Antiochus, King of the Yavanas

·期刊原文

Antiochus, King of the Yavanas

By JARL CHARPENTIER

Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies

vol. 6:2, p 303-321

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

p. 303

It is too well known to need more than a formal

repetition here that two of the Rock Edicts of Asoka

mention as his contemporaries a number of kings of

the West, the foremost of which is a certain

Antiochus. The most important passage is that of the

Edict XIII (P-Q), which I quote from the only version

that is here wholly preserved, viz. that of

Shahbazgarhi:--

ayi ca mukhamuta(1) vijaye Devanampriyasa yo

dhramavijayo so ca puna ladho Devanampriyasa iha ca

savesu ca amtesu[a] sasu pi yojanasatesu yatra

Amtiyoko nama Yonaraja param ca tena Atiyokena cature

4 rajani Turamaye nama Amtikini nama Maka nama

Alikasudaro nama (2)

" Now this conquest, viz. the conquest by

(preaching) Buddhism, (3) is considered the highest

one by the Beloved of the Gods.

"And even this conquest 4 has been won by the

Beloved of the Gods here 5 and in all the borderlands

as far as six hundred yojanas where (lives)

Antiochus, king of the Yavanas (Westerners), and

beyond this Antiochus(6) four [4] kings, Ptolemy by

name, Antigonus by name, Magas by name, Alexander by

name."

Less illuminating is the passage in the second

Rock Edict (Shahbazgarhi):-

(A) Amtiyoko nama Yonaraja ya ca amne tasa

Amtiyokasa samamta rajano...

" Antiochus, king of the Yavanas, and those other

kings who are the vassals 7 Of this Antiochus..."

----------------------------

1. Buhler read mute.

2. The varice lectiones of the Kalsi, Mansehra, and

(partly) Girnar versions are unimportant and need

not be repeated here.

3. The rendering of dhamma by " morality " etc., is

senseless. Dhamma in the Asoka inscriptions never

means anything but "Buddhist doctrine, Buddhism"

with this I propose to deal in another connection.

4. It is unintelligible to me why Holtzsch rendered

the single punah in this sentence by " repeatedly

", a translation that cannot be upheld.

5.This " here " undoubtedly reminds us of Rock Ed. V

M, where the other versions have hida (K, M, Dh.)

or ia (Sh.) while G has the explanatory Patalipute.

6. With param ca tena A. cf. Rock Ed. V E, param ca

tena (in a temporal sense).

7.Buhler, Epigr. Indica, ii, 466, translated

samantah by "vassal-kings ", which is undoubtedly

the common meaning of the word. Previously Wilson.

JRAS. (O.S.) xii, 169, rendered it: "and those

princes who are near to (or allied with) that

monarch "; Kern, IA. v, 272: " his neighbour kings

" (with a foot-note: " in the

p. 304

Now, who is this Antiochus, king of the Yavanas?

To this question various replies have been given, and

it may not be out of the way shortly to review them

here.

Prinsep, JASB. vii, 156 sqq., when first

interpreting these inscriptions, suggested that we

have here a mention of Antiochus III wine, during the

earlier part of his reign, rightly earned the surname

of "the Great". This suggestion was only a natural

one; for Antiochus III is the one of all the

Seleucids bearing that famous name of whose dealings

with the Indians we are aware. As is well known,

Polybius, xi, 34, tells us that during his Eastern

campaign Antiochus accepted the surrender and the

tribute offered by (1) . Subhagasena, was not

Asoka,(2) nor is it in any way probable that the

"Beloved of the Gods" could have been a contemporary

of Antiochus I1I (223-187 B.C.).

Prinsep, when making the above-mentioned

suggestion, was not yet aware of the contents of Rock

Edict XIII. A little later on, having deciphered also

this edict, he abandoned his former idea and instead

of Antiochus III suggested the first or second king

of that name: " of whom the former may have the

preference from his close family connection with both

Ptolemy and Magas, which would readily give him the

power of promising free communication between India,

and Egypt."(3)

----------------------------

first place Baktria"); and Senart, Inscriptions de

Piyadasi, i, 74: "des rois qui l'avoisinent." Thus

Professor D. R. Bhandarkar, JBBrRAS. xxi, 398, in

taking exception to the trsnslation of Buhler, was

not without predecessors; pointing to the various

reading samipam of the Girnar version he strongly

advocates the translation "neighbours", This view was

endorsed by V. Smith, IA. xxxiv, 245, who had

previously (Asoka, 1st ed., p. 115) adopted the

translation of Buhler. According to my humble opinion

there can be no doubt that Buhler was right; it is

only natural that Asoka should think those other

princes to have been the vassals of Antiochus, who

was, besides himself, the most powerful monarch of

the period, and he certainly drew conclusions from

the state of his own dominions where there were

undoubtedly numbers of half-subdued Samanta's. As for

samipam (or pa) cf. the remark of Hultzsch, CII.(2)

i, p. 3, n. 3 (according to Michelson,.AJPh. xxx, 183

ff., it is = Skt. samipyam).

1. The identification Subhagasena was suggested already by A.

W. von Schlegel, Indische Bibliothek, i, 248; ii,

301. There exists no known Indian prince of that

name; cf., however, Subhaga, prince of Gandhara,

(with whom cf. CHI. i, 512) in the Mahabharata,

vii, 6944 (Bombay).

2 To suggest that, we should want the phantasy of

Wilford who in Asiatick Researches, v, 285 sq.,

concluded that rendered an Indian Sivakasena,

which would again be = Asokasena (cf. also

Prinsep, loc. cit., p. 162) . Already Wilson

scoffed at this rather adventurous idea.

