. Wotton did not leave the implications of his observations hidden: the Greek “Stories of the extraordinary Wisdom of the Ancient Brachmans are in a great measure fabulous, because in the idle and bigoted part of the Narrative they do so particularly agree with the Modern Bramines” [Wotton 1705, 139-140].

This trend continued into the 18^th century when it became widely accepted that the “modern brachmans are the successors of the ancient” philosophers [Chambers 1728; see also: Bayle and Maizeaux 1735, 117; “Of the Bramins” 1731, 245], because they “in many points, retain the tenets of the ancient Brachmans” [Anonymous 1774, 300; see also: Massey 1752, 271-272]. However, there were also criticisms that they “have little of the Gravity and Wisdom of the ancient Brachmans” [Ziegenbalg 1714, 27]. Abraham Roger⁵ captured the prevailing sentiment of the time thus: “The superstitious care these people [the modern Brahmins] take to follow the customs and propagate the opinions of their ancestors, be they ever so absurd and senseless, plainly shows, they would have preserved learning with equal care, had there been any of it to preserve” [Millar 1731, 134, 135]. Robert Millar compared the descriptions of “Bramines” by ancient writers like Strabo with those by modern European scholars such as Abraham Roger and Francois Bernier, concluding that both ancient Brachmans and modern Bramines shared a common ignorance and adherence to absurd superstitions [Millar 1731].

The Story of the Boutta (Buddha)

The European discovery of Buddhism around this time was a major influence on the narrative of degenerate Brahmins. While this exercise was well underway in other parts of Asia already in the 16^th century, it arrived in India somewhat belatedly [App 2010; De Jong 1976; Lopez Jr. 2013]. When it did arrive, it had an important effect on the then-developing story of the Indian caste system.

Although much has been written on the relations between Greece and Buddhism [Vassiliades 2004; Beckwith 2017], Greek writings do not mention the name Buddha in any of its recognisable forms until the Christian era. The earliest extant mention of a certain al-Budd appears in the pseudo-Apollonius of Tyana, a 1^st-century Greek philosopher [Haq 1996, 55]. In the following century, Clement of Alexandria, a Christian apologist, speaks of a group of philosophers in India “who follow the precepts of Boutta” [McCrindle 1877, 104]. Two centuries later, in his work Against Jovinianus, Saint Jerome, a Church Father, briefly notes an “authoritatively handed down” opinion that “Budda” (or Buddam in the original Latin) is “the founder of ... [the] religion” followed by the Gym- nosophists of India, whom they believe was born of a Virgin [Jerome 1893, 350]. As we know today, there are no other mentions of this Boutta/Buddam in Greek or subsequent Christian literature until the 10^th-century Byzantine Greek historical encyclopedia, the Suda, which refers to Buddas and Brahmins⁶. This encyclopaedia has been “edited and published several times since the end of the 14^th century”⁷. It was after this period that the Buddas and Buddhism (in various spellings) were regularly mentioned in connection with the Indian philosophers⁸. In the 1610s, de Nobili distinguished Buddhists from other Indian “wise people” as well as other idolatrous sects and described them as a very ancient group of atheists in India [De Nobili 2000]. A century later, Bartholomaeus Ziegenbalg (1682-1719) made interesting observations about Buddhists. In the intervening years between these two influential scholars, not much was written on the subject in the Indian context, except for a brief mention of St. Jerome and the Suda, the 10^th-century Byzantine Greek encyclopaedia, in Theoph Gale [Gale 1672, 79].

Ziegenbalg's account of Buddhists speaks about certain Buddergol and Schammaner- gol, the two “nations” with their native religions, and how Lord Vishnu chased them out of India during one of his avatars. Ziegenbalg neither clarifies how he arrived at these names nor says much about these groups⁹. However, as Urs App explains, a French orientalist called Maturinus Veyssiere La Croze, writing in 1724, adopted and developed this story further, giving it some crucial twists [App 2010, 116-117]. (a) He explicitly identified Buddergol as “worshippers of Buddha”, and (b) he linked them to Porphyry's distinction between Sarmanes and Brachmanes. (c) He claimed that the “Boutta” of Clement of Alexandria and the Boudda of St. Jerome are the same. (d) He went a step further and linked the Boutta/Boudda to “the Sommona-Codom of Southeast-Asian missionaries, the Xe-kia of the Chinese, and the Xaca of the Japanese” and insisted that they all refer to the same “person worshipped by Ziegenbalg's Putters or Buddergols” [App 2010, 118].

Ziegenbalg and La Croze's portrayal of India, like that of de Nobili, largely followed the then-standard European model of depicting India as a degenerate culture with a corrupt religion. However, their portrayal of ancient Indian Brahmins as wise people and ancient Buddhists as idolaters who spread superstition in India and China was a minor aberration [see also: Lopez Jr. 2013, 18], which did not last long. The developing narrative of the caste system and its immoral priests called Brahmins quickly assumed a key position in the European experience of India.

