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.