3. JASB. vii, 225 sqq. (reprinted Essays, ii, 20

sq.).

p. 305

Wilson, JRAS. (O.S.) xii, 244 ff.. arrived at the

queer conclusion that the five kings mentioned in

Rock Edict XIII were not contemporaries. To quote

his own words (p. 246): " Under this view I should

refer Alexander to Alexander the Great, Antigonus to

his successor, Magas to the son-in-law of Ptolemy

Philadelphus,(1) Ptolemy to either or all of the four

first princes of Egypt, and Antiochus to the only one

of the number who we know from classical authors did

visit India... Antiochus the Great." Wilson

afterwards tells us that it seems highly improbable

that Asoka should still have been alive in the year

205 B.C., upon which he fixed as being that of

Antiochus's Indian campaign; this, consequently,

would exclude Antiochus III. And he likewise finds it

utterly incredible that the Yavana king could be

Antiochus II--this chiefly because of the Bactrian

and Parthian rebellions occurring during his reign.

As, however, Wilson did not admit the identity of

Asoka and Piyadasi, all his arguments must needs end

in a non liquet.(2)

We next come to Lassen, who, in his Ind.

Alterthumskunde(2), ii, 253 sqq., seems to think

Antiochus II to be the most probable one, though he

finds chronological difficulties connected with the

mention of Magas and Alexander. Lassen's attitude is

a little wavering, and he made no very lucky shot in

suggesting that Asoka should have sent enbassies to

all these princes already at his coronation--which

is, anyhow, totally unwarranted by the existing

inscriptions.

That it was Antiochus II with whom Asoka entered

into relations was also taken for granted by

Senart(3) and V. Smith.(4) Hultzsch, in his edition

of the Asoka inscriptions, p. xxxv sq., betrays a

little undecidedness, but finally fixes upon

Antiochus II. Professor Thomas, CHI., i, 502, has

taken up no definite position. As far as the present

writer is aware-and it seems unnecessary to mention

that his information can scarcely be complete on this

point--modern classical scholars who have busied

themselves with the history of the Seleucids seem to

be at one in assuming the king of the Yavanas to have

been

-----------------------

1. This sentence contains two rather apparent

mistakes: Magas was not the son-in-law but the

stepson (and perhaps also the adoptive son) of

Ptolemy Soter; his mother, Berenike, was also the

mother of Ptolemy Philadelphus.

2. Wilson's arguments were criticized by General

Cunningham in The Bhilsa Topes, p. 110

sq., which was an easy enongh task. Cunningham was

right in eliminating Antiochus III; but he states,

with a slight exaggeration, that Prinsep had

definitely fixed upoh Antiochus II (unless we have

here possibly a misprint-- II for I).

3. Cf. Inscriptions de Piyadasi, ii, 256 sqq.; IA.

xx, 242.

4. Cf. Asoka, 3rd ed., p. 162.

p. 306

in reality Antiochus II.(1) Overwhelming consensus of

scholarly opinion thus seems to plead the case of

this king as having received from his pious neighbour

embassies preching the doctrine of the Enlightened

One.

Before we proceed further a few words should be

said concerning those other princes mentioned in Rock

Edict XIII.

As concerns Turamaya there can happily be no

doubt. That it denotes one of the Ptolemies has been

taken for granted ever since the days of Prinsep; and

it seems quite obvious that none but Ptolemy II

Philadelphus, whose long reign covered nearly four

decenniums (285-247 B.C.) , would fit into the

chronology of Asoka's reign." As for Maka or Maga

there existed, no doubt, more than one princeling of

the name of Magas; but there can be little doubt that

we hare to do here with that Magas of Cyrene whose

regnal years fall between c. 300-250 B.C. Already

Buhler(3) remarked that Amtekina (G., K.) or Amtikini

(Sh.) would rather render a Greek Avtigenes than

Avtigenes. However, although we know of atoatof least

one Antigenes," he, for obvious reasons, cannot come

in here. The old Antigonos who met his fate at Ipsus

(301 B.C.) seems to be Out of the question; and thus

there remains only his grandson, surnamed from the

place of his birth Gonatas, whose reign extended

between 276 and 239 B.C. Finally, Alikasudara (or

Alikyasudala, K.) has long been taken to be Alexander

of Epirus(5) who was the son of Pyrrhus and

Antigone,(6) the daughter of Berenike I and sister of

Magas; his regnal years are generally given as 272-c.

256 B.C. However, a classical historian of authority

has suggested that he should rather be identified

with Alexander of Corinth (252-c. 244), the son of

Craterus.(7) For such an assumption there exists, as

far as I can find out, not the very slightest

foundation; and I shall still take it for granted

that Alexander of Epirus is the person mentioned

here. The chief interest is, however, concentrated

upon the identity

------------------------------

1. Cf. e.g. Bevan, The House of Seleucus, i, 298 etc.

2. It would, of course, be theoretically possible to

think also of Ptolemy III Euergetes (247-221

B.C.). That would, however, seriously dislocate

the chronology of the three first Mauryas. Ptolemy

III, it is quite true, was not, as a ruler. a

con- temporary of either Magas or Alexander of

Epirus; but that would probably be of little

importance in this connection.

3. Cf. ZDMG. xl, 137.

4. Cf. CII. i(2), p. xxx, note 2.

5. Cf. the literature quoted in CII. i(2), p. xxx.

6. Cf. Plutarch, Pyrrhus, c. 4.

7. Cf. Beloch, Griechische Geschichte, iii, 2, p. 105.

p. 307

of Antiochus. As we have already mentioned above,

modern scholarly opinion seems to have fairly

unanimously fixed upon the second monarch of that

name. Personally I am inclined gravely to doubt this

conclusion as I shall explain presently. As an

introductory remark I shall only emphasize my opinion

that, whoever be this Antiochus, there is not the

slightest reason for assuming that the man mentioned

in Rock Edicts XIII and II would not be the same

person.