In 1765, Louis de Jaucourt summarised the debate over Indian religion, specifically citing La Croze, in his entry “Samanen”, which appeared in the French Encyclopedie, ou dictionnaire raisonne des sciences, des arts et des metiers (Vol. XIV, pp. 590a-591b), began by marking Samansi and Brachmanes as two separate and “principal sect[s] of the Indian religion” [Jaucourt 2012]. The Brachmanes, whom the Greeks called Germanes, “were originally an exclusive tribe or caste, whereas, in principle, anyone could become a Samanean” After talking about their pious and “austere life”, he notes that while there “was little difference between the” two groups in the past, “[t]hose closest to their spirit today, however, are the Buddhist monks of Siam” (Thailand). The “Butta” that Saint Clement refers to is assumed to be the Buddha here. He then recounts La Croze's story of how Buddhists detested Brahmins in Malabar and how their god Vishnu punished them. Jaucourt concludes by stating that the “Hindu religion, which derives from this source, is no longer that of Samaneans. It is, rather, that of the mass, which is incapable of entertaining the great ideas, and profound meditations taken up by the followers of Buddha” [Jaucourt 2012].

Thus, even though the Greeks themselves had nothing to say about a certain Boutta, they were drawn into the story surrounding him. This led to a new cottage industry of scholars looking for evidence in ancient Greek writings for the European story of Indian culture, its degeneration, and the resultant caste system.

At the Turn of the 19^th Century: Reading Caste System into Greek Sources

Scholars started working on two problems pertaining to the understanding of Indian religion in the late 1700s. Initially, the variety of names given to groups of Indian philo- sophers¹⁰ had to be arranged and segregated into identifiable religious identities. In other words, de Jaucourt's assertion that Germanes are Samanaei and that today it is the Buddhists who are “closest to their spirit” needed proving. And then the story of the four var- nas of the caste system, which was gaining traction after Europeans had “discovered” Sanskrit texts, had to be integrated with the Greek categorisation of Indian society into seven sections. The Scottish priest and historian William Robertson, in his An Historical Disquisition concerning the Knowledge which the Ancients had of India [Robertson 1804, 357], published in 1791, made three huge claims: (a) that “[a]ccording to all the writers of antiquity, the Indians said to be divided into seven tribes or casts”; (b) that this was an error because they took “some of the subdivisions of the casts” to be “distinct independent order[s]”; and (c) that “they were no more than four original casts, we learn from the concurring testimony of the best-informed travellers”.

Robertson did not bring any new facts to the table. He, however, quoted from European writers (like Abraham Roger, who “acquired information concerning the manners and religion of the Indians, more authentic and extensive than was known to Europeans”) and recent “translations from the San- skreet language”, including the Laws of Manu. He asserted that “[t]here remains now no doubt with respect either to the number or the functions of the casts, as both are ascertained from the most ancient and sacred books of the Hindoos, and confirmed by the accounts of their own institutions, given by Brahmins eminent for their learning”. In the process, more importantly, Robertson linked three distinct bodies of writings: contemporary European writings (like Abraham Roger), classical Indian writings (such as Manu), and “all the writers of antiquity” who have written about India.

In 1797, editing a rare account of the voyage of Nearchus, the official and navigator of Alexander the Great, William Vincent noted that Greeks spoke about several “tribes or casts of the Indian nations”, quietly reduced them to four castes and justified with some ingenious explanations: the “four orders of priests, soldiers, husbandmen, and artisans [out of seven] still predominate” in contemporary India [Vincent 1797, 16-17]. However, while the “sixth and seventh classes” are “subdivisions of the others”, the second and third groups are one group. He also noted that intermarriages between these castes were forbidden and that the Pramnae disputed with the Brahmins. Vincent concluded by alluding to a Mogul Emperor's quip that the philosopher and the priest can never agree [Vincent 1797, 15-16, fn. 51].

The question of the identity of the Germani that the Greeks spoke about was resolved simply by identifying them with the Brahmins. Robertson pointed out that the description “of the Germani, which Strabo takes from Megasthenes, applies, almost in every circumstance” to the “numerous orders of Indian devotees”. According to him, the “modern” devotees are known for “the rigour of their mortifications, the excruciating penances which they voluntarily undergo, and the high opinion which the people entertain of their sanctity”. However, these devotees were not the Brahmins, who were “born to enjoy” the “reverence and honours” offered by the lay people [Robertson 1804, 297-298]. Earlier, in 1794, for Thomas Maurice, the orientalist and historian, their clothing was enough to settle the issue:

“Let us attend to his dress, for the reader will ever bear in remembrance the difference subsisting between a brahmin, who is the old brachman, and wears apparel; and the yogee, or old gymnosophist, who, warm with fervid piety, spurns external clothing. A gymnoso- phist, or Hindoo penitent, is not properly a brahmin; though a brahmin, by adopting severer austerities may become a gymnosophist” [Maurice 1794, 968].