Antiochus II, surnamed probably by the grateful

Milesians(1) Theos, "the god," was the younger son of

Antiochus I Soter, whom he succeeded between October,

262, and April, 261 B.C.(2) at the age of about

twenty-four. He died rather suddenly in 246 B.C. (or

possibly late in 247, of. Cambridge Ancient Hist.,

vii, 716) at the age of scarcely more than forty. He,

like at least one of his successors, seems to have

been a special favourite with the scandalmongers of

the period. Phylarchus,(3) most foul-mouthed perhaps

amongst Greek historians, tells us shocking stories

about his drunken bouts and his inclination towards

young men of somewhat dubious accomplishments. Some

or even most of this may be true; but we still may do

well in taking note of the warning uttered by one of

the best modern authorities on the history of the

Seleucids.(4)

What interests us in this connection is, however,

not so much the character of Antiochus II as the main

events of his reign. He undoubtedly inherited from

his father a war with Egypt, which came to an end

only during his very last years, and an unbroken

series of troubles with the petty despots and

quarrelsome city-states of Asia Minor. As far as the

very scanty evidence goes, Antiochus II spent the

whole of his reign in the last-named country and in

Syria; and there is certainly no evidence whatsoever

for his having ever proceeded to the east of the

Mesopotamian rivers to visit the outlying provinces

of his vast and loosely-knitted empire. Furthermore,

we have the direct evidence of the historians, above

all that of Justin, the epitomator Pompei Trogi,

that during the reign of Antiochus II the most

important provinces of the east rebelled, an event

which must have entirely cut off the connections

between Mesopotamia and the borderlands of India

until these were again, for a very short period of

time, restored by Antiochus the Great.

--------------------------

1. Appianus, Syr. 65.

2. Cf. Bevan, The House of Seleucus, i, 168 sq.; the

date given here is in accordance with the

Cambridge Ancient Hist. vii, 709.

3. Ap. Athenaeum, x, 438c; cf. also Aelianus, Var.

Hist., ii: 41.

4. Cf. Bevan, loc. cit., i, 172.

p. 308

Obscurity unfortunately veils the events which

lead up to the foundation of the Parthian and

Bactrian kingdoms at a date not far removed from 250

B.C. We, however, know that Arsakes and Tiridates,

whatever may have been their somewhat disputed

ancestry, killed the satrap Pherecles(1) and ousted

the Seleucid troops from Parthia. And we also know

that Diodotus, "governor of the thousand cities of

Bactria,"(2) revolted and made himself independent of

Antiochus II at about the same time. This Diodotus

(I) must have reigned for a comparatively short

period if the suggestion he correct that his son and

successor, Diodotus II, was on the throne during the

eastern expedition of Seleucus II.(3)

The date 250 B.C. suggested for these important

events is, of course, a somewhat arbitrary one,

though it cannot be very far from correct. There is,

however, scarcely anything to show that just about

this date the position of Antiochus II was an

especially complicated and dangerous one, a

circumstance which would have afforded to the

mutinous satraps of the East an easy opportunity for

breaking loose. On the contrary, the troubles in

--Asia Minor during the later years of Antiochus seem

rather to have slightly subsided, and a peace with

the none too successful ruler of Egypt was concluded

on what seems to have been rather favourable terms

just about that date. Seleucid kings have been known

to have devoted their attention towards Eastern

affairs in circumstances far more critical than those

prevailing about 250 B.C. However, Antiochus II,

wine-sodden and somewhat inefficient as he

undoubtedly was, seems totally to have lacked

interest in his Eastern provinces and to have devoted

all his spare interest to the affairs of Asia Minor,

which were always disastrous to the successors of

Seleucus. As far as I am able to form an opinion on

these obscure events. the revolts of the Parthians

and of Diodotus(4) may well have

-------------------------

1. He seems to be known also by at least two other

names, viz. Agathocles or Andragoras, cf. CHI. i,

438. It is not quite sure that they all refer to

the same man, though, of course, nothing definite

can be suggested here.

2. Justin, xli, 4.

3. Cf. CHI. i, 439 sq.

4. As for Diodotus the following circumstances, even

if quite hypothetical, may well be taken into

consideration. It seems to me fairly probable that

Diodotus was really the satrap of Bactria, who

about 274/73 B.C. furnished Antiochus I with some

twenty elephants during his war with Ptolemy (CHI.

i, 437). If that were the case it seems quite

likely that Diodotus had been appointed satrap of

his important province already during the

viceroyalty of Antiochus I in the East, which came

to an end in 281/80 B.C. Diodotus, whose reign

seems to have been rather short (cf. above, p.

308), must then have been a fairly old man in 250

B.C.--at least about or well above sixty. The

reasons for his rebellion are, of course, unknown;

but they may have ultimately been connected in

some way or other with the execution

p. 309

begun several years earlier than 250 B.C., during the

very critical period following upon the death of

Antiochus I.(1)

What has been summarily put forth here according

to my humble opinion decidedly speaks against the

suggestion that the Amtiyoko nama Yonaraja mentioned

in the Rock Edicts XIII and II should be Antiochus II

Theos. He seems to have devoted no interest to his

Eastern provinces; at a probably early date during

his reign he was despoiled of the most important one,

viz. Bactria (with Sogdiana), by the rebellion of

Diodotus, perhaps a little later also of Parthia. by

the upheaval led by Arsakes and Tiridates. Thus being

entirelly cut off from connection with the Further

Orient and devoting all his energy to the affairs of

Asia Minor, Syria, and Egypt, there was little if

any opportunity for Antiochus II to have established

connections with the Emperor of the Indians, who was

no longer his immediate neighbour. And Asoka,

provided he was still continuing his missionary

activities outside his own borders, would rather have

turned to Bactria than to distant and inaccessible

Syria.

And now let us turn to the one other Antiochus

that would be possible in this connection, viz.

Antiochus I Soter, and try to find out whether there

are not better reasons for identifying him with

Amtiyoka, king of the Yavanas.

Antiochus was the son of Seleucus, the most

prominent of all the successors of Alexander, the

greatest man of all next to the world- conqueror

himself,(2) who was cut down by the monstrous Ptolemy

Keraunos at the very moment when he seemed able to

raise himself into the position of a second and maybe

wiser Alexander.(3) His mother was Apama, the

daughter of Spitamenes, one of the great lords of

Eastern Iran, who had fallen during the Oriental

campaign of Alexander; she was given to Seleucus at

the great marriage festival

------------------------

of the young Seleucus, the elder son of Antiochus I,

who was probably viceroy of Iran, and must have been

put to death in the year 263 B.C. (cf. Bevan, loc.

cit., i, 150, n. 3, 169; Cambridge Ancient Hist. vii,

709 sq.). What I mean is that Seleucus may have been

popular and perhaps even have tried to reign on his

own, while Antiochus II was perhaps less well liked

throughout the East.

1 Even if such were the case there is no reason for

the remark sometimes put forward about Diodotus

(and even Arsaces) not being mentioned by Asoka.

For Asoka, even if he had happened to hear about

some upraising in Bactria, would scarcely have

considered its leader worthy of mention as one of

the kings connected with Antiochus.

2. Cf. Arrianus, Anabasis, vii, 22, 5.

3. Seleucus, according to the latest available

evidence (cf. Cambridge Ancient Hist. vii, 98, n.

1), was murdered some time between 30th November,

281, and March, 280 B.C.

p. 310

in Susa (324 B.C.) .(l) And though most other

Macedonian nobles seem to have repudiated their

Persian spouses after the death of the great

conqueror, Seleucus faithfully kept to his Iranian

wife.(2) It seems scarcely improbable that, owing to

his Iranian parentage, Antiochus from an early age

did not feel out of touch with his Eastern subjects,

and that they for that same reason clung to him with

greater sympathy than to rulers of unmixed Macedonian

or Greek origin.(3)

Antiochus most probably accompanied his father

during at least a part of his great Eastern

expedition; for he was with him during the long march

that ended on the battlefield of Ipsus (301 B.C.). In

that battle, as a youth of little more than twenty,

Antiochus unshrinkingly flung himself in the face of

the formidable Poliorcetes, his future father-in-law,

and to a great extent bore the brunt of the battle,

Demetrius no doubt routed him; but while this

magnificent condottiere chased his adversary far from

the field his aged father, deserted by his own

troops, went down before the lancers of Seleucus, and

the battle ended in the defeat and temporary downfall

of the house of Antigonus.

What we next hear about Antiochus is the romantic

story, made up in the best Greek style, of him and

his step-mother, Stratonice, the daughter of

Demetrius, It does not vividly interest us in this

connection. What interests us more is that Antiochus,

when once married to Stratonice, was set up by his

father as his co-regent and as the viceroy of the

whole eastern part of the empire from Mesopotamia to

the very frontiers of India, His title was that of ;

and there are even preserved a few coins with the

legend which may most probably date from this very

period.(4) The date of his elevation seems to have

-------------------------

1. Cf, Arrianus, Anabasis, vii, 4. Antiochus I thus

most probably was born in 323 B.C. and cannot, at

the time of his death, have been sixty-four years

old (Bevan, loc. cit,, i, 168, quoting Eusebius, i,

259).

2 Cf, Bouche-Leclercq, Histoire des Seleucides, i,

7.

3 In this connection let me quote the following

passages: "Antiochus.., had some things to his

favour, In the first place, his hold upon the

eastern provinces was firm, His mother, it must be

remembered, was of Iranian race, and those peoples

might naturally cleave to a king who, by half his

blood, was one of themselves, Through his mother,

many perhaps of the grandees of Iran were his

kindred " (Bevan, loc. cit., i, 74). "Antiochos

avait sur son pere l'avantage d'etre a demi iranien

par sa mere Apama et, peut-etre pour cette raison,

moins impopulaire dans l'Iran " (Bouche-Leclercq,

loc. cit., i, 40).

4. Cf. CHI, i, 434, with pl. ii, 1, The Cambridge

Ancient Hist. vii, 93, correctly remarks that the

appointment of Antiochus as viceroy of the East

was not without precedence in Achaemenian times.

p. 311

been somewhere abont 293 (292) B.C., and his

viceroyalty apparently did not come to an end until

he succeeded his murdered father in a still more

powerful and responsible position. It thus seems

obvious that he must have governed the east of the

realm during at least some twelve years. And though

next to nothing is known of his activities during

this period there seems little doubt that they were

manifold. The foundations of many Greek cities

throughout Iran seem to be to his credit(1); and

probably he may have done more for the spread of

Hellenism throughout the Far East than anyone else,

Alexander himself perhaps excepted.

During the time of his eastern viceroyalty

Antiochus may have entered into those friendly

connections with Bindusara (2) mentioned by

Hegesander.(3) It may have been also during this

period (roughly 293-281 B.C.) that he dispatched a

certain Daimachus of Plataea as his ambassador to the

then capital of India.(4) That Antiochus did really

spend most of his time in the East seems clear from

the circumstance that some time during the years

285-283 B.C. his father wrote to him about the fate

of his father-in-law Demetrius; and at that time

Antiochus had taken up his residence in Media.(5)

Even long after his ascension of the throne Antiochus

seems to have upheld his sway over the far-off

Eastern provinces, as in 274/73 B.C. the then governor

of Bactria, who may well have been Diodotus, sent him

elephants to assist him in the war with Ptolemy

Philadelphus. Whether during the last years of his

reign his hold upon the Far East became less strong

it is impossible to ascertain though such a condition

seems intrinsically not improbable.

From what has been shortly set forth above it is

quite obvious that the connections of Antiochus I

with the East were of long and solid

----------------------------

1 Cf. von Gutschmid, Geschichte Irans, p. 26 sq.; the

greatest of authorities, the late Ed. Meyer,

Hermes, xxxiii, 643, speaks of Antiochus as "der

grosse aber in der Ueberlieferung fast verschollene

Stadtegrunder". Cf. also Beuan, loc. cit., i, 163.

2 " That this name should be transliterated into

Amitrakhada, not ghata, I have tried to prove,

following older interpretations, in JRAS. 1928. p.

131 sqq. On Bindusara--or whatever was his name

(CHI. i, 495)--cf. the clever but utterly hypo-

thetical article by the late Professor Gawronski in

Rocznik Orientalistyczny, ii, 21 sqq., which,

according to my opinion, affords no tangible

results.

3. Cf. Fragm. Hist. Graecorum, iv, 421. The story of

the Indian king wanting to buy a philosopher, which

seems strikingly un-Indian. is apparently meant for

a witty sneer at the far-off barbarians, but does

not interest us here.