Over the course of a few decades, this story gained such traction that the eminent colonial administrator and writer W. H. Sykes could assert matter-of-factly that it is evident that “sophists or gymnosophists could not have been Brahmans” because the sophists were known for their arduous lives, such as going naked and “ascending the funeral pile” [Sykes 1841, 126].

The Contributions of Henry Thomas Colebrooke

As the story of the caste system and Buddha developed further and all the characters were introduced, the stage was set for the climax. In 1807, H. T Colebrooke, the famous Sanskrit scholar and orientalist, published a lengthy article on Jains titled “Observations on the Sect of Jains”, where he categorically declared that “it is not difficult to reconcile the distribution” of Indian society into “seven tribes”, as “stated by Arrian and Strabo, with the present distribution into four classes” [Colebrooke 1873, 176, n2]. A key hypothesis of the essay was that Jains and Buddhists are not Hindus. The author supported this with various arguments and references to Greek writers. The conclusion drawn was that Veda-following Hindus preceded Jains and Buddhists as the earliest Indian sects and that “Brachmanes” refers to Brahmins. Six of his main arguments are listed here [Colebrooke 1873, 180-181].

First, the author contended that the descriptions provided by Strabo and Megasthenes regarding the “manners and opinions” of Brachmanes and Germanes appeared to align more closely with orthodox Hindus rather than with the Bauddhas or Jainas. He cited specific examples related to beliefs about the origin and nature of the world, the role of God, and the concept of the soul. Second, the author referred to Strabo's observation that Pramns “ridiculed the Brachmanes, for their study of physiology and astronomy”. Third, the author cited accounts by Philostratus, Hierocles, and Pliny, who noted that the Brachmanes worshipped the sun, which “does not seem to have been at any time practised by the rival sects of Jina and Buddha”¹¹.

A brief reflection is warranted here to consider these three points. The comparisons made by Colebrooke between “Hindus” and “non-Hindu” groups such as Buddhists and Jains are intertwined with the narrative of the caste system and Hinduism, which was developing fast by that time. In this story, Brahmins were depicted as Hindu priests who supported the immoral caste system through, among other things, rituals (like sun worship) and the associated beliefs. It is in this story that Jains and Buddhists emerge as characters who challenge the divine authority of the Vedas and reject it. Therefore, in the context of the European caste story, Pramnae's mockery of the Brachmanes for their “study” suggests that the two are distinct sects and that the Pramnae are morally superior to the Brachmane.

It is not unexpected that Colebrooke “discovered” a portrayal of the varna and the caste system in Greek writings. However, his cautious approach in formulating his ideas was only because the colonial story of the caste system had not yet fully evolved at that time. Expectedly, some of Colebrooke's initially hesitant suggestions were subsequently reformulated with greater confidence. For example, when Horace Hayman Wilson, an Oxford University Sanskrit professor and Colebrooke's close friend, published “Sketch of the religious sects of the Hindus” in Calcutta in 1846, he wrote with no hesitation that as far as Greek descriptions of “the customs or observances of the Gymnosophists” are concerned, “we have no reason to conclude that any but the followers of the Vedas are intended”.

The fourth argument of Colebrooke was about his interpretation of St. Porphyrius' (c. 347-420 CE) remarks on two orders of Gymnosophists, Brachmanes and Samansans [Colebrooke 1873, 181-182]. According to Porphyrius, “the Brachmanes receive religious knowledge, like the priesthood, in right of birth; but the Samansans are select, and consist of persons choosing to prosecute divine studies”. Quoting Bardesanes, Porphyrius notes further that “all the Brachmanes are of one race; for they are all descended from one father and one mother. But the Samansans are not of their race; being selected from the whole nation of Indians”. In these remarks of Porphyrius', Colebrooke found evidence for the key claims of the European story of the caste system: that the Brachmanes are a “hereditary order of priesthood” and that Buddhist Samansans were “Sannyasis” or ascetics, and may have come from “any of the sects of Hindus”. He concludes by noting that the name “Samansans” “seems to bear some affinity to the Sramanas, or ascetics of the Jainas and Bauddhas”.

Porphyrius was not the earliest Greek writer to make such observations. Callisthenes of Olynthus (c. 360-327 BCE), a Greek historian, had already heard about the “Brach- man nation [which] was not an order like that of the monks, which one could enter if he chose - but a society, admission into which was allotted from above by the decrees of God”. Similarly, Bardaisan, a Syriac author from the 2^nd century CE, makes a comparable point. The Brachmans, he contends, “succeed by right of birth to this kind of divine wisdom as a priesthood. The Samanaeans, on the other hand, are selected and consist of persons who have conceived a wish to devote themselves to divine wisdom” [both cited in: Majumdar 1960, 437, 425].