4 The slight discrepancy between CHI. i, 495, where

Seleucus and i, 433, where Antiochus I is said to

have sent this Daimachus to India is probably of no

consequence at all. For he may in reality have been

sent by Antiochus acting as the viceroy of his

father in the East.

5. Cf. Bevan. loc. cit., i, 69 sq.

p. 312

standing. By his mother Apama, the daughter of

Spitamenes, ha, was half Iranian, Already in his

early youth he had probably visited the East in the

train of his great father, and from the age of thirty

on he, for about twelve years, held the viceroyalty

of all the vast land between Mesopotamia and

Afghanistan, between the Jaxartes and the Persian

Gulf, Even after having succeeded to the throne he

seems to have maintained a firm grip on his eastern

provinces. During his term as viceroy he must have

entered into relations with his powerful neighbour,

the Indian Emperor Bindusara, and sent envoys to his

court. Asoka, the son of Bindusara, clearly must have

inherited these relations with a friendly and

powerful neighbour. Thus there can be little doubt,

to the present writer at least, that Antiochus I and

no one else is in reality the Amtiyoka, king of the

Yavanas, of the Rock Edicts.

The five kings mentioned in Rock Edict XIII would

thus most probably be the following ones:--

Antiochus I Soter, end of 281 or beginning of

280--0ctober, 262, or April, 261 B.C.;

Ptolemy II Philadelphus, 285-January, 246 B.C.;

Antigonus Gonatas, 276-239 B.C.;

Magas of Cyrene, c. 300-c. 250;

Alexander of Epirus, 272-c. 255,

the two last ones being, for chronological purposes,

without decisive value.(1)

If I am right in assuming that Antiochus I is the

Yavana king spoken of in the Rock Edicts--and I can

scarcely see any reason for doubting this

suggestion--this will, of course, have a certain

influence upon the fixing of the dates of these

edicts. Antiochus I must, as we have already

mentioned, have been well known to Bindusara as well

as to Asoka himself.(2) There is scarcely any reason

for doubting that fairly constant diplomatic

connections were upheld between the court of

Antiochia and that of Pataliputra. And if that were

the case

--------------------

l. Most of these princes were closely related to each

other. Berenike (I), the daughter of Lagus and

Antigone, daughter of Kassander (cf., however,

Beloch, Griech. Geschichte, iii, 2, 128), first

married a certain Philippus, the father of Magas

and of Antigone, wife of Pyrrhus of Epirus.

Berenike then married her half-brother Ptolemy I

and became the mother of Ptolemy II. Magas thus

was the cousin of this ruler; he himself married

Apama the daughter of Antiochus I. Pyrrhus and

Antigone again were the parents of Alexander of

Epirus.

2. Asoka, as governor of some of the western provinces

of the empire during the lifetime of his father,

may already then have entered upon relations with

Antiochus, at that time possibly still the viceroy

of the East.

p. 313

the death of Antiochus in the current year 262-261

B.C. could not long have been unknown in India.

Whether Magas of Cyrene or Alexander of Epirus, known

to Asoka probably only through their relationship and

other connections with Antiochus, were alive or dead

would be of little or no consequence to the ruler of

India; and he would probably have cared little more

about the fate of Antigonus Gonatas. Nay, it may even

have been fairly indifferent to him which one of the

Ptolemies was occupying the throne of Egypt. But

with the Seleucid king, the greatest prince of the

age besides himself, the one ruler who was striving

to uphold the traditions of Alexander, it was

otherwise, No doubt Asoka would be well aware of his

movements; no doubt the death of a Seleucid king

would be looked upon as a momentous affair even in

distant Pataliputra.

The late lamented Senart in his admirable work on

the Asoka inscriptions(1) formulated the theory which

seems to have been unanimously adopted by later

scholars, that all the Rock Edicts were incised at

one and the same time. Such a theory seems to be

supported by the fairly uniform style of these

edicts, as well as by the last one which appears to

contain a sort of summing up of the whole code of

dharma-lipi's. Senart, however, was far from blind to

certain evidence that seems rather to contradict his

own theory, though it was only natural that he should

try his best to explain it swap. As far as I can

understand, it must be quite correct to suggest that

the fourteen edicts were really incised at the same

time; but this does not at all mean that they were

originally composed at the very same date. That this

is not the case is my own humble but firm opinion,

of which I shall have to say a few words

presently.(2)

First of all let us turn to the Rock Edict XIII,

in a way the most important one of them all, which we

continue to quote from the Shabhazgarhi version:--

(1) athavasaabhisitasa Devanapriasa

Priadrasisa rano Kaliga vijita || diadhamatre

pranasatasahasre ye tato apavudhe satasahasramatre

tatra hate bahutavatake va mute ||(2) tato paca

adhuna ladhesu Kaligesu tivre dhramasilana

dhramakamata dhramanusasti ca Devanapriyasa|| so

asti anusocana Devanapriasa vijiniti(3) Kaligani ||

-------------

1. Cf. Les Inscriptions de Piyadasi, ii, 243 sqq.

2 In the following I am not concerned with any

inscriptions except the fourteen Rock Edicts and

the two separate ones of Dhauli and Jaugada. Of the

new Mysore version, the discovery of which was

announced in the IHQ, v, I have, unfortunately,

not been able to gather even the scantiest

information,

3.vijinitu Buhler; but cf. tithiti, aloceti (CII.

i(2), p. xcvii).

p. 314

(8) ayi ca mukhamuta vijaye Devanampriyasa yo

dhramavijayo so ca puna ladho Devanampriyasa iha ca

savesu ca amtesu, etc.

(10)........ savatra Devanampriyasa dhramanusasti

anuuvatamti ||

(11)....... etaye ca athaye ayi dhramadipi

nipista kiti putra papotra me asu navam vijayam ma

vijetavia manisu..... tam ca yo vija(1) manatu yo

dhramavijayo

"When the Beloved of the Gods, the King of

auspicious countenance, had been eight years

anointed, the Kalingas were conquered. One hundred

and fifty thousand men were deported thence, one

hundred thousand were slain there, many times that

number died. After that, now the Kalingas have been

taken possession of, there is on the side of the

Beloved of the Gods zealous study of Buddhism, love

of Buddhism, instruction in Buddhism. This is the

repentance of the Beloved of the Gods having

conquered the Kalingas."

"Now this conquest, viz. the conquest by

(preaching) Buddhism, is considered the highest one

by the Beloved of the Gods. And even this conquest

has been won by the Beloved of the Gods here and in

all the borderlands..... everywhere they follow the

instruction in Buddhism by the Beloved of the Gods."

"And for this purpose has this edict concerning

Buddhism been composed, viz. that those sons and

(great) grandsons that may be born to me should not

deem a new conquest fit to be won.... but that they

should hold the conquest by Buddhism (to be) the

(true) conquest."

Now what do we learn from this edict? First of

All that, having been anointed for eight years, i.e.

in the year 8/9 after his coronation, Asoka had

conquered the Kalinga country where many hundred

thousand people died, were slain, or were carried off

into captivity. Further, that the Beloved of the

Gods, repenting this wholesale slaughter and all the

miseries brought upon the innocent population of

Kalinga, had now become a zealous Buddhist,(2) who

tried to spread

---------------------

1. Kalsi correctly vijayam.

2. We are not here deeply concerned with either the

date or the mode of Asoka's conversion, which have

been much discussed. That the conversion occurred

immediately after the Kalinga campaign there

cannot be the slightest doubt. And as even those

virtues which Asoka does elsewhere (cf. Rock

Edicts IV, IX, etc.) praise as the most

meritorious ones are said in xiii, J. to have been

practised even among the people of Kalinga, it

would be a perfectly justifiable conclusion that

Buddhism was at that time widespread in that

country, and that the conversion of Asoka did

really originate from there.

p. 315

his newly adopted faith not only throughout his own

realm but also within those of his western and

southern neighbours. He also apparently tells us that

he had still got no (great) grandsons born to him--it

would be rather an unwise conclusion to apply these

words also to his sons--which seems to be the case

elsewhere (cf. Rock Edicts IV, V, VI, etc.). Finally,

it is to be observed that the usual introductory

words (Devanampriyah Priyadarsi raja evam aha) are

missing here without any visible reason.

All these circumstances taken together seem to me

to prove that this is in reality the oldest of the

edicts hitherto known. It was, according to my humble

opinion, made public immediately after the conquest

of Kalinga and the conversion that followed upon it,

i.e. it may well belong to the ninth year after the

abhiseka. And this year must fall several years

before the death of Antiochus I for reasons to which

we shall return presently. That in the final

redaction of the Rock Edicts it came to be counted as

the last one-for the fourteenth does not, for obvious

reasons, count in the same way as the other

ones--seems well explicable as its contents are quite

different from those of the previous rescripts.(1)

After this earliest of the preserved edicts there

can be little doubt what follows, viz. the two

separate edicts of Dhauli and Jaugada. At the latter

place they both present introductory words of a

slightly simpler trend than the usual formula, viz.

Devanampiye hevam aha " thus speaketh the Beloved of

the Gods"(2); while at Dhauli even this simple

introduction has been neglected and substituted by

the simple Devanampiyasa vacanena, etc. Which is

really the original version cannot now be fully made

out, though it seems rather probable that the

introductory words at Jaugada may represent a later

addition.

The separate edicts apparently contain rules and

advices for the peaceful administration of the

recently conquered Kalinga country and for the

pacification of the unconquered border-tribes of that

province.(3) From this it seems pretty clear that

they must be ascribed

-------------

1. The reason why it was not published in Kalinga is,

of course, quite conspicuous and has been pointed

out long ago. It would, however, be still more

obvious if the edict was really published

immediately after the conquest and not several

years afterwards.

2. It seems peculiar that the epithet Priyadarsin

should occur nowhere in the two separate edicts.

For this some local reasons unknown to us may

account.,It is also somewhat remarkable that in

the second separate edict Dh. has everywhere

Devanampriyah where J. uses the word raja (cf. the

parallel conditions prevailing in Rock Edict VIII,

A; cf. CII. i(2), p. xxx).

3. We are strongly reminded of the existence even to

this day of uncivilized hill- tribes within the

frontier districts of Orissa, etc.

p. 316

to the period immediately following upon the

conquest, i.e. to the ninth year after the

coronation. The immediate objection to this argument

will be that the mahamatras mentioned in these edicts

as being sent out at fixed times must in all

probability be identical with those of whom we hear

in the Rock Edict III, which is dated in the year

12/13 after the abhiseka (cf. also the

dharmamahamatra's of Rock Edict V, who were appointed

for the first time in the year 12-13 after the

abhiseka). Such an objection, however, seems to me to

be lacking in validity. The separate edicts simply

speak of mahamatra's resident in Tosali(1) or Samapa,

of whom one was sent out every fifth year on a

general tour of inspection, while at Ujjayini (and

Taxila?) every third year was the date of the

inspection-tours. The Rock Edict III, again, speaks

of yukta, rajuka (rajjuka), and pradesika (whatever

they be) to be sent out as inspectors every fifth

year sarvatra vijite mama "in the whole of my

empire". The inference seems to be that such tours of

inspection were at first instituted at Ujjayini and

Taxila--perhaps even during the time of Asoka's own

viceroyalty or on account of some revolts at those

places--and that they were then after the Kalinga

conquest further instituted at Tosali and Samapa;

finally, under the influence of Buddhism they were

extended over the whole of the empire. There need

thus be no immediate chronological connection between

the two separate edicts and the Rock Edict III.

A further reason for thinking the two separate

edicts to have been published separately and not at

the same time as all the edicts I-X (XII), XIV seems

to be found in the prescription (I Sep. Ed. Dhauli V,

Jaugada W; II Sep. Ed. Dhauli N, Jaugada O),

according to which the edict should be listened to by

all on every day of the constellation Tisya.(2) This

means that on these occasions it was publicly

recited-- "apparently preceded by ceremonial

drumming--throughout the towns of Tosali and Samapa;

this distinctly points to a date when it was not yet

incised on the rocks. but was preserved in the shape

of a royal proclamation.

-------------------------

1. On this place cf. B.S. Deo, Quart. J. Andhra Hist.

Res. Soc., iii, 41 sqq.

2. It seems somewhat remarkable that several names

containing that constellation Tisya belong to the

Maurya time. There is Asoka's wicked queen

Tisya-raksita, and his brother Tisya (on this name

cf. Panini, iv, 3, 34). There is further the

contemporary king Tissa of Ceylon (Dipavamsa), and

the great divine Tissa Moggaliputta (cf. Geiger,

Mahavamsa, p. xlvii sq., etc.). Still further

there is Pusyagupta, a viceroy of Candragupta

(Epigr. Indica, viii, 46 sq.); and there may be

even more names of which I am not aware. The fifth

Pillar Edict further tells US that on Tisya

castration and branding of animals must not be

performed. Unfortunately, I cannot suggest any

probable connection of the Maurya family with this

constellation though there may well be one.

p. 317

As for the other Rock Edicts, they may well be of

the same date all of them--with one possible

exception, viz. Edict VIII. In this document we are

told that Asoka, having been anointed ten years, i.e.

in the year 10/11 after the coronation, made a

pilgrimage to Sambodhi. I am at one with Professor

D.R. Bhandarkar(1) that this word must mean the place

where supreme enlightenment was reached by the Buddha

Gotama, i.e. Bodh-Gaya.(2) And it seems only natural

that Asoka who, after the bloody conquest of Kalinga,

had been converted to Buddhism--though most probably

a very simple layman's Buddhism--should as soon as

possible set out to visit what must perhaps be

considered the most sacred spot by the followers of

the Tathagata's doctrine.

The eighth edict lacks the usual introductory

words, and for that reason may possibly have been

given, before it was included in the collection of

the fourteen rescripts, in a somewhat different form.

But of this we, of course, know nothing. All that can

be said is that it seems quite possible that this

edict was really of a somewhat older date and was

originally published shortly after the (first)

pilgrimage. to Bodh--Gaya. In spite of various

interpretative efforts(3) it is unfortunately, far

from clear what is meant by the words Devanampiyasa

Priyadasino rano bhage amne of the last sentence.

As for the remaining Rock Edicts (I-VII, IX-XII,

XIV), two of them, viz. the third and the fourth,

clearly state that they were published when Asoka had

been anointed for twelve years, i.e. in the year

12/13 after the abhiseka; and the Sixth Pillar Edict

furnishes the information that a "rescript on

Buddhism" was composed at this very date

(duvadasavasa-abhisitena me dhammalipi likhapita).

Although it is not, of course, impossible--or perhaps

even rather probable--- that some of these edicts

should have appeared earlier in a somewhat different

form, it seems fairly obvious that in their present

shape they were all issued at one and the same date.

As concerns their internal arrangement only a few

words may be added here. The introductory words of

Rock Edict I (iyam dhammalipi Devanampriyena

Priyadasina rana lekhapita, Girnar) recur at the

beginning of Edict XIV, and are, of course, a phrase

put

---------------------

1. Cf. IA. xlii, 159 sq.

2. With this use of the word sambodhi cf. Jataka, iv,

236, 2: mahayitvana sam- bodhim (with mahayitvana

cf. mahiyite in the Rummindei and Nigali Sagar

inscriptions). Cf. also Mookerji, Asoka, p. 105

sq.

3. Cf. e.g. Luders, Sitz. ber. Preuss. Akad. d.

Wiss., 1914, p. 846.

p. 318

in by the final redaction The second edict again

lacks every sort of introductory sentence. Hence it

seems fairly probable that these two are really meant

to form one continuous rescript the first part tells

us that Asoka had abolished bloody sacrifices as well

as the heedless slaughter of animals practised in his

own royal kitchens(1): when this edict was published

only two peacocks(2) and one deer were killed for

making curries, and even these were to be spared in

the future. In the second part Asoka tells us that in

his own realm and in those of his neighbours he had

instituted medical treatment of men and animals,

planted herbs of medical use and nourishing roots and

fruits, caused wells to be dug, and planted trees for

the use of cattle and human beings. These two parts

seems to fit very well together.

The same seems to be the case with Edicts III and

IV. The introductory words of III exactly correspond

to the final paragraph of IV; and Edict IV besides

lacks the usual introductory sentence. Furthermore,

the virtues inculcated in III D are exactly the same

ones the absence of which Asoka is deploring in IV A.

On the very remarkable contents of this later edict I

shall say nothing here as I hope to return to them in

another connection.

Again the Edicts V and VI both begin with the

usual phrase (Devanampriyah Priyadarsi raja evam

aha): they are both separate rescripts and seem from

that point of view to present no difficulties. As for

Edict VII it seems indeed very fragmentary and has in

any case got nothing to do with the following one

(cf. above). Edict IX again, which starts with the

usual introductory sentence, is a complete rescript

dealing with the different sorts of mangala's;

unfortunately sufficient explanation has not been

forthcoming for the very remarkable fact that in the

later part of the edict Kalsi and the North-Western

versions differ entirely from Girnar and the two

Eastern ones. The tenth edict seems to be only a

fragment and can scarcely be connected With the

preceding one, while the eleventh which, by the way,

is of a very undefined and hazy nature--seems to form

a piece by itself. Finally, Edict XII lacks the

introductory formula, but may originally

-------------------

1. Somewhat similar measures were at times taken by

Akbar, cf. Smith, Akbar the Great Mogul, p. 167.

2. To peacock's flesh no doubt magical qualities were

ascribed; it was believed to convey immortality,

not to decay, etc. Cf. Jataka ii, 36sq.;

Johansson, Solpfageln i Indien, p. 78 sq.;

Charpentier, Festschrift E. Kuhn, p. 283 n. 4;

Mookerji, Asoka, p. 62.

p. 319

have been a rescript not to the subjects in general,

but to certain religious sects that were at daggers

drawn between each other.(1)

Now if the Rock Edict II, which mentions

Antiochus, was in its present form published in the

year 12/13 after the abhiseka, which no doubt was the

case, this would give us the means not for fixing its

actual date, but for fixing the latest date at which

it can possibly have been published. The death of

Antiochus I occurred between October, 262, and April,

261 B.C.; and there is little or no doubt that it

would have been known in India at least in 261/260

B.C. This consequently marks the latest date possible

for a rescript that speaks of Antiochus as being

still alive. If the present version of the fourteen

Rock Edicts were published at such a date -- which

is, of course, only a working hypothesis and

intrinsically not very probable -- the year of the

coronation would be calculated by adding 12/13 to

261/260, by which means we would arrive at 274/272

B.C. as the latest possible date of the abhiseka. And

as tradition unanimously asserts that Asoka was

raised to the throne four years before his coronation

the date of his real accession would fall between the

years 278 and 276 B.C.

The length of Bindusara's reign is given

differently in different sources; but perhaps the

most probable one is the calculation of the Puranas,

according to which he reigned for twenty-five years.

If, now, we reckon with the accession of Asoka as

having taken place between 278 and 276 B.C., this

would bring the beginning of Bindusara's reign to a

date somewhere between 303 and 301 B.C. Considering

the accepted date of Seleucus' Indian expedition (305

B.C.)(2) which is, however, nothing but a not

incredible hypothesis-and the assertion of Arrian

that Megasthenes did repeatedly visit the residence

of Candragupta,(3) such a date would seem rather

early,

---------------------

1. It is certainly remarkable that this rescript

contains at least two words which strongly remind

us of Jain terminology, viz. vaci-guti (vaca-guti)

in D and kalanagama in J (this, by the way, must

mean "possessed of good scriptures", not "pure in

doctrine" as rendered by Hultzsch). Of the

officials mentioned here the dharma- mahamatra is

in all probability the special supervisor of the

Buddhist samgha (cf. Delhi-Topra VII Z); the

ithijhakha certainly has got nothing to do with

the ganikadhyaksa of Kautilya (thus CII. i(2), p.

22 n. 4)-- he may possibly be some sort of

overseer of the nuns; the vaca-bhumika is the

supervisor of the holy cows (and probably of the

pinjrapols, cf. Rock Ed. II), a purely Brahmin

official.

2. Cf. CHI. i, 430, 472, 698.

3. It must, however, be observed that these words do

not necessarily involve that Candragupta was still

alive during all the visits, though the text says

The successor of Candragupta, as we know, was not

even known to the Greeks by his real name.

p. 320

though of that we can form no fixed opinion.(1) As

Candragupta, again, is unanimously told to have

reigned for twenty-four years, the period of his

reign would have to be placed somewhere between

327-325 B.C. and 303-301 B.C.; the dates 325-301 B.C.

would in that case seem to be the more probable

ones.(2)

That the reign of Candragupta should have begun

as early as 327, or more probably 325, B.C. will

perhaps be considered not very probable. But I fail

to find real arguments that could be raised against

such an assumption. If the passage in Justin, xv, 4,

is to be considered the leading one amongst classical

scriptures dealing with Candragupta it tells us the

following: first of all he by his insolent behaviour

fell out with King Nandrus(3) and fled for his life

from him. Then: contrectis latronibus Indos ad

novitatem regni sollicitavit; and Indian

sources--whatever else may be their value--scarcely

contradict the statement that it was with the help of

a veritable pack of rascals (latrones) that

Candragupta did overthrow the throne of the

Nandas.(4) And finally: molienti deinde bellum

adversus Alexandri prafectos, etc.; the deinde

obviously proves that it was after having assured for

himself the realm of the Pracyas that Candragupta

turned upon the Punjab and Sindh. The consolidation

of the Eastern empire and the recruiting of armies

capable to combat the soldiers of Macedonia and

Greece and with the strong men of the North-west will

have taken some years. Thus it is nowise impossible

that Candragupta may have begun his reign in

Pataliputra about 325 B.C., or even perhaps a little

earlier.(5)

------------------------

1. There remains the possibility that the four years

during which Asoka is said to have reigned before

his anointment do in reality mean nothing but a

co-regentship with Bindusara (cf. also CHI. i,

503, n. 1). If such were the case the latter's

regnal years would come in somewhere between

299/97 and 274/72 B.C. But all this is pure

guess-work.

2. On the date of Candragupta cf. also the able paper

of Dr. O. Stein: Indologica Pragensia, i, 354 sqq.

3. It is to be sincerely hoped in the interest of

Indian ancient history, which is mainly

constructive, that the emendation Nandrum for

Alexandrum is really the correct one. Otherwise

the passage from Justin would tell us an

absolutely different tale.

4. Here the Mudraraksasa, which may be of

considerable historical value, is especially

illuminative.

5. It seems to have been always taken for granted

that Agrammes or Xandrames (on whom cf. E. Thomas,

JRAS. 1865, p. 447 sqq.), the despicable sovereign

of the East who had murdered his predecessor, was

in reality a Nanda. But we look out in vain for

definite proofs of such a suggestion. Xandrames,

as Professor Thomas has rightly remarked (CHI. i,

469 sq.), most probably renders a Sanskrit form

Candramas, and this is certainly not far from

Candragupta. That Candragupta should have visited

Alexander while in the Punjab (Plutarch,

Alexander, Ixii) sounds suspiciously like a myth.

p. 321

To sum up: I have tried above to make it probable

that Antiochus I (281-262/61 B.C.) and not Antiochus

II (262/61-246 B.C.) is the Yavana king Amtiyoka

mentioned in two of the Rock Edicts of Asoka. Even if

such a suggestion cannot, of course, be definitely

proved, it still seems fairly probable that such is

the case. Certain chronological conclusions may be

drawn from this assumption; they are however, lacking

in definiteness and are only apt still further to

emphasize the profound uncertainty with which the

ancient and in general the pre-Mohammadan chronology

of India is beset.

Let me finally express the sincere wish that

these modest lines may present some interest to my

dear and revered friend Professor Rapson. Without the

splendid work performed by him for the elucidation of

crucial points within the ancient history of

India--especially as an editor and author of most

important chapters of the Cambridge History of

India--to produce even the above pages would have

proved wellnigh an impossible task.